[00:00:03] OKAY, Y'ALL READY? I HEREBY [CALL TO ORDER] CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026 AT 6.01 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. HULL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A SECOND QUORUM. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO [WORKSHOP] INTO OUR FIRST WORKSHOP, WHICH IS ON FINANCING CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM TO LEAD US IN THIS. OKAY. AND I WOULD ASK ADMINISTRATOR MANTON IF HE HAS AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET TO PUT UP THERE. LET'S DO THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET FIRST. THERE WE GO. PAGE DOWN. WELL, GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT THERE FOR JUST A SECOND, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I STARTED WITH. SO I RECENTLY ASKED GRANT IF HE WOULD PRODUCE, MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO GO UP JUST A TINY BIT SO WE CAN SEE THE BOTTOM ROW A LITTLE BIT BETTER. THERE YOU GO. IF HE WOULD PRODUCE A HISTORICAL TREND LINE OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL RESERVES OR CASH RESERVES THAT THE CITY HAS MAINTAINED TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. AND HE COULD PRETTY EASILY GO BACK TO 2018, SO THAT'S THE PERIOD THAT HE WENT BACK TO. IF YOU GO BACK BEFORE 2018, IT'S A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO GET TO THE DATA. SO WE HAVE GONE FROM A BALANCE OF $8.473 MILLION IN CASH RESERVES TO A PEAK OF, IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO LOOK OVER HERE, $26.58 MILLION IN 2025. AND WE WERE EXPECTED TO END THIS YEAR AT $21.9 MILLION, ALMOST $22 MILLION, AND WE'RE PROJECTING TO END IN 2027 WITH $16.7 OR ALMOST $16.8 MILLION. SO FOR THE BETTER PART OF THE LAST 12 YEARS, 13 YEARS, WE'VE HAD ANYWHERE FROM $8 TO $26 MILLION IN CASH IN THE BANK. I THINK PROBABLY MOST OF OUR CITIZENS DON'T REALIZE THAT WE'VE HAD A BALANCE SHEET WHERE WE HAVE THAT MUCH CASH ON IT. THERE'S GOOD AND BAD TO THAT, BUT I WANT TO LEAD OFF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD FINANCE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TALKING ABOUT THIS AND PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE. AND I WANT TO GIVE EFFORTS TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BECAUSE ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING IS THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ASKING THE QUESTIONS, THESE STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTIONS. HOW WILL TODAY'S DECISIONS AFFECT PARKER'S ABILITY TO FUND A FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT RELYING INCREASINGLY ON DEBT, HIGHER TAXES, OR HIGHER UTILITY RATES? I WOULD SAY THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION FUNDAMENTALLY, IN MY OPINION, EVERYBODY'S OBVIOUSLY GOT THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN OPINION. AND AFTER I MAKE MY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS, I WANT A ROBUST DISCUSSION WITH EVERYBODY INVOLVED. BUT MY OPINION IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS FINANCE MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WITH DEBT, BECAUSE WHEN WE FAIL TO FINANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60-YEAR LIFE WITH DEBT, WE BY DEFINITION PAY FOR THE ASSETS THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED IN THE FUTURE TODAY. I THINK I MAYBE DIDN'T DO IT AS WELL AS I WANTED TO, BUT ONCE BEFORE I MADE A REFERENCE TO WIMPY FROM THE OLD POPEYE CARTOON, BECAUSE WIMPY FAMOUSLY LOVED HAMBURGERS AND FAMOUSLY USED TO SAY, I WILL GLADLY PAY YOU ON TUESDAY FOR A HAMBURGER TODAY. WE'VE KIND OF BEEN DOING THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, SAYING IF YOU WILL PAY US TODAY FOR YOUR HAMBURGERS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO EAT OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, WE WILL GLADLY TAKE THE MONEY AND SERVE YOU HAMBURGERS FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BEST USE OF OUR TAXPAYERS' MONEY. SO THOUGH I WANT US TO ALWAYS BE A CONSERVATIVE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE CITY, I THINK FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAKE OF TREATING OUR TAXPAYERS RIGHT MEANS THAT WE NEED TO FINANCE MORE OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS WITH LONG-TERM DEBT INSTEAD OF GATHERING THE MONEY IN ADVANCE. SO WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE AS THE RANGE, IF YOU'LL PAGE DOWN A LITTLE BIT FOR ME, KEN. I REARRANGED SOME OF THIS DATA. I WAS GOING TO PUT IT IN A BAR CHART. KEEP GOING. JUST GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING. I WAS GOING TO PUT IT IN A STACKED BAR CHART. AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, EVERY TIME I TRIED TO PUT IT IN A STACKED BAR CHART, THERE WERE JUST TOO MANY LINES. SO THE STACKED BAR WAS TOO HARD TO SEE. SO I DID AT LEAST COLLAPSE IT TO 10 ROWS OF DATA. SO THE TOP ROW NOW SAYS THE SUBTOTAL OF THE SMALL FUNDS. AND IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF THE SMALLER AMOUNTS THAT THEY'RE ADDED TOGETHER. AND THEN THERE WERE NINE BELOW THAT THAT ARE FUNDS THAT HAVE MORE SIGNIFICANT BALANCES OR HAVE OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. THE BOTTOM ONE HIGHLIGHTED [00:05:01] IN YELLOW IN THE GRID CHART THERE IS THE GENERAL FUND. NOW, THE GENERAL FUND'S GONE FROM 4.59 MILLION IN 2018 TO 9.7 MILLION IN 2025. IT'S PASSED A YEAR AGO, 5.9.57 MILLION THIS YEAR. AND IT'S PROJECTED TO GO TO A HIGH OF 9.964 MILLION, ALMOST 10 MILLION DOLLARS BY THE END OF FISCAL 2027. SO THOUGH WE ARE PROUD THAT WE ARE KEEPING OUR TAX RATE PER HUNDRED DOLLARS OF VALUATION THE SAME, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTIES IS INCREASING SO MUCH BECAUSE OF HOW AGGRESSIVE THE COLLIN COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS, WHICH IS EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE, IN MY OPINION, OUR REVENUE IS GOING UP EVERY YEAR. AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX THAT WE'RE TAKING FROM OUR CITIZENS IS GOING UP EVERY YEAR, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE KEEPING THE RATE THE SAME. AND I REFER TO THE GENERAL FUND SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IN MANY WAYS THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE I RELATE TO, WHAT ARE OUR GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES. SO IF YOU DROP DOWN TO THE TWO LINES BELOW THAT, WITH THE THREE LINES BELOW THAT, TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, I PUT OUR ANNUAL TOTAL REVENUES BY YEAR FROM 2020 THROUGH THE BUDGET FOR 2027 ON THAT TOP LINE. IT WENT FROM 4.6 MILLION TO THE BUDGET THAT THE TOTAL REVENUES WERE PROJECTING FOR 2027 ARE 9.4 MILLION, 9.438555. OUR EXPENDITURES HAVE GONE FROM 4.599, WHICH PAY ATTENTION TO THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE. IT'S ROUGHLY 4.6 MILLION IN 2020 VERSUS 4.68 MILLION IN REVENUE. SO IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE. WE HAD SOME EXCESS FUNDS THEN, BUT FOR 2027, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 9.4 MILLION IN REVENUE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 7.3 MILLION IN EXPENSES. AND THAT'S AFTER SOME PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN EXPENSES. EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT BUDGETARY OPERATING EXPENSES TONIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. BUT HOW MUCH OPERATING EXPENSE WE HAVE VERSUS REVENUE IS WHAT TELLS US HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEFT OVER TO EITHER FUND DEBT OR TO BUILD RESERVES FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. SO THAT GOES BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. ARE WE BETTER OFF TAXING PEOPLE IN ADVANCE AND BUILDING RESERVES SO THAT WE PAY CASH FOR EVERYTHING? OR ARE WE BETTER OFF MAYBE NOT TAXING PEOPLE SO HEAVILY, NOT BEING CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING SUCH BIG CAPITAL RESERVES AND INCURRING DEBT FOR THE FUTURE WITH A WITH A AMPLE RESERVATION FOR COVERING THAT DEBT. ANY ANY BUSINESSMAN WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A PROPER RATIO OF DEBT TO ASSETS AND DEBT COVERAGE RATIO IN YOUR COMPANY. SO THEN THIS GOES TO THE LAST SET OF DATA THAT I'VE GOT THERE. THOSE LITTLE BOXES THAT ARE OFF TO THE BOTTOM. I WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF DISCUSS. SO THE FIRST SET IS IT SAYS 2026 VERSUS 2025 VERSUS 2023 KIND OF PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE. SO OUR FUND BALANCES WENT FROM TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE EIGHT MILLION IN 2025 DOWN TO TWENTY ONE POINT NINE ONE NINE FIVE ONE MILLION IN 2026. SO WE SPENT FOUR POINT SIX MILLION DOLLARS MORE MONEY DURING TWENTY TWENTY SIX THAN WE TOOK IN. WELL, HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY DO THAT? WE DID IT BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK TO TWENTY TWENTY THREE, WE HAD NINETEEN POINT SIX MILLION IN RESERVES THEN, WHICH WENT UP TO THAT PEAK OF TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE EIGHT MILLION. I'M GOING TO USE THIS TERM LOOSELY, BUT WE OVERTAXED OR GENERATE THIS IN ALL TAX REVENUE. SOME OF IT IS REVENUE FROM OTHER SOURCES SUCH AS FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WE GENERATED SIX POINT NINE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS MORE REVENUE THAN WE NEEDED, WHICH IS HOW WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD RESERVES FROM NINETEEN POINT SIX TO TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE MILLION. AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO SPEND FOUR POINT SIX MILLION MORE IN 2026 THAN WE TOOK IN. AND I DID A SIMILAR COMPARISON FOR WHAT ARE WE PROJECTING FOR 2027. WE'RE PROJECTING THE BALANCE TO GO DOWN TO SIXTEEN POINT ALMOST SIXTEEN POINT EIGHT MILLION VERSUS OUR PEAK LAST YEAR OF TWENTY SIX POINT FIVE EIGHT MILLION. SO WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ABOUT NINE POINT EIGHT MILLION MORE THAN WE TAKE IN OVER THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY DO THAT? IT'S BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO 2022 JUST FOUR YEARS AGO. AND SINCE 2022, WE'VE TAKEN ELEVEN POINT TWO MILLION MORE THAN WE'VE SPENT IN OPERATING EXPENDITURES. SO WE'VE BUILT OUR FUNDS OR OUR [00:10:03] SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. YOU MIGHT SAY IF YOU WANT TO USE CONSUMER TERMS BY OVER ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AND THEN THE LAST COMPARISON IS JUST COMPARING THE 2022 YEAR VERSUS THE YEAR WE JUST ENDED AND COMPARING THE YEAR WE JUST ENDED VERSUS NEXT YEAR. SO THIS YEAR VERSUS NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM WHAT WE EXPECT AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR WHEN THE BOOKS ARE ALL CLOSED AND A BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR WITH ABOUT TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BANK. TWENTY ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE THOUSAND NEXT YEAR WILL BE SIXTEEN POINT EIGHT MILLION ROUGHLY. SO WE'RE GOING TO SPEND FIVE POINT ONE SIX TWO MILLION MORE THIS YEAR THAN WE TOOK IN. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? YOU DO IT BECAUSE GOING BACK TO TWENTY TWENTY TWO, WE'VE TAKEN IN SIX AND A HALF MILLION MORE OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAN WHAT WE SPENT. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF HOW I WANT TO LAY THE FOUNDATION ABOUT OUR DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS SOME CONCERN WITHIN OUR CITIZENS. THAT'S A WHOLE LOT MORE EXPENSIVE TO TAKE ON DEBT. AND WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES TO TAKE ON DEBT. AND AT LEAST I DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS RIGHT HERE, LET'S COMPARE THE 2022 TO THE 2026 NUMBERS. THAT'S A SIX AND A HALF. WELL, LET'S LET'S COMPARE THE OTHER. I WANT TO COMPARE THE COMPARE IT TO THE PEAK. LET'S COMPARE THE 2022 FIFTEEN POINT FOUR MILLION ROUGHLY TO THE 2025 TWENTY SIX POINT ALMOST SIX MILLION. THAT ELEVEN MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE. SO WE BROUGHT IN ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS MORE IN REVENUE THAN WE SPENT. NOW, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND SEVERAL MILLION. WE SPENT SEVERAL MILLION THIS YEAR ON MAJOR ROAD REPAIRS, LEWIS LANE AND DUBLIN ROAD IN PARTICULAR. AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. WE KNOW AT LEAST ON A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND ON A WATER TOWER AND ON SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. EACH OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWENTY TO FIFTY YEAR LIFE. SO IT BEGS THE QUESTION, IS IT CHEAPER TO PAY FOR THAT 20 OR 50 YEAR LIFE OVER 20 YEARS OR IS IT CHEAPER TO COLLECT IT OVER A FOUR YEAR PERIOD IN ADVANCE? AND IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION, I THINK, TO ANSWER. IT COST US AS TAXPAYERS A WHOLE LOT MORE IF WE COLLECTED OVER A FOUR YEAR PERIOD IN ADVANCE THAN BORROW THE MONEY, PAY THE INTEREST ON IT AND PAY IT BACK OVER A 20 OR 30 YEAR OR WHATEVER THE PERIOD MIGHT BE. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE FOUNDATION I WANT TO LAY. WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT INTEREST RATES AND ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO PAY INTEREST WHEN WE FINANCE SOMETHING. BUT IF WE DELAY BUILDING SOMETHING, WE'RE ALSO DEALING WITH INFLATION AS WELL. WE CAN INVEST MONEY THAT WE HAVE SITTING IN THE BANK AND WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST. WE'VE EARNED WELL OVER SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SOME YEARS ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE BANK WHEN INTEREST RATES WERE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THEY ARE NOW. BUT IN GENERAL, OVER THE LONG HAUL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EARN SUBSTANTIALLY MORE IN INTEREST, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A CITY AND YOU HAVE TO INVEST YOUR FUNDS AS DARREL AND I KNOW FROM BEING ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IN RATHER LOW RATE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. WE CAN'T PUT CITY FUNDS IN THE STOCK MARKET AND EARN 16, 17, 18 PERCENT. WE HAVE TO PUT THEM IN LESS RISKY FUNDS. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A HIGH RETURN ON OUR MONEY. AND REALLY, I TAKE THE TAKE THE PERSPECTIVE THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S NOT OUR MONEY. WE'RE COLLECTING MONEY FROM OUR CITIZENS TO PUT IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT, THE CITY'S BANK ACCOUNTS AND EARN THREE AND A HALF, FOUR PERCENT INTEREST. SO THAT'S MY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR GRANT. WHAT IS, JUST FOR THE GENERAL FUND, WHAT IS CONSIDERED HEALTHY RETURNS? SO GFOA HAS A RECOMMENDED FUND BALANCE OF AT A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVE PERCENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES. THIS IS SIMPLY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. I ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION ONCE AND I WAS TOLD FOR A CITY OUR SIZE, WE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR MONTHS AND A MAXIMUM OF A YEAR. WE GENERALLY HAVE KEPT TWO TO THREE YEARS WORTH OF CASH RESERVES. AND THE MAYOR IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF CASH RESERVES AND I APPRECIATE HER WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NEVER END UP LIKE ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH I'VE HEARD YOU MENTION A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ENDED UP FILING BANKRUPTCY. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DEBT AND WENT THROUGH A DECLINE IN THEIR REVENUE DURING THE HOUSING COLLAPSE, WHICH DEVALUED HOMES BY TWENTY FIVE PERCENT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT HERE, BUT [00:15:01] EVEN IF WE DID HAVE A DECLINE IN VALUE OF TWENTY FIVE PERCENT OF OUR HOUSES, I DON'T THINK OUR HOUSES ARE GOING TO GO TO ZERO. AND IF THEY DO, THAT'S GOING TO BE A WAY BIGGER PROBLEM THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE FEEL. I JUST HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO KEEP SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR OF OPERATING EXPENSES IN RESERVE IN CASE THE WORST HAPPENED. THE ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION IS IN THE PAST, THE CITY OF PARKER HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PAY AS YOU GO CITY AS OPPOSED TO TAKE ON DEBT CITY. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THAT, AND I WANT THE COUNCIL TO REALIZE THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH CHANGING IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A CHANGE IN POLICY. WELL, YOU SAY THAT, BUT A FEW YEARS AGO WE DID HAVE MORE DEBT THAN WE HAVE TODAY. LIKE YOU GO BACK TEN YEARS, THERE WAS MORE DEBT ON THE BOOKS THAN THERE IS RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S NOT THAT WE WERE NECESSARILY FULLY A PAY AS YOU GO CITY. WE WERE JUST A LOW DEBT CITY. OKAY, THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER WAY OF SAYING IT. THE CITY TYPICALLY DIDN'T GO OUT FOR DEBT UNLESS THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION, LIKE ON THE PUMP STATION ON DILLEHAY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A CALL OR NOTHING. YOU'VE MADE A VERY GOOD CASE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE TWENTY OR FIFTY YEARS OUT. IT'S GOING INTO DEBT FOR YOUR MORTGAGE, BUT NOT YOUR FERRAGAMO SHOES. YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU. AND I THINK I MAY BE INVENTING A TERM HERE, BUT BY DOING THIS WE'VE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME SORT OF BUILT UP THIS INFRASTRUCTURAL DEBT OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN DETERIORATING. WE'VE GOT THE ROADS IN A LOT BETTER SHAPE OVER THE LAST YEAR, BUT NOW WE'VE STILL GOT MAJOR BUILDING AND MAYBE DRAINAGE ISSUES, DEPENDING ON IF THE CITY OR RESIDENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AT THE END OF THE DAY. TO SOME DEGREE ON OUR FACILITIES WE'RE PLAYING CATCH-UP. WE'RE NOT WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALONG THE WAY. WE HAD SPENT MONEY AND TOOK OUT DEBT A FEW YEARS AGO BEFORE INFLATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN BUILDING COSTS WENT UP SO MUCH, WE'D BE IN A BETTER POSITION TODAY, IN MY OPINION. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE IN A POSITION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO GET THE POLICE STATION REPLACED. WE REALLY GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A CITY HALL, AND IDEALLY WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, DO THE ADDITION ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HELP SUPPORT US HAVING MORE FULL-TIME FIREFIGHTERS. AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING THE CASH FIRST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY OF THAT DONE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. WE'VE ALMOST DONE TWO THINGS WRONG, IN MY OPINION. WE'VE COLLECTED TOO MUCH CASH, AND EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'VE COLLECTED THIS MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CASH, WE HAVEN'T BEEN WILLING TO SPEND IT. BUT UP UNTIL THESE PAST TWO YEARS WHERE WE STARTED SPENDING SOME OF IT, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOES CREATE SOME OTHER NEEDS BECAUSE WE DELAY MAINTENANCE AND END UP HAVING MAYBE AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM. SO I AGREE IN PRINCIPLE, AND MAYBE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, ABOUT THE USE OF DEBT AS ULTIMATELY A WAY TO LIMIT HOW MUCH WE SPEND ON ASSETS, BECAUSE INFLATION WORKS IN OUR FAVOR WHEN WE HAVE A LOAN OR A BOND. INFLATION WORKS AGAINST US WHEN WE'RE STORING MONEY AND BASICALLY DECLINING THE VALUE OF THE CASH IN THE CDARS OR OTHER SIMILAR ACCOUNT. I DO THINK THE OTHER THING THAT IS PROBLEMATIC ABOUT FUNDING WITH CASH IS THAT IT KIND OF PUTS YOU INTO THE SITUATION OF TECH DEBT OR ASSET DEBT. YOU CAN'T FIX SOMETHING UNTIL YOU DO, AND THEN YOU TRY TO, LIKE WE INSTALLED NEW AIR CONDITIONERS ON THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, AND WE THROW GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD TO TRY TO MAKE DO UNTIL WE FINALLY HAVE THE CASH. THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF HOW THESE ASSETS BLEED MONEY. ANOTHER IS IF WE'RE TRYING TO FUND THINGS WITH CASH, WE TEND TO MAKE THE PROJECTS INHERENTLY MORE CONFINED. IF WE WENT AND WE SAID, OKAY, WHAT ARE THE ROADS THAT DESPERATELY NEED FIXING OVER THE NEXT 20-YEAR PERIOD, WE COULD ACTUALLY DESIGN SOME LEVEL OF PLANNING AND [00:20:02] CONTRACTING THAT MIGHT HAVE PRICE EFFICIENCIES BUILT INTO IT, BUT WE CAN'T WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, OH, WELL, WE'VE GOT $4.5 MILLION IN OUR ROAD FUND, STREET FUNDS. IT DOES PREVENT US FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SCALE IN OUR ACQUISITION. I THINK ULTIMATELY ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I THINK WE OWE TAXPAYERS, TAXPAYERS BY AND LARGE IN THIS CITY PROBABLY LAST FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS. THE ONE THING THEY REALLY WANT IS STABLE TAX PAYMENTS, I THINK MORE THAN SAY LOWERING IT THIS YEAR AND THEN RAISING IT TWO YEARS FROM NOW, WHICH I THINK KIND OF REACTING TO WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TODAY KIND OF PUTS YOU IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO DO, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO MILK THE LAST MILE OUT OF AN ASSET. SO I THINK YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAD MENTIONED AT ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS WAS HAVING LIKE ON THE WATER TOWER, WHICH IS GOING TO BE IN USE FOR 20 YEARS AND INCLUDING THAT FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS TO ALSO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BENEFITING FROM IT AND THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE, I THOUGHT. WE REALLY WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO FINANCE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS FOR THEIR FULL LIFE. SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE PAYING FOR SOME OF IT IN ADVANCE WHEN THE UTILITY IS BEING PROVIDED TO THE CITIZENS, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND THAT'S FINE. BUT I WOULD RATHER DO IT OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD THAN DO IT OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD IN ADVANCE. WE COLLECTED $11 MILLION IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE NEEDED OVER 22, 23, 24, 25. THAT'S A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR US TO PULL $11.2 MILLION IN MORE THAN WE NEEDED OR MORE THAN WE SPENT. I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. PILGRIM FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. THIS IS A VERY CLEAR PICTURE OF SOME VERY INTERESTING NUMBERS. I LIKE THE WAY MR. BARRON PHRASED IT AS WE HAVE SOME PROJECT DEBT. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE BOND MONEY DEBT OR THINGS LIKE THAT KIND OF DEBT, BUT WE ARE BEHIND IN A LOT OF THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND FINANCING IT OVER THE LONGEVITY OF THESE BIG PROJECTS MAKES SENSE. WE ARE BEHIND AND WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP UP AND THE BAND-AIDING IS COSTING US MORE AND MORE MONEY AND THE DELAYS ARE COSTING US MORE AND MORE MONEY. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND DRAWING A VERY CLEAR PICTURE. IT MAKES SENSE. SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION? WHAT ARE WE HOPING TO COME OUT OF THIS OTHER THAN PHILOSOPHICAL? WELL, I ASKED FOR THE TOPIC TO BE PUT ON BECAUSE I WANTED TO HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK WE OWE IT TO OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE I DO REALIZE THAT THE MAYOR IS CORRECT. WE'VE GOT A MINDSET IN PARKER, AT LEAST WITH A FAIR NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR A WHILE, THAT DEBT, BAD, CASH, GOOD. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE THAT BLACK AND WHITE AND I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT PHILOSOPHY AND THIS IS THE BEST WAY I COULD ILLUSTRATE THAT IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT IT BEING OVERTAXED, WE'VE BEEN OVERTAXED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, SUBSTANTIALLY. I THINK EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY REDUCE OUR TAX RATE, STILL FUND THE DEBT PAYMENTS, AND USE PART OF THE MONEY THAT I'LL CALL THIS, THIS IS OUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT, WE COULD LIVE OUT OF OUR SAVINGS FOR A LITTLE WHILE AT A LOWER ACTUAL TAX RATE AND PAY ALL OF OUR OPERATING EXPENSES AND THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE THERE BECAUSE THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE IS NOW ALMOST $10 MILLION BY THE END OF THIS NEXT YEAR. IT'S GOING TO GO UP THIS NEXT YEAR AND THAT IS, NOW OUR OPERATING EXPENDITURES ARE GOING UP TOO, SUBSTANTIALLY. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR OPERATING EXPENSES GOING UP TO $7.3 MILLION. THAT'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE AND I THINK WE'RE DOING IT IN THE RIGHT AREAS. WE'RE DOING IT WITH POLICE AND FIRE AND PERSONNEL THAT ARE BADLY NEEDED IN THE CITY BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP, EVEN AT THAT RATE, A YEAR AND A QUARTER WORTH OF CASH ON HAND. I'D RATHER LOWER THE TAX RATE FOR THE CITIZENS. ONE QUESTION, BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING GOING SOUTH ON US, COVID GETS BROUGHT UP A LOT. WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF COVID ON OUR BUDGET? YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE. COVID REALLY DIDN'T AFFECT OUR BUDGET AT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE STILL DEPENDING ON PROPERTY TAXES. 75% OF OUR REVENUE COMES FROM PROPERTY TAXES. LESS THAN 10% COMES FROM SALES TAX AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE CITIES WERE REALLY HIT, WAS ON SALES TAX DURING COVID. GRANT, HELP ME WITH 1.2. THE THIRD LINE IN THOSE THREE LINES THAT ARE [00:25:02] ACROSS THE BOTTOM THERE, IT SAYS NET TRANSFERS, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE TAKE IN EACH YEAR AND WHAT WE SPEND. SO FOR 2027 WE'RE PROJECTED TO TAKE IN 9.4 MILLION AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND 7.3 AND THAT LEAVES 1.7 REMAINING. THAT'S BEEN WHAT'S BEEN GOING INTO BUILDING THESE CAPITAL BALANCES. IN THE FUTURE WE USE MORE OF THAT MONEY TO PAY DEBT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS ON THE DEBTS. WE REALLOCATE THAT EXCESS MONEY FROM GOING IN A SAVINGS ACCOUNT TO PAYING FOR THE DEBT. SO THAT'S PART OF WHY I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT DEBT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN INCREASED TAXES. IT COULD POSSIBLY MEAN REDUCED TAXES BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING THINGS OUT OVER TIME INSTEAD OF ALL AT ONCE. SO YOU AGREE THAT PART OF THAT, WHAT WE'RE CALLING NET TRANSFERS NOW, WE CAN REALLOCATE TO DEBT PAYMENT? YES, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING TO FUND THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND RIGHT NOW, OR THE MAJORITY OF IT. I APPRECIATE MR. SHARPE'S COMMENTS ABOUT KEEPING THE TAX RATE MORE STABLE. I THINK WHEN WE'RE GOING TO CUT THIS MUCH THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE IN TWO YEARS. I JUST WOULD PREFER A MORE STABILIZED TAX RATE THAN GOING WE CAN CUT TODAY AND THEN NEXT YEAR WE'VE GOT TO GO UP 2% OR WHATEVER. BUT I THINK THAT STABILITY DOES HELP WITH PLANNING. AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY OR MAY NOT DO. THERE IS A BILL, I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS GOING TO BE FILED IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT IF A CITY RAISES ITS TAX RATE THERE MUST BE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE BY THE CITIZENS WITH TWO-THIRDS OF THE CITIZENS VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE INCREASE. TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE A HARD MEASURE TO GET TO. MAYBE WE COULD, I DON'T KNOW. WITH THE VOTER TURNOUT AS SAD AS IT IS, THAT MEANS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. LARGER THAN US, BUT NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS. I JUST THINK THAT'S SCARY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO PASS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO. I THINK IT IS THE STATE SPEAKING FAIRLY LOUDLY THAT CITIES NEED TO HAVE OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE BESIDES PROPERTY TAXES. IT IS ONE WAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO STRANGLE OUT A CITY TO EITHER CHOOSE BETWEEN NOT PROVIDING SERVICES OR FIND OTHER WAYS OF DERIVING REVENUE, I THINK IT'S A MESSAGE AND IT'S COMING. I THINK CITIES LIKE OURS ARE PARTICULARLY POSITIONED TO BE HARMED BECAUSE WE'RE ALMOST ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON PROPERTY TAXES AT THIS TIME. BUT IT MEANS THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING READY. I DON'T DISAGREE. SO WRAPPING UP THE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION HERE, MOVING TOWARDS WHAT THIS WOULD PRACTICALLY LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE. OF COURSE WE'VE GOT THESE FACILITY PROJECTS. WE'RE PLANNING ON BRINGING A NOTICE OF INTENT FOR CO, FOR THE WATER TOWER, FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND FOR THE LIFT STATION. IN THE FUTURE THIS COULD LOOK LIKE FUNDING OUR CIP PLAN WITH DEBT. SO WE'VE GOT SEVERAL PROJECTS LINED OUT FOR YEARS IN ADVANCE. OF COURSE THAT CAN BE MODIFIED. I WOULD CERTAINLY BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS AND LET YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT. BUT TAKING OUT, SAY, ANOTHER CO TO FUND SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS AND JUMP START THEM WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IF WE'RE WANTING TO MOVE THAT DIRECTION. YEAH, I AGREE PHILOSOPHICALLY. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND YOU DO HAVE TO BUDGET DEBT, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO BUDGET REGULAR INCOME AND EXPENSES AS WELL. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL END UP GETTING INTO A POSITION THAT ORANGE COUNTY GOT INTO BECAUSE THEY OVEREXTENDED THEMSELVES WITH DEBT. SO THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT TO MAKE. AND IF THERE'S EXTRA, IN THE BONDS WE HAVE TAKEN OUT, WE ALWAYS HAVE HAD A PROVISION IN THE BONDING WHERE WE COULD PRE-PAY A PAYMENT. SO IF THERE IS EXTRA MONEY, YOU CAN ALWAYS PAY DOWN THAT DEBT. ISN'T THAT CORRECT, GRANT? THAT'S A CALL FEATURE AND IT CAN BE BUILT INTO THE DEBT INSURANCE SYSTEM. IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE. YOU NEED TO BE RELATIVELY CERTAIN YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO CALL IT EARLY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO PAY A PREMIUM FOR A CALL. THE FEATURE IS LESS ATTRACTIVE TO A INVESTOR THAN HAVING A CALLABLE BOND. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING WATER TOWER FUNDING, IS AT LEAST APPLYING FOR MORE THAN WE NEED. AND IF WE DON'T NEED IT, WE WON'T DRAW DOWN ALL OF IT. WE'D RATHER HAVE EXCESS BORROWING CAPACITY THAN HAVE LESS BORROWING CAPACITY. YOU DON'T WANT TO MAX OUT YOUR CREDIT CARD. YOU WANT [00:30:02] TO HAVE MORE BORROWING CAPACITY ON YOUR CREDIT CARD THAN YOU EVER NEED. TRUE. THEN NOT FOR SHOES. ANY OTHER THINGS ON THIS PARTICULAR WORKSHOP? IF NOT, IT IS 6.31 AND I AM CLOSING THE WORKSHOP ON CAPITAL PROJECTS AND WE'LL MOVE TO THE SECOND WORKSHOP, WHICH IS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE CURRENT PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY HAS BEEN OVER THERE AND SEEN IT. I'M NOT POSITIVE. SO, MAYOR, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, I'VE THROWN UP SOME SLIDES TO SHOW OUR CURRENT LAYOUT CONFIGURATION AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE ADJACENT FLOODPLAIN. AND I'VE ALSO GOT SOME PICTURES FROM OUR TOUR, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE FOR REFERENCE. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY. YOU'VE GOT THE CONFERENCE ROOM THERE. I OBVIOUSLY MISLABELED THE KITCHEN. THAT IS NOT THE LOCKER ROOM. MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S DUAL PURPOSE. WE'VE GOT THE WORKSHOP. AND THEN THIS IS THE PUBLIC WORKS SHED. THERE'S ACTUALLY A TRAILER SITTING NEXT DOOR TO IT, SO IT'S GOT SOME ADDITIONAL OVERFLOW STORAGE. BUT WE'VE GOT ALL OUR PARKER FEST ITEMS IN THERE, SOME RECORDS RETENTION, AND OF COURSE OUR LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE EQUIPMENT. WHEN WE WERE HAVING FACILITIES MEETINGS, THE THOUGHT ON THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING IS, IT'S TOAST. IT IS, NO ONE FELT IT HAD ANY USABLE USE. ONE, IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND EVERY TIME THERE'S THREE DROPS OF WATER, THERE'S WATER IN THE BUILDING. THERE'S MOLD. IT'S OLD. IT WAS BUILT BEFORE 70, BECAUSE IT WAS STARTED OUT AS A FIRE DEPARTMENT WAY BACK WHEN. AND IT'S, THE PUBLIC WORKS GUYS ARE BASICALLY KEEPING THAT BUILDING STANDING. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD BUILDING. THE RECOMMENDATION BACK THEN WAS TO DEMOLISH IT. DEMOLISHING HAS A COST, AND THE COST, DEPENDING ON IF THAT'S WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO, IF WE CHOOSE TO ABANDON THIS BUILDING, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO USE IT FOR TRAINING, AND THEN ONCE THEY FINISH IT, GARY'S PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DEMOLISH IT. THERE MIGHT BE A COST IN TAKING THE, WHATEVER'S LEFT, TO ANOTHER LOCATION, TO THE DUMP OR WHEREVER. IT IS EXPECTED TO BE LESS THAN $15,000, BUT THAT'S AN UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. GARY IS NOT HERE. HE'S HAVING SOME HEALTH ISSUES WITH HIS FAMILY, SO HE CAN'T RESPOND TO SOME OF THAT. BUT WE DID CONSULT WITH OUR ARCHITECT, AND HE SAID, WORST CASE SCENARIO, YOU'RE LOOKING AT LESS THAN $30,000 IF WE GO OUT TO CONTRACTOR AND INCLUDE THAT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, IF THAT'S THE ROUTE YOU WANT TO GO. OF COURSE, GARY JUST SAID, IF WE'RE DOING THIS INTERNALLY, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO RENT SOME SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT TO BREAK UP THE CONCRETE, AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO FIND A DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR THE CONCRETE. BUT THAT WOULD REDUCE YOUR COSTS EVEN FURTHER, AND I'M SURE GIVE THEM A FUN TIME. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFTER THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING IS DONE, RIGHT? SO THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE TWO YEARS BEFORE WE EVEN GET THERE. RIGHT. UNTIL THEY'RE NO LONGER USING THIS BUILDING, IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE USED. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLISHING THERE, RIGHT? THERE'S THE SIDE BUILDING THAT I GUESS, WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL FIRE DEPARTMENT? I DON'T KNOW. THE ONE THAT'S GOT A SINGLE ROLL-UP DOOR THAT'S JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HERE. WE REFERRED TO THAT AS THE PUBLIC WORKS SHED, OR RECORD STORAGE SHED. THERE'S THAT BUILDING, AND THEN THERE'S THE LARGER PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. BOTH OF THOSE WOULD BE DEMOLISHED. AND THE MODULAR TRAILER JUST [00:35:02] MOVES ON TO THE NEW LOCATION. FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? THE ONE THAT WAS IN YOUR PHOTO. I THINK THAT JUST GOES AWAY. WITH THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ALL OF THAT EQUIPMENT AND MOVE IT INTO THIS LOCATION OFF OF DILLEHAY. IS THAT AN OWNED ASSET NOW, OR IS THAT A RENTED ASSET? I DO NOT KNOW. IS IT OWNED? OKAY. SO I'M PRESUMING WE COULD SELL IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE STORAGE CONTAINERS OFF A BOAT. YEAH. NOTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE BUILT. WELL, WHEN WE TAKE THIS DOWN, NOTHING ELSE WILL GO IN THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT COUNCIL ENDS UP DOING. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S OUR NEXT CONVERSATION. THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THAT AREA FOR THAT VERY REASON, BECAUSE IT DOES FLOOD FREQUENTLY. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TRYING TO KEEP THE MOLD DOWN AND TO KEEP THAT BUILDING WHERE THE PUBLIC WORKS GUYS CAN GO IN AND DO THEIR JOB AND NOT GET SICK. WE DO NOT WISH TO HAVE ANYBODY GET SICK. SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING FROM US REGARDING THIS, THAT WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT ONCE THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS IS UP AND RUNNING. IF ANYBODY THINKS THIS BUILDING HAS A USE, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT. OTHERWISE, ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS BUILDING IS TOAST AND IT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED? THE FACT THAT WATER INTRUDES ON IT JUST MAKES IT USELESS IN MY VIEWPOINT. IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE, I MIGHT CONSIDER IT AS SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, JUST KEEP IT AS A STORAGE SHED, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WATER GETS INTO IT, NO, IT NEEDS TO GO. THE NEXT EXISTING BUILDING, AND I MAY REQUEST THAT WE WAIT TO TAKE IT UP, IS THE POLICE STATION. I DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AND I DON'T HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE NECESSARY TO TALK ABOUT THE POLICE STATION. SO IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, WE COULD TAKE THAT UP AT OUR NEXT WORKSHOP, STARTING WITH THE POLICE BUILDING. FINE, TAKING IT UP THEN, OR DISCUSSING SOMETHING NOW THAT YOU DON'T WANT. SO IS ANYBODY IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE EXISTING BUILDING? IS ANYBODY IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THEM IN THE EXISTING BUILDING? NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING A POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT COULD UTILIZE FOR SOMETHING ELSE? THE QUESTION IS KEEPING IT AT ALL. MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS I'VE HEARD ABOUT IS IT'S NOT WORTH IT, NOT EVEN FOR STORAGE, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE FACTS ON THAT. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, WE DID TALK WITH KENT SPURGIN ON THIS ONE AS WELL, AND IT COULD CERTAINLY BE UTILIZED FOR SOMETHING ELSE IN ITS EXISTING POSITION, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO TRANSFER IT TO A NEW LOCATION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT COSTS FOR RELOCATING THE UTILITIES, RIGHT? WE NEED A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, OR MOVE THIS SEPTIC SYSTEM, WE'VE GOT WATER LINES, WE'VE GOT ELECTRICITY THAT'S ALL GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE. IF IT'S JUST A GLORIFIED STORAGE SHED, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE THAT? AND THEN I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT THE CHARACTER OF THIS BUILDING IS NOT REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF PARKER. SO I'M JUST PUTTING MYSELF IN THE CITIZEN'S SHOES, RIGHT? IF YOU WERE TO MOVE THAT AND YOU WERE A ZONED SINGLE FAMILY, I MEAN THIS IS ESSENTIALLY LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING, AND YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RE-UTILIZE IT. JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. MR. SHARPE, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. IF WE TABLE THIS, WHICH I'M IN FAVOR OF TO THE NEXT MEETING, I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THE WORKS BUILDING WHEN GARY IS PRESENT, JUST TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT IT CAN GET ANSWERED, BUT I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES OUR DIRECTION JUST TOWARDS WHILE. OKAY. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND THIS CURRENTLY SITS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AS WELL, CORRECT? IF IT'S NOT IN IT, IT'S ON THE VERY... BECAUSE WE'VE HAD WATER ISSUES. IT'S IN IT, BUT IT'S SITTING ON CINDER BLOCKS TO KEEP IT ABOVE IT. [00:40:01] BUT WE HAVE HAD WATER PROBLEMS WITH THIS LOCATION. MOISTURE PROBLEMS. MOISTURE PROBLEMS WITH THIS LOCATION, AND TO MOVE IT A SIGNIFICANT DOLLAR AMOUNT PER SEPTIC AND ALL OF THAT. WELL, MY OPINION IS IF WE KEEP IT, THE ONLY REASON WE KEEP IT IS SOME KIND OF STORAGE THING, AND THEN WE DON'T NEED WATER, WE DON'T NEED SEPTIC, WE JUST NEED TO GET POWER TO IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I WOULD PERSONALLY CONSIDER KEEPING IT, AND THAT'S A MAYBE. BUT IT NEEDS POWER FOR MOISTURE, AIR CONDITIONING, IF YOU PUT RECORDS RETENTION IN THERE. DIDN'T WE NEED SPACE FOR PARKER FEST? OKAY. THE SPACE FOR PARKER FEST IS GOING TO BE THE MEZZANINE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE PUTTING ANYTHING IN THERE. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE HAVING OUR OFFICES IN THERE NOW, AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD SO MANY ISSUES, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD BE STORING IN THAT SPACE. NOT WITH MOLD ISSUES, NOT WITH MOISTURE ISSUES. YEAH, AND THOSE ISSUES HAVEN'T GONE AWAY. I MEAN, WE DEAL WITH THEM, AND IT'S EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN THAT BUILDING, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S WORTH IT. I AGREE. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT TABLING THE DISCUSSION OF THE POLICE BUILDING UNTIL THE POLICE ARE HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POLICE WOULD HAVE SOME USE FOR THAT BUILDING, AND I THINK IF THERE'S ANY USE AT ALL, IT WOULD BE AT STORAGE, IT WOULDN'T BE POLICE. SO IT REALLY SENDS THE QUESTION BACK TO KENT. I MEAN, DO YOU FORESEE ANY REASONABLE USE OF THAT BUILDING, ESPECIALLY IF WE HAD TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION? IT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY, I WOULD THINK. NOT AT THIS TIME. I MIGHT ASSUME THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY. YEAH, WE'VE GOT ADDITIONAL STORAGE THERE. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH OUR LONG-TERM RECORDS. BUT IF WE KEEP THIS EXISTING BUILDING, POTENTIALLY THERE'S ROOM FOR STORAGE THERE. THERE COULD BE SOME CARVE-OUT STORAGE AT THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY. TRAINING, TRAINING FOR FIRING FOR POLICE, AND I'M JUST KIND OF SPITBALLING HERE. YES, STACKING THEM UP AND LETTING THEM GO ROOM TO ROOM CLEARING. BUT YOU DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT YOU WOULD KEEP THE POLICE BUILDING, OTHER THAN FOR TRAINING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO, AND IT'S A MODULAR, QUADRUPLE-WIDE, SO YOU COULDN'T REALLY OPEN THAT UP FOR A MULTI-PURPOSE SPACE TO OPEN UP TO THE COMMUNITY. I'M TRYING TO BE CREATIVE HERE, OF COURSE. I'M NOT THAT CREATIVE IN PERSON. I DON'T WANT THE GROUND TO BE COVERED IN MOLD EITHER. TRUE. OR THE SEPTIC PROBLEMS. LIBRARY MAZE? A MAZE IN THE LIBRARY? NO. AND I GUESS THAT'S THE THING. IT'S BEEN GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, SO I THINK WE HAVE BEAT THIS POOR HORSE. IT'S OUTLIVED THE TWO SCHOOLS. CAN WE JUST, INSTEAD OF HAVING ANOTHER SESSION ON THIS, ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT TO DUMP IT THEN? YEP. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I AM OR I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE IF I WANT THAT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW WE HAVE STORAGE SCATTERED ALL OVER THE PLACE. I MEAN, I KNEW WE HAD SOME OF THAT, BUT WHEN I DID THE FULL FACILITIES TOUR, WE USE THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER TOWER FOR STORAGE FACILITIES. BUT WE USED TO USE THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET IN THEIR BASEMENT UNTIL IT FLOODED. WE USED PART OF THE PUMP ROOM FOR A STORAGE FACILITY. WE'VE GOT STUFF STORED EVERYWHERE, AND IT MAKES IT INEFFICIENT FOR EVERYBODY ON GARY'S TEAM TO REMEMBER WHERE EVERYTHING IS AND THEN TO GO TO THE DIFFERENT PLACES AND GET IT. DO YOU THINK WE'RE INSURED FOR THAT? LIKE, THOSE BUILDINGS AREN'T DESIGNED FOR STORAGE BUILDINGS. WHEN WE STORE THINGS IN IT, DOES IT, IN SOME WAY, PUT US IN VIOLATION OF WHATEVER INSURANCE WE HAVE? I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE A GRANT RESEARCH QUESTION. HI, GRANT! JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, NOT ANYTHING. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF OR WHAT THE AUDIENCE CAN STORE INSIDE? PROBABLY BOTH, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE NOT CHECKING THE MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN THE BUILDING, THEN I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT AS AN ARBITRARY SCENARIO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE AT ALL. BUT IF YOU PUT FLAMMABLE MATERIALS INSIDE OF A BUILDING, IT FUNDAMENTALLY DEGRADES THAT BUILDING'S OVERALL RISK ASSESSMENT. THAT'S ONE ASPECT. THE OTHER WOULD BE MAYBE AROUND SOME KIND OF, NOT NECESSARILY OSHA, BUT WHEN YOU PAY INSURANCE FOR A BUILDING, YOU'RE ALSO PAYING FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE [00:45:01] FOR THE PEOPLE WITHIN IT. SO WHEN YOU STORE THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE DESIGN OR WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE INSURED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOUL OF IT, THOSE ARE TWO SCENARIOS THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE CLARIFIED. THE PICTURES THAT ADMINISTRATOR MANTON PUT UP RIGHT NOW ARE UNDERNEATH THE WATER TOWER. I MEAN, IN GENERAL, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MAKING PRODUCTIVE USE OF SPACE, BUT WE MAY HAVE MADE, IN SOME WAYS, UNPRODUCTIVE USE OF SPACE BECAUSE IT'S SO SCATTERED. AND I GUESS THAT'S THE THING IS, WE MADE USE OF IT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A STRATEGIC THOUGHT PROCESS ON IT. YEAH. IS THAT BILLY? YES, BILLY. OKAY. WELL, MOVING RIGHT ALONG, DO Y'ALL WANT TO START ON THIS BUILDING? NO, I WANT TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE IT MESSES WITH ME. I DON'T AGREE WITH BILLY. WHAT WAS THAT? TAKE A BREAK. THEN AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE WORKSHOP ON EXISTING FACILITIES AND WE WILL PICK IT UP ON OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS SEPTEMBER 29TH. THIS WORKSHOP IS CLOSED AT 6.47 P.M. [CALL TO ORDER] I HEAR ABOUT A CALL AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF PARKER, TEXAS TO ORDER. IT IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. IT IS 7.01 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. HULL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. BOGDAN IF SHE WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND MR. PILGRIM IF HE WILL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE. 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. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVISIBLE. [PUBLIC COMMENTS] OKAY, THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT CARD AND THERE WAS ONE WRITTEN COMMENT FROM MARCOS ARIAS WHICH WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING AND IN PERSON IS TERRY LYNCH. TERRY LYNCH, 5809 MIDDLETON DRIVE. I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PREPARED FOR THIS BUT I WANTED TO GET UP AND SAY A FEW WORDS AFTER THE EARLIER WORKSHOP. I APPRECIATED THE EARLIER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINANCING CAPITAL PROJECTS ESPECIALLY THE UNDERLYING SPREADSHEET SHOWING THE EXCESS CASH THAT'S BEEN COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS AND TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS OF HANDLING THAT. I THINK THAT'S TRULY A MUCH STRONGER, MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF HANDLING THINGS. I LIKE SEEING THAT GOING ON. I ALSO APPRECIATED THE COMMENT ABOUT HOW THE HOMEOWNERS APPRECIATE CONSISTENCY. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT WASN'T MENTIONED IS I THINK HOMEOWNERS OR THE HOMEOWNERS ALSO APPRECIATE INFORMATION AND I THINK IN MY OPINION, THIS IS MY OPINION, IN THE PAST THE PIECE THAT WAS MISSING AND WHY WE'RE STRUGGLING NOW TO GET THESE PROJECTS DONE WHERE HOPEFULLY WE'RE AT THE RIGHT TIME TO GET THESE PROJECTS DONE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT REALLY ARE NEEDED BUT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO THE RESIDENTS TO SHOW THEM WHAT THE PURPOSE IS AND TO SHOW THAT IT IS A STREAMLINED, IT'S AN EFFICIENT PROJECT AND IT'S NOT EXCESS, THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING EXCESS INTO THE CITY, INTO THE CITY EXPENSES. ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAX RATES AND LOWERING TAX RATES AND THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHEN I LOOK TO GET TO GRANT. AND I'M SURE GRANT WILL LEAD Y'ALL AS TIME GOES ON WITH THOSE THINGS BUT EVEN IN THIS YEAR WORKING IN THE TAX RATES I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE SEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT SCHEDULES AND THINGS AND IF YOU DO THIS, IT MOVES IT THIS WAY AND THAT WAY AND IF YOU LOWER THE RATE THIS YEAR, THE IMPACT'S ON THE FUTURE. SO ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT AS Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT THIS LOOKING AT THE FUTURE IS REALLY IMPORTANT WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE [00:50:03] THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP ONE THING I DID WANT TO SAY MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S COMING UP AND I SUPPORT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE RELATING TO A LIMIT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AMOUNT IS OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INCREASE OF INFLATION PLUS POPULATION TO ALLOW FOR INCREASES WITHOUT A TAX VOTE BY THE RESIDENTS AND THEN THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE A VOTE OF THOSE THINGS I DON'T THINK, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE TAX THE CITIES OR THE STATE FORCING PROPERTY TAX OUT I THINK THERE'S, AGAIN WE'RE BACK TO THAT INFORMATION SHARING THE INFORMATION WITH THE CITY AND IF YOU'VE GOT THE INFORMATION I DO THINK YOUR PEOPLE WILL SUPPORT YOU THANK Y'ALL AGAIN THANK YOU OKAY, ITEMS OF [ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST ] COMMUNITY INTEREST I'LL NOTE THAT THE PEANUT BUTTER DRIVE FOR THE FOOD BANK OF TEXAS IS NOW OPEN WE HAVE BOXES IN OUR FOYER AND I ASSUME THERE'S PROBABLY A BOX IN THE POLICE STATION'S LOBBY TO DROP OFF PEANUT BUTTER, JELLY OR OTHER DONATIONS TO THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK IT'S KIND OF A COMPETITION BETWEEN THE CITIES ON WHO CAN RAISE THE MOST FOR THE FOOD BANK SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO IS MOST HELPFUL IT LASTS ALL MONTH AND PLEASE BE GENEROUS, THANK YOU OKAY, I'LL NOTE THAT ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH AT 5PM THERE WILL BE A PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING IN THIS ROOM AND ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH AND ON SEPTEMBER 24TH AT 5PM PLANNING AND ZONING WILL BE MEETING OKAY, THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS OF INTEREST WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA THERE'S TWO [CONSENT AGENDA] ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THE FIRST IS APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 18TH, 2026 THE SECOND IS CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-912 SUSPENDING THE OCTOBER 16TH, 2026 EFFECTIVE DATE OF COSERV GAS, LTDS PROPOSED INTERIM GRIP RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR GAS UTILITY INVESTMENT MADE IN 2025 FOR THE MAXIMUM PERIOD PERMITTED BY LAW COUNCIL, I WILL ASK IS THERE ANYBODY ON COUNCIL WHO WANTS TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA I'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE MINUTES FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA OKAY MAYOR, I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COSERV IS NO LONGER VALID AT THIS POINT BECAUSE COSERV HAS VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO SUSPEND THOSE RATES UNTIL OR NOT IMPLEMENT THOSE RATES UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 2027 SO OUR 45-DAY RESOLUTION WOULD BE OKAY, SO WE'RE WITHDRAWING NUMBER FIVE OKAY, AND THAT JUST LEAVES THE MINUTES, MR. BARRON OKAY, I'D LIKE TO JUST REQUEST A MINOR CHANGE IN FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THE INFORMATION THAT'S STATED ABOUT WHY I WAS REQUESTING A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, ALL THAT'S CORRECT BUT IT DOESN'T STATE WHAT THAT FUTURE AGENDA ITEM IS AND IT JUST NEEDS TO STATE THAT I WAS REQUESTING A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE OKAY ANYTHING ELSE? THERE WERE A COUPLE MINOR TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT THEY'VE BEEN UPDATED SO JUST LITTLE TINY THINGS OKAY, IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD TAKE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES AS AMENDED DOES THAT INCLUDE MY AMENDMENT? IT WOULD OKAY, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTE MEETINGS FOR AUGUST 18TH, 2026 AS AMENDED IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18TH, 2026 IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ANY OPPOSED? [00:55:03] MOTION CARRIES, 5-0 OKAY, NEXT [6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY2026-2027 BUDGET. ] WE'LL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS THE FIRST THING IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2026-2027 BUDGET AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IT IS 7-17 IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? MS. LYNCH TERRY LYNCH, 5809 MIDDLETON DRIVE THIS ONE I DID PREPARE I SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME REVIEWING THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED BUDGET I HAVE ONE REQUEST FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND ONE THOUGHT FOR THE FUTURE BUDGETS FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, I RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCIL TO TAKE ONE MORE CAREFUL LOOK AT THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES BEFORE FINAL ADOPTION ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS UNCHANGED, BASED ON THE INCREASE IN AVERAGE HOME VALUE, THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER WILL PAY JUST OVER 7% MORE IN CITY PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR THAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER HOW THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE BEING USED ONE AREA THAT DESERVES ADDITIONAL ATTENTION IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THE PROPOSED POLICE BUDGET INCREASES APPROXIMATELY $733,000 OVER LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND IS APPROXIMATELY 93% HIGHER THAN THE 24-25 ACTUAL EXPENSES I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN STAFFING AND COMPENSATION CHANGES ALTHOUGH SOME STAFFING CHANGES WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BEFORE APPROVING AN INCREASE OF THIS SIZE, COUNCIL SHOULD UNDERSTAND OUR ACTUAL STAFFING, THE SERVICE METRICS DEMONSTRATING THE NEED, AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL STAFFING IS THE BEST SOLUTION OR WHETHER ALTERNATIVES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MOST MORE BROADLY, OPERATING AND DEPARTMENT EXPENSES ARE INCREASING SIGNIFICANTLY WHILE TRANSFERS TO CAPITAL-RELATED NEEDS ARE BEING REDUCED I RECOGNIZE MANY DECISIONS REFLECTED IN THIS BUDGET HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BUT WHERE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED, I ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK BEFORE APPROVING THEM FOR FUTURE BUDGETS, I HOPE THE CITY APPROACHES THE PROCESS FROM A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT THE CITY SHOULD FIRST DETERMINE THE SERVICES PARKER NEEDS, ESTABLISH ITS PRIORITIES, AND DETERMINE WHAT THOSE SERVICES REASONABLY COST THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE BUDGET THEN DETERMINE THE REVENUE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THOSE DECISIONS IF REVENUES GROW BEYOND WHAT IS NEEDED FOR JUSTIFIED PRIORITIES, COUNCIL HAS CHOICES ADDRESSING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING RESERVES, REDUCING DEBT, PROVIDING TAX RELIEF, OR ADDRESSING OTHER LONG-TERM NEEDS MY CONCERN IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY COMMIT GROWING REVENUES TO ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES SIMPLY BECAUSE MONEY IS AVAILABLE PARKER HAS SIGNIFICANT FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WHILE DUBLIN ROAD AND LEWIS LANE HAVE BEEN IMPROVED, OTHER STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS REMAIN AHEAD MY REQUEST FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET IS TO CAREFULLY REVIEW THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES AND RECONSIDER THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED BEFORE FINAL ADOPTION MY REQUEST FOR FUTURE BUDGETS IS TO MAKE SURE THE BUDGET DRIVES THE REVENUE DECISIONS, NOT THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE AVAILABLE THANK YOU THANK YOU, MS. LYNCH MR. SAVAGE, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE BUDGET? SURE, I CAN DO A QUICK BUDGET OVERVIEW SO, THE PROPOSED BUDGET THIS YEAR TOTAL REVENUES JUST A LITTLE OVER $21 MILLION AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES JUST A LITTLE OVER $27 MILLION IT NETS TO A $5.8 MILLION DEFICIT AS FAR AS OVERALL IT LEAVES AN ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE OF ABOUT $16 MILLION ACROSS THE BOARD LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND IN PARTICULAR, THERE WAS A 12% INCREASE IN REVENUES, 20% INCREASE IN THE EXPENDITURES, AND A 14% DECREASE IN THE TRANSFERS. FOR HIGHLIGHTS OF THE GENERAL FUND THE BUDGET WAS PREPARED USING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF .310439, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE BUDGET INCLUDES SALARY INCREASES, INCLUDES A TRANSFER TO THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND OF $800,000 A TRANSFER TO THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $100,000 A TRANSFER TO THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $300,000 AND A TRANSFER TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT [01:00:01] FUND OF $400,000 THIS YEAR, SUPPLEMENTALS IN THE GENERAL FUND INCLUDED A PATROL VEHICLE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SOME PERSONNEL CONTINGENCY IN THE GENERAL FUND ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, A PUBLIC WORK SEASONAL EMPLOYEE PROGRAM FIRE STATION SEPTIC SYSTEM UPGRADE, SOME ADDITIONAL FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACING THE PISTOLS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COVERED PARKING FOR THE PATROL VEHICLES AND RECONFIGURATION CODE OF ORDINANCE MODULE THE WATER FUND INCLUDES SALARY INCREASES, ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CONTINUING THE WATER METER PURCHASE AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND A TRANSFER TO THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND OF $250,000 IN THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND THIS YEAR, THERE WERE FOUR ITEMS BEING REPLACED A 2019 FORD F-150, A 2019 FORD F-250 AND A 2006 SCAG MOWER AND A 2003 SEWER JET TRAILER IN THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT, TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND THERE'S COPY REPLACEMENTS OF $28,000 CITYWIDE COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS OF $51,600 RADIO REPLACEMENTS IN THE FIRE AND POLICE OF $25,000 AND THEN A SERVER REFRESH FOR ADMIN, FOR CITY HALL AND FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE PARKSPUN, THERE'S THE PARKERFEST AND IT IS EVO PLEASE, GO AHEAD MR. SAVAGE THAT'S KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET THIS YEAR OKAY, ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO COMMENT ON WHILE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN? OKAY, AT THIS TIME IT IS 7.18. THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE MR. SHARPE? THANK YOU. SO THE LAST TIME WE BROUGHT THIS UP I ASKED ABOUT WHAT'S BEHIND THE $327,000 SERVER REFRESH AND THAT SEEMS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH AND I DIDN'T REALLY GET A REASONING FOR THAT I'M CURIOUS IF THERE ARE DEEPER NUMBERS LIKE NUMBER OF SERVERS, PURPOSE OF SERVERS, DISPOSITION OF THE CURRENT SERVERS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT $327,000, I MEAN THAT'S MAYBE 602 NEW RACK MOUNTED SERVERS SO IT SEEMS EXCESSIVE WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAYBE ANSWER THAT ONE? SURE, I CAN START IT OFF. SO THOSE NUMBERS ARE FROM INITIAL REPORT AND ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROVIDED BY OUR IT VENDOR WE ACTUALLY MET WITH HIM TODAY HE INVENTORIED SOME OF OUR EQUIPMENT THAT HAD BEEN FAILING THIS PAST WEEK SO WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME DRIVES FAIL, THANKFULLY THERE WERE SOME REDUNDANCIES BUILT IN AND SO THEY WERE ABLE TO SWAP OUT WITH SOME REPLACEMENTS HE MENTIONED TO US TODAY, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY FIRM NUMBERS BUT THE COST WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN WHAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR SO IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE BUDGETING ON THE HIGH SIDE THE REASON BEHIND THIS IS JUST THE DATA CENTER BOOM THE WAR HE SAID IS NOT HELPING WITH IRAN AND ADDITIONALLY WE'VE GOT SOME COST WITH THE TARIFFS SO THAT HAS BEEN INCREASING THE COST SO WHAT HE'S GOING TO PLAN ON DOING, SINCE WE HAVE SOME TIME NOW SINCE WE BOUGHT OURSELVES SOME TIME. HE'S GONNA TAKE THIS OUT TO BID AND THAT'S GONNA HOPEFULLY GET US SOME SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS ON THE EQUIPMENT WE'RE GOING TO BE BUYING BUT THIS SERVER IS NOW SEVEN YEARS OLD ONE SERVER? WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE SERVERS, WE'VE GOT THE OLDEST ONE BEING SEVEN YEARS OLD I STILL STRUGGLE WITH THE PRICE TAG AND NOT BECAUSE IT'S 20% HIGHER OR 30% HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE RUN ON RAM FROM AI DATA CENTERS OR EVEN OIL SLASH TARIFFS NONE OF THOSE AFFECT THE PRICE NUMBER TO BE AS HIGH AS I'M SEEING I WOULD EXPECT OUR OVERALL SERVER REFRESH BUDGET TO COME IN AT 50 GRAND WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH USE FOR SERVERS AS FAR AS I KNOW AND WITHOUT DIVING DEEPER INTO THAT NUMBER, I'M REALLY NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT SO THE COST FOR THE INITIAL UPGRADES SO TO SPEAK TO KIND OF LIMP US ALONG SHOULD BE WELL BELOW THAT $50,000 MARK THAT'S KIND OF THE NUMBERS I WAS ANTICIPATING AND I WAS QUITE SHOCKED WHEN WE GOT THAT INITIAL QUOTE AGAIN FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS TODAY, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT OF COURSE IF WE GO OVER $100,000 ON THIS, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT TO THE BIDDING PROCESS BUT [01:05:01] WE'RE HOPING THAT SOME GOOD NEWS IS GOING TO COME IN FROM THAT AND OF COURSE IF THERE IS THESE SIGNIFICANT COSTS WE'RE GOING TO CERTAINLY BRING THAT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE ANY MAJOR DECISIONS ARE MADE WE CAN ALWAYS LEAVE THAT IN THE BUDGET FOR NOW BUT ANALYZE IT BEFORE WE SPEND THE MONEY MORE CAREFULLY AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU EITHER BRING IN DARREL OR MYSELF BOTH OF, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOT BACKGROUND IN THIS IN THE PROCESS TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AS WE GO ALONG WE WERE ACTUALLY ALREADY PLANNING ON DOING THAT WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT SO MIKE IS SUPPOSED TO BE PREPARING US SOME QUOTES AND COMING UP WITH HIS SERVER RACK REFRESH AND GETTING THAT TO US OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS I THINK IS WHAT HE SAID MS. BOGDAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE A BUDGET HOLDER PLACEHOLDER SO WE'RE NOT SPENDING THAT FUNDS RIGHT NOW MS. HALBERT? JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION IF WE WERE TO DROP THE TAX RATE BY ONE CENT WHAT IS THAT DOLLAR IMPACT ON THE BUDGET? I THINK IT'S ABOUT $300,000 BECAUSE WE'RE CLOSE TO THE $3 BILLION I'M SORRY? THANK YOU ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET? GENERAL COMMENTS? I AGREE. I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEE THE TAX RATE DROP I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT US DROPPING THE TAX RATE AS I AM HAVING THE CORRECT TAX RATE FOR ANY GIVEN YEAR AND YOU SAW FROM THE DATA THAT I PUT UP THERE EARLIER WE'RE STILL PLANNING ON A $1.7 MILLION SURPLUS OVER OPERATING EXPENSES THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BUILD OUR FUND I SAT IN ON THE COUNTY'S BUDGET MEETING THIS WEEK AND FOR THE FIFTH YEAR IN A ROW THEY BOTH HAVE INCREASING PROPERTY TAX VALUES WHICH RAISES THE AMOUNT THAT'S TAXED AND INCREASING TAX RATES AT THE COUNTY EVERY ONE OF US THAT LIVE IN COLLIN COUNTY ARE GOING TO EXPERIENCE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN OUR COUNTY TAXES THIS YEAR AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT OUR RATES STAY LEVEL THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IN PARKER BUT OUR TAXES AREN'T GOING TO GO UP AND SOME MAYBE IT'S AVERAGING 7% THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WAS USED EARLIER IT'S GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THAT FOR SOME PEOPLE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU ENDED UP I AGREE WITH THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT I AGREE WITH THE EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE ADDED I AGREE WITH THE POLICE, IN FACT, I'LL DEFEND THE POLICE AND FOR THE SAKE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXCESS MONEY BECAUSE THAT IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST INCREASE IF YOU TAKE 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK, 3 PEOPLE ON DUTY AT ALL TIMES THAT'S 504 HOURS, SO THATS 504 MAN HOURS THAT IT WOULD TAKE, TO HAVE 3 PEOPLE ON DUTY, 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT TO 52 WEEKS A YEAR AND YOU ALLOW 2.5 TO 3 WEEKS OF VACATION TIME FOR OFFICERS AND YOU ALLOW A FEW DAYS OF SICK TIME AND YOU ALLOW 6 DAYS WORTH OF HOLIDAYS THAT WE HAVE DURING THE YEAR WHICH PEOPLE NEED OFF, BY THE TIME YOU PUT THOSE IN YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 48 WORK WEEKS IN THE YEAR FOR EACH MAN HOUR. FOR EACH MAN, SAY YOU, GENERICALLY I SAY MAN. SO, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TWO LADIES THAT WE HAVE HERE SO IF YOU FACTOR THAT IN IT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE 14 OFFICERS TO BE FULLY STAFFED AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING 13 IS FULLY STAFFED AND I'M FINE WITH THAT THAT'S WAY BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE 14 TO FULLY STAFF BY THE TIME YOU ALLOW VACATION TIME, SICK DAYS AND ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AND FOR THE INVESTIGATOR TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PATROL OFFICER SO IF WE ACTUALLY HAD A CHIEF AND AN INVESTIGATOR THAT WERE DEDICATED TO THOSE TWO SERVICES OUR FULL STAFFING WOULD ACTUALLY BE PROBABLY 16 INSTEAD OF 13 SO I JUST WANT OUR CITIZENS TO REALIZE THAT SO WE DON'T HAVE 3 OFFICERS ON DUTY 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK MOST OF THE TIME WE HAVE 2, A LOT OF THE TIME WE HAVE 2 BECAUSE OF THE ROTATION IN STAFFS AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF FACTORS. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD EXPENDITURE OF MONEY. WE DIDN'T APPROVE ALL THE INCREASES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR WE CAN DO THAT FIRE AND POLICE ARE THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT SERVICES THIS CITY CAN PROVIDE AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THOSE I DID ASK LAST TIME, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE ASKED FOR SOME THINGS TO BE LOOKED AT I ASKED FOR SOMEBODY TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THESE PLACES [01:10:01] FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM I'LL SAY KIND OF ROUNDED UP ON SIMILAR EXPENSES. I THINK EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR MATTERS EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR THAT WE TAKE FROM A CITIZEN TO FUND THIS CITY REALLY MATTERS AND SOMETIMES IT GETS EASY IF YOU PUT IT IN THE BUDGET TO SPEND IT HOPEFULLY IT WON'T BE ON A $300,000 COMPUTER EXPENDITURE IF WE DON'T NEED IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BUDGET BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE CAN SAVE MONEY ON AND MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO KEEP BUILDING OUR RESERVES AS MUCH AS WE'VE BEEN BUILDING THEM SO I DON'T AGREE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THE EXCESS MONEY AND BUILD RESERVES AND USE IT FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT I COVERED IN THE WORKSHOP PRIOR TO THIS I DO THINK WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE SOME OF THE EXCESS MONEY THAT WE HAVE AND GIVE IT BACK TO OUR CITIZENS NOT IN THE TERMS OF A REBATE BUT IN TERMS OF A LOWER TAX RATE FOR THIS NEXT YEAR AND A PENNY WOULDN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT JUST IN TERMS OF POLICE AND FIRE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THE CITY HAS DOUBLED ITS POPULATION IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME WE'RE NOW AT 6,500 IN POPULATION WHICH IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE FROM 1,300 OR EVEN 03,000 WE HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE SURE ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE COVERED WITH FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION ANYTHING ELSE ON THE BUDGET? IF NOT WE WILL NOW, I'M SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO REINFORCE WHAT COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM SAID AND ONE THING THAT HE DIDN'T TOUCH ON, I'M SURPRISED HE DIDN'T, IS HISTORICALLY WE'VE STAFFED OUR CITY SO LOW THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES OR HAS A SEVERE ILLNESS WE GO FROM KIND OF UNDERSTAFFED TO SEVERELY UNDERSTAFFED AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT TYPICALLY MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT LOWER COVERAGE LEVELS LOWER SAFETY LEVELS AND THAT'S NOT A CHOICE THAT I THINK I'M WILLING TO MAKE WHEN I'M LOOKING OUT FOR OUR CITIZENS I THINK WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SAFETY THAT'S OUR EXPECTATION FOR LIVING HERE AND PAYING TAXES AND I THINK GIVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THOSE SERVICE LEVELS BY HAVING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF STAFFING LIKE MOST OF THE REST OF TEXAS DOES IS HOW WE GET THERE IT'S TRUE NOT ONLY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUT THE CITY ITSELF, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION SO, I DO THINK THAT IT LOOKS MAYBE STRANGE BECAUSE WE HAVE STAFFED UP THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TWICE IN TWO YEARS AND I THINK IT ALSO HAS A STRONG CONTENTION OF WE SIMPLY HAD FAR TOO FEW STAFF TO START OUT WITH SO BEARING THAT IN MIND I THINK IT IS NOT ONLY A REASONABLE AND AN EXCELLENT INVESTMENT FOR OUR CITY I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE THIS POINT BECAUSE I DIDN'T MAKE IT EARLIER SO I THOUGHT YOU'RE GONNA COVER IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE STAFF, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AS WELL ADMINISTRATOR MANTON CAN SPEAK TO THIS ALSO I THINK WE DONE THE SAME THING YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH OUR CITY STAFF HERE TOO THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OF THIS CITY IS A VERY LEAN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND FOR THE SIZE CITY THAT WE HAVE AND WE NEED TO SUPPORT THE STAFF THAT'S NEEDED HERE AS WELL POLICE AND FIRE ARE ULTIMATELY THE MOST IMPORTANT BUT THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT GARY'S STAFF IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS WELL ESPECIALLY AS WE GO BACK IN YOU KNOW, OUR BUILDING WAS TORN OVER WE KNOW THESE ARE THE WORK. WE KNOW THAT THAT WHOLE DEPARTMENT'S OVERWORKED AND WE'RE GLAD THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET HIM SOME ASSISTANCE THIS YEAR BUT THOSE AREN'T FRIVOLOUS EXPENDITURES I THINK AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SUPPORT WHAT YOU NEED TO RUN THE CITY ABSOLUTELY AND I'LL JUST SECOND THAT I'VE BEEN HERE 11 MONTHS NOW AND I CAN CERTAINLY SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OF STAFFING THAT WE HAVE IS PROPERLY ALIGNED TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE DESIRES OF THIS COUNCIL AND THIS COMMUNITY AND OF COURSE I MADE YOU AWARE OF THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME THINGS IN THIS NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET THAT'S GOING TO HELP SUPPORT THAT AND ALLOW US TO CARRY OUT YOUR OBJECTIVES BEFORE THERE'S A VOTE ON A BUDGET BECAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME INTEREST IN MOVING FORWARD WITH A LOWER TAX RATE MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION BASED ON OUR WORKSHOP IS THAT WE WANT TO PULL DOWN SOME OF THE MONEY THAT'S GOING TO THE TRANSFERS IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM EVERYBODY SO IF A LOWER TAX RATE IS ADOPTED WE'VE GOT $300,000 OR SO THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLOCATE SO ASSUMING THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PULLING FROM THE RESERVES FOR OUR TRANSFERS FOR OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS RIGHT I'M NOT [01:15:01] HEARING ANYBODY SAY THAT WE NEED TO CUT EXPENDITURES ON STAFFING OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S IN THE BUDGET I'VE BEEN IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT THAT WE DO FOR RESERVES EVERYBODY ELSE NEEDS TO SPEAK UP AS WELL I ALSO KIND OF RE-EMPHASIZE THE REQUEST I MADE LAST TIME LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM AND SEE IF YOU CAN TAKE SOME OUT OF IT I KNOW I LISTENED TO CHRIS HILL YESTERDAY OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER MAKE A PLEA FOR EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT TO GO SEE IF THEY COULD FIND 2.7% A LITTLE LESS THAN THREE PENNIES OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT THEY SPEND, GOTTA SAY TO GET BACK TO NOT HAVING TO RAISE TAXES FOR THE COUNTY AND ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMPLETELY REFUSED THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING IT DONE IT'S WORTH AT LEAST ASKING SOMETIMES IF YOU ASK AND LOOK AND YOU SAY NO THIS IS ALL I CAN DO THEN OKAY I THINK WE DID THAT AS A COUNCIL WE ASKED GRANT TO GO BACK TO FIND ANYTHING THAT WASN'T SPENT WE'VE NEVER GASSED ON THE LINE ITEMS I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT AS A COUNCIL AND WE HAVE WORKED THE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE BACK AND LOOKED AT THIS NOTHING NEW I THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT MR. SHARPE. THANK YOU. SO SPEAKING OF EVERY DOLLAR THE EXECUTIVE RETREAT FOR 20,000 DOLLARS, THAT'S CURRENTLY, BUDGET, IT'S 20,000 SEEMS HIGH I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS THE PROFESSIONAL WHAT WAS IT CALLED COORDINATOR? FACILITATOR THANK YOU STILL I THINK THIS COUNCIL HAS COLLECTIVELY BEEN SERVING TOGETHER FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS, IM NOT REALLY SURE HOW I KNOW WE HAD AN IDEA OF WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THAT SOME TIME AGO BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH VALUE IT REALLY SERVES US ANYMORE I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THE PLANS INCLUDED BUT WE JUST HAD A TWO DAY RETREAT FOR 120 PEOPLE THAT CAME IN LESS THAN THAT I THINK THERE'S A WAY I DON'T THINK IF WE WERE TO DO IT WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD FACILITY HERE WE'VE GOT TWO, CROSS CREEK RANCH AND SALFORD RANCH THAT WE COULD MEET AND WE WOULDN'T NEED TO TRAVEL I THINK 20,000 DOLLARS IS ON THE HIGH SIDE I'M NOT SURE IF WE NEED A RETREAT OR IF WE JUST NEED A WORKSHOP ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING THIS BUDGET SEASON GOES INTO NEXT MAY WHEN WE HAVE ELECTIONS AND POSSIBLY THREE NEW PEOPLE SO THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND ANYTHING ELSE ON THE [7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 920 ADOPTING THE 2026-2027 BUDGET. ] BUDGET? OKAY IF NOT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 920 ADOPTING THE 2026-2027 BUDGET IN COUNCIL THIS WILL BE A RECORD VOTE IS THERE A MOTION? MS. HALBERT MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 920 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET AS PRESENTED IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 920 AS PRESENTED ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD DEFER AN AMENDMENT BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION THAT WE AMEND THE BUDGET TO REDUCE THE TRANSFER BY THE APPROXIMATE $300,000 THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE BY ONE PENNY I SPOKE EARLIER, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT $230,000 THAT'S BASED ON $2.3 BILLION DOLLARS PROPERTY TAX VALUE, SO THAT MAKES IT EVEN BETTER I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO REDUCE THE TRANSFERS BY $230,000 SO THAT WE CAN LOWER THE TAX RATE BY ONE PENNY YOU'RE CALLING FOR THE VOTE? OKAY, VOTE'S BEEN CALLED IF THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, THEN YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON IT NOT IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT, [01:20:01] RIGHT? CORRECT, THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR AN AMENDMENT IF THERE'S A SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT BUT THEN I DON'T SECOND THAT, SO HOW DO YOU DO THAT? WELL, HE DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND YET MR. PILGRIM HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO REDUCE THE BUDGET BY $230,000 TO LOWER THE TAX RATE BY ONE CENT IS THAT CORRECT? YES MADAM MAYOR. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY MR. SHARPE, YOU SECOND SO AND GRANT, THIS WOULD STILL GIVE US APPROXIMATELY $1.5 MILLION DOLLARS IN TRANSFERS IN EXCESS OF WHAT OUR EXPENDITURES ARE, CORRECT? YES SIR A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT OKAY DO I GO ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST? OKAY, AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND IT WILL BE A RECORD VOTE MR. BARRON? I'LL POST. MS. HALBERT? I'LL APPROVE. MR. PILGRIM? APPROVE MS. BOGDAN? I'LL POST MR. SHARPE? APPROVE. WE HAVE THREE APPROVALS AND TWO NOT APPROVALS THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT CARRIES THREE TO TWO WITH MS. BOGDAN AND MR. BARRON VOTING NO OKAY AND NOW YOU VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST DID THE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED OKAY, I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED WHEN WE'RE NOW VOTING ON ORDINANCE 920 AS AMENDED BY THE AMENDMENT OKAY, WHEN WE'RE NOW VOTING ON ORDINANCE 920 AS AMENDED BY THE AMENDMENT OKAY. THIS WILL BE A RECORD VOTE, MR. BARRON JUST TO CONFUSE DARREL, APPROVED I GET IT WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE? APPROVED MS. HALBERT? APPROVED MR. PILGRIM? APPROVED MR. SHARPE? I DON'T WANT TO MESS AROUND WITH MR. BARRON, SO APPROVED OKAY, MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO FOUR ONE OPPOSED, I'M SORRY OKAY, MOTION CARRIES THE ONE IS MS. BOGDAN, WHO OPPOSED OKAY, NOW WE WILL GO TO THE PROPOSED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT OH, I'M [8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 921 RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Part 1 of 2)] SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 921 RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON ITEM EIGHT? BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, DOESN'T THIS NEED TO BE AMENDED IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNTS I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO GET [01:25:01] TO THE RATE SETTING CONVERSATION BUT LIKE THE INCREASE OF 511, 753 IS NOW NO LONGER VALID, IS IT NOT? CORRECT OKAY, CATHERINE, WOULD YOU HELP WITH THE WORDING ON THAT? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE GRANT HELP WITH THE NUMBERS ON IT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND CALCULATE THE NUMBERS DO WE JUST HAVE TO GO TO THE RECALCULATED NUMBERS OR DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS RIGHT NOW? I THINK WE NEED THEM NOW WE NEED A RECESS YES, WE NEED A RECESS SO I CAN GO BACK AND RECALCULATE TEN MINUTES? FIFTEEN MINUTES? NO PRESSURE AT HAND WITH THAT OR WE'LL TAKE A RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES OR WE'LL TAKE A RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES IT IS 7.42 I'M RECONVENING THE MEETING FIFTEEN MINUTES IS UP AND OUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCES HAS NOT RETURNED MAKING ME THINK THAT HE NEEDS MORE TIME THE QUESTION TO COUNCIL IS THIS DO YOU WANT TO RECESS THIS MEETING UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15TH AT WHICH TIME WE WILL CONTINUE KNOWING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO REPUBLISH AND REPOST EVERYTHING BUT THAT GIVES GRANT TIME TO RECONFIGURE AND GET THE ORDINANCES RIGHT OR DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE TONIGHT, MR. BARRON? CAN WE MOVE TO OTHER ITEMS, MAYBE THE UPDATES OR THE AGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT OR ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT GRANT IS NOT INVOLVED IN AND THEN WE COME BACK TO THIS ITEM? CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER SO MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD SAY OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS ALSO DOING SOME [11. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 923 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 7.490 ACRES INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 43.015 AND A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, SAID PROPERTY CONSISTING OF LEWIS LANE DEANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1 (APPROXIMATELY 5.328 ACRES) AND LEWIS LANE DEANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 2 (APPROXIMATELY 2.162 ACRES), PREVIOUSLY DISANNEXED BY THE CITY OF LUCAS. ] RESEARCH WE COULD SKIP OVER 13 AS WELL I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER 11 AT THIS TIME I WILL CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IN ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 923 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 7.49 ACRES INTO THE CORPORATE LUCAS OF THE CITY OF PARKER PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 43.015 IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PROPERTY CONSISTED OF LEWIS LANE DE-ANNEXATION PARTIAL NUMBER 1 APPROXIMATELY 5.328 ACRES AND LEWIS LANE DE-ANNEXATION PARTIAL NUMBER 2 APPROXIMATELY 2.162 ACRES PREVIOUSLY DIS-ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF LUCAS FIRST I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CATHERINE, DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PREPARED FOR THAT BASICALLY THIS IS THE ANNEXATION OF LEWIS LANE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR I THINK CLOSE TO 2 YEARS NOW AND PURSUANT TO A BOUNDARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARKER AND LUCAS AND THEY HAVE DIS-ANNEXED THESE PARCELS ALONG LEWIS LANE SPECIFICALLY SO THAT THE CITY OF PARKER CAN ANNEX IT OKAY IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? NOT HEARING ANYBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IT IS 8.01 P.M. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON MS. HALBERT? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS TIED TO THIS WAS DONE SO THAT WE COULD TAKE CARE OF LEWIS LANE AND THAT REPAVING AND UPGRADES AND WHAT HAVE YOU FIXING IT WE DIDN'T JUST SWAP LAND FOR HEROISM YES, MR. SHARPE COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT, SHE HAS MANY TIMES SO THIS IS SPOT ON BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPOUND ON IT FOR ANYONE WHO IS NEW [01:30:02] TO THIS ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME WE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REPAIR ALL OF LEWIS LANE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS OWNED IN FRACTIONS BY THE CITY POSSIBLY BY THE COUNTY, POSSIBLY ALSO THE CITY OF LUCAS, DEFINITELY THE CITY OF LUCAS AND SO AS A RETROACTIVE THING THAT WE ARE DOING IS ANNEXING ALL OF THIS INTO THE CITY WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AND HAVE ACCEPTED DOING ALONG WITH OUR DEALINGS WITH LUCAS SO THAT WE COULD PROACTIVELY REPAIR A RAPIDLY DETERIORATING ROAD AND TAKE CARE OF THE ROAD IN THE FUTURE WITH VERY LITTLE EFFORT AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES EVERY TIME MR. PILGRIM MIGHT I LET OUR CITIZENS KNOW AS WELL THAT LUCAS HAS TAKEN OVER LUCAS LANE IN EXCHANGE FOR US TAKING OVER LEWIS LANE WE HAVE SPENT A LITTLE OVER 17 MILLION DOLLARS WIDENING LUCAS ROAD WHICH IS 17 MILLION GOOD REASONS FOR US TO NOT OWN ANY PORTION OF IT I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 923 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 7.49 ACRES INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER LOCAL PERSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 43.015 IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT SET PROPERTY CONSISTING OF LEWIS LANE D DE-ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBER 1 APPROXIMATELY 5.32 ACRES AND LEWIS LANE DE- ANNEXATION PARCEL NUMBER 2 APPROXIMATELY 2.162 ACRES PREVIOUSLY DE-ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF LUCAS IS THERE A SECOND MS. HALBERT WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 923 IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION CATHERINE DOES THIS NEED TO BE A RECORD VOTE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A ROLL CALL VOTE IT DOES HAVE TO BE A RECORD VOTE. THANK YOU, OKAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 923 PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND MOTION CARRIES 5-0 [12. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 924 DISANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.115 ACRES FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 43.015 AND A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, SAID PROPERTY CONSISTING OF TWO PORTIONS OF WEST LUCAS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.665 ACRES AND 1.45 ACRES, RESPECTIVELY. ] EVERYONE VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT OKAY NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM 12 A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 924 THIS ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.115 ACRES FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 43.015 IN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT SAID PROPERTY CONSISTING OF TWO PORTIONS OF WEST LUCAS ROAD RIGHT OF WAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY .006 ACRES AND 1.4 ACRES RESPECTIVELY COUNCILOR ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ANY DISCUSSION DON'T YOU NEED A PUBLIC HEARING? GOOD POINT CATHERINE DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE A PUBLIC HEARING IT IS 805 THIS IS THE CORRESPONDING ACTION FOR THE CITY TO FULFILL THE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT MOU WITH THE CITY OF LUCAS THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DIS-ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PARCELS ALONG LUCAS ROAD SUCH THAT LUCAS WILL BE ABLE TO ANNEX IT MR. MANTON DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? NO MA'AM UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I THINK CATHERINE DID A GOOD JOB TEEING EVERYTHING UP ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OK THEN I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING IT IS 807 OK COUNCIL NOW IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM NOT HEARING ANY I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARKER TEXAS DIS-ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 43.015 AND A MEMORANDUM [01:35:03] OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF LUCAS PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT DIS-ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.115 ACRES OF LAND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AMENDING THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY DIRECTING OMITMENT OF THE OFFICIAL MAPS AND THE RECORDS OF THE CITY PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR A FILING AND NOTICE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OK IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND OK WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON EXCUSE ME COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 924 IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION NOT HEARING ANY I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE 924 PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND MOTION CARRIES 5-0 THAT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE BY ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND NOW ARE WE READY TO PROCEED ON ITEM 13 OR NOT WE [13. CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 916, ADOPTING CHAPTER 55 REGULATING THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY AND AMENDING CHAPTER 153 RELATING TO ELECTIONEERING. [2026 0616 & 2026 0804 CC MEETINGS] ] CAN NEXT WE'LL GO TO ITEM 13 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 916 ADOPTING CHAPTER 55 REGULATING THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY AND AMENDING CHAPTER 153 RELATING TO ELECTIONEERING OK ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? MS. BOGDAN 55.08 UNAUTHORIZED STORAGE OR ABANDONMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A IT SAYS THAT THEY COMMIT AN OFFENSE IF THEY KNOWINGLY STORE, ABANDON OR MAINTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THEN IN B IT SAYS IF WE LEAVE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THEN YOU'LL ALSO HAVE TO BE THEY FAIL TO REMOVE AFTER BEING TOLD BY AN OFFICER WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS IT GIVE THEM NOTICE TO REMOVE IT SO I THINK A IS WHAT WE NEED, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED THE B YOU JUST WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CITE THEM IF YOU COULDN'T IDENTIFY THEM THIS IS ONLY ABOUT BEING ABLE TO CITE THEM NOT NECESSARILY TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY SO HOW DO YOU CITE A PERSON IF YOU CAN'T THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CITE SO THEY CAN COMMIT AN OFFENSE BUT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT ESSENTIALLY BUT WE STILL GET THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT AWAY LATER ON OK AND THEN IN SECTION SECTION NUMBER 2 AND NUMBER 5 OF THAT SECTION IT SAYS IN 5II IT MAY INCLUDE TABLES AND CHAIRS UNDER THE CANOPY AND THEN IN III IT SAYS NO PERSON CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL FURNITURE, SEATING TABLES AND COOLERS WHY DO WE, CAN WE NOT HAVE COOLERS. AND IF WE'RE ALREADY SAYING THAT YOU CAN HAVE TABLES AND CHAIRS BUT THEN YOU SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE ADDITIONAL TABLES AND CHAIRS IN IT IS THAT A CONFLICT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TABLES OR CHAIRS BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY APPROVE THIS WITH THE REMOVAL OF SECTION 3 YEAH I THINK WE SHOULD JUST TAKE IT OUT BECAUSE WE ALREADY SAID THAT YOU CAN HAVE TABLES AND CHAIRS SO REALLY THE ONLY THING WE'D BE TAKING OUT IS YOU CAN'T HAVE BENCHES, RACKS OR ADDITIONAL FURNITURE EITHER THAT OR JUST TAKE SEATING TABLES AND COOLERS OUT WHICH SECTION ARE YOU ON? SECTION 2 PAGE 243 SO I JUST MAYBE TAKE OUT SEATING TABLES AND COOLERS OUT OF THE III WOULD THAT BE EASIER? BECAUSE I DON'T MIND PEOPLE HAVING COOLERS UNDER THERE WE'VE ALREADY SAID YOU CAN HAVE TABLES AND CHAIRS SO I'M OKAY [01:40:07] WITH REMOVING THE WHOLE SECTION ARE WE REALLY UPSET IF THEY USE BENCHES INSTEAD OF CHAIRS? I'M NOT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE ALLOWING FOR THE CANOPIES TO BE UP DURING POLLING WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF EVOLUTION ON THIS AND I THINK WE'VE REACHED A FAIRLY HAPPY COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE LINE OF THE GRASS AND THE RIGHT OF THE CANDIDATES TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND MEET THE VOTERS SO THIS IS A VAST IMPROVEMENT I THINK FROM WHERE WE STARTED SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION THEN I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 916 ADAPT IN CHAPTER 55 REGULATING THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY AND AMENDING CHAPTER 153 RELATING TO ELECTIONEERING IS THERE A SECOND? DID YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT SECTION? ONCE THE AMMENDMENT WAS NOTED. TO REMOVE SECTION 53 I'LL SECOND OKAY I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BARRON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 916 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE SECTION 2 IT'S GOING TO BE SECTION 6D53 OKAY SAY THAT AGAIN 6D IS IN BILL? 6D5.2 OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BARRON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER WITH AN AMENDMENT IT'S GOING TO BE SECTION 6D5.3 IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ALL THOSE OPPOSED? I'M STILL CONFUSED WITH THAT IT'S UNDER SECTION 2 SECTION 22 SECTION 10 UNDER SECTION 6 UNDER SECTION 3 WHY IS IT 5? IT IS 5 BUT IT'S SUB TO D WHICH IS SUB TO 6 WHATEVER SHE SAYS OKAY SO MOTION CARRIES 5-0 THANK YOU ALL NEXT WE WILL [14. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE COLLIN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. ] GO TO ITEM 14 CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND COLLIN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES MADAM MAYOR CITY COUNCIL SO JUST GIVING YOU AN OVERVIEW OF COURSE THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT LAUNCHED ACROSS COLLIN COUNTY IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS EARLIER THIS YEAR THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE TRYING TO GET IN PLACE OF COURSE THIS ESD IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER ESDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS. THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN APPARATUS THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN STATIONS THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN FIREFIGHTERS SO SIMILAR TO PAST AGREEMENTS WITH COLLIN COUNTY AND THE DIFFERENT FIRE SERVICE DISTRICTS THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING COMPENSATION ONLY AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING THAT TO THE SERVICE PROVIDERS THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE PROVIDING THAT TO AN AMBULATORY SERVICE SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE ESD WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK AND FURTHER CRAFT THIS BEFORE IT COMES BACK FOR ACTION SO LIKE I SAID THE AGREEMENT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE PAST ILA'S WITH COLLIN COUNTY SAME GOES FOR THE FUNDING METHODOLOGY RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST YEAR THEY ARE OPEN TO CHANGING THIS METHODOLOGY [01:45:01] IN THE FUTURE BUT IT WOULD BE 75% BASED ON THE LAND THE SQUARE MILEAGE LAND THAT'S WITHIN OUR SERVICE DISTRICT AND THEN 25% WOULD BE BASED ON THE POPULATION WITHIN THAT AREA SO THE ESD LOCATED WITHIN PARKER'S FIRE DISTRICT IS LESS THAN 1.5 SQUARE MILES AND WE'RE ESTIMATING A POPULATION OF ABOUT 78 PERSONS ON A DIFFERENT MATTER THE ESD CANNOT EXCLUDE SPECIAL DISTRICTS SO MUDS, WATER CONTROL DISTRICTS, ETC YOU CANNOT SELECTIVELY CHOOSE COVERAGE AREAS OR ASSESS ADDITIONAL FEES TO SELECT AREAS COLLIN COUNTY IS GOING TO BE THE ONE PROVIDING THE DISPATCH SERVICES THIS IS ALREADY IN PLACE, THIS IS HOW CALLS HANDLED IN THIS AREA ARE ALREADY MANAGED AND DISPATCHED TO OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT OF COURSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE ALREADY RESPONDING TO THIS WITHOUT COMPENSATION LET'S SEE HERE WHAT ELSE WE GOT SO I DO WANT TO JUST POINT OUT THAT THE ESTIMATES THAT WE PROVIDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET ARE FROM THE COLLIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION THIS MAY NOT BE 100% ACCURATE, THE ESD IS PLANNING ON MOVING FORWARD THE FUNDING FOR A 10 CENT TO $100 VALUATION TAX RATE OF COURSE THEY HAVE NOT ADOPTED THAT TAX RATE YET SO SOME OF THE FUNDING MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY CHIEF MILLER, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS HERE? THIS IS REALLY JUST A FUNDING REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISM I DON'T NEED TO GET ALL THAT DOWN I SUMMED UP EVERYTHING I WOULD HAVE SAID ON THERE SO I'M GOOD GOOD RIGHT NOW. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS EITHER FROM MR. MANTON OR CHIEF MILLER? SO WHAT HAPPENS IF WE REFUSE THIS? SO IF YOU DON'T ADOPT IT IN A LOCAL AGREEMENT THEN YOU WOULD NOT GET COMPENSATED FOR THE CALLS THAT CHIEF MILLER AND HIS TEAM ARE ALREADY PROVIDING IN THE ETJ AREA SO WE WOULD STILL BE PROVIDING THE SERVICE ANYWAY? CORRECT, WHEN FIRE GETS THE CALL THEY'RE GOING TO GO THAT HAS BEEN THE HISTORIC PRACTICE HERE IN THE CITY OF PARKER. DO YOU KNOW IF THIS IS EVALUATED EVERY YEAR? LIKE IF A NEW MUD CAME IN WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD CHANGE THESE NUMBERS DRASTICALLY SO HOW WOULD THAT BE HANDLED? SO THE ESD JUST ADOPTED A POLICY FOR THE REMOVAL OF AREA WITHIN THE ESD SO THEY'VE GOT A POLICY SO WE'D SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE ESD AND IF YOU WANTED TO YOU COULD GO INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE MUD FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICES OR THEY COULD POTENTIALLY SEEK THAT ELSEWHERE I DON'T THINK THAT WAS HER QUESTION I THINK HER QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE AN AREA WHERE THE POPULATION SUDDENLY GOES UP HOW OFTEN DO THEY ADJUST OUR COMPENSATION NUMBERS? OH, GOTCHA, SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT 100% SURE HOW OFTEN BUT I WOULD ASSUME ANNUALLY I THINK THEY ARE LOOKING AT CHANGING UP THIS METHODOLOGY THAT THEY'VE HAD WITH THE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL LOOK LIKE THIS YEAR OVER YEAR SO WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT GOING ON A CALL BASIS LIKE CALL BY CALL, HOW MANY CALLS THEY GENERATED? NO, SO THE FIRST YEAR IS JUST GOING TO BE A SET NUMBER TALKING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL THE OTHER DAY IT COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE TO A CALL NUMBER LIKE WE USED TO DO WAY BACK WHEN IF YOU RAN 50 CALLS YOU GET I'D SAY AN X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FOR IT SO WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND NEITHER ARE THEY RIGHT NOW IT'S STILL MUDDY WATER IF YOU WILL I THINK THE FIRST YEAR ONCE THIS HITS THERE WILL BE SOME SETTLING WITH IT AND WE CAN KIND OF DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT AS WELL SO IT'S JUST NOT VERY CLEAR RIGHT NOW THIS IS NEW, IN PROGRESS. THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THE 10 TO 20,000 RANGE, IS THAT BASED ON ANYTHING? SO THAT WAS I BELIEVE CHIEF RITTER WITH CITY OF WILEY PROVIDING THESE ESTIMATES FOR THE COLLIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION SO HE JUST BROKE DOWN THE TOTAL VALUATION OF THE ESD AND THEN BROKE THAT DOWN BY THE FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE AREAS YOU KNOW, ABUTTING THE CITY LIMITS FOR THE LAND AND THEN I'M NOT 100% SURE WHERE HE GOT THOSE POPULATION VALUES SO I'M NOT SURE ON THAT EITHER IT'S CLEAR ACROSS THE DEAL THAT HE'S GOT EVERY ONE OF THEM BUT SPEAKING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AGAIN THIS IS NOT IT'S NOT 100% ACCURATE ACCORDING TO THEM UNTIL THIS FINAL VOTE OF THE 10 CENTS PER 100 GOES IN PLACE AND I'M ASSUMING THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF SPREADSHEET THAT THEY WILL HAVE THAT HAS ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT WILL BE 100% ACCURATE ONCE THAT TAKES [01:50:04] PLACE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE MENTIONED SO I'M NOT SURE, BUT HE HAD MENTIONED FROM 5000 TO 15,000 ON THE DAY WE MET SOMEWHERE IN THERE, GOOD THING IS IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE'RE GETTING NOW WHICH IS GREATER THAN ZERO AND I WILL JUST POINT OUT, YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKETS THAT THERE WAS AN EMAIL FROM THE COUNTY GIVING A FIRM DEADLINE OF LAST FRIDAY FOR THE FIRE DISTRICTS TO UPDATE THEIR RESPECTIVE MAPS CHIEF MILLER, KUDOS TO YOU, HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS TO GET SOME OF THE AREAS SWAPPED WHERE WE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN PROVIDING COVERAGE BUT IT JUST WASN'T REFLECTED ON THOSE MAPS SO IT'S UP TO DATE AS OF TODAY VERY GOOD SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO DO TODAY? WELL I KNOW CATHERINE HAD A FEW THINGS THAT SHE WANTED TO RECTIFY WITH THIS ILA I KNOW SHE SPENT SOME TIME REVIEWING IT WE'VE GOT SOME OF THE EXHIBITS THAT STILL NEED TO BE PREPARED IN HERE WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU ALL HAD ANY MAJOR HICCUPS, MAJOR FEEDBACK THAT YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE AS WE FINISH THE ILA DRAFT I THINK THIS COULD GO ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA SO THERE WILL BE NO ACTION ON THIS AND WE WILL BRING IT BACK AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THEN WE [15. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON VIDEO RECORDING OF CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD / COMMISSION MEETINGS. ] WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 15 RECEIVE A PRESENTATION AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON VIDEO RECORDING OF CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD COMMISSION MEETINGS MR. MANTON, I THINK THIS HAS YOUR NAME ON IT YES MA'AM IT DOES SO JUST GIVING A RECAP, WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS BACK IN MAY ON THE 19TH OF COURSE WE HAD THAT MEETING AT OUR FIRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SO IN THE MULTIPURPOSE ROOM SO THOS WASN'T ABLE TO BE RECORDED BUT I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED CITIZENS HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION SEVERAL ISSUES WITH THE IN-ROOM AUDIO AND ALSO WITH THE LIVE FEED THAT'S GOING OUT TO OUR CITIZENS WHO ARE VIEWING THESE MEETINGS THERE'S BEEN MUFFLED SOUND THE SOUND ISN'T BEING PICKED UP AND THEN WE HAVE A LOT OF STATIC AND FEEDBACK AS WELL SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE PRIMARY ISSUES THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO RESOLVE HERE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES WE FACED WE'VE HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH OUR PRODUCTION VENDOR SWAGIT, GRANICUS, OVER THE LAST YEAR WHERE THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED PRODUCTION SERVICES TO US FILMING AND TRANSCRIBING MEETINGS WE'VE HAD OCCASIONAL OMISSIONS, WE GO INTO A LONG EXECUTIVE SESSION WE COME BACK OUT AND THE CAMERAS ARE ALREADY OFF SO IF THERE'S ANY ACTION IT'S NOT BEING PICKED UP ON OUR RECORDINGS WE'VE ALSO GOT SOME IN-ROOM ISSUES, WE'VE GOT LIMITED CONFIGURATION RIGHT NOW YOU'LL SEE WE'VE GOT ONE MICROPHONE FOR OUR STAFF MEMBERS SO THEY'RE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO PASS THAT AMONGST THEMSELVES WHEN IT'S THEIR TURN TO SPEAK AND SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE ME OVER THERE, TURN ON THE MIC OR MAKE SURE YOU PASS IT OVER SO IT'S JUST KIND OF THAT PRACTICALITY WITH OUR FUNCTIONALITY OF PICKING UP THE AUDIO FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR AND THIS HELPS OF COURSE WITH OUR MINUTES RIGHT AND THEN WE GO BACK AND WE'RE NOT 100% SURE WHAT SOMEBODY SAID BUT WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE VIDEO THAT LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO DO SO AND THEN I WOULD JUST SAY WE'VE EXPERIENCED THIS IN THE PAST AS WELL WHEN WE'VE HAD TRAVELING COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WANT TO REMOTE IN THAT FUNCTIONALITY HAS NOT BEEN WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE THERE'S A DELAY AND THEN THE PROCESS OF SETTING ALL THAT UP HAS BEEN LESS THAN OPTIMAL SO AS WE POINT OUT INCLUDING YOUR AGENDA PACKET, OUR CURRENT CONTRACT WITH SWAGIT SO THAT'S ON AUTO EXTENSION FOR A ONE YEAR TERM THAT ENDS DECEMBER 15TH, 2026, WE WOULD NEED TO GIVE A 60 DAY NOTICE IF THERE IS ANY DESIRE TO MOVE TO STAFF PRODUCTION OF VIDEOS THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE DO HAVE IS OWNED OUTRIGHT OUR IT PROVIDER IS THE ONE WHO INTEGRATES WITH CIVIC PLUS AND MAKES SURE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING RECORDED IN THIS ROOM IS BEING PUSHED OUT OUR PRODUCTION COST WITH OUR VENDOR IS ABOUT $34,000 A YEAR THIS INCLUDES VIDEO, AUDIO RECORDING, TRANSCRIPTION IN THE WRITTEN WORD, PUBLICATION SOME LIMITED EDITING AND INTEGRATION WITH OUR AGENDA FOR EASY BOOKMARKING I ALREADY MENTIONED SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THE MICROPHONE SET UP SO WE'LL MOVE ON SO WE DO HAVE TWO PROPOSALS AND I DID NOT PROVIDE THOSE IN THE AGENDA PACKET BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DEEMED COMPETITION SENSITIVE BUT HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH SO WE GOT A QUOTE BACK IN MAY FROM AZBELL ELECTRONICS, THEY'RE BASED OUT OF BELTON AND THEN WE RECENTLY GOT ANOTHER QUOTE FROM [01:55:02] IMAGENET HERE THIS PAST MONTH SO THEY'RE PRETTY COMPARABLE TO OVERALL COST WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW THEY GO ABOUT THEIR SOLUTION SO JUST AS AN OVERVIEW FOR AZBELL, THEY'VE GOT OPTION ONE THERE SO IF YOU ONLY WANT TO ADDRESS THE IN-ROOM AUDIO ISSUES YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $34,000 THERE OPTION TWO IS GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO MOVE AWAY FROM SWAGIT THEY WILL GIVE SOME LIMITED FEATURES FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THE PRODUCTION GIVE US SOME CONTROLS ON OUR TABLET OR PHONE TO GIVE YOU A SINGLE SHOT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE CLOSE-UPS ANYMORE THAT YOU'RE USED TO EXPERIENCING WITH SWAGIT JUST KIND OF SWITCHING BACK AND FORTH AND THEN OPTION THREE IS MORE FOCUSED ON REALLY BUILDING OUT A SOLUTION AND BUILDING THAT FOR FUTURE SCALABILITY IF YOU WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT I WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS QUOTE INCLUDES A ONE-YEAR LABOR WARRANTY IT WOULD ALLOW US TO STREAM TO THE PLATFORM OF YOUR CHOICE WHETHER THAT BE YOUTUBE, CONTINUING WITH CIVIC PLUS, FACEBOOK LIVE ALL OPTIONS ARE GOING TO BE TRANSFERABLE TO A NEW FACILITY HOWEVER I WILL SAY THAT BOTH VENDORS HAVE SAID THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE CABLING COSTS THERE'S GOING TO BE TRANSFER COSTS, THERE MAY NEED TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT SPACE ULTIMATELY LOOKS LIKE I WILL ALSO MENTION THAT THIS DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE HANDS-FREE SO IF WE'VE GOT LIMITED STAFF SUPPORT WE COULD ESSENTIALLY JUST TURN THE CAMERA ON AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S JUST FACING THE DAIS REALLY YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT A START-UP AND THEN AN END FEATURE THERE IMAGENET, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH THEY'VE GOT THEIR BASE COSTS, THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE IM SORRY I FORGOT TO MENTION AZBELL IS PROPOSING WIRELESS MICROPHONES EITHER HERE AT THE DAIS IN ADDITION TO THE STAFF TABLE SO EVERYBODY WOULD GET A SEPARATE MICROPHONE AND THOSE ARE RECHARGEABLE, THOSE CAN BE RECONFIGURED IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP DOWN IN THE BULLPEN SO TO SPEAK, EVERYBODY COULD HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL MIC WHAT IMAGENET IS PROPOSING AND THEY'VE HAD SOME SUCCESS IN SOME OTHER CITIES IS A CEILING MICROPHONE ARRAY SO IT LOOKS KIND OF LIKE A BIG CHANDELIER AND IN A ROOM THIS SIZE THEY'RE MORE THAN CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS AND THEN ALSO THE AUDIENCE, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO SPEAK SOMETIMES WE HAVE OUR ENGINEER WHO KIND OF BACKS AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE OR A RESIDENT WHO DOES THAT AND BE ABLE TO CAPTURE THAT AUDIO SO THEIR UPGRADED LIVE STREAM PLATFORM WOULD BE ABOUT $48,000 THAT WOULD INCLUDE SOME NEW CAMERAS, RECORDING EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME MORE ROBUST SELF-PRODUCTION AND AGAIN IT WOULD ALLOW US TO CANCEL OUR AGREEMENT WITH SWAGIT. THEY DID ALSO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE QUOTE SO IF WE WANTED TO NOT GO WITH A CEILING ARRAY BUT INSTEAD GO WITH WIRELESS GOOSENECKS THAT WOULD REDUCE THE COST BY ABOUT $1,400 THIS COMES WITH A THREE-YEAR LABOR WARRANTY AGAIN WE'D BE ABLE TO STREAM TO WHATEVER PLATFORM WE'D LIKE TO GO WITH ALL OPTIONS ARE TRANSFERABLE AND WE WOULD MOSTLY HAVE A HANDS-FREE SOLUTION FOR STAFF PRODUCTION SO HERE'S A COST COMPARISON BREAKING THAT DOWN AS YOU CAN SEE THERE AT THE BOTTOM WE'VE GOT ABOUT $49,000 FOR IMAGENET THIS DOES INCLUDE ANY REOCCURRING COSTS SO THEIR SOLUTION INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO GO IN AND SEE ALL OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT, SEE WHAT THE STATUSES ARE AND REMOTELY ADDRESS A MAJORITY OF THE ISSUES SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR, THAT REMOTE ACCESS SO SOME OF THE DRAWBACKS HERE, THE TRANSFER COSTS WOULD BE UNKNOWN THAT WOULD BE A FUTURE EXPENSE THAT WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO STAFF COMMITMENT, I DO JUST WANT TO POINT THIS OUT RIGHT NOW SWAGIT IS HANDLING THIS PRETTY MUCH EXCLUSIVELY SO IF WE DO THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DEDICATE A STAFF MEMBER TO HANDLE SOME OF THE EDITING, SOME OF THE BOOKMARKING, SOME OF THE TRANSFERRING TO OUR LIVE STREAMING SERVICES SO WE WOULD DO THAT EITHER THROUGH OUR DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY OR MAYBE DYLAN SOMEBODY WHO CAN CLICK AND CONTROL SOME MODULES OVER THERE AND OF COURSE WE WOULD GET THEM TRAINED UP THE IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE FOR THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A THREE MONTH LEAD TIME IF ANY DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND I'LL ALSO JUST SAY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME AUXILIARY COSTS WITH IT AND POSSIBLY AN ELECTRICIAN TO INSTALL SOME NEW POE AMOUNTS OR REPORTS AND NEW PLUGS, THAT SORT OF THING SO MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMAGENET FULL PROPOSAL INVITE THE VENDOR BACK OUT TO PRESENT ON THE SOLUTION ANSWER ANY OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED THAT AND PURCHASE THIS USING THE TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND WE WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED A BUDGET AMENDMENT LATER IN THE YEAR IF IT'S NEEDED OF COURSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY STACKED IN THERE OF IF THE SERVERS COME IN FOR LESS THAN WE'RE EXPECTING, WHICH WE'RE HOPING IS THE CASE THEN WE MAY NOT NEED THAT. OF COURSE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED THAT STILL WOULD NEED SOME EDITING AND WOULD NEED TO GO [02:00:01] TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW THE SOLUTION TIME FRAME FOR THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND QUARTER OF 26-27 SO WE'D HAVE EVERYTHING UP AND RUNNING BY JANUARY, MARCH OF NEXT YEAR AND THEN I'LL JUST OFFER IT UP TO COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO SEE IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ON THESE PROPOSALS WITH YOUR EXPERTISE WELL OKAY, SO I WAS HERE DURING THE AZBELL PRESENTATION BY ACCIDENT ACTUALLY SO YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT IMAGENET IS PROPOSING AND ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IS JUST KEEP THE PRODUCTION AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE SO YOU HAVE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IMAGENET BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHY? THAT KIND OF SURPRISED ME AT THE END YEAH SO A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS SO FIRST OFF THEIR OVERALL COST IS A LITTLE BIT LESS BUT IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THIS ABILITY TO REMOTE IN WHICH I THINK IS A CENTRAL RIGHT WHEREAS AZBELL IS FROM BELTON, TEXAS AND SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANY TRAVEL COSTS IF THEY WERE TO COME UP AND YOU KNOW FIX ANYTHING SO THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE AND THE SOLUTION THAT THEY'RE OFFERING FOR THE IN-ROOM AUDIO FOR THE MICROPHONE ARRAY SEEMED TO BE YOU KNOW NOVEL BUT I CHECKED OUT SOME OF THE REFERENCES FOR SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES IT SEEMED TO BE WORKING PRETTY WELL AND I LIKE THAT OVER WIRELESS GOOSENECKS BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE ALL THOSE ARE CHARGED AND OOPS WE FORGOT TO CHARGE ONE OR SOMEBODY FORGETS TO HOLD IT UP TO THEIR MOUTH THEN WE'RE NOT PICKING UP THAT AUDIO LIKE WE SHOULD THEY ALSO, I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT, SORRY I'LL FINISH MY THOUGHTS THERE GO AHEAD SO I HAD A QUESTION ON THE TIMING OF THIS IF THIS IS TO GET REPLACED, SWAGIT COMPLETELY RIGHT SO IF WE HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW OCTOBER 1ST THAT WE'RE TERMINATING OR OCTOBER 15TH THEN IS THAT GOING TO WORK? YES IF THAT'S THE SOLUTION THAT YOU DESIRE AGAIN AZBELL COULD COME IN HERE AND JUST UPGRADE THE AUDIO AND WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION THAN WE CURRENTLY ARE WITH OUR SYSTEMS I WILL ALSO MENTION THAT THAT RACK BACK THERE BOTH OF THEM HAVE PROVIDED SOLUTIONS TO MAKING SURE THAT THAT IS HIDDEN AND THAT THE EQUIPMENT IN THERE IS UPGRADED SO IF OUR CONTRACT WITH SWAGIT ENDS IN MID DECEMBER BUT THIS ISN'T AVAILABLE UNTIL JANUARY OR LATER WHAT ABOUT THE MEANTIME? I'M WITH CARLENE ON THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY TALK TO SWAGIT AND SEE IF THEY COULD GIVE US A ONE MONTH EXTENSION NOW THAT MAY BE AT A HIGHER COST WE COULD ALSO WORK WITH AND PUSH THIS VENDOR AND SEE IF THEY CAN GET THAT SOLUTION LIVE BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THOSE OPTIONS ONE THING I DON'T SEE IS AN OPTION IS GOING DARK FOR A MONTH I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING AN OPTION WITH OUR RESIDENTS MR. BARRON OKAY WELL I GOT TWO THINGS ONE IN YOUR COMMENT IF IT'S COSTING US $30,000 TO AVOID GOING DARK FOR ONE MONTH I'D SAY GO DARK FOR A MONTH I'D LOVE TO KEEP UP AND RUNNING BUT JUST FOR A COUPLE MEETINGS ISN'T WORTH $30,000 ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WATCHING AND MY SUSPICIONS OF THE NUMBERS ARE FAIRLY LOW SECOND, KENT, AZBELL HAD GIVEN ME AND YOU SOME REFERENCES AND I THINK YOU HAD HEARD MY FEEDBACK WHEN I WENT TO CHECK THEM OUT I WASN'T THAT IMPRESSED HAS IMAGENET GIVEN YOU SOME OTHER CITIES THAT WE CAN LOOK AT? THEY HAVE, THEY'VE GIVEN ME ABOUT FOUR DIFFERENT CITIES I FORGET THE NAME OF ONE OF THEM, WE'VE GOT THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT YOU CAN JUST SEND IT TO US CERTAINLY CAN SO I WOULD SAY IF WE WERE GOING TO GO DARK FOR A MONTH MID-DECEMBER TO MID-JANUARY IS PROBABLY THE BEST TIME THIS ISN'T THE BEST TIME BUT WE STILL CAN USE AUDIO RECORDING AND DO IT THE OLD SCHOOL WAY SO THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY DARK, IT'LL STILL BE RECORDED I'M SURE WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY PEOPLE LIVESTREAM [02:05:02] ON FACEBOOK WITH A PHONE AND NOTHING ELSE I'M SURE WE CAN FIGURE SOMETHING OUT TO BRIDGE THE DIFFERENCE IF NECESSARY WE CAN ABBREVIATE THE AGENDAS I'M SURE WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY BUT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $49,000-ISH TO AVOID A RECURRING $30,000 A YEAR CHARGE THIS SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER I AGREE COMPLETELY THAT MR. BARRON'S POINT IS WELL MADE AND REINFORCED BY MR. SHARPE SO DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FROM US? SO I WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE IMAGENET MOVING FORWARD WITH IMAGENET AND THEN I DIDN'T LIST IT UP THERE WE'RE NOT POSTED. OH WE'RE NOT OK. FOR THAT GIVE STAFF DIRECTION WITH THE POSTING WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING BASED ON SOME OF MY PAST FEEDBACK IS THAT THE PREFERRED PLATFORM FOR STREAMING AND HOSTING THIS WOULD BE THROUGH YOUTUBE GOING FORWARD? IS THAT EVERYTHING YOU NEED? I'LL JUST NOTE THAT IF WE'RE DOING THIS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE DOWNLOAD EVERYTHING WE NEED FROM ALL THE VIDEOS FROM SWAGIT PRIOR TO OUR CONTRACT TERMINATION AND IF STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TIME I CAN TRY TO HELP YOU WITH THAT APPRECIATE THE OFFER, YES WE WILL DIVE INTO THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ACCOUNTED [16. CONSIDERATION AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK POOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION, INCLUDING SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR FOUR (4) BOARD POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL BALLOT. ] FOR OKAY NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 16 CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAD INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTION INCLUDING SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR FULL BOARD POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL BALLOT COUNCIL MEMBER PACKETT, YOU HAD THE CITY'S OFFICIAL BALLOT AND WE GET ONE VOTE ON PLACE ONE FOR WHICH THERE ARE FOUR CANDIDATES KEVIN CLARK, J.W. BUZZ FULLEN, JOHN KINNERD AND CAREY NEAL WAS THERE A PREFERRED CANDIDATE FROM COUNCIL? HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS, CAN I JUST TAKE A MOTION? FOR EACH ONE OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST DO ALL IN ONE OKAY IT'S POST DATE BUT IT'S THREE OF THEM RIGHT? ON PLACE ONE THERE'S FOUR PEOPLE? NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ARE ON HER PLACE AND WE ARE ON HER PLACE CORRECT I WOULD RECOMMEND J.W. BUZZ FULLEN FOR PLACE ONE HE'S THE INCUMBENT J.W. BUZZ FULLEN ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR PLACE ONE? NO MAYBE IN A BID TO BE CONTRARY, I WOULD RECOMMEND KEVIN CLARK THE PLACES THAT WE HAVE, NONE OF THESE CANDIDATE OPTIONS REALLY REPRESENT PARTICULARLY FROM THEIR COMMUNITY, PARKER PARTICULARLY WELL BUT I THINK HIS EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 20 YEAR CAREER IN THE MARINE CORPS I THINK HE MIRRORS A LITTLE BIT MORE THE CULTURE OF PARKER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS OKAY, WE HAVE ONE PERSON SELECTING MR. CLARK AND ANOTHER MR. FULLEN CAN WE HEAR FROM ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, CALL FOR A MOTION I MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT J.W. BUZZ FULLEN WE'RE NOT APPOINTING TO VOTE FOR J.W. BUZZ FULLEN FOR PLACE ONE BASED OFF OF HIS EXPERIENCE BEING THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR IS THERE A SECOND? NOT HEARING A SECOND, MOTION DIES IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? A MOTION THAT WE REVOKE FOR KEVIN CLARK, CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE CITY OF GLADEWATER FOR PLACE ONE IS THERE A SECOND? [02:10:04] SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO GIVE OUR VOTE TO KEVIN CLARK IN PLACE ONE IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALL THOSE ABSTAINING? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? YOU'RE OPPOSED? YES OKAY, WE HAVE THREE VOTES FOR MR. CLARK WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTAINING SO THE MOTION DOES CARRY, WE WILL VOTE FOR MR. CLARK OKAY, NOW WE WILL MOVE TO PLACE TWO FOR WHICH THERE ARE THREE CANDIDATES COUNCIL? ANY DISCUSSION? I WOULD VOTE FOR EMILY CRAWFORD BASED ON HER BEING THE INCUMBENT I THINK SHE'S GOT OVERALL GOOD EXPERIENCE, RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IS THERE A MOTION? YES MS. BOGDAN, ARE YOU SECONDING THIS? YES WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. HALBERT AND A SECOND BY MS. BOGDAN TO SUBMIT OUR VOTE FOR EMILY CRAWFORD IN PLACE TWO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ANYBODY OPPOSED? ANYBODY ABSTAINING? OKAY, MOTION CARRIES, THREE, TWO, VOTING IN FAVOR FOR BUDDY PILGRIM, COLLEEN HALBERT, AND ROXANNE BOGDAN OKAY, GOING TO PLACE THREE WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT CORBY ALEXANDER, JAMES HOLDERSON, CECIL HUDSON, ANDY JOSLIN, RHONDA PEREZ, DEREK SPRADLING, ISAAC TAWIL, AND ALON THOMAS COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN THE DISCUSSION? I DO OKAY SHOCKING I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE FOR ISAAC TAWIL HE HAS EXCELLENT EXPERIENCE WITH MUNICIPAL LAW, GOVERNANCE, RISK MANAGEMENT, INSURANCE, AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND THAT'S EXACTLY MATCHING WHAT THIS POSITION IS SO THAT'S WHO I WOULD VOTE FOR IT WAS OUT OF SECOND? WAS THERE A MOTION BY MS. BOGDAN? OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION BY ROXANNE BOGDAN AND A SECOND BY COLLEEN HALBERT TERRY, SUBMIT OUR VOTES FOR RHONDA PEREZ I'M SORRY, I SAID THAT WRONG FOR ISAAC TAWIL I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW ONE PRONOUNCES HIS NAME ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF VOTING FOR ISAAC T-A-W-I-L? FOR PLACE THREE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ALL THOSE VOTING OPPOSED? ALL THOSE ABSTAINING? DARREL SHARPE AND BILLY BARRON [02:15:02] BOTH ABSTAINED OKAY, MOTION CARRIES, 3-0 WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS FOR OUR VOTE GOING TO ISAAC TAWIL HOWEVER THE MAN SAYS HE'S NOT OKAY AT THIS TIME ARE WE I DON'T HAVE A PLACE FOUR OH, IN THE DARK I'M NOT TRUSTED WITH PLACE FOUR I THOUGHT THERE WAS A PLACE NO OKAY OKAY FOR PLACE FOUR WE HAVE TWO CANDIDATES AUSTIN, HOW DO YOU SAY HIS LAST NAME? BLYTHE AND I THINK HE'S MOVED OUT JAMES ON TOP OKAY THOSE ARE THE TWO CANDIDATES IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? I'M SORRY I HAVE A HARD TIME READING NO OKAY IS THERE A MOTION? YES I'VE DOMINATED SOMEONE ELSE I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU YOU DO KNOW ONE OF THESE CANDIDATES IS THAT CORRECT? YES MADAM MAYOR AUSTIN BLYTHE IS A GRANT WRITER FOR THE WATER TOWER GRANT SO HE SERVES AS THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF JERSEY VILLAGE AND HAS DONE SO FOR OVER TEN YEARS I THINK HE'S THE INCUMBENT FOR THIS POSITION AS WELL OKAY THANK YOU THAT'S HELPFUL THANK YOU I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT LIKE THAT SO I MOVE TO VOTE FOR AUSTIN BLYTHE FOR PLACE FOUR OKAY IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE TO PLACE A VOTE FOR AUSTIN BLYTHE FOR PLACE FOUR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ALL THOSE OPPOSED WOW MOTION CARRIES SEE WHAT INFLUENCE YOU HAVE YEP THANK YOU FOR TAKING THAT ONE EASY ON PATTY WELL THANK YOU BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET IT WHAT CAN I SAY? NOW WE WILL RETURN BACK TO [8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 921 RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Part 2 of 2)] NUMBER SEVEN I BELIEVE WE WERE AT ORDINANCE 921 IS THAT CORRECT? YEP OKAY THAT'S ITEM EIGHT I'M SORRY? ITEM EIGHT ITEM NINE 921 HAS BEEN MODIFIED 920 IS THE BUDGET SIDE OKAY CATHERINE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU OR WHOEVER WANTS TO DISCUSS OR MR. SAVAGE THE MODIFICATIONS MADE TO OR IF IT'S NUMBER 921 I'VE GOT THE NEW CALCULATIONS THAT YOU WON'T AGREE WHAT THE NEW THE DECLARATION SHOULD BE UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 921 SECTION ONE THE CHANGE IS GOING TO BE BASED ON THE TAX RATE OF .300439 PER 100 TAXABLE EVALUATION THIS BUDGET WILL RAISE MORE THAN WILL RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BY $282,089 OR 4.26 PERCENT AND OF THAT AMOUNT $244,311 IS TAX REVENUE TO BE RAISED FROM NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE TAX RULE THIS YEAR SAY AGAIN WHAT THE TAX RATE WOULD BE YES SO THE TAX RATE WOULD BE .300439 AND THAT WOULD BE A ONE CENT TAX DECREASE I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THAT NUMBER CORRECT RICK COULD YOU REPEAT THE 282 WHAT? YES SO IT WILL RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR'S [02:20:01] BUDGET BY $282,089 OR 4.26 PERCENT AND HOW MUCH FROM NEW? $244,311 THAT 244 WAS WHAT WAS BEING REDUCED FROM WHAT WAS THERE? THE 244 THAT'S THE TAX RATE APPLIED TO NEW PROPERTY TAX VALUES THAT'S FROM NEW PROPERTIES? YES SIR NEW PROPERTIES WITH A NEW TAX RATE YES SIR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COUNCIL? YOU NEED A MOTION? I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION YOU GOT IT? I MOVE TO A JOB ORDINANCE NUMBER 921 AMENDED AND REFLECTED BY GRANT SAVAGE'S STATEMENT TO THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES REFLECTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 BUDGET ARE YOU MOVING TO RATIFY THAT? I'M MOVING TO RATIFY IT SAYS ADOPT RATIFYING YES SO THIS IS JUST SAYING THAT THIS IS THE MONEY THAT'S GOING TO COME IN BASED OFF OF THE TAX REDUCTIONS SO IT DOESN'T MEAN WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT THIS IS JUST SAYING THAT THIS IS THE MONEY THAT'S GOING TO COME IN CORRECT? WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS IF THERE IS AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES FROM YEAR 4 THIS IS JUST STATING THAT THIS IS THE NUMBER AND WE'RE JUST SAYING YES THIS IS THE NUMBER WE HAVE A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. NO OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM TO MOVE TO RATIFY ORDINANCE NUMBER 921 NO EXCUSE ME MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE 921 RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE IN THE 2026-2027 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM THE PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2026-2027 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR IN PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IF NOT I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND ANYONE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED OH I NEED TO DO THAT AS A RECORD VOTE DON'T ALLOW EXCUSE ME MR. BARRON APPROVE MS. HALBERT APPROVE MR. PILGRIM APPROVE MS. BOGDAN I HAVE A QUESTION HOW ARE WE OKAYING THE AMOUNT COMING IN IF WE HAVEN'T ACCEPTED THE TAX RATE YET THE TAX RATE IS THE NEXT THING WE HAVE TO APPROVE SO HOW DO YOU APPROVE WHAT'S COMING IN IF YOU HAVEN'T APPROVED THE TAX RATE THIS IS AND GRANT MIGHT BE THE ONE TO ANSWER IT BETTER THAN I AM BUT THE RATIFICATION DOES BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX RATE WE QUESTION IT EVERY YEAR BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT STANDS IT'S STATUTORY OKAY SO YES I APPROVE OKAY MR. SHARPE [9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY2026-2027 TAX RATE.] OKAY MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO WITH ALL APPROVING OKAY NOW WE MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER NINE I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WHICH IS SAY IT FOR ME SO I WILL SAY JUST AS A CLARIFICATION HERE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS ACTUALLY [02:25:01] POINT THREE ONE THE NUMBER WE ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO GRANT WILL PRESENT AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON THAT INITIALLY INITIALLY POSTED PROPOSED TAX RATE AND THEN AFTER THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO DISCUSSION YOU CAN CERTAINLY MODIFY THAT THANK YOU OKAY WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT FIFTY SEVEN MR. SAVAGE WOULD YOU BEGIN US SURE JUST KIND OF A RECAP OF THE TAX RATE THERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WAS POINT THREE ONE ZERO FOUR THREE NINE THAT WAS A PROPOSED M&O RATE OF THREE OH FIVE NINE FIVE FIVE AND A DEBT RATE OF POINT ZERO ZERO FOUR FOUR EIGHT FOUR THE THREE ONE ZERO FOUR THREE NINE IS ABOVE THE REVENUE OR VOTER APPROVAL RATE SO IT DOES REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT HOWEVER IT DOES FALL BELOW THE THE DE MINIMIS RATE OF POINT THREE TWO ZERO TWO FIVE TWO I'M GONNA READ THIS BOTH WAYS SO TO DO AN UPDATE AS WELL ON THAT LAST LITTLE SECTION SO THE PROPOSED TAX RATE THREE ONE ZERO FOUR THREE NINE AS PROPOSED WAS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEN AS I SAID BEFORE EVEN THOUGH THE RATE DIDN'T CHANGE COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS A NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS FOUR POINT THREE FIVE PERCENT ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE POSSIBLY PROPOSED THE NEW TAX RATE WOULD BE POINT THREE ZERO ZERO FOUR THREE NINE WHICH IS A ONE CENT TAX REDUCTION AND EVEN WITH THE RATE CHANGE WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT STILL EXCEEDS THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WOULD BE POINT NINE EIGHT PERCENT ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? NOT HEARING ANYONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT EIGHT FIFTY NINE. COUNCIL DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. BARRON? WHAT MY CONCERN ABOUT REDUCING THE TAX RATE IS IF I TRUSTED OUR STATE CONGRESS I WOULD BE A HUNDRED PERCENT FINE WITH THIS THE ONLY MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THIS IS I'M HOPING BY REDUCING THIS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING THEY'RE GOING TO PASS SOME NEW LAW AND IT'S GOING TO LOCK US IN INTO A SITUATION DOWN THE ROAD WHERE IT'S GOING TO CAUSE US TROUBLE FUNDING THE CITY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I SHARE THAT SAME CONCERN. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT I'M GOING TO HOLD ON FOR A SECOND. LET ME GET MY THOUGHTS TOGETHER. I'M SORRY. I'M LOVING ROXANNE. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SURE. OKAY. I MEAN I APPRECIATE THEIR CONCERNS BUT I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN A ONE POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS. WE'RE STILL GOING TO TAKE IN TWENTY POINT SEVEN PERCENT MORE THAN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS YEAR. WE WERE GOING TO TAKE IN TWENTY THREE POINT SEVEN PERCENT MORE THAN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IN TWENTY POINT SEVEN PERCENT MORE THAN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE BUDGET. WE CHANGED THE BUDGET IN TERMS OF EXPENSES. WE CHANGED THE AMOUNT WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTO SAVINGS FROM AN ESTIMATED MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND TO A MILLION FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. THIS CITY WILL STILL HAVE BASED ON THE ESTIMATES. I'M REALLY GLAD I DID THIS DATA. IF I'D HAD THIS DATA ALREADY AND THEY'D GONE THROUGH IT BEFORE WE EVER HAD THE FIRST BUDGET WORKSHOP I WOULD HAVE COVERED ALL THIS THEN. I'M SORRY TO HAVE TO DO THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS I'M EVEN MORE CONVINCED. WE'VE GOT OVER SIXTEEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS CASH THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THE BANK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. WE ALMOST GOT WE'VE ALMOST GOT TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS CASH AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE'VE BEEN HOLDING ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO TWENTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH FOR THE LAST EIGHT OR TEN YEARS IN THIS CITY. IT'S THE CITIZENS MONEY AND IF WE DON'T IT'S THE OLD THING. IF YOU KEEP DOING THE SAME [02:30:01] THING YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GET THE SAME RESULTS AND THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY. IF WE WANT TO KEEP IF WE WANT TO QUIT BUILDING THESE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR RESERVES WE'VE GOT TO PICK SOME POINT TO CHANGE. EVEN IF THE STATE CHANGES SOMETHING AND I'M NOT CONCERNED THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY THIS IS A TINY PERCENTAGE. IT'S A THREE PERCENT REDUCTION IN OUR TAXES AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO TAKE IN TWENTY PERCENT MORE THAN THE CITY'S GOING TO SPEND. HOW MUCH MORE CASH DO WE NEED IN THE BANK THAN ALMOST SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS? I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE SHORT-TERM EFFECTS. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS. FOR MANY YEARS COUNCIL WAS NOT OF A MOOD TO SPEND ONE PENNY AND A LOT OF THINGS DIDN'T GET DONE. AND NOW WE'RE BEGINNING TO MAKE PROGRESS. WE MADE PROGRESS WITH LEWIS LINE. WE MADE PROGRESS WITH DUBLIN ROAD. WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO AND THEY WILL HAVE TO BE FUNDED. THAT COSTS MONEY AND IT CONCERNS ME THAT REDUCING THIS CAN AFFECT THAT. AND I AM CONCERNED OVER WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY OR MAY NOT DO BECAUSE THAT CAN HAVE A SERIOUS LONG-TERM EFFECT ON US IN THE FUTURE. MR. SHARPE YOU KNOW IT'S FUNNY I OFTENTIMES AGREE WITH BUDDY BY THREE DIFFERENT REASONS. I AGREE WITH YOUR REASONS BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. SORRY. BUT YOU CAN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DE MINIMIS RATE. AND JUST SAY I'M AFRAID OF A FUTURE TIME WHERE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO RAISE TAXES OR ADDRESS TAXES SUFFICIENTLY WITHOUT A CITIZEN VOTE. IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM. I'M STRUGGLING SORRY. I DO KNOW YOU. IN THE SENSE THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT WE HAVE TO LET OFF AND JUST KIND OF ACCEPT THE FACT THAT OUR RESERVES ARE WILDLY OVER WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. AND WE HAVE TO AT A CERTAIN POINT EITHER SPEND IT ALL OR START GIVING IT BACK TO THE TAXPAYER. I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'VE TALKED THROUGH BOND ISSUES AS MEANS FOR PAYING FOR THINGS I THINK WE HAVE ADEQUATE HEAD ROOM TO STILL PAY FOR THE BOND ISSUANCE. FOR THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS IS THAT WE'VE GOT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. AND WE'RE ABOUT TO GO ASK FOR BONDS FOR WATER TOWERS FOR LIFT STATIONS FOR FACILITIES FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT GO WITH FACILITIES. AND SO HERE KEEP YOUR TAX MONEY BUT YET WE NEED TO GO OUT BOND AND GET ALL THIS BOND MONEY. SO WITH ALL THIS EXTRA RESERVES I AGREE IT IS TOO MUCH TOO MUCH IN RESERVES. CAN WE NOT UTILIZE THAT THOSE RESERVES IN A WAY THAT WE CAN USE IT INTO SPENDING AND CUT DOWN ON THE BONDS THAT WE HAVE TO GET INSTEAD OF TAKING AWAY FROM THE TAX RATE AND KEEPING THE MONEY AWAY. WE'VE GOT MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND ON THINGS THAT WE NEED A FACILITY A WATER TOWER AND ALL THESE BIG TICKET ITEMS. AND WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR MONEY AND PAY INTEREST ON THAT. WE COULD USE THAT MONEY THAT'S SITTING THERE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF CUTTING TAXES AND GIVING THIS LITTLE TAX BREAK. WHY CAN'T WE UTILIZE THAT IN THE BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT WE HAVE COMING UP THIS YEAR? LIKE DRAINAGE. DRAINAGE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS. MS. HALBERT. GO AHEAD. A GOVERNMENT HAS AN INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR MONEY. EVERY GOVERNMENT ENTITY DOES. I'VE NEVER SEEN A GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR MONEY. AND WE'VE GOT LITERALLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SITTING IN THE BANK IN A TOWN THIS SMALL. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CUTTING TAXES. PEOPLE'S TAXES ARE STILL GOING TO GO UP. WE'RE STILL GOING TO TAKE IN ALMOST 21 PERCENT MORE THAN WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS YEAR. PEOPLE'S TAXES ARE STILL GOING TO GO UP BY FOUR AND A QUARTER PERCENT INSTEAD OF SEVEN AND A QUARTER PERCENT. SO WE'RE NOT CUTTING ANYONE'S TAXES. AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESERVE. AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE BORROWING CAPACITY THAT WE'VE GOT THAT HADN'T EVEN BEEN TAPPED INTO HISTORICALLY VERY MUCH. SO WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM GETTING A POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE WORRIED ABOUT BEING DESTITUTE. MS. HALBERT. I AM GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. I REALLY REGRET THAT WE'RE HAVING IT RIGHT NOW. I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. IS IT JUST STANDARD PRACTICE THAT YOU SAY, WELL, THIS IS THE TAX RATE WE HAD LAST YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO START FROM THIS YEAR? OR WAS THAT A DECISION MADE BY ADMINISTRATION OR THE MAYOR? OR HOW DID THAT DECISION HAPPEN THAT THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE STARTED WITH WHEN WE SHOULD [02:35:02] HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION PHILOSOPHICALLY? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE NUMBER. I THINK WE SAT THROUGH BUDGET MEETINGS. WE WENT THROUGH EVERYBODY'S NEEDS AND WANTS. AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP TO THAT. WHAT BUDGET CREATED OFF OF THE EXISTING TAX RATE? SO HOW DID WE START WITH THAT NUMBER? WHEN WE START THE BUDGET PROCESS, I ASKED GRANT TO START US OFF WITH OUR CURRENT TAX RATE WITH AN EYE TO LOOKING AT BEING ABLE TO REDUCE OUR TAX RATE. AND THEN WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET CYCLE WITH EVERYBODY HAVING INPUT AND PARTICIPATION. YEAH, WE WERE DISCUSSING BUDGETS, NOT TAX RATES AT THAT POINT. I THINK THAT'S WHERE I MESSED UP. AND THE BUDGET STILL HASN'T CHANGED. EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET, INCLUDING COUNCIL MEMBER SHARPE AND BARRON'S CONCERNS ABOUT $300,000 IN EXPENDITURE FOR COMPUTERS THAT THEY QUESTIONED WHETHER THAT'S NECESSARY, $20,000 IN EXPENDITURES FOR A RETREAT THAT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. THERE ARE OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT ROUNDING UP INSTEAD OF ROUNDING DOWN. THE BUDGET STILL GOT ALL OF THAT MONEY IN IT. HOPEFULLY, THERE'S SOME LEEWAY THERE. AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN $1.5 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING TO SPEND. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT ON THE MARGINS OF SPENDING 97% OF WHAT WE HAVE. WE'RE NOT. WE'RE SPENDING 80% OF WHAT WE HAVE, 79% OF WHAT WE'RE TAKING. I WISH WE WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION A MONTH AGO, BECAUSE WHAT WOULD REALLY HELP ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TODAY IS SEEING A PROJECTION BASED ON IF WE'RE TAKING CARE OF ALL OUR FACILITIES AND OTHER MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND SEEING WHAT THOSE DEBT SERVICE NUMBERS ARE LONG TERM. AND NONE OF US KNOW THAT TODAY, AND GRANT CAN'T PULL THOSE TOGETHER IN FIVE MINUTES. SO IT JUST LEAVES ME IN AN UNSURE STATE TODAY. AND I WILL JUST CLARIFY WITH YOU HERE TONIGHT. THE DIRECTION I'M RECEIVING FROM YOU FOR OUR STAFF IS TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL AND TRANSFER EXPENDITURES. SO SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS WE PRESENTED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TONIGHT WOULD BE PROPORTIONALLY REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE WE WOULD NOT BE TAKING IN WITH THIS NEW TAX RATE. THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE BEING REDUCED. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO THE MONEY WE TRANSFER FOR THOSE CAPITAL. FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECT. BASED ON SOME DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MORE APPETITE TO POTENTIALLY FUND THAT THROUGH ADDITIONAL DEBT MECHANISMS, FINANCING VEHICLES IN THE FUTURE. AND SO THOSE PROJECTS AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING AWAY. THEY'RE JUST POTENTIALLY BEING FUNDED A DIFFERENT WAY. WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PART OF THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD EARLIER ON, IS THE PROPER WAY TO FUND LONG TERM CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IS THROUGH LONG TERM DEBT. IT'S NOT THROUGH TAXING THE PEOPLE MORE MONEY TODAY, SO WE HAVE A BIGGER BALANCE IN OUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHEN WE WANT TO GO BUY SOMETHING. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE PLENTY IN OUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT. 16.7 MILLION DOLLARS. WHY CAN'T WE USE SOME OF THAT FUNDING FOR THE FACILITIES OR THESE OTHER BIG TICKET ITEMS? LIKE YOU BEING ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BEFORE HAS MADE PRESENTATIONS TO US THAT WE SAY WE HAVE THIS OPTION OF SPENDING THIS MUCH CASH PLUS THIS MUCH BOND. AND THOSE NUMBERS MOVING AROUND UNTIL WE FIND A NUMBER THAT WE'RE HAPPY WITH. SO WE CAN DO A MIXTURE OF BOTH. AND MAYBE IT NOT BE SO DRASTIC OF ALL FUNDED BY BONDS OR ALL CASH. SO MAYBE WE'LL FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT WE PROPOSE FOR THE WATER TOWER. IT'S BY NO MEANS FUNDED WITH ALL DEBT. WE HOPE WE GET THE GRANT, BUT IF WE DON'T GET THE GRANT, IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO FUNDED BY ALL DEBT. IT'S THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF FUNDS THAT COME OUT OF ONE OF THESE FUNDS HERE. WE'RE TALKING $282,000. I GUESS WE'RE NOT ASKING TO LIKE DUMP OVER A MILLION DOLLARS AND JUST MAKING THAT DISAPPEAR. THAT WOULD BE MAJORLY IMPACTFUL. BUT THIS IS, I THINK, NAVIGABLE. IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT, IT'S SURPRISING TO ME THAT THE AMOUNT OF SCANDAL THAT CAN BE GENERATED OUT OF BOND VERSUS NO BOND, YOU'D THINK MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE REACTING TO THE IDEA THAT THE CITY'S TAKING IN 20% MORE THAN IT NEEDS. EXACTLY. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY NOT 5% OF THE CITIZENS OUT THERE THAT HAVE A CLUE THAT WE'RE TAKING IN 20% MORE THAN WE SPENT. OR THAT WE'VE HAD IN JANUARY THIS YEAR, WE HAD OVER $29 MILLION IN THE BANK IN JANUARY THIS YEAR. I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN THAT KNOW WE HAD $29 MILLION SET IN THE BANK EARLIER THIS YEAR. AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU WIPE ALL OF THAT OUT. LIKE SHE SAID, WE'RE TALKING [02:40:02] ABOUT $230,000 OUT OF $17.5 MILLION. HOW MANY CITIZENS OUT THERE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 20% MORE INCOME THAN IT TAKES THEM TO LIVE OFF OF EVERY MONTH? HOW MANY CITIZENS WOULD LIKE THAT MONEY TO BE FIXING THEIR DRAINAGE? I THINK THEY'D PROBABLY RATHER HAVE IT IN THEIR OWN POCKET THAN SITTING IN THE CITY'S SAVINGS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS WHERE IT'S SITTING. WELL, I THINK YOU'RE MAKING AN ARGUMENT HERE THAT NONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE OPPOSING. I THINK THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT HERE IS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE IT'S A DISAGREEMENT. I THINK ALL OF US ARE SOMEWHAT IN AGREEMENT, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE WORKSHOP TODAY, THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TOWARDS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RESERVES WE HAVE. YEAH, I THINK HOW WE GET THERE IS WHERE WE'RE BEING CHALLENGED. ARE WE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING OR DID WE MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM? I THINK THE OTHER THING IS, I'M SORRY, I JUST LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. A COUPLE PROCEDURAL THINGS FOR TONIGHT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, WE'VE GOT IMPORTANT NOTES. SO THIS MUST BE A RECORD VOTE AND AT LEAST 60% OF THE GOVERNING BODY MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX RATE. AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND SOME OF THE CHANGES EARLIER ON, BECAUSE IF WE MOVE THIS TO THE 15TH, WE WILL HAVE TO REPOST WITH THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. OF COURSE, THERE'S SOME VERY TIGHT DEADLINES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. SO JUST PUTTING THAT IN YOUR EARS. SO I FEEL LIKE WE ACTUALLY JUST HAVE TWO OPTIONS ON THE TABLE AND ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO PASS. SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION. YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT THE NEW TAX RATE HAS TO BE POSTED, RIGHT? NO. SO WE CAN'T GO LEFT. OKAY. IF WE DIDN'T DECIDE TONIGHT, AND I HEARD THE MAYOR SAY EARLIER, IF WE HAVE TO REPOST AND RE-ADVERTISE, IT COULD COST $5,000. $5,000 OF THE CITY SPENDING TO SAVE $230,000 FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY IS A PRETTY GOOD TRADE-OFF IN MY OPINION. BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SPEND THAT. I WOULD REALLY IMPLORE YOU. IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO CHANGE, COUNCILMAN BARRON, [10. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 922 ADOPTING THE 2026 TAX RATE. ] WHY WAIT? WHY NOT CHANGE IN THIS LITTLE BITTY AMOUNT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 3%. I THINK YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN MY POINT. BUT ANYWAY, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION AND MOVE ON. SO I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 922 AS AMENDED, SETTING A TAX RATE OF .300439, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A .67% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE. I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM TO ACCEPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 922, SETTING THE TAX RATE AT .300429. THANK YOU. .300429, WHICH IS A 6.7% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE. NO, .67%. OH, .67%. IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU PUT THAT ONE IN THERE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY? I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS. JUST TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IN SPITE OF THE WAY THE DISCUSSION HAS GONE, I ABSOLUTELY HEAR COUNCILMEMBER BARRON AND BOGDAN'S ARGUMENT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN SPITE OF COMING TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, I AGREE WITH THEIR RATIONALE AND I AGREE WITH THEIR CONCERNS. SO MY DISAGREEMENT HERE IS NOT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, WHICH I THINK IS SOUND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THEN I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. MR. BARRON? APPROVE. MS. HALBERT? APPROVE. MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM? APPROVE. MS. BOGDAN? DISAPPROVE. MR. SHARPE? APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE FOUR FOR APPROVAL AND ONE, MS. BOGDAN, AGAINST APPROVAL. THEREFORE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 922 PASSES WITH A TAX RATE OF [02:45:03] .000429, WHICH IS A .67% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE. OKAY. IS THAT EVERYTHING OFF OF THE ACT OF INCENTIVE? THAT'S NOT THE ACT. [17. UPDATE(S)] ALL OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WORD THAT VERY WELL. OKAY. GOING TO UPDATES. FIRST ONE IS 2551. WHO IS GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT? ARE YOU OR? KERRY LEFT. KERRY LEFT. KERRY LEFT. HE HAD TO LEAVE. KERRY LEFT. WHAT DOES KERRY HAVE TO DO WITH IT? GARY. OH, GARY LEFT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING JERRY LEFT. I DIDN'T LIKE THAT WORK. JIM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON 2551? IT'S A ROAD. SOMEONE'S AN AIRPLANE FAN. OKAY. VERY GOOD. 2551 IS A ROAD. NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT, MR. MANTON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO, MADAM MAYOR. I DO NOT HAVE ANY DEFINITIVE UPDATES ON FM 551'S CONSTRUCTION. OKAY. QUESTION ABOUT THAT. ARE WE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXDOT? YES, SIR. THAT'S STILL THE PLAN. NO, NOT SCHEDULED THOUGH. IT IS NOT SCHEDULED. NO, SIR. UNDERSTOOD. JUST SO YOU KNOW, MR. MANTON AND I WENT OVER THE THINGS ON HIS PLATE WHICH WERE ABOUT 113 ITEMS. AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REDUCE THAT AND MOVE FORWARD ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT MOVING RIGHT NOW. IT'S A STAFFING ISSUE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. WE'RE JUST BUSY. OKAY. MR. PILGRIM, TCEQ? CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAST REPORT, TCEQ IS AN AGENCY IN AUSTIN. THERE'S NOTHING NEW ON THE SEWER PLANT PERMIT APPEAL THAT'S STILL IN PROCESS. ON THE TCEQ HEARING FOR THE MUD, THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK AT 1 P.M., THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS WILL HOLD THEIR PRE-HEARING HEARING WHICH WILL BE PRETTY UNEVENTFUL, I THINK. JUDGE SMITH DID ISSUE A RULING TODAY ON THE CITY OF PARKER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS. PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE EXPECTED. IT WAS A VERY BRIEF DENIAL, EXTREMELY BRIEF. NO COMMENTS? I'M SORRY? NO COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ON IT? YEAH, THERE'S SOME COMMENTS ON THERE. BASICALLY, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE TWO MAIN POINTS THAT SHE MADE. ONE OF THE POINTS THAT THE CITY OF PARKER HAD MADE IS THAT RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS HAD NEVER APPLIED TO THE CITY OF PARKER FOR THE MUD PERMIT. SHE SAID BECAUSE HARRINGTON TURNER HAD APPLIED TO THE CITY OF PARKER PRIOR AND THAT RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS HAD SAID THEY WERE GOING TO ASSUME OR JOIN, I THINK SHE ACTUALLY USED THE WORD JOIN, THE PETITION OF HARRINGTON TURNER THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR PARKER TO HAVE DONE THAT. SO SHE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT IT'S QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN JOIN A PETITION THAT HAD BEEN POSSIBLY ABANDONED BY THE SALE OF THE LAND. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER POINT THAT SHE MENTIONED AS WELL. WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE, CATHERINE? OH, ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS THAT PARKER MADE IS THAT THE COST ESTIMATES THAT THEY'RE USING CURRENTLY ARE NOT CURRENT BECAUSE THEY'RE 2021-2022 COST ESTIMATES. AND SHE JUST, I THINK THERE'S ONE SENTENCE IN THERE THAT SAYS THE COST ESTIMATES ARE THE ESTIMATES WHEN THE ORIGINAL PETITION WAS FILED. NOW, THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ONE, A MUD CALLED LAKEVIEW, THAT WAS EVENTUALLY DENIED AND APPEALED BECAUSE IT USED COST ESTIMATES THAT I THINK WERE TWO YEARS OLD. THESE ARE NOW FOUR YEARS OLD. BUT ANYWAY, SHE DENIED IT, SO IT'S NOT ANYTHING TOO UNEXPECTED. AND THE HEARING IS STILL SET [02:50:02] FOR THE 15TH THROUGH THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER. OK, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD ON RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS AT THIS TIME? SAME BASIC THING THERE. THERE'S, MAYBE KENT, DO YOU WANT TO REPORT ON NEWS FROM TEXTDOT? YES, SO I WILL JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT TEXTDOT HAS APPROVED RTG'S ACCESS PERMIT BASED ON THEIR AUTHORITY AND EXISTING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAYS. THIS IS IN SPITE OF THE CITY'S PROTESTS AND ISSUES WITH THEIR MOST CURRENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND INCLUDING OUR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS' ISSUES WITH THOSE TIAS. WE'VE PROVIDED A LENGTHY AND OUTSTANDING LIST OF CONCERNS ON THAT TIA. AND DESPITE THAT, TEXTDOT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ISSUE THAT PERMIT. ANYTHING ELSE ON RTG? OK. DRONES, MR. BARRON OR MR. MANTON? I'LL TAKE IT. SO MR. MANTON AND I HAVE PUT TOGETHER AN FAQ THAT HE HAS POSTED TO OUR WEBSITE COVERING VERY STRONG QUESTIONS. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING. FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S FAA REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CALL UNMANNED VEHICLES THAT LIMIT US. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS A LAW IN PLACE SAYING THAT MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT PASS LAWS ON DRONES EXCEPT IN A VERY LIMITED CAPACITY. WE CAN REGULATE LAUNCH SITES. WE CAN MAYBE GET A NO-FLY ZONE AROUND OUR PUMP STATION. AND THAT IS REALLY IT. SO I YESTERDAY SPOKE TO THE LEADER OF AN ORGANIZATION CALLED QUIET SKIES TEXAS THAT'S DOWN IN GARLAND WHO IS OPPOSING THE AMAZON DRONE LAUNCH SITE IN RICHARDSON. I TALKED TO HIM FOR QUITE A WHILE. HIS CONCLUSIONS ARE ABOUT THE SAME WE HAD REACHED THAT OUR BEST EFFORTS ARE THAT THE CITIZENS WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT THIS COMPLAIN TO AMAZON, COMPLAIN TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES BOTH AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. THAT INFORMATION IS ON OUR FAQ, SO PLEASE REFER TO THAT. I STILL THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE THAT WE GO TALK TO RICHARDSON AND SEE IF THEY CAN HELP US OUT ANY, SINCE THEY'RE THE LAUNCH SITE THAT'S CAUSING US THESE ISSUES. NOW ONE OTHER THING I'M GOING TO MENTION IS THAT AMAZON GAVE US ONE SET OF NOISE LEVELS. THAT WAS DONE BY SOME PRIVATE TESTING IN ARIZONA, APPARENTLY IN BASICALLY IDEAL CONDITIONS TO MAKE THE NUMBERS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. EVEN SO, THOSE NUMBERS ARE 10 DECIBELS HIGHER THAN THE NUMBERS WE GOT FROM WING, WHICH IS GOOGLE AND RUNNING SERVICE FOR WALMART. SINCE THEN I HAVE FOUND AN FAA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SUGGESTING THAT AMAZON'S PUBLISHED NUMBERS ARE POTENTIALLY 10 DECIBELS TOO LOW. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTUAL DATA OURSELVES ON THAT. SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PURSUE THIS, IT'S LOBBYING YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AT THE HIGHER LEVEL AND FILING COMPLAINTS WITH AMAZON ABOUT IT. SORRY, I'LL JUST SAY I'LL SECOND THAT. [02:55:01] I THINK FROM WHAT MIGHT HAVE WORKED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, A STRONG VOCAL OPPOSITION FROM THE PUBLIC IS REALLY GOING TO BE DRIVING HOME THE POINT. WE ARE EXPLORING SOME ADDITIONAL OPTIONS THAT POTENTIALLY ARE PINNING A LETTER FROM THE CITY OF PARKER EXPRESSING OUR OPPOSITION TO THE DELIVERY DRONES. AND I WANT TO STRESS, IT MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO THE DRONES. I WOULD SAY OUR OPPOSITION IS IN ITS DRONE DELIVERY COMPLETELY BECAUSE WE HAVE PLENTY OF CITIZENS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THE DRONE DELIVERIES. IT IS THE VOLUME AND THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE DRONES THAT ARE REALLY, I THINK, THE ISSUE WE SHOULD FOCUS ON. SO MY QUESTION IS, THE DECIBEL LEVELS, WHERE DO THEY FIT WITH OUR NOISE ORDINANCE? SO AMAZON'S NUMBERS ARE BELOW, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT. WELL, DAYTIME FAA NUMBERS ARE ALSO STILL LOWER. IT WOULD BE LOWER THAN OUR NIGHTTIME LEVELS, BUT AMAZON'S AGREEMENT WITH RICHARDSON, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, IS FROM DAWN TO DUSK. SO WE WOULDN'T GET INTO OUR NIGHTTIME NUMBERS NECESSARILY. CATHERINE, I WAS CURIOUS, COULD WE ENFORCE OUR NOISE ORDINANCE IN THE AIR? I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. EVEN IF IT'S LEGAL, AND WE CAN GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE, I DON'T THINK IT WORKS FROM A LOGISTIC STANDPOINT. BECAUSE ONE, IT REQUIRES A CITIZEN TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO SHOW UP. THE DRONE IS LONG GONE BY THEN, MUCH LESS THE ISSUES OF IDENTIFYING WHO OWNS THE DRONE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I THINK EVEN IF IT'S LEGAL, I THINK LOGISTICALLY, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. I THINK YOU KIND OF HAVE A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IF THE OPERATOR IS NOT WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY. JUST A REPORT. WE HAVE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT'S IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S VERY OPPOSED TO THE DRONES. AND HE IS SUGGESTING THAT OUR HOA AND OTHER HOAS PASS HOA REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT ANY PERSON WHO LIVES IN THE HOA FROM ORDERING DELIVERY BY DRONE. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S A LIE. WELL, ACTUALLY, THAT QUIET SKIES, TEXAS WEBSITE HAS THAT IDEA ON THERE AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LEGAL, BUT THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR EACH HOA, AND IN PARTICULAR YOUR HOA. WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. THAT'S AN HOA BY HOA DECISION, AND THEY NEED TO SPEAK TO THEIR LAWYERS ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT DOES NOT STOP ANY FLYOVER ISSUES, REGARDLESS IF A PARTICULAR HOA SAYS YOUR RESIDENTS CANNOT ACCEPT THE PACKAGE. WHAT IF COLLEEN IS SENDING ME SOMETHING AND I'M IN THAT HOA AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IT? I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE ON DRONES? I WILL ALSO MENTION THE CITY HAS MET WITH BOTH KEITH SELF AND CANDY NOBLE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND THEY SORT OF REFLECT THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE MADE TONIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. BEARD. MR. MANTON, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT EVERBRIDGE? YES, I WILL JUST SAY CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF OUR PAST INFORMATION ON THE TRANSITION TO MASS NOTIFICATIONS WITH CIVIC PLUS, WE HAVE INFORMED EVERBRIDGE THAT WE WILL BE CANCELING OUR AGREEMENT WITH THEM. SO EVERBRIDGE SUPPORT WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE IN THE COMING MONTHS. THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP THERE PROBABLY UNTIL WE GET FULLY INTEGRATED WITH MASS COMMUNICATIONS, BUT OUR UTILIZATION RATES FOR EVERBRIDGE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LOW. THE ONLY THING YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MISSING OUT ON IS THOSE AUTOMATED PUSH ALERTS THAT MAY COME FROM NOAA. JUST SO EVERYBODY [18. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])] KNOWS THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANYTHING ON ANY OF THE UPDATES? OKAY, THEN WE [03:00:02] WILL GO TO DONATIONS. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD. MIRIAM BERGERI AND MOHAMMED MASSADI DONATED ONE DOZEN NOTHING BUT CAKES, BUNDTINIS VALUED AT $28 TO CITY STAFF. WE'D REALLY LIKE TO THANK THEM. THESE FOLKS DONATE EVERY MONTH. THEY ARE [19. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (FAI) ] JUST AMAZING AND WE JUST CAN'T TELL THEM HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE THEIR THINKING [EXECUTIVE SESSION] OF US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? NOT HEARING ANY. WE WILL RECESS INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. ONE, CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER. OR TWO, CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BOARD OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER ON ANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS LISTED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THIS AGENDA AND ON THE SPECIFIC ITEMS LISTED BELOW. ONE, PETITION FOR DIS-ANNEXATION OF RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS PROPERTY. TWO, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF RTG PLANT FOR COLLIN COUNTY TID, NUMBER 2663984 AND NUMBER 353236 BY COLLIN COUNTY. THREE, RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUD. FOUR, SEWER TREATMENT PLANT. FIVE, ANNEXATION, DIS-ANNEXATION RELATING TO LEWIS LANE AND LUCAS ROAD. NEXT, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.074 TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, COMPENSATION OR DISMISSAL OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR. AT THIS TIME, 934, WE ARE IN [RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING. ] RECESS. I HEREBY RECONVENE THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER. IT IS 959 P.M. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE? NO, MADAM MAYOR. HEARING NONE, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED. IT IS 10 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.