[CALL TO ORDER – Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum]
[00:00:05]
CITY OF PARKER CIVIL COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER IT IS SEPTEMBER 9, 2025, AND IT IS 7:01 PM.I WILL ASK MISS SCOTT GREY, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
I WILL ASK KENT MANTON TO DO THE AMERICAN PLEDGE.
LET'S SEE. CHIEF MILLER, YOU WERE TO DO THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVISIBLE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[ PUBLIC COMMENTS]
I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD FROM MARCUS ADAMS. MR. ARES, YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM?>> GOOD EVENING, ON CONCERNS OF CITY ISSUES.
FOR THE THREE PREVIOUS CITY MEETINGS, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE COMMENTS PRESENTED BY MISS NELSON FOR THE DONATIONS TO THE COLLIN COUNTY HISTORICAL MUSEUM IN MCKINNEY.
I'M IN FAVOR OF DIRAM MORGAN CONSULTING SERVICE IN FRISCO, TEXAS, WHICH IS VERY USEFUL FOR FUTURE CANDIDATES SERVING OUR DURING THE SECOND MEETING.
THIRD, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVOTE ACRE HIGH-DENSITY OUTS THAT PROMOTES THE IDEA OF A NON UNIQUELY COUNTRY AND MAKE PER COUNTRY AGAIN VALUES.
YOUNGER FAMILIES COULDN'T POSSIBLY LIVE IN SMALL HOUSING.
THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AS I CAN AGREE WITH PILGRIMS' CONCERNS AND THE COUNCIL, ALONG WITH RESIDENTS WHO OPPOSE IT, AS WELL AS THE WASTEWATER PLANTS.
WE'RE SURPRISED THAT JOHN COX HAS LEFT THE BUILDING, LEARNING ABOUT THE NEWS FROM THE ONLINE HEARING.
THE OWNER HAS TAKEN HIS PLACE.
ASIDE FROM THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE, OUR CITY DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN DEBT IF IT DOESN'T GET ADJUSTED.
BUT WE ARE NOT AT FULL COMMITTEE CAPACITY.
I SUGGEST THE CITY COUNCIL BE CAREFUL WITH ADJUSTING IT TOO FAR; THERE ARE NOW MORE THAN 50 HOMES FOR SALE.
THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REVENUE NUMBERS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
WHY ARE THE NUMBERS AT ZERO FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT REVENUE RELATING TO TAXES? ANY PLANS FOR A COMMUNITY EVENT TO HELP WITH FUNDING REVENUE? I'M CONTINUING TO CONSTRUCT A PROPOSAL ON HOW TO CUSHION PROPERTY TAX ISSUES AND SUPPORT LIGHT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON REAL, WHO DOESN'T LOVE FOOD TRUCKS EVEN AT POKER FEST.
I WISH TO PRESENT THIS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION AND P&Z COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION TO OPEN DOORS TO MANY VOLUNTEERS INSIDE THE COMMITTEE AND OUR COMMUNITIES.
PAYING TAXES IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.
SHOULD RESIDENTS WISH TO ENJOY THEIR FREEDOMS IN OUR CITY TO MEET WITH OUR TAX ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES IN COLLIN COUNTY? WE CANNOT AND SHALL NOT PROTECT THEM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES.
AS A CITY AND THE COMMUNITY DO NOT HAVE TO, THERE NEEDS TO BE A RELEVANT SOLUTION TO SOLVING THESE TAX PROBLEMS. AN EXPANDED VERSION OF THIS BRIEF COMMENTARY
[00:05:02]
WILL BE SENT TO EACH COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU. MISS RETHA, DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
>> SORRY, I DIDN'T PREPARE ANYTHING, BUT THIS IS COMING FROM THE HEART BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN LIVING IN PARKER FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS.
AND THIS IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DUBLIN ROAD, DUBLIN ROAD BETWEEN PARK.
AND ESPECIALLY WEST SIDE GOING SOUTH, THAT ROAD IS IN SHAMBLES.
MANY OF US HAVE LOST MANY TIRES BECAUSE OF THAT ROAD.
WHEN WE SPOKE TO COUNCILWOMAN AMANDA NO, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR, SHE SAID THAT THE WHOLE ROAD WAS GOING TO BE FIXED AND THE BUDGET WAS APPROVED FOR THIS YEAR, 2025.
BUT THEN PART OF THE ROAD WAS DONE ON THE EAST SIDE, AND EVEN THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY DONE.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS COMING OUT OF THE STREET, SOME WATER, AND LITTLE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. BUT THEY ARE PROTRUDING FROM THE ROAD, AND EVEN THAT'S NOT COMPLETE.
AND THE WEST SIDE IS COMPLETELY IN SHAMBLES, AND IT JUST VEERS OFF.
THEY DID PART OF THE ROAD, AND THEY DID NOT DO THE REST OF IT.
THEY APPARENTLY DID THE PIPES AND SO ON, BUT THEN NOT THE REST OF THE ROAD.
AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING IN PARKER FOR YEARS AND YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE FIND IT VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO DRIVE ON THOSE ROADS. THAT'S A MAIN ROAD.
AND MANY YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN IN PARKER FOR A LONG TIME, IF YOU RECALL, BETWEEN PARKER AND THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS PLANO, PART OF IT ON THIS SIDE IS MURPHY, THE OTHER SIDE IS PLANO, ET CETERA.
AND AT THAT TIME, I ASKED THE CITY TO PLEASE FIX IT, AND PARKER SAID NO, PLANO SAID NO.
MURPHY SAID NO, AND I HAD TO GO TO THREE CITY COUNCILS TO GET THAT FIXED.
AND NOW THE REST OF IT ON THE OTHER SIDE IS IN SHAMBLES.
SO, PLEASE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, PLEASE FIX THAT PART OF THE DUBLIN ROAD.
YOU KNOW, PLEASE. I APPRECIATE IT ON BEHALF OF EVERYBODY, PLEASE.
>> I NEED YOU TO START YOUR NAME IN YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> YES. RETHA RAM, 5203 ESTATE LANE IN PARKER, TEXAS. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, NOT ON THE BUDGET.
THEN, AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK KENT MANTON TO PLEASE COME UP AND SAY A FEW WORDS.
I'M NOT SURE IF I'M PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY OR NOT.
THIS IS A NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR WHO WILL BE STARTING ON OCTOBER 20, I BELIEVE.
I'M INVITED HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE A FEW WORDS AND LET EVERYBODY READ.
>> MAYOR, COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
SO SERVE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A TEXAS ACCENT ON THAT.
FAMILIES FROM MISSISSIPPI ON THE DAD'S SIDE.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON WHO I AM AND WHO'S COMING TO WORK ALONGSIDE YOU. YOU SERVE ALONGSIDE.
YOU JUST SO YOU KNOW WHERE I'M COMING FROM.
SO I'M HONORED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OFFER TO SERVE AS THE NEXT CITY ADMINISTRATOR HERE IN THE CITY AT PARKER.
WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO WORK OUT AND FINALIZE THAT FORMAL AGREEMENT, BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME TO TERMS ON THAT HERE PRETTY SOON.
SO OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW I'M GOING TO BE WORKING ON GETTING UP TO SPEED WITH THE CITY OF PARKER.
MY OFFICIAL START DATE IS NOT UNTIL OCTOBER 20, BUT I'M GOING TO BE MAKING SURE THAT I RESEARCH AND WORK WITH THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND STAFF TO MAKE SURE I'M RUNNING FROM DAY ONE.
I'LL ALSO BE WORKING TO TRANSITION MY CURRENT ORGANIZATION, MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S A SMOOTH PROCESS, AND THAT EVERYBODY IS SET UP FOR SUCCESS.
THAT'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT, AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL'S SUPPORT IN THAT.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. MY WIFE AND I WERE BOTH NATIVES TO THE AREA.
MY WIFE GREW UP IN MURPHY, JUST NEXT DOOR, WHERE SHE WENT TO RILEY HIGH SCHOOL.
WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP GETTING MARRIED RIGHT HERE IN PARKER, TEXAS, BACK WHEN SWINGING B, WHERE IT WAS CALLED SWINGING B.
AND SO WE WILL NEVER FORGET THE DONKEY'S BRAYING AND THE BACKGROUND.
[00:10:01]
WE HAVE FOND MEMORIES HERE IN PARKER.WE HAVE A 10-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WHO IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT GETTING TO MOVE BACK TO BE CLOSE TO NANNY IN POPPY'S HOUSE.
SO SHE WILL GET TO ENJOY MANY YEARS OF MAKING MEMORIES WITH THEM.
WE HAVE SPENT A FEW YEARS IN THE FOSTER MINISTRY, AND WE HOPE TO GET SETTLED DOWN AND ALSO GET BACK INVOLVED WITH THAT.
MY RANKING HOURS ARE PRETTY MUCH DEVOTED TO MY WORK, AS YOU KNOW, CITY MANAGEMENT REQUIRES A LOT OF DEVOTION OF TIME AND EFFORT.
BUT WHEN I'M NOT SERVING ALONGSIDE YOU, I'LL BE WORKING ON MY NEVER-ENDING HONEY-DO LIST.
CAN FIND ME STAYING WITH A FAMILY AT THE LAKE, WATCHING THE GAME, OR EVEN GETTING OUT THERE AND MOWING THE GRASS.
I DO HAVE A DEEP PASSION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND I'VE BEEN SERVING IN THIS FIELD FOR OVER TEN YEARS.
THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY PLACES OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL WHERE A CITIZEN HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH ALL THREE BRANCHES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT ALL HAPPENS RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM.
THIS IS WHERE THE RIVER MEETS THE ROAD.
IT'S WHERE THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO HAVE THE GREATEST ABILITY TO MAKE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTS WE GET TO LIVE IN.
MY PERSONAL ETHOS INCLUDES INTEGRITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCESSIBILITY, AND I PLAN ON CONTINUING THESE PRINCIPLES WITH EVERY ACTION HERE AT THE CITY OF PARKER.
AND THEN I LASTLY JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE CITIZENS, I'VE BEEN IN YOUR SHOES.
I KNOW YOU. I'M A TAXPAYING CITIZEN AS WELL.
I TAKE SERIOUSLY THE MISSION TO PROPERLY STEWARD YOUR RESOURCES.
I'VE SAT IN THOSE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BUT IN OTHER CITIES.
I'VE BEEN FRUSTRATED TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS THAT WERE BEING MADE.
