[00:00:08]
>> I HEREBY CALL THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 4TH, 2025 TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS 5:00 PM.AT THIS TIME, MS. SCOTT GREY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MA'AM. YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENT QUORUM.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL.
[WORKSHOP]
WE WILL BE STARTING WITH SECTION 3.1.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD CHANGE ON THIS?
>> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. CHIEF PRICE.
[LAUGHTER] WE'RE ON 3.1 AND IT HAPPENS TO BE PERIODIC REVIEWS.
IT INDICATES IN THE POLICE, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST TIME THAT THERE'S 12-MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE REVIEWS, OF COURSE, AND IT SAID THAT POLICE OFFICERS GET A REVIEW EVEN THE NEW ONES AT 12 MONTHS.
I WAS WONDERING, DURING AN ENTIRE 12 MONTH PROBATIONARY PERIOD, IS THERE NOT ANY TYPE OF REVIEWS DURING THAT PROBATIONARY PERIOD?
>> THEY ARE REVIEWED DAILY WHILE THEY'RE IN FTO, AND THEN THE SARGE WORK WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE REMAINING PART OF THAT FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> BUT IS THERE ANY REQUIRED WRITTEN REVIEW AT ALL?
>> THE FTO GIVES THE WRITTEN REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT THEY COMPLETE THE JOB.
YES. WE GIVE THAT ON EVERY OFFICER IN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> MIGHT BE GOOD TO REFLECT THAT THEN.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ON I GUESS A SECOND PARAGRAPH.
IT SAYS, ALL EMPLOYEES WILL BE EVALUATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.
DOES THAT MEAN ANNUALLY FROM THE DATE THEY WERE HIRED? ANNUALLY FROM THEIR LAST REVIEW? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> IT'S DONE BOTH WAYS IN VARIOUS PLACES.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN IN PARKER.
I'M ASSUMING GRANT WOULD KNOW.
>> TYPICALLY, THEY'RE ALL DONE IN ONE, SO IT MAKES IT EASIER.
USUALLY SOMETIME IN SUMMER AUGUST TIME FRAME.
THE HR AUGUST EVALUATIONS ARE DONE, SO THAT WAY IF RAISES ARE GIVEN OCTOBER 1, THE EVALUATION IS DONE PRIOR TO THAT.
>> EVEN THOUGH A PERSON MAY BE HIRED IN SAY MAY, WE WOULD STILL GIVE THEM AN EVALUATION THAT YEAR AND THEN YEARLY THEREAFTER DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?
>> I THINK IF THEY WERE HIRED IN MAY, THEY WOULD GET AN EVALUATION IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE THE FOLLOWING YEAR BEFORE.
IT MIGHT GO A YEAR AND A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT EVALUATION, BUT I THINK THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN HANDLING THAT.
>> IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
>> I THINK THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD PRACTICE, SO I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
>> I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THREE, IN THAT ITEM WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT OBVIOUSLY, THE EMPLOYEE PERIODIC REVIEW, THAT THEY CAN MAKE COMMENTS ON THE EVALUATION SHEET TO HERE IT SAYS THE EVALUATION THEY FEEL IS UNFAIR OR INCORRECT.
THIS MIGHT BE ALMOST THE SAME AS INCORRECT. I'M NOT SURE.
I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST IN REVIEWS AND STUFF, ALSO BETWEEN UNFAIR OR INCORRECT, PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN AND MAYBE I EVEN WRITTEN ON IT IF I CONSIDER IT INCOMPLETE.
SOMETIMES THEY'LL ASK A QUESTION AND WHATEVER.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE DURING THE YEAR OR WHATEVER? MAYBE THAT'S INCORRECT IF THEY HAVEN'T LISTED ANYTHING AND THAT WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
I JUST THOUGHT, SHOULD WE ALSO SAY INCOMPLETE?
>> I'M NOT SURE IT'S A NECESSARY THING TO ADD IF IT'S UNFAIR, INCORRECT.
IT STATES THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW.
[00:05:01]
TO ME THAT IS SUFFICIENT.>> BUT SUPPOSE THEY MAKE THEIR COMMENTS SAYING, I DISAGREE WITH THIS.
DOES IT GO ANYWHERE? WOULD IT GO TO HUMAN RESOURCES? WOULD IT GO SOMEWHERE FOR A FURTHER REVIEW OF WHAT THEIR CLAIM IS? SUPPOSE SOMEBODY IS UNDER RANDY AND THEY SAY, WELL, RANDY JUST TREATED ME UNFAIRLY.
HE TREATED ME DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND THEY ATTACH THAT, THEN WHAT? GRANT
>> I KNOW OF ONE INSTANCE WHERE WE'VE HAD THAT IN THE PAST.
IT WAS DURING THE EVALUATION THAT LUKE HAD GIVEN, I GUESS, DURING THE EVALUATION.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD ON THERE WAS INCORRECT, AND THE EMPLOYEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS INCORRECT, AND SO IT GOT CORRECTED, BUT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING WRITTEN.
THE EVALUATION WAS JUST REDONE AND THE NEW EVALUATION WAS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO MYSELF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD PRACTICE FOR ANY CORRECTIONS TO KEEP A TRACK OF THE CORRECTION ITSELF, OR YOU WOULD JUST GET RID OF THE FORM THAT WAS WRONG ALTOGETHER?
>> CATHERINE, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT?
>> I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO JUST REPLACE IT IF IT'S INCORRECT IN THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED.
I THINK THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION IS, IF THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE JUDGMENT, DO YOU WANT A PROCESS SEPARATE FROM GRIEVANCES TO ADDRESS THAT ON EVALUATIONS? I WAS JUST SWITCHING OVER TO GRIEVANCES BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME OUR GRIEVANCE POLICIES SAY YOU CAN'T GRIEVE AN EVALUATION, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHAT THIS ONE SAID.
>> ON THE EVALUATION FORM IT SAYS [INAUDIBLE] STATES THAT ON REVIEW.
IN THAT STATEMENT, IT STATES THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> PROBABLY I HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT.
I KNOW ON THE EVALUATION FORM, THERE'S A PLACE FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD TO SIGN, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT STATEMENT IS ACTUALLY ON THERE, THAT IT'S STATING THAT IT'S BEEN RECEIVED, NOT THAT YOUR AGREEMENT WITH IT.
IF NOT, I GUESS MAYBE WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO THE FORM GOING FORWARD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS OUT THERE WORRYING.
>> ON THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, GRANT, WOULD HUMAN RESOURCES NEED NOTICE THAT A DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY BE HAVING A SPECIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW BECAUSE OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE? WOULD YOU NEED TO HAVE NOTICE OF THAT?
>> THEN I NEED HUMAN RESOURCES [LAUGHTER] IN THERE.
HOW ARE YOU PROPOSING FOR HR TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT THIRD PARAGRAPH?
>> ARE YOU JUST SAYING TO GIVE THE FORM? [OVERLAPPING]
>> TO GIVE THIS TO HUMAN RESOURCES THAT THIS IS OCCURRING.
I JUST THINK HUMAN RESOURCES SHOULD BE NOTICED ANYTIME THERE'S A PERFORMANCE REVIEW BECAUSE YOU KEEP BASICALLY THE PERSONNEL FILES, DON'T YOU? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
[LAUGHTER] IT JUST WOULD SEEM ODD TO ME TO LEAVE HUMAN RESOURCES OUT EVEN IF THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING TO PUT IT IN A FOLDER.
>> IS THE DESIRE THAT THEY RECEIVE A SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION OR
[00:10:01]
THAT HR BE NOTIFIED THAT ANOTHER EVALUATION WILL BE REQUIRED?>> I WOULD THINK THAT HR WOULD BE NOTIFIED THAT ANOTHER ONE IS GOING TO BE DONE JUST BECAUSE OF ISSUES WITH THE FIRST ONE.
>> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TOO? YOU LOOKED LIKE YOU MIGHT.
I THINK ALL OF OUR DEALS IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE BACK THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYEE HANG IN IF THEY FEEL SOMETHING IS UNFAIR.
THEY NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO GO TO HR FOR THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THAT SECTION? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO 3.2, EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
>> I HAD A COMMENT ON THE SECOND BULLET POINT.
I DO AGREE THAT BASICALLY EMPLOYEES SHOULD MAINTAIN AND TRACK THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS AS IT GOES.
JUST THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE CITY GET NOTIFIED IF THEY HAVEN'T MET IT? THEY'RE TRACKING IT ON THEIR OWN, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IN HERE? BUT THE QUESTION IS, DO WE KNOW AS A CITY THAT THEY'RE UP TO DATE?
>> RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A TRACKING MECHANISM TO SHOW THAT EVERYONE HAS THEIR LICENSE OR CERTIFICATIONS UP TO DATE.
NO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, POLICE AND FIRE BOTH DO.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER POSITIONS HAVE STATE REQUIRED TRAINING IN THE CITY.
>> WELL, I THINK A LOT OF GARY SUFFER.
HIS FOLKS WILL BE HAVING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
>> BUT I THINK THEY HANDLE THAT WITHIN THEIR DEPARTMENT.
I THINK PROBABLY GARY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE IN HIS DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS ALL THEIR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
>> I KNOW IN THE PAST, WHENEVER TREY WAS HERE OR ANY OTHER ATTORNEY, THEY MADE SURE TO KEEP THEIR SAFE BAR UP TO DATE, SO WE WORRY ABOUT THIS GROUP.
>> AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD HAVE ON RECORD OUR ENGINEERS A COPY OF THEIR LICENSE, MAYBE A COPY OF THEIR INSURANCE, MALPRACTICE INSURANCE TO MAKE SURE THE CITY HAS THE DOCUMENTS AND THAT THEY ARE CURRENT.
I WOULD HATE TO FIND OUT. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S NOT A PERSONNEL ISSUE.
IT'S PERSONNEL, BUT IT'S MORE OF CONTRACT IN THAT CASE.
THAT'S NOT PERSONNEL ISSUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND TAKE THAT REQUIRED COURSE.
PATTI KEEPS UP WITH THAT FOR ALL OF US.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT AS I READ IT.
I HAD A QUESTION ON GOVERNMENT REQUIRED EDUCATION REGISTRATION.
ALL EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED WILL ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN THEIR OWN EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
I'VE BEEN ASKED, SHOULD THAT BE A CITY EXPENSE? I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED, WILL THE CITY PROVIDE A CAR FOR ME TO DRIVE TO X TRAINING AND DRIVE BACK? IT SEEMS TO BE ALL OVER THE BOARD.
I KNOW THAT CHIEF PRICE IF HE HAS A CAR, HE LETS HIS PEOPLE TAKE IT TO GO TO WHEREVER.
SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY WITH THAT JUST IN TERMS OF, WELL, THEY HAVE TO TAKE THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLE.
THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
>> ANY ISSUES THAT I KNOW OF WHERE EMPLOYEE HAD TO TAKE THEIR OWN VEHICLE, THEY HAVE FILED FOR REIMBURSEMENT, AND THEY'VE GOT THE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT OR WHATEVER THE IRS RATE IS.
THEY'VE BEEN REIMBURSED FOR THEIR EXPENSES.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME CASES WHERE MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO USE THEIR OWN VEHICLE, BUT THEY ARE GETTING REIMBURSED FOR IT.
>> WELL, I WAS LOOKING AT MORE OF IT AS EQUAL ACROSS THE BOARD.
IS IT RIGHT FOR KENNY'S PEOPLE TO DO THAT AND GARY'S PEOPLE NOT TO DO THAT?
