Feb 14, 2024 City Council Agenda Meetings - Old

THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

THIS ITEM WAS ALSO PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM TWO? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH MODIFIED EXEMPTION TO INCREASED FROM 50 TO 100%.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA YES, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE ON ITEM TWO FOR THE PUBLIC.

AND THANK YOU, MELANIE, FOR YOUR ADVOCACY.

AND, I THINK THAT THIS IS NO, THERE'S NO REASON TO REALLY BELABOR, I THINK THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR, CHILD CARE AND FOR US TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO, WHAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE FOR A LOT OF FACILITIES, QUITE FRANKLY, ACROSS THE CITY.

AND IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPACT THE BOTTOM LINE OF FAMILIES, TO HAVE, CHILD CARE OPTIONS, OR EVEN, INCREASED WAGES FOR CHILD CARE EMPLOYEES, THAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF WHAT THIS ABATEMENT WOULD PROVIDE.

I THINK THAT WE OFTEN LOOK AT SOLUTIONS TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND EQUITY, AND THIS WAS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY THE VOTERS ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE ON BIPARTISANSHIP, LINES.

AND I THINK FOR THAT REASON, IT'S A NO BRAINER FOR OUR CITY TO SUPPORT A MOVE THAT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT SO MANY FAMILIES AND HOPEFULLY HELP, THE DISPARITIES THAT WE HAVE WITH AVAILABLE CHILD CARE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I HOPE THAT EVERYONE WOULD SUPPORT, US GOING TO 100% AND BRINGING SAVINGS TO OUR RESIDENTS OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ON THIS ITEM, I'M RISING IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION THAT MR. BASIL. YOU HAVE MADE AND WON.

WE HEARD FROM OUR STATE SENATOR, ROYCE WEST, WHO HELPED CARRY THE BILL THROUGH THE SENATE, AND EVENTUALLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS ON THE BALLOT THIS PAST NOVEMBER, AND THE VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THIS ITEM.

NOW IT'S ON US IF WE WANT TO UTILIZE THIS TOOL OR NOT, IN ORDER TO HELP.

WHAT IS A REALLY HARD ISSUE FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES, WHICH IS CHILD CARE, PAYING FOR CHILD CARE, HOW DO WE DO IT? THIS BODY VOTED AT ONE TIME TO EVEN GIVE THAT BENEFIT TO OUR OWN EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A CENTER INSIDE OF CITY HALL OR SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE AND LISTENING TO OUR EMPLOYEES, WE REALIZE GIVING A STIPEND A BENEFIT TO THEM SO THAT THEY COULD CHOOSE WHERE THEY WANTED TO BE INSTEAD OF THEIR CHILDREN TO BE, INSTEAD OF IT HAVING TO BE HERE WAS THE BETTER SOLUTION.

AND, OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE SAID HOW MUCH THEY APPRECIATE THAT IF THEY CAN PARTAKE IN IT.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT, I, I DON'T HAVE CHILDREN MYSELF, AND I DON'T EVER PLAN TO HAVE ANY CHILDREN, BUT I DO HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS AND EVEN MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE TOLD ME HOW MUCH IT COSTS AND HOW MUCH IT TAKES AWAY FROM WHAT THEY DO.

BECAUSE I ONE PERSON, I REMEMBER TELLING ME THAT SHE LITERALLY WORKS IN THIS BUILDING, AND EVERY SINGLE DIME SHE MAKES GOES TO PAY FOR CHILD CARE, AND HER HUSBAND SALARY TAKES CARE OF THE REST.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS RIDICULOUS.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE NEED.

THE OTHER THING IS, IS AS DOING RESEARCH WITH CHILD CARE LATELY, WHAT I DISCOVERED IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES GET PAID TEN BUCKS AN HOUR.

12 BUCKS AN HOUR. THAT IS WELL BELOW POVERTY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ENTRUSTING THAT FAMILIES ARE ENTRUSTING TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

SO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWS US TO REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX FROM THE CITY.

AND THE AND THE DOLLARS SAVED MUST GO TO EITHER DECREASING FEES AND OR INCREASING WAGES.

AND I AND IT CAN'T GO INTO THE POCKET OF THE OWNER, THE COMPANY, THE WHATEVER IT IS.

[01:00:05]

AND I THINK THIS WAS BRILLIANT WAY TO DO LEGISLATION.

SO THANK YOU, SENATOR ROYCE WEST, FOR SEEING THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.

AND THANK YOU TO THE VOTERS THAT GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND I WILL SAY THAT AUSTIN JUMPED REALLY FAST AND, THEY WERE THE FIRST, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE THE SECOND TO DO A 100%.

IF WE CAN GET THIS ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND LET'S SHOW THE DALLAS FAMILIES THAT NEED CHILD CARE THAT WE HAVE THIS, THAT THEY WILL SEE THIS HAPPEN, AS WELL AS TO THE, CHILDREN WHO ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF THE CARE SO THAT THEIR, THEIR CAREGIVERS ARE ABLE TO WORK IN ORDER TO DO THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO DO.

I AM I WILL STAND WITH THIS, LIKE I SAID, AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL FOLLOW.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

ITEM TWO ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM TWO? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. NO OUTBURST.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

[7. 24-353 Authorize (1) preliminary adoption of Substantial Amendment No. 3 to the FY 2023-24 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reprogram unspent FY 2022-23 CDBG Funds in the total amount of $4,500,000.00 from the Home Improvement & Preservation Program to the Residential Development Acquisition Loan Program; and (2) a public hearing to be held on March 27, 2024, to receive comments on Substantial Amendment No. 3 to the FY 2023-24 Action Plan for the CDBG Funds - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM SEVEN. AUTHORIZE ONE PRELIMINARY ADOPTION OF SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE FY 20 2324 ACTION PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, CDBG FUNDS FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HUD TO REPROGRAM UNSPENT FY 20 2223 CDBG FUNDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,500,000 FROM THE HOME IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION LOAN PROGRAM, AND TO A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 27TH, 2024.

TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE FY 20 2324 ACTION PLAN FOR THE CDBG FUNDS.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION ON ON SEVEN? IS THERE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN AT OTHER MEETINGS ABOUT MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

OVERALL, I THINK THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN IS STRONG, BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE REALLY IS ABOUT TAKING OUT THE COMMUNITY COURTS FROM THE CDBG FUNDING.

COMMUNITY COURTS PROVIDE A MEANS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

SPEAKING ON THE RIGHT ITEM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

ARE WE? YES.

SEVEN. OKAY, SO MAKE SURE.

SORRY. PROVIDE A MEANS FOR OUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES, INSTANCES OF EXTREME POVERTY AND HAVE BROKEN AN INFRACTION.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. HOLD ON.

I'M BEING TOLD THAT IT'S NOT THE RIGHT ITEM IS ABOUT MOVING UNSPENT MONEY.

CAN SOMEONE CLARIFY WHAT WHAT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS MOVING UNSPENT CDBG MONEY FROM ONE PROGRAM TO ANOTHER? IS THAT RIGHT, CITY MANAGER? CITY WE'RE AT THAT.

IS THAT IS CORRECT, MISS? THANK YOU. ISN'T THAT OUR WHOLE CONSOLIDATED PLAN? SO THE ITEM THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING, ABOUT COUNCILWOMAN WAS THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN ITEM.

AND THIS IS NOT THAT.

IT'S NOT THE APPROVAL OF THE WHOLE.

IT IS NOT. NO. NO, MA'AM.

THE HIP PART, THIS IS JUST RELATED TO HIP AND REPROGRAMING MONEY TO ENSURE THAT WE MEET THE TIMELINESS TEST BECAUSE WE GOT FASTEST.

IS IN THE ENTIRE PLAN.

CORRECT? THIS IS NOT THAT.

