[00:00:06]
>> IT IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 1TH, 2025.
[CALL TO ORDER]
I HEREBY CALL THE CITY OF PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.THE FIRST THING WE WILL DO IS I WILL ASK PATTY SCOTT GRAY IF WE HAVE A [INAUDIBLE].
>> YES, MADAM MAY WE HAVE A [INAUDIBLE].
[WORKSHOP]
WE WILL GO TO OUR PROPOSED WORKSHOP, WHICH IS ON THE PERSONNEL MANUAL.WE'LL PICK UP I BELIEVE IT'S 4.5, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THE WORKSHOP TO SIX O'CLOCK, AT WHICH TIME WE WILL BREAK TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS CAUGHT IN TRAFFIC, AND SHE WILL BE HERE, AND I BELIEVE MR. PECK WILL BE HERE ALSO.
NOW, THAT LOOKS KIND OF FUNNY.
THIS TIME, MR [INAUDIBLE] OUR CITY ATTORNEY, CATHERINE CLIFTON.
IF YOU ALL GET OUT YOUR PERSONAL, LET'S START THE REVIEW WITH 3.5.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FUN ON THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH? I HAVE TO SAY OFF.
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE STARTING AT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PAGE IS WHAT I HAD NOTED.
>> THAT'S THE CORRECT SECTION, BUT JUST THE STAPH OF THE PAGE.
>> BECAUSE I STILL GOT QUESTION.
WE START WITH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
I WAS [INAUDIBLE] UP WITH EVERYBODY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
THIS IS ON PAGE TWO F FOR ANYBODY.
OKAY. THEN WE WILL GO TO PAGE 29. [INAUDIBLE] ON THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, THEN GO TO SECTION 4.6, CITY PROPERTY EQUIPMENT USE.
I KNOW IT SAYS THAT EMPLOYEES MAY BE REQUIRED TO SIGN CERTAIN THINGS.
I JUST FROM OUR OWN POLICY AS WE ISSUE THINGS OUT, THE INDIVIDUALS, DO WE HAVE THEM SIGN THAT THEY'VE GOT WHATEVER.
THE COMPUTER, THE PHONE MAY BE IS BY THE CITY OR.
>> SO FOR SURE IN THE CREDIT CARD, IT'S ANYONE THAT HAS A CREDIT CARD.
THERE'S A POLICY THAT YOU HAVE TO SIGN, YOU KNOW, GOING OVER WHAT YOU CAN USE FOR, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU USE ON THINGS THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO A.
WE DO HAVE A FEW WRITTEN POLICIES ON SOME OF THOSE ITEMS.
>> SOMEWHERE IN TERMINATE [INAUDIBLE] YOU HAVE A PERSONAL COMPUTER, NOT A PERSONAL COMPUTER BUT JUST SAY COMPUTER THAT YOU TAKE BACK AND FORTH FROM HOME.
YOU'VE GOT A C TELEPHONE, YOU KNOW, ETC, AND IT'S A RECORD OF WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.
>> YES, SIR. MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE THOSE TYPES OF ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE POLICE OFFICERS AND CHIEF HAS A LIST.
HE GOES DOWN, KEYS, FUEL CARDS, ALL THAT TYPE OF STAFF IS ON THAT LIST.
FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES, WE KNOW EVERYONE THAT HAS A LAPTOP AND A CELL PHONE, AND THAT'S USUALLY ALL THEY HAVE AND THEIR KEY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. PERSONAL PHONE PROHIBITED.
I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ON IT.
CITY PROPERTY MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES MAY NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES OR USED FOR PARTIAL BUSINESS WITHOUT
[00:05:02]
PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR.I WILL SAY BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.
IT GETS REALLY HARD WHEN EMPLOYEE USES HIS PERSONAL CELL PHONE BECAUSE HE DON'T CARRY TWO PHONES IS HIS BUSINESS PHONE.
>> YOU NEVER KNOW THIS WILL BE MORE APPLICABLE TO CITY PROPERTY, SO IN THAT EXAMPLE, IT WOULD BE HIS PERSONAL PHONE.
I GUESS IF THE SITUATION WERE REVERSED WHERE HE HAD A CITY PHONE, THEN, THAT USE WOULD BE DESCRIBED IN THE PARAGRAPH.
FOR ME, I THINK THOSE EXAMPLES ARE LIKE, LET'S JUST SAY I DON'T KNOW.
THERE WAS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IN PUBLIC WORKS THAT THEY USED FOR THE JOB AROUND PUBLIC WORKS, AND THEN IF THEY HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS MORE ON A PERSONAL NATURE, IT WOULD MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZED FOR THEM TO USE THAT EQUIPMENT ON A PERSONAL NATURE UNLESS THEY HAD APPROVAL.
I THINK IT'S THAT KIND OF SCENARIO THEY'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO COVER.
I THINK THAT PARAGRAPH COVERS THE GUIDELINES PRETTY WELL.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE OR ANYTHING IN ADDITION? I THINK TOBACCO USE PROHIBITED IS CLEAR.
>> YEAH. IT'S GOOD TO REFER TO THE IRS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE BECAUSE IT DOES CHANGE.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO UPDATE THE DOCUMENT TO TRACK THOSE CHANGES.
>> BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A OR HAVE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS.
I WOULD FINANCIAL HUMAN RESOURCES ALSO INCLUDED BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO [LAUGHTER] OUT OF MONEY BECAUSE WE WON'T PAY ATTENTION AND WHEN YOU DECIDE TO GO TO A CONFERENCE AND [INAUDIBLE], THAT COULD BE EXPENSIVE.
CURRENTLY IT SAYS TO GET APPROVAL THROUGH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERSON BE ONE OF THE APPROVERS? CITY ADMINISTRATOR WITH NOTICE TO ORGANIZE RESOURCES, I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
>> HUMAN RESOURCES OR FINANCE DIRECTOR.
>> IT'S MORE NOTICE IT'S NOT PERMISSION.
BECAUSE IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE, WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THAT.
HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.
NEXT ONE IS A QUICK [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT SAYS YOU RECEIVE MINT REIMBURSEMENT FOR CONSISTENTLY USING THEIR OWN VEHICLE.
WHY DO IT SAY CONSISTENTLY IF THEY'RE USING THEIR OWN VEHICLE FOR SOMETHING CITY, MINOR REIMBURSEMENT THAT BE CONSISTENT.
>> I DON'T SEE ANY VALUE TO THE WORD CONSISTENTLY THERE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE. TAKING VEHICLES, THIS IS GOING TO GET TO BE CHALLENGING.
OUR CURRENT POLICY ON TAKING CARS NO THERE ARE NO TAKING CARS.
HOWEVER, IT COMES TO MY ATTENTION AND IF I DO ATTENTION THE WATER DEPARTMENT TAKES ON THE CAR BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE TO COME IN TO FIX BROKEN WATER ROOM, THEY HAVE TO COME IN.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN CHIEF PRICE FEELS THAT CID WANTS TO TAKE THE CAR.
THERE'S A TIME WHEN JUSTIN FEELS THAT THE CHIEFS CARS NEEDS TO GO HOME [INAUDIBLE].
[00:10:07]
I GUESS MY POINT IS WE DON'T HAVE A CONSISTENT POLICY FOR THE DEPARTMENTS.DO WE WANT FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS? DO WE SEPARATE IT OUT FOR EACH DEPARTMENT? CAN WE COME UP WITH OUR OWN WAYS? I DON'T KNOW. WHAT DO YOU ALL SUGGEST?
>> WE NEED TO HAVE SOME PROCESS WHERE IF ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE A CITY VEHICLE HOME AS A PART OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTIES FOR THE CITY OR THE ANTICIPATED EXECUTION OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTIES OVER THE NEXT PERIOD.
THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OR IF THEY ARE THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON THEIR OWN.
>> I THINK THAT SAYS THAT, DOESN'T IT? I MEAN, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNMENT OF A TAKE HOME VEHICLE AND EMPLOYEE MUST BE SUBJECT TO EMERGENCY CALLBACK DURING THE OFF DUTY TIME OR HOURS TO LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THEIR NORMAL WORK LOCATION.
>> SOME OF THIS CAME UP WHEN IT USED TO BE THAT CIB ALWAYS GOT TO TAKE A VEHICLE CIB WAGON FOR ONE OF A BETTER TERM.
THE PERSON THAT WAS CRB DID NOT LIVE IN COLLIN COUNTY, DID NOT LIVE IN I AM SURE WAS IN GRASS IN COUNTY.
THERE WAS SOME FLASHBACK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I WAS [INAUDIBLE] IN ESSENCE TO GO UP TO ALMOST SHERMAN.
AT THAT TIME, WHAT WAS DECIDED WAS SINCE BY THE TIME CID IS CALLED, A SCENE SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED.
FOR TWO EXTRA MINUTES DEPENDING BY THE POLICE STATION AND THE CID [INAUDIBLE] OR WASN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL, SO AS THERE WAS MONEY THEY STOPPED OFF, TAKE HOME COURSE PERIOD.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE AT THAT TIME HOW GARY HANDLED THE WATER.
I THINK THE WATER GUYS WAS TO HAVE TO COME IN AND DO A [INAUDIBLE].
>> JEFF WAS STILL HERE. GARY HADN'T TAKEN OVER UNTIL AFTER.
I HAD ONE INTERRUPTION I APOLOGIZE.
BUT SWAGGER IS SAYING THAT OUR DIRECTOR IS REPORTING THAT THE AUDIO FOR TODAY'S MEETING IS LOUDER THAN NORMAL, WHICH IS MAKING IT HARD TO HEAR THE BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA.
SPECIFICALLY, THE CHAIRPERSONS MICROPHONE.
WE WILL N-ABROGATE THE MEETING AS BEST AS WE CAN UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED.
I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW YOU ALL SEEM LOUD TO ME, BUT I DIDN'T WANT ALL TO BE AWARE.
>> OKAY. WELL ASK WHO I GAVE [INAUDIBLE] BETTER BECAUSE WHEN WE CHECKING THE MIC EVERYDAY, WE DID NOT CHECK WITH SWAGGER.
>> IT'S WORKING BETTER, THEY'RE SAYING NOW.
>> SHE MOVED IT AWAY FROM HER.
>> I'LL EMAIL AND SEE IF SOMEBODY.
[OVERLAPPING]. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION [LAUGHTER].
>> I'M GOING TO MOVE. IT AWAY AND SEE HOW THAT WORKED. ALL RIGHT.
I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION [INAUDIBLE] IS A GOOD ONE IN TERMS OF LETTING EACH DIRECTOR MAKE THAT DECISION AND THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM, WE CAN DEAL WITH IT.
CATHERINE, IS THERE A GOOD WAY TO INCORPORATE THAT?
>> I AM SURE. I CAN WRITE THAT IN.
IF YOU ALSO WANTED TO SAY, IT CAN'T BE NO CITY VEHICLE MAY BE TAKEN HOME WITH AN EMPLOYEE IF THEY LIVE OUTSIDE THE COUNTY OR IF THEY LIVE WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MILES FROM PARKER, THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION TO BRACKET THE USAGE THERE.
>> WELL, I THINK THE SECOND PART OF THAT, A CITY VEHICLE IS NOT TO BE USED FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, IF YOU'VE BEEN DRINKING, NO ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGE.
NO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POLICY AND ALL THAT SHOULD BE BRACKETED, LIKE YOU SAID.
[00:15:07]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SOMETHING LIKE TAKE VEHICLES WILL BE HANDLE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WITH THE APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT AREA AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
>> SORRY. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE BEST PLACE TO TALK.
>> SOMEONE IN THE APARTMENT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEEM THAT ONE APARTMENT IS NOT OF CHILDREN THAT MAY [INAUDIBLE] OR AS SOMEONE OVERALL LOOKING AT IT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE NEXT PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TAXABLE USE OF A CITY VEHICLE BY THE EMPLOYEE.
IS THAT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR? I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU'RE JUST ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO TAKE THE VEHICLE HOME BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO SAVE TIME AND EFFORT IF THEY ARE CALLED? IT DOES.
>> THEY GET TAXED FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFIT OF IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE DONE HERE IN THE CITY, BUT OTHER CITIES DO THAT.
THEY GET LIKE AN EXTRA SIX-DOLLAR TAX PER QUARTER.
>> I WANT TO SAY THAT POLICE IS FOR SURE EXEMPT FROM THAT, BUT I THINK ALSO, PUBLIC WORKS IS ALSO EXEMPT FROM THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THE VEHICLE IS MARKED PUBLIC WORKS AND IT'S FOR OFFICIAL DUTIES SO.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE IF THERE WAS AN ADMINISTRATION CAR AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR WAS DRIVING THAT BACK AND FORTH, YOU WOULD TAX THEM ON THAT SCENARIO.
>> I CAN SEE THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THAT.
OUR USE OF CITY VEHICLES BY INDIVIDUALS TO GO HOME WAS GOING TO BE IN SOME FORM OF PUBLIC WORKS OR POLICE OR FIRE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> DO I WANT TO PUT ANY NOTES IN DISTANCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE A POLICE OFFICER WHO NEEDS TO TAKE A CAR HOME THAT LIVES IN BONHAM OR SHERMAN BECAUSE, THAT'S A REALITY.
AND WE HAVE SOME THAT LIVE IN ROLLET.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE GOT TWO PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE THAT COMES FROM DIFFERENT COUNTIES.
>> WHAT'S THE FAREST WE DEAL WITH NOW? I DON'T I DON'T SEE IT REMAINS A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE CITY FOR SOMEBODY TO TAKE A VEHICLE HOME IF THEY LIVE 40 MILES FROM HERE.
>> I MEAN, I THINK THE POLICY THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER WHERE IF A PERSON LIVES A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AWAY AND THE NATURE OF THE TASK THEY'RE DOING WITH A PUBLIC VEHICLE CAN ALLOW FOR A FEW EXTRA MINUTES TO STOP BY CITY HALL AND PICK UP THAT CITY VEHICLE.
THEN WE SHOULD JUST HAVE THE POLICY THAT THAT'S HOW WE MANAGE OUR VEHICLES UNLESS THERE'S A GOOD REASON TO HAVE AN EXCEPTION.
>> OKAY. AND HOW WOULD YOU HAVE APPROVED AN EXCEPTION, COUNCIL OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR?
>> I SAY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AND OR CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> YES. THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> OKAY. CATHERINE, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
>> WHAT WAS THE WHAT'S THE DISTANCE YOU WANT TO? WHAT ARE THE DISTANCES WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW?
>> I GUESS WE COULD DELIVER IT TO COLLIN COUNTY.
IS THERE AN INSURANCE DIFFERENCE IF THE CAR GOES OUT OF COLLIN COUNTY? OKAY.
>> I'M NOT PROBABLY BE BETTER TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
HE KNOWS WHERE ALL OF HIS GUYS LIVE.
THE FUREST ONE I CAN THINK OF ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD WOULD BE ANNA, AS FAR AS HIS EMPLOYEES GO.
>> YEAH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD NUMBER.
>> IS EVERYBODY WITHIN 30 MILES?
[00:20:01]
OKAY. NEXT IS THE REST OF THE VEHICLES.
OKAY. DOES OUR INSURANCE COVER THOSE PEOPLE DRIVING IN THE CITY VEHICLE? OKAY.
>> I'LL NOTE THAT IN THE TOP SECTION, IT SAID A CITY VEHICLE IS NOT TO BE USED FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
BUT IN THE BULLET POINTS AND YOUR USE OF CITY VEHICLES, IT SAYS NO USE OF CITY PROVIDED VEHICLES IS ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.
WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO USE, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR?
>> I WOULD THEN TO THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR THE DISCRETION.
>> IF A QUESTION COMES UP, IT CAN GO TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DETERMINATION.
NOW, I HAVE THIS IS GOING TO SOUND SERIOUS BUT BEAR WITH ME.
I ALWAYS WEAR SEAT BELTS WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN OPERATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THE POLICE OFFICER THAT TICKETED ONE OF OUR PUBLIC WORKS PORTIONS, WHO WAS JUMPING OUT OF HIS TRUCK AND GETTING BACK IN AND JUMPING OUT OF HIS TRUCK AND JUMPING BACK IN, AND SHE GAVE HIM A TICKET BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE HIS SEAT BELT DOWN DURING THIS, WE GOT TO BE A PRETTY BIG [LAUGHTER] AT THE TIME.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS [LAUGHTER].
>> HE FELT IS A STATE LAW, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REDUNDANT TO REQUIRE IT ON HIS PERSONNEL MANGLE, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT YOU TO REMIND.
I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE OF HAVING IT IN HERE; IT'S JUST REINFORCING STATE LAW, RIGHT?
>> I JUST PREVIOUS CITY ADMINISTRATOR, JOE, FELT THAT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION IN THE LAW.
HE COULD NEVER SHOW IT TO ANYBODY.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I'M GOING TO OUR COURT.
I MEAN, I'M LAUGHING NOW IT WASN'T FUNNY AT THE TIME.
>> I DON'T THINK IT HURTS TO HAVE IT IN HERE JUST BECAUSE IT'S A REPEAT STATEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LAW HAS.
SAY IT TWICE. YOU CAN ADDRESS IT AS A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE INSTEAD OF A CITATION.
>> OKAY. THE LAW OF PASSENGERS WAS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACTUALLY I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD SIGN A RELEASE OF LIABILITY TO BE A RIDER IN THE CITY CAR.
WE HAVE THINGS FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT THAT I'M AWARE OF IS IF POLICE DEPARTMENT, IF ONE OF OUR OFFICERS PICKS UP SOMEBODY THAT'S BROKEN DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO TAKE THEM TO A FILLING STATION.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE A UNIFORM FOR THAT.
BUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TOOK SOME FOLKS OVER TO MIMI'S PANTRY.
THEY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A WRITTEN WAIVER OF LIABILITY BEFORE THEY LET HIM GET IN THE CAR.
[00:25:03]
I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN OUR POLICY ON THAT.IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY.
GOING DOWN TO EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.
THIS IS GOING TO SOUND SILLY, BUT WE'RE TO TO DEFINE IMMEDIATELY.
WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THAT IS WE HAD A POLICE OFFICER THAT HAD A MINOR INCIDENT ON SATURDAY NIGHT.
HE DID NOT REPORT IT UNTIL SUNDAY AFTERNOON WHEN HE KNEW A SUPERVISORY POLICE OFFICER WAS ON DUTY.
THAT PERSON WAS MOST UPSET THAT THEY WERE NOT CALLED IMMEDIATELY ON SATURDAY NIGHT ABOUT THE FENDER BENDER.
WE NEED TO DEFINE THIS LETTER, I GUESS, IS MY QUESTION.
>> THAT CAN BE HANDLED THROUGH TRAINING.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS, LIKE ONE PERSON IS I GUESS, AUTHORIZED TO USE CITY VEHICLES, THEN THE TRAINING CAN COVER THAT TYPE OF TOPIC.
OKAY. I THINK IMMEDIATELY IT WAS APPROPRIATE.
>> TO MAYBE IT WAS [INAUDIBLE], I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT APPARENTLY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE TO THE IN IT.
THE OFFICER THAT WAS INVOLVED ENDED UP QUITTING BEHIND IT.
IT HAD SOME BECAUSE IT GOT TO BE A VERY UGLY INCIDENT BACK AND FORTH.
I FELT BADLY FOR THE WAY IT ALL WENT DOWN IN THE WAY IT HAPPENED.
I THINK THE HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDS TO KNOW IF THERE'S AN ACCIDENT.
>> YEAH. I AGREE WITH THAT AND I WAS FIXING TO SAY THAT JUST SO DRUG TESTS CAN BE ADMINISTERED.
>> INSURANCE, THERE'S A WHOLE BEST DEALS THAT YOU CAN DO.
AND IT DOESN'T HELP YOU BY THE WAY.
THERE WAS A ROCK ABOUT [LAUGHTER].
>> IS A DRUG TEST ADMINISTERED EVERY TIME IF THERE'S A MINOR FENDER BENDER? IF IT WAS LIKE THE EMPLOYEE'S FAULT, YES.
IF IT WAS WE'VE HAD AN INCIDENCE WHERE WE'VE HAD AN EMPLOYEE DRIVING THROUGH A FIELD LOOKING FOR A WATER LINE OR SOMETHING, AND IT WAS TALL GRASS AND THEY HIT A METAL STAKE OR SOMETHING THAT WAS OUT IN THE PASTURE.
WE DIDN'T MAKE THEM DRUG TEST FOR THAT.
