Apr 07, 2026 City Council

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS APRIL 7TH, 2026, AT 6:00 PM.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK MISS HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A SUPER QUORUM.

[WORKSHOP]

OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WITH CATHERINE IS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT INCLUDING THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN HERE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. I DON'T SEE IT IN THE PROPOSED REDLINE VERSION THAT WE GOT.

IT'S NOT IN THAT. IT'S A KIND OF A FOOTNOTE I HAVE TO ADD THAT. I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS EASIER IF IT'S LIMITED TO COUNCIL, AND THEN WE ADD THE APPLICATION OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AFTERWARDS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MANIPULATE THAT MUCH DETAIL IN THE LANGUAGE DURING THIS DISCUSSION.

BUT FROM COUNCIL'S PERSPECTIVE, Y'ALL ARE AGREEABLE THAT WE DO WANT THIS TO APPLY TO OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? YES. OKAY. WE HAD ALSO ASKED FOR SOME CLEARER DEFINITIONS ON SOME THINGS, SUCH AS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND 2 OR 3 THINGS.

CATHERINE, WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK INTO THAT? SORRY, I'M STILL TRYING TO GET MY DOCUMENT OPEN, BUT NO, I DON'T THINK I MADE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. OKAY, COUNCIL, ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS, ISSUES, ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? I LOOKED OVER WHAT'S HERE. I'M HAPPY WITH THE LANGUAGES HERE BESIDES, YOU KNOW, DEFINING SOME THINGS AND THEN EXPANDING IT AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THEN, IS THERE ANYTHING PEOPLE WANT THAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED SO THAT CATHERINE CAN BRING US BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING A CLEAN VERSION, HOPEFULLY, THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO PASS? NO, I REALLY I FEEL SO FRESH TO THIS CONVERSATION. I'M SURE YOU HAVE ALL PUT IN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ALREADY, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M REHASHING SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED.

BUT ON THE— WAS IT PART I, REFERRAL TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE AUTHORITY TO REFER? SO THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REFER A COMPLAINT OF PROPOSED CENSURE UNDER THIS SECTION TO INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL.

SO DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OR ANYONE ON THE CITY COUNCIL WHAT WOULD BE THE PRECEDENT THERE? SPEAKING IN HOW THAT'S NORMALLY DONE, IT'S A GOOD POINT. USUALLY IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MAKES THAT CALL, IT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT SAYS, HEY, THIS PUTS ME IN A POSITION OF CONFLICT AND I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT IT GO TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL. AND THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD SAY, YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

IF THE COUNCIL— IF YOU NEED AN ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE, THE COUNCIL IS NOT GENERALLY THE THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WANTS TO BE IN THAT POSITION. YES.

OH, WE DON'T HAVE TO PRESS AND HOLD NOW.

I'M SORRY? WE DON'T HAVE TO PRESS AND HOLD NOW. I JUST LOOKED DOWN AND WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THE LIGHT'S STILL ON.

WE MADE CHANGES WHILE YOU WERE GONE.

SO DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT TO CONSTITUTE MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON HOW THAT GETS REFERRED?

[00:05:01]

UH, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED THAT WE'RE LETTING COUNCIL— IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN CITY COUNCIL WHO ARE BEING COMPLAINED AGAINST, WE'RE SORT OF GIVING CITY COUNCIL A WAY TO SQUASH IT HERE, AT LEAST A REFERRAL TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT POTENTIAL. OKAY, CATHERINE, HOW WOULD YOU YOU COULD HAVE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR A REFERRAL BY A SINGLE MEMBER WHEN OTHERS ARE CONFLICTED OUT.

I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE OFTEN SEE IN, IN CODE OF CONDUCT POLICIES IN OTHER CITIES IS— AND ACTUALLY I THINK THIS IS IN THE STATUTE AS WELL, I KNOW IT'S IN THE STATUTE— THAT IF, IF MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL. IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IS CONFLICTED, THEN NO ONE IS CONFLICTED.

THAT'S UNDER 171.

SO THEN IT GETS KIND OF PIECEY ABOUT, WELL, HOW ARE YOU— HOW ARE YOU DEFINING WHAT A CONFLICT IS? YOU COULD GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO REFER TO— YOU COULD GIVE IT TO THE MAYOR, YOU COULD GIVE IT TO A COMBINATION OF THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU COULD— BECAUSE IT'S JUST A REFERRAL TO AN ATTORNEY, YOU COULD LEAVE THAT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SAY, BASED ON— LIKE, THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD JUST MAKE A STATEMENT THAT FOR THESE REASONS BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE REFERRED, AND IT'S JUST A NOTICE. GIVEN THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAVE IT EITHER THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD REFER.

AND I THINK WE'RE STILL— WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'D MENTIONED EARLIER AS WELL, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE RETALIATION AS WELL.

YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THE DEFINITIONS. I THINK LAST TIME, MY— WHAT MY NOTES SAY IS THAT WE WERE GOING TO TO JUST REFER TO CHAPTER 171 INSTEAD OF RESTATING 171 IN IT? IS THAT THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS, OR DOES COUNCIL WANT TO GO BEYOND THAT? I JUST KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME PEOPLE CALL THINGS CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN THEY REALLY— WE DIDN'T FEEL THEY WERE, SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. SO IF 171 COVERS THAT, I'M FINE REFERRING BACK TO THAT.

UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ALMOST A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR AGO WAS SOME OF THE PROCESSES. AND WHEN— SO IN HERE WE SPECIFICALLY SAY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD NOT GIVE DIRECTION TO ANY CITY EMPLOYEE UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WE HAVEN'T EVER REALLY GOTTEN TO YOUR ROLE, THE ROLE OF COUNCIL AS A BODY, AND THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A LARGER DISCUSSION THAN JUST THOU SHALL NOT DIRECT, BECAUSE I ASKED A QUESTION OF GARY AS A CITIZEN, AND I FELT LIKE I HAD TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS JUST ME ASKING A QUESTION BECAUSE I'M SO AFRAID OF I GAVE DIRECTION, BECAUSE THAT HAS BUBBLED UP.

IN THE LAST YEARS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS FOR THIS CONVERSATION OR IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO TIED INTO THE AGENDA PROCESS.

LIKE, THAT'S— I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ALL TYING TOGETHER, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE ADDRESS MANAGING THAT. I GO AHEAD. I THINK THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION, RIGHT? I THINK THIS IS CODE OF— THIS IS ETHICS, AND LET'S JUST STICK WITH ETHICS.

I THINK THE AGENDA IS JUST THE AGENDA. I DO BELIEVE WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND A

[00:10:01]

GREAT. OKAY. GO AHEAD, JOE.

JUST GOING BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN'S— I GUESS IT WAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST CLAUSE THAT YOU WERE FOCUSING ON. RATHER THAN REFERRING SPECIFICALLY, OR MAYBE IN ADDITION TO SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO 171, WHICH IS HOW THE STATE DEFINES CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CAN WE REFER TO THE MOST CONTEMPORARY VERSION OF THAT? IS IT POSSIBLE TO NOT HAVE TO REVISE THIS WITH EVERY TIME THAT 171 GETS REVISED? YES, YES. JUST, IT WOULD JUST BE PHRASED TO REFER TO THE CURRENT VERSION OF CHAPTER 171.

SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION JUST FOR CATHERINE. GENERAL, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CODE OF CONDUCT CURRENTLY THAT YOU THINK RESTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM EFFECTIVELY CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIZENS? NO, SORRY, MY MICROPHONE IS UP. I DON'T SEE THAT.

I WILL SAY, AND I THINK I MAY HAVE SAID THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I'VE DONE WORK ON THIS TYPE OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REFERRING OUT. AND SO I REVIEWED A NUMBER OF CODE OF CONDUCT POLICIES, AND IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT TO CREATE A GOOD ONE. THEY TEND TO BECOME INTERNALLY CONFLICTED, OR THEY CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE— I WOULD SAY THIS ONE HAS LESS CONFLICT THAN MANY OF THEM THEM, MANY OF THEM THAT I SEE, IN PART BECAUSE IT'S CONCISE.

SEE, I SEE THIS AS LITERALLY WHAT IT'S LABELED AS, A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR HOW WE INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER, HOW WE TREAT EACH OTHER, HOW WE TREAT EMPLOYEES, AND FRANKLY, HOW WE WOULD TREAT THE CITIZENS IN OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL, MORE SO THAN FUNCTIONAL ISSUES OF HOW THE COUNCIL FUNCTIONS IN DECISION-MAKING ALONG WITH THE MAYOR. I SEE THAT AS A SEPARATE ISSUE.

IS THAT— YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YES. OKAY, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME PEOPLE THAT, THAT ARE CONCERNED THAT WE MAY BE CREATING A SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS NOW CAN'T GO TO STAFF AND ASK QUESTIONS.

AND COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN GO TO STAFF AND ASK QUESTIONS.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASKING QUESTIONS AND GIVING STAFF DIRECTION. AND THAT IS PROBABLY THE ONE KIND OF OPERATIONAL THING THAT IS ADDRESSED IN HERE ON THE ISSUE THAT YOU JUST RAISED ABOUT GIVING DIRECTION. AND I MEAN, I CONTINUALLY TELL PEOPLE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY IN OUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

WE ONLY HAVE AUTHORITY IN OUR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY AS WE VOTE ON ISSUES AND CONSIDER ISSUES AS A GROUP. SO WE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT STAFF INDIVIDUALLY ANYWAY. SO ACTUALLY, TO THAT, YOU'VE MADE A VERY GOOD POINT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I WAS— REALLY, THE FILTER GOING THROUGH MY MIND IS THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO ASK THE QUESTIONS, DIRECT STAFF, ET CETERA.

