[00:00:03] >> I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2026. [CALL TO ORDER] TO ORDER, IT IS 6:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I WILL NOTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BILLY BARRON IS OUT ILL TONIGHT AND WILL NOT BE JOINING US. WE WILL FIRST GO TO WORKSHOP, [WORKSHOP ] WHICH IS ON THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE. AS I UNDERSTOOD THE WORKSHOP, IT WAS TO DEAL WITH ANY LANGUAGE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE BY KATHERINE TO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO KATHERINE TO PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. >> THANK YOU. YOU'VE RECEIVED A UPDATED OR NOT UPDATED, BUT A DRAFT THAT HAS A FEW ADDITIONAL CHANGES PROPOSED IN IT. IN 131 OF 4A4, THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED FOR A PRESUMPTION OF A NOISE NUISANCE WITHIN 30 FEET OF A VEHICLE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY INTENDED TO APPLY MORE THAN 30 FEET FROM A VEHICLE. YOU'LL SEE THAT PROPOSED CHANGED MARKED TO BEYOND 30 FEET. IN 13105, THERE ARE SEVERAL CHANGES THAT ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. THE PRIMARY INTENT, WELL, BECAUSE NOISE NUISANCE IS SET OUT IN 131.04, AND BECAUSE THIS SECTION APPEARED TO HAVE A CIRCULAR DEFINITION OF IT, THERE'S AN EDIT THERE TO USE PROHIBITED NOISE RATHER THAN NOISE NUISANCE AND THEN REFERS BACK TO NOISE NUISANCE IN 13104. THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THESE CHANGES IN THIS SECTION IS TO HELP THE READER UNDERSTAND THAT 13105 IS INTENDED TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH 13104. THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN A3 REFER TO THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVEL SECTION. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS TODAY, I REALIZED THAT THAT PARTICULAR CHANGE DRAFTED HAD A TYPO AND THAT IT REPEATS THE CLAUSE AT A DISTANCE AND I'VE SINCE REMOVED THAT IN THE VERSION THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'S IT. >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> I DO. >> MR. PETTLE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I HAVE A QUESTION. IT IS ABOUT 13105. I'VE ACTUALLY GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO RAISE TONIGHT BECAUSE I THINK I ADMITTED PUBLICLY LAST TIME AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP. I WASN'T ADEQUATELY PREPARED FOR THE WORKSHOP LAST TIME AROUND BECAUSE OF SOME THINGS THAT I HAD COME UP THAT INTERFERED WITH MY SCHEDULE. I'VE DONE A BETTER JOB OF PREPARING TONIGHT. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING AS PREPARED LAST TIME. BUT ON THIS 13105, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES THAT YOU SAID YOU MADE HERE BECAUSE WHEN IT SAYS, A IS PROHIBITED NOISE, AND IT SAYS, A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE BY CAUSING OR ALLOWING A NOISE NUISANCE. A NOISE NUISANCE APPEARS TO BE DEFINED IN 13104 A, IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT A DIFFERENCE NOISE NUISANCE? >> IT'S THE PRESUMPTIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH AS NOISE NUISANCES IN 13104. YES, IT'S A AND THE SUBSECTIONS THAT FOLLOW AS WELL AS B AND THE SUBSECTIONS THAT FOLLOW B. >> BUT 13104 HAS ALL THIS LISTING OF ANIMALS, MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTOR VEHICLE SIGNAL DEVICES, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, RADIOS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE THINGS THAT ARE UNDER 13105A,1,2 AND 3. I DON'T SEE HOW THE TWO WORKED TOGETHER, NUMBER 1. THEN NUMBER 2, LET ME GO AHEAD AND RAISE THIS POINT. I'M WONDERING WHY IN 13105A, AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE, IT WOULDN'T SAY SOMETHING LIKE I'M PULLING THIS LANGUAGE FROM 13104A FOR 13105A. IT WOULDN'T SAY AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE FOR 13105A, SOMETHING LIKE WITH SUCH VOLUME INTENSITY OR REPETITIVE DURATION, WHICH WOULD UNREASONABLY ANNOY OR DISTRESS ANOTHER REASONABLE PERSON WITH ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, PICK UP THAT LANGUAGE FROM 13104A AND ACTUALLY INSERTED IN HERE FOR CLARITY. >> BECAUSE IT REFERS BACK TO THAT'S HOW A NOISE NUISANCE IS DEFINED. [00:05:02] IT INCLUDES THOSE THINGS. PUTTING IT IN A OR THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN A, IF THEY CAUSE A NOISE NUISANCE. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT IS SET OUT IN 04, THAT MEETS ONE OF THE CRITERIA, EITHER 1,2 OR 3 UNDER 05A, THEN THAT IS A PROHIBITED NOISE. >> MAY I FINISH HERE. THE REASON I DON'T SEE HOW THOSE TWO TIED TOGETHER IS BECAUSE 13104A STARTS OUT WITH THE STATEMENT, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE NOISE HERE, NUISANCES. THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE ACTS OF ANIMALS, ACTS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE EXHAUST SYSTEM, ACTS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE SIGNALING SYSTEM, OR ACTS OF RADIOS, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OR OTHER DEVICES, WHICH ARE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THAN A PERSON CAUSING A NOISE NUISANCE ACCORDING TO 13105A,1,2, AND 3. >> WELL, IT'S A PERSON CAUSING OR ALLOWING TO BE CAUSED SOMETHING THAT'S IN 13104. I THINK SOME OF THE DIFFICULTY IN THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO HARMONIZE HOW IT WAS TAKEN FROM TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES AND MAKE IT WORK TOGETHER. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. I THINK THAT THE NOISE NUISANCE IN 04 IS I GUESS, TO ME, THIS WORKS AND MAKES SENSE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IN MY MIND, PUTTING THAT LANGUAGE BACK IN 05 WOULD BE REDUNDANT. >> I DO SEE MAYBE HOW IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT EXCEPT THAT 13104 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE FOLLOWING ACTS. THEN IT GIVES THAT CATEGORY OF THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES OF ACTS THAT I JUST REPEATED. IT JUST SAYS, THOSE ACTS, WHICH DON'T HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE ITEMS IN 13105. THE REASON I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS, I'VE TRIED TO LISTEN TO WHAT OUR CITIZENS SAY, AND THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME UP HERE AND HAVE SAID, YOU'RE ABOUT TO ENACT A NOISE ORDINANCE THAT WILL MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR ME TO EVEN BE HEARD BY MY NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR, BECAUSE 13105 A2 SAYS, A NOISE CREATED BY HUMAN VOICE ONE OF THE THINGS. IF MY NEIGHBOR CAN EVEN HEAR ME TALKING AT A REASONABLE LEVEL NEXT DOOR, THEY CAN CLAIM IT'S A NOISE NUISANCE. NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING PART OF THE PREAMBLE FOR 13105 SHOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE THE SUBPART IS A NOISE CREATED BY A HUMAN VOICE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NOISE. CREATED BY A HUMAN VOICE WITH SUCH VOLUME INTENSITY OR REPETITIVE DURATION THAT IT WOULD UNREASONABLY ANNOY OR DISTRESS A REASONABLE PERSON WITH ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES. THE SAME THING FOR THE OTHER PARTS OF THAT. BUT IN PARTICULAR FOR THE HUMAN VOICE ONE, BECAUSE THE HUMAN VOICE IS A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THING THAN THE FOUR ITEMS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN 13104. 13102 SAYS CREATED BY HUMAN VOICE, RADIO, TELEVISION, MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, AMPLIFIER, ETC, THAT IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE BY ANY PEACE OFFICER OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY. >> I DIDN'T SEE THAT. >> JUST GLANCING AT THAT BRIEFLY, IT'S HARD TO READ IT, LOOKING ACROSS THERE. DOES THAT ADDRESS WHAT I'M ADDRESSING HERE? IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK THE HUMAN VOICE THING STILL GOT TO BE SUBJECT TO VOLUME, INTENSITY, REPETITIVE DURATION, AND UNREASONABLY THAT IT WOULD ANNOY AN AS A REASONABLE PERSON WITH ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES? >> THAT'S ALL INCLUDED IN 04. THAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE WAS ALREADY IN FOUR, WHICH IS WHY I TOOK IT BACK OUT OF THAT TO HARMONIZE THOSE FETTER? [00:10:06] >> OKAY. MR. SHARPE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMING OUT OF THE LAST WORKSHOP, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO AMEND 13105 A2 FROM PLAINLY AUDIBLE AS THE BENCHMARK FOR OFFICER DISCRETION TO SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS IT THE SENSIBLE BYSTANDER THAT WAS IN I THINK THAT ONE. >> THAT'S WHERE THAT LANGUAGE CAME FROM. THEN AS I LOOKED AT IT MORE AND I WENT BACK TO THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, I WAS LIKE, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE IS ALREADY IN 04. WE JUST NEEDED TO TIE 05 BACK TO REFERRING TO THAT LANGUAGE IN 04. >> I REALLY THOUGHT MINE WOULD BE FASTER [LAUGHTER]. WE ARE DEFINITIONAL 13104. I GET THAT. THEN AS DEFINED BY 13104 IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE, IF THE PERSON. HELP ME UNDERSTAND. WHAT THE INTERPRETATION OF AUDIBLE AS A NOISE VIOLATION AS DEFINED BY 13104? >> YES. THAT'S HOW I WOULD READ IT. >> I GUESS MY SECOND QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES ALLOWS INCLUDE? WHAT IS THE TYPE OF ACCOUNTABILITY? I MEAN, IT JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD A SCREAMING TODDLER AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER AND YOU COULD SAY, I ALLOWED IT, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU STOP IT. WHAT DOES THAT COVER? >> I THINK IT WOULD COVER THAT. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT AN OFFICER IN THEIR DISCRETION IS NOT GOING TO ISSUE A CITATION FOR THAT. EVEN IF THEY DID, THE PROSECUTOR ALSO STILL HAS DISCRETION TO SAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT REASONABLE. I'M NOT TAKING THAT CASE IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. THERE ARE THERE ARE SOME POINTS WHERE THERE'S DISCRETION ALONG THE WAY THAT THIS ISN'T APPLIED IN THE ABSENCE OF THINKING REASONABLE PEOPLE. >> SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN THE ENTIRE THING TO DO ABOUT TODDLERS. IT WAS MEANT MORE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IT? WHAT YOU'RE NOTABLY IN CHARGE OF YOUR POSSESSIONS, TO YOUR FAMILY, YOUR PROPERTY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE? >> THE EXAMPLE I'M THINKING OF IS I'VE GOT A BUNCH OF 17-YEAR-OLD BOYS HANGING OUT OF THE HOUSE, AND I'M JUST LETTING THEM RUN THEIR DIRT BIKES AND DOING CIRCLES AND MAKING ALL THE NEIGHBORS ANGRY. TO ME, I HAVE CONTROL OF THAT. I'M ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN WHEN I COULD SAY, KNOCK THAT OFF, GO OUT TO THE COUNTRY AND DO THAT. THE BAKER COUNTRY. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DISCRETION, AND WE HAVE MR. SHARPE. I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? >> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. WOULD YOU COME UP FOR A MINUTE? HE IS AN ATTORNEY WHO MAYBE OUR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. I BELIEVE HE HAS READ OUR NOISE ORDINANCE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF THAT. BUT WOULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DISCRETION, BOTH POLICE DISCRETION AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION? >> YES, MADAM MAYOR. ANY NOISE DISTURBANCE WILL REQUIRE RESPONSE FOR THE POLICE. POLICE WILL GET THERE. THEY WILL LISTEN TO WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED. THEY WILL SEE THEY CAN OBSERVE THE NOISE, AND IF SO, THEY'LL ISSUE A CITATION IF IT MEETS THE ORDINANCE, 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE PROPERTY PERSON, THE OWNER, THE PERSON, IF IT'S A TENANT THAT IS HAS THE LEASE AT THE HOUSE, WHOEVER'S MOST RESPONSIBLE WILL BE THE ONE I ASSUME WILL RECEIVE THE TICKET. THAT'S THE START. NOW, YOUR ORDINANCE HAS SOME DEFENSES IN IT. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, THAT A PERSON CAN SHOW UP AT COURT, OR TELL THE OFFICER ON THE SCENE, THAT MIGHT KEEP THE TICKET FROM BEING WRITTEN. BECAUSE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE JUST HAS TO BE PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THEN IT GOES AWAY. AT THE OFFICER LEVEL, THEY CAN CONSIDER THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. THEY CAN SEE IF THEY HEAR. THEY CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS CREDIBLE. BEFORE THEY EVEN WRITE THE TICKET. IF THEY WRITE THE TICKET, IT'S GOING TO COME TO COURT. THAT PERSON CAN SET IT FOR A HEARING. THEY WILL COME IN FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. I'M GOING TO REVIEW OR THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO REVIEW THE COMPLAINT AT THAT TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE. THAT MEANS EACH PART OF THE OFFENSE, I BELIEVE IT'S 05 HERE WE'RE TALKING. ONE OF THOSE FOUR ACTS WERE ACTUALLY VIOLATED AND [00:15:01] THE VIOLATION IS DEFINED UP IN 04 AS THE NUISANCE. I WILL LOOK AT THAT. I WILL ALSO LISTEN TO THAT PERSON WHO RECEIVED THE TICKET AND SEE IF THEY HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. IF THEY DO HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE THE COURT'S TIME, A JURY'S TIME OR THE JUDGE'S TIME. I'M GOING TO PROBABLY DISMISS AN INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF I'M THE PROSECUTOR. YOU HAVE YOUR ORDINANCE. YOU ALSO HAVE THE STATE LAW. THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR. YOU ORDINANCE GOES INTO MORE DETAIL WITH MORE SPECIFICITY ON WHAT NOISE NUISANCES ARE. INSTEAD OF LEAVING IN THAT REALM OF UNREASONABLE VIOLATES SOMEONE'S SANCTITY OF THEIR HOME, IF YOU WILL. BUT EVEN THE STATE LAW HAS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD IF THE NOISE CAN BE HEARD FROM 50 FEET OR MORE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION, EVEN WITHOUT THE DECAL READINGS. IS THAT HELP? >> OKAY. COUNSEL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THANK YOU. >> MR. SHARPE YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. ARE YOU FINISHED? >> I'M DONE. >> OKAY. MISS BOGDAN. MISS HALBERT. >> JUST A REQUEST, SERGEANT BURDICK THAT WHEN WE PUT THIS FORWARD NEXT TIME, IF MAYBE THERE'S A PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS, LIKE RUBBING CORVETTE MOTORS AND YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, YOU'RE LIKE, WHOA, MAN, OR BLASTING MUSIC AT 2:00 A.M. AND THE NEIGHBOR HASN'T EVEN CALLED, BUT YOU'RE DRIVING BY. AND THEN MAYBE SOME TALKING LOUDLY OR YOU CAN HEAR THE FOUNTAIN AT THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE 500 YARDS AWAY, OR THE DONKEY BRAYING IN YOUR BACKYARD. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? MR. PILGRIM. >> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I'LL MAKE MY OTHER COMMENTS NOW. I THINK THIS WILL PROBABLY FINISH ME UP. IN 131 04 ON PRESUMPTIONS, AND I THINK THE SECTION I'M LOOKING AT NOW IS STILL THE FINAL VERSION OF IT. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THAT FINAL VERSION I WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER WHEN I WAS MAKING THOSE OTHER REFERENCES. THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN 131 04 A AND SOME PORTIONS OF IT ARE REPEATED IN ONE AND THREE. WITH REGARD TO FREQUENCY, I'M WONDERING WHY WE DON'T USE THE SAME LANGUAGE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PREAMBLE THERE TO 131 04 A, IT SAYS WITH SUCH VOLUME, INTENSITY OR CONTINUED DURATION, WHEREAS DOWN BELOW, IT DESCRIBES FREQUENCY OR HABITUAL NOISE MAKING, AND THEN THAT'S IN ONE, AND IN THREE, IT SAYS CONTINUED OR FREQUENT SOUNDING OF ANY HORN. I'M WONDERING WHY WE DON'T USE THE SAME TERMS LIKE CONTINUED OR REPETITIVE. SOME PLACES WE SAY CONTINUED DURATION, OTHER PLACES WE SAY CONTINUED OR FREQUENT SOUNDING. IT SEEMS LIKE WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE SAME TERMINOLOGY IN BOTH. INSTEAD OF JUST CONTINUED IN ONE AND CONTINUED OR FREQUENT IN THE OTHER, I WOULD PUT CONTINUED OR EITHER USE THE WORD FREQUENT OR REPETITIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DEFINE FREQUENT. OF COURSE, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DEFINE REPETITIVE EITHER, BUT REPETITIVE MAY BE A BETTER WORD THAN. >> MISS HALBERT. >> I THINK FOR CLARITY'S SAKE FOR THE PUBLIC, HAVING THE CONSISTENCY, AND THEN IF WE RUN INTO SOMETHING WHERE FREQUENCY BECOMES AN ISSUE, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. >> I THOUGHT YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. >> NO, I WAS JUST NODDING.. >> OKAY. IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, KATHERINE? >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THAT'S JUST WHAT WAS IN THERE. AND I MADE A NOTE TO DRAFT CONSISTENCY IN THOSE. >> OKAY. MR. PILGRIM, DO YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS? >> I DON'T THINK SO. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. ON 131 07, THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS. WHY ARE THOSE NOT JUST PART OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES? >> I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR REASON FOR THAT. THIS IS JUST NOT ANYTHING THAT I CHANGED IN IT FROM THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE. >> WOULD THAT BE ANY HELP TO JUDGE IN MAKING A DECISION ON THIS? IF YOU'RE UNDERNEATH THOSE SOUND LEVELS, THAT WOULD BE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE? >> I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE A DEFENSE. [00:20:04] >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MADAM MAYOR. >> OKAY. MISS BOGDAN. OH, EXCUSE ME, MR. SHARPE. >> I DID HAVE MY HAND UP THIS TIME. SO WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH A LOT OF THIS NOISE ORDINANCE, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE PATIENTS AND ENGAGEMENT OF ALL OF THOSE PRESENT COUNSEL OR EXPERTS OR A VARIETY OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS. BUT ONE THING THAT HAS COMPLETELY ESCAPED MY NOTICE UNTIL NOW IS THE TRUCK IDLING, 10,000 POUNDS NUMBER, I GUESS. IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT. I WOULD HAVE PRESUME THIS KIND OF FALLS INTO TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCKS IDLING AND IDLING PARTICULARLY HARD. WHY, IF THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS FROM EXCESS NOISE, WHY SPECIFICALLY CALL THAT OUT AS OPPOSED TO A NOISE LEVEL. WHICH IS TO SAY WHY HAVE A POUND METRIC AS OPPOSED TO A NOISE METRIC. MY APOLOGIES. 