F. Action Items

[1. Consider approving an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances by amending Chapter 2 titled “Animal Control” by amending Section 2-1 titled “Definitions”, by amending Section 2-2 titled “Vaccination of dogs and cats required”, by amending Section 2-3 titled “Dogs at large”, by repealing Section 2-4 titled “Cats at large” and reserving Section 2-4 for future use, by amending Section 2-5 titled “Dogs and cats; confinement during estrus”, by repealing and replacing Section 2-6 titled “Impoundment”, by repealing and replacing Section 2-7 titled “Right of property owners to confine; notification of animal services”, by repealing and replacing Section 2-8 titled “Disposition of impounded animals”, by amending Section 2-9 titled “Adoption of dogs and cats”, by amending Section 2-10 titled “Health of animals”, by amending Section 2-11 titled “Multiple ownership of dogs and cats in a private residence”, by amending Section 2-12 titled “Multiple ownership; kennel permit”, by repealing Section 2-13 titled “Guard dogs” and reserving Section 2-13 for future use, by amending Section 2-14 titled “Dangerous dogs”, by repealing Section 2-15 titled “Vicious animals” and reserving Section 2-15 for future use, by repealing and replacing Section 2-16 titled “Animal bites and rabies”, by repealing Section 2-22 titled “Dog and cat permits and tags” and reserving Section 2-22 for future use, by amending Section 2-23 titled “Commercial businesses involving animals or fowl”, by amending Section 2-24 titled “Cruelty to animals”, by amending Section 2-24 titled “Cruelty to animals”, by amending Section 2-26 titled “Keeping of wild animals”, by amending Section 2-28 titled “Inspection of animals and premises”, by repealing and replacing Section 2-29 titled “Tampering with traps and equipment”, by amending Section 2-36 titled “Removal of dead animals”, by amending Section 2-37 titled “Livestock and fowl permit and restrictions”, by amending Section 2-38 titled “Livestock fencing”, by amending Section 2-39 titled “Permit application omissions and falsifications”, by amending Section 2-45 titled “Enforcement”, by amending Section 2-46 titled “Abatement of conditions not in compliance”, by repealing Section 2-47 titled “Pursuit of animals by animal warden” and reserving Section 2-47 for future use, by amending Section 2-48 titled “Penalty”, by amending Section 2-49 titled "Animal shelter advisory committee", and by repealing Section 2-50 titled "Animal shelter board" and reserving Section 2-50 for future use; providing a repealing clause; providing a severability clause; providing a savings clause; providing a penalty or fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense; and providing an effective date.]

SO FORGIVE ME IN ADVANCE [LAUGHTER]. CONSIDER APPROVING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2 TITLED ANIMAL CONTROL, BY AMENDING SECTION 2-1 TITLED DEFINITIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 2-2 TITLED VACCINATION OF DOGS AND CATS REQUIRED BY AMENDING SECTION 2-3, TITLED DOGS AT LARGE, BY REPEALING SECTION 2.4 TITLED CATS AT LARGE AND RESERVING SECTION 2.4 FOR FUTURE USE BY AMENDING SECTION 2-5, TITLED DOGS AND CATS CONFINEMENT DURING ESTRUS.

PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE. PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT OF A FINE, NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 FOR EACH OFFENSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE NOW HAVE A RECESS. I'M JUST KIDDING. [LAUGHTER] OKAY WITH THAT, MS. NASH. THERE WE GO. NOW, I NEED WATER [LAUGHTER].

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THERE WAS EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ANIMAL SERVICES ORDINANCE [LAUGHTER].

I CAN TELL AND, OF COURSE, LANCE WHITWORTH, OVER LEISURE SERVICES, UNDER WHICH ANIMAL SERVICES IS NOW UNDER, WILL BE GIVING YOU A PRESENTATION TONIGHT TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES.

YOU DON'T MIND REPEATING THAT DO YOU? [LAUGHTER] JOE GORFIDA FOR THAT WELL, I USUALLY DO, BUT I FIGURED I'D CUT HIM A BREAK TONIGHT AND JUST [LAUGHTER].

NO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS HE WILL, HE WILL MAKE YOUR LIFE MISERABLE IF HE CAN'T SHOW [LAUGHTER]. DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB WITH IT [LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR THIS CHANCE TO COME UP.

[00:30:07]

I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF AMENDMENTS AND ORDINANCES AND CHANGES AND ADDITIONS, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST TO KIND OF GET US IN ORDER ON SOME CLEAN CLEANING UP OF THE ORDINANCES.

NOT THAT ANYTHING WAS WRONG WITH THEM BEFORE, BUT JUST SOME OF THE LANGUAGE SOME OF THE LAWS OF CHANGE.

AND ALSO WITH IT MOVING UNDER THE LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WE WANT TO KIND OF TO DO THAT.

AS I LOOKED AT IT ORIGINALLY I, WE SAW SOME MINOR CHANGES THAT WE LOOKED, LOOKED AT DOING.

BUT THEN AS WE DUG DEEPER AND DEEPER AND COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES IN THEIR ORDINANCES, THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE CAME UP WITH THIS, AND WE KEPT PUSHING IT BACK A LITTLE BIT UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO COME TO YOU TONIGHT.

SO THIS PRESENTATION WILL KIND OF DO A SUMMARY OF CHANGES REVIEW AND UPDATE DEFINITIONS, REVIEW AND UPDATE ORDINANCES.

SO THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY. TRANSITIONING DIVISION PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGES.

THIS CERTAINLY HAS GIVEN US THAT OPPORTUNITY.

REFLECTING BEST PRACTICES IN MODERN DEFINITIONS REFLECTING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS.

THE TRANSITION ALSO MARKS AN IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT, MOVING IT FROM THE DIVISION OF FROM POLICE TO LEISURE SERVICES.

WHILE ANIMAL SERVICES WILL ALWAYS HAVE A PUBLIC SAFETY COMPONENT, THE FOCUS HAS SHIFTED TO THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ADOPTION WITH GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR COLLABORATION WITH LEISURE SERVICES. AND WE'VE SEEN THAT ALREADY.

WE'VE DONE A COUPLE OF EVENTS. WE DID GRANDPARENTS DAY ANIMAL SERVICES ARE GOING TO COME OUT FOR OUR FOLLOWING ALSO AND HAVE SOME ANIMALS OUT THERE.

SO THIS JUST DEFINITIONS CLEANING IT UP AGAIN FORMAT TERMINOLOGY TO REFLECT CHANGES AFTER THE ORGANIZATIONAL MOVE.

YOU CAN SEE ON ON THE MY YOU KNOW, ON YOUR LEFT SIDE THE AMENDED ONES.

AND THEN ALSO ON THE RIGHT SIDE THAT WE'VE ADDED SOME DEFINITIONS.

AND THE BIG ONE THERE IS EVERYTHING GOING FROM ANIMAL WARDEN TO ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER.

AND BEFORE IT WAS A POLICE CHIEF WAS THE ANIMAL WARDEN.

WE DELETED ANIMAL WARDEN AND ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY.

BOTH THOSE ARE ANIMAL SERVICES MANAGER AND ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

SO THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN AMENDED.

DOGS AT LARGE. THE METAL CHAIN IS ILLEGAL. SO YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

IMPOUNDMENT INCLUDES CLEAR PROVISIONS FOR ADDRESSING ANIMAL BITES AND TO ALLOW IMPOUNDMENT OF DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE CONSIDERED A NUISANCE OR NOT.

IT ALSO ALLOWS AUTHORIZED ANIMAL SERVICES TO IMPOUND ANIMALS FOR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS, PROVIDING STRONGER TOOLS TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENSURE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP.

THIS KIND OF HELPS US KIND OF GIVES US MORE GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION ON ON HANDLING THOSE DOGS AT LARGE.

HANDLE THE IMPALEMENT RIGHT OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONFINE.

THIS THIS KIND OF BEFORE THERE WAS NO TIMELINE OR ALONG.

THERE'S REALLY NO GUIDELINES FOR OWNERSHIP. SO WE'RE SAYING WE'D LIKE TO IMPLEMENT THAT TO GET THE ANIMALS SAFE AND SECURE AND IF NEEDED, TREATED MEDICALLY. SO WE'D LIKE TO PUT IN THAT ANY STRAY PETS ON PROPERTY, ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHIN 24 HOURS, IF THEY GET A HOLD OF US AND WE CAN, WE CAN COME AND GET THE ANIMAL.

AGAIN, THE UPDATE ALSO CLARIFIES THE CITY'S RIGHT OF ENTRY.

SO IF THERE IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL OR OR SOMETHING IN THE YARD, AND WE KNOW ABOUT IT, THAT WE CAN GO IN THERE AND HANDLE THE SITUATION.

DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS DEFINES HOLDING PERIODS FOR PETS WITH AND WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION.

TRANSFERS OWNERSHIP OF UNCLAIMED PETS TO THE CITY FOR APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION, AND CLARIFIES THE SURRENDERED PETS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE HELD.

BASICALLY GIVES US IMMEDIATE ALLOWS US IMMEDIATE ACTION TO TAKE CARE OF THE DOG'S MEDICAL NEEDS OR ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY MAY THAT THEY MAY HAVE.

AND WE CAN ALSO CONTACT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN HELP US, WHETHER IT'S NEIGHBORING CITIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS, AND ALSO INCLUDING WORKING WITH RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS, RELEASING REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE PROOF OF RABIES VACCINATION, PAYMENT OF FEES AND VETERINARIAN COSTS, SO ON THAT PAYMENT OF FEES WE ARE IN IN THE ORDINANCE, WE ARE REQUESTING A SURRENDER FEE.

SO IF SOMEBODY IS TO SURRENDER AN ANIMAL TO US, WE DON'T HAVE A FEE.

WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ANY REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'D LIKE TO IMPLEMENT THAT. THERE'S SOME CITIES THAT HAVE A FEE, BUT THEY ALSO REQUIRE LIKE THE VACCINATIONS, THE STERILIZATION, THE CHIPPING. WE'RE JUST SAYING WE'D LIKE TO IMPLEMENT A SMALL FEE JUST FOR THE SCREENING OF ANIMALS.

THE ADOPTION ALLOWS ADDITIONAL TIME FOR PET TO BE PETS TO BE STERILIZED.

IMMEDIATE. IF IMMEDIATE SURGERY IS NOT ADVISED ADVISABLE

[00:35:04]

HEALTH, OR OTHER CONDITIONS. ESPECIALLY GIVES US MORE TIME TO GET THE ANIMAL READY FOR THE ADOPTION.

AND WE'RE REALLY WORKING. WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON IT.

THAT'S BEEN A KEY FOCUS ON US, THAT WE'RE TRYING NOT TO ADOPT ANY ANIMALS OUT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN VACCINATED OR STERILIZED.

AND AT ONE TIME, I THINK LAST WEEK HUGO WAS TELLING, TELLING ME THAT EVERY ANIMAL IN THE SHELTER WAS STERILIZED AND VACCINATED.

SO WE HAD WE GOT SOME NEW ANIMALS THIS WEEKEND.

SO THOSE THOSE ARE THOSE WILL BE DONE TOMORROW.

THESE ARE JUST SOME CLEANUPS. AGAIN, HEALTH OF ANIMALS REPHRASED TO ALLOW CONTACTING VARIOUS RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE TIME OF NEED WHEN IMMEDIATE RESCUE ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED. DANGEROUS DOGS REPLACED WITH DANGEROUS ANIMALS.

SO RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS FOR DANGEROUS DOGS.

WE'D LIKE TO IMPLEMENT THAT. THIS IS A COMMON.

IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON WITHIN CITIES.

TO NOT ALLOW DANGEROUS ANIMALS IN YOUR IN YOUR, IN YOUR CITY LIMITS.

CURRENTLY WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REGISTERED. THERE'S A LONG LIST OF REQUIREMENTS IF YOU WANT A DANGEROUS ANIMAL.

WE USED TO HAVE THIS LONG LIST OF REQUIREMENTS.

AND WE'RE JUST SAYING THE SAFE WAY TO DO IT IS NOT TO ALLOW THEM IN THE CITY.

ANIMAL BITES AND RABIES REPLACED WITH ANIMAL CONTROL AND ANIMAL QUARANTINE.

BASICALLY JUST ASSIGNS LOCAL RABIES CONTROL AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE RABIES OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS AND UPDATE REQUIREMENTS FOR BITE INVESTIGATIONS AND QUARANTINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. LRCA IS HUGO HE'S OUR ANIMAL SERVICES MANAGER, SO THAT'LL FALL UNDER HIM AS THE LICENSED RABIES. THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS EXPANDS CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE ALL THESE THINGS.

COLOR ALTERATIONS, SEPARATION OF YOUNG AND PROPER RESTRAINT.

IT JUST IT JUST BROADENS THE DEFINITION THAT MAY CAUSE ANY HARM TO THE ANIMAL.

TAMPERING WITH TRAPS AND EQUIPMENT REPLACED ANIMAL TRAPS.

UPDATE TRAPPING POLICY. RIGHT NOW IT'S PRETTY VAGUE.

WE WANT IT MORE DETAILED, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO GIVE SOME INSTRUCTION ON TRAPPING, KEEPING THE ANIMAL SAFE.

SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER, I KNOW WE'VE HAD A COUPLE TRAPPINGS, WHICH ARE FINE, BUT THEY WERE DONE IN THE HOT SUN, LEFT FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

IT REALLY UNHEALTHY FOR THE ANIMAL. SO IT KIND OF CLEANS THAT UP AND HAS SOME REQUIREMENTS THERE.