[00:15:05]
I DON'T KNOW. [LAUGHTER] I WILL SAY THAT KENNY HAS INDICATED THAT IF HE HAD AN EXTRA VEHICLE AND SAY ANNA WAS GOING TO A ONE DAY COURSE, HE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET ANNA TAKE THAT CAR AND BRING IT BACK IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.>> I'M THINKING FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE AND GOVERNMENT, BUT TYPICAL PRACTICES USING YOUR OWN VEHICLE GETS REIMBURSEMENT TOWARDS THE CALCULATED [INAUDIBLE] OF THE CAR.
I GET IT, SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO USE THEIR CAR, AND THAT MIGHT SEEM A LITTLE UNFAIR FROM THE POLICE PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY HAVE THAT BENEFIT, BUT THAT'S JUST [INAUDIBLE].
I HAVE HAD TO TRY TO CLIP IT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO TRY AND FIND A WAY TO PROVIDE A CAR.
YES. WE'D BE BUYING A LOT OF VEHICLES.
>> I GUESS I'D HAVE A QUESTION, CHIEF PRICE'S, WHY YOU DO THAT? TO ME, I GUESS IF THAT PERSON POTENTIALLY WOULD BE CALLED UPON, AND THEREFORE WOULD NEED POTENTIALLY A POLICE VEHICLE.
IF SO NEEDED, THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL SAY, YOU CAN USE THIS CAR BECAUSE YOU'RE ON CALL IF SOMETHING COMES UP, AND WE WANT YOU TO HAVE YOUR TOOLS AND STUFF WITH YOU.
BUT ABSENT THAT, CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU DO THAT AS OPPOSED TO HAVE THEM DO THEIR OWN CAR?
>> COMPARE TO THEY'RE ON DUTY WHEN I STAND AT SCHOOL, THEY'RE ACTUALLY DRIVERS IN THE CITY, THEY'RE ACTUAL POLICE OFFICER, WHETHER THEY'RE DOING HERE OR THERE, TRAVEL HERE TO HOSPITAL.
THEY'RE STILL CONSIDERED ON DUTY AND PAID. THAT'S WHY I [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT MAKES PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE TO ME.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE AN ANSWER THAT WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE.
>> I WOULD BE WILLING TO ADD A SENTENCE THAT TRANSPORTATION TO THE TRAINING, THE EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR TRAVEL?
>> THERE'S A SEPARATE SECTION ON TRAVEL FURTHER IN THE POLICY THAT COVERS THAT.
>> WE DON'T NEED TO RESTATE THAT HERE.
WE CAN JUST REFER TO IT THERE.
>> THEN I HAD A QUICK QUESTION ON THE THIRD BULLET POINT.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING, EDUCATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAY BE REQUIRED.
>> ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THAT SECTION? THEN LET'S GO TO SECTION 3.3, MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.
THIS GETS TO BE A DIFFICULT ONE.
DO WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS? TERRY IS NODDING HER HEAD BECAUSE SHE REMEMBERS THIS COMING UP AT COUNCIL TWO OR THREE TIMES.
DO WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS ANY ONE EMPLOYEE MAY JOIN AT CITY EXPENSE.
>> THIS COME UP FOR THE ORGANIZATION?
ONE OF THEM WAS KENNY, AND I THINK HE HAD JOINED ABOUT FOUR, FIVE.
>> HE HAD FOUR OR FIVE, WE PAID FOR THEM ALL.
THEN WE HAD OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON'T JOIN ANY, AND IT BECAME AN ISSUE IN A BAD FINANCIAL YEAR FOR THE CITY ON SHOULD WE LIMIT THIS OR NOT? DO WE LIMIT IT? WE'LL PAY FOR TWO AND IF YOU WANT TO JOIN SIX, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE'LL ONLY DO TWO.
WE'VE NEVER ACTUALLY COME TO A DECISION.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT MEETING.
>> WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT.
IT'S WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? DO WE WANT TO LIMIT IT? WE HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE ORGANIZATION MUST BENEFIT YOU IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
IT'S NOT JUST, OH, I THINK I'LL GO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THIS TRAINING.
[00:20:01]
NO. IT'S IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING RELEVANT TO YOUR JOB, AND IT BENEFITS THE CITY AS YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYEE.>> GRANT, MAYBE I'D ASKED A QUESTION IN TERMS OF JUST THE SCOPE OF THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LINE ITEM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA IN TERMS OF WHAT SCOPE OF FUNDING THIS WOULD REQUIRE.
JUST KIND OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I WANT TO SAY IN ANY DEPARTMENT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DEPARTMENT HAS MORE THAN LIKE $100 IN ASSOCIATION FEES IF THEY PAY A YEAR, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT.
BUT THE REAL COST IS IN THE TRAINING, WHENEVER THERE'S A CONFERENCE THAT THEY'RE ATTENDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
JUST MEMBERSHIP ALONE ISN'T TOO BAD.
IT'S THE TRAINING PART THAT GETS EXPENSIVE.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THIS.
>> KENNY ON THE ONES THAT YOU'RE IN, ARE THEY LIKE $100 A YEAR, $200 A YEAR, BALLPARK NUMBERS?
>> WHEN YOU GO DO TRAINING, KIND OF GIVE US A BALLPARK ON WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE.
>> I THINK THE INTERNATIONAL POLICE CHIEF WAS THE EXPENSIVE MEMBERSHIP.
>> THAT'S THE MOST EXPENSIVE ONE.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU GET BUILD SPECIFICALLY BUT IT BEATS EVERYTHING ACROSS THE I THINK ALL OF THOSE EXPENSES ARE, MONEY WELL SPENT ON, EDUCATING OUR POLICE CHIEF AND FUNDING, MATERIALS FOR HIS DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE WITH THE BEST LEVEL OF EXPERTISE.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD INVESTMENT.
NO. MY QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT.
IT'S JUST SHOULD WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION, AND IF THEY'RE ALL SERVING US, THEN NO.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT NOT AT THIS TIME UNLESS, WE COULD PERHAPS HAVE SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC TO TRY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON, BUT I THINK FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO PUT DOWN A SPECIFIC POLICY WITHOUT SEEING SOME DATA TREND.
>> I WOULD AGREE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT THEM ON GETTING BETTER AND WHAT THEY DO TO MAKE US SAFER, ETC.
>> I THINK THE LIMIT WILL BE ON IF WE HAVE THE MONEY OR NOT.
>> AND THAT'S. YEAH. AND IN THE PAST, CHIEF BROOKS.
>> THAT'S STILL RIGHT. THAT WORKS. THAT WORKED VERY WELL.
RANDY. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. I SEE.
DID SOMEBODY GO CHECK AND MAKE SURE RANDY'S OKAY OVER THERE? CHAPTER 4, CONDUCT, SECTION 4.1 COMMITMENT.
I WOULD JUST ADD HUMAN RESOURCES.
THERE'S ONE SENTENCE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT SUBJECTIVE.
IT SAYS, FOR THIS REASON, ALL EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE TREATED AS RESPONSIBLE ADULTS IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.
ON THAT ONE, I WOULD MAYBE MAKE A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE IT.
FOR THIS REASON, ALL EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO BEHAVE PROFESSIONALLY.
>> CLEANS IT UP, BUT SOUNDS GOOD.
>> I'M HERE WHERE THE NEXT SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO
[00:25:02]
MEET THE CITY OF PARKER'S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, IS THERE SUCH A THING?>> THERE IS ON THE EVALUATIONS OR MOST OF THE EVALUATIONS HAVE A STANDARD.
IT MAY BE FROM 1-5 WITH FIVE BEING THE GREATEST.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? BUT THAT'S ON THE ACTUAL EVALUATION.
>> THEN THE NEXT QUESTION WAS SUPERVISORS WILL PROVIDE A WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTION.
I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, WE STRUGGLE SOMETIMES TO GET JOB DESCRIPTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT THEM ALL RIGHT NOW, BUT DO WE HAVE THEM ALL? I GUESS IF WE HAVE A SUPERVISOR IF WE GO SAYS HERE THAT THEY DO HAVE A JOB DESCRIPTION.
>> LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME.
JOB DESCRIPTION IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE USE WHEN WE HIRE SOMEBODY WHEN WE POST THE JOB.
IT'S GOING TO BE FAIRLY GENERIC, BUT IT DOES COVER AT THE TIME OF HIRE OR AT LEAST WHAT THEIR JOB DUTIES ARE.
>> ON EVERY JOB POSITION OR JOB POSTING, IT ALWAYS SAYS, OTHER DUTIES IS ASSIGNED.
THAT ALLOWS US ONCE WE HIRE SOMEBODY THEY'VE BEEN WITH THIS X AMOUNT OF TIME, IF WE NEED THEM TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, WE CAN DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVER GO BACK AND UPDATE THAT JOB DESCRIPTION, AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
NO. PERHAPS WE NEED TO DO THAT ANNUALLY OR PERIODICALLY.
>> I WOULD THINK WE WOULD WANT THAT, ESPECIALLY, AN EMPLOYEE COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, YOU WANT ME TO HAVE A PERFORMANCE REVIEW WHERE I GET A NINE, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE A JOB DESCRIPTION, THAT'S A ROCK AND A HARD SPOT.
TERRY, DIDN'T YOU WORK ON A LITTLE PROGRAMMING OR TRYING TO GET THOSE IMPLEMENTED AT SOME POINT FOR YEARS AND YEARS?
>> GRANT DID WORK ON THOSE FOR A BIT AND A GOOD MANY OF THEM WERE WRITTEN.
>> I THINK PAT'S GOTTEN THE JOB DESCRIPTION WRITTEN FOR EVERY POSITION RIGHT NOW.
THEN THAT WAY WHERE IF THAT POSITION WERE TO COME OPEN, WE HAVE READY TO GO.
>> WELL, AND MORE THAN JUST WHEN POSITIONS BECOME OPEN, I SEE THEM AS VERY HELPFUL FOR THE STAFF THEMSELVES TO KNOW WHAT THE JOB IS SAID TO BE.
TO ME, THAT'S HELPFUL WHEN YOU DO YOUR PERFORMANCE REVIEW, BECAUSE THAT IDENTIFIES WHAT WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO, AND EXPECTATIONS THEN FOLLOW FROM THAT.
>> IN A CITY THIS SIZE, A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE ARE WEARING DIFFERENT HATS.
A HAT MAY GET ADDED FOR AND I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE WITH ROBIN WHERE SHE'S OUR UTILITY MANAGER, BUT SHE DOES AN AWFUL LOT OF THE WEB STUFF.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER UPDATED HER JOB POSTING. WE MIGHT WANT TO.
>> WRITE THAT AND THEN ADD IN THE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU'LL BE WEARING MANY HATS.
YOU MAY BE ALSO OVER IN THIS DEPARTMENT, YOU MAY OVERLAP HERE AND JUST SET EXPECTATIONS. I WOULD THINK.
>> WELL, THAT I THINK WE DO ON THE POSTINGS BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE IN HERE. OR WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> CAN WE JUST BE ON THE POSTINGS AND LIKE REVISING THE POSTINGS? I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE SEPARATE OR SEPARATELY CALLED OUT WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT.
>> IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? ANYTHING ELSE ON COMMITMENT? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO SECTION 4.2 PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
I ONLY ASK GRANT WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SO TO ME IT'S LEAVING A DEPARTMENT HEADS.
I'VE BEEN NUMEROUS PLACES WHERE SOME DEPARTMENTS ARE MORE RELAX THAN OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND ONE DEPARTMENT SAYS, WELL, THEY GET TO DO IT OVER THERE AND WE DON'T GET TO DO IT OVER HERE, ETC.
SO THAT SOMETIMES HR BECOMES THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
BUT HAS IT EVER COME UP IN THE PAST, NO.
>> WE'VE NEVER HAD REALLY ISSUES.
