[00:00:02]
>> I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS JANUARY 7, 2025 AT 5:01 PM.MS. GRAY, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MA'AM. WE HAVE A SUPER QUORUM.
[WORKSHOP]
WILL GO TO OUR WORKSHOP WHICH IS ON THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL MANUAL.WE ARE PICKING UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF AT THE LAST WORKSHOP, AND WE WILL GO FORWARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO END THE WORKSHOP ABOUT A QUARTER OF 7:00 SO EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO REFRESH AND WHATEVER BEFORE THE ACTUAL MEETING.
BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE THE NATURAL STOPPING PLACE IS.
IN YOUR PACKET, YOU GOT WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE A DIFFERENT PERSONNEL MANUAL.
IS THIS THE ONE WITH CORRECTIONS IN IT?
>> IT'S JUST FORMATTED DIFFERENTLY, MAYBE?
>> AS LONG AS EVERYBODY HAS ONE TO WORK OFF OF, THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING BECAUSE WE LEFT OFF ON PAGE 9.
>> I THINK, MADAM MAYOR, WE WERE STARTING THE SECTION 1.5 DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE POLICY ON PAGE 8.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING.
IS THAT WHERE EVERYBODY IS? [BACKGROUND] PAGE 8, SECTION 1.5.
HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT PARTICULAR SECTION ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE AND POLICY? THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO ME, PROHIBITION AGAINST ALCOHOL AND ILLEGAL UNAUTHORIZED DRUGS, MAY NEED TO BE REWORDED A BIT.
I THINK IT'S A BIT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
>> I'M NOT SPEAKING ON THE [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
>> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S JUST WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
>> AMANDA, WOULD YOU HELP HIM TO GET TO [BACKGROUND] YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT THE PERSONNEL MANUAL THAT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT AND NEED TO GO ON DOWN BECAUSE I'VE GOT BOTH OF THEM ON HERE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, IN TERMS OF YOUR COMMENTS, YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT YOU FELT SOME OF IT SHOULD BE REWRITTEN TO HAVE A DIFFERENT INFLUENCE.
WHAT DO OTHER PEOPLE THINK ON THAT?
[00:05:02]
>> YEAH. THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN TERMS OF EDITS ON THAT ONE.
>> I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE. IT'S ABOUT THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS [INAUDIBLE]
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHERE CITY EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BRING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES?
>> NO. WHERE BASICALLY IT SAYS THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> MAYBE THIS MIGHT BE AN EXAMPLE WHERE THIS CITY HAS AN OFF SITE CHRISTMAS PARTY.
WOULD THAT BE AN EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE YOU'D BE A CITY RELATED EVENT OFF SITE, WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SERVED?
>> IT COULD BE ALSO NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WHICH I KNOW SOME OF THE PLACES THANKFULLY HAVE ALCOHOL.
>> REFRESHMENTS. YES. [LAUGHTER]
>> I SUPPOSE AT SOME POINT WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW ALCOHOL AT PARKER FEST [INAUDIBLE] IN THE PARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THOSE WILL BE EXAMPLES THAT WE REFER TO THE SECTION TO CONSIDER THAT SCENARIO.
>> WE NEED TO HAVE THAT MASSAGED A LITTLE BIT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. MAYBE SINCE THE CHIEF POLICE JUST WALKED IN MAYBE HE CAN ANSWER IT.
ARE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IF YOU'RE BELOW THE LEGAL LIMIT?
>> [INAUDIBLE] UNDER THE INFLUENCE IS 0.02, WHICH IS ANY DETECTABLE AMOUNT.
>> ARE THERE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR? ANY RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE CHANGES?
>> KATHERINE, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> IT DEPENDS ON YOU-ALL'S TOLERANCE.
WE CAN NOT HAVE AS MANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES IN IT, WHICH MIGHT HAVE THE EFFECT OF MAKING IT SEEM MORE CLEAR.
BUT I'M ASSUMING YOU DON'T WANT YOUR EMPLOYEES TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
>> I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT DRIVING MY OWN PERSONAL VEHICLE.
IF I HAD A DRINK AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AND DROVE MY OWN VEHICLE, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
IF I'M DRIVING A CITY VEHICLE, THEN I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT.
>> AS I WAS READING THROUGH THAT, I AGREE ALSO.
WE'LL GET TO THAT LATER ON, BUT THERE WAS ALSO SOMEWHERE IN THERE WHERE IT SAID IF YOU GET A TRAFFIC VIOLATION FOR ANY TIME, THEN YOU WERE PROHIBITED FROM ACTUALLY DRIVING THE CITY VEHICLE.
IF YOU HAD A VIOLATION THEN YOU HAD TO REPORT IT RIGHT AWAY.
THOSE THINGS TOO ARE THINGS WE CAN DISCUSS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO PUT IT, OR IN ANOTHER PLACE.
THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR POLICE OFFICERS OR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS THAN THERE ARE FOR DIFFERENT EMPLOYEES.
BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE POLICE PROCEDURAL, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES FOR YOUR GUYS, AND I ASSUME MAYBE THE FIRE GUYS DO TOO.
I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I HAD TO SHUT DOWN MY COMPUTER.
[LAUGHTER] I WASN'T PARTICIPATING EARLIER, BUT I WILL SAY WE CAN TAKE OUT THAT CLAUSE WHERE IT SAYS HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL VEHICLE.
BUT ANYTIME AN EMPLOYEE IS OPERATING ANYTHING, ANY VEHICLE WHILE THEY'RE ON CITY BUSINESS, THAT'S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE CITY.
WHETHER IT'S THEIR OWN VEHICLE OR NOT,
[00:10:02]
YOU DON'T WANT ANYBODY ON CITY BUSINESS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OPERATING A VEHICLE TO PREVENT THAT LIABILITY.>> WHAT IF YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT GOES TO TML, AND GOES OUT TO DINNER AND HAS A DRINK OR TWO, AND THEN GETS INTO EITHER THEIR OR A CITY DESIGNATED VEHICLE?
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY END UP IN LITIGATION.
IF WE WANT TO AVOID LITIGATION, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ALLOW FOR THAT EITHER.
FORTUNATELY, AT TML, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY, WHAT IS CITY RELATED BUSINESS IS FAIRLY BROAD, RIGHT?
>> IF YOU WERE AT A COUNCIL MEETING AND THEN YOU DROVE HOME, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CITY BUSINESS ON YOUR RETURN?
>> NO. LEAVING HERE WOULD NOT BE CITY BUSINESS AFTER YOU LEAVE.
>> BUT IF YOU WERE AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, THEN IT WOULD BE.
>> IF YOU'RE AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, YES.
>> I'M CONFUSED. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? BECAUSE I'M HERE IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO ARRIVE AT THE WORK SITE ON THEIR OWN TIME.
IF YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT LEAVES FROM HERE AND MAYBE HAS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE CAR AND MAKES MULTIPLE STOPS AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AND IS HAVING ALCOHOL IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT WOULD BE IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
BUT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES NOT TO YOU-ALL.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, IT'S JUST ABOUT EMPLOYEES.
>> I'M STILL CONFUSED. PATTI IS AN EXAMPLE. [LAUGHTER].
>> I DIDN'T KNOW SHE WOULD ENJOY THAT.
IF PATTI DRIVES HOME FROM THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND HAS AN ACCIDENT, IT'S NOT CITY BUSINESS, BUT IF SHE STOPS BY A NATIONAL NIGHT OUT BECAUSE SHE KNOWS ONE OF US IS GOING TO BE THERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO MEET UP, AND HAS A DRINK, THEN SHE'S ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS CAPACITY.
>> IF THE COUNCIL SAYS, HEY, PATTI, AS THE CITY SECRETARY, WE WANT YOU TO BE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WANT YOU TO STOP AT THESE PARTICULAR ADDRESSES FOR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT.
THEN SHE WOULD BE ON CITY BUSINESS.
>> SHE'S ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS RIGHT NOW?
>> SHE IS, BUT DRIVING IS NOT A PART OF HER BUSINESS HERE.
SHE COMES TO WORK AND SHE'S AT WORK.
ONCE SHE LEAVES WORK, SHE'S NOT WORKING.
SHE'S NOT IN THE SERVICE OF THE CITY IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
>> IS YOUR CLARIFICATION THAT IF YOU'RE GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE TO HOUSE, THAT'S WHEN IT'S CITY BUSINESS?
>> [BACKGROUND] RIGHT. IF AFTER YOUR LAST STOP, THEN ARGUABLY, YES, BUT THEN THAT GETS INTO A FACT QUESTION OF WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER WERE.
BUT IF SHE HAS TO BRING GRANT BACK TO CITY HALL TO DROP HIM OFF, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE DUTIES, THEN SHE'S STILL GOING TO BE ON CITY BUSINESS UNTIL THAT'S COMPLETED.
>> THIS GETS WAY COMPLICATED. GO AHEAD, BUDDY.
I DON'T DRINK SO IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'LL SAY IT'S VERY FACT SPECIFIC.
BUT YES. LAW ENFORCEMENT AT ANY POINT CAN GO BACK ON DUTY.
YOU-ALL ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING.
BUT YES, I ASSUME YOU DON'T WANT YOUR OFFICERS DRINKING WHILE THEY'RE IN UNIFORM.
>> I'LL BE THE LAST COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAL.
IT SAYS "UNDER THE INFLUENCE", AND THEN LATER IT SAYS, "NO EMPLOYEE IN HIS WORK CAPACITY SHOULD EVER BE IMPAIRED." THE QUESTION THEN GOES BACK TO FACT SPECIFIC ON ALCOHOL OR ANYTHING ELSE.
IF YOU HAD A DRINK, ARE YOU REALLY AT THAT POINT IMPAIRED? BASICALLY LAW HAS TOLD US THAT AT
[00:15:03]
A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME OF A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL, YOU'RE IMPAIRED.BUT BELOW THAT, THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT YOU COULD BE IMPAIRED.
IN FACT, ANYONE COULD HAVE A LOW TOLERANCE.
BUT ASSUMING THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN TECHNICALLY YOU'RE NOT IMPAIRED FROM AN ALCOHOL PERSPECTIVE.
>> TYPICALLY, WHAT YOU HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, YOU HAVE A PRESUMPTION AT 0.08, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING IN POLICY IS CREATING A PRESUMPTION AT 0.02.
>> HOWEVER, THAT'S A VERY LOW PRESUMPTION.
THAT'S THE LOWEST DETECTABLE LIMIT YOU CAN HAVE.
I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THAT THAT WOULD HOLD UP IF YOU WERE TO ACTUALLY GO TO A LAWSUIT ON THAT IF SOMEBODY HAD JUST ONE DRINK AND TWO HOURS LATER THEY HAD A 0.02.
>> EMPLOYERS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES.
YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE ANY. IT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO SET THE BAR.
>> 0.02 IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE LEGAL LIMIT.
IS THAT WHERE WE WANT TO SET IT? I DON'T KNOW.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BE UP HERE WITH US ANYWAY.
>> THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, GRANT.
>> WHAT WAS THAT QUESTION AGAIN?
>> WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE?
>> I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S A TOUGH ONE.
INSIDE WORK HOURS, I THINK A ZERO TOLERANCE IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
I LIKE THE ZERO TOLERANCE DURING WORK HOURS.
I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AS FAR AS LIKE NATIONAL NIGHT, PARKER FEST, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ACTING IN SOME CAPACITY AND HAVE A DRINK.
I'LL KNOW THAT HOW YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT POLICIES THOUGH I GUESS IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT IF YOU HAVE A ZERO POLICY DURING THE WORK HOURS, BUT THEN AFTERWARDS, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT POLICY FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT MAY BE TOUGH TO ENFORCE.
I'M OKAY WITH THE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY OR 0.02.
>> I ACTUALLY REALLY DO HAVE AN OPINION.
MORE, I'VE SAT HERE AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
BECAUSE IT STATES NO ALCOHOL LIKE IF YOU WERE TO GO TO A LUNCH, I'M BIG IN FAVOR OF CLARITY AND I THINK UNLESS IT'S JUST A NO ALCOHOL POLICY, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CLARITY.
NO ONE'S GOING TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE AT 0.02.
SOME PEOPLE CAN DRINK ONE BEER AND BE AT 0.02 AND/OR BELOW, AND SOME PEOPLE CAN DRINK ONE BEER AND BE WELL ABOVE THAT.
THERE'S NO WAY TO TECHNICALLY [NOISE] MEASURE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IMPAIRED UNLESS YOU START PUTTING PEOPLE THROUGH SOME WALK THE LINE TEST, WHICH YOU DON'T WANT TO DO.
I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE SIMPLEST THING TO DO IS IF ANYONE IS ON ANY CITY-RELATED BUSINESS, NO ALCOHOL.
IF THEY'RE OUT ON CITY NIGHT OUT, THEY JUST TELL THE GUESTS THAT, APPRECIATE THE OFFER OF A DRINK.
I'M HERE ON MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SO I'M GOING TO PASS TONIGHT.
>> THAT WOULD MAKE IT PRETTY CLEAR OR PRETTY EASY.
>> YES. THAT'S CERTAINLY A WAY TO DO IT, AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE AMBIGUITY.
THE 0.02, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL.
THEN AS I SAID, I THINK ACTUALLY AS A CITY, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD GET IN A SUIT SITUATION BECAUSE THEY SAY, HEY, I HAD ONE DRINK.
I'M WAY UNDER THE LIMIT, AND YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO DISMISS ME BECAUSE LATER ON, IT SAYS, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS AND YOU'RE DISMISSED, I THINK YOU GET INTO LEGAL PROBLEMS. YOU JUST NEED TO SAY, IT'S NOTHING, AND THEN THAT WAY YOU GET AROUND IT.
>> KATHERINE, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU OR IS THAT A PROBLEM?
>> THERE IS AN EXCEPTION THERE THAT I THINK IS INTENDED FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES. DO YOU NEED THAT?
>> GIVE ME WHERE IT SAYS EXCEPT UNDER THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BELOW.
[00:20:05]
>> THEN FURTHER DOWN, IT TALKS ABOUT POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, BUT IT ACTUALLY THERE IS TALKING ABOUT POSSESSION, NOT USE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT MAY NEED TO BE TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN ON CITY EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BRING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON CITY PREMISES, INCLUDING PARKING LOTS.
IF I'M A CITY EMPLOYEE AND I'M HAVING A DINNER AT MY HOUSE AND I WANT TO RUN UP TO KROGER'S OR WHEREVER AND GET A BOTTLE OF WHATEVER AND LEAVE IT IN THE TRUNK OF MY CAR AND COME BACK TO WORK, NOT DRINKING, LEAVING IT FOR LATER, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THAT.
I SEE WHAT THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM IT CAN BE [LAUGHTER].
BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT IF IT'S PURCHASED IN AN OPEN WITHIN THEIR VEHICLE, THEN I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE BEER.
>> I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT AS WELL.
>> I AGREE. I I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN NOAH.
>> ARE WE READY TO GO TO PERMISSIVE USE OF PRESCRIBED AND OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS? WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE THAT?
>> I GUESS, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS CITY EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BRING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON CITY PREMISES, INCLUDING PARKING LOTS ADJACENT TO CITY WORK AREAS, MAY NOT STORE OR TRANSPORT ALCOHOL IN THE CITY OWNED OR LEASED VEHICLE.
JUST NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT IN YOUR PERSONAL VEHICLE, BUT JUST NOT IN A CITY OWNED OR LEASED VEHICLE.
>> IS SOMEBODY MAKING A LIST OF ALL THE CHANGES?.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE, BUT I JUST THOUGHT, MAYBE I OUGHT TO CHECK THAT [LAUGHTER].
ON PROHIBITION AGAINST ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED DRUG RELATED PARAPHERNALIA, I REALIZED THAT THAT'S AN OPEN AREA, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE.
BUT THE LAST SENTENCE IN THERE EQUIPMENT DESIGNED FOR USE IN TESTING, PACKAGING, STORING, INJECTING, AND INHALING AND OTHERWISE INDUCING ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED DRUGS INTO THE BODY.
WELL, THAT COULD BE ALMOST ANYTHING.
>> I THINK THAT MIRRORS LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE, DOESN'T IT? FROM THE CRIMINAL STATUTE? THAT'S WHERE THAT COMES FROM.
>> IT MIRRORS THE CRIMINAL STATUTE.
>> I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING IT AS AS IT'S STATED.
IF THAT'S THE CASE WHERE IT MIRRORS THE CRIMINAL STATUTE, THAT'S FINE.
[LAUGHTER]. A LOT OF THE STUFF IN THE CRIMINAL STATUTES.
PERMISSIVE USE OF PRESCRIBED AND OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS.
>> I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THAT PARAGRAPH.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD THROW OUT THERE IS THAT ON THE LAST SENTENCE, THE I GUESS WAY TO INSPECT WHETHER SOMEBODY IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE DROWSY OR FALLING ASLEEP OR YOU HAVE SLURRING WORDS OR EVERYTHING.
[00:25:05]
BUT I MEAN, IS THAT ENOUGH OF A DESCRIPTION TO BE ABLE TO TELL OR NOT? I I DON'T KNOW.>> MY COMMENT ON THAT IS IF SOMEBODY NOTICES SOMEBODY APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE, SHOULDN'T IT BE REQUIRED TO REPORT IT AND IF SO TO WHOM?
>> IT'S BELOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEES PARAGRAPH, THE MANDATORY DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYEES.
>> I'M ABOVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
GO DOWN TO [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE].
>> AT THE TOP OF PAGE 9, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I'M FINE WITH IT.
ARE YOU STILL NOT A PARAGRAPH [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF SOMEBODY IS OPERATING OR USING A CITY OWNED VEHICLE AND IT IS NOT IMPAIRING THEM, BUT IF IT IS IMPAIRING THEM.
SOMEBODY NOTICES SOMEBODY'S ASLEEP BEHIND THE PUBLIC WORKS TRUCK [LAUGHTER].
GARY IS JUST OUT THERE LIKE A LIGHT.
DO YOU JUST IGNORE IT AND LET HIM SLEEP OR DO WE GO, HI GRANT, I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM OVER.
THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THAT.
MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE.
>> IT GETS INTO REASONABLE SUSPICION, WHICH IS INCLUDED UNDER THE TESTING OF EMPLOYEES FURTHER DOWN IN THE POLICY, WHERE YOU MAY HAVE OBSERVATIONS OF SOMEONE AND YOU THINK, HEY, THIS PERSON MAY BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE, THERE ARE GUIDELINES FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION SO THAT THEY CAN BE TESTED.
>> I GUESS I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR IF YOU OBSERVE THIS, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT? DO YOU REPORT IT TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, THEIR SUPERVISOR, HUMAN RESOURCE? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE IT.
>> THIS IS A DUMB QUESTION, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS REFERRING TO 0.02, WHICH, AGAIN, A VERY LOW LEVEL OF ALCOHOLISM OR ALCOHOL CONTENT IN YOUR BLOOD.
BUT THAT WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT DRUG IN THE SYSTEM, HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED?
>> DRUG TESTING IF THERE'S REASONABLE SUSPICION.
>> RIGHT. BUT BUT I MEAN, WHAT'S THE LIMITATION THERE, IS IT?
>> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT ANY OF THE FACILITIES THAT YOU'D USE FOR DRUG TESTING, THEY HAVE THE DIFFERENT TOLERANCES FOR EACH TYPE OF DRUG.
>> THERE'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT THERE'S LIKE A DOUBLE STANDARD THERE SO YOU CAN YOU COULD ACTUALLY BE [LAUGHTER] UNDER THE LIMIT AND YOU'D BE OKAY IF YOU, SMOKED A PART OF A TOKE OF A JOINT, I GUESS, BUT YOU COULD TAKE ONE DRINK AND BE FIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE 0.02.
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS INTERESTING AND DIFFICULT IN THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF DRUG TESTING BECAUSE OF HOW LONG DIFFERENT THINGS STAY IN THE SYSTEM.
TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU SMOKED MARIJUANA, YOU'RE GOING TO TEST POSITIVE FOR 30 DAYS.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF YOU DO COCAINE OVER THE WEEKEND, YOU'RE CLEARED WITHIN 72 HOURS.
GETS INTO A WHOLE PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION.
WE USUALLY JUST RELY ON THE DRUG TESTING FACILITIES TO SAY THESE ARE THE STANDARDS.
>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND BE DUBIOUS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH TO GO THROUGH, BUT JUST ONE MORE TIME, WE'RE SAYING THAT ZERO ALCOHOL TOLERANCE, BUT DRUG TOLERANCE IS BASED ON THE TESTING.
I MEAN, COULD YOU NOT SAY IN THERE ZERO DRUG TOLERANCE?
[00:30:23]
>> I THINK SOME OF THE LEGAL DRUGS AND THE ILLEGAL DRUGS BREAK DOWN INTO THE SAME METABOLITES, AND IT'S THE METABOLITES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PICKED UP IN THE TESTING.
>> YES. THIS SECTION IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO PRESCRIBED DRUGS, LEGAL DRUGS THAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESCRIBED.
I THINK IT'S SAYING THAT IT'S FINE TO TAKE THOSE AS LONG AS THEY DON'T IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO DO YOUR JOB.
BUT THEN EXAMPLES OF IMPAIRMENT ARE DIZZINESS, DROWSINESS, CONFUSION AND FEELING SHAKY.
I THINK THE MAYOR WAS ASKING, WELL, IF YOU DO HAVE THOSE SIDE EFFECTS FROM LEGALLY PRESCRIBED MEDICATION THAT YOU'RE ON, JIM, I THINK YOU ASKED, WELL, THEN WHAT ACTION SHOULD A PERSON TAKE IF THAT'S THE RESULT OF TAKING A PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SUGGEST IN TERMS OF ANY NEXT STEP THERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] BUT THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD LET THEIR SUPERVISOR KNOW THAT THEY'RE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION SO WHEN THEY DO HAVE A PROBLEM, THEY'RE COVERED IN THE CITY,.
>> WOULD THAT BE COVERED UNDER MANDATORY DISCLOSURE, WHICH IS ON THE TOP OF PAGE 9? THEY HAVE TO TELL THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE.
>> MAYBE JUST THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS WILL COVER IT WHERE, THAT'S A IMPAIRMENT AND THEN THIS IS WHAT WOULD BE THE, I GUESS, PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE SITUATION.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT SOMETIMES THE METROLOGY OF THIS WHEN YOU GET INTO SOME SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A TERMINATION OR THERE'S SOME KIND OF OTHER ACTIONS THAT YOU'RE TAKING, IT CAN GET INTO LEGAL ISSUES, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE METROLOGY WHERE YOU CAN DELINEATE IT VERY CONCISELY, I THINK YOU CAN GET INTO LIABILITY.
>> GOING BACK TO THE ALCOHOL AND ZERO TOLERANCE.
HOW LONG DOES ALCOHOL STAY IN YOUR SYSTEM.
IF YOU HAD A BEER THE NIGHT BEFORE, YOU CAME TO WORK THE NEXT MORNING, WOULD IT STILL SHOW IN YOUR SYSTEM?
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY DRUMMER IN MY BAND IS A BUS DRIVER FOR THE CITY OF PLANO AND SO IF WE EVER HAVE A WEEKNIGHT GIG OR WE HAVE A GIG THAT WE DO SOMETHING LIKE A SUNDAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, HE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IF HE SHOWS UP MONDAY AND THEY TEST HIM AND HE HAS HE'S OUT.