OKAY, WELL, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PART.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON ITEM SEVEN? YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

SO, CYNTHIA, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT IS SEEKING FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION UP FRONT. I WILL SUPPORT IT SIMPLY BECAUSE STAFF HAS PRESENTED US WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI.

IT'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO A HOUSING PROJECT.

BUT I'M WONDERING, FIRST OF ALL, HOW A CONTRACTOR WAS SELECTED WHO COMPLETED ZERO REPAIRS.

WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS HERE SO I CAN I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THE CONTRACTOR WAS SELECTED AND SELECTED IN WHEN ALL THAT HAPPENED. I CAN SAY THAT WE WORKED WITH THE CONTRACTOR FOR EIGHT MONTHS TO TRY TO GET THEM UP AND RUNNING IN THIS PROGRAM.

WE PROVIDED TRAINING.

WE WE SAW THEM MINIMAL WEEKLY TO HELP THEM WORK THROUGH HOW THESE REGULATIONS WORK AND HOW THE PROGRAM OPERATES.

THEY WERE NEW TO OPERATING A PROGRAM LIKE THIS WHEN WE, I BELIEVE WHEN WE LOOKED AT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, WE COULDN'T FIND ANYONE ELSE WHO WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON SUCH A COMPLICATED PROGRAM TO RUN EXTERNAL TO THE TO THE CITY.

BUT WE DID WORK VERY HARD WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO TRY TO GET THEM TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROGRAM SHOULD OPERATE, AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

[01:05:07]

WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS VENDOR HAD NO EXPERIENCE WITH HOME REPAIR.

THIS VENDOR HAS EXPERIENCE WITH HOME REPAIR AND DISASTER RECOVERY.

YES, SIR. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, LONG BEFORE WE'RE AT THIS JUNCTURE, TO, IDENTIFY OTHER POTENTIAL USES FOR THIS FUNDING RATHER THAN JUST LEAVING IT UP TO STAFF.

MOREOVER, HOME REHAB IS AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, AND THIS TRANSFERS FUNDING FOR THAT HOME REPAIR TO OTHER HOUSING NEEDS, WHICH ARE IMPORTANT ALSO.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRED SOME OVERSIGHT BY THIS BODY.

AND SO ALTHOUGH I WILL SUPPORT IT, SUPPORT IT, I WOULD REQUEST THAT IF YOU ARE FACED WITH A LACK OF CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH HOME REPAIRS AND INDICATE AN ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REGULATIONS IN THAT, THAT INDICATES THAT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SPEND THE MONEY ALLOCATED, THAT YOU SHOULD COME BACK TO THIS BODY TO EXPLAIN THAT SITUATION AND SEEK ALTERNATIVES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. WELL, YES, SIR, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN AND GO ON AGAIN.

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

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M JUST. I WANT TO JOIN IN WITH THE STATEMENT MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

MAINLY BECAUSE, THERE IS A CONCERN THAT, ACTUALLY, THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND I HAVE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOW WE CAN GO ABOUT PERHAPS IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM THAT WOULD HELP TO TRAIN SOME OF THESE, BETTER TRAINED THEM SO THEY THE SPECIALIZED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IN MY HISTORIC AREAS AND JUST SPECIALIZED, BONAFIDE AND BONDED, CONTRACTORS.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION.

NOW, I WILL SAY, ALONG WITH WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY IS SAYING, MOST OF MY CALLS THAT I RECEIVE FROM SENIORS ARE IN NEED OF HOME REPAIR, AND THAT'S WHERE I GET THE MOST CALLS, IS HOME REPAIR.

AND SO I'M NOW, HEARING FROM SOME OF THOSE, SENIORS WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOME TIME TO GET THEIR HOMES REPAIRED.

AND WE WE SOME OF THEM ON THE LIST NOW FOR TWO AND THREE YEARS.

AND SO WHAT I'M HAVING TO DO, AND ONE IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE SHE'S IN HER LATE 80S, I'M HAVING TO GO OUT AND JUST TRY TO SO ALMOST LIKE A SALESMAN OR SOMETHING.

CAN WE SELL YOU ON HELPING THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO CAN'T FLUSH A TOILET, WHO HAS HOLES IN THE WINDOWS? AND I'M SURE THAT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE OTHER STORIES.

WHO HAS NO ABILITY RIGHT NOW? AS OF LAST WEEK, WHEN WE WENT BY OUR HOME TO LOCK HER, TO LOCK HER FRONT DOOR.

AND SO.

BUT I DO HAVE ONE NONPROFIT WHO HAS COMMITTED TO TRYING TO FIND THESE 10,000 FOR HER.

AND I'M WORKING WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL WANT TO COMMIT FUNDS SO WE CAN GET THAT DONE.

AND I KNOW WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN WAITING AND WAITING, AND ESPECIALLY IN THEIR LATE 80S AND SOME OF THESE FOLKS ARE GOING TO 90.

IT'S VERY PAINFUL WHEN YOU HAVE TO SAY.

YOU KNOW, ON THE LIST.

SO I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE I JUST CHIMED IN ON THAT.

AND SO AS MAYOR PRO TEM AND I CONTINUE TO TALK, PERHAPS WE CAN WORK ON A PROPOSAL WHERE WE CAN GET TRAINING PILOT PROGRAMS SO WE CAN TRAIN FOLKS PROPERLY.

AND THEN ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHERE I AM IN THE HISTORIC 10TH STREET, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTRACTORS WHO CAN REPAIR, WHO ARE SPECIALIZED AND BONA FIDE CERTIFIED.

I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO REPAIR THOSE HOMES SO THAT WE CAN STABILIZE THAT COMMUNITY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY MAYOR.

YES, PLEASE. SO THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN ARNOLD AND COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, LET ME MAKE SURE I CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO WHERE YOUR STATEMENTS WERE.

I WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT IT TOOK US THIS LONG TO RECOGNIZE A CONTRACTOR WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM, WAS NOT ABLE TO DO IT AT THE STRENGTH THAT WE WANTED THEM TO.

HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF THE CONTRACTING SIDE OF IT, I THINK WE DO HAVE CONTRACTORS THAT ARE CERTIFIED AND WILLING AND ABLE TO DO THE WORK. THE PROBLEM WAS TO ADMINISTER THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF GETTING PEOPLE QUALIFIED AND, YOU KNOW, APPROVED FOR THEIR GRANTS,

[01:10:03]

AND SO I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE TEAM, BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A TOUGH SITUATION, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE IN NEED OF REPAIRS, TO TRANSITION THIS FUNDING. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK TO DO BETTER.

ONE, IN REGARDS TO IF WE SELECT A NEW CONTRACTOR TO DO IT.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPLIED, CYNTHIA AND THEIR TEAM HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THOSE APPLICATIONS INTERNALLY, AND PICKED UP THE BALL WHERE THIS CONTRACTOR DID NOT.

AND WE'RE PROCESSING THOSE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.

SO WE HAVE NOT STOPPED DOING IT.

I THINK THE ESTIMATE WAS DONE BASED ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET THROUGH THE PIPELINE, TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE DECISION THAT WHILE WE MIGHT HAVE 40 TO 50 PEOPLE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE, THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES AFTER 8 OR 9 MONTHS OF NEGOTIATING WITH THIS PERSON TO DO THIS WORK, TO GET THAT DONE BY JULY.

AND SO, TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, WE'RE BRINGING IT IN IN FEBRUARY, FIVE MONTHS BEFORE WE GET TO A DEADLINE AND THEN HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AT THE VERY END AND TO THE POINT, OF BRINGING IT TO THE HOUSING, AND HOMELESS COMMITTEE, I THINK THERE ARE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS FOR WHAT WE CAN SPEND THE RESOURCES ON.

AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE JUST MOVED INTO ANOTHER AREA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO STAND UP NEW PROGRAMS. THEY WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN CONSISTENT.

