[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
>> I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.
IT IS APRIL 15, 2025, AT 5:00 PM.
MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE PROPOSED PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL.
[WORKSHOP]
I BELIEVE WE'RE STARTING WITH?5.3, TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
IS THAT WHERE YOU ARE, CATHERINE?
>> JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING IN THAT FIRST COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS? NOT HEARING ANYTHING, WE'LL MOVE TO VERBAL COUNSELING.
ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? MR. KERCHO.
THE LAST SENTENCE HERE SAYS A WRITTEN RECORD OF THIS WARNING SHALL BE MAINTAINED, AND THE NAME VERBAL COUNSELING IS NOT WRITTEN.
THEN, BASICALLY LATER ON, IT TALKS ABOUT THAT A WRITTEN REPRIMAND THE EMPLOYEE GETS TO RESPOND TO THE WRITTEN REPRIMAND.
BUT HERE, IT SAYS IT'S BEING WRITTEN AND PUT IN YOUR PERSONNEL FILE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS YOU GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT THAT IS AND/OR MAKE YOUR OWN INDICATION AS TO WHAT YOU FELT THE THING WAS.
BUT FIRST OFF, I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT FOR A VERBAL WARNING, AND IF THERE IS, THEN CERTAINLY IT'S GOT TO HAVE THE SAME MANDATES THAT SOMEONE CAN RESPOND TO IT.
>> I GUESS I'M THINKING OF THE ONE-MINUTE MANAGER, WHERE YOU TELL SOMEBODY SOMETHING, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT WRITTEN.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT HE'S GOT A REALLY GOOD POINT, AND WE COULD MAYBE JUST STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION, BASED ON HIS COMMENT, WHICH I THINK WAS VALID AND A GOOD COMMENT TO ACHIEVE WHAT HE HAS SAID, JUST DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE COULD ACHIEVE THAT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. TERRY?
>> I AGREE WITH THE COMMENT, HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE NEXT COMMENT, WE GO FROM VERBAL COUNSELING TO A REPRIMAND THAT MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A VERY DRASTIC MEASURE FROM JUST VERBALLY TALKING TO THE EMPLOYEE AND REPRIMANDING THEM, THREATENING POSSIBLE SUSPENSION.
I DO AGREE WITH ELIMINATING THAT LAST SENTENCE ON THAT PREVIOUS ONE, BUT THEN REQUEST WE LOOK AT THIS WRITTEN REPRIMAND BASED ON THAT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE VERBAL, WHERE WE JUST TAKE OUT THAT ONE SENTENCE? NOW LET'S GO TO WRITTEN, TERRY.
>> IT SAYS EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO SAY.
MAYBE IT MAY RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION, DEMOTION, OR TERMINATION SHOULD BE PUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PARAGRAPH.
>> COULD WE JUST SAY IT MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION, OR IS THAT TOO VAGUE?
>> TO ME, IT COULD BE THAT ANY TIME THAT COMES UP.
[00:05:01]
IF YOU'RE GIVEN A VERBAL COUNSELING ON SOMETHING, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE GIVEN A WRITTEN REPRIMAND, AND THEN IT SAYS IF IT OCCURS AGAIN, IT COULD LEAD TO SOMETHING, OR APPEAR THE THIRD TIME ON THE SAME SUBJECT.I COULD SEE THAT LEADING TO SOMETHING.
>> WOULD YOU JUST LEAVE IT AS WRITTEN?
>> IT SAYS EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO SAY. IT'S [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
>> COUNSELOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ANY OF THAT?
>> THE LANGUAGE IN THE SUSPENSION ABOUT THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT SOMEBODY CAN BE SUSPENDED, IT NEEDS MAYBE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S DIFFERENT FOR EXEMPT VERSUS NON-EXEMPT, AND CAN'T SUSPEND AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE FOR AN HOUR.
BUT I'LL MAKE THE CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW.
>> ARE WE READY TO MOVE TO SUSPENSION?
>> ON SUSPENSION ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, A DEPARTMENT HEAD WITH HUMAN RESOURCES.
AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE HUMAN RESOURCES INCLUDED IN THAT ACTION AND CONFER WITH CITY ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN RESOURCES FOR A SUSPENSION OF MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS.
>> I THINK THAT IT GETS COVERED AS WE GET INTO 5.4.
SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS, I THINK GET COVERED AS WE GET INTO 5.4 BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYS HERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN BE SUSPENDED OR ETC FOR, AND 5.4 SAYS WHAT PROCEDURES YOU GO THROUGH TO IMPLEMENT THAT, WHICH THEN I THINK COULD INCLUDE HR AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO DO.
>> I WOULD THINK ON SUSPENSION, THAT NOT ONLY DOES IT GO TO HUMAN RESOURCES, IT ALSO SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY OUR ATTORNEY, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE LEGALLY CORRECT.
I ADDED IN A SENTENCE, AND CATHERINE, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS OKAY OR NOT.
WHEN IN AN EMERGENCY, DO IT AND CHECK AFTERWARDS.
IF SOMEBODY IS SHOOTING SOMEBODY ELSE, I DON'T WANT US TO WAIT FOR THE PROCESS BEFORE WE STOP THE SITUATION, BECAUSE WE'D ONLY BE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
>> EMERGENCY SITUATION, JUST DO IT.
THEN YOU CAN WRITE IT UP AFTERWARDS.
IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY OUT THERE THAT'S GOT A GUN, AND HE'S WAVING IT AROUND, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE THE POLICE INVOLVED, BUT IF YOU DON'T, YOU MAY WANT TO GET YOUR GUN AND GET OFF THE PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN WRITE IT UP AFTER THE FACT.
>> WHAT SECTION ARE YOU IN? SUSPENSION OR DOWN?
>> IT'S UNDERNEATH SUSPENSION AND BEFORE THE MOTION, BUT I JUST STUCK IT IN THERE BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT WOULD ACTUALLY GO.
I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTION ON THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO, TALKING ABOUT SECTION 5.4.
IT TALKED ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.
WOULD THAT BE A GOOD PLACE TO PUT THAT TYPE OF THING IN? RATHER THAN DUPLICATING IT, BECAUSE YOU'D ALMOST HAVE TO DUPLICATE IT IN EVERY SECTION ABOVE THERE.
[00:10:01]
>> MY THING IS JUST I WANTED SOMEBODY TO KNOW IT'S OKAY TO ACT IN AN EMERGENCY AND THEN WRITE IT UP.
NOT TO WRITE IT UP, WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD UP, LET ME WRITE THIS UP.
AS TO WHERE IT SHOULD ACTUALLY GO IN HERE, I DON'T KNOW.
CATHERINE, YOU CAN GUIDE US ON THAT.
ANYTHING ON THE MOTION OTHER THAN ADDING HUMAN RESOURCES IN THERE? NOT HEARING ANYTHING ON THE MOTION. HOW ABOUT TERMINATION? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ADD HUMAN RESOURCES IN LEGAL COUNSEL.
BECAUSE I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO TERMINATE SOMEBODY, WE NEED TO MAKE DARN SURE WE'RE ON STRONG LEGAL GROUNDS.
>> WE CAN HAVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY ATTORNEY.
YOU MUST RATIFY ANY COMBINATION.
>> WHAT I'VE DONE IS PUT THAT AT THE END OF 5.4, THAT I'VE ADDED HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND THEN ADDED A SECOND SENTENCE THAT SAYS, NO DISCIPLINE ABOVE A WRITTEN REPRIMAND WILL BE ADMINISTERED OF THAT REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> ARE WE READY TO GO TO 5.4 THEN? ON THE FIRST SENTENCE IN 5.4, SHOULD THAT BE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR SHOULD THAT BE DEPARTMENT HEAD?
>> WELL, I FOUND IT A LITTLE STRANGE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE SKIPPING THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.
>> THAT'S HOW I WOULD READ IT.
WE DON'T HAVE GRANT HERE TODAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE MUCH IN TERMS OF INTERMEDIATE LEVELS OF SUPERVISION.
I DON'T KNOW, IT'S WRITTEN [INAUDIBLE].
>> SORRY. YOU CAN JUST SAY TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THEIR SUPERVISOR.
AND THAT TAKES CARE OF IT BECAUSE THEIR SUPERVISOR MAY BE THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, OR IF IT'S THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, THEN THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SUPERVISOR WOULD BE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> THE QUESTION IS, WHO'S WRITING UP THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE? IF IT'S THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WRITING IT UP, THEN THEY'RE THE ONE HANDING IT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND TO THE PERSON THAT THEY REPORT TO.
THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT. IF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ALREADY KNEW THE PERSON, HE WOULD SAY, GIVE IT TO THE PERSON THAT'S WRITING IT UP.
>> WHAT I WAS THINKING IS IT WOULD SEEM STRANGE IF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD HAS TO TAKE IT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND GET THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO DO IT WHEN THE SUPERVISOR SHOULD BE DOING IT FIRST OFF.
>> I READ IT AS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD IS PROVIDING IT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS AWARE.
SO THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS AWARE, NOT THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS ACTUALLY ISSUING THAT DISCIPLINE.
[00:15:42]
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT SECTION? SHALL WE MOVE TO 5.5? APPEALS.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LAST SENTENCE ON THAT PAGE.
WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT, SUSPEND, OR TERMINATE ANY CITY EMPLOYEE.
>> IT'S THE VERY LAST LINE OF 5.5.
IT'S THE VERY LAST LINE OF THE PAGE.
I JUST WONDER IF THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE LEFT AS A UNILATERAL DECISION OR IF EITHER COUNCIL OR SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A TERMINATION DECISION.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO REPHRASE IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS THIS ONE.
>> I WOULD THINK HUMAN RESOURCES AND PERHAPS LEGAL COUNSEL.
>> MAYBE JUST IN PRACTICE IN THE PAST, IF YOU'VE EVER HAD TO TERMINATE SOMEONE, MAYBE YOU CAN, IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
WE NEVER HAD TO TERMINATE SOMEONE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IN DATA, BUT HOW HAS IT BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, IF IT'S EVER BEEN DONE?
>> EVERY TERMINATION OF WHICH I'M AWARE OF HAS GONE THROUGH HUMAN RESOURCES AND HAS GONE THROUGH OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
>> MAYBE WE JUST INCLUDE THOSE TWO PEOPLE IN THEN.
>> WITH THOSE, HAS THE MAYOR BEEN COMMUNICATED ABOUT THOSE PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OCCURRING, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> YOU WANT THE MAYOR TO BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION?
>> NOT COUNCIL, THOUGH, RIGHT? I WOULDN'T THINK COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO BE NOTIFIED ON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES.
>> WELL, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE HAS THE ROLE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THEN I THINK IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR COUNCIL TO BE NOTIFIED, BUT AT ANY OTHER LEVEL BELOW THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THEN COUNCIL WOULDN'T.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW.
>> I ALSO THINK, ISN'T THAT IF WE HAD EMPLOYEES, A CITY ATTORNEY, ISN'T THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY?
>> IF YOU HAD A CITY ATTORNEY, ISN'T THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY? YOU'RE SAYING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR COULD TERMINATE OUR LEGAL OFFICER?
>> NO, BECAUSE YOUR CODE SAYS THE COUNCIL APPOINTS THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY SECRETARY.
THOSE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY COUNCIL.
>> ANY CITY EMPLOYEE; ISN'T THE LEGAL COUNSEL A CITY EMPLOYEE, NON-PAYROLL?
>> POTENTIALLY, YES. I TAKE YOUR POINT THAT YOU WANT THAT CARVED OUT.
>> COULD HE SAY THE EMPLOYEE NOT APPOINTED BY COUNCIL? SIMPLE ENOUGH.
>> IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ALWAYS LET COUNCIL KNOW IF IT'S SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND/OR TERMINATION.
WE'VE FOUND THAT AS A MATTER OF COURSE.
>> THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ON THE NEXT PAGE SAYS THE DECISION OF
[00:20:02]
THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS FINAL AND NO FURTHER APPEAL IS AVAILABLE.I THINK WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST HR IN THERE, NOT LEGAL COUNSEL, NOT CITY COUNCIL.
>> I THINK THAT SHOULD BE WITH HUMAN RESOURCES AND ATTORNEY.
HUMAN RESOURCES JUST GOT LEFT OUT OF EVERYTHING IN HERE.
>> I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS HUMAN RESOURCES A FULL-TIME JOB.
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF OUR ORGANIZATION, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES TO BE INCLUDED IN EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS? THERE'S AN INFORMATIONAL PIECE THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT INCLUDING THE HUMAN RESOURCES PERSON SEEMS EXCESSIVE TO ME.
>> SAME THING IS WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT INCLUDING HUMAN RESOURCES IS THAT, THAT PERSON DOES GET THE INFORMATION.
IT MAY NOT BE THAT THEY'RE INVOLVED OTHER THAN, LIKE YOU SAY, INFORMING, BECAUSE THEY MAINTAINED THE PERSONNEL FILE FOR THE CITY.
IF THAT PERSONNEL FILE DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION IN IT, IT'S NOT REAL HELPFUL IF YOU THEN NEED TO GO AND YOU LOOK THROUGH FOR SOMETHING.
BUT YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT IN TERMS OF WE'RE NOT CLARIFYING WHAT WE MEAN BY HUMAN RESOURCES, SO, CATHERINE, CAN YOU CLEAN THAT UP SOMEWHERE FOR US? UNDER OUR CURRENT DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, A PERSON WHO WAS TERMINATED HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK AND SAY THAT PERSON WAS TERMINATED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
THAT PERSON THEN HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK TO MEET WITH COUNCIL AND/OR MAYOR.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE TO THAT IF THE PERSON HAS THAT RIGHT.
THIS JUST LEAVES IT WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
MY QUESTION IS, HOW WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO HANDLE THAT, BECAUSE THAT DOES BRING COUNCIL INTO IT.
WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE AN EMPLOYEE, THEY WERE TERMINATED, BUT BEFORE ALL THE PAPERWORK WAS DONE, THEY ASKED TO MEET WITH COUNCIL AND/OR THE MAYOR.
GENERALLY, WHEN I'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO THAT, I DO IT WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS; I DON'T DO IT BY MYSELF.
ANOTHER SITUATION I'VE KNOWN, THAT THREE COUNCILMEMBERS CHOSE TO MEET WITH SOMEBODY.
I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING, WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST? CATHERINE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WHERE IT'S THE MAYOR AND MORE THAN ONE COUNCILMEMBER, THEN YOU'RE REALLY CREATING A PERSONNEL COMMITTEE.
THAT WILL HAVE ITS OWN POSTING ISSUES.
I THINK HAVING AN APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL GETS INTO OPENING THESE ISSUES.
IT JUST MAKES IT CHALLENGING TO DO.
I DON'T TYPICALLY SEE THAT HAPPEN WHERE ANYBODY CAN GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPEAL.
I HAVE HAD CITIES THAT DO THAT, THAT HAVE A PERSONNEL COMMITTEE, BUT IT'S PRETTY RARE.
[00:25:07]
>> OURS IS GENERALLY, THE PERSON WHO IS BEING TERMINATED MUST ASK THEIR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IN WHICH IT THEN GOES TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
WE CALL IT THE OPEN DOOR POLICY.
THEN THAT REQUEST THEN COMES TO THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL, AND IT IS EITHER ALLOWED OR IT ISN'T.
>> I GUESS I REALLY THINK OF THE ROLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE A POLICY-SETTING BODY, NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY RUNNING THE DAY-TO-DAY DETAILS OF THE CITY AND EVEN TERMINATION DECISIONS.
I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO ENTRUST THAT TO HIRED PERSONNEL, EVEN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THAT BASICALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
EVEN THERE, WHEN I SAID CITY ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD CONSIDER HR AS WELL, I WOULD STILL GIVE THE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, NOT TO HR.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE HR PRESENT AND INVOLVED IN PERSONNEL DECISIONS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY COME UP SO OFTEN IN HERE.
BUT I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF EVERY DECISION HAVING TO BE SIGNED OFF BY A BUREAUCRAT WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE LINE MANAGER IN THE ORGANIZATION, AND EVEN LESS A FAN OF THE CITY COUNCIL GETTING INVOLVED IN THOSE DETAILS.
I DO THINK IT WOULD CREATE SOME PROBLEMS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WITH QUORUMS.
>> DOING IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, WHERE IT MAY NOT BE GRANTED, BEING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS IN OPEN SESSION IF YOU'D EVEN LIKE TO LISTEN TO THIS EMPLOYEE CAN APPEAL IT.
THAT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT KIND OF PROCESS.
>> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PILGRIM FROM THE SAME POINT THAT TO ME HR BASICALLY SERVES TWO FUNCTIONS; ONE IS THE SOUNDING BOARD, JUST TO BASICALLY SAY, BEFORE I DO SOMETHING, LET ME CHECK WITH SOMEONE THAT IS OVER PERSONNEL ISSUES.
TWO, TYPICALLY TRIES TO, MUCH LIKE LEGAL COUNSEL, MANAGES A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE OR CAN'T BE DONE, AND HELPS GUIDE YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS. I AGREE COMPLETELY.
I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN WITH THE FINAL DECISION, WITH NO APPEAL OF ANYTHING, BEING WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET INTO MY REASONS OUT HERE.
>> MAYBE JUST STRIKE THAT SENTENCE.
>> THE ONE YOU HAVE A HEARTACHE OVER.
>> YEAH, CATHERINE, CAN YOU HELP US OUT WITH THAT? MAYBE YOU CAN TALK AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
I THINK YOU WANT TO BE CLEAR IN YOUR POLICY WHEN THEY REACH THE END OF THEIR PROCESS.
I WOULD HESITATE TO NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE, BECAUSE THEN, WHEN DOES ANYBODY GET TO SAY IT'S OVER?
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT LAST PART.
>> IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE, THEN DOES ANYBODY JUST SAY IT'S OVER? IT MAKES THE QUESTION KEEP COMING BACK.
BUT CERTAINLY, THIS DRAFT THAT I'M WORKING ON AS WE GO THROUGH THESE CONVERSATIONS IS SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WILL SEE AGAIN, SO IT'S NOT THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO IT.
>> I CAN UNDERSTAND POTENTIALLY ISSUES THAT COULD COME UP, MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO.