LIVESTOCK AND FOWL PERMIT AND RESTRICTIONS REMOVED THE THREE PAGES OF PIGEONS.

PIGEONS ARE PIGEONS ARE GOING TO FALL UNDER THE LIVESTOCK AND FOWL PERMIT RESTRICTIONS, WHICH THE RESTRICTIONS ARE IN THERE.

YOU STILL HAVE PIGEONS. YOU CAN HAVE PIGEONS.

THERE'S SOME. BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMEBODY HERE MAY KNOW THIS MR. MILLSAP. BUT I THINK THERE'S A TIME SACHSE WAS KNOWN FOR THE RACING PIGEONS.

SEVERAL OWNERS HAD HIM HERE [LAUGHTER]. OH, HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE [LAUGHTER].

YEAH, YEAH. ENFORCEMENT OUTLINES THE ROLES, AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF ANIMAL SERVICES, INCLUDING THE ABILITY.

ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS, ISSUE CITATIONS, IMPOUND ANIMALS WHEN NECESSARY.

THIS THIS ONE IS AGAIN, JUST CLEANED UP, ADDED SOME MORE BROADER DEFINITIONS TO IT.

AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE ANIMAL SERVICES ENFORCEMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO.

THESE ARE JUST AREAS THAT WE DELETED. AGAIN, IT'S ALL INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

BUT WHILE DOING THESE CHANGES, WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAN THAT UP AND ELIMINATE SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES.

LET'S STOP THERE. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, IF I CAN'T ANSWER THEM, I PROMISE YOU HUGO CAN.

HE'S OUR ANIMAL SERVICES MANAGER, HAS OVER 17 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND WAS VERY DETAILED IN, IN GETTING THESE ORDINANCES CHANGED AND AMENDED ANY QUESTIONS FOR LANCE SO FAR, MS. BUHLER? WHITWORTH WHAT DESIGNATES A DANGEROUS ANIMAL? I'M GOING TO ASK HUGO BECAUSE HE HAS A LONG DEFINITION OF THAT.

HUGO, DO YOU MIND COMING UP? I KNOW A COUPLE OF THE BULLET POINTS.

GOOD EVENING COUNCIL, MAYOR, CITY ADMINISTRATION.

DANGEROUS DOG AS DEFINED CURRENTLY OR ARE YOU ASKING WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE DEFINED AS? WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE DEFINED AS? IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO INVOLVE SEVERAL FACTORS.

IT COULD BE MULTIPLE BITES. SEVERELY BODY INJURIES THAT CAUSES SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER ANIMAL OR PERSON.

AND THEN ALSO DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES. IF WE ENCOUNTER AN ANIMAL THAT'S SHOWING RAISED HACKLES, SNAPPING AND POSING A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. THOSE WOULD BE PRONE TO INVESTIGATION, TO BE DETERMINED FOR DANGEROUS ANIMALS.

[00:40:01]

PERFECT SO IT'S MAINLY AN INCIDENT THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST, NOT A SPECIFIC BREED OR ANYTHING? CORRECT NOT A BREED RESTRICTION. IT'S BASED ON CURRENT HAPPENINGS OR CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS.

OKAY THANK YOU. MR. MILLSAP. OKAY A COUPLE OF THIS CLEANUPS AND THINGS MAYBE.

IN SECTION 2-7, IT SAYS REQUIRE RESIDENTS TO REPORT STRAY DOGS.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REQUIRE? HOW ABOUT JUST THE WORD ENCOURAGE? BECAUSE IF YOU REQUIRE IT AND THEY DON'T, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO THE RESIDENTS? I CAN ANSWER THAT FOR YOU I THINK, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. WE COULD LOOK AT SOME ENCOURAGE OR MAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THAT TO. YEAH.

MUST. I THINK ENCOURAGE WOULD BE YES DEFINITELY BUT SAY REQUIRE WITH NO CONSEQUENCES. WE CAN'T DO THAT.

SURE. LET'S DO THAT. OKAY, 2.8 DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED DOGS.

SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS AT AGAIN, I KEEP SAYING THAT BECAUSE I'M OLDER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE, I GOT A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT THINGS, BUT WE DON'T SAY ANYTHING HERE ABOUT HOW LONG CAN WE KEEP A DOG, OR HOW LONG WILL WE KEEP A DOG BEFORE WE HAVE TO DISPOSE OF IT? YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO THAT, THAT'S FOR SURE.

I'M NOT ENCOURAGING THAT, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A LIMIT.

AND YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO KEEP A DOG FOR FIVE YEARS WITHOUT GETTING RID OF IT.

IF YOU DO THAT, IF IT GETS BEYOND SOME REASONABLE TIME.

AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY PERIOD, BUT I THINK MAYBE A YEAR, 14 MONTHS OR SOMETHING IN THAT NATURE, MAYBE WE NEED TO DO SOME RECRUITING AND LIKE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND JUST RECRUIT THEM, TRADE WITH ANOTHER [LAUGHTER] ANOTHER ANIMAL SHELTER CLINIC TO SAY, YOU TAKE THIS ONE AND I'LL TAKE YOURS AND SOMETHING, BUT WE GOT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A LIMIT TO STATES THAT WE DON'T KEEP IT FOREVER.

YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. COUNCILMAN MILLSAP I KNOW SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE ON THE ANIMAL.

IT SEEMS LIKE SOME BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE IN SHORTER AMOUNT OF TIME THAN OTHERS.

I KNOW WE'VE HAD ANIMALS OR DOGS SPECIFICALLY IN THERE FOR 7 OR 8 MONTHS, AND THEN THEY DEEM DANGEROUS.

THEY BECOME VERY AGGRESSIVE. THEY MAYBE HAVE BITTEN SOMEBODY THAT COMES TO VISIT THE DOG, OR A VOLUNTEER VISITS THE DOG OR A VOLUNTEER THAT TRIES TO WALK HIM.

WE COULD PUT A TIME LIMIT. IT'S JUST DIFFICULT.

SO YOU'D HATE TO PUT IT ON A TIME LIMIT, SAY, 14, 18 MONTHS.

BUT THE ANIMAL STILL AVAILABLE TO ADOPT. STILL KIND, STILL ABLE TO GO TO A FAMILY.

SO YEAH. YEAH, BECAUSE WOULD YOU SAY THERE'S A TIME LIMIT JUST BASED UPON THE BEHAVIOR OF WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A FOCUS COMING IN NOW THAT I'M HERE WITH A LOT OF EXTENSIVE NETWORKING ABILITIES WITH OTHER RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS AND SHELTERS LIKE GARLAND, PLANO, RICHARDSON, ROWLETT WE DO COMMUNICATE A LOT ABOUT ANIMALS THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S OFTEN DISCUSSED IF WE WANT TO TRADE SOME ANIMALS OR MAYBE GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

BUT YES IT IS IT IS SOMETHING TO LOOK OUT FOR THERE.

EVERY DOG IS DIFFERENT. AND SO THERE ARE TIMES WHERE ONE DOG MAY BE THERE FOR A YEAR AND THRIVE AND STILL BE A GOOD CANDIDATE, WHILE OTHERS MAY OR MAY NOT. BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO.

BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A MAXIMUM LIMIT ON IT.

AS LANCE SAID, DOGS TEND TO GET MORE AGGRESSIVE AND MORE THEY KEEP BEING KEPT COOPED UP.

YES, SIR. ANOTHER THING IS SURRENDER FEE. WE'VE ALWAYS.

WE'VE NEVER DONE ONE. I DON'T WANT ONE. TO ME, WHEN YOU CHARGE A SURRENDER FEE, YOU'RE JUST ENCOURAGING PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT THEIR DOG ANYMORE. RATHER THAN PAY MONEY TO GET RID OF IT, JUST TO DUMP IT.

AND I THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER HAD A SURRENDER FEE. SO THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY PROBLEM TO TAKE IT DOWN.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SURRENDER FEE TAKE IT OUT.

AND AND YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT OTHER COUNCIL PERSON ASKED ABOUT DANGEROUS DOGS.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. ALL RIGHT, GUYS SO. I'M SORRY GO AHEAD. IN SECTION 2-6 IMPOUNDMENT YOU YOU'VE ADDED OR TO ALLOW IMPOUNDMENT OF DOGS. LET ME GET MY FOCUS SORRY. RUNNING AT LARGE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE CONSIDERED A NUISANCE OR NOT.

I'M ASSUMING, AS OUR CITY HAS WITH MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS, IS THIS IS OUR DESIRE IS MORE OF COMPLIANCE, NOT IMPOUNDMENT AND FEES. RIGHT? SO HAS OUR HAS OUR FUNCTIONALITY CHANGED OR HAS OUR GOAL CHANGE WITH RETURNING ANIMALS TO

[00:45:06]

HOME OR IS IT AN AUTOMATIC IMPOUNDMENT FEE? I MEAN, JUST JUST CLARIFY THAT FOR ME.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY TO GET THE ANIMAL BACK HOME.

AND I THINK HUGO USES THE TERM REGULARLY ABOUT WE'RE NOT THERE.

WHAT'S WHAT'S THE TERM YOU USE LIKE WE USE THE ANIMAL SERVICES FOR? HUGO, IF YOU DON'T KNOW MY DOGS YET, YOU WILL [LAUGHTER]. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THE DOGS WE CALL OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOGS.

AND ALMOST EVERY TIME THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER KNOWS EXACTLY WHO HE BELONGS TO.

ALMOST EVERY TIME. AND MY DOGS ARE THE SAME WAY.

WHEN PEOPLE CALL, THEY'RE LIKE, OH, YEAH, THEY BELONG TO THE FRANKS. WE'LL JUST CALL THEM. AND IF WE'RE HOME, WE GO GRAB THEM OR SOMEONE GRABS THEM. AND IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S OUR FOCUS GOING FORWARD, NOT JUST FINDING PEOPLE.

ABSOLUTELY SECTION 2.8 ABOUT DEFINING HOLDING PERIODS. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE NEED TO A TIME PERIOD ON THERE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD CATS IN THE SHELTER THAT ROAM AROUND FOR YEARS THAT JUST BECOME THE CAT OF THE SHELTER.

BUT I THINK REALLY THAT'S DETERMINED, LIKE YOU SAID, ON AGGRESSION OR BEHAVIOR, BUT ALSO BASED ON KENNEL SPACE AND CAPACITY.

RIGHT? SO WE HAVE A LOT MORE SPACE NOW. AND IF WE START OVERGROWING THAT AND PUSHING THE LIMITS.

AND YES, I WOULD IMAGINE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE THE LONGEST OR HAVE THE WORST TEMPER, OF COURSE, OR WHATEVER WOULD BE THE FIRST TO GO, UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE OUR, OUR SISTER CITIES THAT WE CAN LEAN ON AS WELL.

I KNOW WE'VE DONE SOME, SOME TRADING, YOU KNOW, AND SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT AROUND THAT VERSUS SPECIFYING ANY SORT OF TIME PERIOD.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER MILLSAP SAID, I, I DEFINITELY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT A SURRENDER FEE.

I THINK THAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A HABIT OF, YOU KNOW, UNLEASHING YOUR DOG BUTT OR YOUR ANIMAL.

BUT THERE COULD ALWAYS BE A DONATION IF YOU'RE COMING TO, YOU KNOW, DROP OFF YOUR DOG.

THERE'S A REASON FOR IT. AND, YOU KNOW, SAY, HEY, THERE'S EXTRA COSTS ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT ON TO THE CITY, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU SPARE A DIME OR [LAUGHTER] WHATEVER? SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I GOT THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE WORK ON THIS SO, SO FAR, WE ONLY HAVE. YEAH [LAUGHTER]. THAT'S GOOD MR. LINDSEY. YEAH SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING THAT'S WRITTEN SO FAR ON HERE.

SECTION 2.7 SPECIFICALLY. ON THERE IS, I FEEL LIKE THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED, I READ THE UNDERLYING ORDINANCE.

IF YOU'RE CONFINING A, A ANIMAL ONTO YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT ANIMAL IS STRAY, THEN I THINK IT'S YOU'RE WITHIN THE LAW THAT YOU REPORT IT TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES.

SO I REALLY JUST DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THAT'S WRITTEN THERE.

ON THE DANGEROUS ANIMALS. SO BEFORE IT WAS DANGEROUS DOGS, WHICH CANINES BUT DANGEROUS ANIMALS ARE.

YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT A DOG WOULD HAVE UNDERNEATH THAT. BUT ARE THERE OTHER, OTHER TYPES OF ANIMALS LIKE SNAKES OR OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE THAT THIS WOULD RESTRICT? CAN YOU CAN YOU PUT 2.8 UP ON THE SCREEN? YEAH SO THE DANGEROUS ANIMALS GIVES US A LITTLE MORE ABILITY IF IT IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A DOG.

OKAY. NOT NECESSARILY ANY OTHER ANIMAL, BUT IT DOES.

IT DOES GIVE US THE ABILITY TO TO USE THOSE TERMINOLOGIES FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST THE DOG.

IT COULD BE A CAT, IT COULD BE WILDLIFE. IT COULD BE EVERYTHING FALLS IN THAT PLACE. OKAY, AND I'M JUST THE ONLY THING THAT WAS KIND OF CONCERNED WITH IS, YOU KNOW, IS IT, YOU KNOW, SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE ON THERE. IS THERE A WELL ESTABLISHED, LIKE, SET OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THINKS THAT THIS IS DANGEROUS AND THEY CALL AND REPORT THEIR NEIGHBOR, BUT THE NEIGHBOR IS LIKE, NO, THIS IS A VERY TAME ANIMAL? I MEAN, IS THERE WHAT KIND OF DISCRETION? IT'D BE AN INVESTIGATION STARTED WITH THE REPORT FIRST.