BUT IF THEY'RE ON THE ROAD DRIVING NORMAL OR WHATEVER, THEY CAUSE AN ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING, WE MAKE THEM DRUG TEST. THAT'S.
>> THE NORMAL PROCEDURE ANYTIME YOU'RE NOTIFIED OF AN ACCIDENT THAT THE CHECKLIST.
>> I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT I'VE TALKED TO SAGET AND TOLD HIM THAT YOU MOVE TO MCAWAY.
DID THAT HELP? AND THEY SAID, NO, I DID NOT IMPROVE THE AUDIO LEVEL.
>> WE'LL CALL THIS PRICE WAS VERY, VERY GOOD.
>> OKAY. THEN TEST, ONE OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS GO OUT THERE.
HOW DID THEY GO ABOUT THE DRUG TEST? CERTAINLY IF THEY WERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL THEM TO GO DRIVE TO A PLACE TEST, RIGHT? SO WHAT'S THE PROCEDURE? RIGHT. I BELIEVE I THINK WE COVERED THAT EARLIER IN ANOTHER SECTION.
AND THE SUPERVISOR, I THINK, OR SUPERVISOR IS SUPPOSED TO PICK THEM UP AND TAKE THEM TO BE TESTED.
THEN ONCE THEY PASS THAT TEST AND THEY COME BACK AND THEY SORT OF DRIVE THEM AGAIN.
>> IS THAT THE SAME POLICY FOR PUBLIC WORKS? IS SPRAWLED UP. THE DRUG TEST WOULD OCCUR WITHIN X NUMBER OF HOURS? [OVERLAPPING] AND DAYS LATER.
>> OKAY [INAUDIBLE] OKAY. ARE WE READY TO GO TO SECTION 4.6?
[00:30:12]
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS, CITY PROPERTY, AND EQUIPMENT USE? [BACKGROUND] I GOT TWO PAGES. I DO.>> WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT PAGE NUMBERS ON THEM.
THIS IS DIFFERENT. ISN'T THAT INTERESTING? OKAY.
>> I APOLOGIZE, MINE IS JUST ALL MESSED HERE.
IS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU ALL HAVE CHAPTER 5? [LAUGHTER]. LET'S TRY THAT.
CHAPTER 5.1 OF CHAPTER 5, DISCIPLINE APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES, SECTION 5.1, DISCIPLINE.
ANYBODY ABOUT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS HERE? NOT HEARING ANYTHING.
>> WANTED TO SAY, COUNCIL APPOINTEES, AT THE END OF PARAGRAPH 1 SAYS POLICY PROCEDURES BY ALL CITY EMPLOYEES EXCEPT COUNCIL APPOINTEES.
THIS IS THE CITY PERSONNEL MANUAL, AND CERTAINLY I DON'T BELIEVE ON THE EMPLOYEE LIST EITHER.
FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE EXCEPT COUNCIL APPOINTEES.
I THINK IT JUST COULD SAY TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES.
>> I WOULD JUST END THE SENTENCE AFTER CITY EMPLOYEES.
>> OKAY. IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT?
SECTION 5.2, GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE NUMBER 1 SECOND BULLET POINT.
IT SAYS SEPARATE ABSENCES OR DAYS OF TARDINESS WHICH EXCEED THE AVERAGE ABSENCES OR DAYS OF TARDINESS OF EMPLOYEE WORK GROUP.
THAT SOUNDS SO BIZARRE [LAUGHTER].
IF I EXCEED WHAT ALMOST EVERYONE DOES IN THE DEPARTMENT, WELL, THEN THAT'S BAD [LAUGHTER].
>> DO WE KEEP THOSE STATISTICS?
>> WELL, IN THE FIRST BIT, IT ALSO DOESN'T SAY WHETHER THAT'S VERBAL OR IN WRITING. DOES IT APPEAR?
>> I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. I THINK IT'S FINE TO GET EITHER THE VERBAL OR IN WRITING.
>> ON THE ITEM THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT EXCEEDING THE WORK GROUP AVERAGES, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SEE IN OTHER PLACES.
I THINK IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO APPLY THAT WHEN YOUR WORK GROUPS ARE AS SMALL AS THEY ARE IN PARKER.
>> YOU CAN SET JUST, YOU KNOW, A FINITE, LIKE THIS MANY IS TOO MANY ABSENCES INSTEAD OF RELATING IT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I'M NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT LANGUAGE.
YOU CAN REPLACE IT CERTAINLY WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT MIGHT WORK BETTER.
>> YEAH, I WOULD CERTAINLY DO.
>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF AN ABSOLUTE NUMBER.
[00:35:01]
>> YOU SAID IT'S AVERAGE NUMBER, RIGHT?
>> A NUMBER. INSTEAD OF AVERAGE, JUST STATE A NUMBER. WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
>> TYPICALLY, WHEN WE PUT NUMBERS IN, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF X NUMBER OF ABSENCES IN A THREE MONTH PERIOD, X NUMBER AND A SIX MONTH PERIOD, X AMOUNT IN A YEAR.
I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER POLICIES AND PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE TO REPLACE THAT IF Y'ALL ARE GOOD WITH THAT AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THAT AGAIN.
>> THE ONLY OTHER ONE I HAD ON NUMBER 1 WAS THE LAST BULLET POINT.
ONLY BECAUSE IT SAYS REGARDLESS OF REASON.
OBVIOUSLY IF IT'S A SMALL CITY, I MAY HAVE A JOB THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T REPLACE ME FOR THAT PARTICULAR DAY.
IT'S GOING TO BE A DISRUPTION OF SERVICES.
BUT IF I'M ABSENT AND I HAVE A REASON AS TO WHY I'M ABSENT, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT'S AN UNSATISFACTORY ABSENCE BECAUSE IT SAYS REGARDLESS OF REASON.
>> I THINK WE ALSO DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THINGS LIKE THE FAMILY LEAVE ACT.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR THAT AS AN EXCEPTION, RIGHT?
IT APPLIES TO THE CITY, BUT NOBODY IN THE CITY IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT YOU HAVE.
IS IT KIND OF AN ODDITY? BUT YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DBA.
SOMETIMES EXTENDED ABSENCES ARE AN ACCOMMODATION.
>> ON THE NEXT ONE NUMBER 2, DO WE NEED TO INDICATE WHO ISSUES A LEGITIMATE ORDER TO RETURN TO WORK? I'M THINKING OF A PARTICULAR INCIDENT.
CAN WE ISSUE THAT? SHOULD A CITY ADMINISTRATOR ISSUE THAT? SHOULD I ISSUE THAT? WHO ISSUES THAT ORDER THAT YOU'RE BACK ON? THE DEPARTMENT HERE?
>> GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> WE HAD AN EMPLOYEE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION, WAS ALLOWED TO REMOTE FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.
WHEN X AMOUNT OF TIME WAS UP, SHE WAS TOLD TO COME BACK TO WORK. SHE DECLINED.
I BELIEVE SHE WAS TOLD THE SECOND TIME TO GET BACK TO WORK BY DATE OR SHE WOULD BE TERMINATED.
SHE NEVER CAME BACK. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ENDED UP DRIVING HER CAR KEY, HER BUILDING KEYS, AND HER LAPTOP, I GUESS HER REMOTE, OVER TO ONE OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS HOMES AND DROPPING THEM OFF.
[00:40:09]
I'M HOPING WE'LL NEVER HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SITUATION LIKE THAT AGAIN.BUT IF WE DO, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IT? WHO GAVE HER ORDER TO RETURN TO WORK?
>> AT THE TIME, WERE YOU DOING THE HUMAN RESOURCES OR AS HER DEPARTMENT HEAD?
BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO SHE WAS [LAUGHTER].
>> I THINK HUMAN SOURCES WOULD BE A GOOD DEPARTMENT TO SPECIFY [OVERLAPPING].
TO ME, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD IS THE ONE THAT KNOWS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ABANDONED THEIR POSITION.
I THINK THERE MAY NEEDS TO BE A NOTIFICATION, POSSIBLY, TO HUMAN RESOURCES ABOUT IT.
BUT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATORS.
>> I THINK THAT'S A BETTER PROPOSAL.
>> WE NEED TO JUST ADD THAT IN HERE.
DO WE NEED TO ELABORATE ANY ON THEIR STATUS IN TERMS OF VACATION TIME AND THAT? IT SAYS UNAUTHORIZED LEAVE SHALL BE PAID BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE GONE.
BUT IF THEY STILL HAD SEVEN DAYS OF VACATION, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> I THINK THEY WOULD PERHAPS CLASSIFY THAT AS AUTHORIZED, AND THEN IF THEY'RE WANTING TO BE ABSENT.
IF THEY STILL HAVE THAT LEFT ON THE BOOKS, WOULD WE PAY THAT?
>> UNDER OUR CURRENT POLICY, RIGHT NOW, IF THEY WERE TERMINATED, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO PAYOUT FOR THEIR VACATION TIME.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S BEING TERMINATED, SO I WOULD SAY NO.
>> I JUST WANTED THAT CLEAR ON HOW WE DID THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHERE THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, I'VE GOT ALL THIS TIME, I WANT TO BE PAID FOR IT, I'VE GOT SICK LEAVE, I WANT TO BE PAID.
>> BUT YOU'RE RIGHT IN THIS CASE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VOLUNTARY TERMINATION VERSUS INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
>> ANY OTHER ON THAT SECTION? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT PURSUIT OF THE DENIED REQUEST TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY WITHOUT REVEALING THE LOWER LEVEL DISPOSITION FAILURE TO EXHAUST CHAIN OF COMMAND WITHOUT EXCUSE.
CAN THAT GET WORDED A LITTLE BETTER? [LAUGHTER]
IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST BYPASSING.
>> TO ME, IT'S JUST A LOT OF WORDS THAT COULD BE VERY MUCH MORE CLEAR.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH WHAT SOME PEOPLE CALL AN OPEN DOOR POLICY OR THE ABILITY TO GO A STEP ABOVE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AS LONG AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FIRST.
IF YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT A LEGITIMATE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO THE NEXT LEVEL, IT'S OKAY TO TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL, IN MY MIND.
THE PERSON WHO MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH YOU.
[00:45:03]
BUT IF YOU DON'T EVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE SOMETHING TO THE NEXT LEVEL, THEN IF YOU HAD ISSUES THAT WERE REAL WITH YOUR PERSON YOU DIRECTLY REPORTED TO, YOU'D NEVER HAVE A WAY TO REPORT THAT.BUT YOU'LL ALWAYS GO THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FIRST.
>> IN THAT SCENARIO, YOU WOULD STILL TELL THE PERSON DIRECTLY ABOVE YOU; I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I'M GOING TO THE NEXT STEP, OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO DO THAT?
>> I THINK WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TELL THE SUPERVISOR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO THE NEXT LEVEL UP.
YOU HAVE TO TELL THE NEXT LEVEL OF PERSON THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN WITH A SUPERVISOR.
THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THAT PERSON. I THINK IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE.
THAT'S SAYING IF YOU PURSUE A DENIED REQUEST OR A HIGHER AUTHORITY WITHOUT REVEALING TO THE LOWER LEVEL DISPOSITION.
>> REVEALING THE LOWER LEVEL DISPOSITION, WHY WOULD YOU [INAUDIBLE].
>> REVEAL IT NOT REVEALING TO.
>> THAT'S LIKE GOING TO LEAVE WITHOUT SAYING MCGARY DENIED ME.
I'LL JUST USE [INAUDIBLE] HIT AS A PERSON.
I JUST THINK THEY COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE WORDING.
ON NUMBER FOUR, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN AND FAILURE TO REMAIN AT ONE'S WORK STATION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE SUPERVISOR, LEAVING THE WORK STATION WITHOUT PERMISSION, OR TAKING MORE TIME ALLOWED FOR A MEAL OR REST BREAK.
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MEAL OR THE REST BREAK, BUT I CAN'T SEE AN EMPLOYEE IS GETTING UP TO THEIR WORK STATION TO GO TALK TO ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.
THAT JUST SEEMS A BIT MUCH TO ME.
>> I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD BE MORE SIGNIFICANT WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF JOBS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY PLACE WITHIN THE CITY WHERE YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S LIKE A FRONT DESK AND THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON THERE, AND IF THEY LEAVE, NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE SERVICE.
I THINK THAT'S THE POSITION THAT IT'S INTENDED FOR, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
>> LIKE A ONE CALL OPERATOR, SOMETHING TALKING [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAN I HEAR CATHERINE ON THAT? AND THEN THE PARAGRAPH THAT LEADS INTO ALL THESE BASICALLY SAYS THAT THERE'S CALLS FOR DISCIPLINE UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.
SO IT'S TRYING TO COVER EVERYTHING.
TRYING TO COVER EVERYTHING THAT CATHERINE HAS TALKED ABOUT, BUT IT HAS A BACK THING THAT SAYS, OF COURSE, IT'S DEPENDENT UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S ONE THAT WE COULD JUST WORD BETTER.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, THEY MAY HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR WORKSTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION TO GO TELL THEIR SUPERVISOR THAT THEY'RE LEAVING THE WORKSTATION.
[00:50:02]
[LAUGHTER].TWO, PAGE 34 WHICH STARTS WITH SECTION 6, I THINK.
IF WE DON'T ALLOW USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ON THE CITY AREA, DO WE NEED SMOKING IN A PROHIBITED AREA?
>> PROBABLY NOT. MISS CATHERINE, THESE ARE ALL CATCH ALL LISTS.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT THAT'S UNDER THE SAFETY VIOLATION. DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE THAT?
>> IT DOES SAY IN TOBACCO USERS, AS IN ALL ARE WELCOME TO SMOKE ON THE REST PARTS OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO THE DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS.
AND THE TOBACCO, SO THEY CAN'T SMOKE.
>> WELL SOMEWHERE, I THINK FOR [INAUDIBLE] TOBACCO PROBLEM BUT PROHIBITED.
>> I THINK THAT'S INSIDE THE CITY [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE] AND OTHER FACILITIES.
>> IS THAT INCLUDING BAKING? BECAUSE WE HAD SOMEONE BAKING IN THE BUILDING.
IT'S NOT TOBACCO BUT I WOULD RATHER NOT BE BAKING.
>> THIS PARTICULAR SECTION HERE IS JUST REALLY ON SAFETY VIOLATIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF VAPING WOULD FIT HERE, IT FITS IN OTHER, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IF IT WOULD FIT HERE.
I SEE THIS IS REALLY SMOKING IN AN AREA WHERE IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO SMOKE, LIKE WHERE THERE ARE FLAMMABLES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS.
>> I THINK BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK THOUGH, IT'S GREAT IF WE JUST LEAVE IT IN THERE.
I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN LEAVING IT IN THERE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THIS SECTION 6? SECTION 7? SECTION 8? SECTION 9? I HAVE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS.
SECTION 9, THE VERY FIRST BULLET POINT, I WOULD ADD CITY BUSINESS AT THE END.
I GUESS IT'S A SECOND BULLET POINT IN A CITY VEHICLE, AT ANY TIME, WITH THE EMPLOYEES ON CITY PROPERTY, CITY BUSINESS.
SAME THING ON THE NEXT ONE AT THE VERY END, INDOOR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON DUTY OR AT WORK.
JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
[00:55:08]
[INAUDIBLE].I KNOW THIS CAME UP ABOUT TAKING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND WE HAD A REPORT JUST TO MAKE SURE.
I DON'T RECALL WHO WE SAID TO REPORT TO JUST SO THEY AGREE.
>> JUST A TIME CHECK, WE HAVE THREE MINUTES, TOP OF THE HOUR, SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO STOP IT AT THE TOP OF PAGE 35.
>> ANYTHING ELSE UNDER SECTION 9? OTHERWISE, WE WILL GO TO PAGE 35.
IS THERE ANYTHING ON PAGE 35? WHICH IS 10, 11, 12, IT'S TILL 17, BASICALLY.
AND SOMETHING I THINK NEEDS CLARIFICATION.
NO EMPLOYEE SHALL ACCEPT ANY GIFT OR FAVOR.
AND I THINK THAT NEEDS A BIT OF CLARIFICATION.
>> LIKE A DOLLAR, THAT WOULD EXCEED.
>> SAY THAT JERRY COMES TO YOUR HOUSE TO FIX YOUR WATER LINE.
AND THE NEXT DAY, YOU SEND HIM A BASKET OF COOKIES FROM TENTH STREET.
>> YEAH. SO FOR INSTANCE, LIKE MAY NOT TO EXCEED SOME AMOUNT, WHATEVER.
>> AND WE WANT OUR EMPLOYEES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO, SO THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM THERE, OR THEY ACCEPT SOMETHING AND THEN GET IN TROUBLE FOR IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CLARIFY VERY WELL WHAT WE MEAN.
AND I THINK THERE'S SOME STATE LAW ON THAT, ISN'T IT CATHERINE?
>> THERE ARE THAT HAVE SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS ON THEM.
>> AND CREDIT CARDS. ARE THERE ANY CREDIT CARDS?
>> NO GIFT CARDS FOR ANYTHING.
I QUESTION, LOOKING AT THIS, IF THE REAL INTENT IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE UNDER THAT DOLLAR VALUE THAT SOMEONE COULD PERCEIVE THAT, HEY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL FOR THE PERSON, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS WITHOUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT.
>> CAN THIS BE WORDED A BIT CLEAR? THE FIRST.
>> YEAH. NO EMPLOYEE SHALL ACCEPT ANY BILL FROM ANY CORPORATION THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
AND I'LL JUST USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE.
PUBLIC WASTE EVERY CHRISTMAS BRINGS UP LIKE FIVE BOXES OF CANDY AND JUST LEAVES THEM ON THE FRONT DESK AND LEAVES.
YES, THEY ARE AN ENTITY THAT DOES BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
THE BOX OF CANDY, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THAT IS PROBABLY UNDER $50, IS PROBABLY $10 A BOX.
NOW WE'RE TALKING, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO USE SOME GOOD SENSE HUMOR.
I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE THAT DO THINGS FOR OUR SPOUSE ARE TRYING TO CARRY FAVOR.
I THINK THEY'RE MORE BEING THANKFUL.
>> IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT INFLUENCE DOES THE CITY STAFF PERSON WHO RECEIVES THAT, HOW TO INFLUENCE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IN THAT SORT OF THING, WHICH PROBABLY IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO PAY IF THAT'S TO INFLUENCE.
[01:00:05]
>> I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE PROFESSION TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE MAN PERIOD IN ALMOST ALL CONTRACT.
>> THERE IS NO PERSON AT THE END.
WE NEED TO ADJOURN THE WORKSHOP AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO GO TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS TO
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED DOWN ONE, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.TWO, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
THREE, GOVERNMENTAL CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE STATE BOARD OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
AT THIS TIME, 6:02, WE ARE IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I HEREBY RECONVENE THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
[CONVENE REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM.]
IT IS APRIL 1ST, 2025.IT IS 7:05 PM AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND/OR ACTION HAVE ANY ITEMS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCIL.
WHEN WE WERE IN CLOSED SESSION,
[ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND/OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE.]
ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED WAS WHETHER OR NOT TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN WHAT'S CALLED THE GREG A CASE, WHICH IS THE CASE WHERE WE HAVE SOME PARKER CITIZENS THAT WERE IN THAT THE CITY AND THE HU FINES.THIS GOES BACK TO THE HINES AND RESTORE THE GRASS LANDS TECHNICALLY AS THE ENTITY.
RESTORE THE GRASS LANDS HAD PRESENTED THEIR PLAN TO TRY TO DEVELOP 113 ACRES THAT'S IN THE TJ, 101 OF 100 103.
I FORGET THE EXACT NUMBER 101 OF IT IS IN THE ETJ.
LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, AND THAT SUIT WAS FILED TO STOP THE ACTION FROM MOVING FORWARD.
NOW, PART OF THAT SUIT INVOLVED A CHALLENGE AS TO WHETHER GREGOR WAS A PUBLIC STREET OR A PRIVATE ROAD.
THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE A GREGORE TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WOULD HINDER THE HUINES FROM BEING ABLE TO TAKE OVER THAT ROAD AND USE IT TO FURTHER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT HUNDRED ACRES INTO WHATEVER NUMBER OF HOUSES THEY WANTED TO PUT ON IT, WHETHER IT WAS 666 OR 608 OR 650 OR 254.
255 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS.
SO THEY WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE GREGORY AS A CONSTRUCTION ROUTE AND AS AN EMERGENCY ROUTE IF IT WAS EVENTUALLY DEVELOPED.
