>> I THEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING BARKER TEXAS TO IT IS SEPTEMBER 16,
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
2025 AT 5:30 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO INTO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
[WORKSHOP]
WHICH WILL BE LED BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER CINDA MAYOR.MISS MAY, YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND JOB A NEW COUNSEL, IF YOU CAN GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE NEED TO GO.
>> THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS JUST SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS PUBLISHED BECAUSE THE CHANGES SOME OF THE CHANGES WEREN'T INCORPORATED, AND THEY WERE MOSTLY FORMATTING CHANGES.
HOWEVER, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR YOU WILL BE THIS DOCUMENT IN SOME CASES IN SOME AREAS THREE AND 4-YEARS-OLD.
MUCH OF THE INFORMATION HAS CHANGED, THE POPULATION HAS CHANGED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE SURVEY IS STILL VALID.
[INAUDIBLE] LINKS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FOR POPULATION.
THE STREETS, OPEN SPACES, THE CIP PORTION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN OR TAKE IT OUT BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CHANGES EVERY YEAR.
PROJECT COSTS AGAIN, THAT PROBABLY HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.
BUT BASICALLY, I TRIED TO LAY IT OUT SO THAT LOOKING BACK AT WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE IN PREVIOUS YEARS.
THERE WAS A 1987 VERSION AND THEN THERE WAS A 2000 AND I THINK IT WAS 2001 VERSION.
NOTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
IT WAS MORE VERY FACTUAL AND OF COURSE, THE CITY WAS MUCH DIFFERENT BACK THEN, THERE WASN'T MUCH DEVELOPMENT GOING ON.
I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RESIDENTS THAT HAVE MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS, BUT NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN MADE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THAT SOME OF THEM ARE SUBJECT TO OPINION, I BELIEVE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT FROM HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO START GOING OVER PAGE BY PAGE AND WHAT YOU THINK YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE VERSUS WHAT WAS YOU KNOW FORMATTED AND PRINTED HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THE COMMITTEE AND THE COUNSEL AND ALL THAT WOULD CHANGE WITH THE NAMES.
PNC HAS MAJOR CHANGES WERE INCORPORATED IN THIS?.
THE COMMENTS BY TERRY LYNCH HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADDRESSED.
>> A COUPLE OF THEM WERE ADDRESSED IN OUR LAST MEETING, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE INCORPORATED IN HERE OR NOT.
AS YOU GO THROUGH IT, YOU NEED TO CHECK.
SOME OF THEM FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT'S ONE PERSON'S OPINION.
>> YOU GET A LIST OR A SUMMARY OF THOSE FROM TERRY?
>> I THINK WE NEED TO UPDATE THE MATTER AND COUNCIL, AND IT MAY BE THAT WE WANT TO LIST BOTH COUNSELS SINCE THE OLD COUNCIL HAD SOME INPUT IN THIS ALSO.
>> NO, I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT THE LAST COUNCIL COULDN'T HAVE FINISHED
[00:05:01]
THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS PRETTY CLOSE TO COMPLETE AND NOW THAT WE'RE GETTING THIS, IT'S NOW A WHOLE CANS AND A LOT OF THE INFORMATION IS OUTDATED.NOW I THINK THIS COUNCIL IS NOW FACED WITH HOW MUCH TIME WE WANT TO PUT INTO THIS AS FAR AS GOING BACK AND REVISING THE STUFF THAT'S OUT OF DATE.
WHEN IS THIS ACTUALLY STARTED?
>> I BELIEVE WELL, MICHAEL SLAUGHTER STARTED IT IN 2021.
>> HE STARTED BY HAVING A COMMITTEE OF RESIDENCE, AND THAT FIZZLED OUT PRETTY QUICK.
THEY TOOK THE DOCUMENT FROM 2001 I BELIEVE, AND THEY TOOK THAT DOCUMENT, WENT THROUGH IT, REVISED IT.
AFTER THAT WAS DONE, THE FACT IS THAT IT WAS JUST A VERY BRIEF FACTUAL DOCUMENT.
IT HAS TAKEN BOTH INTO THE FUTURE.
WHAT DO WE SEE PARKER AS BEING NOW OR WHAT IS IT NOW AND WHAT IS IT TEN YEARS FROM NOW? IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION.
IT'S HARD TO PICK UP THE HEAD.
BUT WE PAST THE POINT OF ALMOST POINT OF FULL DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE VERY LITTLE TO THE LEFT. THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
IT WASN'T GOING TO GET US WHERE WE WANTED TO GO IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ABOUT THE FUTURE, ABOUT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS, THE FEELINGS OF THE CITY.
CITY WAS JUST TOTALLY DIFFERENT BACK THEN.
STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND JOINT MEETINGS WITH PNC.
WE LOOKED AT OTHER COMPLAINS FOR SIMILAR, WE TRIED TO GET SIMILAR SIZED CITIES IN THE AREA.
WE SELECTED A FEW CITIES AND I PUT TOGETHER A SPREADSHEET OF WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR COMPLAINS.
WE PICKED AND CHOSE WHICH ITEMS WE WANTED TO BE INCORPORATED IN THIS ONE, THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED.
THOSE COMPLAINS ABOUT THE SIMILAR SIZED CITIES.
THEY HAD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS OUT THERE, THE FOCUS IS ON THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THAT TYPE OF THING.
GIVEN PARKER BEING UNIQUELY COUNTRY, THIS IS RATHER ABBREVIATED FROM SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES.
AT THAT TIME, WE PICKED WHICH ITEMS WE WANTED TO INCLUDE AND THEN JUST STARTED FROM SCRATCH.
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE OBVIOUSLY HAS TO CHANGE.
WHETHER YOU KEEP THE LAST COUNSEL INFORMATION IN THERE IN THE COUNCIL BEFORE THAT, PERSONALLY, I WOULDN'T.
I WOULD JUST PUT PRESENT COUNSEL IN THERE.
>> BUT LAST COUNSEL DID WORK ON A LOT MORE REAL.
YOU MUST CHOSE [INAUDIBLE] TO DO THIS.
REALLY THE COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON IT.
THEN AFTER IT WAS FINISHED, WE HAD A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE LISTED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE, AND THERE WERE SOME MINOR CHANGES MADE, AND I CAN TELL YOU WHICH CHANGES WERE MADE AND WHICH ONES.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, PNC MADE SOME CHANGES.
AGAIN, THEY ARE MOSTLY MINOR CHANGES, SOME OF THEM MORE GRAMMATICAL, SOME OF THEM WERE THINGS LIKE THAT.
PUNCTUATION. THAT'S UP TO YOU, THAT'S YOUR DECISION HOW YOU WANT TO FRAME THIS THING AS FAR AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS GO.
>> TO PNC, MADE [INAUDIBLE] TO VIEW CHANGES.
I MAY SEND IT BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND THE INFORMATION FROM MISS LYNCH. THAT'S IT.
[00:10:05]
>> THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE INCORPORATED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
AS FAR AS FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER LAUNCHES RECOMMENDATIONS.
AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THOSE AND SEE.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH ONES YOU WANT TO INCLUDE AND WHICH ONES YOU DON'T.
IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY OBVIOUS THAT IT HAD TO BE DONE.
THERE WASN'T NOTHING THAT WAS INCORRECT.
STARTING OUT WITH CHAPTER 1 IS JUST THE INTRODUCTION OF WHAT CLARK IS, WHAT TYPE OF CITY WE ARE.
THAT WAS NOT ANYTHING I THINK THAT HAD ANY CHANGES.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, I DON'T THINK WE CHANGED ANYTHING THERE WITH EXCEPTION.
PNC ADDED I WANTED TO ADD THAT LAST THE LAST PARAGRAPH.
THEY WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING ON SOUTH FORK BECAUSE SOUTH FORK IS SUCH AN ATTRACTION IS THE ONLY ATTRACTION.
I GUESS IN PARKER FROM THE OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE. WE ADDED THAT.
THE VISION STATEMENT WAS PASSED BETWEEN PNC AND COUNSEL BACK THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO.
THE NEXT PAGE, THE FRAMEWORK AND THE PROCESS, AND THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT I DID IS I PICKED UP A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION FROM THE PREVIOUS COMPLAIN THAT WAS DONE YEARS AGO.
I DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHAPTERS ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND ALL THAT ARE STILL VALID.
THEN THE VISION STRATEGY ACTION BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES.
WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THOSE OBJECTIVES AND HOW WE PLANNING ON ACHIEVING THEM.
THE BUILDING ON PAST PLANNING EFFORTS, AGAIN, IT JUST REITERATES THE CITY WHEN IT WAS FORMED, WHEN THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY PASSED IN 1987 AND THEN IN 2000.
THE NEXT SECTION IS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
THIS WAS A SURVEY THAT WAS CONDUCTED IN FEBRUARY 2023.
IT WAS DONE, I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME HERE.
IT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OUT BETTER.
THERE WAS LITTLE CONTROL OVER WHO WAS RESPONDING.
HOW MANY?, FOR INSTANCE, ONE RESIDENT COULD RESPOND TEN TIMES AND WE WOULDN'T KNOW.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT BECAUSE THAT COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN.
IF SOMEBODY FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT ONE ISSUE, THEY MAY RESPOND SEVERAL TIMES.
NOW, OTHERS DISAGREED WITH ME, BUT THAT'S JUST.
>> A QUICK QUESTION. WHO DID YOU HIRE TO DO THE SURVEY?
>> OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR DID IT HIMSELF.
I THINK HE USED A MICROSOFT PROGRAM.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY WHO DO THE ANALYTICS.
I'M SORRY. HAVE ANYBODY OUTSIDE DO THE ANALYTICS ON THE RESPONSES? NO. WHATEVER USED IT WAS FARROW.
FARROW IS THE BEST, BUT THEY DID GIVE THE BACK END INFORMATION, BUT THERE WAS NO RAW CONTROL ON THE SURVEY ITSELF.
WE SENT IT OUT THE CITY SENT IT OUT ON THE WATER BOTTLE SAYING, THE SURVEY WILL BE OPEN BETWEEN THIS STATE AND THIS STATE AND IT WAS FAIRLY SHORT TIME FRAME, WHICH IS GOOD.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE PAT IS RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER METHOD OF COMMUNICATING, BUT IT WASN'T SENT TO EVERY RESIDENT.
PEOPLE DIDN'T NOTICE IT ON THEIR WATER BOTTLE OR THEY DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE WEBSITE.
[00:15:08]
WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN A RESPONSE FROM THEM.>> THERE WERE FLAWS IN THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF PUTTING TOGETHER THIS SURVEY.
WHEN YOU ASK SOMEBODY, WHAT DO YOU LIKE THE MOST ABOUT PARKER, FOR INSTANCE, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
THEN YOU SAY CHOOSE THE TOP 3.
WELL, THERE'S ONLY FIVE TO CHOOSE FROM.
AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT REALLY GETTING THE INFORMATION YOU NEED BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH OVERLAP BETWEEN SOMEBODY'S PRIORITY CAN BE ONE THING, YET IT'LL BE SKEWED BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT IT'S NOT THEIR PRIORITY.
THAT GOES FOR ALMOST ALL OF THESE WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR TOP 3.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO ME, WAS WOULD YOU CONSIDER SMALL COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL BUSINESSES TO HELP OFFSET THE TAX BURDEN? WELL, THAT WASN'T WELL THOUGHT OUT BECAUSE USUALLY COMMERCIAL INCREASES THE TAX BURDEN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE FIRE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE POLICE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MAYBE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
THERE'S VARIOUS OTHER THINGS THAT COME INTO PLAY WHEN YOU START WITH COMMERCIAL.