BUT TO ME, IF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS OVER ALL THE PEOPLE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
[00:30:01]
NOW, IF THEY'RE MAKING BAD DECISIONS, THEN IT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE ABOVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, COUNCIL, OR WHOEVER, TO SAY, HEY WE'VE GOT A BAD CITY ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE OF THESE ACTIONS THAT THE PERSON IS TAKING AND THEN DEAL WITH IT, BUT NOT TO CONTINUALLY BE OVER THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND SECOND GUESS WHAT THE PERSON DOES.I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY BELIEVE SHOULD BE DONE.
THEN THE PEOPLE ABOVE THEM JUDGE HIS OR HER ACTIONS OVER TIME.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, 100%.
>> THAT IS REFERRING TO IN APPEAL DECISIONS.
IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T APPEAL A DECISION, YOU JUST DON'T APPEAL AN APPEAL.
YOU'VE BEEN TO APPELLATE COURT AND LOST.
>> TODD, YOU WERE GOING TO TELL SOMETHING?
>> NO. I'M JUST SAYING I WAS AGREEING WITH RANDY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT CHAPTER? IF NOT, WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO SECTION 5.6, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.
>> I HAD A QUESTION FOR CATHERINE.
I GUESS YOU COULD CALL THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT STARTS WITH, IF THE MATTER.
ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, IS THAT WHERE THAT'S GOING? BECAUSE IT ISN'T CLEAR TO ME?
>> IN WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THERE WERE EDITS MADE TO THIS THAT I THINK ADDRESSED WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THIS, LOOKING AT THESE BEING HAVING BEEN DONE IN DECEMBER OF 2023, THE RED LINE THAT I HAVE ON THAT SECTION, AND WONDERING WHAT VERSION Y'ALL HAVE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT THE SAME.
IN THE THIRD, IF THE MATTER IS NOT RESOLVED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S SATISFACTION, YOU'RE ASKING IF?
>> IT ISN'T CLEAR WHO HE'S SUBMITTING IT TO.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY TALKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SO THEY'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.
SO I READ THAT MAYBE, IT SAYS, OKAY, I TALKED TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, I'M NOT SATISFIED, SO NOW I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN WRITING AND GIVE IT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.
BECAUSE THEN THE NEXT STEP AFTER THAT SAYS, IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, THEN WHAT DO YOU DO? IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN PAST THE DEPARTMENT HEAD YET.
>> THE WAY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH READS, IT TALKS ABOUT, IF THE EMPLOYEE'S SUPERVISOR IS A DEPARTMENT HEAD, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE INFORMAL CONVERSATION AND THEN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, IF THAT DOESN'T RESOLVE IT, THEY MAY SUBMIT A GRIEVANCE TO THE SUPERVISOR.
>> I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IF MY GRIEVANCE IS WITH MY SUPERVISOR, I MAY NOT WANT TO DISCUSS IT WITH HIM OR HER DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS.
I'D LIKE WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S SUPERVISOR UNLESS HE IS THE PERSON THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS A GRIEVANCE AGAIN.
BECAUSE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THAT GRIEVANCE IS, IT COULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
IT SEEMS IF MY PROBLEM IS WITH MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO JUMP A STEP WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT WITH HIM UNLESS IT'S JUST I'M GOING TO FILE A GRIEVANCE.
>> YOU'D LIKE FOR IT TO BE A PREFERENCE THAT THEY TALK TO THEIR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR BUT NOT A REQUIREMENT. IS THAT?
>> I KNOW, TERRY, THIS GOES AGAINST YOU, [INAUDIBLE] JUST MINIMIZING THAT EVERYONE HR BUT, COULD YOU INSTEAD GO TO HR INSTEAD OF THE SUPERVISOR OR THE THE LEVEL ABOVE? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? THAT'S ONE MORE THING GOING IN TO THE HR.
>> HONESTLY, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LOOK TO THE MAYOR AND SAY IF THE DEPARTMENT HIT, IF THE INDIVIDUAL REPORTS DIRECT TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THEN THE MAYOR, IN MY MIND, SHOULD BE THAT NEXT LEVEL OF APPEAL. THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
[00:35:03]
>> BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THOSE.
>> IT GOES BACK TO TOO MUCH AUTHORITY.
ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOB, HAVE MANAGERIAL AUTHORITY OVER THE PEOPLE THAT REPORT TO THEM.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GIVEN LOTS OF WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO GO AROUND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, WHICH REALLY [INAUDIBLE] THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM DOING THEIR JOB.
THE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS BOTTOM TWO ON THIS PAGE ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD PARTICULARLY CONCERN ME.
THEY'RE ALONG THE SAME LINE THOUGH BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYS, IF YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, ON MY END YOUR COMPLAINT COULD ULTIMATELY BE ABOUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
IF YOU TOOK A GRIEVANCE TO THEM ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISOR AND YOU DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR SAID ABOUT YOUR GRIEVANCE WITH THE SUPERVISOR, THEN YOU GOT TO SUBMIT YOUR GRIEVANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
HOW DO THEY PRESENT A GRIEVANCE TO CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT CREATING A WALKING QUORUM? I DON'T THINK THEY CAN.
THEN AFTER THAT, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR GRIEVANCE TO THE COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION, NOT LESS THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS, AND THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE GRIEVANCE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE ROLE OF CITY COUNCIL UNLESS WE HAVE SOMEBODY COMING TO US AND SAYING, THERE ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH WHATEVER IT IS; SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT AREN'T BEING ADDRESSED PROPERLY BY CITY MANAGEMENT.
>> WELL, ANOTHER ISSUE IS CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T MEET EVERY DAY, SO THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT A GRIEVANCE.
WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST, CATHERINE?
>> I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT ELIMINATING THE ROUTE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
THE PROVISION ABOUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAVING COMPLAINT THAT THEY CAN SUBMIT THEIR GRIEVANCE TO COUNSEL, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NECESSARY EITHER BECAUSE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TYPICALLY HAS INTERACTION WITH EVERYBODY ON A REGULAR BASIS AND COULD POTENTIALLY ADDRESS THINGS.
I DON'T USUALLY SEE THAT RELATIONSHIP FORMALIZED AS A GRIEVANCE BETWEEN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE CITY MANAGER AND A CITY COUNCIL.
YOU DON'T NORMALLY ADDRESS IT UNDER THIS POLICY.
SO I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING THOSE.
THAT BRINGS US, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ON THAT SECTION, THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 6.1, PERSONNEL FILES AND RECORDS.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO SAY THAT HUMAN RESOURCES MAINTAINS THE OFFICIAL FILE.
BECAUSE EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD, I THINK KEEPS A LITTLE FILE.
[LAUGHTER] EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN LITTLE NOTES, BUT THERE SHOULD BE AN OFFICIAL FILE.
NOW, CHIEF PRICE IS HERE TO HELP ME OUT ON THIS.
THE POLICE KEEPS WHAT'S KNOWN AS A POLICE FILE AND I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT MAY HAVE THINGS IN IT THAT HAS TO DO WITH POLICE POLICIES, PROCEDURES, BUT NOT CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. AM I MAKING ANY SENSE?
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CIVIL SERVICE CITY, YOU DON'T HAVE A SEPARATION BETWEEN TYPES OF FILES AND ANYTHING THAT SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE PERSONNEL FILE, THE ORIGINAL SHOULD BE AN HR.
IT'S COMMON FOR DEPARTMENTS, ESPECIALLY POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE COPIES OF THINGS THAT THEY MAINTAIN AND MAINTAIN THOSE FILES ON EACH EMPLOYEE.
IT'S ALSO NOT UNCOMMON, WELL, THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS,
[00:40:01]
BUT THE FINAL ACTION, THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHOULD BE IN THE PERSONNEL FILE.THEY WOULD HAVE A COPY OF IT ALSO.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IS THAT THE PERSONNEL FILE IS MAINTAINED IN HR FOR EVERY EMPLOYMENT INCLUDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? THEN MOVING TO SECTION 7.1, SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE PAGE.
THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS UNDER NUMBER 3 IS PERHAPS THAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO GO TO HR AND OUR ATTORNEY IF THERE IS AN ACCIDENT OR AN INJURY BECAUSE THAT COULD BE WORKERS COMP THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS HERE.
>> WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT?
>> NO. WELL, WE DO HAVE AN [INAUDIBLE].
IT'S JUST NOT A DEPARTMENT OR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, I GUESS, REPLACE DEPARTMENT.
>> DIDN'T HR PROBABLY MAINTAINS REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. I WAS REPLACING ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT WITH HR BECAUSE THEY SHOULD RECEIVE ACCIDENTAL REPORTS FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION.
>> ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT SECTION? MOVING TO 7.2, DRIVING RECORD CHECKS.
THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE OCCURRENCE, IS THAT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME?
>> I THINK THAT IF YOU SEND A TEXT OR IF YOU SEND AN E-MAIL, WE'RE COMPLETING THAT ACTION OF THE NOTIFICATION, WHEN THE PERSON RECEIVES IT, IT'S NOT UNTIL MONDAY MORNING, YOU'RE STILL COMPLIANT WITH THE SECTION, SO I WOULD SAY IT'S REASONABLE.
>> IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS OR WHEN PEOPLE ARE OFF WORK BECAUSE THIS IS ANYTIME, YOU MIGHT JUST SAY EIGHT BUSINESS HOURS.
>> WELL, I GUESS WHEN I WAS THINKING OF THIS IS, WE HAVE A SITUATION IN LIKE A POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THERE ISN'T A "SUPERVISOR" ON DUTY OVER THE WEEKEND, A SERGEANT AND POLICE CHIEF WORK DURING THE WEEK AND WELL, YOU CAN SEND THEM [INAUDIBLE].
BUT I JUST WONDERED ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF THE TIME.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.
>> IT'S LIKE WE'RE MAKING SOME DETERMINATION [BACKGROUND] SAFELY OPERATE STREET VEHICLES BASED ON A CASE BY CASE REVIEW OF DRIVING RECORDS. LOOK AT THAT.
>> IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR CITIES TO HAVE A FORMULA THEY GO BY IF THEY'VE HAD X AMOUNT OF TICKETS OR IF THEY'VE BEEN OVER A CERTAIN SPEED OR IF THEY'VE HAD SO MANY ACCIDENTS WITHIN X PERIOD OF TIME,
[00:45:03]
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE DRIVING PRIVILEGES.THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY DETAILED PROCESS TO CREATE FOR A CITY THIS SIZE SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAVE IT AS CASE BY CASE BASIS.
THAT MAY ALSO SEEM LIKE IT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IF IT SAID CITY VEHICLES, BUT THIS SAYS STREET VEHICLES SO I CAN'T GO DRIVE MY OWN CAR BASED UPON WHAT YOU TELL ME?
>> NO, YOU'RE CORRECT. WE CAN CLARIFY THAT.
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO END UP PUTTING IN ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO REPORT IT? BECAUSE THE REPORTING IS NOT JUST IN A CITY VEHICLE.
THE WAY I READ IT, IT'S IF YOU GET A TRAFFIC TICKET FOR GOING 50 IN A 40 OVER IN PLANO, YOU'VE GOT TO NOTIFY YOUR SUPERVISOR.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO NOTIFY WHEN YOU GET A CITATION, BUT WHEN YOU'RE CONVICTED, YES, ON A MOVING VIOLATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO REQUIRE THE MOVING VIOLATIONS PART OF IT.
I PUT IN EIGHT BUSINESS HOURS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> YOU CAN GET RID OF MOVING VIOLATIONS.
I'M ASSUMING IT GOT PAILED INTO WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT IF YOU'RE IN A CITY AND THE PERSON KEEPS GETTING SPEEDING TICKETS, YOU MAY NOT WANT THEM TO DRIVE A CITY VEHICLE, SO YOU'D WANT TO KNOW IF THEY'RE GETTING THE SPEEDING TICKETS.
[LAUGHTER] THE QUESTION IS, YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT IF THEY'RE DRIVING A CITY VEHICLE, IF THEY GET A LOT OF SPEEDING TICKETS, I DON'T KNOW.
>> HOW ABOUT I MAKE A NOTE TO GO BACK TO THIS AND WORK ON IT? BECAUSE I THINK YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SPEEDING TICKETS THAT ARE SAY, LESS THAN 10 MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT, BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY INTERESTED IF THEY'RE 40 MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. IS THAT FAIR?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE THIS SHOULD COME UP, BUT WE DID HAVE, SOME YEARS AGO, AN EMPLOYEE THAT DID GET A DWI, AND DRIVING WAS A MAIN PART OF HIS JOB, AND WENT AND HE RECEIVED PROBATION.
AS A CONDITION OF THE PROBATION, HE HAD TO PUT A DEVICE IN THE VEHICLE HE WOULD BE DRIVING TO BLOW IN IT BEFORE IT WOULD START.
BACK IN THE DAY, THE CITY ALLOWED THIS, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, HOW FAR DO WE GO, OR WHAT DO WE DO? IS THAT REASONABLE? DOES IT DEPEND ON THE EMPLOYEE? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER.
>> I DON'T TYPICALLY SEE EMPLOYEES ACCOMMODATING THAT, BUT ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE ORDERS, AT LEAST IT USED TO BE, THEY WERE GOING TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL VEHICLE, OR THEY WERE GOING TO BE PROHIBITED FROM DRIVING CERTAIN TYPES OF VEHICLES, AND THAT'S WHERE WE USUALLY SEE IT IMPACT THE CITY, BUT THEN THEY CAN TYPICALLY GO BACK AND GET AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, SO THEY CAN DRIVE FOR WORK SPECIFICALLY.
HISTORICALLY, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PRESENTING A PROBLEM BECAUSE USUALLY, THE SUPERVISOR IS GOING TO BE AWARE OF, HEY, THAT PERSON DOESN'T SEEM FIT TO DRIVE A VEHICLE, AND WOULD INTERVENE.
[INAUDIBLE] BOTH HAD GREAT SUGGESTIONS.
[00:50:04]
ARE WE READY TO MOVE TO 8.1? PAY DAYS.WE ARE GOING TO PAY OUR EMPLOYEES.
THERE ARE SOME THAT THINKS WE SHOULD PAY COUNCIL TOO.
[LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
I THINK OVERTIME PAY IS PRETTY CLEAR.
POINTING OUT THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES, I'D LIKE TO STRIKE "ARE PAID TO DO A JOB".
I THINK EVERY EMPLOYEE IS PAID TO DO A JOB, SO I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE SIMPLER TO SAY "EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR OVERTIME".
THE ONLY THING WE RUN INTO SOMETIMES ON THAT LAST PARAGRAPH.
SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW, A PART-TIME PERSON USED TO HAVE TO PUNCH THE CLOCK OR WHATEVER.
IT USED TO BE OUT THERE, AND YOU WIND UP LYING AND TRYING TO PUNCH OUT AND STUFF, THEN SUDDENLY YOU'RE TWO MINUTES OVER.
WELL, THEORETICALLY, THAT GOES INTO OVERTIME.
SOMETIMES, WHETHER IT BE LUNCH OR A BREAK OR WHATEVER, OR EVEN WHEN YOU REPORT IN, YOU'RE OUT, THAT A FEW MINUTES IS DIFFICULT.
IF YOU PUNCH IN A FEW MINUTES BEFORE YOUR SHIFT IS SUPPOSED TO START, THEN SUDDENLY THAT IS OVERTIME.
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME AS A PART-TIME PERSON TO GET EXACTLY THE NUMBER OF HOURS.
THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOW OR OVER.
HOWEVER THAT'S WORDED IN TERMS OF THE DEAL THAT SUDDENLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DISCIPLINED IF YOU'RE A FEW MINUTES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>> THAT'S WHY WE REALLY NEED GRANT HERE.
THAT'S A GRANT QUESTION ON HOW HE DOES THAT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PART-TIME PAID.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TIME CLOCKS, DO WE?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO ANYMORE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE FIREFIGHTERS; I THINK THEY JUST SHOW UP.
>> IT'S RECORDED ON A TIMESHEET, AND YOU PUT YOUR OWN TIME IN, BUT THEN YOU CAN HIT THE RIGHT TIME.
IT'S JUST IN CASE, THAT'S IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WHERE YOU ACTUALLY REGISTER, AND YOU HAVE TO DO A THUMBPRINT OR A TIME CLOCK OR ANYTHING, THEN I WOULD WITHDRAW MY COMMENT.
>> WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAY DISCUSS AGAIN WHEN WE HAVE GRANT HERE TO HELP US WITH HOW IT IS ADMINISTERED HERE, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY TIME CLOCKS.
I THINK THEY JUST REPORT TO THEIR SHIFT LIEUTENANT, WHO THEN MARKS THEM HERE.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE TIMING THEM IN TERMS OF SECONDS AND STUFF, BUT I DON'T KNOW, FOR THE GS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON LONGEVITY PAY?
>> MY ONLY COMMENT THERE IS, I ASSUME IS FOUR DOLLARS PER MONTH FOR EITHER SERVICE.
IS THAT FOREVER, OR IT'S JUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOMETHING?
>> THE LAW REQUIRES IT TO GO TO 25 YEARS, AND THEN THERE'S A CAP ON IT.
MOST OF THESE DON'T PUT A CAP ON IT.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES IS UP TO 25 YEARS, AND THEN THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO STAY AT THAT AMOUNT.
>> DOES THAT EQUAL TO FOUR DOLLARS PER MONTH?
>> IF YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT.
FOUR DOLLARS IS ACTUALLY THE REQUIREMENT FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY LAW FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES.
TYPICALLY, CITIES ARE SAYING, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS FOR THIS GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, WE DO IT FOR EVERYBODY.
>> THE FOUR DOLLARS, IT DOESN'T CHANGE?
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE IT GETS BIGGER EVERY YEAR,
[00:55:05]
BECAUSE IT'S PER YEAR OF SERVICE, SO THAT NUMBER IS ALWAYS GROWING, BUT NO, THE PER-MONTH TYPICALLY IS SET AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE, BUT IT'S PER MONTH, PER YEAR OF SERVICE.>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON LONGEVITY? FINAL PAY UPON SEPARATION?