THAT'S WHAT'S WHAT INITIATES IT. AND THEN IT'D MEET THE CRITERIA.

AND IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S CERTAIN. AND THERE'S ALSO A ROOM FOR AN APPEAL.

IF THE RESIDENT THAT OWNS THE DOG FEELS IT'S UNJUST OR NOT THE RIGHT RULING, THEY CAN'T APPEAL IT.

OKAY AND THEN JUST ON THE SURRENDER, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I FIGURE YOU COMING FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THERE MUST BE SOME RATIONALE BEHIND IT.

SO WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS? IS IT SOMETHING THERE THAT JUST KIND OF MAKES SOMEBODY THINK TWICE? OR DO MOST PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND OKAY, I'M TURNING OVER MY ANIMAL.

THERE'S SOME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE TO IT? IF SOMEBODY DID COME IN AND SAY, I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. HAVE YOU WORKED THROUGH THOSE SCENARIOS BEFORE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE CAN WORK WITH RESIDENTS THAT MAY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

AND IN TRUE EMERGENCIES OR TRUE CASES WHERE IT'S JUSTIFIABLY UNABLE TO WAIVE IT, WE WILL.

THE GOAL IS NOT TO JUST BE THERE FOR MONEY. THE GOAL, THE INTENT IS TO HELP ALLEVIATE WITH SOME OF THE COSTS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESIDENTS AS A STERILIZATION, VACCINATIONS, MICROCHIP.

[00:50:04]

SOME OF THAT DOES COST MONEY MORE THAN WHAT WE MAY HAVE IN THE BUDGET.

SO IT'S JUST TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT COST AND SOME OF THE FOOD AS PRICES CONTINUE TO RISE EVERY YEAR. I'VE BEEN IN CITIES BEFORE WHERE WE IMPLEMENTED A SURRENDER FEE, AND WE, WE STUDIED TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T AN ABUNDANCE OF STRAY ANIMALS AFTER THAT, AND THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY DATA TO HELP SUPPORT THAT.

SO IT'S JUST TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT COST TO GET TO THE REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO MEET.

OKAY. YEAH THAT'S FANTASTIC, TOTALLY. AS LONG AS YOU STILL HAVE THE DISCRETION THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING ABOARD IN SACHSE.

ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT REPUTATION IN OUR AREA FOR WHAT A WONDERFUL SHELTER WE HAVE AND WHAT WONDERFUL STAFF WE HAVE.

AND THAT PEOPLE BRING SURRENDER ANIMALS TO US BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY'LL GET TAKEN CARE OF.

AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS WE'RE NOT JUST GETTING PETS FROM SACHSE, WE'RE GETTING THEM FROM SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

AND SO SOME OF THE HOPE WITH THIS IS THAT IT WILL HELP DETER PEOPLE FROM JUST DUMPING OFF AN ANIMAL, AND JUST ASSUMING THAT WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF IT, THAT IT'S IF YOU WANT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND DROP OFF AN ANIMAL, THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND THAT WE DON'T KIND OF BECOME THIS DUMPING GROUND BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A GOOD REPUTATION FOR GETTING THEM AND PLACING THEM AND ALL THAT. SO WE'RE HOPING IT DOES GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DETERRENT ON THAT.

AND THEN THE OTHER POINT THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE REAL QUICK JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW, LANCE AND OBVIOUSLY HUGO ARE, ARE NEW HERE AND I'VE, YOU KNOW, WORKED WITH SYLVESTER WITH ANIMAL SERVICES FOR OVER A DECADE.

HERE IT IS, WITH RARE EXCEPTION THAT WE HAVE HAD AN ANIMAL IN THE SHELTER, EVEN OUR SMALLER SHELTER BEFORE THIS NEW ONE WHERE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THEM ADOPTED OUT. AND WE ENDED UP HAVING TO PUT THE ANIMAL DOWN.

A LOT OF BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT, THEY GET KIND OF KENNEL CRAZY, AND THEY'RE, THEY JUST CAN'T, YOU KNOW, CAN'T HANDLE BEING IN A KENNEL. BUT THAT'S WITH REALLY RARE EXCEPTION.

I JUST WOULD ASK THAT MAYBE WE COULD CONSIDER IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU ALL WANTED TO DO.

IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT THAT IT COULD ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE STAFF BECAUSE I WOULD TRUST THE MANAGEMENT OF THE STAFF TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THAT MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE JUST HIT THAT TIME LIMIT AND SAID, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT THE ANIMAL DOWN.

THERE MIGHT BE, AS HUGO SAID, PLENTY OF OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE BEFORE WE JUST EXERCISE THAT JUST BECAUSE OF A RULE HAVE MAYOR. OKAY THANK YOU, MS. HOWARD. YEAH, I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO LET STAFF HAVE DISCRETION ON HOW LONG AN ANIMAL IS ACCEPTABLE TO BE IN THE SHELTER. I THINK WE HAVE A VERY GOOD REPUTATION OF CARING FOR ANIMALS UNTIL THEY GET INTO A HOME.

AND I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT. OUT OF CURIOSITY, IS THE FEE A SURRENDER FEE, A SET AMOUNT, OR DOES IT VARY BASED ON IF THE ANIMAL'S NEUTERED OR NOT VACCINATED OR? SO WE DID SOME COMPARISON TO NEIGHBORING CITIES, AND THE FEE THAT WE SUBMITTED TO FOR THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WOULD BE $25.

OKAY SO JUST A FLAT ACROSS THE BOARD. YEAH $25.

DO WE CHARGE? DO WE EVEN TAKE? WE TAKE ANIMALS? LIKE IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP FROM WYLIE AND WANTS TO SURRENDER AN ANIMAL, DO WE TAKE THEM? IF THEY HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF SACHSE. THEY HAVE TO BE RESIDENT OF SACHSE. YES DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE $25 SURRENDER FEE WITH DISCRETION FOR STAFF THAT IF THEY REALLY THINK IT'S A HARDSHIP THAT THEY CAN.

YEAH ON THAT REAL QUICK. I KNOW HUGO IN MOST ANIMAL SERVICES HAVE A TON OF RESOURCES.

SO WHEN THEY DO BRING AN ANIMAL TO SURRENDER, THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS BEFORE THE SURRENDER HAPPENS.

THERE'S DOZENS OF RESCUES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THAT GET SHIPPED ALL OVER THE PLACE.

AND SOME ANIMALS WILL THRIVE HERE. THAT THAT DON'T THRIVE HERE WOULD THRIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE UP NORTH OR SOMETHING.

SO THAT'S KIND OF A REGULAR THING THAT WE ENCOURAGE THAT NOW IF THEY'RE JUST DONE WITH THE ANIMAL, WE GET IT AND WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT AND HELP THEM OUT MS. BUHLER. I AGREE WITH MS. HOWARTH. I'M OKAY WITH THE $25 SURRENDER FEE WITH THE ABILITY TO WAIVE FOR FINANCIAL NEED.

I THINK STAFF HAS THAT DISCRETION, AND I THINK THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO. THE NEXT ONE IS THE TIME LIMIT.

JUST SETTING AN ARBITRARY TIME LIMIT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR PHILOSOPHY TO GIVE UP ON A GOOD, WELL, WELL ADAPTED DOG THAT COULD STILL FIND A HOME.

I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO USE OUR RESOURCES AND FIND A GOOD HOME FOR THEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MILLSAP. IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD HERE TONIGHT I THINK A LOT OF GOOD TOPICS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND SOME SUGGESTIONS MADE.

WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO POSTPONE THE ACTION ON THIS TILL THE NEXT COUNCIL, AND LET THE STAFF GO BACK AND HAVE A TIME TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS

[00:55:05]

THAT HAS BEEN POSITIVE, ACCEPTED BEFORE WE ACTION ON IT? OTHERWISE, IT'S JUST WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT IT NEVER, NEVER GOT IMPLEMENTED.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT IT. AND THAT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE WAY TO DO THAT.

WELL, THERE'S TWO THINGS. ONE IS GOT TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION.

RIGHT. AND THEN THAT'LL JUST DEPEND ON THE MOTIONS.

SO LANCE, WITH THAT, JUST IF YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION.

SURE SECTION 2-50 AND 2-49. I BELIEVE COUNCIL MET THE OTHER DAY AND DISCUSSED THIS.

AND THE OPTION TO UPDATE THE ORDINANCE TO DISSOLVE THE ANIMAL SHELTER BOARD AND TO AMEND THE 2-49 ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPOSING IT FROM FIVE MEMBERS TO A TOTAL OF NINE MEMBERS WITH THE REQUIRED LICENSE, VETERINARIAN, MUNICIPAL, ELECTED OFFICIAL, CITY OF SACHSE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED FROM ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS.

AND THEN APPOINT THE OTHER FIVE MEMBERS. SO THAT WOULD BE UPDATED IN THIS ORDINANCE ALSO.

I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY IS THAT IT? OKAY MR. WHITWORTH. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AS WELL.

YEAH PRESTENBERG. YES ITEM 2-49 I THINK IT'S A FANTASTIC THING TO DO.

I KNOW AS THE AS THE LIAISON OFFICER HERE FROM THE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WE GO WE USED TO GO RIGHT FROM ONE MEETING TO THE NEXT.

IT WAS LIKE A SIMILAR GROUP OF FOLKS, AND IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS.

SO I THINK THIS IS A BETTER USE OF TIME, RESOURCES AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE A QUICK CHANGE.

THANK YOU YEAH. I THINK I'LL ADD SOME DIFFERENT ANGLE TO IT.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY INITIALLY I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SURRENDER FEE.

BUT I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD KEEP ESPECIALLY WELL FOR THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT ALSO TO IT DOES HELP OUR BACK END FOR, AS MR. ESPINOSA SAID, SUPPLIES FOOD. IT DOES THAT ALL GOES INTO IT.

SO AND SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THAT AND THE NO TIME LIMIT.

SO THAT'S JUST A LONG WAY OF SAYING I'M FINE WITH THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

AND PIGGYBACK ON MR. PRESTENBERG COMMENTS. I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO COMBINE THOSE BOARDS.

BUT BEFORE WE GO TOO FAR, THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITWORTH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? ITEM NUMBER 1.

OKAY SEEING NONE. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. WHAT WAS THE ITEM? FRANK MR. MILLSAP BROUGHT UP ABOUT REQUIRED DASH INSTEAD OF 2-7 DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE WEEDS TOO FAR, BUT WHERE WAS THAT? YEAH, HE'S GOING TO PUT IT BACK UP. REQUIRES RESIDENTS TO REPORT STRAY PETS ON THE PROPERTY.

IT STATES A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THE PERSON CONFINES AN ANIMAL AT LARGE, OTHER THAN ONE ALREADY OWNED BY THAT PERSON ON HIS OR HER PROPERTY, WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE CONFINEMENT WITHIN 24 HOURS.

SO IF YOU TAKE AN ANIMAL THAT'S NOT YOURS, YOU CAN FIND IT FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS.

THEN IT'S A VIOLATION, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT THE FIRST WORD, JUST WANTED TO VERIFY. I THINK REQUIRES WAS WHAT YOU HAD ON YOUR IS ON YOUR SLIDE.

YES. ON THE SLIDE IT'S NOT IN HERE IN 2.6. ENCOURAGE I THINK YOU SAID BUT YOU'RE MAKING THAT WORD IS NOT USED IN 2-7, SAYS A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THE PERSON CONFINES AN ANIMAL AT LARGE OTHER THAN ONE ALREADY OWNED BY THE PERSON ON HIS OR HER PROPERTY, WITHOUT NOTIFYING ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE CONFINEMENT WITHIN 24 HOURS, THAT'S AN OFFENSE.

OKAY, SO YOU SAY ENCOURAGED, THEN IT'S NOT AN OFFENSE, IT'S JUST A STATEMENT.

CORRECT YES. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE IF WE DID CHANGE IT TO THAT WORD, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

CORRECT. GOTCHA OKAY. NO SENSE IN EVEN HAVING IT IN THE WORD USELESS YEAH. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GETTING TO GUYS, THANKS FOR PRESTENBERG. BUT WHEN IT'S READ OUT IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT MAKES IT LIKE IF SOMEONE FINDS A DOG AND DOESN'T REPORT IT WITHIN 24 HOURS, I THINK THAT IS YOU WANT TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME [LAUGHTER].

LIKE, YOU DON'T WANT TO HIJACK A DOG FOR MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO I KIND OF LIKE THE WAY THE WORDING IS NOW THAT I HEAR THE REST OF IT.

SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT? I'M OKAY WITH IT THANK YOU. MS. HOWARTH. I WAS JUST GOING TO

[01:00:06]

FOUND HIM AND KEPT AND PICKED HIM UP AND WAS HOLDING HIM, AND I'M CALLING THE ANIMAL SHELTER LOOKING FOR MY DOG, AND THEY NEVER REPORTED TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER THAT THEY HAVE MY DOG I'M GOING TO FREAK OUT AND HAVE HIM SAY, HEY, I MEAN, I'VE DONE THIS I FOUND A NEIGHBOR'S DOG DURING THE HORRIBLE ICE STORM I DIDN'T KNOW WHO IT BELONGED TO I PUT HIM IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM OPEN, AND WE'RE ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF THE OWNER AND FIGURE IT OUT BUT I THINK HAVING THAT WHEN SOMEONE ISN'T GOING TO REPORT THAT AND CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THEM, FOR THE ANIMAL CONTROL AND FOR THE OWNER, THAT'S PROBABLY LOOKING FOR THAT ANIMAL OKAY, QUICK, QUICK 20 SECOND TIMEOUT. MS. GRANGER NEEDS TO RESET THE MICROPHONES.

