Jun 14, 2023 City Council Agenda Meetings

I HAVE TO POINT OUT, I HAVE TO DO IT.

BENTON JONES, JR.

[00:35:01]

HE REPRESENTS THE GREATEST LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS.

IT'S THE GREATEST ONE OF THEM ALL.

GO AHEAD, REPRESENTATIVE.

YOUR MICROPHONE.

IT'S A BUTTON. IT'S NOT LIKE THE HOUSE FLOOR, BUT YOU GOT TO PUSH YOUR OWN BUTTON, YOU KNOW? HEY, I GOT TO GET USED TO IT.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR JOHNSON AND MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS VENTON JONES AND I HAVE THE HONOR AND PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR HOUSE DISTRICT 100 IN THE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S SUPPORT AND VOTE TO FLY THE JUNETEENTH FLAG FROM JUNE THE 16TH TO JUNE THE 19TH AT THE CITY HALL OF THE GREATEST CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

DALLAS, TEXAS.

JUNETEENTH MARKS THE DAY WHERE WHEN TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION WAS SIGNED, THE EMANCIPATION REACHED AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, ENSLAVED PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

IT STANDS FOR A POWERFUL REMINDER OF THE RESILIENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT OVER OPPRESSION.

BY RAISING THE JUNETEENTH FLAG, WE HONOR THE STRUGGLES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND EQUITY, WHILE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE IS STILL AN ONGOING ONE.

THE ACT OF RAISING THE JUNETEENTH FLAG IS MORE THAN JUST A SYMBOLIC GESTURE.

IT IS A CALL TO ACTION.

IT CALLS ON US TO REFLECT ON OUR HISTORY, ACKNOWLEDGING ITS PAINFUL CHAPTERS, AND WORKING TO COLLECTIVELY CREATE A MORE JUST AND EQUITABLE FUTURE FOR ALL.

RAISING THIS FLAG STRENGTHENS THE BONDS THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER.

AS A COMMUNITY.

WE FOSTER UNDERSTANDING, EMPATHY AND RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER.

WE CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOG, EDUCATION AND GROWTH.

LET US USE THIS MOMENT TO CELEBRATE OUR PROGRESS WHILE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING, AGAIN, THE HARD WORK THAT IS STILL REMAINING AHEAD OF US IN THE FIGHT FOR EQUITY.

BY RAISING THE JUNETEENTH FLAG, WE SEND A POWERFUL MESSAGE OF SOLIDARITY AND UNITY.

WE DEMONSTRATE OUR COMMITMENT TO DISMANTLING SYSTEMIC INEQUALITIES THAT CELEBRATE THAT.

THAT CREATES DIVIDES AND ALSO FOSTERS AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE EVERYONE CAN LIVE WITH DIGNITY AND PRIDE.

SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND YOUR YOUR VOTE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLY THIS VERY IMPORTANT FLAG.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYONE'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER.

THANK YOU. SANDRA CRENSHAW.

AS MR. ATKINS, THE GREATEST DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

YOU READY? I DIDN'T MEAN TO START ANYTHING.

I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM YOU A QUOTE THAT APPEARED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS JUNE 20TH, 1889.

IT'S CALLED THE DAY OF EMANCIPATION.

FOR COLORED PEOPLE.

IN TEXAS GENERALLY CELEBRATE THIS WITH SPEECHES AND PARADES AND PLENTY OF SOMETHING GOOD TO EAT, OF COURSE.

AND IT'S A HAPPY DAY.

WITH A DAY.

THAT IS AND OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED HOLY.

EMANCIPATION DAY WAS INSPIRED BY THE BIBLICAL EXODUS WHEN MOSES TOLD THE HEBREWS THAT THEY WERE FREE FROM BONDAGE BY THE GRACE OF GOD, AND THAT THAT DAY SHALL BE CELEBRATED FOREVER WITH A FOOD FESTIVAL.

THE HEBREWS WERE STRANGERS IN EGYPT, AND OFTENTIMES PEOPLE TREAT STRANGERS AS PEOPLE WITH RACISM AND STEREOTYPING.

IT HAS BECOME CUSTOM ON JUNETEENTH TO INVITE STRANGERS INTO YOUR HOME.

AS THE 19TH OF JUNE COMMITTEE HAS INVITED THE CITY COUNCIL TO WELCOME THE GREAT GRANDDAUGHTER OF THIS OF BOOKER T WASHINGTON INTO THIS CITY.

THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE ADDED TEN COMMANDMENTS TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD TREAT OTHERS AS THOUGH WE WANT TO BE TREATED.

AND TO THAT END, WHEN INVITED, THE INVITEES SHOULD RSVP OR SEND REGRETS.

BEING THAT THIS BLACKS HAVE CELEBRATED JUNETEENTH, MANY PEOPLE WERE BEATEN SEVERELY FOR CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH AS IT WAS CONCEIVED AS THE DATE THAT THE SOUTH WAS DEFEATED.

[00:40:09]

NOT BUT THEY CELEBRATED IF THEY HAD TO GO OUT OF TOWN TO CELEBRATE.

THEY BOUGHT LAND TO CELEBRATE.

THEY PICKETED THE STATE FAIR TO CELEBRATE.

THEY BUILT BUILDINGS TO CELEBRATE.

PARKS TO CELEBRATE.

THOUGHT THAT THE JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION TO CELEBRATE.

AND SO I HOPE IT'S RECOGNIZED THAT WE DON'T DEPEND ON THE GOVERNMENT TO CELEBRATE.

TODAY, THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL VOTE ON THE JUNETEENTH FLAG TO FLY ABOVE THE HALLOWED HALLS OF GOVERNMENT.

TODAY IS A HISTORICAL DAY AND A HISTORY MAKERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT HISTORY WILL BE RECORDED TODAY.

AND I AM A RECORDER OF HISTORY.

THANK YOU, RED BOWERS.

GOOD MORNING. AND THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

IT'S SO GOOD TO BE HERE IN DALLAS WITH YOU AND SEE EVERYONE.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME AND THANK YOU FOR OFFERING ME AND GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE AND SPEAK TO YOU.

I'M STATE REPRESENTATIVE RHETTA ANDREWS BOWERS AND I REPRESENT HOUSE DISTRICT 113 HERE IN DALLAS COUNTY.

AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION TO FLY THE JUNETEENTH FLAG AT CITY HALL PLAZA.

FOR SOME AMERICANS.

I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS TODAY, BUT JUNETEENTH IS A NEW HOLIDAY THAT THEY ONLY BEGAN TO LEARN ABOUT AS IT GAINED NATIONAL ATTENTION.

FOR ME, THAT IS DIFFERENT.

I GREW UP CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH, TRAVELED FROM HOUSTON, TEXAS, MY HOME TO TO EAST TEXAS TO TEXAS AND COMANCHE CROSSING TO CELEBRATE WITH FAMILY AND HAVE BEEN CELEBRATING PROBABLY SINCE I WAS A PRE TEENAGER.

BUT IN TEXAS, WE KNOW THAT, AS YOU'VE HEARD, MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH.

AND YOU'VE HEARD ALREADY THAT IT'S SOMETIMES CALLED EMANCIPATION DAY, FREEDOM DAY OR BLACK INDEPENDENCE DAY.

SINCE THE ACTUAL EMANCIPATION OF TEXAS SLAVES TOOK PLACE BACK IN 1865.

ONE THING THAT I HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY PROUD OF AS AN ELECTED LEADER IS HOW MANY FIRSTS I'VE GOTTEN TO SEE AND TO PARTICIPATE IN SINCE SERVING IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

IN MY OWN DISTRICT IN HOUSE DISTRICT 113.

I HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT BACK IN 21, WHEN WE CAME HOME FROM SESSION ABOUT THIS TIME, I SPOKE TO ROWLETT CITY COUNCIL ABOUT LIGHTING THE WATER TOWER.

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE NEWS.

AND IT GIVES ME GREAT PRIDE TO STAND HERE TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT RAISING AND THE COMPROMISE YOU'VE COME UP WITH ABOUT RAISING THE FLAG.

THE HOLIDAY GIVES US A CHANCE TO REFLECT ON AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE, CONSIDER THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE AND THE STRUGGLES WE'VE OVERCOME. IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REAFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT TO EQUALITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, SOMETHING I TRULY LOVE ABOUT DALLAS. SINCE I AM A NATIVE HOUSTONIAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SAY THAT, BUT I DO LOVE DALLAS IS THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO CELEBRATING AND RECOGNIZING EVERYONE.

DEI IS NOT JUST A BUZZWORD HERE.

OUR COMMUNITY GENUINELY STRIVES FOR DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

AND AS WE SPEAK, THE PRIDE FLAG FLIES OVER CITY HALL, RECOGNIZING THIS MONTH OF JUNE AS PRIDE MONTH.

AND I WAS HAPPY TO COME OUT, COME DOWN TO CITY HALL AND CELEBRATE IN CITY HALL PLAZA ON JUNE 1ST WITH MANY PEOPLE ASSEMBLED HERE. AND NOW YOU AS A COUNCIL.

MAY I FINISH? OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT IT HANDLED.

IT'S OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

REPRESENTATIVE BOWERS. GO AHEAD AND BRING YOUR REMARKS TO A CONCLUSION, PLEASE.

AND NOW THE CITY COUNCIL HAS A FANTASTIC RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU.

[00:45:01]

AND TO FLY THE FLAG FROM JUNE 16TH TO THE 19TH TO RECOGNIZE JUNETEENTH, AFTER WHICH THE PRIDE FLAG WILL BE RETURNED TO FLY FOR THE REMAINDER OF JUNE, I COMMEND YOU FOR CREATING A COMPROMISE THAT ALLOWS MULTIPLE POPULATIONS TO FEEL HONORED AND SEEN EVEN IN THEIR CELEBRATIONS OVERLAP. IT SHOWS A GENUINE COMMITMENT TO INCLUSION AND CREATES A MORE WELCOMING PLACE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS TO CALL HOME.

AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CELEBRATING AND RAISING THE FLAG WITH YOU AS WELL.

THANK YOU FOR EXTENDING MY TIME.

THANK YOU, PATTY.

PATTY FINK, WE DON'T ALLOW OUTBURSTS HERE AT THE CITY HALL.

GUYS, I'M SORRY.

GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL REPRESENTATIVES.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING DOWN TODAY.

GO AHEAD, MADAM SECRETARY.

PATTY FINK IS VIRTUAL.

YES. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UM, MY NAME IS PATTY.

I'M SORRY, MAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR VIDEO IS DISPLAYING.

WE CAN HEAR YOU. HOWEVER, WE.

WE CANNOT SEE YOU. OH, OKAY.

OKAY. CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN CONTINUE SPEAKING.

I THINK YOUR VIDEO WILL DISPLAY.

OKAY. MY NAME IS PATTY FINK AND I LIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE.

I HAVE A HORRIBLE ECHO.

I APOLOGIZE. OKAY, YOUR VIDEO IS PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR VIDEO IS TURNED ON.

IT'S NOT DISPLAYING.

SORRY. OH.

CAN YOU SEE IT? YES, WE CAN SEE YOU IN HERE.

MY NAME IS PATTY FINK AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE WITH MY WIFE OF 22 YEARS, ERIN MOORE.

I'M A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE MAYOR'S LGBT TASK FORCE, BEGINNING WITH ITS FORMATION IN 2009 AND SERVE AS ITS POLICY CHAIR.

AND IT IS IN THAT CAPACITY AS WELL AS PERSONALLY, THAT I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY URGE YOU TO PASS THE JUNETEENTH FLAG RESOLUTION ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY. I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME WE, AS THE CITY OF DALLAS UNFURLED AN ENORMOUS PRIDE FLAG IN THE LOBBY DOWNSTAIRS.

I WELLED UP WITH TEARS OF JOY, OF DELIGHT, AND, YES, OF PRIDE.

THE SIMPLE YET OFFICIAL GESTURE LEFT ME FEELING A REAL AND MEANINGFUL EMBRACE OF INCLUSION AND BELONGING THAT I'D NEVER KNOWN BEFORE IN MY CITY, FROM MY CITY AND BY MY CITY.

AND I FEEL THAT EMBRACE EVERY TIME WE RAISE THAT FLAG NOW ON THAT MAGNIFICENT PLAZA EACH JUNE.

WE ARE ONE COMMUNITY IN DALLAS.

WE ARE TIED TOGETHER AND INVESTED IN EACH OTHER.

AND INDEED, MANY BLACK MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS COMMUNITY ALSO HAPPEN TO BE LGBTQ.

AND OUR COLLECTIVE TAPESTRY OF COMMUNITY IS RICH WITH HISTORY, CULTURE, COLOR AND FAITH, WHERE HARD LINES THAT MIGHT DIVIDE ACTUALLY BLUR AND BLEND TOGETHER.

I'M DELIGHTED THAT WE AS A CITY CELEBRATE PRIDE AND JUNETEENTH IN THE MONTH OF JUNE.

IT'S PAST TIME TO CENTER THIS HISTORIC CELEBRATION THAT BEGAN IN TEXAS IN 1865 AND IS NOW CELEBRATED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

OUR CITY OBSERVES AND HONORS JUNETEENTH NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE DAY AS AN IMPORTANT PAUSE IN CITY GOVERNMENT THAT INSPIRES ALL OF US TO COME TOGETHER IN REVERENCE AND IN FESTIVE CELEBRATION AND IN UNITY AND EQUALITY.

RAISING THE JUNETEENTH FLAG AT DALLAS CITY HALL WOULD BE A SIMPLE YET OFFICIAL GESTURE, WITH THE AWESOME CAPACITY TO BE POWERFUL AND EMPOWERING.

EVERYONE, YOUNG AND OLD SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE THAT AWESOME FLOOD OF JOY AND THAT POWERFUL EMBRACE OF INCLUSION AND BELONGING IN FROM AND BY OUR CITY THIS YEAR AND EVERY YEAR.

PLEASE PASS THIS RESOLUTION TODAY.

PUSH THAT BUTTON. IT'S A BUTTON ON YOUR MICROPHONE.

BENNIE BRUCE WALKER.

YOUR MICROPHONE.

IT'S A I'M SORRY.

MY NAME IS BENNY BRUCE WALKER, AND I'M FROM THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND I COME HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT MY FAMILY THAT'S COMING OUT OF 10TH STREET AND TO PRESENT THE JUNETEENTH OF OF

[00:50:02]

JUNETEENTH. THIS IS THE MONTH OF JUNETEENTH AND ALSO FATHER'S DAY.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE FLAG THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO HANG.

AND I JUST LIKE TO KNOW IF WE CAN GET ANOTHER FLAG TO REPRESENT OUR HISTORY AS THE RED, BLACK AND GREEN FLAG.

SO WE'LL BE WORKING ON THAT PROJECT MAYBE WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO.

SO WHAT THIS FLAG REPRESENT IS TAKING OVER WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN SO MANY YEARS.

SO IF THIS FLAG COULD BE HUNG JUST LIKE.

THE OTHER FLAGS TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW.

IN JUNE WE HAVE FATHER'S DAY.

WE GOT JUNETEENTH AND WE GOT.

THE DAY OF GAY PRIDE FLAG TO HANG IN FRONT OF THE CITY.

SO IF WE CAN IN THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT TO GET A FLAG TO REPRESENT SOMEWHERE MAYBE AT ELOISE LUNDY RECREATION CENTER TO HANG AS WELL, TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT IN DALLAS THAT WE ARE REPRESENTING THE WHOLE WORLD FOR JUNETEENTH.

THE WHOLE WORLD OF JUNETEENTH FOR WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COURT.

I MEAN, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNCIL ROOM HERE TODAY? SO THE CHANGE IS GOING TO COME.

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE, BUT FOR MY MOTHER AND FATHER THAT CAME OUT OF 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN 10TH STREET, HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHERE THE BOTTOM HAS BECOME THE BOTTOM, WHERE 10TH STREET HAS BECOME 10TH STREET.

AND WE DON'T HAVE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANYTHING BEING DONE.

WE GOT TO PARK DECK COMING IN AND THEY HAVE NOT TOUCHED ANY KIND OF WORK IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE LAST YOUNG LADY THAT PASSED AWAY OF THAT I KNOW OF MRS EVERETT.

SHE WAS THE LAST MOTHER ON LEAD STREET.

SHE WAS THE LAST MOTHER IN THAT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW THE KIDS ARE THERE AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A HISTORICAL DISTRICT.

AND WE STARTED OUT FIRST BEFORE THE BOTTOM.

GET THERE UPLIFTED.

SO Y'ALL HAVE TAKEN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR YEARS AND PUSHED IT TO THE SIDE.

AND DO AS YOU PLEASE.

THE WORLD IS WATCHING, BUT WE DO NEED A RED, GREEN AND BLACK GOLD FLAG AS WELL TO HANG LIKE YOU GOT IN THE STREETS.

BLACK LIVES DO MATTER.

AND I HAVE A HORSE HERE.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE IT TO THE MAYOR.

THIS IS THE HORSE THAT WE DO A LITTLE PROJECT AS FAR AS HISTORY IN DALLAS FOR THE PEGASUS.

THIS IS FOR YOU, MAYOR.

AND WE LOST OUR HORSE, SO I HOPE WE CAN FIND IT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THESE ARE YOUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

WONDERFUL. IS THERE A MOTION ITEM? 60 ONE? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

JUST THANKING AND NOT GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT THIS WILL BE, I BELIEVE, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE FLOWN THE FLAG ON THE PLAZA.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THEY ARE INVITED TO A PROGRAM ON FRIDAY WITH THE FLAG RAISING CEREMONY.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOTE THE HISTORY.

EVEN THOUGH WE'LL HAVE A CELEBRATION ON FRIDAY, WE'LL HAVE THE FLAG MASTER WILL BE MISTER GREG ELLIS, AND WE SELECTED GREG ELLIS BECAUSE OF HIS ADVOCACY FOR JUNETEENTH. HE SPENT TIME ALSO WRITING A PLAY TO EDUCATE INDIVIDUALS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF JUNETEENTH.

AND SO WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE MISTER GREG ELLIS.

AND MOST OF YOU KNOW HE'S A FORMER DALLAS COWBOY WHO KIND OF DIRECTED HIS TALENTS OFF THE FIELD TO THE DESKTOP OF WRITING THIS PLAY.

SO WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM HERE.

BUT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND FOLKS WONDER WHY WE CELEBRATE IN TEXAS AND WE DIDN'T CELEBRATE ANYWHERE ELSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOME GOOD HISTORY FOR YOU TO GO BACK ON.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND FIND OUT THAT THE COMMUNICATION WAS LACKING FROM THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT LINCOLN PENNED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AND BY THE TIME WE RECEIVED ALMOST SOME TWO YEARS LATER, IS WHAT THE HISTORY SAYS HERE IN TEXAS, THAT WE WERE FREE AND WE THERE WAS A LAG.

AND OF COURSE, THERE ARE STILL SOME DISCOMBOBULATION ABOUT WHAT THE STATUS WAS.

BUT THAT'S WHAT BEING PUT ON PAPER IN TEXAS, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE CELEBRATING, YOU ALSO HAD WORK, HARD WORK AND LEGISLATION THAT WAS FINALLY APPROVED WITH THE WORK OF AL EDWARDS OUT OF HOUSTON BACK IN 19 AND 80 WHEN IT WAS FINALLY PENNED.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF HIS STATEMENTS, IT WAS A HARD FIGHT BECAUSE WE COULD SUPPORT THE CONFEDERACY CELEBRATION DAYS, BUT WE COULDN'T DO JUNETEENTH.

[00:55:07]

AND SO HE PUSHED AND PUSHED.

AND IF YOU, AS I SAID, GO BACK AND LOOK AT YOUR HISTORY.

IT WAS NOT EASY. BUT FINALLY WITH THE GOVERNOR CLEMENTS, I BELIEVE AT THAT TIME SUPPORTING JUNETEENTH IN TEXAS AS A STATE HOLIDAY.

AND SO NOW WE FAST FORWARD AND WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS MORE ADVOCACY.

WE FINALLY GET PRESIDENT BIDEN, WHO SUPPORTS AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF ADVOCACY OF ESTABLISHING JUNETEENTH AS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY. SO I'VE KIND OF FAST FORWARDED THROUGH THE HISTORY, BUT JUST KNOW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STRUGGLE.

THE STRUGGLE DOES CONTINUE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER FOR FOLKS TO REALLY BE FREE AND REALLY BE FREE IN TERMS OF EVERY ACCESS ASPECT AND WE CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH THAT, EVEN IN IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AS WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY AND INCLUSION BEING FREE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS THAT OTHERS HAVE AND THEY TAKE PRETTY MUCH FOR GRANTED.

SO I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE I PUT MY $0.02 IN THIS MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT DAY.

AND IT'S BEYOND JUST EATING WATERMELON AND BARBECUING.

THERE'S A HISTORY HERE AND I'M SO THANKFUL TO THAT.

GREG ELLIS CONTINUES TO PUSH THAT OUT.

HE WAS WILLING TO PUT HIS MONEY BEHIND HIS STORY AS WELL.

SO WE'LL BE WE WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT.

SO I'M EXTREMELY EXCITED.

BUT LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WANT TO DEFINITELY TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THANK STAFF FOR MOVING EXPEDITIOUSLY TO GET THIS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, TO GET THE PROGRAM IN PLACE.

AND I CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH.

THE STAFF, MISTER BROADNAX, YOUR STAFF GENESIS, I KNOW YOU HAD TO TOWN TO TAKE THE LEAD ON IT, BUT WE THANK YOU FOR DOING WHAT YOU HAD TO DO.

AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE TODAY WHO ARE HEARING THE WORDS AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR WORDS FROM OTHERS ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT DATE, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SEPARATES US.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BRING US TOGETHER SO WE CAN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE CULTURES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HOW WE CAN COME TOGETHER AND FIND OUT WE HAVE MORE THINGS IN COMMON THAN MANY PEOPLE WANT TO ACCEPT BECAUSE WATERMELON IS JUST NOT A BLACK THING.

YOU UNDERSTAND? WE THIS JUST A HEALTHY THING WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT IT FROM A FROM A HEALTHY VEGETARIAN AND ALL THOSE KIND OF ASPECTS.

BUT I HAD TO THROW MY LITTLE COMMENT IN THERE.

MY LITTLE HUMOR IN THERE, TOO.

NO, BUT THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THOSE THE STATE REPS WHO ARE HERE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVOCACY FOR BEING HERE.

AND THANK YOU, MAYOR, I KNOW YOU WERE YOU WERE PART OF THAT AT ONE TIME AND YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH ALSO THE STRUGGLE OF JUST THE EQUITY THERE.

SO. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING.

AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THAT.

BUT LET'S COME ON DOWN AND CELEBRATE.

AND THEN ON JUNE 10TH, WHICH IS WE CALL IT JUNETEENTH, AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO.

AND YOU DO A LITTLE HISTORY ON MONDAY.

SOME OF THOSE WHO DON'T.

MISS MISS CRENSHAW JUST SAID, SOME OF THEM WHO DON'T.

JUNETEENTH ON MONDAY, WHEN WE ALSO WILL TAKE OUR OATH ON MONDAY.

AND AS I'VE TOLD EVERYBODY, WE ALL GET TO BE FREE ON MONDAY, JUNE 10TH.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, YOU GUYS, I WANT TO TELL YOU AHEAD OF TIME, I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME MISTAKES ALL DAY LONG ON THESE CALLING YOU GUYS OUT BECAUSE THESE OUR SYSTEM IS DOWN AND THESE NUMBERS DON'T CORRESPOND TO YOUR DISTRICTS.

AND I THINK IF YOU FROM YOUR DISTRICT POSITION.

SO 60 CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD TO GIVE US THAT HISTORY SOMETIME YOU YOU THINK ABOUT HISTORY, BUT SOMETIMES YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HISTORY ALL ABOUT.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HISTORY, IT'S SOMETHING IN THE PAST AND WHEN YOU TRY TO GRASP HISTORY IS ALSO THINKING ABOUT DEATH.

PEOPLE GOT KILLED.

YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT SLAVES.

YOU THINK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU LIVE IN AMERICA AND YOU THINK YOU'RE FREE, BUT YOU'RE NOT FREE.

YOU THINK THE PEOPLE WHO CAME CAME TO GALVESTON WHEN THEY FOUND OUT WE WAS FREE AND.

AND FOR TWO YEARS WE BEEN FREE.

BUT WE'VE BEEN FREE ALL OUR LIFE BECAUSE WE GODCHILDREN, WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN FREE.

SO I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A SLAVE.

I CONSIDER MYSELF A HUMAN BEING.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE.

WE ARE GOD'S CHILDREN.

BUT THE POINT IS THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2007, WE ALWAYS CAME AROUND THE HORSESHOE AND TRY TO SAY WHY WE CANNOT FLY THE FLAG, WHY WE CANNOT HAVE JUNE 10TH DAY.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

IT TOOK ME 18 YEARS TO GET TO THIS DAY TO PUT A FLAG, 18 YEARS TO GET HERE TODAY.

BUT I GOT TO THANK COUNCILWOMAN SANDRA CRENSHAW FOR HER HARD WORK, FOR HER DUTY TO GET THIS.

BUT I ALSO GOT TO THANK MAYOR JOHNSON, YOU KNOW, STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON DOWN IN IN AUSTIN.

YOU DON'T KNOW THE THING THAT HE DID TO GET A PLAQUE OFF THE WALL.

[01:00:01]

AND AS SUCH, HE DID THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE BY YOURSELF, SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO THINK ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE BUT YOURSELF.

AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE VINCENT HALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE.

I KNOW YOU GOT A VERY, VERY CROWDED SCHEDULE FOR YOU.

FOR YOU TO COME HERE THIS MORNING TO SPEAK FROM YOUR HEART.

BUT BUT I ALSO IS A KEY HERE THAT RUN THIS HORSESHOE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EQUITY.

WHAT IS EQUITY? YOU KNOW, I THINK CHAIRMAN THOMPSON ALWAYS SAID EQUITY IS GETTING A SOAPBOX TO STAND ON, TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE WHEN SOMEONE IS SEVEN FOOT TALL, DO NOT NEED A BOX TO STAND AND LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

THAT'S EQUITY. BUT WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EQUITY IS REALLY ABOUT.

WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY WHEN WE HAVE 14 DISTRICT COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND ONE IS 58MI², ONE IS 20 SQUARE MILE AND WE GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IS THAT EQUITY? NO, BUT THE POINT IS THAT JUNE 10TH IS SOMETHING THAT HOW CAN YOU GRAB JUNE 10TH IF YOU NEVER HAVE LIVED IT? YOU NEVER HAVE.

HAVE YOUR ANSWER TO BEING A SLAVE.

YOU'VE NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE.

YOU NEVER SEEN.

I CAME FROM EAST TEXAS BACK IN THE 60S AND THE 50S.

WE THOUGHT WE WERE STILL SLAVES, YOU KNOW, WORKING THE FIELD.

WE DID HARD WORK.

WE DID. WE BUILD AMERICA.

WE CAME HERE FROM AFRICA, BUT WE BUILD AMERICA.

WE WAS A SLAVE WHO BUILD AMERICA, WHO BUILD ALL WHO BUILD WASHINGTON, DC.

LOOK IT UP. WE BUILD DC FOR DC WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.

THE CAPITOL WOULD NOT BE HERE.

WE WAS A NATION WORKER.

WE WERE A SKILLED LABOR TO BUILD AMERICA.

BUT TO DO THAT, I'VE BEEN FOR THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS WITH OPRAH LEE.

SHE CAME TO THE HIGHLAND HILLS LIBRARY.

YOU KNOW, SHE'S 96 YEARS OLD.

SHE FOUGHT, SHE WALKED, AND SHE MADE SURE THAT WE MADE SURE JUNE 10TH WAS A NATIONAL DAY.

YOU KNOW, I GOT TO THANK HER FOR DOING THAT.

AND AGAIN, I GOT TO THANK SENATOR CRENSHAW, YOU KNOW, FOR HER HARD WORK.

YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER.

BUT SHE ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT JUNE 10TH.

SHE ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT THE YOUNG PEOPLE, WHAT WE CAN DO.

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A CELEBRATION, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT CELEBRATION, A EATING ENTERTAINMENT.

IT'S CELEBRATING A HISTORY TO TEACH, YOU KNOW, OUR HISTORY TO OUR YOUTH TODAY AND I USE TODAY IS LOSING THE HISTORY BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING AROUND THEM.

AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE LEADERSHIP.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE THE ELDERS TO TEACH THEM WHAT WE WENT THROUGH.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A HARD TIME AND NOW OUR FUTURE HAVE AN EASY TIME.

BUT SOMETIME WE GOT TO GO BACK AND TELL THEM THE HISTORY.

HOW DID WE GET HERE? WE DID NOT GET HERE OVERNIGHT.

WE GOT HERE TO HARD WORK, DEATH AND EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A BETTER SOCIETY FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

AND SOMETIMES WE FORGET AND SOMETIMES WE GOT TO TELL ABOUT IT.

AND TO RAISE A FLAG TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I THINK WE DO.

I THINK RAISING THAT FLAG WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

BUT THEN, TOO, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT 100 YEARS TO RAISE A FLAG.

BUT TODAY, WHEN WE DO RAISE A FLAG, BUT WE NEED TO GO OUT THERE AND TELL A STORY, BUT TELL THE TRUE STORY, BUT TELL THE STORY.

HOW DIFFICULT FOR US TODAY TO TELL THE STORY, HOW DIFFICULT FOR US TODAY TO TELL US 100 YEARS TO RAISE A FLAG IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN THOMAS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I WANT TO ALSO THANK REPRESENTATIVE JONES, REPRESENTATIVE BOWERS, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER CRENSHAW, FOR BEING HERE AND FOR SPEAKING UP ABOUT THIS.

AS SOMEONE WHO WAS A STUDENT ON THE CAMPUS OF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS WHO STARTED THE JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION ON THAT CAMPUS, THIS IS A IMPORTANT DAY.

THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL RAISE THIS FLAG AND SHOW HOW WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF CELEBRATING THIS HOLIDAY, THE HISTORY SPEAKS TO ITSELF.

TWO AND A HALF YEARS, TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF FREE LABOR HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE AND NOT ONLY CELEBRATE THIS HOLIDAY, WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND CELEBRATED AS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY INAUGURATION WON'T TAKE PLACE ON MONDAY IS BECAUSE IT IS A CITY AND NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

AND IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF RAISING THIS FLAG.

EVERY YEAR AT THIS TIME, I SAID THIS DURING THE COMMITTEE WE COMMITTEE MEETING.

I WANT TO THANK THOSE WHO ARE PART OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY FOR HOW IMPORTANT WORKING TOGETHER HAS BEEN AND HOW IMPORTANT RECOGNIZING THIS HOLIDAY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF PRIDE MONTH.

[01:05:01]

WE CAN ALWAYS COME TOGETHER AND CELEBRATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO IT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

NOW, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME.

I WANT TO START OFF BY THANKING OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES, VENTON JONES AND RHETTA BOWERS, FOR COMING IN THIS RAINY MORNING TO SPEAK AND SHARE YOUR STORIES WITH US. AND ALSO, I WANTED TO THANK CONGRESSMAN COLLIN ALLRED'S OFFICE FOR SAYING SOME WORDS AS WELL.

NOT VERY OFTEN DO WE GET STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND AND CONGRESSPERSON TO SEND WORDS ON AN AGENDA ITEM.

BUT THAT TELLS YOU HOW IMPORTANT THIS AGENDA ITEM IS.

THIS IS PRIDE MONTH.

I'M AN OPENLY GAY MAN, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HEARD ANOTHER OPENLY GAY PERSON, PATTY FINK, EARLIER, SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THAT PRIDE FLAG MEANS.

MEANT TO HER.

IT MEANT THE SAME TO ME WHEN WE RAISED IT, AS WE FOUND OUT AND REALIZED THAT THERE WAS AN INJUSTICE HAPPENING FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY, THE AFRO-LATINO COMMUNITY, THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED SLAVERY IN THE PAST.

IT WAS A NO BRAINER FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO CHANGE AND AMEND THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT WE CAN SHARE SO THAT WE CAN SHOW OUR BLACK AND AFRO-LATINO SISTERS AND BROTHERS OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY AS WELL AS OUR ALLIES AND OUR STRAIGHT SISTERS AND BROTHERS, THAT WE'RE ONE FAMILY, WE'RE ONE FAMILY.

THAT RAINBOW FLAG OUT THERE IS A LOT OF COLORS.

THE JUNETEENTH FLAG HAS SEVERAL COLORS AS WELL.

I LIKE TO THINK THAT WE'RE ALL A THREAD IN THAT RAINBOW FLAG AS WELL AS IN THE JUNETEENTH FLAG.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR HISTORY IS.

THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS DONE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS IN THE SIX YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.

WE'VE BROUGHT DOWN CONFEDERATE STATUES.

WE'VE MADE SURE THAT JUNETEENTH BECAME A CITY HOLIDAY PAID DAY OFF FOR OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.

WE PASSED A RACIAL EQUITY PLAN.

WE'VE ALSO BECOME A WORLD, A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, WELCOMING CITY.

A LOT OF GREAT THINGS HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS HERE, MR. MAYOR, BUT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

RAISING A FLAG ISN'T THE END ALL BE ALL.

BUT IT IS A SYMBOL OF HOPE.

IT IS A SYMBOL SAYING THAT WE IN DALLAS WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR EQUITY, FIGHT FOR DIVERSITY, FIGHT FOR INCLUSION. BECAUSE MY FRIENDS, YOU SEE, WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT'S THE BEST PART OF DALLAS IS SO MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES AND PEOPLE AND DIFFERENT FOLKS WORKING TOGETHER TO GET ALONG AND TO MAKE DALLAS THE BEST CITY IN THE NATION. I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO STATE REPRESENTATIVE BENTON JONES FOR SAYING THAT DALLAS IS THE BEST CITY IN THE NATION, SO I'M VOTING FOR THIS NOW.

I WAS ALWAYS VOTING FOR IT, BUT BUT IT GIVES ME AN EVEN BIGGER, BIGGER FEATHER TO WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS.

THIS COMING UP WEEKEND IS JUNETEENTH.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S EVENTS ALL OVER THE CITY, BUT EVEN WITHIN THE LGBTQ PLUS COMMUNITY, THE NATION'S LARGEST JUNETEENTH UNITY PRIDE WEEKEND IS HELD IN THE CITY OF DALLAS EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THE LAST I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT IS ONE OF THE MOST FUN EVENTS THAT I'VE EVER BEEN TO.

I'VE BEEN CELEBRATING JUNETEENTH SINCE I WAS A KID, JUST LIKE REPRESENTATIVE BOWERS.

I HAIL FROM HOUSTON, SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS BORN AND RAISED.

SO WHEN I GOT TO DALLAS AS AN ADULT AND FOLKS DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND AND KNOW WHAT JUNETEENTH WAS, IT KIND OF THREW ME OFF.

BUT DALLAS HAS CAUGHT UP.

WE NOW CELEBRATE AS WELL.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS COMING WEEKEND, ELM THICKET, NORTH PARK, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT TWO AND DISTRICT SIX, WILL ONCE AGAIN BE HAVING THEIR PARADE AS WELL AS THEIR CELEBRATION AT KB POKE PARK AND AS WELL IN WEST DALLAS AT THE DAVIS PARK FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW, WE WILL BE HAVING JUNETEENTH CELEBRATIONS.

MR. MAYOR, I STAND WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN SUPPORT OF DOING THIS, AND I WANT TO THANK MAYOR PRO TEM FOR WORKING WITH ME.

IT WASN'T THAT HARD.

SHE JUST HAD TO ASK REAL QUICK AND I WAS LIKE, LET'S GET THIS DONE.

AND THEN I RAN OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE CHAD WEST AND SAID, HEY, THIS, THIS.

I DIDN'T EVEN REALLY ASK.

I SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

AND HE SAID, LET'S GET IT DONE.

I ASKED I WENT TO THE LGBT TASK FORCE AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SAID, IT'S ABOUT TIME.

LET'S GET THIS DONE.

SO COLLEAGUES AND A FEW SECONDS, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.

[01:10:01]

AND MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE AND LET'S GET THIS DONE.

HAPPY JUNETEENTH.

HAPPY PRIDE.

WE'RE ONE DALLAS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DULY NOTED ON THE RECORD VOTE REQUEST.

AND WE WILL NOW GO TO CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, SIR.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR REPRESENTATIVES FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND SHOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.

I BELIEVE THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR MANY REASONS.

A LOT THAT I WILL NOT BE LABOR THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAID.

BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS A POINT WHERE WE CAN EDUCATE, WHERE WE CAN HELP HISTORY NOT BE FORGOTTEN.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT.

AS A FORMER EDUCATOR WITH THE ATTACK THAT WE HAVE ON THE TRUE HISTORY THAT HAS EXISTED, WE SEE AT OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE WANT TO ESSENTIALLY WHITEWASH A LOT OF THE HISTORY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO RACE RELATIONS.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOT ONLY HONOR BUT HIGHLIGHT THE HISTORY OF BLACK DALLAS OF BLACK TEXANS.

WHEN I MOVED TO NEW YORK CITY, IT WAS IT WAS AN EYE OPENING TO ME THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTRY, WHEN IT WAS JUNETEENTH AND I TOLD PEOPLE HAPPY JUNETEENTH THAT THEY SAID, WHAT IS THAT? AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SO REGIONAL.

BUT I BELIEVE IT HAS MUCH SIGNIFICANCE TO WHAT IS ACTUAL FREEDOM.

AND WE HAVE BEEN BLINDED BY SOCIETAL NORM THAT THE 4TH OF JULY IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR GRILLING AND WE TRY AND CELEBRATE FREEDOM.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IS AMERICANS WEREN'T FREE AT THAT POINT.

AND WE HAVE TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT.

AND THE TRUE EMANCIPATION DAY IS JUNE 19TH.

AND THAT'S NOT ONLY FREEDOM FOR BLACK TEXANS AND BLACK AMERICANS, BUT THAT'S FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS, BECAUSE NO ONE WAS FREE UNTIL WE ALL WERE.

SO I THINK THIS IS A HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF JUST NOT ONLY HONORING BUT CONTINUING TO EDUCATE GENERATIONS TO COME. IN OUR CITY.

SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 61 ON TODAY'S AGENDA? SEEING NONE, MADAM SECRETARY RECALLED VOTES BEING REQUESTED.

RECALLED VOTES GRANTED. LET'S GO.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE.

YES. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

MORENO? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. THOMAS.

ATKINS. YES.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ YES.

YES. WITH ALL 15 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING IN FAVOR, THE ITEM PASSES.

MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK TO OUR ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS.

AND THANK YOU AGAIN, ALL THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR BEING HERE.

WE KNOW YOU'RE BUSY, SO GET BACK TO WORK REPRESENTING US.

THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT YOUR WILL NOW GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST PULLED ITEM.

[14. 23-1477 Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a ground lease for a term of thirty-nine years with Cypress Creek Forest Lane, LP (Tax Credit Partnership/Tenant), approved as to form by the City Attorney, allowing the construction and operation of Cypress Creek at Forest Lane Apartments located at 11520 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75243; the lease will be prepared once lenders for the Project are identified and will include commercially reasonable provisions agreed to by the parties and approved as to form by the City Attorney - Estimated Revenue: Lease Revenues Fund $2,153,042.00 (15 years of estimated fees and lease payments)]

ITEM 14 AGENDA ITEM 14.

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A GROUND LEASE FOR A TERM OF 39 YEARS WITH CYPRESS CREEK FOREST LANE LP TAX CREDIT PARTNERSHIP TENANT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF CYPRESS CREEK AT FOREST LANE APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 11520 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.

THE LEASE WILL BE PREPARED ONCE LENDERS FOR THE PROJECT ARE IDENTIFIED AND WILL INCLUDE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE PROVISIONS AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, MCGOUGH AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IT ALSO HAS FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, PHILIP KINGSTON.

MR. KINGSTON, IS VIRTUAL.

HEY, MADAM SECRETARY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU.

WE'VE GOT MASSIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE CHAMBER.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CHECK ON THAT NOW.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO. GO AHEAD.

IT'S NOT BOTHERING ME THAT MUCH.

AS LONG AS YOU ALL CAN UNDERSTAND ME, I JUST CAN'T REALLY HEAR MYSELF.

[01:15:02]

OKAY. HOPEFULLY THAT'S BETTER.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY.

GREETINGS, COUNCIL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS IS JUST A COMPANION ITEM TO WHAT YOU APPROVED A SHORT TIME AGO.

THAT IT AUTHORIZED MR. BROADNAX TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU WILL RECALL, THIS THIS PROJECT IS AIMING TO BUILD OVER 100 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA OF NORTH DALLAS.

THE THE LEASE TERMS ARE INCREDIBLY FAVORABLE TO THE CITY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ECONOMIC INFORMATION IN THE SUMMARY AND IN THE ITEM ITSELF.

I'M ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSED.

MISS TANKERSLEY NEGOTIATED THIS QUITE WELL FOR THE CITY.

IT'S IT'S NOT THE DEAL THAT WE WOULD HAVE WANTED, BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE CAN MAKE WORK.

AND THE CITY WILL BENEFIT BOTH FINANCIALLY BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF A MUCH HIGHER NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAN MOST OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE APPROVING THESE DAYS.

IT'S ALSO A UNIQUE STRUCTURE BASED SOMEWHAT ON THE COUNTY'S BECKLEY PROJECT, WHERE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE REAL ESTATE IS WITH THE PUBLIC ENTITY.

I THINK THAT THAT'S A REALLY GOOD AND EXCITING WAY TO DO MIXED INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS.

I THINK YOU'LL PROBABLY WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT THAT WHILE THERE HAS BEEN SOME OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE CLOSEST TO IT, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN URBAN RESERVE, WHICH IS STILL A GOOD LONG WAY FROM THE PROJECT, HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY SILENT ON THIS THING.

THERE IS NOT THE LEVEL OF NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION AS HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED IN THIS CASE.

ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY LIABILITY FOR THE CITY IF THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD.

I HAVE SENT YOU ALL THE BRIEFING ON THIS.

I'M HAPPY TO RESEND IT WHENEVER YOU WANT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

THE SHORT VERSION OF THAT ANSWER IS THE ONLY WAY THAT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER CAN SAY HE OR SHE IS DAMAGED BY THIS PROJECT IS TO FIND SOMEBODY, AN EXPERT IN REAL ESTATE, TO SAY THAT HAVING A $60 MILLION APARTMENT PROJECT NEXT TO YOUR OFFICE SOMEHOW DEVALUES THE OFFICE.

THAT PERSON DOESN'T EXIST.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY FORM OF LIABILITY TO THE CITY, AND IT IS GOING TO PROVIDE A HUGE NUMBER OF UNITS IN LINE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING POLICY.

SO ANYWAY, I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

THIS IS JUST KIND OF EXECUTING ON WHAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR, AND WE DO.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS WILLIAM ROTH.

THANK YOU, WILLIAM ROTH.

WILLIAM ROTH.

I RESIDE AT 6921 MEADOW ROAD IN DALLAS AND HAVE A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING NEXT TO THE PROPOSED CYPRESS CREEK PROJECT LOCATION.

I'M A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

WOULD YOU ALL ALLOW AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO BE PLACED IN A PURELY RESIDENTIAL AREA? PROBABLY NOT.

THEN WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE PLACED IN A PURELY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AREA? THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAS NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THIS PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USERS OFFICE BUILDINGS.

STORAGE WAREHOUSES, BIG BOX RETAIL CAR LOTS, TIRE STORES, CAR WASHES, FAST FOOD, COMMERCIAL TRUCK TRAFFIC AND A BUSY FREEWAY SERVICE ROAD.

GIVEN ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD STRONGLY PREDICT THAT NONE OF NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE YOUR FAMILY LIVE IN THIS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LOCATION, OR ENCOURAGE A FAMILY MEMBER TO LIVE IN THIS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LOCATION.

WHY WOULD YOU ISOLATE THESE 180 FAMILIES IN A COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LOCATION AND DENY THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE SAFETY, SECURITY AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE? THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THEM LIVING IN AN APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL AREA NEARBY.

[01:20:01]

OTHER FAMILIES AND SUPPORTIVE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS.

IF YOUR MISSION IS TO TRULY HELP THOSE FOLKS RESIDING AND NEEDING SAFE, SUPPORTIVE AND SECURE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU HAVE SADLY MISSED YOUR TARGET WITH THIS PROJECT.

THE USES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WILL NOT CHANGE OVER THE LONG TERM.

IT WILL REMAIN A COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AREA FOR THE LIFETIME OF THIS PROJECT.

PLEASE DON'T FALL INTO THE TRAP OF APPROVING A BAD LOCATION, A BAD BUSINESS DEAL FOR THE CITY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY.

COMMITTING TO THE LONG TERM REAL DETRIMENT TO THOSE FAMILIES THAT WILL BE FORCED TO LIVE IN THIS UNDESIRABLE, ISOLATED PROJECT. WE WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE TO OPPOSE THIS CYPRESS CREEK PROJECT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

HELLO, MY NAME IS GARRETT SHERMAN.

GARRETT SHERMAN.

I'M VISUALLY IMPAIRED AND I'M HAVING MY LOVELY WIFE, SUSAN SHERMAN.

SHE'S GOING TO SPEAK MY LITTLE SPEECH.

AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT.

HELLO. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AT 11,520 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A LOW INCOME APARTMENT PROJECT PROJECT ON LAND THAT HAS DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES ONLY.

THIS DALLAS CITY COUNCIL MUST NOT VIOLATE OUR CIVIL RIGHTS WITH THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF POWER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT WE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DO NOT SUPPORT.

THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL FACE YEARS OF PROTRACTED LITIGATION WHEREBY THE COURTS WILL NEVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, EACH MEMBER OF THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION AND MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS HOUSING DEPARTMENT WILL BE HELD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR SUBSTANTIAL MONETARY DAMAGES.

NO INDEMNITY FROM THE DEVELOPER WILL PREDICT PROTECT YOU.

A LIS PENDENS WILL BE FILED AGAINST THE PROPERTY, AND THIS WILL RESULT IN A CLOUD ON THE TITLE.

NO LOAN WILL BE ATTAINABLE.

THE STATE OF TEXAS WILL REVOKE OR SUSPEND THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE SOON.

THE DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY IS DERELICT IN HIS DUTY TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND PROVIDE SOUND ADVICE TO THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WILL NOT PROTECT EACH OF YOU FROM MONEY, JUDGMENTS AND THE LOSS OF YOUR TIME BEING DEPOSED AND TESTIFYING AT TRIAL. YOU CANNOT VIOLATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

WE WILL STOP YOU AND WE WILL PAY.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS.

GARRETT SHERMAN WAS BORN IN DALLAS AND GRADUATED FROM SMU WITH A BBA IN REAL ESTATE.

HE IS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER WITH DECADES OF TRANSACTION EXPERIENCE IN APARTMENTS, OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL AND RETAIL PROPERTY SALES.

HE HAS BROKERED THOUSANDS OF APARTMENTS AND MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE CITY OF DALLAS MUST NOT PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT VALID DEED RESTRICTIONS.

DO NOT PROCEED.

WE CAN SEE. MR. LA VISITE. HELLO? OKAY, WE CAN HEAR YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

THANK YOU. WALTER VISIT.

OUR VISIT IS VIRTUAL.

THANK YOU. UM, I GUESS I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE LEASE.

I GUESS IN THE RESOLUTION, PARTICULARLY SECTION SIX AND SEVEN, ABOUT THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS.

UM, SECTION SIX TALKS ABOUT IMPROVING THE SIDEWALKS AND THE LIGHTING IN THE AREA.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP THE SIDEWALKS AND LIGHTING AROUND THE APARTMENT.

UM, AND I GUESS SECTION SEVEN TALKS ABOUT PARKS AT ORBITER PARK AND AT WILLOUGHBY JOHNSON.

[01:25:07]

UM, HIS NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE BOND TASK FORCE FOR THOSE PARKS.

AND THAT MONEY FROM THE DEVELOPER REALLY ISN'T NEEDED THERE.

WHAT THE WHAT THE REAL NEED FOR THE MONEY IN THE AREA IS FOR OFF DUTY OVERNIGHT POLICING.

THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED AT HOUSING COMMITTEE LAST MONTH.

I'M NOT SURE IF ANY CHANGES HAS BEEN MADE, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE THE LEASE TO BE AMENDED SO THAT THE MONEY CAN BE USED FOR THE OFF DUTY POLICE.

THE THING I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE TAXES ON LOCAL PROPERTY, TAXES ON THE PROPERTY.

I'D LIKE TO JUST BE CLEAR OR TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE EXEMPTION EXISTS FOR THE LAND OR ALSO FOR THE LAND IN THE BUILDING.

TO ME, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COMING IN THAT $1.1 MILLION IS GREAT IF IT'S JUST FOR THE LAND, BUT IF IT'S FOR THE $50 MILLION APARTMENT THAT SEEMS SMALL.

LASTLY, I JUST LIKE TO MENTION THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO DO THIS DEAL.

I THINK THAT'S JUST BAD POLICY FOR THE CITY TO USE ITS EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE STATUTES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 272 .001 PROHIBIT THAT, AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT AUTHORITY THERE IS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DO THIS LEASE.

JAYNIE IF I LEAVE WHEN THE TRAFFIC STOP.

I'M SORRY. OKAY.

JAYNIE LIU.

LIU.

YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE AT YOUR MICROPHONE.

HELLO. GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR. GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE TODAY AND.

I SORRY THAT I MISSED THE LAST MEETING FOR THIS ITEM, BUT I DO REVIEW THE THE RECORDING YESTERDAY ONLINE AND REPEATEDLY.

I FIRST OF ALL, MY NAME IS JAYNIE LIU AND I'M THE OWNER OF THE ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ALONG THIS AREA, MY BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF A FOREST LANE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOSTER LANE, FOREST LANE AND 75.

AND SO WHEN I AFTER I REVIEWED THE LAST RECORDING, I REALIZED THAT PEOPLE REPEATEDLY MENTIONED THE DISTRICT TEN.

AND I IN FACT THE PERSONAL I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A HAS MUCH TO DO WITH ALTHOUGH LOCATED IN DISTRICT TEN.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A THIS IS A WHOLE ISSUE WAS NOT QUITE RELATED TO DISTRICT TEN.

I'M NOT SURE THE MEMBER HERE BASICALLY COUNCIL MEMBER WILL BE VOTE LATER TODAY AND NO EXACT LOCATION.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXACT LOCATION.

THIS PROJECT WILL BE HELD.

IT IS AT THE VERY CORNER, VERY CORNER OF FOURTH LANE AND 75 SOUTH SOUTHEAST CORNER.

THAT'S A VERY HIGHLIGHT, VERY TIP TIP, VERY HIGHLIGHT.

BUSINESS QUARTER OVER THERE, VERY BUSINESS ORIENTATED CORNER IN DALLAS AREA.

IT'S THE MOST BUSIEST INTERSECTION OVER THERE.

I BET ON THE BUSIEST DAY THAT TRAFFIC TIMES COULD REACH MILLIONS OVER THERE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT'S A I KNOW THAT'S A WONDERFUL BUSINESS.

THE INTERSECTION IN DALLAS, PROBABLY ONE OF THE BUSIEST INTERSECTION IN TEXAS, YOU KNOW, TEXAS.

OUR GREATEST CITY OF TEXAS.

MRS THAT INCLUDING THE DALLAS DALLAS METRO, HAS BEEN GROWING GROWING OVER THE LAST 2030 YEARS.

[01:30:03]

WHY ARE WE GROWING? BECAUSE PEOPLE COME HERE FOR BUSINESS.

BUSINESS IS GROWING WHEN BUSINESS IS GROWING, AND THEN WE BRING MORE JOBS SO PEOPLE HAVE MORE JOBS, PEOPLE HAVE MORE HAVE MONEY FOR TO TO MEET THEIR, YOU KNOW, ENDS.

SO WHAT WOULD HAVE MONEY TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I BELIEVE THAT'S A DIRECTION WE FIRST HAVE TO BEAT THIS.

THEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE JOBS.

THEN WE WOULD HAVE MONEY.

THEN WE WOULD WE WOULD HAVE MONEY.

YOUR SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT ANOTHER WAY AROUND YOUR TIME.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

OH, BUT I JUST ASK YOU TO THINK TWICE WHEN YOU SAY I THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ALSO, THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MCGOUGH AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? YES. WHAT IS THIS? ITEM 14? YES.

ITEM 14. CHAIRMAN DENY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED BY MISTER MAGOO.

SO WE ARE NOW IN THE DEBATE PORTION ON ITEM 14 ON THE MOTION TO DENY.

I JUST WANT MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS PROCEDURALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

SO WITH THAT CHAIR MCGOUGH, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES OR SO.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IN THE PAST.

THE SAME ISSUES REMAIN IN THE HOUSING COMMITTEE.

WE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICS, THE EXPECTATION BEFORE COMING BACK, BEFORE THIS BODY WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A DRAFT LEASE.

AND I HAVE NOT SEEN IT STILL TO THIS POINT.

THE RESOLUTION SAYS THERE WILL BE ONE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT TO LOOK AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE DOCUMENT.

AND CERTAINLY MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE SAID IN PREVIOUS ISSUES THAT THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK AT BEFORE WE APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND SO I THINK IN JUST BEING CONSISTENT, WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DRAFT TO KNOW WHAT THE REAL TERMS ARE AND THE COMMUNITY DESERVES THAT AS WELL.

IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY OPPOSITION AND THE REFERENCE THAT WAS MADE EARLIER IS JUST ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

THIS HAS BASICALLY UNANIMOUS COMMUNITY OPPOSITION FROM THOSE CLOSE, NEAR AND FAR AWAY IN THIS AREA FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

WE'VE HEARD DIFFERENT REASONS.

SOME OF IT JUST SIMPLY RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE EXPECTATION THAT KIDS LIVING HERE WILL BE WALKING TO SCHOOL. AND WE KNOW THERE'S NOT A SAFE PATH FOR THOSE KIDS TO GET TO SCHOOL.

THERE'S A STATEMENTS MADE THAT THIS IS CLOSE TO TRANSPORTATION, BUT THE CLOSEST TRANSPORTATION OPTION HERE IS NOT A SAFE TRANSPORTATION OPTION.

AT THE AT THAT DART STATION, WE TALK ABOUT BEING PROXIMITY TO GROCERY STORES AND THE ALMOST TWO MILE WALK WITH POOR SIDEWALKS AND POOR AVENUES TO GET THERE DOES NOT MAKE THE LOCATION APPROPRIATE FOR PROXIMITY TO GROCERY STORES.

SO WE HAVE THOSE ISSUES.

THEY REMAIN.

NOTHING PRESENTED SO FAR HAS MADE THEM ANY BETTER.

LOOK, WE'VE TALKED AD NAUSEUM ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

WE KNOW THERE WILL BE LITIGATION.

WE I DO BELIEVE THE LITIGATION WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.

THERE'S BEEN EVEN A RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE TALKING ABOUT CONDEMNATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK, IF I BELIEVE WE HAVE WELL, I KNOW WE HAVE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RIGHTS.

WE KNOW THAT'S TIED TO THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

THERE WILL BE A DETERMINATION THAT IT'S INVERSE CONDEMNATION.

AND BY USING CONDEMNATION, WE NO LONGER HAVE THE THE LEGAL RIGHT FOR PUBLIC USE TO DO WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO DO IN THIS CASE.

AND THERE WILL BE ISSUES.

THE THE RECORD IS CLEAR.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS RECENTLY, I'M OBVIOUSLY THIS IS MY LAST COUNCIL MEETING, BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT I'LL BE CALLED TO GO TO DEPOSITIONS ON THIS CASE AND THERE WILL BE ISSUES COMING UP WITH THAT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THERE HASN'T BEEN GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ON WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO MAKE THIS PROJECT SAFER AND BETTER. I THINK WE'RE STARTING I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOW STARTING TO GET THERE.

BUT A LOT OF THE REASONS WE GOT TO THIS POINT WERE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO BEGIN WITH, THIS SORT OF BLANKET MENTALITY THAT THIS IS NIMBY OR EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE NOT IN MY BACKYARD ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS FALSE.

IT WAS FALSE AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN FALSE.

I BELIEVE WE DEMONSTRATED THAT THROUGH A NUMBER OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT THIS SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES ARE.

SUPPORTING, INCLUDING WHAT THIS COUNCIL DID JUST RECENTLY WITH VANTAGE POINT AND CATHOLIC CHARITIES, AND THEY'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF OTHER PROJECTS IN THE PAST.

THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

[01:35:01]

THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

I AM I AM CONCERNED.

I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO REPRESENT THIS COMMUNITY IN OUR IN OUR AREA, IN THE CITY FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.

AND WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF CONTENTIOUS ISSUES AND THOSE THAT THAT WARRANT IT AND HAVE GOOD COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

OUR COMMUNITY RESPONDS WELL.

IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED HERE.

AND IT'S IT'S DISAPPOINTING.

I HATE GOING BACK TO MY COMMUNITY AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOUR VOICE DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT THE INFINITE WISDOM OF MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACROSS THIS BODY THAT HAVE NOT SPENT TIME ENGAGED IN THIS COMMUNITY, HAVE NOT TALKED TO THE PEOPLE, HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE ISSUES, HAVE NOT WALKED THE PATHS OF ARE GOING TO SAY THAT, YEAH, WE NEED TO SUPPORT THIS FOR ESSER.

I'M STILL UNSURE WHAT REASONS OTHER THAN SORT OF A BLANKET NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I HOPE THAT THIS COUNCIL WILL SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. I HOPE THAT WE WILL WISER MINDS WILL PREVAIL AND WE'LL, IF NOTHING ELSE, AT LEAST DELAY THIS TO GET THE ACTUAL TERMS OF THE LEASE AND LOOK AT WHETHER THIS IS A APPROPRIATE DEAL FOR THE CITY OR NOT.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS PROJECT SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO ANYWAY.

BUT AT THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS I HOPE I'M WRONG.

I HOPE THERE'S SOMETHING HERE THAT THAT MAYBE THERE'S A PROJECT WORTHY OF DOING, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE IT.

AND I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T SEEN IT UP TO THIS POINT.

I WOULD ASK THAT Y'ALL DENY THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WHEN WE FIRST CONSIDERED THIS ITEM LAST TERM AGAINST CHAIRMAN MCGOUGH, PLEASE.

I VOTED TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD, AND I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK IT'S THE MOST TERRIBLE PLACE TO PUT THIS KIND OF PROJECT.

AND SURELY WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT'S NOT A PFC, SO I COULD SUPPORT IT.

BUT THEN WE LEARNED THAT THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHEN I'M OUT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT NOT JUST FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT ALSO FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THEM.

THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROPERTY MADE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS BASED ON A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS DEAL STRIPS THEM AWAY.

HOW DO WE EXPECT THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS TO INVEST IN OURSELVES IF WE CAN'T PROVIDE A REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT THEIR PROPERTY WILL RETAIN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CITY WON'T TRY TO COME UP WITH A CLEVER WAY TO REMOVE THOSE EXISTING AGREEMENTS? FOR THAT REASON, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION GOING.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROJECT GOING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. MR. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND I FEEL BAD MY COLLEAGUE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS EVERY MONTH.

I FEEL LIKE THIS ITEM KEEPS COMING BACK.

IT'S LIKE FRANKENSTEIN OR DRACULA OR SOMETHING.

WELL, I WANT TO BRING STAFF UP FOR A MINUTE.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE WHY WE ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED IT.

IF WE CAN GET SOMEONE FROM HOUSING UP HERE.

COULD I. DAVID, COULD YOU PLEASE COME UP? THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

THIS IS DAVID NAGOYA, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING.

HI, DAVID. HELLO.

GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU.

THIS PROJECT WAS THE HIGHEST SCORING OF ALL OF OUR 9% TAX CREDIT PROJECTS IN THE CITY THIS TERM, CORRECT? CORRECT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT SCORED SO HIGH? OF ALL THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

DAVID NOGUERA, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION.

SO THIS PROJECT SCORED HIGH FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION, IT'S IN WHAT WE WOULD CALL A HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA, AN AREA THAT HAS LESS THAN 20% POVERTY RATE, AN AREA THAT'S IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RETAIL SERVICES TO HIGHER PERFORMING SCHOOLS. THE PROJECT ALSO PERFORMED HIGH BECAUSE OF ITS DIVERSITY OF INCOME GROUPS THAT IT'S SERVING.

THIS IS ONE OF A VERY FEW PROJECTS THAT'S EVEN ELIGIBLE TO USE WALKER VOUCHERS, WHICH ARE VOUCHERS THAT SERVE AFRICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS.

AND IT'S TIED TO A LONG HISTORY THAT THE CITY HAS WITH NOT SERVING SERVING THEM.

SO WHEN YOU COMPILE ALL OF THOSE THOSE FACTORS TOGETHER, IN SPITE OF THE OPPOSITION THAT THE PROJECT HAS HAD, EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL, IT STILL RECEIVED TAX CREDITS.

OKAY. AND THEN ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO PLACE HOUSING PROJECT LIKE THIS NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL PROJECT

[01:40:09]

AND COMPARED THAT TO PLACING HOUSING NEAR INDUSTRIAL.

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR MIND IN IN LIKE, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO PUT HOUSING NEAR COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THERE'S OFFICE JOBS? RIGHT. SO ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN LOCATING HOUSING IN THIS CITY IS MAKING SURE THAT THAT HOUSING DOES NOT SIT ON AN ISLAND, THAT THAT HOUSING IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO JOB CENTERS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EMPLOYERS THAT ARE AROUND THIS SITE, THOSE ARE SOME IDEAL SITES THAT RESIDENTS OF THIS PROJECT COULD BE DRAWN TO WORK.

AND HOW CLOSE IS IT TO A DART STATION? I WANT TO SAY IT'S WITHIN A IS IT A QUARTER MILE? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

IS THAT ALL? IS THAT ALL YOU HAD, MR. WEST? FOR STAFF? YES.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY? THAT ALL HAPPENED SO FAST.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DENY ON ITEM 14.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO SAY I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THE DENIAL, AND I HOPE THAT WE ARE AS ADAMANT AND CONSISTENT ABOUT WANTING TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LATER AGENDA ITEMS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YES, I'M READY FOR THE VOTE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ON THE RECORD.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS ITEM, BUT I APPRECIATE THE POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN TERMS OF LACK OF SIDEWALKS AND LACK OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING, YOU KNOW, CAN'T GET TO THE GROCERY STORE AND ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE SAME CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE IN MANY OF OUR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.

AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE, AS MR. ROGERS WAS SAYING, IT'S JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR EQUITY.

YOU HEARD ME SAY A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES.

BUT AS FREDERICK DOUGLASS SAYS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PROGRESS WITHOUT A STRUGGLE.

SO WE'RE STILL STRUGGLING.

BOTTOM LINE IS, TODAY I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS PROJECT TO INVEST, TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF FREEDOM AND EQUITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO BE IN SOME OF THESE HIGHER OPPORTUNITY AREAS.

AND I'M ONE OF THOSE.

I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE WELL AS A SLAVE.

I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING.

IT'S A DAY TO DAY STRUGGLE.

AND SO AS I PUSH TODAY FOR ACCESS TO WHERE SOME FOLKS DON'T WANT PROGRESS.

WEE, WEE WEE SIT AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT EQUITY.

SO WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN YOUR IN YOUR DICTIONARY OR WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN YOUR HEART? WHAT I'M SAYING TODAY IS COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAVE FOUGHT SO HARD AND I APPRECIATE AND YOU'VE GOT TO DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK VERY CANDIDLY TODAY WHEN WE HAD ANOTHER CONVERSATION IN THIS COMMUNITY, I HAD ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEN.

AND THE MAN GOT UP TO THE MIC AND SAID, YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT TO CEDAR CREST.

HERE I GO. IS HE TALKING TO ME? THAT WAS THE KIND OF COMMENT I GOT BEHIND THE PROJECT.

AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WHO ARE NOT COMFORTABLE.

THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

BUT I JUST KNOW THAT WHEN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT GETTING SUED, THIS IS A VERY LITIGIOUS, AS THEY SAY.

I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD SOCIETY THAT WE LIVE IN.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO SUE FOR.

AND SO IF FOLKS WANT TO SUE US, BRING IT ON.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THAT.

WE HAVE WILL HAVE OUR DAY IN COURT IF WE GET THERE.

BUT I'M ONE OF THOSE I'M NOT AFRAID TO FIGHT.

AND SO IF WE WANT TO GO ON TO GO TO COURT, DRESS UP AND LET'S GO.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M READY FOR THE VOTE AND I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF US INVESTING IN PRINCIPLES AND ADVOCACY THAT WE HAVE VOTED AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, WHICH AND I KNOW THIS IS YOUR LAST MEETING AS WELL.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS, ABOUT THAT WORD.

VERY POWERFUL WORD.

EQUITY. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THE MOTION TO DENY.

WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE ADOPTION BEFORE US AT THIS POINT.

SO ARE WE GONNA DO A RECORD VOTE? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE YET.

OK. WE HAVE A FEW MORE SPEAKERS.

OKAY, POP IT UP. BUT WE WILL IF YOU WANT ONE.

[01:45:01]

DID YOU. ARE YOU REQUESTING ONE? WE NEED ONE SO WE DON'T GET CONFUSED.

AND THE VOICE VOTE.

OKAY. WE'LL HAVE A RECORD VOTE THEN.

BEFORE I GO BACK TO MR. WEST, I NEED TO GO. ACTUALLY, YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE NOW.

SO, MR. MAYOR, THAT WAS MY REQUEST FOR A RECORD VOTE ON THE DENIAL.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST CHAIRMAN MCHUGH'S MOTION TO DENY ON ITEM 14? SEEING NONE, THE RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED.

RECORD VOTES GRANTED. LET'S. LET'S GO.

THIS IS ON THE MOTION TO DENY.

EVERYONE, REMEMBER THAT.

THANK YOU. YES.

IS TO DENY. THANK YOU.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE.

YES, IF YOU WANT TO DENY OR NO.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DENY, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE DOESN'T GET TURNED AROUND ON THIS ONE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. EXCUSE ME, MAYOR.

WOULD YOU RESTATE THAT AGAIN? WE DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT IT.

I THINK SOME OF THE FOLKS WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT RIGHT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS.

A MOTION TO DENY THE ITEM.

SO IF YOU ARE VOTING YES, YOU ARE VOTING TO DENY THE ITEM.

SO A NO VOTE WOULD BE TO NOT DENY IT AND THEN THE FLOOR WOULD BE OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IN FRONT OF US.

I JUST WANT TO BE SURE, EVERYBODY.

THEN VOTE BY ACCIDENT THE WAY THEY DON'T INTEND.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

I VOTE NO ON THE MOTION TO DENY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

THOMAS. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ATKINS. NO.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ NO.

NO. WITH 13 VOTING YES, I'M SORRY, WITH THREE VOTING YES AND 12 VOTING NO, THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

NO. MAYOR JOHNSON.

I STILL SEE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE HERE.

SO. MR. WEST. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. WEST? ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE.

SEEING. NONE. RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED.

MADAM SECRETARY.

THANK YOU. LET'S PROCEED.

THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND I CALL YOUR NAME. PLEASE STATE.

YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS.

BAZALDUA. YES.

BLACKMON. YES.

THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ YES.

I'M SORRY. I'M HAVING AN OFF DAY WITH 12 VOTING YES, THREE VOTING NO.

YES. WITH 13 VOTING YES.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, GREAT.

LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 25.

[25. 23-1435 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by Brinshore Development, LLC for City Solicitation BVZ22-00020234 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the Hampton Station), most advantageous proposer of three; and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with Brinshore Development, LLC or an affiliate - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

[26. 23-1434 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by The John Trube Corporation for City Solicitation BVZ22-00020444 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the 8th & Corinth Station), most advantageous proposer of 1, and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with The John Trube Corporation or an affiliate - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

[27. 23-1439 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by Servitas, LLC for City Solicitation BVZ22- 00020446 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the Royal Lane Station), most advantageous proposer of 1, and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with Servitas, LLC, or an affiliate - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

[28. 23-1436 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by the John Trube Corporation for City Solicitation BVZ22-00020447 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the Westmoreland Station), most advantageous proposer of 2, and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with John Trube Corporation, or an affiliate - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

[29. 23-1437 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by JPI Multifamily Development, LLC for City Solicitation BVZ22-00020448 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the Lake June Station), most advantageous proposer of three; and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with JPI Multifamily Development, LLC, or an affiliate - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

[30. 23-1438 Authorize (1) selection of the recommended most advantageous proposal submitted by Palladium USA International, Inc for City Solicitation BVZ22-00020443 (Request for Proposals for Transit-Oriented Development of Property Owned by Dallas Area Rapid Transit at the Buckner Station), most advantageous proposer of 2, and (2) the City Manager or designee to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with Palladium USA International, Inc. or an affiliate -- Financing: No cost consideration to the City (Part 1 of 2)]

JUNE. ITEM 25, AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY BRYN SHORE DEVELOPMENT LLC.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT.

FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY, WHAT PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

CAN WE LET HER? IS IT TIMELY TO DO IT RIGHT NOW? OKAY, GO AHEAD. IT IS.

I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR IF YOU COULD MOVE ITEMS 25 THROUGH 32 AFTER THE VOTE FOR ITEM NUMBER 60.

25 THROUGH 30.

THE ONES YOU'VE PULLED 25 THROUGH 32.

TAKE THEM AFTER WHAT NOW? NUMBER 60.

OKAY. I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.

THEY HAVE A DART INTERSECTION, AND SO I WAS HOPING WE COULD RESOLVE 60 BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO LET THE CITY SECRETARY FINISH WHAT SHE WAS SAYING FIRST.

THANK YOU. OKAY. DO ME TO CONTINUE READING ITEM 25.

THANK YOU. ITEM 25 AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS, ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY BRANT ESSER DEVELOPMENT, LLC.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE HAMPTON STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL THREE AND TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH BRANT SHAW DEVELOPMENT LLC OR AN AFFILIATE SITE AND WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

[01:50:07]

IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM 25? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YOU PULLED THE CHAIR.

MENDELSOHN SO TRADITIONAL.

GO TO THE PERSON WHO PULLED IT FOR DISCUSSION IF THEY HAVE ANY.

FIRST, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? IS IT IS A MOTION IN ORDER TO DEFER THIS ITEM? NOT AT THIS POINT. YOU'D HAVE TO.

IT'S BEEN MOVED FOR APPROVAL AT THIS POINT, SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO FAIL FIRST.

ALL RIGHT. IT IS.

OKAY. WELL, YOU COULD ACTUALLY.

I STAND CORRECTED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO LATER IN THE MEETING AFTER ITEM NUMBER 60.

AT TIME CERTAIN A DATE, CERTAIN AFTER ITEM NUMBER 60 IS A TIME CERTAIN, I BELIEVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION.

THANK YOU. BECAUSE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME WHY, AND THERE IS AN INTERSECTION HERE.

ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH DART.

AND I THINK THAT THERE'S BROAD SUPPORT FOR THESE ITEMS AND I WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT BROAD SUPPORT.

I'LL JUST SAY, HOWEVER, WHEN WE GET TO TALKING ABOUT ITEM 60, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MANY HAVE SAID WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LEVERAGE ON.

AND I THINK BY HOLDING THESE ITEMS, IT MIGHT HELP US REFRAME THAT.

SO I THINK THERE'S NO HARM WAITING TILL LATER IN THE MEETING.

AND I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO JUST WAIT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER TILL LATER IN THE MEETING, SPECIFICALLY AFTER ITEM 60.

MISTER WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANKS. THIS IS MORE OF A POINT OF INFORMATION AND THE REASONING IS SOUND.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

DO I NEED TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION OR DID THAT ONE? THAT ONE. OKAY. SO I THINK WHAT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN IS TELLING ME, AND I APPRECIATE IT, IS THAT THAT MOTION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE MOTION THAT WAS ON THE FLOOR BEFORE.

AND IF IT'S GRANTED, THEN IT WOULD IT WOULD OBVIATE YOUR MOTION.

SURE. BUT I'LL LET YOU LET YOU PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE MY EXPLANATION.

LET LET IT BE YOURS.

EXPLAIN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOUR MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE WOULD STAY ON THE.

ON THE TABLE. ON THE FLOOR, THE MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL AFTER 60 JUST MOVES IT TO A LATER TIME.

SO THE MOTION THAT YOU HAVE ON THE FLOOR STAYS ON THE FLOOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

FOR THIS, I'LL SPEAK FOR FOR ITEM 25.

I'M FINE WITH WITH THAT.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHERS, BUT I GENERALLY SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR ALL OF THEM BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE ALL RELATED AND IT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER? CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YES. THANK YOU.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF WEIGH IN ON THE INTERSECTION OF THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU.

TO COME ON UP, ROBIN, AND SHE CAN TALK ABOUT THE BROADER CONTEXT OF WHAT THESE ITEMS MEAN AND OR EVEN HOW WE GOT HERE.

I'D SAY IF THE CONCERN IS THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE ANY DIRECT BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION AROUND ITEM 60, I WOULD SAY I DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES.

I THINK THESE ITEMS IN PARTICULAR WERE AT THE CITY'S REQUEST TO FIND WAYS TO BETTER IMPROVE AND MARKET AND THEN ULTIMATELY DEVELOP DART'S PROPERTY WITH SOME CONTROL MECHANISMS AROUND NOT JUST HIGHEST AND BEST OFFER, BUT THE ACTUAL UTILIZATION AND WHAT GOES ON THE FOOTPRINT.

AND SO IN MY MIND, IF I WON'T USE THE WORD LEVERAGE, BUT TO ME, BEYOND THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS OF IT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WANTED IN DART FOUND THEIR WAY TO AGREE TO HELP US ADVANCE A BENEFICIAL USE FOR PROPERTIES THAT IN MANY CASES HAVE SAT FALLOW AND DORMANT.

AND SO ROBIN MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN ON SPECIFICALLY HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHY THAT'S THE CASE.

BUT I THINK THE TWO ITEMS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

AND BUT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO DEFER AND WAIT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY BEARING ON DART'S POSITION ON ITEM NUMBER 60, IN MY OPINION.

RIGHT. COMPLETELY AGREE.

NOTHING TO ADD, I SAID.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS.

NOTHING TO ADD. I DON'T THINK THERE'S HARM IN DELAYING THEM.

IN MY MIND THEY ARE NOT RELATED ITEMS. MR. WEST, IS THAT SATISFY YOU IN TERMS OF.

THAT WAS MY. OH, SORRY, MR. BAZALDUA, IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU? YEAH, THAT IS I JUST ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW PROCEDURALLY, SINCE THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF THE CONCERN IS TO TAKE UP 60 FIRST, WHY WE AREN'T JUST ASKING TO TAKE UP 60 FIRST INSTEAD OF KEEPING THESE UNTIL THE AFTERNOON? OH, NO, I THINK CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION.

[01:55:05]

I THINK WHAT SHE'S JUST SAYING IS SHE JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THOSE OCCUR AFTER 60 WHENEVER SHE WASN'T ASKING TO NECESSARILY MOVE.

SO I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME CERTAIN AFTER 130.

NO, NO. OKAY.

NO, THIS IS JUST ABOUT SHE JUST WANT TO ORDER OF WHEN THOSE 60 NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THESE OTHERS FOR HER ARGUMENT, BUT NOT FOR A LEGAL REASON. OKAY.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

OF COURSE. OKAY.

I HAD TO LOOK AT MY NUMBERS AGAIN.

LET'S SEE. OH, CHAIRMAN ATKINS, I BELIEVE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND REMEMBER, WE'RE ON A MOTION TO DEFER TO A TIME CERTAIN, WHICH IS AFTER ITEM 60 WHENEVER THAT OCCURS.

I GUESS TO MOTION TO DEFER TO ITEM 60 IF I HEAR THE MOTION CORRECTLY, IT REFERRING TO THE NEGOTIATION OF THE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS IN THE IL A AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE OTHER ITEMS? Y YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT THE RELATIONSHIP.

I THINK THAT'S YOU'RE DIRECTING THAT QUESTION TO STAFF.

THAT'S NOT, IT'S NOT YOU'RE NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

IT'S ABOUT, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE CONNECTEDNESS.

SO I THINK AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ITEMS ARE CONNECTED.

NO DISCUSSIONS WHETHER AROUND THE ILLA OR ANY MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING HAVE BROACHED THIS SUBJECT.

AGAIN, THIS IS AT THE CITY'S REQUEST AND OUR DESIRE TO SEE THESE VACANT LAND PARCELS AROUND DART STATIONS OR NEAR THEM DEVELOPED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

AND I THINK DART HAD BEEN COOPERATIVE TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

AND I THINK WE'VE GONE THROUGH RFP PROCESSES TO GET US HERE.

AND SO I THINK, AGAIN, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE OTHER THAN THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK THROUGH HOW THEY MONETIZE THEIR PROPERTY AND THE RESTRICTIONS AROUND THEIR PROPERTY THAT ALLOWED US TO THEN FACILITATE GOING TO GET THEM DEVELOPED.

AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY NEXUS.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN DELAYING THE DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY CONNECTION.

AND I GUESS SINCE ALL OF THESE IS DEALING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND THAT'S MY CONCERN IS I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ITEMS 60 BEFORE THESE RIGHT HERE, THESE ITEMS IS TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.

AND IN ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO CLEAR ARRIVING, I GUESS, ROBIN, WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, IS THESE ITEMS, DO THEY HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH FINANCE? DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY IF THEY DELAY? NO, AS LONG AS WE CONSIDER TODAY, WE'RE FINE.

SO THIS IS JUST TO CLOSE THE PROCUREMENT AND BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS.

YOU'LL REMEMBER COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED A SEPARATE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DART FOR THIS PROCESS.

AND SO, LIKE I SAID, NO REAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE ITEMS, BUT THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM IN DELAYING THEM UNTIL LATER IN THE DAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. JEROME WILLIS.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I AM SUPPORTIVE OF DELAYING THIS.

IT'S JUST MAYBE LESS THAN AN HOUR AWAY.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN AN ARDENT SUPPORTER OF HOUSING.

I THINK WE'VE JUST DEMONSTRATED THAT.

I'VE HEARD MY COLLEAGUES SPEAK WITH EXCITEMENT AROUND THESE PROJECTS.

I KNOW WE'VE BEEN ANXIOUS ABOUT THEM.

AND WHILE IT WILL BENEFIT THE CITY OF DALLAS WITH OUR HOUSING INVENTORY, IT WILL CERTAINLY BENEFIT DART AS WELL BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO REBOUND WITH THEIR RIDERSHIP NUMBERS AND INFUSING PEOPLE ON OUR LIGHT RAIL IS GOING TO HELP WITH A SECURITY PROBLEM AND THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD AND WILL DEFINITELY BE A BOOST TO THEM.

SO I THINK THAT THAT THEY HAVE AS MUCH ADVANTAGE IN SEEING HOUSING BUILT BY THEIR RAIL BY THESE TRANSIT STATIONS AS WE DO.

I DO SEE A CONNECTION AND IT'S CALLED STRATEGY, AND IT'S ABOUT NEGOTIATING THE BEST TERMS FOR DALLAS AND HER CITIZENS.

AND SO THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP HERE.

AND I THINK THAT BY DELAYING THIS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT AS A BODY IN WHOLE AND MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD MOVE AND IT'S NOT A VERY LONG ONE.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD MOVE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING MAYOR PRO TEM YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND JUST QUICKLY, JUST FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY, GOOD OF THE STATE, GOOD OF THE NATION, AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AS I KNOW, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT ONE OF THE ITEMS TODAY.

WE WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT.

[02:00:02]

I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN WE'RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY.

BUT I ALSO AND IF I CHALLENGE A PROJECT, IT'S GOING TO BE AROUND THAT.

BUT WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO ALSO ASCERTAIN IN THE LAST WEEK WITH SOME OF OUR PARTNERS IS THAT THERE IS A FIELD THAT WE ARE ARE BELABORING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE TALKING THEM TO DEATH AND SO WE CONTINUE TO DRAG THEM OUT.

AND SO I'M HOPING TODAY WE'RE ABLE TO IS GET TO THE REAL CORE AND GET TO THE MEAT OF WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THE TRANSPORTATION, BECAUSE THESE DOLLARS WILL BEGIN TO MELT RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR VERY EYES IF WE CONTINUE TO DRAG OUT THE CONVERSATION AROUND THESE PROJECTS. AND SO I KNOW THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO SOUND LIKE I'M DOUBLE TALKING, BUT YES, I AM FOR TRANSPARENCY.

I AM DEFINITELY AN ADVOCATE FOR DISTRICT FOUR.

BUT WHAT WE WANT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS BRINGING THE WHOLE CONVERSATION AND THE DETAILS.

SO AS WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE NOT FRUSTRATED.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER END, OUR PARTNERS DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE POLITICAL AGENDA IS AND THEY KNOW THEY'VE DELIVERED DOLLARS AND THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY COULD DO.

BUT STAFF, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING WHAT IS NEEDED IN TERMS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TO STAFF TO TO THE COUNCIL SO WE DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LONG DRAWN OUT QUESTIONS.

MY INTENTION, AND FOR THE RECORD IS NOT TO STALL PROJECTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY IN THE MIDDLE OF A POLITICAL WHATEVER AGENDA MAY BE WHERE WE'RE NOT GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION.

AND SO TODAY, AS I SPEAK, ESPECIALLY ABOUT DISTRICT FOUR PROJECT THAT'S ON ONE OF THESE LISTS, MY PROJECT, MY CONCERN IS GOING TO BE TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY AND INCLUSION, COMMUNITY AND REALITY OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AROUND THIS IN THE ITEM.

SO I'M NOT REALLY WILD ABOUT REORDERING, BUT IF IT'S NOT GOING TO KILL IT, I CAN DEAL WITH IT.

AND THEN IF I STOP TALKING, WE CAN PROBABLY MOVE ON FASTER.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THE DAY IF WE KIND OF GET TO THE MEAT AND MAKE SURE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MEAT AND THE MADNESS HAS TO BE REMOVED SO WE CAN GET TO THESE DOLLARS AND GET THESE PROJECTS OUT TO OUR COMMUNITIES.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO.

AND MAYOR, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SAY.

SO I'M GOING TO TURN MY COMMENTS OFF NOW SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET TO THE MEAT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER TO AFTER ITEM? 60. I DON'T SEE ANYONE SO WE'LL VOTE ON THIS SOMEBODY REQUEST.

OKAY. WE DON'T NEED ONE. GREAT.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS WILL DEFER THE DISCUSSION ON 25 WAS THE MOTION ON ITEM 25 TO AFTER ITEM 60 IS TAKEN UP.