MAYBE THE BIGGEST ISSUE WE'VE HAD IS WHERE MAYBE SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO BE MORE FLIP FLOPS TO WORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND AND HAD TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, YEAH. THERE WAS MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING DURING COVID.
[00:30:04]
THINGS GOT A LOT MORE RELAXED THAN WHAT THEY HAD BEEN.BUT I THINK WE HADN'T HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.
>> THEN KATHRINE, FROM A DOL STANDPOINT AND HR STANDPOINT, WHAT CAN WE SAY AND NOT SAY IN THESE AREAS?
>> I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS FINE IN BOTH OF THOSE.
IF YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND THAT, THEN I'D HAVE TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFICALLY ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY ABOUT IT.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, GROOMING STANDARDS AREN'T AN ISSUE.
>> I THINK IT'S FINE AS IT IS.
>> THEN MOVING TO SECTION 4.3, CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA.
>> HERE, I SEE CONTACT WITH THE MEDIA IS CENTRALIZED THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
SHOULD IT BE AND/OR THE MAYOR OR SHOULD THE MAYOR BE INVOLVED HERE?
>> WHAT I ADDED TO IN THIS WOULD BE ON SECTION 3 OR THIRD SENTENCE.
CONTACT WITH THE MEDIA IS CENTRALIZED TO THE MAYOR AND OR COUNCIL AS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS.
MEDIA CONTACT DEALING WITH THE POLICE, GOES THROUGH THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
>> I GUESS WHAT I REALLY THINK IT NEEDS TO SAY IS IF THERE'S A REASON IT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH GARY BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT A BRIDGE FALLING IN, THEN THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD GO.
I ALWAYS SEE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AS THE ONE THAT WOULD IDENTIFY GARY, THIS IS AN ISSUE A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT YEAH, COULD YOU PLEASE TALK TO THEM, BUT YOU STILL NEED A CENTRALIZED IN MY OPINION, YOU STILL NEED A CENTRALIZED PERSON THAT IS THE MEDIA PERSON.
>> THEN I GUESS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAYOR COUNCIL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT.
I KNOW THAT TODD DID AN INTERVIEW ON INDIAN TV?
>> I SUSPECT OTHERS OF ALL HAVE DONE SO OR HAVE BEEN APPROACHED TO DO SO. I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IF THOSE THINGS SHOULD COME UP ON THAT, I DO THINK IT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, BEFORE ANY OF US WOULD GO OUT AND GIVE THOSE INTERVIEWS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT SOMETHING, YOU NEED A CENTRAL POINT PERSON THAT KNOWS WHAT WHO'S TALKING TO THE WORLD?
>> I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE CITY COUNCIL IN THERE.
DOESN'T MEAN THE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T A CITY COUNCIL PERSON CAN'T SERVE AS A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CITY.
IF THAT INDIVIDUAL IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO SPEAK AS A SPOKESPERSON, BUT IN OUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNLESS WE'RE APPOINTED TO SPEAK ON A CERTAIN ISSUE, I THINK WE COULD END UP WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS GOING OUT THERE AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR CITY COUNCIL PERSON.
EITHER NEEDS TO BE THE MAYOR OR CITY ADMINISTRATOR, SOMEBODY THAT'S DESIGNATED AS A PIO.
>> WELL, SOME YEARS AGO, IN A PLANNING SESSION, IT WAS THE MAYOR THAT WAS DESIGNATED OR HER DESIGNEE, WHICH, OF COURSE, WOULD AT THAT POINT WAS A LOOP.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH BUDDY IN A NON CITY CAPACITY LIKE I WAS IN RUSSIA AND I ENDED UP DOING A LOT MORE INTERVIEWS THAT I ANTICIPATED IN RUSSIAN MEDIA, BUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING BUT RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH US, SO NO.
>> AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE WORDING DOWN HERE.
IT'S CENTRALIZED TO THE MAYOR AND CITY AND ADMINISTRATOR?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD WORK. I THINK THE MAYOR AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
I THINK YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER ONE OR TWO IS PREFERABLE.
>> BUT USUALLY, IN THE PAST, EITHER I'VE BEEN CALLED DIRECTLY OR LUKE AND I HAVE COMMUNICATED, HE WOULD SAY, I GOT A CALL FROM FOX NEWS.
[00:35:02]
DO YOU WANT ME TO HANDLE IT? WE DID IT LIKE THAT.>> I GUESS THE REAL ISSUE I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS, WHY IS THIS IN A PERSONNEL MEETING? I'M NOT SURE THIS IS REALLY PART OF PERSONNEL POLICY.
>> THIS IS COMMUNICATIONS POLICY THAT WE HAVE.
WE MIGHT NEED TO TELL EMPLOYEES, IF YOU'RE APPROACHED BY THE MEDIA, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE WHO ANSWERS TO THE MEDIA FOR THE CITY SO YOU NEED TO REFER MEDIA TO YOUR SUPERVISOR OR TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE MAYOR.
BUT REALLY GETTING INTO THIS ISSUE I'M NOT SURE IT'S EVEN NEEDED FOR A POLICY MANUAL.
>> THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THAT SECTION IS SO THAT EMPLOYEES DON'T SPEAK TO THE MEDIA WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THEIR CHAIN.
>> MAYBE [INAUDIBLE] AND STATE THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK TO THE CITY AND WOULD REFER ANY MEDIA CONTACTS TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE MAYOR.
ACTUALLY, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY TO THEIR DEPARTMENT HEAD, WHO WOULD THEN TAKE IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
>> THAT WOULD WORK FOR ME. HOW ABOUT YOU ALL?
>> NOW, I WOULD ASSUME YOU'RE CONTACTED FOR POLICE RELATED ISSUES.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THERE'S PROBABLY NOBODY BETTER TO SPEAK TO POLICE RELATED ISSUES THAN THAT.
BUT WHAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE IS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OFFICER OUT THERE TO START TALKING.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD WOULD BE TO TELL ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE IF YOU'RE APPROACHED BY THE MEDIA TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, YOU DON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, YOU REFER THEM TO YOUR DEPARTMENT HEAD.
>> THE NEXT LINE ACTUALLY DOES ADDRESS HIS QUESTION.
IT DOES SAY HERE, THE MEDIA CONTACT DEALING WITH POLICE BUSINESS GOES THROUGH THE CHIEF OF POLICE IT'S JUST COVERED UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION.
>> TO YOUR INTERNAL POLICY IF ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS WAS CONTACTED, DO THEY.
>> I ASSUMED THAT WAS YOUR ANSWER. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
>> TO KENNEY'S CREDIT ANY TIME HE HAS BEEN CONTACTED BY THE MEDIA HE HAS ALWAYS LET ME KNOW SO IT'S NOT LIKE I TURNED ON THE TV AND DAMN.
HE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC ON THAT.
>> EVEN IF ONE OF GARY'S EMPLOYEES HAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE OUT ON DUBLIN ROAD RIGHT NOW, I SAID, WHY IS THE CITY MESSING UP DUBLIN ROAD? THEY NEED TO BE INTERVIEWED ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU WOULDN'T WANT ONE OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ADDRESSED IN THE MEDIA.
YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO REFER IT TO YOU, AND THEN YOU MAKE A DECISION AS DEPARTMENT HEAD, WHETHER YOU HANDLE IT OR YOU TAKE IT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE MAYOR AND DECIDE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GUY [INAUDIBLE].
>> ARA, HAVE YOU EVER ADDRESSED THE MEDIA?
I DIDN'T THINK YOU HAD. KENNEY'S REALLY GOOD AT IT.
THEN WE WILL GO TO SECTION 4.4, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS ACCESS USE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH.
I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH BECAUSE IT NEEDS REWORDING, I THINK.
USERS DESIRING INTERNET AND OR EMAIL ACCESS MUST OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEIR DEPARTMENT HEAD.
BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYBODY WORKS ON A COMPUTER WITH EMAIL AND INTERNET ACCESS.
OTHERWISE, I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD FUNCTION REAL WELL.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE REWORDED.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS WE'LL GET INTO WHO CONTACTS IT WHEN THERE'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT GETS TO BE AN EXPENSE.
[00:40:11]
>> DOES THE CITY USE ANY INSTANT MESSAGING? CAN I REMOVE THAT REFERENCE ALTOGETHER?
>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE DON'T USE IT.
WHAT I'VE DONE IS JUST FIRST SENTENCE UNDER INTERNET, INSTANT MESSAGE, AND EMAIL ACCESS, AND I'M GOING TO GO TAKE INSTANT MESSAGE OUT OF THE TITLE THERE TOO, LEAVE THE SECOND SENTENCE, EXCEPT FOR INSTANT MESSAGE.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ON THIS, IF WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS, WOULD THEY BE GRANTED ACCESS? BECAUSE AT ONE POINT, WE'VE HAD SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS HELP US OUT WITH THINGS.
>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING TO DESIGNATE A PERSON TO FILL IN FOR PATTY WHEN SHE WAS ON VACATION.
IF WE HAD A TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE COME IN TO FILL IN FOR THAT ROLE, THE QUESTION WAS HOW DO WE GET THEM ACCESS TO THE SYSTEMS THEY WOULD NEED ACCESS TO IN A TIMELY MANNER SO THIS DOES COME UP, I THINK FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THAT WAS ONE EXAMPLE.
>> BUT IS THAT AN ISSUE FOR THE EMPLOYEE MANUAL OR IS THAT A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO INTERNET ACCESS ETC SO THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ADDRESSED HERE.
>> I LIKE THAT IDEA. THAT CAN BE A BIG SUBJECT, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ELABORATE FURTHER.
>> ALSO WITH THE WHOLE EMAIL ACCESS.
WE ALSO RUN IN SOME OTHER ISSUES ALSO.
FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE IN FIRE DEPARTMENT AT ANY TIME, THERE MIGHT BE 45, 50 DIFFERENT PART TIMERS THAT ARE WORKING, AND NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE AN EMAIL ADDRESS, CITY EMAIL ADDRESS, OR ACCESS TO A COMPUTER OR ANY OF THAT.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY PER EMAIL ACCOUNT SO USUALLY THEY LIMIT TO LIKE THE OFFICERS AND ALL THE CHIEFS OVER THERE.
THE SAME THING FOR GARY AND PUBLIC WORKS, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF YOUR MAINTENANCE WORKERS HAVE EMAIL ACCESS OR ACCESS TO THE INTERNET.
>> JUST YOU AND BOBBY AND DYLAN SO JUST FOUR ABOUT HALF HALF THE GUYS HAVE ACCESS OVER THERE.
I DON'T HOW WE SHOULD HANDLE THAT AS FAR AS WHO'S ALLOWED TO HAVE IT? WHO'S NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE IT?
>> MAYBE WE NEED TO LEAVE THAT FIRST SENTENCE THEN AS FAR AS USERS DESIRING.
>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT ALL EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET.
SORRY. I CAN'T THINK OF EXAMPLES WHERE THEY WOULDN'T.
>> BECAUSE WE PAY FOR EACH ACCOUNT SOME OF MY GUYS DON'T NEED IT.
>> EVEN IF THEY DO THEN SOMETHING CHANGES [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE TO SAY THAT THIS DOES OCCUR. THANKS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT SECTION.
ANYTHING ON THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS STILL THAT SECTION.
WE CAN TAKE OUT JUST INSTANT MESSAGING.
THEN WE MOVE TO UNACCEPTABLE USES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS INCLUDE.
>> THERE IS A REQUIREMENT NOW AND IT WENT INTO EFFECT IN THE FALL.
