[00:00:02]
>> I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS DECEMBER 16TH, 2025 AT 5:30 PM.I WILL NOTE THAT MISS HALBERT IS NOT HERE AT THIS TIME.
SHE IS IN TRAFFIC AND WILL BE HERE AS SOON AS TRAFFIC WILL ALLOW, HOPEFULLY WITHIN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, 10 MINUTES AT MOST.
WE WILL PROCEED ONTO THE WORKSHOP ON THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE.
[WORKSHOP]
I BELIEVE WHERE WE LEFT IT WAS STAFF WAS TO DO AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, WHICH KENT HAS DONE AND DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN MY OPINION.THEN WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL.
HI, DARREL, COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
>> THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE WAS BECAUSE SOME RESIDENTS WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUSTFALL LIMITS, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL, THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO USE DISCRETION AND NOT USE THE DUSTFALL LIMITS, CORRECT, SERGEANT? I WAS JUST PROPOSING THAT WE JUST MAKE THE DECIBELS APPLY TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
HOWEVER, I'VE SINCE THEN LOOKED AT OUR ZONING MAP, AND IT'S NOT EASY TO IDENTIFY WHAT'S RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT ISN'T BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME STUFF UNDER SINGLE-FAMILY, SINGLE-FAMILY TRANSITIONAL, THERE'S MANUFACTURED HOUSING.
THOSE ARE ALL FINE, BUT THEN WE GOT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND A PRD AND SOME OTHER THINGS WHERE THERE'S HOUSES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL. WHAT'S COMMERCIAL? IS IT SOUTH FOR? IS IT SOMEONE WITH AN SUP LIKE GEV LOCK? HOW ARE WE DEFINING COMMERCIAL?
>> WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME.
I THINK IT'S NOT AS CUT AND DRY WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE WHAT IT REALLY IS IS WHERE THE SOUND ENDS UP, AND 99% OF THE TIME WE'RE COMPING THAT REGARDLESS WHETHER IT COME FROM RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, IS ENDING UP IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HAVING THE PROBLEM.
I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE US MENTIONING RESIDENTIAL DUE TO THAT FACT THAT ENDING UP IT IS PERSON IS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THAT'S WHAT OUR CITY AND ENDS UP.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT, NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO.
NOW, FOR ENFORCEMENT, IF THEIR DISCRETION TO USE HOW THEY WANT TO THEIR DISCRETION OR IF THEY WANT TO USE THE METER, THAT'S UP TO THEM.
>> WERE YOU ASKING A QUESTION OF SERGEANT BERT? MR. PILGRIM.
>> MAYOR, I DON'T THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THE DIFFICULTIES THAT WERE MENTIONED JUST A MINUTE AGO, AND IT IS WHERE THE SOUNDS END UP THAT REALLY MATTERS, AND WHAT THE SOUND IS.
I DOUBT THAT WE'D EVER HAVE A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, A COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT COMPLAINED ABOUT NOISE, EITHER. PROBABLY WOULDN'T.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION.
I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO REALLY MATTER IS WHAT WE END UP EVER DOING ABOUT OUR SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICTS AND WHETHER WE HAVE SOME STANDARD THAT IS DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY FOR SOUTH FORK OR FOR CROSS CREEK OR FOR ANY OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT LIKE THAT.
>> DARREL, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.
[00:05:07]
>> [NOISE] IN THE CASE OF, AN ISSUE PERTAINING DIFFERENTIATION OF RESIDENTIAL IS SOMEHOW, CAPACITY OR EXCESSIVE ACTION [NOISE].
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL? MR. PILGRIM, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE NEXT ITEM?
>> I APOLOGIZE, CORRECT. I DIDN'T SEE WHAT THE NEXT ITEM WAS.
I WAS LOOKING DOWN THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER MATERIAL, TOO.
>> MISS BOMBING, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THE NEXT ITEM? MR. BARRON. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT REGARDING THE NOISE ORDINANCE? MR. PILGRIM.
>> WHETHER WE MAY OR LET ME LOOK UP SOMETHING.
>> WANT TO SOME FRESH WORKSHEETS IN THE LAST COUNCIL SESSION? THE GUIDANCE WORKSHEETS.
YOU WANT ME TO PRINT SOME MORE OF THOSE OUT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING THAT'S ON THOSE SHEETS WAS WHAT WE WERE GOING TO FOCUS ON.
I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO FOCUS ON WHAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WE MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> GO AHEAD. DO YOU WANT TO HAVE, CAN GO OVER THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE ORDINANCE?
COUNCIL. JUST A COUPLE OF UPDATES.
SOME OF THE KEY CHANGES BETWEEN THE NOISE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS TODAY AND THE NOISE ORDINANCE AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THIS IS GOING TO RELOCATE ALL THE NOISE REGULATIONS FROM CHAPTER 94 TO THE NEW CHAPTER 131.
THIS WILL DELETE SUBSECTIONS 94.04K AND 94.04L ENTIRELY.
THIS WILL INTRODUCE COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITIONS AND THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS, ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC PRESUMPTIONS OF NOISE NUISANCES.
IT CREATES TIME-BASED RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE WE HAD THOSE BEFORE, BUT THIS SIMPLIFIES THOSE.
IT ALSO SIMPLIFIES THE DECIBEL THRESHOLDS FOR NEW MEASUREMENT STANDARDS AND ADDS NINE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
SINCE THAT LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE 12 2 WORKSHOP AND AGENDA ITEM, STAFF HAS MODIFIED THE ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL RESOLVED ISSUES FROM THAT MEETING.
WE'VE ALSO MADE A COUPLE PROACTIVE CHANGES FOR SOME INCONSISTENCIES.
WE THOUGHT THEY WERE MINOR ENOUGH THAT THEY DID NOT WARRANT ADDITIONAL INPUT AND THAT THEY WERE IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU WERE SEEKING.
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THOSE NEED TO BE CHANGED.
OF COURSE, I DID THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NOISE COMMITTEE CHAIR, OR FORMER NOISE COMMITTEE CHAIR, AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL.
WE CHANGED THE PRESUMPTIONS IN 131.04B3 TO A 500-FOOT DISTANCE FOR CONSISTENCY.
THIS WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT, IS WHAT I WAS INFORMED OF FOR THE REFUSE TIME CONSTRAINT.
IT EXPANDED THE DEFINITION FOR DAYTIME HOURS TO ALIGN WITH RECENT COUNCIL DIRECTION.
WE CREATED A NON-DAYTIME HOURS DEFINITION JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE'VE GOT DAYTIME.
WE'VE ESSENTIALLY GOT THIS NON-DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME.
WE'VE MODIFIED SECTION 131.07 FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 30-FOOT MEASUREMENT BUFFER STANDARD THAT COUNSEL SEEMS TO BE AIMING FOR IN 131.
THERE SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFLICT, SO WE JUST LINED THOSE UP.
THEN, OF COURSE, WE CREATED THAT STAFF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS WITH A BREAKDOWN OF ALL THE CHANGES, SOME OF THE IMPACTS, SOME THINGS TO THINK THROUGH.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE STAFF SUMMARY THAT KENT DID, AIDED BY MR BARRON AND MISS CLIFFORD? CLIFF. I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COLLEEN HALBERT HAS JOINED US AT THIS TIME.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE FROM ANYBODY ON ANYTHING?
[00:10:04]
>> I THINK THAT IT PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL TO YOU TO HEAR FROM SERGEANT BURDICK AS FAR AS HOW THAT WOULD BE APPLIED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THAT.
>> SERGEANT BURDICK, WILL YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE, TO MAKE SURE IT GETS PICKED UP? THANK YOU.
>> TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WE'RE REALLY GOING TO LIKE A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD, PLAINLY AUDIBLE? I HAVE TO FEEL APPROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, CURT, BUT THAT'S GOING TO STAND UP.
I WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT THE NOISE WAS SO LOUD THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC ROUNDING.
IT WOULDN'T BE AS EASY AS JUST SAYING THAT SEEMS LOUD.
I HAVE TO REALLY BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY LOUD NOISE.
IT IS CAUSING, IT IS DISTURBING THE PIECE, IT IS CAUSING AN ISSUE.
IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT TOUGHER STANDARD THAN JUST LIKE DECIBEL READING BECAUSE I HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO TRAIN OUR OFFICERS TO USE THE BODY CAMERA.
I TURN THE BODY CAMERA ON THAT WE HAVE ACTUAL AUDIO EVIDENCE.
JUST LIKE THE CAMERAS DON'T PICK UP ALL THE AUDIO HERE, MAY NOT PICK IT UP PERFECTLY, BUT IT'LL GIVE THE JUDGE SOME HARD EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED.
SO IT'S JUST NOT MY TESTIMONY.
>> IF WE WENT BACK TO THE TIME METER WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE TOUGHER FOR US IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES WHERE WE DON'T GET OUT THERE QUICK ENOUGH.
WE DON'T GET THE METER OUT QUICK ENOUGH WHERE EASILY WE CAPTURE THAT EVIDENCE QUICKLY AND WE COULD TAKE SOME TYPE OF ACTION.
TYPICALLY, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT WRITING A TICKET ANYWAY, WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO GET SOME TYPE OF COMPLIANCE WHERE FOR THE DESCALE METER, IT WAS A LITTLE TOUGHER [NOISE], AS FAR AS A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN A POLICE OFFICER STANDARD.
YOU DON'T TYPICALLY WANT TO HAVE OUR STANDARD.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LIKE A PROBABLE CAUSE LEVEL STANDARD? TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A REASONABLE PERSON, THAT'S GOING TO BE A HIGHER STANDARD THAN WHAT MY STANDARD IS POLICE OFFICER.
[00:15:25]
ANYTHING THAT GIVES MORE SPECIFICITY THAN SECTION 1 OF THAT DOES.IN OTHER WORDS, THAT SAME SECTION, SECTION 1 VERSUS SECTION 2.
SECTION, IF IT'S A VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 1, IT WOULD ALSO BE A VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 2.
I THINK YOU'RE QUESTIONING HOW IS SOMETHING A VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 2, MAYBE WHAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A VIOLATION IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 1. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THESE [INAUDIBLE] STANDARD [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE WORKING ON THIS [INAUDIBLE] CURRENTLY [INAUDIBLE] WITH [INAUDIBLE] REALLY THE ORDINARY PERSON [INAUDIBLE] SENSIBILITIES [INAUDIBLE] IT IS POSSIBLE TO BORROW THE LANGUAGE THAT [INAUDIBLE]
I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THE PLAINLY AUDIBLE LANGUAGE IN ITS APPLICATION IS GOING TO BE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE COURSE OF A TRIAL ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SECTION.
THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET WITNESSES TO ARTICULATE HOW IT WAS PLAINLY AUDIBLE.
IN DOING SO, THE WITNESS WOULD HAVE TO GIVE SOME INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN FROM THIS, BUT IT WOULD BE LIKE, I COULD HEAR THEM PLAINLY SPEAKING AND UNDERSTOOD EACH THING THAT WAS BEING SAID.
I COULD HEAR THAT THERE WERE VOICES, BUT I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MORE DISTINCT SPEECH THAN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW, SERGEANT, IF YOU WANT TO ELABORATE FURTHER ON THAT PLAINLY AUDIBLE.
>> THAT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS I STEPPED OUT ON MY PATROL CAR, I WAS ABOUT 100 FEET AWAY WHEN I HEARD SOMEBODY LOUDLY SPEAKING OR LOUDLY SCREAMING.
THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF TESTIMONY YOU'RE LOOKING TOWARDS.
IT WOULDN'T BE, I HEARD A WHISPER FROM TIM MOW.
I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THIS ACCIDENT OCCURRED TO REASONABLE PEOPLE.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD COMES IN.
>> MR. BARN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS THE SAME SECTION THAT I WAS [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE INSTEAD OF UNDER SECTION 31.05, SUBSECTION [INAUDIBLE] SHOULDN'T IT BE IN SUBSECTION 1? IN OTHER WORDS, THE VIOLATION DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION 1 IS [INAUDIBLE] IS COMFORT OR DISTRESS OF A REASONABLE PERSON WITH ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES WHO'S 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE NOISE AND SHOULDN'T SAY, AND THAT NOISE IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE TO THE PEACE OFFICER.
>> NO, I'LL SAY THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.
THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE, ANY OF THESE THINGS WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION.
>> IF AN OFFICER HEARS A SOUND, BUT IT'S NOT CAUSING DISTRESS OR DISCOMFORT TO ANY OTHER PERSON, [INAUDIBLE] A VIOLATION OF THESE ORDINANCE?
>> WELL, THEY'RE DIFFERENT THINGS.
IN SECTION 1, THAT'S ANY PERSON COULD COME AND MAKE A COMPLAINT.
THEY COULD COME TO THE COURT AND FILE A COMPLAINT AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AND I RECORDED THIS ON MY PHONE AND THIS IS HOW LOUD IT WAS.
THEY CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT WHICH CAN BE PROSECUTED WITHOUT AN OFFICER EVEN BEING INVOLVED.
NUMBER 3 IS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE DECIBELS? I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE ALL INTENDED AS
[00:20:01]
SEPARATE METHODS OF ARTICULATING A VIOLATION.>> I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
SOMEONE HEARS A NOISE THAT IS DISCOMFORTING TO THEM.