>> ONE BEER IS PROBABLY ENOUGH FOR 2-3 YEARS.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT MEDICATION, LIKE IF YOU WERE TO TAKE NYQUIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT HAS ALCOHOL? IS THAT GOING TO SHOW UP IN YOUR SYSTEM IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THAT?
>> ITS GOING TO DEPEND ON NYQUIL
>> NYQUIL 70 PROOF IF YOU DO A COUPLE OF SHOTS OF THAT BEFORE YOU GO TO BED.
>> IT DEPENDS ON A PERSON'S SYSTEM.
IF I TAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NYQUIL AND FOLLOW IT BY PICKLE JUICE, I'M COMING UP CLEAN [LAUGHTER].
>> PICKLE JUICE. IT CLEANS OUT YOUR SYSTEM VERY FAST.
>> I DON'T GET TO INTERACT WITH THEM VERY MUCH.
>> BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CATCH EVERYBODY, AND NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE HONEST WITH US ABOUT IT.
ALL WE CAN DO IS THE BEST WE CAN DO AND TRY TO PUT THINGS IN EFFECT THAT PROTECTS THE OTHERS BECAUSE I THINK, TO PROTECT THE CITY AND PROTECT OUR OTHER EMPLOYEES IS THE IMPORTANT PART.
[00:35:01]
KATHERINE, IF YOU HAVE ANY WORDS OF WISDOM?>> NO. I THINK EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH THIS, BUT I WAS SKIMMING THROUGH, THERE'S THAT DUTY TO REPORT.
I THINK YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, MAYOR WAS, WHAT'S THE OBLIGATION OF SOMEONE OBSERVING SOMEONE WHO APPEARS TO BE IMPAIRED? I'VE DRAFTED SOME LANGUAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS SECTION TO ADDRESS THAT TO REQUIRE REPORTING TO A SUPERVISOR AND TO HUMAN RESOURCES.
THAT WAY, THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE REASONABLE SUSPICION ANALYSIS.
>> BECAUSE IF I SEE SOMEBODY THAT I THINK IS IMPAIRED, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
OR ALL I DO IS I WHISPER TO A CO-WORKER, AND IT NEVER GOES ANY FURTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING BECAUSE THAT COULD END UP BEING VERY DAMAGING ON DOWN THE LINE.
WE DON'T KNOW. I'M HOPING MOST OF THE STUFF WE'RE DISCUSSING NEVER COMES UP.
>> I THINK THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH AND THE TWO PARAGRAPHS FOUND, THE MANDATORY DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYEES DOES ADDRESS I THINK YOUR QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT IF A PERSON IS TAKING A MEDICATION THAT CAUSES THIS IMPAIRMENT.
THERE'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE TO REPORT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IF THEY'RE TAKING SOMETHING THAT COULD CAUSE DROWSINESS AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
I THINK IT'S COVERED BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS.
I MOVED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE OUT, SO IT'S NOT BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS THAT LOGICALLY RELATE TO EACH OTHER.
I WOULD ADD HUMAN RESOURCES IN THERE JUST BECAUSE I THINK RESOURCES OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY ACTION THAT COULD RESULT IN THE PERSONNEL DECISIONS.
>> I WOULD SAY SUPERVISOR BECAUSE, WHO'S THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DO HIS MANDATORY REPORTING TO DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT.
IT DIDN'T EVEN SAY THE DEPARTMENT THAT YOU GO SOMEPLACE ELSE, BUT IT SHOULD BE SUPERVISOR.
I DON'T THINK THAT IN HERE WE'VE GOT TO IDENTIFY WHO IT IS, A SUPERVISOR IS A SUPERVISOR.
IF WE'RE ON THAT PARAGRAPH, AGAIN, I PARTICULARLY DON'T LIKE THAT PARAGRAPH MAINLY BECAUSE TO ME, IT'S THE BIG BROTHER THING.
I THINK IF YOU SAY, IS IT GOING TO IMPAIR THE EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS? WELL WHAT DOES IMPAIR MEAN? BECAUSE IF MY WIFE TAKES FLONASE OR SOMETHING IN THE MORNING FOR ALLERGIES, IF THAT'S RIGHT PRONUNCIATION.
SHE'S TAKING THAT BECAUSE SHE'D BE FAR WORSE IF SHE DIDN'T.
BUT IF IT ISN'T THAT TIME OF YEAR AND SHE'S NOT TAKING THAT, I THINK THAT SHE PROBABLY PERFORMS BETTER IN WHATEVER DUTIES THAT SHE HAS DURING THE DAY.
I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD SAY, THAT'S SO STRICT THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH, THEN I HAVE TO COME IN AND TELL MY SUPERVISOR EVERY DAY, HEY, I TOOK FLONASE AGAIN THIS MORNING.
IT'S SILLY. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO GO AND SAY IF THEY THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPAIRED, THEN OKAY.
BUT SOMEONE ELSE COULD COME AND SAY, I SAW SO AND SO TOOK TWO TYLENOL TODAY AT LUNCH.
>> I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT SOMEONE COULD SAY, I'M ON WHATEVER MEDICATION FOR 10 DAYS.
IF IT'S A PRESCRIBED MEDICATION, MAYBE WHAT THE DOCTOR HAS GIVEN TO YOU.
>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS NON-NORMAL SO IN EMPLOYEES, YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT YOUR EMPLOYEE BASE IS GOING TO BE ADHERING TO THIS IN GENERAL.
THEY GO TO THE DOCTOR AND THEY GET A PRESCRIPTION AND IT SAYS, TAKE TWO OF THESE WHEN YOU GO TO BED AND TAKE ONE EVERY DAY FOR A Z PACK OR NOT THAT THAT'S GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO YOU, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU DON'T EVEN THINK ANYTHING OF IT BUT YOU DO IT AND YOU COME TO WORK THE NEXT DAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, GRANT'S SLUMPED OVER HIS COMPUTER.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SAFEGUARD.
[00:40:03]
>> I THINK THE WAY THE PARAGRAPHS ARE WRITTEN THOUGH, I THINK COVERS THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
I DON'T HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGING THE LANGUAGE PER SE.
I THINK THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF COMMON SENSE.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT SAYS IF THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD, THE MEDICATION WILL IMPAIR THE EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTION.
AGAIN, JUST GOING BACK TO FLONASE OR WHETHER IT BE ROBITUSSIN OR WHATEVER.
I THINK THERE'S A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD IT WILL HAVE SOME IMPAIRMENT ON THE EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTION.
THEY STILL CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTION.
THEY JUST AREN'T GOING TO BE PERFORMING IT AT THE SAME LEVEL THEY WOULD BE IF THEY WEREN'T.
TO ME, THE IMPAIR IS A ISSUE BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT MEDICATION WILL IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY.
>> SOME MEDICATIONS, ESPECIALLY PRESCRIPTION PAIN MEDICATIONS, HAVE CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR DRIVING OR OPERATING HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
RATHER THAN LEAVING IT TO THE EMPLOYEE TO SAY, HEY, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS COULD IMPAIR ME, WOULD YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT REFERRING BACK TO THE MEDICATIONS CONTRAINDICATIONS TO OPERATING HEAVY EQUIPMENT?
>> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE JUST SAYING HEAVY EQUIPMENT, IS THAT?
>> I WOULD THINK THE EMPLOYEE KNOWS REASONABLY WELL WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PERFORMANCE IS IMPAIRED.
TAKE NYQUIL WELL, FOR EXAMPLE.
THEY SAY MAY BE A LITTLE BIT DROWSY TODAY, MAY BE A LITTLE BIT SLEEPY BECAUSE I TOOK NYQUIL INSTEAD OF DAYQUIL THIS MORNING BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF DAYQUIL SO IF I GET SLEEPY, YOU KNOW WHY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD SAY MUCH MORE THAN THAT.
THE EMPLOYEE WOULD KNOW IF THEY'VE GOT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING THEIR PERFORMANCE IMPAIRED.
>> I GUESS THE MAIN QUESTION IS, WHY ARE WE SAYING A MANDATORY DISCLOSURE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER IT BE FLONASE OR NYQUIL OR ADVIL FOR THAT MATTER, WHATEVER IT IS.
IF SOMEONE APPEARS TO BE DROWSY AT WORK OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE AND YOU SAY, HEY, YOU LOOK A LITTLE SLEEPY.
BUT THEY HAVE TO COME IN EVERY DAY AND SAY, HEY, I TOOK SOMETHING, FLONASE THIS MORNING OR I TOOK THIS AND THAT'S MANDATORY.
THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS PERSONNEL POLICY BECAUSE, AS I SAID, WAY AT THE BEGINNING, IS THAT IT'S HUGELY RESTRICTIVE, AND TO ME, IT JUST KEEPS POINTING OUT THAT SAYS, I'M GOING TO TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU DID WRONG AS AN EMPLOYEE.
>> MAYBE YOU CAN TRIM IT DOWN A LITTLE AND JUST SAY, EMPLOYEES TAKING PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION OR OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATIONS MUST REPORT IT'S USE IF THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD IT WILL IMPAIR THEIR PERFORMANCE.
INSTEAD OF SAYING MUST REPORT EACH USE EITHER TO THE HEAD DEPARTMENT.
YOU JUST SAY, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE TAKING SOMETHING THAT IMPAIRS YOUR PERFORMANCE TODAY, JUST LET US KNOW.
IT'S ABOUT THAT SIMPLE, REALLY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT PARAGRAPH? ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE CALLED OUT? ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT PARAGRAPH? MANDATORY REPORTING OF ARREST AND CONVICTIONS.
I GUESS THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION, BUT I'LL ASK IT ANYWAY.
SHOULDN'T WE MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT AN EMPLOYEE REPORT ANY ARREST,
[00:45:03]
NOT JUST DRUG AND ALCOHOL.IF AN EMPLOYEE GETS ARRESTED FOR THEFT OR FOR FAILING TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND THEY'RE DRIVING A CITY VEHICLE.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD REQUIRE ANY ARREST TO BE REPORTED TO YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR.
>> THAT'S A FUNCTION OF WHAT LABOR LAW ALLOWS US TO DO TOO.
KATHERINE, CAN WE DO THAT UNDER LABOR LAW, DOL?
>> YES. THE REASON THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION IS SPECIFIC TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL IS BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY.
IF YOU GO DOWN LOWER IN THE POLICY, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS AN EMPLOYEE HAS TO NOTIFY ALL TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS ARRESTS, AND OR CONVICTIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS.
>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE THIS GETS LONG AND IF WE CAN CONSOLIDATE SOME, BUT I SEE YOUR POINT.
ANYTHING ON MANDATORY REPORTING OTHER THAN WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
IF NOT, LET'S GO TO OFF DUTY CONDUCT, ANYTHING ON OFF DUTY CONDUCT?
>> I GUESS THE ONLY THING IS WHAT I TALKED ABOUT, HAVE THIS ZERO TOLERANCE ESSENTIALLY FOR ALCOHOL.
IT SAYS MAYBE DISCIPLINE UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION SO I GUESS SINCE THERE'S LEEWAY THERE IN THE WAY IT CAN BE ENFORCED, I GUESS IT'S OKAY.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, IT'S SAYING THAT, IF I HAD TWO BEERS AND I WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY AND I CAME IN THE NEXT DAY AND YOU DECIDED THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU WERE GOING TO TEST ME AND I CAME UP THAT I WAS 0.02, THEN I WOULD GET SOME DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S VERY CLEAR TO DESCRIBE THE DEFINITION OF THE WAY THIS IS WORDED.
IF IT SAYS IF IT IS DAMAGING THE CITY'S REPUTATION OR BUSINESS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S JOB DUTIES OR WHEN SUCH OFF DUTY OR INVOLVEMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EMPLOYEE'S JOB PERFORMANCE.
I GUESS WHEN YOU SAY IF THEY DO SOMETHING THAT'S DAMAGING TO THE CITY'S REPUTATION, IS THAT VERY CLEAR TO DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> DO THEY HAVE TO BE IN UNIFORM OR IN SOME WAY IDENTIFIED AS A CITY OF PARKER EMPLOYEE?
>> THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT IT WOULD BE.
WE USED TO HAVE A TERM THAT WE USED, THE VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST.
IT ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE BROADER INTERPRETATION OF IT.
BUT GENERALLY, I STILL SEE THIS AS THAT'S THE INTENT.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO EMBARRASS THE CITY OR CAST A NEGATIVE LIGHT ON THE CITY, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S DESIGNED TO ADDRESS.
IT'S NOT DESIGNED AND I DON'T THINK ANY SUPERVISOR IS GOING OUT TO SAY, HEY, I SAW THIS PERSON DRUNK ON THEIR TIME OFF.
IF IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE CITY, I DON'T THINK THEY CARE.
BUT IT JUST GIVES THEM AN AVENUE IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. I GUESS MAYBE GOING BACK TO JUST THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS, THE CITY MAY TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND I THINK WE SHOULD PERHAPS GO BACK AND DEFINE WHO IS THE CITY IN THIS PARAGRAPH.
IS IT THE SUPERVISOR OR THE HUMAN RESOURCES, EITHER OR BOTH SO WE FIND THEM MORE CLEARLY LIKE THAT.
>> THE CITY IS REFERENCED ALL THE WAY THROUGH THERE AND THERE'S NOT LIKE A DEFINITION IN THE VERY FRONT OF IT SAYING THE CITY MEANS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THEN YOU CAN REFER TO THE CITY ALL THE WAY THROUGH UNDER THAT CONTEXT.
>> I DO THINK AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS LAST TIME THAT IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO BACK AND GIVE A BROAD DEFINITION TO CITY TO ADDRESS THAT INSTEAD OF CHANGING EACH OF THESE THINGS TO ANTICIPATE BECAUSE THE USE OF CITY CERTAINLY GIVES US A BROADER USE.
I THINK IT'S AN EASIER POLICY LANGUAGE IN MANY RESPECTS, BUT WE CAN WRITE SOMETHING ELSE IN ON THAT.
[00:50:01]
>> UNDER THE SAME PARAGRAPH OFF DUTY CONDUCT THIS IS MAYBE A LEFT FIELD TYPE OF QUESTION THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS AT HOME AND OUT IN HIS FRONT YARD AND IS INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION [LAUGHTER], DOES THAT CONCERN THE CITY OR NOT? UNDER THIS BECAUSE IT SAYS, DOES IT BRING ADVERSE ATTENTION TO THE CITY OR IS IT NEGATIVE TO OUR REPUTATION? I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK THERE AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY FACT SPECIFIC IF IT'S A POLICE OFFICER. PROBABLY.
>> YES. IF IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF EMPLOYEE AND THIS HAPPENS IN A DIFFERENT CITY AND IT DOESN'T HIT THE NEWSPAPER, ARGUABLY NOT RIGHT.
SOME OF IT DEPENDS ON THE DETAILS OF THEIR CONDUCT IN THAT SITUATION.
HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS HAD TO COME OUT?
>> OR DID THE WIFE OR HUSBAND, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, I'M TRYING NOT TO BE SEXIST HERE, COME IN AND FILE A COMPLAINT? I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THERE'S NO BLACK AND WHITE ON.
I THINK THOSE THINGS NEED TO GO TO HUMAN RESOURCES AND/OR LEGAL BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN JUST FOR THE CITIES IN OUR PROTECTION.
IF THERE'S A WAY TO PUT THAT IN SOMEWHERE IN THE MANUAL IN ANY HIGH SITUATION [LAUGHTER].
>> DEFINE THAT, BUT YOU JUST SAID, PLEASE, I WASN'T SURE [LAUGHTER] WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DRIVE TOWARDS.
YOU'RE SAYING ANYTHING BEFORE ANY TYPE OF DISCIPLINE IS TAKEN?
>> IF SOMETHING IS NOT CLEAR [OVERLAPPING].
>> A LOT OF THINGS ARE NOT CLEAR.
>> IT'S LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
YOU AND LAURA ARE OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE.
>> I GET THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STILL, BUT I'M JUST SAYING FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF KATHERINE TRYING TO WRITE SOMETHING TO WHAT DEGREE DOES SOMETHING HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO HR AND LEGAL BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BECAUSE HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEFINE THAT WHAT DEGREE OR WHAT ITEMS IS THAT GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE?
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK IN THAT SITUATION AND SAY Y'ALL GOT INTO A FIGHT, 10 MINUTES LATER, IT'S OVER.
BUT IT WAS IN YOUR FRONT YARD AND MAYBE A FEW PEOPLE NOTICED, MAYBE NOT.
AT THAT POINT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO TO HUMAN RESOURCES AND ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF ANY ACTION SHOULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.
>> SHE'S NOT GOING RIGHT IN THERE.
IF THERE'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF PEOPLE BLA BLA BLA, IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE, WELL, WHAT IF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THIS PERSONNEL POLICY HAVE TO GO TO HR AND LEGAL BEFORE DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS TAKEN?
>> RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT FOR CERTAIN LEVELS OF DISCIPLINE, ANYTHING ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE, WHICH PROBABLY ANYTHING ABOVE A VERBAL REPRIMAND NEEDS TO GO THROUGH HR, AND THEN HR MAKES THE DETERMINATION IF LEGAL NEEDS TO BE CALLED.
THAT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE SO FAR.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE A LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE.
>> ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO REHABILITATION TREATMENT? I HAVE A QUESTION UNDER SECTION 2 HERE.
IT SAYS, THE LEAVE OF ABSENCE MAY BE GRANTED.
AND MY QUESTION IS BY WHOM? THE SUPERVISOR, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN RESOURCE? [LAUGHTER] TAKE YOUR PICK.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE THIS THING TREATMENT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S UNDER THE ADA AND SO IT GO THROUGH HR, ANYTHING LIKE THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH HR.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT.
THERE'S OUR INSURANCE THAT WE HAVE.
I KNOW A LOT OF DIFFERENT INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS,
[00:55:02]
BUT SOMETIMES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BASICALLY HAVE A CAVEAT IN THERE THAT YOU CAN GO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST OR GO FOR DRUG ALCOHOL ISSUES OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND IT'S COVERED UNDER THE INSURANCE.>> WHAT WE DO, WE HAVE A POLICY.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE POLICY RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DO IF YOU CAN GET COUNSELING, JUST I THINK IT IS LIKE EAP.
IT'S EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK THERE'S LIKE SO MANY FREE SESSIONS THAT YOU GET AROUND 15 OR SOMETHING.
THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS RIGHT HERE [INAUDIBLE].
>> RIGHT. THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.
UNDER THE ADA, THE ALCOHOLISM IS CONSIDERED A DISABILITY, BUT THE ACTIVE USE OF ALCOHOL IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE ADA.
IT'S SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
>> IT READS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HELP THEM.
WE HAVE INSURANCE THAT THEY COULD GO TO, WHICH IS PARTIALLY PAID FOR BY THE CITY, SO I THINK THAT WE ARE HELPING THEM.
>> IF YOU HAVE A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IN TERMINATION, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FALL UNDER THAT POLICY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OF A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY IS THAT IF IT'S ZERO TOLERANCE, THERE IS NO BLACK OR WHITE, YOU'RE GONE.
>> I DON'T THINK YOUR POLICY ACTUALLY SAYS ZERO TOLERANCE.
THAT'S SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
YOU CAN HAVE A ONE STRIKE POLICY.
BUT THEN TREATMENT IS DIFFERENT, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE DISCIPLINARY ISSUE.
YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE DISCIPLINE, AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE AND TREATMENT IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
>> YOUR CONCERN IS THAT IT HAS THE PRAISE IN THERE BEFORE?
>> WHICH I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE PROBABLY WOULDN'T SEE COUNSELING OR REHABILITATION UNTIL AFTER IT'S ALREADY AFFECTED THEIR PERFORMANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T THINK THEY'VE GOT A PROBLEM THAT THEY NEED TO BE REHABILITATED FROM UNTIL THEIR PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN IMPAIRED.
>> WHERE WE NORMALLY SEE PEOPLE ASKING FOR THAT OR SEEKING TREATMENT ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE SYSTEM? WHEN I SAY THE SYSTEM ALREADY BEEN THROUGH TREATMENT BEFORE AND REALIZE, OKAY, I'VE FALLEN OFF THE WAGON, I NEED TREATMENT AGAIN.
WE DO SEE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF PARKER SEES THAT, BUT I SEE THAT IN MY WORK, WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS, I NEED LEAVE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BEFORE IT HAS BECOME A PERFORMANCE ISSUE FOR THEM AT WORK.
>> DOES THIS PRETTY MEAN TRACK ADA LANGUAGE ON THIS?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NECESSARILY TRACKS.
THIS HAS SOME MORE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF IT THAN I THINK IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL.
COULD JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH ADA.
>> MAYBE IF IT JUST SAID YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT COUNSELING OR REHABILITATION, ONCE THEY REALIZE IT IMPAIRS OR ONCE IT IMPAIRS JOB PERFORMANCE.
>> I THINK THE PROPOSAL TO FOLLOW THE ADA TO SIMPLIFY OUR DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE WOULD BE GREAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTIONS COULD BE REPLACED WITH JUST REFERENCING THE ADA, BUT I WOULD PREFER TO DO THAT, I THINK.
>> I LIKE THAT IDEA, ALSO, BECAUSE NOW IT'S TO A STANDARD THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED.
>> HOW MANY TIMES CAN AN EMPLOYEE DO THIS? I HAVE SEEN IT WHERE THE EMPLOYEE GETS CALLED IN BY A SUPERVISOR TO DISCUSS THEIR PERFORMANCE WHICH HAS GONE DOWN.
AT THAT POINT, THE EMPLOYEE SEES THE HANDWRITING, IT SAYS, I WANT TO GO TO AND THEY DO THIS THREE TIMES.
[01:00:02]
AT WHAT POINT [LAUGHTER] DO YOU SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH? I DON'T KNOW IF IT ADDRESSES THAT.>> THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TOO, IS THAT, WHERE IS THE I GUESS LEEWAY FROM REPORTING ITS BECAUSE SOMEBODY GOES OUT AND THEY GO TO A CONCERT THEY'VE BEEN WAITING TO GO TO FOR EIGHT MONTHS AND THEY GO HAVE A REALLY GOOD TIME AND THEY COME HOME REALLY LATE AND THE NEXT DAY, THEY'RE STILL A LITTLE BIT HUNG OVER.
THEY COME IN AND TODD SAYS TO ME, YOU'RE LOOKING REALLY BAD AND YOU'RE NOT WORTH A FLIP TODAY.
YOU SAY, A, YOU'RE OVER THE LIMIT, I GET TESTED AND SAY I'M 0.1 THE NEXT DAY, STILL.
NOW YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD BE IN SOME SIGNIFICANT DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
BUT YET IF YOU WERE IN A SITUATION, I WOULDN'T SAY AT THAT POINT THAT, OH, I HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM THAT I WENT OUT ONE TIME TO A CONCERT I WAS WAITING TO GO TO FOR EIGHT MONTHS.
BUT IF I HAD BEEN IN A CHRONIC ALCOHOL SITUATION AND GOING UNDER THE RADAR THAT I DIDN'T GET CAUGHT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY SAID, YES, OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS, JIM HAS REALLY BEEN DOING A POOR JOB, AND THEN I SAY, HEY, I WANT TO GO TO.