I'VE SERVED ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND SOME OF THOSE EXPERIENCES HAVE LED ME TO SERVE IN CITY MANAGEMENT.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SERVING ALONGSIDE THIS COUNCIL AND OUR EXPERIENCED STAFF TO CARRY OUT YOUR UNIQUE COUNTRY VISION AND MAKE THAT A REALITY HERE.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE AFTER THE MEETING JUST FOR ANY CONVERSATIONS.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL DISCUSS ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
THE PEANUT BUTTER FOOD DRIVE IS GOING ON.THIS IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK.
IT GOES ON ALL MONTH, AND WE'RE IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER SMALL CITIES.
THANK YOU. I'M TRYING TO RAISE AS MUCH PEANUT BUTTER AND JELL-O AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
THERE IS A BOX IN THE FOYER FOR YOU TO DRAW ANY DONATIONS OF PEANUT BUTTER THAT YOU WISH TO.
THERE'S ALSO A PEANUT BOX AT THE POLICE STATION IF YOU'RE OVER THERE.
BUT WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION IS MEETING TOMORROW AT 5:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 7.
AND IF YOU AND HRA WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE GET ONE OF THESE FORMS FROM THE POLICE, FILL IT OUT, AND SEND IT BACK TO CHIEF PRICE, AND THEY WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE.
AND BECAUSE OCTOBER 7 IS NATIONAL NIGHT OUT.
AT THIS TIME, I AM CANCELING THE OCTOBER 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE WE WILL BE AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT.
ON OCTOBER 21, 2025, THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL START AFTER 05:00 BECAUSE THERE WILL BE AN ELECTION IN THIS ROOM, AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THE ELECTION CREW ENOUGH TIME TO FINISH UP THE VOTING AND CLEAR THE ROOM BEFORE WE CAN START.
PARKER FEST IS SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, FROM 6:00 P.M., RIGHT HERE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY.
PARKS WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME VOLUNTEERS.
IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH MARY FRANK PESTA.
WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE YOU AS A VOLUNTEER.
THE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION TAKE BACK EVENT IS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2025, 10-2, POLICE OFFICERS STANDING OUT IN FRONT OF THE POLICE STATION TO TAKE YOUR DRUGS, NEEDLES, WHATEVER.
>> MADAM MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WILL YOU BE TAKING SHARPS? AND HOW MANY POUNDS DID WE GET IN THE SPRING?
[00:15:22]
>> I WAS MORE THAN I EXPECTED, FOR AS OFTEN AS WE HAVE DRUG TAKE-BACKS.
CHIEF RICE IS GETTING THAT INFORMATION.
I'LL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO CANCEL THE NOVEMBER 4, 2025, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE THERE WILL BE VOTING UNTIL 7:00 P.M., WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, WE'RE CANCELING THAT MATTER.
THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS OF INTEREST NOW.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WE'LL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.THERE ARE THREE ITEMS. THERE ARE MINUTES OF MEETINGS.
ONE IS FOR APRIL 15, 2025, ONE IS AUGUST 12, 2025, AND THE LAST ONE IS AUGUST 14, 2025.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? NO HEARING THAT, I WOULD ACCEPT A VOTE.
I MEAN, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MAME MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PROTON PILGRIM TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO PRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER B TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING MY CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT ON. BODY POST.
[5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY2025-2026 BUDGET.]
WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2025- 2026 BUDGET.AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT WAS, AND I WILL START BY ASKING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SURE. BEFORE, I JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK THE MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE BUDGET UP TO THIS POINT.
WE'VE BEEN STARTING THIS PROCESS BACK IN MAY.
IT'S BEEN A SEVERAL-MONTH PROCESS HERE, SO TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. ING AT THE OVERALL BUDGET.
THE 25 26 PROPOSED BUDGET IN TOTAL IS $24,225,360. AT THE INDIVIDUAL FUNDS.
YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL FUND, WE HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET, A SMALL SURPLUS IN THE WATER FUND, AND A BALANCED BUDGET IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND.
GOING DOWN THAT LIST, THE REST OF THE ONES THAT WE READ, WE'RE SIMPLY USING FUND BALANCE SAVINGS FROM PRIOR YEARS THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON USING THIS YEAR.ME LARGER ONES THERE, THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND.
WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.
WE HAVE SEVERAL BIG PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT ARE GETTING REPLACED IN THIS BUDGET.
IN THIS RECONSTRUCTION, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH USING FUND BALANCE TO BUDGET FOR BIG PROJECTS FOR NEXT YEAR.
DIVING INTO THE GENERAL FUND, YOU CAN SEE THAT OVERALL THERE IS ABOUT 8% INCREASE IN THE TOTAL REVENUES.
THE MAJORITY OF THAT'S COMING FROM PROPERTY TAXES, THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES, AND AN EXPENDITURE RISE, ABOUT A 20% INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES.
THE MAJORITY OF THAT'S GOING TO BE SUPPLEMENTALS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES AS WELL.
THE BUDGET IS PREPARED USING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 310439, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
IT INCLUDES SALARY INCREASES, INCLUDES THE TRANSFER OF THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND OF $1 MILLION, TRANSFER TO THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT FUND OF 100,000, TRANSFER OF THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $396,930, AND TRANSFER TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND OF 400,000.
SUPPLEMENTALS THAT WE ADDED TO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR INCLUDED THREE FULL-TIME FIREFIGHTERS AT A COST OF OVER $360,000, THREE PATROL OFFICERS, TWO OF WHICH WOULD BE FUNDED AT A LATER DATE,
[00:20:01]
AND THREE POSITIONS, BUT REALLY ONLY THE BUDGET FOR TWO POSITIONS, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO HIRE THEM ON OCTOBER 1.FOR $ 235,000, ONE PUBLIC ROS MUTCE WORKER AT $ 73,000, ONE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AT $ 76,000, AND A PUBLIC ROS TRAILER FOR SKIS AT $20,000.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT THERE ARE NUMBERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE WORKER AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE.
I JUST WANT, FOR THE RECORD, THAT INCLUDES THEIR BENEFITS.
THAT'S NOT THEIR ACTUAL SALARY.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. AN EQUIPMENT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE UNIFORMS TO SUIT THAT AS WELL.
IN FUND INCLUDES SALARY INCREASES AND THEN CONTINUING THE METER PURCHASES AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AT 168,000 AND TRANSFERRING SURPLUS FUNDS TO THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND TO 285,000.
THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND THIS YEAR, LOOKING AT REPLACING A COUPLE OF PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES IN 2013 FOR F-350 AND 2019 FOR F-150.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS REPLACING THE 2016 F-252,002 PUMPER TRUCK.
THE 2010750 BRUSH TRUCK WAS BUDGETED IN THE 24- 25 BUDGET.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DELIVERED UNTIL OCTOBER, SO WE'RE HAVING TO MOVE THOSE FUNDS TO NEXT YEAR, SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING IT BUDGETED AGAIN FOR 25-26.
ADDITIONALLY, REPLACE THE 2012 SKAG MOWER AND THE 2016 SKISER IN PUBLIC BROOKS.
FINALLY, IN THE TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND.
THERE'S AN EXPENSE FOR THE REGULAR REPLACEMENT PROGRAM OF $115,000 IN THE PARKS FUND, THE PARKER FUSS GOT MOVED FROM $10,000 TO $15,000 THIS YEAR, AND INCLUDED HOLIDAY LOTTING FOR $5,400.
THOSE WERE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE VARIOUS FUNDS.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME. TURN BACK OVER TO MAYOR P.
>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE BUDGET? THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE FEDERAL MONEY ON THE BUDGET FOR 723.
COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SAVAGE ON THE BUDGET? MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> YES, EXCUSE ME. YES, MADAM MAYOR. I DO.
BEFORE I MAKE MY COMMENTS, I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TO EVERYONE AT HOME BECAUSE I NEED TO OWN THIS.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.
THIS IS THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING WE'VE HAD IN WILE.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF THEM THAT WERE SPECIAL MEETINGS AND SHOPS.
BUT AT THE LAST REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD YOU WERE ABSENT AND I FILLED IN YOUR PLACE.
MY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE LISTENING AT HOME COULDN'T HEAR ME? I COMPLETELY OWN THAT PROBLEM.
I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THE MICROPHONE WHERE YOU SAT IS ACTIVATED ALL THE TIME.
IT'S ALL THE WAY ON INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PRESS TO TALK.
SO I DIDN'T WANT TO PRESS TO TALK LAST TIME.
I DIDN'T REALIZE IT HAD NEVER BEEN TURNED ON TO BEGIN WITH.
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE PEOPLE AT HOME, THAT I WAS ABLE TO HEAR MYSELF, AND MAYBE EVEN SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.
IT WAS MY MISTAKE, AND IT'S ONE THAT I'LL NEVER MAKE AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE.
A COUPLE OF ISSUES. HELP ME REMEMBER.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY THE SPREADSHEET IS ON PAGE 159 IN OUR FILE.
IT SHOWS THAT OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IS GOING UP 9.6%.
BUT THE OTHER CALCULATION WE HAVE IS THAT IT'S A 7.42 % INCREASE.
WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO
>> SO, 9.6% IS THIS SLIDE THAT I HAVE PULLED UP BY NOW, THE 9.6% INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES?
>> THAT ONLY INCLUDES CURRENT SIR, PROBABLY YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DELINQUENT AS WELL.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. I SEE SOMEWHERE.
[00:25:03]
>> THE COVER SHEET, THE 7.42%.
THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE SHOWN IN THE GENERAL FUND.
IT'S ALSO IN THE FUND FOR THE IMS FUND FOR DEBT, SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH PLACES TO GET THE TOTAL.
THE SPREADSHEET THAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS ONLY THE GENERAL FUND PORTION.
ON THE BUDGET COVER SHEET, IT SHOWS THE TOTAL, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE I&S FUND, THE DEBT SERVICE FUND AND THE GENERAL BECAUSE THE I&S FUND ACTUALLY WENT DOWN SOMEWHAT.
>> I GUESS THE OTHER COMMENT I REALLY WANT TO MAKE IS WE'RE RECORDING THAT COVER SHEET, WE'RE RAISING ABOUT $250,000 IN NEW REVENUE.
ROUGHLY HALF OF THAT, A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF IT, IS FROM NEW PROPERTIES.
$430,000, ABOUT $230,000 OF THE $450,000 IS FROM REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY, WHICH LEAVES ABOUT $225,000 OF THE $450,000, THAT'S TAX REVENUE THAT WE'RE EARNING FROM EXISTING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY.
I GUESS THIS IS MY SECOND TIME GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS ON COUNCIL.
I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THAT WHILE WE WERE CONTINUING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE ON EXISTING PROPERTIES.
I UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL RATE FOR $100 IS NOT PROPOSED TO GO UP, BUT ACCOUNTING CONTINUES TO RAISE THE VALUATIONS OF ALL THE HOMES THAT WE LIVE IN.
FOR THE CITIZENS WHO PAY THESE TAXES, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHETHER THEY PAY MORE BECAUSE THE RATE FOR $100 A VALUATION WENT UP OR BECAUSE THE COUNTY RAISED THE VALUE ON THEIR HOUSES.
IT'S STILL MORE MONEY BEING PAID IN PROPERTY TAXES.
I REALLY WANT TO GET TO WHERE WE'RE I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT AWARE OF IT, BUT WE'RE MORE COGNIZANT OF THAT AND VERY, VERY CAREFUL TO KEEP RAISING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY TO LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE THAT THEY LIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I REQUESTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS THAT AMITY GROUPS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ARE OVER 65 PEOPLE WHO HAVE RETIRED IN THE CITY.
THE STATE ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A CAP FOR THOSE OVER 65 THAT EXEMPTS ANYTHING ABOVE WHENEVER THAT CAP IS PUT IN PLACE.
I ASKED ABOUT THAT SEVERAL TIMES, AND I GUESS YOU'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GET THOSE FIGURES?
>> NO, SIR. I STILL HAVEN'T GOT THOSE FIGURES.
I HAVEN'T CHECKED UP WITH THEM IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
I NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THOSE GUYS AGAIN.
>> I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE COUNTY CAN'T IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE OTHER TAXING AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT NUMBER IN PLACE.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD STILL CONSIDER DOING IS PUTTING IN PLACE AN OVER-65 CAP.
WE HAVE AN EXEMPTION AMOUNT THAT WE ALLOW FOR OVER-65 CITIZENS, BUT THE EXEMPTION AMOUNT IS EASILY OFFSET, JUST LIKE FLAT RATES ARE OFFSET BY INCREASING PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IN COLLIN COUNTY.
THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IN COLLIN COUNTY IS QUITE AGGRESSIVE IN RAISING APPRAISAL VALUES.
EVERY ONE OF US IN HERE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO THAT.
I HAD A QUESTION COMING FROM A RESIDENT, BUT I COULDN'T ANSWER, SO I PROMISE I WILL ASK YOU.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PUBLIC WORKS ARE LISTED AT 200,000.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME A GENERAL BALLPARK OF WHAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COVER?
>> I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO ADDRESS MR. SAID.
I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY A TOPIC WE NEED ON OUR RETREAT THAT WE'RE DOING PHILOSOPHICALLY.
WHAT IS OUR STANCE? I OF THE CAP.
BUT ALSO THERE'S DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES ON WHEN THE ECONOMY IS DOWN 2008, IT'S HARDER TO PAY THESE TAX BILLS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE'S THE THOU THAT WE KEEP THEM WHEN THE TIMES ARE GOOD SO THAT YOU CAN BUILD THE RESERVE SO THAT YOU CAN DROP IN TIMES OF AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PHILOSOPHICALLY WE AS A COUNCIL NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT DIRECTION ARE WE WANTING TO TAKE?
>> MR. B, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING I WISH TO SAY?
[00:30:01]
>> YES. GRANT, CAN YOU WITH THE BRIEFS BECAUSE I THINK BOTH WERE A LITTLE SURPRISED.
>> IT WAS A 2 THAT WE WERE PUTTING UP, NOT A FOR VICTORY.
I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE THREE NEXT TO THE PATROL OFFICERS.
DURING THE SECOND BUDGET WORKSHOP, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE PUT THREE, THOUGH WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUND 3, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HIRE EVERYONE ON OCTOBER 1.
OPTION ONE WAS 5, AND OPTION TWO WAS 3. WENT BACK AND FORTH.
DO WE HIRE 3 OR DO WE HIRE 2? THE LAST NOTE I HAD WAS, WE PUT 3, BUT WE ONLY PUT THE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR 2 BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SALARY ATTRITION.
WANT TO SEE THE $235,000 IS 2 OFFICERS. YEAH.
>> THAT'S THE WAY I REMEMBER IT AS WELL.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE SOME VACANT POSITIONS NOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? CHIEF CHIEF PRICE? YES. WE HAVE SOME VACANT POSITIONS TO FILL.
IS IT 2 OR 32 NOW? YOU'VE GOT TO FILL THOSE TWO PLUS IF YOU FILL THREE YEARS, THAT'S FIVE, YOU'RE LIKELY TO GO THROUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR BEFORE YOU GET ALL OF THOSE FILLED.
IN TERMS OF WHAT WE NEED TO BUDGET.
BY THE END OF THE YEAR WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE FIVE BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE FIVE POSE OFFICERS ON STAFF, BUT WE LIKELY WON'T EVEN SPEND ALL OF THAT $235,000, GIVEN THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO ONBOARD THEM.
YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST THE NUMBER THREW ME OFF IN THE SENSE THAT, I THINK WE ALL AGREE HERE.
I WAS JUST HOW IT WAS CHARACTERIZED, THE BUDGET ALLOCATION SPECIFICALLY CAPTURED TO FULLY BURDEN THE HEADCOUNT FOR THE PATROL OFFICERS.
I MEAN, IF THIS IS THE WAY YOU'RE EXPRESSING WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET? OKAY. B NINE TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 896 ADOPTING THE 2025-2026 BUDGET.]
CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATE ACTION, AND DANCE NUMBER 896, ADOPT THE 2025 26TH BUDGET. OKAY.>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 896 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026 BUDGET AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER B AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHOT TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 896, WHICH ADOPTS THE 2025/2026 BUDGET.
SO, I WILL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER B, MR. B.
OKAY. MISS HABERT. F. MISS PB.
F OKAY. WE HAVE JUST TO REPORT FOR THE RECORD.
I FING INCLUDES B C HABS B P, X BOT AND B SH, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 897 RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2025-26 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2025-26 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE]
THIS IS NOTE NUMBER ONE.CONSIDERATION OR INAPPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 897, RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2025/2026 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN 2025/2026 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. SAVAGE REGARDING THAT.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO TRY TO INTERPRET.
WHAT IS IT FAIRLY WINDED BULLET HERE.
WHAT WE'RE HEARING HERE IS THAT TAX REVENUES HAVE.
[00:35:01]
TAX REVENUES HAVE RISEN AS A RESULT OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS RISING AND HOUSES BEING BUILT, AND THEREFORE REVENUES INCREASED AND SO WE'RE ASKING TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE ON THAT SPECIFICALLY. ALRIGHT?>> WE'RE RATIFYING. YES. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> NO, THIS IS SOMETHING I MEAN, FAIRLY NEW THAT JUST A REQUIREMENT THAT'S ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND IT'S SIMPLY JUST IF YOUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES INCREASED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR, YOU HAVE TO RATIFY, AND IT'S ANOTHER STEP THAT THEY MAKE YOU GO THROUGH NOW.
SO, WELL, I'VE TRIED MENTIONING ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO SEE HOW LITTLE THAT I CAN GET AWAY WITH READING BEFORE SUGGESTING A FOR RATIFICATION.
MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE A MOTION TO VOTE ON APPROVING THE RATIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN 2025/2026 BUDGET AS RECORDED ON 897, AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING ROYAL REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN 2025/2026 BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP AND THE SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HABERT TO RATIFY ORDINANCE NUMBER 897 [INAUDIBLE] VOTE.
THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO START WITH MR. SHARP.
>> AGAINST FOR THE PREVIOUS REASONS STATED.
>> AGAINST FOR THE PREVIOUS REASON STATED REGARDING THE GAP OVER 65.
>> OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, JUST TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT DOWN CORRECTLY.
EVERYBODY IS FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 897, EXCEPT MR. PEGRAM WHO WAS AGAINST IT, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.
NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
[8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY2025-2026 TAX RATE.]
PUBLIC TARIFF ON PROPOSED TAX FLOW.I'M PUBLIC AN E [INAUDIBLE], AND I WILL START OFF WITH MR. SAVAGE.
>> JUST LIKE TO QUICKLY GO TO THE TAX RATES HERE.
THE PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR 25/26 IS ALSO GOING TO BE THE SAME AS IT WAS THE PRIOR YEAR 310/439.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOVE THE REVENUE TAX RATE AND THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.
SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS, HOWEVER, LOWER THAN THE MINIMUS RATE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED DURING THE PROPOSED BUDGET RATE SETTING, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MAX RATE THAT WE COULD CHARGE.
LIKE I SAID, SINCE SINCE THE RATE DID NOT CHANGE, BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE BECAUSE IT DOES EXCEED THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.
AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS 3.73% ABOVE THE NOW NEW REVENUE RATE.
>> THERE ARE THOSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.
NO. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH 730.
WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.
[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 898 ADOPTING THE 2025 TAX RATE.]
CONSIDERATION AND IN APPROPRIATE ACTION.ITS NUMBER 898, ADOPTING THE 2025 TAX RATE.
AGAIN, THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE.
BUT BEFORE THE VOTE IS DISCUSSION QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 898, SETTING A TAX RATE OF 310/439, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 3.73% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HABERT AND THE SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BATON TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 898 ADOPTING THE 2025 TAX RATE.
[00:40:06]
AGAIN, AS I SAID, THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE.THIS TIME, I'LL START WITH MR. SHOT.
>> I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS IS THE PAINFUL PROCESS THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH. I'M FOR.
>> OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, APPROVED IS UNANIMOUS FOR ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 898.
IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCIL? OKAY. THANK YOU.
NOW I WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.
[10. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 2025–856 ADOPTING MODIFIED GUIDELINES FOR THE NEWSLETTER AND APPOINTING A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 2024-2026 TERM. [PREVIOUSLY ON 2025 0819 CC MTG]]
WHICH REFERS TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION UNDER 2025-856, ADOPTING A MODIFIED GUIDELINES FOR THE MISSOURI AND APPOINTING A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE M COMMITTEE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 2020 4-26.I WASN'T HERE LAST WE AND STUD. I'M SORRY FOR THAT.
WE HAVE CURRENTLY A RESOLUTION IN EFFECT THAT SAYS, WE WILL PUT OUT A NEWSLETTER AND NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RESOLUTION.
WE ALSO HAVE APPOINTED ANYBODY AS PUT OF THAT RESOLUTION TO SERVE ON THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE.
THEREFORE, TONIGHT, YOU HAVE THE OPTIONS OF WE CAN ADOPT THAT LETTER ORDINANCE BY APPOINTING SOMEBODY.
THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN GO BACK AND MAKE UP GET OUT OF JULY NEWSLETTER WITH THE NEXT ONE ON OCTOBER, 1 FROM THAT ONE WOULD DO.
OR WE CAN REVISE THAT RESOLUTION AND WE STILL NEED TO APPOINT A PERSON, BUT WE COULD REVISE THAT RESOLUTION WHEN A NEWSLETTER WOULD COME OUT MESS TO HAVE.
BUT IT COMES OUT AND COME OUT, COME OUT, NEVER COME OUT.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CITY OR YOU CAN DO IS WE SEND MY MASTOR [INAUDIBLE] COMMITTEE PERIOD. SO MR. B.
>> OKAY. I THINK OUR DISCUSSION LAST TIME WAS ALONG THE LINES OF RESCINDING IT AND REVISIT THE STRATEGY ONCE OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR STARTS FULL TIME AND HAVE HIM PART OF THE PROCESS OF DECIDING WHAT OUR NEWSLETTER/SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY SHOULD BE.
>> YEAH. I AGREE. THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, AND I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE.
A GREAT ASSIGNMENT FOR A NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
ALTHOUGH PROBABLY NOT THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT HE'S GOING TO NEED TO TURN HIS ATTENTION TO.
>> OKAY. SO YOU WISH TO RESPOND?
>> MADAM, YEAH, I MOVE THE MOTION.
>> I'M MOVING FOR THE RESOLUTION WITH ME.
I DID NOT END UP IN MY POCKET WITH THE CURRENT RESOLUTION.
>> SO IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-86.
>> AMEND. I WANT THAT, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT IT BE REVISITED ONCE THE NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMES ON.
I'D LIKE IT REVISITED ONCE THE NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR COMES ON.
[00:45:04]
>> THAT'S JUST AMENDED. IT'S NOT.
>> I'LL SECOND THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
>> OKAY. TO INCLUDE TREASURY COMES ON BOARD.
>> OKAY. WE'LL HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HABERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER B TO RESEND RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-826 UNTIL THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS ON THE JOB, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HE. I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THANK YOU. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 11.
[11. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025–857 DESIGNATING THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR THE CITY OF PARKER FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025-2026 AND 2026-2027]
CONSIDERATION OR IN APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER OF 2025-857, DESIGNATING THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR THE CITY OF PARKER FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2025-2026 AND 2026-2027.WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER AND B AS I UNDERSTAND THE ONLY THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS QUALIFIES AS OUR NEWSPAPER.
>> WHAT MAKES IT QUALIFY FOR US VERSUS ANY OTHER NEWSPAPER? IS THERE A CRITERIA SELECTION OR IS IT A DEFAULT? HOW DOES THIS DELIBERATION COME ABOUT?
>> IT HAS TO MEET PUBLISHING DATES, SO A WEEKLY DOESN'T COUNT.
I'M SORRY TO MEET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PUBLISHING DATES.
SO BI-NUCLEAR WEEKLY WOULDN'T WORK.
>> IT HAS TO DO WITH IT'S PUBLISHED REGULAR IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF A DO YOU REMEMBER THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> THE VOTES NOT LESS THAN 25% OF ITS TOTAL COLUMN LINAGE TO GENERAL INTEREST ITEMS IS PUBLISHED AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK, A ENTERED AS SECOND CLASS POSTAL MATTER IN THE COUNTY WHERE IT PUBLISHED AND HAS PUBLISHED REGULARLY AND CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY PUBLISHES NOTICE.
>> MY QUESTION IS WHEN THE DALLAS [INAUDIBLE] AFTER IT SALES TO THE HEARST CORP. DO WE HAVE A BACKUP PLAN? IS THAT WOULD BE A STATE LEGISLATIVE THING BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF PEOPLE.
>> CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY SECRETARY'S GROUP HAS HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE PAPERS NO LONGER SERVE THE AREA.
>> GOOD QUESTION. I KNOW THEY.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WOULD ACCEPT THE MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-857 DESIGNATING THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF ASIA PARKER FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025 - '26 AND 2026 - '27.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BEN AND THE SECOND BY MAYOR PROTEIN PROGRAM TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025 BY A SHOW OF VOTE OF 7.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED OR ABSTAINED.
[00:50:04]
>> WE HAVE FOUR, THREE AND OUR COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE IS ABSTAINING.
[12. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-858, REGARDING NOMINATION(S) OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITION(S) FOR THE COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.]
CONSIDERATION UNDER APPROPRIATE ACTION AND RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-857 WITH ALL THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITIONS FOR THE COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.AS YOU MAY REMEMBER LAST YEAR WHEN WE DID THIS, ONE OF THE PERSONS THAT WE DID NOMINATE WAS ELECTED TO THE CAMP TO CARRY ON.
I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER JERRY TARTAGLINO AND I HOPE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER HIM, BECAUSE I THINK HE'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB.
>> WHO IS THAT AGAIN? WHO IS THAT PERSON? I WASN'T HERE LAST YEAR.
>> SHE SAID, WHO IS IT. IT'S FORMER MAYOR, FORMER FOR BEING THE JURY.
>> JERRY WAS MADE FROM 2004 OR 2005 - 2008.
>> I DIDN'T REALIZE HE HAD TO BE REAPPOINTED EACH YEAR, RE-NOMINATED EACH YEAR.
I THOUGHT WE WERE NOMINATING FOR A NEW POSITION AND HISTORY CONTINUED.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M CORRECT OR INCORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION?
>> IT SAID IT WAS A FOUR-YEAR TERM.
>> I THINK INITIALLY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE ONES WHO HAD A ONE-YEAR TERM.
HE DREW A ONE-YEAR TERM, INITIALLY SO THE NEXT TERM WOULD BE LONGER.
>> IN THAT CASE, I'LL SPEAK TO IT BECAUSE I HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH JERRY ABOUT THE ROLE THAT HE'S TAKEN ON WITH COLLIN COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M CURRENTLY SUING COLLIN COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT IN DISTRICT CRUELTY OF PROPERTY TAX.
THAT'S MORE THAN JUST PROTESTING.
THAT IS I'VE GOT A LAWSUIT IN DISTRICT COURT AGAINST HIM FOR THE PROCESS THAT THEY USE.
I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM AND I TELL YOU HE'S VERY ACTIVE TRYING TO BRING IN JUST SOME OF THE WAYS THEY'RE RUNNING THEIR OPERATIONS OVER THERE.
I THINK HE'S AN EXCELLENT MEMBER FOR ANYONE TO HAVE ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SO I WOULD DEFINITELY NOMINATE HIM TO CONTINUE.
>> LET'S SEE IF HE'S INTERESTED IN CONTINUING.
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO NOMINATIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT OTHER POSITION? YOU CAN'T DO IT. [LAUGHTER] DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYBODY THAT THEY'D LIKE TO NOMINATE?
>> WHO'S THE OTHER PERSON WHO IS UP FOR THE NOMINEE?
>> BRIAN MANTZEY. BRIAN MANTZEY IS THE OTHER PERSON WHO'S UP FOR.
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM.
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM.
I THOUGHT IT WAS STRANGE THAT THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY THAT IN THE LETTER THAT THEY WANTED TO RERUN.
>> WELL OUR OPTIONS ARE JUST NOT GOING WITH ONE NOMINATION OR WITH THE MAJORITY NOMINATION. [BACKGROUND]
>> WELL THIS IS STILL OCTOBER 14.
IS THAT CORRECT? THIS NOMINATION. [BACKGROUND]
>> THE NOMINATIONS HAVE TO BEGIN UP WITH A RULE OF 14.
>> THEY NORMALLY DO SEND OUT A LIST OF MAYBE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THAT, BUT THIS IS MY WORK WITH THEM.
>> I BELIEVE AFTER THE NOMINATIONS ALL GO IN AND IT
[00:55:02]
COMES BACK FOR A VOTE ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOMINATED.>> I GUESS I'D LIKE TO SEE US TAKE UP THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN, FOR DOMINATION OF A SECOND PERSON WHEN WE COME BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHICH WILL BE NEXT WEEK THE 16.
>> MR. SHARPE. A ROOM FOR THE NOMINATION IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT.
>> I HOPE NOT, SOME OF THEM DOESN'T GET MATERIAL.
>> YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT A MOTION?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE JERRY.
ALWAYS HELPS ME WITH HIS LAST NAME.
>> TARTAGLINO. I SIT IN THAT ROOM AND I THINK I'M PRONOUNCING IT CORRECTLY.
JERRY TARTAGLINO TO BE NOMINATED BACK TO HIS POSITION AGAIN AND WE TAKE THAT FISCAL ISSUE AGAIN IN THE MEETING ON THE 16TH TO NOMINATE A SECOND PERSON.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MARY PROTON AND BROOKLYN, AND WE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO NOMINATE TERRITORY TO WOMEN CONTINUE IN HIS POSITION WITH THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND TO COME BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 16 TO TAKE UP THE SECOND NOMINATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANYTHING, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
CANON, WOULD YOU PLEASE ADD THIS TO THE 916 AGENDA? ITEM 15, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION [INAUDIBLE]
[13. CONSIDERATION AND ANY ACTION ON COST ESTIMATE FOR THE FLOOR PLAN/LAYOUT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING CENTRAL PUMP STATION.]
>> I LEFT ONE OF THESE FOR EACH OF YOU AND SORRY, IT'S TOO BAD NOT IN THE PACKET.
DID I MAKE SOME CHANGES THAT WE ASKED FOR, WE WOULD HAVE GONE AND ASKED FOR AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE BUILDING.
IT CAME BACK UP TO 4.8 MILLION.
I'VE ASKED HIM TO REDUCE THAT THROUGH SOME CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE AND RATE CARRYING ABILITY OF THE MEZZANINE, AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE CHANGED TO THIS AND COST SAVINGS.
IT'S ABOUT 800 AND ABOVE. IT'S A LOT.
IT'S 800,000, BUT THAT'S 4.8 MILLION.
THAT'S NOT A LOT PERCENTAGE WISE.
[BACKGROUND] BUT THERE'S SOME NUMBERS IN HERE THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO COME DOWN IF CONSTRUCTION WAS TO HAPPEN.
THERE'S SOME CONTINGENCY NUMBERS IN THERE THAT WOULD BE CONSERVATIVELY HIGH TODAY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING OFF OF A ROUGH DRAWING OF THIS BUILDING, NOT A DETAILED DRAWING.
I THINK THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AT 160,000 IS A LITTLE HIGH.
ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S A LOT HIGH.
>> WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE TO REMOVE THE SECOND FLOOR THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED FOR POSSIBLE STORAGE?