AND I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE OF HOW WE SUPPORT HOUSING PROJECTS, I THINK, IS WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO PUT THE RESOURCES, BECAUSE WE HAVE A QUEUED UP LIST OF PROJECTS THAT NEED FUNDING THERE AS WELL.

AND SO AGAIN, TO CYNTHIA'S POINT, WE'RE GOING TO OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO DO BETTER.

AND WE NEED TO SOUND THE ALARM EARLY AND HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL, MUCH EARLIER.

BUT AGAIN, WE GOT FIVE MONTHS TO, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING WITH THOSE PEOPLE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE.

SO THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS.

YEAH. AND JUST AN UPDATE ON OUR PIPELINE.

WE HAVE, WE HAVE OVER 45 APPLICANTS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH, BUT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED 45 THAT WILL USE OUR CURRENT FUNDING THAT WE'RE NOT REPROGRAMING.

AND THAT'LL TAKE US INTO THE NEW YEAR WITH NEW FUNDING.

AND WE'RE READY TO TO SERVE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

SO THIS WILL THIS WILL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER.

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

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

THE LIST. DO WE KNOW? DO THE RESIDENTS KNOW WHO WHO IS ON THAT LIST? WHO IS NOT ON THAT LIST? THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH DO KNOW BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY TALKING WITH THEM ABOUT THEIR APPLICATIONS.

AND, 25 OF THOSE APPLICANTS HAVE ALREADY, WORKED WITH ONE OF OUR INSPECTORS TO WRITE UP THEIR THEIR HOME REPAIR NEEDS.

THE OTHER 20 ARE WORKING WITH OUR INTERNAL CLIENT INTAKE STAFF.

SO, YES, THEY ARE, THEY ARE AWARE OF WHO THEY ARE ON THAT LIST.

AND SO HOW MUCH FUNDING DO WE HAVE SET ASIDE FOR THAT LIST? WE CURRENTLY HAVE WE CURRENTLY HAVE $4.2 MILLION THAT WERE NOT REPROGRAMING, SO A LITTLE OVER 4 MILLION.

AND THAT'S GOING TO SERVE ALL OF THOSE APPLICANTS.

AND THEN, WE'LL START IN THE NEW YEAR WITH OUR NEW REVISED PROGRAM AS WE HAVE PRESENTED IT, HIS AND A FEW MONTHS AGO.

AND THAT WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL $4 MILLION THAT WILL GET ON THE FEDERAL GRANT.

SO WE HAVE $4 MILLION LEFT RIGHT NOW.

YES, SIR, ON THE LIST.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR? HAVE WE IDENTIFIED THE NEW CONTRACTORS WHO CAN GET STARTED HAD THEY BEEN CERTIFIED? YES. SO WE CONTINUE TO GET MORE CONTRACTORS TODAY BECAUSE OF THE MARKET AND THE WAY THE MARKET IS TIGHTENING UP? IT USUALLY HAPPENS THAT WAY WHEN THE MARKET IS VERY HEALTHY AND THEY CAN GO OUT AND GET OTHER WORK, THEY DON'T COME TO WORK WITH US.

BUT NOW THE MARKET IS TIGHTENING UP.

WE'RE GETTING EVEN MORE CONTRACTORS TO WORK WITH US.

WE HAVE PLENTY OF CONTRACTORS IN THE PIPELINE.

YES, SIR. SO HOW ARE WE CERTIFIED THE CONTRACTOR? HOW MANY? HOW ARE WE CERTIFYING THE CONTRACTOR? HOW DO WE CERTIFY THEM? THEY GO THROUGH AN APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO WE PROVIDE THEM AN APPLICATION.

THEY THEY SUBMIT IT ALONG WITH THEIR FINANCIAL INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH, OF A LOAD THEY CAN TAKE ON AND WORK. WE DO WATCH THEM VERY CLOSELY, IF THEY'RE NEW TO OUR PROGRAM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN PERFORM.

BUT AGAIN, TO, TO CITY MANAGER.

BROADNAX POINT, THIS ISSUE OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE CONTRACTOR IDENTIFIED TO DO ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS PROGRAM, AND IT WASN'T WORKING THE SAME PROGRAM THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY BACK TO TODAY.

SO HOW MANY CONTRACT HAS SIGNED UP NOW? HOW MANY CONTRACT YOU? I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I KNOW IT'S OVER TEN.

[01:15:04]

CONTRACTORS TO DATE.

IT'S ALL TEN OF IT'S BONDED.

OH, YES. YES.

WOULD THEY BE DOING MORE THAN ONE PROJECT AT A TIME? OH, YES, THEY CAN THEY THEY CAN TAKE ON MULTIPLE PROJECTS.

SO, MULTIPLE UNITS, SO THEY CAN, SOME CAN TAKE UP THREE, SOME HAVE TEN.

THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CAPACITIES.

SO WE WORK WITH THEM ON WHAT THEIR CAPACITY CAN BE.

HAVE THESE CONTRACTED? THEY'LL WORK FOR THE CITY BEFORE.

YES. SOME HAVE, MOST HAVE.

SOME OF THEM ARE NEW. WE DO HAVE A FEW THAT ARE NEW.

AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM AT ONE TIME.

DO THESE CONTRACTOR SUB MOST OF THEY WORK OUT OR THEY, HAVE THEIR EMPLOYEES WORK DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTOR.

THEY BOTH SOME SUB DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE HAVING, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE, THE, THE AREA OF REPAIR THEY HAVE TO DO, BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE THEIR OWN CREWS.

OKAY. I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

BUT MY CONCERN IS, NUMBER ONE, HOW DO YOU GOING TO GET BACK WITH US? GIVE US AN UPDATE. HEY, HOW IS THESE NEW CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE.

IS THERE GOING TO BE A DASHBOARD OR SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW? YES. IF THEY'RE NOT PERFORMANCE RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES.

SO YOU'LL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO SEE OUR, WE GIVE A QUARTERLY REPORT TO OUR HOUSING COMMITTEE.

WE WE'VE IMPLEMENTED THAT.

IT'S A LOT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND READ.

AND YOU CAN SEE OUR PROGRESS WITH OUR HOME REPAIR PROGRAM, ALONG WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER PROGRAMS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

SO YOU CAN CERTAINLY MEASURE US AND THE WAY OUR CONTRACTORS ARE WORKING WITH US THROUGH THAT, THROUGH THAT QUARTERLY REPORT, WE'RE ALSO BUILDING A DASHBOARD.

BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WE SHOULD HAVE A DASHBOARD ON OUR WEBSITE SO THAT IT'S NOT ALWAYS PAPER.

AND LAST QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE FIRST CONTRACT WILL GET STARTED? NO, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.

I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEED ORDER DATE OF THE FIRST CONTRACT THAT WE WILL START IN THIS NEW PROCESS.

I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM NINE.

[9. 24-390 Authorize (1) the adoption of a Resolution of Support for Generation Housing Partners, LLC and/or its affiliate(s) (Applicant), related to its application to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs for 9% Housing Tax Credits for the development Patriot Pointe at Markville to be located at 9222 Markville Dr., Dallas, Texas 75243; and (2) an agreement with the Applicant for a line of credit in the amount of $500.00 for the proposed multifamily development - Not to exceed $500.00 - Financing: General Fund]

AUTHORIZE ONE.

THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR GENERATION HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC AND OR ITS AFFILIATES.

PATRIOT POINT AT MARKVILLE TO BE LOCATED AT 9222 MARKVILLE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS SEVEN FIVE, TWO, FOUR, THREE, AND TWO.

AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT FOR A LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NOT TO EXCEED $500.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART AND COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I MOVE TO DENY THE ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DENY ON ITEM NINE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE.

EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPER HAS PULLED FROM THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE WITHDRAWN THE APPLICATION.

