Jun 28, 2023 City Council Agenda Meetings

>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I'M GRUDGINGLY SUPPORTING GRANTING MORE ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THIS RIDICULOUS ORDINATES THAT WE HAVE SUPPORTED AS A COUNCIL.

I WANTED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS.

WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES WE HAVE SPENT NOW SUPPORTING THIS BAN ON POKER ROOMS?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THIS CONTRACT 300,000.

I'M ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 70 ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT POSTED TODAY, I BELIEVE 250 FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

>> I MEAN, WHERE DOES IT END? LIKE, WHEN DO WE STOP PAYING FOR THIS LITIGATION?

>> I MEAN, WE HAVE A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.

WE DID NOT APPEAL THAT JUDGMENT.

THE TEXAS CARD HOUSE DID.

IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY TO DEFEND THE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT AND THE TRIAL COURT.

[01:10:02]

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I KNOW WE HAVE TO DEFEND OUR CITY EMPLOYEES WHO'VE BEEN SUED IN THIS.

WHEN WE FIRST DISCUSSED THIS ITEM, COUNCIL ASKED STAFF TO REVIEW THE ORDINATES TO TRY TO FIND A LEGAL PATH FOR ALLOWING POKER ROOMS TO OPERATE GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS WE HAVE UNDER STATE LAW, I BELIEVE THAT WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY.

IT'S NOW ALMOST JULY.

WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THAT? THIS IS REALLY FOR STAFF.

>> YES. I BELIEVE WE PROVIDE THEM AN OUTLINE OF WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE ILLEGAL LAND USE.

BUT I SEE ANDREA COMING UP.

>> THANK YOU. ANDREA GALAS, PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CODE AMENDMENTS IN PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH, OBVIOUSLY MOST RECENTLY SHORT-TERM RENTALS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON TO IMPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING OURSELVES THROUGH THOSE TO THE XO LACK AND THROUGH CPC SO WE ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO GET TO THIS ORDINANCE IN THE FALL OF THIS YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I'M A BIG FAN OF YOUR WORK AND I KNOW YOU'RE LIMITED WITH STAFF AND BY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF OUR APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT THE CO-DOMAIN AMENDMENT WE DO FOR POKER ROOMS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH?

>> IT WILL OBVIOUSLY START WITH STAFF REVIEW.

WE'VE GOT A DECENT FOUNDATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WE'VE STARTED TO WORK ON THAT, BUT IT NEEDS TO THEN IT'LL START WITH ZODIAC.

GO THROUGH THE ZODIAC REVIEW, THEN IT MOVES TO CPC FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL.

>> THERE HAS NOT BEEN AS OF TODAY, A DRAFT PRESENTED TO ZODIAC?

>> THERE HAS NOT.

>> YOU ANTICIPATE THAT BEING SAID THE FALL, CAN YOU BE CAN YOU NAIL IT DOWN A LITTLE CLOSER? AUGUST, SEPTEMBER?

>> I WOULD SAY SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER.

>> THANK YOU. I MEAN, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT COME UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO COUNSEL.

I'VE ALREADY SEEN THE DRAFT THAT WAS PRESENTED ARE SHOWN TO ME ON OFFICIALLY FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SO I KNOW IT'S OUT THERE.

BY THIS NOT BEING ILLEGAL USE, WE'RE JUST PUSHING ALL THESE OPERATORS UNDERGROUND, WHICH IS JUST A RECIPE FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY GOING ON VERSUS MAKING THIS ILLEGAL USE SO THAT'S IT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. BALZADUA. IS THAT RIGHT? NO.

>> I'M HERE.

>> WHOSE MICROPHONE? FIFTEEN NOW. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT I DO HAVE MY BUTTON PUSH.

YES. THANK YOU.

YOU DESCRIBE THE CASE AS HAVING A FAVORABLE RULING.

COULD YOU CLARIFY TO SAY DID THE JUDGE RULE THAT POKER ROOMS ARE AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY?

>> GETTING A LITTLE AWAY FROM WHAT'S THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

BUT I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, PREVAILED AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE HELD THAT THE BOARD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND MADE AN ILLEGAL DECISION WHEN IT REVERSED THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

>> THERE WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CITY FIGURING OUT A WAY TO ALLOW POKER ROOMS. IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ALLOWED TO ISSUE A CEO FOR AN ILLEGAL USE?

>> WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY BRING TO US WHEN THE JUDGE HAS DETERMINED THAT IT'S AN ILLEGAL USE?

>> I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENSES IN THE PENAL CODE ARE.

THIS IS REALLY ABOUT EXTENDING OR ADDING MORE MONEY TO THE CONTRACT.

I DON'T HAVE IT POSTED TO TALK ABOUT THE LAWSUIT IN DEPTH OR THE LAND-USE.

>> I JUST FIGURED SINCE IT WAS BEING DISCUSSED BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, THAT I WOULD ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

>> THE DEFENSES TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE PENAL CODE PROVIDE A ROADMAP FOR POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL USE WHICH WOULD BE A PRIVATE PLACE AND NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT.

>> WE GOT IT STRAIGHTENED OUT.

MR. NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR 5 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER WESTON MENTIONED.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO DEFEND OUR EMPLOYEES AND WE HAVE TO DEFEND THE CITY.

[01:15:03]

HOWEVER, I REALLY DO FEEL WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED ALL OF THIS IF WE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS TO CREATE THE DEFINITION IN THE ZONING IN ORDER TO GET THROUGH THIS.

IS THERE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO JUST DO THAT OR DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LAWSUIT? IT BECAUSE IF WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON SOMETHING, COULD WE MAYBE WORK WITH THE FOLKS THAT ARE SUING SO THAT WE COULD END UP WITH JUST A WHOLE I MEAN, IF WE'RE TALKING SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, COULD WE JUST HOLD IT AND END UP WITH THE CORRECT ZONING OR SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN END UP GETTING THIS TAKEN CARE OF WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND COUNTLESS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MORE DOLLARS AS THIS CONTINUES.

>> THE CITY'S BRIEF WILL BE DUE BEFORE THE LAND-USE COMES TO ZODIAC TO GET STARTED SO WE HAVE TO FILE OUR BRIEF AND THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE THAT.

>> VERY GOOD. BUT IS THERE A WAY TO FILE THE BRIEF AND THEN ASK THE FOLKS THAT ARE SUING US TO, LET'S GET INTO AN AGREEMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AND THEN LET'S JUST END THIS.

OR IN THE EVENT THAT WE GET THROUGH THIS BY SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, OR DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE GOING OR WILL SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, IF WE DO APPROVE AND PASS A CHANGE WILL THAT ALLOW US TO THEN NEGOTIATE WITH THEM TO DROP THEIR LAWSUIT AND MOVE FORWARD.

>> WE CAN TALK TO THEM ABOUT CHANGING THEIR MODEL.

BUT AS THEIR MODEL RIGHT NOW, THE COURT HAS SAID IS ILLEGAL.

>> CORRECT. NO, I HEAR YOU I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M JUST SAYING WE ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING TO HELP THEM GET THE MODEL THAT POSSIBLY COULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING, DO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE HAVING A LAWSUIT OR BECAUSE WE'RE DOING TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME?

>> UNDER THE CURRENT MODEL, THEY'RE ILLEGAL AND SO WE WOULD DEFEND THAT.

I MEAN, WE CAN ALWAYS TALK TO THEM ONCE WE GET THE MODEL CHANGED TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEIR MODEL.

>> VERY GOOD. I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET THERE SO THAT WE CAN COME TO AN AMICABLE SOLUTION SO THAT THESE CAN CONTINUE AS LONG AS THEIR MODEL ISN'T ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, SO THAT WE CAN ALL GET THESE FOLKS BACK TO WORK AND GETTING WHAT THEY NEED TO BE DOING.

BECAUSE AS MR. WEST MENTIONED, THESE GAME ROOMS END UP GOING INTO THE SHADOWS AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS FOLKS GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THERE'S HIGHER CRIME RATES AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ARE IN NORTHWEST DALLAS BECAUSE WAREHOUSE AREA.

THEN I ENDED UP IN SIX WITH MORE ISSUES BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITY GOING INTO THE SHADOWS.

IF WE CAN GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF, IT WOULD HELP US WITH OUR PUBLIC SAFETY NUMBERS AS WELL IN NORTHWEST DALLAS BECAUSE THE FOLKS THAT DO WORK IN THESE PLACES TEND TO MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY WHEN IT'S DONE THROUGH A LEGAL PROCESS THAN WHEN IT'S DONE UNDERGROUND AND IN THE SHADOWS.

IF WE CAN GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF, IT'LL HELP OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR.

>> HAS BEEN ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM FIVE, SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? THE AYE'S HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> AGENDA ITEM 10 IS A RESOLUTION AMENDING

[10. A resolution amending the Code of Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Board (1) providing amendments to existing definitions and adding additional definitions; (2) providing general references to the duties and authority of the civil service board, adoption of rules, appointment and duties of the civil service secretary, posting of scheduled meetings, and required annual reports to the city council; (3) clarifying and amending the rules for appointments in the competitive class, establishing minimum qualifications for positions, creation of eligibility lists, probationary periods, and appointments to the non-competitive class, examinations for job applicants (both standard testing as well as physical examinations), disqualification of applicants, and adding a new rule that addresses rehire eligibility of former city employees; (4) deleting, amending, and adding new eligibility criteria for appointments and promotions in the sworn service (for civil service ranks in the police and fire-rescue departments), and providing eligibility criteria for appointment to the new rank of single function paramedic officer trainee and single function paramedic officer in the fire-rescue department; (5) amending and clarifying the rules regarding reductions in force (RIF), reorganizations, and transfers, creation of the RIF register, the order of layoffs, allowance of exemptions, and reinstatement rights; (6) amending the reference to civil service appeals of disciplinary actions and grievances by adding a reference to Chapter 34 of the personnel rules; and (7) providing miscellaneous provisions stating that employee conduct rules are found in the personnel rules, referencing the authority of the civil service board to conduct investigations, stating support for employees who wish to join or refrain from joining employee organizations, listing the required reporting to the civil service board, retention of records, and amendment of the rules. - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

THE CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.

ONE, PROVIDING AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING DEFINITIONS AND ADDING ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS TWO, PROVIDING A GENERAL REFERENCES TO THE DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, ADOPTION OF RULES, APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SECRETARY, POSTING OF SCHEDULE MEETINGS AND REQUIRED ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THREE, CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE RULES OF APPOINTMENTS IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASS, ESTABLISHING MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR POSITIONS CERTAIN FOR POSITIONS CERTAIN CREATION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, PROBATIONARY PERIODS, AND APPOINTMENTS TO THE NON-COMPETITIVE CLASS.

EXAMINATIONS FOR JOB APPLICANTS, BOTH STANDARD TESTING AS WELL AS PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, DISQUALIFICATION OF APPLICANTS, AND ADDING A NEW RULE THAT ADDRESSES REHIRE ELIGIBILITY OF FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES FOR DELETING, AMENDING AND ADDING NEW ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS IN THE SWORN SERVICE OR CIVIL SERVICE RANKS AND THE POLICE AND FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENTS, AND PROVIDING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE NEW RANK OF SINGLE FUNCTION PARAMEDIC OFFICER TRAINEE AND SINGLE FUNCTION PARAMEDIC OFFICER IN THE FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT.

FIVE, AMENDING AND CLARIFYING THE RULES REGARDING REDUCTION IN FORCE, REF, REORGANIZATIONS AND TRANSFERS, CREATION OF THE REF REGISTER, THE ORDER OF LAYOFFS, ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTIONS AND REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS.

SIX, AMENDING THE REFERENCE TO CIVIL SERVICE APPEALS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND

[01:20:05]

GRIEVANCES BY ADDING A REFERENCE TO CHAPTER 34 OF THE PERSONNEL RULES AND SEVEN, PROVIDING MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS STATING THAT EMPLOYEE CONDUCT RULES ARE FOUND IN THE PERSONNEL RULES REFERENCING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS STATING SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WISH TO JOIN OR REFRAINED FROM JOINING EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS, LISTING THE REQUIRED REPORTING TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, RETENTION OF RECORDS, AN AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER, MENDELSOHN.

>> MENDELSOHN YOU HAVE A MOTION?

>> I DO. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND REQUESTS GFR TO REVIEW SECTION 4.4, SWORN SERVICE CERTIFICATIONS AND PROMOTIONS, AND THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT WITH A CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND BRIEF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WITHIN 100 DAYS FROM TODAY.

>> WE'RE MOVING TO SECRETARY DISCUSSION, MR. MENDELSOHN.

>> THANK YOU. THIS ITEM HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BRIEFED.

I'LL SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD AND IMPORTANT WORK THAT'S HAPPENED.

I THINK, ESPECIALLY ON THE POLICE SIDE, SOME THINGS GOT CHANGED THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR HELPING WITH PROMOTIONS AND A DEEPER EXPERIENCED LEVEL BEFORE PEOPLE ARE PROMOTED.

THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD RECRUITING THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ON THE DFR SIDE.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE OPERATED UNDER A PAY PARITY MODEL, AND THERE'S FIVE ITEMS COVERED BY CIVIL SERVICE ON THE FIRE SIDE, FOUR ON THE POLICE SIDE.

WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM A LOT OF PARITY, BOTH THE LENGTH OF TIME WITHIN POSITIONS AS WELL AS WHILE THEY START OFF AT PAY PARITY THEY'RE NOT MATRICULATING THROUGH.

MY HOPE IS THAT DFR WILL WORK WITH THEIR ASSOCIATIONS WHO HAVE INPUT ON THIS AS WELL TO PERHAPS LOOK AT WHAT THE POLICE HAVE DONE, WHICH I THINK IS EXCELLENT WORK, AND CONSIDER IF THERE SHOULDN'T BE A LONGER TIME FRAME IN SOME OF THESE POSITIONS BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD AND THEN BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ON SOME OF THE WORDING FOR QUALIFICATIONS.

I HAVE TALKED TO CHIEF ARTISTS, I'VE TALKED WITH ASSOCIATIONS, I'VE TALKED WITH JARED AND CIVIL SERVICE, AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE AGREES THAT THIS COULD USE ANOTHER LOOK.

LET THEM DISCUSS IT AMONGST THEMSELVES AND BRING IT BACK TO US WHEN THEY FEEL IT'S READY.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT ALIGNMENT IS NECESSARY.

JUST AS A QUICK EXAMPLE, A FIRE OFFICER WHO CAN START AT 18-YEARS-OLD NOW, AND A POLICE OFFICER WHO WOULD START AT 19-AND-A-HALF-YEARS-OLD.

THEY COULD MATRICULATE TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CIVIL SERVICE AND THE FIRE OFFICER COULD BE 23, IF THEY TOOK THEIR TESTS AND WERE PROMOTED, BUT A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE 32-AND-A-HALF-YEARS-OLD.

THIS IS UNBALANCED.

WE EITHER NEED TO THEN BREAK AWAY FROM OUR LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF PAY PARITY, WHICH I THINK IS USEFUL FOR ALL OR OTHER THINGS WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.

I DO THINK HAVING JUST SIX MONTHS IN A DRIVER POSITION IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

A YEAR AS A LIEUTENANT, PROBABLY NOT SUFFICIENT ON THE FIRE SIDE.

ALL OF OUR POLICE ONES ARE NOW THREE YEARS FIRE OFFICER BEFORE THEY CAN MOVE TO SENIOR CORPORAL FIVE YEARS, AND THEN AGAIN, SERGEANT FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY CAN TEST FOR LIEUTENANT.

I DO THINK THERE'S JUST AN IMBALANCE AND I HOPE THAT THERE'LL BE A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR THEM TO LOOK AT IT, BRING IT BACK, AND PERHAPS THERE'S GOOD REASONS NOT TO CHANGE IT.

BUT I THINK THAT THEY MAY FIND THERE IS.

WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR SECONDING THE MOTION.

I THINK MANY PEOPLE DID, AND I HOPE WE CAN PASS THIS SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE POLICE SIDE.

WE NEED TO DO THAT RECRUITING, AND I THINK, CHIEF GARCIA TOLD ME THAT HE'S OUT OF SENIOR CORPORALS.

WE NEED TO GET THAT TESTING HAPPENING.

BUT WE CAN ALSO ASK FOR A LITTLE MORE WORK ON THE FIRE SIDE. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE, WHICH SHOULD BE GONE FOR AGAINST ITEM 10.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> AGENDA ITEM 14.

[14. An ordinance amending Chapter 42A, “Special Events; Neighborhood Markets; Dallas Street Seats; Dallas Farmers Market Farmers Market; Streetlight Pole Banners,” of the Dallas City Code to amend, Article IV, “Dallas Street Seats Pilot Program,” to (1) make the program permanent; (2) creating an expiration date for Phase II Permits; and (3) allowing unique designs submitted as street seats to be accepted for review by city departments - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

IT'S AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42A, ESPECIALLY VINT NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS, DALLAS STREET SEATS, DALLAS FARMERS MARKET, FARMERS MARKET, STREET LIGHT POLE BANNERS OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO AMEND ARTICLE IV, DALLAS STREET SEATS PILOT PROGRAM TO, ONE, MAKE THE PROGRAM PERMANENT TO CREATING AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR PHASE 2 PERMITS, AND THREE, ALLOWING UNIQUE DESIGNS SUBMITTED AS STREET SEATS TO BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW BY CITY DEPARTMENTS.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> MR. WEST, YOU HAVE A MOTION?

[01:25:03]

>> YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCES DISTRIBUTED TODAY BY STAFF, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 42A.

DELETES THE SUNSET DATE FOR STREET SEATS PROGRAM.

TWO, PROVIDES THAT NEW PHASE 2 STREET SEATS PERMITS ISSUED UNDER THE PROGRAM WILL EXPIRE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.

THREE, ALLOWS FOR UNIQUE DESIGNS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR STREET SEAT PERMANENT APPROVAL.

ALSO, THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE INCLUDED.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING WITHIN 90 DAYS ON REDUCING FEE AND BOND AMOUNT FOR STREET SEATS, REQUIRING STAFF TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS THAT LEAD TO A DENIAL OR REVOCATION.

REVIEWING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERING REVIEWS AND CONSIDERATION FOR GRANDFATHERING IN ALL CURRENT OPERATORS WHO HAD BEEN OPERATING FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS WITH NO IDENTIFIED PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS.

>> [OVERLAPPING] SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YES, MAYOR.

>> YOU RECOGNIZE YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> YEAH. THIS IS THE PARKLETS ALSO CALLED STREET SEATS.

WE HAD DURING THE HEIGHT OF COVID UPWARDS OF 20, I BELIEVE, ROSA WAS TELLING ME, AND THERE WAS A SUNSET DATE THAT A LOT OF THEM CLOSED ON.

ROSA, CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY WE HAVE LEFT?

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M ROSA, PLUMBING DIRECTOR FOR CONVENTION AND EVENTS SERVICES.

IN TERMS OF PARKLETS, WE HAVE FIVE THAT HAVE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE THREE THAT ARE OPERATING.

AS YOU SAID, I BELIEVE SOME OF THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A PROGRAM THAT WAS SET TO EXPIRE.

WE CORRECT THAT WITH THIS ACTION.

>> AWESOME. WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR REALLY TAKING A CHANCE ON THIS DURING COVID, AND TRANSPORTATION GUS AND HIS CREW AS WELL, BECAUSE IT WAS EXCITING TO SEE THEM POP UP OVER THE CITY.

THEN BRINGING THIS BACK UP SO THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY GET IT KICKED OFF AGAIN AND START SEEING THESE COME UP ACROSS THE CITY.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED HERE, COLLEAGUES AND I DID SPEAK WITH ROSA AND WITH GUS ON THIS IS COMING BACK WITHIN 90 DAYS TO TALK ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE ISSUES ON WHY THEY'RE NOT REOPENING.

I'M THINKING THAT POSSIBLY THE EXORBITANT FEES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, THE BOND AMOUNT.

I'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE OPERATORS THAT THE ENGINEERING REVIEWS ARE CHALLENGING.

WE PROVIDE SMALL BUSINESS GRANTS ALL THE TIME.

IF WE COULD CONSIDER A REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOME OF THESE OPERATORS WHO GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

I MEAN, WE'RE USUALLY DEALING WITH YOUR SMALL MOM-AND-POP RESTAURANTS THAT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DOING THIS, AT LEAST IN MY DISTRICT.

THAT'S IT. I THINK IT'S EXCITING PROGRAM, AND I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

>> MR. MORENO.

FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER WEST'S FOR ADDING THESE ITEMS TO THE MOTION.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT AS A RESTAURANT TOUR AS SOMEONE THAT REPRESENTS DISTRICT TOUR OR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A BENEFIT TO NOT ONLY THE RESTAURANTS, BUT THE WORKABILITY OF HAVING TOURISTS COME TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, HAVING FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

I WANT TO THANK GOD AS WELL FOR WORKING ON SLOWING DOWN CAESAR CHAVEZ, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME PARKING LOTS ALONG THAT THOROUGHFARE AS WELL. THANK YOU.

>> ITS NOT REVISED. FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK MR. WEST FOR THE AMENDMENTS AND THANK YOU ROSE.

THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE WEREN'T REALLY SURE ABOUT AND IT WAS WHY WE NEEDED TO DO A PILOT.

THEY ENDED UP BEING SUCCESSFUL AND IT'S BEEN GREAT AND I'M ALL FOR THEM.

PARK-LETS IS AN ODD NAME AND PEOPLE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT A PARK-LET IS AND I WAS IN DC, NEW YORK CITY, IN A COUPLE OF OTHER BIG CITIES THAT ARE DOING THE SAME THING AND THEY CALL THEM STREETERIES.

PEOPLE SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A STREETERY IS VERSUS A PARK-LET.

I THINK I'VE MENTIONED IT BEFORE, BUT I THINK IT'S A MUCH BETTER NAME THAN PARK-LET.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DO THAT OR IF THAT'S EVEN SOMETHING WE CAN ENTERTAIN BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE MORE FOLKS AND BUSINESSES LOOK INTO THEM IF THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE THE PARK-LET, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY THINK IT MEANS, BUT WE NEED MORE OF THEM ALL ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT PARK-LETS I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A PARKING SPACE OR PARKING LOT, LIKE A MINI ONE OR SOMETHING.

[01:30:01]

I DON'T KNOW, STREETERY JUST SEEMS LIKE A BETTER NAME FOR IT, MY OPINION.

MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING EVEN MORE EXCITING BECAUSE IT'S THE DALLAS WAY TO DO THINGS, RIGHT? ROSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A ONE [OVERLAPPING] TO RESPOND TO THAT.

>> SURE, I CAN SO AS PART OF OUR BRIEFING AND UPDATE AND PRESENTATION, WE CAN OFFER UP SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR NAMES.

THEY'RE CALLED DIFFERENT THINGS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES SO WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF TO LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE NAMES AND SEE WHAT WORKS BETTER.

I THINK PARTLY IT IS JUST THE STANDARD NAME BECAUSE IT TYPICALLY SITS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, TYPICALLY PARKING SPACE AREA, SO THAT'S JUST THE STANDARD BASIC NAME, BUT WE CAN DO SOME CREATIVE THINGS.

I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD, SINCE IT IS A PERMANENT PROGRAM, MARKETING OF THE PROGRAM IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ENGAGE IN KNOWING THAT THE EXPENSE OF THE BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO INVEST CAN NOW HAVE A LONGER-TERM IMPACT AND SO I THINK THE MARKETING HAS DONE A COST-BENEFIT.

>> AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH ROSE AND THANK YOU FOR GETTING THE PILOTS STARTED AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO VOTING YES TO MAKING IT PERMANENT. THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.

>> ANYONE ELSE WAS SHE'S BEEN GONE FOR AGAINST ITEM 14 SEEING NONE.

OH, SORRY, MR. BEZOS, [OVERLAPPING] I CAUGHT YOU THAT TIME.

YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO ALSO ECHO SOME HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT I'D LIKE TO NOT ONLY THANK COUNCIL MEMBER WEST FOR THE AMENDMENTS, BUT ALSO FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP THROUGH THIS AND THROUGH OTHER NEW URBANISM EFFORTS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT IT'S NOT ONLY HUGE TO ADD SEATS, FOR INSTANCE, FOR RESTAURANTS CAPACITY, WHICH WOULD HELP THE BOTTOM LINE FOR MANY OF OUR BUSINESS OWNERS, BUT IT ALSO SPEAKS TO A LOT OF THE GOALS AND INVESTMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING AS A CITY TOWARDS WORKABILITY AND THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL CITIES THAT I'VE SEEN IT FROM AS WELL.

I'VE SEEN MR. WEST POST SEVERAL EXAMPLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND I THINK THAT WE'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO SO ROSE, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IF WE CAN JUST BEEF IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND GET OUT TO SOME OF OUR PARTNERS.

THE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT OUR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE PART OF SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE TO GET THE WORD OUT AND SEE THIS REALLY COME TO FRUITION IN THE BIG DALLAS WAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS BEEN GONE FOR AGAINST ITEM 14, SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> AGENDA ITEM 16 AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE DEVELOPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH POOR LOSS,

[16. Authorize an increase in the development loan agreement with Jaipur Lofts, LLC., or its affiliate, conditioned upon the completion of a third-party underwriting for the development of Jaipur Lofts, a 71-unit affordable 2022 9% Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credit multifamily complex located at 2102, 2108, 2202, 2206, and 2208 Annex Avenue, Dallas, TX 75204 - Not to exceed $2,520,000.00, from $2,500,000.00 to $5,020,000.00 - Financing: Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Funds]

LLC OR ITS AFFILIATE CONDITIONED UPON THE COMPLETION OF A THIRD PARTY UNDERWRITING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF JAPPUR LOFTS, A 71 UNIT, AFFORDABLE 2022, 9% COMPETITIVE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX LOCATED AT 2102-2108 TO 2202 -2206 AND 2208 ANNEX AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75204, NOT TO EXCEED $2,520,000 FROM $2,500,000 TO $5,020,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

>> MR. MORENO, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE AUGUST 9TH COUNCIL MEETING.

>> THERE'S A SECONDARY DISCUSSION MR.MORENO? [OVERLAPPING] FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. IF STAFF CAN COME UP AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE INCREASE OF 2.5 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT AND THE INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE UNITS PERCENTAGE WISE, AND THEN ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE INCREASE? I AM SORRY, ONE MORE THING, THIS HAS ALREADY GONE TO UNDERWRITING AS WELL.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER, MORENO, DARWIN WADE, INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HOUSING DEPARTMENT HERE TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS.

THE QUESTION WAS INITIALLY ON THE AFFORDABLE UNITS [OVERLAPPING].

THIS IS A TRUE MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE A VARIETY OF AMIS THAT ARE GOING TO BE TENANTS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

RANGING FROM 30% THROUGH 80% AMI.

IT'S A GREAT PROJECT FOR TENANTS WHO EXITED HOMELESSNESS.

WE DO HAVE PROJECT BASED VOUCHERS.

WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT OF THOSE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ITEM BACK IN 2022.

THIS WAS A 2022 LIGHT TECH PROJECT,

[01:35:01]

AND I DO HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE, ALICE CREWS HERE, SO SHE CAN ALSO COME UP AND HELP ME ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PIECE OF THAT.

COUNCIL APPROVED THE ORIGINAL ASK BACK IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, 2022.

THE AMOUNT WAS $2.5 MILLION IN HOME, SO AT THAT TIME, THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT AWARE OF ADDITIONAL COST AS IT RELATES TO DESIGN.

ARCHITECTURAL, INCREASES WITH CONSTRUCTION INTEREST RATES.

INTEREST RATES DOUBLED FROM AUGUST OF LAST YEAR BUT TO NOW I THINK THE INTEREST RATES THAT WE WERE QUOTED, IT WAS ABOUT 4% IN 2022, NOW THOSE INTEREST RATES ARE ABOUT 9%.

IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THOSE COSTS INCREASES, THERE WAS ALSO SOME ABANDONMENT THAT HAD TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE COBBLED STREET.

ALL THOSE INCREASES ESTIMATED THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DEAL WORK.

THE DEVELOPER CAME TO US FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING, AS WELL AS OTHER FUNDING SOURCES SUCH AS THE DALLAS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FUND.

THEY ALSO WENT TO THE STATE FOR HOME ART FUNDING AS WELL TO MAKE THE DEAL PENCIL.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A DEEP, AFFORDABLE UNIT PROJECT.

YOU HAVE UNITS FROM 30% ALL THE WAY TO 80% AND SO THAT'S WHY THE DEVELOPERS COMING BACK TO US AT THIS TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL ASK OF 2.52 MILLION.

AS IT RELATES TO THE UNDERWRITING REPORT THERE ARE SOME ITEMS IN HERE THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERWRITER.

WE ARE STILL AWAITING A COMMITMENT FROM THE STATE FOR THE HOME RP FUNDING THAT WILL OCCUR AT THE END OF JULY.

SO WE WILL HAVE THAT COMMITMENT FROM THE STATE.

THE DEVELOPER FEELS THAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO SCORE VERY HIGH.

SO WE ARE VERY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT RECEIVING THAT COMMITMENT FROM THE STATE.

THAT FUNDING AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMITMENT FROM THE DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE PROJECT BASED VOUCHERS.

WE DO HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

I THINK WE ARE AWAITING A COMMITMENT LETTER FROM THE HOUSE AND AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME, BUT WE DO HAVE THE RESOLUTIONS FOR THOSE VOUCHERS.

OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE REPORT RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING.

THERE THERE'S A GAP.

THE UNDERWRITER DID CONFIRM THERE'S A GAP.

IT RANGES $5-7 MILLION.

AND AS SOON AS WE GET THOSE COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM THE STATE AS WELL AS THE COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

SHE CAN REALLY HONE IN ON WHAT THAT GAP WHERE IT FALLS 5-7 MILLION.

SO WE ARE STRAIGHT THAT THERE IS A GAP WITH THE PROJECT AS IT RELATES TO THE LOAN TERMS AND THE REPAYMENT TERMS. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW WE NEGOTIATE ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS WITH OUR DEVELOPERS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DO BUSINESS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE WANT GREAT AFFORDABLE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AND SO MANY TIMES WE DO NEGOTIATE THOSE DEAL TERMS WITH OUR DEVELOPERS, AND OFTENTIMES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE MAKE AS A BUSINESS DECISION AND THE DEPARTMENT.

SOMETIMES WHEN THE UNDERWRITER PRODUCES HER REPORT, WE ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH TO CORRECT SOME THINGS THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HER THAT SHE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS, SO AS IT APARTMENT, WE WILL ENSURE THAT SHE'S AWARE OF WHAT OUR INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS ARE AND WHAT OUR BUSINESS DECISIONS ARE.

WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THIS REPORT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THERE IS A GAP.

IT IS A GREAT INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY AND WERE ABLE TO HELP THE DEVELOPER AND SEAL THE DEAL ON THAT, SO ALICE, I'LL TURN TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT PIECE. ALICE CRUISE.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL. FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT PIECE IN JANUARY.

WE'VE NOT HAD ANY FORMAL MEETINGS.

I WILL SAY THAT FOR THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

WE DID ONCE WE GOT RENDERING, SINCE WE GOT THE DESIGN FINALIZED AND KNEW WE HAD THE STREET VACATED AND SO WE COULD KIND OF GO DOWN, SO ONE BUILDING, WHICH IS WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY WANTED, WAS ONE BUILDING AT FOUR STORIES.

WE DID GET A RENDERING THAT WAS MADE IN FULL COLOR AND SEND THAT TO THEM TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WERE STILL IN SUPPORT.

THEY HAVE RECEIVED IT AND MADE NO EDIT.

WE ALWAYS ASK FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO LET US KNOW AND SEE IF WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT.

THERE WERE NO COMMENTS MADE IN JANUARY, MARCH, EMAIL STRING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SURE. THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.

I REALLY FEEL THAT WE'RE REALLY MISSING THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PIECE HERE.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN ACTIVE ASSOCIATION IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND

[01:40:02]

THEY'VE REACHED OUT WITH CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

AS FAR AS THE GAP IS CONCERNED, YOU MENTIONED THAT INTEREST RATES HAVE GONE UP.

HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THAT AND HOW DO YOU ALSO CALCULATE CONSTRUCTION INCREASES?

>> SURE. FOR THE INTEREST RATES, THESE APPLICATIONS ARE PUT TOGETHER IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.

WE STARTED WITH WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AND WHAT THE MARKET WAS TELLING US AND LENDERS AT THAT TIME.

WE PUT THAT TOGETHER AND THEN DOUBLE-CHECK BEFORE WE SUBMITTED AS OF APRIL 1ST, THAT WE TURNED IN THE FIRST 2022 APPLICATION TO THE CITY THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE STILL ACCURATE INTEREST RATES, EQUITY PRICING AS WELL, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SOME FED INTO THE CITY, THAT IS WHAT WENT IN AUGUST.

THEN, LIKE DARWIN MENTIONED, SINCE AUGUST, INTEREST RATES HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED, IF NOT DOUBLED IN SOME CASES.

AS A RESULT OF THAT, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF EQUITY THAT INVESTORS ARE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THEIR YIELDS AND THEIR INTERNAL CALCULATIONS.

WE GET HIT IN THE TAX CREDIT WORLD.

THE LAST 6-8 MONTHS WE'VE BEEN HIT ON THE INTEREST RATE SIDE, ON THE DEBT SIDE, BUT WE'VE ALSO BEEN HIT ON THE EQUITY SIDE AS WELL.

I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THIS PROJECT IS STAYING ON THE TAX ROLLS.

THAT'S ANOTHER EXPENSE THAT WE ARE HOLDING TO OUR MODELS.

