[00:00:02]
>> I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS JANUARY 21, 2025 AT 5:01 P.M. FIRST, I WILL ASK MISS SCOTT GRAY, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
[WORKSHOP]
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO INTO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL TIMES, PROBABLY, IN YOUR PACKET.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT.
SECTION 1.8, WHICH IS HEALTH MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FITNESS FOR DUTY.
ANY COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION FROM ANYONE? HOW ABOUT THE NEXT SECTION, SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION DISABILITIES?
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD WAS THE LINE ON THE VERY LAST LINE IN THE PARAGRAPH SAYS, WE'LL TREAT THEM CONSISTENTLY WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES. I'M NOT SURE.
>> SORRY, I'M STILL WORKING ON BRINGING THIS UP.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SAY YOU'RE NOT TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY BASED ON WHATEVER THAT IS.
>> I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CITY RECOGNIZES THAT EMPLOYEES WITH POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING AND OR INFECTIOUS ILLNESSES MAY WISH TO CONTINUE.
IF YOU'VE GOT AN INFECTIOUS ILLNESS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CITY WANTS YOU TO CONTINUE.
I GUESS I AM, BUDDY. THAT'S GOOD.
COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM, I GUESS I AM.
YEAH. MY CONCERN IS, I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO INFECT THE REST OF THE STAFF.
>> MAYBE I'M NOT REMEMBERING IT RIGHT, BUT I THOUGHT IN THE OTHER SECTION WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, ABOUT BEING DISMISSED AND ALL THAT.
>> MY EARS MAY BE TOO STOPPED UP FOR ME TO HEAR ANYTHING.
>> THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH HAS THE THING ABOUT NOT CREATING UNDUE HARDSHIP ON OTHER EMPLOYEES AND THAT THEIR CONDITION IS NOT A DIRECT THREAT TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
>> OKAY. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
>> THEN MOVING ON TO MEDICAL EXAMS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE AMENDED TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR AN EMPLOYEE'S DEPARTMENT HEAD WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN RESOURCES, OR CITY ATTORNEY MAY REQUIRE.
I THINK WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING COVERED.
[00:05:02]
>> YOU'RE SAYING OR ON ANY OF THOSE?
>> YEAH, THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR AN EMPLOYEE'S DEPARTMENT HEAD WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN RESOURCES, OR THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY REQUIRE.
IT WILL BE ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE.
>> I THINK THAT'S FINE. IT COVERS YOU AND IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE.
>> I'M GOOD. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENED.
>> NOT ONLY THAT. ON WORKMAN'S COMP, SOMETIMES IT HAS TO COME FROM HUMAN RESOURCES AND NOT FROM A PERSON'S DEPARTMENT HEAD.
IT MAY HAVE CITY ATTORNEY INVOLVED ON THAT DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.
>> LET ME GO BACK ON THAT FOR A SECOND.
THE CITY ATTORNEY, I'M QUESTIONING THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT BASICALLY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE HR PERSON IS OVER THE STAFF.
CITY ATTORNEY ISN'T, AND CITY ATTORNEY COULD GIVE THEIR THOUGHTS TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR HR, AND THEN THOSE TWO PEOPLE WOULD MAKE THE DETERMINATION.
BUT I THINK COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY SEEMS A BIT STRANGE PERHAPS.
>> I GUESS I WAS THINKING THE CITY ATTORNEY TELLING HR FOR WORKMAN'S COMP OR WHATEVER, WE NEED THIS, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
>> COMING REALLY FROM HR WITH THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THE ATTORNEY OUGHT TO BE AN ADVISOR, NOT A DECISION MAKER.
>> NOT A DECISION MAKER IN LIEU OF STAFF.
>> DO YOU WANT THAT WRITTEN OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT AS CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR HUMAN RESOURCES?
>> OKAY. UNDER THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, I HAVE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN RESOURCES OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR MAY REQUIRE.
>> I WOULD JUST HAVE A QUESTION, I GUESS.
CURRENTLY, IT USED TO BE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WAS LAW BACK THEN EITHER, BUT IT USED TO BE HR WAS REALLY THE ONLY PERSON THAT GOT THE INFORMATION OF WHAT SOMEBODY'S CONDITION WAS, AND IT REALLY WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITHIN THE COMPANY THAT HAD ACCESS TO IT.
>> WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS THAT INFORMATION LIKE THAT, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK IT'S COVERED UNDER HIPAA AND IT'S NOT, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT.
BUT IT'S STILL WHAT WE CONSIDER CONFIDENTIAL.
THERE'S A COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THAT SORT OF THING.
ALL MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE KEPT IN A SEPARATE FILE IN HR, NOT IN THE EMPLOYEE'S PERSONNEL FILE.
MEDICAL INFORMATION IS TYPICALLY ONLY SHARED IF THERE'S A NEED TO SHARE IT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE TELLING A SUPERVISOR LIKE, THIS PERSON HAS THESE LIMITATIONS.
YOU'RE NOT GIVING THEM THE DIAGNOSIS.
YOU'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT PART OF IT BY SAYING THIS PERSON CAN'T LIFT MORE THAN TEN POUNDS FOR X PERIOD OF TIME, THAT SORT OF THING.
IT'S ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS, AND YES, IT IS KEPT IN HR.
IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR, IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, A CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO BE AWARE OF IT, ESPECIALLY IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN LOOPED INTO THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW DOES OUR POLICY APPLY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
>> THE SITUATION BEFORE WHERE THE CEO OR WHATEVER HAS KNOWLEDGE OF IT, BUT THEY TYPICALLY GET THAT KNOWLEDGE FROM HR BECAUSE HR IS REALLY THE ONE IN CHARGE OF IDENTIFYING PER LAW WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T PROVIDE.
THIS PARTICULAR DEAL SAYS THAT THEY MAY REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO PROVIDE, MEANING THAT IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE EMPLOYEE TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
I'M ASKING SHOULD THAT BE REWORDED BASICALLY TO SAY THAT IF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR WANTS TO ASK FOR IT, THEY'RE GOING TO GO ASK HR, NOT THE EMPLOYEE.
>> I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS WRITTEN WITH THE THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON SERVING AS HR,
[00:10:05]
IF THAT POSITION IS VACANT OR THEY'RE UNAVAILABLE, THAT YOU HAVE A BACKUP FOR IT.THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT.
YOU COULD WRITE A CATCH-ALL PROVISION IN THE POLICY TO SAY IF HUMAN RESOURCES POSITION IS VACANT OR THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THEN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR SERVES AS THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT.
BUT CERTAINLY, IT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT MAYBE THEN IF IT'S NOT GETTING IN FROM HR AND HR IS NOT PRESENT, THEN MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I WOULD JUST BE WORRISOME THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS ASKING FOR INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN'T GET FROM THE EMPLOYEE AND IT SAYS IN HERE THAT, HEY, THERE GOING TO BE SITUATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT GET ASKED FOR IT FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY WORDS OF WISDOM ON THAT, LARRY?
>> LUCKILY, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE THAT'S COME UP, BUT I'M GOOD WITH YOU EITHER ONE THERE.
>> I THINK RANDY RAISES A GOOD POINT.
>> HOW ABOUT IF WE HAVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR CAN REQUIRE IT, BUT THEY'RE REQUIRING THE EMPLOYEE TO PROVIDE THAT TO HUMAN RESOURCES? SO THE DIRECTIVE COULD COME FROM THEM. YOU'RE NOT LOVING THAT.
>> WE HAVE HAD THIS COME UP, BUT IT WAS IN A POLICE CONTEXT WHERE WE HAD A PERSON THAT WAS ON WORKMAN'S COMP, AND I BELIEVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DID.
WAS IT HR THAT TOLD THE INDIVIDUAL TO GET ANOTHER DOCTOR'S STATEMENT, OR WAS IT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, OR WAS IT CHIEF PRICE?
>> YEAH. I WAS THINKING THROUGH THAT WHEN YOU ALL WERE TALKING.
MAYBE NOT CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO THAT POINT, ALMOST DEPARTMENT HEAD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIFTING MORE THAN 10 POUNDS OR SOMETHING, I WOULD THINK THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WOULD NEED TO KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN AN INJURY, IF THEY'VE BEEN CLEARED TO BE ABLE TO LIFT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WEIGHT BEFORE THEY GO BACK TO WORK.
WOULD THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ASK HR TO PULL THAT INFORMATION FOR THEM OR REQUEST THAT INFORMATION?
>> I'M SORRY. YOU'RE ASKING IF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WOULD ASK HR FOR?
>> AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT PERSON TO GO BACK TO WORK.
>> OR TO BE ABLE TO LIFT OVER 10 POUNDS.
>> YEAH, FULL DUTY OR OR THE OTHER WAY TOO, I GUESS. EITHER WAY.
>> TYPICALLY, GOING TO JUST REQUIRE THAT AN EMPLOYEE PROVIDE A RELEASE TO DUTY IN ORDER TO COME BACK TO WORK, AND THAT RELEASE TO DUTY WILL INCLUDE ANY RESTRICTIONS THEY MAY HAVE.
THE CITY DOESN'T NORMALLY HAVE TO SAY, HEY, HOW MUCH CAN THIS PERSON LIFT? THEY'RE NORMALLY GOING TO SAY, HERE'S THE JOB DESCRIPTION, IF THEY HAVE A FULL RELEASE TO DUTY, THEN THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN LIFT.