CHAIRMAN WEST. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS IN THE ITEMS DENIED.

[15. 24-394 Authorize an amendment to the Dallas Housing Resource Catalog (DHRC) Land Transfer Program (LTP), as shown in the attached Exhibit A to: (1) the release of Land Transfer Program deed restrictions initially required when a qualified buyer is also a Dallas Homebuyer Assistance Program (DHAP) participant; (a) impose the federally required DHAP deed restrictions on lots(s) to be filed and recorded in the real property records of the county in which the parcel of real property is located; (b) a qualified buyer that is not a DHAP participant shall not be required to meet DHAP underwriting guidelines; and (c) a qualified buyer that is also a DHAP participant shall be required to meet DHAP underwriting guidelines; (2) an amendment to the DHRC Single Family Development Requirements/Underwriting (SFDRU), as shown in the attached Exhibit B to: (a) amend loans used for acquisition and construction financing from repayable to forgivable loans based on the total development cost related to the sales price of the home; and (b) this amendment shall be enforced retroactively from May 12, 2021, the effective date of the development agreement with all non-profit Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), to the current including any applicable repayments to City-certified CHDOs for loan payments made during this time period - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 15.

AGENDA ITEM 15.

AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DALLAS HOUSING RESOURCE CATALOG HRC TO THE ONE LAND TRANSFER PROGRAM LTP, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT, TO RELEASE THE LTP DEED.

RESTRICTIONS INITIALLY REQUIRED WHEN A QUALIFIED BUYER IS ALSO A DALLAS HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DAP PARTICIPANT, AND INSTEAD IMPOSED A FEDERALLY REQUIRED DAP DEED RESTRICTIONS ON LOTS WHICH SHALL BE FILED AND RECORDED IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF THE COUNTY IN THE PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED, NO LONGER LOCATED, BE NO LONGER REQUIRE A QUALIFIED BUYER THAT IS NOT A DAP PARTICIPANT TO MEET DAP UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES, AND C REQUIRE A QUALIFIED BUYER THAT IS A DAP PARTICIPANT TO MEET DAP UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES.

TWO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND UNDERWRITING SF DREW, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B TO NO LONGER REQUIRE

[01:20:04]

COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION C, H DO CHODOS TO REPAY AMEND HOME FUNDED LOANS ISSUED BY THE CITY FOR ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCING, AND INSTEAD CATEGORIZE THEM AS FORGIVABLE LOANS.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED, AND YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

RUTO. DORI.

RUTO. DORI IS OKAY, I'M TOLD IS NOT ONLINE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN? YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE ON ITEM 15 FOR THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. SO THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE, AND I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL.

I DON'T EVEN HAVE A MOTION TO MAKE THE CHANGE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT OF WHY I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS CHANGE.

AND, VERY QUICKLY, THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

THE DALLAS HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE LAND TRANSFER PROGRAM SHOULDN'T BE LAYERED ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. IF WE'RE ASSISTING SOMEONE THROUGH ONE PROGRAM, THAT SHOULD BE THE GAP THAT WE'RE FILLING.

BUT IF THERE'S SUCH A BIG CAVERN THAT IT NEEDS BOTH PROGRAMS, THEY MIGHT NOT BE READY FINANCIALLY TO OWN A HOME.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS POURING SO MANY RESOURCES INTO SO FEW PEOPLE WHEN WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVE MORE.

THE SECOND IS THE HOME FUNDED LOANS FROM THE HOME PROGRAM FOR THE CHOTTO SHOULD NOT BE MOVED TO REPAYABLE.

I'M SORRY FROM REPAYABLE TO FORGIVABLE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE LOSS OF REVENUE RETURNING TO THE CITY FOR ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS THAT WE FUND.

SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE STANDING TO LOSE 3.3 MILLION A YEAR.

SO I THINK THESE ARE UNNECESSARY AND NOT VIABLE CHANGES.

I'M OPPOSED TO THEM. AND I WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.

NO THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN WEST RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR I SUPPORT THE ITEM AND I WANT TO FIRST THANK, MISS JAMES ARMSTRONG, JOE DINGMAN AND THE ESTRADAS FOR PROVIDING A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THEIR.

THE ONLY THREE, PARTIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE AT THIS TIME.

BECAUSE THIS PROGRAM IS NOT VIABLE IN WORKING IN THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED.

HOWEVER, THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY SHOULD HELP THE PROGRAM BE MORE VIABLE AND HELP US AS A CITY ACTUALLY MEET THE HOUSING POLICY THAT WE'VE PASSED AND THAT WE'VE SAID WE ALL SUPPORT AND HELP FURTHER HOME OWNERSHIP FOR PEOPLE ACROSS THE BOARD.

I KNOW THAT MISTER DINGMAN IS HERE AND HAS SAID HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS LOAN BE A FORGIVABLE LOAN, AS OPPOSED TO A PAYBACK LOAN, AND ABOUT ANY OTHER ON THE GROUND PROCESSES ABOUT WHY THIS PROGRAM IS NOT WORKING IN THE WAY IT IS.

SO I SUPPORT IT.

I WANT TO ENABLE AS MUCH HOME OWNERSHIP AS POSSIBLE, WITHIN THE GUISE OF OUR POLICY THAT WE HAVE APPROVED AS A COUNCIL.

AND, I LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORTING IT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN SCHULZ RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO CALL UP THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS CHALLENGE EARLY ON, AND I KNOW THAT THE TEAM FROM OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT HAS REALLY DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB OF BRINGING EVERYONE TOGETHER TO GET THROUGH THIS CHALLENGE.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION BEFORE I ASK YOU A QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE'S OFTEN MULTI-LAYERED APPROACHES TO PURCHASING A HOME AT ANY PRICE POINT FOR ANYONE, WHETHER YOU'RE SEEKING ASSISTANCE OR YOU'RE GETTING IT THROUGH A MORTGAGE, OR WHETHER YOU'RE GETTING IT THROUGH OTHER SUPPORT FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS. SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE, AS A COUNCIL HAD PASSED IT A VISION OR ANY KIND OF THING THAT SAID, YOU COULD ONLY GET ONE SOURCE OF FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME. SO THAT THAT ARGUMENT IS CHALLENGING TO ME.

BUT COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE OF THE BACKGROUND AND WHY YOU CAME TO THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR US, PLEASE? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN.

LET ME FIRST SAY THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAYER THAT GOES ON WITH LAND BANK AND LAND TRANSFER VERSUS THE HOME OWNER, THE LAYER THAT GOES ON.

THE ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE THROUGH LAND BANK AND LAND TRANSFER IS LAND.

BY PROVIDING THE LAND, IT HELPS THE DEVELOPER GIVE US AN AFFORDABLE PRODUCT, THE HOME BUYER, BECAUSE COSTS ARE SO HIGH TO GET INTO THE PURCHASE OF A UNIT, AND BECAUSE THERE IS A REQUIRED DOWN PAYMENT FOR ANY TYPE OF LOAN THAT YOU GET, AS MOST OF YOU OWN YOUR HOMES AND YOU KNOW THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHAT MAKES THE HOUSE AFFORDABLE, IT IS A DIRECT SUBSIDY TO THE HOME BUYER SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET IN THE HOUSE AND SUSTAIN

[01:25:03]

IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO NOT DEPLETE ALL OF THEIR THEIR SAVINGS SO THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR MAINTENANCE AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY MAY NEED TO DO. BUT WE PROVIDE THAT DOWN PAYMENT AND CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE THROUGH OUR HOME BUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT BEFORE DARWIN DIVES INTO A LOT OF OTHER DETAILS.

THANK YOU. DARWIN WADE, ASSISTANT HOUSING DIRECTOR, COUNCILMAN SCHULTZ.