NOT SAYING COMMERCIAL IS BAD, BUT LOOK AT MURPHY.
THEY WERE A SMALL TOWN PARKER A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THEY BROUGHT IN COMMERCIAL TO OFFSET THEIR TAX BASE, I GUESS, AND THEIR TAX RATE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN PARKER'S [INAUDIBLE] THE COMMERCIAL THEY HAVE.
>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CONTEXT AROUND THE QUESTION, JUST AS IT IS, THAT'S A GUT REACTION.
>> WE GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MAYBE, WHICH DOESN'T HELP.
IT'S EITHER YES OR NO IN MY OPINION.
THE FIRST QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT PARKER? ONE RESPONSE WOULD BE LOW DENSITY, LARGE LOT SIZES.
THE NEXT ONE IS COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE, WHERE THEY'RE THE SAME THING, BUT TO ME, IT JUST NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IMPACT THE SURVEY REALLY HAS WHEN YOU PUT THE PLAN TOGETHER, BECAUSE A LOT OF FUTURE NEEDS IS NOT DRIVEN BY COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE.
IT'S DRIVEN BY WHAT DOES THE CITY NEED TO PROVIDE WATER TO THE RESIDENTS, OR TRASH PICK UP, OR ONE OF THE CITY SERVICES? WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND TOO.
>> I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE RESPONSE RATE IS ABOUT LESS THAN 10% OF THE CITY AT THE TIME.
>> IF YOU GET IT BY HOUSEHOLD, THEN IT'S NOT.
WERE WE TRYING TO TARGET IS ELDER RESIDENTS, ADULT RESIDENCES AS WELL, WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO TARGET HOUSEHOLD.
>> THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED AT THE TIME BECAUSE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE BY HOUSEHOLD OR BY RESIDENT, AND THEY DECIDED IT SHOULD BE BY RESIDENT BECAUSE HUSBAND AND WIFE COULD HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
BUT, OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY OF EIGHT RESPONDING, NOT THAT THAT HAPPENED, BUT IT'S ONLY ONE HOME IN PARKER VERSUS SOMEBODY, THAT'S MYSELF INCLUDED, THAT IS A HOUSEHOLD NUMBER OF BEING.
BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS HAS SOME FLAWS IN IT.
>> AN IMPORTANT THING IN ANY MARKETING SURVEY IS THAT WILL THE SAMPLE BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POPULATION,
[00:20:02]
WHOSE OPINION YOU NEED? I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT THIS WAS DONE IN A MANNER THAT GATHER REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS DONE.I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU JUST SEND IT OUT TO EVERYBODY IN GENERAL, YOU JUST LET PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RESPOND RESPOND.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY GET REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES.
>> NOW, IN OTHER CITIES, AND ONE THAT I LOOKED AT AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH CITY IT WAS [INAUDIBLE] IN COLLIN COUNTY.
WHEN THEY PUT TOGETHER THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEY HAD PEOPLE COME IN ON A SATURDAY, AND THEY HAD COMPUTERS SET UP SO THAT THEY COULD TALK TO PEOPLE, NOT TRY TO SWEAR THEM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT THE RESIDENTS WOULD ACTUALLY COME IN AND RESPOND IN PERSON.
AGAIN, THEY SEE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS, HOW PEOPLE FEEL.
IT'S MORE OF A FRIENDLY WAY TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE RESIDENTS.
WE WERE IN A HURRY. THEY WERE IN A HURRY TO GET THIS DONE.
IT'S IRONIC THAT [INAUDIBLE] STILL TALKING ABOUT IT.
>> IF YOU'RE USING MAILED BILLS, I HAVEN'T SEEN A MAIL BILL IN SIX YEARS.
>> WAS THE BILL THE AMOUNT DUE TO IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR.
I HAVE NO IDEA, WHAT THE SELECTION PROCESS OR WHO THE BILL READERS ARE AND NO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY.
WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED RESPONSE?
OUT TO THE FULL COUNSEL, IS THAT SOME WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO JUST TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE?
>> THE OTHER THING IS THAT ONE PERSON COULD HAVE RESPONDED 10 TIMES, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN.
>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SURVEY.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE RAW DATA.
IT WAS PRESENTED IN ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS TOO, SO IT WOULD BE ON THE RECORDINGS.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, BUT OKAY.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO ACCEPT THIS OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS REDONE? AS YOU SAID HOW MUCH TIME WE'RE GOING TO PUT ONTO IT? ARE WE GOING TO ACCEPT FROM BEFORE US AND JUST FINISH IT OUT, OR DO WE START OFF?
>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD MATERIAL IN HERE IN REDOING IT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? BALANCE OF BL. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD MATERIAL THAT CAN BE KEPT.
I THINK A LOT OF IT IS RELATIVELY INSENSITIVE THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO KEEP THROW AWAY A LOT OF HARD WORK WENT INTO THIS.
THERE ARE SECTIONS HERE THAT SEEM PARTICULARLY WEAKER OVERALL FOR OUR PURPOSES.
THE TIME PERIOD WITH WHICH THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AND THE QUALITY WITH WHICH WE ANTICIPATE THE RESPONSE.
I CAN'T GET OVER HOW COMPARED TO WHEN I STARTED.
BUT I THINK AS A COUNSEL COULD WORK THROUGH CHAPTER BY CHAPTER AND JUST PROVIDE A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE BEHIND IT AND IDENTIFY THE MOST PROBLEMATIC SEXURES AND TRY TO ADDRESS IT BY WAY.
>> I AGREE. I CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS BECAUSE I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN YEARS OF YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE IT.
I AM READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS P.
>> IT CAN ALWAYS BE REVISED AND DATE, BUT TO CONTINUE TO REVISE AND REVISE AND TAKE YEARS AND YEARS IS JUST RIDICULOUS.
IT'S TIME TO FINISH THIS AND TO MOVE FORWARD. I AGREE.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT I'VE OF GOT A COUPLE OF MITES TO SAY, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EVENTUALLY UPDATE THE ROADS, AND WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY HAVE TO UPDATE THINGS CONSTANTLY IN THIS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKING DOCUMENT.
BUT I THINK FOR A STARTING POINT, IT'S TIME.
>> HOW OFTEN DO MOST CITIES DO REVISE UPDATE THEIR COP PLAN?
[00:25:04]
>> I THINK IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT DEPENDS ON THE CITY AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE CITY.
THE RAPID GROWTH, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OFTEN, IT'S A CITY LIKE AS THERE'S GROWTH, BUT THERE'S RAPID GROWTH.
>> REQUIREMENT ON UP DING A PLAN? I WAS ACTUALLY JUST LOOKING AT THAT CHAPTER.
NOT THAT I SEE ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT RECENTLY, I DON'T RECALL WHAT'S IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO ADOPT A PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE ORDINANCES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT GUIDES THE ADOPTION, BUT I'LL CHECK ON THAT.
>> I THINK A LOT OF THIS LATER PART OF THE DOCUMENT IS OVERLAPPING WITH THE CIP PLAN, CORRECT? I ASSUME THE CIP PLAN IS MORE OF A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE UPDATED EVERY YEAR.
IF SO, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT REMOVED FROM HERE, AND THEN WE JUST REFERENCE THE CIP PLAN INSTEAD.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> AS FAR AS THE DEMOGRAPHIC SCO.
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE CENSUS AND UPDATED.
PROJECTED UPDATES ARE PUBLISHED.
THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL, IT WASN'T EACH HOUSEHOLD RESPONDED, BUT, IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CENSUS TIME FRAME.
THE NEXT CENSUS WOULD BE IN 2030S.
PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME, WHERE DID I GET THIS INFORMATION? THERE ARE WEB SITES OUT THERE, AND I THINK THERE'S STATE OR FEDERAL THAT PROJECT POPULATION GROWTH, AND THAT'S WHERE I TOOK IT FROM.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD, SO IT HAS CHANGED.
ALL THAT INFORMATION AS FAR AS HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND WEALTH INDICATOR, AND HOME VALUE.
THIS WAS AS OF THE 2020 CENSUS, AND THEN THE 2023 UPDATES IS WHERE I GOT THOSE FIGURES FROM. OKAY.
>> WE COULD PUT IN YOU FIGURES WERE EFFECTIVE AS OF 2020.
>> TO ANSWER THE EARLIER QUESTION, ACCORDING TO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED.
THE PLAN AND THE MAP SHOULD BE REVIEWED AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS.
EVERY FIVE YEARS SOUNDS REASONABLE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE NUMBERS ARE CHANGING CONSTANTLY AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CONSTANTLY DO THAT.
THAT'S JUST FOR AS FAR AS POPULATION GOES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
HONESTLY, THE POPULATION NUMBERS FOR 23 ESTIMATE, THAT S BE CLOSE.
WE'RE NOT MAKING SWEEPING CHANGES WHERE WE SUDDENLY HAVE A HIGH RISE ON THE HAINES PROPERTY.
>> NO COULD TRYING ON THEIR PART.
>> THE MAPS, HOWEVER, LIKE IF CHAPTER 5 IS LAND USE, THE ETJ, THAT MAP SHOULD PROBABLY BE UPDATED BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF DATE.
PARTICULARLY WITH I GUESS THE KING'S CROSSING.
>> BUCKINGHAM ESTATES, KINGS CROSSING.
THERE'S AN AREA ON THERE THAT HASN'T BEEN ETJ, I THINK IN YEARS THAT FOR SOME REASON IS LISTED AT THE ETJ ON THAT MAP.
[00:30:02]
SO THAT MAP NEEDS JUST COMPLETE.AND IT DOESN'T EVEN MAP THE ETJ MAP THAT'S LATER IN THE DOCUMENT NEAR THE BACK.
>> WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT GETTING JUST A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO WORK WITH CINDY TO MAYBE SAY, HEY, THIS IS A BIG THING, ETJ MAP, LET'S QUICK UPDATE THAT.
THOSE ARE SIMPLE THINGS THAT I THINK WE COULD MAYBE GET TOGETHER TO UPDATE SOME STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF WE COULD JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH THIS, OR DECIDE TO TELL ME.
BUT YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO KEEP, WHAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE, WHAT YOU WANT TO UPDATE.
>> ITEM I'VE GOT IS THE ETJ MAP IS FOR SURE, NEEDS TO BE UP DATED PAGE 12.
DO YOU NEED A PEN OR SOMETHING.
>> IS IT THE SAME PAGE 12 THAT WAS ON HERE?
>> THESE PAGE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT FROM.
>> JUST MOVING THROUGH THIS SO WE CAN IDENTIFY WHAT PAGES WE WANT TO OR WHAT SECTIONS WE WANT TO UPDATE.
I'M ON PAGE 13, WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS.
PROBABLY THAT'S A GOOD WAY IT IS.
>> WHEN WAS OUR LAST FLOOD PLAN MAP? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? ISN'T IT RECENT?
>> JUST TO READ MATH IS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T THINK I ACTUALLY DID WHEN I WAS DOING THIS.
HOWEVER, IT'S YOU HAVE TO ZOOM IN SO CLOSE TO ACTUALLY SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE FLOOD PLAN IS.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THAT LEVEL.
THEY ANNOUNCE WHEN THEY COME OUT WITH A NEW FLOOD MAP, SO WE CAN JUST RESEARCH AND SEE IF ONE HAS COME OUT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND THEN IF IT HAS, THEN WE NEED TO REVISE IT.
IF WE DON'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, WE GO WITH THIS ONE.
>> I THINK, AT THE VERY LEAST, WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS HAVE A CURRENCY INDICATOR FOR THE MAP PROVIDED.
JUST TO SAY THAT WE'RE USING SUCH AND SUCH A MAP DATED ON SUCH AND PLEDGE.
BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT MAKES MAINTAINING THE DOCUMENT OVER TIME EASIER BECAUSE WE KNOW. WHERE IT CAME FROM.
>> ON THE PICTURES ON PAGE 14, I ASSUME THAT SYCAMORE AND THE ESTATE THING, IF I'M TO GUESS.
>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE LENS [INAUDIBLE]
>> ANYWAY, THOSE ARE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I'M WONDERING THAT ACTUALLY, I THINK THE BULK OF OUR HOUSING AT THIS POINT IS IN THE NEWER NEIGHBORHOODS, IF WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A MORE REPRESENTATIVE PICTURE.
I WAS PRESSING, I GUESS I'M NOT CLOSE ENOUGH.
>> THEY GOT ME, IT'S YOUR TURN.
>> PAGE 15 NOTED THAT THERE IS A [INAUDIBLE] IS OUT OF ALPHABETIC ORDER ON THAT LIST.
FIFTEEN'S [NOISE] FARM IS IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE CASE CROSSING.
>> ALSO, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT OFFLINE.
THE BOOK'S FARM NUMBERS, I KNOW WE'RE WRONG.
>> I GOT THIS OFF THE TREASURE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. [INAUDIBLE]
>> OTHERS MAY BE WRONG. IT'S JUST WHATEVER WAS OUT ON CAP.
[INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING NUMBERS FROM.
>> IF YOU WANT TO KNOW, I THINK THAT PHASE 1 NUMBER IS ACTUALLY THE TOTAL,
[00:35:05]
NOT JUST PHASE 1, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT IT CLOSER.>> YEAH. THAT PROBABLY IS CORRECT.
>> PAGE 20 CITY ADMINISTRATION.
I THINK WE'VE HIRED SO MANY PEOPLE.
WE ADDED A DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.
WE ADDED ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARY AS ADMIN, AND THEN THIS BUDGET, WE ALSO ADDED ANOTHER COUPLE OF SPOTS.
>> ACTUALLY, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO PAGE 16, AND THERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE NEW SUBDIVISIONS ARE IN THERE.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OF YOU TO LIST? CINDY CAN WRITE THEM DOWN.
>> WELL, I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO LABEL BUCKINGHAM ESTATES? DO WE WANT TO LABEL? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOUTH FORK NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CALLED, AND DO WE WANT TO PUT KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 IN THERE?
>> YEAH. I THINK IF IT'S GOT A ROAD, YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT ADDING THE SUBDIVISION IN THERE, WHICH 5 AND 6 DO.
DID YOU KNOW WHO MADE THIS MAP SO THAT WE CAN HAVE IT UPDATED FOR YOU? I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU SHOULD DO THAT.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE IT CAME FROM.
I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM THE COUNTY, BUT AGAIN, IT'S BEEN SO WRONG.
THERE PROBABLY ARE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE MISSING, OR THERE DEFINITELY ARE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE MISSING.
I DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DOING IT, SO I CAN ONLY ASK THE COUNTY TO UPDATE IT, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER COMING FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> WHO MADE THIS MAP IS THE QUESTION?
>> WELL, THAT'S IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE BIG CITY MAPS THAT HAVE BEEN SHRUNK.
>> I WAS THINKING THE GUY THAT WE MET WHO REPLACED KENNETH MAN, AT LEAST TO DIRECT FOR COLLIN, BECAUSE HE'S DEPENDENT ON SLOTS FOR ASSESSMENTS.
>> ON PAGE 18, WE NEED TO WELL, I THINK [OVERLAPPING] NUMBERS OF ACREAGE IN THE ETJ, AND WE WOULD NEED TO DATE THAT WHEN IT WAS ACCURATE.
>> SO WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK CHANGED?
>> WE HAVE LESS ACREAGE IN THE ETJ BECAUSE I KNOW AT LEAST WE ANNEXED 1, IF NOT MORE, PROPERTIES SINCE THEN.
BUCKINGHAM ESTATES, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> SEVENTEEN, 18 BOTH LIST THE NUMBER OF ACREAGE IN OUR ETJ.
>> 18 REPRESENTS THE BUSINESSES.
>> BUT THE PERSON HAS THE TOTAL.
>> SO THAT'S PROBABLY MISLEADING.
AS WITH THE 2024 COMP PLAN, AND SAY THIS IS THE NUMBERS AS OF 2024, AND THEN I HAVE TO UPDATE ALL OF THAT.
>> WELL, THAT'S FINE AS WE DATE IT.
>> THAT MIGHT BE EASIER TO DO THAN HAVING TO UPDATE IT ALL.
THAT WAS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM.
>> AND THE HEADING COULD BE REMAINING ETJ COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
>> YOU CAN JUST PAY AS OF 2024.
BECAUSE IT IS 2024, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PASSED IN 2025, IT JUST TOOK US THAT LONG TO GET TS [INAUDIBLE] CROSSED IN THE EYES DOTTED.
>> ON PAGE 23, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE POLICE AT THE VERY END, WE START TALKING ABOUT POLICE VEHICLES AND STUFF.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN HERE.
[00:40:02]
THAT'S TOO DETAILED.>> THAT LAST PARAGRAPH? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON PAGE 23?
>> ON PAGE 26, I'M GOING TO ASK COUNSEL ABOUT THIS RESTED BASED ON A RECENT DECISION, SO WE TAKE THAT OUT?
>> IN 2024, WE'RE MAKING REPAIRS, SO COULD WE GO BACK TO PAGE 24? IF WE'RE TAKING OUT THE VEHICLE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE OUT VEHICLES FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, TOO.
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I TAKE OUT THE VEHICLES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
>> SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC ROADS IN PARTICULAR.
>> WELL, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT SINCE THE VEHICLES COST A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
THE LONGEVITY OF A LADDER TRUCK AND THE PUMPER TRUCK.
TYPICALLY, A POLICE VEHICLE LASTS, I DON'T KNOW, A FEW YEARS, VERSUS.
DO YOU AGREE THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD KEEP IT IN FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT?
I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE A NOTE IN HERE ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IF THE CITY WERE TO CHANGE TO WHERE WE NEED TO, WHERE WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIGHT COMMERCIAL, IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT IN OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
>> DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD GO UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT?
>> I ADD WHAT-IFS TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, [BACKGROUND] RIGHT?
>> IF WE NEEDED TO GO THAT DIFFERENT [BACKGROUND], DOES THAT STATEMENT NEED TO BE IN THE COMPLAINT AS MY QUESTION? I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PUT WHAT-IFS.
I WOULD SAY ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE TRUCKS, THE MATCHING ITEMS, BUT NOT THE F-250 OR THE TYPE THING.
>> MAYBE WHAT I WOULD SAY INSTEAD OF WHAT IFS IS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS EQUIPPED TO SERVICE A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
>> THAT PAGE , WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON.
PAGE 28, TITUS COMMENTED THAT SHE'D LIKE TO ADD A COMMENT ABOUT WATER IMPACT FEES, WHICH ARE NOW CHARGED TO NEW HOMES TO HELP COVER THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.
TO LEARN THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THAT'S ON HER COMMENT; SHE DID THE EXACT WORDING.
WATER SYSTEM EXPANSION ON PAGE 29 PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE REVISED WITH CORRECT PLANS OR IN-PROGRESS INFORMATION ON THE NEW WATER TOWER OR LAND FOR THE NEW WATER TOWER.
>> WHAT ARE THE CURRENT STATUSES,
[00:45:02]
AND WHAT DO YOU SEE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR 2?>> WELL, I THINK IT SHOWED UP IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION.
IT SHOWS THAT THAT WAS PLANNED FOR 2026.
I GUESS IF WE'RE USING 2024 AS OUR BASE FOR THIS, WE CAN KEEP IT THERE.
I THINK IT'S ANOTHER LITTLE PARAGRAPH ON THE WATER TOWER?
>> I THOUGHT I READ SOMEWHERE THAT SOMETHING, IF SOMETHING HAPPENED RECENTLY.
>> BUT I THINK WE ALL DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND SO I THINK IT'S EASY TO KEEP IT IN THAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION TO SHOW THAT AT THAT TIME, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING, AND SURE ENOUGH, IN 2025, IT'S HAPPENING IN 2026.
>> YOU CAN NOTE IN THE WATER SYSTEM EXPANSION, IT JUST SAYS A SECOND WATER TOWER IS GOING TO BE NEEDED AND LAND HAS BEEN SECURED, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY EFFECTIVELY APPROVED MOVING FORWARD ON THAT.
TITUS AGAIN COMMENTED ON PARKER'S CONCRETE, SUBDIVISION STREETS REMAIN IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ON THE STREETS,, WE HAVE A F [INAUDIBLE] ON MOSS.
RIDGE. SHE DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT ACCEPTABLE, SO MAYBE YOU CAN PUT MOST OF THE STREETS, AND MAYBE WE COULD ADD THAT.
I THINK THAT WAS BEFORE WE DID THE PATCH ON MOSS RIDGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PATCH CHANGED, I MEAN.
I WASN'T ON THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.
COULD HAVE CHANGED THE NUMBER.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT WAS THE ASPHALT STREETS THAT WERE THE PROBLEM, RIGHT?
>> I GOT ASKED THE OTHER DAY IF THE STREETS SHOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE CFP.
>> AGAIN, THOSE ARE GOING TO CONSTANTLY BE CHANGING, RIGHT? CONSTANTLY NEED TO BE EVALUATED.
THOSE CAN'T WAIT FIVE YEARS SOMETIMES.
I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM MOVING IT OUT AND PUTTING IT IN WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
>> SHOULD THEY EXIST FOR SEPARATE INTENTIONS, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REALLY, FOR THE MOST PART IS SERVES AS A LIST OF ASSETS WHERE THE CIP SERVES AS A LIST OF INTENTIONS.
I'D LEAN TOWARD LEAVING THE STREETS IN HERE RATHER THAN.
>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT JUST BEING VISITED EVERY FIVE YEARS? IF WE PUT THAT IN AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IT'S GOING TO BE VISITED EVERY FIVE YEARS, IS THAT A GOOD TIME? I'M ASKING? I DON'T REALLY KNOW.
HOW OFTEN SHOULD THOSE BE EVALUATED?
>> I MEAN, YES, CERTAINLY ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WE'D LOOK AT IT MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THAT.
BUT FOR THIS, THIS GIVES US A GENERAL IDEA OF THE NUMBER OF STREETS AND THE GENERAL CONDITION THERE IN YOU KNOW IT'S JUST REDUNDANT IN CAP.
>> WHATEVER YOU WISH, WE WILL DO.
>> YOU CAN UPDATE CHURCH LANE, 20% RATING.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS A SLICE OF TIME IN 2024.
>> ACTUALLY, IF YOU READ 2021 IN THIS CASE.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD BECAUSE WE DID CHURCH LANE [INAUDIBLE]
>> AM I HEARING THAT WE WANT TO KEEP IT IN BOTH PLACES?
>> I THINK IT'S NOT A MATTER OF KEEPING IT IDENTICAL.
I THINK THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SHOULD BE A LIST OF ASSETS THAT YOU PLAN TO BUDGET OVER, PICK A TIME FRAME, AND THIS SERVICE IS A LIST OF ASSETS.
SORRY COUNCIL, [INAUDIBLE] THAT REMARKS.
[00:50:01]
I THINK REVISIT THE CIP MORE OFTEN, BUT I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK THIS CARRIES A LONGER LIST OF POTENTIAL LIABILITIES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME OR FINANCIAL LIABILITIES AS THEY EVENTUALLY REQUIRE SERVICE, INTENT OR NOT.>> WE HAVE THE WATER SYSTEM IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING.
THERE ARE WATER LINES THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED, SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT.