IT SEEMS LIKE A DOUBLE STANDARD WHERE SOMEBODY WHO HAS A ONE TIME OFFENSE COULD BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY GET CAUGHT AND GET NEGATIVE DISCIPLINED WHERE SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN IN A SITUATION BECAUSE THEY DESIGNATE IT A CERTAIN WAY.
IT MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY OVERALL, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT'S IRONIC.
>> I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE CLEAR ANSWERS [LAUGHTER] [NOISE]. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF THEY WOULD GO TO REHAB UNDER OUR INSURANCE, IS THAT BECAUSE THIS SAYS THE EMPLOYEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED? IS THAT WHAT OUR INSURANCE CALLS FOR OR NOT? OR DO WE KNOW?
>> IF IT'S UNDER THE EAP, THEY WOULD BE COVERED, BUT I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT ALL TREATMENT THAT ACTUALLY COVERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MORE COUNSELING OR IF IT COVERS THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHAB PROGRAM.
>> I'M NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR PROVIDER, BUT MOST EAP PROGRAMS ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY INPATIENT TREATMENT FACILITY.
I THINK IT WOULDN'T BE COVERED PROBABLY. WHO'S YOUR INSURER? THE TML? NO. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I JUST WANT [NOISE] TO LOOK IT'S CONSISTENT. THAT'S ALL.
>> A LOT OF TIMES THE INSURANCE COMPANY THOSE THINGS ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR EMPLOYEE TO GO UNDER SOME COVER OF DARKNESS TO SOME EXTENT NOT TO SAY, HEY, I GO TO.
IT IS ALSO THERE THAT THE EMPLOYER CAN SAY, HEY, IF YOU'RE HAVE AN ISSUE, WE HAVE THIS INSURANCE, AND YOU CAN GO DO IT.
BUT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEEK HELP UNDER DARK, I WOULD SAY.
HE SAYS ALREADY IN A NUMBER OF PLACES THAT AS SOON AS YOU FEEL IMPAIRED, ET CETERA, YOU'RE UNDER MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS STUFF.
THAT'S WHERE I SEE A LOT OF CONTRADICTIONS OUT THERE AND INCLUSIVE WITHIN THIS POLICY.
>> THE OTHER THING THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT IS ADA KEEPS CHANGING [LAUGHTER] AND IT'S A FLUID THING, AND WE HAVE TO TRY TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGES IN THE LAW AND THAT'S SOMETIMES DIFFICULT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WELL, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THE PERSONNEL POLICY IS BUILT TO BASICALLY SAY, I'M GOING TO TRY AND PROTECT THE CITY IN ALL INSTANCES.
BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU MAKE IT SO STRICT AND SO WRITTEN OUT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET SUED BECAUSE IT CREATES SO MANY POTENTIAL GRAY AREAS OR ISSUES THAT COME UP THAT YOU WISH YOU HADN'T HAD IT IN THERE BECAUSE THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES ALWAYS INVOLVED.
THAT'S WHY SOMETIMES PERSONNEL POLICY,
[01:05:02]
BASICALLY BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT COMES UP, THERE IS NO CUT AND DRY ISSUE.THERE'S ALWAYS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF VARIABLES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN IT.
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE DISCRETION OF THE EMPLOYER TO JUDGE THOSE VARIABLES AND IDENTIFY WHAT ACTION THEY WANT TO TAKE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT POLICY? I HAVE ONE NOTE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THAT POLICY, AND IT SAYS, ANY OTHER CONDITIONS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND I WANTED TO ADD HR OR BOTH, BUT AGAIN, ANYTIME THERE IS A PERSONNEL POLICY THAT MAY BE IMPACTED, I THINK HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE SOME OF THIS CAME FROM.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAD AN HR FIRST [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THEY SEEMED TO LEAVE IT OUT A LOT OF PLACES.
NEXT WOULD BE POLICY VIOLATIONS.
THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE TO THAT IS AGAIN, ADDING HR.
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS IT DESIGNATES POLICE, BUT HOW ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING HEAVY VEHICLES AND SO FORTH.
>> IT SAYS HERE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE A STRICTER DISCIPLINARY RULES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IS THAT THE WAY WE WANT TO LEAVE IT?
>> I THINK THERE ARE FURTHER DEFINITIONS ABOUT POLICE EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT EVEN ON THE TESTING.
POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO ANY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTAL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING.
I THINK THERE'S PROVISIONS THAT ARE, I GUESS, APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE POLICE SEPARATE FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT.
>> WOULD THAT MEAN THAT WE CAN MAYBE LEAVE THAT SENTENCE OUT?
>> WOULD THAT APPLY TO ALL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE POLICE?
>> IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN HERE, IT NEEDS TO BE IN HERE, JUST A PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL POLICIES THAT APPLY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND THEN WE DON'T NEED THAT LANGUAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH.
>> I DIDN'T LIKE THAT. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
I WAS JUST GETTING EVERYBODY ELSE'S THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I THINK WHAT KATHERINE SAID IS GOOD.
SHE CAN PUT A LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT DEPARTMENTS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THEIR POLICY, AND THAT WILL BE SUMMARIZED FURTHER.
>> I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO SEND OUT A DRUNK EMT.
>> JUST AS A QUESTION, WHEN WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, ETC., DO THEY HAVE ADDENDUM TO THE PERSONNEL POLICY? DO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONNEL POLICY OR WHAT EXACTLY, OR IS IT JUST STATE LAW THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING OR WHAT?
>> NO, POLICE DEPARTMENTS HAVE MOST OF THEM CALL THEM GENERAL ORDERS AND THEY HAVE AN ENTIRE SET OF POLICIES THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO, SOME OF WHICH ARE MANDATED BY STATE LAW, SOME OF WHICH COME FROM PEOPLE, AND SOME ARE JUST BEST PRACTICES THAT COVER THESE.
FIRE DEPARTMENTS TYPICALLY HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT THEY'RE USUALLY STYLED AS SOPS, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES OR IN SOME CASES STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINES? THEY DO SOME OF THE SAME STUFF.
BUT CERTAINLY ON THE POLICE SIDE, THEY TEND TO BE MORE FORMAL AND A LITTLE MORE DETAILED THAN WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SIDE.
>> DO THEY FOLLOW THIS POLICY AND THEN THEY SAY UNLESS THE POLICE PERSONNEL POLICY DIFFERS OR SOMETHING? HOW DO THEY DOVETAIL TOGETHER? OR DO THEY?
>> THE GENERAL ORDERS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER PERSONNEL POLICIES.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THEIR PROCEDURES FOR ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE, HOW THEY INVENTORY, HOW THE USE OF FORCE.
IT COVERS EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO IN POLICING.
[01:10:02]
IT WILL ALSO COVER THINGS LIKE THEIR TRAINING.THEN THEY HAVE SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WOULD BE VIOLATIONS FOR POLICE OFFICERS THAT JUST AREN'T THINGS THAT APPLY TO OTHER EMPLOYEES.
TO THAT EXTENT, THEY HAVE MORE DETAIL THERE.
THEY WILL BE MORE RESTRICTIVE ON THE DISCIPLINARY SIDE, BUT THEY CAN'T BE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN CITY POLICY. IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> CAN WE JUST PUT IN THE PERSONNEL POLICY? THIS IS FILED LESS MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT'S PERSONNEL POLICY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT?
>> WELL, JUST AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE TESTING SECTION WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE TYPE OF TESTING WHERE THEY HAVE THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPES LISTED.
I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW ACCESSIBLE TO ALL THESE TESTS IS PRACTICAL IN NATURE COMPARED TO THE LOCATION OF THE CITY AT ALL? WHERE CAN YOU GO TO GET EACH ONE OF THESE TYPES OF TESTS THAT'S LOCAL TO THE CITY AND PRACTICAL TO IMPLEMENT?
>> RIGHT NOW, FOR ANY KIND OF TESTING, WE SEND ANOVA, AND THE CLOSEST LOCATION IS GOING TO BE IN PLANO.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY CAN DO EACH OF THESE PROCEDURES OR NOT.
WE'VE NEVER ASKED FOR ANYTHING AS SPECIFIC AS THIS.
WE USUALLY JUST A NORMAL DRUG TESTS AND ALCOHOL TESTS.
>> THEY HAVE EMERGENCY NUMBER THAT WE CAN CALL FOR 24/7, BUT AT THAT LOCATION THEY DO NOT HAVE 24/7 ACCESS.
>> OKAY. IS THAT A STANDARD FEE NO MATTER WHICH TEST OR DO YOU KNOW?
>> THERE'S A DIFFERENT FEE DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY WE WANT THE TEST RESULTS BACK.
>> I JUST WONDER HOW PRACTICAL IT IS TO HAVE THIS TESTING SPECIFIED IN THIS MANUAL IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT IT IN A PRACTICAL WAY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO A LAB REASONABLY CLOSE TO HERE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST SOME OF IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO IMPLEMENT.
>> YEAH. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS ON SATURDAY AND YOU CAN'T GET THE PERSON TESTED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, THERE'S A LITTLE POINT IN MY OPINION OF DOING THE TEST.
I THINK MOST OF OUR DOCUMENTS SAY YOU'LL GET TESTED WITHIN X AMOUNT OF TIME SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IS AVAILABLE.
>> WHEN IT SAYS REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS, WHO MAKES THAT CALL?
>> WELL, IT'S REALLY CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AND HR.
IDEALLY, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAINED IN REASONABLE SUSPICION SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AND CAN DO THAT ANALYSIS.
>> I THINK ON PARAGRAPH 5 IT DOES REFER TO SUPERVISORS, WHO WOULD REFER THE EMPLOYEE FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION SO I THINK IT'S A SUPERVISOR WHO'S GOING TO DO THE REFERRING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ADDRESSES THE REST OF YOUR QUESTION.
SECTION 5 FOR THE TESTING OF EMPLOYEES, BUT BACK ON TO, IT GOES BACK TO THIS POINT WE'VE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG THE CITY MACON RANDOM TESTING.
I KNOW THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A GENERAL STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT, BUT DOES THAT GENERAL STATEMENT STILL APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC ONE?
>> IN THIS CASE, IT'S A NORMAL PROCESS.
IF THEY'RE DOING RANDOM TESTING, THEN THAT'S PROCESS-DRIVEN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HR WOULD BE DOING.
[01:15:03]
I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE DOING SAFETY SENSITIVE TESTING.NOT TO PUT YOU ON SPOT, GRAHAM.
>> SHOULD THIS SAY HR OR SHOULD JUST LIKE SPECIFICALLY HR WOULD BE THE ONES WHO WOULD DO NUMBER 2 TO CONDUCT RANDOM TESTING ON EMPLOYEES HOLDING SAFETY SENSITIVE POSITIONS?
>> THERE ARE SITUATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN A CITY, THE SIZE WHERE YOU'VE GOT ONE PERSON DOING THE HR FUNCTIONS, WHERE YOU MAY NEED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO STEP IN AND DO THAT.
USING THE CITY IN THIS CASE, I THINK WORKS WELL SO THAT IT CAN BE WHOEVER'S AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT.
>> SHOULD WE HAVE SOME TIME FRAME FOR TESTING? FOR EXAMPLE, ESPECIALLY LIKE APPLICANTS, SHOULD WE HAVE SOME TIME FRAME THAT THEY HAVE THE PAPERWORK SUBMITTED TO THE PLACE WITH THEIR TESTING? BECAUSE AS WE'VE HAD SOME APPLICANTS THAT CAME IN APPLY, THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN THE PAPERWORK, AND THEN WE MIGHT NOT RECEIVE THAT PAPERWORK FOR THEY MIGHT TAKE A WEEK BEFORE THEY WILL GET TESTED.
>> YES, SOMETIMES WHAT WE HAVE HR DO IS LET THE APPLICANT KNOW, HEY, WE'RE OFFERING YOU THIS JOB, WE'RE DOING THIS THE BACKGROUND CHECK, ETC.
WHEN WE CONTACT YOU, YOU WILL NEED TO REPORT WITHIN 24 HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN YOU CALL AT 4:30 IN THE AFTERNOON AND THEY HAVE TO DO IT THE NEXT MORNING.
THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL. I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE REASONABLE SUSPICION TESTING.
I THINK TML OFFERS THAT TRAINING.
[LAUGHTER] UNDER TESTING OF EMPLOYEES 3, I THINK WE NEED TO ADD FIRE.
WE JUST HAVE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THAT OUGHT TO ALSO BE FIRE DEPARTMENT?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S ON THEIR DEPARTMENTAL RULES, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT TO INCLUDE IT WITH THE THING WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
>> JUST A LITTLE ON THAT, BUT NUMBER 1 UNDER TESTING PROCEDURES.
IT SAYS, IF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER IS AVAILABLE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, IF THEY'RE UNAVAILABLE, THEN IT'S NOT OR WHAT?
>> COULD THEY AUTHORIZE IT REMOTELY?
>> THERE'S SOME GRAMMATICAL ISSUES, I THINK WITH THAT.
IT'S LIKE WITHIN HIS SOLE DISCRETION AUTHORIZE AS OPPOSED TO JUST AUTHORIZE. STUFF LIKE THAT.
HERE IT GOES TO FOUR HOURS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR TIME,
[01:20:04]
AND IS THAT IF I HAVE A RACK AT MIDNIGHT, WHERE CAN I GET TESTED IN FOUR HOURS? DO WE HAVE THAT SET UP?>> TYPICALLY, THEY REACH OUT TO ME AND THEN I WOULD MAKE A CALL.
>> OKAY. DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY THAT HUMAN RESOURCES MAKES THAT CALL OR SAY I'M A POLICE OFFICER OR I GET A RACK AT MIDNIGHT, WOULD I CALL MY CHIEF? I KNOW I'M GETTING INTO PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS.
>> I THINK THAT'S COVERED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PARAGRAPH FIRSTLY.
I THINK BECAUSE IT SAYS, WELL, TESTING MUST NORMALLY BE AUTHORIZED IN ADVANCED BY BOTH THE EMPLOYEES, DEPARTMENT HEAD AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER AND IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS UNAVAILABLE WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER WITH SOLE DISCRETION IS AUTHORIZED TO TEST THE EMPLOYEE.
I THINK THAT DOES COVER THAT SCENARIO. I THINK IT'S OKAY.
>> THAT'S THE PARAGRAPH, I THINK NEEDS TO BE REWARDED A BIT BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO BE TESTED AN OUT.
>> DO YOU KEEP A SEPARATE FILE ON THAT AS IT SAYS IN SECTION 4, DO YOU KEEP IT OR DOES THE SUPERVISOR KEEP IT OR WHO DOES?
>> YEAH. WE HAVE A SEPARATE FILE FOR MEDICAL FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
>> DRUG RELATED TESTING WOULD BE CONSIDERED MEDICAL? OKAY.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF WE SENT SOMEONE IF THERE WAS A WORKPLACE ACCIDENT, ALCOHOL, DRUGS, WHATEVER, SENT THEM FOR TESTING, TEST RESULTS CAME BACK.
THEN IT SAYS, ANY MEDICAL RELATED INFORMATION.
DOES THAT MEAN IF THEY DID TEST POSITIVE FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT IS MEDICAL RELATED INFORMATION, MEDICAL RELATED INFORMATION IS THAT THEY HAVE SOME ILLNESS OR SOMETHING, BUT IT'S NOT RELATED TO WHAT WE SENT THEM TO GET TESTED FOR?
>> I THINK IT WOULD INCLUDE THE TESTING, THE TEST RESULTS THAT WOULD BE KEPT BY HR AND WHAT WOULD BE RELAYED ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS IS ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY HAVE, NOT SHARING THE TEST ITSELF.
FOR THE REASON THAT THAT DRUG TEST COULD PROVIDE RESULTS THAT HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A PRESCRIBED MEDICATION ALSO THAT IS INDICATIVE OF SOME OTHER MEDICAL CONDITION.
YOU COULD HAVE MORE THAN ONE THING THAT YOU COULD SEE FROM THOSE RESULTS.
I WOULD EXPECT THOSE TO BE KEPT EXCLUSIVELY IN HUMAN RESOURCES.
>> THE PART KEPT SECRET IS NOT THE ITEM THAT WE SENT THEM TO GO GET TESTED FOR.
>> UNDER FOUR, I THINK THE MEDICAL RELATED INFORMATION WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL AND ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY THE MAYOR, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, ATTORNEY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES.
I THINK THE FOUR OF US NEED TO HAVE IT.
BUT ONLY UNDER THE CORRECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WALKING IN AND SAYING, HEY, WAS BOBBY DIRTY YESTERDAY? NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT AT ALL.
IF THERE'S A DECISION REGARDING THE PERSON'S EMPLOYMENT OR WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE'S GOING TO BE HERE ON ANY GIVEN DAY OF THE WEEK.
[01:25:10]
THIS IS PROBABLY A DUMB QUESTION, BUT I'LL ASK YOU.WHO MAKES SURE THAT WHATEVER LABORATORY HOSPITAL WE USED IS STILL ACCREDITED TO DO THAT? HAS THINGS CHANGED? [LAUGHTER]
>> MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO.
>> DO WE EVER CHECK INTO THAT, I GUESS? OR SHOULD WE CHECK INTO THAT?
>> I'VE NEVER LOOKED AT THAT ASPECT OF IT.
I SUSPECT THAT IF THEY HAD AN ISSUE WITH THEIR ACCREDITATION, THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LET US KNOW.
HOWEVER, THAT'S SUCH A HUGE PART OF THEIR BUSINESS THAT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO THEIR ACCREDITATION.
THEY WOULD FORM A DIFFERENT COMPANY AND MOVE EVERYBODY OVER THERE.
>> I'M JUST THINKING THEIR COMPANIES FROM TIME TO TIME THEY GET DISCIPLINED OR THEIR STUFF GETS TOLLED AND I WOULD HATE FOR US TO ALL OF A SUDDEN CALL FOR A TEST AND EITHER WE DO IT, AND NOT KNOW THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER PREDICTED OR THEY TELL US WHEN WE CALL, WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. THEN WHAT DO WE DO?
>> I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE LAB STILL BEING IN BUSINESS, BUT NOT ABLE TO CONDUCT THE TEST THAT THEY'RE ADVERTISING THAT THEY CAN CONDUCT IS PROBABLY PRETTY MINIMAL.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THEY ADVERTISE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A TEST FOR YOU THAT IT'S LIKELY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THE TEST AND PROVIDE THE RESULTS THAT THEY ARE ADVERTISING, THEY CAN DO.
I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING THE LAB NOT BE ACCREDITED IS PROBABLY PRETTY MINIMAL, BUT IT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK AND BE AWARE OF.
>> IT JUST MAY BE THAT WE NEED TO ASK IT ONCE A YEAR OR PERIODICALLY.
>> SURE. I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> MAYBE ANNUALLY WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY EVERY SIX MONTHS, MIGHT BE THE RIGHT WAY.
>> JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT'S MORE OF A JOB DESCRIPTION ISSUE FOR A HR PERSON THAN A MATTER TO GO IN THE PERSONNEL MANUAL PER SE.
>> I GUESS WHAT'S GOING THROUGH MY MIND IS SOME OF THE DNA LABS THAT GOT THEIR CERTIFICATIONS ALL PULLED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW PROCEDURES, POLICIES, OR WHATEVER, AND IT CAUSED A BIG MESS WHEN SOME OF THOSE CASES HAD TO BE DISMISSED IN COURT.
I THINK A LOT OF THAT WAS PREVENTABLE.
BUT THE CHANCE IS A BIT AFFECTING US.
ARE WE READY TO MOVE TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY FOR DOT EMPLOYEES?
>> OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT?
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR.
>> ARE WE READY TO GO TO SECTION 1.6, NEPOTISM? I THOUGHT I HEARD.
I AGREE. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK TWO THINGS THAT IF YOU WERE A EMPLOYEE AND YOU RELATIVE THAT IS AN ORGANIZATION AND YOU GOT PROMOTED, ALL OF A SUDDEN, NOW YOU'RE A DEPARTMENT HEAD AND THERE'S SOMEONE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION.
THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS THAT TWO THINGS, WOULD YOU BE ADVANCEMENT BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEVER PICK THAT PERSON BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GETTING RID OF THE OTHER PERSON? I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THAT ALL WORKS.
>> THE EXAMPLE HERE IS THAT YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE RELATED THAT ARE ON THE SAME TEAM, BUT THEN ONE GETS A PROMOTION TO BE THE SUPERVISOR ON THAT TEAM, IS THAT EXAMPLE?
>> I THINK WHAT IT SAYS HERE, WHERE WHAT STRUCK MY IS THAT DEPARTMENTS HEADS CANNOT HAVE A RELATIVE IN THEIR OWN OR IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IF THEY WERE SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE TALKS ABOUT, YOU CAN'T REPORT TO EACH OTHER, THEY CAN'T BE IN THE SAME GROUP, BLAH BLAH BLAH, I GET ALL THAT.
BUT IF THEY GET PROMOTED TO A LEVEL WHERE THEY'RE A SUPERVISOR, THEY CAN'T BE IN ANY OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
[01:30:01]
>> A LOT OF THE POLICIES WILL HAVE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF A RELATIONSHIP COMES INTO BEING BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WHO ALREADY EXIST AND USUALLY, THOSE SPECIFY THAT THE LESS TENURED EMPLOYEE LOSES THEIR JOB.
OR SOME OF THEM ALLOW FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANDFATHER THEM INTO THAT ROLE OR SET UP SPECIAL REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS, WHICH DON'T SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY IF THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT.
BUT I THINK THIS IS IT'S MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SMALL CITY.
>> I THINK I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND STRIKE THAT WORD OR IN ANOTHER BECAUSE I THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
I THINK IT'S FINE TO JUST NOT HAVE A RELATIVE THAT YOU'RE A DEPARTMENT HEAD OF AND HAVE A RELATIVE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION, BUT THEY COULD BE IN A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION AND I'M FINE WITH IT.
I'M GOING TO JUST RECOMMEND TO STRIKE OR IN ANOTHER ON THE LAST SENTENCE.
I THINK THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THAT.
THEN I WILL HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ALSO ONCE WE GET THROUGH THAT.
I THINK AT OUR CITY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS AS BIG OF A DEAL BECAUSE MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE CITY.
MAYBE IT ISN'T A BIG DEAL, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT RELATIVES OF THE MAYOR, RELATIVES OF CITY COUNCIL, RELATIVES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR ARE NOT ABLE TO BE.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WOULD LIMIT IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY THAT WAS FROM PARKER THAT WAS ACTUALLY EMPLOYEE, AND YOU WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT PEOPLE FROM PARKER TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE CITY, AND IF YOU WERE RELATED TO THEM, YOU WOULD BE ELIMINATED FOR NOT RUNNING FOR AN OFFICE.
>> THAT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
NOT FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, BUT FOR THE COUNCIL.
>> IT'S JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S GENERALLY THREE DEGREES OF CONSEGINITY, WHICH IS YOU COUNT THAT TIE ONE TIME.
COUSINS ARE NOT WITHIN THREE DEGREES, BUT NEPHEWS AND NIECES, AUNTS AND UNCLES ARE.
>> ANYWAY, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT SEEMED ODD, BUT OKAY.
>> WE HAVE HAD SOME RELATIVES WORK.
FOR EXAMPLE, AND THIS HAS BEEN A WHILE BACK, WHEN MARK BARNABY WAS THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.
SAM BARNABY WAS ONE OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS.
WHEN THAT CAME TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION, THE CITY DEMANDED THAT THAT CHANGE AND IT DID.