SO THE H US OR RESTORE THE GRASS LENS OR STILL FIGHTING THAT.
THE CITY OF PARKER IS STILL A PART OF THAT.
AND THE RESTORE THE GRASS, THE H US ENTITY HAS FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO TRY TO GET THE COURT TO GO AHEAD AND RULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHETHER OR NOT GREG IS A PUBLIC ROAD OR A PRIVATE STREET.
WITHOUT GETTING A LOT OF DETAILS IN THE ROADS, ALL THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS IS JUST TRYING TO GET THE COURT TO DECIDE JUST BASED ON THE SURFACE, LOOKING AT THE FACTS THAT ARE ORIGINALLY FILED WITHOUT TRIAL, IS IT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CASE IS GOING TO THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
SO WE'RE JUST GO AHEAD AND RULE IN OUR FAVOR NOW, THIS IS THE PUFFINS THAT IN THEIR FAVOR, THEIR FAVOR THAT GREGORY IS A PUBLIC ROAD AND NOT A PRIVATE STREET.
WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION IN CLOSED SESSION BACK THERE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY PARKER SHOULD ALSO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO GET THE COURT TO GO AHEAD AND DECIDE.
[01:05:01]
IF THE COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WOULD RULE IN FAVOR OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR WOULD BE THAT IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD.IF THEY WERE TO RULE THAT IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD WHETHER PARKER FILES ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR NOT.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO NEED TO BE TWO DIFFERENT DECISIONS JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN IT.
IF IT RULES AGAINST IT OR SAYS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
SO THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO TAKE THE ISSUE OF A TRIAL TO HEAR ALL OF THE FACTS WITH THE JUDGE BE A TRIAL OR FACTS, THEN IT WOULD END UP GOING TO COURT ANYWAY.
I GO TO COURT WHETHER PARKER HAD JOINED AND FILED ITS OWN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR NOT.
SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE, I DON'T THINK THE OUTCOME.
THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IT IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE A VOTE IN CLOSED SESSION.
CLOSED SESSION IS FOR DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC ISSUES AND LAWSUITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE WERE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GIVING OUR COUNSEL OR LEGAL COUNSEL DIRECTION TO TAKE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION EITHER FILING OR NOT FILING PARKER'S OWN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
AND WE WERE DIVIDED ON THAT TOPIC BACK THERE.
THERE WAS NOT UNANIMITY OF CONSENSUS.
IF THERE HAD BEEN UNANIMITY OF CONSENSUS, THEN WE COULD LEGITIMATELY AS A COUNCIL SAY THE COUNCIL IS THE ONE WHO DIRECTS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL.
THAT'S WHAT A RESOLUTION LEGAL COUNSEL REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IF WE HAD UNANIMITY OF CONSENSUS BACK THERE, WE COULD HAVE SOME DIRECTION TO FILE OR NOT FILED IF WE WERE TOGETHER, AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FURTHER NEED TO DISCUSS IT OUT HERE NECESSARILY.
HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE UNANIMITY AND CONSENSUS BACK THERE.
SO, I DON'T THINK THAT IF WE HAVE A 32 SPLIT IN THE DECISION, THAT THAT 32 SPLIT NEEDS TO BE USED TO HAVE THE THREE GIVE LEGAL COUNSEL DIRECTION FROM CLOSED SESSION BECAUSE THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A VOTE.
WE CALL IT A VOTE, BUT IT'S A VOTE.
IF TWO FELT WAY AND THREE FELT ANOTHER WAY, IT'S EFFECTIVELY A VOTE.
MY THOUGHT IS, IF WE VOTE, THEN WE NEED TO VOTE OUT HERE IN PUBLIC.
AND DISCUSS THE ISSUE OUT HERE IN PUBLIC, WHATEVER YOU SAY WE FEEL.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOT FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE G LAWSUIT.
AND WE JUST WAIT IT OUT TO SEE HOW THE JUDGE RULES ON THE MOTION THAT THE HUFFINES HAVE ALREADY FILED BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO US.
MADAM, I MEAN, I MAKE A COMMENT.
I THINK WE WOULD GIVE A CHANGE FOR A SECOND.
OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND MOTION. OKAY.
MM C I COUNSEL PLEASE ADD THE INFORMATION THAT SHE WAS GOING TO ADD IN TERMS OF THE COULD COUNSEL PLEASE ADD THE INFORMATION THAT SHE WAS GOING TO ADD IN TERMS OF THIS TOPIC.
SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC.
I THINK THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE SHARED AND THAT IS IF WE DO FILE A MOTION, THEN SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES BACK IN OUR FAVOR, THEN THAT THAT TOPIC FOR FURTHER IGATION IN COURT AND DOES IT REQUIRE SUSPEND ANY MORE LEGAL FEES ON THIS ISSUE? IF THAT'S CORRECT, CAIN, I'D LIKE YOU TO PLEASE WEIGH IN? YES, THAT'S TRUE. CONCLUDE THAT PORTION OF IT.
IT'S TRUE, BUT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO MAKE HIS RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON WHAT THE HE FINDS HAVE FILED RELEVANT WHETHER WE SPEND MONEY TO FILE OR NOT ANYWAY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE HOW THE JUDGE RULES.
IN FACT, WE'LL SPEND MORE MONEY IF WE FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT IF WE DON'T FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND THE JUDGE IS GOING TO MAKE THE RULING EITHER TO APPROVE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR TO DISAPPROVE IT AND GO TO TRIAL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE'S GOT TWO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ONE FROM PARKER AND ONE FROM HUFFINES OR JUST ONE FROM THE HUFFINES BECAUSE IT'S THE EXACT SAME ISSUE IN BOTH MOTIONS.
BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON FILE AT THE TIME THEY MAKE THE DECISION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEN WE HAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH WOULD INCUR ANOTHER COST TO GO THROUGH AND DO THAT DECISION SEPARATELY BECAUSE WE WOULD BE IN OUR OWN DECISION.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE THE JUDGE RULES ON THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING FOR US TO STILL CONTEST.
BECAUSE IF THE JUDGE WOULD IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
[01:10:02]
THEN THE JUDGE WOULD BE DECLARING THE ROAD IS A PRIVATE ROAD AND THERE'LL BE NOTHING ELSE LEFT FOR THE RESIDENTS TO CONTEND.I'D LIKE TO ASK CATHERINE, BACK THEN WHEN WE WERE IN SESSION, DID YOU SAY OR NOT SAY THAT THIS WAS NORMAL FOR COUNSEL TO ASK FOR GUIDANCE ON WHERE WE WANTED TO GO AND DID YOU THINK YOU DID ANYTHING WRONG BACK THEN? NO I DON'T THINK I DID ANYTHING WRONG BACK THERE.
HOWEVER, I WILL SAY WHAT'S MORE UNUSUAL IS FOR COUNSEL TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THIS LEVEL.
NORMALLY, A COUNSEL EXPECTS LEGAL COUNSEL TO PURSUE A CASE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN THIS CASE, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PARSED OUT IN DETAIL.
AND SO WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY BRING THE QUESTION OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE COUNSEL.
THE COUNSEL HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN DIRECTION THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE MOTIONS BEFORE THEY WERE FILED.
AND THAT'S HOW THIS CAME TO THE COUNSEL.
AND WE SOUGHT THAT DIRECTION. OKAY.
C ALSO CLARIFYING WHETHER IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE EVERY VOICE OF COUNSEL RESPOND OR GIVE YOU DIRECTION FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO.
NO, STAFF AND ATTORNEYS ARE ALWAYS KIND OF COUNTING HEADS AS FAR AS WHAT THE DIRECTION IS TO GO FORWARD, AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE UNLESS IT'S ON AN ULTIMATE ISSUE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS FOR STAFF OR LEGAL COUNSEL TO TAKE.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CITY OF PARKER NOT TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE GREGORY LANG LAWSUIT AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? YES, I HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING EVERY IS CLEAR THAT IF CITY OF PARKER IS INTENDING TO SUBMIT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BETTER TO DO SO NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THE JUDGES HEARING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FROM THE HUINES WHO ARE INTENDING TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IT IS BETTER TO DO IT NOW, SUCH THAT BOTH OF OUR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUESTS ARE HEARD DURING THE SAME HEARING.
IF WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE FINES, HEARING IS HEARD AND IF WE GET A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WE HAVE TO GO SEPARATE FILE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFTERWARDS AND HAVE ANOTHER SECOND SUBSEQUENT HEARING.
SO I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVES TO WHETHER WE FILE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW OURSELVES AS PARKER VERSUS JUST LETTING THE FINS FILE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THEIRSELVES.
AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO FILE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THAT'S THE SCENARIO UNDER WHICH THAT WE WOULD FILE.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT IT'S BEING DISCUSSED TODAY.
OKAY. PERSONALLY, FROM MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, I DO BELIEVE IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD, BUT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO FILE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUCH AS COUNSEL TOICATE IT IS THAT IT'S READY BEING FILED.
IT'S READY OUT THERE WITH FINES BEING FILED.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO ALL SPEND THE MONEY TO FILE OUR OWN SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
I WILL ASK A IF IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT IF IT DIDN'T REALLY ANOTHER PARTY COME IN AND FILE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAIN ON THEIR BEHALF TO THE SAME JUDGE WHEN HE IN FACT IS LOOKING AT LIKELY ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF IT INCLUSIVE OF WHAT THE CITY HAS ANSWERED IN THEIR OWN FILINGS IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD.
BUT THE POINT IS I DON'T WANT TO GO OUT AND SPEND MORE CITY MONEY FOR SOMEONE ELSE THAT IS FIGHTING THE SAME ITEM, AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE F AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN.
NOT SURE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY.
I WILL SAY THAT THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DRAFTED BY YOUR OTHER OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THIS.
SO THE MAJORITY, I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE ON IT FOR THE CITY FOR THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE I THINK THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IS, WOULDN'T IT JUST GO AWAY THAT WE'RE SEPARATE PARTIES.
SO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WOULD BE VALID IF IT WERE GRANTED AGAIN FOR ON BEHALF OF RTG, NOT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE IT EASIER SHORTER TO DO ANOTHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF HE'S ALREADY RULED ON THIS ISSUE FOR ANOTHER PARTY.
[01:15:01]
THE JUDGE DO THAT ANSWER TO ASKING? MR..ONE FINAL COMMENT. IF THE JUDGE WERE TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN OTHER WORDS, DECLARING GREGORY LEE A PUBLIC STREET INSTEAD OF A PRIVATE ROAD ING AGAINST THE GREGORY LE RESIDENTS AND IN FAVOR OF THE HUFFINES POSITION, IN FAVOR OF THE POSITION THAT SO PARKER TAKES AS WELL.
THE RESIDENTS OF GREGORY ARE GOING TO DROP THE SUIT.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING ELSE TO GO ON AFTER THAT.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO FILE A SUIT AGAINST THE CITY AFTER A JUDGE HAS ALREADY RULED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A JUDICIAL RULING THAT IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD.
AN ALTERNATIVE IF THE JUDGE WERE TO RULE AGAINST THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR PARKER TO FILE ITS OWN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET APPROVED EITHER IF THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT BASED ON A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT THE ISSUES, THIS IS WORTH TRYING THE FACTS IN THE CASE INSTEAD OF JUST ING ON SUMMARY.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE WOULD ALL STILL GO TO COURT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE REALLY.
THE OUTCOME EITHER WAY, EXCEPT THAT WE WILL BE INVOLVED IN FILING THIS MOTION.
AND LIKE I SAID, MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE GREGORY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DROP THEIR SUIT.
MAKES NO SENSE FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO SUIT JUDGE REPRESENTING PEOPLE.
AND IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ONCE A JUDGE HAS RULED ON AN ISSUE, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE THAT WOULD BE OUR MOTION IS IN THE HUFFINES.
ONCE A JUDGE HAS RULED ON AN ISSUE, HE'S GOING TO RULE DIFFERENTLY ON THE SAME ISSUE.
IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE COURT JUDGES DO WHAT JUDGES DO.
AND, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHINGS? OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND.
THE MOTION IS FOR THE CITY OF BROKER NOT TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE GREGORY LANE LAWSUIT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CITY NOT FILING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY. ALL THOSE FOR THE CITY FILING A MOTION FOR SU NEW JUDGMENT IN THE GREGORY LANE LAWSUIT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY. MOTION FOR THE CITY TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE GREGORY LANE LAWSUIT, IT PASSES.
IT WAS MR. PILGRIM AND MR. KERCHO VOTING AGAINST THE CITY FILING A MOTION AND MISS LYNCH, MAYOR PO TEM FE, AND COUNCILMEMBER NOE, FILING FOR THE CITY TO FILE A MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SECTION? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. NO, MA'AM.
PARDON? I SAID NO, MA'AM. OKAY.
WE'RE HAVING SOME MICROPHONE ISSUES, SO BEAR WITH US.
IF YOU SEE GARY JUMPING UP HERE AND PLAYING WITH OUR LITTLE AMP BOX AND WHATEVER, WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT.
>> BARE WITH US. WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
SECOND THING I WANT TO DO BEFORE I ACTUALLY START THE MOVING IS I WANT EVERYBODY TO LOOK DOWN AT YOUR FEET AND SEE OUR BEAUTIFUL NEW CARPET.
WE HAVE GOT NEW CARPET IN HERE.
IT'S PROBABLY BEEN 20 YEARS MAYBE LONGER.
I AM SO PROUD OF THIS AND WHAT I'M MOST PROUD OF IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE ABLE TO GET NEW CARPET IS OUR EMPLOYEES GAVE A LOT OF THINGS IN ORDER TO DO SO.
THEY GAVE UP HAVING SOMEBODY MOVE THE FURNITURE FROM ONE PART OF THE BUILDING TO ANOTHER PART OF THE BUILDING.
THEY GAVE UP HAVING IT COME IN AND TAKE THE COMPUTERS DOWN AND PUT THEM BACK UP.
HE TOOK A PICTURE OF EVERYBODY COMPUTER WE HAD SO WE KNOW WHICH CARD GOES INTO WHAT? I WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR WHAT THEY DID SO THAT WE GOT THIS DONE AND GOT IT DONE VERY TIMELY. THANK YOU.
Y'ALL DID AN AWESOME JOB YOU NEED TO BE COMMENDED FOR IT.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO THE PLEDGES AND I WILL ASK
[01:20:01]
MAYOR PRO TEM TO PLEASE LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND MS. MILLER, YOU LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.>> THANK YOU-ALL. NEXT, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
I HAVE ONE COMMENT CARD FROM MR. DALY.>> MY NAME IS STEVE DALY. I LIVE AT 5801 RATHBONE DRIVE, AND MY COMMENT IS ABOUT VENDOR PERMITS.
THIS LAST HONE HAS OTHER THAN DAMAGE TO MY CAR AND TO MY ROOF.
I'M MORE UPSET WITH THE ASSHOLES EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, THE PERSONS WHO CAME KNOCKING ON MY DOOR, LOOKING TO THE REPAIRS OF MY ROOM OR WHATEVER.
NOW, NEW OFFICE IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
IT TAKES ME TWO MINUTES MAYBE TO GET TO THE DOOR OPEN IT UP AND TALK TO THEM.
I'VE LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO THAT IF I TALKED TO HIM, THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS, DO YOU HAVE A PERMIT IN PARKER TO SOLICIT BUSINESS AND THEY SAID, YEAH, WE GOT PERMITS FROM NOW.
YOU CAN TAKE YOUR PERMITS AND DAILY ERRANDS, BUT YOU NEED A PERMIT IN THE CITY.
WE CALLED THE POLICE TO REGISTER MY DISPLEASURE.
THEY SAID WE'VE BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND EVERYTHING, BUT I KNOW THE POLICE PROBABLY WERE VERY BUSY AT THE TIME, BUT THERE WAS NO OBVIOUS OFFICER OR OFFICERS GOING UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
I LIVE IN RATHBONE, THAT'S A MAJOR STREET THROUGH PARKER LAKE ESTATE.
THESE GUYS WERE LIKE BEES ON HONEY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO LOCUS ON A FIELD, BUT ANYWAYS, THEY GO DOOR TO DOOR TO DOOR AND I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE UPSET TOO.
WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST IS, IT WILL PROBABLY COST THE CITY SOME MONEY, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH OURSELVES FROM THE CITY OF ALLEN TO THE CITY OF PARKER.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SIGN.
AT EACH LOCATION, WE DISTINGUISH PARKER FROM ALLEN.
BASICALLY, I'M SAYING AT THE BEGINNING OF MY STREET 2551, MAYBE AT THE END OF THE STREET, THAT'S ON LUCAS THAT SAYS, VENDORS REQUIRE PERMITS AND STATE WHATEVER THE RESOLUTION OR WHATEVER PART OF THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT, THAT'S GOING TO COST MONEY, SIGNS AND EVERYTHING, BUT IF WE HAVE ANOTHER HAIL STORM, I ALMOST WISH I HAD A SHOTGUN.
BECAUSE NOT TO TAKE OFFENSE AT THEM, I JUST WOULD WALK TO THE DOOR WITH THE GUN AND ACT LIKE I'M PUTTING AROUND IN IT.
I'VE PURCHASED A SIGN THAT SAYS NO VENDORS OR NO SOLICITATION.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL STORMS AND SO FORTH LIKE THAT.
WHEN I HAD TO SIGN UP, THEY TURNED AROUND.
SOME OF THEM DIDN'T AND IF I COULD CATCH THEM, I LET THEM KNOW THE TERMS. GET THE HELL OFF MY PROPERTY OTHERWISE, I WOULD CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE THEM ARREST YOU FOR TRESPASSING.
I KNOW YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION.
I LIKE TO PUT IT IN YOUR MINDS THAT MAYBE IN ANOTHER SESSION, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> BY THE WAY MY WIFE SAYS HI.
>> HI STEPHANIE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THAT'S THE ONLY CARD I'VE GOTTEN.
WE WILL GO ON TO ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
ON APRIL 3RD IS THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN OUR PARKER MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.[01:25:01]
IF YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED YOUR VOTING FROM WHERE WE MOVE FROM.PLEASE DO SO SO YOU CAN VOTE FOR MUNICIPAL PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL.
IT WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
PARKER RECREATION COMMISSION HAS A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9TH AT 5:00 PM IN THIS ROOM.
THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB IS HAVING A CANDIDATES NIGHT ON THURSDAY, APRIL 17TH AT 7:00 PM AT VICTORY CHURCH.
THIS WILL LAST ABOUT TWO HOURS IN WHICH THE CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, FOR CITY COUNCIL WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ARE POSED TO THEM BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.
AFTERWARDS, THERE WILL BE A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME FOR PEOPLE TO SMOOZE WITH THE CANDIDATES, IF YOU WANT TO.
AFTER THAT, WE HAVE PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK DAY ON SATURDAY, APRIL 26TH, AND THAT WILL INCLUDE CHARPIES OR NEEDLES THIS TIME.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DRIVE UP TO THE POLICE STATION.
THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY THERE TO TAKE THEM.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET OUT OF YOUR CAR.
THEN WE COME TO OUR GENERAL ELECTION, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON MAY 3RD.
EARLY VOTING STARTS APRIL 22ND, AND RUNS THROUGH APRIL 29TH, AND THEN THE ELECTION ITSELF, ELECTION DAY IS MAY 3RD.
I DON'T HAVE THE NOISE COMMITTEE ON HERE.
I BELIEVE THE NOISE COMMITTEE IS MEETING WEDNESDAY AT TWO O'CLOCK, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NOW WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WHICH HAS TWO ITEMS, APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25TH, AND APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 4TH.ANYBODY ME EITHER ONE OF THOSE PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT THE MOTIONS.
>> IN A CONSENT AGENDA, ARE BOTH ITEMS TAKEN TOGETHER OR INSTEAD OF EACH ITEM TAKEN SEPARATELY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S WHY I ASK IF WE NEED EITHER ONE OF THE ITEMS PULLED OFF.
>> I WOULD MAKE A REQUEST THAT THE TWO ITEMS BE SEPARATED AND THAT WE VOTE SEPARATELY ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25TH VERSUS THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 4TH.
>> THEN AFFIRM MOTION OF BUDDY PILGRIM.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2025. [SPECIAL MEETING - PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL WORKSHOP AND MEETING {RESCHEDULED}]]
THE FIRST ITEM NUMBER 3 THEN WILL BE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25TH, 2025, WHICH IS THE MINUTES OF THAT SPECIAL MEETING.>> MADAM MAYOR, I MEAN THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25TH AS PRESENTED.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND, THE MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25TH, 2025, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> YES, MA'AM. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, WHICH IS THE MINUTES FOR THE 25TH REVIEWED SEPARATELY.