THE LAW REQUIREMENT PROHIBITING THE USE OF TIKTOK ON GOVERNMENT MACHINES.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A PROVISION
[00:45:03]
FOR THE GOVERNOR TO ADD ADDITIONAL THINGS TO THAT LIST AND ONE OF THEM WAS ADDED, I THINK ABOUT A MONTH AGO, A DIFFERENT PIECE OF SOFTWARE.THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER THIS POLICY WAS DRAFTED.
I HAVE A SEPARATE POLICY FOR THAT.
BUT I'LL JUST ADD DONE AND IT'S THE STATE SAID, THIS IS A STANDARD POLICY AND IT SHOULD BE IN THESE BOUNDS.
THAT'LL BE TAILORED A LITTLE BIT TO THE CITY, BUT THAT LAST PROVISION REFERENCES TIKTOK.
THAT PROBABLY ISN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER SECTION THAT COVERS THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
>> IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? ON THE ONE THAT SAYS COPYING OR DOWNLOADING COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE SAID IS, DON'T DO THAT.
YOU MAY BE DOWNLOADING THAT'S GOT ALL PROBLEMS. DON'T DO THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY AUTHORIZES YOU OR HAVE MIKE DO IT FOR YOU THAT'S JUST SCARY.
OUR IT SYSTEM IS LOCKED DOWN PRETTY TIGHT, AND EMPLOYEES CAN'T EVEN DOWNLOAD SOFTWARE ON THEIR COMPUTER WITHOUT IFRG'S APPROVAL.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? RANDY, I'M BEGINNING TO WORRY ABOUT YOU.
NO RIGHT OF PRIVACY MONITORING.
PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND I JUST QUESTION, IS THAT THE RIGHT PERSON? SHOULD IT BE IT?
>> IT WOULD BE LOOKING TO SOMEBODY FOR PERMISSION FOR WHAT THEY CAN DO, IS THAT CORRECT, GRANT?
>> PROBABLY SO. ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A COST TO IT.
>> OR MAYBE BOTH CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND IT.
I GUESS ONE OF MY FEARS IS IF WE HIRE SOMEONE THAT IS NOT A TECHIST, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
I JUST WOULD RATHER ERROR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
>> I THINK JUST THE CITY ADMINISTRATORS ARE GOOD, SUFFICIENT THERE.
>> AGAIN, I WOULD PUT IT IN THERE TOO, JUST TO BE CAREFUL.
I SEE YOUR POINT, BUT I JUST THINK BOTH.
>> BRANDY. ANYBODY WILLING TO TALK? GRANT.
THEN WE WILL MOVE TO SECTION 4.5.
CELL PHONE USE IN THE WORKPLACE.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REWORDED.
>> DO WE PROVIDE ANY PHONES? WE DO, DON'T WE?
[00:50:02]
>> PUBLIC WORKS. WHICH DEPARTMENTS RECEIVE PHONES?
>> A FEW PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE CELL PHONES, FEW AND I THINK ALL OF POLICE.
I BELIEVE ALL OF PUBLIC WORKS HAVE CELL PHONES.
I'M NOT SURE FIRE, I THINK THE CHIEFS HAVE CELL PHONES.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL. THEN I DON'T THINK IT GOES BEYOND CAPTAIN.
>> I THINK PATTY'S ONLY ONE THAT HAS A WORK CELL PHONE. ADMINISTRATION.
>> THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DID AND PATTY DOES.
GRANT DECLINED BECAUSE HE DID AS TWO DIFFERENT PHONES.
>> IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TALKING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL CELL PHONE USING IT AT WORK OR A CELL PHONE ISSUED TO YOU BY THE CITY?
>> OR USING YOUR PERSONAL CELL PHONE FOR WORK LIKE GRANT, HE DOES THAT.
>> AS I READ THIS, IT APPEARS FROM A PERSONNEL PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE WANTING TO GET ACROSS THE POINT THAT WE ALLOW YOU TO HAVE YOUR PERSONAL CELL PHONE IN THE OFFICE, BUT WE ASK YOU TO BE PROFESSIONAL IN HOW YOU USE IT WITH ALL OF THE HANDY DANDY THINGS WE CAN DO WITH OUR PHONES NOW.
GET YOUR WORK DONE. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY HERE.
>> I THINK IT DOES REFLECT THAT MESSAGE IN THE WORDING THE WAY IT HAS.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION IN TERMS OF USING YOUR PHONE FOR GPS.
I KNOW IF YOU'RE LIKE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY, BUT IF PEOPLE ON PUBLIC WORKS GET A CALL TO GO TO A PARTICULAR ADDRESS, I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO USE YOUR PHONE FOR GPS TO GET TO THAT ADDRESS, AND I WONDER, [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY KNOW WHERE THEY ALL. THEY DON'T NEED GPS.
>> THEY DON'T NEED GPS. [LAUGHTER] THAT SOLVES THAT PROBLEM.
[LAUGHTER] I'M ASSUMING IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE LIKE ESPECIALLY CALLED OUT HERE THAT THAT'S EASIER FOR YOUR HOME.
>> I THINK THE LAW HAS CHANGED ON THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
I HOPE WE'RE NOT TEXTING AND DRIVING.
[LAUGHTER] CATHERINE, THAT'S YOUR CLEAN UP THERE BECAUSE I THINK THE LAW HAS CHANGED.
>> WELL, THAT'S UP TO THE CITY.
WHETHER YOU WANT YOUR EMPLOYEES TO USE A CELL PHONE WHILE THEY'RE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE REGARDLESS OF THE LAW.
>> I THINK IT COMES BACK DOWN TO THE GPS QUESTION.
>> MAYOR PABLO, WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED ABOUT THIS SECTION?
>> ON TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?
>> I'M AT PARAGRAPH RIGHT ABOVE.
>> IT'S ILLEGAL TO TEXT AND DRIVE?
[00:55:01]
>> SORRY. I WAS TALKING ONE MORE PARAGRAPH.
>> I REALIZED THAT THE POLICE MAY HAVE SOME SPECIAL NEED, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WOULD NOT BE TEXTING AND DRIVING, THEY WOULD PULL OVER OR WHATEVER.
IT WOULD BE EMBARRASSING TO HAVE THE CHIEF OF POLICE ARRESTED BY ANOTHER AGENCY FOR TEXTING AND DRIVING.
>> I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE MAKE THIS FOLLOW THE LAW, WHICH WOULD BE TAKEN OUT TEXT OR THE TEXTING IS ILLEGAL.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT PHONE CALLS BECAUSE OF POLICE AND FIRE. THEY HAVE TO BE.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. I WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT.
>> MAYOR CAN I MAKE A COMMENT OR REQUEST FOR FUTURE MEETINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL MANUAL? I'M CONCERNED WITH HOW LONG THIS IS TAKING TO GO THROUGH.
I KNOW I'VE GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENT AND I SUSPECT ALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.
I WONDER IF IN THE FUTURE, IF WE COULD JUST SAY, I'VE GOT SOMETHING ON THIS PAGE, THIS IS THE ITEM I'VE GOT RATHER THAN GOING LINE BY LINE THROUGH.
BECAUSE WE'VE STILL GOT SEVERAL PAGES AND WITNESSES.
IS THIS THE FOURTH MEETING? FIFTH MEETING.
>> IT'S WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE THOUGHT THAT WE ALL INDIVIDUALLY GIVE GRANT, I WOULD SAY LUKE, BUT THERE'S NO LUKE HERE AND THEN WE JUST DO A RED LINE OF CHANGES AND THEN GO BACK THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT?
>> IT DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK TOO WELL SOMETIMES.
>> WELL, AS I SAY, PROBABLY BE BEST TO PUT IT TO CATHERINE ANY RED LINE DOCUMENT.
>> AMENDED TO SAY AND/OR CATHERINE.
>> WELL, WE CAN DO THAT OR JUST BRING YOU.
>> WE COULD DO THAT OR WE COULD JUST BRING THE RED LINE COPIES TO THE NEXT MEETING AND JUST GO THROUGH THAT.
>> AS LONG AS WE HAVE THEM TO LOOK AT IT IN ADVANCE, I THINK IT WOULD SPEED IT UP BECAUSE I KNOW TWO HOURS BEFOREHAND, I ALWAYS DIG IN ON BING BING BING BEFORE THE MEETING, SO IT'S FRESH.
>> I THINK IT'S [BACKGROUND] THERE'S SOME GOOD DISCUSSION THAT'S COME OUT IN THIS.
>> I GUESS I DON'T SEE THAT WE CAN'T DISCUSS EVEN IF WE DO IT WHERE WE GO AHEAD AND TURN OUR COMMENTS INTO CATHERINE AND BRING THEM TO THE MEETING AND WE CAN STILL GO OVER THEM AND SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SECTION 4.5 OR I HAVE POINTS ON SHOULD THIS BE IN THE MANUAL?
>> I THINK WE'D STILL HAVE THE DISCUSSION, EVEN IF WE RED LINED IT I THINK WE'D STILL HAVE THE DISCUSSION IT'D JUST BE EXPEDITED, YOUR THOUGHTS, PLEASE?
>> HOW ARE WE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE RED LINING THE SAME COPY THAT WE'RE GOING OVER? WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP SENDING TO CATHERINE AND HAVE CATHERINE DO FIVE DIFFERENT RED LINES OR SEVEN DIFFERENT RED LINES.
>> THE WAY THAT I COULD SEE IT WORKING IS THAT I RECEIVE THAT.
UP TO THIS POINT, I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AND PUTTING RED LINES AND IN SOME PLACES PUTTING COMMENTS WHERE I HAVE A NOTE TO MYSELF THIS NEEDS TO BE REWORDED AND IT DIDN'T COME TO ME HOW TO DO IT BEST WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'LL BRING UP ARE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY AGREES TO THAT YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING AND GO OKAY, LIKE INSTANT MESSAGING, NOBODY USES THAT ANYMORE SO IT'S ANTIQUATED.
THAT DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION HERE NECESSARILY.
WHERE THERE ARE PROPOSED CHANGES, IT WOULD JUST SHOW UP IN THE RED LINE, AND THEN I WOULD HAVE COMMENTS TO THE SIDE, MAYBE WHO ORIGINATED THAT COMMENT OR WHERE THERE'S CONFLICT BETWEEN PERSPECTIVES OF DIFFERENT MEMBERS AND ANNOTATE IT THERE AND PROVIDE THAT BACK TO YOU ALL SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHERE HERE ARE THE PROPOSED WAYS TO ADDRESS IT AND HERE'S THE ARGUMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FOR IT BEING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BASED ON WHAT I GET BACK FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WAY FOR EVERYBODY TO SIMULTANEOUSLY WORK ON A LIVE ONLINE COPY.
>> WE COULD USE A GOOGLE DOCUMENT.
>> WE DO IT TECHNICALLY, I JUST DON'T KNOW IS THAT A WALKING QUORUM IF WE'VE
[01:00:01]
GOT FIVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THIS DOCUMENT?THERE IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR THAT AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL USES WHERE THEY HAVE THIS PUBLIC FACING THING.
I DON'T THINK WE'D WANT TO TEST THAT.
>> INSTEAD OF GOING LINE BY LINE, AMANDA, WHAT'S YOUR DEALS? THEN YOU TELL US AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THEM.
TERRY, WHAT ARE YOURS AND DO IT PERSON BY PERSON IF ALL AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE DO?
>> I THINK WE'D GET A QUICKER WORK PRODUCT FOR THE CITIZENS IF WE DID IT THAT WAY.
>> IS THAT GOOD WITH YOU, RANDY?
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE DOING IT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST SAYING IN THIS SECTION, DOES EVERYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I THINK IT JUST HAS BEEN THE DISCUSSION JUST TAKES A WHILE AND IT IS WHAT IT IS, I GUESS TO SOME EXTENT.