LET'S SAY IT'S LEGITIMATE, THEY ARE A REASONABLE PERSON IN TERMS OF THE LOUDNESS OF THE NOISE AND THE DISCOMFORT, IT'S NOT SOME UNREASONABLE COMPLAINT.
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A VIOLATION.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICER HERE, THEY CAN FILE A COMPLAINT ON THEIR OWN.
>> OR AN OFFICER CAN JUST HEAR A COMPLAINT ON HIS OR HER OWN OR CAN JUST HEAR A NOISE THAT THEY BELIEVE IS LOUD AND WOULD DISTURB A REASONABLE PERSON, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAS CALLED AND COMPLAINED ABOUT IT?
>> WHEN YOU SAY THAT, I THINK OF WHAT WE USED TO CALL BOOMBOX ORDINANCES, OR YOU THINK ABOUT CARS THAT THE AUDIO IN THE CAR IS TOO LOUD, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.
IN THIS SITUATION, NUMBER 2 IS WHAT I THINK OF MORE AS, WE'VE GOTTEN SOME COMPLAINTS AND THE OFFICER GOES TO A LOCATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY SAY, THIS ADDRESS IS GENERATING A LOT OF NOISE, AND OFFICER DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
MAYBE THEY'VE HAD SEVERAL CALLS.
THEY GO OUT, GET OUT OF THEIR CAR AND GO, WOW, THAT'S REALLY LOUD, AND I CAN TELL WHAT IT IS.
IT'S NOT A NOISE THAT IT'S AMBIGUOUS, IT'S OFTEN AMPLIFIED SOUND, IT'S GOING TO BE HEY, THIS WAS TOO LOUD AND IT WAS DISRUPTIVE AND I COULD FEEL THE THUMP OF THE BASE FROM THIS DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY.
>> IN THAT CASE, ISN'T THE OFFICER IMPLYING THAT, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC PERSON COMPLAINING, THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT LIKE WHAT'S TAKING PLACE?
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, OUR OFFICERS ARE REASONABLE PEOPLE.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT THAT IS TRUE.
>> I GUESS I REALLY STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF PLAIN [INAUDIBLE] BEING SEPARATED FROM THE REASON REASON [INAUDIBLE]
>> I AGREE WE'VE GOT REASONABLE OFFICERS, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER ORDER WE CRAFT IS ONE THAT NOT ONLY WITHSTANDS THE TEST OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT WITHSTANDS THE TEST OF REASONABLENESS ITSELF.
>> I THINK WHAT NUMBER 2 DOES IS ALLOW THE OFFICER TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHOUT HAVING A SPECIFIC NAMED VICTIM WHO IS EXPERIENCING IT.
>> BUDDY, I'M THINKING IF MY HUSBAND HAD HIS GROUP OF BIG BLOCK CORVETTE FRIENDS OVER AND THEY'RE ALL REVVING IT UP FOR AN HOUR, AND SERGEANT BURDICK HEADS DOWN DUBLIN, AND HE'S LIKE, YEAH, THAT'S A PROBLEM.
AS OPPOSED TO MY NEIGHBOR CALLING.
>> EVEN IN THAT CASE, OFFICER BURDICK WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON HEARING THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE DISTURBED BY IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A NOISE VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT'S MISSING FROM HERE.
I DON'T SEE WHAT WOULD BE HURT BY ADDING TO THE LANGUAGE FOR PART 2.
I LIKED ACTUALLY CONNECTING THEM WITH AN AND.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR EXPLANATION OF THAT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SECTION 2 WOULDN'T STILL HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO IT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO BE DISTURBED BY IT.
I UNDERSTAND DOESN'T MEAN ANOTHER PERSON HAS TO FILE A COMPLAINT.
BUT IF THE OFFICER HEARD THAT AND THEY SAID, THAT'S PRETTY LOUD, NOBODY'S REALLY COMPLAINING THOUGH, IS THAT A NOISE VIOLATION?
>> THAT WOULD DEPEND ON MY NEIGHBORS.
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE MY NEIGHBORS WILL BE DOWN WITH IT, BUT A REASONABLE PERSON, AN OFFICER CAN JUDGE THAT THAT'S TOO LOUD. PLAINLY AUDIBLE.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD CITE SOMEBODY FOR THAT IF NO ONE'S COMPLAINED ABOUT IT.
>> I THINK IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION WHERE YOU KNOW IT'S A BREACH OF THE VISA, AND IT'S OBVIOUS, LIKE IT'S EXTREMELY LOUD EVEN IF THE NEIGHBORS HAVEN'T COMPLAINED YET, WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY GO IN AND TAKE A AN ACTION WHERE WE COULD TAKE IT, BUT SOMEONE WHERE WE GO AND AND TALK TO THOSE PEOPLE LIKE, HEY, YOU MAY WANT TO COME THIS OUT BEFORE YOU GET A COMPLAINT.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE? WE'RE MOST DEFINITELY NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF WRITING TICKETS,
[00:25:03]
ESPECIALLY NOT TO OUR CITIZENS.WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET EVERYBODY TO LIVE TOGETHER AND COHABITATE.
IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, WE DO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, I CAN GO TALK TO THEM JUST LIKE, HEY, WE'RE TALKING NEED TO DO THIS, AND MOST PEOPLE CAN BUY THAT.
>> LET ME STATE A CASE WHERE THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT.
I'M AWARE OF ONE CITIZEN WHO IS NOT REPORTING STUFF TO THE POLICE BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF RETALIATION FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THEY'RE NOT REPORTING IT.
THEY'RE A REASONABLE PERSON AND THEY'RE HEARING THIS, IT IS A DISTURBANCE TO THEM.
THE REASON FOR NOT REPORTING THEM IS NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TOO LOUD, IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THEIR NEIGHBOR GETTING MAD AT THEM IF THEY REPORT IT.
BUT IF THE OFFICER IS GOING TO LISTEN TO IT, THE OFFICER WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT THE REASON IT'S TOO LOUD IS BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE IT'S TOO LOUD.
[OVERLAPPING] THE REASONABLE PERSON ELEMENT STILL NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO NUMBER 2.
YOU'RE THE REASONABLE PERSON IN THIS CASE, MAYBE.
>> I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER CITIES THAT USE THIS EXACT WORDING.
EVEN LUCAS FAIRVIEW, MURPHY, RICHARDSON, MCKINNEY, WILEY, SAN ANTONIO, SEXY.
YOU DIDN'T RECREATE THE WHEEL WITH THIS ONE.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THESE THREE ELEMENTS UNDER 13105 NUMBER 1, 02, AND 3, THAT ENTIRE BLOCK OF LANGUAGE, THAT CAME FROM ANOTHER CITY? IT WAS USED IN ANOTHER CITY IN THAT MANNER?
>> THIS WAS TAKEN FROM ALLEN AND THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEEN CHANGED FROM THE ALLEN ORDINANCE IS THE DISTANCES.
THERE'S MUCH MORE COMPLICATED WORDING ABOUT DISTANCE, BUT OTHERWISE IT'S STRAIGHT FROM WHAT ALLEN HAD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] HERE, WE [INAUDIBLE] THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR [INAUDIBLE] OFFER RIGHT UNDER QUALITY [INAUDIBLE] AND ALL [INAUDIBLE] LANGUAGE AND IT'S AWFUL TO TRY TO [INAUDIBLE] I THINK DEPENDING ON [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS TWO FOSTER LIGATION [INAUDIBLE] DIFFERENT FOR STANDARD.
I GUESS [INAUDIBLE] YOU NEED MUCH IS THE ONE THAT'S REALLY [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, I WANT TO SAY THIS ON BEHALF OF THE NOISE COMMITTEE.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO START INVENTING LANGUAGE.
WE WERE TRYING TO USE SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN WELL VETTED IN HUNDREDS OF OTHER ORDINANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF GOING OFF ON OUR OWN.
NOW, IF YOU ALL WANT TO GO OFF ON OUR OWN AND CREATE SOMETHING CUSTOM.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I LIKE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK FROM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE NOT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAVE OUR OWN PATH.
>> IT'S RELATED TO THAT SAME THING.
IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN TO SECTION 3 OR ITEM NUMBER 3 IN IT SAID IT FOR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND IDENTIFIED IN THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE, CAN'T SPEAK, PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS SECTION.
THAT PARTICULAR PORTION NUMBER 3 DOESN'T SPECIFY DISTANCE.
THE OTHER SPECIFY THE DISTANCE OF 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S EMITTING THE SOUND.
BUT ITEM 3 IS IF IT EXCEEDS THE SOUND LEVELS THAT ARE PERMISSIBLE, EVEN 10 FEET OR EVEN AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
[00:30:04]
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS FIXED.
>> YES, SIR. WE DID RECTIFY THAT.
WE ADJUSTED THE MEASUREMENT ASPECT IN 131.07.
IT SAYS, MEASUREMENTS MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY POINT ON ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY OR ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT LEAST 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> 07 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE DISTANCE THAT WOULD APPLY TO 13105.3.
>> CAN YOU READ ME THAT LANGUAGE FROM 07 JUST SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S STATED AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT APPLIES TO 13105.3?
>> YOU BET. I WISH I COULD BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT THE WAY WE'VE GOT THIS WORK AROUND TONIGHT DOES NOT FACILITATE THAT.
MEASUREMENTS MAY BE TAKEN AT A POINT ON ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY OR ON AN ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPERTY EMITTING THE NOISE.
OF COURSE, THIS IS REFERENCING THE NOISE STANDARD UP ABOVE FOR THE DECIMAL LEVELS AND THE TIME OF DAY.
>> THAT DEFINES MEASUREMENTS MAY BE TAKEN THEN.
WHY WOULDN'T ON THIS 0.3 THAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT? IT JUST STATE SOMETHING ABOUT WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND IDENTIFIED IN THE MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL SECTION, AND ALSO SAY AT THE PROPER DISTANCE IDENTIFIED IN 0.07.
>> I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE COULDN'T AMEND THAT FURTHER.
KATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT?
>> WHEN SOMEONE READS THIS, IT'S CLEAR TO THEM THAT THERE IS A DISTANCE THAT'S THAT'S TIED TO IT BECAUSE I'VE HAD SOME CITIZENS THAT HAVE SAID THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE TWO CONNECT AND I DIDN'T EITHER.
I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT'S CLEAR.
I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN REPORTING AS POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS ORDINANCE ARE FABRICATED AND WILL PROBABLY NEVER OCCUR.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE CITIZEN TOLD ME THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR GENERATOR.
I SAID, WELL, GENERATORS ARE EXCLUDED.
WELL, GENERATORS ARE EXCLUDED WHEN THEY'RE EITHER BEING TESTED OR WHEN THEY'RE USED BECAUSE OF A POWER OUTAGE.
I SAID, WELL, I HAVE A GENERATOR THAT I USE TO RUN MY WELDER OF, AND USE YOUR WELDER FOR WHAT? WELL, I USE MY WELDER TO REPAIR MY FENCE.
THAT'S MAINTENANCE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
ANY EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'RE USING FOR MAINTENANCE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS EXEMPTED.
UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO DO MAINTENANCE OF YOUR PROPERTY AT 11 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT OR MIDNIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEN IT CAME BACK.
I GET A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK ON THAT, BUT OTHER EXAMPLE THAT HE GAVE WAS STILL ULTIMATELY MAINTENANCE OF HIS PROPERTY THAT THE GENERATOR WAS RUNNING, SOME OTHER TOOL OR EQUIPMENT.
WHAT ABOUT MY TRACTOR? MY TRACTOR IS REALLY LOUD? WHAT DO YOU USE YOUR TRACTOR FOR? WELL, I TILL THE GROUND ON MY LAND OR OR I CUT MY GROUND.
THAT'S MAINTENANCE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
YOU'RE EXEMPTED FOR THAT REASON.
WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE GENERATOR.
WHAT IF I WANTED TO TAKE MY HOUSE OFF THE GRID AND POWER MY HOUSE ALL THE TIME WITH MY OWN GENERATOR.
I SAID I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD RAISE THAT AS A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT'S NOT REALISTIC. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.
DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE GOING TO PULL YOUR HOUSE OFF THE GRID AND PUT IT ON A PORTABLE GENERATOR 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
THEN I SAID, QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU DID, YOUR NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN FOR YOU RUNNING A GENERATOR 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO BE OFF THE GRID AND NOT DEPENDENT UPON A POWER COMPANY.
IN THAT CASE, FRANKLY, IT'S A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR SOMEBODY TO COMPLAIN.
I THINK SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ARE JUST MADE UP INSTANCES THAT WILL NEVER OCCUR.
I THINK SOME OF THE OTHERS, LIKE THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MOMENT BEFORE THAT, ABOUT HOW THE LANGUAGE IN 13105 IS STRUCTURED ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE CITIZENS CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE, I THINK WE SHOULD.
I DON'T THINK CASTAS, CRICKETS AND FROGS ARE GOING TO BE CREATING VIOLATIONS FOR ANYBODY OR TICKETS FOR ANYBODY.
BUT IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CRAFT THE LANGUAGE SO
[00:35:02]
THAT WHEN A NON LAWYER PERSON READS IT, THEY'LL UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION.>> KATHERINE, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN MERGE THOSE NUMBER ONE AND TWO TOGETHER INTO SOMETHING?
>> I THINK KATHERINE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ONE AND TWO WERE SEPARATED FOR A REASON THAT GIVES THE OFFICER THE DISCRETION TO COME FORWARD WITH A COMPLAINT, AND ALSO THE RESIDENCE THEY'RE JUST TWO SEPARATE INCIDENCES AS HOW THEY APPROACH IT.