WELL, JUST AS A BUSINESS DECISION, WE TRY TO STAY ON THE TAX ROLLS TO BE A GOOD COMMUNITY MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> MRS. MENDELSOHN YOUR ANSWER FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I PULLED THIS ITEM BECAUSE FIRST OFF, I'M GOING TO SAY I LIKE THIS PROJECT.

I VOTED FOR IT IN AUGUST OF 2022, WHERE WE ALLOCATED TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

YOU HAD RECEIVED THE 9% TAX CREDIT, WHICH IS GREAT.

IT'S AN INCREDIBLE HELP.

BUT WHEN I SAW IT COMING BACK FOR ANOTHER TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION, I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND.

IT'S 71 UNITS.

ALL OF THEM ARE AFFORDABLE AT THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM, WHICH I LIKE AND I THINK IS REALLY HELPFUL AND I LIKE THAT IT'S ONLY 71 UNITS AND NOT ONE OF THESE 250, 300 MASSIVE COMPLEXES.

ALL THOSE THINGS ARE GOOD.

I WAS CONCERNED, NUMBER 1, THAT THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD IS 20 YEARS, BUT THE LOAN IS 40.

I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT, DARWIN.

I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT YESTERDAY.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

YES. ANYTIME THE CITY, WE INVEST FEDERAL DOLLARS INTO A PROJECT, ESPECIALLY HOME DOLLARS AND WE INVESTED A 2.5 MILLION AT HOME AND WE'RE LOOKING TO INVEST THE 2.52 MILLION IN THE ARPA FUNDING.

ALSO WE TIE OUR HOME REGS TO THE ARPA FUNDING AS WELL, SO HOME IS PRETTY MUCH THE REGULATORY PROCESS THAT WE'RE USING FOR THE FUNDING.

HART SAYS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO INVEST IN NEW CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS, THE MINIMUM AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FOR THAT INVESTMENT IS GOING TO BE 20 YEARS, AND SO IN OUR HOUSING POLICY, WE SAY THAT ANYTIME WE INVEST MONEY INTO A NEW CONSTRUCTION, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THAT THE MINIMUM AFFORDABILITY PERIOD IS A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

THAT MEANS THAT OUR COMPLIANCE STAFF WILL MONITOR AND WE WILL RESTRICT THOSE UNITS FOR A 20-YEAR PERIOD.

OUR COMPLIANCE STAFF WILL GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND WORK WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OVER THAT 20-YEAR PERIOD.

ONCE THAT PERIOD IS MET, THEN THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT.

HOWEVER, SINCE THIS IS A 9% LIGHT TECH BILL, THERE IS A 45-YEAR LAURA THAT THE STATE ALSO IMPOSES ON THE PROJECT.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE HAD THIS TIME PERIOD AND YOU HAVE HAD SOME CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHY WASN'T ON AUGUST 24TH AFTER WE PASSED THIS TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLAR GIFT.

BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LOAN AT 1%, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE FORGIVEN.

>> WELL, IT'LL BE A CASH FLOW LOAN.

>> ALL THAT TO SAY, WHY ARE YOU NOW COMING BACK TO US AT THE END OF JUNE? WHY WASN'T THIS PROJECT IMMEDIATELY STARTED?

>> ALICE, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT?

>> SURE. GOING ALL THE WAY BACK ON THE STREET ABANDONMENT THAT WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT, ARE WE BUILDING TWO BUILDINGS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET? OR WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THAT DEAD-END PORTION OF CABELL FROM

[01:45:03]

THE CITY AND MAKE IT ONE BUILDING OVER THE PARCELS PLUS THE STREETS? THAT SIMPLE DECISION WASN'T APPROVED BY COUNCIL UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2023.

THAT WAS A DRIVER IN DOES THE ARCHITECT AND THE ENGINEERING TEAM DESIGN TWO BUILDINGS, A FOUR STORY AND FIVE STORY? OR DO THEY BUILD ONE BUILDING AT FOUR-STORY? ONCE WE GOT THAT APPROVAL, THEN WE CUT THE REST OF THE DESIGN TEAM LOOSE AND THEN WE'RE IN PERMITTING RIGHT NOW.

THE GEO-TECH WAS ALSO CUT LOOSE AROUND AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER TO GO DO THEIR GEO TECH REPORTS TO TEST ALL OF THE DIRT AND ALL OF THAT.

THAT'S REALLY HOW WE GOT HERE.

WE'RE ON TRACK REALLY FOR A 9% FOR WHERE WE WOULD BE CLOSING.

>> WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO START YOUR PROJECT OR YOU LOSE YOUR TAX CREDIT?

>> OUR DESIRE'S TO CLOSE BY 1ST OF SEPTEMBER AND START CONSTRUCTION.

WE'VE ALREADY DONE OUR 10% TEST BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN ON THE LAND.

THE NEXT TEST WON'T BE UNTIL WE'RE PLACED IN SERVICE.

>> I GUESS MY POINT IS THIS, LAST AUGUST, WE GAVE YOU TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

YOU'RE HOPING TO CLOSE ON YOUR LOAN THIS AUGUST.

EITHER YOU CAME TO US TOO EARLY FOR THE MONEY LIKE MAYBE NOW IS WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVING IT TO YOU FOR AN AUGUST CLOSING.

THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S OFF HERE.

>> SURE.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? ARE WE THE FIRST MONEY? I WOULD LIKE US TO BE THE LAST MONEY.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING IS FOR THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM, BY THE TIME WE GET COMMITMENT, WE GO TO THE TDHCA BOARD APPROVAL END OF JULY, WITHIN 30 DAYS, WE HAVE TO SHORE UP AT THAT POINT WHATEVER IS ANTICIPATED TO BE OUR GAP.

AT THAT POINT BASED ON WHERE INTEREST RATES WERE AND CONSTRUCTION PRICING, THAT AGAIN, IS BASED OFF OF I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE AWARE, BUT IT'S BASED ON A SCHEMATIC DESIGN.

MY CONTRACT REALLY IS DOING A ROUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE PRICE AND THAT SORT OF A THING RATHER THAN ACTUALLY BIDDING IT TO A SUB.

BASED ON THAT PRICING IN INTEREST RATES AND EQUITY PRICING, THAT GAP WAS 2.5.

THAT'S WHEN WE SAID WE NEED SOMETHING FROM THE CITY BY AUGUST BECAUSE OF THE TDHCA REQUIREMENT TO SHORE UP THAT GAP.

THEN AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN AND ACTUALLY SIGNING UP EQUITY INVESTOR AND A LENDER, LIKE WE WENT TO THE DALLAS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FUNDS, THEY PARTNERED ON OUR KEY VIDEO.

THAT'S WHEN RATES START TO GO UP, EQUITY PRICING STARTS TO FALL, I GET MY GEO-TECH AND MY DESIGN STARTS TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE.

I CAN TELL YOU I PULLED FROM MY 2020 NEW APPLICATION.

WHEN WE SUBMITTED THAT TO THE CITY ON APRIL 1ST, THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE DEAL WAS 22.5 MILLION.

THEN THIS YEAR IT IS 27.6.

WE HAD A FIVE MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE AND THE CITY IS COVERING THE 2.5 ADDITIONAL OF THAT.

>> PLUS THE LISK FUND IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONTRIBUTED INTO?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST MORTGAGE FOR LISK.

>> I HAD ASKED ABOUT THE UNDERWRITING REPORT TO SHOW THE ADDITIONAL 2.5 MILLION THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR TODAY.

I KNOW THAT YESTERDAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT.

I SEE THAT IT GOT SENT THIS MORNING.

I'M NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO EVEN PULL IT UP.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ON MY PREVIEW THAT THERE IS AN ITEM THAT YOU MAYBE ARE WAITING ON. IS THAT TRUE?

>> YES. THERE ARE.

THE UNDERWRITER, SHE HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS A GAP.

THERE'S A 5-7 MILLION DOLLAR GAP IN HER REPORT.

HOWEVER, SHE WOULD LIKE THE COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM THE STATE, WHICH WE'LL HAVE THAT BY THE END OF JULY WHEN SHE GOES TO THE STATE TO CONFIRM THE HOMEWORK DOLLARS.

WE WILL ALSO GET COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM DHA FOR THE PROJECT BASED VOUCHERS.

WE DO HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD, RIGHT, ALICE? BUT WE'LL GET THOSE COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM DHA SOMETIME IN JULY.

THOSE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THE UNDERWRITER MENTIONED AND WE'LL DEFINITELY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO HER ALONG WITH OUR INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE DEVELOPERS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO SOLIDIFY THAT UNDERWRITING REPORT.

>> I WANT THIS PROJECT TO GO FORWARD.

I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.

I LIKE I SAID, HAVE VOTED FOR IT PREVIOUSLY.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MODEL FOR THINGS, BUT I'M CONCERNED WITH HOW THIS IS UNFOLDING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAN UNDERWRITING REPORT THAT SAYS, YOU'RE ASKING FOR ANOTHER TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

HERE'S THE UNDERWRITING REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT WE SHOULD PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY ESSENTIAL, AND THAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IT.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE CAPITAL STACK,

[01:50:02]

A LOT OF THAT MONEY IS COMING FROM CITY BASED ENTITIES.

IF WE HAVE TO PUT IN ALL THE MONEY THEN MAKE IT HAPPEN, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST UNDERSTOOD THAT GAP BETTER.

WE DON'T EVEN REALLY HAVE THAT SOLIDIFIED TODAY.

>> ANYTIME YOU'RE DEALING WITH A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE DEEPER AFFORDABILITY THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, ALL THE AMIS, IT REQUIRES A LOT OF FINANCING, A LOT OF CAPITAL.

ONE OF THE THINGS, AND I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS.

OF COURSE, THIS PROJECT WAS UNDERWRITTEN FOR THE INITIAL 2.5 BILLION LAST YEAR, SO THAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR.

WITH THIS PROCESS, ANYTIME A DEVELOPER COMES TO US WITH A NOFO APPLICATION, WE TELL THE DEVELOPER IT'S GOT TO TAKE, IN ANY PERFECT WORLD, IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT 4-6 MONTHS FOR THE PROCESS FROM THE TIME OF APPLICATION ALL THE WAY TO GET TO THE COUNCIL AGENDA.

BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH BACK-AND-FORTH WITH STAFF HAS TO REVIEW THE NOFO APPLICATION, WE RANK IT AND WE SCORE IT.

WE ARE DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPER, THERE'S ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THAT PROJECT MEETS THE FUNDABLE SCORE IN ORDER FOR US TO EVEN SEND IT TO THE UNDERWRITER.

ONCE WE GET TO THE UNDERWRITING PROCESS, THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN THE UNDERWRITER STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER.

THERE'S MARKET STUDIES, THERE'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THERE'S AUDITS AND ALL THIS DIFFERENT STUFF THAT IT TAKES DURING THIS PROCESS.

WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

CONCURRENTLY, WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH COUNCIL DOCS.

MOST OF THE TIMES WITHIN THIS PROCESS WE ARE IN OUR COUNCIL DOCS, YOU WILL SEE IT WILL SAY THAT WE'RE CONSTANTLY WORKING WITH THE UNDERWRITER OR THIS IS PURSUANT TO THE UNDERWRITERS RECOMMENDATION.

SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF DOING BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE ALL THESE BALLS ROLLING, THESE THINGS ARE IN THE AIR.

WITH THIS CASE, THERE WERE SOME OUTSTANDING THINGS THAT HAD TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR TO MAKE SURE THAT UNDERWRITER WAS SATISFIED, IT DIDN'T GET DONE TIMELY.

THIS WAS AN EXPEDITED TYPE THING.

BUT IN A TYPICAL WORLD WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES TO US AND EVERYTHING IS THERE, YES, IT WORKS OUT THAT WAY.

WHERE WE HAVE THAT REPORT MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR DEAL DUE TO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THIS PROJECT, IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT'S NOT THE NORM FOR OUR DEPARTMENT. I HOPE THAT HELPS.

>> IT DOES. I'M NOT SURE I HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT.

I THINK I'VE SAID WHERE I'M AT, BUT I WILL SAY YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO TALK ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF GETTING THINGS ON COUNCIL AGENDA.

I WOULD JUST WELCOME ANY STAFF MEMBERS TO PLEASE REACH OUT TO YOUR CITY MANAGER WITH SUGGESTIONS ON HOW YOU CAN IMPROVE THAT PROCESS BECAUSE CLEARLY IT'S SLOWING THINGS DOWN.

WHAT I KNOW IS THAT AUGUST 24TH, WE VOTED TO GIVE THIS MONEY.

THIS IS THE DISCUSSION THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE IS, OH MY GOD, IT TOOK A WHOLE YEAR TO GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

YOU'RE EXPECTING A CLOSE ALONE AUGUST THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE THIS STUFF FASTER BECAUSE WE DO NEED ESPECIALLY THIS HOUSING.

THANK YOU TO DALLAS HOUSING FOR OFFERING UP ADDITIONAL VOUCHERS.

>> MR. WEST, YOU HAVE FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THE DETAILED COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS.

I'LL JUST START OFF BY SAYING, I APPRECIATE DEVELOPER COMING TO THE CITY WHERE A BUSINESS FRIENDLY CITY, AS THE MAYOR SAYS, WE WANT TO BE HOW OPEN DOORS FOR BUSINESS TO COME HERE AND PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE WORKFORCE IS A KEY PART OF THAT.

PLEASE DON'T TAKE THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED AND THAT I'M GOING TO ASK NEXT, INDICATIVE OF US NOT WANTING YOU HERE AND DOING THIS BUSINESS OR DOING THIS PROJECT HERE.

WHY DID WE DECIDE? I HAD TO STEP OUT FOR A SECOND, SO I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS, BUT WHY DID WE DECIDE TO GO TO 100% AFFORDABILITY AS OPPOSED TO A MIXED INCOME, WHICH IS GENERALLY WHAT I THINK OUR POLICY PUSHES FOR.

>> THIS PROJECT HAS ALWAYS HAD THE 30, 50, 60, AND THEN SOME AT 80.

EVEN IN THE ORIGINAL TAX CREDIT APPLICATIONS.

>> WHY?

>> THIS PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN, THIS POCKET, IS RAPIDLY BEING REDEVELOPED WITH VERY HIGH INCOME, VERY HIGH PRICED HOUSING.

A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE BEING PRICED OUT.

THE FIRST FOR US, IT HELPS FINANCIALLY BECAUSE WE CAN INCOME AVERAGE ALL 71 UNITS AND GET MORE TAX CREDIT EQUITY AND LEVERAGE THAT.

IT'S PUT THE DEAL ON THE GROUNDS SO THAT WE CAN ASK LESS OF THE CITY AND SOURCES SUCH AS THAT.

BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THAT AREA AT A WIDER RANGE.

[01:55:03]

I CAN CAPTURE THAT 80% HOUSEHOLD THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE PRICED OUT.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD A CONDO AT 350, $400,000 IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO STAY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DID RECEIVE AT INITIAL RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT, THE SUPPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING FOR THAT EXACT REASON.

>> TDHCA WILL SCORE YOU HIGHER FOR THE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS YOU HAVE, EVEN IF THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS AFFORDABLE AND THERE'S NO MARKET RATE? IT'S MORE BENEFICIAL TO TRY TO PACK IN AS MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS AS POSSIBLE FOR SCORING PURPOSES.

>> IT'S ON A TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENT, WE CAN ONLY TAKE THOSE TAX CREDITS AND THAT EQUITY ON AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.

>> IT'S THE FINANCING PIECE IS BETTER FOR YOU DOING THAT?

>> IS THE SIB CONSULTING MEMO THAT WE GOT TODAY, IS THIS THE UNDERWRITING REPORT? I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DIGEST THIS YET.

I GUESS MY ULTIMATE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT TODAY OR IS THE DELAY TILL AUGUST GOING TO BE OKAY OR IS THAT GOING TO KILL THIS FOR THE PURPOSES OF YOU GETTING THIS THROUGH THE STATE?

>> WHAT I WILL SAY AND I'M GOING TO INTERJECT ON BEHALF OF DARWIN HEAR A LITTLE BIT, IS WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY ABOUT THOSE EIGHT PROJECT BASED VOUCHERS THAT WE HAVE, THEY HAVE TO PREPARE WHAT'S CALLED A SUBSIDY LAYERING REVIEW AND SUBMIT THAT TO HUD FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

THEY CANNOT SUBMIT THAT TO HUD WITHOUT HAVING EVERY SINGLE SOURCE OF FINANCING SECURED VIA THE THC, A BOARD OR A COMMITMENT LETTER OR SOMETHING, COUNCIL'S APPROVAL.

WHAT HAPPENS IS OUR TIMELINE GETS BUMPED TO JUST HAVE THAT REVIEW STARTED, WHICH THEN MEANS WE CAN'T START.

WE'RE BEING ADVISED FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, WE COULD NOT START CONSTRUCTION UNTIL HUD APPROVES THAT.

IT DOES BUMP THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT, WHICH WOULD NOT BE OUR DESIRE, BUT IT'S COUNCIL'S DISCRETION, OF COURSE, AS ALWAYS.

>> WELL, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM MY OWN MIND IF I'M GOING TO EXAMINE TO KEEP GOING, IF WE HAVE TO FIGURE THIS OUT TODAY OR IF WE CAN COME BACK IN AUGUST AND THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO MEET WITH STAFF AND DIGEST THIS REPORT A LITTLE BIT, IF WE CAN DO THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT TIME IT COMES BACK OR IF WE GOT TO FIGURE IT OUT TODAY AND I'M HEARING FROM YOU, IT'S NOT GOING TO KILL YOUR PROJECT, BUT IT'S GOING TO PUSH THE DELAY FURTHER.

>> IT WILL DELAY CONSTRUCTION ENOUGH THAT IT WILL BE HARD, WE'RE ALREADY TIGHT ON MEETING OUR PLACED IN SERVICE DEADLINE.

>> OKAY.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK ON MY QUESTION, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

>> NO PROBLEM. MS. BLACKMON, YOU EXIT IN SOME FIVE MINUTES.

>> CAN I ACTUALLY SAY THIS? IT'S MORE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF WESTPOINT AND ALSO AS IT RELATES TO THE UNDERWRITING PIECE, WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH OUR UNDERWRITER BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE, AS I SAID EARLIER, ABOUT INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS AND THERE ARE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THIS REPORT.

ONE OF THE THINGS I CAN TELL YOU THAT WITH THE HOME MAXIMUM PER UNIT SUBSIDY AMOUNT TO THOSE AMOUNTS ARE INCORRECT.

THOSE AMOUNTS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THIS REPORT WAS DONE.

WELL, IT WAS CHANGED IN APRIL, SO THESE ARE OLD NUMBERS.

THAT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO AFFECT OTHER REPORT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A GAP.

IT JUST PRETTY MUCH JUST SOLIDIFIES THE GAP.

BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO JUST HAVE A CONVERSATION WITHOUT UNDERWRITER AS IT RELATES TO THIS REPORT.

>> THANK YOU. IT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT DOING THIS TODAY, BUT OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> IT'S JUST A MINOR TWEAK. IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.

>> WAS THAT YOUR TURN?

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> THANKS.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU. I AM LOOKING AT THIS MEMO AND IT SAYS RIGHT HERE THAT WE CAN'T DETERMINE IF THE FUNDING GAP IS ACTUALLY FIVE OR SEVEN MILLION.

DO YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I MEAN WE GOING TO BE EXPECTING MAYBE AN AUGUST THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR ANOTHER 2 1/2 MILLION.

>> NO. BASICALLY, THE UNDERWRITER IS LOOKING FOR THOSE COMMITMENTS, THOSE ACTUAL COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM DHA, COMMITMENT LETTERS FROM THE STATE TO BASICALLY SOLIDIFY THAT THERE IS A GAP OF AT LEAST FIVE MILLION BECAUSE THE TOTAL ASK FOR BOTH LAST YEAR'S FUNDING AND THIS YEAR FUNDING IS ABOUT FIVE MILLION AND 20.

SO AS LONG AS THERE'S A GAP OF AT LEAST FIVE MILLION AND 20, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING INTO THE PROJECT.

THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO HAVE IN THIS REPORT. NOW, LET'S COME SPEAK TO THAT.

[02:00:03]

>> I THINK THE QUESTION THAT THE UNDERWRITER IS POINTING OUT IS BECAUSE THE REMAINING TWO MILLION AND CHANGE HASN'T GONE TO THE DHA BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

I DON'T HAVE A BOARD APPROVAL RESOLUTION TO GIVE TO HER AT JUST YET AND SO THAT'S WHERE SHE'S SAYING I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FIVE MILLION OR IF IT'S SEVEN BECAUSE THAT MONEY HASN'T BEEN [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT MONEY HASN'T BEEN EARMARKED FOR THIS PROJECT.

>> WHAT'S THE OVER AND UNDER? ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE 2.5 FROM THE STATE BECAUSE THEN WHO'S GOING TO FIX THAT GAP? BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A 2.5 MILLION DOLLAR GAP.

>> IT'S TWO MILLION AND I THINK $60, JUST OVER TWO MILLION.

>> TWO MILLION.

>> THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH UNDERWRITING AND OUR RESPONDING TO DHA QUESTIONS AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCORING, WE'RE SCORING WELL WITHIN THE [OVERLAPPING]

>> THE RANGE.

>> THE FUNDING TO GET THEM.

>> AGAIN, IF THEY COME BACK AND SAY NO GO, WHAT'S YOUR PLAN B?

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.

>> BECAUSE I'M JUST PREPARING IF THE CHANGE COMES TO A $5 MILLION ASK.

IF THE REQUESTS COMING BACK FROM THE CITY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S TWO POINT AND ADDITIONAL THAT IF THERE'S GOING BE AN ADDITIONAL ASK LATER ON.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN EVEN GET THAT.

BECAUSE I HAVE TO DO AN ASK.

>> ACTUALLY YOU'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT IN ANOTHER APPLICATION.

AT THIS POINT, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING.

>> WE SHOULDN'T PLAN TO HAVE THAT REQUEST.

IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK WITH TDHC, THEN IT'S PRETTY MUCH NOT GOING TO GO.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE FUNDS.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK WITH OUR CONTRACTOR AT VALUE ENGINEERING. [OVERLAPPING]

>> VALUE ENGINEERING AND SOME OTHER STUFF.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE NEED TO START CONSTRUCTION TO MEET THAT PLACE IN SERVICE DEADLINE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. MORENO, WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AND FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT FEELS LIKE IF WE DO DIFFER THIS, THAT IT WOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE PROJECT.

SOMETHING THAT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT I DO AGREE THAT THIS AREA IS CHANGING RAPIDLY, BUT WE DO HAVE A DHA CARROLL TOWNHOMES WITHIN A COUPLE OF BLOCKS PROXIMITY TO THIS LOCATION.

I DO HAVE CONCERN AS WELL AS CLUSTERING 100% COMPLEX IN THAT VICINITY.

I'M REALLY JUST ASKING FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO GET BUY-IN AND HOPE MY COLLEAGUES CAN SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MEMBERS YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, SO MOTION TO DEFER.

WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO JUST JUMPED TO MR. WIZARD.

YOU WANT TO GO FOR THREE MINUTES?

>> YES, MAYOR.

>> YOU GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU AND I REALLY JUST A COMMENT.

I SUPPORT THE MOTION. JUST A COMMENT.

I THINK THAT THIS FEELS LIKE TO US THAT THIS IS ALL JUST BEEN THROWN TOGETHER TODAY.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT THE REALITY.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT JUST THE CITY AND OUR PROCESSES WHICH CAN BE DELAYED, BUT THIS IS ALSO STATE FUNDING ISSUES.

I MEAN, THERE'S A MILLION ISSUES THAT GO INTO THIS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

IT MAKES IT FEEL LIKE US THAT IT'S ALL VERY LAST MINUTE AND IT'S NOT.

I'D SAY THAT FOR THE PUBLIC REALLY, THAT THIS IS JUST A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.

I'M THROWN OFF BECAUSE IT'S 100% AFFORDABILITY, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE USED TO SEEING.

I THINK I WOULD JUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF AND DEVELOPERS IN THE FUTURE.

JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL WALKED THROUGH THIS VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE WE SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T ALWAYS DO THAT, BUT THAT'D BE MY REQUEST FOR THESE MULTIFACETED, COMPLICATED DEALS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DON'T YOU CAN RESPOND IF YOU WANT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

>> I DO CONCUR. I AGREE WITH YOU.

WE WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THAT.

WE WILL DEFINITELY WANT THAT.

BUT IT'S JUST THE NATURE TO BE FUTURE SOMETIMES YOU GET THESE COMPLICATED PROJECTS THAT COME TO YOUR DESK AND YOU'RE LIKE, MAN, WHAT JUST HAPPENED? WE TRY OUR BEST WITH DEADLINES AND TIMELINES AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AND OTHER LENDERS AND SO IT'S TOUGH.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO JUGGLE AND BE A MAGICIAN OR CHOIR DIRECTOR A CONDUCT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

WE WILL TRY OUR BEST TO DO JUST WHAT YOU SUGGESTED AND ALICE AND HER TEAM [INAUDIBLE] THEY'VE BEEN GREAT DEVELOPERS, THEY'VE BEEN GREAT PARTNERS.

WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM AND ALL OF THAT OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT WE WORK WITH.

>> I APPRECIATE IT AND YES, I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS COMING BACK. THANK YOU.

>> MISS. MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AS WELL,

[02:05:05]

BUT I ALSO WANT YOU TO WALK AWAY FEELING CONFIDENT IN YOUR SUPPORT.

WE HAVE SUPPORTED THIS BACK IN AUGUST.

I THINK YOU'RE HEARING THAT WE CARE A LOT ABOUT THIS.

WE KNOW THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS 71 UNITS, UP TO 30%, UP TO 50%, UP TO 60%, UP TO 80% AND WHEN WE DO EVEN THESE MIXED USE MIXED INCOME PROJECTS, A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE NOT GETTING 71 UNITS.

I MEAN, WE MIGHT BE GETTING 13, 15 UNITS.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR AN AREA.

SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE WORD GENTRIFICATION, BUT THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING THERE.

WE DO NEED THESE UNITS AND SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE CARE ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT PROBLEMATIC FOR YOU.

BE LIKE, NO, I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE COUNCIL.

LIKE YOU NEED TO WALK AWAY FEELING GOOD ABOUT IT.

BUT WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE AFFIRMED UP UNDERWRITING REPORT THAT VERIFIES THE GAP THAT CONFIRMS THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THESE DOLLARS.

I'LL JUST SAY EVEN WITH BOTH SETS OF DOLLARS, BOTH THE 2.5 AND THE 2.5 THIS TIME, IT'S STILL LESS THAN WHAT WE CONTRIBUTE FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO PUT SO MUCH INTO THIS.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN A PROCESS FOR YOU.

THAT ONE HAS BEEN A PROCESS FOR YOU AS WELL AND I WILL SAY I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL PARTS OF THIS AS I QUIZZED YOU THE OTHER DAY AND [OVERLAPPING]

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. [LAUGHTER]

>> ANYHOW, THANK YOU AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THE MOTION, BUT ALSO SUPPORTING THIS WHEN IT COMES BACK IN AUGUST. THANK YOU.

>> IT WOULD ALSO JUST BE GONE FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER.

SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT, ITEM IS DEFERRED. THANK YOU.

>> AGENDA ITEM 34 AUTHORIZE

[34. Authorize a three-year cooperative purchasing agreement for the procurement of youth summer enrichment programming for the Office of Integrated Public Safety Solutions with Youth Guidance Inc. through the Dallas Independent School District cooperative purchasing agreement - Not to exceed $1,200,000.00 - Financing: General Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

A THREE-YEAR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF YOUTH SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAMMING FOR THE OFFICE OF INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY SOLUTIONS WITH YOUTH GUIDANCE INK THROUGH THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $1,200,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

>> MISS. MENDELSOHN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?

>> I DO MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I DO. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF PLEASE.

>> FIVE MINUTES.

>> GOOD MORNING HONORABLE MAYOR COUNCIL, MR. CITY MANAGER, KEVIN ODIN, DIRECTOR OF INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY.

>> HI KEVIN. I LOVE THIS PROGRAM SO MUCH.

THESE ARE ACTUALLY PROGRAMS THAT I HELPED SUPPORT WHEN I WAS BOARD CHAIR OF ANOTHER NON-PROFIT AND I THINK THEY'RE GREAT FOR DALLAS.

MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE THEY COMING TO US AT THE END OF JUNE FOR A SUMMER PROGRAM?

>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS PROGRAMMING AND I AGREE, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT WHAT'S COMING.

THE FIRST PART OF THIS WAS WE HAD TO GET THE VEHICLE TO PROCURE SERVICES.

WE DID NOT HAVE A WAY OR A VEHICLE TO DO THAT THROUGH THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE FIRST WORK WITH THE ISD AND WE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT THAT WENT IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD THIS PAST WEEK AND PASSED.

THAT AGREEMENT WILL ACTUALLY BENEFIT ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS THE ISD AND THAT WE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH EACH OTHER.

NOW THAT THAT ITEM HAS PASSED WE CAN NOW BRING FORWARD THE AGREEMENT WITH THE VENDOR WHO WILL PROVIDE THE SERVICES TO THE CITY.

>> HERE WE ARE AT THE END OF JUNE, IS THIS PROGRAM FOR THIS SUMMER?

>> WILL BE UP AND RUNNING THIS SUMMER. YES, MA'AM.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH YOUTH GUIDANCE FOR MANY MONTHS ON MANY DIFFERENT THINGS BUT WE'RE DEFINITELY EXCITED ABOUT GETTING THIS UP AND RUNNING IN MULTIPLE AREAS IN THE CITY VERY, VERY SOON IF THIS PASSES OBVIOUSLY.

>> THE ITEM IS EXPLAINED TO BE A SIX-WEEK PROGRAM AND SCHOOL FOR DALLAS ISD BEGINS IN SIX WEEKS ON AUGUST 14TH.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SIX-WEEK PROGRAM THIS YEAR IT WOULD HAVE TO START MONDAY.

IS THAT WHAT YOUR INTENTION IS?

>> OUR INTENTION IS TO GET STARTED PROVIDING SERVICES TO STUDENTS AS SOON AS NEXT WEEK. YES, MA'AM.

>> DO YOU ALREADY HAVE STUDENTS ENROLLED?

>> WE ARE GOING TO LAUNCH OUR FIRST SITES UNDER THIS PROGRAM

[02:10:01]

OR RATHER YOUTH GUIDANCE WILL IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY SERVICING STUDENTS.

THOSE STUDENTS GET THIS PROGRAMMING DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR BUT NOT DURING THE SUMMER WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY WE REALLY WANTED TO SEE THIS GO FORWARD.

WE HAVE STUDENTS IN FIVE DIFFERENT ZIP CODES, AND I CAN SPELL THOSE OUT IF YOU'D LIKE, THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED CONTACTING AND ARE WORKING WITH YOUTH GUIDANCE ON BRINGING THEM INTO THE FOLD.

>> THE 1.2 MILLION IS FOR HOW LONG OF THE PERIOD?

>> 400,000/3 SUMMERS, OBVIOUSLY THIS SUMMER MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT JUST WITH WHERE WE ARE IN THE CALENDAR BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO EXHAUST ALL OF THE FUNDS.

>> THEN MY LAST QUESTION.

IF WE SAID NO WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SUPPORT THIS, BUT IF WE DID, HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH THE KIDS THAT YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE ENROLLED?

>> WE'D GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, WE'D WORKED WITH PARTNERS AND WE'D COME UP WITH THE BEST SOLUTION WE COULD TO SERVE THESE STUDENTS.

THIS VEHICLE GIVES US A CERTAIN WAY THAT WE SERVE AND A PROVEN WAY THAT WE THINK IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE USING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH AN RFP IN HOUSE.

IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU'RE DOING THAT?

>> A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS AS IF IT ALLOWS US TO UTILIZE THE FACT THAT DIST HAD ALREADY PROCURED THIS THROUGH A COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT.

WE USE COOPERATIVES ALL THE TIME.

YOU APPROVE THOSE.

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VEHICLE FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO PROCURE THESE SERVICES.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO US SOONER IF WE HAD PROCURED IT?

>> NOT WITH THE FACT THAT IT HAD TO GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FIRST AND THE EARLIEST DATE WE COULD GET JUST BASED ON THE WORK WAS THIS PAST WEEK. NO, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 34? SAY NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE.

>> AGENDA ITEM 40,

[40. Authorize the City Manager or his or her designee to execute a one-year service contract for a term of one year, with an optional extension of one year, with Housing Forward (517577) (single proposer), approved as to form by the City Attorney, for master leasing services (described herein) for the Office of Homeless Solutions - Housing Forward, only proposer in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 (“OHS”) - Not to exceed $3,000,000 - Financing: General Fund ]

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A SERVICE CONTRACT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR WITH AN OPTIONAL EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR WITH HOUSING FORWARD SINGLE PROPOSER APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FROM MASTER LEASING SERVICES DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED.

YOU ALSO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ADAM LAMONT.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. I'M SORRY, YOU MIC. YES.

>> ADAM LAMONT, 9432 AMERINDIAN PARKWAY.

JUST FOR 10. I'M SUPER EXCITED TO SEE THIS MASS RELEASING PROGRAM GET OFF THE GROUND.

I'M SURE HAVING FORWARD WE'LL DO GREAT WORK IN IMPLEMENTING IT.

I HOPE THAT THE CITY CAN WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO GET EVEN MORE FUNDING TO MAKE THE PROGRAM SUSTAINABLE.

I KNOW HOUSTON HAS HAD GREAT SUCCESS WITH THEIR MASTER LEASING PROGRAM.

THE AMOUNT OF COORDINATION THAT IT HELPS HAS BEEN CALLED THEIR SECRET SAUCE FOR THEIR MASSIVE REDUCTION IN HOUSING.

THE OTHER SECRET SAUCE THAT I HAD MENTIONED FOR THEM IS REDUCTION IN HOMELESSNESS.