YES, WE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY ABOUT THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES THAT THEY WERE FACING WITH THESE PROGRAMS. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO IMPROVE THE POLICY, TO MAKE IT MORE DEVELOPER FRIENDLY.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO HIT, 4 OR 5 POINTS REAL QUICKLY, ON THE AMENDMENT.

SO WE DO KNOW THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP IS A COUNCIL PRIORITY.

SO THAT IS A PRIORITY OF THE COUNCIL THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE, AND WE WANT TO SPUR ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE SINGLE FAMILY SPACE.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE MANY NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE ONLY HAVE TWO THAT ARE CERTIFIED.

RIGHT. AND SO THESE TWO PHOTOS, THEY ARE FACED WITH THE OPTION TO CONTINUE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH DECREASING PROFITS IMPACTING THEIR PERFORMANCE. OR THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO WALK AWAY AND NOT EVEN USE THE HOME.

SET ASIDE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED BY HUD TO PROVIDE TO THOSE NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS.

SO, IT'S A WIN WIN FOR BOTH THE CITY AND AS WELL AS THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WE ARE BOUND BY HUD TO PROVIDE THOSE DOLLARS TO THE SINGLE FAMILY PHOTOS.

IF NOT, WE WILL LOSE FUNDING, WHICH WILL IN TURN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT WE PROVIDE TO HOME BUYERS.

AND MY OTHER POINT WOULD BE THAT, LASTLY, THAT THE THIS IS AN EFFORT TO CORRECT BARRIERS IN THE POLICY AND AND AS WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICY, YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO TWEAK IT, YOU KNOW, EVALUATE THE POLICY AS YOU GO FORWARD.

AND THIS IS THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO TODAY AND WE HOPE THAT WE CAN GET YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL BE PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK THAT LOCKING OURSELVES INTO A FALSE NARRATIVE, THAT THAT REQUIRES US TO BE UNNECESSARILY RIGID IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE TRYING SO HARD, PARTICULARLY IN SOUTHERN DALLAS, TO BUILD NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WANT THE MOST, AS THEY DO EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY.

SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR BEING COOPERATIVE WITH EVERYBODY.

CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 15.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I RISING TO SPEAK UP ON ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH PASSING THIS AND I WANTED TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHY LAYERING IS IMPORTANT.

YOU HEARD STAFF ALREADY SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HOME PRICES ARE JUST OUT OF CONTROL.

I'M THE ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO LIVES IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

SO I DON'T OWN MY HOME.

AND, YOU KNOW, I STILL LOOK AT.

IS HOME OWNERSHIP GOING TO BE ATTAINABLE FOR ME LIVING HERE IN THE CITY? AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS THAT I GIVE THE EXAMPLE OF IS WE DID A HOME REPAIR PROGRAM THAT WE GOT TO USE, FOR AN EQUITY FOR EQUITY PURPOSES IN WEST DALLAS, AND WE CREATED A HOME REPAIR PROGRAM.

AND WE WE SPECIFICALLY MADE SURE THAT YOU COULD LAYER THIS FUND ON TOP OF OTHER HOME REPAIR FUNDS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HOME REPAIR PRICES HAVE GOTTEN ASTRONOMICALLY UNAFFORDABLE.

AND SO IF YOU NEED YOUR FOUNDATION REPAIRED, WHICH MOST PROGRAMS DON'T ALLOW, OURS DOES BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE SPECIFIC ON IT.

BEFORE IT WAS LIKE 8000, 10,000.

WELL, WHEN YOU'RE LOW INCOME OR, YOU KNOW, DON'T JUST DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS, I MIGHT AS WELL TOLD YOU IT'S $1 MILLION.

AND SO THAT'S THE SAME THING WITH THIS.

IT'S LIKE IN ORDER TO GET THERE, YOU JUST MAY NEED A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA HELP OR RESOURCES.

AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT TO LAYER IS BECAUSE PART OF IT MIGHT BE FORGIVABLE.

YOU STILL MAY HAVE A LOAN.

WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO PUT PEOPLE IN A DEBT THAT THEY CANNOT EVER, EVER GET OUT OF.

AND WE'VE SEEN THAT EXPERIENCE HAPPEN ON MANY OTHER ISSUES ACROSS NOT JUST THE STATE, BUT THIS NATION.

AND SO HAVING THE LAYERS IS IMPORTANT.

WE ONLY HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF CODES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, VERY, VERY LIMITED.

AND SO HEARING FROM THEM, WHAT'S CAUSING THEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO GET APPLICANTS IN THE DOOR IS BECAUSE THOSE APPLICANTS ALSO LOOK AT AND GO, OH, WOW, I HAVE A YOU KNOW, I'M JUST MAKING UP A NUMBER, $250,000 MORTGAGE, AND I HAVE $185,000 LOAN WITH THE CITY.

AND I HAVE A AND I HAVE A WELL, THEN I'M NEVER I'M NEVER GOING TO OWN THIS HOME.

I'M GOING TO LOSE IT AT SOME POINT.

AND SO BY HAVING THOSE LAYERS, THAT HELPS OUT SO MUCH AND GIVES A PEACE OF MIND AND, AND THE DOLLARS THAT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY INVESTING IN HERE IS MINUSCULE IN COMPARISON TO THE OVERALL BUDGET.

[01:30:01]

IN ORDER FOR US TO GET MORE AFFORDABILITY INTO OUR CITY.

AND IT'S SOMETHING WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO, AND WE MAY BE AMENDING THIS LATER ON.

WE MIGHT BE CHANGING IT AS THINGS CHANGE OR PROGRESS, OR WE GET MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKFORCE HOUSING BACK INTO THE CITY BECAUSE THINGS JUST HAPPEN TO WORK OUT.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO TRY SOMETHING.

WE'VE GOT TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE THE OLD WAYS JUST DON'T WORK.

AND SOMETIMES IT'S AN EXPERIMENT AND IT DOESN'T WORK.

AND HEY, WE'LL GO BACK AND CHANGE IT.

AND SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND IT WORKS REALLY WELL AND WE KEEP GOING FORWARD.

SO, EVEN WITH THAT HOME REPAIR PROGRAM THAT I MENTIONED, WE HAD TO MAKE CHANGES A LITTLE BIT LATER BECAUSE WE SAW THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T WORK.

AND TOGETHER WE'LL GET THERE, BUT WE'VE GOT TO TRY IT.

SO PLEASE, COLLEAGUES, I ASK THAT YOU SAY YES, MR. MAYOR, AND SO THAT WE CAN, KEEP COMMIT OUR COMMITMENT TO WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

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

THANK YOU. JUST FOR MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE HERE, YOU SAID WE HAVE TWO CODES THAT ARE CERTIFIED.

DO YOU HAVE THOSE NAMES YOU CAN SHARE WITH US OR SHARE WITH ME LATER? YOU CAN DO IT LATER IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM.

YES. SO THE TWO CODES THAT ARE CERTIFIED HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, THEY ARE BUILDERS OF HOPE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND NOTRE DAME PLACE INCORPORATED.

NOW ON THE WORD AFFORDABLE.

I KNOW WE, WE, WE KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH, IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND JUST MY PROFESSIONAL INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I WANT TO USE IS THAT AFFORDABLE MEANS WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD.

ALL OF US LIVE IN AFFORDABLE HOMES.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WE DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE WE CAN'T AFFORD.

BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF DEFINITION, HOW DO WE DEFINE WHAT'S THE PRICE RANGE OF THESE HOMES THAT WE'RE BUILDING AND LABELING AS AFFORDABLE? OKAY, SURE.

SO WE KNOW AFFORDABLE IS SUBJECTIVE.

SUBJECTIVE. BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE HUD DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE.

WHEN WE SAY AFFORDABLE IN HUD TERMS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAMILIES WHO ARE BELOW 80% OF THE AMI.

