[(c) To approve an increase to the current awarded contract amount of $270,000 by an estimated amount of $270,000 to exercise an additional six (6) month renewal term for management of all secondary employment activities of Plano Police Officers from Extra Duty Solutions (EDS) for the Police Department; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. (City of Plano Contract No. 2023-0243-OA, Modification No. 3)]

SORRY, I'M MOVING TOO FAST.

OKAY.

ITEM C TO APPROVE AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT AWARDED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF 270,000 BY AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF 270,000.

TO EXERCISE AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS RENEWAL FOR RENEWAL.

TERM FOR MANAGEMENT OF ALL SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES OF PLANO POLICE OFFICERS FROM EXTRA DUTY SOLUTIONS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER HORNE.

THANK YOU, CHIEF.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS AN ITEM FOR US TO CONTINUE WITH THE FUNDING OF THE EDS SUBCONTRACT.

I JUST REALLY WANT TO JUST KIND OF BEFORE WE WENT DO THE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM, JUST ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

ABSOLUTELY, SIR. HOW LONG HAS THE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY BEEN USING THE EDITORS SYSTEM? HAVE WE SIGNED ON WITH EDITORS? IN JUNE OF 2023? WE STARTED USING IT.

WE WENT LIVE WITH IT IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.

OKAY. AND ARE YOU USING IT JUST FOR SCHEDULING OR ARE YOU USING IT FOR.

ARE YOU USING IT FOR SCHEDULING? CORRECT. WE ARE USING IT TO MANAGE OFF DUTY EMPLOYMENT.

CURRENTLY THE OFF DUTY.

WE'RE NOT USING IT FOR YOUR REGULAR STAFFING, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, WE ARE NOT USING IT AT THIS TIME.

WE ARE BUILDING OUT THE MODELS THAT WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN PLACE.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE MODEL TO TRY TO FIT IT INTO YOUR NORMAL ROUTINE SCHEDULING OF YOUR OFFICERS, CORRECT? YES. SO I THINK WHAT YOU MEAN IS OUR REGULAR ON DUTY SCHEDULING.

YEAH, WE'RE WORKING ON THE, YOU KNOW, FILLING THE SPREADSHEETS OR THE DATABASES THAT WE NEED TO GET THAT IN PLACE NOW.

WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO BE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL? I THINK WE CAN HAVE THE PIECE DONE FOR JUST SCHEDULING PROBABLY BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, MAYBE MARCH.

BUT ULTIMATELY OUR GOAL IS TO TIE THAT INTO PEOPLESOFT.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED TS'S ASSISTANCE WITH THAT.

THEY ARE AWARE OF THAT AND I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT PIECE WILL TAKE.

OKAY. SO FAR WITH THE SCHEDULING WITH THE EXTRA DUTY, HAVE YOU DISCOVERED ANY BUGS THAT WITH THE SYSTEM? NO, NO, THERE ARE NO BUGS.

I THINK THAT THAT THAT THAT I'VE COME ACROSS, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO CALL THEM DIRECT ON OCCASIONALLY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE ABOUT THIS COMPANY IS THEY'VE GOT 24 HOUR SUPPORT WHEN WE CAN CALL THEM, AND THERE ARE SOME JOBS THAT COME UP THAT ARE JUST OUTSIDE THE WINDOW.

VERY UNIQUE ONE OFF TYPES OF THINGS.

BUT YEAH, IT'S PRETTY MUCH RUNNING AS DESIGNED.

OKAY. NOW THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER $270,000.

HAVE YOU FOUND ANY VALUE IN THE SOFTWARE WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EXTRA DUTY SCHEDULING RIGHT NOW? AND IN OTHER WORDS, WE'VE ALREADY SPENT 270,000 SINCE APRIL, I MEAN, TO GET THIS APPROVED AND START USING EXTRA DUTY SCHEDULING, IT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY TO FOR I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE WORK HERE ON HOW MUCH HOW MUCH EXTRA DUTY THE OFFICERS ARE OR, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE USE EXTRA DUTY OFFICERS? I KNOW WE USE THEM A LOT ON SUNDAYS, SPECIAL EVENTS WE USE THEM FOR OUR BALLOON FESTIVALS.

WE USE THEM FOR ALL THE EVENTS WE HAVE IN TOWN SPONSORED BY THE CITY.

ARE WE FINDING VALUE IN THIS EDS PROGRAM RIGHT NOW? YES, ABSOLUTELY WE ARE.

