[00:00:04]
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF PARKER, TEXAS, ON DECEMBER 2ND, 2025.WE WILL START OUR WORKSHOP AT 5:30.
I WILL ASK MISS HULL, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?.
[WORKSHOP]
WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE.WE'LL NOTE THAT MR. PILGRIM HAS PLACED AT EVERYBODY'S SEAT A WORKSHEET, I GUESS, FOR ONE OF A BETTER TERM.
WITH THAT, I WILL ASK MR. PILGRIM TO PLEASE START US OFF.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE WORKSHEET THAT YOU REFERRED TO IS JUST A LIST OF POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR US TO DISCUSS.
IT'S REALLY INTENDED JUST TO ORGANIZE THE DISCUSSION.
IT DOESN'T OFFER ANY OPINIONS WITHIN IT.
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED WITHIN IT MAY NOT EVEN BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO HAVE MUCH DISCUSSION AT ALL, BUT IT'S JUST THE THINGS THAT I COULD THINK OF AS I WENT THROUGH THE NOTES FROM THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMENTS THEY HAD MADE, AND THEN THE COMMENTS THAT SOME OF US HAVE MADE FROM THE DIAS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
IT'S NOT IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER IN TERMS OF NECESSARILY THE FIRST THING BEING THE FIRST OR MOST IMPORTANT, BUT COULD BE.
IT STARTS OFF ITEM NUMBER 1 IS WHETHER TO HAVE THE SAME HOURS FOR DAY VERSUS NIGHTTIME FOR ALL DAYS OF THE WEEK, VERSUS DIFFERENT DAYS OF THE WEEK.
WOULD WEEKENDS BE DIFFERENT THAN WEEKDAYS IS THE MAIN ISSUE.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU AND ANYONE CAN OPEN UP WITH A DISCUSSION.
>> LET'S START WITH THE SAME HOURS FOR ALL DAYS OF THE WEEK.
MR. BARN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> I'M OF THE OPINION THEY SHOULD BE.
I PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT FAMILIES AND THEIR CHILDREN.
I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT ON ANY DAYS OF THE WEEK.
>> I ACTUALLY I DON'T LIKE HAVING A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIATIONS.
THAT'S MY CONCERN, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT TEND TO BE DIFFERENT THAN MONDAY OR WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES BETWEEN THIS.
>> I AM OF THE OPINION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DIFFERENT HOURS FOR WHEN NIGHTTIME STARTS ON FRIDAY NIGHT, WHEN NIGHTTIME ENDS ON SATURDAY MORNING, WHEN NIGHTTIME STARTS ON SATURDAY NIGHT AND WHEN NIGHTTIME ENDS ON SUNDAY MORNING.
BASICALLY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY TIMES SHOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER WHAT I'LL CALL WORK DAYS OF THE WEEK.
ALTHOUGH SUNDAY IS A WEEKEND, THE NIGHT OF SUNDAY NIGHT IS A NIGHT BEFORE A WORKDAY.
>> I'D HAVE TO MIRROR COUNCILMAN BARN'S COMMENTS.
I THINK MAKING IT TOO COMPLEX WITH TOO MANY HOURS IS A HASSLE AND A PROBLEM.
I BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO BED AT A CERTAIN TIME.
I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENT HOURS FOR DIFFERENT DAYS.
>> YOU WOULD NOT. IS DARREL HERE? THERE'S, DARREL. DARREL WENT AWAY. DARREL'S BACK.
[00:05:02]
IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, AND CORRECT ME IF I DIDN'T DARREL, IS THAT YOU FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENCE IS FOR WEEKEND HOURS. WE LOST.
>> I'M WONDERING DO WE HAVE A WAY THAT HE CAN JUST CALL IN? IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO SEE HIS FACE WHILE WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATION, BUT WE MIGHT BE BETTER IF HE JUST CALLED IN AND GOT ON A SPEAKER PHONE?
>> NO, THAT'S PART OF THE LAW FOR HIM TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY TO BE VISIBLE.
>> WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE GOT.
IF WE WERE TO MAKE A CHANGE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE ARE, BUT IF WE WERE, WHAT HOURS WOULD PEOPLE WANT FOR SUNDAY NIGHT THROUGH FRIDAY MORNING? MISS BARTON, I'LL START WITH YOU.
>> SUNDAY NIGHT CONSIDERED WEEKEND?
>> THIS WOULD APPARENTLY BE OTHER THAN THE WEEKEND STARTING SUNDAY NIGHT.
>> WE'RE TALKING TO THE SCHOOL.
>> SCHOOL. 10:00 PM IS MY CHOICE.
>> SAME HOURS. MR. PILGRIM, ARE YOU SAME HOURS OR DIFFERENT?
>> WELL, I'M FOR DIFFERENT HOURS FOR THE WEEKEND, AND I'LL COME BACK AND ANSWER YOUR DIRECT QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT SUNDAY THROUGH FRIDAY NIGHT IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT IF I COULD SPEAK AGAIN TO THE ISSUE OF COMPLEXITY, I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE SAID.
I DON'T THINK IT MAKES IT SUBSTANTIALLY TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE DIFFERENT HOURS FOR FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT FOR THOSE WEEKEND NIGHTS VERSUS THE OTHER NIGHTS OF THE WEEK.
I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE HAVING THE SAME HOURS ALL NIGHTS OF THE WEEK, THEN IT WOULD BEG THE QUESTION, WHAT'S GOING TO DRIVE THOSE HOURS? IS IT GOING TO BE THE NEED TO HAVE A REASONABLY WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A REASONABLY LATER NIGHTTIME START ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED IT SOMETIMES ON THE WEEKENDS, OR IS IT GOING TO BE TO HAVE A EARLIER NIGHTTIME START, EVEN ON THE WEEKENDS, BECAUSE YOU NEED IT DURING THE WEEK? I THINK IT ACTUALLY HELPS IT BE MORE REASONABLE TO IMPLEMENT AND FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS TO CARRY OUT.
IF WE DO HAVE A LATER START OF NIGHTTIME HOURS ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT, THAN WE DO ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT.
WITH THAT, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON SUNDAY, SUNDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, WELL, LET'S GO NIGHTTIME FIRST.
SUNDAY NIGHT THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT, I'M FINE WITH THE NIGHTTIME HOUR BEGINNING AT 10:00 PM.
>> ANYTHING ELSE THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE HOURS?
>> WELL, BUDDY, YOU WANTED TO ADJUST THE MORNING HOURS ON THE WEEKENDS, AND I'M FIRMLY OPPOSED THAT.
I'VE ALSO GOT COMMENTS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
YOU WANTED TO MAKE THEM LATER.
I'VE HAD OTHER PEOPLE TELL ME MAKE THEM EARLIER, WHICH MAKES ME THINK THAT MAYBE 7:00 AM IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME ON THE WEEKENDS.
>> THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR.
>> 7:00 AM. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, ACTUALLY.
[00:10:01]
HOW OFTEN DO WE GET MORNING NOISE COMPLAINTS?I JUST WANTED TO PUT THE TOPIC ON HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FLUSH THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT ISSUES AND THE RAMIFICATIONS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THAT I'M STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF LATER MORNINGS ON SATURDAY THAN THE OTHERS.
I COULD BE CONVINCED DIFFERENTLY.
I KNOW THERE ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY, SATURDAY'S MY WEEKEND, I WANT TO GET UP REALLY EARLY.
I WANT TO START WORKING IN THE YARD AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING BEFORE YOU KNOW IT GETS HOT DURING THE DAY.
I UNDERSTAND THEY WANT TO BE THAT WAY.
OTHER PEOPLE SAY SATURDAY IS MY ONLY MORNING TO SLEEP IN.
I WANT TO GET SOME REST ON SATURDAY MORNING.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE DOING THINGS THAT ARE WHAT IT WOULD CONSIDER EXCESSIVELY NOISY THAT EARLY IN THE MORNING.
I TEND TO FALL IN THAT CAMP MORE SO THAN WANT TO GET UP AT 06:00 AM TO START OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD BE NOISIER.
SO I WOULD PROBABLY TEND TO RECOMMEND THAT WE GO MAYBE 8:00 AM.
FOR THE MORNING HOURS TO START ON SATURDAY MORNING AND SUNDAY MORNING, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK ON EACH OF THESE ISSUES, MAYOR PELE, WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE ISSUE.
NOW, NONE OF THIS IS IMPLEMENTING LAW, BUT I THINK WE'LL NEVER GET AN ORDINANCE WRITTEN UNLESS WE START TAKING THESE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME, AND THEN WE FINALLY TAKE A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF SATURDAY MORNING STARTING AT 6:00 AM.
ALL IN FAVOR OF IT STARTING AT 7:00 AM.
ALL IN FAVOR OF IT STARTING AT 8:00 AM.
WHATEVER TIME WE WANT TO GO, BUT UNLESS WE TAKE A VOTE ON EACH OF THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES AND DECIDE WHERE WE'VE GOT AT LEAST THREE OUT OF FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING.
WE'RE NEVER GOING TO END UP RESOLVING THIS.
>> WHAT THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED.
WE'RE GETTING ALL AVENUES FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
WE WANT THE PEOPLE WE WANT THE LIGHT PEOPLE, AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH 7:00.
THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT WANTED EAR AND THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT WANTED LATER.
THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE 07:00 BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING DIFFERENT THINGS FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THERE'S IS EARLY RISERS, SO WE PICKED THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
>> MR. SHARPE, YOU'RE WITH US NOW.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT ALL WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE HOURS.
IS THAT WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO IN THE WORKSHOP?
>> THAT ALL ARE POSTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE MEETING..
I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.
>> I DID HAVE SOMETHING IN RESPONSE TO THE MORNING HOURS.
WHICH IS WE'RE NOT TALKING QUARTER ACRE LOTS.
SO I FEEL LIKE IF YOU HAVE TWO ACRE LOTS AND YOU'RE GOING TO MOW YOUR YARD AT 7:00 A.M.
TRY DOING IT CLOSEST TO YOUR HOUSE, NOT STARTING AT THE QUARTER EDGE NEXT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR.
I JUST FEEL LIKE AT SOME POINT, COURTESY, COMMON COURTESY, YOU SHOULD PLAY INTO IT AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO STILL HAVE THE FREEDOM BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE.
>> I DO THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND TRY TO GET SOME CONSENSUS ON THE HOURS, THE START TIME FOR NIGHTTIME ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND SATURDAY NIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT.
WE SKIPPED OVER IT AND WENT TO THIS MORNING ISSUE.
>> RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE TIME TO BE 7:00 -10:00 FOR DAYTIME HOURS AND 10:00-7:00 FOR NIGHTTIME HOURS FOR ALL THE WAY ACROSS IS WHAT'S PROPOSED.
[00:15:01]
>> PARDON? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT FOR THE LAST ACROSS THE BOARD, YOU SAID IT'S 7:00 -10:00?
>> THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WHAT I'M ASKING NOW IS, DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT? MS. HALBERT?
>> I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEE IT TO BE 11:00 ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.
>> I'M FINE WITH EITHER 11 O'CLOCK OR MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.
I WOULD CONSIDER EITHER OF THE TWO.
>> I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS.
AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT PEOPLE WHO WANTED LATER, PEOPLE WHO WANTED EARLIER.
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE A PARTY.
WE'RE JUST SAYING BE CONSIDERATE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AFTER 10:00 PM, THAT'S IT.
YOU STILL CAN HAVE PEOPLE OUTSIDE, YOU STILL CAN HAVE A PARTY.
JUST BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AFTER 10:00 PM, THAT'S ALL THAT WE WERE ASKING.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON MR. BARRON?
>> I AGREE WITH MS. BOGDAN'S COMMENTS.
>> MR. SHARPE? HE CAN'T HEAR ME.
>> I AGREE WITH TIME [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING 11:00 OR 12:00.
>> WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING 11:00 ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY.
WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE KEEP IT THE SAME AT THIS TIME.
>> WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE ON SUNDAY MORNING, DIFFERENT HOURS ON SUNDAY MORNING.
>> NOW IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS IT.
SUNDAY MORNING AS IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, WOULD BEGIN AT 7:00 AM. SUNDAY MORNING.
IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE SATURDAY AT 7:00 AM, I'D PROBABLY PREFER SUNDAY GO TO 8:00 AM.
I'D LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST ONE WEEKEND MORNING WHERE I COULD SLEEP IN A LITTLE LATER.
BUT IN THE END, THAT'S JUST ONE OPINION.
>> MS. HALBERT, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT?
>> I'M GOING TO SLEEP THROUGH ALL OF THAT ANYWAY.
>> I'M GOING TO SLEEP THROUGH ANY OF IT ANYWAY.
>> I THINK THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE'RE ADDING COMPLICATION THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO KNOW ABOUT.
IT'S JUST IT'S JUST COMPLICATING THINGS.
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SUSPECT THERE'S A LATER TIME ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. I'LL GRANT YOU THAT.
BUT NOBODY'S EXPECTING A RANDOM SUNDAY MORNING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TIME THAN THE REST OF THE WEEK.
HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THE NOISE IN THE MORNING [INAUDIBLE].
I DON'T THINK THEY NEED [INAUDIBLE].
>> I AGREE TO KEEPING AT 7:00 AM.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS ON THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I'M FINE TO SUPPORT THAT CONSENSUS.
BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM ALL IS 7:00 AM ON THE MORNINGS.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE TIME? IF NOT, WE WILL MOVE TO DECIBEL LEVELS.
SERGEANT VERDI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE TO US A DECIBEL LEVEL? YOU DON'T.
I WAS HOPING TO GET SOMETHING HERE SO WE COULD HEAR THE DIFFERENCE AND.
[00:20:02]
>> MAYOR, I PREPARED SOME SLIDES FOR THAT.
THEY'RE NOT THE BEST, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE US DISCONNECTING DARREL FROM THE CONVERSATION OR THE TRANSITION.
NOT IDEAL, BUT IT CAN BE DONE.
>> I WOULD RATHER NOT LOSE MY COUNCIL MEMBER.
I HAVE A QUESTION TO MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM.
YOU WERE TELLING ME ABOUT THE DECIBEL LEVELS AND HOW THEY ARE ON A [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
YOU MIGHT THINK OF IT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A GRAPH, IT'S LIKE WHAT'S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK, WHERE IT STARTS SLOW AND THEN IT RAMPS UP STEEPLY.
A LOGARITHMIC SCALE INCREASES AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE, WHICH ALSO MEANS IT WOULD DECREASE AT AN EXPONENTIAL RATE WHEN YOU'RE GOING BACK DOWN.
CUTTING THE DECIBELS 75 TO 65 MIGHT BE A 12% MATHEMATICAL DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO NUMBERS, BUT IT DOESN'T REPRESENT A 12% DIFFERENCE IN THE SOUND LEVELS.