>> MAYBE WE CAN JUST ASK FOR THE WHOLE PAGE AT A TIME, YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT MIGHT NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT.
>> WELL, WE CAN TRY IT AND SEE HOW IT GOES, BUDDY, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS?
>> THIS IS WHAT YOU END UP WITH WHEN YOU DO ANYTHING BY COMMITTEE.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S AN INEFFICIENT PROCESS.
>> WELL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE.
WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT, BUT AT THIS TIME,
[ADJOURN]
I AM ADJOURNING THE WORKSHOP.IT IS, MY COMPUTER JUST RESTART, 6:02 PM.
[CALL TO ORDER]
AT THIS TIME, I WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2025.AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MA'AM. YOU HAVE A SUPPER QUORUM.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE 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 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 6:04 PM WE ARE IN RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I HEREBY RECONVENE THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2025.
[CONVENE REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM. ]
IT IS, I CAN'T READ, 7:06 PM.AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL, I WILL ASK YOU, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION OR ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGES.
I WILL ASK DARRYL SHARP, IF YOU WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND COLLEEN HALBERT, IF YOU WILL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
[01:05:13]
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS,
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
AND I HAVE ONE COMMENT CARD FROM SUSAN MADRONO.>> I'M HERE TONIGHT FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE IS TO EXPRESS EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT IN THIS COUNCIL FOR MAKING TODD MAYOR PRO TEM.
QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK HIS EXPLANATION OF ABSENCES DOES NOT SATISFY WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER THE COURSE OF HIS TERM.
I PERSONALLY HAVE GONE BACK THROUGH EVERY SINGLE MEETING NOTES SINCE HE WAS ELECTED.
YOU'VE MISSED MORE THAN 30% OF YOUR MEETINGS, YOU'VE BEEN LATE TO MORE THAN EIGHT.
THAT DOESN'T ALSO ACCOUNT FOR MEETINGS THAT THE COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T AVAILABLE SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE ACTION BY THIS COUNCIL.
THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT SEEING THINGS LIKE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION IN EARLY DECEMBER TO DISBAND THE NOISE COMMITTEE, WELL, IT WAS IN THE MEETING, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING WHERE THE NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS CAME AND SPOKE, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IT'S ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THIS COUNCIL DISCUSSED LEWIS LANE IN PRIVATE.
YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD THE DIALOGUE IN PUBLIC ABOUT WHICH SECTIONS YOU WERE APPROVING AND SHOWED YOUR CARDS ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS STAND FOR, AND YOU DIDN'T DO IT.
I'M PISSED, I'M HIGHLY MOTIVATED AROUND THIS ELECTION, AND I FULLY INTEND TO RALLY AGAINST ANYONE WHO'S NOT UP HERE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? NEXT, WE WILL GO TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST ]
FIRST, THE NOISE COMMITTEE IS SCHEDULED TO MEET TOMORROW, MARCH 5 AT 2:00 PM.>> PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO MEET WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2025 AT 5:00 PM IN THIS ROOM.
ON THURSDAY, APRIL 3, THAT IS THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR OUR ELECTION; THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
PLEASE IF YOU'VE MOVED TO PARKER RECENTLY OR EVEN IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE BUT HAVE NOT CHANGED YOUR VOTERS REGISTRATION, PLEASE DO SO BY APRIL 3RD SO THAT YOU MAY VOTE IN OUR ELECTION ON MAY 3RD.
OUR EARLY VOTE ON THURSDAY, APRIL 17, AT 7:00 PM AT VICTORY CHURCH, WHICH IS JUST DOWN THE STREET A BIT, WILL BE THE CANDIDATES NIGHT PRESENTED TO YOU BY THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB.
THE CANDIDATES WILL BE THERE IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR CITY.
NEXT, THE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK, WHICH IS SATURDAY, APRIL 26, FROM 10:00-2:00 RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET HERE, THERE WILL BE A POLICE OFFICER STANDING OUT THERE READY TO TAKE YOUR DISCARDED DRUGS AND NEEDLES.
AS A REMINDER, OUR ELECTION IS ON MAY 3RD, EARLY VOTING STARTS APRIL 22ND.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT.]
THE FIRST ITEM IS ANY CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY BELL AND PARK.>> AS YOU STATED, I'M SUSAN MCFOLLE.
I'M A PRINCIPAL WITH BELL AND PARK, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE HERE WITH ME TONIGHT, TONG PAM AND HE'S A SHAREHOLDER.
I WILL BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION.
I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO BE HERE AND GET TO PRESENT AFTER THE AUDIT IS OVER, AND SO WE'LL GO OVER THE RESULTS AND WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION TO TALK ABOUT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO CUT IN OR YOU CAN WAIT AT THE END.
TONIGHT'S AGENDA WILL COVER THE OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE AUDIT, THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, AN OVERVIEW OF AUDIT RESULTS, A FEW FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS, OUR MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION,
[01:10:02]
AND ONE LETTER, A REQUIRED GOVERNANCE COMMUNICATION LETTER, AND THEN CLOSING REMARKS WITH QUESTIONS.THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS AND GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, WHICH IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS THE YELLOW BOOK.
ALSO, WE WERE PLANNING AND PERFORMING THE AUDIT TO OBTAIN REASONABLE ASSURANCE ABOUT WHETHER THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE FREE FROM MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT.
WITH THAT REGARD, WE PERFORMED A RISK ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT, AND TIMING OF OUR SUBSTANDARD AUDIT PROCEDURES.
WE DID DO A FULL-SCOPE AUDIT, WHICH INCLUDED YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES, YOUR BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES, YOUR WATER FUND, AND EACH MAJOR FUND.
THE BOUND REPORT IS THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, AND THIS IS THE TABLE OF CONTENTS.
WE HAVE ON PAGES 1-3, THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT.
THE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS IS ON PAGE 5-16, WHICH IS BASICALLY A VERBAL OVERVIEW OF YOUR REPORT, YOUR FINANCIAL RESULTS.
THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE ON PAGES 17-21, AND THOSE ARE THE FULL ACCRUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT INCLUDE EVERYTHING, AND THOSE ARE THE CLOSEST TO A BUSINESS-TYPE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT YOU WILL HAVE IN YOUR REPORT.
THE FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS START ON PAGE 22-29, THE NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE ON PAGE 31-64, AND THOSE ARE JUST ALL THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES THAT SUPPORT YOUR BALANCES.
THE REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION IS ON PAGE 65-73, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND YOUR TMRS, PENSION, OPE DATA, AS WELL AS YOUR BUDGET TO ACTUAL RESULTS THERE.
THE OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION IS YOUR COMBINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF YOUR NON-MAJOR FUNDS, AND THEN FINALLY IN THE BACK IS THE COMPLIANCE AND INTERNAL CONTROL SECTION ON PAGE 81-84, WHICH IS OUR YELLOW BOOK REPORT.
THE TWO REPORTS THAT WE DID ISSUE ARE, THE FIRST IS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
IT'S AN UNMODIFIED OPINION, ALL STANDARD LANGUAGE, CLEAN OPINION, EVERYTHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE, SO NO WORRIES THERE.
THEN IN THE BACK OF THE REPORT, PAGES 83-84, IS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING, AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS.
THAT'S YOUR YELLOW BOOK REPORT.
THAT ONE ALSO HAD ALL STANDARD LANGUAGE, NO MATERIAL WEAKNESSES OR SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES OR ANY OTHER CONTROL MATTERS IDENTIFIED, SO THAT'S GOOD.
LET'S START WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DRILL DOWN TO NET POSITION.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT A BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMENT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES, IS EQUITY, AND THAT'S THE CLOSEST THING THAT YOU HAVE TO THE NET POSITION.
WE LIKE TO LOOK AT THE NET POSITION BECAUSE THAT GIVES US AN IDEA OF BASICALLY THE NET EFFECT OF ALL THOSE BALANCES.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT WAS $73,566,355.
OVERALL, THAT NET POSITION DID INCREASE BY 6,065,198 OR 9%, SO THAT'S POSITIVE RESULTS.
THEN FURTHER, WE LIKE TO LOOK AT THE UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION.
THERE'S BASICALLY TWO TYPES, THE RESTRICTED, OR THE INVESTMENT IN YOUR CAPITAL ASSETS, AND THEN THE UNRESTRICTED, WHICH ISN'T ALREADY SPOKEN FOR.
THAT'S A GOOD INDICATOR OF THE CITY'S HEALTH AND THERE'S $17,906,089 AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
WE'LL LOOK AT A FEW FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS, AND LET'S START WITH YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES AND REVENUES.
NOW, YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE OBVIOUSLY YOUR LARGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE.
BUT OVERALL, YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY REVENUE TOTALED 10,076,606.
THAT WAS AN INCREASE OF $1,087,635 OR 12%.
THE REASON FOR THOSE INCREASES WAS AN INCREASE IN SALES TAX OF ABOUT 418,000 AND AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, 640,824, AND THEN A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT INCOME, 286,918, OR 80%.
[01:15:01]
THAT'S A POSITIVE RESULT.LET'S TAKE A LOOK NOW AT AN OVERVIEW OF YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY EXPENSES.
YOUR LARGEST EXPENSE IS PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
BUT FOR THE YEAR OF '24, GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY EXPENSES WERE $7,111,258, WHICH WAS AN INCREASE OF 743,196 OR 12%.
THE 12% INCREASE WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO PUBLIC WORKS EXPENSE, THERE WAS 108,239 DUE TO ONGOING PROJECTS, AND SOME INCREASES IN PERSONNEL COSTS.
YOUR LARGEST FUNCTIONAL EXPENSE IS THE PUBLIC WORKS, AND THAT WAS 3.2 MILLION.
NOW, LET'S MOVE TO THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS PROBABLY YOUR LARGEST MOST IMPORTANT FUND, AND WE'RE AT THE FUND LEVEL ON PAGE 22, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG.
BUT, AGAIN, WE LIKE TO LOOK AT YOUR FUND BALANCES, WHICH IS THE EQUITY OF THE FINANCIALS, AND THEN FURTHER, WE LIKE TO GO AND DRILL DOWN TO THE UNASSIGNED, WHICH IS NOT ALREADY SPOKEN FOR.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT WAS 8.4 MILLION, WHICH IS UP FROM YOUR 6.8 MILLION LAST YEAR, THE INCREASE WAS 1.5 MILLION.
THESE FUNDS CAN BE USED TO MEET THE CITY'S ONGOING OBLIGATIONS, AS I SAID, AND THEY'RE NOT ALREADY SPOKEN FOR IN ANOTHER WAY.
IT DOES REPRESENT A REALLY GOOD RESERVE OF ABOUT 25 MONTHS WHEN 3-6 IS THE MINIMUM, AND SO THE CITY OF PARKER GOT A GOOD RESERVE THERE AND IT'S LOOKING NICE.
LET'S LOOK AT YOUR BUDGET TO ACTUAL.
THE GENERAL FUND REVENUES WERE BUDGETED.
YOUR FINAL BUDGET WAS 6.5 MILLION AND ACTUALLY BROUGHT IN 7.4 MILLION WITH A POSITIVE VARIANCE OF 877,796.
YOUR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES HAD A BUDGET OF ABOUT 4.9, AND THEN YOU ONLY SPENT 4.1, WHICH GAVE YOU ANOTHER VARIANCE OF 845,162.
THE OTHER FINANCING SOURCES ALSO WERE BUDGETED, BUT THERE WAS NO VARIANCE THERE.
BUT OVERALL, THERE WAS A POSITIVE VARIANCE OF THE 1.7 MILLION.
YOU DID A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN EXPECTED.
NOW, LET'S FOCUS A LITTLE BIT ON THE WATER FUND.