YEAH, WE HAVE, WE AND YOU MENTIONED THE $270,000 THAT WE DO KNOW THAT WE ARE PAYING AND WE ARE, AND THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY.

HOWEVER, WE DON'T KNOW THE VALUE OF HOW MUCH WE WERE SPENDING IN TIME BEFORE WE GOT THIS.

I'VE ALREADY BEEN ABLE TO UTILIZE TWO SERGEANTS WHO WERE SPENDING ALL THEIR TIME.

[00:15:03]

WE CALL THEM PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTS.

THEY SPENT MOST OF THEIR TIME IN THE DAY MANAGING CALL IN JOBS THAT WERE COMING IN.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANYMORE.

THAT'S HANDLED BY OUR EDS, THE COORDINATORS BEFORE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE THE OFFICERS DO THE SCHEDULES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYERS, THEY TYPICALLY DO THAT ON DUTY TIME, AND THEY ALMOST HAVE TO GET IT DONE.

AND EXCEPT FOR THE HOSPITALS AND THE CHURCHES, AND PROBABLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD THE PLANO EVENT CENTER TO THAT TOO.

WE'RE FINDING OUT THE COORDINATORS DON'T HAVE TO DO AS MUCH, IN FACT, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THEM ANYMORE.

ALL OF THAT IS HANDLED BY THE COMPANY, SO WE DON'T HAVE OFFICERS ON THERE WHILE THEY'RE AT WORK, HAVING TO DRIVE SOMEPLACE TO GO PICK UP A PAYCHECK.

AND THAT WASN'T ALWAYS THE CASE.

SOME OF OUR EMPLOYERS WERE PAYING THE OFFICERS DIRECTLY INTO THEIR BANK ACCOUNT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THEM.

AND SO THOSE OFFICERS HAVE TO GO.

AND THE DAY THAT THEY WORK IS TYPICALLY NOT THE DAY THAT THEY GET PAID, UNLESS IT'S A CASH JOB.

AND WE WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THOSE TOO.

SO TYPICALLY THE CHECK IS CUT LATER.

NOW THEY'VE GOT TO GO PICK THAT UP.

ALL THAT'S ALL THAT WE'VE DONE AWAY WITH ALL OF THAT.

YOU WILL BE RARE. NOW I THINK TO FIND A POLICE DEPARTMENT IN NORTH TEXAS THAT'S NOT USING SOME SOFTWARE APPLICATION, SOME THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO MANAGE OFF DUTY EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN PLANO IS NOT UNIQUE IN ITSELF, ALTHOUGH WE MAY HAVE A LOT MORE THAN OTHER PLACES, BUT BECAUSE OF SOME OF JUST THE NATURE OF OUR CITY, THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT HAVE MORE THAN US, LIKE FRISCO TOO OF SIMILAR SIZE, BUT MOST CITIES HAVE SOME OFF DUTY EMPLOYMENT, AND THEY'RE USING MOST CITIES ARE USING A THIRD PARTY VENDOR TO HELP THEM MANAGE THAT SITUATION.

OKAY, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE THINK WE'LL START USING THE EDS SOFTWARE FOR MANAGING THE SCHEDULES OF OUR ON DUTY OFFICERS SOMETIME IN APRIL, WE THINK.

YEAH, PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE THIRD QUARTER.

I'LL JUST SAY THAT WE CAN HAVE IT DONE PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE THIRD QUARTER ON ACTUALLY USING IT FOR SCHEDULING.

THAT WON'T ADDRESS OUR PAYROLL ISSUE UNTIL WE GET THAT CONNECTED TO ANOTHER APPLICATION THAT THE CITY IS ALREADY USING.

BUT FOR ON DUTY SCHEDULING, WE THINK WE CAN GET THAT DONE IN THE FIRST QUARTER.

PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANTHONY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ITEM? YES. JUST A QUICK OKAY.

SORRY, SORRY. JUST MAKING SURE I WASN'T.

YES. YEAH I KNOW I'VE GOT ITEM I COMING UP AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE I'M ON POINT.

MAYOR I APPRECIATE THAT. NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT THAT I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH CITY MANAGER ISRAELSON YESTERDAY, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS, BUT I ALSO THINK SINCE THE SCOPE OF THIS HAS KIND OF CHANGED, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME, WE WERE INITIALLY JUST LOOKING OFF DUTY.

NOW WE'RE INCLUDING OFF DUTY.

INITIALLY, THE USERS WERE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR IT.