>> THAT'S A FAIR POINT. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHERE THINGS SHOULD BE AND [INAUDIBLE] SHOULD BE.
>> I THINK MORE SO THAN THIS IS A LISTING OF EVERY STREET AND HOW IT'S RATED, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUTDATED FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
I GUESS WHAT I'M THINKING WOULD BE MORE USEFUL IS IF WE JUST HAD SOME GENERAL SUMMARY THAT SAID, THE CITY OF PARKER HAS X MILES OF STREET THAT ARE, AND PUT THEM INTO CATEGORIES.
I'M MAKING UP NUMBERS, 40% OF THE STREETS, 80% ARE BETTER, 20% OF THE STREETS ARE BETWEEN 60 AND 80, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IN TERMS OF A RATING, SO THAT WE JUST PUT IN HERE.
WHAT'S THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF STREETS THAT WE HAVE? WHAT'S THE CONDITION OF THOSE STREETS? THEN OVER THE LONG HAUL, THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE SOME TOO, BUT AT LEAST IT GIVES A LOOK AT WHAT STREETS ARE BECAUSE STREETS ARE A MAJOR PART OF THE CITY'S OPERATION, AND MAYBE WHICH PORTIONS HAVE MORE CONCRETE ASPHALT. WE'VE GOT A PLAN FOR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] INTO AN APPENDIX THAT WE COULD AMEND MORE OFTEN THAN OR YOU JUST WANT TO REMOVE THEM [INAUDIBLE]
IF I WERE TO MY, HOW I'D LIKE TO ENCOUNTER IS, I LIKE THE CIP TO DO SOMETHING THAT CITIZENS CAN APPROACH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO DO, NOT WHAT IT HAS.
I THINK THIS DATA IS VALUABLE.
I DON'T KNOW ANY DATA TO FIT IT.
I MEAN, APPENDIX OR THIS POST.
>> I WAS GETTING MORE FOR SIMPLICITY OF JUST GOING THROUGH AN ASSESSMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND SAYS, HEY, COUNCIL, I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER AMENDING X, THAT'S UPDATED, WHAT HAVE YOU, WITHOUT OPENING THE AMENDING THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
>> 2020 STREET STUDY, ALL THE INFORMATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT IS FROM 2021.
BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STREETS CONDITION OF PROBABLY CONCRETE ASPHALT INFORMATION COULD BE TAKEN.
>> HOW OFTEN DO WE TAKE THE STREET SURVEY?
>> DO YOU KNOW THE LAST TIME IT WAS DONE BEFORE 2021?
I KNOW THAT JAY AND JOHN BERKO USED TO DRIVE THE CITY EVERY YEAR AND PICK OUT THE 10 STREETS AND BRING THEM TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, COUNCIL, WE WANT TO RENDER THE STREETS BECAUSE IN THE BAYS, THAT'S HOW THAT WAS DONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE STREET PLAN BEFORE 2021.
NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, LIKE THAT.
>> BASICALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK WE'VE GIVEN A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION ON JUST A COUPLE OF MINOR CHANGES.
BUT I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE HERE.
DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE THIS AND JUST SUMMARIZE IT WITH THE ROADS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> I'M OKAY LINE IF THAT'S WHAT A MAJORITY COUNSEL WANTS.
>> THEN PUT OUT AS EXHIBIT I OR APPENDIX OR HOWEVER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
>> CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PULLING IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S ITS OWN DOCUMENT.
>> CHAPTERS 11 AND 12, I THINK WHAT'S IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
>> WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, BECAUSE IT'S ITS OWN DOCUMENT ANYWAY? WE CAN REVISE IT MORE OFTEN THAN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE AND IT WILL BE REVISED.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT HISTORICALLY, I MEAN, GOING BACK YEARS, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY REVISED YEARLY OR EVERY YEAR.
>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT CONSTANTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THINGS POP UP LIKE THE WATER LINES WERE PLANNED FOR 2026,
[00:55:03]
BUT HERE WE ARE, HAD A BIG COST SAVINGS INCENTIVE, AND WE'VE CHANGED IT.I THINK IT CONSTANTLY NEEDS TO BE REVISED AND RE-VISITED, AND MAYBE WE NEED AN ORDINANCE TO TALK ABOUT REVISING THAT EVERY YEAR OR AS NEEDED OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO GET NEGLECTED.
IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THIS THING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LOT SOONER IF I WERE WAITING ON THE CIP.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN TALK ABOUT REMOVING THAT AND MAKING ITS OWN DOCUMENT. IT IS ITS OWN.
BUT I GUESS IT WAS MORE THOUGHT.
THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS ALONG THE LINES THAT HERE'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S COMPREHENSIVE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THIS DOCUMENT OR THAT DOCUMENT.
THEY CAN GO ONE PLACE AND GET THE WHOLE PICTURE.
MAYBE THAT WAS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT THINKING, BUT I LIKE WHERE DAR WAS GOING, WHERE THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE.
YOU CAN GO BACK EVERY FIVE YEARS AND GO BACK THEN AND THEN HAVE THE CIP AS OUR INTENTION OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS, THE THINGS LISTED IN HERE.
>> IN A WAY, ALL THE THINGS STILL NEED TO BE LISTED.
THEY JUST DON'T NEED TO BE LISTED IN DETAIL, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR?
>> IT IS. THE BIG TICKET ITEMS. TASKING IF THE BIG TICKET ITEMS NEED TO BE LISTED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS DOCUMENT? IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
>> I'M BIG TICKET ITEMS DO NEED TO BE LISTED IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT IT REALLY IS. IT'S NOT TO USE IT TO DEFINE ITSELF.
IT IS A PLAN THAT COMPREHENSIVELY LAYS OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WE HAVE, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED.
BIG-TICKET ITEMS ARE THE THING TO ADDRESS.
EVEN ON THE STREETS. I DON'T CARE IF WE LEAVE THE DETAIL OF EVERY STREET IN THERE OR WHETHER WE PUT IT INTO AN APPENDIX, OR WHETHER WE JUST REFERENCE THAT THE STREET LISTING CAN BE FOUND IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND PUT IT THERE.
I THINK WHAT WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IF WE HAD A SUMMARY THAT SAYS, WE HAVE 230 MILES OF STREETS OF 230 MILES OF STREETS, OF WHICH 36 ARE ASPHALT, AND ARE GOING TO NEED MORE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS GOING FORWARD, IN CONCRETE STREETS.
WE HAVE WHEREVER THE REMAINDER IS.
I'M JUST MAKING UP CONCRETE NUMBERS AND GENERALLY IN GOOD CONDITION, AND PUT SOME RATING IN THERE.
THAT TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED FOR PLANNING FOR STREET MAINTENANCE GOING FORWARD.
IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE FOR NEW SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT THAT I ASSUME WE HAVE CONCRETE STREETS IN ALL OF OUR NEW SUBDIVISIONS.
OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE CONCRETE STREETS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE VERY LITTLE MAINTENANCE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE CITY.
THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT THING FOR ME TO KNOW.
>> GREAT. AGREE. LEAVE THE DETAIL.
JUST SUMMARIZE IT. MAKE THE DETAILS OUT.
[INAUDIBLE] HOW MANY UPDATES HAVE WE HAD IN THE LAST 2 YEARS? JUST A QUESTION.
>> THE ORIGINAL WAS 73, I THINK.
A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON IT WHEN MR. C KERCHER WAS STILL ON COUNSEL AND UPDATED SOME TIMES.
THEN, CT MET TODAY TO BRING TO THE COUNCIL.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO DUPLICATE IT HERE.
>> IS IT PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE? GENERALLY IS PUT ON THE WEBSITE.
>> I DON'T NOTICE IT, BUT I WASN'T LOOKING FOR IT EITHER.
[01:00:04]
>> IT WAS EASY TO FIND. [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE FOR THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT.
THE ROADS AND STREETS, THE PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACES ARE PART OF THE CIP PLAN?
>> NO, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.
IT DEFINES WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. I LIKE THAT IN THERE.
I THINK THE CIP IS VERY SPECIFIC WITH DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND DATES.
THAT'S WHY IT'S GOING TO CHANGE SO MUCH.
BUT VERSUS THE PARK STUFF WAS MORE GENERALIZED.
THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT IS REALLY WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS OF THE CATEGORY AND AND IT HAS A GOAL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUDING IN THIS DOCUMENT VERSUS JUST REFERENCING THE CIP PLAN.
OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE A PAVILION IN THE PRESERVE.
THE GOAL WOULD BE MAYBE OUTLINING HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY.
>> WELL, I THINK ABOUT PARK ITEMS, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW [INAUDIBLE] I THINK SOME OF THE ITEMS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME OF THEM.
>> I LIKE THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO SPECIFIC IN HERE.
>> THEY'RE JUST IDEAS AND GOALS.
THEY'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN ALL THE TIME.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE WATER PAGE.
>> FORTY-TWO WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] OBJECTIVES FOR TALKING ABOUT WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
>> IT'S CONSISTENT FOR ALL THE BIG PROJECT.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO WE LEAVE IT IN OR SHOULD WE TAKE IT OUT?
THAT'S WHAT THEIR INTENTION WAS.
>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. [BACKGROUND].
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT.
>> CITY HALL POLICE FACILITIES, IS THAT TO BE LEFT IN?
>> THEN, CHAPTER 12, THIS CAME RIGHT OUT OF THE CIP PLAN.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THE CITY POLICE FACILITIES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR FIRE.
>> NO. THEY GOT THEIRS ALREADY.
>> THEY WANT SLEEPING QUARTERS, TO PUT THAT IN.
[01:05:03]
UNDER THE POLICE IN CITY HALL, IT'S GOT BOUND ELECTION.I DON'T WANT IT TO SAY BOUND ELECTION.
>> FUNDING OPTIONS HAVE A REWARD.
>> JUST REWARD IT WITH FUNDING.
>> I REALLY CONSIDER THOSE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, TO CITY HALL AND POLICE FACILITIES.
IT COULD END UP BEING 1 BUILDING, BUT IT MAY BE 2.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT AT THIS POINT.
THEY JUST LIMPED TOGETHER; IT DOESN'T SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN ONE BUILDING.
>> THEY HAVE THE SAME PROCESS AND THE SAME GOALS.
>> I SAID THEY HAD THE SAME PROCESS.
THEY HAD THE SAME GOALS, SO JUST LEAVE THEM TOGETHER.
>> WELL, THAT PRETTY MUCH WRAPS IT UP.
[OVERLAPPING] JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACES, IS THAT ALSO PART OF THE CIP PLAN?
BECAUSE ALL THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED THERE HAVE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
>> WHAT PAGE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> THAT'S ON CHAPTER 12 RIGHT? IS THE CIP RIGHT? THAT'S ALL COMING OUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SHOULD KNOW IF THE PARKS AND TRAILS WERE INCLUDED IN THE CIP PLAN.
>> I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE. I'M GOING TO CALL THEM SUBSTANTIAL.
I'M SURE IF THEY'RE IN DALLAS, THEY'RE TINY, BUT THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.
>> I THINK WE DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO READ THE ETJ MAP, WHAT IT IS FOR 2024, SLICE 2024.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO READ IT ALL.
WE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO UPDATE ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS.
>> WELL, BUT THERE WAS A REMARK MADE THAT THIS MAP WAS 10 YEARS OLD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT.
>> I'M TEMPTED TO SAY DUMP THAT ETJ MAP AND JUST REFERENCE THE AX AND BOUNDARY MAP IN THE APPENDIX INSTEAD.
BECAUSE THAT'S MORE UP TO DATE THAN THE ETJ MAP IS AT THE FRONT.