BEAR WITH ME, I ASK EVERYONE TO BEAR WITH ME IS VERY COARSE.
I WAS BARELY SPEAKING TWO DAYS AGO, BUT BEAR WITH ME.
ITEM NUMBER 6 IN THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY THE 25TH IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2025-8803 APPOINTING 2024, 2025 MAYOR PRO TEM.
REMAINDER OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM READS TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 20204-792.
POST OF 2025-0204. THOSE ARE THE MINUTES.
THIS IS HOW THEY READ. COUNCILMEMBER NOE NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER TODD FECHT.
MAYOR PRO TEM ASKED COUNCILMEMBER FECH IF HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE.
COUNCILMEMBER FECH AGREED TO SERVE.
MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER NOE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-883, APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER TODD FECHT TO THE 2024 2025 MAYOR PRO TEM JUST SAYS DIDN'T SAY TERM,
[01:30:01]
REMAINDER OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM READS TERM, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-792.COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SECONDED AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FECH LYNCH AND PILGRIM VOTED FOR THE MOTION AND COUNCILMEMBER KOCHEL VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.
MY ISSUE IS THAT IS AN INACCURATE RESTATEMENT OF WHAT OCCURRED THAT NIGHT.
>> IT'S INACCURATE IN SEVERAL WAYS.
FIRST OF ALL, IT SAYS THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATED RESOLUTION, AND COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SECONDED.
THERE WAS NO TIME DURING WHICH COUNCILMEMBER MOVED TO APPROVE A MOTION.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO PASS THESE OUT TO ANYONE IN THE COUNCIL AND I'LL GIVE THEM TO ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, BUT I WENT THROUGH AND LISTENED VERBATIM TO EVERY WORD AT NIGHT.
THE MAYOR SAID, SO ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS PLURAL? DIDN'T SAY, IS THERE A MOTION? ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS PLURAL FOR MAYOR PRO TEM? COUNCILMEMBER MILLER RESPONDED, MADAM MAYOR, I NOMINATE TODD FECHT FOR MAYOR PRO TEM.
ABOUT THREE SECONDS, THERE WERE NO COMMENTS.
THE MAYOR SAID, THEN, MR. FECH, ARE YOU GOING TO BE AVAILABLE? COUNCIL TODD FECHT ANSWERED IN A MANNER THAT WAS INAUDIBLE ON THE AUDIO THAT YOU COULD LISTEN TO.
MAYOR PRO TEM SAYS, IS THERE A SECOND? THIS WILL BE ASKING FOR A SECOND TO THE NOMINATION NOT TO A MOTION, BUT TO THE NOMINATION THAT MS. NOE HAD MADE.
THERE WAS NO COMMENTS FOR A COUPLE OF SECONDS.
THEN COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SAID, I'LL SECOND THAT.
THE PANEL SAYS, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH.
THAT WAS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT, WE DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUSLY.
WE DID NOT HAVE A NOMINATION A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAD A NOMINATION FOR A CANDIDATE TO RUN FOR THAT POSITION, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A MOTION TO DO ANYTHING, BUT SHE SAID WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH TO PROPOSE THAT TODD FECHT SERVES AS MAYOR PRO TEM ANY DISCUSSION.
COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SAID SHE HAD A FEW QUESTIONS.
SHE ASKED HIM ABOUT NOTICING THAT HE'S MISSED A NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND WANTED HIM TO EXPLAIN THAT.
HE MADE SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE AGAIN INAUDIBLE.
I THINK THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE SOUND THAT NIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.
THEN IT FINALLY CAME IN AND COUNCILMEMBER FECH DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT HE SAID, OH, YEAH, THERE WERE TWO SITUATIONS. I HAD COVID.
I WAS ACTUALLY IN BED FOR THREE WEEKS.
ONCE I CAME BACK FROM THAT, I'D FALLEN DOWN THE STAIRS AND I WAS ACTUALLY IN BED FOR ANOTHER FOUR WEEKS FROM BRUISES AND LACERATIONS ON THAT, BUT I'M HEALED IN MY 40 TIMES, NOT AS GOOD AS THE MFL, BUT WE'RE BACK.
COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH RESPONDED SAYING, AS FOLLOW UP, NOW I KNOW THIS IS A SHORT TERM, BUT IT IS A CRITICAL TERM OR PIECE OF TIME.
ALL I KNOW AS THE MAYOR ASKED, ARE YOU COMMITTED TO BEING AVAILABLE AND BEFORE FINISHING THAT, COUNCILMEMBER FECH SAID ABSOLUTELY.
WE JUST FINISHED THE REMODEL FROM THE WATER DAMAGE TO MOVE BACK TO THE HOUSE.
EIGHT MINUTES AWAY VERSUS 45 MINUTES. IT'S A LOT EASIER.
COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SAID, WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE BACK IN PARKER.
COUNCILMEMBER FECH SAYS, SO IS MY WIFE.
MAYOR PRO TEM SAYS, DO YOU REALIZE THE MEETINGS ARE DURING THE DAYTIME.
COUNCILMEMBER FECH SAID, I'M AWAKE DURING THE DAYTIME AND READY TO GO.
MAYOR PRO TEM SAID ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM SAID, I WILL JUST ASK ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON TODD.
I KNOW SOME OF THE TIME YOU'VE MISSED HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF BUSINESS TRAVEL.
DO YOU SEE OR FORESEE ANY BUSINESS TRAVEL THAT WOULD DISRUPT YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO ATTEND THE REST OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS AND SOME SPECIAL MEETINGS.
>> I TRAVELED FOUR TIMES LAST YEAR FOR BUSINESS TRAVEL BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE FLY TO ME.
THE ONLY TRAVEL I'VE HAD THIS YEAR WAS TWICE IN A SPEAKING EVENT AT A MINISTRY.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE NO MORE TRAVEL PLANS IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS.
[01:35:01]
DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM SAID, YOU SAID YOU HAVE NO TRAVEL PLANS FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS?>> MADAM MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CAPTURE THE MEETING MINUTES TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE SWAGIT VIDEO? OUR MEETING MINUTES DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT FROM SWAGIT, SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
>> MR. PILGRIM, WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO YOU WANT TO BE DONE?
>> I'M ALMOST THERE, AND IT WON'T TAKE MUCH MORE TIME FOR ME TO FINISH THIS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
IF YOU'LL JUST ALLOW ME TO FINISH THAT, THEN I'LL FINISH MAKING THE POINTS THAT I'M MAKING.
COUNCILMEMBER FECHT SAID, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK.
I HAVE NO PLANE TICKETS BOUGHT AND NOTHING IN MY SCHEDULE FOR TRAVEL.
HE SAID, MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY, I ASKED COUNCILMEMBER FECHT.
MAYOR PETTLE SAID COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO, WHO HAD RAISED HIS HAND.
COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO SAID, IS IT POSSIBLE TO THROW IN ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS, OR NEED TO VOTE ON THIS ONE FIRST BECAUSE THE REQUEST HAD INITIALLY BEEN FOR NOMINATIONS PLURAL.
MAYOR PETTLE SAID, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT IS A MOTION, AND AS SOON AS WE GET NO MORE DISCUSSION, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN I MADE A COMMENT THAT WAS INAUDIBLE, AND IT WAS TO ATTORNEY CLIFTON, AND SHE RESPONDED, IT'S STYLED AS A MOTION.
BECAUSE I QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A MOTION, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT.
ATTORNEY CLIFTON SAID IT'S STYLED AS A MOTION INSTEAD OF NOMINATIONS BEING TAKEN, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CITY OF PARKER HASN'T SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO LOOK FOR.
MAYOR PETTLE SAID, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN MAYOR PETTLE SAID, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TODD FECHT SERVING AS MAYOR PRO TEM WILL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE AGAINST, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
BUDDY, ARE YOU ABSTAINING? I SAID, NO.
MAYOR PETTLE SAID, I DIDN'T SEE YOU OVER THERE.
THE POINT IS, THE MINUTES AS THEY'RE STATED ARE ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.
THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR THE VIDEO THAT YOU CAN WATCH ONLINE WILL SHOW THAT THERE WAS AT NO TIME WHEN COUNCILMEMBER NOE MADE A MOTION OR MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION, OR THAT COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SECONDED A MOTION.
THERE WAS A MOTION TO NOMINATE, AND THERE WAS A SECOND TO THE NOMINATION.
THERE WAS NEVER A REFERENCE OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL REFERENCE THAT THIS IS THE NEXT [INAUDIBLE] TO RESOLUTION 2025-883.
THERE WAS NEVER AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY CALLED FOR WAS NOMINATIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER NOE HAD OBVIOUSLY ALREADY ARRANGED WITH COUNCILMEMBER FECHT THAT SHE WAS GOING TO IMMEDIATELY NOMINATE HIM.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM NOMINATING ONE ANOTHER.
>> WE'RE QUESTIONING MEETING MINUTES, AND SO WE NEED TO REFER TO THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND.
LEGAL COUNSEL, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADDRESS THE MEETING MINUTES AS STATED IN THE PACKET? THE MEETING MINUTES IN THE PACKET ARE WHAT IS THE AGENDA ITEM CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR.
>> WE SHOULD REFER TO THE MEETING MINUTES AS STATED AND UNDERSTAND WHICH WORDS NEED TO CHANGE IN THAT CAPTURE OF THE MEETING MINUTES BY OUR CITY SECRETARY, MS. GREY.
I WOULD REQUEST A POINT OF ORDER, MADAM MAYOR, HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED TO CORRECT THE MEETING MINUTES IN THE PACKET, WHICH IS THE AGENDA ITEM AT HAND ON THE FLOOR?
>> WELL, AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
>> IS THERE A MOTION TO CORRECT WORDS IN THE MINUTES?
>> NO, THAT WASN'T THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE.
THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED, AND THAT WAS A SECOND.
THEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION, AND BUDDY INDICATED YES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AT THIS POINT, THE MOTION AND THE SECOND IS ON THE FLOOR.
>> THIS IS FOR THE DISCUSSION.
Y'ALL CAN VOTE FOR THIS IF YOU WANT TO, BUT LET THE RECORD SHOW WHAT'S STATED IN THE MINUTES IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION THAT WAS VOTED ON THAT NIGHT.
[01:40:06]
>> COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM, THE APPROPRIATE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO GO TO THE MEETING MINUTES AS THEY'RE STATED AND MAKE CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES AS THEY'RE STATED.
THAT WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO DO NEXT.
WE COULD GO TO 30 MINUTES AND SAY THIS IS INACCURATE AND PROPOSE YOUR AMENDED MEETING MINUTES.
>> MAYBE TO VOTE NO ON THOSE MINUTES AND THEN VOTE ON THE [OVERLAPPING] CORRECTED MINUTES THAT WERE MADE.
>> THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, YES.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING.
BUT WE COULDN'T GET TO THAT POINT UNLESS I HAD GONE THROUGH THE INFORMATION THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH.
THAT IT WAS A NOMINATION, NOT A MOTION THAT WAS VOTED ON, AND THAT THERE WAS NO MOTION THAT WAS PUT ON THE FLOOR.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO AMEND THIS OR JUST TAKE A VOTE TO VOTE NO ON THIS, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON HOW TO AMEND THESE MINUTES.
BUT THESE MINUTES ARE NOT CORRECT.
NOW YOU CAN VOTE FOR THEM IF YOU WANT TO, BUT THEY'RE PATENTLY INCORRECT.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR PERMISSION, SIR.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
WE HAVE A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
I WILL NOW CALL FOR YOUR VERDICT.
>> EXCUSE ME, MADAM MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE.
THIS IS A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION.
IF A PERSON WANTED TO AMEND THE MEETING MINUTES, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE A SECOND MOTION OF AMENDMENT PRIOR TO VOTING ON THE FIRST MOTION?
>> WE NEED TO CLARIFY AND DEAL WITH THE FIRST MOTION, AND THEN WE WILL GO IF THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION OR NOT.
>> YOU CAN AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
YES, YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES IF WE AMEND ITEM NUMBER 6, WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND INCLUDE INSTEAD THE EXACT MINUTES, THE VERBATIM CONTENT THAT TOOK PLACE THAT NIGHT, RATHER THAN THE STATEMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER NOE MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION, AND COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH SECONDED A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION.
>> I WILL ASK MS. LYNCH, DO YOU AGREE TO YOUR MOTION BEING AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE VERBATIM MINUTES?
>> COULD WE TAKE THE PERTINENT ASPECTS OF THE MINUTES? THIS SEEMS EXCESSIVE TO TAKE VERBATIM EVERY WORD INTO THE MINUTES.
COULD WE TAKE THE PIECES WHERE YOU REFERRED TO THE NOMINATION VERSUS THE RESOLUTION? [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME THAT'S THE POINT THAT IS CONTENTIOUS, IS IT WAS A NOMINATION IN YOUR MIND VERSUS A RESOLUTION, WHICH IS THE WAY HAS TYPICALLY BEEN DONE HERE IN PARKER CITY HALL.
IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WAS OUT OF THE ORDINARY, IT WAS A NORMAL PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE DONE.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT'S NOT IN MY MIND; IT'S RECORDED IN VIDEO AND AUDIO FORM AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE THAT NIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO WANTED TO NOMINATE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT NIGHT, I WAS GOING TO NOMINATE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT NIGHT.
TO THIS DAY, I'VE NEVER DISCUSSED WHO I WAS GOING TO NOMINATE, HE'S NEVER DISCUSSED WHO HE WAS GOING TO NOMINATE.
IF WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE VOTE, IT COULD HAVE ENDED UP BEING THE EXACT SAME WAY.
I'M JUST SAYING WHAT'S STATED HERE IS NOT CORRECT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK WE TOOK A LEGITIMATE VOTE THAT NIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS FRAMED AS A MOTION AFTER IT WAS MADE AS A NOMINATION.
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE VERBATIM MINUTES FROM THE MEETING, AS YOU HAVE STATED HERE IN MY MOTION.
>> I SECOND THAT, MADAM MAYOR.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER NOE TO AMEND THE MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25TH TO INCLUDE THE VERBATIM MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING.
[01:45:02]
DID I GET THAT CORRECTLY?>> THE EXISTING ITEM NUMBER 6 MINUTES.
>> AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
MS. GREY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WILL PLEASE FURNISH A CORRECT COPY OF ALL OF THE MINUTES TO COUNCIL ON WHAT'S DONE.
NEXT IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 4TH.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 4TH, 2025 AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RANDY KERCHO TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED OF THE MARCH 4TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 4TH AS PRESENTED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> MADAM MAYOR, AS WE GET INTO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMOVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 FROM THE PACKET.
>> DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO REMOVING [OVERLAPPING]
>> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND THE MOTION. IT'S A MOTION.
>> I KNOW, BUT IT IS ITEM 8, WE'RE ON ITEM 5, AND I HAVE TO ASK IF ANYBODY OBJECTS TO MOVING ITEM 8 UP TO ITEM 5.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH HAS REQUESTED THAT ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH IS ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-838 BE WITHDRAWN.
COUNCILMEMBER NOE HAS SECONDED THIS ITEM.
>> I DISAGREE WITHDRAWING. IT MIGHT BE WITHDRAWN AFTER WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM 7 BUT I THINK IT'S PREMATURE UNTIL WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM 7 TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE AGENDA.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON WITHDRAWAL OF ANY ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-838.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF WITHDRAWING THAT ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO WITHDRAWING THIS ITEM.
MOTION CARRIES, ITEM NUMBER 8 IS WITHDRAWN.
NOW WE WILL GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 5,
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-837 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, APPROVING A PROSECUTOR FEE SCHEDULE.]
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-837 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, APPROVING A PROSECUTOR FEE SCHEDULE.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHAT THAT IS ABOUT?
>> MADAM MAYOR, AS I READ THIS, THIS IS CHANGING OUR CURRENT PROSECUTORIAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR OUR CURRENT MUNICIPAL JUDGE?
[01:50:02]
A STANDARD FEE FOR HIS SHOWING UP AND DOING THE NORMAL DOCKET.THIS WOULD PRESENT A FEE SCHEDULE, FOR TIMES WHEN HE HAS TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL.
THIS WOULD GIVE HIM A WAY, TO COMPENSATE HIM FOR THE EXTRA TIME THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BE, AND WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN TO GET THAT DONE.
THIS ONLY AFFECTS OUR PROSECUTOR.
IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE JUDGE OR THE COURT CLERK OR ANYBODY ELSE.
>> THIS WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF THE CITY?
>> IT COULD. IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRIALS OR SOVEREIGN CITIZENS, THAT HE HAS TO DO A LOT OF RESEARCH ON, THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE.
BUT IF WE HAVE A TRIAL COME UP, AND HE HAS TO DO A LOT OF LEGAL RESEARCH, THIS GIVES HIM A WAY TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT EXTRA TIME THAT HE PUTS IN.
>> I WAIT UNTIL A MOTION IS MADE, AND THEN ASK MORE QUESTIONS OR.
>> WELL, IF I GUESS WE DO NEED TO MOTION. I DON'T KNOW. I'M SCARED [LAUGHTER].
>> MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-837 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF PARKER COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS APPROVING A PROSECUTOR FEE SCHEDULE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE, AND THE SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-837, APRIL 7, APPROVING A PROSECUTOR FOR THE SCHEDULE.
NOW, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> YES, MA'AM. I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I DO BELIEVE IF WE ARE HAVING THESE TYPES OF TRIALS AND THINGS THAT ARE TAKING OUR PROSECUTORS TIME, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO PAY THEM FOR IT.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THOUGH THAT WE HAVE SOME MONITORING OF THOSE FEES TO MAKE SURE AS TO HOW THAT IS GOING AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.
IF WE START FINDING THAT TO GET TO BE A LARGE NUMBER. THAT WAS POLLUTION.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S JUST MY ONLY CONCERN THERE IS THAT WE DO KEEP AN EYE AND SEE THAT IT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF HANDLING THOSE FEES.
>> I WOULD SUSPECT THAT GRANT SAVAGE OUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE WOULD LET US KNOW IF WE HAD ISSUES WITH THOSE OR THE COURT'S BUDGET OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION ON MY PART.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THEN I'LL CALL FOR IT.
>> THERE'S A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE FEES.
HOW THEY CAME ABOUT, PROSECUTOR BASICALLY PRESENT THESE IS SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND, OR DID WE THROW SOMETHING OUT TO HIM? LIKE A WRITTEN MOTION COULD TAKE, DEPENDS WHAT IT IS FOR.
IT COULD TAKE A HALF HOUR, IT COULD TAKE EIGHT HOURS. I DON'T KNOW.
POINT IS IS THAT WOULD WE GO BACK AND SAY.
THESE ARE THE MAXIMUMS AND IF IT TAKES ONLY HALF HOUR IN FACT TO DO IT, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE CHARGED, IN THE 400 SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT.
OR IS THIS MEANT TO BE SOME TYPE OF AVERAGE THAT WE DETERMINED INTERNALLY AND THROW THIS OUT AS THE FEE SCHEDULE?
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND CATHERINE IS FREE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, IT WOULD BE BASED ON BILLABLE HOUR.
ONCE THE PROSECUTOR INDICATES, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME EXTRA RESEARCH, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT AN INVOICE, INDICATING THREE HOURS FOR LOOKING UP.
TWO HOURS ON, AND THEN SUBMIT THAT TO THE CITY.
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THERE FOR THINGS THAT ARE FOR EXAMPLE, IF HE WAS ASKED TO COME AND, SPEND TIME WITH THE NOISE COMMITTEE AND TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR THAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS BILLABLE, SO IT WOULD BE BASED ON HOURS.
BUT IT IS STYLE THIS FLAT FEES IN PART SO THAT GRANT CAN MORE EASILY ANTICIPATE THE COSTS AND BUDGET FOR IT.
WHERE THOSE CAME FROM, THOSE WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY OUR PROSECUTOR.
THE ISSUE HAD COME UP AS AN ISSUE.
MAYOR AND I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT BRIEFLY, I LOOKED AT OTHER OTHER PLACES THAT USE THE SCHEDULES LIKE THAT, AND BASED THAT ON THOSE ROUGHLY.