ARE WE MISSING ANYBODY? OKAY THE TIME IS GRANGER? 7:39. OKAY. BACK IN OPEN SESSION AT 7:39.

OR OUT OF RECESS, I SHOULD SAY. OKAY, SO. MR. EXCUSE ME. MR. WHITWORTH HAD COMPLETED HIS PRESENTATION.

WE HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I KNOW MR. MILLSAP HAD A COMMENT, SO CROSS MY FINGERS.

YOU'RE ON. MR. MILLSAP. LET'S GO BACK TO THE 2.7.

OKAY BACK TO THE REQUIRES OUR LAWYER SAYS THAT REQUIRES AN ACTION IF WE SAY SUGGESTED, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

BUT IN REALITY, IF YOU SAY REQUIRE, THAT'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF THEY DON'T DO IT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES.

SO REQUIRING IS NEBULOUS TERM IF WE DON'T HAVE CONSEQUENCES IDENTIFIED.

AND THAT'S. IT'S AN OFFENSE STOLE FROM THEIR NEIGHBOR. IF THEY DON'T REPORT IT WITHIN 24 HOURS, THAT'S AN OFFENSE.

OKAY. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT, IF THEY DON'T REPORT IT IN 24 HOURS, WHO IN THE HECK IS GOING TO KEEP A DOG FOR 24 HOURS? A STRAY DOG? IF IT'S A DOG IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU KNOW WHO IT BELONGS TO, IT'S NOT STRAY.

IT'S JUST NOT AT HOME, AT HIS HOUSE OR HER HOUSE, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BETTER.

I STILL THINK THAT THE FEE IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DUMP A DOG.

AND IF YOU HAVE ONE DOG DUMPED, RATHER THAN PAY THE FEE, AND IT HAPPENS TO BE THAT DOG THAT BITES SOMEBODY, THEN WHAT HAVE WE DONE? I THINK I THINK THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ARE WORSE THAN THE INTENT, POSITIVE ATTITUDES. MS. HOWARTH. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE READY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F.1 AS PRESENTED.

YES I'M NOT READING IT AGAIN [LAUGHTER]. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F.1 I DON'T READ THEM ON MOTIONS ANYWAY.

SECOND? MR. LINDSEY. SECOND. SECOND. WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION IF YOU WANT.

WE HAVE A COUPLE NAMES ON HERE, Y'ALL GOOD? MS. MR. PRESTENBERG? MS. BUHLER? YOU GOOD? OKAY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE.

EXCUSE ME. HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM F.1 AS PRESENTED.

I DON'T HEAR ANY MORE DISCUSSION, SO PLEASE CAST YOUR BALLOT. OKAY HE WALKED IN OH, HERE WE GO.

YOU SAID SCROLL DOWN. YEAH, [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE IT'S SO LONG.

YEAH. VERY LONG CAPTIONS LONGER [LAUGHTER] THESE LONG CAPTIONS.

MOTION CARRIES WITH MR. MILLSAP VOTING NO. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM F.2.

[2. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Friends of Rescue Animals (FRAs) to provide volunteer services to the Sachse Animal Services department.]

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS (FRAS) TO PROVIDE VOLUNTEER SERVICES TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT. MS. NASH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL IN KEEPING WITH OUR THEME TONIGHT OF ANIMALS.

LANCE IS BACK UP AT THE PODIUM TO DISCUSS WITH YOU A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH A NEW GROUP THAT WE HAVE HAD AN INFORMAL OR A TRIAL RELATIONSHIP OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, THE FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE FOLKS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT,

[01:05:02]

AND SORT OF NEON YELLOW T-SHIRTS AND MAYBE EVEN 1 OR 2 THAT YOU MIGHT ALREADY KNOW FROM MAYBE SITTING UP HERE AT THE DAIS AT ONE POINT SO.

I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED [LAUGHTER]. SO LANCE WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THIS MOU WITH THE FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS.

LONG TIME NO SEE, MR. WHITWORTH. APPRECIATE ONCE AGAIN RESCUE ANIMALS. I WILL SAY THIS FRAS WAS KEY IN THE TRANSITION.

ALSO, I KNOW WE RECOGNIZED CITY OF GARLAND, BUT WE LEANED ON FRAS AND ENTERED A TEMPORARY MOU BACK IN JUNE AND THEY WE WOULD HAVE VOLUNTEERS.

ANYTIME I WAS AT THE SHELTER, WE'D HAVE A VOLUNTEER FROM FRAS WHO REALLY HELPED US WITH CLEANING, WITH WALKING THE DOGS, WITH FEEDING THE ANIMAL, WALKING THE ANIMALS, FEEDING, FEEDING THE ANIMALS, CLEANING. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND IT REALLY SET A STRONG TONE OF VOLUNTEERS AT THE SHELTER, ESPECIALLY THE MARK THAT THEY MADE AS A FRAS ORGANIZATION.

THEIR ORGANIZATION IS 300 MEMBERS STRONG, 200 REALLY ACTIVE MEMBERS.

THEY COVER THEY VOLUNTEER FOR ROWLETT, GARLAND AND RICHARDSON CURRENTLY.

THEY HAVE MOU WITH ALL OF THOSE CITIES. WE'RE LOOKING AT ENTERING THIS AS A MORE PERMANENT AGREEMENT.

SO OVERVIEW JUST SOME KEY TERMS, SERVICES AND BENEFITS WITH FRAS.

THIS ESTABLISHES FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS AS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR ANIMAL SACHSE ANIMAL SERVICES.

THAT WILL BE THE PRIMARY ORGANIZATION FOR ALL OF OUR VOLUNTEERS.

HERE'S SUPPORT ANIMAL SERVICES THROUGH VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT AND FUNDRAISING ASSISTANCE.

ANNUAL AGREEMENT CAN YOU CAN CANCEL THE AGREEMENT JUST WITH THE 15 DAY NOTICE.

BOTH PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER ON IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES.

FRAS MAY USE ANIMAL IMAGES/NAMES FOR FUNDRAISING FRAS MUST FOLLOW CITY'S ANIMAL SERVICES POLICIES.

THAT'S A BIG ONE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME IN AND TRY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.

THEY'LL KNOW. THEY'LL KNOW OUR SOPS FOR OUR SHELTER.

THEY GET TRAINED BEFORE THEY EVEN ARE ASSIGNED TO OUR SHELTER OR ANY SHELTER.

SO THEY HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE.

AND THEN CITY PROVIDES OVERSIGHT AND APPROVAL THROUGH THESE SERVICES.

SO THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS, THEY COVER EVERYTHING WILL WORK PRIMARILY WITH THE WHOEVER'S KIND OF OVER THE ORGANIZATION RIGHT NOW, IT'S FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER COLIN KING, WHO IS WORKS WITH, OF COURSE, DINA AND CHERYL FROM FRAS AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP. FRAS PROVIDES COORDINATION, MANAGEMENT OF VOLUNTEERS, ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH CITY POLICY. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.

FUNDRAISING FOR OUR FOR OUT OF THE ORDINARY ANIMAL MEDICAL TRANSPORT COSTS.

WE PROVIDE RECOGNITION AS VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR, DIRECTION AND OVERSIGHT BENEFITS.

AGAIN ORGANIZED VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. ADDED FUNDRAISING SUPPORT.

STRONGER COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND ANIMAL WELFARE.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. WHITWORTH. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY. OH, THERE WE GO. MS. BUHLER. TO THE ORGANIZATION I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WE'RE SUPER GRATEFUL TO HAVE YOU HERE IN SACHSE AND WE CAN'T WAIT TO GET STARTED.

MR. PRESTENBERG. YEAH A QUICK QUESTION IF WHEN THEY'RE ON SITE, I'M ASSUMING THEY REPORT THROUGH OUR CHAIN OF COMMAND.

RIGHT? AND THEN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ONE OF THE VOLUNTEERS, LIKE A DOG BITE OR WHATEVER, ARE THEY COVERED UNDER ANY SORT OF SACHSE UMBRELLA POLICY OR DO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN? HOW'S THAT WORK? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IF YOU GUYS HAVE LIABILITY SEIGLER WOULD LIKE. OKAY. HI, I'M DEANA SEIGLER, PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS.

WE ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE, LIKE, A VOLUNTEER LIABILITY POLICY.

IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS TO GET DOG BITE LIABILITY.

WHAT WE DO REQUIRE THEM TO SIGN IS YOUR CITY OF SACHSE LIABILITY WAIVER, AS WELL AS OUR FRAS LIABILITY WAIVER.

DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE HANDLED IT DIFFERENTLY WHEN A VOLUNTEER IS INJURED ON SITE.

BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HANDLE IT A CERTAIN WAY.

IT'S REALLY WHATEVER YOU WOULD DO FOR YOUR CITY POLICIES FOR A VOLUNTEER.

OKAY IF I MAY. ALL VOLUNTEERS ARE COVERED UNDER OUR WORKERS COMPENSATION POLICY AND WOULD BE COVERED IN THE EVENT OF A DOG BITE OR ANY OTHER INJURY.

[01:10:07]

YEAH THE REASON I ASK IS YOU DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A HINDRANCE ON A VOLUNTEER, RIGHT? YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE CITY, BUT YOU ALSO THE VOLUNTEER HOURS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT IN SAVE THE CITY ELSEWHERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE COVERED IN A WAY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT WE EXPECT TO BE, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS TO HAPPEN, BUT JUST CURIOUS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN YEAH, I APPRECIATE THIS VENTURE. AND THANK YOU FOR THEIR ANSWERS.

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? THANK YOU, MR. WHITWORTH.

THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. SO IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET BACK UP? OKAY, SO IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. DEANA SEIGLER I'M ACTUALLY A ROWLETT CITY RESIDENT, BUT I'M PRESIDENT OF FRIENDS OF RESCUE ANIMALS.

I DID WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT YOU SAID IN THE PRESENTATION.

YOU TALKED ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS. SO WE ARE NOT PERSONALLY RUNNING BACKGROUND CHECKS.

HOWEVER, IF THE CITY WANTS TO RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS, THAT IS A PROCESS THAT CAN BE PUT IN PLACE CITY SPECIFIC.

WE DO ASK QUESTIONS ON THE VOLUNTEER APPLICATION ABOUT PAST CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WE WILL INQUIRE MORE. BUT WE ARE NOT PHYSICALLY RUNNING A BACKGROUND CHECK, SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO.

JUST FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, THE CITY OF ROWLETT DOES RUN A BACKGROUND CHECK, BUT THE CITY OF GARLAND AND RICHARDSON DO NOT RUN A BACKGROUND CHECK.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. WELCOME BACK MS. VENTURA. HEY, WE DO RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL VOLUNTEERS.

AND SO WE WOULD CONTINUE THAT PROCESS WITH THIS GROUP AS WELL.

OKAY ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITWORTH. THANK YOU, MS. VENTURA.

THANK YOU MOTION BY MS. HOWARTH TO APPROVE ITEM F.2 AS PRESENTED. DO I HAVE A SECOND? MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS.

SECOND. SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CAST YOUR BALLOT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MR. SEIGLER.

THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED, THANK YOU FRAS [LAUGHTER]. I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU SAY.

SO APPRECIATE THAT

[3. Consider approving an ordinance of the City of Sachse, Texas, amending the code of ordinances by amending Chapter 4 “Business Regulations,” by adding a new section 4-17 “Donation bins” to define donation bins and to establish permit and applications requirements, provide for location restrictions, create a revocation and appeal process, and provide for requirements for maintenance of donation bins; providing for a repealing clause; providing for a severability clause; providing a savings clause; providing for a penalty of fine not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00); and providing for an effective date.]

CONSIDER APPROVING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SACHSE TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 BUSINESS REGULATIONS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 4-17 DONATION BINS TO DEFINE DONATION BINS AND TO ESTABLISH PERMIT AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR LOCATION RESTRICTIONS.

CREATING A RECOMMENDATION. EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU TALK ANYMORE.

REVOCATION AND APPEALS PROCESS AND PROVIDE FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF DONATION BINS.

PROVIDING FOR REPEALING CLAUSE. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.

PROVIDING FOR A SAVING CLAUSE. PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A FINE, NOT TO SEEK $2,000 AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I HAVE FLASHBACKS, BUT THAT'S NASH. THANK YOU MAYOR. AS COUNCIL IS AWARE, WE HAD COME AND SPOKEN WITH YOU ABOUT DONATION BINS AT A PREVIOUS MEETING AND GOT SOME DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL AND STAFF.

TOOK THE TIME TO WORK TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS, WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST NEXT STEPS ON A PROCESS FOR THIS. AND SO WE ARE BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

HELLO, MS. ROSE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

LAUREN ROSE. I FEAR THAT DONATION BIN REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE AS INTERESTING AS ANIMAL REGULATIONS, BUT HERE WE ARE. YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED. YEAH, [LAUGHTER] YEAH.

JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW. WE'LL DO A QUICK RECAP OF YOUR PRIOR CONVERSATION.

WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION EARLIER THIS SUMMER ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR A RESIDENT AND SOME OPTIONS AVAILABLE.

AS MS. NASH ALLUDED, WE INCORPORATED THAT INTO A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

SO JUST AGAIN, IT'S REALLY JUST A LACK OF MAINTENANCE.