IT REPRESENTS ABOUT A 50% REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF NOISE, IF I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE CORRECTLY BETWEEN 75 AND 65.
I THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
AS I LEARNED MORE ABOUT THAT, IT MADE ME LESS COMFORTABLE IN CHANGING THE DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 75 TO 65 BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING WE'VE GOT TO CUT THE VOLUME IN HALF.
NOT CUT IT BY 12% OR 25% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
GO THROUGH THIS BIG OF A CHANGE IN A COMMUNITY LIKE PARKER, WE'RE ALREADY SEEING IT AS A SHOCK TO OUR COMMUNITY.
WE'VE GOT SOME PEOPLE THAT REALLY WANT THIS AND NEED IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME NEED FOR SOME OF THIS.
WE'VE GOT OTHER PEOPLE OVER THERE VEHEMENTLY AGAINST IT.
WE, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, HAVE BEEN DEMONIZED AND CALLED TOTALITARIANS, WHICH I PERSONALLY TAKE A GREAT DEAL OF OFFENSE TO, AND I THINK AN APOLOGY IS DUE TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL FOR MAKING THAT ALLEGATION, FOR EVEN DISCUSSING THIS, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON ANYTHING.
WE HAVEN'T IMPLEMENTED ANYTHING.
ALL WE'RE DOING IS HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
I THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A REASONABLE DISCUSSION AND IT'S OKAY TO DIFFER ON REASONABLE THINGS TOO.
SOME OF US HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS, AS YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN JUST IN THIS DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD RIGHT HERE.
BUT I WOULDN'T DEMONIZE A SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL, AND I DON'T EXPECT ANY OF THEM TO DEMONIZE ME EITHER.
BUT I THINK THE DECIBEL LEVELS, BECAUSE OF THE LOGARITHMIC SCALE, MAYBE SHOULD REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE NOW.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE IF WE REDUCE THEM BY THAT 50% REDUCTION LEVEL, GOING FROM 75 TO 65.
I THINK YOU'D HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT GOING FROM 65 TO 58 FOR THE NIGHTTIME LEVELS OF DECIBELS.
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION FIRST, PLEASE.
MR. BARRON OR MS. BOGDAN, YOU PARTICIPATED WITH THE NOISE COMMITTEE.
DID THIS ISSUE COME UP WITH THE COMMITTEE, AND IF SO, WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU ALL HAVE ON IT?
>> FORMER COUNCILMAN KIRCHO, HE, IN PARTICULAR, DID A LOT OF READINGS.
I HAD A LOT OF HISTORICAL READINGS.
NOW, OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT SPECIFY THE FREQUENCY RATING.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING HERE IN THIS ORDINANCE IS WE ARE STANDARDIZING ON THE A WEIGHTING, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY REDUCES DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE BASE.
I WILL SAY BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA, WE'VE HAD CASES WHERE IT HAS BEEN THE POLICE HAVE READ 55 DB, YET INSIDE THE HOUSE, IT IS UNBEARABLE.
WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE IT SUM.
SECOND OF ALL, AND THE SERGEANT CAN RESPOND TO THIS IF I'M INCORRECT.
I BELIEVE THAT THEIR INTENTION IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE USING THE DECIBEL LIMITS ON RESIDENTIAL CALLS, THAT THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR DEALING WITH EVENTS.
MAYBE WE NEED TO CODIFY SOME LANGUAGE AROUND THAT,
[00:25:02]
AND MAYBE THAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THAT CONCERN.WE CAN'T PULL UP THE CHART FOR EVERYBODY.
FOR COUNCIL PEOPLE, IT'S IN THE PACKET LATER, IN THE POLICE PRESENTATION, THERE ARE THE LIMITS OF OTHER CITIES, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE ARE STILL BEING ON THE HIGH END OF WHAT'S OUT THERE COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENCES FOR COMMERCIAL ENTITIES SUCH AS SOUTHPARK OR CROSS CREEK AS OPPOSED TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S THE WAY THE POLICE HAVE SAID THEY'RE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF SINCE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT, IF IT WOULD INSTEAD OF IT BEING IN POLICE POLICY, WE ACTUALLY JUST PUT IT IN THE ORDINANCE TO SPECIFY THAT.
>> KATHERINE, THIS IS REALLY IN YOUR BELLY, WHIP.
>> I THINK IF THAT'S JUST AS A CUSTOM AND PRACTICE, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CODIFY, THAT GIVES THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF IT.
CODIFYING THAT DISTINCTION IS GOING TO ADD GREATER COMPLEXITY TO YOUR ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO.
>> IS THERE ANY LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT DOING IT THAT WAY?
>> WOULD WE BE ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATION?
>> I MEAN, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD BE ACCUSED OF IT AS TO WHETHER THERE'S ANY BASIS FOR THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE THAT A LITTLE FURTHER.
>> WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM MENTIONED, AS IT CURRENTLY IS, WHICH CURRENTLY IS? BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR AT NIGHTTIME, 65 DECIBELS BETWEEN 11:00 AND MIDNIGHT, AND 55 DECIBELS BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 1:00, 45 DECIBELS BETWEEN 1:00 AND 6:00.
>> IF I COULD ADDRESS THAT, WHEN I MENTIONED WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS, I WAS REFERRING TO AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
YES. I THINK WE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH COMPLEXITY ON THE DECIMAL LEVELS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OUT THERE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HOPE OUR CITIZENS UNDERSTAND BECAUSE SOME OF THE CITIZENS ARE REALLY GETTING UPSET AND YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO CONSIDER THIS TOPIC AT ALL, AND THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE IN SOME WAYS THAN THE ONE THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.
>> LET ME ADD TO COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM'S STANDPOINT.
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOESN'T HAVE REALLY ANY EXEMPTIONS AT ALL.
IF YOU'RE ABOVE 75 DECIBELS OR WHATEVER, DOING CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW OR MOWING YOUR YARD OR WHATEVER, TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.
>> WE COULD, AS COUNCILMAN BARRON HAD SUGGESTED, POSSIBLY LOOKING AT A RESIDENTIAL VERSUS A COMMERCIAL.
I THINK WE'VE SAW THAT AND SEVERAL OTHER CITIES ADDRESS IT IN THAT WAY FOR COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
BUT THEN YOU GET INTO THE WHOLE QUESTION.
IT'S IN A COMMERCIAL, BUT NOW YOU'RE INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, SO NOW WHERE DOES THAT FALL? THAT'S WHY WE HAD THAT ISSUE. BILLY.
EVERY ORDINANCE THAT DOES MAKE THAT DISTINCTION DOES AT THE END.
EVERY ORDINANCE I'VE SEEN AND I'VE READ 30, 40 DIFFERENT ORDINANCES.
THEY ALL JUST CONSIDER THE ZONING OF THE RECEIVER OF THE SOUND, NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUND.
>> GO AHEAD. CAN YOU ADDRESS COUNCILMAN PILGRIM'S COMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS BY LOWERING IT BY 10 DECIBELS CUTS THE SOUND IN HALF.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT IS TRUE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME OTHER ORDINANCES OUT THERE THAT MAKE MORE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT THE SOUND.
IF IT'S A RHYTHMIC SOUND, THEN THE LIMITS ARE LOWER THAN IF IT'S A WHITE NOISE SOUND, AND THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> MR. PILGRIM. GO AHEAD, MR. SHARPE.
[00:30:09]
AGREE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO BILLY IS THAT I THINK YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOME OTHER CITIES HAVE VARIATIONS BASED ON THE TYPE OF SOUND AND WHETHER IT'S RHYTHMIC, OR WHETHER IT'S HIGH-PITCHED OR LOW-PITCHED AND ALL THAT.
THAT REALLY DOES GET INTO THE COMPLEXITIES.
I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, A 12% REDUCTION IN DECIBELS IS ABOUT A 50% REDUCTION IN THE AUDIBLES AMOUNT OF NOISE.
THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY CORRECT, BUT IT'S PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO CORRECT, WHICH IS WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT CUTTING THAT TOTAL AUDIBLE BY 50%.
I HAVE COME UP WITH NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THAT 75 NUMBER WASN'T A NUMBER THAT SOMEBODY JUST DIDN'T PULL OUT OF THE AIR AND THREW IN A DOCUMENT.
IF THERE ARE ONE HERE, WE CAN PULL UP THAT CHART, BUT IF YOU LOOK 75 IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT ANY OTHER CITY IS DOING.
>> I HAVE SOME OF THOSE HERE IN FRONT OF ME. DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THOSE? ALLEN DAYTIME 65, NIGHTTIME 58, MURPHY, 60 DAYTIME, 50 AT NIGHT, PLANO, 65 DAYTIME, 55 AT NIGHT.
GARLAND, 55 TO 65 DURING THE DAY, DEPENDING ON COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, I BELIEVE ON THAT ONE.
>> CAN YOU GET THAT FIRST ONE AGAIN?
>> THE FIRST ONE IS ALLEN, AND IT'S 65 DAYTIME 58 AT NIGHT.
THAT IS I BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED FROM THE INITIAL DRAFT.
>> THE COMMITTEE, WE DID TAKE THE HIGHER ONE THAT WE SAW FROM OTHER CITIES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION AND THAT'S GOING TO BE FORGET ABOUT IT.
HOW MANY, IF YOU KNOW, NOISE COMPLAINTS HAVE WE HAD IN 2025.
IS THERE A REASON THAT A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS AND THE ISSUES THAT YOU SEE REGARDING THIS COULDN'T BE HANDLED THROUGH PENAL CODE OFFENSES SUCH AS LEWD BEHAVIOR, DISTURBING THE, THAT SORT OF THING?
[00:35:01]
I GUESS WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING IS WHY DO WE NEED A SEPARATE NOISE ORDINANCE? I I DON'T UNDERSTAND.>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I'D LIKE TO ASK OFFICER BURDICK.
HOW MANY OF OUR AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, WHAT PERCENTAGE BROAD PERCENTAGE OF OUR NOISE COMPLAINTS TAKE PLACE DURING DAYTIME, DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY.
I DON'T EVEN GET CLOSE TO, WHETHER IT'S 7:00 A.M OR 9:58 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
JUST DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, HOW MUCH OF THE NOISE COMPLAINTS TAKE PLACE THEN?
>> BE BRIEFED BY THE LAST SIX MONTHS BACK TO THE RATE.
MOSTLY AND A HALF BETWEEN 106106.
SO LAST SIX MONTHS OF 24106, WE HAVE 10-26 AND 10, AND THEN 3-26 AND 6.
>> MY POINT IN ASKING THAT QUESTION IS, WE MAY RESOLVE THE LARGEST NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH NOISE.
I DO IF WE SET THESE NEW HOURS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SO THAT NIGHTTIME BEGINS EARLIER AND THAT DAYTIME BEGINS A LITTLE BIT LATER.
WE'RE MOVING FROM 6:00 TO 7:00 A.M. ON DAYTIME FOR ALL DAYS OF THE WEEK NOW, AND WE'RE MOVING FROM 11:00 P.M TO 10:00 P.M. ON ALL NIGHTS EXCEPT FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT FOR THE OTHER.
THAT'S WHEN THE BULK OF THE COMPLAINTS YOU'RE SAYING TAKE PLACE.
I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANY NEED TO CHANGE THE DECIBELS FOR THE OTHER TIMES OF THE DAY WHEN WE'RE REALLY NOT GETTING COMPLAINTS THEN ANYWAY.
FOR THAT MATTER, IF IT'S RUNNING LAWN EQUIPMENT, WE'RE EXEMPTING LAWN EQUIPMENT ANYWAY.
LAWN EQUIPMENT IS PROBABLY THE NOISIEST THING THERE IS.
I MEAN, BLOWERS AND CHAIN SAWS RUN 90 OR 100 DECIBELS.
WE DON'T EVER WANT TO STOP ANYBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THEIR LAWN AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT DOING IT AT THREE IN THE MORNING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MAYBE CHANGING THE HOURS WILL GET US 80% OF THE WAY THERE.
WE ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER, PARKER IS DIFFERENT THAN ALLEN.
IF ALLEN IS 65 AND 58, WE ARE DIFFERENT IN PARKER.
WE HAVE BY AND LARGE, LARGER LOTS, BUT WE HAVE SOME ONE ACRE LOTS HERE IN PARKER, AND I RESPECT THE NEED OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ONE ACRE LOTS TO HAVE THE CITY HELP THEM HAVE SOME DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THOSE.
THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TWO TO THREE TO FOUR TO FIVE ACRE LOTS, MANY OF WHO HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT AS MAKING ANY CHANGE IN THIS, I DON'T THINK ANY CHANGE THAT WE MAKE IS REALLY GOING TO AFFECT THEM ANYWAY BECAUSE IF YOU LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF A FOUR ACRE LIGHT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT AFFECTING ANYBODY ELSE AND NO ONE ELSE IS AFFECTING YOU AND ANY CHANGE THAT WE MAKE ISN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I'M NOT SURE. I TEND TO WANT TO LEAVE THE DECIBELS AS THEY WERE PROPOSED.
NO AT 75 AND 65 DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME, LEAVE THEM AT JUST THAT.
>> MAYOR, I ACTUALLY ONE, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE LIKE AGER AT MY HOUSE SO WE CAN MEASURE THIS IN REAL TIME.
BUT I'M THINKING I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH 70 AND 60.
I JUST DIDN'T GET THAT WRITTEN DOWN. MISS BOBBY.
>> AT CURRENT 75, WE HAD A PARTY AT SOUTH FORK THAT WAS GOING ON AND IT WAS SHAKING MY BLINDS IN MY ROOM.
VIBRATIONS OF HEAVY WOODEN PLANTATION SHUTTERS.
WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING CHEAP BLINDS.
HAY PLANTATION SHUTTERS WERE VIBRATING AT 75.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF 75 AT ALL.
I THINK WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH WAS 65 AND 58 IS A VERY REASONABLE NUMBER,
[00:40:02]
AND IT'S DURABLE AND IT'S NOT OBSESSIVE AT ALL.>> I WOULD ADD SOMETHING THAT I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED IS SOMETIMES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUSIC THAT GOES ON FOR 8-10 HOURS STRAIGHT.
DEALING WITH THAT IS, A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF PROBLEM.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I'M IN FAVOR OF THE LIMITS COMING DOWN IS BECAUSE THOSE OF US WHO EXPERIENCED IT, 75 IS NOT EVEN 65 IS NOT GOING TO BE GREAT, BUT IT'S BETTER.
>> IS THAT COMING FROM SOUTHPORT?
>> NOW, ONLY I WILL SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT SO FAR IN 2025, BUT THEY HAVE DONE IT MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS.
