[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS FEBRUARY 3RD, 2026 AT 6.01PM.
AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK MS. HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A SUPER BOWL.
[WORKSHOP]
OKAY, AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO TO THE WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE ROLES OF MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND STAFF IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE BUDGET AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION OF BUDGET ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY.OKAY, MS. BOGDAN, I BELIEVE THIS WAS YOUR REQUEST, SO IF YOU WOULD BEGIN US.
CAN YOU PUSH THIS AND MAKE IT STAY ON? PUSH AND HOLD, OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO I REQUESTED THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE OF HOW THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE PAY SCALE CAME DOWN TO US.
I THINK THE PROCESS OF HOW IT WAS HANDLED I DIDN'T AGREE WITH AND I WANTED COUNCIL TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON HOW THIS WENT.
SO I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT ON FACEBOOK AND WAS UPSET ABOUT THAT AND SO I ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS.
AND SO SHE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT WE OKAY THEIR SALARIES THROUGH APPROVING THE BUDGET IS HOW I TOOK IT SIMPLIFIED.
SO WHEN WE HAD MONEY IN THE BUDGET THEY TOOK IT AS THAT THEY COULD SPEND THAT MONEY ON THE POLICE SALARIES.
I LOOKED AT IT FROM THE POINT OF PERSPECTIVE THAT WE APPROVED DURING BUDGET SEASON AND HAD EXTENSIVE TALKS REGARDING THIS.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAME TO US AND SAID WE NEED MORE BODIES, WE NEED MORE BODIES.
AND THE COUNCIL HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT AND WE APPROVED BODIES.
SO I GUESS THAT MONEY WENT INTO THE POLICE SALARY BUDGET LINE ITEM.
AND FROM THERE I LOOKED INTO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ASKED THE QUESTION WHO APPROVES THIS? SO ME AND THE MAYOR HAD A DISCUSSION AND SHE FELT THAT SHE WAS THE ADMINISTRATION.
IT WAS A TEAM THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND DECIDED THAT THEY WERE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FILLING THOSE POSITIONS.
AND THAT THEY CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION OF PUTTING THE BODIES THAT WE APPROVED ON HOLD.
AND UTILIZE THAT FUNDING FROM THAT LINE ITEM AND PUT IT INTO A SALARY INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
SO THAT'S THE BASIC OF KIND OF HOW THAT HAPPENED.
I HAVE TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THERE WAS NO HOLD OR CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OR HOLDING OF THE POSITIONS THAT WERE AUTHORIZED.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT.
WHEN COUNCIL APPROVED THE BUDGET, THEY APPROVED X NUMBER OF DOLLARS FOR POLICE SALARIES.
THEY DIDN'T APPROVE SO MUCH MONEY FOR THE CHIEF, SO MUCH MONEY.
THEY JUST APPROVED THE BODY OF MONEY.
AND THE COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED TWO EXTRA OFFICERS OR TWO NEW OFFICERS.
WE STARTED PAYING THAT MONEY INTO THE POLICE SALARIES AS OF OCTOBER 1ST.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT LOST ONE OFFICER SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
AND THEN IN DECEMBER, WE LOST THE SECOND OFFICER AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO HIRE ANY OFFICERS.
SO WE'RE FOUR OFFICERS DOWN IN ESSENCE.
AND CHIEF BRYCE CAME AND SAID, THERE'S A PROBLEM.
I'M NOT BEING ABLE TO FULFILL THE OFFICER'S POSITIONS.
AND I'VE GOT TWO MORE THAT HAVE GIVEN NOTICE THAT ARE READY TO QUIT.
I TOLD HIM TO PLEASE COME UP WITH A PLAN AND LET'S SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT IT.
AND THE PLAN WAS TO TAKE THE EXISTING FUNDS AND PUT THEM INTO THE STEP PLAN.
[00:05:02]
ATTRACT PEOPLE THAT WE COULD HIRE.ALL THAT MONEY WAS ALREADY THERE.
IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T DO THIS IF WE DO THAT.
WE COULD STILL HIRE ALL FOUR OFFICERS AND STILL HAVE MONEY.
WE'VE ALSO BEEN PUTTING MONEY INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITION FOR TWO YEARS.
THAT MONEY IS STILL AVAILABLE.
IT WASN'T THAT WE PUT THE NEW OFFICERS ON HOLD AT ALL.
IT'S WE COULDN'T GET ANYBODY TO APPLY.
ONCE WE APPROVED THIS, I BELIEVE CHIEF BRYCE HAD FIVE APPLICANTS THAT CAME UP.
SINCE IT'S BEEN IN PLACE, WE'VE HAD SIX APPLICANTS AND NINE PEOPLE.
MADAM MAYOR, FOR ME IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS BUDGET YEAR.
AND I APPRECIATE THE CREATIVITY.
IT'S THE FUTURE IMPACT ON BUDGETS WE HAVE NOT APPROVED.
OKAY, I DON'T BELIEVE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD AFFECT THEM.
WHEN WE GO TO BUDGET, CHIEF BRYCE AND GRANT SAVAGE WILL PRESENT THE BUDGET AND PRESENT THE BUDGET FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED IS WITHIN THE AMOUNT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL.
RIGHT, BUT SAY IF YOU PAY THIS PERSON, I'M GOING TO USE BIZARRE NUMBERS, $30,000 A YEAR.
AND YOU BRING IN PEOPLE AT $30,000 A YEAR.
BUT NEXT YEAR WE SAY WE ARE NOT APPROVING THAT BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE YOU RAISED THE INCOMING RATE, THE COMPENSATION PLAN IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY APPROVED.
SO ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK NEXT YEAR AND REDUCE THAT PAY? OR ARE WE FOREVER ENCUMBERING THAT INCREASE IN SALARY? I...
WHAT WE DID IS ALREADY FUNDED.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FUNDED PAST THIS YEAR.
YOU HAVE MADE A DECISION THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON FUTURE BUDGETS WITHOUT COUNCIL'S INPUT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT, IF ANY, IT MAY HAVE.
IT WAS THERE TO GIVE THE RAISE.
THE MONEY WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED.
IT WAS SIMPLY MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER PLACE WITHIN THE POLICE BUDGET.
MADAM MAYOR, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD SAY IT WON'T AFFECT FUTURE BUDGETS BECAUSE WHEN WE'VE GIVEN PAY RAISES TO OUR OFFICERS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EXPECTATION EITHER OF COUNCIL OR THE OFFICERS THAT THEIR PAY RAISES ARE GOING TO BE RESCINDED AND TAKEN AWAY FOR NEXT YEAR.
SO IF WE KEEP PAYING THEM THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE NOW BEING PAID UNDER THE NEW PAY STRUCTURE, IT WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE WILL BE PAYING THEM AT A HIGHER RATE.
AND MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT EVEN SO MUCH THAT I, IT'S NOT THAT I DISAGREE COMPLETELY WITH THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE TO RAISE PAY SOME TO HELP US NOT LOSE ANY MORE OFFICERS AND TO HELP US BE MORE EFFECTIVE AT RECRUITING OFFICERS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, NOT LOSE MORE AND FILL THE VACANCIES THAT WE HAVE.
EVEN MORE THAN THE DECISION ITSELF, IT'S THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE DECISION WAS UNDERTAKEN.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DISCUSS TONIGHT BECAUSE GOING BACK TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO WHEN YOU WERE CORRECTING COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN, IS YOU SAID WE APPROVED TWO NEW POSITIONS FOR THIS YEAR.
WHAT WE APPROVED FOR THIS YEAR WAS THREE NEW POSITIONS WITH THE PAY FOR TWO POSITIONS.
AND I REMEMBER THAT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO MADE THE PROPOSAL ON THAT, THAT WE FINED TWO, WE APPROVED THREE.
AND THE REASON WE COULD FINE TWO AND APPROVE THREE POSITIONS IS BECAUSE WE KNEW WE ALREADY HAD SOME VACANCIES AND WE KNEW THAT ALL OF THESE VACANCIES WOULDN'T BE FILLED INSTANTLY, SO THERE WAS MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO HIRE THREE NEW PEOPLE PROGRESSIVELY THROUGH THE YEAR BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T NEED AN ENTIRE YEAR'S WORTH OF PAY BUDGETED FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE TO GET THAT DONE.
POINT BEING, WHAT WE ACTUALLY DID WAS WE APPROVED THREE NEW POSITIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DECISION
[00:10:01]
THAT WAS MADE WITHOUT COUNCIL'S INPUT WAS TO PUT ON HOLD ONE OR MORE OF THOSE POSITIONS.I SAW THAT SOMEWHERE. I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP.
WASN'T THAT IN A MEMO THAT YOU SENT OUT, KENT, TO ALL OF US THAT SAID WE PUT ON HOLD THOSE POSITIONS? YES.
YES, COUNCIL MAYOR, THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING ON HOW WE CAME UP WITH JUSTIFYING THE MOVEMENT OF THE FUNDS WAS TO PUT THOSE POSITIONS ON HOLD.
NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU COULDN'T, IF WE GOT TO A POSITION WHERE EVERYTHING WAS FUNDED, THAT WE COULDN'T COME BACK AND ASK FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT MID-YEAR IF WE NEEDED TO, TO FURTHER FUND AND GET UP TO THAT POINT.
I DID NOT SAY THAT MEMO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY POSITIONS THAT WE PUT ON HOLD.
SO THE WHOLE PLAN WAS STRUCTURED AROUND PUTTING TWO POSITIONS ON HOLD SO THAT WE COULD MOVE THOSE FUNDS AND INCREASE SALARIES AND CREATE THIS PAY PLAN.
THAT WAS NEVER MY UNDERSTANDING, MS. BAUGHMAN.
THAT WASN'T IN A MEMO THAT WE ALL RECEIVED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DIDN'T WANT TO RECEIVE THAT, BUT THAT'S THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE CITY THAT THOSE POSITIONS WERE PUT ON HOLD.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO READ THE SECTION OF CODE WHERE I LEARNED ABOUT THIS POLICE OFFICER'S COMPENSATION FALLING UNDER THE GOVERNING BODY.
SO SECTION 131.006, IT SAYS, THE GOVERNING BODY OF A TYPE A GENERAL LAW MUNICIPALITY SHALL SET THE COMPENSATION, INCLUDING ANY FEES OF OFFICE, FOR THE MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER'S ENROACHMENT.
SO TO ME, WHEN I READ THIS, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE GOVERNING BODY IS IN CHARGE OF THAT.
SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT FELL ON TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM TO DO THAT AND NOT THE GOVERNING BODY.
COUNCIL, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT, PLEASE? CERTAINLY, IF THE...
I THINK THERE'S MAYBE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE COUNCIL'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY APPROVING AND GIVING DIRECTION TO STAFF.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO FUND THESE POSITIONS.
WHAT WAS PLACED IN THE BUDGET WAS THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AT, I GUESS, THE THEN CURRENT RATE, WHICH I'M SURMISING, AND GRANT COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
SO THAT'S THE MONEY THAT WAS IN THERE.
THERE'S NOT THAT I COULD FIND ANYTHING WHERE COUNCIL APPROVED A NUMBER OF POSITIONS OR A SPECIFIC RANGE OF PAY.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE SECTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN BROUGHT UP, IF THE COUNCIL HAD PREVIOUSLY SET, FOR EXAMPLE, A STEP PAY PLAN BY ORDINANCE, THEN ANY CHANGES TO THAT WOULD HAVE TO ALSO BE BY ORDINANCE.
THAT HAD NOT OCCURRED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AT THIS POINT.
AND SO IT'S JUST THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY AND NO SPECIFIC ADOPTION IN THE BUDGET FOR A NUMBER OF POSITIONS OR A RANGE OF PAY.
I THINK OUR DISCUSSIONS IN THE BUDGET WERE VERY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR BODIES, AND WE GAVE THEM BODIES.
AND I THINK, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WROTE IN THE BUDGET, LIKE, THIS IS FOR ONE, TWO PEOPLE.
BUT, I MEAN, THOSE WERE VERY CLEAR DIRECTIONS FROM COUNCIL IN THAT BUDGET MEETING.
AND SO I DISAGREE WITH THAT, OH, YOU FUNDED IT AND THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT WITH THOSE FUNDS.
WITH RESPECT TO COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN, I FEEL LIKE I HALF AGREE WITH WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALLOCATED BUDGET TO ONE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT, WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY ASKING FOR HEADCOUNT.
BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY, AT LEAST AS A CITY, EXERT CONTROL ON HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY USED.
NOW, THE PART WHERE I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN IS, YOU KNOW, THE JUSTIFICATION MADE FOR THE FUNDS WOUND UP NOT BEING WHAT THE FUNDS WERE USED FOR.
AND SO, WELL, I THINK THEY ACTED WITHIN THE DISCRETION THAT THEY WERE AFFORDED.
I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WALKING BACK AN INTENT THAT A BUDGET WAS AUTHORIZED FOR, REALLY SHOULD HAVE COME WITH AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING, OR POTENTIALLY A HEARING, THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN AT LEAST INFORMED COUNCIL BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS A DECISION THAT WE BASED ENTIRELY ON A SINGULAR DEMAND.
SO, I THINK IN THAT SENSE, THERE'S A POLICY THAT COULD PROBABLY BE AFFORDED HERE WHEN YOU REALLOCATE FUNDS AWAY FROM THE JUSTIFICATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED WITHIN THE BUDGETARY MEETINGS THAT PROBABLY ADDRESSES THIS IN TERMS OF DECORUM AND PROCESS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR COUNCIL, I THINK IT WAS DONE ACCORDING TO POLICY, WHETHER YOU AGREE
[00:15:01]
WITH IT OR NOT.AND HERE'S WHERE I THINK WE AS COUNCIL HAVE FAILED.
AND I SAY WE AS COUNCIL, MEANING ANY ITERATION OF IT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A PAY PLAN IN PLACE THAT WOULD HAVE THEN INFORMED FUTURE EXPENSES AND GIVEN US THE ABILITY TO SAY, ABSOLUTELY, WE ARE ON BOARD WITH THIS AND HOW IT IMPACTS FUTURE BUDGETS AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
OKAY. I NEVER UNDERSTOOD, AND APPARENTLY YOU AND I HAD A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING, THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIRE, REPLACE THE TWO OFFICERS WE LOST AND GO AHEAD AND HIRE THE OTHER TWO WITH THE MONEY THAT WAS ALLOCATED.
THERE'S TWO OTHER POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
ONE, I HAD ASKED THAT YOU ALL BE INFORMED IMMEDIATELY OF THE DECISION, AND THE EMAIL DID NOT GO OUT AS I HAD INTENDED IT TO, AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT DIDN'T GO OUT TIMELY, AND I APOLOGIZE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I CAN PROVIDE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THAT.
SO, YES, MAYOR DID DIRECT ME TO SEND OUT THAT EMAIL AND KEEP YOU ALL INFORMED.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO STARTING THIS RECRUITMENT PROCESS QUICKLY SO THAT THEY COULD GET SOME APPLICATIONS, AND THAT WAS A MISSTEP ON MY END.
I WENT AHEAD AND JUST SAID, CHIEF PRICE, GO AHEAD AND START THE PROCESS.
LET'S TRY TO GET SOME RECRUITS IN HERE, AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THE NEXT DAY OR SO BEFORE THAT EMAIL GOT TO YOU.
OKAY. THERE WAS ANOTHER POINT. NO, IT WENT OUT OF MY HEAD.
OH, THIS PLAN WAS PRESENTED TO ME ON DECEMBER 17TH, WHICH WAS A WEDNESDAY BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
IF I WOULD HAVE SAID, OKAY, LET'S TRY TO GET COUNCIL TOGETHER AND MEET ON THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I CAN'T SEND OUT AN EMAIL, SO I HAVE TO DEPEND ON CATHERINE OR KENT OR PATTY OR SOMEBODY TO SEND OUT AN EMAIL.
IF THAT WOULD HAVE GONE OUT THE EVENING OF DECEMBER 17TH, I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD BACK FROM YOU ALL UNTIL THE 18TH OR THE 19TH EVEN.
ONCE I HEAR BACK FROM YOU ALL AND YOU ALL SAY, OH, I'M AVAILABLE FOR A MEETING, I HAVE TO POST THAT MEETING, AND I HAVE TO POST IT THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE.
IF I DON'T HEAR BACK TO YOU FROM THAT FRIDAY, I'LL POST IT ON FRIDAY.
THE NEXT WEEK IS CHRISTMAS WEEK. WE'RE CLOSED ALL WEEK.
SO, THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE IS THE 29TH, THEN THE 30TH, THEN WE'RE CLOSED AGAIN.
I'M SORRY. I FEEL LIKE THAT STARTED AT ME.
I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THIS HAPPENED.
BECAUSE THE EARLIEST MEETING I COULD HAVE CALLED WOULD HAVE BEEN JANUARY 5TH.
WE ALREADY HAD A MEETING AND IT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 6TH.
SO, I JUST WANT TO PUT IT IN THERE.
CHIEF BRYCE WAS LOOKING AT, ON THE 17TH WHEN HE BROUGHT THIS TO MY ATTENTION, HE WAS LOOKING AT TWO OFFICERS, ONE OF WHOM HAD TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING TO QUIT AND THE OTHER ONE WHO SAID I'M RIGHT BEHIND HIM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BOTH OF THOSE OFFICERS CHOSE NOW NOT TO QUIT AND WE DO HAVE SIX APPLICATIONS.