>> I'VE FORGOTTEN FROM A PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, BUT ACCRUED VACATION WAS PAID WHEN A PERSON SEPARATES, WHICH IS THE LAW, BUT WHAT ABOUT PERSONAL DAYS OFF, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IF YOU HAVE ACCRUED SICK TIME? DO WE PAY PEOPLE FOR THAT, OR IS ACCRUED SICK TIME JUST LOST IF YOU ARE ON SEPARATION?
>> I BELIEVE WE PAY PEOPLE FOR IT.
AGAIN, I NEED GRANT, BUT I BELIEVE.
THEY HAVEN'T MADE IT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE ARE REQUESTS SOME TALKED ABOUT GOING BACK BECAUSE MOST CITIES HAVE THAT SO YOU CAN GO DOWN AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> IF YOUR EMPLOYEE MISSES A DAY'S WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE SICK, THEY EITHER HAVE TO TAKE A VACATION DAY OR IT'S A NON-COMPENSATED DAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, JUST PTO.
>> NO, UNDER THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE SICK LEAVE.
>> I THINK THERE WAS SOME TALK OF GOING TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS, A LOT OF THEM PTO JUST TO START WITH VACATION AND SICK TIME, AND IT'S JUST IDENTIFIED BOTH SEPARATELY.
THEN, A LOT OF COMPANIES WENT AND SAID, FORGET THE SEPARATION, AND THEY ADDED THE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER AND JUST CALLED IT PTO.
>> I DON'T THINK THEY ADDED THE TWO NUMBERS TOGETHER.
WE DON'T GET WHAT CITIES VERY CLOSE HERE GET FOR SICK DAYS AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLACE WHERE WE WILL STOP.
WE CAN PICK UP WITH THAT WHEN GRANT IS HERE THE NEXT TIME, AND WE'RE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE I THINK HE DOES ON SEPARATION, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CHECKS, ONE IS THE FINAL PAYCHECK, WHICH IS A COUPLE OF WEEKS OUT, BUT I THINK HE GOES AHEAD AND GIVES THEM A CHECK FOR THEIR UNUSED VACATION AND THOSE THINGS, BUT I'D REALLY LIKE GRANT TO ADDRESS THAT IN CASE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING.
[ADJOURN]
IT IS NOW 5:58, SO WE WILL CLOSE THE WORKSHOP AT THIS TIME.I WILL NOTE THAT EVERYBODY IS HERE FOR THE WORK.
AS SOON AS IT'S SIX O'CLOCK, I'LL CALL A START.
[CALL TO ORDER]
[01:00:01]
I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.IT IS APRIL 15TH, 2025, IT IS 6:00 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU DO HAVE CITY QUORUM.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.TWO, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071(1) CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION. THREE.
>> GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER OPEN MEETINGS SET.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] OH, MY GOD.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.AT 7:00 PM.]
THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 15TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM IS CONVENED.COUNCIL, I WILL ASK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> THEN I'M GOING TO BACK UP AND ASK MS. SCOTT GRAY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I HAVE A SINGLE QUORUM.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MAYOR SCHEINER.
SCHEINER, I'LL GET IT RIGHT ONE OF THE YEARS.
IF YOU WOULD LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND MISS NELSON, IF YOU'LL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT CALL FROM MISS NELSON. MISS NELSON.>> HELLO, MAYOR. I HAVE A STATEMENT THAT I THINK YOU'VE ALL BEEN PROVIDED WITH, AND IT'S ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO PATTY AS WELL.
HELLO, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF.
MY NAME IS LINDA S NELSON, AND I LIVE WITH MY MOTHER LYN HAN, MUM LYN AT 5802 CORINTH CHAPEL ROAD AND PARKER VILLAGE.
MY HUSBAND, ELVIS J NELSON PASSED AWAY IN LATE JANUARY 2025, HAVING LIVED IN PARKER SINCE 2009.
ELVIS HAD A DISTINGUISHED CAREER IN BOTH MILITARY AND CIVILIAN SECTORS.
HE SERVED IN THE US AIR FORCE 1962-1982, RETIRING AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL AND THEN WORKED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR UNTIL HIS RETIREMENT IN 2023.
A PROUD CHEROKEE NATION CITIZEN.
ELVIS WAS ACTIVE IN THE CHEROKEE COMMUNITY OF NORTH TEXAS, RECEIVING THE CHEROKEE MEDAL OF PATRIOTISM IN 2013, AND BEING DESIGNATED AS A CHEROKEE ELDER IN 2023 AND THE CITY OF PARKER ALSO HONORED HIM WITH A CITATION IN 2023.
IN HIS MEMORY, 229 BOOKS FROM HIS PRIVATE COLLECTION, INCLUDING RESEARCH COLLECTIBLES, AND INSIGHTS INTO CHEROKEE HISTORY HAVE BEEN DONATED TO THE COLLIN COUNTY HISTORY MUSEUM IN MCKINNEY.
IT IS THE OLD POST OFFICE THAT'S ON THE TOWN SQUARE.
PARKER CITIZENS CAN AND ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND A RECEPTION AT THE MUSEUM ON FRIDAY,
[01:05:03]
MAY 2ND, FROM 4:30-6:00 PM TO LAUNCH THE NEW RESEARCH ROOM THAT WILL BE HOUSING THIS COLLECTION.THE PROGRAM WILL INCLUDE SPEAKERS FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
I HAVE CONFIRMATION THAT MICHAEL SLATER WILL BE THERE, THE FORMER MAYOR PRO TEM AND THERE'S A RUMOR THAT THE CURRENT MAYOR PARKER MAY POP IN.
WE HAVE COMMITMENTS FROM A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CHEROKEE NATION WHO WILL ALSO BE THERE.
THEY MAY RSVP ON COLLIN COUNTY HISTORY MUSEUM WEBSITE.
WHO IS THE FIRST SUCH COLLECTION OUTSIDE THE CHEROKEE NATION LOCATED IN OKLAHOMA.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I WANT TO THANK MAYOR PETTLE AND COUNCIL MEMBER NOE, THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THANK YOU.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO CALLED.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GO SEE SOMEBODY WHEN THEY'RE DYING.
I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR SHOWING UP BEFORE AND SHOWING UP AFTERWARDS.
MY MOTHER AND I BOTH IMMENSELY APPRECIATE THIS.
I WANTED TO THANK EVERYBODY IN THE CITY OF PARKER FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT.
I ASK THAT MY COMMENTS BE INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, LINDA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC?
MY COMMENTS ARE NOT VERY WELL ORGANIZED AND THOUGHT OUT, BUT HERE I AM LYNETTE AMORS 6903 AUDUBON DRIVE.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WHEN YOU GET TO ITEM 7, I HOPE YOU WILL DISCUSS IT SO THAT YOU CAN EDUCATE US.
THIS IS REGARDING THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO ALL COMES IN COLLIN COUNTY.
I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO RESEARCH IT MYSELF.
THAT'S WHY MY COMMENTS ARE AT SCATTERED, BUT IT PERTAINS TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY SERVICES TO EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OR IT WOULDN'T BE ON YOUR AGENDA.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON IT TODAY, AND THEN I THINK IT'S GOING TO A BALLOT INITIATIVE IN NOVEMBER, PERHAPS, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ON THE ISSUE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIN COUNTY TO RECEIVE EMERGENCY SERVICES.
IT JUST ULTIMATELY BOILS DOWN TO WHO PAYS FOR IT.
I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW SETS THE TAX RATE FOR THIS? IS IT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE ESD? HOW WOULD THAT COMPARE IT TO HOW WE REIMBURSED FROM THE COUNTY NOW WHEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICES? HAVE OTHER COUNTIES IN TEXAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE THIS? I KNOW HUNT COUNTY.
I THINK I FOUND TODAY THAT THEY RECENTLY REJECTED IT, PROBABLY JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
ANYWAY, I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO DISCUSS IT BECAUSE I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT MORE AND IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR US AND OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES, BUT WHO PAYS FOR IT? HOW MUCH? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, HEARING NONE.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
WE WILL NOW GO TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST, LIKE TO SAY THAT THE NOISE COMMITTEE IS MEETING APRIL 16TH AT 2:00 PM IN THIS ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT?>> THANK YOU. APPROXIMATE RECREATION COMMISSION HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED AND WE MEET TOMORROW IN THIS ROOM AT 5:00 PM THE 2025 PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB CANDIDATES NIGHT WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 17TH, AT 7:00 PM AT VICTORY CHURCH, WHICH IS JUST RIGHT DOWN PARKER ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE DOORS OPEN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT AT 6:30, AND THE FORM PORT WILL START AT 7:00 PM.
EMERGENCY SERVICES, OF COURSE, WILL BE OPERATIONAL.
ON APRIL 26TH WE HAVE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TRACK BACK DAY.
IF YOU JUST DRIVE BY THE POLICE STATION AND STOP, THEY'LL BE AN OFFICER OUT THERE TO RECEIVE ANY DRUGS THAT ARE EXPIRED, YOU NO LONGER WANT.
THEY'LL TAKE THEM SO THEY DON'T END UP IN NO WATER SYSTEM.
THEY WILL ALSO TAKE SHARKS THIS TIME.
[01:10:04]
FOR ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T KNOW, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHO THAT WOULD BE, WE DO HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP FOR THREE CANDIDATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL.EARLY VOTING BEGINS ON APRIL 22ND, AND IN THIS ROOM, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH APRIL 29TH.
REGULAR VOTING WILL TAKE PLACE ON ELECTION DAY MAY 3RD.
HOPEFULLY, WE PLAN TO VOTE IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, WE CAN GET TO THE POLLS AND VOTE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I WILL ASK THAT YOU CALL US.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN.
IF WE CAN'T ANSWER THEM, WE WILL REFER YOU TO THE COLLIN COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE AND I DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK BUSH.
>> CALEB. WHAT'S CALEB'S WHOLE NAME? CALEB TOOK BUSH.
[OVERLAPPING] IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALLED THAT OFFICE, AND THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM OR THEY SHOULD BE ON THE COLLIN COUNTY WEBSITE.
ANY OTHER ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST? THEN WE WILL START WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.THE FIRST IS APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 1ST, 2025 REGULAR MEETING.
THE SECOND IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-839, APPROVING A FIRST AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE TOWN OF ST. PAUL FOR COMBINED MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES.
THE THIRD ITEM IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2025-840, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH COLLIN COUNTY EMS COALITION.
FIRST, I WILL ASK COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS ANY ONE OF THOSE ITEMS TO BE PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'M NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN TERRY LYNCH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED IN A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER, BUDDY PILGRIM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> HAVE ONE COMMENT. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED ON APRIL 1ST MINUTES.
THERE'S NOTHING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IS ACCURATE A STATE.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BE MISCONSTRUED.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER LINE IN DUBLIN ROAD.
IT STATES IN HERE THAT GEARING HAD INDICATED THAT ONCE THE WATER LINES ARE COMPLETED, DUBLIN ROAD WILL BE PAVED.
JUST TO THE PART THAT WAS TORN UP DURING THE WATER LINE LANE IS GOING TO BE REPAVED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5/0.
NEXT, WE'LL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-841 APPROVING THE FUTURE APPOINTMENT/NOMINATION PROCESS.]
[NOISE] EXCUSE ME.THE FIRST NUMBER 6, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-841, APPROVING THE FUTURE APPOINTMENT NOMINATION PROCESS.
I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY CATHERINE, TO PLEASE DISCUSS THIS IF YOU WILL.
>> THIS RESOLUTION WAS BROUGHT BACK AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.
FOR A PROPOSAL TO SET FORTH A PROCESS FOR APPOINTING COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
IT IS SPECIFIC TO COUNCIL MEMBERS BEING APPOINTED TO POSITIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU COULD EXPAND THAT UNDER THE CURRENT POSTING AND INCLUDE OTHER APPOINTMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY APPOINTED AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY
[01:15:04]
OR YOUR P&Z AND PARKS OR OTHER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL, HOWEVER YOU WISH TO PROCEED.>> COUNCIL, WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE. MR. KERCHO.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE PROVIDED HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO BROADEN POSSIBLY AND BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL IN REGARDS TO HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO YOUR APPOINTMENT ACROSS DIFFERENT SECTIONS INCLUSIVE OF BOARDS.
THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I HAD ON HERE IS THAT WITHIN SECTION 1, AFTER ALL THE NOMINATIONS WERE TAKEN, IT GOES STARTS GOING TO A VOTE PERSPECTIVE.
IF POSSIBLE ONE ADDITIONAL THING BE IDENTIFIED THAT AND THAT BE A DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE DISCUSSION, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY JUST IDENTIFIED IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSION PRIOR TO CALLING FOR A VOTE.
>> WELL, I WOULD AGREE COMPLETELY WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN KERCHO JUST SAID, I WANT TO RAISE THIS.
I THINK THE MAIN THING THAT I WANTED TO ACHIEVE IN THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST TIME ABOUT THIS IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT ANYTIME WE HAVE A POSITION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FILL, WHETHER IT'S A COUNCIL POSITION, ITS OWN FINANCE COMMITTEE OR MAYOR PRO TEM OR WHATEVER.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE THAN ONE PERSON TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE AND WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF IT.
SAME THING REALLY FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER.
IF WE HAVE A VACANCY ON THE COUNCIL THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED, AND WE DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO FILL IT IS TO APPOINT RATHER THAN TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THAT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE PROCESS, GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE THAN ONE TO BE ENTERED IN THE NOMINATION AND DISCUSSED BEFORE ANY VOTE IS TAKEN ON THAT.
ARE WE REFERRING THIS BACK TO CATHERINE TO WRITE UP A RESOLUTION? IF SO, PLEASE I WOULD NEED A MOTION.
>> IF THERE'S NO MOTION TO APPROVE IT, TO TAKE THAT DIRECTION.
>> IS THERE A MOTION? WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-842, CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE PROPOSED COLLIN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NO. 1.]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-842, CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE PROPOSED COLLIN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER 1.BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR OUR FIRE CHIEF MARSHAL TO PLEASE COME UP HERE AND EDUCATE US.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME.
THIS IS A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION THAT IS NOT OUT THERE, BUT CATHERINE AND I HAVE WORKED A FEW HOURS ON THIS TRYING TO GET THE PROCESS GOING.
FORGIVE ME FOR MY MESS I HAVE UP HERE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS VOTE ON ALLOWING OUR ETJ TO OPT INTO THE ESD.
WE CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR ESD CITIZENS, AND I'LL LOOK BACK HERE AS WELL, LIKE WE ARE NOW.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS AND THAT'S WHAT OUR MAIN FOCUS IS RIGHT NOW.
HELP ME OUT ON SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT WE MAY NEED TO TOUCH ON.
WE GOT A LOT OF DATA I CAN PASS OUT AS WELL TO YOU THAT WAS NOT THERE, BUT LET ME GO TO MY STUFF.
A LOT OF THIS IS OUT ON COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, GOV AS WELL IN THE SAME PACKET.
WE'RE VOTING TO ALLOW THE ETJ PROPERTIES TO OPT INTO OUR ESD AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THEM.
[01:20:01]
RECOMMENDATION AS FIRE CHIEF IS, THERE WAS A MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET THAT SHOWS OUR COUNTY AREAS.I THINK I MAY HAVE FILL THOSE IN THERE BY MISTAKE.
>> 118. SORRY. THIS MAP SHOWS OUR JURISDICTION THAT WE CURRENTLY SERVE.
WE'RE TALKING LINDSEY, WE'RE TALKING OVER ON MCCREARY, AND CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT GET REIMBURSED FOR CALLS IN THAT ETJ.
OUR GOAL BY ALLOWING THE ETJ TO OPT INTO THE ESD IS TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR PARKER ON THAT.
WE ARE CURRENTLY AS OF TODAY, ONLY RECEIVING FUNDS FOR, WHICH WE'RE NOT AT THE MOMENT, RECEIVING FUNDS, BUT WE SHOULD BE FOR STRUCTURE FIRES, FIRE CALL THAT STRUCTURE FIRES, GAS LEAKS, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE AND MAJOR ACCIDENTS, SO MVAS.
WE ARE NOT REIMBURSED AND NOBODY IS IN THE COUNTY FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL CALLS.
WE DO RUN A LOT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL CALLS OFF OF LINDSEY LANE IN THAT AREA, THE SPORTS COMPLEX THAT SITS OVER THERE.
IN 2023 AND 2024, WE RAN A TOTAL OF FIVE EMERGENCY CALLS, NOT MUCH WITH THAT.
I CAN THROW SOME NUMBERS OUT FOR YOU.
WE SERVE IN OUR POPULATION, A SQUARE MILES FOR PARKER IS 0.86.
THERE'S ONLY 40 PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY, AND AS OF 89 OF 2024, WE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $913.90 FOR OUR RUNS.
THAT IS JUST FIRE AND MAJOR ACCIDENTS ON THAT. HAS THAT INFORMATION.
ME AS FIRE CHIEF, SPEAKING WITH CHIEF KENDRICK AS WELL, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE.
WE WANT TO TRY TO BRING IN MORE REVENUE FOR PARKER BASED ON OUR CALL VOLUME, HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE PAID TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE A FLAT RATE, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE PER CALL BASIS.
WE'RE THINKING IT'S GOING TO BE A FLAT RATE, BUT THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO INCREASE OUR FUNDS WITH OUR EMERGENCY RUNS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE FIRE, MVAS, AND MEDICAL CALLS AND GET FUNDING FOR THAT WHENEVER A 911 CALL DOES COME OUT.
WE HAVE 60 DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE LETTER, WHICH WE RECEIVED NON TO HAVE THIS VOTE IN.
IF WE DO NOT VOTE ON THIS TODAY, I THINK WE AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO OPT INTO THE ETJ.
>> THE TWO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN IT, TWO DIFFERENT ROUTES IN.
THE CONSENT OF THIS AGENDA ALLOWS PARKER'S ETJ TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ESD, THE PROPOSED DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD THEN GO TO ELECTION IN NOVEMBER IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.
IF THE CITY DOES NOT APPROVE IT, THEN IT IS AUTOMATICALLY DENIED, AT WHICH TIME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE ETJ WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION FOR INCLUSION.
IF THE CITY DIDN'T RESPOND TO THAT, THEN THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE ESD.
IT GOES THE SAME ROUTE, WHERE THEN IT'S CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THEY APPROVE AN ELECTION AND IT GOES TO AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER IF THE TIME WORKS OUT FOR THAT.