THAT'S DAYTIME EVENTS DURING SOUTH FORK, WHERE YOU HAVE THAT? I GUESS IT RAISES TWO ISSUES IN MILAN ONE, AND I REALLY EVEN CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT MISS BOGDEN SAID A MINUTE AGO ABOUT THIS POUNDING VIBRATION OF EVEN HER BLINDS IN HER HOUSE.
BUT IS THAT IS THAT A BASE SOUND AS OPPOSED TO A HIGH PITCH SOUND, THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON THIS ANYWAY BECAUSE BASE IS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY.
I DON'T ONE, I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO FIX THAT.
NUMBER 2, I STILL HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE REGULATIONS REALLY AREN'T GOING TO END UP APPLYING TO SOUTH FORK ANYWAY UNTIL WE CHANGE THE I CAN'T THINK OF THE TERM I WANT TO USE.
THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT SOUTH FORK OPERATES UNDER.
I KNOW WE'RE SAYING THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY NO LONGER THEY TECHNICALLY NO LONGER QUALIFY FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE IN SOUTH FORK.
BUT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY CHANGE WHAT APPLIES TO THEM AS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THIS, THIS ISN'T GOING TO MATTER ANYWAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO OR THAT AREN'T CREATING THE PROBLEM. I APOLOGIESE.
>> WELL, I ACTUALLY WANT TO CORRECT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER PROGRAM SAID, SINCE ABOUT 20:17, 2018, SOUTH FORK HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN SUBJECT TO OUR NOISE ORDINANCE? SO THIS DOES AFFECT THEM.
AND AS I SUGGEST IT MAYBE THE WAY WE RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IS WE DO DIVIDE IT INTO COMMERCIAL VERSUS NONCOMMERCIAL OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND THEN I THINK THAT WILL GET RID OF THE BULK OF PEOPLE'S OBJECTIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION AGAIN, MISS GHOST, VERDICT.
DO WE HAVE A WAY TO MEASURE THE WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.
DO WE HAVE THE EQUIPMENT TO MEASURE BASE AND THAT HEAVY NOISE.
>> WELL, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OFFICIAL EQUIPMENT TO DO THAT.
SOME OF THE PHONE APPS, WHICH ARE PRETTY DECENT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CALIBRATED AND WOULDN'T BE AN OFFICIAL THING.
YOU CAN DEFINITELY GET A PER FREQUENCY CHART AND SEE THAT THE BASE IS HIGHER THAN THE TROUBLE.
BUT THAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT TO GET IT, YOU KNOW, BROKEN OUT LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT IN A LARGE CITY WOULD HAVE, NOT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
ALSO, I WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT ONE, CREATING AN ORDINANCE AROUND THAT IS VERY COMPLICATED.
AND SECOND. THE POLICE HAVING TO TRY TO INTERPRET THAT IN THE FIELD WOULD JUST BE AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE AND NOT SOMETHING I THINK IT'S FEASIBLE.
>> WELL, THEN I THINK ROXANNE MAKES A GREAT POINT.
IF IT'S AFFECTING HER, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE SOME WAY TO MEASURE IT.
>> WELL, WE DID ON THE COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT THIS.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAVE LENGTHS THAT WILL PICK UP THE BASE, AND WE LOOKED AROUND AT OTHER CITIES TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANY ORDINANCES HOW THEY ADDRESSED IT, AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT BILLY DESCRIBED WHERE IT'S MUCH BIGGER CITIES LIKE THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT HAVE THIS EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT.
WE DID ADDRESS THAT AND DID LOOK INTO IT, AND WE DECIDED THAT WE COULDN'T REALLY LIST A WAVE LENGTH IS WHERE THIS BASE COMES FROM AND IS MEASURED AND THAT WE COULDN'T USE IT.
>> NO. IT'S NOT A A AND C DISCOUNT THE BASE.
NOW, THERE ARE A COUPLE CITIES OUT THERE.
I BELIEVE LUCAS, AND I BELIEVE ST. PAUL COPIED LUCAS' ORDINANCE,
[00:45:01]
WHERE THEY DO LIKE THEY HAVE A LIMIT AT 100 HERTZ, 200 HERTZ OR WHATEVER, BUT I'M LIKE THERE'S NO WAY THE POLICE ARE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THAT IN THE FIELD.>> MR. SHAW, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> IF WE TOOK SORRY, MAYOR. I JUMPED IN.
IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THE SOUTHWORTH GRANT SITUATION, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE NUMBERS 7060 OR 7565 FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS SOUTH WORK AS THE MONOLITHIC PROBLEM THAT IT IS.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU ASKING ME? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.
IF SOUTH FORK JUST DISAPPEARED TOMORROW AND IS NO LONGER THE ISSUE, WOULD THIS BE COMFORTABLE FOR YOU? THAT THE 7060 WITH THE DAYTIME OR THE HOURS THAT WE GAVE?
>> NO, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT 75 IS, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. IT'S VERY CLEAR.
>> SEVENTY WOULD STILL BE BAD.
>> WELL, I THINK THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS, DO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING SEPARATE FOR COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL? BUT AGAIN, IT'S THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LEADING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DING ISSUE WITH.
>> THE SELF WORK RANCH THING IS SO DIFFERENT THAN ME HAVING THAT KIGER.
LIKE AT MY HOUSE, I'M NOT I MEAN, I MIGHT BE A CHILD OF THE 80S, BUT I AM NOT PLAYING THAT MUCH BASE.
IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN SHANIA TWAIN HANGING OUT AT 1:00 A.M. BLASTING IT THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I GUESS I WANT TO PULL SELF WORK AS A SEPARATE COMPLETELY, EVEN WITHIN THIS.
>> I GUESS I'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT'S THE TRUTH ABOUT SOUTH FORK? I MEAN, I MADE MY STATEMENT OF MY UNDERSTANDING A MINUTE AGO.
COUNCIL MEMBER BARON SAID I WAS WRONG.
I RESPECT HIS OPINION AND LOOKING INTO THIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT, THOUGH.
I I DON'T THINK COUNCIL MEMBER BARON IS TRYING TO LIE TO ME AND I'M NOT TRYING TO LIE TO HIM.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
>> MAYOR PELE, YOU WERE AT THAT MEETING AND VOTED ON THAT LAW CHANGE.
>> NO. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THIS TIME, SOUTH FORK IS STILL UNDER THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED TO GO BY OUR ORDINANCE.
NOW, SOUTH FORK DID AGREE TO WHEN JANET TIM WAS THERE, AND THERE WAS A PREVIOUS NOISE COMMITTEE.
SOUTH FORK PARTICIPATED WITH THAT AND MISS TIM ON BEHALF OF SOUTHPARK,
[00:50:03]
AGREED THAT THEY WOULD GO BY OUR ORDINANCE.HOWEVER, SINCE THEN, SOUTH FORK BEEN SOLD AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES.
UNDER THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE, THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, UNLESS YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING, KATHERINE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GO BY OWN.
>> WELL, WHAT HAPPENED WAS BACK AT THAT MEETING AND I'M SORRY, I I COULD HAVE IF I HAD KNOWN THIS WAS GOING TO COME UP, I COULD HAVE GIVEN YOU THE ORDINANCES NUMBER AND EVERYTHING BACK IN 2017, 2018.
PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WAS A LINE IN THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE WHICH SAID THAT SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT WAS EXEMPT.
THERE WAS A VOTE BY COUNSEL TO REMOVE THAT RESTRICTION.
AS YOU SAID, JANET TIM AT THAT TIME, SAID, YES, WE CAN ABIDE BY THIS.
I'M JUST NOT I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO COME UP, SO I DIDN'T I HAVEN'T LOOKED UP WHAT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER IS, BUT THAT'S THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
>> OKAY. WELL, WE'LL LOOK IT UP AND SEE.
>> THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL CHANGING RIGHT NOW AS IT IS.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO SELL 75 DECIBELS TO THE PERSON LIVING RIGHT NEXT LITERALLY RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
>> NO. SINCE THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT UNDER OUR ORDINANCES REQUIRE SO MANY ACRES AND IF THEY DO SPLIT THAT OFF, IF THEY NO LONGER QUALIFY FOR THAT DESIGNATION, WHICH IS BEFORE P&Z AT THIS TIME. KATHLEEN, DID YOU?
>> I WAS ABOUT TO CAUTION YOU ABOUT BEING OFF POSTING.
>> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T IMPLEMENT AN ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE CITIZENRY AT LARGE BASED ON ISOLATED INCIDENTS, EITHER ISOLATED INCIDENTS OF SOMETHING CAUSED BY COMMERCIAL LIKE SOUTH FORK OR EVEN AN ISOLATED INCIDENT THAT IS CITIZEN TO CITIZEN.
I SAY THAT, HAVING A GREAT DEAL OF SYMPATHY, I SEE LAURA WAS SETTING OUT THERE AND I KNOW WHAT SHE'S DEALING WITH WITH A NEIGHBOR WHO'S CREATED A GREAT DEAL OF PROBLEMS FOR HER BECAUSE OF THE NOISE THAT THEY CREATE.
I DON'T KNOW IF 65 VERSUS 75 OR 58 VERSUS 65 AT NIGHT IS GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITH HER NEIGHBOR THOUGH THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF SYMPATHY FOR THAT.
I WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO FIX IT, AND SOME OF IT MAY BE JUST CHANGING THE HOURS.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE WRONG DECISION TO FIX IT.
>> WELL, EVERYTHING I HEAR HERE, I THINK EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INCLUDED THAT THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE NEIGHBOR ON NEIGHBOR PROBLEM IS VIA POLICE DISCRETION, NOT VIA THE DECIBEL LIMITS.
THE DECIBEL LIMITS ARE TO DEAL WITH THE EVENT SITUATION, NOT TO DEAL WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SITUATION.
I THINK THE SOLUTION THAT IS, WE JUST NEED TO CHANGE THE WORDING, CODIFY THAT. THAT'S THAT.
>> I GUESS THAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION IS THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY TOUCHED ON.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE DECIMAL LEVELS, BUT WHAT WAS PROPOSED WAS GIVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SOME DISCRETION.
ARE WE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? WELL, THAT'S NICE PILGRIM.
>> I LIKE DOING THAT. I MEAN, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I ASKED ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS WHEN WE STARTED IT OVER A YEAR AGO, WAS I ASKED CHIEF PRICE, DO YOU WANT MORE DISCRETION OR DO YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU MORE SPECIFICITY AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED MORE DISCRETION.
AFTER HEARING FROM HIM AND OFFICER BURDICK HAS REINFORCED THAT THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD HIM MAKE OVER THE LAST YEAR.
I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF GIVING THE OFFICERS DISCRETION.
AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT THERE'S SOME UNDERLYING LAW THAT PUTS SOME TEETH INTO THE DISCRETION THAT THEY HAVE.
>> OKAY. MR. SHAW, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP?
[00:55:02]
>> OKAY. IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE THERE NEEDED TO BE A COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS IN HERE, OR DID I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU'LL SAY?
>> I DON'T THINK WE DECIDED THAT.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IT WOULD BE OVER INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
MOST OF THE OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WE'VE READ, IT'S BASED OFF OF WHERE THE IS BEING HEARD.
IT'S HARD TO WRITE WITH THAT COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
>> AREN'T ALL ORDINANCES WHERE THEY HEARD THOUGH?
>> BUT EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING WHERE THEY'RE HEARD, IF YOU'RE TRY YOU GOT TO REGULATE THE SOURCE.
I WOULD I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN FAVOR NOW AS WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS OPEN DISCUSSION TO HAVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF THE SOURCE IS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.
I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING AN ORDINANCE WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT WE CAN LOOK INTO IT.
>> WOULD HAVE TO GET INTO THE WHOLE ISSUE OF DEFINING COMMERCIAL ALSO, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME PLACES IN PARKER THAT ARE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BUT THEY OPERATE UNDER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
>> WELL. LET ME TELL YOU I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE IS GENERALLY UNIVERSALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS CROSS CREEK RANCH.
I THINK NOBODY CROSS CREEK RANCH MADE SOME CHANGES.
THE MAIN RESIDENT WHO HAD COMPLAINED AGAINST THEM SAID, YES, THOSE CHANGES SEEM TO BE WORKING.
I THINK EVERYTHING'S GOOD THERE.
THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THIS ORDINANCE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CARVE ANYTHING OUT SPECIAL FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY CANNOT HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND AFTER 10:00 P.M PERIOD.
THAT'S IN THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REALLY DEAL WITH THAT.
I THINK WE'VE GOT ONE EVENT VENUE RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
MAYBE WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE OR TWO IN THE FUTURE THAT WE REGULATE AND WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT.
AS FAR AS THE ONE THAT'S IN RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANYTHING SPECIAL FOR THEM.
>> ONE AREA THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED WAS WHERE THE MEASUREMENTS ARE ACTUALLY TAKEN.
CURRENTLY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SAYS MEASUREMENTS MIGHT BE TAKEN AT A POINT ON ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY OR ON AN ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR NEAR THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE NOISE IS GENERATED.
ARE WE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS VERSION.
THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS IN THE PACKET? THERE'S TWO IN THE PACKET.
>> ONE IS THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND THE OTHER IS THE PREVIOUS.
>> YEAH. YOU'RE GOING OFF THE PREVIOUS.
THE CURRENT ONE SAYS THAT IT WILL BE TAKEN 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> WE ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
>> THE PROPERTY LINE OF WHOEVER IS MAKING THE SOUND.
>> FOR CLARITY, WHEN YOU SAY 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, 30 FEET ONTO THE PERSON'S PROPERTY THAT'S COMPLAINING OR 30 FEET ONTO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
WE'RE NOT THE POLICE ARE NOT GOING TO GO ONTO PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TO TAKE A MEASUREMENT.
THEY'RE GOING TO BACK UP 30 FEET FROM THAT PERSON'S PROPERTY AND TAKE A MEASUREMENT.
>> YOU'RE SAYING 30 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE SOUND IS BEING GENERATED, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> BASICALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, THAT FAR.
>> OKAY. WE HAD AN ISSUE SOME YEARS AGO WITHIN PARKER WHERE A RESIDENT WAS HAD AN ISSUE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR
[01:00:02]
AND THE NOISE AND SOME ISSUES AT THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.THEY HAD THE POLICE COME DOWN TO THEIR HOUSE AND MEASURE FROM THE EDGE OF THEIR DRIVEWAY OVER TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, WHICH WAS NOT AT THE STREET OR, THAT IT WAS WAY BACK ON THEIR HOUSE.
>> THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS AT THE PROPERTY LINE? WE'RE ACTUALLY PUTTING A 30 FOOT BUFFER IN HERE THAT WAS NOT IN THERE CURRENTLY.
