[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
>> I HEREBY CALL THIS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.
IT IS APRIL 30TH, 2025 AT 6:02 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MR. SAVAGE, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE WILL RECESS INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551-0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.TWO, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENT BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER.
AT THIS TIME, IT IS 6:03, WE ARE IN RECESS.
I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER.
IT IS APRIL 30TH, 2025, AND IT IS 7:00 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNCIL IS THERE ANY INFORMATION OR APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION FROM ANY OF US IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> THERE'S NOT, MADAM MAYOR, BUT AT SOME POINT, I'D LIKE TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE TCEQ ISSUE AND WHERE THAT STANDS TO THE LITIGATION THAT'S BEEN ONGOING WITH THEM.
>> I'LL MOVE THROUGH THE MOTION, BUT WE WILL ALLOW A BRIEF PRESENTATION. GO.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO DO ALL OF THAT FIRST.
JUST FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION, ON APRIL THE 16TH, THE COMMISSIONERS AT TCEQ ISSUED A LETTER NOTICE THAT ON MAY THE 22ND, AT 9:30 AM, THEY'RE GOING TO HOLD A COMMISSION MEETING IN AUSTIN TO CONSIDER THE REQUESTS THAT WERE MADE TO HOLD A CONTESTED HEARING ON THE RENOTICED MUD APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS, WHICH IS THE TJ PROPERTY WHERE THE HUFFINES HAD BEEN CONSIDERING BUILDING THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE HEARING OF THE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MAY THE 22ND, 9:30.
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO, THEY CAN LISTEN ONLINE.
WHAT THE COMMISSIONER SAID IS THAT NO ORAL ARGUMENTS WILL BE TAKEN AND NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE COMMISSION'S HEARING, BUT WHAT THEY WILL CONSIDER IS WRITTEN INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT BEING THE HUFFINES THROUGH HARRINGTON TURNER.
THE APPLICANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THEIR RESPONSE TO TCEQ BY APRIL 28TH, WHICH WAS TWO DAYS AGO, AND THEY DID.
THOSE OF US WHO ARE EITHER INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS OR THE CITIES, THE CITY OF MURPHY AND THE CITY OF PARKER, THAT ALSO REQUESTED A CONTESTED HEARING, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO THE HUFFINES RESPONSE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TWO DAYS AGO.
THE CITY OF PARKER, AS THE ATTORNEY WHO IS HANDLING THIS, WILL BE WRITING A REPLY FOR THE CITY TO THE RESPONSE OF THE HUFFINES.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO SIGNED UP TO CONTEST OR REQUEST A CONTESTED HEARING IN THIS, TO SUBMIT YOUR OWN WRITTEN RESPONSE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR HEARING.
IF YOU SIGNED UP TO PROTEST IT BEFORE OR ASKED FOR A CONTESTED HEARING, RATHER, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THESE COPIES FROM TCEQ OF HTEG'S HUFFINES RESPONSE, READ IT.
THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ASKING, EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS REQUESTING A CONTESTED HEARING, TO DISMISS EVERY ONE OF THEIR REQUESTS AS BEING AN INVALID REQUEST FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
THEY'VE GROUPED THEM INTO THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS, AND THEY'VE GOT DIFFERENT REASONS FOR EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS, BUT IT EVEN GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS WHO WERE ADMITTED BY THE SOAH COURT AS AN AFFECTED PARTY.
[00:05:03]
WHAT THE HARRINGTON RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS OR THE HUFFINES ARE WITHHOLDING IS THAT MANY OF US ARE, IN FACT, AFFECTED PARTIES; WE SHOULD ALL BE IGNORED, SO WE NEED TO RESPOND BACK TO THAT.EVEN PEOPLE SUCH AS LAURA HERNANDEZ, WHO LITERALLY LIVES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
HER HOME IS PROBABLY WITHIN 50 YARDS OF WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD ACTUALLY BE, AND SAYING SHE WOULD NOT BE AN AFFECTED PARTY TO THIS.
THAT'S HOW EXTREME THEIR RESPONSE IS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO HAS THE ABILITY, AND WHO HAD SIGNED UP TO REQUEST A CONTESTED HEARING, TO RESPOND BY MAY THE 12TH.
I'LL CERTAINLY BE FILING MY RESPONSE IN THE CITY WORTH.
>> THANK YOU, BUDDY. AT THIS TIME, I WILL DO THE PLEDGES, AND I WILL ASK MONETTE AND LAURA TO DO THE AMERICAN PLEDGE.
WHO IS THAT SITTING BEHIND YOU, KENNY? WILL YOU DO THE TEXAS PLEDGE? IT'S RIGHT THERE.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS.WELL, I'VE GOT SEVERAL CARDS HERE AND THE FIRST ONE I HAVE IS FROM COLLEEN HALBERT.
>> I'M COLLEEN HALBERT, 3100 DUBLIN ROAD, PARKER, TEXAS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE OF LEWIS LANE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR A TIMELY AND QUICK RESOLUTION.
HOWEVER, I WOULD COUNSEL THE COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY THE IMMEDIATE SOLUTION, BUT A LONG-TERM PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE CONTINUE THE BUILDOUT, ALONG THERE THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING TO CIRCLE BACK AND REDOING THINGS AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO NECESSARILY REPEAT THE SAME CONCERN THAT SHE SAID. [INAUDIBLE]
>> SHE JUST WANTS TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> MUCH LIGHT. I'M BENNY ASBELL.
A PLEASURE TO BE HERE, THANK YOU.
I ECHO THE CONCERNS OF THE PRIOR TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE OF CONDITIONS OF LEWIS LANE.
I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN HERE A LITTLE BIT SOONER HAD I NOT SLOWED DOWN TO GO AROUND THE [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.
>> SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> ABSOLUTELY. 5403 WESTFIELD DRIVE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE DARREL SHARPE.
>> I'M DARREL SHARPE, I LIVE AT 5310 WESTFIELD DRIVE, PARKER, TEXAS.
THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, AND HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR HEARING ME OUT.
A PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE A HELICOPTER TO COMMUTE TO HAS A VERY NARROW AUDIENCE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO BUY IT.
AS A PART OF KING'S CROSSING, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE FUTURE PROPERTY VALUE OF MY HOUSE, AS WELL AS MY BROTHER'S HOUSE, AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR ME.
BRANDON LIVES DOWN THE STREET FROM ME.
THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL TO BE IS THAT PARKER OWNERSHIP WOULD END AT THE LIFT STATION, WHICH WOULD BE SOUTH OF ALL OF KING'S CROSSING.