OKAY. I THINK YOU WERE WAITING NEXT. GO AHEAD.
SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE REVIEW ON A YEARLY BASIS THAT GRANT DOES SOME HOMEWORK AND REVIEWS EVERYBODY'S SALARIES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COMPARABLE AND FIT IN WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO.
I HEARD THAT WE DO THAT ONCE A YEAR.
SO, NUMBER ONE, I THINK WE COULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS IN THAT YEARLY REVIEW.
NUMBER TWO, I THINK DURING THE BUDGET SESSION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD CHANCE TO ASK FOR AN INCREASE IN PAY IF THAT WAS A REAL ISSUE.
WE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT DURING BUDGET.
[00:20:02]
OUT AS THIS EMERGENCY ALL OF A SUDDEN.THAT'S NOT HOW WE SHOULD BE WORKING AND HAVING A PROCESS.
SO, I THINK WE NEED A BETTER PROCESS THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE THIS ISN'T HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO RUN.
WE DO THE BUDGET GENERALLY MAY, JUNE, JULY AND PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT IN AUGUST AND PAST IT.
WE DO SALARY EVALUATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY DONE IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER.
THIS PAST YEAR IT WAS DONE IN SEPTEMBER.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, I DON'T REMEMBER, I'M GOING FROM MEMORY, ANYBODY RAISING AN ISSUE ABOUT THE POLICE SALARIES.
ALL OF A SUDDEN IN OCTOBER OR SO, A LOT OF THE OTHER AGENCIES BEGAN RAISING THEIR RIGHT WHICH AFFECTED US GREATLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE OFFICERS THAT LEFT US LEFT US BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO ANOTHER PLACE THAT WAS PAYING HIM OVER $10,000 MORE A YEAR PLUS HE'D GET A SIGNING BONUS.
WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT PLANO, WE WERE PAYING AT THAT TIME $63,000 TO A STARTING OFFICER.
ALLEN WENT UP TO, KENNY, DO YOU REMEMBER? ALL OF THEM JUMPED UP AND CHIEF PRICE TRIED HIS BEST TO WORK WITH THAT UNTIL IT GOT TO BE DECEMBER AND IN HIS MIND IT WAS CRITICAL.
MOST OF THE POINTS I WAS GOING TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COVERED, BUT THE ONE THING I'LL SAY IS IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALERTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHEN THESE OTHER AGENCIES STARTED UPPING THEIR SALARIES IN OCTOBER OR WHATEVER.
AT THAT POINT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, HEY, WE MAY NEED TO DO THIS SO THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, BEEN RUN BY COUNSEL INSTEAD OF THIS EMERGENCY SITUATION.
I THINK THE FACT THAT IT BECAME AN EMERGENCY SITUATION IS JUST INDICATIVE OF POOR PLANNING.
I ABSOLUTELY DO THINK THIS AFFECTS NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, NONE OF US DO RIGHT NOW, TO SAY, HEY, WE CAN AFFORD THESE PAY INCREASES PLUS THOSE ADDITIONAL THREE OFFICERS.
WE MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT THOSE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS NOW.
WITH RESPECT TO COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON, I THINK IT'S IRRELEVANT HOW MUCH WE PAY THE POLICE IF WE HAVE NO POLICE TO STAFF IT WITH.
RESPECTFULLY, CHIEF PRICE, I THINK YOU ULTIMATELY MADE THE RIGHT HR DECISION.
I REPEAT MYSELF HERE A LITTLE BIT THAT I WISH WHAT WE FOUND OUT WAS WE NEED TO DO THIS RATHER THAN WE'RE DOING IT OR WE'VE DONE IT.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL.
HOW LARGE DOES THIS DISCRETION TO REALLOCATE BUDGET GO? IS IT SPECIFICALLY AROUND HUMAN RESOURCES VERSUS EQUIPMENT? WOULD, SAY, STAFF HAVE THE SAME DISCRETION TO DO EMERGENCY HIRING AND INFORM US AFTER THE FACT? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT SPECIFICALLY COVERS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADOPTED PAY PLAN.
WE LOOK TO HR AND FINANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT DOES THE BUDGET BEAR.
A HIRING SUPERVISOR ALWAYS HAS THE ABILITY TO NOT HIRE A POSITION.
THEN, DEPENDING ON THE PRACTICE OF THE MUNICIPALITY, WE ALLOCATE THAT MONEY TO SAY, HEY, I HAVE THESE THREE POSITIONS AND I CAN'T HIRE THEM, BUT I COULD HIRE TWO IF THIS MONEY IS MOVED AROUND IN THIS WAY.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO PAST PRACTICE SPECIFICALLY.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GRANT WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO IN THAT.
I THINK YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION IN THERE THAT I WAS GOING TO ANSWER, AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS.
I GUESS, WHAT IS THEIR AUTHORITY TO REDELEGATE OR REALLOCATE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
WE SAY THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED THE BUDGET WITH THE SPECIFICITY THAT YOU SEE IN THE BUDGET.
IN PARKER'S BUDGET, IT'S ADOPTED
[00:25:01]
AT THE LINE ITEM LEVEL.YOU HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR SALARIES, YOU HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR CONTRACTS, YOU HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR SERVICES, ETC.
I'M SURE GRANT COULD SPELL THAT OUT FURTHER.
TYPICALLY, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE IS AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD TO MOVE BETWEEN THE PERSONNEL LINES AND THE OTHER LINES.
TYPICALLY, IN MUNICIPAL SERVICE, YOU REGARD THOSE PERSONNEL LINES AS SOMETHING THAT STAYS PERSONNEL.
THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE BUDGET ADOPTION ORDINANCE FOR PARKER THAT ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO MOVE MONEY BETWEEN LINE ITEMS WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT.
NOW, JUST TO COMPLICATE THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, SOME CITIES BUDGET AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL OR AT THE FUND LEVEL, WHERE YOU CAN JUST SAY ALL WE'RE ADOPTING IS THIS LUMP SUM OF MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND, IT ALLOWS A CITY MANAGER, IF IT'S SET UP THAT WAY, TO MOVE MONEY HOWEVER THEY WANT AND ALLOCATE HOWEVER THEY WANT WITHIN THAT.
IT'S THAT BUDGET DOCUMENT THAT REALLY DETAILS WHERE THAT AUTHORIZATION IS HAD AND THEN ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT IS FOUND IN ORDINANCE, IN CHARTER, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE, BUT IN ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S ADOPTED TO SAY THIS IS HOW THE BUDGET WORKS HERE.
JUST TYING THAT OFF, SO TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR COUNCIL IS DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THE PROCESS? I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF A PAY SCALE.
I'M MOSTLY AGAINST OVER-DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENTS RATHER THAN AFFORDING THEM DISCRETION TO AFFORD THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR INDUSTRY AND SO FORTH, BUT I FOR ONE AM KIND OF OPEN TO THE IDEA OF REQUIRED NOTICES BEFORE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
IT MAY BE THAT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT TOPIC DURING BUDGET ON HOW WE WANT THE BUDGET TO BE.
I DON'T KNOW. PEOPLE MAY WANT SOME CHANGES IN THAT.
ACTUALLY, THIS IS IN MY WHEELHOUSE NOW, AND I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF HAVING A PAY PLAN SO THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHERE THEY START, WHERE THEY CAN GO.
IT ALSO PROVIDES CLARITY FOR THE MANAGERS.
IT ALSO GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY AS COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN THE MARKETPLACE.
ARE WE GOING TO COMPETE AGAINST THE HIGHLAND PARKS OF THE WORLD, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE ENTRY LEVEL, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE COMFORTABLE IN THE MIDDLE? DETERMINE IT THAT WAY, AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE ON STAFF TO RESEARCH THAT.
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE GRANT, BUT THERE ARE TOOLS OUT THERE FOR THAT.
I THINK GIVING THEM SOME GUIDELINES, AND THEY STILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO WORK WITHIN THOSE.
IN RESPONSE TO THAT, IN THIS EMERGENCY MEETING, MR. SAVAGE WAS THERE, SERGEANT BURDOCK, KENNY PRICE, MYSELF, KENT MATTEN, AND CATHERINE.
MR. SAVAGE INDICATED WE DID HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET WITHOUT AFFECTING IT.
HE HAD ALSO DONE RESEARCH, AS HAD CHIEF PRICE, ON WHAT WAS GOING RIGHT IN ALL OF THE CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS, BOTTOM LINE, MIDDLE, UPPER.
WHAT HE WAS LOOKING AT IS, I'M FOUR OFFICERS DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN CONTINUE SERVICING THE CITY THE WAY THE CITY WANTS ME TO DO MY JOB.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I WAS DISCUSSING.
I'M NOT DISCUSSING THAT AT ALL. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS IS WHERE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AHEAD OF TIME, SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE BUDGET, WE CAN SAY, IS THERE A NEED? SHOULD THIS BE GOING UP? ARE WE GOING TO BE AT THE 25% LEVEL OR THE 75% LEVEL? SO WE HAD SOME UNDERSTANDING.
I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP THAT HAD THIS COME UP TO US EARLIER, IT WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN TO AN EMERGENCY, HAD WE LEARNED ABOUT IT IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, PICK A TIME.
BUT SOME OF THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW THAT CHIEF PRICE KNEW THAT TWO MORE OFFICERS MIGHT BE LEAVING UNTIL THEY TOLD HIM.
AND I THINK THAT REALLY GOT TO HIM AND TO THE REST OF US.
[00:30:03]
WE WERE VERY CONCERNED.MR. PILGRIM, YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT.
GOING BACK TO THE STATUTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN WAS CITING, THE SECTION 141.006, IT DOES SAY THE GOVERNING BODY OF A TYPE A GENERAL LAW MUNICIPALITY SHALL SET THE COMPENSATION FOR POLICE OFFICERS.
THE SHALL SET THE COMPENSATION SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE COMPENSATION BASIS THAT THEY WERE ON WAS EMBEDDED INTO THE BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE BUDGET NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT.
IT'S NOT JUST A NUMBER THAT WAS PULLED OUT OF THE AIR.
IT'S GOT DETAIL BEHIND IT FROM CORRECT GRANT THAT'S BASED ON THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND THE ACTUAL PAY FOR EACH OF THOSE POSITIONS, CORRECT? OKAY.
SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BUDGET IS TIED TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE OFFICERS.
THERE WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE WITHOUT COUNCIL'S INVOLVEMENT TO CHANGE THE COMPENSATION OF THE OFFICERS.
SO EVEN IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE POSITION WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY APPROVE INDIVIDUAL PAY BY OFFICER AT BUDGET TIME, IT WAS INDIRECTLY APPROVED BECAUSE IT WAS A COMPONENT OF THE NUMBER THAT WE APPROVED AS A TOTAL.
IF THERE WAS TO BE A CHANGE IN THAT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS SECTION 141006 THAT SAYS THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL SET THE COMPENSATION.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW I CAN RECONCILE THOSE TWO THINGS.
AND I'M NOT STATING THAT WE'RE PAYING THEM THE WRONG AMOUNT OR THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN THEM A RAISE.
WE OBVIOUSLY NEEDED TO RAISE THE PAY TO RETAIN THE ONES WE HAD AND TO HELP THE RECRUITMENT OF THE NEW OFFICERS.
IT GOES BACK TO THE PROCESS AGAIN.
THE LAST TIME I HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH ANYBODY ABOUT THIS, BEFORE ALL OF THIS OCCURRED, WAS ACTUALLY WITH CHIEF PRICE.
I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS, BUT IT WAS IN PROBABLY NOVEMBER, MAYBE EVEN OCTOBER, COUNCIL MEETING.
AND I JUST ASKED HIM HOW HE WAS COMING ON RECRUITING.
IT WAS AFTER THE BUDGET HAD BEEN APPROVED BECAUSE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE NEW POSITIONS BEING APPROVED.
WE FUNDED TWO FOR THE REASONS THAT I STATED EARLIER.
AND I SAID, HOW'S THE RECRUITING COMING? AND HE SAID, PRETTY SPARSE.
WE'RE HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME HIRING PEOPLE.
AND I SAID, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? AND HE SAID, WELL, I'M WORKING.
AND THIS IS NOT VERBATIM, BUT YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I MISSTATE ANYTHING YOU SAID, CHIEF PRICE.
HE BASICALLY SAID, I'M WORKING ON A PLAN WITH KENT THAT WE'LL BE PRESENTING TO COUNCIL SOON.
SO MY EXPECTATION WAS THAT COUNCIL WAS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN REVAMPING A PAY PLAN FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS SO THAT WE COULD RETAIN THE ONES WE HAVE AND HIRE SOME NEW ONES.
AND THE NEXT THING WE HEAR ABOUT IT IS IT WAS A DONE DEAL, AND YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T GET THE EMAIL THAT SAID WE WERE PUTTING POSITIONS ON HOLD.
MY RECOLLECTION IS YOU WERE ON THAT DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THAT EMAIL.
AM I CORRECT, KENT? IF YOU WEREN'T MARRIED, THEN THAT WAS A MISTAKE ON MY END, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
OKAY, I DON'T REMEMBER EVER GETTING THAT.
BUT MORE SO THAN EVEN BEING ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THE MEETING WHERE THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PUT THE POSITIONS ON HOLD.
AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU WEREN'T AWARE THAT THE POSITIONS WERE PUT ON HOLD.
THEY EFFECTIVELY HAD TO BE PUT ON HOLD BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MORE FUNDS.
LIKE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HIRE THE EXTRA PEOPLE BECAUSE WE'VE USED THE MONEY TO BRING ON OTHER PEOPLE.
SO IT WAS PUT ON HOLD BECAUSE MONEY DIDN'T EXIST.
ONCE WE FINISHED HIRING WHAT WE NEEDED TO CATCH BACK UP, THERE WAS PLENTY OF MONEY AVAILABLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL TWO PEOPLE.
MAYOR COUNCIL, IF I COULD SPEAK TO THIS REAL QUICK.
IF THERE WAS A FAILURE IN COMMUNICATION ON THIS, THAT'S CERTAINLY ON ME.
THAT WASN'T RELAYED TO YOU AND THAT YOU DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND.
BUT I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR'S GETTING AT IS THAT WE HAD ENOUGH ATTRITION AND THE FACT THAT WE WERE ESSENTIALLY NOT HIRING THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH COST SAVINGS FOR THAT.
SO THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE WAY SHE CAME TO THAT UNDERSTANDING.
I JUST WANT TO FINISH MY POINT REAL QUICKLY.
I'M NOT EVEN SAYING IT WAS A WRONG DECISION AND IT WAS DONE.
I'M STILL SAYING THE PROCESS WAS WRONG.
AND I THINK WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF DOING WAS IF WE NEEDED TO RAISE THE PAY THE AMOUNT THAT IT WAS RAISED, THAT'S FINE.
BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A BUDGET MEETING AND REALLOCATED OR RAISED OUR BUDGET.
WE CAN AMEND A BUDGET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT, GRANT? YOU'VE TOLD ME THERE ARE OTHER TIMES WHEN WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE CITY TO AMEND ITS BUDGET.
SO WE COULD HAVE AMENDED THE BUDGET AND ESTABLISHED A COMPENSATION LEVEL FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD HAVE FULLY FUNDED ALL OF THE POSITIONS AT THE NEW PAY LEVEL.
AND I WOULD HAVE RATHER HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND DONE THAT THAN NOT BE INVOLVED AT ALL.
[00:35:01]
THIS IS A PROCESS OF WHEN A DECISION THAT IS THAT MAJOR IS BEING MADE, I THINK CITY COUNCIL AT BEST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECISION, AT THE VERY MINIMUM SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THE DECISION AHEAD OF TIME OR INFORMED THAT THE DISCUSSION IS EVEN TAKING PLACE.AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE DISCUSSION WAS TAKING PLACE.
SO I WILL SAY HISTORICALLY PARKER HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO SPEND MONEY ON ANYTHING.
SO I CAN SEE WHERE YOU WOULD BE AS A POLICE CHIEF, MAYBE THEY WILL NOT APPROVE THIS BECAUSE HISTORICALLY IT HASN'T BEEN THAT EASY TO DO.
I WILL SAY THOUGH I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BACKLASH NOW THAT IT'S OUT THAT THEY'VE GOTTEN RAISES AND ALL OF THIS AND WHO'S PAYING FOR THAT AND WHAT'S THE REPERCUSSIONS DOWN THE ROAD.
AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR COUNCIL TO BE INVOLVED UP FRONT SO THAT WE COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND IT WHEN IT HITS FACEBOOK AND ARE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
IN AN IDEAL WORLD I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO BE ABLE TO CALL A COUNCIL MEETING, A WORKSHOP, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY, AND LET'S SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
I DIDN'T FEEL THERE WAS TIME TO DO THAT.
SO WITH 23 MINUTES LEFT IN THE WORKSHOP, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK WE RANGE FROM MILDLY CHAFED TO ANNOYED ON THIS TOPIC.
MAYBE SOMEONE WANTS TO ADD TO ANNOYED.
BUT I REALLY WANT TO, WITH THE TIME THAT WE HAVE LEFT, KIND OF FOCUS ON HOW DO WE SOLVE FORWARD RATHER THAN IDENTIFY WHAT WE DIDN'T LIKE.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF KIND OF SOLVING THIS IN TERMS OF, AND MAYBE THE ANSWER IS PAY BANDING, PAY SCALE AT BUDGETARY TIME.