THE OTHER SECRET SAUCE THAT HOUSTON HAS IS LOTS OF HOUSING.

THIS IS FOR TWO PRIMARY REASONS FOR WHY THIS PROGRAM EXACTLY.

FIRST IS THAT MORE HOUSING MEETS MORE COMPETITION FOR TENANTS AND MORE VACANCIES AT LANDLORDS NEED TO FILL.

THAT MAKES THEM MORE AMENABLE TO TAKING PART IN A MASS RELEASING PROGRAM THAT GUARANTEES THEM INCOME.

THE SECOND REASON IS THAT MORE HOUSING MAKES RENTS CHEAPER OVERALL.

IN RECENT YEARS DALLAS HAS SEEN A MASSIVE INCREASE IN VOUCHER PER UNIT COST SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY GAVE DHA A SET POOL OF MONEY FOR VOUCHERS, HIGH PER UNIT COST LIMITS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAN GET THOSE VOUCHERS, WHICH IS WHY WE ONLY HAVE ONE OUT OF FOUR PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR VOUCHERS ACTUALLY ABLE TO GET THEM.

IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROGRAM AND VACCINES IN GENERAL, WE NEED TO EMBRACE BUILDING MORE HOUSING.

THIS IS A NEW COUNCIL AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE BOLD IN IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES NECESSARY FOR PROVIDING ABUNDANT HOUSING IN DALLAS.

THERE IS ALMOST NO PROBLEM THAT MORE HOUSING CAN'T HELP SOLVE IN THIS CITY.

OF COURSE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ONE BEING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS FOUND THAT BUILDING MORE HOUSING DOES REDUCE HOUSING PRICES AND SO I HOPE THAT WE BUILD MORE HOUSING

[02:15:03]

ESPECIALLY IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS IN DALLAS.

LET'S GO BOLD. LOWERING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS LEGALIZING AT USE DUPLEXES, TRY PLEXUS, QUAD PLEXUS, REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS, AND THEN IDENTIFYING MORE PLACES FOR MULTIFAMILY, PARTICULARLY NEAR TRANSIT.

I'LL JUST SAY THAT I WOULD LOVE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE ARE GROUP DALLAS NEIGHBORS FOR HOUSING.

WE'RE HAVING A HAPPY HOUR.

THERE'S A 630 AT THE ANGELICA THEATER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A EVENT ON URBANISM DALLAS OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS.

THE EVENT IS FREE AND HOPE THAT SOME OF YOU CAN JOIN.

THEN AS YOU GO OUT ON YOUR JULY BREAK WHETHER YOU'RE AT THE BEACH, THE AIRPORT, OR POOL HERE IN DALLAS I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ EITHER FIXER UPPER BY JENNY SCHUETZ FROM THE BROOKING INSTITUTE OR HOMELESSNESS IS A HOUSING PROBLEM BY GREGG COLBURN AND CLAYTON ALDERN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND HOPE THAT YOU PASS THIS TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THIS ITEM WAS CALLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

>> EXCUSE ME. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> I HEARD A MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST.

IT'S GOING TO BE DISPOSED OF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I HEARD A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WAS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? TO SECONDS OR A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE, WHO PULLED THIS ITEM?

>> I'LL GO TO THE PERSON WHO PULLED IT FIRST.

>> THAT WOULD BE ME.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU. YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] WELL, FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO THE FURTHEST TO THE FIRST AGENDA MEETING IN AUGUST. BUT.

>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

THE MOTION IS TO DEFER.

>> DEFER TO THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST.

>> GO AHEAD. YOU'RE RIGHT.

[OVERLAPPING] HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON FIRST.

WE'RE NOW IN YOUR MOTION TO DEFER AND YOU'RE RIGHT ON FOR FIVE-MINUTES ON THAT.

IT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF PLEASE.

HAS THIS ITEM BEEN BRIEFED TO COMMITTEE?

>> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR OFFICER OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS.

CHRISTINE CROSLEY, WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF IT TO COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT ON THE LAST AGENDA SO THAT IT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS BEFORE THE BREAK BECAUSE THE NEED FOR HOUSING IS SO DIRE.

>> WHEN DID WE APPROVE THE DOLLARS FOR THIS PROGRAM?

>> THE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED IN THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE ON THE FLOOR.

>> IT WAS APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022 AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME IN ANY OF THESE MONTHS TO BRIEF THE COMMITTEE ABOUT IT.

>> I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO INTO THE CONTRACTUAL PROCESSES HERE.

BUT I CAN SAY THAT THE PROCESS THAT HAS LED US TO HERE HAS TAKEN THAT LONG.

AND SO WE WANTED TO GET IT TO YOU ALL AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD BECAUSE IT WAS A BUDGET PRIORITY FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

>> KIM, IF I CAN ASK YOU, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WHERE YOU WERE INTERESTED IN PURSUING A PROGRAM THAT REQUIRED VOUCHERS TO BE ACCEPTED IN MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES.

AND I TOLD YOU I WAS VERY OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND YOU EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY FOR VOUCHER HOLDERS TO BE ABLE TO FIND HOUSING AND I SAID I AGREE, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT.

THAT WAS OUR FIRST CONVERSATION ABOUT MASTER LEASING, PROBABLY 3, 4 YEARS AGO. WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT AND WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE AND WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE MAYOR TO INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT IN THE BUDGET THAT GAVE US THIS FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO SUCH.

YES, WE'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS, INCLUDING CONVERSATIONS AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL ABOUT A PROGRAM OF THIS NATURE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE RESPONSE THAT CHRISTINE GAVE, ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT OFFICIALLY BRIEFED THE ITEM AT THE LAST HHS COMMITTEE, WE DID SEND TWO DIFFERENT COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO SAY THAT THIS WAS COMING.

WE SENT A MEMORANDUM TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH THE THIRD.

WHERE WE HIGHLIGHTED THE RFP PROCESS AND WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WE SET THE GOAL WOULD BE TO BRING THE ITEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL IS RECESSED AND THEN WE SENT ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP MEMO THIS PAST FRIDAY, ALSO COMMUNICATING THAT THIS ITEM WAS ON THE AGENDA.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T BRIEF IT, WE DID COMMUNICATE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES WITH THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE IT.

WHAT I WASN'T EXPECTING THOUGH WAS WHAT I SAW WHEN I GOT

[02:20:01]

THE CONTRACT THIS MORNING AND THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT, THE TITLE IS RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING FORWARD AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVES AS AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING FORWARD.

THIS IS A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN MASTER LEASING.

IF I CAN JUST SAY FOR DISTINCTIONS TO MY COLLEAGUES, MASTER LEASING IS WHEN AN ENTITY WILL GO IN AND THEY WILL RENT 4, 5, 6 DIFFERENT APARTMENTS AND THEY ARE THE RENT HOLDER.

THEY ARE THE TENANT AND THEY PAY THE LANDLORD DIRECTLY, AND THEN THEY PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.

THEY DECIDE WHO COMES IN, WHO GOES OUT, DEPOSITS, AND THEY ACCEPT RENT FROM THOSE PEOPLE.

THIS IS ALSO DONE COMMERCIALLY, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT'S MEANT AND THIS IS HOW HOUSTON DOES IT.

IT'S NOT AN EXPENSIVE PROGRAM BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A HIGH ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND IT'S A RISK FOR WHOEVER IS THAT LEASE HOLDER.

IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE SENT OUT AN RFP FOR MASTER LEASING, NOT AND IN FACT, THE AGENDA ITEM SAYS MASTER LEASING IT DOESN'T SAY RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

THE PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS CONTRACTING WITH A LANDLORD, THAT IS NOT MASTER LEASING, THAT IS SUBSIDIZED, THAT IS HELPING PEOPLE GET HOUSING.

WE ALREADY HAVE THAT.

THAT'S THE RAPIDLY HOUSING PROGRAM.

IT'S DOING ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

WHAT THIS WAS MEANT TO DO WAS SOLVE A SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM IS THE VOUCHER HOLDER WHO DOESN'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO BECAUSE THEY HAVE A TERRIBLE EVICTION HISTORY, FINANCIAL HISTORY AND INSTEAD, WE SAY WE'LL ACCEPT YOUR VOUCHER, CITY OF DALLAS OR ON OUR BEHALF HOUSING FORWARD AND WE WILL RENT IT FOR YOU.

YOU CAN STAY HERE X AMOUNT OF TIME UNTIL YOU CAN GET THE LONG-TERM HOUSING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH THIS VOUCHER AND PEOPLE WILL CYCLE IN AND OUT.

IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE THE LONG-TERM HOUSING STEP THAT RAPIDLY HOUSING IS.

NUMBER 1, THE AGENDA ITEM IS NOT STYLED PROPERLY BECAUSE THIS IS A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

IT'S NOT MASTER LEASING.

THE EXACT DEFINITION OF MASTER LEASING, WHICH I CAN PULL UP, BUT YOU CAN GOOGLE IT.

I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES GOOGLE MASTER LEASING EVERY DEFINITION I'VE GONE THROUGH, WHICH IS 30 OF THEM WHILE I WAS SITTING HERE THIS MORNING, DESCRIBES WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT WHAT YOU'VE GOT IN THIS 180 PAGE CONTRACT.

I'M ASKING TO DEFER THIS TILL AUGUST BECAUSE I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU OVER THE BREAK TO GET THE PROGRAM THAT I WAS HOPING WE WOULD HAVE THAT THIS COUNCIL VOTED TO ALLOCATE FUNDING FOR, YOU BROUGHT ME THE MOTION FOR THE BUDGET THAT SAID THAT WE WANTED TO SECURE MASTER LEASING OR OTHER SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS.

IT MIGHT BE A VARIATION, A MASTER LEASING BUT RENTAL ASSISTANCE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

IT'S A DIFFERENT PROGRAM.

WE DIDN'T ALLOCATE 3 MILLION FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

WE DID IT TO SOLVE A VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT MASTER LEASING WILL ADDRESS.

WE STILL DON'T HAVE A MASTER LEASING PROGRAM IF WE PASS THIS.

>> IF I COULD JUST GO BACK FOR JUST A MOMENT, THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAD WITH THE MOTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER THE 21ST, WAS TO REALLY GIVE US FLEXIBILITY TO IDENTIFY A PROGRAM THAT WOULD WORK FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE USE THE TERMINOLOGY MASTER LEASING BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SECURE UNITS IN BULK, THIS ITEM, THIS CONTRACT THAT YOU DO HAVE A COPY OF, PROVIDES US WITH THAT OPPORTUNITY.

IT GIVES HOUSING FORWARD THE ABILITY TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED.

>> NO, IT DOES NOT.

>> THEY WILL GO AND DO THE WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SECURE THE UNITS IN BULK, AND ENSURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE LEASE UP STRATEGY, THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE DOING THAT WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS HAVE THE CITY SERVING AS A POTENTIAL LANDLORD AND SO WE MADE THAT CLEAR.

I KNOW YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT AS WELL LAST NIGHT.

THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THE MOTION PROVIDED GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO THEN DEVELOP A PROGRAM THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE DID NOT FOLLOW THE HARD DEFINITION OF MASTER LEASE, WHICH WAS PROVIDED DURING THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY DECLARATION.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'VE DONE.

I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SPEAK TO THE TITLE OF THE CONTRACT AS RENTAL ASSISTANCE, LISA IS HERE.

>> BEFORE THEY DO THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT ON PAGE 1, IT LITERALLY SAYS FACILITATING ACCESS TO RENTAL SUBSIDIES ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS, PROVIDING RENTAL PROPERTY AVAILABILITY DATA,

[02:25:03]

IDENTIFYING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT MEET APPLICABLE SAFETY STANDARDS TO ENROLL IN THE PROGRAM, TO SERVE AS LOW BARRIER RENTAL UNITS, MANAGING, COORDINATING, ALIGNING ALL ASPECTS OF TENANT OCCUPANCY UNDER THE PROGRAM, INCLUDING TO SECURE THE AVAILABILITY OF RENTAL UNITS, ALIGNING FUNDING.

IT GOES ON TO SAY THE OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY ON BEHALF OF THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS, AND THEN THE ENTIRE TERM OF THEIR FUTURE LEASE.

IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS CONTRACTING WITH THE LANDLORD, THAT IS NOT A MASTER LEASE PROGRAMS?

>> IF I MIGHT ANSWER.

THIS IS LISA MARES WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

IF I MAY ADDRESS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE TITLE OF THE CONTRACT VERSUS THE REFERENCE TO THE MASTER LEASE PROGRAM.

FOR CONSISTENCY, TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNCIL WAS AWARE THAT THIS MATTER WAS TIED TO THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THAT TERMINOLOGY WAS USED TO REFERENCE THE MASTER LEASE PROGRAM.

BUT IN ACTUALLY DRAFTING UP THE CONTRACT.

I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE SERVICES THAT WERE BEING PROVIDED.

KIM IS CORRECT, THE DEFINITION OF MASTER LEASE PROGRAM, THESE SERVICES DON'T FALL UNDER THAT DEFINITION, WHICH IS MUCH MORE NARROW.

BUT WE DID WANT TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR HOUSING FORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE TOOLS THAT WOULD BE MOST SUCCESSFUL IN LOCATING APARTMENTS.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TIME FOR THIS ROUND, BUT YOU CAN COME BACK.

YOU'VE GOT THE STAFF TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT WE CANNOT DO ANOTHER ROUND OF QUESTIONING YET.

>> THANK YOU. THERE WAS ONE PART THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN HAD MENTIONED THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED, WHICH WAS THE UNITS BEING IN THE TENANT'S NAME, NOT HOUSING FORWARD FOR THE CITIES.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WANTING TO FIND UNITS ACROSS THE CITY AND HAVE PEOPLE HOUSED IN THEM, THE GOAL OF HAVING SOMEONE HOUSE, WHETHER IT'S TEMPORARILY OR LONG-TERM, IS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE RENTAL CREDIT, TO HAVE SOMEONE TO VOUCH FOR THEM OR HAVE THAT CREDIT TO VOUCH SO THAT THEY CAN THEN SECURE A UNIT.

IN THIS CASE, IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO START WHERE WE MEAN TO END, WHICH IS WE ARE GOING TO SECURE THE UNITS.

THIS IS THE CONNECTIVE TISSUE THAT SECURES THE UNITS IN BULK AND THEN THEY ARE IN THE CLIENT'S NAME SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD THAT RENTAL CREDIT AND STAY THERE IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

OTHERWISE, ALL WE'RE DOING IS PUSHING THE PROBLEM THAT ACCESSING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DOWN THE ROAD.

FOR A VOUCHER HOLDER, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT HOUSING TO UTILIZE THEIR VOUCHER, WHICH HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE IF IT IS NOT USED IN TIME. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MORENO, YOU HAVE LESS THAN FIVE-MINUTES ON.

THIS IS THE MOTION TO DEFER BY MISS. MENDELSOHN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DEFER AS THE IMMEDIATE PAST VICE-CHAIR OF HOUSING COMMITTEE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT AND APPRECIATE THE MULTIPLE MEMOS THAT HAVE COME OUT TO ADVISE US AND KEEP US UP TO DATE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS PROJECT.

IF WE MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE PUSHING THIS DOWN THE ROAD AND OUR HOMELESSNESS AND MOST VULNERABLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE WITHOUT HOUSING.

I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME FOR WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS AFTER THIS MOTION.

>> WELL DONE. LET'S SEE.

MR. WEST, YOU'RE DOING THIS FOR 5 MIN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. FOR ME, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF THE TITLE OF MASTER LEASING VERSUS NON MASTER LEASING SO THAT CAN BE DONE WITH THAT AND JUST TALK ABOUT THE ITEM.

I THINK WHAT CITY ATTORNEY SAID, WHAT STUCK IN MY MIND THE MOST IS WE WANTED TO PROVIDE HOUSING FORWARD WITH ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM WORK.

IF THE TITLE OF USING MASTER LEASING HERE PASSES THE LEGAL MASTER FOR NOTICE PURPOSES.

ARE WE FINE WITH THIS?

>> AGAIN, LISA MARES WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT CHANGING THE TITLE WOULD BE FINE FOR NOTICE PURPOSES.

WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT IS THE GUTS OF THE CONTRACT RATHER THAN THE TITLE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. IN MY READING OF YOUR PAST MEMOS ON THIS, TO ME IT WAS CLEAR WHAT THE INTENT OF THE ITEM WAS.

SO I'M NOT AS CAUGHT UP INTO THE DESCRIPTION AS LONG AS IT PASSES THE LEGAL MUSTER HERE.

THE PROGRAM IS PRESENTED BY STAFF, DOES THIS PUSH FORWARD THE GOALS OF HOUSING FORWARD IN GETTING PEOPLE INTO THAT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PIECE AND OUT OF SHELTERS, AND IF SO, HOW?

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. AGAIN, CHRISTINE CROSSLEY, OFFICE HOMELESS SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR.

IT PUSHES FOR THE GOAL OF PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO HOUSING, IN THIS CASE, PERMANENT HOUSING.

WE HAVE SAID THAT OUR BEST PRACTICE AS A SYSTEM IS PERMANENT SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST CREATING ANOTHER ISSUE TO DEAL WITH LATER.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THIS DOES IT IN A WAY THAT IS EQUITABLE FOR OUR CITY AFFIRMATIVE FAIR HOUSING GOALS,

[02:30:02]

WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SPREAD OUT THERE AND WE'RE NOT CONCENTRATING ANYONE IN ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION.

WE ALSO AND I CAN'T GET INTO DETAILS, THIS IS AN ATTORNEY DETAIL, BUT WE ALSO CANNOT FOR THE VOUCHER HOLDERS PUT TOO MANY PEOPLE INTO ONE BUILDING.

OR WE START TO TRIGGER A LAW THAT WE CANNOT PASS, WHICH IS A 30% RULE.

WE COULDN'T DO THAT ANYWAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A BILLING THAT WAS SPECIALLY OPERATED.

>> THE ITEM AS PRESENTED BY STAFF DOES NOT PUT EVERYBODY IN ONE BUILDING, AS YOU'RE SAYING, IT BASICALLY ALLOWS HOUSING FORWARD TO HOLD THE VOUCHERS AND USE THEM BASED ON ALL THE CONTEXTS THEY HAVE IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES ACROSS THE CITY, RIGHT?

>> EXACTLY. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

WE WANT HOUSING FORWARD WHO'S WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO HAVE THIS AS A TOOL THAT THEY CAN GO OUT TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND BE ABLE TO SECURE UNITS THAT WE NEED.

I WANT TO POINT OUT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT RAPIDLY HOUSING DATA, WE'VE HOUSED CLOSE TO 2,100 AS OF LAST FRIDAY.

WE HAVE ABOUT 844 INDIVIDUALS RIGHT NOW WHO HAVE BEEN QUALIFIED AND APPROVED FOR HOUSING WHO ARE WAITING TO GO INTO UNITS.

THIS ACTUALLY HELPS HOUSING FORWARD TO CONTINUE THE WORK THAT'S UNDERWAY.

BUT DOING SO IN A PERMANENT SETTING, WHERE THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL GO INTO THIS THESE UNITS AND THIS NOW BECOMES HOME FOR THEM.

>> OKAY. I SHARE THE CONCERN THAT WE, AS THE CITY, DO NOT NEED TO BE THE LANDLORD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, AND THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AS ANY PART OF THIS, CORRECT?

I'M DONE, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.

>> MR. NARVAEZ, RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK ON THE DEFERRAL PART.

I HAVE COMMENTS FOR OTHERS ON THE DEFERRAL.

I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE DEFERRAL SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR UNHOUSED PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY NEED THIS AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU, MR. MERRITT, USED YOUR DISCRETIONARY BOND MONEY IN ORDER FOR US TO PUT THIS INTO THE BUDGET SO THAT WE COULD GET THIS DONE.

STAFF HAS BROUGHT US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET ACCOMPLISH.

I'LL RESERVE AS LONG AS IF THE DEFERRAL DOESN'T PASS, THEN I HAVE A LOT MORE COMMENTS ON THE ACTUAL PROGRAM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> SORRY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE DEFERRAL OR THE DELAY, AND I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO I KNOW RECEIVE PHONE CALLS, PROBABLY ON A DAILY BASIS ABOUT HOMELESSNESS IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

FOR ME, I SIMPLY WANT YOU TO TELL THE PUBLIC MRS. TOLBERT, IS THIS ANOTHER STRATEGY FOR PUTTING THE HOMELESSNESS UNSHELTERED, THOSE WITHOUT A HOME, THOSE WHO ARE ON THE STREET PUTTING THEM IN A STRUCTURE THAT RESEMBLES SHELTER THAT'S PROTECTIVE?

>> THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM.

THIS IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING QUITE EXTENSIVELY AS THE COUNCIL KNOWS, TO REALLY COME UP WITH DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO MOVE PEOPLE INTO HOUSING.

THIS PROVIDES US WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE UNITS IN BULK.

HAVING HOUSING FORWARD WHO'S A PARTNER WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY ARE THE LEAD AGENCY OF THE CONTINUUM OF CARE.

THEY'RE ABLE TO NOW GO OUT AND DO THAT ON OUR BEHALF.

IT GIVES US THOSE ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT WE NEED SO WE CAN MOVE THOSE WHO ARE UNSHELTERED OR HOMELESS INTO HOUSING.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, NOT TRANSITIONAL, WHICH IS WHAT YOU TYPICALLY REFER TO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHELTERS.

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST SIMPLY REITERATE MY STATEMENT ABOUT THE PHONE CALLS BECAUSE WE GET THEM VERY OFTEN, NOT EVERYDAY REALLY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE WE ARE ANSWERING THE TELEPHONE.

AS I SEE AN INCREASE NOW OF HOMELESSNESS SERIOUSLY POPULATING AROUND THE POLK AND 67 AREA, PENTAGON PARKWAY AND POLK, RED BERT LANE 35, LANCASTER ROAD AND KEYS, THE DECK PARK AND GATEWAY IS POPULATING IN LARGE NUMBERS AND WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE AS MANY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES AS POSSIBLE IN PUTTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN HOMES BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

NUMBER 1, WE HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL IN PUTTING THAT STRUCTURE TOGETHER.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SURVIVE IN THAT AREA AND WE NEED HOMES, STEP HOUSING STABILITY,

[02:35:02]

INTENSE STRING IN THE BOTTOMS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN DISTRICT 4 ON THE FOURTH SIDE, MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST HAS STRONG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BACKBONES AND WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT OUT.

IF WE DON'T GET SUPPORT IN PUTTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED HOMES IN A FACILITY IS GOING TO KILL THE POTENTIAL OF THE GATEWAY AND THE DECK PARK.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL MEMBERS I SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN SOME OF THE HOUSING STRUCTURES AND LIVING STYLES THAT ARE POPPING UP ON THE GATEWAY, YOU NEED TO GO BY THERE.

IT'S GOING TO KILL OUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ANY TYPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THAT COMMUNITY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO STATED, YES, WE'VE DISCUSSED AS IN HOUSING, BUT I THINK ALSO WE NEED TO LOOK AT COUNCIL MEMBERS IS, LET THE STAFF WORK.

IF WE KNOW THIS IS A GROWING PROBLEM, WE CAN'T HOG TIE THEM ON EVERY PROGRAM WHEN WE ASK THEM TO GET THE FOLKS IN THE HOUSING, WE CAN'T HOG TIE THEM ON EVERYTHING.

BUT WE YES, WE HAVE A FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WE'VE GOT TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY TAX, THE OWNERS DOLLARS.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU ALSO COUNCIL MEMBERS IS ALSO KILLING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE VALUE.

I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT DISTRICT 4 AND THE AREAS THAT I MENTIONED BECAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SELL OUR HOMES.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE ENCAMPMENTS AND ALL THESE FOLKS WHO ARE HANGING AROUND THE GROCERY STORES, THE BANKS, ALONG POLK STREET, AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR STAFF YOU TO KEEP WORKING AND GIVE US SOME RELIEF AS WELL SO WE CAN HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THE CONSTITUENTS WHEN THEY'RE CALLING AND ASKING US, CAN'T YOU DO SOMETHING? SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE DELAY, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS I HOPE YOU WILL JUST SIMPLY SUPPORT THE CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE ASKING US AND BEGGING US TO HELP CLEAN UP OUR COMMUNITIES NUMBER 1, BUT ALSO PUT UP THESE DELICATE CONSTITUENTS.

SOMETIME YOU HAVE DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF HOW HOMELESSNESS AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SOME WITH MENTAL HEALTH, YOU HAVE SOME WHO JUST BEEN LAID OFF THE JOBS AND THEY'RE TWO PAYCHECKS AWAY FROM BEING ON THE STREET AND THEY'RE OUT THERE.

I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT I AM GOING TO SUPPORT LONG-TERM.

YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL STRATEGIES POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS I KNOW THAT WE HAVE IN DISTRICT 4.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MR. RIDLEY, LEAD US FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO SUPPORT A DEFERRAL OF THIS ITEM, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS ITEM IS.

WHEN I CAME IN HERE, I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROVAL OF A MASTER LEASE PROGRAM, A CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAS BEEN BRIEFING THE COUNCIL ON FOR ALL THESE MANY MONTHS.

NOW I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THAT.

YOU'VE APPARENTLY CHANGED COURSES, YOU'VE ABANDONED THAT IDEA, AND YOU'RE SUBSTITUTING A NEW IDEA OF SOME KIND OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS NOW.

WHAT'S THE $3 MILLION GOING FOR?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

WE HAVE NOT ABANDONED THE IDEA.

THIS IS STILL A PROGRAM, AND I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

WE ALREADY HAVE A PROGRAM THAT DOES THAT.

IT'S CALLED THE DALLAS R.E.A.L TIME RAPID REHOUSING INITIATIVE OR NOW THE R.E.A.L TIME REHOUSING INITIATIVE.

THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

WHAT THIS DOES PROVIDE IS FUNDING TO SECURE UNITS IN BULK, WHICH IS MASTER LEASING.

THIS ITERATION, WE HAVE SAID THAT WE ARE DOING IT AND WE HAVE GIVEN ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL WORK IN OUR CURRENT REALITY, AND WITH THE UNITS THAT WE HAVE IN DALLAS AND THE RENTAL MARKET THAT WE HAVE.

BUT WHAT THE DRTRR AND OUR OTHER PROGRAMS DO NOT HAVE IS A BUCKET OF MONEY OF THIS SIZE THAT CAN GO AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED 10 UNITS HERE, 20 UNITS HERE, FIVE UNITS HERE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS MONEY DOWN TO SECURE THOSE UNITS WHILE WE WORK THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION PROCESSES THAT ARE NEEDED TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING SUBSIDIES AND VOUCHERS THAT OTHER PROGRAMS ALREADY HAVE.

SO WITHOUT THIS, WE DON'T HAVE A LEG UP ON BEING ABLE TO BRING IN OTHER LANDLORDS.

IF WE HAVE THIS, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE OR PROJECTED 200 ADDITIONAL LANDLORDS AND BRING ON AN ADDITIONAL 360 UNITS ANNUALLY.

THIS IS PROVIDING US THE FUNDING TO USE FOR DEPOSITS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF MASTER LEASING.

>> SO THE $3 MILLION JUST GOES TO SECURITY DEPOSITS ON APARTMENTS IN DIFFERENT BUILDINGS?

>> YES, IT'S A BACKSTOP, AND ACTUALLY THE BEAUTY OF THAT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE WAS, BECAUSE OF THAT WE'RE HOPING THAT ACTUALLY WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE MOST OF THE 3 MILLION.

THIS IS A GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO USE AND THEN ONCE SOMEONE'S SLIDES INTO THE UNIT,

[02:40:02]

WE MAY NOT HAVE TO USE ALL OF IT.

SO WORST-CASE SCENARIO, THE 3 MILLION CAME ABOUT BECAUSE IF YOU HAD, LET'S SAY, 100, 135 UNITS THAT WERE VACANT FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR AND YOU HAD TO KEEP HOLDING THEM, WHICH MEANS PAYING THE RENT EVERY SINGLE MONTH BECAUSE THEY WERE VACANT, YOU COULD USE THAT FUNDING FOR THAT PLUS OVERHEAD FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR.

BUT WE WON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

SO WE PROBABLY THINK MOST OF THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO STAY IN THE PENSION STABILIZATION FUND.

>> SO HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM A TRUE MASTER SUBLEASE PROGRAM? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO WE OVERCOME THE LANDLORDS RELUCTANCE TO LEASE TO SOMEONE WHO HAS POOR CREDIT OR NO CREDIT?

>> TRUE MASTER LEASING, ONE, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO DEFINE IT THAT WAY.

I THINK IF WE'RE SAYING THE HUD DEFINITION OF MASTER LEASING, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE TO USE AN R-NAUGHT BOUND TO, WOULD BE THAT THERE IS AN ENTITY WHO ACTS AS THE LANDLORD FOR EVERYONE.

THE CITY ARE NOT LANDLORDS, HOUSING FORWARD IS NOT A LANDLORD.

HOUSING FORWARD HAS A NAVIGATION TEAM THAT HAS THE CONNECTIVE TISSUE TO GO OUT AND IDENTIFY LANDLORDS AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE HAVE FUNDING TO HELP SECURE THESE UNITS SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE US THE TIME TO GET PEOPLE'S APPLICATIONS PROCESSED.

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET DOES NOT WAIT FOR ANYONE.

IT IS NOT A PLACE WHERE WE CAN AFFORD THE LUXURY OF TIME.

SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT FINANCIAL COMMITMENT.

WHAT IT DOES THEN IS ALLOW TENANTS TO LEASE THE UNITS IN THEIR OWN NAME, AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE BUILDING THE RENTAL CREDIT AS THEY GO.

THEY CAN STAY THERE AS LONG AS THEY LIKE SO THAT WE DON'T TURN AROUND IN 12-24 MONTHS AND HAVE THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE WHO NOW NEED TO GO YET SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY ANOTHER UNIT.

BECAUSE IF THEY HAD THOSE BARRIERS TO BEGIN WITH WHEN WE HAD TO HELP FIND THEM HOUSING, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THEM IN 12-24 MONTHS.

>> WHAT BARRIERS DOES THIS OVERCOME FOR THE TENANTS? WHY CAN'T THESE SAME TENANTS GO OUT AND LEASE THESE APARTMENTS NOW ON THEIR OWN NAMES?

>> IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, IT'S COMPETITION.

WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL TO SECURE THE UNITS.

AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE A MORE RECENT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, WHO MIGHT BE FLEEING DV.

I'VE OFTEN SEEN PEOPLE WHO WERE FLEEING DV, THEIR SPOUSES MESS WITH THEIR CREDIT SCORE AND IT'S TANKED.

IT COULD BE THAT THEY HAVEN'T HAD AN APARTMENT EVER AND THEY HAVE NO ONE TO VOUCH FOR THEM, NO CREDIT SCORE TO SPEAK UP, NO RENTAL HISTORY TO SPEAK UP.

AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE THINGS WHERE WE CAN GO IN AND SAY, HEY, IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO WORK WITH YOU, WE WILL BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE LANDLORDS AND HUMANIZE THESE STORIES AND TELL YOU WHY YOU SHOULD WORK WITH US.

IT'S ALSO JUST A GOOD BUSINESS CASE BECAUSE THE RENTAL SUBSIDIES THAT WE ARE BUYING TIME TO BRING IN, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE BUYING TIME WITH THIS FUNDS.

WITH THESE FUNDS ARE GUARANTEEING 100% TENANCY.

IF THIS PERSON, FOR SOME REASON, DOES NOT WORK OUT AND THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE THE ENTIRE TIME WHEN WE'VE HOUSED OVER 2,100 PEOPLE, WE CAN BRING SOMEONE IN INSTANTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS BACKLOG OF PEOPLE.

BUT WHAT WE NEED IS TO BUY THE TIME TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND TO GET PEOPLE'S APPLICATIONS PROCESSED AND TO GET THE DALLAS HOUSING INSPECTIONS DONE.

AND SO THAT IS WHAT THIS DOES.

THAT'S THE MISSING PIECE.

>> I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT OVERCOMES INDIVIDUAL CREDIT PROBLEMS, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, THAT SORT OF THING.

HOW DO WE, THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, CONVINCE LANDLORDS TO LEASE TO THEM IF THEY WOULDN'T ORDINARILY?

>> BECAUSE WE'RE USING THIS MONEY TO SECURE THE UNITS SO THAT WE HAVE AND TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO HOUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT WITH THESE 2,100 INDIVIDUALS.

IT'S REALLY JUST WORKING WITH LANDLORDS AND HUMANIZING THE CASES AND SAYING, HEY, I CAN VOUCH FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN THIS PROGRAM IN A SHELTER FOR X AMOUNT OF MONTHS, OR I KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE ANY RENTAL HISTORY BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM.

BUT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IF THERE'S NO UNIT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT.

>> SO WE GO TO THE LANDLORD AND SECURE THE UNIT.

HOW DO WE DO THAT WITHOUT LEASING IT IN THE CITY'S NAME OF HOUSING FORWARD'S NAME?

>> WHEN I SAY WE, IT'S THE HOUSING NAVIGATION TEAM AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE CASE MANAGERS WHO HAVE THESE CLIENTS.

AND SO THE HOUSING NAVIGATION TEAMS ARE TALKING TO THE LANDLORD SAYING, HEY, IF WE COULD LEASE ONE UNIT HERE, WELL, GUESS WHAT? WE NOW HAVE FUNDING WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY PUT DOWN DEPOSITS FOR FIVE OR SIX UNITS WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

THEN WE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO GO IN THOSE UNITS.

THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE FIVE OR SIX UNITS.

FOR NOW WE STILL HAVE, I THINK A BACKSTOP OF 6-7 TO 800 PEOPLE, SO IF WE'VE GOT FIVE UNITS THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO GIVE US TIME TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WE'LL FIND FIVE PEOPLE WHO CAN GO IN THOSE UNITS.