MR. MAYOR, FOR MY CLARITY, IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL TO TO HOLD THE REMAINING ITEMS ITEMS 26 THROUGH 30 AS WELL? THERE WASN'T THERE WASN'T A MOTION.

BUT SINCE I CAN DO THAT, I'LL JUST ASK IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HEARING? NONE SO ORDERED.

SO WE'LL JUST TAKE THOSE UP AFTER ITEM 60 AS WELL.

NOTED, MR. MAYOR, YOUR NEXT ITEM AGENDA ITEM 33, JUNE.

[33. 23-1532 Authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to (1) execute a Forbearance and Loan Modification Agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, with TEOF Hotel LP, a Texas limited partnership (Borrower) and Lawrence E. Hamilton, III, as trustee of the Lawrence E. Hamilton Living Trust (Guarantor) related to City’s loan of Section 108 funds for rehabilitation of a blighted and vacant hotel structure known as the Hotel Project; (2) execute an Amended and Restated Promissory Note with Borrower, approved as to form by the City Attorney; (3) execute a Guaranty Agreement with Guarantor, approved as to form by the City Attorney; (4) amend the existing Section 108 loan agreement between the City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Hotel Project (B-12-MC-48-0009) to incorporate a new Collateral Assignment Agreement, each approved as to form by the City Attorney; (5) execute any other documents deemed necessary by HUD or the City Attorney’s Office and that the execution of all such and aforementioned loan documents shall be contingent on HUD’s final approval of terms; and (6) deposit $1,732,047.00 into CDBG Program Income Fund as the City receives repayments from TEOF Hotel LP according to the proposed amended amortization schedule to repay the CARES Act Funds used by the City to make principal and interest payments to HUD between January 1, 2021 and August 1, 2022 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

ITEM 33, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE TO ONE EXECUTE A FORBEARANCE AND LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH TAF HOTEL L.P..

A TEXAS LOVE TO DO THAT.

BUT NO, SHE MADE THESE ARRANGEMENTS SORRY, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BORROWER AND LAWRENCE E HAMILTON, THE THIRD AS TRUSTEE OF THE LAWRENCE E HAMILTON LIVING TRUST GRANTOR RELATED TO CITY LOANS TO CITIES LOAN OF SECTION 108 FUNDS FOR REHABILITATION OF A BLIGHTED AND VACANT HOTEL STRUCTURE KNOWN AS THE HOTEL PROJECT TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE WITH BORROWER BORROWER APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY.

ATTORNEY. THREE.

EXECUTE A GUARANTY AGREEMENT WITH GUARANTOR APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR AMEND THE EXISTING SECTION 108 LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HOTEL PROJECT TO INCORPORATE A NEW COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, EACH APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

FIVE. EXECUTE ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY HUD OR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THAT THE EXECUTION OF ALL SUCH AND AFOREMENTIONED LOAN DOCUMENTS SHALL BE CONTINGENT ON HUD'S FINAL APPROVAL OF TERMS AND SIX DEPOSIT OF

[02:05:02]

$1,732,047 INTO CDBG PROGRAM INCOME FUND AS THE CITY RECEIVED REPAYMENTS FROM TAF HOTEL LP, ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE TO REPAY THE CARES ACT FUNDS USED BY THE CITY TO MAKE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS TO HUD BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST, 2021 AND AUGUST 1ST, 2022.

IS THERE A MOTION MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, WE'LL GO TO YOU FIRST RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM.

THIS IS THE HOTEL THAT IS GUARANTEED BY CDBG LOAN THAT NOTIFIED THE CITY THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE MAKING PAYMENTS AND PUT QUITE A BIT OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE AT RISK.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE USED, YOU KNOW, ARPA FUNDS TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS FOR THEM.

BUT AT THE TIME, I BELIEVE CITY MANAGER, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE OWNER WAS NOT FINANCIALLY CAPABLE TO DO THE WORK.

AND I'M WONDERING WHAT KIND OF GUARANTEES YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE KIND OF LOAN GUARANTEE.

I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE DOCUMENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I HAVE ROBIN COME UP AND ADDRESS THAT.

THE DIRECTOR. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

ROBIN BENTLEY WITH THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO AS YOU'LL REMEMBER, WITH SECTION 108, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO LOAN AGREEMENTS.

THE CITY HAS A LOAN WITH HUD AND THE CITY HAS A LOAN WITH THE BORROWER.

AND WE TYPICALLY REPAY HUD FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OUR LOAN WITH THE BORROWER.

DURING THE PANDEMIC, THE HOTEL WAS NOT GETTING ENOUGH OCCUPANCY TO MAKE PAYMENTS, BOTH ON THE SENIOR BANK NOTE AND ON THE CITY SUBORDINATE NOTE.

AND SO WE HAD NO REVENUE TO PAY HUD, BUT WE HAVE TO PAY HUD.

AND SO WE USE THE CARES ACT FUNDING APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILLION TO MAKE SURE WE STAYED IN GOOD STANDING WITH HUD.

THEY HAVE STARTED MAKING PAYMENTS AGAIN.

AND SO THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH HUD AND THE BORROWER, AMENDS OUR LOAN AGREEMENT TO CATCH UP ALL OF THOSE MISSED PAYMENTS.

THEY'RE SPREAD OUT OVER THE REMAINING FIVE YEARS OF THE LOAN.

SO THE CITY WILL BE MADE WHOLE, THE CARES ACT FUNDING WILL BE REPAID AND THE REMAINDER OF THE LOAN WOULD BE REPAID.

WE HAVE SECURED ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE CITY.

SINCE WE'RE IN A SUBORDINATE POSITION, WE HAVE A GUARANTEE FROM THE HAMILTON FAMILY TRUST.

IT REQUIRES $5 MILLION OF LIQUIDITY AND $25 MILLION OF TOTAL VALUE.

AND SO WITH THE PROPERTY VALUE AND THE GUARANTEE THAT TOTALS MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THE SENIOR LOAN AND THE CITY SUBORDINATE LOAN.

SO WE FEEL THAT WE'RE ADEQUATELY COVERED.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

SIX MONTHS AFTER WE DID THE INITIAL LOAN, WE DID A LOAN MODIFICATION.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT LOAN MODIFICATION? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN EARLY 2020, THE 504,000? WELL, WHEN WE TOOK AWAY OTHER COVENANTS AND MADE A PERSONAL GUARANTEE AVAILABLE, YES.

SO AT THE BEGINNING OF 2020, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PANDEMIC, THE BORROWER WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ONE PAYMENT, WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT THE PANDEMIC WOULD BE SHORT LIVED. AND SO AT THAT POINT, THE CITY JUST REFINANCED THAT ONE PAYMENT WITH HUD WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THIS WOULD BE A LONGER TERM ISSUE THAN WE CAME AND ASKED FOR THE CARES ACT FUNDING THE 504 AMENDMENT DID REQUIRE A GUARANTEE, AS BEST I CAN TELL, THAT GUARANTEE WAS NEVER EXECUTED.

AND SO WE'VE ASKED FOR A MORE ROBUST GUARANTEE FROM THE FULL FAMILY, NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD PROMISED THE GUARANTEE FOR THE 504.

AND SO WE HAVE AT THIS POINT A BETTER GUARANTEE THAT WAS AGREED TO IN 2020, EARLY IN 2020.

OKAY. UM, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE.

NOTE YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE SECOND QUESTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL AS MOTIONED.

I BELIEVE THAT THE ALL PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO TO THE NEW TERMS. I BELIEVE WE'RE IN A BETTER PLACE THAN WE WERE.

AND AGAIN, THIS WAS DUE TO COVID NUMBERS DURING HOTEL STAYS.

AND SO I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AND THANK STAFF FOR THE CLARITY AND JUST MAKING SURE EVERYONE WAS UP TO DATE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING.

OF COURSE, ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE CHAIRWOMAN.

MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I ALSO WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

BUT WE DID NEED TO MAKE SURE ABOUT THE LOAN GUARANTEE.

AND MY CONCERN IS, NUMBER ONE, HAVING PLEDGED CDBG FUNDS FOR A PROJECT WHERE INITIALLY I THINK WE HAD APPROPRIATE COVENANTS, BUT THEN IT WAS REFINANCED WITH A PERSONAL GUARANTEE THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE DOLLARS BACKING IT UP.

AND I JUST THINK THAT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF DETAILS IN THE WEED THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF.

[02:10:04]

IT WAS NOT THIS GROUP THAT DID THAT, BUT THIS REALLY PUT ALL OF OUR CDBG DOLLARS AT RISK.

AND HAD WE NOT HAD THE CRF, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO INTO OUR RESERVE ACCOUNT.

SO I'M THANKFUL FOR THE RENEGOTIATION THAT HAPPENED.

I APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF WORK HAPPENED AND SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR STRENGTHENING THE CITY'S POSITION ON THIS.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM 33? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? EYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

AGENDA ITEM 34 AUTHORIZE THE ONE RATIFICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $545,116.43 TO PAY OUTSTANDING

[34. 23-1432 Authorize the (1) ratification in the amount of $545,116.43 to pay outstanding invoices due to Family Endeavors, Inc. dba Endeavors for encampment sheltering services from January 27, 2023 through May 26, 2023; and (2) execution of a contract with Family Endeavors, Inc. dba Endeavors for services in the amount of $1,090,232.86 for encampment sheltering services due to the closure and decommission of a homeless encampment - Total not to exceed $1,635,349.29 - Financing: General Fund]

INVOICES DUE TO FAMILY ENDEAVORS.

INC DBA ENDEAVORS FOR ENCAMPMENT SHELTERING SERVICES FROM JANUARY 27TH 2023 THROUGH MAY 26TH, 2023, AND TO EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH FAMILY ENDEAVORS INC DBA ENDEAVORS FOR SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,090,232.86 FOR ENCAMPMENT SHELTERING SERVICES DUE TO THE DUE TO THE CLOSURE AND DECOMMISSION OF A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $1,635,349.29.

IS THERE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. CHAIRWOMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM.

THERE SEEM TO BE TWO DIFFERENT INVOICES, AND THE FIRST ONE IS FOR $545,000 FOR ENCAMPMENT SHELTERING AS OF JANUARY 27TH. CAN YOU TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS? YES. CHRISTINE CROSSLEY, OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THE FIRST INVOICE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE SHELTERING FROM JANUARY THROUGH MAY.

SO THAT CONTRACT JUST WRAPPED UP AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD PAY THE INVOICES AS SOON AS WE GOT THEM.

SO YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THIS ITEM SAYS NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 1.635 MILLION.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST INVOICE, THE 545,000.

YES. SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM.

AND IT SAYS AS OF JANUARY 27TH, JANUARY 27TH, IT SAYS FROM JANUARY 7TH THROUGH MAY 26TH.

SO IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL TIME PERIOD.

BUT WE JUST RECEIVED THAT INVOICE BECAUSE THE THE TOTAL TIME PERIOD WRAPPED ON MAY 26TH.

SO WE RECEIVED THE FIRST PART OF THE TOTAL THAT THEY'RE GIVING US.

THEY'RE WORKING ON THE SECOND INVOICE NOW.

AND SO WE'D LIKE TO GET THE WE'D LIKE TO GET THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF WHAT WE COULD GO UP TO APPROVE TODAY AND PAY THAT FIRST INVOICE AND THEN BE ABLE TO PAY THE SECOND ONE WHEN IT COMES IN. SO IT MAY NOT GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 1.635 MILLION.

OKAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE SHELTERED AND FOR HOW LONG? 105. AND WE SHELTERED FOR UP TO 90 DAYS.

BUT BECAUSE WE HAD AN ACTUALLY DEPRECIATING RATE OF ATTRITION OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO HOUSING, WE ACTUALLY DID IT FOR MORE LIKE FOUR MONTHS.

AND THEN WE CEASED OUR FUNDING.

AND NORTH TEXAS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY WAS ABLE TO DO ANOTHER MONTH OF FUNDING.

SO I THINK THERE'S STILL ABOUT 12 PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HOUSED AND THAT CONTRACT WITH THEM WRAPS UP IN THE MONTH OF JUNE.

OKAY. AND SO FOR THE SECOND INVOICE THAT'S LISTED FOR THE $1,090,232.

SAME QUESTION.

WELL. SO THAT IS THE REMAINDER OF WHAT? SO WHEN WHEN THEY TOLD US THE BUDGET FOR 90 DAYS, THEY SAID, WE EXPECT THAT WE'LL SPEND ABOUT 545,000 EVERY 90 DAYS.

BUT THAT WAS GUARANTEEING FULL TENANCY OF 100, NOT TENANCY FULL ROOMS, I GUESS FOR 105 PEOPLE.

BUT WE KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN DECREASING RAPIDLY AS WE HOUSE PEOPLE.

SO IT ACTUALLY WON'T PROBABLY END UP BEING THIS FULL AMOUNT THAT THEY BUDGETED FOR.

BUT WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SECOND INVOICE TO COME IN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW ALL THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO PREPARE FOR US IS THAT THEY KNOW THAT THE FIRST PART OF IT COSTS THAT.

545 AND SO WE'RE SAYING WE'D LIKE TO PAY WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN US AND WE'D ALSO LIKE TO APPROVE THE REMAINING AMOUNT, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, KNOWING THAT IT PROBABLY WON'T BE THIS HIGH. AND THEN I BELIEVE THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS A SINGLE ENCAMPMENT AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE ENCAMPMENTS.

COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT? YES. SO THE SINGLE ENCAMPMENT ITSELF AND I DON'T HAVE THE MEMO IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE ONE THAT WE THE FINAL WRAP UP MEMO THAT WE DID FEBRUARY 2ND OR THIRD TALKED ABOUT, IT'S A SINGLE ENCAMPMENT, BUT IT WAS SEVERAL BLOCKS LONG.

AND SO IT WAS A TOTAL OF 105 PEOPLE OVER MULTIPLE BLOCKS THAT WE JUST CLASSIFIED AS ONE ENCAMPMENT.

[02:15:05]

DO YOU ANTICIPATE A STRATEGY OF TAKING ENCAMPMENTS AND PUTTING THEM IN HOTELS OR OTHER HOUSING LIKE THIS AND THEN WORKING TO MOVE THAT TO HOUSING? SO IT WAS AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY, AND I DID HAVE HOPE AT THE BEGINNING THAT MAYBE IT WOULD GO SO QUICKLY KNOWING THAT EVERYONE IS IN ONE PLACE, THAT IT COULD BE SOMETHING USEFUL IN OUR TOOLBOX MOVING FORWARD.

SO NOT NOT EVERY SINGLE ENCAMPMENT, BUT USEFUL FOR SOME.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT BECAUSE IT COSTS SO MUCH AND NEEDED AN EVEN EVEN MORE FUNDING THAN WE HAD ANOTHER MONTH, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 5000 PER PERSON BEFORE THEY'RE EVEN IN HOUSING, THAT IT'S FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD, WE'LL JUST BE WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE.

THE REASON FOR THIS ONE WAS BECAUSE WE HAD DOCUMENTED VIOLENCE.

IT WAS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE AND THE DOCTOR WAS GOING TO GET THERE THE NEXT WEEK.

AND SO WE WERE REALLY ABLE TO MAKE A PUSH TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE ABOUT TO HOUSE THESE FOLKS ANYWAY.

LET'S JUST KIND OF BITE THE BULLET ON THIS ONE AND DO IT ONCE KNOWING THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF ITEM 34? BEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 57 JAYNIE.

[57. 23-922 Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)]

ITEM 57 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS MORNING YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS AND A FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT.

YOUR NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

DEREK NUTALL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA TO THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

BRIAN BAUGH IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ TO THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD.

SHAN Y ZAIDI IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON TO THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD.

STAN J. EATON IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

YOUR NOMINEE FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 18 BOARD MAPLE MOCKINGBIRD ELIZABETH ORTON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO. THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED.

AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. BEFORE I MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ITEM, UNDER BOARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12, A 40 F1G2 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE, I'M REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THE FOLLOWING NAMES OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT FOR THE 2023 YEAR.

CYNTHIA. JACKIE.

SHE SERVES ON THE REINVESTMENT ZONE THREE BOARD.

OAK CLIFF GATEWAY.

JOSHUA KUMLER SERVES ON REINVESTMENT ZONE 15 BOARD FORT WORTH AVENUE.

ROGER ASADI SERVES ON THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.

BELINDA THOMAS SERVES ON THE REINVESTMENT ZONE FOUR BOARD CEDARS AREA.

JESSICA DEPAZ SERVES ON THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD.

I'M JUST REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE YOUR NEXT ITEM.

AGENDA ITEM 58 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR POSITIONS THREE, FOUR, FIVE,

[58. 23-1424 Consideration of appointment to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors for Positions 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, and 08 (Closed Session, if necessary, Personnel, Sec. 551.074, T. O. M. A.) (Name of nominee in the City Secretary’s Office) - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

IS THERE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPOINT THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT DART BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR POSITIONS.

THREE, FOUR AND FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT WITH THE TERMS. WITH THE TERMS OF ALL POSITIONS TO BEGIN JULY 1ST, 2023 AND EXPIRE JUNE 30TH, 2025, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE.

JOHN BOTRELLE KILLEN.

FLORA HERNANDEZ, MICHELLE WONG KRAUSE, PATRICK KENNEDY.

ENRIQUE MCGREGOR AND ANGELA ALEXANDER.

MEMBERS. YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION.

IT'S BEEN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN? MR. CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MR.. MR. MAYOR. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT.

YEAH. FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL OF THE CANDIDATES HAD GOT INTERVIEWED ON MONDAY.

THEY ALL DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.

AND WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR OF THE SIX THAT ARE RETURNING.

THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN SERVING ON THE DART BOARD.

AND THEN WE HAVE TWO NEW FOLKS THAT ARE FILLING IN SEATS THAT WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT COMING BACK TO THE BOARD THIS TIME AROUND.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND HOPE THAT WE GET THIS PASSED SO THAT WE CAN GET THEM BACK TO WORK.

[02:20:06]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN THOMAS BROADNAX FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YEAH. QUESTION FOR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, COULD YOU REPEAT THE TWO NAMES OF THE TWO WHO WERE NEW? SURE. ENRIQUE MCGREGOR AND D'ANGELA ALEXANDER.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION ITEM 58.

SEEING NONE DID YOU REQUEST A RECORD OR ANYTHING? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED THE EYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 59 IS A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION FIVE OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ELECTING THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO

[59. 23-1530 A resolution amending Section 5 of the City Council Rules of Procedure for electing the mayor pro tem and deputy mayor pro tem for one-year terms and codifying the ballot process - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

TEM FOR ONE YEAR TERMS AND CODIFYING THE BALLOT PROCESS.

IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM 59? YES, THERE WE ARE. CHAIRMAN WILLIS, THANK YOU.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATION.

THE BALLOT NOMINATION PROCEDURE WILL FOLLOW THE CUSTOMARY CITY OF DALLAS PROCESS.

SECOND MEMBERS.

IT'S BEEN MOVED.

AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN, JUST BRIEFLY.

FIVE MINUTES. OH, THANK YOU.

JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY POINT OUT THAT ON MAY 22ND, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS AD HOC COMMITTEE MET TO DISCUSS CODIFYING WHAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN PRACTICING FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO BRING THIS MOTION BEFORE US TODAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WOULD.

I THINK I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT CONVERSATION.

MISSED THE CLASS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN.

WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY IN TERMS OF CODIFYING THIS BALLOT PROCESS AND PERHAPS THE CLARIFICATION ON HOW THIS PROCESS CAN BE CHANGED.

IF THAT'S TO THE CHAIR OR TO THE CITY SECRETARY.

IF TIME IF YOU KNOW, WHEN TIME COMES, IF A COUNCIL DECIDES TO CHANGE IT, IS THAT ALSO A PROTECTION? I'LL. YEAH, GO AHEAD.

MADAM SECRETARY, TO THE ATTORNEYS, I GUESS I NEED MORE.

I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEYS ON THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE WHAT ARE BEING CHANGED TODAY, AND THEY CAN BE CHANGED AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE NOW OF VOTING FOR THIS ITEM TO SOLIDIFY OR CODIFY IT JUST SO WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO MAKE REFERENCE TO SO WE CAN IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT, WE CAN CHANGE IT.

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE CODIFYING THE ONE YEAR PRACTICE.

OKAY. IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

OKAY. AND IT CAN BE CHANGED LATER.

ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SPEAK TO.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS, AND THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT HERE.

IT'S JUST ONE FOR EFFICIENCY IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT.

AND I KNOW WHEN WE CAME ON AND I THINK I LOST MY YEARS NOW WHEN WE CAME ON EARLIER, WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE EARLY OF OUR TERMS, WANTING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND WE AND I KNOW I WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO DID NOT SUPPORT NOT VOTING FOR THE ONE YEAR TERM THAT WE KIND OF MOVE AROUND LIKE MUSICAL CHAIRS BECAUSE I WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE TWO YEAR PROCESS WHERE YOU HAD CONSISTENCY, YOU HAD SOME DEFINITIVE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS AND THE PROCESS WAS DEFINITIVE. AND I KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY HAS STATED THAT WE WILL CHANGE EVERY YEAR, BUT I'M HOPING THAT AS WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN TERMS OF DELIVERING SERVICES TO THE CITY, WE WILL LOOK FOR EFFICIENCIES, TRANSPARENCY, OF COURSE, EFFICACY ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENTS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO CONFUSION ABOUT HOW I VOTED.

I DID NOT VOTE TO DO THE MUSICAL CHAIRS EVERY YEAR.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, TRADITIONALLY WHAT HAPPENS HAPPENED WHEN I WAS HERE IN 20 PROBABLY 2019, MAYOR PRO TEM, THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WERE FOR A TWO YEAR CYCLE AND I WOULD IMAGINE AT THAT TIME COUNCIL WOULD MAY HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGES IF INDEED LEADERSHIP WASN'T DOING WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. BUT WHAT YOU HAD WAS WHAT WE DO IS THAT WE CHANGE OFFICES AND AT THE END OF TWO YEARS, AND I BELIEVE NOW, I MEAN THE POSITION EVERY TWO YEARS IT WAS AND NOW WE'RE DOING IT EVERY YEAR.

AND SO WHAT WAS GOING ON IS WHAT WE WERE CHANGING OFFICES.

NOW WE'RE CHANGING OFFICES, WHICH NOW WE'RE TRYING TO OFFSET THE EXPENSE OF MOVING AND MOVING EQUIPMENT AND CHANGING DOORS AND ALL OF THAT.

AND SO WE ARE NOW I THINK WE'RE IN A PROCESS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A NEW FORMULA FOR KEEPING OUR OFFICES.

BUT FOR ME, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I PUT IN FRONT OF ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YES, I WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO SUPPORTED STABILITY.

AND THAT LEADERSHIP IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST, THAT IT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

[02:25:09]

AND THERE'S NO SLIGHT AND NO SHADE TO BE THROWN ON ANYONE.

IT'S JUST THAT I WAS BROUGHT UP IN THAT ONE YEAR SYSTEM AND THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE QUIRKS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUT AS WE TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS.

BUT BUT I'M GOING TO SPEAK RIGHT NOW TO ON THE POSITION THAT I AM IN, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HONORED TO BE SELECTED TO SERVE AS MAYOR PRO TEM. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR.

AND SO AS WE PREPARE TO CHANGE, IT'S NOT THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, I'M LEAVING.

THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE GETTING TO.

WE'RE LOOKING AT I AM, OF COURSE, THE EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE TO INCUR AS WE HAVE TO PAY TO MOVE OFFICES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREAM AND AND JUST SOME OTHER DYNAMICS OF THE FLOW AS WE TAKE CARE OF DAY TO DAY BUSINESS IN THE HORSESHOE.

SO I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT.

AND CHAIR I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR WORK ON IT BUT I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL CAME IN WITH A DIFFERENT CLASS AND YOU DIDN'T COME IN UNDER THE WHAT, TWO YEAR YOU DIDN'T COME IN, YOU CAME IN BRAND NEW.

AND SO I KNEW THAT THAT WAS SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND DOING SOMETHING NEW.

AND I LOVE DOING THINGS NEW AND DIFFERENT, BUT IT JUST SOMETIMES IT JUST MAKES SENSE SOMETIMES TO DO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS WHAT IS RIGHT, I THINK.

AND WHAT IS IS MORE EFFICIENT.

NOW, THIS IS MY OWN STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROCESS.

SO I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LISTENING HERE, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH US.

AND ONCE AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN.

AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH US IN THE PROCESS OF MAYOR PRO TEM AND I'VE SERVED WITH, OF COURSE, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM HERE, BUT I DID WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT ONE YEAR THAT I STILL DON'T SUPPORT TO SUPPORT THE TWO YEAR FOR EFFICIENCY AND CLARITY AND REDUCTION IN BUDGETARY EXPENSES, WHICH WE WANT TO TRY TO SAVE EVERY DOLLAR WE CAN FROM THE BUDGET SO WE CAN PUT MONEY WHERE IN THE PROGRAMS THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME.

CITY SECRETARY, MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. OF COURSE.

CHAIRMAN THOMAS RESENDEZ FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE, SO I WANTED TO MAKE GET CLARIFICATION OTHER THAN CLARIFY CODIFYING THE ONE YEAR.

PROCESS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR THIS PROCESS? AND IF THE CHAIR WOULD WOULDN'T MIND ANSWERING THAT.

FEEL FREE TO USE MY TIME ON THIS ITEM.

NO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ACTUALLY, SOMEONE JUST MAYOR PRO TEM YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR.

OH, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE ON FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM 59.

SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE ONE OPPOSITION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IT'S NOTED AND THE ITEM PASSES.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE ROADMAP OF WHERE I THINK WE'RE GOING HERE.

SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WOULD BE ITEM 60.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT UP WHEN WE COME BACK FROM A CLOSED SESSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO.

AT SOME POINT, I GUESS.

BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT OUR PLAN IS WE HAVE A SPECIAL RECOGNITION THAT WE WANT TO DO FOR A VERY SPECIAL MEMBER OF OUR CITY STAFF, AND THEN WE WANT TO RECESS FOR LUNCH.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SPECIAL SESSION DURING LUNCH OR NOT BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE SOME PROGRAMING GOING ON DURING LUNCH, SO WE'RE KIND OF FIGURING THAT PART OUT. BUT WE KNOW THAT WE WON'T BE TAKING UP ANY MORE AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE WE BREAK FOR LUNCH.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'M GETTING READY TO TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO TO TEE UP THE SPECIAL RECOGNITION THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO FOR STAFF AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF FEEL OUR WAY THROUGH THIS.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO LUNCH, MAY OR MAY NOT DO A SPECIAL SESSION DURING LUNCH.

WE MAY PUT THAT LATER BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS GOING ON DURING LUNCH THAT WE WANT TO MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN.

SO WITH THAT LONG SORT OF PREFACE, MISS TOLBERT, I'LL LET YOU TAKE IT OVER.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MAYOR JOHNSON.

[Special Presentations]

AND IF I COULD PLEASE HAVE TERRY LOWERY, OUR DIRECTOR OF DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, TO COME FORWARD.

WE HAD TO DRAG TERRI OUT OF HER OFFICE.

[02:30:03]

TERRI BEGAN HER CAREER AS A COMPUTER MODELING ANALYST WITH DALLAS WATER UTILITIES IN DECEMBER OF 1991.

SHE WORKED HER WAY THROUGH THE RANKS TO HER CURRENT POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, OVERSEEING CLOSE TO 1600 EMPLOYEES.

AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DWU, TERRI LED ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST UTILITIES WITH AN ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET OF APPROXIMATELY 781 MILLION AND AN ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET OF OVER 365 MILLION.

DURING HER TENURE, SHE HAS PROVIDED EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP TO ENSURE THE CONTINUAL DELIVERY OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SERVICES TO MORE THAN 2.6 MILLION RESIDENTS, INCLUDING 27 SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

UNDER TERRY'S GUIDANCE, THE CITY OF DALLAS IMPLEMENTED THE ONE WATER CONCEPT, WHICH INCORPORATED THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SERVICES, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL SERVICES INTO A SINGLE MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT. TERRI DEVELOPED NEW WATER RESOURCES.

IMPLEMENTED INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND ESTABLISHED MANY OF OUR REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS.

SHE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN SETTING THE COURSE FOR WATER CONSERVATION BY ENSURING THE FIRST EVER WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY, WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED WITH TWICE WEEKLY AND TIME OF DAY WATERING AND HAS LED OUR CUSTOMER CITIES TO FOLLOW A SIMILAR COURSE FOR CONSERVATION EFFORTS.

SHE WAS INFLUENTIAL, INFLUENTIAL IN FORMING A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT TO COMPLETE THE $2.3 BILLION 150 MILE INTEGRATED PIPELINE PROJECT.

IN MAY OF 2022, IT IS ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS.

THE INTEGRATED PIPELINE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE TWO OF THE STATE'S LARGEST WATER SUPPLIERS UP TO AN ADDITIONAL 350 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER A DAY FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS.

SHE HAS ALSO PUSHED FORWARD MUCH NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, CAPITAL AND STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS, MOST RECENTLY UNDER TERRI'S MANAGEMENT. WE COMPLETED THE DREDGING AT BACHMAN LAKE, MARKING A MAJOR MILESTONE IN THE BACHMAN LAKE DREDGING AND DAM AND SPILLWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED LEADERS, PARTNER AGENCIES AND THE COMMUNITY HAVE JOINED TERI TO CELEBRATE GROUNDBREAKING FOR THE WATER WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY HILLS AREA.

THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRINITY PORTLAND PUMP IN WEST DALLAS AND THE LEVEE RAISE AND SLOPE FLATTENING PROJECT, TO NAME JUST A FEW.

THE WORLD FACED MANY CHALLENGES DURING THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC, AND THE CITY WAS ALSO CHALLENGED WITH ONE OF FREESE'S MAJOR FLOODING AND EXTREME HEAT.

BUT DURING THESE TIMES, IT WAS TERRI'S LEADERSHIP THAT ALLOWED US TO CONTINUE THE DELIVERY OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SERVICES.

SHE'S AN ACTIVE SUPPORTER OF MANY ORGANIZATIONS.

SHE'S HELPED THE CITY, AND SHE HAS PERSONALLY SERVED AS A FOSTER FOR DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES.

SHE HAS FOSTERED MORE THAN 160 KITTENS.

SHE ALWAYS HAS KITTENS IN HER HOUSE.

SO, TERRI, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ONGOING LEADERSHIP.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITMENT AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREER.

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, WE APPLAUD YOU AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. WE APPRECIATE YOU ALWAYS HAVING THAT SERVICE.

FIRST ATTITUDE, NO MATTER WHAT THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE.

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR OUTSTANDING CAREER AND ENJOY YOUR WELL-DESERVED RETIREMENT.

THANK YOU, TERRY.

ALL. THE REASON I KEPT MY SEAT IS BECAUSE I GOT TO ACTUALLY DIRECT TRAFFIC HERE, BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO WANT TO SAY A LOT OF THINGS TO YOU, INCLUDING MYSELF. SO I'M GOING TO ASK TERRY FOR YOU TO LET US FETCH YOU FIRST AND GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.

SO IF YOU DON'T MIND STANDING THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND HEARING SOME, I THINK, PRETTY GLOWING THINGS, THEN THAT'D

[02:35:01]

BE GREAT. SO I'LL JUST START OFF AND I'LL BE BRIEF.

SO MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO WATER POLICY CAME WHEN I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE AND I SERVED AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE WHEN WE REWROTE THE STATE'S WATER PLAN.

AND THAT'S WHEN I REALLY STARTED TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITICALITY OF WATER FOR THE STATE.

AND I ALSO CAME TO UNDERSTAND THE HIGH REGARD THAT THE ENTIRE STATE HOLDS THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES IN AND SO WHEN I GOT HERE AND HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH YOU AS THE MAYOR.

I HAVE TO SAY, TERRY, YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT WATER, I THINK, THAN ANYBODY.

NOT JUST IN THIS BUILDING, BUT IN THIS PART OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

AND THAT'S AN OPINION THAT I THINK IS SHARED BY MANY PEOPLE WHO WHO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF WATER.

THIS IS NOT JUST SORT OF RAH RAH CITY OF DALLAS TALK.

I MEAN, ON A STATEWIDE LEVEL, YOU ARE RESPECTED FOR YOUR EXPERTISE AND FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AND THE UTILITY THAT YOU'VE LED.

AND I'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES IN MANY ROOMS FULL OF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT JUST FROM DALLAS BUT FROM OTHER PLACES.

I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY AND I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS A LOT FROM THIS HORSESHOE, THAT WE OUGHT TO BE THE BEST AT EVERYTHING WE DO OR WE SHOULDN'T DO IT.

AND IF WE'RE NOT THE BEST IN IT, WE NEED TO BE WORKING REAL HARD AT BECOMING THE BEST AT IT.

DALLAS WATER UTILITIES IS ONE OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY WHERE I THINK THERE'S NO QUESTION WE'RE THE BEST.

WE DO A FANTASTIC JOB.

I BRAG ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE FACT THAT SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE, WE HAVE NEVER HAD A BOIL WATER NOTICE SINCE WE'VE BEEN SITTING AT THIS HORSESHOE TOGETHER THAT WE RUN A FANTASTIC WATER UTILITY THAT IS THE MODEL AND IS THE ENVY OF A LOT OF CITIES IN THIS COUNTRY.

AND SO, TERRY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TRULY CALL A CROWN JEWEL OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT SO THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF.

WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY APOLOGIES FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES EVER.

YOU DO A FANTASTIC JOB.

YOUR STAFF DOES A FANTASTIC JOB.

EVERYBODY ASSOCIATED WITH DALLAS WATER UTILITIES SHOULD BE TAKING THIS AS A COLLECTIVE BOW.

BUT I WANT TO SAY TO YOU PERSONALLY, I'VE KNOWN YOUR FAMILY SINCE I WAS A LITTLE KID.

YOUR SON, JORDAN, AND I WENT GREW UP TOGETHER.

SO I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR A LONG, LONG TIME AND I LOVE YOU TO DEATH.

I'M EXCITED FOR YOU FOR WHATEVER'S NEXT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY, ON BEHALF OF THE 1.3 MILLION FOLKS THAT CALL THIS CITY HOME AND WHO DRINK THE WATER EVERY DAY, AND ALSO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO COME HERE ON PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES TO VISIT OUR CITY, WHO DRINK OUR WATER AND WHO SAY Y'ALL HAVE GOOD WATER HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS HAVING JUST AN AMAZINGLY HIGH STANDARD, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE MEMBERS TO SAY WHAT THEY NEED TO SAY.

AND I HAVE TO ACTUALLY TAKE A QUICK BREAK MYSELF.

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN UP ALL DAY, BUT I'M GOING TO SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR MAYOR PRO TEM.

BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, THE FIRST PERSON I WANT TO RECOGNIZE IS CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ANYBODY ON THE CLOCK, BUT BE MINDFUL THAT YOU'RE THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN US AND LUNCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND TERRY, YOU HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLE FOR OUR CITY.

BUT I'LL ALSO SAY PERSONALLY, YOU'VE BEEN A HUGE BRIGHT LIGHT IN WHAT CAN SOMETIMES BE A DARK WORLD THAT WE IN.

IT'S BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH YOU TO LEARN FROM YOU.

AND I THINK THAT YOU HAVE YOU WERE ONE OF THE FIRST DIRECTORS THAT I MET WITH WHEN I CAME ON, AND YOU SET A HIGH BAR AND WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS AGREED ON EVERY TOPIC, BUT YOU HAVE REALLY EDUCATED ME.

AND YOUR DEDICATION TO OUR CITY IS SECOND TO NONE.

I'M GOING TO MISS YOU IN THE PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND WHAT YOU CONTRIBUTE TO OUR CITY.

BUT I'M ALSO GOING TO MISS YOU IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY BECAUSE I THINK, AGAIN, YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO JUST RADIATES POSITIVITY AND I WISH THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE THAT YOU COULD SAY THAT ABOUT IN THIS WORLD.

SO THANK YOU.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE MISSED. ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT.

PLEASE DON'T BE A STRANGER.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR RETIREMENT AND YOUR FREE TIME.

THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR OUR CITY.

THANK YOU, SIR.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

I KNOW YOU HAVE TO LEAVE. YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR REMARKS? YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

TERRY, YOU.

YOU AND I GOT TO GET PRETTY CLOSE OVER THE YEARS SINCE I GOT HERE TO CITY HALL.

AND I CAN SAY THAT YOU ARE THE EPITOME OF SERVICE.

FIRST, YOU.

YOU ARE AT A LEVEL THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS AT, BUT THAT EVERYBODY STRIVES TO BE AT WHEN IT COMES TO DALLAS WATER UTILITY.

[02:40:06]

WHEN I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION AND AND NOW TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WE JUST GOT TO REALLY GET CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

AND JUST YOU ALWAYS MADE SURE THAT I WAS UP TO SPEED.

I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND EVEN ANSWERED MY CALLS AND TEXTS LATE AT NIGHT WHEN I WOULD BE DRIVING AROUND LOOKING FOR LIGHTS OUT IN MY DISTRICT, BUT I'D SEE A SPRINKLER HEAD POPPED OPEN OR I'D SEE A WATER MAIN LEAKING OR SOMEBODY WOULD MESSAGE ME THAT.

AND YOU DIDN'T EVER FLINCH.

EVEN ON THE WEEKENDS WHEN I WOULD CALL YOU AND SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHO TO GET THIS TO.

AND YOU SAID, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

I'VE GOT IT. LET ME GET IT TO THE.

RIGHT PERSON WHEN WATER WAS STARTING TO STORM, WATER WAS STARTING TO FLOOD SOMEBODY'S YARD.

YOU WERE YOU ALWAYS THERE NO MATTER WHAT.

I COULD TELL THAT EVERY INSTANCE THAT YOU TOOK THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT AS IF IT WAS YOUR IT IS YOUR OWN, BUT THAT YOU WOULD DO ANY JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF. THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU CARE.

THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU LOVE BEING PART OF DALLAS WATER UTILITY.

AND YOU ARE THE CHIEF.

YOU ARE THE HEAD OF IT.

WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU TERRIBLY.

I DON'T KNOW WHO I'M GOING TO TEXT ANYMORE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHEN I SEE THOSE SPRINKLERS OUT, I MIGHT JUST TEXT YOU ANYWAY, BUT YOU CAN IGNORE ME.

BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING TO SEE YOU IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY AS YOU GET TO ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT.

AND THEN YOU CAN MAYBE COME DOWN HERE LATER ON AND GIVE ME A HARD TIME ON WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AT DALLAS CITY HALL ON OTHER ISSUES.

BUT GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DID.

YOU HAVE DONE FOR OUR CITY, THE CITY OF DALLAS.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS OWES YOU A DEBT OF GRATITUDE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

THE FOLLOWING SPEAKERS REMAIN COUNCIL MEMBER ATKINS, THOMAS MORENO, MENDELSOHN AND WILLIS IN THAT ORDER.

AND THANK YOU, MARIANO.

MAYOR PRO TEM CAROLYN CAROLYN.

TERRY DID I WIN THE LOTTO? DID I WIN THE POT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I DID MAKE HIM OKAY.

YOU KNOW, WE WE HAD A SIDE BET THAT WHEN SHE GOING TO LEAVE, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

MISS TOLBERT, SHE'S NOT GOING TO LEAVE TODAY, SO SHE'S GOING TO WAIT ANOTHER TWO MONTHS BEFORE SHE LEAVE.

SO, TERRY, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR DOING WHAT YOU DO.

I KNOW YOU FEEL SOME BIG SHOES.

WHEN JOE TYPEKIT WAS HERE AND EVERYONE SAID, CAN WE DO SOMETHING BETTER? AND YOU DID SOME GREAT.

I MEAN, FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE WE HAD INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND YOU AND DALLAS, YOU KNOW, THE WALLET, THE TARRANT COUNTY PROJECT GOING FORWARD, PEOPLE JUST DON'T REALIZE THAT THERE'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO TO FILL YOUR SHOES, THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT WATER.

YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T TOUCH YOUR JOB.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHO GOING TO FILL YOUR SHOES, BUT BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR DECADES, FOR CENTURIES, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A BIG DROUGHT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A DROUGHT MAYBE OVER 56 YEARS AGO.

AND WE WERE SHORT OF WATER.

YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE DO? I MEAN, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? AND WITH YOUR LEADERSHIP AND WITH YOUR STAFF, YOU WE BOUGHT PALISADE LAKE.

I REMEMBER WE BOUGHT THE WATER RIGHTS FROM THE PALISADE AND WE DID THIS BIG PIPELINE FROM FORT WORTH.

TARRANT COUNTY IS BIG AND OUR PROJECT, THEY THOUGHT WE WAS CRAZY, BUT.

BUT WE DID DO IT.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS OVER $1 BILLION.

WE START WITH 800 MILLION, BUT WE'RE NOW ABOUT 1.2, $1.3 BILLION.

BUT WE ARE WE ARE THE BIGGEST WATER SUPPLIER WITH THE WITH THE REGION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY OF DALLAS.

IT'S A SUBURB THAT WE SUPPORT ALSO.

BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND WE'LL CONTINUE GOING TO CALL YOU.

I KNOW OUR COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO CALL YOU LIKE DEVIN, MAYOR PRO TEM OMAR ARE GOING TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO CALL YOU, BUT YOU HAVEN'T LEFT THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE KNOW HOW TO GET IN CONTACT WITH YOU.

THANK YOU. YES.

I THINK I JUST CALLED THE LIST.

I JUST HAD TO GO BACK TO MY NOTES.

WELL, THIS IS A SPECIAL DAY.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE.

WHAT DISTRICT DO YOU LIVE IN? THAT WOULD BE 12 DISTRICT 12.

WHAT? TODAY? TODAY YOU'RE IN ALL 15.

ALL 14 DISTRICTS.

HOW ABOUT THAT? I WISH MY SUCCESSOR, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE, WAS STILL HERE BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO KNOW.

IT'S GOING TO BE DAYS WHERE WE'RE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CALL NOT YOU, BUT YOUR SUCCESSOR.

WHEN WE HAVE ISSUES FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS TO GET EXTENSIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

I'M SURE ALL OF US CAN RELATE TO THAT.

BUT YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO ANSWER THE PHONE, WILLING TO RESPOND, WILLING TO DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO MAKE OUR MAKE SURE OUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED.

I'VE CALLED ON YOU A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY AND YOU WILL TRULY BE MISSED.

AND I'M SO GLAD I DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS JOB WITHOUT YOU.

YOU KNOW. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER.

[02:45:02]

MORENO. THANK YOU, TERRY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT AND SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AS MOST HAVE ALREADY SAID, YOU ARE ONE OF OUR DIRECTORS THAT I DON'T HESITATE TO CALL BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU'LL ALWAYS ANSWER.

NOT BECAUSE IT'S YOUR JOB, BUT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HELP OUR PEOPLE.

YOU WANT TO HELP OUR RESIDENTS, WHETHER IT BE DURING A FLOOD OR A STORM.

YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE.

WE ALL DRINK WATER EACH AND EVERY SINGLE DAY, BUT DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS IT TAKES TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE CLEAN AND SAFE WATER.

AND YOU'VE DONE THAT AND HAD US IN THE TRAJECTORY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'LL HAVE WATER FOR OUR ENTIRE LIFETIMES.

AND SO JUST AGAIN, WANT TO MAKE SURE, THOUGH, THAT YOU COME BACK FOR OUR MILL CREEK PROJECT.

WHEN THAT'S COMPLETED, THAT'S A HUGE PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO SAVE PROPERTY AND SAVE LIVES.

AND YOU'VE BEEN A BIG PART OF THAT.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP.

AND MONICA SAYS HELLO AND SHE MISSES YOU AND HAPPY RETIREMENT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCIL MEMBER.

COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY REALIZES THAT YOU MANAGE ESSENTIALLY ONE FIFTH OF OUR BUDGET, $1 BILLION, AND YOU'RE WALKING OUT THE DOOR.

AND THAT IS REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT FOR OUR CITY.

IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE LARGEST DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY, YOU ALSO HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST PERFORMING AND.

THE THING THAT HAS REALLY STRUCK ME ABOUT YOU IS THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THE WHOLE SYSTEM, BUT YOU ALSO CARE ABOUT THAT ONE DUDE WHO'S GOT HIS BILLING WRONG.

AND YOU'VE MANAGED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE REALLY BIG PERSPECTIVE AND THE REALLY, REALLY IN THE WEEDS PART AND MAKE THE WHOLE SYSTEM WORK.

AND THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT WORKS SO WELL.

AND IT'S JUST BEEN INCREDIBLE TO WATCH YOU.

I THINK FOR ME AND MANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK YOU HEAR SAYING THIS, YOU'VE BEEN AN INCREDIBLE TEACHER.

AND I KNOW FOR ME, I LOOK AT WATER DIFFERENTLY EVERY DAY BECAUSE OF YOU.

SO WHETHER I'M TURNING ON MY SHOWER OR I'M GETTING A GLASS OF WATER LIKE YOU POP IN MY HEAD NOW BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM YOU, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT.

JUST ON A. ON A BIGGER NOTE.

I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR YOU PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY.

AND VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE.

YOU WILL REMAIN ONE OF MY FAVORITE DE12 RESIDENTS.

COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU KNOW, YOU CARRY WITH YOU SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE AND YOU DELIVER IT WITH AUTHORITY, BUT IN A WAY THAT IS RELATABLE AND FRIENDLY AND APPROACHABLE AND MAKE THE COMPLEX.

WELL, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, YOU DUMB IT DOWN FOR US.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU COMMAND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT AROUND THIS BUILDING ACROSS THE STATE.

AND IT'S JUST SO EVIDENT.

AND IT'S IT'S QUIET LEADERSHIP, WHICH I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR.

AND NO MATTER WHAT, I THINK AFTER A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, WHETHER IT IS AS VAST AS WATER PLANNING AND THE NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS FOR THE NEXT 50, 75, 100 YEARS, OR AN ACUTE INCIDENT AROUND BILLING OR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU LEAVE.

YOU LEAVE US FEELING LIKE IT'S HANDLED.

AND WITH THAT FEELING OF SECURITY AND THAT THAT'S GOOD.

AND I MEAN THIS IN THE MOST LOVING WAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE FREAKISHLY RESPONSIVE AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE JUST LIKE, I MEAN, IT BLOWS MY MIND HOW RESPONSIVE YOU ARE.

I MEAN, NO MATTER WHAT HOLIDAY, NO MATTER WHAT TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT, YOU CARE AND YOU'RE ON IT.

AND I HAVE DEFINITELY WITNESSED HOW THAT PERMEATES EVERY LEVEL OF YOUR DEPARTMENT BECAUSE YOUR STAFF EMULATES AND, YOU KNOW, COPIES THAT THAT LEVEL OF RESPONSIVENESS.

AND I THINK IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY TO BE HELD UP AS A STANDARD HERE AT CITY HALL.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IS PALPABLE.

AND FINALLY, WHEN I GO HOME TONIGHT AFTER OUR LONG DAY, I'M GOING TO HAVE TWO LITTLE SIX WEEK OLD KITTENS I'M FOSTERING THERE.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE MY FOSTERING ROLE MODEL NOW.

AND SO I'M STEPPING INTO THAT ARENA AND ALL THE CUTE PICTURES THAT YOU POST AND HOW DEDICATED YOU ARE TO THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BROUGHT ME INTO THAT FOLD AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH, TERRY.

AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU GET TOO FAR AWAY FROM US.

THANKS. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER, TERRY, WHEN OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBER LEE KLEINMAN AND I SAT DOWN AS HE WAS LEAVING AND AND I JUST ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, OFF THE

[02:50:01]

RECORD, LIKE ABOUT THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND WATER CAME UP AND HE'S AND LEE WAS VERY SPECIFIC IN SAYING THIS.

HE SAID THE WATER DEPARTMENT IS ONE YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE TERRY LOWERY'S GOT IT.

AND THAT IS HIGH PRAISE COMING FROM LEE KLEINMAN.

IF YOU'VE EVER HEARD HIM AND AND I'VE SEEN THAT TO BE THE CASE YOU KNOW AS CHAIR WELL EVERYONE MADE GREAT COMMENTS, BUT CHAIR WILLIS HAS RESONATED WITH ME.

IT'S JUST THIS FEELING OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S HANDLED AND WATER.

WHEN I HEAR FROM STAFF FROM YOU OR YOUR STAFF AND YOU DO ANSWER YOUR PHONE WAY TOO MUCH.

AND I I'VE HEARD THAT.

I'VE HEARD THAT ABOUT MYSELF SOMETIMES, TOO.

BUT I THINK YOU'RE WAY BETTER THAN I AM.

AND BUT IT JUST I KNOW IT'S GOING TO GET DONE AND I CAN CHECK IT OFF MY LIST AND MOVE ON.

AND I KNOW I'M GOING TO HEAR BACK THAT IT'S GOING TO GET DONE.

AND I AGREE WITH CHAIR WILLIS.

IT RESONATES UP AND DOWN THE CHAIN.

I DON'T HAVE KITTENS.

I DON'T WANT KITTENS.

NO OFFENSE, BUT TONIGHT WHEN I GO HOME, I'M GOING TO TAKE AFTER SHOWERS.

IF WE GET HOME TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO TAKE A LONG, HOT SHOWER.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE THANKS TO DALLAS WATER UTILITIES THAT MY MY WATER IS THERE.

AND AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I'LL BE QUICK BECAUSE I WILL BE HERE PROBABLY ALL DAY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.

AND I WILL GET WITH YOU AFTER THIS AS WELL.

BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AND MISSED THE CLASS IN SCHOOL ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER, YOU BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND MORE WHEN YOU'RE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.

BUT WHAT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OPTIONS.

WE CAN DRINK BOTTLED WATER AND WE CAN DRINK WATER FROM THE TAP.

BECAUSE OF YOUR LEADERSHIP, I IMAGINE, AND NOT FEAR ABOUT TAKING BATHS AND WATERING OUR PLANTS OR WHATEVER.

WATER IS VERY KEY.

AND SO YOU HAVE BEEN VERY KEY.

AND SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO MISS YOU, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE REST OF IT LATER ON.

SO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR EVERYTHING.

AND I'M NOT CUTTING MY COMMENTS SHORT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.

I HAVE PLENTY TO SAY AND VERY PROUD OF YOU, BUT WE DO HAVE THE OTHER AGENDA.

LET ME MAKE SURE I'M NOT LOOKING OVER ANYONE ELSE HERE.

I HAVE ONE ONE SCHULTZ SIX AND THEN 17.

SO LET ME GET THOSE COMMENTS IN AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STATEMENT.

COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ, THANK YOU.

I WON'T REPEAT.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID, SO I WON'T REPEAT IT.

WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THERE IS A STATEMENT MADE IN THE ETHICS OF THE FATHERS THAT SAYS THERE ARE THREE CROWNS.

THERE'S THE CROWN OF KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S THE CROWN OF LEADERSHIP AND THERE'S THE CROWN OF FAMILY.

BUT A GOOD NAME SUPERSEDES THEM ALL.

AND YOU HAVE EARNED THAT CROWN OF A GOOD NAME.

AND I WANT YOU TO WEAR THAT CROWN PROUDLY.

I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE ONE TO GIVE YOU, BUT YOU HAVE EARNED IT.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AND AGAIN, JUST CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AND TERRY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

WE'VE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND I WILL SAY THAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT COMES WITH GREAT RESPECT ACROSS THE REGION, BUT ALSO JUST WITH THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE. AND AS I'VE BEEN TOLD, THAT EVEN IF AN ANIMAL ESCAPES FROM THE ZOO, THEY'RE CALLING YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE ALWAYS ON CALL AND YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE.

AND SO I KNOW THAT WE'LL GET A GOOD THEY'LL BE WE'LL BE IN GOOD HANDS BECAUSE YOU'VE TRAINED YOUR TEAM.

AND AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER NAMES IN THE QUEUE, SO I THINK WE'LL WRAP IT UP HERE AROUND THE HORSESHOE AND I'M SURE YOU'LL BE GETTING MORE.

DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO WHAT YOU BET YOU'VE MADE ON WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO REALLY LEAVE.

OKAY. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

BUT BUT JUNE 27TH.

JUNE 27TH. JUNE 27TH.

OKAY. SO WE STILL HAVE TIME TO SHOWER YOU WITH MORE GIFTS.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO WRAP UP BEFORE WE.

I WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

I'M A NUMBERS PERSON, NOT A SPEECH GIVER.

SO I PROMISE YOU. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE A LONG DAY IN FRONT OF YOU.

MOSTLY I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR HIS KIND WORDS.

THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE HAVE ALL WORKED TOGETHER VERY CLOSELY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE.

AS I WATCH YOU SERVE YOUR CONSTITUENTS WITH GREAT DEDICATION AND IT'S BEEN MY PRIVILEGE TO HELP WITH THAT.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK CITY MANAGER T.C.

BROADNAX AND DEPUTY CITY MANAGER KIM TOLBERT.

T.C. GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS ROLE, AND HE PUT A LOT OF TRUST IN ME, AND THAT MEANS A LOT TO ME.

AND IT HAS BEEN MY HONOR AND MY PRIVILEGE.

AND AS THE MAYOR SAID, I DIDN'T DO THIS ALONE.

I HAVE A VERY STRONG TEAM OVER THERE, AND WE WORK VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER, VERY SKILLED, VERY PROFESSIONAL.

AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1600 EMPLOYEES WHO DEDICATE THEMSELVES AROUND THE CLOCK.

WE ARE AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE DEPARTMENT AND IT'S BEEN QUITE A RIDE BETWEEN COVID AND WINTER STORM URI.

[02:55:06]

AND WHEN WE FIRST DID ONE WATER, WE DID THAT ON SEPTEMBER THE 18TH, 2018.

BUT WHO REMEMBERS? BECAUSE THAT NIGHT SET OFF THE WETTEST FALL IN HISTORY.

AND WHEN WE DID THE REORGANIZATION, WE DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD GIVEN ALL THE CUSTOMER SERVICE PEOPLE TWO WEEKS AND WE HAD NOBODY TO TAKE THE CALLS AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

IT WAS A QUITE A RIDE.

SO WETTEST FALL IN TWO MONTHS INSTEAD OF THREE.

SO IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN SOMETHING AND I HAVE ENJOYED EVERY MOMENT OF IT.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I SEE THE MAYOR IS HERE AND I KNOW HE HAS SOME COMMENTS AND I SEE THE CITY MANAGER.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO LET THE MAYOR SAY WHAT HE HAS TO SAY FOR SURE AND THEN HE'LL GIVE US FURTHER GUIDANCE ON LUNCH.

HE DID? OH, I THOUGHT HE HAD MORE TO SAY.

HE SAID, LET'S SEE. I'M SORRY.

I MEAN, HE'S A KAPPA BROTHER.

I JUST KNOW THEY HAVE MORE TO SAY.

I'M SORRY. SO ANYWAY, IF.

NO, MR. BROADNAX, YOU'RE DONE. ALL RIGHT.

SO, MAYOR, I THINK MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO STOP NOW TO TO.

AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

OUR HEARTS ARE WITH YOU. BIG HUG.

BIG HUG, BIG HUG. BUT WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR LUNCH.

WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN FOR A LUNCH, TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH AND RETURN ABOUT 1245 COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. WE WANT TO REMIND YOU, WE NEED WE KNOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES FOR OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PRIDE DAY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE WE ARE HERE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME DECISIONS EXCUSE ME STAFF SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO HOW WE WANT TO MOVE IT KIND OF AMEND THIS.

ON JUNE 14TH, 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 130.

SO LET ME READ NOW.

IT IS NOW 12:18 P.M.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

UNDER SECTIONS 551.076 AND 551.089 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

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

NUMBER TWO, NETWORK SECURITY INFORMATION THREE THE DEPLOYMENT OR SPECIFIC OCCASIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR SECURITY DEVICES, OR FOR A SECURITY AUDIT REGARDING A RECENT RANSOM ATTACK SECURITY INCIDENT RELATING TO THE CITY'S INFORMATION RESOURCES. AND UNDER SECTION 551.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE RANSOMWARE ATTACK, AN AGENDA ITEM 70 AND PAGE TWO AND WE WILL RETURN AT 2:00 PM.

THANK YOU. TWO? YES. SO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS COMPLETED ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551 .0765 51.089 AND 551 .07.

ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND AT 2:26 P.M.

ON JUNE 14TH, 2023, WE'VE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY SECRETARY, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ISSUE ADVANCE NOTICE TO PREPARE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GIVING EVERYONE ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.

TODAY, ONE MINUTE.

SO IF YOU HAD THREE MINUTES WORTH OF REMARKS PREPARED, FIGURE OUT.

STARTING NOW, HOW TO GET THOSE CONDENSED DOWN TO ONE MINUTE BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY AND A VERY LONG AGENDA TODAY.

SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS ADVANCE NOTICE TO PREPARE HOW TO SHORTEN YOUR REMARKS.

SO AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

MADAM SECRETARY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU NOW.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM 60.

[60. 23-463 Authorize (1) an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for the distribution of up to $80,000,000.00 in funding from DART which consists of the City’s portion of (i) excess sales tax funds from DART of approximately $72,000,000.00 and (ii) additional RTC funds of approximately $8,000,000.00, (with approximately $50,000,000.00 being made immediately available to the City and approximately $30,000,000.00 to be made available to the City upon completion of certain milestones), all the funds received are to be used to complete projects eligible for this funding that will benefit DART’s Public Transportation System or provide Complementary Transportation Services located in Dallas; (2) the establishment of appropriations in an amount not to exceed $80,000,000.00 in DART Public Transportation System Projects Fund (3) the receipt and deposit in an amount not to exceed $80,000,000.00 in DART Public Transportation System Projects Fund; and (4) approval of the proposed use of funds for various projects eligible for funding in accordance with the ILA - Estimated Revenue: DART Public Transportation System Projects Fund $80,000,000.00]

OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 60.

AUTHORIZE ONE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT DART FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF UP TO $80 MILLION IN FUNDING FROM DART, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE CITY'S PORTION OF ONE EXCESS SALES TAX FUNDS FROM DART OF APPROXIMATELY $72 MILLION AND TWO ADDITIONAL RTC FUNDS OF APPROXIMATELY $8 MILLION WITH APPROXIMATELY $50 MILLION BEING MADE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY AND APPROXIMATELY $30 MILLION TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY UPON COMPLETION OF CERTAIN MILESTONES.

[03:00:03]

ALL THE FUNDS RECEIVED ARE TO BE USED TO COMPLETE PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING THAT WILL BENEFIT DART'S PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OR PROVIDE COMPLIMENTARY, COMPLIMENTARY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LOCATED IN DALLAS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80 MILLION IN DART PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS FUND.

THREE THE RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80 MILLION IN DART PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS FUND AND FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ILLA.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED ON THE AGENDA.

YOU ALSO HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, MARA SCHREIER FLEMING.

MS.. FLEMING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.

MAURICE SCHREIER FLEMING I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGHLANDS OF MCKAMY FOUR AND FIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

WE'RE 247 FAMILIES IN NORTH DALLAS DALLAS CITY STAFF NEEDS TO EXERCISE A LOT STRONGER AND WISER NEGOTIATING SKILLS WITH DART AND YOUR INABILITY TO SEE A CONNECTION WITH A TODD THIS MORNING.

THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED CONFIRMS THIS CITY COUNCIL MUST RECOGNIZE THAT DART HAS A HISTORY OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.

DART PRESIDENT AND CEO NADINE LEE TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS EARLIER THIS YEAR, QUOTE, DALLAS HAD COST THE TRANSIT AGENCY MORE THAN $80 MILLION WITH DELAYS AND REQUESTED CHANGES, INCLUDING $36 MILLION DUE TO CITY DELAYS IN PERMIT REVIEWS AND APPROVALS, END QUOTE.

THIS IS JUST ONE MORE DART FABRICATION OF THE TRUTH.

DART CAUSED THE DELAYS IN THE SILVER LINE, STARTING WITH ITS CHOICE OF A DESIGN BUILD PROJECT.

DESIGNING WHILE YOU BUILD IS NOTORIOUS FOR DELAYS AND COST OVERRUNS.

IT IS OUTRAGEOUS TO DESIGN BUILD A $2 BILLION PROJECT.

DART CAUSED FURTHER DELAYS BY CHANGING THE DART COTTON BELT SILVER LINE FROM A, QUOTE, MOSTLY SINGLE TRACK PROJECT, END QUOTE, WHICH WAS STATED IN THE FICE TO A, QUOTE, DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT.

DART HAS A HISTORY OF MAKING FALSE CLAIMS TO AVOID CONSEQUENCES.

US CONGRESSMAN VAN TAYLOR CITED DART'S CLAIM IN A LETTER TO THE HIGHLANDS OF MCKAMY FOUR AND FIVE BACK IN JUNE OF 2020 THAT, QUOTE, DART AND THEIR GENERAL CONTRACTOR HAVE ALL THEIR WORK PERMITS, END QUOTE.

DART'S CLAIM IN 2020 OF HAVING ALL WORK PERMIT PERMITS WAS FALSE.

DALLAS IS DART'S EQUAL AS AN ENTITY, NOT SUBORDINATE.

THE CITY SHOULD TAKE THE DART DEAL.

EXCUSE ME. THE CITY SHOULD NOT TAKE THE DART DEAL WITH STRINGS ATTACHED.

THE CITY SHOULD EXERCISE ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL PROJECTS WITH DART.

IT CAN RESUME A PARTNERSHIP OF EQUALS WHEN DART STOPS BLAMING DALLAS FOR ITS FISCAL MISMANAGEMENT AND ASSUMES ITS OWN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

DANE COFFER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON.

DART HAS PLAYED THE CITY OF DALLAS WITH REGARD TO THE COTTON BELT.

THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU DOESN'T LOOK AS THOUGH IT PERTAINS DIRECTLY TO THE COTTON BELT SILVER LINE, BUT IT ACTUALLY DOES.

TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ONLY OFFERING YOU NOW $72 MILLION WITH AN $8 MILLION BAND AID.

AND THE REASON THAT THEY'RE ABBREVIATING THEIR ORIGINAL PROMISE OF $110 MILLION IS THEY'RE BLAMING THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR THE DELAYS THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE PROGENITOR FOR EVERY DELAY THAT HAS BEEN MARKED ON THE COTTON BELT, SILVER LINE IS A RESULT OF THE CHOICES THAT DART HAS MADE TO BE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY RESOLUTIONS AND THE OTHER INDEPENDENT ISLAS.

BUT THIS IS NOT NEW TO DART, AND FUNDAMENTALLY, DART HAS CHANGED THEIR MIND AND PLAYED DALLAS IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.

DART ORIGINALLY SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO EMINENT DOMAIN, BUT NOW THEY'RE TAKING 15 OR SO PARCELS BEFORE THE END OF THIS PROJECT.

DART SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO STREETS, BUT YET THEY'VE MANIPULATED THE CITY OF DALLAS INTO NARROWING THE HILLCREST INTERSECTION FROM SIX LANES TO FOUR LANES. SLOWLY BUT SURELY, DART HAS BEEN PLAYING INTO THE SLOWLY BUT SURELY THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS BEEN PLAYING INTO DART'S HANDS AND FORMULATE FORMULATING A PLACE WHERE DART IS ACTUALLY DOING THINGS TO MAKE THE CITY ACT AGAINST ITS OWN BEST INTERESTS.

[03:05:10]

PERHAPS IF YOUR TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR WERE LESS OBSESSED WITH SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND GAMING ROOMS, THE CITY WOULD HAVE NOT HAVE BEEN PLAYED SO HARD.

BUT FOR NOW, THE CITY HAS BEEN PLAYED REALLY, REALLY BADLY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

LEVERAGE HAS BEEN MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO WHAT THIS THE CITY HAS TO DO HAS LEFT AVAILABLE WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

AND I'D LIKE TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS SPECIFICALLY IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY THAT DEMONSTRATE THE LEVERAGE THAT THE CITY HAS THE CITY HAD FOR AGENDA ITEMS THAT COUNCILMAN MENDELSOHN HAS PUSHED TO AFTER THIS THAT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY TO EXERCISE ITS OWN LEVERAGE.

AND SECONDLY, DART JUST APPOINTED OR REAPPOINTED SIX PEOPLE TO THE DART BOARD.

PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO REMIND THE DART BOARD WHO WORKS FOR WHO.

HI. JUST CHECKING IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.

SARAH WYATT.

YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

THANK YOU. SO, GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M ALSO ON THE AIR.

I JUST WANT TO CALL OUT SPECIFICALLY THIS NEW PROPOSED IOLA IS A WORKAROUND FOR THEIR FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE LAST IOLA SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 11 IN THE LAST IOLA DART AGREED HILLCREST WOULD BE CLOSED A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS, BUT THEY NEVER EVEN MADE A PLAN FOR THAT TIMELINE.

THEY JUST CAME BACK TO YOU AND INSISTED THEY NEEDED A YEAR OF COMPLETE CLOSURE.

TWICE AS LONG IN THE LAST IOLA DART AGREED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12FT ABOVE CURRENT AND TRACKS 11FT BELOW CURRENT.

BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD ACCORDING TO EITHER OF THOSE MEASUREMENTS AND ARE PUSHING YOU TO APPROVE CHANGES THAT THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION HASN'T EVEN APPROVED.

YOU KNOW THAT DART NEEDS A SCAPEGOAT AND ALREADY BLAMES THE CITY FOR THEIR DELAYS.

YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED TO HOLD BACK MORE OF THE MONEY THAN THIS AGREEMENT.

MAKES IT SOUND LIKE YOU MIGHT GET.

YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHAT YOU HOPE FOR? YOU ARE GIVING THEM UNILATERAL AUTHORITY OVER YOU TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO GIVE YOU THE MONEY OR IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO BLAME YOU FOR THEIR TIMELINES, WITHHOLD MORE MONEY, MAKE YOU PAY FOR THEIR PROBLEMS. THIS IS NOT A PARTNERSHIP.

IT'S A DEVIL'S BARGAIN.

WHY WOULD ANYONE AGREE TO SUCH UNREASONABLE TERMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN DART HAS SHOWN OVER AND OVER THEY DO NOT KEEP PROMISES THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP.

AGAIN, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ENABLE THEM TO CONTINUE TO BREAK THE LIFESTYLE.

SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU ARE LISTENING TO FOOLISH ADVICE.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SACRIFICING.

DART WANTS APPROVAL OF ALL THEIR PLANS AND WANTS IT FAST, NO MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS AND HOW CONTRADICTORY TO THEIR PRIOR PROMISES.

THAT MEANS YOU ARE SACRIFICING THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY BY PUSHING THROUGH WHATEVER THEY PUT IN FRONT OF YOU.

THAT MEANS SACRIFICING SAFETY AND THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.

ALLOWING THE ROAD ON KUWAIT TO BE RAISED MORE THAN 12FT JEOPARDIZES PUBLIC SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS OF DALLAS AND NEARBY CITIES THAT USE THIS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, WHICH IS ALREADY PART OF THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK FOR THE NORTH TEXAS REGION.

ALLOWING THEM TO RAISE THE INTERSECTION FOR A LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIVERSITY PLACE OF WHICH I AM.

HERE IS THE HOA PRESIDENT.

MORE THAN ONE FOOT, WHICH WAS THE LIMIT IN 2020, JEOPARDIZES THE SAFETY OF MY NEIGHBORS, PUTS NEARBY HOMES AT RISK, AND DESTROYS OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

WHAT ELSE WILL THEY ASK YOU TO JEOPARDIZE FOR A FALSE PROMISE? ART NEEDS SOMEONE TO BLAME.

AND THIS IS DALLAS VOLUNTEERING TO BE THEIR SCAPEGOAT.

DON'T DO IT.

USE YOUR LEVERAGE TO ENSURE DALLAS ONLY ENTERS APPROPRIATE DEALS.

AND DON'T SACRIFICE THE SAFETY OF YOUR OWN CITIZENS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 60.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM? YES, MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU.

THIS HAS BEEN VETTED THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

FULL BRIEFING BACK TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE GBFM.

SEVERAL DIFFERENT COMMITTEES JUST THIS WEEK FOR PEOPLE TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH THIS OR NOT GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

[03:10:06]

WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, THAT DART WAS GOING TO GIVE US $111 MILLION IN EXCESS SALES TAX REVENUE.

THE ALLEGATIONS CAME OUT THAT WE WERE BEHIND, THAT WE HAD HELD PERMITS AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO AT THAT POINT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE HAD REQUESTED THAT MICHAEL MORRIS WITH THE NCTCOG, HELP US TO NEGOTIATE WITH DART AS WELL AS I CREATED A WORKING GROUP THAT WAS CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ AND BAZALDUA IN ORDER TO HELP WITH WHATEVER WAS NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET MORE FOR US TO NOT LOSE $80 MILLION, BUT FOR US TO GAIN BACK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THE ENDING CAME OUT TO BE $90 MILLION IS WHAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET BACK.

WE NEED TO GET THIS PASSED SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS $90 MILLION SO WE CAN START FIXING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT WILL HELP THE DIFFERENT AREAS ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE THINGS MOVING.

MR. MAYOR. THESE ARE NOT FUNDS THAT WE CAN JUST SIT AROUND AND WAIT ON.

DART IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.

THEY HAVE ALREADY PUT A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT YOU EITHER TAKE IT OR YOU LEAVE IT.

AND I CANNOT SIT HERE AND IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TO TRY TO GET A SLIGHTLY BETTER DEAL OR SOMETHING, A LITTLE BIT TAD BIT BETTER AND SIT THERE AND GIVE UP ON $90 MILLION THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED FOR OUR STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND THE OTHER TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERSECTIONS THAT WILL DESPERATELY HELP, ESPECIALLY IN OUR MOST VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN DIVESTED FOR SO MANY, SO MANY DECADES.

MR. MAYOR. THE COMMITTEE FORWARDED THIS TO FULL COUNCIL LAST WEDNESDAY.

WE HAD A SECOND BRIEFING, WHICH WE ALREADY HAD A BRIEFING LAST WEDNESDAY WAS THE UPDATE TO THAT BRIEFING.

AND THEN WE HAD TWO COMMITTEE MEETINGS THIS PAST WEEK.

AND I'M I'M FINE WITH GETTING THIS PASSED SO THAT WE CAN GET MOVING.

MR. MAYOR, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO SIT AROUND AND LET $90 MILLION GO TO WASTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO PENALIZE OURSELVES WITH OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS.

MICHAEL MORRIS HAS HELPED NEGOTIATE A POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT, AND I'M GRATEFUL HE DID.

BUT AT ISSUE IS NOT THE BASIC TERMS OF THE DEAL.

IT'S THE ILA ILA DOCUMENT ITSELF.

AND THE DART DEVELOPED TALKING POINTS THAT ARE BEING REPEATED BY THOSE WHO CLEARLY HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO ACTUALLY READ THE ILA.

I UNDERSTAND THE ILA IS BEING PASSED AROUND NOW.

I'M SORRY, WAS BEING PASSED AROUND.

IS THE CITY ATTORNEY INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS OF THE ILA.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, I SUGGEST YOU DO.

TO PORTRAY DALLAS AS THE ONLY CITY TO HAVE NOT APPROVE THIS ILA IS TO LEAVE OUT TWO KEY ITEMS. ONE EVERY CITY ATTORNEY OF THE OTHER MEMBER CITIES, INCLUDING OURS, WANTED CHANGES TO THE ILA BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT IS SO POORLY DRAFTED AS TO LEAVE CITIES EXPOSED TO THE WHIMS OF DART.

ALL OTHER CITIES WERE GIVEN A QUOTE, CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING BEFORE THEY APPROVED THAT ILA, ALLOWING THEM TO HOLD THEIR NOSE AND JUST PASS IT TO GET THOSE DOLLARS BACK, AS SOME ARE NOW SUGGESTING.

BUT DALLAS HAS NOT RECEIVED THAT CERTIFICATE BECAUSE WE ARE QUITE SIMPLY BEING TARGETED.

WE CAN'T JUST HOLD OUR NOSE AND PASS THIS BECAUSE EVERY PROVISION OF THE ILA WILL MATTER TO US AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MANY PROJECTS WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN OUR CITY.

SO WE MUST SEEK A SOLUTION THAT'S LEGALLY SOUND AND FAIR OR WILL MAKE THIS DEAL THINKING WE'VE PUT THE ISSUE TO BED, BUT WE'LL NEVER SEE THE DOLLARS EXPECTED AND IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

IF YOU APPROVE TODAY, YOU WILL BE RISKING ANY DOLLARS BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE GIVEN AWAY YOUR AUTHORITY AND YOUR FIDUCIARY DUTY.

MY FIRST QUESTION OF STAFF IS WHAT STAFF MEMBERS DIRECTLY NEGOTIATED THIS WITH DART.

I WILL. HONORABLE MEMBER.

HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ROBERT BETTIS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AT YOUR SUGGESTION, WORKING WITH THE COG, MICHAEL MORRIS, A COUPLE OF HIS STAFF MEMBERS DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

SARAH STANFORD, GUS CALI, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION.

ALI HATIFI DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND MYSELF.

WE NEGOTIATED THE $36 MILLION OF BETTERMENT AND DART APOLOGIES.

YES, WITH DART, SPECIFICALLY WITH DART WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGGETT AND HER STAFF, D LEGGETT, THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT WITH DART AND HER STAFF.

[03:15:09]

SO BACK IN MARCH, WE HAD THAT NEGOTIATION, WE STARTED THE NEGOTIATION, AND WE WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE DOWN THE BETTERMENTS FROM 36 MILLION, WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN FEBRUARY.

I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE IT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE DRAFTING AN MOU TO ACCOMPANY THE ILA? SO, YEAH, THERE WERE SOME SOME QUESTIONS ON, I GUESS SOME OF THE LOOSE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE ILA, AS WAS NOTED BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. AND SO AS I MENTIONED DURING THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING, THE ILA WILL BE THE RULE BOOK.

THE MOU IS THE PLAYBOOK.

THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT IN ORDER TO TO MAKE THE DART BOARD COMFORTABLE, THEY WANT TO SEE SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE MOU IS AN ILA, A CONTRACT.

SO AN ILA IS AN AGREEMENT THAT IS SIGNED BETWEEN TWO GOVERNING BODIES.

SO YES. OKAY. SO IF I CAN ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ANSWER THAT, PLEASE.

YES, IT IS. AND IS AN MOU A CONTRACT? IT IS NOT. IS AN ILA LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE? IT'S A LETTER OF INTENT.

UNLESS THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CLEAR IN THE MOU THAT IT'S ENFORCEABLE, IT GENERALLY IS NOT AND IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY EITHER BOARD OR THE BOARD OR THE COUNCIL EITHER.

IS AN MOU LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE? GENERALLY, NO. IT'S A LETTER OF INTENT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE'S CONFUSING LANGUAGE IN THE ILA AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SUBMITTING AN MOU? I AM SAYING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE LOOSE LANGUAGE IN THE ILA.

SO YES, THE MOU IS BEING DRAFTED AND THEN ALSO TO ENSURE THAT THE DART BOARD IS COMFORTABLE AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS MONEY, THAT WE WILL EXECUTE THE PROJECTS WITHIN WITHIN THE TIMEFRAMES AND THE ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE MOU IF IT'S POSSIBLE.

I'D LIKE TO ASK THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY IF SHE BELIEVES THERE IS CONFUSING LANGUAGE IN THE ILA.

I WOULD SAY THERE'S OUTLINED A LOT OF LACK OF CLARITY AROUND DIFFERENT TERMS. THANK YOU. WHAT PORTION OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED COME FROM THE RTC AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DART'S GOOD STANDING QUALIFICATION? SO I THINK THE THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW SHOWS 72 AND EIGHT AND APPROXIMATELY AS WRITTEN, I BELIEVE IT'S 4.4 FROM THE RTC AND THE BALANCE FROM DART.

AND ARE YOU INCLUDING THOSE DOLLARS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE GOOD STANDING PROVISION IN THIS SILA? OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A SEPARATE ILA FOR THAT? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? ARE YOU INCLUDING THE RTC DOLLARS IN AN ILA THAT GIVES DART A GOOD STANDING PROVISION? YES, BECAUSE THE RCS FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY WHAT HELPED PROVIDE THE INITIAL 111 TO THE CITY OF DALLAS 111 MILLION. SO, YES, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TO THE LRA AS WELL.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE RTC SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PROVISIONS PUT ON THOSE DOLLARS? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, MA'AM.

BUT IF THAT IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE CAN EXECUTE OUTSIDE OF THAT.

ARE THERE ANY STAFF MEMBERS THAT HAVE ATTENDED THE RTC MEETING, INCLUDING LAST THURSDAY? BECAUSE.

OKAY. GUSKIN CARTIE, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY, IT IS ABOUT THE THE PROVISIONS THAT GOVERN THE EXCHANGE OF FUNDS THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE RTC. SO DURING THE SURFACE TECHNICAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS ONE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL MEETINGS, IT WAS, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE DISCUSSION CORRECTLY ON THE RTC, IS THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY PROVISIONS OR ANY STRINGS ATTACHED TO THE TO THE MONEY THAT WILL BE THAT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY RTC AS PART OF THE EXCHANGES.

SO, I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE CASE, COUNCIL MEMBER, I MEAN, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WAS PAYING FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE THE EXISTING STREETCAR. WE CAN MAKE THAT MONEY IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO TO PAY THAT.

SO, I MEAN, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RTC FUNDS OR TAX REVENUES, THERE'S THERE'S WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT.

[03:20:01]

SO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU'LL REMOVE THOSE DOLLARS FROM THE ILA.

IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN WE WOULD DISCUSS THAT WITH OUR.

YES, MA'AM. YOU'RE GOING TO ASK DART'S INTERPRET WHAT THE RTC ALREADY DESIGNATED BOTH SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND THE FULL BODY WHICH VOTED ON THIS ISSUE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE DART TEAM AT THIS POINT.

HOWEVER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE CAN DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF HOW WE EXECUTE THE PROJECTS WITH THEM AND IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN WE CAN DO THE PAYMENT. AS I MENTIONED IN SECTION 2.2 OF THE ILA, THERE'S A DEFINITION.

THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF GOOD STANDING.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US HOW YOU'RE ADDRESSING THAT? SO AND I GUESS IN LOOKING AT THE ILA, THAT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH, THE MOU THAT WE ARE DRAFTING AND THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO REFINE AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD STANDING IN THE MOU THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.

WOULD THAT COME BEFORE COUNCIL? DO WE HAVE A VOTE OR IS THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE OPTION? IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE OPTION, MA'AM.

AND WHAT IS THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO USE IN AN MOU THAT WE WON'T SEE? SO AGAIN, I THINK IT TALKS TO DELAYS.

WHAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A DELAY? WHAT IS THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION? THINGS OF THAT NATURE, MA'AM.

BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE IN GOOD STANDING? IN GOOD STANDING? MA'AM, IT I MEAN, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS TO DART, THAT WE ARE NOT HOLDING UP ANY PROJECT PERMITS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DELAYING ANYTHING IN SECTION 2.2 B, IT SAYS TIMELY ACTED UPON, WRITTEN IN THERE TWICE. WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DISCUSS AND FURTHER REFINE.

AND YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE A DOCUMENT WITHOUT ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE BASIC RULES FOR HOW WE WILL EXECUTE THIS, THESE PROJECTS AND ACCEPT THIS FUNDING.

BUT THIS IS THE ONLY LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT AND YOU HAVE NO DEFINITIONS IN THERE ABOUT VERY CRITICAL ITEMS. AGAIN, MA'AM, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DRAFT THE MOU TO HAVE FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

ALSO IN SECTION 2.2 B, IT LISTS MULTIPLE ITEMS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH, BUT IT'S UNCLEAR IF WE MUST COMPLY WITH ONE, SOME OR ALL OF THOSE. ARE YOU AWARE ONE, SOME OR ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN SECTION 2.2 B? I THINK I MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE BACK.

IT'S GOING TO BE ALL OF THEM IN SECTION 2.2.

SEE, ARE WE PENALIZED JUST FOR ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT DART MIGHT CONSIDER A BETTERMENT? COULD YOU READ THAT SECTION? YEAH. SO IT SAYS CITY SHALL HAVE PAID TO DART OR FORFEITED FROM CITY'S FUNDS.

ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES RESULTING FROM ANY DELAYS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF DART'S PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH ARE CAUSED OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ILLUSTRATION AND NOT LIMITATION.

DELAYED ACTIONS BY CITY OFFICIALS OR REQUESTS BY CITY FOR BETTERMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DART CAPITAL PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAWS.

IN EFFECT, AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE, SUCH COSTS CAUSED BY OR ATTRIBUTED TO CITY INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO DELAY DAMAGES CLAIMED OR INCURRED AGAINST DART OR DART'S CONTRACTOR.

SO WE WILL NOT BE PENALIZED FOR ASKING FOR SOMETHING.

MA'AM, WE WILL HAVE PLAIN LANGUAGE.

IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT WE WOULD BE.

AGAIN, MA'AM, WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE IN MORE LANGUAGE TO BETTER DEFINE THAT IN SECTION 2.2 KHZ.

WHAT ABOUT DELAYS FROM LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST DART THAT ARE NON CITY ENTITIES? SO AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT CAUSED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THEY SHOULDN'T AFFECT US.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE LAWSUIT? ARCHER WESTERN HERZOG WILL BE FILING AGAINST DART FOR THE DELAYS.

WILL THE CITY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DART'S MISMANAGEMENT AND DELAYS? AGAIN, MA'AM, IF IT'S NOT CAUSED BY THE CITY, THEN IT SHOULD NOT AFFECT US.

AND WHAT IF DART DETERMINES THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF THE CITY'S DELAYS THAT THEY ARE PAYING ARCHER WESTERN A FEE? WHERE WILL THAT MONEY COME FROM? SO AS LONG AS THE CITY HAS NOT CAUSED IT AND WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE ERA, AS LONG AS THE CITY DIDN'T CAUSE IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE COMING FROM US. I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE COME FROM AND WHO DETERMINES IF THERE'S BEEN A DELAY? DART. DART AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO WOULDN'T DART THEN SAY IT'S THE SOLE AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, WOULDN'T THEY THEN DETERMINE THAT IT WAS DALLAS THAT THEY CAN PULL BACK MORE MONEY?

[03:25:06]

SO AGAIN, THERE'S A DISPUTE RESOLUTION THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, AND I'M SURE THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION.

AND SECTION 2.3 DART AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION, DETERMINES WHAT CONSTITUTES, QUOTE, BEST EFFORT, WHAT IS BEST EFFORT MEAN? AGAIN, THEY WOULD DEFINE THAT IN THE SAME SECTION.