>> I JUST WANT US TO BE CONSISTENT ON WHERE WE'RE DOING THE MEASURE FROM.
I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S FOR KATHERINE, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR COUNSEL.
I HEARD FROM SEVERAL RESIDENTS THAT WOULD LIKE US TO PUT THIS ON THE MAY BALLOT AND HOLD AN ELECTION.
ONE, I'D LIKE TO ASK KATHERINE, IS THAT SOMETHING LEGALLY WE COULD DO?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT AND THE METHOD FOR THAT.
>> IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD LEGALLY DO.
IS THERE AN APPETITE TO DO THAT? GO AHEAD, MISS BOGDAN.
I THINK THAT WE MOVE VERY SLOW AS A CITY ANYWAY.
IF WE START SETTING PRECEDENT OF TAKING EVERY SINGLE ORDINANCE THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE AND HAVING TO PUT THAT BEFORE THE PAPER, IT'S COSTLY AND VERY TIMELY.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
>> I WOULD PREFER NOT TO PUT IT ON AS A BALLOT INITIATIVE.
FOR ONE THING, BEFORE WE PUT IT ON AS A BALLOT INITIATIVE, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SOME VOTE AS TO WHAT THE INITIATIVE WOULD BE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THESE EXACT SAME ISSUES, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE, ARE WE GOING TO PUT 65 OR 75 OR 70 OR 68 OR 52? WE WOULD HAVE TO PICK THE HOURS, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS, AND THERE COULD BE ANY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT TRIGGER IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR TRIGGER IT TO FAIL, AND I DON'T KNOW.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS COUNSEL TO HEAR FROM OUR CITIZENS TO TRY TO DO THE BEST JOB THAT WE CAN OF CRAFTING ORDINANCES THAT WORK WELL GENERALLY FOR OUR CITY, AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT THINGS OUT AS BALLOT INITIATIVES.
I DON'T THINK BALLOT INITIATIVES ARE GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA.
I THINK THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS TOO MANY ITEMS NOW THAT ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RATHER THAN DECISIONS THAT LAWMAKERS CAN VOTE ON.
>> MS. HALBERT, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? MR. SHARPE.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT ATTACKING MUNICIPALITY ACTUALLY HAS THE POWER OF REFERENDUM TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S LIMITED TO HOME RULE CITIES.
I WILL LOOK AT IT FURTHER, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY AN OPTION.
>> IN THE EVENT IT WAS AN OPTION, WE WOULD BE HANDLING EVERYTHING ON THE MAY BALLOT EVERY YEAR.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO A NOVEMBER ELECTION IN THE MIDST OF IT.
HONESTLY, AT THAT POINT, WHO IS GOING TO ACTUALLY RUN FOR COUNCIL? IF ALL THEY'RE DOING IS THE LEG WORK AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING ELECTED FOR THEIR ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE CITY AT LARGE.
[01:05:07]
>> THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK WE'D STILL LIKE TO HAVE THE INFORMATION JUST, CAUSE.
AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS AT THIS TIME? OTHERWISE, WE'LL MOVE ON AND CLOSE THE WORKSHOP AND GO ON TO.
>> WELL, BRIEFLY, WE HAVE THESE QUESTIONS, BUDDY THROUGH ON HERE ABOUT DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, CONSTRUCTION, NON AMPLIFIED MUSIC, HUMAN VOICES.
I WILL STATE THAT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXEMPTIONS IN THERE.
ONE DURING DAYTIME, YOU'RE JUST EXEMPT AT NIGHT TIME AT THE CITY OR TEXT DOT OR WHATEVER HAS AN EMERGENCY.
BUDDY, DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ITEMS?
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT SOME CITIZENS HAVE RAISED.
I THOUGHT IT'S WORTHWHILE PUT THEM ON HERE TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME CHANGES THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE.
ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES? WE WANT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES DURING THE DAY TO NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY SOUND LEVEL RESTRICTION.
>> WHICH IS IN THE ORDINANCE ALREADY.
>> THAT'S FINE. QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO PLAY THEIR PIANO AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
PIANO IS GENERALLY NOT AN AMPLIFIED MUSICAL INSTRUMENT.
I THINK IF YOU'RE NOT USING AMPLIFICATION, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T MATTER.
THE FARM ANIMALS CAME UP, BUT I FEEL LIKE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.
IF THERE'S THE POINT WHERE THE NEIGHBOR IS CALLING BECAUSE THEY'RE SO LOUD AND SERGEANT BURDICK IS OUT THERE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE OTHER ISSUES THAN THE NOISE.
THERE'S PROBABLY AN ANIMAL CRUELTY ISSUE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT THE BULL IS JUST REALLY EXCITED.
>> KATHERINE, WE HAD ASKED PREVIOUSLY TO LOOK INTO THE FIRM.
THE LAWS OF THE STATE WITH REGARDING THE FIRM.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU FOUND OUT ON THAT?
I'VE ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE PERSON THAT CONTACTED US AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT.
>> WHEN I LOOKED AT IT AND KATHERINE, I KNOW YOU LOOKED AT IT, BUT LET ME KNOW IF I'M CORRECT ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS FOR FARMS IN THE PRODUCTION OF FOOD ONLY, YOU'RE CALLING IT A HORSE FARM OR WHATEVER WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THAT.
>> I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT, BUT I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT IT, AND MY MEMORY IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT USED TO BE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU WANT TO BRING UP AT THIS TIME? NOT HEARING ANY.
THEN I WILL CLOSE THE WORKSHOP ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
[ADJOURN]
IT IS 6:38 P.M. WE WILL BE BACK AT 7:00PM TO START THE COUNCIL MEETING.I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER TO ORDER,
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS DECEMBER 2ND, 2025 AT 7:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK MISS HALL.>> YES, MA'AM, MARY THERE IS SUPER QUORUM.
>> AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK THAT AUBREY MARINO, IF YOU WILL DO THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND WHERE IS AMANDA NO WILL YOU DO THE TEXAS PLEDGE?
[01:10:04]
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE'LL HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TAKING THEM IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ENDED UP HERE.>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PUTTING SOME HARD WORK IN.
I'M AUBREY MARINO, 3901 SYCAMORE LANE.
WE CAME AND SPOKE LAST TIME THE ORDINANCE WAS HERE.
BROUGHT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE FARMING AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
I WANTED TO JUST REITERATE, BUT FARMING AND THOSE LARGER PROPERTIES HAVE OTHER NEEDS AND DEMANDS THAT DON'T FIT INTO THE SMALLER RESIDENTIAL NEEDS.
WE ARE A LITTLE MORE SPACED OUT, BUT WE TEND TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ZERO TOYS.
BUT TRACTORS, KIDS SEERS, EXCAVATORS, WE HAVE THOSE CHAIN SAWS AND THOSE THINGS.
WE DO HAVE TREES FALL THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED AT HOURS OF THE DAY.
LIVING ON A FARM, YOU ARE AT THE WILL OF THE ANIMALS.
THINGS HAPPEN EARLY IN THE MORNING AND SOMETIMES THINGS HAPPEN LATE AT NIGHT.
SOMETIMES THOSE THINGS CAN BE DISTURBING, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE ON 15 ACRES.
WE HAVE A LARGE POND AND IT HAS A WATER FUNCTION TO IT.
AND MY NEIGHBORS DOWN THE ROAD, CAN HEAR THAT WATER FUNCTION, SOUND TRAVELS.
THERE'S 37 COMPLAINTS OUT OF 6,533 PEOPLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS WERE FROM THE SAME PEOPLE.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING MORE STATISTICS ABOUT THE CLAIMS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
I THINK THAT WOULD BRING TO LIGHT WHY WE NEED THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S VERY BLANKETED OF THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, BUT WHAT ARE THOSE PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED? HOW WE CAN HELP THE POLICE ENFORCE THOSE TO HELP FIX THAT ISSUE.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF CHANGING THE WHOLE ORDINANCE IS NEEDED, BUT MAYBE JUST TWEAKING IT A BIT SO THAT THE POLICE HAVE A LITTLE MORE SAY BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE ALL AGREE PARKER HAS GREAT POLICEMEN AND MAYBE THEY COULD HELP FIX THE PROBLEM WITHOUT MAKING EVERYONE UNHAPPY. THANK YOU.
>> HI, GOOD EVENING. MELISSA TIERS, 4203 SYCAMORE LANE.
I'M JUST GOING TO TAG ONTO WHAT AUBREY MISS MARINO HAD JUST SAID.
JUST REMIND YOU AGAIN, WHERE PARKER IS UNIQUELY COUNTRY.
ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT AS BIG AS SHE IS, WE ARE ON ALMOST SEVEN ACRES AND SOUND DOES TRAVEL.
FOR INSTANCE, WE ARE NOT NEAR THE POND, WHERE THEY HAVE A BIG FOUNTAIN THAT GOES OFF.
BEFORE ON OUR STREET, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE FOUNTAIN IS IN, SO JUST REMEMBER AGAIN, OPEN LAND, WHERE I KNOW YOU GUYS AND A LOT OF PARKER HAS SMALLER NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHEN YOUR HOUSES ARE ALL THERE BLOCKING OUT THAT SOUND, YOU CAN'T HEAR IT.
BUT IN OURS, WHEN THERE'S LOTS OF LAND, ROLLING HILLS AND WATER, IT TRAVELS A LOT.
I JUST WANT TO JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE JUST TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
ACTUALLY OFFER I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN OFFER A SUGGESTION, BUT JUST FROM ME, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO, WELL, WHAT DOES THIS SOUND LIKE? WHAT IS THE DECILE READING? HOW DOES IT ACTUALLY WORK? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A FIELD TRIP OR HOWEVER THAT COULD WORK, WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SHOW THEM WHEN YOU'RE OUT WITH CERTAIN SOUNDS OR WHATEVER, SO EVERYONE CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THEM AND UNDERSTAND AND GO, [INAUDIBLE] IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN 65 OR WHATEVER.
THEN ALSO HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIGURE OUT SOMETHING WITH THAT BASE BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T READ BASE AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S AFFECTING THAT SOUND, THAT DECIBEL LEVEL WOULD BE INTERESTING TO BE ABLE TO HELP THOSE NEIGHBORS OUT.
BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO JUST THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT, BUT WE ARE HERE TO SERVE ABOUT 6,500 PEOPLE.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.
>> GOOD EVENING. TO THE CITY AND OUR FELLOW RESIDENTS.
[01:15:06]
FEBRUARY 17TH, 2024 IS AN INCIDENT OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAD FROM PROTESTERS WHO BLOCKED A LANE ON HOAG DRIVE AND HONKING THEIR HORNS MULTIPLE TIMES CAUSING A PUBLIC NOISE NUISANCE.ON THE OTHER HAND, ON SOME OTHER PERSPECTIVES FOR THEIR NOISE ISSUES, LAURA WELCH LEE PETAL AND A NEIGHBOR SOUTH OF US CONCERNING NOISE FROM A NEIGHBOR, HARASSING ANOTHER NEIGHBOR TO FIREWORKS, DISTURBING DOGS AND NOISE AFFECTING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOUSES OR AFFECTING THEIR LIVESTOCK IS SOUNDING AND BELIEVABLE.
UNDER SOME COMMON SENSE IN BRIEF, NO ONE MOWS THEIR GRASS BEFORE AND AFTER THE TIMES WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN RANCH STATES.
MY NEIGHBORS AND I DON'T MOW GRASS AT AROUND 9:00 P.M. OR 12 MIDNIGHT WHERE IT ALREADY INSIDE THE HOUSE WHEN IT'S NIGHT TIME.
WE WOULD MAKE A TERRIBLE JOB ON OUR LAWNS IF WE DON'T HAVE BETTER LIGHTS, AND WE DON'T USE CONCERT SPEAKERS LIKE THE SOUTH FORK SPEAKERS ACROSS THE STREET IN OUR BACKYARDS FOR BIRTHDAY PARTIES.
WE USUALLY DON'T HAVE PARTIES OUTSIDE.
WE USUALLY HAVE OUR PARTIES INSIDE IF WE WANTED ONE.
WITH THESE TRUTHS, I REQUEST THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AND ASK THAT THIS PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE BE PASSED AFTER NEW IMPROVEMENTS ARE ADDED.
FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO OPPOSE OUR AMERICAN LAWS TO UNDERSTAND, WE GO BY THE AMERICAN RULE OF LAW AND NOT THEIR LAW OF TOLL TALE OPINIONS.
LET'S STOP WITH THE CICADAS AND THE TOTALITARIAN EXCUSES.
I DO NOT NEED TO BE OFFENDED EITHER.
HI. LAURA, MI WALSH 623 NORTHRIDGE.
NOT MY FIRST TIME TO STAND UP HERE AND TALK WITH YOU ALL.
I SENT ALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR A SPECIFIC E MAIL TODAY IN ADVANCE OF THIS WORKSHOP AND PROVIDED SOME SPECIFIC FEEDBACK, WHICH I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE MOST OF YOU GOT THE EMAIL AND HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE THINGS WERE DISCUSSED DURING THE WORKSHOP.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THE SECOND WORKSHOP AND VERY DELVING INTO THESE DETAILED ISSUES AND GETTING THIS ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION.
I DID WORK ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DID TALK ABOUT ALREADY ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE.
IT'S A BIT OF A REPEAT FOR SOME OF US WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER.
BUT GIVEN THE SURPRISING REACTION AND ADVERSITY FROM PEOPLE THAT HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PRIOR TO THIS COMING UP TO VOTE, I DO THINK THAT THE WORKSHOP HAS BEEN A GOOD WAY, TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE HEARING ALL THE VARIOUS OPINIONS AND SEE IF WE CAN REACH SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE.
MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT EXISTS TODAY IS DEFICIENT.
IT DOES NOT SERVE OUR COMMUNITY WELL.
I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS EXPERIENCING SEVERE ISSUES WITH NEIGHBOR NEIGHBOR NOISE ISSUES, HAVE CALLED THE POLICE 12 TIMES, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS ON THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBOR AND HAVE NOT REACHED ANY RESOLUTION OR CITATION AGAINST THESE PEOPLE.
AND THE REASON I'M MOSTLY HEARING IS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING NOISE ORDINANCE AND THE DECIPEL LEVELS.
I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF POLICE DISCRETION.
WITH RESPECT TO THE WHOLE CONVERSATION IN THE WORKSHOP ABOUT DECIBEL LEVELS, I WILL SAY 75 IS TOO LOUD.
WHEN YOU ARE ON A ONE ACRE PROPERTY WITH THE 25 FOOT SETBACK AND THE NEIGHBOR IS BLARING MUSIC THAT YOU CAN HEAR THE BASE INSIDE YOUR MASTER BEDROOM SUITE AND IT WAKES YOU UP AT THREE IN THE MORNING.
IT'S TOO LOUD. WITH DECIBEL LEVELS, IF YOU GUYS JUST WANT TO GET RID OF THEM ALTOGETHER AND JUST NOT HAVE THEM APPLY AS IT PERTAINS TO RESIDENCES, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO GO BECAUSE WHAT I WANT IS POLICE DISCRETION.
I WANT HIM TO WEAR HIS BODY CAM.
I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE'S SEEN AND HEARING AND HE ISSUES A CITATION, THAT'S BECAUSE HE THOUGHT AS A REASONABLE PERSON, THERE WAS A PROBLEM THERE.
THAT WAS THE ONLY THING IN THE WORKSHOP, I WOULD SAY THAT I WAS A LITTLE STILL CONCERNED WITH IS THE WHOLE THING AROUND DECIBEL LEVELS.
IF IT MAKES SENSE TO JUST STRIP THEM OUT,
[01:20:02]
LET'S DO THAT AND NOT HAVE THAT BM ISSUE, LET'S JUST GIVE THE POLICE THE DISCRETION THEY NEED.THE OTHER THING I WANT TO COM REALLY QUICKLY IS PARKER IS CHANGING, AND IT IS GROWING, AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE ONE ACRE PROPERTIES COMING ON BOARD.
THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE FOR THOSE OF US WITH ONE ACRE PROPERTIES AND I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO BE IN THE LOW RENT DISTRICT WHEN I MOVED HERE.
I WAS EXCITED TO BE ON ONE ACRE, BUT WE'RE CLOSER TO OUR NEIGHBORS THAN SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TWO, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, 10, 15.
THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE FOR US.
I'M REALLY NOT EVEN SURE WHY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BIGGER ACREAGES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OR THE DECIPEL LEVELS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT AS IMPACTFUL AS IT IS TO THOSE OF US WITH ONE ACRES.
I WOULD IMPLORE YOU AS OUR CITY LEADERS WHO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND ADDITIONAL ONE ACRE PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITY TO START CHANGING THIS NOW.
LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT GETTING THIS AND MAKING AN IMPROVEMENT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOREVER.
YOU MAY HAVE TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE.
MAKE CHANGES AGAIN, BUT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF WITH THE NOISE COMMITTEE WORKING ON THIS THAT IT IS WARRANTED TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THIS NOISE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING. TED LANE, 05,004 DUBLIN CREEK LANE.
THIS NOISE ORDINANCE ISSUE HAS BEEN BEFORE US MANY TIMES, AND I'VE SPOKEN OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT IT.
LOOK, I SIT ON FOUR ACRES AND TO ADDRESS ONE PERSON IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HAS A CURRENT ISSUE BY SUBJECTING ALL OF US TO A NOISE ORDINANCE THAT IS VERY RESTRICTIVE.
JUST SEEMS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO USE A SLEDGEHAMMER TO PUSH IN A NAIL.
WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT YOU PUT THIS TO A VOTE.
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE IN MAY IF THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT VERSUS JUST RAM ROTTING THIS THROUGH FOR A FEW PEOPLE.
THOSE OF US ARE ON MORE ACREAGE.
I'VE GOT FOUR ACRES, I CAN TELL YOU NOW I OWN A DECIPEL READER.
I KNOW THE SOUND THAT'S COMING FROM MY EQUIPMENT, AND IT WILL EXCEED WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PASS.
I OWN ONE OF THE VERY QUIETEST GENERATORS THAT ARE MADE OUT THERE BY KOBODA.
IT WILL VIOLATE THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PASS.
WHAT I'M ASKING IS, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE THIS.
LET THEM SAY HOW WE WANT THIS COMMUNITY TO BE RUN. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PELE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
ALAN MEYER, 72 78 MOSS RIDGE ROAD.
I SPOKE AT THE I BELIEVE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING WHEN THIS BECAME AN ISSUE.
TO MY RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS TO BE IT WAS DECIDED THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER WORKSHOP THAT WOULD BE PUBLISHED AHEAD OF TIME, WITH THAT BEFORE IT WOULD BE BROUGHT TO A VOTE TO THE COUNCIL.
I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE TODAY BECAUSE I DIDN'T NORMALLY I GET NOTIFICATIONS VIA EMAIL OR VIA TEXT WHEN THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING THIS TIME, BUT THAT THERE WAS A WORKSHOP SCHEDULED TO BE HELD TONIGHT AT 5:30, WHICH I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THAT.
THEN THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE AN ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED AND OR VOTED ON FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT CERTAINLY APPEARS THAT COUNCIL DECIDED TO HAVE BOTH THE WORKSHOP, AND THE AGENDA ITEM ON THE SAME NIGHT TO AVOID HAVING THE RESIDENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK OUT, AND I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S ENOUGH OF US HERE TODAY THAT AT LEAST WE'RE ABLE TO ATTEND TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT.
I'VE HAD CONTACT WITH MULTIPLE PARKER RESIDENTS AND ALL THAT I'VE SPOKEN WITH ARE OPPOSED TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND WOULD PREFER TO KEEP IT EXACTLY AS IT IS TODAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT FEEL THE OTHER WAY.
I HAVEN'T COME INTO CONTACT WITH THEM.
AS I STATED LAST TIME, MY WIFE AND I MOVED TO THE CITY OF PARKER OVER 20 YEARS AGO FROM PLANO, PRIMARILY TO GET AWAY FROM THE OPPRESSIVE AND OVERREACHING ARMS OF BIG CITIES AND TO ENJOY A MORE COUNTRY FIED LIFESTYLE.
AT THE TIME WE MOVED HERE, PARKER WAS STILL REQUIRING TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOTS.
WE WANTED MORE ACREAGE AND THE FREEDOM OF COUNTRY LIFE.
THAT INCLUDES BOTH THE COUNTRY LIFE SERENESS AND THE NORMAL COUNTRY LIFE NOISES.
FOR EXAMPLE, FARM AND LAWN EQUIPMENT, FARM ANIMALS, OUTSIDE PETS,
[01:25:03]
AS WELL AS WILDLIFE.WE LIVE IN MOSS RIDGE ESTATES WHERE THERE IS NO HOA, THAT REGULATES THE RESIDENTS ABILITY TO ENJOY THEIR COUNTRY LIFE.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THE NEW ORDINANCE IS ESSENTIALLY AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE, AN HOA RULES AND REGULATIONS CITYWIDE.
I KNOW I SPEAK FOR MANY PARKER RESIDENTS WHEN I SAY THAT WE WANT TO KEEP PARKER COUNTRY, AND NOT TURN IT INTO A BIG CITY WITH OPPRESSIVE AND OVERREACHING ORDINANCE SUCH AS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED WITH THIS NEW NOISE ORDINANCE.
AN ISSUE THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL IS THIS SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY LEFT TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE AND TO VOTE ON.
IT AFFECTS EVERY RESIDENT AND SHOULD BE A PROPOSITION PLACED ON A BALLOT, FOR RESIDENTS TO PROPERLY EVALUATE AND EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT OR LACK OF IN THE FORM OF A FORMAL VOTE ON THE ISSUE.
YOU'RE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND SHOULD BE REPRESENTING THE DESIRES AND WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF PARKER RESIDENTS, AND THE MAJORITY OF PARKER RESIDENTS, WILL BE KEENLY PAYING ATTENTION TO HOW YOU VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, AS WELL AS ON ANY AND ALL FUTURE ISSUES.
WE WILL ENSURE THAT THOSE OF YOU THAT AREN'T REPRESENTING OUR VIEWS, AND DESIRES OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS, THE RESIDENTS, WILL BE CHALLENGED IN YOUR RE ELECTION BIDS BY THOSE THAT WILL REPRESENT OUR VIEWS AND DESIRES.
BUDDY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR E MAIL RESPONSE.
YOU INDICATED THAT PARKER HAS MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND THAT THE COUNCIL HAS AN OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER ALL SIDES.
AS I SAID, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ONE RESIDENT THAT'S IN FAVOR OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AS YOU HAVE SAID, THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER ALL SIDES AND ALSO RECOGNIZE WHICH SIDE IS IN THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY.
THE BEST WAY TO SIDE WITH THE MAJORITY, IS TO PUT IT TO THE RESIDENT CITIZENS TO VOTE ON.
>> EXCUSE ME, YOU'RE AT 4 MINUTES.
>> I'LL FINISH WITH KEEP PARKER COUNTRY AND LET THIS RESIDENTS VOTE.
>> GOOD EVENING, I'M CHUCK WISE AT 4301 SPRING HILL.
IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE MAKING A BIG PROBLEM OUT OF SOME ISOLATED INCIDENTS.
LAST TIME WE HAD THIS TOPIC IN THIS FORUM.
WE HAD NO EVIDENCE AT THAT TIME THAT THE CURRENT LEVELS IN THE LAW OR THE TIMES OR THE DAYS AS WRITTEN WERE A PROBLEM.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT.
WE'VE SEEN DATA FROM OTHER CITIES, BUT AS DARREL POINTED OUT EARLIER, THAT DATA COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UP JUST AS MUCH AS THE VALUES BEING PROPOSED FOR US NOW ARE.
WE'VE DEMONSTRATED AGAIN TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LOUD THE LEVELS ARE EITHER THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT LAW OR THE PROPOSED LAW.
THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF NUMBERS.
TEN DECIPEL IS ACTUALLY TEN X, ORDER MAGNITUDE GREATER SOUND PRESSURE, MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY PERCEPTION.
BUT WHEN WE START THROWING AROUND NUMBERS LIKE 12% AND 50%, THOSE APPLY IN A VERY NARROW RANGE AND ARE NOT REALLY APPLICABLE ACROSS THE RANGE YOU GUYS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I SUGGEST WE DO THE EASY THINGS FIRST.
IF THE PROBLEM IS WITH ENFORCEMENT, LET THE POLICE EITHER HAVE SOME DISCRETION OR BUY THEM SOME METERS SO THAT THEY CAN SHOW THE VIOLATORS, HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
YOU COULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEM PERHAPS BY JUST TESTING IT.
GO OUTSIDE WITH A BOOM BOX AND A CELL PHONE.
IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET A SENSE FOR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE COULD ACTUALLY DO IT RIGHT NOW AS PART OF THIS FORM.
JUST WALK OUTSIDE, TURN YOUR CAR RADIO ON REAL LOUD, WALK AWAY FROM IT AND SEE WHAT THAT SEEMS LIKE.
I THINK WE NEED TO PUT A PAUSE ON THIS UNTIL YOU TAKE THE TIME TO HEAR THE DIFFERENCES OF THE NUMBERS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. AMANDA, NOEL.
>> AMANDA NOEL 40 307 SPRING HILL ESTATES DRIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT I APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION THAT COUNCIL IS GIVING TO THIS ISSUE.
IT AFFECTS ALL THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION THAT YOU'RE GIVING ALL THE INPUT THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT I LIVE ON A 1.2 ACRE LOT.
I ENJOY MY PROPERTY IMMENSELY AND I WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY MY PROPERTY AS I HAVE IN THE PAST.
[01:30:01]
WE'VE HAD WONDERFUL CELEBRATIONS THERE, GRADUATION PARTIES WITH A DJ THAT WE HIRED AND A PARTY THAT WAS JUST SO FUN.WE WANT TO KEEP DOING THOSE THINGS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TO PUT THIS ISSUE TO THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT.
THIS ISSUE IS WAY DIFFERENT THAN CONSIDERING WHETHER WE SHOULD PAVE A ROAD, OR FIX A WATER LINE OR PUT UP A WATER TOWER.
THOSE THINGS ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THEY DO AFFECT ALL THE RESIDENTS, YES, BUT THEY DON'T AFFECT THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES LIKE THIS DOES.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE FACT THAT THIS IS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, THAT THIS IS A WORKSHOP THAT WAS DONE TONIGHT, I ECHO THE CONCERNS, OF OTHERS THAT WE WEREN'T REALLY GIVEN VERY MUCH NOTIFICATION, BUT YET WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WOULD HAVE IT.
WHAT I ALSO I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE CHANGE, TO THE TEXT THAT WAS PRINTED IN THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT, THE COUNCIL HAS IGNORED EVERY PIECE OF INPUT THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED AND MADE ZERO EDITS TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS POSTED TONIGHT.
I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE LISTEN TO THE INPUT FROM THE CITIZENS, LISTEN TO THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN, AND PLEASE TAKE THAT ALL INTO CONSIDERATION SUCH THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME UP WITH IN THE PROPOSAL DOES PASS THE LEGAL TESTS.
THERE ARE ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY THAT WE CAN TELL, THAT WANT TO SEE THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE AND TWO OF WHICH ARE SITTING IN THE COUNCIL SEATS TONIGHT.
WE REALLY NEED OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS.
WE WANT YOU TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE PEOPLE AND OF THE CITIZENS OF PARKER.
WE HEARD TONIGHT THAT CREST CREEK RANCH IS NOT A PROBLEM ANYMORE THAT IT'S SOLVED.
WE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THERE ARE THREE REPORTS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES? IS THIS A PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE A WHOLE ENTIRE ORDINANCE TO COMPLETELY REWRITE FOR THREE COMPLAINTS? WE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THERE WERE 12 CALLS FROM THE SAME HOUSE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROBLEM BETTER, AND WE DON'T THINK THIS IS A MASS PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE FOR 6,500 RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO REPRESENT US, , FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AND WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE, AND PLEASE EITHER VOTE YOUR VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO YOU ARE REPRESENTING OR PLEASE PUT THE VOTE ON THE BALLOT SO THAT THE PEOPLE CAN VOTE DIRECTLY, BUT WE REALLY WANT THE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY TO BE REPRESENTED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE IN WRITING, AND THEY WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING FOR EVERYONE TO READ.
ONE IS FROM MR. MEYER, THE OTHER IS FROM MISS WALSH.
>> MISS WALSH DID NOT WANT HER COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, IF YOU?
>> I UNDERSTAND. EXCUSE ME, MAYOR PEDAL.
SHE SAID THAT I COULD ASK BECAUSE I DIDN'T REACH MY 3 MINUTES.
I TOTALLY FORGOT TO ADD MY ONE MOST IMPORTANT POINT.
MAY I ADD THAT ONE POINT? OR NO.
>> MY GREATEST APOLOGIES, BUT ONE POINT THAT I REALLY WANT TO IS 100% BEHIND THE POLICE DISCRETION OF YOU GUYS AND THE CITIZENS ALLOWING THEM THE POLICE DISCRETION.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
WE WILL MOVE TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.THE FIRST ONE IS THE LONESTAR SANTA TOY DRIVE, WHICH THE CITY IS PARTICIPATING WITH.
THE LONESTAR SANTA TOI DRIVE, WHICH GOES THROUGH CHRISTMAS.
THERE'S A COLLECTION BOX IN THE FOYER.
THESE SPECIAL SANTOS PICK A PART OF THE WORLD, WHICH HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER.
THIS YEAR, THEY HAVE SELECTED THE HILL COUNTRY TO GIVE TOYS AND TEDDY BEARS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO ALL THE KIDS THAT WERE AFFECTED DURING THE FLOODS DURING THE HORRIBLE STORMS BACK JULY 4.
IF YOU CAN AND WISH TO PARTICIPATE, JUST DROP ANYTHING OFF IN THE BOX AND WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE.
THE OTHER THING IS THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION HAS CANCELED THEIR MEETING ON DECEMBER 10, SO THERE WILL NOT BE A MEETING ON THAT DATE.
CITY HALL WILL BE CLOSED ON CHRISTMAS EVE, CHRISTMAS, AND THE DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS, AND ON NEW YEAR'S DAY.
[01:35:01]
PARKS AND REC'S NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IS JANUARY 14 AT FIVE O'CLOCK.THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS OF INTEREST.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 2025. [REGULAR MEETING] ]
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER 3, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 2025.COUNCIL, I WILL ASK HAVE YOU ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES WHICH WERE IN YOUR POCKET.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTE MEETINGS FOR JULY 1, 2025.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BARON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MOVING MINUTES OF JULY 1 AS PRESENTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR JULY 1, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND. THERE WE GO.
SECOND, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 4.
[4. CONSIDER, DISCUSS, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION, AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 894 REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.]
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSED, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 894, REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.COUNCIL, YOU'VE BEEN IN THE WORKSHOP AND MANY WORKSHOP, AND YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT.
WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? MS. HALBERT.
>> AMEND ORDINANCE 894, AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, THE NOISE STANDARD SECTION SUNDAY THURSDAY, DAYTIME 710, LEVEL 70, FRIDAY, DAY 711, LEVEL 70 DAYTIME HOURS.
THURSDAY 7:00 A.M. [INAUDIBLE] 11;00 P.M SATURDAY NIGHT, 7:00 A.M.
>> MS. HALBERT HAS MADE A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? NOT HEARING A SECOND.
>> DARREL SHARPE HAS SECONDED.
COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION.
>> YES. I HAVE COMMENT, MADAM MAYOR.
I WOULD LIKE TO EITHER REQUEST THAT THE MOTION BE WITHDRAWN AS STATED OR AMENDED SO THAT WE TAKE THE ISSUES IN TWO DIFFERENT PIECES? BECAUSE YOU PRESENTED TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS.
ONE IS WHETHER WE HAVE DIFFERENT HOURS FOR DAYS OF THE WEEK, AND THEN THE OTHER IS THE DECIBEL LEVELS.
I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE BROKEN INTO TWO DIFFERENT VOTES RATHER THAN ONE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT CHOOSES TO WITHDRAW HER MOTION.
MR. SHARPE, DO YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND?
>> I WILL ASK, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 894 AS PRESENTED WITH THIS FOLLOWING CHANGE, DESIGNATING SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, DAYTIME HOURS, 7:00-10:00.
FRIDAY TO SATURDAY, DAYTIME HOURS 7:00-11:00.
NON DAYTIME HOURS ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 10:00-7:00, NON DAYTIME HOURS, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY 11:00 P.M-7:00 A.M.
>> MS. HALBERT HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 894 AS TO THE HOURS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, MR. BARRON?
>> I THINK THAT MOTION WAS ACTUALLY MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT NEEDED TO BE.
ALL IT NEEDED TO AMEND WAS THE HOURS ON THE WEEKEND TO BE ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY,
[01:40:01]
CHANGE THE HOURS DAYTIME HOURS 7:00 -11:00.THE REST OF THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE.
>> I THINK SHE WAS DOING THAT FOR CLARITY.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE.
>> IS THAT RIGHT? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 894 AS TO THE HOURS WHERE THE HOURS WILL BE SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 07:00 A.M-10:00 P.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY WOULD BE 7:00 A.M-11:00 P.M. THURSDAY WOULD ALSO BE 10:00 P.M-7:00 A.M, AND FRIDAY AND SATURDAY ON THE WEEKEND WOULD BE 11:00 P.M-7:00 A.M.
>> BUT I THINK WE DON'T NEED TO CALL THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WE'RE NOT VOTING ON AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
WE'RE VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT TO A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT, ESPECIALLY THE CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY ANYBODY WHO CAME HERE THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO VOTE ON AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
IT WAS NEVER A PLAN TO VOTE ON AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT.
IT WAS A PLAN TO HAVE A WORKSHOP, HAVE DISCUSSIONS, AND THEN SEE IF WE CAN HAVE CONSENSUS ON WHAT WOULD ULTIMATELY GO INTO AN ORDINANCE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S A PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AND I WILL AMEND THE MOTION TO THAT EXTENT TO REFER TO IT AS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE RATHER THAN AN ORDINANCE.
>> MS. HALBERT IS THAT AGREEABLE WITH YOU? I TAKE IT, IT'S AGREEABLE WITH YOU, MR. PILGRIM.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD CLARIFICATION.
AS WE'RE DOING IS VOTING ON THE POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
I DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE. YOU'RE TOO QUICK.
MOTION CARRIES 5-0. NEXT, IS THERE ANOTHER PART OF THIS THAT ON DECIPLE LEVELS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS?
>> I MOVED TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 894 TO INCLUDE DAYTIME HOUR DECIBEL LEVELS AT 70 AND NON DAYTIME HOURS AT 60 DECIBELS?
MS. HALBERT HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR AS TO DECIPLE LEVELS OF 60 AT NIGHTTIME AND 70 DURING THE DAYTIME.
IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS TO DECIPLE LEVELS OF 70 DURING THE DAYTIME AND 60 DURING THE NIGHT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? MR. PILGRIM.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION DURING AN OFFICIAL COUNCIL MEETING, NOT JUST DURING A WORKSHOP, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT A LITTLE BIT.
I THOUGHT ABOUT A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD TONIGHT AND EARLIER TONIGHT, I WAS IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THE DAYTIME AT 75 AND THE NIGHTTIME AT 65 A RATHER THAN TAKING HIM TO 65 AND 58.
AS I'VE LISTENED TO THIS, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THE DAYTIME AT 75 BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED WE'RE CONSIDERING MAKING TOO MANY CHANGES AT ONE TIME THAT MAY NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE AND MAY CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. SECOND, WELL, I WAS SAYING 75 FOR THE DAY, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF THAT I PREFER THAT OVER 70 OR OVER 65 EITHER ONE.
ON THE NIGHTTIME, THE MORE I LISTENED TO, EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT US TO EVEN IMPLEMENT A SOUND ORDINANCE HERE, THEY SAID THEY MOVED OUT HERE FOR THE SERENITY AND THE PEACE AND QUIET AND THE COUNTRY LIFESTYLE AND ALL OF THAT.
THAT WOULD TEND TO THE MORE I'VE OUGHT ABOUT IT, IT MAKES ME WANT TO SUPPORT 58 AT NIGHTTIME BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A LOT OF ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THAT DISRUPT THE SERENITY OF COUNTRY LIVING.
I'M NOT SURE THAT 58 WOULDN'T BE THE APPROPRIATE NIGHTTIME LEVEL.
[01:45:06]
THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT ABOUT IT.>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTIONS?
>> WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT JUST SWITCHING THE ORDINANCE SO THAT THE DECIBEL LIMITS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL JUST BE PURELY BASED ON DISCRETION?
>> I'M ACTUALLY NOT OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS THE POLICE DISCRETION BEING ADDED THAT IT DOES MAKE CLEARER HOURS, WHICH I GUESS WOULD THEN GO AWAY, BUT ALSO INCLUDES THE SOME OF THE EXCLUSIONS ALONG THE WAY THAT I THINK WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER.
>> ACTUALLY, SINCE YOU MENTIONED EXCLUSIONS, I WANT TO POINT OUT COMMENT ON ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THERE ARE EXCLUSIONS FOR GENERATORS AND THERE ARE EXCLUSION FOR MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT DURING THE DAYTIME.
ON GENERATORS, IT'S FOR TESTING OR DURING A POWER OUTAGE.
THE GENERATORS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR OF MR. SHARPE.
>> COMPLETELY RELY ON FROM PROVING OUT OF INTER ON WAVE TO DRIVE.
AND I THINK IT EVOLVED INTO I GUESS RATHER THAN ANY UNDERSTANDING PROVIDE MORE GUNZIP HAD A WEAR OPERATION. [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE GUIDELINE IN THE ORDINANCE IS THAT IT WOULD OFFEND THE SENSIBILITIES OF A REASONABLE PERSON.
THAT IS THE GUIDANCE GIVEN TO THE POLICE FOR THEIR DISCRETION.
THAT IS A VERY COMMON LANGUAGE THAT USED IN THOUSANDS OF NOISE ORDINANCES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
>> FOR ME AND THAT IS REASONABLE.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF NORMAL GUIDELINES.
REASONABLE IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE MEASURING [INAUDIBLE].
I GET THROUGH WHAT MY DECIMAL IS MY DECIMAL. [INAUDIBLE]
>> GETTING BACK TO THE MOTION.
MS. HALBERT HAS MADE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO HAVE DAYTIME DECIBEL LEVEL AT 70 AND A NIGHTTIME DECIDEL LEVEL AT 60.
THIS WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE AND WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION.
AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING DECIBEL LEVELS?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THE DAY TIME LEVEL OR THAT WE ESTABLISH IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE,
[01:50:05]
IF IT GOES FORWARD, THE DAYTIME LEVEL DECIBEL B AT 75? I WANT TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME.>> YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THE 90.
>> DON'T WANT TO DO NINE. I WANT TO DO THEM ONE AT A TIME.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO HAVE DAYTIME DECIPEL LEVELS OF 75.
IS THERE A SECOND? THAT'S SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE 75 DAYTIME DECIPIN LEVELS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION CARRIES AT 75 WITH THE VOTE IS DARREL SHARPE, COLEEN HALBERT, BUDDY PILGRIM, OR FAR AND BILLY BARRON AND ROXANNE BOGDEN WERE AGAINST.
NOW, IS THERE A MOTION AS TO NIGHTTIME DECIPIN LEVELS?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE NIGHTTIME DECIBLE LEVEL WE SAID AT 58.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDON, THAT THE NIGHT TIME DISCIPLE LEVEL IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE SET AT 58.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ONE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT VOTING AGAINST.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS AT THIS TIME REGARDING THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE? MR. PILGRIM.
>> MADAM MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE IN THE REMAINING LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE BEFORE WE BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR A VOTE?
>> IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT, THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP ON ALL THE ISSUES BEFORE WE BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR A VOTE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD JUST CHANGE THE WORDING THAT YOU SAID THERE NOT FROM ALL THE ISSUES IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THAT WE JUST LOOK AT THE REMAINING LANGUAGE THAT WE DON'T REVISIT THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE JUST COVERED.
>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL ISSUE IN SCOPE FOR THAT MEETING?
>> CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT WE HADN'T VOTED ON WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT ISSUE.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT THAT WE COULD BRING TO A VOTE TONIGHT BECAUSE I HATE TO COME REHASH THE SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO VOTE ON TONIGHT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO PROPOSE? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT OTHER CHANGES WE MIGHT WANT TO MAKE IN IT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE REMAINING LANGUAGE.
NOW I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT WE'RE MOVING PEOPLE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT ANYTHING IN THERE THAT DOES THAT.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN THINGS WRITTEN THAT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD IS AN UNENFORCEABLE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD.
I THINK WE AT LEAST ASKED KATHERINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE CASE.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME TO BE, ALL I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO GIVE REASONABLE GENUINE CONSIDERATION TO THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE.
[01:55:02]
WE'VE HAD TOO MUCH ACCUSATION THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RAM SOMETHING THROUGH, WHICH WE'VE NOT DONE BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN A YEAR TO GET THIS DONE.I THINK THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE WORKSHOP TONIGHT AND EVEN IN THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL SESSIONS WHERE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS SHOW THAT WE'RE LISTENING AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S WORKABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A CASE WHERE WE'VE GOT TWO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS AND THE OTHER 6,000 SOME ODD PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO IT.
THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AREN'T EVEN ENGAGED IN THIS DISCUSSION IS THE HONEST TRUTH.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION OF IT.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE WORDSMITH A LITTLE BIT BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK AND VOTE ON IT AS A COMPLETE ORDINANCE? I WOULDN'T POSTPONE THAT VERY LONG, AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK AND THEN VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT WE NEED A WORKSHOP.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS CAN'T BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO CONTINUE CONSIDERING THIS.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A WORKSHOP THAT STARTS AT 5:30 WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T ACTUALLY GET HERE, AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE ARE IN THE HOME STRETCH OF HAVING WHAT MAY CONTINUE AS A CONVERSATION.
PARTICULARLY MY OUTSTANDING ISSUE IS THE SOUTH FORK RANCH COMMERCIAL PIECE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY WE CAN RESOLVE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME THINGS APPARENTLY STILL IN LIMBO.
I FEEL GOOD WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
I DO WANT TO BRING THIS CONVERSATION BACK, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT REQUIRES A WORK SESSION.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IF YOU GO THROUGH THE REST OF IT, THE REST EXCEPT FOR THIS COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ISSUE, THE REST OF ITS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THIS EXEMPTION SHOULD BE IN HERE OR THIS EX WE NEED TO ADD AN EXEMPTION OR I THINK THE MINIMUM FINE IS ANOTHER ISSUE, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE CAN HASH OUT JUST A COUPLE MINUTES.
>> I AGREE WITH THEM AND IT HAS I THINK PROBABLY [INAUDIBLE] I HAVE ON OUR REVIEW, AND I THINK MORE AS PRO TEM [INAUDIBLE] DOING THIS.
I THINK IT WILL ONLY FAIR [INAUDIBLE] AND WHEN WILL WE CONSTRAIN DIALOGUE WITH OUR SPECIFICALLY THAT, MR. PILGRIM.
>> I AGREE, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL THE CITIZENS LOOK THROUGH THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE AND GIVE US INPUT BEFORE WE HAVE THE NEXT WORKSHOP ON THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE REMAINING LANGUAGE OR THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU LIKE IN THE REMAINING LANGUAGE.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM CITIZENS ON THAT.
I THINK IT IS WORTH THE TIME OF A WORKSHOP, AND I THINK THAT WAS THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED THE WORKSHOP WE HAD TONIGHT.
THE REASON I DID IS BECAUSE I ALWAYS BELIEVED IF WE TRIED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUES THAT WE TOOK UP IN THE WORKSHOP TONIGHT, COMPLETELY DURING A COUNCIL MEETING AND THEN VOTE ON AN ORDINANCE.
IT WOULD BE VERY AWKWARD TO TRY TO STRUCTURE THE LANGUAGE OF THAT AND THEN VOTE ON IT ALL DURING A MEETING.
I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE DISCUSS THE ISSUES IN THE WORKSHOP, COME TO A CONSENSUS AS BEST WE CAN, VOTE ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE ISSUE, LIKE WE DID THOSE TWO ITEMS TONIGHT, AND THEN CRAFT THAT INTO THE FINAL ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE ON THE FLY FROM THE DIAS.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT EFFECTIVELY AND WE PROBABLY NEVER SHOULD TRY TO DO THAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MS. NOWN MADE A POINT THAT WE'VE NOT BEEN UPDATING, WE'VE NEVER REALLY GOT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING ENOUGH TO MAKE A CHANGE.
TONIGHT, WE MADE SOME CHANGES.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE UPDATES BE MADE AND ALL THE REDLINING STUFF THAT WE HAD FROM THAT ORIGINAL STUFF, ALL THAT TAKEN OUT SO WE CAN HAVE THE ACTUAL PROPOSED AND THE RESIDENTS KNOW THAT THIS IS STILL PROPOSED, EVEN AFTER OUR NEXT MEETING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
BUT THOSE FEW ITEMS THAT WE VOTED ON, I'D LIKE THOSE UPDATED, SO AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE THE MOST UPDATED FOR THE RESIDENTS TO SEE.
[02:00:07]
>> GETTING BACK TO THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BUDDY PILGRIM WITH A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO HAVE A WORKSHOP BEFORE ANY VOTE.
THE WORKSHOP IS TO BE ON THE REMAINING LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
I'M SCARED TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT HE WANTS THIS TO BE DONE QUICKLY, AND IF MY CONCERN IS THAT THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, HOW QUICKLY ARE THOSE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
>> CAN WE TRY TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT COMMERCIAL PIECE TONIGHT AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME HAVE STAFF WORK ON THE LANGUAGE.
>> RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
THE MOTION IS, WILL THERE BE A WORKSHOP OR WILL THERE NOT BE A WORKSHOP.
>> MADAM BAYER, I WOULD COMMENT BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDON.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE THE WORKSHOP, EVEN IF WE VOTE TO HAVE THE WORKSHOP.
AFTER THAT VOTES TAKEN, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER THE COMMERCIAL VERSUS NONCOMMERCIAL TONIGHT.
YOU CAN BRING THAT UP AS THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER WORKSHOP BEFORE ANY VOTE.
IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THAT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THAT MOTION CARRIES 5, 0. THANK YOU.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS THAT THIS WORKSHOP WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY ITEMS THAT WERE DECIDED TONIGHT, AND I WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR WITH EVERYONE.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THIS.
LET'S REMOVE THE DECIBELS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THIS AND TRY TO CRAFT SOME LANGUAGE FOR THAT.
I'M WONDERING HOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE FEELING ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD GET RID OF MANY OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
>> ARE YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE WOULD JUST BE STRICTLY ON POLICE DISCRETION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING?
>> I THINK THE OPINION WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE POLICE AND PLEASE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SERGEANT, IS THAT THEY WANT TO USE DISCRETION ON RESIDENTS.
BUT IF THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, BIG EVENT GOING ON, THEY LEGALLY WANT TO HAVE SOME OBJECTIVE MEASURE TO GO OFF OF.
IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? THAT'S WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT WE HAVE A TWO TIERED SYSTEM.
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT CAN'T BE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN THE WORKSHOP?
>> I WAS HOPING WE CAN WORD SMITTH THAT BEFORE THE WORKSHOP, AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW THE LANGUAGE AT THAT POINT.
>> IF WE'RE PLANNING TO DO THIS IN THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS, WILL STAFF HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE IS MY CONCERN.
>> OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS DECEMBER 16.
IF WE DO THE UPDATED RED LINE VERSION, I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH STAFF TO SEE IF THEY COULD BE READY BY THEN.
PATTY, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> LET ME PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
>> I THINK THE DRAFTS HAVE ACTUALLY COME FROM THE NOISE COMMITTEE, CORRECT?
>> TO DATE, BUT THE COMMITTEE IS NOT MEETING AT THIS POINT, SO THE NEXT DRAFT WOULD NEED TO COME FROM.
>> FROM STAFF. I'M HAVING BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE AND HAVING WORKED WITH THE DOCUMENT A LOT, BE AVAILABLE, ALL STAFF NEEDS ME TO HELP THIS PROCESS.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE EDITS FROM TONIGHT CAN CERTAINLY BE READY IN A DRAFT FORM IN TIME FOR THE 16TH.
IF THE QUESTION IS, CAN THERE BE DRAFT LANGUAGE PREPARED MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE 16TH?
[02:05:04]
I THINK THAT'S ALSO POSSIBLE.IT MAY JUST BE A LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOR STAFF TO DRAFT SOMETHING WITHOUT FURTHER DIRECTION TONIGHT.
>> I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO CRAFT LANGUAGE ON THE FLY UP HERE.
I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I THINK IF YOU'VE GOT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANT TO SUGGEST FOR PARTS OF IT, YOU OUGHT TO SUGGEST ANYTHING YOU'VE GOT.
IF I READ BACK THROUGH IT, I MAY SEE SOME PORTIONS OF IT THAT I THINK THE LANGUAGE OUGHT TO BE CHANGED TO EITHER MAKE IT MORE CLEAR OR MORE SPECIFIC OR WHATEVER, AND WE GET OUR INPUT FROM CITIZENS.
I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO MUCH MORE TONIGHT ON THIS.
>> COULD WE SLATE THIS FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY? WOULD THAT GIVE STAFF ENOUGH TIME AND US ENOUGH TIME?
>> WE COULD DO THAT WOULD BE JANUARY 6, I BELIEVE IS THE DATE.
GARY, WHEN IS THE NEXT PNZ MEETING?
>> THE NEXT SCHEDULED IS THE 25TH? CHRISTMAS DAY.
>> JANUARY 8. I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULD GET INFORMATION OR UPDATE REGARDING SOUTHPARK FROM THEM, BUT THAT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD.
I WOULD THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO, AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION IS THAT ON THE WORKSHOP, WE BRING WHAT WE WANT, WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE IN THERE REGARDING COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL, WHAT LANGUAGE? THEN WE CAN GO OVER THAT IN THE WORKSHOP.
IS THAT AGREEABLE WITH EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT THAT ON YOUR OWN AND THEN BRING IT TO THE WORKSHOP?
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, CAN WE DO IT ON THE 16TH THEN?
>> ON THE 16TH? ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM NUMBER 4, THE NOISE ORDINANCE? IF NOT, MR. BARRON,
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-873, AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICES RATE ADJUSTMENT. ]
WE WILL GO ON ITEM NUMBER 5.CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-873, AUTHORIZING THE REPUBLIC SERVICE IS RIGHT ADJUSTMENT. GOOD EVENING?
>> GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR.
>> WELCOME. GOOD TO FINALLY SEE YOU.
ANNUALLY, WE COME IN WITH OUR CONTRACTABLE RATE INCREASE.
WE'VE SUBMITTED ALL THE BACKUP PAPERWORK.
I BELIEVE IT CAME IN AT 5.05% THIS YEAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE IN YOUR PACKET, THE BASE RATE STARTING DATE SAYS 12105, IT'S ACTUALLY 25.
IT'S ACTUALLY 1126 THAT IT BEGINS, SO EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THAT.
I'VE ALREADY SENT THE UPDATE TO PATTY.
JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 5.01 CPI.
I CAN'T MAKE THAT WORK IN MY HEAD, THAT IT SHOULD BE THAT HIGH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
>> YES. WATER SEWER TRASH INDEX, WE TOOK 12 MONTHS FROM 25 UP THROUGH OCTOBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND THEN UP THROUGH 24.
WE COMPARE THE 12 MONTHS TOGETHER FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO NUMBERS OVER THOSE TWO ANNUALS, AND THAT PERCENTAGE CAME OUT TO THE 5.01.
>> WELL, IN THERE IS SURGE, WHAT DOES REPUBLIC WASTE HAVE TO DO WITH SURGE.
>> WHEN WE DID THE CONTRACT WE LOOKED AT THREE CPI TABLES.
WE LOOKED AT THE DALLAS LOCAL CPI, WHICH IN THAT TIME WAS ANYWHERE FROM FOUR TO ABOUT NINE.
WE HAD THE INFLATIONS WE HAD IN THE MIDDLE HERE, WHICH WERE 9, 8 OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS AGO, FOUR, THREE YEARS AGO.
WE LOOKED AT GARBAGE TRASH, WHICH WE RAN THE TREND ON THAT, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY RUNNING HIGHER THAN THE WATER SEWER TRASH AND WHEN WE MET, WE SAID, LET'S USE THIS INDEX.
IT'S THE MOST CONSISTENT AND RUNS RIGHT AROUND 4-5 ALL THE TIME.
ALL THESE OTHER ONES AS THEY'RE FLUCTUATING, THAT WAS THE MOST CONSISTENT THAT REALLY KEPT IN LINE WITH OUR COSTS AS THEY RISE, SO THAT'S THE ONE WE ELECTED TO UTILIZE.
>> I'M STILL NOT SURE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
[LAUGHTER] ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU TOOK
[02:10:03]
THE RATES THAT OTHER CITIES ARE CHARGING FOR THOSE SERVICES, AND YOU LOOKED AT THE INFLATION RATE IN THOSE CITIES FOR THE SERVICES?>> WE LOOKED AT THE INFLATION RATES ON THE CPI TABLES THAT WE UTILIZED FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
>> BUT INFLATION IS NOT RUNNING AT 5.1% OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS IN THE UNITED STATES.
>> IF YOU ROUND IT OVER THE 12 MONTH RUNNING COMPARED TO THE OTHER 12 MONTH RUNNING, THAT'S WHERE YOUR 5.01 IS. IT'S THE BETWEEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. IF YOU LOOK AT IT OVER 12 MONTHS VERSUS WHAT OTHER 12 MONTHS?
>> TWENTY THREE THROUGH TO 24, 24 THROUGH TO 25.
WE'VE LOOKED AT TWO 12 MONTH PERIODS TOGETHER TO COME UP.
IT'S THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE HERE.
>> IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS SINCE YOU HAD A RAISE? IS THAT WHAT [INAUDIBLE]
INSTEAD OF TAKING ONE MONTH, LET'S SAY, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK YEAR OVER YEAR AT DECEMBER.
IT'S A YEAR OVER YEAR SNAPSHOT OF THE 12 MONTH RUNNING TOTAL.
YEAR OVER YEAR, AND THAT CAME OUT AT 5.01.
>> I WOULD THINK ONE OF YOUR MAJOR OPERATING COSTS WOULD BE FUEL, CORRECT?
>> FUEL, STEEL, RUBBER, LANDFILL COSTS, EMPLOYEE COSTS, HEALTH CARE COSTS, ALL THAT'S PART OF IT.
NATIONALLY, WE RUN RIGHT AROUND 5% AS OUR COST INCREASES THAT WE TRY TO STAY EVEN BECAUSE THAT'S HOW OUR COSTS HAVE BEEN GROWING.
>> FOR SOME REASON, I'M STILL NOT FOLLOWING YOU COMPLETELY.
I STILL DON'T SEE WHERE YOU'RE GETTING 5% INFLATION OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS.
>> HE'S USING SOME STATISTICS THE GOVERNMENT PUBLISHES.
>> YEAH, IT'S BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
>> OUR CONTRACT SAYS THAT THAT'S WHAT THE RATE INCREASES WILL BE BASED UPON, AND SO PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT TO ARGUE ABOUT HERE.
HE'S DOING WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO, AND WE JUST NEED TO APPROVE IT.
>> I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT AT THAT SAME POINT FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN CPI WAS AT 9%, THAT WATER SEWER TRASH RAN AT ABOUT 4.5-5.5, SO THERE'S ALWAYS THE GOOD AND THE BAD ANYTIME YOU DO THIS, SO YOU BENEFITED OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
THAT'S WHEN WE SEE THE SPIKE IN INFLATION, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AN 8.4.
I BELIEVE IT CAME IN AT A 5.5 AND A 4.89, I BELIEVE, ONE YEAR ON THOSE WITH THE WATER SEWER TRASH, SO THERE'S A BENEFIT TOO.
THAT'S THE REASON WE PICKED THAT TABLE TO UTILIZE.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
OUR CONTRACT COMES UP AGAIN AT THIS TIME NEXT YEAR?
>> I BELIEVE NEXT YEAR IS THE END OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD.
>> AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER OR ACTUALLY BEFORE THEN, WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER WE WISH TO RENEW BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DOES ALLOW FOR A ROLLOVER OR WHETHER WE WANT TO GO OUT FOR BID FOR A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR.
>> YOU WENT OUT TO BID FIVE YEARS AGO FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> FOR BID IN 2021, I THINK IT WAS, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING UP WITH YOU ALL PROBABLY IN THE END OF JANUARY 1 PART OF FEBRUARY, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.
>> JUST TO BE UPFRONT, YOU WANT TO GIVE YOURSELF SOME TIME BECAUSE IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MAKE A CHANGE, IT'S A SMALLER CITY, SO IT'S NOT AS HARD AS SOME OF THE LARGER ONES, BUT EQUIPMENT'S TAKEN ANYWHERE 12-14 MONTHS.
A LARGER COMPANY CAN TUCK IT IN, BUT JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN UPFRONT AND HONEST WITH EVERYBODY, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME, AND I WAS GOING TO CALL YOU TO SAY, LET'S SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THIS.
>> I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GET IT BEFORE COUNCIL DURING THE HOLIDAYS AND DURING [INAUDIBLE] I WANTED TO GET PAST THIS, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.
>> WELL, I THOUGHT EVERYBODY IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT ME TONIGHT.[LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT SINCE WE HAVE GONE TO THE NEW CONTRACT, ESPECIALLY ON BULK PICKUP, I RARELY HAVE A COMPLAINT, AND IT USED TO BE, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD LOTS OF COMPLAINTS, SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE AND THE NEW SYSTEM WE CAME UP WITH WITH THE WAY WE BROKE IT OUT EACH WEEK, SMALL BITES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING AT ONCE, IT REALLY HELPED EVERYBODY.
>> COUNCIL, IS THERE A [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUST ONE OTHER QUICK. IS THIS THE SAME RATE INCREASE THAT YOU'VE USED WITH OTHER CITIES FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME?
>> ACTUALLY, ONE CITY RIGHT NOW HAS WATER SEWER TRASH, ONE HAS GARBAGE TRASH.
[02:15:02]
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-873, APPROVING A RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, DVA REPUBLIC SERVICES OF PLANO, PURSUANT TO THE WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-873,.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> THANK YOU. EVERYBODY HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY. THANK YOU.
NEXT, WE WILL GO ON ITEM NUMBER 6,
[6. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION RATIFYING THE NOMINATION OF DARREL SHARPE TO THE TEXAS COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE POWER. [RESOLUTION NO. 2025-874] ]
DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION, RATIFYING THE NOMINATION OF DARREL SHARPE TO THE TEXAS COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE POWER RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-874.COUNCIL, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE NOTICE, WE HAD 24 HOURS TO TURN IN OUR NOMINEE.
DARREL WAS KIND ENOUGH TO RESPOND VERY QUICKLY, SO WE SUBMITTED HIS NAME, I BELIEVE WE SUBMITTED HIM, AND HE IS AGREEABLE TO SERVING IN THIS CAPACITY.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS RATIFY THE FACT THAT WE DID THIS.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN YELL AT [LAUGHTER] ABOUT THAT. GO AHEAD.
>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, WE WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR TCAP IS GOING TO BE PLACED ON YOUR DECEMBER 16 MEETING, SO IF FOR SOME REASON, YOU DO NOT WANT DARREL TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY, YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE A MOTION AND VOTE TO PUT SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT PLACE.
BUT AGAIN, THE MAYOR WAS SAYING VERY SHORT TURNAROUND FOR THE NOMINATIONS ITSELF, A BIGGER WINDOW FOR THE TCAP BALLOT VOTING WINDOW.
>> WELL, THE BALLOT IS IN YOUR PACKET.
WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THE BALLOT TONIGHT.
WE ARE ONLY GOING ON RATIFICATION OF MR. SHARPE.
>> MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025-874, APPROPRIATING DARREL SHARPE TO THE TEXAS COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE POWER.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROXANNE BOGDAN, AND A SECOND BY, I THINK, COLEEN HALBERT [LAUGHTER] TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-874.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> WELL, I WAS JUST ASKING TO BE SURE.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO TELL COUNCIL IS TCAP, WE'LL BE HEARD, I THINK IT'S JANUARY 20TH TO DO A PRESENTATION FOR ALL OF COUNCIL BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT MOST OF YOU ALL DON'T KNOW WHAT TCAP IS BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T ON COUNCIL AT THE TIME AND NEED TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE ON EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHY THE CITY IS A MEMBER OF TCAP, SO THEY WILL BE HERE TO DO A PRESENTATION FOR US.
I BELIEVE IT IS ON JANUARY 20, BUT DON'T MAKE ME SWEAR TO THAT.
[7. KINGS CROSSING PHASE SIX, LTD. 56.939 ACRE TRACT OUT OF THE ANN S. HURT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 428, AND THE AJ TUCKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 910, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, PLAT APPROVAL, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, AND ANNEXATION: ]
I KNOW, MR. SOLOMON, YOU THOUGHT THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.FIRST PART OF ITEM NUMBER 7 IS CONSIDERATION AND ON ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 FINAL PLOT.
MR. SOLOMON, IS HE STILL HERE? YOU MOVE BACK OVER THERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] LET ME SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
[02:20:02]
GOOD EVENING. MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANKS FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING.PRESTON WALHOOD, 4040 NORTH CENTRAL, DALLAS 75204.
KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 IS THE SIXTH PHASE OF THE KING'S CROSSING PROJECT THAT IS OFF OF LUCAS ROAD JUST WEST OF LEWIS LANE.
PHASE 6 HAS 45 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT WILL BE DELIVERED.
CONSTRUCTION IS NOW COMPLETE IN THAT PHASE, AND IT WILL BRING A NEW ENTRANCE TO THE KING'S CROSSING DEVELOPMENT OFF OF LUCAS ROAD, SO THE RESIDENTS SOUTH OF PHASE 6 AND PHASES 5, 04, 3, AND 2, THAT ARE ALL CONTIGUOUS, WE HAVE ANOTHER ROUTE BACK TO LUCAS ROAD THROUGH KING'S CROSSING, PHASE 6.
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED 12 MONTHS AGO, DECEMBER OF 2024.
WE HAD GREAT WEATHER THIS LAST YEAR AND WE'RE ABLE TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION TIMELY.
THE ONE ITEM THAT IS OUTSTANDING THAT WILL BE ON THE LETTER THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING FROM YOUR CONSULTING ENGINEER.
THE COSERV GAS LINE ALONG LUCAS ROAD IS OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT, AND WHEN POTHOLED BY THE CITY, GARY SAID, IT'S ABOUT 4 " BELOW THE SURFACE, SO IT'S NOT AT A SAFE DEPTH TO POUR THE CONCRETE RIP RAP ALONG THAT ROADWAY.
COSERV HAS BEEN CONTRACTED TO RELOCATE THAT LINE.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, FRANCHISE UTILITIES MOVE AT THEIR OWN SPEED.
THAT WORK THERE'S A PROVISION WITHIN THE KING'S CROSSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ESCROW 120% OF ANY OUTSTANDING ITEM.
I BELIEVE THE CALCULATION BASED ON SQUARE YARDS OF CONCRETE WAS ABOUT $26,000.
THAT CHECK HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AND SO THAT ITEM HAS BEEN ESCROWED.
AS SOON AS THE GAS LINE IS RELOCATED, WE'RE ANXIOUS TO COMPLETE THAT BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT AT THE ENTRY, AND IT'S NOT ATTRACTIVE.
AS SOON AS IT'S DONE AND SAFE TO DO SO, THAT RIP RAP WILL BE POURED AND THE ESCROW CHECK WILL BE RETURNED TO THE DEVELOPER.
>> MR. MACHADO, WERE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT WERE CONDITIONED BY P&Z? I DON'T HAVE A REPORT FROM P&Z.
>> JUST TO COMPLETE THE ITEMS THAT WERE ON THE LIST TO BE DONE, AND THEY HAVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE ITEM THAT HE SPOKE ABOUT.
>> EVERYTHING ELSE THING ELSE [INAUDIBLE]
>> EVERYTHING ELSE IS TAKEN CARE OF.
>> DID P&Z RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAT?
>> IT CAN BE HELPFUL. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I BELIEVE THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT ITEMS. ONE IS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6, FOLLOWED BY MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, AND THEN FINALLY ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN THE COUNTY AND BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS TO BE ANNEXED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE FINAL PLAT.
FOR CONVENIENCE IN THE HOLIDAYS, WE JUST REQUESTED THAT THEY ALL HAPPEN IN ORDER THIS EVENING.
>> COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PLAT? MS. BOGDAN?
MR. BARNES, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> NO. I WAS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 FINAL PLAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BARON AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HUBERT TO APPROVE THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE SIX FINAL PLAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 50.
>> SECOND PART OF THAT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 LTD, 56.99 ACRES SITUATED IN THE NS HURT SURVEY IN THE AJ TUCKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 910, ABSTRACT NUMBER 428, COLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT I CAN SEE WHAT TIME 8:16 P.M. PRESTON, I WILL ASK YOU TO INTRODUCE THIS.
>> NO PROBLEM. MADAM MAYOR, PRESTON WALHOOD FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING 40/40 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS 75204.
WE ARE THE DEVELOPER OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 ON APPROXIMATELY 56.939 ACRES IN COLLIN COUNTY.
THERE IS AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF PARKER, AND THE DEVELOPER FORMALLY REQUESTS ANNEXATION OF THE 56.939 ACRES OF KING'S CROSSING, PHASE 6.
[02:25:01]
>> COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT ON BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PLAT AND ON 56.
NOT HEARING ANYBODY. MR. MACHADO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 904, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
I BELIEVE MISS BOGDEN, YOU DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS.
>> YES I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KATHERINE.
ON PAGE 5 OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND THIS JUST MIGHT BE STANDARD LANGUAGE.
IT ADDRESSES PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND SWIMMING POOLS, AND IT SAYS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT SHOULD THEY GO ON ANY OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE EXPRESSLY ACCEPTED AS A CITY AS PUBLICLY OWNED AND WE'D BE REQUIRED FOR MAINTENANCE.
IS THIS JUST STANDARD WORDING BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S NOTHING PLANNED RIGHT NOW, BUT SHOULD LATER ON DOWN THE LINE SOMETHING HAPPEN? I DON'T WANT THEIR POOL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR THOSE OF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR.
ANYTIME WE ARE CONSIDERING ANNEXING SOMEONE IN, WE HAVE TO DO A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, SHOWING THAT WE WILL PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICES TO THE NEW AREA THAT WE CURRENTLY PROVIDE TO THE REST OF THE CITY.
WE'RE NOT TREATING ANYBODY ANY DIFFERENTLY.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. NOT HEARING ANY FURTHER.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 904 AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARKER COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, REGARDING A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 43672 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND KINGS CROSSING SIX FOR THE PROVISION OF CITY SERVICES TO APPROXIMATELY 56.939 ACRES OF LAND REQUESTED BY OWNER TO BE ANNEXED, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SURVEYING ABSTRACT 428 AND SOUTH HURT SURVEY, AND THE SURVEYING ABSTRACT 910 AJ TUCKER SURVEY SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO LUCAS ROAD.
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> WERE YOU ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 904 OR ORDINANCE NUMBER 905?
>> I'M LOOKING AT 904 MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER COLLEEN HUBERT AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER ROXANNE BOGDON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 904, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MOTION CARRIES 50? I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO ONE AGAINST.
NEXT, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 905, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 56.99 ACRES, SITUATED IN THE S HURT SURVEY AND THE AJ TUCKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 910, ABSTRACT NUMBER 428, COLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, INTO THE CITY LIMITS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? NOT HEARING OR SEEING ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 905 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 56.939 ACRES SITUATED IN THE ANS SURVEY AND THE AJ TUCKER SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 910, ABSTRACT NUMBER 420 COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF PARKER.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BILLY BARRON, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER COLEEN HALBERT TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 905.
ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[02:30:01]
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 50.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR AND COUNSEL.
I KNOW THE RESIDENTS ARE EXCITED TO HAVE A NEW ACCESS TO LUCAS ROAD AND SO WHEN THIS APPROVED, I THINK THEY'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE BARRICADES DOWN AND WE'LL FILE THE PLAT AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE ACCESS THROUGH IT.
I KNOW THEY'RE EXCITED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'D LIKE TO ECHO THAT FROM PRESTON AND LET YOU KNOW, WE APPRECIATE COOPERATION OF THE STAFF AND THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR.
THIS IS OUR 28TH YEAR OF DEVELOPING IN PARKER STARTED 1998, AND HOPE TO CONTINUE FOR A FEW MORE YEARS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE'VE DEVELOPED MOST OF PARKER.
[8. UPDATE(S): ]
THE ROUTINE ITEMS. FIRST ONE, GARY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, WHERE ARE WE ON FM 2551?>> TWENTY FIVE FIFTY ONE IS PROGRESSING ON SCHEDULE TODAY.
I THINK A CAUTION WOULD BE WEATHER COMING UP FOR WINTER.
WE PROBABLY SLOW THAT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S MOVING ALONG AS SCHEDULED.
>> TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, BUDDY?
I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WAS JUST ASKING OUR ATTORNEY ABOUT HERE IS WHAT NOTIFICATION WE NEED TO GIVE CITIZENS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS WITH HUINES REGARDING THEIR APPLICATIONS TO TCQ AND FOR BOTH THE SEWER PLANT AND FOR THE MUD. HOW WE DO THAT?
>> BUT AS TO THE EXISTING ITEMS, THERE'S NO REAL UPDATE.
>> THERE'S NO UPDATE FROM TCEQ. OR FROM THE SEWER COURT.
>> LEWIS LANE. DARREL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER DAS DARREL, TAS KENT, OR DAS KATHERINE.
>> I JUST POINT OUT THAT THEY'RE MEETING ON DECEMBER 18TH, NOT THE 16TH, IF ANYBODY WANTED TO ATTEND.
>> THEY ARE GOING TO GO PROPOSED AT THAT TIME.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I HAVE NOT FOLLOWED UP WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP TEAM JUST TO CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE FOR THAT NIGHT.
I WAS ALSO PLANNING ON MAKING AN OFFER FOR MYSELF AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO ATTEND AND HELP ALLEVIATE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT MIGHT COME UP AND THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS.
>> DUBLIN ROAD PAVEMENT HAS BEGUN.
>> IT'S LIKE WE GOT TO TAKE BETSY TO COME TO CITY HALL [LAUGHTER]
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE MESSY FOR A MINUTE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE NICE WHEN IT'S DONE.
>> I GOT THREE PHONE CALLS, THREE OR FOUR PHONE CALLS TODAY.
ALL OF THEM WERE VERY COMPLIMENTARY IN THAT, THEY WERE AMAZED THAT ALL STARTED AND HOW MUCH ALL HAD DONE BY 4:00, 5:00 TODAY.
>> THEY'RE NOT WASTING ANY TIME.
>> WE DID HAVE A WATER BREAK YESTERDAY OVER THERE, AND IT TOOK US UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON TO GET IT FIXED. WE'VE GOT THAT DO.
>> ALL'S GOOD. FOR THE MOMENT.
CIP SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA ON DECEMBER 16.
[02:35:03]
WE'RE HOPING KENT AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON GETTING IT UP TO DATE, AND WE'RE HOPEFUL TO BRING IT TO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 16 FOR YOUR REVIEW.>> ANY OTHER UPDATES ON ANYTHING? IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE TRAIL PLAN THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT? JUST CHECK IN.
[9. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801]) ]
THEN WE WILL GO TO DONATIONS.ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE FIRE AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.
ONE, PAM AND ALLEN TARO DONATED WATER COFFEE TEA AND HOT CHOCOLATE, VALUED AT $40 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MIRIAM BROZERI AND MUHAMMAD MASADI, DONATED ONE DOZEN NOTHING CAKES, MONTANAS, VALUED AT $28 TO THE CITY STAFF.
AGAIN, PAM AND ALLEN TERA DONATED PUMPKIN BLONDES AND PECAN PIE BARS VALUE TO $35 TO PARKER ADMINISTRATION.
WE THANK THESE PEOPLE SO MUCH THAT WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THEM IN REMEMBERING OUR STAFF AND DOING FOR THEM.
NEXT, I WILL ASK, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED.
WE WILL GO TO RECESS TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.07, EXCUSE ME 074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS.
EXCUSE ME. CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE IN RECESS.
>> AT THIS TIME, I'M RECONVENING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING]
IT IS 934-95-4504.I SAW YOUR TARGET [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] IT DIDN'T WORK.
I'M SORRY. ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL.
>> IT'S 9:55.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.