SAM WENT TO WORK FOR DALLAS, I THINK, OR ONE OF THE OTHER PLACES.
CURRENTLY, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SITUATIONS.
ONE IS A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE WHO IS WORKING IN A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT, DIFFERENT SUPERVISOR THAN HIS FAMILY WORKS IN.
THE OTHER IS A LITTLE MORE CLOSE, I GUESS.
WE HAVE A PERSON IN ADMINISTRATION WHOSE RELATIVE WORKS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T BELIEVE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT WE DO HAVE THAT AND I'M WITH THE CHANGE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT AFFECT?
>> NO. WHAT IT WOULD DO IS THAT IT WOULD ENABLE THAT TO CONTINUE.
THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THEM FROM CONTINUING WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
IT MAKES THIS LANGUAGE ADAPT TO WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR SOME OF THE STRUCTURES.
>> BACK TO MY OTHER QUESTION, AND JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL FOR POLITICAL ASSIGNMENTS, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ANCESTRAL SITUATIONS.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WITHIN THE CITY THAT EXISTS.
>> BECAUSE OF OUR STATE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT.
[01:35:05]
>> UNDER HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT EXTENDED TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR, MAYOR, HUMAN RESOURCES AND ATTORNEY BECAUSE THERE'S TIMES ON ONE OF OUR SITUATIONS, I HAD TO ASK KATHERINE, WAS THIS A CONFLICT OR NOT? COULD WE DO THIS? I NEEDED A LEGAL OPINION ON IT, AND SHE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME ONE.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT.
>> IT SAYS MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT HAVE HR IN THERE TOO.
>> I'M NOT SAYING THEY ALL HAVE TO US JUST IF NEED BE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M NOT AVAILABLE, THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR IF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR ISN'T AVAILABLE, MAYBE IT'D BE HUMAN RESOURCES.
I'M JUST SAYING LET'S EXPAND IT.
I THINK HUMAN RESOURCES SHOULD ALWAYS BE AWARE OF ANY POTENTIAL SITUATIONS THAT COULD CAUSE CONFLICT.
BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE A SITUATION AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEBODY GETS PROMOTED AND BOOM IT CHANGES THE SITUATION.
I THINK HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
COUNCIL MAY NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
THEN MOVING DOWN TO EMPLOYEE DATING, I WAS GOING TO ADD, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPLICABLE OR NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT DIRECTORS DEPARTMENT HEADS.
>> MADAME MART AT THE BEGINNING.
DIRECTORS COMMA DEPARTMENT HEADS?
>> YEAH. DIRECTORS COMMA DEPARTMENT HEADS.
DID YOU KNOW GARY AND GRANT WERE DATING? [LAUGHTER].
>> I THINK MOST OF OUR PEOPLE ARE PRETTY MUCH AWARE OF THAT ONE.
THEN ON THE PARAGRAPH RIGHT ABOVE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES, IT SAYS, DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES, AND I WOULD ADD ATTORNEY IN THERE JUST BECAUSE.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION UNDER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES.
JOB APPLICANTS MUST DISCLOSE DURING THE HIRING PROCESS IF THEY'RE RELATED TO OR DATING A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE.
HOW IS A APPLICANT TO KNOW EVERYONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES?
>> PRESUMABLY, THEY KNOW WHO THEY'RE DATING AND WHERE THEY WORK. THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO KNOW.
>> MAYBE. [LAUGHTER] I JUST SEE THAT IS DIFFICULT.
TODD COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, I WANT TO APPLY FOR A JOB.
THE FIRST QUESTION HE'S ASKED IS, WHO ARE YOU DATING?
>> FOR 33 YEARS, IT'S TRISHA FOR THE RECORD.
>> I JUST SEEM TO SEE THAT TO BE A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC, BUT IF YOU SAY THERE'S A WAY.
THEN I'M GOING DOWN UNDER SUPERVISORS ON PAGE 14, I WOULD AGAIN ADD ATTORNEY.
THEN ON DEFINITION OF A RELATIVE,
[01:40:03]
FORMER SPOUSE, LEGALLY, IS THAT A RELATIVE?YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM ALL LISTED OUT THIS WAY.
WHAT THIS DEFINITION ALSO MISSES IS RELATIONSHIPS BY AFFINITY, WHICH ARE BY MARRIAGE, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY PROHIBITED ALSO.
THE SHORTEST WAY TO WRITE IT IS JUST IT APPLIES TO ANYONE WITHIN THREE DEGREES OF CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY.
A LOT OF CITIES SPELL IT OUT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY MEAN AND HOW THAT APPLIES.
YOU CAN GO EITHER DIRECTION ON IT, BUT I THINK YOU PROBABLY WANT TO INCLUDE AFFINITY AND PROBABLY REMOVE THE EXCESS HERE.
>> IF YOU HAD A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD BOTH SPOUSES EMPLOYED BY THE CITY, SAY, ONE'S A POLICE OFFICER AND ONE IS IN ADMINISTRATION, AND THEY DIVORCE, I CAN SEE ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS THERE.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DEAL WITH?
>> NO. WE DON'T TYPICALLY ANTICIPATE THAT.
I HAVE NOT VERY OFTEN SEEN THAT BE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
I GUESS IF YOU TAKE OUT FORMER SPOUSE, THEN IT WOULD ALLOW ONE OF THEM TO SUPERVISE THE OTHER, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE UNDESIRABLE.
>> WE DID HAVE A PAIR OF SPOUSES THAT WERE BOTH POLICE OFFICERS, BUT THAT'S NO LONGER THE SITUATION.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT, MY ONLY THING ON THAT IS ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OR THE SENTENCE THAT STARTS TO GUARD AGAINST.
AT THE VERY END, I WOULD ADD HUMAN RESOURCES.
>> IT'S TO GUARD AGAINST A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NO EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF PARKER MAY ENGAGE IN ANY OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT OR SELF-EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT FIRST SECURING APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM HIS OR HER DEPARTMENT HEAD AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEN I PUT HUMAN RESOURCES.
I THINK THEY EITHER NEED TO APPROVE IT OR AT LEAST BE NOTIFIED OF IT.
>> LIKE I SAID, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF HUMAN RESOURCE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THIS STUFF, AND PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE.
ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE? THEN LET'S GO TO SECTION 1.8, HEALTH MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FITNESS FOR DUTY.
>> IT'S 6.5. THIS IS AN STOPPING POINT.
YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO STOP AT 6.5.
THIS IS A GOOD STOPPING POINT.
>> THANK YOU. DO PEOPLE WANT TO STOP NOW? I'M GETTING NODS.
WE WILL STOP HERE AND PICK UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON SECTION 1.8, WHICH IS PAGE 14.
WE WILL BREAK UNTIL 7:00 PM WHEN WE COME BACK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
[BACKGROUND] [NOISE] I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER TO ORDER.
IT IS JANUARY 7TH, 2025 AT 7:03 PM.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. YOU HAVE A [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. LYNCH TO LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE.
[01:45:02]
MR. ARNESON, IF YOU WOULD LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.BEFORE I GET TO PUBLIC COMMENTS, I HAVE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE, BUT SINCE WE HAVE A PERSON THAT SKIPPED OUT ON THE AWARD CEREMONY, I WILL DO IT NOW.
>> [LAUGHTER] YOU ARE COMMENDED.
MR. MACHADO HAS BEEN WITH US FOR SIX YEARS.
>> WOW. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] IT SEEMS LIKE JUST YESTERDAY IF THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE SAY IT WOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT YOU.
>> I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO CARRY THAT AROUND THE REST OF MY LIFE.
NOW WE WILL GO TO GENERAL COMMENTS.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
I HAVE A COMMENT FOR MR. ARNESON.>> DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW THAT, BUT MY NAME IS GARY ARNESON.
I RESIDE IN PLANO, TEXAS, ABOUT SEVEN MILES FROM HERE.
I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE CONCERNS REGARDING THE WATER MORATORIUM.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A NEW WATER CONTRACT HAS FINALLY BEEN EXECUTED AND PLANS ARE IN PLACE TO CONNECT THE NEW PUMP STATION.
THIS CONTRACT HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN HOLDING UP BUILDING PERMITS FOR YEARS.
NOW THAT THE CONTRACT'S FINALIZED, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON FOR THE MORATORIUM TO REMAIN IN PLACE ANY LONGER.
[NOISE] THE WORK REQUIRED TO CONNECT THE NEW PUMP STATION IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, DEPENDING ON HOW THE CURRENT CONTRACTOR ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.
FURTHERMORE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NEW HOME BUILDS DO NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON THE WATER SUPPLY.
EVEN DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, WHICH TYPICALLY TAKES AROUND A YEAR, WATER CONSUMPTION REMAINS MINIMAL WITH NO DEMAND PLACED ON THE WATER SYSTEM DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS.
WE'RE ALSO CURRENTLY IN THE LOWEST WATER USAGE MONTHS OF THE YEAR, A TIME WHEN THE CITY IS AT NO RISK OF RUNNING OUT OF WATER.
GIVEN THESE FACTORS, I SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAINTAINING THE MORATORIUM ANY LONGER.
IN CONCLUSION, I URGE THE CITY TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM TODAY.
IS THERE NO VALID REASONS TO CONTINUE ITS ENFORCEMENT? THE NEW WATER CONTRACT'S IN PLACE.
WE'RE AT LOW RISK TIME FOR WATER SHORTAGES, IT'S TIME TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT DELAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY.
WE WILL GO ON TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
THE FIRST THING IS I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, THE NOISE COMMITTEE IS MEETING TOMORROW WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8TH AT 2:00 PM IN THIS ROOM.IT IS OPEN TO ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND.
[01:50:02]
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION IS MEETING TOMORROW, JANUARY 8TH AT 5:00 PM, AGAIN, IN THIS ROOM.IT IS OPEN TO ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND.
WE DO HAVE OPENINGS ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND SOME OTHERS.
IF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO BECOME A PART OF THE CITY, I URGE YOU TO DOWNLOAD AN APPLICATION TO BE ON A BOARD OR COMMISSION AND GET WITH US, AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.
YOU CAN USE THAT TO MOVE FORWARD FROM THAT POINT ON, BUT WE DO HAVE OPENINGS AT THIS TIME.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AND ASK FOR COUNCIL'S INPUT IS AS OF THIS MINUTE, WE HAVE A COMP PLAN REVIEW WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THURSDAY, JANUARY 9TH AT 5:30.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO CANCEL THIS MEETING DUE TO THE ALLEGED WEATHER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE MOVING IN AND RESET IT FOR THE FOLLOWING EITHER TUESDAY OR THURSDAY.
WHAT WOULD COUNCIL'S OPINION ON THAT BE? I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS IF WE CANCEL IT, ARE PEOPLE AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING WEEK?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'M NOT AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING WEEK.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYBODY AT RISK IN TRYING TO GET TO THIS BUILDING AND IF WE REALLY GET SNOW.
DO YOU WANT TO SEND ME OR PATTI, HOPEFULLY, VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO GET THIS GOING, YOUR AVAILABILITY FOR ANOTHER MEETING? LET'S GO AHEAD AND CANCEL THIS OUT OF THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
THE THURSDAY MEETING IS HEREBY CANCELED.
PATTI, I WILL ASK IF YOU WILL PLEASE LET PLANNING AND ZONING PERSONNEL KNOW.
I CAN SEE LUCY BACK OVER THERE, BUT I DON'T SEE LYNNETTE AND WEI WEI AND SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT NEED TO BE NOTIFIED, SO I'D APPRECIATE THAT.
MOVING ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17, 2024. [REGULAR MEETING]]
THE FIRST IS ITEM NUMBER 3, APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17TH, 2024, REGULAR MEETING.COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DISCUSS ON THE MEETING MINUTES? NOT HEARING ANY DISCUSSION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17TH, 2024 FOR THE REGULAR MEETING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17TH AS PRESENTED, AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 17TH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, 5, 0.
NEXT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 4,
[4. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, AUTHORIZATION, AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION, SITE PLANNING, 1 Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. [ORDINANCE NO. 888]]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, AUTHORIZATION, AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLANNING, WAIT A MINUTE, I LOST MY PAGE, DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, ORDINANCE NUMBER 888.BEFORE I ASK FOR ANY COMMENTS ON THIS, I BELIEVE MR. MACHADO HAD A STATEMENT HE WANTED TO MAKE.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT MR. ARNESON JUST SAID ABOUT LIFTING THE MORATORIUM.
WE'VE HAD SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT GIVE ME REASON TO WANT TO PAUSE THIS LIFTING OF IT.
ULTIMATELY, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THIS CONNECTION MADE.
[01:55:02]
THE CONTRACTOR THAT I'VE GOT TO GET WORKED OUT, AND I WON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER.IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THURSDAY, BUT NOW THAT MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED AS WELL.
>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MACHADO?
>> WE HAVE TO CANCEL A MEETING, BUT MR. ARNT POINT, AND QUITE UNDERSTANDABLY, WE DON'T REALLY RUN INTO A PROBLEM UNTIL WE HIT THE SUMMER MONTHS REALLY WITH THE WATER SIDE, WHICH IS PROBABLY AT EARLIEST MAY AND JUNE, JULY OR AUGUST.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT THE HOOK UP QUESTIONABLE THAT WOULDN'T BE DONE BY MAY?
I DON'T LIKE THE NUMBER THAT HE THREW BACK AT ME.
WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT THAT OUT AND GET THAT NUMBER DOWN.
BUT IT'S WHAT NUMBER ARE YOU GUYS COMFORTABLE WITH FOR MAKING A CONNECTION?
>> TELL US WHAT THE NUMBER IS?
THAT'S ABOUT 300,000 MORE THAN WE WERE ANTICIPATING.
>> GARY, AND IF WE WANT TO GO BACK OUT TO BID WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS?
>> YOU'RE TALKING MONTHS DELAY THEN TO GET IT.
>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE WORK THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN TERMS OF THIS CONNECTION IS WORK THAT A LOT OF CONTRACTORS COULD DO, OR IS IT A SPECIALIZED?
>> BUT [INAUDIBLE] SOLID CONTRACT ON AND THEY'RE NOT WANTING TO HONOR THE CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE?
>> YES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AT OUR MEETING.
>> OUR OPTIONS ARE TO FIND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR OR HOW DO YOU FORCE THIS CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM THEIR THE CURRENT CONTRACT? YOU CAN'T FORCE SOMEBODY TO PERFORM, I DON'T THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY FORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR COULD YOU? [OVERLAPPING] I GUESS YOU COULD GET A COURT ORDER FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU COULD SUE THEM FOR THE DIFFERENCE, WHAT WE'D HAVE TO PAY SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT, CORRECT?
>> WAS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT COULD TAKE A WHILE TO PRODUCE IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE?
>> YES. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALL THE MATERIALS TO DO THE CONNECTION.
THERE'S ONE PIECE THAT IF WE CAN'T PUT OUR HANDS ON IT, COULD TAKE A WHILE TO GET THAT COULD BE MONTHS, LOTS OF MONTHS, MAYBE EVEN A YEAR TO GET THAT MADE.
BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT PART.
>> WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT PART, DID YOU THINK THAT WE ALREADY.
>> WE'VE PAID FOR IT, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN DELIVERED YET.
>> IT'S BEING STORED AT ANOTHER LOCATION, YES.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M BEING TOLD.
>> WE'RE GOING TO SORT THAT OUT, TOO.
>> YOU'RE SAYING WE PAID FOR A PART IN A CONTRACTOR'S HOLDING POSSESSION OF THAT PART BUT WE ACTUALLY OWN IT.
EVEN IF WE GET ANOTHER VENDOR.
>> WE'LL STILL GET THAT PART. YES.
>> ALL THE PARTS, ALL THE MONEY FOR THE MATERIALS HAS BEEN SPENT.
IT'S JUST THE CONNECTION SO THAT NUMBER BEING THAT HIGH IS CONCERNING TO ME.
>> I THINK THIS IS SO PUBLIC, WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR SO LONG WITH THIS WATER MORATORIUM AND THE CONTRACT PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH NORTH TEXAS.
EVERYBODY KNOWS NOW THAT WE'VE RESOLVED THE CONTRACT PROBLEMS WITH NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS WE NEED THE CONNECTION.
WE'VE GOT TO HAVE IT EVENTUALLY.
IF I THOUGHT NOT LIFTING THE BUILDING MORATORIUM WOULD STRENGTHEN OUR NEGOTIATING POSITION WITH A CONTRACTOR, I'D SAY LET'S HOLD OFF ON IT.
I DON'T SEE HOW IT CHANGES OUR NEGOTIATING POSITION WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
I DO AGREE WITH WHAT MR. ARNESON SAID THAT IT'S GOING TO BE MONTHS BEFORE ANYBODY STARTING CONSTRUCTION NOW IS GOING TO IMPACT WATER USAGE.
I HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR THE POSITIONS YOU TAKE ON ANYTHING, GARY, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE GAIN ANYTHING BY NOT GOING AHEAD AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN PROCESS NOW CAN GO AHEAD AND GET ALL THE PRELIMINARIES DONE, THAT TAKE MONTHS AS WELL TO GET A HOUSE BUILT.
>> I'M OKAY WITH LIFTING THE MORATORIUM.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF WHERE I'M AT WITH ALL THIS.
>> OKAY. WHEN DO YOU MEET WITH THIS PERSON AGAIN?
>> DON'T KNOW YET. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO RESCHEDULE THAT RIGHT NOW.
[02:00:02]
>> DO YOU THINK IT'LL BE NEXT WEEK OR NEXT MONTH?
THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE IS THAT I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE MEETING BEFORE WE WOULD MAKE A DECISION SO WE AT LEAST KNOW THE LANDSCAPE THAT WE'RE HAVING.
I THINK ONE WEEK ISN'T GOING TO BE THAT MUCH OF A DETERRENT FOR US BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, GARY IS THAT THERE COULD BE SOME DELAYS.
IT COULD BE JUST LIKE A TWO OR THREE WEEK DELAY OR IT COULD BE SEVERAL MONTHS OR IT COULD BE MUCH LONGER.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE LANDSCAPE BEFORE WE GO AHEAD AND LIFT IT BECAUSE IF WE DO LIFT IT, SAY IT'S THREE MONTHS, SAY IT'S THE CENTER SCENARIO THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW THREE MONTHS, YOU'RE GETTING INTO SPRINGTIME NOW.
NOW THE WATER SITUATION, WE'RE STILL NOT GOING TO BE IN A PROBLEM SITUATION, BUT I WOULD JUST RATHER UNDERSTAND THAT LANDSCAPE BEFORE WE WOULD LIFT IT.
>> THE CONTRACTOR, AS I SPOKE WITH THEM, PRIOR TO FRIDAY.
PRIOR TO THAT, I WAS SPEAKING TO SOME OTHER CONTRACTORS OR OTHER FOLKS OVER AT THAT COMPANY, AND EVERYTHING SOUNDED FINE.
EVERYTHING SOUNDED LIKE WE'RE ON TRACK TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN QUICKLY.
THEN I GOT THIS NEWS ON LATE FRIDAY.
I MADE SOME PHONE CALLS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON, AND WE SET MEETINGS, AND NOW THE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE CANCELED FOR WEATHER.
>> I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST WAITING A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IN THIS CASE GIVES US.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED KING'S CROSSING NEXT PHASES.
WE'RE VERY CLOSE IN NOT HAVING THE WATER LAST SUMMER.
WE KNOW THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING WE NEED THAT LINE AND WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO WIND UP TAKING, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT LINE INSTALLED AND THE FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE WAITING FOR A WATER MORTARIUM, TO LIFT IS SO NEGLIGIBLE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OVERALL.
>> CAN YOU REFRESH OUR MEMORY ON THE CONTRACT? IT'S ABOUT 2-YEARS-OLD?
>> NO, IT'S OLDER THAN THAT. IT'S ABOUT 4-YEARS-OLD.
>> GOT YOU. THEN IN THE CONTRACT, WHAT IS THE INFLATION RATE THAT THEY COULD OR WHAT HAVE WE AGREED TO IF WE DIDN'T DO IT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THAT AT THE MEETING.
I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HANDY.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MACHADO?
>> KATHERINE, I DON'T WANT TO ASK YOU AND DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING IF YOU WOULD RATHER ANSWER THIS IN CLOSED SESSION OR NOT.
BUT HAVE YOU LOOKED OVER THIS CONTRACT.
>> I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT CONTRACT.
>> I CAN MAKE THE CONNECTION HAPPEN.
IT'S JUST IT COULD BE EXPENSIVE.
I'M TRYING TO GET THIS WHERE WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE OR CLOSER TO IT.
>> WELL, I'M NOT WANT TO PAY $400,000 FOR $100,000 PRODUCT BY ANY MEANS.
BUT I STILL JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE GAIN ANYTHING IN OUR NEGOTIATING.
SEEMS LIKE OUR NEGOTIATING STRENGTH IS GOING TO BE BASED ON HOW SOLID THE CONTRACT IS AND WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE FOR GETTING SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT.
IF WE CAN'T EITHER FORCE THESE PEOPLE TO DO IT OR DON'T WANT TO PAY THEIR PRICE IF THEY WON'T CHANGE IT.
>> I'LL MOVE AS QUICKLY AS I CAN TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET IT WORKED OUT WITH THIS CONTRACTOR BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT.
>> GARY, IF WE DID HAVE TO OPEN THE BID TO OTHER CONTRACTORS, YOU MENTIONED IT'D BE A LONG TIME, BUT CAN YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROCESS THAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE?
>> WE'D HAVE TO SEPARATE THAT ITEM OUT OF THAT CONTRACT AND THEN SEND IT OUT FOR BIDS.
IT WOULD TAKE A MONTH AND A HALF FOR THAT.
THEN AWARD THE BIDS AND GET THEM STARTED.
IT'D LIKELY BE CLOSE TO THREE MONTHS.
>> WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO SEPARATE IT OUT OF THE CONTRACT, WHY WOULD IT BE LIKE A SEPARATE.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE CONTRACT TO BUILD THE WHOLE PUMP STATION SO WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THAT PIECE OUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS WAS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF BUILDING THE PUMP STATION IS THIS CONNECTION.
>> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY YOU'D HAVE TO SEPARATE IT OUT OF THE CONTRACT.
>> NO. OUT OF THE EXISTING CONTRACT, WE HAVE.
WE'D HAVE TO TAKE THAT PIECE, WHICH IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN THAT WHOLE CONTRACT TO BUILD THE PUMP STATION AND REFINE IT TO JUST A CONNECTION AND THOSE PIECES.
>> BUT WE HAVE A DEFINED COST FOR THAT ALREADY BECAUSE YOU SAID WE PAID FOR IT.
>> WELL, WE HAVE THE PARTS. WE HAVE THE MATERIALS, BUT THERE'S STILL THE WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE THAT'S GOT TO BE PAID FOR.
>> BUT THE MATERIALS WE PAID FOR SO THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE MATERIALS OR THAT WE OWN THEM?
>> IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING POSSESSION OF THEM AND EITHER
[02:05:01]
THAT COMPANY MOVE FORWARD WITH DOING THE ASSEMBLY OR HAVING ANOTHER COMPANY MOVE FORWARD.>> THERE'S ONLY ONE PIECE WE DON'T HAVE OUR HANDS ON.