AND WHEN THERE'S BEEN A CONFLICT, IT'S GOTTEN VERY TENSION-FILLED. BUILD. AND SO THEN, ARE WE TREATING EACH OTHER ON THE DAIS WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION, AS OPPOSED TO ON THE DAIS OR OFF THE DAIS, NAME-CALLING, BLAMING, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, ALL THE THINGS? SO I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

LIKE, I, I EVEN— THAT WAS THE FILTER I WAS GOING THROUGH.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS DOES ADDRESS THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DISAGREE, THAT WE'RE DOING IT RESPECTFULLY.

SO, YEAH, AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CODIFY THAT. YEAH. YEAH.

SO I THINK WE HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE. YEAH. IF ANY OF US FIND THE OTHERS TRYING TO BECOME A DE FACTO CITY MANAGER IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OR AN INDIVIDUAL OVERSEER OF KENT OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE CITY, I WOULD LOOK TO THE REST OF US TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE AND STOP THAT.

THAT DOESN'T SAY THOUGH THAT I CAN'T ASK ANY QUESTION OR MAKE ANY INQUIRY INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL. NOW, THE SECOND PHASE OF THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ASK THE STAFF TO GO START CREATING REPORTS, CREATING INFORMATION. I THINK THAT FALLS INTO DIRECTING, THOUGH, WHEN WE'RE DOING THAT.

AND IN OUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WE SHOULDN'T BE DIRECTING THE STAFF TO GO CREATE A REPORT UNLESS WE COLLECTIVELY AS A COUNCIL AGREE, YEP, WE NEED THAT INFORMATION BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION. I AGREE.

[00:15:05]

OKAY, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT THE LAST TIME, AND WE REALLY DIDN'T GET INTO IT VERY MUCH, WAS WHEN A COUNCILPERSON MAY BE CONFRONTED IN PUBLIC, NOT ON CITY GROUNDS, WHAT CAN BE DONE THERE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN HERE, OR I'M MISSING IT. MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THAT DISCUSSION WAS HAD LAST TIME, AND THE THE DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL WAS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE CODE OF CONDUCT TO APPLY WHEN THEY'RE OUT AT THE MALL AND SOMEBODY MAYBE ENGAGES THEM IN AN ALTERCATION.

Y'ALL CAN— MY RECOLLECTION CORRECT? OKAY. DO Y'ALL FEEL THAT'S COVERED IN HERE? I GUESS I THINK IT'S THAT IT WAS JUST THAT SPECIFICALLY BASICALLY, THIS WOULD NOT COVER THAT.

OKAY, THAT WAS THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL, THAT IT WOULD NOT— IT WOULD NOT ADDRESS THAT.

SO MAYBE A SIMPLE NOTE THAT JUST STATES WHEN CONDUCTING CITY BUSINESS— I MEAN, THAT THIS ALL PERTAINS TO WHEN CONDUCTING CITY BUSINESS OR IN CITY ENVIRONMENTS OR EVENTS.

YEAH, THAT SHOULD WORK.

BUDDY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? NO.

OKAY, I THINK I'VE TURNED MY COMMENTS OVER. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I ADEQUATELY COVER THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS INTENDED, OR SHOULD IT TURN INTO, A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR CITY COUNCIL OR A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE MAYOR, EITHER ONE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT ITS INTENT IS.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS— YOU, SINCE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, UM, IS THIS GETTING AT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR? I THINK IT IS.

AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN REALLY FORTUNATE THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN DIGNIFIED AND COURTEOUS TO ONE ANOTHER, TO, AS FAR AS I KNOW, CITY EMPLOYEES, AND FOR THAT MATTER, THE CITIZENS THAT JOIN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF RECOURSE FOR ESPECIALLY THE CITY EMPLOYEES OR ANYTHING, IF IT DIDN'T GO THAT WAY. AND WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN I NOTICED THAT AND I KIND OF WORRIED ABOUT IT, FRETTED ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I MEAN, WHO KNOWS? AND IF WE CAN AFFORD THE CITY EMPLOYEES IN PARTICULAR SOME LEVEL OF SECURITY IN THEIR TREATMENT ON THE JOB, I THINK IT HELPS THEM FEEL COMMITTED TO THE CITY OF PARKER.

I THINK IT HELPS THEM FEEL PROTECTED IN THE WORKPLACE.

AND I THINK ULTIMATELY AFFORDING THAT SAME COURTESY WITH EACH OTHER IS— I THINK IT JUST ALLOWS US TO TREAT ONE ANOTHER AS WE DESERVE. SO, YEAH, I THINK IT DOES.

THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE ON THIS IS IT SEEMS TO LEAVE THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES OUT. SHOULD THAT PERSON BE INCLUDED IN THIS? IF THERE IS— IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS A COMPLAINT, SHOULD THEY FIRST GO TO HUMAN RESOURCES? I DON'T KNOW, I'M ASKING. YOU'RE A HUMAN RESOURCE PERSON, WHAT WOULD YOUR THOUGHTS BE ON THAT? I PERSONALLY THINK THAT, YEAH, THAT SHOULD— THEY SHOULD GO UP THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND OR GO TO HR AND THEN ESCALATE TO KENT TO ADDRESS WITH US, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST PUTTING EMPLOYEES IN THE MIDDLE OF COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS.

OKAY, COULD WE CATHERINE, CAN WE PUT THAT IN SOMEWHERE? BECAUSE I JUST— IT JUST JUMPED OUT AT ME. OKAY, EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? GOING ONCE.

OKAY, WELL, IF THERE'S NOTHING

[ADJOURN]

WE ARE ADJOURNED AS TO THE WORKSHOP.

THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL START AT 7:00. I HEREBY CALL THE

[CALL TO ORDER]

I WILL ASK MISS HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. OKAY, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR.

[00:20:01]

ARMY OF TEXAS RIDER, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

THANK Y'ALL.

[PUBLIC COMMENTS]

UM, ALAN MEYER, 7278 MOSS RIDGE ROAD. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-890, ADOPTING AGENDA PREPARATION PROCEDURES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2006-114.

AS I INTERPRET THE EXISTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2006-114, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS, IF 2 OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS REQUEST FOR AN ITEM TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION OR VOTE, THE MAYOR AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS CANNOT PREVENT THAT AGENDA ITEM FROM BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS AND CONCERNS OF ALL PARKER RESIDENTS. IF A RESIDENT REACHES OUT TO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH THEIR CONCERN, AND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, ALONG WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, DECIDES TO BRING THAT CONCERN AS AN AGENDA ITEM TO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING, THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR SO THAT THE RESIDENT HAS THEIR CONCERN REPRESENTED.

THE ENTIRE COUNCIL WOULD THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THE AGENDA ITEM. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESOLUTION CHANGE IS FOR. HOWEVER, IT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF SILENCING COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MAY DISAGREE WITH THE MAYOR OR OTHER MAJORITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THIS NEW RESOLUTION WOULD LIMIT DISCUSSION FROM THE REQUESTING COUNCIL MEMBER TO ONLY 2 MINUTES AND ONLY 1 MINUTE FOR THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY REAL DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION AND GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF A STIFLING FILTER. ANY CHALLENGING CONCERN CANNOT BE MEANINGFULLY DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED IN THAT SHORT ALLOTTED TIME FRAME.

IT'S A VERY BAD LOOK FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO EVEN CONSIDER SUCH A RESOLUTION AND ONCE AGAIN MAKES THE RESI— RESIDENTS QUESTION WHAT THE MOTIVES OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ARE.

THERE'S AN OLD SAYING: IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. SO DON'T TRY TO FIX SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, MISS LYNCH.

TERRY LYNCH, 5809 MIDDLETON DRIVE. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9, THE AGENDA PREPARATION PROCEDURES.

I APPRECIATE THE GOAL OF CREATING A MORE ORGANIZED AND CONSISTENT AGENDA PROCESS.

HOWEVER, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES SHIFT TOO MUCH CONTROL AWAY FROM THE FULL COUNCIL. AS WRITTEN, THE MAYOR HAS FINAL AUTHORITY OVER AGENDA PLACEMENT IN CASES OF DISAGREEMENT, AND THERE IS NO CLEAR WAY FOR COUNCIL TO OVERRIDE THAT DECISION.

AGENDA CONTROL IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT DETERMINES WHAT ISSUES ARE EVEN DISCUSSED PUBLICLY, AND I BELIEVE THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD ULTIMATELY REST WITH THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S NO REQUIRED TIMELINE FOR WHEN ITEMS MUST BE SCHEDULED, CREATES THE POTENTIAL FOR DELAYS THAT COULD PREVENT IMPORTANT TOPICS FROM EVER BEING HEARD. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE PROCESS RELIES HEAVILY, HEAVILY ON AN AGENDA COMMITTEE MADE UP PRIMARILY OF STAFF RATHER THAN ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND THAT ITEMS REQUIRING MORE STAFF TIME NEED SUPPORT FROM MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS JUST TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT MAY UNINTENTIONALLY LIMIT DISCUSSION OF MORE COMPLEX ISSUES.

GIVEN THAT COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THIS TOPIC WOULD

[00:25:02]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, MS. MOBIUS. HELLO. HI, MY NAME IS CAROLYN MORRIS.

I LIVE AT 1412 PARKVIEW LANE IN MURPHY. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE CITY PAUSE ANY DECISIONS UNTIL THE FULL PROCESS IS COMPLETE REGARDING THE HUFFERN'S DEVELOPMENT. I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT A FEW KEY ISSUES BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S OWN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THE CURRENT STATUS OF APPROVALS.

FIRST, THERE ARE ISSUES WITHIN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

THE STUDY IS SEEING STUDENTS WITH TO ATTEND HUNT ELEMENTARY. HOWEVER, THE ASSIGNED SCHOOL IS HICKEY ELEMENTARY.

THAT CHANGES TRAFFIC PATTERNS, REALISTICALLY SENDING FAMILIES TOWARD PARKER ROAD, ESPECIALLY GIVEN KNOWN CONGESTION NEAR PLANO EAST IN THE MORNINGS.