NOW IT'S A CITY BUDGETED EXPENSE.

I THINK JUST WITH THOSE KIND OF CHANGING PARAMETERS OVER TIME, IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, A FORMAL PROCESS WITH THOSE NEW PARAMETERS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT IS OUR INTENT.

AND MY HOPE IS THAT JUST BECAUSE ALL EIGHT OF US HAVE PUT SO MUCH TIME INTO LEARNING ABOUT THIS THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THAT DONE BEFORE MAY, BEFORE SOME OF US HANG UP OUR HATS AND RIDE OFF INTO THE SUNSET.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN WRAP THIS UP.

BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, AND ANYWAY, I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IT.

IS THAT A MOTION? SURE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT MOTION.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY.

I WAS GOING TO GET TO YOU, RICK.

SORRY. I'M TRYING.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C.

PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM I.

[(i) To review and approve the City's official Public Funds Investment Policy; and providing an effective date.]

TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE CITY'S OFFICIAL PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT POLICY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

ALL RIGHT. MR. RICCIARDELLI.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I'M GOING TO PASS AROUND IF YOU ALL CAN TAKE ONE OF EACH, BUT I PROMISE I WILL KEEP THIS QUICK.

WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OUR INVESTMENTS, PROMISES, PROMISES.

LET'S SEE. I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I DID DURING THE BUDGET.

IT'S 7:19.

I'LL BE DONE BY 7:24.

SO FIVE MINUTES.

THAT'S THE PROMISE.

BUT ANYWAY, YOU ALL REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION WE HAD ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND BENEFICIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADVOCATE THAT WE MAKE SOME BENEFICIAL AMENDMENTS TO OUR OWN INVESTMENT POLICY.

I SUPPORT THE SAFETY, LIQUIDITY YIELD METHOD OF INVESTING.

THE QUESTION IS NOT THE ORDER OF PRIORITIES, BUT I THINK HOW BIG OF A GULF WE HAVE BETWEEN THE SECOND PRIORITY OF LIQUIDITY AND THE THIRD AND FINAL PRIORITY OF YIELD. YOU KNOW, FOR CONTEXT ANY REASONABLE RETURNS THAT WE DON'T HARNESS RESULT IN ADDITIONAL TAXATION BECAUSE MONEY

[00:20:04]

HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. WE JUST HEARD ABOUT THE $342 MILLION THAT WE NEED FOR STREETS.

AND OBVIOUSLY, THE OVERALL PROPOSED BOND PACKAGE RIGHT NOW IS AT 700 MILLION.

SO OBVIOUSLY, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE DON'T GAIN IN RETURNS HAS TO COME FROM FROM TAXES.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK A MAJOR ISSUE THAT I'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY IS INFLATION IN A HIGH INFLATION ENVIRONMENT LIKE WE HAD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS JUST RECENTLY, OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO CAN LOSE PURCHASING POWER JUST SITTING THERE.

AND SO GIVEN GIVEN THOSE, THOSE CONCERNS AND JUST WITH A DESIRE TO KIND OF KEEP OUR, OUR ORDER OF PRIORITIES, BUT REALLY SAY THAT WITHIN THOSE PRIORITIES, WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN.

I'M PROPOSING TWO CHANGES.

I HAD THIS PRINTED BEFORE FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF.

AND SO THE THIRD CHANGE, I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY, BUT THE FIRST TWO CHANGES ON THE STATEMENT OF INTENT, I NOTICED THAT WE TALK ABOUT SECURITY.

WE TALK ABOUT LIQUIDITY, THE DAILY CASH FLOW DEMANDS OF THE CITY, AND WE TALK ABOUT CONFORMING TO STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES.

BUT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE WHY IN SLI.

WE DON'T TALK ABOUT YIELD AT ALL IN OUR STATEMENT OF INTENT.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT IN, I THINK THE STAFF MADE A GREAT POINT THAT THE TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS, WHILE VERY SAFELY INVESTED, IS NOT COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO I WOULD TAKE THAT PART OUT.

AGAIN, THIS WAS PRINTED BEFORE GETTING KIND OF THOSE FINAL RESPONSES.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, IT IS THE CITY'S INTENT TO MAXIMIZE RETURNS WHILE STILL ADHERING TO SECURITY, LIQUIDITY AND YIELD PRINCIPLES.

AND THEN THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT RECOGNIZING THAT WHEN THE RATE OF INFLATION EXCEEDS THE RATE OF RETURN ON FUNDS, THAT'S TANTAMOUNT TO A LOSS OF CAPITAL.