IF THEY'VE PLACED RESTRICTIONS ON IT, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HR WOULD RECEIVE AND THEN CONVEY TO THE DEPARTMENT, HEY, THIS PERSON HAS THESE RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S WHEN YOU NORMALLY GET INTO A CONVERSATION TOO ABOUT IF THAT'S AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE JOB, THAT THEY LIFT 50 POUNDS, AND THAT'S 60% OF THEIR JOB, DO YOU HAVE A LIGHT DUTY ASSIGNMENT THAT THIS PERSON CAN WORK IN? THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO THAT ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
I'M ACTUALLY TRYING TO THINK OF A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY APPLY TO, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE MEDICAL EXAMS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IF SOMEONE IS REQUESTING AN ACCOMMODATION, THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION.
>> WELL, THE EXAMPLE WHAT I WAS THINKING OF IS, IF, FOR INSTANCE, GARY OR MAYBE CHIEF PRICE NOTICED ONE OF HIS EMPLOYEES WITH A LIMP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND SAID, ARE YOU OKAY? THEY'RE CONTINUING TO LIMP. THAT YOU TELL SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THEM, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO PUSH THROUGH IT, AND THEY WANT TO REQUEST MEDICAL RECORDS OR SOMETHING.
[00:15:03]
>> BUT THAT'S THE PARAGRAPH RIGHT ABOVE IT, WHERE IT HAS FITNESS FOR DUTY IN IT.
>> HOW ABOUT I MARK THIS SECTION WITH A QUESTION MARK, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE USED FOR THAT'S NOT COVERED ELSEWHERE.
WHEN I GO BACK THROUGH ALL OF IT, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS IT ON THE HERE ARE THE CHANGES.
>> YEAH. THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF IS I'M THINKING THE OPPOSITE LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WHERE THEY COME BACK TO DUTY.
IF THEY GET INFORMATION FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S DOCTOR THAT SAYS THAT, HEY, I'M NOT REALLY CLEARED YET, EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN ON THE MEND FOR HOWEVER MANY DAYS.
THAT'S WHERE I'M ALMOST THINKING LIKE, IT COULD BE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THAT DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHO THEY'RE DIRECTLY INTERFACING WITH AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO DO IT THROUGH MULTIPLE PARTIES, BUT THE GOAL OF IT JUST SEEMS TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, I DON'T KNOW.
>> WHILE WE'RE ON THAT SUBJECT, I'D HAVE THE QUESTION IS, ON THAT WORKERS COMP, I DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT SITUATION.
IF SOMEONE HAS A WORKER COMP TYPE OF INJURY, OBVIOUSLY, WE TRY AND GET THEM WHATEVER MEDICAL ATTENTION WE CAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
IS THERE SUCH THING AS A COMPANY OR CITY DOCTOR?
>> YEAH, WE HAVE A LIST THAT TML REQUIRES YOU TO GO SEE.
ACTUALLY, WHENEVER YOU GET HIRED, YOU HAVE TO SIGN A FORM SAYING THAT YOU'LL GO TO ONE OF THESE DOCTORS.
IF NOT, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT OUT OF POCKET AT YOUR OWN COST.
WE DO HAVE A LIST OF PREFERRED DOCTORS THAT ARE UNDER CONTRACT, AND ONE OF THEM IS JUST RIGHT UP THE STREET.
IT'S THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM TO GO TO ANYHOW, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD GO FIRST.
FIRST REPORT OF INJURY, THEY WOULD GO THERE.
>> PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE A LOT OF DOCTORS ARE NOT GOING TO SEE COMP ANYMORE.
>> I SEE THAT. I'LL CHANGE THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE RETURN TO WORK AND FITNESS FOR DUTY.
IT SAYS, THE EMPLOYEE MUST COORDINATE HIS OR HER RETURN, AND IT SAYS THROUGH CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND I THINK YOU'LL WANT IT TO BE HUMAN RESOURCES.
>> AND THE OTHER ISSUE I CAN SEE THERE IS THAT OTHER PARAGRAPH THAT WE HAVE NOW.
IF THIS IS THERE, THEN MY CONCERN OF THAT GOES AWAY.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT MEDICAL RECORDS ARE KEPT BY HUMAN RESOURCES, IF ANYBODY IN THE CITY.
THAT SHOULD BE THEIR FUNCTION.
I DON'T THINK EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD OR.
UNDER RETURN TO WORK, IT'S OPEN.
AN EMPLOYEE WHO MISSES WORK DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FITNESS FOR DUTY CERTIFICATION BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK.
WELL, WHO DOES HE PROVIDE THAT TO? HIS DEPARTMENT HEAD, HUMAN RESOURCES.
[00:20:03]
>> THE SECRETARY THAT'S CLOSE BY?
>> I THINK HR BECAUSE THAT'S THE RIGHT CLEARING HOUSE FOR ALL THAT.
>> ARE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT IN HERE JUST TO GIVE THE CITY COVER IF WE WANT TO REQUIRE THAT OF SOMEBODY, IS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY? BECAUSE WE GOT SO MUCH STUFF IN HERE THAT ARE, I DON'T KNOW.
I WONDER SOMETIMES IF WE NEED TO HAVE THIS MUCH IN HERE.
>> IT'S LIKE THE LARGE SECTION IN THERE ON GINA, WHERE YOU HAVE THESE LAWS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SAY IT, YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S MORE GENERIC TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS.
WE COULD STREAMLINE IT PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT IN THAT RESPECT.
>> I WOULD SURE BE IN FAVOR OF THAT, IF WE COULD, WHICH BY THE WAY, THAT BRINGS UP ANOTHER THOUGHT I HAD ABOUT COMPLYING WITH ALL THE OTHER LAWS.
THIS IS GOING BACKWARDS A LITTLE BIT.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
THE GENDER IDENTITY THING, GIVEN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS JUST SIGNED THAT CONFIRMS THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO SEXES, MALE AND FEMALE, AND THAT'S ALL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO RECOGNIZE.
DOES THAT NEED TO CHANGE OR IMPACT ANYTHING THAT WE'VE GOT IN HERE?
>> THAT WAS A CREATION IN SUPREME COURT.
YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO SAY THAT.
THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT A LOT OF CITIES HAVE GONE, BUT THE GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE DERIVATIVE OF SEX UNDER TITLE 7.
THAT'S WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID.
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX INCLUDES DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER IDENTITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO SPELL THOSE THINGS OUT.
THAT'S BEEN THE CUSTOM FOR AT A LOT OF CITIES AND I THINK A LOT OF EMPLOYERS GENERALLY TO SAY, OH, WE RECOGNIZE THE LAW HAS CHANGED AND WE KNOW THAT, SO WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT.
IF YOU SAID, BECAUSE THE COURTS COULD ALWAYS COME ALONG AND IDENTIFY A DIFFERENT PROTECTED CATEGORY, AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, AND WE HAVE THOSE CATCH ALL PROVISIONS IN THERE SO DO YOU HAVE TO SPELL OUT EVERYTHING? NO, I DON'T THINK YOU DO.
YOU COULD JUST GO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROTECTIONS OF TITLE 7.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. STILL MEANS WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHATEVER LAWS IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
>> GOING TO YOUR OTHER POINT, WE COULD DO, IN ESSENCE, BASICALLY, TWO DIFFERENT MANUALS.
ONE IS JUST SIMPLY THE POLICIES.
THESE ARE THE POLICIES OF THE CITY.
A SECOND MANUAL, IF YOU WILL, IS PROCEDURES IF YOU'RE OUT FOR ANY REASON, YOU HAVE TO BRING A CERTIFICATION TO RETURN TO WORK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, WHERE IT'S MORE DETAILED.
WHICH WOULD KEEP THE POLICY PART MUCH SMALLER, VERY STREAMLINED AND MAKE THE PROCEDURE PART MORE DETAILED, BUT IT'S ALSO EASIER TO CHANGE, AND WHAT WILL CHANGE OVER TIME IS THE PROCEDURES, NOT REALLY THE INDIVIDUAL POLICIES.
>> THE ONLY CAVEAT TO THAT OR MAYBE ANTITHESIS TO THAT IS THAT THEN YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE OTHER DOCUMENT VERY OFTEN AND MAYBE THIS WOULD FORCE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE AS THE PROCEDURES CHANGE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BIG PART OF THE DOCUMENT ANYWAY.
THE OTHER PART OF IT WON'T ADD THAT MUCH TO IT, AND IF YOU HAVE HA TO GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURAL STUFF ALL THE TIME, MAYBE IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT ALL LUMPED TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE DISCUSSED THAT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF HAVING THEM ALL IN ONE.
IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ROUND ZERO AND START ALL OVER ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE SO EVERY HOUR WE PUT INTO THIS HAS BEEN FOR NAUGHT.
>> ON THAT RETURN TO WORK, IT SHOULD SAY BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK FOLLOWING A COMPANY MANDATED MEDICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION.
OTHERWISE, THERE'S A LOT OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS I GET YEARLY, I HAVE TO THEN WORK THROUGH A RETURN TO WORK?
>> I THINK IT JUST COVERS IT THAT IT'S UNDER THE POLICY WHERE IT SAYS.
>> IT SAYS THIS POLICY WHICH IS WHAT?
>> THE PERSONNEL POLICY OR THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.