IT'S TERRIBLE. I PROVIDE A PACKET THAT INCLUDES ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS, SCHOOL BOUNDARY MAPS, THE SECTION OF THE TIA USING HUNT ELEMENTARY, AND A MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED ACCESS AND U-TURN MOVEMENTS.

REVIEWING ENGINEERS HAVE ALSO ALREADY RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF A SECOND ACCESS POINT AND THE NUMBER OF U-TURNS REQUIRED, AND THOSE CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED BEFORE CORRECTING THE SCHOOL ASSUMPTION. SECOND, ACCESS IS NOT FINALIZED. THE ROADWAY DESIGN IS STILL SUBJECT TO TXDOT APPROVAL.

REVIEWERS NOTED ONE ACCESS POINT IS INSUFFICIENT. THE PLAN CURRENTLY RELIES ON ONE FUNCTIONAL ACCESS POINT.

GREGORY LANE IS EMERGENCY ONLY, AND ITS LEGAL STATUS IS STILL UNRESOLVED.

THIRD, PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS. THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES 309 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

THOSE ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER FIRE CODE, WHICH RAISES ANOTHER— OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER ONE ACCESS POINT IS SUFFICIENT.

FOURTH, THE CITY IS NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY. THE ETJ IS UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION. THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE APPROVED BY WHAT IS DISCUSSED HERE MAY NOT MATCH WHAT IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED.

FIFTH, THERE ARE UNRESOLVED LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES.

AT TCEQ, QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPER NOTICE, INCLUDING LIENHOLDER DISCLOSURE AND JURISDICTIONAL STATUS THAT WERE NOT PUBLISHED, ISSUES RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND USE OF A JOINT PETITION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HAS NOT RULED ON THESE AND OTHER ISSUES.

AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, THE FLOOD STUDY HASN'T BEEN APPROVED.

THERE'S NOT A FINAL PLAT FOR APPROVAL. AND THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED.

DEPENDING ON THESE OUTCOMES, RENOTICE CAN BE REQUIRED.

PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATION MAY NEED TO BE REVISED. THE WASTEWATER PERMIT AND OVERALL PLAN COULD STILL CHANGE.

AND FINALLY, DENSITY. DENSITY SHOULD BE GUIDED BY INFRASTRUCTURE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY ACCESS, IS NOT RESOLVED.

IF DECISIONS ARE MADE NOW, THERE'S A REAL RISK THE OUTCOME WILL NOT REFLECT WHAT THE CITY WOULD OTHERWISE EXPECT. THERE IS NO URGENCY HERE THAT JUSTIFIES THE RISK. WAITING IS NOT OPPOSITION.

WAITING IS RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT. WOULD YOU GIVE A COPY OF THAT TO PAT? I DID.

OKAY. SO I THINK THERE'S 7 COPIES UP THERE. THANK YOU.

[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8TH AT 5 PM, THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL MEET RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM. IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND.

ON THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH, PLANNING AND ZONING WILL MEET RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM, AND THEY WILL HAVE SEVERAL THINGS ON THEIR AGENDA. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND, IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. ON APRIL 14TH AT 7 PM IS CANDIDATES' NIGHT AT VICTORY

[00:30:01]

ON SATURDAY, APRIL 18TH 18TH AT 9 AM IS THE GREAT AMERICAN CLEANUP, AND EVERYBODY IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO MEET OUT IN THE PRESERVE AND HELP US CLEAN UP THE AREA. BAGS AND OTHER GLOVES AND LIKE THAT WILL ALL BE PROVIDED FOR YOU. AND ON SATURDAY, APRIL 25TH, WE HAVE THE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK, AND I'M GOING TO ASK CHIEF PRICE, DOES THAT INCLUDE SHARPS? YES, MA'AM.

OKAY, IT DOES INCLUDE SHARPS.

SO YOU CAN TURN IN NOT ONLY YOUR DRUGS BUT USED NEEDLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE OUR ELECTION COMING UP.

EARLY VOTING STARTS MAY— APRIL 20TH, AND THE ELECTION MONDAY IS MAY 2ND. OKAY. CAN I HAVE CLARIFICATION? IS THAT SHARPS DECISION BY JURISDICTION? NO, IT'S BY US, YEAH.

WE HAVE A COMPANY THAT WE BASICALLY PAY TO GET RID OF IT. OKAY. COMMUNITY SERVICE.

RIGHT. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW, I— BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A FACEBOOK PAGE, I JUST POSTED THE GENERIC ONE, GO TO FIND, BUT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IF Y'ALL ARE TAKING SHARPS THAT WE ROCK. SO, OKAY, OKAY.

I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 5TH, 2026 IS CANCELED AND RESCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, MAY 12TH, 2026.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS THE CANVAS OF THE VOTE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE ON MAY 5TH SO WE WILL MOVE THE MEETING UNTIL MAY 12TH BECAUSE THE CANVAS OF THE VOTE WILL BE AVAILABLE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THERE ARE 5 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 5TH, 2026. THE SECOND IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 5TH, 2026.

THE THIRD IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 10TH, 2026. THE NEXT IS CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-891, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PARKER FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS. AND LASTLY, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-892, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PARKER FOR AD VALOREM TAX COLLECTION SERVICES AND FEES.

COUNCIL, MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY, NOT HEARING ANYTHING, THEN I WOULD ACCEPT THE MOTION.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN, THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES

[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGSWOOD ESTATES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT. ]

OKAY, MR. MATTEN, YOU WANT TO START US OFF? THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL.

SO AGENDA ITEM 3 BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGSWOOD ESTATE'S PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS IS 14.926 ACRES OUT OF THE RICHARDS SPARKS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 850, CITY OF PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.

THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST: THE PLAT'S BEING SUBMITTED FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 6 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SITES, ALL EXCEEDING 2 ACRES IN SIZE. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE SUBMISSION: THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN IN THIS PROCESS FOR ABOUT 12 MONTHS. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH GARY AND WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THE, THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING DESIGN PLANS TO GET ALL THAT IRONED OUT BEFORE IT CAME TO PLANNING AND ZONING.

AND I WILL JUST MENTION THAT THIS WILL BE OUR FIRST SIGNIFICANT SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE WYLIE ISD. SO THIS

[00:35:04]

THIS IS A VICINITY MAP WE'VE GOT. YOU'VE GOT MCCURRY RIGHT THERE TO THE EAST, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE STORAGE UNITS RIGHT THERE AT THE SOUTHEASTERN SECTION, AND THEN OF COURSE BROOKS FARMS. IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT TO THE NORTH.

SO RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THROUGH A 5-0 VOTE TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THIS BASED ON THE APPROVAL OF 3 DIFFERENT VARIANCES: ONE FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH EXCEEDING 600 FEET, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SPLIT ENTRY IN LIEU OF 2 POINTS OF CONNECTION, VARIANCE REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE EXISTING STORAGE UNITS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.

WITH ONLY 6 LOTS BEING PROPOSED HERE, WE REALLY THOUGHT THAT— OF COURSE, THIS IS STAFF AND THE ENGINEER— OUR ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRM'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THESE WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THIS SUBDIVISION OR THOSE ADJACENT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE A DEVELOPER HERE.

AND GARY, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO. WE HAVE OUR ENGINEER HERE ALSO.

OH. OK. THANK YOU.

WOULD JOE LIKE TO TO COME UP AND SAY ANYTHING? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO, YOU'RE MOST WELCOME TO. HI, BRANDON BUSH, THE BUILDER-DEVELOPER OF THIS SUBDIVISION. SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING ON FOR ABOUT 3 AND A HALF YEARS.

THE WATER MORATORIUM SHUT US DOWN RIGHT AFTER WE ANNEXED.

WE GOT TO WAIT FOR A LITTLE WHILE ON THAT PROCESS. AND NOW JUST EXCITED TO HEAR WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY.

WE THINK IT'S GONNA BE A REALLY NICE SUBDIVISION. HOPE TO BUILD SOME NICE HOUSES IN THERE. I'M BROCK CORBETT.

I'M WITH KIMLEY HORN, 260 EAST DAVIS STREET UP IN MCKINNEY. WE'RE THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY, COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MISS BOBBITT. MY FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE DETENTION POND. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GRASPING WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S LIKE THIS BIG DIVOT IN EVERYBODY'S YARD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD. IS THAT WHAT IT'S REALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE, OR HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK? YES, SO IT'S A FAIRLY SHALLOW DETENTION POND. IT IS A DRY DETENTION POND WITH AN OUTFALL STRUCTURE LEADING TO A CULVERT UNDERNEATH THE STREET.

DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS SITE, BECAUSE IT IS SO LOW-LYING AND IT IS PRETTY SKINNY AT THE CONNECTION TO MCCREARY, WE FELT THAT THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY PLACE BECAUSE IT OUTFALLS UNDERNEATH THE ROAD AND THEN YOU CAN SEE IT GOING TO THE SOUTH TO THAT CHANNEL.

WHICH EVENTUALLY LEADS UNDERNEATH MCCREARY. SO YEAH, THERE WERE A COUPLE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT LED TO THE DECISION TO PUT IT RIGHT THERE.

AND THEN THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 FOOT OF FREEBOARD ABOVE THE 100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LED TO A LITTLE BIT DEEPER POND, BUT NONETHELESS STILL FAIRLY SHALLOW. SO IT'LL BE— YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S GONNA BE DRY MOST OF THE TIME? YES, THE PLAN NOW IS FOR A DRY DETENTION BOND.

MR. BERRY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SCREENING. UM, I'VE LOOKED AT IT AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE WANTING TO USE VEGETATION, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, INSTEAD OF PUTTING A WALL THERE.

HOWEVER, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SCREENING VEGETATION IS MAINTAINED OVER THE LONG HAUL INSTEAD OF LOOKING LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW WHERE THERE ARE HUGE GAPS IN IT? YEAH, SO WE PLAN ON BUILDING SOME REALLY NICE HOMES IN THE SUBDIVISION, AND PART OF THE HOA WOULD BE REQUIRED— REQUIRED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT COMMON AREA THERE.

AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY THAT'S A PART OF THAT HOA WILL WANT TO SEE SOMETHING NICE WHEN THEY'RE PULLING DOWN THE ROAD TO THEIR NICE NEW HOME. SO IT'D BE AN HOA-MAINTAINED ITEM.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, IT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

UM, LET ME ASK CATHERINE THIS.

IF THE HOA DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT, BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS IT VISIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS THERE, IT'S VISIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO'S DRIVING DOWN MCCRARY. DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY TEETH INTO MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S KEPT UP IN ANY WAY? IS IT REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS? THIS WOULD BE A ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATION.

OKAY, THEN YES. OH, SO CAN WE SPECIFY THAT IN THE VARIANCE? CAN YOU SPECIFY WHAT CITATION THIS IS? WELL, NO, SPECIFY

[00:40:01]

CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION ON THIS? IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THEN IT CAN BE. AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS COMMITTED TO MEMORY.

BUT IF IT'S IN THERE, THEN IT CAN BE A CONDITION, A REQUIRED CONDITION.

GARY, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF THAT'S IN THERE? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WE'RE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, SINCE WE'RE DOING A VARIANCE, UH, INSTEAD OF A SCREENING WALL FOR THE VEGETATION TO SCREEN THE STORAGE FACILITY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES? I HAVE TO GO LOOK AT IT TO READ IT, BUT WHAT I WOULD THINK IS YOU COULD HAVE— IF YOU DECIDED TO APPROVE IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT THAT CONDITION ON TONIGHT THAT THAT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA? COUNCILMEMBER BARRON, SO IT IS SPELLED OUT IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SCREENING WALL. IT'S UNDER THE BUFFER YARD DEFINITION 156.32D1.

SO WE CERTAINLY HAVE THAT ABILITY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS WASN'T MAINTAINED PROPERLY, I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY START OFF WITH PROGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT, HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THAT HOA. LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT GETTING THIS BUILT BACK UP.

AND THEN IF NOT, WE WOULD HAVE A MECHANISM TO TO INCREASE ENFORCEMENT. MR. PILGRIM, YEAH, TWO QUESTIONS.

I COULD PROBABLY HAVE GOTTEN THESE IF I'D PULLED THE OTHER FLATS MYSELF, BUT I NOTICED YOUR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 60 FEET, 30 FEET IN EACH LANE. IS THAT THE FULL RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR IS THE ACTUAL PAVED PORTION OF THE STREET GOING TO BE 60 FEET WIDE? NO, THAT'S THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PORTION. SO THE— ON C -05.

IT'S THE TYPICAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL PAVING SECTION FOR CITY OF PARKER. SO YOU HAVE A 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT 24-FOOT PAVEMENT WIDTH.

AND I KNOW THIS REQUIRED A VARIANCE ON, UH, FROM 600 FEET ON OUR LENGTH OF A CUL-DE-SAC.

WHAT'S THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC FROM BEGINNING TO END? I'LL GET YOU AN EXACT NUMBER HERE.

LOOKS LIKE IT IS 1,142 TOTAL FEET. YEAH, AND THAT— AND THAT'S FROM THE CONNECTION AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.

IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, COUNCIL DOES HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION WHEN IT COMES TO CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH. THEY HAVE PROVIDED THAT SPLIT LANE ACCESS, SO THERE IS A BIT OF A TURNAROUND THERE.

AND THEN THE RADIUS FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC IS FAR EXCEEDS OUR TYPICAL 40-FOOT. I THINK IT'S AT 60-FOOT. IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? YES, 60-FOOT.

AND ALSO TO ADD TO THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTRANCE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE SPLIT ENTRY WAS ELONGATED IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, EXTEND THAT AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO CREATE THOSE TWO SEPARATE POINTS OF ACCESS. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HERE.

I GUESS IF THEY LOOKED OVER THIS, ARE THEY SATISFIED WITH FIRE ACCESS FOR THIS TO BE A 24-FOOT-WIDE PAVED ROAD WITH A OVER 1,100-FOOT-LONG CUL-DE-SAC BASED ON THE LIMITED NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? I HAVE SPOKE WITH FIRE ON THIS IN THE PAST AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT.

MR. BARRON, A QUESTION FOR THE ENGINEER. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE CASE, BUT I'M JUST DOUBLE-CHECKING.

SO THERE'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS MOST OF THE NORTHERN END OF THIS PROPERTY THAT ALL DRAINS TOWARDS THE SOUTH AND NOT TOWARDS BROOKS FARM, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH, EVERYTHING THAT IS CAPTURED IS KEPT ON SITE AND DOES NOT DRAIN OFF-SITE UNTIL IT REACHES THAT POND OUTFALL, WHICH IS THE CULVERT THAT RUNS UNDERNEATH THE ROAD. AND THEN THERE'S SOME OFF-SITE GRADING THAT'S OCCURRING ON THE STORAGE FACILITY SITE THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE STORAGE FACILITY AT ALL.

IT'S REALLY JUST A GREEN SPACE THAT WILL CAPTURE THAT FLOW COMING UNDERNEATH THE ROAD FROM THE POND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? OKAY, THANK Y'ALL. THANK Y'ALL.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER

[00:45:14]

FIRST, A VARIANCE FOR CUL-DE-SAC EXCEEDING A MAXIMUM OF 600 FEET IN LENGTH. 2, A VARIANCE FOR REQUESTING A SPLIT ENTRY IN LIEU OF 2 CONNECTION POINTS.

AND 3, A VARIANCE REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE EXISTING STORAGE UNITS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND IN IN LIEU OF IT BEING SCREENED WITH VEGETATION THAT THE HOA UNIT WILL MAINTAIN.

MISS ALBERT, I SECOND THE MOTION. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE KINGSWOOD STATES EDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE 3 VARIANCES AS DESCRIBED BY MR. BARRON, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, PLAT PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM

[9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2026-890 ADOPTING AGENDA PREPARATION PROCEDURES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-114. ]

OKAY, COUNCIL, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET AND YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION.

IS THERE ANY COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THE CURRENT RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE, 2006 -114. I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD THIS FOR 20 YEARS AND IT'S WORKED SO FAR, BUT I THINK THERE ARE TWO THINGS I THINK THAT I'VE NOTICED THAT ARE MISSING. ONE OF THEM BEING THAT I TRULY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEGAL APPROVE SOMETHING BEFORE IT GOES ON TO AN AGENDA.

SO JUST BECAUSE A COUNCIL PERSON SAYS SOMETHING, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PASSING AND HAVING SOME KIND OF CATCH-ALL WITH LEGAL FIRST. SO I THINK THAT'S AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MISSING FROM THIS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT THAT WAS MISSING IS THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IF SOMEBODY— IF A COUNCILPERSON SAYS, I WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR A LACK OF EXAMPLES, BUT WE WANT TO DO A SURVEY OF ALL THE ROADS.

AND THEY JUST— THAT'S JUST THEIR IDEA OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD. AND IT DOES INVOLVE A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND COST INVOLVED AND MONEY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS MISSING FROM THIS, THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO INTO THIS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY GETS ON AN AGENDA.

AND SO I THINK WHEN THIS OTHER RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN, IT'S TRYING TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THOSE THINGS TO PUT INTO THAT LEGAL— MUST GO THROUGH LEGAL— AND THEN THAT IT DOES HAVE A CATCH-ALL FOR IF IT'S GOING TO COST MORE MONEY AND MORE STAFF TIME. SO I, I DID LIKE THOSE COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THE NEW PART. THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS ON HERE THAT I WASN'T CRAZY ABOUT ON THE NEW ONE, SO I'M JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I GUESS I ASKED FOR A WORKSHOP BEFORE, BUT I GUESS WE STILL CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION HERE ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH SOME OF THOSE. SO ONE OF THOSE I WASN'T HAPPY ABOUT WAS THAT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC TIME REQUIREMENT WHEN IT'S ACCEPTED THAT NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. I THINK SOME KIND OF WORDING OF IT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME, BUT I'LL ADDRESS THAT. OKAY.

AND THEN MY OTHER THING WAS THAT I WASN'T CRAZY ABOUT IS THAT, UM, THE WAY THIS IS WORDED, THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THE REMOVAL OF AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA AND SUCH THAT IT MAY BE REMOVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE COUNCIL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, LIKE, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR WE GOT SOMETHING LATE OR

[00:50:01]

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERED, THAT IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF POLITICAL DEBATE OR SOME KIND OF CONTROVERSY ON COUNCIL THAT WE DON'T START JUST TAKING THINGS OFF FOR NO REASON.

AND, AND I, I WANT THAT PART PROTECTED.

SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE WORDING ON HOW THAT WOULD BE, UM, AND AND THEN THE LAST THING THAT I HAD WAS, UM, I DO BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF, UM, IN HERE IT SAYS THAT THE MAYOR HAS ULTIMATE AUTHORITY AND THEN THEY CAN CUT IT COMPLETELY. I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF CATCH-ALL WHERE IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL AND IT BE A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL TO SAY IF THEY, IF THEY FEEL IT SHOULD BE ON OR NOT. A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THAT.

SO THOSE ARE MY 3 THINGS, UM, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS.

AMONGST US. I GOT TO LISTEN TO YOU, I FORGOT.

SORRY, THE FIRST THING WAS THE TIME, THE OTHER TIME FRAME.

UNDER LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT, SO WE'RE STAYING WITHIN THE LAW, THE GOVERNMENT CODE. ALSO, THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WHERE THINGS COME UP THAT WE PUT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. AND I'LL GIVE YOU A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT. SOUTHRIDGE HAD ASKED FOR A GATE 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO. IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND ALL THAT, SO WE PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM SO WE DIDN'T LOSE IT, RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK UNTIL LATE 2026.