MAYBE THERE'S PROBABLY LIKE AN ADDITIONAL DISCRETION THAT WE COULD AFFORD THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON TOP OF THAT TO SOLVE FOR INNER YEAR THINGS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY APPROVE IT FOR THEM TO SOLVE IT.
BUT I THINK GETTING DOWN TO MAYBE THAT GRANULARITY, HAVE THE DEPARTMENT HEAD PRESENT THEIR PAY SCALE, APPROVE THE PAY SCALE, WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING IN THE WAY OF THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I MEAN, WE CAN'T UNSAIL THE SHIP THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE LEARN FROM THIS, TAKE BACK THE FACT THAT WE FELT LIKE WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A WALK BACK ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WE APPROVED, BUT RETAIN THE TRUST OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE TRUST OF OUR CITIZENS BOTH.
SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION IS JUST MAKE BUDGET AND PLANNING SEASON SLIGHTLY LONGER.
I'M SURE EVERYBODY WILL THROW UP THEIR HATS AND REJOICE.
MS. BOTRAM, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
I AGREE WITH MR. SHARP THAT I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AND FIGURE OUT A PLAN.
I THINK SOME KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE AN ORDINANCE OR WHAT, AS FAR AS CONTROLLING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THIS MONEY IS FLOWING AROUND.
I THINK WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DOES IT GO JUST BY LINE ITEM, DOES IT GO BY FUND, DOES IT GO, SHOULD WE PUT A DOLLAR LIMIT IF IT GOES OVER THIS DOLLAR LIMIT, MAYBE WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT TO SEE WHAT FITS BEST FOR US.
BECAUSE I AGREE, I'M OKAY IF WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF MOVING, BUT I DON'T WANT POLICE SALARIES GETTING SPENT ON POLICE CARS.
THOSE ARE THINGS, I MEAN, THAT'S HAPPENED TO ME IN ANOTHER CITY BEFORE WHERE THEY TOOK TRAINING BUDGETS FROM EVERYBODY ACROSS THE WHOLE FUND AND DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUY A CAR BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED A CAR DURING BUDGET SEASON.
SO I THINK SOME KIND OF LIMITATION AND CONTROL MECHANISM TO PUT INTO PROCESS.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS ALL CAME OUT OF THE SALARY.
IN THIS SITUATION IT WAS JUST THE LINE ITEM, BUT I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU DID COMMITTED US IN THE NEXT YEAR TO HAVE A BIG POTENTIAL PROBLEM AND THAT WASN'T FAIR.
IT JUST WASN'T FAIR TO THE COUNCIL.
AND THEN MY BROTHERS, I WOULD HAVE MUCH RATHER DONE IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
I DIDN'T FEEL THAT THAT WAS AN OPTION BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE CITY AND THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF OFFICERS THAT WE HAD WORKING.
CHIEF BRYCE WAS ALREADY ON WORKING PATROL RATHER THAN BEING THE CHIEF BECAUSE WE WERE DOWN SO MANY AND BEING TOLD WE MIGHT LOSE TWO MORE, THAT WAS VERY, VERY CONCERNING.
BUT THIS IS A GOOD LEARNING LESSON.
I MEAN, WE CAN DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
[00:40:02]
WE CAN DO THINGS NOT ONLY DIFFERENTLY WHEN THINGS COME UP, BUT ALSO WE CAN LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND THE PROCESS AND WHAT ALL WE WANT DONE, HOW WE WANT IT DONE AT THAT TIME.ARE THE NEW POSITIONS PUT ON HOLD OR NOT? BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER SEE THEM OFF HOLD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL DIRECTED WHEN COUNCIL VOTED ON THAT BUDGET IS THAT WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE THREE NEW POSITIONS FOR THIS YEAR AND WE'VE NEVER RESCINDED THAT DIRECTION THAT WE WANTED THREE NEW POSITIONS FILLED TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN FILL THEM WITH QUALITY PEOPLE IN THE TIMING THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BRING THEM ON BOARD, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN TRAIN THEM, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE DISCUSSED.
SO I DON'T WANT ANY OF THE POSITIONS PUT ON HOLD.
IF THEY WERE PUT ON HOLD, I WANT THEM TAKEN OFF A HOLD BECAUSE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE APPROVED AT BUDGET TIME.
IF WE NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO FULLY PAY THEM, IF WE TAKE THEM OFF THE HOLD, THEN LET'S AMEND THE BUDGET.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROCESS IS THEY GOT PUT ON HOLD.
WELL, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE EVEN IN THIS MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT HIRING FOUR PEOPLE.
WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT HIRING THAT EXTRA THIRD THAT WAS ON HOLD, BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT IF WE WERE BLESSED ENOUGH TO GET FOUR GOOD APPLICANTS THAT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND HIRE THEM.
NOW, I CAN'T SPEAK MORE TO THAT.
I KIND OF AGREE WITH WHAT KIM HAD SAID EARLIER ALSO.
THERE IS ENOUGH ATTRITION BECAUSE THE ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITION HAS BEEN UNFILLED FOR THE FULL YEAR SO FAR.
THERE'S BEEN HOW MANY VACANCIES? THREE VACANCIES FOR ALMOST THE FULL YEAR.
SO I THINK FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT, I THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH ATTRITION THAT IT WOULD COVER TO FUND ALL THE POSITIONS.
UNLESS, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE ABLE TO GET ALL THOSE POSITIONS FUNDED OR FILLED IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE GETTING IN, THE APPLICANTS THAT WE WERE RECEIVING WERE DEFINITELY NOT THE PARKER CALIBER OR MOST OF THE NEW PEOPLE WE TALKED TO AT ALL.
SO THE MOVE THAT I BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PROCESS WAS BECAUSE AFTER BUDGET, WE LEARNED THAT OUR RECRUITING TEAM HAD DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB OF ELEVATING ALL OF THEIR SALARIES SO THAT WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO RECRUIT FROM WHERE WE WERE.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE, WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON, WE'RE NOT ALL THE PLACES, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE A SERVICE AND THAT WAS THE THOUGHT BEHIND IT.
AND SO WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND I DON'T THINK THE POSITIONS ARE ON HOLD.
I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND THEM IF WE CAN MAKE IT FUNDED.
AND THIS MOVE HAS PUT US IN A GREAT LIGHT.
WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD MORE APPLICATIONS SINCE THIS MOVE THAN WE HAD THE ENTIRE LAST YEAR.
AND SO THAT WAS THE POINT THAT I BROUGHT TO THE PROCESS.
OKAY, JUST FOR MY PEACE OF MIND, GRANT, IF WE WERE ABLE TO HIRE FOUR BRAND NEW OFFICERS, CAN WE DO THAT? IF WE HIRE THEM ALL TODAY, WE'D PROBABLY BE, WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK AS A BUDGET.
BUT THE WAY THAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO TAKE TO HIRE THOSE OFFICERS, I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WE WOULD BE OKAY FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT.
AT SOME POINT THIS YEAR WE COULD FILL EVERY POSITION.
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN STAGES REGARDLESS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE TO TRAIN THEM.
AND THAT'S WHEN I, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT BUDGET TIME, WE APPROVED THREE POSITIONS WITH PAY FOR TWO BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THEM WEREN'T GOING TO BE HIRED INSTANTLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PROCESS THROUGH THE YEAR.
I JUST WANT TO GET THAT REINSTATED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP SAID IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE PAY IF WE DON'T HAVE THE OFFICERS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE'RE WILLING TO PAY MORE IF WE PUT THE POSITIONS ON HOLD AND WE DON'T FILL THEM EITHER.
SO I'D RATHER FILL ALL THE POSITIONS WE CAN IN A TIMELY MANNER, GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE THAT FIT WITH YOUR PHILOSOPHY FOR POLICING AND WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE IN PARKER.
AND IF ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU COULD FILL ALL FOUR OF THEM WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH AND IT TOOK SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BUDGET, I WOULD WANT YOU TO COME BACK TO US AND TELL US THAT RATHER THAN NOT HIRE THE OFFICERS.
DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT? JUST REVIEWING WHAT I'M AGREEING WITH, BUT BASICALLY I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF IT'S NECESSARY TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO SUPPORT THE HIRING, THE COMPLETE STAFFING OF WHAT WE INTEND, THEN YES, I AGREE WITH THAT.
[00:45:01]
I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT.I WOULD CONSIDER IT AT THAT TIME AND HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, BUT I'M STILL UPSET HOW THIS WENT DOWN, AND I THINK IT WAS AN OVERREACH ON SKIPPING OUT ON COUNCILS WHERE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.
MS. HALBERT? I AGREE WITH IT COMING BACK BEFORE US AS AN AMENDMENT.
I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, CHIEF, THAT THIS IS NOT DRAFTED AT YOU.
THIS IS A COUNCIL PROCESS PROBLEM.
WE APPRECIATED THE SUPER-MAYOR'S DECISION TO REMOVE US AT THE TIME.
WE BROUGHT THE BEST INFORMATION WE COULD GET AT THE BEGINNING, AND WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE BOTH OF MY OFFICERS, AND THAT WAS AT RISK OF NON-24-HOUR PATROLS.
I HAD TO RELY ON THE COUNTY OR ANYONE ELSE THAT COULD HAVE MOVED THEM OVER, AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME.
THE PROCESS COULD BE CHANGED REALLY QUICKLY.
ON TOP OF THAT, I'VE ALSO WORKED WITH BUDGET BEFORE, TOO, AND IN A BUDGET, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE SOME LEEWAY OF MOVING SOME STUFF AROUND.
NOW, ADJUSTING THE BUDGET WOULD BE A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY, BUT IF I NEEDED TEN DOORKNOBS AND I ONLY HAD $5 WORTH OF DOORKNOB MONEY, I COULD GO OVER TO ANOTHER LINE ITEM AND TAKE ANOTHER $5 WORTH OF DOORKNOBS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME TO A COUNCIL DECISION.
IN MY OPINION, IF THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR FUTURE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I THINK I KNOW THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS WE HAVE.
WHAT WOULD BE FULL STAFFING WITH EVERYTHING APPROVED? THIRTEEN.
THIRTEEN. AND HOW MANY DO WE HAVE RIGHT NOW? WE HAVE SEVEN.
OKAY. THAT'S THE REASON I'M MAKING THE POINT I'M MAKING.
WE'RE LESS THAN HALF-STAFFED FOR WHAT WE REALLY NEED IN THE CITY OF PARKER, AND FOR ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT PEOPLE GET SO EXCITED ABOUT, IF WE CAN'T KEEP OUR PEOPLE SAFE IN THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH A GOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT AND A POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR LIVES AND THEIR PROPERTY, NONE OF THE REST OF IT REALLY MATTERS, NOISE ORDINANCES OR ANYTHING ELSE.
NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS THIS DOES, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT'S LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE FOR A CITY OF THIS SIZE AND WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH THIS CITY GOING TO THE SURROUNDING TOWNS, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FUND IT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY A LOT OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN NOT NECESSARILY AVOIDED BUT GONE BETTER IF WE HAD JUST GOTTEN AN EMAIL FROM YOU ON THE 17TH THAT SAID, HERE'S THE SITUATION, HERE'S WHAT I INTEND TO DO BECAUSE OF THE DIRE TIMELINESS NATURE OF IT.
SO THAT ONE EMAIL COULD HAVE MITIGATED A LOT OF IT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, AFTER THE CHRISTMAS LUNCHEON, I WAS INVITED INTO A MEETING BY CHIEF PRICE.
I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF ADVANCE NOTICE.
I WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT OF THINGS DIFFERENTLY, HAD THINGS PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY IS MY OWN BLESSINGS.
BUT THE OTHER THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS I'M GOING TO PROTECT THIS CITY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, AND I GUESS I WASN'T CLEAR.
I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE WHAT YOU DID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I'M SAYING A COURTESY EMAIL TO THE REST OF COUNCIL WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE.
AGREED, AND I THOUGHT I HAD ACCOMPLISHED THAT, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND THAT'S ON ME BECAUSE I SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED UP TO MAKE SURE IT DID, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I GUESS, CATHERINE, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.
IS THE MAYOR NOT ALLOWED TO EMAIL OUT COUNCIL A FACT? THAT IS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I CANNOT SEND AN EMAIL OUT TO ALL OF COUNCIL.
I CAN TALK TO TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
NO, I MEAN, SHE COULD EMAIL OUT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST A FACT.
WE USUALLY LOOK TO HAVE THAT SENT BY SOMEONE ELSE SO THAT AVOIDS ANY POSSIBILITY OF A REPLY THAT THEN YOU GET INTO A DELIBERATION.
SHE COULD HAVE SENT IT TO A BLIND COPY, BLIND CARBON.
[00:50:01]
OKAY, I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD I CAN ONLY TALK TO TWO, SO THAT'S SOMETHING NEW.
THIS WILL BE MY LAST COMMENT, BUT PART OF MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED HERE IS WHEN Y'ALL HAD THAT MEETING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITHIN THAT MEETING ABOUT WHAT TO DO, AND WHETHER OR NOT DOING THAT WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR AS THE CHIEF BUDGET OFFICER OF THE CITY, AND THAT Y'ALL ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL, FROM CATHERINE, ON THAT POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT? I ASKED CATHERINE WHEN I WAS ASKED IF I COULD DO THIS, I ASKED CATHERINE DID I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT, DID I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT, AND I WAS ASSURED THAT I DID.
I GUESS WHAT I'M THINKING IS ANYTIME THERE'S A QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE GOT AUTHORITY TO ACT, AND EVEN IF THE ANSWER COMES BACK YES YOU DO, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE GOT TO AT LEAST RAISE THE QUESTION, I THINK COUNCIL DESERVES TO BE INFORMED THAT WE MADE A DECISION TODAY, WE VERIFIED THAT WE HAD AUTHORITY BEFORE WE MADE THE DECISION, BUT WE WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT AS WELL.
SO IF IT'S SERIOUS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO HAVE TO ASK CATHERINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE GOT THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT, THEN IT'S SERIOUS ENOUGH TO INFORM COUNCIL AT THE TIME, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S BUDGET OR NOT.
I ASK CATHERINE A LOT OF TIMES CAN WE DO THIS, CAN WE DO THAT, PART OF THAT IS TO ME THE LAW IS FLUID, AND I MAY BE RELYING ON SOMETHING THAT CHANGED AT 10 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING, SO I TEND TO ASK HER THAT, BUT THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.
OKAY, SO MY FINAL THOUGHTS, I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT DECISION, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT GOING FORWARD I THINK NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, I KNOW THERE'S THAT WEBSITE OUT THERE WITH THE POLICE COMPENSATION OF THE NORTH TEXAS 170 WHATEVER POLICE DEPARTMENTS, I THINK AT THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT, DECIDE WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN THAT RANGE, WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T MATCH THE PLANO'S, FRISCO'S OR ALLEN'S WHO ARE ALL IN THE TOP 10 UP THERE, BUT WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE OUT OF THOSE 170, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GUESS, AND I ADMIT IT'S A GUESS, WHAT THE OTHER CITIES AND DART AND WHOEVER ELSE, HOW MUCH WE THINK THEY'RE GOING TO INCREASE, AND THEN TRY TO TARGET THAT.
GOING FORWARD I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PROCESS.
AT BUDGET WE DID DO THAT, AT BUDGET WHEN I BROUGHT THOSE NUMBERS THE FIRST TIME, WE DID GO TO THAT WEBSITE AND LOOK, IT WAS AFTER BUDGET CAME OUT THAT WE REALIZED THAT THAT WEBSITE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS KEPT UP TO DATE, DRAMATICALLY CHANGED FROM OUR RECRUITING FIELD.
WELL THAT'S BECAUSE EVERYBODY APPROVES THE BUDGETS AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE'VE GOT TO MAKE A GUESS WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO DO.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GRANT DOES FOR US DURING BUDGET SESSION, IS HE GETS FOR US FOR EVERY POSITION IN THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, WHETHER IT'S FOR POLICE CHIEF, WHAT'S THE LOW END, WHAT'S THE MEDIUM END, WHAT'S THE HIGH END.
AS TO NORTH TEXAS, WE DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT IT IS IN COLORADO, WE CARE WHAT IT IS IN NORTH TEXAS.
SO HE DOES THAT, AND USUALLY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT.
WE'LL PROBABLY DO A BETTER JOB OF IT THIS COMING SESSION, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT, AND HOPEFULLY IMPROVE ON.
TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT, I DO, SO EVERY YEAR DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, I LOOK AT THE SALARIES FROM SACHSE, MURPHY, LUCAS, AND FAIRVIEW, AND I COMPARE THOSE TO OUR SALARIES.
TYPICALLY, ADMINISTRATIVE TOP POSITIONS, WE STAY PRETTY CLOSE, EVERY YEAR WE STAY PRETTY CLOSE WITH OUR ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.
POLICE IS THE ONE THAT'S BEEN BOOMING, THE SALARIES HAVE JUST BEEN SKYROCKETING FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
WHERE WE FELT LIKE WE WERE PROBABLY PRETTY COMPARABLE, ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERY OTHER CITY AROUND HERE HAD BIG JUMPS IN THEIR SALARIES.
SO COME OCTOBER 1, WHEN THEY IMPLEMENTED THEIR NEW SALARIES, WE WERE SO FAR BEHIND AT THAT POINT.