>> DO WE SAY THAT, MAYBE? MAYBE THAT'S A WAY RATHER THAN SAYING THIS,
[00:25:03]
WHY DON'T WE BE MORE SPECIFIC AND SAYING UNDER PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE MANUAL POLICY, THEN THAT ENCOMPASSES IT.>> UNDER RETURN TO WORK FITNESS FOR DUTY.
BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK FOLLOWING A MEDICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION UNDER THIS POLICY RATHER THAN SAYING THIS, MAYBE YOU SPELL IT OUT.
>> WELL, WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY WENT TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION BECAUSE OF SOMETHING UNDER THE POLICY.
IS THAT WHAT IT'S SAYING? YEAH, I THINK THAT'D BE CLARIFIED, SOMEHOW.
>> I THINK ON THAT ONE, IF WORKMAN'S COMP IS INVOLVED, I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE TO LET HR BE INVOLVED.
>> I THINK WE HAVE THAT THEN HAS TO COORDINATE THROUGH HUMAN RESOURCES.
>> I JUST PUT HR ON ALMOST EVERYTHING.
I DON'T THINK WHEREVER WE GOT THIS, THEY MUST HAVE HAD A HR PERSON THAT ONE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT SAYS, IF YOU ARE RETURNING TO WORK FOR MEDICAL REASONS, BUT THEY NEVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM.
[LAUGHTER] LIKE I SAID, I FOUND THAT ODD.
MAYBE I NEED A CERTIFICATE THAT SAYS I'M NOT CRAZY TO COME BACK TO WORK.
>> MAYOR, I WONDER IF WE SHOULD JUST GET RID OF MEDICAL AND OR PSYCHOLOGICAL AND JUST SAY FOLLOWING AN EXAMINATION AS A RESULT OF THIS POLICY OR SOMETHING.
>> I JUST TAKE OUT MEDICAL REASONS AND MAKE IT FOR BOTH.
BECAUSE IF WE SEND SOMEBODY FOR A PSYCHOLOGICAL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED SOMETHING.
>> MY SUGGESTION WOULD JUST GET RID OF MEDICAL AND OR PSYCHOLOGICAL AND JUST SAY, HAD TO HAVE AN EXAMINATION UNDER WHATEVER REASON WE HAD TO HAVE THEM HAVE EXAMINATION UNDER THIS POLICY.
>> MAYBE WE CAN SAY ANY CONDITION TO NOT ALLOW THE PERSON TO BE FIT FOR POSITION.
>> ON SECTION 1.9, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
>> BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, THE TIME OFF FROM WORK RIGHT AFTER THAT.
MY ONLY QUESTION ON TIME OFF FROM WORK, WHICH IS BEFORE SECTION 1.9 IS THAT IT SAYS TALKS ABOUT A CITY MANDATED FITNESS.
I KNOW THE SECOND SECTION SAYS IT MAY BE CHANGED TO CHARGE A SICK OR VACATION AND MAYBE THAT'S HAS TO DO WITH SOME POTENTIAL FRAUDULENT DEAL OR SOMETHING,
[00:30:04]
BUT TO ME, IF IT'S A CITY MANDATED, THEY HAD TO GO TO IT, THEN I CAN'T SEE SOMEHOW I'M GOING TO CHARGE THEM THEIR VACATION TIME IF I TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO GO.>> ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GET TO AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES? HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES WITH THE LAW ON ADA?
>> NOT BIG CHANGES RECENTLY, NOT ANY STATUTORY CHANGES.
>> BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS ADDING THE HUMAN RESOURCES, THE LAST TWO.
>> THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING, CATHERINE, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS AN ACTUAL DEFINED LEGAL TERM OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> THE WAY THE ADA WORKS, WHEN SOMEBODY REQUESTS AN ACCOMMODATION, THEN YOU ENTER INTO WHAT IS CALLED THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WHERE YOU GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN HR AND THE EMPLOYEE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE EMPLOYEE WILL REQUEST SOMETHING SPECIFIC FOR A SPECIFIC CONDITION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS TO GO THAT ROUTE.
THERE MAY BE AN ACCOMMODATION THAT WORKS BETTER.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY REQUEST, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT'S REASONABLE AND WHAT'S MOST EFFECTIVE FOR THE ORGANIZATION THAT SATISFIES THE NEEDED ACCOMMODATION, THE LIMITATION.
YES, THERE'S A LOT THERE THAT JUST BECOMES GRANT'S PROBLEM.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS OR ADD INTO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES?
>> I'M SORRY TO SLOW UP THE PROCESS, BUT JUST CURIOSITY.
I NEVER HEARD OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AS AMENDED, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S TWO OF THEM NOW THERE'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE AS AMENDED.
>> IT'S A LITTLE BIT FUNKY, BUT WE STILL JUST CALL IT THE ADA.
THERE USED TO BE A JOKE THAT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAD NEVER FOUND A DISABLED PERSON BECAUSE THE WAY THEY INTERPRETED IT THERE WAS THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AS AMENDED CHANGED THE WAY IT DEFINED MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A DISABILITY IS DEFINED AS AN IMPAIRMENT OF A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY SO THAT'S WHERE WE HAD THOSE CHANGES.
I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS AROUND 2008.
BUT GENERALLY, WE STILL REFER TO ALL OF IT UNDER THE CATCH ALL OF ADA.
>> ARE WE READY TO GO TO MODIFIED DUTY ASSIGNMENTS?
I HAVE A QUESTION. MAYBE I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING IT.
IS THE TERM WHERE IT SAYS HERE A MODIFIED DUTY ASSIGNMENT MAYBE IN THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN OR ANOTHER DEPARTMENT? WHERE ELSE WOULD IT BE?
>> LIKE IF IT'S SOMEBODY WHO'S IN PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY CAN'T LIFT HEAVY THINGS, MAYBE THEY GO AND HELP THE CITY SECRETARY OR THEY WORK IN THE OFFICE, THAT SORT OF THING.
>> IT JUST SOUNDS FUNKY, SAY THEY COULD BE ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER DUTY.
>> BELONG TO THE CITY OF LUCAS. [LAUGHTER]
>> NOT ANOTHER CITY JUST A DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY.
>> IF WE DEFINE CITY PREVIOUSLY, WHERE IT SAYS, DECISION TO OFFER AN EMPLOYEE MODIFIED DUTY ASSIGNMENT IS MADE BY THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION.
>> THAT'S WHERE I THINK LAST TIME WE SAID THAT WE WOULD GO BACK AND PUT A CATCH ALL DEFINITION OF CITY AND HOW IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITHIN THE POLICIES SO THAT IT COVERS THAT.
I HAVEN'T WRITTEN THAT YET, BUT THERE'S A PEN STUCK IN IT.
[00:35:12]
> AGAIN, ON THE PARAGRAPH RIGHT BEFORE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THAT STARS MODIFIED I WOULD ADD HUMAN RESOURCES.BUT YOU SAW THAT WITH [LAUGHTER].
AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS RELEASED FOR AND OFFERED MODIFIED DUTY BY THE CITY, BUT WHO ELECTS NOT TO ACCEPT SUCH WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR LEAVE BENEFITS.
DOES THAT MEAN IF THEY HAVE ACCRUED BENEFITS, THEY CANNOT HAVE THEM, OR DOES THAT MEAN THEY JUST DON'T ACCRUE BENEFITS DURING THIS PERIOD?
>> WHAT HAVE YOU ALL DONE HISTORICALLY, GRANT? HAVE YOU HAD THAT SITUATION? BECAUSE NORMALLY, WE SEE THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF WORKERS COMPENSATION IF SALARY CONTINUATION BENEFITS ARE OFFERED.
DO WE DO SALARY CONTINUATION? > UNDER WORKERS COMP.
>> WE HAVE NOT HAD THIS SITUATION YET.
WE'VE ALWAYS HAD LOT DUTY AVAILABLE, AND THEY'VE ALWAYS ACCEPTED THE LOT DUTY WHEN THEY WERE HURT, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE THEY DIDN'T.
>> I WOULD ALSO ADD HUMAN RESOURCES TO THAT PARAGRAPH. I'M NOT REAL SURE WHERE.
>> TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE LEAVE, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS ON WORKERS COMPENSATION, THEY GENERALLY RECEIVE TEMPORARY INCOME BENEFITS, WHICH WE REFER TO AS TIBS.
IT USUALLY IS AROUND 70%, AND SOMETIMES IT'S LESS THAN THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'RE MAKING, BUT IT DOESN'T REPRESENT THEIR ENTIRE SALARY.
SOME CITIES HAVE SALARY CONTINUATION BENEFITS WHERE THE CITY PAYS THE DIFFERENCE.
OFTEN TIMES THEY'RE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR LEAVE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.
WHAT THAT'S SAYING HERE IS THAT IF YOU DON'T TAKE THE MODIFIED DUTY, YOU CAN'T USE YOUR LEAVE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIBS AND YOUR REGULAR FULL PAY.
>> AND WHEN YOU SAY SALARY IS THAT GOOD FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES ALSO?
>> YES, IT'S NOT REALLY SALARY.
YOU CAN HAVE NON EXEMPT EMPLOYEES PAID ON A SALARY BASIS, WHICH IS A DIFFICULT PAYROLL CALCULATION, AND I DON'T RECOMMEND IT, BUT YOU CAN.
>> ARE WE READY TO GET TO SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY?