RIGHT. AND THERE IS A CAP ON THE SALES PRICE FOR THOSE FAMILIES AT 80% OF AMI.

AND CURRENTLY THAT SALES PRICE CAP IS $315,000.

SO THAT WILL BE A MAX SALES PRICE FOR FAMILIES THAT ARE 80% AND BELOW OF AMI.

HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH THE SALES PRICE IS 315, A LOT OF OUR FAMILIES CANNOT AFFORD 315 BECAUSE THEY ARE BURDENED WITH DEBTS, CONSUMER DEBTS, CAR NOTES, THAT TYPE OF THING.

SO THAT AFFORDABILITY SHRINKS FROM 315.

IT MAY BE 285, IT MAY BE 265, IT MAY BE 225.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO FILL THAT GAP FROM WHATEVER THE FAMILY CAN AFFORD THROUGH A MORTGAGE AND WHAT THE SALES PRICE IS.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBOX, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO AMEND THOSE POLICIES.

AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I WANT TO JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD, WHAT DOES AN INCOME LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 80%? AMI WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF INCOME? SO FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, 80% OF AMI, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME A FAMILY THAT MAY BRING HOME BETWEEN 82 TO $85,000 A YEAR.

AND THAT'S A COMBINED INCOME OR JUST A FAMILY OF FOUR.

IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE A WIFE AND A HUSBAND WITH TWO KIDS, OR IT COULD BE A SINGLE MOTHER WITH THREE KIDS.

ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WE WE LOOK AT INCOME, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CAP ON THE HOME.

WE LOOK WE'RE LOOKING AT A TERM AFFORDABILITY.

AND I HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE KIDDOS.

SO I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING I, I CAN SAY WITH BUILDERS OF HOPE, MR. JAMES ARMSTRONG, WHO I WORKED WITH AND SUPPORT, I DON'T CAN'T SPEAK ON THE OTHER, EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT PRIMARILY IN DISTRICT FOUR WORKING, BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE HE DOES NOT SAY NO.

AND SO I SUPPORT AND APPRECIATE WHAT HE DOES.

AND EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT HE CAN DO TO HELP ME IN OUR DISTRICT, TO TRY TO FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP, I APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT.

SO I DO WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD, BUT HE WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THAT I'M WORKING WITH TO TRY TO FIND FOLKS WHO CAN HELP THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE WHO MAY NOT HAVE MADE THE LIST. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I DO WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE IS, IN THIS INSTANCE, COMMITTED TO HIS CALLING.

THANK YOU. AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD TO WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, THE MISSION OF OUR DEPARTMENT.

WE PROVIDE THESE TOOLS, THESE GAP ENHANCING TOOLS TO THESE NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS, AND WE ARE TASKING THEM TO HELP US PROVIDE

[01:35:05]

AFFORDABLE, ATTAINABLE, AND EQUITABLE HOUSING TO ALL DALLAS RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO EACH AND EVERY DAY THAT WE COME TO WORK AS PUBLIC SERVANTS.

SO WE THANK OUR DEVELOPER COMMUNITY FOR, ENTRUSTING US AND WORKING WITH US.

AND I DO SUPPORT THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OF COURSE.

MISS WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND THIS ITEM, TOO, CAUGHT MY EYE WHEN I SAW THE FORGIVABLE LOAN ASPECT OF IT.

AND SO DID SOME RESEARCH.

AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE TO JAMES ARMSTRONG, TO JOE DINGMAN, AND TO THEIR ORGANIZATIONS FOR HELPING US STABILIZE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN SOME COMMUNITIES THAT REALLY HAVE ASKED FOR THAT.

AND SO, MR. DINGMAN, I APPRECIATE THE LETTER THAT I BELIEVE WENT TO ALL COUNCIL, BUT THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT CAUGHT MY EYE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE REVENUE LOSS ON THE FORGIVABLE LOANS IS MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE 15 YEAR PROPERTY TAX STREAM TO THE CITY.

SO HOW WE CAN STABILIZE AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD AND BE GREAT CONTRIBUTORS TO OUR CITY.

I THINK THIS IS A STEP THAT THAT HELPS THAT HAPPEN.

AND THEY'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS.

I KNOW STAFF HAS BEEN WATCHING THIS.

I DO HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN WITH REGARD TO WATCHING HOW WE LAYER THINGS SO THAT WE CAN SERVE MORE PEOPLE, BUT I SUPPORT ITEM 15. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN MORENO YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I TO SUPPORT THE THE ITEM.

I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR EXPEDIENCY IN GETTING THIS DONE.

I KNOW OUR DEVELOPERS, FELT THAT IT TOOK QUITE SOME TIME, BUT I KNOW THERE WERE SOME PARAMETERS IN LEGAL WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAD TO WORK THROUGH IN ORDER TO GET TO THIS POINT.

I ALSO AGREE, THOUGH, THAT WE HAVE TO WORK MORE DILIGENTLY WITH OUR APPLICANTS, TO GET THEM READY TO BE HOMEBUYERS.

AND WE'VE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS ON INCREASING PROGRAMING TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE READY FOR THAT HOME OWNERSHIP, WHEN THEY'RE AT THIS, AT THIS STAGE.

AND SO THANK YOU FOR FOR YOUR WORK.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO, APPROVING THIS ITEM.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 15? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NO.

THE AYES HAVE IT. I NOTE THE NO.

FROM CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

I'M HAVING. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 16.

ONE SECOND, MR. MAYOR.

[16. 24-383 Authorize an increase in the development loan agreement with Texas Heavenly Homes Ltd., or its affiliate (Applicant), conditioned upon the completion of a third-party underwriting for the development of the Bottom Infill, a 32-unit single-family affordable housing project located in the Bottom neighborhood of Council District 4 - Not to exceed $3,084,427.00, from $500,000.00 to $3,584,427.00 - Financing : Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds]

AGENDA ITEM 16 AUTHORIZED AN INCREASE IN THE DEVELOPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH TEXAS HEAVENLY HOMES LIMITED FOR ITS AFFILIATE OR ITS AFFILIATE APPLICANT, CONDITIONED UPON THE COMPLETION OF A THIRD PARTY UNDERWRITING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTTOM INFILL, A 32 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED IN THE BOTTOM NEIGHBORHOOD OF COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR, NOT TO EXCEED $3,084,427 FROM $500,000 TO $3,584,427.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM 16? YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL MARCH 27TH, 2024.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN.

SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM? YES, SIR. COUNCIL FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WON'T NEED ALL OF THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STILL HAVE SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

AND WE HAVE, SOME LOOSE ENDS THAT NEED TO BE TIED UP LEGALLY.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DECENT AND IN ORDER ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

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

ITEM 16.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, IS TO DEFER.

THANK YOU. I WILL SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE ON THIS.

I DID HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IF THEY CAN COME UP HERE.

AND WHILE YOU'RE WALKING, I'LL JUST ASK IT THE THIS ITEM IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY FOR SALE HOMES ON INFILL VACANT LOTS.

CORRECT? YOU ARE CORRECT.

COUNCILMAN. THAT WILL BE AFFORDABLE, CORRECT? YOU ARE CORRECT. OKAY, WELL I WILL HOPEFULLY THAT WE WE CAN WE CAN GET THIS ITEM APPROVED SOON.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PREVAILS.

ITEMS DEFERRED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 17.

AGENDA ITEM 17 AUTHORIZE THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION TO ONE, ACQUIRE, DEVELOP, AND OWN SANTA FE TRAIL AT HASKELL, LOCATED

[17. 24-343 Authorize the Dallas Public Facility Corporation to (1) acquire, develop, and own Santa Fe Trail at Haskell located at 4000 Ash Lane, Dallas, Texas 75223, a mixed-income, multifamily development to be located at 4000 Ash Lane; and (2) enter into a seventy-five-year lease agreement with Larkspur Capital, LP, or its affiliate, for the development of the Project - Estimated Revenue Forgone: General Fund $2,609,794.00 (For 75 years; see Fiscal Information)]

AT 4000 ASH LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

75223A MIXED INCOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 4000 ASH LANE AND TO ENTER INTO A

[01:40:04]

75 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LARKSPUR CAPITAL LP OR ITS AFFILIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN? YES. YEAH. FIVE MINUTES.