THESE ARE POPPING UP OVER TOWN. I TOOK SOME TIME OFF AND CAME BACK AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE EVEN MORE THAT RETURNED.

MS. NASH HAD TO CALL ME DOWN ON THAT ONE [LAUGHTER].

THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHACK A MOLE, AND THEY DO SEEM TO BE PROLIFERATING.

SO I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS VERY TIMELY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

AGAIN, A LOT OF THE RESEARCH THAT WE CONDUCTED POINTED TO THIS BEING A BURGEONING AREA THAT CITIES ARE STARTING TO REGULATE, BUT THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT DO HAVE VARYING DEGREES OF RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE.

AND WE'VE MODELED OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE BASED ON WHAT WE THINK IS BEST SUITED FOR SACHSE.

[01:15:01]

AGAIN, JUST REITERATING THE COUNCIL FEEDBACK, THERE WAS A STRONG EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN AN ATTENDED BIN AND AN UNATTENDED BIN. WE HAVE AN ATTENDED BIN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN.

THAT IS NEVER AN ISSUE FOR US, AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE ISSUES THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING AT SOME OF THE UNATTENDED BIN.

SO I THINK THAT DISTINCTION IS VERY IMPORTANT AND WILL HELP PROTECT THE ONES THAT ARE DOING THAT GREAT WORK.

AGAIN, DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO ENSURE THAT ENFORCEMENT FOCUSES REALLY ON THOSE UNATTENDED BINS.

AND OUR GOAL IS TO BALANCE COMMUNITY ESTHETICS AND SAFETY WITH SUPPORT OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.

SO JUST A QUICK RECAP OF OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE STANDARDS.

WE'RE PROPOSING AN ANNUAL PERMIT OF $250 PER BIN, WITH ZONING RESTRICTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS ONLY.

THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF 75FT FROM INTERSECTIONS AND FIRE LANES, 250FT FROM PARKS AND SCHOOLS.

ONE BIN PER PARCEL. EXCEPT FOR LARGE PARCELS WHICH ARE DEFINED, THEY MUST MAINTAIN TO AVOID OVERFLOW.

CHRISTINA HAS SERVICED A NUMBER OF THESE BINS THAT ARE OVERFLOWED AND HAS DONE SO IN MANY DIFFERENT WEATHER CONDITIONS, SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION FOR US TO MAKE.

THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO DISPLAY THE CONTACT INFORMATION, THE SERVICE SCHEDULE, DONATION INSTRUCTIONS.

THEY'LL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE WEATHER RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION.

I NOTICED THAT A COUPLE OF THE NEWER ONES AROUND TOWN SEEMED TO BE PUT TOGETHER WITH PLYWOOD, AND DON'T SEEM TO BE VERY STURDY. NO ADVERTISING BEYOND THE IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S CONSENT IS REQUIRED.

OUR ENFORCEMENT HERE, WE'RE PROPOSING A 48 HOUR NOTICE TO CORRECT VIOLATION.

A PERMIT IS REVOKED AFTER TWO VIOLATIONS AND A 12 MONTH PERIOD.

THIS MODELS OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE CODE THAT WE FOLLOW FOR NUISANCE ISSUES.

AND IMPOUNDMENT AFTER NONCOMPLIANCE OF $200 IMPOUNDMENT FEE PLUS A 30-DAY STORAGE.

AND THEN ABANDONMENT WOULD BE PRESUMED AFTER 10 DAYS.

AS FAR AS OUR NEXT STEPS, WE RECOMMEND APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

IT DOES INCORPORATE THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL PROVIDED TO US EARLIER THIS SUMMER.

IF THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED TONIGHT, WE WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON OUTREACH TO OPERATORS AND PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE'VE INCLUDED A PROPOSAL FOR A 60-DAY GRACE PERIOD.

BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH CHRISTINA, WE REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD GET US TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND JANUARY 1ST WOULD BE A NICE, CLEAN START DATE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT ON THIS ISSUE TO ALLOW FOR PLENTY OF TIME FOR CONTACT OF BUSINESS OWNERS WORKING WITH THESE DONATION BIN OPERATORS AND MARKETING OF THE NEW PROGRAM FOR THE PUBLIC.

AND THEN WE WOULD BEGIN ENFORCEMENT AFTER THAT TRANSITION PERIOD.

AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU, MS. ROSE.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MS. HOWARTH. SO WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF A LARGE PARCEL? LET ME PULL THAT UP IN THE ORDINANCE.

WELL, LET ME REPHRASE. I'M ASSUMING KROGER'S PARKING LOT.

THAT SHOPPING CENTER IS A LARGE PARCEL. YES DOES THAT SEEMS TO BE A PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC LOCATION? I'M GOING TO LET CHRISTINA ANSWER THIS QUESTION CHRISTINA. WE WOULD BASICALLY GO OVER IT WOULD BE KIND OF A REVIEW THING THAT I WOULD GO OVER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND REVIEWING AT THIS POINT WITH THE PARCELS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN TWO ON A PARCEL, BUT THINGS LIKE KROGER, THEN, YES, WE WOULD MAKE THAT EXCEPTION AND THEY CAN BE TWO LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, OR THEY HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN NO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE SEPARATED. SO WITH IT BEING THE LARGER PARCEL, IT WOULD NEED TO BE ON OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE PARCEL.

SO THERE'S A IN THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S A IF THERE'S IF IT'S A LARGE PARCEL, THEY CAN HAVE THIS MANY AND THEY HAVE TO BE THIS FAR APART.

SO LIKE I SAID, WE WOULD HAVE IT WOULD KIND OF BE LIKE STAFF RECOMMENDED.

SO IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SPECIFY IN THE ORDINANCE IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO. I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU GIVE AN EXCEPTION TO LARGE PARCELS AND THEN THEY CAN STILL HAVE 17 BINS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME THAT WE HAVE FOR 17 D THREE IF YOU WANT TO READ THAT ONE, THAT'S WHAT IT STATES D THREE. YEP. OKAY. NO MORE THAN ONE DONATION BIN MAY BE PERMITTED FOR PLACEMENT ON ANY ONE LOT.

IN THE CASE OF A SHOPPING CENTER OR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT THAT CONSISTS OF MULTIPLE PLATTED LOTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL TREAT THE SHOPPING CENTER OR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AS IF IT IS

[01:20:01]

ONE CONTIGUOUS LOT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MR. GORFIDA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MILLSAP. OKAY. YOU ANSWERED MY FIRST QUESTION WHEN ASKED HOW LARGE WAS A BIN OR PARCEL? ANOTHER ONE. IMPOUNDED FEE PLUS $30 PER DAY. WHAT IF THAT THEY DON'T PICK IT UP FOR 30 DAYS? THAT'S $900 PLUS 250. WHAT IF THEY JUST SAID, WELL, YOU GUYS JUST KEEP THAT, BEN.

NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH IT? THERE IS A PROVISION PROPOSED THAT ASSUMES ABANDONMENT AFTER TEN DAYS.

SO THERE WOULD BE THAT INTERVENTION THERE. IF THEY DON'T COME PICK IT UP AFTER TEN DAYS, THEN WE'LL ASSUME THAT IT'S ABANDONED AND WE'LL DISPOSE OF IT.

IT'S OURS. OKAY. COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE PICTURES OF THE BINS? YES, SIR. THERE. THOSE DON'T HAVE THE, SAY, ALMOST TRADITIONAL TRASH LAYING AROUND THEM WHERE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO GET OUT AND PUT THEM IN THE BIN. THEY JUST THREW THEM AT THE DOOR. BUT EVEN HERE, TRYING TO KEEP A COMMUNITY REASONABLE, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MOWING THE GRASS BETWEEN THOSE BINS? BECAUSE THAT'S GETTING ALMOST A NUISANCE RIGHT THERE. YES, THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. OKAY.

YES. DOES IT DO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN THAT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE OWNER.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME WAY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE A.

YES, SIR, AN AGREEMENT. THAT'S A PROVISION. AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THIS THIS PHOTO WAS SUBMITTED TO US BY A RESIDENT, AND THAT WAS MANY MONTHS AGO. SO I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE HIGH GRASS AND WEEDS THERE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.

BUT IF NOT, CHRISTINA AND HER TEAM CAN GO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

MR. PRESTENBERG. YES. FIRST OFF, THANKS FOR PUTTING ALL THIS TOGETHER.

I GO TO A CERTAIN RESTAURANT THAT'S RIGHT NEAR THIS PICTURE A LOT WITH MY KIDS, AND I SEE IT EVERY TIME, AND IT DRIVES ME CRAZY. SO I HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH, ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

YOU KNOW, WE TALK WE HAD A PORTION HERE EARLIER THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WHAT IS IT? WE TALK ABOUT. HEY, THERE'S SOME GOOD DONATION BINS OUT THERE THAT WE WANT TO KEEP. AND I THINK THE MANNED ONES, ESPECIALLY CAN WE TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ONES? I DON'T WANT TO VIOLATE ANYTHING, BUT THERE'S A THERE'S A GOOD ONE THAT WE LIKE.

AND THE 75FT AWAY FROM FIRE LANES IS A FIRE LANE.

CONSIDERED A PARKING LOT WITH A RED STRIPE DOWN IT.

IS THAT CONSIDERED FIRE LANE, I'M ASSUMING? YES.

IF THE MARKINGS ARE THERE, THAT'S A FIRE LANE.

OKAY, SO THAT ONE, WHEN I LOOK AT GOOGLE MAPS, LOOKS LIKE IT'S FIVE FEET AWAY.

SO THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. CORRECT.

AND AND PART OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD IS THAT ANYTHING THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE DONATION BIN OWNER AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS PRESENTED, BECAUSE THAT ONE'S VERY ESTABLISHED.

SO IT'S A OH SO ATTENDED ONES DON'T HAVE A 75.

CORRECT. OKAY. THIS THIS CARVES OUT A PROVISION FOR IT THAT ADDRESSES UNATTENDED BINS ONLY.

THANK YOU TO MY PARTNER TO THE RIGHT. SO EVEN IF THERE BECAUSE I KNOW THEY DON'T COLLECT, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO LEAVE THINGS THERE WHEN NO ONE'S THERE.

SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. I'LL BE QUIET. MS. BUHLER, SHE COULD DO THE PRESENTATION, I THINK.

YEAH. MAYOR PROTEIN. FRANKS. OH, I HAVE MANY HOT OPINIONS ON THIS ITEM.

YOU DID NOT PRESENT THIS, BUT I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF MANNED ONLY.

OKAY. DONATION RECEPTACLES. I'LL SAY AS COUNCILMAN.

MILLSAP SAID, THIS IS THIS PICTURE THAT YOU PROVIDED IS ONE OF THE CLEANER PICTURES I'VE SEEN.

YEAH, IT DOES HAVE HIGH GRASS, BUT THERE'S NOT ANY CLOTHING, TRASH OR JUNK.

I'LL CALL IT LAYING IN THE GRASS THAT I CAN SEE BY THIS PICTURE.

I KNOW THERE IS RIGHT NOW. I DROVE BY TODAY. HOWEVER, WHEN ENFORCING THIS, AS PER YOUR PICTURE UP THERE, THE DONATION BIN ON THE LEFT, I DON'T SEE ANY IDENTIFIABLE COMPANY INFORMATION.

SO HOW DO WE. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE? THE OTHER ONES HAVE A LOT OF MORE INFORMATION, BUT ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THOSE? SO THE STANDARDS THAT YOU ALL, IF YOU DECIDE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT, WOULD DEFINE WHAT IS REQUIRED. WE WOULD WORK WITH THOSE DONATION BIN OWNERS.

AND IF THAT BIN IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE OR DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS LIKE WE DISCUSSED OVER HERE, THEN WE WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT CORRECTION SO THEY COULD COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW STANDARDS.

IF THEY FAIL TO DO SO, THEN THEY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

BASED ON LAUREN, I'M GOING TO SIMPLIFY IT EVEN MORE. THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR NAME ON THERE THAT I SEE.

THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A 60 DAY GRACE PERIOD TO MAKE THAT CORRECTION, AND IF THEY DIDN'T, THEN WE WOULD TAKE ACTION, GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER MAYBE, AND I'M SURE THEY DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, BUT IF THEY DID, MAYBE GET THROUGH THEM THAT WAY. AND IF THEY DON'T, JUST TOUGH TACOS.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR. YEAH, I WANT TO SAY LET'S GET RID OF IT.

[01:25:04]

BUT HOW DO WE GET RID OF IT? WE CAN'T CONTACT ANYBODY. YES, YES.

SO ALONG WITH GOING THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON DRAFTING UP SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT ON THE DONATION BIN ITSELF SO THAT WE CAN STICKER.

EXACTLY. SO THAT WAY WE CAN NOTIFY THE DONATION BIN OWNER, BECAUSE THEY DO COME BY AND THEY DO CHECK ON IT.

SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF LIKE THAT WRITTEN NOTICE ON THERE AS WELL AS LETTING THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOW AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S PART OF THE DISPLAYING THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION AND SERVICE SCHEDULE AND ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF. EVERYTHING ELSE. I THINK I'M IN.

THE MORE WE CAN BECOME IN COMPLIANCE OR MAKE THESE FOLKS COME IN COMPLIANCE AND NOT HAVE THEM LOOK TERRIBLE, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CITY THEY'RE IN.

I SEE IT EVERYWHERE. SO IT'S NOT JUST A PROBLEM AT A CERTAIN LOCATION OR IN OUR CITY.