>> ONE, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WRITTEN SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY.
COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED IT IN PLANNING SESSION.
WE HAVE AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT, IF YOU WILL.
[00:40:03]
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT AFFECTS THIS OR NOT.>> THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THERE WAS RECENTLY A CHANGE TO THE LAW AND NOW GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE REQUIRED TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF TIKTOK ON GOVERNMENT OWNED DEVICES.
IT'S NOT LIMITED TO JUST TIKTOK.
YOU HAVE TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT SAYS THIS, AND IT ALSO INCLUDES ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE GOVERNOR ADDS TO THE LIST IF PROHIBITED SOFTWARE.
>> THEN THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE ON THE TERM HERE WHERE IT SAYS, SOCIAL MEDIA BOTH ON OR OFF DUTY, THE OFF DUTY STUFF.
THERE'S OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY COMES IN AND THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT IS CONFLICTING THE POLICIES OF THE CITY IS A PROBLEM.
I GET THAT THAT ONE MAKES SENSE.
THE ONE THAT I WONDER ABOUT IS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS ON CERTAIN THINGS AND THEY ARE ON THERE, NOBODY SEES IT.
HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT AND LOOK AT THAT AS IT'S INTERFERING OR NOT INTERFERING?
>> WE GENERALLY LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF, DID YOU DID YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A CITY EMPLOYEE? ARE YOU IN A CITY UNIFORM, THAT THING.
SOME AGENCIES HAVE VERY STRICT POLICIES ABOUT POSTING ANY PICTURES OF THEIR LOGO.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THAT YOU'RE ON YOUR FREE TIME AND YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING, BUT THAT THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO MEASURE UNLESS IT GOT TO SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY SUPER INFLAMMATORY IN SOME WAY.
>> IF IT'S ON YOUR FREE TIME, YOU'RE NOT IDENTIFYING YOURSELF AS A CITY EMPLOYEE, IT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE LIMITED TO SOMETHING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE ENGAGING IN HARASSMENT OF A PERSON THAT YOU KNOW BECAUSE OF YOUR WORK, THEN THAT COULD IMPLICATE WORK.
BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TYPICAL.
>> I ALSO SAID THAT MAYBE YOU HAVE THIS LAUNDRY LIST AND THEN ETC SO THAT IT CAPTURES OTHER LIKE ITEMS. BY HAVING THAT, ETC THERE.
THEN IT SAYS THREATS, BLOGS, AND ONLINE JOURNALS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
I WOULD JUST INCORPORATE ALL THOSE.
>> WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY IS, WHO THE HECK IS GOING TO MONITOR ALL OF THESE? [LAUGHTER]. OKAY, BUDDY, YOU GET TO GO HOME AND WATCH YOU TUBE.
[LAUGHTER] THAT WOULD BE A FULL TIME JOB.
>> HOW MANY HOW MANY EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY HAVE ACCESS TO THE CITY'S INTERNET TO BE ABLE TO POST OR CONTROL ANY CONTENT ON IT?
>> PATTY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE AT THIS TIME THAT CAN POST ON THE WEB OR OUR INTERNET, WHICH IS YOURSELF AND ROBIN.
>> PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE.
>> OTHER WAY, I JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON IT YESTERDAY AND I NOTICED THAT WE STILL HAVE CHIEF SEIF LISTED AS OUR FIRE CHIEF ON OUR WEBSITE,
[00:45:01]
SO WE NEED TO GET THAT UPDATED TOO, OUR FIRE CHIEF.THAT STUFF IS SLOW AND GOING AWAY.
ANYTIME ON THE WEBSITE, YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT IS OUT OF DATE, OFF, WHATEVER, EITHER LET MYSELF OR PATTY KNOW, AND WE WILL TRY TO MAKE SURE IT'S TAKEN CARE OF.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE A BIT HIGHER PRIORITY SOMETIMES.
IT SAYS THE CITY PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM FOR EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS THROUGH THE GENERAL COMPLAINT AND GRIEVANCE POLICY.
>> I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY, BUT I EXPECT THAT IT IS.
>> BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THAT IS.
>> I THINK THIS IS PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE.
>> I HAVE ON PAGE 18 AT THE VERY TOP, EMPLOYEES MUST OBTAIN WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO TO UPDATE OR POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND ALL CONTENT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO POSTING.
TO ME, IF IT'S A PART OF YOUR JOB THAT YOU DO THE POSTING, YOU YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
>> HOWEVER, WOULD YOU NOT BY DEFAULT, HAVE AUTHORIZATION ON THAT IF THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB, IF THAT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, WOULD THAT BE ALREADY REALLY BEING APPROVED FROM THAT PERSON?
>> WELL, I'M STILL IN A LITTLE BIT OF SHOCK WHEN GRANT SAID THAT WE HAD ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE POSTING.
WHAT WOULD MICHELLE BE POSTING?
>> THE PD PLOTTER, THAT LIST ALL THE ADDRESSES OF WHERE THEY HAD CALLS THAT DURING THAT WEEK.
>> I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS WE NEED A LIST OF WHO ALL IS AUTHORIZED POST, AND THEN WE MAY NEED TO INCORPORATE SOME JOB DESCRIPTION OR PUT THAT IN.
>> WHEN THE THE WEBSITE FOLKS CAME OUT OR DID THAT TRAINING, I THINK THEY GAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT PEOPLE'S USAGE TO CERTAIN AREAS ON THE WEBSITE.
MICHELLE MIGHT BE ONLY LIMITED TO WORK ON THE POLICE PAGE OR SOMETHING.
I THINK THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND THAT WAS SET UP, AND I THINK ROBIN AND MAYBE LAURIE HAVE THAT ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THAT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THAT.
>> TO THE CONTACT OR IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I DEAL WITH WHEN I NEED SOMETHING POSTED.
WHEN I NEED SOMETHING POSTED, I EITHER GO TO PATTY OR TO ROBY.
I THOUGHT THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO OTHER THAN WHEN LUKE WAS HERE, HE OBVIOUS LUKE POST.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS IS GETTING MORE INTO A JOB DESCRIPTION THAN IT IS, PERSONNEL POLICIES BECAUSE WE OUGHT TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO POST ON THE WEBSITE.
MAYBE ANYTHING OR MAYBE JUST ON CERTAIN AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY HAVE, BUT YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO POST, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO POST, AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD POST.
I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING TO SEE WHY THIS SECTION'S EVEN NECESSARY.
[00:50:06]
HOW WOULD SOMEBODY ELSE EVEN GET AUTHORIZATION TO POST ON THE WEBSITE IF THEY'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO POST ON THE WEBSITE?>> WHAT IF WE JUST DELETED THIS SET OF BULLETS, LEFT THE VERY TOP PART?
>> WITH THE CITY'S GUIDELINES AND ONLY BE DONE BY PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO POST?
>> NOW ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS THAT AND MAYBE I'M LOOKING AT THIS THE WRONG WAY, BUT WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH IT, I WAS LOOKING AT IT IN TERMS OF POSTING ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL SITES ALSO BECAUSE SOME OF IT IS TALKING ABOUT OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE POSTING ON WORK TIME AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING, BUT ON YOUR OWN.
BUT IS ANY OF THIS ENCOMPASSING TO YOUR ON SITE IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S DEROGATORY? I'VE SEEN SO MANY, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING IN EVERY CASE THAT IT'S WARRANTED, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF CASES WHERE SOME OF THESE IDEAS ARE ARE VERY CONFLICTING TO MAYBE POLICIES OF A COMPANY OR CITY ADMINISTRATIVE, AND THEN THEN POSTING THAT AND THAT GETTING PICKED UP, YOU'RE GOING NO, WAIT A MINUTE, HERE
>> I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT REFERS TO THE INTERNET AND WHAT I THINK THEY MEAN IS THE CITY'S WEBSITE WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THAT SO I THINK CHANGING THAT FROM INTERNET TO CITY'S WEBSITE ADDRESSES THAT AND TAKES IT OUT OF THAT CONTEXT.
>> BUT HOW ABOUT DOWN HERE WHERE IT SAYS, EMPLOYEE GUIDELINES, USE A PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA, THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ON THERE BECAUSE THAT'S SEPARATE, RIGHT?
>> GRANT, DOES THE CITY HAVE IN TRENT THAT YOU USE?
>> WE MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO GET ALL THROUGH THE PERSONAL THING, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE GUIDELINES OF SOCIAL MEDIA, NOT A WORK TIME, ETC.
THE VERY LAST ONE AND I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT, BUT IT SAYS DID NOT PERMIT OR FAIL TO REMOVE POSTINGS VIOLATING THIS POLICY EVEN WHEN PLACED BY OTHERS ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA SITE.
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT? HOW CAN YOU EVEN ENFORCE THAT? LIKE SOMEBODY SAYS, OH, SOMEONE ELSE DID THAT, WELL IT'S ON YOUR SITE, SO IT'S YOURS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE KIND OF SAYING?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S ADDRESSED TO SO IT'S A COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S LARGELY FACEBOOK, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU I'M REALLY THAT EXPERT ON SOCIAL MEDIA MYSELF.
BUT WHEN YOU'VE POSTED SOMETHING AND SOMEONE MAKES A COMMENT ON YOUR PAGE ON YOUR POST, THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT AND ADDRESS IT IF IT'S ON YOUR PAGE.