AS FAR AS THE REST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TOP POSITIONS, WE'RE USUALLY REALLY CLOSE, BUT FIRE AND POLICE I THINK ARE GOING TO BE THOSE ONES WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME
[00:55:01]
BACK AND DO A MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENT OR SOMETHING, JUST BECAUSE IF THERE ARE THESE BIG SPIKES, WE'RE GOING TO BE BEHIND.OKAY, WE'VE GOT ABOUT FOUR MINUTES LEFT.
IS THERE ANY LAST COMMENTS? OKAY, NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I
[ADJOURN]
WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE WORKSHOP.AND WE WILL COME BACK AT 7 FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING.
[CALL TO ORDER ]
I HEREBY CALL THE CITY-COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER.IT IS FEBRUARY 4, 2026 AT 7.04 P.M.
MISS HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A SUPER QUORUM.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGES.
I WILL ASK THAT VICKI, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE? AND JUSTIN, WILL YOU LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE? WE'VE GOT TO VOLUNTEER.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVISIBLE.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
OKAY, AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.AND I HAVE TWO, OH NO, I'VE GOT THREE COMMENTS CARDS.
FIRST ONE IS FROM MARCUS ARIAS.
TO ADDRESS CITY AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS, ON THE COMMERCIAL ZONING, I BELIEVE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE MORE APPROPRIATE ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSTEAD OF JUST ON AN EIGHT-ACRE SET OF LOTS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE IDEA OF PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR CITY AND BUILDING UNWELCOME PROPERTY IS A GOOD IDEA.
AND THAT WILL CREATE PUBLIC NUISANCES, PROBLEMS, AND WHO WILL BUY THOSE PROPERTIES IF A MALL IS BEING BUILT BUT IT TAKES FOREVER FOR A BUYER TO BUY OR WILL THESE USERS OF THOSE BUILDINGS EVER WANT TO USE THEM? I'VE SEEN HOW COLLIN CREEK MALL IS.
NOBODY IS FILLING IN THOSE PLACES.
AND INVOLVED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING THE HOUSES ACROSS SOUTH FORK.
I REMEMBER COLLIN CREEK MALL BEING NOT USED ANYMORE BEFORE THEY WERE BEING RENOVATED.
EVERY BUSINESS, EVERY BUSINESS ALL DISAPPEARED AND I FEEL THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HELP OUR CITY BUDGET BY ALLOWING THEM TO START THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES FROM THEIR HOUSES.
BY ONLY ONLINE AND OFFLINE SERVICES.
BUT BY THE TRANSPORT OF DELIVERY BY THE HOMEOWNERS OR BY MAILING OR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SUCH AS UBER, LYFT, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL DELIVERY PICKUP SERVICES.
LET'S NOT FORGET, EVERYONE, THAT OUR CITY BUDGET IS SHOWING SOME DEPLETION AND WE DO NOT NEED TO TURN OUR CITY INTO SOMETHING INTO A GHOST TOWN.
LET YOURSELVES, AFTER YOUR TERMS EXPIRE, ASK FOR THE RESIDENTS TO DO LEGALLY WHATEVER THEY WANT AND LIFT ALL THE RESTRICTIONS IF ANY PRESENT FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES.
BUT APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL SERVICES FOR OUR CITY.
OUR CITY NEEDS TO FINANCIALLY BE FIT IN AND FINANCIALLY SURVIVE.
WE NEED A COMMERCIAL ZONING POLICY THAT ALLOWS ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO HELP OUR CITY FINANCIALLY GROW AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
I'VE ALSO BEEN TO BUSINESSES IN FRISCO AND PLANO THAT DON'T REQUIRE LARGE WALMARTS AND FUND THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
[01:00:02]
AGAIN, PLEASE.MY ADDRESS IS 3307 SPRING HILL ESTATES DRIVE IN PARKER, TEXAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ONCE AGAIN REGARDING THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VOTE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WHERE WE'VE DISCUSSED THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND AFTER ALL THE MEETINGS WHERE ALL THE FEEDBACK WAS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL, I'VE NOTICED THAT NONE OF THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE MOST EGREGIOUS.
THE MOST EGREGIOUS ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IS THAT YOUR ORDINANCE THAT IS DRAFTED TODAY IN THE PACKET STATES THAT YOU WILL COMMIT A NOISE OFFENSE IF A PERSON CAUSES OR ALLOWS TO CAUSE A NOISE NUISANCE THAT CAUSES DISCOMFORT OR DISTURBS THE QUIET OF ANY REASONABLE PERSON WITH COMMON SENSE ABILITIES STANDING AT LEAST 30 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE NOISE EMANATES REGARDLESS OF THE SOUND LEVEL.
IF YOU CAN HEAR IT, THE PERSON DOESN'T LIKE IT, IT'S NAMED A NOISE ORDINANCE.
THE SECOND CLAUSE IN 13.05 IS STILL SAYING THE SAME LANGUAGE.
IT STILL SAYS THAT IF THAT NOISE IS PLAINLY AUDIBLE BY ANY POLICE OFFICER OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT AGENT LOCATED AT LEAST 30 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE PERSON IS COMMITTING A NOISE ORDINANCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS REPORTED BY ANYONE ELSE OR NOT.
IF THE POLICE OFFICER IS STANDING THERE, HE CAN HEAR IT, AND IF IT'S AUDIBLE WITHOUT A HEARING AID, HE CAN DO THAT A NOISE ORDINANCE.
I URGE YOU TO PLEASE REVISE THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT NOT SO EGREGIOUS.
I DIDN'T SEE YOU HIDING OVER THERE.
ALAN MEYER, 7278 MOSS RIDGE ROAD.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PETAL AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
REGARDING THE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NOISE ORDINANCE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, WHICH COULD POSSIBLY RESULT IN A VOTE, I FEEL THE NEED TO AGAIN EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE ISSUE AND URGE THE COUNCIL TO DELAY ANY VOTE AND GIVE THE RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROPERLY VOICE THEIR CONCERNS, PRO OR CON, REGARDING THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE IN A SCHEDULED TOWN HALL MEETING THAT IS HELD AT A CONVENIENT TIME SEPARATE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING, PERHAPS ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON AT A FACILITY THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THE MAJORITY OF CONCERNED PARKER RESIDENTS.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AT OTHER COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS APPEARS TO BE LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
REVISIONS RESULTING IN A NEW ENFORCEABLE ORDINANCE SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF LESS THAN 1% OF THE CITY'S POPULATION.
IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT AT LEAST TWO TO THREE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD PREVIOUSLY FILED NOISE COMPLAINTS TO THE CITY PRIOR TO BEING ELECTED.
FROM A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PERSPECTIVE AND POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 171, THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD ABSTAIN AND RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING ON THIS ORDINANCE TO AVOID ANY VIOLATIONS AND REPERCUSSIONS.
RATHER THAN FORCING A CHANGE TO AN ORDINANCE OF WHICH LESS THAN 1% OF PARKER RESIDENTS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT, I WOULD EXPECT THE COUNCIL, AS PERFORMING DUE DILIGENCE, TO SCHEDULE A TOWN HALL MEETING AT A CONVENIENT TIME FOR ALL PARKER RESIDENTS TO SPEAK AND EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SO THE COUNCIL IS GATHERING THE PROPER FEEDBACK FROM PARKER RESIDENTS PRIOR TO VOTING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGE INVOKED BY LESS THAN 1% OF CITY RESIDENTS.
WE ALL MOVE TO PARKER FOR THE COUNTRY LIFE AND NOT THE OVERREACH OF CITY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES.
BRIAN? BRIAN? HELLO MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
[01:05:01]
THIS IS OFF THE CUFF.I WAS DRIVING DOWN LEWIS AND I'M LIKE THINKING LET ME GET THIS.
I KNEW THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS TODAY.
FIRST I NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
THIS ROAD IS JUST DETERIORATING OVER AND OVER.
AND I'VE TALKED TO GARY AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO WITH THAT ROAD.
I MEAN I CAN'T EVEN DODGE THE BUMPS ANYMORE.
I WASN'T GOING TO COME TO THE MEETING BUT DRIVING THAT ROAD AND DOING THE WEAVING AND SEEING OTHER PEOPLE WEAVING THROUGH THAT ROAD IS PITIFUL.
AND I KNOW WE TALKED TO GARY ABOUT LUCAS TRIED GETTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT ROAD AS WELL.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET AN UPDATE OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT THING BECAUSE I KNOW GARY'S PATCHED IT UP A LOT OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS.
IT NEEDS ANOTHER PATCH OR SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH IT.
HANG ON AT THIS MEETING AND YOU MAY GET YOUR UPDATE.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
OKAY.THEN WE WILL GO TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
JUST TO NOTE THAT MUNICIPAL COURT HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11TH AT 9 A.M.
AS MARCH 3RD IS A PRIMARY ELECTION DATE AND THEY CANNOT HOLD COURT AT THAT TIME.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL MEET ON FEBRUARY 11TH AT 5 P.M.
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING SHALL TAKE PLACE ON FEBRUARY 12TH AT 4 P.M.
TO NOTE THE FOLLOWING DEADLINE FOR CITY OFFICES, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OR UP IS THE DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 13TH AT 5 P.M.
YOUR APPLICATION CAN BE RECEIVED AND RETURNED TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND IT MUST BE IN BY THAT TIME.
ON MARCH 3RD IS THE ELECTIONS BEING HELD IN THIS ROOM FOR THE STATEWIDE OFFICES AND THEREFORE OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS BEING RESCHEDULED TO MARCH 4TH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4TH BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY MEET WHILE REGULAR VOTING IS GOING ON.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
NEXT WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT.THE FIRST ONE IS CONSIDERATION AND OR INAPPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-883 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANDERSON PAVING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LEWIS LANE.
IT ALSO HAS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CONSIDERATION AND OR INAPPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 907 CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, MAY 2ND, 2026 TO ELECT A MAYOR AND TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE PROVIDING FOR EARLY VOTING AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A JOINT GENERAL AND EARLY VOTING SPECIAL ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH COLLIN COUNTY PROVIDING FOR THE ORDER AND THE NOTICE OF THE ELECTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS NOTICED AND IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
FIRST COUNCIL I WILL ASK IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS EITHER ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA PULLED OFF? MS. BOGDAN? I'D LIKE NUMBER THREE PULLED OFF JUST BECAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? OKAY THEN AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO ON ITEM NUMBER THREE OH EXCUSE ME WE WILL GO ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS ANY CONSIDERATION IN ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 907 CALLING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, MAY 2ND, 2026 TO ELECT A MAYOR
[01:10:01]
AND TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE PROVIDING FOR EARLY VOTING AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A JOINT GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH COLLIN COUNTY PROVIDING FOR THE ORDER AND NOTICE OF THE ELECTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS NOTICED AND IS REQUIRED BY LAW.I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ORDINANCE NUMBER 907.
I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 907.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2026-883 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANDERSON PAVING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LEWIS LANE.]
MOTION CARRIES 5-0.NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-883 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANDERSON PAVING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LOIS LANE.
MS. DAWKINS? I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY MOSTLY FOR GARY BUT THE FLAG RECRUITMENT REQUIRED ON HERE THAT'S AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF COMPLAINTS COME IN REGARDING THE FLAGGERS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS TIME GOING AROUND ON DUBLIN.
I THINK THEY'RE STANDING AT THIS END OF DUBLIN AND THEN THE OTHER END BUT LIKE A STATE LANE PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT OF THERE AND RUNNING INTO THE CREWS AND THERE'S NOBODY THERE LIKE AT THAT POINT WHERE THEY NEED A FLAGGER.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO ADJUST WHERE THE FLAGGER STANDS OR IF WE NEED DOUBLE THE FLAGGERS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO DOUBLE THE FLAGGERS ON DUBLIN BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE CREWS WORKING AT DURHAM CREW AND AT PAVING CREW.
SO THEY HAVE DOUBLE THE FLAGGERS AND THEY HAVE TO AFFORD JOBS ON SOME OF THEM.
I THINK FOR THE PRICE THAT THEY'RE CHARGING US $1,900 A DAY I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BETTER FLAGGERS.
SO IF WE CAN MAYBE DISCUSS THAT.
THAT'S FOR ONE SET OF FLAGGERS.
THAT COMPANY HAS EATEN THE COST OF AN ADDITIONAL SET OF FLAGGERS TO BE OUT OF DUBLIN.
IT CALCULATES TO $120 PER HOUR IF THERE'S TWO PEOPLE.
ARE THEY DOING FOUR? YEAH, THEY WERE.
YEAH, SO THIS MORNING SOMEBODY HUNG OUT THE WINDOW AND JUST WENT LIKE THIS.
THE TRUCK DRIVER DOESN'T GET TO BE THE FLAGGER.
SO IF WE'LL JUST CHECK ON THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT WE RAN INTO THAT PROBLEM WITH THE WATER LINES BEING UNDER DUBLIN ROAD.
SO ARE WE ANTICIPATING ANY PROBLEMS REGARDING UTILITIES OVER THERE OFF OF LEWIS? NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY WATER LINES ON LEWIS LANE.
THE ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE THERE'S A WATER LINE CROSSING FOR WHERE NORTH TEXAS' LARGE LINE CROSSES.
THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT.
THE ONLY PROBLEM IS IF AT SOME POINT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH IT THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR THE ROAD UP TO FIX IT.
AND WILL WE TAKE THAT COST ON? WELL, THEY'LL PATCH IT BACK BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT LIKE WE WOULD PROBABLY.
AND THERE'S A LEAK OVER THERE NOW, BY THE WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD NEAR THAT GROVE OF TREES WHERE A REPAIR HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE.
AND I TALKED TO NORTH TEXAS YESTERDAY ABOUT THAT.
AND THEIR PLAN IS TO START WORKING TO REPAIR THAT NEXT WEEK.
I TOLD THEM WE'RE LOOKING TO PAVE IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THEY GET THEIR LEAK FIXED BEFORE WE PAVE AND THEY TRACK THEIR HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACROSS OUR FRESH PAVE.
THAT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN I JUST HAD A QUESTION.
IT SAYS THE PRIME COAT'S NOT INCLUDED AND DEWATERING IS NOT INCLUDED.
SO WHAT ARE THOSE AND DO WE NEED THOSE? I'M SORRY? THE PRIME COAT IS NOT INCLUDED AND THAT DEWATERING IS NOT INCLUDED.
SO I WASN'T SURE IF THEY'RE NOTING IT THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED.
DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE PAYING ADDITIONAL FOR THAT OR WE NEED IT OR WE DON'T NEED IT? NO.
DEWATERING IS IF WE RUN INTO A PROBLEM WHERE THERE'S AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF WATER AND THEY'VE GOT TO REMOVE IT.
WE SHOULD ENCOUNTER THAT THERE.
AND PRIME COAT IS WE DON'T NEED THAT AND THEY'RE NOT PUTTING IT DOWN.
MR. BARROW? GARY, I'M JUST HAVING YOU SPEAK TO THIS SINCE WE HAVE A CITIZEN HERE INTERESTED IN THIS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'VE APPROVED THIS.
PAVING'S GOING TO START MOST LIKELY SOMETIME IN MARCH.
WHEN DO WE ESTIMATE THAT IT'LL BE DONE? SHOULD BE A 120-DAY PROJECT.
DO THEY HAVE GOOD WEATHER? THEY CAN MOVE FASTER IF WE HAVE GOOD WEATHER.
THERE'S ONE MORE THING ABOUT WARRANTY.
[01:15:01]
THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR DETERIORATION OR FAILURE OF WORK.DAMAGES OR DETERIORATION? THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES, DETERIORATION OR FAILURE OF ITS WORK BUT ARE UNCOMPLETED IN PROGRESS IF IT'S DUE TO ANYTHING BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.
BUT IS THERE ANY TYPE OF WARRANTY THAT GOES WITH THAT? THEY'VE GOT A BOND.
AND HOW LONG IS THAT GOOD FOR? TWO YEARS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026-883 APPROVING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ANDERSON PAVING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LEWIS LANE.
IS THERE A SECOND? OF COURSE, I SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BURR AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHOR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026-883 AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LEWIS LANE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING RESOLUTION 2026-883, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
JUST TO BE SURE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, GARY, THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO START PAVING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS? I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START WORK ON LEWIS LANE? ON LEWIS LANE? PROBABLY THE BEGINNING OF MARCH.
CAN I BRING ANYTHING? I'M SORRY? CAN I BRING ANYTHING, SODAS, WATER? I'M JUST HAPPY WE'RE GOING TO GET IT DONE.
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ORDINANCE NO. 894 REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER]
OKAY.NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 894, REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.
OKAY, COUNCIL? WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? OKAY.
I HAVE ONE SMALL QUESTION BROUGHT UP BY A CITIZEN EARLIER THIS WEEK AND I DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT ANSWER FOR HIM, SO I THOUGHT NOW IS THE BEST TIME TO ASK.
SO HIS QUESTION WAS ABOUT BACKGROUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND HOW THAT APPLIED TO MEASUREMENT.