SO I'M ALL FOR IT. AND AGAIN, I'LL SAY I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF MAKING THESE MANNED ONLY.

THAT'S JUST ME THOUGH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, MS. ROSE. THANK YOU. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. MOTIONS.

MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE F3 AS PRESENTED.

HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F3 AS PRESENTED BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? MS. HOWARTH SECOND. SECOND.

BY MS. HOWARTH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CAST YOUR BALLOT.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM F FOUR.

[4. Discuss and consider a resolution awarding group insurance renewals with United Healthcare for group medical insurance; Aetna for group dental insurance; Surency for administration of COBRA, retiree billing, flexible spending, health savings, and health reimbursement accounts; Alliance Work Partners for the employee assistance program; NY Life for group life and disability insurance; Legal Shield for voluntary prepaid legal services; AFLAC for voluntary group accident, critical illness, and medical supplemental insurance; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the terms and conditions of the various group agreements by and between the City of Sachse and said parties for said coverages; providing a repealing clause; and providing for an effective date.]

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING GROUP INSURANCE RENEWALS WITH UNITEDHEALTHCARE FOR GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE.

AETNA FOR GROUP DENTAL INSURANCE. AGENCY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF COBRA.

RETIRED RETIRE. RETIRE. E BILLING. FLEXIBLE SPENDING.

HEALTH SAVINGS AND HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNTS.

ALLIANCE WORK PARTNERS FOR THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

NEW YORK LIFE FOR GROUP LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE.

LEGAL SHIELD FOR VOLUNTARY PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES.

AFLAC FOR VOLUNTARY GROUP ACCIDENT, CRITICAL ILLNESS AND MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE, AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE VARIOUS GROUP AGREEMENTS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SACHSE AND SAID PARTIES FOR SUCH COVERAGES.

PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WILL THIS NEVER END? I GUESS IT WON'T. SO ALL RIGHT.

IF NOT MRS, NASH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT IS TIME FOR US TO RENEW OUR GROUP INSURANCE FOR 2026 CALENDAR YEAR FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. AND SO JANET VENTURA, OUR HR DIRECTOR, IS GOING TO GIVE YOU ALL A BRIEF PRESENTATION ABOUT WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT AND THEN NEXT STEPS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. HELLO. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

YOU'LL HEAR THAT I'M A LITTLE RASPY, AND SO I'M REALLY HOPING I CAN MAKE IT THROUGH ALL OF THIS.

AND YOU HAD TO DO ALL THAT EXTRA TALKING? YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, SO THIS EVENING I WILL PRESENT TO YOU OUR GROUP INSURANCE MEDICAL OR OUR GROUP INSURANCE RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THIS DOES INCLUDE A LOOK AT MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLAIMS UTILIZATION AND TO LOOK AT OUR ANCILLARY COVERAGES.

LET'S SEE. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF OUR BENEFITS PACKAGE, THE CARRIER AND THE INITIAL RENEWAL ECOMMENTS.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT A FEW OF OUR ANCILLARY LINES ARE IN RATE GUARANTEE, JUST MEANING THAT THE CARRIER HAS PROMISED A RATE LOCK THROUGH THE YEAR AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE COLUMN. CITY STAFF MET WITH THE CITY'S BENEFITS ADVISORY FIRM BACK IN APRIL, AND AT THAT POINT, THEY WERE PROJECTING A 9.9% INCREASE OVER OUR CURRENT PREMIUMS BASED ON THE RATE CAP THAT WAS OFFERED TO US FROM UNITEDHEALTHCARE DURING OUR 2025 IMPLEMENTATION.

THE CITY DID MAKE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO MARKET THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS SEEKING ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE BIDS.

BUT WE DO HAVE A SUSTAINED, UNCOMPETITIVE HIGH MEDICAL LOSS RATIO OF 124%.

AND SO, UNFORTUNATELY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE CARRIER MARKET DECLINED, QUOTE, BECAUSE OUR GROUP IS DEEMED UNCOMPETITIVE.

SO TAKING A BIT DEEPER DIVE INTO THAT THIS IS 2024.

SO THIS IS WHEN WE WERE STILL WITH AETNA. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT AETNA COLLECTED ABOUT $2.1 MILLION IN PREMIUMS AND PAID OUT APPROXIMATELY $2.6 MILLION IN CLAIMS. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS 2020 5TH JANUARY THROUGH APRIL, A SHORT SNAPSHOT BEFORE THE PRE RENEWAL PROCESS STARTED.

[01:30:09]

$979,000 IN CLAIMS. AND SO THAT'S WHY OUR GROUP IS BEING VIEWED AS PRETTY UNCOMPETITIVE FROM THE MARKET STANDPOINT.

THIS SLIDE REFLECTS OUR CURRENT PLAN, OUR THREE CURRENT PLAN DESIGNS WITH NO CHANGES RECOMMENDED EVERYTHING STAYING EXACTLY THE SAME WITHIN 9.9% INCREASE APPLIED TO EVERY PLAN DESIGN. AND THAT TOTALS ABOUT $240,000 OVER CURRENT RATES RIGHT NOW OR WITH THIS RENEWAL. THE TOTAL PREMIUM IS ABOUT $2.6 MILLION ANNUALLY, WITH THE CITY PICKING UP ABOUT 2.35 MILLION OF THAT. MOVING ON TO OUR DENTAL INSURANCE RENEWAL.

WE DID GO AHEAD AND DECIDE TO SEEK BIDS FROM THE MARKET THROUGH AN RFP AND ALSO ON DENTAL.

WE HAVE A BIT OF AN UNCOMPETITIVE LOSS RATIO OF 108%.

AND SO THE MARKET DIDN'T YIELD ANY COMPETITIVE RESULTS.

LOOKING AT A ROLLING 12 LOSS RATIO, SINCE WE HAVEN'T MOVED CARRIERS ON THE DENTAL SIDE, WE'RE AT 108% SO AND COLLECTED $119,000 IN PREMIUMS AND PAID OUT $129,000 IN IN CLAIMS. AGAIN, HERE IS OUR PLAN DESIGN WITH DENTAL. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN DESIGN.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A 13% INCREASE IN PREMIUMS, AND IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO NOT CHANGE OUR EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION, AND THAT THAT 13% IS SHARED WITH EMPLOYEES WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT BEING ABOUT $6.11 PER PAY PERIOD FOR THE PREMIUM CADILLAC EMPLOYEE FAMILY PLAN. ON THE ANCILLARY BENEFITS SIDE, EVERYTHING OTHER THAN DENTAL WAS EITHER IN RATE GUARANTEE OR RECEIVED A FLAT RENEWAL. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING RENEWAL ON ALL THOSE LINES.

AND THAT DOES INCLUDE VISION, AFLAC, OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, LEGAL SHIELD AND LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR YOU TO AUTHORIZE A CITY MANAGER TO RENEW WITH ALL EXISTING GROUP INSURANCE CARRIERS, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2026, TO ABSORB THE 9.9% INCREASE TO MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND SHARE THE INCREASE IN DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, MS. NASH HAS A COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO LEAVE THAT RECOMMENDATION. SLIDE UP A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I WANTED TO MAKE.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES IS THAT MY RECOMMENDATION TO ABSORB THAT 9.9% INCREASE FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS? SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF OUR HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.

AS YOU KNOW, THAT IS A FUND THAT WE KEEP A BALANCE IN IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO NORMALIZE THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH INSURANCE CHANGES ON OUR EMPLOYEES. AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND AS THE THE PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS KNOWS THE COUNCIL MADE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN OUR EMPLOYEES THIS COMING YEAR WITH A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO OUR PAY PLAN.

AND BY BEING ABLE TO DO THAT WITH ESSENTIALLY ABOUT A $1.5 MILLION COMPENSATION INFUSION INTO OUR EMPLOYEES.

WHAT I, I DID NOT WANT TO DO IN RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL IS TO GIVE EMPLOYEES THAT PAY INCREASE AND THEN TAKE IT AWAY WITH INCREASING THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.

OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD NEVER GET AHEAD IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT THE COUNCIL REALLY MADE AN INVESTMENT IN BY SAYING THAT THEY WANTED TO BE A LEAD OR A MATCH MARKET. AND WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT BY TAKING ON THAT INCREASE THROUGH THE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.

SO THAT'S FIRST. SECOND, IN TERMS OF THE DENTAL PREMIUMS, WE DID WANT THE EMPLOYEES TO HAVE TO TAKE ON A PORTION OF THIS.

BUT AGAIN, THAT LARGEST IMPACT WOULD BE TO AN EMPLOYEE PLUS FAMILY WHO DID THE DENTAL BUYOUT PLAN.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE THE THE BEST PLAN WE HAVE, THE MOST ANYBODY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ON WOULD BE $6.11 PER PAY PERIOD.

AND FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE DENTAL, IT'S JUST THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLAN.

YES, SIR. SOME THERE ARE PLANS THAT ARE 0 OR $1 OR $2.

IT KIND OF RANGES, BUT I WANTED THE COUNCIL TO KNOW WHAT WAS THE THE THE BIGGEST IMPACT, AS IF SOMEBODY HAD AN EMPLOYEE PLUS FAMILY AND THEY DID THE DENTAL BUY UP, WHICH IS THE THE NICER PPO PLAN. YES. WE HAVE TWO DENTAL PLANS AND THE COST GOES FROM $0 FOR THE PLAN THAT THE CITY PAYS 100%.

AND IT KIND OF STEPS UP $0.49, A DOLLAR, $1.50, ALL THE WAY UP TO $6.11 BEING THE MAX IMPACT.

[01:35:02]

THANK YOU, MS. VENTURA. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

MR. MILLSAP. AS GINA WOULD JUST MENTIONING I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE DON'T PASS THIS COST ON TO THE EMPLOYEES AND AND TAKE AWAY THEIR RAISE, BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE SAYING YOU DON'T GET ONE.

BUT ALSO HERE IT SAYS THE LARGEST IMPACT PER EMPLOYEE I THINK SHOULD DENTAL PLANS IS $6.11 PER PAY PERIOD.

DO WE PAY EVERY TWO WEEKS OR WE PAY EVERY TWICE A MONTH? WE GET PAID EVERY OTHER FRIDAY 26 TIMES A YEAR, 26 PAY PERIODS, SO THAT COST DEDUCTIONS ARE WITHHELD FROM 24 OF THOSE 2620.

THAT'S RIGHT. 26. SO I COST THE EMPLOYEE $156 MORE UNDER THE DENTAL PLAN AS THE $6 PER PAY PERIOD.

I'M GOING TO TRUST YOUR MATH. ERATH. WELL, OKAY.

WELL, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S 24 PAPERS, NOT 26.

YEAH, IT'S 24 PAY PERIODS BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PAY PERIODS A YEAR WHERE WE DON'T WITHHOLD BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS, WHERE THERE'S A THIRD CHECK IN THE MONTH. OKAY.

OKAY. AND AGAIN THAT'S THE $6.11 IS ONLY FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT TAKE THAT PLAN.

RIGHT. GOTCHA. RIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. HI.

HI. OKAY. SO DID OUR BENEFIT A BROKER? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT.

WHAT'S THAT? OUR BENEFIT BROKER. YES. HUB INTERNATIONAL.

THANK YOU. YEP. COULDN'T REMEMBER THE NAME. DID THEY DISCUSS ANY EXCEPTIONALLY EXPENSIVE SERVICES ON OUR PLAN? YES. OKAY. SO WE ARE GIVEN A LIST OF OUR HIGH CLAIMANT CONDITIONS, AND WE REVIEW THOSE.

AND IF WE HAVE A POSITIVE STORY TO TELL TO THE MARKET, THEN WE DO.

AND SO IN SOME CASES WE ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EMPLOY OR WHAT FAMILY THAT MIGHT BE.

AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S A SURGERY THAT RESOLVED A CONDITION AND WE CAN TELL THAT STORY.

OR MAYBE IT'S AN EMPLOYEE HAS MOVED ON TO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN ON OUR PLAN ANYMORE.

AND SO WE ANALYZE THOSE LINE BY LINE. AND THEN THE BROKER TAKES THAT INFORMATION TO THE MARKET FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND WERE THERE ANY SERVICES THAT ARE DEEMED NOT CLAIMS BUT SERVICES THAT ARE DEEMED OVERLY EXPENSIVE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD BE THAT COULD BE NEGOTIATED.

WELL. SO WE BUY PLANS, WHAT THEY CALL OFF THE SHELF.

SO SINCE WE'RE NOT SELF-FUNDED, WE CAN'T NEGOTIATE.

OUR BROKER DOES NOT EVEN TALK TO ABOUT A LA CARTE.

NO, SELF-FUNDED SELF-FUNDING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP FOR AN ORGANIZATION OUR SIZE AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. THE SECOND I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS BRIEF, EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT ME LIKE, I'M GONNA BE HERE A WHILE ON THE DENTAL RENEWAL.

I HAVE HAD THE LUXURY OF NEVER HAVING BRACES, AND MY KIDS ACTUALLY GOT OUT OF SCHOOL WITH BRACES.

SO I'M LOOKING ORTHODONTICS, 50% COVERAGE AND I THINK THAT I HEAR THAT'S NORMAL.

THE LIFETIME MAXIMUM 1250 OR 2000. IS THAT NORMAL? THAT IS VERY NORMAL. OKAY. YES. I'VE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT.

THANK YOU. I'M BLESSED, BUT I. WELL, GOOD FOR YOU.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANKS. YEAH. SADLY, AS MR. LINDSEY WAS SAYING, AND MYSELF INCLUDED, IT'S VERY NORMAL, SO I WISH IT WAS DIFFERENT.