YOU GET A NOTIFICATION, EVERY TIME SOMEBODY DOES IT OR SOMEBODY TAGS YOU IN ANOTHER POST, AND THAT WILL SHOW UP ON YOUR PAGE IN FACEBOOK.
I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HOW INSTAGRAM WORKS.
I'M LOOKING AT GRANT LIKE HE WOULD KNOW.
WE WE POSTED WHEN CHIEF PRICE WAS PROMOTED TO BE CHIEF.
WE DID A PICTURE OF HIM IN HIS UNIFORM ON SOCIAL MEDIA TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW.
NOW, TECHNICALLY, I GUESS THAT VIOLATED THE THIRD BOTTOM THAT SAID, DO NOT POST PICTURES.
>> WELL, THAT'S ON THEIR PERSONAL SITE.
DO YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT BULLET POINT ABOUT DO NOT PERMIT OR FAIL TO REMOVE?
>> YEAH. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT YOU COULD REALLY ENFORCE THAT AT ALL.
I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE IS PRETTY RESTRICTIVE TO SAY WHAT THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IN THIS, AND I THINK THAT ONE THERE JUST MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO.
[00:55:04]
IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE SAYING YEAH, AMEN AND THEY HAVE SOME REALLY WEIRD IDEA THAT GOES AGAINST ANYTHING THAT THE CITY IS STANDING FOR.I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO VIOLATE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT ONE PERSON PUTTING SOMETHING ON THERE OR FORWARDING IT OR LIKING IT OR WHATEVER THAT IT IS THAT HAPPENS IS GOING TO MAKE A FLIP OF DIFFERENCE.
>> AT THIS TIME I'M GETTING READY TO CLOSE THE WORKSHOP BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO GIVE ME ONE MINUTE TO GET OVER HERE.
IT IS 5:57 PM ON JANUARY 21ST, 2025.
AT THIS TIME, I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
AGAIN, I WILL ASK MISS GRAY, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?
[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
WE WILL RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER 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.
IT IS 5:58 FOR CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION. [INAUDIBLE]
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING]
>> NO MADAM MAYOR, IT WAS NOT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ITEMS OF INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE NOISE COME IS GOING TO MEET ON JANUARY 22ND AT 2:00 PM IN THIS ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KIRCHO?>> THE COMPLAIN REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS A JOINT MEETING SCHEDULED WITH PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THURSDAY,
[01:00:02]
JANUARY 23RD, AT 5:30 PM.PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION HAS A MEETING SCHEDULED ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, AT 5:00 PM.
ALL OF THESE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THE FILING DEADLINE TO RUN FOR CITY OFFICE, WE HAVE THREE SEATS OPEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE DEADLINE TO FILE IS FEBRUARY 14.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RUNNING, PLEASE SEE PATTY SCOTT GRAY BECAUSE SHE IS THE KEEPER OF THE ELECTION PACKETS SO COME AND GET A PACKET FROM HER IF YOU'RE INTERESTED AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK MISS GRAY.
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THURSDAY, APRIL 3 IS THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR THE MAY 3RD ELECTION.
IF YOU HAVE MOVED HERE FROM ANOTHER CITY, PLEASE CHECK YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN PARKER SO YOU CAN VOTE IN OUR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
DON'T STAY IN DALLAS, COME ON.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2025. [REGULAR MEETING] ]
FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2025.IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ABOUT THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2025.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2025 FROM MAYOR PRO TEM JIM REED.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KIRCHO.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.
I WILL THEN CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD TIME TO ANNOUNCE, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE ALREADY IS THAT TODD FACT IS STILL IN WASHINGTON, DC, HE WENT TO THE INAUGURATION.
HE DOESN'T GET IN UNTIL ABOUT 11:00 TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHY HE IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING.
I BELIEVE MISS NOH IS OUT OF COUNTRY WITH HER JOB SO WE'RE A LITTLE SHORTHANDED TONIGHT, BEAR WITH US.
NEXT IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION,
[4. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON MAYOR PRO TEM REED'S RESIGNATION. ]
AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON MAYOR PRO TEM REED'S RESIGNATION, MR. REED.>> YES. THIS COMES WITH A HEAVY HEART FOR 25 YEARS, AND THIS HAS BEEN MY HOME.
I RAISED MY KIDS HERE, BUILT MY DREAM HOUSE HERE.
IT'S BEEN JUST SUCH A PLEASURE.
HOWEVER, MY KIDS ARE OUT AT THE DOWNSIZE, AND I DESPERATELY LOOK TO FIND A PLACE IN PARKER TO STAY HERE AND IT DID NOT WORK OUT SO I AM RELOCATING OUTSIDE OF PARKER SO IT'S A VERY HEAVY HEART.
JUST TO EVERYBODY WHO'S WATCHING AND OTHER PEOPLE THERE.
I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE HONOR THAT YOU PROVIDED TO HAVE ME BE ON COUNCIL, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'LL ALWAYS REMEMBER HAVE DONE, AND I LOVE THE CITY.
I'M LEAVING, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M DOING IS FOR MY FAMILY, SO WE'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT SMALLER HOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO BE OUTSIDE OF PARKER.
I DO THANK EVERYBODY VERY VERY MUCH AND VERY BIG HONOR FOR ME TO REPRESENT YOU FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM REED, YOU HAVE BEEN ONE HELL OF AN ASSET TO THE CITY SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE.
YOU REALLY HAVE, WE APPRECIATE YOU.
>> YEAH, WE'RE VERY SORRY TO SEE YOU GO.
I'VE ONLY HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH YOU FOR LESS THAN A YEAR, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HAVE SERVED ON COUNCIL WITH YOU AND HOPE YOU COME BACK AROUND.
>> YEAH. I HOPE EVERYONE STAYS IN TOUCH, AND IT'S BEEN A FANTASTIC GROUP THAT I'VE WORKED WITH DURING THE TIME THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S MADE IT WORK, NOT SO MUCH ME, BUT ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND HERE.
>> I ALSO APPRECIATE HAVING WORKED WITH YOU.
YOU SERVED WITH EXCELLENCE AND I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, MYSELF INCLUDED HAVE LEARNED A LOT FROM YOU.
OBVIOUSLY, AS MAYOR PRO TEM WE THOUGHT A LOT OF YOU AND FROM THAT ASPECT, VERY SAD TO SEE YOU GO.
>> COUNCIL, WE ALSO NEED TO DISCUSS HOW WE WISH TO GO ABOUT REPLACING.
[01:05:07]
OH, I'M SORRY.IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON MAYOR PRO TEM'S RESIGNATION? THEN WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 5,
[5. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM STAFF, DISCUSS, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON CONSTRUCTING THE CONNECTION FOR THE NEW PUMP STATION. [TAKE POINT #2 WATER CONNECTION]]
WHICH I AM GOING TO WITHDRAW ON MY OWN MOTION.WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO ON ITEM 5.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? LET'S GO TO ITEM NUMBER 6.
[6. 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, 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 DEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY LIMITS AND IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON LIFTING THE MORATORIUM?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS ITEM NUMBER SIX THAT WE LIFT THE MORATORIUM AS LISTED IN ITEM NUMBER SIX FOR THE BUILDING IN THE CITY.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO LIFT THE WATER MORATORIUM, AND MOTION IS BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM.
SECOND IS BY MAYOR PRO TEM JIM REED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF LIFTING THE WATER MORATORIUM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYONE OPPOSED? PASSES, THREE NOTHING.
THE WATER MORATORIUM IS LIFTED.
>> I KNOW. THAT WAS FORGETTING THE CONTRACT.
NEXT WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-824 MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (ZBA). ]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-824, MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.COUNCIL, YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE ZONING BOARD.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO READ IN THAT BUDDY WAS ON THE ZONING BOARD, AND HE RESIGNED TO COME ON TO COUNCIL, AND TRUDY JACKSON WAS ON THE ZONING BOARD.
SHE RESIGNED BECAUSE SHE'S MOVING OUT OF TOWN.
THEREFORE, THERE'S SEVERAL OPENINGS.
AT THIS TIME, TED LANE, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE ZONING BOARD, AN ALTERNATE MEMBER, IS AVAILABLE.
DID HE SEND IN A LETTER THAT HE WISHED TO BE CONTINUED? OKAY. MR. SHAWNA CASEY AND ANDREW ELLISON AND BRIAN DEVER ALL ARE REMAINING IN THEIR POSITION?
>> WE'VE GOT TWO APPLICATIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD.
I WILL POINT OUT THAT OUR ORDINANCE DOES SAY THAT IF SOMEONE IS AN ALTERNATE AND THERE IS A VOTING POSITION AVAILABLE AND THEY WISH TO PURSUE THAT, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE FIRST CHOICE OF THAT.
AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION THEN?
>> MAYOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE TED LANE TO PLACE 2.
I WOULD ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE OR PUT MELISSA TICE INTO PLACE 4 AND TERRY LYNCH INTO ALTERNATE 1.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN RANDY KERCHO TO PLACE TED LANE IN
[01:10:04]
VOTING POSITION PLACE FOUR. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?>> I'M SORRY. TO VOTING MELISSA TICE INTO PLACE FOUR AND TERRY LYNCH INTO ALTERNATE ONE, IS THAT CORRECT, RANDY?