THE WAY THAT I READ IT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY THAT HE READ IT, BUT THE WAY THAT I READ IT IS YOU DEFINE HOW TO TAKE BACKGROUND NOISE OUT OF CONSIDERATION WHEN PERFORMING THE MEASUREMENT, AND THEN LATER YOU HAVE THE ALLOWABLE SOUND LEVELS THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU'VE ALREADY TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
I THINK I WAS WONDERING, BASED ON CHIEF PRICE'S READ, HOW WOULD AN OFFICER GO ABOUT ACCOUNTING FOR BACKGROUND NOISE PROCEDURALLY? OUR DEVICE HAS A FOAM COVER TO HELP ELIMINATE BACKGROUND NOISE SUCH AS WIND, CARS PASSING, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO THEY CHECK THAT EVERY TIME THEY'RE THERE, AND THEY'LL WATCH IT READ FOR A LITTLE WHILE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING AN ACCURATE NUMBER AND NOT THESE SPIKE JUMPS.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S SENSIBLE IN WHAT THEY DO, BUT IS THAT HOW YOU READ WHAT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THE NOISE ORDINANCE? SO THERE'S GOING TO BE HOW WE OPERATE, AND HOW WE OPERATE IS PRETTY MUCH LIKE, TYPICALLY IF THERE'S BACKGROUND NOISE THAT'S LOUDER THAN WHAT YOU'RE TAKING THE MEASUREMENT FOR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT MEASUREMENT OR USE THAT.
SO LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, SOUTH FORK, WE TAKE MEASUREMENTS OUT THERE, WE'RE LOOKING FOR NO CARS GOING BY BECAUSE A CAR WILL PICK UP AROUND 90 DECIBELS SOMETIMES.
SO I WANT NO DECIBELS, I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THE MUSIC.
AND IF I CAN HEAR THE MUSIC AND THEN LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DECIBEL READINGS OF THE MUSIC I'M HEARING, I CAN FIGURE OUT, HEY, WE'RE AT 75 DECIBELS.
COUNSEL, IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND NOISE? I THINK THAT IT IS.
[01:20:09]
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 894, REGULATING NOISE WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 894.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO APPROVE THE NOISE ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 894.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? MR. BARRON.
I WOULD LIKE, AND THIS ISN'T PART OF US APPROVING THIS, BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR FROM NOW, SCHEDULE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION ON BASICALLY HOW IT'S GONE.
HOW MANY CITATIONS HAVE THEY WRITTEN? HOW MANY WARNINGS HAVE THEY GOT? HOW MANY CALLS DID THEY GET? I SUSPECT THE NUMBER OF CALLS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
AND THEN AT THAT TIME, WE CAN ANALYZE AND DETERMINE IF THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT POINT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATED HAVING OUR NEW CITY JUDGE, PROSECUTOR HERE, SO THAT WE COULD GET HIS PERSPECTIVE BOTH AS A FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND SOMEONE WHO WILL HAVE THIS BEFORE THE COURT AND WHAT HIS IMPRESSION OF HOW HARSH THIS IS OR NOT.
I JUST WANT TO ADD TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON JUST HAD TO SAY.
I THINK, AND I WOULD PROBABLY PIN IT DOWN A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT, INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR, I THINK SIX MONTHS.
AND AGAIN, AT A YEAR, WE NEED A CLEAR ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THIS NOISE ORDINANCE.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KEEP VERY, VERY ACCURATE RECORDS OF THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT YOU GET, WHAT HAPPENS ON THOSE CALLS, THE COMPLAINT, THE TYPE OF NOISE THAT IT IS, AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS, ENFORCEMENT OF THIS REGULATION.
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS NOISE REGULATION.
WE'VE LISTENED TO THE CONCERNS AND WE'VE MADE A NUMBER OF ADJUSTMENTS TO IT.
I THINK THEY'RE REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEY WERE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS.
WE'VE GOTTEN GOOD INPUT FROM PEOPLE.
AND OUR INTENT IN THIS NOISE ORDINANCE IS NOT TO RESTRICT PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY, BUT IT'S ALSO TO RESPECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT NOISE SOMETIMES.
AND I JUST WANT TO KEEP REALLY GOOD TRACK OF IT.
AND IF THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR IN ANY WAY, I THINK WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND CHANGE WHATEVER WE NEED TO CHANGE, ADJUST WHATEVER WE NEED TO ADJUST.
MY QUESTION, MR. BARON, IS ARE YOU ASKING FOR THIS TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? NO, I'M ASKING, I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
BUT IF YOU NEED ME TO BRING THAT UP AGAIN LATER, WE CAN DO THAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD ASK THAT WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS AND THEN AS AN ADDITION TO THIS, THAT MAYBE WE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO OFFICIALLY GET A REPORT BACK FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THIS IN NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS, IN SIX MONTHS.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
SO FIRST, UNLESS YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION, LET'S DEAL WITH THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE 894, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
WELL, COUNCIL, I NEED TO ASK YOU, CAN WE ACCEPT A SECOND MOTION ON THIS FOR WHAT MR. PILGRIM HAS REQUESTED? NO, YOU'RE NOT POSTED FOR THAT, BUT THE REQUEST FOR IT TO BE AN ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA CAN BE DONE.
MR. PILGRIM, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? YES, MA'AM.
AT THIS TIME, I AM REMOVING ITEM NUMBER SIX FROM THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF SOUTH FORK RANCH.
[01:25:02]
THEY HAVE ASKED FOR MORE TIME ON THEIR PLOT, AND THE CITY HAS GRANTED THEM THAT TIME.[7. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON WATER TOWER ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DESIGN, COSTS AND FUNDING, AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION.]
I THINK IT'S THE NEXT AGENDA? YES, IT'S ON.THEN WE'RE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON WATER TOWER ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DESIGN, COST AND FUNDING, AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF CRAIG, YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS, OR IF GARY'S GOING TO DO THIS, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE.
MAYOR, COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN PARTNERSHIP, SO I'LL KICK THINGS OFF HERE.
I'VE GOT A FEW SLIDES FOR YOU.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM, WHY WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS DIFFICULT CONVERSATION WITH YOU TONIGHT.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, CRAIG'S GOING TO UPDATE YOU ON THIS ONE, THE CHAPARRAL.
I'M PROBABLY NOT SAYING THAT RIGHT.
THE CHAPARRAL, THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME ON THAT.
THE WATER TOWER IS NEARING THE COMPLETION, THE 100% DESIGN COMPLETION POINT.
I NEED TO REITERATE TO YOU TONIGHT THAT IF YOU DON'T TAKE AWAY ANYTHING ELSE TONIGHT, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS IS THAT THIS WATER TOWER PROJECT NEEDS TO COMMENCE VERY SOON, LIKELY WITHIN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE COSTS OF THIS PROJECT ARE GOING TO DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, USING THAT CASH ON HAND APPROACH THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
JUST AS AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, SPURGEON AND ASSOCIATES, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEIR BLANCHARD COST ESTIMATING SERVICE, AND FROM WHAT WE'VE DETERMINED, THEY'VE NARROWED THIS THING DOWN TO THE LOWEST LEVEL AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, BASED ON THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING IS STILL CONCEPTUAL AT THIS POINT.
IT HAS NOT ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH ANY OFFICIAL DESIGN, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT TONIGHT.
BUT WITHOUT ANY MAJOR CHANGES IN THE SCOPE, THE DIRECTION, THE COSTS ARE GOING TO REMAIN RELATIVELY CONSTANT.
AND THEN I DO HAVE CRAIG HERE TONIGHT FOR YOU TO GIVE YOU A MORE DETAILED UPDATE ON THE WATER TOWER AND THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT GRANT AND GARY WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS A LITTLE BIT.
AND AFTER THIS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OPTIONS TO PROCEED AS WE SEE THEM AND SOME OF THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
CRAIG KIRKHOFF, BURKHOFF, HENDERSON, CARTER, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 11910 GREENVILLE AVENUE DOWN IN DALLAS.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
THE UPDATE ON THE ELEVATED TANKS, PRETTY QUICK.
PLANS ARE PROBABLY 70% OR MORE.
JUST TO FINISH UP THE FINE DETAILS, THERE'S A FEW LAST FEW THINGS THAT WE TYPICALLY DO ON THOSE.
I USUALLY WAIT UNTIL COUNCIL IS READY TO START ADVERTISING.
I HAVE TO GO GET A CLEARANCE FOR THE FAA BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT AND THE OBSTRUCTION.
SO ONCE COUNCIL SAYS, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS, THEN I'LL GO APPLY FOR THAT.
WE'LL GO DO A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AT THE EXACT SITE.
THOSE ARE KIND OF THE LAST FEW.
BEING READY TO ADVERTISE AT YOUR DIRECTION IN THE NEXT MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF, IF THAT WAS YOUR DIRECTION FOR THE ELEVATED TANK.
IT'S STILL ABOUT 18 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
THE LAST ONE, WE'RE ACTUALLY FINISHING ONE UP RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE ON THE SHORTER END OF THAT, WHICH IS GREAT.
THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FROM THE LAST TIME I UPDATED YOU ALL ARE STILL ABOUT THE SAME.
ABOUT $7.5 MILLION WAS THE BUDGET WE KIND OF CONVEYED.
THE CURRENT BUILDING CAME IN A LITTLE BIT UNDER THAT, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER OF A SITE.
SO I'M HOPEFUL, BUT I LIKE TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND HOPEFUL.
THAT WAY IT COMES IN LOW WHERE WE'RE ALL HAPPY VERSUS I GET HOPEFUL WHEN I TELL YOU AND THEN IT'S NOT THE SAME.
IT'S STILL THE SAME BUDGET, AND WE'RE ON TRACK.
LOOKING FORWARD TO WHATEVER YOU ALL DECIDE.
DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AS WELL? SURE. THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE THAT KIND OF SNUCK UP ON ME.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, NOT FOR THE SAKE OF TALKING, BUT WHEN YOU ALL AT ONE POINT WERE CONTEMPLATING A CITY HALL TYPE PROJECT, YOU ALL DID ENGAGE AN ARCHITECT.
FOR WHATEVER REASONS, YOU ALL WERE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY WERE PRESENTING AND WORKING WITH YOU, CALLED US TO COME IN AND BRING AN ARCHITECT TO WORK WITH YOU, WHICH IS GREAT.
WE DID THAT. WE BROUGHT YOU KENT SPURGEON. HE DOES A GREAT JOB.
KENT IS A VERY OLD SCHOOL PERSONALITY WHERE HE FEELS THAT HE DOES HIS BEST WORK FOR THE CITIES WHEN HE JUST INVOICES AT THE VERY END OF THE PROJECT WHEN IT GOES OUT TO BID.
THAT'S WHERE HE WORKS WITH YOU ALL AND THAT'S HOW HE APPROACHES IT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, HE THOUGHT BHC WAS UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, SO HE'S ESSENTIALLY BEEN WORKING TWO YEARS FOR YOU ALL FOR FREE BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT FOR THAT.
TRADITIONALLY, IF YOU WOULD BUILD MONTHLY A COUPLE YEARS AGO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE, HEY, HOLD ON, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
HE'S GOTTEN YOU ALL PRETTY FAR ALONG, BUT A COUPLE MONTHS BACK HE EMAILED ME AND ASKED, HEY, ARE YOU ALL DOING THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR WHEN WE SEND THIS THING TO BID? I WAS A LITTLE BIT PERPLEXED
[01:30:01]
AS TO WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.AS LINCOLN MENTIONED, THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACTUALLY COMPLETED YET.
KENT'S ACTUALLY BEEN, AND HE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU ALL, BUT THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE ARCHITECT TO PUT TOGETHER ALL THE BIDDING AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THAT BUILDING HASN'T BEEN PUT TOGETHER YET.
THE BUDGET HE'S GIVEN YOU, I'M NOT SURE IF THE PROFESSIONAL COSTS FOR THE ARCHITECTS AND WHATNOT IS IN THAT BUDGET OR NOT.
I'M NOT SURE. I'VE LOOKED AT THE LINE ITEMS FOR THAT.
GRANT, WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS, HOW THESE PROJECTS INTERRELATE WITH ONE ANOTHER? SURE. RIGHT NOW IN OUR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION.
HOLD UP ONE SECOND. CAN YOU ALL HEAR MR. SAVAGE? OKAY.
LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. IS IT ON? OKAY.
RIGHT NOW IN THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, WHICH IS WHERE WE WOULD USE THOSE FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE ELEVATED TOWER AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, OR COULD USE, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION IN BALANCE.
THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE REMAINING BALANCE FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES AND THE ENGINEERING FOR THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK.
THE WATER FUND BALANCE HAS APPROXIMATELY ALMOST $4 MILLION IN THE WATER FUND.
THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FUND BALANCE, WHICH WE WOULD NEED TO KEEP AT LEAST $2 MILLION.
SO BEST CASE SCENARIO, WE HAVE ABOUT $7 MILLION AVAILABLE TODAY.
LOOKING AT NEXT YEAR, PROBABLY ADD ANOTHER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS COMING FROM THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUNDS AND THE WATER FUNDS FOR NEXT YEAR AS WELL.
DEPENDING ON THE TIMING OF THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE ABOUT $7, $7.5 MILLION AVAILABLE TO SPEND.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO FUND BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE DISCUSSED THESE OTHER OPTIONS AS FAR AS MOVE FORWARD WITH BOTH PROJECTS USING A COMBINATION OF CASH ON HAND AND FUTURE REVENUE BONDS.
MOVE FORWARD WITH BOTH PROJECTS USING CASH ON HAND.
FOR ONE PROJECT, WE CAN USE THE REVENUE BONDING FOR THE SECOND.
MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE PROJECT, DELAYING THE SECOND PROJECT FOR THE TIME BEING.
CONSIDER UTILIZING FUND BALANCE OUTSIDE OF THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND.
REDUCE THE SCOPE OF PROJECTS TO BETTER ALIGN WITH ANY OF THE OPTIONS ABOVE.
AS FAR AS UTILIZING FUND BALANCES OUTSIDE OF THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, OBVIOUSLY THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DISCUSSION THERE AS FAR AS WHETHER WE WANT TO USE GENERAL FUND MONEY.
WE COULDN'T USE THAT FOR THE TOWER, BUT WE COULD USE THAT POTENTIALLY FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING BECAUSE IT WILL BE HOUSING PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THE WATER.
WE COULD ALSO POSSIBLY HAVE FUND BALANCE IN SOME OF THESE OTHER FUNDS AS WELL.
MAYBE THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ON MOVING THOSE AROUND TO FREE UP SOME EXTRA MONEY.
AS FAR AS WHAT IS DEDICATED RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE ABOUT $7 TO $7.5 MILLION AVAILABLE.
SO I THINK THAT KIND OF PUTS EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT.
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, AND GARY CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THIS, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S ESTIMATED ANYWHERE FROM $4 TO $4.5 MILLION.
SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ENOUGH FOR ALL OF THAT AT THE TIME BEING.
MAYOR? QUESTION, WHAT DOES REDUCING THE SCOPE OF THE WATER TOWER LOOK LIKE? NOT THE TOWER, THAT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
RIGHT, YOU SAID THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECTS, SO I WAS JUST...
YOU HAVE A TOWER OR YOU DON'T HAVE A TOWER.
AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
WE DO HAVE TWO BONDS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE OUTSTANDING THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING FUNDED THROUGH REVENUES FROM THE WATER FUND.
WE HAVE THE 2018 CO BOND THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE CURRENT PUMP STATION OR THE NEW PUMP STATION.
THAT MATURES IN 2038, AND WE SPEND ABOUT $455,000 A YEAR ON THOSE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS.
AND THEN WE HAVE A 2019 GO BOND THAT WE REFUNDED, AND THAT MATURES IN 2028, AND WE'RE SPENDING ABOUT $100,000 A YEAR ON THAT BOND.
SO JUST KIND OF TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL, THAT WE HAVE ONE COMING OFF THE BOOKS IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THEN THERE'S ABOUT 12 MORE YEARS BEFORE THE OTHER ONE COMES OFF.
I'D LIKE TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT TO TALK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PROJECTIONS OR HOW THIS ALL STARTED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
[01:35:01]
THAT THE ORIGINAL COST WAS AROUND $800.THEY HAD BUMPED IT UP TO MAYBE $1.2 JUST IN CASE FOR INFLATION BECAUSE THEN YOUR TIME WAS GOING TO BE OF THE ESSENCE.
BUT HOW WAS THAT COMPOSED? NUMBER ONE, THOSE FIGURES COME UP.
WAS IT THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE DID WITH THIS ONE? LIKE IT ALREADY GOT TO ENGINEERING, AND ENGINEERING CAME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS.
I HAD SPOKEN WITH MS. NOE, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, AND SHE ADVISED THAT SHE DID A LOT OF THE RESEARCH ON THIS.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET A CLEARER PICTURE FROM THE CITY ABOUT HOW WE WENT FROM $1.2 TO THIS $4.5 POSSIBLY.
CAN ANYBODY UPDATE ME ON THAT? OR IF NOT, CAN WE MAYBE TALK TO MS. NOE ABOUT WHERE SHE CAME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS? YES, I WAS WELCOME TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THAT.
SHE DID DO A LOT OF WORK ON THE $1.2.
I'M NOT PREPARED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU.
GARY, WOULD YOU MIND PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ON THIS ONE? I HAD A THOUGHT ON IT AND I JUST LOST IT.
DID THE PLAN CHANGE AT ALL, LIKE THE ACTUAL BUILDING COMPOSITION CHANGED? SURE.
WHEN THIS STARTED OUT, WE TOOK OUT A BOND TO BUILD THE PUMP STATION.
WHEN THE PUMP STATION WAS FINISHED, THERE WAS ROUGHLY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS AVAILABLE, AND IT WAS DECIDED BY THE THEN COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD BUILD A WATER BUILDING WITH THE PUMP STATION.
THIS WAS TO BE FOR THE WATER GUYS.
WHICH YEAR WAS THAT? I'M SORRY? WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? 2008. IT STARTED IN 2018, BUT THE ACTUAL DEAL WAS IN 2020.
DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT. I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK.
BECAUSE I THINK THE PUMP STATION WAS ACTUALLY FINISHED, GARY, IN 20? THIS YEAR. LAST YEAR.
THEN COUNCIL STARTED LOOKING AT THAT, AND AMANDA WAS ON COUNCIL AND LOOKED AT THE WATER BUILDING AND SUGGESTED THAT IT BE IMPROVED A BIT TO WHERE ALL THE EQUIPMENT COULD BE STORED IN THAT BUILDING, BUT IT WOULD BE A METAL BUILDING WITH A BRICK FACADE.
AM I REMEMBERING RIGHT, AMANDA? WHAT WAS DEFINED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME? SHE SAID IT WAS WHAT WAS DEFINED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME.
SHE SAID IT WAS WHAT WAS DEFINED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME.
ANYWAY, AND THAT'S WHERE IT WAS.
THEN THIS COUNCIL CAME ON AND DECIDED THAT THE BUILDING SHOULD BE DIFFERENT, AND THAT INCREASE IN SEVERAL OF THE THINGS CAUSED THE BUILDING'S COSTS TO GO UP.
SO I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE ON COUNCIL BEFORE, LIKE EARLIER, WE DID GET A PLAN IN FRONT OF US, BUT THERE WASN'T A VERY DISTINCT LIST OF WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT THE UPGRADES WERE.
WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THIS PLAN, AND I LIKED THE PLAN, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE CHANGES WERE.
MAYBE GARY CAN SAY WHAT WAS IN THE SECOND PLAN THAT WASN'T IN THE FIRST PLAN.
THE DRAWING THAT YOU SAW WAS THE CONCEPT PLAN FROM THE ARCHITECT, AND THEN HE HAD GONE OUT TO HIS ESTIMATOR TO GET COSTS ON THAT.
IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION, THE ESTIMATION OF COST WAS DONE BY AMANDA, AND I DON'T KNOW, SHE CAME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOOD NUMBERS, BUT THOSE WERE A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMING TO THOSE NUMBERS PROBABLY.
SO GARY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING NEVER REALLY CHANGED FROM WHEN IT WAS AT $1.2 MILLION TO WHEN IT GOT TO $4.5 MILLION? NO, IT HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT, YES.
GIVE US A DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPE, BECAUSE TAMARA SAID SOMETHING A MINUTE AGO THAT I DON'T REMEMBER.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT CAME TO THIS COUNCIL AND WE CHANGED THE SCOPE OF IT.
I DON'T REMEMBER THIS COUNCIL, I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL ALMOST TWO YEARS, A YEAR AND A HALF ANYWAY, ACTUALLY ON HERE.
I DON'T REMEMBER US EVER CHANGING THE SCOPE OTHER THAN WHEN IT CAME HERE, WE ASKED YOU TO GO BACK AND
[01:40:01]
SEE IF YOU COULD CUT SOME FRILLS OUT OF IT TO BRING THE COST BACK DOWN, WHICH YOU COULD A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU COULDN'T SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE IT.YOU COULDN'T CHANGE IT FROM $4 MILLION BACK TO $2.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES THAT GOT US FROM $1.2 TO $4.
THIS COUNCIL WANTED TO MAKE IT TWO STORIES AND WANTED TO PUT STORAGE ON TOP AND MADE SEVERAL TYPES OF ADJUSTMENTS LIKE THAT.
I KNOW THERE WAS A STORAGE, BUT NOT A LOFT.
SO IT WAS A STORAGE LOFT, THAT'S WHAT THE SECOND STORY IS, THAT WAS ON TOP.
AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THAT'S ONLY LIKE A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AT MOST IF I REMEMBER.
WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, IT'S SUBSTANTIAL, BUT IT'S NOT HALF THE COST.
I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THE IDEA TO USE THE CEILING OF THE OFFICE SECTION FOR STORAGE BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO BUILD THAT OUT AS STORAGE THAN IT IS TO BUILD STORAGE ANYPLACE ELSE THAT WE COULD BUILD STORAGE, AND WE NEED STORAGE.
SO THAT'S A PRETTY REASONABLE THING TO DO.
THAT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE OUR COST FROM $1.2 TO $4.
ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IS GOING FROM A METAL BUILDING TO A MORE STRUCTURAL BUILDING OF STONE OR CONCRETE.
AND THE OTHER CHANGES, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES WHERE IT WENT FROM BEING JUST FOR THE WATER GUYS TO BEING PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH WAS A MAJOR CHANGE.
SO I DON'T GUESS ANY OF US THAT ARE ON COUNCIL NOW EVER SAW THE ORIGINAL PLAN UNDER THE ORIGINAL SCOPE WHEN IT HAD MAYBE FEWER OFFICES IN IT OR HELD FEWER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DID WE? I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE.
OKAY, AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART OF THE THING.
I UNDERSTAND AT ONE TIME YOU WERE LOOKING AT TILT WALL CONSTRUCTION, BUT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT TILT WALL CONSTRUCTION NOW, RIGHT? AND IT'S STILL $4 MILLION.
IN TALKING TO THE ARCHITECT WHEN SWITCHING FROM TILT WALL TO CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING, YOU SAVE SOME COST IN ONE AREA, BUT YOU ADD COST IN LABOR TO BUILD THE CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO METAL BUILDING.
I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE DOING CONCRETE BLOCK.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST GOING TO DO A METAL BUILDING.
WITH THE STONE CLAD SO NOBODY COULD BREAK IN.
YEAH, I REMEMBER US DISCUSSING THAT METAL BUILDING WITH STONE CLAD, AND I STILL QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT'S WORTH THE MONEY FOR STONE CLAD ON A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BREAK IN AND STEAL A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, I'M NOT SURE THAT STONE CLAD IS GOING TO KEEP THEM FROM BREAKING IN.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TEAR THE DOORS DOWN SO THEY CAN DRIVE THE EQUIPMENT OUT OF THERE.
SO I'M NOT SURE WE GAIN ANY SECURITY WITH THE STONE CLAD.
I'D LIKE TO THINK OUR POLICE CARS WOULD GO FASTER THAN ANY OF YOUR EQUIPMENT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF COUNCIL WANTS ME TO DO, I CAN GO BACK AND CHANGE THE SCOPE TO GO BACK TO THE METAL BUILDING AND LET'S SEE WHERE THE NUMBERS COME OUT ON THAT.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE PUT SOME, YOU KNOW, GET SOME KIND OF SECURITY SYSTEM LIKE WE GOT ON OUR HOUSES OR WHATEVER THAT AT NIGHT CAN DETECT MOTION AND MAYBE ALERT THE POLICE, HEY, SOMEBODY'S OVER AT THIS BUILDING AT NIGHT AND THEY CAN GO CHECK ON IT.
WELL, WE'RE GOING TO ALSO BE IN AND OUT OF THAT BUILDING AT ALL HOURS DEPENDING ON WHAT'S GOING ON, SO WE DON'T WANT FALSE ALARMS TO THE POLICE.
WE COULD GET AN ALARM SYSTEM THAT WE COULD DISARM WHEN WE SHOW UP AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
ONE, I'D LIKE TO PULL THE ORIGINAL PLAN WITH AMANDA'S ORIGINAL NUMBERS AND COMPARE SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE HOW FAR OFF WE ARE ON CERTAIN THINGS AND SEE WHERE THE BREAKDOWN IS ON THAT.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO DO IS I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE METAL.
SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A REASON THAT YOU REQUESTED THE CONCRETE OR THE BRICK VERSUS THE METAL.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE REASONING FOR ONE OR THE OTHER BESIDES COST? LIKE IS THERE A REASON THAT YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE UPGRADED MATERIALS? SECURITY IS THE REASON, YEAH.
I FEEL LIKE WE GOT OFF TRACK AND YOU NEED SOME INFORMATION FROM US.
WELL, THIS IS ALL GREAT DISCUSSION FOR SURE.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF PIN THINGS UP WITH THE NEXT STEPS DISCUSSION.
SO AS WE ITERATED TONIGHT, THAT WATER TOWER IS ESSENTIAL AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT FUNDING THAT HERE SOON.
SO WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO RESEARCH AND THINK ABOUT WHAT FUNDING OPTION YOU'D LIKE OR AT LEAST GO AHEAD AND DIRECT STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND PREPARE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU, CONSULTATION WITH FINANCIAL ADVISOR, GET THEM OUT THERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT FUNDING PACKAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND THEN YOU COULD PUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF DO WE JUST WANT THE WATER TOWER NOW OR DO WE WANT THE WATER TOWER
[01:45:01]
AND A PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY IN WHATEVER ITERATION THAT LOOKS LIKE.AND THEN FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, I THINK IT'S TIME TO GO AHEAD AND RELEASE FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ON THIS.
AND MAYBE THAT'S THE ONLY COST WE CONSIDER AT THIS POINT.
YOU COULD CERTAINLY GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE DESIGNS COMPLETED.
AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF, YOU COULD PUT THIS ON THE SHELF, THOSE PLANS FOR THE MOST PART AREN'T GOING TO NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY REVISED AND GO BACK TO THAT WHEN FUNDING IS A POSSIBILITY.
I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND DEAL WITH THE WATER TOWER.
I THINK PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AMANDA'S PLAN ALSO.
I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE, AND THAT REALLY INCLUDES GARY, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO BE? IS IT GOING TO BE FOR JUST THE WATER GUYS OR IS IT GOING TO BE FOR ALL OF PUBLIC WORKS? BECAUSE THAT'S A HECK OF A DIFFERENCE IN OFFICE SPACE AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE COME TO A DECISION ON THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS.
ALL RIGHT, GARY, QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF WE JUST DID THE WATER DEPARTMENT, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE EQUIPMENT STORAGE? BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE EQUIPMENT STORAGE IS A LARGE PART OF THE FOOTPRINT.
SO IS MOST OF THE EQUIPMENT FOR THE WATER OR IS IT FOR NON-WATER? WE WOULD WANT TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN ONE LOCATION OVER THERE, AND THAT WOULD BE ALL THE PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT.
IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE FOR STORAGE FOR ALL OF THEIR EQUIPMENT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE OFFICE SPACE FOR ALL OF PUBLIC WORKS.
OKAY, WELL WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE CAREFULLY, BUT I SUSPECT THE BULK OF THE COST WAS ACTUALLY THE EQUIPMENT STORAGE SPACE BECAUSE THAT NEEDED HIGHER ROWS AND I THINK IT WAS MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I REMEMBER IT WAS LIKE FOR THE BACK TRUCK.
YOU DRIVE IT AROUND SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO EVER BACK IT IN.
AND THEN THERE WAS A PARKING AREA IN CASE WE EVER GOT A CAR THAT WE IMPOUNDED.
IT WOULD HOLD THE IMPOUNDED VEHICLES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO GO BACK AND DISCUSS THIS.
MS. TALBOT? YEAH, I DEFINITELY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE WATER TOWER AND GET FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THAT AND WHAT FLEXIBILITY WE HAVE.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TOUCHED BASE SLIGHTLY ON A FACILITIES ASSESSMENT AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THIS AS WELL SO THAT WE'RE NOT DUPLICATING SOME EFFORTS.
GRANT SAID WE HAVE 7.5 AND WE'RE LOOKING AT 8 FOR THE WATER TOWER, SO WE'RE STILL SHORT EVEN FOR THAT, SO WE DO NEED FUNDING OPTIONS.
BUT THAT 7 NUMBER IS CURRENT, RIGHT? I THINK THE WATER TOWER WAS BASED ON INCOMING WATER REVENUE AS WELL.
YEAH, SO THE 7 MILLION IS CURRENT.
ANTICIPATING AN ADDITIONAL $500,000 NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WILL PROBABLY CARRY OVER INTO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, OBVIOUSLY.
SO BY THE TIME THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, WE WOULD BE AT ABOUT $7.5 MILLION.
YEAH, THE EXPENDITURES WILL BE EXPECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
SO IF IT TAKES 18 MONTHS TO BUILD, IT WOULD BE OVER THAT 18 MONTHS YOU PAY FOR.
IT'S NOT ALL LINEAR EVEN PAYMENTS.
IT'S A LITTLE SLOWER TO START, BUT YOU WANT TO HAVE A $7.5 MILLION BILL DUE DAY ONE.
SO LIKE LAYOVER, LAYOFF? WHAT IS THAT THING? LAYAWAY? PAY AS YOU GO.
WOULD THAT WIPE OUT ALL OF OUR WATER DEPARTMENT RESERVES? THE WATER FUND RESERVE WOULD TAKE A BIG HIT.
AND THE WATER FUND RESERVE TOOK A BIG HIT THIS YEAR JUST BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF RAIN WE HAD AND WE HAD LESS USAGE FOR WATER.
SO THE WATER FUND TOOK A BIG HIT THIS YEAR ALREADY, OR THIS PAST YEAR.
OKAY, MR. PILGRIM? MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE WE FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK WITH GRANT AND LOOK ON FUNDING OPTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WATER TOWER.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION HERE TONIGHT.
I'M ALSO RELUCTANT TO SPEND ALL THE CASH THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT.
I'M A STRONG BELIEVER THAT WHEN YOU'RE BUYING A 75-YEAR ASSET, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN YEAR ONE.
YOU OUGHT TO PAY FOR IT OVER THE LIFE OF THE ASSET BECAUSE MOST OF US AREN'T GOING TO BE AROUND HERE 75 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THAT WATER TOWER IS STILL BEING USED TO SUPPLY THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE HERE THEN.
[01:50:03]
JUST SO COUNCIL KNOWS, AND I JUST ASK THAT IT WILL NOT SLOW ME DOWN AT ALL.IF YOU TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO CONSIDER THAT, I'VE STILL GOT A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO.
WE'RE MEETING WITH STAFF ON FRIDAY JUST TO REVIEW ONE MORE TIME.
SO THERE'S STILL THINGS WE CAN DO WHERE IT'S NOT AN IMPEDIMENT ON OUR PROGRESS.
ONCE WE'RE READY TO GO, I'LL PROBABLY STOP FIVE OR TEN PERCENT SHORT JUST BECAUSE IF YOU DO HAPPEN TO SHELVE IT FOR A YEAR AND THEN WE PICK IT BACK UP, I'LL WANT TO REVIEW IT AND REFRESH IT IN SPECIFICATIONS AND WHATNOT.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO, HEY, I'M READY TO GO IN TIME, STAFF WILL LET YOU KNOW.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
JUST SO I'M CLEAR, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS WE MOVE TO THE WATER TOWER, THE WATER LINES ARE ALREADY IN.
YES, THE WATER LINES ARE GOING TO BE STUBBED TO THAT PROPERTY WITH THAT PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT IN PARKER RANCH 5? 4? 5? WHICHEVER PHASE OF PARKER RANCH WE BUILT THAT, BASICALLY THEY STUBBED THE WATER LINE TO THAT PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S NO OFF-SITE WORK OR EASEMENTS WE HAVE TO GO GET, WHICH HELPS THE PROCESS.
OKAY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PURCHASE.
OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN SAYING 18 TO 24 MONTHS BEFORE IT'S FINISHED, READY TO USE.
WHAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD? THAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES.
FROM WHEN YOU START CONSTRUCTION? FROM WHEN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR SIGNS THE CONTRACT TO TAKE OVER OPERATION OF THE DECK.
AND IT CAN GO, THE ONE WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IN WATTSBORO, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DONE IN ABOUT 16 AND CHANGE.
BUT WE'RE CLOSER TO, IT DEPENDS ON WHO GETS THE CONTRACT.
PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER TANK CONTRACTORS IN THE NATION IS OFF THE SIDE OF FORT WORTH.
SO IS THIS NOT A CONTINUOUS FULL CONCRETE FACILITY? NO.
THEY HAVE RINGS ABOUT 6, 8 FOOT DEPENDING ON THE CONTRACTOR AND THE FORM.
SO THE COLUMN GETS BUILT A RING AT A TIME AND YOU'LL DO CONCRETE TESTING ON THAT, INSPECTIONS AND REBAR ON EVERY ONE.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT TAKES IT SO LONG IS THEY DO ONE SECTION, SECURE, TAKE THE BOARDS OFF, RESET.
SO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ACTUALLY TAKES THAT LONG.
BUT AT BEST WE'RE 18 MONTHS AWAY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SURPRISE IF WE'RE TWO YEARS FROM NOW BEFORE WE HAVE A WATER TOWER READY TO USE.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR SOME OTHER DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE TO HAVE ABOUT CITY RESOURCES.
YOU NEEDED IT A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THE QUESTION I WANT IN TERMS OF DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN WE USE MORE WATER, HOW CRITICAL IS THE WATER TOWER GOING TO BE IN SIX MONTHS OR ONE YEAR? MR. MACHADO IS GOING TO HAVE A SPORTY LITTLE SUMMER.
YOU'VE GOT WHAT YOU'VE GOT AND IT IS WHAT IT IS.
THANKFULLY WE HAVE THE SECOND TAKE POINT ONLINE SO HE HAS THE CAPABILITY OF PUMPING MORE WATER TO MEET THOSE MAXIMUM DEMANDS.
BUT THAT TANK IS GOING TO GO FULL AND EMPTY QUITE A LOT IF WE HAVE IT.
LAST SUMMER WAS PRETTY WET, WHICH WE WERE FORTUNATE.
IF WE HAD A NORMAL TEXAS SUMMER, IT'S GOING TO GET A LOT OF USE.