BUT I'M CONFIDENT THEY'LL HAVE THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MITCH. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 888, WHICH IS LIFTING THE WATER MORATORIUM.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND LIFT THE MORATORIUM.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM TO LIFT THE WATER MORATORIUM.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHO TO LIFT THE WATER MORATORIUM.
NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF LIFTING THE WATER MORATORIUM AT THIS TIME, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY. ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO LIFTING THE WATER MORATORIUM AT THIS TIME, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
I SHOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM AND COUNCILMEMBER CARCHO VOTED TO LIFT THE WATER MORATORIUM AND THAT COUNCILMEMBER AMANDA NO, COUNCILMEMBER TODFCK, AND MAYOR PRO TEM JIM REID ARE OPPOSED TO LIFTING THE WATER MORATORIUM AT THIS TIME.
THAT IS A THREE TO TWO VOTE THEREFORE, THE WATER MORATORIUM IS NOT LIFTED AT THIS TIME.
>> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO POSTPONE THE ITEM NUMBER,
>> SORRY. EIGHT ITEM NUMBER 4, CONSIDERATION OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM.
>> WE CANNOT DO THAT, IT ALREADY BEEN VOTED DOWN.
>> IT'S ALREADY BEEN VOTED DOWN.
HOWEVER, STAFF WILL PLACE IT BACK ON THE AGENDA.
>> YEAH, JUST AS A COMMENT TOO.
I'M NOT AGAINST LIFTING IT, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION AND SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE PENDING PRETTY QUICKLY, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT LANDSCAPE.
>> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M HOPEFUL THAT GARY WILL GET THE MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
THEY'LL GET EVERYTHING WORKED OUT, AND WE CAN BRING THIS BACK TO OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS JANUARY 21, AND AT THAT POINT, PROCEED.
BUT AT THIS POINT, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF UNKNOWNS.
>> I AGREE AND I'M SURE MR. MACHADO WILL GET IT WORKED OUT BY THEN.
>> A IT'S $26,000 TO PUT THAT AGAINST THE $426,000 INTO THE CITY OF PARKER.
I HAVE TO PAY ALL THE DAY YOU GIVE ME A PERMIT, YOU'RE RUNNING AROUND IN CIRCLES.
GOD. I CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE, GUYS.
COME ON. IT'S ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER.
YOU GOT THE CONTRACT, YOU CAN'T GO ANOTHER SUMMER WITHOUT WATER.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU'RE LETTING EVERYBODY ELSE BUILD, BUT NOT ME.
YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BEFORE SUMMER.
YOU HAVE TO THERE'S NO OPTION, EVEN IF IT WAS $1 MILLION.
>> HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE ON JANUARY 21.
[ITEMS 5 AND 6]
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.COUNCIL, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS SEVERAL TIMES, AND WE HAD ASKED THAT WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER GARY IS GOING TO DO THE INFORMATION ON FIVE AND SIX AT THE SAME TIME OR IF HE WANTS TO TRY TO SEPARATE IT OUT.
[02:10:02]
MR. MACHADO, WOULD YOU PLEASE INFORM US?>> I THINK WE'RE GOING ADDRESS BOTH AT THE SAME TIME IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU ALL.
I'VE GIVEN EVERYBODY MAPS OF THE CCN IN QUESTION.
THE GREEN AREA IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA.
THE RED AREA IS THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL, AND THE YELLOW AREA IS THAT 250 ACRE AREA THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED BEFORE.
I HAVE ALSO SPOKEN WITH THE CITY OF WYLIE ON THIS, AND THEY TELL US IT'S OUR CCN TO DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPER AND IN THAT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH WYLIE, IT DOES STATE THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE THE EXPENSE FOR THE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER.
>> DID YOU TALK TO THE CITY OF WYLIE?
>> HAS MR. DESANTIS, IS THAT HIS NAME?
>> HAD HE TALKED TO THE CITY OF WYLIE?
>> HE SAID HE DID, BUT DID WYLIE INDICATE THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT?
>> NO. THEY SAID THEY DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
>> WHAT WOULD IT COST THE CITY OF PARKER IF WE GO AHEAD AND KEEP THE CCN AND DO THE LINE LOOPING AND EVERYTHING ELSE?
>> IF WE DID THOSE LINES OURSELVES, AND I FORGET THE NUMBER EXACTLY, WAS IT TWO MILLION ROUGHLY? TWO MILLION DOLLARS.
>> JUST OVER TWO MILLION TO DO THAT, THAT WAS THE ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THAT.
NOW, WE COULD POSSIBLY GET THAT NUMBER DOWN CLOSER LOOKING AT IT, BUT THAT EXPENSE TYPICALLY WOULDN'T BE BORNE BY THE CITY.
I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT ALL BE BORNE BY THE CITY.
IF THE CITY WANTS TO PARTICIPATE TO SOME LEVEL, I THINK THAT'S GREAT, BUT I THINK THE DEVELOPER SHOULD PARTICIPATE.
>> ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.
I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR ON HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
WE JUST ASK THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
>> ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS IN OUR CITY AND OTHER CITIES EVERYWHERE.
WHEN THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND HAS TO DO SOME OFF-SITE WATER OR ANY OF THAT STUFF, THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THAT THEMSELVES. THEY KNOW THAT GOING IN.
THIS IS A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IT'S GOING TO BE HARD FOR HIM TO GET HIS MONEY BACK OUT OF THOSE LARGE CAPITAL EXPENSES.
HE'S GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT, I THINK.
>> WE'RE UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THAT AT OUR WHOLE COST, THOUGH.
JUST LIKE WYLIE SAYS, THEY'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION.
>> CORRECT. WE'RE NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DO THAT.
>> WHY WOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO REASONABLY EXPECT TO RECAPTURE, AT A MINIMUM, THE AMOUNT THAT WYLIE WOULD HAVE CHARGED TO HIM IF THEY DO THAT? WHICH THEY MAY BE ABLE TO DO IT FOR LESS MONEY THAN US.
>> IT WOULD BE LESS MONEY FOR HIM TO GO TO WYLIE AND RUN A LINE BECAUSE THE WYLIE WATER LINES ARE A LOT CLOSER, BUT WE HAVE THAT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AND ONE OF THOSE WATER LINES AT SOME POINT WILL BE OURS, IF WE DO THESE WATER LINES LIKE WE SHOULD TO GET THE CCN STRAIGHTENED OUT.
>> GARY, JUST IF YOU CAN WALK THROUGH THE LINES THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP THAT YOU PROVIDED.
THERE'S A DARK BLUE ONE, WHICH IS A 12-INCH LINE FROM ESPS TO GATEWAY COMMUNITY CHURCH AND THERE'S A LIGHT BLUE COLORED LOOPED 12-INCH WATER LINE FROM ESPS, TO RITA SMITH SCHOOL, EIGHT INCHES.
IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WATER LINES, ARE THOSE EXISTING? ARE THOSE WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO PUT IN OR JUST TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE?
>> THE DARK BLUE LINE IS EXISTING.
THEN I SHOULD HAVE DRAWN THIS ON HERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER OF CVS, IF YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTH, THE CVS, THERE'S A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES ACROSS THE ROAD.
THERE'S AN EIGHT-INCH LINE TO ABOUT THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THAT DRIVEWAY THAT'S EXISTING TODAY.
HE WOULD HAVE TO ADD FROM THAT POINT TO THE SOUTHERNMOST PORTION OF HIS PROPERTY.
>> THE LIGHT BLUE LINE, ARE YOU SAYING?
>> YEAH. THE LIGHT BLUE LINE, AN EIGHT-INCH WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE FROM THE PUMP STATION ALL THE WAY
[02:15:03]
DOWN TO THE CHURCH OR THE SCHOOL.>> HE WOULD NEED TO PUT IN BOTH OF THOSE TWO LINES THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, THE DARK BLUE AND THE LIGHT BLUE LINE?
>> YES. BECAUSE WE'D WANT THE LINE LOOPED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE LINE, I'M SORRY?
>> LOOKED. WHICH WOULD KEEP IT FROM STAGNATING IN LINE.
>> WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IS THE GAP BETWEEN THE LIGHT BLUE AND THE DARK BLUE LINE IS THAT CONNECTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UP HERE ON PARKER ROAD?
>> THAT'S THE PUMP STATION. WE CAN TIE IN ON THE EAST SIDE AND TIE IN ON THE WEST SIDE. THERE'S LINES RIGHT THERE.
>> CAN YOU SET UP YOUR OWN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE LIGHT BLUE AND DARK BLUE DOWN HERE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> NOT TODAY WE DON'T, BUT THROUGH THAT AGREEMENT, IF WE HAD THAT WATER LINE COME DOWN AND TIE IN, WYLIE WOULD SEPARATE RIGHT THERE AT COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, AND THAT WOULD BECOME OUR WATER LINE.
>> WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU TALKED TO WYLIE AND THEY SAID, IT'S YOUR CCNS TO DECIDE, THEY MEANT BASICALLY, PARKER CCN?
>> THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY THAT THEY FELT PERHAPS WHEN THAT AGREEMENT ENDS SOON THAT IT WAS GOING TO BECOME THEIR CCN.
>> THE DISCUSSION I HAD WITH HIM, AND THIS HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO NOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENT, AND IT'S A POORLY WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT HAPPENS ON EXPIRATION.
WE CAN ASSUME FAVORABLY TO US THAT THAT MEANS EVERYTHING GOES IN OUR FAVOR, AND THEY CAN ASSUME EVERYTHING GOES IN THEIR FAVOR, BUT AS WE DISCUSSED IT THE OTHER DAY WHEN WE TALKED.
WE SAID NOTHING CHANGES AT THE EXPIRATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINED IN THERE THAT ANYTHING WOULD CHANGE AT EXPIRATION.
HIS ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE AGREEMENT WOULD JUST CONTINUE UNTIL WE GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO OUR WATERLINES TO OUR CCN.
>> WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO AMEND THAT AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN. WE CAN TRY.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MIGHT BE AGREEABLE.
>> THEY MIGHT. WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY MIGHT TRY TO PUT IN THERE.
>> BUT WE CERTAINLY WOULD NEED SOMETHING.
IF IT EXPIRES, SOMETHING'S GOT TO BE WRITTEN AS TO WHAT HAPPENS, NOT JUST A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING THAT IT JUST KEEPS GOING.
SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE WRITTEN SOON, I WOULD ASSUME?
>> YEAH. >> KATHERINE AND I CAN LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT EXPIRATION MEANS, WHAT OUR LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF EXPIRATION MEANS.
>> BUT GOING BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSION ON CCN, APOLOGIZING THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T EVEN RECOGNIZE WHERE IT WAS, BUT NOW THAT I SEE WHERE IT WAS, I HAD ENVISIONED THERE WAS A LOT OF 246 ACRES UNDEVELOPED, BUT MAJORITY OF IT IS, IN FACT, ALREADY DEVELOPED, AND THE GREEN PORTION IS REALLY THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE ACREAGE.
THEY IMPACT US OR REVENUES TO US IN THE FUTURE WOULD REALLY BE WHATEVER IT BECOMES OUT OF THAT GREEN SECTION, OR IF PEOPLE ALONG PARKER ROAD, MAYBE SOME OF THESE LARGE AREAS, SOLD AND IT GETTING SOMEHOW REDEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
>> DOWN BY THE SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY CHURCH THAT'S IN THE RED, DOES THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OWN THAT REST OF THE PIECE OF THAT LAND THERE, OR IS THAT ALSO UNDEVELOPED?
>> THEY OWN THAT, BUT IT'S FLOODPLAIN.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE LEFT THERE?
>> YEAH. OVER WHERE IT SAYS ASH AND PAINTING AND STUFF.
>> HOW ABOUT THE CHURCH ON THE RIGHT SIDE?
>> WELL, CHURCH HAS ROOM ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
>> ARE WE PROVIDING WATER TO THE CHURCH OR THE SCHOOL AT THIS TIME?
>> WE ARE NOT PROVIDING IT, WYLIE IS, THROUGH THAT AGREEMENT.
THEY'RE WHOLESALING IT TO US, AND THEN WE RETAIL IT TO THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL THROUGH THAT AGREEMENT.
>> BUT THAT'S THE CASE ALSO FOR THIS ENTIRE TOP PORTION, THE KINGSBRIDGE, ETC, CORRECT?
>> WHERE HE CAME IN AND SAID, IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY CONFUSING FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND PAY WATER BILL TO PARKER AND THEY PAY OTHER BILLS TO WYLIE, THAT'S ALREADY IN EFFECT AND BEING DONE ACROSS MULTIPLE PARCELS UP HERE.
ABOVE THE GREEN LINE IS ALL OUR WATER LINES.
ALL THAT COMES DIRECTLY TO US.
[02:20:01]
IT'S NOT THROUGH THAT AGREEMENT, BUT THEY ARE PAYING WATER TO US AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO WYLIE.>> TO MY POINT, THEY ALREADY ARE PAYING TO DIFFERENT CITIES FOR DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> IN YOUR MIND, ARE THERE ADVANTAGES TO US HOLDING ONTO OUR OWN CCN AND PROVIDING WATER TO THE SCHOOL AND TO THE CHURCH TO HELP US WITH OUR DENSITY?
>> YES. IF HE'S GOING TO PUT ON THAT 47 ACRES 160 LOTS, THAT'S CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY, THAT WOULD HELP US WITH OUR PER CAPITA USAGE NUMBERS, WHICH ARE EXTREMELY HIGH.
>> WOULD WE COLLECT IMPACT FEES OFF OF THOSE?
>> GRANT, DO WE COLLECT IMPACT FEES ON THOSE? YES.
>> A QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT BASED ON THAT 47 ACRES, WHICH I GUESS IS REALLY THE AREA THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED, I REMEMBER WE WENT THROUGH NUMBERS AND AT ONE POINT, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS A SLAM DUNK, BUT THEN WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT AGAIN, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS THAT MUCH MONEY, SO WHAT WOULD THAT IMPACT FEE BE THAT WE WOULD GET THERE? THEN THE SECOND PART, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IS AS BIG OF A FACTOR, BUT THEN WHAT WOULD THE RESIDUAL THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING EACH MONTH FROM THAT? BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE THAT WATER, SO WE WOULD GET THAT WATER, BUT THE FIRST THING IS THAT IMPACT FEE BECAUSE I'M THINKING THAT IMPACT FEE WOULD BE A PRETTY BIG CHUNK OF CHANGE, AND THAT MAY ALMOST PAY FOR THE WATER LINE, BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH CALCULATIONS INITIALLY, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A WASH AND IT WAS EASY.
THEN WHEN WE WENT THROUGH CALCULATIONS AGAIN, IT SEEMED LIKE WE WEREN'T HITTING IT. JUST LET ME KNOW.
>> SO 160 KILOMETERS TIMES 8,000.
IT'S OVER 1.2 MILLION FOR IMPACT FEES, 80,000 A YEAR FOR WATER SERVICE.
>> THAT'S AFTER THE IMPACT FEES.
>> I THINK, AT FIRST, WE'RE THINKING THAT THIS WATER LINE WAS GOING TO COST ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS, WE CAN GET 1.2 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES, THE CAPITAL COST WOULD BE ROUGHLY A MILLION DOLLARS, MAYBE 1.1, SO WE COULD EVEN NET A LITTLE BIT ON THE CAPITAL COST.
THEN IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S NOW A TWO MILLION DOLLAR EXPENSE TO BUILD\ THE WATER LINE.
STILL 1.2 ON IMPACT FEES, SO WE GOT $800,000 DEFICIT.
IF WE GET $80,000 A YEAR IN WATER PROFITS, THAT'S A 10- YEAR PAYBACK ON THAT.
I CAN TELL YOU, IN THE BUSINESS WORLD, I WOULDN'T MAKE A TWO MILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT TO GET A 10-YEAR RETURN ON IT.
>> I DON'T THINK THE 80K IS PROFIT.
>> THE 80,000 WOULD BE PROFIT.
>> WHAT I'M REMEMBERING, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG IN MY MEMORY OF IT, I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 250 ACRES, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE NUMBER WAS SO MUCH BETTER.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
>> THE WHOLE AREA IS 250, 248 ACRES? ALL OF THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEVELOPED, DO WE THINK?
>> WELL, A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED.
THAT 47 ACRES IS REALLY ABOUT ALL THAT'S LEFT.
>> LOOKS LIKE MAYBE SOME OLDER HOMES THERE NORTH OF THAT 47 ACRES, BUT IT'S NOT JUST A LARGE BLOCK.
YOU TEAR DOWN PROBABLY AND PUT IN ANOTHER 100 HOMES.
>> THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD PROBABLY HAPPEN TO IT AT AT BEST.
>> I'D LOVE TO HAVE IT FOR THE DENSITY PURPOSES.
I WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS AT FIRST.
I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF TAKING 10 YEARS TO GET OUR MONEY BACK.
>> I THINK WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT PER GARY, THAT DEVELOPER CONTRACTUALLY FOR AGREEMENTS, REALLY, SHOULD BE PAYING FOR ALL OF IT, AND TO YOUR POINT, PAYING FOR THE SAME AS WHAT WYLIE IS DOING.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IF HE'S PAYING NOTHING.
I THINK FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM WYLIE AND WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE CONTRACT IS THAT THAT JUST ISN'T A GO.
FROM ANYONE'S STANDPOINT, IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY SOMETHING FOR THAT.
?? I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.
IN FACT, LAST TIME, WE ASKED YOU, COULD YOU TALK TO THE DEVELOPER ABOUT PICKING UP HALF THE COST OF IT?
>> I DID. IT DIDN'T GO SO GOOD.
>> BUT WHAT'S HIS ALTERNATIVE? GO TO WYLIE AND WYLIE'S GOING TO TELL HIM PAY THE WHOLE BILL OR GO POUND SAND.
WE CAN DELIVER THE SAME MESSAGE.
>> HE THINKS HE CAN MAKE US PAY FOR IT ALL, IS WHAT I GET FROM THE CONVERSATION.
>> WHAT'S THE BASIS WHERE HE THINKS HE CAN MAKE US PAY FOR IT?
[02:25:01]
>> FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER IS THE NORM SUCH THAT THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR THE WATER LINES?
>> WE HAVEN'T PAID FOR ANY OF THEM.
>> I'M JUST IN MY HEAD RUNNING SOME NUMBERS HERE.
IF THERE WAS ANOTHER 100 HOMES THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S NOT TRIVIAL BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING 160 FOR THE GREEN PART.
IF YOU HAD ANOTHER 100 HOMES THAT YOU PUT IN THERE, NOW YOU ARE AROUND TWO MILLION IN IMPACT FEES.
BECAUSE YOU'D BE 260 HOMES TIMES 8,000, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT AROUND TWO MILLION.
NOW, THE ONLY CHALLENGE IS THAT YOU'D BE FINANCING THAT BECAUSE THOSE 100 HOMES PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO GO IN RIGHT AWAY THEY WOULD BE DEVELOPED OVER TIME.
>> HE'S TALKING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT COMING IN QUICK.
>> THIS ONE, BUT NOT THE OTHER 100 ACRES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT WOULD THAT WOULD TRICKLE IN OVER TIME, I WOULD THINK.
>> BUT I THINK, IF I LOOK AT THIS DIAGRAM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ALREADY SEPARATELY OWNED PARCELS OF LAND THAT PEOPLE HAVE HOMES ON.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE WHERE A DEVELOPER WOULD BE ABLE TO BUY UP ALL THOSE INDIVIDUAL HOMES AND THEN TURN AROUND AND CONVERT IT INTO A DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT'S VERY SIMPLE FOR SOMEONE TO DO.
>> JUST THE FYI, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO CAUSE REDEVELOPMENT OR NOT, BUT THE BLACK PORTION THERE ABOVE PARKER ROAD IS LUCAS HAS ALREADY AGREED TO A BIG DEVELOPMENT GOING IN THERE, WHICH IS A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER, RESTAURANTS, GROCERY STORE, ETC.
>> COUNCIL, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH. I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD, I GUESS, STAND TRUE TO OUR POSITION THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO NEED TO PAY FOR THE MAJORITY OF THIS LINE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, TO BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR CCN AND MOVE FORWARD, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO, I GUESS, SOMEHOW ESTABLISH WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR THE DEVELOPERS PORTION OF THE COST.
>> CONCESSIONS CAN BE MADE AND THEY ARE, FROM TIME TO TIME, FOR DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU JUST HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE A CONCESSION HOW BIG TOWARDS THIS.
>> JUST AS A COUNCIL IN GENERAL, I'M LOOKING FOR EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS ON THIS.
IF WE WERE WILLING TO GET IT FOR A MILLION BUCKS, IF THEY SPLIT IT WITH US, I'M THINKING THAT THAT MAY BE AN OKAY DEAL BECAUSE THEN WITH THE IMPACT FEES, WE GET IT PAID, AND THEN WE DO GET RESIDUAL INCOME THAT IS NOT HUGE, BUT WE MAINTAIN THE CCN AND WE GET $80,000 OF PROFIT AND THE WATER THAT WE'RE TURNING OVER.
THAT MIGHT BE WORTH HAVING IT, BUT I'M LOOKING TO ALL OF YOU AND SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT THE DENSITY IN TERMS OF THE SCHOOL AND THE CHURCH.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. THAT FACT, FRANKLY, IS I DON'T LIKE NEGOTIATING IN PUBLIC, BUT AS LONG AS WE DON'T COME OUT OF POCKET WITH ANY CASH.
WE NEED 800,000 OR MORE, AND WE'VE GOT SOME INTERNAL COST.
YOUR TIME AND YOUR CREW'S TIME, THAT'S REAL. THAT'S VERY REAL.
THERE'S ACTUAL HARD COSTS AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS WITH EVERY HOUR YOU SPEND ON THIS AND YOUR CREW SPENDS ON THIS.
WE DON'T NEED TO COME OUT OF POCKET ANYTHING ON IT.
LET THE DEVELOPER COME OUT OF POCKET ON IT.
THAT'S PROBABLY STILL LESS THAN WHAT HE'S GOING TO SPEND IN WYLIE.
THE LONGER HE TAKES TO AGREE TO THAT, THE LONGER THIS DEAL IS GOING TO SIT HERE AND GET POSTPONED FROM MEETING TO MEETING.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. GARY, FROM A WYLIE PERSPECTIVE, WHERE'S THEIR LINE THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY HOOK INTO?
>> ACROSS COUNTRY CLUB AND THEY WOULD USE THE ONE DOWN HERE BY THE CHURCH THAT WOULD BE OURS ONE DAY.
>> THERE'S A LINE ACROSS DOWN THIS [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY'RE GOING OVER HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] LOOP OVER HERE?
>> WOULD THEY JUST HAVE TO HOOK INTO HERE OR THEY HAVE TO LOOP SOMEHOW IN THIS?
>> THEY HAVE TO RUN THE LINE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY HAVE TO GO FOR THIS WHOLE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY GO FAR HERE, YOU HAVE TO GO FAR HERE, AND THEN BACK HERE.
>> COME BACK TO ANOTHER SOURCE.
>> THAT'S NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SURE.
>> HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL THAT ANYWAY.
THAT'S ALL INTERNAL IN HIS SUBDIVISION.
HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL THAT ANYWAY.
[02:30:01]
THIS IS ADDITIONAL TO HERE, THIS IS ADDITIONAL.>> WHAT WE HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE]? HAVE YOU ALREADY HAVE TO DO THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY COME ACROSS RIGHT HERE.
>> GARY, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION.