THIS IS ALL GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 775 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE THAT GOVERNS ESP.
>> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADD ON THAT.
THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GATHERED.
YOU HAVE THE 775 FORM THAT HAS SOME, BUT SINCE THE ESD IS NOT FORMED, WE JUST DON'T KNOW A LOT OF ANSWERS AT THE MOMENT.
BUT WHAT I DO KNOW AND HAVE GATHERED ON A FEW THINGS IS THE ESD DOES NOT WANT TO FORM A FIRE DEPARTMENT AT ALL.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE SERVING WHEN I SAY THE COUNTY, SERVING THE COUNTY HOW WE ARE, AND LET US RECEIVE FUNDS FOR WHAT WE DO, WHICH AGAIN, WE CURRENTLY DO NOT.
>> IF A NOVEMBER ELECTION CREATES THE ESD, THEN A BOARD WOULD BE APPOINTED AND THAT BOARD WOULD BE MAKING THE DETERMINATION ABOUT HOW THE ETJ WOULD BE TAXED, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT REVENUE.
[01:25:01]
IN THE LONG TERM BIG PICTURE, WHAT WE PRESUME HAPPENS IS THAT THERE'S AN INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ESD AND MUNICIPALITIES.>> CORRECT. YES, THAT IS THE ROUTE THAT WOULD NEED TO TAKE.
TODAY, WE'RE ASKING FOR A VOTE TO ALLOW THE ETJ PROPERTIES TO OPT INTO THE ESD.
>> IF ANYONE LIVES IN ETJ, DID I GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS?
>> ANY QUESTIONS? OF COURSE, GO.
>> MR. CHIEF, YOU'VE GOT MY SHEET.
>> WE [LAUGHTER] CAN LOOK AT IT TOGETHER.
>> I WAS A BIT CONFUSED ON THIS.
IT SAYS WE HAVE FIVE CALLS, BUT HERE, I GUESS IT'S THE MONEY THAT THE SAILS ARE GETTING THEM POPULATION, WHICH SHOWS 40. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW ACCURATE THOSE NUMBERS ARE.
I DO KNOW THAT $950,000 IS WHAT THE CURRENT PLOT IS, EXCLUDING THAT $50,000 EXCELLENT FUND.
WHATEVER THEY TAX, IT CAN BE UP TO $0.10 PER 100.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE.
BASICALLY, WE CAN'T CONSIDER ANYTHING WITH THE FIVE CALLS.
THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM OUR COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL WHO RUNS OUR ALL OF COLLIN COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT.
HE PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION TO ME AND THIS WAS HE SAID, HEY, HERE WILL BE YOUR TOTAL PAYOUT AS OF THIS DATE, 29TH, 2024, $913.90.
>> IT'S JUST CONFUSING BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE PARKER, WE WOULD GET $900 BASED ON OUR CALLS LAST YEAR IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT?
>> LOWRY CROSSING, NOT VERY BIG TOWN, 33,000.
>> WE HAVE 900. EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENTIALS.
>> THAT IS BASED ON CALL VOLUME.
REMEMBER, WHEN I STARTED THIS, IT WAS BASED ON FIRES AND MVAS.
THEY RUN MORE COUNTY THAN US IS WHAT IT IS.
WE'RE ONE OF THE SMALLER ONES WITH PROSPER, FAIRVIEW AND MURPHY, GETTING A SMALLER AMOUNT, JUST DID NOT HAVE MUCH COUNTY AREA.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING THE MOST MONEY, THEY ARE SQUARE MILES ARE WAY BIGGER AND GREATER THAN WHAT WE ARE GETTING.
WE'RE SMALLER, WE'RE GOING TO GET A SMALLER AMOUNT.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN OUR COUNTY.
>> COUNTY BEING DEFINED AS ETJ.
>> YES, SIR. THE ETJ, LINDSEY LANE, MCCREARY, IT'S SO SMALL, WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS THAT PARTICIPATE OVER AT LINDSEY LANE, THE SPORTS COMPLEX, THE PAINT BALL, THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THAT STUFF COMES FROM.
>> THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS BUT GO AHEAD.
>> IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN FIRE SUPPRESSION IN ANY OF THE AREA BUT IS IT MORE LIKELY THAT WE WOULD ON PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN OUR ETJ?
>> THERE IS A CHANCE WE COULD BECAUSE WE HAVE A COLLIN COUNTY ILA WHICH ALLOWS US TO GO ANYWHERE IN COLLIN COUNTY IF REQUESTED UPON ON.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD GO TO THE COUNTY IN LUCAS, SAY LOGOS, WE COULD GO TO INSPIRATION AND ST. PAUL PER REQUEST A MUTUAL AID REQUEST.
THAT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING.
ANYWHERE IN COLLIN COUNTY, WE COULD POTENTIALLY GO AS PARKER FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IT'S VERY RARE THAT WE GO FURTHER THAN LUCAS WILEY OR FAIRVIEW.
>> THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF IT COMES DOWN TO ONLY PARKER ETJ PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT?
>> LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT ONE. I WANT TO SAY NO, IT'S NOT CORRECT.
WE'RE VOTING FOR US TO CONTINUE TO RUN OUR ETJ.
WE WOULD CONTINUE TO RUN OUR COUNTY IF CALLED UPON.
DO I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? [LAUGHTER]
[01:30:01]
IF WE DIDN'T RUN FIRE SERVICE TO OUR ETJ, THEN WHO WOULD?>> WE ARE NOT SURE ON THAT YET BECAUSE THE BOARD HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET, SO WE'RE NOT WHO WOULD RUN THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYONE HIGH AND DRY WITH POTENTIAL EMERGENCY JUST RIGHT UP THE ROAD FROM US.
>> QUESTION ON THE MAP ON PAGE 116 OF THE PACKET.
>> I'LL HAVE TO JUMP OVER AND LOOK WITH YOU.
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. [LAUGHTER] COME ON.
>> THIS IS MAP THE BLACK AND THE BALLOON.
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN HERE IN BLACK THAT IS ON HERE FOR STUDIES THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE THAT DON'T LOOK TO BE IN THE BLUE AREA, THAT WOULD BE SD.
>> THAT'S THE ONE I HAVE SEEN.
>> THE BLUE. I CAN'T TEST WHAT THE BLUE IS BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN THE BLUE, SO I CAN'T SPEAK ON THAT.
>> SO I THINK IN EARLIER CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD SAID CERTAIN CITIES ALREADY INDICATED THEY EITHER HAVE ALREADY OR WOULDN'T GO INTO ONE LARGE CITY, MCKINNEY, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. YES. SOME OF THEM HAVE ALREADY HAD THEIR MEETINGS AND HAVE EITHER OPTED IN OR OUT.
I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHICH ONES HAVE DONE THAT.
>> BUT I THINK YOU TOLD ME FOR SURE MCKINNEY.
>> MCKINNEY IS ONE OF THEM THAT HAS VOTED TO OPT OUT.
>> I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
MCKINNEY, I BELIEVE, HAS GIVEN NOTICE THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CURRENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ANYMORE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE SERVICES UNDER THE CURRENT AGREEMENT.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE OPTING OUT OF THE EST BECAUSE THEIR POINT IS, THEY WANT TO PROVIDE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE SERVICES IN THE SAME WAY INSTEAD OF THEIR RESIDENTS PAYING FOR SERVICE TO THE ETJ.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
WHAT THEY'RE OPTING OUT OF IS THE CURRENT AGREEMENT; WHAT THEY WANT IS THE ESD.
>> CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
>> MS. SCOTT GRAY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> COSINE 116 OF THE PETITION, THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT COUNSEL PROVIDED FOR THIS ITEM SO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
>> OKAY. SO FROM MY OWN EPP AREAS, DOES EACH EPP AREA THEMSELVES IDENTIFY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE SD, OR DOES IT GO AS PARKERS EPG?
>> THEY'LL BECOME PART OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT.
THE ETJ BECOMES PART OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT, AND THEN THERE'S AN ELECTION THAT THEY VOTE ON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ESD IS CREATED.
>> WHICH TAKES PLACE ON NOVEMBER 4, I BELIEVE.
>> IF IT'S CALLED THE COUNTY CALLS IT FOR THAT.
>> IS ONE, AND THEY WE ALL GET TAXED, WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE P OR NOT?
>> THERE'S REALLY NOT AN OPT OUT FOR PEOPLE IN THE ETJ UNLESS THEY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THEIR PROPERTY FROM THE ETJ.
THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR THEM TO OPT OUT OF THE ESD INDIVIDUALLY.
>> GO AHEAD. SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTY, THE TJ PROPERTY WITH THE ZONE THAT THEY TRIED TO OPT OUT? THAT'S STILL IN QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT, AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO NEGOTIATE SOME KIND OF TERMS WITH THE CITY WHERE THEY MIGHT MOVE FURTHER.
>> WITHOUT SPEAKING TO ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY, ANYONE THAT ANY PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN THE ETJ WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ESD? THAT SAID, ARGUABLY THE COUNTY STILL HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL IN THE COUNTY?
>> SO THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICES, BUT THE CITY WOULD NOT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. NOW,
[01:35:04]
THE CITY MUNICIPALITY COULD STILL HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY.>> AND WHAT YOU JUST SPOKE OF IS IF THEY OPTED OUT OF THE ETJ, THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAY IN THE ETJ IN ORDER FOR TO BE IN THE ESD SERVICES TO APPLY?
AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HUINE PROPERTY, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IF IT EVER OCCURRED, WHICH HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE WOULD CREATE SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR SERVICES FOR POLICE AND FIRE AND COME UP WITH AN AGREED UPON DOLLAR AMOUNT.
SO QUESTION BEING WHETHER IT'S A LARGE PROPERTY, 100 ACRES LIKE THAT OR OTHER EPK PROPERTIES WITHIN PARKER IS PARKER ABLE TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN AGREEMENT AND SAY, OKAY, HERE'S PARKER'S EPG AND HERE'S WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO IN TERMS OF OUR ETK PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FINES PROPERTY TO COME UP WITH A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT A POSSIBILITY TO COME UP WITH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS AND NOT EVEN BE PART OF THIS COUNTY DEAL?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
DOES THIS PRECLUDE US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT?
>> IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE AN AGREEMENT WITH A MUD, FOR EXAMPLE, OR AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY?
>> SO AT THE BEGINNING, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT.
CURRENTLY, WE ARE IN AN ILA WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE. FIRE SERVICE.
AND I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPENSATED.
>> SO THE ANSWER IS YES. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO.
BUT THE TECHNICAL ANSWER, WE DID NOT SIGN AN AGREEMENT.
SO THIS IS BEFORE I WAS FIRE CHIEF, WE'RE TALKING YEARS AGO.
SO I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THE WHY THAT WAS NOT SIGNED.
WHEN SPEAKING WITH THE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL, BASICALLY, HE'S LIKE, GET WITH YOUR COUNSEL.
IF YOU WANT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR YOUR RUNS, WE CAN GO THAT ROUTE.
WHAT WE'RE TOUCHING ON HERE IS THEY'RE NOW TRYING TO OFFER, LIKE I SAID, THE FIRE, THE MVAS, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, MEANING MEDICAL CALLS, IF YOU WILL.
GIVE US AN OPTION TO HAVE MORE FUNDING COMING IN, WHICH WE DON'T RECEIVE NOW.
WE'RE BETTERING OURSELVES BY GOING THIS ROUTE.
>> I GUESS THAT'S A FINAL QUESTION.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THERE'S TWO WAYS THAT WE COULD GET COMPENSATED FOR THE SERVICES.
ONE, STAY WITH THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.
AND THEN I GUESS I HAVE OUR COUNSEL COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE OR SOME TYPE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO GET COMPENSATION WHERE WE AREN'T RECEIVING ANY NOW, OR I GUESS TERMINATE THE ILA WITH COLLIN COUNTY, AND THEN GO SD ROUTE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IS THAT CORRECT ON THAT ONE? THE FIRST PART, I BELIEVE IS YES.
THAT'S CORRECT. THE SECOND PART I'M NOT QUITE SURE ON.
>> THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THE CREATION OF ESD DOESN'T NECESSARILY DESTROY THE EXISTING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE CITY APPARENTLY IS NOT RECEIVING ANY FUNDS.
I THINK THE ESD CREATES A LARGER POOL OF MONEY.
INSTEAD OF WHAT THE COUNTY HAS, I GUESS, CURRENTLY BUDGETED.
IS THAT THE 950,000 IS WHAT THEY CURRENTLY BUDGET?
>> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CURRENT RIGHT NOW, AND I'M SURE THAT FLUCTUATES UP AND DOWN WITH HOW THIS MAY PLAY OUT.
BUT WHEN I MENTIONED THEY CAN TAX UP TO $0.10 PER 100.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL OR NOT, BUT THAT COULD BE THE POTENTIAL FUND AS WELL.
>> DOES THE NET RESULT OF THE EST, IF IT WERE CREATED, AND THE MAJORITY OF COLLIN COUNTY CITIES OPTED IN? DOES THE NET RESULT I GUESS, COME INTO PLAY SUCH THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY ARE STILL GETTING TAXED AT THE RIGHT THEY WERE TAXED FOR COUNTY TAX.
AND THEN NOW THE PEOPLE IN THE ETJ ARE PAYING FOR FIRE SERVICE IN ADDITION TO THEIR TAX FROM THE COUNTY.
>> WHAT WE DISCUSS ON THAT ONE.
I'M TRYING TO THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH NUMBERS THROWN.
BUT IT'S NOT THEY'RE NOT DROPPING ANYTHING.
>> CORRECT. IT'S NOT A DOUBLE TAX IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
LIKE EST PAYING AND THEN YES, TAX.
[01:40:08]
>> YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ON HOW THE TOTAL CALCULATED? I DON'T KNOW. IS IT BASED ON THE TOTAL SQUARE MILES? IS IT BASED ON.
>> WHEN YOU SAY TOTAL, ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
>> WHERE ON THE SHEET IS NUMBER OF CALLS?
>> IT'S NOT ON HERE. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRE MARSHAL REPORT THAT HE HAD SENT OUT FOR THAT.
>> DO YOU REMEMBER IF THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE GETTING COMPENSATED ARE GETTING COMPENSATED IN THAT WAY? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THEY GETTING COMPENSATED PER CALL?
>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE SO.
THAT'S WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS BASED UPON BECAUSE WHEN THEY ASK, WE JUST HAD TO EMAIL OUT HOW MANY COUNTY RENTS WE HAD FOR 2023 AND 2024.
I EMAILED FIVE IN, AND OTHER CITIES DID THEIR PORTIONS AS WELL.
>> MISS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? FIRST, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THE MAP.
AND IT DOESN'T SHOW IS THE ETJ PROPERTY ON MURPHY OFF OF MURPHY ROAD?
>> CORRECT. BY MISS TEMPLETON'S HOME.
IS THAT ROOF? MURPHY ROAD. I'M SORRY.
>> IS THE MAP ON THE COMPUTER IS NOT VERY GOOD IN MY OPINION.
SO IF YOU FLIP TO PAGE WHAT IS IT 118?
>> JUST ABOVE MURPHY TO THE LEFT SIDE OF 25 51.
>> NO. SO THE RED LINE IS JUST THE CITY.
ANYTHING IN THE RED LINE THAT'S BOXTON PARKER IS THE CITY.
AROUND IT THE PAPER COPY SHOWS IT IN I BELIEVE IT'S YELLOW, THE ETJ ON THERE.
IT'S A DIFFICULT MAP TO READ, I WISH THEY COULD UPDATE THAT BETTER.
>> IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE CITY LIMITS.
>> YEAH. SO BASICALLY, IT'S THE ETJ.
SO IF THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS IN THAT ETJ, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, ANY AGREEMENT, IF THEY WERE STRICTLY JUST WITHIN THE COUNTY, THAT WOULD BE LIFTED AS WELL.
>> OKAY. AND I'M TRYING TO RECALL READING THROUGH THE COLLIN COUNTY STUFF.
IS THE COUNTY'S INTENT TO GET RID OF THE CURRENT ILA? I THINK THEY WERE SAYING THEY'VE BEEN THE CURRENT OR PAST BUDGETS HAVE BEEN ABOUT $2,000,000, BUT WITH THE TERMINATIONS OF THESE OTHER ENTITIES GETTING OUT OF THAT, IS THAT THE INTENT OF THE COUNTY TO GET OUT OF THAT ILA AND LEAVE THAT TO BE DEALT WITH HERE?
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTY'S INTENT.
OKAY. THEN I MEAN, MY COMMENT WOULD BE, I LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS TO GET INTO THIS INTO, ALLOW PARKER TO BE ADDED AS PART OF THE EPJ? FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ESD.
WE'RE NOT TALKING A LOT OF MONEY.
I'D HATE TO SEE US IMPLEMENT SOMETHING INTERNALLY TO MANAGE THIS AND MONITOR THIS WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ENTITY CREATED TO DO THAT, AS LONG AS WE MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SIGNED INTO IT AS APPROPRIATE, THEN WHEN THINGS DO HAPPEN, WE WILL APPROPRIATELY BE REIMBURSED.
>> YES, MA'AM. IT'S MY EXACT THOUGHTS. YES, MA'AM.
>> ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I YOU HAD SAID THAT THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM DOING ANY TYPE OF AGREEMENT WITH A MUD.
DOES IT ALSO PRECLUDE US JUST DOING AN AGREEMENT WITH OUR OWN EPK PROPERTIES? I SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO BUY SOMETHING OR SELL FOR OUR OWN EPK PROPERTIES THAT THEY CAN EITHER OPT INTO OR THEY CAN MOVE ON TO THIS OR WHATEVER?
[01:45:02]
DOES IT PRECLUDE US FROM DOING THAT?>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HAVING AN AGREEMENT WITH PEOPLE VERSUS HAVING AN AGREEMENT THAT COVERS LAND.
I CAN'T ANSWER AS TO THE LAND AS TO THE INDIVIDUALS, YOU COULD HAVE LIKE A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE TO YOUR AMBULANCE WHERE YOU COULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUBSCRIBE BASICALLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AN ATJ, THAT'S AN OPTION.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE LAND AT THIS POINT, I NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH.
>> BUT TO A POINT EARLIER, I GUESS, YOU SAID THAT EPJ CURRENT PROPERTIES DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ON THE CSD THAT IF IT'S GOING, THEN THERE IN.
>> I GUESS TO ADD TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER OCHER JUST SAID, IF WE OPT TO NOT INCLUDE OUR ETGS INTO THE ESD.
MY ACRONYM SCREEN. IF WE OPT TO NOT INCLUDE OUR ETJ IN THE ESD, THEN EACH INDIVIDUAL OWNER COULD PETITION TO BE IN THE ESD.
THEY COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, AND THEN THE CHOICE WOULD BE TO THEM VERSUS US MAKING THE CHOICE FOR THEM.
IT WOULD BE A PETITION BY THE ETJ PROPERTIES.
TO REQUEST TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ESD.
>> WE'RE TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A PROPERTY VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
>> IF THERE'S A PETITION BY THE ETJ RESIDENTS, IT'S TO INCLUDE ALL THE ETJ IN THE ESD?
>> I SEE. IT'S NOT ON A PARCEL BASIS.
IT'S ON A TOTAL TOTALITY OF OUR TJ LAND WITHIN OUR CITY ETJ.
>> SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RESULT.
IF WE CHOOSE TO BRING THEM ALL IN OR IF THEY IN TURN PETITION THAT THEY'LL BRING THEM ALL IN, THOSE ARE THE TWO CHOICES.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY EARLIER AS WELL ALMOST AT THE END RESULT ALMOST BY DEFAULT, THEY BECOME PART OF THE ESD, EVEN IF THEY DON'T PETITION?
>> THEY WOULD BECOME PART OF THE PROPOSED ESD, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE ELECTION, AND THEN THEY VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
>> SO FAY DEFAULT IF ST IS FORM DEFAULT THEY'RE IN.
>> IF THEY PETITION FOR IT, IF THE CITY DOES NOT GIVE CONSENT FOR THE ETJ TO BE INCLUDED, THEN IF THERE WERE NO OTHER ACTION, PARKER'S ETJ WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ESD.
>> UNLESS ONE OVER THERE IS THE ETJ'S PETITION, WHICH THEN BRINGS IT ALL IN.
>> IT BRINGS IN ALL THE ETJS, OR IT WOULD BE ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS WITHIN A SINGLE ETJ THAT BRING IN THAT ETJ?
>> THAT ETJ. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT IT WOULD BE ALL OF PARKER'S ETJ, NOT EACH PARCEL.
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT DIFFERENTLY FROM WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID.
YOU SAID IT WOULD BE ALL OF PARKER'S ETJS, PLURAL, NOT JUST ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS WITHIN A SINGLE ETJ SECTION.
PARKER HAS MULTIPLE ETJS, CORRECT? THERE'S MORE THAN ONE ETJ IN PARKER?
>> IF ONE OF THE ETJS VOTES TO BE INCLUDED IN IT BECAUSE ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN LAND IN THAT ONE ETJ VOTE, THEN ALL OF THE ACTION THAT THEY TAKE APPLIES ONLY TO THEIR ETJ, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO OTHER PARKER ETJS, DOES IT?
>> I THOUGHT IT REFERRED TO ALL. WELL, LET'S CHECK.
>> WAITING ON THAT, CAN I ASK A QUESTION AMONG COUNCIL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A CONCERN.
ARE WE CONCERNED THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE ETJ ARE GOING TO BE TAXED TOO MUCH UNDER THIS ESD? I'M HEARING A CONCERN, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE RELUCTANCE.
[01:50:06]
>> MINE WAS THAT I WAS GOING TOWARDS IT REGARDLESS OF OUR VOTE.
IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THE ETJ PROPERTIES WITHIN PARKER, WHETHER WE VOTE IN OR NOT, WOULD BE PART OF THE ESD.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHO THEN SERVICES THEM.
WE WOULDN'T SERVICE THEM, AND LUCAS, THAT THEY VOTED IN, WOULD RUN OVER AND SERVICE THEM AND BECOME PART OF THEIR RUNS.
BUT IN GENERAL, WHEN WE VOTE THE BEGINNING AND OUT, THE ETJ SOUNDED LIKE THE ETJ PROPERTIES WERE GOING TO BE IN THE ESD IF THE ESD IS BORN.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF ESD.
BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE IF ESD IS BORN, THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO SERVICES IT.
>> I CAN SAY I DON'T HAVE RELUCTANCE, I WAS REALLY JUST TRYING TO SEEK CLARIFICATION.
JUST SEEKING ON UNDERSTANDING AND MAKING SURE I COMPREHEND THIS COMPLICATED ISSUE.
THERE'S NOT REALLY RELUCTANCE.
>> MY RELUCTANCE OR JUST QUESTIONS IS, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS BEFORE I VOTE ON IT.
ONE OF MY REAL CONCERNS IS, THIS IS A NEW SITUATION THAT WAS CREATED BY OUR TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE, THAT WAS PUSHED BY A BUNCH OF LOBBYISTS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THE LOBBYISTS WERE, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME, IN A LOT OF WAYS, THIS IS THE SAME POLICIES THAT GOT US MUDS ALL OVER THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE A REAL DISASTER FOR THE STATE IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
BECAUSE THEY GO OUT AND FINANCE A BUNCH OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO REIMBURSE A BUNCH OF BUILDERS' MONEY THAT THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE GET REIMBURSED, AND THEN HOMEOWNERS GET LEFT WITH A MUD TAX THAT THEY DON'T REALLY REALIZE IS THERE.
THE LAW MAY SAY IT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED TO THEM WHEN THEY BUY THE PROPERTY, BUT NOBODY BUYS PROPERTY BASED ON WHAT THE TAX RATE IS.
NOBODY LOOKS AT THAT KIND OF DETAIL.
WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, IT'S EVEN CONTROLLED BY A FIVE-MEMBER PANEL THAT'S APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ANOTHER KIND OF MUD, IN SOME WAYS.
IT'S A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH IS WHAT A MUD IS, THAT GETS TO TAX PEOPLE BASED ON WHAT FIVE PEOPLE DECIDE.
>> THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN SO MUCH ON PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND ETJ, OF COURSE, THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IT WAS SURPRISING TO ME THAT EACH ETJ COULDN'T VOTE ON THEIR OWN ETJ PROPERTY, THAT ONE OF THE SECTION OF ETJ ONES THEN THEY PULL ALL THE REST IN, WHICH THEN GOES AGAINST THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ETJ, BECAUSE NOW SOMEONE ELSE IS MAKING THE DECISION FOR ME.
I GUESS THE ONLY OPT-OUT FOR AN ETJ PERSON WHO WOULD SAY, I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF ANY ETJ, WHICH THEN IS IN COURTS AND STUFF, SO IT'S JUST CRAZY.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S REFERRING TO ALL OF PARKER'S ETJ.
THAT'S THE WAY THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE PETITION FILED UNDER IT, THAT WE RECEIVED, IS WRITTEN, THAT THERE'S PARKER'S ETJ.
>> IF I HAVE THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING, IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO OPT IN, THEN THE PEOPLE ON OUR ETJ WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE FIRE SERVICE UNDER THE ILA THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WITH COLLIN COUNTY AND OUR PARKER FIRE DEPARTMENT STILL SERVICE AS THE FIRE AND THE ETJ LIKE IT IS TODAY, IS THAT THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING?
>> AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE WOULD NOT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND AS WELL?
>> IF WE OPT OUT, ALLOW THEM NOT TO OPT IN, WE WOULD NO LONGER SERVICE THAT AREA.
>> NO, YOU'RE IN A LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.
>> CORRECT, YOU'RE TALKING FUTURE.
>> UNLESS WE CANCEL IN THE LOCAL AGREEMENT, THEN YES, YOU WOULD STILL BE PROVIDING SERVICES.
>> BUT ARE WE IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT?
>> EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID?
>> WE'VE SIGNED THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN REIMBURSED.
>> APPARENTLY, THAT'S AN EASY FIX FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.
WHATEVER THEIR 'EASY' DEFINITION IS, I'M NOT SURE.
>> IT'S NOT LIKE OUR ETJ WOULD NOT HAVE FIRE SERVICE.
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME FIRE SERVICE WE HAVE TODAY, IT SOUNDS TO ME, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. MAYBE I'M MISSING.
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
[01:55:01]
WITH THE CURRENT ILA, YES.>> I'M THINKING OF CONJECTURING EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD THUS FAR.
THE TAX FOR THE TAXES, AND IF I WAS THE ETJ OWNER, AND I'M BEING TAXED ON STUFF THAT BEFORE I WASN'T PAYING ANYTHING FOR THOSE SERVICES, REALLY, AND THE OPTION IS TO REMOVE MYSELF FROM THE ETJ, WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR ACTION IS GOING TO CAUSE MORE LAND OWNERS TO REQUEST OUT OF THEIR ETJS, WHICH I DON'T THINK WILL BE POSITIVE FOR US EITHER.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WILL IT REALLY HELP? [OVERLAPPING]
>> MAYBE THEY'LL REQUEST TO BE AXED.
>> MAYBE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU JUST SAY, I WANT TO GET $1,000 TO CONTINUE THAT AMOUNT, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH MONEY, OR TAKE A STAND AS WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S BEING PUT TOGETHER AND IT COULD HAVE NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS TO US AS WELL AS FAR AS HOW ETJ LANDOWNERS LOOK AT BEING PART OF THE CITY'S ETJ.
I THINK THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE SIGNIFICANT TO US ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, SO IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF WHETHER WE LIKE WHAT'S BEING CURRENTLY DONE WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEAL OR WE CHOOSE TO STAND AGAINST THAT.
>> I AGREE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AREN'T SIGNIFICANT TO REALLY COME INTO PLAY IN TERMS OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
I THINK IT'S MORE WHAT WILL BE THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD FOR THE ETJ RESIDENTS AND TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THE BEST FOR THEM.
THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT THE DECISION IS.
>> WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS END UP WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE TELL OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE CAN GO OUT AND THEN WE CAN SERVICE THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THE BASEBALL PARK, BUT DON'T GO TO THAT BASEBALL PARK.
WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN THAT SITUATION.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO PUT PEOPLE IN THAT SITUATION.
>> I THINK OUR ILA AGREEMENT SAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SERVICE THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THOUGH, SO IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK SO RIGHT NOW, AND WE WON'T KNOW ANYTHING UNTIL NOVEMBER 4TH ON THAT.
>> BUT ON NOVEMBER 5TH, COULD IT AFFECT THE ILA? SEE, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T KNOW.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE KNOWS THAT YET.
>> IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THE COUNTY COULD SAY, WE DON'T NEED THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ANYMORE, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THAT.
BUT THE ESD COULD SAY, WE HAVE THESE FUNDS AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY SOMEBODY ELSE TO RESPOND TO PARKER'S ETJ.
>> CHAIRMAN, ON THAT, I DO KNOW THE ESD DOES NOT WANT TO FORM A COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.
WITH ALL THESE FUNDS THEY HAVE, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THAT, SO THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE FUNDS OUT TO THE CITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY SERVING, AND JUST CONTINUE.
BASICALLY, WHATEVER THE VOTE IS, WE CONTINUE ON SERVING OUR CITIZENS AND GUESTS THAT COME INTO OUR ETJ AND CITY. THAT IS THEIR GOAL.
>> THE ONLY THING, LAST THING, I PROMISE.
[LAUGHTER] I'LL PROBABLY END IN THIS IS, HE'S NOT HERE TO AFFIRM OR NOT, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH GRANT, HE SAID THAT AT THE COURSE OF THE COUNTIES, AT LEAST HE HAS KNOWLEDGE OF DENTON COUNTY, OR BELIEVES HE HAS KNOWLEDGE OF DENTON COUNTY AND INDICATED THAT THE AGREEMENTS AND HOW IT WORKS IN DENTON COUNTY IS FAR DIFFERENT THAN COLLIN COUNTY, IN THAT FOR EACH CALL, THEY GET AN UPWARD OF $500 OR MORE PER CALL, SO DIFFERENT.
COLLIN COUNTY IS COMING UP WITH THEIR OWN PARTICULAR PLAN, HOWEVER THEY DO IT, WHICH WE DON'T EVEN KNOW PARTICULARLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT YET, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING YET SO WE'RE LOOKING TO VOTE ON
[02:00:02]
SOMETHING THAT REALLY WE HAVE ALMOST NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE END RESULT IS.>> I AGREE THAT WE DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE END RESULT, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A DISTRICT THAT THEN THE VOTERS WOULD ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, WE DON'T HAVE MANY VOTERS IN COLLIN COUNTY ETJ, SO OUR ETJ RESIDENTS ARE MINIMAL, BUT STILL, THE WHOLE OF COLLIN COUNTY WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSAL.
>> MY POINT IS THAT COLLIN COUNTY CAN COME UP WITH THEIR OWN PLAN.
ETJ, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON HOW THE FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GET TAXED, SO I'M SAYING WE'RE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW EITHER WHAT THE PROGRAM IS, AND HOW WE WOULD BE REIMBURSED, OR WHAT IT WOULD BE.
THEY'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, WE WANT YOU TO VOTE INTO SOMETHING, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
WE JUST WANT YOU TO VOTE IN, AND ONCE EVERYONE VOTES IN, THEN WE'LL COME UP WITH THE PLAN AND TELL YOU WHAT IT IS.
BUT HEY, YOU ALREADY VOTED IN AND NOW YOU CAN'T GET OUT.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? NOT HEARING A MOTION, THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, JUSTIN.
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPRPORIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-843 AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT.]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-843 AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT.I BELIEVE, MR. MACHADO, THIS HAS YOUR NAME ON IT.
>> THIS WAS TO SEE IF COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH PAGE 2 OF THE WATER PROJECT ON DUBLIN ROAD.
IF WE ARE, THE CONTRACTORS ARE GOING TO OPEN THE COST SAVINGS IF YOU CAN STAY ON THE JOB AND KEEP MOVING, VERSUS HAVING TO REMOBILIZE TO COME BACK.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT COST SAVINGS MIGHT BE?
>> THE COST SAVINGS WOULD BE ABOUT $10,000-15,000.
>> THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF THE WATER LINES?
>> YES, MA'AM. MAYOR PRO TEM FECHT?
>> SAVING 10,000-15,000, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL FOR MOVING FORWARD ON THIS?
SMALL, THE SAVINGS REALLY DO SEEM SMALL RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS TOTAL PROJECT.
BUT IT'S $15,000 IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOT PASS OVER IF IT'S SETTING ON THE STREET AND WE HAVE A CHANCE TO PICK IT UP.
THIS IS WORK WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY WANT TO GET DONE.
TALK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THAT PIPELINE AND WHY THIS NEXT SECTION OF IT. THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO IT.
I UNDERSTAND SECTION 3 IS TO CREATE A LOOP IN A LINE THAT'S A DEAD END LINE NOW.
SECTION 2 IS JUST THE REMAINDER OF DUBLIN ROAD ALL THE WAY UP TO PARKER.
>> SECTION 2 WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF PAINTING OF THE JUST THE OLD BAD LINES OVER THERE.
THERE'S I WANT TO SAY IN THAT SECTION, THE LINES ARE UNDERSIZED.
I THINK THERE'S SOME SIX INCH AND FOUR INCH IN THAT SECTION BETWEEN PARK ROAD AND BETSY.
THERE IS A SECTION OF NEWER EIGHT INCH FROM BETSY NORTH TO ROUGHLY THE SIDE OF THE CREEK HILL MAD SHADY PLACE IS? YES, SIR.
>> IN THAT AREA THERE, BUT THAT'S NEW ALREADY, SO THAT SECTION WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED FROM THERE NORTH.
>> I GUESS PROBABLY MY BIGGER CONCERN IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS NOW, I DON'T LIKE OVERLOOKING $15,000 IN SAVINGS,
[02:05:02]
ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY THAT'S NOT A BIG SAVINGS ON $1.4 MILLION PROJECT.MY BIGGER CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW.
LAST TIME WHEN WE PROPOSED THE SOUTHERN SECTION WE DELAYED THE SOUTHERN SECTION OF THIS, THE COST WENT UP SUBSTANTIALLY, NOT 15,000 WENT UP HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
I'M CONCERNED IF WE POSTPONE THIS.
THE COST THAT WE CAN BE DEALING WITH IF WE DO THIS A YEAR FROM NOW OR EVEN SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, COULD BE FAR THAN JUST OVERLOOKING THE $15,000 SAVINGS.
IT COULD BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
>> YEAH, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD INCREASE OVER TIME.
CERTAINLY NOT ONLY POSSIBILITY, BUT PROBABLY A SURETY THAT IT WOULD.
MY QUESTION IS THAT I KNOW WE DID THE DUBLIN ROAD PROJECT AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU KNOW WAY BEFORE WE EVEN DID PHASE 1, I BELIEVE WE HAD SOME TYPE OF CONVERSATION AND SAID IS IT ABSOLUTELY NEEDED.
THE RESPONSE WAS NO, IT WASN'T ABSOLUTELY NEEDED, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE OF A FEW THINGS.
THAT SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD WAS BREAKING QUITE OFTEN.
TWO THAT WATER MAIN BROKE ALONG THAT, AGAIN, THAT SECTION WITHIN DUBLIN ROAD, THAT THERE WAS NO CORRECT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT TERM IS VALES OR WHATEVER THAT WOULD ALLOW BASICALLY TO SUBDIVIDE THAT ISSUE IN A SMALLER AREA THAT BASICALLY IF ONE WENT DOWN THE ENTIRE AREA BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OVER IT.
BUT THOSE ARE POSITIVE THINGS.
THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT WE HAVE FUND.
GRANT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A WATER PROJECT.
UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS AND WE CHOSE PHASE 1 OF DUBLIN ROAD.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE COUPLING 1 IS SECTION 2 OF DUBLIN ROAD, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE AGAIN, ALL 455 AND SECTION 3 OF SECTION 3 IS TODAY TWO MILLION PLUS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE UP THERE RIGHT NOW.
THE NORTHERN SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD THOSE WATERLINE.
DO THEY FOLLOW THE SAME ASPECTS OF WHAT THE SOUTHERN SECTION DOES? DO WE HAVE DOCUMENTED? HOW MANY TIMES OF WATER HAS BROKEN ON THE NORTH SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD? TWO ARE THERE VEILS WITHIN THE NORTHERN SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD TO BASICALLY NOT RUN INTO THE SAME ISSUE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE BEING THAT YOU CAN CUT OFF CERTAIN PORTIONS AS YOU DEAL WITH THAT?
>> IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SOUTHERN SECTION.
IT'S BETTER THAN THE SOUTHERN SECTION, BUT IT'S STILL NOT GOOD.
THE UNDERSIZED LINES ARE A CONCERN, AND THE AGE OF THOSE AC WATERLINES THAT ARE IN THERE ARE CONCERNED.
THE AC LINES BREAK REALLY EASY AND AGE DOESN'T HELP THEM.
WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY PROBLEMS ON THAT NORTH SECTION AS WE DID IN THAT SOUTHERN SECTION, BUT WE DO HAVE PROBLEMS THERE.
>> THE POINT OF HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAD TO SERVICE THE WATER MAIN ON THE NORTH SIDE, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA?
>> IT'S HALF OR LESS THAN WHAT WE WERE DOING ON THAT SOUTHERN SIDE.
>> THEN FOR THE WATER SIDE OF THE WATER LINE, THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY MORE CONSTRUCTION THAT LIKE TO OCCUR ALONG THAT AREA THAT FEEDS IT IS THERE.
THERE'S SOMETHING WAS TO DEVELOP IN THERE, SAY THIS DUBLIN PROPERTY WAS DECIDED TO HOUSE IN THERE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
>> WHICH COULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME.
>> DID THE BID TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SECTION OF LINES THAT YOU SAID ARE IN GOOD SHAPE?
>> YES, THAT'S LEFT OUT OF CRITIC.
>> YEAH. I THINK IT'S SHOWN THIS IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THAT'S PAGE 128, TO SEE THE DARK LINE THAT RUNS FROM PARKER SOUTH AND IT STOPS RIGHT AFTER THE S CURVE AND THE PORTION FROM RIGHT BELOW THE S CURVE TO BETSY.
THAT'S THE PART YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN REPLACED.
THEN THE LITTLE SECTION THAT GOES EAST WEST ZIGZAG ACROSS THERE IS THE LANE FOR THE DOTTED LINE, BUT NONE OF THAT INVOLVES DIGGING UP STREET.
>> MR. MACHADO, THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT IS
[02:10:04]
INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR '25-'26, IF I RECALL.YOU'RE ASKING TO MOVE IT UP A BIT BASED ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING, WHICH WOULD THEN ASSURE THAT IT GETS DONE.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE WATER LINES, I DO HAVE CONCERNS OF THE AGE OF THE WATER LINES.
THIS IS THE OLD CON ORCHARD PART.
>> WISH I COULD SHOW YOU ALL WHAT WE JUST DONE THERE.
>> I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE AND I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF THAT BEING IMPORTANT.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, OUR CHIEF FINANCE OFFICE.
SINCE THIS WASN'T PLANNED UNTIL NEXT YEAR, THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM AND WE'RE TALKING STRICTLY ABOUT THE PROPRIETARY FUND.
THERE WAS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WAS ANTICIPATED LAST YEAR WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING.
THEN THE OTHER BIG ISSUE IS THE WATER TOWER THAT'S ANTICIPATED IN I THINK IT'S TWO YEARS, BUT I THINK YOU'RE WANTING IT SOONER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BRINGING THAT PRETTY QUICK FOR FRENCH ENGINEERING REQUEST FOR THAT.
>> THAT'S A BIGGER DOLLAR AMOUNT.
LOOKING AT OUR BALANCE SHEET AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, $7 MILLION IN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
WHICH WE CAN'T COVER ALL THREE OF THOSE ITEMS TO BE HONEST.
THERE IS SOME MORE IN THE WATER IMPACT FEE, BUT THIS CAN'T WATER IMPACT FEE BECAUSE THAT RELATES TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE NOT NEW.
THE QUESTION IS, FROM A FUNDING STANDPOINT, DO WE HAVE THE FUNDS TO.
>> GRANT'S ANSWER TODAY WAS YES.
WE DO HAVE THE FUNDS THAT REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENT THERE IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO MOVE ON.
>> ONE OTHER THING JUST TRYING TO THINK OF OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE ON THE TABLE THAT MIGHT COME UP.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SEWER LINE.
COULD THERE BE A POSSIBLE PROBLEM THERE THAT COULD.
>> WITH THE SEWER LINE THAT RUNS FROM THE STATION IN DUBLIN ROAD SOUTH?
>> WHERE WE'RE GETTING THAT EXCESS.
>> GETTING THAT OVER. WHAT'S THE QUESTION?
>> COULD THERE BE SOMETHING BIG THERE THAT WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND FIX THAT WE DON'T HAVE?
>> NO, IT'S ALL GOOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT BUDGET AND THAT MIGHT BE A PENDING EXPENSE THAT WE HAVEN'T ACCOUNTED FOR WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA THE SIZE OF THAT PROJECT IN TERMS OF MONETARY.
>> I HAVE ALREADY OPENED THAT FILE.
>> THAT'S STILL TRULY UNKNOWN.
>> LAST TIME I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT MAYBE DOING THE CAMERA INSPECTION OF THAT LINE, WHICH IS A PRETTY EXPENSIVE PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF.
BUT IT WOULD TELL US IF THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG OR WHAT WRONG.
>> I WOULD GIVE A GPS COORDINATES OF A PROBLEM.
>> THE OTHER THING I WOULD PUT FROM A BUDGETARY PERSPECTIVE AND THE ONLY WHAT I CAN BETSY RECALL IS I THINK THAT WE PUT THE WATER TOWER IN AT $5 MILLION IN THE CIP AND SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PAST COUNCIL MEETINGS, I WANT TO RECOLLECT SOMEONE THREW OUT, LIKE A NUMBER NORTH OF SIX MILLION OR READY TO PUT UP THE WATER TOWER.
DO WE HAVE ANY REAL IDEA AS TO WHAT THE TRUE COST IF WE BROUGHT IT UP, WHAT SOMEONE'S WILLING TO PUT IT UP FOR?
>> WE'RE LOOKING CLOSE TO SEVEN.
>> AGAIN, THAT'S A PRETTY FAR DEVIATION FROM WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PLAN.
WE'VE GOT $5,016,000 IN THE PLAN.
>> AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS RECENTLY, IF THE NUMBERS CLOSER TO SEVEN TODAY WITH INFLATION EARLY ON.
>> DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WATER LINE PROJECT BECAUSE IT JUST RECONFIRMS. PRICE INCREASES ARE SET PREDICTABLE WE KNOW THEY'VE RELATIVE INFLATION HAS SHOWN HAS SLOWED DOWN, BUT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE NOT SLOWED DOWN NEAR AS MUCH AS OTHER ITEMS HAVE.
[02:15:02]
I'M CONCERNED IF WE WRITE ANOTHER YEAR ON, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 20% MORE TO SPEND ON IT INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, GEEZ, WE MISSED A $15,000 SAVINGS.>> I WOULD ONLY PUT OUT THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE.
IT GOES BACK TO WHAT COUNCILMAN LYNCH IS, THAT DO WE HAVE WITHIN THE WATER SIDE? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE WATER FROM MY ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY IT'S GOT TO GO UP OR IS THAT LIKE THE DUBLIN WATERLINE?
>> NO, THAT'S WERE IN THE DOUBLE WATER TOWER WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
>> SEVEN MILLION FROM NUMBER THAT WE'VE GOT SEVEN MILLION RESERVES.
IN THE STEWER AREA WE COULDN'T FIND OVER SPENDING GROW OVER $10,000 TO BE ON A BIGGER NUMBER PER MONTH, NOT KNOWING, VERSUS WHAT WE BUDGET IT.
IT'S A BIG NUMBER AND CONTINUING TO GROW.
I WOULD NOT LIKE TO PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD IN FACT, APPROVE SOMETHING WHEN WE KNOW THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE OR MAY HAVE TO BE DONE IF SOMETHING NEGATIVE COMES UP ON IT AND CERTAINLY NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT.
>> I WOULD SAY YOU'RE TALKING SEVEN MILLION THAT WE HAVE SEVEN MILLION IN THE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE, BUT WE HAVE 2.5 MILLION IN THE WATER IMPACT FEE THAT WOULD BE USED FOR THE WATER POWER.
NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS PICKED UP SINCE THE WATER MORATORIUM OR HAS BEEN [LAUGHTER] LIFTED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I'D SAY THAT.
OF COURSE, EVERYBODY THAT HAS BEEN WAITING HAS THEY STARTED THEIR PROJECTS, BUT I THINK SALES ARE DOWN. WE'VE ALL SEEN.
>> WE DO HAVE THAT 2.5, BUT THAT STILL PUTS OUR SURPLUS DOWN VERY LOW TOO.
I KNOW IT WAS 90 DAYS DUBLIN ROADS THAT 90 DAYS.
>> WE'RE TESTING EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW GETTING READY TO PUT THAT LINE IN SERVICE.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS TO ME IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF GRANT WAS HERE AND THE 90 DAY PROJECT ON DUBLIN ROAD BECAUSE I AGREE ALSO WITH COUNCILMAN PILGRIM THAT I'D LIKE TO DO SOMETHING VERSUS HAVING NUMBERS INCREASE ON THAT WE HAVE, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDS THAT DON'T LINE UP IN A SPOT WHERE SUDDENLY COMMITTED TO SOMETHING AND DON'T HAVE SOME MONEY IN ORDER TO DO THINGS WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION FROM GRANT PERSONALLY PRIOR TO THAT.
>> TO ECHO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO JUST MENTIONED, WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMELINE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE CONTRACTORS WOULD NEED TO MOVE THEIR EQUIPMENT, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU SAY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION?
>> MAYBE THEY'RE DONE INSTALLING THE WATER LINES, THE BIG LINE.
THEY'VE GOT SOME MINOR STUFF TO DO LEFT.
I THINK THEY'VE GOT ALL THE SERVICES CONNECTED OR RAN.
THEY DON'T HAVE THEM CONNECTED YET TO THE WATER METERS.
I'M THINKING THEY'VE GOT A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THEY'RE READY TO MOVE OUT.
>> I THINK MAYBE TO COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO'S POINT, IF WE COULD GET A BID ON A WATER TOWER TO HAVE ACTUAL NUMBER.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFICULTY THAT WOULD BE.
>> THAT'S A THREE MONTH PROCESS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TWO THINGS.
HOW MUCH MORE INFORMATION CAN WE HAVE IF WE MOVE IT INTO THE NEXT MEETING.
IF THE ANSWER IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THEN THAT JUST HELPS US MAKE A DECISION.
>> OR IF TIME TAKES THAT AWAY.
OR IF THE TIME IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY 15,000, I DON'T KNOW.
>> I DON'T SEE WHY WE'D HAVE MEANINGFUL INFORMATION ON THE COST OF A WATER TOWER IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. EVEN THEN, YOU ARE GOING TO GET AN ENGINEERING ESTIMATE FIRST, AND EVEN THEN IT WOULD STILL BE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A YEAR FROM NOW, TWO YEARS FROM NOW?
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING I WANT TO GET FROM GRANT, ONE IS, WELL, I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH CAN READ WHAT'S IN THERE, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GET GRANT'S OPINION AS OF WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE.
[02:20:02]
THEN SECONDLY, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE TIGHT, HOW HE WOULD FORECAST REPLENISHING, HOW QUICKLY WE COULD REPLENISH IT.AGAIN, SO IF WE WIND UP IN A SITUATION THAT WE'RE VERY TIGHT OR WE NEED CASH AND DON'T HAVE IT, HOW QUICKLY CAN WE GET BACK IN THE CASH BASED ON HIS ESTIMATES?
>> I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO.
THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM AS WELL.
I THINK THE COSTS ARE GOING TO GET HIGHER AND HIGHER.
BUT UNTIL WE CAN CONFIRM WHERE OUR MONEY IS COMING FROM AND GOING TO, I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO THAT.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MADAM MAYOR.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM AND KERCHO, AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUT ON THE LOST OPPORTUNITY COST OF A YEAR FROM NOW.
BUT HAVING GRANT HERE FOR JUST 10, 15 MINUTES CLARIFICATION, I THINK WOULD BE VERY WISE.
>> YOU REALIZE THAT DOING THAT MIGHT HAVE THESE GUYS GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON. I'M JUST SAYING THAT.
>> I THINK OUR GUIDANCE FROM MR. MACHADO WAS THAT WE COULD HAVE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE WOULDN'T LOSE OUT THE OPPORTUNITY.
>> THE NEXT MEETING IS A MONTH AWAY.
>> THE NEXT MEETING IS WAY OUT.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO RUSH ANYTHING, BUT THE NEXT MEETING, THEY MAY BE GONE BY THEN
>> TRUE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY THAT MIGHT GIVE US A REASON FOR A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
>> WE COULD DO THAT IF THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL WANTS TO DO AND IF COUNCIL WOULD DO IT, WE WOULD [LAUGHTER].
>> SURE. IS THERE RISK OF NOT HAVING WATER FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION IF THIS LINE BREAKS WITH EXISTING LINE?
>> I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THAT, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.
BUT WE HAVE WAYS OF FEEDBACK TO THAT.
IF THERE'S A BAD ENOUGH PROBLEM, WE COULD ISOLATE AS BEST WE CAN ON THAT NOTE ON THE NORTHERN SECTION AND STILL FEED FOR FIRE.
THE RISK IS NOT AS BAD AS IT WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
PEOPLE CAN VOTE TO AGREE OR THEY CAN VOTE IT DOWN.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE WHATEVER THIS.
>> RESOLUTION 2025-843 FOR THE NEXT TWO SECTIONS.
SECTION 2 AND 3 OF THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER PROJECT AS PRESENTED.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? NOT HEARING A SECOND, MOTION FAILS.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9.
[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 890 APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER ESTABLISHING BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS; PROVIDING FOR DISANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING A REPEALER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 890, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARY LINES FOR THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS, PROVIDING FOR DEANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.IT'S NOT GOING TO SURPRISE ME AT ALL IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM [LAUGHTER].
WHO WOULD LIKE TO LEAD US OFF? UNLESS THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF AN ILA DRAFT AGREEMENT AND THEN FROM THAT I THINK WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THERE.
>> THERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT THE CITY WOULD AGREE TO MAINTAIN ALL OF LEWIS LANE SOUTH OF,
[02:25:03]
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON GARY FOR THE VISUAL LANDMARKS.>> LEWIS LANE LIFT STATION AND THAT LUCAS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE MAINTENANCE ALONG THE LUCAS ROAD, EXCUSE ME, AND THAT THE PORTIONS OF LEWIS LANE AND LUCAS ROAD THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF PARKER WOULD BE DISANNEXED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CITY OF LUCAS TO ANNEX THOSE AS THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING MAINTENANCE ON THEM.
THERE'S A CORRESPONDING SECTION OF LEWIS LANE THAT LUCAS WOULD DISANNEX UNDER THE SAME AGREEMENT AND THAT PARKER WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN ANNEX BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT MAINTENANCE ALONG THAT SECTION.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHERE THOSE SECTIONS ARE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING?
>> THE ONES THAT PARKER WOULD BE DISANNEXING ARE RELATED PRIMARILY, I BELIEVE, TO KING'S CROSSING ALONG LUCAS AND ON LEWIS LANE.
WHAT I KNOW IS THE ON FEE PROPERTY ON THE LUCAS SIDE THAT THEY WOULD BE DISANNEXING.
GARY OR ONE OF YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF IT THAT'S MORE MEANINGFUL TO RESIDENTS.
>> THAT MAY BE THE ONLY ONE THAT THEY'VE ANNEXED.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THEY WOULD DISANNEX.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT PARKER IS PROPOSED TO DISANNEX.
THAT BIG FIELD, THAT'S THE UMPHIE PROPERTY. THAT'S THE ONE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I GUESS, WITH RESPECT TO JUST THE OVERALL PROCESS FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, I WAS JUST GOING TO NOTE THAT THE AGENDA PACKET DIDN'T HAVE A DRAFT COPY OF THE ILA NOR THE EXHIBITS.
GIVEN THE TIME IT TAKES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PARKER TO REVIEW IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS WELL AS COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT IN ITS ENTIRETY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK AT ANOTHER TIME WHEN WE HAD THE ACTUAL ILA TEXT PUBLISHED IN PARKER AS WELL AS THE EXHIBITS TO ENABLE US TO HAVE A PROPER ABILITY FOR RESIDENTS TO COME IN AND ASK US QUESTIONS ABOUT IT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSIDERATION.
>> OUR LEGAL COUNSEL HAS DONE A NICE JOB OF GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.
OVERALL, HAVING LUCAS HANDLE LUCAS ROAD, I THINK WILL BE A VERY BENEFICIAL ITEM.
THERE'S JUST STILL SOME CLARIFICATIONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR YET WITHIN THE AGREEMENT.
ON LEWIS LANE, THERE ARE SOME, AS LEGAL COUNSEL MENTIONED, LUCAS WOULD TAKE UP TO THE LIFT STATION, AND THEN THE REST OF LEWIS LANE WOULD BE THE CITY OF PARKER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
FINALLY, GETTING SOME CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THESE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL.
THAT WAY THE CITY CAN THEN MOVE FORWARD.
NOW, I WILL POINT OUT THAT MOVING FORWARD, BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY START DOING THE STREET ITSELF, I BELIEVE WE STILL HAVE TO DO THE PAPERWORK PIECES OF THAT, THE DISANNEXATIONS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF AFTER WE COME TO THIS FINAL AGREEMENT.
BUT I'M PLEASED THAT I THINK WE'VE MADE SOME GOOD HEADWAY.
I THINK LUCAS, MAYOR, AND ATTORNEYS HAVE WORKED HARD TO TRY AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT.
I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT THIS AGREEMENT, THAT UPDATED AGREEMENT THAT WE GET, WE'LL HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN ALL SINK OUR TEETH IN AND FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE'VE CLARIFIED WHAT THE OWNERSHIP IS.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT SO THAT WE ALL KNOW WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT.