>> NO. I WAS NOT TO REMOVE ITS CAPACITY OF IT.
A PART OF IT WAS FOR BACK-FILLING THE GROUND TO TRY TO STABILIZE THE GROUND. SOME DIRT WORK.
>> I THINK IT'S LIKE YOU THOUGHT IT WAS EXCESSIVE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DIRT WORK.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO PIERS, THE FOUNDATION ON PIERS INSTEAD OF BACK-FILLING.
HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT?
>> I HAVE NOT. BUT I SEEM TO REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THE GROUND STORE TANK OVER THERE IN THE BUILDING, THERE'S A ROCK OVER THERE THAT'S PRETTY SHALLOW.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE VERY DEEP PIERS TO BE EFFECTIVE OVER THERE.
IT MAY BE SHALLOW ENOUGH IF YOU COULD DO BEAMS TO CATCH THE ROCK OVER THERE, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO LOOK INTO.
I DON'T THINK THE ESTIMATE REFLECTS THAT.
>> DO WE HAVE A SERIES OF TEST ON THE PROPERTY?
>> WE HAVE ALGORITHM FROM THE PUMP STATION.
IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THE SAME.
>> AS LONG AS THEY COVERED THAT AREA, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
[01:00:03]
>> WHEN WE WISH WE HAS STARTED LOOKING AT THIS RESUME, HOW MUCH LOWER NUMBERS?
>> THAT NUMBER IS UP.[OVERLAPPING]
>> IF IT WERE GOING OFF A LOWER NUMBER THAT WAS IT WOULD TELL US A FEW YEARS AGO.
I DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO HAVE JUMPED AS MUCH AS IT HAS.
I THINK THIS NUMBER IS CONSERVATIVELY HIGH JUST FOR THE RECORD.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT MUCH, BUT I THINK WE COULD COME IN BELOW THIS NUMBER.
>> THE NUMBER THAT IS BUDGETED BEFORE I WANT TO SAY IT IS 2.1 OR 1.8.
>> BECAUSE IT'S NEGATIVE THAT.
>> 1.2 IS THE NUMBER I REMEMBER.
>> I THINK, ERIC WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT IT LAST YOU WERE SAYING THAT OUR NEW FIVE YEAR WE'RE GOING GET DIFFERENT MATERIALS FOR THE SIDES. DID YOU DO THAT?
IT'S FOR A METAL BUILDING WITH A CONCRETE SLAB.
THE FOCUS ESTIMATE WAS FOR A TIP WALL DESTRUCTION BUILDING.
>> SO IT'S NOT A STONE SLAB BUILDING?
>> THERE WILL BE SOME STONES AT THE BOTTOM UP TO FOUR OR 5 FEET TO MAKE THE BUILDING LOOK NICE AND MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE SECURE.
>> I STILL JUST WONDER ABOUT THE PITCH OF THE ROOF.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE GOT A ROOF WITH THAT STEEP OF A PITCH.
SEEMS LIKE THAT'S GOT TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
I THINK MOSTLY 35 FEET TALL AT THE PEAK, MAYBE 40.
I DON'T KNOW. IT'S PRETTY TALL.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT AS WE GET INTO DESIGN WE COULD MODIFY IF THAT'S A DESIRE.
>> I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION. I DON'T WANT TO AS A COUNCIL PERSON SIT UP HERE AND TRY TO MICROMANAGE A DESIGN ON A BUILDING, BUT I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH WAYS TO SAVE MONEY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME.
>> WASN'T THAT ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE OF AN EXCAVATOR CLEANING?
>> TO FIT THE EQUIPMENT INSIDE, BUT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY BRING DOWN A LITTLE AND STILL ACHIEVE THE GOAL.
BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE THE SIDEWALK OF OUR CUSTOM BUILDING NOT TO GET THE EQUIPMENT IN.
FUTURE RULES GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, PUTTING EQUIPMENT IN THERE.
>> I WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF SAVINGS BY BRINGING THE ROOF DOWN OR FIVE FEET IS MINIMAL.
YOU'RE PROBABLY CAPTIVE TO STANDARD TRUST SIZES.
SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT COULD PROBABLY CORRECT ME, BUT SOMEWHAT PUTS ME TO STANDARD TRUST SIZES AND A LINEAR FEET OF ROOF THAT YOU WOULD NOT DO SOMETHING NOT THAT GREAT BECAUSE WE'RE JUST CHANGING FROM SAY A 45-DEGREE ANGLE TO LESS ABOUT 42 OR 40 OF THAT.
BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IF I'M WRONG IF IT DID HAVE A MEASURABLE SAVINGS, BUT I WONDER WHAT ARE WE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE? ARE WE TRYING TO CUT OFF 50 GRANDS? ARE WE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS CAN BE CLOSER TO THE 1.2, 0.2, 1.4.
AS WE'RE TRYING TO HEAT TO ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE IT SOMETHING DOWN TO FOUR, WHATEVER IT IS NOW TO A FOUR NUMBER.
OR ARE WE TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECTED NUMBER?
>> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR THIS, BECAUSE I THINK ORIGINALLY WE HAD DISCUSSED HAVING IT FUNDED ALREADY.
BUT IF WE QUAD RIPPLE THE COST, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT EXTRA MONEY IS COMING FROM.
>> I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE TO START LOOKING AT BOND ISSUANCE.
THIS IS A WATER BUILDING, WE COULD LOOK AT REVENUE BONDS AND WE WOULD BUY BACK WATER RATES.
THE OPTIONS ARE OUT FOR A BIT CASH FUNDING, THIS ISSUE OF BOND. [BACKGROUND]
>> THIS IS THE ESTIMATE THAT GUY GAVE.
THIS IS THE SECOND VERSION OF THE ESTIMATE.
I CAN GO BACK AND ASK IF THERE'S ANOTHER COST IS CUT THE BUILDING DOWN IN SIZE. I CAN DO THAT.
BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
I THINK THAT WAS BASICALLY MY QUESTION TO COUNSEL.
[01:05:02]
CONSTRUCTIVE FOR US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT OF IDEA TRUST SIZE IS, BUT I THINK IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTIVE FOR US TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER THAT GARY CAN AIM TO.WHATEVER GARY NEEDS FOR BUILD OUT IS WHAT I WANT TO DO, SO IF THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS HE NEEDS FOR BUILD OUT, THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO TARGET.
>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING AS WELL.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LAST ONE.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS BUILD A BUILDING THAT MEETS THE NEEDS AND MEETS THE NEEDS FOR THE LONG TERM AT THE BEST COST YOU CAN GET.
>> YOU'VE ADJUSTED THAT SPACE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE FUTURE, CORRECT?
>> YOU MENTIONED DEFUNDING THIS A OF WATER RATES.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE BIDING IS COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND VERSUS THE PROPRIETARY FUND?
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT.
BUT I WOULD SAY 50 50 IS PROBABLY A PRETTY FAIR ASSUMPTION.
>> DO WE HAVE A FACILITY FUND ON THE [INAUDIBLE], CAN YOU SAY THAT WORD. ON THE SIDE?
>> WE DON'T. WE HAVE ONE FACILITY FUND THAT WE'VE BEEN EARMARKING MONEY FOR FUTURE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE PROPRIETARY SIDE.
>> IF YOU WERE TO RAISE A REVENUE BOND.
I'M SORRY, MY VOICE IS GO TO GRAB IT.
STRANGE. WHAT WOULD BE THE ESTIMATED COST INCREASE ON WATER RATES?
>> IN TERMS OF THOSE NUMBERS I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> WHAT IT NEED TO BE A CO BOND OR COULD IT BE GO BOND?
>> THIS ONE DEFINITELY NEED TO BE A GO BOND. I COULD THIS AS A CO.
>> GARY A LITTLE BIT MORE OF IT, BUT ALSO GARY IF YOU COULD GET US THE FUNDING OPTIONS SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.
>> COUNSEL, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?
>> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SAY [LAUGHTER].
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BROUGHT BACK AT ONE OF THE NEXT FEW AGENDAS WITH THE INFORMATION THAT GARY AND GRANT ARE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT SOME ADDITIONAL WAYS TO SAVE SOME MONEY ON IT.
YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO ABOUT SAVING PITCH.
I'D LIKE TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
IT SAVES $50,000, THAT'S 50,000.
IF IT SAVES 100,000, THAT'S 100.
I'M STILL NOT THAT RIGHT ABOUT THE STONE CLADDING.
I KNOW IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT LOOK BETTER.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC, BUT IT'S RELATED IN A WAY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON THE APPEARANCE OF A BUILDING, I'D WANT TO SPEND 50,000 ON THE ENTRAM TO THIS ONE, WHICH LOOKS FLOABLE.
IT LOOKS PRETTY WHEN WE WALK UP TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THIS BUILDING.
WE'VE GOT PAINT PEELING OFF THE DOOR.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY TO MARK THAT WALL OUT, TAKE WHAT'S OUTSIDE AND MOVE IT INSIDE, EXPANDING SPACE INSIDE THE LOBBY THERE, GET A LITTLE MORE OFFICE SPACE IN THERE AND HAVE A MUCH MORE PRESENTABLE CITY HALL.
I KNOW WE ALL WANT A LOT OF LEASE, A NEW CITY HALL, BUT WE GOING TO HAVE A NEW CITY HALL IN THE NEXT YEAR.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THE LOOKS OF THIS ONE.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE SOME THINGS INSIDE WITH CARPET AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT I WOULD RATHER GET THE OUTSIDE OF THIS BUILDING LOOKING A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN AND SPEND MONEY ON A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING THAT'S PRETTY MUCH OFF SITE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE NEVER EVEN SEE IT.
THIS IS WHAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE SEE WHEN THEY SEE THE CITY OF PARKER.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY MY REMARKS ACCOUNT I POSTS [INAUDIBLE] REMARKS.
ONCE TELL THE STORY ABOUT SHOVING A AND IT'S RELEVANCE TO SAVING COSTS.
YOU CAN START SHOVING YET, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS REAC UNDERNEATH.
THE POINT BEING THAT WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO SHIFT TO.
I AGREE WE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY PRUDENT WITH ALL TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT GO IN THE BUILDING AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
BUT WITHOUT PROVIDING GARY A TARGET THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WILLING TO STAND BEHIND,
[01:10:02]
I THINK THE RESULTS WEEK TO WEEK, MONTH TO MONTH THAT HE MIGHT COME BACK WITH ARE GOING TO VARY WIDELY BASED ON HIS PERCEPTION OF WHAT HE THINKS WE WANT.>> I THINK WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT IF WE ARE PARALYZED BY DECISION MAKING, THE PRICE IS ONLY GOING TO GO UP, AND WE'RE EVERY THAT ACROSS THE BOARD.