>> AND SO THEN WE JUST PERSUADE THEM TO REDUCE THEIR UNDERWRITING CRITERIA AND TAKE PEOPLE THAT THEY WOULDN'T ORDINARILY.

>> IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND, COUNCIL MEMBER, REALLY.

THIS REALLY CREATES A PARTNERSHIP.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE CONTINUED TO TALK ABOUT ALONG EVEN WITH THE RAPIDLY HOUSING STRATEGY, IS REALLY PUTTING THE CITY AT THE TABLE TO BE ABLE TO SAY TO

[02:45:01]

THESE VARIOUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND LANDLORDS THAT WE HAVE A VESTED INTEREST AND WE WANT THEM TO PARTNER WITH US.

THIS ALLOWS FOR US TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND THOSE TYPES OF PARTNERSHIPS, HAVING HOUSING FORWARD AT THE TABLE DOING THE WORK FOR US, AND UTILIZING THE WHOLE NAVIGATION, THE ECOSYSTEM THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BUILT.

IT'S REALLY TAKING THE WORK THAT IS ALREADY UNDERWAY, ELEVATING THAT WORK TO THE POINT WHERE NOW WE CAN HELP THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT HAVE VOUCHERS RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL GOING IN AND BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THOSE UNITS ON THEIR OWN.

OFTENTIMES THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE OUT THERE ON THEIR OWN TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT, AND IT GETS VERY COMPLICATED.

SO THIS IS THE CITY GOING IN AND SAYING, WITH HOUSING FORWARD DOING THE WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, HERE'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO DO.

WE WANT YOU TO PARTNER WITH US, WE WANT YOU TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE WORK TO CREATE THE TENANT SCHEDULES AND THE LEASE SUB SCHEDULES AND THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL COME INTO THOSE UNITS.

BUT IT'S A GOOD FAITH DECISION FOR THE CITY TO BE AT THE TABLE AND BE A PARTNER IN THIS REGARD.

WE'RE USING HOUSING FORWARD TO MANAGE THE PROGRAM ON OUR BEHALF BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE STAFF CAPACITY WITHIN THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OUT THERE IN THE MARKETPLACE.

>> SO THIS CONTRACT THAT WE'RE TO AUTHORIZE TODAY BETWEEN THE CITY AND HOUSING FORWARD PROVIDES THAT HOUSING FORWARD WILL BASICALLY RUN THIS PROGRAM? IS IT WELL-DEFINED OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S MORE CONCEPTUAL? PARTICULARLY IF YOU COULD GIVE SOME EXAMPLE OF WHERE THIS HAS BEEN DONE ELSEWHERE AND PROVEN TO BE A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM ALONG THESE OUTLINES THAT WOULD HELP GENERATE CREDIBILITY FOR THIS CONTRACT.

>> SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IN THE CONTRACT, THEIR BUDGET'S LAID OUT AND WE TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING 10-15 NEW UNITS BEING ACQUIRED EVERY SINGLE MONTH AT A MINIMUM FOR 360 UNITS ANNUALLY, AND THEN FROM THERE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT RETAINING THE UNITS ONGOING.

THOSE 360 WILL THEN WILL ADD MORE AS WE GO.

THEY'VE ALSO BROKEN IT DOWN INTO HOLD FEES, LANDLORD INCENTIVE FEES, APPLICATION FEES, HOUSING LOCATION FEES.

IT IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY DETAILED.

PART OF IT INCLUDES IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES.

I'M READING FROM THE CONTRACT ITSELF, FROM THE AIS, IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES.

IF ANYTHING NEEDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, IDENTIFYING A THIRD PARTY WHO COULD COME IN AND DO THAT.

IF WE DO HAPPEN TO FIND A PROPERTY THAT WE COULD USE IN BULK, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT REALLY EXISTS RIGHT NOW ON THE SYSTEM, BUT WE WANTED TO ALLOW FOR THAT NEGOTIATING 12-24 MONTH LEASE UP PLANS AND TENANT MOVE IN PROCESSES, PROVIDING CASE MANAGEMENT.

ALL OF THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE THE CONNECTIVE TISSUE OR THE ARTERIES IS THE WAY I ENVISION IT THROUGH WHICH THE BLOOD OR THE CASE MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICE FLOWS.

THIS IS THE STRUCTURE THAT SAYS, WE HAVE THIS FUNDING.

WE ARE GOING TO IDENTIFY THE LANDLORDS IN A WAY THAT GIVES US AN ACQUISITION PLAN TO GET 10-15 NEW UNITS ONLINE EVERY SINGLE MONTH FOR 360 UNITS OR MORE WITHIN A YEAR.

>> HOUSING FORWARD ACTS AS AN ADVOCATE FOR THESE POTENTIAL TENANTS IN ORDER TO GET THEM INTO THIS PERMANENT HOUSING.

THE CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR UP TO 360 UNITS OVER THE COURSE OF THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT.

>> THAT IS THE PROGRAM METRIC THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

I THINK IT WILL ACTUALLY BE MORE THAN 360, BUT THAT'S OUR BASELINE.

>> JUST ONE LAST PRACTICAL QUESTIONS.

WHEN HOUSING FORWARD IDENTIFIES A VACANT UNIT THAT THEY WANT TO USE FOR THIS PROGRAM, THEY GO TO THE LANDLORD, THEY PUT A DEPOSIT DOWN, THEY PAY THE FIRST MONTH'S RENT WITHOUT IDENTIFYING A TENANT, AND THEN THEY BEGIN THE APPLICATION PROCESS? IF THIS IS A LENGTHY PROCESS IS THAT APARTMENT VACANT BUT RENT IS BEING PAID ON IT FOR A MONTH OR MORE?

>> THAT'S ALL PART OF THE TENANT LEASE UP PLAN, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.

IT MIGHT NOT BE VACANT FOR A MONTH, BUT IT MIGHT BE, HEY, IF WE'RE DOING THIS PROCESS WITH THE CLIENT, WE NEED TO GET THE UNIT INSPECTED BY THE DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF SUBSIDY THAT'S COMING IN, THEY NEED TO SAY IT'S OKAY, AND THEN WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE LEASE WRITTEN UP AND HAVE THEM APPLY.

THAT TAKES TIME.

FOR SOME PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE IN THE RENTAL MARKET AND YOU HAVE 100% AGENCY AND YOU'RE DOING THIS ON YOUR OWN IT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS OR A WEEK.

[02:50:01]

IT MIGHT TAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME FOR ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

IT MIGHT TAKE TWO OR THREE WEEKS.

HAVING THAT ABILITY TO SAY THAT WE'RE SECURING FIVE OR SIX UNITS FOR THIS MONTH.

THAT GIVES US THE TIME.

WELL, THEY MIGHT COME IN IN A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AND SO THEN I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE LEASER UP PLAN IS HOW THAT WOULD THEN BE PRORATED.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HOPING TO USE THE ENTIRE THREE MILLION.

WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS A WAY TO BUY TIME FOR ALL OF THAT TO HAPPEN.

THAT ALSO GETS US THE MAXIMUM BANG FOR THIS BUCK SO THAT THE MAJORITY OF IT COULD STAY IN THE PENSION THE STABILIZATION FUND.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT REALLY USING THIS THREE MILLION TO SUBSIDIZE RENTS.

YOU'RE DOING IT TO SECURE THE APARTMENTS, TO BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE HOMELESS.

>> THEN THEIR RENT WILL BE PAID THROUGH A VOUCHER?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

I KNOW WHEN WHEN THE MAYOR AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST YEAR, IT WAS REALLY ABOUT HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY DO? AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE DRTR, WHICH WE HAD NEVER DONE IT AT THAT SCALE BEFORE.

IT'S BACK TO THE KITCHEN SINK APPROACH.

IT'S REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE OUT THERE LOOKING FOR THE MOST CREATIVE AND MOST INNOVATIVE WAYS THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO MOVE PEOPLE AT A MUCH QUICKER PACE USING RESOURCES, USING OUR PARTNERS, USING OUR NON-PROFIT PARTNERS TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO.

MS. DEPUTY MAYOR, PRO TEM IS RIGHT.

WE SEE, I LIVE DOWNTOWN.

WE SEE WE KNOW THE CHALLENGES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE DONE BEFORE SO WE UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONCERNS, BUT IT'S BACK IN LINE WITH WHAT WE DESCRIBED LAST YEAR DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

WHEN WE WORK TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT IT INTO THE BUDGET AND THAT WE WOULD ONLY UTILIZE THE FUNDING IF IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

BUT THIS IS A STOP GAP AND ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE UNITS IN BULK.

>> OKAY. ARE YOU STILL CONSIDERING A TRUE MASTER LEASE PROGRAM OR I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY, CHRISTINE, A MINUTE AGO THAT YOU HAVE NOT ABANDONED THAT IDEA.

>> NO. WELL, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS, WE HAVE NOT ABANDONED THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS READ LAST SEPTEMBER, IT WAS MASTER LEASING OR SIMILAR PROGRAM.

THIS IS THE VERSION OF MASTER LEASING WHEN WE PUT THIS OUT INTO THE ETHER AND SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO GET PROPOSALS FOR WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF WE SAID WE HAD MONEY FOR BULK UNIT ACQUISITION.

THIS IS WHAT CAME BACK AS THE MOST PRACTICAL, HIGHEST SCORING SOLUTION.

THAT SOLUTION IS STILL UNITS IN BULK BEING ACQUIRED.

I WOULD SAY THAT THAT TENANT IS THERE AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN IS RIGHT.

WE DO NEED TO SECURE UNITS IN BULK.

WE NEED TO DO IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT INSTEAD OF SAYING WE NEED ONE UNIT HERE AND ONE UNIT HERE AND ONE UNIT HERE, WHICH IS NOT AS EFFECTIVE.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO EXISTING LANDLORD PARTNERS AND BRINGING NEW ONES TO SAY WE HAVE THE FUNDING TO ACQUIRE MORE UNITS AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE A BEST APPROACH THAT WE CAN PULL OUT OF THE KITCHEN SINK THAT SAYS, NOT ONLY CAN WE ACQUIRE THEM, BUT WE CAN PUT YOU IN THEM TO STAY, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS IS NOT A PLACE YOU WILL THEN HAVE TO LEAVE LATER ON.

THIS CAN BE A PERMANENT HOME IF YOU WANT IT.

EVEN IF YOU DON'T, YOU CAN BUILD THE RENTAL CREDIT YOURSELF SO THAT WHEN IT'S TIME TO MOVE, YOU DON'T NEED SOMEONE TO VOUCH FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT HISTORY WITH YOUR LANDLORD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR.

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

>> THANK YOU MAYOR.

QUESTION, IN THIS PROGRAM IT BEEN BREACHED THROUGH HOUSING, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE?

>> WE'VE COMMUNICATED VIA THE MULTIPLE MEMOS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OUT.

WE DID NOT GET TO BRIEF IT TO THE HOUSING COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY JUST BECAUSE TIME AND WANTING TO BRING IT TO YOU GUYS BEFORE THE BREAK, WHICH WE SAID WE'D DO IN THE MEMO.

>> SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TRYING TO GET UNSHELTERED, THE HOMELESS, OFF THE STREET, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> TO DO THAT, THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO BUCKS THAT WE CAME UP WITH TO TRY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PUT THOSE AND SHIELD THE HOMELESS PEOPLE AND A RESIDENT AND A PLACE TO STAY.

>> NOW THE FUNDING, THE THREE MILLION DOLLARS, HOW DID WE COME ABOUT WITH THAT NUMBER?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR PRO TEM.

DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND THAT AMENDMENT WAS ACTUALLY SPONSORED BY OUR MAYOR.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, AND IT WAS REALLY TO GIVE STAFF THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.

WE'VE NEVER DONE IT THIS WAY BEFORE.

THE FUNDING THAT WAS UTILIZED, I BELIEVE IT WAS OUT OF WHAT WAS TITLED A PENSION STABILIZATION

[02:55:01]

FUND AND I'LL HAVE TO TURN TO OUR CFO IF I HAVE THE TITLE WRONG.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS THE FUNDING SOURCE.

HE GAVE ME THE THUMBS UP SO HE'S COMING THIS WAY.

SO THAT WAS THE ACTUAL FUNDING SOURCE THAT WAS USED.

AND WE ACTUALLY EXPLAINED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THAT THIS WOULD REALLY BE FUNDING THAT JUST AS A SECURITY, BUT HOPEFULLY WOULD NOT NEED TO BE UTILIZED BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE THE WORK, THE PLANS, THE STRATEGIES THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY.

WELL, PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY BE READY TO GO INTO THOSE UNITS, ACTUALLY EITHER COMING WITH A VOUCHER OR OTHER TYPES OF SUBSIDIES.

THAT WAS THE BACKSTOP STRATEGY THAT WE UTILIZE FOR THE BUDGET.

IT WAS A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

>> HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT?

>> THE BUDGET WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THE NEW FUNDING CAME AVAILABLE OCTOBER 1 AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING QUITE EXTENSIVELY BETWEEN ALL OF OUR INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS.

WE HAVE TOUCHED THIS TO GET IT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK.

>> SO WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS.

IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN HAVE THIS DONE BEFORE TODAY.

IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE TODAY IT COULDN'T BE BROUGHT EARLIER.

>> WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS AND WORKED THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ACTUALLY GET A CONTRACT IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO BRING THE ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL TODAY.

>> DO WE HAVE A COUNT OF HOW MANY UNSHELTERED HOMELESS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? DO WE HAVE A NUMBER?

>> YES. THE POINT-IN-TIME COUNT FROM JANUARY CITED 4,200.

THEN OF THOSE WHO ARE UNSHELTERED, THOSE WHO ARE ACTIVELY ON THE STREET WITH LITTLE OVER 1,000.

>> A THOUSAND. COLLEAGUES, I DON'T KNOW, IN YOUR DISTRICT OR IN MY DISTRICT, YOU COULD DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND WE TRY TO BUILD A FACILITY IN DISTRICT 8 AND IN DISTRICT 3, AND YOU HAVE TO BE CRAZY OUT OF YOUR MIND THAT YOU FEEL THAT WE HAVE A HOMELESS PROBLEM IN DALLAS.

AND AT MY OFFICE, IT TOOK ME TWO OR THREE YEARS JUST TO GET A HOMELESS PERSON OFF THE FRONT OF MY OFFICE DOOR CONSTANTLY.

ARE CALLED BERRIGAN AND A CAULDRON CONSTANTLY EVERY DAY JUST ON BUNNY VIEW AND SUBSTANCE TO IT.

THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

AND IF YOU WANT TO CORRECT THIS AND GET THIS DONE NOW, YOU JUST CAN'T JUST KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

WE NEED THIS NOW.

IF YOU DON T BELIEVE THIS, I'M GOING TO DRIVE TO DISTRICT 7 ON GOOD LATTERMAN, UNDER BRIDGES AND I CAN SAVE DOWNTOWN, EVEN ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, RIGHT IN A PARKING LOT, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, IN THE CHURCHES.

IT'S EVERYWHERE. WE KEEP TRYING TO KICK IT OUT DIFFERED DOWN THE ROAD AND EVERY DAY, MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE THEY COMING TO DALLAS BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO FIND SOME WAY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

[INAUDIBLE] WILL SAY THAT MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE THEY [NOISE] LOOK LIKE ME, THEY AFRICAN AMERICAN, AND I HATE TO SAY IT THEY LOOK LIKE ME.

I WOULDN'T NOT STAND HERE AND SIT HERE AND SAY, I WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE EVERY TIME I DRIVE, I REMIND MYSELF THAT COULDN'T BE ME, IT COULD HAVE BEEN MY SISTER, COULD BE MY BROTHER.

BUT WE ALWAYS WANT TO KICK SOME CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

WE TRY AND DO A SERVICE TO DO THIS.

WE TRIED TO BUILD HOMELESS SHELTER ALL THROUGH THE DISTRICT AND SOME PEOPLE SAY NOT IN MY DISTRICT.

BUT THEY GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE.

WE DON'T TAKE THE TIME RIGHT NOW IN THIS THREE MILLION DOLLAR, WE'D BEEN FIGHTING WITH THIS FOR LAST BUDGET, SIX MONTHS IN THE RFP, WHATEVER WE SHOULD'VE DID IT WAY BEFORE THEN.

I CAN DEFER HUMAN LIFE.

HUMAN BEING LIES WHERE YOU SAYING USERS SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT HUMAN BEING. THEY JUST TRASH.

I'M GOING TO WALK RIGHT BOUND.

I'M NOT GOING TO PICK IT UP. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE KICK SOME DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE THAT'S A HUMAN LIFE FACTOR.

THAT COULD BE YOUR RELATIVE FRIEND WHATEVER, BUT THEN TOO WHEN I GREW UP, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THIS HOME BECAUSE WE TOOK OUR OWN, WE TOOK THEM OFF THE STREET AND BROUGHT THEM IN THE HOUSE, WE SLEPT ON THE FLOOR, WE DID WHATEVER, WE TOOK CARE OF OUR OWN, AND RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE OR HUMAN NATURE.

THE PERSON THAT BREATHE AND LIVE, A HUMAN BEING.

WE'RE GOING TO KICK A HUMAN BEING DOWN THE ROAD AND SAY NOT TODAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AND THEY STARTED SOMEHOW.

BUT IF WE CAN PUT THEM INSIDE A HOUSE TO HAVE SHELTER, NOT IN THE STREET.

BUT WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TODAY.

QUICK KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

WE CANNOT KICK THE CAN DOWN WHEN WE GET TO MAKE A STAND. THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THE CITY THAT WE DO WANT SOME GREAT, MAYBE THE OTHER CITY WOULD LOOK AT US AND SAY, DALLAS HAS DONE A GREAT THING.

[03:00:02]

THEN WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN THE CITY? LET US COPY THIS PLAYBOOK.

I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO PUT A PLAYBOOK THE OTHER CITY TO COPY WHERE THEY SAY WE'RE IN AMERICAN CITY, WHICH HAS GOT A WAR TO BE AN AMERICAN CITY.

THEY LOOK AT US RIGHT NOW IS, YOU'RE THE AMERICAN CITY WE GOING TO KICK THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS DOWN THE STREET? NO. LET'S GET THIS DONE. THANK YOU.

>> THAT TRIGGERED A LOT MORE COMMENTS ALL OF A SUDDEN.

LET'S SEE. I'M GOING TO GO TO YOU NEXT COUNCIL GRACEY.

BEFORE I DO, I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING REALLY QUICKLY ON THIS MOTION TO DIFFER.

ONLY BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH HOW THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH SOME OF YOU PRIVATELY ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS THIS A REALLY IMPORTANT THING FOR THIS NEXT, WE'RE IN THE NEW TERM, THIS CURRENT COUNCIL TERM IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING TO VERY PRODUCTIVE AND HELPFUL, CIVIL ALWAYS BUT PRODUCTIVE DEBATE AROUND THE WHOLE ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT AND FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT TO LEARN MORE AND TO DO BETTER AND MAKING BETTER POLICIES.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN A PLUG FOR THINKING TWICE WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THESE DEBATE POINTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS BEING PUT FORWARD IS A TRUE STALL TACTIC, A DELAY TACTIC.

THAT'S A LEGITIMATE THING.

THAT HAPPENS IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES ALL THE TIME.

IT'S A PROCEDURAL THING.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES THAT DAY AND THEN WORKS OUT TO YOUR BENEFIT TO PUT IT DOWN THE ROAD, THAT HAPPENS FROM CONGRESS ON DOWN.

BUT THERE'S SUCH A THING AS ACTUALLY LEGITIMATELY BELIEVING THAT AN ISSUE NEEDS MORE STUDY OR BELIEVING THAT SOMETHING IS NOT QUITE READY TO GO OR THAT YOU'D HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AND YOU'D LIKE TO TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF THAT POINT OF VIEW.

I JUST THINK WHEN WE GENUINELY FEEL LIKE SOMEONE'S TRYING TO KICK SOMETHING DOWN THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE IT'S PROCEDURAL FINE, MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

BUT IF YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF YOU THINK THAT PERSON HAS A GOOD FAITH REASON FOR WANTING TO LOOK AT IT MORE JUST THINK TWICE ABOUT WHEN YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BECOME SO CYNICAL.

I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT A LOT LATELY, ABOUT THE CYNICISM THAT IS TAKEN OVER EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT POLITICS.

I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER IN FOUR YEARS ACTUALLY REALLY BELIEVED THAT REALLY ANYBODY AROUND HERE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AT HEART AND HAVING PRIVATE CONVERSATION.

LET'S SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY HERE THAT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS OR DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE AND SO WHEN SOMEONE THROWS THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT THEY ALWAYS MAKES M E RECOIL A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'M LIKE, MAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY AROUND HERE REALLY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PEOPLE.

I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND RESOLVE AN ISSUE AND THEN HAVE A VOTE AND THEN MOVE ON.

BUT DON'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF FOLKS.

I THINK THAT'LL JUST BE HELPFUL TO US GENERALLY.

SO I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I'M VOTING ON THIS TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT OUT THERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A STALL TACTIC.

I'LL JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION, ABOUT WHEN THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY MY BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SO I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THIS DEBATE AS OPEN-MINDED AS ANYBODY ABOUT IT.

BUT I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL ABOUT IMPUGNING THE MOTIVES OF OUR COLLEAGUES.

I REALLY MEAN THAT THAT'S IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.

SO WITH THAT, I HOPE I DIDN'T OFFEND ANYONE WITH THAT COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS MEANT QUITE THE OPPOSITE JUST TO ENCOURAGE US TO NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN PERSONALITY SO MUCH EVEN SUDDENLY, I DON T THINK WE SHOULD.

I JUST THINK IT'S NOT AS PRODUCTIVE AS ARGUING ON THE MERITS.

MR. GRACEY, ADDRESS US FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ONE. JUST TO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE CONCEPT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARITY ON, ONE WHO QUALIFIES.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY BASIC QUESTION, BUT I HAVE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, FRIENDS, FAMILY WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES STAYING IN HOTELS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET IN WOULD THEY QUALIFY IN THIS SCENARIO?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. THIS PROGRAM, AS WITH ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS AND THE CONTINUUM OF CARE GO THROUGH THE COORDINATED ACCESS SYSTEM AND AS ANYONE WHO IS UNSHELTERED QUALIFIES FOR THIS PROGRAM.

>> THEN HOW WILL THEY KNOW ABOUT IT?

>> WE HAVE OUTREACH, NOT JUST IN THE CITY, BUT ACTUALLY ACROSS THE CONTINUUM OF CARE OUTREACH TEAMS THAT ARE NOW PROGRAMMED BY QUADRANT.

WHAT IS THEIR SINGLE GOAL TO BE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY TALKING ABOUT AND GETTING PEOPLE READY FOR HOUSING?

>> THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS, FROM A LOCATION PERSPECTIVE, HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY THOSE LOCATIONS?

>> THEY'RE ALL OVER THE CITY, IT'S A PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET,

[03:05:04]

WORKING WITH LANDLORDS ALL OVER, AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.

>> I THINK AGAIN, THIS IS THE RIGHT TYPE OF A PROGRAM, BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOOK UP, AND THEN HALF THE UNITS IN AVAILABLE UNITS IN SOUTHERN DALLAS ARE ALL OCCUPY FROM THAT.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE MONITORED, WATCHED, AND REPORTED?

>> THROUGH THE ACTUAL WORK THAT'S HAPPENING ALREADY OUT IN THE COMMUNITY WITH OUR HOUSING NAVIGATORS, THAT GOAL IS SOMETHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT EVEN WITH THE RAPIDLY HOUSING, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW.

THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT UNITS WHERE THOSE UNITS ARE LOCATED.

WE DON'T PUBLISH ZIP CODES TO SHOW WHERE THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING BUT WHAT WE CAN TELL YOU THAT IT IS DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS.

IT'S NOT IN ONE PARTICULAR PART OF THE CITY.

IT'S NOT JUST IN SOUTHERN DALLAS, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THAT'S BEEN OUR STRATEGY EVEN WITH THE RAPIDLY HOUSING AND INITIATIVE THAT'S UNDERWAY CURRENTLY.

>> UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NEEDS MAY BE GREATER IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS THAN OTHERS, FOR THAT REASON, YOU MAY HAVE A HIGHER PLACEMENT RATE, I GUESS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

>> BUT THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE.

>> I GOT IT. PERFECT.

>> MS. WILLIS RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES, I BELIEVE. YES.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS TOO AROUND THIS.

I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE INTENTION OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE ALL VOTED ON.

WHEN YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK YOU USED THE NUMBER 844 PEOPLE THAT ARE READY TO BE HOUSED, ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SECTION 8 VOUCHERS OR SOME SORT OF OTHER FEDERAL HOUSING VOUCHER?

>> THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A MIX OF VOUCHERS AND RENTAL SUBSIDIES.

THEY'RE TRACKED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DASHBOARD ON THE HOUSING FORD WEBSITE, WHICH IS THROUGH THE REAL-TIME RAPID REHOUSING INITIATIVES.

THEY ARE ALL HOUSING READY.

THE SOURCE OF THE SUBSIDY WILL VARY BY PERSON.

>> IF YOU'VE GOT A VOUCHER FROM A CATHOLIC CHARITIES OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT WHEN YOU GO IN TO TALK TO A LANDLORD ARE THOSE ACCEPTED MORE THAN IF YOU SAY I'VE GOT A SECTION 8 VOUCHER?

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT TO MAKE.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBSIDIES, A SUBSIDY IS A VOUCHER OR A RENTAL SUBSIDY FOR RAPID REHOUSING.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHER.

IT'S A PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER, IT'S A TENANT-BASED VOUCHER.

THOSE ARE ALL SUBSIDIES.

ALL SUBSIDIES ARE EQUALLY DIFFICULT TO USE FOR HOUSING BECAUSE TO A LANDLORD WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL, IT MEANS AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS.

WHAT WE'RE POINTING OUT IS THAT IT MEANS GUARANTEED TENANCY, AND SOMEONE TO TALK TO YOU SHOULD YOU NEED TO ADJUST SOMETHING.

BUT IT'S A DIFFICULT KIND OF, I THINK, HISTORICAL LENS TO HURDLE IF YOU WILL.

>> I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BARRIER WE'RE TRYING TO OVERCOME HERE, IS THAT BY HAVING THIS MASTER AGREEMENT, IT TAKES AWAY THAT BARRIER SO THAT MONEY IS MONEY AND IT'S JUST GETTING PEOPLE HOUSED.

WHEN YOU LOOK INTO WHERE THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT AND I HEAR EVERYBODY YES, WE'VE GOT PEOPLE ON THE STREETS.

WE NEED TO HOUSE THEM.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THESE DOLLARS ARE GOING AS FAR AS THEY CAN WITH THAT INTENTION.

IN JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE COSTS IN THE EXHIBIT B2, IF ANYBODY'S GOT THAT HANDY ON THE FACILITY EXPENSES, SO I GET THE LEAST COST AND MAYBE UTILITIES.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THIS WORK.

I MEAN, DO THESE VOUCHERS ALSO COVER UTILITIES? OR THEY NEEDING THIS MONEY TOO?

>> THEY DO AND IT'S GETTING A LITTLE INTO THE WEEDS, BUT A LOT OF APARTMENTS THESE DAYS WILL DO AN ALL BILLS INCLUDED AND SO THAT IS MUCH EASIER BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE DOING THE RENT HERE, THEN HOW DO WE GET THE WATER BILL PAID AND WE HAVE SYSTEMS FOR ALL OF THAT, BUT IT VARIES DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

YOU MIGHT HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE DEPOSIT THAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR A UNIT MEANS THAT YOU ARE ALSO ON THE HOOK FOR A UTILITY BILL FOR THAT MONTH.

WHEN THE PERSON COMES IN THEIR SUBSIDY WILL COVER THAT BUT MAYBE THERE'S A WEEK OR TWO WHERE IT DOESN'T AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PRORATING.

>> IN THIS MASTER AGREEMENT, YOU ALL WOULD TRY TO SECURE AN ALL-BILLS PAID TYPE OF SCENARIO.

>> THAT'S ALWAYS PREFERABLE, BUT BEING THE PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET WE CAN'T GUARANTEE FOR.

WE COULD HAVE ONE THAT HAS THE UTILITIES BROKEN OUT.

>> WE LIST OTHER FACILITY EXPENSES LIKE SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE, WOULDN'T THAT BE JUST AUTOMATICALLY PART OF THE LEASE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO BECAUSE FOR RECIPIENTS OF THIS PROGRAM, WHAT ARE THOSE DOLLARS?

>> SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE ARE ALSO THINGS THAT COULD BE IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THEN AGAIN, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PLACES WHERE AND I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER.

WE DID WANT TO LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY OPEN THAT MAYBE THEY WOULD FIND A BUILDING FOR A SMALLER BUILDING OR MAYBE IF WE'RE HAVING 20 UNITS IN ONE PLACE, THEN WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE PUTTING A CASE MANAGER THROUGH THE RENTAL SUBSIDIES ON-SITE TO WORK WITH THOSE 20 PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE.

[03:10:01]

IT MIGHT BE THAT TO WORK WITH A LANDLORD TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO SECURE A 20 UNITS, LET'S ALSO SAY THAT WE WILL ADD A SECURITY OFFICER AND WE WILL ADD SOMEONE ON SITE.

IT'S JUST THAT FLEXIBILITY.

>> THEN THERE ARE OTHER THINGS, SUBCONTRACTS, AND THEN OTHER EXPENSES.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE STAFF EXPENSES BECAUSE THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE, THEY NEED PHONES, THEY NEED TO COVER THEIR TRANSPORTATION, ETC BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THIS CATCH-ALL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.

I MEAN, HOW BIG OF A BYTE ARE WE EXPECTING THAT TO BE, TO COME OUT OF THIS IDEA ABOUT HOUSING PEOPLE VERSUS THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST THAT MAYBE SHOULD BE BORN SOME OTHER WAY BY HOUSING FORWARD IF THEY'RE THE PARTNER?

>> THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHUNK IS JUST 250,000 THE REST OF [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S THE STAFF. WE'RE ALREADY ALLOCATING THAT IS WHAT THIS DETAILS PART OF THAT 250 BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT.

>> WHAT I'M SEEING IN THE BUDGET LINE ITEMS ARE THE 250 FOR MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS HOLD FEES, INCENTIVES, APPLICATION FEES, AND THEN HOUSING LOCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA AS 50,000.

I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT OFFLINE.

IT'S JUST THAT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS THAT BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EQUIPMENT AND FEES, YOU ALSO ARE TALKING ABOUT OPERATING ON HOUSING PLATFORMS AND USING COMPUTER PROGRAMS. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR WORD AT THE CITY AND MICROSOFT.

THAT'S NOT AN EXAMPLE THAT'S MEANT TO EQUATE TO THAT COST.

IT'S JUST THAT'S PART OF THE FEES.

>> IF WE'VE GOT A CERTAIN INVENTORY AND I KNOW IT TAKES TIME TO WORK WITH PEOPLE TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT THIS POPULATION OR GET THEM TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROGRAM WAS, YOU COULD DEFINE IT AS TRANSITIONAL.

IS THAT THERE WAS TO BE A MASTER LEASE HELD.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE TYPICAL BARRIERS SO THAT WE COULD GET PEOPLE STOOD UP AND AS THEY MOVED INTO SOMETHING LIKE THE REAL TIME RAPIDLY HOUSING PROGRAM.

I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THIS INVENTORY.

I WOULD THINK THAT ONE INVENTORY ABOUT THE REAL HOUSING PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO BE LONGER-TERM, WHEREAS THIS ONE IS LONG-TERM BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN IT MIGHT BE HOUSED THERE FOR A SHORT PERIOD UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SO WE COULD GET THEM TO THAT NEXT STEP.

IT'S A LANDING SPACE VERSUS SAYING, NOW YOU'RE IN AND NOW THIS BECOMES PART OF THAT PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU. I ACCIDENTALLY TURNED THAT OFF.

THAT WAS A WAY IT COULD HAVE GONE.

BUT AGAIN, THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION SAID MASTER LEASING OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.

WHEN WE TOOK A HARD LOOK AT THE SPACE AND WHAT'S PRACTICAL, IT WAS, WE HAVE THIS FUNDING THAT WE COULD USE TO SECURE AN ESTIMATED 360 UNITS IN A YEAR.

IF WE PUT PEOPLE IN THOSE UNITS, WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO STAY THERE SO THAT WE ARE MARRYING A BUNCH OF TOOLS TOGETHER.

WE HAVE PERMANENT HOUSING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TOOL TO GET PEOPLE INTO IT AND TO SECURE THE UNITS IN BULK.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. THIS TOOL ALLOWS US TO DO IT AND THEN MOVE ON TO MORE UNITS.

INSTEAD OF HAVING A SET AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT PEOPLE CAN MOVE IN OR OUT OF.

WE SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS MONEY TO BUY US TIME TO GET 360 UNITS AND ONCE THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN IT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT 360.

IT ACTUALLY SPREADS THE MONEY OUT FURTHER.

>> MS. MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE ALL THE WONDERFUL COMMENTS ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR HOMELESS EFFORTS AND OF COURSE, I HAVE SUPPORTED THEM, NOT JUST AT THE CITY, BUT IN MY PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LIFE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE IN DALLAS QUALIFY FOR A HOUSING VOUCHER AND DON'T HAVE A PLACE THAT WILL RENT TO THEM?

>> I CAN'T SAY WE DON'T BREAK IT OUT THAT WAY.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 800 PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING FOR HOUSING AND WE HAVE ABOUT 480 NEW VOUCHERS IN THE SYSTEM THAT WE WANT TO GET PEOPLE ON BEFORE THOSE VOUCHERS EXPIRE OR GO TO ANOTHER PROGRAM BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T USED THEM QUICKLY ENOUGH.