KING'S CROSSING RELIES ON LEWIS.
OTHER THAN KING'S CROSSING, WELL, I NOW KNOW, TERRY,
[00:10:02]
RELIES ON LEWIS FOR ANY FORM OF EGRESS FROM THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO ANY MAJOR STREET.THEY CANNOT GET OUT WITHOUT IT.
TO CEDE AN AREA THAT THEY REQUIRE TO GET OUT TO ANY OTHER TOWN IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY AVOID.
AS LONG AS THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKER CITIZENS WITHIN KING'S CROSSING, THEY NEED TO HAVE PARKER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS PERFORMING THEIR MOST ESSENTIAL NEEDS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL VERY PASSIONATELY ABOUT, GIVEN THAT LUCAS HAS VERY LITTLE INCENTIVE TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD NORTH OF THE LIFT STATION.
THEIR CITIZENS CAN INDIVIDUALLY EGRESS OUT OF THEIR SUBDIVISIONS.
THEY HAVE NO NEED OF IT. THEY HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAINTAIN THAT STRETCH OF ROAD.
AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAYBE SELL MY HOUSE WHEN I RETIRE, DOWNSIZE TO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE MAINTAINABLE, I'D LIKE VERY MUCH FOR THAT TO BE A POSSIBILITY.
WITH THAT SAID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. BILLY BARRYN IS NEXT.
>> BILLY BARRYN, 6707 OVERBROOK.
DARREL ACTUALLY STOLE A LOT OF MY THUNDER.
I WAS GOING TO COMMENT THAT BASICALLY THAT THE PART OF LEWIS THAT WE'RE SUCCEEDING OR DEANNEXING TO LUCAS, THEY HAVE NO REASON TO EVER REPAIR THAT, AND THE PEOPLE IN KING'S CROSSING ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THAT. THANK YOU.
>> ROXANNE BOGDAN, 6701 OVERBROOK DRIVE, BUT I AM HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF SUSAN MEDRANO.
SHE IS STUCK IN FLORIDA BECAUSE HER FLIGHTS GOT CANCELED TODAY DUE TO THE STORMS. SUSAN MEDRANO'S ADDRESS IS 4406 DOVER DRIVE.
I'LL BE READING HER STATEMENT.
COUNCIL, TODAY YOU'RE CONSIDERING RENEWING A LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS ON LEWIS LANE FOR LUCAS ROAD OWNERSHIP.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IT EFFECTIVELY HAS PARKER TAKING OWNERSHIP FROM THE LIFT STATION AT STAFFORD AND LEWIS, SOUTH, AND LUCAS OWNING IT FROM THE LIFT STATION TO LUCAS ROAD.
THE ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSAL ARE: NUMBER 1, THIS LIKELY WOULD ELIMINATE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEVELOPER OF KING'S CROSSING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LEWIS LANE, THAT IT IS ADJACENT TO KING'S, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE 2007 AGREEMENT WITH PARKER.
THERE IS NO TEETH IN THE AGREEMENT FOR EITHER CITY TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD OR TO BRING IT UP TO STANDARD.
NUMBER 3, LUCAS HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN A PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO TAKE.
THE RESIDENTS AT THE NORTH END OF LEWIS CAN ACCESS LUCAS ROAD USING EGRESS AND INGRESS, SO LUCAS IS UNLIKELY TO PRIORITIZE THESE REPAIRS.
NUMBER 4, PARKER RESIDENTS THAT LIVE OFF LEWIS CONTRIBUTE ABOUT 15% OF THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR PARKER, WHICH IS A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.
KING'S CROSSING IS CLOSE TO 10% BY ITSELF.
NUMBER 5, PARKER RESIDENTS LEAVING OFF LEWIS DO NOT HAVE AN OPTION BUT TO USE LEWIS TO GET OUT TO LUCAS ROAD.
NUMBER 6, PARKER RESIDENTS' TAX DOLLARS NEED TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN ROADS THAT PARKER RESIDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO USE.
PARKER SHOULD NEGOTIATE PARKER'S LEWIS LANE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
LUCAS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST, BRINGING IN THE PORTION OF THE ROAD FROM THE LIFT STATION NORTH TO LUCAS TO STANDARD, AND THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE HELD TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN KING'S AGREEMENT.
PARKER ALSO NEEDS DRAINAGE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FROM LUCAS TO ALLOW LUCAS TO OWN ALL OF LUCAS ROAD.
IF COUNCIL PASSES THIS AGREEMENT AS IT IS, IT WOULD BE A FAILURE TO THE TAXPAYING RESIDENTS OF PARKER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THAT'S ALL THE CARDS I HAD.
>> HI. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
I'M BASICALLY AT 6602 STAFFORD DRIVE IN PARKER.
MY CONCERN IS ALSO WITH LEWIS LANE, BUT FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.
BASICALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CARS NOW TRAVELING NORTH ON LEWIS LANE TOWARD LUCAS, THAT IS AVOIDING THE RUT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
WHEN THEY AVOID THE RUT, BASICALLY, MY FAMILY, IF THERE'S AN ONCOMING CAR AND WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE RUT WITH OUR SPORTS CARS, WE STOP, LET THE OPPOSING TRAFFIC COME THROUGH, AND THEN WE'LL CUT OVER ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE LANE AND PROCEED.
HOWEVER, NOT A LOT OF DRIVERS DO THIS.
I PERSONALLY HAD TO SWERVE OFF INTO THE GRASS COMING SOUTHBOUND BECAUSE A PICKUP TRUCK WAS GOING NORTHBOUND AT LEAST 30-35, 40 MILES AN HOUR.
[00:15:05]
THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE RUT.THEY DIDN'T SEE ME COMING CLOSE TO THAT RUT AREA, AND THEY SWERVED RIGHT INTO MY LANE A LOT, AND I HAD TO SWERVE AND MAKE A COURSE ADJUSTMENT EXTREMELY QUICKLY.
IF I HAD NOT DONE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A HEAD-ON COLLISION.
I'M TRAVELING 30-35 MILES SOUTHBOUND, AND THEY'RE TRAVELING AT LEAST THAT GOING NORTHBOUND.
WE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. I WANT TO DRAW THE SAFETY PERSPECTIVES IN ADDITION TO THE ROAD CONDITION, AND SAY THAT WE NEED TO GET THIS ADDRESSED PRETTY QUICKLY BEFORE SOMEBODY GETS SERIOUSLY HURT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> THEN NEXT WE WILL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS CONSIDERATION AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-843,
[1. Consideration and any appropriate action on Resolution 2025-843 awarding contracts for the Dublin Road water line project. ]
AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT.I BELIEVE, MR. MACHADO, YOU WERE GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS FOR US?