>> MADAM MAYOR I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO FILL THE POSITIONS IN THE ZBA WITH TED LANE MOVING TO A VOTING POSITION PLACE TWO, MELISSA TICE INTO VOTING POSITION PLACE FOUR AND TERRY LYNCH INTO ALTERNATE ONE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 3-0. THANK Y'ALL.
BOY, WE'RE JUST MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA WE WILL GO TO ITEM 8,
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025–828 APPROVING AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY FOR CHILD ABUSE, INVESTIGATION SERVICES, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT [AMENDING TO RESOLUTION 2023-759, APPROVED 2025 0919]. ]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-828, APPROVING AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, ILA BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY FOR CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION SERVICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.COUNCIL, YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS IN YOUR PACKET.
ATTORNEY CLIFTON, WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US AN UPDATE. MR. CLIFTON?
>> MY PACKET PERHAPS IT DIDN'T HAVE THE AMENDMENT.
IT SEEMED TO HAVE THE ONE AGREEMENT FROM 2023 TWICE IN THE PACKET, BUT I DIDN'T EVER SEE WHAT AMENDMENT WAS BEING REQUESTED.
>> GIVE MS. CLIFTON JUST A MOMENT.
>> YOU'RE GOOD. I DON'T THINK I HAVE IT EITHER.
PATTY, CAN YOU E-MAIL THAT TO US RIGHT QUICK? WELL, YOU SENT IT TO ME ORIGINALLY, DIDN'T YOU?
>> IN SOME AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL, ONE, IT UPDATES THE NOTICES FOR THE COUNTY.
THEN IT JUST CHANGES THE CIVIL LIABILITY SECTION, MAKING EACH PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN INSTEAD OF THE CITY PROVIDING ANY INDEMNIFICATION FOR THE COUNTY.
IT'S BASICALLY AN IMPROVEMENT FOR US.
>> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT ACTUALLY REMOVES LIABILITY FROM THE CITY,
[01:15:05]
NOT HAVING THAT INDEMNIFICATION, CORRECT?>> THEORETICALLY, BUT WE HAVE SUCH LIMITED ABILITY TO INDEMNIFY ANYWAY.
>> THIS UPDATE WAS JUST TO KEEP US IN COMPLIANCE?
>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY SENT OUT REQUESTING THE UPDATE.
I THINK PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THEY HAVE ADDED THIS TO ALL OF THEIR REGULAR CONTRACTS, AND THEY JUST APPLIED IT TO EVERYONE.
>> YOU DON'T SEE ANY LIABILITY, IS IT JUST A CLEAN-UP THAT SOMETHING THE NEW FORMAT THAT THEY'RE USING, IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY?
>> RIGHT. I DON'T SEE AN INCREASE IN LIABILITY FOR THE CITY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. CLIFTON? I'M NOT SURE COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM HAS FINISHED READING YET. WE'LL GIVE HIM A MINUTE.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> NO, MADAM MAYOR. I WAS JUST READING THROUGH THE LAST PART.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-828, APPROVING THE AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY FOR CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION SERVICES LAW ENFORCEMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2028, EXCUSE ME, 2025-828 ON THE CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 3 - 0. THANK YOU.
NOW WE WILL MOVE TO PROJECTS IN PROGRESS.
[9. UPDATE(S)]
MR. MACHADO, IF YOU WILL GIVE US AN UPDATE ON 25 51.>> ALL THE WATER CROSSINGS ARE COMPLETE.
ALL THE TESTING HAS BEEN DONE, THEY'RE [INAUDIBLE].
THE NEW WATER SERVICES ARE OPERATIONAL.
THERE'S A TRAFFIC SWITCH THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP EVERYBODY UP TO DATE AS POSSIBLE ON THE WEBSITE.
BUT THAT WEATHER HAS BEEN MOVING THOSE THINGS LATELY. WEBSITE IS FRIENDLY.
>> YEAH, I WILL COMMEND YOU FOR GETTING THAT INFORMATION AND UPDATING IT ON OUR WEBSITE.
THAT HAS BEEN MOST HELPFUL. THANK YOU.
>> [INAUDIBLE] HAS BEEN HELPFUL.
>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS ON 2551?
>> NO. THAT IS A SUDDEN QUESTION.
>> ALL THE WORK IS DONE. THE WEATHER HAS SLOWED IT DOWN.
>> BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HIT SOME OF THE BIG ROCKS ALREADY, GOT THOSE IN THE TANK ALREADY, SO.
>> NEXT, DCQ, COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM.
>> NOTHING NEW AT ALL ON THE MUD.
THE CASE APPEALING, THE SEWER PLANT PERMIT IS STILL BEFORE DISTRICT COURT IN AUSTIN, IT'S BEEN REASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL JUDGE GOT ELECTED LAST NOVEMBER TO AN APPELLATE COURT SEAT.
IT'S WITH A NEW JUDGE NOW AND THERE'S NOTHING NEW THAT'S TRANSPIRED THERE.
>> ENGINEERING REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS.
MR. MACHADO, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THAT TONIGHT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATE ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
[01:20:01]
>> IS THERE A MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE?
>> WE HAVE A MEMO, WE HAVE A SCHEDULE TO GET ON THAT.
>> BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ALMOST A YEAR SINCE WE FIRST WENT OUT FOR THOSE RFQS.
MR. KERCHO OR ARE YOU GOING TO.
>> AS I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW, 02:00 O'CLOCK IN CHAMBERS HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING A COUPLE OF OTHER CITIES' NOISE ORDINANCES, PURELY FROM AN ASPECT OF IDENTIFYING WHAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE OR NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF PARKER AND INTEREST LEVELS BASED UPON PEOPLE THAT ATTEND AND EVERYONE'S WELCOME, AS WELL AS COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON NOISE COMMITTEE? LOUIS LANE.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE ARE AWAITING A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY OF LUCAS ON LOUIS LANE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED ANYTHING.
LOUIS LANE IS IN HORRIBLE SHAPE.
WE ARE TRYING TO PRESSURE THE OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED TO MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN GET SOME RESOLUTION AND GET THAT STREET REPAVED.
GARY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT?
>> THAT'S NOT GOOD TO HEAR [LAUGHTER].
FROM THAT ASPECT, I KNOW THAT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, WE BASICALLY TALKED ABOUT THERE SOME DISCUSSION OF WHETHER SQUARE FOOTAGE, LINEAR FEET, WHAT HAVE YOU, WAS FAIR BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS THROWN IN FRONT OF COUNSEL AT THE LAST MEETING.
I THINK IT WAS GOING TO GO BACK AND JUST SAY, OK, IS IT FROM A LINEAR FOOT SQUARE STANDPOINT EQUAL OR WHAT? WAS THERE ANY WORK DONE TOWARDS THAT?
>> NO, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT BECAUSE TO DIVIDE THAT EQUALLY, PUT A DIVISION LINE IN A SPOT THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
WHERE WE PROPOSE, AND WE CAN DO THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO, BUT I THINK THE BETTER OPTION WOULD BE TO DIVIDE IT AT A MORE LOGICAL LOCATION, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE WHERE WE'VE ALREADY DONE A MUCH WORK, TO COMPASS ALL THAT GOOD WORK.
I KEEP THAT. AND THEN HAVE THE DIVIDING LINE.
>> THAT MAGICAL POINT, WAS THAT THE POINT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AT THE LAST MEETING OR NO? THEN THE DISCUSSION WAS BASICALLY SAYING IF IT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL AND WE DID MOVE FORWARD AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION ALONG LOUIS LANE, IS IT IN OUR FAVOR IN TERMS OF LINEAR SQUARE FEET OR WHAT HAVE YOU?
>> PROBABLY NOT. EVEN CONSIDERING LUCAS LANE IS MULTIPLE LANE?
>> WHEN YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE EXPENSE OF LANE THAT'S ON US ROAD WE WOULD BE GIVEN THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN FROM THAT STANDPOINT, ARE THEY GOING TO REALLY GIVE US AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT UNTIL WE TELL THEM THAT WE'RE ON BOARD WITH WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PUT INTO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OR?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT LUCAS' ATTORNEY IS DRAWING UP AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
I ASSUME THAT ONCE IT GETS DRAWN UP, IT WILL COME TO KATHERINE, AT WHICH TIME SHE WILL BRING IT TO COUNSEL, AND WE WILL EITHER AGREE WITH IT OR DISAGREE WITH IT, MODIFY IT, OR WHATEVER.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO SAY.
WE GAVE THEM SOME OPTIONS AND UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING BACK, WE'RE JUST IN A HOLDING PATTERN AND THE STREETS GETTING WORSE.
>> BUT WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED OR DISCUSSED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, WAS THAT GIVEN TO US BY THE CITY OF LUCAS? NOW, THE LOCATION OF WHERE THEY'RE IN WHAT THEY THOUGHT THIS NEW AGREEMENT WOULD ENTAIL AND WHERE THE SPLITTING LINE WOULD BE BETWEEN RESPONSIBILITY.
>> WE GOT IT DOWN WHICH MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
THEY AGREED TO TAKE ALL LOUSE ROAD MEETING THAT WE HAD,
[01:25:05]
THEY SEEM TO AGREE TO THAT.>> THERE IS SOME STANDPOINT BUT WHAT THEY BASICALLY GOT PUT IN FRONT OF COUNSEL IS WHAT LUCAS HAS TOSSED INTO OUR COURT TO SAY, WOULD YOU GUYS AGREE TO THIS? YES OR NO.