WE'RE LOSING PURCHASING POWER.

EVEN IF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN OUR ACCOUNTS DOESN'T GO DOWN, ITS PURCHASING POWER GOES DOWN IF INFLATION EXCEEDS THE RATE OF RETURN.

SO, I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT IN THERE.

AND THEN ON THE SECOND CHANGE THE WAY IT CURRENTLY READS ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO SAYS THE FINAL OBJECTIVE OF OBTAINING A MARKET RATE OF RETURN IS MUCH LESS IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL AND LIQUIDITY.

SO, AS YOU ALL CAN SEE, THE CHANGES I'VE PROPOSED THERE, I AGREE THAT IT IS LESS IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY ALMOST DISMISSES RETURN.

AND I'D LIKE TO PLACE, YOU KNOW, A BIT OF A HIGHER PRIORITY ON THAT.

SO I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, THOUGH SOMEWHAT LESS IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL AND LIQUIDITY.

SO ALL THREE OF THOSE GOALS ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THE LEAST IMPORTANT IS YIELD.

BUT IT'S STILL AN IMPORTANT GOAL.

AND I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SO THAT HOPEFULLY OUR ACTIONS THAT ARE GUIDED BY THIS INVESTMENT POLICY WILL HOPEFULLY PURSUE A LITTLE HIGHER RETURN AND YOU KNOW, AND THEN ALSO I ADDED IN, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE CITY'S INTENT TO MAXIMIZE RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO THE GREATEST EXTENT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, INCLUDING THE TEXAS PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT.

SO I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE IDEA, AS I TALKED ABOUT WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WOULD NOT BE THAT THIS WOULD INCLUDE THAT THIS WOULD CHANGE HOW WE INVEST THE WHOLE PORTFOLIO.

BUT REALLY, THE LONGER TIME HORIZON, THE FIVE YEAR KIND OF TRANCHE OF FUNDS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE SECOND DOCUMENT, THIS IS ONE WE DISCUSSED, THIS IS PREPARED BY THE STAFF AND SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED DURING OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA DISCUSSION DURING EVERY FIVE YEAR PERIOD, INCLUDING FROM 1999 TO THE PRESENT, INCLUDING THE FIVE YEARS THAT INCLUDED THE GREAT RECESSION.

THE S&P 500 HAS OUTPERFORMED OUR BENCHMARK, THE TWO YEAR TREASURY.

AND SO I, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY STATE LAW, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO TRY TO WHILE STILL OBVIOUSLY PUTTING SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL FIRST AND LIQUIDITY SECOND ADEQUATE LIQUIDITY FOR THE CITY'S NEEDS TO, TO PURSUE A LITTLE MORE RETURN.

AND SO I SEE AT 7:24, AS PROMISED.

SO I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR.

AND I URGE THAT WE MAKE THOSE FIRST TWO AMENDMENTS.

SO MUCH OF OUR PUBLIC FUNDS ARE INVESTMENT POLICY IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE LAW.

SO IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT.

THIS PROPOSAL CHANGES SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT CURRENTLY IS IN THE STATE LAW.

STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE INVEST IN WHAT WE CALL SLI, WHICH IS SAFETY, LIQUIDITY AND YIELD.

THERE IS A MUCH LOWER EMPHASIS ON YIELD BECAUSE WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE SAFETY AND LIQUIDITY, BECAUSE THIS IS TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT WE ARE INVESTING.

WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE A DIME OF THEM, AND WE'RE ALSO A PRETTY SHORT TERM CHURN IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

[00:25:03]

WE HAVE 660 MILLION AT YEAR END IN OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

WE HAVE $1 BILLION BUDGET.

SO WE ARE SPENDING THAT MONEY PRETTY QUICKLY.

SO IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO GO OUT LONG TERM, WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO PICK UP A HIGHER YIELD AND YOU'RE ABLE TO RECOUP A LOSS IF YOU GET A LOSS.

I MEAN, IF YOU SAW TODAY THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL HAD ONE OF THE WORST SLIDES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS SINCE 1978.

SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE RISK IN THAT POLICY.

I WILL ALSO MENTION THAT MANY OF OUR SURROUNDING CITIES DON'T EVEN PUT YIELD IN THEIR POLICY.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY EVEN FOCUS ON.

THEY FOCUS ON SAFETY AND LIQUIDITY.

THEY'RE VERY KEY.

SO IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP THE POLICY AS IS.