>> BUT ALSO DIFFICULT TO READ FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH INVESTMENT IN LOOKING AT IT.
>> I PROBABLY CAN TAKE THAT PHOTO AND JUST LEAVE THE RIGHT AREAS THAT ARE ON THE MAP IN THE BACK AND SHAVE THAT SO I CAN DO IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> WHY WOULD WE WANT TO JUST UPDATE OUR ETJ? I THINK INDICATING WHAT PROPERTY THE ETJ PROPERTY WAS IMPROVED.
>> BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVER THE FINISH LINE.
WE HAVE THAT. THIS IS WHAT IT WAS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
>> THE MAP IN THE BACK, AND BARRY NEEDS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION: THE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY MAP.
THAT'S A RECENT MAP, ISN'T IT?
[01:10:02]
>> I CAN'T READ THE DATA [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY RECENT MAP, BUT WE CAN DOUBLE-CHECK THAT.
>> YOU CAN READ THE DATA ON THAT, WE CAN GET THAT CORRECT.
>> IF IT'S NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TROUBLE, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP.
I THINK ETJ IS PROBABLY RANKED TOP FIVE FOR THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENT CONCERNS.
WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT IT, HAVING AN EASY VISUAL WRAP AROUND SOCIALS BEFORE IT ALREADY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> IN THIS MAP THAT'S IN THE BACK IN THE APPENDIX.
BUT WHEN YOU SHRINK IT DOWN TO FIT ON THIS PAGE. IT'S HARD TO READ.
THAT'S WHY A MAP LIKE THIS, WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THERE'S A SECTION, CAN TELL YOU WHERE THOSE PARCELS OF BLAND EXIST.
>> I WANT TO SEE THE CURRENT ETJ MAP FOR SURE, BUT I DON'T CARE IF IT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR JUST ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEBSITE.
THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. WE'RE GOING TO NEED IT.
>> FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR.
[INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE TO GO TO THE ANNEXATION MAP.
WE HAVE TO ENTER THE ORDINANCE NUMBER.
I HAVE TO SIGN UP FOR IT, AND THE MAP IS THEN UPDATED.
IT'S JUST THE ACCESSIBILITY OF IT.
>> REMEMBERING ORDINANCES, THEY'RE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO FIND.
>> NO, YOU DON'T GO THE ORDINANCES, YOU GO UNDER MAPS.
>> AND THERE'S A BIG ONE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT'S EITHER IN PAT'S OFFICE OR STOKE'S OFFICE.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH OFFICE THEY.
>> THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
>> COULD YOU PLEASE REITERATE WHAT MY RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE VERSUS AND WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED?
>> ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THE UPDATES?
IF IT'S MINOR, WHICH MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE, I DON'T MIND DOING IT.
IF IT'S, REWRITING AND DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH, THEN IT NEEDS TO GO TO SOMEONE ELSE.
>> I THINK YOU HAD A REQUEST FOR ONE OF US TO REACH OUT TO SCOTT GREGG OR SOMEONE IN COLLIN COUNTY TO REDRAW OR GET TO A NEW VERSION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAP.
>> ACTUALLY, SINCE WE DECIDED TO GO BACK TO 2024, LET'S JUST PUT ON THAT.
>> I'M WILLING TO HELP WITH WHATEVER YOU NEED AVAILABLE ON THE WAY.
>> I CHOSE CINDY, AND YOU HAVE A BOX IN THERE?
>> BASICALLY, WE COULD JUST SIT DOWN.
GO THROUGH IT AND BE DONE WITH IT.
>> IF YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT AND LET US KNOW WHEN WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS GOING OUT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ONE THING I THINK I'D LIKE CLARIFIED IS THE FIRST PAGE, NOT THE COVER, THE NEXT PAGE.
WHAT PART OF THIS PAGE SHOULD BE REMOVED, LIKE THE PLAN COMMITTEE? THE FIRST PAGE.
SHOULD WE JUST HAVE THE CURRENT COUNSEL ON THERE? CURRENT PNC.
>> ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK THAT WAS DONE BY THE GROUP.
I CALL THIS IN 2024, THEN THAT NEEDS TO INCLUDE THEIR NAMES AS WELL.
>> RIGHT. THE CURRENT COUNSEL AND THE CURRENT PNC.
>> IF YOU GO TO PUBLISH IT, I THINK THE COUNCIL OUGHT TO BE CURRENT.
I DO THINK IT'S GOOD TO PUT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN THERE.
>> ADOPTED BY AND ACKNOWLEDGED.
[01:15:10]
>> YOU WANT TO KEEP? I NEED TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT TO PUT THERE.
>> WE'RE SAYING TWO SECTIONS ON THERE, RHYME FOR PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTED IN THE PAST, AND THEN A SECTION SAYING ADOPTED BY THE CURRENT COUNCIL.
>> JUST ADD ADOPTED BY THE CURRENT COUNCIL.
MOVE ALL THE OTHER STUFF IN THERE.
>> I GUESS I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN WE'RE CALLING WITH THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT IT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025.
>> BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN THREE YEARS TO PUT IT TOGETHER, AND IT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THAT.
IT'S ALL THAT OLD INFORMATION.
IT'S ALL FROM 2024, WHICH HAS ALREADY PUSHED IT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT 2025 IS WHEN WE'RE ADOPTING IT.
>> THE CHOICE WE'LL GO WITH 2024 OR DO A LOT OF IT FOR 25? WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT THE COUNCIL SAID IS THE 24.
>> I THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS HAS A POINT, IT IS A 2025 PLAN WITH 2024 ASSETS.
I MEAN, THE CENSUS THAT WE GUIDE A LOT OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL CHOICES ON IS TYPICALLY UP TO TEN YEARS BEHIND.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE FEDERAL PLAN FOR IT COMES FROM THE YEAR OF THE CENSUS.
I THINK MAKING IT CLEAR ABOUT THE ADOPTION IS THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE PLAN, BUT BEING CLEAR ABOUT THE DATE OF THE INFORMATION IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, AS I THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD REVISE THAT FIRST PAGE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SENDING?
>> I WOULD REVISE THAT FIRST PAGE.
THIS IS A PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2025.
IT'S BASED ON WORK THAT WAS DONE BETWEEN 2021 AND 2024.
MUCH OF THE DATA IN IT WAS PRIOR TO 2025.
BUT IT'S THE PLAN THAT THE CITY ADOPTED IN 2025.
IF WE HAD EVERYTHING UP TO DATE TODAY AND WE VOTED ON IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE 100% CURRENT.
BUT IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME TO REFER TO IT AS A PLAN AS OF THE DATE THAT WE ADOPTED, ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT IT CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT WAS DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
>> I SAID, IT ALSO IMPLIES THAT IT WAS ADOPTED BY A COUNCIL THAT'S NOT US TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, TO ABSOLVE US OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.
FOR THE REASON WE'RE CHOOSING TO ADOPT IT, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
>> THANK YOU. I'M NOT AS WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S COMPREHENSIVE MEANS.
BUT THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE, IS THAT NECESSARILY I'M NOT AS EXCITED ABOUT HAVING MY NAME ON OR OFF THIS THING AS I AM ABOUT A WATER TOWER OR A PARK.
>> LET ME SPEAK TO THE OPPOSITE SIDE ON THIS DATE THING.
THE REASON I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT THE 2025 PLAN IS THAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT FAIL IS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PICK UP THIS DOCUMENT AND ASSUME ALL THE DATA IS FROM 2025 BY DEFAULT, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY IN THERE, AND THEN DISCOVER IT'S OLD.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY SAID, PUTTING ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN THERE THAT THIS WAS A PROJECT 21-24, 25, AND FINALLY ADOPTED BY COUNSEL IN 2025.
>> YOU CAN CALL A 2024 PLAN, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PICK IT UP AND FIND DATA IN THERE THAT'S FROM 2022, AND THEN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT.
I THINK THAT'S WHEN YOU PUT A STATEMENT IN THERE.
THE PLAN ADOPTED IN 2025 CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT REFLECTS DATA GATHERED OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT.
IT INCLUDES PROJECTIONS INTO THE FUTURE, WHICH ARE NOTHING MORE THAN JUST PROJECTIONS INTO THE FUTURE.
>> I DON'T THINK HE ADOPTED IN 2025; THAT'S A PRIOR YEAR PLAN.
>> BUT IT WAS ALL COMPOSED AND WORKED ON IN 2024.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS YEAR IN 2020; [OVERLAPPING] WAS 2026.
IT BETTER NOT BE 2026, BUT WE'RE GETTING OVER THE FINISH LINE, AND I THINK THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
[01:20:02]
THIS MEANS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT SOONER. THE NEXT YEAR, NEVER MIND.>> GIVE ME A FULL STATEMENT OR SENTENCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, BUDDY IS TALKING ABOUT.
>> WELL, I CAME UP WITH SOMETHING, BUT I DO THINK THAT IF WE JUST STAY WITHIN THE DOCUMENT, IF WE JUST STATE WHEN THE DATA WAS GATHERED, THAT WOULD COVER IT.
BUT IF IT'S 2025, THEN I THINK IT SHOULD BE CURRENT COUNSEL AND THEN THE CURRENT PNC.
[BACKGROUND] WELL, LAST YEAR.[LAUGHTER]
[LAUGHTER] ANYWAY, AND THEN JUST FOOTNOTE THE DATA IN THAT IT WAS GATHERED.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS AGAIN, SO IT'S GOING TO BE AWESOME IN FIVE YEARS WHEN WE DO IT, AND IT'S A CONCURRENT PROCESS AND FASTER.
>> I'M BACK UP. HE'S NOT THERE.
>> YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON HELPING.
>> I TAKE THAT FOR A RUN. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU HAD STRONG OPINIONS ON THINGS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK AT IT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.[LAUGHTER]
>> I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS, BUT I'M ROLLED OUT.
>> AT THIS TIME, THE WORKSHOP IS ADJOURNED AT
[ADJOURN]
[CALL TO ORDER]
06:52 P.M. WE WILL GO [INAUDIBLE] AT 7 P.M.>> I HAD THE PARKERS OF TEXAS MEETING.
IT IS NOW 7:15 AND I WILL ASK MS. HALL, DO YOU HAVE A QUERY?
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK SERGEANT DICKSON IF SHE WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN FLAG.
CHIEF PRICE, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN TEXAS PLEDGE.
[PRESENTATIONS]
AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL CHIEF MOH UP FOR A PRESENTATION BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. CHIEF MOH.THANKS FOR HAVING US UP HERE TODAY.
WE RAN A MEDICAL CALL ON AUGUST 12, 2025 FOR A RESIDENT.
PARKER FIRE WAS DISPATCHED TO A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
OUR MEMBERS RESPONDED PROMPTLY PROVIDING PATIENT CARE AND FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENT.
THE PATIENT WAS SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFERRED TO THE HOSPITAL, BUT FURTHER CARE WAS PROVIDED.
A FEW DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT, PARKER FIRE RECEIVED A GENEROUS DONATION ON BEHALF OF THE CALLER.
WE WERE SINCERELY GRATEFUL FOR THIS CONTRIBUTION AND DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S AN HONOR TO SERVICE AS FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF PARKER AND ITS RESIDENTS.
OUR DEPARTMENT'S TOP PRIORITIES REMAIN CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SAFETY.
I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT THE RESPONDENT CREW EXEMPLIFIED BOTH THOSE DURING THE CALL.
WE DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT DUE TO PRIVACY REASONS.
>> CAN YOU TELL US WHO YOUR CREW WAS THAT DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.
>> IT WAS A JEFF BROOKS WAS THE LIEUTENANT. MY GOODNESS.
I'M TRYING TO THANK YOU PUT ME ON THE SPOT ON THAT ONE.