IT'S ALREADY IN THE FULL ACCRUAL BASIS, UNLIKE THE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES, SO IT HAS A NET POSITION.
THE EQUITY IS THE NET POSITION, BUT FURTHER, WE LIKE TO LOOK AT THE UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT WAS 7.5 MILLION OVER LAST YEAR'S 6.8 MILLION, AND THAT GAVE US AN INCREASE OF 755,754.
OVERALL, THE NET POSITION OF THAT FUND DID INCREASE $3,019,850 OR 11%, SO IT DID GO UP.
WE DO HAVE A LETTER THAT'S NOT BOUND, AND IT HAS SOME STANDARD LANGUAGE AND THINGS THAT WE LIKE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE COUNCIL, SO I DO RECOMMEND THAT YOU READ THE LETTER.
BUT I'LL JUST POINT OUT MAINLY THE CORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS, WHICH IS THE AJES.
THERE WAS ONLY THREE, SO THAT'S OUTSTANDING.
GOOD JOB, GRANT. THEN THE UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENT, I THINK THERE WAS ONE SMALL ITEM.
WE'RE REQUIRED TO ACCUMULATE THOSE, BUT WE DON'T RECORD THEM AND WE DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THEM UNLESS WE FOUND A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM, AND THEN WE MIGHT END UP BOOKING ONE.
WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF MINOR RECOMMENDATIONS.
REALLY, THE CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL RECOVERY FUNDS IS JUST KIND OF THE HEADS UP.
YOU'RE SCHEDULED TO SPEND THAT MONEY IN '25, AND THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER EITHER A SINGLE AUDIT OR AN ALTERNATIVE EXAM BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE MORE THAN 750,000, AND IT'LL BE THE ALTERNATIVE EXAM BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS PAPERWORK FOR YOU AND FOR US, AND YOU DON'T HAVE AWARDS OVER 750 OF OTHER FEDERAL AWARDS.
IF THAT WAS THE CASE, YOU'D BE REQUIRED TO DO THE SINGLE AUDIT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU DON'T AND REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT'S THROWING YOU INTO THAT ARE THESE AWARDS, AND SO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED THAT A LOT OF CITIES WAS IN THAT POSITION AND GAVE US A LITTLE BIT OF AN ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS WORK.
THERE'S STILL A LOT TO IT AND THERE'S STILL A LOT WE HAVE TO DO, BUT NOT QUITE AS BAD AS A SINGLE AUDIT.
MOST CITIES DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
[01:20:02]
THEN WE DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE SANITATION FUND ENDING NET POSITION WAS 12,000.THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LOW AND WE JUST WANT TO WATCH THAT BECAUSE IF IT DID, IT COULD GO NEGATIVE, AND YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT. I'M NOT SURE.
WE DID WANT TO THANK GRANT AND PATTI FOR THEIR HELP.
AT THIS TIME, I GUESS WE WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AFTER THIS.
>> COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL GOOD. MR. KERCHO, I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU YOU'RE COMING BACK WITH US.
>> YOU'RE ON. YOU CAN ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS.
>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT ON THE MDNA SECTION, WHICH STARTS ON OUR PACKET, I THINK, ON PAGE 74.
FIRST PARAGRAPH, IT TALKS ABOUT PARKER FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND I GUESS THE LEGAL NAME IS THE PARKER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE THERE'S NOT REALLY A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT ANY LONGER.
>> WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? LET'S SEE. GOVERNMENT-WIDE.
>> PAGE 8. SEVENTY-FOUR IS WHAT.
>> WE SOLVED THE VOLUNTEER [INAUDIBLE] AS OF SEPTEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE STILL CURRENTLY HAVE A VOLUNTEER STATUS.
SHE IS OUR ONLY ONE [INAUDIBLE].
>> IS IT A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY BECAUSE IT WAS A VOLUNTEER SITUATION?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S ACTUALLY PAPERWORK.
WE HAVE SOME PAPERWORK, AND YOU HAVE WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED, THERE WAS PAPERWORK THAT CALLED IT THAT AND THEN IT'S SET UP JUST AS A BLENDED FUND WITHIN YOUR FINANCIALS.
THE POLICE IS WITHIN THE NORMAL ASPECT OF THE OVERALL CITY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY.
>> IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN VOLUNTEER AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED AS A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, I GUESS, [INAUDIBLE] HAS NEVER BEEN VOLUNTARY [INAUDIBLE].
>> GIVEN THAT IT WAS REALLY NOT A "VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT" ANY MORE SHOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE BRINGING INTO THE CITY AS OPPOSED TO A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY?
>> [INAUDIBLE] DISCUSSIONS [INAUDIBLE].
>> IS THERE ANY ADVANTAGES OF RUNNING IT AS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY?
>> WELL, I WILL TELL YOU THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE FOR A LOT OF CITIES BECAUSE BACK IN THE DAY, EVERY FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS A SEPARATE ENTITY.
THEY WERE OVER IN THEIR OWN WORKSHOP, THEY RAN THEIR OWN THING, AND THEY HAD THE PAPERWORK.
NOW, MOST OF THOSE HAVE BEEN PULLED INTO THE CITY AND THEY'RE PART OF THE CITY, BUT THERE'S STILL THIS PAPERWORK OUT THERE WHERE THEY ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES AS AN ENTITY.
IT'S NOT REALLY THAT IT'S SEPARATE BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE A FUND.
IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 76, IT'S A NON-MAJOR FUND, YOUR VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IT'S PART OF THE CITY, BUT IT ALSO HAS ITS OWN STRUCTURE.
YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT AND CHANGE IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANY IMPLICATION.
I KNOW IT'S REALLY COMMON WHERE A LOT OF CITIES ARE GRADUALLY TAKING THE VOLUNTEER IN AND MAKING EVERYBODY PAID.
I THINK THAT'S JUST THE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN THE REPORT, AND I DO THINK THE PAPERWORK IS STILL OUT THERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION, IT'S NOT A QUESTION.
[INAUDIBLE]. WE KNOW, THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE, LOOK AT THE RESULTS OR LOOK AT THE AUDIT REPORT.
YOU INDICATED THAT THE NET POSITION INCREASED SIX MILLION.
MY GUESS IS THAT SOME PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, OH, MY GOSH, YOU GUYS CHARGE US SO MUCH MONEY THAT YOU GUYS HAD EXTRA SIX MILLION.
BUT REALLY THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THAT SIX MILLION IS IS WHEN WE ANNEXED PROPERTIES AND THE DEVELOPER BASICALLY CONTRIBUTED THOSE ASSETS THAT THEY HAD BUILT OUT TO THE CITY.
IT CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING WE'VE CHARGED CITIZENS AND SUDDENLY HAD SIX MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WE SPENT.
[01:25:01]
>> NO. IT'S VERY COMMON TO HAVE A LARGE INCREASE BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER DONATE THOSE ASSETS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORTH QUITE A LOT.
IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 20, THERE'S 1.8 MILLION IN CONTRIBUTIONS THERE.
EACH YEAR WHEN THE DEVELOPERS DONATE THE ASSET TO YOU TO THEN CARE FOR, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE YOUR NET POSITION, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CASH, IT'S AN ASSET SLASH SOMETHING THAT THE CITY'S GOT TO CARE FOR.
IT'S USUALLY YOUR SEWER LINES OR YOUR ROADS, OR IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEN THEY BECOME YOURS AND YOU'VE GOT THE UPKEEP ON THEM, AND THAT'S WHY THEY GIVE IT TO YOU.
>> THEN I THINK WHAT STOOD OUT TO ME AS I LOOKED DOWN, I THINK PROBABLY PAGE 80 IN OUR PACKET.
IT BASICALLY CAME OUT THAT WHERE WE HAD THE GRAPH STARTING AT THE 5.5 MILLION SHOWING CHARGES AND EXPENSES.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE NOTES INDICATED THAT CHARGES REALLY INCREASED 3% DURING THE YEAR WHILE EXPENSES INCREASED 16% OVER THE PRIOR YEAR.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE DID WIND UP SPENDING MORE, I THINK, THAN WHAT WE HAD BROUGHT IN, IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY.
>> PART OF IT IS BECAUSE BUSINESS TYPE, A LOT OF SPENDING THAT YOU HAVE IS TOWARD CAPITAL, AND THOSE ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXPENSES FOR GAAP, SO THOSE ARE CAPITALIZED IN THE ASSETS, SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE HAVING A LOT MORE REVENUES AND EXPENSE, BUT ACTUALLY YOU'RE SPENDING AS MUCH IN CAPITAL.
>> RIGHT. WHILE WE SAID THAT WE DID GOOD BECAUSE WE WOUND UP INCREASING OUR FUND BALANCES, PART OF THAT IS THAT WE ALSO HAVEN'T REALLY SPENT PART OF THE MONEY THAT WE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED WE MAY HAVE THROUGH OUR CIP AND OTHER STUFF, BUT WE PUT OFF SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS AND HENCE WOUND UP WITH MORE MONEY.
>> WELL, IF THE MONEY COMES IN AND YOU SPEND IT ON AN ASSET, IT WON'T GO THROUGH YOUR INCOME STATEMENT, IT'S GOING TO GO JUST STRAIGHT UP TO YOUR BALANCE SHEET.
IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE AN EXPENSE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO DEPRECIATE THAT OVER.
THERE'S NO CASH SITTING THERE, IT WENT INTO AN ASSET, IT'S GOING TO BE DEPRECIATED.
IT'S NOT LIKE THE MONEY IS JUST SITTING THERE.
YOU'VE BROUGHT IT IN AND IT'S JUST SITTING THERE.
>> I LIKE TO SAY, GRANT AGAIN, TERRIFIC JOB DURING THE YEAR.
EVERY TIME I LOOK AT THE AUDIT REPORT, I WAS AUDIT AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND OUR REPORT WASN'T THESE MANY PAGES.
[LAUGHTER] I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO PUT THAT TOGETHER.
MUCH LIKE THE ANNUAL REPORT OVER ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SIDE.
BOTH OF THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT WORK BEHIND THEM AND THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO DO A GREAT JOB AND KEEPING OUR CITY ON THE RIGHT PATH.
>> THEY JUST ADDING TO WHAT IS REQUIRED AND CHANGING THE RULES, AND WE WISH THEY WOULD JUST TAKE UP KNITTING AND LEAVE THIS ALONE, BUT THEY DON'T. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR GETTING THIS DONE TIMELY AND PROFESSIONALLY, WORKING WITH GRANT AND PATTY AND THE STAFF.
I APPRECIATE THAT. ACTUALLY, GRANT HAS ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS.
ONE, I DO WANT TO JUST FORWARD THE RECORD ON YOUR MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION LETTER.
>> YOU'VE MENTIONED THE CORONA VIRUS, THE COVID FUNDS, AND THE NEED FOR ALTERNATE AUDIT EXAMINATION ON THAT.
THE OTHER IT MAKES A COMMENT ABOUT THE OMB COMPLIANCE SUPPLEMENT, WHICH WHEN I READ IT FIRST, MADE ME WONDER IF YOU ALL HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE.
OUR BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
>> YES. NO. BASICALLY, WHAT I WAS JUST INFERRING HERE IS, THESE ADDITIONAL THINGS WILL HAVE TO BE AUDITED.
THE SINGLE AUDIT OR THE EXAM IT FOLLOWS THE OMB COMPLIANCE SUPPLEMENT.
>> THEN I ALWAYS JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE WANT TO POINT OUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING THOSE MONEYS.
YOU PICKED OUT A PROJECT, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH NOT BEING COMPLIANT.