>> THIS QUESTION I ASKED YOU IS THE KEY TO THE PROBLEM THAT'S TRYING TO BE SOLVED BY MASTER LEASING.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SOLVE ALL KINDS OF HOMELESSNESS AND THERE ISN'T ONE SOLUTION FOR HOMELESSNESS.

IT HAS TO BE SLICED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDIVIDUALS.

MASTER LEASING WAS MEANT TO ADDRESS A HOUSING VOUCHER THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO.

I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THE HEADLINE OF ARTICLES THAT I JUST GOOGLED.

THIS IS FROM MARKETPLACE AND DALLAS HOUSING VOUCHER HOLDERS FACE LIMITED OPTIONS WHEN LOOKING.

THIS IS FROM DHA HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM. I ALWAYS GET THAT ONE.

WFAA, OAK CLIFF APARTMENT COMPLEX TENANTS SAY, LANDLORD WANTS THEM OUT.

THE MAGAZINE, WHAT CAN DALLAS DO TO MOTIVATE LANDLORDS TO ACCEPT HOUSING VOUCHERS?

[03:15:01]

DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 26 NORTH TEXAS CITIES WHERE LANDLORDS WON'T RENT TO POOR FAMILIES ON SECTION 8.

INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, ICP, SECOND APARTMENT SURVEY SHOWS ABYSMAL RESULTS.

REFUSAL BY LANDLORDS TO ACCEPT RESIDENTS WHO USE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS SEVERELY LIMITS OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES.

THIS GOES ON TEXAS TRIBUNE ANTI-SECTIONING POLICY WILL PUSH MANY BLACK RESIDENTS OUT OF TEXAS SUBURB.

THIS IS DALLAS OBSERVER IS SECTION 8, CAN DALLAS HELP HOUSING VOUCHER HOLDERS ESCAPE THE GHETTO? THIS IS WHAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY MEANT TO DO.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT PERFORMANCE METRICS.

I THINK THE QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IS REALLY THIS.

THIS IS A BRAND NEW PROGRAM.

YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN BRIEFED ON THIS PROGRAM.

YOU'VE GOTTEN MEMO SAYING IT'S COMING, BUT YOU CAN TELL FROM YOUR OWN QUESTIONS.

YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.

THE CONTRACT, I THINK I'M THE FIRST ONE WHO GOT IT AND I GOT IT THIS MORNING.

I HAVE NOT READ IT, IT'S 180 PAGES.

I'M ONLY ASKING FOR FIVE WEEKS, WHERE I'M WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF MY SUMMER TO WORK ON THIS TOPIC.

STAFFS HAVE THIS FOR NINE MONTHS SINCE WE APPROPRIATE THIS MONEY.

HOMELESSNESS IS URGENT.

IT'S ALWAYS A CRISIS.

BUT WE'VE HAD THAT CRISIS FOR NINE MONTHS.

NOBODY IS UP HERE CRYING ABOUT IT AND I'M ASKING FOR FIVE WEEKS WHERE I'M WILLING TO GIVE UP MY TIME TO SAY THIS IS NOT EXACTLY THE PLAN WE NEED.

WE NEED SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND PERFORMANCE METRICS.

DO YOU WANT TO READ THEM TO US SINCE I'M LOW ON TIME? EXHIBIT 8, PAGES 4 AND 5 PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE HAVE ALREADY GONE OVER THE PERFORMANCE METRICS, 360 UNITS IN A YEAR AND 10-15 UNITS PER MONTH.

>>THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ON PAGE 4 AND 5.

>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PERFORMANCE GOALS, I'M TALKING ABOUT 15 UNITS EVERY SINGLE MONTH AND THE UTILIZATION RATE OF 100% AND I REALIZED THE TOTAL COUNT OF 360 UNITS.

IT WAS ONE THAT I PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THIS THAT IS NOT ON HERE.

>> THESE WOULDN'T BE THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR AND HAD THERE BEEN A BRIEFING, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

HAVE THERE BEEN A PHONE CALL EVEN, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO SHARE THAT.

BUT THE PERFORMANCE METRICS I WOULD WANT TO KNOW IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VOUCHER THAT WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL INDEPENDENTLY TO GET HOUSING.

HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO HELP? NOT AS A SUBSIDY TO OUR RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM.

THIS ISN'T MEANT TO DOVETAIL IT AND THE NUMBERS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS WAS SHARING, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY BATCHES. [OVERLAPPING]

>> BET YOUR TIME FOR THIS RARELY.

YOU HAVE A MINUTE LEFT.

BUT I THINK THE CITY MANAGER WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AT THIS POINT.

DID YOU WANT EVEN WRAP UP?

>> WELL I'M JUST GOING TO FINISH IN ONE MINUTE IF YOU DON'T MIND. [OVERLAPPING]

>> GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP AND LET'S GIVE HER ONE MINUTE AND THEN I THINK THE CITY MANAGER WANTS TO GET IN.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE ON EXHIBIT B2, WHICH IS HOW HOUSING FOR WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBMIT FOR REIMBURSEMENT THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO REIMBURSE FOR LEASING EXPENSES, I'LL SAY THAT THE THREE MILLION FOR MASTER LEASING IS A LOT OF MONEY.

I'LL LET IT GO BECAUSE I WAS ADVOCATING FOR THIS PROGRAM.

BUT THE MAIN EXPENSE SHOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE.

THAT SHOULD BE A HIGHER NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO AN ACTUAL MASTER LEASE PROGRAM AND YOU ARE TAKING ON RISK AND YOU ARE COORDINATING A LOT OF EFFORTS.

BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY DOING THAT PROGRAM.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND AS A FIDUCIARY BODY, HOW PEOPLE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING WHEN YOU HAVE NOT READ IT AND YOU DON'T REALLY [LAUGHTER] KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I'M ASKING FOR FIVE MORE WEEKS.

I HOPE YOU'LL APPROVE THAT AMENDMENT.

>> MR. CITY MANAGER. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS, PARTICULARLY FOR THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK QUITE A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS, AND I THINK COUNCIL WOMAN MENDELSOHN'S LAST STATEMENT, I THINK I'D LIKE TO JUST MAYBE, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN CONTEXT, SHARE THAT, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME CREDIBILITY AROUND STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY THE ONES THAT ARE OFTEN CALLED BY MANY OF YOU, AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS, AROUND WHERE THE GAPS ARE IN OUR SYSTEMS. I THINK WE FOCUSED QUITE A BIT TODAY.

SOME OF US ON THE SEMANTICS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE TERMS THAT WE'RE USING.

AND AS YOU STRIP PAST ALL OF THE LANGUAGE LINGUISTICS, THE PROGRAM AND ITS INTENTION, I THINK AS STATED SPECIFICALLY, PARTICULARLY AROUND VOUCHERS, AND I WILL ADDRESS OUR HISTORY OF VOUCHERS, WHICH IN FACT, I DON T HAVE TO GOOGLE TO UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY,

[03:20:02]

IS THAT, YES, LANDLORDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, BECAUSE OF SOURCE OF INCOME RESTRICTIONS, AS IT RELATES TO LEASING, DON'T VOLUNTARILY LIST PROPERTIES, AND RENT TO PEOPLE WITH VOUCHERS.

IT'S DIFFICULT. WE'D BEEN EMBEDDED THAT IN SOME OF OUR INCENTIVES THAT WE PROVIDE TO PEOPLE, AND I FOUND OUT THAT NO ONE TAKES OUR INCENTIVES BECAUSE OF THAT, AND WE RECENTLY CHANGED THAT.

SO I THINK YOUR APPOINTMENT, AND STATEMENTS AROUND THAT, AND THE NARRATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED, AND SHARED BY NEWS MEDIA, AND OTHERS IS ACCURATE.

AND SO THEREFORE, AS CHRISTINE JUST SAID, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE HEARD LOUD ENOUGH, IS THAT, WE'VE GOT AN ADDITIONAL 400 PLUS VOUCHERS AFFILIATED WITH THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ENSURING THAT THE PEOPLE WE'RE WORKING WITH THROUGH ENCAMPMENTS AND OTHER INTERACTIONS ULTIMATELY HAVE A PLACE TO GO ONCE WE VETTED AND UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE OTHER CO-OCCURRING DISORDERS AND THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN THEIR LIVES, ALL WE NEED ARE THE UNITS.

AND SO IF THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES FOR THE FACILITATION OF THOSE UNITS, WHETHER YOU CALL IT A MASTER LEASE, WHETHER YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE METRICS OR NOT, THESE FOLK DON'T CARE ABOUT THE METRIC OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HOUSE.

BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THEM BEING HOUSED IN THE ONE THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY CAN NOW GET UP AND DO THE THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO EVERY DAY.

SOME OF THEM ARE WORKING, SOME ARE DOING A LOT.

BUT WE'VE GOT VOUCHERS THAT MIGHT EXPIRE BECAUSE PEOPLE AGAIN, DON'T HAVE THE NAVIGATORS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY YOU SHOULD RENT TO SOMEONE WITH A VOUCHER, WHY WE'RE GOING TO BE THERE TO SUPPORT THAT PERSON TO ASSIST THEM IN SOME CASES, AS LANDLORDS HAVE PROBLEMS WITH, TO PREVENT THEM FROM DESTROYING YOUR PROPERTY IN SOME CASES, WHICH IS THE ISSUE AND CHALLENGE THAT SOME PEOPLE SPEAK ABOUT.

THE END OF THE DAY, WE TALK AND SPEND TIME AROUND THIS AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO HOUSE PEOPLE.

WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'VE DEVELOPED A PROGRAM THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR PARTNERS AND THE OUTSIDE WORLD FILLS MIGHT WORK, THEN WE WANT TO BEAT UP ON PROCESS, WHAT DIDN'T GO TO A COMMITTEE, INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THEY WANT TO LAY THE PROGRAM OUT THAT DO NOT SPEAK TO THE ENTIRETY OF THIS BODY.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE DISCONCERTING TO STAFF.

EVEN WITH THE TIMELINESS OF THIS, WE SPENT NINE MONTHS DEVELOPMENT THROUGH RFPS, AND NEGOTIATING THE TERMS THAT WE GET HERE.

AND FINALLY SAY, WELL, WAIT FIVE MORE WEEKS FOR SOMEONE TO LIVE ON THE STREET, BECAUSE WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO SUPPORT LEVERAGING PEOPLE TO TAKE DOWN UNITS FOR WHICH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF SPEEDING UP THEIR TIMELINESS OF THEIR INSPECTIONS THROUGH ALL OF THEIR SYSTEMS, BUT STILL, SOMEBODY CAN WALK TO AN APARTMENT UNIT TODAY, AND SOMEONE WILL RENT IT TO HIM THAT DAY, VERSUS WAITING THREE WEEKS TO RENT IT TO SOMEONE ELSE ONCE THEY HAVE A DISCUSSION.

YOU SEE THAT EVEN IN THE BUYING MARKET, CASH IS KING BEYOND FHA LOANS.

IF YOU'VE GOT CASH, PEOPLE GRAVITATE TO THAT.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S ABOUT, DO WE WANT TO HOUSE PEOPLE.

IT'S JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX.

CAN WE COME BACK, AND DO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT COUNCIL MENDELSOHN, AND OTHERS MAY WANT US TO DO? WE'VE NEVER STOPPED AGREEING THAT WE CAN ALWAYS DO MORE AND BETTER.

BUT DO NOT MIX LOOKING FOR GRAY VERSUS LOOKING FOR PRETTY DARN GOOD.

AND I THINK THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT I THINK MY STAFF HAS REALLY PUSHED ME ON TO TRY TO GET TO WE GOT PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING UNITS, WHOLE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, RENOVATING THEM, THAT WANT TO TAKE PART AND PARTNER WITH US TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR INCOMES THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE ARE GUARANTEED THROUGH MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE DOING.

SO THEY'VE BEEN ALIGNING THOSE PARTNERSHIPS, AND EVERYONE'S JUST WAITING TO ACTUALLY HELP US WITH THE PROBLEM THAT WE SAY WE HAVE.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO THINK ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE THINGS.

AND I HEARD THE WORD, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS ON MY STAFF SAID THAT, WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF GARDENING TODAY, AND ON A LOT OF ITEMS. AND I THINK FOR OUR TEAM, MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, WHETHER BRIEFED OR NOT, WE ALL HAVE CELL PHONE SERVICE, AND PHONES ON OUR DESK.

THESE QUESTIONS PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN A GREATER DETAIL A LOT EARLIER, EVEN IF YOU CALL THE AGENDA IS A DRAFT AGENDA.

IT GOES OUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE, IF NOT ON FRIDAY.

AND SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE US, AT LEAST FOR MY TEAM, AND LUCKILY THEY'RE PREPARED.

I JUST LISTENED TO THEM, AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF GETTING THIS PROGRAM HERE.

BUT, WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST, AND SOMETIMES WE FALL SHORT.

BUT THIS COUNCIL SUPPORT, AND YOUR FEEDBACK IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT.

BUT AS I ALWAYS SAY, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING AND YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC IDEA,

[03:25:02]

IF IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S CONGRUENT OR MAKE SENSE, WE'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY IT MAY NOT BE WHERE WE WANT TO BE.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE IT.

SO AGAIN, I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE US, AND THANK YOU, KIM, AND THANK YOU CHRISTINE, AS WELL AS THE LEGAL STAFF.

I KNOW YOU HAVE WORKED HARD ON THIS.

BUT WE LOOKED INSIDE OF WHAT I THINK THE INTENTION IS.

YOU CAN CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT.

I CALL IT A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO STAY THAT WORK WITH US, AND THROUGH OUR PROGRAM THAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON THE STREET, AND THE ONLY THING THEY'RE WAITING ON IS A HOME, AND A PLACE TO STAY.

AND IF WE CAN FACILITATE THAT, I THINK THIS COUNCIL SHOULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT, AND WE'LL COME BACK, AND REPORT AS OFTEN AS WE NEED TO ON THE METRICS.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR THE RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM MONTHLY AND DEMONSTRATED MONTH OVER MONTH THAT IT'S EFFECTIVE.

BUT THAT GAP OF 800 PEOPLE THAT STILL DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO MOVE INTO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FACILITATE.

AND SO AGAIN, THE MONEY YOU'VE ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE, AND THAT PROGRAM, WILL BE THE BODY OF RESOURCES THAT YOU USE TO HELP THESE PEOPLE GET UNDER A ROOF.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE TODAY.

GET A PARTNER TO HELP US FACILITATE DOING THAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

SO AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL.

I LISTENED VERY PATIENTLY, AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT CONVERSATION I HAVE, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE MANY MORE.

BUT THIS IS ONE STEP CLOSER TO HOUSING SOMEONE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VALUE OF A DEFERRAL WOULD BE, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE INTENTION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

AND THAT'S HOUSED PEOPLE.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES ON HOW, AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WITH OUR HOMELESS POPULATIONS, WHETHER WE AGREE OR NOT, THOSE THINGS ARE NOTEWORTHY TO TALK ABOUT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR WORK IN THE HOMELESS SOLUTIONS SPACE.

THEN I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER ADDITIVE, AND PROBABLY ANOTHER BEST PRACTICE.

SO WHEN SOMEONE ASK, WHO ELSE IS DOING THIS, THAT'S IMPORTANT SOMETIMES, BUT IN SOME CASES, WE DO THINGS THE FIRST TIME AND OTHERS FOLLOW US, AND WE CAN BE THE TEST CASE, AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT THINGS THAT A NATION WIDE REVERED.

AND SO AGAIN, THANK YOU MAYOR FOR GIVING ME THE TIME.

I KNOW TIME IS GETTING AWAY FROM US, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROCESS, A GOOD PROGRAM, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO HOUSE PEOPLE, AND BE MORE EFFECTIVE THE FURTHER AND THE LONGER WE HAVE IT INSTITUTED. THANK YOU.

>> OF COURSE. NOT A DEBATE POINT DISAPPOINTMENT INFORMATION FOR EVERYBODY.

I'M GOING TO GO TO MS. WILLIS NEXT, BUT ONCE WE'VE RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF THE MOTION TO DEFER IF IT'S NECESSARY, WE WILL THEN GO TO THE UNDERLYING ISSUE.

HOPEFULLY THAT WON'T TAKE LONG TO RESOLVE IF WE NEED TO, THEN WE'RE GOING TO RECESS FOR LUNCH UNTIL 2 O'CLOCK, AND HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PLAN.

SO WHAT ELLSWORTH IS HEADED, MS. WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON I APPRECIATE THE PASSION THAT I'VE HEARD TODAY ABOUT HOUSING PEOPLE.

WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO THAT.

AND SO I'M HOPING WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD, ESPECIALLY JUST NOW THAT THE QUICK SETUP OPTION THAT MAY REPRESENT A BIT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE, AND NEEDING TO GET MORE PEOPLE OFF OF THE STREET, I KNOW IT'S BEEN EXPLORED, BUT I HOPE WE CAN START PUSHING HARDER ON THAT AS WELL, AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT CHANGE AS WELL.

WHEN I SEE THIS, AND IT GOT A CHANCE TO START LOOKING AT IT, I'M GLAD COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN GOT TO IT'S 10 PAGES THAT ARRIVED THIS MORNING, AND SO UNDERSTANDING THE METRICS, PUSHING BACK ON IT, SOMETIMES YOU CAN READ A MEMO, SOMETIMES THE DIALOGUE AROUND THE HORSESHOES WHERE COLLEAGUES RAISE AN ISSUE THAT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION, AND HELPS US GET TO A BETTER PRODUCT.

AND SO I AM A BELIEVER IN THAT.

SO I THINK THERE'LL BE THERE PROBABLY WON'T BE SUPPORT FOR DEFERRING THIS.

BUT I DO THINK THAT, HOWEVER, THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE TAKE SHAPE TO COME THAT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO WATCH BECAUSE IT IS NEW, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S STILL THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.

SO ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IS NOT MEANT TO INCITE ANYTHING OTHER THAN GOOD POLICY, GOOD GOVERNANCE.

SO IF WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH SOME OF THIS INFORMATION OR IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, THAT'S WHEN I START READING.

AND SO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK ON THIS.

I KNOW AT THE END OF THE DAY THE OUTCOME IS THAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE HOUSED AND NOT LIVING ON THE STREETS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH THIS WEEK.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE, AND THE PROCESS AND THE DISCUSSION IS TAKING PLACE AS IT SHOULD FOR OUR RESIDENTS, OUR TAXPAYERS. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES ON FOR OR AGAINST MS. MENDELSOHN'S MOTION TO DEFER ITEM 40, SAYING NONE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSE? [BACKGROUND] THE NOES HAVE IT.

THE NOES HAVE IT. SO WE'RE NOW ON TO ITEM 40.

IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BALZADUA, AND SECONDED.

[03:30:03]

SO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON MR. MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BALZADUA'S MOTION.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS OF THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THE URGENCY TO HOUSE PEOPLE, AND I HOPE HE TRULY BELIEVES IT BECAUSE WE'RE SITTING WITH A MIRROR HOTEL THAT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR HOW LONG? CAN YOU SHARE THAT WITH ME?

>> STAFF MAY KNOW THE SPECIFIC DATE, BUT WE ARE WORKING TIRELESSLY TO MEET THE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND WORKING WITH LEGAL RIGHT NOW TO AVOID FURTHER DELAY.

>> WHEN DID WE PURCHASE THAT HOTEL, PLEASE?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. IT WAS PURCHASED IN DECEMBER OF 2020.

DUE TO SOME CONTRACTUAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEMOS, DISCUSSIONS, AND BRIEFINGS TO THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE AMONG OTHERS, WE ARE AT THIS JUNCTURE WHERE WE ARE ABOUT TO BREAK GROUND ON THE CONTINUED RENOVATIONS AND WE EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE OPEN.

WE'RE HOPING, IF NOT CHRISTMAS BY THE FIRST OF THE NEW YEAR.

AS PART OF THAT, WAS ALSO GOING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE SCOPE CORRECT, WHICH THEY HAD BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR THEIR WORKERS THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> THERE ARE NO WORKERS RIGHT NOW.

BUT IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WE BROUGHT AN ITEM TO ACTUALLY GET THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S GOING TO DO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RENOVATION AND ACTUALLY HAVE THAT DONE BY THIRD PARTY AND THAT WAS APPROVED, I BELIEVE, APRIL 23RD.

WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH THE FINAL PIECES OF THAT WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN ORDER TO MOVE THAT PROJECT FORWARD.

>> TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS LATER, NOBODY IS LIVING THERE.

THERE'S NO WORKERS RENOVATING IT RIGHT NOW.

I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT URGENCY OF WANTING TO HOUSE HOMELESS.

I'M HEARING IT FROM ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, BUT I'M NOT SEEING IT.

DISTRICT DATE WAS VERY HONORED TO BE AT THE RIBBON CUTTING.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY BEING SHELTERED AT THE DISTRICT 8 HOTEL?

>> AS YOU WILL RECALL, WHEN WE HAD THE OPENING OF THE DISTRICT 8, WHICH IS NOW A DISTRICT 3 FACILITY.

WE DID ANNOUNCE THAT WAS THE FIRST PHASE, WHICH WAS THE COMMON SPACE.

WE ARE NOW MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ACTUAL RENOVATION OF THE ROOMS WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING.

OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT WRAPPED UP BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES AS WE COMMUNICATE IT DURING THE OPENING, THAT OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE IT OPEN BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

THAT PROJECT IS ACTUALLY UNDERWAY.

>> WHEN DID WE PURCHASE THAT HOTEL?

>> THAT ONE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE SUMMER OF 2022.

WE HAVE MOVED QUITE EXTENSIVELY OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO ACTUALLY MOVE TO THAT FIRST PHASE OPENING THAT WE JUST RECENTLY CELEBRATED.

>> THEN THE HAMPTON HOSPITAL, WHEN DID WE PURCHASE THAT?

>> POINT OF ORDER, MR. MAYOR?

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE I HEARD SEVERAL.

I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THEY CAME FROM THOUGH.

RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAD A POINT. GO AHEAD, MR. WEST.

>> I'M FRUSTRATED WITH HOW LONG IT TAKES TO BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS GERMANE TO THE UNDERLYING ISSUE.

>> I ASKED YOU TO. [LAUGHTER] WE GOT A SECOND ON A POINT OF ORDER.

NARROWLY TAILOR YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE ISSUE OF PASSAGE OR PROJECTION OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING UP SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS IS THAT WE ARE RUSHING TO PASS THE PASS THIS ITEM WITHOUT HAVING HAD A BRIEFING, WITHOUT ANYBODY HAVING READ THE CONTRACT, WITHOUT A LOT OF DETAILS.

IT'S NOT THE PROGRAM THAT WE ACTUALLY FUNDED IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

MEANWHILE, THE CRY FOR URGENCY, WE MUST PASS IT BECAUSE WE MUST HAVE THIS HOUSING IS CONTRADICTED BY OUR ACTUAL ACTIONS WITH MULTIPLE OTHER PROPERTIES.

I'M SORRY THAT IT OFFENDS PEOPLE TO WAIT FIVE WEEKS TO CONSIDER THIS AGAIN.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IT IS ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE, IT IS ABOUT GOOD STEWARDSHIP.

WE'RE NOT GETTING THE PROGRAM THAT WE ASKED FOR.

>> MAY I?

>> NO. I'M STILL TALKING. EXCUSE ME.

>> YOU PAUSED AND TOOK A BREATH.

YOU CAN CONTINUE AND THEN I'LL RESPOND.

>> GO AHEAD, MS. MENDELSOHN.

>> WOW, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT TAKING A BREATH MEANT THAT I LOST MY TIME.

WITH THAT, OF COURSE, I WANT TO DO A PROGRAM THAT'S GOING TO HELP HOUSE MORE PEOPLE.

THIS IS NOT THAT PROGRAM.

THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL RENTAL SUBSIDY PROGRAM.

IF YOU NEEDED ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR THE RAPIDLY HOUSING PROGRAM, WHICH ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE RAPIDLY HOUSING PROGRAM, DEPOSITS, ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

WORKING WITH A LANDLORD, THEY'RE ALL AVAILABLE ALREADY.

IF YOU JUST NEEDED MORE MONEY FOR IT, YOU SHOULD HAVE COME FROM THAT, THIS PROGRAM IS NOT ACTUALLY BEING IMPLEMENTED THAT WE PASS THAT WE ASKED FOR.

YOU'RE CALLING IT SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT SOLVING THE ISSUE.

[03:35:02]

THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.

IF YOU'RE CURIOUS, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE IF YOU HAD ASKED ME FOR MORE MONEY FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE, I WOULD HAVE SAID YES.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE STILL DON'T HAVE A MASTER LEASE PROGRAM.

I'M VERY FRUSTRATED THAT THE SO-CALLED REASON THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, YES, LET'S VOTE ON THIS NOW, INSTEAD OF WAITING IS BECAUSE OF URGENCY, BUT I'M NOT SEEING THE URGENCY IN ALL OUR OTHER ACTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> MA'AM.

>> HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS ONE THING BEFORE WE GET INTO IT, BECAUSE IT MAY INFLUENCE SOME OTHER THINGS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE REMEMBER WHAT WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE.

YOU ALL AS THE STAFF GOT TO LET THE ELECTEDS FINISHED TALKING ON THEIR TIME. I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO CALL BALLS AND STRIKES HERE AND KEEP ORDER IN THE MEETINGS.

WE GOT TO LET THE ELECTEDS FINISHED.

THEN WHEN THE STAFF SPEAKING, WE GOT TO LET THEM FINISH.

WE HAVE THE CHORDS WITH THEM AS WELL.

THEY'RE HERE TO BE A RESOURCE.

WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE INFORMATION, BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO TURN INTO A DEBATE BETWEEN STAFF AND THE ELECTEDS.

ELECTEDS DEBATE EACH OTHER.

BUT WE DON'T DEBATE STAFF, THE STAFF DOESN'T DEBATE US.

I'M JUST TRYING TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT'S HOW IT'S STRUCTURED.

WE DEBATE EACH OTHER THROUGH THE CHAIR, WHICH MR. NARVAEZ,, YOU'RE PRETTY GOOD AT IT ALWAYS ADDRESSING YOUR COMPS TO THE CHAIR, BUT YOU DEBATE EACH OTHER THROUGH THE CHAIR, STAFF GIVES US INFORMATION.

WE'VE GOT TO RESPECT THAT BOUNDARY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVING THEIR TIME WALKED ON EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY BY STAFF, BUT ALSO DON'T WANT US BEING RUDE TO YOU GUYS.

I KNOW YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO HERE AND WE DON'T WE DON'T WE PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT AND I DON'T WANT TO OR NOT, THEN I WILL NEVER ADVOCATE THAT WE EVER DO THAT.

BUT WE GOT TO STAY AWAY FROM DEBATING EACH OTHER, GIVE US INFORMATION, AND WE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT IT.

BUT I DON'T WANT US TO ENGAGE EACH OTHER IN A DEBATE BETWEEN ELECTEDS AND STAFF IS JUST NOT GOOD.

WITH THAT, WHOEVER WANTS TO GO YOU OR YOUR STAFF, I'M FINE.

>> YOU CAN GO IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC STATISTICAL AND OR CLARIFICATION OF ANYTHING STATED.

I WAS SIMPLY GOING TO SAY FIRST OF ALL, MAY I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT INTERRUPTING THE COUNCIL WOMAN.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT HER.

I THOUGHT SHE HAD STOPPED AND PAUSED AND WAS READY FOR STAFF FEEDBACK.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT I THINK HER POINT EXACTLY.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US BUYING PROPERTIES, HAVING TO GO THROUGH PROCESSES TO RENOVATE THEM FOR WHICH WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE AND BOUGHT ONE THAT ACTUALLY BENEFITED AND IT'S UP AND RUNNING IN DISTRICT 12TH THAT WE BOUGHT AROUND THE SAME TIMELINE, BUT HAD A LOT LESS NEED THAN SOME OF THESE OTHERS.

HOWEVER, THAT SPEAKS TO THE IMPORTANCE.

I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT AND APPRECIATE YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

IT SPEAKS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY.

BECAUSE THESE ARE UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE IN AND DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR BECAUSE THEY EXIST IN THE MARKET TODAY.

I THINK THAT'S AN ADVANTAGE AND PART OF MY STRATEGY I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND AND IT'S FRUSTRATING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE OTHER UNITS TO BRING TO BEAR.

BUT THERE'S STILL MORE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION AND MORE PROCUREMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES THAT WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE DONE TO GET THOSE ON BOARD.

BUT THEY WILL ALSO ADD TO THE BUCKET OF UNITS WE HAVE IN ADDITION TO HOWEVER MANY MORE WE CAN BRING ON THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT, BUT THOSE ARE DEFINITELY SOME DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING PROJECTS.

THESE RIGHT HERE ARE HOPEFULLY UNITS THAT ARE ABLE TO BE MOVED INTO AND WE AVOID THE ISSUE OF HAVING THE CONSTRUCT, IT'S LIKE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND A REHAB CONSTRUCTION EVEN IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, THESE EXISTS TODAY.

AGAIN, I THANK YOU AND APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT REGARD.

>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD NEED TO ADD, KIM? THEN I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. MORENO FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AT HAND TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

SOLVING OUR HOUSING CRISIS WITH OUR MOST VULNERABLE POPULATION IS NOT AN EASY SOLUTION.

I KNOW THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE REACHED OUT TO BOTH OF Y'ALL WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES CONCERNING QUALITY OF LIFE WITH UNCHARTED POPULATION, WHICH I'M SURE MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE THE SAME.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

THIS IS ANOTHER TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX.

IT'S EXPANDING ON OUR PARTNERSHIPS.

THIS IS A TOOL THAT WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE PEOPLE INTO PERMANENT HOUSING, UTILIZING A MIX OF VOUCHERS AND

[03:40:01]

EXISTING RENTAL SUBSIDIES IN CREATING A TEMPORARY SOLUTION, NOT CREATING TEMPORARY BUT LONG-TERM SOLUTION.

I REALLY WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL CREDIT FOR BUILDING ON THE NAVIGATORS OF WALKING FOLKS THROUGH THE PROCESS, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET THEM OUT OF THOSE CREDITS SCENARIOS AND IN GOOD STANDING SO THAT THEY CAN HOPEFULLY GET BACK IN INTO BEING PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT FROM ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.

MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM THE TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

APPRECIATE THE PROCESS OF MAKING PEOPLE AWARE OF THE PROGRAM.

I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCESS IS.

I KNOW THAT Y'ALL DO A JOB OF GOING INTO OUR ENCAMPMENTS AND GETTING THEM READY.

BUT THERE'S ALSO THAT POPULATION THAT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARILY IN A ENCAMPMENT.

MIGHT BE LIVING IN A VEHICLE OR HOTEL OR FROM CAR TO CAR.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALSO PROVIDING THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH THE TOOLS THAT WE'RE CREATING TODAY AS TEMPERATURES ARE GOING TO BE REACHING A HEAT INDEX OF 100 PLUS THIS WEEK.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN WAIT A DAY LONGER AND SO I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HOUSING MORE INDIVIDUALS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. NARVAEZ IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

FIRST, I WANT TO START OUT BY THANKING STAFF, KIM AND CHRISTINE.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.

THIS WAS A LABOR OF LOVE.

I KNOW IT WASN'T EASY.

THANK YOU FOR DOING IT AND GETTING US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET STARTED WITH.

MR. MAYOR, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HOPEFULLY WILL REVIEW IN A YEAR AND SEE IF THERE'S THINGS THAT WORKED OR DIDN'T WORK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CHANGED OR AMENDED AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS AND THAT'S YOU AND I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

THAT'S GOOD POLICY.

WHEN YOU CHECK IN AND SEE IF THAT POLICY IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF OR NOT.

ONE, WE'RE NOT SECURING AN ENTIRE BUILDING OF UNITS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A REALITY IN TODAY'S RENTAL MARKET.

THAT OPTION DOESN'T EXIST.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SECURING A VARIETY OF UNITS IN SMALLER BATCHES ACROSS DALLAS TO CONTINUE TO DIVERSIFY THE EXIT PATHWAYS FROM HOMELESSNESS.

TWO, THE UNITS WILL BE IN THE TENANT'S NAMES SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE THERE HOWEVER LONG THEY WISH AND BUILD RENTAL CREDIT.

THREE, THIS TOOL ALLOWS US TO MOVE PEOPLE INTO PERMANENT HOUSING UTILIZING A MIX OF VOUCHERS AND EXISTING SYSTEMS. RENTAL SUBSIDIES FROM THE GET-GO INSTEAD OF CREATING A TEMPORARY SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM FOR THE UNHEALTHY PERSONS.

FOUR, YOU CANNOT PUT PEOPLE ON VOUCHERS AT ONE LOCATION BECAUSE MORE THAN 30% OCCUPANCY AT A FAIR MARKET RENTAL UTILIZING VOUCHERS TRIGGERS STATE INSTITUTIONALIZATION LAWS AND COULD BE DETERMINED ILLEGAL.

FIVE, TO PUT PEOPLE AT ONE OR TWO BUILDINGS ONLY CONCENTRATES HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY AND THAT, IN A WAY WOULD DEFINITELY GO AGAINST OUR CITIES PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY.

I WANT TO CLOSE BY THANKING YOU MR. MAYOR, FOR HAVING THE MINDSET TO SEE DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS TO PUT THOSE DOLLARS THAT YOU HAD SO THAT WE COULD START THIS PROCESS AND GET THIS GOING.

WITHOUT THOSE DOLLARS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND I WANT TO THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR A ROBUST CONVERSATION TODAY AND MAKING SURE THAT WE PUT OUR OPINIONS OUT THERE IN HOW WE DO THIS.