ANOTHER MEMBER, I CANNOT REMEMBER WHO WAS ON DUTY THAT DAY ON THERE.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT PORTION DOWN.
[01:25:01]
>> PLEASE LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR EXCELLENT JOB AND WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE BEING CONCERNED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE LET THEM KNOW THAT ONCE THE E-MAIL CAME OUT, WE PUT THAT IN THEIR FILE FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] NEXT WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
THEN I HAVE A COMMENT CARD FROM MARCO [INAUDIBLE].>> GOOD EVENING. FIRST, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE P&Z ME, BUT MERGE TOGETHER TO GIVE MY COMMENTS TODAY.
FOR A REALLY CLEAR COUNTRY IDEA THAT WON'T CAUSE ANY ISSUE WITH VACANT BUSINESSES, THAT CAUSE PUBLIC NUISANCE PROBLEMS, ALSO NEEDS TO PROMOTE MORE TRUCK SERVICES.
ALSO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE SPOT IN COVER WHERE THESE MOBILE BUSINESSES CAN BE PLACED TEMPORARY AND RETURN THE NEXT DAY AFTER TO SET UP SHOP.
FOR FOOD TRUCK SERVICES STILL BRING IN REVENUE AND IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE, BRINGING MORE INTEREST FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE RESPECTING THE LIMITS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BEING CONSTRUCTED ON PARKER.
MOBILE PROPERTIES DO NOT HAVE TO BE COVERED BUILDINGS NOR DOES IT COST MONEY FOR TAXPAYERS REGARDLESS OF THE DENSITY NOW, OR AT THE POPULATED DENSITY YEARS FROM NOW.
COMMERCIAL BUSINESS DOES HELP CONTRIBUTE OUR CITY.
WHO MISSES THE ICE CREAM TRUCKS, OR PEOPLE WALKING ON THE SIDE OF WALKS GIVING OUT HOT DOGS, OR ICE CREAM TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TOGETHER GRABBING A BITE TOGETHER.
DO WE NEED TO SEND OUR MONEY TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF PARKER WHERE THE REVENUE IS NOT GOING TO OUR CITY, BUT OTHER TOWNS OUTSIDE? AN EXPAND VERSION OF THIS COMMENTARY WILL ALL BE SENT TO THE CITY SECRETARY TO KEEP THE COMMENT WITHIN 3 MINUTES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, TOO. COUNCIL LUCAS.
NEXT, I'LL TALK ABOUT ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST ]
THE PEANUT BUTTER FOOD TRUCK FOR THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK IS GOING ON BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE MONTH.NO THERE'S A BOX OUT IN THE FIELD FOR PEOPLE TO THROW US COMMENT AND THEN PEANUT BUTTER OR IF YOU PREFER GIFT CARD, OR A CHECK, OR CASH.
IF YOU DO GIFT CARD, CHECK, OR CASH, PLEASE LEAVE THEM WITH THE RECEPTIONIST FOR SAFETY, BUT WE REALLY HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO DONATE.
NEXT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT WHICH IS OCTOBER 7, FROM 6:00 - 9:00 PM.
THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THAT NIGHT IS CANCELED, SO WE MAY PARTICIPATE IN NATIONAL NIGHT OUT.
IF YOUR AREA FOR HOM, WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE, AND WOULD YOU LIKE FIRE TRUCKS AND POLICE OFFICERS TO COME OUT AND ENJOY THEM.
IF YOU PLEASE, CONTACT MICHELLE AT THE COVER, BECAUSE SHE WILL BE HANDLING ALL OF THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT THINGS AND LEAD A COORDINATED MOVEMENT.
NEXT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT PARKER FAST WHICH IS SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19 FROM 3:00 - 6:00 PM.
IN THE AREA RIGHT ACROSS THE DRIVE FROM CIVIL LAW.
PART OF WHICH WHICH IS PUTTING THIS IN AND STILL WE NEED VOLUNTEERS.
IF ANYBODY WAS INTERESTED, PLEASE SEND A MEMO UP HERE TO PATTY AND THEN WE'LL GET IT TO PAX AND RAX.
WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
IT'S GOING TO BE A FUN TIME OF FOOD TRUCKS AND ACTIVITIES FOR KIDS FOR THE BALANCE HOUSE AND VENDORS.
JUST A REALLY GOOD FARE AMOUNT OF TIME.
>> WELL I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
>> IT'S ON THE MAP PERFECT EVENT, BUT I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM. I THINK THERE IS, THOUGH.
>> YES. LAST I HEARD THERE IS A CAR SHOW AND THERE IS A CONCERT, A LIVE BAND.
>> IF KOSHER WAS A POPULAR ITEM IN THE PAST.
>> THE KOSHER WAS A POPULAR ATTRACTION.
>> LAST I HEARD NATURE OF PAX AND RAX WAS TRYING TO WORK
[01:30:06]
WITH THE FELLOW THAT PUT IT ON LAST TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES THIS TIME.I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT, AND CHECK AND SEE.
>> ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25 IS NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION TAB.
REMEMBER IT HAS SOME READERS OF DRUGS THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER USING, EXPIRED, WHATEVER.
PLEASE DROP THEM OFF AT THE POLICE STATION.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DRIVE UP AND STOP A POLICE OFFICER THERE RIGHT THERE OR WE'LL COME OUT AND TAKE FROM YOU, AND YOU CAN DRIVE ON.
LET'S KEEP THEM OUT OF OUR STREAMS AND LAKES.
THIS ELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PARKER, BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW [LAUGHTER] IT HAS TO DO WITH SEVERAL BALLOTS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
EMERGENCY SERVICE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL THAT.
>> EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOOD TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS WHICH IS FIRE PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE, BUT DO NOT LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO BUY A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT, BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING FIRE PROTECTION TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES, IT ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO CREATE A TAXING DISTRICT TO TAX PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS SO THAT THEY CAN COLLECT REVENUE TO REIMBURSE THE CITIES LIKE PARKER WHO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
BECAUSE NOW THE CITIES ARE PROVIDING THE SERVICES FOR FREE, SO CITY RESIDENTS ARE PAYING THE TAB AND COUNTY RESIDENTS ARE GETTING A FREE RIDE.
THIS WILL APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE REVENUE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CITIES.
>> THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS, THE INTEREST I HAVE.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING,
[CONSENT AGENDA]
I'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH HAS TWO ITEMS, THE APPROVAL OF THE NORTHERN MINUTES FOR AUGUST 27 AND THE APPROVAL OF THE NORTHERN MINUTES FOR AUGUST 30 OF 2025.DOES ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WISH TO HAVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS MOVED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'M NOT HEARING THAT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE WILL ACCEPT THE KINGSHIP SIMILAR AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BEN TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BOLTON.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOTE THAT, I DIDN'T RECORD THERE WERE VOTES.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
NEXT, WE'LL GO TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 899 APPOINTING A CITY ATTORNEY. ]
FIRST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 6.CONSIDERATION NUMBER OF ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 811 APPOINTING A CITY ATTORNEY.
COUNCIL IN YOUR PACKET WITH SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE RESUME QUALIFICATIONS AND OTHER THINGS.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING KATHERINE CLIFTON TO SERVE AS THE CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF PARKER AND IS EFFECTIVE TODAY.
>> THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOBART WITH A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 8109 APPOINTING KATHERINE CLIFTON AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. WE JUST HAVE A QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK.
YOU MENTIONED KATHERINE SPECIFICALLY, HER CONTRACT THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED EMPLOYEES HER FIRM WITH HER AS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD PRINCIPALLY SERVICE IN THEIR FIRM.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS PARTICULARLY,
[01:35:01]
THOSE AT HOME THAT AREN'T HERE.I KNOW WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT WE'RE NOT INERT KATHERINE AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO WORK FOR THE CITY?
>> WE'RE VOTING FOR KATHERINE'S FIRM TO BE OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
IS THAT THE UNDERSTANDING KATHERINE?
>> THAT IS GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER.
>> JUST THE APPOINTMENT IS KATHERINE CLIFTON. THAT'S FINE.
>> HOW ABOUT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 8911.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, COUNCIL WELCOME ABOARD.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 900 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENT(S) TO THE FY 2024-2025 OPERATING BUDGET. ]
CONSIDERATION OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 900 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL 2024/2025 OPERATING BUDGET.MR. SAVAGE, DID YOU ALL RESPECT TO THIS?
>> SURE. MAYOR, COUNCIL, OUR FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON SEPTEMBER 30.
USUALLY TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, LIKE RIGHT NOW I WILL BRING HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS WHERE WE BROUGHT OVER SOME OF OUR LINE ITEMS. THE REASON I WENT TO THE END OF THE YEAR IS, BECAUSE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HAVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET, AND WE CAN ABSORB SOME OF THOSE COSTS AND I'LL TRY TO LET THAT HAPPEN FIRST.
THESE ITEMS UNFORTUNATELY PUT US OVER BUDGET, AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO CORRECT THAT.
THE FIRST ONE, WE NEED TO MOVE $100,000 TO OUR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR HILL STORM REPAIRS.
WE MADE AN INSURANCE CLAIM ON THAT EARLIER IN THE YEAR AND ALL OF THE EXPENSES HAVE HIT, ALL THE REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE, SO WE NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET BY $100,000 TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES.
>> BEFORE MOVE ON JUST ON THAT ONE.
I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY THE HUNDRED GRAND WASN'T THE TOTALITY OF THE DAMAGE THERE.
THE HUNDRED GRAND WAS THE TOTALITY OF WHAT INSURANCE DIDN'T COVER WITH THE CLAIM.
>> NO, SIR. THAT'S THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM INSURANCE TO COVER THE EXPENSES.
BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXPENSE EVER BUDGETED, WE HAVE TO BUDGET FOR THAT EXPENSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS REIMBURSED FROM INSURANCE.
>> THE SECOND ITEM MERIT IS WE NEED TO MOVE INITIALLY, WE RECEIVED THE QUOTE OF OUR STATE LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR '21 AND '22.
INITIALLY, THAT WAS PLACED IN THE GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE GOING TO BE EXPENDED.
RIGHT AFTER THAT, SOME OF THOSE FUNDS WERE SPENT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, AND SO IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO STAY THERE.
THEN IN 2,425 BUDGET, WE STARTED SPENDING MONEY ON THE DUBLIN ROAD RUBBER REPAIR.
WE NEED TO MOVE THE MONEY TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.
WE'RE MOVING $1,240,418 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND AND THAT'S THE BALANCE OF THOSE RECOVERY FUNDS THAT WE HAVE.
NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE WHEN WE MOVE $500,000 TO OUR WATER PURCHASE ACCOUNT IN THE WATER FUND.
THIS IS GOING TO BE DUE TO THE SECOND TAP POINT OPENING WHEN THE WHEN THE NEW PUMP STATION WAS OPENED.
WE HAVE OUR TAPER PAY FOR THOSE 2.1 AND 2.2 WE PAY PER GALLON.
OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS WITH THE PUMP STATION OPENING, WE'VE BEEN RUNNING WATER THROUGH THERE.
WE'RE OVER ABOUT $500,000 RIGHT NOW IN THAT ACCOUNT, SO THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF COVERING THOSE COSTS.
ALSO IN THE LETTERS FUND AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WE NEED TO INCREASE THE BUDGET BY $75,000 FOR OUR LEGAL FEES THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST YEAR IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS.
THEN FINALLY, WE NEED TO MOVE $2.7 MILLION FROM THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, AND THAT'S GOING TO HELP FUND THEN DOUBLE RATE THE AMOUNT OF REPLACEMENT, AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP FUND THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK.
WE'LL PROBABLY REVISIT THAT NEXT YEAR AND MOVE MORE MONEY AS WELL.