>> TO ME, I STILL THINK THAT WE HAVE TO AS A GROUP, GIVE THEM SOME IDENTIFICATION IF WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OR NOT.
BECAUSE IF I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE, I'D BE SITTING THERE GOING, I'M NOT GOING TO DROP AN AGREEMENT UNTIL I GET SOMETHING IN RETURN BECAUSE I ALREADY TOSSED SOMETHING INTO THEIR COURT FOR DISCUSSION, AND I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING BACK.
>> THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY LUCAS DOING THAT.
THAT WAS BETWEEN BOTH OF US, WE AGREED THAT THAT WOULD BE THE I WASN'T ALL LUCAS' EFFORT.
>> WASN'T THAT THE PRODUCT OF JUST A NEGOTIATION THAT YOU HAD WITH THEM AND IT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED TO, YOU AGREED ON OUR SIDE, NOT CONTRACTUALLY BINDING US, BUT IN PRINCIPLE BINDING US THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS REASONABLE FOR US.
WE'RE TAKING ON MORE THAN HALF OF LOUIS LANE, BUT WE'RE GIVING UP ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR LUCAS ROAD.
IN YOUR OPINION, THAT'S A REASONABLE TRADE OFF, AND IN THEIR OPINION, IN GENERAL DISCUSSIONS, THAT WAS A REASONABLE TRADE OFF FOR THEM AS WELL, CORRECT?
>> IT SOUNDED ACCEPTABLE FOR BOTH PARTIES ON THAT.
>> THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD THE COUNCIL MEETING, TO ME, THE COUNCIL BASICALLY SAID, HEY, I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT, AND WE'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT.
IF I'M LUCAS, I'M SITTING THERE SAYING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PARKER IS IF PARKER IS STILL WILLING TO GO WITH THAT OR NOT.
I WOULD STILL THINK THAT THEY'RE WAITING FOR US TO GIVE THEM SOME TYPE OF INDICATION OF WHAT OUR STANCE IS ON THE SUBJECT AS FAR AS WHAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD COME TO US.
>> IF THEY WERE WATCHING OUR MEETINGS, THAT MAY BE TRUE AS FAR AS THEIR EXPECTATION AT THE TIME THAT THE MEETING ENDED, WE LEFT IT AS THEY WERE GOING TO DRAFT THE AGREEMENT AND SEND IT TO US, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED WAS THAT DRAFT BASED ON THAT MEETING.
I DON'T EVEN CALL IT A ROAD ANYMORE.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, AS WE CONTINUE FORWARD, HAVE WE CONTACTED THEM AND SAY, WHERE ARE YOU GUYS ON THIS IO?
>> I HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE MAYOR AND INDICATED TO HIM THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITY ITEM BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY.
I GOT AN EMAIL BACK FROM HIS OFFICE SAYING THAT HE WAS OUT OF TOWN AND WOULD GET WITH ME WHEN HE'S BACK.
APPARENTLY, THAT'S A VERY POPULAR PLACE THIS WEEK [LAUGHTER] FOR THIS WEEKEND.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS, I THINK WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES THAT THERE WAS SOME COUNTY MONEY, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THE COUNTY DOESN'T ACCEPT OWNERSHIP FOR ANYTHING, BUT WAS THERE COUNTY MONEY THAT IS OUT THERE FOR THIS AS WELL OR NO?
>> I TALKED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTY TODAY.
>> PART OF THE ROAD IS THE COUNTY ROAD AS OF TODAY.
>> NOT ANYMORE, AFTER THE COUNTY COUNTERED THE ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS.
>> WHEN THEY LOOKED CLOSE WITH THEIR DOCUMENTS, HEY JOHNSON, YOU UPDATED MINE.
>> BECAUSE THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT HIM, THE POTHOLES WERE THE COUNTIES.
>> THAT SECTION BETWEEN SOUTH SEAT, THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SOUTH EAST AND ESTER, THAT WAS HISTORICALLY THE COUNTY, THEY WOULD PATCH THOSE POTHOLES.
THEY REMOVED THEIR SIGNS AND THEY CLAIMED THE OWNERSHIP THERE.
I WAS TRYING TO GET JOHN TO COMMIT TO SOME RELIEF IN THERE TO HELP.
HE SAID HE COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE SHIP BACK.
>> IS THAT BECAUSE THE FULL LINEAR DISTANCE ON LEWIS ROAD, ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, OR IN SOME PLACES, BOTH HAS BEEN ANNEXED BY CITY, EITHER BY PARKER OR BY LUCAS.
>> WHEN WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE RULES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF EITHER TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD OR THE ENTIRE ROAD, EITHER WAY, IT'S COVERED BY.
>> I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IF WE DON'T HAVE RESPONSIBILITY OVER IT OR NOT.
[01:30:03]
BUT THE AGREEMENT, AS WE KNOW, WILL BE COMING TO US, EITHER WAY, THE PORTION THAT IS THE VERY WORST OF THAT ROAD WOULD BE PARKER'S RESPONSIBILITY.KNOWING THAT THE ULTIMATE PLACE IS GOING TO PUT US IN US HAVING RESPONSIBILITY, IS THERE AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO WITH PLACING GRAVEL OR SOMETHING INSIDE THOSE POTHOLES OR MINES OUT THERE?
>> MR. MACHADO, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND FILL THOSE POTHOLES IF THEY'RE IN THE CITY OF PARKER?
>> IF THEY'RE NOT THE CITY OF MARKER, I CAN'T DO IT.
YOU DIRECT ME TO KATHERINE, IF THEY DIRECT YOU TO DO IT, I CAN DO IT RIGHT.
>> THE ANALYSIS ON THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS IN CLOSED.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
>> THE ANSWER IS, WE NEED TO GET THE AGREEMENT IN PLACE FIRST, PROBABLY, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> OR IS THAT YOU JUST WANT TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE MEETING AND DISCUSS IT OR ARE YOU READY TO KNOW THE OUTCOME?
>> NO, NOT NECESSARILY THAT I KNOW THE OUTCOME.
THAT I CAN ADVISE YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES IN THAT CASE.
>> YOU KNOW THE LAW CURRENTLY OR YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE IT?
>> I CAN ALWAYS DO MORE ANALYSIS, BUT I HAVE LOOKED INTO SOME OF THAT TURNS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT WE COULD ALSO CERTAINLY PUT IT ON EXECUTIVE FOR NEXT TIME.
>> WE CAN WE COULD ALWAYS RECESS THE EXECUTIVE RIGHT NOW, KATHERINE.
THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
>> IS SPENDING ANY MONEY PATCHING THOSE HOLES A GOOD USE OF FUNDS NOW IF WE'RE CLOSE TO DETERMINING WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO MORE PERMANENTLY FIX THEM?
>> IN MY OPINION, YES, BECAUSE THE ROADS IS SUCH BAD SHAPE.
>> YOU COULD LOSE A CAR IN SOME OF THOSE POTHOLES.
THEY'RE HORRIBLE. THEY REALLY ARE.
IF THEY'RE IN PARKER, I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE WHATEVER ACTION TO PATCH? PARDON?
>> PARK BEEN ADDRESS IS THE ONE THAT ARE WHERE WE BELIEVE THE BODE LINE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WE HAVE AT.
BUT I'VE ALREADY ORDERED THE MATERIAL TO PATCH THE BOTTLE. I'VE GOT IT OUT BACK.
>> SO DO WE NEED TO RECESS TO TALK ABOUT THIS FOR FIVE MINUTES OR IS IT A LONG CONVERSATION? CAN WE DO THAT?
>> I'LL SECOND'S MOTION AND WE ADJOURN, TO CLOSE SESSION BRIEFLY.
WE ARE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. [BACKGROUND]
>> I JUST WANTED TO OFFER IT'S A FUN DRIVE.
I KNOW THE COPY, THEIR PLACE AND THE SHOP.
[01:35:15]
A LOT OF THE TRIAL OR INDUCTION.I CAN TAKE BECAUSE ALL THIS WAS.
I DIDN'T KNOW SOMETIMES I SOMEBODY SIGN THE CLASS STUFF.
[01:42:57]
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WERE BACK FROM CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.
IT IS 7:48. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION, ACTION FROM THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE ON LEWIS LINE?
>> THANKS FOR THE UPDATE, GARY.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, LET'S TALK ABOUT CHAPARRAL INTERSECTION WITH ALLEN HEIGHTS.
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY FURTHER INFORMATION, GARY?
>> I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT MY EMAIL.
I THINK THE LAST COMMUNICATION WE HAD WAS [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS WAS STOP SIGNS, FOUR-WAY STOP THERE, RATHER THAN JUST A TWO?
>> YEAH. I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE COST OF THE LIGHTS.
>> CORRECT. SOME STREET LIGHTS.
>> I THINK IT BLINKING IN THE STOPS LIGHT.
>> THEY ASKED US WHAT KIND OF LIGHTS AND HOW MUCH WOULD THEY COST? WE FORWARDED THEM THE INFORMATION.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BACK AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF GARY HAD.
>> A COMMENT FROM A CITIZEN, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY WORTH INVESTIGATING AT LEAST.
THE PERSON LIVES IN THE KNOLLS, AND THEY FELT THAT IF PUT A FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN THERE, THAT IF THE TRAFFIC IS HEAVY ENOUGH IN THE MORNING, THAT BASICALLY IT WILL START ALONG ON SPRINGHILL ESTATES ROAD, IT WILL START TO BACK UP AND THAT THE ENTRANCE INTO THE KNOLLS IS VERY CLOSE TO THAT INTERSECTION.