AND I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TRYING TO INCREASE OUR YIELD UNDER THE PERMISSIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE TEXAS PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY AND LIQUIDITY.

BUT I THINK WITH AS WE SEE AS WE SEE IN THE CHART HERE THAT COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI PROVIDED, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT NO RISK IN ANY KIND OF INVESTMENT.

BUT SOUND FISCAL PRACTICES LIKE WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO EMPLOY FOR MANY YEARS CAN HELP OFFSET THE IMPACT OF A SLIDE LIKE WE SEE BETWEEN 1999 AND 2009.

THERE WERE TWO SIGNIFICANT EVENTS DURING THAT TIME.

AND AS LONG AS WE ARE LOOKING TO A VERY LONG TERM FORECAST, NOT NECESSARILY LONG TERM INDIVIDUAL INVESTMENTS SUCH AS OTHER LONG TERM BONDS, BUT TAKING A LONG TERM VIEW OF OUR INVESTMENTS AND WE CAN GET OUT, SO TO SPEAK, IN THE IN SIGNIFICANT EVENTS WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE WE NEED TO GET OUT AND THEN REINVEST REGULARLY DURING UPTICKS THAN THE REST OF OUR FISCAL PRACTICES CAN HELP OFFSET ANY RISK OF THOSE SLIDES.

MAYOR PRO TEM SO, DENISE, LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND.

HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT COUNCILMAN'S RICCIARDELLI'S PROPOSAL? I HAVE, SO IT SOUNDS TO WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THE TWO WORDS THAT I SEEM TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IS OUR EMPHASIS IS ON MAXIMUM SECURITY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI EMPHASIS IS ON MAXIMUM RETURNS.

YES. AND THEY'RE BOTH MAXIMUM SO THAT THAT'S THE REASON.

BUT THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AS WELL AS OUR OWN POLICY IS TO MAXIMIZE SECURITY.

YES. INVESTMENT YIELD, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE ALSO IN CONSIDERATION.

BUT MAXIMUM SECURITY SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THAT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT IS GOING TO BE? OUR MAJOR FOCUS IS THE SAFETY AND LIQUIDITY.

I MEAN, IF YOU RECALL CALL ORANGE COUNTY.

YEARS AGO WENT BANKRUPT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE THE LIQUIDITY THAT THEY NEEDED.

SO THEY NEEDED TO LIQUIDATE SOME ASSETS AND ACCEPT SOME UNREALIZED LOSSES.

AND SO THEY ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAME REALIZED.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS 30 TO 40% OF OUR POLICY IS ACTUALLY BOND FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN UNSPENT.

IF WE GET SO MUCH YIELD ON THEM THAT WE EXCEED WHAT WE PAY THE BONDHOLDERS, WE HAVE TO PAY THAT TO THE IRS BECAUSE THAT'S ARBITRAGE.

SO WE CAN'T IF WE AREN'T SPENDING THOSE BOND FUNDS AS FAST, WE AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T, WE TRY TO GET THEM SPENT QUICKLY.

SO ARBITRAGE DOESN'T MATTER.

BUT OFTEN WE DON'T.

AND SO WE THIS YEAR ALONE, WE PAID $600,000 TO THE IRS IN ARBITRAGE BECAUSE WE EARNED MORE ON OUR PORTFOLIO THAN WE'RE PAYING OUR DEBT HOLDERS.

I SEE SO IN YOUR IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS WITH THE STAFF, IS THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, BECAUSE THAT TRACKS THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER RICCIARDELLI.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH DENISE FOR THAT GREAT INFORMATION.

SO AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A LOOK AT, AT MY PROPOSAL.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE A STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT MAKING YIELD.

FIRST I'M PROPOSING KEEPING IT THIRD.

I THINK SAFETY OF CAPITAL IS FIRST.

LIQUIDITY IS SECOND.

YIELD IS THIRD, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY HAVE IT.

I'M JUST SAYING THE WAY THIS IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN SAYS THERE'S A THERE'S A HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE SECOND GOAL AND THE THIRD GOAL.

AND I WOULD JUST MOVE THE THIRD GOAL CLOSER TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS STILL IS THE THIRD MOST IMPORTANT.

IT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE FIRST TWO, BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT.

ALL THREE OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT THAT THAT'S MY INTENT AT LEAST.