[01:40:03]
>> [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE ORIGINALLY THE SECOND POINT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE 500 GRAND, UNPLANNED, HIGHER PRICE THAN EXPECTED WAS IN THAT.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY BUDGET BECAUSE WE DIDN'T AT THE TIME THE BUDGET WAS PREPARED FOR 2024 TO 2025; WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THE CONTRACT BEING SIGNED, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY BUDGETED FOR THE 2ND T POINT.
THEN, SINCE WE'RE OPENING THE SECOND T POINT.
JURY CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN MORE, NOT WHY THERE'S WATER BEING PUSHED THROUGH THAT STATION.
>> WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE WATER THAT WE SEND THROUGH THERE TO MAKE SURE WE HIT OUR TAKE PAY AT THE EAST END PUMP STATION.
WE'RE RIGHT NOW TRYING TO BALANCE THAT TO GET THE WATER TO THE TAKE POINT 2.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO KEEP WATER FLOWING THROUGH THERE.
CAN'T LET IT JUST SIT AND STAGNATE.
WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CONTACTS TO PAY DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW, RESULTING IN THE UNPLANNED EXPENSE, $500,000 STILL A PRETTY SIZABLE UNPLANNED EXPENSE FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUDGET OF THE CITY.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, DID WE HAVE A CONTRACT THAT WAS UNDESIRABLE FOR THE USAGE THAT WE INTENDED, OR HOW DO WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS?
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE 25- 26 BUDGET HAS SOME MONEY BUDGETED FOR THE 2ND TAKE POINT.
IT'S REALLY, THIS WAS JUST A MATTER OF A TIMING ISSUE.
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THE SECOND TAKE POINT WAS GOING TO OPEN WHEN WE'RE GOING TO START USING THAT.
WHEN WE BUILT THE BUDGET FOR THE 24 AND 25 YEARS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING BUDGETED FOR THAT 2ND TAKE POINT.
IT WAS JUST THE TAKE-OR-PAY THAT WAS FOR THE EAST SIDE PUMP STATION.
RIGHT NOW, OUR REVENUES ARE DOWN BECAUSE I THINK THIS WILL FIX THIS OFF NEXT YEAR, I HOPE, BUT OUR REVENUES ARE DOWN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF ALL THE RAIN WE'VE HAD.
NEXT YEAR, WE'LL HAVE A REVENUE STREAM TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE BECAUSE WE WILL BE USING THE 2ND TAKE POINT BECAUSE WE NEED THE 2ND TAKE POINT BECAUSE TO THE WATER DEMAND.
SURE, IT'S A MATTER OF WE DON'T NEED IT FOR THE DEMAND.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THIS TEMPTATION OPENING.
THE CONTRACT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BUDGET FOR THE CONTRACT, AND WE GOT IT RIGHT.
>> THIS IS JUST FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> MR. B., FINISH WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, MR.? [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, WITH ALL OF MY QUESTIONS FOR THE REST OF.
>> WE HAVE SEPARATE TAKER PAY NUMBERS FOR EACH TAKE POINT.
>> ACTUALLY, AT THE MOMENT, WE ONLY HAVE ONE TAKER PAY FOR THE EAST END, AND THEY'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH OUR TAKER BAY AT 6? IT'S A FEW YEARS INTO IT.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS WATER CONTRACTING, CATHERINE, I SPEAK TO THIS BETTER THAN I CAN.
ON THE 2ND TAKE POINT, WE HAVE 3 YEARS TO ESTABLISH HOW MUCH WATER USAGE THERE'S GOING TO BE BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO OCCUPY.
IT'S MY RECOLLECTION, AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE LOOKED AT THIS, BUT I RECOLLECT THAT THE PROJECTIONS FROM ENGINEERING WERE THAT THEY EASILY EXCEEDED THOSE AMOUNTS ONCE IT HIT, AND I THINK IT IS THE 3RD TIER.
>> SIX, I REMEMBER [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE WITH. WE WERE GOING TO BE THERE AT THAT NUMBER BY THE ISSUE WOULD BE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THEY SAID THOSE NUMBERS, THAT INFORMATION WAS ORIGINALLY ORIGINALLY CAME FROM THE CITY, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY USED TO SET THOSE NUMBERS FOR THE TAKER PAY.
>> WASN'T THERE GOING TO BE A SET AMOUNT THAT WE WERE GOING TO PAY FOR THE SECOND TAKE POINT FOR EACH OF THE FIRST 3 YEARS?
>> NO. THERE'S NO MINIMUM IN THE FIRST 2 OR 3 YEARS.
>> RIGHT, THEY ARE KIND. [INAUDIBLE] USAGE OR MINIMUM AMOUNT TO PAY?
>> NEITHER. I THINK THAT WAS A MISAPPREHENSION FOR QUITE A WHILE THAT THERE WAS A SET FLAT AMOUNT THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY ALL INCLUDED IN THE TAKER PAY
>> FOR THOSE OF US WHO WERE ON COUNSEL AT THE TIME.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL IT DISTRICT CONTRACT, LET ME KNOW, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO GET YOU A COPY OF IT. YOU WERE ON COUNSEL.
>> IT'S BEEN A WHILE, I WAS JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER THE DETAILS OF THE CONTRACT.
>> IF YOU NEED A COPY [OVERLAPPING].
I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT BEFORE COMING IN I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT ON THIS.
[01:45:05]
BECAUSE I DID UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS WE GO TO TAKE OR PAY ON TAKE POINT 1, ANYTHING WE USE ON TAKE POINT 2, WE CAN BUILD FOR EVEN IF WE'RE UNDERNEATH OUR USAGE ON TAPE 0.1.>> EVEN IF WE COULD USE MORE TAKE POINT 1.
IF WE TOOK IT AT THE TAKE POINT, WE'D HAVE TO PAY FOR IT?
>> WE'RE TRYING TO USE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER OUT OF THE TAKE POINT 2, TO KEEP THAT FROM STAGNATING AND GOING BACK INTO STORAGE.
>> STILL USE ALL THE WATER WE CAN OUT OF THE TAKE POINT 1.
IT'S A LITTLE HARDER TO BALANCE IN.
>> APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION. THANK YOU.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, TAKE POINT 2, ANOTHER QUESTION ON A SEPARATE LINE ITEM HERE.
WHICH HAS DISAPPEARED FROM MY SCREEN.
IT'S ABOUT THE LEGAL EXPENSES.
I MEAN, I THINK I'M AWARE OF 2 ACCESS POINTS OF WATER, WHICH WOULD TAKE AN EXTRA 75K PLAN, ALSO COME.
WE HAVE A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES AS OPPOSED TO IN-HOUSE.
WHEN THE BUDGET WAS CREATED LAST YEAR, WE HAD BUDGET MONEY FOR AN IN-HOUSE SALARY.
WE DON'T HAVE IN-HOUSE. WE USE CONTRACTS.
THAT ACCOUNT IS OVER BUDGET BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUITS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. IF NOT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR APPROVED ORDINANCE NUMBER 900, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE 2024, 2025 OPERATING BUDGETS FOR THE CITY OF PUCKER.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PROTEIN PATM TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 900, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 - 2025 OPERATING BUDGET.
WE HAVE A 2ND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILL.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS AT ALL? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-860 REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF SELECT PARK RULES PURSUANT TO PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS 97.11 AND 97.14 FOR PARKERFEST 2025 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2025, FROM 12:00 P.M. TO 8:00 PM UPON SATISFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS.]
CONSIDERATION OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 5-860 REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF SELECT PARK RULES PURSUANT TO THE PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTION IN 7.11 AND 97.42 FOR PARKER 1ST 2025 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 2025, FROM 12:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. UPON SATISFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS.COUNSEL, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS IS SUSPENDING THE PARKS FOR PARKER FEST.
THE PARK SUCH AS YOU CAN HAVE MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN THE PARK.
YOU CAN'T HAVE FOOD TRUCKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'RE ASKING THAT THOSE BE SUSPENDED FOR PARKER FEST ONLY. MR. FIRM.
>> I'M FINE WITH PASSING THIS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE FUTURE IS AMEND THAT PART OF OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE, CURRENTLY, IT SAYS THE CITY MAY SUSPEND THE RULES FOR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT SO THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE MAYOR CAN DO IT WITHOUT US HAVING TO PASS A RESOLUTION EVERY YEAR.
CAN YOU ADD THAT TO THE FUTURE AGENDA?
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS 97.14 SAYING CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS? I WAS SAYING THAT IT CAN BE EXEMPTED.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE IF IT CLEARLY STATES HERE WE'RE EXEMPT FROM THAT?
>> IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS.
IT'S EXEMPT FROM THE RULES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE EVEN HAVE THIS ORDINANCE.
>> I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN IT THE BEST WAY I CAN.
I THE GOOD OLD DAYS, THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR COULD SUSPEND RULES JUST LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAD A CITY ATTORNEY RULE AND CHANGE THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND PASS COUNSEL.
[01:50:09]
EVER SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL, ASKING COUNSEL TO MAKE THE EXCEPTION.>> CATHERINE, AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS.
>> THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR AN EXCEPTION TO BE MADE, AND THIS IS THAT EXCEPTION.
THIS IS THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE EXCEPTION UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.
>> INSTEAD OF GOING BY DEFAULT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME; IT REQUIRES THE [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE WE MAY ACTUALLY DENY IT.
WE CAN ADD TO THE FUTURE AGENDA.
>> WE CAN WRITE THAT THE CASE CLEARLY STATES THAT A CITY HAS THE EXEMPTION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME GET THE OKAY FOR THE EXEMPTION.
SURE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT NEEDS TO SAY.
>> WELL, A FUTURE OF PUTTING THAT ON.
>> I HOPE YOU DON'T THINK THIS QUESTION IS FRIVOLOUS, BUT PARK ORDINANCE PROVISIONS EXTEND THE CITY ORDINANCES AS WELL.
I JUST GUESS THAT THE MUSIC PERFORMANCE WOULD VIOLATE A NOISE ORDINANCE.
IS THAT SIMILAR OR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN SCOPE?
>> I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS.
IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE I WORK, WE HAVE ALSO MADE EXCEPTIONS.
COUNCIL WOULD MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK AT ALTOGETHER.
>> I THINK I CAN COMMENT ON THAT.
I THINK WITH OUR CURRENT NOISE ORDINANCE, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION.
I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED ONE HAS AN EXEMPTION FOR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS.
>> WE WANT TO PASS IT PREFER PARKER FAST, SO QUESTIONS STAY ANSWERED.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPROVED RESOLUTION 2025_860 BE SUSPENDED.
SELECT PARK RULES PURSUANT TO PARKER CODE ORDINANCES, SECTIONS 97.11 AND 97.14 FOR PARKER FEST 2025 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2025, FROM NOON TIL 8:00 P.M. UPON SATISFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER B TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025_6, SUSPENDING THE FOURTH PARK RULES FOR PARK PLUS.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE: WHO WOULD BE CITED?
>> POLICE DEPARTMENT. JUST RESPOND.
>> WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT IS NOT IN EFFECT.
>> ACCORDING TO MR. RAN'S SIDE, THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, I THE CURRENT TO BELIEVE IT'S UP TO THE POLICE TO DECIDE WHO THEY'RE GOING TO CITE.
>> I JUST ART YOU FOR BRINGING THIS ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE SECOND TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025_2 REGARDING THE SUSPENSION OF P. AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL FOR FAVOR RIGHT HAND.
WE WON'T BE SURPRISED LATER ON.
I'M GOING TO BE ASKING PION TO UPDATE THE PARKS.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED IN SOME TIME, AND THEY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT.