THIS IS A ANOTHER PSC THAT I WILL VOTE AGAINST AND LIKELY YOU WILL ALL VOTE FOR.

IT'S A 75 YEAR TAX ABATEMENT FOR A DEVELOPER WHERE HALF OF THE UNITS WILL BE MARKET RATE, THE OTHER HALF WILL BE AFFORDABLE, BUT ONLY 10% OF THEM WILL BE AT THE 60% AREA MEDIAN INCOME OR LESS.

WE KNOW THAT THAT IS WHERE OUR ACTUAL NEED IS FOR HOUSING.

60% ARE LOWER, AND THIS IS WHERE I BELIEVE OUR INVESTMENT SHOULD BE.

A 75 YEAR TAX ABATEMENT MEANS WE WON'T HAVE THE INCOMING REVENUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO OUR RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WAS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 17.

WE COULD PROBABLY JUST PUSH REPEAT ON THIS CONVERSATION EVERY WEEK.

A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

FIRST ONE IS, IS, IS THIS ON VACANT LAND OR IS THIS A ACQUISITION OF A PROPERTY? THIS IS ON VACANT PROPERTY.

ANNOUNCE YOURSELF. SO THIS IS ON.

THIS IS A NEW BUILD.

WE'RE NOT. AND WE ARE.

SO THERE'S REALLY VERY MINIMAL TAX REVENUE COMING FROM IT ALREADY, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

ALBERT GONZALEZ, PFC MANAGER.

I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.

WHAT'S THAT? YES.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, SO WE ARE WE'RE BASICALLY ACTIVATING A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AND WE'RE PUTTING HOUSING ON IT.

CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND IT'S RECENTLY BEEN APPROVED TO BE REZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

GREAT. AND HOW MANY NEW UNITS ARE WE GETTING OUT OF THIS? 240. OF WHICH 120 WILL BE RESTRICTED.

OKAY. SO HALF THE UNITS WILL BE MARKET RATE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THESE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND THEY MAY NOT BE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES THROUGH THIS.

THEN THE DEVELOPER WON'T, BUT THEY MIGHT BE PAYING SALES TAX.

RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

IF YOU HAVE A 240 UNITS, JUST THE CONGREGATION OF FAMILIES IN ONE PLACE WILL START TO CREATE SOME SORT OF MULTIPLIER EFFECT WHERE THEY'LL START GENERATING SALES TAX, SHOPPING NEARBY AND SO FORTH.

OUR DEVELOPERS BUILDING THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR FREE.

ARE THEY DOING IT OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEART? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

SO IF WE DON'T SUBSIDIZE THEM IN SOME WAY, IT'S PROBABLY NOT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE CITY, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

AND THIS IS A TOOL THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT BELIEVES IS IS EFFECTIVE IN PRODUCING AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR OUR CITY.

YEAH, ESPECIALLY PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS ONE BECAUSE SO FAR TO DATE THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PFC PROJECT.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM EITHER THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR HOUSING DEPARTMENTS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER ANY REVENUE AT ALL THAT THAT I HAVEN'T ASKED ABOUT THAT WILL BE COMING TO US LIKE A LEASE PAYMENT OR SOME TYPE OF PAYMENT TO THE PFC.

THE TYPICAL TERMS ARE PROVIDING AN ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENT TO THE PFC.

THERE WILL BE SOME OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AT CLOSING.

ALSO, UPON SALE OF THE PROJECT AT SOME FUTURE DATE, THERE'D BE A MINIMUM FEES ALSO TO THE PFC CORPORATION, SO THE PFC WILL BE MAKING REVENUE THAT THEY CAN THEN USE TO GENERATE NEW HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK, MISS ROGERS IS WORKING ON HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, WORK THROUGH THOSE FUNDS WHEN THE PFC REACHES THOSE, A POINT WHERE THEY HAVE EXCESS FUNDS BEYOND JUST THE TYPICAL NEEDED FOR OPERATIONS AS TO HOW IT WOULD GO INTO OTHER PROGRAMS TO SUPPLEMENT PROGRAMS SUCH AS, THE LAND BANK PROGRAM, PROPERTY DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, SINCE THOSE ARE THE FEW THAT WE HAVE IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT THAT ACTUALLY ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL GET TO, PURCHASING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

WHAT ARMY CATEGORIES WILL BE AFFECTED WITH THE, THE 120 UNITS OF, OF AFFORDABLE.

SO THE TWO ARMY CATEGORIES THAT ARE AFFECTED ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS UP TO 60% AMI, 10% OF THE UNITS WILL BE ALLOCATED TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES THAT ARE ALSO CAPPED OFF AT 80% AMI, AND 40% OF THE UNITS WILL BE ALLOCATED TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

OKAY, I KNOW WE THE CHILD POVERTY ACTION LAB HAS INDICATED THAT OUR PRIMARY, CATEGORY WE NEED TO FILL IS IN THE 30% AMI LEVEL.

BUT BY PROVIDING THIS LEVEL, ARE WE POTENTIALLY OPENING UP MORE UNITS AT THE 30% LEVEL? YES, SIR.

THIS TOOL WAS DEVELOPED IN ORDER FOR US TO ADDRESS THE WORKFORCE HOUSING CATEGORY.

MOST OF OUR FUNDING SOURCES WILL SERVE PEOPLE BELOW 80% AMI ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF AMI.

THIS PARTICULAR TOOL IS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

THAT'S HOW IT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS IN ITS IN ENTIRETY IN ITS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THAT IS HOW WE, CONTINUE TO USE IT.

[01:45:02]

AND WE KNOW WE NEED WORKFORCE HOUSING AS WELL AS WE NEED FOLKS AT 30% OR BELOW.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH THIS.

I FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

I'VE SUPPORTED MOST PFC PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD HERE.

I DO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES CONCERN ON WHAT ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES ON OUR PFC.

AT SOME POINT WE WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR OVERALL PICTURE IS OF LOST REVENUE TO THE CITY.

AND I'VE ALREADY ASKED MR. IRELAND TO INCLUDE THAT FINANCIAL PIECE OF THIS IN AN UPDATE TO GBFM IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I GO BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

YOU MENTIONED THE FEES THAT WOULD BE PAID TO THE PFC.

ARE THESE ABLE TO BE USED FOR OUR PARKS, OUR LIBRARIES, OUR STREETS? PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO, I DON'T THINK MISS ALEX HAS REACHED THE POINT TO WHERE SHE'S DETERMINED HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, MUCH LESS, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FEES THAT ARE PAID INTO THE PFC ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO BE USED BY THE PFC, CORRECT? THEY THEY'RE TO BE USED FOR WHAT WE DO IN THE AFFORDABLE IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

THAT'S HOW IT WAS STRUCTURED.

IS THAT ANY ANY ACTIVITIES THAT WE DO IN HOUSING, THOSE THOSE FEES CAN PAY FOR THAT.

SO THE FEES PAID TO THE PFC ARE NOT ABLE TO BE USED FOR PARKS, LIBRARIES, STREETS, PUBLIC SAFETY.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION.

I CAN'T I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE WHAT PFCS DO BEYOND WHAT WE DO, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT? I'M GOING TO ASK WILLY SANCHEZ TO COME UP.

BUT YOUR QUESTION IS, DOES THE FEES PAID TO THE PFC, CAN THEY BE USED TOWARDS CITY PROJECTS? IS THAT THE QUESTION? I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE PFC.