WE'LL HAVE TO CYCLE THE TANK FAST.
THERE'S APPARENTLY A RISK IMPLIED BY THAT, BUT COULD YOU EXPOUND ON IT? CYCLING THE TANK FAST IS FILLING THE DRAIN FAST AND IF WE DON'T TIME THAT CORRECTLY, THEN WE RUN THE RISK OF RUNNING OUT OF WATER.
SO EVERY NIGHT YOU FILL IT AS FULL AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.
AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE A PEAK DEMAND IN THE MORNING AND THEN USUALLY ABOUT MID-MORNING OR SO BEFORE LUNCH, FILL IT BACK UP.
SO BASICALLY YOU'LL RUN YOUR PUMPS MORE TO TRY TO KEEP WATER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE TWO PEAK DEMANDS HERE.
WE HAVE A MORNING AND AN AFTERNOON PEAK DEMAND.
WHAT'S THAT? WE HAVE A LOT OF VERY LARGE YARDS WITH IRRIGATION SYSTEMS THAT RUN FOR VERY LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. KARKOFF AT THIS TIME? I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO BUDDY'S POINT ABOUT DO WE NEED TO FORM A FUNDING SUBCOMMITTEE? FORM A FUNDING SUBCOMMITTEE.
YEAH, I'LL WORK THAT DOWN, BUT DO WE WANT TO FORM THIS HERE NOW? I DON'T SEE WHY WE WAIT.
WE OUGHT TO BEGIN LOOKING AT THAT.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WATER TOWER FUNDING? I'D BE HAPPY TO.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM ANYBODY ELSE, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S REALLY ADJACENT TO RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE.
[01:55:01]
I THINK WE NEED AT LEAST THREE.DO WE HAVE QUORUM ISSUES IF WE GO TO THREE? GOOD POINT.
MAYOR, COUNCIL, MIGHT I RECOMMEND THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND THEN WE COMPRISE IT OF A COUPLE OF STAFF MEMBERS AS WELL AND THEN WE BRING THAT RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL? I THINK YOURSELF AND GARY WOULD HAVE TO BE ON AND MAYBE GRANT.
I'M BEING POLITE HERE, OKAY? OKAY.
I HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE MADE UP OF BUDDY PILGRIM, DARRYL SHORT, GRANT SAVAGE, DOREEN MACHADO, GOING ONCE.
IF I COULD, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT CRAIG KIRKHOFF ON HERE AS SUPPORT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN CASE HIS INFORMATION AND EXPERTISE IS NEEDED.
YOU THOUGHT YOU'D ESCAPE? I WAS TRYING TO GET BACK.
OKAY, SO WHAT I HAVE GOT OUT OF THIS IS TO DO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WATER TOWER FUNDING AND ON THE PUBLIC WORKS WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
IS THAT WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS? YEAH, AND IN PARTICULAR WE WANT TO SEE WHATEVER DOCUMENTATION THERE WAS ON THE $1.2 MILLION ESTIMATE.
DOES THAT GIVE YOU WHAT YOU NEED? YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE DIRECTION ON THIS
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION, ACCEPTING THE 2025 RACIAL PROFILING REPORT AND THE 2025 PARKER PD ANNUAL REPORT.]
ONE.IT GIVES US SOME ACTION STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE AFTER THIS.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION EXCEPTING THE 2025 RACIAL PROFILING REPORT AND THE 2025 PARKER POLICE ANNUAL REPORT.
KEN, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE NOT THE ANNUAL REPORT, BUT THE RACIAL PROFILING REPORT THAT I SENT IN THE EMAIL? I MAY, BUT IT MIGHT TAKE ME A MINUTE.
IT WAS INCLUDED IN EVERYONE'S PACKET, SO I'LL START ASKING IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE INFORMATION YOU'VE SEEN IN IT.
AND YOU'RE STILL DOING THESE INTERNALLY? YES, MA'AM.
WE DO THEM MONTHLY, AND THEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE TICKET DATA THAT MAKES SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THE LAW, AND THEN THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THERE.
IF YOU'LL GO DOWN TO, I THINK IT'S PAGE 28 IS WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE, INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT ARE ALL THE CURRENT LAWS, ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE RECENTLY.
SO THROUGH THOSE AUDITS, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT WE'VE HAD NO SINGLE COMPLAINT ABOUT RACIAL PROFILING IN THE 27, 132 TRAFFIC STOPS THAT WE'VE HAD.
SO YOU'LL SEE THE NUMBERS WHERE THE STATE REQUIRES THAT WE BREAK IT DOWN.
THIS IS WHAT'S UPLOADED TO THE TCO WEBSITE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE.
IT'LL ALSO BE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR CITIZENS TO REVIEW IT IF THEY WANT TO.
AS YOU SCROLL DOWN, IT GIVES YOU THE RACE, THE GENDER, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ON A TRAFFIC STOP TO ENSURE THAT ONE GROUP OR SECTION OF GROUPS ARE NOT BEING TARGETED.
THE NEXT FEW PAGES DOWN, THERE'S A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS THAT THE TCO INCLUDES IN THIS.
SO IT BREAKS IT DOWN BY PERCENTAGES OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THEY WERE STOPPED, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STOPS, THE RACE, WAS IT KNOWN PRIOR TO OR AFTER THE STOP, WHAT THE GENDER WAS.
IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH TRAFFIC CITATION AND WARNING.
[02:00:01]
SO WE DIDN'T WRITE 27, 132 TICKETS, BUT WE MADE 27, 132 CONTACTS.THE NUMBER IS DOWN FROM THE YEAR PREVIOUS BECAUSE OF STAFFING.
I THINK NEXT YEAR WE'LL PROBABLY SEE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT JUMP IN THOSE NUMBERS.
HAS ANYBODY GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE? WE BASICALLY COMPILE THAT ONCE A MONTH.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR, I'M REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE IT ON TCO'S WEBSITE AND BEFORE Y'ALL BY MARCH 1ST.
CHIEF PRICE JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE MEETING FOR OUR REVIEW.
IT IS DENSE AND I WOULD SAY NOT PARTICULARLY EXCITING TO READ.
NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S A HUNDRED PAGES OF LAW.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLE SOMETHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER INTEREST BY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY AN AUDITING GROUP OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE DILIGENCE WITH WHICH YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE PUT IT TOGETHER.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO NOTE IS THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD YEAR IN A ROW THAT PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT HAD ONE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT.
AND THAT'S A REAL CREDIT TO CHIEF PRICE, SERGEANT BURDICK, AND OUR OTHER OFFICERS.
THEY'RE JUST DOING AN OUTSTANDING JOB.
QUICK QUESTION, HOW MUCH TIME DOES IT TAKE YOU EACH MONTH TO PUT THIS TOGETHER KNOWING THAT YOU'RE SHORT-STAFFED? MICHELLE PULLS THE NUMBERS OUT OF OUR REPORT WRITING SYSTEM AND THEN SHE CHECKS IT FOR ANY MISSING DATA CREDITS.
SHE PROBABLY SPENDS A COUPLE HOURS ONCE A MONTH AND THEN IT COMES TO ME AND I REVIEW IT.
SO I SPEND ANOTHER HOUR OR TWO ON IT.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO FILL OUT AND MAINTAIN RECORDS IF WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THEN THERE IS A VIDEO REVIEW COMPONENT OF THIS.
SO THE TWO SERGEANTS ARE TAGGED WITH THAT AND SOMETIMES THAT'S A COUPLE, THREE HOURS TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO WATCH A RECORDING RANDOMLY OUT OF EVERY PATROL CAR.
AND SO WE'VE USED IT TO RANDOMLY TAKE ONE RECORDING FROM EVERY OFFICER.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE RACIAL PROFILING REPORT? OKAY.
THAT BEING THE CASE, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RACIAL PROFILING REPORT.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RACIAL PROFILING REPORT AS PRESENTED BY CHIEF PRICE.
OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THE RACIAL PROFILING REPORT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.
NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM EIGHT, PART TWO, WHICH IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL REPORT.
AND I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO SERGEANT BURDICK.
THE IN-DEPTH NATURE OF BOTH OF THESE REPORTS REQUIRES A LOT OF OUR TIME, AND SO WE DIVIDE THAT AMONGST THEM.
AND SO I'M GOING TO LET HIM PRESENT THAT.
SO 2025, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE CHIEF'S MESSAGE, WHICH WILL BE IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
AND I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO READ IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR IT.
2025 HAS BEEN A CHALLENGING YEAR FOR THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN MET WITH HARD WORK AND DETERMINATION BY THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CURRENT STAFF.
I CANNOT SPEAK MORE HIGHLY OF THE CORE GROUP OF PERSONNEL WE HAVE.
THEY HAVE PROVED THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND KEY TO THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED TO IMPROVE THE FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM BY IMPROVING COMMUNICATION, USING MENTORSHIP STYLE OF TRAINING, AND SOLIDIFYING TRAINING GOALS.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE INCREASED OUR RECRUITMENT IN ACADEMIES WHERE THERE ARE NON-SPONSORED TRAINEES.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE TWO APPLICANTS FROM OUR EFFORTS.
WITH 2025 NOW PASSED, WE HAVE MOVED ON TOWARDS HAVING A SUCCESSFUL 2026.
THE FIRST KEY TO SUCCESS WILL BE BUILDING ON OUR CORE GROUP OF OFFICERS.
WITH CONTINUED RECRUITMENT EFFORTS AND AN IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW PAY PLAN, WE HAVE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS AND BETTER QUALITY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES.
WITH THESE INCREASES, WE WILL LOOK FOR EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE WHO WILL FIT THE CITY OF PARKER'S NEEDS.
WITH TRAINING BEING THE FOUNDATION OF ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD CONTINUITY IN THE
[02:05:01]
FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM AND SEEK TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR OFFICERS.AS WE BUILD ON THE CURRENT AGENCY SIZE, WE WILL STILL ALWAYS STRIVE TO PROVIDE THE CITIZENS OF PARKER WITH THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SERVICE.
THIS FUNDAMENTAL VALUE WILL BE INSTILLED IN ALL OF OUR CURRENT EMPLOYEES, TRAINING PROGRAM, AND HIRING PROCESS.
ANOTHER GOAL FOR 2026 IS BUILDING OUT A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM FOR RECRUITING AND FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
THE GREATEST CHALLENGES WE FACED LAST YEAR WERE OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT'S CONTROL.
WE LOST SEVERAL EMPLOYEES OF OTHER AGENCIES DUE TO HIGHER PAY AND INCENTIVES.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WERE OUT SICK FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
THERE WERE ISSUES THAT HAVE LED TO OUR COMMAND STAFF AND OTHER OFFICERS WEARING SEVERAL DIFFERENT HATS.
THE COMMAND STAFF COVERS SHIFTS FOR OFFICERS WHO ARE SICK AND TAKING VACATIONS AS WELL AS OFFICERS WHO TAKE ON EXTRA SHIFTS TO COVER FOR THEIR PARTNERS.
WHILE I BELIEVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMAND STAFF NEED TO BE WORKING WITH THEIR PEOPLE AND BE OUT ON PATROL, THEY STILL NEED TO HAVE THEIR OTHER DUTIES THAT THEY NEED TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON.
IN CLOSING, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO THANK THE CITIZENS OF PARKER, THE MAYOR, AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE OUR GREAT COMMUNITY AND FOR EVERYONE'S CONTINUED SUPPORT.
2026 IS GOING TO BE A YEAR OF GROWTH AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE.
WITH 2025 NOW CLOSED, PLEASE ACCEPT OUR PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT 2025 ANNUAL REPORT.
AS FAR AS OUR MISSION OR OUR VISION, THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY POLICE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY THROUGH COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES, INNOVATION, CREATIVITY, ADAPTABILITY TO ANY AND EVER-CHANGING ENVIRONMENT, AND A PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT STYLE THROUGH HIGHLY TRAINED AND DISCIPLINED EMPLOYEES USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY.
FURTHERMORE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE IN THIS COMMITMENT IS OUR PEOPLE AND WE STRIVE TO CREATE A POSITIVE WORK ATMOSPHERE WHERE CREATIVITY AND PARTICIPATION IS ABOUND.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE MISSION.
THE MISSION OF THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY BY PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL, COURTEOUS, AND UNBIASED LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, THUS MAKING THE CITY OF PARKER A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE, VISIT, AND WORK.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART.
ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, OF COURSE, THE CHIEF IS AT THE HEAD.
WE DON'T HAVE A CURRENT ASSISTANT CHIEF, SO PRETTY MUCH THE ADMINS FALL ON ONE OF THE SERGEANTS, WHICH THAT WOULD BE THE DAY SHIFT SERGEANT.
THE NIGHT SHIFT SERGEANT DOES THE TRAINING AND ALSO IS THE SUPERVISOR ON THAT SIDE.
AS FAR AS THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE, THIS IS A LIST OF BASICALLY WHAT'S GOING TO FALL UNDER THE CHIEF OF POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES, WHICH WOULD BE MICHELLE, AND OPERATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE MORE PATROL SERGEANTS, AND A LOT OF THINGS MAY BE HANDED DOWN TO SOME OF THE OFFICERS, SOME OF THE OTHER JOBS.
UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, YOU'LL NOTICE WHERE IT SAYS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
UNDER HOUSE BILL 33, WE'RE NOW REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE AND HAVE THEM APPOINTED AND TRAINED WITHIN A YEAR, AND THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE THAT TRAINING BASED ON THE EVOLVING SCHOOL SHOOTING.
SO THAT'S A NEW PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SET UP BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE.
IT'S USUALLY JUST FELL IN MY OFFICE, BUT NOT THAT WE GET A LOT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS.
WE'RE NOW BOUND BY LAW TO HAVE ONE.
THE NEXT MAP IS GOING TO BE YOUR POLICE BEATS.
WHEN WE BECOME FULLY STAFFED, WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE ASSIGNED BEATS.
FOR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T.
RIGHT NOW, OUR OFFICERS PRETTY MUCH RANDOMLY GO WHERE THEY WANT.
BUT AS WE PROGRESS, WE WILL ACTUALLY START TO USE THOSE ASSIGNED DISTRICTS.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO SOME OF THE STATS.
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE TON OF TIME ON THESE, BUT THESE ARE GOING TO BE A FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON.
OVER THE FIVE YEARS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STATS HAVE KIND OF WE'VE HAD LESS CRIME IN THE CITY OF PARKER OVER THE FIVE YEARS.
THERE'S ANOTHER CHART THAT CAPTURES THAT INFORMATION.
THERE'S YOUR FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON ON OUR GROUP B, WHICH ONE OF THE THINGS I DID SEE IS THAT OUR DWIS ON THE FIVE-YEAR GROUP B, WE
[02:10:02]
ACTUALLY DID HAVE MORE DWI ENFORCEMENT FROM OUR OFFICERS, WHICH WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEE THIS.THAT'S GOING TO BE OUR CRIME PER CAPITA.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICK.
OUR RESPONSE TIMES ARE PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
BEFORE YOU LEAVE RESPONSE TIME, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF HOW ICAO WAS A MINUTE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER MAPS? SHORT STAFFING.
I THOUGHT THAT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW.
PRIORITY 1 WOULD BE A HIGHER THOSE ARE YOUR PRIORITY 1 CALLS.
THOSE ARE YOUR EMERGENCY CALLS.
WE MAY HAVE A SO PRIORITY 2 CALLS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF THOSE CALLS THAN WE HAVE PRIORITY 1.
SO IT MAY JUST BE THAT THERE'S LESS OF A SAMPLE SIZE EVERY TIME.
BUT WE DO WANT TO GET THOSE TIMES OUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
AND IF WE DO HAVE MORE PERSONNEL AND WE ASSIGN, LIKE I'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH ASSIGNING BEATS, YOU'LL HAVE AN OFFICER ON EACH BEAT, SO THAT WOULD DROP YOUR RESPONSE TIMES.
ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THAT IS A PRIORITY 1 CALL.
AND IT GENERALLY REQUIRES TWO OFFICERS, AND YOU DON'T WANT ONE TO ARRIVE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
SO IT'S GOING TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT TIME.
DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE CALL, WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR IT.
AS THEY BALANCE OUT, FOR SAFETY'S SAKE, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.
DO THESE INCLUDE THE CALLS THAT COME IN TO THE NON-EMERGENCY NUMBER? NO.
IF THEY COME IN TO OUR NUMBER AND IT'S DISPATCHED FROM US, IF THEY COME IN TO OUR NUMBER AND IT'S DISPATCHED FROM US, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO DISPATCH THEMSELVES AFTER THAT.
IF IT GOES INTO MURPHY DISPATCH AND IS DISPATCHED OUT, WE ARE GOING TO CAPTURE THAT INFORMATION.
THERE'S A CHART OF RESPONSE TIMES.
ACCIDENTS, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DROPPED A LITTLE BIT.
WITH MORE ENFORCEMENT, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AS WE GET MORE PEOPLE, THOSE NUMBERS WILL DROP MORE.
WITH MORE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, USUALLY YOU DO SEE A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
DID THAT ALSO INCLUDE ALL THE ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON HOAG ROAD AT DELAHAYE AND PARKER? SURPRISINGLY, WE HAVEN'T HAD AS MANY ACCIDENTS AS YOU'D THINK WE WOULD HAVE HAD FROM THAT.
I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEE A HIGH UPTICK, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LARGE ONE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO KNOCK ON WOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
INVESTIGATIONS FOR 2025, IT'S GOING TO COVER YOUR BASIC STATS MONTH TO MONTH.