>>YES. THIS IS PHASE II OF THE WATER LINE PROJECT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT OUR LAST MEETING, ABOUT TWO MEETINGS AGO IT IS NOW, WE DISCUSSED THIS, BUT OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR WASN'T HERE, SO WE NEEDED MORE INFORMATION.
NOW, OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR IS HERE, AND HE HAS DONE A PRESENTATION FOR US.
MR. SAVAGE, YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM HERE.
RANDY, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.
>> I WANTED TO START OUT BY SHOWING YOU AND GIVING YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE STAND IN EACH FUND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ENTERPRISE FUND.
WE WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE, BUT WE'RE STILL FROM A FUND BALANCE STANDPOINT ON ALL THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT WOULD BE FUNDS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO USE ON DUBLIN ROAD.
STARTING NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THE WASTEWATER FUND WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO LOOK AT, FUND 3.
AT THE START OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WE HAD A BEGINNING FUND BALANCE OF ABOUT $6.4 MILLION.
WE BUDGETED REVENUES OF 5.9 MILLION AND EXPENSES OF 5.9 MILLION.
AT THE END OF OUR FISCAL YEAR, 930-25, PROJECTING A FUND BALANCE OF 6.4 MILLION.
HOWEVER, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE 6.4 MILLION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO USE BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE A RESERVE.
THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDS 45-90 DAYS AT A MINIMUM FOR A RESERVE BALANCE.
BEING MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THAT, THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN 750,000 TO 1.5 MILLION.
THEN, TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE, I'VE PLUGGED IN A TWO-MILLION-DOLLAR NUMBER FOR A MINIMAL FUND BALANCE RESERVE.
THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE WATER FUND WOULD BE ABOUT $4.4 MILLION.
IN THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND, WE HAD A BEGINNING FUND BALANCE OF $2.3 MILLION.
I PUT PROJECTED REVENUES BECAUSE OUR BUDGETED REVENUES WAS 150,000, BUT WHEN I CHECKED THE REVENUE FOR HOW MUCH WE'VE COLLECTED SO FAR THIS YEAR, WE HAD ALREADY EXCEEDED 200,000, SO I'VE CHANGED THAT NUMBER AS A PROJECTED REVENUE OF 300,000.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR THIS YEAR, SO OUR PROJECTED FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OVER $2.6 MILLION.
I WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON WHAT THESE UTILITY IMPACT FEES COULD BE USED FOR.
CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DEFINES IT AS A CHARGE IMPOSED AGAINST NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR THE OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES THAT ARE NECESSITATED BY AND BENEFIT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE PROJECTS.
IN THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE, WE HAD A BEGINNING FUND BALANCE OF $1.1 MILLION, PROJECTED REVENUES OF 1.6 MILLION OR ALMOST 1.6 MILLION, PROJECTED EXPENSES.
THIS WOULD BE FOR THE COMPLETION OF PHASE 1 OF THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT OF 1.6 MILLION, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME EXPENSES FOR THE CENTRAL PUMP STATION OF 275,000.
[00:20:04]
WE'RE PROJECTED TO HAVE AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $814,000.LOOKING AT THAT AS A WHOLE, WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE THREE FUNDS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE ALMOST EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
NOW LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN LAST YEAR, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING WAS PROPOSED AT 1.2 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR '23-'24.
THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PHASE II PROJECT IS 1.4 MILLION, AND THAT'S BEEN REVISED FROM WHAT WAS IN THE CIP PLAN BECAUSE WE HAVE ACTUAL NUMBERS.
THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK FOR FISCAL YEAR '26-'27, IN THE CIP PLAN, IT WAS 5.5 MILLION, BUT AFTER DISCUSSING WITH GARY, WE THINK THAT NUMBER IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR RANGE.
THEN ALSO, FINALLY, WE HAVE THE '27-'28, THE D'ARC LANE WATER LINE PROJECT.
IN TOTAL, THE CIP PLAN, IT WOULD BE EIGHT MILLION, BUT WHEN WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ELEVATOR TOWERS, PROBABLY CLOSER TO SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS, WE HAVE TOTAL PROJECTS OF PROBABLY CLOSER TO $10 MILLION.
ALSO, NOT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BUT I TALKED TO GARY ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BUT MIGHT BE ON THE RADAR, AND THERE WAS THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PHASE III FOR THE LOOPING, AND THAT WAS $450,000.
OTHER THAN THAT, THERE WASN'T ANY REALLY MAJOR EXPENSES IN THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT WE KNOW OF AT THIS TIME.
>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SAVAGE?
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO CIRCLE BACK ON SOMETHING REAL QUICK.
I DIDN'T MENTION THE UTILITY IMPACT FEES.
THEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.
OUT OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE LISTED, THE ONLY ONE THAT I WOULD SAY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR WOULD BE ELEVATED STORAGE SAFE.
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I CONSIDER REHABBING PROJECTS, AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE USES.
>> MR. KERCHO, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> ONLY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE DUBLIN WATER LINE I COSTS THAT YOU'VE GOT ON HERE, 1.6 MILLION, DOES THAT INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE THE MONEY THAT WE GOT FROM OUR GRANT?
>> THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN PART OF THAT, YES.
>> THE PART OF THE 1.6 MILLION?
>> OF THAT 1.5 REVENUE, 1.2 MILLION IS FROM THE GRANT.
>> HAD THE GRANT ALREADY PAID, JUST TO DOT ON TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] NEED TO ANSWER THAT.
>> THEN, AS WE LOOK AT THE WATER IMPACT FEES, [INAUDIBLE] EXPANSION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES ARE NECESSITATED BY AND BENEFIT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
DOES THAT MEAN NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY, NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT AREA?
>> NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
>> IT'S HOW I TAKE IT. IS THAT?
>> [INAUDIBLE] IN TERMS OF THE ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TOWER THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CONSTRUCT.
THERE'S JUST BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT AN ESTIMATE OF POTENTIALLY A SEVEN-MILLION-DOLLAR PRICE TAG AT THIS TIME.
TWO QUESTIONS: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE NEED FOR THE CITY TO BRING THAT ELEVATED WATER STORAGE ONLINE? THEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COST MIGHT BE?