[01:55:01]
WE'LL DO THAT WITH YOUR OTHER FUTURE AGENDA.>> NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 9, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTIONS ON
[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-861 OF THE CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED NATIONAL OPIOID DIRECT SETTLEMENT WITH PURDUE PHARMA LP AND THE SACKLER FAMILY; APPROVING THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND SHAREHOLDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (“GESA”). ]
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 5-861 OF THE CITY OF PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED NATIONAL DIRECT SETTLEMENT WITH P FARMER LP AND THE SAC FAMILY, APPROVING THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND SHAREHOLDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.I'M GOING TO LET CATHERINE EXPLAIN.
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAPPENED IN PARKER SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
I THINK WHEN THESE FIRST CAME OUT WAS AROUND 21 MAYBE, AND THERE ARE NATIONAL SETTLEMENTS THAT, IN THIS CASE, A GROUP OF STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAVE WORKED OUT THESE SETTLEMENTS.
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT TO APPLY.
BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ENTITIES THAT APPLY, THE MONEY IS DIVIDED BETWEEN STATES AND THEN SUBDIVIDED AMONG THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
IT AUTHORIZES THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT, TO SAY THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, SO THAT MONEY COULD BE ALLOCATED FROM THAT SETTLEMENT.
>> ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION?
>> ALL RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] IS THE DOWNSIDE TO OPTING IN?
>> THE DOWNSIDE TO OPTING IN IS THAT THE CITY GIVES UP ITS RIGHT TO SUE THESE SAME PEOPLE ON ITS OWN BEHALF.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
>> WHAT'S THE SUPPOSED HARM TO THE CITIES IN THIS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND CITIES BEING A PLAINTIFF IN A CLASS ACTION SUIT.
>> THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE IMPACTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE NEGATIVE THAT ARE BASED ON THE USE OF NARCOTICS, I THINK IMPACTS SOME COMMUNITIES MORE THAN OTHERS, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY IMPACT THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
>> WE HAD A LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE IMPACT?
>> OUR PARTICIPATION IS NOT, I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF THE SIGNING OFF ON THE ABILITY TO INDIVIDUALLY SUE THE SACKLER FAMILIES.
IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT OR ADD WEIGHT TO AN ONGOING CIVIL SUIT IS SIMPLY PARTICIPATION IN THE FUND DI SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION.
>> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.
>> I PROPOSE WE ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION UNDER 202-05-8601 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PARK COMA COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED NATIONAL OPIOID DIRECT SETTLEMENT APPROVAL FROM LP AND THE SAGER FAMILY.
>> HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HOBART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025_861 AUTHORIZING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED NATIONAL OPI DIRECT SETTLEMENT AND THE PAC FAMILY APPROVING THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AND SHAREHOLDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
LAST CHANCE FOR ANY QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION.
IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR VOTE HERE.
[10. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-862, REGARDING NOMINATION(S) OF A BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITION(S) FOR THE COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT. [2 OF 2 NOMINATION(S) 1ST 2025 0909 – RES. NO. 2025-858] ]
CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION UNDER 2025_862 REGARDING NOMINATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION FOR THE C COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT, AND SO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.AT THE LAST MEETING, WE NOMINATED ONE PERSON, T, FOR THE ONE POSITION.
WE DIDN'T MOVE AT THE TOP OF OUR HEADS FOR THE SECOND POSITION.
I ASK THE NOMINATIONS FOR THAT SECOND POSITION.
>> SPEAK TO THE ISSUE A LITTLE BIT, MADAM MAYOR.
>> I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF RESEARCH ON THIS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE IN PARTICULAR WHO WAS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE WE GOT SOMEBODY RECOMMENDED FOR EACH POSITION.
IT'S A LONG, COMPLICATED STORY, BUT HERE'S WHAT THE BEST JOB I CAN DO A SIMPLIFY IT.
[02:00:04]
THERE ARE TWO OPEN POSITIONS.WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE A PERSON FOR EACH OF THE OPEN POSITIONS.
DOES EVERY OTHER TAXING ENTITY IN COLLIN COUNTY? THERE WILL PROBABLY BE MULTIPLE PEOPLE NOMINATED FOR EACH OF THESE 2 OPEN POSITIONS.
HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE, WE ONLY HAVE A TOTAL OF 7 VOTES.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE WERE VOTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AT LARGE HERE IN PARKER; IF THERE ARE THREE OPEN SPOTS OR 2 OPEN SPOTS, YOU CAN VOTE 3 TIMES OR YOU CAN VOTE 2 TIMES, DEPENDING ON MANY OPEN SPOTS.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE 2 OPEN SPOTS ON IT, BUT WE HAVE TO DIVIDE THE NUMBER OF VOTES WE HAVE AMONG THE 3 OPEN SPOTS.
WE CAN DO 3 AND 4, OR WE CAN DO ALL 7, OR 6 AND 1, OR WHATEVER.
BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW VOTES ARE ACTUALLY ALLOCATED, AND TALKING TO JERRY ABOUT THIS.
JERRY TARTINO, WHO IS OUR CURRENT REPRESENTATIVE, WHOM WE NOMINATED LAST TIME AROUND HE'S UP AGAIN.
WE WANT TO NOMINATE HIM AGAIN.
HE'S BEEN AN EXCELLENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS.
BUT IF WE NOMINATE ANYBODY ELSE, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO NOMINATE THEM UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO CAST A VOTE FOR THEM.
WE WOULD BE TAKING VOTES AWAY FROM JERRY TO VOTE FOR OUR SECOND NOMINEE, AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET THE SECOND NOMINEE VOTED FOR ANYWAY.
WE'RE BETTER OFF NOT DILUTING OUR VOTES AT ALL AND JUST NOMINATING JERRY, AND THAT BEING THE ONLY PERSON.
THEN, WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE, WE NEED TO CAST IN MY OPINION, THAT WILL BE A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT WE TAKE UP LATER ON, BUT WE'LL NEED TO CAST ALL OF OUR VOTES FOR HIM RATHER THAN DILUTE THEM.
NOMINEE IS REALLY WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AT THIS TIME.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? ARE THERE ANY NOMINATIONS?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD NOMINATE JERRY TARTINO FOR ONE POSITION ON THE COLLIN COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
COLLIN COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'VE ALREADY NOMINATED FOR THE POSITION.
IT WAS JUST AS IF WE HAD A SECOND PERSON THAT WE WANTED TO NOMINATE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TONIGHT, AND WE HEARD YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT I'M STILL REQUIRED TO ASK IF THERE IS ANY NOMINATION FOR THE NEB FOR THAT SECOND POSITION.
NOT HEARING ANY, BUT YOU PREFER TO GO AHEAD WITH JUST THE ONE NOMINATION AS THE NEO PROTEIN PROGRAM OUTLINED.
SINCE I DON'T THINK THAT REQUIRES A VOTE.
>> DID WE VOTE ON JERRY LAST TIME, OR DID WE JUST TAKE NO ACTION?
CATHERINE, CAN I JUST TAKE NOTES, OR DO I HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE?
>> IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A NOMINEE YOU WANT FROM THE LAST TIME, NO ACTION IS NECESSARY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I JUST WANTED TO HAVE EVERYBODY MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT EVERYBODY AGREED.
THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO UPDATES.
[11. UPDATE(S): ]
THE FIRST ONE IS MR. MACHADO.>> WE'RE ABOUT TO START [INAUDIBLE] THE STARTED UP THE BEST PLAN.
>> SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD.
MR. PEGLU, YOU GO TO TELL US ABOUT T C?
>> NOT A OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTERS THAT ARE IN THE MUD HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY THE JUDGE TO PUT THEMSELF INTO ALIGNMENT GROUPS.
A SET OF FIVE ALIGNMENT GROUPS WAS PROPOSED TO THE JUDGE LAST WEEK.
THE JUDGE RESPONDED TODAY THAT THERE WERE FIVE THAT WERE PROPOSED.
THE JUDGE RESPONDED EARLIER TODAY THAT SHE WANTS ONE OF THE GROUPS TAKEN OUT UNLESS THERE'S A LEADER APPOINTED FOR IT, AND THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STEP ON IT.
THE NEXT STEP BEYOND GETTING THE ALIGNMENT GROUPS FINALIZED IS GOING TO BE SCHEDULING AN ORDER THAT ALL PARTIES WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO.
>> IS THERE ANY ON THE WASTEWATER RECRUITMENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS [INAUDIBLE].
[02:05:07]
WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?>> NOTHING MATERIAL THAN WE HAVE A PRETTY RICH AND CONGENIAL DISCOURSE WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS ON TAKING RELATIVELY IMMEDIATE ACTION.
WE'RE STILL TRYING TO REFINE WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, BUT CERTAINLY THE PARTNERSHIP IS WELL-REGARDED AND APPRECIATED.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. POST OFFICER.
>> ACTUALLY I DID CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE MAJOR FOCUS OF THIS WAS SALES TAX REVENUE.
BUT I'M ALSO CURIOUS AS TO DISPATCH.
WELL, I CALL FROM MY HOME, DOES IT SHOW AS ALLEN OR PARKER AT DISPATCH?..
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING COVID WAS BY ZIP CODE, THE HALE DEPARTMENT WAS REQUIRED TO TELL PEOPLE IF YOU HAD A POSITIVE IN YOUR CITY BY ZIP CODE, THEN CAME A PROBLEM BECAUSE I GOT NOTIFIED OF ONE OF OUR CITIZENS THAT DID GET COVID, AND I WAS LUCKY THAT THE PERSON THAT WAS NOTIFIED THE FF THAT WAS NOTIFIED IN ALLEN KNEW THE ADDRESS, AND IT WAS IN AND OF SMOKE.
POST OFFICE HAS A RULE THAT SAYS IF, FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS, YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR OWN ZIP CODE, YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET IT.
WE ASK, AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO REPEAT WHAT THEY TOLD US, BUT IT WAS A BIT OF NO.
SINCE THEN, THIS HAS FILED REPRESENTATIVE BARBER AND SEVERAL OTHERS ' BILL IN CONGRESS, AND I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO TAKE FOREVER TO DO ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
TAKE IT. [INAUDIBLE] LANDSCAPE.
>> THE ACTUAL. THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE DONE MAYBE BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
THEN I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK TO START THE SERVICES [INAUDIBLE].
T AND I HAVE GONE OVER ALONG WITH GRANT HAD BEEN OVER THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WITH A TOWARDS GETTING FAMILIAR WITH IT AND UPDATING IT, AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH IT.
PERSON. HAS EVERYBODY GOT THE INFORMATION TO YOU?
WE HAD THE MEETING. [INAUDIBLE]
>> STRA PARKS AND REC AT THE NEXT MEETING IS SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON WHO'S GOING TO BE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO DRIVE THE TRAIL PLAN.
I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT OFF THE UPDATE ITEMS GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY'LL BE TAKING IT OVER.
>> ANYTHING ELSE UP TO DATE? I WILL TALK ABOUT DONATIONS.
[12. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
I WILL ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING DATES FOR FIRE, POLICE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.DOCTOR JONES DONATED $500 IN CASH TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ALEX TYLER DONATED CHIPS VALUED AT $15 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TO THE PEOPLE AND THEIR SUPPORT OF OUR CITY.
[02:10:01]
WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.[13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
I HAVE ONE ITEM TO UPDATE [LAUGHTER] THE RULES.ANYTHING ELSE FUTURE AGENDA? NOT HEARING ANYTHING, THEN RECESS TO CLOSE
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074, PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE FOR APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, OR ABILITIES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL.
TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, YOUR ASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 IN ONE, CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
AT THIS TIME IN RECESS, IT IS 8:04 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.