AGAIN, YOUR BAR CHART ON THAT, YOUR CHART ON THAT.
ALARMS, AGAIN, PRETTY STEADY ON ALARMS OVER THE YEARS, OVER THE FIVE-YEAR SPAN.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE STATS? WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE TO THE DECREASE IN THE CRIME RATE PER CAPITA? THE DECREASE COULD BE US BEING OUT ON PATROL MORE, HOW WE ARE TRAINING OUR OFFICERS, THAT'S A BIG PART OF IT, AND WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THEM.
IF YOU HAVE YOUR OFFICERS WHO ARE OUT THERE MORE AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY BEING PROACTIVE AND THEY'RE PATROLLING AND THEY'RE OUT, YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM OUT THERE.
I'M SURE EVERYBODY SEES US CONDUCTING TRAFFIC, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS WE'RE THERE.
THAT'S A BIG DETERRENT, AND THAT'S GOING TO KEEP CRIME FROM HAPPENING IN OUR CITY.
THAT'S GOING TO KEEP DEATHS FROM HAPPENING, THAT'S GOING TO KEEP DEPRIVATION FROM HAPPENING, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PURGE.
I'LL ACTUALLY COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
SINCE I'VE LIVED IN PARKER, I'VE SEEN THE POLICE PATROL DOWN MY STREET SO MANY TIMES.
I PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN PLANO FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, AND I DON'T REMEMBER...
PLANO PATROLS A LOT, BUT THEY DON'T PATROL A LOT ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, SO YOU ALL ARE GETTING OUT THERE AND BEING VISIBLE.
THERE IS ONE MORE THING THAT WE DO REALLY WELL, AND THAT'S WE WORK REALLY WELL WITH OUR CAMPAIGN.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE THAT KNOW ME,
[02:15:01]
CHIEF, THEY KNOW COURTNEY, THE OTHER SERGEANT, AND SOME OF THEM KNOW US ON A FIRST-NAME BASIS, SO THEY KNOW HOW TO REACH OUT TO US.HEY, HE GETS AN OFFICER OUT THERE.
THERE'S ALWAYS A WAY TO RESPOND, AND WE'RE VERY...
WE'LL GET OUT THERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND WE KNOW OUR CITIZENS.
WE'RE ACTUALLY ENGAGED WITH THEM, AND I THINK THAT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN OUR CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
DOES CONSTRUCTION IMPACT THAT AT ALL? I KNOW IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES, WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE UNKNOWN, IT'S EASIER FOR BAD ACTORS TO SLIP IN UNDER THE GUISE OF, OH, I'M JUST HERE FOR THIS.
IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU BRING UP CONSTRUCTION.
THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CAUSING US PROBLEMS, BUT WE DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH, LIKE IF RESIDENTS ARE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WE'LL HAVE SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE COME BACK, BUT USUALLY THAT'S ONLY GOING TO BE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
IT WILL BE PESTS THAT ARE INVOLVING THEM.
THEY'RE NOT BOTHERING OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY SEE US.
THEY'RE WORKING MORE INSIDE, SO WE'RE NOT REALLY HAVING THOSE ISSUES.
YEAH, I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER ABOUT THE NOISE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUS YOU ALL DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING STATISTICS IN THE DEPARTMENT, AND I WISH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE ORDINANCE WERE STILL HERE.
SOME OF THEM ARE, BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE LEFT AS WELL.
ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS WILLING TO SUPPORT THE NOISE ORDINANCE IS THE CONFIDENCE THAT I HAVE IN YOU GUYS.
WE REALLY DO HAVE A GOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE, AND I THINK YOU ALL ARE VERY REASONABLE PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'LL ABUSE THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE THAT MIGHT ALLOW YOU TO ARREST SOMEBODY OR GIVE A CITATION OR SOMETHING WHEN YOU COULD HANDLE IT A DIFFERENT MANNER.
I'D STILL LIKE YOU TO KEEP VERY GOOD STATISTICS ON NOISE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS IN GENERAL, BUT MAYBE EVEN SOME BREAKDOWN ON WHAT TYPE OF NOISE VIOLATION IT WAS AND THEN WHAT OCCURRED, AND THAT WILL HELP US EVALUATE THIS A YEAR FROM NOW.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THE FACT THAT YOU KEEP THESE KINDS OF STATISTICS AND THE QUALITY OF PEOPLE THAT YOU ALL ARE IS THE REASON THAT I'VE GOT CONFIDENCE WE CAN ENACT A NOISE ORDINANCE LIKE THAT AND NEVER HAVE IT ABUSED BY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
NOR WILL YOU LET OUR CITIZENS ABUSE IT EITHER, I BELIEVE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO... I DO APPRECIATE THAT.
WE ALREADY HAVE... I'M ALREADY PLANNING OUT SOMETHING FOR THE NOISE COMMITTEE, SO YOU WILL HAVE THAT, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE THE OFFICERS TRACK A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
I'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THAT SO WE CAN GATHER IT UP.
SO FOR YEARS WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING ON...
WE'VE HAD THESE SAME PROGRAMS GOING ON, WHICH ARE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WHICH EVERYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROGRAM.
AND OF COURSE WE LIKE TO GET OUT THERE AND TALK TO ALL THE CITIZENS.
IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GO MEET AND GREET, AND ALSO SEE FACES WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN A WHILE.
AND ALSO A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TELL US, HEY, THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE OR SOMETHING WE COULD ADDRESS.
AND IT'S NOT JUST POLICE ISSUES AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
THEY MAY HAVE AN ISSUE IN PUBLIC WORKS, AND I CAN GET GARY OUT THERE, BECAUSE GARY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, HE SIGNED ME OUT RECENTLY WITH AN ISSUE.
AND I CALLED HIM WHILE HE WAS AT HOME AND HE TOOK CARE OF IT.
OUR PEOPLE HERE, NOT JUST US, BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE ALSO AMAZING.
IT TAKES A TEAM TO GET IT ALL DONE.
THE NEXT WOULD BE THE SPEED RADAR TRAILER, WHICH WE PUT OUT.
WE ACTUALLY USE THAT TO TRACK DATA UP AND DOWN, LIKE LEWIS LANE.
SOMEBODY CALLS AND SAYS, HEY, THERE'S A BUNCH OF SPEEDERS THAT ARE COMING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD.
WE TRACK NOT ONLY HOW MANY SPEEDERS ARE THERE, BUT WHAT TIME THAT PERSON IS SPEEDING.
IN THE PAST, WE'VE ACTUALLY USED THAT DATA TO STOP THAT ONE SPEEDER.
SO IF WE SEE A CONSISTENT PATTERN, I'M WAITING FOR YOU AT 4.50 IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO WORK, AND I'M GOING TO CATCH YOU.
SO WE DO ACTUALLY USE IT, AND WE USE IT PROACTIVELY.
AND THEN THERE'S THE NATIONAL DRUG TAKE BACK, WHICH YOU CAN KEEP AT THE FOREFRONT OF THAT, SITTING OUTSIDE, WHETHER IT'S COLD, WINDY, RAINY, OR 100 DEGREES.
BUT HE'S THERE TO TAKE ALL THE MEDICATIONS AND PHARMACEUTICALS HE CAN.
AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PARKER FEST, WHICH EVERY YEAR HAS GROWN AND HAS BECOME BETTER EVERY YEAR.
AND IT'S CHALLENGED US IN SOME WAYS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TO FIGURE OUT WAYS OF DOING THINGS.
WITH SHORT STAFFING LIKE THIS LAST YEAR, IT KIND OF HURT US A LITTLE BIT WITH HAVING A MAJOR INCIDENT WHILE WE WERE TAKING CARE OF PARKER FEST.
LOOKING FORWARD, OUR GOALS FOR 2026, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE MANNING ISSUE.
WE ONLY HAVE 50% OF OUR POSITIONS FILLED RIGHT NOW.
WE NEED TO TRACK QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO CAN BE ASSETS
[02:20:02]
TO THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.AND AGAIN, THAT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO FINDING THAT PERSON WHO FITS.
I WANT SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE TIME TO SAY HI TO PEOPLE, SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WORK WITH THEM, AND ALSO BE ABLE TO BE A PROTECTOR AND A GUARDIAN.
I WANT SOMEBODY WHO CAN DO ALL THOSE THINGS.
WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON A POLICY MANUAL.
THAT POLICY MANUAL, IT'S A BIG PART OF OUR ACCREDITATION.
EVENTUALLY, EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO BECOME ACCREDITED.
AND IT'S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE STATE OF TEXAS MAY EVEN REQUIRE IT EVENTUALLY IN THE FUTURE.
SO IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUALLY WORK TOWARDS.
KIND OF LIKE HOW TECOL IS MOVING, IT'S KIND OF CHANGING THE DIRECTION OF HOW WE'RE APPROACHING THINGS.
I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY SEVERAL PEOPLE.
WE ACTUALLY WANT TO START BUILDING ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. WE WANT TO HAVE ONE FOR RECRUITING, AND WE WANT TO HAVE ONE SO WE CAN ACTUALLY PUT OUT INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY IN REAL TIME.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO REACH OUT, AND WE WANT TO GET THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO, AND WE'VE BEEN WANTING TO DO THIS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, WE WANT TO START COPP WITH A COPP AGAIN.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE COME MEET WITH US.
BUT WE NEED THE MANPOWER TO BE ABLE TO GET AN OFFICER IN THERE.
DIDN'T WE HAVE THAT PROGRAM THROUGH COVID? AND HOW MANY RESIDENTS WERE SHOWING UP TO IT? WELL, IT WAS DONE IN THE BOOT CASE, AND IT WAS A TAG-TEAM EFFORT BETWEEN COLLIN COUNTY, US, AND SOME ALLEN OFFICERS.
AND SO WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD TURNOUT.
WE USUALLY FILLED UP THE WHOLE ENTIRE SITE.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO START SOME TYPE OF OFFICER WELLNESS PROGRAM.
THAT'S NOT JUST FOR WORKING OUT, GETTING IN THE GYM, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR OFFICERS ARE MENTALLY HEALTHY.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO DO THE JOB IN A HEALTHY WAY.
[9. UPDATE(S)]
GREAT JOB. THANK YOU ALL.NOW WE WILL MOVE TO THE ROUTINE ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH GARY AND 2551.
NOW WE WILL MOVE TO THE ROUTINE ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH GARY AND 2551.
2551 IS PROGRESSING AS SCHEDULED AND AS EXPECTED WITH A SLIGHT WEATHER DELAY WITH THE RECENT ICE STORM.
I'VE BEEN ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO DILLAHAY.
ARE THEY GOING TO REPAVE IT AFTER THEY'RE DONE WITH 2551? ARE THEY GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IS? IS IT GOING TO STAY A TEXTILE ROAD AND SO ON? IT'S GOING TO STAY A TEXTILE ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TEXTILE IS GOING TO DO WITH IT.
I'VE ASKED THEM ABOUT THAT EARLY ON IN THIS PROJECT, AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO DISCUSS IT AT THAT TIME.
THAT'S A CONVERSATION I'M GOING TO HAVE WITH THEM.
MR. PILGRIM, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ON TCAQ? THE NEWEST THING CAME OUT TODAY.
JUDGE SMITH IN THE SERRA COURT ISSUED A SCHEDULING ORDER TODAY FOR THE HEARING.
SHE DID NOT ACCEPT EITHER PARKER'S OR RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
SHE ACCEPTED THE ONE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TCEQ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
SEPTEMBER 15TH THROUGH THE 17TH WILL BE THE HEARING DATE, 26TH.
IS THAT A ZOOM HAND? YES, MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU'LL ZOOM.
GARY, YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON DUBLIN ROAD? DUBLIN ROAD, THEY FINISHED PUTTING THE BASE COURSE OF PAVING DOWN TODAY WITH A WEEK DELAY WITH ICE STORM, BUT GOT THAT FINISHED TODAY, AND THE PLAN IS TO START THE FINISHED COURSE OF PAVING NEXT WEEK.
[02:25:01]
IS THAT ON BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH? WE'RE GOING TO START ON THE NORTH END AND WORK SOUTH TO BEGIN WITH, AND THEN FOR THE SECTION SOUTH OF BETSY, START WITH THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS AND WORK NORTH WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH THAT NORTH END.GARY CHIEF, WOULD YOU ALL MIND PROVIDING A QUICK UPDATE ON THE STRIPING RESEARCH THAT YOU PERFORMED FOR DUBLIN ROAD? YES.
SO, THERE'S NO LAWS THAT YOU CAN'T STRIPE? NO.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT SAYS THAT THE ONLY STIPULATION IS THAT YOU FOLLOW THE MANUALS PUT OUT BY PAINTING COLORS OR WHATEVER.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 10-FOOT LANE, BUT YOU CAN STRIPE DUBLIN ROAD.
AND I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME WITH LEWIS? I HOPE.
SO, IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PREPARE SOME PROPOSALS FOR THE STRIPING OF AT LEAST THE CENTER LINE, MAYBE ALTERNATIVE QUOTES FOR THE OUTER LINES AS WELL.
DO WE KNOW IF WE WANT TO STRIPE THE WHOLE THING OR THROUGH THE S-CURVES, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE JUST COME UP WITH NUMBERS AND THEN DETERMINE LATER? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO THE STRAIGHTAWAYS, TOO.
CAN WE ALSO DO THE BUTTONS? WE CAN.
WE CAN DO REFLECTIVE STRIPING OR WE CAN DO BUTTONS OR WE CAN DO A COMBINATION.
I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST SEE A BIT ON THE ENTIRE THING WITH THE CENTER STRIPE AND TWO SIDE STRIPES.
UNLESS THAT'S SOME EXORBITANT NUMBER THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE FOR US, IT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL THING TO DO.
BUTTONS MAYBE ON THE S-CURVE? YEAH, I KNOW.
[10. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM ANYONE? AREN'T YOU IN FRONT? OKAY.THEN WE WILL GO TO ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.
CHIP AND LINDA JUSTICE DONATED TIFF TREATS VALUED AT $40 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
[11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WE WISH TO THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR THEIR GENEROSITY TO OUR POLICE OFFICERS.AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT COUNCILMEMBER BYRNE NOTED EARLIER.
THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED DESIRE IN THE PAST, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM ON OUR COMMUNICATION OR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY, PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA.
I'D LIKE THAT TO BE A COHESIVE PLAN FROM THE CITY AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE POPPING UP HERE, POPPING UP THERE.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT THIS AS AN AGENDA ITEM OR A WORKSHOP? OR START ONE WAY AND SEE WHERE IT COMES? OR ALTERNATIVELY, ASK MR. MANTON.
DO WE JUST WANT HIM TO MAKE A FIRST PROPOSAL TO US? YEAH.
AND IF YOU WANT SOME OF THE COUNCIL PEOPLE TO GIVE INPUT INTO IT, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY.
WELL, JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON THAT, IF WE GO BACK TO THE LAST AGENDA ITEM HERE, ROUTINE UPDATES, I BELIEVE THAT MAYOR PETAL AND COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN ARE ALREADY RESEARCHING AND HAVING DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT THAT COMMUNICATION ENGAGEMENT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO WE CAN, I THINK, JUST BUILD UPON THAT.
I THINK THEY'RE WORKING TO SCHEDULE SOME MEETINGS ON THAT DISCUSSION. THEN WE CAN BRING FORTH SOME OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND IDEAS AS AN AGENDA ITEM. OKAY. I KNOW THAT THERE'S CONCERN.
THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL PITFALLS AND LEGALITY ISSUES. WHEN I WAS AT TML, THERE WERE PROBABLY 80 OTHER CITIES, AND THEY'RE SMALL CITIES, AND WE WERE LITERALLY THE ONLY ONE WITHOUT SOME FORM OF SOCIAL MEDIA. SO I FEEL LIKE IT CAN BE OVERCOME THAT IT'S NOT A PROHIBITED THING.
AND WE MIGHT NEED TO GET HELP FROM COUNCIL ON THAT BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA.
BUT ALL IS DOABLE. IF IT'S AGREEABLE WITH YOU, I THINK WE WOULD START THAT AS A WORKSHOP AND THEN GO FROM THERE. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY. I THOUGHT WE ADDED ADDRESSING THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
[02:30:03]
TO A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, BUT I DON'T SEE IT HERE.ACTUALLY, WHAT I RECALL IS WE STARTED WITH THAT, AND THEN IT BECAME A DISCUSSION ABOUT A FACILITIES COMMITTEE THAT WASN'T POSTED. I THINK IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE POLICE. WE NEED TO JUST SAY FACILITIES.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY CAN THINK OF WHILE YOUR BRAIN'S STILL WORKING? OKAY. THEN AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO A RECESS TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 451.0711 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR TWO 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 BOARD OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER ON ANY AGENDA ITEM LISTED ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGENDA AND OR WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER LISTED BELOW. GREGORY LANE LITIGATION, RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SLASH MOB, AND LEWIS LANE. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE IN RECESS[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.]
TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS 8.30 P.M. I HEREBY RECONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING OF PARKER CITY COUNCIL. IT IS STILL FEBRUARY 3RD, 2026. IT IS 11.07 P.M. COUNCIL, I WILL ASK YOU. MY PEN JUST FELL APART. THAT ISN'T GOING TO WORK. COUNCIL, I WILL ASK YOU, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS LISTED ABOVE? NO, MADAM MAYOR. OKAY.HEARING NONE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON ANYTHING? IF NOT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. IT IS 11 A.M. P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.