[01:55:04]
THEN I SUBMITTED IT TO THE MAYOR AND SHE ACTUALLY REDUCED SOME OF IT AND THAT'S WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU.>> WE USED TO HAVE, A FEE SCHEDULE FOR OUR ATTORNEY BACK WHEN JIM SHEPHERD WAS HERE.
BECAUSE AFTER THAT, WE WENT TO AN IN HOUSE ATTORNEY.
IT HAS AGAIN BECOME AN ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHERE THIS ALL COME FROM.
>> THE SECOND QUESTION, IS THERE A PROSECUTOR LOOKED AT IT AND BASICALLY IS FINE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> HE HAS LOOKED AT IT AND HE HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THEN I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-837, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
NO OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-818 APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND THE CITY OF PARKER PROVIDING MUNICPAL COURT SERVICES.]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-819.APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, AND THE CITY OF PARKER PROVIDING MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES.
MAYOR SWANER OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL IS HERE AND IS WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE ABOUT THIS.
BUT THIS IS BASICALLY WHERE THE CITY OF PARKER WILL CONDUCT SOME COURT SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M THE MAYOR OVER IN ST. PAUL.
I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH YOUR MAYOR, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, PATTI GRAY, LAUREN NEWTON, GARY.
IT'S BEEN A WHIRLWIND OVER THE LAST SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS.
I APPROACHED THE MAYOR WITH AN ILA IDEA TO HELP REDUCE YOUR COST ON YOUR COURT BY SHARING A SMALL TOWN.
WE USE MUCH OF IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I TOLD THE MAYOR I WANTED A WIN-WIN.
THIS IS THE BEST THING THAT BUTT HEADS KNOCKED TOGETHER AND CAME UP WITH A PRETTY GOOD SOLUTION WE THINK THAT HELPS REDUCE YOUR COST.
WE'VE AGREED TO THE SAME FEE SCHEDULE THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH YOUR PROSECUTOR.
IT WON'T BE ANYTHING OUT OF POCKET FROM YOUR END.
WE'LL START WITH THAT FIRST YEAR FEE AND THEN WE'LL ADJUST ACCORDINGLY FROM THAT.
IF IT NEEDS TO GO A LITTLE UP OR DOWN, THEN WE'RE WILLING TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WORK WITH YOU.
IT'S MY HONOR TO BE HERE WITH YOU.
I HOPE YOU'LL ACCEPT THAT LITTLE SPEECH THERE AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO ASK.
>> CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, I UNDERSTAND WITH REGARDS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> RIGHT NOW YOU'RE WRITING CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATIONS.
>> YES. WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN TRAVIS CAPERTON, THAT'S OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
I'M GOING IN HAPPY LETTERS BECAUSE WITHOUT HAVING THAT COURT SYSTEM IN PLACE, ABOUT ALL YOU CAN DO UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO CIVIL IS WE GIVE THEM WRITING LETTERS, AND WE TRY TO WORK RESPONSIBLY WITH THEM.
WE MET A FEW INSTANCES WHERE IT WOULD HELP IF WE WERE ABLE TO THE WAY LAURIE EXPLAINED IT TO ME IS IT NEVER MAKES IT TO THE JUDGE BECAUSE JUST THE JUDGE TERM BEING PUT TO THAT SCARES HIM INTO COMPLIANCE, IF YOU WANT TO USE THE WORD SCARE.
THAT'S WHY WE APPROACHED AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST ST. PAUL.
I REACH OUT, MS. PETTLE KNOWS, TO EVERYBODY FROM CINDY WILEY TO LAVON, TO EVERYTHING WORKING ON EVERY END.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ALL THE TOWNS GET TOGETHER AND SEE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND KNOWLEDGE FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH, AND I CONTINUE TO LEARN SO MUCH. I LOOK AT THIS.
AGAIN, I WANTED SOMETHING, AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD LEE I FIRST MET HER WAS, IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I TRIED TO LOOK AT THIS AS A WIN-WIN FOR YOUR TOWN, AND ALSO FOR MINE AND I HOPE YOU'LL ACCEPT THAT EXPLANATION WITH IT.
DON'T PLAN ON USING IT. I HOPE I DON'T HAVE TO.
>> RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE WRITING VIOLATIONS,
[02:00:01]
BUT NOT THE CITATION WILL THEN GO TO COURT BASICALLY.THAT'S CORRECT. WE CURRENTLY WILL WRITE THREE.
TRAVIS WILL WRITE TWO, I CALL HAPPY WRITERS, AND THEN THE THIRD, HE'LL GET A LITTLE STRONGER WITH HIS LANGUAGE.
MOST OF THE TIME WE DO GET SOME COMPLIANCE.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE THE SAME THING.
WE HAVE A HOST OF 10 THAT NEVER COMPLY OR RESIST BEYOND BELIEF.
IT'S THOSE WHERE YOU NEED THAT LITTLE EXTRA BUMP.
OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT CAN PROBABLY BE HANDLED IN THE SAME SYSTEM THAT IT DOES NOW.
AGAIN, SO IT DOESN'T MOVE THAT FLAT RATE INCLUDED INTO THAT LA THAT MS. CLIFTON WORKED UP.
THAT'S A FLAT RATE YOU'RE GOING TO GET AND THEN ANY PROSECUTORIAL FEES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE ACCEPT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT COST WILL NEVER BE BURDENED ON YOU.
COURT ENFORCEMENT, IS THERE ANY ANTICIPATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO HAVE A POLICE OFFICER OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE OR CERTAIN CONSERVATION?
>> NO, ST. PAUL HAS AT THIS TIME, NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER TO GET INTO THE POLICE SERVICE AT THAT POINT.
>> THE THING IS I PARTICULARLY LIKE ABOUT THE AGREEMENT IS THAT IT SAYS BASICALLY THAT PARKER AND ST.
PAUL HAVE TO JOINTLY AGREE ON WHO THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE IS.
TO ME, IT'S LIKE SAYING, IF WE DON'T AGREE.
I THINK ST. PAUL IS COMING OVER HERE AND SAY, HEY, WE WOULD LIKE TO USE YOUR SERVICES AND, THAT WOULD TELL ME THAT THEY'RE HAPPY WITH WHAT OUR SERVICES AND OUR SELECTION OF A JUDGE.
TRY TO GET INTO THE FACT THAT TRYING TO MAKE BOTH ST.
PAUL AND PARKER AGREE ON WHO MUNICIPAL JUDGE DOESN'T FIT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT SAY THAT WE MAKE THE DECISION FOR A MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND CERTAINLY WE WOULD WELCOME ST.
PAUL TO COME IN AND UTILIZE THOSE SERVICES.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU AND SHARE WITH ME CLARK IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND CLARK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS, WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR JUDGE AND YOUR SERVICES AS IS.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO DISAGREE WITH YOUR JUDGE OR WHO YOU CHOOSE AS A JUDGE.
THIS IS STRICTLY AN ILA FOR YOUR RENTAL OF SERVICE, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT.
WE COMPLETELY ARE AT YOUR MERCY.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE LEAVE YOU IN COMPLETE CONTROL.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BE A LITTLE BIT OF COST OFF OF YOUR TAX ROLL SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT SERVICE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. IT IS WRITTEN THAT THERE IS A JOINT DECISION ON HELICAL JUDGES.
>> CATHERINE, CAN THAT BE AMENDED?
>> SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK, TO ASCERTAIN BECAUSE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THESE JOINT COURTS COMES FROM THE CODE, AND I NEED TO FIND OUT TO SEE IF IT COULD BE.
>> BUT MAYBE WE PROCEED WITH THIS AND WE COULD COME BACK IF WE FIND THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE.
>> I'M COMPLETELY OPEN TO THAT.
>> BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED IF YOU ALL LIKE.
>> THAT'S FINE. YOU HAVE MY ASSURANCES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BACK YOU 100% ON THAT.
>> IF A CHANGE IS [INAUDIBLE] YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE IT BASICALLY PARKER IDENTIFIES WHO THE MUNICIPAL CHANGES.
>> WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS WE WOULD BRING THE BACK WITH ANY AMENDMENTS.
ST. PAUL WOULD HAVE TO SIGN IT AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE TO SIGN IT AGAIN.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GO AHEAD AND BE ABLE TO START THE SERVICES ON THE FIRST TODAY.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THE WAY YOU STATED IT WAS IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE MADE, I'M SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING REQUEST SOMETHING TO BE MADE.
>> WELL, THAT'S A LAWYER QUESTION.
>> I THINK IT IS, IF IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE STYLED THAT WAY, THEN WE WOULD BRING BACK AN AMENDED ILA.
IF IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW, THAT IT BE STYLED, THAT THEY HAVE TO AGREE, THEN THERE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY OPTION THERE.
>> YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER IT'S A REQUIREMENT OR NOT?
>> I WAS THINKING THAT'S THE WAY THE REASON IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I DRAFTED IT.
>> BUT I THINK IF WE COULD AGREE THAT IS JUST WHAT SHE SAID, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF LAW, WE WOULD CHANGE IT, IF IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF LAW, WE WOULD LEGALIZE IT AS IS.
>> IF IT'S LAW, THERE'S NOT A LOT WE CAN DO.
[02:05:02]
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-818, APPROVING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND THE CITY OF PARKER PROVIDING, MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES. GO AHEAD.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FECHT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-818, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND THE CITY OF PARKER PROVIDING MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES.
>> WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE IF NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.
>> DO YOU WANT THAT AS A PART OF THE MOTION?
>> MS. LYNCH, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?
>> YES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS IMPLIED IT WAS IN THERE. ABSOLUTELY.
>> ANYTHING FURTHER? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I DO APPRECIATE IT AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU.
[7. CONSIDER AND DISCUSS PROCEDURES FOR COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.]
CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSES ON PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
AS YOU'LL ALL KNOW, IN THE PAST, THE WAY WE HAVE DONE THINGS FOR APPOINTMENTS, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE THIS WORD.
I KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE WORD.
COUNCIL APPOINTS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
SOME OF THEM, WE APPOINT LIKE TO P&Z OR TO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THAT'S AN APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE THAT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THIS IS.
THIS IS WHEN COUNCIL APPOINTS TO THE FINANCE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OR WHAT ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM WHEN WE APPOINT THOSE THINGS.
IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT THE WAY WE DID IT THE OTHER NIGHT.
BUDDY WRIGHTLY SAID THAT I ASKED FOR NOMINATIONS, I THEN SAID MOTION.
THAT'S JUST HOW WE'VE NORMALLY DONE IT.
IF WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, IF WE NEED TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT, HOW CAN WE DO THAT? IT IS BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
>> I'LL SPEAK JUST A LITTLE BIT AND I GUESS EVERYBODY ELSE OBVIOUSLY IS WELCOME TO SPEAK AS WELL.
I'M THE ONE WHO ASKED THAT THIS ITEM AND THE FOLLOWING THAT COUNCILWOMAN LYNCH BE TAKEN FROM THE AGENDA.
I'M THE ONE WHO ASKED THAT BOTH OF THOSE BE PUT IN THERE.
THE REASON I DID IS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, I'VE SEEN THREE INSTANCES WHERE A PERSON WAS APPOINTED TO A POSITION WITH NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIEU OF THEM.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU THOSE THREE SPECIFIC POSITIONS.
ONE WAS WHEN MICHAEL SLAUGHTER LEFT COUNCIL AND I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH WHO IMMEDIATELY NOMINATED RANDY TO FILL THE SLOT.
THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE ELSE TO BE NOMINATED.
IT'S NOT THAT I HAD A PROBLEM WITH RANDY.
I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR RANDY IN THE JOB THAT HE'S DONE HERE.
I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR COUNCILWOMAN, I DON'T WHY I HAVE A HARD TIME REMEMBERING YOUR NAME, LYNCH AS WELL.
THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY WHATSOEVER, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD DISCUSSED JUST PRIOR TO BEING NOMINATED, THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT FILLING THE POSITION.
WE CAN HAVE AN ELECTION. WE COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND LET PEOPLE PUT THEIR NAMES IN THE HAT AND SEE IF THEY WANTED TO NOMINATE SOMEBODY ELSE OR SOMEONE ELSE.
WE JUST IMMEDIATELY GOT ONE NAME NOMINATION.
IT WAS VOTED ON, THERE WAS NO CHANCE FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
THE SAME THING OCCURRED WHEN JIM REED
[02:10:02]
LEFT AND AMANDA NOE IMMEDIATELY NOMINATED TERRY LYNCH FOR THIS POSITION, AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE ELSE TO BE CONSIDERED.IT'S NOT THAT WE'VE GOT ANY PROBLEM WITH TERRY FILLING THIS POSITION.
I THINK SHE'S A PERFECT PERSON FOR IT.
BUT I THINK THE PROCESS IS WRONG.
THEN WE REPEATED THAT SAME THING WHEN IT CAME TO MAYOR PRO TEM.
WE CALLED FOR NOMINATIONS PLOW, AMANDA IMMEDIATELY NOMINATED TODD.
WE EXPECTED THERE TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE OTHER PEOPLE, AND THAT WAS CUT OFF.
I THINK IT WAS REALLY CUT OFF IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT WAS CALLED A MOTION AFTER IT WAS MADE INSTEAD OF A NOMINATION, WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER VOTE TONIGHT AFTER THAT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TODD, IT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS.
I LIKE TODD. I'VE KNOWN TODD A COUPLE OF YEARS. THAT'S FINE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT PROCESS BY WHICH YOU GET SOMEONE.
I THINK THE RIGHT PROCESS IS ANYTIME WE'RE GOING TO FILL A POSITION, WE NEED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER PERSON TO BE NOMINATED.
IF NO ONE ELSE IS NOMINATED, THAT'S FINE.
IF THREE OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOMINATED, THAT'S FINE AND WE'LL VOTE AMONGST THOSE.
BUT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF IMMEDIATELY MOVING TO A VOTE WITH NO OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR NOMINATION.
>> I THINK THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FILLING A CITY COUNCIL SLOT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OPTIONS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED.
I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM NOMINATION FOR PRO TEM OR NOMINATION FOR INVESTMENT COMMITTEE.
THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THAT.
CATHERINE CAN CERTAINLY WEIGH IN.
TERRY YOU'RE OVER THERE WIGGLING, SO MAYBE YOU HAVE AN ANSWER.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I ALWAYS TRY TO GET CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE AND I FEEL LIKE NO, MAYBE I'M GETTING TOO CLOSE TO IT.
I'LL JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES.
WHEN I LOOK BACK AT WHAT PARKER HAS DONE HISTORICALLY, THESE APPOINTMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DONE BY RESOLUTION.
IN LOT OF CITIES IT'S DONE BY RESOLUTION, AND THE REASON THAT THEY DO, I THINK IS BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU A DOCUMENT THAT GETS TO GO IN THE FILES OR CITY SECRETARY KEEPS INSTEAD OF IT BEING PART OF WHAT WE CALL A MINUTE ORDER WHERE IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN THE MINUTES.
I THINK THE STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE WAS THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE'VE EVER HAD DONE ANY TRAINING FOR THE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW THESE WORK, AND THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION, IT'S APPROVED BY MOTION VERSUS NOMINATION AND ELECTION.
THE POSTING, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST SAID CONSIDER RESOLUTION, I THINK, CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION IS WHAT IT USUALLY SAYS ON THIS RESOLUTION.
IT DIDN'T CONTAIN THE WORDS NOMINATION, FOR EXAMPLE.
AS I'VE SAID TO COUNCILMAN PILGRIM, I CERTAINLY COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB WHEN YOU'LL ASK ME THE QUESTION ABOUT ARTICULATING WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THAT MOTION AND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.
WHEN IT IS DONE AS A MOTION TO APPROVE, IDEALLY THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE MOVE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, WITH WHICHEVER NAME IN THE BLANK.
THEN YOU HAVE A SECOND AND THEN THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND BECAUSE IT'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, IT CAN BE AMENDED LIKE ANY OTHER MOTION COULD BE TO CHANGE THAT NAME.
THAT IS WHEN CITIES DO THAT BY RESOLUTION, WHEN THEY APPOINT BY RESOLUTION, THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW IT'S DONE.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FOR STAFF, WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION IF THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE IS TO DO NOMINATION AND ELECTION IN THE FUTURE, THEN WE WOULDN'T PREPARE THAT DOCUMENT FOR COUNCIL AND IT WOULD BE SOLD DIFFERENTLY ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY THOUGHTS ON IT.
>> WOULD THE NOMINATIONS FOR ONE OF A BETTER TERM FOR SOMEBODY COMING IN AND SERVING AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, BE DIFFERENT FROM SOMEBODY BEING NOMINATED FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE OR MAYOR PRO TEM?
>> THEY COULD BE, AND YOU CAN SET THAT EACH TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU KNOW A COUNCIL MEMBER IS LEAVING AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THAT POSITION, THAT CAN BE A CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAVE AND DETERMINE HOW YOU WANT TO FILL THAT POSITION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO HAVE A PROCESS ON IT, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO DO INTERVIEWS AND THAT THING.
IT CAN BE SET EACH TIME OR YOU CAN SET SOMETHING UP AS THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS GOING FORWARD FOR EACH OF THESE TYPES OF APPOINTMENTS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBER AND APPOINTMENT FOR ZBA OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE OPTION WHEN I WAS APPOINTED CAME TO BASICALLY A VOTE WITHIN COUNCIL.
NOW, WE COULD HAVE WENT AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD AN ELECTION INSTEAD.
[02:15:01]
BUT IT'S THE SAME IF THE DECISION IS TO BASICALLY NOMINATE AND ELECT SOMEBODY.IF WE WOULD HAVE SELECTED, HEY, WE WANT TO GO OUT FOR A VOTE, THEN THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
IF THE DECISION WAS, HEY, WE WANT TO GO DOWN THE NOMINATION ROUTE, THEN I THINK THAT BECOMES THE SAME AS APPOINTING SOMEONE TO ZBA.
BECAUSE I THINK THEN ALL NOMINATION SHOULD COME FORWARD, HAVE DISCUSSION AND THEN MAKE THE DECISION.
WHILE IT'S DIFFERENT, IT COULD BE THE SAME IF THAT ROUTE IS SELECTED IN THE CASE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> WE COULD ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE OR PROTOCOL OR WHATEVER, WHERE IF IT IS TO FILL A COUNCIL VACANCY.
WE FIRST DISCUSS HOW WE WANT THAT TO BE DONE.
IF WE GO WITH THE NOMINATION, WE'LL GO BY WHATEVER PROCEDURE WE COME UP WITH OR NOT.
OR WE CAN HAVE TWO SEPARATE PROCEDURES.
I AGREE THAT WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB WITH OUR PROCEDURE.
AMANDA, I SEE YOUR HAND OVER THERE.
>> SPEAKING OF PROCEDURE, THE WAY THE RESOLUTIONS ARE WRITTEN IS AS STATED BY CATHERINE.
IF YOU LOOK BACK AT ALL THE RESOLUTIONS IN THE CITY OF PARKER, MORE THAN 165 OF THEM, YOU CAN LOOK ALL WAY BEFORE THE CANDIDATES THAT WERE NOMINATED IN THE RECENT YEARS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF.
IT'S ALL BEEN DONE THE SAME WAY BECAUSE THIS IS HOW CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE RUN.
THE AGENDAS ARE PUT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
THEY GO THROUGH EACH LINE ITEM.
THE PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE A MOTION, HAVE A SECOND OF A MOTION, AND HAVE A VOTE AFTER DISCUSSION.
THAT'S THE GENERAL STRUCTURE THAT WE HAD IN THE PAST, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS DONE THIS WAY IN THE PAST.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO DID RAISE AN ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE AGENDA INSTEAD OF THE WAY THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESOLUTION WAS ON THE AGENDA LAST TIME.
TO HAVE STRUCTURED IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE WILL BE NOMINATIONS TO BE ABLE TO FILL THE BLANK.
BUT I FEEL LIKE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS.
WE GO THROUGH TRAINING AS COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THE BEGINNING OF HER TERM TO SEE HOW THESE THINGS ARE RUN AND HOW THESE RESOLUTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MADE.
IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE SAME ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND STRUCTURE ABOUT HOW THE RESOLUTIONS ARE WRITTEN IF WE WANT TO WRITE THAT RESOLUTION DIFFERENT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THE NEW PROCESS.
>> I DO SEE THEM AS VERY DIFFERENT.