SOMEBODY SAID IT EARLIER AND THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT; THERE'S NOT ONE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO SOLVING HOMELESSNESS.

EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON HAS THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL SET OF WHAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO GET OUT OF HOMELESSNESS.

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX.

IT'S GOING TO HELP RAPIDLY HOUSING BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE 800 PEOPLE THAT ARE READY.

THEY'VE BEEN WAITING SINCE THE END OF LAST YEAR.

THEY'RE QUALIFIED, THEY'RE READY TO GO AND WE MADE A PROMISE TO THEM AND THIS IS US KEEPING OUR PROMISE SO THAT WE CAN GET THEM INTO A PLACE THAT THEY CAN CALL THEIR HOME AND WILL BE PERMANENCY INSTEAD OF TEMPORARY SHELTER.

THANK YOU AGAIN, KIM AND CHRISTINE AND ALL YOUR TEAM.

I KNOW THIS IS A HARD ISSUE, BUT I KNOW THE FOLKS THAT WORK IN HOMELESS SOLUTIONS HAVE BIG HEARTS AND THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN TO SOLVE SOMETHING THAT'S ALMOST CONSIDERED IMPOSSIBLE, BUT WE'RE MAKING HEADWAYS AND AS USUALLY HAPPENS, MR. MAYOR DALLAS IS LEADING THE WAY HERE ON THIS ISSUE WHERE BEFORE WE WEREN'T, NOW WE ARE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

[03:45:02]

THE BIG WINNERS TODAY ARE GOING TO BE OUR UNHOUSED RESIDENTS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR.

>> I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE I'LL USE DAVE, NEARBY, MR. NARVAEZ IS GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU SOON HERE FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

BUT MS. MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND CAN YOU TELL US THE DOLLARS THAT YOU STILL HAVE AVAILABLE FOR THE RAPIDLY HOUSING PROGRAM? I HAVE TO.

>> I'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT OFFLINE.

I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL IN FRONT OF ME.

>> WANTED TO MAKE A GUESS.

I'M NOT HOLDING YOU TO IT.

>> I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY WITHIN DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT REALLOCATING SO THAT WE CAN GO FURTHER, WHICH WE'VE STATED HERE BEFORE.

BUT I DON T KNOW THAT SPECIFIC FIGURE.

I CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

>> WELL, SO IF SOMEONE COULD LOOK THAT UP.

IT SHOULD BE ON YOUR DASHBOARD.

>> NO, MA'AM. THE DASHBOARD TALKS ABOUT INDIVIDUALS HOUSE AND BREAKS OUT THE DEMOGRAPHICS.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT.

>> I THINK THE LAST BRIEFING YOU SHARED WITH US BY MEMO THAT YOU HAD ADDITIONAL FUNDING, OR MAYBE IT WAS THE INTERAGENCY REPORT, THAT YOU HAD ADDITIONAL FUNDING, BUT YOU'D HIT YOUR GOAL OF HOW MANY YOU WANTED TO HOUSE. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> WE ARE STILL WORKING TO HIT THE GOAL BY DECEMBER, WHICH WAS THE 2,700 WE'RE AT ABOUT 2,200 NOW, SO WE ARE STILL ACTIVELY WORKING THROUGH THE DRTR TO MEET THAT GOAL BY THE END OF THE YEAR IT WAS BY DECEMBER OF 2023.

>> WELL, I THINK IT ACTUALLY SAID THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, BUT WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.

THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK YOU IS THAT THE SLOWDOWN AND HOUSING AND HITTING YOUR GOAL IS NOT ABOUT A LACK OF RESOURCES, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU HAVE THE DOLLARS TO DO IT.

>> WE HAVE THE DOLLARS TO CONTINUE THESE SUBSIDIES BUT THE ONLY AMOUNT THAT WAS EVER THERE FOR RENTAL INCENTIVES WAS A MILLION, AND OVER THE TWO YEARS THAT WILL BE USED UP, SO WE WON'T HAVE INCENTIVES TO SECURE UNITS, TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS.

>> YOU HAVE THEM TODAY THOUGH?

>> WE HAVE THEM TO FINISH THIS OUT AND WE ACTUALLY WILL FINISH OUT.

YOU SAID, BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WE WILL HIT THE GOAL BY THEN, AND SO THEN WE'LL BE INTO OUR NEW GOAL OF 6,000 BY 2025.

>> WELL, WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO RECTIFY IS YOUR LIST OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT YOU COULD HOUSE, AND THE FACT THAT YOU DO HAVE THE DOLLARS TODAY TO DO IT.

HOW COME IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET?

>> WELL, WE STILL HAVE TO SECURE THE UNITS AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING BEYOND THAT.

THIS THREE MILLION IS NOT TIED TO ANY SPECIFIC PROGRAM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER PROGRAMMING THAT WE HAVE COMING ON LINE THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE WILL HAVE RENTAL SUBSIDIES, BUT WE WON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO SECURE THE UNITS NECESSARILY, SO THIS WOULD MAKE US COMPETITIVE AGAIN IS A TOOL TO SECURE UNITS.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING TODAY THAT'S PREVENTING YOU FROM HOUSING PEOPLE.

YOU HAVE THE PROGRAM, YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES.

>> WE DON'T HAVE UNIT AVAILABILITY THOUGH.

THAT'S THE PART THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPETITIVE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION MORE COMPLETELY.

YOU ARE CORRECT. THE UNIT AVAILABILITY IS AN ISSUE.

>> HOUSING FORWARD WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE THOSE FUNDS FOR THAT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THEY DID RAISE THOSE FUNDS AND THEY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO THAT PROGRAM.

BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY TIED TO THE DALLAS REAL TIME RAPID REHOUSING.

THIS IS JUST TO GIVE US CAPACITY TO HOUSE PEOPLE.

WE MENTIONED THE 480 UNITS.

THOSE ARE NOT TIED TO THE DALLAS REAL TIME RAPID REHOUSING INITIATIVE.

EXCUSE ME, VOUCHER IT'S NOT UNITS.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE PROGRAM ALREADY EXIST.

HOW'S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON YOUR LIST?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE STATEMENT.

A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EXISTS.

THIS IS NOT AS I HAVE SAID AND CLARIFIED, A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT WILL HELP SECURE UNITS AND THEN MOVE ON TO SECURE OTHER UNITS.

IT WILL NOT BE PAYING RENTAL SUBSIDIES FOR PEOPLE.

>> IT WILL BE PROVIDING LANDLORD SUBSIDIES TO TAKE PEOPLE WHO THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE QUALIFY.

>> IF NECESSARY.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE GONE FOR AGAINST ITEM 40? THE MOTION BY MR. BAZALDUA.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING].

>> ANY OPPOSE? THE AYES HAVE IT.

MR. NARVAEZ YOU ASKED FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT AND THEN I'LL READ STATUTORY LANGUAGE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

IT'S OUR LAST MEETING BEFORE THE BIG BREAK, BUT BEFORE WE GO ON THAT BREAK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CELEBRATE OUR ELDER ON THE COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO TEM TENNELL ATKINS,

[03:50:03]

WHO'S HAVING A VERY SPECIAL DAY BECAUSE IT'S HIS BIRTHDAY.

WE HAVE HIS CAKE HERE READY, GERMAN CHOCOLATE.

OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO ALWAYS RECOGNIZE HIS SMU DAYS WHEN I GET A CAKE FOR HIM.

I GUESS WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO ZARIN TO START THE [LAUGHTER] HAPPY BIRTHDAY SONG.

>> POINT OF ORDER. MR. MAYOR.

>> STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER, SIR.

>> BEFORE WE SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO THE HONOR OF MENTIONING THAT OUR MAYOR PRO TEM ALSO HAS AN UPCOMING BIRTHDAY THIS COMING MONTH IN JULY.

THAT COUNCILWOMAN ARNOLD IS GOING TO BE RECEIVING A RED VELVET CAKE.

>> [LAUGHTER] VERY NICE.

>> DOUBLE CAKE.

>> I THINK KATHY STEWART AND ZARIN GRACEY IS THEIR FIRST BE AUTO LEAD THE SINGING.

>> POINT OF ORDER.

>> I SECOND.

>> POINT OF ORDER. DID I DO IT RIGHT? POINT OF ORDER. [LAUGHTER]

>> MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE ANOTHER BIRTHDAY.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> JANIE HERE SHE'LL ALSO BE CELEBRATING HER BIRTHDAY OVER THE SUMMER AS WELL.

WE HAVE A CARROT CAKE FOR HER.

>> WONDERFUL.

>> YOU GET A CAKE.

>> THAT'S PRETTY COOL. WE'VE GOT THREE BIRTHDAYS.

WE'VE GOT RED VELVET, CARROT AND GERMAN CHOCOLATE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THAT BIG ONE IS.

KATHY STEWART, ZARIN GRACEY GO AHEAD AND GET US KICKED OFF IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.

>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.

>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR ALL Y'ALL, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.

>> VERY NICELY DONE.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD, GUYS.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. IT IS 1:21 PM ON JUNE 28TH, 2023.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.076 AND 551.089 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING, DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S AGENDA.

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

THE DEPLOYMENT OR SPECIFIC OCCASIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OR SECURITY DEVICES, OR FOR SECURITY AUDIT REGARDING A RECENT RANSOMWARE ATTACKS, SECURITY INCIDENT RELATED TO THESE INFORMATION RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY AND THEN SECTION 551.071.

THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING AS DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S AGENDA SEEKING THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE RANSOMWARE ATTACK AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS FOR UNITED STATES NUMBER 01-284-6 UNDER SC AND THE REMEDIATION REDEVELOPMENT OF HENSLEY FIELD.

WE'LL COME BACK AT TWO O'CLOCK.

>> THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS COMPLETED.

IT'S CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS 551.076, 551.089, AND 551.071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THAT 2:41 PM ON JUNE 28TH, 2023, WE'VE RETURNED OPEN SESSION, MADAM SECRETARY.

WHERE ARE WE ON THE AGENDA?

>> MR. MAYOR, YOU ARE ON AGENDA ITEM 43.

>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ INTO THE RECORD AND GET GOING.

>> JUNE ITEM 43 AUTHORIZE

[43. Authorize a three-year service contract, with one two-year renewal option, for human capital management module consulting and implementation for the Department of Human Resources - Precision Task Group, Inc., most advantageous proposer of two - Not to exceed $3,016,700 - Financing: Operating Carryover Fund ($999,200), Employee Health Benefits Fund ($823,000), Data Services Fund ($718,818), and Information Technology Equipment Fund ($475,682) (subject to annual appropriations)]

A THREE-YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ONE TWO-YEAR RENEWAL OPTION FOR HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT MODULE CONSULTING AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES PRECISION TASK GROUP, INC. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF TO NOT TO EXCEED $3,016,700.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, MR. MENDELSOHN?

>> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MEMBERS, WE'RE ON ITEM 43.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I SEE BILL IS OVER THERE.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED EARLIER, BUT IF I COULD ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS MODULE? MAYBE THIS IS NICE HERE OVER THERE AS WELL ABOUT THIS MODULE AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT WILL DO FOR US.

>> YOU BET. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, CHAIR MENDELSOHN.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BILL ZIELINSKI, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

ITEM 43 ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS FOR PROVIDING A CONTRACT TO BRING IN EXPERTS, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO SUPPLEMENT OUR TEAM IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT A NUMBER OF MODULES WITHIN THE WORKDAY HR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

HR HAS USED A SERIES OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS TO MANAGE THEIR HR FUNCTIONS.

THESE SYSTEMS HAVE INCLUDED LAWSON FOR TIMEKEEPING AND PAYROLL, HAS INCLUDED NEOGOV FOR RECRUITMENT AND FOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND SOME OTHER ITEMS, AS WELL AS LEARNINGZEN AS WELL AS WE HAVE AN EXTERNAL PROVIDER FOR OUR HR BENEFITS PROGRAMS. THE RESULT REALLY HAS BEEN THAT WE HAVE HR DATA IN MULTIPLE SYSTEMS.

[03:55:02]

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A SMOOTHLY CONNECTED, SEAMLESS PROCESS FROM AN END-TO-END HR PERSPECTIVE.

IN FEBRUARY OF 2018, THE COUNCIL APPROVED AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE WORKDAY HR MANAGEMENT PLATFORM.

WORKDAY IS A CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE HR MANAGEMENT SOLUTION.

IN JULY OF 2020, THE CITY IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL OF THE MODULES THAT ARE WITHIN THE WORKDAY PLATFORM, PAYROLL TIME TRACKING, ABSENCE, AND PORTIONS OF COMPENSATION.

BUT THIS EFFORT HERE WITH ITEM NUMBER 4 IS TO PROVIDE US WITH THE EXPERT RESOURCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO HELP US CONFIGURE, MIGRATE TO, AND IMPLEMENT THE BENEFITS MODULE, THE TALENT MANAGEMENT, WHICH INCLUDES ONBOARDING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, THE RECRUITMENT AND THE LEARNING MODULES WITHIN THE CURRENT WORKDAY PLATFORM THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

WE HAVE THOSE MODULES, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONFIGURED AND TURNED ON.

THESE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW US TO, IF YOU WILL, FINISH THE JOB OF HAVING A SINGLE HR PLATFORM FOR END-TO-END HR SERVICES, WHICH THEN ALLOWS FOR US TO MOVE AWAY FROM THOSE LEGACY SYSTEMS AND HAVE A SINGLE PLATFORM FOR ALL OF OUR HR FUNCTIONS.

>> GREAT. COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ AND I HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT RELATED ITEMS, AND SHE WAS NICE ENOUGH TO SEND THEM OUT TO EVERYBODY AND GATHER UP THOSE RESPONSES.

IF I CAN READ PART OF THE RESPONSE FROM HIS TOOLBAR ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

IT SAYS, AS YOU MAY RECALL, WE ARE UTILIZING A COMBINATION OF OUTDATED, AN INCOMPATIBLE SYSTEMS THAT POST CHALLENGES IN ADMINISTERING HR FUNCTIONS SMOOTHLY AND COHERENTLY.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COLLECTION OF RELIABLE DATA HAS BECOME VIRTUALLY UNATTAINABLE WITHIN THIS DISJOINTED FRAMEWORK.

WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADDITIONAL HR MANAGEMENT MODULES, THE CITY WILL REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR STAFF, REDUCE POTENTIAL ERRORS DUE TO MULTIPLE ENTRIES, AND REDUCE THE MULTIPLE CONTRACTS REQUIRED TO DELIVER THESE CRITICAL HR SERVICES.

I THINK THAT MAKES AN IMPORTANT CASE FOR WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.

I'VE MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT.

WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ASK ALL OF THEM.

BUT MY QUESTION FOR YOU, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER IT IS, WHEN YOU SAY THIS MODULE IS GOING TO REDUCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR STAFF, DOES THAT MEAN YOU WILL BE REQUESTING LESS HEAD-COUNT IN THIS NEXT BUDGET?

>> THAT'S WISHFUL THINKING.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THE EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE IN AREAS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR THE RECORD, DEFICIENCIES BUT UPON OR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION IS GOING TO BRING OUR DISTRIBUTED.

THEY ARE NOT EFFICIENCIES THAT YOU WILL UNIQUELY BE FOR HR STAFF.

MOST OF THE EFFICIENCIES ARE GOING TO BE FOR HIRING MANAGERS AND MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE A SYSTEM THAT IS SEAMLESS, EVEN APPLICANTS, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR APPLICATIONS MORE EASILY.

HOWEVER, EVERY YEAR DURING THE BENEFIT PROCESS, WE IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE RESOURCES THAT MAY BE NEED TO BE REDEPLOYED OR RECONSIDER IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT IT AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS EVERY YEAR AND ONGOING.

HOWEVER, MOST OF THE EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THAT RESPONSE RELATE TO HIRING MANAGERS, MANAGERS IN GENERAL, AND ALSO EMPLOYEES FOR SELF-SERVICE.

>> YOU'RE THE DIRECTOR OF HR.

THE EXACT LINE IS REDUCED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR STAFF.

THIS IS A $3 MILLION CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS.

WE'RE BASICALLY SPENDING $1 MILLION.

ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ANY COST SAVINGS IN TERMS OF HEAD COUNT.

WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $1 MILLION IN A COUPLE OF PEOPLE'S LIVES WILL BE EASIER.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE, WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY GETTING FOR THIS?

>> WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING THIS ASSISTANT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO ADMINISTER EVERY PERSONNEL PROCESS MORE EFFICIENTLY.

FROM A RECRUITMENT PROCESS WHICH WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AND TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO REVAMP AND MAKE BETTER, ALL THE WAY TO THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND SUCCESSION PLANNING ARE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE LESS STUFF.

HOWEVER, THE EFICIENCIES ARE DISTRIBUTED FOR THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION, NOT JUST FACILITATING OR MAKING THE HR STAFF WORK OBSOLETE.

[04:00:06]

>> WELL, THE HR STAFF HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.

MY NEXT QUESTION IS THE PHRASE THAT WAS REDUCED THE MULTIPLE CONTRACTS REQUIRED TO DELIVER THESE CRITICAL HR SERVICES.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LESS CONTRACTS, AGAIN, WILL YOU NEED LESS PEOPLE TO ADMINISTER IT? OR HOW WILL THAT SAVE ANY MONEY? OR WHAT'S THE BUSINESS CASE FOR THIS?

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL SOFTWARE THAT WE USE CURRENTLY THAT WE'RE GOING TO STOP USING BECAUSE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WORKDAY.

IN THE BUSINESS CASE, WHICH AGAIN IT COMES FROM THAT 2018 IMPLEMENTATION.

IT TALKS ABOUT US NOT RENEWING CONTRACTS WITH NEW YOGA, FOR INSTANCE, OR LEARNING SENT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT OVER THE YEARS AND ACTUALLY IT'S GOING TO OFFSET THIS COURSE.

IN ADDITION, WE ALREADY PAYING FOR WORKDAY.

BASICALLY WE'RE NOT UTILIZING A RESOURCE THAT WE COULD BE UTILIZING BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED THE MODULES.

>> I ONLY HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WHEN WORKDAY WAS DECIDED ON WHICH I THINK WAS 2018 BEFORE MOST OF US, WE'RE HERE.

WHY WASN'T THIS MODULE PURCHASED WITH IT?

>> ALL THE MODULES WERE PURCHASED CONCURRENTLY.

THE MODEL IS SUCH THAT ALL MODULES COME WITH THE PURCHASE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE ENTIRE PROGRAM IS DEPLOYED ONCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ACCESS.

WE HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THOSE MODULES, HOWEVER, REQUIRED AS BILL WAS INDICATING EXPERTISE TO BE ABLE TO DEPLOY THEM.

WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS TO SECURE THE EXPERTISE, TO DEPLOY THE MODULES THAT ARE THERE AND ACCESSIBLE TO US THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DEPLOYED.

THERE IS A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS TO DO THAT AND I WOULD DEFINITELY DEFER TO BILL [OVERLAPPING]

>> YOU HAVE FOR A POPULATED THE MODULE, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> WHEN WE LAID OUT. EXCUSE ME, KIMBERLY VISOR TOTAL, FOR THE RECORD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

WHEN WE LAID OUT THE ENTIRE WORKDAY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.

WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THE MODULES THAT WE COULD DO WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR GIVEN YEAR.

WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL MODULES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND WHAT THOSE IMAGES WOULD BE IN.

I REMEMBER WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS EVEN LAST YEAR WHEN I THINK IT WAS COUNCIL WOMAN WILLIS, WHO WAS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW DO YOU GET TO A MORE CONSOLIDATED RECRUITMENT PROCESS THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO HAVE A BETTER CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE.

WE LAID OUT THEN THAT THIS WOULD BE A PART OF THE BUDGET.

THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR AND NOW WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU IS THE ACTUAL FINAL PIECE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE, DO THE DEMPLOYMENT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TURN THAT MODULE ON.

IT CAME ALMOST LIKE AS A SWEET.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR COMPONENT WE DID NOT IMPLEMENT IT BECAUSE IT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE IT FORWARD, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

>> IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PERFORMANCE GOAL THAT REDUCES STAFF, DO YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE GOAL TO REDUCE THE TIME IT TAKES TO GET SOMEONE FROM A HIRING MANAGER NOTIFYING YOU THAT THEY HAVE AN OPENING TO THEIR FIRST DAY, ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO COMPRESS THAT AND WHERE ARE YOU AT TODAY? WHERE ARE YOU EXPECTING TO GO BASED ON THIS NEW MODULE?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE, I THINK REPEATEDLY IN ALL OF THE COMMUNICATION AROUND THE MODIFICATIONS AND A LOT OF THE ENHANCEMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN MAKING WITH THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS IS TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO BETTER NUMBER 1, TRACK, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE US FROM THE TIME WE ACTUALLY POSTED POSITION TO THE TIME WE ACTUALLY GET SOMEONE IN THE POSITION.

ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY, WE'RE ABLE TO BUILD IT NOW BY HAVING A SYSTEM THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY COLLECT THAT DATA AND BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT DATA ACROSS ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

WHEN NINA TALKS ABOUT THE EFFICIENCIES RIGHT NOW, THE HIRING MANAGERS WHO SIT IN ALL THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM A TOOL THAT WE CAN CONSOLIDATE THAT INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT THAT DATA WE'VE STARTED, BUT THIS PIECE THAT'S MISSING WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO DO THAT GOING FORWARD AT A MUCH GREATER LEVEL WITH GREATER EFFICIENCIES.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE PLAN TO DO BUT NOW WE GOT THE FUNDING IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A COMPANY.

I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO GET A VENDOR.

NOW WE'RE READY TO DO THAT.

>> OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO TRACK THIS.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU COMMITTING TO 10 DAYS LESS THAN THE HIRING PROCESS? LIKE, WHAT NUMBER OF PERFORMANCE ARE YOU WILLING TO SAY, THIS WILL CHANGE THINGS?

>> RATHER THAN USING IT ON METRICS TO SET THAT TARGET,

[04:05:02]

WE ARE UTILIZING NATIONAL AVERAGES AS OUR TARGET.

WHAT THIS IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO IS TO HAVE A BETTER CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO GET TO THAT GOAL SOONER.

TARGET IS THE NATIONAL.

>> CAN YOU SHARE WHAT THAT NUMBER IS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. AND IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FOR THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS AND AREAS.

IF YOU ARE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RECRUITMENT, RECRUITMENT, DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE MAY BE DIFFERENT.

IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ENTRY-LEVEL EMPLOYEES, THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IS 30 DAYS.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EXECUTIVE, THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IS 90 DAYS.

WE WILL BE USING THAT DATA AS OUR TARGET.

IT ACTUALLY THAT HAS BEEN OUR TARGET.

THE ISSUE IS WE HAVEN'T HAD A TOOL THAT ALLOWS US TO EFFICIENTLY PROCESS APPLICANTS, ALLOWS US TO COMMUNICATE WITH APPLICANTS AND OFFER A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE APPLICANTS AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

BUT AS FOR THE TARGETS, THE TARGETS HAS ALWAYS BEEN EXTERNAL VERSUS INTERNAL.

THAT IS OUR COMMITMENT.

>> WE ACTUALLY SHARED AND I THINK THE LAST UPDATE THAT WE DID AROUND ENTIRELY RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION STRATEGY, WE ACTUALLY PROVIDED DATA THAT REALLY SHOWED BY DEPARTMENT HOW WELL WE'RE DOING CURRENTLY AND WHAT THAT END GOAL WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE.

BUT WE ALSO COUPLED THAT WITH THE TOOL THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DATA IS CLEAN AND THE DATA REALLY ALLOWS US TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE RECRUITMENT CYCLE AND THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THIS LAST YEAR.

IT'S REALLY BEEN ABOUT AS USING WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND WE KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED GOING FORWARD.

I THINK I MENTIONED ALSO IN THE RESPONSE THAT YOU READ THAT THIS HAS BEEN A CONSOLIDATED EFFORT BETWEEN NOT ONLY THE HR DEPARTMENT, BUT THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE IN CIVIL SERVICE AND WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH ITS THROUGH THE ENTIRE GOVERNANCE PROCESS TO BRING THIS ITEM FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER HR RELATED QUESTIONS.

I GUESS MY LAST ONE IS AN IT RELATED QUESTION.

BILL, HAVE YOU WORKED WITH ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING SOFTWARE WHERE THERE ARE PERFORMANCE METRICS AND BUSINESS CASES MADE FOR THESE CHANGES?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

I BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS GETTING TO IN TERMS OF THROUGH AN IT GOVERNANCE PROCESS WHERE AN INITIATIVE IS BROUGHT FORWARD.

IF THERE ARE BUSINESS CASES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED TO THOSE INITIATIVES WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC BUSINESS OUTCOMES AND MEASURES.

YES. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORKS THAT ARE USED IN CONSIDERING IT INITIATIVES THAT WOULD INCLUDE SOME EXPLICIT BUSINESS CASES THAT TALK ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT ARE THERE YET.

>> DO YOU EXPECT TO BRING FORWARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO US?

>> COUNCIL WOMAN, AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES THAT ARE POINTED TOWARDS IMPROVING OUR IT GOVERNANCE PROCESSES.

ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS MENTIONED IN A RECENT TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT IS THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT CADRE AND BEING ABLE TO DOCUMENT ALL OF OUR SYSTEMS AND THE CHARACTERISTIC DATA THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AS PART OF THAT, I'M LOOKING TO PROVIDE BASELINE DATA, NOT JUST ABOUT THE RELATIVE HEALTH OF THOSE SYSTEMS, BUT ALSO PERFORMANCE METRICS IN TERMS OF THE USE OF THOSE SYSTEMS SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT INFORMATION AS WE ARE FORMULATING OUR IT INITIATIVES AND WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT.

THAT ISN'T OUR ROADMAP TO INCLUDE AS PART OF OUR IT GOVERNANCE PROCESS.

>> WELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

I MEAN, THIS IS $27 MILLION OF IT JUST ON THIS AGENDA TODAY.

WE'RE MAKING REALLY BIG INVESTMENTS AND I'M JUST NOT SURE WE'RE ALWAYS SEEING UPFRONT, NOT THAT THEY DON'T EXIST, WHAT THOSE OUTCOMES REALLY ARE GOING TO BE, AND HOW IT WILL SPECIFICALLY HELP US.

I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AND SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. WEST, RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I AGREE.

WHEN I'M JUST THINKING OF MY OWN EXPERIENCE, MY CAR WASH, WHEN I'M INVESTING IN A NEW PRODUCT THAT'S GOING TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN OUR TUNNEL.

I HAVE DATA FROM THE MANUFACTURER ON HOW IT IS GOING TO REDUCE MY LABOR COST.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS ON UP.

WE'RE INVESTING IN THIS TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

HOW WE CAN ACTIVATE THAT TO SAVE MONEY FOR TAXPAYERS THROUGH EMPLOYEE TIME OR WHATEVER.

I THINK AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTERESTING CONVERSATION TO HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> MR. RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. MISSOURI IS JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY AND THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM COUNCIL WOMAN MENDELSOHN,

[04:10:01]

THAT THE COST OF THIS NEW SOFTWARE MODULE WILL BE MADE UP BY NO LONGER NEEDING OTHER OLDER SOFTWARE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY USING.

THIS IS A NET BENEFIT IN THAT SENSE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> COUNCIL RIDLEY, YES.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND THE ANSWER IS YES.

ACTUALLY, WE WILL RECOVER IT IN FULL AND IN LESS THAN THREE YEARS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WHICH WAS GOING FOR AGAINST ITEM 43.

SAY NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

>> AGENDA ITEM 55.

AUTHORIZE A DECREASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE FAIN GROUP,

[9.2 ITEM 55 Authorize a decrease in the construction services contract with the Fain Group, Inc. for the construction of the Hi-Line Connector Trail along Victory Avenue and Hi Line Drive between, the Katy Trail and the Trinity Strand Trail for construction and labor cost increases along with removing accent lighting and underground electrical service routing - Not to exceed ($366,844.41), $11,531,424.84 to $11,164,580.43 - Financing: Circuit Trail Conservancy Fund]

INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHLINE CONNECT YOUR TRAIL ALONG VICTORY AVENUE AND HIGHLINE DRIVE BETWEEN THE KATY TRAIL AND THE TRINITY STRAND TRAIL FOR CONSTRUCTION AND LABOR COST INCREASES ALONG WITH REMOVING ACCENT LIGHTING AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE ROUTING.

NOT TO EXCEED $366,844.41 FROM $11,531,424.84 TO $11,164,580.43.

I DO HAVE THE ITEM WILL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION TO BE STATED FOR THE RECORD.

THE AMOUNT REFERENCED IN THE AIS BACKGROUND SHOULD HAVE READ $168,844.41 AND NOT $96,486.41.

YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PHILIP HYATT, HEY, BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

>> PERFECT. GOOD AFTERNOON.

IF YOU ALREADY GO OUT TO HIGHLINE IN VICTORY RIGHT NOW, THIS PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

IT'S BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION SINCE JANUARY.

IT'S ABOUT HALFWAY DONE AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE ON TRACK TO COMPLETE IT BY EARLY 2024.

WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS A CHANGE ORDER TO NEED IT TO KEEP THIS PROJECT ON TRACK, TO KEEP THE SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE IS THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER ONLY IMPACTS THE PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT IS PRIVATELY FUNDED.

THE $8 MILLION THAT IS ON THIS PROJECT FROM NCTCOG WILL STAY ON THE PROJECT.

BUT THE OTHER THREE-AND-A-HALF MILLION THAT IS BROUGHT BY THE LOOP DALLAS, FINANCED PRIVATELY WITH A LOAN THAT WE SECURED TO FUND THE CONTRACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT.

THIS BODY APPROVED $11.5 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN APRIL OF 2022.

BUT THE PROJECT WASN'T ABLE TO BEGIN AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED AGAINST THE CITY.

WHEN WE WERE FINALLY ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD, WE KNEW THE SCOPE WOULD NEED TO BE REDUCED IN ORDER TO KEEP THE CONTRACT OR THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE COST OF INFLATION, MATERIALS AND LABOR.

WE ALSO DIDN'T HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING AT THAT TIME TO INCREASE THE CITY'S AWARD.

THE CITY WORKED WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND OUR DESIGN TEAM TO REMOVE ITEMS IN THIS CHANGE ORDER THAT CAN BE REPLACED LATER ON.

THAT'S THE THINGS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS ITEM TODAY SUCH AS LIGHTING AND THE UNDERGROUND CONDUITS.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN IN PLACE, YOU CAN PUT IN THE CONDUITS AND THEN YOU CAN PLUG IN THE LIGHTS LATER ON.

THAT'S WHAT WE THE LOOP WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

WE ACTUALLY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SECURING PRIVATE FUNDING AND A CONTRACT TO BRING BACK THE LIGHTING THAT IS UNDERNEATH I35 AND THE DARK LINE.

WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON BEARING THE UTILITY LINES AT HIGHLINE IN OAKLAND, BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR DOESN'T STAY ON THE PROJECT AND CONTINUE THIS WORK.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING COUNCIL TODAY IS TO AMEND THE ITEM THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AND MOVE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARK DEPARTMENTS AND THE CONTRACTOR AGREED TO, WHICH IS $168,844, BACK TO THE LOOP DALLAS.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THE PARK DEPARTMENT DID IN SENDING YOU THIS AWARD THAT HAS A HIGHER NUMBER.

HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ADDITIONAL $198,000 BACK TO OUR ORGANIZATION IS WORTH THE RISK OF HAVING THE CONTRACTOR STOP THIS WORK BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A NUMBER THAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO.

I HOPE YOU WILL JOIN ME IN SUPPORT, YES, TO AMEND THIS CHANGE ORDER BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF $168,000. THANK YOU.

>> I'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIS AND RESENDEZ.

>> MS. WILLIS, YOU HAVE A MOTION?

>> I DO. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, AMEND THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTIVE CHANGE ORDER FROM $366,844.41

[04:15:01]

TO $168,844.41.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECONDARY DISCUSSION, MS. WILLIS?

>> SURE. OUR PARK BOARD IS USUALLY FAIRLY HARMONIOUS AND THEY HAVE LOTS OF THOUGHTFUL DEBATE.

>> FIVE MINUTES.

WHEN NEWS OF THIS ITEM REACHED ME BEFORE IT EVEN HIT OUR AGENDA, IT MADE ME TAKE A DEEPER LOOK AT THIS.

ALSO AS A FORMER NON-PROFIT CEO WHO HAS WALKED A MILE IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE WHO'S TRYING TO BRING PRIVATE DOLLARS TO THE TABLE TO ADD TO COG DOLLARS OR OTHER DOLLARS AND CITY DOLLARS TO MAKE WHAT WE DO GO FARTHER IN ADVANCING OUR GOALS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I WAS CURIOUS, MS. ROSS, IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN ADD TO THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT I THINK WE ALL REMEMBER WE'VE GONE THROUGH A DISCUSSION AROUND HOW THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT DELAYED THE PROJECT AND THEN YOU ALL DID SOME WORK I BELIEVE.

JUST BRIEFLY, VERY BRIEFLY.

>> SURE. CRYSTAL ROSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

I HAVE WITH ME KRISTINA TURNER NOTWARE WHO IS VERY WELL-VERSED ON THIS PROJECT.

IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE SOME QUICK HIGHLIGHTS AS TO DIFFERENCES ARE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT PHILIP DID NOT PRESENT.

>> THANK YOU HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

ESSENTIALLY, THIS PROJECT WAS BID IN DECEMBER OF 2021.

IT WAS ORDERED BY CITY COUNCIL IN APRIL 27TH OF 2022.

RIGHT AFTER THAT, WE RECEIVED NO NOTICE OF THE LAWSUIT WHICH PUT IN A JUNCTION ON THE PROJECT.

BASICALLY WE WERE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2022.