JUST THAT WHEN YOU SAID ABOUT THAT LINE THAT WILL BE OURS EVENTUALLY, WHAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT SHOULD BE OURS EVENTUALLY.
THAT'S IN OUR CCN AND THAT WATER LINE, IF WE BROUGHT THAT LINE DOWN COUNTRY CLUB AND TIED IT IN, THAT WOULD BECOME OUR LINE.
>> AGAIN, I THINK WE TABLE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AND THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT RIGHT NOW, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE.
>> COUNCILOR, INSTEAD OF TABLING OR POSTPONING IT, YOU CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING IT BACK WHEN SOMETHING IS READY TO BE BROUGHT BACK.
OTHERWISE, IF WE POSTPONE IT AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME ITEMS COMING BACK.
>> THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACTUALLY GET STAFF TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS ITEM IN MORE DETAIL.
>> I THINK SPECIFICALLY WITH A COMMITMENT OF WHAT FUNDING THE DEVELOPER CAN DO.
>> WITH A REQUEST OF 80% OF THE LINE.
>> I THINK WE DID NOT COME OUT OF POCKET WITH ANYTHING.
PERIOD. UNLESS WE CAN GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE DON'T COME OUT OF POCKET WITH ANYTHING, THERE'S NO ADVANTAGE TO US DOING THIS.
WE'VE GOT THIS SOMEWHAT OF AN ADVANTAGE REGARDING DENSITY, BUT THAT'S NOT A FINANCIAL DEAL, THAT'S AN ARGUMENT THAT WE MAKE WITH NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
>> WE JUST HAVE A CONTRACT WITH HIM THAT LASTS THROUGH 2032 ANYWAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
>> I BELIEVE HE'S GOT AN OFFER TO US ON THE TABLE THAT IS WOEFULLY INACCURATE.
>> THE $800,000 DEFICIT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ON IT ON 160 HOMES IS ONLY $5,000 A HOME.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE DEAL THAT MAKES OR BREAKS THE DEVELOPER ON THIS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND A GOOD BIT OF THAT IN THE CITY OF WILEY ANYWAY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO HAVE STAFF PROVIDE THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR COUNCIL?
>> THAT INCLUDES THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE WATER LINE BY THE DEVELOPER AT A 80% MINIMUM LEVEL.
A.K.A NO OUT-OF-POCKET FOR PARKER.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A MOTION.
I THINK IT'S JUST COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR STAFF TO INTERPRET.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FORMAL ACTION ON IT.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A FORMAL ACTION.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A MOTION.
WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION WITH NO MOTION.
>> THAT BEING THE CASE, WELL, THAT TAKES CARE OF ITEM 5 AND 6, AND WE ARE ON TO 7.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 886 APPOINTING A DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY WITH THE POWERS AND DUTIES TO ASSIST WITH SAID OFFICE AND TO SERVE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CITY SECRETARY. [Postponed from 2024 1217]]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 886, APPOINTING A DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY WITH THE POWERS AND DUTIES TO ASSIST THE SAID OFFICE AND TO SERVE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CITY SECRETARY.THE COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THAT THE LAST TIME WE MET.
TALKED TO ALL OF THE LADIES INVOLVED, AND NONE OF THEM ARE INTERESTED, PERIOD.
ANNA JACKSON. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THIS POSITION DUE TO MY CAR POSITION JOB DUTIES.
I AM NOT ABLE TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.
AS YOU KNOW, I AM ALREADY THE MAIN POINT PERSON FOR THE WEBSITE CHANGES, UPDATES, EMAIL BLAST, ETC., ON TOP OF MY MAIN JOB.
ALL OF US WILL ONLY GET BUSIER ONCE THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED.
IN 2025, I AM LOOKING FOR TRAINING EXPERIENCES FOR UTILITY BILLING AND ENCODE SOFTWARE, AS WELL AS GETTING MORE INVOLVED IN WATER CONSERVATION EFFORTS.
[02:35:04]
I DO NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH MUNICODE OR ASSEMBLY OF AGENDA.IN A PINCH, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ATTEND A CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO TAKE NOTES, BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO ASSIST WITH OTHER DUTIES.
BASICALLY, THEY ALL SAID, WE ARE TOO BUSY, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME.
THE OTHER THING THEY SAID WAS, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO TAKE ON EXTRA DUTIES WITH NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
I THINK AT THIS POINT, THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS JUST PULL THIS AND WHEN WE FIND OUT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS THERE ARE, IF THERE ARE ANY, THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.
BUT AT THIS TIME, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY BEING AVAILABLE TO BE THE DEPUTY. MR. KIRCHHOFF.
>> IT'S DIFFICULT TO TALK THIS WAY.
AT THE LAST MEETING PATTI HAD INDICATED THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY AN ALTERNATIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY ITSELF, WHICH WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO US, CORRECT?
>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THEN TO BASICALLY MAYBE PATTY AND GRANT TO JUST INVESTIGATE IT FURTHER ENOUGH OF WHAT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS JUST SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT TO DO IN THE CASE THAT IT COMES UP THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO HOMEWORK AT THAT TIME, THAT WE'VE GOT THE HOMEWORK BEHIND US AND WE KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT IN TERMS OF, LET'S NOT DEAL WITH THIS NOW, LET'S SEE WHAT OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE, WHETHER IT'S BARRING A CITY SECRETARY FROM ANOTHER CITY, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO A TEMP AGENCY, LET'S SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE.
THEN WHEN WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, WE COME BACK.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WILL BE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
>> I KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS LIKE BARRING SOMEBODY'S OTHER SECRETARY, ETC., BUT THERE'S A THIRD PARTY THAT TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS OUT THERE AGENCY OR SOMETHING.
>> WELL, WHEN I INVESTIGATED FURTHER, THEY WERE OFFERING THAT SERVICE A LOT DURING COVID BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING SOME REAL PROBLEMS GETTING PEOPLE TO FILL IN AS PEOPLE RETIRED.
BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS BETWEEN THE DECEMBER 17 MEETING AND THE DAY, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK FURTHER, BUT THOSE WERE THE COMMENTS THAT I WAS GETTING.
WELL, THAT WAS REALLY A SERVICE WE WERE DOING TO HELP DURING COVID, AND I WAS HOPING THEY HAD CONTINUED IT.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET SOME CONTACTS TO GET SOMEBODY FILLED IN.
SORRY, IT WASN'T AS LUCRATIVE OR NICE AS I THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN.
>> WHAT WOULD COUNCIL LIKE TO DO?
>> I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO FIGURE OUT THE OPTIONS AND HAVE IT MAYBE LAID OUT A LITTLE MORE CONCRETE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE DOING BEFORE THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY, AS AN ACTION, GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM STAFF ON WHAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ARE AND HAVE THAT PRESENTED TO US SO WE CAN TAKE IT FORWARD.
>> I THINK STAFF IS ABLE TO DISCERN FROM COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL WHAT THEIR NEXT STEP SHOULD BE, AND YOU CAN JUST TAKE NO ACTION IF THAT'S THE INCLINATION.
>> THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO THAT AND WE TAKE NO ACTION FOR NOW AND THEN LOOK AT IT LATER.
[8. CONSIDERATION OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 887 CREATING THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER POSITION OF CITY ADMINISTATOR. [CM AN ITEM #1]]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 887, CREATING THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER POSITION OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR.MISS NOOR, I'LL START WITH YOU SINCE THIS IS YOUR ITEM.
>> MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE ORDINANCES ON RECORD THAT ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF OFFICER POSITION FOR CITY ATTORNEY, CITY ENGINEER, AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS.
WE HAVE PROBABLY CLOSE TO 100 OR MORE EXISTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT REFER TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR YET WE DON'T HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
THIS RESOLUTION ESSENTIALLY USES THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE THAT IS USED FOR OR SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT'S USED FOR ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY AND
[02:40:01]
THE OFFICE OF CITY ENGINEER THAT CREATES THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.>> I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OBVIOUSLY IS A IMPORTANT POSITION AND "IN TYPICAL TERMS WOULD BE AN OFFICER, SOME COMPANY THAT WAS OUT THERE".
HAVING LOOKED AT THE TEXAS LAW PERSPECTIVELY IN TERMS OF, I TRY TO FIGURE OUT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE THAT'S AN OFFICER AND NOT FROM A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE? WHEN YOU THEN GO THROUGH GENERAL LAW TYPE A CITY, IT OUTLINES SPECIFIC POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE AN OFFICER.
IT'S LIKE THE TYPICAL THING WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE OFFICER POSITIONS.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT ONE OF THOSE.
NOW, THAT COULD BE THE FACT THAT IN SOME GENERAL LAW CITIES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEREFORE, THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THAT BE AN OFFICER POSITION.
I DON'T KNOW PARTICULARLY WHY THEY LEFT IT OFF.
ALSO IN GOING THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS REALLY COULDN'T FIND ANY EASY PLACE TO READ INTO.
WHEN YOU MAKE SOMEONE AN OFFICER, WHAT CHANGES 360 AROUND THEM, WHAT COULD BE IMPACTING CITY FOR THAT PERSON OR OTHERS RESPECTIVELY IF YOU'D MADE THEM AN OFFICER? I JUST DIDN'T FIND THAT INFORMATION TO BRING.
>> I CAN GO AHEAD AND JUST RECITE WHAT THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE STATES ON THIS.
SECTION 22-071 AS A TITLE OF OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
IT SAYS, IN ADDITION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY, THE OTHER OFFICERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE THE SECRETARY, TREASURER, ASSESSOR, AND COLLECTOR, MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY, MARSHAL, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, AND ANY OTHER OFFICERS OR AGENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY.
THIS IS WHERE ANY OTHER AGENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY CLAUSE COMES IN, AND IT SAYS THE GOVERNING BODY BY ORDINANCE, SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION AND THE GOVERNING BODY MAY CONFER ONTO OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICERS THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF AN OFFICER PROVIDED FOR BY THIS SECTION.
THIS SECTION OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS FOR GOVERNING BODIES TO ESTABLISH POSITIONS OF ANY OTHER OFFICERS OR AGENTS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY.
WHERE I READ THIS, IT MADE SENSE TO ME THAT SINCE WE HAVE SO MANY RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES THAT REFER TO US AS A GOVERNING BODY, EXPECTING A CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO HAVE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ROLES AND TAKE ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES.
IT JUST MADE SENSE TO HAVE US AS A GOVERNING BODY, ESTABLISH THE OFFICER POSITION OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAD READ IN THE TEXT OF THE STATE LAW, BUT MY QUESTION WAS, IT DOES IDENTIFY WHO THE OFFICERS ARE.
IT DOESN'T SAY CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
OBVIOUSLY, IT SAYS YOU CAN MAKE ANYONE AN OFFICER THAT YOU WANT.
BUT THE SPECIFIC OFFICERS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AND SAID, YOU NEED TO HAVE THESE, DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A CITY ADMINISTRATOR BEING AN OFFICER.
THE SECOND ITEM WAS, YOU HAD SOMETHING ON, WAS, WHAT, IN FACT, AN "OFFICER POSITION" THEN DOES AS OPPOSED TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS BOTH ON THAT PERSON AS WELL AS THE CITY ITSELF.
>> KATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, CORRECT? THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY THAT THE BODY SETS THE PARAMETERS FOR AN OFFICER POSITION IN A WAY THAT THEY DON'T FOR THE EMPLOYEE POSITION.
>> WOULD YOU SPEAK MORE? I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
[LAUGHTER] BUT BETWEEN AS COMPARED TO EMPLOYEES, THE BODY SETS THE PARAMETERS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS IN A WAY THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY FOR EMPLOYEES.
IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IT PROVIDES FOR THE GOVERNING BODY AS A WHOLE TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENT TO THAT POSITION, AS IT DOES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I THINK THE CITY ENGINEER.
[02:45:03]
>> DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION AT ALL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOVERNING BODY BEING COUNSEL, CAN MAKE ANY OFFICER THAT THEY SO CHOOSE AS A GOVERNING BODY.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OFFICER AND AN EMPLOYEE IN TERMS OF A CITY PERSPECTIVE? FROM A 360 PERSPECTIVE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, PARTICULARLY FOR THE CITY? MEANING, DO WE HAVE TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS AN OFFICER.
IF WE GO TO TERMINATE THAT PERSON, WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE QUESTION IS, THAT'S NOT A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO ANSWER ONE THING.
IT'S SAYING FROM A 360 VIEW, WHAT CHANGES WHEN I MAKE A PERSON AN EMPLOYEE TO AN OFFICER IN TERMS OF THAT PERSON REQUIREMENTS, AND FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE TO THAT PERSON IN TERMS OF HOW THEY HAVE TO HANDLE THAT PARTICULAR PERSON.
>> I THINK THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IT MAKES TO THE EMPLOYEE IS WHO THEY REPORT TO SPECIFICALLY, AND THAT'S SET BY COUNSEL, SO IT DEPENDS.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT DIFFERENCE YOU WANT IT TO HAVE.
THAT MAKES SENSE? BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THINGS THAT COULD BE SET OUT IN AN ORDINANCE.
THE FACT THAT YOU MAKE SOMEONE AN OFFICER DOESN'T MEAN YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHO THEY REPORT TO, YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT AN EMPLOYEE WHO THEY REPORT TO TOO.
I EITHER WAS CONFUSED OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR WHATEVER WHAT YOU JUST SAID BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
>> THE CITY IN THE PAST HAS CONSIDERED MAKING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, IN PARTICULAR, A MUNICIPAL OFFICER.
IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED ABOUT THREE TIMES AND EACH TIME THE COUNCIL DECIDED NOT TO DO IT FOR WHATEVER REASON.
ONE OF THE REASON THAT I THINK WAS, WHY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND WHY NOT ALSO LIKE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, WHERE DO YOU STOP?
>> RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF AMBIGUITY IN THIS CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR? LET'S JUST START WITH THAT.
>> IS THE FIRST STEP TO START TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY.
IT STATES THAT THIS POSITION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE PERSON WILL BE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL, AND IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS PROVIDED DIRECTION AND DISCRETION OF CITY COUNCIL IN TERMS OF THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
IT ADDS A LOT OF CLARITY THAT I THINK DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE BENEFIT OF THIS ORDINANCE HAS, IN ADDITION TO ESTABLISHING AN OFFICER POSITION, FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR THAT WE HAVE MANY DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DOES, BUT WE'VE NEVER ESTABLISHED AN OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND ANY OF OUR OTHER LEGISLATIVE ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS.
>> I AGREE WITH AMANDA THAT, EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL MEMBER KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET NOT ONLY THIS, BUT A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS INTO WRITING.
WE HAVE BEEN REMISS IN THE CITY IN PUTTING THINGS IN WRITING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
IT'S TIME WE GET IT DONE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET.
I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT THE OTHER DAY.
THE COUNSEL CAME OUT AND SAID, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE THESE ISSUES IN 30 MINUTES OR AN HOUR.
WE REALLY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T LINE THEM OUT.
I THINK WE NEED TO GO OVER THAT.
THERE'S SOME THINGS IN THIS, WHICH I THINK IS IN CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.
>> I'M SORRY, THIS WAS LEGAL REVIEWED.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW?
>> SORRY. LET ME LOOK AT IT RIGHT QUICK.
>> THE READING GLASSES ARE ALL DOWN.
>> AS SHE'S GOING THROUGH THAT AND JUST A COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT I THINK WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE IN THE PROPOSAL, IT'S PRETTY GENERIC IN THE SENSE THAT IT JUST IS PUTTING SOME GUIDELINES THAT ARE VERY GENERIC.
BUT AT LEAST ESTABLISH WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE ROLE AND HOW THE OFFICE IS GOING TO OPERATE.
AS FAR AS I SEE IT, I THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOES HELP THE CLARITY, AND WE CAN USE THIS AS A FRAMEWORK FOR WHEN WE PULL
[02:50:02]
ALL THE OTHER FUNCTIONS TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S HOLISTIC.THAT'S MY CUT ON IT, BUT I MEAN WE CAN LOOK AND SEE LAW WISE IF IT IS OKAY, IF IT IS, I'M ON BOARD.
>> YEAH. I MEAN, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SENIOR MOST EMPLOYEE FOR THE CITY.
IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THE SENIOR MOST EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY WOULD BE AN OFFICER OF THE CITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE SENIOR MOST EMPLOYEE BE AN OFFICER.
NOW, THAT SAID, THE NEXT STEP BEYOND THIS WOULD BE TO MOVE TO THIS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART BECAUSE IT CREATES CONFLICTS ON IT, BECAUSE IT'S GOT A CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTING TO BOTH THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
I CAN TELL YOU, JUST IN A BUSINESS WORLD AND MOST OTHER PLACES, WHEN YOU REPORT TO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
YOU NEED A ONE CLEAR CHAIN OF COMMAND ON ANY POSITION.
NOW, YOUR ORDINANCE, AS I READ IT, SAYS THAT THAT POSITION REPORTS AT THE DISCRETION AND THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PERIOD?
>> YEAH. THAT'S EXACTLY THE SAME TEXT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY ENGINEER. SAME TEXT.
>> WELL, I THINK THERE'S SOME MISINFORMATION THERE AND THAT WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL GIVE DIRECTION TO AND I'LL USE THE CITY ENGINEER.
THAT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL COUNSEL PERSON.
I THINK THAT'S THAT HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD IN PLACES AND AT TIMES.
THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVING DIRECTION AND SUPERVISING.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GIVE DIRECTION TO JOHN BIRKHOFF AND SAY, JOHN BIRKHOFF, OUR DIRECTION IS PAID DUBLIN ROAD.
AT THAT POINT, YOU'VE GIVEN YOUR DIRECTION, BUT THE ACTUAL SUPERVISION OF THAT IS GOING TO BE UNDER THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO SIT DOWN, DISCUSS, AND WORK OUT.
I APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP.
I'M THRILLED BECAUSE I DO THINK WE NEED TO GET IT IN WRITING.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET.
THAT'S MY ON THOUGHT, I THINK IF WE HAVE A KEY SESSION, WE CAN GET THERE.
>> KATHERINE. YOUR READING GLASSES ARE OFF, I NOTICED.
>> NOW I'VE LOST IT, BUT I THINK IT'S IN SECTION 3 WAS WHAT I HAD LOOKED AT EARLIER.
IT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT IT GAVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE, BUT IN TERMS OF, IS THIS CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? I WOULD SAY NO, BUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR SHALL REPRESENT THE CITY OF PARKER IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CITY WITHIN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
THAT QUALIFICATION WITHIN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS CITY ADMINISTRATOR, I WOULD READ THAT TO SAY IT PREVENTS IT PREVENTS THAT PERSON FROM HAVING ANY DUTIES THAT ARE ASSIGNED BY LAW TO SOMEONE ELSE.
I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING AN ISSUE.
IT WAS A LONG WAY SAYING, NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE.
>> WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A JOB DESCRIPTION PER SE TO GO WITH THIS, THOUGH, DO WE?
>> YOU KNOW THE SPIRIT HERE IS TO JUST START BY ESTABLISHING THE OFFICER POSITION.
THEN THROUGH, I THINK, WHAT I THINK COUNSEL WANTS TO DO, IN THE SPIRIT IS HAVE DISCUSSION OF WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLE WHAT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS PERSON WOULD COME IN A SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
RIGHT NOW, THIS IS JUST AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE POSITION, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS.
BUT I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFINING WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE ROLE SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN PARTICIPATE IN DRAFTING AND FORMING THAT SEPARATE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION THAT HAS THAT SCOPE.
THERE'S MORE PARTICIPATION IN WORKSHOP ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SEPARATE PIECE.
WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT ALL OUT.
BUT I THINK WE CAN JUST START WITH THIS BY ESTABLISHING THE POSITION AND THEN COME BACK LATER BY HAVING ANOTHER PIECE THAT REFINES THE POSITION ONCE IT'S ESTABLISHED.
>> I THINK THE POSITION IS READY DEFINED, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY DEFINING THE POSITION.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GREAT JOB DESCRIPTION.
WE POSTED A JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE, BUT THE POSITION IS THERE.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE FILL THE POSITION BEFORE, SO THE POSITION IS THERE.
>> I THINK THE DEFINITION OF THE POSITION HAS NOT
[02:55:02]
BEEN VETTED BY COUNSEL.WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE JOB POSTING.
I THINK THAT THE COUNSEL NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN DEFINING WHAT THIS PERSON DOES.
I DON'T THINK COUNSEL HAS BEEN INVOLVED TO THIS TIME.
>> BUT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT THE PERSON DOES.
>> IN THE SPIRIT IS TO HAVE A TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF LEGISLATION, THIS FIRST ORDINANCE THAT CREATES THE POSITION.
BUT THEN THE INTENT IS TO HAVE A FOLLOW ON ORDINANCE THAT FURTHER DEFINES THE ROLE.
>> BUT THE POSITION ALREADY EXISTS, SO IT DOESN'T DEFINE A POSITION, DOESN'T CREATE A POSITION, THE POSITION IS THERE.
>> WE REFER TO A PERSON WHO DOES THINGS, BUT WE'VE NEVER DEFINED THIS ROLE IN OUR RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
>> BUT THIS RESOLUTION JUST MAKES HIM AN OFFICER AND THEN SAYS IT'S UNDER DISCRETION AND DIRECTION OF PARKER CITY COUNCIL.
>> WHICH I THINK THE ADVANTAGE TO THAT IS IT GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND THE DUTIES OF THE POSITION.
ACTUALLY, THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, I THINK YOU GOT IT EXACTLY CORRECT.
COUNCIL MEMBER KNOW, THAT THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS OFFICIALLY CREATE THE POSITION.
IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH LEVEL POSITION WITHOUT EVEN GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT ALL IT'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH LEVEL POSITION.
THAT IS SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR IT BEING AN OFFICER POSITION, AND IT'S GOING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL IN MY OPINION, AN OFFICIAL ROLE TO STRUCTURING WHAT ARE THE DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND REPORTING STRUCTURE UNDER WHICH IT FUNCTIONS, WHICH WOULD COME AFTER WE CREATE THE POSITION.
FIRST, YOU CREATE IT OFFICIALLY, THEN YOU DETERMINE THOSE OTHER THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OR NOT BECAUSE THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THIS POSITION, NOT ONLY NOW, BUT IT WAS BEEN FILLED MANY TIMES.
THOSE ARE ON RECORD. I'M JUST SAYING.
>> KATHERINE, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT? BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE IT HAS PRECEDENT, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE, IT WAS OPERATING MAYBE UNDER A HIERARCHY OF SOME OTHER ORDINANCE.
>> ORDINANCE IS ON SO MUCH, OR PROTOCOL.
WE REALLY NEED A LOT OF STUFF.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS MORE BEFORE WE GO TO PUTTING IT IN WRITING, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT TWO AND THREE AND FOUR TIMES.
I THINK IT'S GREAT TO HAVE A STARTING PLACE AND I REALLY SUPPORT GETTING THINGS IN WRITING.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I JUST THINK WE NEED A WHOLE LOT MORE DISCUSSION ON IT.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT MAKES IT AN OFFICER, AND IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN AN EMPLOYEE.
>> THAT THIS WOULD MAKE IT, IN TERMS OF WHETHER THAT THE POSITION HAS EXISTED IN THE PAST, IT'S EXISTED AS AN EMPLOYEE RATHER THAN AN OFFICER.
>> MADAM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 887, CREATING THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER POSITION OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> THAT'S ORDINANCE NUMBER 887? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 887.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOD, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 887.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 887, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY. ANYONE OPPOSED? I SAW COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHO OPPOSED, EVERYBODY ELSE FOR.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 887 IS PASSED.
NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 9,
[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2025-827, THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS. [CM AN ITEM #2]]
CREATION AND OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-827, THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.AGAIN, MISS, I WILL ASK YOU TO LEAD THIS OFF.
>> MADAM MAYOR IN YOUR PACKET, FELLOW COUNCIL IN YOUR PACKET.
WHAT I'VE DONE IS GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES THAT APPLY TO
[03:00:06]
PLACES IN OUR LEGISLATION THAT DEFINE REPORTING STRUCTURE IN OUR RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES THAT EXIST.WE SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY ENGINEER, DEFINED BY ORDINANCES AND ACTUALLY ORDINANCES IN THIS CASE, THAT THEY WILL BE APPOINTED BY AND OPERATE AT THE DIRECTION AND DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
JUST STARTING WITH THOSE POSITIONS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER POSITIONS THAT I SHOW REPORTING TO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCES THAT I'VE CITED IN THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
LOOKING THROUGH ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF AND THE FIRE MARSHAL BOTH REPORT TO THE FIRE CHIEF.
THERE'S AN ORDINANCE THAT SPECIFIES THAT THE POLICE CHIEF REPORTS TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
AS WE JUST MENTIONED, WE ARE JUST CREATED AN OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS AN OFFICER POSITION.
THEN THERE ARE, AS I MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER PREVIOUS ITEM, THE ROLE OF THE CITY SECRETARY, THE ROLE OF THE TREASURER, ARE ALSO DEFINED IN TEXAS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
ONE THING THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY SPELLED OUT IN AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION WOULD BE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THAT IS NOT AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION AS THE OFFICER POSITION IN OUR CITY.
BUT SO I WILL STATE THAT THE REPORTING STRUCTURE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE REPORTING STRUCTURE OF THE TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN OUR ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS.
BUT IT WAS INTUITIVE TO ME THAT IN PRACTICE AND WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DEFINE THEIR REPORTING STRUCTURE TO BE WOULD BE TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THAT'S WHERE I SHOW THEM ON THIS CHART.
AT THE TOP OF THE CHART IS THE PARKER ELECTORATE.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WE ARE ALL ANSWERING TO, IS THE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
THEY ARE AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION CHART, AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO EVERYBODY IS REPORTING TO.
>> ONE QUESTION, WOULD SHE HAVE HR ON THERE SOMEWHERE?
>> ESPECIALLY SINCE WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE MANUAL, WE HAD A LOT OF REFERENCES TO HR, SO WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THAT IN THERE?
>> YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.
WHERE WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THEY WOULD REPORT?
>> WELL, SINCE GRANTS WEARING BOTH THOSE HATS, BUT BUT IT IS A SEPARATE FUNCTION.
>> DRAW ANOTHER BOX REPORTING TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR THAT SAYS HR?
>> YEAH. I WOULD THINK. CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD BEFORE I RELEASED IT AND THIS MIGHT BE WHAT COUNCILMAN PILGRIM IS THINKING ABOUT TOO, BUT ON THE DOUBLE REPORTING STRUCTURE, WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO SEPARATE THAT OUT OR WHERE ONE IS FROM A, OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT.
THE OTHER ONE IS A STRATEGIC STANDPOINT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
>> I WOULD NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THE STRUCTURE AS IT'S LAID OUT HERE BECAUSE IT HAS DIRECT REPORTING LINES TO THE MAYOR AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND I THINK THAT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONFLICT.
I THINK THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DIRECT REPORTING STRUCTURE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK THE MAYOR'S ROLE WOULD BE AN ADVISORY ROLE RATHER THAN A DIRECT MANAGEMENT ROLE.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, UNDER CHAPTER 22, THE MAYOR IS PART OF COUNSEL.
I TAKE YOUR POINT THAT ON THIS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T NEED THAT BOX AT ALL BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS PART OF COUNSEL.
>> THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE MAYBE MAYOR/COUNSEL, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, OR WOULD IT JUST BE COUNCIL AND UNDER BE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
YOU WOULD SAY MAYBE CITY COUNCIL AND SAY CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR UNDERNEATH OR WHAT?
>> AGAIN, THOSE ARE THINGS I THINK WE NEED TO FLESH OUT IN DISCUSSION.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CHART HERE, IT'S GOT THE MUNICIPAL CITY CLERK.
THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ATTACHED SHOWS THAT THE MUNICIPAL CITY CLERK IS APPOINTED BY COUNCIL, BUT SHE IS ACTUALLY A PART OF ADMINISTRATION.
THAT'S LAURIE. LAURIE IS A PART OF ADMINISTRATION AND IS A PART OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY.
YOU HAVE TO FLESH SOME OF THIS OUT LIKE THAT.
[03:05:11]
>> THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY READS.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD REVIEW THAT ORDINANCE AND SEE IF WE SHOULD CHANGE THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS.
>> THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHERE SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES CAME FROM.
SOME OF THEM ARE OUT OF DATE, SOME OF THEM NEED TO BE REVISED.
SOME OF THEM ARE NOT THE LATEST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THERE IS I THINK IT STARTED WITH ORDINANCE 415 AND THEN WENT TO 448.
WELL, THEN THERE'S A 770 THAT GOES ONTO THAT.
THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO 845.
ALL OF THOSE HAS TO DO WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
A LOT OF THE STUFF, WE NEED TO PULL EVERYTHING.
CONSOLIDATED, UPDATED, AND THEN GO FROM THERE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO ON HERE, I DON'T THINK IS SUFFICIENT OR TO GET THE JOB DONE.
>> WELL, THESE ARE RECORDS THAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT I RECEIVED FROM OUR CITY SECRETARY.
IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT RECORDS, THEN WE NEED TO SEE IF THESE ARE THE CORRECT RECORDS OR NOT.
>> WELL, I CAN TELL YOU, LIKE I SAID, I PERSONALLY REMEMBER, AND I IMAGINE CHIEF BROOKS LISTEN AT ME.
CHIEF PRICE DOES TOO, WHERE CHIEF BROOKS AND BRANDON SHELBY RED PART OF THE POLICE DEAL.
LIKE I SAID, I WENT 415, 458, MAYBE 770, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHERS, AND IT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO 845, WHICH WAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
>> BUT THEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE GOT DISBANDED, SO THEN WE REVERTED BACK TO THE EXISTING LEGISLATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GOT DONE AT COUNSEL.
IT MAY HAVE. I DON'T REMEMBER.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT GOT DONE AT COUNSEL? I'M NOT SURE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT GOT DONE AT COUNSEL?
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT. WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW ABOUT?
IT CAME UP THREE OR FOUR TIMES BEFORE COUNSEL.
I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT THE FINAL ACTION WAS.
>> THE ACTION WAS TO REVOKE IT.
>> IT'S BEEN REVOKED SINCE I CAME ON COUNSEL.
>> YEAH. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WHERE IT'S MURKY ON ALL OF THE POSITIONS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING.
>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OF COUNSEL IS TO PROVIDE MORE INPUT ABOUT WHAT CHANGES COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON COUNSEL'S RESOLUTION.
FOR AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE CITY.
I THINK THIS CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION IS REALLY HELPFUL.
SO ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT, I'M TAKING NOTES AND WANT TO PROVIDE ENOUGH DATA REVISION SO THAT COUNCIL TOGETHER, DURING OUR DISCUSSION, CAN COME UP WITH AN ORG CHART THAT WE ALL BELIEVE IS THE WAY IT SHOULD LOOK.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW RIGHT?
>> THERE'S NOT A MOTION, BUT THERE'S AN AGENDA TOPIC.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THEN AND YOU ALL CAN VOTE IT DOWN OR NOT SECOND IT IF YOU DON'T WANT IT.
BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY NEED TO SAY TABLE OR POSTPONE.
POSTPONE THIS ISSUE UNTIL WE HAVE A WORKSHOP WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS THE MATTERS THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DISCUSS EXTEMPORANEOUSLY HERE.
COME UP WITH A MORE COMPLETE SET OF ANSWERS FOR THEM.
NOW, THE PROBLEM IS, I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A YEAR LONG POSTPONEMENT OR A SIX MONTH LONG POSTPONEMENT.
IT NEEDS THIS IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES OF THE CITY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE HANDLED SOMETIMES WITHIN THE FIRST CALENDAR QUARTER OF 2025.
WE NEED TO MOVE WHATEVER ELSE WE OUGHT TO HAVE TO MOVE OFF OF OUR AGENDA TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS DONE WITHIN THE FIRST CALENDAR QUARTER OF 2025, BECAUSE WE'VE ALSO GOT A POSITION TO FILL TO.
>> I WAS ACTUALLY HOPING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE WE CLOSE THE DISCUSSION PERIOD.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION FIRST BEFORE WE CLOSE THE DISCUSSION PERIOD OR CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION PERIOD AFTER THE MOTION IS MADE? WE GOT TO WAIT FOR A SECOND?
>> ACTUALLY FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN YOU.
>> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. WE NEED A SECOND MOTION, THEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION THEN VOTED UP OR DOWN.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION, MADAM MAYOR.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL A WORKSHOP COULD BE HELD TO MAKE SOME DECISION, TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING AND COME BACK QUICKLY.
[03:10:01]
YES, SO I WOULD JUST SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK REGARDING THIS STRUCTURE SO THAT WE CAN START TO WORK TOWARDS AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT ON.
IF YOU HAD JUST INITIAL IMPRESSIONS, I HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER REID SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BLOCK FOR HR.
I HEARD THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR REPORTING TO COUNCIL.
I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO HEAR A FOLLOW UP FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CHAPTER 22.
IF SHE COULD PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH PART OF CHAPTER 22 WHERE IT DEFINES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE MAYOR IS PART OF COUNSEL.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT REFERENCE.
THEN I ALSO HAD A NOTE THAT THE CITY CLERK IS APPOINTED BY COUNSEL SO THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I BROUGHT UP IS, THE WAY IT'S SPLIT RIGHT NOW, AND THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE ALLEVIATED WITH THE JOINT SITUATION THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT ON THE CHAPTER 22.
BUT SOMEHOW, I THINK WE NEED TO AT LEAST FLESH OUT BECAUSE THERE'S OPERATIONAL THINGS AND THERE'S MORE STRATEGIC THINGS.
I SEE AND I SEE COUNCIL AS BEING A LITTLE MORE STRATEGIC, AND I SEE THE MAYOR'S ROLE AS SUPERVISORY IN ONE REGARD.
AS COUNCILMAN, PILGRIM WAS SAYING, BUT THEN ALSO THERE'S SOME OPERATIONAL THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ORGANIZE ALL THAT.
SORRY, I'M NOT GIVING ANY MORE DIRECTION.
>> THIS IS A GOOD FEEDBACK, AND I'M JUST MAKING NOTES. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> WAS YOUR QUESTION TO KATHERINE?
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE, I THINK WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID.
FROM LOOKING AT IT, I'M JUST NOT SURE, AND I THINK MAYOR PETO MADE THE SAME POINT AS WELL.
I'M JUST NOT SURE AS PEOPLE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, YOU AS THE AUTHOR, HOW YOU SAW THAT OPERATIONALLY WORKING JUST FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, TO ME, I GET THE BIG PICTURE DIRECTION, DISCRETION.
HERE'S YOUR GOALS AND WHAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO DO.
BUT, THEY HAVE QUESTIONS AND STUFF AND THEN A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS OPERATING ALL THE TIME.
WE ONLY MEET TWICE A MONTH AT BEST.
WE CAN'T CERTAINLY HAVE TONS OF SPECIAL MEETINGS TO MEET WITH THESE PEOPLE.
I'M NOT SURE I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU OBVIOUSLY AS THE AUTHOR, HOW YOU SAW THAT OPERATIONALLY WORKING.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME YEARS AGO WAS, IF SOMEBODY HAS A QUESTION, WHO WOULD THEY GO TO? IF IT'S SOMETHING LIKE STREET PAVING, THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO RIGHT THEN.
IF IT'S SOMETHING REGARDING POLICY, THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY WAIT TILL COUNSEL MEETS.
BUT YOU CAN'T PUT SOMEBODY THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER.
YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM WAIT TWO WEEKS FOR COUNCIL.
THAT'S HOW IT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME IN TERMS OF OPERATIONAL AS A WHOLE.
I'M NOT SAYING STRIKE OR THAT'S JUST WHAT IT WAS DESCRIBED.
>> SURE. TO ANSWER COUNCIL MEMBER, KURT JOE'S QUESTION, I TOOK A LOOK AT OUR CITY ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE BOOKS TO SAY THAT'S HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GOVERN.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CREATE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AND THOSE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, BASICALLY CARRIED OUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AS THEY IMPLY DIRECTION.
LOOKING AT THE CITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY MUNICIPAL ENGINEER OFFICE, WHERE IT SAYS, THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER SHALL REPRESENT THE CITY AND ALL ENGINEERING MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CITY AT THE DISCRETION AND DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL.
TO ME, I JUST LOOKED AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, WE'RE REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS.
THE CITIZENS ARE LOOKING TO US TO BASICALLY PROVIDE DIRECTION AND DISCRETION TO OUR CITY ENGINEER.
TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT MAY COME INTO ANY TYPE OF ENGINEERING PROJECT THAT COULD HAPPEN INDEPENDENTLY.
I ALMOST LOOKED AT IT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF AN AUDITOR NOT BEING REPORTING TO THE SAME PERSON THAT THE PERSON WHO'S DOING THE FINANCE IS REPORTING TO BECAUSE THAT IT WOULD ALL
[03:15:04]
BE SELF CONTAINED WITHIN ONE ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD OF ACCOUNTING, THOSE TWO FUNCTIONS ARE SEPARATED.I FELT LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THESE ORDINANCES BACK IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 30 AND 30.31 YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AGO WHEN THE CITY WAS CREATED.
WELL, ACTUALLY, THESE WERE DONE IN 2003, BUT A LONG TIME AGO.
I THINK THE SPIRIT HERE WAS TO TRY TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY REPORTING TO COUNSEL VERSUS REPORTING TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE IN THE SAME ORGANIZATION.
I THINK THE SPIRIT HERE IS TO TRY TO KEEP THOSE FUNCTIONS SEPARATE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST INTERPRETING FROM WHAT I READ. THAT'S ALL.
CERTAINLY AS A PAST AUDITOR, LOVE THAT DIRECTION.
BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DAY-TO-DAY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT, YOU IT'S LIKE THE CEO OF THE COMPANY IS SAYING, HAVING THE BIG MEETING AND SAYING, HERE'S OUR GOALS FOR THE YEAR OR THE QUARTER OR MONTH, EVEN, AND DIRECTIONALLY.
BUT THEN HE OR SHE GOES OFF SOMEPLACE AND THERE'S ACTIVITY HOUR BY HOUR, MINUTE BY MINUTE, AND THERE'S, THE PARAMETERS ARE LIKE THE BIG, CURBS ON BOTH SIDES.
BUT DIRECTIONALLY WHERE YOU GO BETWEEN THOSE CURBS DAY-TO-DAY CAN VARY SIGNIFICANTLY.
QUESTIONS ARISE ALL THE TIME, ETC.
WHEN THAT PERSON HAS A QUESTION, THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY, DO I JIG LEFT OR JIG RIGHT, ETC.
IT DOESN'T OPERATIONALLY WORK TO COME TO COUNSEL.
BECAUSE WE ONLY MEET TWICE A MONTH, AND THIS IS HAPPENING MINUTE BY MINUTE, DAY BY DAY, WHATEVER.
WHO IN YOUR MIND DO THEY GO TO TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS? BECAUSE THE ONLY THING ABOVE THEM IS CITY COUNCIL ON THE STEAL.
I WOULD SAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY GO ASK THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, BUT THERE'S NO LINE TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
THEN IF YOU MAKE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OVER ALL OF THESE, THEN YOU BECOME A CITY MANAGER, AND THAT CHANGES OF WHO WE ARE, TO SOME EXTENT.
MAYBE THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE HEADED.
BUT JUST THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY LAID OUT, I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO HOW YOU SAW THAT DAY-TO-DAY STUFF QUESTION WORKING.
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK WHERE I WAS TRYING TO BE TRUE TO THE SPIRIT OF OUR ORDINANCES AND CAPTURE WHAT OUR ORDINANCE SAYS, LIKE EACH BLOCK, RESEARCHING IT, OF WHAT OUR ORDINANCE SAYS, IT'S REPORTING STRUCTURE IS, CAPTURING THAT.
BUT THEN ALSO SAYING, TO YOUR POINT, ON THE DAY-TO-DAY, I THINK CITY COUNCIL DOES AT A HIGH LEVEL SAY, OKAY WE WANT OUR ATTORNEY TO WORK ON THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CASE.
BUT IN THE DAY-TO-DAY, LIKE HOW THEY ACTUALLY WORK ON THAT.
THEY WORK WITH THEY INTERACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CITY.
WHEN WE HAD A CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THE ATTORNEY WAS WORKING WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEY DO ALL THINGS, BUT, LIKE, WE TELL THEM LIKE, WHAT IS THE HIGH LEVEL GOAL AND HOW THEY INTERACT THAT CAN STILL BE, I THINK, ADDED TO THIS, LIKE DOTTED LINES POTENTIALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IT DEPENDS ON, IS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY A CITY EMPLOYEE OR IS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY A RETAINED PERSON? THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAD ALWAYS A RETAINED ATTORNEY UNTIL WE BROUGHT TRAY IN AS AN EMPLOYEE, THAT PUT HIM IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.
THEN KATHERINE CAME IN AS RETAINER.
THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS, I THINK, WE NEED TO SIT DOWN, DISCUSS, WORK OUT, AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE WANT IT DONE.
I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A RIGHT OR WRONG WAY.
IT'S JUST WHAT'S THE BEST WAY FOR THE CITY, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME TO DO THIS.
>> THE LAST 15 MINUTES OF OUR DISCUSSION IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE POINT THAT I'VE BEEN MAKING.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SETTLE THIS TONIGHT ANY MORE THAN WE WERE GOING TO SETTLE IT IN THE 30 MINUTES THAT WE DISCUSSED IT, THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT BRIEFLY.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO SET ASIDE A COUPLE OF HOURS TO TALK ABOUT THIS WHERE WE CAN GET OUT A WHITEBOARD AND TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO ORGANIZE IT.
I ALSO THINK THAT YOU CAN SEPARATE OUT THE HIRING AUTHORITY FOR A POSITION, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE OVER SOME OF THESE, VERSUS THE DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERSON.
IN MY OPINION, I THINK THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OUGHT TO BE THE ONE WHO HAS THE DAY-TO-DAY OVERSIGHT OF ALMOST ALL OF THESE POSITIONS HERE, BUT THE HIRING AUTHORITY STILL COMES FROM THE CITY.
I ALSO STILL THINK THE CITY ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBILITY OVER SHOULD BE SEPARATE FROM THE MAYOR'S RESPONSIBILITY OVER THEM.
[03:20:03]
I DON'T THINK THE MAYOR SHOULD BE RUNNING ALL THESE, WHETHER IT'S YOU OR WHETHER IT'S ANYBODY ELSE'S MAYOR.IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF WHO SITS IN THAT SEAT AS MAYOR, BUT I THINK ALL THESE ISSUES TAKE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS AND I THINK IF WE SIT DOWN AND SPEND A COUPLE OF HOURS ON THEM OR WE MAY HAVE TO HAVE TWO-TWO HOUR SESSIONS ON THEM TO FLUSH THROUGH IT.
I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH THE RIGHT ANSWERS FOR IT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE IT TONIGHT.
>> WE'VE GOT MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR, I'VE ASKED IF THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION.
AT THIS TIME, I AM GOING TO REMIND YOU WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM WITH THE SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL A WORKSHOP CAN BE HELD OR MORE THAN ONE WORKSHOP TO MAKE DECISIONS, AND THAT WILL BE DONE QUICKLY. IS THAT TRUE?
>> I DEFINED QUICKLY AS WITHIN THE FIRST CALENDAR QUARTER OF 2025.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS EVENT UNTIL A WORKSHOP CAN BE HELD TO DISCUSS THIS QUICKLY AND DECISIONS, HOPEFULLY, BE MADE WITHIN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2025.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5, 0.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SUGGEST, AND I WILL GET WITH PATTI ON THIS, IS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT'S AN ORDINANCE, WHETHER IT'S A RESOLUTION, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN A COUNCIL MEETING.
I THINK WE NEED ALL THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AND GO FORWARD.
I WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO FIND ALL OF THAT AND GET THAT SO WHEN WE SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS, WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS.
I THINK WE'RE ALSO GOING TO FIND THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
I NEED TO FIND MY PIECE OF PAPER.
>> BEAR WITH ME A SECOND HERE.
HERE WE GO. NEXT, WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER 10, UPDATES.
[10. UPDATE(S)]
PROJECTS IN PROGRESS. MR. MACHADO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON 2551?>> I GOT SOME NEW STUFF TODAY.
WEATHER IS GOING TO IMPACT OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN AND DIVERT TRAFFIC ON PARKER ROAD.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TWO WEEKS OUT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, BUT ON PARKER ROAD HERE AND HOGUE ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN, DIVERT EVERYTHING OVER TO THE EASTBOUND LANES, HAVE A THREE-WAY THERE FOR, I THINK, IT'S ABOUT THREE DAYS TO MAKE SOME CONNECTIONS TO THE STORM RAINS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> WILL THAT GET ON THE WEBSITE?
>> GARY, I KNOW LAST TIME WE TALKED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING IS WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO START.
IT OBVIOUSLY LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE STARTING ON DILLEHAY, BUT WAS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO CURRENTLY DO BETWEEN HOGUE AND DILLEHAY?
I CAN FIND OUT MORE. I CAN CALL YOU TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY WHEN I FIND OUT MORE.
>> DIVERSION, WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DIVERT TRAFFIC, DOES THAT DIVERTING THEM INTO PARKER LAKE ESTATES, OR WHERE ARE THEY DIVERTING THEM TO?
>> ON PARKER ROAD, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THE WESTBOUND SIDE.
WHEN THEY GET TO HOGUE ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO DIVERT MORE TO THE EASTBOUND.
IT'LL BE TWO-WAY RIGHT THERE UNTIL IT GETS TO THE NEXT CUT-THROUGH.
>> THERE'S NO DIVERSION ON DILLEHAY TAKING PLACE?
>> THERE IS GOING TO BE MORE OF THIS.
IT'S ANOTHER TEMPORARY. FOR A COUPLE DAYS MORE, IT IS DISTRACTING MORE.
>> WHERE THEY HOLD TRAFFIC AND THEN
[03:25:03]
KEEP ALTERNATING BACK AND FORTH OR DIVERTING IN THROUGH PARKER LAKE ESTATES?>> NO, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIVERTING THROUGH PARKER LAKE ESTATES.
I'VE GOT INFO, AND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN THIS WEEK, THE WEATHER IS DELAYING THAT.
ROBIN AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT GETTING THAT ON THE WEBSITE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS WEEK, SO WE DIDN'T [INAUDIBLE]
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM, IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON TCQ?