MR. PRESTENBERG. YES. A FEW QUESTIONS. THE 9.9% INCREASE.

YOU SAID WE HAVE A CAP, I GUESS. WHAT IS THE CAP? IS IT 10% OR 9.91? WELL, IT'S 9.99.9. OKAY. SO THEY TRY TO DO MAX.

OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. WELL SO THEY THEY COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE COME IN ANYWHERE BETWEEN 0 AND 9.9.

BUT BECAUSE OF OUR LOSS RATIO THEY BUMPED RIGHT UP AGAINST THE TOP SO THEY WOULDN'T GO ANYWHERE ELSE.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT THINGS LIKE RED AND BLACK. I SEE LIKE 87% MEDICAL LOSS RATIO IS BLACK, BUT 93% IS CONSIDERED RED.

SO THEY CONSIDER ANYTHING OVER 90%? NO. SO A GOOD LOSS RATIO IS CLOSER TO 70%.

OKAY. SO WHY IS ONE WHY IS 87 BLACK I GUESS WHAT LIKE THE MONTH OF JUNE 24TH.

THAT'S. I'M SORRY. THAT'S DENTAL CLAIMS. LET ME GO TO MEDICAL. I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T LOST MONEY.

ANYTHING OVER 100 IS A LOSS. I GET THAT, BUT 92% IS RED, RIGHT? RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. YEAH. SO 70% IS CONSIDERED A COMPETITIVE LOSS RATIO.

TO BE CANDID WITH YOU, WHY 87 IS IN BLACK AND NOT RED.

I WOULD HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S JUST LEAVE ME.

MY FINAL QUESTION IS WHEN I LOOK AND SEE, SEE A LOT OF THINGS ARE DECLINE.

NOT COMPETITIVE. RIGHT. SO WE'RE COMING BACK WITH SOME CRAZY AMOUNT OF DOLLARS.

RIGHT. WE WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE CONSISTENT, I'M ASSUMING 60 TO 80% RANGE FOR US TO BE CONSIDERED COMPETITIVE, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. AND HOW OFTEN? HOW MANY YEARS IN A ROW WOULD THAT NEED? WOULD THAT BE A ROLLOVER? 18 MONTHS? THREE YEARS? THREE YEARS.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE WE COULD EVEN HOPEFULLY MAYBE GET A LOWER RATE OR EVEN A FLAT RATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[01:40:02]

YOU KNOW, THE CLAIMS CHANGE EVERY MONTH. AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MONTHS THAT ARE REALLY HIGH AND MONTHS THAT ARE BETTER. AND SO YOU JUST WANT THOSE REALLY HIGH CLAIM MONTHS TO ROLL OFF OF YOUR LOOKBACK PERIOD. OKAY.

OKAY. WELL, SO I'M ASSUMING WHEN YOU DO PRESENTATIONS TO THESE AND YOU'RE CALLING OUT INDIVIDUAL STORIES OR WHATNOT.

ARE THEY WELCOMING TO THE DISCUSSIONS OR. SO THAT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE BROKER.

AND THE BROKER TAKES THAT DIRECTLY TO THE CARRIER.

SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT INTO THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

BUT THE CARRIERS ARE DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BIDDING ON. OKAY.

I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY.

I TOTALLY GET IT. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE LOSING HALF $1 MILLION IN MEDICAL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S THAT HURTS THEM.

SO NOT SAYING I'M A FAN OF THEM, BUT IT'S A NECESSARY EVIL, AND YEAH, BUT I'M GLAD WE HAVE SOMETHING TO FALL BACK ON, AT LEAST FROM OUR, OUR CITY'S, YOU KNOW KNOWLEDGE OF TRYING TO MAKE IT FLAT FOR THE EMPLOYEES.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT EACH INSURANCE COMPANY SETS WHAT A COMPETITIVE LOSS RATIO IS.

SO FOR ONE COMPANY IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THE OTHER.

SO JUST FOR EXAMPLE 76% COULD BE GREEN FOR ONE COMPANY OR RED FOR ANOTHER.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY THEY'RE VARIABLES FYI IT'S FROM MY DAY PAYING JOB.

MR. LINDSEY. YES, I HEARD YOU MENTION SELF-INSURANCE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WE'RE NOT SELF-INSURED. AND SO JUST WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE OF THE MARKETPLACE RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS CITIES BEING SELF-INSURED, IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT'S CONCEIVABLE IN SACHSEY? IT IS CONCEIVABLE FOR GENERALLY FOR LARGER ORGANIZATIONS.

THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THAT. THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG, BIG DISCUSSION.

I WOULD SAY THAT SACHSEY, SITTING RIGHT ON THE CUSP OF THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT IS FEASIBLE AND THAT WOULD COME AFTER A LOT OF REALLY THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATIONS.

YEAH. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMPARABLE CITIES THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER COMPARABLE CITY LISTS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIES THAT ARE? I AM ACTUALLY FAMILIAR WITH SEVERAL OF THOSE.

I MEAN, RICHARDSON IS PROBABLY SELF-FUNDED BUT VERY LARGE.

YEAH, YEAH. ANY THAT ARE OUR SIZE, I WOULD NEED TO DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO SAY FOR SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK SO. YEAH. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ANY TIME THAT WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING FOR A LOSS RATIO.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE MADE THE MAGICAL 70%, I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, LEAVING 30% ON THE TABLE ON THERE WHERE IF WE WERE SELF-FUNDED, THAT WOULD BE MONEY THAT WE COULD DO OUR UPS AND DOWNS AND THEN BE ABLE TO BALANCE FROM THERE.

BUT I JUST I'M NOT SEEING THAT AS A POSSIBILITY ANYTIME SOON THOUGH.

BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING I HOPE THAT STAFF IS MINDFUL OF AND IS RUNNING.

AND PROBABLY THE AWARD WINNING FINANCE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD IMAGINE, HAS A LOT TO DO WITH RUNNING THOSE NUMBERS AND STUFF. SO I JUST HOPE WE CONTINUE TO KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS, JUST IN CASE THE SITUATION CHANGES AND IT WHERE IT DOES MAKE SENSE FOR US.

BUT OTHERWISE I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. I'M NOT SURPRISED TO SEE IT COME IN AT 9.9%.

AND AS FAR AS THE BRACES, THE SAVING GRACE THAT'S THAT'S THERE NOW IN ORTHODONTICS IS YOU DO HAVE A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT YOU KNOW, MONEY THAT THAT IS PUT IN THERE THAT HELPS OFFSET IT BACK WHENEVER WE HAVE FOUR KIDS IN BRACES.

DIDN'T HAVE THAT ON THERE. AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE BOUGHT OUR ORTHODONTIST, WHOSE NAME IS ON SEWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, IS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS. I'M PRETTY SURE WE BOUGHT HIS CORVETTE. SO I BELIEVE IT.

TOP OF THE LINE CORVETTE AT THAT, MS. HOWARTH.

NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT A PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENT.

WE'RE. WHEN I WAS ELECTED, THE VERY FIRST ONE OF THESE INSURANCE PLAN RENEWALS THAT I SAT THROUGH.

OUR TOTAL PREMIUM, I THINK, WAS ABOUT $650,000 A YEAR TO INSURE ALL THE RESIDENTS OF SACHSE.

AND NOW WE'RE UP TO IN SEVEN YEARS, 3.5 MILLION IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE CAPPED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO A REVENUE CAP OF 3.5%. EVENTUALLY THIS BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THESE TYPES OF COSTS EAT EVERYTHING, PLUS AN EXTRA 6% OF WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS US TO COLLECT JUST TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR OUR RESIDENTS. WE'RE CURRENTLY ABSORBING IT BY MONEY WE'VE PUT ASIDE PREVIOUSLY OR OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'RE CONSTANTLY MOVING MONEY FROM OVER HERE TO COVER INSURANCE PREMIUMS, AND THE MATH IS JUST AWFUL.

AND I KNOW WE ALL FEEL THIS, AND I THINK IN OUR DAY JOBS AND OUR PERSONAL LIVES THAT OUR PREMIUM, THAT HEALTH INSURANCE IS, IS SHOCKINGLY EXPENSIVE. BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS LIKE ROAD CONSTRUCTION THAT JUST MAKES ME VERY AFRAID FOR THE FUTURE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE SUSTAIN THIS, HOW THE CITY COUNCIL IN 20 YEARS COMES UP WITH THE MAP, COMES UP WITH THE MONEY TO OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE.

IT JUST BOGGLES THE MIND. SO PHILOSOPHICAL COMPLAINT AND IT NEEDS TO BE HEARD DOWN I-35 THAT WAY.

[01:45:09]

MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS, MOVE ON. ARE YOU GOOD? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MS. VENTURE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM.

I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD, MS. JANE REED. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. JANE REED. 2204 CORNWALL LANE.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. REGARDING THE RENAL, THE 9.9% INCREASE THAT THE CITY IS PROPOSING TO ABSORB THAT AMOUNT.

HAVE THEY CONSIDERED AT LEAST. SPLITTING THE COST DIFFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEE, THE CITY PAYING HALF AND THE EMPLOYEE PICKING UP THE, LIKE, 4%? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU TAKE $238,000, WHICH IS THE THE INCREASE COST, AND THIS IS, FOR EXAMPLE, PURPOSES ONLY DIVIDE THAT BY A 161 EMPLOYEES AND DIVIDE THAT BY 12.

YOU COME UP WITH $124.40. SO THAT'S $124.40 SAVINGS OR INCREASE TO EACH EMPLOYEE PER MONTH. JUST FOR.

SO IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT PIECE OF IT TO THEIR BENEFIT PACKAGE, THAT IS AND SACHSE IS KNOWN FOR WHICH WE WERE TOLD BY I GUESS THE BROKER THAT OR THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE THAT SACHSE IS RICH IN BENEFITS. AND AND I ALSO JUST A SECOND AND I JUST ALSO WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY DOES STILL COVER 100% COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEE ONLY FOR MEDICAL AND DENTAL. I KNOW THIS WAS CHANGED A FEW YEARS AGO JUST TO I GUESS ENTICE PEOPLE TO STAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IS. IS THAT STILL? TRUE. NOW. AND LET ME SEE JUST A SECOND. I'M SORRY.

AND AND I ALSO WAS WONDERING IF THE BROKER PROVIDED A BROKEN DOWN LOSS RATIO FOR EACH CATEGORY, LIKE EMPLOYEE ONLY, EMPLOYEE SPOUSE OR EMPLOYEE CHILDREN, EMPLOYEE FAMILY.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS JUST TO YOU NEED TO SEE.

I MEAN, WHO WHO IS WHO IS. I'M PICKING UP THIS OR WHERE IS THIS LOSS RATIO? MONEY HITTING? WHICH CATEGORY IS IT HITTING? AND THAT'S ALL MY TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. REED. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, MS. VENTURA. I DO HAVE A FEW OF THOSE ANSWERS.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO OVER THOSE. YES. THE CITY.

THE CITY DOES PAY 100% OF THE EMPLOYEE ONLY MEDICAL PREMIUM ON TWO OF OUR THREE PLANS, AND ON THE OTHER PLANETS, AROUND 92%. AND ON DENTAL, WE PAY 100% OF THE CORE EMPLOYEE ONLY PLAN.

AND ON THE BUYOUT PLAN, IT IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THAT.

IT'S ABOUT 81%. AND THEN A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT SHE HAD WE CANNOT GET LOSS RATIO BROKEN DOWN BY COVERAGE HERE. THERE'S A LOT OF PRIVACY LAWS.

WE DON'T EVEN GET NAMES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE HIGH CLAIMANTS.

SOMETIMES WE'RE ABLE TO DEDUCE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THINGS WE KNOW, TO DETERMINE IF THAT PERSON STILL WORKS WITH US, BUT THEY DON'T GIVE US THAT LEVEL OF INFORMATION.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT BROKEN DOWN BY TIER. I BELIEVE THAT WAS IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH. THANK YOU, MS. VENTURA. MR. LINDSEY. YEAH. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON PROVIDING INSURANCE.

IS THERE IS IT MANDATORY THAT WHENEVER YOU HAVE A GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN THAT YOU OFFER COVERAGE TO DEPENDENTS AS WELL? NO. DEPENDENT COVERAGE IS NOT MANDATORY. OKAY, SO NO STATE MANDATE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO OFFER IT.

[01:50:06]

NO. OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW THAT MS. SARITA HAD ANOTHER QUESTION IN THERE.

THE FINAL ONE WAS WHETHER SPOUSES, IF THERE'S ANY PENALTY FOR SPOUSE BEING OUR MEDICAL PLAN, IF THAT SPOUSE HAS ACCESS TO A MEDICAL PLAN IN ANOTHER CITY SO THAT NOT ANOTHER CITY, BUT ANOTHER EMPLOYER.

YEAH. SO THAT IS AN OPTION. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE.

OKAY. YEAH. SO YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO KEEP MINDFUL OF ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT THE INDUSTRY IS DOING.

I KNOW MY MY EMPLOYER THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SWITCHING TO THIS THIS COMING UP BENEFIT YEAR.

SO THAT WAS A SACRIFICE WE, WE HAD TO MAKE THERE.

AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION THERE. AND I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A POLICY DIRECTION IS WAS IT CONSIDERED IF TO PASS THE COST ON AND IN MY MIND, ABSOLUTELY. ON THERE IT WAS KIND OF STATED EARLIER IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, FINALLY GET TO THIS MATCH OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE AT IN OUR PERFORMANCE OR WITH OUR PAY PLANS JUST TO ERASE IT.

SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY A CONSIDERATION. IT'S A CONSCIOUS DECISION, AND I'M JUST VERY GRATEFUL THAT STAFF HAS BUDGETED.

AGAIN, I'M GOING TO POINT BACK TO OUR AWARD WINNING FINANCE DEPARTMENT THAT'S PROJECTED THESE.

WE KNEW THAT MOST LIKELY THIS INCREASE WAS GOING TO COME IN AT 9.9%.

SO WE'VE BEEN BUDGETING THIS AND THIS IS YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ALLOWING US TO DO THIS? SO WAS IT PART OF THE PLAN? ABSOLUTELY. I WISH IT WOULD HAVE CAME IN CHEAPER, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE PLANNED FOR AND IT'S BEEN EXECUTED TO A TEE.

AND JUST FINALLY, A MESSAGE TO ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHENEVER WE GET INTO A SITUATION, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEBODY LOOKS AT OUR COSTS ARE GOING UP BECAUSE THIS PERSON HAD A BIG CLAIM, OR IN A SMALL COMPANY AND A SMALL CITY LIKE SACHSE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I JUST ALWAYS WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE, GO OUT AND DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO MEDICALLY.

WE'LL FIGURE OUT THE NUMBERS UP HERE. WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. BUT TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF FIRST. AND AND WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU IN EVERY WHICH WAY POSSIBLE.

SO THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. PRESTENBERG. YES. SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE SPOUSAL THING, YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE INSURANCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY OR WHATNOT, THAT THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED A FEE.

WE'RE SO SMALL IN THE SENSE OF I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD MAKE A HUGE EFFORT OR A HUGE CHANGE OR DELTA IN WHAT WE WOULD OWE ANYWAY.

RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE, I WORK FOR A HUGE COMPANY CHARGE $100.

IF MY SPOUSE WANTS TO BE ON OUR PLAN, WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT, BUT $100 TIMES 100,000 PEOPLE MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE PER MONTH.

$100 TIMES MAYBE 30 DOESN'T REALLY DO MUCH. AND ALL IT DOES IS HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM A MORALE STANDPOINT SOMETIMES.

SO YEAH, IF WE DO EVER DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD WHAT THE DELTA WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I THINK IT WOULD JUST SHOW THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO.

THE VALUE IS NOT THERE. RIGHT. SO MY, MY SCREEN ISN'T SHOWING UP THERE ANYMORE, BUT I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE MEDICAL RENEWAL SLIDE.

IT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE COUNT AT THE TIME THAT THE RENEWAL WAS PROCESSED OF EACH TIER.

AND THE MAJORITY OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE, ARE ARE IN EMPLOYEE ONLY.

AND SO SPOUSES WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE 12 ON THE EMPLOYEE SPOUSE LINE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, SPOUSES ARE INCLUDED IN THE EMPLOYEE FAMILY LINE. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THE IMPACT OF THAT WOULD LIKELY BE NEGLIGIBLE.

OR WE HAVE TO CHARGE A LOT AND THAT WOULD RIGHT NOW, THE OFFSET OF THAT IS THAT SPOUSES ARE THE MOST EXPENSIVE GENERALLY FROM A CLAIM STANDPOINT ON ANY INSURANCE PLAN. SO SO ANYWAY, THAT'S I THINK EVENTUALLY THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK AT.

BUT RIGHT NOW I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO PURSUE.

JUST REAL QUICK, NOT KNOWING WHAT OUR I KNOW MY COMPANY IS REALLY BIG PUSHING ON EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAMS. DO WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE WE AWARD FOLKS TO WALK 10,000 STEPS A DAY OR WHATEVER, RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, JUST IT'S GOING TO MINIMIZE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO.

WE INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO GO AND GET THEIR PRIMARY CARE VISIT.

WE INCENTIVIZE THEM TO GET THEIR BIOMETRICS, THEIR OTHER LABS TO GET THEIR FLU SHOT, TO GO GET THEIR TEETH CLEANED.

AND WE DO THAT FINANCIALLY. AND THEN WITH TIME OFF.

OKAY. AND WE HAVE PRETTY GOOD PARTICIPATION IN THAT PROGRAM.

GOOD. YEAH. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM OR MOTIONS? MR. LINDSEY. YES, MR. MAYOR. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F FOUR AS PRESENTED.

MOTION BY MR. LINDSEY TO APPROVE ITEM F FOUR AS PRESENTED.

MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS SECOND SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CAST YOUR BALLOT.

[01:55:01]

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. MS. VENTURA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

I KNOW YOU AND YOUR STAFF. IT IS. I CAN TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE, IT IS NO FUN TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY ON THE SCALE I'LL HAVE TO DO IT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GETTING US ANOTHER GREAT PLAN FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[5. Consider a resolution nominating candidates for election to the Board of Directors of the Dallas Central Appraisal District; and providing for an effective date.]

ITEM FIVE CONSIDER RESOLUTION NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MRS.. GRANGER. WELL, I BET YOU COULD DO IT YOURSELF.

OH, MY. MY GREEN LIGHT WASN'T ON, BUT NOW. NOW.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR THAT THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICTS ARE APPOINTING NEW OFFICIALS. AND SO THIS IS JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW.

WE'LL TALK QUICKLY ABOUT THE BOARD COMPOSITION, VOTING ENTITLEMENTS FOR EACH CITY AND THEN KEY DATES AND THE THE PROCESS AND QUALIFICATIONS. AND THIS GOES FOR BOTH THE DALLAS AND THE COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICTS.

THEY HAVE THE SAME PROCESS. IT IS GOVERNED BY TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE SECTION 6.0301.

IT WAS RECENTLY AMENDED AND SO THEY ARE NOW IMPLEMENTING THOSE CHANGES.

IT WAS MOVED FROM, I BELIEVE, A FIVE PERSON ELECTED BOARD TO NOW A NINE TOTAL MEMBERS.

FIVE ARE APPOINTED BY TAXING UNITS USING THE LEVY METHOD, AND THEY WILL HAVE FOUR YEAR STAGGERING TERMS BEGINNING THIS SECTION.

SO THIS ELECTION, EXCUSE ME. AND THEN THREE ARE ELECTED BY COUNTY VOTERS AND THEN ONE EX OFFICIO MEMBER.

SO EACH CITY IS GIVEN THE NUMBER OF VOTES THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THEIR TAX LEVY. SO WE HAVE WITH DALLAS COUNTY. YOU HAVE FOUR VOTES WITH COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

YOU HAVE FIVE VOTES. AND THERE'S A LITTLE MATH DOWN THE BOTTOM THERE TO TO KIND OF EXPLAIN, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT THAT IF YOU'D LIKE. THE NUMBER OF VOTES ARE BASED ON ITS PROPORTION OF TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED IN THE DISTRICT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO LIKE I SAID, IT USES THE SAME METHOD, BOTH DALLAS AND COLLIN.

SO SOME KEY DATES. RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN THE NOMINATION PROCESS.

SO YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE UP TO TWO MEMBERS FOR BOTH THE BOARDS.

AND THEN THEY'LL PULL THOSE BALLOTS TOGETHER, THEY'LL SEND IT TO US, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE NOVEMBER 17TH COUNCIL MEETING TO VOTE ON THOSE BALLOTS. IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, THIS IS A TWOFER.

BOTH DALLAS CAT AND YES, THEY HAVE THE SAME PROCESS.

SO TWO CANDIDATES FOR THE DALLAS CAD DO TWO CANDIDATES FOR THE CAD.

YES. THERE WERE QUALIFICATIONS ARE THE SAME FOR BOTH BOARDS.

YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE COUNTY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS.

NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. CAN'T BE EMPLOYED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT OR BEEN ON A BOARD FOR MORE THAN FIVE TERMS. SO THE NEXT STEP IS, IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOMINATE SOMEBODY TONIGHT, WE WILL PUT THOSE NAMES INTO A RESOLUTION AND SEND THOSE OVER ALONG WITH ANY ACCOMPANYING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT. AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK ON NOVEMBER 17TH.

THANK YOU, MS. GRANGER. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS.

OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD SOME COMMENTS TO THIS.

Y'ALL ARE ALL THINKING MY SEAT IS UP AND IT'S NOT.

HAHA. JOKE'S ON EVERYBODY ELSE. I GOT THE LUCKY DRAW WITH OUR OTHER CITY ATTORNEY, PETE SMITH, WHO IS ALSO THE DCAD CITY ATTORNEY. AND WE HAD HOUSE BILL TWO FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT CHANGED ALL OF OUR STUFF, ALSO CHANGED THIS. AND IT WENT TO INSTEAD OF ANNUAL TERMS TO THE TERM TERMS. I DON'T KNOW WHICH CURRENT MEMBERS HONESTLY HAVE THE AT THAT TIME, ONE YEAR TERM VERSUS A THREE YEAR TERM, EXCEPT FOR MYSELF. BUT I KNOW THEY'RE ALL INTERESTED IN RUNNING AGAIN, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THEM.

THEY SHOW UP, THEY'RE INVOLVED, AND THEY'RE ACTIVE.

BUT I AM NOT PART OF THIS LIST THIS YEAR. THANK GOODNESS.

MS. UHLER. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANKS OR MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS COVERED MY QUESTION.

I WAS GOING TO SEE IF HIS TERM HAD EXPIRED. YEAH.

OKAY, SO, MS. GRANGER WE HAVE FOUR VOTES OR. I'M SORRY.

[02:00:06]

GO AHEAD. YES. SO THAT WILL BE IN NOVEMBER. SO TONIGHT IT REALLY IS JUST NOMINATIONS.

AND YOU CAN NOMINATE UP TO TWO BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO BOARD SEATS AVAILABLE.

YOU CAN NOMINATE TWO PEOPLE TO RUN ON THE ON THE BALLOT.

OR WE CAN NOMINATE ONE I'M ASSUMING OR ONE OR 0 OR 0 WHATEVER YOUR YOUR PREFERENCE.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. MS. HOWARTH I'M SORT OF LEANING SINCE WE'RE SACHSE 30,000 PEOPLE, WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE DCAD THAT I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH.

JUST NOT NOMINATING SOMEBODY FOR DALLAS COUNTY AND LET THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO RUN GET RENOMINATED AND WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY IN NOVEMBER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE. WELL, THAT'S MY THOUGHT, BUT MAYOR FRANKS WELL, TO BE HONEST WITH OUR FIVE VOTES, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, TO BE HONEST.

I HAD TO DO A LOT OF OUTSIDE OF BEGGING TO GET ON THIS BOARD.

BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR OUR VOTES AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. LET'S JUST BE HONEST.

NOW, IF WE GET SOMEONE NOMINATED THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S THEIR JOB.

BUT BUT YEAH, IT'S IT'S AN UPHILL BATTLE. YEAH, WE CALL THAT.

WE DON'T CALL THAT BEGGING. WE CALL THAT POLITICKING. YEAH. NO, IT WAS BEGGING. YEAH. OKAY, SO WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL? AS MS. GRANGER SAID, WE DON'T HAVE TO NOMINATE ANYBODY TONIGHT.

WE CAN GET THE NAMES PRESENTED TO US ON THE NOVEMBER 17TH.

IF YOU HAVE A NAME IN MIND. NOW, NOW BE THE TIME TO SAY IT.

MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. IT'D BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

RECOMMENDATION NOT TO GIVE ANY ADDITIONAL NAMES THIS WEEK.

THIS THIS YEAR? IF WE DID DECIDE TO DO THAT AS A COUNCIL, WE NEED A MOTION TO DO THAT.

OR I BELIEVE IT'S A NO ACTION, SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MOTION TO MAKE THAT.

OKAY WITH THAT, MR. GORFIDA OKAY. MR. YEAH, WE GOTTA DO WE GOTTA DO CAD.

BUT OKAY, SO I'M HEARING NO ACTION ON ITEM FIVE.

OKAY. AND FOR THE RECORD IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? OKAY. HEARING NONE. ALL RIGHT, SO NO ACTION ON ITEM FIVE.

[6. Consider a resolution nominating candidates for election to the Board of Directors of the Collin Central Appraisal District; and providing for an effective date.]

ITEM SIX. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MS. GRANGER DID GIVE US A TWOFER, SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE HER GO THROUGH HER PRESENTATION AGAIN. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? OR WE COULD DO MS. PETER. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE NOMINATE MS. HOWARTH EXCLUSIVELY. LAST YEAR, WE GAVE ALL OUR VOTES TO HER, BUT MY NAME WAS ON THERE AS WELL, AND SOMEHOW I GOT VOTES. SO LET'S PLEASE PUT ALL OF OUR VOTES TOWARDS COUNCIL MEMBER.

HOWARTH. APPARENTLY YOU'RE GOOD AT POLITICKING.

APPARENTLY IF YOU GOT VOTES SO. MAYOR FRANKS.

YEAH, WELL, HOLD ON, IT'S NOT A MOTION. SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION TO ME.

YEAH, WELL, SHE DIDN'T PHRASE IT THAT WAY. ARE YOU OKAY, MS. HOWARD? OKAY. SHE'S FINE. ALL RIGHT. NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.

WELL, HOLD ON, I'M SORRY. ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOMINATE MICHELLE HOWARTH TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OR AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. BUHLER TO NOMINATE MICHELLE HOWARTH COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARTH TO THE NOT TO BE ELECTED, OF COURSE, BUT TO BE NOMINATED FOR THE COLLIN CAD BOARD.

MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS I STILL SECOND. OKAY, GREAT.

I'M SURE SHE APPRECIATES THAT. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION. AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.