AT THAT POINT, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INDICATED TO US THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

WE CONTACTED OUR CONTRACT WITH A FAIN GROUP WHO INDICATED AT THAT POINT THAT THEY HAD HAD COST ESCALATION AND THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO REPRICE THE PROJECT AND TALK WITH OUR SUBCONTRACTORS AND SEE WHAT PRICES THEY WERE STILL ABLE TO HOLD GIVEN THE FACT THIS BID WAS A YEAR AGO, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD THE NOTICE TO PROCEED EIGHT MONTHS PRIOR.

THROUGHOUT THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, WE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM AND CAME UP WITH A SPECIFIC CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT.

WE TOOK THIS TO THE PARK BOARD APRIL 18, AND IT WAS DEFERRED.

WE TOOK IT BACK ON MARCH 15TH AND IT WAS AGAIN DEFERRED.

PART BOARD ASKED US TO GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE WITH FAIN FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AND BASICALLY FAIN DID COME UP WITH $72,358 ADDITIONAL.

WHAT WE TOOK TO THE PARK BOARD WAS A CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT IN A CHANGE ORDER AND THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE 168,844.41.

BASICALLY, WE ARE LOOKING TO COMPENSATE THE CONTRACTOR FOR COST ESCALATIONS THAT WERE OUT OF HIS CONTROL.

AS FAR AS THE OTHER SCOPE THAT HAD TO BE REMOVED, AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM MR. HAGUE, THEY ARE WORKING TO PUT THAT SCOPE BACK IN.

IT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND IT WILL BE BUILT.

>> PRIVATE DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING WORKED ON BY THE CIRCUIT LOOP ARE GOING TO HELP US GET TO THE REALIZATION OF WHAT WE ALL WANTED THIS TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. WELL, SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK WE'D ALL LIKE TO SEE THIS COMPLETED AND WHAT A GREAT TIMELINE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR THIS WOULD BE ACTIVE AND SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD.

I KNOW THAT IT COULD EVEN DELAY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT IF WE DELAY THIS AND HOW IT CAN AFFECT OTHER DISTRICTS, SO THAT IS WHY I FELT LIKE I HAD TO BRING THIS UP.

I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CHRIS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FAIN HAS NOT AGREED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE CHANGE ORDER.

HOW CAN WE APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER IF WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS AGREED TO IT OR IT'S GOING TO AGREE TO IT?

>> WE MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT OUR PARK BOARD RECOMMENDED AND WHAT OUR PARK BOARD ASKED US TO DO, WHICH WAS MOVED FORWARD WITH A NEGATIVE $366,844.41 NEGATIVE CHANGE ORDER.

>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT OKAY. LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE APPROVE THIS BUT FAIN DOESN'T?

>> BASICALLY WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH FAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THEY COULD WALK OFF THE JOB.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IF THEY DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO END UP REBIDDING THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND STARTING OVER.

AS MR. HAGUE INDICATED, THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT.

IT WOULD ALSO EXTEND THE TIMELINE AND POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZE OUR TEXT.FUNDING.

>> WELL, DO WE HAVE ANY ASSURANCE OR EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL IF THIS BODY APPROVES THIS CHANGE ORDER THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT IT?

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 368,844 OR THE 168,844.

[04:20:04]

>> WELL, EITHER ONE I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHY WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS HERE AND WHY WE'VE AMENDED IT FROM WHAT THE PARK BOARD APPROVED.

>> THE FAME GROUP HAS AGREED TO THE CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE 168,844.41.

THAT IS WHAT THEY'VE AGREED TO.

>> OH, OKAY.

THEY HAVE AGREED TO THAT AMOUNT.

>> THEY DIDN'T AGREE TO THE 366.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE AMENDING IT.

>> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO NUMBERS? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE DELETING MORE SCOPE?

>> NO. BASICALLY, THE 198 WAS A NUMBER THAT WAS PROPOSED BY A PARK BOARD MEMBER.

WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO REDUCE ANY ADDITIONAL SCOPE OR JUST ASKING THEM TO REDUCE COSTS.

>> WE KNOW THAT IF THIS MOTION PASSES, THAT FAIN WILL SIGN IT BECAUSE THEY'VE AGREED TO THE 168,000 NUMBER AS THE CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT?

>> MR. RESENDEZ YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ALSO PULL THE ITEM, DISLIKE BEING IN THIS POSITION, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS FROM VARIOUS FOLKS AND THIS PROJECT DOES IMPACT THE ENTIRE CITY.

MY GOAL IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD ALL BE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ON THE SAME PAGE MOVING FORWARD.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MOTION THAT I SECONDED ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS, BUT I DO WELCOME COLLEAGUES, STAFF AND MR. PHILLIP HYDE TO CLARIFY OR CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE CASE.

>> YES, SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ THAT IS THE CASE THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE CHANGE ORDER THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTOR IS NEGATIVE 16884441.

>> BUT THERE WERE ALSO FOLKS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

>> THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT BASICALLY, THE LOOP WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE FAIN GROUP TO NEGOTIATE THE PRICE, TO PUT IN THAT ACCENT LIGHTING AND THE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUNDING.

AS YOU HEARD, MR. HAGUE SAID, IT WILL BE DONE THROUGH PRIVATE FUNDING AND IT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.

>> IS THE GOAL MOVING FORWARD TO MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE, ALTHOUGH THE FUNDING MAY COME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES?

>> THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. WEST RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ HAS CLEARED IT UP FOR ME. I'M GOOD.

>> CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME FOR THE QUICK.

WHAT DID THE PARK BOARD RECOMMEND?

>> THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDED A NEGATIVE CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT IN THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE 366844 AND 41 CENTS.

>> WHAT I SEE IN THE AGENDA ITEM, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY, NOT THE MOTION AMOUNT, BUT THE ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM.

THAT WAS WHAT THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDED?

>> MS. MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE-MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS AND A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON HERE.

LET'S JUST BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S STYLED AS A DECREASE IN EXPENSES.

BUT ACTUALLY FAIN GROUP'S GETTING MORE MONEY CORRECT?

>> THEY ARE GETTING COST INCREASES ON THEIR ITEMS THAT HAVE HAD ESCALATION.

>> OVER WHAT PERIOD WAS THERE AN ESCALATION?

>> BASICALLY, THE PERIOD WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THEIR NOTICE TO PROCEED IN MAY OF 2022 CLEAR THROUGH.

THEY DID NOT GET THERE NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL JANUARY 30TH AT 2023. AN EIGHT MONTH DELAY.

>> IN EIGHT MONTHS, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WAS AN OVER TWO MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE ON $11 MILLION PROJECT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE TO YOU?

>> YES, MA'AM. WE HAVE REVIEWED EXTENSIVELY THE CHANGE ORDER THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY FAIN.

WE'VE REVIEWED THE COST OF CONCRETE.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT AND BASICALLY, YES, IT DOES SEEM REASONABLE.

>> PHILIP, THANKS FOR COMING DOWN.

THANKS FOR BEING SO INTEGRAL IN THIS PROJECT.

YOU ARE AN INCREDIBLE PARTNER FOR OUR CITY.

I'VE GOT TO TAKE EXCEPTION WITH SOMETHING YOU SAID ABOUT THE LOOP FUNDING THIS UNLESS I'M INCORRECT.

I THINK IT'S THE COG, I THINK IT'S TXDOT.

I THINK IT'S TIF MONEY THAT IS GOING TO PASS THROUGH YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN.

IF YOU CAN SHARE HOW MUCH YOU'VE PRIVATELY RAISED THAT INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE OTHER FOUNDATIONS,

[04:25:03]

BUT THESE ARE ALL TAX DOLLARS.

>> THE EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WENT THROUGH RTC, IT IS BEING ADMINISTERED BY TXDOT, SO THAT'S THE SAME EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS.

THE OTHER THREE-AND-A-HALF MILLION, WE HAD TO GO OUT AND GET ALONE FOR THAT.

THE MONEY IS CURRENTLY PRIVATELY BEING BROUGHT BY US.

IF WE MEET THE AGREEMENT THAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD WITH THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN THAT WILL BE REIMBURSED.

BUT AT THIS POINT, AS WAS MENTIONED WITH THE LIGHTING CHANGE, THAT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT MEETING THAT SCOPE.

WE HAVE TO, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO BRING BACK IN THE AMENITIES THAT WERE TAKEN OUT IN ORDER TO MEET THE TERMS OF OUR AGREEMENT FOR THE TIF AWARD.

IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND WE'RE NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THAT, THE LOAN THAT WE HAVE SECURED WOULD BE IN DEFAULT.

THAT'S WHY AT THIS TIME IT IS NOT TAXPAYER MONEY.

IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE REIMBURSED BY THE TIF SHOULD WE MEET THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.

>> OF COURSE, EVERYONE REALIZES THAT THE TIF IS MONEY THAT WOULD COME TO THE GENERAL FUND, BUT WE HAVE ALLOWED TO STAY IN A POT TO ENHANCE A SPECIFIC AREA.

IT IS PROPERTY TAXES AND EVEN COD MONEY AND TXDOT MONEY.

THESE ARE OUR TAX DOLLARS WHETHER IT'S COMING THROUGH THE CITY OR OTHERWISE.

LEE CLIMBING USED TO SAY OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, BUT IT'S NOT THIS IS ALL TAXPAYER MONEY AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

WE DO HAVE A DUTY TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH IT AND SOMEHOW THE CONVERSATION SEEMS TO BECOME VERY INVERTED, I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING APART BOARD.

I THINK WE HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL PARK BOARD.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK THE CONVERSATION WAS REALLY WHILE HEATED ON THIS ITEM, THOUGHTFUL ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS.

THERE'S NO DOUBT EVERYBODY AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, EVERYBODY AT PARK BOARD WANTS THIS PROJECT TO HAPPEN.

BUT IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME HOW THE WORD LIGHTING BECAME DISRUPTED DIFFERENTLY.

I'M GOING TO SAY LIGHTING THAT'S GOING UNDERNEATH I35 AT MOCKINGBIRD, THAT'S SECURITY LIGHTING.

BUT AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING, SOMEHOW IT STARTS BEING CALLED DECORATIVE LIGHTING.

LIGHTING IN THAT AREA IS ESSENTIAL.

I MEAN, THIS IS A CRIME HOTSPOT.

HOW WOULD WE DEFER LIGHTING OUT OF THE SCOPE?

>> CAN I ANSWER THAT?

>> SURE.

>> WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IN MY OPENING REMARKS WAS THAT THE SCOPE DECREASE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTAINED IN THAT CHANGE ORDER WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR ITEMS THAT CAN BE ADDED LATER ON, KNOWING THAT WE WANTED TO GO OUT AND PRIVATELY SECURE FUNDS TO BRING THEM BACK IN.

ITEMS THAT YOU CAN'T DEFER AT THE BEGINNING, OUR CONCRETE THE CONCRETE HAS TO BE POURED WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE.

THE CONDUITS THAT THE LIGHTS WILL BE PLUGGED INTO THAT NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED NOW.

THOSE THINGS WERE KEPT IN BECAUSE EXACTLY TO YOUR GOAL, WE WANT TO BRING ALL THE AMENITIES BACK INTO THIS PROJECT.

WE WANT THIS TO BE BUILT TO THE SCOPE THAT YOU ALL APPROVED LAST YEAR.

WE CHOSE ITEMS TO BRING BACK IN LATER ON AND LIGHTING HAPPENED TO BE THE GREATEST COST FOR ALL OF THAT.

AS MENTIONED RIGHT NOW, I HAVE A $1.3 MILLION CONTRACTS TO BRING LIGHTING BACK IN UNDERNEATH I35 AND THE DARK LINE.

BUT I NEED THE CONTRACTOR TO BE ON THE JOB TO PERFORM THAT.

LIKE WE WANT TO ENTER INTO THAT AGREEMENT WITH THEM PRIVATELY.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO PER OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

BUT WE NEED THE CONTRACTOR TO BE CONTINUING THAT WORK IN ORDER FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

>> THIS WHOLE THING CAME TO COUNCIL, APRIL 2022.

YOU WERE PART OF THAT.

CHRIS, I THINK YOU SAID AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING, DECEMBER 22, THERE'S BEEN SEVEN DIFFERENT PRICINGS FROM THE FAIN GROUP. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM SEVEN DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT THE MONTH OF DECEMBER.

WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM ON NEGOTIATIONS.

>> YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO GIVE THEM A NOTICE TO PROCEED BECAUSE WHY?

>> WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GIVE THEM A NOTICE TO PROCEED BECAUSE WE WERE IN A LAWSUIT WITH AN INJUNCTION AND WE'RE ACTUALLY STILL IN LITIGATION, SO WE CAN'T SAY TOO MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT'S WITH THE ORIGINAL LOW BID PROPOSER?

>> THEN I THINK YOU SAID AT THE MEETING THAT IT WAS DEFERRED TO MAY FROM JANUARY 2023, IT WAS DEFERRED TO MAY. WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?

>> BECAUSE WE NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND TALK WITH THEM TO SEE IF THEY COULD FURTHER REDUCE THEIR COST, WHICH WAS WHAT THE REQUEST WAS FROM THE PARK BOARD.

THAT'S WHY IT LOOKS DIFFERENT AGAIN, IN MAY, THEY ASKED US TO GO BACK TO THE CONTRACTOR ONE MORE TIME TO SEE IF WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THEM.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY COMPELLING AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO IT TO HERE,

[04:30:01]

BOTH SLAUGHTER SAY SOMETHING LIKE WE'RE BEING HELD HOSTAGE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE VERY POINT THAT PHILIP IS MAKING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE MOMENTUM ON THIS PROJECT.

WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE ALL THESE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY THIS.

THERE'S SOMETHING VERY WRONG ABOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.

ALL THE PROCUREMENT LAWS THAT WE HAVE WERE MEANT TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER SO THAT WE WERE GOING WITH THE LOWEST AND NOT WITH A FRIEND OR CAMPAIGN TREASURER, BUT INSTEAD IS ACTUALLY BEING WEAPONIZED AGAINST US.

FOR MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, IF YOU GO DOWN TO AUSTIN IN YOUR STATE REP, PLEASE FIX PROCUREMENT, THIS IS CRAZY.

MANY CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD TODAY DEAL WITH HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET THROUGH PROCUREMENT.

JUST THE ENTIRE IDEA THAT WE CAN'T EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS A CHALLENGE THAT WE NEED BECAUSE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT LAWS THAT AGAIN, ARE WORKING AGAINST US IS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.

I JUST THINK IT'S REMARKABLE THAT WE HAD COURAGEOUS PARK BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE TIRED OF ALWAYS ACCEPTING ALL THESE CHANGE ORDERS.

THEY STOOD UP FOR THE TAXPAYERS.

I DON'T THINK THEY GOT PAINTED FAIRLY IN THE OP-ED IN THE MORNING NEWS TODAY, BUT THEY ACTUALLY DID THAT.

I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE HEROES IN THIS.

AS MUCH AS WE ALL WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, I THINK WE'RE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE FEIGH GROUP BECAUSE THEY KNOW.

THEY KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THEM.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A LESSON FROM THE PARK BOARD ACTUALLY. THANK YOU.

>> MR. RIDLEY, I THINK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES THIS TIME.

>> QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, WILL WE BE ABLE TO RECOVER ANY OF THE INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE INJUNCTION BOND THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN POSTED BY THE CADBURY GROUP WHEN THEY OBTAIN THEIR INJUNCTION?

>> MAYOR STACY RODRIGUEZ TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> HI. STACY RODRIGUEZ WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

COUNCIL MEMBER READILY, I BELIEVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE INJUNCTION BOND THAT WAS POSTED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER THIS AMOUNT.

>> HOW MUCH WAS IT?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS $10,000.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE AWARDED.

I CAN CONFIRM THAT TO YOU LATER IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> BUT IF WE DO PREVAIL IN THAT ACTION, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] MR. NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN, ABOUT US BEING HELD HOSTAGE ON THIS PROJECT.

IT'S A PROJECT WE ALL WANT TO HAPPEN.

WE NEED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

HOW MUCH WAS THE INITIAL CONTRACT FOR?

>> THE INITIAL CONTRACT WAS $11,531,424.84.

>> IF WE KEPT ALL THE WORK, AS IS, WHAT WOULD BE THE INCREASE ON THE CONTRACT PRICE?

>> IT BASICALLY WOULD INCREASE IT BY AN ADDITIONAL $1.866 MILLION.

>> $1.866 MILLION.

>> THE CONTRACTOR IS ASKING FOR HOW MUCH MORE?

>> THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS THE $1.866 MILLION.

THE REDUCTION IN SCOPE THAT WE TOOK OUT WAS A NEGATIVE $2,035,300.

>> THE CONTRACTOR IS ASKING FOR $2 MILLION INCREASE, AND WE DON'T HAVE IT.

WE NEED TO REDUCE THE PROJECT SCOPE.

>> THAT WAS CORRECT.

>> NOW IT'S THE SAME PRICE, BUT WITH A REDUCED SCOPE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE'RE PAYING [NOISE] MORE AND GETTING LESS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS ONE WAY TO STATE IT, YES.

>> THE PARK BOARD IS NOT ASKING FOR A REDUCTION.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR A REDUCTION IN THE INCREASE FROM $2 MILLION TO $1.8 MILLION.

WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

>> THEY'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF $1.8 MILLION TO $1.6 MILLION, BUT YES, THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL $198,000?

[04:35:04]

>> CORRECT. IF WE ACCEPT WHAT PARK BOARD APPROVED, WE WILL STILL BE GIVING AN INCREASE TO FAIN OF $1.8 MILLION, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 20%. IS THAT CORRECT?

AFTER THE PARK BOARD DECREASE THE AMOUNT, WE WOULD BE PAYING ON THIS CONTRACT BY AN ADDITIONAL $198,000 OVER WHAT STAFF HAD NEGOTIATED.

>> IT'S NOT A REDUCTION.

WHAT WAS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE?

>> WE HAVE NOT HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR SINCE THE PARK BOARD MEETING.

HOWEVER, BEFORE THE PARK BOARD MEETING, THE CONTRACTOR HAD MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY HAD PRETTY MUCH GIVEN EVERYTHING THEY COULD GIVE ON THE PROJECT.

>> HOW DID YOUR TEAM NEGOTIATE THE PRICE CHANGES?

>> CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?

>> WELL, YOU SAID THAT YOU ALL HAD SEVEN DIFFERENT NEGOTIATIONS.

HOW DID JOHN NEGOTIATE?

>> THEY SENT US INFORMATION, WE REVIEWED IT.

WE ACCEPTED WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT.

WE SEND THE REST BACK TO HAVE THEM REEVALUATE.

>> WHAT RESEARCH DID YOU ALL DO TO SEE WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS RIGHT VERSUS WHAT YOU JUST ACCEPTED?

>> WE CONTACTED MATERIALS SUPPLIERS TO CHECK ON WHAT THE CURRENT COST OF CONCRETE IS.

BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN INCREASES THAT WE HAD.

DISCOVERED THE BASICALLY THE COSTS THAT THE FAIN GROUP WE'RE PROVIDING US, WE'RE WELL IN LINE WITH WHAT CONCRETE SUPPLIERS ARE CHARGING NOWADAYS.

>> LOOKING AT THE ONGOING DECREASED IN INFLATION THAT STARTED A FEW MONTHS AFTER WE APPROVED THE CONTRACT, AND WHICH CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

THE INFLATION, IT'S GONE DOWN BY 0.9 %IN JUST THE LAST MONTH.

HOW DID STAFF ORIGINALLY ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT $96,000 WAS ENOUGH TO GET BACK FROM THE ROUGHLY $2 MILLION THAT THE CONTRACTOR SAID THEY HAD TO CUT FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

[NOISE]

>> AS I INDICATED, THAT WAS THROUGH SEVEN ROUNDS OF NEGOTIATIONS.

WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

LOOKING AT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

NEGOTIATING THE PRICES DOWN AS LOW AS WE COULD.

>> I HAVE A CHART HERE THAT SHOWS FROM 2022 THROUGH APRIL 2023.

THAT SHOWS THE REDUCTION IN INFLATION MONTH AFTER MONTH FROM 8.5, 8.3 DOWN TO 8.2, 7.7, 7.1, 6.5, 6.4, 6, 5, 4.9, AND THEN 4 IN APRIL 2023.

HOW DID YOU ALL LOOK AT INFLATION WHEN YOU WERE DOING THESE NEGOTIATIONS?

>> AGAIN, WE CONTACTED MATERIALS SUPPLIERS TO GET CURRENT COSTS OF MATERIALS.

THAT IS WHAT WE DID. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT AN INFLATION FACTOR, AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT GRAPH.

BECAUSE THAT INFLATION FACTOR ISN'T REALLY APPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

EVEN THOUGH INFLATION MAY BE GOING DOWN, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS STILL HAVE NOT STARTED COMING DOWN IN COST.

WHICH IS WHY WE CONTACTED THE SUPPLIERS OURSELVES TO ENSURE THAT, THE COSTS THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED WERE ACCURATE AND ADEQUATE.

>> I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO RESEARCH THAT.

BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS THAT YEAH, I GET IT.

CONCRETE IS THE BIGGEST PART OF THIS THAT'S GOING UP.

THAT'S NOT COMING DOWN VERY DRASTICALLY, BUT A LOT OF THE OTHER MATERIALS ARE STARTING TO COME DOWN.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH WHEN IT CAME TO THE DIFFERENT ITEMS. WHAT CALCULATIONS DID YOU DO TO VERIFY THAT APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION WAS A VALID NUMBER FOR THE CONTRACTOR TO CUT THEIR COMMITMENT BY?

>> BASICALLY, WE NEEDED TO LOOK AT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

LOOK AT WHAT WOULD CAUSE THE LEAST IMPACT TO THE PROJECT.

WHILE TRYING TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE $1.8 MILLION.

BASICALLY WHAT WE REMOVED WAS ACCENT LIGHTING AND WE REMOVED SOME UNDERGROUND ELECTRICITY.

>> CORRECT. WE'RE PAYING WAY MORE AND WE'RE LOSING THOSE ITEMS. DID YOU DO A PROJECTION OF COST GOING FORWARD OVER THE EXPECTED TERM OF CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE THAT THE HUGE ADJUSTMENT AND LOSS OF AMENITIES WAS JUSTIFIED?

>> HOW MUCH HAS THE CONTRACTOR SPENT ON THE PROJECT ALREADY?

>> TODAY, BASICALLY, THEY HAVE SPENT APPROXIMATELY $1.3 MILLION.

>> IF FAIN WALKS AWAY AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE ADJUSTMENT.

LET'S SAY WE VOTE DOWN THIS MOTION AND FAIN WALKS AWAY AND REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENT.

WHY COULDN'T WE THE CITY BUILD THE REST OF

[04:40:01]

THIS THING BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS, STREETS AND PARKS? DON'T WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOME OF THIS WORK OURSELVES.

IF NEED BE TO AVOID THE DELAY THAT PUTTING OUT ANOTHER RFP WOULD ENTAIL?

>> WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTERNAL STAFF TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SPECIALIZED CONCRETE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON THE JOB.

THAT IS ONE THING THAT WE CANNOT DO.

>> THE HARD PART ON THIS ONE COLLEAGUES IS THAT I HAVE GREAT PAUSE ON THIS.

BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS APPROVED THE FIRST TIME, WE GAVE AN EXTRA $750,000 FOR THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FROM THE LOW BIDDER.

THEN NOW WE'RE HERE AND IT'S ANOTHER $1.8 MILLION WITH THE MOTION THAT WAS JUST MADE.

IN ALL WE'VE GOT $2.5 MILLION AND $500,000 EXTRA TO SPEND ON THIS PROJECT, WHICH THAT'S A LOT OF MAINTENANCE.

THAT'S A LOT OF PLAYGROUND.

THAT'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WORK IN PARKS.

IT'S UNFAIR THAT THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS ARE LOSING $2.5 MILLION AND WE'RE GETTING LESS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

I HAVE A LOT OF PAUSE WITH THIS ONE, MR. MAYOR.

I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE DEBATE TO SEE HOW I VOTE IN THE END, BUT RIGHT NOW I'M LEANING AGAINST IT. THANK YOU.

>> BEAR WITH ME WHILE I DO A LITTLE FIGURING WHO'S GONE ALREADY, MS. BLACKMON, YOU'VE SPOKEN AT ALL ALL ON THIS.

YOU'RE ON RECORD FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. LET ME GET THIS RIGHT.

WE APPROVED A CONTRACT IN APRIL FOR 11.5.

SOME SITUATIONS HAPPENED AND PRICES WENT UP.

YOU RENEGOTIATED AND THEY SAID WE CAN DELIVER THIS NOW FOR 11.5.

>> THEN NOW WE'RE SEEING THAT THOSE DELIVERABLES, THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'LL PICK THAT UP.

>> THAT IS ALSO CORRECT.

>> WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS ACTUALLY A CHANGE ORDER OF 168,000 LESS OF WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BUY.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE SECTORS' GENEROSITY, WE'RE STILL GOING TO GET ALL OF IT ALL AT ONCE.

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU SAID THAT IT WAS INFLATION, BUT YOU ALSO SAID MATERIALS WHICH I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE'RE DOING CONCRETE WORK IN IT, BUT YOU SAID LABOR, WHICH THAT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE BECAUSE FOLKS ARE NOW EARNING MORE.

THAT IS A VALID REASON THAT COSTS GO UP IS WE ARE NOW PAYING A BETTER WAGE.

I ASSUME THESE WORKERS THEY ARE DELIVERING A PRODUCT AND THEY'RE BEING COMPENSATED FAIRLY FOR IT.

DID YOU-ALL LOOK AT THAT LINE ITEM?

>> WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT IT, BUT AS PART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS CONTRACT AND ACTUALLY AS PART OF THIS, SINCE IT HAS FEDERAL FUNDING, THEY HAVE TO PAY DAVIS-BACON WAGES TO THEIR EMPLOYEES FOR THIS PROJECT.

>> THE THING ABOUT CONTRACTS IS THERE A GOOD FAITH ON BOTH ENDS.

YES, THINGS HAPPEN THAT ARE OUT OF YOUR CONTROL AND THAT'S WHY YOU COME BACK AND RENEGOTIATE.

DO YOU FEEL THAT FAME CAME BACK IN GOOD FAITH AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS WHERE THEY COULD, BUT THE REALITY IS COSTS HAVE GONE UP.

>> I DO BELIEVE THE FAME GROUP AND THE CITY OF DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH.

I DO BELIEVE THAT FAME GROUP HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN GIVE US OUT OF THEIR PROJECT WITHOUT BASICALLY HAVING NO PROFIT MARGIN AT ALL.

>> WE DID KNOCK OFF SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS BEFORE THEY HAD WHAT THEY COULD PROCEED AND THEN THE ACTUAL NOTICE TO PROCEED, SO THERE WAS A TIME DELAY IN THERE.

DID THEY EVER COME OUT TO YOU AND SAY, HEY, PRICES ARE ESCALATING, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> THE MINUTE WE CONTACTED THEM IN DECEMBER OF 2022 TO ASK THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, THEY TOLD US RIGHT THEN THAT THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE COST INCREASES.

>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH 366 BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, MAYBE THEY DOUBLED 168, BUT THAT'S NOT IT AT ALL EITHER.

HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER?

>> THE $198,000 ADDITIONAL WAS PROPOSED BY A PARK BOARD MEMBER AND THERE WAS NO BACKUP GIVEN AS TO WHY THAT NUMBER WAS PROPOSED.

>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE NOT GETTING WITH THAT 198, THE DELIVERABLE?

[04:45:02]

THERE WASN'T LIKE, OH WHAT FOR 198, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THESE WIDGETS OR THESE RIVETS ON IT?

>> THE AGREEMENT BASICALLY WAS TO BE THAT THERE WAS TO BE NO ADDITIONAL SCOPE DECREASE.

THE PARK BOARD JUST BASICALLY WANTED THEM TO DECREASE THEIR COSTS AND ADDITIONAL $198,000, BUT STILL COMPLETE THE SAME SCOPE OF WORK.

>> THEY DIDN'T GIVE A DIRECTIVE OF NOT THIS THING, BUT IT WAS JUST 198 ACROSS THE BOARD SOMEWHERE?

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

>> BEAR WITH ME FOR A LITTLE BIT LONGER HERE.

MR. GRACEY, YOUR READINESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> KEEP ME HONEST ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M STILL LEARNING IF I GET OFF BASE IN TERMS OF MY LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM THERE.

>> DO THE BEST I CAN.

>> YOU'VE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB. FOR THE FAME GROUP, AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT HOW MANY EXISTING CONTRACTS DO WE HAVE THE FAME GROUP, OUTSTANDING?

>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.

I WAS LOOKING FOR IN THE AS AND I DO NOT HAVE IT.

>> YEAH, I SEE. THAT'S THE FIRST THING IS HOW MANY CONTRACTS DO WE HAVE EXISTING? TWO, OF THOSE CONTRACTS THAT ARE STILL EXISTING AND DEPENDING ON HOW MANY THEY ARE, IF IT'S ONLY THREE THEN I ASK YOU TO GO MAYBE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I JUST REALLY WANT TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE INCREASES THAT THEY'VE ASKED OVER THESE EXISTING CONTRACTS.

HOW MANY CHANGE ORDERS HAVE THEY HAD PER CONTRACT AND WHAT DOES THAT TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT? THEN HOW MANY TIMES THROUGH THE CHANGE ORDERS HAVE THEY EXCEEDED THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TOO MUCH WORK, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH A HABIT.

>> WE CAN DEFINITELY GET INFORMATION REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDERS AND WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE.

NOW, GETTING INFORMATION AS FAR AS HOW HIGH OR WHAT THE COMPARISON IS BETWEEN THE LOW BIDDER, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT.

>> EVEN WORK WITH PROCUREMENT, PROBABLY?

>> PARDON?

>> YOU CAN WORK WITH PROCUREMENT PROBABLY TO GET THE LOWEST BIDDER FROM THE COMPARISON.

>> WE CAN DO IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT.

>> THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK WE'RE IN THE ROUND TWOS NOW, SO I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. WEST FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE CONTRACTS THAT WE ORIGINALLY ENTER INTO ON THIS.

WHAT DO THE CONTRACTS SAY ABOUT PRICE ESCALATION? NORMALLY, WHAT IF CONCRETE TRIPLED IN PRICE? WE CAN'T JUST ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO EAT THAT UNLESS THAT'S IN OUR CONTRACT THAT NOW HAVE ZERO RESPONSIBILITY FOR COST ESCALATIONS. HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE NCT [INAUDIBLE] SPECS REGARDING COST ESCALATION AND NOT PROVIDING COST ESCALATION.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS SUCH A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED AND THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE NOTICE TO PROCEED AND START.

THAT IS WHY WE ENTERTAINED THIS INCREASE.

>> IN GENERAL, WE DO HAVE A PRACTICE IN THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS TO LIMIT OUR COST ESCALATION OR WE WON'T PAY FOR ANY OF IT?

>> I UNDERSTAND. FROM 11.5 UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS, THAT'S ROUGHLY A 17.4% INCREASE IN THE COST OF THE PROJECT OVER THAT EIGHT-MONTH DELAY. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> BASICALLY, THEY HAD APPROXIMATELY 30% COST INCREASE.

THAT WAS THE AVERAGE OF WHAT THEY HAD, WAS ABOUT 30% COST INCREASE.

>> THE WAY I CALCULATED IT FROM 11.5 UP TO MILLION IS MORE LIKE 17.4.

IS MY MATH NOT WORKING?

>> BASICALLY, THERE ARE TWO MILLION THAT THEY WANTED TO ADD.

DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT WE'RE REDUCING THE SCOPE BY TWO MILLION.

>> THE SCOPE PIECE IS IN THERE.

I CAN JUST SPEAK FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE.

I'M DOING FOUR PROJECTS RIGHT NOW AND IT'S GENERALLY 20% OR MORE ON INCREASE IN CONCRETE AND STEEL AND SO AN INFLATION HAS NOT IMPACTED THAT IN MY BENEFIT, CERTAINLY IT'S GOING THE OTHER WAY.

THE INFLATION GOING DOWN, IT STILL MEANS MY PRICES ARE GOING UP FOR SOME REASON.

BUT FOR ME, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS PERSUASIVE THAT YOU GUYS ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH, YOU CALLED AROUND YOU SPOKE WITH PEOPLE.

IF THERE WAS NUMBER THIS 198 THAT THE PARK BOARD CAME UP WITH, THAT THERE WAS SOME BACKING FOR THAT ON WHY THEY CAME UP WITH THAT, I WOULD UNDERSTAND IT.

[04:50:01]

IT'S BIZARRE TO ME.

THE PARK BOARD IS USUALLY VERY STABLE AND THOUGHTFUL AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL.

I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

IT'S A WEIRD PLACE TO BE WHERE I'M QUESTIONING OUR PARK BOARD ON THIS, BUT I APPRECIATE THEM DIGGING IN.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THIS CONCLUSION.

I STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT, SO THANK YOU.

>> MS. WILLIS RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO WHAT WAS THE VOTE OF THE PARK BOARD TO MAKE THIS CHANGE?

>> IT WAS 87.

>> EIGHT SEVEN. SO SUPER CLOSE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT HAVING BEEN [NOISE] IN THE NON-PROFIT SHOES WORKING ON A CITY BOND PROJECT AS A MAJORITY INVESTOR, WHETHER YOU'RE GETTING REIMBURSED OR NOT, YOU'RE STILL PUTTING SOME SKIN OUT THERE.

I HAD A MILLION DOLLAR DONOR WE HAD TO FRONT MONEY AND THEN GET REIMBURSED BY THE CITY, SO THAT'S STILL ADMINISTRATIVE TIME AND ALL OF THAT THAT YOUR NON-PROFIT, YOUR ORGANIZATION IS HAVING TO DEAL WITH AND NOW WE'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE BORROWED FUNDS TO HELP FINANCE THIS AND MOVE IT FORWARD, YOUR CONSTRUCTION.