[01:30:03]
>> THE OTHER ITEM, THE SANITATION FUND NET POSITION, AND IT'S NOTED, IT STANDS OUT ALSO IN THE PROPRIETARY FUND, WHERE WE SEE OUR SANITATION EXPENDITURES COMING THROUGH.
THAT RELATES TO AN EMERGENCY OR A LOT OF DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR THAT WE SPENT.
>> STORM DAMAGE THAT WE SPENT ABOUT $70,000.
>> ALMOST $80,000. YOUR POINT IS WELL MADE THAT THE CITY DOES NEED TO BEEF UP THAT FUND A LITTLE BIT SO THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CUSHION.
BUT I THINK GENERALLY YOU KEEP A CUSHION IN THAT ACCOUNT, DON'T YOU? [BACKGROUND]
>> WELL, AND IT IS THE NON MAJOR SANITATION FUND, SO YOU DO HAVE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST EARTH SHATTERING, BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO NOTE.
>> IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPENSES THIS YEAR THAT WERE UNUSUAL, AND YOU WON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THOSE EVERY YEAR.
>> THEN I ALWAYS GET AMAZED THAT, THERE'S ALL THESE SCHEDULES ABOUT THESE FUNDS, IN THE GENERAL FUND, BUT NOTHING WITH RESPECT TO, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THE FUNDS IN THE PROPRIETARY FUND, WHICH IS THERE'S $2 MILLION, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE THAT RELATES TO OUR IMPACT FEES, THAT HAVE COME IN THAT WILL BE USED TO HELP FUND OUR FUTURE ASSETS, OUR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON GROWTH.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO ME, AND I LIKE TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF WHAT THAT IS.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE MAIN THINGS.
BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT Y'ALL DID AND GRANT, THE WORK THAT ALL HAVE DONE. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE REDUCTION IN THE TAX RATE.
IF YOU DID, WE'RE STILL TAKING FOR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM EXISTING CITIZENS.
HERE AND [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THIS IS TWO YEARS IN A ROW AND IT'S BEEN OVER $600,000.
DIGITAL PROPERTY TAX PROPERTIES [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY.
>> I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
WE GOT TOO MANY ELDERLY PEOPLE THAT THIS IS A HUGE HIT ON FIXED INCOMES.
I OWN MANY COMPANIES AND HAVE INTERNAL ACCOUNTING AND EXTERNAL ACCOUNTING FIRMS, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY WHAT AN AMAZING JOB YOU DID AT ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND TELLING IT A GREAT STORY AND OF PROVIDING EVERYTHING. NO QUESTIONS.
>> I JUST WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS OF THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE.
JUST GREAT WORK, GRANT, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXCELLENT REPORT ON THE AUDIT. THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK GRANT AND PAT AND PATTY AND ALL OF OUR STAFF THAT HELPED PUT THIS TOGETHER AND PULL IT ALL TOGETHER SO THE AUDIT COULD HAPPEN AND THE WONDERFUL DETAILED JOB THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE.
IT'S JUST A PLEASURE TO GET A REPORT BACK LIKE THIS. THANK YOU.
>> WE DO APPRECIATE IT. WE ENJOYED IT.
>> IT'S A GOOD CITY TO WORK ON.
WE LIKE TO WORK ON CITIES LIKE PARKER.
EVERYTHING JUST RUNS VERY SMOOTH.
>> IT WAS MY THIRD YEAR, BUT IT'S MY FIRST YEAR TO ACTUALLY PRESENT.
I THINK THE FIRST YEAR I GOT SICK AND MIKE VALE PRESENTED, AND THEN LAST YEAR, SOPHIE PRESENTED, AND SO THIS IS MY FIRST CHANCE TO MAKE IT HERE, BUT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR THREE YEARS AND I REALLY ENJOY IT.
>> WELL, WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET OR THE AUDIT? OKAY. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4,
[01:35:03]
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020.>> EXCUSE ME, DO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT?
NO, KATHERINE, WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER?
>> I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED.
>> THEN I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT AS PRESENTED.
>> MADAM MAYOR I SECOND THE MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER NOE TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5,0.
NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 4.
[4. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-836 MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (ZBA). ]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-836, MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.I BELIEVE IN YOUR PACKET, COUNCIL, YOU HAD A RESOLUTION AND AN APPLICATION FROM DR. DON HEADLAND TO BE APPOINTED TO THE ZONING BOARD.
AT THIS TIME, WE DO HAVE TWO VACANCIES ON THAT BOARD.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT DON HEADLAND TO THE VACANT ALTERNATE ONE POSITION FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-836.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NOE AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FEK TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF DR. DON HEADLAND AND APPOINT HER TO THE ALTERNATE ONE POSITION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES 5,0.
MISS GRAY, WOULD YOU PLEASE LET DR. HEADLAND KNOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO THE ZBA?
>> IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED, WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE OPENING TO ZBA.
NEXT, WE WILL HAVE THE UPDATES.
[5. UPDATE(S)]
FIRST UPDATE IS 2551.MR. MACHADO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT'S HAPPENING ON 2551?
NO, THEY'RE MAKING A MESS. THEY'VE GOT ALL THE OLD WATER LINE OUT OF THE GROUND, CLEARING THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] STILL I KNOW AT ONE POINT THEY WEREN'T HOLDING A LOT OF MEETINGS.
ARE THEY STARTING TO HOLD MEETINGS AND KEEPING US INFORMED? NO.
THEY DO SET THEM UP AND THEY CANCEL THEM.
>> BUT I STILL RECALL [INAUDIBLE].
>> HOW FAR BEHIND DO YOU THINK WE ARE?
>> A COUPLE OF MONTHS, AT LEAST.
>> THIS WAS ORIGINALLY TO BE ON A 90 DAY SCHEDULE, RIGHT?
>> OH, NO. THIS IS 2551. THAT'S A TWO YEAR.
>> ON THE NEXT UPDATE, THE PUMP STATION WATER CONNECTION, MR. MACHADO.
WOULD YOU TELL US WHERE WE ARE?
>> WE HAD THAT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 13 TO MAKE THE TAP ON 820 LINE, AND THAT WAS MOVED YESTERDAY TO THE 20TH, THE WEEK OUT.
[01:40:01]
THEY'VE ENCOUNTERED A LOT MORE ROCK AND LOT MORE DIFFICULTY GETTING EVERYTHING EXCAVATED TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE READY TO DO THAT.SO FAR, EVERYBODY HAS AGREED NORTH TEXAS, THOMPSON PIPE THE CONTRACTOR, EVERYBODY HAS AGREED TO THE NEW DATE.
>> SINCE YOU'RE ON A ROLL, MR. MACHADO, HOW ABOUT THE DUBLIN WATER LINES?
>> THAT'S A MESS. ANOTHER MESS.
BUT THEY'RE MAKING PROGRESS, THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER CREW SCHEDULED TO START.
AS SOON AS THEY GET FREE UP ON ANOTHER JOB TO COME IN AND START FROM THE BETSY SIDE.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE.
THERE'S SOME STUFF IN THERE WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, AND THEY HIT ONE OF THOSE LINES ON FRIDAY, AND THAT CAUSED AN ISSUE ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN.
OTHER THAN THAT, THEY'RE WORKING AS FAST AS THEY CAN SAFELY.
I WOULD SAY THAT THEY MOVED THE DIRT OVER ONLY ON ONE SIDE, SO IF YOU HAD A PART OF THAT, THANK YOU, BECAUSE, YES, NOW I THINK YOU CAN GET BACK AND FORTH ON THAT ROAD.
>> THAT WAS ON REQUEST OF [INAUDIBLE] TO MAKE SURE FIRE TRUCK [INAUDIBLE] MADE CLEAR, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE, THEY COULD STILL PASS.
>> AT THIS TIME, EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN YOU GET DOWN DUBLIN ROAD?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM, ANY UPDATE ON TCQ?
>> THE NEWEST THING ON THAT IS ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
IT'S BEEN ASSIGNED TO A NEW JUDGE.
I THINK I TOLD YOU THAT LAST TIME AROUND.
ANOTHER LETTER WAS WRITTEN FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THIS WEEK WHO HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO GET TCQ TO EXPEDITE SENDING THE FILES OVER TO THE JUDGE BECAUSE NO ONE CAN BEGIN PREPPING FOR TRIAL ON THIS UNTIL THEY GET THE FILES FROM TCQ.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SENT A LETTER THAT SAYS, APPARENTLY, TCQ IS HAVING A HARD TIME LOCATING ALL OF THE FILES ON THE CASE, AND THE BEST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE THEM THIS FALL AND GO TO TRIAL THEN.
BUT THE ATTORNEY THAT I TALKED TO, AT LEAST FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS, SAID IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT IT'S GOING TO GO TO TRIAL IN JANUARY OF 2026.
NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THE MUD APPLICATION.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMEMBER, NOE, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE ENGINEERING REVIEWS?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. THE ENGINEERING REVIEWS HAVE COMMENCED.
THERE ARE 67 APPLICATIONS TO REVIEW, AND THAT EQUATES TO 201 SCORES TO SCORE, AND THERE ARE 15 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THEM AND WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF REALLY GOOD INFORMATION REGARDING CONCEPTS OF LAND PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CAPABILITIES TO PLAN DOWNTOWN AREAS, FOREST CITIES, FUTURE LAND USE, ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS, MASTER PLANNING CITIES.
THE SECOND CATEGORY IS MATERIAL TESTING, AND THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THE CORE SAMPLES AND SOIL SAMPLES OF PROJECTS THAT YOU WOULD DO IN THE CITY, AS WELL AS EVALUATING THE MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF THE CONCRETE OR MATERIALS THAT YOU WOULD USE IN ANY ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS OR ANY OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS.
THAT'S MATERIALS TESTING AND INSPECTIONS.
THE THIRD CATEGORY THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IS LAND SURVEYING.
REALLY LOOKING AT LOCATIONS OF BOUNDARIES OF PLATS AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS OF ROADWAYS OR PROPERTIES THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO SURVEYING ON WITH FIELD MARKINGS AND LOCATIONS LIKE THAT.
ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES COMING UP NEXT IS GOING TO BE THE FACILITY ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN BUILD RESPONSES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE RESPONSES, ENGINEERING OF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPE OF DISCIPLINES, AND THEN A THIRD PARTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
>> NOISE COMMITTEE, MR. KERCHO.
[01:45:02]
>> AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW AT TWO O'CLOCK HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WE DO TAKE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS.
IF YOU COME AND YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS YOU WANT TO PUT IN, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
JUST COME ON IN AND GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS.
WE TAKE EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE CONTINUE JUST TO LOOK AT VARIOUS CITIES' NOISE ORDINANCES AND TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT WORK IN ANY TYPE OF OR IF WE DO CREATE A NEW PROPOSAL OF A NOISE COMMITTEE ORDINANCE.
JUST CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS. IT'S GOOD PROGRESS.
ALSO, WE'VE BEEN VERY THANKFUL.
CHIEF PRICE SENT OVER SERGEANT BURDICK TO ATTEND.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ACTUALLY A MEETING LAST WEEK BECAUSE NEITHER WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE AVAILABLE.
THEY'RE INTEGRAL PART OF THE DISCUSSION, SO WE DECIDED, JUST GO AHEAD AND WAIT OFF UNTIL THIS WEEK, BUT WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO HELP THEM, SO THEY'RE A INTEGRAL PART OF THAT.
>> THE PATCH THAT COUNCIL AGREED TO WILL BE COMPLETED SHORTLY, AND WE'RE WORKING ON A PERMANENT SOLUTION.
>> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SHORTLY IS?
>> CHAPARRAL INTERSECTION. CHIEF PRICE, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET US ANY FURTHER INFORMATION?
>> I HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT TWO REPORTS FROM THAT INTERSECTION.