>> THE MASONRY NUMBER HERE IS 175,000.
JUST REMOVING THE STONE 175, BU THEY ARE NOT ONLY FOR AESTHETICS, BUT FOR SOME SAFETY REASONS.
SO PEOPLE AREN'T CUTTING THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE METAL BUILDING, WHICH HAPPENS EVERY DAY.
I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT.
>> I HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I HAVE SOE OF YOU TO GET MORE INFORM AND HAVE OTHER INFORMATION BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION, WHICH MEANS START DOING ANYTHING TO ME.
[INAUDIBLE] SAY WE BEGIN TO REMEMBER AND GO FORWARD.
SO WHAT IS IT THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO?
>> PESS I DON'T SEE AS MAL EXCLUSIVE.
I'M GOING TO A COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO GIVE THE INFORMATION TO GIVE THEM A REALISTIC NUMBER.
>> ALSO, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE MESS WAS COSTING BY ITSELF? SINCE COUNSEL WAS THE ONE WHO ADDED THAT IN THERE ORIGINALLY.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S BROKEN OUT IN HERE IN ONE OF THESE I SEE $4,500 FOR ROOM.
ROOM WITH THE GUYS FALLING OFF UP THERE.
>> THE MEZZANINE SAYS IT'S 4,240 SQUARE FOOT, AND I S THE COST OF $235 PER SQUARE FOOT, SO MULTIPLY THOSE TO COME UP WITH THE MEZZANINE COST?
>> THAT SHOULDN'T BE CORRECT BECAUSE THE MEZZANINE IS NOT GOING TO BE FINISHED OUT.
THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THE MEZZANINE WE SHOULD BE LOWER THAN THE REST OF THE BUILDING.
BUT IF YOU AVERAGED IT, IT WOULD AVERAGE OUT.
>> SOME THINGS YOU'LL FIGURE OUT FOR US.
>> I STILL WOULD LIKE IT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE STORAGE ISSUES.
PARKERS AND RECK HAS STUFF IN PEOPLE'S HOMES AND SO I BE PUS TO BUILD STORAGE ANY LESS EXPENSIVE ELSEWHERE.
>> I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTION.
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT AND BRING IT BACK OR DO WANT TO TAKE SOME [INAUDIBLE]?
>> BRING IT BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
>> I TOOK NO ACTION AND I BRING IT BACK, SEE WHAT ELSE YOU DO SHOW SOME MORE MONEY OFF OF IT AND MAKE A BETTER DECISION.
>> DOES THAT HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE]?
>> I BROKEN, BUT IT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
CONSIDERATION INAPPROPRIATE ACTION ON PROJECT RED CONTEMPORARY.
[14. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON DUBLIN ROAD PAVING CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH WATER LINE PROJECT]
I CAN'T SAY THAT WORD.CONTEMPORARY WITH THE RED PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DO MOST PEOPLE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW OF REPLACING THE WATER LINE THAT RUNS ALMOST THE FULL LENGTH OF THE SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD FROM PARK NORTH TO PARKER.
WE JUST DID THE SECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD THAT RUNS SOUTH FROM PARK DOWN TO FIVE DOWN TO NOT 544, BUT TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.
[01:15:05]
WHEN WE DID THE LAST ONE, I DON'T THINK WE GAVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE NEEDS THAT WERE DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT ABOUT THE NEED TO REPAY DUBLIN ROAD.WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
NOW SINCE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING THIS WATER LINE IN THE NORTHERN PORTION.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND PAY HALF OF THAT ROAD OVER, LIKE WE DID ON THE SOUTHERN HALF, WE LITERALLY GOT IT IN THE BUDGET TO REPLACE ALL OF THE DUBLIN ROAD WITHIN TWO YEARS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE ASK JURY TO DO IS TO GO OUT AND FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY COULD WE SAVE IF WE WENT AHEAD AND REPAY ALL OF THE NORTHERN PART OF DUBLIN ROAD AT THE SAME TIME AS OPPOSED TO JUST REPAVING THE HALF OF IT THAT WE DIG UP.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO PUT NEW PAVING DOWN ON HALF OF IT.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO END UP TEARING UP ALL OF THE NEW PAVING THAT WE PUT DOWN TO REPAY THE ENTIRE PART OF THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE ROAD WITHIN TWO YEARS.
GARY'S GOT THE NUMBERS DON'T LET HIM GET THEM.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE CAN SAVE ABOUT $400,000 IN TOTAL.
IF WE GO AHEAD AND REPAY THE ENTIRE ROAD NOW VERSUS REPAVING HALF OF IT NOW, DIGGING UP BACK UP AND REPAYING ALL OF IT IN THE FUTURE.
THAT OPENS UP THE WHOLE ISSUE THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT ABOUT REPAVING THE SOUTHERN PART OVER ALL.
I THINK WE CAN SEE NOW WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF IF WE'D GONE AHEAD AND SPENT THE MONEY TO DO THE SOUTHERN PART.
WE CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME AND REBUILD THAT DECISION, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THAT SAME MISTAKE AGAIN.
THE LAST TWO COMMENTS, I KNOW WE'RE HEARING SOME COMPLAINTS THAT EVEN THE PORTION THAT WAS REPAVED ON THE SOUTHERN END OF IT IS STILL ROUGH.
IT'S GOT NEW SURFACE ON IT, BUT IT'S NOT SMOOTH, AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT YOU GET WHEN WE TRY TO REPAVE HALF OF THE ROAD WITHOUT DIGGING UP ALL OF THE ROAD AND REGRADING THE BASE, AND DOING IT PROPERLY.
IF WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT PROPERLY, SAVE $400,000 OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD AND HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER ROAD, I THINK THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT.
THERE ARE VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'LL EVER HAVE TO SAVE $400,000 ON A SINGLE DECISION, AND THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THIS BECAUSE SOME MAY RAISE IT.
I LIVE ON DUBLIN ROAD, COLIN LIVES ON DUBLIN ROAD, MAYER TELLER LIVES ON DUBLIN ROAD.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE WE LIVE.
I SEE THIS AS A DECISION TO SAY $400,000 FOR THE CITY OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD REASON TO DO IT IN MY OPINION.
>> QUITE HONESTLY, I WISH YOU'D HAD THE GENIUS EARLIER BEFORE WE FINISHED THAT PIECE.
>> I ARGUE THAT IT'S MORE THAN 400,000 BASED ON ESCALATING COSTS OF MATERIAL AND OR COSTS.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT'S $400,000 IN PESOS DOLLARS.
I'LL BE MORE IF WE WAIT TWO YEARS AND DID IT.
>> HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE IN A FOR?
>> I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT COME UP.
>> [LAUGHTER] AS OF THE END OF THE AUDIT FOR 93024, WE HAD A FUND BALANCE OF A LITTLE $2 MILLION.
IN THE CURRENT BUDGET WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WE TRANSFERRED 24.5-24.5, WE TRANSFERRED $1.1 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND, AND TO DATE, WE'VE COLLECTED $406,000 IN SALES TAX THROUGH THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND.
SO ABOUT $3.5 MILLION AVAILABLE.
THIS YEAR, I TALKED TO BARRY THAT ANTICIPATE SPENDING MORE MONEY BEFORE THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
OUR ENDING FUND BALANCE SHOULD BE ABOUT 3.5 MILLION.
NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, WE'RE TRANSFERRED A MILLION DOLLARS.
SALES TAX RESTRICT MAINTENANCE FUND, WE'RE ANTICIPATING ABOUT 425,000.
FOR NEXT YEAR, WE'RE ANTICIPATING ABOUT $4.9 MILLION AVAILABLE.
DOUBLE ROW PHASE 1 TO 1.6, PHASE 2, 1.3.
THAT LEAVES ABOUT $1.9 MILLION OVER.
>> THAT'S WHERE THE 400,000 COMING OFF.
>> YES, MA'AM. IT SHOULD BE 41.6 MILLION,1.3 MILLION
>> DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER AT THE ESTIMATE FOR MORRIS LANE WAS?
>> GARY HASN'T SEARED INTO HIS HEAD [OVERLAPPING].
>> AND THOSE TWO NUMBERS FOR DUBLIN IF WE WERE TO DO THOSE COSTS, WOULD BOTH COME DOWN.
[01:20:01]
THE COSTS WOULD COME DOWN BECAUSE OF THE VALUE.I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH, BUT THAT'S.
>> WELL, HE'S CHECKING GRAND BUT 1.962 MILLION.
WE EXPECT TO SEE 400 ON TOP OF THAT, GIVEN THAT WE CUT AND OPTIMIZED FOR PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO OF THE DOUBLE READY.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, I BELIEVE THE BID OF THIS $2.9 MILLION ALREADY TAKES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, DOESN'T IT? WHAT'S THAT?
>> THE 2.9 MILLION THAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE ACCOUNTS FOR 400,000 IN SAVINGS.
>> NO. THAT'S THE COST TO THE CONTRACTOR TO DO THE ROAD.
THAT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE COST SAVINGS COMING OUT OF THAT.
>> SO WE WOULD HAVE 1.9 PLUS 400,006.3 MILLION.
>> AND HOW LONG WAS THIS SUPPOSED TO LAST? THIS IS JUST OVER.
THIS IS NOT A CORRECTION OF THE BASE.
>> WE WILL DOWN STABILIZE IT WITH SOME PROBLEMS, GET SOME TESTING DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO PUT TO STABILIZE IT, AND PUT A FABRIC BETWEEN LAYERS OF ASPHALT, LIKE SPRING HILL.
THAT WAS DONE 15 OR MORE YEARS AGO, AND IT'S HOLDING UP PRETTY WELL.
>> WILL WE BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND AND DO SOUTH DUBLIN REPAVING PRETTY QUICKLY?
>> WELL, RATHER PERMITTING, IT DEPENDS ON WHEN WE DECIDE BECAUSE ASPHALT PAVEMENT HAS TO BE DONE WHEN THE WEATHER IS 50 DEGREES AND RISING.
YOU CAN'T DO IT WHEN IT'S COLDER THAN THAT, I WON'T ACT RIGHT.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT THOSE FOLKS TO HAVE TO WAIT ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY IF WE HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE.
>> IF WE DECIDED TO DO THE ENTIRE [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IF WE NEED TO, WE COULD. YES.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT FUNDING OPTIONS.
>> BECAUSE I THINK THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE ROAD IS THE WORST.
I MEAN GOING SOUTH, THE SOUTH SIDE ALL THE WAY DOWN.