THE LOAN TERMS I WOULD IMAGINE ARE TIED TO THIS AND YOU'RE IN THREAT OF DEFAULT AND SO THAT'S [LAUGHTER] A SCARY FEELING.

THAT IS VERY CONCERNING AND I THINK ONE THAT MAKES THE SITUATION A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, WE'VE GOT CHANGE ORDERS ALL OVER THIS PLACE AND I KNOW WE WANT TO BE MUCH MORE STRINGENT IN THAT AND I THINK OUR PARK BOARD DOES A VERY GOOD JOB AT LOOKING AT THOSE VERY CLOSELY AS DOES STAFF.

I APPRECIATE I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAD GONE BACK TO NEGOTIATE, SO THAT'S QUITE A BIT.

I THINK THERE'S NO BETTER INDICATOR VERSUS A CHART OR WHATEVER THAN CALLING THE MATERIAL SUPPLIERS.

WE BRAG ABOUT HOW WE'RE BOOMING IN THE CITY WITH ALL OF OUR CONSTRUCTION, AND SO CONCRETE IS IN DEMAND.

I WOULD SAY YOU COULD PROBABLY WALK IN AND CHARGE JUST ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT ON THAT.

AND SO THAT ANOTHER POINT THAT I THINK MR. WEST HAD BROUGHT UP IS I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WHILE WE WOULD ALWAYS I THINK ENTERTAIN AND CERTAINLY PARK BOARD AND OTHER BOARDS WOULD ENTERTAIN CHANGES TO WHAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT FORWARD THAT THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A BIT ARBITRARY.

IF THERE WERE SOME CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON SAID, WE'RE GOING TO GET XYZ, WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THIS AND WE CAN TIE IT BACK TO SOMETHING THAT BASED ON THE QUOTE I HAVE EVEN FROM THE PERSON PROPOSING IT, IT WAS JUST ON THE FLY.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT TO OPERATE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

THAT IS WHY, AGAIN, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS INSTANCE OF STICKING TO WHAT OUR STAFF HAS RESEARCHED SO THOROUGHLY THAT I'M PROPOSING THIS AMENDMENT TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU ALL HAD PROPOSED BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL SUPPORT ON THIS.

>> I THINK I ACTUALLY, MR. MORENO, I SKIPPED YOU.

[NOISE] I THOUGHT I MIGHT HAVE BUT I'M SORRY. YOU FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. AS A FORMER PARK BOARD MEMBER, I HAVE THE MOST RESPECT FOR MY FORMER COLLEAGUES AT THE PARK WHERE I KNOW THEY DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD DELAYS WITH A FAINT GROUP PRIOR ON OUR WATER PARKS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DELIVER ON TIME AND OVER BUDGET.

BEFORE I GET INTO THE WEEDS OF THIS, THE CHATTER I KEEP HEARING IS THAT IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, THAT IT WILL KILL TRAILS TO OUR SOUTHERN SECTOR.

CAN STAFF ADDRESS THAT? [NOISE]

>> I DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.

THAT IS SOMETHING I'VE AGAIN HEARD THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, BUT I DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THAT FOR YOU RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT.

>> WHO WOULD WITHIN THE PARK DEPARTMENT?

>> WOULD YOU MIND IF I ASK PHILLIP HYDE HAGUE TO COME UP [OVERLAPPING] AND ANSWER THAT. HE'S STILL HERE.

>> PHILLIP HYDE HAGUE, AGAIN. SO [NOISE] WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE TIF AWARD FOR THIS PROJECTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS NOTED IS THAT THE VICTORY TIF IS INCREDIBLY PRODUCTIVE.

ORIGINALLY WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT FUNDING THE HIGHLINE PROJECT, THERE WERE CITY OF DALLAS BOND FUNDS ON IT.

BUT WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WE FOUND, WELL, WE COULD GO AND APPLY FOR A TIF AWARD AND SHOULD THAT BE APPROVED, WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE THOSE BOND FUNDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT OF TO BE ON THIS PROJECT IN AN AREA THAT HAS A MECHANISM LIKE A TIF AND MOVE THOSE BOND FUNDS OVER TO THE PROJECT, THE NEXT PHASE OF THE SPINE TRAIL, WHICH IS THE 24 SPINE TRAIL PHASE 2,

[04:55:01]

THAT RUNS SOUTH OF I-30 DOWN TO LONGITUDE DASH STATION.

THEN WE COULD ALSO PUT MORE OF THOSE BOND FUNDS ON THE PROJECT THAT CONNECTS THE STRAND TRAIL OVER INTO THE LEVEES AND WEST DALLAS.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY, THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE COUNCIL THROUGH THE TIF AWARD, SAW AS AN EQUITY PLAY.

THERE'S NOT A TIF LIKE AS PRODUCTIVE AS VICTORY ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE TIF.

NONE OF THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE MOVED OUTSIDE OF THAT GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY.

IT ALSO ALLOWED US TO USE BOND FUNDS IN AREAS THAT WE COULDN'T OTHERWISE.

THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS, IS THAT THIS LOAN THAT WE HAVE PULLED OUT IS TIED TO THIS PROJECT AND IF OUR LOAN GOES INTO DEFAULT, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER BACKUP FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT PRIVATELY, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT, WELL, WHAT OTHER PUBLIC SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE [NOISE] CURRENTLY TO PUT BACK ON THAT PROJECT? THE NEXT TWO PHASES OF THE PROJECT THAT I MENTIONED THAT THE SPINE TRIAL PHASE 2 AND THE DISCOVERY GATEWAY, THOSE ARE FULLY FUNDED CURRENTLY IN THE CURRENT WAY THAT WE HAVE SETUP.

>> SO THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT IS IF YOU GET FULL REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE VICTORY TIF.

>> NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE DON'T EXPECT THE REIMBURSEMENT TO HAPPEN UNTIL TWO YEARS PROBABLY, [NOISE] BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO CONSTRUCTION.

THAT'S WHERE THE KATY TRAIL AND HOUSTON AND VICTORY COME TOGETHER.

THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING OF 2024, WILL TAKE ABOUT A YEAR.

THE CITY HAS TO CERTIFY THAT IT MET THE TERMS OF THAT TIF AWARD BEFORE THERE'S A REIMBURSEMENT.

SO THE ACTUAL THE LOAN ITSELF AND THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN IS TIED TO THE TIF COMPLETION OF THE CHECKING THE BOX, THE BOND FUNDS OR NOT.

[NOISE] THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE HIGH LINE PROJECT HAS NO BOND FUNDS ON IT AND WE CAN MOVE THOSE TO THESE OTHER TWO PROJECTS.

SO THEY'RE NOT TIED TOGETHER IN THE MANNER AND FURTHER REIMBURSEMENT AT LEAST.

SO IT GOES TO PAY OFF THE LOAN.

>> THANK YOU. WE MENTIONED 198,000 FROM A PARK BOARD MEMBER.

WHICH PARK BOARD MEMBER WAS THAT? DO THEY HAVE ANY BUSINESS BACKGROUND? HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHO THAT CAME FROM?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE PARK BOARD MEMBER THAT MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

>> WHO WAS IT?

>> I'M SORRY. IT WAS PARK BOARD MEMBER DICKEY.

>> THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE'S ESCALATION, THAT THERE'S BEEN INFLATION THAT'S HAPPENED.

TWENTY PERCENT IT SEEMS RELATIVELY HIGH.

BUT I'M NOT BUILDING A HOUSE, I'M NOT BUILDING A BUSINESS.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE.

BUT YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT YOU DID SEEK LETTERS FROM PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY.

CAN WE GET PROVIDED A COPY OF THOSE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS? THAT'S IT MR. MAYOR.

>> MS. MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT GOOD FAITH AND WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

AFTER THE PARK BOARD MEETING, CAN YOU TELL US DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE FAIN GROUP TO TALK TO THEM?

>> WE DID NOT CONNECT WITH THE FAIN GROUP.

>> YOU DID NOT CONNECT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> IT MEANS WE MADE CALLS AND WE DID NOT CONNECT WITH THEM.

>> YOU MADE CALLS, YOU LEFT THEM A MESSAGE. WHAT HAPPENED?

>> YES, I DID MAKE THREE ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT WITH THEM, BUT WE DO NOT CONNECT THAT.

I DID NOT GET A RETURN CALL AT THIS TIME.

>> YOU DIDN'T CALL YESTERDAY, YOU CALLED AFTER THE PARK BOARD MEETING?

>> I CALLED. IT WAS AFTER THE PARK BOARD MEETING AND THEN I THINK A COUPLE OF OTHER DAYS AFTER.

THE LAST CALL WAS PROBABLY LAST THURSDAY.

>> BUT THIS IS A VENDOR YOU'VE USED MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, RIGHT?

>> I THINK THAT'S CONCERNING.

THIS TRAIL IS ADJACENT TO HIGHLAND PARK, ARE THEY PAYING FOR ANY PART OF THIS TRAIL?

>> NOW, THE TRIAL IS BEING FUNDED WITH THE CIRCUIT LOOP CONSERVANCY FUNDS BY CITY OF DALLAS.

>> BUT THEIR FUNDS ARE TWO FUNDS, SO THAT'S CITY OF DALLAS FUNDS, PROPERTY TAXES.

DO YOU THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD REACH OUT SO THAT THEY CAN HELP FUND A TRAIL THAT THEIR RESIDENTS USE AS WELL?

>> THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK TO BEGIN WITH AND IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED.

>> IF YOU COULD JUST MOVE THE MICROPHONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

>> I'M SORRY. THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS PART OF THE SCOPE AND THE BEGINNING, AND IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED.

>> WHILE PERHAPS PHILIP WOULD LIKE TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK TO SEE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO FIND [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU.

>> LET'S KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THE CITY STAFF AND LESLIE, YOU ONE OF THEM BRING THEM UP.

[05:00:02]

HE WANTS TO COME.

>> THAT'S FINE. IS THERE A MAXIMUM PERCENT FOR A PROJECT THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO PUT IT IN AS A CHANGE ORDER.

>> TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT MAXIMUM IS THE AMOUNT FOR A CHANGE ORDER ON A CONTRACT.

>> IS THIS WITHIN THAT SCOPE?

>> IT ABSOLUTELY IS BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY A NEGATIVE CHANGE ORDER, SO IT'S NOT INCREASING THE COST OF THE CONTRACT.

>> WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY NEGATIVE BECAUSE YOU'VE CHANGED THE SCOPE.

IF YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THE SCOPE, HOW MUCH WOULD THE CONTRACT HAVE INCREASED?

>> I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED ABOUT 17-18%.

>> DOLLAR-WISE IT'S OVER TWO MILLION DOLLARS, RIGHT?

>> SAME SCOPE, THEY'VE INCREASED IT TWO MILLION.

YOU GUYS SAY I DON'T HAVE TWO MILLION DOLLARS, SO WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE SCOPE.

BY TAKING OUT THE ITEMS THAT I BELIEVE AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING PHILIP SAID HE WAS THE ONE WHO DECIDED WHAT IT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO DO THE WORK TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF OUTSIDE.

IT'S SHOWING AS DECREASE, BUT REALLY THEY'RE GETTING AN INCREASE OF WHAT PERCENT?

>> APPROXIMATELY 17.

>> APPROXIMATELY 17%.

FOR INCREASES OF JUST SEVEN MONTHS TIME, IT'S NOT LIKE THE PROJECT WAS TWO OR THREE YEARS IN AND OF COURSE ALL CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS, RIGHT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> YOU USE THE TERM SPECIALIZED CONCRETE AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS.

>> BASICALLY COLORED CONCRETE AND COLORED TEXTURED CONCRETE AND CONCRETE PAVERS.

THOSE ARE TYPES OF THINGS THAT OUR INTERNAL CRUISE DO NOT TYPICALLY LIKE.

>> HAVING DYED A CONCRETE IS NOT PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT.

I'VE PERSONALLY DONE IT AS A PROJECT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THAT ACTIVITY?

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU PLEASE REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION?

>> I'M TRYING TO GET BACK TO WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SPECIALIZED CONCRETE.

IF YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT COLORED OR TEXTURED WHICH YOU JUST STAMP IT OR YOU JUST THROW DYE IN YOUR CONCRETE MIX, ARE WE PAYING SIGNIFICANTLY EXTRA FOR SPECIALIZED CONCRETE?

>> WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PAYING EXTRA FOR THE SPECIALIZED CONCRETE, IT'S THE CONCRETE ITSELF, THE BASE CONCRETE ITSELF HAS GONE UP.

THEY ADD THE ADDITIVES TO THE COLORED CONCRETE WHICH ALSO DOES INCREASE THE COST BUT THE MAIN COST INCREASES IN THE CONCRETE ITSELF.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY FINANCIALLY I LOOK AT THIS AND I SEE TWO MILLION DOLLARS INCREASE WITH NO CHANGE OF SCOPE.

YOU CHANGE THE SCOPE AND THEN YOU COME BACK TO US AND YOU SAY 366,000 IS REDUCED OR IN THIS CASE EVEN LESS.

THEY'RE STILL GETTING AN INCREASE OF $1.7 MILLION.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

I SEE MY TIME IS UP. THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD SAY OKAY, THAT DIDN'T LAST LONG.

MR. MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE GOOD. GO AHEAD.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES I BELIEVE.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO I GUESS VOCALIZE WHAT'S SWAYING MY VOTE I THINK IS THAT I TRUSTED THE WORK THAT THE CIRCUITRY CONSERVANCY HAS BEEN DOING.

IF THIS IS WHAT THE REQUEST IS ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING, THAT THE NEXT PHASES ARE IN SOUTHEAST DALLAS AND THEY IMPACT DISTRICT 5 DIRECTLY, I'M GOING TO LEAN TOWARDS SUPPORTING THAT REQUEST. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WHICH IS WE'RE ON FOR OR AGAINST THIS MOTION ITEM 55. HOLD ON A SECOND.

YOU HAD A WRECK OF REQUESTS THOUGH.

I'VE NOTED THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I'VE NOTED IT. MR NARVAEZ HOW ABOUT YOU'D ASK FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I LISTENED TO MY COLLEAGUES AND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THEM FOR ASKING SOME REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS AND I SAID EARLIER THAT I WASN'T SURE HOW HE'S GOING TO VOTE ON THIS ONE.

NOW THAT I'VE HEARD THE DEBATE AND I THINK WE'RE TOWARDS THE END.

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION AND I'M GOING TO STICK WITH THE PARK BOARD.

I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE APPOINTED BRILLIANT PEOPLE AND WE HAVE ONE OF THE STRONGEST PARK BOARDS IN THE LONG TIME.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I TAKE SOME PAUSE THAT THE FAINT GROUP WOULDN'T RESPOND BECAUSE THEY WERE AT THE PARK BOARD MEETING.

ONE OF THE PARK BOARD MEMBERS EVEN BROUGHT THEM UP TO SPEAK SO THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW OR THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IS A LITTLE ODD THAT THEY JUST DECIDED TO IGNORE YOUR CALL.

I'M SORRY THAT THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO YOUR CALLS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT

[05:05:01]

YOUR FAULT BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY WERE AT THE PARK BOARD MEETINGS, SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THE VOTES FALL.

IF IT FAILS, THEN WILL BE DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR.

>> MORE PEOPLE ARE GETTING IN HERE.

LET'S GO MR. MORENO FOR THREE MINUTES, I BELIEVE. YES.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. THIS PROJECT DOES GO INTO DISTRICT 2 AND 6, AND SO I WILL ALSO BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WHAT PARK BOARD MOVE FORWARD.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] FAIN GROUP HERE.

I KNOW THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CONTRACT AND SO IF THEY'RE HERE, I DO WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO WANE IN.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR..

>> I THOUGHT I SAW, WERE YOU IN AND OUT.

YOU WERE IN BEFORE YOU BACK OR YOU OUT.

>>I DID WANT [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> I WAS REALLY TRENDED SINCE MAYOR THERE IS TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I WANTED TO GO AND CHECK, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU MY PARK BOARD MEMBER.

I BELIEVE YOU DID NOT SUPPORT WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED WITH THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK THIS ONE SAID MR. BASIL DO IS ON THE LINE.

I DON'T EVEN SEE HIM ON THE SCREEN. IS HE ON THE SCREEN? WELL, IT'S ABOUT TO BE ROCK AND ROLL TIME I THINK.

I GOT TO GO TO THIS MENDELSOHN FOR A MINUTE THEN FOR NOW.

MS. MENDELSOHN, GO AHEAD YOU HAVE A MINUTE.

>> THANK YOU MY LAST QUESTION IS, IF THE FAIN GROUP WALKS AWAY FROM THIS, IF WE PASS THE MOTION THAT THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDS AND THEY WALK AWAY ARE THEY ELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE TO BID ON PROJECTS WITH YOU?

>> I'M GOING TO REFER THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> IS CONNIE TANKERSLEY HERE? THANKS, CONNIE. CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THE QUESTION?

>> CONNIE TANKERSLEY DO WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

YOU ASK THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IF THEY WERE TO WALK AWAY, WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE FOR OTHER CONTRACTS OR JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION.

>>> WELL, I GUESS IF WE HAD A RABID THIS WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCUREMENT? NUMBER 2, WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? DO THEY GET BLOCKED FOR A YEAR, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IF YOU WALKED FROM A JOB.

>> WHEN SOMEBODY DECIDES TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT, THEN WE WOULD APPEAL TO THE SURETY.

THERE IS THAT PROCESS THERE, AND IF WE GET THE CONTRACT FULFILLED, THEN THOSE ARE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NOT FULLY PERFORMED, THAT CAN BE A CONSIDERATION IF THEY RESUBMIT AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IF THEY CONTINUE TO THAN THE CITY CAN CONSIDER TO BARRING THEM.

BUT THERE IS A PROCESS.

IT'S NOT LIKE AUTOMATIC.

>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THERE WAS A SURETY BOND.

CAN YOU TELL US THE VALUE OF THAT?

>> IT WOULD BE FOR THE, FOR THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.

>> THERE WOULD BE A WAY FOR THE PROJECT TO CONTINUE.

>> THAT WOULD BE A TENDERED TO THE SURETY THEMSELVES.

THEN THE SURETY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DISPUTE OR APPEAL WHAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PERFORM.

THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WE WOULD PURSUE IF THEY DEFAULTED AND WALKED AWAY FROM THE CONTRACT.

>> WELL, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A BLEAK PICTURE THAT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE WHEN THERE'S A BOND THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. THANK YOU.

>> MR. BAZALDUA, I SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN THERE IN YOUR FORMAL WEAR.

[LAUGHTER] YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MY FRIEND.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AND MY PARK BOARD REPRESENTATIVE WAS DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE.

THE LAST THING THAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS CREATE ANY TENSION BETWEEN SOME GOOD PARTNERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO CONTINUE SEVERAL PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINALLY.

MY PARK BOARD REP LED THE CHARGE TO KEEP IT AT THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT, AND I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO BE GONE FOR AGAINST MS. WILLIS'S MOTION ON ITEM 55.

SEEING NONE A RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

[05:10:03]

ANY RECORD IT'S ALWAYS GRANTED.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ IS ABSENT, ONE VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN?

>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER, WILLIS?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD? > NO.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON?

>> WITH SIX VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSE, ONE ABSOLUTE VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION FAILS MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON ITEM 55.

>> MOVE APPROVAL, MR. MAYOR.

>> WE'LL MOVE TO SECOND AND DISCUSSION.

SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSE?

>> WE HAVE SOME OPPOSITION NOTED.

RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED.

WE'LL DO IT AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ? COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ IS ABSENT.

ONE VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON?

>> WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSE.

ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

>> OKAY. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

>> WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, JUNE ITEM 69.

[9.3 ITEM 69 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)]

YOUR CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THIS AFTERNOON.

THERE ARE NO APPOINTMENTS.

AGENDA ITEM 70,

[9.4 ITEM 70 Authorize the (1) acceptance of the Municipal Bond Markets & Racial Equity Technical Assistance and Grant from the Public Finance Initiative, in partnership with PFM Financial Advisors, PFM Consulting Group LLC, The Government Alliance on Race & Equity, and other national partners, which was launched with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in partnership with Third Sector New England, a 501c3 organization, in the amount of $50,000.00 to develop an equity-driven selection framework to recommend an increase of future bonds allocations in the following grant payment structure: 50% of the grant will be paid immediately upon execution of the grant agreement, expected to be no later than July 15, 2023; and 50% will be paid no later than October 30, 2023; (2) receipt and deposit of funds in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 in the Municipal Bond Markets & Racial Equity Grant Fund; (3) establishment of appropriations in amount not to exceed $50,000.00 in the Municipal Bond Markets & Racial Equity Grant Fund; and (4) execution of the grant agreement with Public Finance Initiative, in partnership with PFM Financial Advisors, PFM Consulting Group LLC, The Government Alliance on Race & Equity, and other national partners, and all terms, conditions, and documents required by the grant agreement - Not to exceed $50,000.00 - Financing: Municipal Bond Markets & Racial Equity Grant Funds]

AUTHORIZE THE ONE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MUNICIPAL BOND MARKETS AND RACIAL EQUITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND GRANT FROM THE PUBLIC FINANCE INITIATIVE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS, PFM CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, THE GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE AND EQUITY, AND OTHER NATIONAL PARTNERS, WHICH WILL LAUNCH WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THIRD SECTOR NEW ENGLAND, A 501C3 ORGANIZATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 TO DEVELOP AN EQUITY DRIVEN SELECTION FRAMEWORK TO RECOMMEND AN INCREASE OF FUTURE BOND ALLOCATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING GRANT PAYMENT STRUCTURE.

FIFTY PERCENT OF THE GRANT WILL BE PAID IMMEDIATELY UPON EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT, EXPECTED TO BE NO LATER THAN JULY 15TH, 2023, AND 50% WILL BE PAID NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 30TH, 2023 TO RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 IN THE MUNICIPAL BOND MARKETS AND RACIAL EQUITY GRANT FUND.

THREE, ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 IN THE MUNICIPAL BOND MARKETS AND RACIAL EQUITY GRANT FUND.

FOUR EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC FINANCE INITIATIVE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS, PFM CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, THE GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE AND EQUITY, AND OTHER NATIONAL PARTNERS AND ALL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE GRANT AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR ANY TYPE OF MOTION? GOOD. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MOVES AND SECONDS ARE IN DISCUSSION.

ON FAVOR SAY, AYE. ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> AGENDA ITEM 71 IS AN ORDINANCE ABANDONING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND

[9.5 ITEM 71 An ordinance abandoning a portion of a drainage and detention area easement to Uplift Education, the abutting owner, containing approximately 11,465 square feet of land, located near the intersection of Hampton Road and Beckleymeade Avenue; and providing for the dedication of approximately 20,474 square feet of land needed for a detention area easement - Revenue: General Fund $7,800.00, plus $20.00 ordinance publication fee (This item was deferred on April 26, 2023)]

DETENTION AREA EASEMENT TO UPLIFT EDUCATION, THE ABUTTING OWNER, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11,465 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HAMPTON ROAD AND BASICALLY MEET

[05:15:03]

AVENUE AND PROVIDING FOR THE DEDICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 20,474 SQUARE FEET OF LAND NEEDED FOR A DETENTION AREA EASEMENT.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. ATKINS, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR A MOTION?

>> YES. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SECTION 10, OTHER ARTISTS AND ZIP IT BE IT CHANGED 20474 TO 24772.

THE SQUARE FOOT IN THE EIGHT, IS CHANGED FROM 11,465 TO 13,402.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. ATKINS?

>> NO, SIR.

>> ANY DISCUSSION, ANYONE? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

>> AGENDA ITEM 72 IS A RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTION

[9.6 ITEM 72 A resolution amending Subsection 9.1, “Committees Established,” of Section 9, “City Council Committees,” of the City Council Rules of Procedure changing the name of the Environment and Sustainability Committee to the Parks, Trails, and the Environment Committee - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

9.1 COMMITTEE'S ESTABLISHED OF SECTION 9, CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OR PROCEDURE CHANGING THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE TO THE PARKS, TRAILS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> SO MOVED.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION ON THIS JUST BECAUSE I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IT'S REALLY SUPER BRIEF.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE TO MAKE A COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT FOR THE COUNCIL HERE SOON.

WE HAVE CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES THAT EXIST IN OUR RULES.

THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY STANDING COMMITTEES, IT'S A NAME CHANGE SIMILAR TO WHAT I DID FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN I CHANGED THE NAME OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE TO THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF HOMELESSNESS AS AN ISSUE BECAUSE I HADN'T BEEN, AT MY OPINION, BROUGHT TO THE FORE ENOUGH, SO THAT WAS TO REALLY ELEVATE ITS STATURE IN TERMS OF OUR FOCUS.

SAME THING HERE, I THINK PARKS, YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY IT SO MANY TIMES NOW.

WE'RE AT A POINT AND I THINK IN OUR CITY WE CAN REALLY MAKE SOME TRULY GENERATIONAL CHANGES IN OUR PARKS AND SO I WANT TO ELEVATE ITS IMPORTANCE AND SO I'M ADDING IT TO THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE THAT I THINK IT REALLY FITS MOST APPROPRIATELY WITH, WHICH IS THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, WHICH ALSO DIDN'T EXIST ACTUALLY FOUR YEARS AGO, I CREATED THAT COMMITTEE, THAT WAS A NEW STANDING COMMITTEE ALTOGETHER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE DIDN'T EXIST AT ALL, AND I THINK IT'S A NATURAL PAIRING TO HAVE ALL THINGS RELATED TO MAKING DALLAS GREENER AND GREATER, AS I'VE SAID RECENTLY A LOT, TO HAVE THAT IN ONE COMMITTEE AND TO REALLY CALL OUT PARKS, TRAILS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT SO THAT WE HAVE THAT PRIMACY OF FOCUS AND THAT ONE COMMITTEE.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS, IT IS JUST A NAME CHANGE TO REFLECT THE IMPORTANCE OF AN ISSUE.

THAT'S ALL I GOT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO BE GONE FOR OR AGAINST THAT? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> JUNE ITEM 73, AUTHORIZE ONE,

[9.7 ITEM 73 Authorize (1) a twenty-six month cooperative purchasing agreement for program assurances services to support the implementation of the City's new land management system for Department of Information and Technology Services with Gartner, Inc. through the Texas Department of Information Resources cooperative agreement; and (2) an increase in appropriations in the Building Inspection Fund in an amount not to exceed $2,423,000 - Not to exceed $2,548,000 - Financing: Data Services Fund ($125,000) and Building Inspection Fund ($2,423,000)]

A 26-MONTH COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR PROGRAM ASSURANCES SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITIES NEW LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES WITH GARTNER INC. THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, AND TWO, AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS AND THE BUILDING INSPECTION FUND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,423,000, NOT TO EXCEED $2,548,000. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> SO MOVED.

>> SO MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU, NEXT ITEM.

>> WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA.

[10. ZONING AGENDA]

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS Z1 THROUGH Z5.

ITEM Z3 IS BEING PULLED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS Z1, Z2, Z4, AND Z5.

I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

Z1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN

[10.1 Z1 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 638, on property bounded by Toland Street, North Jim Miller Road, Military Parkway, and Wilkes Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a development plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a development plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Z212-211(JA) ]

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 638 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY TOLEN STREET NORTH, JIM MILLER ROAD, MILITARY PARKWAY, AND WILKES AVENUE.

ITEM Z2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE

[10.2 Z2 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to and renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 1850 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise or food store 3,500 square feet or less, on property within Subarea 4 of Planned Development District No. 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District, with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay District, on the southeast corner of Elam Road and South Buckner Boulevard Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a three-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional five-year periods, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a three-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional five-year periods, subject to conditions Z212-351(AU)]

GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO AND RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1850 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ELAND ROAD AND SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD.

ITEM Z4 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING

[10.3 Z4 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting the renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 2377 for commercial motor vehicle parking on property zoned an IR Industrial Research District, on the southwest corner of Dairy Milk Lane and Zodiac Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a three-year period, subject to a revised site plan, a revised landscape plan, and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a three-year period, subject to a revised site plan, a revised landscape plan, and conditions Z223-128(JM)]

THE RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2377 FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAIRY MILK LANE AND ZODIAC LANE.

ITEMS Z5 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR

[10.4 Z5 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a mini-warehouse on property zoned a CR Community Retail District, on the east corner of Lawson Road and Lasater Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z223-139(MP)]

A MINI-WAREHOUSE ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST CORNER OF LAWSON ROAD AND LASSITA ROAD.

[05:20:04]

THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> SO MOVE AND SECOND.

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

>> ANY OPPOSE? ZONING DISINGENUOUS ADOPTED. THANK YOU.

>> ITEM Z3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING

[10.5 Z3 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 2316 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise or food store 3,500 square feet or less on property within an RR Regional Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, at the northeast line of East Ledbetter Drive, east of South R.L. Thornton Freeway Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a two-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional two-year periods, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a two-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional two-year periods, subject to conditions Z223-118(AU)]

A RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2316, FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR A FOOD STORE, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST LINE OF EAST LAPETTER DRIVE EAST OF SOUTH R.L. THORNTON FREEWAY.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT NINE NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST, WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OUR POSITION.

>> THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z3? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, IS THERE A MOTION?

>> YES, THERE IS, SIR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

THE SUP IS APPROVED FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.

>> SO MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM?

>> NO, SIR. I'M JUST ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORT ME ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU.

>> WONDERFUL. ZONING DISCUSSION.

ANYONE? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> ITEM Z6 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR

[10.6 Z6 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a public school other than an open-enrollment charter school on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, at the southwest corner of Drury Drive and South Polk Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a permanent time period, subject to a site plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a permanent time period, subject to a site plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions Z212-275(JM)]

A PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHER THAN AN OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONE R-7.5A, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEWELRY DRIVE AND SOUTH POLK STREET.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 55 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST, WE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND TWO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

>> THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WILL [OVERLAPPING].

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE A MOTION, MR. GRACEY?

>> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, MR. GRACEY? ANY DISCUSSION ANYONE? SMOOTH. WELL DONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT.

THE FIRST IS THE ONLY ONE DONE. [LAUGHTER]

>> ITEM Z7.

[10.7 Z7 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a TH-3(A) Townhouse District and a resolution accepting the deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an R-5(A) Single Family District, on the southwest line of South Fitzhugh Avenue and the northeast line of Caldwell Avenue, north of South Haskell Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Z212-347(RM)]

ITEM Z7 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A TH-3A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH [INAUDIBLE] AVENUE AND THE NORTHEAST LINE OF CALDWELL AVENUE, NORTH OR SOUTH HASKELL AVENUE.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 32 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OVER THE AREA OF REQUEST, WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION WITH THE REQUEST.

>> THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z7? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. MORENO, IS THERE A MOTION?

>> YES, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO DEFER THE ITEM TO THE AUGUST 23RD MEETING.

>> SO MOVED AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. THERE WAS THREE NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION IN A VERY SPLIT LAND COMMISSION AND SO WE'D LIKE TO HOST AN ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY MEETING AND PROVIDE, WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE SPANISH TRANSLATION AT THAT MEETING AND IT'S PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC COMMUNITY, SO I WANT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY.

>> ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO GO FOR OR AGAINST THE ZONING ITEM? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> ITEM Z8 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING

[10.8 Z8 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an MF-2(A) Multifamily District and a resolution accepting the deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an NO(A) Neighborhood Office District and a P(A) Parking District, on the south line of Glenfield Avenue, west of South Hampton Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Z223-117(RM)]

AN MF-2A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF GLENFIELD AVENUE WEST OF SOUTHAMPTON ROAD.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 50 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND NINE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

>> THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z8? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> MR. GRACEY, YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ONE?

>> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION MR. GRACEY? ANY DISCUSSION ANYONE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> NEXT ITEM, PH 1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE

[11. PH1 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an expansion of and creation of a new subdistrict within the McKinney Avenue Sign District on property within the McKinney Avenue Sign District and the Uptown Sign District zoned Planned Development District No. 193, Subdistrict 160, on the southwest corner of Fairmount Street and McKinney Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to conditions SPSD212-001(JP)]

GRANTING AN EXPANSION OF AND CREATION OF A NEW SUB DISTRICT WITHIN THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRMONT STREET AND MCKINNEY AVENUE.

THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM,

[05:25:02]

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM PH1? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE A MOTION, MR. RIDLEY?

>> YES. I MOVE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF CPC FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. RIDLEY?

>> ANY DISCUSSION ANYONE? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

>> ITEM PH 2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND A RESOLUTION GRANTING

[12. PH2 A public hearing on an application for and a resolution granting a variance to the alcohol spacing requirements from a public school, Sam Houston Elementary School, as required by Section 6-4 of the Dallas City Code to allow a mixed beverage permit pursuant to Chapter 28 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, for a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service with a food and beverage certificate [Giant Blue Inc. dba Ai Sushi Sake Grill] on the west corner of Cedar Springs Road and Knight Street - AV223-002 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

A VARIANCE TO THE ALCOHOL SPACING REQUIREMENTS FROM A PUBLIC SCHOOL, SAM HOUSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 6-6-4 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO ALLOW A MIXED BEVERAGE PERMIT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVING IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE WITH A FOOD AND BEVERAGE CERTIFICATE.

THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS? THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE.

BECAUSE THIS IS AN ALCOHOL VARIANCE, THIS WILL REQUIRE A MOTION AND TWO SECONDS, MR. MAYOR.

>> INTERESTING, MR. RIDLEY, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THIS?

>> I DO. MOVE APPROVAL.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TWICE FOR THE RECORD.

>> SECOND. [LAUGHTER]

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. RIDLEY?