WE PUT A LOT OF THINGS ON THE FUTURE AGENDA. WE'VE GOT TO DO A WATER STUDY FOR THE IMPACT FEES THAT COMES UP. YOU KNOW, WE PUT THAT ON THERE, AND IF YOU SAY, WELL, YOU GOT TO HAVE THIS WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THEN IT MAY BE TOO LONG TO GO ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, AND I'M AFRAID THOSE THINGS WOULD GET LOST.

NO. SO, AND AGAIN, THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY, UM, ANY TIME LIMIT WHATSOEVER.

MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

THE, THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE IT, BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

SEVERAL POINTS, AND I GUESS BEFORE I EVEN START MAKING MINE, I, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PREFACE I BELIEVE WE DO NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THIS.

I'VE NEVER BEEN ONE THAT'S BEEN MUCH IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO WRITE LAW OR WRITE ORDINANCES ON THE FLY ON THE DAIS. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. IF WE'VE GOT A MINOR TWEAK TO MAKE IN AN ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO PASS AND WE NEED TO CHANGE A WORD OR TWO, THAT'S OKAY.

BUT THE PRINCE— IN PRINCIPLE, I'M OPPOSED TO US TRYING TO MAKE ANY KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING PASSING. SECOND, I WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT'S KIND OF RELATED TO THAT FOR THE EDIFICATION OF SOME OF OUR CITIZENS, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO RUN AROUND TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY SEE THIS WRITTEN AND THEY ARE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION, AND MAYBE SPREADING THE ASSUMPTION FALSELY, THAT WE'VE ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS, WE'RE GETTING READY TO PASS IT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE TONIGHT IS PASS THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT RIGHT. WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS ORDINANCE.

IT WOULDN'T BE PROPER NEVER FOR US TO HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IF WE HAD DISCUSSED IT, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING— WE WOULD HAVE COMMITTED A WALKING FORM. WE DID DISCUSS IT AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE REQUESTED A WORKSHOP. YES, RIGHT.

I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE. OKAY. IS WHAT WE'VE NOT DISCUSSED.

SO WE DON'T GET AMONGST OURSELVES AND HAVE A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME AND COLLEEN AND BILLY, OR ME AND DARYL AND ROXANNE, AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THIS. AND FOR ANYBODY TO REPRESENT TO THE PUBLIC OR OTHERWISE THAT THIS IS KIND OF ACCUMULATION OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF DECIDED TO DO, AND THIS IS KIND OF SOME INFORMAL PROCESS, MAYBE THE FORMAL PROCESS THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO RUBBER STAMP IT TONIGHT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SO I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF A GOOD DISCUSSION.

IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WORTHY OF DOING, IT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSING THOROUGHLY. SO I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON IT, AND WE SHOULD DO IT. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT— SOME I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT MS. BOGDAN'S ALREADY PRESENTED TONIGHT. WE'VE GOT AN AGENDA COMMITTEE IN HERE THAT IS MADE UP OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER IS THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND PATTY, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

AND PATTY, GIVEN THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM— AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S ME, I COULD CARE LESS WHETHER IT'S ME OR SOMEBODY ELSE THAT'S MAYOR PRO TEM IN THE FUTURE— IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IS A CITY COUNCIL PERSON. AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE AGENDA PROCESS FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I THINK

[00:55:02]

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THEN DOUBLING DOWN ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID THERE, BUDDY, THAT IT'S THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE, UH, THE AGENDA COMMITTEE THAT DOESN'T REPORT OSTENSIBLY TO THE MAYOR, CORRECT? YEAH, ADDITIONALLY, GOOD POINT.

YEAH, EXCELLENT POINT. SO I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM, OR IF IT WASN'T THE MAYOR PRO TEM, ANY APPOINTED MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL THAT BECOMES A MEMBER OF THIS SHOULD BE AN EQUAL VOTING MEMBER IN IT INSTEAD OF JUST AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A TIMELINE ON IT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT— I'M TALKING CONCEPTUALLY NOW BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WORK OUT THESE DETAILS SITTING HERE TONIGHT— MAYBE WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF TIMELINES.

ONE IS PUTTING SOMETHING ON A FUTURE AGENDA TIMELINE BECAUSE IT'S JUST A AN ITEM WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CONSIDER AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN. SO THAT ONE WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO A DATE CERTAIN.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE A GREATER SENSE OF URGENCY, AT LEAST TO THE PERSON THAT'S WANTING TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY IN THE PROCEDURES WHERE THE PERSON THAT'S PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA THAT DOES HAVE SOME SENSE OF URGENCY TO THE DECISION CAN SET AN OUTER TIME LIMIT. IT'S GOT TO BE ON BY THAT CERTAIN DAY, OR IF IT'S MOVED FORWARD, IT'S GOT TO BE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL INSTEAD OF ACTED ON OR PUT ON THE AGENDA ON A CERTAIN DAY. SO THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON IT.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CHIME IN.

I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY A THIRD CATEGORY OF AGENDA ITEMS, AND THAT ARE THE THINGS THAT COME UP EVERY SINGLE YEAR, LIKE THE BUDGET AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE JUST ARE, ARE GOING TO HAPPEN EVERY SINGLE YEAR, SO WE KNOW WE CAN JUST STICK THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN, SO WE CAN BUILD AROUND THAT. UM, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR JUST CLARIFICATION.

SO LOGISTICALLY, HOW WOULD IT WORK IF I WANT TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND I GO TO BUDDY AND I GO, HEY, I'VE HAD THIS PERSON SAY WE REALLY SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT ADDING THAT? HE GOES, NO. CAN I THEN GO TO ROXANNE AND SAY, HEY, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED, OR HAVE WE JUST CREATED A WALKING QUORUM? CREATED A WALKING QUORUM.

OKAY, SO ESSENTIALLY YOU'VE GOT TO PICK THE RIGHT PERSON OR YOU'RE SQUASHED.

WELL, I THINK THE RESOLUTION DOES SPELL OUT THAT YOU COULD SEND THAT REQUEST VIA EMAIL TO THE COMMITTEE. AT LEAST IT'S A ONE-WAY COMMUNICATION THERE.

RIGHT, BUT IF THE COMMITTEE IS THE ONE THAT IS PREVENTING ME FROM PUSHING IT FORWARD, THEN I DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY THAT HAVING TWO PEOPLE REQUEST IT TAKES CARE OF.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS REPLACES WHAT YOU HAVE IN EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER— CURRENT COUNCIL MEETING CURRENTLY WITH THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND THEN YOU'RE IN A PUBLICLY POSTED, PROPERLY POSTED MEETING WHERE YOU CAN REQUEST IT, SOMEBODY ELSE CAN CHIME IN.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT. THE, THE FALLBACK POSITION IS YOU BRING IT UP AT THE END OF COUNCIL MEETING AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.

IF IT'S BROUGHT UP THERE, IT'S GOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. THERE'S— WELL, NEXT TOPIC, IT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC. SO YEAH, AND FREQUENTLY WHEN WE DO BRING IT UP AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, IT'S SAID, GEE, CAN WE HAVE THIS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, 2 WEEKS, A MONTH, OR AT THE NEXT MEETING? AND THAT IS CONSIDERED.

SO I GUESS THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, IF WE AS COUNCIL INDICATED WE WANTED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP, WHY IS THIS IN THE AGENDA ITEMS AS AN AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT RATHER THAN A WORKSHOP? HOW WAS THAT DECISION MADE? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I THINK BECAUSE THE WORKSHOP THAT WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT WAS A CONTINUATION FROM THE LAST ONE. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, WAS THAT THAT WORKSHOP WAS ON THE CODE OF CONDUCT WAS GOING TO BE ON TONIGHT, RIGHT? BUT WHY? AND HONESTLY, THAT TOOK 20 MINUTES, SO WE HAD TIME.

BUT WHY WOULD THAT PRECLUDE HAVING THE WORKSHOP AT THE NEXT MEETING PRIOR TO— WHY? HONESTLY, OH WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THE WORKSHOP, SO LET'S JUST STICK THE AGENDA ITEM ON IS WHAT IT FEELS LIKE. SO, AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE WEEKLY AGENDA MEETING, I DON'T REMEMBER I DON'T REMEMBER US AGREEING IN THE WEEKLY AGENDA MEETING TO SPECIFICALLY PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT IN THE PORTION OF THE MEETING I WAS THERE FOR.

SO I DON'T THINK I WAS AT THAT MEETING, WHICH KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE ISSUE OF IF THERE'S DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AS TO WHAT SHOULD GO ON THE AGENDA.

UH, I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE. I, I'M NOT CONVINCED YET THAT THE MAYOR —NO MATTER WHO IT IS.

THIS ISN'T PERSONAL TO YOU, JUST LIKE WITH THE COMMENTS I MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE MAYOR PRO TEM THAT WEREN'T RELATIVE TO ME.

[01:00:01]

SO IT WOULDN'T BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. THE QUESTION OF SHOULD IT BE ON AGENDA WOULD BE AGENDA ITEM. I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS COMPLICATED, BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THAT, THAT IS.

THE PROCESS THAT, THAT YOU SEE THAT'S NEW, THAT'S BUILT INTO IT WITH THAT— WHAT WE USED TO CALL A 2-MINUTE PITCH— THAT'S NOT FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM.

THAT'S TO SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA.

NOW, THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IS, I WANT THIS WORK DONE BY THE CITY, OR I WANT THIS AGENDA ITEM.

THAT'S KIND OF FRAMED AS, THIS IS AN ALLOCATION OF STAFF RESOURCES IN TERMS OF THE TIME IT TAKES TO PREPARE THAT. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WRITTEN FOR.

TO YOUR QUESTION OF IS THERE— SHOULD THERE BE LIKE KIND OF AN APPEAL PROCESS, THAT COULD BE USED IN THE SAME WAY.

IT IS MORE TIME-CONSUMING.

OKAY, MR. SHORT.