YOU INTERNAL WHERE YOU'RE SELECTING FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
OFTENTIMES, THERE'S NOBODY THAT WANTS TO BE THE MAYOR PRO TEM [LAUGHTER] AND IT'S A PULL TO TRY AND FIND SOMEBODY THAT'S WILLING TO DO THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE GOING TO THAT COURSE FOR THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> BECAUSE IT IS A TIME COMMITMENT TO DO THAT, SO THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
I CAN'T RECALL MULTIPLE PEOPLE BEING INTERESTED IN A POSITION.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE AN EASY ENOUGH THING TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURE IF THAT'S THE WAY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO DO IT IS TO GET NOMINATIONS FIRST AND THEN SELECT FROM THAT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOW, HOPEFULLY PEOPLE STOP LEAVING OUR CITY [LAUGHTER] AND WE HAVE PEOPLE STAYING ON COUNCIL FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
BUT THERE MANY ISSUES TO DEAL WITH.
IT'S NICE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND TELL PEOPLE, THERE'S THIS OPENING, SEND YOUR APPLICATION IN AND THEN COUNCIL'S DEALING WITH MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS OF PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AND INTERVIEW THEM.
I LIKE PEOPLE BEING INTERESTED AND ENGAGED IN OUR CITY, ABSOLUTELY.
BUT BEING ON COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY FOR A TEMPORARY TIME IS VERY CRITICAL TO HAVE PEOPLE AND RANDY WAS ONE OF THEM THAT HAD EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY BEFORE HE CAME IN.
ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE KNEW MICHAEL WAS LEAVING.
ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE KNEW JIM WAS LEAVING SO PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN CITY GOVERNMENT AND BEING ON COUNCIL HAVEN'T BEEN ENGAGED IN WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY,
[02:20:05]
HAVE A DUTY TO MENTION TO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS OR MAYBE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A DUTY TO TALK TO THEIR VOTERS TO SAY, HEY, THIS PERSON'S LEAVING, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT BETTER.HOW YOU DECIDE TO DO IT? I'M ONLY GOING TO BE HERE TO MAY [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S DEFINITELY THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE IT, MAKE IT BETTER.
JUST BE CAUTIOUS OF HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT, IT TAKES OF COUNSEL, AS COUNSEL IS TRYING TO GET OTHER THINGS ACCOMPLISHED THAT YOU'RE NOT OVERBURDENING ON ONE END, JUST TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL INCLUDED.
AND I WANT PEOPLE TO BE INCLUDED, BUT THERE'S BETTER WAYS SOMETIMES.
>> I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED, AMAZED, MAYBE.
WHEN WE APPOINTED, I GUESS IT WAS THE LAST TIME WE APPOINTED.
NO. IT WAS WHEN WE APPOINTED YOU.
THERE WAS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND I WAS SURPRISED BY THE TURNOUT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE.
AND AFTER THE MEETING, SEVERAL OF THEM TOLD ME THEY WERE HERE BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND SAY, HI, I'M INTERESTED.
AND WE DIDN'T AFFORD THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY.
EITHER THEY DIDN'T KNOW DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS, THEY COULD HAVE COME UP AND SAID THAT.
THEY JUST FELT LIKE YOU SAID, THAT IT JUST WENT ON AND IT WAS DONE AND THEY WERE LEFT OUT.
AND I'M OPEN TO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO DO A BETTER JOB, WHETHER IT'S FOR PRO TEM, WHETHER IT'S FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHETHER IT'S FOR COUNSEL.
IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING BETTER, LET'S FIND A WAY TO DO IT.
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT LED TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.
THAT'S WHEN I WANTED TO BE A TOPIC.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN LEAVE IT TO THE CITIZENS TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THIS STUFF THEMSELVES AND COME TO US AND NO ONE TO COME TO US.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL PEOPLE THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OPENING OF WHATEVER KIND COMING UP, AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO LET US KNOW IF THEY'RE INTERESTED.
BECAUSE I DO THINK WE'D BE BETTER OFF IF WE HAD MORE THAN ONE PERSON CONSIDERED FOR A POSITION, WHETHER IT'S MAYOR PROTEIN OR WHETHER IT'S A MEMBER OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THAT'S THE OTHER ONE WAS DONE THE SAME WAY.
I MEAN, I WAS NOMINATED. I THINK IT WAS BY TERRY TO BE ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE THAT WAS CONSIDERED FOR THAT.
I WOULD'VE BEEN FINE IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED THAT.
I WOULD HAVE OFFENDED IF ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER HAD WANTED TO BE CONSIDERED.
I DON'T THINK TODD WOULD HAVE BEEN OFFENDED IF ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER HAD BEEN CONSIDERED FOR MAYOR PRO TEM.
NONE OF US SHOULD BE OFFENDED.
WE NEED TO CREATE THIS OPPORTUNITY THOUGH.
BOTH FOR THE COUNCIL POSITIONS, BOTH FOR THOSE POSITIONS LIKE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND MAYOR PRO TEM.
WE'VE GOT ANOTHER COUNCIL POSITION THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE APPOINTED ENDS UP GOING TO STAY IN PARKER AS LONG AS WE CAN.
BUT WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION.
WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE AN APPOINTMENT.
WE WANT TO LET CITIZENS KNOW THAT OPEN SO THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET THEIR INTEREST BE AGAIN.
MY ISSUE IS WITH THE VOTE THAT WE TOOK ON FEBRUARY 25.
I WAS RIGHT IN PROCESS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS IT AND CHANGE IT.
I WANT ANIMOSITY TOWARDS ANYONE, BUT I HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE TELL ME IT SEEMS LIKE THE FIX IS IN ON ALL OF THESE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING FILLED.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE OUR CITIZENS FEEL LIKE THE FIX IS IN.
>> YEAH. I AGREE. GO AHEAD, MR. CARTER.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CATHERINE.
OBVIOUSLY, I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THE WHOLE RESOLUTION DEAL.
SO WHEN WE HAVE A RESOLUTION TO YOUR POINT, IT HAS WRITTEN THAT BASICALLY SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING SOMEONE, THERE'S A BLANK THERE, AND THERE'S A RESOLUTION NUMBER AT THE TOP.
BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU GO THROUGH NOMINATIONS TO FILL THAT BLANK, IT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT PROCESS WE SHOULD GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO FILL THE BLANK.
>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE A TWO STEP PROCESS WHERE YOU WOULD DO NOMINATIONS AND HAVE AN ELECTION AND THEN MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION WITH THE NAME IN
[02:25:02]
THE BLANK FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING THAT PIECE OF PAPER.>> I AGREE TO BE A RESOLUTION, BUT YOUR POINT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RESOLUTION, SHOULD BE A BLANK.
BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE PROCESS OF NOMINATING AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE NOMINATIONS IN ORDER TO FILL THAT BLANK OR INCORRECT.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU COULD DO ONE OR THE OTHER.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU CAN DO BOTH, WHICH IS TRUE IN A TWO STEP PROCESS.
WHAT I'VE USED IN OTHER CITIES AND WHAT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN IN OTHER CITIES IS TO DO IT AS A RESOLUTION.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL JUST UNDERSTANDS THAT IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THEY AMEND THE MOTION, IT FEELS A LITTLE CLUNKIER.
I THINK THAN WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO WITH JUST MAKING A NOMINATION.
I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT HOW THAT PROCESS GOES IS REALLY DICTATED BY THE EXPERIENCE THAT YOU'VE HAD IN OTHER NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS IN THE PAST.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, YES, YOU COULD DO SUCH A NOMINATION AND ELECTION, AND THEN DO THE RESOLUTION.
I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT THOUGH BECAUSE THEN I THINK WHAT IF THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T PASS AFTER YOU'VE DONE THE NOMINATION AND YOU'VE ELECTED SOMEONE?
>> WE'RE JUST FILLING A BLANK INTO A RESOLUTION.
WE MOVE APPOINT SOMEBODY TO P Z, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE GET A SHEET OF PAPER AND IT'S GOT BLANKS ON IT.
>> SOMETIMES WE'LL HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE COME IN AND WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT HAVE INDICATED THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THAT POSITION, AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHO TO FILL THE BLANKS WITH, AND SOMETIMES IDENTIFY WHO TO FILL THE PLANKS IN WHAT ORDER.
WE JUST DON'T DO IT CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL THE SITUATIONS WHERE IT COMES UP FOR NOMINATIONS.
>> THE WAY THAT I HAVE ALL SEEN IT IS THAT THAT'S THE RESOLUTION AND IT'S IMPERFECTLY STATED.
INSTEAD OF HAVING A TEXTBOOK MOTION, THAT WHEN NOMINATIONS ARE LIKE, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS WITH THIS PERSON FOR PLACE ONE AND THIS PERSON FOR PLACE TWO, I STILL SEE THAT AS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.
WHEN I SAY YOU HAVE A DIFFERENCE.
IF YOU DO NOMINATIONS AND YOU ELECT SOMEONE, AND THEN YOU TAKE A SEPARATE ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION WITH THE NAME IN THE BLANK, THEN THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS THAT COULD HAVE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES, WHICH WOULD BE ARGUABLY PROBLEMATIC, BUT UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. I WOULD THINK.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU CAN HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OUTCOMES BECAUSE THE THREE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY TO HAVE THE ONE PERSON THAT WON THE NOMINATION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU BUT I WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT [LAUGHTER].
>> THE OTHER THING, YOU MAYBE WROTE THE RESOLUTION.
THE RESOLUTION IS TO APPOINT THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE MOST VOTE AND IS NOMINATED, SO THAT IT'S ALL IN ONE DOCUMENT.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT COMPLEX TO ME.
BUT THE THING IS, GIVE MORE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY.
>> SO I GUESS IF I COULD ADD TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER PEG RAM STATED WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING OR A FORM WHERE PEOPLE SUBMIT THE FORM TO STATE THEIR INTEREST, AND THEN THAT FORM IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, SUCH THAT YOU KNOW THAT THIS PERSON IS INTERESTED, AND THE ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR ONE OF THE PLACES.
AND THEN WHEN THE RESOLUTION COMES TO THE FLOOR, YOU'VE GOT THAT PERSON'S INTEREST PAGE INCLUDED AS WELL.
POTENTIALLY, WE COULD ADOPT THAT SAME METHODOLOGY FOR OTHER APPOINTMENTS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT FORM THAT SAYS, I'M INTERESTED IN THIS ROLE THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE INTERESTED, AND THAT THERE'S A FORM THAT SAYS THESE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED, AND THEN THOSE PEOPLE WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE NOMINATION AND THE DISCUSSION.
THAT MIGHT BE A WAY THAT WE COULD DO IT.
>> THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT IS FIRST, I THINK, IF IT WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE, THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO DO.
AND WE COULD FOLLOW THAT SAME PROCEDURE.
BUT UNTIL WE KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION OR WHATEVER, I WOULD HATE TO SAY THIS IS IT.
BUT THAT'S THE ONLY EXCEPTION.
>> THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS ROBERT'S RULE SAYS A LOT OF THESE THINGS ALREADY COVERED.
IF WE JUST WENT THAT DIRECTION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD SIMPLIFY A LOT OF THINGS AND GET EVERYBODY A SEAT AT THE TABLE.
[02:30:04]
>> THE CITY OF PARKER HAS NEVER ADOPTED ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
WE TEND TO GO BY A LOT OF THEM, BUT WE HAVE NEVER ADOPTED WHERE WE GO BY THEM ALL.
AND THAT AS CATHERINE HAS TOLD ME, THAT SOMETIMES CONFUSING.
SO IF THIS TIME, I WILL ASK IF THERE IS ANY ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON NUMBER 7, OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
>> I GUESS THAT WOULD BE TO CREATE A PROCEDURE FOR SUCH NOMINATIONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
GOING TO PROVIDE US WITH A DRAFT OF THAT FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
>> I'LL TAKE IT, RANDY. THAT WAS A MOTION AND I TAKE IT.
THAT WAS A SECOND FOR CATHERINE TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR US TO USE IN THE FUTURE.
>> CONSIDER. LET ME TO VOTE ON WHAT SHE'S GOING TO DRAFT.
>> MADAM MAYOR, SORRY POINT OF ORDER.
IS THAT JUST A DIRECTIVE TO OUR ATTORNEY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS A MOTION IN A SECOND.
>> HOW WOULD YOU? IT'S CERTAINLY CLEAR IF YOU DO IT AS A MOTION IN A SECOND, AND VOTE ON IT.
>> IN DISCUSSION, THEN I'LL CALL FOR EVERYONE'S VOTE.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK CATHERINE TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION ON NOMINATIONS.
IN THE POST, MOTION CARRIES 50.
[9. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REFERRAL OF THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING (P&Z) COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATE/REVISION.]
SO WE'LL NOW GO TO ITEM NUMBER 9.DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONSIDERATION OF REFERRAL OF SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.
AS YOU'LL KNOW, WHEN WE HAD SOUTH PARK HERE AND CHANGED PART OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT TO SL TWO ACRE HOMESTEADS RESIDENTIAL, THAT CHANGED THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT IS INVOLVED.
AND THAT POSSIBLY ACCORDING TO COUNCILMEMBER, KERCHO CHANGED SOME OTHER PARTS OF THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT.
SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT PROBABLY HASN'T GONE TO P&Z IN 10, 15 YEARS.
AND SO MR. KERCHO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND ASKED THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD REFER THAT TO P& Z TO GET THEIR REVIEWER, AND THEN FOR THEM TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO COUNSEL ON HOW TO GO FROM THERE.
SO THAT IS WHAT THAT IS ABOUT.
DID I MISSTATE THAT MR. KERCHO?
>> SO IN THIS REFERRING IT TO THEM, ARE WE REFERRING ARE WE GIVING THEM ANY FEEDBACK? I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE ANY OF THESE.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE A LOT OF CHANGES TO WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A WIDE OPEN RANGE.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE, WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THIS. I TOTALLY AGREE.
>> I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS, REFER TO THEM AND LET THEM SEE WHAT'S LEFT. WHAT IS THERE? I MEAN, THAT ORDINANCE IS SO OLD, IT SAYS THAT SOUTH FORK CAN HAVE A HOTEL.
THEY CAN HAVE AN L PLANT, THEY CAN HAVE THIS THAT.
IT ALSO SAYS A SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT MUST BE SO MANY ACRES.
NOW, SINCE WE TOOK SPECIAL, WE MADE THE SF ON THERE THAT MIGHT HAVE AFFECTED THAT.
I DON'T KNOW. TO ME WE SEND IT TO P&Z, LET THEM LOOK AT EVERYTHING, COME BACK TO US WITH THIS IS WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST, AND WE SEE WHAT THAT IS.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT SOME GUIDANCE ON THERE, THAT'S FINE.
[02:35:02]
YOU'RE ALSO WELCOME IF WE DO THIS TO GO TO THE P&Z AND PARTICIPATE.ONE IS THAT WHEN THE REZONED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT A NUMBER OF PLACES IN THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE ACREAGE OF WHERE IT WOULD BE.
WHEN THE REZONED, A LOT OF THAT BECAME MOOT AND IS OUT AUTOMATICALLY.
THERE WAS MAYOR POS STANDPOINT WAS THAT THERE IS AN ACREAGE FIELD, THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE SITUATION.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT I BELIEVE WE PROBABLY ARE ALREADY NOT MEETING.
THEREFORE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT WE REZONED, IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT WE WOULD BE IN AUTOMATIC NON COMPLIANCE AND THAT WE SHOULD RECONSIDER WHAT THAT SAYS, AND THIS IS COMING BACK TO IT.
BUT ONE THING I DID WANT TO SAY IS THAT IN OUR PACKET THAT REFERS TO ORDINANCE 412.
AND 412 WAS PASSED EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 26 OF 1996.
BUT AT THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEETING TWO WEEKS LATER ON DECEMBER 10, 1996, 413 WAS ISSUED, WHICH TO ME BASICALLY REPLACED 412.
I DIDN'T READ FOR BABIN TWO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CHANGED, BUT SOMETHING MUST HAVE CHANGED BECAUSE COUNCIL CREATED A NEW ORDINANCE TWO WEEKS AFTER THEY ISSUED THE FIRST ONE.
SO THAT ORDINANCE ITSELF IS ALSO MENTION ORDINANCE 413 AND A POLICE AGREEMENT THAT WE CAME UP WITH WITH AS WELL.
SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
>> TO ME, WE WOULD REFER ALL OF THEM THAT HAVE TO DO WITH FORK TWO P&Z.
HOPEFULLY, WHEN THEY WOULD COME BACK TO US, THEY WOULD COME BACK TO US WITH ORDINANCE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO.
>> THEN AFTER THAT, WE WOULD PRESENT THAT TO SOUTH FORK FOR.
>> IT WOULD BE CITIES, IT WOULD BE OUR ORGANS.
>> BUT THEY'RE ALREADY THERE, THEY'RE ACTING IN A CAPACITY THAT IS ALREADY THERE.
>> NOW, IF WE REFER THIS TO P&Z AND P&Z ASK SOUTH PARK TO PARTICIPATE, THERE CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT.
IF IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL WANTS TO HEAR FROM SOUTH PARK, WE CERTAINLY COULD, BUT IT'S OUR ORDINANCE HERE.
THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE AGREEABLE TO REFERRING THIS TO P&Z FOR THEM TO EVALUATE IT AND MAKE ANY REVISIONS, CHANGES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
>> SORRY, MADAM MAYOR, LIKE, I GUESS, WHAT ALTERNATIVES WOULD WE HAVE IN ORDER TO BRING THIS ORDINANCE INTO COMPLIANCE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE SCOPE OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS, AND I WANT TO ASK WOULD ONE POSSIBLE ACTION BE SUCH THAT COUNCIL IT BE PERTINENT OBVIOUS, CONFLICTS, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IT'S NOT 175 ACRES, THAT WOULD JUST CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT ACREAGE.
IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE CLERICAL CHANGE, NOT SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.
I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK THE QUESTION OF POSSIBILITIES AND THAT IS SINCE IT'S AN ORDINANCE THAT IS ALREADY DRAFTED, IF THE CHANGES ARE MINOR TO JUST SIMPLY ADDRESS THOSE INCONSISTENCIES, DOING THAT WORK WITHIN COUNCIL BE ANOTHER AVENUE TO TAKE AS A POSSIBILITY.
>> COUNCIL COULD DO IT, BUT THAT WOULD BE CUTTING PLANNING AND ZONING OUT OF A ZONING ACTION.
ULTIMATELY BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING ORDINANCE.
>> GOT. YES. MISS IS JUST A QUESTION WHAT ARE THE THINGS TO CONSIDER?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THEN CAN I JUST ASK IF EVERYBODY'S AGREEABLE TO REFER TO P&Z OR DO I NEED A MOTION?
[02:40:01]
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEANER TO HAVE A MOTION.
>> I KNOW THAT WE REFER THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATE AND REVISION. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE TO REFER THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THEIR POSSIBLE REVISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSE.
[10. DISCUSSION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP).]
LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST IS DISCUSSION AND GIVING STAFF DIRECTION ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.A WHILE BACK THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A CIP PLAN.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PLAN BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THE PLAN.
BECAUSE BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, WE NEED TO SEE WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CIP PLAN CALLS FOR IS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY PROGRESS MADE? WE NEED TO DETERMINE YES, NO, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, FROM ALL ADMINISTRATION, FROM WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE.
SECONDLY, WE NEED TO LOOK AT FUNDING.
WHERE'S OUR FUNDING? DO WE HAVE ANY LEFT? DO WE NEED TO INCREASE THE BUDGET? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS? THESE ARE THE THINGS WE NEED TO GET FROM STAFF BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE PLANNING.
THIS IS THINGS LIKE WE CAN TAKE MASH RIDGE OUT OF THE PLAN BECAUSE WE'VE GOT MASH RIDGE DONE.
WE CAN PROBABLY TAKE CHURCH LANE OUT OF THE PLAN.
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT CHURCH LINE DONE.
YES, WE'VE GOT SOME THINGS DONE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING SO WE KNOW WHAT'S BEEN DONE, WHAT'S BEEN STARTED, WHAT'S BEEN IGNORED FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
WE NEED TO SET OUR PRIORITIES AND MOVE THE PLAN FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A HOW MANY YEAR PLAN?
>> WE NEED TO GO ANOTHER YEAR OR SO UP.
BUT BEFORE WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT, WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. MACHADO, MR. SAVAGE, AND ALL THE REST OF YOU, PLEASE LOOK AT THE PLAN.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, GET WITH ONE OF US, AND LET'S GET ALL THE INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK WITH THE INFORMATION AND THEN UPDATE THE PLAN.