>> APPARENTLY, THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE THE ROAD ON THE NORTH END HAS GOT MORE HARD ROCK.
WHY THE NORTHERN END IS AS GOOD AS IT IS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A RIDE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
I MEAN, I DRIVE BOTH OF THE ENTIRE DISTANCE QUITE A BIT BECAUSE I USE THAT TO GO OVER TO 544 QUITE OFTEN INSTEAD OF GOING UP TO PARITY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN PART IS A LOT WORSE THAN THE NORTHERN PARTS.
THE NORTHERN PARTS ARE ALMOST LIKE LEWIS'S GOT SECTIONS OF IT THAT ARE REALLY BAD AND THE SECTIONS OF IT THAT ARE OKAY.
NONE OF IT'S GREAT. BUT SOME PARTS OF IT, ESPECIALLY IN THE S CURVE, WHERE YOU KNOW, LATERAL PRESSURES, SOME PEOPLE TURNING CURVES.
SOME OF THEM ARE NOT DOING SO WELL.
THE S CURVE PORTION THAT'S IN REALLY BAD SHAPE, THE PORTION IN FRONT OF THE REPEALS HOUSE, IS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
BUT THE REST OF IT'S IS CURVED.
>> THE ROAD HAS BEEN ON MY RADAR FOR A FEW YEARS AS A ROAD THAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED DUE TO THE LARGE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. PEOPLE USE THAT ROAD.
AND IT'S BEEN PROGRESSIVELY FAILING EVERY YEAR, OF COURSE.
FOUND THE ESTIMATE FOR LEWIS LANE.
THE ENTIRE LEWIS LANE WAS 2.021 MILLION.
SO THAT WOULD BE SPLIT UP; HOWEVER, WE DECIDED TO SPLIT THAT UP.
>> THAT WAS AN ESTIMATE FROM APRIL?
>> CLOCKS TICKING ON THAT PRICE DAY.
>> IF IT'S NOT THAT SAME PRICE, IT'LL BE PRETTY CLOSE TO IT, STILL.
>> THIS HAS BEEN IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TWO YEARS.
>> TO THE RESIDENTS IS OUR PRIORITY.
I DON'T, KNOW BUT WILL HOLD [INAUDIBLE].
[01:25:03]
>> WE'VE GOT TO DO LEWIS. THIS WILL GIVE US MONEY TO DO LEWIS.
I SAID, THERE ARE A FEW OPPORTUNITIES TO SAY $400,000.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION OUT THERE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REPAVING OF ALL OF DUBLIN ROAD.
FROM THE CITY LIMIT TO PARKER IN TWO PHASES.
THE FIRST PHASE WOULD BE THE NORTHERN PORTION OF DUBLIN ROAD FROM PARK TO PARKER, WITH THAT PAVEMENT TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WATER LINE IS LAID, AND YOU'RE READY TO COVER OVER THE PORTION WHERE THE WATER LINE WAS PUT UNDERNEATH THE STREET.
THE ENTIRE PORTION FROM NORTH TO SOUTH WOULD BE REPAVED AT THAT TIME.
NORTH OF PARKER, NORTH OF PARK TO PARKER.
AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF IT, FROM PARK DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMIT, WOULD BE DONE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, PERMITTING AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE NORTHERN PORTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM NORTH OF PARKER TO REPAVE DUBLIN IN TWO PHASES.
THE FIRST PHASE WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] THE SECOND PHASE WOULD BE FROM PARK SOUTH TO THE CITY LIMITS.
AND WE HAD A SECOND BY MISS HABERT.
>> HAVE WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION? I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU'RE READY TO START TOMORROW, BUT WHERE IS THE FUNDING COMING FROM, BECAUSE THIS WASN'T BUDGETED.
>> THAT'S THE IMPROVEMENT FUNDS?
SO THIS WOULD BE THE VARIABLE FUNDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE.
SO IN THE ACTUAL BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED AWHILE AGO.
THE BUDGET, LET ME PULL THAT BACK UP. JUST REAL QUICK.
>> IF WE DID, WOULD THAT WIPE OUT THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUNDS?
>> THERE'S STILL $50,000 IN GARY'S OPERATING BUDGET EVERY YEAR FOR POT REPAIRS, STUFF LIKE THAT, VARIOUS REPAIRS.
BUT AS FAR AS ANY MAJOR STREET PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE WIPED OUT.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PLAN IN FRONT OF ME IT, IT'S AT HOME.
ARE THERE RANCHES IN OTHER STREETS OVER THERE?
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE HIGH-QUALITY THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST PARTY ROADS?
WE'VE TRIED TO PATCH AND REPAIR AND PUT ON THE LIFE OF OTHER ROADS.
WE'VE GOT SOME OF THE ROADS THAT ARE GOING TO NEED REPAIR FAIRLY SOON, BUT WE CAN GET BY ON THOSE UNTIL WE CAN REPLENISH THE BUDGET TO DO THAT.
>> WOULD YOU SAY THOSE ARE THE TWO MOST HIGHLY TRAVELED NORTH-SOUTH ROADS IN THE CITY AT PARKER? MAYBE THE THIRD ONE, BEING CLOSE TO IT WOULD BE SPRING HILL, WHICH IS IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COVER THIS PROJECT.
BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FUND LEWIS WITHOUT DEPLETING EVERYTHING.
I THINK WE CAN TAKE THE MOTION AND THE VOTE ON DOING THE PROJECT, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THAT STARTED.
BUT THEN, IF GRANT CAN COME BACK TO US AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WHATEVER WITH FUNDING OPTIONS, WHERE WE DETERMINE HOW WE'RE FUNDING THIS.
>> I'LL HAVE BETTER NUMBERS ON THESE BY THE NEXT MEETING, ALSO WITH COST SAVINGS FOR UNIT COSTS THAT WOULD COME DOWN.
>> SO IN THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW, THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED EARLIER, THERE WAS THIS $4.9 MILLION IN THE BUDGET AND IT WAS APPROVED.
>> SO THAT? [INAUDIBLE] STRETCHES IT DOES.
>> SO IF THERE WERE ANOTHER, MAJOR ROAD REPAIR THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE, EITHER HAS TO ISSUE A CO BOND FOR IT OR
[01:30:02]
POSSIBLY DIP INTO FUND RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND IT.OF COURSE, I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
>> THAT'S TRUE. MISS SECOND TO MR. P'S MOTION, YOU'RE WANTING TO MEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE FUNDING OPTIONS THEY COME BACK NEXT WEEK OR WHENEVER WITH FUNDING OPTIONS.
>> I'M FINE WITH LOOKING AT FUNDING OPTIONS.
I'M FINE DECIDING HOW WE FUND IT NEXT TIME.
>> I WANT THIS TO BE A VOTE TO DO IT.
>> THIS IS A VOTE TO APPROVE THEM COMING BACK.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE PROTEIN PROGRAM, AND THE SECOND COUNSEL MEMBER, HABIT TO APPROVE DOUGLAS DUBLIN ROAD, AND TWO PHASES, THE FIRST PHASE, WHERE THE NORTH SIDE IS FINISHED.
THE SECOND PHASE WILL BE FROM THE PARK TO THE SOUTH TO THE CITY.
>> TO BEGIN AS SOON AS PERMITTED.
>> THANK YOU. FUNDING OPTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE DATE.
IF THERE'S ONE MORE DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION PASSES PER OBSERVER. THANK YOU.
[15. CONSIDERATION AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB (PWC) TO PLACE YARD SIGNS ON CITY PROPERTY DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER FOR ADVERTISING THEIR MEMBERSHIP DRIVE AND RUMMAGE SALE EVENT.]
CONSIDERATION, APPROPRIATE ACTION, AND A REQUEST BY THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB TO PLACES ON CITY PROPERTY DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER FOR ADVERTISING, THEIR MEMBERSHIP DROP, AND A. I THINK THE AGE IS ON SEPTEMBER 20.ANYWAY, THEY'RE ASKING PERMISSION TO PUT SIGNS ON CITY PROPERTY.
>> ANY DISCUSSION, YOU WANT TO MOTION, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE?
>> I HAVE A PICTURE ON MY PHONE.
THE PARKERS CLUB THIS YEAR DECIDED NOT TO DO A MASS MAILING DUE TO THE EXTREMELY HIGH EXPENSE OF MAILING TO EVERYBODY AND TRYING TO KEEP THEM JUST IN OUR CITY LIMITS, AND SPLITTING INTO OTHER CITIES, WHICH HAPPENED LAST YEAR.
THEY'VE DECIDED TO DO A SIGN CAMPAIGN KICKOFF ON THE WEBSITE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BRING IN THIS IS GOING TO BE ADVERTISING TO COME JOIN THEIR MEMBERSHIP DRIVE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THEY ARE ALSO HAVING IT NEXT SATURDAY AT THE CHURCH AND THEY WANT TO PUT A SIGN UP FOR THAT AS WELL.
>> ARE THEY ASKING THAT WE MOVE OUR SIGN FROM THIS LOCATION TO THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OUR PUBLIC WORKS PROPER WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES MIGHT BE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET THE PERMISSION FOR WHERE RUBBER SIGNS GO, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO KEEP UP WITH MOVING THE SIGNS.
WE WILL NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
I THINK THEY JUST WANT TO BE ON OUR CITY PROPERTY.
>> WHAT CITY PROPERTY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THINK THE CITY HALL PUT IN AND OUT THAT CENTER ISLAND AND MAYBE IN FRONT OF THE CITY HALL.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MEDIANS.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT MOVING, SAYS THE LETTER.
>.> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLACEMENT OF
[01:35:01]
PREGNANT WOMEN'S CLUB SIGNS FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP DRIVE AND SALE EVENT AT CITY HALL DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.>> WHAT WAS THE LAST TIME THEY WENT?
>> WE'LL HAVE A MOTION BY COUNSEL MEMBER HABIT, THE SECOND BY COUNSEL MEMBER BACK TO ALLOW THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB TO PLACE SIGNAGE DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
AN OPPOSING MOTION C50. ITEM 16.
[16. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 899 APPOINTING A CITY ATTORNEY.]
CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 89 APPOINTING THE CITY ATTORNEY.I UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION GOT INTO THE PACKET, AND THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S RESUME AND OTHER INFORMATION WERE NOT IN THERE.
BASED ON THAT, WHAT DOES COUNSEL DO?
>> SORRY. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE WAIT FOR THE INFORMATION, THOUGH IT IS POTENTIALLY JUST A ROAD EXERCISE AND FORMALITY IS PART OF A TECHNICAL PROCESS OF APPROVING SOMEONE'S EMPLOYMENT, AND SO WAIT FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE FOR DELIBERATION?