>> YES. ON THE FIRST ONE, AS FAR AS TIMING, WE ARE REALLY AT IT NOW.
WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WHEN ME AND MR. OLSON WAS HERE.
FOR THAT, THE WAY WE LOOK AT CALCULATING MAX DAY AND MAX HOUR, AND THE ELEVATED CAPACITY YOU HAVE, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH MAXED OUT WITH THE USES ON YOUR ELEVATED TANK.
YOU'RE REALLY IN SERVICE 2025, WHICH WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THE BILL IN TIME, BUT YOU'RE IN A NEED NOW FOR THE ELEVATED TANK.
THE SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR FIGURE, I'LL SPEAK ON GARY, I GAVE HIM THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE JUST BID ANOTHER MILLION GALLON TANK 30 MILES NORTH OF HERE, A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED SITE,
[00:25:01]
AND IT CAME IN AT 7.4, SO THAT'S WHERE I GAVE GARY THE SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR BUDGET FOR.>> I JUST HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FOLLOWING QUESTION HERE.
WHERE WE JUST NOW ARE BRINGING ONLINE THE PUMP STATION AND THE SECOND TANK POINT TO PROVIDE MORE SUPPLY TO THE CITY FROM THE TANK POINT, AND THEN ALSO THE PUMP STATION TO BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE WATER TO THE COMMUNITY.
HOW DOES THAT NEW WATER SOURCE COME INTO PLAY WITH THE CALCULATION OF WHERE WE NEED THE SECOND ELEVATED TANK?
>> WELL, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO START THE SECOND ELEVATED TANK UNTIL THE CONTRACT IN NORTH TEXAS THAT WAS DOING THAT PUMP STATION WAS FUNCTIONING, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FILL THE SECOND TANK FROM THE EAST SIDE PUMP STATION BY ITSELF.
THERE'S NO REASON TO START A CONSTRUCTION ON IT IF YOU KNEW YOU WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FILL IT.
NOW THAT THAT PUMP STATION, THE CONTRACT IS COMPLETE, THE PUMP STATION IS ALMOST BUTTONED UP, THE ELEVATED TANK CHRONOLOGICALLY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PUMP STATION.
>> I GUESS THEN THE PUMP STATION IN THE SECOND TANK POINT WILL HAVE SOME BENEFIT WITHOUT THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, CORRECT? OR IS THAT REALLY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY DISTRIBUTE THE WATER COMING IN FROM THAT SECOND TANK POINT?
>> NO, THERE WILL BE A BENEFIT TO THE OVERALL SYSTEM.
YES, YOU'RE GOING FROM 3.5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY TO BEING ABLE TO PUMP UP TO FIVE.
IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO OPERATE, BUT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPERATE, BUT THE ELEVATED TANK FOR NOW AND CONTINUING TO GROW WILL MAKE IT A NECESSITY FOR A SAFE SYSTEM. BUT, YES, IT IS A BENEFIT.
>> WHERE IS THE TIME FRAME AGAIN ON THE SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS?
>> WE BID THAT TANK THREE MONTHS AGO.
>> RIGHT, BUT HOW LONG IS CONSTRUCTION GOING TO BE?
>> TYPICALLY, RIGHT NOW UNTIL C IS 18-24 MONTHS.
THAT TANK, THEY'RE ACTUALLY AIMING TO BE DONE IN 14-15, BUT I WOULD SAY THE EXPECTATION IS ON 18-24, AND THEN BE SURPRISED IF IT'S LESS.
>> THEN, WITH THE CRAZY COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WHAT IS YOUR INFLATION FACTOR THAT YOU PUT IN THERE OVER SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, 18 MONTHS FOR MATERIALS, AND HOW HIGH COULD THE SURPRISES BE? SEVEN MORE, 7.7, OR IS IT A HARD SEVEN NUMBER?
>> A YEAR OR TWO AGO, I WOULD HAVE PUT A PRETTY GOOD INFLATIONARY FACTOR ON THAT.
ELEVATED TANK PRICES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT FOR THE LAST YEAR.
THOSE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT FLATTENED OUT.
WE'VE BID A NUMBER OF THOSE IN THE LAST 6-8 MONTHS, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT.
I'D BE HOPEFUL THAT IF WE BID IN FOUR OR SIX MONTHS, THAT WE COULD STILL BE IN THAT RANGE.
>> NOW, I WILL PUT THE CAVEAT, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TARIFFS, [LAUGHTER] SO IF WE'RE IN A TARIFF WORLD?
>> JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT. THE $2.6 MILLION, ALMOST $2.7 MILLION IN THE UTILITY IMPACT FUND, IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE IN TOTAL TO SPEND ON WATER, THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE OTHER AMOUNT, AND SPECIFICALLY USED FOR THE WATER TOWER, RIGHT?
IT'S ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION [INAUDIBLE] THAT 2.6 MILLION IS A PART OF THAT, BUT YES, [INAUDIBLE].
>> MR. SAVAGE, WITH RESPECT TO THESE NUMBERS, THIS IS THE CURRENT YEAR, WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING, AND YOU AND I DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY EARLIER, THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND CURRENTLY IS RECEIVING A TRANSFER FROM THE REGULAR WATER FUND, IS THAT CORRECT? ABOUT 300,000?
>> WHICH WAS DERIVED FROM [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S EXCESS REVENUES IN THE WATER FUND THAT WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTO THAT FUND.
WE COULD ANTICIPATE FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, A SIMILAR AMOUNT TO GO INTO THERE AS WELL.
>> IF NOT BIGGER THAN WHAT ORIGINALLY [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE NEXT THREE YEARS, ANOTHER MILLION, TWO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, POSSIBLY. IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH.
>> I WILL REMIND PEOPLE THAT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-843, AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT. WE'RE NOT [INAUDIBLE]
>> BUT MAYOR PETTLE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND OUR FUTURE EXPENDITURES TO UNDERSTAND THIS LINE ITEM WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER EXPENDITURES WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT IN TOTALITY IN TERMS OF HOW
[00:30:01]
DOES THAT BUDGET LINE ITEM COMPARE TO THE OTHER ONES THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER.>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT IT'S NOT NOTICED TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS, SO WE HAVE TO BE PRETTY MUCH ON WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
>> SURE. WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS TO PUT THE WATER LINES INTO DUBLIN ROAD, I HAVE A QUESTION IN TERMS OF, AGAIN, FUNDING IT, WITH THE MONEY WE HAVE.
WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD KEEP THE FUND BALANCE RESERVE AT TWO MILLION, AS WE NOTED FOR RELATIVELY CONSERVATIVE, GIVEN THE GUIDELINES OF HAVING BETWEEN 45-90 DAYS.
MY QUESTION IS, BECAUSE WE BOUGHT THE NEW TANK POINT ON, AND WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH OUR TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WHERE FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BE EVALUATING OUR TAKE OF THE SECOND TANK POINT.
>> WITH THIS $2 MILLION RESERVE, DOES THAT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, YEAR 4 OR YEAR 5 OF A POTENTIAL TAKE OR PAY THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OUR PREVIOUS TRENDS HAVE BEEN? A TOUGH QUESTION, I KNOW [LAUGHTER] CRYSTAL BALL.
I'M MORE SO THAN ANYTHING ELSE THINKING ABOUT PROJECTS OF THE WATER PLANT [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE CATASTROPHIC FAILURE PARTS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR AN EMERGENCY.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET NUMBER WITH ME, BUT THE WATER [INAUDIBLE].
>> MR. SAVAGE, WOULD YOU GRAB THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE?
>> WITH THE THIRD RANKS AND FOURTH RING, IT'D BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO EVALUATE EACH YEAR.
IF WE WERE TO START RAISING MONEY ON WATER OR SOMETHING, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO EVALUATE THE WATER RATES AND MAKE THE CHANGE IN OR EVEN THE SEWER RATES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'D BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
AS FAR AS RIGHT NOW, I FEEL IF $2 MILLION IS SUFFICIENT, AND THAT'S BEING PRETTY CONSERVATIVE, AND THAT WOULD GIVE US AMPLE TIME TO MAKE CHANGES IF WE NEEDED TO. WE'D HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS.
>> WE HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES SINCE OUR REAL FOCUS SHOULD BE ON THIS PHASE 2 OF THE DUBLIN ROAD.
MY QUESTION FOR MR. BIRKHOFF REALLY IS, WHAT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE URGENCY OF OUR NEED FOR THAT, AND THE ALTERNATIVE IF WE DON'T GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE REPAIRS IN TERMS OF THE RISK TO THE CITY, BOTH RISK OF COST AND RISK OF SERVICE.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS, IN TERMS OF INFLATION, IMPACTING US ON THAT PROJECT, IF WE DON'T GO AHEAD AND DO IT NOW, AND IF WE WERE TO TRY TO POSTPONE IT FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO, WOULD WE BE ANY BETTER OFF A YEAR IN THE FUTURE OR LATER OR WOULD WE BE WORSE OFF?
>> ON TO THE SECOND ONE FIRST IS, IT WILL NOT BE CHEAPER NEXT YEAR THAN THIS YEAR.
IF WE PUT IT OFF, IT WON'T BE ANY CHEAPER. WILL IT GO UP? PROBABLY SLIGHTLY, AND I DON'T THINK IT'D BE THE SAME STEEPNESS WE'VE SEEN SINCE 2020 COVID, BUT WOULD IT BE 5-10%, MORE IN A YEAR? IT'S POSSIBLE. AS FAR AS THE NEED ON THE FIRST QUESTION, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO GARY ON THAT BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT HAS TO FIX EVERYTHING ON THAT PORTION BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE] AND PARKER.
>> ON THE NEED ON THAT REPAIR, A LOT OF THOSE LINES ARE UNDERSIZED.
WE HAVE SOME OLD AC LINES IN THERE THAT BREAK.
THEY'RE REAL BRITTLE, THEY BREAK EASILY.
THE DESIRE IS TO GET RID OF ALL THAT OLD STUFF AND GET A NEW GOOD LINE IN THERE.
>> MR. MACHADO, LET ME ASK YOU, IS THE CONTRACTOR ON THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT, IS ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN PLACE FOR PHASE 1, AND IS IT ON COST SAVINGS IF THEY JUST GO RIGHT TO PHASE 2?
>> THE CONTRACTOR HAS STATED THAT WE COULD SAVE ABOUT $10-15,000, WHICH ISN'T A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL $10-15,000 IN EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. WE HAVE 10 MILLION IN EXPENDITURE [INAUDIBLE].
[00:35:30]
>> I THINK THAT FALLS IN WITH WHAT TERRY WAS SPEAKING TO EARLIER.
WE'RE ANTICIPATING AT LEAST PUTTING $300,000 IN THERE EVERY YEAR JUST FROM THE WATER FUND, BUT THEN RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL HAVING GROWTH, AND SO WE'LL STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE FUNDS COME INTO THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE AS WELL AS NEW HOMES COME IN.
RIGHT NOW, THAT'S $2-300,000 A YEAR AS WELL, SO I WOULD SAY WE'RE AT OVER A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE INCREASING EACH YEAR.
>> IF WE WERE TRYING TO DO IT ALL IN THE SAME PRICE, IT WOULD TAKE US MORE YEARS TO DEVELOP, POTENTIALLY 3-4 YEARS, TO GET THE ADDITIONAL TWO MILLION BUILT UP IN THERE?
>> I THINK THAT THE LAST TIME WE ASKED ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD IN REGARDS TO PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2, IF PHASE 2 WAS AS URGENT AS PHASE 1? IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, YOU SAID, YOU'D LIKE TO FIX UP MORE THAN A PORTION OF DUBLIN ROAD, BUT IT WASN'T GIVING, NOT EVEN AS CLOSE AS MUCH AS PROBLEMS THAT YOU WERE GETTING ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF DUBLIN ROAD, IS THAT STILL CORRECT?
>> DOES PHASE 2 HAVE AN IMPACT ON PHASE 3? LET'S SAY WHEN YOU START OUT TO DO PHASE 3, OR IF YOU PUT IN PHASE 2 [INAUDIBLE] IN PHASE 3, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DO PHASE 3.
>> WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO PHASE 3?
>> PHASE 3 WOULD BE ADDING A LINE TO LOOP INTO BLUFFS FOR A BETTER CIRCULATION THROUGH THERE, OF WATER.
IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT DONE, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
>> WHAT'S THE HARD NUMBER, JUST TO REFRESH EVERYBODY'S MEMORY ON DUBLIN PHASE 2?
>> WE HAVE THAT CONTRACT IN WRITING?
>> MR. SAVAGE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS, I APOLOGIZE FOR HITTING YOU WITH IT.
HOW MUCH MONEY ANNUALLY DO WE GET FROM WATER IMPACT PHASE? WITH THE GROWTH IN PARKER, WHAT DO YOU ESTIMATE THAT TO BE AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR?