A COMBINED WORDING WE CAN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT BY COMBINING THOSE TWO SENTENCES.
>> I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS MORE SPECIFICITY WITHIN TWO SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TO EXPECT FROM IT, NOT NECESSARILY REALLY COMBINING THOSE INTO ONE SECTION, IS THAT FAIR?
>> I WOULD SAY IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE TWO TO SAY THAT AND THIS IS NOT THE WORDING BY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF BY THE POLICE OFFICERS JUDGMENT, IT DISTURBS A REASONABLE PERSON THEN I'M FINE WITH CHANGING TWO TO SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY CRAFT SOMETHING TO BRING BACK CONSIDERATION.
>> I THINK THAT'D BE A GOOD CHANGE TO MAKE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KATHERINE.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING HERE THAT POTENTIALLY LIMITS A PERSON'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH? DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT VIOLATES ANYONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RIGHTS?
>> NO. BECAUSE IT'S ALL CONTENT NEUTRAL REGULATION, TIME PLACE AND MANNER, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE.
>> I CAN CURSE BUDDY OUT QUIETLY, BUT IF I SHOUT IT TO A REASONABLE PERSON'S DISCOMFORT.
>> UNLESS IT TENDS TO INSIDE A BREACH OF THE PIECE BY THE TYPE OF WORDING YOU'RE USING, WHICH I LEAVE TO THE OFFICERS DISCRETION.
>. I'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT THIS HAS GONE THROUGH OUR CITY ATTORNEY NUMEROUS TIMES.
THIS HAS GONE TO OUR PROSECUTOR WHO HAS LOOKED AT THIS.
THIS HAS GONE THROUGH GARLAND'S PROSECUTOR.
THIS HAS GONE THROUGH A LOT OF LEGAL EVALUATION BEFORE WE EVER PRESENTED THIS.
THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE JUST WENT.
HERE YOU GO. KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT IN THAT LEGAL ASPECT.
>> KATHERINE, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND BE CHANGED FOR CLARITY? WE WOULD COME UP WITH BIG WORD FOR A LITTLE WORD.
>> I HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
CAN WE MAKE IT MORE READABLE, MORE USER FRIENDLY? I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I WILL POINT OUT ON THAT ONE.
SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY AND JARGON THAT'S USED IN IT IS SPECIFIC TO NOISE, AND SO WE COULD PROBABLY ADD SOME MORE DEFINITIONS IN THERE, BUT THERE'S ONLY SO FAR WE CAN PROBABLY BRING THAT DOWN.
>> WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THERE IS THERE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD MAKE IT VERY EASY FOR PEOPLE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND.
BUT IF WE HAVE IT WHAT BUDDY WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHERE IT'S UNCLEAR, THEN THAT'S ON US.
WE NEED TO HAVE IT WHERE IT IS CLEAR TO EVERYONE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
DARREL, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> I THOUGHT YOU HAVE A COMMENT.
[00:40:21]
I THINK NEAR THE END OF THE MEETING LAST TIME OR MAYBE IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE, WHO KNOWS? ANYWAY LAST TIME, THERE WAS A BRIEF MENTION THAT YOU MADE MAYOR OF THE FACT THAT BECAUSE WE'RE A TYPE A GENERAL LAW, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PUT TO A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS.
I KNOW SOME OF THE PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED AFTER LAST WEEK'S MEETING THAT WE STILL NEED TO PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS.
MAYBE THEY DIDN'T HEAR THAT COMMENT THAT YOU MADE OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.
I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION, WHICH IS THE REASON I WAS ASKING FOR ASK KATHERINE THAT QUESTION A MINUTE AGO.
ACTUALLY, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL DID A LOT TO VET THIS.
COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN, I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO HEAR THAT WE KNOW THAT ALL HAVE DONE A LOT TO VET IT.
I WANT TO REINFORCE THE FACT THAT IF WE CAN'T PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS, THAT'S TRUE.
>> I WILL ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO PLEASE COMMENT ON THAT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T MISSPEAK.
>> NOW, I THINK BECAUSE THE CITY OF PARKER IS A TYPE MUNICIPALITY, A GENERAL LAW CITY AS OPPOSED TO A HOME OLD CITY WE DO NOT HAVE POWER OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN PUT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO A VOTE OF THE CITIZENS DOES NOT APPLY IN PARKER.
>> ANYTHING ELSE. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE WORKSHOP.
>> LET ME SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE CLOSE THE WORKSHOP.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IF WE DO ANOTHER WORKSHOP ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE, THAT WE MAYBE DO IT AT 10:00 AM ON SATURDAY MORNING.
WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF THE SAME PEOPLE HERE. THEY'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT 5:30 ON TUESDAY NIGHT MAY NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID IF WE HAVE ANY MORE WORKSHOPS ON IT.
EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP ON IT, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE WE SHOULD IF.
WHENEVER WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE THINK WE HAVE IT IN FINAL FORM, LET'S PUBLISH IT FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS ON THE WEBSITE BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT.
THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO VOTE ON IT TONIGHT.
WE WERE GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE ONE LAST TIME AND WE NEVER INTENDED TO VOTE ON A PASSING A NOISE ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE PACKAGE LAST TIME, NOR DID WE EVER INTEND TO PASS ONE TONIGHT.
THIS IS A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS IT AND TO DISCUSS THE CONTENT.
I THINK BEFORE WE EVER GET TO PASSING IT WITH A VOTE, WE NEED TO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THE CITIZENS AT LEAST TWO WEEKS AHEAD OF TIME.
>> I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE HAVING THE WORKSHOP AND THE ORDINANCE ON AN AGENDA AT THE SAME TIME.
THEY THINK THAT IT JUST SENDS A LONG MESSAGE.
>> WELL, IT ALSO MAKES IT DIFFICULT FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE A CLEAN ORDINANCE WITH ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.
IF WE JUST CHANGE SOMETHING AND MAKE A MOTION DURING AND THEN THE CHANGE IT'S JUST NOT AS CLEAN AND NOT AS TRANSPARENT.
>> I'M TIRED OF THESE WORKSHOPS.
THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT HERE, WE STILL HAVE MORE TIME.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, THIS IS WHEN WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT.
WE HAVE ASKED OVER AND OVER WHAT THINGS WE WANT TO DISCUSS.
WE CAME UP WITH ANOTHER THING TONIGHT.
KATHERINE'S GOING TO GO BACK AND TRY FINAGLE SOME BETTER LANGUAGE.
BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, I THINK THIS IS THE TIME TO MENTION IT.
EVERY TIME WE HAVE THESE THINGS, IT'S LIKE ONE OR TWO BABY STEPS AND IT'S IT'S NERVE RACKING.
I THINK WE WERE VERY CLEAR IN OUR AGENDAS.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM TONIGHT.
PEOPLE ARE SAYING YOU'RE VOTING.
THIS IS VERY CLEAR VERY OPEN WITH THE PUBLIC.
WE'VE GIVEN THEM EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO COME SPEAK FOR NUMEROUS TIMES.
I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE START MOVING ON THIS.
I THINK THIS IS DRAGGING OUT AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT,
[00:45:06]
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.>> ANYBODY, I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU OUT.
>> I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH THAT.
WE NEED TO GET THIS IN FINAL FORM, PUT IT OUT THERE.
IF WE GET SOME NEW FEEDBACK ON SOMETHING THAT IS A VERY LEGITIMATE POINT THAT WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE ON THE FLY ON THE NIGHT THAT WE GET READY TO VOTE ON IT, OR WE CAN DECIDE TO POSTPONE IT AND FIX THAT AND THEN COME BACK AND VOTE ON IT.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND CLEAN THIS UP, GET IT OUT TO THE CITIZENS, AND GET READY TO VOTE ON IT.
HOPEFULLY THIS PROCESS WILL SHOW THE CITIZENS.
WE HAVEN'T REACTED QUICKLY ON ANYTHING THAT THIS HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME, AND WE HAVE LISTENED TO CITIZENS.
HAVE WE SATISFIED EVERYONE? NO.
>> THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE NOT GOING TO BE SATISFIED.
>> UNLESS WE DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO AREN'T GOING TO BE SATISFIED UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING VERY STRICT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SATISFY EVERYONE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE LEGITIMATELY LISTENED TO MANY ISSUES AND TRIED TO CRAFT THEM INTO WHAT MAYBE ENDED UP BEING A FINAL DOCUMENT.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THAT.
>> BASED ON COUNSEL FEEDBACK, WILL NOT BE ANOTHER WORKSHOP SCHEDULE.
KATHERINE WILL DO A REVIEW AND COME UP WITH LANGUAGE.
SHE WILL SEND THAT OUT TO ALL OF US.
WE WILL THEN PUBLISH IT AND THEN IT WILL BE SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA.
IS THAT WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
>> SHE'S GOING TO REWRITE IT AND SEND IT TO US, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY YES OR NO TO THAT LANGUAGE? DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IN AN OPEN MEETING?
>> SHE CAN DO SOME EDITING AND SHE CAN SEND IT TO COUNSEL INDICATING I'VE CHANGED THIS WORK, AND THEN COUNSEL CAN REVIEW IT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] FROM LAST MEETING AND THAT'S WHAT WILL BE REVIEWED IN THE NEXT MEETING.
>> WELL, FROM WHAT BUDDY IS ASKING IS THAT ONCE COUNSEL HAS REVIEWED IT, THEN IT WOULD GO OUT TO PUBLISH SO THAT ALL THE CITIZENS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY IT FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR HOWEVER LONG BEFORE IT GOES ON THE AGENDA.
>> YES, MADAM. THAT'S WHAT I SUGGEST.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT GOING TO SATISFY EVERYBODY.
IF WE GET A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE WE NEED TO MAKE, WE CAN MAKE A BIT OTHERWISE, THEN WE WOULD VOTE EITHER UP OR DOWN ON IT.
>> I'M ASSUMING AND MAYBE IT'S MY ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT KATHERINE WILL BE DOING IS WORDSMITHING, I GUESS, FOR ONE OF THE NOT MAKING SUBSIDENCE [INAUDIBLE].
NO MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU ALL WANT.
>> WELL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 131.05, SHE'S MAKING SOME CHANGES THERE.
BUT KATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
[00:50:05]
THEN AT THIS TIME,[ADJOURN]
I AM CLOSING THE WORKSHOP.[CALL TO ORDER]
I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.IT IS DECEMBER 16TH, 2025 AT 7:00 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MISS HULL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK, WHO IS BACK THERE, MR. MARROW, IF YOU WOULD LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND MR. ADIS, IF YOU WOULD LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
BEFORE I CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, I WANT TO NOTICE Y'ALL AS TO SOME CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AS TO PUBLIC COMMENTS, THERE IS A LINK, A MAIL BOX, FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SPECIFIC.
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO SAY TO ALL OF COUNSEL, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO PUBLICCOMMENTS@PARKERTEXAS.US.
THAT WAY, THE COMMENTS COME TO EVERY LAST ONE OF US, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DEPEND ON SOMEBODY CHASING US DOWN TO GET THEM TO EACH ONE OF US.
THE OTHER THING IS A SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS WILL NO LONGER BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE RECORD.
ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OF THE RECORD, BUT THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A SUMMARY.
THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT, AND WE'RE NO LONGER GOING TO DO THAT.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE'LL NOW GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.FIRST PERSON IS JOHNSON ABRAHAM.
>> GOOD EVENING. JOHNSON ABRAHAM, 5100 RAVENSTHORPE DRIVE, PARKER.
DO NOT COME PREPARED TO MAKE A POPULAR COMMENTS.
NORMALLY, I'LL SIT BACK AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE.
TODAY SEEMS THERE'S NOBODY HERE.
I SAY LET ME TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU ALL FOR SERVING AND SUPPORTING THE CITY.
THE ONE COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THE NOISE.
I KNOW I'LL BE READING ON SOCIAL MEDIA WHAT'S GOING ON.
I HAVEN'T GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING.
MY COMMENT, NO RECOMMENDATION.
SUGGESTIONS ARE, THIS IS COUNTY IN STATE OF TEXAS, PARKER.
LET'S LEAVE PARKER AS A COUNTY.
WHEN I SAY PARKER IS A COUNTY, I LIKE THE COUNTY LIFESTYLE AND WE SHOULD KEEP IT.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WE MOVED OUT HERE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON MY WIFE SERVED IN THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP IT AS A COUNTY.
I KNOW WE HAVE DIFFERENCE IN OPINION, BUT WE HAD TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO OR CERTAIN PEOPLE IN CERTAIN AREAS.
I'M NOT IMPACTED TOO MUCH BY CERTAIN AREAS SUCH AS SOUTH FORK.
[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] WE HAD TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IN CITY OF PARKER.
[00:55:04]
[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] ALSO, KEEP IN MIND, ALL OF YOU ARE ELECTED BY EVERYONE IN THE CITY, WORK FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY, SUPPORT THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY, AND LET'S DO WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYONE AND/OR WE CANNOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY, BUT WHAT DOES A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT TO DO? CONSIDER THAT. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE COMMENTS ON RELATED ISSUE? I'LL EVE IN PARKER LAKE, AND THERE'S STADIUM LIGHTS GOES UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY BROUGHT THAT UP.