THERE ARE TERMS LIKE EXPEDITIOUSLY.

THERE'S A DEFINITION OF DART'S SOLE DISCRETION.

SO WHAT IS EXPEDITIOUSLY MEAN? THEY WOULD PROBABLY DEFINE THAT AS WELL.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE KNOW GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS IN THE ERA, I MEAN, WE HAVE TEN DAY TURNAROUND ON REVIEW OF ITEMS. SO I MEAN, WE PROBABLY HAVE TO LOOK TO SOME OF THAT GUIDANCE.

THE WORD PROMPTLY IS USED.

IS THERE A DEFINITION OF THAT SAME SAME THING, MA'AM.

AND WHO DECIDES IF SOMETHING IS PROMPT OR NOT? I BELIEVE DART WOULD HAVE THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND LIKE TALK TO US ABOUT IT.

THE PHRASE PROPOSING AND ACCEPTING REASONABLE SOLUTIONS.

AGAIN, DART CAN PROPOSE A SOLUTION.

IF THE CITY DIDN'T LIKE IT, THEY COULD SAY IT'S A REASONABLE SOLUTION AND YOU MUST ACCEPT IT OR WE WILL TAKE OUR DOLLARS BACK FOR THIS ROUND.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE.

CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 60.

DR. PARIS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DART, IS IT TRUE THAT THE SSL TAX BELONGED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS? SO IT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO DART AND THEY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOCATE IT TO THEIR PARTNER CITIES AND THEY ALLOCATE THE SALES TAX TO ALL 13 CITIES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AND WHAT IS THE PORTION OF WHAT CITY GETTING WHAT AMOUNT OF SALES TAX? I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, SIR.

BUT DALLAS TO GET THE LARGEST PORTION OF 111 MILLION.

AND HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE WE SPENT ON THE SILVER LINE TODAY? I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT, BUT I KNOW THE BUDGET IS UP TO ABOUT 1.9 BILLION.

HOW MUCH? $1.9 BILLION.

$1.9 BILLION.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS MONEY THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SALES TAX AND SOMETHING HAPPENED, WHERE WOULD THE MONEY GO TO WHAT PROJECT? SO IF THE IF THE IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT THESE FUNDS, THEN DART WILL REPROGRAM THEM WITHIN THEIR OPERATING DOLLARS OR WITHIN THEIR OPERATING BUDGET AND PROBABLY COVER A LOT OF THE BETTERMENTS AND DELAYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SILVER LINE.

WHICH PROJECT WILL YOU REPEAT? WHICH PROJECT? THE SILVER LINE, SIR.

THE SILVER LINE. RIGHT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SILVER LINE.

HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WORKING ON BETTERMENT WITH THE SILVER LINE, GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SILVER LINE.

SO CITY OF DALLAS HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH DART PROBABLY IN THE LAST 3 TO 4 YEARS LOOKING AT PLANS AND DESIGNS AND HOW MUCH DAMAGE HAVE IS CAUSED UP FOR LAWSUIT TIMELINE DIRECTION.

HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE WE SPENT? I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE SPENT, SIR, BUT DART HAS CALCULATED THE DELAYS TO BE FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AT $43.5 MILLION.

AND THE ORIGINAL LIST OF BETTERMENTS WAS ABOUT 36 MILLION.

SO 43, 36, ABOUT $77 MILLION.

ABOUT $80 MILLION IN A CIVIL LINE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

OKAY. SO WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW THAT THERE'S 14 COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR SITTING HERE, WILL YOU SAY IN GOOD FAITH, DART, DON'T TRUST THE CITY AND THE CITY DON'T TRUST DART.

AND THAT'S WHY WE GOT AN MOU.

YES, SIR. LET ME SAY THAT.

SO WE DON'T TRUST EACH OTHER, YOU KNOW, ALMOST LIKE A DIVORCE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. WE'RE TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER, RIGHT? WE ARE, SIR. IN THE MEANTIME, WE GOT ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS SIDEWALKS, LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE GOT A POSSIBILITY TO GET ROUGHLY ABOUT $90 MILLION.

AND RIGHT NOW, THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR SIDEWALKS FIXED.

CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN NOT GET ACCOMPLISHED UNLESS WE HAVE THE SALES TAX.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

MR. CITY MANAGER.

THAT IN MY CLOCK STILL RUNNING.

THANK YOU. I WAS WAITING ON HIM.

SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY. MR. CITY MANAGER.

ON YOUR BUDGET THAT IF WE LOSE THIS REVENUE, POTENTIAL REVENUE GOING IN AND WE GOT A OPPORTUNITY TO DO OUR BUDGET COMING IN, HOW DO WE BACKFILL THE PROMISES THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT TO USE THIS MONEY SO COUNCILMAN WITHOUT THE RESOURCES IN THE 90 MILLION AND OR THE PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED 111 MILLION.

[03:30:01]

THE ACTUAL ITEMS IN THERE, ONE WOULD NOT BE DONE.

THEY'D HAVE TO BE DONE IN CONSIDERATION OF OTHER FUNDING ITEMS, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO IT MIGHT DELAY THE RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE $50 MILLION OR SO TO DEAL WITH CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITH ADA.

THOSE WOULD BE FUNDS WE'D HAVE TO FIND IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR WHICH THERE WILL BE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO.

SO THESE DOLLARS WILL BENEFIT US BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY PLANNED EXPENSES THAT WE HAD.

AND SO WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE FOUND THAT MONEY.

AND THIS IS A RESOURCE, I BELIEVE, THAT WILL HELP US CLOSE A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES THAT MIGHT BE 1 TO 2, IF NOT THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING TO TRY TO GET FUNDING FOR. COMING UP, WE ARE IN A PROCESS TRYING TO DO OUR BUDGET AND OVER THE SUMMER YOU'LL BE WORKING ON THE BUDGET.

HAVE YOU ALREADY CALCULATED THIS EXCESS SALES TAX IN YOUR BUDGET? IF WE DO NOT HAVE THIS FUND, WILL THEN ALSO HAD YOU CHANGE HOW YOU PRESENT THE BUDGET WHEN WE COME BACK IN JULY.

SO THESE RESOURCES, AS WE'RE HOPEFUL TO GET APPROVED TODAY, ARE NOT WITHIN THE BUDGET PERIOD.

AND SO IF WE WANTED TO ENTERTAIN WHETHER IT'S INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS OR THE ADA IMPROVEMENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE HAVE HAVE TO BE FUNDED AS A PART OF THE BUDGET. AND WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET REVIEW AND DISCUSSION POINTS.

AND THESE, QUITE HONESTLY, ARE NOT THE THINGS THAT MY STAFF, WHETHER IN TRANSPORTATION OR PUBLIC WORKS, ARE BRINGING FORWARD, BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE POTENTIAL TO GET THESE THINGS DONE.

WE'VE GOT PLANS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THEM, BUT AGAIN, THEY WOULD BE MUCH MORE DELAYED AND WE'D PROBABLY SPEND 10 TO $15 MILLION A YEAR GETTING AT ADA VERSUS A WHOLE $50 MILLION.

SO IT IS WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND IF COUNCIL SAID WE STILL WANT TO DO THESE THINGS, WE'D HAVE TO FIND $90 MILLION OF GENERAL FUND OR OTHER RESOURCES TO DO THESE ITEMS. WELL, I KNOW THAT I DO HAVE A SALES TAX REPORT AND COLLEAGUES, I HOPE EACH ONE YOU GET THE SAME PAGE.

HERE'S A BREAKDOWN.

WHAT STREETS, WHAT TRAFFIC LIGHTS THAT YOU NEED TO TO BE DONE IN YOUR DISTRICT IN THE COST.

HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE.

I KNOW DISTRICT EIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE NEED SIDEWALK.

WE NEED TRACTOR SYSTEM, WE NEED ADA RAMP.

YOU KNOW, WE NEED A WHOLE LOT.

AND SOMETIMES WE GOT NOTHING.

BUT SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, I TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS HOPE.

HOPE IS JUST DEFINITION.

BUT WHAT WE'VE NOT LOST HER FOR 3 OR 4 YEARS IS COMMUNICATION AND LACK OF TRUST.

I DON'T TRUST US.

WE DON'T TRUST DART.

WE JUST APPOINT NEW DART BOARD MEMBERS AND THEY DO CONTROL DART, THE MAJORITY OF CONTROL DART.

BUT IN A FEW MONTHS, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THAT CONTROL BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE OVER THE BUDGET.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE SURVEYOR OVER THE BUDGET.

SO I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT. WE DO CONTROL THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW.

AND WHEN I BELIEVE THE FATE THAT WE PUT IN, APPOINT THOSE PEOPLE, THEY'RE JUST LIKE US.

THEY GOT A POLICY MAKER.

SO I BELIEVE DO I DART BOARD HAVE ANY AUTHORITY IN THIS MOU TO OVERSEE THIS? SO AGAIN, COUNCILMAN THE ILLA IS WHAT THE POINT OF WORDS WOULD GO BACK TO.

THE MOU IS GOING TO BE THE EXECUTION THROUGH THE STAFFS ON BOTH SIDES, RIGHT? SO THE ILLA, ALL THE CITIES HAS SIGNED ILLA.

THAT'S CORRECT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AND THE REASON WHY WE DIDN'T SIGN THE ILLA BECAUSE WE WAS NOT IN GOOD STANDINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? PART OF IT. WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T SIGN THE ILLA FOR THE FACT THAT.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO BETTERMENTS AND DELAYS THAT WE HAD TO WORK OUT.

AND I MEAN, WHAT WE STARTED SHOWING THE COUNCIL LAST WEEK IS WE BELIEVE THAT WE'VE COME TO A VERY GOOD SOLUTION THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE AGREEABLE AND AMENABLE TO. AND I KNOW THE MOU IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

AND IT'S NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

IS THIS WOULD IT BE THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE OR DART OR DO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CAN GO BACK TO THE BOARD TO KIND OF REFEREE TO NEGOTIATE THESE FUNDS GOING FORWARD, DO IT AT ANY AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE MOU DARTBOARD DART BOARD? LET ME LET ME ASK YOU, SIR, THAT.

AND SO ILLA MOU WE STARTED WITH THE ILLA, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MOST CITIES, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, HAD SOME CONCERNS AND WANTED TO RED LINE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE WAS PRETTY VAGUE AND PRETTY MUCH PUT ALL OF THE AUTHORITY AROUND DECIDING WHETHER GOOD STANDING AND OR NOT GOOD STANDING IN DART'S

[03:35:07]

WHEELHOUSE. OBVIOUSLY IF THEY'RE GIVING 111 PLUS AND OTHER MONEY TO OTHER FOLK, THEY'VE TAKEN THE THE POSITION THAT IT'S THEIR RESOURCES TO DISTRIBUTE.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO REFUND THE DOLLAR.

SO THEY WANT TO ESTABLISH THE RULES.

THEY'VE SAID TO EVERY CITY, INCLUDING US, WE'RE NOT AMENDING THE BASE.

ILLA WHAT WAS DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE OTHER CITIES? IN MY OPINION, AS WE SAW DURING THE JOINT MEETING, WAS THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND CHALLENGES AROUND WHETHER IT WAS BETTERMENTS, WHETHER IT WAS GOOD STANDING, WHETHER IT WAS JUST A HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP AND A DISAGREEMENT ON HOW MUCH FROM WHAT THEY PREVIOUSLY TOLD US WE WOULD GET, WHICH WAS 111 TO ARE NOW UNSETTLED AMOUNT, WHICH IN FACT THEY WANTED TO BEGIN TO EXTRACT PENALTIES AS WELL AS BETTERMENTS FROM.

SO WE SAID AND THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR US TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE ONE COULD CLARIFY WHAT'S THE BETTERMENT, WHAT IS NOT COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON THE PENALTY ASPECTS OF IT.

AS YOU RECALL, THEY WERE IN THE POSITION TO EXTRACT OR TAKE FROM US FROM THAT RESOURCE PROBABLY 40 OR $50 MILLION IN PENALTIES THAT THEY BELIEVE WERE CAUSED BECAUSE OF DELAYED REVIEWS AND RESPONSES TO PERMITTING.

AND SO THE ISSUE AND CHALLENGE WE HAD AND THAT'S WHY THE MOU COMES INTO PLAY, WAS THAT BEGAN THE DISCUSSION AROUND NEGOTIATIONS AROUND ONE JUST DETERMINING WHAT THE BASE NUMBER WAS THAT WE WOULD ULTIMATELY RECEIVE AND THEN WHAT CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT WE ONE, STAYED IN GOOD STANDING, THAT WE DID NOT DELAY THE PROJECT ANY FURTHER, THAT PUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE NEW CLOCK FOR WE'RE GOING TO START FROM SCRATCH AND WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME ONCE WE GET IN GOOD STANDING, WE'RE GOING TO STAY THAT WAY.

AND HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU'LL AGREE TO DO, AND HERE ARE THE THINGS CITY THAT WILL AGREE TO DO.

AND IF YOU DO THESE THINGS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE REST OF THE PROJECT, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE THE $90 MILLION THAT'S PLEDGED TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BEGIN AND STAY IN GOOD STANDING.

WE WANT TO NOT GIVE YOU THE ENTIRE AMOUNT UP FRONT AND OR COMMIT IT, BUT SAY THERE'S $30 MILLION THAT WILL PUT WHAT WE WOULD CALL AN ESCROW BASED ON MILESTONES TO CONTINUALLY BUILD BACK THE TRUST AND THE PARTNERSHIP.

THAT'S WHAT MYSELF AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAVE AGREED TO.

I DO BELIEVE THAT SHE HAS SHARED THE CONTENT AS WELL AS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BECAUSE THE ILA DOES NOT HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT WITH HER BOARD AND THE PARTICULAR PARAMETERS AROUND HOW THE MONEY WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED.

THEY, I UNDERSTAND, ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE MOU AND THE BELIEF THAT WE'RE GOING TO TURN A PAGE, GO BACK TO THE PARTNERSHIP WE'VE ALWAYS HAD AND WORK WITH EACH OTHER TO RESOLVE ISSUES.

WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES, WE WILL ESCALATE THROUGH THE DIRECTORS, THEN THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE CITY MANAGER TO RESOLVE DISPUTES.

THE MOU DESCRIBES ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WILL KEEP US FROM BEING WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE REALITY IS THIS IN VERY SIMPLE TERMS, THEY ARE NOT WILLING, AS ADMINISTRATORS AND OR THE POLICY MAKERS TO AMEND THE ILA.

THEY SAID THAT TO EVERY CITY.

SO THAT IS NOT AN OPTION AND WILL NOT BE SOMETHING I BELIEVE THEY WILL ENTERTAIN.

SO FOR US TO NOT APPROVE THE ILA ALL THAT DOES TODAY OR IN THE LATTER.

ARE PARTS OF THIS MONTH OR IN AUGUST.

IS THE DELAY THE INEVITABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO RECEIVE $1? SO AS IT RELATES TO THE CONCERNS THAT LEGAL HAS, I SHARE THOSE.

I QUESTION THE SAME THINGS WHEN WE BEGAN.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IF WE ARE WALKING DOWN THE PATH WITH COOPERATIVE AND PARTNERSHIP INTENT, THEN I DO NOT BELIEVE DART, WHO HAS HISTORICALLY NOT DONE THAT, IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT DAMAGES THE CITY.

AND I KNOW, AT LEAST UNDER MY ADMINISTRATION, I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT BRINGS HARM OR DELAY TO DART AND MY TEAM.

LIKEWISE. SO AGAIN, TO ME TODAY, AND TO YOUR POINT, WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TODAY.

WE WILL NEVER GET THEM UNLESS WE SIGN THE ILA.

WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH OVER THE TECHNICALITIES OF, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS AND WHAT ABOUT THAT? BUT ALL I KNOW FOR SURE IS IF WE DON'T SIGN THE ILA, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY RESOURCES AND YOU CAN PUT THE HEAT ON ME AND MY TEAM TO PERFORM GOING FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT WE GET THE $90 MILLION.

AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S WITHIN THE MOU THAT SPEAKS TO THEM EXTRACTING PENALTIES FROM US, WE WILL WORK DILIGENTLY TO MAKE SURE WE RESOLVE THOSE BEFORE ANY PENALTIES COME AGAINST THE $90 MILLION.

AND SO AGAIN, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THE ILA.

LET'S MOVE ON.

ALL WE'RE DOING IS DELAYING AGAIN THE CITY RECEIVING THE RESOURCES AND PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE THE PROJECT, THEY MAY NOT EVEN LIKE DART.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MONEY IS GREEN.

WE'VE GOT NEEDS AND IT'S THEIR RESOURCES TO GIVE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM.

AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN SAY IS I GUESS YOU DON'T GET A TRAIN, BUT WE HAVE AN ILA THAT PRECEDES THIS ILA THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THEM TO PRODUCE AND PUT A TRAIN

[03:40:09]

IN SERVICE. SO WE WOULD THEN BE IN DEFAULT OF THE ORIGINAL ILA IF WE SAT DOWN AND DID NOTHING.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE'VE GOT TO MOVE FORWARD AND I WOULD HOPE WE CAN GET PAST THIS, MOVE FORWARD AND GET THE REST OF THE REGION'S UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE IN COOPERATION TO FIND A WAY TO BUILD A TRAIN THAT APPARENTLY WAS COMMITTED LONG BEFORE I BECAME THE CITY MANAGER, THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING AND BUILDING.

SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

THANK YOU. I WON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.

I'M JUST KIDDING. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU A FEW MORE TIMES TODAY.

SO THANK YOU, ROBIN.

PROCESS AND PROCEDURE.

I DID TALK TO ELIZABETH RACE.

HOW IS THE MONEY WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WALK US THROUGH THE $90 MILLION.

SO GOING BACK TO THE ILA ESSER, THERE'S CERTAIN THRESHOLDS ON THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE PROJECTS.

IF THE PROJECT IS $250,000 OR MORE, WE EITHER GET 10% THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT OR 125,000, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

IF IT'S LESS THAN 250,000, I BELIEVE WE GET 10% UPFRONT TO START THE PROJECT.

ONCE THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AND WE START WORKING, WE RECEIVED THE INITIAL FUNDING, THEN WE WOULD BASICALLY SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM DART ON A MONTHLY BASIS. WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST 50 MILLION? TELL ME HOW THE FIRST 50 MILLION IS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO ESCROW OR HOW DOES THAT WORK, THE FIRST 50 MILLION, RIGHT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS IN SPEAKING WITH OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, WE WILL ACTUALLY SET UP A SPECIAL FUND SO THOSE DOLLARS CAN GO INTO THAT FUND, WHICH WILL HELP WITH THE TRANSPARENCY.

AND THEN THERE'S THERE'S 22 SIGNAL PROJECTS THAT WE CAN IMMEDIATELY START.

THERE'S 21 SIDEWALK PROJECTS BASED UPON WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING STREET WORK THAT WE CAN START ON, AS WELL AS THE ADA RAMPS.

SO WE WOULD FIRST LOOK TO SEE WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING WORK GOING ON OR WHAT WE CAN QUICKLY EXECUTE AND START WITH THOSE.

OKAY. AND THE LAST THE 30 MILLION, I GUESS THE $6 MILLION KIND OF BROKE DOWN.

HOW IS THAT FUNDED? SO AGAIN, GOING ON THE MILESTONES BASED BASED UPON THE MOU, WHEREVER WE'RE AT WITH THE PROJECTS, I MEAN, ONCE THAT FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE, WE PUT IT TOWARDS THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SHARING.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MIGHT HAVE ROUND THREE.

I'LL JUST BE TWO FOR YOU.

CHAIRMAN MAGOO. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I THINK I GOT HEARD THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

BUT WHO? WHO WAS NEGOTIATING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? COUNCILMAN MCGOUGH. AS FAR AS THE BETTERMENTS, THERE WAS A JOINT GROUP WITH THE COG WITH DART.

AND ON THE CITY SIDE, D.W.

TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WORKS AND MYSELF AND THE COG.

OKAY. WELL, AFTER READING THIS AND ACTUALLY READING THE ILA AND GOING THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION, I HAVE THREE POINTS REALLY.

ONE IS, I THINK TO CHAIRMAN ATKINS POSITION, I WANT TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO GET EVERY DOLLAR WE CAN THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT I WANT TO SAY IT.

THE SECOND THING IS I DO THINK IT WAS A GOOD DECISION.

AND I THINK MICHAEL MORRIS STEPPING INTO THIS ROLE DID A GOOD JOB, FROM WHAT I HEARD AND FROM ON THE RTC SIDE OF THINGS AS WELL, IT WAS NEEDED.

AND I THINK. HE DID A GOOD JOB WORKING THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT.

THE THIRD POINT IS THE ACTUAL IRA.

AND I BELIEVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY LEGAL AND AS POINTED OUT THROUGH CERTAIN QUESTIONING ALREADY TODAY ARE REAL ISSUES.

AND I THINK THEY'RE THEY'RE PROBLEMATIC TO THE POINT OF WHERE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE.

AND SO WE GOT A COUPLE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE PULLED TOGETHER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE THE FINAL PIECE.

AND SO MANY OF YOUR ANSWERS BEING IT'S UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO DETERMINE THAT'S NOT GOOD DRAFTING IN A CONTRACT.

THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO THAT WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE WORKING OUT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, YOU WANT TO HAVE THINGS THAT ARE ENFORCEABLE AND CLEAR.

AND THAT'S WHAT LEADS TO A BETTER RELATIONSHIP.

AND TRUST MOVING FORWARD IS WHEN YOU HAVE THINGS CLEARLY OUTLINED TO BEGIN WITH, AND THEN EVERYBODY FALLS IN LINE WITH WHAT THOSE ARE.

I DON'T SEE THAT IN THIS ERA, AND IT'S PROBLEMATIC TO THE POINT OF WHERE IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING AT THIS POINT AT THIS TIME.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

I HEARD OUR CITY MANAGER TALK.

I DON'T LIKE THOSE ANSWERS.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

AND I'LL KEEP LISTENING TO THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION.

BUT THANK YOU, MR. RIDLEY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, SIR.

AND THANK YOU, MR. BROADNAX, FOR YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHERE WE ARE AND THE ANSWER TO WHAT MY FIRST QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, WHICH IS, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T AUTHORIZE THE SIGNATURE ON THE ILHA? I AGREE WITH YOU.

THIS $111 MILLION IS FOUND MONEY.

[03:45:02]

AND IF WE WANT TO USE ALL OR ANY PART OF THAT, WE HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH SOME HOOPS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION, I AM DISAPPOINTED IN OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE DART BOARD THAT THEY ARE UNWILLING TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE TERMS OF THAT ILHA TO THE BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIES TO CLARIFY ISSUES THAT ARE LACKED CLARITY AND TO HOPEFULLY AVOID FUTURE DISPUTES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOU IS AN EFFORT TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE AMBIGUITIES AND TO SET FORTH THE TERMS OF THE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE $111 MILLION AS A RESULT OF THE MEDIATION WITH NCTCOG. MY QUESTION AT THIS POINT IS WHAT IS OUR STATUS WITH DART AT THIS POINT? DO WE HAVE THE STATUS THAT THEY REQUIRE US TO HAVE TO GAIN THE BENEFIT OF THIS TAX REFUND? OR IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THEM CURRENTLY? AND IF NOT, WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT STATUS? COUNCILMAN RIDLEY SO YES, ONCE THE ILHA AND THE MOU ARE EXECUTED, WE WILL BE IN GOOD STANDING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT HAS SAID IN THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

THE DART BOARD NOMINEE INTERVIEWS.

ONE OF THE SITTING BOARD MEMBERS SAID THAT EXACT SAME THING, THAT ONCE WE EXECUTE THESE DOCUMENTS OR THESE AGREEMENTS, WE WILL BE IN GOOD STANDING.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU'RE ASKING US TO AUTHORIZE APPROVAL OF THE ILHA TODAY, BUT THE MOU IS NOT PART OF THIS ITEM IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NOT FINALIZED YET.

IT IS STILL UP FOR NEGOTIATION OVER SOME TERMS. IS THAT CORRECT? SO WHAT WHAT THE DART ADMINISTRATION HAS TOLD US IS THAT, AGAIN, SHARING SOME OF THESE CONCERNS, THEY ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE US WITH A LETTER THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.

IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT'S TRANSPARENT, SHARED.

BUT, I MEAN, THE WHOLE POINT IS, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE EXECUTE EXCUSE ME, THESE AGREEMENTS, THAT WE WILL BE IN GOOD STANDING AND IT'S FOR US TO TO STAY THERE.

I THINK ONE OF THE CRITICISMS WAS, LOOKING BACK, WE DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, RULES AND WE HAD THE ILHA, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANY OF THIS WOULD BE RETROACTIVE.

BUT MOVING FORWARD, WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO STAY IN GOOD STANDING.

WELL, WILL YOU BE SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTING A FINAL MOU TO THE COUNCIL FOR OUR APPROVAL? NO, SIR. SO AGAIN, THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT.

WE'LL SHARE IT, BUT NO.

OKAY. SO ONCE WE VOTE TODAY ON THE ILA STAFF WILL UNDERTAKE TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS AND ENTER INTO THE MOU AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

AND COUNCILMAN, LET ME BE CLEAR.

I THINK WHAT MR. PEREZ AND GUS AND HIS TEAM HAVE SHARED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, I THINK IN BRIEFED LAST WEEK, THE COMPONENTS OF FROM MILESTONES TO OTHERS ARE REALLY THE ESSENCE OF THE DEAL POINTS IN THE MOU.

I THINK IF THERE'S ANY UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE MOU, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THERE'S NOT A LOT OF VAGUENESS.

I THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE AROUND EITHER PUTTING THE WORDS IN OR CLEARLY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN MOU, THIS MOU IS NON-LEGALLY BINDING, WHICH IN ESSENCE IS WHAT AN MOU IS ANYWAY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, THAT THE INSTRUMENT IS JUST ALREADY KNOWN AS A FACT THAT IT IS NOT.

THE OTHER ISSUES IS DEFINING BEFORE THEY CAN ISSUE ANY PENALTIES FROM THE RESOURCES, WHAT TYPES OF NOTICES WE GET AND HOW CAN WE CURE.

AND THEN THE TIMELINE AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN ANYTHING WOULD BE DONE THAT WOULD BE REMOVING RESOURCES THAT WE OTHERWISE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT MR. PEREZ IS SAYING.

WE'LL HAVE MORE CONVERSATION WITH TO GET CLARITY.

THAT WAS THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WHEN THE ILA WAS FIRST WRITTEN.

I QUESTIONED TELL ME WHAT GOOD STANDING IS AND ALL OTHER CITY MANAGERS ON A CALL THAT WE'VE HAD THROUGHOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL THE OTHER CITIES HAD THE SAME CONCERNS. BUT I THINK, AGAIN, I THINK THE WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS THEY'VE BEEN INFLEXIBLE IN WANTING TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.

[03:50:04]

QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK EVEN AS WE DISCUSSED THE MOU AND THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THAT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTLY WITH ME FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HER AND I, SHE INDICATED THAT THEY ARE DONE NEGOTIATING THE MAJOR DEAL POINTS, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I THINK SHE HAD TO DO QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH HER OWN BOARD TO GET THEM COMFORTABLE WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE ILA AND OR THE MOU, AS WE'VE DESCRIBED IT.

SO EVERYTHING YOU'VE SEEN IN WRITING, IN THE PRESENTATIONS AND IN THE BRIEFING IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT IS DUMPED INTO THE MOU.

AND THEN THE ONLY THINGS THAT IT SPEAKS TO IS THE ESCALATION POINTS WHICH ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL ILA BEYOND THIS CURRENT ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

SO AGAIN, AGAIN, ROBERT IS DOING A GREAT JOB RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THE FINER POINTS ON.

AND HE ASKED AND SOMEONE ASKED WHO'S BEEN NEGOTIATING? OBVIOUSLY THE TEAM AND STAFF HAVE BEEN DOWN IN THE TECHNICAL PIECES OF THE AGREEMENT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, BEFORE ANYBODY SAID, OKAY, WE'VE GOT AGREEMENT AND CONSENSUS, THOSE WERE CONVERSATIONS WITH MYSELF AS WELL AS NADINE, BASED ON OUR STAFF'S GUIDANCE OF DOING THE PRE-WORK.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

SO I HAVE SEEN AND UNDERSTAND THE TENANTS OF THESE AGREEMENTS AND FEEL COMFORTABLE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE PARTNERS AND NOT ADVERSARIES.

AND I THINK GOING FORWARD, THAT'S HOW WE'LL MOVE THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO ON FRIDAY, THE CITY ATTORNEY ISSUED A MEMO WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE ILHA AND MOU AND GOT A STAMP ON IT.

SO I CAN'T REALLY PULL OUT TOO MANY, TOO MUCH OF THE CONTENT AROUND IT.

BUT JUST SOME OF THE PHRASES THAT CAUGHT MY EYE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS.

DEFICIENCIES IN UNCLEAR UNDEFINED REFUSED TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS POTENTIAL TO END UP IN AN ENDLESS CYCLE. UNCLEAR PROCEDURE.

SO THAT GIVES ME PAUSE BECAUSE IN LISTENING AT MONDAY'S TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE MEETING, IT WAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT TO MEND THIS RELATIONSHIP, TO RETRIEVE IT, RESTORE IT, IT'S GOING TO TAKE CLEARER A CLEAR AGREEMENT, CLEAR DELINEATION SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR OBLIGATIONS ARE.

AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER MCGOUGH WAS MAKING THIS POINT AS WELL, THAT WE'VE GOT TO MEND THE RELATIONSHIP TO MOVE FORWARD.

I KNOW THAT OUR PROSPECTIVE DART BOARD CANDIDATES, OUR CURRENT SITTING DART BOARD MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE SEEMED TO PLAY BACK THE FACT THAT WE ALL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. I MEAN, I THINK WE ALL WANT TO MOVE PEOPLE RAPIDLY AND SAFELY THROUGHOUT THIS CITY.

THAT'S OUR COMMON GROUND AND IN THE REGION.

BUT WHERE WE DIFFER IS IN THESE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO US IN DEFINING HOW THIS RELATIONSHIP IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. AND SO THE VERY THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, INCLUDING WITH YOU, DR.

PEREZ, I MEAN, YOU YOU SAT RIGHT OVER THERE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THESE THINGS DEFINED IF WE WANT TO MEND THIS RELATIONSHIP AND MOVE FORWARD.

AND SO HERE WE ARE WITH AN ITEM BEFORE US TO APPROVE THAT HAS WORDS LIKE THIS IN IT.

AND I JUST AS A COURTESY, PASSED OUT SOME COPIES OF IT BECAUSE I KNOW WITH ALL OF OUR EMAILS WE'VE BEEN GETTING, I LOST THIS IN MY MAILBOX ON FRIDAY, SO I WANTED TO BE SURE EVERYONE SAW THIS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHARING A PRETTY STRONGLY WORDED DOCUMENT WITH US WITH A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE ILHA, WHICH I LOVE YOUR DESCRIPTION.

IT'S THE RULE BOOK.

SO LOTS OF CONCERNS AROUND THE RULE BOOK.

MOU STILL BEING NEGOTIATED IS THE PLAYBOOK.

AND I GUESS, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I MEAN, IT JUST FEELS LIKE WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN MOVING THIS ALONG? BECAUSE I WILL SAY, I'VE BEEN TOLD OVER AND OVER, IT'S DONE.

THEY'RE DONE WITH US. THIS IS IT.

THIS THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION.

I DON'T THINK PARTNERS HOLD EACH OTHER HOSTAGE.

AND SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT AS WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE BACK TO SOMETHING, WE ALL VERY MUCH WANT THAT TODAY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE.

SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, THAT PROCESS.

WHY WHY OTHERS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME TO THIS AGREEMENT.

BUT BUT DALLAS HASN'T.

AND MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENCE IN OUR OUR STANDARD.

WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE ILHA.

SO WE RECEIVED A COPY OF IT.

OUR OFFICE DID LATE FALL.

WE, ALONG WITH OTHER CITY ATTORNEYS IN THE PARTNER CITIES, TOOK A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT AND WE RED LINED ALL OF OUR CONCERNS AND ALL OF

[03:55:01]

WHICH WERE OUTLINED IN THE MEMO THAT I PROVIDED.

WE WE PRESENTED THOSE CONCERNS FOR LACK OF CLARITY AND OTHER THINGS TO DART AND DART REJECTED EVERY SINGLE CHANGE.

WE WERE TOLD THAT THE DART BOARD WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE DOCUMENT AGAIN.

THEY MADE NO CHANGES TO ANY OTHER CITIES DOCUMENT.

SO EVERY CITY HAS SIGNED THE SAME DOCUMENT.

THEY HAVE CHANGED NO TERMS WHATSOEVER FOR ANY OTHER CITY.

SO WE BROUGHT ALL OF THESE CONCERNS TO DART IN THE FALL AND THEY HAVE SAID THEY'RE NOT NEGOTIATING ANY TERMS OF THIS DOCUMENT.

DO WE KNOW WHY OTHER CITIES WENT ON AND SIGNED? BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY.

WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER REASON, THOUGH.

NO, THEY WANT THE MONEY.

WHAT OTHER REASONS DO THEY HAVE? A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING? YES. NO OTHER CITY THAT I'M AWARE OF HAS HAD THE DIFFICULTY IN PERMITTING AND MOVING FORWARD THEIR SEGMENT OF THE SILVER LINE IN ANY GREAT WAY, SIMILAR TO OR CLOSE TO THE ACRIMONY AND THE THINGS THAT DART WOULD OBVIOUSLY SAY THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS DONE.

THE CRITICAL PATH, SO TO SPEAK, RUNS THROUGH DALLAS WHEN IT COMES TO THE TIME AND DELAYS OF WHAT'S GOING ON NOW.

I WAS EQUALLY AS FRUSTRATED AND UPSET AT THE JOINT MEETING, PARTICULARLY AROUND TRYING TO CLAW BACK WITHOUT ANY APPRECIATION OR RECOGNITION TO US THAT ONE THE BETTERMENTS WOULD BE PAID FOR BY US AND OR THAT THEY WERE GOING TO EXTRACT PENALTIES FROM US.

SO BOTTOM LINE IS, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT, PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN IN GOOD STANDING WITH DART DIDN'T FEEL THAT THESE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES AND VAGARIES IN THE AGREEMENT WERE WORTH THEM NOT MOVING FORWARD.

WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBVIOUSLY TOOK A DIFFERENT POSITION BECAUSE I WAS EQUALLY AS AGGRIEVED AND WANTED TO REALLY DISCUSS ONE THE AMOUNTS THAT WE WOULD GET AND THEN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR EYED ON WHAT IS EXPECTED OF US AND AND HOW WE WOULD PROCEED IN A PARTNERSHIP.

THERE WERE A LONG SPACE IN WHICH THERE WAS NO CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS JUST TO ALLOW BOTH SIDES TO GET TO A BETTER PLACE.

AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID EVERY CITY ATTORNEY AND I THINK SHE'S ONE OF THE BEST CITY ATTORNEYS IN ALL OF THIS COUNTY, THAT THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER NOR THE OTHER ONES.

AND AGAIN, IT'S EITHER TAKE THIS AGREEMENT OR DON'T AND WILL ULTIMATELY TURN AROUND AND POTENTIALLY USE THE RESOURCES, HOW WE SEE FIT.

AND THE CITY WILL FORFEIT ITS RIGHT TO GET 90 MILLION, 40 MILLION, 50 MILLION AGAIN.

SO WHETHER IT'S TODAY OR IN AUGUST, IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT POSITION BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

AND TAMMY CAN CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.

SO FOR LEASE PROGRAM DOLLARS, I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO FIT A CERTAIN CRITERIA.

AND WHAT'S THAT CRITERIA THEY HAVE TO FIT? WHO DO THEY HAVE TO BENEFIT? YEAH, THEY HAVE TO COMPLIMENT DART SERVICE, RIGHT? SO, I MEAN, WE'RE HELPING CRAFT A PROGRAM OF THINGS THAT THE CITY NEEDS, BUT THAT BENEFIT DART.

THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM. OKAY.

AND SO AND THEN WE DON'T JUST GET IT.

THERE'S AN APPLICATION.

WE HAVE TO WE'VE GOT OUR LIST OF PROJECTS, THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, SIDEWALKS TO HELP PEOPLE GET TO A DART STOP.

I MEAN, THINGS THAT BENEFIT DART.

BUT BUT WE DON'T JUST GET IT.

WE HAVE TO APPLY.

AND THEN THEY APPROVE.

IS THAT WHAT'S THE PROCESS? NO, AND THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM.

AND I MEAN, WE STARTED THAT PROCESS ACTUALLY BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY TIMEFRAME AND SHARING THE PRELIMINARY LIST WITH THE WITH DART SO THEY KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH WITH THESE DOLLARS. WE'VE CONSULTED WITH THEM.

AND I MEAN, THEY'VE GIVEN US THEIR MAJOR CORRIDORS FOR THE SIGNALS, FOR THE SIDEWALKS, FOR THE ADA RAMPS.

SO YES, WE'VE STARTED THAT ALREADY AND THOSE ARE DUE WHEN THE APPLICATION.

SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE ACTUALLY THROUGH NEXT FEBRUARY TO GET THEM THE I THOUGHT IT WAS JANUARY.

SO THIS MEANS ALL OF THESE CITIES HAVE TO TURN IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR THESE FUNDS THAT THEY'VE GIVEN YOU AN AMOUNT FOR IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.

SO IS ANYTHING GOING TO MOVE BEFORE THAT TIME? I MEAN, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT DELAYS, BUT WHAT WOULD MOVE BEFORE THAT TIME, BEFORE THEY EVEN GET AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE? WELL, I MEAN, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE PRELIMINARY WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, I MEAN, WE'VE GOTTEN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS.

SO AS SOON AS WE GET THIS EXECUTED, WE START GOING.

SO BUT IT WON'T BE BEFORE JANUARY OR FEBRUARY NEXT.

OH, YEAH. NO, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO.

SO I THINK THE I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF PROJECTS BY NEXT FEBRUARY.

IF I'M IF I'M RECALLING CORRECTLY, THERE'S CERTAIN DEADLINES THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY.

SO WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY MOVING BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T.

[04:00:01]

YEAH, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY EXECUTED THAT YET.

SO LET ME CLARIFY.

I THINK, ROBERT, YOU ALL ARE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER.

WHAT ROBERT'S SAYING IS THE END DATE FOR US TO IDENTIFY AND SHARE WITH THEM.

THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS IN JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR, IF IN FACT COUNCIL APPROVES ONE, THE ILHA, AND THEN THEY'VE ALREADY SEEN OUR LIST OF PROJECTS, WE WOULD TURN THAT OVER TO THEM IMMEDIATELY AND THEN THEY WOULD AUTHORIZE US TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROJECTS.

AND SO WE WOULD START THOSE THIS SUMMER.

IF IN FACT WE COULD GET PAST THE APPROVAL TODAY, IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JANUARY.

CORRECT? ROBERT THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

SO WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT ALL THE PROJECTS.

TO REVIEW BY JANUARY 31ST OF 2024.

THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS HAVE TO BE AWARDED BY FEBRUARY 28TH OF 2025.

OKAY. I THINK I GET THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE NEGOTIATION AND I TOO AM APPRECIATIVE TO MISTER MORRIS AND THOSE WHO SAT DOWN AT THE TABLE.

AND I'M GLAD WE GOT TO GO THROUGH TALKING THROUGH SOME OF THESE POINTS.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS PRESENTED THERE.

I MEAN, I'VE ASKED FOR SOME EXAMPLES BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE A LOT IS BEING PINNED ON THE CITY BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THIS HALO OF PERMITTING ISSUES.

FOR INSTANCE, SOME ITEMS SUCH AS BRIDGES OVER CREEKS CANNOT BE ADVANCED UNLESS THE HYDRAULIC REPORT THAT SHOWS WATER FLOWS AND ELEVATIONS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

DART AND THEIR DESIGNERS STRUGGLED TO SUBMIT THE HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR DWS REVIEW AND REQUIRED SEVERAL ITERATIONS AND REVIEW.

SO SOMETIMES I'M CONCERNED THAT WHILE WE'RE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR DALLAS AND OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS, WE'RE GETTING TAGGED FOR THAT OR WE'RE GETTING PENALIZED.

SO THIS THIS GIVES ME FURTHER PAUSE IN MOVING SOME OF THIS FORWARD WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION AROUND IT.

THAT'S TRUE. I SEE MY TIME AND SO COUNCIL MEMBER IF I COULD, MA'AM, WE DID SHARE THE LIST OF THE BETTERMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, AND WE'RE NARROWED DOWN FROM $36 MILLION TO $32 MILLION, OF WHICH THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS AGREED TO PAY FOR 5.2 MILLION OF THAT.

SOME OF THOSE BETTERMENTS THERE, I DON'T KNOW, FIBER OPTIC AND ELECTRICAL CONDUITS UNDERNEATH THE CROSSINGS.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REQUIRE ANYBODY TO REALLY DO.

SO I MEAN, THAT'S BEING ABSORBED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO THINGS LIKE THAT ARE WHAT WE NEGOTIATED.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO TAKE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS ON AND TURN OUR MICROPHONE OFF AND THEN CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ THANK YOU.

SO WHILE YOU'RE HERE, COULD YOU JUST TELL US WHOSE MONEY, WHOSE MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TODAY? I MEAN, IT'S ULTIMATELY SALES TAX DOLLARS.

SO THE PUBLIC'S MONEY.

SO IS THE HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING HERE TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR MONEY.

OUR MONEY FROM SALES TAX DOESN'T DISCRIMINATE BY ZIP CODE HOUSEHOLD.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO PAY SALES TAX IN DALLAS.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SALES TAX GOES TO DART AND IS IT ONE? WELL, LET ME NOT GIVE ONE 1%.

1%. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE CAN DEAL WITH OUR LEVERAGE AND HOW WE DEAL WITH DART IN ANOTHER WAY.

IT MIGHT HURT US DOWN THE ROAD.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO HURT US ANYMORE IN WHAT WE'RE THE SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS WE'RE DOING NOW BECAUSE WE CAN DECIDE HOW MUCH OF THAT $0.01 WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEND THE DART. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? IS THAT A SOMEWHAT OF A FAIR STATEMENT? CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT'S A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF THIS CONFERENCE? OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE MONEY TODAY.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

AGAIN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $92 MILLION SALES TAX DOLLARS THAT COMES FROM COLLECTION OF SALES TAXES THAT EVERYONE IN THIS AUDIENCE IS PAYING.

NOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT MONEY THAT WE'RE ALL PUTTING IN THE POT DIVIDED AMONG, WHAT, 15 DISTRICTS I REPRESENT ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS WHERE MY FOLKS PAY SALES TAX REGARDLESS OF THEIR INCOME.

THEY ARE PAYING SOME SALES TAX.

NOW, WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR IN MY DISTRICT IS FOR US TO DELIVER ON SOME OF THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCES THEY NEED TO ADDRESS EQUITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE. AND I'M SIMPLY SHARING WITH ALL OF YOU TODAY I CAN SPEND $90 MILLION RIGHT IN DISTRICT FOUR ALONE.

BUT RIGHT NOW WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS A SOUND WALL TO PROTECT THEM IN THE LANCASTER CORRIDOR FROM THE HORN THAT BLOWS EXTREMELY LOUD TO DISRUPT THE QUALITY OF LIFE.

I HAVE ANOTHER GROUP AND THANK GOODNESS FOR COG AND ALL THESE OTHER RELATIONSHIPS DOWN ALONG THE GATEWAY WHERE BECKLEY CLUB ESTATES HAS ASKED FOR A SOUND WALL.

YOU REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE TEXDOT IS PASSING THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON TO THE CITY OF DALLAS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT A SOUND WALL IN IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO HEAR ALL THE NOISE OFF OF THE GATEWAY.

AND THEY TOLD US TO FIND THE MONEY BECAUSE SENATOR WEST COULDN'T FIND THE MONEY AND ALL THAT.

[04:05:01]

SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE MONEY.

AND GUESS WHAT? I FOUND SOME MONEY.

AND SO NOW THOSE SAME PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR SIDEWALKS, INFRASTRUCTURE SO THAT WE CAN GET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO WE'RE SITTING HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO ALL THESE LEGAL CONVERSATIONS.

I'M GOING TO PASS THAT OFF TO MISS TAMMY AND ALSO TO MR. BROADNAX TO GET THAT DONE, BECAUSE WE CANNOT KEEP OUR FOLKS DON'T EVEN CARE.

THEY DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE A ILHA, A MOU OR A STR.

THE BOTTOM LINE. MEANS THEY WANT THE PROBLEM SOLVED.

AND THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

TODAY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE CANNOT PUSH THIS DOWN THE ROAD.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RESOLUTION AND OUR COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR SALES TAX, OUR MONEY.

YES, I RESPECT LEGALITIES.

BUT AT SOME POINT WE MUST COME TO A RESOLUTION AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW WE WANT TO TREAT OUR $0.01.

IT DEPENDS ON WHO WE'RE SENDING TO THE BOARD TO REPRESENT US.

SOMEWHERE THERE IS A DISCONNECT, BUT WE CAN'T SOLVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW I WANT THE MONEY THAT IS DULY WE ARE DULY ENTITLED TO AS A CITY.

AND AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, I'M JUST IN PAIN BEHIND TALKING TO MY CONSTITUENTS, TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY THEY HAVE TO KEEP HEARING THE HORN, WHY WE CAN'T ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS WITH INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M SIMPLY ASKING YOU TODAY, LET'S STAND UP THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO STAND UP FOR THE COMMUNITY AND CANNOT BE AFRAID TO STAND UP TO REPRESENT YOUR COMMUNITY.

LET'S DO THAT TODAY.

AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS.

IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR DISTRIBUTION FROM THE 92 MILLION, WE'LL TAKE THAT IN DISTRICT FOUR.

I WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOING THAT.

BUT WE CAN'T SIT HERE AND KEEP DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THIS IS WHAT. HOW MANY YEARS HAVE WE BEEN DOING THIS? MR.. MR.. PEREZ DR.

PEREZ, HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN ON THIS CONVERSATION? SINCE LAST LAST SUMMER.

AND WE'VE GONE FROM 111 TO 30 MILLION.

YEAH, TO 30. IT'S A 90 TO 90.

SO I'M GOING TO THANK ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS ROBERT MORRIS, MR. MICHAEL MORRIS, ALL OF THOSE MOBILE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERS FOR HELPING US TO GET BACK TO 90.

HOW DID WE GET TO THE 90? WHAT DID MR. MICHAEL MORRIS DO? WELL, HE HELPED FACILITATE THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE MEASUREMENTS.

HE ACTUALLY HAD THE RTC PUT IN FUNDING ALSO TO TO HELP WITH THIS.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE WANT TO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK MICHAEL AND MICHAEL MORRIS IS MR. MORRIS. MICHAEL MORRIS IS HERE.

YOU WANT MICHAEL MORRIS TO ANSWER MICHAEL MORRIS, CAN YOU SPEAK ON THAT? I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO RUSH, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK ON THAT SO THEY KNOW, MR. MAYOR, A LITTLE BIT OF ORDER. OKAY, MICHAEL MORRIS, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

YEAH, WE'RE GETTING ALL EXCITED.

SO THANK YOU.

I'M DONE, MAYOR. BUT I JUST REMEMBER THE RULE.

BUT DOES IT COUNT? CAN I GIVE HIS TIME? IT DOESN'T COUNT. DOES NOT? SO, MR. MORRIS, GO AHEAD. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE COUNCIL NOW.

AND YOU HAVE 27 MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MR. CITY MANAGER, WHEN I WAS NOMINATED, YOU WERE SITTING AT A 36 MILLION BETTERMENTS.

WE WORK TO GET IT BACK TO 5 MILLION.

YOU WERE AT 44 MILLION IN DELAYS.

WE GOT IT BACK TO 16 MILLION.

THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.

THERE WERE THINGS NEGOTIATED IN THIS THAT AREN'T NEEDED WITH THE OTHER PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE HAVE IN THE $5 MILLION IN WHAT WE CALL BUCKET NUMBER ONE. AND LAST WEEK, WE APPROVED THE FIVE MILE CREEK TRAIL IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE $10 MILLION REVOLVER. THE NET NET IS YOU'RE UP TO $100 MILLION, INCLUDING, AS DR.

PEREZ JUST SAID, THE RTC MONEY.

SO BY BRINGING IN ANOTHER PARTNER, I THINK WE'RE ABLE TO BACK START UP TO A MUCH MORE REASONABLE LEVEL.

I WANT TO THANK TCC'S INVOLVEMENT.

WHO WHO DEVELOPED THE FEATHERED ESCROW ACCOUNT THAT SAVED YOU A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEDUCTED THAT'S NOW COMING BACK TO YOU IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT OF PARTNERSHIP. SO YOU'RE SITTING AT NET NET AT $101 MILLION.

AND BEFORE YOU ASK ME TO HELP, YOU'RE SITTING.

YOU'RE SITTING THERE AT $32 MILLION.

YOU STILL HAVE 20S.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO THANK MICHAEL MORRIS AND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE.

THEY DON'T KNOW MICHAEL MORRIS, BUT HE'S DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB OF TRYING TO GET US THIS MONEY AND ALL THE OTHER MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR IN THIS CITY, AND HE IS TO BE COMMENDED.

BUT STAFF, YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR ALL THE PRESSURE AND STRESS THAT YOU'VE DONE AND YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB.

BUT I KNOW IT'S BEEN EXCESSIVE.

[04:10:01]

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR LISTENING.

BUT PLEASE, LET'S TRY TO GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS TODAY AND GET THIS DONE FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

AND THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OF COURSE. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ.

SORRY ABOUT THE MIX UP EARLIER.

I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT WE'RE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THIS AND IT'S SO CONTENTIOUS IS BECAUSE THIS PROCESS, WHEN THE WHEN THE MONEY CAME IN, DART MADE A VERY STRATEGIC ERROR, I THINK, IN PRESENTING IT AS IF IT WAS AN ENTITLEMENT TO THE CITIES.

IF THEY HAD DECIDED TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE AND SAY, THIS IS A GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF OUR MEMBER CITIES TO APPLY FOR MONEY UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT IS IN EXCESS TO YOUR PER CAPITA SALES TAX.

WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, BUT THEY CHOSE THAT ROUTE.

AND AS A RESULT, WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN THEY THEN DECIDED TO APPLY THE SILVER LINE PROBLEMS TO THIS AMOUNT, IT OPENED UP A VERY, VERY SORE SUBJECT BETWEEN PARTS OF DALLAS OR ALL OF DALLAS AND DART.

THEN IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HEAL THAT WOUND AND AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY, THEN OUR LEADERSHIP, OUR PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FROM TC AND HIS TEAM TO NADINE AND HER TEAM TO OUR OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ALL STEPPED IN, BROUGHT IN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR TEAM AND ALL OF OUR PROFESSIONALS WERE ABLE TO WITH, OF COURSE, DOCTOR PEREZ AND YOUR TEAM WORKED ACTUALLY WITH THE OTHER CITIES.

AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET PAST THE ANIMOSITY THAT HAD BROUGHT THE PROBLEMS FROM THE THAT THEY FELT TOWARD THE SILVER LINE.

WE WERE ABLE TO AIR OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE SILVER LINE AND WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE TOGETHER.

SO WHAT THIS REALLY IS, IS A HEALING PROCESS.

AND I THINK IT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY NOW IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, WE CAN CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT AND BE CONTENTIOUS AND HAVE AND GET NOWHERE. OR WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND BE APPRECIATIVE THAT WE'RE GETTING IT, BE, YOU KNOW, FRUSTRATED THAT WE HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH DART AND I THINK REALLY USE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT OUR CEO OR SORRY, OUR CITY MANAGER HAS BUILT WITH THEIR CEO THROUGH THE MOU AND DECIDE IT'S REALLY A MATTER RIGHT NOW OF WHETHER OR NOT WE DECIDE TO TRUST DART.

I DECIDE TO TRUST DART.

I WILL VOTE TO TRUST DART, AND I HOPE THAT DART WILL.

THEY'RE TRUSTING US BY THIS.

THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THAT CLEAR.

THEY HAVE HESITATIONS.

WE HAVE HESITATIONS.

THE ILLA IS A REFLECTION OF THEIR HESITATION.

THE MOU IS A REFLECTION OF OUR HESITATIONS, AND TOGETHER WE'RE GOING TO WORK IT THROUGH AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS MONEY THAT'S GOING TO OFFSET YEARS OF OF OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT WE NEED IN THE CITY AROUND OUR TRANSPORTATION AREA.

SO I HOPE IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS DOES COME NEXT TIME, WHICH I HOPE IT WILL, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ACTUALLY USE THE FUNDS TOWARD THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OUR CITY AND BE REALLY, REALLY INNOVATIVE.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS AS OUR MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, JUST KEEPING IT SIMPLE, SIGN THE DEAL, MOVE ON AND LET'S LET'S GET GOING.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK THIS OF ENGINEER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GUS OR ALLIE, BUT WHAT SECTION OF THE COTTON BELT IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ALONG THE 26 MILE LINE? GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ALI HATFIELD, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS WHAT PART OF THE BILL WAS THE MOST COMPLICATED ONE IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION? PROBABLY RIGHT NOW, HILLCREST IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING, BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID.

I'M ASSUMING HILLCREST IS ONE OF THE AREA THAT A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME.

SO WE'LL JUST SAY DISTRICT 12.

OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DISTRICT? SURE. HOW MANY DIFFERENT GRADE SEPARATIONS AND AT GRADE CROSSINGS ARE THERE AT DISTRICT 12? I BELIEVE THERE ARE NINE CROSSINGS AND WILL BE TWO GRADE CROSSINGS.

GRADE SEPARATION, WHICH IS THE HILLCREST AND COIT AND THE REST WILL BE GREAT.

AND SO THAT INCLUDES GOING THROUGH A PARK AND IT INCLUDES GOING ACROSS A WALKING TRAIL.

AND SO THERE'S A REASON WHY DALLAS IS, OF COURSE, MORE COMPLICATED FOR DART BECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS.

[04:15:09]

SOME PEOPLE DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REALLY A HOPE AND A FANTASY THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY GET THIS MONEY.

SO YOU CAN SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT'LL HAPPEN WHEN WE DON'T.

AND THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE HAVE WAITED MORE THAN THREE YEARS FOR US TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THEIR ISSUE AND TO TRY TO DO IT RIGHT.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN WORKED ON THIS FOR A YEAR.

AND FRANKLY, YOU CITY MANAGER TALKED ABOUT NADINE WANTING TO TALK WITH HER BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO GET THEIR CONCURRENCE.

I HAVE NOT HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU.

SO YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE SAME WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE MOU THAT SHE SEEMS TO HAVE ALREADY DONE.

MICHAEL MORRIS HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB NEGOTIATING THE DOLLAR POINTS FOR THIS.

HOWEVER, I HAVE NOT HEARD HIM WEIGH IN ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE ILA, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S THE QUESTION TODAY? MICHAEL, HAVE YOU DONE A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ILA? HAVEN'T READ THE ILA, BUT I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ SAID IT CORRECTLY.

I THINK THE ILA WAS DRAFTED AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS AND FRUSTRATIONS ON THE COTTON BELT CORRIDOR THAT GOT DRUG INTO THE ILA PROCESS.

DART AT THE TIME COULDN'T EVEN ALLOCATE MONEY.

THERE WAS A TWO DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES.

I SAID, DART, STOP FIGHTING WITH YOUR CITIES.

THE RTC PAID THE DIFFERENCE.

MY MEMORY WAS 14 OR $18 MILLION.

SO THE WHOLE THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTED WRONG WHEN THERE COULDN'T EVEN BE AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESS.

I BELIEVE THE ILA IS THE ILA.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE ANY LONGER.

I THINK IT'S ABOUT THE NEW BEGINNING.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH.

ALL OF ALL OF US, BOTH AS STAFFS AND AS POLICY MAKERS AND AS BOARD MEMBERS, BOARD MEMBERS.

I HOPE THIS VOTE PROCEEDS.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A NEW BEGINNING.

WE HAVE TO START OVER BOTH AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND THE POLICY LEVEL.

AND IF YOU JUST THINK OF ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT AGREEMENTS, WE'RE IN A $2 BILLION PROJECT ON 635 EAST.

WE HAD NONE OF THAT DISCUSSION ON ON THAT WITH WITH TEXDOT.

SO THERE'S TRUST THAT'S BEEN LOST.

WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH NEW TRUST MOVING FORWARD.

I DO NOT HAVE THE DETAILS ON THE ILHA, BUT I KNOW THE ILHA ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE.

WELL, I THINK ESTABLISHING TRUST WOULD BE RESETTING THE ILHA WITH PROPER LANGUAGE.

THANK YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S A RISK, CITY MANAGER, THAT WE DON'T RECEIVE ALL OF THE DOLLARS? NO, I DO NOT.

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT ON THE RECORD.

UM. TAMMY, WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT THIS WILL BE CALLED? WE'LL BE CALLED SUPPLEMENTAL 12.

NO, IT'S A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.

A SEPARATE AGREEMENT. THANK YOU.

SO I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT DART HAS ALREADY VIOLATED SUPPLEMENTAL 11 AND PROVISIONS THAT WERE TOLD TO MY COMMUNITY REPEATEDLY ARE NOT HAPPENING AND HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE MOU CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY.

THE COMMUNITY WAS TOLD THERE'D BE NO EMINENT DOMAIN.

THE MOU IS OUTLINING HOW IT WILL BE PUT ON OUR AGENDA WITHIN 60 DAYS.

THIS IS TELLING FOR MULTIPLE REASONS.

NUMBER ONE, HERE WE ARE 15 YEARS INTO A PROJECT AND DART STILL DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL OF ALL THEIR LAND.

BUT THEY POINT TO US AND SAY WE ARE THE REASON FOR THE DELAY.

THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE AND NOT HAVING MANAGED THIS PROJECT PROPERLY.

SO THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

I WANT THIS MONEY TOO.

I'M AFRAID THAT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES THINKS THAT THIS MONEY IS SOMEHOW BEING DIVIDED EQUALLY.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. DISTRICT 12 WOULD GET $250,000.

BUT I WILL FIGHT TO GET EVERY DOLLAR FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MY ONE DISTRICT.

I WANT EVERY TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN OUR CITY FIXED.

I WANT ALL OF OUR CITY TO BE ADA COMPLIANT.

ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE IMPORTANT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ABOUT A DISTRICT, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU, WE WILL NOT SEE THIS MONEY AND IT WILL FURTHER ERODE OUR RELATIONSHIP WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

I'M VERY GLAD TO HAVE ALL THESE ANSWERS ON THE RECORD.

I THINK IT WILL BE IMPORTANT.

I SEE MY TIME IS UP.

CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

MR. MORRIS. YOU KNOW, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH YOU YESTERDAY AND AND LAST WEEK I KEEP TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THIS NEGOTIATION.

YOU WERE SITTING THERE, AND I KNOW THAT SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE, WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO AN IRA OR AN MOU.

WHEN WE DID THE I-20 THOROUGHFARE, THE SOUTHERN GATEWAY, MANY PROJECTS WE HAD DID IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF DALLAS.

[04:20:05]

WHAT IS YOUR CONFIDENCE LEVEL THAT THIS WOULD GO THROUGH? AND WE WILL RECEIVE OUR MONEY, ESPECIALLY OUR SALES TAX MONEY.

I KEEP HEARING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO RECEIVE OUR MONEY.

SO YOU'VE BEEN AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, SO WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATION THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO RECEIVE OUR SALES TAX MONEY, ARE WE NOT? OR WE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE OUR MONEY? WELL, I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE 90 MILLION.

YOU GET THE 50 MILLION.

50 MILLION RIGHT AWAY.

THE RTC HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE BIKE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL.

I BELIEVE THE FEATHERING HE HAS OF THE 30 MILLION ESCROW WAS VERY WELL CRAFTED.

I THINK IN THE LAST 60 DAYS, THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DART HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED A NEW RELATIONSHIP.

I THINK THERE'S TREMENDOUS PROGRESS BEING MADE, SO I THINK EVERY DIME IS GOING TO BE PAID.

UM, I'VE COMMITTED TO MONITOR THE SITUATION TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.

AND I THINK THE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION WAS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE BUILDING CONTINUOUS FRONTAGE ROADS ON I-20 AND NOW GIVING YOU DIRECT ACCESS TO REDBIRD OFF OF THE FRONTAGE ROADS.

WE GAVE YOU A NEW ENTRANCE OFF OF 67.

WE'RE REDOING THE THOROUGHFARE STREET NORTH OF REDBIRD.

THESE ARE ALL ALL RTC COMMITMENTS SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ARNOLD TALKED TO YOU ABOUT.

AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN MOU.

WE, WE DO IT AS PART OF THE RTC ACTION PLAN AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

SO I HOPE TO GET THE PARTNERS TO THAT LEVEL THAT YOU GUYS THROUGH A NEW BEGINNING, GET TO A TO A PLACE THAT IS MORE POSITIVE AND YOU ARGUE HOW TO INFILL THE REGION BY ANOTHER MILLION PEOPLE.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS.

WE GOT TO TALK ABOUT A STREETCAR.

WE GOT TO TALK ABOUT A ZILLION MORE THINGS THAT ARE 100 TIMES BIGGER AND IMPACT.

I JUST HOPE WE CAN GET PAST THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND START BUILDING AGREEMENTS BASED ON PARTNERSHIP AND NOT BASED ON ENGLISH WORDS IN A IN THE LEGAL AGREEMENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JO WILLIS.

THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO OF JUNE 12TH AND GO BACK TO PAGE SEVEN.

THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE MOU, AND YOU POINTED OUT FOUR MAJOR CONCERNS.

AND I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER, GIVEN THE THE STANCE ON THE ILLA OF NOT WANTING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES AND LEAVING THINGS SO NEBULOUS, WHICH I THINK WILL HARM THE CITY, WHAT INCENTIVE IS THERE TO HAVE ANY GREATER STRENGTH IN THE MOU AT THIS POINT? OH, I WAS ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I MEAN, WE'RE STILL IN NEGOTIATIONS, I UNDERSTAND, WITH DART ON THE MOU AND OUR CONCERNS.

SO I. WELL, TO BE QUITE FRANK, I DOUBT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO ACCEPT OUR CHANGES.

I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME PRETTY CONCERNING THINGS ON HERE.

AND SO I GET I GET WHY SOME FOLKS ARE ANXIOUS.

I KNOW TO THE POINT THAT THIS IS NOT DIVIDED UP EQUALLY.

AND THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE THERE ARE PARTS OF OUR CITY THAT HAVE A LOT GREATER NEED WITH REGARD TO SIDEWALKS AND ADA COMPLIANCE AND STOPLIGHTS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

I MEAN, I WOULD GET ONE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT WILLOW AND INWOOD, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

I WANT I WANT THIS TO BE GOOD FOR OUR CITY AND TO HELP US HELP DART MOVE PEOPLE AROUND OUR CITY SAFELY AND RAPIDLY.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET SOMETHING OUT OF THIS NEEDS TO SUPERSEDE HAVING SOUND LEGAL DOCUMENTS TO PROTECT US AND TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS.

AND SO, MISS CITY ATTORNEY, I MEAN, WHAT WHAT WOULD HELP US? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP US GET TO, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE AND WORKING THROUGH THIS? I MEAN, I HOPE DART IS HEARING THAT THE INTENT HERE IS GOOD.

WE WANT A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ALL SAID.

BUT WE'VE ALSO SAID IT'S GOING TO COME FROM A VERY CLEAR, DELINEATED DOCUMENT THAT SHARES RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT SHARES THAT DOESN'T LEAVE THESE VAGARIES WHEN IT COMES TO TIMELINES.

I MEAN, DO YOU NEED MORE TIME TO WORK ON THIS? DO WE FEEL LIKE I MEAN, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SIX MONTHS.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME HERE THAT WE CAN WORK ON THIS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK AND HEAR US ON THIS.

I THINK HE WANTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SO TO BE CLEAR, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS NOT NEGOTIATING THE ILLA OR THE CONTRACT.

[04:25:02]

THEY'RE PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND RISK CONTINUUMS LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO AROUND ANY ISSUE WE HAVE FOR THE CITY.

IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR TO ME, I THINK I SAID THIS EARLIER BY THE PRESIDENT AND CEO, THAT DART IS NOT WILLING, FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION STANDPOINT TO EVEN THE POLICYMAKERS WILLING TO CHANGE THE ILLA.

EVERY OTHER CITY IN DARTS, I GUESS, PARTNERS WITH DART HAVE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, SO THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO CHANGE THE ILLA TODAY OR IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION FOR THE LAST 4 TO 5 MONTHS.

THE MOU TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POINT, THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT WE'VE HASHED OUT WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE AGREEABLE TERMS TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THE THINGS TO ALLOW US TO RECEIVE THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

THE PRESIDENT AND CEO HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT SHE BELIEVED WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AND THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO MODIFY THAT DOCUMENT. AS MR. PEREZ SAID, THE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT MAY STILL ARRIVE AROUND THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DISCUSS AND THEN CLARIFY FOR US IN A MEMORANDUM OF CONCURRENCE AND OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT THAT SHARES THE SPECIFICS OF HOW THESE THINGS WILL PLAY OUT.

BUT AGAIN, THIS NOTION THAT WAITING AND TIME AND ANOTHER CONVERSATION, TRUST ME, IF YOU CAN EVEN ASK MICHAEL MORRIS, IT WAS PRETTY TOUGH DISCUSSIONS AND A LOT OF HURT FEELINGS FOR THE FIRST 2 OR 3 MONTHS.

YOU KNOW, AT ALL LEVELS OF THIS NEGOTIATION, WE'RE FINALLY AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THESE ARE TERMS THAT WE BELIEVE TOGETHER WE CAN REBUILD OUR PARTNERSHIP AND MOVE FORWARD. IF EACH SIDE COMMITS TO DOING THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ARTICULATED IN THE MOU.

AND I'LL JUST SAY THIS AND THEN I'LL BE QUIET ABOUT IT.

THE ILLA AND APPROVAL OF THE ILLA JUST SETS FORTH THEM, GIVING US THE RESOURCES, THE RELATIONSHIP THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY HAVE WITH BOARD MEMBERS OR HOW YOU PERCEIVE AND WANT TO WORK GOING FORWARD WITH THEM I THINK IS GREAT.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MEND THOSE FENCES STAFF AND THE MOU.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT AND WE'RE WORKING COOPERATIVELY TOGETHER.

AND THAT'S REALLY NOT A DECISION TECHNICALLY TO BE MADE TODAY BECAUSE WHAT ROBERT AND HIS TEAM AND OUR TEAMS DO IS REALLY WHAT'S GOING TO PROVE UP WHETHER WE GET THE RESOURCES OR NOT.

AND I THINK Y'ALL'S DIRECTION TO US IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, ONE, WE GET ALL THE RESOURCES THAT WE'RE DESERVING.

TWO, THAT WE ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS BY WHICH YOU'VE SET.

AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AT A STAFF LEVEL.

AND I THINK THIS IS THE BEGINNING STAGE OF THAT, AND THE MOU DOES THAT FOR US.

I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP THAT I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DART'S LAWYER AND HE SAID THIS IS A NON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

WELL, THERE YOU GO. SO SO WE JUST GOT THIS.

I MEAN, THIS IS FROM FRIDAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THESE CONCERNS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THIS WAS SHARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER, IN GOING INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS TO SAY HERE ARE THE SPECIFIC AREAS.

I MEAN, THIS IS VERY DELINEATED AS FAR AS HERE ARE THE SPECIFIC AREAS THAT WE FEEL LIKE ARE VAGUE, THAT DON'T PROTECT THE CITY.

AND SO THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE, IS THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SAYING, NO, NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ANYMORE.

I THINK WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY OF DALLAS, TEXAS COMES BACK AND SAYS, HERE ARE THE AREAS WHERE I'VE GOT CONCERN THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE THOSE.

AND IF YOU GET SHUT DOWN AGAIN, I GUESS YOU GET SHUT DOWN AGAIN.

I JUST WE DID SHARE THOSE CONCERNS IN THE LATE FALL WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING WITH ROBERT AND HIS TEAM ALL THE RED LINED ISSUES IN THIS DOCUMENT.

SO WE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ALL OF OUR CONCERNS.

AND I YOU KNOW, I THINK WE EXTENSIVELY RED LINED THE 11 PAGE ILLA WITH ALL KINDS OF COMMENTS LIKE WHAT MIGHT BE IN MY DOCUMENT HERE.

SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE CONCERNS FOR QUITE A WHILE.

OKAY. SO NOW BUT YOU'VE ALSO OUTLINED THE MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING AND THAT STILL IS ON THE TABLE.

WELL, AGAIN, IF YOU I'M ASSUMING THAT DOCUMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE ONE THAT MR..

THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY GAVE.

IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WAS EIGHT PAGES.

THERE WAS ONE PAGE THAT SPOKE TO FOUR ITEMS ON THE MOU, WHICH I THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED TODAY AROUND CLARITY, AROUND WHEN YOU WOULD INSTITUTE A PENALTY AND THE NON BINDING NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT. SO SEVEN AND A HALF OF THE EIGHT PAGE DOCUMENT WAS ALL ABOUT THE ILLA, WHICH AGAIN I THINK SHE SHARED, SHE SHARED THOSE CONCERNS AND SIMILAR THROUGH THE RED LINE THAT I THINK HER AND OTHER CITY ATTORNEYS HAVE SHARED.

AND THEY BASICALLY SAID THANKS, BUT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DOCUMENT.

THE MOU, THEY'RE MINOR ISSUES THAT AGAIN DON'T IMPACT IN MY.

MY THE THE INTENT OF THE AGREEMENT, AND THAT IS ONE TO IDENTIFY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE CAN AGREE ON.

AND THE TERMS AS YOU REMEMBER, WHEN WE WALKED AWAY FROM THIS INITIAL CONVERSATION, WE WERE AT $30 MILLION AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO CLAW BACK EVEN BEFORE WE

[04:30:07]

GOT THE RESOURCES. AND SO WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ARTICULATE AND AT LEAST CEMENT THAT.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CEO HAS SHARED THE DOCUMENT WITH HER BOARD AND THE TERMS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO SETTLE ON THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO GIVE TO US, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENALTIES THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY WANTED TO EXTRACT.

SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE, BUT I HATE TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THIS, BUT THEY HAVE TOLD ME WHETHER THE ILHA OR THE MOU, THEY'RE KIND OF DONE NICKEL AND DIMING AROUND THE ISSUES AND THE WORDS AND THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE SETTLED ON THOSE.

AND I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT EITHER WE SIGN THE ILHA THAT THEN ALLOWS ME TO SIGN THE MOU BASED ON THESE DISCUSSIONS, MS OR WE DON'T RECEIVE ANY RESOURCES AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS NOT GOING TO GO UP.

IT WOULD TEND TO ONLY GO DOWN IF THE LATER THAT WE MOVE ON THIS ITEM.

I GOT IT. SO COLLEAGUES, I DON'T THINK THIS IS FIGHTING OR BEING CONTENTIOUS.

THIS IS DOING OUR JOB TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, TO USE THE RESOURCES WE HAVE AND OUR AND OUR COUNCIL APPOINTED EMPLOYEES TO GIVE US THIS COUNSEL.

SO I STILL HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VAGARIES IN THIS.

IT DOESN'T PROTECT US AND I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD FOR THAT.

CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IF WE DON'T SIGN THE ILHA OR THE MOU OR ANY OF THAT, DO WE HAVE A TIME FRAME WHEN THIS GOES AWAY? COUNCIL MEMBER. I WOULD POINT BACK TO THE ILLA, WHICH STATES THAT WE HAVE TO SUBMIT ALL OF OUR PROPOSED PROJECTS TO DART BY JANUARY 31ST OF 2024.

SO IF WE DON'T MEET THAT, THEN WE WOULD PROBABLY LOSE THOSE DOLLARS.

SO THAT MEANS WE HAVE ABOUT SIX MONTHS.

YES. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. AND YOU HAVE TO DO THEM BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY.

YOU CAN'T DO AN ILLA AS YOU WORK OUT THE MOU.

WE CAN WE CAN DO THE ILLA WHILE WE POTENTIALLY REFINE THE, I GUESS, SOME OF THE AMBIGUITY OF THE MOU.

AND SO MY NEXT QUESTION TOO IS WE'VE HAD THESE QUESTIONS AND IT'S WELL ATTORNEY SAID X OR THE DART CEO, WHERE IS DART TODAY? HAVE THEY WERE THEY INVITED HERE? SO THAT WAY WE COULD HEAR FROM THEM? AND THAT IS ACTUAL NOT A RHETORICAL.

I MEAN, I THINK HEARING FROM THEM AS TO WHY THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE.

AND YES, IT DOES FEEL KIND OF LIKE YOU'RE HELD HOSTAGE.

AND I APPRECIATE THE ATTORNEY FOR REALLY SCRUBBING IT.

AND I APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER FOR LOOKING OUT FOR OUR INTERESTS OF GETTING MONEY AND ALL THE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED.

BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS IT IS FEELING LIKE YOU WILL TAKE THIS OR YOU WON'T GET ANYTHING.

SO AND SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS IT DART HERE? WERE THEY INVITED? WELL, WE DID NOT INVITE THEM, BUT THEY PROBABLY ARE WATCHING AND LISTENING.

AND I THINK TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE GIVING RESOURCES DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH THEY PROBABLY NEED TO SHOW UP TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THE PEOPLE WANTING US TO PROVIDE RESOURCES TO THEM IN GENERAL WILL TYPICALLY SHOW UP TO THEN JUSTIFY WHY THEY IN FACT DESERVE IT.

SO AGAIN, THEY MAY NOT HAVE WANTED TO HAVE AND OR GO THROUGH ANOTHER CONVERSATION AS DIFFICULT AS THE ONE WE HAD DURING THE JOINT MEETING.

BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEIR TEAM.

WE DID NOT INVITE THEM BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO, AND THAT IS TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO AMEND. AND I GUESS TO HEAR THOSE WORDS FROM THEM, I GUESS WOULD MEAN SOMETHING.

BUT TO HEAR THEM FROM US SHOULD ALSO INDICATE THAT THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE.

IT'S NOT THAT I'M SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR THEM PROPERLY, IT'S JUST THAT KIND OF WHEN I HEAR IT FROM THEM TO YOU WILL DO IT THIS WAY OR NOT DO IT AT ALL.

AND I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU'RE PUT IN A BAD POSITION OF BEING THE MESSENGER TO SOME DEGREE, AND I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR.

SO, I MEAN, IT IS KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT HERE.

AND AND I APPLAUD MR. MORRIS FOR WORKING WITH US IN CREATING OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE US WHOLE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY SAD HERE IS THAT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

AND WE HAVE NO PARTNERSHIP.

THERE IS THIS GRIND AND AND THEY CAN'T EVEN SHOW UP TO EXPLAIN THEIR POINT OF VIEW.

SO TO ME, THAT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T THEY REALLY DON'T CARE.

BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL PROBABLY BE PUSHING THIS THROUGH BECAUSE THE MONEY IS MONEY AND I HATE THAT.

BUT. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW ME THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE.

[04:35:09]

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DEBATE.

I DON'T THINK A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR EXTENSION OF TIME.

I'LL LET THE PARLIAMENTARIAN LOOK THAT UP.

IN THE MEANTIME, YOU HAVE A MINUTE.

AND WHILE SHE'S LOOKING THAT UP, WE CAN ADD ON.

HOW I SPEND MY MINUTE WOULD BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHAT HER ANSWER IS.

WELL, THEN, BY ALL MEANS, WE'LL STAND AT EASE FOR A MINUTE WHILE WE FIGURE THAT OUT.

COULD BE EASIER TO JUST LET ME SPEAK FOR THE THREE INSTEAD OF LOOKING IT UP.

NO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.

WE HAVE TO. IT'S NOT DEBATABLE.

SO WE'RE SO IT WILL REQUIRE TWO THIRDS VOTE AND SO KIND OF A RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

SURE. ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, THIS IS THE THE MOTION IS TO EXTEND COUNCILWOMAN NELSON'S TIME BY THREE MINUTES, EXTEND TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO DO THAT SPECIFIC THING, NOT TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, BUT FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME.

MAYOR, BEFORE WE GO, JUST A POINT OF QUESTIONS HERE.

DOES THAT THREE MINUTE GET TO BE STRETCHED OUT BY ASKING STAFF QUESTIONS SO THAT THREE BECOMES 20? I MEAN, IT'S A THREE.

YEAH, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S CLEAR. I KNOW HOW TO VOTE.

I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT I'VE GONE THROUGH SEVEN PAGES OF QUESTIONS AND I HAVE ONE LEFT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO ANYWAY, AS MR. MEMBERS UNDERSTAND, WE'RE VOTING ON SUSPEND THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON'S TIME BY THREE MINUTES.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

MORENO? YES.

ATKINS. YES.

MCGOUGH. YES. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

MAYOR JOHNSON.

WHY NOT? YES.

ALL 15 MEMBERS VOTING IN FAVOR.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, LET'S GIVE HER THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.

SHE HAS ONE OUT OF THREE.

THAT'S FOUR FOUR TOTAL, BECAUSE SHE HAD A MINUTE ANYWAY.

AND SHE SAID SPECIFICALLY IT WOULD AFFECT HOW SHE HANDLED THAT MINUTE IF SHE GOT THREE MORE.

SO SHE'S GOT FOUR TO WORK WITH.

THERE YOU GO. WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT DART CLAIMED THAT THE CITY DELAYED AND ASKED FOR IN BETTERMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER. THE DELAYS WERE $43.5 MILLION AND IT WAS $36 MILLION IN BETTERMENTS TO START.

SO A TOTAL OF $80 MILLION, 79.5? YES, MA'AM. AND WITH THE NEGOTIATION OF THE $36 MILLION IN BETTERMENTS, WHAT AMOUNT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS? OF THE 36 OF THE 36 MILLION.

WHAT WAS ATTRIBUTED WE GOT DOWN TO AT FIRST IT WAS ALL OF IT, BUT THEN WE GOT DOWN TO 5.2 MILLION THAT WE WOULD ASSUME.

SO WE ARE ATTRIBUTED 5.2 MILLION OF THE 36 THAT THEY CLAIMED.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND FOR DELAYS, 43 MILLION WAS CLAIMED.

AND WHAT WAS NEGOTIATED? IT WAS NEGOTIATED DOWN TO 19.5 MILLION, 15.9, I'M SORRY, 15.9.

YES. SO IN THE END, $21 MILLION ATTRIBUTED TO DALLAS INSTEAD OF THE 80 MILLION THAT THEY CLAIMED? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE'RE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO AN ERA THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DECIDE THE AMOUNT AND WHO'S GUILTY OF OF THIS.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY WERE CHARGING US FOUR TIMES WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ATTRIBUTED TO US.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT MATH WORKS OUT.

YOU SAID, CAN YOU GET CAN YOU GET ME THERE? SO ABOUT 25%.

RIGHT? 20 MILLION.

20 MILLION? YES. OKAY.

SO IF WE ALLOW DART TO BE THAT ARBITER AND ASSIGN FAULT AND ASSIGN PRICES, WE ARE ACTUALLY THE FOOLS.

BECAUSE TODAY WE WOULD HAVE LOST $80 MILLION OF THE 111.

AND INSTEAD WE'RE ONLY LOSING THE 21 MILLION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM. OKAY.

THEY'VE ALREADY PROVEN TO NOT BE AN HONEST OR ACCURATE BROKER OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THIS LINE RIGHT HERE.

AND YOU ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.

AND THAT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING TO ME.

I'D LIKE TO JUST PUT TWO OTHER THINGS INTO PLAY.

THIS SEEMS TO BE A DISCUSSION OF DO WE SIGN IT OR DO WE NOT SIGN IT? BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO OTHER FORESIGHT INTO, WELL, WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS? AND THE REASON WHY I ASKED FOR THE DELAY OF THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN IS NOT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THOSE.

[04:40:05]

I MOST CERTAINLY DO.

BUT IT'S A LEVERAGE POINT.

ANOTHER LEVERAGE POINT IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE ASKED ABOUT REPEATEDLY, WHICH IS STREET CLOSURE FEES.

CHAPTER 52 DOES NOT ALLOW ANY STAFF MEMBER OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO DISMISS STREET CLOSURE FEES.

WE DO. WE PAY OUR OWN STREET CLOSURE FEES WITH BOND DOLLARS FOR PROJECTS.

NO, MA'AM. WE DON'T CHARGE OURSELVES FOR STREET CLOSURE FEES FOR OUR PROJECTS.

COULD WE VERIFY THAT WITH ALI? I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU'RE USING BOND FUNDS, YOU DON'T PAY STREET CLOSURE FEES.

WE DO NOT PAY OURSELVES.

IT'S A CITY PROJECT. SO WE DON'T WE DON'T PAY OURSELVES FOR LANE CLOSURE FEES.

CAN YOU JUST NOD YOUR HEAD? COUNCIL MEMBER WE DON'T CHARGE ANY PUBLIC PROJECT FORECLOSURE FEE, NO D.W., NO PUBLIC WORKS, NO TRANSPORTATION, NO ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT.

OKAY, SO EITHER WAY.

CHAPTER 52 DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE CONTRACTOR ARCHER, WESTERN HERZOG OR ANY OF ITS SUBCONTRACTORS TO BE WAIVED FOR STREET CLOSURE.

THAT'S WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS.

CITY ATTORNEY I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS YET.

I KNOW IT'S PART OF THE PROPOSED MOU.

COULD YOU WEIGH IN? OR DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THE STREET CLOSURE FEES? I KNOW WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.

BURT VANDENBERG CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, THE COUNCIL MEMBER IS CORRECT THAT CHAPTER 52 DOES NOT SEEM TO INDICATE THAT DART IS ONE OF THE EXEMPT PUBLIC OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A LONG HISTORY WITH THE ILA AND PREVIOUS ITERATIONS OF CHAPTER 52 THAT WE ARE LOOKING INTO, BUT AT THIS POINT THAT SEEMS TO BE CORRECT.

SO WE'RE GIVING ANOTHER $40 MILLION AWAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE, AND IN FACT I THINK IS IN VIOLATION OF OUR OWN CODE.

I MEAN, CITY ATTORNEY IS NOT DISPUTING THAT THIS IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER OUR CODE.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER, LET ME CLARIFY.

THE LANE CLOSURE FEES ARE NOT OUTLINED OR WITHIN THE MOU THAT WE'RE EXECUTING.

I'M SORRY, I GOT A DRAFT AND LANE CLOSURE FEES WERE INCLUDED.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT IS NOT IN.

IT IS NOT IN THERE.