>> WHEN I LOOKED AT IT TODAY, THREE YEARS AGO, I THINK WE PROCEEDED TO ABOUT 150,000 OR 200,000.
THEN LAST YEAR, IT HAD DROPPED TO ABOUT 150,000, AND THIS YEAR, WE'VE ALREADY EXCEEDED 200,000 AND STILL HAVE FIVE MORE MONTHS LEFT OF THE YEAR.
I CAN SEE US MAYBE POSSIBLY HITTING 300,000 THIS YEAR.
>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] TO BRING FORWARD TO COUNCIL WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER A VOTE ON.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT EITHER A STORAGE TANK, WHICH WE'RE NOT BUILDING TODAY, AND WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING ON.
THEN SUDDENLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED RIGHT AWAY, WHICH [INAUDIBLE] PHASE 2 OR THE WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING TO COME IN.
WHATEVER DOESN'T COME IN WILL HAVE TO GO ONTO OVER THE NEXT WHAT WE HAD JUST DISCUSSED, TO ANOTHER PHASE THAT WILL COME IN.
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DUBLIN WATER LINE PHASE 2 AT THIS POINT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING?
>> MAYBE JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.
IF WE WERE TO POSTPONE DUBLIN ROAD PHASE 2 BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS OVER THE WATER TOWER THAT'S NEEDED, WE WOULD BE POSTPONING IT FOR TWO YEARS OR MORE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE 18 MONTHS TO TWO YEARS TO GET A WATER TOWER ENGINEERED BUILT AND PAID FOR, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> HOW LONG IT TAKES TO BUILD THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AVAILABLE TANK, YES.
[00:40:01]
I'LL LET GRANT DO THE FINANCIAL WIZARDRY ON THE SPREADSHEETS.WITH THAT SEVEN MILLION OF THE ELEVATED TANK, YOU WOULD PAY THAT OUT DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO PAY APPLICATION.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SEVEN MILLION DAY 1 THAT YOU WORE THE BID.
YOU'D BE PAYING THAT OUT OVER THE 18-24 MONTHS.
>> WHICH ALSO WOULD MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS TO START THAT PROJECT, EITHER, IF WE GO AHEAD AND DO DUBLIN ROAD NOW, PHASE 2?
>> CORRECT. YOU WON'T PAY THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETELY FOR THE ELEVATED TANK.
YOU'D PAY MONTHLY FOR THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE.
THE WORK HE DOES 15 MONTHS FROM NOW, YOU WOULD PAY.
>> IT'S JUST GOING TO BE PAID OUT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE BASICALLY PROGRESS PAYMENTS THAT ARE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR A CERTAIN TASK, OR IS IT A FIXED AMOUNT OF THE DURATION OF THE TIME PERIOD THAT WOULD GET PAID?
>> USUALLY, THE TANK IS BID AS ONE LUMP SUM AS FAR AS THAT MAJOR ITEM, SO AS A PERCENTAGE ALONG THE WAY.
IT'S FAIRLY CONSISTENT EACH MONTH, ESPECIALLY AS THEY'RE BUILDING THE COLUMN, BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY DO SO MANY RINGS EACH MONTH, SO IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT PERCENTAGE-WISE, MONTHLY, AS YOU MOVE ALONG.
THE ANCILLARIES, IF THERE'S SITE PAVING, FENCES, PIPING, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN GET LARGER CHANGES MONTH TO MONTH, BUT THERE'S A PRETTY SET-UP SITE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? WHAT WOULD COUNCIL LIKE TO DO?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025-843, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PARKER AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH A&M CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITIES INC. FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT SEGMENT 2 AS DESCRIBED.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND THAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BUDDY PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER TERRY LYNCH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-843 APPROVING DUBLIN WATER LINE PHASE 2.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. KERCHO?
>> WE DISCUSSED [INAUDIBLE] THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD BE AWARDED THAT, AND I THINK THAT THAT DESERVES SOME DISCUSSION PRIOR TO A VOTE.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH QUESTIONS?
>> MY COMMENT IS THAT THE SAME FIRM THAT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF DUBLIN ROAD IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND REWARDING FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF DUBLIN ROAD.
CERTAINLY, I DON'T KNOW [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK THEY DID A GREAT JOB IN TERMS OF THEIR GRANT, AND I FIGURED WE'D HAVE TO IDENTIFY IT FROM LOOKING AT IT.
WHETHER IT WAS A GREAT JOB OR NOT [INAUDIBLE]
>> GARY, DID I CALL FOR SIRENS AND CONES, FLAGGING, AND POLICE AS NECESSARY?
[00:45:22]
>> IT DID CALL FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND FLAGGERS, YES.
>> THINGS LIKE RANDY IS TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT INCLUDED OR CAN BE INCLUDED IN A CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2?
>> YES, WE CAN ASK THEM TO DO A BETTER JOB ON THAT.
I AGREE, RANDY, THAT SOME OF THAT WAS MESSY AND DIFFICULT TO DRIVE OVER WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO PATCH THE CROSSINGS, WHERE THE WATER LINES CROSSED THE ROAD.
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT THE BEST WAY THEY COULD, PROBABLY.
WE COULD ADDRESS THAT IN THE FUTURE IF COUNCIL DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
>> I HAVE ONE REMAINING QUESTION HERE.
I THOUGHT I RECALLED DURING THE PHASE 1 OR THE SOUTH SECTION OF THE ROAD WATER LINE PHASE 1.
I THOUGHT I RECALLED THAT THEIR PROPOSAL WAS SUCH THAT THEY WOULD TEAR UP A STRETCH AND THEN PAVE IT, AND THEN TEAR UP A STRETCH AND THEN PAVE IT.
>> NO, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
THAT WAS TO DO THE WATER LINE.
TO DO IT IN 100-FOOT SECTIONS, AND MOVE DOWN, AND THEN COME BACK AND PAVE IT ALL.
>> IT WAS REALLY JUST A MATTER OF REPLACING THE LINE ITSELF IN THOSE SECTIONS, NOT NECESSARILY PAVING AS PART OF THE SECTION.
>> MR. MACHADO, FOR PHASE 2, THE CURRENT CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT, IS IT THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THERE AS PHASE 1, FOR CONES, POLICE, ETC, AND DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD RENEGOTIATE IT?
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN RENEGOTIATE IT, BUT WE CAN ASK THEM TO DO A BETTER JOB ON THOSE THINGS.
>> BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS CONTRACTOR, ARE THEY LIKELY TO DO THAT?
>> DO WE PHASE THE PAYMENTS ON THIS?