THERE'S SOME CONCERN IF THERE'S ENOUGH TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF
[01:45:01]
THE KNOLLS AND THERE'S BACKING UP COMING DOWN SPRINGHILL ESTATES AT THE STOP SIGN, IT WON'T BASICALLY ALLOW THEM TO TURN LEFT UNLESS SOMEONE EVENTUALLY ALLOWS THEM TO TURN LEFT, THAT IS BASICALLY GOING TO CREATE ISSUE IN THE KNOLLS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK TO TURN LEFT, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE ALL CARS ALREADY BACKED UP PAST THE INTERSECTION FOR THE ENTRANCE TO THE KNOLLS.>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TURNING LEFT FROM THE KNOLLS ONTO SPRINGHILL? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> IT WOULD BE INTERESTING AT LEAST IF WE COULD HAVE PART OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER BE THERE A COUPLE OF MORNINGS DURING RUSH HOUR AND JUST LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC OR DO TRAFFIC COUNTS AT THE CERTAIN TIMES DURING RUSH HOUR AND IDENTIFY HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GOING THERE, AND IF WE PUT A STOP SIGN THERE, WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD OF A BACKUP AND HOW MANY CARS BACK UP?
>> THAT WOULD BE QUITE A FEW CARS TO GET BACK THERE, LIKE 20?
>> IT'S NOT THAT MANY. I'VE HAD A SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] THAT NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET, IF IT STOPS AT A STOP LIGHT THERE, THERE'S HAVE TO BE VERY MUCH OF OF IT TO BACK UP [INAUDIBLE] TO GET THROUGH AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC AT ALL.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH BOTH SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON SPRINGHILL ESTATES.
YEAH. NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC, THEY'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE POLITE ENOUGH TO LET THEM BREAK IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR LINE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE SITTING THERE FOREVER WAITING TO GET IN.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK. THAT'S MY STOMA GROUNDS, AND SO I DRIVE NORTH ON THAT EVERY DAY.
SOME DAYS IT'S VERY EARLY, BUT MOST DAYS, IT'S IN THE 6:30, 7:00, 07: 30 TIME FRAME AND I DON'T SEE TONS OF TRAFFIC GOING THERE.
I SEE MORE SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC GOING ACROSS CHAPARRAL THAN I SEE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC.
>> THAT COULD BE THE CASE. I'M JUST SAYING IF WE TOOK EITHER A TRAFFIC COUNT OR A VISUAL, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL BEFORE WE MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION.
>> THEY SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAD THE TRAFFIC COUNT.
WE HAD THAT MEETING AND THEY HAD THE TRAFFIC COUNT AT THE INTERSECTION THERE, SO IT CAN'T BE ANY MORE PEOPLE DOWNSTREAM THAN WHAT WOULD BE THE TRAFFIC COUNT UPSTREAM.
>> ALLEN'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER DID A STUDY ON THAT AND THAT TRAFFIC ON THERE.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE NUMBER WAS.
>> IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED IN THE MEETING.
>> I REMEMBER AND THEY SAID THAT IT WASN'T A PROBLEM, BUT ANYWAY.
>> OR THAT WOULD BE MONITORED AND THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE A STOP LIGHT OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> WELL, WE CAN ASK CHIEF PRICE TO KEEP A LOOK ON IT AND SEE IF HE NOTICES ANY DIFFICULTIES THERE.
>> YEAH. I THINK THEY HAD ALL THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE THEY HAD THOSE CAMERAS THERE THAT WERE DOING THE TRAFFIC COUNT, SO THEY WOULD HAVE RECENT INFORMATION ON THAT.
>> THE ONLY ISSUE I REMEMBER IS CHIEF PRICE WAS TALKING ABOUT IF YOU'RE GOING WEST ON CHAPARRAL, THAT STOP SIGN AT SPRINGHILL IS IN THE WRONG LOCATION, AND IT FALLS OVER ALL THE TIME, SO PEOPLE DON'T SEE IT, SO THEY JUST BLOW ON THROUGH AND THAT'S DANGEROUS.
HE NOTICED THAT, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE I REMEMBER.
GARY. WE'LL KEEP A LOOK ON THAT.
ANY OTHER UPDATES? EXCUSE ME, MR. KERCHO.
>> I'LL MAKE A FURTHER, MAYBE NOT EXPLANATION, BUT MORE INFORMATION LATER ON, BUT LIKE JIM OR COUNCIL MEMBER REID, I OWN ANOTHER HOUSE IN ANOTHER CITY AS WELL, AND IT IS LIKELY THAT I AM GOING TO MOVE AT SOME POINT AND MORE THAN LIKELY IT WOULD BE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.
WITH THAT IN MIND, ONLY SAYING IT BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN I'M GOING TO BE MOVING, BUT AGAIN, IT'S LIKELY BEFORE MAY OR THE ELECTION POINT.
IF THE ANNOUNCEMENT BASICALLY OF THAT ENCOURAGES MORE PEOPLE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO RUN FOR COUNCIL, THEN I WOULD LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GREAT A SITUATION TO BE IN.
YOU GET TO SEE A LOT MORE OF WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN THE CITY.
THERE'S SOME GOOD PEOPLE ON COUNCIL AND IT REALLY IS THE ONLY WAY TO CONTROL YOUR CITY.
IF YOU DON'T CONTROL IT, IT'S GOING TO BE CONTROLLED FOR YOU.
[01:50:02]
THE MORE ACTIVITY WE CAN GET, THE MORE PEOPLE WE CAN GET INVOLVED IN THE CITY, THE BETTER. THANK YOU.>> JUST AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, [INAUDIBLE] KNOW THAT JIM REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LETTING US KNOW ABOUT YOUR MOVE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT'S WATCHING OR IN THE ROOM THAT'S INTERESTED IN CITY COUNCIL TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO IT.
THIS IS A REALLY GOOD CITY COUNCIL TO WORK ON.
I'LL TELL YOU, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US ON THIS CITY COUNCIL SINCE I'VE BEEN ON IT THAT HAVE VOTED IN LOCKSTEP, AND THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US THAT HAVE NOT VOTED IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO ANOTHER.
WE ALL VOTE THE SAME SOMETIMES.
WE ALL VOTE YES, WE ALL VOTE NO, AND WE VOTE IN DIFFERENT WAYS UP AND DOWN SO THAT WE OPPOSE DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND COMBINE WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
THAT BEING THE CASE, I'VE NEVER HEARD A DISAGREEABLE SESSION BETWEEN ANY OF US.
WE MAY DISAGREE ON HOW WE WANT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING, BUT IT'S A REALLY GOOD GROUP OF PEOPLE TO WORK WITH.
>> WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE, BUT BUDDY [PHONETIC], I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS ABOUT YOU THAT BOTH OF YOUR SEAT MATES ARE LEAVING.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
>> NO. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE.
>> BRANDON, YOU HAVE BEEN AN EXCELLENT MEMBER, AND I HOPE IT'S LONGER RATHER THAN SOONER WHEN YOU WILL BE LEAVING US AND SAME THING WITH JIM.
YOU-ALL HAVE BEEN SO GREAT BECAUSE YOUR CONCERN HAS BEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR CONCERN SHOULD BE.
AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK KATHERINE TO GIVE US A BRIEF UPDATE ON ENTERPRISE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD KEEP CARRYING IT.
>> I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO GRANT FOR HOW MANY VEHICLES THAT ARE ON THE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT NOW. IS IT FIVE?
>> THERE ARE FIVE VEHICLES UNDER LEASE.
THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO LEASE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL VEHICLES FROM THEM, AND THERE'S NOT AN OPTION TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE ONES THAT WE HAVE OTHER THAN CONTINUE THE LEASES. THAT'S ABOUT IT.
>> JUST CONTINUE TO PAY THE LEASES.
>> JUST CONTINUE TO PAY THE LEASES.
ISN'T THAT A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT? YOU'RE SAYING JUST STOP PAYING?
>> NO. THERE'S NOT AN OPTION EXCEPT TO CONTINUE TO PAY THEM.
>> IT'S NOT IN THE CONTRACT AT THIS TIME.
WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH IT UNTIL IT RUNS ITS COURSE, IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.
>> BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M NO LONGER GOING TO KEEP THIS ON AN AGENDA.
>> BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHY IT WAS GOING AWAY.
YOU'LL ALL HAVE YOUR LINKS TO YOUR MONTHLY REPORTS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOUR MONTHLY REPORTS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
NOW WE WILL MOVE TO DONATIONS.
[10. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801]) ]
WE ACCEPTED THE FOLLOWING DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF.ASHLEY GRENADA DONATED MCALLISTER'S DELI, VALUED AT $60 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE HARVEY FAMILY DONATED COOKIES VALUED AT $20 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE CUMMINGS FAMILY DONATED COOKIES, VALUED AT $15 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE LEVY FAMILY DONATED CHOCOLATES, VALUED AT $30 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND CHIP AND LINDA JUSTICE DONATED TIFFS TREATS VALUED AT $50 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF OUR DONORS.
YOU ARE SO KIND TO OUR CITY AND TO OUR PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED.
[11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I WILL ASK IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE.IT IS 7:59. MY GOD.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.