HOWEVER, IF WE START DRILLING DOWN ON NOISE ON THIS, THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BRING IN STADIUM LIGHTS ON THE BACK YARD.
I KNOW IT PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO CONTROL THAT? ALSO, WITH THIS NOISE ISSUES, WE ARE GIVING SOME POWER TO THE LPDS TO ENFORCE THAT.
DO WE HAVE THE MANPOWER TO SUPPORT THAT? CAN AN OFFICER GO OUT THERE AND ENFORCE THAT BASED ON WHAT MECHANISM? LET'S THINK ABOUT IT, SEE IF IT'S REALLY IMPLEMENTED.
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY ARE THERE TO SERVE AND PROTECT.
WE HAVE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ENFORCE THE ORGAN.
ARE WE PUTTING MORE BURDEN ON AN OFFICER TO GO OUT THERE, CONTROL THE NOISE? LET'S LOOK AT IT. LET'S SEE WHAT WE COULD DO FOR EVERYONE IN CITY OF PARKER. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JOHNSON. MARCUS?
>> TO ADDRESS THE CITY AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR CONDUCTING ANOTHER NOISE ORDINANCE WORKSHOP AND WOULD RATHER HAVE PARKER RETURNING AS A TRANQUIL CITY, AS IT WAS BACK IN THE EARLY 1990S BEFORE SOUTH FORK STARTED MORE OF ITS NOISY BUSINESS OPERATIONS UNDER PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP WHILE CONDUCTING OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES WITHOUT A POLICY TO CONTROL THE PROBLEM DECADES AGO.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THIS POLICY, WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT A TRANQUIL COUNTY CITY IS THROUGH MY EXPERIENCE, BEING CLOSE TO SOUTH FORK.
I WILL CONSIDER MYSELF AS ANOTHER PERSON WHO AGREES WITH THE POLICE DISCRETION FROM ARRIVING BY A NEIGHBOR'S DOOR TO CALLING FOR POLICE BACKUP, FROM NEIGHBORING CITIES TO SUPPRESS PROTESTERS BLOCKING OUR ROADS AND CAUSING NOISE WITH THEIR CAR HORNS.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE USE THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT TO THE CITY FIRST.
OUR LOTS ARE NOT SMALL ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, NOT LITTLE SOUTH FORK BRANCHES, NOT CROSS CREEK RANCHES FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE EVENTS.
WHAT IS CONCERNING IS THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE WANT A CITYWIDE VOTE, WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A CITYWIDE VOTE LEGALLY WORKS.
YOU CANNOT HAVE CERTAIN SPEAKERS ALLOWED THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED A NOISE ORDINANCE IF IT'S CONCERT INDUSTRY BASED.
IF ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSES WANTS TO HOST BIRTHDAY PARTIES, PRIVATE EVENTS, AND HYPOTHETICALLY, NOT INVITING ALL OF PARKER RESIDENTS NEEDS TO KEEP THE VOLUME DOWN BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY SO BY THE RULE OF LAW.
EXPANDED VERSION OF THIS COMMENTARY HAS BEEN SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDED TO THE NEXT AGENDA MEETING.
MAKE PARKER UNIQUELY COUNTY AGAIN, NOT KEEP PARKER COUNTY. THANK YOU.
>> JOE CORDINA, 4302 BOULDER DRIVE.
IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME I COME HERE, I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT COUNTY, AND I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT PARKER AND ABOUT ALL THE GOOD THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO BE AND WE'RE BLESSED BY.
[01:00:03]
LET'S NOT FORGET THOSE THINGS.MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS MAYOR, WE ADOPTED A TAGLINE.
IT WAS CALLED KEEP PARKER COUNTY.
IT'S STILL THE TAG LINE TODAY.
IT'S GETTING LESS AND LESS VISIBLE BECAUSE WE'RE ALLOWING IT.
WE'RE NOT LETTING THE COUNTY COME THROUGH.
PEOPLE ARE BUYING PROPERTY, ARE LIVING IN PARKER, AND MORE THAT I MEET THESE NEW PEOPLE, I ASK, WHY DID YOU BUY IN PARKER? THEY SAY, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S A COUNTY.
I'VE YET TO HAVE ONE PERSON SAY TO ME, I MOVED TO PARKER SO I CAN LISTEN TO SOMETHING THAT THE LOUDEST MUSIC I WANT TO HEAR. NOT BECAUSE OF THAT.
THEY CAME HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE HERE IN A PLACE THAT IS UNIQUE, BUT IT IS ONE ASPECT.
IF WE LOSE SIGHT OF THAT, THEN WE FAIL.
IF WE FAIL, EVERYBODY GETS HURT, NOT JUST A FEW, EVERYBODY GETS HURT.
I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT AS THE COUNCIL GOES FORWARD, I KNOW THIS ORDINANCE THING HAS BEEN A BUGABOO.
IT'S DISTURBING A LOT OF PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO SIT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE RESTLESS, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH IT.
I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU GIVE YOU SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
DON'T GO ALONG WITH JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS IT'S TOO NOISY WHERE I LIVE.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU CAN MOVE.
IF IT'S TOO NOISY WHERE YOU LIVE, MOVE. YOU CAN DO THAT.
YOUR HOMES ARE WORTH A LOT OF MONEY.
WHAT WERE YOU PAID FOR IT? BUY ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S A MILE AWAY FROM THAT SPOT.
BESIDE MYSELF ABOUT THIS AND I'M NOT ALONE. I'M TELLING YOU.
I'VE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE, I GET EXACTLY THE SAME RESPONSE.
I'M HERE, JOE, BECAUSE I LOVE IT HERE.
IT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN FIND THAT IS COUNTY.
WELL, IF IT'S COUNTY, I SERVED OUR COUNTRY AND AS MOST OF YOU KNOW IN THE MILITARY FOR 30 YEARS.
I TOOK A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE ABOUT THINGS BECAUSE I WAS DEFENDING OUR NATION.
I WAS IN WAR. I SAW IT FIRSTHAND.
I REALIZED THE DANGER, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I WAS DEFENDING FREEDOM FOR US WHEN I GOT HOME.
IF IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU, THEN MOVE.
IF IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, DON'T PROCEED DOWN A TRACK, WHICH IS GOING TO ALIENATE YOU FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> AMANDA MILL 4307 SPRING HILL ESTATES DRIVE IN PARKER, TEXAS, GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEN, COUNCILWOMEN, AND MADAM MAYOR, CITY ATTORNEY, AND OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE THE CONTEMPLATION THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS.
I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS AND TALK TO AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE TO HEAR THE INPUT ON THIS MATTER.
BASED ON THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO SHARE A DEFINITION OF THE WORD PLAINLY AUDIBLE.
JUST DOING A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH, LOOKING AT A LEGAL WEBSITE.
DEFINING THE TERM PLAINLY AUDIBLE REFERS TO ANY SOUND THAT CAN BE CLEARLY HEARD BY ANY PERSON USING THEIR NORMAL HEARING ABILITIES WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY HEARING AIDS OR DEVICES.
THIS INCLUDES SOUNDS THAT ARE ALL LOUD ENOUGH TO BE DETECTED FROM A CERTAIN DISTANCE SUCH AS MUSIC OR SPEECH.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST HAVE YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORDS WE HEARD FROM OUR FINE POLICE OFFICER THIS EVENING, WHERE HIS INTERPRETATION, I'M GOING TO JUST PARAPHRASE, WAS THAT IF HE OR ANOTHER OFFICER ON OUR FINE POLICE STAFF, HEARS A LOUD SOUND FROM A PARTY, SUCH THAT THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE EXCESSIVELY LOUD TO A PERSON WHO'S RECEIVING THAT SOUND.
IN MY OPINION, AND I THINK IN A LOT OF PEOPLE'S OPINION, THAT LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT IS TOO SUBJECTIVE. IT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, IF IT'S LOUD TO THIS PERSON OR IF IT'S LOUD TO THAT PERSON, IT NEEDS TO BE MEASURABLE.
THE COUNSEL DID TAKE TIME AND DEFINED MEASURABLE LEVELS AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY.
IF THOSE ARE THE LEVELS AND TIMES OF DAY THAT YOU WANT TO USE, IT SHOULD BE APPLICABLE IN ALL CASES, NOT IN ONE CASE, IF AN OFFICER HEARS A SOUND THAT'S TOO LOUD, IN ANOTHER CASE, IF IT MEASURES A DIFFERENT LEVEL, IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT.
[01:05:03]
CONTEMPLATE ALL THE WORDS OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING.PLEASE REVIEW ALL THE WORDS, AND PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU COME OUT WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT TRULY DOES REFLECT WHAT YOU THINK ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE ASKING YOU TO DRAFT AND APPROVE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, MS. MILL. MR. MYER.
>> ALLEN MYER, 7278 MOSS RIDGE ROAD.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, AND FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I ATTENDED THE PAST TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEN THE NOISE ORDINANCE WAS ON THE AGENDA AND EXPRESSED MY OPPOSITION AT THAT TIME TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE.
IF MY RECOLLECTION IS CORRECT, I REMEMBER THAT THE BOARD PROPOSED TO REVISIT THE ORDINANCE, SCHEDULE A FOLLOW UP WORKSHOP IN JANUARY, AND THEN HAVE IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM AT A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING.
IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ON SUNDAY, LEARNING THAT THERE WAS A WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT FOLLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE BEING AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING.
IT AGAIN APPEARS THAT THE COUNCIL IS TRYING TO PUSH THIS ORDINANCE THROUGH WITHOUT ALLOWING THE RESIDENTS TO PROPERLY REVIEW ANY CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
THE TIMING OF THIS IN THE MIDST OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON APPEARS TO BE A PLOY TO PREVENT RESIDENT FEEDBACK.
DURING THE LAST MEETING, MR. PILGRIM REQUESTED THAT THE RESIDENTS REVIEW THE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK PRIOR TO ANY WORKSHOP.
TWO WEEKS WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE RESIDENTS TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGES PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE WORKSHOP AND POTENTIALLY A VOTE.
MANY OF THE RESIDENTS HAD REQUESTED A REFERENDUM OR PROPOSITION BE PUT ON THE BALLOT.
MAYOR PETTLE HAD EMAILED ME AND INFORMED ME THAT SINCE PARKER IS A TYPE A GENERAL-LAW CITY, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT.
I FOUND CONCURRING EVIDENCE OF HER STATEMENT.
HOWEVER, I ALSO FOUND REFERENCE THAT A TYPE A GENERAL-LAW CITY IS FREE TO CONDUCT A CITYWIDE POLL AND OR HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TOWN HALL TO GAUGE THE PREFERENCES OF THEIR VOTERS.
GIVEN THIS INFORMATION AND THE VOLATILE AND CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF THIS ORDINANCE, I URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT A CITYWIDE POLL AND/OR HEARING OF THE RESIDENT CITIZENS TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WISHES AND DESIRES OF THE MAJORITY OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
MR. PILGRIM ALSO STATED IN THE LAST COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS ORDINANCE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PARK OR RESIDENTS ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE.
ALL THE MORE REASON TO CONDUCT A CITYWIDE POLL OR HEARING FOLLOWING THE PUBLISHING OF THE UPDATED PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF PARK OR RESIDENTS CAN PROPERLY ARTICULATE THEIR CONCERNS TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO ANY VOTE.
DURING PAST MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN LESS THAN 1% OF THE 6,000 PLUS RESIDENTS THAT HAVE FILED COMPLAINTS, AND SOME OF THOSE ARE FROM REPEAT COMPLAINANTS.
LET'S NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE TO SATISFY LESS THAN 1% OF THE POPULATION.
THERE IS ALSO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT 2-3 OF THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE AMONG THE COMPLAINANTS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY CREATES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SHOULD DISQUALIFY THEM FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY VOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU. KEEP PARKER COUNTY.
NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST,
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
WHICH THE FIRST ONE IS THE LONE STAR SANTA TOY DRIVE.THE LONE STAR SANTA PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM WHERE THE LONE STAR SANTA ADOPTS AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER AND PROVIDES TOYS TO THE KIDS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THAT NATURAL DISASTER.
THIS YEAR, THEY'VE ADOPTED THE HILL COUNTRY AS THEIR AREA BECAUSE A LOT OF
[01:10:04]
THE KIDS THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THE FLOODS ON JULY 4TH DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LEFT.THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TOYS, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TEDDY BEARS, THEY LOST EVERYTHING.
THESE SANTAS ARE GOING THERE TO HELP OUT THERE.
IF YOU CAN PARTICIPATE, WE CERTAINLY WOULD APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE WE'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE KIDS BE RICHLY REWARDED FOR THE HELL THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH.
NEXT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT CITY HALL.
THE CITY HALL TOMORROW WILL BE CLOSED 11:30-1:30 SO THAT WE CAN HAVE OUR STAFF HOLIDAY LUNCHEON.
THE CITY HALL WILL ALSO BE CLOSED ON CHRISTMAS EVE, CHRISTMAS DAY, AND THE DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS, WHICH IS STANDARD HOLIDAYS.
IT WILL ALSO BE CLOSED ON NEW YEAR'S DAY.
EVERYBODY GOT THOSE HOLIDAYS DOWN.
NEXT IS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO MEET ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14TH AT 5:00 IN THIS ROOM.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CHECK WITH THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES OR MEETINGS BECAUSE THIS TIME OF YEAR, THINGS CAN BE PRETTY FLEXIBLE.