[00:30:02]

AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK, I KNOW THAT WE TYPICALLY HAVE ABOUT A $660 MILLION YOU KNOW, YEAR END VALUE OF OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE LOWEST THE UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE PORTFOLIO HAS GOTTEN? AT ANY POINT, SAY, IN THE LAST 5 OR 10 YEARS? THAT'S NOT A STATISTIC WE LOOK AT, AND WE ONLY DO A HARD CLOSE AT THE END OF EVERY FISCAL YEAR.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY TIME WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT ENCUMBRANCES ARE ENCUMBERING YOUR BUDGET FOR THE NEXT YEAR? OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WE HAVE A VERY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT THAT'S NOT LEGALLY ENCUMBERED THAT THAT I DON'T THINK I WOULDN'T CALL IT SIGNIFICANT.

OKAY. I WOULDN'T CALL IT SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU'VE GOT 40% OF THE PORTFOLIO IN BOND FUNDS THAT THAT'S LEGALLY RESTRICTED, THEN YOU HAVE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS THAT ARE LEGALLY RESTRICTED.

THOSE ARE GRANT FUNDS.

I MEAN, THERE'S ALL THE TIF MONEY THAT'S IN THE PORTFOLIO THAT IS ALSO LEGALLY RESTRICTED.

SO YOU HAVE A LOT MORE LEGALLY RESTRICTED IN THE PORTFOLIO THEN.

THEN I THINK THE AVERAGE PERSON PROBABLY REALIZES, OKAY, GOTCHA.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANYWAY, THE POINT I WAS MAKING, THOUGH, IS JUST I KNOW THAT WE HAVE FIVE YEAR INVESTMENTS CURRENTLY, FIVE YEAR BONDS CURRENTLY.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS GREAT ANALYSIS THAT THE STAFF PREPARED, WHICH BY THE WAY I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

ALSO, I THINK YOU AND THE WHOLE FINANCE TEAM ARE DOING A GREAT JOB, DENISE.

AND I'M JUST I'M SAYING IF WE GAVE YOU A LITTLE MORE I GUESS FREEDOM OR DIRECTION TO WITHIN STATE LAW AND WITHIN SLI PRINCIPLES WITH YIELD TO PURSUE, YOU KNOW, WHILE STILL BEING VERY SAFE, A LITTLE BIT MORE RETURN.

YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS TO ME, BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS, LIKE THERE MIGHT BE YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE OPPORTUNITIES AND COUNCIL, I THINK, TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SUMMARIZE, I THINK DENISE IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LANGUAGE, BUT I THINK THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCILMAN TO BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, TO STAFF TO CONTINUE TO SEEK OPPORTUNITIES FOR YIELD AS GENERAL DIRECTION IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACCEPT AND CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AS STAFF AND WHETHER THAT IS, YOU KNOW, REINVESTMENT, WHETHER THAT IS AN ASPECT OF REFINANCING AND SEEKING ADDITIONAL YIELD, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE.

I THINK THAT THAT DIRECTION FOR US, JUST FROM A GENERAL PURPOSE TO CONTINUE TO SEEK YIELD WHERE POSSIBLE AND WHERE WITHIN THE STATUTORY GUIDELINES IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO ACCEPT.

MAYOR PRO TEM, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? SO WITH THAT SAID SO BASED ON WHAT DENISE HAS PRESENTED, THAT THIS IS REQUIRED FOR THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT AS IS.

SECOND. THANKS.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO.

APPROVE ITEM I.

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 7 TO 1.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM K.

[(k) To appoint an Associate Judge of the Municipal Court of Record of the City of Plano, setting the term of office and compensation for the Judge; and providing an effective date.]

ITEM K, AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT, EXCUSE ME.

TO APPOINT AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD OF THE CITY OF PLANO SETTING THE TERM OF OFFICE AND COMPENSATION FOR THE JUDGE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO, MR. MAYOR, WE MAKE IT A POLICY TO ALWAYS WELCOME THE NEW ASSOCIATE INTO OUR CITY OF EXCELLENCE.

AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WELCOME OUR NEW ASSOCIATE JUDGE SHAINA PREMO, TO THE CITY OF PLANO. I DON'T WANT IT TO JUST BE A CONSENT AGENDA IN WHICH WE JUST SORT OF PASS HER BY.

I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE HER.

IF YOU'RE.

YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR STANDING UP.

I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A GREAT MUNICIPAL COURT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL REMAIN WITH US AND CONTINUE TO BRING MORE EXCELLENCE TO OUR COURT SYSTEM.

AND WELCOME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANTHONY. OH, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT MARIA WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION.