Jun 07, 2023 Council Briefing

>> NOT ALL OF THE OTHER ITEMS. WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION TOO?

[01:15:01]

WELL, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION NOW.

I NEED TO READ SOME STATUTORY LANGUAGE.

IT IS 10:40 A.M. ON JUNE 7, 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MANNER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, ZONING, AND REGISTRATION ORDINANCES.

WITH THAT, WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WILL ANTICIPATE RETURNING, WILL SAY 11:00 A.M.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS COMPLETED.

IT'S CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND AT 11:42 AM ON JUNE 7, 2023, WE'VE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS GOING TO GET READY TO PRESENT OUR BRIEFINGS, STARTING WITH ITEMS C INSTEAD OF THE POSTED ORDER.

GO AHEAD, MR. FORTUNE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IN APRIL, THE CITY COUNCIL HEARD A BRIEFING ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE PROPOSED REGULATION ORDINANCE.

TODAY, STAFF FROM PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN CODE COMPLIANCE, DATA ANALYTICS, BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS HERE TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND THEY UPDATE YOU ON THE RESULTS OF AN UPDATED AND EXPANDED ANALYSIS.

THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN, JULIA RYAN, WHEN SHE MAKES HER WAY TO THE PODIUM, WE WILL BEGIN THIS PRESENTATION.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH THIS AS WE GET THE STAFF TO THE PODIUM. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF A CURVE BALL BY CHANGING THE ORDER, APPRECIATE IT AND UNDERSTAND.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, JULIA RYAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.

I AM HERE WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES WHO WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WE BEGIN THE PRESENTATION.

BUT TODAY WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE APRIL BRIEFING AND MEMO.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. KENDRA. THANK YOU.

TODAY YOU'LL HEAR FROM MANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS OVER THE PAST NUMBER OF MONTHS AND YEARS REGARDING ANY UPDATES TO THE LAST BRIEFING THAT OCCURRED IN APRIL.

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS I MENTIONED IN OUR LAST BRIEFING WAS APRIL 4TH, AND ON APRIL 14TH, WE HAD A MEMO FROM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CARL SIMPSON, REGARDING IDENTIFYING FOUR ADDITIONAL AREAS OF FOLLOW-UP.

THIS SPECIFIC BRIEFING IS INTENDED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP DURING THAT APRIL BRIEFING. NEXT SLIDE.

SPECIFICALLY ON THE ZONING SIDES, CITY COUNCIL ASKED FOR A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, FURTHER BREAKDOWN OF ZONING BY COUNCIL DISTRICT, AND SOME ADDITIONAL PROCESSES REGARDING ANY OTHER KINDS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ZONING OPTIONS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ACTION NEEDED FOR EACH OF THOSE ACTIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE IF COUNCIL WANTED TO EXPAND ON THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS WITHIN THAT ARE ALLOWABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, FOR EXAMPLE ADDING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOUSE, CLUSTER HOUSING, ETC, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE ON THE FLOOR AFTER APPROPRIATE LEGAL NOTICE.

ANY OF THE FURTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE WOULD ALL NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH A PROCESS.

FOR EXAMPLE AN ACCESSORY USE, WHICH YOU WOULD SHOW AS AN INCIDENTAL TO A CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE.

THIS WOULD BE AS THE HOME SHARING OPTION, AS WAS DISCUSSED IN BOTH ZOAC AND CPC, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, IF THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF HIS BODY, CPC WOULD NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

ANOTHER OPTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY OPTIONS.

[01:20:02]

THIS IS THE OPT-IN OPT-OUT OPTION.

THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED EITHER AT CPC OR ZOAC, AND SO THAT WOULD NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH THOSE ZOAC AND CPC PROCESS.

THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO OUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE THAT'S OUT THERE NOW IN WHICH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS CAN PETITION TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING USE.

THE FINAL ONE IS THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS A RESIDENTIAL USE INSTEAD OF A LODGING USE IF COUNCIL WAS MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT OPTION.

SO WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE TO ALLOW SOME OF THE THE RESIDENTIAL AS NOT REQUIRING A CEO.

IT WOULD ALLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND AS WELL AS IT WOULD ALLOW SOME PDS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS MAP SHOWS THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS THAT ARE ACROSS THE CITY.

THIS IS THE NEW COUNCIL DISTRICTS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS MAP.

WE DO HAVE A SCATTERING ACROSS THE CITY OF THE MULTIFAMILY ZONED DISTRICTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS SHOWS AN OVERLAY ON TOP OF THAT WITH THE EXISTING IDENTIFIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS FROM THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. NEXT SLIDE.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE COLLAPSED ZONING DISTRICTS BY COUNCIL DISTRICT.

THERE'S A FEW NOTES TO BRING OUT WITH THIS.

IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH IS NOTED AS THE R-X DISTRICT, THESE ARE ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONED DISTRICTS.

YOUR R-5, OR 75, ETC, ABOUT 71 PERCENT OF THE IDENTIFIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE WITHIN R75 DISTRICTS.

WITHIN PD ZONING.

THERE ARE FIVE PDS THAT ACCOUNT FOR A LITTLE OVER 50 PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED AND IDENTIFIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS WITHIN THE PD ZONING DISTRICT.

WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT'S 79 PERCENT OF THE IDENTIFIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE WITHIN MF2 DISTRICTS.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE BASE ZONING AND THE NUMBERS IDENTIFIED HERE MAY BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE NUMBERS THAT DR. ANDERCHECK IS USING BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CAN BE USED AND ALLOWED IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.

FOR EXAMPLE IN AG-ZONING, YOU MAY HAVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, IN MULTIFAMILY, YOU MAY HAVE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE, BUT WE ARE USING SPECIFICALLY THE BASE ZONING AS OUR REFERENCE.

NEXT SLIDE. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DR. CHRISTIAN.

>> CHRIS CHRISTIAN, DIRECTOR CODE COMPLIANCE SERVICES FOR THE RECORD.

ON APRIL 4TH AT OUR BRIEFING, COUNCIL QUESTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF LAUNCHING ENFORCEMENT IN SIX MONTHS INSTEAD OF THE PRESENTED 12 MONTH MODEL, COUNCIL ALSO REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE ON-SITE CARETAKER AND MULTIFAMILY MODELS.

IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, I WILL DETAIL WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR CODE.

DURING THE BRIEF, WE WERE ASKED TO EXPLORE THESE MODELS.

IN ADDITION TO OUR PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT RESEARCH, WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE EXAMPLES YOU SEE HERE.

FOR THE CARETAKER MODEL, WE WERE REQUIRED THAT THE CARETAKER BEYOND SITE DURING THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF STR USE.

WE WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE CARETAKER TO REGISTER IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND PROVIDE THEIR GOVERNMENT ID IN CASE WE NEED TO CONFIRM THE IDENTITY AT A LATER TIME.

WE WOULD ALSO WANT THE CARETAKER TO ACKNOWLEDGE RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATIONS DURING THE STR USE ON THE PROPERTY.

FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY REQUIREMENTS, WE WILL WANT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR MANAGEMENT STAFF TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT WITH US ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRESENCE OF STRS ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRS ON THOSE PROPERTIES.

UNREGISTERED STRS WITHIN A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY WILL RESULT IN A PROPERTY MANAGER OWNER BEING ISSUED TO NOTICE THIS VIOLATION AND/OR CITATIONS AS NECESSARY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

[01:25:05]

OKAY. OUR ENFORCEMENT WOULD LOOK THE SAME AS IT DOES WITH OUR CURRENT CODE PROCESSES.

WE WOULD INVESTIGATE CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS, AS WELL AS PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY COMPLAINTS, CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS, ATTEMPT CONTACT WITH THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES, WHETHER THAT'D BE THE LOCAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY, THE CARETAKER, OR THE MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER OR MANAGER.

IF CONTACT IS ACHIEVED, THE RISKS WE WOULD ALLOW THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY A TIME-FRAME TO TAKE REASONABLE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE THE CONCERN.

IF CONTACT IS UNABLE TO BE ACHIEVED, THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES COULD BE ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR CITATIONS IS NECESSARY.

WE ALWAYS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ESCALATE VIOLATIONS TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR FURTHER PROSECUTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

DURING OUR BRIEF APRIL 4TH, WE WERE ASKED ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT AN ENFORCEMENT TIMELINE WITHIN SIX MONTHS INSTEAD OF THE 10 TO 12 MONTHS THAT WAS PROPOSED AT THE LAST BRIEF.

TODAY, I'LL TELL YOU THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE FOR CODE WE COULD BEGIN ENFORCING WITHIN SIX MONTHS PASSING THIS ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING WITHOUT ADEQUATE STAFF AND THE ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.

HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE.

YOU COULD EXPECT THE ENFORCEMENT TO BE ACHIEVED WITH THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS.

REACTIVE COMPLAINT BASED ENFORCEMENT ONLY, NO AFTER HOURS ENFORCEMENT.

BUT MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY ENFORCEMENT 07:00 AM TO 06:00 PM.

LATE NIGHT OR AFTER HOURS CALLS WOULD BE INVESTIGATED THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.

WE WILL BE ENFORCING FAILURE TO REGISTER AS AN STR AND/OR ILLEGAL LAND USE PRIMARILY.

UNTIL THE STAFF AND RESOURCES REQUESTED ARE GRANTED, AND ALL THE SOFTWARE THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED IS APPROVED.

THIS TIME I'LL HAND IT OVER TO DR. ANDERCHECK TO GO OVER TO DATA AND ANALYTICS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS BRITA ANDERCHECK, AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK. MAYBE IT'S THAT MIC.

I SERVE AS THE CHIEF DATA OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF DATA ANALYTICS AND BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE.

IN APRIL AS WELL, OUR DEPARTMENT WAS ASKED TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL WHITE PAPER, A DATA ANALYSIS INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY VARIABLES AND EXPANDING AND UPDATING THE WORK THAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE.

ON SLIDE 15, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE WORKED WITH DPD, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CODE TEAM, AS WELL AS 311 SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS, TO SELECT THOSE CALLS THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITUATION.

OVER 100 TO 103 CALL TYPES WERE SELECTED, BROKEN DOWN INTO, AND PRESENTED AS 42 CALL CATEGORIES.

DBI ALSO PARTNERED WITH THE CITY'S CONTROLLER OFFICE EXCUSE ME, AND ITS TO WORK TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL STRS IN THE CITY BEYOND THOSE THAT WERE CAPTURED BY GOVOS, OUR VENDOR.

IF THEY WERE THERE, WE WANTED TO FIND THEM.

WE WERE ABLE TO SPEND TIME, WE HAD 14 ANALYSTS SPEND ABOUT 1,100 HOURS CUMULATIVELY DOING MANUAL MATCHES, WE WERE ABLE TO ADD 147 STRS TO OUR TOTAL.

ON SLIDE 16, YOU CAN SEE THE CALL TYPES THAT WERE SELECTED FROM 311 AND CODE COMPLIANCE.

A LARGE GROUPING OF CODE CONCERNS, AS WELL AS NON-EMERGENCY CALLS FROM DPD.

THOSE NARCOTICS AND VICE COMPLAINTS, THOSE WOULD BE NON-EMERGENCY, CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, NON-EMERGENCY.

THE EMERGENCY CALLS ARE IN A DIFFERENT SECTION, BUT WE HAVE AN ADDITION TO DIRECTOR CHRISTIAN FROM CODE.

WE HAVE DAISY FAST, THE DIRECTOR OF 311, AVAILABLE TO SPEAK TO THESE COLLECTION OF CALL TYPES.

SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

ON SLIDE 17, YOU CAN SEE THE DPD 911 VARIABLES OR THE CALL TYPES THAT WERE SELECTED.

SO 66 CALL TYPES WERE IDENTIFIED AS RELEVANT FOR THIS STUDY INCLUDING THEFT, BURGLARY, SHOOTING, STABBING, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT, MAJOR DISTURBANCE, MISSING PERSON ABDUCTIONS, MISCHIEF, PROSTITUTION, SUICIDE, GUNFIRE, PARKING AND ROADWAYS AND LOUD NOISE.

WE HAVE A MAJOR BISHOP AND MR. ROBERT EURIBE, HERE TO SPEAK TO THOSE CALLS SELECTIONS.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE QUESTIONS ANSWERED ABOUT THEM.

ON SLIDE 18, YOU CAN SEE THE CALL TYPES THAT WERE SELECTED FROM DALLAS FIRE RESCUE.

THERE WERE 18 CALL TYPES RELATED TO EIGHT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT WERE RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WERE INCORPORATED.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT, INJURED PERSON, GUNSHOT WOUND, STABBING, MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE AND OVERDOSE.

ON SLIDE 19, WE MENTIONED THE LIMITATIONS.

[01:30:01]

ALL DATA ANALYSES HAVE LIMITATIONS AND THIS ONE IS NO EXCEPTION.

WE HAVE THE DATA WE HAVE AND IT MAY BE IMPERFECT.

I WANT TO BRING UP A FEW OF THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE MADE IN THE PAPER TO BE ABLE TO PULL TOGETHER THIS DATA SET FOR ANALYSIS.

IN THE PAPER, WE ASSUMED THAT EACH STR RELATED CALL WAS UNIQUE AND THERE WERE NO DUPLICATES.

WE ALSO ASSUMED THAT EACH CALL WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPER ADDRESS AND NOT A NEIGHBORING ADDRESS.

WE ALSO ASSUMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OPERATING AT AN STR DURING THE TIME OF THE CALL FOR SERVICE.

WE MADE THESE ASSUMPTIONS BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE DATA TO VALIDATE THIS AND WE NEEDED TO PRODUCE A DATASET TO MOVE FORWARD.

ON SLIDE 20, WE PRESENT THE RESULTS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSIS.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS A FULL WHITE PAPER IN THE APPENDIX FOR REVIEW.

DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY OF 2023 THROUGH APRIL OF 2023, THERE WERE 43,673 PUBLIC SAFETY AND NUISANCE RELATED CALLS ACROSS THOSE 103 CALL TYPES THAT WE REVIEWED FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CITYWIDE FROM BOTH 311 AND 911.

OF THESE, 1,216, OR APPROXIMATELY 3% CAME FROM RESIDENTIAL STRS.

RESIDENTIAL STRS HAD A HIGHER AVERAGE NUMBER OF CALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR ADDRESS THAN NON-TR PROPERTIES.

HOWEVER, THIS DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN ONE CALL DURING THAT TIME PERIOD.

DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD FOR CONTEXT, 311 AND 911 RECEIVED OVER ONE MILLION CALLS.

OUR FINAL BULLET POINT HERE IS THAT 1,907 OR 80% OF RESIDENTIAL STRS GENERATED ZERO CALLS FOR SERVICE OF THE 103 CALL TYPES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AND UTILIZED IN THE ANALYSIS.

I WILL NOW HAND THINGS OVER FOR THE FINAL PORTION OF OUR PRESENTATION TO A VERNON YOUNG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. VERNON YOUNG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON APRIL 4TH, 2023, COUNCIL QUESTION, IF SHORT-TERM RENTALS COULD BE REQUIRED, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY COUNCIL ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO ESTABLISHING A PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEE, INSPECTION STRATEGY AND TRAINING.

NEXT SLIDE. THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS $280 PER CO AND WILL BE CHARGED FOR EACH SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

THAT INCLUDES A BUILDING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND FIRE BASED ON THE DFR RECOMMENDATIONS INSPECTIONS.

BUT DSD WILL PERFORM THE TRAY TYPE PERMIT.

DSD RECOMMENDS A CO REINSPECTION TO BE PERFORMED ANNUALLY.

WHEN THE CHANGE OF HONOR OCCURS, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM OUR STANDARD CO, AND SO WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.

DSD WILL CONSULT WITH A FEE ASSESSMENT CONSULTANT TO DISCUSS FEE VOLUME AND TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THESE TYPES OF INSPECTIONS AND INCLUDE DFR INSPECTION DETAILS.

CO INSPECTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED NEXT BUSINESS DAY AS OUR CURRENT STANDARD, WHICH CURRENTLY WE HAVE A 95% SUCCESS RATE OF NEXT DAY INSPECTIONS.

WE LOOKED AT A THIRD-PARTY INSPECTION SERVICE PROVIDER BEING LEVERAGED BASED ON PROPOSED VOLUME.

DSD WOULD PARTNER WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CODE COMPLIANCE AND OUR FIRE RESCUE TO PROACTIVELY EDUCATE CUSTOMERS AND CREATE AN INSPECTION CHECKLIST.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR INSPECTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FACILITATE WORKFLOW PROCESS COORDINATION, AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.

>> I THINK WITH THAT, WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

WE HAVE MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS REPRESENTED DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE. BACK TO YOU, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. IT'S NOON. PERFECT TIMING.

[Closed Session]

WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND COME BACK AND RESUME WITH THE QUESTIONING.

IT'S 12 NOON ON JUNE 7, 2023.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS BY 51.076, AND 551.089 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MANNER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS INCLUDING, ONE, SECURITY ASSESSMENTS OR DEPLOYMENTS RELATING TO INFORMATION RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY.

TWO, NETWORK SECURITY INFORMATION, THREE, THE DEPLOYMENT OR SPECIFIC OCCASIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR SECURITY DEVICES.

OR FOUR, A SECURITY AUDIT REGARDING OUR RECENT RANSOMWARE ATTACKS,

[01:35:01]

SECURITY INCIDENT RELATING TO THE CITY'S INFORMATION RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY, AND UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, ON THE FOLLOWING MANAGE DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE RANSOMWARE ATTACK AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS VERSUS UNITED STATES NUMBER 01 DASH 284C, AND THE REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF HENSLEY FIELD.

WE WILL RECONVENE AT 01:00 PM.

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS COMPLETE.

IT'S CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.076 BY 551.089 AND 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND AT 01:13 PM ON JUNE 7, 2023, WE'VE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

MR. CITY MANAGER, YOU'RE SHOGUN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK STAFF IS AVAILABLE, I THINK TO CONTINUE THE Q&A SESSION OF THE BRIEFING AND WE STAND AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> WONDERFUL MEMBERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR PANEL.

DON'T ALL JUMP AT ONCE.

GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE.

[LAUGHTER] CHEER WOMAN WILL, AS YOU WRITE, LASTS FOR MINUTES.

[LAUGHTER] THAT'S HILARIOUS. WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER? FIVE-MINUTES UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO GO TO SHORTER THAN.

>> OTHER BUSINESS THINGS. USUALLY NOTHING MUCH ON THE CALENDAR, BUT IT DOES USUALLY BY FAR THE BUSIEST DAY THAT'S FOR SURE.

>> THEY GOT IT BACK UP MONDAY MORNING.

>> LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT. LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN.

[C. 23-1420 Short-Term Rental Zoning and Registration Ordinances (Part 2 of 2)]

CHAIRWOMAN WILL IS YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT'S FOR FIVE-MINUTES ON ITEM C FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

>> I WANT TO LOOK AT PAGE 15, ON WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CODE IMPLICATIONS, THE CODE COMPLIANCE VARIABLES AND I THINK MR. GILLESPIE IS HERE.

THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE LISTED HERE AROUND PARKING BLOCKAGE AND TRASH SO LET'S START WITH YOU, MR. GILLESPIE, BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH YOU ABOUT THIS.

A LOT OF THESE ARE LISTED ON PLATFORMS, A LOT OF STRS ARE LISTED ON PLATFORMS, AND THEY USUALLY ARE PRESENTED, THEY'VE GOT LOTS OF BUNK BEDS AND BEDS AND THE PLACE AND THEY SEEM TO ALWAYS BE LISTED FOR A VOLUME OF PEOPLE, ARE OFTEN LISTED WITH A VOLUME OF PEOPLE AND THAT GENERATES A LOT OF TRASH.

THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AND DISTRICT 13, SO IT'S OVERFLOWING IN THE ALLEY, OVERFLOWING IN THE STREET AND SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR TEAM GOES THROUGH AND ENCOUNTERS ALL OF THIS PILED UP OUTSIDE OF THE BIN?

>> MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL CLIFF GILLESPIE, THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF SANITATION.

THE CITY SOLID WASTES CODE CHAPTER 18 REQUIRES THAT ALL SOLID WASTE SET OUT FOR COLLECTION BE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BEING PLACED IN ROLE CARDS PROVIDED BY THE CITY, SO ANYTHING SET OUT OF OR NOT CONTAINED IN THOSE CARS WHEN IT'S SET OUT FOR COLLECTION IS A VIOLATION SANITATIONS PROCEDURE IN THAT CASE.

THE FIRST TIME IS TO MAKE A COURTESY COLLECTION PROVIDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION AT ORANGE TAG AND THEREAFTER.

IF IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN, ALL PROCEDURE WILL BE TO NOTIFY CODE OF COMPLIANCE OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND PLACE AN ADDITIONAL CARD ON THE PROPERTY AND ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL MONTHLY CHARGES FOR THAT COLLECTION.

>> BUT DOES THAT WORK PERFECTLY, DOES THE DRIVER ALWAYS NOTE, HEY, IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THREE WEEKS?

>> IN A PERFECT WORLD, IT WOULD, BUT WITH 700 TO OVER 1,000 HOMES ALONG A ROUTE, DRIVERS HAVE TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY SO AS THEY ARE ABLE, THEY NOTIFY SUPERVISORS OF VIOLATIONS OF THAT NATURE TO MAKE THOSE REPORTS.

DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN, LIKELY NOT.

>> IT FALLS TO THE NEIGHBORS THEN TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS OVERFLOWING.

I'VE GOT RODENTS OF INSECTS, AND SMELLS, ALL THAT STUFF SO THEN THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO THEN CALL AND THEN YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIAL TRIP.

>> USUALLY IT MAY SIT DOWN TO THE NEXT COLLECTION.

>> SPECIAL TRIP. [OVERLAPPING]

>> PAYMENT PROCESS.

>> EITHER WAY THAT'S NOT GREAT.

IT'S STRESSING THE WAY OUR SYSTEM IS INTENDED TO WORK.

WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANING UP AFTER A BIG VOLUME GROUPS OF PEOPLE?

[01:40:04]

>> THE ONE THING I WOULD NOTICE.

>> REGULARLY.

>> DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT PROPERTY, SO IT COULD BE AN STR OR OTHER SITUATIONS.

>> NOW I WANT TO SWITCH IT'S STILL ON PAGE 15, BUT THIS IS GETTING MORE LIKE PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND BLOCKING ROADS LIKE WE EXPERIENCED SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE EVENT ON VALLEY RIDGE, AND THEN ALSO BLOCKING FIRE HYDRANTS, WHICH I MYSELF SAW AND REPORTED THROUGH THE OUR DALLAS APP AND WAS TOLD IT WOULD BE, I THINK 48 HOURS BEFORE SOMEONE WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT AND CHECK ON THAT BLOCKED FIRE HYDRANTS, SO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE REPORTS THIS ON A LATE SATURDAY NIGHT OR EARLY SUNDAY MORNING?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION COUNCIL MEMBER, AND I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME, BUT I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

>> DFR BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THEY HANDLE A BLOCKED FIRE HYDRANT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SCOTT WILTON, I'M AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

THE 48 HOURS IS REFERRING TO THE THREE OR ONE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS, THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALLS THAT LIKED FOR FIRE HYDRANTS, OR YOUR OTHER TYPE CALLS? USUALLY SOMEBODY SHOULD BE THERE IN A COUPLE OF HOURS FOR THAT TYPE OF CALL, SO WE HAVE MOST OF OUR STAFFING DAY TO UP TO ABOUT MIDNIGHT.

WE DO HAVE A SKELETON CREW AFTER MIDNIGHT.

THAT'S MOSTLY HANDLING STREET BLOCKAGES, BUT WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHERE THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE.

WE GET THE CALL THROUGH 311 WILL DISPATCH SOMEBODY PRIMARILY OR THE EMERGENCY STUFF IS THINGS WILL HANDLE LATER IN NIGHT AFTER.

ABOUT 09:00 PM WILL DO YOUR FIRE HYDRANTS, YOU'RE BLOCKED DRIVEWAYS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT IN SOME OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT WHERE YOU HAVE MORE GROUPS, EVEN IF THEY GO IN THOSE AREAS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PDE TO TRY TO TOW VEHICLE, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE DONE SAFELY.

>> I SEE SOMEONE'S DFR IF YOU CAN LET US KNOW, WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN, IF THERE'S A FIRE AND YOU NEED TO ACCESS TO THAT HYDRANT, WHAT CAN YOU DO YOUR JOB? SPEAKER.

>> SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

ASSISTANCE CHIEF, JUST INVOLVE ROMAN CELEBRATIONS AND DOWNS FIRE RESCUE.

IF A HYDRANT IS BLOCKED AND CAN'T BE USED GENERALLY AS OTHER HYDRANTS WE HAVE PROCEDURES WHERE EACH [INAUDIBLE] 1,200 FEET OF SUPPLY LINE SO WE CAN GO A LONG WAY FROM THE FIRE AND CATCH THE HYDRANT.

WE HAVE A MAP ON THE UPPER RIGHT THAT SHOWS WHERE ALL THE HYDRANTS ARE SOLID.

IT WOULD BE A CALL TO FIRE DISPATCH.

SHE TOLD HIM RESPONDING COMPANIES TO FIND AN ALTERNATE ROUTE IN AND IT'D BE AN INCONVENIENCE, BUT IT'S NOT ANYTHING.

>> WELL, PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THEM AND WHAT I'VE BEEN ENCOUNTERING IS A LOT OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND BLOCKING THINGS THAT WOULD KEEP YOU FROM OR AT LEAST DELAY YOU FROM DOING THE JOB THAT YOU INTEND TO DO.

THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A QUESTION, DR. ANDERCHECK.

I WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU DID AND I KNOW YOUR STAFF TOOK A LOT OF TIME ON THIS.

I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THIS IS REPORTED WITH REGARD TO, ON PAGE 19 ABOUT THIS DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN ONE CALL, BUT A 911 CALLS, IT'S 0.98 PERCENT SO THAT'S A CALL, I WOULD THINK STATISTICALLY.

>> YES, THAT 0.98 WILL ROUND UP TO ONE.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR MONTHS HERE, SO ANNUALIZE THAT.

WHAT WOULD THIS BE ON THESE 911 AND 311 CALLS?

>> WHAT WE'VE SEEN CONSISTENTLY REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME, IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE TENDS TO BE ABOUT ONE CALL, SOMETIMES LITTLE UNDER, SOMETIMES A LITTLE OVER, NO MATTER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WE'VE LOOKED AT.

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

>> OUR PRIOR ANALYSES WHEN WE LOOKED AT CALL TYPES, WE'VE FOUND THIS THROUGHOUT THAT.

>> WHAT MONTHS WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT PRIOR ANALYSIS?

>> WE DID TWO PRIOR ANALYSES TO THESE PAPERS AND WE HAD A TWO-YEAR PERIOD IN THE FIRST ONE, A ONE-YEAR PERIOD IN THE SECOND PAPER AND SO WE'VE ALWAYS SEEN ABOUT A ONE CALL DIFFERENCE, AND IN THIS FOUR MONTH PERIOD WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

[01:45:04]

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT ANNUALIZING THIS WOULD NOT REVEAL MAYBE ANOTHER CALL, BUT MY CONCERN IS IS THAT IF THESE PROLIFERATE IN NEIGHBORHOODS, WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS GOING TO DO TO A NUMBER OF CALLS.

THIS MOST RECENT ANALYSIS DIDN'T INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY, CORRECT?

>> THIS WAS JUST RESIDENCES.

I THINK IN FLIPPING THE INFORMATION OR LOOKING AT, I PASS SOMETHING OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES AROUND TAKING THE NUMBER OF STRS, AND THEN THE NUMBER THAT HAVE GOTTEN A CALL, AND IT SHOWS THAT STRS, ON AVERAGE DROVE 3.5 TIMES MORE 311 AND 911 CALLS THAN A NON STR RESIDENT.

I THINK THAT YOU HAD PRESENTED THE DATA AS 80% OF STRS DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CALLS, BUT THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS THAT 20% DID AND ONLY 9% OF NON STRS DID.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL PERCENTAGE HERE, THIS 0.82% OF HOUSING STOCK, IT'S STILL OVER INDEXING.

IT'S STILL GENERATING MORE.

WE LOOK AT OUR VIOLENT CRIME PLAN, IT'S THE SAME SCENARIO.

WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHERE WE'RE OVER INDEXING AND FOCUSING RESOURCES ON THAT.

OUR FIRST STEP HERE WAS JUST TO SEE, ARE WE OVER-INDEXING? I THINK THIS IS SHOWING THAT IT'S DRIVING 3.5 TIMES MORE CALLS.

IF YOU LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU'VE GOT ONE OF THESE AROUND YOU, YOU CAN EXPECT THAT THIS IS GOING TO SEE MORE CALLS THAN A NEIGHBORS HOUSE WHO IS AN OWNER OR LONG-TERM RENTER.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I HAVE NOT SEEN WHAT YOU HAVE PASSED OUT.

>> IT'S BASED ON YOUR NUMBERS.

>> NO, I UNDERSTAND. I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WHY WE DID NOT DO A PROPORTIONAL PERCENTAGE COMPARISON.

WHAT WE DID WAS BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.

BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ARE ESSENTIALLY LEVEL 1.

IT'S WHEN YOU GO THROUGH AND COUNT THINGS IN THE WAY THAT THEY ACCUMULATE.

ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, WHEN WE START TO COMPARE, IS THIS PERCENTAGE BIGGER THAN THIS ONE? IS MORE MEANINGFUL? IS THIS PROPORTION, SHOULD IT BE BIGGER? THAT GETS INTO THE WORLD OF INFERENTIAL STATISTICS AND PROPORTIONAL COMPARISONS.

BEYOND THAT IS THIS ADDITIONAL WORLD OF STATISTICAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS.

WE VERY INTENTIONALLY STOPPED AT BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE HAD TO MAKE A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE DATASET.

IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WE DID NOT HAVE SOLID ENOUGH DATA TO MOVE PAST THOSE COUNT TOTALS AND THOSE BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.

WE DID NOT PROVIDE THAT.

WE DID NOT GET INTO, IS 20% OF THIS POPULATION BIGGER OR MORE IMPACTFUL THAN 9% OF THIS POPULATION? BECAUSE WE DID NOT BELIEVE WE HAD APPROPRIATE DATA TO MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS AND HAVE THEM BE RELIABLE.

>> WELL, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU.

BUT USING THE DATA THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED, THE NUMBER OF STRS VERSUS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENCES, IT DRIVES 3.5% MORE 311 AND 911 CALLS.

>> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WITH THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS ABOUT THE DATA, WE WERE NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT CONCLUSION.

BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO RELY ON A PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS THAT WE DID NOT CONDUCT AND WE DID NOT IMPLY TO.

>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, WE HAD A TIME CONSTRAINT ON YOU TOO, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.

WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS DONE BY THIS DAY.

I ALSO HAD ASKED FOR SOME WARM WEATHER MONTHS BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE'S SEASONALITY TO CRIME AND IT'S IN WARM WEATHER MONTHS.

CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENED, WHY WE DIDN'T GET THAT?

>> YES. I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER TEAM MEMBERS HERE WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT WE FACED WHEN WE WORKED ON THIS ANALYSIS THE FIRST TIME AND THE SECOND TIME WAS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE SOME RELATIVE CERTAINTY THAT THE CALLS ARE ACTUALLY OCCURRING AT AN STR.

IF WE'RE LOOKING BACK IN TIME TWO YEARS AND WE HAVE A LIST, LET'S PRETEND THAT THE LIST OF STRS IS CURRENT AS OF MAY 2023.

IF WE GO BACK TO MAY 2022 OR MAY 2021, WE HAVE CONTINUED REDUCTION IN OUR CERTAINTY THAT THAT PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY IN USE AS AN STR.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE THAT ISSUE IN THE DATA, WE RESTRICTED IT TO 120 DAY PERIOD, RATE THAT APPROXIMATE FOUR MONTHS CHUNKS THAT WE GAVE YOU.

WE DID THAT SO THAT WE COULD HAVE INCREASED CERTAINTY THAT THOSE PROPERTIES WERE ACTUALLY USED AS AN STR AT THE TIME.

WE DID NOT HAVE IN THE WAY THAT DATA IS STORED IN GUB OS.

WE DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GENERATE A LIST OF STRS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CURRENT, SAY THE SEPTEMBER 1, 2022.

IF WE HAD DONE THAT, WE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, PULLED A LIST FROM SEPTEMBER 1 AND DONE THAT RETRO THREE-MONTH COMPARISON.

[01:50:03]

THAT IS WHY WE DID THAT.

WE DID ADDITIONALLY TRY TO INCLUDE APRIL TO TRY TO HIT WARMER MONTHS THAT MIGHT INCLUDE SPRING BREAK, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE DEEP SUMMER.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, MAJOR BISHOP FROM DPD IS HERE TO SPEAK TO SEASONALITY.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT KNOW, MAJOR BISHOP ALSO HOLDS A PHD IN CRIMINOLOGY, AND MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE TO THIS.

>> SURE.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. REASK IT IN THAT WAY.

>> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MAJOR STEVE BISHOP.

AS DR. ANDERCHECK EXPLAINED, REASON I'M SPEAKING NOW IS BECAUSE OF MY CRIMINOLOGY BACKGROUND.

SHE HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THIS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE SEASONALITY ISSUE, AND YOU'RE CORRECT.

CRIME FLUCTUATES BY SEASON.

THERE'S ACTUALLY ENTIRE STATISTICAL MODELS THAT ACCOUNT FOR THAT VERY ISSUE.

WHAT WE SEE IS THAT IN SUMMERTIME, VIOLENT CRIME, PARTICULARLY WILL BE DRIVEN, AND THE THEORY BEHIND THAT IS A JUVENILE RELATED, THEY'RE OUT OF SCHOOL AND THAT'S THE AGE GROUP FOR THESE CRIMES.

THE TWO PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS IS ONE THAT DR. ANDERCHECK EXPLAIN THIS.

GOING BACK THAT FAR, WE WEREN'T CERTAIN IF WE HAD THE ADDRESS THAT WAS CORRECT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> WE'RE ACTUALLY BEYOND YOUR TIME RIGHT NOW, SO WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS.

>> OKAY.

>> GO AHEAD. YOU CAN FINISH YOUR RESPONSE, BUT WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO PILE ON QUESTIONS.

>> WHAT I WANTED TO WAS EXPLAIN THAT THE REASON FOR THE SEASONALITY AND HOW YOU MEASURE CRIME IS A THEORETICAL APPROACH.

WHAT WOULD BE A THEORETICAL APPROACH LIKE CRIME IN A RESIDENCE WOULD BE GREATER OR LESS.

ONE THEORY MIGHT BE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE START TO GO IN SUMMER VACATIONS AND RENT MORE HOUSES, WE MIGHT SEE MORE CRIME.

THAT WOULD BE ONE APPROACH AND SOMETHING IF WE HAD THE CORRECT ADDRESS JUST LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE, BUT ESSENTIALLY YOUR EXPECTATION IS CORRECT.

CRIME DOES RISE IN THE SUMMER, BUT THAT'S A GENERAL, THAT'S OUTSIDE ANY CRIME.

BUT YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT THAT.

>> CORRECT. MORE CRIME IN THE SUMMER, THE NUMBERS WERE ABOUT JANUARY THROUGH APRIL. THANK YOU.

>> WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS IF YOU'D LIKE. MR. WEST.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

FEW QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR AWHILE.

I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY, WHICH I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE REALLY SEPARATE THAT IN OUR MINDS AND IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS, AND IN THE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS, THE MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS.

DR. ANDERCHECK, ON SLIDE 20, YOU GO INTO DATA.

WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE DATA ON HERE REALLY PERTAINS TO PROPERTIES IN SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS, OR DOES IT APPLY TO STRS EVERYWHERE?

THIS APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL STRS WHICH IS DEFINED AS A PROPERTY TYPE, EXCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY.

>> DO WE HAVE DATA ON THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES?

>> WE DO HAVE THAT ON THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES AND WE DIDN'T USE IT IN THIS ANALYSIS.

ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THAT PARTICULARLY WITH THIS APPROACH, WE WERE LOOKING TO ASSOCIATED CALL.

WHEN YOU TRY TO ASSOCIATE A CALL TO A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY, YOU RUN INTO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE UNIT AND THE RELIABILITY.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THE ADDRESS OF THE CALL WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY UNIT ADDRESS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. IN A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE CALL DPD OR A CODE OR, WHOEVER YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE MANAGEMENT OFFICE FOR THAT MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX, RIGHT?

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF BUILT-IN REGULATIONS ALREADY IN MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THE PERSON TO ANSWER THAT, SIR.

I MAY HAVE TO HAND IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

>> IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION THEN FOR ANYBODY UP THERE.

>> I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT, JULIA RYAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.

GENERALLY WITH MULTIFAMILY AND OTHER PROPERTIES WITH LEASE AGREEMENTS THAT THERE ARE STIPULATIONS SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THOSE LEASE AGREEMENTS THAT PEOPLE SIGN THAT YOU WILL NOT SUBLET.

THAT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE LESSEE.

BUT GENERALLY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE GOING TO CONTROL THAT SPECIFIC REGULATION ON WHETHER A TENANT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO RENT OUT THE FACILITY THAT THEY'RE LEASING.

>>THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO QUESTIONS I ASKED LAST TIME, YOU GUYS WERE UP HERE,

[01:55:02]

WHICH IS OF THE THOUSANDS OF EMAILS AND CALLS THAT WE'VE HAD AND PEOPLE TALKING, I MAYBE HEARD A HANDFUL IF THAT ON COMPLAINTS ON MULTIFAMILY.

IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE'RE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT IN SLIDES AND BRIEFINGS.

I'M NOT BLAMING YOU GUYS, THIS CAME FROM ZOAC AND UP THROUGH CPC.

THIS WASN'T EVEN SOMETHING REALLY WE SHOULD HAVE EVER LOOKED AT.

I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING ON WITH MULTI-FAMILY.

WHAT EFFECT DOES THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS HAVE ON CORPORATE APARTMENTS AND FLEX APARTMENTS? LIKE AT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO RENT THOSE TO VISIT RELATIVES.

WOULD THIS ADD ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS TO THOSE AS WELL? WOULD THEY FALL UNDER THIS?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

WE WOULD TREAT ALL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES THE SAME UNDER THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS AS THEY'RE WRITTEN AND DRAFTED CURRENTLY.

>> OKAY.

HAVE WE SPOKEN WITH ANY OF OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS LIKE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER DALLAS OR TRACK ON THEIR FEELINGS ON THE ORDINANCE AS IT PERTAINS TO MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES?

>> WE HAVE SIR, AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER DALLAS WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY BIG CONCERNS WITH THE DRAFT OR THE DIRECTION WE WERE GOING IN, BUT THEY WERE NOT FOR AND ALL OUR BAND.

>> ON THE ZONING ISSUE, THIS IS I GUESS, FOR CITY MANAGER OR MAYBE MS. RYAN.

I FEEL LIKE IN MY TIME HERE ON COUNCIL, WE USUALLY GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

IT'S NOT COMING FROM CITY COUNCIL.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A VERY POLITICAL ISSUE AND IT'S BEEN VERY MUCH DRIVEN BY THE POLICYMAKERS, NOT BY STAFF, AND THAT'S NOT ANYONE'S FAULT UP HERE.

BUT YOU'VE NOW HEARD US, YOU'VE HEARD THE COMMUNITY, IF YOU HAD A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING PIECE OF THIS AT THIS POINT, AFTER THESE YEARS OF INPUT, WHAT WOULD THAT BE?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

SO MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS A TRAINED PLANNER WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD A ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE REGISTRATION.

BUT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE AS A CITY, USE ZONING AS A TOOL FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T ZONING.

WE USE IT SPECIFICALLY AS WE LOOK AT PDS, WE USE IT FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANS, WE USE IT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, WE USE IT FOR SANITATION.

WE USE ZONING FOR SO MANY THINGS THAT AREN'T RELATED TO LAND USE.

I THINK WHAT IN THIS CASE, WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AGAIN, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DEFINITION THAT REFERS ALL REGULATIONS TO A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE ENFORCEMENT AND OPERATIONS, THAT HAVING ALL OF THE REGISTRATION REGULATIONS IN ONE AREA WHERE IT'S ALL CONNECTED AND IT'S ALL CONTAINED WITHIN ONE PROGRAM, IS GOING TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REGULATING ESPECIALLY THE BAD OPERATORS, IF YOU WILL.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I THINK EVERYONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS REALLY THOSE OPERATIONS THAT DO IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENTS.

BUT MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE BEEN I DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS AGAIN, BUT I WILL THAT WE'VE USED ZONING IN WAYS THAT WE SHOULDN'T AND WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH A LOT OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES WITH PERMITTING AND WITH INEFFICIENT CITY SERVICES THAT ALL TIE BACK TO THE PD.

I WORRY THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THIS CASE, WHERE WE'RE ADDING REGULATIONS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ARE GOING TO EITHER CREATE CONFUSION OR INEFFICIENCIES WITH THE ENFORCEMENT PIECE.

>> I HEARD EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

I THINK I'M PICKING UP MOST OF WHAT YOU PUT DOWN, BUT I NEED A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION.

I DEFINITELY HEARD YOU ON THE WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON THE REGULATIONS HERE AND CONTROLLED ABOUT OPERATORS THAT WAY.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE ZONING? CAN YOU JUST BREAK IT DOWN VERY SIMPLY FOR ME?

>> YES. WHAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE WOULD BE HE'S STILL CONTINUING WITH THE DEFINITION THAT IS PROPOSED AND THEN DELETING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THAT,

[02:00:05]

SO WE WOULD NOT BE ASSIGNING ANY DISTRICTS PERMITTED THAT THAT SPECIFICALLY COULD BE REGULATED THROUGH REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, AND NOT THROUGH ZONING, THAT THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING COULD BE REGULATED THROUGH REGISTRATION AND NOT ZONING, AND THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE OR COULD BE REGULATED THROUGH THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND NOT ZONING.

BUT WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE WOULD HAVE THE DEFINITION THAT DISTRICTS PERMITTED WOULD BE ALL OF THEM BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE A ZONING ORDINANCE, WOULD NOT BE DRIVING LAND-USE ON THAT AND THEN WE WOULD REFER ALL OTHER REGULATIONS TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> UNDER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THIS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A NEW USE STILL, NOT AS A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE, BUT A NEW USE AND IT WOULD BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE?

>> CORRECT. BUT WITHIN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, YOU CAN CREATE THE DISTRICTS AND SHOW THE DISTRICTS IN WHICH YOU WANT THOSE USES TO BE OPERATED IN.

>> IT WOULD BE A NEW USE THAT, I'M NOT TRYING TO LIKE WALK YOU IN IT.

I REALLY AM CONFUSED HERE, SO IT'D BE A NEW USE THAT YOU COULD THEN SAY IN THE REGULATIONS, IT'S NOT PERMITTED IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR NOT?

>> WITHIN THE REGULATIONS, YOU CAN ASSIGN WHICH AREAS WHICH ZONING WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TO REQUEST A REGISTRATION.

SO IF THIS BODY DID NOT WANT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO BE REGISTERED, THAT COULD BE DONE THROUGH THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AS A PIECE OF THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, NOT WITHIN THE ZONING.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW. SO NEXT QUESTION IS ON SLIDE 5, IF YOU CAN PULL IT UP, PLEASE ON THE ZONING OPTIONS.

THE SECOND ROW TALKS ABOUT ACCESSORY USE, HOME SHARING.

SO IF WE WERE, IN YOUR SCENARIO, IF I BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE, IF WE WANTED TO ALLOW A HOMEOWNER OR A PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY LIKE A LONG-TERM RUNNER TO THEN ALSO HAVE AN SDR IN THE BACK.

VAST MAJORITY OF MY THAT HAVE STRS THAT ARE NEEDED HAD PURPORTED THEY NEED IT TO STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK THIS WOULD HELP THEM IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY ON SITE AND THEN THEY CAN ALSO MANAGE IT.

HOW WOULD YOUR PROPOSAL THAT YOU JUST TOLD ME, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ROW TWO HERE, WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING USES IN THE BACK?

>> YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY USE ORDINANCE BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS COULD BE PART OF THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

>> WHAT ABOUT A SCENARIO WHERE WE THE COUNCIL DIDN'T WANT TO JUST ALLOW IT IN ALL SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT WE DID WANT TO ALLOW IT WHERE YOU HAD A PERSON LIVING ON SITE.

I KNOW WE CAN'T LIMIT ON UNDER A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS, BUT PERSON LIVING ON SITE TO HAVE AN STR IN THE BACK, HOW WOULD THAT WORK IN YOUR SCENARIO AND THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL?

>> I DON T THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT ZONING WOULD BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE.

AGAIN, I THINK IT WOULD GO BACK TO A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT.

>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK ROUND TWO AFTER I GET MY MIND WRAPPED AROUND THIS. THANK YOU. THANKS, MAYOR.

>> CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU HAVE FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PICK UP ON THIS.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TALK ABOUT THE REGISTRATION QUESTIONS.

SO, MR. CHRISTIAN, IF YOU COULD FIRST OF ALL, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH BOTH THE LENS THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, AS WELL AS IF WE WERE TO SHIFT TOWARD MS. RYAN SCENARIO, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS? FIRST OF ALL, ON, I WANT TO COMBINE WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING ON SLIDE STARTING IN SLIDE 11 AND 12 AND THEN COMBINE THAT WITH THE SLIDES AGAIN, I THINK ON 52 WITH THE APPENDIX FROM THE PAST BRIEFING.

SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED OTHER THAN THE TIMELINE FROM WHAT

[02:05:01]

YOU ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BACK IN APRIL ON SLIDE 52?

>> I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TIMELINE, DID ANYTHING CHANGE?

>> DID ANYTHING ELSE CHANGE BESIDES THE TIMELINE FROM WHAT YOU PROPOSED AS THE WAY THAT WE WOULD REGULATE?

>> NO, MA'AM. OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSED REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS ARE STILL EFFECTIVE.

THE ONLY THING WE ADDED WAS THE CARETAKER AND THE MULTIFAMILY MODELS TO SHOW.

>> NOW, SO THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS TO THIS, THIS IS SO NEW, SORRY, WHAT MS. RYAN SUGGESTS, THIS IS SO NEW, IT'S A CHALLENGE.

BUT FIRST OF ALL, IF WE GO WITH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, WHICH IS TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM SINGLE-FAMILY, POTENTIALLY ALLOW THEM IN MULTI-FAMILY WITH YOUR NUMBERS, ARE THOSE FEES ENOUGH TO COVER WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?

>> YES AND NO. THE FEES THAT WE PROPOSED FOR THE BAN OPTIONS WOULD BE THE SAME, BUT FOR THE EXCEPT OPTION WITH MULTI-FAMILY ADDED IN, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE NUMBERS A BIT BECAUSE THERE'S ABOUT 303 MULTI-FAMILY THAT WE DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR IN THAT ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, SO IT WOULD BE THE 303 PLUS THE 148 OR THE 150, WHICH WOULD PUT US AT A NUMBER AROUND 450.

WE ASSUME THAT WE'D NEED TO REGISTER AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE AND INSPECT, AND SO THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT BOTTOM LINE PROPOSAL OF THE 150 NUMBER UP TO A 450 NUMBER, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST STAFF IN AND RESOURCES ACCORDINGLY.

>> WHAT WE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM THE SPEAKERS TODAY AND THROUGH ALL THIS TIME IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT DO OPERATE THAT ARE IN THE SYSTEM NOW WANT REGULATION AND WHAT THEY ALSO SAID IS IN ORDER TO PREVENT EVERYBODY WANTS THE BAD ACTORS GONE AND IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FOR HOWEVER LONG, THEY ARE WILLING TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE ADDITIONAL CODE TEAM.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY BUSINESS HOURS.

WE HAD TALKED BEFORE ABOUT A SWAT TEAM APPROACH OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENABLE CODE TO GO OUT IMMEDIATELY IF THERE'S A PROBLEM.

COULD YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF FEES IF WE DID WANT TO ADD THOSE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS?

>> SURE. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THE FEES ARE SET BY A FEE STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY OUR CONSULTANT.

WE ARE TIED TO THE FEE STUDY THAT WE WERE GIVEN BACK FROM OUR CONSULTANT.

WE DON'T CHOOSE HERE AT THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE DON'T SET OUR FEES FOR OUR PROGRAMS AND OUR ORDINANCES.

>> BUT I THOUGHT IT'S COST RECOVERY.

CAN WE NOT INCLUDE THAT IF WE ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICES?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDES IN THE WHOLE PRESENTATION AND RESOURCE NEEDS, FOR THE BAN OPTION IS WHERE ESSENTIALLY SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE AND WE HAVE THE HIGHER NUMBER OF REGISTRANTS, THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE FEES AND THE REVENUES THAT COME IN, THEY SURPLUS THE COSTS AND, SO THAT IS A FULL FEE RECOVERY MODEL IF ALL OF THE REGISTRANTS ARE ALLOWED, BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO THROUGH A FEE STUDY IS CHARGE ONLY THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS AND HOSTS THAT ARE REGISTERING TO COVER THE FEES OF OUR ENFORCEMENT OF ILLEGAL OPERATORS

>> BUT DOES THAT INCLUDE THE EXTRA HOURS AND THAT SWAT TEAM APPROACH? BECAUSE IF WE CLOSE THE DOOR TO COMPLAINTS AT 6:00 PM AND WE KNOW THAT NONE OF THE PROBLEMS HAPPEN DURING THE DAY, OR MOST, OR NOT.

>> THAT TEAM IS ONLY PROPOSED IN THE OPTION THAT WE ALLOW STRS EVERYWHERE.

WE KNOW WE WOULD NEED THE WEEKEND STAFF, WE KNOW WE WOULD NEED THE NIGHTTIME STAFF BECAUSE WE WOULD BE REGISTERING MANY MORE OPERATORS UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND WE WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE.

IF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATOR OR A HOST IS NOT REGISTERED IN OUR PROGRAM, THEN WE DON'T HAVE THAT ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

THE ONLY METHOD OR TOOL WE CAN USE TO FORCE AGAINST THEM IS ILLEGAL LANDING, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE DURING THE DAY.

>> NO, I GOT YOU ON THAT.

I'M SORRY, I'M NOT COMMUNICATING THIS VERY WELL.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK IS, EVEN AMONG THOSE THAT ARE REGISTERED, IF IT'S 3:00 IN THE MORNING, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY HELP FROM YOU AND THEY'LL HAVE TO CALL DPD, THEN THEN THERE'S ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT GO WITH THAT, SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS, HOW CAN WE GET THAT SWAT TEAM IN PLACE WITH A REGISTRATION SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE GO WITH THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED.

>> YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION?

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

>> FOR OUR WEDNESDAY TO SUNDAY STAFF?

[02:10:02]

>> TO COVER SOME OF THE LATE NIGHT CALLS?

>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AND BRING BACK TO THIS BODY.

>> CAN THAT BE BUILT INTO THE FEES OF THE REGISTRATION TO COVER THOSE EXTRA HOURS? I'VE JUST CIRCLED BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION.

>> NO, MA'AM. THE FEE STUDY FOR THE COST OF THE REGISTRATIONS AND FOR THE TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT AND THE PPE AND THE SOFTWARE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S INCLUDED IN WHAT WE PROPOSE IS WHAT THE FEE WOULD BE.

THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL HOURS WOULD JUST BE COST THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO EAT.

>> I'M SORRY, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE STUDY FEES.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IF IT'S COSTING US MONEY, IF WE'RE HAVING THAT AS PART OF THAT SERVICE, WHY CAN'T WE CHARGE FOR IT?

>> BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY CHARGE TO RECOUP COSTS ON THESE REGISTRATION THINGS.

WHEN WE GO BEYOND RECOUPING COSTS IN THIS SCENARIO, IT BECOMES ATTACKS.

ENFORCEMENT IS A TOOL THAT'S USED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S FOR ILLEGAL LAND USE, NOISE, ETC.

THAT IS THAT DISCRETE SERVICE THAT WE PROVIDE TO EVERYONE AND, SO ANYBODY CALLING INTO 311, WE CAN'T CHARGE ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR ALL THE TIME THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT THEY DO.

>> THANK YOU. NOW I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU SORRY FOR BEING DENSE ABOUT THAT.

MY SECOND QUESTION IS, CAN YOU SHARE ON THE MODEL OF THE REGULATION BUT ACCEPTING THE CPC RECOMMENDATION, ADDING BACK IN MULTIFAMILY? HAVE WE HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLATFORMS ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF THEIR COOPERATION?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER.

THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH AIRBNB AND VRBO, THE KEY SOLUTION ARE CPCS RECOMMENDATION.

>> PLUS THE MULTI-FAMILY.

>> PLUS THE MULTIFAMILY BEING ADDED BACK AND WAS NEVER PART OF THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GETTING THAT GUIDANCE TODAY, BUT IN PRIOR CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THEM, THE ACCEPTING OF THE KEY SOLUTION ARE CPCS RECOMMENDATION WITH A NON-STARTER FOR THEM.

>> BECAUSE IT BANNED SO MUCH SHORT-TERM RENTAL BUSINESS IN THE CITY.

>> ALSO LAST QUESTION FOR YOU AND THEN ONE FROM MS. RYAN.

HOW DOES THE CARETAKER MODEL WORK WITH THE CURRENT WHOLE HOUSE THAT ARE REGISTERED?

>> BECAUSE OF THE APRIL 4TH BRIEF, WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT.

THAT'S NOT A CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION, BUT RATHER SOMETHING WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT IT AND SO WE DID.

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM INCLUDING THAT IN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE TO HAVE A REQUIRED CARETAKER ON-SITE FOR THE HOURS THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING OPERATED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WE WOULD JUST HAVE THAT PERSON REGISTER AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, PROVIDE THEIR IDENTIFICATION SO IF WE HAD TO GO OUT ON A CALL OR WE GOT A COMPLAINT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CARETAKER OR SPEAK WITH THEM TO ADDRESS WHATEVER ISSUES ARE GOING ON ON THE PROPERTY.

>> MS. RYAN, THIS IS FOR EITHER OF YOU TO ANSWER.

IF WE WENT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION THEN IN THE REGULATIONS, YOU COULD SAY, BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWED, IT WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN A SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT IF THERE WAS A CARETAKER 24/7 ON PROPERTY?

>> DURING STR USE, YES, WE CAN INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

WHAT JULIA SPOKE WAS BASICALLY TAKING THE RESTRICTIONS FROM ZONING AND JUST MOVING THEM TO THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, WHICHEVER RESTRICTIONS YOU WANTED TO KEEP.

>> I GUESS THERE'S A QUESTION MAYBE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE CONSIDER THESE OR IF THIS IS NEW AND YOU WOULD NEED TIME, BUT WOULD THAT WORK IN DOING BOTH A ZONING AND REGULATION AT THE SAME TIME?

>> YOU COULD ADD THE CARETAKER PROVISION TO THE REGISTRATION.

>> THEN MS. RYAN, SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THIS COULD BE, WHAT'S SO POWERFUL ABOUT THIS IS IN DEALING WITH THE SCORE, IF YOU WILL, OF PDS, THEN BY TAKING IT OUT OF THE ZONING AND INTO THE REGULATION, THAT ELIMINATES THE OPPORTUNITY OF PEOPLE DOING PDS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, JUST ABOUT STRS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IF I COULD CLARIFY MY RESPONSES IS THAT WE CAN'T MOVE ZONING INTO THE REGISTRATION, BUT WE CAN USE CHARACTERISTICS TO CONTROL THE DENSITY IN LOCATION OF STRS, SO THINGS LIKE DISTANCE AND PARKING AND OCCUPANCY THROUGH THAT,

[02:15:02]

BUT WE CAN'T ACTUALLY TAKE ZONING AND PUT IT INTO A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

ANDREA IS UP HERE, SHE CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE PD QUESTION.

>> YES, YOU ARE CORRECT WITH THE PD QUESTION.

I WOULD ADD WHAT I SAID TO THE LAST BRIEFING.

IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS WILL NOT BE ATTRACTIVE ANYMORE LIKE THE MU ZONING DISTRICT.

I'M PERSONALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

YES, EVERYTHING YOU HAVE IN A ZONING, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IS OPEN TO A PD FOR ALLOWING OR NOT ALLOWING, SO IF WE WANT THEM REGULATE, IT IS BETTER TO REGULATE THEM CITYWIDE.

>> COULD YOU, MS. RYAN, JUST IN THE LITTLE TIME I HAVE LEFT, MS. RYAN, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU JUST SAID? START FROM SCRATCH TO COUNCIL MEMBER WEST QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE?

>> ABSOLUTELY. TO CLARIFY, THIS IS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE DISTRICT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT TO ALLOW ALL DISTRICTS PERMITTED BY RIGHT THAT YOU WOULD KEEP THE DEFINITION, YOU WOULD EXPAND THE DISTRICTS PERMITTED BY RIGHT, AND YOU WOULD INCLUDE THE PHRASE THAT THIS MUST COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 42B OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND THAT YOU COULD THEN BUILD INTO THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THE ITEMS IN WHICH YOU WANTED TO CONTROL, THE LOCATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE DENSITY AND BLACKFACE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER THINGS SO THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS WITHIN ONE ORDINANCE THAT IS MORE STREAMLINED AND EASY TO ENFORCE, RATHER THAN HAVING ZONING AND REGISTRATION IN WHICH NOW CODE AND SANITATION AND FIRE AND EVERYONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS WITHIN THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN.

>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING DR. ANDREA?

>> YES. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT IF WE HAVE THE SAME REGULATIONS APPLIED THROUGHOUT, IT WILL NEED A FULL AMENDMENT TO THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE RULES AS OPPOSED TO ZONING WHERE YOU CAN CHANGE THE RULES PD BY PD, LOT BY LOT.

>> IT ELIMINATES THAT,?

>> EXACTLY, IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

THAT'S VERY INTERESTING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RIGHT UP FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO ADVOCATE FOR THE POSITION, I THINK YOU ARE SUPER ADVOCATES.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STR OPERATORS WHO'VE COME DOWN TO TALK TO US, THEY ALSO ARE SUPER ADVOCATES.

WHILE I RESPECT THE OPINION OF BOTH OF YOU, I'M NOT HERE FOR YOU.

I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE TYPICAL HOMEOWNER AND APARTMENT DWELLER AND THEIR PLATE WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

I BELIEVE IN STRONG PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT THAT HAS TO INCLUDE THE RIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND I DON'T SEE HOW SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD INCLUDE COMMERCIAL HOTELS.

UNLESS THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DON'T ALLOW OTHER BUSINESSES TO TAKE OVER A HOME IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

MANY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PARTY HOUSE, AND WE'VE ALL SEEN IT, WE'VE ALL HEARD IT, IT'S ON THE NEWS.

IT'S TALKED ABOUT ALL THE TIME.

UP UNTIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I'VE HAD ALL THREE OF THE COUNTIES THAT I HAVE RESIDENCE AND HAVE A SHOOTING AT THE STRS.

NOW I ONLY HAVE COLLIN AND DENTON COUNTY, AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHULTZ GETS MY DALLAS COUNTY ONE.

BUT THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS THE DANGER OF STRS IS THIS ONGOING INVASION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S ROBBING PEOPLE OF NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY.

IT'S GUTTING OUR SCHOOL ENROLLMENT.

IT'S REDUCING THE CUSTOMERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES LIKE OIL CHANGES AND DRY CLEANERS.

THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT PARKING ISSUES, NOISE ISSUES, PRIVACY ISSUES, CRIME ISSUES, LITTER, LOITERING, AND SANITATION ISSUES, AND FINALLY, THE REDUCTION OF AVAILABLE HOUSING FOR DALLAS RESIDENCE INSTEAD OF EMPTY HOUSES THAT ARE USED BY TOURISTS AND EVENT HOSTS ON WEEKENDS.

FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, I'M FIRMLY IN THE CAMP OF DEFINING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AS LODGING AND BANNING THEM.

FOR COMMERCIAL, MULTI-USE, AND MULTIFAMILY, I FEEL THE LANDLORD HAS AN INCENTIVE TO CONTROL THE ISSUES THAT COME AND THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF LOSING TENANTS IF IT'S NOT PROPERLY MANAGED.

WITH THAT, I'VE GIVEN MY TWO MINUTES AND $0.02.

THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER]

[02:20:03]

>> MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT WITH FIVE MINUTES.

LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN TOP THAT.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR.

MS. RYAN, I WAS SURPRISED BY YOUR REJECTION OF THE USE OF ZONING TO REGULATE LAND USE IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BODY.

YOU ADVOCATE DEFINING SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT NOT REGULATING WHERE THEY MAY BE PERMITTED.

INSTEAD, YOU ADVOCATE THROUGH YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, APPARENTLY, THAT STRS BE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS SUBJECT ONLY TO REGULATIONS ON PERHAPS THEIR DENSITY, SPACING, AND OPERATION. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE MY STATEMENT AS ADVOCATING FOR.

I DO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND THAT WAS REFLECTED IN THAT, AND IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE ABILITY FOR STAFF TO CONSISTENTLY SIMPLIFY THE DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING PROCESS FOR NOT ONLY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, BUT FOR THE RESIDENTS.

WHEN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, I'M REALLY LOOKING AT THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY AND HOW THIS AFFECTS OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THINGS LIKE SANITATION AND FIRE AND CODE.

I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE IT AS ADVOCATING FOR, AGAIN, I WOULD GO BACK TO LOOKING AT IT THE WAY THAT I PROPOSED IT AS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE PROCESS AND THAT THIS BODY CAN STILL CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, IF THAT WAS A DESIRE, WITH BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE RESTRICTIONS AND AREAS IN WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THESE AND MOVE THAT THROUGH, AND SETTING IT UP THROUGH A REGISTRATION PROCESS.

>> WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE FUNCTION OF ZONING.

IS IT NOT TO REGULATE WHERE CERTAIN LAND USES ARE PERMITTED AND WHERE OTHER LAND USES ARE NOT PERMITTED, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL LAND USES IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY?

>> WE DO THAT ALREADY IN THINGS LIKE HOME OCCUPATIONS IN WHICH PEOPLE DO RUN BUSINESSES OUT OF THEIR HOME.

THERE IS ZONING THAT'S RELATED TO THAT.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALREADY DOES EXIST, SO IF YOU WANTED TO OPEN UP A BUSINESS IN YOUR HOME, YOU WOULD DO THAT UNDER THE HOME OCCUPATION ZONING ORDINANCE.

>> WELL, YOU MISS MY POINT THOUGH.

MY POINT IS THAT WE CURRENTLY USE ZONING TO REGULATE WHERE CERTAIN LAND USES ARE PERMITTED AND OTHER LAND USES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?

>> NOW, WE ALSO USE ZONING TO REGULATE THINGS OTHER THAN LAND USE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IN DALLAS, THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE, YES.

>> WE REGULATE THINGS LIKE HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS, SETBACKS, WE REGULATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DON'T WE?

>> IN THIS CASE, YOU ADVOCATE TRANSFERRING ANY REGULATION OF PARKING TO A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS.

A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ALREADY HAS PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THAT, AND SO IF YOU'RE LAYERING ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON TOP OF THAT, THEN ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING REGULATIONS WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE REGISTRATION, NOT THE ZONING.

I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE AT AN OPERATOR ISSUE, I THINK, RATHER THAN A LAND-USE ISSUE.

I'VE RENTED SHORT-TERM RENTAL BEFORE AND THE WAY THAT I USED THAT PROPERTY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY I WOULD USE MY OWN PROPERTY WHERE I SLEPT THERE, I COOKED THERE, AND I WATCH TV THERE.

USE-WISE, THAT IS THE SAME USE.

I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS, AND THE BIG ISSUE THAT WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT, IS OPERATORS YOU CAN'T REGULATE THE OPERATORS THROUGH THE ZONING BECAUSE

[02:25:02]

THE OPERATION OF AN STR IS MORE OF A CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE.

>> BUT ANTICIPATING HIGHER OCCUPANCY OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAN THE TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS THERE?

>> IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THIS BODY THEN, SURE.

>> EXACTLY. NOW, YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DEFINE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT NOT REGULATE OR RESTRICT WHERE THEY CAN BE LOCATED.

NOW, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THIS ORDINANCE IS DEFINING SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS A LODGING USE, WHICH ARE ALREADY REGULATED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS TO WHERE THEY'RE PERMITTED. ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IN FACT, WE RESTRICT LODGING USES, HOTELS AND MOTELS, TO COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE DEFINITION OF LODGING USE, THE WAY IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, WAS PART OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED CODE AMENDMENT, SO THAT WAS THEIR SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, WAS THAT IT IS IN A LODGING USE.

THERE ARE CITIES ACROSS THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY THAT DO HAVE THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL USE.

>> BUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLAN COMMISSION IS THAT WE CLASSIFY SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS A COMMERCIAL LODGING USE.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY.

>> THAT IS WHAT CPC RECOMMEND, YES.

>> THANK YOU. NOW, SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THAT PRECEDENT OF REGULATING LODGING USES AS COMMERCIAL USES NOT PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, YOU NONETHELESS RECOMMEND THAT WE TREAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS PREFERENTIALLY AS A LODGING USE, BUT NOT SUBJECT TO THE LODGING USE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING CODE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE OPERATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD BE MAINTAINED THROUGH THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

YOUR POSITION IS THAT WE SHOULD CALL SHORT-TERM RENTALS A LODGING USE, BUT NOT REGULATE THEM IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS LODGING USE AT ALL.

>> WE WOULD STILL PROVIDE THE DISTRICTS PERMITTED AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT.

>> WELL, ISN'T THAT INCONSISTENT TO CALL IT A LODGING USE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT NOT REGULATED AS A LODGING USE?

>> CPC, AGAIN, DID MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO CLASSIFY SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS A LODGING USE.

>> YOU CONCURRED WITH THAT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL USE.

>> THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN HEARING THIS.

YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT IN YOUR INITIAL COMMENTS.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE CLASSIFIED AS A LODGING USE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE?

>> THAT WAS CPC'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> MR. CHRISTIAN? NO, I'M SORRY.

MS. ANDERCHECK YOUR STATISTICS ABOUT THE COMPARISON OF 311 AND 911 CALLS BETWEEN STR PROPERTIES AT 2.5 CALLS IN THE FOUR MONTHS AND THE NON STR PROPERTIES 1.5 CALLS, YOU ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THAT DIFFERENCE BY SAYING IT'S JUST ONE LESS CALL FOR NON STR PROPERTIES THAN STR PROPERTIES.

BUT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SUCH A SMALL BASE OF NUMBERS, ONE-AND-A-HALF VERSUS TWO-AND-A-HALF, THAT REPRESENTS A 66% INCREASE FOR STR CALLS. DOESN'T IT?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT.

IT'S NOT AN ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE ITS AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE CONTEXT, AND I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, SO WHEN WE BEGIN TO TAKE TWO PERCENTAGES AND DRAW COMPARISONS, WE ARE MOVING OUT OF THE REALM OF

[02:30:01]

BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND INTO THE REALM OF A PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS.

WE DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE SOLID ENOUGH DATA HERE TO MOVE BEYOND BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND INTO THE WORLD OF INFERENTIAL STATISTICS WHERE WE WOULD BEGIN TO ASSIGN THOSE PROPORTIONS, MEANING AND VALUE.

WE DID NOT DRAW THOSE CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK WE HAD THE DATA TO DO SO.

WE PRESENTED THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE DO BELIEVE WE HAVE STRONG DATA TO PROVIDE AND SO THERE WASN'T AN ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE THE BASIC NUMBERS THAT WE DO HAVE AND THEN TO PROVIDE CONTEXT SO THAT THE DECISION-MAKERS AND THE POLICYMAKERS COULD DETERMINE IF THAT DIFFERENCE WAS MEANINGFUL TO THEM.

BUT THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN NON STR PROPERTY 311 AND 911 CALLS AN STR PROPERTIES IS A 66% DIFFERENCE, ISN'T IT?

>> BUT 66% IS LESS THAN ONE CALL, AND SO WE DID NOT PRESENT IT IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES BECAUSE A PERCENTAGE WITHOUT CONTEXT COULD BE ENORMOUS OR IT COULD BE SMALL, AND THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO PRESENT IT IN TERMS OF CALLS SO THAT EVERYONE READING COULD UNDERSTAND IN A VERY TANGIBLE WAY WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE WAS AND THEN DRAW A CONCLUSION.

>> MR. CHRISTIAN, YOU INDICATED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT CHALLENGING TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT ADEQUATE STAFFING AND ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE.

BUT IF THE CITY PROVIDED YOU THAT ADEQUATE STAFFING AND ENFORCEMENT SOFTWARE, YOU COULD ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE.

YOU COULD SEE YOUR WAY CLEAR TO ENFORCING THIS ORDINANCE WITHIN A SIX-MONTH PERIOD?

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR 5 MINUTES.

>> EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I'M GOING TO START OFF WHERE I THINK MR. RIDLEY LEFT OFF AT, WHICH IS MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME ASKING.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BRILLIANT MINDS THEY'RE SPEAKING TO US AND A LOT OF BRILLIANT PEOPLE OUT IN THE STR OWNER WORLD AND THE HOMES, NOT HOTELS WORLD.

I'VE HEARD FROM THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

WHY WE'RE HERE, CAN YOU GIVE ME WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS? CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS OF BRINGING ZONING AND REGULATION TOGETHER TO US.

>> YES. WE ADVISE THAT YOU BRING THEM TOGETHER, SO IT WILL BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REGULATE FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES AT THE SAME TIME, SO YOU WOULD NOT BE DISADVANTAGE IF YOU WENT WITH REGISTRATION FIRST VERSUS ZONING TO BRING THEM TOGETHER.

>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. MS. RYAN.

I'M STRUGGLING BECAUSE I'M BIG FAN AND NOT ONCE HAVE I EVER HEARD YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND ARE COUNTLESS TALKS, BRIEFINGS, ANY MEETING YOU GIVE YOUR PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT THESE SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL USE, NOT LODGING.

MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I'VE ALWAYS HEARD YOU SAY DEFINE A LODGING USE, SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE WHY, I'M JUST GOING TO SIT SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

THAT'S WHY I'M PERPLEXED RIGHT NOW.

I FEEL LIKE YOU'VE STEPPED INTO A PITFALL BY ACCIDENT AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT, BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE HOW TO DO IT.

IF YOU CAN TRY TO, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE HERE TO RESET AND GET THIS RIGHT FOR ME.

>>TO CLARIFY, THE LODGING USE, AGAIN, BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A CODE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY TO BE A LODGING USE, AND SO THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WERE GIVEN FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THAT'S WHAT WE MOVED FORWARD WITH.

>> VERY GOOD, AND AT THIS POINT, STUFF DOESN'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> OUTSIDE OF WHAT I JUST SHARED, THERE IS NOT A COLLECTIVE PUD STAFF.

>> THE RECOMMENDATION YOU JUST STATED EARLIER WAS YOUR PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION NOT ON BEHALF OF STAFF?

>> AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, THIS IS A COLLECTIVE PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT WE SHARE.

[02:35:01]

>> MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TELL ME WHAT THE, I'M SORRY, MR. CITY MANAGER.

I APOLOGIZE. [LAUGHTER] SORRY. MY APOLOGIES.

I WAS LOOKING AT TAMMY AND SORRY.

MR. CITY MANAGER, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

MR. BROADNAX, IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT IS THE STAFF OPINION RECOMMENDATION ON THIS? BECAUSE I'M HEARING TWO THINGS NOW DIFFERENTLY AND I'M GETTING CONFLICT FROM OUR STAFF MEMBER WHO'S SPEAKING AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN A BIND, SO I'M GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE TALK.

IS THERE A COLLECTIVE STAFF OPINION RECOMMENDATION ON THIS OR IS THERE NOT?

>> COUNCILMAN, THERE'S NOT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS I THINK I COMMUNICATED AND/OR ACTUALLY WAS GUIDED BY CONSENSUS OF THIS COUNCIL AT THE FULL BRIEFING WE HAD BEFORE THE ITEM WAS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR WHAT THEY WERE EXPECTED TO REVIEW AND COME BACK AND ASSESS.

AT THAT TIME, I APPEAR TO RECALL MYSELF SAYING THE STAFF WAS NOT GOING TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, WE WERE GOING TO SEND DIRECTLY AS COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED THE ITEM TO CPC, AND THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, I ADVISED MY STAFF SINCE THE COUNCIL TOOK A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO HOW THEY WERE SENDING THINGS TO CPC, WHICH THEY NORMALLY DON'T ORIGINATE AT THIS DIAS, THAT WE WOULD NOT BE PROVIDING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WHEN IT CAME BACK, YOU TYPICALLY GET A CPC RECOMMENDATION AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

WE DID NOT DO THAT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAD ALREADY DIRECTED AND TOLD US WHAT THEY WANTED.

IF YOU RECALL FROM THE PRIOR BRIEFING THAT WAS PREPARED DURING THAT SAME DISCUSSION, STAFF LAID OUT 2-3, IF NOT AT LEAST TWO OPTIONS OF APPROACHES AND HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THIS, THAT WAS NOT FAVORABLY RECEIVED, AND COUNCIL THEN GOT TO A MUCH MORE SIMPLIFIED MANNER AT WHICH THEY WANTED THE CPC TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, SO I TOLD MY STAFF AT THAT TIME, PROBABLY AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT, THAT I DID NOT WANT THEM TO SEND A RECOMMENDATION SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY HEARD A RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNCIL AND THEN TO HAVE THAT BE IN CONFLICT.

AS THEY'VE COME BACK TODAY AND THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD THEIR RECOMMENDATION HAD BEEN, I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY CONSISTENT AS JULIA SAID, SHE IS THE DIRECTOR, SO ULTIMATELY, HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS IN THE DEPARTMENT.

HOWEVER, AS SHE INDICATED, SHE HAS WORKED AND HAD THIS ISSUE DISCUSSED AMONGST HER TEAM OF OTHER ZONING AND PLANNING PROFESSIONALS, AND THAT'S THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE PEOPLE IN HER DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING AND ZONING, SO AS SHE'S SPEAKING, SHE SPEAKING ON BEHALF AND FOR THEM, BUT AS THE LEADER IN HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

AS IT RELATES TO WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ARTICULATE TODAY, IS THAT IF YOU ASK HER HOW SHE WOULD APPROACH IT AND HOW I THINK WE BEGAN THE CONVERSATION, SHE SHARED THAT WITH YOU TODAY.

IF I HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO ENSURE THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED, THIS WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD THAT CONVERSATION TODAY, BUT I WAS ASKED AND/OR AT LEAST APPEAR TO HAVE CONSENSUS THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT COUNCIL WANTED, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

FOR HER TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE REMAINING PIECE OF THE CONVERSATION, IF IT HAS THROWN IN CONFUSION TO THE COUNCIL, WE WOULD NOT, I GUESS, POINT THAT TO A POINT OF CONTENTION FOR WHAT STAFF DIDN'T DO BECAUSE SHE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, SO SHE'S GOING TO GIVE HER PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION AND IF IT'S NOT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THIS IS A BRIEFING, IF THIS ITEM COMES BEFORE YOU AGAIN.

AGAIN, I HEAR CONSENSUS, THEN THERE WILL BE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHEN A ZONING ITEM COMES BACK OR ANY OTHER ITEM COMES FORWARD IN THE FUTURE UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS ME TODAY NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD OR AT LEAST I GOT THE IMPRESSION OF THE LAST TIME THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE YOU WITH MY TEAM HERE WHEN IT CAME TO WHAT WENT TO CPC.

I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES WHY WE DIDN'T DO OR WHAT WE WERE WILLING TO DO, AND WE'LL TAKE DIRECTION TODAY.

>> CRYSTAL-CLEAR, MR. CITY MANAGER, AND THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP AND WE HAVE THE SAME MEMORY AS FAR AS WHEN THIS FIRST GOT TO US, THAT STAFF DID MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE AS A BODY SAID, WE REJECT THOSE, GO THIS DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP AT KISS.

WE WANTED A MORE SIMPLE RECOMMENDATION POLICY AT THE END OF THE DAY WHERE THE POLICYMAKERS COMMENT WAS MADE EARLIER ABOUT STAFF DRIVING POLICY.

STAFF DOESN'T DRIVE POLICY, THIS BODY DRIVES POLICY AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, IS WE ARE DRIVING A POLICY,

[02:40:01]

AND THAT'S WHY I AGREE WITH YOU.

WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU ASKED HER STAFF NOT TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION AT THAT POINT.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON THAT.

I'VE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY.

HAVE WE LOOKED INTO MULTI-FAMILY AT ALL? WHAT IS MULTI-FAMILY, WHAT CATEGORIES OF ZONING WOULD BE MULTI-FAMILY? TOWN HOME 3, TOWN HOME 2, TOWN HOME 1, CONDOS, IS THEIR SIZE LIMITS, ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, BECAUSE A TOWN HOME 3 COMMUNITY IS VERY MUCH LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE STRS COULD TAKE OVER INSIDE OF THAT PART OF WITHIN ZONING.

IF YOU ALL CAN EXPLAIN WHERE YOU ARE ON THAT, HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH YET OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO WAIT AND LOOK INTO MORE?

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WILL START.

I HAVE A VERY BRIEF PIECE TO ADD AND I'LL HAND IT OVER TO MS. RYAN AND MR. YOUNG WHO CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER MORE.

SO FOR CLARIFICATION, IN TERMS OF THE PAPER, WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I KNOW THAT PART. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY.

I KNOW YOU WERE ONLY LOOKING AT RESIDENTIAL.

I GOT THAT. I READ THAT.

WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS ABOUT THESE OTHER POTENTIAL THINGS THAT WERE IN THE BRIEFING WHICH TALKED ABOUT MULTIFAMILY AND OTHER PEOPLE MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT LOOKING INTO MULTIFAMILY.

I HAVE A CONCERN ON SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER, I'LL START FOR CODE, AND BASICALLY WHAT I INCLUDED IN MY ITEM IN THE BRIEF, HOW WE WOULD VIEW MULTI-FAMILY FROM THE REGISTRATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, AND BASICALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR MANAGEMENT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY STRS ON SITE AND FOR SIGN-IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THOSE STRS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THEM, AS WELL AS RECEIVE NOTICES, A VIOLATION, OR CITATIONS FROM OUR TEAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> VERY GOOD. WHERE I HAVE A LOT OF PAUSE ON MULTIFAMILY IS GOING TO BE IN SMALL CONDO GROUPS, TOWN HOME COMMUNITIES, TOWN HOME 3 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TOWN HOME 1.

THAT'S WHERE MY PAUSES BECAUSE A LOT OF TOWN HOME NEIGHBORHOODS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT SINGLE DETACHED, THEY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON THAT. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

I'M STILL OPEN ON MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHEN I TALKED MULTI-FAMILY, I'M TALKING APARTMENT COMPLEX TYPE BUILDINGS.

YOU CAN HAVE A 12 UNIT, EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOMES A MINI HOTEL IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT'S WHERE WE GOT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS END ZONING IS IT ORDINANCE? WHAT IS THIS WHERE I'M BEING TOLD OR WAS MENTIONED NOT TO USE ZONING TO REGULATE, BUT WE DO REGULATE CERTAIN THINGS WHERE WE'RE BUILDING, SO THINGS LIKE COMMERCIAL.

I'M GOING TO WAIT TO THE NEXT ROUND BECAUSE THIS IS A MUCH LONGER QUESTION, SO I'LL ASK IT IN THE NEXT ROUND. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SKIP A RITUAL AND SHOULD, TO PICK UP SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET ON THIS.

IT LOOKS LIKE CHAIRMAN ADAM BAZALDUA YOU RECORD HAS FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND UPDATE.

I DO WANT TO JUST BE CLEAR THAT I UNDERSTAND THE BRANDING, BUT THERE'S NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED THIS MANY MEETINGS AND SO MUCH QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

SO WE HAVE TO CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

NOTHING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WOULD ERASE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR HERE.

TAMMY, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOUR GUIDANCE WAS TO PASS ZONING WITH REGULATIONS.

THAT'S NOT UNIQUE TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

IS THAT ACCURATE TO SAY?

>> THAT'S ACCURATE.

>> YOU WERE JUST MAKING SURE THAT IF ANY ZONING TOOL OR COMPONENT WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BODY AND TAKEN UP WITH ANY REGULATIONS THAT NO MATTER WHAT THOSE PROPOSALS WERE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AND CONSIDERED TOGETHER; IT WAS YOUR OPINION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT IT WASN'T SPECIFIC TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, DO YOU? HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BY THE WAY.

[LAUGHTER] I CAN GIVE HER A LITTLE SOMETHING.

HECK OF A BIRTHDAY INTERROGATION THAT YOU'RE GETTING HERE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS STATED ON RECORD THAT IT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR FROM YOU, YOUR DEPARTMENT, THE OTHERS THAT ARE SITTING NEXT TO YOU ON WHERE STAFF HAS STOOD.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BEEN A VERY POLITICIZED ISSUE, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL HAVE A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE IN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I THINK WHEN WE'RE GIVEN PRESENTATIONS THAT SHOW US THAT WE VIRTUALLY COULD NOT ENFORCE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED OR THAT IT WOULD COST US MORE MONEY THAN WHAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL.

THAT THAT'S CLEAR DIRECTION FROM STAFF THAT IT'S NOT THE MOST VIABLE CHOICE.

[02:45:01]

I THINK YOU'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR WHERE YOU ALL STAND AND WHAT'S MOST VIABLE AND FEASIBLE FOR OUR CITY.

CAN YOU PLEASE RUN THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ABILITY TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT IS FULL-TIME RESIDENTS VERSUS WHAT IS OFTEN MISCONSTRUED AND TALKED ABOUT WITH OWNER OCCUPIED LANGUAGE, PLEASE?

>> YES. THAT WOULD BE THE ADDITION OF AN ACCESSORY USE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

IF THERE WAS INTEREST, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT BACK TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING OR RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION AND RETURN THAT BACK TO THIS BODY.

>> SO IF WE WERE TO GO WITH WHAT YOU PROPOSE OR THAT YOU MENTIONED COULD BE A VIABLE OPTION TO CONSIDER AT THE BEGINNING THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ADOPT THE LAND USE LANGUAGE, WOULD WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY WITHOUT GOING BACK TO ZOAK TO PUT IN CAVEAT IN THE REGULATION PIECE THAT REQUIRED THE FULL-TIME RESIDENT OR MANAGEMENT OR HOWEVER IT'S WORDED?

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE REGISTRATION.

>> THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ZOAK?

>> CORRECT. IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MOVE THAT TOWARDS THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, THEN THAT WOULD NOT GO BACK TO CPC.

>> THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT HAS COME BEFORE US, THE KISS PROPOSAL, IT'S OFTEN REFERRED TO WITH SPEAKERS AND PEOPLE THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THAT IT IS SHOWN SUCCESS IN ARLINGTON.

CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF JUST THE BASIC DIFFERENCES AND WHAT ARLINGTON IS AS A CITY VERSUS DALLAS AND WHY WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING APPLES TO APPLES IN THAT ANDREA.

>> YEAH. I'LL ASK DR. ANDREA TO COME EXPLAIN THAT.

I NEED TO CLARIFY WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE ARLINGTON CITY STAFF, THEY'RE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY GOT TO THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THEY ARE AT AND HOW ARE THEY FORCING IN AND MONITORING IT.

WHAT THEY DID IS THEY LOOKED AT THE DATA, THEY LOOKED AT WHAT SHORT-TERM RENTALS WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY, THE ONES THAT ARE KNOWN AND THEN THEY HAD A LOT OF TALKS, OBVIOUSLY THEIR COUNSEL.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY LANDED ON PLACING THE ENTERTAINMENT BASICALLY THE STR ZONE, OVER AN AREA WHERE THE EXISTING STRS WERE.

THEIR INTENT WAS TO BASICALLY ALLOW THE ONES THAT ARE EXISTING TO CONTINUE TO EXIST.

SO THAT'S THE ZONE THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR ENTERTAINMENT AREA, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE ALL THIS USE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY ALSO ALLOW IT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DENSER, SO THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO A TH, AND DENSER, FOR OUR ZONING.

THE INTENT WAS TO AND THEY LOOKED VERY CAREFUL AT THE NUMBERS WHICH ARE GOING BE OUT.

I THINK THAT'S THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THEIR PROPOSAL.

>> IF THAT'S THE MOST EQUIVALENT TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THEY BASICALLY ESTABLISHED THE ABILITY TO SOMEWHAT GRANDFATHER THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY EXISTING? THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT ELIMINATED 95% OF THEIR INDUSTRY?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE ON THAT, BUT IN OUR TALKS WITH THEM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR MAJOR CONSIDERATION WAS WHERE DO WE HAVE THEM EXISTING AND BASICALLY CLOGGED IN AN AREA AND SEE THAT THERE WAS A MAIN CRITERIA HOW THEY BASICALLY DELINEATED THE STR ZONE OR THEIR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE ARE THE CITY OF DALLAS IS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS?

>> THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION.

CAN I RETURN BACK THAT TO THIS BODY OR THE POLICYMAKERS.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE THEM.

WE'RE COMPARING OURSELVES TO A CITY THAT HAD A MECHANISM TO REFER TO IN THEIR LANGUAGE THAT WAS PASSED, THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF UTILIZING.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, IF THEY HAD AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT BEFORE THEY CREATED THIS JUST FOR THE SHORT-TERM REGULATION PURPOSES.

THERE WAS IN OUR EARLY CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL OF YOU, WE ASKED YOU IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT APPROACH AND BASICALLY ALLOWS ZONES BASED ON SOME CRITERIA, TOURISTIC ENTERTAINMENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT FOLLOWING THE ARLINGTON MODEL.

BUT I CANNOT LIKE I WILL GO BACK AND DO THEIR RESEARCH AND REACH OUT TO THEM TO FIND OUT IF

[02:50:03]

THEY TOOK AN EXISTING ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT OR THEY JUST CREATED ONE.

>> THIS QUESTION IS FOR ALL PARTIES THAT ARE HERE NOW, IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, YOU ALL DEAL WITH ENFORCEMENT OR DATA THEREOF, AND WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM CHIEF GARCIA VERY DEFINITIVELY THAT NOT ONLY WAS THIS NOT GOING TO BE A PRIORITY OF ENFORCEMENT FOR DPD, BUT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OF RESOURCES TO BE THE ENTITY THAT WAS ACCURATE, RIGHT? YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT. CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME IF YOU THINK WE CAN EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS IS.

>> I'LL START COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION WHEN YOU SAY AS IS, THIS IS IF YOU ACCEPT CPCS RECOMMENDATION?

>> THERE'LL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE AND COSTLY BECAUSE OF THE CITY WOULD BE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT.

BECAUSE THE REGISTRATION WOULD BE SMALLER AND WE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF ILLEGAL LAND USE TO ENFORCE THAT IS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ORDINANCE, AND SO WE COULDN'T ENFORCE ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE AGAINST THE ILLEGAL OPERATORS, WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO USE THE ILLEGAL LAND USE.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE MOST VIABLE OPTION FOR YOU TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE AS THE LEADER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT.

>> FOR CODE TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE, WE WOULD WANT AS MANY STRS AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

>> DO YOU MIND IF I COULD GET AN ANSWER FROM YOU MISS DR. ANDERCHECK?

>> WELL WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ARM IN DATA ANALYTICS AND BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> NO, YOU'VE ANALYZED ENOUGH ENFORCEMENT.

>> I CAN SAY WE WILL CONTINUE TO COLLECT AND ANALYZE.

WE WILL STILL HAVE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OUR DATASET AS IT IS IMPERFECT, BUT WE COULD CONTINUE TO COLLECT DATA AND LOOK AT IT FOR YOU-ALL REGARDLESS OF THE SOLUTION THAT YOU-ALL IMPLEMENT.

>> HOW ABOUT PODS OPINION ON THE MATTER WITH NON-CONFORMING USE ENFORCEMENT OR THE LAND USE COMPONENT.

>> I WOULD DEFER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT NONCONFORMING USES.

BUT FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, I'VE GOT THIS VERY LARGE CODE BOOK IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE SMALLER WE CAN MAKE THIS BOOK, THE EASIER IT'S GOING TO BE FOR ALL OF THE CITY OPERATIONS TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY.

>> I'VE ALREADY HEARD JULIA, YOU GAVE YOUR PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION AND I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT YOU SAID IT WAS PERSONAL, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S YET BEEN ASKED THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN ASKED NOW FOR YOU TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THAT IT DOES HELP FOR US TO BE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IF ANDREA WOULD WAY IN AND GIVE AN OPINION AS WELL.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A YEAR.

WE ALL TALKED ABOUT IT.

WE TRIED TO GO ABOUT IT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS SO WE CAN PROPOSE REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.

THE PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION IS FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

>> THANK YOU. CHIEF BOL, CAN YOU JUST ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR ME.

DO FIRE HYDRANTS GET BLOCKED IN NON STR SCENARIOS?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. CONTRARY TO LIKE IN THE FILMS, WE DON'T BREAK THE WINDOWS, WE DON'T PUT HOLES THROUGH THE WINDOWS.

NOT ONLY DO THEY GET BLOCKED, SOMETIMES THEY FREEZE, SOMETIMES WE WILL COME UPON A HYDRANT AND IT'LL JUST BE BROKE.

EVEN THOUGH WE DO HYDRANT CHECKS AND WE FIND THEM THAT WAY, SOMETIMES THEY HAVEN'T GOT AROUND TO THAT PARTICULAR HYDRANT IT'LL BE BROKE, AND WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME CONTINGENCY PLAN.

>> THANK YOU. CHRIS, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STREET PARKING?

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER, PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

>> DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE VOLUME OF CALLS AND COMPLAINTS FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS?

>> I'LL DEFER THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. SCOTT WOLFSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION.

[02:55:02]

YES, WE'VE ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING]

>> CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON?

>> YEAH. I'M SORRY. WE'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A PRETTY LARGE INCREASE IN SERVICE REQUEST SINCE WE'VE TAKEN OVER PARKING ENFORCEMENT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IT'S ABOUT 900 MORE SERVICE REQUEST A MONTH.

WE'RE STILL FILLING OUR VACANCIES TO BETTER AND QUICKER ANSWER THOSE, BUT WE ARE CURRENTLY ABLE TO KEEP UP AND MEET OUR SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT.

>> WITH THE PASSAGE OF CPC'S RECOMMENDATION, WOULD THAT BE AFFORDING YOU MORE RESOURCES TO EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE ON THAT [INAUDIBLE]?

>> THAT'S ONE QUESTION MORE THAT PERHAPS I WILL LET YOU ASK BECAUSE YOU WERE AT ZERO BEFORE, [LAUGHTER] BUT I'M SAYING YOU SHOULD NOT ASK ANYMORE.

[LAUGHTER].

>> OH, I'M SORRY.

>> GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THIS ONE THEN WE GOT TO MOVE ON.

A REALLY LONG QUEUE OVER HERE.

>> AGAIN, FROM PARKING ENFORCEMENT, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE STRS ARE.

WE ARE COMPLAINT-BASED SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE CALL INTO 311, LET US KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND WE DISPATCH OFFICERS OUT THERE TO LOOK FOR THE ISSUE THAT'S BEEN CALLED IN.

I CAN'T ANSWER.

>> THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> I'M SORRY, TOO, BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T SPOKEN AT ALL AND IT'S A LONG QUEUE.

>> THAT'S FINE. THIS IS MY FIRST ROUND AND I'M JUST CLARIFYING THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION MAYOR.

>> I GOT YOU. YOU WERE ALREADY OVERTIME WHEN YOU ASKED IT, IT WAS.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

WE STILL HAVE SOME VACANCIES.

WE NEED TO FILL THOSE BEFORE WE'D COME AND SAY, YES, WE NEED MORE FUNDING

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. MR. MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OPERATORS FOR COMING DOWN TODAY.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS MODEL, AND WHICH TYPE OF BUSINESSES COULD APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS.

>> IT'S NOT AN APPLICATION.

IT IS A SERIES OF REGULATIONS THAT TALK ABOUT HOW THE USE WORKS AND THE PROVISIONS THAT CAN BE PART OF THAT.

SPECIFICALLY THAT THE EMPLOYEES, THERE'S NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES, THE TYPES OF CONDUCT AND LOCATIONS OF CONDUCT, AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT A HOME OCCUPATION MAY USE WITHIN EITHER A LOT OR A STRUCTURE.

>> ARE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OCCUPANCY, PARKING, LAND USE? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ONE OF THESE PERMITS?

>> JULIA, THIS IS RUNNING ACCESSING DIRECTOR, I'LL TAKE THAT.

IT'S NOT A PERMIT, IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE TO A STANDARD RESIDENT.

THEY CAN'T ADVERTISE.

IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE THAT TOM SAID ARE THE PRIMARY RESIDENT.

AGAIN, THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE LIMITED IN A HOME OCCUPATION.

WE JUST SEE IT AS A ACCESSORY USE TO A RESIDENT USE.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CARETAKER PROVISION.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOKED INTO IT AND WANTED TO ADOPT, WOULD WE BE ALLOWED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ONE PERSON COULD BE A CARETAKER FOR?

>> GOOD QUESTION COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I ASSUME IF THAT IS SOMETHING THIS BODY WANTED TO DO THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE AROUND A MULTIFAMILY.

WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE SAYING EARLIER IS THAT NO STANDARD LEASES SAY THAT YOU CAN'T SUBLEASE THAT APARTMENT OUT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL OR ANOTHER GROUP.

I HAVE A LOT OF PAUSE AND HESITATION TO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT EXTRA BURDEN ON OUR RESIDENTS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT TO COURT OR TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE THE CITY INTERFERE WITH A VIOLATION THERE.

[03:00:03]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS IN THAT, BUT I DO HAVE PAUSE ON JUST SAYING, "HEY, WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN TWO PARTIES." I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, IF THIS BODY DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE BANNED IN AND MULTIFAMILY, THEN [OVERLAPPING]

>> IF WE ALLOWED THEM.

>> IF YOU ALLOWED THEM IN ALL MULTIFAMILY, WE WOULD ENFORCE AGAINST THEM THE SAME AS WE WOULD AN STR AND ANY OTHER PROPERTY TYPE, BUT I GUESS WHAT YOU COULD DO IS DECIDE WHAT SEGMENTS OF MULTIFAMILY YOU DON'T WANT TO ALLOW THEM IN OR YOU WANT TO RESTRICT USE IN, AND YOU COULD DO THAT AS WELL.

THEN WE WOULD ENFORCE THE ILLEGAL LAND USE IN THOSE SEGMENTS.

>> THIS ONE IS FOR SANITATION.

IF WE ALLOWED SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SOME AREAS, WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO GET A COMMERCIAL RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE FEE?

>> CLIFF GILLESPIE, AND I'M DIRECTOR OF SANITATION.

I BELIEVE I HEARD THE QUESTION AS, IF IT IS A MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY LIKE AS AN STR WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL WASTE HAULING.

MOST MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES IN DALLAS ARE ALREADY SERVICED BY PRIVATE HAULERS.

ONLY SMALL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES, USUALLY LESS THAN 10 UNITS ARE BEING SERVICED BY SANITATION ANYWAY, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

>> IF IT WAS AN APARTMENT THAT WAS FOUR UNITS, WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER THE COMMERCIAL USE RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL USE?

>> THAT IS NOT A SANITATION ISSUE.

THEY DON'T REGISTER WITH US.

THEY WOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY FOR US IF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS GENERATING MORE WASTE THAN THEY WERE CURRENTLY HAVING COLLECTED.

THE FREQUENCY OF THE COLLECTION MAY NEED TO BE INCREASED.

OTHERWISE, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO SOMEONE ELSE.

>> WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 911 AND 311 CALLS, AND WE CAME UP WITH A CORRELATION OF HOW MANY CALLS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO AN ADDRESS, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT CALL IN ON AN STR PROPERTY, BUT MIGHT NOT KNOW THE ADDRESS, OR MIGHT NOT KNOW WHERE EXACTLY IT IS.

ALL THEY KNOW IS THE BLOCK NUMBER.

DID WE TIE THAT BACK INTO THE HOT TAX OR THE HOT REGISTRY TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN STR ON THAT BLOCK FACE?

>> I'M GOING TO SEE IF DIRECTOR DAISY FAST WANTS THIS ONE IN TERMS OF HOW THEY COLLECT ADDRESSES VIA 311 IN AN EVENT THAT A CALL COMES IN AND THEY DON'T HAVE A FIRM ADDRESS.

WE DID WHEN WE DID THE ADDRESS ATTRIBUTION, WE PRIMARILY HAD PRECISE ADDRESSES AND WE WERE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ADDRESS WE HAD IN CAD.

WE DID COMPARE THAT TO THE LIST OF WHO PAYS HOT TAXES AND NOT.

THAT'S THAT PIECE.

I DON'T KNOW IF DIRECTOR FAST WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE COLLECTION PIECE IF THE CALLER DOESN'T KNOW THE EXACT ADDRESS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, DAISY FAST, DIRECTOR OF 311.

OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP IN A WAY WHERE WE CAN ENTER A BLOCK NUMBER.

AS LONG AS IT'S A VALID BLOCK, IT WILL SUCCESSFULLY SUBMIT AS A SERVICE REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO, AS FAR AS IF THAT WAS CHOSEN.

DR. ANDREW TECH WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK ON, I THINK IT WAS AN EXACT MATCH ON ADDRESS.

ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A BLOCK NUMBER, I BELIEVE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLAGGED AS A STR-RELATED CALL.

>> EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE RESIDENT SAID IT'S AN STR?

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS? WE DID NOT HAVE A LOT OF THOSE INSTANCES IN THE DATASET, VERY, VERY FEW DID NOT HAVE A PRECISE ADDRESS AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO WORK BACKWARDS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION OR NOT, BUT WE JUST DID NOT ENCOUNTER THAT A LOT IN THE DATASET.

>> NO THAT'S FINE. THEN I'M JUST GOING TO JUMP BACK TO MULTIFAMILY AGAIN.

IS THAT THREE UNITS OR MORE? HOW ARE WE CLASSIFYING MULTIFAMILY?

>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS VERY YOUNG.

MULTIFAMILY IS ANYMORE THAN TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A SINGLE LINE.

THIS IS A PERFECT CHANCE FOR ME TO SEGUE INTO SOMETHING

[03:05:02]

THAT YOU AND COUNSELOR REMEMBER NEVADA'S WERE SPEAKING ON.

I WANT THE COUNCIL TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IF THE SCR IS ALLOWED IN THE MULTIFAMILY, THEN IT AFFECTS THE CEO ON THE MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE CEO, WE DETERMINE HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS ARE THERE? RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS.

I HAVE A CEO THAT HAS FOUR DWELLING UNITS WHILE YOU TAKE TWO ALL THE WAY AND MAKE THEM STRS.

NOW I HAVE TWO THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MULTIFAMILY SO THAT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT OUR STAFF AND COUNSEL WILL NEED TO THINK ABOUT MOVING FORWARD AND A LOT OF PD IS LIMITED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS.

NOW I'VE LIMITED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, SAY FIVE DWELLING UNIT, BUT THEN I HAVE TWO STR.

I JUST WANT TO BE COGNIZANT ABOUT THE WAY THE RULES ARE MOVE FORWARD.

>> THEN LASTLY, PARKING ENFORCEMENT AS FAR AS REGULATION, I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS PART OF OUR CBD AND DOWNTOWN AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, I DO WANT TO APPLAUD AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE INCREASE IN EMPLOYEES AROUND THE HOUR OPERATION.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU WE STILL NEED A LOT MORE AND WE'RE FAR AWAY FROM BEING ABLE TO ADEQUATELY ENFORCED PARKING, LET ALONE IN OUR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, BUT GOING INTO NEIGHBORHOODS.

I KNOW THOSE WAIT TIMES ARE A LOT LONGER TO GET A RESPONSE TIME.

AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT WE'RE GOING TO NEED A LOT MORE THERE IF THAT'S THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT WE'RE USING. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> GERON BLACKMAN, YOU ARE IN FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING SLIDE 8 THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED STR BY DISTRICT.

WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE IS ALL THE STRS THAT ARE REGISTERED OR THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS COULD BE STRS.

>> IT'S BOTH.

>> OKAY. THE POOL IS 2,800 ALMOST 2,900 AND THESE ARE BOTH REGISTERED AND ONES THAT WE FEEL COULD BE STR.

WE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THESE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES, BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE PD, WHICH IS ALMOST 1,000 OF THEM, WHICH ALMOST IS NEXT TO THE, THEY WILL BE ILLEGAL AS WELL IF A TOTAL BAN IS PUT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> YEAH, I WOULD SAY NOT NECESSARILY.

GENERALLY, MOST PDS DO REFER BACK TO CHAPTER 51A AND THERE ARE LISTS OF ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THOSE PDES.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ALLOWABLE LIST WITHIN THAT PD AND GENERALLY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

THERE ARE SOME OBVIOUSLY THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

IT WOULD BE AN EXERCISE OF REVIEWING THE PDS TO FLAG, WHICH PDS HAVE REFERRED US BACK TO CHAPTER 51A.

IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE USED FOR THAT WITHIN THAT PD, FOR US TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY DETERMINE WHETHER A PD ALLOWS OR NOT.

>> HOW MANY PDS DO WE HAVE?

>> 1,100.

>> YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL 1,100 PDS AND IF IT'S SILENT THEN THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED.

BUT IF IT REFERS BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD ALLOW IT, THEN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT PD.

>> THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT, YES.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT MAYBE THOSE THAT ARE STILL ABSENT ON THE LANGUAGE COULD OPEN UP THEIR PD AND ADD IT?

>> HAS YOUR SHOP AND DR. RODRIGUEZ SHOP, LOOKED AT THAT POSSIBILITY OF HAVING, LET'S JUST SAY 500, JUST SAY 50%, WANTING TO OPEN UP THEIR PD AND BRING IT THROUGH?

>> THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT ON THE STAFF AND THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PROCESS.

I THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT PROBABLY AUTHORIZED HEARINGS SPECIFICALLY TO OPEN THOSE UP FOR THAT USE.

WE ARE MOVING THROUGH VERY IMPORTANT ZONING CASES.

IF WE ADDED A PROCESS THAT INCLUDED CITY PLANNING COMMISSION EITHER THROUGH AN SLP OR THROUGH AMENDING PDES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THOSE [NOISE] DEVELOPMENTS THAT

[03:10:04]

ARE TRYING TO GET THROUGH AND DEVELOP AND BEGIN PAYING TAXES IN THE CITY.

>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT IF WE OPEN THOSE PDS, THEY WILL COME IN FRONT OF YOU ANYWAY.

>> WE WILL BE SEEING THEM. NOW AS FAR AS LIKE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND ALL OF THOSE.

THEY LIKE I HAVE ONE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW AND IF THEY WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THEIR EXPANSION DOCUMENTS, THEY COULD ADD IT RIGHT NOW OR DO THEY HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY OPEN IT JUST TO SAY NO MORE IN THIS SINGLE-FAMILY AREA.

>> THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS GENERALLY JUST REGULATE THE STRUCTURE AND THE FORM.

THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE WINDOWS.

>> DOES THAT NOT THE LAND USE?

>> YEAH. IT GENERALLY RELATES BACK TO THE R75 ZONING DISTRICT.

IF THE R75 WAS NOT ALLOWED VIA CPC RECOMMENDATION, THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE GENERALLY ALLOWED WITHIN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?

>> THERE ARE SOME CONSERVATION DISTRICTS THAT THEY CAN ACT LIKE PDES.

THERE ARE SOME THAT DO HAVE USES, THERE ARE SOME THAT ALSO LIKE ZONE OUT MORE THAN SINGLE-FAMILY USES.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING ONES WHO MAY HAVE SURPRISES THAT SOME OF THEM DO HAVE USES IN THEM.

MOVING FORWARD, IT MAY HAPPEN.

WE WILL NOT ENCOURAGE THAT BECAUSE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS FORM.

BUT IT MAY HAPPEN.

THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING THEM TO PROHIBIT USES.

>> NOW, ONTO ENFORCEMENT, I GUESS CHRIS, YOU TALKED ABOUT MOVING IT UP SIX MONTHS AND IT WOULD BE A REACTIVE COMPLAINT.

EXPLAIN TO ME. IS IT A CIRCUS JEREMY'S HERE? IS IT ESSENTIALLY A NEIGHBOR CALLING ON ANOTHER NEIGHBOR AND YOU HAVING THEN TO BE THE INVESTIGATOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMPLAINT IS AND THEN HOW IF IT IS A BAND AREA IN OUR BAND USE, THEN WHAT FOLLOWS AFTER THAT? IS IT LEGAL ACTION? EXPLAIN TO ME THAT PROCESS.

>> SURE THING, WOULD BE HAPPY TO COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

JEREMY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE.

TWO THINGS. ONE, THE ENFORCEMENT TIMEFRAME.

THIS SLIDE SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED IN APRIL, WHICH IS, COULD WE SPEED IT UP.

IF WE WERE TO SPEED IT UP QUICKER THAN THE 10-12 MONTH PERIOD THAT WE BELIEVED FULL WRAP-AROUND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COULD BE INITIATED WITH THE HIRING AND THE TRAINING OF STAFF, THE PROCUREMENT OF VEHICLES AND TECHNOLOGY.

IF WE WENT LIVE WITH ENFORCEMENT BEFORE THAT, THAT WOULD REDUCE OUR CAPACITY AND ABILITY.

CAPACITY, WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH ENFORCING WITH CURRENT STAFF MEANS 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, EVERY DAY.

WE DON'T HAVE AN OVERNIGHT STAFF CURRENTLY.

BUT THEN THE OTHER SIDE IS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO IDENTIFY VIOLATIONS? IF WE WERE TO BEGIN ENFORCEMENT BEFORE FULLY PROCURING THE RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGY SIDE, NOT TO SAY WE NEVER WOULD BE ABLE TO BE PROACTIVE.

BUT BEFORE THAT TECHNOLOGY WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED, WE WOULD BE MOSTLY REACTIVE.

THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAD LOOKED INTO WOULD TELL US WHERE BOOKINGS WERE HAPPENING BEFORE AND AFTER WE'D GIVE US HISTORICAL DATA.

HOW MANY PEOPLE POTENTIALLY WERE STAYING AT THAT LISTING ON ANY GIVEN TIME.

WE'D HAVE MORE ABILITY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN THINGS, BUT THAT'S HOW WE WOULD FIND MOST POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, THE STR OPERATORS.

BESIDES THAT, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S AN STR OUT THERE? IT'S BY SOMEBODY COMPLAINING.

A COMPLAINT COMES IN, WE'D HAVE TO GO AND INVESTIGATE IT.

THE TOOLS THAT WE'VE LARGELY BE LEFT WITH ARE RENTERS AT THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL, TELLING US YES, THIS IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

I AM A TENANT HERE.

I AM A GUEST STAYING FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS.

THAT'S THE INFORMATION WE'D HAVE TO GET VOLUNTARILY TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SOMETHING TO THE NEXT ACTION AND SO THE ACTION WOULD BE OUR STANDARD CODE, THE CODE COMPLIANCE PROCESS.

NOTICE THE VIOLATION OPPORTUNITY COMING INTO COMPLIANCE, SHOULD THEY NOT COMPLY AFTER WE HAVE PROVEN A VIOLATION, BEGAN THE PROCESS OF CITATIONS.

MULTIPLE CITATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO A DESIGNATION AS A VISUAL NUISANCE PROPERTY COULD POTENTIALLY BE REFERRED TO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE AVENUE IN WHICH TO SHUT ONE DOWN.

IS TO GO THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

>> JUST LIKE. CAN I ASK HOW LONG IS A PROCESS LIKE THAT USUALLY TAKE?

[03:15:06]

>> I'M HAPPY TO ASK JILL HANEY, SHE'S OUR PROSECUTOR WHO HANDLES THESE CASES.

>> DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE, JEREMY?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER, IS THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ONCE IT GETS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

>> YEAH. BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOU HAVE TIME TO CURE, WHICH IS LIKE 30 DAYS.

YOU MAY GET A COMPLAINT THAT BY THE TIME IT MOVES OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IT COULD BE 3-6 MONTHS.

THEN I'VE HAD A COUPLE THAT HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH COULD BE A YEAR IF ON A GOOD DAY.

I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IF THE ENFORCEMENT IS A REACTIVE COMPLAINT TO BEGIN WITH, WHAT IS IT FROM THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE THAT FIRST COMPLAINT TO THE TIME THAT THEY ARE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REMEDY IS, THAT THEY TAKEN OFF OR THEY MOVED INTO A MORE OF A LONG-TERM RENTAL OR SOLD, I DON'T.

BUT WHEN DOES THE VIOLATIONS CEASE TO EXIST? I GUESS THAT'S SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE IT COULD BE A 30 DAY OR IT COULD BE A LONG-TERM RATE, SO THEY SELL IT. ANYWAY, JILL, GO ON.

>> [LAUGHTER]

>> THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

JILL HANING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

I THINK THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE IT DEPENDS.

IT WILL DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF VIOLATION WHAT THE REMEDY WILL BE.

BUT IF IT'S A ZONING ISSUE, THEN IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT OR NOT.

WE FOLLOW THE ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS THAT JEREMY MENTIONED THAT THEY'LL GET A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, A CITATION, HABITUAL NUISANCE DESIGNATION, A LAWSUIT.

WE DO PRIORITIZE DIFFERENTLY GIVEN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO EXIST AS FAR AS ZONING.

AS IT RELATES TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS, WE MAY HAVE OTHER ELEMENTS TO PROVE.

THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SPECIFIC.

>> NOT AVERAGE THOUGH, WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME THOUGH?

>> BEST-CASE SCENARIO, A PROPERTY OWNER UNDERSTANDS THAT THEY CAN'T CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND THEY IMMEDIATELY CEASE VIOLATING THE LAW.

>> BUT SAY THEY CONTINUE ON, IS IT A YEAR, TWO YEARS?

>> WE CAN FILE A LAWSUIT AS SOON AS THEY FAIL TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE, THEN WE CAN GET A COURT ORDER AS SOON AS POTENTIALLY A WEEK, TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING.

THIS IS ALL BEST-CASE SCENARIO PROBABLY THAT WE FILE A LAWSUIT, WE GET A COURT ORDER, BUT THEN IT WILL STILL BE A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER AND THEN YOU ESCALATE ENFORCEMENT FROM THERE.

>> THEN IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE DURING THE WEEKDAY THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO ENFORCEMENT IN SIX MONTHS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THIS POTENTIALLY REACTIVE ENFORCEMENT, THE FIRST SIX MONTHS? NOT NECESSARILY.

WE ARE CURRENTLY A SEVEN-DAY OPERATION ALREADY FUNDED 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM.

WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK, IF WE GOT A POTENTIAL VIOLATION, WE COULD GO AND INVESTIGATE THAT POTENTIAL VIOLATION ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, THAT'S IT.

>> ATKINS, RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. LET'S TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT.

YOU SAID ENFORCEMENT STR THERE'S A TIME AND YOU SAID 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM?

>> CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR HOURS CURRENTLY ARE 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

>> WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT TIME? WE DON'T ENFORCE?

>> CURRENTLY FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS RIGHT NOW OR FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS?

>> SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY SHORT-TERM RENTALS REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW, SO WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT.

WHEN WE HAVE A NEED FOR SOME AFTER HOURS ENFORCEMENT, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST SCHEDULES AS NEEDED.

WE DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY OF INSPECTORS WHO COME ON THE WEEKENDS LATE AT NIGHT FOR SOME BUSINESS, LOUD NOISE ENFORCEMENT, BUT THAT'S AN AS-NEED.

WE CAN FORESEE WHERE THE VIOLATIONS MIGHT BE.

WE CAN ADJUST SOME SCHEDULES AND MAYBE PAY OVERTIME FOR INSPECTORS TO STAY LATE.

>> HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU ADJUST THE ENFORCEMENT ON WEEKEND AND LATE HOURS?

>> FOR THAT SPECIFIC TEAM, IT'S USUALLY A WEEKLY BASIS.

SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY, I THINK EVERY WEEKEND USUALLY THERE'S SOMEBODY CONDUCTING SOME ENFORCEMENT AFTER HOURS, BUT IT'S NOT A CONTINGENCY OF INSPECTORS WHO ARE HERE READY TO TAKE CALLS AS THEY COME IN.

[03:20:01]

THAT'S WHEN WE MAYBE GET A TIP THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARTY OR A RODEO HERE LATE AT NIGHT IN A CERTAIN PART OF TOWN AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AND HEAD OFF THE CONCERN AND INSPECT WHERE WE THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE A VIOLATION.

>> IS THERE AN ENFORCEMENT ON DUTY BETWEEN 10:00 PM AND 3:00 AM?

>> CURRENTLY, NO SIR.

>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE CALL TO GET ENFORCEMENT? LET'S SAY IF YOU'RE IN A HOTEL THAT YOU CAN CALL THE POLICE OFFICERS, I GOT A PROBLEM, THEY MIGHT GET THERE FASTER, BUT STR HOW DO THE RESIDENT AND THE NEIGHBOR WHO THEY CALL, THEY CALL 911 AND THAT'S HOW TO ENFORCE THAT.

HOW DO THEY WORK, GIVE ME THE PROCESS?

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT KIND OF VIOLATION OR SITUATIONS?

>> LOUD NOISE, GUNSHOTS.

>> FIRST JUST FOR CODE, IF IT DID COME TO CODE, WE WOULD SEE THAT CASE THE NEXT DAY.

>> THE NEXT DAY?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. ROBERT URIBE, 911 ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IN CASES WHERE 911 IS CALLED, DEPENDING ON THE VIOLATION THAT IS BEING NOTED, WE PRIORITIZE BASED ON THAT.

IF SHOTS FIRED VIOLATION FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN A LOUD NOISE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IS A SHOT FIRED, IS THAT A PRIORITY 1, 2, 3 OR 4? HOW ARE THOSE PRIORITY CATEGORIZED? A GUNSHOT, IS THAT 3, 4 OR WHAT?

>> IF NOTHING IS SEEN JUST HEARD AND THE CALLER DOES NOT WANT CONTACT, THAT IS A PRIORITY 3 CALL, IF THE SHOOTING IN A SCENE AND THERE'S HITS ON A HOUSE, IT BECOMES A PRIORITY 1 OR HITS ON A PERSON FOR EXAMPLE.

>> HOW MANY STR DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS?

>> I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. SHERRY KOWALSKI, CITY CONTROLLER.

WE CURRENTLY AS OF THE END OF MAY HAVE 1,800 REGISTERED STRS AND APPROXIMATELY 1,300 THAT ARE PENDING REGISTRATION TO PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.

>> WE GET 1,800, RESIDENT 1,300 PROBABLY RESIDENTS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING APPLICATION?

>>YES.

>> WE'VE ROUGHLY GOT ABOUT 3,200 STR POTENTIAL?

>> YES. WE HAVE GONE TO HAVING 60% OF THEM OF THE SUSPECTED POTENTIAL STR'S REGISTER.

>> CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAGE 8 AND PAGE 9? I'M GETTING A WHOLE LOT OF PHONE CALLS FROM CITIZENS SAYING WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO PAGES? EXPLAIN THOSE TWO PAGES.

>> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAGE 8 AND PAGE 9.

I THINK PAGE 9 IS A DUPLICATE SLIDE.

>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>> PAGE 9 IS A DUPLICATE SLIDE.

>> I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GET TWO PAGES, SO ONE-PAGE IS A DUPLICATE. THANK YOU.

>> IF WE BREAK DOWN STR BY DISTRICT, COULD YOU TELL ME THE NUMBERS? THE TOP FIVE HAVE MORE STRS, THE TOP FIVE OR TOP SIX.

>> BY ZONING DISTRICT, THE TOP FIVE ARE,

>> COUNCIL DISTRICT.

>> ARE YOU LOOKING FOR COUNCIL DISTRICTS, MR. ATKINS?

>> THE COUNCIL DISTRICT, THE TOP SIX.

>> COUNCIL DISTRICT?

ON PAGE 6 OF THE WHITE PAPER, WE HAVE A TABLE THAT REPORTS THE FREQUENCY.

>> ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.

I WILL QUICKLY DO SOME EYEBALLING HERE.

DISTRICT 14 HAS THE MOST AT 488.

THE SECOND MOST SEEM TO BE IN DISTRICT,

>> I DIDN'T HEAR YOU, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> I APOLOGIZE. THE MOST ARE IN DISTRICT 14, 488.

THE SECOND MOST SEEM TO BE IN DISTRICT 2 WITH A TOTAL OF 386.

I'M LOOKING FOR THE THIRD MOST IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 WITH A COUNT OF 341.

I THINK THE NEXT ONE HERE IS 166 IN DISTRICT 9, AND THEN 160 IN DISTRICT 7.

>> DISTRICT 7? OKAY. NOW, TO ENFORCE THESE STR, DPD, YOU CAN COME TO THE TABLE.

[03:25:01]

[BACKGROUND] NOW, WE ROUGHLY GET LIKE 1,800, MAYBE 2,500 STR.

I KEEP HEARING OVER AND OVER, WE'RE SHORT OF POLICE OFFICERS.

TELL ME HOW MANY OFFICER DO WE NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND AT STR? HOW ARE WE GOING TO SHOW IT?

>> THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF LOCATION.

WE GET A 911 CALL, WE GO.

OUR MAIN MISSION IS PRESERVATION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY.

SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF STR IS MORE THAN ANY OTHER PLACE IN CREATING MORE CRIME.

THERE'S JUST NO WAY FOR US TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> LET ME SIMPLIFY THE QUESTION.

I HEAR EARLIER THAT WE NEED MORE ENFORCEMENT.

IN ORDER TO DO MORE ENFORCEMENT, WE NEED MORE BODIES.

HOW MANY MORE BODIES DO WE NEED? SOMEONE MADE A STATEMENT SAYING WE'RE SHORT OF BODIES TO ENFORCE STR.

>> THE ONLY COMMENT THAT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY NEEDED WOULD BE BASED AROUND CHIEF GARCIA'S VIOLENT CRIME PLAN, AND HOW WE ARE ATTENDING TO VIOLENT CRIME LOCATIONS.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STR.

>> STR IS NOT A VIOLENT CRIME LOCATION.

WE DON'T HAVE ISSUES.

NO VIOLENT CRIME WENT ROUND STR.

>> WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED VIOLENT CRIME.

VIOLENT CRIME'S GEOGRAPHIC AREA, [OVERLAPPING] NOT TYPE OF ZONING HOUSING ISSUE.

>> MAYBE I'VE MISTAKEN THAT THOUGH.

WE DO HAVE VIOLENT CRIME AROUND STR.

[OVERLAPPING]. YOU JUST MADE A STATEMENT.

I'VE SAID MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN. [OVERLAPPING].

>> I'M SORRY SIR. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE MIGHT HAVE LOCATIONS THAT ARE FULL OF STRS AND FULL OF VIOLENT CRIME.

WE AS A DEPARTMENT, WE DON'T KNOW.

WE DON'T GO OUT AND ASK SOMEBODY, IS THIS THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL? WE JUST GO WHERE WE ARE CALLED TO.

THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO KNOW.

>> CAUTION. I GUESS THE DATA WE SAID WE GOT SO MANY 911 PHONE CALLS COMING IN, 311 PHONE CALL.

911 PHONE CALL, HAD THAT BEEN VIOLENT CRIME? ALSO 911 PHONE CALL HAD NOT BEEN A VALID ISSUE WITH THE DATA WITH 911 CALL.

HERE WE'VE RESEARCHED AND SAID HOW MANY 911 CALL THAT WE HAVE THAT IS VIOLENT CRIME?

WE KNOW THAT WE ASSIGNED A POLICE TYPE, WE GROUPED IT AS A 911 CALL TO DPD.

IN THAT CATEGORY, THERE WERE THINGS LIKE MAJOR DISTURBANCE, LOUD MUSIC, THEFT, RANDOM GUNFIRE, WHICH PERHAPS COULD BE AN INDICATOR OF VIOLENCE CRIME, BURGLARY, MISSING PERSON, SUICIDE, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

THERE ARE SOME TYPES THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS VIOLENT CRIME INSIDE OF THAT IN THE PAPER. IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?

>> YES. I GUESS STAFF IN YOUR OPINION, I HEAR THAT, AND WE ARE THE POLICYMAKERS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE BEST RECOMMENDATION BY STR.

CAN YOU GO BACK AND SAY, IF YOU HAVE THE CHARGE, WHAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL RECOMMENDATION? HOW DO WE MONITOR STR? HOW DO WE MONITOR THEM? ANYONE?

>> THIS IS BERNIE YOUNG, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.

WE'VE NOTICED THAT A LOT OF THE CITY THEY DO THE REGISTRATION THOUGH OUR ANNUAL REGISTRATION WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.

AS FAR AS IS THE ONLY PIECE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEPEND ON OUR COLLEAGUES AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS.

>> CURRENTLY, WE SAID THAT WE GOT 1,800 STR ARE REGISTERED AND 1,500 IN PROCESS WITH APPLICATION.

DO WE MONITOR 1,800 [INAUDIBLE]?

>> FOR COMPLIANCE, CODE COMPLIANCE DOES NOT MONITOR HOT PAYING STRS CURRENTLY.

>> YOU DO NOT MONITOR THEM?

>> NO, SIR. THERE IS NO REGULATIONS TIED SPECIFICALLY TO SHORT TERM RENTALS YET.

>> WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY NOT MONITORED?

>> ANY PROPERTY THAT COMES TO US AS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM, WE MIGHT GO AND MONITOR IT.

[03:30:02]

>> BUT IT HAD TO BE A PROBLEM BEFORE YOU GO MONITORING, RIGHT?

>> YES, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CURRENT VIOLATIONS SPECIFICALLY TIED TO THOSE PROPERTIES.

>> IS THERE A REASON WHY NOT?

>> THERE'S BEEN NO LEGISLATION DEVELOPED YET.

>> REPEAT THAT AGAIN. BEEN NO WHAT?

>> THERE'S BEEN NO ORDINANCES YET.

>> YOU SAID LEGISLATION. THAT'S STATE.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE BETWEEN THE STATE AND LOCAL.

>> YES, SIR. SORRY. THERE ARE NO ORDINANCES, THERE ARE NO CODES SPECIFIC TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL USES.

WE DON'T MONITOR ACTIVELY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE PAYING HOT TAXES.

>> SHOULD THEY BE CODE? SHOULD IT BE A CODE TO MONITOR?

>> I THINK THAT A CODE WOULD HELP US TO ADDRESS THE NUISANCE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED HERE AT THIS BODY.

>> IS THAT A REASON WHY WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE CODE? YOU ALWAYS PUT A CODE IN PLACE? YOU SAID THERE HAD NOT BEEN A CODE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHY WE DIDN'T LOOK INTO THAT.

>> COUNCIL, I'M SORRY.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THAT'S THE VERY NATURE OF I THINK WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON AND DISCUSS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS IS RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY CORRELATION AND CONNECTION THAT STRS HAVE IS THE HOT TAX PAYMENT, WHICH IS WHERE THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION STARTED, BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES WERE NOT PAYING HOT TAX.

OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN MORE FINANCIAL AND NOT REGULATIONS OR REGULATORY AND NOT EVEN A ZONING DISCUSSION UP UNTIL PROBABLY A YEAR OR SO AGO.

I THINK WE'VE DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM TO ACTUALLY GIVE US THEN BEYOND JUST THE GENERAL CODE.

SOME OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE CAN THEN APPROACH STRS WITH TO MANAGE AND REGULATE THEM AROUND MANY OF THE CONCERNS.

OTHER THAN THAT, IT DEFAULTS TO THE GENERAL CODE WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY THAT'S IN A CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE ORDINANCES THAT ALREADY EXIST.

THIS WOULD CREATE A SPECIALIZED REGULATION SYSTEM FOR THOSE ACTING AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS VERSUS THOSE THAT JUST OCCURRED AND LIVING AND OR HAVING NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE HAD PROPOSED PRIOR TO THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> HOW MUCH HOT TAX HAVE WE COLLECTED AND HOW DO WE KNOW WE'RE COLLECTING ALL OUR HOT TAX?

>> SHERRY KOWALSKI, CITY CONTROLLER, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

WE HAVE COLLECTED ALMOST TWO MILLION DOLLARS ON THE 7% HOT TAX IN THE SEVEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30TH.

WE COLLECTED AN ADDITIONAL 277,000 ON THE EXTRA 2% THAT WE'RE GETTING RELATED TO THE CONVENTION CENTER.

>> I GOT THREE SECONDS. DO ALL 1,800 REGISTERED STRS PAYING HOT TAX?

>> YES, THEY'RE PAYING IT WHEN THEY HAVE ACTIVITY.

NOT ALL OF THEM MAY HAVE ACTIVITY EVERY MONTH.

SOME OF THEM ONLY HAVE ACTIVITIES CERTAIN MONTHS.

I DON'T HAVE DETAILED DATA ON WHICH ONES HAVE ACTIVITY WHICH MONTHS.

BUT THE 1,800 THAT WE HAVE REGISTERED, THEY DO PAY.

IF THEY'D HAVE A ZERO RETURN, THEY FILE A ZERO RETURN.

IF THEY'RE LATE, WE CHARGE THEM A LATE FEE.

WE MANAGE THAT VERY AGGRESSIVELY.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT OR REQUEST.

SINCE I'VE HEARD MULTIPLE COLLEAGUES ASK DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS WHAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD DO OR WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE, I'D JUST LIKE TO REQUEST A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

I DON'T THINK IT MAKES MUCH SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT OBTAINING THAT.

WE GET THAT IN THE OTHER ZONING CASES THAT WE DEAL WITH, STAFF OR THE EXPERTS IN THIS STUFF.

THEY ARE IN THE WEEDS OF ALL OF THESE VARIOUS ISSUES.

I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO GET A COLLECTIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE WITH MANY VARIABLES AND IMPLICATIONS.

THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.

CITY SECRETARY NOW, WE'RE CLEAR WITH THE FIRST FIVE MINUTE ROUND. LET ME BE CLEAR ON THAT.

>> MADAM MAYOR, WE'RE IN THE SECOND ROUND.

>> THANK YOU. WE'RE MOVING INTO THE SECOND ROUND.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, YOU'RE FIRST IN THE QUEUE, FOR A THREE MINUTE ROUND.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE, MR. RESENDEZ, ASKING FOR A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION.

I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT WE GIVE STAFF SOME GUIDANCE TODAY.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR FOUR YEARS.

I THINK WE'VE BEEN ALL OVER THE BOARD AS A CITY AND IT'S

[03:35:03]

IMPORTANT WE COME UP, GIVE YOU GUYS A GUIDANCE.

WE CAN GET THIS VOTE DOWN EVENTUALLY.

WE KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 15-0 NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

WE'VE GOT TO GET YOU AS CLOSE AS WE CAN AND THEN YOU GUYS COME BACK TO US WITH WHAT YOU THINK YOU'VE HEARD.

I'M GOING TO THROW OUT SOMETHING AND ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO PICK APART WHATEVER YOU WANT, SAY WHAT YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE.

BUT I DO THINK WE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

WE GOT TO GET THESE REGULATIONS GOING.

MY RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF WOULD BE THAT WE, FIRST OF ALL, AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE REGULATIONS IN MULTI-FAMILY.

YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE I STAND ON THIS.

I THINK THEY REGULATE THEMSELVES. THE INDUSTRY DOES.

I WOULD ALLOW THEM, STRS WITH WITH NO PERCENTAGE CAPS OR DISTANCE LIMITS OR AN ON-SITE CARETAKER OR ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY OPERATORS.

HOWEVER, FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH I'LL GET TO NEXT, WE HAVE GOT TO PROVIDE FOR 24 HOUR ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH HOT TAX.

I THINK IT WAS THE SWAT TEAM IS WHAT CHAIRMAN SHULTZ HAD SAID.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A VERSION OF A SWAT TEAM THAT'S READY TO SWOOP IN AT ANY MOMENT.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS, MECHANISM FOR COLLECTING HOT TAX, LIMITATIONS ON OCCUPANCY, NO PARTIES.

THEN TWO OR THREE STRIKES, YOU'RE OUT.

PROGRAM, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED MANY TIMES.

FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE STRS IF THERE ARE ANY MUST HAVE AN ON-SITE CARETAKER AS STAFF HAD HAD DISCUSSED.

ANY NEW STRS ARE SUBJECT TO A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF 2,000 FEET FROM CURRENTLY REGISTERED STRS.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING WITH AT LEAST ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT WOULD PRETTY MUCH MEAN WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY NEW STRS IN THE CITY, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS IF STAFF COULD CLARIFY THAT.

THEN LASTLY THAT STRS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL DISTRICTS AND CONTROLLED BY CHAPTER 42B.

I GUESS WITH THIS BEING SAID, THE EFFECT WOULD BE THE CURRENT STR OPERATORS IF THEY PUT A CARETAKER IN, COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

NEW ONES ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED BY DISTANCE, SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A LOT OF NEW ONES AND IT PROVIDES FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REGULATIONS.

WE GOT TO CRACK DOWN. THESE GUYS ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND US DEBATING THIS FOR FOUR YEARS IS MAKING IT WORSE.

WE'VE GOT TO ACTUALLY PUT THESE REGULATIONS IN PLACE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA, THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER WEST FOR THAT SUMMATION, AND IT'S GOOD TO KNOW MAJORITY OF WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY OUR TASK FORCE ABOUT A YEAR AGO IS IN THAT, AND WE COULD HAVE PROBABLY SAVED A LOT OF TIME AND GOTTEN A LOT OF FEES TO USE RESOURCES FOR BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

CITY MANAGER DO YOU MIND GIVING WHAT WAS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ AS IT WAS STATED I THINK IN CONVERSATIONALLY, BUT I HEARD A QUESTION IN THERE AND I'D LIKE TO GET A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK IT WAS MORE OF A STATEMENT OF WHAT HASN'T HAPPENED, AND WHAT HE LIKED TO HAVE HAPPENED, AND SO THERE WASN'T A RESPONSE DIRECTLY.

>> I CAN JUST CLARIFY, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE TODAY.

>> AGAIN, I WAS LISTENING AND I HEARD AND ULTIMATELY AS COUNCIL MEMBER WEST LAID OUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON HOW HE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK MAYBE WHAT CONSENSUS FROM OTHERS WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TURN TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.

WHAT I GUESS I'M HEARING AND WHAT WE WILL DO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE CONVERSATION IS OVER.

WE WILL PROVIDE IF COUNCIL WOULD DESIRE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, BUT AGAIN SIMILAR TO MONTHS AGO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST JUST DID WAS DRILL DOWN AND SHARE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE WANTED TO SEE.

WHICH AGAIN, IF A STAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATION MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE AND/OR HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS COUNTER TO MAYBE WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT MIGHT'VE SAID.

WHAT I WOULD SAY WE WOULD COMMIT TO DO IF IN FACT THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, AND THEN I THINK THAT TAKES US TO THE LAST QUESTION IS WHEN IN FACT MIGHT YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERING THIS ITEM, EITHER THE CURRENT ITEM THAT I HAVE BEEN GETTING FROM SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS AROUND THIS [INAUDIBLE] IS THE DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD AND VOTE ON SOMETHING,

[03:40:03]

AND SO RIGHT NOW THE ITEM IS SCHEDULE FOR THE 14TH.

IT'S NOT ON A DRAFT AGENDA, BUT IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED TO BE HEARD AND VOTED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ON THE 14TH.

PART OF THAT IS PRIMARILY TO TRY TO GET THIS ITEM RESOLVED BY THE CURRENT SITTING COUNCIL WHO HAS HAD THIS ITEM FOR AT LEAST THE TWO YEARS THAT EVERYBODY HAS BEEN ON THIS COUNCIL AND HAVE THAT BODY RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

NOW, THERE MAY BE SOME OPINIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE READY TO DO THAT OR NOT, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE COUNCIL BUT WHAT I CAN COMMIT TO DOING IS AND I'VE SHARED IT WITH MY TEAM ALREADY AND THEY FEEL THEY CAN DO IT IS THAT EVEN IF WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD NEXT WEEK WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN AND WHAT WAS ADVERTISED IS THAT THEY WOULD WORK OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS AND COMMIT AND HOPEFULLY GET BY FRIDAY A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING SIDE THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED AS WELL AS TO ENSURE THAT THE REGULATIONS THEN SYNC UP AND MATCH WHAT THAT NEW RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FROM STAFF SO THAT ON THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY IF IN FACT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IT NEXT WEEK, THERE WOULD BE THROUGH WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A WRITTEN AMENDMENT TO WHATEVER MIGHT BE BROUGHT FORWARD ON THE 14TH THAT COULD REFLECT WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AND MANY OF THE THINGS WE MAY HAVE HEARD TODAY IN THAT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON EITHER THE EXISTING AND/OR IF STAFF COMES WITH A NEW RECOMMENDATION AT LEAST HAVING THOSE FOUR OR FIVE DAYS TO REVIEW WHAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT NEXT WEEK AS WELL, BUT IT WOULD BE OFFERED UP AS AN AMENDMENT AND WE'LL HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT WRITTEN AMENDMENT LANGUAGE TO YOU.

THAT WOULDN'T BE IN KEEPING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MADE ON FRIDAY.

THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST WHAT WE WILL COMMIT TO DO IF COUNCIL WANTS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH TO CASEY.

[NOISE] CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE PUT FORTH BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST ON IF THOSE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE DONE ON THE FLOOR BY AN AMENDMENT OR IF THIS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHER ACTION FROM STAFF BEFORE WE COULD CONSIDER THEM.

>> I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JULIE OR SOMEBODY ON THE PANEL THAT WROTE DOWN EVERYTHING HE ASKED OR HE SAID.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> YES MA'AM. I WAS JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE JUST BROUGHT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT DREW A FLAG TO YOU THAT WOULD NOT BE DOABLE THROUGH A FLOOR AMENDMENT BUT WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR INSTANCE OR REQUIRE ANY MORE TIME?

>> ON THE ZONING SIDE, NO.

>> WOULD WE BE ABLE TO WORK IN LANGUAGE AS WELL FOR A DIRECTIVE TO STAFF TO GO INTO A COLLECTED REMITTANCE CONTRACTS WITH THE PLATFORMS? I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE CITY ATTORNEYS THAT ARE GOING TO ANSWER THAT.

>> I DIDN'T REALIZE SHE HAD LEFT. JUST GIVE US A MOMENT.

>> I ASKED ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR COLLECTING REMITTANCE OF HOT TAXES WITH THE PLATFORMS. IS THAT ALSO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN TAKING UP THIS ACTION ITEM OR WOULD THAT NEED TO BE NOTICED AND PUT ON AS A SEPARATE ITEM TO CONSIDER?

>> NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, AND SO I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE HOT?

>> ORDINANCE I DON'T THINK THAT'S PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION IN THE REGISTRATION, RIGHT?

>> IT HAS BEEN IN TALKS SEVERAL TIMES.

>> I HAVE TO GET SOME CLARITY AROUND THAT.

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS IF IS IT WOULD BE THE ORDINANCE?

>> IT WILL BE THE HOT ORDINANCES.

I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE ORDINANCE FROM WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

>> WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS OUR ABILITY WITH REVOCATION POWER, AND IF WE WERE TO REVOKE A PERMIT COUPLED WITH A COLLECTED REMITTANCE CONTRACT WITH EACH PLATFORM, IT WOULD SOMEWHAT OBLIGATE THE PLATFORMS TO PULL UNIT THAT THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED FROM WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE SINCE THEY WOULD BE COLLECTING TAXES AS A PART OF THEIR EXCHANGE WITHOUT BEING A TAX ENTITY.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT FOR SOMEONE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT ON FILE FOR.

[03:45:01]

>> I THINK THAT WE'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION SAYING THAT THE CITY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLATFORM FOR TAX COLLECTION WON'T NECESSARILY RESULT IN A PLATFORM REMOVING SOMEBODY THAT'S UNREGISTERED FROM THE PLATFORM.

>> THEY ARE ALLOWED TO COLLECT TAXES ON UNITS THAT ARE NOT OBSERVED BY THE CITY, THAT THEY WOULD BE REMITTING TAXES BACK TO US WITH?

>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR QUESTION.

I THINK CASEY ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE WITH YOU.

I CAN TALK WITH YOU OFFLINE ABOUT IT SO I CAN GET SOME CLARITY AROUND YOUR QUESTION.

>> OKAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR STAFF TO NOT MISS THE OPPORTUNITY WHETHER IT BE THROUGH THIS PROCESS OR IF IT NEEDS TO BE ANOTHER ACTION ITEM FOR US TO STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS AND TAKE UP HOLDING THE PLATFORMS ACCOUNTABLE TO COLLECT THE HOT TAX THAT I BELIEVE GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE OF TEETH IN REVOKING THOSE PERMITS.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR COLLECTION, OKAY.

>> CORRECT. YES, MA'AM.

>> WELL, I'LL TALK WITH SHERRY ABOUT THAT ONE.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

COUNCIL WOMAN WILLIS IS NEXT IN THE QUEUE.

YOU HAVE YOUR THREE-MINUTE ROUND. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WHILE ORDINARILY WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, I THINK THE TIMING HAS BEEN DISJOINTED.

NOW THIS IS BEFORE THIS BODY WHERE WE FACTOR IN SO MUCH MORE THAN LAND USE AND THAT THING.

I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST USE OF TIME FOR YOUR ENERGY TO BE DIRECTED THERE.

I THINK YOU'VE SHARED SOME COMMENTS TODAY.

I THINK WE CAN PLAY THAT BACK AND UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE.

BUT WE'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING SMOOTHLY.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AWHILE BECAUSE THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN GOING SMOOTHLY.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THE NUMBER OF THESE INCREASING DISTRICT BY DISTRICT.

ONE NUMBER THAT MS. KOWALSKI DID NOT SHARE IN THE 1800 AND 1300 WAS THE SUSPECTS, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG NUMBER TOO.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR THAT NOW, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER BIG NUMBER THAT'S OUT THERE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WE NEED THESE REGULATIONS, AND WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO ENFORCE AND ALL OF THAT, WE DO.

HOW DO WE TRACK THESE FOLKS DOWN AND WHAT DO WE DO TO MAKE THEM START PAYING THE TAXES TO HELP PAY FOR THE RESOURCES THEY'RE TAKING?

>> OKAY. ON A MONTHLY BASIS, WE HAVE A CONTRACT AND WE GET INFORMATION ON SUSPECTED OR POTENTIAL STRS.

RIGHT NOW, WHAT OUR ENFORCEMENT, AND I THINK AS YOU KNOW, IS TO SEND THEM A LETTER SAYING WE UNDERSTAND YOU MAY BE OPERATING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES, PLEASE REGISTER.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF WE GET COMPLAINTS AND WE'VE BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN THIS RECENTLY, SENDING CODE OVER.

THERE WAS ONE FROM ONE COUNCIL MEMBER'S DISTRICT THAT ACTUALLY WAS NOT CAUSING A DISTURBANCE, BUT THE RESIDENTS WERE AWARE THAT IT WAS AN STR.

WE HAD BEEN RELENTLESSLY TRYING TO GET THEM TO REGISTER.

WHEN CODE WENT OVER IN PERSON AND GOT WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGER AND KEPT TICKETING THEM, THEY DID REGISTER AND IT PAID ALL THEIR BACK TAXES.

>> RIGHT. ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE REASON A DECISION WAS MADE A FEW YEARS AGO TO HAVE A HOT TAX PAID IS BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF USE THIS IS.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL, IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND BECAUSE THIS IS A LODGING USE AND THEY'RE PAYING A HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT FIT AT THE TIME, AND STILL DOES.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A CONCERN THAT I HEAR ACROSS DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTAL SILOS ABOUT THIS EXPECTATION THAT WE RESPOND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BECAUSE IT'S AN STR AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

WE WANT DPD TO RESPOND TO THE DISTURBANCE.

WE WANT CODE TO RESPOND TO WHATEVER THE VIOLATION IS.

IT'S WHEN WE DO THE LOOK BACK, WHICH WE DO ALL THE TIME TO LOOK AT DATA, THAT THEN WE CAN BEGIN TO TELL.

HERE WE'VE GOT, NOT A CRYSTAL BALL OR TEA LEAVES, WE'VE GOT STATISTICS SHOWING THAT STRS ON AVERAGE, DROVE THREE-AND-A-HALF TIMES MORE 311 AND 911 CALLS THAN AN AVERAGE NON STR RESIDENCE.

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT.

REGULATIONS, YES.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED REGULATIONS FOR SURE FOR THOSE STRS THAT ARE LOCATED WHERE OTHER LODGING USES ARE.

BUT AS FAR AS REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, NO.

WE'VE GOT LAWS, WE'VE GOT CODE AND ORDINANCES, AND THEY'RE BEING FLOUTED.

I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT I KEEP HEARING ABOUT PARTY HOUSES AND LOUD DISTURBANCES.

THERE ARE NUISANCES THAT ARE QUIET.

THAT GO ON IN THE FORM OF OVERPARKING CONSISTENTLY.

[03:50:01]

QUIET EVENT YEARS, WHERE A WINE DINNER, IN MY DISTRICT, IN A $2,000,000 HOME WITH DRIVEWAYS BLOCKED.

THIS IS A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORS.

IT'S A NUISANCE TO AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRYING TO GET THROUGH, THE TRASH PILING UP.

THESE AREN'T THE PARTY HOUSES WITH LOUD MUSIC PLAYING.

THIS IS THE ON-GOING PRIVATE NUISANCE, THE DETERIORATION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC, WHICH WE ALL WORKED SO HARD TO BUILD UP AND GROW.

THIS IS JUST SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLING THAT. WILL COME BACK FOR ONE MINUTE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL WOMAN. COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO HAVE STAFF ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE NOW, AND IF NOT, WHEN WE COME BACK ON THE 14TH, OKAY? OF THE TWO DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH ONE IS GOING TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOODS? I CAN STOP THERE OR I CAN LIST ALL THE QUESTIONS.

BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO GET TO THIS PLACE.

WE WANT TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE WANT TO GROW THIS HOUSING STOCK FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE, WE WANT TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE BAD ACTORS IN ANYTHING THAT UNDERMINES NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION, WE WANT TO CREATE A PROGRAM THAT GIVES US TOOLS TO MEET THE CITY'S HOUSING GOALS.

THE CHALLENGE IS HOW TO GET THERE.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE WANTS STRS IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

I CERTAINLY DO NOT.

WHAT I WANT TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW TO MANAGE THAT CHALLENGE.

WE WANT MORE CONTROL AND FLEXIBILITY.

WHICH ONE'S GOING TO DO THOSE THINGS? IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANSWERS TO ANY OF THOSE RIGHT NOW, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT.

>> I'LL GO FIRST. I WOULD SAY THE ONE THAT'S EASIEST TO ENFORCE, I WOULD SAY THE ONE THAT ALSO PROVIDES THE GREATEST CLARITY FOR STAFF AND BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS.

I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING PARTY HOUSES, EVENT VENUES TO OPERATE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT THAT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS.

I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN WOULD MOST LOOK AT IN TERMS OF INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE.

>> WHAT ABOUT FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE? WHICH ONE'S EASIER TO ENFORCE? IF IT'S A LAND USE PIECE OR IF IT'S THROUGH REGULATION.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. I'M NOT SURE IT'S A WHICH ONE IS EASIER.

EITHER ONE WOULD TAKE RESOURCES, IT WOULD TAKE BODIES AND CARS AND TECHNOLOGY.

THIS IS A NEW SET OF VIOLATIONS EITHER WAY WE GO.

WE WOULD NEED THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I THINK THAT WE'VE DONE OUR BEST AT PROVIDING TO YOU ALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHAT LEVEL OF RESOURCES ARE NEEDED FOR WHICH OPTION.

>> THEN TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE YOU ALL WILL BE CARRYING THE BIGGEST BURDEN OF THIS NO MATTER WHAT, WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, I'M SURE YOU'LL TAKE A GOOD LOOK THEN AT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF DEEPENING REGULATION WOULD BE IF WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY HOUSE, 24-HOUR CARETAKER, IF THERE WERE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGERS OF MULTI-FAMILIES.

CAN YOU MAKE SURE TO BRING THAT TO US SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS BEFORE WE VOTE.

BECAUSE, IF OUR GOAL IS TO ELIMINATE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH ONE'S GOING TO GET US THERE? I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE BIG QUESTION.

THEN FOR THOSE THAT ARE THERE, WHETHER ILLEGALLY OR NOT, HOW DO WE MANAGE THAT PROCESS AND WHAT'S GOING TO GET US THERE? THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR.

>> YES. UNDERSTOOD. WE'VE DONE OUR BEST IN THIS AND PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS ON APRIL 4TH AND BEFORE, TO EXPLAIN WHAT OUR ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WOULD BE FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S DEVELOPED NOW THAT'S ASKED FOR NEXT WEEK.

WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS WELL.

>> BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW NOW.

THIS IS WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT, I SHOULD SAY, AND I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS ALL ALONG.

IF WE PASS THE KISS REGULATION, IF WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE, THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROBLEM PROPERTIES? BECAUSE IT'S STILL AFTER HOURS, AND IT'S STILL ALL THOSE THINGS.

[03:55:02]

NOTHING CHANGES.

I'M TRYING TO GET TO WHERE WE CAN HAVE CHANGE AND WHERE WE CAN GET RID OF MORE OF THESE IN OUR SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHAT'S GOING TO DO THAT? TO ME, HAVING THE REGULATION OF A 24-HOUR CARETAKER.

THAT REQUIREMENT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO GET RID OF MORE OF THESE THAN NOT.

BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG AND THAT'S WHY I NEED YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE.

IF WE CAN PUT IN THINGS AND SAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE, AND YOU HAVE TO BE THIS FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, WHEREAS IF WE JUST PASS IT NOW, ALL WE'RE DOING IS PLAYING WHACK-A-MOLE LIKE WE ARE NOW AND I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT.

IF YOU COULD HELP ME GET TO THE RIGHT VOTE, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ,.

WE HAVE A FEW MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE QUEUE.

WE'RE GOING TO START THIS PARTICULAR LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WITH THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE JUST GIVEN.

MAYBE ONE OR TWO, I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF OPENNESS TO WITH SUPER REGULATION.

IT'S A MIXTURE OF HOT SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS REALLY QUICKLY, WHICH IS ON HOT.

THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS AN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS US TO COLLECT HOT ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, NECESSARY CALLS YOU, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE STATE OF TEXAS DEFINES SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS WHAT?

>> AS ANY PROPERTY BAND, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS I'VE USED, BUT BASICALLY ANY PROPERTY THAT'S RENDERED FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY.

>> CORRECT. WHAT DID WE DEFINE HOTELS, MOTELS, ETC AS?

>> I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR SOMEONE ELSE IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY.

>> THESE ARE JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS WHOMEVER CAN ANSWER THAT.

[BACKGROUND]

>> WHO'S COMING FORTH WITH THAT?

>> I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT.

>> A HOTEL OR MOTEL IS A FACILITY CONTAINING SIX OR MORE GUEST ROOMS THAT ARE RENTED TO OCCUPANTS ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> VERY GOOD. WHAT IS A MOTEL, HOTEL OR ANY OF THOSE THAT YOU JUST DEFINED, ARE THOSE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL USES?

>> THEY'RE CONSIDERED LODGING USES.

>> WHERE LODGING USES ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICT, SO OFFICE, RETAIL, COMMERCIAL SERVICES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, THE CENTRAL AREA, AND MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.

>> NOT RESIDENTIAL?

>> VERY GOOD. ON ALL OF THOSE COMMERCIAL USES, WHAT ARE REQUIRED BY DALLAS FIRE, FAIR HOUSING, AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, AND ORDINANCES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT.

>> IS VERY YOUNG DEVELOPING SERVICES.

I'M NOT SURE YOUR QUESTION OR WHEN YOU SAY WHAT'S REQUIRED.

>> MOTEL HOTEL WANTS TO BE BUILT, OPERATED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

IT'S COMMERCIAL, AS JUST STATED, WHAT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GET THE PERMITS AND TO BUILD IT IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND GET THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND FROM AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVEL.

>> HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY IS TRIGGERED ON THE COMMERCIAL USES IF THEY'RE NEW COMMERCIAL USES THE FIRST TIME, OR TRANSFERRING FROM OUR PREVIOUS USE OF RESIDENTIAL USE TO A RECOGNIZED COMMERCIAL USE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY WOULD BE TRIGGERED.

>> DO WE REQUIRE FIRE SPRINKLERS IN COMMERCIAL USES?

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE, THE OCCUPANCY, AND SO THERE'S OTHER FACTORS OTHER THAN JUST TO USE.

>> WHAT ARE OTHER THINGS INSIDE OF FAIR HOUSING THAT ARE REQUIRED THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO FOLLOW IN ORDER FOR SOMEBODY TO RENT A HOTEL ROOM, MOTEL ROOM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK ON THE FAIR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM FAIR HOUSING HERE, MR. CITY MANAGER?

[04:00:01]

>> NO, WE DO NOT. BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT A FAIR HOUSING CONVERSATION.

I CAN HAVE SOMEONE COME DOWN.

>> BUT IT IS FAIR HOUSING CONVERSATION.

>> WHAT I'M SAYING, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT TO BE ONE TODAY.

>> GOT YOU.

>> APOLOGIZE.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

>> I'LL HAVE HIM COME IN.

>> WHERE I'M AT IS, WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO EVEN DEAL WITH FAIR HOUSING WHEN IT COMES TO THESE TYPES OF USES BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

THIS IS AN ISSUE, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT GO HERE IN ORDER TO TRY TO SAVE THESE COMMERCIAL USES INSIDE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO GET TO AS THE STR HOT LETTERS FOR COLLECTIONS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS COLLECTS, DO THE PLATFORMS AND WE DO NOT.

HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE MISSING OUT ON IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THE STATE OF TEXAS IS MISSING OUT ON ON HOT.

>> WE HAVE DONE SOME ANALYSIS ON THAT.

IT'S PROBABLY OVER A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

>> WOW. A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

THE NEXT THING IS, WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT THE OPERATORS ARE NOT DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRUST THEM IN ORDER TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS IS JUST LIKE THE SCOOTER DEBATE.

THE SCOOTERS DIDN'T LISTEN.

THE OPERATORS TOLD US THEY WOULD, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THESE EMPTY PROMISES TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAD TO TAKE UP THE BIG STICK AND ELIMINATE THEM.

THEN IT TOOK US THREE YEARS TO ALLOW THEM BACK.

THE STR OPERATORS HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY WILL TELL US ANYTHING WE WANT TO HEAR.

THEY'LL SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY IN ORDER FOR US TO LET THEM STAY HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY SICK AND TIRED OF THEM BEING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE NEED MORE RESIDENTIAL, WE NEED HOMES AND NOT HOTELS AND OUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU, MADAM, MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR, PRO TEM.

I DID ALLOW FOR YOUR EXTRA SIX BECAUSE YOU LOST A FEW SECONDS OF THE TRANSITION.

THE NEXT COUNCIL MEMBER TO SPEAK ON THIS HOT ITEM IS COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE SYMPATHY AND LOOKING OUT FOR OUR NEIGHBORS IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND I SHARE THOSE SAME THOUGHTS AND WANTING TO PROTECT THOSE RESIDENTS.

I STILL HAVE A LOT OF RESERVATION FOR A MULTI-FAMILY.

WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS, COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MADE UP OF TOWN HOMES, CONDOS AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL IN LEAVING THAT AUTHORITY OR THAT CHECKS AND BALANCES TO THE MANAGEMENT GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE JUST BECAUSE I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT CALL THEIR DOWNTOWN AREAS HOME EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT LOOK LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT.

THOSE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WHEN IT COMES TO TOWN HOMES, WHEN IT COMES TO CONDOS.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT LEAVING THOSE INDIVIDUALS OUT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.

BECAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN WE'RE SAYING MULTIFAMILY, THAT'S THREE UNITS OR MORE AND THAT CAN BE AGAIN, CONDOS, TOWN HOMES.

I LOOKED BACK AT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, IF HE'S WILLING TO ANSWER IS WHERE WAS THAT WIGGLE ROOM FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS? I DO CALL THEIR HOMES TOWN HOMES OR CONDOS TO MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE THOSE SAFEGUARDS AS WELL.

>> MAY I ANSWER THAT?

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, JUST HOLD ONE SECOND.

WE TRY AND MAKE SURE WE ALL WOKE ON THIS.

WHAT HIS TIME? STOP THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT'S GOING TO KEEP GOING.

>> THE QUESTION IS HOW TOWN PEOPLE IN TOWN HOMES AND CONDOS WOULD BE GET PROTECTIONS.

MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AS THEY ARE GENERALLY GOVERNED BY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, THAT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR OWN RULES THAT COULD OUTLAW AN STR IS IF THEY WANTED.

I THINK THAT THE PROTECTIONS WOULD BE BUILT IN.

I'M NOT SURE WHO'S ON STAFF COULD HELP WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> SURE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD AS WELL.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S ONLY FOR MOVING FORWARD IF THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN PURCHASED OR THAT TOWN HOME HAS BEEN PURCHASED A YEAR AGO OR FIVE YEARS AGO WE CAN'T GO BACKWARDS IN TIME TO PUT IN NEW SETS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THAT IS ACCURATE.

>> AGAIN, THAT'S JUST GOING TO LET STAFF KNOW THAT THAT IS

[04:05:02]

MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE TO INCLUDE TOWN HOMES, CONDOS, AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO MULTIFAMILY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, YOU NEXT IN THE THREE-MINUTE Q.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I AGREE WITH COUNCIL ROMAN WILLIS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND THE TIME TO DEVELOP A FORMAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

WE HAVE HEARD MS. RYAN TALK ABOUT HER IN FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TODAY, WHICH IS TO DEFINE STRS AS LODGING USE BUT INEXPLICABLY ALLOW THEM IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE OUR CURRENT LODGING USES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

ON TOP OF THAT, SHE HAS STATED THAT HER RECOMMENDATION IS BASED PRIMARILY ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE.

WHAT IT'S REALLY MISSING IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE PENULTIMATE ISSUE THAT WE'VE BEEN SKIRTING ALL DAY IN THIS DISCUSSION.

WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S HOUSING.

THAT'S 5,000 UNITS OF HOUSING THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENTS OF DALLAS AND AS BEING DEVOTED TO VISITORS, TO TOURISTS.

THAT BY ITSELF JUSTIFIES THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH WILL HAVE THE CONCOMITANT EFFECT OF REDUCING RENTAL RATES WITH THE INFLUX OF NEW SUPPLY OF HOUSING.

REDUCING COSTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PURCHASES AND WILL ALLOW US TO ADDRESS ARE SIGNIFICANT SHORTFALL IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY.

I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION HERE ON POLICY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN WELL-DEFINED AT THIS COUNCIL.

I THINK WE JUST NEED TO TAKE A VOTE

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE MY REQUEST FOR A FORMAL COLLECTIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND HIGHLIGHT WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GET THAT.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE POLICY BASED ON BLANKET STATEMENTS OR INACCURATE INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA, STAFF ARE THE PROFESSIONALS.

THAT'S WHY THEY GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS.

I THINK THAT'S SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THIS BODY HAS MADE TODAY HIGHLIGHTS OUR IGNORANCE ON SOME OF THESE THINGS AND CAN PUT INTO QUESTION OUR CREDIBILITY OR CREDIBILITY OR UNDERSTANDING ON OTHER ISSUES MORE GENERALLY. THANK YOU.

>> HOLD ON ONE SECOND, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE BUTTON TO ACT RIGHT.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ, YOU'RE ON YOUR FINAL ONE MINUTE BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT WE'VE LOOKED OVER WITH THE THREE MINUTES? WE'RE DOWN TO THE COUNCILWOMAN, YOU HAVE TO COME IN CONVERSATION THIS TIME.

I THINK YOU'RE [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU.

>> THERE WAS A STAFF COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE GOAL OF GETTING RID OF PARTY HOUSES.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE PARTY HOUSES, I'M OPPOSED TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE PARTY HOUSE.

I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAT STAFF MAY HAVE BECAUSE YOU HEAR THE TERRIBLE PARTY HOUSE STORIES WHICH YOU SHOULD HEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE REAL AND WE HEAR THEM TOO.

BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HEAR THE SAME THINGS THAT WE DO OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THE GOAL ISN'T TO GET RID OF PARTY HOUSES.

THE GOAL IS TO HAVE NO SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ME.

I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE TO MAKE THIS EASY TO ADMINISTER, TO UNDERSTAND FOR PEOPLE AND THE ENTIRE REASON THIS IS CALLED KIS, KEEP IT SIMPLE, WE'LL LEAVE THE LAST WORD OFF, IS BECAUSE THERE IS A SIMPLE WAY WHICH IS FRANKLY JUST INSERT THE WORD SHORT-TERM RENTAL INTO THE LODGING DEFINITION, DONE AND DONE FOR THAT GOAL.

NOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY ANCILLARY THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN WITH REGISTRATION AND HOW WE DEAL WITH ALL THE PARTS THAT ARE NOT SINGLE-FAMILY AND THOSE ARE WORTHY CONVERSATIONS.

I'VE TRIED TO ACTUALLY STAY OUT OF THEM, BUT WE ALREADY KNOW A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE BULK OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR OVER THREE YEARS.

IT IS TIME FOR A VOTE, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT LIKE TAKING A CROSS-COUNTRY ROAD TRIP, WE DON'T NEED TO STEP ON THE GAS ACCIDENTALLY JUST AS WE PULL INTO OUR DRIVEWAY.

[LAUGHTER] I FEEL THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING THAT SUDDENLY ALL THINGS ARE BEING QUESTIONED AND PULLED APART.

[04:10:01]

WHEN WE WERE REALLY ALREADY ON A PATH FOR CONSENSUS, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE ALL AGREED, BUT THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO DISTINCT IDEAS AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE AND IT'LL BE WHAT IT'LL BE.

WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK THIS IS READY FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY.

I DO THINK IT IS READY FOR JUNE 28TH, WHILE I UNDERSTAND MAYBE AN OUTSIDER'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE WELCOME, YOU CAN GET RID OF THOSE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE A BRAND NEW COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TO TAKE THIS VOTE, THE REALITY IS THE ONE PERSON WHO'S ALREADY BEEN ELECTED HAS CAMPAIGNED ON THIS ISSUE, KNOWS THIS ISSUE BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AND THE TWO CANDIDATES WHO WILL BE ELECTED, ONE WILL BE ELECTED ON SATURDAY, THEY ALSO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE TO THEM.

THEY KNOW IT JUST AS WELL AS WE DO.

THEY'RE LIVING IT, THEY'RE HEARING IT FROM THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEY'LL BE INFORMED TO MAKE A VOTE.

I SUSPECT THEY'RE WATCHING THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND PROBABLY WONDERING WHAT THEY GOT THEMSELVES INTO.

[LAUGHTER].

I WOULD AGREE WITH RESPECT AND KINDNESS THAT WE DON'T NEED A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED ONE THREE YEARS AGO. I'LL BE HONEST.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION A LOT OF WAYS THREE YEARS AGO, BUT TODAY WE DON'T.

THE KEY THING HERE IS THE MISSING VOICES WERE NOT HEARING, NOT FROM THE SUPER ADVOCATES ON EITHER SIDE, BUT FROM THE BULK OF OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPACTED ON A REGULAR BASIS.

I DO LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING FOR THIS, HOPEFULLY, JUNE 28TH. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NOW, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL OF THE THREE-MINUTE ROUNDS.

I'M TAKING A NOTE HERE, SO WE'VE DONE MADAM SECRETARY, SO WE'RE NOW FOR THE ONE MINUTE ROUND AND COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS WAS FIRST IN THE QUEUE FOR THE ONE MINUTE.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO BACKUP AND GO BACK TO WHAT ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS SAID TODAY ABOUT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S FABRICATED THESE PROBLEMS BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ AND I SPENT SUNDAY GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH RESIDENTS AND WITH EACH OTHER.

THAT GUN AND THE WAIST BAND OF THAT YOUNG MAN SHOT WAS NOT FABRICATED.

THE WINDOW SHOT OUT ON BALI RIDGE IN A HOME WITH CHILDREN WAS NOT FABRICATED, YOU CAN GO BY AND SEE THAT.

TWENTY-ONE CALLS TO 911, DPD GOT THERE WITHIN THREE MINUTES WHEN IT HIT PRIORITY 1.

I SENT A MESSAGE TO AIRBNB ABOUT THIS BIG PARTY, GUNSHOTS, ETC.

I'VE HEARD NOTHING, CRICKETS, NOT EVEN, OH MY GOD, THAT'S AWFUL, LET ME GET BACK TO YOU.

LET ME LOOK INTO THIS. I'VE HEARD NOTHING.

WHEN WE'RE PUTTING OUR FAITH IN PLATFORMS, I WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

NOW, SWITCHING TO MULTIFAMILY, I THINK WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE INDUSTRY.

THEY'VE GOT DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN PLACE THAT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T HAVE.

I DON'T THINK WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MIX IS GOING TO BE ABOUT NUMBER OF UNITS OR A PERCENTAGE OF UNITS AND I DO THINK WE NEED SOME TIME TO WORK THAT OUT BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT BY JUNE 28TH WE SHOULD HAVE THAT WORKED OUT.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US GET THIS TOGETHER AND GET TO THAT VOTE.

EVERYONE'S BEEN WAITING AND TO THE POINT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN HAS MADE, THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE WHO AREN'T SITTING HERE TESTIFYING TO US.

THEY ARE EMAILING US, THEY'RE SHARING THEIR STORIES AND THEY ARE JUST GIVING UP.

I'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS WHO I'M AFRAID ARE JUST GOING TO LEAVE DALLAS OVER THIS.

IT'S THAT SERIOUS.

IT'S GUNFIRE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THAT STANCE.

WE NOW HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER [BACKGROUND].

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE READY? ONE-MINUTE.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. REAL QUICK, EARLIER WAS ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALLOWED INSIDE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESSES ARE ALLOWED?

>> THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, I CAN SELL PRODUCTS ONLINE, I CAN BAKE COOKIES AND TAKE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I CAN'T HAVE A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT.

AGAIN, THE STATUTE OR THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT I CAN'T ADVERTISE ON THAT PREMISE, I CAN'T ADVERTISE TO DIRECT PEOPLE TO THAT PREMISE.

>> YOU CAN DO A LITTLE HAIR SALON TYPE THING AND ALL THESE OTHER LITTLE THINGS YOU CAN, I KNOW THIS.

>> DO ANY OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE INSIDE OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT ARE ALLOWED, DO THEY OVERTAKE THE ENTIRE RESIDENTS? THAT'S WHAT IT DOES ALL DAY LONG.

>> THE HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCES IS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF STAFF MEMBERS THAT ARE ON

[04:15:04]

DUTY AND THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS OR FOOT TRAFFIC THEY COME THROUGH AND SO, NO THEY DO NOT.

>> VERY GOOD. I BELIEVE THAT THIS COULD BE, BY ALLOWING THESE TO CONTINUE, IF WE GO WITH SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE JUST SAID IS THE BEGINNING OF THE EROSION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

NOW, WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THE BEGINNING OF THE EROSION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS INSIDE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

FOLKS ARE LEAVING, FOLKS ARE GOING OUT.

FOLK'S PROPERTY TAXES ARE INFLATED.

THEIR PROPERTY VALUES ARE INFLATED BECAUSE THESE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE FUNDS TO PURCHASE AT FULL FREIGHT CASH ABOVE ASKING PRICES.

REGULAR WORKING CLASS FOLKS LIKE ME AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS OR THE ABILITY IN ORDER TO COMPETE AGAINST SHORT-TERM RENTAL INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.

THAT'S JUST A FACT THAT'S OUT THERE THAT WE'RE ALL SUFFERING FROM. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ, WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH YOUR ONE-MINUTE AT THIS TIME.

>> I FORGOT WHAT I WAS TO SAY.

[LAUGHTER]. CAN YOU GO TO WEST FIRST? I'M SO SORRY.

[LAUGHTER]I GOT SO ENTHRALLED WITH WHAT HE WAS SAYING, I DON'T RECALL WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

MADAM MAYOR, PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GO TO WEST AND THEN [OVERLAPPING]

>> WELL, TAKE A DEEP BREATH FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS.

BREATHE IN AND OUT. COUNCILMAN WEST, YOU'RE READY NOW FOR THE ACTION THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT?

>> I'M READY MAYOR.

IT ACTUALLY INVOLVES THE CITY MANAGER, SO WE WILL NEED HIM BACK. [LAUGHTER].

>> THAT'S WHY WE TRY IT OUT.

>> I CAN GO.

>> WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, JUST SO THE AUDIENCE WILL KNOW AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE'RE PREPARING TO PROPOSE AN ACTION ITEM THAT SEMI STRUGGLED.

IT IS AN ACTION ITEM, SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES TO BE SEATED.

>> I WITHDRAW MY QUESTION.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ.

CITY SECRETARY, YOU WANT TO DOUBLE-CHECK AGAIN AND MAKE SURE WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM.

THAT WAY EVERYBODY'S BLOOD CAN START ROLLING AND THEY MAKE SURE THAT THEIR NAME IS BEING CALLED.

>> MADAM MAYOR, YOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM.

>> WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM.

>> I REMEMBERED MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY, WHILE WE'RE WAITING.

>> MOST DEFINITELY COUNCILWOMAN JAIME RESENDEZ.

>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT GIVEN THE DIRECTION THAT OUR CITY MANAGER GAVE STAFF AND ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE KNOW THAT WE WILL BE PREPARED TO VOTE NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. AS WE PREPARE, I THINK I'LL JUST TAKE A PRIVILEGE JUST TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THE ROBUST CONVERSATION.

WE HAD A LOT OF GREAT INSIGHTS PROPOSED TODAY.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD, AS SOME ARE ASKING FOR A STATEMENT FROM STAFF, SOME ARE NOT, BUT I THINK WHAT DO WE DO HAVE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS INDIVIDUALLY AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOU FROM DOING THAT.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A STATEMENT OR A POSITION FROM STAFF.

I THINK IS GOING TO BE VERY HEALTHY IF WE CONTINUE AS COUNCIL MEMBERS ALONE OR WITH SOME OF YOUR PARTNERS TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BECAUSE I BELIEVE AND THIS IS MY POSITION NOW I THINK I'VE HEARD THE STATEMENT AT LEAST FOUR YEARS WE'VE BEEN ON THIS TOPIC.

IT SHOULD COME TO THE POINT NOW WHERE WE HAVE A POSITION AND BE COMFORTABLE ABOUT OUR POSITION WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE AND THERE'S ONLY TWO WAYS WE CAN VOTE.

WE CAN VOTE IT UP OR WE CAN VOTE IT DOWN.

BUT AT LEAST ONE THING FOR SURE, WE WILL HAVE TAKEN A VOTE AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS WAITING FOR AND THE CITY IS WAITING FOR AS WELL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

I'VE JUST TRIED TO MAKE SURE THE PARTIES WERE HERE.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE STALL TACTICS.

[LAUGHTER] BUT ANYWAY, THANKS.

BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE SURE I PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR BEING VERY PATIENT AND WE'RE READY TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU NOW.

YOU'RE ON YOUR ONE-MINUTE ROUND.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT OR TO ADD CONTEXT, I GUESS, TO THE RECORD.

I'M NOT SURE OF OTHER COLLEAGUES COMMUNICATIONS, BUT AIRBNB RESPONDED TO ME WITHIN MAYBE 10 MINUTES WHEN I ASKED AND THEY'VE ALSO BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CHIEF IGO WITH THE DEEP DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND STAY IN COMMUNICATION WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES.

THE UNIT HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THEIR PLATFORM AND LITIGATION IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE

[04:20:01]

AND THAT'S THE RESPONSE THAT I GOT DIRECTLY FROM THE PLATFORM WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF ASKING.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> SORRY, MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

MY QUESTION'S FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS ADEQUATE GUIDANCE AT THIS POINT FROM COUNCIL FOR STAFF TO PROVIDE US WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT WEEK THAT WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON PURSUANT TO MR. BRANDEN'S REQUESTS AND REQUESTS OF SEVERAL OTHER FOLKS.

>> WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT.

WHEN YOU ASK, DO I HAVE CRYSTAL-CLEAR BELIEVE THAT THERE'S CONSENSUS? I KNOW I'VE HEARD AT LEAST FROM ONE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THEY DON'T IF NOT TWO, THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS NECESSARY OR WARRANTED AT THIS TIME AND SO THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD.

>> PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.

>> WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP YOU AND HELP STAFF MOVE FORWARD HERE AFTER FOUR YEARS OF THIS?

>> PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.

>> COUNCIL WOMAN, I'M SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHOSE VOICE THAT WAS.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL WOMAN?

>> CAN WE DO A STRAW POLL ON THIS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A HARD NUMBER.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I APPRECIATE THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.

THE LEGAL IS PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THAT INQUIRY AS PRESENTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS SO WE CAN HEAR ATTORNEY PALOMINO AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IN ORDER TO DO A STRAW VOTE, YOU HAVE TO GO INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

YOU DIDN'T POST IT.

WE ALWAYS POST WHEN YOU GO INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A STRAW VOTE.

EVEN ON BUDGET, WE POST THAT AND SO I WOULD SAY NOT TODAY, NO.

>> BUT WHAT MECHANISM, AGAIN, A PROCEDURE AND WHAT MECHANISM WOULD GIVE THE CITY MANAGER MORE FIRM DECISION ON WHERE COUNCIL IS?

>> UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL, RULES OF PROCEDURE ON BRIEFING DAY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE HIM GUIDANCE AND SO HE HAS TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AND TRY TO GLEAN A CONSENSUS FROM IT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO ON A BRIEFING DAY.

YOU CERTAINLY CAN SPEAK WITH THEM AFTER.

>> LET ME JUST ASK THIS QUESTION.

>> POINT OF INFORMATION.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> IF IT HELPS, I THINK I KNOW WHERE WE ARE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

>> DO TELL. [LAUGHTER]

>> MAY I? NO, SERIOUSLY, IF I'M ALLOWED, I WILL.

>> YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD.

I WAS GOING TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE CITY MANAGEMENT, BUT COUNCIL WOMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I THINK WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS AND UNDER ONE OF THE OPTIONS, THERE'S TWO OPTIONS.

OPTION 1 IS WHAT IS THE KISS PROPOSAL AND THE SUB OPTION OF THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY.

THE SECOND, AND THAT'S ONE CHOICE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE.

THE SECOND CHOICE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'D GO WITH WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST PUT FORWARD.

THAT'S IT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE

>> LET ME GET THIS CLEAR.

TODAY, WE'RE IN A BRIEFING.

>> WE CANNOT VOTE TODAY.

>> BECAUSE WE'RE IN A BRIEFING.

THE QUESTION I THINK I WOULD HAVE YOU CITY MANAGER, IS WHAT PRECLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER FROM REQUESTING THE POSITION FROM STAFF?

>> MAYOR. I THINK THE COMPLICATION IS I WOULD SEE IT AND I HAD TO CHECK WITH ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS TO SEE IF IN FACT MY MY FILTER ON CONSENSUS READING WAS INCORRECT AND SHE AFFIRMED THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE QUITE A BIT OF DISAGREEMENT IN SOME RESPECTS ON WHICH PATH TO GO.

>> PERSONALLY.

I WILL SAY BASED ON WHAT? ONE, I DON'T HEAR A UNIFYING CONSENSUS.

THERE'S SOME SCATTER DISCUSSIONS AROUND WHETHER AS COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ JUST MENTIONED, THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF LET'S JUST MOVE ON AND LET'S DEAL WITH THAT.

OFFERING IT UP, WHICH CAME UP IN THE LAST DISCUSSION AROUND THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT IT IN MULTIFAMILY.

I THINK THE WAY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST AS THE THIRD OPTION WAS TALKING THROUGH HOW TO NAVIGATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS AT LEAST EXPRESSED BY STAFF WHEN IT CAME TO THEIR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THESE THINGS SHOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH ZONING AND OR PART OF THE REGULATIONS, WHICH MAY ULTIMATELY GET US TO THE SAME END, IF NOT BETTER.

I THINK THERE ARE THREE PATHS AND SO WHAT I WOULD SAY, SINCE IN FACT I'M THE CITY MANAGER, IS THAT WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL PREPARE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AS I SAID EARLIER, BY THIS WEEK, THAT WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF I THINK AND HAVE A VANTAGE POINT OF TAKING SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST

[04:25:04]

BUT BE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE 14TH, BUT BE ABLE TO DAYLIGHT WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE OFFERED TO YOU TO CONSIDER OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER AS AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT MIGHT COME IF IN FACT I GET CONSENSUS, WHICH I WANT TO DO, THAT WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE 14TH AND I WILL SAY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE MAYOR, HIS PREFERENCE THAT'S INDICATED TO ME WAS THAT WE HAVE THIS ACTION BE VOTED ON THIS CURRENT COUNCIL AND HAVE IT NEXT WEEK WOULD BE HIS PREFERENCE.

BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A VOTING OPPORTUNITY, BUT I'M JUST SHARING WITH YOU WHAT THE HEAD OF THE COUNCIL HAD SAID TO ME WHAT HIS PREFERENCE WOULD BE IN HIS ABSENCE.

THAT'S WHAT I WILL DO MINUS THE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS AROUND PEOPLE'S PREFERENCES ABOUT US MAKING A RECOMMENDATION OR NOT.

BUT TO JUST GO STRAIGHT TO IT AND DO A PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I FEEL YOU DESERVE TO HEAR THAT.

SINCE I'VE HEARD THAT FROM AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE, IF NOT MORE, THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER AND SO WE'LL DO THAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT IT, BUT WE'LL MOVE FORWARD AS ADVERTISED ON THE 14TH, UNLESS I HEAR FROM FOLK TODAY THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT.

>> I'M GOING TO RECLAIM MY TIME BACK HERE.

>> THERE'S ANOTHER POINT OF INFORMATION.

I SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD NEXT WEEK BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO PUT THIS ON THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE LITERALLY JUST GOT SWORN IN AND WOULD BE PUT UP HERE TO [NOISE] ABSORB WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR 2-4 YEARS OR MORE FOR SOME OF US.

I THINK WE SHOULD DO OUR VERY BEST TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE BY NEXT WEEK.

MR. CITY MANAGER, WILL STAFF GO OUT AND TALK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS LIKE BEFORE? IS THIS IS SOMETHING STAFF CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS ON TO GET THEIR FEELINGS BEFORE NEXT WEEK?

>> IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION AND THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT.

BECAUSE I THINK THEY'LL GET 15 DIFFERENT ANSWERS AND WON'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD NOT BE ONE THAT STAFF IN THEIR MIND HAVE HEARD FROM AND ALREADY HEARD THE COUNCIL.

I WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST THAT.

AGAIN, STAFF AND COUNCIL ALWAYS INTERACT, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE GUIDANCE THAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY GIVE THEM.

I THINK WE HEARD ENOUGH TODAY, I THINK THEY'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD SENSE OF ONE, THEIR PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT ALSO WHERE COUNCIL MIGHT BE AROUND CERTAIN ISSUES.

AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO REACH OUT, BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION OR A STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE.

IF IT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, DON'T TAKE IT AS IF WE DID NOT LISTEN.

THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CAUTIONARY GUIDANCE.

JUST BECAUSE YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT, I'D HATE FOR YOU TO THEN BAD-MOUTH THE CONCEPT OF WHY IT'S NOT IN THERE WHEN IT COMES BACK ON WEDNESDAY.

>> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE GOOD SUMMARY BY CHAIR WOMAN SCHULTZ AND TC FOR LISTENING AND SHOWING US THOSE THREE PATHS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH COUNCIL MEMBER WESS, COUNCIL WOMAN BLACKMON, I BELIEVE YOU'RE HERE AT.

>> I'M THREE.

>> THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

>> YES, TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK TC, I'M READY TO VOTE.

BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS I WOULD LIKE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION BECAUSE I BELIEVE CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME PEOPLE FEEL, OUR STAFF ARE THE PROFESSIONALS AROUND THIS.

I WOULD LIKE, AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND WE KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, LET'S JUST BE HONEST.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF TO SAY IF WE COULD DESIGN SOMETHING, HOW WOULD THAT LOOK? THEN LET US SAY, NO.

AS A EITHER THIRD OPTION OR BECAUSE I DO FEEL THAT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND THAT DO THE WORK, AND I THINK THEY KNOW HOW SERIOUS THIS IS TO US, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE US HALF ANSWERS.

BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR RESOURCES AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRANT YOU THOSE RESOURCES, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A SMALL PRICE TAG.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE RESPECTFUL OF WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WEEK THOUGH.

WE APOLOGIZE BECAUSE WE'VE PUT YOU UNDER THE GUN, AND THAT IS NOT FAIR, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO YOUR BEST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WILL.

BUT I THINK, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

YOU'VE BEEN ANSWERING OUR CONCERNS AND OUR QUESTIONS AND CRYING TO CREATE NARRATIVES THAT FIT US.

[04:30:03]

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AS, HEY, YOU NEED THIS, AND WITHOUT US FEELING LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BEAT YOU UP ON IT.

THAT IS MINE, BUT I SAID, NEXT WEEK READY TO GO, IF YOU'RE READY TO GO.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL WOMAN.

COUNCIL MEMBER ATKINS?

>> THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR. MR. CITY MANAGER, ARE YOU SAYING THAT STAFF IS GOING TO TAKE THE GUIDANCE, THE COMMENT THEY HAVE ALL 14 COUNCIL MEMBER HAD ISSUES, COMMENTS ABOUT AND TAKING CONSIDERATION AND CAN COME BACK TO US GOING TO TACKLE BACK THAT IT WAS.

THEREFORE THIS EXERCISE THAT WE DID TODAY, I'M SPENDING ALMOST THREE HOURS DOING THIS.

ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION? ARE THEY GOING TO SAY THEY GOT NOTES, THEY GOT QUESTION THAT WE ASKED? I UNDERSTAND, MR. WEST HAS SOME COMMENTS, I DON T KNOW WHAT WAS THE COMMENTS.

HE WANTED TO PUT SOME ISSUES ON THE TABLE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WAS I DID NOT HEAR THEM, BUT IT CAME UP MORE THAN ONE TIME THAT HE ASKED THEM SOME COMPOSITE ISSUES THAT HE WANTED TO DO.

I DO HEAR OF A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THEREFORE, WE GOT STAFF.

IT SAID IN HERE IS LISTENED TO 14 DIFFERENT CALCIUM MEMO AND THEY ALL GOT 14 DIFFERENT VIEW ON WHAT TO EXPECT.

STAFF GOING TO TAKE IN RECOMMENDATION OF THE 14 DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS WHAT THEY HEAR TODAY THEN COME BACK WITH US, AND TO VENT THIS BACK OUT.

AGAIN, I'M GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER FULL-BLOWN AGENDA ON VOTING DAY ON THE 14 OUT OF 28.

>> I BELIEVE THE CONVERSATION TODAY ONE HAS BEEN I THINK HELPFUL, AS IT RELATES TO US COMING BACK.

HOWEVER UMPTEENTH TIME TO TALK THROUGH IT.

I THINK STAFF HAS TAKEN NOTES TODAY, OBVIOUSLY OF WHAT CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO ASK SOME SPECIFIC THINGS TO SAY AS WELL AS JUST THE GENERAL FLAVOR OF THE CONVERSATION.

IN MOST OF THE COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS HAVE REALLY BEEN, I THINK IN THE SAME VEIN OF WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AND FEEL ABOUT THE CURRENT ITEM WE'RE CONSIDERING, EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ADD MORE FLEXIBILITY, WHETHER ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATION SIDE AND OR WHO WANT TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM THE ZONING TYPE NATURE OF IT.

I THINK WE'VE GOT ENOUGH TODAY FROM THE CONVERSATION WE'RE PLANNING, AS I SAID A LITTLE EARLIER.

STAFF IS GOING TO WORK ACROSS THE TEAM TO COME BACK AND BE READY ON THE NEXT WEEK AND HAVE BY FRIDAY HOPEFULLY PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION, I THINK THAT COVERS BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE LINING UP WITH THE ZONING SIDE OR LAND-USE SIDE OR CHAPTER 42 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS.

WE'LL BE READY ON FRIDAY.

WHEN YOU SEE AN ITEM NEXT WEEK, THE ITEM WILL BE THE VERSION THAT THE CPC HAS PUT FORWARD TO THIS CITY COUNCIL.

ANYTHING THAT IS DONE DIFFERENTLY WILL COME FORTH AND I'LL DEFER IT TO LEGAL IN THE FORM OF A AMENDMENT TO THAT ITEM FROM THE FLOOR.

WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO DO IS IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY BASED ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IF IN FACT THAT WAS THE CHOICE OR CONSIDERATION, IT FELT LIKE THAT AND IT GOT YOU TO WHERE YOU WANTED TO GET THAT WE WOULD HAVE REDUCED THAT TO WRITING FOR YOU SO THAT WHEN THAT FLOOR AMENDMENT IS MADE, YOU AT LEAST HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING TO AT LEAST REFER TO, SO YOU FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU MIGHT BE CONSIDERING THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE FOR WEEKS.

THAT IS AT LEAST WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO.

BUT AGAIN, IF WE DON'T PRODUCE ANYTHING, WHICH WE WILL BECAUSE STAFF IS SHARE WITH ME THEY WOULD, YOU WOULD JUST BE VOTING ON THE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND WE'VE COME BACK TO AND HAVE DATA AROUND IT TO TRY TO SUPPORT IT, AND, OR IN SOME CASES, AT LEAST GIVE PEOPLE THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SPEND THE TIME IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE MAY BE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ENSURE STAFF UNDERSTOOD.

SURE, REACH OUT BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, REACHING OUT, SHARING DOES NOT AND WILL NOT AND SHOULD NOT INFLUENCE STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION.

IF IN FACT ANY ITEM COUNCIL MEMBER WESS PUT OUT SPECIFICALLY OR ANYBODY ELSE, WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS WHY IT MAY NOT APPEAR IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION GIVEN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WHY IT'S NOT INCLUDED.

BUT COUNCIL CAN STILL ADD IT TO THE OTHER AMENDMENT OR THE OTHER ITEM IF THEY WANTED TO.

BUT STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE A PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THEIR OWN PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY,

[04:35:03]

AS WELL AS THIS COUNCIL AS IT RELATES TO OUR CONSIDERATIONS.

>> I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON FRIDAY, THE ITEM WILL BE POSTED BASED ON THE CPC RECOMMENDATION. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

>> REPEAT THAT, I'M SORRY.

>> THE ITEM FOR THE 14 WOULD BE POSTED ON FRIDAY WITH A CPC RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

>> CORRECT? RIGHT STAFF?

>> YES. THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IS THERE TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT, HOPEFULLY COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD TRY TO GET THOSE AMENDMENTS IN BY FRIDAY AND NOT ON WEDNESDAY MORNING.

SO SOMEONE IS GOING TO READ SOMETHING OUT, AND WE GOT TO DISCUSS THAT.

I HOPE COLLEAGUES, PLEASE, DON'T DO THAT ON A WEDNESDAY MORNING.

BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE THREE OR FOUR HOUR TRYING TO DISCUSS SOMETHING INSTEAD OF HAVING ANOTHER BRIEFING.

IT WILL JUST BE COURTESY, I HOPE, THAT MY COLLEAGUES WOULD PUT SOME OUT ON MONDAY, SO STAFF WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, LEGAL WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO READ EVERYTHING OUT.

THAT'S JUST A SUGGESTION.

I CAN'T TELL YOU, BUT THAT'S JUST A SUGGESTION.

>> YOU'RE DONE COUNCIL MEMBER? THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

JUST DOUBLE-CHECKING IN THE QUEUE, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE QUEUE.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS GOING ONCE, TWICE. WE'RE DONE.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH STAFF FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY AND THE STAMINA AND THE INFORMATION.

THANK YOU ALSO FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO CAME DOWN TO SUPPORT US TO HEAR THIS VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION AROUND THIS ITEM.

CITY MANAGER WE'RE PREPARING FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

WE'RE READY FOR YOU TO ANNOUNCE THAT, AND I'M SURE THAT STAFF IS HAPPY THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO LEAVE WITH THIS PERMANENT STRETCH.

YOU HAVE IT CITY MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ITEM A,

[A. 23-1418 Proposed Amendments to Chapter 12A, Code of Ethics]

WHICH IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SHARED AND OPENED UP BY THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, TAMMY PALOMINO, AND FOLLOWED BY THE THIRD ITEMS. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN KEEP A QUORUM SO WE CAN GET THROUGH THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU CITY MANAGER.

I THINK LAURA MORRISON IF THEY CAN GET THROUGH.

>> ARE YOU READY?

>> YES, WE'RE READY. STAFF ARE YOU READY? YOU CAN SIGNAL US.

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A FEW STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET POSITIONED.

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE ATTORNEY PALOMINO.

I NOTICE NO ONE IS IN THE HOT SEAT, SO WHOSE SEAT THAT'S GOING TO BE?

>> WELL, WE HAVE THAT ONE FOR BERB.

>> MR. BERB, OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THIS ITEM WAS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 24TH ACTION AGENDA, AND IT WAS POSTPONED, SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE FULL COUNSEL ON THE PROPOSED, I GUESS IT'S PHASE 2 OR 3 OF OUR CODE OF ETHICS AMENDMENTS.

LAURA MORRISON, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW HER.

SHE'S GOING TO DO THE PRESENTATION [LAUGHTER] TO HER LEFT.

SORRY, IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG DAY.

IS THERESA CARLYLE AND THEN TO HER RIGHT IS BARREN ELIAS.

HE IS SOMEWHAT NEW CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEEING A LOT OF HIM.

[04:40:01]

THEN BERB BEAVERS OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL.

LAURA, TAKE IT AWAY.

>> THANK YOU, TAMMY. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

JUST TO GET US STARTED, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT OUR GOAL FOR THIS PRESENTATION IS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ETHICS.

THIS ORDINANCE, AS TAMMY SAID, WILL APPEAR ON COUNCIL'S VOTING AGENDA ONE WEEK FROM TODAY.

JUST TO GO OVER A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF WHY THIS WILL BE ON YOUR AGENDA, BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE FIRST PHASE OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT WERE BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT OF THE CITY'S ETHICS REFORM TASK FORCE WITH A FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTING THE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPLE PROPOSALS IN THAT REPORT.

SINCE THAT TIME, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS ON THIS SECOND PHASE OF THE CHAPTER 12A AMENDMENTS.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCORPORATE FEEDBACK PROVIDED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AS WELL AS FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING OUR INITIAL PHASE OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION ON FURTHER AMENDMENTS.

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THIS SECOND PHASE HAS BEEN MEETING OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST YEAR THREE TIMES LAST JUNE, AND THEN IN NOVEMBER AND THEN AGAIN, JUST LAST MONTH, WHERE ON MAY 4TH, THEY MADE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO THE FULL COUNSEL.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED ON THE MEAT OF THE AMENDMENTS STARTING WITH OUR CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS.

FIRST, WE DECIDED TO CLARIFY THAT OUR LIST OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE ON GIFTS.

WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IN THERE THAT THESE ARE NOT REPORTABLE GIFTS.

BECAUSE AFTER WE DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE GIFT RULE, WELL, IT MEANS THAT YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO REPORT THOSE AS REPORTABLE GIFTS, SO WE MADE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.

THEN WE APPLY THE RESTRICTIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN A BUSINESS ENTITY TO CITY EMPLOYEES.

THESE ARE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT THE STATE IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE APPLIES TO LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS, SO WE'RE NOW CODIFYING THIS IN CHAPTER 12A TO EQUALLY APPLY TO CITY EMPLOYEES.

ABSTENTION FROM PARTICIPATION IN A MATTER IS NOT REQUIRED IF A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS, BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERS, OR OTHER BODY REPORTS A SIMILAR CONFLICT.

THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PRACTICE BECAUSE THIS REFLECTS A PROVISION IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

BUT WE WANTED THIS IN CHAPTER 12A AS WELL BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND GENERAL COUNCIL, WE WOULD GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS FROM OUR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.

THEN THE RULES AGAINST IMPERMISSIBLE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS OR SALES DURING SERVICE WITH THE CITY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ENDING SERVICE WILL NOT APPLY TO VOLUNTEERS ON A COMMITTEE OR TASK FORCE FORMED BY A BOARD OR COMMISSION.

SO WE'VE ADDED COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES TO THE CURRENT LIST OF EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SECTION.

THAT LIST ALSO CONTAINS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, BOARDS OF NON-PROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS THAT ACT AS INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CITY, AND ALSO MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARDS.

WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

AN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, BUT WE ARE NOW CREATING AN OFFENSE FOR THAT CONDUCT.

SO NOW, IF YOU COMMIT AN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, NOT ONLY COULD YOU BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, BUT YOU COULD ALSO BE PROSECUTED IN MUNICIPAL COURT WITH A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR.

NOW MOVING ONTO CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.

WE'VE ADDED A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT THAT REALLY CAME FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SPOKE WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ABOUT A LOT LAST NOVEMBER, AND WE BROUGHT BACK SOME LANGUAGE FOR THEM TO REVIEW IN MAY.

IT'S A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT FOR A PERSON WHO WAS PAID TO PARTICIPATE IN A SITTING COUNCILMEMBERS,

[04:45:03]

MOST RECENT CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN, AND WHO REPRESENTS THEMSELVES, THEIR CLIENT, THEIR EMPLOYER, OR ANOTHER THIRD PARTY, OR A PERSON WHO REPRESENTS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THE INTERESTS OF A PERSON WHO WAS PAID TO PARTICIPATE IN A SITTING COUNCILMEMBERS MOST RECENT CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S JUST A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

IT'S NOT A REPORT SOMEONE FILLS OUT, IT'S A VERBAL DISCLOSURE.

THEN WE ADDED IN SECTION 12A-35, CAMPAIGN SLASH POLITICAL CONSULTANTS TO THE PROVISION THAT ALREADY PROHIBITS CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND CAMPAIGN TREASURERS FOR LOBBYING WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE LOCAL ELECTION.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO SOME MATTERS THAT AFFECT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS, WE WROTE IN A NEW SUBPOENA PROCESS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A NEW PROCESS.

THE PROCESS WAS WRITTEN IN, AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT IN DECEMBER OF 2021.

BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND WE JUST THOUGHT WE COULD DO A LOT BETTER CLARIFYING WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

SO WE'VE CLARIFIED THE PROCESS AND IT REALLY MIRRORS THE PROCESS, THAT IS, OUR GENERAL SUBPOENA PROCESS FOR THE CITY IN SECTION 2-8 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROCESS WHERE BEFORE THE RETURN DATE SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPOENA, SOMEONE CAN PETITION THE CORPORATION COURT, WHICH IS OUR MUNICIPAL COURT, FOR A MOTION TO MODIFY OR QUASH THE SUBPOENA.

THEN WE ALSO CLARIFIED THE SUBPOENA PROCESS FOR THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.

THEY HAVE HAD THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2-8 TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AT THEIR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS.

BUT WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS AND HAVE IT MIRROR A PROCESS THAT HAS WORKED REALLY WELL FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIAL BOARD SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE.

THEN WE ALSO CLARIFIED, AT WHAT POINT IS SOMEONE WHO'S A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WHO'S NAMED AS THE RESPONDENT AND IN INFORMATION AT WHAT POINT ARE THEY ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND GET THAT ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM.

WE DECIDED THAT IS ONCE AN INFORMATION IS FILED BY THE IG AND THAT'S THE NOTICE TO THE EAC THAT THE IG IS PURSUING A PROSECUTION ON THAT COMPLAINT.

THEN THERE WERE A FEW PLACES IN CHAPTER 12A WHERE THE STANDARD WAS THAT SOMEONE MUST HAVE INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY COMMITTED THE CONDUCT.

WE HAVE SIMPLIFIED THAT TO KNOWINGLY, SO THAT BOTH THINGS WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE PROVEN AT THE HEARING.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE PROHIBITION ON INDUCING OR AIDING OR ASSISTING SOMEONE TO VIOLATE THE CHAPTER.

THE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AS A LOBBYIST.

WE HAVE ALSO AMENDED THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT THE EAC USES WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS VIOLATED THE CODE OF ETHICS.

IT HAS BEEN CLEAR AND CONVINCING WHICH MEANS THAT MEASURE OR DEGREE OF PROOF THAT PRODUCES IN A PERSON'S MIND, A FIRM BELIEF OR CONVICTION AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED.

THAT IS BEING AMENDED TO NOW BEING A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR EVIDENTIARY WAIT.

THOUGH NOT SUFFICIENT TO FREE THE MIND WHOLLY FROM ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, IS STILL SUFFICIENT TO INCLINE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL MIND TO ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE RATHER THAN THE OTHER.

SO IT IS A LESSER BURDEN.

THEN WE AMENDED HOW THE CSO, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, ASSIGNS HEARING PANELS.

REALLY, WE MADE THIS CHANGE JUST FOR LOGISTICAL REASONS.

THE WAY WE HAD ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IT WAS THAT THE 15 MEMBER EAC IS DIVIDED FOR HEARING PURPOSES INTO THREE DIFFERENT PANELS OF FIVE.

BUT SINCE WE DO HAVE SOME VACANCIES ON THE COMMISSION, THAT LEAVES SOME OF THOSE PANELS WITH SOME VACANCIES AND WE DON'T WANT TO BRING ANYONE BEFORE AN EAC PANEL FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHERE THERE'S AN OPEN SEAT AT THE PANEL.

[04:50:04]

ALSO IT GIVES THE CITY SECRETARY A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY WHEN SCHEDULING THE HEARINGS SO THAT AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, SHE CAN RANDOMLY ASSIGN THOSE COMMISSIONERS TO A PANEL BASED ON AVAILABILITY.

WE THINK THAT'S REALLY GOING TO HELP OUT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

WE ALSO WROTE IN THAT THE IG SHALL CEASE OR ALSO SHALL NOT INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING CONDUCT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF PENDING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LITIGATION.

THAT COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST THE IG DIVISION.

WELL, I SHOULD SAY COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE IG DIVISION WILL BE INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION SHALL REVIEW THE INVOICES THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE FEES AND COSTS ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY.

THEN WE ALSO SIMPLIFIED SOME OF THE EAC HEARING PROCEDURES AND STREAMLINE SOME OF THAT.

NOW WE'LL GET TO THE CHART THAT SUMMARIZES THE ARTICLE 6 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

THIS WAS AN IDEA BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.

THEY THOUGHT, WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF WE COULD SUMMARIZE ALL THIS TEXT IN ARTICLE 6 IN A CHART THAT COULD SERVE AS A QUICK REFERENCE AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

WE CAME UP WITH THIS CHART AND WE HAVE PLUGGED IT INTO THE END OF THAT ARTICLE, SO ONCE YOU GET THROUGH ALL THE TEXT EXPLAINING ALL THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AT THE END OF THAT ARTICLE, YOU'LL HAVE THIS CHART THAT HAS THE LIST OF THE REPORT.

THEN WHO MUST SUBMIT THAT REPORT AND THEN WHAT THE DUE DATE IS AND WHO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT IT TO.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO IN DETAIL THROUGH THESE CHARTS BECAUSE THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME.

BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO SEE THE CHART.

WE'VE GOT THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORT, THE SHORT FORM ANNUAL, YOUR GIFT REPORTING, DONATIONS, TRAVEL REPORTING AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THE TEAM IS HERE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, THIS WILL BE ON A COUNCIL VOTING AGENDA NEXT WEEK.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY WAITING IN THE QUEUE FOR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BEAVERS ON A POLICY ISSUE.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THESE AMENDMENTS IS THE CHANGING OF THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FROM THE EXISTING, CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD WHICH MS. MORRISON HAS DEFINED FOR US AND A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

WHAT PROBLEMS ARE WE SOLVING BY CHANGING THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE? WHICH SPECIFIC CASE WOULD HAVE GONE THE OTHER WAY THAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT BASED UPON THE EXISTING STANDARD OF EVIDENCE?

>> I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT I HEARD MORE THAN ANY WHEN I FIRST GOT STARTED A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, WAS DALLAS HAD FIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CONVICTED OF FELONIES OVER APPROXIMATELY 16 YEAR TIME PERIOD.

FRANKLY, I GET TIRED OF HEARING IT.

I GREW UP IN THE DALLAS AREA.

I LIKED DALLAS, BUT I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, THAT'S ONE.

THERE'S ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT IN THE MEDIA AND THAT'S JOHN Q.

PUBLIC AND JANE TAXPAYER, THEY WANT ETHICS REFORM ADDRESSED.

THEY WANT ETHICS ENFORCEMENT ADDRESSED AND THE WAY THAT YOU DO THAT IS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY YOU CREATE CULTURE AT A THOUGHT LEVEL.

THE THINGS THAT I LOOK AT ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT, THINGS I THINK ABOUT ARE THE THINGS I MEDITATE ON AND THINGS THAT I MEDITATE ON BEARS ITSELF OUT IN MY ACTIONS AND MY ACTIONS FORM MY CHARACTER AND MY CHARACTER DELIVERS THE DESTINY.

I THINK IT'S AN ITERATIVE PROCESS THERE.

IN ORDER TO ADDRESS WHAT I THINK IS PART OF THE CRITICAL PROBLEM HERE IN RAISING THE BAR WOULD BE CREATE CULTURE AT A THOUGHT LEVEL.

[04:55:04]

THE WAY THAT YOU CREATE THOUGHTS ABOUT ETHICS AS YOU SUBSTANTIATE CASES.

WE HAVE TWO CHOICES HERE.

DO WE STAY ON THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING ROAD THAT WERE ON? OR DO WE CHANGE TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE UNITED STATES IS DOING PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

IF WE STAY ON THIS PATH, CLEAR AND CONVINCING, IT'S GOING TO MEAN LESS SUBSTANTIATED CASES AND I THINK THAT TRANSLATES INTO AN INCENTIVE TO VIOLET.

IF WE CHANGE THE BURDEN TO WHATEVER YOU OTHER OFFICE IS DOING AN ENTIRE COUNTRY, I THINK IT WOULD BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

IT'S NOT THE ONLY STEP.

I THINK ALL OF THESE REVISIONS ARE STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

BUT I THINK THIS WOULD BE A KEY STEP BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE START TO SEE ALLEGATIONS GETTING SUBSTANTIATED, THAT RAISES THE THOUGHT LEVEL AND THAT'S WHERE THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS, I BELIEVE BEGINS.

I THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THE OTHER THING THAT I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIGURE OUT IS WHY DOES DALLAS, NOT A CITY WITH A CLEAN SLATE, WE'VE GOT THIS FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE LAST 16 YEARS.

WHY DOES THE DALLAS FEEL THE NEED TO CLING TO EXCLUSIVELY CLAIMED TO BE THE ONLY CITY IN THE COUNTRY TO CLING TO THIS HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF AND NOBODY ELSE IS DOING IT.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

IT BOTHERS ME, I GUESS I COULD SAY, BUT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, I DO BELIEVE I ANSWERED THE PROBLEMS THERE AND WHY I THINK THAT THIS IS A SOLUTION OR A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

>> YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC CASE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED DIFFERENTLY WITH THE PREPONDERANCE RATHER THAN THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD.

>> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CASES DECIDED.

I THOUGHT A QUESTION LIKE THAT MIGHT BE COMING.

I WENT THROUGH OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVER THE LAST NINE OR TEN MONTHS AND I PICKED OUT ABOUT 11 OR 12 CASES THAT I THINK WE PROBABLY WOULD'VE FILED.

WE'D HAD A LOWER BURDEN OF PROOF, BUT WE DIDN'T.

>> CAN I JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THAT AS WELL.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY TWO CENTS ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.

FIRST OF ALL, THE PERSON BRINGING THE COMPLAINT, THE IG HAS TO PROVE A STATE OF MIND WHICH IS KNOWINGLY.

THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THEY HAVE TO PROVE A HIGHER BURDEN THAN PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A PRETTY DIFFICULT BURDEN TO PROVE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

THEN THEY ALSO HAVE TO GET FOUR OF THE FIVE PANEL MEMBERS TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THEM.

ALSO THEN THE CITY ALSO PROVIDES AN ATTORNEY IF THAT PERSON WANTS ONE AND SO IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT BURDEN ON THE PERSON BRINGING THE CASE.

ALL OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS REQUIRE A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, EVEN OUR TRIAL BOARDS ARE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

DID YOU HAVE HIGHER REQUIREMENTS FOR WHO, THE THREE QUARTER VOTE, BUT IT'S STILL NOT THIS HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE AND I THINK IT'S NOT THE ONES THAT WOULD HAVE, IT'S THE ONES THAT WE CAN'T BRING BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A HIGH BURDEN.

THAT IS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

>> WELL, AND THOSE MAY BE CASES WHERE IT SHOULDN'T BE BROUGHT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGH STAKES HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S REPUTATIONS, THEIR CAREERS ARE AT STAKE WITH THIS.

I THINK WE NEED THAT HIGHER STANDARD OF EVIDENCE, BUT MS. MORRISON HAS STAFF CONDUCTED ANY SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES AND WHAT THEIR STANDARD OF BURDEN OF PROOF IS FOR THIS ADJUDICATION.

>> GENERAL COUNSEL HAS NOT, BUT I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS SOME INFORMATION ON THAT.

>> CAN USE SITE-SPECIFIC CITIES THAT HAVE THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD.

>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN I WENT BACK IN AUGUST, I GOT CERTIFIED BACK IN 2006.

WHEN I CAME BACK AGAIN WORKER AT THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE AIG SAID YOU GOT TO GO BACK.

I WENT BACK TO GET MY RE-CERTIFICATION IN AUGUST AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE TEST, THERE WAS 100 OF THEM.

WHAT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN ALL ADMINISTRATIVE CASES THAT YOU WILL ENCOUNTER IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMUNITY.

IF YOU WANT TO GET IT RIGHT, YOU HAVE TO PUT PREPONDERANCE.

I ANSWERED WRONG AND GOT THE QUESTION CORRECT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ONLY STANDARD THAT I WAS AWARE OF AND I ASKED EVERYBODY, I WAS IN IG WORK FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS IN AUSTIN AND NOW FOR YEARS AND THREE MONTHS.

I HAVE CONTACTS AT THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

[05:00:03]

WE TALK ABOUT STUFF AT LENGTH, AT DEPTH.

I HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION MANY TIMES AND NOBODY HAS EVER SAID, YEAH, WE'VE GOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING ALSO.

THE CONVERSATION USUALLY TURNS TOWARDS YOUR KING.

THAT'S YOUR STANDARD OF PROOF, THAT'S YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.

>> AS YOU SIT HERE, YOU CAN'T NAME ANY OTHER CITIES THAT USE THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD.

>> I HAVEN'T MADE A LIST OF THEM.

>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT ISSUE I HAVE IS THE ISSUE RAISED ON PAGE NINE OF THE DRAFT ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS WITH APPOINTEES BEING RESTRICTED.

I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT ISSUES TO THEIR APPOINTEES, NOT NECESSARILY TO INFLUENCE THEM, BUT SIMPLY TO ILLUSTRATE THEIR THINKING ABOUT A PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT, MS. MORRISON, WHY THAT'S BEING CHANGED?

>> THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE PROVISION IN SECTION 12A-4B5, AND ITS PROVISION THAT IT DOES SAY THAT CITY OFFICIALS SHALL WORK THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, CITY SECRETARY, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY AUDITOR, OR INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THE APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO OBTAIN INFORMATION OR REQUEST ASSISTANCE WITH PROJECTS RATHER THAN CONTACTING CITY EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY.

BUT OF COURSE, THIS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

I BELIEVE THIS PROVISION WAS ADDED IN 2017 AS PART OF THE ADDITION THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION CONSIDERED WHEN ADDING THESE STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR AND STANDARDS OF CIVILITY, AND THAT IS NOT A PROVISION THAT OUR OFFICE HAD CONSIDERED AMENDING AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE DIDN'T CONSIDER AMENDING THAT PROVISION EITHER.

>> WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT PROVISION THAN I WAS CITING.

BUT ON THAT ISSUE, YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS ONE YESTERDAY, AND YOU CLARIFIED THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHILE SPEAKING TO BEING FREE TO SPEAK TO DIRECTORS OF DEPARTMENTS, COULD ALSO SPEAK AS WE ALL DO TO SUB DIRECTORS WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE DIRECTOR, AND THAT'S A VERY COMMON PRACTICE BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WE WOULD BE DELUSING THE DIRECTORS WITH MUNDANE QUESTIONS EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, SO IS THAT A PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE? I'D LIKE TO GET THAT VOICED.

>> AS LONG AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DIRECTOR INITIALLY, JUST TO FIND OUT, WHO DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING THESE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS TO, LIKE THESE TYPES, AND YOU'VE GOTTEN THAT DIRECTION FROM A DIRECTOR, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED ACCORDING TO THAT DIRECTION.

>> WITH REGARDS TO 12834, THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION FOR UNREGISTERED LOBBYISTS.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE INQUIRED ABOUT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY WHO INDICATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUCH DISCLOSURES MADE BY UNREGISTERED LOBBYISTS THIS YEAR, LAST YEAR, OR THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 2020, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S BEING OBSERVED MORE IN THE DIRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE THAN IN COMPLIANCE.

WHY DO WE NEED THAT REGULATION?

>> I'M NOT SURE.

YES, I DID SPEAK WITH A STAFF MEMBER WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE THAT DID INDICATE THAT NO NON REGISTRANT DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN 2020 AND 2022, AND SO FAR NONE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THIS YEAR IN 2023.

AGAIN, THAT IS NOT A PROVISION THAT WE CONSIDERED AMENDING THIS TIME OR DELETING.

I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO GO BACK AND SEE WHY, WHEN AND THEN WHY IT WAS ADDED.

IF THERE WAS SOME ISSUE WE WERE HAVING AT THE CITY THAT MADE US WANT TO ADD THIS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM,

[05:05:03]

HAS THE PROBLEM BEEN SOLVED, DO WE STILL NEED IT? THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE.

AT THE VERY END OF CHAPTER 12A.

>> EXCUSE ME A BIT. JUST HOLD THAT THOUGHT.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER REALLY ATTORNEY PALOMINO WANTED TO INTERJECT HERE AT THIS POINT AND THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE.

>> SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ROUND OF AMENDMENT, SO NEXT WEEK WHEN WE HEAR IT, IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY ADVERTISE FOR JUST THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND SO ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WOULD BE FUTURE CONSIDERATION OR WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

>> I CAN RAISE THESE NEXT WEEK, THOUGH?

>> THEY'RE NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING NEXT WEEK.

SOME OF THEM.

>> WHEN DO WE CONSIDER THESE?

>> WE ARE ALWAYS OPEN AS WE'VE, THROUGH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, WE ALL DETERMINED THAT THIS IS AN ORGANIC DOCUMENT THAT THE FIRST TIME WE AMENDED IT, WE ADDED EVERY TWO-YEAR PROVISION.

WE'RE GOING TO CONSTANTLY BE WORKING ON THIS DOCUMENT AND I THINK THAT LAURA AND BARREN WILL PROBABLY TAKE OVER, ARE HAPPY TO RECEIVE INPUT FOR THE NEXT GO ROUND.

WE WILL BE WORKING ON THIS DOCUMENT ALWAYS FROM NOW ON.

>> WELL, IT NEEDS MORE WORK.

>> IT NEEDS, YES.

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 100%.

>> GOOD. CONTINUING ON. YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS OR YOU JUST WANT TO WAIT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?

>> NO, I'LL WAIT.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER WHITLEY.

NOW 17, LET'S GET THAT TOGETHER 81.

LET'S GO WITH COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, I HAD TWO QUICK CLARIFICATIONS.

THIS A GOOD JOB, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ON SLIDE NUMBER 17, YOU REFERENCED THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE IG WILL BE INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED BY AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

WHO WILL BE APPOINTING THAT? IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT WOULD APPOINT THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL?

>> YES, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> THEN IS THERE ANY CONFLICT AT ALL WITH THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION LOOKING AT THOSE INVOICES AND ANYTHING SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WORK HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE IG? I JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> WELL, THE INVOICES THAT I REFERENCED ON THAT SLIDE IS NOT JUST IF WE HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT SOMEONE IN THE IG DIVISION.

IT'S ALSO IF WE PAY FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR ANY CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE.

WE DON'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE SUBMITTED AN INVOICE FROM OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE HOURLY RATE AND THE FEES ARE UNREASONABLE, SO WE HAVE A STANDARD AND THEN WE NEED SOMEONE TO REVIEW THAT, AND WE THOUGHT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WOULD BE THE BEST BODY TO REVIEW THAT.

>> THIS MAY BE A MORE GENERAL QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, I'VE NEVER SEEN AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE OUTSIDE INVOICES ARE REVIEWED BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN STAFF.

>> WELL, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE ACTUALLY HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL IF THE RESPONDENT WANTS US TO, AND SO ANYTIME THERE'S ATTORNEYS FEES IN A COURT PROCEEDING, GENERALLY, THE COURT WILL LOOK AT THE ATTORNEY'S FEES TO DETERMINE IF THEY'RE REASONABLE, AND SO WE WERE JUST FOLLOWING THAT MATTER.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL WOMAN.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> THANK YOU. I KNOW A LOT OF WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS BY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND BY STAFF AND I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK.

I WANT TO START WITH A QUESTION ON ON PAGE 17 ON THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BUSINESS ENTITY, AND THIS IS 12A-13.1.

CAN I GET INTO THESE DETAILED QUESTIONS, TAMMY, I'M NOT SURE?

>> WHAT PAGE WAS THAT ON?

>> PAGE 17.

IT'S SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BUSINESS ENTITY AT 13.1.

>> ABSOLUTELY. IT'S NEW. ANYTHING UNDERLINED IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE.

>> COOL. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE LIKE WE WERE ACCUSED, WE'RE GOING TO BE ACCUSED ANY WAY IF IT'S A BUSINESS ENTITY THAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN, WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO AN ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE IN ADDITION TO THAT? WHY IS THAT PROPOSED? WE NEED AN EXTRA CHECK AND BALANCE, I GUESS.

>> CAN I POINT YOU TO, WE ADDED THIS BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE FOR CITY OFFICIALS,

[05:10:02]

BUT WE REALIZED THAT WE DIDN'T ALSO COVER EMPLOYEES, AND SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS.

>> THERESA CARLOS, FOR THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

STATE LAW REQUIRES THIS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE MORE THAN ADVISORY IN NATURE.

WE WERE ADDING THIS TO CAPTURE ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND ALSO EMPLOYEES.

>> WHAT'S THE THOUGHT BEHIND WHY WE NEED THIS IF WE'RE GOING TO RECUSE ANYWAY? IS IT JUST TO HAVE THAT PAPERWORK THAT SAYS THIS IS WHY WE'RE RECUSING.

>> IT CAN APPLY TO ALL THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSION AND EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY CAN RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A BUSINESS ENTITY, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE TO UNDER STATE LAW.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT ANSWER, BUT WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT TO BEGIN WITH? WHY NOT JUST LET US RECUSE AND NOT HAVE TO DO THIS ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK STEP.

>> I THINK, EVEN IN STATE LAW, YOU HAVE TO DO THE PAPERWORK.

>> SO YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THAT CONDITION?

>> YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR POTENTIAL CONFLICT ON RECORD.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING IS ON SWITCHING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

I AGREE WITH MR. RIDLEY.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE A HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S REPUTATIONS.

I FELT LIKE THE ENTIRE ANSWER WAS INCREDIBLY ARBITRARY.

IT FELT LIKE I WAS SITTING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE AS I WAS LISTENING TO THAT EXPLANATION.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING PEOPLE ON THE POSSIBLE CHOPPING BLOCK HERE AND THEIR REPUTATIONS, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A RIGOROUS PROCESS.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CHANGING IT.

I ABSOLUTELY WON'T SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

>> THANK YOU. JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, FOR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST SECTION, THERE'S NO CHANGE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS IN TERMS OF DISCLOSURE? IT'S JUST ADDING ON STAFF. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THIS ADDITION MAKES THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT ALREADY APPLIES TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT CODIFIES THAT IN 12A SO THAT IT NOW APPLIES TO OUR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS AND OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.

>> THEY WOULD FILL OUT THE SAME FORM THAT WE DO WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THEN THE NEXT SECTION IS ABOUT CONTINUOUS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.

THE STATEMENT ABOUT, WHEN MANY HAVE THE CONFLICT, THAT ABSTAINING IS NOT NECESSARY.

COULD YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES, OR AN EXAMPLE?

>> YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK A GOOD EXAMPLE IS IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO VOTE TO RAISE OR LOWER THE TAX RATE.

WELL, THAT AFFECTS ALL OF YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL IN IT.

IT MEANS NO ONE HAS A SPECIAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND YOU ALL LIVE HERE, SO YOU ALL SHARE THAT CONFLICT.

>> THERE'S NO DUTY THERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE A CONFLICT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT, I'M SORRY TO BRING THIS ONE UP, SORRY, GUYS, STATE FAIR OF TEXAS TICKETS FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY? THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING SPECIAL FOR THEM JUST BECAUSE WE GET TICKETS FOR THAT.

>> YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S REALLY MORE OF A GIFT QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE THEY INVITE YOU TO THE STATE FAIR THAT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS OR IT'S NOT A PERSONAL BENEFIT TO OTHERS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A GIFT QUESTION.

>> IN MY PERSONAL CASE, I'LL SAY IT'S AN EXPENDITURE, NOT A GIFT, BUT OKAY.

THANK YOU [LAUGHTER].

SUPPORT THE ECONOMY.

FOR THE CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, I JUST WANT TO SAY I LIKE HOW THAT ENDED UP.

I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT LENGTH, BOTH IN THE MEETING AND OFFLINE. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE STANDARD OF PROOF.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT FINDING ANYBODY WHO IS DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT. IS THAT TRUE?

>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

>> FOR THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE FROM CLEAR AND CONVINCING TO PREPONDERANCE, YOU'RE NOT FINDING ANYONE WHO'S DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S THE STANDARD.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOT JUST IN TEXAS BUT ACROSS THE NATION FOR IG OFFICES.

>> CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> WITHIN OUR CITY, DO WE HAVE OTHER INSTANCES WHERE WE ARE DEVIATING FROM PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

>> ALL OF OUR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CITYWIDE ARE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

[05:15:07]

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST A DOZEN CASES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO THE EAC HAD WE HAD THAT DIFFERENT LEVEL SO THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

THE DIFFERENCE ON HOW THE HEARING PANELS ARE BEING ASSIGNED.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?

>> YES. THE WAY WE WROTE IT AND THE WAY THE COUNCIL THEN APPROVED IT IN DECEMBER 2021 WAS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A COMMISSION OF 15 MEMBERS.

THAT COMMISSION WOULD THEN ONCE A HEARING WAS SCHEDULED, THAT HEARING WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO A PANEL, AND THAT PANEL ALREADY HAS ITS SET FIVE MEMBERS.

NOW, WITH THE COMMISSION HAVING VACANCIES, THERE'S NO WAY.

>> MY TIME IS STILL RUNNING.

I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.

>> MY APOLOGIES.

>> I WAS LISTENING IN TOO CLOSELY.

>> I KNOW [LAUGHTER].

>> SINCE WE HAVE STILL A FEW VACANCIES ON THE COMMISSION, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US RIGHT NOW TO HAVE THREE FULL PANELS OF FIVE.

SO WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A LOT EASIER FOR WHEN WE HAVE AN UPCOMING HEARING THAT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE JUST RANDOMLY ASSIGNS A PANEL OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS WITH THE CHAIR OF THE PANEL MEETING ONE OF THE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PANEL MEETING THE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS.

THAT GIVES THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE ALSO SOME LATITUDE IN WORKING WITH THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEE WHO'S AVAILABLE BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THESE HEARINGS ARE GOING TO COME UP.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE EAC ADOPTS A CALENDAR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHERE THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS THE AVAILABILITY THAT I NEED FOR WHEN OUR MEETINGS ARE.

THEY CAN DO IT UP FOR THE REGULAR MEETINGS, BUT NOT FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS.

IT'S NICE FOR THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY WHEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNING PANEL MEMBERS FOR AN UPCOMING HEARING.

>> TO YOUR POINT ABOUT NOT HAVING ALL THE POSITIONS FILLED, THE CITY SECRETARY IS ONLY PULLING FROM FILLED POSITIONS, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I'M SORRY. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE STANDARDS OF PROOF.

ARE THERE EVEN LOWER LEVELS OF STANDARD OF PROOF THAT ARE LOWER THAN PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE?

>> I CAN SAY THAT THERE'S NOT A LOWER STANDARD THAT THE CITY USES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.

>> I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY STANDARD BELOW PREPONDERANCE.

>> WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? YOU WANT TO DEFINE THAT FOR US?

>> I CAN.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME [LAUGHTER].

>> YOU'D HAVE TO PROVE THAT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THE FACTS OR THE VERSION THAT IS BEING TOLD BY THE PROSECUTOR IS TRUE, SO 51%.

KIND OF GOT TO GET IN SOMEBODY'S MIND.

>> WHAT ABOUT CLEAR AND CONVINCING?

>> I THINK WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE A CIVIL FRAUD CASE MIGHT HAVE.

>> OUR STANDARD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE WAS DEFINED IN 12A, AND THAT WAS THAT MEASURE OR DEGREE OF PROOF THAT PRODUCES IN A PERSON'S MIND A FIRM BELIEF OR CONVICTION AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED.

>> I'LL JUST SAY THAT, OBVIOUSLY, OUR COMMITTEES ARE DISBANDING IN ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF OR LESS.

SO FOR THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR ANY SUGGESTIONS PEOPLE HAVE TO ADD, AND I'M HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO WHOEVER CHAIRS THIS NEXT, OR OF COURSE, SENDING IT TO STAFF IS VERY APPROPRIATE.

BUT I THINK, TO TAMMY'S POINT EARLIER, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS SO THAT AS LOOPHOLES OR OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN ARE BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BY STAFF, THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE IN WHAT HAPPENS HERE AT ALL OF CITY HALL, NOT JUST AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT US. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

I THINK WE ALL NEED A LITTLE MORE FAITH IN GOVERNMENT THESE DAYS.

I HOPE THAT THIS PROCESS WILL HELP AFFIRM THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PAULA BLACKMAN, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AT THIS TIME.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK YOU KNOW WHICH SLIDE I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT, LAURA.

>> SLIDE 11. CAN YOU PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN?

[05:20:06]

WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT, I GUESS I CALL IT THE SIT-OUT CLAUSE, IF YOU WILL.

ADD CAMPAIGN POLITICAL CONSULTANTS TO THE PROVISIONS THAT PROHIBITS CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND CAMPAIGN TREASURES FROM LOBBYING WITHIN A YEAR OF THE ELECTION.

I DON'T LIKE THAT.

IT'S NOT WHAT I HAD WANTED AND SUGGESTED.

I THINK I'VE BEEN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL A LOT.

WHAT HAPPENS, THE SIT OUT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL AND THAT'S NOT FAIR.

THEN IT ALSO TAKES PEOPLE OUT FROM BEING PART OF THE PROCESS OR IT DRIVES THEM UNDERGROUND WHERE THEY'RE EMBEDDED IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S CONTRACT AND THEY GET PAID ELSEWHERE AND YOU'LL NEVER KNOW.

LAURA, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOTTEN AN AMENDMENT, BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT I JUST WANT DISCLOSURE.

LET PEOPLE TELL US WHERE THEY PARTICIPATED AND HOW THEY PARTICIPATED AND THEN LET US MAKE THE DECISION.

I DON'T FEEL THAT MAKING PEOPLE SIT OUT A YEAR IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PRACTICE, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEM LETTING US KNOW IS BECAUSE WHERE DO YOU STOP THE LINE.

POLITICAL CONSULTANTS ARE NOT CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND ALL THEY'LL DO IS CHANGE A TITLE.

THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW YOU WORKED ON THE CAMPAIGN IN WHAT CAPACITY? THAT'S IT. YOU'RE A CAMPAIGN MANAGER OR A CAMPAIGN TREASURER? UNFORTUNATELY, I KNOW IT'S A PUBLIC NAME, BUT I DON'T KNOW EVERYBODY IS AROUND HERE.

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO PLAYS WHAT, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE IN THAT PROCESS OR IN THAT SPACE AND THEN LET ME MAKE THAT DECISION MOVING FORWARD.

I DON'T HAVE ANY FEEDBACK AROUND THAT, LAURA.

WE'VE HAD GOOD CONVERSATIONS AROUND IT.

>> YOU ARE THE ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'S BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION, BUT AFTER MEETING WITH YOU ABOUT IT, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD.

I WILL BE BRINGING SOMETHING THAT CLARIFIES THIS A LITTLE MORE, WE CAN KEEP IT LIKE IT IS OR WE CAN CHANGE IT.

I JUST WANT MORE SUNSHINE.

I DON'T WANT TO DRIVE SOMETHING UNDERGROUND.

I JUST FEEL THIS DOES THAT.

ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL WOMAN, BLACKMAN, DEPUTY MAYOR PROTEM NAVARES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. [NOISE] I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES ALREADY ADDRESSED MOST OF MY CONCERNS.

THANK YOU FOR GETTING THIS ON OUR BRIEFING, A FULL BRIEFING SO THAT ALL OF US THAT ARE WILLING TO BE HERE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND MAKE COMMENTS.

IF YOU DIDN'T READ THE MEMO, I'M THE ONE WHO USED A RULE 7.1.1 IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

BECAUSE JUST LIKE MY COLLEAGUE, MS. BLACKMAN SAID, LET'S PUT THIS IN THE SUNSHINE, LET'S PUT THIS OUT THERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR RULES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ETHICS.

THE WAY IT WAS DONE WAS, DIDN'T SEEM VERY SUNSHINY TO ME PERSONALLY, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW, SO I'M GOOD.

I'M HAPPY. THANK YOU.

I AGREE WITH MR. WEST AND MR. RIDLEY ABOUT CHANGING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

I GET IT, THAT IT MIGHT BE A STANDARD EVERYWHERE ELSE, BUT WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARD IN DALLAS AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION ON THAT.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHANGE AND I'D PREFER TO LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.

THE NEXT ONE ON THE APPOINTEES, THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE TO ME THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW APPOINTEES TO BE ABLE TO ASK ADVICE, ASK WHAT WE KNOW, ASK FOR INFORMATION AND TO BAR THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO SPEAK TO US, THAT I GET IT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE RULES ARE ALREADY THERE.

IT'S BY CHARTER OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THAT SHOULD NOT BE YOUR TAKE.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING FOR FOLKS TO BE PART OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

AT THAT POINT, IF IT WERE ME, I'D BE LIKE, I DON'T GET TO COMMUNICATE WITH MY COUNCIL MEMBER, I PREFER NOT TO SERVE.

I WOULD RATHER BE ABLE TO KEEP MY VOICE LOUD AND OPEN.

THEN ON PAGE 11, SHE STEPPED AWAY, BUT I LOOK FORWARD IF MS. BLACKMAN IS OKAY WITH SHARING WHAT HER THOUGHTS ARE GETTING WITH ME.

I'LL REACH OUT TO SEE WHAT HER CHANGES ARE ON 11. I AGREE AS WELL.

IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THIS WAS NOT ABOUT US IN POLITICS, BUT THIS ONE COMPLETELY MAKES IT ABOUT US IN POLITICS BECAUSE THE FOLKS WHO WIN, THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE LIKE TO PUNISH THOSE FOLKS, THE FOLKS WHO LOSE, WE NEVER SAY A WORD ABOUT THEM.

[05:25:02]

WE DON'T EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE FOLKS.

TO BAN SOMEBODY FOR ONE YEAR, EVEN FOR FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK IT'S EGREGIOUS JUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER ALLOWING THEM TO BE PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DAY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING THESE NEW FOLKS.

I APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW WHY THIS RULE CAME OUT.

THIS RULE CHANGE IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T DISCLOSE, WHICH WASN'T A RULE, ABOUT WHO MY CAMPAIGN TREASURER WAS.

I DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG, I DIDN'T VIOLATE ANYTHING.

I KNOW THAT, BUT IF WE WANT TO PUT MORE SUNSHINE, I'M GOOD WITH THAT, THAT DIDN'T BUG ME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

MY QUESTION THEN IS, HOW DO THEY DISCLOSE? BECAUSE THESE FOLKS CAN BE FORESTED, WHOSE BURDEN IS IT? IS IT MY BURDEN? IS IT THEIR BURDEN? CAN IT BE SOMETHING THAT'S ADDED TO THE SPEAKERS REGISTRIES SO THAT THEY CAN ASK, DID YOU HAPPEN TO WORK ON A CAMPAIGN? I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT, I'M JUST SAYING I HAVE ZERO ISSUE WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT'S FINE AND DANDY IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT.

OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK TO BE DONE THAN JUST THESE AMENDMENTS.

I PREFER THAT WE GO AND RE-LOOK AT ALL OF IT TOGETHER BEFORE WE JUST VOTE ON A FEW AMENDMENTS THAT COULD ACTUALLY HURT OTHER DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING IN THERE.

I'M GOING TO STOP THERE.

I'M SURE I'LL HAVE A LOT MORE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS WHEN WE GET TO THE REST OF IT BECAUSE I HAD PAGES OF QUESTIONS, BUT NOT ALL OF IT'S GERMANE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

I'M GOING TO SAVE US SOME TIME.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS, COLLEAGUES, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO US HAVING MORE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. DEPUTY MAYOR, PROTEM NAVARES.

COUNCIL WOMAN AWILLIS.

>> THANK YOU. MR. BEAVERS, I HAD JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, THIS IS BACK TO PREPONDERANCE.

YOU REFERENCED IN DALLAS, YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN 10 OR 12 CASES.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE A VERY LATE ADOPTER ON THIS CHANGE, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE IT AS FAR AS MAJOR CITIES THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY ADOPTED THIS LANGUAGE.

>> YOUR COMMENT WAS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE LATE TO THE GAME, AS IN EVERYBODY ELSE HAS A STANDARD AND WE DON'T.

I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

>> I'M CURIOUS IF IN YOUR RESEARCH YOU'VE RUN ACROSS ANYTHING THAT MIGHT GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF LIFT OR CHANGE THIS HAD IN OTHER CITIES, LIKE WHEN THEY MADE THIS CHANGE, DID THEY TOO SEE AROUND 10 OR 12 MORE CASES? WAS IT 20, WAS IT FEWER? I'M JUST WONDERING, THE GRAVITAS OF MAKING THIS CHANGE.

>> I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT ANYBODY HAS MADE THE CHANGE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S ALREADY JUMPED TO THE NEW STANDARD AND BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.

>> WELL, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

>> NO MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE IN THE QUEUE SO WITH NO OTHER NAMES IN QUEUE, WE WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH- [OVERLAPPING]

>> NO, MA'AM. JUST ONE FINAL COMMENT.

>> ON THE SECOND ROUND. I TOO CONCUR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON'S COMMENT ABOUT THE SIT OUT PERIOD FOR CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS.

I THINK THE DISCLOSURE IS SUFFICIENT.

I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR SETUP PERIOD THERE.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. I HAVE ANOTHER NUMBER POPPED UP.

IS IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> I WANTED TO THIRD THAT, I GUESS.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD POINT AND I WANTED TO BE ON RECORD FOR THAT AND THEN ALSO, JUST A REMINDER, ANYBODY WHO'S ON THE FENCE ON THIS PREPONDERANCE OF PROPOSAL, AS CONFIRMED BY STAFF IT'S THE LOWEST BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE CITY HAS AND IT IS JUST OVER 51 PERCENT.

I'M GOING TO FIGHT ON THAT ONE NEXT WEEK IF WE DO THIS VOTE NEXT WEEK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST WAY TOO LOW. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA, YOU'RE NOW RECOGNIZED.

>> I JUST WANTED TO FOURTH IT.

>> I LOVE THAT NUMBER.

>> THANK YOU [LAUGHTER] I THOUGHT YOU WOULD.

>> COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

MR. BEAVERS OR ANYBODY IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE IS, DO THE CITIES THAT HAVE THE LOWER BAR TO USE THIS TERMINOLOGY, DO THEY HAVE A HIGHER PROPORTION OF ETHICS CASES THAT DESTROY LIVES AND CAREERS AND ALL THOSE THINGS?

>> I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING THE QUESTION TO MS. MENDELSOHN.

>> I'M ASKING ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THOSE WHO USE PREPONDERANCE, DO THEY HAVE THE RECORD THAT DESTROYS LIVES AND CAREERS BECAUSE THEY'RE USING PREPONDERANCE INSTEAD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING?

>> I'LL DEFER TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THAT.

>> NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

[05:30:02]

>> THAT'S THE REASON THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T GO TO THAT LOWER BAR.

THEN I ALSO WANTED TO ASK OUR OWN CITY ATTORNEY, DON'T WE ALSO HAVE OTHER CONTROLS AS PART OF THAT DECISION SO IT'S NOT JUST SUDDENLY EIGHT VOTES AS WE HAVE HERE FOR SO MANY THINGS?

>> YES. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS TO PROVE THAT YOU DID IT KNOWINGLY, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE STANDARD OF PROOF.

THEY ALSO HAVE TO CONVINCE FOUR OF THE FIVE PANEL MEMBERS THAT THE PERSON DID VIOLATE THE CODE AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS THEY HAVE TO DO.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IN ANY CIVIL TRIAL.

NOW, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS USUALLY ONLY USED IN SOME PARTICULAR CIVIL TRIALS LIKE FRAUD AND IT'S A HANDFUL WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO USE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

>> I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, COUNCIL WOMAN SCHULTZ.

COUNCIL WOMAN MENDELSOHN.

>> THANK YOU. STAYING WITH THE STANDARD OF PROOF CONVERSATION, MAY ASK YOU, INSPECTOR GENERAL, HOW MANY CASES HAVE YOU REFERRED TO THE EAC IN THE YEAR AND THREE MONTHS THAT YOU'VE BEEN HERE?

>> WE JUST FILED THE FIRST CASE APPROXIMATELY A MONTH AGO.

OUR FIRST HEARING SETTING WAS ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.

THE RESPONDENT DECIDED TO HIRE ATTORNEY THE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SO IT GOT POSTPONED TO MONDAY, JUNE 26.

>> OKAY SO ONE.

>> SO FAR. WHEN YOU TALK TO YOUR COLLEAGUES, HOW MANY CASES PER YEAR ARE THEY BRINGING FORWARD UNDER THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE?

>> I HAVEN'T HAD THAT SPECIFIC CONVERSATION.

>> DO YOU THINK IT IS MORE THAN ONE IN 15 MONTHS?

>> I KNOW IT IS.

>> WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE HAVING THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING AS HINDERING YOUR ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES THAT WE'VE CHARGED YOU WITH?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> MAY I SAY ONE OTHER THING?

>> SURE, PLEASE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ WAS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT CLEAR AND CONVINCING, ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE, WHEN CPS WANTS TO TAKE YOUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM YOU, IT'S CLEAR AND CONVINCING.

THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT STANDARD.

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA FOR CPS, BUT MAYBE NOT FOR CITY WORK.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> WE'LL TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE? NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO DESIRE TO SPEAK AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR STAFF.

IN YOUR PATIENT IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WE'RE READY FOR OUR NEXT PRESENTATION CITY MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I KNOW TIME IS RUNNING LATE,

[B. 23-1419 Update of DART Excess Sales Tax Revenues]

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS LAST PRESENTATION, THEN ALLOW COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS.

THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, ROBERT PEREZ, WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE DART EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES. AS PART OF THE BRIEFING.

ROBERT WILL DISCUSS THE EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES, THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN DART IN THE CITY, AS WELL AS THE INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD HOPED TO BRING TO CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING NEXT WEEK, SO WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ROBERT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU MR. BROADNAX.

HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ROBERT PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

I WILL JUST GO INTO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THIS EVENING WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS AN UPDATE OF THE DART EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES.

SINCE JULY OF 2022, DART HAS BEEN CONSIDERING ALLOCATING EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES TO SERVICE AREA CITIES.

IN OCTOBER 2022, IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR UP TO $111 MILLION.

SINCE JULY 22, WE'VE BEEN UPDATING MAYOR AND COUNCIL AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE THROUGH SEVERAL MEMORANDUMS. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WE BRIEFED TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ON COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DART AND THEN IN FEBRUARY 28TH, THERE WAS A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AS WELL AS DART BOARD MEMBERS.

DURING THAT MEETING, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SILVER LINE PROJECT THAT DART WILL BE TRYING TO RECOVER APPROXIMATELY $36 MILLION IN BETTERMENTS FROM THE 111 MILLION.

DURING THAT MEETING, A NUMBER OF TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COG-LED MEDIATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DART TO DISCUSS THE 36 MILLION OF BETTERMENTS.

THROUGH THOSE NEGOTIATIONS AND THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF NCTCOG,

[05:35:02]

THE BETTERMENTS WERE NARROWED DOWN FROM $36 MILLION TO 33.2 MILLION OF WHICH DART WAS GOING TO ASSUME 22.7 MILLION.

NCTCOG WOULD ACTUALLY SUE 5.3 MILLION OF THOSE BETTERMENTS AND THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULD TAKE 5.2 MILLION FROM THE EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES.

NEXT SLIDE. IN ADDITION TO THE 36 MILLION IN BETTERMENTS, DART ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WILL BE SEEKING TO RECOVER $43.5 MILLION FROM THE EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUES FOR PROJECT DELAYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SILVER LINE PROJECT.

ALL IN TOTAL, THE DART WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY $80 MILLION FROM $111 MILLION THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS.

AGAIN, WE'RE ABLE TO NARROW THAT DOWN TO $15.9 MILLION IN DELAYS TO BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY OF THE DART.

BETWEEN THE 5.2 MILLION IN BETTERMENT IN THE 15.9 IN DELAYS, WE'RE LOOKING AT RECEIVING APPROXIMATELY $90 MILLION OF EXTRA SALES TAX REVENUES.

IN DECEMBER 22, DART PROVIDED SERVICE AREA CITIES WITH AN ILAS AS TO HOW TO ACQUIRE THOSE DOLLARS.

WE ACTUALLY PROVIDED A COPY OF THAT ILA TO CITY COUNCIL LAST FRIDAY.

THERE WERE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE ILA, HOWEVER, AND ALONG THOSE LINES, SERVICE AREA CITIES, PUT TOGETHER A CONSOLIDATED LIST OF PROPOSED REVISIONS, MOST OF THOSE FOCUSED ON CITY'S GOOD STANDING ON FORFEITURE OF FUNDS.

THE DART BOARD DIDN'T DENY ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE TERMS. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS THE LAST CITY TO HAVE SIGNED THAT ILA.

JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS I DID PROVIDE FROM THE ILA.

WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AS YOU CAN READ THIS, AS IT'S POSTED.

TO ADDRESS THE GOOD STANDING DEFINITION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS, THE CITY OF DALLAS IS WORKING WITH DART ON AN MOU.

SOME OF THE MOU HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE A POTENTIAL REDUCTION TO THE TUNE OF 150,000 PER DAY FOR ANY FURTHER DELAYS RESULTED FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS'S ACTION OR INACTION WITH REGARDS TO THE SILVER LINE.

WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I GUESS THAT'S PART OF THE MOU THERE'S AN INITIAL $30 MILLION OF EXCESS SALES TAX FUNDS THAT ARE SET ASIDE BASED UPON CERTAIN MILESTONES AT THE CITY OF DALLAS MUST MEET IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ALL THE FUNDS.

NEXT SLIDE. [BACKGROUND] WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTING THIS INFORMATION IN THE MEMORANDUMS AS WELL AS DISCUSSIONS WITH TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

NUMBER 1 ITEM, I'LL JUST TOUCH ON THESE A $10 MILLION TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE NCTCOG TO LEVERAGE $15.4 MILLION FOR THE FIVE-MILE CREEK HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE.

>> ROBERT.