AS CAN TIMES BECAUSE OF PEOPLE'S SCHEDULES.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA,
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WHICH HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT.THE FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 19TH, 2025, WHICH WAS A REGULAR MEETING.
SECOND ITEM IS CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 906, PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF PARK RULES BY THE MAYOR OR CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS SOMETHING PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? MRS. HOPER.
>> HI, CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION BEFORE I DECIDE? I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT GOOD CAUSE WOULD BE.
>> PARK OFF FEST. CONSTANTS. IT WOULD BE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE BASICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY, BUT IT MAY BE HELD ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT WE MAY HAVE PARK RULES THAT WOULD AFFECT IF FOR EXAMPLE, NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES.
WE'LL USE GOLFS CARTS OR DRONES. MS. PARKER?
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON THAT SAME ONE.
IS THERE A REASON THAT WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS AND THAT THIS COULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN OUR PARK RULES? IS THERE A REASON?
IT USED TO BE IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS.
EITHER THE MAYOR OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR COULD WAIVE THE RULES AND IT DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL.
THAT GOT SOMETIME CHANGED WHEN ZOE WAS MAYOR, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ASKING FOR IT TO COME BACK BECAUSE TO TAKE UP COUNCIL TIME.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEING DONE, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE.
CAN'T WE JUST PUT IT INTO THE PARK RULES THAT THE RULES CAN BE WAIVED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OR THE MAYOR?
>> THIS IS JUST PUTTING INTO THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S NOT ITS OWN OR STAND ALONE ORDINANCE.
THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> AT THIS TIME, THEN, I WILL ASK IS THERE A MOTION?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
NEXT, WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE, ITEM NUMBER 6 IS CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 894, REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.
[01:15:01]
COUNCIL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER IN THE WORKSHOP.>> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THIS ITEM.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT.
IS THAT THE WISH OF COUNCIL THAT THIS? I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT OR WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
AT THIS TIME, THIS ITEM WILL BE WITHDRAWN.
>> I THINK WE WERE CLEAR IN THE WORKSHOP WHAT WE WANTED KATHERINE TO REWRITE, SO I THINK THAT'S SOME ACTION, BUT I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN STAFF DIRECTION IN THE WORKSHOP.
>> CAN WE JUST USE THAT? GO AHEAD, MR. PILGRIM.
IT WAS MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO THAT, JUST RECOLLECTION, ALLEN BELIEVED WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING A WORKSHOP IN JANUARY AND WE DID IT TONIGHT INSTEAD.
DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT OUR MINUTES REFLECT FROM LAST TIME AROUND?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MEETING.
>> MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT WE, LAST TIME SAID IT WOULD BE THIS TIME.
>> MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO BRING IT BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP AND IT WOULD ALSO BE ON THE AGENDA JUST LIKE IT WAS ON THE 12TH.
>> I COULDN'T REMEMBER FOR SURE.
I KNOW WHEN I SHOWED UP FOR THE AGENDA MEETING THIS PAST WEDNESDAY AND I SAW THAT THE WORKSHOP WAS PROPOSED TO BE TONIGHT.
I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BECAUSE I WAS THINKING IT WAS GOING TO BE FURTHER OUT THAN TONIGHT AND I HAD A DIFFICULT TIME BEING PREPARED WITH ONLY TWO WEEKS.
I CLEARLY DID NOT COME TONIGHT AS PREPARED AS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEEN TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARITY IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT.
I CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY, YEAH, WE DID AGREE TO DO IT IN JANUARY AND WE DID IT TONIGHT ANYWAY, BUT WHEN HE BROUGHT THAT UP, IT JUST MADE ME WONDER WHAT OUR MINUTES ACTUALLY REFLECT.
WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TYPE OR WE CAN LOOK AT THE MINUTES WHEN THEY'RE PUBLISH.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY THIS IN THE FUTURE.
I UNDERSTAND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DRIVE THIS TO A CONCLUSION, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE UP OR DOWN.
IF WE DID LAST TIME COMMIT TO DO A WORKSHOP IN JANUARY RATHER THAN TONIGHT, I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK AND HONOR THAT.
IF WE DIDN'T, IF WE JUST SAID, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FUTURE WORKSHOP AND TONIGHT SATISFY THAT, THEN THAT'S OKAY.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT.
WITH EVERYONE'S APPROVAL, WE WILL WITHDRAW ITEM NUMBER 6.
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2025-876 VOTING FOR 2026-2027 TEXAS COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE POWER (TECAP) BOARD OF DIRECTORS.]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-876, REGARDING VOTES FOR THE 2026-2027, TEXAS COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE POWER TCA BOARD OF DIRECTIONS.COUNCIL, AS YOU GOT IN YOUR PACKET, THERE ARE A BOARD OF DIRECTOR.
>> WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WERE NOMINATED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, INCLUDING OUR OWN DARREL SHARPE, WHO WE RATIFIED AT THE LAST MEETING TO BE OUR NOMINEE.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER PEOPLE THAT WE CAN DECIDE TO VOTE FOR.
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE HAD A SHEET LIKE THIS.
AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE PEOPLE THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? MISS BOGDAN.
>> I WOULD CAST A VOTE FOR COURTNEY ALVAREZ.
SHE CURRENTLY SERVES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SHE'S BEEN ON SINCE 2011.
[01:20:02]
I WOULD VOTE FOR HER. OMAR WILLIAMS, OF FATE, ALSO, I WAS INTERESTED IN VOTING FOR DUE TO HIS GRADUATE INTERN ON THE TCAP.I ALSO LIKED KINLEY HEGGLUND DUE TO BEING ON THE UTMOST STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HIS TOWN AND ON CORE STEERING COMMITTEE SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT.
OF COURSE, OUR OWN SPARKLING DARREL SHARPE UP THERE.
I ALSO LIKE DEWEY STOFFELS DUE TO HIS SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INTERESTS.
THOSE WERE MY FIVE THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN.
DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?
>> I WANT TO COMMENT. READING THAT PARAGRAPH AT THE TOP, IT SEEMS LIKE WE GOT TO LOOK AT IT BASED ON CONSUMPTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NAME MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THE LOW CONSUMPTION CATEGORY, BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN WE VOTE FOR IN THAT CATEGORY?
>> IT WASN'T SPECIFIC IN THE DIRECTIONS THAT WE HAD TO VOTE LIKE THAT.
IT JUST SAYS THAT THE TOP VOTES WILL GO TO THE PEOPLE AND THEN THE PEOPLE WILL BE FUNNELED INTO THE CORRECT POSITION.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE NEED TO VOTE BASED OFF OF THAT.
BUT YES, I COULD SEE WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM WHEN WE WERE READING THE DIRECTIONS AS FAR AS THAT THEY DO SEPARATE IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR VOTES THAT WAY.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANYBODY YOU WISHED TO NOMINATE? MISS HALBERT, DO YOU HAVE ANYONE YOU WISH TO NOMINATE OR COMMENT ON ANY OF THE NOMINATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE?
>> NO. ACTUALLY, I WAS IN ALIGNMENT WITH ROXANNE'S NOMINATIONS.
I WAS WONDERING ABOUT DEWEY STOFFELS IN GRAPEVINE.
HE'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER FOR CITY OF GRAPEVINE AND MANAGES ENVIRONMENTAL WORK.
>> NO, MA'AM. I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, MADAM MAYOR.
>> WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS VOTES FOR FIVE PEOPLE: COURTNEY ALVAREZ, OMAR WILLIAMS, KINLEY HEGGLUND, OUR OWN DARREL SHARPE, AND-
>> ROXANNE, DID YOU HAVE FIVE?
>> SOMEBODY ELSE HAD SOME INFORMATION.
>> WAS DEWEY STOFFELS ON YOUR LIST THOUGH?
>> DEWEY STOFFELS, HE WAS ON MY LIST AS WELL.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE MORE INCUMBENTS THAT I WOULDN'T MIND VOTING FOR, BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY RESPOND MUCH ABOUT OR SPEAK IN THE BIOS.
>> INTERESTING COMMENT FOR THE COMMITTEE.
>> DARREL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT FOLKS?
>> IS THERE ANY ONE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
>> MADAM MAYOR. DO WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR EIGHT OR CAN WE JUST DO FIVE AND NOT FEEL LIKE WE'RE COMPROMISING?
I THINK WE CAN DO ONLY FIVE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL, YOU CAN VOTE FOR LESS THAN EIGHT.
IF YOU WANTED TO THINK THROUGH STRATEGICALLY TO BEST POSITION INTERNAL CANDIDATE FOR THIS ROLE, YOU COULD CERTAINLY CAST YOUR VOTES TO THAT END.
>> I GUESS THEN MY QUESTION WILL BE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? IF NOT, THEN I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION, EXCUSE ME.
>> ARE YOU READY FOR THE MOTION?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO REPLACE OUR VOTES FOR THE TCAP BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH OMAR WILLIAMS, COURTNEY ALVAREZ, KINLEY HEGGLUND, DARREL SHARPE, AND DEWEY STOFFELS.
[01:25:04]
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROXANNE BOGDAN AND A SECOND BY COLLEEN HALBERT THAT REPLACE OUR VOTES FOR THE FOLLOWING FIVE PEOPLE: COURTNEY ALVAREZ, OMAR WILLIAMS, KINLEY HEGGLUND, DARREL SHARPE, AND DEWEY STOFFELS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY AGAINST? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU.
[8. DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2025-877 ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.]
DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-877, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.COUNCIL, YOU'VE HAD IN YOUR PACKET A START FOR WANT OF A BETTER TERM, A RESOLUTION TO BE REVIEWED AND ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING.
THIS IS A PLACE TO GET US STARTED AND I REALLY APPRECIATE KATHERINE DRAWING THIS UP AND PUTTING IT IN A GOOD SHAPE IN WHAT IT SAYS.
COUNCIL IS WELCOME TO MAKE COMMENTS, AMENDMENT. GO AHEAD, DARREL.
>> MY COMMENT IS ABOUT SECTION 5, WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE TO REQUEST 10 MINUTE SLOTS.
I THINK THAT GOT THE POTENTIAL TO GET VERY OUT OF CONTROL.
ALSO IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS ABOUT DECIDING WHICH ONES WOULD BE ALLOWED AND WHICH ONES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
I THINK IT CREATES A BURDEN ON WHOEVER THE DECISION MAKER IS.
I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT SECTION 5.
>> ARE YOU RECOMMENDING SECTION 5 BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY?
>> ANYBODY ELSE THINK THE SAME ONE?
>> YEAH AND I'M GOING TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE FROM CITY OF DALLAS.
THEY USED TO HAVE A RESTAURANT OWNER COME AND READ HIS MENU EVERY TIME.
THIS JUST GIVES HIM NOW 10 MINUTES OR SEVEN MINUTES MORE THAN HE HAD BEFORE, SO I I AGREE.
>> I'M FINE WITH GETTING RID OF THAT.
I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON ANOTHER ONE WHEN YOU GET HOME WITH THAT.
>> MR. SHARPE, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON TAKING OUT SECTION 5?
>> THANK YOU. CONSIDER SECTION 5 STRUCK. MR. PILGRIM.
>> I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON SECTION 4 WHERE WE SAY THE THREE MINUTES CAN'T BE DONATED TO ANY OTHER PERSON.
I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO DONATE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER PERSON TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE REASONABLE IF WE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF THREE-MINUTE UNITS THAT CAN BE DONATED TO ANY ONE PERSON.
BUT SOME PEOPLE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING PUBLICLY.
THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ARTICULATE ENOUGH OR WELL VERSED ENOUGH OR THEY'RE JUST NOT COMFORTABLE DOING IT, OR THEY MAY FEEL THAT ANOTHER PERSON HAS A BROADER POINT, CAN BETTER MAKE A POINT THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE AND OTHERS WANT TO MAKE IF IF THEY DO IT IN ONE SECTION RATHER THAN HAVING IT BROKEN UP.
MY OPINION ON THIS IS INFLUENCED SOME BY MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN DOING THIS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY TO GIVE SOMEBODY 30 MINUTES.
BUT WHEN I WATCH THE HEARINGS IN CONGRESS AND THEY HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO QUESTION SOMEONE OR SEVEN MINUTES OR WHATEVER THE AMOUNT OF TIME IS, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE IF PEOPLE QUESTION SOMEBODY FOR 15 MINUTES THAN FOUR SNIPPETS.
[01:30:04]
I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE IF WE'D ALLOWED TO HAVE MAYBE THREE MINUTES FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AT A MAXIMUM.>> WHAT HAPPENS IF I WANT TO GIVE YOU MY MINUTES, YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM YOUR MINUTES, YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM YOUR MINUTES? WHO MAKES THE DECISION?
>> THE PERSON DONATING THE MINUTES WOULD MAKE THE DECISION.
>> WELL, WHO DECIDES, SAY COLLEEN AND I DECIDE TO DO IT AT THE SAME TIME AND YOU'RE THE THIRD PERSON?
>> I THINK WE'D PUT THAT BACK ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
YOU'VE GOT A MAX OF THREE PEOPLE AND YOU DONATED, YOU FIGURE OUT WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE.
>> I AGREE. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HARD.
>> I THINK WHOEVER IS GIVING THEIR MINUTES UP MUST BE NOTICED.