WOW. THAT'S MAGICAL.

OKAY. LANE CLOSURE FEES ARE APPROXIMATELY $40 MILLION.

BEST THAT MY DISTRICT MY DISTRICT RESIDENTS HAVE CALCULATED.

SO THESE ARE THE LAST THINGS I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS PAID OUT MORE THAN $8 MILLION IN SALES TAX SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED.

$8 MILLION JUST IN THE FOUR YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE WITH MANY OF YOU, WE'VE GIVEN DART $1.45 BILLION.

IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

WE'VE INCREASED HOW MUCH? WE GIVE DART OVER $122 MILLION A YEAR, BY THE WAY.

THAT'S HOW MUCH MORE WE'RE GETTING IN SALES TAX THIS YEAR, 122 MILLION.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO, YOU REALLY NEED TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE'S THE MONEY GOING? WE HAVE INCREASED IN THESE FOUR YEARS, 39% JUST IN FOUR YEARS, HOW MUCH WE GIVE DART.

BUT ACTUALLY THEIR RIDERSHIP IS DOWN 40% IN THOSE SAME FOUR YEARS.

SADLY, WE HAVE NOT INSTITUTED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO ENSURE TRAIN OR BUS FREQUENCY, DEPENDABILITY OR EFFICIENCY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE NO PENALTIES FOR THEIR POOR PERFORMANCE AND WE DON'T EVEN BOTHER CAPTURING THE FREQUENCY OF SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS OR SAFETY INCIDENCES SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND RELIABILITY FOR OUR RESIDENTS OR OUR RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

I MOVE TO DELAY THIS ITEM FOR UNTIL THE FIRST AGENDA MEETING IN AUGUST.

SECOND. WHERE'S MY PARLIAMENTARIAN? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND TO DELAY THE ITEM TO WIN.

COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS SECONDED THE MOTION TO THE FIRST AGENDA MEETING IN AUGUST.

ALL RIGHT. IT IS A HIGHER RANKING MOTION AND IT'S IN ORDER.

SO WE ARE NOW ON THAT MOTION AND IT'S DEBATABLE, OBVIOUSLY.

SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION TO DELAY.

YEAH, WE'RE ON A NEW WE'RE ON A HIGHER RANKING MOTION TO DELAY UNTIL THE.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? FIRST AGENDA IN AUGUST.

SO WHILE CITY STAFF HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THEY FEEL LIKE THAT WAS THE FINAL OFFER BY DART, I THINK THAT A NEW SPIRIT OF PROBLEM SOLVING AND COOPERATION COULD ACTUALLY BE ACHIEVED.

[04:45:02]

MANY TIMES I HAVE HEARD COMMENTS THAT PERHAPS I OR OTHER PEOPLE MAY BE IN MY DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DELAYED THIS PROJECT.

I CAN TELL YOU NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

THERE IS NO INTENTION THAT I EVER HAD.

I SEE COOKIE SPEEDING UP THERE THAT PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT HAVE HAD TO DELAY.

THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY MUCH MORE PAINFUL DELAYING IT, AND I CERTAINLY NEVER EXPECTED TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS THE ENTIRE TIME.

SO THAT IS AS FAR AS IT CAN GO.

I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH DART.

I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE COOPERATION.

ALL THOSE GREAT THINGS.

MICHAEL AND I HAVE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION, BUT WE CAN'T DO IT WHEN WE HAVE SUCH AN LA.

THAT IS JUST THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THING THAT MANY OF YOU AS LAWYERS HAVE READ.

WE'VE NEVER HAD IN THE FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN ON.

IF YOU'VE SERVED WITH ME, I'VE NEVER SEEN A CITY ATTORNEY MEMO THAT WAS A STRONGLY WORDED AS THE ONE WE GOT.

PLEASE TAKE THAT AS A VOTE OF CAUTION.

WE NEED TO START OVER.

AND I BELIEVE DART DOES WANT TO HAVE A BETTER PARTNERSHIP.

I BELIEVE EVERYONE HERE WANTS TO HAVE A BETTER PARTNERSHIP AND WE CAN DO THAT.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO START BACK WITH A DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE, NOT WHETHER THE JUDGE AND JURY, NOT WHERE THEY ARE PENALIZING US FOR THINGS THAT DON'T EVEN MAKE SENSE AS THE $80 MILLION THEY WANTED TO CHARGE US.

AND IT WAS REALLY 21, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET YOUR PROJECTS DONE.

THIS DOESN'T AFFECT ME.

THE PROJECTS ARE NOT COMING TO MY DISTRICT.

I'M GETTING HALF OF A TRAFFIC INTERSECTION.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I DRIVE THROUGH FIVE DIFFERENT CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS TO GET TO CITY HALL EVERY DAY.

I'M IN ALMOST EVERY DISTRICT IN A GIVEN WEEK.

MANY OF YOU ARE TRAVELING ALL OVER.

WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICTS.

MOST OF YOU TRAVELED MULTIPLE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU DIDN'T SAY, WOW, OUR ROADS ARE BAD.

DART HAS AN INTEREST IN ALL THOSE TRAFFIC SIGNALS BEING REPLACED.

AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE THEY GAVE US THE LIST OF THE ONES THEY WANTED TO PRIORITIZE.

THEY WANT THIS TO BE DONE.

THE TRUTH IS, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THE MONEY AND DO THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES, GUESS WHAT? OUR STAFF'S SUPER BUSY.

LET THEM ENGINEER IT AND PROJECT MANAGE IT.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME PROJECTS FOR US BECAUSE IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I'D RATHER US DO IT BECAUSE I TRUST OUR STAFF MORE, BUT WE NEED TO START OVER WITH A REAL NEGOTIATION.

THE OTHER CITIES ALL AGREE TO THE ILA BECAUSE THEY HAD IN THEIR HAND A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS A TARGET TO DALLAS AND WE NEED TO TAKE THAT BACK.

WE ARE NOT SUBORDINATE TO DART.

WE ARE NOT JUST THE NAME OF DART.

WE ARE THE LARGEST MEMBER BY POPULATION, BY GEOGRAPHY AND WE NEED TO ACT LIKE IT.

SO THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY.

THERE'S A WORTHY CONVERSATION TO BE HAD HERE.

I'M SORRY THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE WAITING.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME, BUT THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY AND IT IMPACTS EVERY ONE OF US.

AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK FOR THIS TO BE WORKED ON OVER THE SUMMER AND COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WORKS THAT WE CAN ALL SUPPORT.

AND THEN WE REALLY WILL ACHIEVE THE THING THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT, WHICH IS STARTING FRESH WITH TRUST.

THIS DOCUMENT BREEDS EVERYTHING THAT'S THE OPPOSITE.

IT'S DISTRUST WHEN YOU PUT THOSE KINDS OF CLAUSES AND THOSE SORTS OF LANGUAGE AND ASK US TO APPROVE IT.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DELAY SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

OH, I DID. DID YOU? OKAY. YOU GOT YOUR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DELAY, AND I.

AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT JUMPING IN JUST TO SAY LET'S MAKE SURE WE TRY NOT TO HAVE THE SAME DEBATE OVER AGAIN ON THE ON THE FULL UNDERLYING MERITS, BUT MORE ON THE MOTION TO DELAY AND ITS MERITS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR ROBERT.

I'M SURE YOU COULD ANSWER THIS, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM CITY ATTORNEYS AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF WHAT OUR COLLEAGUE IS SUGGESTING, BUT IT SEEMS AS IF IT'S THE THE NEGOTIATION CONVERSATIONS HAVE ALMOST BEEN EXHAUSTED.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IT'S NECESSARILY NEEDED.

I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO JUST KIND OF TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE THIS DELAY WOULD AFFORD Y'ALL TO DO.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

COUNCILMAN. I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT MR. BROADNAX SAID.

WE COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, COME BACK IN AUGUST AND REALLY NOT HAVE MUCH CHANGE TO ANYTHING.

THE DART BOARD HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR AS FAR AS THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ELA.

AS FAR AS THE MOU, AGAIN, THE THE EXECUTIVE STAFF HAD TO GET, YOU KNOW, OKAY FROM THE BOARD ON SEVERAL OF THESE POINTS.

SO FOR THEM TO CHANGE ANYTHING, I DON'T SEE IT VERY LIKELY.

[04:50:02]

SO I MEAN VERY LITTLE CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST OTHER THAN WE JUST LOSE TIME ON EXECUTION OF PROJECTS.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? YOU DO NOT. OKAY.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT.

I DON'T THINK THAT I CAN SUPPORT A DELAY IF IT DOESN'T SEEM AS IF WE IT WILL RESULT IN ANYTHING NEW.

AND FOR THAT, I THINK THAT STAFF HAS KIND OF GIVEN US AN INDICATION THAT WE'RE AT THE BEST PLACE THAT WE COULD BE AT THIS MOMENT.

SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GENTLEMEN.

MENDELSOHN YOUR OK WAIT A MINUTE.

WHO JUMPED ANYONE DOES THAT MEAN OVER HERE? CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON, BEFORE WE GO BACK TO YOU, CHAIRWOMAN, FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DELAY.

OKAY. ON THE MOTION TO DELAY.

SO IF YOU IF YOU WERE GRANTED A DELAY FOR TWO MONTHS, HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH IT? LIKE WHAT? WHAT WOULD WE GAIN FROM A TWO MONTH DELAY IN YOUR EYES? AND I MEAN, DOES IT GO BACK THROUGH THEIR BOARD AS WELL IF THERE ARE CHANGES? I MEAN, TELL ME HOW AND MAYBE MR. MORRIS CAN EVEN HELP WITH THIS AS WELL, IS I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD THE BENEFIT BE FROM THE DELAY, WHICH WOULD DETERMINE MY VOTE AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE MUCH GAINED FROM A DELAY WE WOULD GO BACK TO AND I THINK MR. BROADNAX HAD MENTIONED IT, DART IS WATCHING THIS MORE THAN LIKELY.

SO WE WOULD START WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SEE IF THERE WAS ANY APPETITE TO CHANGE EITHER THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH I BELIEVE EVEN THEIR ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED, THAT THIS IS THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THEIR DONE DOCUMENTS.

SO, I MEAN, THERE WOULDN'T BE A WHOLE LOT TO DISCUSS BEYOND THAT.

SO THEN, MADAM ATTORNEY, GIVEN THAT THIS I GUESS WE'RE AT A STALEMATE, GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN, DO YOU GO TO COURT? DO YOU GO TO MEDIATION? DO WE THEN JUST OKAY, WE HAVE TO SIGN WHAT IS GIVEN TO US AND WE MOVE ON.

WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE, IS BASICALLY WHAT DART IS SAYING.

SO WE EITHER SIGN THE DOCUMENT AND GET THE MONEY OR DON'T SIGN THE DOCUMENT AND WE GET NO MONEY.

SO THAT'S THEIR STANCE.

AND AND SO WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND GIVEN HOW YOU FEEL? CITY ATTORNEY IF IF WE DO THIS TWO MONTHS AND WE'RE STILL AT A STALEMATE, WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN TWO MONTHS WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT.

I MEAN I MEAN, I'M GIVING YOU KNOW, IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE PROVIDED ALL OF THE RED LINES TO DART WITH THE OTHER CITIES.

AND I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO SEE WHAT WE GAVE TO DART AS OUR CONCERNS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, LIKE ANY OTHER CONTRACT OR ANY OTHER DECISION YOU MAKE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE IT WITH OUR ADVICE.

SO WE REALLY LACK OF CLARITY, NO COURSE OF ACTION.

THERE'S NO OTHER COURSE.

WE EITHER TAKE IT OR IF THEY'RE SAYING NO, WE HAVE NO PLACE TO APPEAL TO.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER, BUT.

OKAY. SO IT'S OKAY.

ROBERT, GO AHEAD.

AND I WAS GOING TO ALSO ADD IN NOT TO WHAT MR. MORSE ON THE SPOT, BUT HE DID SHARE WITH TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AS WELL ON MONDAY.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MEDIATED THESE ARE MEDIATED DEAL POINTS.

I MEAN, TO GO BACK TO HIM AND TRY TO MEDIATE AGAIN, HE MENTIONED THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.

WELL, I MEAN, MAYBE THIS IS THE TIME THAT WE OPEN UP AND WE GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND FIGURE OUT A CLAUSE THAT SAYS WE HAVE A FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN MEDIATE OTHER THAN JUST BY TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND.

I'M JUST BECAUSE I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT DOES FEEL THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GET IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE EXCESS FUNDS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK HERE AGAIN WITH THIS SAME CONVERSATION AND IT'S TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT AND I DON'T KNOW EVEN KNOW HOW TO REMEDY IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS VERY, VERY ONE SIDED.

AND AS SOMEBODY SAID, A PARTNERSHIP IS NOT HOLDING PEOPLE HOSTAGE.

AND WE DO NEED A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN OUR CITY.

BUT GIVEN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ANYWHERE WITH A DELAY, BUT BACK HERE, I DON'T SEE HOW A DELAY BENEFITS US THAN BEING BACK HERE AND HAVING THIS SAME CONVERSATION AGAIN IN TWO MONTHS.

SO I'M SORRY THAT STAFF HAS BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION.

I WISH WE WEREN'T, BUT I GUESS WE'LL WE'LL SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES.

AND THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

MR. MAYOR, THIS IS MICHAEL MORRIS.

I HEARD MY NAME. CAN I SPEAK? YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL SAY IT'S A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING THAT PAULA BLACKMON JUST RAISED.

BUT THEN I WANT TO GO TO, SINCE WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM HIM YET, MR. RESENDEZ NEXT AND THEN WE'LL GET TO YOU.

CHAIRWOMAN. GO AHEAD, MR.

[04:55:01]

MORRIS. MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

UM, I BELIEVE IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE MOVE OUR 80 MILLION TO 20 MILLION, $60 MILLION TO OUR FAVOR BECAUSE THEY SAW ALL THE POSITIVE WORK THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

IN THE LAST 60 DAYS.

TSAI AND DR.

PEREZ. I BELIEVE IF YOU IF YOU MAKE A DELAY, I DON'T WANT YOU TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE THAT I CAN DELIVER AGAIN THE SAME LEVEL OF PROJECT 60 DAYS FROM NOW.

I CAN'T. I THINK, NADINE IT WAS HARD FOR THEIR BOARD TO ACCEPT A NUMBER THAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE CLOSER TO 80, AND IT ENDED UP BEING CLOSER TO 20.

AND I THINK IF YOU WERE JUST JUST DON'T HOLD US STAFF ACCOUNTABLE TO DELIVER $90,000,000.60 DAYS FROM NOW BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION AND GAIN WE'VE MADE IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SAME SPIRIT TWO MONTHS FROM NOW AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. RESENDEZ. VERY NICE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE DO DELAY THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ERA MOST LIKELY WOULDN'T CHANGE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, COULD WE GET SOME OF THE TERMS DEFINED IN THE ERA, IF THERE'S A DELAY? SO SO, AGAIN, SIR, THE THE MOU, WHICH WE'VE DRAFTED, HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CLEAR UP THAT AMBIGUITY.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THE POINTS THAT WE JUST RECEIVED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH THOSE WITH WITH THE EXECUTIVE TEAM.

SO AGAIN, JUST CHANGING THE I DO I THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

CHANGING THE HEART OF THE MOU IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT POTENTIALLY MAKING A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARER IS SOMETHING THAT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN OR WILL HAPPEN.

OKAY. YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

BUT I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES IN TERMS OF IF THE GOAL IS TO HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH DART, IF THAT'S OUR GOAL, AND THAT'S SUPPOSEDLY DART'S GOAL AS WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD TO GET JERKED AROUND AND THAT'S WHAT IT FEELS LIKE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ALL THE LEVERAGE AND YOU WANT A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEBODY, YOU DON'T JERK THEM AROUND.

THANK YOU. SORRY, GUYS.

I HAVE TO KEEP LOOKING BACK AND FORTH.

MR. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DELAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND MINE IS.

MY QUESTION IS MORE LOGISTICALLY.

IF SO, IF THIS COMES BACK AND IT WAS IF I CAN ASK THE CHAIR CHAIRWOMAN, IT WAS AUGUST 1ST MEETING IN AUGUST.

IS THAT RIGHT? SO FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST.

WOULD THIS NEED TO COME BACK? BECAUSE IT COULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ERA.

THEORETICALLY, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

BUT IF IT CAME BACK, WOULDN'T IT MOST LIKELY GO TO COMMITTEE FIRST? AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WILL WE HAVE COMMITTEES IN AUGUST FOR IT TO GO TO? AND ARE YOU ASKING ME? WELL, I REALLY GOING TO BE PROBABLY THE CITY MANAGER OR THE MAYOR ON THIS.

PROBABLY THE MAYOR. IT'S ABOUT COMMITTEES.

IT'S LIKE, WELL, IF WE HAVE A DIFFERENT ERA THAT COMES BACK IN AUGUST, HAVE TO GO TO COMMITTEES.

THE FIRST QUESTION I THINK IT'S FIRST QUESTION.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO I WOULD SAY NO.

OKAY. IN SHORT OF WHICH ELIMINATES THE NEED TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION, ME REPEATING MYSELF, I JUST AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE THE WORDS COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH, PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO AMEND AND CHANGE THE ILLA PERIOD FULL STOP TO WANT AND THINK THAT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK IF A UNICORN IS GOING TO FLOAT IN HERE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT, HOPE FOR, WHAT YOU DESIRE, BUT THE REALITY IS IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I COULD PLAY OUT WHAT THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE LIKE AND I CAN GO IN THE BACK ROOM AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND COME RIGHT BACK OUT HERE WHEN I TALK TO THE PRESIDENT AND CEO.

BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

OKAY. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THERE IS NO MORE NEGOTIATION OPPORTUNITY.

AND THIS IS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE THAT HE TALKED TO YOU LIKE THAT.

CHAD WEST. I'M JUST KIDDING.

I KNOW. I KNOW. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT.

OKAY. SO LET'S SEE.

I THINK WE ARE BACK TO CHAIRMAN SCHULTZ NEXT FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DELAY.

[05:00:03]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK THAT THOSE OF US WHO KEEP TRYING TO GO BACK TO THE WELL ARE MISSING SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT THAT MR. MORRIS JUST SAID, WHICH IS IF WE GO BACK TO DART RIGHT NOW AND ASK TO RENEGOTIATE THE ILA, IT MEANS EVERYTHING IS OPEN, WHICH MEANS WE MAY WALK AWAY WITH A LOT LESS MONEY THAN WHAT WE'RE BEING OFFERED RIGHT NOW.

AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVERYTHING THAT WE DO.

OUR NEXT DECISION IS EVEN MORE SO IS A RISK TOLERANCE ISSUE.

AND RIGHT NOW, I THINK FROM WE OUGHT TO TAKE THIS DEAL AND WE OUGHT TO GO WITH IT BECAUSE THE RISK OF LOSING MORE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M INTERESTED IN VOTING ON FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER WE'VE BEEN TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN THIS DEAL IS DONE SO WE CAN KEEP GOING BACK TO THAT.

WELL, BUT EVERY TIME WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE MORE WATER OUT OF IT POTENTIALLY, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M NOT SUPPORTING THE DELAY.

OKAY. I THINK WE'RE BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION TO DELAY.

DO I GET EXTRA? NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.

OKAY. SO I REALLY DO TRY TO HELP US STAY ON THE MERITS.

YOU'RE USING MY TIME, SO THIS IS NOT MONTHS AND MONTHS.

THIS IS SIX WEEKS WHEN YOU WERE NEGOTIATING.

THERE ARE LEVERAGE POINTS.

DID YOU USE THE LANE CLOSURES, THE $40 MILLION AS A LEVERAGE POINT IN NEGOTIATION? COUNCIL MEMBER WAS DISCUSSED.

YES. AND AND I MEAN, YES, WE USED IT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT.

AND YOU TOLD THEM THAT YOU'LL CHARGE THEM THE $40 MILLION? WE DID. AND YOU WILL AGAIN, WHEN THEY HEARD THAT, I THINK AS WE REALLY DISLODGED THE CONVERSATIONS.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENT TO DO THAT.

AND DID YOU USE THE FIVE TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN PROJECTS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO CONSIDER? NO, MA'AM. BUT YOU COULD HAVE, BUT WE DIDN'T.

OKAY. SO THERE'S SOME MORE LEVERAGE FOR YOU.

SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NEW TO THE NEGOTIATION TO GO BACK WITH THE LANE CLOSURE, TO GO BACK WITH THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DART PROJECTS, NOT JUST THE SILVER LINE ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND WE ARE AN IMPORTANT PARTNER.

WE ARE THE BULK OF THEIR RIDERSHIP AND I HOPE THAT THEY ARE HEARING THIS CONVERSATION.

I HOPE THEY HEAR THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE, NOT JUST MENDELSOHN, ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS RELATIONSHIP.

MICHAEL MORRIS DID A FABULOUS JOB WITH THE DEAL POINTS.

HE ADMITTED HIMSELF HE DIDN'T READ THE ILA.

WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT THE DEAL POINTS.

THE DEAL POINTS DON'T NEED TO CHANGE.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO CHANGE BECAUSE IT WAS SO POORLY WRITTEN.

DART DRAFTED IT THEMSELVES.

THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN PROFESSIONAL HELP TO DO SO.

IT IS. IT'S TERRIBLE.

SO IN THE SIX WEEKS, NOT ONLY WOULD WE ASK STAFF TO GO BACK AND HAVE A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ACTUAL CONTRACT LANGUAGE, BUT WE WOULD ALSO INSTRUCT YOU TO PLEASE CONTINUE WITH PROCUREMENT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE GETTING ANY OF THESE PROJECTS DONE IN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS ANYHOW, ALL THE TIME YOU'D BE WORKING ON SPECIFICATIONS.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR PRIORITY IS TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE HAD TRAFFIC SIGNALS PUT IN YOUR DISTRICT.

IT TAKES A REALLY LONG TIME, SO ALL THAT ENGINEERING WORK NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

IT CAN BE HAPPENING DURING THOSE SIX WEEKS.

NOBODY'S SAYING PUT EVERYTHING TO A HALT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? I WAS I WAS LISTENING TO YOUR TO YOUR POINTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SO, AGAIN, DART IS NOT GOING TO ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM US PRELIMINARY LIST OR I MEAN THE LIST OF PROJECTS OR ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE A SIGNED LE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO START THEIR PROCESSES.

I MEAN, WHY? WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE MONEY ANYHOW.

WELL, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL.

SO. WELL, YOU AREN'T GOING TO GET MONEY UNTIL YOU'VE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND IT'S BEEN APPROVED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEN YOU'RE GETTING MAKE SURE WE STAY ON THE THE MERITS OF A DELAY.

SO THERE IS NO DELAY SINCE YOU HAVEN'T SUBMITTED ANY APPLICATIONS AT THIS TIME, CORRECT? WE CANNOT FORMALLY SUBMIT ANYTHING UNTIL THE I'VE IS EXECUTED.

BUT YOU COULD PREPARE ALL THE APPLICATIONS.

SO AS SOON AS IT'S DONE, YOU COULD SUBMIT THEM.

WE COULD DO THAT WORK, MA'AM.

YES. OKAY. SO ALL THESE THINGS COULD BE HAPPENING IN PARALLEL.

AND MICHAEL MORRIS AT THE RTC MEETING LAST THURSDAY INDICATED IT WOULD BE NO PROBLEM TO WAIT TILL EARLY AUGUST TO APPROVE THIS.

MICHAEL, DO YOU WANT TO CONFIRM THAT? WELL, THE RTC APPROVED THE FIVE MILE CREEK IN EXCHANGE FOR THE $10 MILLION, THOUGH THE QUESTION WAS HOW LONG IS THE RTC MONEY ON THE TABLE? I NEVER THOUGHT WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I DID SAY THAT THE RTC COMMITMENT TO FIVE MILE CREEK WILL STAY ON THE TABLE FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME, AND WE WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE RTC BACK UP AND NOT SUPPORT IT BASED ON THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION.

[05:05:06]

BUT WHAT YOU ALL DON'T KNOW IS THE LOST OPPORTUNITY COST OF WORKING ON THIS AND NOT ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO WORK ON, LIKE THE STREETCAR, LIKE THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL DART BUS NETWORK 2.0.

THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEGOTIATED THAT WE PURPOSELY LEFT OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE IT TOO COMPLICATED THAT WE WERE HOPING TO WORK ON.

AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE THINGS AREN'T GOING TO BE WORKED ON AS YOU CONTINUE TO TRY TO ADVANCE THE INTERLOCAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

SO THERE ARE LOST OPPORTUNITY COSTS THAT YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE WORKED ON UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED.

MICHAEL, HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED ON NEGOTIATING THIS AGREEMENT? OFFICIALLY, I MISSED SOME CITY OF DALLAS MEETING AND YOU NOMINATED ME TO TAKE ON THIS ROLE.

YES, I DID. WE HAVE BEEN WE HAVE BEEN IN A 2 OR 3 YEAR, I WOULD SAY, CRISIS MODE WITH REGARD TO TRYING TO SOLVE THE ISSUES INSIDE THE CITY OF DALLAS ON THE SILVER LINE AND THE.

MICHAEL, CAN. MR. MORRIS IF I COULD, SIR, CAN I ALSO ASK YOU TO SPEAK TO THE TIP CYCLE AS FAR AS THE FIVE MILE CREEK PROJECT? DO WE DELAY FUNDING ON THAT? A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.

WE ASKED TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE FIVE MILE CREEK PROJECT BECAUSE THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU HAVE FEDERAL FUNDS.

BUT THE BAD NEWS IS YOU HAVE FEDERAL FUNDS.

SO WE APPROVED IT CONTINGENT ON CITY OF DALLAS ACTION.

THAT'S RIGHT. SO WHENEVER YOU'RE DONE DECIDING WHATEVER YOU'RE GOING TO DO, SINCE I CAN'T PROCEED WITH FIVE MILE CREEK WITHOUT THIS ACTION, WE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY MISSING TIP CYCLES.

SO CHRISTIE PULLS QUARTERLY ALL THE PROJECTS THAT CAN PROCEED DEPENDING ON WHEN YOU TAKE ACTION.

THIS PROJECT, IF EVER, IF EVER APPROVED AND WE MOVE AHEAD ON THE FIVE MILE CREEK PROJECT, IT WOULD MAKE WHATEVER THE NEXT CYCLE IS DEPENDING ON WHEN YOU TOOK ACTION.

BUT WE CAN'T WE CANNOT PROCEED ON FIVE MILE CREEK UNTIL YOU TAKE ACTION BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.

BUT WE GET OUT IN FRONT CONTINGENT WISE BECAUSE IT'S FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXPEDITE YOUR INVESTMENT.

AND MICHAEL, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE TIP CYCLE WOULD NOT BE INTERRUPTED IF WE APPROVE THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST? I DON'T I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME WHEN CHRISTIE SUBMITS PROJECTS TO THE TIP CYCLE.

SO I DON'T HAVE THOSE DATES.

SO EVERYTHING UP TO A CERTAIN DATE IN THE SPRING GETS MOVED AHEAD.

I HAVE NO IDEA. WHEN YOU WOULD TAKE ACTION IN AUGUST.

THIS WOULD BE A DATE CERTAIN IN EARLY AUGUST.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO COMMITTEE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AS COUNCILMAN WEST WAS DOING.

I DO NOT HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.

NO, THIS WOULD BE TO COME TO A VOTE FOR EARLY AUGUST.

I DO NOT HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COUNCILWOMAN, I DO NOT HAVE THE DATE OF WHICH WHATEVER MEETING YOU HAVE IN AUGUST, IF THAT MEANS IT WOULD MISS A CYCLE IN THE TIP IF YOU TOOK ACTION TODAY VERSUS IF YOU TOOK ACTION IN AUGUST.

I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE DEADLINES FOR THE TIP CYCLE IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.

AND DID YOU SAY LAST THURSDAY THAT IF WE HAD APPROVED THIS IN AUGUST, THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AT THE RTC MEETING? IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE RTC BACKING UP ON ITS COMMITMENT.

YOU ASKED ME A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

YOU ASKED ME WOULD IT? MISS THE TIP CYCLE AND IT'LL GO WELL.

WE'LL KEEP APPROVAL FOR IT UNTIL IT GETS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

IT MAY MISS A TIP CYCLE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT DR. PEREZ WAS SAYING.

IT MAY HAVE TO BE DELAYED THREE MONTHS IN A TIP CYCLE, BUT WE'RE NOT BACKING UP ON OUR COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT UNLESS YOU VOTE DOWN YOUR INTEREST TO NOT MOVE AHEAD.

AND WE APPROVE THE TIP EVERY QUARTER, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

SO WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING THIS FOR THREE YEARS TO SOME EXTENT WITH THE WITH THE COG.

AND AGAIN, TRULY APPRECIATE IT.

SIX MORE WEEKS TO TRY TO GET A BETTER DEAL AND TRY TO GET CLARITY AND ACTUALLY DO THE WORK TO REPAIR THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT A LOT TO ASK.

AND SO AGAIN, I AM HOPEFUL THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SEE THE WISDOM IN THIS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DELAY.

NOT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE DELAY.

NUMBER ONE. CHAIRMAN THOMAS.

CHAIRMAN MCGOUGH. I THINK Y'ALL HAVE BEEN HERE AND I THINK WE GOT TWO NEW COUNCIL MEMBER COMING IN.

AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION TOGETHER AS ONE DELAY.

DELAY IF WE WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND YOU GOT THE LEVERAGE, WE'D BE DOING THE SAME THING.

SO I HEAR FROM THE CITY MANAGER, I HEAR FROM THE FROM MICHAEL MYERS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE.

AND THIS AIN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE BEEN UP THIS ROAD.

I MEAN, THE POINT IS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THE LEVERAGE.

[05:10:03]

WE'VE GOT TO TRUST. WE'VE GOT TO DO IT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY A DELAY IN SIX WEEKS DOWN THE ROAD AND THAT 90 MILLION GO DOWN TO 50 MILLION OR 40 MILLION OR GO DOWN TO ZERO.

BUT I DO KNOW IF THE MONEY IS NOT COMING TO THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO COME TO YOUR DISTRICT.

IT WON'T COME TO YOUR SIDEWALKS.

YOU DON'T GET ON TRACKS. AND SENATOR, IT'S NOT GOING TO COME TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

IT'S GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT A SUPPORT DELAY.

AND I HOPE Y'ALL VOTE NO ON DELAY.

THANK YOU. RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

OF COURSE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE CLEARED THE DECK.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DELAY? I DON'T SEE ANY. SO, MADAM SECRETARY, RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED.

RECORD VOTES BEEN GRANTED. LET'S GO.

THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE.

YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

NO, NOT.

I AM OPPOSED TO TALK YOURSELF.

THANK YOU. I'VE JUST REMEMBERING THE MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ. NO.

BLACKMON. COUNCIL MEMBER MCGOUGH.

COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULZ.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ NO.

NO. WITH FOUR VOTING IN FAVOR, 11 OPPOSED.

NO. MAYOR JOHNSON.

THE MOTION FAILS.

MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

SO WE ARE NOW BACK ON ITEM 60 AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY READ BY THE CITY SECRETARY, AND WE CAN RESUME THE DEBATE ON THAT ITEM WITH THE SAME TIMES THAT WE'VE USED UP FOR PEOPLE.

IS ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 60? I'M STILL GOING TO HOLD EVERYBODY TO THE OLD TIMES THAT WE HAD.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME ON ITEM 60 AND IT GOT AN EXTENSION, IN FACT, ON TOP OF IT.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 60? HEARING? NONE. DID ANYONE REQUEST A RECORD VOTE? I FIGURE WE MIGHT HAVE THAT.

THE RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED AND THE RECORD HAS BEEN GRANTED ON THAT.

SO LET'S PROCEED WITH THE VOTE.

ITEM 60. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. PLEASE VOTE. PLEASE STATE YES.

IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, SAY NO IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

YES. COUNCILMAN.

MORENO. YES.

ATKINS. YES.

MCGOUGH. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SCHULTZ. YES.

RIDLEY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ YES.

WILLIS. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. WITH 12 VOTING IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT ITEM. WE'LL NOW GO BACK TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM 25.

AGENDA ITEM 25 WAS READ IN THE RECORD.

MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU, JEN.

ITEM 25, AUTHORIZE ONE.

A SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY BRANT SHORE DEVELOPMENT, LLC.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE HAMPTON STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL PROPOSAL OF THREE AND TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH SHORE DEVELOPMENT LLC OR AN AFFILIATE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU. THAT WOULD YOU? I'M CHANGING OUT ITEM 26.

IT'S ITEM 25 OH.

25. I'M SORRY. 25? YES. IS THERE A MOTION? YES. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

YES, SIR. MR. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST STAFF.

ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THE QUESTIONS? ARE THEY'RE COMING. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GOOD AFTERNOON. ROBIN BENTLEY WITH THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

HEY, ROBIN.

SO ON THIS ITEM, THIS IS THIS IS FOR A RFP FOR A DEVELOPER TO LOOK AT ACTIVATING UNDERUTILIZED PARKING

[05:15:03]

LOT ON A DART AT A DART STATION, CORRECT? EXACTLY RIGHT. THIS IS DART OWNED SURPLUS PARKING THAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO WORK WITH US TO HELP DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING WITH MORE DENSITY TO ACTIVATE THE PARKING LOTS. AND THESE THESE DISCUSSIONS CAME ABOUT.

FORGET THE AISLE FOR A MINUTE, PLEASE.

THIS WAS A LONG TIME AGO AND IT CAME ABOUT AS PART OF THE 1000 UNIT HOUSING CHALLENGE AND DISCUSSIONS THAT CAME AFTER THAT.

SO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT DID PHASE ONE, WHICH WAS CITY OWNED PROPERTY NEAR TRANSIT, RIGHT.

OUR DEPARTMENT IS DOING THIS PHASE, WHICH IS DART OWNED PROPERTY NEAR TRANSIT.

SO THIS IS THE VERY FIRST STEP.

WE ISSUED THE RFP FOR THE SIX STATIONS THAT ARE IN THE NEXT SIX ITEMS RECEIVED PROPOSALS.

AND ALL WE'RE DOING TODAY IS CLOSING THE RFP.

SO WE CAN BEGIN SPEAKING WITH THE TOP SCORING PROPOSER.

OKAY. YOU ANTICIPATED MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THIS PROJECT AND MULTIPLE TIMES, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. SO I'M ANXIOUS TO TALK TO THEM.

I KNOW YOU'RE ANXIOUS TO TALK TO THEM.

THE COMMUNITY IS ANXIOUS, BUT NONE OF US CAN GET STARTED EVEN BEGINNING DISCUSSIONS ON THE PROPOSAL UNTIL WE CLOSE THE PROCUREMENT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

SO TO HAVE QUESTIONS WITH THE BUILDER ABOUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO HERE OR WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PROPOSE, WE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DO THAT UNTIL WE APPROVE THIS ITEM, RIGHT? I CAN'T DO THAT EITHER, RIGHT? NONE OF US CAN SPEAK TO THEM INTO THE PROCUREMENT CLOSES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND SO WILL THERE BE A ZONING, MOST LIKELY A ZONING CHANGE THAT COMES ALL SIX STATIONS WILL NEED TO BE REZONE.

SO, YES, THIS WILL BE THIS WILL COME TO COUNCIL PROBABLY MANY TIMES FOR MANY REASONS.

OKAY. WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR BECAUSE I HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS ASKING ABOUT THIS.

THIS WAS PART OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ON WHAT WOULD GO HERE OR NOT GO HERE.

AND SO WE COULD BE LOOKING AT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT A ZONING HEARING.

SO THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THAT, PLUS COMMUNITY MEETINGS, RIGHT? YES. AND PROBABLY AN INCENTIVE PACKAGE AT SOME POINT.

SO, YES, COUNCIL WILL SEE THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.

THE DART BOARD WILL SEE THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.

IT WILL BE VETTED PUBLICLY IN MULTIPLE FORUMS. AND OF COURSE, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS ALWAYS PART OF THESE PROPOSALS.

SO, YES, WELL, THIS ZONING HEARING BE TREATED LIKE OTHER ZONING HEARINGS WHERE THERE'LL BE NOTICED AROUND A CERTAIN PERIMETER OF THE AREA. WE HAVEN'T WAIVED ANY REQUIREMENTS.

SO MY PRESUMPTION IS, YES, IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD LIKE ANY NORMAL ZONING HEARING, AND IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THESE APPLICANTS TO CARRY OUT THAT ZONING, NOT DART.

THEY WOULD, I'M SURE, WORK IN COOPERATION WITH DART, BUT THEY WOULD APPLY JUST LIKE ANY NORMAL DEVELOPER.

OKAY. AND THEN FOR INCENTIVES, INCENTIVES COULD BE LIKE GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION, AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS GOING THROUGH THE HOUSING FINANCE CORP. THOSE ARE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. AND THOSE INCENTIVES WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VETTING PROCESS AS WELL, CORRECT? YES. THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE BOARDS, THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES AND THEN TO COUNCIL.

OKAY. AND THERE'S CURRENTLY NO PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE FOR ANY TYPE OF FACILITY HOUSING, NOTHING HERE.

IT'S REALLY JUST WE'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND THIS DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE COMING UP WITH WITH AN IDEA, IS THAT RIGHT? SO WHEN THEY PROPOSE THEY GAVE US THEIR CONCEPTUAL IDEA OF WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO BUILD THERE.

OKAY. BUT MY STAFF HASN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DIG IN AND, AND, YOU KNOW, START DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THERE OTHER THAN WHAT WAS IN THE ACTUAL RFP. SO WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHAT ACTUALLY ENDS UP GETTING BUILT.

OKAY. I THINK THE. THANK YOU.

THAT'S GREAT. AND I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

I THINK THE KEY HERE THAT I, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE HERE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING ME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

BUT IF THEY LISTEN TO THIS AND IF THIS IS PUBLICIZED, I JUST WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT THERE WILL THERE'S MANY PROCESSES COMING.

THIS IS WE CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.

I THINK THAT'S THE KEY UNTIL THIS ITEM IS PASSED.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THANK YOU FOR THOSE QUESTIONS, COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ YOU STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I JUST WANT TO FOR THE SAKE OF MY COLLEAGUES, ALL OF THESE ITEMS, THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST ASKED WOULD BE THE SAME ANSWERS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WAS THE SAME RFP PROCESS FOR ALL SIX.

AND THERE ARE OF THE SIX, THERE ARE FIVE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS SCORED AS THE TOP PROPOSER ON TWO STATION SITES.

SO THIS GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME REAL CREATIVITY.

AND ALL OF THEM. ARE THEY ALL HOUSING? YES, RIGHT. THEY ALL PROPOSE SOME TYPE OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH HOUSING.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. OKAY, PERFECT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.

IN YOUR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST YOU HAVE IT.

THANK YOU. JUST TO FOLLOW ONE FOLLOW UP IS I KNOW THERE'S ONLY SIX HERE.

[05:20:05]

THERE'S A 4050 DART STATIONS AND A LOT OF THEM ARE OVER PARKED.

I REMEMBER A CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD I THINK DID A STUDY ON THIS.

WHY ARE WE ONLY DOING SIX INSTEAD OF ALL OF THEM? RIGHT. SO DART AND THE CITY WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE A LIST OF THE MOST DEVELOPABLE IN THESE SIX WERE CHOSEN TO BE THE FIRST THAT WE PUT UP FOR RFP.

THEY WILL NOT HOPEFULLY BE THE LAST THAT WE PUT OUT FOR RFP, GIVEN HOW SUCCESSFUL THE RESPONSES WERE.

SO WE'LL BE BACK WITH MORE ONCE WE GET THESE SIX A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.

DO WE SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE SOME OF OUR HOUSING GOALS AS A CITY? OH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW THESE ARE ALL NON TAXPAYING, VACANT SURFACE LOTS AND THEY'RE ALL DRAMATICALLY OVER PARKED FOR THE NEED AT THE STATION.

AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT ALL OF THESE WOULD BE DEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING DENSER, HOPEFULLY THAT PAYS SOME TAXES AND THAT INCORPORATES ALL OF DART'S TRANSIT NEEDS PLUS SOME OF THE CITY'S HOUSING NEEDS.

IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE WE COULD INCLUDE SOME GREEN SPACE, POSSIBLE MIXED USE, NOT JUST HOUSING, BUT ALSO SOME RETAIL AT THESE LOCATIONS, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. AND THE RFP, THE THIRD COMPONENT OF SCORING WAS SORT OF A PLACEMAKING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF DESIGN COMPONENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CITY WERE TO BE ADDRESSED.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER NAMES.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY NAMES IN THE QUEUE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM INDICATE BY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED AND ACCEPTED AND PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 26.

ITEM 26. AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE JOHN TROUP CORPORATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE EIGHTH AND CURRENT STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF ONE AND TWO.

THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE JOHN TROUP CORPORATION OR AN AFFILIATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN COUNCIL MEMBER.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, COULD YOU PRESENT THIS ITEM FOR US? YES, MADAM MAYOR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 26.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW, SO THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON MY BEHALF.

SO IF THERE IS SEEING.

NO QUESTIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY.

THIS ITEM PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT BUSINESS ITEM FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM 27 AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY CERVANTEZ LLC REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT

ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE ROYAL LANE STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF ONE AND TWO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH CIVITAS LLC OR AN AFFILIATE.

THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? YES, MADAM MAYOR. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

I JUST SAID YES.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT COUNTS.

AS I JUST WANT TO POINT OF INFORMATION.

DOES THIS COUNT AS MAKING THE PROPER MOTION OR DO I NEED TO ACTUALLY SAY THE MOTION? WE WENT A LITTLE FAST. ALL I SAID WAS YES, I HAD A MOTION MOVED TO APPROVE.

OKAY. MOVE TO APPROVE.

APPROVED. I WANT TO MOVE TO APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND APPROVED IN A SECOND.

WE'RE MOVING KIND OF QUICKLY SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS.

I UNDERSTAND, MADAM MAYOR.

YES. REALLY QUICKLY, THIS IS IN KOREATOWN, WHICH HAS JUST BEEN NEWLY DESIGNATED.

THE ROYAL STATION IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THIS AREA.

AND I'M ALSO EXCITED TO SAY THAT I'M ALREADY WORKING WITH DART AS WE'VE DESIGNATED KOREATOWN, NOT JUST HERE AT THE CITY LEVEL, BUT ALSO AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THAT DART IS ALSO WORKING TO ADD THE NAME KOREATOWN TO THE ROYAL STATION AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS OR DISCUSSION AROUND THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE IN THE QUEUE.

SAME SIGN AGAINST THIS ITEM PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE PREPARE FOR THE NEXT BUSINESS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM 28 AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE JOHN TROUP CORPORATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE WESTMORELAND STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF TWO AND TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE

[05:25:08]

CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE JOHN TROUP CORPORATION OR AN AFFILIATE.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? IS THERE A MOTION? SECOND. THE REASON I'M SAYING I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE QUEUE, SO.

COUNCIL MEMBER OKAY, THANK YOU.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CASEY THOMAS, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST COUNCIL MEMBER.

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO NO NAMES IN THE QUEUE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED. SAME SIGN WITH NAY.

IT MOVES FORWARD.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

THANK YOU. JAYNIE. ITEM 29 AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY JP MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LLC REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE LATE JUNE STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF THREE.

PROPOSAL OF THREE AND TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH JP MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LLC OR AN AFFILIATE.

IS THERE A MOTION TO MOVE TO APPROVE? SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN TO MOVE FOR MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, NO NAMES IN THE QUEUE.

ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN THIS MATTER OF BUSINESS PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

AN ITEM 30 AUTHORIZE ONE SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PALLADIUM USA INTERNATIONAL INC.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT AT THE BUCKNER STATION.

MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF TWO AND TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH PALLADIUM USA INTERNATIONAL INC OR AN AFFILIATE.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOVE TO APPROVE? SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION, NO NAMES IN THE QUEUE.

THOSE OPPOSED. SAME SIGN WITH NAY.

THIS ITEM PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY. WE'RE PREPARED FOR THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE BACK TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 60 TO JAYNIE.

[62. 23-1498 Authorize (1) designating approximately 7.6 acres of property currently addressed as 2534 Royal Lane as City of Dallas Neighborhood Empowerment Zone No. 22 (“NEZ No. 22”), pursuant to Chapter 378 of the Texas Local Government Code, to promote an increase in economic development in the zone, establish boundaries for the zone, and provide for an effective date for the zone; and (2) an economic development incentive agreement with IYK Texas Corporation or an affiliate thereof (“Developer”) to include: (a) a real property tax abatement for a period of ten years in an amount equal to the City taxes assessed on ninety percent (90%) of the added taxable value of the Property; (b) a Chapter 380 economic development grant in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00; and (c) a Chapter 380 sales tax grant in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00 over ten years, all in consideration of the H MART Redevelopment and Supermarket Project (“Project”) to be situated on approximately 7.6 acres at 2534 Royal Lane (“Property”) in NEZ No. 22, in accordance with the City’s Economic Development Incentive Policy - Total not to exceed $3,500,000.00 - Financing: Public/Private Partnership Fund ($2,500,000.00) and Project Sales Tax Agreement Fund ($1,000,000.00); Estimated Revenue Foregone: $510,128.00 over a ten-year period]

ITEM 60 TO AUTHORIZE ONE DESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 7.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AT 2.534 ROYAL LANE AS CITY OF DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE NUMBER 22.

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 378 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO PROMOTE AN INCREASE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONE, ESTABLISHED BOUNDARIES FOR THE ZONE AND PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE ZONE AND TO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH IKE, TEXAS CORPORATION OR AN AFFILIATE THEREOF.

DEVELOPER TO A A REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE CITY.

TAXES ASSESSED ON 90% OF THE ADDED TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BE A CHAPTER 380 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000 AND C A CHAPTER 380 SALES TAX GRANT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1 MILLION OVER TEN YEARS, ALL IN CONSIDERATION OF THE H.

MART REDEVELOPMENT AND SUPERMARKET PROJECT PROJECT TO BE SITUATED ON APPROXIMATELY 7.6 ACRES AT 2.534 ROYAL LANE PROPERTY IN ANY Z NUMBER 22.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $3,500,000.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MADAM MAYOR.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? YES, MADAM MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE.

IS THERE? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? DEPUTY MAYOR, YOU RECOGNIZE AT THIS TIME.

THIS IS MARK THAT'S COMING TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER MARKS IN THE NORTHERN SUBURBS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A GROCERY STORE THAT PREDOMINANTLY SERVES AND SELLS ASIAN GOODS, BUT IT ALSO SELLS NON-ASIAN GOODS AS WELL. I CAN TELL YOU WHEN THE PANDEMIC HIT, THIS WAS A SECRET THAT I FOUND WAS THAT EVERYBODY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT YOUR ASIAN GROCERY STORE SOMETIMES ALSO SELL FOODS THAT WE TYPICALLY EAT THAT ARE NON ASIAN.

H MART WAS A PLACE THAT I WAS ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, BUT ALSO OTHER ASIAN GROCERY STORES BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE DISTINCT HONOR AND PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING

[05:30:07]

KOREATOWN. H MART IS NOT JUST A GROCERY STORE.

H MART IS AN EXPERIENCE.

THEY HAVE OTHER STORES INSIDE OF H MART, NOT JUST THE GROCERY, BUT YOU CAN THEY TYPICALLY HAVE BANKS, SHOE STORES, HAIR SALONS, GADGET STORES, BOBA TEA, YOU NAME IT, THEY'VE GOT IT INSIDE OF THEIR STORES.

THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE UNIQUE BECAUSE THIS IS AN OLD SHOPPING CENTER THERE ON ROYAL LANE IN THE HEART OF KOREATOWN.

IT'S TOTALLY NEEDED TO BE REVAMPED.

AND THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME FOR US TO DO THIS.

THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A SECOND FLOOR ON TOP OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, AND THAT SECOND FLOOR WILL BE ALL OFFICE SPACE.

THIS IS EXCITING FOR THIS AREA AS WE'RE IN DESPERATE NEED OF OFFICE SPACE AS WELL.

INSIDE OF THE PARKING LOT WILL GET REDONE.

THERE'S AN OPENING FOR A SIDEWALK TO BECOME A TRAIL THAT WILL END UP HITTING AN AREA WHERE MORE WALKABILITY WILL BE ABLE TO BE INCREASED.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.

I DON'T KNOW THE LAST TIME THAT THE CITY INVESTED IN KOREATOWN, BUT I KNOW THAT BY PASSING OUR RACIAL EQUITY PLAN THAT, YES, KOREANS ARE PART OF THAT RACIAL EQUITY PLAN.

AND I'M VERY EXCITED TO WELCOME H.

MART TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS MEANS THAT FOLKS THAT WANT TO SHOP AT H MART, THAT LIVE SOUTH OF ROYAL LANE, WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY TO RICHARDSON OR ALL THE WAY TO ALLEN IN ORDER TO BUY THEIR GROCERIES.

THEIR GROCERIES.

THEY'LL BE ABLE TO STAY HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, INCREASING OUR SALES TAX REVENUE AND INCREASING HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF BRAND NEW JOBS.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE BY SAYING TO THE H.

MART, FOLKS, ANYA HASEYO, WHICH MEANS HELLO IN KOREAN AND WELCOME H.

MART TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

COLLEAGUES, PLEASE JOIN ME IN SAYING ANYA HASEYO TO THE H.

MART FAMILY AS THEY COME TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR PRONUNCIATION.

AND WELCOME. WELCOME, WELCOME.

THERE IN THE QUEUE.

THEN WE WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILWOMAN JAYNIE.

JAYNIE SCHULTZ. THANK YOU.

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE FOR REALLY LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE THE MISSION OF OUR OF OUR MAYOR OF DALLAS BECOMING TRULY AN INTERNATIONAL CITY. AND AS WE WORK ON ALL OF OUR EFFORTS TOWARD THIS, I THINK IT'S A TREMENDOUS STEP FORWARD.

AND AS YOU SAID, SEVEN YEARS OF HARD WORK.

SO I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR PULLING THIS OFF.

IT'S A FANTASTIC EFFORT FOR OUR CITY.

COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ COUNCIL MEMBER.

YOUR LIGHT STILL ON? OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? COUNCIL MEMBER ASKED YOU RECOGNIZE AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I WANT TO ALSO TAKE A MOMENT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE ON ON THIS EXCITING OPPORTUNITY.

AND THIS IS REALLY AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MAYBE 201.

RIGHT. AND IT'S WE ARE A BUSINESS FRIENDLY CITY AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GET CREATIVE ON ON BRINGING BUSINESSES TO AREAS.

I LOVE IT THAT WE'RE TAKING AN OLD SHOPPING CENTER THAT COULD HAVE GONE INTO DECAY.

AND WE'RE ACTUALLY USING RESOURCES TO BRING AN AMENITY HERE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND I JUST WANT TO COMMEND STAFF FOR FOR YOU GUYS BEING CREATIVE AND WORKING THIS OUT.

AND WELCOME TO THE OWNERS.

ARE THEY HERE? DO WE JUST WANT TO WELCOME.

GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER NAMES IN THE QUEUE? LET'S SEE HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ATKINS. I JUST WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ FOR THE GREAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT IS AN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. YOU TALKED ABOUT JOB CREATIVITY, BUT THIS JUST DIDN'T GET DONE JUST BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO MOVE THERE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE GRANTS THAT WE GET, THE 380 GRANTS, THAT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE.

SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF TOOLS IN THE TOOL BOX THAT WE HAVE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO LURE THOSE THOSE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES COME IN THERE.

AND AND I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A REAL COMPETITIVE SALE MARKET WHEN THEY COMPARE THE SAME SALE TRACK WITH NORTH PARK.

SO YOU THINK ABOUT NORTH PORT, ALL THE SALES THERE, YOU THINK ABOUT ANOTHER VENDOR, ANOTHER DEVELOPER GOING TO COMPARE TO THAT.

SO WE NEED MORE OF THOSE SALES TAX.

THANK YOU FOR FOR CHOOSING THAT DISTRICT.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER AND I WILL WRAP UP BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE IF NO OTHER NAMES COME IN THE QUEUE TO THE OWNERS, YOU CAN TELL THE EXCITEMENT FROM AROUND THE HORSESHOE.

YOU HAVE HEARD THE APPLAUSE, WHICH WE NORMALLY DON'T HAVE AT THIS MAGNITUDE FROM THE AUDIENCE.

[05:35:02]

SO THEY ARE EMBRACING THIS NEW OPPORTUNITY TO TO FILL A VOID.

AND SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING MAKING A DECISION TO INVEST HERE.

SO THANK YOU TO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

AT THIS TIME, THERE ARE NO OTHER NAMES IN THE QUEUE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED.

SO THIS ITEM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED.

IT'S BEEN PASSED. MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 63.

[63. 23-1533 Authorize an economic development incentive agreement with Pegasus Park, LLC and/or an affiliate thereof (“Developer”) to include: (1) a real property tax abatement for a period of ten (10) years in an amount equal to: (a) from year (1) through year seven (7), the City’s taxes assessed on ninety percent (90%) of the added taxable value of Property; and (b) from year eight (8) through year ten (10), the City’s taxes assessed on seventy percent (70%) of the added taxable value of the Property; and (2) a Chapter 380 economic development grant in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000.00, in consideration of the Bridge Labs project at Pegasus Park (“Project”) to be situated on approximately 1.8 acres addressed as 3000 Pegasus Park Drive (“Property”) in City of Dallas Neighborhood Empowerment Zone No. 21, in accordance with the City’s Economic Development Incentive Policy - Financing: Public/Private Partnership Fund ($3,000,000.00); Estimated Revenue Foregone $4,777,716.00 over a ten-year period]

ITEM 63, AUTHORIZE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH PEGASUS PARK, LLC AND OR AN AFFILIATE THEREOF.

DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE ONE A REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A FROM YEAR ONE TO YEAR SEVEN. THE CITY'S TAX ASSESSED ON 90% OF THE ADDED TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND B FROM YEAR EIGHT THROUGH YEAR TEN, THE CITY TAXES ASSESSED ON 70% OF THE ADDED TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND TWO A CHAPTER 380 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION.

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE BRIDGE LABS PROJECT AT PEGASUS PARK PROJECT TO BE SITUATED ON PROPERTY TO BE SITUATED ON APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES ADDRESSED AS 3000 PEGASUS PARK DRIVE PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE NUMBER 21.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? YES, MADAM MAYOR. I MOVE APPROVAL.

SECOND BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YES, MADAM MAYOR. YOU RECOGNIZE AT THIS TIME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THIS AREA IS PEGASUS PARK.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH PEGASUS PARK, THAT'S WHERE THE OLD MOBIL BUILDING THAT HAD BEEN DARK FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

AND THANKS TO THE GENIUS OF MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND ALSO THE FUNDING FROM LYDA HILL PHILANTHROPIES, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE WERE ABLE TO GRANT OPEN THIS BUILDING WITH THESE THESE LABS INSIDE THESE BRIDGE LABS.

IT'S MAINLY BIO LABS WHERE INCUBATORS ARE IN.

AND THE ORGANIZATION LITERALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE FIVE YEARS TO FILL IT AND IT GOT FILLED IN A YEAR.

THAT'S HOW BAD WE NEED THIS SPACE, THIS TYPE OF SPACE.

MADAM MAYOR, HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO HERE WE ARE NOW, THEY NEED TO EXPAND IN THIS AREA.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPANIES THAT ARE MOVING FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT WANT TO BE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IN ORDER TO DO THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH THAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY HAVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH UT SOUTHWESTERN AND PARKLAND AND ALL OF OUR OTHER MEDICAL FACILITIES, WHICH I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S BEST MEDICAL FACILITIES.

THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING INSIDE OF THESE LABS ARE CHANGING THE WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICINE AND OTHER THINGS, GROWING DIFFERENT TYPES OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND JUST IT'S JUST FASCINATING.

SO IF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE, HEAD OVER THERE AND TAKE A TOUR OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.

SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE ENOUGH TO GET THEM TO THAT.

THEY KEEP GOING.

THIS AREA IS WHERE WE ALSO WERE ABLE TO RELOCATE COMMUNITY BEER.

SO A WHOLE COMPOUND HAS NOW BEEN CREATED IN THIS AREA.

AND AND IT'S IGNITING THIS AREA WHERE IT USED TO BE DESOLATE AND NOT MUCH THERE.

AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, NEW THINGS ARE OPENING AND NEW THINGS ARE STARTING TO HAPPEN.

AND I CAN'T BE MORE EXCITED THAN TO SEE THE WHEN YOU REALLY PUT YOUR MIND.

ASSIGNED TO AN AREA AND YOU FOCUS.

HERE WE ARE FIVE YEARS LATER FROM THE FIRST THAT WE STARTED THIS, IT'S NOW SIX YEARS LATER AND WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE BUILDING AND OPENING MORE OF BRIDGE LABS HERE AT PEGASUS PARK, AN AREA THAT NOBODY WAS AT AND AN AREA NOBODY WAS LOOKING INTO, AND AN AREA WHERE WE HAD THE SPACE AND AN AREA WHERE IT'S IN THE HEART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WHEN YOU THINK OF ITS PROXIMITY, NOT JUST TO THE MEDICAL DISTRICT, BUT ALSO TO DALLAS LOVE FIELD AS WELL AS DFW AIRPORT, THIS IS AN AREA THAT WHEN I FIRST BECAME A COUNCIL MEMBER, I SAID IF WE WOULD FOCUS ON THIS AREA AND WE PUT A SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF LOVE TO THIS AREA, WHAT CAN HAPPEN? AND IF YOU GO AROUND THIS AREA AND YOU TOUR, YOU'LL SEE THE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING, GROWTH IS HAPPENING, AND THAT'S INCREASING OUR TAX BASE, BRINGING IN NEW JOBS, BRINGING IN BETTER JOBS AND MAKING SURE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS PROSPERS.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN ME IN APPROVING THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, SO WE'LL MOVE.

WE PREPARE FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY.

THIS ITEM PASSES.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE PREPARED FOR THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[05:40:04]

AGENDA ITEM 60 FOUR AUTHORIZE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WITH VECTOR STUDIES LLC AND OR ITS AFFILIATES IN AN

[64. 23-1531 Authorize a development agreement and all other necessary documents with Vector Studies LLC and/or its affiliates in an amount not to exceed $2,308,210.00, payable from current and future Grand Park South TIF District funds, in consideration of the Legacy of Hope DFW redevelopment project on property currently addressed at 2516 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Thirteen (Grand Park South TIF District) - Not to exceed $2,308,210.00 - Financing: Grand Park South TIF District Fund (subject to annual appropriations from tax increments)]

AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,308,210 PAYABLE FROM CURRENT AND FUTURE GRAND PARK SOUTH TIF DISTRICT FUNDS.

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGACY OF HOPE DFW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY PROPERTY CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AS AT 2516 MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 13 GRAND PARK, SOUTH TIF DISTRICT NOT TO EXCEED $2,308,210. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MADAM MAYOR.

MADAM SECRETARY.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM? MOVE TO APPROVE? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA AND SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

YOU HAVE FURTHER, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? YES, MADAM MAYOR. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME, SIR.

MAY I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FOR DISTRICT SEVEN FOR SOUTH DALLAS.

DR. MORGAN WILL BE REVITALIZING A HISTORIC AFRICAN AMERICAN OWNED HOSPITAL AND HAS AGREED TO KEEP AND RESTORE THE MURALS THAT ARE A PART OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS A HUGE WIN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I KNOW THIS DEAL WAS A LONG TIME COMING.

I KNOW THAT THE THE REVITALIZATION OF THIS PROPERTY ITSELF WAS A LONG TIME COMING AS WELL.

I WANT TO THANK ROBIN AND KEVIN AS NORMAL.

Y'ALL ARE WORKING Y'ALL'S MAGIC TO HELP BRING US SOME GOOD GROWTH IN SOUTH DALLAS SPECIFICALLY.

AND ANYTIME WE'RE OFFERING MORE DENTAL OR HEALTH CARE FOR OUR BROWN AND BLACK COMMUNITIES SPECIFICALLY THAT HAVE DISPROPORTIONATELY BEEN UNDERINVESTED IN RESOURCES IS A HUGE WIN.

SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF DEALS I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF, AND THESE ARE THE TYPES OF DEALS THAT ARE GAME CHANGERS FOR COMMUNITIES LIKE SOUTH DALLAS.

SO LOOK FORWARD TO PASSING THIS HOPE.

I CAN COUNT ON EVERYONE'S SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER AND CONGRATULATION ON THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCILWOMAN. BIZOR.

COUNCILWOMAN. BLACKMON.

GOT CARRIED AWAY WITH THAT BECAUSE I'LL SAY THIS, I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT PROJECT AND I'LL SPEAK ON THAT.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILWOMAN PAULA BLACKMON.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

AND I TOO WANT TO CONGRATULATE MICHELLE, WHO WE ARE FRIENDS.

OUR KIDS PLAYED BASKETBALL TOGETHER SO MANY NIGHTS IN A GYM.

AND WHEN SHE WAS AT MY HOUSE TALKING TO ME ABOUT THIS, I WAS LIKE, I MEAN, IT WAS SHE WAS SO PASSIONATE AND SHE WAS GOING TO GET IT THROUGH THE FINISH LINE.

AND SEEING YOU HERE TODAY, I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR WORK BECAUSE YOU DID JUST THAT.

SO I KNOW IT PROBABLY WASN'T EASY.

IT'S NEVER EASY, BUT YOU KEPT AT IT.

SO TELL PRESTON I SAID HELLO AND BEST WISHES ON A SENIOR YEAR AND CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK ON HIS UPCOMING BASKETBALL.

AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN COUNCILMAN DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. FIRST, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE MICHELLE AND THANK YOU FOR PERSEVERING AND NOT GIVING UP.

IT TAKES A LOT SOMETIMES HERE AT CITY HALL.

WE'RE NOT ALWAYS THE EASIEST TO DEAL WITH, AS YOU SAW EARLIER.

SO THANK YOU FOR PERSEVERING AND STAYING PATIENT.

WE'RE ALMOST DONE.

BUT I WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS AS WELL.

AND THANK YOU NOT JUST TO YOU, BUT ALSO TO CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA FOR SAVING THOSE MURALS, BEING BEING FROM WEST DALLAS AND MURALS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO US IN WEST DALLAS AS WELL.

AND WE'VE HAD FOLKS PAINT OVER MURALS BEFORE, AND IT'S JUST IT ADDS TRAUMA TO THE COMMUNITY THAT'S UNNECESSARY.

AND SO BY SAVING THOSE MURALS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT PRESERVES HISTORY AND MAKES SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY SEES THAT YOU'RE A PARTNER WITH THEM AND NOT SOMEBODY WHO'S JUST GOING TO COME IN AND DO YOUR OWN THING.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, FOR MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENED AS WELL.

CONGRATULATIONS. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR, ON THAT.

YOUR COMMENTS. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER NAMES IN THE QUEUE.

WE'RE PREPARING FOR THE VOTE, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET MY INFORMATION RIGHT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. I THINK I'VE HEARD PERHAPS ON ON THE COMMITMENT.

I BELIEVE I'M RIGHT ABOUT THAT, JUST THE WHOLE PUSH BEHIND GETTING THIS PROJECT.

AND SO I KNOW REVEREND BARNETT WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR THE NEWS TODAY IN THAT COMMUNITY.

AND I LOVE THE MURALS MOST DEFINITELY.

BUT YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR THE VIGILANCE BEHIND GETTING THIS PROJECT DONE.

[05:45:06]

SO THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA AND STAFF, OF COURSE, STAFF AS WELL.

ALWAYS. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER STAFF, WE BEAT UP ON YOU SOMETIMES.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? AT THIS TIME I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AND I WANT TO MOVE ON.

THERE ARE OTHER NO OTHER NAMES IN THE QUEUE, BUT IT IS VERY EXCITING WHEN YOU CAN HAVE EQUITY, ESPECIALLY IN HEALTH CARE, IN A COMMUNITY AT THIS TIME, WE ARE PREPARED FOR A VOTE.

ANY OPPOSED? THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT VOTE, MADAM SECRETARY.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

AGENDA ITEM 60 FIVE WAS DELETED.

AGENDA ITEM 60 SIX AUTHORIZE THE SECOND STEP OF ACQUISITION FOR CONDEMNATION BY EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE APPROXIMATELY

[66. 23-1315 Authorize the second step of acquisition for condemnation by eminent domain to acquire approximately 7,158 square feet of land improved with a manufactured dwelling located in Van Zandt County from Computer Science Innovations LLC Series 12, for the Lake Tawakoni 144-inch Transmission Pipeline Project - Not to exceed $78,000.00 ($75,000.00, plus closing costs and title expenses not to exceed $3,000.00) - Financing: Water Construction Fund]

7158FT² OF LAND IMPROVED WITH A MANUFACTURED DWELLING LOCATED IN VAN ZANDT COUNTY FROM COMPUTER SCIENCE INNOVATIONS, LLC SERIES 12 FOR THE LAKE TAWAKONI ONE 44 INCH TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $78,000.

BECAUSE THIS IS AN EMINENT DOMAIN ITEM, MR. MAYOR. THIS ITEM WILL REQUIRE ALSO A RECORD OF A RECORD VOTE.

WONDERFUL. DULY NOTE. IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. DO WE NEED TO HAVE A RECORD OR JUST A RECORD VOTE? YEAH, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS IS ABSENT.

MORENO. YES.

ONE VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ IS ABSENT.

WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

YES. WITH 13 VOTING IN FAVOR? NO. OPPOSED TO APPS.

ONE VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. WONDERFUL. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM 60 SEVEN IS AN ORDINANCE DENYING RATES AS REQUESTED BY ATMOS ENERGY CORP.

[67. 23-1526 An ordinance denying rates as requested by Atmos Energy Corp. Mid-Tex Division provided pursuant to its January 13, 2023, Dallas Annual Rate Review filing and setting rates as recommended by the City Manager - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (This item was deferred on May 24, 2023)]

MID-TEXAS DIVISION PROVIDE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO ITS JANUARY 13TH, 2023 DALLAS ANNUAL RATE REVIEW FILING AND SETTING RATES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? WONDERFUL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. ITEM 68 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 A CODE OF ETHICS OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE ONE ADDING A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BUSINESS ENTITY

[68. 23-1528 An ordinance amending Chapter 12A, “Code of Ethics,” of the Dallas City Code, (1) adding a substantial interest in business entity conflict of interest; (2) providing that the rules against impermissible financial interest in discretionary contracts or sales during service with the city do not apply to volunteers on a committee or task force formed by a board or commission; (3) requiring a disclosure for those who were paid to work on councilmember campaigns when representing interests before the city council; (4) creating an offense for disclosing confidential information; (5) prohibiting campaign/political consultants from lobbying councilmembers for one year following an election; (6) amending the standard of proof to be a preponderance of the evidence; (7) providing updated subpoena processes for the inspector general and ethics advisory commission and updated hearing procedures; and (8) updating definitions and simplifying and clarifying language - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (This item was deferred on May 24, 2023)]

CONFLICT OF INTEREST TWO PROVIDING THAT THE RULES AGAINST IMPERMISSIBLE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS OR SALES DURING SERVICE WITH THE CITY DO NOT APPLY TO VOLUNTEERS ON A COMMITTEE OR TASK FORCE FORMED BY A BOARD OR COMMISSION.

THREE. REQUIRING A DISCLOSURE FOR THOSE WHO WERE PAID TO WORK ON COUNCIL MEMBER CAMPAIGNS WHEN REPRESENTING INTERESTS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.

FOUR. CREATING AN OFFENSE FOR DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

FIVE. PROHIBITING CAMPAIGN POLITICAL CONSULTANTS FROM LOBBYING COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWING AN ELECTION.

SIX AMENDING THE STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

SEVEN PROVIDING UPDATED SUBPOENA PROCESSES FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND UPDATED HEARING PROCEDURES AND EIGHT UPDATING DEFINITIONS AND SIMPLIFYING AND CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. A POINT OF ORDER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

YES, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT.

WE MOVE NOW TO ITEM TWO.

BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE WAITING ON THAT ITEM, THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.

THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER. WELL, THEN I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION THAT'S OUT OF ORDER.

I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S OUT OF ORDER.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN ITEM THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO LAY OUT HERE, SO NOT IN ORDER AT THIS TIME IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

BUT I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT.

LOOK, WE'RE MOVING AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE CAN, BUT IT'S JUST NOT IN ORDER AT THIS TIME.

SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS ORDER? THERE IS. CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES THAT THE CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 12 A DASH 18 A FOUR ALSO APPLY TO CAMPAIGN TREASURERS AND APPLY AT ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CITY MEETINGS WHERE AT LEAST ONE COUNCIL MEMBER IS PRESENT.

[05:50:03]

THAT SECTION 12 A DASH 35 C PROHIBITING CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND CAMPAIGN TREASURERS FROM LOBBYING COUNCIL MEMBERS OR CITY OFFICIALS FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE ELECTION IS DELETED.

SECOND. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO. FIVE MINUTES PLEASE ON ITEM 68.

SO THE INTENT OF THIS MOTION WITH THE CHANGES IS TO ALLOW FOR DISCLOSURE VERSUS A EXCLUSIONARY PROVISION.

WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS WHEN PEOPLE WORK ON A CAMPAIGN, THEY'RE PENALIZED FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL, WHICH SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE BECAUSE THE LOSERS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. AND ALSO TO THERE'S NO SUNSHINE THAT'S PUT FORTH ON HOW AND WHO FOLKS WORKED ON CAMPAIGNS.

I'VE DONE MANY A CAMPAIGNS AND CONSULTANTS CAN HIRE PEOPLE UNDERNEATH THEM AND IT SHOWS ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT THAT IT'S XYZ CORPORATION. BUT MARY SMITH WAS THE PERSON ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK.

SO I JUST WANT FOLKS TO BE AWARE OF WHO WAS WORKING ON WHAT, NOT TO HOLD THEM, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, BUT TO JUST ALLOW FOR ME AS THE INDIVIDUALS OR THE INDIVIDUALS ON COUNCIL TO TO KNOW THIS, TO SAY I'M NOT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO MEET WITH YOU OR JUST TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS LANDSCAPE.

AGAIN, NOT TO PENALIZE, NOT TO FORCE ANYTHING UNDERGROUND, BUT JUST TO SHOW LIGHT.

SO THAT WAY WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE, PEOPLE KNOW WHO IS IN THIS SPACE OF POLITICAL WORK.

AND SO I DO HOPE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE INTENT OF THAT.

AND I WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN GETTING THAT THIS BROUGHT FORTH.

AND I APPRECIATE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 68.

I MOVE TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOR MOTION THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF REMAINS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE WORDS NOR ADMONISH ARE DELETED FROM SECTION 12 A4B4 SECOND.

SORRY, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MR. RIDLEY, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR ANY DISCUSSION ON ON YOUR MOTION.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD OF PROOF OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHICH HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR ALL ETHICS COMPLAINTS IN DALLAS, SHOULD BE RETAINED.

THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF COMPLAINTS ARE NOT UNDULY THREATENED OR DAMAGED BY LESS THAN CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE MEANS A FIRM CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE JUDGE ETHICS COMPLAINTS ON THAT STANDARD SO THAT THE DECISION MAKERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FIRM CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE CONDEMNING THE PERSON FOR AN ETHICS VIOLATION.

THE SECOND AMENDED PART OF THE MOTION IS TO DELETE THE PHRASE NOR ADMONISH AS A STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

I THINK NOR ADMONISH IS A MODERATE TERM THAT COVERS THINGS THAT WE DO ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS AT THE HORSESHOE IN PARTICULAR, IT MEANS, ACCORDING TO MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S DEFINITION, A GENTLE OR FRIENDLY REPROOF OR A COUNSEL OR WARNING AGAINST FAULT OR OVERSIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THOSE KINDS OF COMMENTS SHOULD BE A VIOLATION OF OUR ETHICS CODE BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE NORMAL DISCOURSE ENGAGED IN BY OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

THEY'LL. RIDLEY MIGHT DRIVE US BACK.

IS THAT IT? WERE YOU DONE? ALL RIGHT. WASN'T SURE.

OKAY. MR. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT ON BOTH COUNTS.

I THINK WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH REPUTATIONS OF OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ALSO OF OUR OUR APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS, THE STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE HIGH.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING A, YOU KNOW, A CASE AGAINST THEM, THAT'S GOING TO PUT THE REPUTATION AT STAKE.

[05:55:02]

NOW, I ABSOLUTELY THINK THIS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, THEY SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PUNISHED OR ADMONISHED ACCORDINGLY.

BUT THE STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE A HIGH ONE, NOT SIMPLY A 51% BURDEN IN THIS CASE.

SECONDLY, I THINK MR. MR. RIDLEY SAID IT WELL, BUT ON THE THE ADMONISHMENT PIECE, IT'S REALLY JUST ONE WORD AND THAT.

BUT THAT WORD, IT REALLY JUST IT'S IT COMES ALONG WITH JUST REGULAR DISCOURSE IN HERE.

IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE IS SAYING, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUSH BACK ON IT WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING DRAWN INTO AN ETHICS SUIT.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S AND I'LL SAVE MY OTHER COMMENTS BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS WELL.

CHAIRWOMAN. I GUESS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE QUEUE.

THERE WE GO. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH AROUND THE LANGUAGE AND WHERE DALLAS STANDS WITH REGARD TO THIS.

I'M WONDERING IF HE IS AVAILABLE TO SHARE WHAT I BELIEVE.

HE WE WENT THROUGH THIS AT A COUNCIL BRIEFING.

MR. BEAVERS, COULD YOU.

I BELIEVE YOU CONTINUED YOUR RESEARCH BASED ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND WHAT THE PRACTICE IS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND I KNOW DALLAS IS TRYING TO LEAD IN THIS AREA, AND I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHT IS WITH REGARD TO US LEADING HERE OR MAYBE BRINGING UP THE END OF THIS ISSUE.

I'VE STATED IN THE PAST, EXCUSE ME, I'VE STATED IN THE PAST THAT IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT MOST IG OFFICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAD A BURDEN OF PROOF OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.

AND SO I DID CALL AROUND AS MANY NUMBERS AS I HAD TO TRY TO CONFIRM THAT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS THAT OR NOT.

WELL, MAYBE NOT BY INDIVIDUAL CITIES, BUT I MEAN, WHAT WAS YOUR FINDING ABOUT ABOUT HOW MANY DID YOU CONNECT WITH AND WHAT WERE WHAT WAS YOUR FINDING GENERALLY? OF THE PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED BACK TO ME.

I CONTACTED IG OFFICES IN 17 DIFFERENT STATES AND ONE IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, INCLUDING ALABAMA.

OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND TEXAS.

AND ALL 38 OFFICES USE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, I RECOGNIZE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A BIG CHANGE TO MOVE TO PREPONDERANCE, WHICH IS WHAT'S PROPOSED UP UNTIL, I GUESS EARLIER THIS WEEK I CHAIRED THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH.

AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON THE COMMITTEE WHO PARTICIPATED, AS WELL AS CHAIR WILLIS, WHO JOINED US MANY TIMES.

YOU JUST LISTED A LOT OF STATES AND EVERY SINGLE IG OFFICE USES THAT SAME STANDARD THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO MOVE TO.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO CHANGE THAT STANDARD? I THINK THE NUTS AND BOLTS ANSWER TO THAT IS IF YOU LOWER THE STANDARD, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EASIER TO PROVE CASES AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE SUBSTANTIATED CASES. THAT'S STEP ONE.

STEP TWO IS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE CASES BEING SUBSTANTIATED AND THAT WILL AFFECT THEIR BEHAVIOR.

IT'S IT'S JUST LIKE PEOPLE DRIVING 35 MILES AN HOUR ALL SUMMER UNTIL THE LAST WEEK OF AUGUST.

AND WHEN THOSE RED LIGHTS, YELLOW LIGHTS START FLASHING AT SCHOOL ZONE, THEY SEE PEOPLE PULLED OVER ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD ON TUESDAY, THEY'RE DRIVING THROUGH AND SAME DEAL.

WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT THERE'S CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIONS, IT WILL CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR.

AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF IT.

HOW LONG HAS DALLAS HAD THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD INSTEAD OF THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE? I'VE DONE AS MUCH RESEARCH AS I CAN ON THAT.

I TRACED IT BACK TO APPROXIMATELY 22 YEARS AGO.

I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING EARLIER THAN THAT.

AND IN THOSE 22 YEARS, HOW MANY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN JAILED FOR ETHICS VIOLATIONS? WELL, THERE WERE FIVE CONVICTED OF FELONIES.

I BELIEVE THE LAST INDIVIDUAL DIED IN A CAR WRECK BEFORE SHE COULD REPORT FOR PRISON.

[06:00:03]

SO IS THAT TYPICAL IN A CITY, WOULD YOU FIND IN ALL THOSE IG OFFICES? I MEAN, WOULD YOU FIND THAT KIND OF ISSUE? DO I FIND THAT KIND OF ISSUE? WOULD YOU WOULD YOU FIND THAT MANY JAILED COUNCIL MEMBERS? I'M A PRETTY GOOD TOUCH WITH FOLKS IN THE IG COMMUNITY.

WE TALK ON THE PHONE FROM TIME TO TIME.

MOST OF US ARE SO BUSY DOING THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF THE EVERYDAY WORK THAT WE DON'T DO A LOT OF CHIT CHAT.

BUT WHEN I DO VISIT WITH THOSE FOLKS, I.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT.

I THINK IS A PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS NUMBER.

I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE.

IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE I FELT A DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT AND I FELT LIKE GOOD PEOPLE HAVE TO STEP UP TO RUN AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE THAT MODEL FOR THE CITY. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS OF MOVING TOWARDS A GOVERNMENT THAT OUR PEOPLE CAN SUPPORT IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY, IN TERMS OF BELIEF IN IN WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THE PROCESS.

SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST HAVE YOU GO THROUGH THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD THAT'S USED NOW VERSUS THE PREPONDERANCE.

THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS.

SO LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A CASE AND YOU'VE INVESTIGATED, WALK US THROUGH WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES IN, A PLANE COMES IN, YOU DO AN INVESTIGATION, AND THEN YOU DETERMINE BASED ON THIS LEVEL OF EVIDENCE, RIGHT. THAT IT'S THEN APPROPRIATE TO GO TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, CORRECT? CORRECT. IF WE THINK UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AS IT SITS TODAY, IF I THINK I COULD PROVE IT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THEN WE WOULD FILE A CASE, IT WOULD GET DOCKETED AND THEN IT WOULD BE TRIED IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN THE EEC, WHICH IS A 15 MEMBER PANEL, ARE BROKEN UP.

I THINK IT'S RANDOMLY, RANDOMLY SELECTED.

FIVE MEMBER PERSONS FROM THAT 15 MEMBER PANEL ARE SELECTED FOR EACH HEARING THAT OCCURS.

SO WE HAVE TO GO IN THERE.

WE HAVE TO PROVE THE MENS REA CURRENTLY IS INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY.

ONE OF THE REVISIONS WAS TO CHANGE THAT TO JUST KNOWINGLY.

SO THE MENS REA IS AS HIGH AS IT GETS INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY.

WE HAVE TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CASE THAT WE FILE INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY AND WE HAVE TO GET FOUR OUT OF FIVE, FOUR OUT OF FIVE PANEL MEMBERS TO AGREE, YES, THAT IS SUBSTANTIATED OR IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT, BUT CLOSE.

SO THE PANEL HAS FIVE PEOPLE GIVEN THE STANDARD, EFFECTIVELY FOUR OF THE FIVE HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND ALSO, THERE'S THE STANDARD THAT THEY HAVE TO AGREE THAT THE PERSON IN QUESTION, WHICH, OF COURSE, IT COULD BE A STAFF MEMBER OR A CONTRACTOR AS WELL, THAT THEY KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE ETHICS LAWS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

UNDER THE CURRENT UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT'S INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY.

SO KNOWINGLY WOULD BE THE LOWEST THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO.

SO AGAIN, IN THE FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, THERE'S BEEN MORE THAN ONE TIME.

A WELL, THERE'S ONE FOR SURE.

OTHERS THAT I KNOW HAVE BEEN IN THE PAPER THAT THE MORNING NEWS RAN A STORY ABOUT A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER AS A POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATION, AND IT WAS SOMETHING, FRANKLY, VERY MINIMAL.

AND THIS COUNCIL MEMBER HAD TO DEAL WITH SORT OF THE BLOWBACK.

I MEAN, WHO WANTS TO HAVE THEIR NAME ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER WITH AN ETHICS VIOLATION FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAIN, I MEAN, IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THE LAWN AT A REC CENTER OR SOMETHING.

AND THE CASE DID NOT GO FORWARD.

THESE THESE CHANGES WERE ACTUALLY PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNJUST ACCUSATIONS LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT CAME TO YOU, NOW THAT WE HAVE AN IG'S OFFICE, YOU WOULD INVESTIGATE AND SAY THAT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL AND IT WOULD NEVER GO TO THE MEDIA. IS THAT CORRECT? THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD BE A VIOLATION.

I GET UP EVERY DAY AND I ASK MYSELF THE QUESTION IN THE MIRROR BEFORE I LEAVE THE HOUSE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT COULD YOU DO AND WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? I DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY OFFICE THAT GETS INTO TICKY TACK VIOLATIONS.

IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP FOR WORK TEN MINUTES LATE, FIVE DAYS IN A ROW, IS THAT A VIOLATION? I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY FASHION ONE OUT OF IT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE.

[06:05:02]

YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MANAGEMENT REFERRAL.

I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF OF SOME TICKY TACK STUFF.

WHAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO DO IS GET IN THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF DOING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE SPEND THE LION'S SHARE OF OUR TIME DOING.

SO YOU MENTIONED AT OUR OUR LAST MEET, OUR LAST BRIEFING THAT THERE WERE CASES THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON THAT YOU FEEL LIKE WOULD EITHER GO FORWARD OR NOT GO FORWARD, DEPENDING ON THIS LEVEL OF EVIDENCE.

IS THAT TRUE? CORRECT.

I THINK THE QUESTION WAS HOW MANY CASES WOULD YOU HAVE BROUGHT IF THE STANDARD WAS LOWER? AND I THINK MY ANSWER WAS 11 OR 12 APPROXIMATELY.

WELL. WOULD THIS APPLY TO THINGS GOING BACKWARDS OR THIS IS ONLY THINGS THAT YOU WOULD BRING FORWARD GOING FORWARDS? I THINK THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

THE FIRST THING I DO WHEN I READ A NEW STATUTE OR A NEW ORDINANCE IS I WANT TO KNOW THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND IT.

WHAT WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WHEN YOU PASSED IT? SO I WOULD SAY IF THIS STANDARD WENT THROUGH, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ON ANYTHING HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

THAT WOULD BE MY OPINION.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD BE ON A GO FORWARD.

WE COULDN'T GO BACKWARDS.

ANYTHING FILED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE PREPONDERANCE IF THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT.

WELL, I WANT DALLAS TO BE STAND OUT, BUT I DON'T WANT US TO STAND OUT FOR HAVING A WORSE ETHICS POLICY.

I WANT US TO HAVE THE BEST IF WE CAN, BUT AT LEAST BE RIGHT IN THE PACK.

AND WHEN I HEAR EVERY OTHER IG OFFICE IS USING A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE ALSO.

AND I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE TO ME.

AND I THINK THE ENTIRE WAY THAT YOUR OFFICE WAS SET UP, IT WAS MEANT TO SHIELD PEOPLE FROM FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. AND I THINK I THINK OUR CITY STAFF DESERVE THAT.

I THINK WE DESERVE THAT.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE'S TIMES THAT THINGS DO NEED TO BE DAYLIGHTED AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADJUDICATED.

AND IF YOUR MERE PRESENCE STOPS SOME OF THAT HAPPENING, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.

BUT IF THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT NEED TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT, WE NEED TO GIVE YOU THOSE TOOLS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

AND SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN WITH THE COMMITTEE'S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THESE FORWARD.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BLACKMON, FOR BRINGING FORWARD THE AMENDMENTS AND HOPE THAT WE'LL SEE THIS PASS.

THANK YOU. SPEAKING OF CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION.

THANK YOU. AND BART, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY COMPLAINTS HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED SINCE YOU JOINED OUR CITY? HOW MANY COMPLAINTS THAT CAME IN THAT WE DID INVESTIGATE? I COULD PROBABLY GET YOU THAT NUMBER BY TOMORROW.

OKAY. I DIDN'T COME PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I MEAN, MORE THAN 2000.

LESS THAN 2000. MORE THAN A THOUSAND.

I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU.

WE HAD AROUND 313 OR 316IN MY FIRST 12 MONTHS FROM.

MARCH 14TH LAST YEAR TO MARCH 14TH THIS YEAR.

SO YOU HAD THREE, LET'S JUST SAY 300 ISH.

HOW MANY HOW MANY REACHED THE THRESHOLD, THE THRESHOLD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING? WE FILED ONE JUST ONE IN THE LAST 15 MONTHS.

AND THEN YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU HAD 11 TO 12.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF WE'D HAVE HAD THAT LOWER THRESHOLD.

I BELIEVE THAT'S A PRETTY ACCURATE ANSWER.

YES. I MEAN, CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE? BECAUSE, YES, WE DON'T WANT TO HARM ANYBODY WHO IS INNOCENT, BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS DUE PROCESS AND THAT PEOPLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OR JUST SOME GENERAL THINGS OF WHAT IS PREPONDERANCE AND WHAT AND JUST SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE THRESHOLD AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING TO HARM ANYBODY AND BE FRIVOLOUS.

YEAH, I THINK PREPONDERANCE IS THE GREATER WEIGHT AND DEGREE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

AND IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, THIS IS REALLY WHAT THE EEOC THINKS.

WHAT IS THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION? MEMBERS MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE THE FIVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HEAR THE CASE ON THIS DAY THINK I TREAT THEM THE SAME WAY I'VE TREATED JUDGES OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS AND THE 400 PLUS CONTESTED TRIALS THAT I'VE HAD.

I TREAT THEM AS THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THEIR TESTIMONY.

SO AS A JUDGE, YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT'S CREDIBLE AND WHAT'S NOT.

[06:10:01]

YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU PUT ON THE SCALE AND WHAT YOU DON'T.

IF YOU DO PUT IT ON THE SCALE, YOU GET TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IT WEIGHS.

SO JUST BECAUSE WE OFFER SOME EVIDENCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY'LL ACCEPT IT.

IF THEY DO ACCEPT IT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'LL PUT IT ON THE SCALES.

IF THEY DO PUT IT ON THE SCALES, WE MAY THINK IT WEIGHS MORE THAN THEY DO.

SO WE TRY TO PRESENT WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE TRUTH AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO DO THEIR JOB.

AND I JUST.

I THINK THAT'S THE SIMPLEST WAY I COULD PUT IT.

AND OF THIS DOZEN THAT YOU'VE SEEN, DO YOU HAVE A RANGE OF WHICH PART OF THE ORGANIZATION WERE THEY STAFF MEMBERS? WERE THEY BORDER COMMISSIONERS? WERE THEY COUNCIL MEMBERS? DO YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU BROKEN DOWN TO HOW MANY OF THOSE 12 WERE IN EACH A SENIOR STAFF MEMBER? I MEAN, ARE THERE JUST ALL THE SAME? HOW MANY OF THE 12? YEAH, OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING.

OH, AND YOUR QUESTION WAS HOW MANY OF THOSE 12 WERE BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSION MEMBERS, SO FORTH.

ONE OF THE 12 WAS A COMMISSION MEMBER.

THE OTHER 11 WERE NOT BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMISSION MEMBERS, JUST EMPLOYEES OR PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

AND DO YOU FEEL THAT THE EAC IS SET UP TO GIVE THESE INDIVIDUALS, IF WE DO BRING THIS THRESHOLD DOWN, A FAIR, A FAIR AND DUE PROCESS, DO WE HAVE IT SET UP THAT WE DON'T HARM THOSE THAT ARE INNOCENT OR THAT DIDN'T MEAN TO TO TO TO DO THE VIOLATION? I'VE SEEN NOTHING.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE LAST 15 MONTHS THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO THINK THAT ANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THE EAC WOULD DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GIVE EVERYBODY A FAIR TRIAL.

THEY SEEM TO BE VERY CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE.

THEY SEEM TO BE VERY CONCERNED THAT WE DO WHAT OUR JOB IS AND TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO FILE COMPLAINTS.

SO. SINCE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY TRIED A CASE YET OR A HEARING.

IT'S KIND OF CONJECTURE ON MY PART.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU JUST FROM WATCHING THESE FOLKS, TALKING TO THEM, VISITING, HAVING BRIEFINGS EVERY THREE MONTHS OVER THE LAST 15 MONTHS.

I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO THINK THEY'RE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER JUDGES THAT I PRACTICE IN FRONT OF.

IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.

BEFORE I GO BACK TO YOU, ACTUALLY, YEAH.

YOU HAVE SPOKEN ON THE ON THE AMENDMENT, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, SO I'LL GO BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MOMENT.

CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS.

YES. YOU'VE SPOKEN ONCE ON THE AMENDMENT, ALSO TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

I JUST SEE YOU TOO.

SO BEFORE I GO TO YOU, I'M GOING TO JUMP IN NOW AND SAY SOMETHING MYSELF.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY I DON'T CHIME IN ALL THAT OFTEN ON A LOT OF THESE DEBATES THAT WE HAVE ABOUT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES AROUND THE HORSESHOE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF HASHING OUT MOST OF THE ISSUES.

AND I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO BE DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY SAID.

BUT OCCASIONALLY I DO FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK UP AND SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SOME OF THESE BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO OFFER A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE SOMETIMES.

AND SO ON THIS ONE, I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE AROUND THE HORSESHOE, ALL OF YOU, TO THINK ABOUT OUR JOBS.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ARE ELECTED TO DO.

AND KIND OF BIFURCATE IN SOME WAYS, I GUESS.

THE THINGS YOU DO WEEK IN, WEEK OUT, AS PART OF YOUR DUTIES AS A COUNCIL PERSON TO REPRESENT YOUR DISTRICTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES THAT YOU REPRESENT.

I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE DO EVERY WEEK AROUND HERE.

ALL 14 OF YOU WHO ARE SINGLE MEMBER REPRESENTATIVES DO IT VERY WELL.

BUT THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THINGS COME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL WHERE IT'S A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE WHOLE CITY BETTER THAN YOU FOUND IT.

[06:15:01]

THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL BE TALKING ABOUT 25 YEARS FROM NOW, 50 YEARS FROM NOW.

AND THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN ONE PROJECT OR ONE ZONING CASE OR ONE THING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

I MEAN, IT'S WHY WE MEET EVERY WEEK.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I THINK YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT IS TO CONVEY TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS AND TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN DALLAS BUT WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT DOING BUSINESS WITH DALLAS, MOVING A BUSINESS TO DALLAS DOING BUSINESS WITH OUR CITY GOVERNMENT, WHAT HAVE YOU.

WE, I THINK, SHOULD WANT TO LEAD AND REALLY BE AT THE THE VANGUARD REALLY OF ANY DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES TO BEHAVING ETHICALLY AND HONORABLY.

I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY, IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION, I THINK TO THE RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, TO US PASSING THE ORIGINAL ETHICS REFORM THAT COUNCILWOMAN CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON LED AND CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN LED.

IT'S BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE.

PEOPLE WERE PROUD OF WHAT WE DID AROUND HERE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD IT WAS LONG OVERDUE.

I THINK WHAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO HERE TODAY IS TO ACTUALLY STRENGTHEN THAT.

AND I SAY STRENGTHEN IT FOR A SPECIFIC REASON.

AND THE REASON I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ON THE AMENDMENT BY MY GOOD FRIEND MR. RIDLEY HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE PART OF CHANGING THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD I WANT TO PUT IN PERSPECTIVE.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING THERE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WHEN WE DID THE FIRST ROUND OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE ETHICS CODE, WHEN CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON AND CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN GOT THE ETHICS REFORM PACKAGE DONE, WE LARGELY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF THE OF THE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT BY VESTING THE DISCRETION IN A PROFESSIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THE DECISION IS MADE TO NOT PURSUE SOMETHING THAT'S FRIVOLOUS.

THAT WAS THE THAT WAS A BIG PART OF THE INITIAL PUSH TO REFORM THE ETHICS CODE IS TO PROTECT.

ELECTED OFFICIALS, CITY STAFF, PEOPLE FROM HAVING THEIR REPUTATIONS BESMIRCHED BY SILLY COMPLAINTS.

I HAD ONE.

IT DIDN'T GET REFERENCED, BUT I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE.

SOMEONE SAID I COMMITTED AN ETHICS COMPLAINT BECAUSE I REPOSTED AN ARTICLE FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS THAT HAD THE WORD MAYOR IN THE ARTICLE ON MY TWITTER ACCOUNT, AND SOMEHOW THAT MEANT I USED MY TITLE IN A POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT THAT WAS THROWN OUT.

I MEAN, THAT DIDN'T THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT.

BUT SOMEONE BROUGHT IT AND IT HAD TO GO TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THEY HAD TO HEAR IT.

AND THEY BART AND HIS OFFICE NOW SERVES THAT ROLE TO WINNOW THAT OUT.

RAISING THE STANDARD IS ABOUT NOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S WORTH PURSUING JUST HOW MUCH THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO SUSTAIN THE COMPLAINT. IT'S CHANGING WHAT THEY WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO SUSTAIN IT.

I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH US MOVING TO WHAT WOULD BE, I THINK, ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK FOR OFFICES OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AROUND THE COUNTRY, CITY, STATE, FEDERAL OFFICES.

THE STANDARD RIGHT NOW IS SO HIGH THAT WHEN YOU COMBINE IT WITH THE FACT THAT THE OFFICE IS A SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION ITSELF IS APPOINTED BY OUR APPOINTEE, I MEAN, IT'S MADE UP OF OUR APPOINTEES.

IT AMOUNTS TO A DIFFICULT SYSTEM TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE STATED GOAL.

AND SO WHAT I'M ENCOURAGING YOU TO DO IS TO THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU CAST YOUR ULTIMATE VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT, TO THROW OUT THE TWO, TO ELIMINATE THE CHANGE OF OF LOWERING THAT STANDARD, BECAUSE TO ME, THAT'S REALLY THE HEART OF OF OF THIS.

WE JUST WE'RE ABOUT TO GIVE AWAY A LOT OF GOODWILL.

AND I THINK THE THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WILL LEAVE ON THE PUBLIC IF WE VOTE TO LEAVE THAT STANDARD WHERE IT IS WHEN WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY LOWER IT AND MORE VIGOROUSLY PROSECUTE WRONGDOING WILL BE BAD.

I'M JUST GOING TO BE VERY BLUNT.

I THINK IT WILL BE BAD.

IT WILL BE A BLACK EYE FOR US.

I THINK IT WILL BE REPORTED UNFAVORABLY.

AND I THINK THE ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF THE CITY WILL BE DISAPPOINTED IN US.

[06:20:01]

AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT CHASING PUBLIC OPINION.

THIS IS ABOUT REPRESENTING PEOPLE.

AND I THINK THEY WANT THEIR GOVERNMENT TO BE ONE THAT THEY FEEL LIKE IS INTERESTED IN ROOTING OUT ITS OWN BAD APPLES.

AND I THINK WE'RE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE IF WE IF WE SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, NOT CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON ORIGINAL MOTION, BUT TO CHANGE THE STANDARD, I THINK WE SHOULD RESIST THAT.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE ON THAT.

I, I PROMISE I WON'T TALK ANY MORE TODAY, BUT I'M IMPLORING YOU TO REALLY THINK TWICE ABOUT YOUR VOTE ON THIS ONE.

WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO LET'S SEE, I THINK WE'RE TO ROUND TWO'S NOW, SO I'M GOING TO GO TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN AND THEN CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS ON THIS.

WELL, NICELY SAID, MAYOR.

I THINK THAT LEAVES ME WITH JUST TWO ACTUAL POINTS.

COULD YOU TELL US WHO APPOINTS THE PEOPLE TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION? IT'S CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, RIGHT? SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HEARING THIS ARE ACTUALLY PEOPLE WE TRUST.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WE'VE ALREADY ASKED TO DO THIS.

AND THEN COULD YOU OUTLINE FOR US WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THAT APPOINTMENT? BECAUSE THERE'S SOME VERY SPECIFIC ONES.

I'M SORRY I DIDN'T TELL YOU. I WAS GONNA ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.

YOU GOT ME ON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN WE'VE HAD OUR HEAD IN THE BOOKS AND THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I CAN'T RECALL FROM MEMORY.

TAMMY, WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT HANDY WHAT THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE FOR FOR THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION? I THINK LAURA HAS THAT IN FRONT OF HER.

THERE WE GO. SHE ALWAYS CARRIES HER ETHICS CODE WITH HER.

LAURA HAS BEEN REMARKABLE ON THIS SUBJECT AND WE APPRECIATE HER.

LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE CURRENTLY THE CODE OF ETHICS REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST SIX MEMBERS OF THE EAC MEET A SPECIAL QUALIFICATION, AND THOSE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS ARE TO POSSESS A JURIS DOCTORATE DEGREE.

SO TO BE A LAWYER FORMERLY SERVED AS A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OR CURRENTLY OR FORMERLY EMPLOYED AS A PROFESSOR OR INSTRUCTOR AT AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING IN THE DISCIPLINES OF ETHICS OR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, OR HAVE SERVED HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS AN ETHICS OFFICER OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

SO THESE ARE PEOPLE HIGHLY TRAINED IN THIS TOPIC.

AND THEN COULD I GO FURTHER AND SAY, AREN'T EACH PANEL ISN'T THE CHAIR OF EACH PANEL ONE OF THOSE WITH A SPECIAL.

QUALIFICATION. YES.

WHAT'S PROPOSED IS THAT THE CHAIR OF A HEARING PANEL WILL HAVE A SPECIAL QUALIFICATION, AS WELL AS ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PANEL.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

SO, AGAIN, IT WOULD TAKE FOUR OF THE FIVE TO TO MOVE TO PROVE THAT CASE. SO TWO OF THEM ARE LAWYERS OR ETHICS PROFESSIONALS, PROFESSORS.

IT'S WE'VE ALREADY BUILT IN A VERY HIGH STANDARD SO THAT WE DON'T INDISCRIMINATELY DAMAGE PEOPLE'S REPUTATIONS OR ALLEGATIONS.

SO WITH ALL OF THAT, I THINK THE MAYOR FOR HIS REALLY IMPORTANT COMMENTS AND PERSPECTIVE, AND I HOPE WE WILL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE THIS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WILLIS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

NO, THREE MINUTES.

I APOLOGIZE FOR BOTH. THANK YOU.

AND REALLY, THIS IS TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING THAT CITY ATTORNEY PALOMINO SAID.

AND THIS WAS ABOUT WHEN THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS A VOLUME OF CASES BEFORE HIM.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT IF SOMETHING IS OPEN FOR INVESTIGATION, THAT THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND SHOULD BE APPLIED TO CASES THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN RESOLVED, THAT ARE STILL BEING EVALUATED.

YES, IT COULD.

SO DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO ENSURE THAT? NO, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW REQUIRES THAT IT NOT BE RETROACTIVE.

AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE FORWARD FACING.

SO ONCE IT TAKES EFFECT AND THE AND THE EAC IS TO CHANGE THEIR RULES AND THEY CAN DO THAT VERY QUICKLY ON THEIR STANDARD, THEN ANY CASE HE FILES GOING FORWARD WOULD BE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE FILES GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. SO ANYTHING THAT'S THAT'S OPEN THAT YOU'RE INVESTIGATING, IT WOULD STILL BE THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MISTER RIDLEY.

I SEE. MISTER RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR, I GUESS.

THREE MINUTES. ACTUALLY.

THREE MINUTES. MISTER MAYOR, I MOVE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION SO THAT WE MAY SEPARATELY VOTE ON EACH HALF OF MY AMENDMENT.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

AND IS THERE ANY DEBATE ON THE MOTION TO DIVIDE? ALL RIGHT. ANY ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?

[06:25:03]

AYE. SORRY.

OH, THIS IS ON MY MOTION TO DIVIDE.

YES, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO DECIDE IT FIRST.

SERVE ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THE QUESTION IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO OPERATIVE PARTS OF HIS ORIGINAL MOTION.

SO JUST TO RESTATE FOR EVERYONE, MISTER RIDLEY, COULD YOU SAY WHAT THE TWO CHANGES ARE? AND THEN I'LL ASK THE PARLIAMENTARIAN WHICH ONE WE HAVE TO TAKE UP FIRST.

IT MAY BE THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU ORIGINALLY READ THEM IN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULE IS ABOUT THE ORDER.

YES. THE TWO ELEMENTS OF MY MOTION WERE FIRST, TO RETAIN THE STANDARD OF PROOF AT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. THE SECOND PART OF MY MOTION WAS TO DELETE THE WORDS NOR ADMONISH FROM SECTION 12 A A4 B B4.

POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR YOUR INQUIRY.

COULD A READING OF THAT SECTION THAT INCLUDES NORA VARNISH BE SHARED WITH THE FULL COUNCIL? COULD JUST THAT LITTLE BIT SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT CONTEXT IS.

WHOEVER HAS IT, I GUESS.

COUNCILOR HAS IT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO READ THAT SECTION JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR IT.

BUT WE'LL TAKE THEM IN THE ORDER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM.

SO WE'LL DO THE FIRST ONE ON THE STANDARD IN TERMS OF THE VOTING OR THE.

SO IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU WANT ME TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE PROVISION THAT CONTAINS THE ADMONISHED LANGUAGE? CITY OFFICIALS SHALL TREAT CITY EMPLOYEES AS PROFESSIONALS AND SHALL NOT BERATE NOR ADMONISH CITY EMPLOYEES.

OKAY. SO EVERYONE HEARD THAT.

DID YOU HEAR THAT? OKAY, GOOD.

OKAY. SO, MADAM SECRETARY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A RECORD VOTE REQUESTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT.

RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

OKAY. WE HAVE ONE. WE HAVE ONE NOW.

SO WE WILL VOTE FIRST ON THE ISSUE OF THE STANDARD.

THE CHANGE IN THE STANDARD OF A YES VOTE WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF OF KEEPING THE STANDARD THE SAME.

A NO VOTE WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF.

WELL, IT WOULD JUST IT WOULD JUST ELIMINATE THAT.

WE STILL HAVEN'T WE STILL WON'T BE ON THE ORIGINAL QUESTION JUST YET.

SO MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS.

THE FIRST PART WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE KEEPING THE STANDARD THE SAME.

HIS MOTION IS TO KEEP IT THE SAME.

YES, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT THE SAME.

NO. IF YOU WANT TO NOT DO THAT AND MOVE ON TO FURTHER DEBATE.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE.

YES. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO.

IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

MORENO. NO.

MCGOUGH. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. WITH FIVE VOTING IN FAVOR, TEN OPPOSED.

I'M SORRY. YES.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND PART OF MR. RIDLEY'S NOW DIVIDED QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HEARD IN MAKING THAT THAT CHANGE AND THE RECORD VOTE I SEE HAS BEEN REQUESTED ON THAT, MADAM SECRETARY.

SO LET'S PROCEED WITH.

THANK YOU. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE, BY THE WAY.

YES, VOTE AGAIN IS TO MAKE THE LANGUAGE CHANGE THAT MR. RIDLEY RECOMMENDED TO DELETE IT.

OKAY. YOU WANTED YOU ALL NEED TO HEAR THAT AGAIN IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LANGUAGE CHANGE IS.

MR. RIDLEY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR LANGUAGE CHANGE IS ONE MORE TIME? SURE. TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE NOR ADMONISH IN SECTION 12 A4B4 FROM THE SENTENCE GOVERNING THE TREATMENT OF CITY EMPLOYEES BY CITY COUNCIL.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE CAN PROCEED.

THANK YOU. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, MR. WEST. OH, JUST GETTING READY TO VOTE.

SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR FIRST ON THE VOTER ROLL.

I'M EXCITED OVER HERE. KNOW IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

[06:30:02]

MORENO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THOMAS. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGOUGH. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ YES.

NO. WITH TEN VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO THAT FULLY DISPOSES OF MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

AND WE'RE NOW BACK ON ITEM 68 AS AMENDED.

SO WE'LL PICK UP THE DEBATE WHERE WE WERE.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 68 AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED? I SEE. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MOVE TO CALL THE QUESTION.

YOU DON'T NEED TO MOVE TO DO THAT.

CALL THE QUESTION. I'M SAYING.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE'RE THERE.

OKAY. SO ANYONE WANT A RECORD VOTE ON THIS? NO. YES, THAT'S OKAY.

I DIDN'T WANT TO SKIP A RECORD VOTE.

MADAM SECRETARY. THANK YOU.

PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS COUNCILMAN.

MORENO. YES.

MCGOUGH. YES.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

YES. MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

YES. WITH ALL 15 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.

MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NEXT ITEM AGENDA ITEM 69 AUTHORIZE THE DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE AND OWN ACCESS KESSLER PARK, A

[69. 23-1527 Authorize the Dallas Housing Finance Corporation to acquire and own Axis Kessler Park, a multifamily development located at 2400 Fort Worth Avenue - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Funds $7,880,155.00 (15 Years of Estimated Taxes) (This item was deferred on May 24, 2023)]

MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2400 FORT WORTH AVENUE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

IS THERE A MOTION? MR. WEST. SO MOVED.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. WEST. JUST BRIEFLY.

OKAY. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

I WANT TO. SORRY.

EXCUSE ME. I WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.

I'M EL TIVOLI AND I KNOW WE'VE GOT OUR PRESIDENT HERE TODAY AND ALSO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE FOR PROVIDING LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS ACQUISITION.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 69? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED EYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO URGE MY MOTION TO REORDER THE AGENDA TO BRING P TWO UP NOW.

AND MR. MAYOR, FOR CLARITY.

H2 IS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH AGENDA ITEM 70.

YEAH, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT WE ALSO HAVE ZONING CASES AND PEOPLE WAITING TO GET THEIR ZONING CASES RESOLVED HERE.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE DONE TOO.

LET'S STAND AT EASE FOR FOR TWO MINUTES WHILE I DISCUSS WITH THE CITY SECRETARY WHAT WE HAVE LEFT TO DO JUST SO WE CAN.

SO I CAN GIVE YOU AN ANSWER ON THAT.

THANK YOU. STAND FOR TWO MINUTES.

SO WHILE MEMBERS ARE MAKING THEIR WAY BACK TO THEIR SEATS, I AM TOLD THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF THEM IN THE ROOM FOR US TO TO COME BACK FROM BEING AT EASE AND THE MEETINGS BACK IN REGULAR SESSION.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO.

MR. RIDLEY, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL LISTEN UP FOR THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY RELATES TO A MOTION I THINK YOU WERE ABOUT TO MAKE.

THE CITY SECRETARY IS GOING TO READ WHAT I, BASED ON A CONVERSATION WITH HER AND THE CITY MANAGER, A PROPOSED ORDER OF DEALING WITH THE REMAINING AGENDA TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE BOTH THE RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO TO SPEAK, BUT ALSO ON ON ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS, BASICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE ZONING ITEMS AS WELL.

AND IF IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT, THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH THAT PLAN.

[06:35:03]

IF YOU DO, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'M TELLING YOU AHEAD OF TIME, I WILL I WILL RECOGNIZE YOUR MOTION TO PROPOSE A DIFFERENT ORDER.

AND IF TWO THIRDS OF THE BODY WANTS TO SUSPEND MY AUTHORITY TO SET THE AGENDA, WE WILL DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

IF TWO THIRDS AGREE.

SO BASICALLY, WE'LL SUSPEND THE RULES AND YOU GUYS WILL SET THE ORDER INSTEAD OF ME.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE ORDER THAT'S PROPOSED, THAT THAT IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.

BECAUSE AGAIN, WE WANT TO BE FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC IN EVERYTHING WE DO.

SO GO AHEAD, MADAM SECRETARY.

THE ORDER OF THE REMAINING ORDER OF THE AGENDA WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.

AGENDA ITEM 70, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT ITEM, WILL BE HELD TO BE CONSIDERED WITH TH TWO AGENDA ITEM 70.

THERE IS NO ACTION ON THAT ITEM.

SO THEN WE WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA, STARTING WITH YOUR DEFERRAL, ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, THE REMAINING ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, AND THEN YOUR INDIVIDUAL ZONING ITEMS. ITEM Z EIGHT I'M SORRY, Z SIX AND Z SEVEN FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC HEARING ONE AND PUBLIC HEARING THREE.

AND THEN WE WILL TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 70 AND PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TWO.

MR. RIDLEY, DID YOU HEAR THAT? YES. I'M HERE FOR THE DURATION, SO I DON'T REALLY HONESTLY HAVE A PREFERENCE.

IT'S EITHER WHAT SHE RECOMMENDED OR NOT RECOMMENDED WHAT SHE READ INTO THE RECORD AFTER CONSULTATION WITH US OR SOMETHING.

YOU CAN GET TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS TO AGREE TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

SO THIS ORDER WOULD PUT TH TWO DEAD LAST ON THE AGENDA? THAT IS CORRECT.

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MY MOTION.

PLEASE PROCEED TO ADVANCE TH TWO TO THE NEXT ITEM.

THERE A SECOND. SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

THERE'S NO DEBATE ON THIS.

THERE'S A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO THIRDS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, UNDER OUR RULES TO SUSPEND.

OKAY. THAT IS CORRECT.

WHEN I WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

NO. COUNCILMAN.

MORENO. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ? YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MCGOUGH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN. I JUST DIDN'T HEAR THE ITEM CALLED.

MCGOUGH. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGOUGH. OKAY.

I'M SORRY. WE'RE VOTING.

WE CAN'T EXPLAIN IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VOTE.

I'M SORRY. TURN YOUR MIC OFF OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW. GO. GO DARK ON US AND NOT BE HERE.

I MEAN. I MEAN, I CAN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ITEM IS.

OKAY, OKAY, I'LL.

I'LL COME BACK. I'LL GIVE YOU A TIME TO THINK ON YOUR VOTE.

NO, THANK YOU.

DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGOUGH IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

IS ABSENT IN VOTE TAKEN.

MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. OKAY.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGOUGH. YES.

THANK YOU. WITH I'M SORRY, WITH SIX VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED.

ONE ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

SO WE'LL GO IN THE ORDER THAT YOU THAT YOU READ.

AS MENTIONED, AGENDA ITEM 70 WILL BE HELD TO BE CONSIDERED WITH ITEM TO ITEM 71.

THERE WILL BE NO ACTION TAKEN ON ITEM 71.

THE ITEM WILL BE REVISED AND CONSIDERED AT A LATER DATE.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA.

[Z3. 23-1485 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an WMU-5 Walkable Urban Mixed-Use District in lieu of an MU-2 Mixed Use District on property zoned an IR Industrial/Research District, on the southeast line of Empire Central Drive, northeast of Harry Hines Boulevard]

MISTER MAYOR. AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z THREE.

PLEASE PROCEED. MR. MORENO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I MOVE TO DEFER THE ZONING MATTER UNTIL AUGUST 9TH, 2023.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION ANYONE.

[06:40:01]

HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED EYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z ONE THROUGH Z FIVE.

Z THREE WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEM Z, ONE, Z, TWO, Z, FOUR, AND Z FIVE.

I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ONE AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT NUMBER 82 WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 193, THE LAWN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT TO AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AD1 LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, AND THREE AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH EAST LINE OF FAIRMONT STREET BETWEEN TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD AND ENID STREET.

ITEM Z TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR AN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SUBAREA ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH CORNER OF NORTH GOOD LATIMER EXPRESSWAY AND SWISS AVENUE.

ITEM Z FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SUBAREA ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHISTLESTOP PLACE, EAST OF WILDCAT WAY AND ITEM Z FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF EASTON ROAD AND EAST LAKE HIGHLANDS DRIVE.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE ZONING? CONSENT ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD ITEM Z, ONE, Z, TWO, Z, FOUR AND Z FIVE.

NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

WONDERFUL. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? EYES HAVE IT.

ZONING CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED.

NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A A DUPLEX SUB SUB DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH EAST LINE OF SYDNEY STREET, NORTH EAST OF

[Z6. 23-1258 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for a D(A) Duplex Subdistrict on property zoned an R-5(A) Single Family Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 595, the South Dallas/Fair Park Special Purpose District, on the southeast line of Sidney Street, northeast of 2nd Avenue]

SECOND AVENUE.

MISTER MAYOR, WE SENT 45 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND TWO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE CPC RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

THIS ITEM REQUIRES THREE QUARTERS TO PASS.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z SIX.

NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN BIZOR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR.

I MOVE TO REMAND THIS ITEM TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, I. JUST FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS BE RE ADVERTISED WITH PLEASE SENT BACK TO CPC AND BROUGHT BACK TO US WITH THE AMENDED CHANGES.

A FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MR. WEST? YES? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK ANDREA IF YOU WOULD I SUPPORT THE MOTION.

I WANTED TO ASK ANDREA IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY THIS CASE IS IS SO WONKY.

LIKE WHAT IS WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? WHY WHY IS THIS A DENIAL BASED ON THE CODE? YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

THIS IS PURELY A TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION.

AS YOU KNOW, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE USUALLY BASED ON AREA PLANS, VISIONS, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY CODE.

RIGHT? THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT'S MID-BLOCK.

THERE IS A CONDITION IN THE CODE THAT'S CALLED BLOCK PHASE CONTINUITY.

AND THAT CONDITION SAYS THAT THE BIGGEST FRONT YARD WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE DUPLEX ZONING DISTRICT HAS A BIGGER FRONT YARD THAN AN R FIVE, WHICH IS THE ZONING RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THE DUPLEX PASSES, ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE BLOCK WILL LOSE FIVE FEET IN THEIR FRONT YARD, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHICH SUBMITTED A LETTER IN OPPOSITION.

ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S BUILT TO 20FT, SO THEY WILL LOSE FIVE FEET.

SO THAT'S WHAT DROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, WE ARE ALWAYS SUPPORTING ESPECIALLY GENTLE DENSITY HOUSING.

BUT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, WE'RE TRYING TO BE VERY RESPECTFUL NOT TO CREATE NON-CONFORMITIES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. YOU ANSWERED MY MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH WAS IS STAFF HAVE A GOAL OF PROMOTING GENERAL DENSITY IN THE CITY TO MEET OUR HOUSING GOALS AS A CITY. YES.

AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I WILL NOT LOSE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MENTION THAT IT IS THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.

IT DISCOURAGES ACTUALLY INFILL HOUSING BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS DISTRICTS THAT DO NOT WORK.

AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CODE REVISIONS THAT WE WE PASSED FOR THE RFP EARLIER TODAY? WE'RE HOPING, YES, IT WILL BE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

I KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT THE CITY MANAGER HAD ELICITED A CODE TEAM.

[06:45:03]

I THINK IT WAS WORKING IN A DEPARTMENT THAT'S HAS BEEN WORKING ON LIKE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT CODE ISSUES THAT ARE JUST CAUSING US HAVOC.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED BY THEM OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ENTIRE REVISION OF THE CODE? I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS ONE TO BASICALLY BE MORE OF LOOK AT THE HOUSING PROVISIONS AND THE DISTRICTS IN THE CITY AND SEE WHAT ARE THE HURDLES TO BETTER PLAY INTO OUR HOUSING POLICY GOALS.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT WHAT IS STOPPING THE PRODUCTION, THE REAL SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN THE CITY, AND IS IT THE CODE OR NOT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE GONE FOR AGAINST ITEM SIX.

HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM Z7 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE

[Z7. 23-1386 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a CR Community Retail District and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned a TH-3(A) Townhouse District with H/118 Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church Historic Overlay and an R-5(A) Single Family District, on the northwest and northeast corners of Morrell Avenue and Fernwood Avenue]

APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF MORRELL AVENUE AND FERNWOOD AVENUE.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 74 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

PAUL CARDIN.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

GOOD AFTERNOON. PAUL CARDEN 1835 DOUGLAS AVENUE, DALLAS HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THIS ZONING CASE.

SO THIS ZONING CASE IS A VERY LOCAL PROJECT.

THIS IS A REZONING OF A HISTORIC CHURCH TO CHANGE ITS USE FROM CURRENTLY TOWNHOME ZONING TO COMMUNITY RETAIL IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN A DIFFERENT FORM.

SO THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO USE THIS FOR COMMUNITY EVENT SPACE, A COFFEE SHOP, ART SPACE.

AND AGAIN, JUST ALLOWING THE COMMUNITY TO TO HAVE A SPACE TO, TO GATHER AND, AND, AND, AND HAVE EVENTS AND JUST GENERAL RETAIL USES.

WE HAVE MET WITH COMMUNITY MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE LAST SIX PLUS MONTHS, MOST RECENT ONE BEING ON JUNE 7TH.

WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES TO MEET WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND DISCUSSIONS.

WE'RE THE COMMUNITY OVERALL HAS BEEN VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

WE SEE THIS AS A CATALYTIC PROJECT FOR THIS AREA.

IT IS WITHIN WALKING RANGE OF TWO RAIL STATIONS NEAR THE DALLAS ZOO.

WE THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SYNERGY THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN BENEFIT FROM AND ENABLE IT TO HAVE THE RETAIL AND THE COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT IT DESERVES.

THE APPLICANT ALSO INTENDS TO ALLOW FOR SMALL SPACES FOR OFFICE AND AGAIN, JUST THAT GENERAL COMMUNITY SERVING PURPOSE AND TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND PRESERVE AN HISTORIC BUILDING IS A VERY VALUABLE AND VERY RARE THING IN OUR CITY.

WITH THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY VOLUNTEERED MANY DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT WE'D ALSO LIKE TO VOLUNTEER A FEW EXTRA.

WE'D LIKE TO VOLUNTEER THE FOLLOWING DEED RESTRICTIONS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

ONE IN THIS DOCUMENT.

DOG PARK WOULD MEAN AN OUTDOOR SPACE PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR THE RECREATIONAL USE OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS SUCH AS DOGS AND ENCLOSED BY A FENCE WALL OR OTHER OUTDOOR BARRIER. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF OPEN ENROLLMENT, CHARTER SCHOOL, PRIVATE SCHOOL OR DOG PARK.

AGAIN, THIS THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE USE AND PURPOSE OF THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN WORKED WITH THROUGH THE COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

AND I KNOW THE COMMUNITY'S BEEN WAITING SEVERAL HOURS AND THERE'S MANY OF THEM ARE STILL THERE UP THERE IN THE AUDIENCE WAITING TO SEE THIS GO THROUGH.

SO WE'D ASK FOR THE COUNCIL SUPPORT ON THIS ON THIS REZONING CASE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z SEVEN.

HAVE A SPEAKER COMING FORWARD.

TWO SPEAKERS EACH BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

YOUR MICROPHONE.

THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE.

HELLO. MY NAME IS ANDREW RAMLER.

1923. NORTH EDGEFIELD, DALLAS, TEXAS.

75208. I'M THE OWNER OF PROXY PROPERTY.

WE SPECIALIZE IN DOING HISTORIC REHABS.

WE OWN FOUR DALLAS LANDMARKS.

THIS WAS OUR FOURTH.

CHURCHES ARE SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGING TO RESTORE BECAUSE THEY HAVE HUGE SANCTUARIES LIKE THIS THAT ARE OPEN AND YOU HAVE TO FIND A NEW USE FOR THEM OFTEN.

SO IN THIS CASE, WE FOUND A REALLY COOL COMMUNITY GROUP, A GROUP THAT'S ALREADY LOCATED IN DISTRICT FOUR, THAT WANTS TO USE THE SPACE IN ADDITION TO DOING SOME OFFICES FOR LOCAL ENTREPRENEURS AND A COFFEE SHOP AND A CREATIVE SPACE, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED TOWNHOME.

IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO TURN A SPACE LIKE THIS INTO TOWNHOMES.

[06:50:01]

SO THE ZONING CURRENTLY IS NOT VERY APPLICABLE.

WE'RE ASKING FOR CR SO WE CAN MAKE THE SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

GILES KING, 2819.

READ LANE DALLAS, TEXAS.

75215. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE URBAN ARTS CENTER.

URBAN ARTS IS A 14 YEAR OLD NOT FOR PROFIT ARTS ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS TO PROVIDE ARTS AND CULTURE TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.

WE HAVE THE DISTINCT PLEASURE OF PRODUCING ART AND CULTURE IN DISTRICT FOUR.

FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

WE ARE THE ONLY BRICK AND MORTAR ARTS CENTER IN DISTRICT FOUR, WHICH IS RECOGNIZED ON THE CULTURAL PLAN BY THE CITY OF DALLAS OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE AS AN ARTS DESERT.

URBAN ARTS WILL BE THE PERFORMING ARTS TENANT AT THE 909 MORENO CAMPUS, THE CURRENT ZONING AT 909 MORRELL FOR TOWNHOMES WOULD NOT ALLOW OUR STUDENTS, PERFORMERS AND COMMUNITY ACCESS TO THE QUALITY ARTS AND CULTURE WE HAVE PROVIDED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.

REZONING TO COMMUNITY RETAIL WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ARTS TO FLOURISH, CULTURE TO BE REPRESENTED, AND THE NEXT ERYKAH BADU OR REGINA TAYLOR TO BE TRAINED AND SUPPORTED.

I, ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE URBAN ARTS CENTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DONORS AND SUPPORTERS, ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE 919 CAMPUS FROM TOWNHOMES TO COMMUNITY RETAIL. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

CECIL ARMSTRONG 1309 GLIDDEN DALLAS, TEXAS 75 THANK FOR MY.

AND THEN THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE THERE EARLY.

75203. I AM A BUSINESS OWNER AND A NEIGHBOR.

A RESIDENTS IN THE AREA PAY TAXES IN THE AREA.

WHEN I SAW THIS BUILDING, I GOT THE CHANCE TO SEE THE PASTOR.

THE CEILING HAD BEEN FALLING, FALLING IN.

IT WAS GETTING READY TO CONDEMN THIS BUILDING.

AND I TOLD THE PASTOR I DIDN'T HAVE THAT TYPE OF MONEY TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

WHEN PROXY CAME IN, PROXY FIXED THE CEILING.

THE BUILDING IS BEING RENOVATED AND THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF AMAZING WORK.

IT'S A GATEWAY FOR THAT COMMUNITY TO MAKE A CHANGE.

WE GOT TO CHANGE THE MINDSET WITH THEM COMING IN, DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW TO GET THAT CR THAT WE CAN HAVE AN INCUBATOR WHERE PEOPLE CAN BE ENTREPRENEURS BECAUSE THE HEARTBEAT OF OUR COMMUNITY IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WE NEEDED THAT AND THEY'RE DOING THAT.

AND SO I SUPPORT THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF MEMBERS HERE WITH THE T SHIRTS, BUT IT WAS SO LONG WITH THE MEETING THAT EVERYBODY HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE ELDERLY PEOPLE, THEY CAME TO SUPPORT US. AND I'M HERE TO I STAYED BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS GO THROUGH BECAUSE WE NEED THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE.

BUT THE MINDSET HAVE TO CHANGE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT TYPE OF MINDSET TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THAT COMMUNITY.

IT'S VERY MUCH NEEDED AND COUNCILWOMAN, I KNOW YOU CAME OUT AND WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU AND WE'RE HERE FOR THAT CHANGE.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

MR. MAYOR, IS THERE A MOTION? MAYOR PRO TEM? YES, SIR.

MOVED TO APPROVE.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM? I'LL BE REAL QUICK AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DID, I THINK THE TWO WEEKS AGO WE HAD A LONG MEETING TOO, SO I WAS COMING TO YOUR EVENT.

I THINK WE GOT THROUGH ALMOST 6:00 AND YOU ALL HAD A GREAT COMMUNITY EVENT.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO SEE SOME PEOPLE.

BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS AN INVIGORATING PROJECT.

IT'S MOTIVATIONAL, TRULY.

MR. GILES THANK YOU.

IT IS AN ART ART CULTURAL CENTER THAT WE CERTAINLY NEEDED IN DISTRICT FOUR.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO GET MY NAME AGAIN.

SHUCKY DUCKY. SO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TELLING ME? IT'S TOO EXCITED. SO I'M TRYING TO MOVE FAST, BUT I HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE MOTION.

HOLD ON. NOW I NEED TO BE IN DECENT AND IN ORDER.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED TODAY BY THE APPLICANT.

THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? JUST TO CONTINUE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT TOMORROW SOMETHING IS KIND OF TIMELY.

YOU'RE ALL SO I BELIEVE HAVING AN EVENT FOR DEMOND FERNANDEZ, FOR THE COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE.

AND SO IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IT JUST SO HAPPENED WE HAD THIS CULTURAL CENTER AT THE RIGHT TIME TO SAY FAREWELL TO ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, BUT ALSO A NEWS ANCHOR, A NEWS REPORTER WHO'S COVERED MUCH OF THIS SOUTHERN SECTOR AND COVERED A LOT OF THE INEQUITIES.

AND SO NOW WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO BEING PART OF THE COUNT WITH ARTS.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT US AS WE MAKE OUR JOURNEY INTO THE ARTS WORLD OF EQUITY.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND I'VE JUST ENJOYED EVERYTHING AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU ALL BRINGING SHOWCASING A LOT OF ART HERE.

AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THAT BUILDING.

YOU ALL KNOW THAT. THANK YOU, MR. WEST. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THIS.

[06:55:01]

WE HAVE A CONVERSION OF A CHURCH INTO A COMMUNITY CENTER ARTS MISSION, OAK CLIFF.

AND IT'S IT'S JUST A WONDERFUL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A CHURCH THAT HADN'T BEEN USED.

AND I LOVE IT WHEN WE CAN SAVE THESE THESE OLDER CHURCHES INSTEAD OF TEARING THEM DOWN AND PUTTING UP, YOU KNOW, SOME STRIP MALL OR SOMETHING.

I DIDN'T GET TO SEE THE SHIRTS.

SO I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THEM ALL DAY.

COULD SOMEBODY STAND UP SO I COULD SEE IT? THAT'S PRETTY AWESOME.

AND I CAN'T WAIT TO IF I'M INVITED, I'D LOVE TO COME HAVE A TOUR AS WELL.

I THINK PROBABLY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES MIGHT LIKE THAT TOO.

AND THE REASON I DIDN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION TO SHUFFLE THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK AT THOSE SHIRTS ALL DAY BECAUSE I KNEW THAT YOU GUYS WERE FOR ANOTHER ITEM AND YOU'VE BEEN WAITING ALL DAY AS WELL.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF YOUR FOLKS LEFT, SO I APPRECIATE WHO ALL IS HERE FOR THIS ITEM.

WELL, THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN STICKING WITH US.

I'M VERY EXCITED TO CHECK THIS OUT.

CHAIRMAN THOMAS. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YEAH, I'LL BE REAL BRIEF.

I JUST WANNA SAY CONGRATULATIONS, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THIS IS HUGE FOR DISTRICT FOUR.

THE. WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY IN QUALITY OF LIFE WHEN WE GOT THE ARTS AND CULTURE PRESENTATION.

SO THIS IS TIMELY.

IT'S RIGHT ON POINT.

AND I KNOW VERY WELL TWO OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO ARE HERE AND I KNOW THEY ARE COMMITTED TO SEEING THAT THIS IS SUCCESSFUL AND THE ARTS THRIVE IN DISTRICT FOUR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THE CONGRATULATIONS AND ECHO THE REMARKS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID.

FIVE YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A SIMILAR BUILDING IN DISTRICT 11 THAT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING, BUT IT WAS A DERELICT OFFICE BUILDING.

AND NOW IT'S HOME TO 150 ARTISTS.

AND SO I THINK THAT YOU ALL ARE REALLY ON TREND IN SUCH A GOOD WAY.

AND I HOPE, IN FACT, MAYBE SOME OF THE SMALL CENTERS COULD GET TOGETHER AND FORM ALLIANCES AROUND THIS.

THE IDEA THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD TAKE A BUILDING AND CHANGE IT, I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND YOU, COMMEND YOU, PAUL, AS WELL.

ANY KIND OF PRESERVATION EFFORTS ARE ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT I WILL SUPPORT.

SO ANY TIME THAT WE GET THE CHANCE TO HELP YOU OUT, NOT JUST WITH THIS, BUT WITH ANY OF YOUR PROGRAMS, PLEASE LET US ALL KNOW BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO BE EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING YOUR COMMUNITY.

COMMUNITY RETAIL IS THE WAY TO GO.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM Z SEVEN.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED EYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BEFORE I MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A CORRECTION.

TH ONE WILL BE THE LAST ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM TH THREE.

[PH3. 23-1440 A public hearing to receive comments on the proposed amendment to the Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan (“Plan”) for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number Three, the Oak Cliff Gateway Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) District (the “TIF District”) to: (1) increase the geographic area of the Bishop/Jefferson Sub-District by approximately 7 acres to include properties at 1200 and 1400 East Jefferson Boulevard; (2) increase the geographic area of the Clarendon/Beckley/Kiest Sub-District by approximately 11 acres to include: (a) approximately 4 acres generally on the northeast and southeast corners of Grant Street and Ridge Street, west of the terminus of Grant Street and north of the terminus of Ridge Street, and (b) approximately 7 acres generally in the 900 and 1000 blocks of Morrell Avenue at Fernwood Avenue and the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Morrell Avenue at Denley Drive and; (3) make corresponding modifications to the TIF District’s boundary and Plan; and, at the close of the public hearing, consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 21466, as amended, previously approved on November 11, 1992, and Ordinance No. 23033, as amended, previously approved on February 12, 1997, to reflect these amendments - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

TH THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT PLAN AND REINVESTMENT ZONE FINANCING PLAN.

PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER THREE THE OAK CLIFF GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.

THE TIF DISTRICT TO ONE INCREASE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE BISHOP JEFFERSON SUB DISTRICT BY APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES TO INCLUDE PROPERTIES AT 1214 HUNDRED EAST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD TO INCREASE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE CLARENDON BERKELEY QUI SUB DISTRICT BY APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES TO INCLUDE A APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES GENERALLY ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF GRANT STREET AND RIDGE STREET, WEST OF THE TERMINUS OF GRANT STREET AND NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF RIDGE STREET, AND BE APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES GENERALLY IN THE 901,000 BLOCKS OF MORRELL AVENUE AT FERNWOOD AVENUE AND THE 1213 HUNDRED BLOCKS OF MORRELL AVENUE AT DENLEY DRIVE AND THREE MAKING CORRESPONDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE TIFF DISTRICTS BOUNDARY AND PLAN.

AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 21466 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED.

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 11TH, 1992, AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 23033 AS AMENDED, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 1997, TO REFLECT THESE AMENDMENTS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM TH. THREE.

NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO ITEM TWO AND 70.

[PH2. 23-1692 A public hearing to receive comments regarding consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas Development Code, with consideration to be given to amending Section 51-4.216.1, “Lodging Uses” and Section 51A-4.205 “Lodging Uses” to define a new use called “Short-term rental lodging” and related regulations and an ordinance granting the amendments]

THOSE ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED COLLECTIVELY.

ITEM TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING SECTION 50 1-4.216.1 LODGING USES AND SECTION 50 1A-4.205 LODGING USE LODGING USES TO DEFINE A NEW USE CALLED SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING AND REGULATED AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND AN ORDINANCE

[07:00:09]

GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS.

AGENDA ITEM 70 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTION 27, DASH 31, ADDING CHAPTER 42 B SHORT TERM RENTALS TO THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO PROVIDING DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT THREE PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $500 FOR PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE FIVE PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND SIX PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

YOU DO HAVE 60 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN. ONE MINUTE, MR. MAYOR. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THE SPEAKERS BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES.

WE GIVE NORMAL THREE.

I KNOW YOU SAID ONE.

I'D LIKE TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE.

ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE.

SO ORDERED. TWO MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SPEECH WILL BE GIVEN TO EACH SPEAKER.

WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK FOR THOSE REGISTERED SPEAKERS, AFTER WHICH IT WILL BE OPEN TO ANY MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'S NOT REGISTERED THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE ITEMS. WHEN SECRETARY BEFORE YOU CALL THE NAMES, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE BODY IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO TAKING A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS OUT OF ORDER, IF THERE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE WHO HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK WHO NEED TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, I'D LIKE TO TAKE THEM FIRST.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? I HAVE ONE OBJECTION. MAYOR.

YEAH. OKAY. SO I'M STATING THIS FOR THE RECORD.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE ALSO THAT WE WILL NOT LOSE A QUORUM BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSION OF THE TIME, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE POLITICALLY MANIPULATING OR WHAT, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF WE WANT TO BE HERE, WE'RE NOT MANIPULATING.

NO, NOT YOU, NOT YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A MOTION AND.

YEAH, I KNOW, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE.

AND THAT WAS OTHER. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE A QUORUM.

I'LL DO THIS FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.

EVERYBODY STAY. NOBODY LEAVE.

HOW ABOUT THAT? EVERYBODY, PLEASE STAY.

I'M STAYING ALL NIGHT IF WE HAVE TO STAY.

BUT WE HAD A MOTION.

TWO MINUTES. THAT'S FINE.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE COULD NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO MIGHT BE HERE TO LET THEM GO FIRST.

WE'RE GOING TO GET GOING, BUT I WANT THEM TO GO FIRST.

ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED SO YOU CAN REORDER THE SPEAKER LIST TO PUT THE ELECTEDS AT THE TOP.

DO YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE? I DO NOT, MR. MAYOR.

I'M SORRY. ARE THEY? WHO'S HERE? JOHN BRYANT IS HERE. WHO ELSE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COME ON DOWN.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

WE APPRECIATE IT. AND WE KNOW YOU GUYS GOT STUFF TO DO SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

JUST WON'T SEEM TO END, WILL IT? OF COURSE. GO AHEAD.

THANKS VERY MUCH, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL I REPRESENT.

MY NAME IS JOHN BRYANT.

I REPRESENT THE 114TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT, WHICH EXTENDS FROM WHERE WE SIT NOW UP THROUGH THE HEART OF THE CITY AND INCLUDES 200,000 PEOPLE WHO I PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR TONIGHT.

WHEN I URGE YOU TO ADOPT THE KEEP IT SIMPLE SOLUTION AND TO REAFFIRM THE INTEGRITY OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN OUR CITY.

WHEN I PURCHASED MY HOME 24 YEARS AGO, LIKE ALL THESE PEOPLE BEHIND ME AND ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS, I DID SO WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT I WOULD BE SHARING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH OTHER FAMILIES.

IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME THAT MY NEIGHBORS COULD OPERATE A BUSINESS OUT OF THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET, OR THAT I COULD FIND MYSELF LIVING NEXT DOOR TO A COMMERCIAL HOSPITALITY OPERATION, BASICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A MOTEL OR A PARTY HOUSE WITH A CONSTANTLY CHANGING SET OF CUSTOMERS INSTEAD OF NEIGHBORS.

YOU CAN PREVENT THIS.

AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO URGE YOU TO DO THAT.

WE JUST FOUGHT A HARD BATTLE IN THE LEGISLATURE TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT AS A CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO SHORT TERM RENTALS OR WITH REGARD TO ANYTHING ELSE INVOLVING PROPERTY IN THE CITY.

IT WAS A HARD FIGHT.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR NARROW VICTORY IN THAT FIGHTING TONIGHT.

ADOPT THE KEEP IT SIMPLE SOLUTION PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE HAVE A GOOD THING GOING HERE IN DALLAS.

PROTECT IT AND KEEP THAT GOOD THING GOING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LETTING. ME APPEAR BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU, JESSICA GONZALEZ.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO DO YOU REMEMBER? I KNOW Y'ALL ARE ALL YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DOWN HERE BEFORE.

WE DON'T REALLY DO THE OUTBURST THING, SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO.

NOT BETWEEN EACH ONE, BUT THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING.

I'M STATE REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA GONZALEZ, AND I REPRESENT HOUSE DISTRICT 104 AND CURRENTLY LIVE IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, MYSELF AND MANY OTHER FOLKS FROM THE DALLAS DELEGATION AND THE LEGISLATURE FOUGHT REALLY HARD THIS SESSION NOT ONLY TO PASS BILLS THAT WOULD HELP OUR CITY, BUT THEN ALSO FOUGHT REALLY HARD TO TO DEFEAT MANY BAD BILLS THAT WOULD HURT OUR CITY AND THAT WOULD

[07:05:10]

STRIP AWAY THE POWER OF DALLAS AND OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO CONTROL THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT.

ONE OF THESE BILLS WOULD HAVE PREEMPTED YOUR ABILITY TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THE VERY ISSUE THAT YOU'RE HERE TO VOTE ON TODAY.

AS YOU KNOW, STATE TAX LAW DEFINES SHORT TERM RENTALS AS HOTELS AND REQUIRES THEM TO PAY THE STATE TAX HOTEL.

AND I URGE YOU TO USE YOUR ZONING POWERS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS JUST LIKE MINE AND LIKE YOURS.

AND I ALSO ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE SO CALLED THE KISS SOLUTION THAT WOULD DEFINE STRS AS A LODGING USE AND DISALLOW THEM IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

YOUR OWN CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THIS AND ALLOWED THEM TO BE IN COMMERCIAL AREAS.

WE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES AS AUSTIN HAS MADE AND LICENSED THEM BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHERE THEY SHOULD OPERATE.

THAT'S THE FUNCTION OF ZONING DETERMINING LAND USE.

DALLAS HAS PROTECTED HIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH ZONING FOR DECADES, AND THERE IS A GROWING TREND WHERE INVESTORS AND EVEN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY ARE BUYING UP HOUSING TO CONVERT THEM TO SHORT TERM RENTALS, DRIVING UP RENTAL PRICES, APPRAISALS FOR NEARBY HOMES, WHICH FORCES PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AS A NEW FORM OF GENTRIFICATION BY MANY RESEARCHERS AND MEMBERS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY REASONS THAT I DECIDED TO TO MAKE THAT PERSONAL SACRIFICE AND RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OR FOR SOME OF THESE REASONS.

THAT AND IT MAY BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT PEOPLE GET PRICED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

AND THESE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MINE THAT I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN AND THAT I'M COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE PROTECTED.

AND THE SAME SAME THING AS YOU GUYS.

MANY OF US HAVE WORKED HARD TO PROTECT YOUR POWERS FOR ZONING, AND SO I URGE YOU TO USE THOSE POWERS TO PROTECT YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS, SOMETHING THAT YOUR RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO AND WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO.

MADAM REPRESENTATIVE, I GOT TO ASK YOU TO BRING IT TO A CLOSE, SO I JUST ASK YOU TO TREAT THEM RIGHT, BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE MY CONSTITUENTS AS WELL AS I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND GOOD TO SEE YOU. GOOD TO SEE YOU, TOO, OLD COLLEAGUE.

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN GROUPS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME AND YOU'RE IN PERSON, WHEN YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS IN THE CENTER, THE CENTER SECTION.

JOHN GOODMAN AND JOHN GOODMAN.

IF YOU'RE PRESENT, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

COLE. ANGELA MEDRANO.

LIZ BRUNI.

CINDY HELLSTROM.

HELLSTROM. TIMOTHY SIEGLER.

ANGIE SANDERS.

STACY RESNICK HAS CANCELED.

CARRIE BROOM.

MATTHEW BOCH MOYA SCHREIER, FLEMING, J.

JAY BHAKTA, COOKIE PADEN AND SHARON SADAKA.

THAT'S YOUR FIRST GROUP, MR. GOODMAN. YOU MAY BEGIN.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN GOODMAN.

I LIVE IN 91, 53 LOMA VISTA IN DALLAS ZONE.

ZONE TEN.

I'VE GIVEN YOU THE MOST CURRENT LIST OF HOTEL CHAINS OWNING OR OPERATING STRS IN THE USA.

A YEAR AGO, I TOLD YOU MARRIOTT HAD 82 STRS IN DALLAS.

TODAY THEY HAVE A 310.

IN 1971, I BEGAN WHAT WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR STINT AT THE MARRIOTT ON STEMMONS.

I WAS SHOT AT THREE TIMES.

MY CAR WAS BROKEN INTO SEVEN TIMES.

MY WHEELS AND TIRES WERE STOLEN TWICE.

AND I WAS SUED PERSONALLY FOR HELPING A POLICEMAN BREAK UP A FIGHT IN THE LOBBY OVER A PROSTITUTE.

WORKING THE NIGHT SHIFT THERE WAS LIKE RIDING A BULL.

AT NO TIME COULD YOU FEEL COMPLETELY SAFE.

EACH YEAR I DEALT WITH DEATH, RAPE, ABDUCTION, OVERDOSES, STABBINGS, OUT-OF-CONTROL PARTIES.

THERE REALLY ISN'T A SITUATION YOU CAN MENTION THAT I DIDN'T SEE.

AND THIS WAS A TOP NOTCH HOTEL.

ARE THINGS DIFFERENT THAN THAT 50 YEARS AGO? TWO THINGS ARE TODAY.

GUEST BRINGS ASSAULT RIFLES TO THE PARTY AND TODAY THE HOTEL IS AN STR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

VOTE USING COMMON SENSE SUPPORT KISS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. OLIVE TALLEY.

HERE'S THE CRUX OF YOUR DECISION TONIGHT.

[07:10:03]

YOU CAN VOTE TO PROTECT HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE, OR YOU CAN VOTE TO DESTROY NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE KNOW THEM AND WORSEN YOUR HOUSING CRISIS.

THE SMALL STR OPERATORS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT SO HARD TOOK A RISK TO LAUNCH BUSINESSES IN VIOLATION OF EXISTING ZONING, HOPING THE BIG INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS WOULD COME TO THEIR RESCUE AND WIN YOU OR BUY YOU OVER.

THESE SMALL GUYS ARE NOT THE DRIVERS OF THE STR GOLD RUSH.

THEY ARE THE FACES THAT THE BIG OPERATORS ARE HIDING BEHIND.

WE STAND TOGETHER.

ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MORE OF US EARLIER TODAY AND WE REPRESENT ABOUT 500,000 OTHER HOMEOWNERS AND THERE ARE RENTERS TO WHO UNFATHOMABLY FIND OURSELVES AS THE UNDERDOGS IN THIS FIGHT.

WE'RE FIGHTING TO PRESERVE HOUSING AND HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY ARE FIGHTING TO COMMERCIALIZE AND CONVERT HOMES INTO HOTEL BUSINESSES.

THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR HIGHER PROFIT MARGINS.

WE'RE LOSING MONEY AND WE'RE PAYING A HUGE PRICE.

ALL OF US TAXPAYERS, FOR THE PROBLEMS AND THE CRIMES THAT THEY CAUSE.

PLEASE VOTE FOR KISS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND BEFORE YOU GIVE AWAY YOUR ZONING POWERS THAT CANNOT BE RETRACTED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DOLORES SOROKA.

DOLORES SOROCA 4822 SWISS AVENUE STRS ARE BY DEFINITION, LODGING USE.

PLEASE VOTE FOR THE FULLY VETTED ZONING ORDINANCE FROM CPC.

THE MAJORITY OF US WHO HAVE HOMES IN ZONED RESIDENTIAL AREAS CANNOT BELIEVE THAT DALLAS WOULD BREAK AN IMPLIED CONTRACT WITH US BY ALLOWING HOTELS TO OPERATE NEXT DOOR.

ALLOW DALLAS TO BE SATURATED WITH STRS AND NOBODY WINS.

NOT STR OWNERS WITH EVER DECREASING OCCUPANCY BECAUSE OF STR DENSITY AND CERTAINLY NOT HOMEOWNERS WITH EVER INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES. NON-EXISTENT SECURITY AND LOSS OF QUALITY OF LIFE.

ALL OF THIS RESULTING IN SKYROCKETING HOME PRICES AND APARTMENT RENTS THAT FURTHER DRIVE HOME BUYERS AND RENTERS TO THE SUBURBS.

STR PROPONENTS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IT'S MOSTLY INDIVIDUALS OFFERING ROOMS IN THEIR HOME TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME.

STATISTICS SHOW THAT 85% OF STRS ARE ENTIRE HOMES, AND MAJOR CORPORATIONS LIKE MARRIOTT AND DEEP POCKET INVESTORS ARE BUYING UP HOUSES AND TURNING THEM INTO STRS TO STR OWNERS.

I SAY YOU MADE THE BUSINESS DECISION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DALLAS ZONING.

YOU LOCATED STR HOTELS IN ZONED RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

ALL OF THIS DONE WITHOUT A CARE FOR LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES.

RENT LONGER TERM, YOU WILL STILL MAKE MONEY.

PLEASE VOTE YES TO THE KISS SOLUTION AND RELATED REGULATIONS.

GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING.

SHERRI GAMBLE.

I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

MY NEIGHBORS AND I SPENT THE LAST MONTH CALLING TEXAS LEGISLATURES ON A DAILY BASIS TO STOP THE BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE USURPED OUR ZONING POWERS HERE IN DALLAS.

AND WE WERE SO GLAD THAT THAT DID NOT PASS.

AND I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE TO BE HAPPY, HAPPY ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

SO WE ARE CANNOT WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND WHY ANYBODY WOULD WANT TO NOT USE ZONING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REGULATIONS TO MANAGE THE STRS.

THEY MUST BE A COMBINATION OF BOTH OR IT WILL NOT WORK.

YOU CANNOT RETROACTIVELY GO BACK AND USE THE ZONING.

IF WE DO NOT USE IT, WE WILL LOSE IT.

ANY CITY THAT HAS NOT USED ZONING HAS SUFFERED THE CONSEQUENCES.

JUST LOOK AT AUSTIN.

18,000 STRS IN AUSTIN TO DATE.

VOTING FOR KISS.

THE KISS SOLUTION IS NOT A BAN ON STRS.

IT IS SIMPLY DEFINING THEM AS WHAT THEY ARE A COMMERCIAL LODGING BUSINESS.

AND THOSE DO NOT BELONG IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

STOP THE BLEEDING.

VOTE FOR KISS.

WE CAN GO BACK LATER AND MAKE THE CHANGES WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE MOM AND POPS.

WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BACK, THOUGH, AND PICK UP THE ZONING IF YOU LOSE THAT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. LET ME TRY NOT TO USE ALL MY TIME.

BRUCE RICHARDSON.

MR. MAYOR. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION INSTANTLY VESTS EVERY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER WITH A DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT. YOU CAN'T YANK BACK.

[07:15:01]

IF A COURT GUTS THIS UNTESTED REGULATORY REGIME, WE WILL RUE THE DAY WE LITERALLY ABANDONED OUR ZONING POWERS.

NO STAFFER WAS EVER ON SOLID LEGAL GROUND.

EVERYBODY KNEW THAT AN EAST DALLAS IS COVERED IN MF2 FOURPLEXES ON HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

THAT'S WHY I HAVE OVER 44 STRS WITHIN BLOCKS OF MY HOME.

THAT'S HOUSING WE NEED.

WE'VE GOT HOTELS.

I OPPOSE VESTING ANY RIGHT TO MAINTAIN STRS WITH EXPLICIT GRANDFATHERING.

I SUPPORT THE CPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND REGULATIONS WITH AMENDMENTS I UNDERSTAND WILL BE OFFERED.

PLEASE RATIFY BOTH TODAY AND JUST A COMMENT.

THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK ABOUT THE FABRIC OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK IF MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER CAME DOWN DRESSED IN THE FABRIC OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALL THESE STRS, I'D HAVE TO TELL HER TO GO BACK UPSTAIRS AND PUT ON SOME CLOTHES BECAUSE THE FABRIC OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS SHOT FULL OF HOLES WHERE STRS EXIST.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REMEDY THAT WITH THE KISS SOLUTION AND WITH THE REGULATIONS I UNDERSTAND WILL BE OFFERED.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

RAQUEL DEL AGUILA KO.

HELLO, MY NAME IS RAQUEL DEL AGUILA AND I WOULD LIKE THE FIRST PART OF WHAT I SAY TO REPRESENT THE 42% OF THE POPULATION IN DALLAS THAT SPEAK SPANISH AS THEIR MOTHER TONGUE.

I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY IN ENGLISH AFTER THAT.

WHEN NOCHES UN CUADERNO DE LOS RESIDENTES DE DALLAS SON HISPANO ATLANTES TENGO LA SENSACION DE ESTE CONSEJO ESTA MOSTRANDO POCA PREOCUPACION POR ELLOS AND PERMITIR LA CANTIDAD LIMITADA DE VIVIENDA A SU DISPOSICION.

SIENDO USADAS CADA VEZ MAIS UN CONCEPTO DE HOTELES.

TWICE DURING THE PAST YEAR, PEOPLE ON MY STREET HAVE HAD TO CALL THE POLICE TO AN STR PARTY HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOME IN DISTRICT ONE ONCE BECAUSE A LARGE GROUP OF RENTERS WAS USING IT AS A STAGING PLACE FOR THEIR MIDNIGHT STREET RACES ON HAMPTON, THREE BLOCKS AWAY.

THE SECOND TIME WAS BECAUSE CARS HAVE DRIVE BY SHOOTERS POCKMARKED THE FACADE WITH MORE THAN 60 BULLETS.

AT 9 P.M. ON NEW YEAR'S EVE THIS PAST YEAR, I ASK EACH OF YOU SUPPORT KISS, MAKE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS STRONG FOR FAMILIES AND RESIDENTS AND LET HOTELS BE IN HOTEL DISTRICTS.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR A RECKLESS COMBINATION OF THE TWO.

SHORT TERM RENTALS MUST END IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

ANGELA MEDRANO.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

WE NEED BOTH ZONING AND REGULATIONS, QUICK CATERING TO THOSE WHO ARE OPERATING ILLEGAL HOTEL HOUSES.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW STRS IN ALL ZONES OF THE CITY SAYS, AND I QUOTE THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT THE MAJOR CONCERNS RELATED TO STRS ARE OPERATIONAL.

I'M STUNNED AND INSULTED BY THE BLATANTLY FALSE PREMISE FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF SUCH GREAT IMPORTANCE TO DALLAS FROM FOUR YEARS OF WORK COMES PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROBLEMS WITH STRS GO WELL BEYOND OPERATIONAL.

THEY PRODUCE HIGHER RENTS AND APPRAISALS, REMOVE WHOLE HOMES AND APARTMENTS FROM THE HOUSING STOCK AND DRIVE PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOME OUT OF THE CITY.

WEALTHY INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS GRAB LAND FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL GAIN AND CAUSE GRIEF TO RESIDENTS.

THESE MAJOR ISSUES ARE IN NO WAY OPERATIONAL AND ARE BEING IGNORED BY THE STAFF AND SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL.

A VOTE FOR KIS IS A VOTE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.

WE WILL NOT FORGET HOW YOU VOTE.

THANK YOU. LIZ BRUNEY.

LIZ BRUNI.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE.

I'M A SINGLE MOTHER LIVING WITH MY TWO GIRLS.

WE WOULD NOT FEEL SAFE IF THERE WERE STRANGERS COMING EVERY WEEKEND TO LIVE NEXT TO US.

IT WOULD CHANGE HOW WE LIVE.

WE'VE HAD TROUBLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE.

THE POLICE WERE CALLED BY MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND SHOWED UP FOUR HOURS LATER.

CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE POLICE ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

[07:20:04]

MY HOME.

THE EQUITY IN MY HOME IS MY KIDS COLLEGE FUND.

I WORRY THAT IF AN STR MOVES IN NEXT TO ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TROUBLE SELLING MY HOUSE.

WOULD YOU MOVE YOUR FAMILY INTO A HOME NEXT TO AN STR? YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO MIGHT IS ANOTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNER.

AND THEN THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM A NEIGHBOR AND I AM A GOOD CITIZEN.

I CONTRIBUTE TO MY COMMUNITY.

I WAS A MEMBER OF THE PTA AT ALL OF MY KIDS SCHOOLS.

I ADVOCATE FOR OUR KIDS AND OUR DALLAS COMMUNITY.

I'M ON THE BOARD OF A LOCAL NONPROFIT AND HAVE WORKED FOR A LOCAL NONPROFIT.

I PARTICIPATE IN MANY WAYS TO MAKE DALLAS A BETTER CITY FOR ALL STARS.

DO NOT DO THAT.

I WANT NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE A STAKE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

PLEASE DO FOR ME WHAT I HAVE ACTIVELY SOUGHT TO DO HERE IN DALLAS TO MAKE THIS A GREAT PLACE FOR ALL.

BE RESPONSIBLE.

PROTECT OUR KIDS.

PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

USUALLY IT'S. GOOD MORNING.

CINDY HELLSTERN.

NOW IT'S GOOD NIGHT.

I CAN BARELY CARRY THIS BOOK THAT ALL OF YOU RECEIVED IN APRIL.

I HOPE YOU LOOKED AT IT.

IT CONTAINS BUT A FRACTION OF THE EMAILS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE VERY PASSIONATE PEOPLE.

PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY UPSET HAVING SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY DON'T JUST BRING CRIME AND UNHAPPINESS, THEY CHANGE THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THAT.

DO NOT ALLOW STRS BY RIGHT IN ALL ZONES.

THIS WILL GIVE STR PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY DO NOT HAVE TODAY, AND IT WILL FORFEIT THE RIGHT OF ANY FUTURE COUNCIL TO CORRECT THE ZONING. ALSO WORTH NOTING, NEW ORLEANS CURRENTLY IS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION REGARDING THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT RULING.

IF WE ENACT LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT CARETAKERS, WE VERY LIKELY DALLAS THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL BE SUED. AND TAKE NOTE.

THE STRAH GROUP IN NEW ORLEANS AND DALLAS HAS HIRED THE SAME LEGAL FIRM TO REPRESENT THEM.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YOU SET THE TRAIN IN MOTION.

IT LEFT THE STATION LAST JUNE.

IT MADE SCHEDULED STOPS ALONG A WELL PLANNED ROUTE.

DON'T ALLOW IT TO BE DERAILED AT THE LAST MINUTE.

NOW IT'S TIME TO WELCOME THE TRAIN'S ARRIVAL BACK HOME WITH A WELCOME KISS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.

PLEASE VOTE FOR KISS ALONG WITH STRONG REGULATIONS AND STIFF PENALTIES.

HI, MY NAME IS TIM SIGLER, 653 LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE IN DISTRICT NINE.

TIMOTHY ZIEGLER.

I'VE HEARD IN MANY OF THESE HOUSES.

I SEE THIS IS MAYBE THE FIFTH OR SIXTH TIME I'VE BEEN TO ONE OF THESE.

MANY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE LIST.

THE RISK TO THEIR LIVELIHOOD.

BUT THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM RENTING THESE WHOLE HOMES TO LONG TERM TENANTS.

WHAT YOU HEAR ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RUN NIGHTLY MOTELS AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHO YOU DON'T HEAR FROM TODAY ARE THE OWNERS OF 2010 PLUS 20 PLUS UNITS ALL OVER THE CITY, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THEY PUT THEIR MOMS AND POPS HERE BEFORE CITY COUNCILS TO PULL AT YOUR HEART STRINGS.

THESE STARS TAKE AWAY VALUABLE HOUSING FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

PEACE AND TRANQUILITY AND SAFETY.

SPEAKING OF SAFETY, I IMAGINE THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS ALL HERE SITTING TODAY IN THE HORSESHOE, EVEN THOSE NOT LISTENING.

HAVE SPECIAL NUMBER TWO DPD WHEN THEY HAVE AN ISSUE, I'M SURE THEY CAN CALL THE CHIEF OF POLICE IF THEY HAVE AN ISSUE ON THEIR STREET.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE A REGULAR CITIZEN AND YOU CALL 911 AND NO ONE SHOWS UP.

EVER. YOU CALL AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

AND NO ONE EVER SHOWS UP.

WHERE IS EACH OF YOU CAN CALL THE CHIEF AND SUMMON A WHOLE CREW OF POLICE OFFICERS WOULD SHOW UP.

[07:25:02]

IT'S NOT LIKE THAT FOR US.

I'VE CALLED CODE FOR LOUD PARTIES, DRUG USE BEING OFFERED DRUGS AND SEX IN MY FRONT YARD WITH MY SMALL CHILDREN AROUND.

BUT SOME OF Y'ALL DON'T CARE.

AND LET ME TELL YOU.

THESE PROPOSALS TO HIRE A CODE ENFORCERS WHO WORK AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING IS NEVER GOING TO WORK.

ARE THEY GOING TO COME WITH POLICE OFFICERS? WITH THEM? IT'S YOUR TIME.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

AND JOE SANDERS.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD.

YOU'VE BEEN TOOK.

HOODWINKED, BAMBOOZLED.

RUN AMUCK AND LED ASTRAY.

THAT ICONIC SPEECH FROM SPIKE LEE'S OPUS, MALCOLM X, APTLY DESCRIBES THE FEELINGS OF THE CITIZENS AND VOTERS OF DALLAS TODAY. HERE'S WHY YOU CAME TO US.

YOU STOOD ON OUR FRONT PORCH IN YOUR BRIGHT CAMPAIGN T SHIRTS, CLUTCHING DOOR HANGERS IN YOUR HAND, AND WITH YOUR CAMPAIGN SIGNS UNDER YOUR ARM.

AND YOU ASKED US FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING US.

WE CAN'T TRUST YOU ANYMORE.

NOW, WE'VE BEEN TO WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOVIES.

NOW LET'S GO TO CHURCH WHERE THE CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM, HINDU, BUDDHIST, AGNOSTIC, ATHEIST, WICCAN OR SATANIST.

WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH SEVERAL STORIES IN THE BIBLE.

YOU STOOD BEFORE US LIKE DAVID, BEFORE KING SAUL.

YOU STOOD BEFORE US LIKE ISAIAH BEFORE THE LORD.

AND YOU RAISED YOUR HAND AND SAID, HERE I AM.

I WILL PROTECT THE CITY.

SEND ME.

I WILL SAVE THE CITY OF DALLAS AND POOR US.

WE HAD BEEN SO BATTERED BY MALFEASANCE AND CORRUPTION, WE WERE CHOKING AND GAGGING ON THE STENCH OF SELF-DEALING.

POOR, DESPERATE, NAIVE US.

WE SENT YOU.

AND NOW WE'RE HERE TO CLAIM THAT PROMISE.

WE'RE HERE TO ASK YOU DO WHAT WE SENT YOU TO DO.

THANK YOU. STACY RESNICK HAS CANCELED CARRIE BROOM.

HARRY BROOM IS NOT PRESENT.

MATTHEW BORG IS VIRTUAL.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MATT BACH.

I LIVE AT 15746 COVID CIRCLE.

DALLAS, TEXAS.

75248. PLEASE ADOPT THE KEEP IT SIMPLE SOLUTION OR KISS.

DALLAS RESIDENTS HAVE WAITED MORE THAN THREE YEARS FOR RELIEF FROM SHORT TERM RENTALS OR STRS.

MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON CITY COUNCIL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

I BELIEVE YOU SERVE BECAUSE YOU WANT THE BEST FOR DALLAS THE SAME REASON I SERVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON MY HOA PRESIDENT AND A BOARD MEMBER WITH THE NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE.

PLEASE HELP ME PROTECT DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOMEOWNERS.

WHO CHOSE TO MAKE DALLAS THEIR HOME.

NONE OF US WANT TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A HOTEL AND THE PROBLEMS THEY BRING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS ISN'T A CASE OF TRYING TO BALANCE TWO COMPETING LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.

SHARES ARE OWNED PRIMARILY BY OUTSIDE INVESTORS WHO SIMPLY WANT TO MAKE MONEY.

UNLIKE YOU AND I, ESSER INVESTORS HAVE NO LONG TERM STAKE IN THE WELL BEING OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS OR CITY.

PLEASE ADOPT THE KISS SOLUTION, AS WELL AS STIFF REGULATIONS AND PENALTIES TO RELEGATE PSS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS OF DALLAS.

MARCIA FLEMING IS ALSO VIRTUAL.

HI, MY NAME IS MAURICE FLEMING.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGHLANDS OF MAKE A MOTION HOA, A FOUR AND FIVE HOA.

OUR HOA MEMBERS OVERWHELMINGLY EXPRESSED THEIR PREFERENCE TO PROHIBIT SHORT TERM RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

[07:30:07]

SHORT TERM RENTALS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN DALLAS.

YOU HAVE HEARD MULTIPLE TIMES FROM THE DALLAS POLICE CHIEF THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER TO ADDRESS THE KNOWN AND VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS LIKE SEX TRAFFICKING BEING JUST ONE THAT MANY SHORT TERM RENTALS HAVE CREATED.

THERE ARE MORE STARS THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CITY, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO PROHIBIT THEM IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

OTHER LOCAL CITIES HAVE ALREADY PROHIBITED STRS, MOST RECENTLY PLANO.

WHAT LEADERSHIP AND WISDOM DO THEY HAVE THAT DALLAS LACKS? YOU ARE MAKING DALLAS LESS DESIRABLE WITH STRS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHO WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN A CITY WHERE YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD BECOME AN UNCONTROLLABLE HOTEL? A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD QUESTION A VOTE FOR STRS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT COULD ONLY BE DONE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS IGNORING THEIR CONSTITUENTS INTERESTS OR PROMOTING THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST.

VOTE TO PROHIBIT STRS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOUR VIDEO MUST BE DISPLAYED.

JAY BHAKTA.

OH, HI THERE.

I OPPOSE THE RESOLUTION.

I'M SORRY, MISS BAXTER.

ALTHOUGH I OPPOSE THE SOLUTION WITH THE SOLUTION, THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE GOOD OPERATORS WHO PAY TAXES, TAKE CARE OF THE HOMES, ARE GOING TO SHUT DOWN AND THE BAD OPERATORS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE DOING THEIR BUSINESS.

WE PROVIDE A SERVICE TO HOME OWNERS THAT ARE NEEDING TO REMODEL THEIR HOME AND NEED A PLACE TO STAY FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS.

WE PROVIDE SERVICE TO SOMEBODY THAT'S COMING IN FOR A SURGERY.

WE PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO NEEDS EXTRA SPACE FOR FAMILY TO VISIT? WE DO NOT WE DO NOT ACCEPT PARTIES AT OUR HOME.

WE ARE VERY STRICT. WE, UH.

WE CONTACT THE PEOPLE STAYING AT OUR HOME, IF AT ALL.

THERE'S ANY COMMOTION.

WE SHUT IT DOWN RIGHT AWAY.

SO WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE DISSOLUTION.

DEBBIE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

COOKIE PEYTON. COOKIE.

PEYTON 7111.

75252. I ALSO SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE, WHICH FOCUSES PRIMARILY ON DISTRICTS 11 AND 12.

IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES THAT WOULD IN WOULD IN EFFECT, NULLIFY SOME OF THE ZONING THAT DALLAS RESIDENTS TRUSTED WHEN THEY MADE DECISIONS TO PURCHASE THEIR HOMES.

IN SOME OF THE MEETINGS WE'VE ATTENDED, CODE COMPLIANCE HAS EXPRESSED ALL OF US THE CHALLENGES THEY FACED OVER THE PAST THREE PLUS YEARS TRYING TO REGULATE STRS.

THEY DON'T HAVE OFFICERS AVAILABLE AT NIGHTS AND ON WEEKENDS.

THERE ARE PROPOSALS TO INCREASE THAT, AND THAT COMES AT A HUGE EXPENSE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT GOES OUT NOW IS THEY CAN ONLY WRITE CITATIONS.

THAT MEANS THAT IF THEY GET INTO A SITUATION THAT'S OUT OF HAND, THEY HAVE TO RELY ON DISPATCHING POLICE AND WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER RESULTS THAN THAT. WE NEED THE KISS PRINCIPLE.

WE NEED CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WE NEED YOU TO BACK WHAT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS PROPOSED.

WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT HIRING THOSE ADDITIONAL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND HAVING STRONG REGULATIONS SO THAT YOU CAN PROTECT WHAT THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS EXPECT. PLEASE SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN YOUR DISTRICT BY VOTING FOR THE CPC RECOMMENDATION.

STRICT REGULATIONS AND RESTRICT STRS TO COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS WHERE THEIR OPERATIONS NO LONGER PRESENT THREATS TO THE SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS AND TO THE CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN YOUR DISTRICT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING.

SHARON SEDAKA.

I WANTED TO SAY ONE QUICK THING.

I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE FIRST ERIC JOHNSON, WHO DID A GREAT JOB.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT JOB.

UH, I MY MY RESIDENCE IS AT 4806 GASTON AVENUE IN THE DISTRICT TWO CONSTITUENCY. I'M 76 YEARS OLD, AND LIKE ALL OF YOU HERE, WE DO ALL LOVE DALLAS.

[07:35:09]

I BELIEVE THAT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE BENEFICIAL FOR THIS CITY, ESPECIALLY NOW WITH ALL THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN TO DFW, COMING TO DALLAS TO MAYBE LIVE HERE ONE DAY.

AND WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN A FRIENDLY CITY AND AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DO COME IN.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S SOMEONE WHO JUST CAME IN WHO WILL BE STAYING PROBABLY I THINK IT'S ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF.

BUT THEY'VE COME IN TO GO TO TO BE AN INTERN AT ONE OF THE BIG ACCOUNTING FIRMS. AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL YOUNG GUYS.

THEY ARE THRILLED TO BE HERE IN DALLAS.

THEY'VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE.

AND I'M HOPING THAT AFTER THEY DO THEIR INTERNSHIP THAT THEY'LL WANT TO COME AND LIVE IN DALLAS AND JOIN ALL OF US.

SO ANYWAY, I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT GROUP AND AGAIN, IF YOU'RE IN PERSON, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS IN THE CENTER SECTION? RJ JOHNSON, KYLE KAVANAUGH AND ZARA.

KAREN ROBERTS, ASHLEY MARTSON AND MELANIE VANLANDINGHAM.

RJ JOHNSON IS VIRTUAL OR YOU.

OKAY, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

I'M HERE. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

SURE. SO MY NAME IS RJ JOHNSON.

I'M AN STR OPERATOR.

I EMPLOY EIGHT PEOPLE WHO WOULD ALL BE JOBLESS IF THE ZONING CHANGE, WHICH IS AN EFFECTIVE BAN, PASSES FIRST.

AS AN ATTORNEY, I FEEL I SHOULD MENTION THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT ALREADY RULED UNANIMOUSLY IN TIMBERWOOD IN 2018 THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WERE INHERENTLY RESIDENTIAL USES OF PROPERTY, NO MATTER HOW SHORT LIVED.

AND THEY'RE EXPRESSLY NOT THE LODGING THE WAY A HOTEL IS.

ACCORDINGLY, ANY BAN THAT DOES NOT GRANDFATHERING CURRENT OPERATORS SEEMS DESTINED FOR A LONG LEGAL BATTLE ENDING UP BACK TO THAT SAME SUPREME COURT.

A ZONING CHANGE TO ME WOULD BE A COP OUT BY A DALLAS CITY GOVERNMENT THAT IS SUGGESTING IT IS INCAPABLE OF ENFORCING A BASIC PERMIT SYSTEM THE WAY THAT MANY OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS AND OTHER STATES ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY DO, THAT IT WOULD RATHER BAN EVERYBODY INSTEAD OF PUTTING FORTH THE EFFORT TO CREATE A TAILORED SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR THE OVERALL INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS, WHICH PERMITTING WOULD ALLOW THE JOB OF LEGISLATION IS NOT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

IT IS TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE CITIZENS.

I DON'T BELIEVE ZONING CHANGES BANNING STRS WOULD ACTUALLY SOLVE ANY OF THE PROBLEMS BEING MENTIONED BECAUSE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE SIMPLY TOO FEW TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

PEOPLE IN THIS MEETING HAVE POINTED TO STRS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR LACK OF COMMUNITY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, PARKING VIOLATIONS, SEX TRAFFICKING AND MORE.

WHEN THESE ARE BROADER SOCIETAL ISSUES THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR DECADES WITH LITERALLY EVERY TYPE OF HOUSING AND THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSING THEM ARE GIVING PASSIONATE SPEECH SPEECHES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO BACK UP STRS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THEM.

THERE ARE AN ESTIMATED 3000 SHORT TERM RENTALS IN DALLAS.

THERE ARE 182 TIMES AS MANY LONG TERM RENTALS AND HOMEOWNERS.

THAT MEANS IF IF 2% OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE ACTING BADLY, THEY WOULD OUTNUMBER THE ENTIRE SHORT TERM RENTAL POPULATION OF DALLAS.

I QUESTIONED THE VERY PREMISE OF ALL OF THIS.

IF I END UP WITH A PROBLEMATIC LONG TERM RENTER OR A HOMEOWNER NEIGHBOR, I'M STUCK WITH THEM.

SO IS THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS, THE BAD ACTORS ARE TOSSED BY RESPONSIBLE HOSTS LIKE ME.

WITHIN A COUPLE HOURS, THE DATA SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

10% OF THE STARS ARE THE PROBLEM.

90% ARE NOT.

IS THE DATA ANALYST STATED IN THE PRIOR MEETING A RESIDENTIAL USE DESIGNATION COMBINED WITH PERMITTING TO GET.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

KYLE CAVANAUGH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU.

HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO.

SORRY, I MOVED THE PAPER IN THERE.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. MY NAME IS KYLE CAVANAUGH.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE ROSWELL COURT AND OAK LAWN, AND I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

EVEN THOUGH OUR HOMES ON THEIR STREET ARE DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY WERE ZONED WITHIN 193.

[07:40:07]

SINCE 2020, THERE ARE NOW SIX SHORT TERM RENTALS ON THE BLOCK COMPARED TO ONE SINCE THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO BORE EVERYBODY WITH ALL THESE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

TRASH FIGHTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE I TRIED TO SUM THIS DOWN.

THERE HAS ALSO BEEN DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN DONE TO OUR ONE WAY GATED STREET THAT'S HISTORICAL THAT THE OWNERS HAVE TO PAY FOR.

TWO OF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE OWNED BY A TRUST THAT IS OUT OF STATE AND DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHEN CONTACTED TO DEAL WITH THEIR PROBLEMS BY THE GUESTS.

IN FACT, WHEN THEY RESPONDED, ALL IT TAKES OVER.

UM, THE SOLUTION IS NOT BANNING SHORT TERM RENTALS AND ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.

IT'S NOT A SOLUTION AND NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN AND LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES AND DISTRICTS THAT ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY.

THEY'RE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN THESE HOUSES THAT DESERVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO PEACE AND QUIET AS AS ANY OTHER.

I ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER THE OPTIONS AND ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTALS TO ONLY OPERATE IN COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT ALLOW IN SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE LODGING USES JUST LIKE HOTELS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY.

IT'S SARAH. IT.

YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE OF THE.

AT ZARA 1003 VALENCIA, DALLAS, TEXAS.

TODAY IS A VERY IMPORTANT DAY FOR THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AFTER THE KISS VOTE, THEY WILL FIND OUT IF THEIR BOND WITH THE CITY TO ENFORCE ZONING MEANS ANYTHING OR IS JUST EMPTY PROMISES.

FORT WORTH, PLANO, ARLINGTON AND GRAPEVINE LEADERSHIP VOTED TO SUPPORT THEIR HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS OVER THE COMMERCIAL MANY HOTELS PROFIT.

WILL YOU BEING A 50 YEAR DALLAS RESIDENT? I'M APPALLED THAT THE NEW AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY ALLOW OWNER OCCUPIED STRS IN ANY DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT A SIMILAR STUNT WAS PROPOSED THREE YEARS AGO TO ALLOW ADUS BY RIGHT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.

ZOEK WAS READY TO PASS IT UNTIL I MADE THE POINT THAT THIS WOULD BE A LAND USE CHANGE AND REQUIRE THE CITY TO MAIL NOTICES AS WELL.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS TO THE 500,000 PROPERTY OWNERS AT A SIX FIGURE EXPENSE.

THE CITY ATTORNEY AGREED WITH ME AND MY AND THIS CLAIM AN EFFORT WAS DROPPED.

OWNER OCCUPIED STRS ARE A COMMERCIAL USE JUST LIKE THE HOTELS THEY IMITATE AND ALLOWING THEM BY RIGHT AS A LAND USE CHANGE.

IT TOO WOULD REQUIRE 500,000 MAILED NOTICES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS.

IT WOULD ALSO SPUR CHALLENGES BY OTHER BUSINESSES WANTING THE STR FREE PASS.

THIS ANTI NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSAL ALSO DOES NOT ALIGN THE TEXAS TAX AND DALLAS CODE HOTEL DEFINITION OF AN STR WITH A DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SECTION 51 A LODGING USES.

THE CITY CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS BY CONTINUING TO TAX STRS AS A HOTEL, BUT NOT DEFINE STRS AS A LODGING USE SO IT IS CLEAR WHERE THEY CAN LEGALLY OPERATE.

PLEASE VOTE FOR THE KISS SOLUTION AND REJECT ANY AMENDMENTS THAT FAIL TO ESTABLISH BRIGHT LINE ZONING AND PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY REGULATIONS. 500,000 HOMEOWNERS, NOT 2600 STR OPERATORS ARE COUNTING ON YOU.

THAT'S YOUR TIME TO VOTE THAT WAY.

SORRY. HI, I'M LISA SEEVERS.

LISA SIEVERS.

I LIVE AT 8238 BARBERRY BOULEVARD.

MY HUSBAND AND I OWN AND OPERATE TWO SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE STRONGLY SUPPORT CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

TODAY, THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WEIGHING IN HAVE STUDIED THE STR ISSUE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE KNOWING WHAT WILL WORK AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WILL NOT WORK IN THE CITY OF DALLAS EXISTING SYSTEMS, ZONING STRS OUT OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS NOT GOING TO CREATE BETTER NEIGHBORS OR BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHY DO WE WANT TO BURDEN DALLAS TAXPAYERS WITH AN ENORMOUS ENFORCEMENT EXPENSE WHICH WILL STILL NOT RESOLVE THE PARTY HOUSE PROBLEM? THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REGULATE STRS WITHOUT ZONING.

CAN WE PLEASE CONSIDER SOME OF THESE TODAY? THIS ISSUE STARTED AS A PARTY HOUSE ISSUE AND THE STORIES WE HEAR EVERY WEEK FROM THE ANTI-GROUP CONFIRM THIS.

LET'S ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM HERE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH A STRONG REGULATORY ORDINANCE WITH TEETH FULLY FUNDED BY STR FEES WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT, WORKING NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS

[07:45:01]

TO ROOT OUT THE FEW BAD OPERATORS AND ALLOW THE REST OF US TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

JANUARY THROUGH APRIL THIS YEAR, THERE WERE OVER 1 MILLION TOTAL 311 AND 911 CALLS.

CRIME HAPPENS IN EVERY TYPE OF HOUSING IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.

STRS ARE A CONVENIENT SCAPEGOAT.

AGAIN, 80% OF STR OPERATORS HAVE 031 1 OR 9 ONE ONE CALLS.

WE'RE THE GOOD OPERATORS AND ENTREPRENEURS WHO BRING BENEFIT TO OUR LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS BY PROVIDING AFFORDABLE LODGING ALTERNATIVES AND BY SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES.

I, ALONG WITH OTHER SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATORS LIKE US, HOPE THAT YOU WILL REFUSE TO PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS AND INSTEAD APPROVE A FAIR AND SENSIBLE ORDINANCE THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE. AND NO ONE, INCLUDING US, WANTS TO LIVE NEXT TO A PARTY HOUSE.

DALLAS DESERVES A PRO-BUSINESS, PRO COMMON SENSE SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ALIKE.

DALLAS DESERVES A STRONG REGULATORY ORDINANCE WITHOUT ZONING RESTRICTIONS.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

JOHN MORROW, JR.

GOOD EVENING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? HOW ABOUT NOW? HELLO? IT'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE.

IT'S GREEN. CAN YOU HEAR ME? LET'S SEE. IS IT ON? WELL, THAT'S BETTER.

GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CITY COUNCILMAN. MY NAME IS JOHN MOREAU.

I LIVE AT 8522.

STABLE GLEN DRIVE IN DISTRICT TEN.

A FEW THOUSAND INVESTORS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS IN DALLAS ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL TO ABANDON EXISTING ZONING IN FAVOR OF REGULATIONS.

AUSTIN TRIED TO REGULATE.

IT DIDN'T WORK.

THEY ARE A CAUTIONARY TALE OF LOST NEIGHBORHOODS AND CLOSED SCHOOLS.

DALLAS HAS ZONING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, AND BY FOLLOWING THE CPC RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT THE KISS SOLUTION, YOU WOULD REMOVE ALL DOUBT AS THE DEFINITION OF STRESS AND LODGING AND A DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

OUR ZONING VOTE FOR THE KISS SOLUTION.

KEEP THESE HOTELS OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND VOTE FOR THE KISS SOLUTION.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

DON THOMAS JR.

MY NAME IS DON THOMAS.

I RESIDE AT 1439 SORRENTO DRIVE.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME AN EXTENSION TO TWO MINUTES AS WELL.

THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE TWO YEARS AGO I DON'T LIVE NEXT TO ONE OF THESE PARTY HOUSES RIGHT NOW.

BUT IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO AND IT WAS SO IMPACTFUL THAT I'VE INVESTED MY TIME TO COME BACK OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO HOPEFULLY GET THROUGH TO YOU.

THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE NEVER HAD TO LIVE NEXT TO ONE OF THESE AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE.

SO HERE IT COMES.

YOU'RE IGNORING CURRENT ZONING AND ABDICATING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

YOU'RE NOT SERVING YOUR RESIDENTS BY PROTECTING THEM FROM THE EVER INCREASING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY COMING FROM STRS.

NO ONE IS COMING FORWARD THAT LIVES NEXT TO AN STR RIGHT NOW BEGGING YOU TO KEEP THEM AROUND.

SOMEONE RIGHT NOW WANTS TO STALL THIS OUT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS VERSUS SERVING THE RESIDENTS.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS DON'T LIST STRESS AS A FEATURE ON THEIR HOME LISTINGS, AND THEY DON'T COME AROUND HERE TO BEG YOU TO KEEP THEM AROUND.

PUSHING QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUPPORTING STARS IS INCONGRUENT, AND IT SHOWS DEEP ETHICS ISSUES.

NO ONE CAN COME FORWARD SHOWING THE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY STRS TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

SOMEONE RIGHT NOW IS GIVING AWAY THEIR POWER TO AIRBNB, VRBO, ALLEN MEDIA LOBBYISTS AND ATTORNEYS.

SOMEONE ON THE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW LIKES THE IDEA OF DESTROYING NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME OUT AND JUST SAY IT.

ANYONE VOTING AGAINST KISS IS BASICALLY ASKING FOR MORE GUN VIOLENCE, MORE PROSTITUTION, ENDLESS PARTIES, AND CAN GO HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES TONIGHT AND LET THEM KNOW, HEY, I JUST VOTED TO DESTROY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THANK YOU. MAKE A SALES.

ALL RIGHT. HELLO. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? MY NAME IS JACOB. PAPA.

I'M AN OWNER OPERATOR OF AIRBNB.

YOUR NAME? JACOB.

PAPA. I'M SORRY.

I'LL CALL YOU LATER.

I'M GOING DOWN THE REGISTER JUST TO MAKE THE SALES.

WE SWITCHED POSITIONS.

IS THAT OKAY IF I SPEAK? NO, NOT.

NOT AT THIS TIME. I'M GOING BY REGISTER.

YOU WILL GET CALLED, THOUGH? NOT. NOT AT THIS TIME.

[07:50:01]

YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARISOL.

TIM. I'M AN OWNER OPERATOR OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL IN DISTRICT ONE.

I'M A SUPERHOST ON AIRBNB, AND LIKE MANY RESPONSIBLE HOSTS, I'VE PAID MY HOT TAXES EVERY MONTH.

I PURCHASED A HISTORIC TRIPLEX OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1912 AS A BOARDING HOUSE.

MANY VISITORS HAVE LAID THEIR HEAD IN THIS HOME FOR OVER 111 YEARS.

I PAINSTAKINGLY RENOVATED THIS HISTORIC GEM AND PROUDLY SHARE IT WITH GUESTS WHO ARE BOTH LOCAL AND VISITING FROM FAR AWAY.

WITHOUT RENOVATION, THIS HOME WAS AFFORDABLE, BUT IT WASN'T SAFE FOR THE PREVIOUS RESIDENTS.

THE FOUNDATION WAS CRUMBLING.

THE PLUMBING WAS IN DISREPAIR AND IT HAD NO AIR CONDITIONING.

WITH THE EXPENSE OF REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING A HISTORIC PROPERTY AND THE RISING COST OF PROPERTY TAXES, TRADITIONAL RENTAL IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR MANY OF US.

I'M NOT A TROUBLEMAKER.

I DON'T HAVE A PARTY HOUSE.

I SERVE MY COMMUNITY.

I HIRE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES AND HAVE HOSTED MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, TOO.

I'M A VALUABLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY.

I WELCOME A HIGHER STANDARD FOR ALL DALLAS HOSTS AND URGE YOU TO CONSIDER MEASURES TO REGULATE AND NOT ELIMINATE.

DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND DO WHAT'S FAIR FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOR THE LOUDEST VOICES WHO FALSELY CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION.

THERE WAS DATA PRESENTED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING SHOWING THAT THE CRIME RATE ASSOCIATED WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS NON STRS.

IMAGINE WHAT WE COULD DO WITH SENSIBLE REGULATION.

YO, TAMBIÉN SOY LATINA. NO PUEDO DECIR REPRESENTA POR CIENTO PORQUE NO LA VERDAD, BUT I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS WHICH I MANAGE.

MAKE A SALES.

HOLA. BUENAS NOCHES.

THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY CANNOT BE HERE.

WE ARE NOT MONSTERS AND WE ARE NOT HERE TO DESTROY ANY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THESE ARE FAMILIES, MOTHER, FATHERS, ENTREPRENEURS THAT ONE INCOME FOR THEMSELVES AND THAT THEY HAVE FOUND A WAY TO DO IT AND DO IT RIGHT BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY DO IT.

THEY HAVE HIRED COMPANIES LIKE MYSELF TO DO IT RIGHT.

HOW DO WE DO IT? RIGHT IS WE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORS.

WE MAKE SURE THAT THE WAY WE RUN IT IS IN A WAY THAT IT PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF BY MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY THAT COMES IN IS STAYING IN, OUR PROPERTIES ARE PROPERLY VETTED AND THAT WE RUN BACKGROUNDS ON THEM.

AND WE HAVE ITEMS IN THEIR HOMES THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE BEING TOO LOUD, WHETHER THEY ARE HAVING MORE THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO A PARTY HOME.

NOBODY DOES. BUT SO BUT ZONING AND COMPLETELY ELIMINATING SHORT TERM RENTALS IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

THE SOLUTION SHOULD BE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS HAPPY AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS FOR BOTH FOR BOTH PARTIES.

WHEN WE WHEN WE TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW, WE JUST DON'T SAY SHUT IT DOWN.

NO, WE LEARN. WE GO TO SCHOOL, WE LEARN HOW TO DO IT AND KEEP GOING WITH OUR LIVES.

LATER ON ARE GOING TO BE MORE THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN.

AND WE CAN'T JUST SAY LET'S BAN IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A SOLUTION.

THE SOLUTION SHOULD ALWAYS BE LET'S FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK FOR EVERYBODY.

BRENDA SMITH IS NOT ONLINE.

BRENDA SMITH IN PERSON.

OKAY. BRENDA SMITH IS NOT PRESENT.

ELLEN BEATTY.

ELLEN BEADLING 7538.

MARQUETTE STREET DISTRICT 13.

WHEN A CHILD COMES INTO YOUR LIFE, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING, DOESN'T IT? MY THREE YEAR OLD GREAT NEPHEW HAS CRACKED OPEN MY HEART TO LOVE MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE.

HE LIVES IN MIDWAY HOLLOW, NOT FAR FROM THE LATEST SHOOTING.

I AM BOTH TERRIFIED AND OUTRAGED.

WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE AS YOU LISTEN TO PARENT AFTER PARENT TELL THE COUNCIL ABOUT THEIR FEARS AND HORROR STORIES? SURELY MANY OF THEIR STORIES STRIKE YOU AS CREEPY? AND GUNFIRE, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

STARS DO NOT BELONG IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

KISS IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SOLUTION BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR A VOTE, WHICH MAKES IT AN EASY AND WINNING VOTE FOR YOU.

ONE THAT VOTERS WILL LONG REMEMBER.

PLEASE TAKE THE WIN.

THANK YOU. MICHAEL THOMAS.

MICHAEL THOMAS IS NOT PRESENT.

[07:55:03]

JAYNIE MARY. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JAY NEARY.

I RESIDE AT 4188 WALATA DRIVE IN THE MIDWAY HOLLOW AREA OF THE CITY.

I'M ALSO PRIVILEGED TO CURRENTLY SERVE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

BUT I AM SPEAKING TO YOU TONIGHT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

I THINK MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN WELL ARTICULATED BY SOME OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS, SO I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT.

MY BIG CONCERNS ARE THAT A LOT OF THESE CITIES ARE IN FACT LARGE, LOUD PARTY HOMES.

THERE'S DRUG DEALING GOING ON.

THERE'S HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES GOING ON INSIDE OF THESE STRS.

AND I WOULD POSTULATE TO YOU THAT WE HAVE ZONING IN THIS CITY FOR A REASON.

AS A PROFESSIONAL REALTOR, I HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO MY CLIENTS.

AND IN GOOD FAITH, I CANNOT RECOMMEND SOMEBODY CONSIDER BUYING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THESE STARS ARE PROLIFERATING.

PEOPLE WANT TO BUY INTO IT, ESPECIALLY IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, BECAUSE IT IS AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBORS AND KNOW AND KNOW WHO THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE.

I WAS VERY DISTRAUGHT BY THE RECENT VIOLENCE OCCURRING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD RECENTLY ON VALLEY RIDGE EARLIER THIS MONTH.

I THINK THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

SO PLEASE, LET'S USE ZONING TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOMEOWNERS.

I WOULD URGE ALL OF YOU TO SUPPORT THE PLAN.

JERRY JANIK IS NOT PRESENT.

JERRY JANIK.

LINDA YOUNG.

WE CAN SEE YOU. YOU.

MISS YOUNG. CAN YOU HEAR ME? HELLO? OKAY, YOU MAY.

MY NAME IS LINDA YOUNG, DISTRICT ONE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

BRENDA YOUNG, DISTRICT ONE 1632, RIO VISTA DRIVE.

I'M AGAINST KISS AND FOR REASONABLE REGULATION.

I'M A SUPERHOST.

AN AIRBNB AMBASSADOR.

AND I TRAIN NEW HOSTS TO BE RESPONSIBLE HOSTS BETWEEN TEXAS AND DALLAS I'VE A PERSON IN HOT TEXAS. THE INCOME MY GENERATES IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO AFFORD MY PROPERTY TAXES AS WELL AS FOR PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS, MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND BEAUTIFICATION.

CREATING JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOUSEKEEPERS, GARDENERS, CARPENTERS, ETCETERA, WHO EARN INCOME, WHO THEN SPEND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, SHOPS AND ATTRACTIONS, WHICH ALSO ARE SUPPORTED BY MY GUESTS.

MY HOME IS ALSO USED BY MY NEIGHBORS AND THEIR VISITING FAMILIES AND FRIENDS AND MORE CONVENIENT AND AFFORDABLE SOLUTION THAN STAYING IN A HOTEL WHEN THE NEED ARISES.

DALLAS SPENDS MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO ATTRACT LARGE CORPORATIONS TO MOVE THEIR BUSINESSES HERE, WHILE WE AS SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE ADDING TO THE TAX REVENUES.

PLEASE DON'T BECOME THE ANTI SMALL BUSINESS DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.

LAURA WILSON. 4216 BEAVERBROOK PLACE DISTRICT 13.

LAURA WILSON.

PLEASE ADOPT A KISS.

MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN OF BEAUTIFULLY, SAID SO MANY THINGS.

I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THEM ON THIS LONG, LONG DOWN NIGHT.

BUT THERE'S ONE POINT THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE THAT I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.

AND THAT IS TEN YEARS AGO, WE DID NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

EXPECT STARS IF YOU DON'T PASS KISS TONIGHT TO ESCALATE DRAMATICALLY.

WHY? BECAUSE THE DOLLAR, THE AMERICAN DOLLAR, THE US DOLLAR IS WEAKENING AND WORLDWIDE CAPITAL MARKETS ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING INVESTMENTS IN REAL ESTATE. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE IS NOT AS GOOD AN INVESTMENT AS RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE RIGHT NOW.

AND THE WAY THAT THAT A WORLDWIDE MARKET, A WORLDWIDE INVESTOR IS GOING TO LOOK AT REAL ESTATE IS TO SAY, I NEED TO BE IN RESIDENTIAL, I NEED TO BE IN A HOT, VIBRANT CITY LIKE DALLAS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE INVESTING HERE.

HOW CAN THEY MAKE THE MOST MONEY IF THEY DO AN STR AND NOT A REGULAR LEASING ENVIRONMENT? WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY MAKE A HECK OF A LOT MORE MONEY AND DALLAS LOSES.

[08:00:03]

ALREADY 48% OF STRS ARE ENTITIES WITH FIVE OR MORE PROPERTIES.

EXPECT THIS TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE.

EXPECT TO SEE A LOT MORE POLICE CALLS.

EXPECT TO SEE A LOT MORE PROBLEMS BECAUSE DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF THE ECONOMY TANKS IN GENERAL AND MOM AND POP ISN'T RENTING STRS ANYMORE? HEY, THEY GOT TO MAKE MONEY.

IT'S GOING TO BE PARTY HOUSE TIME, IT'S GOING TO BE DRUG DEALING TIME.

IT'S GOING TO BE HUMAN TRAFFICKING TIME AT THESE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

PLEASE DO NOT PUT US THROUGH THIS.

DO NOT. IT WILL COME YOUR WAY.

IT WILL BE HERE.

PLEASE, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, AVOID THIS.

GREG ISDALE. I AM HERE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

THIS PHILIP TERRY.

PHILIP TERRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME, MR. TERRY? YES, I'M HERE.

OKAY. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

I'M SORRY. YOUR AUDIO IS NOT ON, MR..

MR. TERRY. OKAY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU, MR. TERRY. WE'LL WORK ON THAT.

MARY GILLILAND.

IT'S NOT PRESENT.

I'M SORRY. GREG. ESTELLE.

AND CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

OKAY. MY NAME IS GREG ESTELL.

411 BARNSTONE DRIVE IN DISTRICT NINE.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT TEXAS CITIES LIKE AUSTIN AND WACO AND FREDERICKSBURG ENACTED STR REGULATIONS WITHOUT ZONING AND FOUND THAT REGULATIONS ALONE WERE NOT ENOUGH.

AND IF YOU ALLOW STRS BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

ONLY TO QUICKLY DISCOVER, LIKE THESE OTHER CITIES, THAT IT'S UNWORKABLE.

THE OPTION OF ZONING THEM OUT AT THAT POINT WILL BE LEGALLY FORECLOSED TO YOU.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE LED INTO THAT TRAP.

IF YOU DON'T USE YOUR ZONING POWERS, YOU WILL LOSE THEM.

IT'S BEEN ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE DALLAS ENTER INTO A VOLUNTARY TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENT WITH THE STR PLATFORMS. A VCA WOULD BE A BAD AGREEMENT FOR DALLAS.

THEY ARE RIFE WITH LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES REGARDING OPEN GOVERNMENT AND DALLAS ABILITY TO AUDIT AND VERIFY DATA.

STR PLATFORMS THAT ONLY PROVIDE DALLAS WITH ANONYMIZED AGGREGATE DATA WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AUDIT AND WORTHLESS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

VCAS ARE PUSHED BY THE STR OPERATORS OUT OF SELF-INTEREST.

ONE VCAS GET HOSTS OFF THE HOOK FOR ANY BACK TAXES THEY MAY OWE TO VCAS RELIEVE HOSTS OF THE NEED TO TRACK AND REMIT HOT TAX AS WELL AS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS BY THE PLATFORM.

PLEASE FIND AN ALTERNATIVE.

THEY DO EXIST.

LASTLY FROM THE CHIEF DATA OFFICER SIX JUNE 5TH, 2023 REPORT.

DALLAS STR.

ON AVERAGE, USING HER DATA RECEIVED THREE AND A HALF TIMES MORE 311 AND 911 CALLS PER ADDRESS THAN AN AVERAGE DALLAS NON STR RESIDENTS.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

I'LL GO BACK TO PHILIP TERRY.

I'LL BE WITH YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. AND SEE YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. YES, THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS LAST MINUTE ATTEMPT TO AVOID A SIMPLE YES OR NO ON THE CPC ZONING RECOMMENDATION.

BY IS BASICALLY DISAPPOINTING AND APPALLING.

ATTEMPTS TO ATTACH DIVERSIONARY UNVETTED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CPC ITEM WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PUBLIC INPUT IS A TRAVESTY OF PROCESS AND AN INSULT TO THE CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS OF DALLAS WHO DESERVE AN END TO THEIR YEARS LONG UNADDRESSED PROBLEMS. THREE YEARS PLUS A THREE DIFFERENT TASK FORCE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE'S INCOMPLETE AND PLATFORM FRIENDLY REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALL FAILED.

[08:05:01]

WE HEAR FROM PLATFORMS AND WHINING OWNERS AND HOSTS SUPERHOSTS, WHICH MEANS NOTHING THAT THE PROBLEMS ARE JUST A FEW BAD APPLES.

THEY NEED TO WEED THEM OUT.

I ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

AIRBNB DECLARED AN END TO THE PARTY HOUSES SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SO WHY DO THEY PERSIST HERE AND IN NATIONWIDE? IT'S SIMPLE.

THE PLATFORMS CAN'T ENFORCE OR CONTROL THEIR OWN OPERATORS, NOR DO THEY EVEN TRY TO DO SO.

IT'S EMBARRASSING, BUT STILL, HIGHLY PROFITABLE PLATFORMS WANT THE CITY TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS AND ENFORCE CONTROL.

THEIR OPERATORS, WHICH ARE PROFIT CENTERS AND WHAT THE CITY OF DALLAS AND ITS CITIZENS TO FOOT THE BILL.

WHAT A DEAL.

SO STR PLATFORMS CONTINUE TO HIDE THEIR HOST ADDRESSES FROM CITIES WHILE AMASSING MASSIVE PROFITS NOT ONLY FROM THE 1750 STARS THAT ARE KNOWN AND ARE POSSIBLY REGISTERED WITH HOT UNKNOWN, BUT THE UNREGISTERED ONES TOO.

PLATFORMS HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO HELP.

THEY GET THEIR CUT OUT OF EVERY RENTAL.

REGARDLESS, THE OTHER ESTIMATED 4250 UNREGISTERED SCOFFLAW STARS IN DALLAS ARE NON-HOT PAYING AND OPERATE WITH IMPUNITY. THEY DAMAGE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND DRIVE NEIGHBORHOODS CRAZY.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF STARS IN DALLAS ARE NOT REGISTERED AND GET BY WITHOUT PAYING.

THEY HAVE NO. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. AND WHY WOULD THEY REGISTER? THANK YOU. THE LATEST. THAT'S YOUR TIME, MR..

OKAY. IS THIS ON? OKAY. I'M KAREN ROBERTS, 502 CAMERON AVENUE.

KAREN ROBERTS.

DALLAS 75223.

PILLAR TWO OF THE NEW DALLAS HOUSING POLICY OF 2033 STATES INCREASE PRODUCTION TO IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY FOR A BROAD MIX OF INCOMES IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.

PILLAR THREE STATES INCREASE PRESERVATION TO IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY FOR A BROAD MIX OF INCOMES IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.

AXIOS DALLAS REPORTED YESTERDAY.

DALLAS LACKS SUFFICIENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HAS MORE OVERCROWDED APARTMENTS AND A HIGHER POVERTY RATE THAN THE REST OF NORTH TEXAS. TURNING HOMES INTO MOTELS DOES REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR HOMES.

WHY WOULD WE CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWS INVESTORS TO TAKE OUR HOMES OUT OF THE MARKET? I LIVE IN A WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN 1980, WE WORKED VERY HARD WITH OUR CITY COUNCILMAN AND ONE OF THEM IS HERE NOW TO BACK ZONE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PROTECT IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO WHAT THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE IF THIS IF WE DO NOT STOP THESE STARS, THE INVESTORS ARE GOING TO INVADE MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S THE LEAST EXPENSIVE AVAILABLE HOUSING AND PROPERTY AND WE WILL LOSE ALL OUR HOUSING.

ARE ALREADY REBUILDING IN THERE.

RENTERS ARE AT YOUR MERCY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOMEOWNERS, BUT RENTERS ARE AT YOUR MERCY.

PLEASE HONOR THE DALLAS COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING POLICY OF 2033 AND VOTE FOR THE KISS OPTION.

HI THERE. CAN YOU SEE ME AND HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

ASHLEY MARTSON.

GREAT. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ASHLEY MARTIN.

I LIVE AT 5111 MILAM STREET.

I'M IN DISTRICT 14.

I'M A RESIDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I HOST IN.

I LIVED NEXT TO AN FOR A WHILE.

I'M TAXPAYING SUPERHOST, WHICH DOES MEAN SOMETHING.

AND I'M A REAL ESTATE LAWYER.

I BELIEVE THIS IS MY SEVENTH HEARING TO BE AT AND I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE SO THAT HOPEFULLY AGAIN.

I CAN BE A VOICE OF BALANCED REASON.

THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE BEEN SHARED TODAY ARE ABSOLUTELY VALID.

THEY CAN ALSO ABSOLUTELY BE ADDRESSED BY AN EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT REGIME.

DENSITY LIMITATIONS ARE THE KEY TO PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY FABRIC OF THE PLACES THAT WE LIVE.

I'VE HEARD THE CITY MANAGER THROW OUT RADIUS LIMITATIONS.

THOUSAND FEET, 2000FT.

I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO GO THE DIRECTION OF SAN ANTONIO, WHICH IS 12.5% PER BLOCK.

IT'S EASILY PREDICTED.

IT'S EASILY ENFORCED.

IT ALSO DOESN'T WIPE OUT ALL BUT ONE OF MY CITIES BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE THREE ON THREE DIFFERENT BLOCKS, THEY'RE ALL WITHIN 1000FT OF EACH OTHER.

SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

UM, YOU KNOW, HAD A NICE SPEECH PLANNED.

[08:10:01]

IT WAS ALL WRITTEN OUT IN FRONT OF MY COMPUTER, BUT I'M NOT IN FRONT OF MY COMPUTER BECAUSE I'M AT ONE OF MY RENTALS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S A FAMILY OF FIVE WITH THREE CHILDREN UNDER SIX IN THAT HOUSE WITH TWO DOGS.

THEY SOLD THEIR HOUSE AND THEIR NEW ONE IS NOT READY AND THEY HAVE TWO WEEKS TO LIVE IN CHAOS.

YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT A HOTEL IS A SOLUTION FOR THAT.

IT'S JUST NOT. TAKE THE 15% THAT WE'RE PAYING IN HOTEL TAXES THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE PAYING.

PUT THAT TOWARDS THE ENFORCEMENT REGIME.

LET EVERYBODY LONG TERM RENTERS, OWNERS, SHORT TERM RENTERS, LET EVERYBODY BENEFIT FROM A 24 OVER SEVEN ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE THAT WILL ACTUALLY RESPOND IN REAL TIME.

OUR POLICE ARE TOO BUSY TO DO THAT.

I TRUST YOU GUYS TO DO AMAZING WORK AND ADDRESS ALL OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE HEARING TODAY WITH A SMART REGULATION REGIME.

MELANIE VAN LANDINGHAM 60 311 LAKESHORE DALLAS VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION.

MELANIE VANLANDINGHAM.

YOU CAN ENFORCE IT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE.

MAKE IT CLEAR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, BUSINESSES LIKE STRS AND MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL AREAS AS STRAIGHTFORWARD ZONING.

THE PROPOSAL IS BALANCED, DEFENDABLE AND EASILY APPLIED FOR STAFF CODE AND POLICE, AND IT IS NOT A BAN ON STRS.

KISS PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS AND 500,000 HOMEOWNERS.

YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO LIVE WHO LIVE HERE AND SUPPORT OUR DALLAS ECONOMY YEAR ROUND KISS EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSES RISING STR CRIMES AND VIOLENCE AND MAKES THOUSANDS OF HOMES IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR LONG TERM RESIDENTS, FAMILIES, TEACHERS, NURSES, WORKERS, RENTERS AND FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS.

STRS CAN THRIVE IN NEW AND EXISTING MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL AREAS NEAR VIBRANT ENTERTAINMENT UNIVERSITY, DOWNTOWN AND HOSPITAL DISTRICTS THAT STR OWNERS SAY THEIR CUSTOMERS WANT A BLANKET APPROACH.

PUTTING STRS EVERYWHERE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE, APPROPRIATE OR FORWARD LOOKING REGULATIONS WILL BE UNMANAGEABLE, IGNORED AND NEIGHBORHOODS THREATENED.

THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL LOSE ITS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AS A VITAL AND VALUABLE ZONING TOOL.

AMENDMENTS LIKE THE SUGGESTED 2 OR 3 STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT APPROACH ARE UNACCEPTABLE AS THESE ESSENTIALLY ALLOW LAWS TO BE BROKEN REPEATEDLY BEFORE THE CITY TAKES ACTION.

WILL WAVERING ON ZONING LAWS BE ALLOWED ON EVERY ORDINANCE? WILL THE CITY WAIT UNTIL SEVERAL CRIMES AND VIOLENT ACTS OCCUR AT STRS? THIS ISN'T ABOUT BANNING STRS FROM NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING ILLEGALLY ALL THIS TIME IN OUR CODE ALREADY DOES NOT PERMIT LODGING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

IT'S TIME TO ENFORCE OUR CURRENT ZONING VOTE FOR THE KISS SOLUTION.

TIME CLARITY IS STRENGTHENED AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE PROTECTED.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. COMMERCIAL USES LIKE STRS.

THIS IS YOUR FINAL GROUP OF REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, IF YOU'RE IN PERSON, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS IN THE CENTER SECTION.

EMILE. EMIL LIPPI.

CAROL CONSIDINE.

ROB STOKES LANDI.

BORN. LEILANI THOMAS.

HITCHCOCK. SHELBY FLETCHER.

EMIL LIPPI. IF YOU'RE YOU MAY COME FORWARD ABLE ABEL BE LIVED AT 60 828 GASTON AVENUE FOR NEARLY 40 YEARS. LET'S FACE THE KEY ISSUE.

THIS IS A ZONING ISSUE.

IT HAS TO DO WITH LAND USE.

DALLAS HAS HAD A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING PLAN SINCE 1929.

IF YOU LOOK AT BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USES OF LAND, IT CLEARLY PROVIDES NONE.

PERMITTED NO SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF STRS HAS TRIED TO AVOID THE THE FACT THAT THIS IS A BUSINESS

[08:15:10]

USE. YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THAT.

WELL, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WROTE THAT A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE IS A LAW THAT BINDS THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE BODY ITSELF. THE LAW DEMANDS NOT MY WORDS.

THE LAW DEMANDS THAT THE APPROVED ZONING PLAN SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USES ARE BANNED.

THE MAJORITY OF STRS ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

THEY'RE NOT PAYING THEIR TAX.

THEY'RE OPERATING IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES.

I WAS OFFENDED AT THE STATEMENT BY AN EARLIER SPEAKER THAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SAID THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL USE THAT HAD TO DO WITH A CASE INTERPRETING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON WHICH THERE IS A PRESUMPTION AGAINST VALIDITY.

THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY FOR ZONING ORDINANCES.

THE COUNCIL HAS TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE ZONING CODE.

AND YOU'VE DONE THAT.

YOU'VE YOU'VE SUBMITTED THE KISS PROPOSAL TO TO THE CPC AND TO ZODIAC.

IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THOSE BODIES.

THE LAST MINUTE PROPOSAL BY THE STAFF IS AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATORY PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE DALLAS ZONING CODE.

PLEASE SUPPORT THE KISS PROPOSAL.

THAT'S YOUR TIME BECAUSE THIS IS VALID ZONING.

THANK YOU. CAROL CONSIDINE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CAROL CONSIDINE.

I LIVE AT 7230 WEST LAKE AVENUE IN DISTRICT NINE.

THE OPERATORS AND OWNERS THAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM TODAY ARE UNDERSTANDABLY ADAMANT ABOUT NOT LOSING THE INCOME THAT THEY'VE BECOME DEPENDENT UPON.

HOWEVER, THEY STILL WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INCOME.

KISS ALLOWS 30 DAYS OR MORE FOR RENTALS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY'VE NAMED OF PEOPLE NEEDING A PLACE TO STAY WHILE RENOVATING THEIR HOMES OR HAVING MAJOR REPAIRS AFTER A TORNADO OR STORM, OR COMING TO INVESTIGATE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO LIVE HERE WILL STILL BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RENTALS.

LONG TERM RENTAL OF 30 DAYS OR MORE IS ENCOURAGED BY KISS.

WHAT'S BEING ELIMINATED IS THE SHORT TERM REVOLVING DOOR THAT RUINS COMMUNITY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOO OFTEN INTRODUCES FAR WORSE.

A REGULATIONS ONLY APPROACH SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR A VOTE TODAY, BECAUSE IT HASN'T GONE THROUGH ANY OF THE NORMAL PROCESSES FOR VETTING OR PUBLIC INPUT.

IN 2021, NEARLY HALF OF ALL HOMES PURCHASED IN DALLAS COUNTY WENT TO INVESTORS.

IN 2022, NEARLY A THIRD OF ALL HOMES SOLD IN DFW WERE SOLD TO INVESTORS.

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES DO NOT BELONG IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

PLEASE PASS KISS TODAY.

THANK YOU. AND WE NEED REGULATIONS AS WELL AS ZONING.

ONE, TWO, THREE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. AND SEE YOU.

ROB STOKES.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS ROB STOKES AND I LIVE AT FOUR STONEBRIAR COURT IN DISTRICT 14.

THIS PAST WEEKEND, THERE WAS A LOUD EXPLOSION IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I RAN OUTSIDE TO SEE A BLACK PUFF OF SMOKE RISE FROM THE STREET NEXT DOOR.

OVER NEXT DOOR.

I DIALED 911 BUT STOPPED SHORT OF HITTING THE CONNECT BUTTON.

WHY? BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW.

IF BY REPORTING THE EXPLOSION, IT WOULD COUNT AGAINST ME AS AN ON-SITE HOMEOWNER HOST.

I DO HOPE THAT NO ONE WAS HURT IN THE BLAST, BUT NOW I LIVE IN FEAR OF DIALING 911 IN MY OWN CITY, TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

NBC5 IDENTIFIED THAT THE VIDEO SHOWN LAST WEEK RESULTED FROM A TR, NOT AN STR.

HOWEVER, STRS GET THE BLAME IF THE SOLUTION PASSES IN THIS BATTLE, THEY WON'T WIN THE WAR AND THE HOUSE PARTIES WILL CONTINUE.

HOWEVER, IF FAIR AND BALANCED REGULATION WERE TO PASS, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT KISS WOULD HAVE A SWAT TEAM LIKE RESPONSE FOR IMMEDIATE LATE NIGHT CALLS. PAID FOR BY A SUBSIDY OF TAXES, NOT FROM THE POCKETS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASE GIVE FAIR AND FAIR AND BALANCED REGULATION A TRY.

HOPEFULLY KISS WILL SEE THAT THE SERVICES PAID BY OUR TAX DOLLARS GIVES THEM SOMEONE TO CALL IN ON TIME AND DANGER OR IN NEED.

AS I COULD HAVE USED WHEN I HEARD THE EXPLOSION.

MELANIE VAUGHN IS NOT ONLINE.

YVONNE IN THE AUDIENCE.

OKAY. LANAE VAUGHN IS NOT PRESENT.

SHAHNAZ LALANI IS NOT ONLINE.

LET'S GO SOMEWHERE. I'M SORRY.

[08:20:03]

SHE'S OKAY.

LET'S GO SOMEWHERE. I'M SORRY.

WE'RE WORKING. INTERPRETER GOTCHA.

SHAHINA LALANI IS NOT ONLINE.

SHAHNAZ LALANI IN PERSON.

NOT PRESENT.

THOMAS HITCHCOCK.

YES. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. AND SEE YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR.

APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE THERE IN PERSON.

WAS CALLED AWAY FOR WORK, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THOSE WHO DID SACRIFICE THEIR TIME AND WERE ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON.

I'M NOT SURE IF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS CONTRIBUTING BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE AND HEARING EVERYBODY ELSE'S ARGUMENTS.

BUT HERE IT GOES.

JUST TO CORRECT THE THE GENTLEMAN WHO JUST SPOKE, I LIVED NEXT DOOR TO THAT LETTER THAT WAS ACTUALLY ACTING AS AN STR. THEY HAD MULTIPLE PEOPLE COMING AND GOING OVER MANY, MANY MONTHS.

THERE WAS NO CONSISTENT RENTER THERE.

BUT TO THOSE WHO WERE PROPOSING AND CONSIDERING REGULATIONS IN LIEU OF BANNING STRS, YOU ARE PROPOSING REGULATIONS, BUT WHO WILL DO THE REGULATING? THE POLICE WILL NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.

THEY'RE UNDERSTAFFED AND CAN'T ADDRESS ALL THESE CALLS.

911 DID NOT WORK WHEN THERE WAS A SHOOTING NEXT DOOR TO ME LAST WEEK, WE WERE TOLD THAT THERE WERE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT CHARGES MADE.

HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 30 MINUTES AFTER TWO SHOOTINGS THAT THE POLICE ARRIVED.

THEY DID NOT COME WHEN THE STR WAS DISTURBING THIS PEACE.

IT DID NOT COME WHEN THEY WERE TRESPASSING.

THEY DID NOT COME WHEN THE REPORTED UNDERAGE DRINKING AND DRUG USE.

THEY DID NOT COME WHEN I TOLD THEM THAT DOZENS OF INTOXICATED PEOPLE WERE ON MY PROPERTY WITH FIREARMS AND I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY SAFETY.

ALL THOSE THINGS ARE AGAINST CURRENT REGULATIONS AND LAWS.

BUT WHO ENFORCE THIS? NOBODY DID.

I WAS LEFT TO FEND FOR MYSELF, TRYING TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT I WAS OVERREACTING.

THAT IS, UNTIL I HAD TO DUCK FOR COVER AS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WERE FIRED IN FRONT OF MY HOME.

I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE ASKING THAT STR BE ALLOWED, IS YOUR MONEY MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SAFETY AND SANITY? IF YOU NEED MONEY, NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM RENTING LONG TERM AND FINDING RESPONSIBLE TENANTS.

THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR THOSE WHO NEED SHORT TERM HOUSING.

I'M AN ENTREPRENEUR.

I'VE MOVED FOR WORK AND I STAYED IN CORPORATE HOUSING.

I GET IT. BUT REGULATIONS ARE NOT GOING TO WORK.

WE SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE THESE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING ESSER.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THESE ARE NOT VACATION DESTINATIONS.

THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. SHELBY FLETCHER.

SHELBY FLETCHER.

I'LL COME BACK. PALAK BHAKTA.

PALAK BHOKTA.

HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN SEE YOU.

AND HEAR YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

ALL RIGHT. I'M AT 76 BRIARMEADOW IN DISTRICT 11.

I'M THE ZONED DUPLEX DISTRICT AND FIVE STAR SUPERHOST AS WELL.

AGAIN, MOST OF, IF NOT ALL OF MY GUESTS ARE FOR WEDDINGS, HOSPITAL RECOVERY, BIRTHDAYS AND SEVERAL LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED TEMPORARILY. NOW THERE'S A LOT OF RESPONSIBLE STR OWNERS OUT THERE AND WE DO CARE ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS.

I ACTUALLY WAS TALKING TO MY NEIGHBOR TODAY ABOUT THOSE THAT DO COME AND OUR GUESTS AT MY HOUSE.

BUT ALL THE RESPONSIBLE OWNERS THERE ARE WE ALL PAY HOT TAXES AND WE FINALLY, AFTER ALL THESE MEETINGS, STARTED TO GET SOME TYPE OF FRAMEWORK OR REGULATION FROM THE CITY STAFF WHICH HAS BEEN MISSING, ALL THESE PRIOR MEETINGS HAVE ALL BEEN, DO WE BAN IT OR DO WE NOT ZONE IT OUT OR DO WE NOT? FINALLY, THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT HAS GIVEN US AT LEAST A FRAMEWORK TO WORK WITH WHICH HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN THE PAST.

AND RIGHT NOW, THE LOUDEST VOICES IN THE ROOM ARE THE ONES THAT ARE A MINORITY, YET THEY HAVE ADEQUATE AND LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

BUT AGAIN, THE RESPONSIBLE OWNERS HAVE TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF A FULL ON BAND.

THREE ZONING. NOW, THESE NOT TO DIMINISH THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE THERE FOR THESE PEOPLE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF IF A BAD OWNER IS THERE AND THEY'RE TAKEN AND BECAUSE THE BAD OWNERS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE DAMAGED, THEN WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WITH ANY OTHER ANY OTHER PARTY? IT'S ALMOST AS THOUGH VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE.

THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND WE'RE NOT TAKING EVERYBODY'S GUNS AWAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ANY DIFFERENT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I'LL GO BACK TO SHELBY FLETCHER.

[08:25:03]

OKAY. WE CAN SEE YOU, ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

WILL YOU PLEASE UNMUTE YOUR AUDIO? THANK YOU. WE STILL CANNOT HEAR YOU, MISS FLETCHER.

OKAY. WE'LL TRY.

TRY AGAIN. LET ME MOVE ON.

JOHNNY DIXON IS NOT PRESENT.

WELL, IT'S NOT ONLINE.

IS SHE IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. JOHNNY DIXON IS NOT PRESENT.

PATRICK BLOCK.

ALL RIGHT. STARTING MY VIDEO.

OKAY. WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. YES.

HI, MY NAME IS PATRICK BLOCK.

I LIVE AT 506 VICTOR STREET IN DISTRICT 14.

MY MOTHER BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN EAST DALLAS IN 1976.

IT WAS A TIME WHEN MOST PEOPLE WITH MONEY WERE MOVING OUT TO THE SUBURBS.

MY MOM IS NOW IN POOR HEALTH AND IS STAYING AT JULIETTE FOWLER ASSISTED LIVING DOWN THE STREET.

I'VE MOVED INTO MY CHILDHOOD HOME SO I CAN BE CLOSE TO MY MOTHER.

I AIRBNB THE GUEST ROOM SO I CAN AFFORD MY MOTHER'S VERY EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE AND INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES.

AIRBNB MEANS I HAVE A SPARE ROOM AVAILABLE WHEN OUT OF TOWN.

FRIENDS OR FAMILY COME TO VISIT MY MOTHER.

BUT MY MOTHER'S CONDITION MIRACULOUSLY, MIRACULOUSLY IMPROVES.

I CAN MOVE HER BACK INTO HER HOME AND TAKE CARE OF HER MYSELF.

GETTING A LONG TERM ROOMMATE IS NOT AN OPTION.

IF I CAN'T RENT THE ROOM, I CAN'T AFFORD MY MOTHER'S CARE AND I MAY HAVE TO SELL THE HOUSE.

I'M NOT AN INVESTOR.

I'M A HOMEOWNER.

I AM FRIENDS WITH MY NEIGHBORS.

I GREET AND MONITOR ALL VISITORS AND A AND I CAN ACCOMMODATE AT MOST TWO PEOPLE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY RENTING OUT MY GUEST ROOM IS SUCH A THREAT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I GREW UP IN AND LIVE IN.

I'M NO FAN OF PARTY HOUSES OR PROPERTIES OPERATED BY OUT-OF-STATE INVESTORS, BUT I DO SUPPORT FAIR AND REASONABLE REGULATION AND OPPOSE ZONING CHANGES THAT REMOVE MY ABILITY TO PROVIDE CARE FOR MY MOTHER.

ONE THING I'VE NOT HEARD DISCUSSED IS HOW TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL COST OF DALLAS FOR REGULATORY TAKING OF PROPERTY.

THE ADOPTION OF ZONING RESULTS IN REGULATORY TAKING AS IT DISALLOWS A PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED USE PER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.

THIS IS AN ALLOWED USE OF MY HOME.

PEOPLE HOSTING THEIR HOMES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LOSS OF THE INCOME.

PER THE WEBSITE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT 14 REFERENCES TO GET THAT THERE ARE 5000 AIRBNBS IN DALLAS.

AVERAGE INCOME PER LISTING IS ABOUT $2,100 A MONTH.

2100 TIMES 5000 LISTINGS IS 10,000 AND A HALF IS $10.5 MILLION PER MONTH.

REIMBURSING A SINGLE YEAR'S WORTH OF INCOME WILL COST DALLAS $126 MILLION.

I OPPOSE REGULATORY TAKING THAT MAY COST THE CITY MILLIONS.

OH, YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. AND WE CAN SEE YOU.

TOM FORSYTH.

TOM FORSYTH IS NOT.

IT'S NOT PRESENT.

THANK YOU. VERA ELKINS.

YOU CAN STILL SEE ME BECAUSE LAST TIME WE HAD PROBLEMS. YES, WE CAN SEE YOU.

ALL RIGHT, CITY COUNCIL, HERE WE ARE AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MOST OF YOU KNOW ME. DID YOU EAT TODAY? I HOPE YOU DID, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR INPUT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I'M A SHORT TERM RENTAL HOST AND A DALLAS RESIDENT, AS YOU KNOW.

AND LOOK, THERE'S NOT ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS A PARTY HOUSE OR GUNFIRE.

BUT AS MY GRANDMOTHER SAID AND SOME OF YOU KNOW HER AND KNOW HER STORY, STOP THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD THAT'S VERY GOOD ADVICE FOR ALL OF US HERE AND FOR EVERYONE ON CITY COUNCIL.

THIS WEEKEND, THOUGH, I JUST WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE STORY WITH YOU THIS WEEKEND.

I FOUND THIS ON MY BACK PORCH.

IF YOU LOOK UP AT THE SCREEN, THE BIG SCREEN AND WHITE SHIRT FOLKS, IF YOU LOOK UP AT THIS, TOO, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS A BULLET.

I FOUND THIS ON MY BACK PORCH THAT WENT THROUGH MY PRIVACY FENCE.

IT CAME FROM A DRIVE BY SHOOTING, NOT AN STR.

I WILL REPEAT THAT FROM A DRIVE BY SHOOTING, NOT AN STR.

A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, JUST RECENTLY, A TEENAGE BOY WAS SHOT ON A CORNER A BLOCK DOWN FROM MY HOUSE.

HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STR.

CRIME IS A DALLAS ISSUE, NOT AN ISSUE AND IT'S A SHAME.

TO THE OTHER SIDE IS BLAMING STR FOR A CRIME ISSUE.

THAT DOESN'T SOLVE OUR PROBLEM, GUYS.

SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE? THE ISSUE I BELIEVE, IS THAT THE OTHER SIDE PREFERS MY FOUR AND NO MORE MY COLOR, NOT ANOTHER, MY WAY OR NO WAY.

AND I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ALL OF RESPONSIBLE HOSTS.

PLEASE DON'T BAN CARS.

LOOK, DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR OWN CITY? AND STAFF REPORTS THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF STRESS.

THE CITY PUBLICLY MANDATED FOR HOST TO REGISTER.

AND WE DID. YOU ASKED US TO PAY TAX THAT YOU SPEND AND SPENT.

AND WE DID.

AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I FEEL USED, ABUSED AND CONFUSED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.

[08:30:01]

AND I BELIEVE THE STATE OF TEXAS WOULD SEE IT THE SAME WAY.

A BAN IS NOT THE WAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, GUYS.

THANK YOU. CURTIS SMITH.

CURTIS SMITH.

IT'S NOT PRESENT.

TIMOTHY KIRBY.

TIMOTHY KIRBY? YES? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. AND WE CAN SEE YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS IS TIM KIRBY, 3008 RENAISSANCE DRIVE FROM DISTRICT 12.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET ME SPEAK.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I DO SUPPORT SENSIBLE REGULATORY ORDINANCES FOR STRS.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH OR THIS SOLUTION.

A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON ME.

I'M AN EIGHT YEAR SHORT TERM RENTAL HOST.

I HAVE ROUGHLY 4400 RESERVATIONS RATHER IN THE MANY DIFFERENT CITIES I'VE LIVED IN ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

MY RATING IS EXACTLY 4.98 OUT OF FIVE STARS OVER THOSE EIGHT YEARS.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT METRIC I WANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE TODAY IS THE NUMBER OF POLICE CALLS, 911 CALLS AND EVEN NEIGHBOR COMPLAINTS I'VE HAD IN THOSE EIGHT YEARS.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY ZERO.

I DO THIS RIGHT. I CARE ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS.

I CARE ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS SO MUCH.

IN FACT, MY NEIGHBORS IN DALLAS NOW GIVE ME A LOT OF COMPLIMENTS BECAUSE I'VE INVESTED ROUGHLY $100,000 IN MY DALLAS PROPERTY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, DOING A LOT OF UPDATES, UPGRADES, CREATING BUSINESS AND JOBS FOR LOCAL LABORERS AND CONTRACTORS IN THAT REGARD.

SO I LIVE UPSTAIRS AS A LAW ABIDING, TAXPAYING DALLAS CITIZEN.

THE DOWNSTAIRS I RENT BRINGS IN TOURISM DOLLARS REVENUE AND OF COURSE I MAKE SURE MY GUESTS ARE WELL BEHAVED.

UNLIKE SOME OF THESE CRAZY STORIES I'M HEARING FROM SOME OF THESE HOMEOWNERS.

AND MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU.

I LOVE ALL MY DALLAS NEIGHBORS, BUT THIS CAN BE DONE RIGHT.

I DID HEAR A COMMENT EARLIER ON ABOUT USE YOUR POWER, ZONING POWER OR ZONING POWER.

THE REASON I MOVED TO DALLAS WAS TO GET AWAY FROM SOME OF THIS GOVERNMENT OVERREACH WE'VE SEEN THE PAST FEW YEARS.

SO I ENCOURAGE US TO CONSIDER HOMEOWNER RIGHTS, AS SOME OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED AS WELL.

SO IN CONCLUSION, I DO SUPPORT A WIN WIN SOLUTION.

THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN PROTECT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THESE GREAT HOMEOWNERS WHILE STILL FINDING A WAY TO KEEP THE TAX REVENUE, THE TOURISM REVENUE AND THE JOB CREATION THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS CAN BRING TO THE CITY.

JESSICA GONZALEZ ALREADY ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL, RYAN BANERJEE.

HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOUR VIDEO IS ON? YES. HANG ON A SECOND HERE.

HELLO. OKAY, CONTINUE SPEAKING.

HEY, HOW ABOUT NOW? YES, WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.

AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL AND MAYOR JOHNSON FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

I'M RYAN BANERJEE, LIVING AT 6630 WALNUT HILL LANE IN DALLAS.

I'M A LANDLORD WHO OPERATES AIRBNB RENTALS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AN EXCELLENT AND HIGHLY CAPABLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

WE SCREEN OUR GUESTS CAREFULLY AND WE HAVE TURNED AWAY SUSPECTED PROSTITUTES AND PARTIES.

WE ARE RESPECTFUL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

I AM HORRIFIED TO LEARN ABOUT THE GUNSHOTS AFTER AN OUT-OF-CONTROL PARTY IN MIDWAY HOLLOW.

I'VE LOOKED CAREFULLY AT THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED IN MIDWAY HOLLOW.

THIS IS NOT A SHORT TERM RENTAL PROBLEM.

THIS NEEDS TO BE FRAMED AS A GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

AND IT'S WORTH ASKING IF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF THE POLICE HAD RESPONDED WHEN THEY HAD BEEN CALLED HOURS BEFORE SHOTS WERE FIRED.

MAYOR JOHNSON, WHERE WERE THE POLICE WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEEPING MIDWAY HOLLOW SAFE? COUNCIL MEMBER WEST STATED EARLIER TODAY THAT WE ARE A BUSINESS FRIENDLY CITY.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

SHORT TERM RENTALS HAVE BROUGHT UNTOLD PROSPERITY TO DALLAS AND CONTRIBUTED ADDITIONAL BILLIONS TO OUR TOURISM ECONOMY.

WE NEED TO PROTECT THOSE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES WITH APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS, NOT LOOK INTO BANNING SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THERE ARE LANDLORDS AND THERE ARE SLUMLORDS.

THIS ISSUE IS ABOUT A BAD ACTOR WHO LIED TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT ABOUT WHERE THEY LIVE.

THEY'VE LIKELY UNDERPAID THEIR TAXES WHILE TAKING HUGE PROFITS.

THIS ISSUE IS ABOUT WHY THE POLICE DID NOT RESPOND TO CALLS ON DISTURBANCES HOURS BEFORE SHOTS WERE FIRED.

THE OPERATOR OF THAT AIRBNB NEEDS TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

BUT PLEASE DO NOT COLLECTIVELY PUNISH THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND INVESTORS LIKE MYSELF WHO MANAGE OUR PROPERTIES PROPERLY, CREATE JOBS, PAY OUR TAXES FAITHFULLY, AND RELY ON THIS INCOME TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES.

THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PROGRESS THIS CITY HAS MADE BY CREATING AND SUPPORTING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITIES AND WOMEN.

PROHIBITING THE ABILITY TO RENT SHORT TERM PROPERTIES IS NOT A SOLUTION.

[08:35:02]

VOTING FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS YOUR TIME.

OPENING THE DOOR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. HOLLY COOPER IS NOT ONLINE.

ARE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. HOLLY COOPER IS NOT PRESENT.

FREDERICO ZIMMERMANN.

YES? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

IT'S WORKING NOW. OKAY.

YES, WE CAN SEE YOU NOW.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SPEAKER, MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR THE TIME.

MY NAME IS FEDERICO ZIMMERMAN AND I'M AN OPERATOR, PROFESSIONAL, SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATOR.

AND I'M SURE WE ALL AGREE THAT WE LOVE THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND AS AN IMMIGRANT, THIS IS THE PLACE THAT I CHOSE TO LIVE WHEN FIRST MOVING TO THIS AMAZING FREE COUNTRY.

AND WE WANT OTHERS TO COME AND EXPERIENCE IT.

SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND LIVE AND EXPERIENCE THE CITY AS LOCALS.

I'M HONESTLY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES THAT SUMMIT NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPERIENCED, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.

IF YOU SET UP LOGICAL REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW PROFESSIONAL OPERATORS TO THRIVE AND COLLABORATE AND GET RID OF THE UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNEDUCATED OPERATORS.

I'M SURE BOTH THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORS WILL BENEFIT.

SO I ASK YOU, GIVE US A CLEAR FRAME TO OPERATE AND WE PROFESSIONAL OPERATORS WILL COMPLY AND MAKE ALL NEIGHBORHOODS BETTER.

SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR DRUG USE.

AS OPERATORS, OUR BIGGEST FEAR IS TO HAVE PROPERTY OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AT OUR PROPERTIES.

IT'S DAMAGES. IT'S A LIABILITY.

AND THOSE WHO OPERATE PROFESSIONALLY, WE HAVE THE TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO MITIGATE THESE ISSUES.

THANK YOU. SHIRLEY HUGHES IS NOT ONLINE.

SHIRLEY HUGHES, ARE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE? SHIRLEY HUGHES IS NOT PRESENT.

JESSICA BLACK IS NOT ONLINE.

ARE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE? JESSICA BLACK IS NOT PRESENT.

AND STAN EATON IS NOT ONLINE.

ARE YOU IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. STAN EATON IS NOT PRESENT.

THIS CONCLUDES YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT HAVE NOT SPOKEN THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS AND THE CENTER SECTION AND THE FIRST SPEAKER UP CAN COME TO THE PODIUM.

I'M A REGISTERED SPEAKER.

CAN I STILL SPEAK? I'M SORRY. YOUR NAME? SHIRLEY FLETCHER.

OKAY. YOU GUYS STILL MAY COME FORWARD.

HOWEVER, MS.. FLETCHER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR VIDEO AND YOU MAY BEGIN SPEAKING.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH ME.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST A ZONING SOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S IMPRACTICAL, UNENFORCEABLE AND INEQUITABLE.

I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IT SIMPLE AND THAT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE CITY STAFF TIME AND AGAIN THAT ZONING WOULD BE TOO COMPLICATED AND UNFAIR.

WE SHOULD KEEP IT SIMPLE AND LISTEN TO THE CITY STAFF.

THE SOLUTION, WITH A TANDEM ZONING AND RESTRICTIVE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE APPROACH HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND DETERMINED TO BE UNDULY BURDENSOME ON STR OPERATORS AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND THAT IS JUST NOT SIMPLE.

THE CITY HAS COMMISSIONED MULTIPLE STUDIES, TASK FORCES AND ADVICE FROM STAFF AND EACH TIME THE FEEDBACK THAT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THEM IS THAT A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS STRS BUT GIVES THE CITY THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT BAD ACTORS IS THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION WITH NO PROHIBITIONS ON OPERATION BY ZONING OR WHEN THERE IS AN ON SITE OPERATOR ONLY.

THE PROPOSED REGISTRATION ORDINANCE WILL INCLUDE A COST RECOVERY COMPONENT SO THAT ENFORCEMENT OF STR RULES IS NOT FOISTED ONTO THE CITY OR WORSE YET, JUST NOT ENFORCED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO RESOURCES TO ENFORCE THESE RULES.

GOING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL PUT THE EXPENSE OF ENFORCING STR REGULATION ON THE CITY.

GOING WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MAKES SENSE AND IT IS THE TRULY SIMPLE, ENFORCEABLE SOLUTION.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME TIME AND AGAIN SPEAKING ON THIS ISSUE AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR YEARS NOW, AND TO SEE THAT WE'RE AT THIS POINT AND THAT A ZONING SOLUTION IS BEING CONSIDERED WHEN I'VE SEEN EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, THE LOGICAL THOUGHT OUT SOLUTIONS BEING PROFFERED HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HERE AND I ASK EVERYBODY TO GO WITH WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ENFORCE AND WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR OUR CITY AND WHAT DOESN'T PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS AND WHAT MAKES US AN ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE WITH TEETH IS IS THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

WE ARE AN ASSET TO THIS CITY, AND IF YOU JUST ZONE US OUT OF EXISTENCE, I THINK YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE THE BAD OPERATORS STICKING AROUND WITH NO MONEY TO ENFORCE IT.

AND THAT'S YOUR TIME.

OKAY, NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.

GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

[08:40:01]

ROBERT OBERHOF.

I'M FROM ROSEBURG.

I MOVED HERE TO MOVE HERE 818.

TIME TO MOVE. UM, BUT ANYWAY, I'M FOR THIS, I DON'T KNOW, 300 HERE, BUT, UM, I'M TRYING TO MOVE HERE, AND IT COSTS 3 TO 80 FOR A HOTEL.

PLUS, THE HOTEL TAX WAS LIKE, 20, 20 BUCKS AND ANOTHER $5 FOR TAXES.

WELL, I DON'T MIND PAYING IT.

I DON'T BEING DALLAS. I LIKE BEING DALLAS.

LIKE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, BUT I PREFER TO WRITE.

I LIKE TO BE HERE IN DALLAS.

I'M MOVED HERE, BUT IT'S MY HUB, SO I'M TRYING TO MOVE WEST AND EAST OR I'M LIKE, FOR IT.

HEY, BRING IT ON.

AMEN. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS SONJA HEBERT.

I LIVE AT 3918 VALLEY RIDGE ROAD.

IT'S A VERY QUIET STREET WITH NEIGHBORS WALKING DOGS, PUSHING STROLLERS.

WE PURCHASED THIS HOME BECAUSE WE WANT TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN THERE IN A QUIET SPACE THAT'S SAFE.

ON JUNE 3RD, THERE WAS A ROWDY PARTY AT A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITH OVER 100 PEOPLE, TWO DOORS DOWN FROM MY HOME.

I SHOWED YOU ALL A VIDEO LAST WEEK THAT I TOOK DURING THE PARTY.

KIDS WERE DRINKING, DOING DRUGS, BLOCKING THE STREET.

SOME WERE CARRYING GUNS.

THE PARTY ENDED WHEN A GUNFIGHT BROKE OUT WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

LET'S REMEMBER WHAT THESE GUNS DO.

THEY RIP THE FLESH FROM A BODY SO THE PERSON IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZABLE.

THAT'S WHAT WAS HAPPENING OUTSIDE MY DOOR.

MY CHILDREN SLEEP IN THE ROOM THAT'S AT THE FRONT OF MY HOME AND.

THEY WEREN'T IN THAT ROOM THAT NIGHT.

MY OLDER DAUGHTER WAS HAVING A SLEEPOVER WITH HER FRIEND UPSTAIRS.

THEY DIDN'T WAKE UP, BUT MY YOUNGER DAUGHTER DID WAKE UP.

SHE HEARD ME AND MY HUSBAND.

SHE HEARD MY HUSBAND YELLING AT ME, SAYING, HIT THE GROUND.

A. SHE SHE'S TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW.

SHE WAS HERE EARLIER TONIGHT OR TODAY.

HAD THAT SHORT TERM RENTAL NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO OPERATE.

THOSE GUNS WOULD NOT BE ON MY STREET, ENDANGERING MY FAMILY.

MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER, AS I MENTIONED, SHE'S SEVEN.

SHE STARTED SUCKING HER THUMB AGAIN SINCE THIS HAPPENED.

AND SHE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE BECAUSE SHE'S TRAUMATIZED.

I CALLED THE POLICE FOR FOUR HOURS.

EVEN AFTER CALLING ABOUT THE GUNFIGHT, IT TOOK THEM 30 MINUTES TO GET THERE, AS I THINK YOU'VE HEARD MY NEIGHBOR MENTION TONIGHT.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THE POLICE OFFICER ON THE SCENE AT THE TIME.

I WAS SUPPOSED TO GREET YOU WITH.

NEXT SPEAKER.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

HOW CAN I GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS JACK COX.

MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 7658 EL PENSADOR DRIVE IN DALLAS.

WE'RE IN DISTRICT 11.

WE'RE BOTH DALLAS NATIVES.

AND IN OTHER WORDS, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF HISTORY WITH DALLAS.

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE THE BEDROCK OF OUR CITY.

AS SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS AND EMBRACES THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY, I'VE SEEN THE EROSION OF THIS BEDROCK AND THE HARM SHORT, SHORT TERM RENTALS CAUSE. HOMES ARE PURCHASED BY ABSENTEE LANDLORDS.

THEY'RE TURNED INTO WHAT ARE EFFECTIVELY HOTELS AND OCCUPIED BY TRANSIENT INDIVIDUALS WITH NO TIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS OR OUR COMMUNITY. THEY'RE ALSO SIGNIFICANT.

THEY ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHAT ARE ALREADY LIMITED CITY RESOURCES.

THE EXISTING STR OPERATORS TOOK A CALCULATED RISK.

THEY WERE NEVER EXPLICITLY ALLOWED IN OUR CODE AND PROVIDING A PERMIT FOR ANY EXISTING STR IN RESIDENTIAL ZONINGS VESTS THAT RIGHT FOR THEM TO EXIST IN PERPETUITY.

THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I IMPLORE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS SOLUTION AND REJECT ANY AMENDMENTS THAT FAIL TO ESTABLISH ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE STRS THAT WILL REMAIN AND A PLATFORM FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING KISS AND IN DOING SO, YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

SHERRY MIXON 2526, STARKS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

NEXT SPEAKER.

[08:45:09]

I STAND HERE HOLDING.

A PETITION SIGNED BY MY NEIGHBORS WHO COULD NOT BE AT THIS MEETING.

AND IT JUST SAYS, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE ASK THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL.

DISBAND THOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE WANT MORE HOUSING.

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DESERVE THAT.

WE'RE ASKING YOU, CITY COUNCIL AND OUR MAYOR TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE KISS LAW.

AND THEN LET'S WORK OUT THOSE DIFFERENCES THAT MAY NOT BE WORKABLE FOR THOSE THAT ARE TERM RENTALS.

BECAUSE AS I SAT BACK THERE, I GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM PEOPLE THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A FULL BAND.

WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR A BAND ON SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE DO NOT WANT APARTMENTS IN SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE DO NOT WANT HOUSES IN SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE DON'T WANT DUPLEXES IN SHORT TERM RENTALS BECAUSE WE CANNOT VALIDATE THE QUALITY OR SERVICE OF THOSE THAT ARE RENDERING BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MANAGING THEM.

A SMART MAN MANY YEARS AGO, DR.

MARTIN LUTHER KING STATED.

THE TIME IS ALWAYS RIGHT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

THE RIGHT THING FOR YOU TO DO IS TO SUPPORT THIS COMMUNITY OF NEIGHBORS FROM ALL ACROSS THE DISTRICTS.

AND THEN LET'S USE KISS IN LOVE TO RATIFY THOSE PROBLEMS THAT ARE EXISTING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

BEN RAMSEY. 9858.

WILLIAMSBURG, DISTRICT SIX.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

BASED ON A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE FROM MANY EVENTS, THE LIMITED BENEFITS DERIVED FROM STRS PALE IN COMPARISON TO THE RISKS PRESENTED BY STRS TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH STRS ARE LOCATED.

SHORT TERM RENTALS BELONG IN MIXED USE OR COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS NEXT TO OTHER BUSINESSES AND HOTELS, NOT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

IF YOU VOTE TO ALLOW THIS CURRENT TREND TO CONTINUE, YOU VOTE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT ELECTED YOU TO SERVE THEM AND THE CITY OF DALLAS AT LARGE. YOU VOTE TO RIP APART INSTEAD OF TO MAINTAIN THE FABRIC OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONED NEIGHBORHOODS, OUR SANCTUARIES, OUR COMMUNITIES, AND FOR MOST RESIDENTS, OUR SINGLE LARGEST ASSET.

BUT IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF KISS, YOU WILL ALIGN YOURSELVES WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND THOUSANDS OF DALLAS HOMEOWNERS.

AS ONE OF THOSE CONSTITUENTS, A CITY OF DALLAS HOMEOWNER, A DALLAS COUNTY PROPERTY TAXPAYER.

A HUSBAND, A FATHER, AND A DEDICATED CITIZEN.

I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES TO THE KISS ZONING RESOLUTION AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM, INCLUDING EVERYONE BACK HERE BEHIND ME, KNOWS RIGHT FROM WRONG.

HOWEVER, IT TAKES GUTS TO STAND UP AND DO RIGHT FROM WRONG.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENTIATOR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

TOM DUPREY 5132.

BELLE REVE DRIVE FAR NORTH DALLAS.

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BECOMING EXTINCT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IN DISTRICT 12.

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOW ONE THIRD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TWO THIRDS MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.

HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS ARE EVERYWHERE, WITH EVEN MORE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

OUR HOA HAS FOUGHT OVER THE COTTON BELT CORRIDOR.

POKER ROOMS RECENTLY HAD THREE VEHICLES STOLEN, HAVE HOMELESS PANHANDLERS, PEOPLE LIVING UNDER OVERPASSES, TENT CITIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEHIND STRIP CENTERS, GUNSHOTS AND PARTIES EVERY WEEKEND AT THE LOCAL CARWASH HEARD FOR BLOCKS AWAY AND HER OWN PRIVATE DRAG

[08:50:06]

STRIP ON FRANKFORT ROAD WITH NO SIGNS OF GETTING BETTER.

MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE SHARED WITH MANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT DALLAS, BUT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH.

ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A CITY TO DO YOUR JOB.

YOUR NUMBER ONE MISSION IS TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITIZENS YOU SERVE, NOT CREATE MORE HAVOC FOR THEM.

FOR MY WIFE AND I, IT'S QUITE SIMPLE.

IF DALLAS VOTES TO ALLOW STRS, WE WILL SELL OUR HOUSE, OUR DREAM HOUSE OF 27 YEARS, AND MOVED TO A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES NEIGHBORHOOD SANCTITY.

NOW, FOR ALL OF YOU, IT'S NOT SO EASY BECAUSE UNLIKE HOTELS, STRS HAVE NO SECURITY.

SO. SO WHEN SOMEONE GETS KILLED OR SEVERELY INJURED FROM AN ALTERCATION AT AN STR AND YOUR VOTE WAS ONE ALLOWING THEM TO BE THERE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO LIVE WITH THAT VOTE? THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

HELLO, MY NAME IS ELENA SAEED AND I LIVE AT 317 NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, DISTRICT ONE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AS A RESPONSIBLE, SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNER.

WE OWN TWO IN DALLAS AND HAVE PUT SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS AND REHABILITATION INTO OUR PROPERTIES.

WE. HAVE AN OUTSTANDING RATING OF OVER 4.5%.

I'M SORRY. I'M SO NERVOUS.

WE JUST.

ALL OF THESE EXPERIENCES THAT PEOPLE ARE COMING UP HERE TODAY, I DON'T WANT TO DISCREDIT OR DIMINISH THEM, BUT IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT MY LIVED EXPERIENCE.

AND WE.

WE WANT YOU TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE KISS SOLUTION BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THERE I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS AROUND THIS.

AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

HI THERE I'M LESLIE BILLS PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 5907 PROSPECT AVENUE.

NEXT SPEAKER.

I'VE BEEN A HOST FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

WE DON'T ALLOW PARTIES OR EVENTS.

WHAT WE DO ALLOW IS FOR FAMILIES TO COME TO OUR HOMES TO CREATE MEMORIES WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILIES THAT THEY MAY NOT SEE OFTEN A SAFE HAVEN FOR FAMILIES TO COME WHEN THEY HAVE A VERY SICK CHILD.

IN OUR LOCAL HOSPITALS.

WE ALSO ALLOW A SAFE HAVEN AND A SPACE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE PIPES THAT HAVE BURST.

WE HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS, NOISE MONITORING SYSTEMS, AND WE VET EVERY SINGLE GUEST AND WE DENY A LOT OF THEM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND ISSUES THAT YOU'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT THIS EVENING.

WE PROVIDE OUR LOCAL OUR PERSONAL CELL PHONE NUMBERS TO BOTH NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE IN CASE THEY NEED ANYTHING.

I'M BEGGING YOU FOR REGULATION.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO BAN STRS, I PERSONALLY WILL NOT HAVE A JOB.

MY HOSPITALITY MANAGER WON'T HAVE A JOB, MY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS WON'T HAVE A JOB, MY CLEANING LADIES WON'T HAVE A JOB.

OUR LOCAL POOL VENDORS, LANDSCAPE VENDORS.

WE'RE BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR REGULATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO ASK EVERYONE TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH HERE AND MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THE RIGHT FRAME OF MIND TO TAKE ON A VERY SERIOUS TOPIC HERE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE UNDERLYING ISSUES BEFORE WE LAY OUT ANYTHING, BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, AND THAT WOULDN'T BE PROPER. BUT I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO SAY A FEW THINGS THAT HE NEEDS TO SAY FROM AN INFORMATIONAL STANDPOINT.

AND THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS IN THE ORDER THAT I HAVE RECEIVED THEM ON MY DESK.

I WANT TO BE VERY EVENHANDED ABOUT THIS, SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER JUST TO SAY WHAT HE NEEDS TO SAY, AND THEN WE'LL CARRY ON LIKE WE ALWAYS DO.

BUT I'M JUST GIVING EVERYBODY ADVANCE NOTICE THAT I'M ENTERTAINING MOTIONS IN THE ORDER THAT I RECEIVED THEM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE AND I'LL BE BRIEF.

HOWEVER, BEFORE WE STARTED, I WANTED TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS JUST FOR CLARITY.

SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, STAFF HAS ACTED FAITHFULLY TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR RESIDENTS AND THIS COMMUNITY.

[08:55:02]

THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AT TIMES, AS YOU KNOW, BEEN CHALLENGING TO ASCERTAIN.

BUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR RESIDENTS, ALL RESIDENTS.

THAT'S WHAT GUIDES US EVERY SINGLE DAY.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO SOLUTION THAT IS GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE.

AND WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A CHALLENGING ISSUE AND WE HAVE DONE OUR BEST TO WORK TOWARDS A SENSIBLE SOLUTION, NOT A PERFECT ONE.

COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.

PROBABLY AT TIMES THAT WE HAVE DONE THE VERY BEST THAT WE CAN.

GIVEN THE SHIFTING SANDS OF THIS ISSUE.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SAY AND FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT STAFF HAS PERFORMED PROFESSIONALLY AT EVERY TURN.

AND I DO NOT WANT TO LET ANY NARRATIVE LINGER.

THAT STAFF HAS DONE ANYTHING BUT PERFORM THEIR WORK APPROPRIATELY.

STAFF HAS DONE THEIR BEST IN A VERY DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT.

WHAT SOME HAVE DESCRIBED AS A LAST MINUTE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS NOT CORRECT IN MY MIND.

STAFF HAS CONSISTENTLY OFFERED RECOMMENDATIONS AND INPUT TO HIGHLIGHT AND UNDERSCORE CHALLENGES WITH THE REGULATIONS BANNING STRS AND ZONING AND EACH AND EVERY PRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN.

HOWEVER FRUSTRATING LACK OF CLARITY DOES NOT MEAN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONCERNS CHALLENGES WERE NOT RAISED.

IF A RECOMMENDATION IS UNCLEAR.

LEADERSHIP SHOULD AND WILL WORK TO SEEK AND PROVIDE GREATER CLARITY.

STAFF CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I DO BELIEVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF GUIDANCE WAS PROVIDED ON MORE THAN A HALF DOZEN OCCASIONS, INCLUDING IN STAFF BRIEFINGS, MEMOS AND NUMEROUS CALLS AND EMAILS ON THIS ISSUE DIRECTLY WITH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO THANK YOU ONE FOR THE TIME FOR ME TO SHARE THAT MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE MANY RESIDENTS THAT HAVE COME TONIGHT AND THE MANY MEETINGS BEFORE FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS.

YOUR FEEDBACK IS IMPORTANT, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AROUND THIS ISSUE AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE DIALOG THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR GIVING ME THAT CHANCE TO SHARE THAT.

OF COURSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE FOLDER OF MOTIONS.

AT THIS TIME, THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. WEST FOR A MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. AND A POINT OF INFORMATION, MAYOR.

STATE YOUR POINT OF INFORMATION WE'RE TAKING.

JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE TAKING TH TO FIRST AND THEN ITEM 70.

THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOTH ITEMS WE CAN KIND OF DISCUSS INTERCHANGEABLY BECAUSE THEY'RE RELATED.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

BUT YOU WILL BE CLEARLY MAKING A MOTION FOR FF TWO BECAUSE IT'S ZONING AND THEN YOU WOULD MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE BECAUSE THAT'S OUTSIDE THE ZONING CHAPTER. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 14TH, 2023.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. WEST? I ASSUME THERE IS.

ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO CAME OUT TODAY, ESPECIALLY THE DISTRICT ONE RESIDENTS.

THIS ISSUE IS GREATLY IMPACTING MY COUNCIL DISTRICT, JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.

STAFF BELIEVES THAT 50% OF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE IN DISTRICTS ONE, TWO AND 14.

AND THAT'S WHY I FELT COMPELLED TO STEP UP ON THIS ISSUE.

POINT OF INFORMATION. MR. MAYOR, PLEASE STATE YOUR POINT OF INFORMATION.

CAN I GET THAT DATE CERTAIN, PLEASE? THAT WAS STATED IN THE MOTION DECEMBER 14TH, 2023.

THANK YOU. I MADE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PLAN.

IF THIS MOTION PASSES, I WILL NEXT MOVE TO ADD AMENDED LANGUAGE TO THE ORDINANCE.

COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU SHOULD HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

I CARE ABOUT ON SITE OWNERS LIKE DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT JERRY LOCKE, BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAY IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT STRS ARE DOING TO OUR HOUSING STOCK, AND I'M FURIOUS AT BAD OPERATORS FOR LETTING BAD GUESTS TERRORIZE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING MY OWN.