>> IS THE PAYMENT PHASED ON THIS PROJECT?
>> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO WITHHOLD PAYMENTS IF THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING THE RIGHT FLAG AND DOING A BETTER JOB OF PUTTING THE STEEL PLATES OVER IT.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU HAVE A DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THEM NOW ON AN IDENTICAL PROJECT, SO YOU CAN DO A BETTER JOB OF OVERSEEING AND MANAGING THEM AND HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE, WHICH MIGHT EVEN INCLUDE WITHHOLDING THE PAYMENT IF THEY'RE NOT FULFILLING WHAT THEY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT.
>> MR. MACHADO, IS THE LANGUAGE IN THERE RIGHT NOW THAT WE WOULD BE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT IF WE DIDN'T PAY IN A TIMELY MANNER, OR AT OUR CONCERNS ABOUT OTHER PARTS OF THE CONTRACT? DOESN'T THAT MUCH WIGGLE ROOM FOR US?
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
BUT IF WE HAVE A DISCREPANCY AND WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PAY THEM, THEN WE WILL TALK THAT OUT WITH THEM WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
>> BUT IS THERE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS, SAY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE FOUR PAYMENTS EVERY 12 MONTHS OR EVERY THREE MONTHS, ETC? IF WE DIDN'T DO IT, IT'S EXPLICITLY BREACH OF CONTRACT ON OUR PART? ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR IS THE LANGUAGE PRETTY LOOSE?
>> THERE IS A STATE [INAUDIBLE], I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THAT DOES GOVERN WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY WITH WHEN YOU GET AN INVOICE, IT'S TYPICALLY TO WITHIN 30 DAYS.
TYPICALLY, THAT DOES FOLLOW THAT.
NOW, IF WE HAVE A DISPUTE OR DISAGREE WITH THE QUANTITY OR SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DISCUSS WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO PAY WHATEVER THEY SUBMIT.
DO THEY ACTUALLY PERFORM THIS AND DO THIS WORK, AND IT'S USUALLY PAID MONTHLY.
THERE'S ALSO A RETAINAGE HELD BACK, SO 10%.
WHATEVER THEY SEE WE PAY THEM IN EACH MONTH, YOU'RE KEEPING 10% IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT.
IN DEFENDING OF THE PROJECT, AND THEY DIDN'T PERFORM OR WHATNOT, YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING FOR THEM.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. KERCHO.
>> I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THAT YES, YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL ABIDE AND DO A BETTER JOB, ETC.
WHEN THEY DID ALL THOSE CROSS CUTS, AND THAT'S ONLY ONE PORTION OF THE JOB I THINK THEY DID ON THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BUT WHEN THEY DID THOSE CROSS CUTS, AND JUST LEFT THEM UNPAVED, AND BASICALLY, YOU'RE GOING DOWN TO THREE OR FOUR INCHES FOR SEVERAL DAYS UNTIL THEY GOT IT PAVED, DID YOU TALK TO HIM AND SAY, HEY, DON'T DO THAT AGAIN?
>> YES. I TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THOSE CROSSINGS.
[00:50:02]
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY STARTED DIGGING THOSE CROSSINGS UP MONDAY EVENING AND HAD PAVING COMING ON TUESDAY TO GET THOSE PAVED.>> ABSOLUTELY, THEY DID IT BEFORE THE WEEKEND.
BASICALLY, THEY PAVED ON TUESDAY, SO YOU HAD SEVERAL DAYS WITH THE CROSS CUTS WITH NOTHING IN BETWEEN.
BUT THE QUESTION WAS, AGAIN, DID YOU TALK TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, DON'T DO THAT AGAIN?
>> I DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT.
>> TODAY, GOING INTO THE NEW SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS EDGEWATER, SURE ENOUGH, THE CROSS CUT IS GOING STRAIGHT ACROSS THE ENTRANCE TO EDGEWATER AND ON BOTH SIDES, AGAIN, [INAUDIBLE].
ARE YOU SURE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW YOUR NEXT REQUEST TO GO ABOUT THEIR JOB?
>> WE'LL HAVE THEM BRING PLATES OUT AND PLATE OVER THE ROADS, WHERE THEY CROSS IT.
COMING DOWN THIS NEXT SECTION, THE SEGMENT 2, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MANY CROSSINGS AS THERE ARE UP THERE ON THAT FIRST SECTION.
>> AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS THAT YOU TOLD THEM SOMETHING, YOU TOLD THEM TO DO A BETTER JOB, THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
DO YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE NEXT TIME YOU TELL THEM THEY'RE GOING TO DO A BETTER JOB?
>> I DO BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GO TALK TO THEM ABOUT WITH ALL THE MONEY ON IT NOW.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-843, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
THANK YOU. NOW, WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 2.
[2. Consideration and any appropriate action on Ordinance 890 approving an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Lucas and the City of Parker providing maintenance responsibility for Lewis Lane and portions of Lucas Road; providing for disannexation of property within the city limits. ]
CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 890, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUCAS AND THE CITY OF PARKER, PROVIDING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LEWIS LANE AND PORTIONS OF LUCAS ROAD; PROVIDING FOR DISANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, CATHERINE CLIFTON, TO PLEASE GIVE US A BRIEF OVERVIEW.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE SOUND HAS BEEN CORRECTED.
DOES IT SOUND LIKE I'M SCREAMING NOW? [LAUGHTER] THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH LUCAS FOR SOME TIME ON.
WE'VE HAD SOME BACK AND FORTH ON DIFFERENT VERSIONS.
WE SENT ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES LAST WEEK.
WE HAVE NOT YET HEARD BACK FROM COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF LUCAS.
I THINK THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO TALK TO THEIR CLIENT ON IT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
>> COUNCIL, I'LL ASK ANY COMMENTS THAT Y'ALL HAVE.
IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.
THEREFORE, I DON'T KNOW HOW IN THE WORLD WE COULD PROCEED BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTS AND LOOKING AT STUFF.
THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED THAT TO US, AND THAT'S VERY FRUSTRATING.
THAT'S MY OPINION. OTHER OPINIONS?
>> I THINK IT'S BEYOND FRUSTRATING.
WE ARE WORKING HARD TO TRY TO GET THIS FIXED FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, WHO OWNS IT STANDPOINT, ETC, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT STANDPOINT, AND THEY'RE JUST NOT GETTING BACK TO US IN GOOD FAITH IN A TIMELY MANNER.
>> I AGREE COMPLETELY. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS TONIGHT.
CERTAINLY, WE HEAR WHAT YOU CITIZENS HAVE SAID TONIGHT AND HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT IT.
WE VALUE YOUR OPINIONS AND CONCERNS. WE AGREE WITH THEM.
IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS, THE LAST TIME WE MET AND DISCUSSED THIS, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON A PROPOSAL THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME IN THEIR CITY COUNCIL.
THEY TABLED IT TO SOMEWHERE IN JUNE AND JULY, SOME NON-SPECIFIC DATE INTO THE FUTURE, SO THERE'S NOT EVEN ANYTHING THAT'S AGREED TO WITH THEM AT THIS POINT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO YET TO GET AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
I THINK WE'VE HEARD SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS FROM OUR CITIZENS ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH THE ENTIRE STRETCH OF ROAD GOING FORWARD, NOT JUST CERTAIN SECTIONS OF IT.
>> I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE RIGHT AGREEMENT THAN JUST ANY AGREEMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.
[00:55:01]
WE SEE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DISANNEX AND ANNEX, AND IT'S VERY CONFUSING.WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, I MAY NOT BE THE BEST MAP READER, BUT I CAN AT LEAST GET A CLUE OFF A DOCUMENT.
RANDY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY?
>> I WOULD PROBABLY JUST ECHO WHAT I'VE HEARD [INAUDIBLE] THE FACT THAT LUCAS PUSHED IT OFF TO JUNE-JULY.
I THINK THAT LATELY, THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWING SOME GOOD FAITH EFFORT IN TERMS OF COMING BACK TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND ASKING US TO DRAFT WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE RATHER THAN TELLING US WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE TURNED IT BACK TO THEM [INAUDIBLE]
>> [INAUDIBLE] A HEADACHE TO THE CITY, AND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, LUCAS PROBABLY ISN'T IN ANY RUSH TO GET IT DONE BECAUSE THEIR CITIZENS PROBABLY DON'T DRIVE THAT ROAD VERY MUCH.
BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DO THINK THAT WE'VE MADE PROGRESS FROM WHERE WE WERE BEFORE.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT MAKING QUICK PROGRESS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT LIES, AND WE JUST NEED TO TRY TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS OF URGENCY, AND HOPEFULLY, THEY UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE URGENTLY TRYING TO GET IT DONE.
>> I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ILA ITSELF IS INTENDING TO ENCOMPASS NOT ONLY LEWIS LANE BUT ALSO LUCAS ROAD.
UNTIL THIS WEEK, WE HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR LUCAS ROAD.
WE FELT IT WAS PRUDENT THAT WE SHOULD SEE WHAT ARE THEIR PRELIMINARY PLANS, HOW IT MAY OR MAY NOT IMPACT THE PARKER PARSES, OR THROUGH PARKER-LUCAS STATES AND KING'S CROSSING THAT ARE BORDERING LUCAS ROAD.
THEN ALSO, THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER, AND THAT IS WITH RESPECT TO POLICING.
IF THERE'S SOME SECTION OF THEIR BOUNDARY THAT IS WITHIN PARKER AND SOME SECTION OF OUR BOUNDARY, THAT IS WITHIN LUCAS, OUR POLICE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW THEY CAN POLICE THE ROAD EFFECTIVELY.
THERE'S OTHER RAMIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED THROUGHOUT THE OVERALL PROCESS OF THE ILA, AND THESE ARE SIMILAR THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED.
>> YES, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE BY COUNCIL.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THOSE FROM KING'S CROSSING THAT ARE HERE AND THOSE THAT ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS OF KING'S CROSSING, TO REITERATE THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE.
AS MR. KERCHO MENTIONED, WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS.
WE ARE AT LEAST IN DISCUSSIONS WITH LUCAS, WHICH HADN'T HAPPENED, IN HOW MANY YEARS.
I THINK YOU ALL HAVE HELPED IN THAT EFFORT.
AS MR. PILGRIM MENTIONED, Y'ALL HAVE BROUGHT SOME GOOD IDEAS TO THE TABLE, AS WE'RE DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE AGREEMENT, SO THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
IT GIVES US DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT THINGS, AND WE'LL COME INTO PLAY FOR SURE AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON IT.
BUT AGREED, WE'RE NOT READY TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT TONIGHT, AND I'M SORRY, I KNOW WE'RE ALL READY FOR IT.
WE HAVE TO GET GARY DOWN TO THROW SOME MORE DIRT DOWN IN THOSE HOLES.
>> WE'RE ALL FRUSTRATED WITH THIS, AND WE WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN HAVE THE PERFECT AGREEMENT AND SIGN OFF.
WE DON'T, AND WE'RE JUST HESITANT TO SIGN OFF ON ANYTHING IF WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
THAT'S TAKING MORE TIME THAN ANY OF US LIKE, AND WE'RE SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT WHEN WE SEND OVER TO LUCAS AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE TO LUCAS, WHEN WE SEND OVER TO THEM STUFF AND MAKE REQUESTS, AND THEY DON'T GET BACK WITH US, IT'S DIFFICULT.
IT'S JUST DIFFICULT. BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT, AND WE HAVE URGED LUCAS TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING AWAY, AND WE DO WANT IT TAKEN CARE OF SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
WORK IN PROGRESS, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND YOU'RE HITTING
[01:00:03]
POTHOLES AND ENDING UP IN DITCHES AND DODGING ALL THE OTHER CARS.I JUST PRAY NOBODY ELSE IS HURT.
I AM AWARE OF THE ONE MOTORCYCLE PERSON THAT WAS INJURED, AND I JUST HOPE NOBODY ELSE GETS INJURED WHILE THIS IS GOING ON.
BECAUSE ONCE WE GET THE AGREEMENT DONE, IT IS HOPED THAT WE CAN START PAVING YESTERDAY AND GET THAT ROAD FIXED.
I DRIVE IT WEEKLY, I THINK YOU PROBABLY DRIVE IT DAILY, AND I THINK EVERYBODY DRIVES IT ON A REGULAR BASIS, SO WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH HOW HORRIBLE IT IS.
WE'RE SORRY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, BUT WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN.
IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON ITEM NUMBER 2.
AS THIS WAS A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THOSE TWO CONSIDERATIONS, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA.
>> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I ADD ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT I FAILED TO MAKE EARLIER WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TCEQ ISSUE?
>> WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR A DISCUSSION ON IT.
>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
I TOLD YOU WE'D BE AT THE HOUR.
>> IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT NOT THANKING [INAUDIBLE].
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.