>> CATHERINE, WHAT I UNDERSTAND EARLIER TO TELL US, DO YOU THINK THE CITY OF LUCAS IS GOING TO VOTE ON THIS PROPOSAL AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND IF SO, WHEN IS THAT?
[02:30:03]
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S ON THEIR AGENDA FOR THIS THURSDAY.
>> IF THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT, IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES AFTER THEY VOTED ON IT. IS THAT FAIR?
>> DEPENDING ON THE DEGREE OF CHANGES, IF THE PARTIES AGREED TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN SPIRIT, THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE TO AMEND THAT THEY'VE AGREED.
I'M NOT VERY ARTICULATE TODAY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DEALT WITH THE MOTION. WE ALL ENGAGED IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO WHAT THEY MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL WANTS. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO END UP THIS CITY COUNCIL HERE IN THE SESSION WITHOUT HAVING TAKEN ACTION ON THIS IF WE DON'T TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.
>> I GET THE FEELING FROM COUNCIL THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE IS THAT THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT IS BEING, I GUESS, PUT FORTH BEFORE OURSELVES AND LUCAS UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 791.011.
THAT CODE STATES THAT AN INTER-LOCAL CONTRACT MAY BE TO PROVIDE A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION OR SERVICE THAT EACH PARTY TO THE CONTRACT IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM INDIVIDUALLY.
THE ASSUMPTION HERE IS THAT WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAINTAIN AND CONSTRUCT A ROAD ACROSS LUCAS ROAD AND IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
I QUESTIONED WHETHER THE PROJECT THAT LUCAS IS WORKING ON WITH THE COLLIN COUNTY AND IS IT TEXAS? THERE'S TWO PARTIES?
>> I THINK IT'S COLLIN COUNTY AND COG.
I GUESS WE'VE REQUESTED TO SEE WHAT THAT POTENTIAL PLAN IS BECAUSE I THINK THEY'VE WORKED ON IT, AND I WONDERED IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
I THINK IT'LL BE PRUDENT FOR COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT PLAN SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE PLAN IS.
I THINK MY PRIMARY CONCERN WITH LUCAS ROAD IS THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT MAY HAVE WITH PARKER LAKE ESTATES SINCE THE RANCH ADJACENT TO LUCAS ROAD IS OWNED BY THE HOA AND IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF PARKER OR IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF LUCAS.
IF WE ENTER INTO AN ILA WHERE THE ILA ASSUMES THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT THE ROAD THERE, THE QUESTION I ASK IS, WOULD THAT LAND NEED TO BE GRANTED TO EITHER CITY BEFORE WE CAN AGREE TO THIS AGREEMENT?
>> CATHERINE, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WOULD BE.
I'M NOT EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST GOT TIME TODAY AND I'VE ALREADY STARTED TO LOOK AT IT SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER YET.
>> I GUESS IN SUMMARY, I THINK YOU'LL RISE TO LOOK AT THOSE FIRST. GO AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR? CATHERINE, CAN YOU SHARE WITH EVERYBODY WHEN YOU GOT THE LAST REVISED OF THE WORKING DOCUMENT FROM THE OTHER COUNCIL, AND WHEN DID WE GET IT?
>> I RECEIVED IT THIS AFTERNOON.
I THINK I SENT IT OUT TO YOU ALL AT TWO SOMETHING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT PROBABLY SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW WHAT I SENT OUT THIS AFTERNOON.
>> DIDN'T THEIR COUNCIL SEND ANOTHER VERSION AFTER THAT?
>> WELL, THAT WAS THE LAST VERSION.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE EARLIER THIS MORNING THAT I THINK I HAD SENT TO COUNCIL.
>> I THINK 2:35 P.M WAS WHEN YOU SENT IT OUT.
DIDN'T YOU SAY THE CHANGES THAT WERE IN THAT ONE VERSUS THE PRIOR VERSION WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES?
>> I DON'T THINK I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK AT IT TO SAY DEFINITIVELY WHETHER THEY WERE SUBSTANTIVE.
THEY WERE COMBINING SECTIONS OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE, AND I HAD NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO GARY ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT PARKER IN THAT REGARD.
>> YOU HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO DO AN ADEQUATE REVIEW?
>> COMMENT, WOULD BE THAT REGARDLESS, I MEAN,
[02:35:01]
I HAVEN'T READ THE DOCUMENT AS YET, BUT PREVIOUSLY, WHEN WE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSIONS, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE DESIRING OUT OF THE AGREEMENT THAT ONE IS THAT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF LUCAS ROAD OR SIDE THAT ABUTS PARKER HAD SOME PROTECTIONS MEANING THAT WE WERE GOING TO SUDDENLY SEE SOMETHING APPEAR THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DRAINAGE DOWN, ETC.ONE WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT YOU KNOW WITHIN THE DOCUMENT THAT EITHER IS POSITIVE OR PRO AG THAT WE'VE HAD CONTINUING ISSUES WITH LEWIS LANE AS FAR AS TING LUCAS TO ACTUALLY DO WORK ON IT.
WE'VE TAKEN THE STEP AS PEOPLE KNOW.
THE FIX PARTS OF LEWIS LANE THAT POTENTIALLY WERE NOT OURS.
NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE PART OF LEWIS LANE, SO THERE ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THEY WOULD MAINTAIN IT TO ANY DEGREE.
PROPORTIONATELY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THAT EVEN MADE EQUITABLE SENSE AND WHETHER THAT REALLY EXISTS OR NOT YET A START I GUESS.
>> I'M NOT SURE I'M GOING TO REMEMBER ALL THREE THINGS, BUT THE FIRST TIME.
IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN ADDED INTO THIS AGREEMENT FROM ITS ORIGINAL VERSION IS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO SHARE PLANS AS EARLY AS 30 DAYS THAT GARY AND HIS STAFF ARE ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE AND LOOK AT IMPACTS TO DRAINAGE AND TRANSPORTATION AND SO FORTH.
THAT WAS PART OF WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN, SOME OF THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ACTUALLY CAME FROM VARY.
BOTH CITIES AGREED TO THAT, WHICH I THINK GOES IN THE DIRECTION OF ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT IS THERE THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT PARKER WOULDN'T HAVE ANY INPUT IN.
REMIND ME YOUR SECOND QUESTION.
>> ON THAT ONE, WHETHER THEY COME AND SAY, HERE'S THE PLANS, BUT BY THE WAY, D AND WE HAVE ABILITY TO GO IN THERE.
THEY GAVE US THE PLANS, WE CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE MUCH OF LEVERAGE TO CHANGE IT.
THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF PROTECTION ALONG THAT SOUTHERN SECTION THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTFUL TO PLE OR TO KING'S CROSSING IN THE FUTURE.
>> I THINK AS IT PERTAINS TO LUPUS ROAD, THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THE COUNTY INVOLVED IN IT GARY COULD SPEAK MORE.
THEN I CAN TO THE PREVIOUS HISTORY ON THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY AND LUCAS ON THAT ISSUE WHERE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT DRAINAGE WAS NOT EVER GOING TO COME OVER TO THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> IN THE FIRST PLANS THAT THEY HAD THE DRAINAGE, THEY WERE TRYING TO BRING IT OVER ON THIS PLAN SO FAR, WHAT I'VE SEEN, THEY'RE NOT COMING ALL OVER US, THEY'RE COMING TO THE CENTER MEDIAN, GOING DOWN THE CENTER MEDIAN TO DEGREE INSTEAD OF COMING OVER OUR SIDE.
THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THE DRAINAGE.
BUT I AGREE THERE SHOULD BE SOME FORM OF PROTECTION IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T COME THROUGH SOMETHING THAT DAMAGES US.
>> BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE AGREEMENT.
>> THE AGREEMENT IS TO SHARE PLANS TO REVIEW.
>> THEN THE OTHER PART WAS BASICALLY, IF THERE'S ANY INDICATION THAT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR ROADS, THOSE THAT WE SHARE.
>> ON THAT THEY ARE AGREEING TO MAINTAIN IT.
THERE AREN'T ANY SPECIFIC STANDARDS SPELLED OUT AS TO WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF MAINTENANCE ARE.
>> ANOTHER THING THAT CAME UP WAS REALLY IDENTIFYING FROM THE POLICE PERSPECTIVE HOW TO PATROL AT THE ROAD AND I KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENCES LIKE IN SPEED LIMITS AND SUCH.
ANY INDICATION OF HOW THAT GET RESOLVED?
>> YES. THAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT THAT IT'S A SPECIFIC SPEED LIMIT, I THINK ALL THE WAY DOWN LEWIS LANE, AND ALSO THE WEIGHT LIMITS ON IT.
>> ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES WAS ON ENFORCEMENT.
BECAUSE OF THE ONLY GO TO THE LIFT STATION.
I BELIEVE THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT AN ILA WITH THEM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THAT ROAD.
I WAS THERE ANY SETTLE ON THAT?
>> THAT'S NOT COVERED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
>> BUT IF IT'S TO THE CITY OF LUCAS, THEN WOULD THERE BE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S THE AREA TO ENFORCE?
>> NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THAT.
[02:40:04]
I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR IS ALLUDING TO IS, WOULD PARKER HAVE THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY ENTER INTO AN INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT AND ENFORCE ALL OF LEWIS LANE, NOT JUST THE SECTION SOUTH OF THE LIP STATION.>> TALKING TO CHIEF PRICE, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN IF THERE WAS A SPEEDER, AND IT GOT IT INTO THE LOK SECTION OR IF THERE WAS A ROT IN THE NORTH END.
AT WHAT POINT IS THERE RESPONSIBILITY? WHERE DO THEY JUST SAY, IT'S NOT US, AND IS THERE SOME WAY TO WORK THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT CAN BE A JURISDICTIONAL NIGHTMARE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE STOPS BEEN OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE ITS A SECTION OF ROADWAY.
WE STILL HAVE TO FORCE ON ONE SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION RIGHT SIDE OF PARK CONTROL AND THAT MEANS AN ACCIDENT AT THAT INTERSECTION OF MERC COUNTY COMING FROM USUALLY AT THE TIME.
THE STEELING SHOULD BE CONSISTENT ALL THE WAY ACROSS THAT.
IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THE WHOLE ROADWAY, EXCEPT FOR A 20 FEET FROM THE COUNTY TO FEE BACK PARKER DISTANT SO WE WOULD TAKE OUT SOME OF THE PATH FOR SURE.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE AN ILA WITH RESPECT TO THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO GET THAT AGREED UPON, I TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, I TOO WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS.
BUT CONSIDERING MR. MACHADO, AND COUNSEL HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW THE CHANGES.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING PRIOR TO.
>> IF THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL INDICATES THEY WISH AND THAT THEY WILL BE AAABLE FOR.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS CALL A SPECIAL MEETING AND THEN NOT HAVE A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL HERE TO TAKE ACTION OR DO YOU EVEN HAVE SO THERE ARE TWO TUESDAYS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT ARE LEFT, 22ND AND 29, I BELIEVE.
>> THERE'S ALSO MAY 6TH. I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE HAVE THE 22ND AND THE 29TH OR TWO TUESDAYS IN THE MONTH OF APRIL.
IF WE WANTED TO TRY FOR THE 29TH, THAT GIVES THEM TWO WEEKS TO GET MY INFORMATION AND EVERYBODY HAVE TIME TO GO OVER IT.
OR WE COULD TRY FOR THE 22ND, WHICH IS A LITTLE THAT GIVES US A WEEK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S REASONABLE.
>> CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE A FEELING ON THAT? GARY.
>> I THINK THE 29TH IS PROBABLY MORE REASONABLE THAN THE 22ND.
>> OH, 29. IF WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON THE 29TH, MR. CERTO, COULD YOU BE PRESENT?
>> CAN YOU CHECK. I'M GOING TO ASK EVERYBODY INDIVIDUALLY.
BECAUSE GENERAL LOU WOULD START AT 7:00.
WE'VE BEEN STARTING AT FIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS.
>> IF WE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 5:00, WOULD THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY?
>> IT IS EARLY VOTING HAPPENING AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE.
>> WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE TIME FOR THEM TO CLOSE UP.
[02:45:01]
>> I'LL HAVE TO TALK TO CHIEF THERE TO SEE IF HE WOULD ALLOW US TO USE THE.
IF YOU MOVE IT TO APRIL 30, WHICH IS A WEDNESDAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THAT IS FOR PEOPLE.
BUT EARLY VOTING WOULD BE OVER, BUT THE MACHINES WOULD STILL BE HERE FOR REGULAR VOTING.
BUT THEY COULD PROBABLY PUSH HIM WHERE WE COULD STILL USE OUR ROOM.
I HATE TO GIVE UP THIS ROOM ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VIRTUAL 30 CAN BE FINE FOR ME?
>> THIRTY FOR ME. THAT'S FINE FOR ME.
>> EVERYBODY COULD DO THE 30TH.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH RESPONDED YET.
>> WHAT TIME WERE YOU ALL SUGGESTING?
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR IT.
>> I'M ASKING WHAT TIME ON THE 30TH WORKS FOR THE MOST PEOPLE?
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE A MEETING.
I'LL CALL IT AND PUBLISH IT, BUT JUST ASSUME THAT WE ARE HAVING A MEETING ON THE 30TH AT 5:00, 06:00, OR 7:00. SOMETIME THAT EVENING.
>> COULD WE CLARIFY EACH OF OUR INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS OF WHAT STILL MAY BE MISSING?
>> HERE, SO THAT, AS OUR ATTORNEY AND MR. MACHADO REVIEW.
>> I'LL START. WITH RESPECT TO TO THE LUCAS ROAD, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERNS THERE ARE PARKER LAKE ESTATES AND CURRENT AND FUTURE.
I KNOW IT IS A COUNTY ROAD OR IT IS ROAD.
BUT WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THAT RIDE LAKE STATE, SIR.
WITH RESPECT TO THE LEWIS LANE ON THE NORTH, I PERFECTLY GOODWIN SOUTH.
I'M GOOD WITH. I THINK THERE ARE SOME CONCERN BY OTHERS ABOUT THE LEGAL ENTITY.
THE DRAINAGE PROVISIONS, I PERSONALLY LIKE THE DRAINAGE PROVISIONS.
I THINK THEY PROVIDE US THOSE ADDITIONAL ASSURANCES COMMENT ON ANY ZONING REQUESTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATIONS, FINAL PLAT APPLICATIONS, OR ANY ENGINEERING PLANS, SCHEMATICS, DRAWINGS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AT THE 60% COMPLETION PHASE.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING AND THE CITIES.
I'M SEEING THE THOROUGHFARE PLANS BEING THERE, HAVING ASSURANCE THAT THOSE ARE LOOKED AT AND WATER AND SANITARY SEWER.
I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD OPTIONS.
THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, I THINK THE LAST ONE THAT I SAW WAS AS FAR AS THAT.
THOSE ARE MY OVERALL CONCERN, WHAT'S LEFT. NOT MUCH THANKFULLY.
>> MR. PILGRIM, DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD FIND HELPFUL?
>> I THINK WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES.
NO NEED TO AGREE WITH READ ALREADY THAT WE'RE RIGHT.
>> I THINK COUNCILMAN LYNCH COVERED MY POINTS.
I ONLY HAD THAT HAPPEN TO BE AT THE MEETING WITH LUCAS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT CITIES ARE VERY CLOSE AND IS DEFINITELY TRYING THEIR BEST IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET THIS THING PULLED TOGETHER AS WELL.
I CERTAINLY WOULD HOPE IF THEY'RE LISTING TONIGHT OR NOT IN TERMS OF HOLDING OFF UNTIL WE CAN GET ONE MORE PASS OF THIS THING MAKE SURE BOTH CITIES ARE GOOD TO ON IT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE AGREEMENTS AND SAVED THIS AFTERNOON, BUT WITH A FEW THINGS THAT COUNCILMAN LYNCH HAS PUT IN THERE.
[02:50:02]
I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD DOCUMENT.>> I DON'T HAVE A REQUEST TO JUST EVALUATE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT OR THE ILA THAT STATES I AGREE THAT MADE FOR WEST LUCAS SHALL BE CONSIDERED RIGHT OF WAY REGARDLESS OF THE DEDICATION LANGUAGE AND THE DEDICATION DOCUMENT.
I WANTED TO I GUESS EXPLORE THAT FURTHER BECAUSE I'M WONDERING I GUESS THE PROCESS FOR THIS AGREEMENT TO OVERRIDE DEDICATIONS AND PLATS OR ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS.
I GUESS I POSSIBLE IF WE COULD AND I THINK THIS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.
IF POSSIBLE IF WE COULD DESCRIBE AN ACTUAL MEASUREMENT FOR A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
I THINK MR. MACHADO HAS REQUESTED TO HAVE AN ACTUAL MEASUREMENT VERSUS A ASSUMED DISTANCE.
IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A SPECIFIC.
>> THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'D RATHER SEE AN ACTUAL DEFINED DISTANCE.
>> OR DEDICATION WILL BE THERE.
>> I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHAT IS THE EASEMENT THAT'S DEDICATED VERSUS UNDEFINED.
IF WE COULD HAVE A NUMBER, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
THEN I HAD SEEN ORDINANCE 615 REFERRED TO IN THE DOCUMENT.
WHEN I READ ORDINANCE 615, IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS REFERRING TO THE NEWMAN TRACT?
>> IT'S 616. THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION.
>> I THOUGHT THOSE ARE THE MAIN HIGHLIGHTS.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMAN KERCHO, AND JUST HAVING THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS, HIGHLIGHT IT, ALL OF US GET OUR FEEDBACK TO CATHERINE.
SHE HAS ENOUGH TIME TO GET BACK TO THEM.
IN A COUPLE MORE ROUNDS, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS COULD BE EASILY KNOCKED OUT.
>> NOW, AS THE CITY GETS INFORMATION, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET IT OUT AS BEST WE CAN, AS FAST AS WE CAN, SO YOU DO HAVE ADEQUATE TIME.
NOT WAIT UNTIL SUNDAY NIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MR. PILGRIM.
>> WE THINK IF WE CAN GET THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS WITHIN A WEEK TO 10 DAYS.
IF THERE ARE CHANGES, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE TRY TO GET THE FINAL VERSION, 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, SO THAT WE CAN POST IT FOR ALL THE CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE FINAL VERSION, LIKELY THAT WE TAKE A VOTE ON.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON LUCAS LANE? THEN THE NEXT THING
[10. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REFERRAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZONING CODE FOR COMMERICAL/RETAIL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING (P&Z) COMMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.]
WE HAVE IS ITEM NUMBER 10.DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REFERRAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZONING CODES FOR COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
I NOTICED AT SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, WE HAD SAID, GEE, WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING THIS TO US AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? GEE, WHY DIDN'T THIS? WELL, WE DON'T HAVE COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL ZONING IN PARKER.
IF WE ARE GOING TO EVEN CONSIDER THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE RULES FOR THAT DEVELOPED, IN MY OPINION.
PLANNING AND ZONING IS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO SET THAT UP AND THEN BRING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO US.
>> DO WE NEED A MOTION CAP? WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION CAP?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO REFER TO PLANNING AND ZONING, THE REQUEST TO EVALUATE THE ZONING CODE FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER NOE AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM TO REFER THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZONING CODES FOR COMMERCIAL-RETAIL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> IT'S JUST THAT, MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST PROVIDE A COUPLE OF
[02:55:03]
THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO BRING DATA BACK TO COUNCIL ON THIS TOPIC.THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE TO EVALUATE OUR CURRENT ZONING MAP AND EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL PLACES THAT A COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY COULD BE CONSIDERED.
>> TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, WHEN YOU SAY EVALUATE ZONING MAP, WE'RE TALKING FOR POTENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT?
>> TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE ZONING MAP.
I WAS WONDERING, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND EVALUATE WHERE WOULD THEY CONSIDER A GOOD PLACE FOR A COMMERCIAL ZONING TO BE LOCATED.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. THAT'S A QUESTION.
THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, COULD THEY DO AN EVALUATION TO TRADE OFF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT MAY POTENTIALLY BE A TWO-ACRE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND THEN THE EQUIVALENT EXAMPLE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND HOW MUCH REVENUE IN SALES REVENUE COULD WE GET FROM THAT SAME PARCEL IF INSTEAD THAT USE WERE COMMERCIAL USE INSTEAD OF RESIDENTIAL USE.
IN OTHER WORDS, DO A COMPARISON OF A RESIDENTIAL REVENUE VERSUS AN EXAMPLE COMMERCIAL REVENUE, WHATEVER THEY SEE MAKES THE SENSE TO EVALUATE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS TO GIVE THEM.
>> THE OTHER THING IS THIS CLARIFIES OR THIS DOES SAY COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL ZONING, AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE OF KING'S CROSSING.
PHASE 1 IS RIGHT NEXT TO AN EIGHT-ACRE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'D CALL IT, COMMERCIAL RETAIL THAT DOESN'T HAVE A ZONING FOR IT.
IT HAS SOME SPECIFICATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THAT MIGHT BE A GUIDE TO START WITH FOR A ZONING.
BUT THAT, I SEE, IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN SOME OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE CITY.
>> I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY WHEN WE'RE TALKING TO A DEVELOPER OR TALKING TO SOMEBODY, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT, GEE, A COMMERCIAL, GEE, A RETAIL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
IF WE'RE EVEN GOING TO CONSIDER THAT, WHETHER IT'S NOW OR 20 YEARS FROM NOW, WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST DEVELOP THE RULES.
WE DON'T HAVE INDUSTRIAL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL EVER NEED IT, BUT WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING. WE NEED TO GROW UP.
[LAUGHTER] WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REFERRING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZONING CODES FOR COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? CARRYING MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
[11. BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE, LTD. 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE S.T. LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (MSA) AND ANNEXATION: BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE, LTD. 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE S.T. LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS WAS ON THE FEBRUARY 4, 2025 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND POSTPONED AND THEN AT THE FEBRUARY 25, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 2025-831 WAS APPROVED AND AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE, LTD., AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND TAKE ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BUCKINGHAM ESTATES) WAS APPROVED 4-1 [KERCHO, LYNCH, NOE, PILGRIM/FECHT]. BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE, LTD. 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE S.T. LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (MSA). PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION OF BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE, LTD.48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE S.T. LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 892, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (MSA). 3 Page 4 of 5 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 893, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE S.T. LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS INTO THE CITY LIMITS.]
SINCE WE'VE SAVED THE LAST FOR THE BEST, WE HAVE NUMBER 11, BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE LTD ESTATES 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE ST LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, A MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND ANNEXATION.I THINK WHAT I'LL DO IS GO AHEAD AND DO THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE, BECAUSE WE MUST HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
AT THIS TIME, I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS 8:58 PM ON THE BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE LTD ESTATES 48.493-ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
TO START, I'M GOING TO ASK JOHN TO PLEASE COME UP HERE AND GIVE US A LITTLE OVERVIEW, IF YOU WILL.
[03:00:06]
>> I'M JOHN ARNOLD, SKORBURG COMPANY, 8214 WESTCHESTER SUITE 900, DALLAS, TEXAS 75225.
I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK Y'ALL HAVE SEEN IT TWICE. JUST A LITTLE UPDATE.
WE'RE WORKING ON OUR PLAT AND OUR ENGINEERING, TRYING TO SUBMIT THAT NEXT WEEK, WORKING THROUGH ALL THAT.
JUST ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH Y'ALL'S CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR OUR FIRST ROUND OF PLANS.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COMING TO ANNEX IN. THAT'S IT.
>> IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR BUCKINGHAM? I AM CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:51 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 892, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED.
[LAUGHTER] ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT?
>> IT'S NOT AN AGREEMENT BUT [INAUDIBLE].
[LAUGHTER] THE ONLY STATEMENT I HAVE IS THAT BASICALLY, THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AND AGREEMENT THAT'S IN THE PACKET HAS CHANGED TO SOME DEGREE.
THE LARGEST CHANGE BEING THAT HE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON IT PRIOR TO THE CHANGES.
THE CHANGES ARE BASICALLY THAT IN A LOT OF PLACES THAT REFER BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SOME OF THESE THINGS IN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT DIDN'T NECESSARILY JIVE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND IT WAS CHANGED TO BASICALLY SAY, HEY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RULES IN THIS CASE, WHICH REALLY ALLEVIATED ALL MY QUESTIONS, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 892, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 892, WHICH IS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR BUCKINGHAM LOT VENTURE LTD.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
NOW, DON'T BE RUNNING OFF. [LAUGHTER]
>> THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.
>> YOU WILL BE SEEN IF YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION.
>> ANY CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 893 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE ST LEWIS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
THIS IS TO ANNEX THE TRACT INTO THE CITY.
ANY COMMENTS? IF NO COMMENTS, THEN I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 893, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE ST LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 529 IN THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, INTO THE CITY LIMITS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERCHO TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 893, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 48.493 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE LEWIS SURVEY IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
[03:05:08]
PARDON? I'M HEARING THINGS. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 893, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
NOW YOU CAN [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELCOME TO THE CITY OF PARKER.
>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO UPDATES.
[12. UPDATE(S)]
THE FIRST ONE IS ON FARM ROAD 2551.MR. MACHADO, WILL YOU TELL US HOW THAT'S GOING?
>> TXDOT AND HARPER BROTHERS ARE STILL PUTTING DRAINAGE IN. MOVING SLOW.
>> ARE THEY EXPECTED TO SPEED UP OR CATCH BACK UP?
>> YES, THEY ARE. THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN MORE CREWS AND TRY TO SPEED UP TO GET SOME MASON GROUND-UP THAT THEY LOST THE WAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THEY'VE GOT TO FREEZE SOME CREWS UP BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEM OUT OF HERE, THOUGH.
THEY'LL START TO TRY MASON GROUND-UP.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THIS WEEKEND IS GOING TO BE WETTER, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE UP.
>> NOTHING NEW FROM TCEQ, MADAM MAYOR.
>> ENGINEERING REVIEW, MS. NOE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, ANY EXTRA TIME THAT I HAD BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND THIS MEETING WAS RESEARCHING LEWIS LANE AND LUCAS ROAD, SO I HAD NO TIME LEFT TO WORK ON THE ENGINEERING REVIEWS BECAUSE IT WAS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE REVIEW.
>> IT'S STILL A COUPLE OF MONTHS OUT, YOU THINK?
>> INDICATE THE MEETING TOMORROW AT 2:00 HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WE DO HAVE SOME INITIAL DRAFT OF THE PROPOSAL WHICH WILL START TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL EDITS.
>> LEWIS LANE, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY COVERED TONIGHT AND DON'T WANT TO BRING IT BACK.
SO MR. M, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY OF ALLEN TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
YOU DID A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU.
NOW WE'LL EVALUATE THIS FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SO AND JUST SEE HOW IT IS.
IF IT WORKS GREAT, YOU MAKE IT PERMANENT.
IF IT DOESN'T WORK RIGHT, WELL, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT ROUND ABOUT.
I GUESS BECAUSE WE DID WANT TO HAVE A INTERSECTION FOR OUR PEOPLE.
IS THERE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE ABOUT TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING PEOPLE READY FOR A FOUR WAY STOP.
OTHER THAN PUTTING UP THE FOUR WAY STOP SIGNS, IS THERE ANYTHING OUT THERE? THERE. OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCIDENT FOR PEOPLE REGARDLESS WHAT THERE ARE TIMES.
NOW, I COULD PUT A NOTICE ON THE WEBSITE.
[03:10:07]
WE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PROBABLY IF WE STOP WHEN THE THIS MORNING.OKAY. IS THERE ANY THOUGHT ABOUT PUTTING THE CAR OUT THERE JUST TO KIND SLOW PEOPLE DOWN AS THEY APPROACH IT GIVEN IT'S NEW WHEN THEY SEE A POLICE CAR, THEY'RE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY LOOK ALL OVER THE PLACE AND SLOW DOWN? THANK YOU.
YEAH. AND SOME OF OUR POLICE CARS RIGHT NOW HAVE SOME HAIL DAMAGE.
AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REPAIRED.
NO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SCHEDULE DO WE HAVE A HAIL DAMAGE CAR? WEAR OUT THERE? A DAMAGES REPAIRS TO GET ON THE ROAD REPAIRS. GOLF FALL.
TERRY, POST OFFICE? NOTHING NEED TO REPORT.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE WATER LINES ON.
THE NEWSLETTER HOPEFULLY WILL BE OUT TONIGHT OR TOMORROW.
SO BE LOOKING FOR IT IN YOUR E MAIL.
OKAY. I HAD ASKED FOR FOLKS TO GET ME SOME INFORMATION AND I DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
SOME PEOPLE NEED MORE TIME TO GET INFORMATION, BUT SOME CHIEF PRICE GOT ME ALL OF HIS INFORMATION.
AND GOING THROUGH THE PLAN I WAS GOING TO SAY ON PAGE FOUR, IT TALKS ABOUT AN ANNUAL REVIEW, THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
IT IS ACTUALLY A PART OF THE OUTSIDE AUDIT WHEN THEY COME IN AND THEY LOOK AT EVERYTHING.
THE REVIEW PROPOSALS IS ONGOING.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT IS ONGOING.
AND THE REVIEW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL BUDGETING PROCESS.
GRANT IS PREPARING THAT, AND THAT IS IN PROCESS.
THE ANNUAL SUMMIT WILL BE DONE DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE AT GRANTS REQUEST.
AND THE UPDATE ON THE COP BASED ON THE ANNUAL REVIEW WHEN THAT'S DONE IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, ALL OF THAT HOPEFULLY WILL FLOW TOGETHER.
PROGRESS. OKAY. THE GOOD NEWS IS ON A LOT OF THINGS, AND I'M JUST GOING TO START ON PAGE SIX, WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING.
THAT'S IN PROCESS. I THINK, GARY, DID YOU HAVE SOME WORDS OF WISDOM ON THAT? I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ARCHITECT FIVE P AND FOR PLAN.
WE FINALLY GOT THAT EARLIER TODAY.
AND THEN FROM THERE, WE CAN GO TO GET AN ESTIMATE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT PLAN OFF.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADING NEXT.
OKAY. THE POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS, ALL OF THAT IS DONE.
WE DID A CONTRACT WITH SAVE IT END OF THAT COMPANY, PAR MACKIN.
THE CONTRACT THAT GOT THE TASERS AND THE AX AXON.
ALL THE OTHER VEHICLES ARE DONE.
ALL THE VEHICLES ARE DONE THAT ARE IN THIS BOX HERE.
[03:15:02]
ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT IS BEING IN PROGRESS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.AND ON THE NEXT BOX, CURTIS, DELA HA WE DIDN'T DAE, CURTIS FROM DEL HAGE TO SOUTH RIDGE PARK HAS BEEN DONE.
REPAIR ASPHALT ON THE DUBLIN S CURVE, THAT SORT OF KIND OF BEING DONE WITH THE WATER LINES.
IT'S NOT THE TOTAL REPAIR, BUT IT'S IMPROVED A LITTLE BIT.
YEAH. BUT THEY DID AN INITIAL REPAIR ON THE CURVE EARLIER IN THE YEAR, SO PUT THAT THEY PUT THAT PATCH ON THERE, YOU KNOW, ON THE CURVE.
SO THAT'S DONE THE LEWIS LINE.
THE DILLA HAGE 25 51 ON THE WATER LINES THAT HAS ALL BEEN DONE BY THE CITY.
THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES, PHASE ONE IS PRETTY MUCH DONE.
WE TALKED ABOUT GOING FURTHER TO.
DUBLIN ROAD SOUTH WATER LINES AGAIN, THAT'S PHASE ONE, I WAS DONE.
WATER IMPACT STUDY WAS DONE TWO YEARS AGO.
THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DELIVERY POINT NUMBER TWO.
I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT THAT SUCKER IS DONE.
WE'RE BACK CLOSE END OF THE WEEK? NO. NEXT WEEK. OKAY.
WE'VE WAITED WE CAN WAIT A FEW MONS FOR A START DATE OF THE 22ND.
22ND. OKAY. WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.
THAT'S WHAT GARY IS GOING TO GET THE NUMBERS FORCE ON.
CITY FACILITIES ARE IN PROGRESS AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN PROGRESS.
WE DID THE NEW CARPET AND REMODELED SOME OF THIS BUILDING.
THERE IS A LOT OF REPETITIVENESS IN HERE.
I FEEL LIKE I'M SAYING THE SAME THING TWO OR THREE TIMES, SO I'M GOING TO SKIP SOME OF THAT THAT I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED.
IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE IN GOING THROUGH THIS, I'M AMAZED AT HOW MUCH WE ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED THIS YEAR.
YOU KNOW, IT IS REALLY GOOD. WE ARE STILL DOING THE JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS WITH LEWIS LANE.
CHURCH LANE IS DONE AND THE RESIDENTS ARE THRILLED.
THE ENGINEERING STUDY ON THE S CURVE HAS BEEN DONE.
WE GO TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I TALKED ABOUT THAT.
ON THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK OR WATER TOWER, THAT IS IN DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME.
FOR PEOPLE THAT AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH IT, ALL THE WATER LINES ARE IN.
IT'S JUST PUTTING THE WATER TOWER UP, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS DONE AND PAID FOR.
AND MOST OF THIS IS JUST A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THIS PROJECT.
AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BUT ANYWAY, YOU'LL GET THE IDEA.
[03:20:01]
WE ARE GOING TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION AND GRANT HOPEFULLY WILL SHOW BACK UP.WHEN HE DOES, WE WILL GET SOME OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION MORE NAILED DOWN AND WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.
IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE WE SPENT, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE LEFT? WHICH LINE ITEM IS IT IN, THEN WE'LL START LOOKING TO THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND ALTERING THIS PLAN TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE THE SIX YEAR PLAN.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF CSS MR. RO.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THE CIP, AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PROPOSALS IN THERE.
EVERYTHING IN THERE ISN'T AGREED UPON, BUT THE PROPOSALS THAT WE TOTAL IT UP, WE HAD MONEY.
WE HAD PROBABLY ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WE COULD COVER EVERYTHING IN THERE.
SO NOT EVERYTHING TODAY WITHOUT GOING OUT OR SOME TYPE OF FINANCING WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO, BUT I SAY THAT IF WE GO BACK TO THE WATER SIDE AS FAR AS THE WATER TOWER, WATER LINES, ET CETERA, THAT IF YOU GET TOGETHER WITH GRANT AND ASSUME YOU WILL ADDITIONALLY, GO OVER THING IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WATER MONEY, WHETHER IT BE WATER IN FACTS OR WHAT'S IN THE RESERVE, WE'VE GOT THE WATER LINES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON DUBLIN OUT THERE, AND WE'VE GOT THE A WATER TOWER, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
WE'VE GOT THE POTENTIAL SEWAGE, IF ANYTHING COMES UP THERE, WHAT IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF KEEP IN RESERVE UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT ISSUES OR MAY OR MAY NOT BE.
I THINK THE BUILDING ITSELF COMES OUT THE SAME TOP.
SO AS YOU LOOK AT IT AND SIT WITH GRANT AND IDENTIFY WHAT FUNDS ARE THERE OR NOT THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO WIND UP HAVING TO PRIORITIZE WHAT DEFINITELY WILL BE NEEDED AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED AND WHAT MAYBE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOMETHING ELSE.
HOPEFULLY WE WILL GO INTO THAT IN A WHOLE LOT MORE DETAIL DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS BECAUSE GRANT PLANS TO HAVE SOME INFORMATION BEFORE THEN, BUT ALSO DURING THE BUDGET.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME.
OKAY. YOU KNOW WHERE THE LINKS ARE TO YOUR MONTHLY REPORTS.
[13. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.MI DI AND MUHAMMAD MASADI, DONATED ONE DOZEN FAN CAKES, BONINI VALUED AT $28 TO CITY STAFF.
THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST AWESOME.
THEY DONATE MONTHLY TO OUR CITY STAFF, AND WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR.
THEY ARE JUST AS APPRECIATIVE OF OUR STAFF, AND IT IS JUST WONDERFUL.
WE REALLY THANK THEM AND APPRECIATE THEM.
NOW I'LL ASK ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
[14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
I WILL NOTE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO MEET ON THE 30TH, I WILL SEE IF WE CAN'T GET GRANT TO BE HERE FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES TO ALSO BE AT THAT.ANYTHING ELSE? IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.