I WAS OUT OF TOWN THIS WEEK, SO I WILL SEND THEM OUT TOMORROW [INAUDIBLE]
>> A CAUTION JUST WITH THE HIGH WINDS.
TODAY IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO SEE IF THAT SIGN THAT'S IN THE TEMPORARY TRASH CAN DOESN'T GET BLOWN OVER.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE TALKED EARLIER AND I WANTED EVERYBODY TO HEAR.
I'VE HAD SOME CITIZENS TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT INTERSECTION. WE HAVE TWO STOP SIGNS.
THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT A FOUR AWAY, WHICH TO ME SEEMS LIKE A NO-BRAINER, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE IT AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY, WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF ALL FOUR CORNERS.
WE ONLY HAVE CONTROL OF THE ONE CORNER THAT HAS A STOP SIGN.
WHAT DO WE DO TO GET ALLEN TO LOVE US ENOUGH.
WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING WITH THEM.
>> TO GET THOSE OTHER TWO STOP SIGNS?
>> HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM, WE'VE ACTUALLY HELD MEETINGS ABOUT FINDING SOLUTION OPTIONS [INAUDIBLE]
>> FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, FOUR STOP SIGNS ARE A NO-BRAINER. ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT?
>> I LIKE [INAUDIBLE] IDEA TOO.
>> WE'RE HAVING ONGOING MEETINGS WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN REGARDING THIS.
>> WE HAVE MADE CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON, AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE FILING A NEW BILL FOR THIS CURRENT SESSION.
I'M AWAITING SOME INFORMATION FROM CONGRESSMAN BOEBERT'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE THEM SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT PARKER.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, BUT I WAS ASSURED THEY WILL BE HERE BY THE END OF THIS WEEK.
HOPEFULLY, FOR NEXT TIME, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.
WE'VE ALSO CONTACTED OUR CONGRESSMAN KEITH SELF.
THEY ARE AWARE OF OUR INTEREST IN HAVING A INDIVIDUAL ZIP CODE.
THEIR ONLY COMMENT WAS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY ASSIGN ZIP CODE NUMBERS, THERE'S A LIMIT ON HOW MANY THEY MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, AND SO THEY TALKED ABOUT A LONGER TERM SOLUTION AND I SAID THAT WORKS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT JUST AS LONG AS WE GET OUR ZIP CODE, SO IT'S UNDERWAY.
[01:50:02]
>> ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES?
>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE LEWIS LANE.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN UPDATE ON THIS RECENT PAIR IS GOING TO BE DONE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO? I THINK WE OWE THE CITIZENS A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT LEWIS LANE SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT SOME THINGS ARE STILL GOING ON.
WE'RE STILL IN ACTIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS.
I THINK IT MIGHT WITHOUT GOING INTO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP STRATEGICALLY CONFIDENTIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE KEY TO THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING.
MAYBE CATHERINE OR SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF AN ADDITIONAL UPDATE ON WHAT'S GOING ON?
YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SPEAK.
YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SPEAK.
GO AHEAD, MR. PILGRIM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> I'M DONE. I JUST THINK SOMEBODY, AMANDA, IF SHE WANTS TO TELL WHAT SHE'S WORKED ON.
>> CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT ME DESCRIBING THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE OR?
>> WE'VE HAD THE ISSUE WITH LEWIS LANE NEEDING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE JURISDICTION OF EACH PORTION OF THE ROAD IS, AND THEN ALSO COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL TO BE ABLE TO PAVE LEWIS LANE IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM PARKER ROAD TO LUCAS ROAD.
WE WENT THROUGH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND LEWIS LANE WAS ONE OF THE ROADS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND DURING THE COURSE OF THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED THERE WAS THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH A DOLLAR ALLOCATION FOR IT BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE ROAD WOULD BE OURS TO PAVE VERSUS LUCAS'S TO PAVE VERSUS THE COUNTY TO PAVE.
I HAVE GONE THROUGH AND I'VE DONE A JURISDICTION ANALYSIS, WHERE I'VE PULLED DOWN ALL THE PLATS FROM COLLIN CAD.
I'VE DONE RESEARCH INTO WHICH PROPERTIES HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO WHICH CITY, AND WHICH ONES DON'T HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION PER SE.
THEN ALSO, WHAT PARCELS HAVE THEIR MEETS AND BOUNDS TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, WHICH PARCELS HAVE THEIR MEETS AND BOUNDS ADJACENT TO THE ROAD, THE WHOLE THING.
IT'S A COMPLICATED ROAD TO UNDERSTAND IN JURISDICTION, BUT I DID A COMPLETE ANALYSIS THAT IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DOCUMENTATION I HAVE SO FAR.
I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE EVERY PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION, BUT THE DOCUMENTATION THAT I HAVE SO FAR GIVES US A PICTURE OF WHERE SOME OF THE PARCELS ARE IN TERMS OF HAVING A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY OR NOT, WHERE ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE NEED TO APPROACH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW DO WE APPROACH THIS ROAD REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT, TO PROPERLY BE ABLE TO DO A ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SUCH THAT WE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY DO A REPAVING OF THE ROAD SURFACE ITSELF, BUT ALSO TO APPROACH THE DRAINAGE, WHICH WE WANT TO DO AS A COMPLETE ROAD PROJECT.
I HAVE AN ANALYSIS THAT I DID, AND THAT IS BEING USED IN CONSIDERATION TO TRY TO ADVANCE THIS AGENDA ITEM FORWARD.
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING LEWIS? DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
I KNOW THE STATE OF TEXAS LIMITS US ON WHAT WE CAN SAY FROM EXECUTIVE, ETC, COULD YOU SHARE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ABOUT YOUR ACTION PLAN, WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO, AND HOW WE'RE TRYING TO BRING CLOSURE TO THIS, AND WE'RE HANDCUFFED IN THE PROCESS?
>> THE CITY OF LUCAS HAS PROPOSED AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT.
SOME OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER NOE DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF THE COMPLEXITY, IF YOU GO BACK IN TIME, THERE WAS A BOUNDARY AGREEMENT IN 1974.
THERE WAS ANOTHER BOUNDARY AGREEMENT IN 1998.
ALONG THE WAY, THERE ARE ANNEXATIONS, STATE LAW CHANGES THAT IMPACTS THE DESIRE TO HAVE THIS NICE, CLEAN ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR YOUR ROADWAYS, AND AS THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN, IT BECOMES LESS CLEAR AND LESS CONCISE.
THAT ILA IS AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT MORE CONCISE AND MORE CLEAR SO THAT MAINTENANCE CAN BE DONE AND MAINTAINED GOING FORWARD FOR THE RESIDENTS, BUT PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED FOR THAT TO BE AN EFFECTIVE AGREEMENT, NOT JUST FOR THE MOMENT, BUT IN THE FUTURE.
[01:55:03]
>> I GOT A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS ON CHAPARRAL FOR CHIEF. WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
>> CHIEF, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP ON THAT IS THE SPEED LIMITS, ETC.
DO YOU WANT TO EXPAND ON THAT, WHAT CITIZENS ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT AND WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE AND YOUR CONVERSATION?
>> THE CHAPARRAL ROAD HAS NO HOUSES BASICALLY.
A LOT OF THE SPEED ISSUES COME FROM ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY ON CHAPARRAL NOW IS 40 MILE AN HOUR.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY IT'S 30 MILES AN HOUR, AND WE'RE 25 IN THE MIDDLE.
EVERYBODY'S PUSHING THAT NUMBER ON AVERAGE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOVE THE PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT.
MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION WITH THAT PARTICULAR ROADWAY IS [INAUDIBLE] TO MATCH BOTH SIDES AND IT WOULD CREATE A SMOOTH FLOW.
EVERYBODY IS GOING THROUGH THERE.
IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANYTHING ELSE, MR. [INAUDIBLE]?
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?
>> I DO, MADAM MAYOR. AS YOU KNOW, THE ITEMS THAT I REQUESTED THAT BE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS THE ISSUE OF THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM LAST TIME AROUND, AND IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CATHERINE INSTRUCTED THAT IT BE TAKEN OFF OF THE AGENDA OR NOT PUT ON THE AGENDA, WHATEVER THE RIGHT TERM TO USE THERE.
>> I DIDN'T EVER SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS A REQUEST TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
WELL, IT DIDN'T EVER COME THROUGH AS SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I KNOW THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT YOU MADE. YES.
>> DO COUNCIL PERSONS HAVE TO PUT REQUESTS FOR AGENDA ITEMS IN WRITING OR WE CAN'T MAKE THEM VERBALLY?
>> NO, YOU CAN MAKE THEM VERBALLY.
I THINK THEY'RE MADE TO THE MAYOR OR TO STAFF OR TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> WELL, I MADE A REQUEST TO HAVE IT PUT ON HERE.
HERE'S THE REASON I DID JUST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE ON THIS.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, YOU ARE, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO TELL ME I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT IN MY OPINION, THE ELECTION THAT WE HAD FOR MAYOR PRO TEM WAS AN INVALID ELECTION.
BECAUSE WHAT WAS ASKED FOR WAS NOMINATIONS FOR MAYOR PRO TEM.
COUNCIL MEMBER NOE IMMEDIATELY NOMINATED TODD FECK [PHONETIC].
MAYOR PELE [PHONETIC] REQUESTED NOMINATIONS AND COUNCIL MEMBER NOE IMMEDIATELY SAID, AND I HAVE THIS VERBATIM.
I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE WHOLE THING AND WROTE DOWN VERBATIM WHAT EVERYBODY SAID.
I DIDN'T BRING MY VERBATIM NOTES WITH ME TONIGHT, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE TO VERBATIM.
THE MAYOR ASKED FOR NOMINATIONS AND COUNCIL MEMBER NOE RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE NOMINATING TODD FECK AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH SECONDED THAT.
RANDY WANTED TO MAKE ANOTHER NOMINATION AND WAS TOLD THAT HE COULDN'T.
>> I'M SORRY. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS TOPIC IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
YOU COULD REQUEST A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM WHEN WE'RE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPERLY POSTED FOR THIS CONVERSATION.
>> WHICH WAS EXACTLY WHY I REQUESTED THAT IT BE ON THE AGENDA.
>> YOU COULD REQUEST A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR PRO TEM.
THERE'S NOT A METHOD TO UNDO IF THAT MAKES SENSE, OTHER THAN RESCISSION.
>> I WANTED TO VISIT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS EVEN VALID BECAUSE WHAT WE VOTED ON WAS A MOTION.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS A NOMINATION, BUT YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID, I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND IT WAS NOT A MOTION.
THERE WAS NOT A MOTION THAT WAS EVER MADE BY ANYONE.
MAYOR PELE REFERRED TO IT AS A MOTION WHEN SHE REFERRED TO IT INHERENTLY, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A NOMINATION THAT WAS ON THE FLOOR.
BUT IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT NEXT TIME, INSTEAD OF TONIGHT, I WANT TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL.
IT MAY NOT CHANGE THE RESULT, BUT I THINK THE PROCESS WAS WRONG, AND I WANT TO DISCUSS IT.
[02:00:04]
MAYBE IT WILL CHANGE THE RESULT.>> I WILL PUT THIS AS A FUTURE AGENDA REQUEST. ANYTHING ELSE? THEN I WILL ACCEPT SOME DONATIONS FOR THE RECORD.
[6. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801]) ]
I AM ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM DANA DAVIS WHO DONATED SNACKS VALUED AT $30 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB DONATED COOKIES VALUED AT $25 TO THE PARKER FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL STAFF.
THE NEXT IS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS,
[7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
AND I DO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM'S REQUEST TO REVIEW THE PRO TEM ELECTION.ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.