SO I KIND OF— YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE COUNCIL ESSENTIALLY REMOVING THINGS FROM THE AGENDA, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTENTIONALLY THERE TO BE A CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST THE MAYOR HAVING THE FINAL SAY FOR THE AGENDA.

WHICH IS TO REFUSE TO HEAR AGENDA ITEMS BASED ON THE AGENDA NOT MATCHING THEIR EXPECTATIONS.

BUT I WAS WONDERING, COULD YOU— AND I'M SURE YOU'VE EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY TO THE REST OF COUNCIL, I'M JUST LATE TO IT— BUT COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE MAYOR TIEBREAKER PRINCIPLE AND LIKE HOW THE MAYOR HAS THE ULTIMATE SAY? IS IT THE TIEBREAKER OF THE AGENDA COMMITTEE? IS IT THE TIEBREAKER OF THE COUNCIL'S INTENTION? HOW DOES THAT WORK? SPECIFIC TO THIS, THIS IS JUST, AS I RECALL, AND I APOLOGIZE I'M NOT LOOKING AT THAT PART OF IT, IS— AND THIS IS IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS RESOLUTION TOO— THAT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THAT CASE BETWEEN THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTING THE ITEM, THE MAYOR IS THE TIEBREAKER.

THE MAYOR'S ULTIMATE DECISION ON THAT. I HAVE TO VOICE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT I HEAR, I THINK, EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL SAYING, WHICH IS I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS TO A WORKSHOP. I DO FEEL LIKE ONE THING THAT I'M REALLY KEENLY INTERESTED IN, WHICH I HAVEN'T HEARD VOICED YET, IS HOW TO INTENTIONALLY PUT A LITTLE BIT OF SAFEGUARDING IN TO AVOID GAMING OF THE AGENDA, TO PURPOSELY NOT HEAR CERTAIN ITEMS OR PURPOSELY PROMOTE OTHER ITEMS IN THE AGENDA.

IN FRONT OF— I DON'T KNOW IF OUR EASE IS THE WORD— OTHER— BUT OTHER— SO ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A FUNCTIONAL COUNCIL, BUT IF IT'S NOT FUNCTIONAL, THESE RULES BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS THE CODE OF CONDUCT WHICH YOU FOLLOW.

GREAT. OKAY.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU ALL IS THAT YOU ALL WANT THIS POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER A WORKSHOP CAN BE HELD.

YES, MR. BARRON.

SINCE I HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CHIME IN, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF THE SAME POINTS EVERYBODY ELSE MADE.

YEAH, WE'VE GOT TO DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE TIMETABLES AND THIS FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY. AND I AGREE WITH BUDDY THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS A REPRESENTATIVE WHO'S ACTUALLY ON THE COMMITTEE.

SO ALL THE COMMENTS I'M BASICALLY BASICALLY IN AGREEMENT. OKAY, BECAUSE FOR CLARIFICATION, I WAS INFORMED THAT BUDDY, AS AN EX OFFICIO, IS IN HIS ROLE AS MAYOR PRO TEM IN CASE YOU GET ABDUCTED IN THE NIGHT AND CAN'T MAKE THE MEETING. AND THAT JUST SEEMS, I DON'T KNOW, NOT A GREAT USE OF SOMEONE'S TIME IF THEY'RE JUST SITTING THERE IN CASE THEY MIGHT BE CALLED INTO ACTION, BECAUSE WE PREP THEM, WE CAN CANCEL THE MEETING, WE CAN DO WHATEVER.

BUT I THINK THAT HAVING HIM AS AN ACTIVE MEMBER, OR ANYONE ELSE THAT WE DETERMINE, MAKES MORE SENSE.

YEAH, AND HE HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE MEMBER, AND THE AGENDA COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE POSTED, SO— BECAUSE ROXANNE FREQUENTLY COMES, AND THEY'RE OPEN TO ANYBODY. YEAH, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THAT, THAT WE CAN HAVE 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS OR 4 COUNCIL, SO YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY GETTING A PREVIEW OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA BEFORE THE REST OF COUNCIL.

SO I, I GUESS I DON'T— I, I JUST AM WORRIED THAT IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY WITH OUR GROUP, BUT FUTURE COUNCILS VEER INTO, YES, WE HAVE A QUORUM,

[01:05:01]

YEAH, WE GENERALLY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE. WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT THE ISSUE ON THE AGENDA. AND I WILL SAY THIS, FOR ALL THE COMMENTS I MADE A MINUTE AGO ABOUT NOT WANTING THE MAYOR TO HAVE ABSOLUTE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THIS IN THE AGENDA MEETING, AND I WANT THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO BE THE VOTING MEMBER, I WILL SAY THIS FOR EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT.

I'VE ATTENDED NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THEM SINCE I'VE BEEN MAYOR PRO TEM. I MIGHT HAVE MISSED TWO. SINCE THEN.

THEY OCCUR EVERY WEDNESDAY, AND THE MAYOR IS VERY, VERY GOOD ABOUT SOLICITING MY INPUT AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE'S INPUT THAT'S THERE.

BUT SHE'S VERY GOOD. SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN AN OUTSIDER IN THE PROCESS AT ALL.

GOOD. VERY GOOD AT CONSIDERING MY INPUT AND OPINION AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH.

BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE— AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG— THAT Y'ALL WANT THIS TO GO ON TO A WORKSHOP BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, THEN, CATHERINE, CAN I JUST DO THAT, OR DO I NEED A MOTION? OKAY, THEN WE WILL POSTPONE THIS UNTIL AFTER WE ARE ABLE

[10. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 911 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENT(S) TO THE FY 2025-2026 OPERATING BUDGET. ]

I BELIEVE THIS HAS YOUR NAME ON IT. WELL, UH, THE BUDGET PART I'LL TALK ABOUT, BUT I'LL LET— MAYBE GIVE SOME OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION FIRST AND THEN, AND THEN I'LL DISCUSS THE BUDGET PART OF IT. OKAY.

MR. MANTON. YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

SO, UH, WE'RE COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, COUNCIL, TO TALK ABOUT SOME ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD OPERATIONALLY WITH SPECIFICALLY WITH SOME OF OUR, UH, PLANNING SUPPORT SERVICES.

UM, SO I HAVE EXPRESSED THIS THROUGH SOME OTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU. WE HAVE HAD LIMITATIONS WITH PLANNING, ZONING-RELATED MATTERS, SPECIFICALLY HERE IN OUR ABILITY TO STAFF.

WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS THAT HAVE AFFECTED RESPONSE TIMES, OUR STRATEGIC PREPARATION, TEAM'S ABILITY TO PROPERLY SUPPORT ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS. AND SO WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH IS A STAGGERED TWO-PRONGED PLAN APPROACH, AND THAT INCLUDES CHANGING UP SOME ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES HERE WITH STAFF AND ALSO ENGAGING WITH CONSULTING PARTNERS TO HELP STREAMLINE SOME OF OUR PROCESSES, HELP WITH TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND ALSO WITH STAFF, AND TO DO THAT OVER A 2 TO 3 YEAR CYCLE. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO GO ALONG WITH THIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000, $25,000 COMING OUT OF BOTH THE GENERAL AND WATER FUNDS.

THIS IS TO ENGAGE ON AN HOURLY BASIS WITH 2 SEPARATE CONSULTANTS. THAT WOULD BE MRB GROUP, AJ FARVER, AND THEN ALSO JOHN BURKOFF, FORMERLY WITH BHC. AND GRANT, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT ONE? AS FAR AS THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, WE WOULD BE TAKING $20,000, AS HE STATED, OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH CURRENTLY HAS A FUND BALANCE OF AROUND $9.8 MILLION, AND THERE WOULD BE TAKING $25,000 OUT OF THE WATER FUND THAT HAS A FUND BALANCE OF APPROXIMATELY $3.7 MILLION.

SO THERE'S SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THERE FOR THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

MR. BERRY? YES, SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY THIS IS NECESSARY.

SO ONCE THE WATER MORATORIUM ENDED, WE HAVE HAD A FLOOD OF DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS, MUCH MORE THAN WE'VE NORMALLY EVER HAD IN THE PAST.

WE GOT A LOT OF PLATS COMING DOWN, AND I THINK WE'RE ISSUING— I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS, BUT I ASSUME WE'RE ISSUING MORE BUILDING PERMITS RIGHT NOW.

AND IT'S BEEN— AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, ALL THE SHOT CLOCK REQUIREMENTS THE STATE HAS PUT US ON HAS REALLY OVERLOADED OUR STAFF, ESPECIALLY GARY MACHADO'S ROLE. AND, AND IT'S JUST NOT A SUSTAINABLE SITUATION.

SO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE PLAN TO MOVE US FORWARD OVER BOTH

[01:10:02]

MR. SHORT. SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS IS NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT TRIGGERS THE WORK THAT'S BURYING THE EXISTING STAFF? ABSOLUTELY, YES. THAT'S CERTAINLY THE RESULT.

AND SO— SORRY, FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. THE $50,000 THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE FEES PAID BY THE DEVELOPER REQUESTS ON PLATTING? I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT'S HARD TO SAY.

THE FEES VARY DEPENDING ON THE VOLUME OF WORK, AND THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE WAY THOSE ARE DONE RECENTLY ALSO.

WE USED TO CHARGE A PERCENTAGE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE.

WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

WE HAVE TO CHARGE —BASED ON ACTUAL COST. AND SO WE DO TAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, WHICH IS THAT PLATTING FEE, AND THAT OF COURSE COMES BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND. BUT ON TOP OF THAT, WE CHARGE THE DEVELOPER FOR ANY COSTS THAT ARE COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE ENGINEERING FIRM, OUR CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM.

BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS ALL DUE TO THE INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT. THE GOOD NEWS HERE IS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS. WE'VE GOT SOME HIGHLY QUALIFIED FOLKS WHO WANT TO JUMP IN THE TRENCHES WITH THIS, SO TO SPEAK, ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.