TERRY, YOU'RE LOOKING KIND OF STRANGE AT ME.
>> [LAUGHTER] ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?
>> ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS IN THE PLAN EARLIER ON WAS A TIMELINE OF THE ACTION ITEMS THAT WERE NEEDED.
WHEN WE GOT CLOSE TOWARD THE END OF THAT OF THE GETTING THE CIP OUT, THAT WAS REMOVED.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CHART OR THAT TIMELINE TO OBVIOUS IT CAN'T HELP AND WE DO HAVE TO UPDATE THOSE THINGS.
THE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED, I THINK ARE ITEMS THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO TO GET US BACK UP TO PAR.
BUT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS TIMELINE AS MAYBE GOING FORWARD, WE CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE INFORMATION.
>> THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE TIMELINE, AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH PEOPLE AND WORK UP A NEW ONE.
IT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH A LOT OF THE CITY'S ISSUES.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAD DOING SOME FUNDING TYPE OF THINGS IN OCTOBER.
[02:45:07]
WELL, OUR NEW BUDGET STARTS IN OCTOBER 1ST.WE DO ALL OF OUR BUDGETING BACK BEFORE THAT.
IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO LOOK AT THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME BECAUSE ALL OF THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN LINE ITEMS OR WITHIN THE BUDGET.
THERE WERE SEVERAL PLACES WHERE IT WASN'T WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED, IT WAS WHEN IT WAS BEING REQUESTED THAT WAS A PROBLEM.
SOME OF THE TIMELINES LIKE FUNDING, MY RECOLLECTION IS THERE WERE PIECES OF IT THAT YOU HAD TO GET THE BONDING DONE BEFORE A CERTAIN DATE AND THEN AFTERWARDS YOU STARTED GETTING THE FUNDING.
BUT THAT IS DEFINITELY IN ONE OF THOSE SCHEDULES THAT YOU DO NEED TO SIT DOWN.
TEAM SIT DOWN AND AGREE ON WHAT BEST TIME TO DO THOSE.
BUT ONCE YOU HAVE THAT SCHEDULE, IT GIVES YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CONTINUALLY USE AND HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T JUST FALL BY THE WAYSIDE?
>> NO. TOO MUCH WORK AND ENERGY WENT INTO THIS FOR IT NOT TO BE KEPT UP AND GONE BY.
IT'S JUST WE HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK FOR US.
EVERYTHING HAS TO COME TOGETHER TO HAVE TO BE ONE LOT OF LINE JUST DOESN'T WORK.
WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND REALLY NEED TO DO SOME OF THAT WITH GRANT YOURSELF IN A MANNER ON THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
BUT YEAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND LIKE I SAID, I JUST FEEL THAT WE'VE GOT A GOOD BASIC BONES HERE, AND WE REALLY DO NEED TO KEEP IT UP. GO AHEAD.
>> MADAM MAYOR, TO YOUR POINT, WE HAVE A SCHEDULE WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS EITHER EDITED BY ANY OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT, GET GRANTED FOR GARY YOURSELF TO LOOK AT THAT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT REVIEWED AND APPROVED AND THEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS DOING ON UPCOMING AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE THEN IT WILL BE CAPTURED AS THAT PROCESS.
CORRECT. I GUESS, TO THE POINT THOUGH RIGHT NOW IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO UPDATE THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO.
WE WANT TO ASSESS WHICH PROJECTS WERE COMPLETED AND HOW MUCH BUDGET OF EACH PROJECT WAS CONSUMED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.
THEN FOR PROJECTS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE WATER LINES GOING INTO DUBLIN ROAD, WHERE THAT PROJECT ISN'T COMPLETE YET.
WE CAN ASSESS HOW MUCH WORK IS LEFT AND HOW MUCH MONEY WILL TAKE TO FINISH THAT.
WE'LL UPDATE THE PLAN FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR PROJECT TO DO THE COMPLETION OF THOSE WATER LINES AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTING THE DUBLIN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION.
WE'LL DO ALL THOSE UPDATES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST FOR WHAT PROJECTS WE'RE DONE THIS YEAR, WHICH ONES WE'LL PUSH INTO NEXT YEAR, AND THEN WE'LL BUILD THAT SIXTH YEAR AGAIN AT THIS TIME.
>> IT MAYBE THAT WHAT OUR PRIORITIES WERE TWO YEARS AGO ARE NO LONGER THE PRIORITIES EITHER BECAUSE SOMETHING GOT DONE OR SOMETHING ELSE GO TO BE MORE IMPORTANT.
>> YEAH. EXACTLY. THAT'S EXACTLY PART OF THAT SCHEDULE, WHICH IS LIST THE NEW INPUTS FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS SO THAT WE HAVE A NEW FRESH LOOK AT WHAT PROJECTS ARE COMING.
>> BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS GARY IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT AND UPDATES IN A MINUTE IS DUBLIN WATER LINE SPACE 2.
I'M GOING TO WAIT AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AND ON THAT ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE DONE. THAT'S THE POINT.
WE NEED TO GET THE INFORMATION BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
I WANTED TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION AND NOTICE THAT WE NEED YOUR INPUT.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET IT BY APRIL 15TH.
IF POSSIBLE, IF NOT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ON GETTING EVERYTHING AND MOVING FORWARD.
>> AGAIN, A LOT OF TIME WE SPENT ON IT'S A GREAT DOCUMENT.
BUT SOMEHOW, I THINK THAT WE'RE THEY'RE LACKING THE PROCEDURES TO HOW TO BASICALLY TAKE IT FORWARD.
BIT I'LL SAY THAT BECAUSE INITIALLY AS I CAME TO YOU AND SAID,
[02:50:04]
HEY, WE NEED TO REALLY BE LOOKING AT CIP.WE NEED TO BRING IT TOGETHER TO COUNCIL.
YOU RESPONSE WAS THAT CITY STAFF TASK, NOT COUNCILS.
PROBABLY ACCURATE. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEN IT WAS OKAY, THE CITY STAFF HAVE TIME REALLY PULL EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND THAT WAS AN ISSUE, ETC, SO EVERYTHING JUST KEPT GETTING PUSHED BACK.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF, WELL, HOW DO WE IDENTIFY WHAT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THE ENSUING YEAR? BUT IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS, WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS THAT EACH OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS COME IN AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, THIS YEAR, WHATEVER, EVERYONE PUTS IT IN, AND IT GETS THROWN INTO A POT AND DISCUSSED, ETC.
MAJORITY OF THOSE DURING BUDGETING IS WHAT'S NEEDED TODAY, NOT SO MUCH, WHAT'S NEEDED THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
BUT WE WENT DOWN THAT PATH WHEN WE CAME UP WITH CIP TO SAY, WHAT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE CITY'S STAFF RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING ITEMS FORWARD, THEN WE'RE SAYING THAT CITY STAFF IS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH CIP FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR COMMENT TO BASICALLY SAY, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THESE CIP ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CATALOGED OUT THERE AND TEMPORARILY PUT IN A TIMELINE.
AGAIN, A GOOD CHUNK OF IT IS PROPOSALS, NOT ANYTHING THAT'S IN A BUDGET, JUST PROPOSED BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
BUT EACH OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE GONE OUT THERE AND BASICALLY PUT IN THEIR DESIRES, WANTS, NEEDS, ETC.
BUT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO BASICALLY AMONGST THEM, DECIDE, WHAT WE GOING TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL TO DO? DO WE HAVE THE FUNDING FOR IT? WHERE IS IT? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ETC.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS EVER GONE THROUGH THAT PROCEDURE BEFORE.
THEY BASICALLY SAID, HERE'S WHAT WE NEED, ETC.
YOU GUYS DECIDE WHAT IT IS THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, ETC.
BUT HERE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO COME TOGETHER ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DECIDE, HERE'S EVERYTHING IN THE POT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PROCEDURE SET UP FOR THAT TO HAPPEN TODAY AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I SAY, YOU NEED THE INFORMATION.
BUT WHAT WE NEED IS NOT ON INFORMATION AGAIN OF WHAT HAS CHANGED POTENTIALLY, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED THAT NEXT YEAR OUT.
BUT HOW ARE THEY GOING TO WORK TOGETHER TO IDENTIFY WHAT THEY WANT TO BRING TO COUNCIL?
>> I HAVE TO DIFFER WITH YOU ON SOME THINGS.
DID THE DUBLIN WATER LINE COME TO COUNCIL? WAS THAT IN HERE? STAFF BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL ALONG WITH ALL THE INFORMATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND COUNCIL THEN AUTHORIZED THAT TO GO FORWARD.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD NECESSARILY BE WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PROJECT TO UTILIZE GRANT FUNDS FOR IT.
THAT WAS REALLY THE ONE ITEM [LAUGHTER] THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH THAT FIT ALL THE PARAMETERS.
WE SAID, OKAY, WE REALLY NEED TO DO THIS AND GET IT DONE BEFORE WE LOSE THAT GRANT.
I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT STAFF WHAT WE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S JUST THE ONE I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE HAVE BROUGHT SEVERAL THINGS TO COUNCIL.
WE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL REDOING CHURCH ROAD.
THOSE THINGS HAVE COME FORWARD FOR WHATEVER REASON.
I GET YOUR POINT THAT WE NEED TO WORK BETTER ON THAT TOGETHER.
WE CAN LOOK AT PROCEDURES FOR THAT OR PROTOCOLS OR WHATEVER.
BUT THE MAIN AREA IS WE HAVE A PLAN.
WE WANT TO TRY TO GO BY THE PLAN AND WE WANT TO DEVELOP IT TO HAVE IT WHEN WE COME TO COUNCIL, WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION BECAUSE AMANDA OVER HERE IS GOING TO SAY, I NEED ALL THIS INFORMATION [LAUGHTER] AND WE NEED TO HAVE IT TO HAND HER A PIECE OF PAPER AND SAY, HERE, HOW ABOUT THIS IS NOT GOING TO FLOAT.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET WHERE WE CAN DO IT.
IT'S LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NEW FOR US TOO, AND WE'RE DOING IT WITH SOME SHORT STAFF.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CRITICISM BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET BETTER.
[02:55:02]
THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO A BETTER JOB.>> COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUMMARIZE A COUPLE OF THE STEPS IN THE LINE ITEMS OF JUST THE SEQUENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE [INAUDIBLE] JUST TO HEAR SOME OF THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INSTILL AND THAT IS THE STAFF WILL GO ROLL UP PROJECTS AND THEN ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO GO TO A BOND IN FEBRUARY NEEDS TO START BACK X NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFOREHAND BEFORE WE GET TO THE BOND DEADLINE.
THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE HAD SCHEDULED IN THE CYCLE TO BE ABLE TO PRE-PLAN FOR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS A BOND, YOU HAVE TO START NOW, AND THEN YOU'LL BE READY BY THE TIME WE CAN HIT THE DEADLINE FOR THE BOND TWO TIMES A YEAR, AND GETTING IT ONTO THE BALLOT.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY JUST SUMMARY ITEMS, OTHERWISE, WE CAN JUST DO THAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
>> I THINK TO COUNCILMEMBER KERCHO'S POINT, I THINK IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE.
WE'RE USED TO, AS A CITY, LOOKING AT THE CURRENT YEAR, THE BUDGET YEAR.
LOOKING FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE.
THAT'S SOMETHING NEW, AND YOU'RE THIN ON STAFF RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT THING TO DO.
WELL, A LEARNING CURVE, BUT IT'S CRITICAL TO PULLING ALL OF THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOGETHER BECAUSE THE PLAN DOESN'T DO MUCH IF WE CAN'T IDENTIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BIG DOLLAR THINGS THAT WE SAID WE NEEDED OVER THE NEXT SIX YEARS.
THESE ARE THE THINGS: TO FIX OUR ROADS, TO ADDRESS OUR BUILDINGS, THAT TYPE OF THING, IT TAKES MONEY, AND TO DO IT YEAR BY YEAR, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE.
WE'RE GOOD RIGHT NOW ON OUR STREETS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH LEWIS LANE LIKE IS ON THE BUDGET.
BUT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO YEAR BY YEAR, BUT WHEN WE'RE STARTING TO REALLY TRY, AND I THINK AS A CITY, WE NEED TO STRATEGICALLY THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THESE THINGS FOR THE FUTURE WITHOUT KILLING OUR RESIDENTS WITH TAXES?
>> SOME OF THAT DEPENDS ON THE COUNSEL.
SOMETIMES COUNSEL HAS INDICATED THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN BONDS WHATSOEVER.
OTHER TIMES, IT'S LIKE, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, REALISTICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A BOND FOR THIS, THIS, AND THIS.
THAT'S A DISCUSSION IN AND OF ITSELF BY COUNSEL.
HOW MUCH DEBT ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE ON AS A CITY, AND IS THAT A GO, CO, WHOLE KINDS OF THINGS.
>> THAT'S WHERE, IF YOU BUY INTO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THIS IS WHAT IT ENTAILS.
IT WILL ENTAIL CERTAIN BONDS, BUT AT CERTAIN TIMES, NOT EVERYTHING TODAY.
BUT WHAT IS THAT TIME? WE DON'T KNOW, AND THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I THINK IS STILL MISSING.
>> THAT'S A REAL HARD THING BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THE BOND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE INTEREST RATES ARE TOO HIGH, LET'S WAIT AND SEE IF EVERYTHING COMES DOWN.
WELL, HOW LONG DO YOU WAIT? NOW, I DON'T HAVE MAGIC ANSWERS.
BUT AT LEAST WE'RE GETTING TO START ON LET'S SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT, LET'S SEE WHERE THEY ARE, AND THEN LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
CATHERINE, I DON'T I NEED A MOTION.
I'M CHECKING, THOUGH. THEN LET'S MOVE TO UPDATES.
[11. UPDATE(S)]
THE FIRST UPDATE WE HAVE IS 2551, MR. MACHADO.>> THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON DRAINAGE ON 2551.
SOME OF THE UTILITIES ARE STILL ON THE WAY.
THE POWER POLES ARE STILL ON THEIR WAY.
THEY'RE WAITING ON THE POWER COMPANY TO MOVE THOSE.
THEY'RE ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEHIND, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE SOME OF THAT GROUND UP WHEN THEY CAN GET SOME MORE CREWS OUT OF THE JOB TO SPEED THAT UP AND TRY TO CATCH UP.
>> IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S A MESS?
>> [LAUGHTER] MR. PILGRIM, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
[03:00:06]
>> NOTHING NEW TO REPORT THERE.
IN FACT, THE LAST THING I HEARD, BUT I HADN'T VERIFIED THIS, IS THAT THE TCEQ CASE NUMBER FOR THE MUD DOESN'T EVEN SHOW UP IN THE SOLAR WEBSITE ANYMORE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN TAKE THAT AT FACE VALUE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK IT UP, BUT THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON WITH IT.
>> ENGINEERING REVIEWS, MS. NOE.
>> THEY SAID THE ENGINEERING REVIEWS ARE CONTINUING.
WE'VE GOT A 3% COMMITTEE WHO ARE WORKING ON CONTINUING TO REVIEW THEM AND GRADE THEM, AND SO THAT'S ONGOING.
I WAS ON VACATION LAST WEEK, SO BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND THIS MEETING, NOT MUCH GOT DONE IN TERMS OF MY UPDATES, BUT THOSE ARE CONTINUING, AND WE'RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH ALL OF THE 201 GRADES THAT WE'RE PREPARING.
>> IS THERE ANY TIME ESTIMATE THAT YOU CAN GIVE US?
>> PROBABLY MAYBE WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH.
>> I HAD TWO COMPANIES SEND ME AN EMAIL ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
I DIDN'T TELL THEM IT'S IN REVIEW.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY GOOD OR BAD NEWS I COULD TELL.
>> NO, THE ONLY THING THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER [INAUDIBLE].
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ON THAT.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DECEMBER MEETINGS, WE DISCUSSED IT IN QUITE GREAT DETAIL.
THERE'S SOME NOISE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW OF CITIZENS JUST BEING MISSED FORM STATING THAT THERE'S COUNCIL MEMBERS AND/OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT WANT IT DISSOLVED, WHICH I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OF THEM THAT WANT THAT.
RANDY EVEN ASKED ME IN THE DECEMBER MEETING, TODD ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT WE DISSOLVE IT AND I SAID, NO, I DON'T.
THERE'S NO ONE OUT THERE, SO THOSE RUMORS ARE INCORRECT.
>> THE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
>> LEWIS LANE. COUNSEL, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU HAVE THAT ONE.
>> THANK YOU. THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT LEWIS LANE IS THE PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.
I WOULD CHARACTERIZE OUR COUNCIL AS VERY THOUGHTFUL AND VERY THOROUGH.
THEY WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
THERE IS A MEETING SCHEDULED NEXT WEEK BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH CITIES.
WE'RE OPTIMISTIC THAT'S GOING TO MOVE US CLOSER TO A RESOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO SERVE BOTH CITIES AND THEIR RESIDENTS, NOT ONLY NOW, BUT IN THE FUTURE.
>> STREET LIGHTS ARE ON THE WAY.
NOT STOP LIGHTS, STREET LIGHTS.
JUST TO LIGHT THE INTERSECTION.
>> TO LIGHT THE INTERSECTION. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF STOP SIGNS?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE STATUS. WE'VE GOT TO GET ON THAT.
>> WE WERE SUPPOSED TO TALK TO ALLEN.
>> I HAVEN'T YET, THAT'S ON ME. I'LL GET WITH ALLEN TOMORROW.
>> WE'RE STILL GOING TO DO A TEST PERIOD FOR THAT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT BACKS UP TRAFFIC TO KNOLLS.
>> I THINK THE ONLY WAY, WHEN WE HAVE THE MEETING WITH ALLEN, THE ONLY WAY IS TO REALLY FIGURE IT OUT.
THEY HAD THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEER HERE AND THEY DID SOME STUDY ON IT.
IT WAS HER OPINION THAT IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE BUT THE STUDY VERSUS REALITY MIGHT BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IS TO DO IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE PREPARED IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM, TO GO TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH WOULD BE EITHER TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR A RUN BY OR SOME OTHER METHOD.
>> I HAD A PHONE CALL FROM MANY PEOPLE IN THE KNOLLS AND WHAT THEY TOLD ME IS THEY DON'T CARE IF THAT STOP SIGN BACKS UP THE TRAFFIC.
THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC AND THE MESS, THE WRECKS, THEY HEAR IT.
THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY'RE UPSET ABOUT IT.
WHAT THEY WANT IS THE FOUR STOP SIGNS AND THEN THEY WANT
[03:05:01]
SOME PAINT OR SOME BUMPS OR SOMETHING THAT GUIDES THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT THE TRAFFIC COMING FROM CHAPARRAL GOING EAST TURNS INTO THE WRONG LANE OF SPRINGHILL ESTATES.BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT'S A TWO LANE GOING SOUTH AND IT IS NOT AND HAVE BEEN ALMOST NUMEROUS HEAD-ONS.
I THINK WE HAD THREE ACCIDENTS ON CHAPARRAL AT SPRINGHILL LAST WEEK.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO PURCHASE THE STOP SIGNS.
[OVERLAPPING] I WOULD LIKE THE PURCHASE TO BE MADE FOR THE STOP SIGNS, WHERE ONE WOULD BE IN THE CITY OF ALLEN JURISDICTION, I WOULD SAY THIS WILL BE A CASE FOR GREATER GOOD.
>> THAT WAS AGREED [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE DIRECTION TO STAFF IS TO ORDER THEM.
WE WOULD LIKE THEM ORDERED THIS WEEK AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN CONTINUE TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S OKAY TO PUT THEM DOWN, BUT I WANT THEM IN STOCK AND I WOULD LIKE THEM IN THE GROUND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> THE PROBLEM, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN.
THEY WON'T LET US PUT A SIGN UP IN THEIR CITY [INAUDIBLE] SO WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN ON THAT.
>> I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY [INAUDIBLE] OF NOT HAVING A STOP SIGN HERE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING THEM IN STOCK?
>> THEN WHEN IS YOUR NEXT MEETING WITH ALLEN?
>> BUT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE.
I WAS WONDERING WHY THIS HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT SINCE THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE WERE STILL TALKING.
>> THE COUNCIL KEEPS SAYING YOU WANT THIS, YOU WANT THAT.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO BOTH OF THEM.