131 04 LAST SECTION FIVE TRUCK IDLING, LET'S SEE, B FIVE. >> THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WHO WAS ON THE COMMITTEE CAN SPEAK TO HOW THAT WAS ARRIVED AT. >> NO. IT WAS JUST BORROWED FROM THE PREVIOUS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, BUT I WOULD ASSUME VIRTUALLY ANY TRUCK THAT'S GOING TO BE A 10,000 POUND OR HIGHER GROSS WEIGHT IS GOING TO HAVE A DIESEL ENGINE. DIESEL ENGINES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. GASOLINE ENGINES TYPICALLY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. OF COURSE, YOU CAN HAVE A DIESEL ENGINE THAT'S EXCESSIVELY LOUD IN A 4F150 TOO. AND THERE'S SOME OF THEM THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT ARE LIKE THAT. THEY PUT THOSE 6" EXHUASTS ON AND THEY'RE REALLY OFFENSIVE. I WOULD GUESS THAT CAME FROM SOMEBODY WHO WAS JUST DETERMINING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE TRUCK THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A DIESEL ENGINE. >> IF IT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNSEL, WE CAN JUST TAKE THAT CLARIFYING LANGUAGE OUT, SO IT'S JUST ANY STANDING IDLING VEHICLE. >> SO ONE OF THE REASONS WE PUT THAT IN. [BACKGROUND]. >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM WITH OR WILL BE IMPACTED BY SENDING THEM ON THEIR WAY. >> NO. >> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE? IF NOT, I WILL BE CLOSING THE WORKSHOP. [ADJOURN ] ANY FINAL COMMENTS? OKAY. NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL HEREBY CLOSE THE WORKSHOP. IT IS 6:23 P.M. THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL START AT 7:00 P.M. SO WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL THEN. I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER TO ORDER. [CALL TO ORDER ] IT IS JANUARY 6, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK, MISS HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? >> YES MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARON IS OUT ILL TONIGHT AND WILL NOT BE JOINING US. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK IF MELISSA TIERS WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND IF MR. CARDINA WILL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE. [00:25:20] >> AT THIS TIME, [PUBLIC COMMENTS] WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS. FIRST COMMENT CARD I HAVE IS FROM SCOTT LIVESAY. >> EVENING. I'M SCOTT LIVESAY. I LIVE 7305 MOSS RIDGE ROAD IN PARKER. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON IN THE QUARRY NEAR PARKER ROAD, AND SPECIFICALLY THE WATER DRAINAGE THAT I SEE THERE. BACK IN MARCH WHEN WE FIRST STARTED DOWN THIS, I INQUIRED ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS RESTRICTING WATER FLOW DOWN MOSS RIDGE, WHICH ALREADY HAS FLOODING ISSUES. AND GOT SOME GOOD RESPONSE AND EXPECTATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPER. AND I THINK THEY MAY BE HERE TONIGHT, PERHAPS WE CAN GET SOME ANSWERS IN SOME OF THIS. BUT WHEN I WALKED UP THERE ABOUT A WEEK AGO AND I LOOKED AT THE GRADING ON IT, I NOTICED THE GRADING IS ACTUALLY FUNNELING WATER OF THE SOUTH QUARTER TO A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY TOWARD MOSS RIDGE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAD IN MIND, REALLY. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE FLOODING THAT GOES ON IN MOSS RIDGE NOT CONTINUE TO EXACERBATE IT WITH THE WATER FLOW COMING FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO GARY HERE. HE TOOK TIME OUT OF HIS DAY AND BROUGHT THE ENGINEERING PLAT TO ME TO LOOK AT AND TALKED TO ME AND WALKED ME THROUGH IT, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. AND IT SHOWED ME THAT THE CALCULATIONS IN THIS ENGINEERING PLAT THAT THE CITY HAS SIGNED OFF ON, THE CITY ENGINEERS, WHERE THEY SHOW REDUCTIONS IN THE CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND OF FLOW GOING DOWN MOSS RIDGE, ALMOST 50% REDUCTION IN THE SOUTH PART, IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, THERE'S A 40% REDUCTION. AND THAT'S REALLY NICE. I CAN'T VALIDATE THOSE NUMBERS. I CAN'T DISCREDIT THEM EITHER WAY BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NUMBERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COME UP WITH THAT. BUT WHAT IS PUZZLING, IF WE LOOK AT THE OTHER THREE AREAS ON THE MAP WHERE THE WATER FLOWS TO THE EAST OR FLOWS UP TO THE NORTH, THOSE ARE ALSO REDUCING BY 35, 40%. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE 50 ACRES OF LAND. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE 75% OF IT COVERED WITH CONCRETE, MEANING FOUNDATIONS AND ROADS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU REDUCE WATER FLOW WHEN THERE'S THREE QUARTERS OF THE LAND NOT AVAILABLE TO ABSORB WATER. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE REDUCTIONS ARE BELIEVABLE. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. AND I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN VALIDATE THAT BEFORE WE FIND OUT THE HARD WAY THAT HERE COMES WATER. WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE FLOODING IN MOSS RIDGE FOR AT LEAST 15 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN IT. WE LOOK AT IT AS THE ANSWER TO WHAT WE SAY, BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, REALLY. AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT START BY NOT MAKING IT WORSE IF WE CAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE MARCOS ARIAS. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARCOS ARIAS 3605 HOBE RD, FATHER, TEXAS. FIRST OFF, I DID SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE NOISE COMING ACROSS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON RANCHVIEW ESTATE WHERE I DID NOT KNOW. ALSO READING FROM THE ABOUT SECTION FROM OUR CITY WEB PAGE ABOUT CLOSE TO CITY CONVENIENCES, WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF PARKER WHERE WE DON'T HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I'M OKAY WITH BEING WITHOUT A SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHY WE HAD CONCERTS BEING PLAYED ACROSS THE STREETS. THAT TOO WAS ALSO CONSIDER AND DID SOME RESEARCH ON ABOUT CONCERT MUSIC. THAT TOO IS PART OF AN OUT OF TOWN CONVENIENCE. I'M OKAY WITH THAT BEING OUTSIDE OF PARKER. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE HERE ANY LONGER. I'M GOOD WITH PLAYING MY LPS, MY OLD CASSETTES, CDS FROM HOME. I DON'T NEED A CONCERT ACROSS THE STREET, AS FOR SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR HOUSES GETTING SHAKEN BY THE NOISE. I THINK IT'S TIME TO MAKE SOME CHANGES THERE. PUT THOSE HOUSES ON THE LOT OF SOUTHPORT AND GET IT DONE BECAUSE APPARENTLY, [00:30:02] LET'S BRING PEOPLE, NOT KICK THEM OUT OF PARKER. THEY NEED TO STAY. WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE ONE PERSON THAT WAS MENTIONING STUFF LAST MEETING TO OFFEND US ALL. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, TEXANS, PARKER RESIDENTS, PERIOD. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT STATEMENT IS SOUND THROUGH THOSE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THAT NOISE ORDINANCE MEETING AND THE WORKSHOPS. WE CANNOT HAVE MORE CRIME IN THE CITY EVER AGAIN. AS FOR MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF OUR CITY PROSECUTOR THAT'S HERE WITH US. I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS PERSON, WHAT HE CAN DO FOR EVEN PROTESTERS WHO WANT TO CAUSE NOISE AGAIN, BUT THEY HAVE TO REMEMBER, THEY HAVE TO RESPECT OUR DRIVING LAWS. THEY CANNOT BE BLOCKING OUR STREETS AGAIN. IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A CITATION GIVEN TO THOSE PROTESTERS THAT WAS NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF, IT'S BEEN A WHILE, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MARCOS. MR. NICHOLSON. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. I AM KEN NICHOLSON, 7306 EAST PARKER ROAD. I AM A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF PARKER. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAD TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON MCCREARY ROAD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING ON. MY MOM HAS LIVED ON THAT PROPERTY FOR 78 YEARS, AND SHE WAS ELATED THAT SHE COULD FIND A HOUSE IN MURPHY THAT ACTUALLY BACKS UP TO MCCREARY ROAD, AND THAT IS HER NAMESAKE. WILLIAM BILL MCCREARY IS BURIED IN THE MURPHY CEMETERY. THAT IS A THIRD GREAT GRANDFATHER TO ME. WHY I'M HERE TONIGHT IS TO DISCUSS THE NAMING OF THAT PROPERTY. WE WOULD LOVE, SOME WAY, SOME FORM OR FASHION, THAT THE WORD OR THE NAMESAKE, MCCREARY BE ADDED INTO IT. WE HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT, SINCE THERE IS MCCREARY CREEK ESTATE AND MCCREARY ESTATE, WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN IN MURPHY, THAT HAVING ANOTHER MCCREARY, IN A NAME OF AN ESTATE IS TOO MUCH ON MCCREARY ROAD. WE'RE JUST ASKING TO RESPECT OUR FAMILY SINCE WE HAVE BEEN LONG TERM RESIDENTS OF PARKER. MY MOM WAS OUT HERE AND HELPED DEDICATE THE PLAQUE OUT HERE. MY MOM DONATED A BUNCH OF THE PICTURES IN THE 2012 CALENDAR. IT SADDENS HER THAT SOME WAY MCCREARY COULD NOT BE PUT INTO THIS. WHERE I COME A LITTLE BIT, IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY CALL, IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE NAME OF THE STREET, NOT THE HOUSING ADDITION. I THINK THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL NAMES PROOF PRESENTED TO YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT WE WOULD LOVE FOR THE ACTUAL FAMILY NAME SAKE MCCREARY TO BE IN IT SOMEHOW. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ALL THE COMMENT CARDS I HAVE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? THEN MOVING ON, WE WILL GO TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST, [ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST ] AND I WILL NOTE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING IS MEETING THURSDAY AT 3:00 PM. ONE OF THE THINGS I BELIEVE IS ON THE AGENDA, GARY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FROM SOUTH FORK? >> YES, MA'AM. >> IF PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN THAT, [00:35:02] PLEASE COME TO THE MEETING OR WATCH IT VIRTUALLY. IT WILL BE ON VIRTUAL. MAX APPROXIMATE RICKS COMMISSION, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO MEET JANUARY 14TH AT 5:00 PM IN [INAUDIBLE]. NEXT, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I RECEIVED NOTICE TODAY FROM THE COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT MR. DOUG BENDER AND MR. JASON ROSS WERE ELECTED TO THEIR BOARD, AND THEY WILL JOIN THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE MR. RICHARD GRADY, MR. ALVIN BENTON, MISS VERONICA YOST, MR. RANDALL SHIN, MISS ZIMBEL ZAB, MR. ANDREW COOK, AND MR. SCOTT GREGGS. THAT'S YOUR CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA ] WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ONE IS THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 9, THE MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 16, AND THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 10. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS ANY OF THOSE MINUTES PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? THEN AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION, MISS BOGDAN. >> I'D LIKE FOR THE RECORD THAT I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL HAD A CHANCE. THERE WAS A TINY CORRECTION IN THE SEPTEMBER 16TH MINUTES. THE START TIME WAS JUST ADJUSTED BECAUSE IT WAS MISSED OFF THE THING, BUT IT WAS ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED AND IT'S ALREADY UP ON THE WEBSITE. WITH THAT SMALL ADJUSTMENT, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN, AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY. I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. NEXT, WE WILL HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. [6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2026-878, APPOINTING A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND ALTERNATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR THE PARKER MUNICIPAL COURT.] THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 6, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-878, APPOINTING A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND AN ALTERNATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR THE PARKER MUNICIPAL COURT. COUNCIL, AS YOU KNOW, THAT OUR CANDIDATE FOR THE PROSECUTING POSITION IS HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS OR HIS APPLICATION. >> I'D LOVE TO [INAUDIBLE]. >> COME BACK. [LAUGHTER] >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL. I'M SEAN ROGAN. I RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE CITY OF GARLAND. IN THE CITY OF GARLAND, THE FIRST 21 YEARS, I WAS A POLICE OFFICER, BECAME A POLICE SUPERVISOR, AND THEN I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL TOWARD THE END OF THAT CAREER. AFTER BECOMING A LAWYER, MY INTENT WAS TO RETIRE AND OPEN MY OWN PRACTICE, BUT I WAS OFFERED A POSITION IN THE GARLAND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I TOOK THAT POSITION. THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. TODAY WAS DAY 2 OF ROGAN LAW, MY NEW LAW PRACTICE. I SAT IN OFFICE TODAY. I THINK I HAD ONE PHONE CALL AND I WORKED ON THE COMPUTER A LOT. IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE AS A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY, I DID ALL SORTS OF THINGS, BUT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID IS THAT I WAS PUT IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND I WAS THE BACKUP PROSECUTOR FOR THE FULL TIME PROSECUTOR. I SPENT SEVERAL WEEKS IN MUNICIPAL COURT AS THE PROSECUTOR WORKING ALONGSIDE OF THE FULL TIME PROSECUTOR, AND THEN ANYTIME HE TOOK OFF, I WENT OVER THERE AND HANDLED THE DOCKET. I'VE HANDLED HUNDREDS, IF NOT 1,000 OR MORE DOCKETS AT THIS POINT. I'VE DONE ABOUT 15 MUNICIPAL TRIALS. WE DON'T HAVE TRIALS OFTEN IN MUNICIPAL COURT. THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MISS BOGDAN. >> I THINK WE'RE ALSO DISCUSSING HAVING TREY OUR PREVIOUS PROSECUTOR AS THE BACKUP. HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH YOU GUYS? DO YOU SCHEDULE FOR VACATIONS? HOW DOES THAT BACKUP WORK? [00:40:01] >> I THINK IT WILL BE RARE THAT I WILL NOT BE HERE ON THE ONE DAY A MONTH WE HAVE COURT HERE. BUT IF SOMETHING CAME UP, IF I WAS SICK OR IF I HAD TO GO OUT OF TOWN OR SOMETHING DREW ME AWAY, TREY VOLUNTEERED TO STAY ON BOARD AS A BACKUP. I THINK HAVING A BACKUP PROSECUTOR IS A SMART THING FOR THE CITY. >> DO YOU ANTICIPATE PICKING UP ANY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AS WELL? >> I DO NOT ANTICIPATE. I HAVE PUT IN MY RESUME FOR THE CATTLE MILLS JUDGE POSITION. THAT'S A ONCE A MONTH POSITION ALSO. BUT THAT WASN'T WHERE MY FOCUS WAS GOING TO BE ON MY PRACTICE. IT WAS JUST THESE THINGS KEEP FALLING IN PLACE FOR ME. I ENJOY PROSECUTING AND IN MY LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND I'M FAMILIAR WITH CRIMINAL LAW. >> MR. SHAMAN. >> I WOULD SAY THIS QUESTION MAYBE FOR YOU AND MAYOR PETTLE. WHAT WAS YOUR CONSIDERATION PROCESS IN TERMS OF YOUR SELECTION AT PARKER? DID YOU APPLY AND HAVE AN INTERVIEW PROCESS WITH COUNCIL AND OTHERS WITH THEM THAT REPRESENTATIVE PARKER? WHAT WAS THAT LIKE? >> FOR ME, I CAME AND WATCHED THE FORMER PROSECUTOR TREY AS HE PROSECUTED IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER. I MET THE MAYOR ON ONE OCCASION. SHE ASKED FOR A RESUME. I SUBMITTED IT. IT WAS POSTED WITH TONIGHT'S AGENDA. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER PROCESS. >> HE WAS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY OUR CURRENT PROSECUTOR AND FORMER CITY ATTORNEY TREY LANSFORD. >> KATHERINE, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET CANDIDATE? >> I HAVE. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK. IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MY OPINION, I THINK THAT HIS BACKGROUND IN LAW ENFORCEMENT GIVES HIM A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE AS A PROSECUTOR, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL, ANY DISCUSSIONS? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026-878, APPOINTING A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND ALTERNATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR THE PARK MUNICIPAL COURT WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY BEING SEAN ROGAN AND THE ALTERNATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, LARENCE LANSFORD III. >> FOR THE RECORD, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TREY, THAT IS LANSFORD. IT'S ONE IN THE SAME PERSON. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COLLEEN HALBERT AND A SECOND BY DARREL SHARPE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-878. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOT HEARING ANY. I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-878, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. THANK YOU. WELCOME ABOARD. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 7, [7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2026-879 RENAMING THE SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH A PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 21, 2025.] CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-879, RENAMING THE SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH A PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. COUNCIL, I THINK WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN OVER THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION BEING CONFUSED WITH OTHER SUBDIVISIONS, IN THE SAME AREA. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE NAME WAS? >> YES, MA'AM. WE ORIGINALLY RECEIVED A PROPOSAL OF THE PRESERVE AT MCCREARY FARM. HOWEVER, THE FAMILY WANT TO THANK THEM FOR STRETCHING THEIR CREATIVITY AND COMING UP WITH SEVERAL OTHER SUGGESTIONS. I'VE PUT THOSE UP ON THE SLIDE DECK FOR YOU TONIGHT. WE DO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT CAME IN AS OF LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, MCCREARY ACRES AND THEN THE HOMESTEAD AT MCCREARY FARMS. THESE ARE ALL SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE FAMILY WOULD BE AMICABLE TO TOWARDS. >> MISS BOGDAN. >> ARE THESE IN ORDER OF YOUR PREFERENCE? [LAUGHTER] I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO HONOR YOUR MOTHER WITH THE MCCREARY NAME. I TOTALLY GET THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THE VERY FIRST ONE, MCCREARY FARMS. [00:45:02] WE HAVE BROOKS FARMS RIGHT ACROSS, AND I THINK IT'S VERY EASY FOR SOMEONE TO REMEMBER IT WITH SOME FARM AND THEN GET THOSE TWO CONFUSED. MY PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE MCCREARY MEADOWS. WE DON'T HAVE A MEADOWS ANYWHERE ELSE, THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND WE WOULD STILL BE HONORING THE MCCREARY NAME. THAT WOULD BE MY VOTE THE NUMBER 2. >> MR. PILGRIM. >> I AGREE AS WELL. I THINK WE STRONGLY NEED TO HONOR THE MCCREARY NAME. THIS IS WHY WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME UP WITH NAMES. I THINK AS LONG AS WE AVOID THE WORD ESTATES, AND I WOULD PROBABLY JOIN IN AVOIDING THE WORD FARMS AS WELL. I THINK MCCREARY MEADOWS IS GREAT. MCCREARY ACRES IS GREAT, TOO. REALLY, I'D SAY IT'S UP TO YOU. I LIKE EITHER ONE OF THOSE. MCCREARY MEADOWS, MCCREARY ACRES, EVEN THE HOMESTEAD. I THINK AS LONG AS YOU AVOID FARMS, YOU'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. >> COLLEEN. >> I JUST LIKE THE WAY MCCREARY MEADOW SOUNDS. THAT'S BASIC. I LIKE HOW STRAIGHT IT IS. >> MR. SHARPE, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE AT THIS TIME? >> I'M NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WALLPAPER. BUT I'D SAY THAT MCCREARY MEADOWS, IT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH PARKER NORMS. THE GROVE REALLY SOUNDS MORE URBAN TO ME. I AM CURIOUS WHY THERE'S THE IMPROVED AS OF 16-26. I'M ASSUMING THIS MEANT THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED SOMEWHERE BEFORE, AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN IT, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I GUESS LARGELY I'M BEHIND MCCREARY MEADOWS. >> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD ACCEPT THE MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NAME THE ADDITION MCCREARY MEADOWS. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM AND THE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO NAME THE SUBDIVISION AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH MCCREARY ROAD AND PARKER TO BE MCCREARY MEADOWS. >> WE HAVE A RESOLUTION NUMBER. DO WE NEED TO MENTION THAT? >> I'M WORKING ON IT. WHICH WOULD BE APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-879. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-879 WITH THE NAME MCCREARY MEADOWS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 4-0. MR. NICHOLSON, I HAVE TO TELL YOU I HAVE MET YOUR MOTHER. I KNOW YOUR MOTHER. SHE IS TRULY A GREAT LADY AND SHE HAS BEEN A GREAT FRIEND TO PARKER FOR MANY YEARS AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY HOUSE. WE THANK YOU. NEXT, WE WILL GO TO ROUTINE ITEMS. [8. UPDATE(S)] FIRST ONE UP, GARY IS 2551. >> NO CHANGES. THEY'RE STILL A CONTRACT WE BEEN WORKING. THE SECTION HASN'T BEEN PAVED YET ON CURTIS NORTH WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH. >> ARE THEY DOING A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING THE WEEDS TRIMMED? >> YES. THIS TIME OF YEAR, THAT'S NOT AS BIG OF AN ISSUE. BUT YES, THEY ARE. >> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HEAR THE MOST ABOUT ON DEL HIGH IS THE REEDS ARE PREVENTING VIEWS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S NOT ON 2551. >> YES. >> OKAY. NEXT, TCQ, MR. PILGRIM. >> DOTH RALLY AND ON TCQ, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON A SCHEDULING ORDER. ART RODRIGUEZ FOR THE CITY OF PARKER HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER THAT WOULD CAUSE FOR THE HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE MUD TO BE HELD IN FEBRUARY OF 2027. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A DATE THAT STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY ALL OF THEM. I EXPECT THAT TO PROBABLY BE SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE TOMORROW OR IF NOT TOMORROW, [00:50:07] CERTAINLY LATER THIS WEEK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS ART HAS SOME FAMILY ISSUES HE'S DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. JUST FOR OTHER INFORMATION, THE [INAUDIBLE] HAD SUGGESTED A JULY 2026 HEARING DATE, WHICH WE ALL BELIEVE IS TOO SOON CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF NEW PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED AND THE NEW TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE REALLY UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> LEWIS LANE. >> GOSH, I'M EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE ARE MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS THANKS TO THE HELP HOSPITALITY AND RECEPTION OF CITY OF LUCAS. LATE LAST YEAR, WE HAD PUSHED A DRAFT IN OUR LOCAL AGREEMENT ORIENTED AROUND THE REPAIR AND UPKEEP OF LEWIS LANE. THEY'VE RESPONDED. WE MET DIRECTLY WITH CITY OF LUCAS, THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER. YES. THIS MORNING TO HELP EXPEDITE THOSE PROCEEDINGS. I THINK THE MOST OPTIMISTIC, I THINK I'VE BEEN SINCE BEGINNING TO CHASE THIS LAST MAY OF AN EXPEDIENT AND EXCELLENT OUTCOME. THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND INVOLVEMENT. >> IF YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? >> RIGHT NOW, BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION, LUCAS IS GOING TO TURN AROUND A RED LINE OR A CLEAN DRAFTED IOA IN RESPONSE TO OURS. WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD HAVE HAD IT IN TIME FOR TODAY'S EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT IT WAS A REALLY AGGRESSIVE GOAL. WE'LL HAVE TO EITHER CONSIDER IT AT THE NEXT EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS WE HELD A SPECIAL MEETING. BUT WE DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ALL THAT MANY TURNS ON IT. WE WELL UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY WANT TO GO WITH IT. IT IS COMMENSURATE WITH OUR VISION FOR THE ROAD, SO WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. DUBLIN ROAD, MR. MACHADO. >> THE PAVE ROAD IS COMING ALONG. BUT UNFORTUNATE AND HAD A LOT OF GOOD WEATHER THIS WINTER PUT UP THE PAVE. THEY'VE GOT ALL OF THE FIRST LAYER OF PAVING DOWN ON THE NORTH SECTION FROM FANCY TO PARKER ROAD. IT'S NOT FINISHED YET. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. THERE'S STILL ANOTHER LAYER OF ASH GO DOWN AND WILL MAKE IT COME UP TO THE DRIVEWAYS AND COME UP TO THE BOWS AND BE SMOOTH. I TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR THIS AFTERNOON AND HE'S WORKING ON SCHEDULING IN THE MORNING. TRY TO LET ME START THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE FINISH TAKING ON THAT FOUR SECTION. HE'S ALSO ALWAYS GOT GOOD WEATHER, WANTING TO KEEP THE GUYS MOVING AND PUT THEM ON THAT SOUTH SECTION AND START DOING THE BASE WORK AND [INAUDIBLE] LATER ON THAT SECTION. AT THE BASICALLY AT THE SAME TIME. >> OKAY. WE'VE HAD SOME RESIDENTS ASK ABOUT BUTTONS AND STRIPING AND LIKE THAT. CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN ME ON THAT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANSWER FOR THAT AT THE MOMENT, [INAUDIBLE] WORK ON THAT. WE WILL HAVE AN ANSWER SOON. >> MAYOR. JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT DEFINITELY, I MEAN, MY MAILBOX WILL APPRECIATE IT. BUT ON SOME OF THE OTHER ROADS LIKE LEWIS LANE WHEN WE GET THAT FINISHED, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ASSIST THERE, NOT JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT LOOKING AT IT IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL. >> YEAH. AS ONE FREQUENT THAT ROAD. I THINK BUTTONS ON THE S CURVE WOULD BE A REALLY IMPORTANT ADDITION TO THAT ROAD. THE OTHER COMMENTS AND THE MAYOR HAS PROBABLY HAD THE SAME ONE IS NOT ONLY A CENTER STRIPE, BUT THE SIDE STRIPES AS WELL BECAUSE OF ALL THE CARS THAT USE AUTONOMOUS DRIVING NOW AND THEY DEPEND ON THE SIDE STRIPES TO KEEP THEM ON THE ROAD, WHICH IS I DON'T USE AUTONOMOUS DRIVING, BUT IT'S NICE TO KNOW IF I'M MEETING A CAR THAT'S USING AUTONOMOUS DRIVING. THEY'VE GOT SOME STRIPES TO KEEP THEM IN THE RIGHT LANE. >> I'VE HEARD THOSE COMMENTS AND THAT'S WHAT KENT TALKED ABOUT. YEAH. >> YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK THE TRANSPORTATION CODE. IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT, WE CANNOT DO THAT ON DUBLIN ROAD BECAUSE THE DUBLIN ROAD IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO CAUSE FOR THAT. BUT THE LAST TIME WE'VE LOOKED, I THINK WAS LIKE 2015 SOMETHING. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK THE TRANSPORTATION CODE MAY HAVE CHANGED. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO GET OUT THERE AND MEASURE DUBLIN ROAD TO SEE IF, [00:55:02] WE SQUEAKED BY A LITTLE BIT EXTRA AND JUST TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. WHY WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT THIS TIME. [INAUDIBLE] LEWIS. OKAY. CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. >> YES, MA'AM. MADAM MAYOR, I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT WE'VE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THIS. GRANT AND I ARE JUST WORKING ON A COUPLE OF MINOR UPDATES TO SOME OF THE ACCOUNTING PORTIONS OF THE CIP, AND WE HOPE TO GET THAT BEFORE YOU OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO FOR YOUR REVIEW BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL. THIS SHOULD BE COMING TO A CONCLUSION SOON. >> PERSONNEL MANUAL. >> I EXPECT THAT YOU'LL HAVE AN UPDATED DRAFT IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> HELLO. OKAY. POLICE BUILDING ISSUES, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE MOD AND THE CONDITION OF THAT BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF GARY OR KENT OR SERGEANT VERDE IS GOING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. >> MAY WE PLAY AND TAG TEAM IN THIS ONE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. OF COURSE, CHIEF PRICE IS AVAILABLE IF WE DO NEED TO TIE HIM IN REMOTELY. UNFORTUNATELY, HE HAD TO ATTEND A FUNERAL OUT OF STATE, SO HE COULDN'T BE WITH US HERE TONIGHT. BUT YEAH, WE JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN UPDATE AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON OVER AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. OF COURSE, THEY'RE SERVING OUT OF A TEMPORARY BUILDING. THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING HIGH LEVELS OF MOISTURE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, THIS HAS LED TO SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF EQUIPMENT FROM YOUR BULLETIN BOARDS, RING CLEANUP TO PRINTERS JAMMING TO EVEN SOME OTHER WEAPONRY STARTING TO CORRODE. IN EARLY DECEMBER, LARGE SWATHS OF MOLD STARTED TO BECOME VISIBLE ON HVAC APPURTENANCES AND SOME OF THE OFFICER GEAR, I'LL SHOW SOME PICTURES HERE IN A MINUTE AS TO WHAT THAT WAS LOOKING LIKE WE ARE ENGAGED WITH THE MOLD ASSESSMENT COMPANY. THEY WERE CONSULTED, CAME OUT, DID SOME SAMPLINGS, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CURRENT CONDITIONS. SURE WRAPPING THINGS UP. THERE IS EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MOISTURE IN THE BUILDING, IT'S RESULTED IN THE HIGH LEVELS OF MOLD COUNTS. HOWEVER, NO HEALTH THREATENING SPECIES WERE DETERMINED. THEY WEREN'T IDENTIFIED. RIGHT NOW, PERSONNEL THAT ARE WORKING OUT OF HERE HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO MITIGATE THEIR CONTACT WITH THE BUILDING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU DO HAVE TO ENTER, WE WILL REQUEST THAT THE WEAR IN 95 MASKS. HERE'S SOME PICTURES OF WHAT THAT MODE WAS LOOKING LIKE. THIS IS THE POLICE CHIEF'S OFFICE HVAC VENT, THAT RETURN VENT, SOME OF THEIR GEAR, AND THEN THE TRAINING VENT AS WELL. NEXT STEPS ON THIS ONE, WE BELIEVE THAT TWO OUT OF FOUR OF THE MODULAR BUILDING HVAC SYSTEMS ARE AT FAULT AND NEED TO BE REPLACED AS THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY REMOVING MOISTURE FROM THE HERE. WE RECEIVED TWO QUOTES FOR REPAIRS REPLACEMENT AND CLEANING THEM BOTH. BOTH OF THOSE CAME IN VERY CLOSE. THE PARTS DO HAVE ABOUT A TEN WEEK LEAD TIME. AFTER A ROOT CAUSE IS ADDRESSED, WE CAN BEGIN EXPLORING SOME QUOTES FOR MEDIATION SERVICES AND ADDITIONAL SAMPLING IF THAT'S NEEDED. THE PROJECT CURRENTLY IS OVER $30,000 MARK WORTH OF REPAIRS. ONCE A VENDOR HAS BEEN SELECTED, WE DO PLAN TO CHARGE THESE TO OUR BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUNDS. NEXT, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR EXPERIENCE A HVAC COMPANY BECAUSE THERE WAS SUCH A CLOSE COMPETITOR BID THERE TO REPLACE THOSE UNITS, CLEAN UP WORK, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO RE EVALUATE THE SITUATION. OFFICER BURKE CHARGEN BERG, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? YOU'D LIKE TO ROW ON THERE. YOU GOT TO GO OFF. >> MR. MACHADO, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? >> NO. I [INAUDIBLE]. >> MISS HALBERT. >> OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS UNEXPECTED TO SOME DEGREE, BUT THIS IS A AJUPLE RIDE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR OVER TEN YEARS. WHAT'S THE LONG TERM PLAN FOR NOT HAVING TO KEEP DOING THIS SORT OF THING? >> WE DO NOT HAVE A SET IN PLACE LONG TERM PLAN FOR THIS. >> MR. [INAUDIBLE]. >> TWO QUESTIONS. REALLY TALK ABOUT THE FLEAS. I'D LIKE YOU. I DO NOT. YES. OF COURSE, SERGEANT BURDICK CAN PROBABLY PICK UP ON THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A FLEA ISSUE IN THE BUILDING. I'M NOT 100% UP TO SPEED ON WHAT THEY'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE FLEAS START TO POPULATE A COUPLE OF TIMES A YEAR. I THINK MAYBE WHEN SOME OF THE ROBINS MOVE UNDERNEATH THE UNDERPINNING, [01:00:02] AND THOSE FLEAS MIGRATE UPWARDS AND THEN START CAUSING SOME ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE OFFICERS. WE GET THE PEST COMPANY COME OUT, THEY TREAT FOR THAT AND THEN WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE. WOULD I SUMMARIZE? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I WISH THAT WASN'T THE CASE, SERGEANT BURDICK. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY DO, AND I'D LIKE TO CHANGE IT. SECOND QUESTION IS, AND I KNOW IT WILL WAYS OFF, EVEN THE MOST OPTIMISTIC APPRAISALS FROM HAVING A NEW BUILDING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT GIVEN THE LEAD TIME ON THE PARTS FOR THE HVAC SYSTEMS, ARE THE OTHER TWO AT DEATH'S DOOR BUT STILL FUNCTIONING OR ARE THEY IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION? >> I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHEN THEY CAME OUT AND EVALUATE AC SYSTEM. THE TWO WERE MARKEDLY HIGH LEVEL OF MOISTURE AND HIGH LEVEL OF MOLD IN THOSE ENTIRE SYSTEMS. THE OTHER TWO THERE WEREN'T ANY SIGNS OF THE IT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GET THESE TWO REPLACED. THE OTHER [INAUDIBLE] AND I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM RIGHT AWAY. I DON'T KNOW. >> THANK YOU. >> IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. WE ARE HOPEFUL. WE WOULD BE INTERNALLY GRATEFUL IF WE COULD GET A BOND PASS OR SOME FUNDING MECHANISM TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING SO THAT WE COULD GET RID OF THE TEMPORARY BUILDING THAT IS WAY BEYOND ITS TEMPORARY USES. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE AND IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN. I CAN GO ON AND ON WITH THE PROBLEMS, BUT YOU KNOW PROBABLY AS WELL AS OTHER. THAT'S OUR HOPE AND OUR GOAL. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE POLICE BUILD? OKAY. THEN WE WERE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TONIGHT OR A PRESENTATION ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ISSUES. CHIEF PRICE WAS GOING TO PRESENT IT. HE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. SERGEANT BURDICK, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PRESENT IT? KENT, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PRESENT IT? >> WE'RE GOING TO TAG TEAM THIS ONE AS WELL. WE'VE GOT SERGEANT BURDICK, GRANT AND MYSELF, WE'RE ALL GOING TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ON THE BACKGROUND, KEEP IT VERY BRIEF. OF COURSE, AGAIN, CHIEF PRICE IS AVAILABLE. IF WE NEED TO ROPE HIM INTO THE CONVERSATION HE'S ON STANDBY. SERGEANT BURDICK, DO YOU WANT TO JUST COME UP TO THE PARTUM AND START BY DISCUSSING SOME OF THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS WE'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS OR SO? >> CAN I JUST REQUEST THAT WE CALL THIS A RECRUITING ISSUE AND NOT A PERSONNEL ISSUE? THAT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE WE'VE GOT TROUBLE. >> ALL RIGHT. OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE PROBABLY ONLY HAD LIKE FIVE APPLICANTS ALTOGETHER. THAT WAS THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY ABLE TO KIND OF FILL IN THE POSITIONS THAT WE'VE HAD. WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE LEFT. SOMEBODY LIKE OFFICER TURNER, WHO HONESTLY, HE WAS A VERY VALUABLE ASSET, DID A VERY GOOD JOB FOR US, AND IT ACTUALLY BROUGHT SOME US INTO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH WE WANT TO SEE PEOPLE THAT ARE YOUNGER. WE DON'T WANT EVERYBODY TO BE 50 AND OLDER. BRINGING SOME YOUNGER PEOPLE IS VERY ATTRACTIVE, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO GET SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE. SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE BEEN GETTING HAVE HAD SOME ISSUES. WE DON'T ALWAYS GET THE BEST. WE'RE PICKING PEOPLE. WE WERE PICKING PEOPLE PRIOR THAT HAD STUFF THAT WE WERE TRYING TO WORK ON TO FIX. THAT'S YOU CAN ONLY TAKE SO MANY PROJECTS ON. WITH LARGER DEPARTMENTS IN THE AREA, WE'RE ALSO HAVING A PROBLEM TRYING TO COMPETE WITH THEM BECAUSE THEIR PAY WAS PROBABLY AROUND 20,000 MONARS ACROSS THE BOARD. IAN SERGEANT POSITIONS AND CHIESE POSITIONS ARE PROBABLY EVEN MORE THAN THAT. YOU'RE LOOKING ABOUT 30,000 IN SOME AREAS. WE HAD TO PAY WAS MOST DEFINITELY AN ISSUE FOR US. IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE FOR RETENTION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE ANYBODY ELSE. WE WANT TO KEEP THE PEOPLE WE HAVE. CURRENTLY, WE'RE ABOUT 50% ON OUR MANPOWER RIGHT NOW. WE WERE AUTHORIZED 14. WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN RIGHT NOW. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS WORK FOR THE SEVEN PEOPLE WE HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. GREEN, DID YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUDGET CYCLE LAST YEAR IN OUR ALLOCATIONS? >> [INAUDIBLE] [01:05:20] >> THANK YOU BOTH. I'LL PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND ON THAT ONE. WE MET INTERNALLY SEVERAL TIMES. WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST APPROACH TO ESSENTIALLY STOP THE BLEEDING, PREVENT MORE VACANCIES FROM OCCURRING, AND THEN ALSO REALLY BOLSTER OUR RECRUITING EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING HIGH QUALITY APPLICANTS. I'VE GOT THAT LISTED THERE. THAT WAS CERTAINLY OUR OBJECTIVE. WE WANTED TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT UTILIZED OUR CURRENT BUDGET ALLOCATIONS TO RESPOND TO THE SHIFTS IN MARKET PAY PACKAGES THAT WE SAW AFTER OCTOBER BUDGETS WERE PASSED FROM MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT THE REGION. WE WANTED TO FOCUS, LIKE I SAID, ON HIGH QUALITY OFFICERS WITH AN EYE ON LONGEVITY AND DRASTICALLY SLOW THIS TURNOVER THAT WE WERE HAVING. I'LL JUST TOUCH BASE ON SOME OF THE ACTION STEPS THAT WE TOOK. WE INCREASED PATROL OF HOURLY PAY BY AVERAGE OF 16.2%. WE ALSO INCREASED SERGEANT AND CHIEF PAY TO ACCOUNT FOR OFFICER PAY INCREASES, ADDED SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL TO COMPENSATE INDIVIDUALS SERVING ON THE SECOND WATCH PATROL, CREATED A STEP PLAN THAT SUPPORTED EMPLOYEE RETENTION, AND INCENTIVIZE LATERAL TRANSFERS INTO THE DEPARTMENT. WE DID ALL THIS BY DELAYING THE HIRING OF RECENTLY ADDED POLICE SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL POSITIONS FROM THIS LAST BUDGET CYCLE. THE PLAN WAS TO NOT EXCEED THE INDIVIDUAL BUDGET LINE ITEMS OR ALLOCATE ANY FUNDING TO ANY OTHER CATEGORY WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. THIS IS SOME OF THE OUTCOMES THAT WE'VE REALIZED SINCE IMPLEMENTING THIS TWO WEEKS AGO. FIRST AND FOREMOST, ON THE SALARY RESEARCH THAT WE'VE SEEN, PARKER PD ENTRY LEVEL SALARY INCREASE FROM NUMBER 89 ON THE LIST TO NUMBER 22, OUT OF 179 AGENCIES. THAT PUTS US IN TOP 25 POSITION FOR RECRUITMENT OVER A 20-YEAR COMPENSATION. THIS IS REALLY WHERE WE WERE FLAT, AND THIS IS WHY WE WERE NOT HAVING PEOPLE WITH EXPERIENCE COME INTO THE DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS WHY WE WERE NOT SEEING A LOT OF LATERAL TRANSFERS. THIS BUMPED US FROM NUMBER 127 ON THE LIST TO NUMBER 34. THAT'S 93 POSITIONS DOWN. IT ALSO INCREASED A LEVEL OF INTEREST WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT. WE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FIVE APPLICATIONS IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. IF YOU'LL REMEMBER EARLIER, SERGEANT BURDICK MENTIONED, WE RECEIVED ABOUT FIVE APPLICANTS IN THE LAST. >> TWO YEARS. >> TWO YEARS. WE'VE REALLY SEEN A LOT OF INTEREST AND WE HOPE TO BACKFILL A LOT OF THOSE POSITIONS. THAT'S A BACKGROUND ON WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WE'LL CERTAINLY OPEN THIS UP IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. >> WE HAD, I THINK FOUR OPENINGS AND WE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO APPLICATIONS, NO INTEREST BEFORE THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE DID HAVE SOME INTEREST, I WILL SAY. HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE INTEREST CAME FROM APPLICANTS WITH SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BAGGAGE. THEY WERE TERMINATED, AND SO THEY HAD TO BE FULLY BEDDED UPON PERFORMING THE BACKGROUND CHECKS. IT WAS DECIDED THAT WE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATE FOR LIABILITY REASONS. DID I SUMMARIZE THAT CORRECTLY SIR? >> MISS HALBERT. WHAT'S THE RECRUITMENT LOOK LIKE? I KNOW I SAW CHIEF PRICE'S FACEBOOK, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR PLAN IS TO GO THAT ROUTE [LAUGHTER]. WHAT ELSE ARE WE DOING? >> WE ARE NOW AND WE HAVE BEEN GOING OUT TO THE ACADEMIES AND TRYING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE IN THE ACADEMIES. THE PEOPLE WITH EXPERIENCE, IT'S A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT. WE DID TAKE THAT FACEBOOK POST, AND WE PUT THAT OUT ON SOME OF THE FACEBOOK AREAS WHERE THE COPS USUALLY ARE GOING TO SEE THAT STUFF. THERE ARE SEVERAL. WE ARE TRYING TO GET THAT STUFF OUT THERE AND WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK BACK. I KNOW ONE OF OUR OFFICERS PUT IT OUT ON ONE FACEBOOK PAGE AND I THINK HE HAD 2,500 HITS IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. WE'RE GETTING READY TO STEP THAT UP WITH MAYBE A PAGE FOR US WHERE WE PUSH OUT SOME MORE RECRUIT SO PEOPLE CAN HAVE SOME TO ACTUALLY SEE. >> WE ALSO POST ON TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WEBSITE AND OF COURSE ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. >> KATHERINE, HOW MUCH DISCUSSION CAN WE HAVE ON THIS TOPIC AT THIS TIME? >> THIS IS REALLY FOR INFORMATION. IT'S NOT POSTED FOR YOU TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON IT, EXCEPT TO BRING SOMETHING BACK AT A FUTURE DATE. [NOISE] >> CAN I REQUEST THAT WE HAVE A WORKSHOP REGARDING THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE OF HOW THIS ALL CAME DOWN? >> SURE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP REGARDING HOW THIS ALL CAME [01:10:03] ABOUT AND WENT DOWN BECAUSE I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS CAME DOWN. I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON FACEBOOK BEFORE I EVER HEARD ABOUT IT FROM INSIDE MY OWN CITY, AND ON THE GOVERNING BOARD, AND I WAS PRETTY UPSET ABOUT IT. NOT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY ENDED UP WITH, BUT THE WAY THIS CAME DOWN. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THIS WENT DOWN. >> FAIR. PARDON. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I AGREE WITH YOU, AND I THINK THE BIGGER TOPIC IS COMMUNICATION AND HOW THAT COMMUNICATION CASCADES DOWN THROUGHOUT. NOT JUST THIS, THIS IS JUST ONE. IN BUDGETING. THIS IS A COMMITMENT TO AN INCREASE BY 16% IN THE BUDGET THAT I BELIEVE THE GOVERNING BODY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT AND BE A PART OF A DECISION MAKING. YOU MIGHT HAVE FITTED IN FOR THE LINE ITEM, BUT IT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY. >> I THINK EITHER COMMENT OR CORRECTION OF THE QUESTION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT ACTUALLY CHANGED OUR BUDGET BY 16%. IT TOOK THE EXISTING BUDGET THAT HAD BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE FOUR ADDITIONAL POLICE RESOURCES AND REALLOCATED IT TOWARDS RAISES. THE BUDGET ITSELF IS FIXED, AND I THINK 16,000 WAS REDUCED FROM IT BECAUSE WE'LL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO HIRE TWO OF THE HEADCOUNTS. >> BUT THE SALARIES FOR THESE EMPLOYEES NEXT YEAR IS AN INCREASE AND IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED WITH US, BUT THAT IS A FUTURE COMMITMENT. >> I DON'T DISPUTE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE DID NOT COMMUNICATE THAT THERE WAS A BUDGET INCREASE THAT WAS UNAUTHORIZED. >> MISS TOGO. >> ON WHAT YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO WE DISCUSSED. >> YES, WE CAN'T GIVE DIRECTION. WE'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE DIRECTION ON THAT. MY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC IS, IT MAY BE THE PERFECT PLAN. I'M NOT REALLY GOING TO CRITICIZE IT. >> I KNOW THAT WE NEEDED TO DO SOME THINGS TO IMPROVE BOTH OUR RETENTION AND OUR RECRUITMENT OF NEW OFFICERS. MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED AND CITY COUNCIL BEING LEFT OUT OF IT. THE LAST TIME I ASKED ABOUT THIS, I ASKED CHIEF PRICE ABOUT IT AND HE SAID THAT HE WAS WORKING ON A PLAN, WORKING ON A PLAN, AND WE'LL BE HEARING ABOUT IT WHICH I EXPECTED THAT WOULD BE HEARING A PROPOSAL THAT WE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO BUT WE WOULD BE HEARING ABOUT A PLAN ONCE IT WAS COMPLETELY DONE AND COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED. IT'S THE PROCESS THAT I THINK IT'S WRONG HERE AND I CAN'T GIVE DIRECTION ON HOW WE DO THE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE WAY TO DO THE PROCESS. CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED, AND IT WILL AFFECT BUDGET BECAUSE IT'LL AFFECT BUDGET NEXT YEAR. I REMEMBER WHEN I RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL, MY NUMBER 1 THING IS SAFETY. BECAUSE I THINK THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ANY CITY GOVERNMENT IS THE SAFETY OF ITS CITIZENS OR ANY GOVERNMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN A STRONG MILITARY, THE CITY GOVERNMENT, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE A GOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT AND A GREAT POLICE DEPARTMENT. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE SAFE IN THEIR PERSONS AND THEIR PROPERTY, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. THESE ORDINANCES, ANYTHING ELSE DON'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU DON'T KEEP PEOPLE SAFE IN THEIR PERSONS AND THEIR PROPERTY. I'M A STRONG BELIEVER IN HAVING A VERY VIBRANT POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS DOES DO THOUGH, IS IT TAKES AWAY THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO ADD. YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO REALLOCATE ANY DOLLARS FROM ANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS. MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF REALLOCATING FROM ANOTHER DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN JUST LEAVING THE TWO NEW POSITIONS WE WERE GOING TO FILL VACANT. IT'S THE PROCESS THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS MORE SO THAN ANYTHING ELSE. I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THAT PROCESS. >> I THINK IT AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER AND WHAT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL, WHAT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE MAYOR? WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIME WAS MR. MANTON CAME AFTER THE BUDGET, LIKE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR US AT THAT PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION DURING BUDGET, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HIS EXPERIENCE AT THAT TIME. >> I DO WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING IS WE HAD NO APPLICANTS. WE WERE NOT GETTING ANY APPLICANTS. WHILE THOSE TWO POSITIONS OR FOUR POSITIONS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT TWO THAT LEFT AND WERE OPEN AND THEN TWO NEW ONES MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FILLED. IF WE GOT ENOUGH APPLICANTS FOR ALL OF IT, THEN WE COULD BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL ALONG WITH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE TO FULLY FUND THAT. [01:15:04] BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW. >> THE OTHER THING WE RAN ON IS TRANSPARENCY AND TRANSPARENCY INVOLVES DISCUSSIONS AND TALKING ABOUT IT, FINDING OUT ABOUT STUFF I SIT ABOUT FACEBOOK. THAT'S NOT OKAY. IT'S NOT OKAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? LET ME GIVE YOU A SECOND. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES FROM ANYBODY ON ANYTHING? THEN WE WILL GO TO DONATIONS. [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])] THE CITY OF PARKER IS PLEASED TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FOR THE POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD. THE FIRST ONE IS FROM MCCREARY CREEK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATION, WHICH DONATED FOUR MEALS FOR STAFF VALUED AT $50 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. MARIA BOARD AND MAHAN MASAI DONATED FOUR DOZEN ASSORTED COOKIES VALUED AT $20 TO CITY STAFF. PAM AND ALAN TERA, DONATED PUMPKIN AND CHOCOLATE PUDDING CUPS AND GINGERBREAD CAKE, VALUED AT $50 TO CITY STAFF. LINDA RYAN AND JEAN DON DONATED ASSORTED COOKIES, VALUED AT $20 TO CITY STAFF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE THANK EACH OF OUR DONORS. WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TO YOU AND THAT YOU REMEMBER US AND DO THIS. THIS IS JUST AWESOME. THANK YOU. NEXT, I WILL ASK FOR ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. [10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ] I DO HAVE THE WORKSHOP. MR. SURE. >> I WANTED TO BRING A NEW ITEM, AND I WANT TO PROCEED IT BY SAYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I SERVED WITH IS MOST RESPECTFUL AND WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE. ACTUALLY WE USUALLY AGREE. I THINK IF YOU STATISTICALLY MEASURE IF WE OFTEN DISAGREE, BUT IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE IN FUTURE COUNCILS. ONE THING THAT I'VE BEEN BROUGHT TO APPRECIATE BOTH BY CITY EMPLOYEES AND OURSELVES IS THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ADOPT RULES OF DECORUM OR CONDUCT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A WORKSHOP TO BE SCHEDULED TO EXPLORE THE IDEA AND SEE IF WE COULD REACH SOME COMMON SENSE RULES AFFECTING OUR CONDUCT AND HOW WE WORK TOGETHER BOTH ON THE DIES AND OUTSIDE OF IT. >> I HAVE TWO ITEMS. >> WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH OUR MINUTES, CCELM BARON HAD ASKED THAT WE PUT ON FOR THE WORKSHOP ON OUR SPEAKER SYSTEM. WHAT DO THEY CALL? I FORGOT WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> HE HAD REQUESTED THAT WE PUT. I WASN'T ON THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET. I DIDN'T SEE IT. IF WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT GETS ON THE LIST TO GET IN EVENTUALLY. I DO NOT SEE ON HERE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> WE'VE GOT THREE ITEMS ON THE FUTURE AGENT TO BE ADDED TO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ONE IS SWAG. ONE IS POLICE PROCEDURE AND COMMUNICATION, AND ONE IS RULES OF CONDUCT FOR COUNSEL. ANYTHING ELSE? >> HOW DID YOU DESCRIBE THE SECOND ONE? >> POLICE PROCEDURES, COMMUNICATIONS ON POLICE. >> I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR MAKING STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN HOW WE EITHER SPEND MONEY OR STAFF THE ORGANIZATION, STAFF THE CITY. IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN JUST POLICE. >> GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR SPENDING MONEY AND ACQUIRING STAFF? >> MAYBE IT'S THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT, MAYOR, IS HOW WE MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS INVOLVED IN KEY CHANGES IN THE WAY THE CITY IS RUN? BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE IS THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, POTENTIALLY, TAKING OFF TWO NEW PEOPLE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIRED LATER IN [01:20:03] THE YEAR AND HOW THAT WAS FUNDED WITHOUT THE CITY COUNCIL BEING INVOLVED IN THE DECISION. >> I WANT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE I GET THE WORDING BILL CORRECTLY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M OFFERING A CLARIFICATION OR A DIFFERENT VERSION OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE ALLOCATED BUDGET FOR A SPECIFIC INTENT, AND THEN THE BUDGET WAS REPURPOSED. I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO EXPLORE IS THE LIMITATIONS AND PRIVILEGES OF EXECUTION ENJOYED BY THE CITY DEPARTMENTS ON HOW THEY CAN REPURPOSE IF THEY CAN. I THINK IF YOU ALLOCATED $480,000 FOR OFFICERS AND IT GOT TRANSFORMED INTO A MASSIVE THEATER SYSTEM. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, BEYOND MISUSE OF CITY RESOURCES. THERE'S LIMITS TO THIS. WHAT ARE THOSE LIMITS, AND I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE EXPLORED AND DOCUMENTED AND FOLLOWED UP UPON. >> I THINK I GOT THAT. THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM LIST, WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REVISED, AND UPDATED. NEXT, WE WILL RESELS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE [EXECUTIVE SESSION] WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 551.0711, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR TO 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 COMPLEX WITH THIS CHAPTER ON ANY AGENDA ITEM LISTED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THIS AGENDA AND OR ON THE SUBJECT MATTER LISTED BELOW. GREGORY LANE LITIGATION, RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SLASH MUD AND LEWIS LANE. AT THIS TIME, 758, WE ARE IN RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. [RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO, MADAM, MAYOR. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.