WE JUST GOT TO GET THEM TRAINED UP A LITTLE BIT MORE TO EMBOLDEN THEIR CAPABILITIES.

WE'RE NOT DOING THIS BY ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF, AND BY HAVING A CONSULTING PARTNER IN THIS INSTEAD OF HIRING FOLKS, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT STATE SPACE LIMITATIONS, AND WE CAN CUT THEM OFF AT ANY TIME. IF THERE'S— WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING HERE IS FOR POTENTIALLY 3 TO 10 HOURS OF SUPPORT SERVICES EACH WEEK.

IT'S GOING TO VARY DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH ACTIVITY WE HAVE GOING ON, BUT THAT'S REALLY GOING TO ALLOW GARY, WHO'S ESSENTIALLY BEEN THE ONE-STOP SHOP ON THIS, TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PRESSURE RELIEF THERE. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO A BETTER JOB NOT ONLY AT THESE MEETINGS, AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT ALSO ENGAGING WITH OUR DEVELOPERS. AND GOING OFF WHAT MR. MANTON JUST SAID, THE PART-TIME PERSON THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN IS GOING TO BE DOING TRAINING OF OUR IN-HOUSE PEOPLE AS WELL.

SO WE ARE NOT ONLY— THEY'RE NOT ONLY DOING SOME PART-TIME WORK, THEY'RE ALSO BRINGING UP OUR CURRENT STAFF AND BRINGING THEM INTO— WE HAVE MR. DILLON OVER HERE, WHO IS YOUR FIRST, FIRST COUNCIL MEETING.

WELCOME. AND HE HAS A NICE PLANNER UNDER HIS NAME. SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT WE'VE HAD A PROMOTION HERE WITH, WITH FRED FROM WITHIN.

SO THIS PLAN, I THINK, IS A GREAT IDEA, AND I APPRECIATE MR. MANTON EVALUATING WHAT WE HAD AND DOING THE BEST HE COULD TO GIVE US THE BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK, UM, AND, AND ALSO SUPPORTING OUR EMPLOYEES. SO THANKS.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT GIVES GARY SOME RELIEF BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN SO OVERLOADED FOR SO LONG I'M NOT SURE HE KNOWS HE HAS A HOME.

YEAH, I DO. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE— HAVE GARY SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS TO HELP EDIFY THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT THE WHOLE NEED FOR THIS AND THE BENEFIT WE'RE GOING TO GAIN FROM IT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS BETTER THAN ANYBODY.

AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING IT, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WE JUST WE JUST NEED TO HAVE NO MORE GROWTH IN PARKER. DON'T DO ANYTHING TO EXPAND. BUT WE'VE GOT GROWTH THAT'S GOING TO COME NATURALLY ANYWAY BECAUSE OF SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED THAT ARE IN THE WORKS NOW.

AND BEFORE I LET YOU SPEAK, OR HAVE YOU SPEAK, I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD PLAN TO DO PART OF IT WITH IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEES AND PART OF IT WITH CONSULTING SO THAT WE DO HAVE FLEXIBILITY.

AND I WANT YOU TO SPEAK TO THE NEED FOR THIS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO HELP YOU BE MORE TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE IN DOING YOUR JOB FOR ALL OF THE CITIZENS AND FUTURE CITIZENS OF PARKER? WELL, A PROMOTION FROM WITHIN, UH, FOR DYLAN IS, UM, IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT A LOT BECAUSE DYLAN, UH, OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES, HE HAS GOT THE CAPABILITY TO DO THIS. AND THE— THERE'S A LOT OF TIME THAT IT'S VERY TIME-CONSUMING ON THE ON THE BACK— YOU GUYS DON'T SEE ANY OF THIS, BUT ON WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERS, GOING BACK AND FORTH ON ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAPPEN, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF WORK THAT GOES INTO THAT.

AND I'M NOT SURE DYLAN'S GONNA— IT'S GONNA TAKE HIM A WHILE TO GET BROUGHT UP TO SPEED ON THAT, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS HELP TO ME AND FREE UP A LOT OF TIME ON THAT. AND I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR DYLAN TO HELP HIM WITH ANYTHING HE NEEDS ON ANY OF THAT. AND HE'S GOING TO HAVE THE HELP OF THE CONSULTANTS AND THE REST OF STAFF.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. I JUST HAD A QUESTION AND KENT, YOU CAN

[01:15:01]

YOU'VE GOT 2 PART-TIME GROUPS.

CAN YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN WHY 2 AND NOT JUST 1 ORGANIZATION OR— SURE. SO WE ACTUALLY HAD 2 THAT WE WERE INTERVIEWING AND AFTER SOME CONSIDERATION INTERNALLY, WE THOUGHT IT BEST TO BRING ON BOTH BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM HAVE SOME WEAKNESSES AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE SOME STRENGTHS.

WITH MR. JOHN BURKOFF, HE'S GOT A WEALTH OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. HE IS RETIRED NOW.

HE'S STILL LOCAL, AND HE'S ALREADY GOT A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH GARY. AND SO HE'S GOING TO BE VERY GOOD AT VERY SPECIFIC TASKS. WE THINK HE'S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR TRAINING.

AJ AND MRB GROUP HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE PLANNING WORLD, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT THEY CAN BETTER FOCUS IN ON SOME OF OUR LET'S SAY LACKLUSTER PROCESSES, HELP US STREAMLINE THOSE, NARROW THOSE DOWN. SO WE'RE DOING A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THIS SOLUTION. AND WE'LL— WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, IS SET UP A COORDINATION MEETING TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S ON FIRST, WHO'S ON SECOND, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING GOING FORWARD TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT HAND, WHICH IS OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.

DOING IT WITH CONSULTANTS AS OPPOSED TO EMPLOYEES IS A MUCH BETTER WAY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, I THINK. SO, RIGHT, THERE'S ALSO THE AVAILABILITY OF BURKOFF BECAUSE HE TRAVELS A LOT SINCE HE'S RETIRED. SO THERE'LL BE TIMES WHERE HE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS AVAILABLE AS WE MIGHT NEED HIM, AND WE'D HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY BUILDING.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

PLEASE. UM, I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 911, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2025-2026 OPERATING BUDGET.

OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARP TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 911, AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 OPERATING BUDGET. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING RESOLUTION— EXCUSE ME, ORDINANCE NUMBER 911, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY, MOTION CARRIES 5-0. YAY! THANK YOU.

OKAY, NEXT— WELCOME

[11. UPDATE(S)]

OKAY, NEXT WE WILL GO TO UPDATES, AND THE FIRST UPDATE IS GARY'S.

IT IS ON 25 2551. THEY SHOULD START— THEY SHOULD START PAVING IN MAY ON THAT. THEY'RE STILL ON TRACK FOR THAT.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A PUSH FROM, UH, TXDOT FOR THEM TO GET MOVING FASTER. THEY CAN ONLY DO— THEY CAN ONLY MOVE SO FAST, BUT IT'S— THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON IT. OKAY, NEXT IS TCEQ.

MR. PILGRIM, LET'S SEE WHAT'S NEW IN TCEQ. MAY 1ST IS THE DATE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT HEARING TRIAL IN DISTRICT COURT IN AUSTIN, WHERE THE CITY OF PARKER, THE CITY OF MURPHY, AND THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTERS ALL CHALLENGE TCEQ ON THEIR ISSUANCE OF SEWER PLANT PERMIT FOR THE HUFFINES DEVELOPMENT.

THE CITY OF MURPHY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THAT. IT'S A LITTLE PERPLEXING WHY THEY DID, GIVEN THAT IT'S AT THE END OF THE ROAD AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING ELSE FOR THEM TO DO BUT JUST WAIT UNTIL MAY 1ST AND SEE HOW THE TRIAL GOES. BUT THAT'S FINE IF THEY'RE FEELING POLITICAL PRESSURES TO DO THAT.

THAT'S— THEY RESPONDED. THE CITY OF PARKER HAD FILED A VERY GOOD BRIEF IN THAT REGARD ON THAT, AND I THINK I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTERS FILED A VERY GOOD BRIEF TOO, BUT WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS ON MAY 1ST. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THE JUDGE WILL ISSUE THE FINDINGS.

IT COULD BE 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, COULD BE 90 DAYS BEFORE THE JUDGE RULES ON IT.

WE DON'T KNOW. UH, THE MUD HEARING IS STILL ACTIVE.

THE CITY OF PARKER HAS SUBMITTED ITS FIRST ROUND OF DISCOVERY QUESTIONS TO RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS. THE HUFFINES ARE ORGANIZATION. THE REPLY ON THOSE IS DUE THE 13TH, I THINK, OF APRIL, SO NEXT WEEK, NEXT MONDAY.

I THINK THAT'S IT. IT'S DUE 30 DAYS AFTER IT WAS SUBMITTED. I THINK IT WAS THE 13TH OR 14TH.

AND THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTERS ARE SUBMITTING THEIR DISCOVERY QUESTIONS AS WELL. AND

[01:20:01]

OKAY, IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT.

OKAY. UH, LEWIS LANE, GARY, WOULD YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE? LEWIS LANE, UH, THEY PAVED TODAY PAVED FROM PARKER ROAD TO THE S-CURVE, THE NORTHBOUND LANE.

TOMORROW THEY'LL PAVE THE SOUTHBOUND LANE, AND THEN THURSDAY AND FRIDAY THEY'LL PAVE THE NORTHERN SECTION NORTH OF THE S-CURVE, AND FRIDAY WE SHOULD BE DONE WITH PAVING.

WOOHOO! I HAVE A QUESTION FOR GARY. SO TODAY, RIGHT, I MEAN I WALKED MY DOGS FOR AN HOUR.

THAT'S WHAT I DO EVERY DAY. I WOULD SAY I PROBABLY SAW 8 CARS DRIVE THROUGH THE BARRIERS AND INTO— THAT'S A CONSTANT FIGHT? WELL, IT IS. BUT I WONDER, LIKE, HAVE WE WORKED WITH THE— IS IT WRONG TO SAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY? I DON'T KNOW.