>> MAYBE I'LL JUST BE VERY CLEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE STOP SIGNS AT THAT INTERSECTION INSTALLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN IN A CORRECT WAY SUCH THAT THOSE STOP SIGNS CAN BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY ACCIDENTS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I JUST WANT TO INDICATE THAT I JUST WOULDN'T PUT THE SIGNS UP BECAUSE IT'S GOT ALLEN INVOLVED.
BUT IT'S NOT DIFFICULT, THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON IT, SO LET ME GET WITH IT AND WE'LL GET THIS SCHEDULED AND WE'LL GET IT DONE.
>> WE HAVE TO ALSO HAVE A TRAINING PERIOD WHERE THEY NOW [INAUDIBLE].
>> POINT OF ORDER. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY WHEREBY AN INDIVIDUAL CITY COUNCIL PERSON CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF, IS THERE?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US AS CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, IN OUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WITHOUT A COLLECTIVE VOTE, FOR US TO START TELLING STAFF WHAT TO DO.
>> WE'RE IN A PUBLIC FORUM SO THIS IS WHY [INAUDIBLE] OTHER PEOPLE CAN ALSO GIVE DIRECTION.
CATHERINE, IF YOU COULD JUST CHIME IN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE IN A PUBLIC FORUM BUT WE AS INDIVIDUAL CITY COUNCIL PERSONS CAN'T START DIRECTING STAFF JUST BECAUSE WE'RE IN A COUNCIL MEETING.
>> VERBALLY, CAN WE DO THAT? YES. PROPERLY, CAN WE DO IT? I DON'T KNOW. CATHERINE, YOU TELL US.
CAN I AS AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER START GIVING ORDERS TO GARY, OR TO THE POLICE CHIEF OR THE FIRE CHIEF, OR ANYBODY ELSE?
>> NO, IT'S THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.
BUT IF A MAJORITY OF YOU SAY THE SAME THING, THEN STAFF GETS TO GO, WELL, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL TO DO THESE THINGS.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO ALSO PROVIDE THIS SIMILAR DIRECTION.
>> EITHER THAT OR JUST TELL ME, AND I WILL GET WITH STAFF AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REQUEST IS ACCOMMODATED.
I DO KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN.
WE ONLY HAVE ONE PART OF THAT INTERSECTION.
WE CAN DO ALL WE WANT ON OURS BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE OTHER THREE.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING THEM TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT ON ALLEN HEIGHTS BECAUSE COMING SOUTH ON ALLEN HEIGHTS, YOU GO FROM 40-30.
IF YOU'RE COMING THIS WAY ON CHAPARRAL, IT'S 30.
WE'D LIKE TO RAISE THE SPEED LIMIT AND THAT'LL BE UP PROBABLY ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA ON COMING WEST ON CHAPARRAL BECAUSE THAT'S 25 AND EVERYBODY FEELS THAT THAT SHOULD BE UP TO 30, TO TRY TO MAKE ALL THE STREETS EQUAL ON WHERE WE ARE.
[03:10:05]
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.IT'S HOPEFULLY GOING TO HAPPEN AND HAPPEN QUICKER.
WHEN JUST THE NEXT MEETING COMES, SAY IT'S A DONE DEAL, WE'LL GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT.
>> YES, I AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN NOE, THAT IT'S BEEN OBVIOUSLY QUITE A WHILE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
I REALIZED THIS, I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT ALLEN OWNS THREE QUARTERS OF THAT INTERSECTION.
BUT I WAS GOING TO SAY IF I WAS, WELL, I AM A COUNCILMEMBER SITTING AT THESE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND JUST LISTENING TO US, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE DRIVING IT FOR SOME POINT.
BECAUSE WE SAID, WELL, WE CAN EITHER HAVE THIS ROUND ABOUT OR A STOP SIGN.
WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN MAYBE A TEST OF THE STOP SIGN, ETC.
I HAVE NO IDEA, IS ALLEN JUST SITTING ON THEIR HANDS AND SAYING, WE'RE WAITING FOR PARKER TO SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO OR ALLEN HAS GOT THEIR OWN IDEAS AND WE AS A COUNCIL DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR IDEA IS? I WAS HOPING FOR A PRESENTATION.
I THINK THAT WE HAD DISCUSSIONS THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF PRESENTATION ON CHAPARRAL TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES, TO SEE MAPS OF WHAT THEY ARE, GET AN IDEA OF WHAT ALLEN IS THINKING ABOUT.
AGAIN, WE'RE WAITING ANOTHER TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE GET INFORMATION.
IF ONLY ON ONE QUARTER OF IT, I THINK WE NEED TO SEE WHAT ALLEN IS THINKING AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS.
>> WELL, I HAVEN'T HEARD [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE ALL I HEAR ABOUT IS WHAT WE'RE THINKING WE SHOULD DO.
>> NO, WE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THAT ALLEN HAD PROPOSED A ROUNDABOUT AND THEN THEY HAD PROPOSED A FOUR-WAY STOP.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED LIMITS.
KENNETH DID A STUDY THAT I THINK HE SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY AND AT WHAT POINT DO YOU STOP STUDYING AND LOOKING AND ACTING?
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU INDICATED WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY ALLEN, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ALLEN TODAY IS THINKING.
ARE THEY AGREEING WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT COUNCIL AND IT'S GONE BACK TO THEM AND THEY SAY, YEAH, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? ALL I KEEP HEARING ABOUT IS WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE DONE THERE.
AS FAR AS THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE BY CHIEF PRICE IS GREAT, BUT WE'RE A COUNCIL AND IT IMPACTS A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS AND I THINK A PRESENTATION IDENTIFYING WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE, OR WHAT STUDY HAS BEEN DONE, WHAT TRAFFIC THERE IS, ETC WOULD BE INTERESTING INFORMATION TO SHARE.
>> YOU HAVE A CHOICE, MR. KERCHO.
I CAN HAVE STAFF DO ALL OF THAT, OR I CAN HAVE THEM OUT TRYING TO PUT UP THE STOP SIGNS.
>> THEY CAN'T PUT UP THE STOP SIGNS AGAIN WITHOUT ALLEN'S APPROVAL, AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT ALLEN IS WANTING TO DO OR NOT.
IF THE STUDY IS THERE, CHIEF PRICE IS HERE, WE COULD BE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW DOING THE PRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT TAKING ANY MORE TIME OR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TIME HERE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION TO US AND THE REST OF THE CITIZENS OF PARKER.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I DID CALL CHIEF PRICE, I DON'T KNOW, HELP ME OUT IF I'M WRONG, SIX WEEKS AGO, FOUR WEEKS AGO, AND WE DISCUSSED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.
THAT'S WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT, AND I ASKED HIM TO SPEAK BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WATCHING THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE OUT OF THE FOUR, AND ALLEN HAS THE THREE.
EITHER LAST WEDNESDAY OR THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE, YOU AND I, RANDY, AND SOMEONE ELSE WAS IN THERE, WE DID TALK ABOUT ROUNDABOUTS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT AT THE POINT, LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, THIS IS A 911 DEAL.
WE HAD THREE WRECKS LAST WEEK.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE, NINE MORE? IS 15 ACCEPTABLE? AT SOME POINT, WE'RE AT 911, JUST GO PUT UP THE STOP SIGNS, LET THEM TAKE THEM DOWN.
IF WE ALL VOTE AND AGREE, I'M NOT TELLING ANYBODY WHAT TO DO, BUT WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON THIS THING.
NOT THAT ANYBODY DID ANYTHING WRONG, BUT A DIFFERENT GEAR NEEDS TO BE SHIFT.
GARY, I ASK THIS QUESTION, AND I DON'T KNOW PROTOCOL, SO IF WE DID GET CRAZY AND JUST PUT UP SIGNS AND TRIED TO HELP PEOPLE, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THEM DOWN, I HEAR.
HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE FROM TALKING TO THEM, GOING THROUGH THEIR PROCEDURES, IN THE BEST CASE? IS THIS WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY LONG AT ALL.
WE'VE JUST GOT TO EXPRESS THE URGENCY TO GET THEM TO PUT THEM UP AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
ALLEN'S A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND I THINK THEY'LL WORK WELL.
>> THEY'RE A FRIEND OR AN ALLY? [OVERLAPPING] PROBLEM SOLVED. GARY TO THE RESCUE.
[03:15:01]
>> IT WAS THEIR IDEA TO GO WITH THE STOP SIGNS, AND I THINK THEY'VE BEEN WAITING FOR US TO SAY, DO IT.
I THINK GARY CAN MAKE A PHONE CALL, THAT CAN BE DONE.
YOU CAN INDICATE WE HAVE THE STOP SIGNS, AND THEN IT'S A DONE DEAL.
NOW, IT MAY TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET THE BUTTONS OR THE PAINT TO GUIDE PEOPLE FROM CHAPARRAL.
>> WE'VE GOT SOME IDEAS ON SOME STUFF THAT GUIDE THEM ON OUR SECTION OF THE ROAD THERE TOO, WITH SOME GUARDRAIL, BARRELS OF ROCKS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO KEEP THEM FROM WANDERING OFF, KEEP THEM ON TRACK. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE ON COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT? MADAM MAYOR, COULD I ASK YOU TO TAKE A POLL OF COUNCIL TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT GARY TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THE STOP SIGNS WITH ALLEN?
>> I THINK I CAN JUST DO IT MYSELF.
GARY, WILL YOU PLEASE DO THAT?
>> RANDY, I WILL TRY TO GET YOU MORE INFORMATION.
>> I'M TRYING TO BE QUICK ON THIS.
I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT OTHER PEOPLE I KNOW THAT YOU SAID YOU HEARD FROM ALLEN, THAT THEY WANT THE STOP SIGNS, NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY DON'T CARE WHICH STOP SIGNS, THEY JUST NEED SOME CHANGE.
I HEAR FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE, TOO, THAT SAYS THAT TRAFFIC THERE IS ONLY BAD DURING CERTAIN RUSH HOUR AND THAT THE REST OF THE TIME, THAT INTERSECTION ISN'T ALL THAT BUSY AND THEY DON'T WANT TO STOP.
THEY'D RATHER DO THE ROUNDABOUT DEAL AND SO THEY CAN JUST GO THROUGH.
BUT AS A COUNCIL, WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, THAT AS A COUNCIL, I THINK WE ALL SAID, LET'S TRY THE STOP SIGNS FIRST AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE DIVERT FROM THAT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION, SO AS WE GO THROUGH IT, AND WE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WHEN WE PUT STOP SIGNS OUT, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS OTHER INFORMATION IN OUR HEADS AS TO WHERE IT'S GOING, INSTEAD OF A ONE-SIDED DEAL AND THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, WE'D LIKE TO SHARE IT.
>> HAS ALLEN EVER INDICATED WHAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THE COST OF A ROUNDABOUT THERE VERSUS WHAT THEY WOULD WANT US TO SPEND?
>> THEY INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED TO DO A 50:50 SPLIT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROBABLY NOT A 50:50 INTERSECTION, BUT THAT WAS THEIR INDICATION.
>> SECOND QUESTION. DO THEY HAVE WRECKS AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON THEIR SIDE OF IT, LIKE WE'VE HAD ON OURS?
>> YEAH, I THINK ALL THE WRECKS ARE ON THEIR SIDE.
>> ALL OF THE WRECKS ARE ON THEIR SIDE.
>> WE HAVE THE PORTION OF CHAPARRAL THAT COMES INTO ALLEN HEIGHTS.
THE OTHER THREE SIDES ARE OURS, SO WE HAVE WHAT I CALL THE BAD SIDE BECAUSE IT'S GOT WHAT APPEARS TO BE TWO EXTRA LANES, AND THE STOP SIGNS WERE IN A FUNKY POSITION.
GARY IS WORKING ON REPOSITIONING THOSE STOP SIDES AND BLOCKING OFF THOSE TWO EXTRA LANES SO THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE LANES THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DRIVING ON.
>> THIS IS WITH THE NEW YEAR FOR OUR CONGRESS.
THINGS HAVE SWITCHED AROUND, AND THE PERSON DOING THE ZIP CODE THING IS DIFFERENT, AND NOW I'M SEEING THAT SEVERAL OTHER CONGRESSMEN ARE PUTTING INDIVIDUAL BILLS OUT.
I'VE GOT CALLS IN TO ADDRESS WHAT WE CAN DO TO GET ON ONE OF THESE BILLS, AND RIGHT NOW, ALL OF THE BILLS ARE SITTING JUST AS INTRODUCED; THERE'S NOT ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN ON ANY OF THIS.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN WASHINGTON THESE DAYS, AND ZIP CODES IS NOT NUMBER ONE.
BUT I AM KEEPING UP TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO. THAT'S IT.
>> DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES ARE IN THAT SCHEDULE.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY WANTING TO PRESSURE TEST TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT TOMORROW ON THE SOUTH END THAT THEY'VE DONE [INAUDIBLE].
>> MADAM MAYOR, ARE WE OPEN FOR COMMENTS?
>> FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S A GREAT JOB.
I THINK THAT I'M REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THE PROGRESS THAT WAS MADE TO GET THOSE WATER LINES IN DONE AND AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.
[03:20:01]
>> IT'S A MESS. [LAUGHTER] WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT COMMENT, WHICH IS, WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WE HAVE BUDGETED TO DO THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES, AND OUR INTENTION IS TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF DUBLIN ROAD.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK GARY, MR. MACHADO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ENGINEERING FOR DUBLIN ROAD AS A NEXT STEP.
SHOULD WE PUT THAT ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, OR CAN WE DIRECT STAFF TO START GETTING A QUOTE AND COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE ROAD?
>> MR. MACHADO, I BELIEVE, IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR NEXT AGENDA, DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES PHASE 2, WITH ALL THE INFORMATION IN.
>> NO, I'M ACTUALLY ASKING TO RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S A MESS.
BECAUSE WHEN THEY PUT THE WATER LINES IN, THEY HAD TO SECTION THE ROAD, DROP THE WATER LINES, AND THEN COVER IT BACK OVER.
BUT AFTER THAT WAS COMPLETE, WE'RE, IN THE PLAN, GOING TO MOVE IN AND THEN RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD.
TO PROPERLY GO TO THE NEXT STEP, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE THE ROAD DESIGN DONE.
THAT COULD BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
>> THEY DO ALSO HAVE, IN THE PLANS CURRENTLY, TO REPAVE THE LANE THEY'RE WORKING.
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AS A FINISHING TASK ON THIS PROJECT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE WHOLE ROAD, SO WE'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK HERE AND REPAVE OVER THE PART THAT THEY TORE UP, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE DONE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S NOT A RUSH TO GET THAT DONE, BUT THEY WILL FIX IT.
>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD TO DO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WAS TORN UP.
>> INSTEAD, PART OF THE CONTRACT IS TO COME BACK IN WITH ASPHALT ONCE THEY'RE DONE PUTTING THE WATERLINES IN?
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YEAH, IT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
>> VERY QUICKLY, I DIDN'T LIKE THE COMMENT WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].
I THOUGHT THE 90-DAY PROJECT INCLUSIVE OF DROPPING THE WATERLINES IN AND THEN REFINISHING THAT ROAD WHERE THEY CUT INTO IT.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT IN THE 90-DAY PROCESS?
>> NO, I'M SAYING THERE'S NO RUSH TO REPAVE THE ENTIRE DUBLIN ROAD BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO REPAIR THE LANE THEY WORK IN.
>> NEWSLETTER. WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING THE NEWSLETTER OUT, AND HOPEFULLY, IT WILL BE OUT VERY, VERY QUICKLY.
WE'D LIKE TO GET IT OUT BY APRIL 10TH, 12TH AT THE VERY LATEST, SO WORK IN PROGRESS.
DUBLIN ROAD PUMP STATION, GARY, DO WE STAND UP AND GIVE YOU AN OVATION FOR THIS?
>> WE HAVE A WATER TAP. IT WAS MADE THURSDAY.
[APPLAUSE] THEY'VE MADE HALF THE LINE; THEY'RE WORKING ON CONNECTING THE PIPES NOW.
NORTH TEXAS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH TO GET IT DONE.
[LAUGHTER] WE SHOULD HAVE SOME WATER FLOWING HERE PRETTY QUICK.
>> THAT WILL BE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS?
>> YEAH, THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
BEFORE THE 15TH, BEFORE TAX DAY.
ANY OTHER UPDATES THAT I'VE MISSED?
>> YEAH, I HAVE ONE. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE NOW GROWING UPDATE AGENDA.
MY CONCERN IS THAT CERTAIN SECTIONS WITHIN OUR CITY HAVE SEWAGE, AND WE'VE BUDGETED ABOUT $45,000 A MONTH FOR SEWAGE COSTS.
THE LAST TWO MONTHS, BOTH JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, WE WERE RUNNING ABOUT 61,000, SO WELL OVER BUDGET.
THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER THROUGH NOVEMBER, THEN THROUGH DECEMBER, FOR THREE MONTHS, THERE ARE ABOUT 20,000 OR 30,000.
NOW, PEOPLE, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY USE MORE SEWAGE THAN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AS OPPOSED TO OCTOBER THROUGH DECEMBER.
PROCESSES, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. SOMETHING IS WRONG.
BEFORE, THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED, OUR SEWAGE COSTS SKYROCKETED, AND WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH ONE OF THE LINES.
[03:25:04]
THAT IT WAS MOVING BACK AND FORTH, AND THEREFORE, THE DOUBLE-COUNTING AS IT WENT BACK, FORWARD TO BACK, WENT BACK FORWARD AGAIN, ETC, AS IT WAS MAKING THE WAY THROUGH THE LINES.I DON'T THINK THAT CURRENTLY IT'S THE SAME SITUATION, BUT SOMETHING IS A MESS.
ALSO, I THINK, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT AS WE WERE INITIALLY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG BACK WHEN OUR SEWAGE RATES WERE SO HIGH, IS THAT SOME PEOPLE WERE LIFTING MORE SEWAGE COVERAGE THAT MAY BE ON THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO LET THE DRAINAGE DURING RAINS, ETC, FLOW OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY FASTER.
WELL, THAT OBVIOUSLY IS COSTING THE CITY SUBSTANTIAL MONEY.
MAYBE WE SHOULD CREATE SOME TYPE OF FINE IF SOMEONE IS CAUGHT TRYING TO DO THAT.
BUT REGARDLESS, I THINK WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHY WE'RE PAYING FOR 60,000 VERSUS 45,000 BECAUSE AT 15,000 A MONTH, IT'S NOT SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND FROM WHAT MY CONVERSATIONS ARE WITH MR. MACHADO, THE BEST OPTION IS TO SPEND $200,000 AND HAVE A CAMERA GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE LINE TO FIND OUT WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY.
I'VE ASKED HIM TO PLEASE EXHAUST EVERY OTHER OPTION BEFORE WE GO THERE.
I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THERE BECAUSE WE MAY END UP GOING THERE, BUT LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER OPTION THAT WILL COME UP WITH WHAT'S CAUSING THIS.
BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING SITUATION, AND IT'S NOT GETTING ANY BETTER.
15,000 A MONTH, THOUGH, IT ONLY TAKES A YEAR BASICALLY, WITH THE SAME 200,000 MARK.
BUT WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT IT GET INCLUDED ON THE UPDATE LIST AND THAT GARY PROVIDE US AT EACH COUNCIL MEETING WHAT THE STATUS IS, SO THAT WE KNOW THAT IT'S CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD AS OPPOSED TO POTENTIALLY NOT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? THEN, AT THIS TIME,
[12. 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 WILL ACCEPT DONATIONS FOR FIRE POLICE AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.MARYAM BOROUJERDI AND MOHAMMED MASSOUDI DONATED ONE DOZEN NOTHING BUNDT CAKES BUNDITINIS VALUED AT $28 TO CITY STAFF.
TREY AND MELISSA TIERCE DONATED A BROWNIE TRAY VALUED AT $20 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AS ALWAYS, WE THANK OUR DONORS.
WE SO APPRECIATE THEM APPRECIATING OUR STAFF, OUR FIRE, OUR POLICE.
THAT IS JUST SO NICE TO HAVE PEOPLE LIKE THAT, THAT ARE SO SUPPORTIVE OF OUR CITY, AND WE THANK YOU.
[13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
IS THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST?>> MADAM MAYOR, JUST TO RECAP, I WOULD LIKE TO START THE PROCESS TO REQUEST MR. MACHADO TO GET A QUOTE FOR THE DESIGN OF DUBLIN ROAD SO THAT WE KNOW HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST TO DO THE ROAD DESIGN.
ANYTHING ELSE? HEARING NOTHING, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 11:30 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.