>> EITHER COUNCIL MEMBER NOE OR GARY MACHADO, ANY UPDATE ON ENGINEERING REQUEST?
>> NO, MADAM MAYOR. I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE.
>> I DON'T EITHER. WE'LL GET TOGETHER INSTEAD.
>> WE'LL GET TOGETHER AND SIGN ON THIS.
>> I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU-ALL WOULD GET TOGETHER SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
I KNOW YOUR SCHEDULE HAS CHANGED, BUT IT'S A YEAR IN FEBRUARY.
>> WE HAVE SOME OTHER CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE BOTH BEEN WORKING AROUND.
>> NOISE COMMITTEE. ANY UPDATE ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE FROM ANYBODY?
>> NO, THERE'S NO UPDATE THAT I KNOW OF, OTHER THAN THERE'S A MEETING AT TWO O'CLOCK AND COME UP \WITH A GAME PLAN.
>> THERE'S NO UPDATE. RANDY, DID YOU GET AN EMAIL AND AVAILABILITY FOR THE MEETING TOMORROW? BECAUSE I DIDN'T. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A MEETING UNTIL I SAW THAT ON HERE.
>> THE NOTICE I GOT WAS FROM BILLY BARED.
>> I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING FROM ANYONE ASKING AVAILABILITY ON SCHEDULING.
>> THE COUNCIL WASN'T NOTIFIED ABOUT IT.
>> JUST THAT THE MEETING HAS BEEN SET AND WE'VE ANNOUNCED IT OVER AND OVER, BUT AS FAR AS AVAILABILITY, SOMETHING GOING AROUND TO SAY WHO'S GOING TO ACTUALLY SHOW UP AT THE MEETING, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING WAS SENT OUT OF THAT NATURE, SO HOPEFULLY, PEOPLE SHOW UP.
>> BECAUSE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK, I WAS PLANNING ON ATTENDING ALSO, AND SO TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST TIME TO HOLD A MEETING TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU.
>> I THINK INITIALLY THE TWO O'CLOCK MEETING WAS BASED UPON AVAILABILITY.
I THINK INITIALLY HE WENT AROUND AND ASKED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHAT WORKED ON DATE AND TIME AND THAT DATE AND TIME WORKED.
I'M SAYING FROM AVAILABILITY, MEANING THAT A RECENT AVAILABILITY IS SAYING THAT, IS EVERYONE STILL ON BOARD WITH THAT? I HAVEN'T SEEN, BUT THE INITIAL MEETING AND TIME WAS BASED UPON AVAILABILITY AND EMAILS GOING OUT.
>> I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT UNTIL I SAW IT ON HERE.
I'M IN MEETINGS TOMORROW THAT WERE ALREADY SCHEDULED.
>> I GOT A NOTICE, AND MY NOTICE WAS MORE IN TERMS OF YOU GOING TO HAVE SWAGET AVAILABLE BECAUSE APPARENTLY SOMEONE ASKED FOR IT TO BE RECORDED. GO AHEAD.
>> BECAUSE OF YOUR COMMENTS ON NOT BEING ABLE TO HEAR UNLESS YOU'RE SITTING AT THE DIAS AT THE MIC, THEY DID OPT THAT FOR AND NOT HAVE SWAGET.
BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY HAD LISTENED TO OTHER MEETINGS, AND YOU WERE CORRECT THAT THE VOICE JUST GOT RATHER DOWN AND I GUESS THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE AT THE DIAS.
>> WELL, THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS IF WE USE SWAGET.
SWAGET WILL PICK UP HERE PRETTY GOOD, BUT IF YOU-ALL MEET DOWN IN THE PIT, SWAGET DOESN'T PICK UP AND YOU HAVE TO USE THE RECORDER TO ZOOM OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BEFORE I GO TO LOIS LANE AND CHAPARRAL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER UPDATES? GARY, YOU WERE TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION OR AN UPDATE ON LOIS LANE, AND THEN ON CHAPARRAL WITH ALLEN HEIGHTS.
>> A COUPLE MORE MAPS THAT WERE GIVEN OUT EARLIER.
THE ONE THAT SAYS CURRENT OWNERSHIP SHOWS THE CURRENT BREAKDOWN OF HOW, I THINK, THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS AGREE THE OWNERSHIP BROKE DOWN FOR LOIS LANE.
[03:30:05]
THAT FIRST BLUE SECTION IS OURS, THE NEXT RED SECTION IS LUCAS.THE YELLOW SECTION IS SPLIT DOWN THE CENTER.
WE HAVE THE WEST SIDE, THEY HAVE THE EAST SIDE.
THEN IT GOES TO LUCAS, THEN IT GOES TO PARKER FOR A LITTLE WHILE, THEN IT GOES TO LUCAS AGAIN.
>> GARY, ONE QUESTION. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE COUNTY OWNS SOME OF THIS ROADS STILL AT THIS TIME. IS THAT NOT TRUE?
>> COUNTY'S CLAIMING THEY DON'T OWN ANYTHING ANYMORE.
>> IS THERE DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM?
>> COUNTY WILL HAVE SOME ON THAT.
THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT DUE TO ANNEXATIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DON'T OWN ANY OF IT.
THE LAST MEETING WE HAD WITH LUCAS, EVERYBODY AGREED ON THAT MAP AS FAR AS WHAT'S IN PLACE TODAY.
>> I WOULD QUESTION HOW THE COUNTY CAN JUST STATE THEY OWN SOMETHING WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION FROM THE COUNTY.
>> WHEN I TALKED TO THEM, ONCE THEY WENT THROUGH AND REVIEWED THEIR RECORDS ON ANNEXATIONS, AND THE WAY THE RULES ARE TODAY, WHEN LUCAS ANNEXED, THEY GOT THOSE PIECES THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD.
>> DOES THE COUNTY AGREE TO THAT? WELL, OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNTY AGREES TO THIS MAP BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, SO I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT QUESTIONING THAT.
>> I'VE ALSO TALKED TO THE COUNTY ABOUT SOME ASSISTANCE ON FUNDING REPAIRS ON THE ROAD, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT LEVEL THEY'RE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE AT, BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING.
>> YES, THE COUNTY. COLLIN COUNTY.
>> GARY, YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT DO YOU HAVE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT BACKS THIS MAP? IN OTHER WORDS, THE SUBDIVISION MAPS, PLAT MAPS ON RECORD WITH COLLIN COUNTY?
I GUESS OUR ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS.
COLLIN CAD HAS PLAT MAPS ON RECORD.
>> NO, IT'S DEEPER THAN THAT. IT'S DEEDS AND STUFF.
>> BUT IT STARTS WITH THAT, BUT THEN ON TOP OF THAT ARE DEEDS AND ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE A BINDER, IF YOU WILL, THAT BASICALLY SUPPORTS THIS MAP, ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT IT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF MINE ARE ASSEMBLED ON MAP, BUT I KNOW WHERE THE INFORMATION IS ON THOSE THINGS.
THEN THERE'S ALSO AN AGREEMENT THAT CONFUSES ALL THIS.
>> COULD I REQUEST A COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION SET THAT ESTABLISHES THIS RESULT?
>> SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW EASY IT'D BE TO ASSEMBLE, BUT I CAN GATHER THE INFO IN.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
DOES ANY OF THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MAP?
>> IT'D BE NICE TO JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
JUST AS A COMMENT, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ELABORATE ON THIS, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE LUCAS HAS A LOT MORE THAN US AS FAR AS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ROAD NOW.
>> WELL, THE YELLOW SECTION IS HALF, BUT YEAH.
>> BUT IF I TAKE THE REDS AND I PUT THEM TOGETHER, I GET MORE THAN HALF OVER, AND THEN THE YELLOW IS HALF AND HALF, SO THAT'S ANOTHER HALF.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT TWO THIRDS, ONE THIRD ALMOST.
>> TODAY, WITH THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP MAP THAT WE'RE REVIEWING.
>> JUST AS A BACKDROP WHEN WE LOOK AT THE OTHER ONE.
>> THEN THE OTHER MAP SHOWING PROPOSED OWNERSHIP, AS WE MET WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS AND TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE AGREED TO DIVIDE THE ROAD UP AS INDICATED ON THAT MAP WITH THE RED BEING LUCAS AND THE BLUE BEING PARKER.
ANOTHER CONCESSION LUCAS WAS WILLING TO GIVE AT THAT TIME OR OFFERED WAS IF WE WOULD AGREE TO DO THIS, THEY WOULD AGREE TO MAINTAIN LUCAS ROAD BOTH SIDES.
>> TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. LUCAS ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES HAD NEVER COME UP BEFORE WHEN WE DID ALL OF OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING.
WE'VE NEVER HAD LUCAS ROAD AS A ROAD THAT PARKER WAS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN? I'M CURIOUS WHY LUCAS NOW IS CLAIMING PARKER WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO MAINTAIN LUCAS ROAD WHEN WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT DURING THE WHOLE ENTIRE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING.
>> THERE'S SOME CONFUSION OVER THAT AS WELL, BUT THERE'S SOME SECTIONS THAT ARE NOT CONFUSING.
ADJACENT TO KINGS CROSSING 1, AND THEN ANY OTHER NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES UP THERE, WE WOULD GET SECTIONS OF THAT TO MAINTAIN.
THEY'RE AGREEING TO MAINTAIN ALL THAT AND THEN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES UP TO THE ROADWAY ALSO.
>> CERTAINLY I COULD BE WRONG, BUT WHERE WE HAD ORIGINALLY WENT BACK TO LUCAS AND SAID THAT, HEY,
[03:35:01]
THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY WAS WHEN THEY HAD ANNEX PARCELS ALONG LOIS LANE THAT BASICALLY, AT THE TIME, INDICATED THAT IF YOU ANNEX PLAN, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED THE COUNTY, THAT THE COUNTY BASICALLY GOT OUT OF THE PICTURE, THE GROUP THAT WAS LATEST TO ANNEX BASICALLY ADOPTED OR GOT MAINTENANCE OF THAT ROAD IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON BOTH SIDES.I READ THE STATE LAW OR WHATEVER IT IS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
IT BASICALLY SAID IF YOU ANNEX, YOU GOT THE ROAD AND THE RIGHT AWAY ON BOTH SIDES FOR YOUR MAINTENANCE.
SAME THING IS WE WENT INTO KING'S CROSSING AND ANNEXED SOME OF THOSE PIECES OF LAND FOR KING'S CROSSING, WHICH ABUTS AGAINST LUCAS ROAD.
WE THEN TECHNICALLY HAVE ADOPTED THAT PORTION OF THE ROAD AND THE RIGHT AWAY ON BOTH SIDES. SAME THING.
THAT'S HOW THEY'RE SAYING WE'VE GOT MAINTENANCE OVER LUCAS ROAD BECAUSE WE'VE ANNEXED NOW LATELY LANDS THAT ABUT IT.
IF YOU RECALL KING'S CROSSING WHEN WE APPROVED THE LAST PLAT, AND THEY SAID, HEY, WE ADDED A ROAD NOW THAT GOES RIGHT ONTO LUCAS ROAD AND I ASKED, DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT? GARY SAID, YEAH, WE DO BECAUSE WE BASICALLY OWN CONTROL OF THE ROAD IN THAT AREA.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE THEN DO GET THE MAINTENANCE OF LUCAS ROAD FROM THOSE SECTIONS.
>> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I WANT TO SEE ALL THIS DOCUMENTATION BEHIND THESE ANNEXATIONS, ANY STATE DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS THIS IS HOW THE ANNEXATION PROCESS WOULD RESULT IN EITHER OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE.
TO ME, I SEE THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP, AS COUNCIL MEMBER REID, NOTED AS BEING A LOT MORE OWNERSHIP FOR LUCAS.
BUT THEN THE NEW OWNERSHIP PROPOSED WE'RE GOING TO NOW OWN THE MAINTENANCE OF TWO THIRDS OF THE ROAD PERHAPS WHERE BEFORE WE ONLY NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ABOUT ONE THIRD TO HALF OF THE ROAD SO TO ME, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GIVING CONCESSIONS TO MAINTAIN A ROAD THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD GIVE CONCESSIONS TO.
>> BUT YOU'RE LOSING THE ASPECT OF HAVING TO MAINTAIN LUCAS ROAD.
>> I THINK THE CONVERSATION IN LUCAS ROAD IS A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
WELL, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT BOTH LUCAS AND LOOK AT LOUIS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND LOOK AT HOW MANY LINEAR FEET WE'RE TAKING ON OR HOW MANY WE PROPOSE WE WANT TO TAKE ON BASED ON WHAT IT IS NOW AND WHAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS I SAID WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT, AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT LOUIS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALMOST BACKWARDS IN WHAT WE'RE TAKING HERE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PART OF LUCAS ROAD, IF THAT'S THE OPPOSITE.
IF THEY LOOK AT THAT AND THERE'S ANOTHER TWO THIRDS OR THREE QUARTERS OF THAT THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TAKEN ON BECAUSE OF ANNEXATION, AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE, AND THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE ME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION TO GO WITH IT.
TO ME, I REALLY NEED TO SEE DOCUMENTATION BEHIND THESE SECTIONS THAT ARE DEPICTED AS ONE OR THE OTHER.
THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE MIGHT BE FOR KATHERINE, AND THAT IS, IF TODAY, I GO ON COLLIN CAD AND I SEE THAT HALF OF THE ROAD IS CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.
HOW ARE TAXES PAID ON LAND THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A SECTION OF ROAD.
THERE'S LIKE TWO ACRES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, MAYBE.
A ROAD THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EITHER MAINTAINED BY US OR MAINTAINED BY LUCAS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES OF ROAD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN DONE WITH THE DITCHES ON THE SIDE OR THE EASEMENTS, IF YOU WILL.
HOW MANY ACRES OF ROAD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AND WHO'S PAYING TAXES ON IT TO WHAT MUNICIPALITY TODAY?
>> BECAUSE TO ME, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PLAT MAPS AND COLLIN CAD AND LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT WHEN I DID THE MAP AND I LOOKED AT THE PLAT MAPS IF I LOOK AT THE NORTH SECTION OF LOIS LANE, HALF OF IT DOWN THE CENTER ON THE WEST SIDE IS PARKERS AND ON THE EAST SIDE IS LUCAS.
IT GOES LIKE THAT ON THE WHOLE ROAD.
[03:40:02]
>> THAT'S THE YELLOW THAT HE HAS ON HAIR.
>> THAT DOESN'T EVEN MATCH COLLIN CAD BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE OVERRIDDEN WHAT IS ON COLLIN CAD.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHO'S PAYING TAXES TO WHICH MUNICIPALITY FOR EACH SECTION? THAT'S THE ULTIMATE QUESTION I'M TRYING TO ASK.
>> I WOULD GO BACK AND AGAIN, JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED OWNERSHIP DATES BACK, BASICALLY, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT IN 1991 BETWEEN LUCAS AND PARKER THAT HAD THIS EXACT PROPOSAL.
WAY BACK IN 1991, PARKER SAID, YES, WE'RE HAPPY WITH THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, LUCAS ANNEXED A PORTION ALONG LOIS LANE SOMEWHERE FROM THAT POINT ON, IT BECAME A FIGHT BETWEEN LUCAS AND PARKER AS TO WHO WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD.
THE RESULT OF IT IS TURNED INTO A DISASTER OF A ROAD.
THIS IS GOING BACK TO A 1991 AGREEMENT THAT THOSE CITIES AGREED UPON AND SAID, HEY, WE'LL JUST GO BACK AND DO WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
FORGET ALL THE IN FIGHTING BACK AND FORTH AND THE CHANGES OF ENGINEERS, ETC.
IF YOU GO BACK AND SAY GIVE ME INFORMATION ACROSS ALL THESE, THAT'S WHAT THESE TWO MUNICIPALITIES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO FOR TEAM YEARS, HAS TO COME UP WITH THE SUPPORT OF WHO HAS WHAT.
THE FACT THAT LUCAS AND PARKER SAID, WE THINK WE AGREE WITH THIS IS JUST AN AGREEMENT, I THINK, BETWEEN THEM, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN FOUGHT ABOUT FOR YEARS AS TO WHAT THIS DOCUMENTATION IS AND WHAT DATES BACK AND HOW IT WORKS, ETC.
WHILE WE PUSH NOW WE BECOME THE BARRIER BEING COUNCIL SAYING, HEY, WE WANT TO HAVE ALL THIS OTHER INFORMATION.
WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE ONCE AGREED IT'S LAID OUT.
WE LOSE PART OF LUCAS ROAD, WHICH IS FROM AN ANNEX.
CERTAINLY YOU CAN HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW YOU HOW THAT WORKS, BUT WE'RE NOW GOING TO BE THE ROADBLOCK TO GETTING THIS THING FIXED GOING AND SAYING I WANT TO START FROM GROUND ZERO AGAIN.
>> IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE PROPOSED OWNERSHIP WOULD GO BACK TO THE 1991 AGREEMENT, THEN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS SAY THAT ALL THESE ANNEXATIONS THAT CREATED THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP MAP, ACCORDING TO PARKER'S PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT LUCAS HAS ANNEXED A BUNCH OF STUFF THEREFORE, NOW THEY OWN THAT ROAD AND THE CURRENT MAP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO JUST GO BACK TO THE 1991 AGREEMENT.
>> BY THE SAME ASPECT WE'RE LOSING LUCAS ROAD AGAIN.
I KNOW YOU WANT TO SEPARATE THEM, BUT THEY CAN'T BE SEPARATED IS THAT WE ANNEXED PLACES ALONG LUCAS ROAD, WHICH IN THE SAME CASE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ARGUE THAT, WHICH IS A RIGHT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE LAW STATED.
WE OWN PARTS OF LUCAS ROAD, SO IT'S OUR MAINTENANCE OF LUCAS ROAD.
THIS BASICALLY SAYS, GO BACK TO 1991, AND LUCAS, YOU KEEP LUCAS ROAD, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT WE ANNEX LAND ALONG THAT ROAD.
>> IS LUCAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT ANY OF OUR ANNEXATIONS ALONG LUCAS ROAD?
>> YES AND FUTURE IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
>> THE KEY QUESTION I HAVE IS, THE PORTION ALONG LUCAS ROAD, IF YOU PROPORTION THAT OUT, WOULD WE BE GIVING HANDING MORE OVER TO THEM TO MANAGE ON LUCAS ROAD THAN THEY'RE GIVING TO US ON LOUIS ROAD.
>> LUCAS ROAD IS GOING TO BE A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE ROAD TO MAINTAIN.
>> YES. THEIR NUMBER, KATHERINE, DO YOU REMEMBER, WAS IT 21 MILLION? THEY SAID THE SECTION THAT WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDER UNDER THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THEY'RE GOING TO DO?
>> THAT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID.
>> YEAH. I'M NOT SURE HOW ACCURATE THAT NUMBER IS, BUT THAT'S THE NUMBER THEY THREW AT US.
>> IT'S PROBABLY ON THE HIGH SIDE.
BUT JUST THE LINEAR DISTANCE, YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, WE'RE GIVING AWAY MORE RESPONSIBILITY OR THEY'RE TAKING ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LINEAR FEET ON LUCAS ROAD, THEN THEY'RE GIVING UP ON LOUIS LENGTH?
>> I THINK SO. LOOKING AT THE MAP, I HAVEN'T MEASURED IT. IT LOOKS CLOSE.
>> NOW, ALL THAT SAID, I THINK, COUNCIL MEMBER NOW BRINGS UP A REALLY GOOD ISSUE ABOUT WHO'S GETTING THE TAX REVENUE OFF OF THE RIGHT AWAY ALONG THESE.
WE OUGHT TO FIND THAT OUT AND WHERE WE DRAW THE LINES, WE OUGHT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE TAX REVENUE FOR IT.
I THINK, UNLESS WE'RE GIVING UP MORE ON LUCAS ROAD AND TAX REVENUE.
[03:45:06]
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS.
I WANT TO SEE ALL OF IT BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT.
IT MIGHT TAKE TIME TO PUT THAT TOGETHER BUT BEFORE I CAN HAVE AN OPINION OR THOUGHT OR PROVIDE INPUT, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO NEED.
>> WHEN ARE THEY LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER FROM US? WHAT'S YOUR POSITION?
>> THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON A DRAFT FOR A WHILE NOW.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO DRAFT UP A LEGAL DOCUMENT?
>> THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DRAFT UP AND SUBMIT TO US FOR REVIEW.
>> OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE TONIGHT ANYWAY, THIS IS JUST WHERE IT'S HEADED.
AS LONG AS WE GET IT DOWN IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT WHERE WE KNOW WHO'S GOING TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY LONG TERM FOR.
>> ONCE WE GET THEIR DRAFT, WE'LL HAVE A MUCH BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE ACTUAL IS.
>> HOW LONG HAS THEIR DRAFT BEEN IN THE WORKS TIME FRAME?
>> WELL, WE'VE HAD SOME BACK AND FORTH.
I GUESS IT WAS THE WEEK OF CHRISTMAS.
WE GOT AN EMAIL ASKING US ABOUT SPEED AND WEIGHTS.
>> THEN WE GOT THAT INFORMATION BACK TO LUCAS ON SPEED AND WEIGHTS AND THEY SAID, FINE, WE'LL BE DRAFTING ILA.
>> BUT TO DRAFT SOMETHING, THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO DRAFT.
THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING WHAT ARE WE GOING TO WRITE IN OUR DRAFT AS TO WHO'S GOT WHAT.
OTHERWISE, IT'S LIKE A BUNCH OF WORDS WITH THE IMPORTANT SECTION BLANK.
>> WE'RE GOING TO NEED THIS LEVEL OF INFORMATION FOR LUCAS ROAD AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I THINK THAT WAS NOT JUST LOUIS, BUT LOUIS AND LUCAS TOGETHER.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE LINEAR FOOT OF EACH ONE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT AND WHERE THE DATA CAME TO MAKE THAT RIGHT.
OR TO WHATEVER THE PROPOSAL IS, I GUESS, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S COME TO.
>> IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS HELPING? I CAN MAKE YOU A COPY OF THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ALL THE STUFF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE WENT TO LUCAS.
IT AT LEAST HAS A FEW OF THE CLAIMS.
>> WE'RE BASICALLY ON HOLD UNTIL WE GET THE DRAFT, CORRECT?
>> WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ANYWAY.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR GARY ON THIS?
NOW WE WILL LEAVE UPDATES AND AND GO TO DONATIONS.
[11. 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 DONATIONS FOR POLICE FIRE AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.PAM AND ALAN TERRELL DONATED CRANBERRY BLISS BARS AND PECAN PIE BROWNIES VALUED AT $25 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BOBBY AND MICHELLE VARNER DONATED TOFFEE GIFT BOX, VALUED AT $70 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
ALYSSA AGUILAR DONATED BAKED CAKES VALUED AT $30 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
NEXT, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEND THAT TO ME WE ARE WORKING ON REVISING THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE SHOWN ON EVERY AGENDA THAT YOU GET.WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THOSE EASIER TO READ FOR YOU.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS TO
[EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH]
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CLAIM 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.TWO, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
[03:50:03]
ITEM NUMBER 3, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MANNER 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.
I HEREBY RECONVENE THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING. ]
IT IS 9:40 PM.COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY ITEMS, APPROPRIATE DELIBERATIONS ON ACTION ON ANY EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED?
>> OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
IT IS 9:41 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.