>> I'M TAKING THAT OF WITHDRAW UNTIL AN ACTION TAKEN UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
WOULD YOU PLEASE GET REFORMATION TO US. THANK YOU.
ITEM NUMBER 17. CONSIDERATION. STAY RIGHT BACK THERE.
[17. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-859 REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FACILITY LARGER THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET AT 3406 DUBLIN ROAD]
CONSIDERATION UNDER APPROPRIATE ACTION, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-59 REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY LARGER THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET AT 346 DUBLIN ROAD.AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NOT IF YOU WOULD COME UP HERE TO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU REQUEST TO BUILD A READING CHAPTER WHAT EVERYBODY FOR A PICTURE? AT CROSS KIRK.
>> TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
>> THE BASICALLY IT IS TO REMAIN PERIVE IN OUR SPACE.
MOST ALL THE OTHER VENUES IN THE AREA HAVE CHAPELS OR AN INDOOR OPTION.
WE ALSO WITH THE LOOMING NOISE ORDINANCE COMING IN.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN INDOOR OPTION FOR OUR OUTDOOR WEDDINGS, SO THAT'S NOT JUST THE MAIN FACILITY.
THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO MAIN REASONS.
RIGHT NOW, OUR PERMIT TO OPERATE ALLOWS US TO BUILD 1,000 SQUARE FEET.
WE NEED ABOUT 500 MORE TO BE ABLE TO FIT OUR AVERAGE WETTING SIZE IN THERE.
THAT'S IT. I BASICALLY BE FIVE FOOT WIDER ON EACH SIDE THAN IT WAS GOING TO BE.
>> CROSS KIRK OPERATES UNDER UNDER NATIONAL PERIOD?
>> PER CALLS FOR CONSTRUCTION OVER A FOOT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
>> HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNSEL. NOT JUST GO THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS. YES, MA'AM.
>> MR [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> JUST JUDGING FROM THE PICTURE HERE, THIS ILLUSTRATION DRY, I SEE CARS IN THE BACKGROUND.
>> NO, NOT. THAT'S AN AI RENDERING.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT I COULD GET SOMETHING CLOSE TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
IT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE POND IN BETWEEN TWO OF OUR OTHER CURRENT BUILDINGS.
YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE ROAD.
IT WILL BE BLOCKED BY THE TREES AND IT'LL BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE POND, SO ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE POND.
>> I'M JUST LOOKING A SUP RIGHT NOW.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WITH THE NS PERMIT LIVING DOWN THE STREET, VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS.
[01:40:01]
>> THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DONE A LOT.
>> DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE FORGOTTEN.
IT ACTUALLY SAYS REQUIRED DRAWINGS IS THIS OKAY?
>> NO, WE WOULD NEED MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE, BUT HERE TO GET AN APPROVAL IF YOU'RE THE SIZE AND THE TAKE CARE OF PERMING DRAWINGS.
>> IT'S SIMILAR TO THE MATERIAL WAS YOU PLAN ON BUILDING WITHOUT IT?
>> YES. IT'S SIMILAR TO THE MATERIAL WITH THE REST OF THE FACILITIES BUILT OUT OF.
IT'S ALL CEDAR. IT WILL HAVE A METAL ROOF.
>> YOU'RE ALSO ASKING THE PERMIT DRAPED AS WELL.
>> THAT'S ONE TIME AGO, WE ALREADY HAD THAT DONE.
>> THAT'S FROM 2019 WHEN THEY CAME TO COUNSEL.
WE ASKED FOR THE PERMIT FEE TO BE WITHDRAWN AT THAT POINT?
>> DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS COUNSEL? ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. COUNSEL [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVED RESOLUTION 2025859 REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A FACILITY LARGER THAN SQUARE FEET AT SIX DUBLIN ROAD, SUBJECT TO PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNSEL MEMBER B AND A SECOND BY COUNSEL MEMBER HOBART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025859 REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY THAN 1,000 SQUARE FOOT AT F06 DUBLIN ROAD, APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF THERE IS NO.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THAT SUPPOSE. MOTION PASS ZERO.
[18. UPDATE(S)]
>> TWENTY FIVE FITY ONE MOVING FORWARD, THEY'VE GOT A BID BREAK HERE TO BE ABLE TO.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN THEY'RE STOOD SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE.
THEY STARTED LAND ASPHALT ON THE SECTION FROM HALL NORTH.THEY SHOULD START WITH CONCRETE THERE PRETTY SOON IN THIS SECTION IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
AS THEY FINISH UP THE SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE, THEY GOT THE UTILITIES ARE THEY'RE READY TO MOVE ON THE REST OF THE PROJECT JUST TO MIND.
>> THIS PAST WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, WHICH IS THE COURT HELD A PRELIMINARY HEARING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUFFINES ON 101 ACRES.
IT WAS ATTENDED BY THE PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO WANT TO BE PROTESTANTS IN IT.
BASICALLY EVERYONE WHO ATTENDED WAS ADMITTED AS A PROTESTANT, ALL THE INDIVIDUALS WERE.
THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR THAT WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND BECAUSE THEY HAD SOME DIFFICULTIES.
THOSE ARE BEING APPEALED RIGHT NOW.
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE OPPOSITION FROM THE HAINES ATTORNEY TO THE PARTICIPANTS.
HOWEVER, THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THE JUDGE IS WHICH IS THE SAME JUDGE WE HAD BEFORE REBECCA SMITH.
IS GOING TO REQUIRE ALIGNMENT, SO THAT MEANS IF THERE ARE 50 OF US, BUT ARE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS.
SHE'S GOING TO PUT US INTO GROUPS, OR WE PUT OURSELVES INTO GROUPS SO THAT THERE WILL BE FIVE ANYWHERE 3-6 GROUPS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY IT WILL END UP BEING DEPEND ON HOW MANY SHE APPROVES, AND WE WILL WORK AS GROUPS INSTEAD OF JUST AS INDIVIDUALS.
WE'VE GOT TO PROPOSE THE GROUPS TO HER BY FRIDAY OF THIS GROUP, THE 12TH, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT STEPS.
[01:45:04]
IN FACT, THE NEXT STEP AFTER APPROVING THE GROUPS IS FOR THE GROUPS, THE CITY OF PARKER, THE CITY OF MURPHY AND RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS TO SUBMIT SCHEDULING ORDER, A PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER.WE GENERALLY DISCUSSED A FINAL HEARING ON MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO BE HELD SOMETIME IN THE MONTH OF JULY OF 2026.
IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO END UP BEING THE SECOND WEEK OF JULY 2026 WITH DISCOVERY TAKING PLACE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
THE APPEAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PERMIT IS STILL SET FOR BRIEFINGS TO BEGIN IN OCTOBER AND BEGIN IN NOVEMBER.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH WHICH IS WHICH ON THE WHO GOES FIRST, BUT THOSE ARE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WITH A FEBRUARY 19 HEARING DATE, AND THEY ARE STILL PURSUING THE PERMIT FOR 666 UTILITY CONNECTIONS FOR A PLANT ON MAXWELL CREEK. IT'S NOT OVER.
>> COUNSEL, QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLYNN.
NEXT LINE. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT MR. FLYNN OR KATHERINE, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT MR. FLYNN.
>> I CAN SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT IT.
COUNSEL HAS ALLOWED THAT I BE THE SOLE VOICE OF NEGOTIATIONS TO HARDSHIP FORWARD, BUT DISCUSSIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS, I'VE REACHED OUT, SUCCESSFULLY CONTACT BOTH THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF CITY OF LUCAS AND WE'RE IN AN ONGOING DIALOGUE TO REMEDIATE RAPIDLY ISSUES AROUND OWNERSHIP AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION AND RESOLUTION FOR THE ISSUES SURROUNDING ROSE LANE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORT.
I AM GETTING READY TO MEET WITH OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO TRY TO GET IT UP TO DATE AND BACK TO COUNSEL.
>> I THINK I'VE RECEIVED COMMENTS BACK FROM EVERYBODY, AND SO IT'LL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO GO THROUGH THOSE AND PUT THEM INTO A DOCUMENT THAT I CAN SEND BACK OUT TO THE COUNSEL FOR REVIEW.
WE'RE SCHEDULED TO GO FOR WORKSHOP 116.
LS HOPE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY.
>> I THINK [INAUDIBLE] UNLESS WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE COUNTY AND IT'S GOING TO BE A SLOW PROCESS.
>> SCHEDULED FOR 916 ON THE AGENDA IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> DOES THAT HURT? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THAT'S WHAT THEY WISH TO ADD.
[19. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WE'RE SO GETTING THAT LIST UP TO DATE BETTER BITS WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS.>> I THINK WE MAY HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT SWAGGER.
I KNOW I'VE TRIED TO WATCH ZOOM MEETINGS.
THEY'RE REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH DUE TO THE SOUND QUALITY, AND I HAVE ALSO GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM CITIZENS SAYING HAVING SIMILAR ISSUES WITH OUR MEETINGS, AND EVEN FOR ME IT'S NOT.
>> SWAGGER WAS WORKING VERY WELL.
SWAGGER WAS DOING WELL, AND THEN WE BROUGHT IN ONE OF THE CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNSEL POSITION.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT THING?
[01:50:01]
>> I WORKED THIS SWAGGER RESET THE LEVELS, GET EVERYTHING WITH THEM ON THE LINES THEY CAN HEAR IT AND SEE.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S BEEN WORKING BETTER, BUT I'M HEARING THAT IT'S NOT.
>> THERE IS LAST N MEETING? NO WAS BEFORE THAT.
>> IT MAY BE AS SIMPLE AS THEY'RE NOT IN THE LIES.
>> WE JUST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO THIS.
>> I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO LOOK AT NOT JUST SWAGGER TRYING TO FIX IT, BUT WE JUST NEED ASSISTANCE ON MANAGING OUR TECHNOLOGY IN THIS ROOM AND FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME.
>> WE HAVE A FUTURE AGENDER ITEMS. AT THIS TIME, RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY
[EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH]
CONTAINED GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, BUTS, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 PERSONNEL CONSULTATION OF A CITY ATTORNEY, CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072 CONFRONTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER.
[RECONVENE SPECIAL MEETING. ]
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKER CITY COUNSEL.[ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND/OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE. ]
ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION ACTION ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECT LISTED ABOVE.>> MY APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT FOR THE STYLE TITLE VERSUS THE CITY OF PARKER AND A EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BARD AND I SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BARD THAT WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAWSUIT VERSUS CITY OF PARKER AND TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF SET AGREEMENT.
CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> IS THERE ANY ITEMS OR ANYTHING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.