WITH THIS IN MIND, I HAVE THREE MAIN GOALS TONIGHT.

ONE, PASS AN ORDINANCE SO THAT WE CAN FINALLY REIN IN THE PROBLEM OPERATORS AND GIVE NEIGHBORS SOME PEACE TO LAY OUT A PATH FOR CONTINUED OPERATION FOR VIGILANT ON SITE OPERATORS THAT WILL HELP THEM AFFORD TO STAY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THREE, PASS THE ORDINANCE.

AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IS MOST LIKELY TO SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGES SO THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE FLOODGATES REOPENING AND STRS FLOODING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS YET AGAIN.

MY CONCERNS WITH THIS CENTER ON ENFORCEMENT AND LEGALITY.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL STAND UP IN FEDERAL COURT.

AND THERE'S A STRONG CHANCE THE STATE LEGISLATURE WILL PASS LAWS IN 25 OVERTURNING STR.

BANS. EITHER SITUATION WILL PUT US RIGHT BACK WHERE WE ARE TODAY WITH UNCHECKED, PROBLEMATIC SHORT TERM RENTALS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

[09:00:04]

WE HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO SURVIVE FOR YEARS TO COME AND PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF CERTAINTY FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

MY MOTION INCLUDES SEVERAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING.

A REQUIREMENT THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS MUST HAVE A CARETAKER ON SITE.

OVER 66% OF MY RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT ONE.

IN A SURVEY THAT I PUT OUT THAT WAS REVIEWED BY BOTH PROPONENTS AND STR PROPONENTS THAT MY CONSTITUENTS SAID THEY SUPPORT SHORT TERM RENTALS AS LONG AS THEY ARE VERY HEAVILY REGULATED.

WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY RESIDENTS PREFERRING A PERSON CARETAKER TO BE ON SITE.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS SAID WE CAN'T MANDATE THAT IT'S AN OWNER, BUT A CARETAKER COULD WORK.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF SPEAKERS THAT THAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS HERE AT CITY HALL HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PARTY HOUSES AND THE STORIES WE HEARD TONIGHT IN THE PAST. A UNIVERSAL COMPLAINT IS THAT NO ONE LIVES IN THOSE PARTY HOUSES AND NEIGHBORS HAVE NEVER MET THE HOMEOWNER.

I BELIEVE THAT REQUIRING A CARETAKER TO BE ON SITE WOULD VIRTUALLY SHUT THEM DOWN.

MY MOTION WILL ALSO INCLUDE PROHIBITION FROM USING STR AS AN EVENT, VENUE AND PUBLIC UPDATES FROM STAFF EVERY SIX MONTHS.

I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND NOT THE RECOMMENDATION OF CPC FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

CPC'S BAN WILL SHUT DOWN 80% OF SHORT TERM RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

WE'LL SHUT THEM ALL DOWN EVEN THOUGH 80% NEVER HAD A31 1 OR 911 CALL.

CPC'S BAN SHUTS DOWN THE GOOD OPERATORS WHO OPERATE STRS IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER FOR EXTRA INCOME.

A PRIME EXAMPLE WHO I JUST MENTIONED WAS JERRY LOCK, AN ELDERLY RESIDENT WHO USES HER BACK HOUSE FOR EXTRA INCOME TO SUPPORT HER NEARLY 100 YEAR OLD FATHER.

JERRY HAS NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT HER STR.

LIVES ACROSS FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY AN OUTRIGHT BAN IS OVERLY HARSH.

MY PROPOSAL AS DATA ANALYTICS ANALYTICS CAN TELL US, WILL SHUT DOWN 65% OF SINGLE FAMILY OPERATORS IN THE CITY, BUT ALLOW FOR APPROXIMATELY 35% WHO LIVE ON SITE TO CONTINUE TO EXIST.

SECONDLY, THE SECOND REASON I CAN'T SUPPORT CPC IS THAT THE BAN WILL MOST LIKELY IS THE MOST LIKELY OPTION TO BE OVERTURNED BY HIGHER COURTS.

BY STRIPPING ALL RIGHTS FROM EXISTING OPERATORS, THE CITY IS GOING TO BE MOST EXPOSED TO LAWSUITS, WHICH WE'RE USED TO THOSE.

BUT THE BIGGER CONCERN IS IT BEING OVERTURNED BY HIGHER COURTS AND THEN ONCE AGAIN FLOODING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

MY PROPOSAL PROVIDES A PATH FOR OPERATORS TO CONTINUE AS LONG AS SOMEONE IS ON SITE MANAGING IT AND OVERSEEING IT.

LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF OPERATORS, BUT NOT COMPLETELY STRIPPING THEM.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, CPC'S BAN WOULD BE THE HARDEST FOR THE CITY TO ENFORCE, AS WE'VE SEEN IN FORT WORTH, WHICH HAS A A BAN THAT ISN'T BEING ENFORCED.

AN OUTRIGHT BAN IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REGULATE AND WOULD PROVIDE US WITH NO HOT TAX, NO RESOURCES TO DO SO, LEAVING OUR ALREADY OVERBURDENED CODE ENFORCEMENT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO SHUT ALL THESE DOWN.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WANT TODAY.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT FOR THE MONTHS IN THE PAST.

THEY WANT US TO SHUT DOWN THE PARTY HOUSES.

THEY WANT US TO REGULATE THE PROBLEMS THEY DON'T WANT US TO.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE SAYING THE MOM AND POP NEXT DOOR NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN.

AND THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THIS TODAY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A LAWLESS AND DISRUPTIVE STATUS QUO AND AN OVERLY HARSH, PROBABLY ILLEGAL, OUTRIGHT BAN.

THIS COMPROMISE MEETS OUR GOALS AND IT CAN SURVIVE THE COURTS.

THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. WES MOTION TWO.

THANK YOU. AND YOU CAN SPEAK ON TWO AND 70 SORT OF TOGETHER IF YOU'D LIKE.

YOU CAN SPEAK TO BOTH ISSUES.

I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE REQUIRED. PARKING IS ONE OFF STREET SPACE PER BEDROOM, USED AS SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION IS IN ORDER.

IT IS GOOD.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

SO, MR. RIDLEY, WE'RE NOW ON YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S AMENDMENT, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

IT IS TIME FOR US TO MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION THIS EVENING.

THAT DECISION IS TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS AS SAFE, PEACEFUL SANCTUARIES IN WHICH TO RAISE OUR FAMILIES.

FOR REST AND RELAXATION AFTER LONG DAYS OF WORK AND ACTIVITY.

A PLACE TO RECREATE AND SOCIALIZE WITH FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.

[09:05:01]

A PLACE WHERE NEIGHBORS CAN RECOGNIZE AND HELP EACH OTHER IN TIMES OF NEED.

A PLACE TO BALANCE LIFE AND WORK.

SACHSE THREATEN THAT BALANCE BY INTRODUCING TRANSIENT STRANGERS WITH NO STAKE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT IS ALL BEING DONE IN PURSUIT OF PROFIT BY COMMERCIAL LODGING BUSINESSES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

STRESS ARE EXACERBATING CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGE IN DALLAS.

WE HAVE SPENT HOURS REVIEWING BRIEFING FROM STAFF ABOUT THE CRITICAL HOUSING SHORTAGE THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING, THE ESCALATION IN HOME PRICES, IN RENTAL RATES, ALL OF WHICH ARE BEING EXACERBATED BY THE DIVERSION OF 5000 UNITS OF HOUSING INVENTORY FROM LONG TERM RESIDENTS TO TRANSIENT VISITORS.

THIS HAS RESULTED IN HIGHER PRICES AS DEMAND EXCEEDS THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY, WITH 50% OWNED BY INVESTORS WHO OUTBID RESIDENTS MAKING HOUSING LESS AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE.

WE NEED TO PUT ACTION WHERE OUR MOUTHS ARE ON CREATING MORE HOUSING TO AVOID CHASING PEOPLE TO THE SUBURBS IN SEARCH OF LOWER COST, SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE HEARD FROM A GENTLEMAN JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WHO SAID IF THIS ISN'T ADOPTED, HE WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MOVING OUT OF DALLAS.

THAT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE HEARD THAT.

SO THE PENULTIMATE QUESTION TONIGHT IS WHO DO WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE FOR FOR LONG TERM RESIDENTS OR TRANSIENT TOURISTS? I THINK THE ANSWER SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE SERIOUS.

RELOCATING BUSINESSES LOOK FOR STRONG, AFFORDABLE AND STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.

IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING TO CONTROL STRS, WE WILL POTENTIALLY BE KILLING THAT GOLDEN GOOSE.

NOW, WE ARE NOT THE FIRST CITY TO CONSIDER TAKING THIS ACTION.

EXAMPLES NEARBY NEIGHBORS OF FORT WORTH AND ARLINGTON AND ALSO DENVER AND SANTA MONICA, WHICH HAVE BOTH ADOPTED PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY AS THE PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED HERE.

IT IS TIME TO TAKE DECISIVE ACTION TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOT TO DELAY ANY LONGER WHAT OUR RESIDENTS TONIGHT AND PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN CLAMORING FOR.

NOW, THE IDEA OF RELYING SOLELY ON REGISTRATION WITHOUT ZONING, AS MR. WEST PROPOSES, IS UNFORTUNATELY UNWORKABLE.

CITIES THAT HAVE TRIED THAT HAVE FAILED.

AUSTIN, WACO, FREDERICKSBURG THAT WOKE UP AFTER THEY ADOPTED REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND FOUND THAT THEY STILL HAD A PROBLEM WITH STRS AND TRIED TO ADOPT ZONING AND FAILED BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAD REGISTERED THE STRS. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED HERE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE HAVE ONLY ONE CHANCE TO ADOPT ZONING SOLUTIONS BEFORE REGISTRATION, AND THAT IS NOW.

IF WE DON'T, WE LOSE THAT OPTION FOREVER.

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCERN THAT'S BEEN RAISED ABOUT ENFORCEABILITY, WE CAN TAKE GUIDANCE FROM DENVER'S EXPERIENCE THERE.

THEY HAVE ACHIEVED AN 85% COMPLIANCE RATE WITH PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY, WITH GRANICUS, A SOFTWARE SERVICE THAT COMBS PLATFORM LISTINGS FOR UNREGISTERED STRS.

THE ISSUE OF GRANDFATHERING WAS ALSO CONTAINED IN MR. WEST'S MOTION THAT SIMPLY PERPETUATES OUR CURRENT PROBLEMS AND THE LOSS OF HOUSING INVENTORY.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HIS MOTION DOES NOT ADDRESS.

THAT IS THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WOULD BE LIBERATED BY OUTLAWING STRS.

THERE ARE NO NONCONFORMING ZONING RIGHTS.

THERE ARE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS IN MAINTAINING AN STR, PARTICULARLY WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT PREVENT PEOPLE FROM LONG TERM LEASING OF THEIR RESIDENCES FOR EXTRA INCOME.

THE CARETAKER IDEA IS UNENFORCEABLE.

HOW IS CODE GOING TO KNOW IF THERE'S A CARETAKER ON THE PREMISES? WITH YOUR HELP, WE CAN CHART A NEW COURSE TONIGHT BY ADOPTING THE KIDS SOLUTION.

[09:10:07]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, GO AHEAD AND.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION AND TO INCLUDE APPROVING THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AS STATED AT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, AS STATED BY MR. RIDLEY WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE THAT IS REGISTERED UNDER CHAPTER 44 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE AND UP TO DATE ON HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES AS OF JUNE 14TH, 2020 3RD MAY OPERATE AS LONG AS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE STAYS CURRENT ON HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENTS AND ITS REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL UNDER CHAPTER 42 B OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.

IF A SHORT TERM RENTALS OWNER OR HOST CHANGES, OR IF THE REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 42 B IS NOT TIMELY RENEWED, OR IF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 42 B IS REVOKED BY THE CITY.

THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE MAY NO LONGER OPERATE.

I WILL INTERJECT AT THIS POINT.

I WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT ONE SECOND.

I NEED TO MAKE A RULING FROM THE CHAIR BASED ON THE PARLIAMENTARIANS INTERPRETATION OF ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

THAT MOTION IS NOT GERMANE TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT.

IT WOULD BE GERMANE TO THE MOTION THAT MR. WEST MADE IF IT WERE AMENDED BY MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION. BUT IT'S NOT AT THIS POINT AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO MAKE BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY.

YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT IT ADDS TO THE PROVISION THAT'S BEING AMENDED AS OPPOSED TO MODIFYING THE PART THAT MR. RIDLEY IS AMENDING.

SO THAT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING IT'S PREMATURE.

OKAY. SO IT'S OUT OF ORDER AT THIS POINT.

SO CAN I JUST GET SOME CLARIFICATION? I THOUGHT THAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS.

I'LL LET HER EXPLAIN THAT BETTER.

STATE YOUR INQUIRY AND LET HER RESPOND TO IT SO EVERYONE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE THE KNOWLEDGE.

SO THE.

THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS.

CAN YOU REPEAT IT? BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST TO APPROVE CPC'S RECOMMENDATION.

LET ME BE. YEAH.

SO. YES. SO WHAT? I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S MOTION HIS AMENDMENT IS IT'S DIRECTED.

IT'S STILL TO GO WITH ESTABLISHING THE LODGING USE, BUT TO AMEND THE DISTRICT'S PERMITTED AND THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING.

THAT'S WHAT HE AMENDED.

AND SO YOUR AMENDMENT HAS TO BE GERMANE TO THE DISTRICT PERMITTED AND THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING.

GOT IT. BECAUSE THAT'S A SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE PRIMARY.

TO HIS PRIMARY.

GOT IT. THAT IS RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ON. WE REMIND YOU WE ARE ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT.

THE ISSUE OF WHAT TO DO ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS IN DALLAS HAS BEEN FLOATING AROUND THE COMMUNITY AND AT CITY HALL FOR YEARS.

THERE HAVE BEEN MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, EMAILS, PUBLIC SPEAKERS WITH VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES AND LOTS OF WORDS ON PAPER.

BUT THE ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN CAPTURED IN ALL OF THESE OPTIONS IS HOW THIS INDUSTRY AFFECTS CODE ENFORCEMENT, SANITATION, PARKING ENFORCEMENT, HOUSING, THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, DPD AND GFR.

IT'S WHAT GOES DOWN IN THE MOMENT AND HOW MUCH OF THE PROFITS OF SOME DEBIT, THE PEACE OF OTHERS.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THIS AROUND THE HORSESHOE AND WE TAKE ACTION ABOUT RIGHTING THE WRONGS OF THE PAST AND LIFTING UP FRAGMENTED, ISOLATED COMMUNITIES WITH INVESTMENT TO BRING STRENGTH OF PLACE TO MATCH THE STRENGTH OF WILL FOR A BETTER DAY IN ONE DALLAS.

YET WE HAVE WATCHED STR SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLE THE VERY THING WE ALL HOPED TO CREATE STRONG NEIGHBORHOODS THAT TOGETHER MAKE DALLAS A CITY GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.

WE MUST DEFINE SHORT TERM RENTALS AS WHAT THEY ARE HOTEL STYLE LODGING IN THE FORM OF A HOUSE, A CONDO OR AN APARTMENT.

IT'S TRANSACTIONAL RESIDENCE.

RELATIONSHIPS TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT TRANSACTIONAL.

OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS STRETCHED THIN AND WE CURRENTLY STRATEGIZE AND IMPLEMENT WAYS TO REDUCE CRIME.

THAT PUTS LASER FOCUS ON LOCATIONS AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS THAT OVERINDEX IN OFFENSES THAT THREATEN THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THE CITY'S ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN THAT 0.82% OF OUR HOUSING INVENTORY, THAT'S LESS THAN 1% IS DRIVING THREE AND A HALF TIMES MORE THREE ONE, ONE AND

[09:15:02]

911 CALLS TO THE VERY RESOURCES THE WHOLE COMMUNITY RELIES ON TO HELP KEEP ORDER.

20% OF STRS HAVE RECEIVED A31 1 OR 9 ONE ONE CALL IN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, COMPARED TO ONLY 9% OF NON STRS.

WE CANNOT OVERLOOK THIS.

WE ARE LOOKING TO STAFF UP IN A HARD TO HIRE MARKET, ASKING $21 AN HOUR FOR CODE AND TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES TO WEAR PROTECTIVE GEAR IN ORDER TO FACE THE WRATH THEY MAY ENCOUNTER IN DOING THEIR JOBS JUST TO MAINTAIN ORDER ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS WHEN ANSWERING THOSE LATE NIGHT CALLS.

THE CITY HAS MANY LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR ENFORCEMENT AROUND A HOST OF ISSUES.

THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT STAFF DPD, GFR ARE PROACTIVELY ENFORCING THESE LAWS, BUT THEY ARE THERE TO GIVE TEETH TO ENFORCEMENT WHEN VIOLATIONS ARE SUSPECTED OR OCCUR.

ENFORCEMENT ON STRS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS CAN BEGIN IN THE MAILBOX.

IN FACT, THE CITY ALREADY USES THIS METHOD TO NOTIFY AND WARN SUSPECTED OPERATORS AND BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE.

RESIDENTS ACROSS THE CITY WILL BE HAPPY TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING LEGAL LAND USE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY JUST WANT THE COVENANT OF PEACE THAT THEY HAD WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOME BACK.

SO WILL THIS CHANGE HAPPEN OVERNIGHT? NO, BUT OVER TIME IT WILL ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS HAVE SHARED AND NARROW THE GUARDRAILS ON A ROAD THAT WILL RESTORE PEACE AND PEACE OF MIND. SO FINALLY, DALLAS HAS A HOUSING SHORTAGE.

AND THIS IS NOT ONLY EVIDENCED ON PAPER, BUT IT MANIFESTS ITSELF AT UNDERPASSES, IN DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND ON PARKLAND, WHERE WE'RE SPENDING MORE THAN EVER ON SECURITY AND CLEANUP IN PUBLIC PLACES INTENDED FOR RECREATION, NOT SQUALID LIVING.

WE NEED MORE LONG TERM RENTAL AND HOME OWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN DALLAS.

AND FOR THOSE WHO WROTE IN WITH STORIES OF YOUR STR HOUSING FOLKS WHO ARE HAVING THEIR HOME REMODELED, OR FOR STUDENTS OR TRAVELING NURSES OR THOSE WHO ARE ON CONTRACTED BUSINESS ASSIGNMENTS IN DALLAS, THIS WON'T AFFECT YOU AS A 30 DAY PLUS STAY WHETHER YOUR HOME IS OWNER OCCUPIED OR NOT.

IT'S NOT A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE OKAY.

THE SIX MONTH PLUS RAMP UP OF THIS ZONING DEFINITION WILL GIVE CURRENT OPERATORS TIME TO ASSESS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL AND ADAPT.

THIS IS THE AMERICAN MARKETPLACE.

I SUPPORT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, THE KISS SOLUTION, WHICH REFLECTS THEIR HOURS AND ANALYSIS AND DELIBERATION.

AND I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE KISS SOLUTION.

ALL RIGHT, MR. WEST, YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN YET ON MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT, SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF MS..

WILLIS I SHARE THEM, AND WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME REALLY PROBLEMATIC STARS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THAT NEED TO BE UNDER CONTROL.

I ALSO WANT TO PICK UP WHERE SHE LEFT OFF ON COMMENTS ABOUT HOW SHORT TERM RENTALS DRAIN OUR CITY RESOURCES.

AND I WANT TO START WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER.

I'LL START WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

DO YOU ANTICIPATE IF THE KISS SOLUTION, AS PROPOSED BY MR. RIDLEY IS PASSED, WE WILL NEED TO USE CITY RESOURCES TO SHUT DOWN VIRTUALLY ALL OR QUITE A FEW OF THE STRS AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. YES.

IF THERE ARE LEGALLY OPERATING.

YES. AND THAT WOULD THAT WOULD WHO WOULD THAT BE? THAT WOULD BE GOING THERE TO SHUT THESE OPERATORS DOWN.

IF IT'S BASED ON ILLEGAL LAND USE AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT.

THAT WOULD INITIALLY BE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THAT THEY'RE OPERATING ILLEGALLY AND THEN TAKING IT THROUGH OUR NORMAL PROCESSES OF ABATING THE ILLEGAL LAND USE. HIS CODE APPROPRIATELY STAFFED NOW TO SHUT DOWN THOUSANDS OF SINGLE FAMILY OPERATORS.

NO, THEY ARE NOT.

HOWEVER, WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND I THINK WE'VE SHARED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ADD STAFF ONE FOR A REGISTRATION PROGRAM.

BUT I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN ON RECORD TO SAY THAT IF THERE ARE MANY MORE ILLEGALLY OPERATING ONES THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED, THEN THOSE COSTS WOULD FALL ON THE GENERAL FUND.

AND THE FUNDING THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED A RECOMMENDATION FOR DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

SO WE WOULD NEED TO ADD ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO DO THE ENFORCEMENT PART FOR THE ILLEGAL LAND USE, WHETHER IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE AS WELL AS OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

IN MY OPINION, IF WE LEFT SOME OPERATORS, SUCH AS WHAT MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS, CARETAKER OPERATORS WHO WERE ON SITE, THAT WOULD PROVIDE US WITH A SOURCE OF HOTEL TAX REVENUE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE GETTING WAY BEYOND MY DEPTH.

AND SO I PROBABLY CAN'T RESPOND TO THAT.

I THINK IF THERE'S ANYONE ON MY STAFF THAT ONE UNDERSTANDS THAT QUESTION AND THEN THE IMPLICATIONS, THEN I'D ASK THEM TO COME FORWARD.

WELL, BY HAVING STR OPERATORS, WE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO PROPOSE CHARGING THEM HOTEL TAX, RIGHT?

[09:20:06]

YES. YES.

AND THEN THAT HOTEL TAX IS THEORETICALLY GOING TO BE USED FOR REGULATING THE PROGRAM, CORRECT? NO, NO, NO.

THE TAX IS USED AS A GENERAL FUND RESOURCE.

THE REGISTRATION AND THE COST TO REGULATE THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM IS WHAT WE WOULD BE CHARGED.

ALL REGISTERED STARS.

AND SO THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED.

THE ENFORCEMENT ON THEM.

ONE, THE REGULATIONS WOULDN'T APPLY.

THEY WOULD JUST BE ILLEGAL, I BELIEVE.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUND COST.

AND THEY ALL HANDS ON DECK FROM DPD IF NEEDED.

CODE ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS AGAIN LEGAL TO RUN ALL OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF TRYING TO GET THEM REMOVED FROM OPERATION.

I GUESS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS BY STRIPPING ALL OF THE OPERATORS, WE ARE STRIPPING ANY REVENUE SOURCE TO HELP SUPPLEMENT CITY RESOURCES TO SHUT DOWN THE BAD GUYS.

YES, IN THE BROADER SCHEME OF THINGS, YES, WE WOULD LOSE REVENUE IF THOSE THAT ARE NOW OPERATING IN SINGLE FAMILY AND ARE PAYING TAXES IF THEY CEASE TO OPERATE, THEN WE WOULD LOSE THE TAX REVENUES THAT THEY GENERATE AND REPORT AND SEND TO US.

THANK YOU, MR. BROADNAX. THIS IS FOR MS..

PALOMINO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S SIDE.

WE JUST HEARD THAT THE CITY PROSECUTORS, COMMUNITY PROSECUTORS WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE INVOLVED IF CODE CAN'T GET IT EFFECTIVELY DONE FOR POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS OF SINGLE FAMILY OPERATORS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN.

ARE WE STAFFED IN COMMUNITY PROSECUTION FOR THAT NOW? WE ARE NOT. BUT INITIALLY WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK STRATEGICALLY WITH CODE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY THEY DO THE INITIAL NOTICES OF VIOLATION AND ISSUING OF THE CITATIONS.

AND I THINK THEY DO UP TO THREE CITATIONS BEFORE THEY REFER IN OUR TRIAGE TO OUR OFFICE.

THEN WE'D HAVE TO REALIGN OR INCREASE OUR RESOURCES TOWARDS ENFORCEMENT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

AND THEN IF WE DON'T GET THAT LITIGATION, I THINK ALSO MUNICIPAL COURTS AND PROSECUTORS WOULD LIKELY SEE SOME INFLUX OF THE CITATIONS AND WOULD HAVE TO PROCESS THOSE AS WELL.

AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PRIORITIZE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE MOST EGREGIOUS OPERATORS FIRST BECAUSE OF OUR RESOURCES.

OKAY. SO WE OR LACK OF DO WE ANTICIPATE I MEAN, ANY IDEA HOW MANY POTENTIAL STRS WOULD NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN IN THIS SITUATION? THIS MAY BE A CITY MANAGER QUESTION OR DATA ANALYTICS.

YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT THE STAFF WHO UNDERSTANDS THE INVERSE OPERATION AND KNOWS WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY LOCATED.

I THINK WE DO HAVE AN INDICATION OF WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED NOW AND WHICH ONES WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.

SO IF A STAFF MEMBER WHO UNDERSTANDS THE KNOWS HOW MANY WE HAVE IN SINGLE FAMILY AREAS VERSUS THE BROADER NUMBER, IF YOU CAN COME FORWARD AND SHARE THAT.

I JUST THINK YOU'RE NOT ON MICROPHONE.

THE BUTTON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

JULIA RYAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.

I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION TO BE HOW MANY STRS THAT WE KNOW OF ARE WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CURRENTLY THAT WE KNOW OF.

AND I'M SURE THERE'S A BUNCH THAT ARE ILLEGAL OPERATING WITHOUT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEM AT THIS POINT.

I MEAN, THAT'S SOME OF OUR PROBLEM.

YES. SO WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

SO THIS IS OUR OUR DISTRICTS AND NOT ANY OF THE OTHER AREAS WHERE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MAY BE THAT ARE IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.

WITHIN THOSE DISTRICTS, WE'RE SHOWING 11 1154 WITHIN THOSE ARE DISTRICTS.

OKAY. AND THIS IS QUESTIONS FOR DR.

ANDREW CHECK.

WE HAD SPOKEN BEFORE ABOUT THE ROUGH NUMBERS THAT WE GUESS ARE OWNER OCCUPIED PERCENTAGES WITHIN THAT NUMBER.

CAN YOU GIVE ME A BREAKDOWN OF THAT, PLEASE? YES, SIR. FOR THE RECORD, I'M ANDREW CHECK.

I SERVE AS THE CHIEF DATA OFFICER OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, SO WE DO NOT COLLECT ACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBER THAT OUR OWNER OCCUPIED.

IN OUR INITIAL ANALYSIS IN 2021, WE ATTEMPTED TO CREATE AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER, AND WE DID THIS BY UTILIZING THOSE STRS THAT WERE HAVING A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION CLAIMED ON THE PROPERTY.

[09:25:01]

AND SO WHAT WE FOUND WAS ABOUT 35% OF THE STRS HAD A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION CLAIMED ON THE PROPERTY.

I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.

YEAH, IT DOES. AND SO I KNOW IT'S NOT A COMPLETELY SCIENTIFIC NUMBER BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DUG DOWN AND VERIFIED THAT THERE THERE.

BUT YOUR BELIEF IS THAT ROUGHLY 35%, BASED ON THE DATA YOU HAVE, ARE CURRENT OWNER OCCUPIED STR OPERATORS THAT ARE IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. SO AS OF 2021, WHEN WE DID THE WORK, WE BELIEVE THAT APPROXIMATELY 35% HAD HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS ON THE PROPERTY. YES.

OKAY. SO THAT WOULD MEAN WITH THE MOTION I PROPOSED, WE WOULD BE SHUTTING DOWN 65% OF THEM IF THAT DATA IS CORRECT.

AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, IS THAT RIGHT? BECAUSE MY MOTION PROPOSED AN OWNER OCCUPANT ON SITE OR CARETAKER OCCUPIED ON SITE, LEAVING 65%.

THAT WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE THAT.

THE CARETAKER DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE OWNER.

THAT'S TRUE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT DATA.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. IT STILL IS VERY LIKELY THAT IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WE ARE STILL GOING TO BE SHUTTING DOWN A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE MOTION.

YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND I GUESS I'LL JUST ASK THE CITY MANAGER WHICH OF THE TWO MOTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED RECENTLY PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THE MOST RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE HERE AND GET THE BAD OPERATORS UNDER CONTROL, WHICH IS WHICH IS OUR GOAL.

WHEN A MOTION. I'LL DEFER TO STAFF TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I THINK.

WELL, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HAVE YOU RESTATE THE MOTIONS, THE MOTIONS KIND OF BETWEEN YOUR MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S MOTION.

THE ATTEMPTED MOTION OF COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

I'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS IT RELATES TO EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

I CAN REWORD IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE HELPFUL.

ALL RIGHT. OF THE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE IN ORDER, WHICH IS MR. RIDLEY'S IN MY MY MIND WHICH OF THE TWO AND IT'S MAYBE FOR STAFF NOW WHICH OF THE TWO MOTIONS PROVIDES STAFF WITH THE MOST RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO SHUT DOWN THE BAD OPERATORS AND KEEP THEM SHUT DOWN? CHRIS CRICHTON, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE.

FOR THE RECORD, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER THE ONE THAT PUTS THE MOST AMOUNT OF STR OPERATORS OR OWNERS OR HOSTS UNDER OUR REGISTRATION PROGRAM.

AND WHY DOES THAT WHY DOES THAT HELP YOU BE MORE EFFECTIVE WITH YOUR JOB OF SHUTTING DOWN THE BAD GUYS BECAUSE IT GIVES CODE ENFORCEMENT THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO CITE THE OWNERS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE REGISTRATION, AS WELL AS THE FUNDING AND RESOURCES AND STAFFING TO ENFORCE THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE.

DEAF MAYOR PRO TEM.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT.

EARLIER, IT WAS STATED THAT STRS PRODUCE AN AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF HOT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, AND IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT THOSE DOLLARS COULD BE USED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.

IS THAT TRUE? NO, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THAT'S CORRECT. HOT DOES NOT GET USED IN THE GENERAL FUND.

HOT DOES NOT GET USED IN ORDER TO DO ANY OPERATIONS IN THE CITY.

HOT IS USED FOR VISIT DALLAS TO PROMOTE AND MARKET THE CITY.

NOW WHERE DO YOU GET TAXES FROM ON THESE HOMES? IF THEY'RE NOT HOMESTEADED, THEN WE WE GET A FULL FULL RATE ON THAT.

WE WOULD STILL GET THE FULL RATE ON THAT SAME HOME ON PROPERTY TAX IF THEY DID A 30 DAY LEASE.

LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS STATED IF THEY DID A LONGER TERM LEASE.

IT'S THE SAME ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR THEY'RE A HOMESTEADED, I MEAN, A SECOND HOME FOR SOMEBODY.

WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? AND I KNOW YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER SINCE YOU'RE IN CODE AND YOU'RE NOT IN A THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT I'LL DEFER TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO CAN.

IT'S OKAY. I MEAN, I THINK I MADE MY POINT CLEAR.

IT WAS ALSO STATED EARLIER THAT STAFF SAID THAT THAT THERE ARE BEFORE THEY SAID THERE ARE ABOUT 1700 STAFFERS

[09:30:01]

REGISTERED. AND LITERALLY JUST NOW WE HEARD THOUSANDS OF STAFFERS ARE INSIDE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO STAFF SEEMS TO KNOW WHERE THOUSANDS OF STARS THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED.

THE NEXT THING I'LL SAY IS THE ANTIQUATED INFORMATION USED FROM 2021 DATA IN 2021.

IN WEST DALLAS IN DISTRICT SIX, I HAD ABOUT A DOZEN STAFFERS.

MR. MAYOR, TODAY WE HAVE WELL OVER 200 PLUS STAFFERS, AND THEY'RE GROWING DAILY EXPONENTIALLY WITH SOME OF THESE BRAND NEW HOMES ON CANADA DRIVE GOING FOR 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, $1.4 MILLION, AND LITERALLY BEING BUILT AND DESIGNED FOR ILLEGAL INDOOR EVENT CENTERS INSIDE OF THE MIDDLE OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T EVEN LOOK LIKE HOMES INSIDE.

THEY LOOK LIKE ILLEGAL INDOOR EVENT CENTERS.

THEY'RE BEING TARGETED AS SUCH.

NOW, MY NEIGHBORS IN WEST DALLAS DIDN'T BUY THEIR HOMES 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 YEARS AGO TO HAVE THE QUINCEANERA HALL IN THEIR BACKYARD, TO HAVE THE WEDDING VENUE IN THEIR BACKYARD, TO HAVE THE SORORITY PARTY IN THEIR BACKYARD.

THEY BOUGHT IN WEST DALLAS, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY WANTED A QUALITY OF LIFE.

I WANT TO THANK THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE SHOWN UP.

YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN UP.

YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

NOT EVERYBODY HERE IS FIGHTING FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS HERE AT DALLAS CITY HALL.

FOR FIVE YEARS NEARLY, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DEBATE.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.

AND WE GET TWO STEPS FORWARD AND WE GET KNOCKED BACK THREE STEPS AND WE TRY TO TAKE TWO STEPS FORWARD AND KNOCK BACK BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

I'VE ALREADY HAD SINGLE FAMILY, I MEAN, STRS, THAT KIND OF FEEL LIKE THEY SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL CONTACTING ME.

WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS CAN THEY STILL HAVE IN THIS SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH HOME? THIS ISN'T GOING AWAY WITH THIS SOLUTION.

BUT IT'S THE FASTEST WAY FOR US TO GET HOTELS OUT OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THESE NEW UNITS THAT ARE BEING BUILT.

I LITERALLY HAD A 12 UNIT INFILL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY BUILT, AND OVERNIGHT TEN OF THEM WERE SOLD ABOVE ASKING PRICE TO INVESTMENT COMPANIES IN ORDER TO DO SHORT TERM RENTAL.

ONLY TWO MADE IT FOR REGULAR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME.

WE ARE LITERALLY ERODING THE AMERICAN DREAM WITH THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

BECAUSE, YOU SEE, TEN YEARS AGO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE.

THEY DIDN'T EXIST WHEN IT WAS JUST THE GRANDMA WHO NEEDED A LITTLE EXTRA MONEY WHEN IT WAS JUST A GOOD FRIEND WHO WAS LEASING OUT A ROOM FOR THE WEEK BECAUSE HE OR SHE WAS GOING OUT OF TOWN.

IT WAS ONE THING.

BUT THEN THE PLATFORM CHANGED.

THE BUSINESS MODEL CHANGED.

THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS.

TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR BECAUSE WE CAN'T ENFORCE OR WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE IS LIKE WHEN WE HAD OUTLANDISH STREET CAR RACING.

MR. MAYOR, GOING IN AND OUT OF THE CITY WHERE PEOPLE WERE DOING DONUTS.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THE POLICE FORCE TO DO IT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO IT.

BUT WE GOT DOWN AND WE FIGURED IT OUT BY WORKING WITH TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS AND CHIEF GARCIA HELPED US CREATE THE RIGHT PLAN.

JUST THIS FEW MONTHS AGO, AUSTIN WAS GOING THROUGH SOMETHING RIDICULOUS.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME THING GOING ON HERE IN DALLAS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.

I HAVE TRIED TO COME UP WITH DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THIS, AND THE ONLY SOLUTION RIGHT NOW IS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT LIKE WE DID THE SCOOTERS.

WE'VE GOT TO YANK THEM ALL OUT.

AND THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT WITH ZONING.

AND THEN WE START OVER AND WE FIGURE IT OUT RIGHT NOW.

MR. MAYOR, WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS WHERE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE SAME BUILDING I LIVE JUST LIKE ME, ARE RENT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WENT UP 30%. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THESE INVESTORS, THESE COMPANIES, THESE MAJOR HOTEL CORPORATIONS CAN PURCHASE. AT FULL FARE OR ABOVE ASKING PRICE AND THEY CAN PAY CASH.

[09:35:05]

AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR REGULAR FOLKS LIKE YOU AND ME TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN THAT TYPE OF A MARKET.

OVER AROUND 50% OF HOME SALES NOW ARE GOING TO INVESTMENT FIRMS AND COMPANIES IN DALLAS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF HOUSES, MR. MAYOR. WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE.

I DON'T HATE THE STR OPERATORS.

I HAVE SOME FRIENDS WHO ARE FORMER STR OPERATORS AND SOME PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL ARE FORMER STR OPERATORS AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME BEFORE THEY GOT OUT THAT THESE ARE CASH COWS.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT JUST A SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME ANYMORE.

THIS IS ABOUT PROFIT.

I'M OKAY WITH PEOPLE MAKING MONEY.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE MODEL GOT OUT OF HAND AND WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING IN ORDER FOR US TO PROTECT OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I'M GOING TO BE FOR KISS.

I'M GOING TO KEEP ON KISSING UNTIL HOPEFULLY WE PASS IT TONIGHT.

AND I'M GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING BECAUSE I SIGNED UP AND KNOCKED ON TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOORS FOR A JOB AND TOLD PEOPLE THAT I WOULD PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND I WOULD PROTECT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.

YOU GOT TO WORK WITH ME, Y'ALL.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THE RULES.

I'M GOING TO GO TO A CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN NOW FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION. Y'ALL, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU BACK THAT TIME YOU GAVE ME FOR THE PRIOR ITEM.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING UNITE THE CITY OF DALLAS RESIDENTS MORE THAN JOINING TOGETHER TO OPPOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

NORTH, SOUTH, EAST.

WEST. HOMEOWNERS, RENTERS, SENIORS.

FAMILIES. PEOPLE OF ALL RACES, ETHNICITIES AND INCOMES.

YOU'VE ALL COME DOWN HERE TOGETHER WITH A CLEAR, UNITED VOICE TOGETHER AS NEIGHBORS TO OPPOSE THE SHORT TERM RENTALS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU STUDIED THE ISSUE.

YOU GOT ORGANIZED.

YOU'VE TAKEN THE TIME TO SHARE THE INFORMATION ACROSS THE CITY OVER SEVERAL YEARS.

YOU AREN'T JUST IMPRESSIVE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'VE ALL BEEN SENT HERE TO DO THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS AND YOU ARE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AND YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING, THE PEOPLE OF YOUR DISTRICT. I SUPPORT THE KISS AMENDMENT.

THE KISS SOLUTION SUPPORT THE CPC RECOMMENDATION.

SUPPORT THIS MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE BY 930 IF POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU. OH, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I HEAR YOU.

I HEAR YOU TALKING.

OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE MR. BAZALDUA HAS SPOKEN.

I HAVE NOT, MR. MAYOR. OH, YOU DIDN'T KNOW? I HAVE NOT. YOU PROMISE? I PROMISE. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I DON'T KNOW WHY I HAD WRITTEN DOWN ON.

OH, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

BUT I'VE GOT ONE IN ORDER NOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT IT.

GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. I MOVED TO AMEND MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION TO REFLECT SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING AS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN ALL MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IT HAS BEEN RULED AS GERMANE BY THE PARLIAMENTARIAN.

SO WE ARE NOW ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO MR. WES MOTION. AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MR. BAZALDUA YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A SOLUTION FOR PSS FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN COME TO SOME TYPE OF CONCLUSION TODAY.

I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF AN OUTRIGHT BAN OF PSS.

I AM IN FAVOR OF SENSIBLE REGULATIONS THAT ADDRESS THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM, JUST AS BEEN CITED IN MANY STUDIES INCLUDING THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES FOR BEST PRACTICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND JUST AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK, THE US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS.

I KNOW WE'VE HEARD FROM MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

IN FACT, MY STAFF HAS KEPT TRACK OF WHAT THAT MIX LOOKS LIKE AND FROM THE PAST TWO MEETINGS AND THEN THE ONE TASK FORCE MEETING THAT WE HAD TWO YEARS AGO, WE'VE NEVER HAD ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 50/50 SPLIT WITH MAYBE 1 OR 2 SPEAKERS ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

THE SOLUTION IS BEING PROPOSED IS NOT SIMPLE.

IN FACT, IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY CONVOLUTED OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS.

[09:40:05]

THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL ISSUES WITH IT.

THAT WE ARE SUBJECTING OUR CITY TO DRAINING EVEN MORE RESOURCES THAN ALREADY ARE BEING DRAINED FROM OUR RESIDENTS.

I DON'T WANT TO INVALIDATE ANY OF THE STORIES THAT I'VE HEARD.

TO BE CLEAR, I WANT US TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO ALL OF YOU.

BUT IF YOU DON'T THINK WE CAN REGULATE THEM NOW.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU EXPECT US TO REGULATE 95% OF THEM BEING BANNED WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF RESOURCES.

THE ZONING WILL DO THAT.

BUT IF YOU ALL TAKE YOUR PHONE OUT TO AIRBNB AND LOOK RIGHT NOW.

AT GETTING A RENTAL IN FORT WORTH.

LET'S SEE HOW. HOW WELL IT'S GOING FOR THEM.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE.

AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO IS BE SOLVING FOR AN ISSUE.

A LOT OF ISSUES HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH IN FRONT OF US.

WE HAVE PARTY HOUSES.

WE HAVE A PROLIFERATION OF BUYING UP HOUSES FROM LLCS.

WE HAVE THAT THAT IMPACTS THOSE WHO WE'VE HEARD REFERENCED AS GOOD ACTORS.

A LOT OF THOSE GOOD ACTORS.

I CAN GIVE YOU A LOT OF STORIES ON HOW THAT'S THE ONLY WAY SOME OF MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT THEY CAN STAY IN THEIR HOME.

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL TYPE OF SOLUTION.

BUT WHAT THERE ISN'T BY THE KISS IS A SOLUTION AT ALL.

YOU THINK THAT IT'S THE WILD, WILD WEST.

NOW JUST WAIT.

I KNOW WE'VE HEARD FROM A STATE REPRESENTATIVE EVEN WHO'S COME HERE, IN FACT, ONE WHO HAS A PARTY VENUE ON HIS STREET. SO IT'S A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS TO SAY WHEN THE ALDRIDGE HOUSE HOSTS WEDDINGS, QUINCEANERAS AND THE LIKE, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT ON OUR STREET.

IN FACT, I KNOW IT'S BEEN SAID BY A LOT OF Y'ALL THAT WILL COMMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT I LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY.

I DO, BUT THAT'S NOT RESTRICTED IN MY COVENANTS.

IN FACT, THERE'S BEEN COURT RULINGS THAT HAVE SIDED WITH THE RESIDENT OVER HOA'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T CITED IN THE COVENANTS.

YOU GUYS, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A ONE SIZE SOLUTION ON ON EITHER SIDE OF WHAT THIS ARGUMENT IS, BUT TO HAVE A ZERO SUM APPROACH, NO MATTER WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS ISSUE, YOU DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT TO US BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT.

IT DOESN'T HELP.

THE RETIRED TEACHER THAT I KNOW IS ON A FIXED INCOME AND IS RENTING A HOUSE A ROOM IN THEIR HOUSE.

IT DOESN'T HELP THE CONSTITUENT STORY THAT MISTER WEST TALKED ABOUT IN HOW THAT EXTRA INCOME IS, HOW THAT THEY ARE AFFORDED THEIR WAY OF LIFE.

WE'VE SEEN BEST PRACTICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ONES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THE PROLIFERATION OF BUYING UP PROPERTIES, ONES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THE PARTY HOUSES, ONES THAT HAVE GIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES SO THAT STATES CAN I MEAN, CITIES CAN REVOKE REGISTRATIONS.

NONE OF THAT EXISTS NOW.

SO FOR US TO SAY THAT NOTHING WORKS, IT'S BECAUSE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS POINT.

I WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON SOME QUESTIONS WITH YOU, MR. CHRISTENSEN. CHRISTIANS, IF YOU CAN PLEASE TELL US WITH THE OPTIONS BEFORE US.

I KNOW YOU'VE ALREADY STATED THAT YOU NEED MORE.

IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS, CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE ON HOW THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

WITH THE BAND AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES, ALL THE ILLEGAL OPERATORS LEFT THAT CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

WE WOULD ONLY HAVE THE ILLEGAL LAND USE ENFORCEMENT OPTION AND FOR CODE THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT A HOUSE IS NOT OPERATING AS A HOUSE OR AS AN AIRBNB.

IT'S SIMPLE TO PROVE ILLEGAL LAND USE WHEN YOU HAVE A HOME OPERATING AS A CLUB, BUT NOT A HOUSE THAT'S OPERATING AS A HOUSE. AND SO WITHOUT OUR OFFICERS GOING OUT AND BASICALLY A RENTER ADMITTING TO OUR OFFICERS THAT THEY RENTED IT ON AIRBNB OR VRBO AND THEY PAID A CERTAIN RATE AND THEY BOOKED IT FOR SO MANY NIGHTS, IT'D BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO CONFIRM THAT VIOLATION.

AND WITH WITH THAT SAID, JULIA, CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON HOW THIS WILL IMPACT THOSE WHO ARE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING PARTIES ON, SAY, EVENTBRITE, BUT AREN'T SHORT TERM RENTALS?

[09:45:01]

BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A PROMINENT ISSUE RIGHT NOW AS WELL? WITHIN THE CPC RECOMMENDATION AND THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE ITEM THREE, WHICH SAYS A SHORT TERM RENTAL MUST NOT BE USED AS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE RESTAURANT.

ET CETERA.

UNLESS LOCATED IN A ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE USE IS PERMITTED AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THE USE.

SO THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEBODY TO RENT SOMETHING FOR A FULL 30 DAYS AND STILL MAKE THESE OR SOMEONE THAT OWNS THE HOUSE TO PROMOTE PARTIES AND SELL TICKETS STILL.

I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY.

IT'S ANDREA WITHOUT PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.

AM I ALLOWED TO REPEAT THE QUESTION? MY TIME. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE PARTIES THAT ARE HAPPENING AND BEING MARKETED ON EVENTBRITE, AND THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN THE ISSUES BEING.

BUT THEN WHEN WE CONTACT THE PLATFORMS, THEY'RE NOT LISTED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED GOING TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TO BE A BIG PART OF THE PARTY HOUSE PROBLEM IN OUR CITY.

WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR BY STAFF? BY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION? BY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT AND THEY ACCEPTED OUR RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE ITEM THREE, AS YOU SEE IN PAGE TEN OF THE REPORT THAT SAYS IT MAY NOT BE USED AS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, BUT AS HOW THEY ACTUALLY WORK.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE ONTO, I'M THINKING, THE REGISTRATION REGULATION PIECE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE BECAUSE THESE ARE MORE OPERATION THAN LAND USE THAT'S GOING TO.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO FOR ROUND TWO.

THANK YOU. I GOT YOU.

OKAY, LET'S SEE.

CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT. SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES TO THE WEST AMENDMENT TO THE WEST MOTION.

THAT'S RIGHT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE MULTIFAMILY IN THE WELL.

IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE REGULATION? IF WE WANTED TO HAVE LIMITATIONS TO THE NUMBER OF OF OF STRS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN A MULTIFAMILY SETTING SUCH AS A PERCENTAGE? IS THAT THERE SOMEWHERE IN THIS AMENDMENT IN THE REGULATION PIECE OF THIS? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER KNOW CURRENTLY THERE'S NOT A MULTIFAMILY PERCENTAGE RESTRICTION AND THE REGULATION ORDINANCE.

OKAY. SO THAT SPEAKS TO A COMMENT THAT I'LL BE MAKING.

JULIA, CAN YOU SHARE WITH US WHICH BETTER PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS? WHICH OPTION THE THE WEST OR RIDLEY BAZALDUA? SO I THINK THAT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION.

AND I THINK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE PREVIOUS BRIEFING THAT THE SORT OF TWO FOLD IS ONE THAT IS THE MOST ENFORCEABLE. AND OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD DEFER THE ENFORCEMENT TO OUR CODE, OUR CODE DEPARTMENT, BUT BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO PROHIBIT THE PARTY HOUSES AND THE EVENT VENUES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.

I THINK THAT IS A VERY BIG CONCERN.

THAT IS DEFINITELY A LAND USE CONCERN THAT THAT YOU KNOW, IF YOU RECALL LAST SUMMER WE HAD PROPOSED SOME LANGUAGE IN THE IN THE ORDINANCE REGARDING EVENT VENUES NOT BEING WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT PLUS ENFORCEMENT CAN PROVIDE A LOT OF PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE ABLE TO TO OPERATE AND TO LIVE THE WAY THAT THAT THEY DESIRE.

THANK YOU. AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTION BEFORE MY COMMENTS ARE, COULD YOU SHARE EITHER DR.

ANDREW CHECK OR SHERRY? I DON'T KNOW OR WHOEVER KNOWS THE ANSWER OF THE 1154 SINGLE FAMILY.

THAT LEAVES, I GUESS, ABOUT 500 AND SOMETHING WITHIN OUR REGISTRATION THAT WOULD BE IN THE MULTIFAMILY.

CAN YOU SHARE EITHER A PERCENTAGE OR SOME WAY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND HOW PROBLEMATIC THOSE CURRENTLY REGISTERED? BECAUSE THAT SPEAKS TO THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUE.

[09:50:01]

YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SHERRY KOWALSKI. CITY COMPTROLLER.

I BELIEVE YOU'RE ASKING.

DO WE KNOW HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILIES HOMES ARE REGISTERED AND PAYING OCCUPANCY TAX AND THAT ARE IN THE PROBLEMATIC ZONE? I DO NOT HAVE THAT DATA.

WE CAPTURE THE BUSINESS NAME AND THE ADDRESS, SO WE DO NOT HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE.

UM, MAYBE I CAN JUMP IN HERE AND ASSIST.

SO I BELIEVE THAT YOU ASKED MA'AM IF YOU WERE LOOKING.

WE KNOW THAT WE HAD 229 UNIQUE PROPERTIES THAT HAD CALLS FOR BOTH 311 AND 911, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAD ASKED.

AND SO TOTAL THOSE PROPERTIES WERE GENERATING ABOUT 500 CALLS.

AND OF THOSE 229 UNIQUE PROPERTIES, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM WERE REGISTERED? I DO NOT.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I APOLOGIZE.

THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO AS MANY OF YOU KNOW ARE WELL AWARE, I'VE BEEN RETICENT TO SHARE MY INTENDED VOTES FOR MANY MONTHS ON THIS.

AND IT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SEEK CERTAINTY.

AND FOR THAT, I APOLOGIZE.

I DIDN'T MAKE MY CHOICE KNOWN BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, THIS SITUATION IS A CASE OF HOBSON'S CHOICE.

MY CONSTITUENTS OVERWHELMINGLY WANT ME TO VOTE FOR THE KISS APPROACH.

IN THE NINE YEARS I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT 11, I'VE NEVER HAD SUCH CONSISTENTLY OVERWHELMING DEMAND FOR A VOTE.

IN FACT, 1132 PEOPLE SENT IN SURVEY RESPONSES, WITH 72% SAYING THERE SHOULD BE NO SINGLE, NO STRS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. I PROMISED THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THE DESIRE OF THE DISTRICT, AND I WILL DO SO EVEN IF I DISAGREE.

IN MY OPINION, AFTER WORKING WITH LAND USE AND REGULATIONS SINCE 2014, ZONING IS A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND INEFFICIENT TOOL TO REDUCE SHORT TERM RENTALS AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THEY BRING.

I'VE PURPOSEFULLY ASKED OUR STAFF AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY WHETHER ZONING OR REGULATION BETTER PROTECTED, PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THEY'VE SAID, AS YOU HEARD FROM OUR CODE, THAT REGULATION WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE.

I ASKED WHETHER IT WILL PROVIDE MORE HOUSING AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.

THE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING IN OUR CITY, WHICH KISS SUPPORTERS CLAIM THEY WANT TO ASSIST WITH, IS THE CONSTANT FIGHT WITH MANY OF THE SAME PEOPLE ABOUT ALLOWING MORE DENSITY NEAR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

IF THEY'RE SINCERE ABOUT ADDRESSING THESE PROBLEMS, THE ANSWER IS NOT ONLY MORE APARTMENTS, BUT MORE DENSITY ON EXISTING LARGE LOTS THROUGH DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOUSES THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PURCHASE.

THE CREATORS OF KISS HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT ZONING SOLUTION WILL ELIMINATE STRS FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

LET ME BE CLEAR THE KISS APPROACH DOES NOT HELP BETTER PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS, NOR DOES IT HELP WITH OUR HOUSING SUPPLY.

KISS WILL CERTAINLY MAKE NEW STARS AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONES ILLEGAL.

THAT IS TRUE.

WE MUST BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE WITH A STAKE IN THIS DEBATE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND WHO ARE UP TO DATE ON THEIR PAYMENTS FOR HOT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WILL ONLY BE A COMPLAINT BASED SYSTEM SINCE THERE WILL BE NO PROPERTIES TO REGULATE.

ALL CODE CAN DO IS GO OUT ON MONDAY MORNING AND SEE IF THERE'S A GUEST.

THEN THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE'S A GUEST.

THERE'S NO ASSURANCE NOR MECHANISM TO REDUCE CONTROL OR ELIMINATE STRS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE BY ADOPTING KISS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO REGULATE OR WORK WITH THE PLATFORM OR MANAGERS IS ELIMINATED.

THAT SAID, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANY OF MY COMMUNITY LEADERS AND THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT KISS IS THE WAY TO GO.

AND SO SOMETIMES IN THIS POSITION WE HAVE TO FOLLOW RATHER THAN LEAD, BECAUSE WE MUST KEEP THE TRUST OF OUR DISTRICT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS IN OTHER AREAS WHERE WE NEED THEIR SUPPORT.

THEREFORE, WE MUST DO THE FOLLOWING.

IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE OF SUCCESS, WE MUST IMMEDIATELY APPOINT A TASK FORCE TO WORK WITH OUR EXCELLENT CODE TEAM TO DETERMINE WHICH REGULATIONS ARE MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF ADJUSTED HOURS FOR CODE OPERATIONS.

WE MUST IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH WE CAN DETERMINE WHO IS OPERATING THROUGH ADVERTISING.

WE MUST REVISIT THIS ORDINANCE IN TWO YEARS TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.

WE MUST BALANCE THE INTERESTS BY INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND UP TO DATE ON THEIR PAYMENTS.

MOST OF ALL, WE MUST MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THERE IS DAMAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY STRS.

WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS WELCOME AND INCLUDED.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CORPORATE PURCHASING IS DAMAGED AND EVERYONE WANTS THE SCOURGE OF PARTY HOUSES ELIMINATED.

SO THE QUESTION LIES IN WHICH IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD? TONIGHT I WILL DEFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF MY CONSTITUENTS.

I MADE A PROMISE TO FOLLOW THE DESIRES OF MY DISTRICT RATHER THAN THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND MANY OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES.

I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE CPC RECOMMENDATION WITH THE AMENDMENT OF.

THAT'S YOUR LAST SENTENCE.

[09:55:01]

WE ARE READY TO CATCH THIS FALLING KNIFE, AND I HOPE WE'RE NOT TOO BADLY INJURED.

ALL RIGHT. CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION. CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN WE DID NOT MAKE.

NINE 3934 WE WERE TRYING A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ESSER AND RULER.

HOW MANY DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? THAT IS ACTUALLY. RICHARD, ARE YOU ARE YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

ARE YOU ASKING HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WE HAVE REGISTERED PAYING HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX? ROMMEL YEAH, YEAH. ONCE AGAIN, THAT INFORMATION WE HAVE THE BUSINESS NAME, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR THE THE STREET ADDRESS. WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR NOT.

WE DON'T CAPTURE THAT DATA WITHIN THE TAX COLLECTION SYSTEM.

WE DO KNOW HOW MANY SINGLE HOUSES IS RENTAL IS REGISTERED, RIGHT? RENTAL HOUSES IS REGISTERED, RIGHT.

NO, WE DO NOT HAVE THE DATA AND THE TAX COLLECTION SYSTEM.

BY THAT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER SOURCE.

OKAY. I THINK, CHRIS, I THINK IN DISTRICT EIGHT, I GOT 989 SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL IS REGISTERED IN DISTRICT EIGHT 989, PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYONE.

THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE DO KNOW HOW MANY CODE COMPLIANCE HAS THE DATA FOR SINGLE FAMILY LONG TERM RENTALS IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY REGISTRATION PROGRAM? THANK YOU, SIR, BY SAYING THAT.

SO IF I HAVE OVER 1000 SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL AND STR, I PROBABLY GOT MAYBE 39 THAT I KNOW I DONE DID THE MATH.

I KNOW DISTRICT 14 PROBABLY GOT CLOSE TO 600 AND SOMETHING.

DISTRICT ONE PROBABLY GOT ABOUT 400 SOMETHING.

SO I DID THE MATH. I DON'T DID MY DUE DILIGENCE.

THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

SO WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 42 YEARS AGO, IT WAS A SINGLE RESIDENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY.

AND I'M NOT IN A GATED COMMUNITY.

IF I IN A GATED COMMUNITY, WE DO HAVE RULES AND LAWS THAT WE CAN BAN PARTY HOUSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE IN A GATED CAROLYN, YOU GOT BYLAWS YOU CAN PUT FORTH TO BAN STUFF.

AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.

YOU DON'T HAVE IN THE BYLAWS TO BAN WHAT COMES NEXT TO YOU.

BUT TODAY, TODAY, RIGHT NOW, DO WE HAVE THE LAWS ON THE BOOK THAT BAN ESSER IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT AS OF TODAY? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER NO, WE HAVE NO BANS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE SO YOU CAN PUT STR IN A SINGLE FINAL RESIDENT TODAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NO BANS IN THE CODE, SO YOU CAN PUT A STR IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT TODAY.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT OR YOU CANNOT IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

BUT IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NO CODE.

IT MIGHT BE. I'M TRYING.

MAYBE TAMMY WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SO LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.

WE DO NOT HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL USE ON OUR BOOKS.

CURRENTLY. CURRENTLY? OKAY. DO SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE ON THE BOOK.

SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS? HOW ARE WE TRYING TO PUT THE LAW ON THE BOOK? WHAT IS THE PROCESS AND WHAT'S THE TIMELINE? HOW WE'RE TRYING TO PUT STR IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.

IS THAT A PROCESS WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? SO COUNCIL MEMBER, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

FROM WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND OF YOUR QUESTION, WHAT CODE IS RECOMMENDING IS A REGISTRATION AND REGULATION PROGRAM IN CHAPTER 42 B THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO REGISTER AND REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

DO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT DO THEY HAVE ANY PROTECTION? DO THEY HAVE ANY RIGHTS OR PROPERTY RIGHTS? THE. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

[10:00:05]

OKAY. LET ME REPHRASE IN A LAYMAN TERM.

IF I WANT TO PUT ESSER IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT DUE TO PERSON WHO OWNED A PROPERTY, HAVE IN THE RIGHT.

THAT SAID, I AGREE OR I DISAGREE.

I CAN ALLOW THIS.

ESSER SHORT TERM RENTAL TO BE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

DO THEY HAVE ANY RIGHTS? CURRENTLY WE HAVE SPECIFIC LAND USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY.

WE DO NOT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DEFINED USE, WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC.

AND SO IF THEY DON'T FIT WITHIN THAT, THEY POTENTIALLY COULD BE AN ILLEGAL LAND USE.

SO IT'S AN ILLEGAL LAND USE.

IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE.

SO WHEN I'M TRYING TO GET CLARITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AND AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THE STEP AND WE HAVE THE RESIDENTS COME HERE.

I HAD MANY RESIDENTS COME TO MY OFFICE AND SAY, WHY DO I HAVE A PART OF THE HOUSE? WHY DO I HAVE THE STR? AND IT'S NOT REGISTERED THERE.

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE CAN'T PROTECT IT. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARITY FOR MY RESIDENTS.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER.

IF YOU PASS THE CPC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THE BAN IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING, THEN A PARTY HOUSE OR A SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THAT POINT FORWARD WOULD BE OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

ILLEGALLY. I WOULD CLARIFY TO SAY THAT A PARTY HOUSE IS CURRENTLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

IT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING.

CURRENTLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

SO CAN I I'M SORRY.

I WANT TO FURTHER CLARIFY TO SAY EVEN IF WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, A PARTY HOUSE WOULD BE OPERATING ILLEGALLY.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PARTY HOUSES.

WE'RE NOT CREATING A LAND USE FOR PARTY HOUSES.

SO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A PARTY HOUSE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A LAND USE FOR THAT.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IF THEY'RE PAYING IF THEY'RE CHARGING FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN, IT COULD BE AN EVENT SPACE.

IT COULD BE OTHER LAND USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

COULD IT BE A SPECIAL EVENT CENTER? I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A PARTY HOUSE VERSUS YOU RENTING A HOUSE.

ALL THE USES THAT CITY ATTORNEY SAID, THE ONES THAT EXIST IN THE IN THE CODE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

AND THEY ARE COMMERCIAL USES.

SO YOU HAVE THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE THE CODE FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

THEY HAVE TO SELL TICKETS AND THEY HAVE TO BE A USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT.

THOSE USES COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IS NOT A USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS OR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

AND THIS IS NOT WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING BY ANY MEANS AND NOT A SUBJECT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

SO EVEN SO, AGAIN, QUESTION NUMBER ONE, A PARTY HOUSE.

THEREFORE, IF YOU HAD A PARTY HOUSE PROPERTY, YOU HAD TO GET A PERMIT, A SEAL.

YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL IN SINGLE FAMILY.

SO SO JUST WANT TO GET TO THE POINT.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY LIVING THERE.

IT SHOULD NOT BE A PERMANENT HOUSE.

YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE WHATEVER S-T-R.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST I BELIEVE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.

WE ARE TRYING TO I GUESS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW IS THAT DO NOT ALLOW STR IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT BUT ALLOWED IN MULTIFAMILY.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? IS THAT THE MOTION THAT CHAIRMAN ALAN BAZALDUA IS ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW? DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? IT WOULD COUNT AGAINST THIS TIME TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR MOTION WHICH IS ON THE FLOOR, WOULD DO.

I'LL LET YOU PUT IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

HE'S ASKING, WHAT IS YOUR MOTION TO DO? IT JUST ALLOWS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE OUTRIGHT BAN.

AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE REST WITH THE OTHER ITEM.

THAT'S AN ORDINANCE.

AS FAR AS A THRESHOLD OR PERCENTAGE OF MULTIFAMILY, I AM SORRY, HAVE MY TIME.

SO THE LAST FIVE SECONDS IS, NUMBER ONE, A OUTRIGHT BAN ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT IS THAT CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA MOTION?

[10:05:03]

YOU'RE OUT OF TIME. I'M JUST ON AN ANSWER FOR STAFF.

YEAH, I CAN ASK THEM. ASK SAM.

GO AHEAD. AND SORRY, I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IT HIS MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S MOTION WAS TO ALLOW IT ONLY IN MCGOUGH AND CENTRAL AREA DISTRICTS.

OKAY, SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR OF THE SECONDARY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO ALSO ALLOW THEM IN ALL MULTIFAMILY.

DISTRICTS, BUT NOT SINGLE FAMILY.

MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT. SO, MAYOR, IF I COULD JUST TRY TO MAKE THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION.

MR. RIDLEY. MR. RIDLEY, AS WE TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS AND ALL, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS AND OWNERS OF PROPERTY AND SINGLE FAMILY.

WHAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION AS YOU ARE SITTING HERE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IT? WELL, I THINK THE BEST SOLUTION IS THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.

THEY LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE AND THEY LOOKED AT WHETHER MULTIFAMILY SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

THEY REJECTED THAT IDEA AND LIMITED IT TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS THAT MISS PALOMINO JUST LISTED.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'RE.

SO SHOULD WE JUST NOT VOTE FOR MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT? MR. WEST AMENDMENT.

AND GO AND SEPARATE THOSE AND JUST GO WITH YOUR MOTION? WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE BEST SOLUTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY? BECAUSE I'M HAVING A TOUGH TIME TRYING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

I UNDERSTAND IT MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSING.

YES, I DO NOT SUPPORT MRS MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT AND THE KISS SOLUTION IS ENCOMPASSED WITHIN MY MOTION.

MY MOTION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT ENCOMPASSES THE FULL KISS SOLUTION.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO TONIGHT AND AS WE MOVE ON AND I'M SITTING HERE WHILE I'M LISTENING AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THE NAME JUDY GARLAND AND DOROTHY, THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE, WHAT, HOME. AND THAT'S WHERE MANY OF US WANT TO BE RIGHT NOW.

AND AS WE LEAVE HERE AND WE LEAVE HERE TONIGHT, WE WANT TO GO TO PEACE AND QUIET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE DON'T WANT TO DRIVE UP, CAN'T GET IN OUR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE YOU GOT CARS ALL UP AND DOWN THE STREET.

YOU CAN'T GET IN TO YOUR OWN HOME.

AND SO FOR ME, IT'S JUST VERY SIMPLE.

I THINK SOME OF US, WE'RE TRYING TO BE TOO ANALYTICAL AND WE'RE GETTING ALL THIS EMPIRICAL AND GALACTICAL DATA AND ALL WE WANT IS THIS WHEN WE YEARS AGO, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CITIES GROWING, WE KNOW THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE CITIES. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A MARKETING EFFORT TO BRING PEOPLE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BUILD COMMUNITIES.

AND AS BUILDERS CAME TO THE CITY, THEIR GOAL WAS TO MARKET SO PEOPLE COULD COME TO A COMMUNITY OF NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD AND ULTIMATELY A COMMUNITY.

AND SO WE DEPEND ON SOME OF THOSE BUILDERS EVEN TODAY TO COME AND HELP US TO BUILD THOSE COMMUNITIES.

AND SO I'M HAPPY WHEN I HEAR RESIDENTS TALK ABOUT I'VE, THE FACT THEY'VE BEEN IN A HOME FOR 40 YEARS AND 50 YEARS BECAUSE THEY LOVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE.

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THIS OTHER STUFF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING, ALL I KNOW IS THIS I WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED MORE THAN 200 PLUS LETTERS FROM HARDWORKING NEIGHBORS.

YOU STILL HERE TONIGHT TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? I TRIED TO RESPOND AS MANY AS I COULD, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I APPRECIATED THAT.

AND THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF THIS UNDER CONTROL WITH STRS OR DRUG IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING ALL THIS OTHER STUFF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING.

HOW DO WE OVERCOME IT? WE'VE GOT TO FIGHT.

AND SO I WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND TOLD YOU THAT I WAS GOING TO WORK TO FIGHT FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE BECAUSE I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO ALL OF THAT MADNESS.

AND SO IF I WAS COMING TO A COUNCIL MEMBER TONIGHT, I WANT YOU TO DO FOR ME WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO FOR YOU.

I WANT THAT.

AND SO COUNCIL MEMBERS ALL I KNOW.

ANOTHER THING I DO KNOW I AM READY TO VOTE.

I'M READY TO VOTE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE CONSTITUENTS, THE ONES THAT YOU PROMISED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SUPPORT.

I WAS ONE OF THOSE.

AND I'M GOING TO DO THAT TONIGHT.

AND I DO KNOW THIS.

I WILL SLEEP GOOD TONIGHT BECAUSE I AM GOING TO VOTE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY.

[10:10:01]

AND THEY'VE ASKED ME FROM ALL DIFFERENT ZIP CODES TO VOTE FOR THEM TONIGHT.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.

AND WHEN I GET ON I-35 AND GO TO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND GO INTO MY PEACEFUL, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, I KNOW I HAVE A CLEAR HEAD ABOUT WHO HAS SENT ME, WHO I REPRESENT AND WHO WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR TONIGHT AND ALL THAT OTHER MADNESS WE'RE TRYING TO GET ALL DEEP INTO ALL OF THAT.

IT COMES DOWN TO YOUR WORD, YOUR COMMITMENT.

AND I'M READY TO VOTE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHERE YOU PROTECT CHILDREN.

THEY CAN WALK TO SCHOOL, THEY CAN PLAY IN THE BACKYARD.

I CAN SIT ON MY PATIO TONIGHT AND NOT HEAR ALL THIS MADNESS NEXT DOOR.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO HAVE.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING.

AND I DO REPRESENT THIS WHOLE CITY.

I COME FROM DISTRICT FOUR AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM REPRESENTING ALL THE REST OF YOU UP HERE IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY TO WANT TO REPRESENT YOU.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE SUBDUED RESPONSE.

AND YOU GUYS, I KNOW HOW BADLY YOU WANTED TO REACT TO THAT.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

OKAY. MR. RIDLEY, I BELIEVE YOU ARE RECOGNIZED NOW FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I CANNOT SUPPORT THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

AND THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEY, IN THEIR MULTIPLE HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE, LOOKED AT WHAT LAND USE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THEIR REGULATION, AND THEY INCLUDED ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE LOCATED IN MIXED USE ZONING CATEGORIES.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE REASONS TO DO THAT ARE AT LEAST TWOFOLD.

FIRST, IT'S A MATTER OF EQUITY.

WHY SHOULD APARTMENT DWELLERS BE SUBJECTED TO THE SCOURGE OF STRESS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS FROM? WHY ARE THEY ENTITLED TO LESS PROTECTION THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS? I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR.

THEY ALSO MUST BE PROTECTED FROM PARTIES, FROM TRANSIENT NEIGHBORS IN THEIR APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

IT'S BEEN ARGUED THAT, WELL, THEY HAVE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES.

WELL, THE SMALLER APARTMENTS DON'T HAVE ONSITE MANAGERS.

IN ADDITION, THE LANDLORDS HAVE ALL THE BARGAINING POWER.

WHEN YOU GO TO LEASE A PLACE, YOU DON'T NEGOTIATE A LEASE, YOU SIGN WHAT THEY GIVE YOU.

AND IF THEY WANT TO ALLOW STRS, THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THAT.

IN ADDITION, A SECOND REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THEM IN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS IS BECAUSE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF OUR RESIDENTS LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.

AS A RESULT, IF WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE CURRENT DIVERSION OF ALL OF THOSE APARTMENT UNITS TO TRANSIENT HOUSING, THEN WE'RE ALSO WORSENING OUR HOUSING PROBLEM.

SOME OF THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DALLAS IS IN APARTMENTS.

IT'S RENTAL HOUSING.

SO WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THE DIVERSION OF THAT HOUSING TO TRANSIENTS INSTEAD OF OUR LONG TERM PERMANENT RESIDENTS? THEREFORE, I AM GOING TO BE OPPOSED TO THAT AMENDMENT.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS AN ANSWER THAT MR. CHRISTIAN GAVE TO A QUESTION THAT HE RECEIVED ABOUT ENFORCEABILITY, AND HE ANSWERED, AS I WOULD EXPECT A CODE OFFICIAL TO ANSWER BASED UPON THE TOOLS THAT HE IS FAMILIAR WITH, AND THAT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT THROUGH MANPOWER IN THE STREETS. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE 21ST CENTURY OPTION, WHICH IS TO EMPLOY A CONSULTANT SUCH AS GRANICUS THAT WAS USED BY DENVER THAT CAN COMB ALL OF THE ONLINE RESOURCES TO LOCATE, IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH THAT A PROPERTY IS BEING USED AS AN STR.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN HIS TOOLBOX CURRENTLY, BUT WILL BE IF WE ADOPT THIS AND THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED SO THAT WE CAN NOT HAVE TO RELY UPON AN ARMY OF CODE INSPECTORS AND DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF.

BUT INSTEAD WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THIS DIGITALLY AND HAVE CLERICAL STAFF WRITE LETTERS TO THE ILLEGAL LAND USES TO TELL THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST, SO THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THEM CAN BE RESOLVED.

IT WAS RESOLVED VERY SUCCESSFULLY IN DENVER THROUGH THAT MECHANISM, WHICH HAS AN 85% COMPLIANCE RATE.

THAT'S OUR SOLUTION.

[10:15:02]

MR. MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JULIA, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME DEFINE MULTIFAMILY? AND IF THAT INCLUDES TOWNHOMES, CONDOS, TRIPLEX OR FOUR PLEX, ETCETERA? YES. SO FOR A TOWNHOUSE THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO IT IS A DWELLING UNIT ON A PROPERTY WITHIN CONDOS AND SUCH.

THEY ARE GENERALLY GENERALLY UNDER THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND SO THEY WOULD, BECAUSE THEY DO FALL WITHIN OR OFTEN FALL WITHIN A NUMBER OF UNITS WITHIN ONE SPECIFIC PARCEL AND THEN TRIPLEXES OR FOURPLEXES OR MULTIFAMILY.

SO UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.

OF MULTIFAMILY AND SCR WOULD BE ALLOWED IN A TRIPLEX.

YES, MULTIFAMILY IS A THREE OR MORE WITHIN ONE PARCEL.

AND CAN AN HOA OFFER ANY PROTECTIONS? FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S A CONDO TOWER? HOA COULD OFFER COVENANTS, BUT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT REGULATED BY THE CITY.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO MULTIFAMILY DENSITY CAPS AND HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THAT? AND THEN WOULD THAT REQUIRE SCR TO BE LOOKED AT AS RESIDENTIAL USE? MULTIFAMILY WOULD NOT BE LOOKED AT AS AS AS RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE WITH MULTIFAMILY IS PROPOSE A CAP AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE GENERALLY WITHIN THE REGISTRATION AN ORDINANCE RATHER THAN WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO EITHER A BLOCK FACE MAXIMUM OR WITHIN EACH BUILDING ANYWHERE FROM 3%, DEPENDING ON WHICH WHICH METHOD YOU USE UP TO.

I THINK 12.5 IS SAN ANTONIO AND I'VE SEEN 25.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OH, GOOD.

SEE YOU BACK, CHAIRMAN MCGOUGH.

SO GLAD TO BE BACK.

I MEAN, PHYSICALLY, YOU'VE BEEN I SEE YOU'VE BEEN THERE REMOTELY THE WHOLE TIME.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK IN PERSON.

YEAH. WE LOVE YOU, MAN.

GO AHEAD. SO PART OF.

MY EXPERIENCE IN THIS SPACE IS I'VE SPENT WAY TOO MANY HOURS OF MY LIFE SITTING OUT AT NIGHT WHILE THERE WERE PROBLEMS AT AN STR AND SITTING THERE WATCHING THE PARTIES, WATCHING THE PEOPLE COME AND GO, WATCHING ALL THE ISSUES, EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD TALKED ABOUT AND FROM THE CITY, WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY ARE, I WOULD DESCRIBE AS FAILURES OF OUR CITY TO ENFORCE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

I HAVE A COUPLE PROBLEMS. TWO OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS, WELL, I'VE BEEN HERE TOO LONG, BOTH TODAY AND IN YEARS.

SO I SPENT TEN YEARS OF THIS CITY INSPECTING GROUP HOMES.

AND A LOT OF THE ISSUES WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW TIED DIRECTLY TO GROUP HOMES.

WE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT LAND USES.

SOME OF THEM WEREN'T ALLOWED IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS AND ABOUT EIGHT DIFFERENT LAND USES.

WE HAD CODE COMPLIANCE AND A TON OF CODES.

AND I MEAN, I COULD PROBABLY SHUT DOWN MY OWN HOUSE WITH CODE COMPLIANCE WITH IF I COULD INSPECT IT.

WE WE HAVE THE CODES ON THE BOOK, WE HAVE THE ZONING ALREADY TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.

IT'S WHY I'VE BEEN FRUSTRATED EVEN WITH THE DISCUSSIONS.

PRESENT COMPANY EXCLUDED.

THE KISS SOLUTION DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM, OKAY? IT'S JUST A PIECE OF IT.

IT IS TOO SIMPLE IN THAT WE NOTHING IS GOING TO MATTER IF WE DON'T ENFORCE.

IF WE DON'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

WE HAD TO DESIGN AN ENTIRE GROUP HOME INSPECTION TEAM TO SPECIALIZE ON HOW WE DEAL WITH THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE.

YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH REGULATIONS.

YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH ZONING.

NONE OF IT MATTERS IF THE CITY DOESN'T BUDGET APPROPRIATELY, DOESN'T STAFF APPROPRIATELY, DOESN'T TRAIN APPROPRIATELY, AND TO MR. RIDLEY'S POINT, DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TOOLS TO PROVE THE CASES THAT WE HAVE TO PROVE.

AND IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO PROVE ONE OF THESE STRS IS FUNCTIONING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OF EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING CODE.

THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE NOT DOING IT AND I DON'T FORESEE US DOING IT APPROPRIATELY.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WE HAVE TO GIVE EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE TO TRY TO KEEP THESE OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

[10:20:05]

I HAD THE HOUSE DIRECTLY NEXT TO ME WAS FOR SALE RECENTLY, AND I WAS SITTING THERE THINKING, FIRST OF ALL, I'M A PROPERTY RIGHTS GUY.

I DO WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE IF YOU BUY A PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT HOW YOU WANT TO AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE PROFIT ON IT HOW YOU WANT TO UNTIL IT CREATES A NUISANCE OR IMPINGES UPON THE PERSON'S RIGHTS NEXT TO YOU.

AND I WANT THAT TO BE THE LAW ON THE BOOKS.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LOVE FOR THERE TO BE AN OPTION THAT DID IT.

I'VE SAID THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT WE CAN'T DO IT IF THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO PUT THE PROPER MECHANISM BEHIND IT TO ENFORCE.

WHEN SOMEONE GOES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.

SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? WE NEED TO TRY TO SAY IT'S A BAN.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCURATE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE BANNING THESE THINGS.

I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE PLENTY OF WAYS AROUND WHAT WE'RE DOING ALREADY.

BUT IT'S A START.

AND AS YOU'VE HEARD, I'M IN A POSITION WHERE I WANT TO DO WHAT NEIGHBORS WANT AND I DON'T WANT AN STR NEXT DOOR TO MY HOUSE.

AND I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT EXACT SITUATION AND IT'S UNTENABLE.

AND SO WHILE I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO SHOOT.

I WISH I HAD THE MONEY TO INVEST AND PUT STRS ALL OVER AND TAKE REALLY GOOD CARE OF THEM AND HAVE GREAT PEOPLE AND REALLY MAKE IT A NICE BUSINESS MODEL.

AT THIS POINT, THIS CITY IS NOT EQUIPPED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

AND SO WE'RE IN A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THE TOOLS THAT GIVE US THE BEST CHANCE TO TRY TO KEEP THESE OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I AM.

IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE, AND I'VE BEEN THERE THE WHOLE TIME.

I WISH THERE WAS BETTER OPTIONS.

I APPLAUD MY COLLEAGUES THAT ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH THOSE OPTIONS AND IT'S CREATIVE AND THEY NEED TO.

BUT THE ONLY REAL IMPACT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS WHEN WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS AND RESOURCES AND TRAINING AND TOOLS TO GO OUT THERE AND MAKE THE CASES WHEN THE BAD ACTORS AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT STEPPING THERE AND SOME ARE GOOD ACTORS THAT HAVE BAD THINGS HAPPEN, I GET IT.

BUT WE GOT TO HAVE THE TOOLS IN PLACE TO DO IT.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING UNDER THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP AND CURRENT SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

SO THAT'S WHERE I AM.

THAT'S WHY I'M THERE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO VOTING AND EVENTUALLY GOING HOME TONIGHT.

CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND I'M GOING TO I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT I'M GOING TO STICK TO THE AMENDMENT AT HAND TO JUST GET SOME CLARITY ON THE MULTIFAMILY.

SO, JULIA, I MEAN, AND I THINK IT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT CPC AND I DO BELIEVE ZOEK LOOKED AT THE MFS QUALIFICATION TO ALLOW FOR THESE. CAN YOU TELL ME MORE CONTEXT AROUND THAT, THAT CONVERSATION? AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANT TO REFRESH MY MIND.

AND SO WHY WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW DID WE GET TO IT BEING EXCLUDED? SO AT ZODIAC, THERE WERE A FEW MEETINGS.

A LOT OF MEETINGS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE ALWAYS CARRIED OVER THE MFF.

IT WAS STAFF WHO CAME WITH SOME DISTRICTS TO MIRROR WHERE HOTELS ARE ALLOWED.

SO WE TALKED ABOUT MULTIFAMILY, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CAPS ON MULTIFAMILY, ABOUT MIXED INCOME HOUSING, ABOUT HOW MANY UNITS THEY COULDN'T AGREE ON WHAT WOULD BE A CAP, WHAT IF ALL OF THEM ARE ALL THE UNITS IN A MULTIFAMILY ARE STRS.

AND IT WAS A MOTION AT THE LAST MEETING THAT SAID ALSO ELIMINATE MULTIFAMILY.

SO AND THAT WAS IT.

I DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC CONVERSATION AT CPC AND MAYBE WRONG TO BRING MULTIFAMILY BACK IN THE EQUATION. SO AT CPC THERE WAS NO REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.

APOLOGIES. THEY TALKED IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS ZACH.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO ADD MULTIFAMILY BACK IN AND IT FAILED.

IT FAILED. AND EITHER JULIA OR ANDREA, I MEAN, YOU'RE THE ZONING EXPERTS.

WHAT DO YOU HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT PUTTING MULTIFAMILY IN A IN THIS ORDINANCE AS AMENDED?

[10:25:06]

I THINK OUR POSITION WAS CLEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WHICH STAFF COULD YOU COULD YOU STATE THAT? I THINK OUR POSITION WAS VERY CLEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO TREAT BASICALLY JUST CREATE THE LAND USE AND LEAVE IT ALL UP TO RESIDENTIAL.

I WOULD UP TO REGISTRATION ORDINANCE AND REGULATE THROUGH DISTANCE.

I WILL MAKE A LOT OF DISTINCTIONS HERE AND I A ZONING DISTRICT IS A LINE ON A PAPER IN A MULTIFAMILY, YOU CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A DISTRICT, YOU CAN BUILD A MULTIFAMILY OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SAME STREET.

YOU MAY HAVE THREE ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO THE REALITY ON THE GROUND IS BASICALLY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE DRAWN ON A ZONING MAP.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS AND THE, AND THE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT COME WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT.

WE, I DO.

BUT I WANT US TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT MORE, MORE EFFECTIVE IS DISTANCE IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CREATES REAL REGULATIONS FOR THIS NEW LAND USE.

WE'RE CREATING MORE THAN JUST CHERRY PICKING FEW DISTRICTS WHERE THIS IS ALLOWED OR NOT.

SO IF YOU IF WE ADD MULTIFAMILY, WE CAN THEN SAY YOU CAN YOU PUT DISTANCE AROUND FAMILIES IN IN THE REGULATIONS IN NUMBER 70 AND ITEM 70 AND LIKE MAYBE THE PERCENTAGE OF UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE IN THAT BUILDING.

SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS.

ONE, I THINK JULIA MENTIONED YOU CAN PUT A CAP ON THE BUILDING ITSELF AND THERE ARE OTHER CITIES, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WHERE YOU CAN DO IT, EVEN LIKE THERE WAS A CITY THAT DID IT BY CENSUS TRACT.

THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF COMPLICATED MEASURES TO BASICALLY PUT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK WE IN OUR IN OUR OPINION, PROBABLY STICK TO THE SIMPLEST ONE.

BUT YOU CAN DO THAT.

I THINK SO THROUGH THE REGULATIONS.

IF YOU ALLOW MF ON AS AS THIS AMENDED BUT THROUGH REGULATIONS YOU COULD CREATE THE THE OUTCOME YOU WANT BY DISTANCES AND PERCENTAGES IN THE BUILDING, IN VARIOUS MECHANISMS LIKE CENSUS TRACTS OR CERTAIN THINGS.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T GET A SATURATION.

YES. YES, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SAYING.

AND WE WOULD SAY, AND I WILL KEEP IT AS A BLANKET STATEMENT AND WE WILL TAKE IT JUST TO MULTIFAMILY.

YOU CAN REGULATE THE DISPERSION AND THE DENSITY IN THE REGISTRATION REGULATION PIECE BY DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM OR BY CAPS ON THE AMOUNT ON A SINGLE PARCEL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GENTLEMEN.

SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES, I BELIEVE.

YES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SO PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO WANT TO MAKE SURE AS AS COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING.

HE'S NOT COMFORTABLE.

HOWEVER, AS YOU JUST SAID, DR.

UDREA, THAT WE CAN CONTROL THE NUMBERS IN THE MULTIFAMILY THROUGH THE REGULATION.

SO YOU COULD SAY, YES, THEY'RE PERMITTED IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES, BUT THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED FOR ZERO UNITS.

IF WE HAVE ZERO ALLOWED, IF YOU HAVE UNDER 20 UNITS, 3% OVER THAT, AND A BUILDING COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETELY OPT OUT AND PUT THEMSELVES ON A REGISTRY OF NONE ALLOWED.

THAT COULD BE THOSE ARE THINGS WE COULD PUT IN THE REGULATIONS, EVEN THOUGH WITHIN THE ZONING CODE IT'S ALLOWED.

TOWNHOUSE ABSOLUTELY NOT.

YOU KNOW, NONE ALLOWED.

SO BUT WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH THE REGULATION, EVEN THOUGH IN THE ZONING CODE IT WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED IN.

MMF. IS THAT CORRECT? I WOULD SAY YES.

CAUTION TOWNHOUSE IS NOT A LAND USE, SO THAT'S A ZONING DISTRICT.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND ALSO WE SAID LAST TIME ALSO FACTOR IN THE FACT THAT USUALLY MULTIFAMILY AND IT DEPENDS MAY HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.

SO THEY ARE LIKE THEY HAVE AN ASSOCIATION THAT IS BASICALLY REGULATING THEM.

BUT YES, TO YOUR POINT, YES, YOU CAN YOU CAN ADD.

SO WHEN YOU GAVE US THESE USE TABLES AND TOWNHOUSES OUT RIGHT ON.

[10:30:03]

EVEN WITH THE DISTRICT, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

SO WITHIN WITHIN THE THE ONLY PLACE WHERE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED WOULD BE WITHIN THE MFF AND THEN IN THE ONES THAT WERE IN THAT EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THE MCGOUGH KAMU.

I WILL. YES I DON'T.

YES YES. AND MU.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. ALL THOSE ON THIS CHART.

SO I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THIS WITH ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IF YOU WANT TO SEE.

BUT BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING ALTERNATIVE TO THE CPC RECOMMENDATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE MR ESSENTIALLY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, CHAIR SCHULTZ, FOR BRINGING UP THE TOWNHOME, BECAUSE TOWNHOME ONE, TWO, THREE.

THAT'S SOMEWHERE THAT I HAVE GREAT PAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO EVEN ENTERTAIN.

POSSIBLY DOING ANYTHING IN REGULATION FOR MULTIFAMILY IS THAT TOWNHOME IS NOT CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY BY SOME PEOPLE, IT IS BY OTHERS. AND SO CAN I JUST GET I JUST LIKE BECAUSE MR. DRE, NO OFFENSE, BUT YOU SOUNDED HESITANT.

SO I WANT TO GET SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO GIVE ME THE LEGAL IT CAN CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT IS TH ONE, TWO AND THREE. IF WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT IN THIS ZONING, THAT IN THE REGULATION, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THERE'S 40 TOWNHOMES OR TOWNHOME THREE, BUT THEY DON'T WANT STRS IN THEIR ON THEIR STREET.

SO IS IT STILL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR IS IT CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY? SO MULTIFAMILY BY DEFINITION IS THREE OR MORE UNITS PER LOT.

THE TOWNHOUSE LOOK THAT WE THINK ABOUT IS BASICALLY LIKE ATTACHED UNITS.

THEY CAN BE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, SO THEY CAN BE PLATTED INDIVIDUALLY.

THEREFORE THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE IT'S ONE UNIT PER LOT.

IT LOOKS LIKE A TOWNHOUSE OR THEY CAN BE PLOTTED AS ONE SINGLE LOT THAT HAS, LET'S SAY NINE ON THEM.

THAT'S A MULTIFAMILY.

MF SO YOU CANNOT BUILD NINE UNITS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE A TOWNHOME TO ALL OF US.

YOU CANNOT BUILD THEM UNDER A DISTRICT.

OKAY, VERY GOOD. SO CH THREE CH TWO CH ONE WOULD BE THEY NEED TO BE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED BECAUSE IN ONE, TWO, THREE THE ONLY USE SINGLE THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED ARE SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX, WHICH IS ONE AND TWO UNITS. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

SORRY ABOUT THE RIDLEY MIC DROP.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO PROBLEM.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET KEEP THESE NUMBERS STRAIGHT AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. UH.

I THINK WE'RE ON TO A SECOND ROUND FOR YOU, MR. MORENO. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

JULIA, WHEN IT COMES TO MULTIFAMILY, HAVE YOU SEEN OTHER CITIES WHERE THEY PUT IN? EXCEPTIONS FOR 20 UNITS OR MORE ON MULTIFAMILY.

THAT WAY WE ARE EXCLUDING TRIPLEXES FOURPLEXES.

SO IT WOULD ONLY.

MULTIFAMILY WOULD ONLY BE CALLED OUT FOR 20 OR MORE UNITS.

I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT CITIES DEFINE MULTIFAMILY IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND SO IT'S HARD TO MAKE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON ABOUT OUR MULTIFAMILY VERSUS SOMEONE ELSE.

WHAT WE'VE REALLY SEEN AND AGAIN, THE MULTIFAMILY IS THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS ON A PARCEL FOR DALLAS, BUT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES, SO SAN ANTONIO AND AUSTIN ARE PROBABLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE WHERE THERE ARE JUST MAXIMUM PERCENTAGES.

SO WITHIN SAN ANTONIO.

IT'S A 12.5% OF THE UNITS IN ONE BUILDING FOR MULTIFAMILY.

AND THEN IN AUSTIN, IT IS MAXIMUM OF 3% OF THE CENSUS TRACT.

3% OF THE PROPERTY AND BUILDING IN A MULTIFAMILY OR 25% OF THE PROPERTY IN ANY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

SO THERE'S A WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS THAT YOU COULD HAVE WITHIN MULTIFAMILY.

[10:35:02]

AND AGAIN, KNOWING THAT EACH CITY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN HOW MULTIFAMILY IS IS DEFINED.

AND THERE'S USUALLY THERE'S A MINIMUM OF ONE PER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING ACTUALLY, CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU WRITING US FOR WHAT? DO WE HAVE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES.

SO I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

IN BAZALDUA IS AMENDMENT WHERE HE SAID THIS WOULD BE BY RIGHT AND ALL MULTIFAMILY AND ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

I MEAN, I'M VERY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, SO NO WAY, NO HOW.

BUT WE HAVE HAD THE INDUSTRY SPEAK TO US AND SAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THIS.

AGAIN, I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN THE MARKETPLACE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THEIR CUSTOMERS, THE PEOPLE WHO SIGN LEASES AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON, THEN THEY CAN LEAVE.

BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS THAT THEY SHOULD BE AFFORDED BECAUSE THIS, TOO, IS THEIR HOME.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S AN APARTMENT THAT YOU'RE RENTING.

THIS IS THE PLACE YOU GO HOME TO AND YOU WANT SOME PEACE.

AND SO BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE AND THIS IS WHERE I GUESS WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH ITEMS IS THAT IF WE WERE TO SAY YES BY RIGHT IN MULTIFAMILY AND ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, WE WOULD COME ALONG BEHIND THIS.

ON THE REGULATION PIECE, ITEM 70, WHERE I WOULD WANT TO LISTEN TO THE INDUSTRY, BUT VERY CONSERVATIVELY.

AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT I THINK TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING TOWNHOMES, WHICH WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME REALLY SMALL COMPLEXES AND I THINK SOME OF THE NUMBERS AND I MAY HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT, I COULDN'T HEAR EXACTLY ALL OF WHAT WAS BEING SAID, LIKE 20 UNITS AND UNDER SO THAT THOSE FOLKS HAVE THAT SENSE OF PEACE.

AS YOU GET OVER THAT, I THINK I HEARD MAYBE IT WAS AUSTIN.

I COULDN'T TELL EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS, AS LOW AS 3%, WHICH I'M JUST IN FAVOR OF LISTENING TO THE INDUSTRY, BUT IN A VERY CONSERVATIVE WAY.

I MEAN, IF IT WORKS OUT, YOU KNOW, WE MAY COME BACK AND ENTERTAIN SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE.

BUT. I DO WANT THE INDUSTRY TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD THEM OR THAT SOME OF US ARE LISTENING TO THAT.

BUT THERE'S STILL JUST A LOT OF CONCERNS AROUND THIS.

AND SO I WOULD THINK THAT ONCE WE GET TO A REGULATION PIECE, THAT WE WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT OPTION.

BUT KEEP IN MIND SOME OF THE STORIES WE'VE HEARD.

I GUESS ONE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IS THE ABILITY FOR A COMPLEX TO COMPLETELY OPT OUT.

I'D LOVE TO HEAR THAT ADDRESSED.

I'M HEARING IT MAY BE THROUGH THEIR LEASE AGREEMENTS VERSUS I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE ON THAT AND MAYBE WE HEAR ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE REGULATION PIECE, ITEM 70.

BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT IF A GROUP IN AN APARTMENT WANTS TO BAND TOGETHER AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT THESE HERE AT ALL, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF MECHANISM TO DO THAT.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS EVOLVING, BUT JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT THOUGHT.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

MY INTEREST IS IN PROTECTING SINGLE FAMILY.

AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT EVERYBODY DESERVING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HOME THAT IS ENJOYABLE TO LIVE IN, I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS IN HOUSING AND WHEN YOU PURCHASE A HOME, YOU'RE EXPECTING TO BE THERE A LONG TIME.

IT'S A LONG TERM INVESTMENT AND WHEN YOU'RE LIVING IN AN APARTMENT, YOU'RE SIGNING GENERALLY A SHORTER TERM LEASE, MEANING NOT SHORT TERM RENTAL LEASE, BUT A USUALLY ONE YEAR OR LESS.

AND SO THE EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU MAY MOVE, YOU MAY RENEW IT.

BUT EVEN SO, HOW MANY YEARS DO GENERALLY RENTERS STAY IN ONE UNIT? WHEN I ASK THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION THIS RECENTLY, THE ANSWER WAS LESS THAN THREE.

SO THE COST OF SELLING A HOME IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT.

SOMETIMES IT HAS TO DO WITH TIMING OF THE MARKET, BUT LOTS OF DIFFERENT FACTORS, INCLUDING OUR REALTOR FEES.

BUT THE COST FOR MOVING WITH AN APARTMENT IS MUCH MORE MANAGEABLE.

SO I'LL SAY THAT WE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT APARTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

IN MY DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A COMPLEX THAT'S LESS THAN 200 UNITS.

WE HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, 350 UNITS.

THEY'RE ALL MASSIVE.

AND I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE APARTMENTS WOULD WOULD BE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO REGULATE THEMSELVES THAN ANY WAY THAT THE CITY COULD REGULATE THEM. SO THEY HAVE ON SITE MANAGEMENT, THEY HAVE CONSEQUENCES, MEANING IF THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF IT, PEOPLE WILL LEAVE.

[10:40:09]

THEY MAY ASK TO MOVE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE COMPLEX OR THEY MAY MOVE ACROSS THE STREET TO ANOTHER LARGE COMPLEX.

SO THERE ARE SO MANY CHOICES.

I WILL SAY IN MY SIDE, HOWEVER, RECENTLY WHEN I WAS OUT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO AND I SAW ALL OF THE VERY SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES, WE HAD AN A HA MOMENT OF ALL THE TIMES WHERE I SAY, GOSH, NO MORE APARTMENTS IN MY DISTRICT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT, NOT A SINGLE ONE.

AND SO FOR THOSE THAT HAVE NO ON SITE MANAGEMENT, I THINK THEY END UP IN THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM AS SINGLE FAMILY.

AND SO I DO THINK THAT PUTTING SOME SORT OF LIMIT MEANING FOR APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH SIX OR MORE UNITS ALTOGETHER AND THEN A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UNITS THAT COULD BE FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL IS APPROPRIATE.

AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S MEETING OUR GOAL OF TRYING TO HELP OUR RESIDENTS HAVE THE KIND OF LIFE THAT THEY'RE EXPECTING. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT PART.

THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT I MIGHT WANT TO WEIGH IN, BUT WE'RE ALREADY AT 1020 AND SO I DON'T WANT TO BE THIS FAR OUT.

SO I THINK EVERYONE'S HITTING REALLY GOOD POINTS, BUT I'M OPEN TO INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY IN THAT.

THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THAT WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE CRIME AT THE APARTMENTS, AND IF YOU HAD MASSIVE PARTIES GOING ON AND YOU HAD CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, THE POLICE WOULD ACTUALLY RESPOND AND IT WOULD END UP BECOMING A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.

SO THERE ARE, AGAIN, CITY CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE INVOLVED THAT AREN'T EVEN NECESSARILY THROUGH CODE COMPLIANCE.

SO IF ANY OF THE ACTIONS THAT HAPPENED IN PRESTON HOLLOW WERE GOING ON WITH GUNSHOTS, WHATEVER, THAT WOULD BE AN AVOIDABLE OFFENSE THAT COULD LEAD TO A DESIGNATION OF HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY BELIEVE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR.

THANK YOU, MR.. THREE MINUTES.

AND LET'S MAKE SURE THERE'S NO ONE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN.

YEAH, OKAY.

THREE MINUTES. QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF THERE IS INTEREST OF THE COUNCIL IN ALLOWING SOME UNITS IN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS ON A CAPPED BASIS OR A PERCENTAGE BASIS, COULD THAT BE ACCOMMODATED IN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE? YES, I THINK IT CAN.

AND SO IN TERMS OF IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HOW WOULD THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT POSSIBILITY, IF AT ALL? I'M GOING TO ASK CASEY AND BERT TO COME UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK, BUT.

SO IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT'S GOING TO SAY BY RIGHT IN.

MF DO YOU THINK THAT IT SHOULD SAY BY RIGHT IN MF SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 42? THAT MIGHT HELP TIE THE TWO TOGETHER.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CHAPTER 42 B SO THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IF YOU WANTED TO PLACE CAPS THE REGISTRATION.

OKAY. SO MY ACTUAL QUESTION WAS, UNDER THE KISS AMENDMENT, THE KISS SCHEME, WHICH SPECIFIES THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH STRS WOULD BE PERMITTED AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MF DISTRICTS, COULD WE STILL PROVIDE IN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT THEY ARE PERMITTED ON A LIMITED BASIS IN MULTIFAMILY AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OR OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS? SO YOU'RE SO YOU'RE ASKING IF IF THE KISS PROPOSAL WAS PASSED, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ALLOW A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE UNDER THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE? YES. NO, YOU COULDN'T DO THAT.

SO IF THEY WERE PROHIBITED BY ZONING, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ALLOW THEM THROUGH THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE.

DURING BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

I LOVE THE DISCUSSION AND SEE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT OF AN APPETITE FOR A COMPROMISE.

FINALLY, WITH THIS CONVERSATION.

ONE IS LOOKING AT MULTIFAMILY, SOMETHING WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT HERE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF BUILT IN REGULATION ALREADY ON SITE FOR MULTIFAMILY.

I THINK THAT THE OPT OUT TO CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS'S QUESTION OR POINT WAS, YES, THAT THEY CAN THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME BUILT IN REGULATIONS.

[10:45:02]

I THINK THAT WE COULD LOOK AT OPTING OUT.

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DO JUST WITHIN THEIR OWN LEASES ON SITE.

I WOULD LIKE TO TO SAY THAT I HAVE FULL INTENT TO GET THE ZONING PIECE DONE SO THAT THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE DISCUSSION ON REGULATION, WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF PUTTING A CAP IN PLACE AND SEEING IF THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE CAN LAND ON.

AS WE'VE HEARD THE TALKING POINTS FROM DAY ONE, IT'S BEEN TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS DOES NOT IMPACT THE FABRIC OF WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OR WHAT WE'VE HEARD BEING ADVOCATED FOR VERY HEAVILY.

THIS DOESN'T IT'S STILL USING ZONING.

AND I THINK THAT IT IS A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND FOR US TO BE AT.

BUT WE DO NEED TO GET THIS PART OF THE AMENDMENT PASSED BEFORE WE GET PAST THIS ITEM SO THAT WHEN WE GET TO ITEM NUMBER 70, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT MOTIONS WILL REFLECT A CAP ON UNITS AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION THERE.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MISTER RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT? I DO SEE SOMEONE.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR LOOKS LIKE THREE MINUTES.

SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION TO WHAT CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA JUST SAID.

IF YOU'RE WELCOME TO USE MY TIME, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE ONE QUESTION.

THE. THE QUESTION IS.

HOW COULD WE APPROVE THE ZONING TO INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY BUT THEN NOT PUT THE CAP ON UNTIL LATER? SO FOR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE YOU AND I HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF CAP.

SURE. I THINK THAT THERE'S IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A CAP ON UNITS SPECIFICALLY.

I KNOW THAT LEGAL COULD PROBABLY WEIGH IN BUT IT'S ZONING IS CODE IS USUALLY MUTE TO THOSE TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS.

HOWEVER IF THIS WAS A GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, THAT'S MAYBE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE TAKEN UP IN THE ZONING PIECE.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY TO BE BY RIGHT WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AND THEN THAT WAY WHEN WE GO INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL DICTATE THE ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT, THAT'S WHEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO PUT IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRING A REGISTRATION THAT ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE AT EACH OF THOSE ADDRESSES.

SO FOR INSTANCE, OKAY, SO THAT'S MY TIME.

SO NOW I'M HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M WILLING TO SAY, OH YES, MULTIFAMILY IS BY RIGHT WHEN I DON'T KNOW TILL MUCH LATER WHAT THE CAP WOULD BE.

YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO THAT IS A VERY BIG PREDICAMENT AND NOT SURE I'M WILLING TO BLIND FAITH DO THAT WHEN I KNOW WE ALL HAVE VERY DIVERGENT IDEAS ABOUT HOW THIS SHOULD GO.

I BELIEVE THERE'S A POSSIBLE LOOKBACK PERIOD COMING.

SO IN THAT SCENARIO, I'M GOING TO SAY I'M COMFORTABLE BANNING IT IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MAYBE WE'LL NEED TO LOOK BACK AT MULTIFAMILY EVEN EVEN IN A SHORTER TIME FRAME THAN WHAT MIGHT BE THOUGHT OF TODAY.

BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL CAP WILL BE, BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HALF THE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL COMPARED TO 5 OR 10%.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO VERY, VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS.

AND I DON'T HONESTLY HAVE TRUST THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING HERE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY SLIGHT CHANGE IN SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

WHAT I THINK WILL BE THE RECOMMENDED, IF THIS HELPS, THAT I THINK THERE'S CONSENSUS AROUND IS THAT THERE WOULD BE ZERO ALLOWED FOR PROPERTIES WITH FEWER THAN 20 UNITS, 3% WITH OTHER BUILDINGS, WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT IF THEY WANT TO REGISTER AS AN OPT OUT BUILDING.

ZERO UNDER 23% FOR OTHERS.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? IS THIS STILL MY TIME? I THOUGHT THAT WAS YOUR TIME. I MOVED ON.

I'D MOVED ON TO JEROME SCHULTZ.

YOU HAVE ANOTHER ROUND IF YOU WANT IT.

YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE MINUTE ROUND IF YOU WANT IT.

WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, HOW WOULD I KNOW IF WE ALLOW MULTIFAMILY ON THIS ITEM THAT WE WOULD END UP WITH THAT CAP? SO THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT I WON'T SHARE.

BUT I THINK I THINK I AM NOT COMFORTABLE THAT I WOULDN'T GET THAT WORD.

[10:50:02]

THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE, CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

YOU HAVE A MINUTE ROUND LEFT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK THAT A LOT OF HAS TO BE COUNTED ON THE TRUST OF THIS BODY.

I THINK WITHIN THE DISCUSSION TO SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU WHERE I STAND, AND THAT IS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN WHEN IT COMES TO MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS THE ZERO UNITS UNDER A BUILDING THAT HAS 20 UNITS OR FEWER.

THE 3% OF ANY MULTIFAMILY THAT IS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT 10% FOR ANYTHING IN THE CBD OR COMMERCIAL ZONES, WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED IN THE CONVERSATION BY THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION.

SO I REALLY WISH WHO THAT ANSWER WAS FOR WAS LISTENING, BUT I'M GLAD EVERYBODY ELSE HEARD IT.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE VOTING. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. OPPOSED? WE'RE THE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE NOW.

ALL RIGHT. RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED, SO WE'LL REPEAT THE MOTION, PLEASE.

OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S CLARITY.

WE'RE GOING TO REPEAT THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, WHICH IS MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S ORIGINAL MOTION.

AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A RECORD VOTE, WHICH IS REALLY A ROLL CALL VOTE IN THIS TECHNOLOGICAL SITUATION WE'RE IN.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD, MR. BAZALDUA, GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR MOTION AGAIN AND THEN WE CAN'T HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON IT.

THE DISCUSSION IS CLOSED. WE'RE GOING TO JUST GO TO THE VOTE.

SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING IS PERMITTED BY.

RIGHT. AND ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

THAT'S THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, FOLKS.

ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE PROCEED WITH THE VOTING.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU OPPOSE.

MORENO. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS.

I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS.

YES. THANK YOU.

BAZALDUA. YES.

DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH 14 MEMBERS VOTING IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED, THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. WE ARE NOW ON MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT AGAIN AS AMENDED.

AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE NO ONE.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THAT ONE, TOO.

CAN YOU REPEAT HIS MOTION, PLEASE? OKAY, SO YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK ANYMORE ON THIS.

YOU JUST WANT TO YOU WANT THE MOTION RESTATED.

ALL RIGHT. WE WON'T RUN THE CLOCK YET.

MR. RIDLEY.

AND WITH THE HELP OF THE PARLIAMENTARIAN STATE, THE MOTION NOW, AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED BY MR. BAZALDUA. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. REQUIRED PARKING IS ONE OFF STREET SPACE PER BEDROOM USED AS SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING AND.

SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING.

MEMBERS. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE MOTION.

SO NOW WE'RE BACK ON THE DISCUSSION AND I'M GOING TO GO TO.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT MAY I CLARIFY? I'M SORRY. IT'S IT'S BY RIGHT AND ALL MULTIFAMILY M O G O AND CENTRAL AREA DISTRICTS.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION WAS.

NO, MY ORIGINAL MOTION EXCLUDED IT IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

NO, I'M NOT BY RIGHT IN MOJO AND CENTRAL AREA.

THAT'S THE CPC.

YES. AND SO I'M ADDING TO THAT LIST THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

I JUST WAS CLARIFYING THAT MO AND GEO AND CENTRAL AREA ARE PART OF THAT.

I'M JUST CLARIFYING THAT IT'S PART OF IT.

WELL, THEY'RE PART OF THE ORIGINAL CPC RECOMMENDATION.

[10:55:03]

THAT'S NOT CHANGING IN MY MOTION.

ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGING IS THE ADDITION OF MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS TO THAT LIST.

CORRECT. I WAS JUST CLARIFYING THAT THOSE OTHER THREE ARE STILL IN THERE, OF COURSE.

WELL, ALL RIGHT, THEN.

OKAY. WELL, THAT SCARED EVERYBODY.

THE QUEUE, WHICH IS GOOD. YOU SHOULD DO THAT MORE OFTEN.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.

AND NOW WE ARE BACK ON TO.

MR. MAYOR, WE HAD ONE OPPOSED.

OH, WE HAD ONE OPPOSED? YES.

WE'RE ON MR. WEST'S MOTION NOW, AS AMENDED BY MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS AMENDED BY MR. BAZALDUA. AND SO I'LL GO TO LET'S SEE HERE, CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. WEST'S MOTION AS AMENDED.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

AS AN AMENDMENT, A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE THAT IS REGISTERED UNDER CHAPTER 44 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE AND UP TO DATE ON HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES AS OF JUNE 14TH, 2020 3RD MAY OPERATE AS LONG AS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE STAYS CURRENT ON HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENTS AND ITS REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL UNDER THE CHAPTER 42 B OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.

IF A SHORT TERM RENTALS, OWNER, OWNER OR HOST CHANGES, OR IF THE REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 42 B IS NOT TIMELY RENEWED, OR IF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 42 B IS REVOKED BY THE CITY, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE MAY NO LONGER OPERATE. SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, SO.

ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE WHERE WE ARE.

MR. WEST MOTION HAD BEEN AMENDED BY MR. RIDLEY. AND THAT AMENDMENT HAD BEEN AMENDED BY MR. BAZALDUA. WE'RE NOW ON MR. WEST'S MOTION AS AMENDED, AND NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION WHICH BY MR. BAZALDUA, WHICH IS WHAT HE JUST READ.

SO. CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON YOUR MOTION? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN, AS WE'VE MENTIONED, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND.

I THINK WE'VE HEARD CLEARLY FROM STAFF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED IN ORDER TO HAVE THE NECESSARY TOOLS AND RESOURCES, WHICH IS A REGISTRATION.

THE LAST THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS NOT ONLY DO AN OUTRIGHT BAN THAT POOLS POTENTIAL FEES THAT CAN BE ACCRUED AND USED AS THOSE TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO ENFORCE AND TIE STAFF'S HANDS WITH WITH NOTHING, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT WILL BE DONE IF 95% OF THE INDUSTRY GOES AWAY OVERNIGHT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ALSO TO LOOK AT OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITY.

WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO KEEP US AWAY FROM LEGAL VULNERABILITY.

THIS IS SOMETHING, I BELIEVE, TO BE A WIN FOR ACCOMPLISHING WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AT THE SAME TIME WHILE ADDRESSING THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN OPERATION.

TO BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

AND ALLOW FOR US TO NOT ONLY NOT BE VULNERABLE TO LITIGATION FROM THOSE WHO WE WOULD BAN, BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR THE RESIDENTS.

I SEE THIS AS A WIN FOR BOTH.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE MOST FIDUCIARY, RESPONSIBLE THING THAT WE COULD DO AS A CITY.

AND I THINK WITHOUT THIS STEP, IT IS A VERY INEFFECTIVE POLICY THAT WE ARE PASSING HERE TODAY.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM COLLEAGUES.

I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET THE SUPPORT AND MOVE ON TO THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE COMPONENT.

MR. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YOU KNOW, I CAME INTO THIS, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, WITH THREE GOALS PROTECT ON SITE OWNERS, RETURN HOUSING STOCK TO DALLAS SITES AND SHUT DOWN THE BAD OPERATORS.

I THINK THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PASSED PREVIOUSLY BY MR.

[11:00:04]

BAZALDUA DOES THE LATTER TO OF RETURNING HOUSING STOCK AND SHUTTING DOWN SOME OF THE BAD OPERATORS.

I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP WITH THAT AS WELL.

I YOU KNOW, COLLEAGUES, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR FOUR YEARS.

WE HAVE HAD ADVICE FROM CITY ATTORNEYS.

WE'VE HEARD CITY STAFF TELL US OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEY NEED RESOURCES TO SHUT DOWN THE BAD OPERATORS.

AND WE'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, MR. CHRISTIAN UP HERE TELL US THERE IS A WITHOUT REGISTRATION.

IT'S HARD TO HOLD ANYBODY ACCOUNTABLE.

SO BY BY SHUTTING THEM DOWN ACROSS THE CITY, WE LOSE OUR DATA, WE LOSE OUR ABILITY TO HAVE CONTACT INFORMATION.

IF THERE IS A PARTY, WE ARE WE GOT TO GO TO DCAD.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE HAVE.

IT. THIS THIS PROPOSAL BY BAZALDUA, I THINK IS A IS A COMPROMISE THAT STILL SHUTS DOWN THE BAD OPERATORS, ALLOWS THE GOOD ONES TO OPERATE AND GETS US WHERE WE NEED TO BE AS A CITY TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO REGULATE THEM.

YOU KNOW, I TALKING WITH YOU GUYS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, I FEEL LIKE MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT.

A COMPROMISE SOLUTION IS THE WAY TO GO AND THEN AN OUTRIGHT BAN IS NOT.

I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE THAT.

AND HEARING MY GOOD FRIEND AND MY COLLEAGUE JAYNIE, YOU KNOW, POUR HER HEART OUT IN THIS WELL WRITTEN STATEMENT, I THINK IT REFLECTS A LOT OF THE OPINIONS AROUND THIS HORSESHOE. YOU GUYS KNOW THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY, TO PROTECT US LEGALLY, TO TO PREVENT THIS FROM GETTING OVERTURNED IN THE COURTS IS TO PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR SETTLED RIGHTS FOR CURRENT OPERATORS.

OTHERWISE, WE ARE GOING TO BE RISKING AN OVERTURN AT THE COURT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A FLOOD OF STRS BACK INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NO REGISTRATION, WITH NO INFORMATION.

A YEAR FROM NOW, TWO YEARS FROM NOW, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THIS IS OUR ONE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO NIP THAT IN THE BUD AND RETURN PEACE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MY NEIGHBORS, IS WHAT THEY WANT. IT'S NOT SHUTTING DOWN THE LITTLE OLD LADY WHO'S TRYING TO STAY IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD AND LIVES ON SITE AND RENTS OUT HER BACK HOUSE.

NO ONE'S ASKING FOR THAT TO GO AWAY.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE PARTY HOUSES TO BE SHUT DOWN.

AND THE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PROVIDE THE SETTLED RIGHTS THAT'S IN THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

THIS AMENDMENT PERPETUATES ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY WITH SWS.

THE RATIONALES THAT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FOR ITS SUPPORT ARE CIRCULAR AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY.

THE NOTION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ALLOW MORE STRS SO THAT THEY CAN GENERATE REGISTRATION FEES IN ORDER TO POLICE THEM IS CONTRADICTORY.

THE SOLUTION IS TO OUTLAW THEM AND TO POLICE THAT WITH THE SOFTWARE SERVICES OF COMPANIES LIKE GRANICUS THAT CAN IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE ILLEGAL LAND USES.

THEN ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SEND THEM A LETTER AND TELL THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST.

SO THERE IS NO MAJOR ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM, AS DEMONSTRATED BY DENVER, WHICH HAS EMPLOYED THAT EXACT STRATEGY IN TERMS OF GRANDFATHERING THESE ON THE BASIS THAT WE AVOID LITIGATION RISK.

THAT IS ALSO CIRCULAR.

AND THE REASON IS THAT IT IS BASICALLY A CAPITULATION TO ALL OF THE STRS EXISTING WITHOUT IT EVER GOING TO THE COURTS, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL SUSTAIN OUR POSITION ON THIS, JUST AS IT HAS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ARLINGTON, WHERE ALL AFTER ALL, APPEALS WERE EXHAUSTED, THE ORDINANCE WAS LEFT INTACT AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BAN STRS.

AND SO WE SHOULD NOT SHY AWAY FROM THIS.

THERE IS GOING TO BE LITIGATION IN ANY EVENT, BUT WE ARE IN A SOLID LEGAL POSITION BECAUSE OF THE ABLE ADVICE OF OUR CITY ATTORNEY IN HOW TO AVOID THE WORST LITIGATION RISK.

WE MUST WEIGH THAT LITIGATION RISK AGAINST THE TREMENDOUS BENEFITS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND TO OUR CITIZENS OF ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT GRANDFATHERING.

THAT IS WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT IT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE.

CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE AMENDMENT DID ON THE AMENDMENT.

[11:05:01]

IT IT STOPPED AS OF TODAY.

CORRECT. AS OF THOSE THAT WERE REGISTERED AS OF TODAY.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO INFLUX OF NEW ONES, IS THAT CORRECT? ALMOST YESTERDAY.

A GOOD POINT. OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE'D BE AN INFLUX.

IT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE REGISTERED TODAY, WHICH I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 1100 OF SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN ANOTHER 600 OR SO IN THE MULTI FAMILY.

AND THEN ONCE WE DO THE REGISTRATION ON THE MULTI FAMILY, THAT NUMBER ACTUALLY WILL REDUCE.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF WE DO THE THE PROPOSED REGISTRATION FOR THE MULTI FAMILY.

SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IN ALL MULTI FAMILY DISTRICTS IS AROUND 300 IDENTIFIED.

AND IF YOU ADD THINGS LIKE CAPS AND OR AND OR DISTANCE SPACES AND AS WELL AS ADDING THE REGISTRATION, WHICH COULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE IF THE REGISTRATION REQUIRES A LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SAY THAT YOU CAN.

RIGHT. USE THAT REGISTRATION OR USE THAT PROPERTY AS AN STR, SAY IN A MULTI FAMILY.

SO THAT 300 NUMBER BASED ON THAT IS LIKELY TO GO DOWN IF THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE HAD VERY, VERY CLEAR CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR ATTORNEYS ABOUT THIS AND THE SORRY IT'S SO LATE, I CANNOT EVEN GO HERE ANYMORE.

WE'VE GOTTEN VERY CLEAR DIRECTION FROM OUR ATTORNEYS.

THIS IS GOING TO END THE WE'VE ALREADY PASSED.

IT'S GOING TO END THE SCOURGE OF IT.

THE CODE COMPLIANCE IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

EVERYONE IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

AND I SPENT, I THINK, SEVERAL HOURS YESTERDAY WITH FOLKS FROM ARLINGTON AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARLINGTON AND HERE WHEN IT CAME TO THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUE.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WE WOULD JUST BE KEEPING THE SAME PROBLEMS WE ALREADY HAVE.

SO, GRANDFATHERING.

SO TO THAT, I SAY NO, THANK YOU.

AS FAR AS SETTLED RIGHTS, I THINK WE HAVE HAD ROBUST CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR ATTORNEY.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT ISSUE AS FAR AS A COMPROMISE.

I THINK THE COMPROMISE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AND THAT COMPROMISE IS TO ALLOW BY RIGHT AND MCGOUGH CENTRAL AREA AND MULTIFAMILY.

THAT'S THE COMPROMISE.

THE COMPROMISE IS NOT GRANDFATHERING.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO GRANDFATHERING.

IT'S NOT A WIN.

IT'S THE WRONG THING TO DO.

IT'S A BIG MARK IN THE LOSS COLUMN.

IT'S A RESET BUTTON FOR THE BAD OPERATORS.

THEY GET THREE FRESH STRIKES.

AND IT SUPPOSES THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE REGISTERED NOW THAT YOU'RE OKAY AND YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT.

IT PERPETUATES ALL OF THESE STORIES THAT WE HAVE HEARD TODAY THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN A VOLUME OF EMAILS ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HEARING TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, YEAH, THAT'S PEACHY KEEN, LET'S JUST OPEN THE DOOR AND LET THAT CONTINUE BY GRANDFATHERING IN THESE CURRENTLY REGISTERED PROPERTIES.

NO, THAT'S WRONG.

AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY HOUSES.

IT'S NOT ALL ALLOWED.

THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING IS THAT IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT SOME THUMPING BASS.

IT IS ABOUT THE OVERFLOWING TRASH.

OR IT MAY BE QUIET AS A MOUSE, BUT A STREET, YOUR STREET FILLED WITH CARS OVER PARKING WHERE EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN'T GET THROUGH OR PARKING IN FRONT OF A FIRE HYDRANT.

I TOO, AM SATISFIED THAT AFTER TALKING WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND BEING BRIEFED ON THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES, THAT THEY HAVE EXAMINED CASES AROUND THE STATE OF TEXAS, AROUND THE COUNTRY.

THEY HAVE REALLY GONE OVER THESE THINGS WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB.

IT'S BEEN EVOLVING.

ONCE A DECISION IS MADE AND THEN WE SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN DIFFERENT MARKETPLACES.

AND SO I, TOO, FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH WITH WHERE WE ARE.

AND GRANDFATHERING IS NOT PART OF THAT EQUATION.

IF YOU NEED INCOME, HOW ABOUT THE STABILITY OF A 30 DAY PLUS RENTER THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLEAN UP AFTER? YOU KNOW, AND AS FAR AS GENERATING FEES THAT WE NEED TO GENERATE FEES, I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE COST THAT WE DRAIN ON THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ON SANITATION, ON CODE? I MEAN, FRANKLY, I DON'T CARE IF THERE'S A FEE OFFSET.

OUR RESIDENTS WANT A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT CAN RESPOND TO THEM.

THEY WANT CODE ET CETERA.

DEPARTMENTS THAT CAN RESPOND TO THEM, NOT THAT ARE HAVING TO GO AND CLEAN UP AFTER THE OVERINDEX THAT WE HAVE SEEN THROUGH OUR OWN ANALYSIS IN JUST FOUR MONTHS

[11:10:06]

TIME GENERATES THREE AND A HALF TIMES MORE CALLS THAN A NON STARTER.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE NUMBER AT OVERINDEXES.

WE'RE DRAINING RESOURCES ALL IN THE NAME OF GENERATING FEES.

I MEAN, THIS WOULD BE A HUGE MARK IN THE LAST COLUMN.

SAYS DO NOT BELONG IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

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

SO THE WHOLE REASON THAT THIS BODY SENT.

THIS ISSUE TO CPC WAS TO GET A RECOMMENDATION.

IT WENT THROUGH ZODIAC AND THEN IT CAME BACK HERE.

THIS IS ABOUT LAND USE.

WE HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

PEOPLE PURCHASED THEIR HOMES OR THEY RENT A HOME IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN ORDER TO NOT LIVE NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL HOTEL.

SO HERE ARE SOME OF THE LAND USE ISSUES WHICH MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS ELOQUENTLY STATED.

I CAN'T DO IT AS FAST AS SHE DID.

HEAVY CAR TRAFFIC.

HIGH PEDESTRIAN.

IN AND OUT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

OVER PARKING.

YOU ALSO HAVE A HIGH PROPENSITY OF OVERUSE OF POLICE RESOURCES.

AMBULATORY RESOURCES.

FIRE TRUCK RESOURCES.

THESE ARE ALL LAND USE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHEN IT COMES TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE ADA COMPLIANCE THAT A HOTEL HAS TO HAVE.

SO THERE'S ISSUES WITH FAIR HOUSING, IN MY OPINION, FOR ACCOMMODATIONS.

A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPRINKLERED IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE.

A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE ESCAPE ROUTES IN THE EVENT SOMETHING TRAGIC HAPPENS IN THAT BUILDING, THE WAY A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO HAVE.

A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME DOESN'T GET CHECKED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL THE WAY A COMMERCIAL HOTEL WOULD GET CHECKED.

THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH HAVING STRS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THOSE ARE LAND USE ISSUES, MR. MAYOR. THAT'S WHY EARLIER I SAID I'D KEEP ON KISSING.

KISSES ARE GOOD.

THE KISS IS NICE.

THE KISS WILL LET US HAVE OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE ALREADY COMPROMISED BECAUSE WHEN THIS STARTED.

WE WERE ALL FOR AN ALL OUT OVERLAY BAN IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND NOW WE'VE GOT ALL THESE ZONES THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET THEM BE IN.

WE'VE COMPROMISED.

WE'VE COMPROMISED ENOUGH.

WE COMPROMISED JUST A SECOND AGO IN GOOD FAITH.

I WILL NOT BE STANDING FOR THIS ONE.

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO TO THIS AMENDMENT.

GENTLEMEN, BLACKMON RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I HAD SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS.

I'M A LAWYER. I'M SORRY.

I'M JUST KIDDING. I'M JUST KIDDING.

JUST KIDDING. NOT VOLUNTEERING FOR THIS ONE.

HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, TAMMY, YOU GOT SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT SETTLED RIGHTS ARE? THE LEGAL DEFINITION.

WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS ALLOWS SOMEBODY WHO IS ALREADY REGISTERED AND PAYING REGISTERED TO PAY THEIR HOT TAXES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGISTRATION, THEY GET THEIR CO, ETCETERA.

AND HAS THE COURTS RULED ON REVOKING THAT OR HAVE THEY MADE ANY INDICATION OF HOW THEY WOULD STAND IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAD FAILED OR HAD PASSED? ARE THEY SILENT ON THEIR FEELINGS IF THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS RIGHT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS REMOVED? I WOULD LET ME JUST SAY, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A NON CONFORMING.

RIGHT. BECAUSE SHORT TERM RENTAL USES LAND LODGING USES ARE NOT DEFINED USE IN OUR CODE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE NONCONFORMING

[11:15:09]

RIGHTS AT ALL. THAT WOULD BE LIKE WE THAT WAS THEY HAD SHORT TERM LODGING USE.

AS A USE IN OUR CODE AND THEN WE CHANGED IT.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST HERE.

SO THIS IS JUST SAYING THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU'RE REGISTERED, PAYING YOUR HOT TAXES, THAT YOU CAN NOW HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A CO FOR LODGING USE AND REGISTER.

BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS GOING FORWARD OR YOU COULD LOSE YOUR SETTLED RIGHTS.

AND SO HAS THE COURT RULED ON ANYTHING ABOUT LOSING SETTLED RIGHTS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'VE LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT THAT.

OKAY. OKAY.

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

OKAY. OKAY.

DO YOU WANT TO LET ONE OF YOUR ATTORNEYS GIVE US SPECIFIC YOU WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT I JUST SAID? WE'LL GO TO.

THAT FILLED UP QUICKLY, DIDN'T IT? LOOK AT THAT. OKAY.

GO AHEAD. BERT VANDENBERG, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

CAN'T HEAR YOU. BERT VANDENBERG, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE THE COURTS HAVE.

HE JUST PULLED THAT A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH THERE.

I THINK I CAN.

THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD SETTLED RIGHTS AT AT THIS POINT.

I THEY HAVE ALREADY UPHELD SETTLED RIGHTS AS AN EXISTING FACT.

AND MR. MAYOR, SINCE THAT INFORMATION, CAN I RETAIN MY TIME BACK? WELL, YEAH, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU HAD.

GIVE ME TWO MINUTES, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I TALKED FOR 30.

YEAH, YOU'RE ON FOR FIVE, SO.

YEAH, TWO IS. THAT'S FAIR.

SO, BERT, WHICH CASE WAS THAT? DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE THE COURTS HAD ADDRESSED SETTLE RIGHTS IN THIS? THAT WAS ZA'ATARI VERSUS AUSTIN.

AND SO IN THE COURT SAID THAT THOSE DO EXIST AND WE'D BE VIOLATING WHAT DID ESSENTIALLY DID IT SAY THEN? LET ME HELP WITH THAT.

WHAT IT SAID WAS IN AUSTIN VERSUS ATARI, AUSTIN CREATED A LICENSING SCHEME FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS BEFORE THEY CREATED THEIR LAND USE.

AND SO THEY CREATED THREE SEPARATE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS AFTER THEY CREATED THEIR LICENSING.

AND SO IN ONE OF THE THREE CATEGORIES, THE CITY DECIDED TYPE TWO SALES WERE NO LONGER GOING TO BE ALLOWED AND THOSE FOLKS HAD ALREADY BEEN LICENSED. AND SO THE COURT SAID.

THAT THOSE FOLKS HAD SETTLED RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY LICENSED BEFORE THEY WERE ZONED OUT.

IN A NUTSHELL.

ALL RIGHT. Y'ALL HAVE ALL GONE.

OKAY, SO WE'LL GO TO CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. A QUESTION.

SO BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT PERMITTED, BUT THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH THEY'D HAVE TO OPERATE? SO IF WE PUT STRICT REGULATIONS IN FOR THEM, CAN THEY LOSE THOSE SETTLED RIGHTS? IF THEY DON'T? CAN WE PUT NEW REGULATIONS ON THEM COMPARED TO WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW IF THEY'RE COMING IN AS SETTLED RIGHTS? SO I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM NONCONFORMING, GRANDFATHERING OR SETTLED RIGHTS.

WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING IS THAT IF YOU ARE REGISTERED AND PAYING YOUR HOT TAX THAT.

YOU MAY OPERATE AS LONG AS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE STAYS CURRENT ON HOT TAX PAYMENTS.

AND IT'S IT AND IT'S REGISTRATION RENEWAL UNDER 42 B OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.

IF A SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNER OR HOST CHANGES OR IF THE REGISTRATION UNDER CHAPTER 42 B IS NOT TIMELY RENEWED, OR IF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS REGISTRATION UNDER 42 B IS REVOKED BY THE CITY, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE MAY NO LONGER OPERATE.

OKAY. AND THEN IF WE ADOPT NEW ASPECTS OF 42 B, ARE THEY AND THEY'RE NEW TO THEM AS WELL.

THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED, ARE THOSE ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THOSE? YES. SO OUR POTENTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH 42 BE.

CONCERNS ABOUT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS.

[11:20:04]

YES. YES. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

AND I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD CONVERSATION.

I DO THINK THAT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT, JUST AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE VERY BEGINNING, IN LOOKING AT ALL PROPOSALS, THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT VULNERABILITY TO LITIGATION, BUT IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.

WITH THE BILLS THAT WERE FILED THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION, EVEN ONE OF WHOM WAS THE SPONSOR THAT REPRESENTATIVE GARY GATES, WHO SPONSORED HB 2665, ENDED UP GOING TO BEING A STUDY INSTEAD OF AN OUTRIGHT BAN.

IF THAT WERE TO HAVE GONE THROUGH, WE WOULD HAVE NO ABILITY TO REGULATE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY.

YESTERDAY, HE WAS ASKED BY D MAGAZINE IF HE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND HE SAID, IF YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PREVAIL ON AN OUTRIGHT BAN, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE.

IT MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED THIS PAST SESSION.

IT MAY NOT BE THE NEXT SESSION.

BUT YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE AN OUTRIGHT BAN.

IF DALLAS PASSES A BAN, HE PROMISES THAT THE CITY WILL BE FEATURED FRONT AND CENTER IN THAT STUDY THAT HIS BILL TURNED INTO.

IN ADDITION TO THE VULNERABILITY TO LITIGATION.

AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT BEING FIDUCIARY, FIDUCIARY, RESPONSIBLE, RESPONSIBLE IN OUR ROLES.

WE NEED TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS AS MUCH OF RELIEF AS WE CAN WHILE STILL PROTECTING THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST.

THAT'S NOT JUST WITH THE POTENTIAL OF LITIGATION, BUT THAT'S ALSO WITH THE.

GLARING PREEMPTION THAT COMES OUT OF AUSTIN EVERY SINGLE SESSION.

HE ALSO GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE SUPPORTS REGULATIONS AND THINKS THAT JUST AS OTHER COURTS HAVE RULED, REGULATIONS CAN BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL.

AND HE WELCOMES CITIES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED SUCH APPROACHES TO GET TO THE TABLE TO BE A PART OF THAT STUDY AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL THAT HE FILES NEXT SESSION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE TOO HEAVY HANDED AND LEAVE US WITH OUR HANDS TIED BEHIND OUR BACKS.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT POINT IS PUT IN THAT IT'S MUCH MORE THAN JUST BEING SUED.

WE'VE BEEN AT A DIRECT ATTACK NOT ONLY WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT THE GOVERNOR JUST SIGNED THE LARGEST PREEMPTION BILL IN THE STATE'S HISTORY TODAY IN HB 2127. SO 2.665 IS A GREAT EXAMPLE ON WHY WE SHOULD BE COGNIZANT AND CONSCIOUS OF WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT, WHAT'S BEING OBSERVED ACROSS THE STATE, AND HOW LEGISLATORS WILL REACT TO AN ACTION THAT IS TOO HEAVY HANDED AT A LOCAL LEVEL.

OKAY, MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

CLARIFICATION ON YOUR LAST ANSWER.

I APOLOGIZE, MR. MORENO. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR KEEPING A QUORUM AND TAKING CARE OF TODAY'S BUSINESS.

I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR WORKING OVER TIME, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR SOME OF THE DECORUM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY SOME.

THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS FOR BEING PATIENT AND STAYING WITH US THROUGH THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LISTEN TO ALL SIDES, EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THEM.

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TODAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY, NOR WILL GO AWAY OVERNIGHT.

I BELIEVE THAT.

THE MOTION THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST WOULD WORK BECAUSE IT ADDRESSES PARTY HOUSES AND THAT'S ALL THAT WE WANT TO GET RID OF THEM.

IT ENSURES THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDING AND RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PROPERLY HAVE RECODE AND DPD TO DO THE JOBS.

MY HEART GOES OUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE DEALT WITH OUT-OF-CONTROL, NO REGARDS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTY HOUSES.

AGAIN, THIS IS A CHALLENGING ISSUE AND I KNOW MANY OF US ARE FRUSTRATED.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT REGULATION COULD WORK.

HOWEVER, I MUST SIDE WITH THE RESIDENTS, THE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT WHO I REPRESENT.

AND SO I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

THE QUESTION IS, WHOSE MOTION ARE WE ON NOW? YES. I FIGURED THAT LAST DATE MIGHT BE A LITTLE CONFUSING TO SOME FOLKS.

JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE ACTUALLY STILL ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION. I GOT YOUR POINT, THOUGH, MR. MORENO, BUT YEAH, WE'RE TECHNICALLY ON THE MR.

[11:25:02]

BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT AND NOT THE UNDERLYING MOTION, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.

OKAY. BECAUSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE GRANDFATHERS.

IS THAT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE? YEAH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

THE GRANDFATHER. OKAY. WELL, I'M JUST SAYING AT THIS POINT.

YEAH. MR. BAZALDUA, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO BE AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T WANT TO DO GRANDFATHERS GODFATHERS ANY OF THOSE.

I SIMPLY WANT TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO BY THE COMMUNITY TO VOTE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INITIAL GOAL OF GOVERNMENT WAS TO CREATE COMMUNITIES WITH NEIGHBORHOODS, NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS TO BUILD COMMUNITIES.

COMMUNITIES THAT WILL GIVE BACK TO THE CITY WITH TAX DOLLARS SO THAT THE CITY CAN PROVIDE SERVICES.

AND SO WE KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THAT.

IT'S HARD ENOUGH NOW JUST TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE DRUG HOUSES AND ALL OF THOSE.

AND SO THE BEST THING TO DO IS START MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO ADD TO THE LIST OF ENFORCEMENT.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO ADD TO GIVING BIRTH TO SHORT TERM RENTALS OR TRYING TO KEEP THEM AND MAKE AND AND BABY THEM OR INCUBATE THEM.

WE WANT TO PROTECT.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, AS YOU SIT IN THE AUDIENCE, WE CANNOT DELIVER EVERYTHING THAT SOMETIMES WE PROMISE IN CAMPAIGNS IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU AND THE AUDIENCE ALONG WITH US TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

THAT'S WHAT THE REALITY WE NEED TO FACE.

WE HAVE TOO MANY STORIES.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD. YOU'VE CALLED THE POLICE AND THEY COME 24 HOURS LATER BECAUSE IT WAS A PRIORITY ONE.

AND SO WHAT IS IT? IT'S A IT'S A FOUR THAT BECOMES FOUR.

AND SO WE WANT PEACE AND QUIET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOU GO TO WORK SO THAT YOU CAN PROTECT WHAT PEOPLE TELL US IS OUR WEALTH, OUR HOMES.

THAT'S THE THAT'S THE GREATEST INVESTMENT THAT WE COULD HAVE.

BUT FOR US TO HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT WE'VE INVESTED IN AND THE VALUE TO GO DOWN TO LITTLE OR NOTHING AND WE CAN'T BARELY SELL IT WHEN WE GET READY TO SELL IT BECAUSE OF THE THE RECORD OF WHAT'S GOING ON NEXT DOOR.

SO I'M STILL TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.

BUT PEOPLE, WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SENT US HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE WE'RE DIVIDED INTO DISTRICTS THAT TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICTS.

SO NO, I CAN'T COMPROMISE ON ANY GRANDFATHERS OR CASEWORKERS AND CASE MANAGERS AT THE HOME.

WHEN WE MARKETED FOR HOMES, IT WAS FOR PEOPLE TO BUY THE PROPERTY TO BECOME TAXPAYERS SO THEY COULD GIVE BACK AND INVEST IN THE CITY.

AND TO ME IT'S VERY SIMPLE AND I APPRECIATE THE BUSINESSES, BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU WHEN YOU GO ON DCAD, YOU'LL SEE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND THERE'S PROBABLY ONE MORE THAT LODGING BECOMES A COMMERCIAL.

AND IN MY OPINION, I DON'T HAVE A LAW DEGREE, BUT IN MY OPINION, IT BECOMES COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEY MAY BE PAYING HIGH TAXES, BUT I BET YOU THEY'RE NOT PAYING THE RIGHT PROPERTY TAXES BASED ON A COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO ALL DEEP INTO ALL THAT OTHER THAN THIS.

I AM A PROPERTY OWNER.

I HAVE A HOME.

I LOVE THE COMMUNITY.

I LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LOVE BEING ABLE TO WALK DOWN TO MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IF I NEED TO GET SOME SUGAR, IF I WANT TO WALK DOWN AND SEE MY NEIGHBOR IN MY PAJAMAS, GUESS WHAT? I WANT THAT PEACE AND QUIET AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

BUT TONIGHT I'M JUST LIKE DOROTHY ONCE AGAIN.

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO HOME IN PEACE AND QUIET TONIGHT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE BLOCKING MY DRIVEWAY PARKING, AND I DON'T WANT TO WONDER IF THE PERSON NEXT DOOR IS SOMEONE WHO JUST THERE FOR THE WEEKEND.

SO ALL I'M ASKING, MAYOR, AND I WISH WE COULD JUST MOVE THE QUESTION TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL PROTECTING KISS THE ZONING AND BE THROUGH WITH THAT SO WE CAN GO HOME AND CELEBRATE PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAVE COME HERE, WHO HAVE FOUGHT, WRITTEN THEY'RE STILL HERE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY BELIEVE IN THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY BELIEVE THAT WE WERE SENT HERE WHEN THEY ASKED US TO COME HERE, THAT WE WOULD VOTE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.

AND I'M WILLING TO SAY, EVEN THOUGH AND I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, I KNOW I FEAR NO COURTS.

I'M HERE BECAUSE OF A COURT.

SOMEBODY HAD TO FIGHT SO I COULD BE HERE TO SIT HERE AND WHO I AM TODAY.

SO I DON'T MIND FIGHTING.

AND IF THE JUDGES WOULD TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE BY A PARTY HOUSE EITHER WHEN THEY GO HOME AFTER A LONG DAY AT COURT.

SO I'M JUST SAYING.

SO I DON'T FEAR COURTS.

I TOLD YOU EARLIER TODAY, LET'S DRESS UP AND GO.

THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.

SOMEBODY TELLS ME, I FEAR NO COURTS IS GOING TO LIVE ON FOR A LONG TIME.

[11:30:03]

THAT'S INTERESTING. I MEAN, WOW.

MR. RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IN THAT SAME VEIN, CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU WILL.

YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT AUSTIN FACED IN THE ZA'ATARI CASE BY LICENSING THE STRS BEFORE THEY IMPOSE ZONING REGULATIONS, AND THAT THAT'S WHAT GAVE RISE TO THE SETTLED RIGHTS AS FOUND BY THE COURT.

CORRECT. THAT GAVE RISE TO THE RETROACTIVE LAW ALLEGATION AND THE SETTLED RIGHTS.

YES. AND THAT IS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OUR SITUATION IN DALLAS, WHERE WE HAVE STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED THAT TRAP BY NOT CONSIDERING LICENSING STRS IN ADVANCE OF IMPOSING ZONING RESTRICTIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IN TERMS OF RUNNING SCARED FROM THE STATEMENTS OF A SINGLE STATE LEGISLATOR ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO COME DOWN HEAVY ON DALLAS IF WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT STRS.

I DON'T CONSIDER THAT A REASON TO ABROGATE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR RESIDENTS TO PASS ORDINANCES TO PROTECT THEM. THEY'RE OUR FIRST RESPONSIBILITY.

WHAT HAPPENS MANY YEARS IN THE FUTURE IS NOT MY CONCERN AT THIS POINT.

AND INDEED, WHEN THAT EFFORT WAS ATTEMPTED IN THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATURE, IT WAS DEFEATED.

SO THAT, I THINK, IS JUST A RANDOM THREAT THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY IN SHYING AWAY FROM OUR RESPONSIBILITIES HERE AT THE HORSESHOE.

THANK YOU, MR. RESENDEZ. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST QUICKLY WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THIS MOTION.

I THINK IT'S A HAPPY MEDIUM.

I THINK IT ALLOWS A ZONING SOLUTION TO BE IN PLACE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME GIVING THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE RESOURCES TO ENFORCE THAT SOLUTION. AND, YOU KNOW, I SHARE I DO SHARE SOME LEGAL CONCERNS AS WELL, PARTICULARLY SENATE BILL, I BELIEVE IS SENATE BILL 929.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE FULLY THOUGHT OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT OF THAT LAW.

SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WE SHOULD SPEAK ON UP? YEP. HERE WE GO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR HOW MANY MINUTES? YOU TELL ME. THREE.

I'LL BE QUICK.

MAKE A WISH. I'M WISHING FOR KISS.

I KNOW WE'RE ALL TIRED.

IT'S 1111.

I'M GOOD. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. RIDLEY, FOR SPEAKING ON ZA'ATARI.

FOR SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT AUSTIN DID, HOW WE HAVE AVOIDED THAT PITFALL HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND SO THAT FOLKS KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO PREEMPTION BILLS ON STRS SINCE 2015.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN, A DEMOCRAT, AN INDEPENDENT, I HATE GOVERNMENT, EVERYBODY THAT IT'S EVERY GAMBIT OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM THAT SHOWS UP IN AUSTIN AND HAS HELPED TO WORK TO KILL PREEMPTION BILLS ON STRS.

AND THAT'S HOW THE PEOPLE WORK.

AND THAT'S WHEN LEGISLATORS DO THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT GATES'S BILL DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A COMPANION SENATE BILL.

AND SO WHEN IT WAS CONVERTED TO A STUDY, THE SENATE, THEY STILL IGNORED IT.

THEY LET IT DIE.

AND SO THERE IS NO STUDY.

SO I'M IT'S AN EMPTY THREAT.

AND WE'LL AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY DALLAS AND THE COURT.

THIS IS GOING TO COURT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, AND THE COURTS WILL HANDLE IT AND FIGURE IT OUT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE CREATING AN ORDINANCE.

WE'RE CREATING LIKE THE LAW, RIGHT, FOR THE CITY.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN WITH OUR COURTS.

AND SO I FEEL CONFIDENT FROM THE ADVICE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEYS THAT WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING THE CORRECT WAY.

WE'RE RARELY, RARELY EVER STEERED WRONG BY A VERY TALENTED CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AND THAT'S WHY THE NINTH LARGEST CITY IN THE NATION IS DALLAS.

AND I TRUST OUR CITY, OUR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY AND I TRUST HER TEAM THAT WE ARE GOING THE RIGHT PATH.

[11:35:05]

LET'S GET THIS VOTED ON, GUYS.

LET'S KISS.

CAN MAKE THAT. CHAIRMAN ATKINS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WHY? IT'S PAST MY BEDTIME.

I'LL MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET.

LET'S VOTE ON FOR THE RESIDENT.

I FORGOT TO PROTECT MY RESIDENT.

I DON'T WANT NO PART OF THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO ME.

I DON'T WANT A WHOLE LOT OF TRASH WHEN I GET TO THE HOUSE.

I DON'T WANT TO CALL THE POLICE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING OR 4:00 IN THE MORNING AND NOT GOING TO SHOW UP.

SO THEREFORE, LET'S VOTE AND GET IT OVER WITH.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE ON FOR AGAINST MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S ORIGINAL MOTION SEEING NONE.

RECORD VOTE NO.

WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ALL UNLESS SOMEONE ASKS FOR A RECORD.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO VOICE.

KNOW WE DO.

THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. HIS AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION? THAT'S CORRECT.

DO WE NEED A RECORD VOTE FOR THIS? IT'S ALREADY BEEN REQUESTED. YOUR LIGHT WAS STILL ON.

NO. IF YOU WERE ACTUALLY WANTING TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MADAM.

MADAM SECRETARY. GO AHEAD.

PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MCGOUGH. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ? NO. MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES. WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

WE'RE BACK ON MR. WEST. ORIGINAL MOTION.

MR. WEST, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? A POINT OF INFORMATION, MAYOR? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LEGAL IS THAT MY MOTION MAY HAVE BEEN I FORGOT THE TERM MR. VANDENBERG USED COMPLETELY WIPED OUT, IRRETRIEVABLY ALTERED.

AND SO I'M NOT SURE PARLIAMENTARY WHAT TO DO AT THIS POINT WITH IT.

SO WE'RE DONE. IS THIS IT? I WOULDN'T SAY IRRETRIEVABLY, BUT YOU APPROVED THE THE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW LAND USE.

YOU HAD AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 14TH, 2023.

WHAT WAS ALTERED WAS THE DISTRICT'S PERMITTED AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

OKAY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT MY OPTIONS ARE AT THIS POINT? EMOTIONS LEFT ON THE TABLE.

SUPPORT US. WELL, A POINT OF ORDER.

STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

AND I'M GOING TO DEFER ALL THESE TO THE.

WELL, FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

RIGHT. MY AMENDMENT ADOPTED THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, NOT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS A PART OF MR. WEST'S MOTION.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS DIFFERENT? NO, I'M NOT SAYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS ANY DIFFERENT.

I DIDN'T CHANGE THAT.

SO THAT REMAINS THE SAME.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MY AMENDMENT WAS SUSTAINED, WHICH WAS ADOPTION OF THE CPC'S RECOMMENDATION, NOT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IT IN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW IS I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.

YES. WELL, I DIDN'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, BUT THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT SHOULD BE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, TO FINISH MY POINT OF ORDER OR INFORMATION IS THAT MY MOTION IS EFFECTIVELY DONE AND DISPOSED OF.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO AT THIS POINT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HIS MOTION HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF WHEN IT DID INCLUDE A DATE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SECONDARY MOTION.

OH, IT ESTABLISHED THE DATE, THOUGH.

BUT I DIDN'T AMEND THAT AND HE DIDN'T AMEND IT.

SO DON'T WE HAVE TO APPROVE HIS MOTION AS AMENDED? YES. THANK YOU.

[11:40:03]

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS NOW I HAVE A QUESTION IS IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE REALLY ASKING MR. WEST AT THIS POINT IS DO YOU STILL HAVE TO PROPOSE THE MOTION? THAT IN ITS CURRENT FORM, IF YOU NO LONGER ACTUALLY WANT IT, I GUESS.

DO WE NEED TO EVEN TAKE A VOTE ON MY MY MOTION, WHICH JUST SOUNDED LIKE WE DO? YEAH. OKAY.

THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK TOO.

BUT I GUESS WHAT I WAS ASKING IS, ARE YOU TRYING TO WITHDRAW YOUR THE MOTION OR SOMEHOW NOT PUT IT FORWARD ANYMORE IN ITS AMENDED FORM? I'M DEFINITELY NOT WITHDRAWING IT, BUT I WANT IT DISPOSED OF IN SOME WAY SO WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE.

SO PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, COULD THE MOTION BE RESTATED AS AMENDED WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED TONIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S NOW 1120, BUT BECAUSE HIS MAIN MOTION INCLUDED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WE AMENDED THAT, IF WE COULD JUST WRAP IT ALL UP IN A BOW SO THAT WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE'RE VOTING ON, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S ALWAYS WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT.

SO I HAVE ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER WHEN YOU'RE READY.

SURE, SURE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN HAVE A MINUTE TO ACTUALLY DO THAT OR SOMEONE CAN OR THE CITY SECRETARY CAN ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO RESTATE THE FINAL MOTION THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE VOTING ON.

GO AHEAD, MR. RIDLEY.

THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE DATE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS OPPOSED TO THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS HOW IT WAS DRAFTED FOR ME BY YOUR OFFICE? AND IT'S UP TO THE BODY.

IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ZONING, IT'S UP TO YOU.

WELL IN THE REGISTRATION ORDINANCE THAT WILL NEXT BE TAKING UP.

WE ALLOW FOR A DEFERRED DATE FOR ENFORCEMENT, BUT A CURRENT EFFECTIVE DATE.

SO THAT IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, BUT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED FOR SIX MONTHS.

CAN WE DO THAT WITH A ZONING ORDINANCE? YES, I BELIEVE YOU CAN.

AND WHILE SOMEONE'S LOOKING INTO THAT, PLEASE, SOMEONE BE COMPILING.

YES, I THINK YOU CAN. OKAY.

IN THAT CASE, MISTER MAYOR, I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO MR. WEST'S MOTION TO PROVIDE FOR A CURRENT EFFECTIVE DATE.

BUT AN ENFORCEMENT DATE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

SO THAT AMENDMENT ALSO NOW NEEDS TO BE ROPED INTO THIS COMPILATION.

SO WE CAN RESTATE.

WHAT MR. WEST A MOTION NOW LOOKS LIKE.

I WILL GIVE IT A TRY.

MR. WEST'S MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CREATING A LODGING USE AND ALLOWING ALL OF ALLOWING THE LODGING USE, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE IN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL.

IT WAS AMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY TO LIMIT IT TO MCGOUGH CENTRAL AREA MIXED USE, MULTI COMMERCIAL AND URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICTS, WHICH WAS AMENDED WHERE YOU ALL AMENDED ALSO TO ALLOW IT IN ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.

THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IS THAT YOU INCORPORATED ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM.

IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT I THINK I CAPTURED ALL OF IT WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS OF TODAY AND ENFORCEMENT SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY.

MEMBERS. YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

NOW, THAT'S MR. WES MOTION IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

MR. WES, DID YOU HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OR ONE MORE? CAN I VOTE AGAINST MY OWN MOTION NOW THAT IT'S BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES? I WAS WONDER IF WE WERE GOING TO GET TO THAT QUESTION.

WHAT'S THE RULE ON ON THAT? YOU MAY NOT SPEAK AGAINST YOUR MOTION, BUT YOU MAY VOTE AGAINST IT.

GOT IT. THANK YOU.

THEORY. YOU MIGHT GET THERE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST MR. WELLS MOTION AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED IN THE WAYS THAT MR. RIDLEY JUST DESCRIBED.

SEEING? NONE. DOES ANYONE WANT A RECORD VOTE ON THIS, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO VOTE? RECORD VOTE THEN.

MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. AND I CALL YOUR NAME.

[11:45:02]

PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WEST.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO.

MCGOUGH. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NARVAEZ.

YES. MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

YES, MA'AM. MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES. OH YES.

WITH 12 VOTING IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO SOME MOTION ON ITEM 70.

[70. 23-756 An ordinance amending Chapter 27, “Minimum Property Standards,” by amending Section 27-30; (1) adding Chapter 42B, “Short-Term Rentals,” to the Dallas City Code; (2) providing (description of amendment); (3) providing a penalty not to exceed $500.00; (4) providing a saving clause; (5) providing a severability clause; and (6) providing an effective date - Estimated Revenue: General Fund $48,001.00 or $1,562,631.00 annually (see Fiscal Information)]

Y'ALL KNOW THE RULES.

CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? A MOTION ON 70.

PLEASE PROCEED.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CODE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, THE DIRECTOR MAY REVOKE A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING REGISTRATION IF THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OR MORE CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE OR STATE OR FEDERAL LAW WITHIN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOT ISSUE OR RENEW A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING REGISTRATION ON PROPERTY.

IF THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OR MORE CITATIONS OR VIOLATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE WITHIN THE PRECEDING YEAR.

A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE.

I'M AMENDING ON THE FLY WITH NO SINGLE FAMILY IN IT.

SO. ONE SECOND. A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE.

IN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS WILL HAVE A CAP ON PERCENTAGE OF UNITS THAT CAN OBTAIN STR PERMITS 3% IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, 20% IN CBD AND COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND ZERO UNITS UNDER BUILDINGS WITH 20 UNITS OR LESS.

PARKING PLACARDS ARE NOT REQUIRED.

AMEND THE DEFINITION OF BEDROOM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF BEDROOM IN CHAPTER 51, A A PERSON OTHER THAN A HOSTING PLATFORM COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THE PERSON ADVERTISES A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE FOR RENT WITHOUT A VALID SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION ISSUED UNDER CHAPTER 42 BE A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

LODGING USE MAY NOT BE USED AS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT RESTAURANT OR SIMILAR BUSINESS UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS A VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE USE. THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

OR AS DIRECTED AT STAFF FROM STAFF.

CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT THE CITY MANAGER WORK TO ENTER CONTRACTS WITH THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PLATFORMS FOR THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MR. BIZOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? YES. FIVE MINUTES.

THIS IS, I GUESS, WHERE THE MEAT IS.

WHAT WE JUST DID, AS MANY PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY CONFUSED ON, WAS A ZONING TOOL THAT DOESN'T GIVE US THE ABILITY TO REGULATE ANYTHING.

SO THIS IS WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM WITH WHAT WAS PASSED.

WE WE DO STILL HAVE SOME ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT STRS WILL BE AFFORDED BY.

RIGHT. WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT A REGISTRATION, COLLECT FEES, HAVE A REGULATION ENFORCEMENT IN PLACE WITH REVOCATION POWER.

WE NEED PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE THE HOT TAXES ARE COLLECTED AND REMITTED AND.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS ADDRESSED THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS, INCLUDING THE CAPS THAT WERE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

[11:50:08]

FOR THE MULTIFAMILY.

SO WITH THAT, I HOPE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUPPORT TO CLOSE THIS CHAPTER.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, I BELIEVE YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE.

I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO MR. BAZALDUA MOTION.

EACH SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING.

NOW THESE ARE ADDITIONS TO MR. BAZALDUA AS AMENDMENTS.

EACH SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE MUST BE SEPARATELY REGISTERED.

BEDROOM IS DEFINED AS ANY ROOM IN A DWELLING UNIT OTHER THAN A KITCHEN, DINING ROOM, LIVING ROOM, BATHROOM OR CLOSET. AND OCCUPANCY OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL LODGING USE IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE PERSONS PER BEDROOM, WITH A TOTAL OCCUPANCY NOT EXCEEDING 12.

OH, AND ONE FINAL ONE.

CHAPTER 42 BE MUST BE REVIEWED BY AN APPROPRIATE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE BY JUNE 14TH, 2025.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

MR.. REALLY? DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YES. JUST TO EXPLAIN A FEW OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

THE REFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION OF MR. BAZALDUA IS TO THE DEFINITION OF BEDROOM BEING THE SAME AS IN CHAPTER 51.

A PRESENTS A PROBLEM IN THAT THAT IS A DEFINITION WHICH READS IN FULL.

A BEDROOM IS ANY ROOM IN A DWELLING UNIT OTHER THAN A KITCHEN, DINING ROOM, LIVING ROOM, BATHROOM OR CLOSET, ADDITIONAL DINING ROOMS AND LIVING ROOMS AND ALL DENS, GAME ROOMS, SUN ROOMS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS ARE CONSIDERED BEDROOMS. SO MY AMENDMENT STRIKES THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT DEFINITION, WHICH WOULD CREATE A MULTITUDE OF ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS, WHICH WOULD NOT ONLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF OFF STREET PARKING REQUIRED, BUT ALSO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

AND SO I BELIEVE THAT MY DEFINITION, WHICH IS THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE EXISTING DEFINITION, IS A VERY CLEAR ONE AND A SENSIBLE ONE IN THIS CONTEXT.

I THINK THAT'S ALL THE EXPLANATION THAT NEEDS TO BE OFFERED AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU. MEMBER.

WELL, I'LL JUST SEE YOUR NUMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

BAZALDUA. THANK YOU.

YEAH. CAN I. CAN I JUST ACCEPT THAT? I DON'T WANT TO USE THAT TERM.

WE'RE GOING TO LET THE ATTORNEY WEIGH ON.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK Y'ALL WANT ME TO RESTATE THE MOTION.

I'M JUST SAYING. CAN I ACCEPT THAT? YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY INTERPRETATION? YES. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE ENTIRE BODY, I MEAN, IT REALLY DOES BELONG TO THE BODY.

NO OBJECTION. OBJECTION.

SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE.

SO AT THIS AT THIS MOMENT, WE DON'T SEE ANY OTHERS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR OR YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT? AND SO IT'S OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO THANK MR. RIDLEY FOR BRINGING THAT CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE.

I THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE AND THERE'S NO REASON TO GO INTO A DEBATE OVER THE SEMANTICS THAT I THINK ARE NOW MORE CLEAR.

SO I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT AND FOR US TO MOVE ON THE VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH AND I APPRECIATE YOU ACCEPTING THAT.

WE'RE NOW READY FOR THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON.

LET ME LOOK, I'M SORRY.

COUNCIL MEMBER WAS IT WAS KIND OF IN THE DARK.

I HAD TO TILT IT TO SEE IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED I MEAN, THERE'S THERE WAS A LOT READ INTO THE RECORD THERE.

I KNOW THESE WERE PUT TOGETHER.

I SUPPORT THEY ALL I MEAN, THE GOAL HERE IS TO SHUT DOWN THE PROBLEM PROPERTIES.

AND I THINK WE'VE WE'VE WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING TOWARDS THAT.

IS THERE ANY PROBLEM FROM CITY MANAGEMENT ON THE TIMELINE, ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT CONCERN YOU THAT THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS? NO, SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ.

I JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS OUT AND WE ALL RUN OUT OF HERE TO THANK THE RESIDENTS FOR WORKING SO HARD ON THIS, FOR ALL OF THIS.

[11:55:05]

I'M SORRY THAT THERE WERE MOMENTS THAT IT WAS DIVISIVE AND MEAN, BUT THERE WERE ALSO MOMENTS THAT WE REALLY LISTENED TO EACH OTHER AND LEARN FROM EACH OTHER.

I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES AS AS AS OPPOSED AS WE WERE ON SOME ASPECTS OF THIS.

I THINK IT'S REALLY AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE'RE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, WORK THROUGH REALLY HARD THINGS.

AND MOST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE DEDICATION TO THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.

SO THANK YOU ALL.

AND MR. RIDLEY, CONGRATULATIONS.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A SEMINAL MOMENT IN YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ, FOR SAYING THOSE WORDS.

I WANT TO REITERATE EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND THEN JUST SAY MANY OF YOU ALL MADE IT FROM, I THINK, 11 A.M.

AND IT'S 1134 NOW.

SO THANK YOU.

YOU GOT TO REALLY SEE HOW THE SAUSAGE GETS MADE HERE AT DALLAS CITY HALL AT THE HORSESHOE.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS PRETTY.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN WHEN WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF AN ISSUE, WE FIGURE IT OUT AND THE BODY TYPICALLY FIGURES IT OUT AND WE END UP VOTING.

SOME VOTES ARE REALLY CLOSE.

YOU SAW ONE AMENDMENT WAS 8 TO 7, AND NOW WE HAVE THIS GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND IT WAS SUPER FRIENDLY.

SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS ADDED SOMETHING TO THIS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, THE BEST POSSIBLE ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH AND LET'S GET TO WORK.

AND THAT'S I THANK YOU, MR. RIDLEY, FOR ADDING THAT REVISIT.

I THINK THAT WHENEVER WE ADD A REVISIT INTO POLICY, IT MAKES POLICY EVEN BETTER BECAUSE THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE IN TWO YEARS.

WHEN IT COMES TO STRS, THE PLATFORMS, ALL OF THAT.

THIS IS TECHNOLOGY AS WELL, AND THINGS ARE ADVANCING AND THEY'RE ADVANCING FAST.

AND I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU, MR. RIDLEY, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN YOUR NUMBER ONE ISSUE THAT BROUGHT YOU TO CITY HALL AND YOU HAVE NOT LET UP.

AND YOU EVEN ON THE DAYS I DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, YOU MADE SURE THAT I WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT STRS AND THEN EVEN TO MR. BAZALDUA AND MR. WEST, EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH YOU ALL, I STILL APPRECIATED YOU GIVING ME CALLS.

AND I TRIED TO LISTEN.

AND SOME COMPROMISES WERE MADE TODAY.

AND I THINK THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE BETTER FOR DALLAS OVERALL.

SO THE NEXT ISSUE IS COMING UP.

WE'LL BE IN A NEW COUNCIL IN TWO WEEKS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING WITH ONE WEEK.

YEAH, YOU'RE ALL RIGHT. ONE WEEK ON TUESDAY, AND THEN WE'LL SAY SOME OTHER WORDS TO OTHER PEOPLE AND THE OTHER ONES.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBERS, OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT HERE FOR CLARIFICATION.

I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH MEMBER BAZALDUA THAT HIS MOTION SAID THAT THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE TAKES EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL TAKE EFFECT SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY, WHICH IS COINCIDES WITH THE ZONING.

YES, THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER ATKINS.

I JUST WANT TO THANK TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES, CHAIRMAN THOMAS AND CHAIRMAN MCGOUGH.

I KNOW THIS IS YOUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING AND FOR YOU TO STAY HERE, YOU KNOW, TO MIDNIGHT AND WE PROBABLY BE MIDNIGHT BEFORE YOU LEAVE.

SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE, NUMBER ONE, THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO STAY.

I MEAN, YOU LEFT AND CAME BACK AND AND CHAIRMAN THOMAS, YOU DARE.

AND YOU SHOWED THE SUPPORT OF OUR RESIDENTS AND THE CONCERN.

SO I JUST WANT TO PERSONALLY THANK YOU.

BUT ALSO, COUNCILMAN RIDLEY, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK.

IT WAS NOT AN EASY SHOW.

SOMETIMES WE AGREE A DISAGREE, YOU KNOW.

BUT THE POINT IS, THE RESIDENT CAME OUT.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RESIDENTS AND ABOUT THE CITIZEN.

BUT ALSO SOMETIMES WE AGREE, SOMETIMES WE DISAGREE.

YOU KNOW BAD OUT ABOUT TO DO IT AND WEST AND BLACKMON YOU KNOW HEY WE DON'T THROW YOU ANY CHAIRMAN BLACKMON CHAIRWOMAN BLACKMON YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT THE KEY IS, NUMBER ONE, WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE.

WE STILL THE COUNCIL.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT FUTURE.

THE NEXT ITEM POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY COUNCILWOMAN.

YES. YES. INQUIRY.

WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY VOTED ON THIS.

I'D LOVE TO THANK EVERYONE AND CELEBRATE, BUT I ALSO REALLY LIKE TO GO HOME.

I USED TO. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS WHAT I WANT.

EVERYONE A BIT EXCITED, BUT WE NEED TO FINISH OUR COMMENTS AND WRAP THAT UP AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM.

SO DON'T GET TOO EXCITED.

WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM AFTER THIS.

[12:00:01]

THANK YOU. SO WHO ELSE IS IN THE QUEUE TO IS WEST FOR? IS RIDLEY HERE TO GO? POINT OF INFORMATION. PAUL, DID YOU ALREADY GET YOUR FIVE I'VE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T JUMPING YOU ON THIS AND I JUST WANTED TO END ON A POSITIVE NOTE AND JUST A COMMENT TO THE RESIDENTS.

I WANT TO THANK LIKE OLIVE AND NORMA AND JESSICA BLACK AND SO MANY OTHERS WHO SPENT TIME TALKING WITH ME AND EDUCATING ME ON ON THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS OVER.

IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS NOW.

AND AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING.

WE WANT TO SHUT DOWN THE PARTY HOUSES AND WE JUST DISAGREE ON HOW WE GET THERE.

AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH HOW THIS IS GOING TO ROLL OUT.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I FEEL LIKE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THE PARTY HOUSES WILL BE SHUT DOWN STARTING TODAY.

AND I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE WORKED SO HARD TODAY AND LEADING UP TO TODAY AND CITY STAFF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR FOUR YEARS AND ARE GOING TO AND THIS IS JUST STARTING FOR THEM TODAY.

LIKE THE ENFORCEMENT PIECE IS REALLY KICKING IN TODAY.

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO CITY STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES.

COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS FOR STICKING WITH US.

STAFF FOR ALL YOUR WORK.

BUT I REALLY WANT TO THANK MY FRIEND COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR ALWAYS TRYING TO LOOK FOR A COMPROMISE.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO ELIMINATE OUR PARTY HOUSES AND TO GET THE BEST PROTECTION FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

I TRULY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND ALL THE TIME THAT YOU PUT INTO IT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

WE'RE CHECKING THE I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY IN THE QUEUE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

JUST BRIEFLY, THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SCHULTZ, FOR YOUR KIND REMARKS.

AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE STAYED THROUGH THICK AND THIN, WHO HAVE MADE MY MISSION VERY CLEAR AND WHO HAVE, THROUGH THEIR STEADFAST DEDICATION TO THIS, MADE THIS RESULT POSSIBLE, AND PARTICULARLY SPECIAL.

KUDOS TO THE RINGLEADER, RINGLEADER OF ALL THE LADY IN BLUE, OLIVE TALLEY.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

SO, OLIVE TALLEY, OK, WE ARE GOING INTO OVERTIME, BUT SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.

WE'RE READY NOW FOR THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE, MR. ATKINS. NO, YOU DIDN'T FINISH YOUR TWO MINUTES, BUT CAN YOU.

ARE YOU READY FOR THE VOTE? ALL RIGHT, THEN. JUST TRYING TO.

ALL IS CLEAR.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN ADOPTED.

MADAM SECRETARY, FOR THE RECORD NOTED.

MADAM MAYOR, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS TH ONE.

[PH1. 23-1182 A public hearing to receive comments regarding consideration of amending Chapter 51A of the Dallas Development Code, Section 51A-4.701(d), “Two year limitation,” to revise the applicability of the two-year limitation, standards to grant a waiver, and related regulations and an ordinance granting the amendments]

TH ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 50 1-4.701D TO YEAR LIMITATION TO REVISE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION STANDARDS TO GRANT A WAIVER AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM ITEM? TH ONE NO. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, MADAM MAYOR.