BECAUSE IN THE PAST, THIS JUST I GIVE MY MINUTES TO BUDDY, I GIVE MY MINUTES TO BUDDY, AND BUDDY, YOU ENDED UP WITH 47 MINUTES TO BE HONEST.
>> I STILL THINK THAT THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE NOT SPEAKING, BUT ARE DONATING STILL NEED TO FILL OUT THAT CARD AS A PART OF THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE ADD A CHECKBOX.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THOSE YOU'VE ALREADY PRINTED.
BUT MAYBE ADDING A BOX THAT SAYS, DONATED TO, AND THE PERSON.
>> I DISAGREE. I THINK IF SOMEBODY IS NOT A GOOD SPEAKER, THEY CAN PUT THEIR COMMENTS IN WRITING AND SUBMIT IT THAT WAY.
I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF WAYS TO GET THEIR COMMENTS MADE WITHOUT HAVING TO PASS IT ON.
THEN I THINK IT GETS TO BE SOME GRANDSTANDING WHEN WE PASS SOME OF THOSE ON AND IT GETS SUPER-STACKED.
I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF SUPER-STACKING.
>> I GUESS I'M THE LAST ONE, I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE LANGUAGE AS IS.
>> I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE LANGUAGE AS IS.
>> YOU DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DONATE THEIR TIME?
>> YOU DO NOT AND HE DOES NOT.
I'LL GIVE YOU TO THE LAST COMMENT.
>> WELL, I HAD A QUESTION ON SECTION 6.
>> MY FINAL COMMENT REALLY WE'VE ALREADY MADE BEFORE.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW A PERSON TO HAVE UP TO TWO OTHER PERSONS, THREE MINUTES DONATED TO THEM FOR A TOTAL OF NINE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXCESSIVE.
IT'S ACTUALLY MORE EFFICIENT THAN IT TAKES THE TIME FOR THREE PEOPLE TO COME UP SEPARATELY AND SPEAK, AND I DON'T THINK THREE OF THEIR TIME IS EXCESSIVE.
I WOULD HAVE PROPOSED THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS EXCEPT THERE'S PROBABLY YOU NEED TO BE DOING THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT IF YOU WANT TO, WHICH IS FINE.
I RESPECT YOUR DECISION, BUT I THINK THAT DOES AWAY WITH TRANSPARENCY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THAT.
I CALL OUR MEETINGS BURDENSOME OR WHATEVER THE TERM WAS THAT WAS USED THAT WE HAVE HERE.
WE NEED TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IF SOMEBODY THINKS THEIR COMMENT CAN BE MADE MORE ARTICULATELY OR MORE EFFECTIVELY BY COMBINING IT WITH SOMEONE ELSE AND ALLOWING ANOTHER PERSON TO SPEAK IT, I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW THAT.
I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR SOMETHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH ME LAST TIME AROUND.
I DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT, DIDN'T EXPECT THAT, BUT I TOOK IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO ME, BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK.
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY PEOPLE COULD NOT GET TOGETHER PRIOR TO AND SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS IN WRITING WHAT
[01:35:01]
ROXANNE HAD TALKED ABOUT AS OPPOSED TO GIVING THEM AT THE MEETING IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK?>> ANYTHING I SAY ON THAT WOULD JUST BE SPECULATION, AND IT'S GOING TO VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON AND GROUP TO GROUP.
BUT I THINK I'VE SAID MY PIECE ON IT.
I WOULD RATHER ALLOW SOME DONATION.
>> AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNCIL REMOVE SECTION 4 IN OR REMOVE SECTION 4 OR MODIFY.
SECTION 4 STAYS. MISS HALBERT, YOU HAD A QUESTION ON SECTION 6?
>> YES. WHEN IT SAYS PUBLIC COMMENTS BY AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY SECRETARY UP TO 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE, IS THAT EMAIL WRITING OR LEGIT PAPER?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT 24 HOURS IS GOOD.
OUR GOAL ON THAT IS NOT TO GET COMMENTS TO YOU AT 6:45 WHEN WE'VE GOT A SEVEN O'CLOCK MEETING, AND YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM.
>> THAT WASN'T COLLEEN'S QUESTION.
HER QUESTION WAS WHEN WE SAY IN WRITING, DO WE MEAN JUST EMAIL OR WE MEAN SOMEBODY CAN ALSO SHOW UP HERE WITH A PIECE OF PAPER AND TURN IT IN?
>> BECAUSE WE DID JUST ADOPT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT.
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE, THEY JUST COME RIGHT TO US?
>> I WOULD THINK THIS IS REFERRING TO WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE.
I GUESS SOMEBODY COULD COME AND SAY, HERE'S MY WRITTEN COMMENTS.
BUT OUR GOAL IS TO GET THE INFORMATION TO COUNCIL WITH ENOUGH TIME FOR COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT.
BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW HOW HARD IT IS WHEN WE GET SOMETHING.
IF YOU'RE CAUGHT IN TRAFFIC, AND YOU GET SOMETHING.
WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, PATTY WANTED ENOUGH TIME TO BE ABLE TO GET IT AND MAKE SURE SHE WAS ABLE TO FORWARD IT.
WE COULD CHANGE THAT TIME IF YOU WANTED TO.
>> I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> I'D LIKE JUST SAY THAT SUBMITTED WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT PARKER, TEXAS.
I THINK WE PUT THE EMAIL ADDRESS IN THERE.
IT CLARIFIES WHAT AND HOW WE WANT IT IN, AND THEN WITH THE 24 HOURS, IT'S TO GIVE COUNCIL THE TIME TO READ IT AND ABSORB IT.
IF WE GET THESE THINGS TWO MINUTES BEFORE A MEETING, WE'RE NOT READING THEM AND WE'RE NOT GETTING CONSIDERATION.
I THINK IF WE JUST CHANGE THE WORDING TO SUBMITTED VIA PUBLICCOMMENTS@PARKERTEXAS.US , I THINK THAT'LL COVER IT.
THAT REMOVES PATTY FROM HAVING TO DO ADDITIONAL PRINTING AND FORWARDING AND ALL OF THAT.
>> PATTY, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
>> SHE SAID YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT, IF WE DO THAT, WE CAN TAKE OUT THE SECOND SENTENCE.
>> MAYOR, MAY I ASK FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF? I THINK IT'S VERY CONVENIENT THAT THOSE EMAILS WILL GO DIRECTLY TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS.
HOWEVER, WHAT IF PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE STILL COMING IN DURING THE MEETING? DO WE ATTACH THOSE TO THE MINUTES, EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T PROPERLY CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED?
>> WHAT THIS SAYS IS IF YOU DON'T SEND THEM IN TIMELY, IT'S GOING TO THE NEXT MEETING.
WE HAD AN ISSUE COME UP WITH THAT, WHERE WE GOT SOMETHING SUBMITTED I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DURING THE MEETING OR RIGHT AFTER THE MEETING AND IT'S GOING TO GO OVER.
BUT WE CAN MAKE THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT GIVES US TIME TO READ THEM AND IT GIVES PATTY TIME TO GET THEM READY TO ATTACH TO THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING.
ANYTHING THAT COMES IN AFTER THAT 24-HOUR PERIOD, IT MOVES TO THE NEXT MEETING.
COUNCIL WILL STILL GET THEM WHENEVER THEY SEND IT VIA
[01:40:03]
EMAIL OR WE GET IT IN TIMELY WHENEVER IT'S SHIPPED.WE JUST WON'T GET ATTACHED TO THE CERTAIN MINUTES.
>> IF COUNCIL GETS THEM EVEN THOUGH IT'S LESS THAN 24 HOURS AND YOU STILL WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM, THAT'S YOUR CALL.
>> OTHER JUST CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
WE DO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ITEM, AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS AN OPTION TO DO SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS RIGHT BEFORE.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONSIDER OR IF WE WANT TO LEAVE IT EVERYTHING AT THE FRONT.
>> WE HAVE DONE THAT ON OCCASION WHERE WE SAY, ITEM NUMBER 8, IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO COMMENT AT ITEM 8, THAT'S SOMETHING WE NORMALLY DO.
>> WE DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.
>> WE STILL HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE A SECTION IN HERE SAYING THAT? JUST BEING SURE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DARREL, I SEE YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH TAKING GREEN CARD OR JUST A CARD.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? MR. GILBERT.
DOES OUR CURRENT COMMENT CARD REQUIRE THAT THE PERSON LIST THE TOPIC THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON?
>> WHAT IT SAYS IS NAME, DATE, STREET ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM, EMAIL, I WISH TO SPEAK, I DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
WHAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ON HERE IS I WISH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS IF THEY COME TO THE MEETING WITH IT.
MAYBE WE NEED TO ADD THAT ON HERE.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, DO WE WANT TO REQUIRE THAT A PERSON DESIGNATE THE TOPIC THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON AS A PART OF COMPLETING THEIR COMMENT CARD? WELL, THERE'S A PLACE ON HERE THAT LISTS SUBJECT OR AGENDA ITEM, BUT IT'S OFTEN NOT FILLED OUT.
THE ONE I HAVE IN MY HAND RIGHT NOW IS NOT FILLED OUT.
THERE IS A PLACE FOR THEM TO MAKE SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS ON HERE.
I'M JUST THINKING RATHER THAN THEM BOTHERING PUTTING ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS ON HERE, MAYBE WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE THEM TELL US WHAT YOUR TOPIC IS GOING TO BE?
>> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND REQUIRING THAT.
>> BECAUSE OF THE BASIS FOR GOING TO SAY YOU CAN'T SPEAK IF YOU DIDN'T PLACE THAT ON THE CARD.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN NECESSARILY REQUIRE.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS PERSON'S CARD, SUBJECT TO JENNA ITEM, THEY PUT COMMUNITY.
THEY TALKED ON THE NOISE ORGANS.
DO WE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON HERE? NO? COLLEEN, WILL YOU SHAKE IT? NO?
>> NO. I THINK THE COMMENT CARD IS REALLY JUST FOR YOU TO CALL THEM UP.
WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEM, THEY'RE NOT REALLY PART OF THE RECORD, ARE THEY? BESIDES THE NAME.
>> WELL, PATTY, IF YOU WOULD COME UP TO THE MIC.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, I'M HAVING A VERY HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
>> I DO KEEP THEM AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THEY ARE KEPT WITH THE MINUTES.
>> DOES IT MATTER TO YOU IF THERE'S A TOPIC ON THERE OR NOT?
I DO LIKE WHEN I WRITE LEGIBLY BECAUSE TRYING TO READ PEOPLE'S NAMES AND THEIR ADDRESSES AND JUST TRYING TO
[01:45:03]
IDENTIFY JUST SO YOU MAY PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE WEIGHT TO AN ACTUAL PARKER RESIDENT VERSUS SOMEONE FROM PLANO THAT'S TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S AFFECTING THEM.THEIR COMMENTS ARE LEGIT, BUT WE MAY PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE WEIGHT WITH OUR ACTUAL PARKER RESIDENT.
>> THIS JUST SAYS STREET ADDRESS, IT DOESN'T ASK FOR CITY.
THAT'S NOT ALWAYS A GOOD ASSUMPTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, TYPICALLY WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP TO SPEAK, YOU'VE ASKED THEM TO ANNOUNCE THEIR NAME AND THEIR STREET ADDRESS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO CODIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS, DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT?
>> I THINK BY LAW YOU HAVE TO.
WHAT I WAS TOLD IN THE PAST IS WHEN PERSON COMES UP, YOU ALWAYS MAKE THEM GIVE THEIR NAME AND THEIR STREET ADDRESS.
I WAS TOLD, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ATTORNEY, THAT THAT HAD TO BE DONE. IS THAT ALL?
>> NO, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE, AND YOU CANNOT LIMIT COMMENT TO RESIDENTS ONLY.
IF SOMEONE COMES UP AND SAYS, I LIVE ON PLANET EARTH, YOU WILL GENERALLY LET THEM SPEAK.
>> I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE RESTRICT ANYONE FROM SPEAKING BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN ANOTHER CITY, I'M JUST SAYING, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO? ASK EACH PERSON THAT THEY HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND WHERE THEY LIVE? JUST SAY, I'M BUDDY PILGRIM, I LIVE AT 3106 PLUS LANE, PARKER, TEXAS.
DO WE WANT THAT TO REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO SPEAK? I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF PARKER WING AND WE COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE A DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY BROUGHT IN BUSLOADS OF PEOPLE FROM EL PASO AND SAID, SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL PARKER RESIDENTS.
>> THE WAY IT'S PHRASED RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY SHOULD COMPLETE THE COMMENT CARD, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THOSE THINGS.
DO YOU WANT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED ON IT, OR IS IT SUFFICIENT TO SAY COMPLETE IT?
>> IT DOESN'T. HERE, HAND THAT DOWN TO HER.
NOW, I NEED THESE BACK FOR PATTY. BUT IT DOESN'T.
MOST PEOPLE JUST PUT DOWN THEIR STREET ADDRESS, THEY DON'T INDICATE WHAT CITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO PUT THAT ON THERE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST PEOPLE FROM MURPHY, WE'VE HAD OTHER FROM DALLAS AND VARIOUS PLACES.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO INTIMIDATE ANYBODY OUT OF SPEAKING.
I JUST THINK IT'S GOOD FOR US TO KNOW, IS THIS OUR RESIDENT OR NOT? I GUESS THIS IS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, IS IF SOMEBODY ONLY PUTS THEIR NAME ON HERE AND NOTHING ELSE, SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND CALL THEM UP AND SAY, FINISH FILLING OUT YOUR GREEN CARD OR YOUR PURPLE CARD OR WHATEVER.
[LAUGHTER] FINISH FILLING OUT YOUR CARD, OR DO I JUST LET IT SLIDE?
>> TYPICALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO GIVE THEIR ADDRESS ANYWAY WHEN THEY COME UP.
>> MY WHOLE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THIS A REQUIREMENT SO THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT.
ARE WE GOING TO LET SOME PEOPLE SHOW UP AND SAY, NO, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, WHAT MY NAME IS OR WHERE I LIVE, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK.
>> WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT OUR POLICY IS.
IF OUR POLICY IS YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR STREET AND CITY THAT YOU LIVE ON, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE US YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER, WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE, I THINK, WHAT INFORMATION WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO REQUIRE.
IF SOMEONE DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, EITHER BY NOT BEING WILLING TO ANNOUNCE IT PUBLICLY OR NOT FILLING OUT THE CARD, THEN THEY FORFEIT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> WOULD THAT NOT BE COVERED UNDER SECTION 2?
>> YES. I THINK NUMBER 2 IS WRITTEN HOW WE WANT IT.
WE WANT THEM TO FILL OUT THE COMMENT CARD AND WE'RE GOOD, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME INTEREST IN AMENDING THE CARD TO INCLUDE MORE ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
>> WELL, THE INFORMATION I'M LOOKING FOR IS A NAME, ADDRESS, AND THAT'S ALREADY ON THERE.
[01:50:01]
>> IF I PUNCH THAT IN, YOU DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO COME UP?
>> USUALLY, I WOULD SAY MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT FROM PARKER WILL SAY SOMETHING.
IS IT OKAY? I'M FROM MURPHY AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK.
IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? BUT NOT EVERYBODY DOES.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE CAROLYN'S BEEN HERE TO SPEAK. I KNOW CAROLYN.
I MAY NOT ASK HER BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE CAROLYN LIVES.
>> I DO TRY TO IDENTIFY THEM THE CITY WHETHER THEY'RE IN PARKER OR NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU MAY GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO A PARKER RESIDENT, BUT THAT'S TOTALLY YOU-ALLS DECISION OR WHATEVER.
BUT IF YOU NOTICE IN THE MINUTES, NORMALLY, I'LL PUT, AND LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WRITE IT IN AND THEN THEY DON'T SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MIC.
IT IS DIFFICULT, BUT WE DO TRY TO TRACK THEM DOWN AND TRY TO GIVE JUST SOME IDENTITY TO THEM JUST SO YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM WITH THE COMMENTS.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MODIFY THE COMMENT CARD TO INCLUDE CITY?
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. EXCELLENT.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS, AND THIS IS REALLY A KATHERINE QUESTION.
IF SOMEBODY DOES THIS, BUT NEEDS A TRANSLATOR INTERPRETER, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE COME THAT ENGLISH WAS NOT THEIR LANGUAGE?
>> TYPICALLY, SOMEONE WOULD BRING THEIR OWN INTERPRETER WITH THEM IF THEY KNEW THEY HAD IT OR THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO THE CITY IN ADVANCE.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ON THE MEETING NOTICE SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO APPROACH THAT.
OF COURSE, THEN THAT GIVES RISE TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY LANGUAGES ARE YOU GOING TO TRANSLATE THE AGENDA INTO.
>> WE DO HAVE IT ON IN THERE AND WE DO HOPE THAT THEY GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO ACTUALLY FIND SOMEONE AND HAVE THEM PRESENT OR BRING THEIR INTERPRETER LIKE YOU SAID.
>> WE'VE HAD THAT I CAN REMEMBER, A LADY CAME.
SHE DID NOT SPEAK THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
SHE BROUGHT HER CHILD WITH HER AND HER CHILD TRANSLATED WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY.
ANOTHER ONE, A GENTLEMAN SPOKE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
I'M NOT SURE ANY OF US KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HIS LANGUAGE WAS.
AFTER REALIZING WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CAPABILITIES, HE ENDED UP CHOOSING NOT TO SPEAK.
I THINK HE TALKED TO YOU AFTER A MEETING OR TRIED TO TALK TO YOU AFTER A MEETING.
BUT I GUESS YOU REALLY JUST CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN.
>> WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE SAME ISSUES WITH COURT AND WITH THE FRONT DESK WHEN WE'RE DOING BUILDING PERMITS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
THEY WILL BRING SOMETIMES ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER, A CHILD, OR WHATEVER TO TRY TO HELP GET THEIR POINT ACROSS AND THAT WE DO SOMETIMES USE SOME INTERPRETER.
YOU'VE GOT SOME THINGS SOMETIMES ON YOUR PHONE THAT YOU CAN USE.
BUT MOST OF THE ONES WE HAVE HERE ARE SPANISH.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT CAN HELP US WITH THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE IT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER INSTANCES BESIDES COUNCIL MEETING THAT WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEONE THAT CAN INTERPRET.
>> I THINK IT'S ADDRESSED IN THE AGENDA.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, I WILL JUST CLARIFY THAT IF ANYBODY DOES HAVE A REASONABLE NEED FOR ACCOMMODATIONS ON THIS, WE JUST SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE, AND WE WILL GET THEM PROFESSIONAL INTERPRETIVE SERVICES SO THAT THAT THEIR COMMENTS, THEIR POINT OF VIEW CAN BE HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD BY COUNSEL.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT CHANGED ON THE CARD? OKAY.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE NO ACTION BUT STAFF HAVE DIRECTION.
>> WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO IS GIVE STAFF INSTRUCTION TO MODIFY
[01:55:06]
THIS AS WE'VE DONE TONIGHT AND BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 6, ALONG WITH THE AMENDED COMMENT CARD SO WE CAN THEN GO ON AT THAT TIME.>> I HOPE YOU HAVEN'T PRINTED 100,000 CARDS ALREADY.
>> MAYOR, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE CHANGES THAT HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED TONIGHT ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE THOSE TONIGHT, I THINK STAFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS.
>> OKAY. IN THAT CASE, I THOUGHT YOU WERE.
>> DO I NEED TO LIST THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 2025-877 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.
SECTION 2, REMOVE THE WORD GREEN FROM THE COMMENT CARD, TO REMOVE SECTION 5.
ON SECTION 6, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE, IT'S GOING TO READ, PUBLIC COMMENTS BY AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING VIA THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT PARKERTEXAS.US UP TO 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE SECOND SENTENCE.
THE SECRETARY WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH COMMENTS TO THE MAYOR AND EACH COUNCIL, THAT'LL BE REMOVED.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.
>> ADD THE CITY TO THE ADDRESS ON THE COMMENT CARD.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROXANNE BOGDAN, AND A SECOND BY BILLY BARN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-877.
NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-887 AS AMENDED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5,0.
NOW, THE LAST THING IS THE FUN THING.
[9. CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND/OR DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING ALCOHOL ON CITY PREMISES ]
ITEM NUMBER 9, CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND/OR DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING ALCOHOL ON CITY PREMISES.WHAT THIS IS REFERRING TO IS NOT US BRINGING A BOTTLE OF WINE AND ENJOYING IT DURING A COUNCIL MEETING.
IT IS MORE IN TERMS OF A CITY EVENT SUCH AS PARKER FEST.
WE COULD HAVE TACO AND TEQUILA TRUCK OR A CRAFT BEER OR SOME APPROVED ALCOHOL THAT THAT GOES BY TABC RULES.
I WENT AND TALKED TO THE PEOPLE AT MURPHY AND BOTH OF YOU ALL WERE AT MURPHY.
SO YOU ALL ARE AWARE THAT WHAT MURPHY DOES IS THEY SIMPLY PERMIT THE VENDOR AND EVERYTHING AS TO LIABILITY IS ON THE VENDOR FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TABC RULES AND ALL OF THAT.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY THEY DID IT.
THEY TOLD ME IT HAS INCREASED THEIR REVENUE AT EVENTS AND THEIR SALES TAX SIGNIFICANTLY, WHICH I THINK FOR PARKS AND REX, THAT'S IMPORTANT.
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL MIGHT FEEL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT ALCOHOL AT EVENTS. MR. BARON.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD DEPARTMENT'S OPINION CAUSED THEM AN UNDUE BURDEN.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP TO HERE.
>> WITH OUR CURRENT STAFFING, IT COULD BE CHALLENGING, BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS WE COULD FIND STAFFING BY OUTSOURCING LIKE MURPHY, BRINGING EXTRA DUTY AND OTHER OPTIONS.
THERE'S WAYS WE COULD DO IT IF WE HAD TO.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE COULDN'T MANAGE.
[02:00:04]
>> WELL, THAT MAKES ME QUESTION IF WE'RE HAVING TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO ALLOW THIS.
ARE WE GAINING ANYTHING AT THE END OF THE DAY FROM THE SALES TAX?
>> WE COULD CHECK WITH MURPHY TO SEE HOW MANY COMPLAINTS OR ISSUES THEY HAVE HAD COME UP BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALCOHOL AT ALL OF THEIR FESTIVITIES NOW FOR MAYS DAYS ON, AS FAR AS I KNOW, MISS BOGDAN.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE THE INFORMATION IN WRITING TO SEE OR DO THEY ALLOW GLASS BECAUSE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF WALKING AROUND WITH GLASS BEER BOTTLES AND BREAKING AND HAVING THAT IN THE GRASS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT.
BESIDES THE LEGAL ASPECT AND GETTING ALL THAT VERBIAGE DOWN FOR ANY OF THE VENDOR TRUCKS THAT COME THROUGH.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POLICE ANY OF THE BIG EVENTS ANYWAY.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT MUCH MORE AND MOST OF OUR EVENTS ARE NOT ALL DAY, BIG HUGE DRAWN OUT LONG THINGS ARE USUALLY SHORT, SMALL AT THIS POINT.
SO WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT SHOULD SOMETHING BIG COME ALONG BUT I DON'T SEE IT BEING THAT BIG OF A PROBLEM.
>> THIS IS PRIMARILY A QUESTION AROUND PARKER [INAUDIBLE] OF GLASS TO OTHER OPTIONS IF THAT [INAUDIBLE] SOMETHING LIKE THAT [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THIS COULD BE [INAUDIBLE]
>> AS JUST TO SAY, IT COULD ENCOMPASS OTHER THINGS BESIDES PARKER FEST.
SUPPOSE WE DECIDE TO DO A CONCERT IN THE PRESERVE OR YOU NAME IT.
WE COULD. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF MURPHY OR OTHER CITIES ABOUT HOW THEY HANDLE THIS AND WHAT PROBLEMS IT HAS CAUSED THAT MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ASK. GO AHEAD.
>> BILLY, YOU HAD A QUESTION AND THEN I'VE GOT.
>> WELL, I WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT BACK TO DARREL.
PARKER FEST IS A LOSING MONEY, AND FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, MOST EVENTS IN MOST CITIES ARE NOT PROFITABLE FOR THE CITY.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AS A WAY TO OVERALL GAIN REVENUE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I ACTUALLY WAS ON COUNCIL IN MURPHY WHEN WE SWITCHED IT FROM FALL FUSS, WHICH WAS HOT DOGS AND BOTTLED WATER AND FUNNEL CAKES.
THAT WAS A HUGE DRIVER OF BRINGING PEOPLE IN.
FOR A LONGER DAY, YOU DEFINITELY DO HAVE MORE LIKELY ISSUES AND EVEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH, OVERHEATING, OVER IMBIBING.
BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH EVENT, SAYING, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS EVENT? WHAT DOES THIS BRING TO IT? ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL PEOPLE AT PARKER FEST? I DON'T THINK FOR PARKER FEST, IT WOULD BE A REVENUE DRIVER.
[02:05:01]
IT WOULD BE MORE GETTING TRAFFIC OUT TO THE EVENT, WHEREAS SOMETHING LIKE MURPHY USED TO DO CRAWFISH AND CRAFT BEER, AND THAT WAS ENTIRELY DRIVEN BY THE ALCOHOL SALES AND SO PEOPLE WERE PAYING A LOT MORE TO ATTEND THAT EVENT, SO IT WAS LESS OF MONEY LOSS.>> THIS PAST YEAR WITH PARKER FEST, WE HAD TWO PEOPLE THAT ASKED THEY WANTED TO BE A VENDOR AND GET A BOOTH.
ONE WAS A CRAFT BEER PERSON, AND HE WANTED TO DO A DEMONSTRATION AND HAND OUT BEER.
ANOTHER WAS ONLINE SIMILAR TYPE DEAL.
I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO HAVE ALCOHOL AT EVENTS? IF WE DO, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.
I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK STAFF OR GO OUT AND GET A WHOLE BUNCH OF MORE INFORMATION, AND THEN EVERYBODY SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
IS IT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, CAN I LOOK INTO?
>> I FEEL LIKE IT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER AND THEN WE GO INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS AS THEY ARISE.
>> I AGREE. I THINK HAVING A BEER AT A HOT DOG TRUCK IS NOT GOING TO BE THIS BIG DEAL, BUT I THINK IF WE WANT TO LOOK INTO THE FUTURE AND LOOK AT BIG CRAFT BEER FESTIVALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S WAY DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR RESOURCES ARE DRAINED WITH PARKER FEST.
THAT'S MORE OF A FAMILY ENVIRONMENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ALCOHOL CELLS ARE GOING TO BE GOING WITH THAT, BUT IT COULD CHANGE.
I COULD DEPENDING ON WHAT'S THERE.
>> I;M FINE WITH ALLOWING SOME ALCOHOL SALES AT THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THINGS A LOT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BRING US A LOT OF EXTRA BUSINESS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S EITHER GOING TO COST US A LOT OF EXTRA MONEY OR GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL SALES TAX.
BUT IT ALLOW US TO PICK UP A COUPLE EVENTS A YEAR OR SOMETHING.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU ALL IS LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND INVESTIGATE AND GET MORE INFORMATION THEN ONCE WE HAVE THAT, WE WILL COME BACK AND REVISIT ON WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT TO DO.
AM I INTERPRETING THAT RIGHT? BILLY, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT ME.
NOW WE WILL GO TO THE ROUTINE ITEMS.
[10. UPDATE(S)]
KENT, I THINK YOU'RE DOING MOST OF THE UPDATES TONIGHT.YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT 2551?
>> I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE ON 2551.
SORRY, MAYOR. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS PROCEEDING ON TRACK.
>> HOW ABOUT, WELL, THIS IS BUDDY, TCQ.
>> JUST ONE THING ON TCQ, THE SOA HEARING, WHICH HAS PRETTY MUCH BEEN DORMANT SINCE SEPTEMBER WHEN WE WERE ALIGNED INTO FOUR DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT GROUPS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS, AND THEN WE'VE GOT PARKER AND MURPHY IS THE TWO CITY PROTESTANTS IN IT.
NOTHING'S BEEN DONE. THE RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS ATTORNEY SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL PARTIES YESTERDAY WITH THEIR PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER, AND THEY PROPOSED A SCHEDULING ORDER THAT WOULD HAVE A HEARING OCCUR, WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS A TRIAL IN COURT.
THE HEARING OR THE TRIAL OCCUR IN JULY OF 2026, SO THE CITY OF PARKER, THE CITY OF MURPHY, AND THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS NEED TO REPLY TO THAT.
WHAT I'VE HEARD THUS FAR FROM ALL PARTIES I'VE TALKED TO IS THAT WE NEED TO RESPOND WITH NO SOONER THAN NOVEMBER OF 2026 OR JANUARY 2027 AS THE TRIAL DATE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY NEW PARTICIPANTS IN THE CASE THIS TIME AROUND.
PROPOSALS WILL BE GOING BACK TO TCQ OR BACK TO SOWER COURT, PROBABLY SOON. NO RESPONSE TO THAT.
>> WHO SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THOSE?
>> ART WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT, ART RODRIGUEZ, AND I DON'T KNOW IF KATHERINE WAS COPIED ON IT OR NOT.
>> DID THE FOUR LEADERS OF THE PROTESTANT GROUP GET IT?
>> YES. THE FOUR LEADERS OF THE PROTESTANT GROUP.
THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS DIDN'T GET IT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE WHAT WE AGREED THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN COURT IS
[02:10:03]
THAT EVERYBODY WOULD REMAIN ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE FOUR APPOINTED HEADS OF THAT.IT CAME IN YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT TIME, BUT ANYWAY, I DID NOTICE NO ONE BUT THE FOUR AND THE CITY OF MURPHY AND THE CITY OF PARKER.
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE FOUR GROUP HEADS.
>> I KNOW I NEED TO DISTRIBUTE IT OUT TO INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS, AND THEN I THINK ULTIMATELY THE PROTESTANTS, SINCE MURPHY AND PARKER PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE SOME UNITED COUNTEROFFER TO RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER.
>> MR. MANTON AND I ALREADY SCHEDULED TO GO TO THE LUCAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY NIGHT.
IT'S ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THEM TO DISCUSS, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND SAY THERE THAT EVENING.
>> DARREL, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? THERE ARE SO MUCH FOR DARREL. THE CAPITAL.
>> THANK YOU. ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WE'RE A LITTLE BEHIND.
MEANING, KATE AND MYSELF BUT WE PLAN TO HAVE TO PLAN TO DO IT ON?
>> I HAVE A CONFIRMED DATE ON THAT ONE, MAYOR.
SOME OTHER PRIORITIES HAVE ARISEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.
I KNOW GRANT HAS FINISHED HIS TABLE UPDATES.
IT'S OVER IN MY COURT TO JUST UPDATE A LOT OF THE WORDING AND PROJECTS BEFORE WE GET THAT TO YOU FOR FURTHER REVIEW BEFORE GETTING TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE IT IN JANUARY.
>> YES. MAYOR, GARY IS OUT THIS EVENING, SO I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON THAT ONE.
THIS PROJECT IS STILL IN DESIGN.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, TODAY, WE AUTHORIZED A CHECK TO GO OUT FOR SOME OF THE ENGINEERING FEES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
WATER LINES HAVE BEEN RUN TO THIS LOCATION.
THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE MOVING THIS PROJECT TO BID.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS.
WE'VE GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT FACILITIES PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, AND THEY ALL INTERRELATE AS TO COST AND TIMELINES.
WE'LL LIKELY NEED SOME FURTHER DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL, AND WE'LL ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME UPDATES ON HOW SOME OF THOSE PRIORITIES STACK UP WITH ONE ANOTHER.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING? MR. BALACK.
>> BASICALLY, WE HAVE A MOLD ISSUE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE ACTUALLY, HVAC GUY ALREADY CAME OUT AND SAID THAT IT'S PROBABLY THE UNITS.
WE ALSO WENT OUT FOR TESTING, AND IT CAME BACK THAT THERE WAS MOLD INSIDE THE DUCTWORK.
DUCK WORK IS MADE OF HARD FIBERGLASS, SO WE CAN'T REALLY CLEAN IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE IT.
THE TESTING ALSO CAME BACK VERY HIGH FOR ALLERGENS.
IT'S NOT A BLACK MOLD ISSUE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WHERE SOMEBODY HAS ALLERGIES, IT CAN MAKE THEM SICK AND ILLS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ADDRESS.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE ONE BIDDING.
I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING OUT FOR A SECOND BID NOW TO SEE HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST.
>> THANK YOU, SERGEANT BALACK. YES. MOLD HAS BEEN DISCOVERED INSIDE PD.
MOST OF THIS IS ALL RELATED TO HIGH LEVELS OF HUMIDITY INSIDE THE BUILDING.
WE'VE HAD AT LEAST ONE HVAC CONTRACTOR COME OUT TO QUOTE THAT.
HE HAS QUOTED FOR NOT ONLY THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO UNITS.
HE HAS DETERMINED TO BE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THAT EXCESSIVE MOISTURE INSIDE THE BUILDING.
HE'S ALSO GIVEN US A QUOTE TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE BETWORK, ALSO TO ATTEMPT A CLEAN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CLEANED.
[02:15:02]
I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT THRESHOLD.HE'S ALSO RECOMMENDING SOME MOLD MITIGATION STANDARDS GOING FORWARD.
WE DO HAVE THAT MOLD ASSESSMENT REPORT IS VERY DETAILED, VERY THOROUGH.
I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT OUR CONTRACTOR FOR THAT HAS MENTIONED THAT HE CAN ALSO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARITY, INFORMATION, FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, AND POTENTIALLY EVEN GET HIM INVOLVED IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU'D LIKE TO GO.
OUR DESIRE IS TO GET AT LEAST TWO MORE QUOTES FOR THE HVAC REPLACEMENT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THAT.
I KNOW CHIEF PRICE AND THE SERGEANTS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO DIRECT OUR OFFICERS TO STAY OUT OF THAT BUILDING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
IT IS NOT A LONG-TERM HEALTH THREAT.
WE'VE BEEN INFORMED, BUT WE'VE ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR, AND SO HE CANNOT MAKE THAT, I GUESS, ASSESSMENT AS A PART OF HIS REPORT.
BUT WE ARE DIRECTING OFFICERS TO ALSO PUT ON A MASK WHEN THEY DO HAVE TO GO INSIDE THE BUILDING, JUST LIMIT CONTACT.
ESSENTIALLY, THE MOLD POPULATION INSIDE THE BUILDING IS ABOVE AVERAGE.
NORMAL REASONABLE PEOPLE WHO DON'T TYPICALLY EXPERIENCE ALLERGIES DUE TO MOLD WOULD EXPERIENCE SOME ISSUES IF THEY WERE IN THAT BUILDING FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION, AS FAR AS THE FUNDING GOES WITH THIS ONE, WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE 46,000 REMAINING IN OUR BUILDING MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING COST ESTIMATES AROUND THE $30,000 MARK.
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL BECAUSE WE ARE SHOPPING AROUND RIGHT NOW.
BUT I CAN ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT OUR APPROACH ON THIS.
>> HAS IT BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT WE GET MOLD STUDIES ON THE MOLD THAT WAS FOUND IN BUILDINGS [INAUDIBLE]?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING, PART OF THAT REPORT, CULTURES WERE TAKEN.
SAMPLES WERE TAKEN, THEY WERE GROWN OVER, I THINK, A 1-2 DAY PERIOD.
THAT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIES OF MOLD THAT ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO HEALTH AT ANY THRESHOLD.
>> AT THIS POINT, THE BUILDING IS SAFE FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME FOR A PERSON TO GO IN THERE, NOT STAYING HERE.
>> THE MOLD ASSESSOR COULD NOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION FOR US.
HE DIRECTED US TO A PHYSICIAN.
STAFF IS WORKING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE ARE STILL OKAY TO BE GOING IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING, BUT WE WANT TO LIMIT EXPOSURE AND TAKE AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION TO MAKE SURE OUR PEOPLE ARE TAKEN CARE OF.
>> BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANY REST TO OUR PEOPLE, THAT PUTS IT IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT CATEGORY AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
I DON'T WANT ANY OF OUR PEOPLE TO BE PUT IN A HAZARDOUS SITUATION.
>> I'LL LOOK AT YOU. THE ONLY OTHER UPDATE I HAVE IS ON HOME HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THE HOME HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTRACT IS UP AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.
WE AT THE CITY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND RENEWAL OF IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE HOPING TO TALK TO REPUBLIC WASTE ABOUT THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING INSTEAD.
DID YOU HAVE SOME FIGURES ON THAT ON HOME HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHAT IT COSTS, AND WHAT WE WILL SAY IF WE DON'T RENEW?
>> YES, MA'AM. TO THE CREDIT OF YOURSELF AND OUR FINANCE TEAM, THIS PROGRAM WAS EXPERIENCING VERY LOW UTILIZATION RATES, I THINK MAYBE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED PER YEAR, AND WE'RE PAYING OUT ABOUT $2,500 PER MONTH.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS FOR US.
I THINK IF THE PROGRAM IS POPULAR ENOUGH, YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONTINUE RESEARCHING OTHER OPTIONS, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
BUT OUR PLAN AS OF RIGHT NOW IS TO DISCONTINUE THE SERVICE AND THEN TO WORK WITH REPUBLIC DURING THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CONTRACT RENEWAL TO SEE IF WE CAN'T GET THIS SERVICE WALKED BACK IN, WHETHER THAT'S DOOR TO DOOR OR MAYBE THAT'S A CENTRALIZED LOCATION PICKUP, OR MAYBE WE GO LOOKING AT ILAS WITH OTHER NEIGHBORING CITIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
>> THAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE MY SUGGESTION, IS TO MAYBE DO IT ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR LIKE THE DRUG TAKE BACK, BUT FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE AS WELL, WITH WHOEVER?
>> THIS JUST WOULDN'T BE COST-EFFECTIVE TO PAY
[02:20:04]
THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY EVERY MONTH WHEN MAYBE YOU HAVE 1 OR 2 PEOPLE.[11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?>> I WAS LOOKING OVER THE P&Z MINUTES.
I BELIEVE THEY KICKED COMMERCIAL ZONING BACK TO COUNSEL MONTHS AGO, AND ANYWAY, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT TO SEE IF IT NEEDS TO BE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR US.
>> P&Z REFERRED IT BACK TO COUNSEL, SAYING, CAN'T WE USE THIS CURRENT ORDINANCE WE HAVE?
>> WELL, I'M PULLING THIS FROM THEIR MINUTES.
>> WELL, I'D BE HAPPY TO PUT THIS ON HERE, AND I'LL LOOK INTO IT, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I ASKED GARY WHY THE DECEMBER MEETING OF P&Z WAS CANCELED BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEVERAL SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICTS SIGN OR SEVERAL THINGS FROM US.
THE ONLY ANSWER I GOT WAS WASN'T A GOOD TIME TO HAVE A MEETING, WHICH I THINK HE MEANT, HE COULDN'T GET A QUORUM, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I'LL LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE WHERE WE ARE AND IF WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND SEE WHERE IT IS.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION NUMBER 551.0711, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR 551.0712 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 WITH THIS CHAPTER ON ANY AGENDA ITEM LISTED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THIS AGENDA OR ON THE SUBJECT MATTER LISTED BELOW.GREGORY LANE LITIGATION, RESTORE THE GRASSLAND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/MUD AND LAURIS LANE.
AT THIS TIME, WHICH IS 8:33, WE ARE IN RECESS TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I HEREBY RECONVENE THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.]
IT IS DECEMBER 16, 2025, AT 9:22.AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE?
>> HEARING NONE, I WILL ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL? HEARING NOTHING.
WE WILL ADJOURN. IT IS 9:23.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.