NO, IT'S CONTRACTOR, YEAH.

CONTRACTOR. TO PUT UP MORE CLEAR DETOUR INSTRUCTIONS AND DETOUR SIGNS? BECAUSE I DO THINK SOME OF THEM, PROBABLY BAD ACTORS, BUT SOME OF THEM SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.

THEY DON'T, AND THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT IS LIKE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 ISN'T ON GOOGLE MAPS YET. SO IT DOESN'T SHOW PEOPLE THAT THAT'S EVEN A POSSIBILITY. SO WE HAD THEM ADD THE DETOUR SIGNS TO TAKE THEM THROUGH KING'S CROSSING 6.

IT'S HELPED A LITTLE, BUT IT'S NOT— IT HASN'T RESOLVED THE PROBLEM COMPLETELY. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THOSE NEW MAPS TO GOOGLE, BUT IT'S UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS RIGHT NOW. AND WE'VE WRITTEN A LOT OF TICKETS.

DOES IT OFFSET THE ROAD DAMAGE? PROBABLY NOT. THANK YOU, BOB.

I'M WORRIED MORE ABOUT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT I'VE SEEN WHERE PEOPLE DRIVE AROUND THE BARRICADES AND GO UP ALL THE WAY IN THE YARD HOUR TO DRIVE AROUND THEM.

THAT'S, THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.

I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE ON LEWIS LANE? OKAY, DUBLIN ROAD. WE CAN ALMOST TAKE DUBLIN ROAD OFF THE LIST HERE. IT'S, UH, PAVED AND STRIPED, AND WE MET DOWN THERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF TIDY-UP ITEMS DOWN THERE TO BE DONE.

I SUSPECT WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO WE'LL BE COMPLETELY FINISHED WITH DUBLIN. YAY! COME HERE. I, I JUST WANT TO COMMIT— I MEAN, YOU MAY GET READY TO DO THE SAME THING.

I WANT TO COMMEND GARY AND HIS WHOLE TEAM FOR THE JOB THEY'VE DONE ON DUBLIN ROAD AND ON LEWIS LANE.

I, I DROVE LEWIS LANE ILLEGALLY THIS WEEK AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. HE WAS THE ONE UP ON THE ROAD.

AS A CITY COUNCIL WELL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING THE WORK. I DID GO OUT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I WAS ON THE ROAD.

I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS BEING DONE DOWN THERE. AND I'LL TELL YOU, THE WORK IS SUPERB ON LEWIS LANE, AND IT WAS WELL DONE ON DUBLIN ROAD AS WELL, BOTH OF THEM. AND IT'S REALLY BEEN QUICK ON LEWIS LANE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING.

TOOK FOREVER TO GET THERE.

ONCE WE GOT STARTED, YOU'VE DONE A STELLAR JOB WITH THE WAY— WITH BEING ABLE TO SHUT IT DOWN FOR CONSTRUCTION. IT'S MADE IT GO A LOT FASTER.

WE'VE GOT CHALLENGES OF PEOPLE DRIVING AROUND THE BARRICADES. WE'VE GOT CHALLENGES JUST TODAY, NORTH TEXAS DECIDED TO COME OUT AND WORK ON WATERLY. I HAD TO RUN THEM OFF.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I WOULD ADD, DARRYL, ON THAT AS WELL, YOU REALLY LEANING INTO THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL REPAIRING RELATIONSHIPS WITH LUCAS.

BUT I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, HANGING OUT IN NAPPANEE A LITTLE BIT, AND THIS IS THE TALK— DUBLIN ROAD IS THE TALK OF THE TOWN.

LIKE, PEOPLE ARE EXCITED. I GO LIKE, YOU GUYS GOT YOUR NEW ROAD DONE, BLAH BLAH BLAH, AND THEY THINK IT LOOKS FANTASTIC AND IT DRIVES VERY WELL. WAIT TILL THEY SEE LEWIS.

OKAY, THAT'S GONNA LOOK GOOD TOO. YEAH, EXCELLENT JOB.

OKAY, NEXT IS DRONES, AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE WE HAVE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS REGARDING DRONES, AND WE ARE LOOKING INTO THE SITUATION WITH DRONES TO SEE IF IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO OR NOT.

WE'RE NOT SURE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT CATTLE ARE BEING ANNOYED, JUST LIKE WITH FIREWORKS.

HORSES ARE RESPONDING AND RUNNING AWAY.

PEOPLE FEEL THEIR SECURITY IN THEIR HOME IS THREATENED.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THIS, AND WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST GATHERING INFORMATION.

BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL THAT WE'RE IGNORING IT.

[01:25:02]

SO WITH A COALITION OF US AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL CITIES, WE MIGHT GAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE TRACTION. OH, GOOD IDEA.

OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE ON UPDATES? OKAY, PATTY HAS PUT ON HERE THE LINKS

[12. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801]) ]

NEXT IS DONATIONS. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF.

FOR THE RECORD, THE DAVIES FAMILY DONATED SNACKS AND CHIPS VALUED AT VALUED AT $45 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

MARYAM BORJARDI AND MOHAMMAD MAZADI HAS DONATED 1 DOZEN NOTHING BUT CAKES BUNTINIS VALUED AT $28 TO THE CITY STAFF. WE ARE MOST GRATEFUL AND APPRECIATE ALL OF OUR DONATIONS FROM OUR CITIZENS. WE JUST THANK YOU AND THANK YOU.

IT'S SO GREAT THAT YOU REMEMBER

[13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

LASTLY, I WILL ASK, ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED OTHER THAN THE WORKSHOP? AND I DO HAVE IT.

OKAY, NOT HEARING ANY. AS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS WRITE AN EMAIL, CONTACT ME, WHATEVER, AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. WE

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

OKAY, AT THIS TIME, WHICH IS 8 O'CLOCK— 8:08. WE ARE IN RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.]

COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND/OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS LISTED ABOVE? MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN RTG AND SHERRY WARE, ET AL., FOR MUTUAL DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF PRIOR DISCOVERY. OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BEHRING TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RTG AND SHERRY WARE AT ALL.

THANK YOU, BECAUSE YOU WENT FASTER THAN I CAN WRITE. I'M SORRY. BETWEEN SHERRY— OKAY, AT ALL, AT ALL, FOR MUTUAL DISMISSAL.

—OBLIGATION—WITHOUT PREJUDICE—AND INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION—AND INCLUDES—THE PRESERVATION—OF PRIOR DISCOVERY. OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BEHRING TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHERRY WARE ET AL.

FOR MUTUAL DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF PRIOR DISCOVERY. OH, RTG.

[01:30:03]

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. POGO? YES, MADAM MAYOR. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN THE COMMUNITY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. RTG IS RESTORED GRASSLANDS. THAT'S THE HUFFINES' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS IS THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED BETWEEN THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS WHO DID NOT— WHO WANTED GREGORY LANE AS A PRIVATE ROAD. IT WAS A LAWSUIT THEY FILED AGAINST RESTORED GRASSLANDS AND AGAINST THE CITY OF PARKER. THE CITY OF PARKER NEVER FILED A COUNTER COUNTERSUIT AGAINST ANY GREGORY LANE PLAINTIFFS OR ANY PARKER RESIDENTS, AND WE'RE NEVER A PART OF A LAWSUIT OR A COUNTERSUIT AGAINST ANY GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS OR ANY PARKER RESIDENTS.

IT WAS RTG THAT FILED A COUNTER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS, AND THIS IS DISMISSING ALL OF THAT SUIT, BOTH SIDES.

PARKER IS JUST A CO-DEFENDANT BECAUSE PARKER WAS SUED ALONG WITH GREGORY, ALONG WITH RTG.

TO DECLARE THAT A PRIVATE WELL.

ALL THE SUITS ARE BEING DROPPED. WHAT SHE MEANS BY THEY'LL MAINTAIN THE PRESERVATION OF DISCOVERY, THAT'S JUST TO ALLOW THEM ANY DISCOVERY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE LAWSUIT. IF EITHER PARTY WERE TO EVER BRING IT UP AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD USE THAT DISCOVERY BECAUSE THE SUITS ARE BEING DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE THE SUITS AGAIN IF THEY EVER WANTED TO.

EVERYBODY CAN SPECULATE THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN.

BUT THAT— I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT, ESPECIALLY THAT THE CITY NEVER SUED THE RESIDENTS. YEAH, THIS IS JUST TO LET THOSE— REALLY LET THOSE TWO PARTIES GO THROUGH WITH THEIR MUTUAL DISMISSAL.

YEAH, GOOD CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL OFFER YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM MR. PILGRIM? I WANT TO MAKE SURE ONE OTHER THING IS UNDERSTOOD, BECAUSE WE HAD TOO MUCH MISINFORMATION OUT THERE. THE FACT THAT RESTORE THE GRASS RESTORED GRASSLANDS AND GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS HAVE AGREED TO DROP THEIR SUIT AGAINST EACH OTHER. SHOULD— NOTHING SHOULD BE READ INTO THAT THAT WE'VE MADE ANY AGREEMENT WITH RESTORED GRASSLANDS OR PIPELINES WHATSOEVER.

SO NO ONE NEEDS TO TAKE THIS AND THINK, WELL, THAT MUST MEAN CITY COUNCIL HAS NEGOTIATED A DEAL IN THE BACKGROUND WITH, UH, RESTORED GRASSLANDS OR WITH ANY OTHER PARTY, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER CLARIFICATIONS? OKAY, REALLY DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO COMPEL SOMEONE TO MAINTAIN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY, SO THIS IS REALLY THE ONLY APPROPRIATE ACTION THE CITY CAN TAKE.

OKAY, OKAY, AND IT PASSED 5-0, AND NOT HEARING ANYTHING ELSE, WE WILL ADJOURN.

IT IS 9:13 PM.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.