WHAT THE INTENT OF THE OF THE MONEY IS.

WELL, SPECIFICALLY THIS PFC, THE THE FUNDS PAID TO THIS PFC WERE TARGETED TO BE REUSED FOR ALL HOUSING ACTIVITIES THAT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT DOES IN GENERAL.

WHAT A PFC DOES.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

MAYOR. I WILL GET YOU THAT ANSWER, THOUGH.

I WILL GET YOU THAT. FEES WILL THEY BE USED? THESE FEES WILL BE USED ON OTHER HOUSING ACTIVITIES, SO THEY WILL NOT BE USED FOR THE SOURCES THAT I ASK.

NO, MA'AM. OKAY.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN HOMES, I THINK MAJID AL GUM-FREE WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING WHILE WILLOW IS MAKING HER WAY UP TO.

OKAY, GOOD, GOOD. GOOD MORNING.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MAJID AL GHAFFARI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ANY ANY HOUSING ACTIVITY WOULD INCLUDE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND SO IT WOULD PAY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT SPECIFIC HOUSING PROJECT.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE NOTION THAT THERE'S AN INITIATION FEE.

AND I WANT ROB, YOU KNOW, I WANT THE TEAM TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S AN INITIATION FEE THAT GOES BACK TO THE PFC.

IF THERE IS AN EARLY SALE OF THAT PROPERTY, A PORTION GOES BACK TO THE PFC AND ALL OF THOSE ARE PUT BACK INTO PFC ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING HOUSING PROJECTS AND INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL.

SO TO CLARIFY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FOR THE ACTUAL BUILDING THAT IT'S SERVING, NOT FOR STREETS THAT ARE NEARBY OR PARKS THAT ARE NEARBY.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT COULD BE DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PFC, PROJECT.

IT'S OUR LAND, CORRECT.

IT CANNOT BE BEYOND BEYOND THAT FACILITY.

THANK YOU. SO THE UNLESS UNLESS THERE'S MITIGATIONS NEEDED AS PART OF THAT PFC PROJECT.

RIGHT. SO THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING IS THAT THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE NOT RECEIVING INTO OUR GENERAL FUND THAT WOULD BE EXPENDED ON THESE ITEMS WON'T BE COMING TO US, WOULD STAY IN HOUSING, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING IS A BAD THING, THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING HOUSING, BUT IT IS TRANSFERRING MONEY THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE RECEIVE TO CHAIRMAN WEST POINT ABOUT SALES TAX.

I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT RESIDENTS THAT WILL COME AND LIVE THERE WILL SPEND MONEY IN THE CITY, BUT ACTUALLY, WHEN THIS PROJECT IS BEING BUILT, WILL THE DEVELOPER BE PAYING SALES TAX ON THOSE MATERIALS OR ARE THEY EXEMPTED? THE DEVELOPER WILL BE EXEMPTED FROM SALES TAX, AND A PORTION OF THAT SALES TAX WILL GO TO THE PFC CORPORATION TO BE PLACED INTO THE POOL OF FUNDS THAT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT WILL USE FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

AND THEN THE LOCATION OF THIS IS ON HASKELL, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THIS IS A KEY PIECE OF LAND IN OUR CITY.

IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT.

BUT AGAIN, THE POINT IS NOT THE ACTUAL DOLLARS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING TODAY FOR VACANT LAND VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT, WHICH AGAIN, WILL HAVE ZERO PROPERTY

[01:50:08]

TAXES. WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AND AN OPPORTUNITY COST THAT'S MISSED, WHERE WE WOULD RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT AD VALOREM TAXES THAT WOULD HELP BENEFIT ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY.

AND SO THIS IS JUST ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE OVER A DOZEN OF THESE PFCS AT THIS POINT.

AND I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE THE CALCULATION ON HOW MUCH WE'RE LOSING EVERY SINGLE YEAR COMING TO OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

AND AS WE STRUGGLE AND WE WILL BE STRUGGLING WITH OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE VOTED FOR 75 YEARS TO GIVE UP THESE AD VALOREM TAXES.

AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE TO NOT EVEN HAVE A LIMIT ON HOW MANY OF THESE WILL DO WHEN WE'RE NOT CREATING THE KIND OF HOUSING THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED, ACCORDING TO CHILD POVERTY ACTION LAB.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

IS THIS I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS AREA TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE A CATALYTIC PROJECT.

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YEAH. WE DO.

THAT'S ONE OF THE INITIAL STEPS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS DETERMINING THE SITE AND HOW IT'S IMPACTING WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, OTHER PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING ON AT ANY GIVEN TIME OF THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OF DALLAS OR DART AND SO FORTH.

WELL, I KNOW, BUT WHAT I'M ASKING REALLY IS IN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME I KNOW I HAVE, I THINK 3 OR 4 NOW IN DISTRICT 11 THAT ARE NOT CATALYTIC PROJECTS.

THEY'RE FILLING IN IMPORTANT WORKFORCE HOUSING.

THIS CASE, I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT TO CHAIR MENDELSON'S POINT, IF THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S UNDERDEVELOPED AND THAT IF THIS DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, IS IT GOING TO SPUR MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE PAYING FULL, YOU KNOW, TAXES AND ALL OF THAT, THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S IT'S ALMOST PROVING A MARKET POINT FOR THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WHICH WE KNOW BY NATURE IS VERY CAUTIOUS.

SO, AS WE KNOW, IN MOST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, ANY TIME THAT WE DO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, IT DOES SPUR OTHER ACTIVITIES TO GO ON, PARTICULARLY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND OR OTHER INFILL TYPE ACTIVITIES WITH NEW HOUSING, NEW RESIDENTS AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT COME WITH ECONOMIC GROWTH. SO THEN WHAT WE I THINK TO AGAIN, TO CHAIR MENDELSON'S POINT, AS WE LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE PFC MODEL, WHICH IS JUST ONE TOOL, AND THIS TOOL IS SPECIFICALLY TARGETING WORKFORCE HOUSING.

IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE, TO BE FOCUSING ON OUR LOWEST AMI LEVELS.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER TOOLS FOR THAT, SUCH AS FEDERAL MONEY AND OTHERS.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED FOR THAT.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T CONFLATE THE TWO, AND WE UNDERSTAND OUR VARIOUS MECHANISMS TO MOVE THE ENTIRE 80 PLUS THOUSAND NEEDLE THAT PEOPLE IN THEIR REPORT HAS MENTIONED.

BUT IN IN THESE CASES, THEN I DO THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTH IT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AS WE LOOK AT THE CHART THAT SHE WANTS.

AND I THINK IT'S A TOTALLY AND IN GBFM APPROPRIATE REQUEST, THEN WE ALSO LOOK AT THE OVERALL WAVES OF IMPACT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE OVER THE AREA.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF RIGHT NOW THE THE FOREGONE REVENUE IS 2 MILLION BECAUSE IT'S JUST AN EMPTY LOT, RIGHT? AND YES, IT MAY BE A LOT MORE POTENTIALLY, BUT WHAT AROUND IT, HOW ARE WE HOW WHAT'S THE RIPPLE IN TERMS OF THE INCREASED VALUE ALL AROUND IT THAT THIS MAY CAUSE? SO IT CAN OFFSET QUITE A BIT OF THAT, INVESTMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING FOR THIS TIME PERIOD.

SO LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AT THIS HOLISTICALLY.

WE WILL DO THAT. WE WILL START TO LOOK AT HOW THESE, WE WILL START TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND AS THESE DEVELOPMENTS GO UP, AS WELL AS WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE, AND GIVE A REPORT ON THAT WHEN WE WHEN WE HAVE THEM IN THERE FURTHER ALONG, BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE SO NEW.

AND I THINK ALSO NOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS STOOD UP THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS, THAT WILL BE A GREAT RESOURCE FOR YOU.

SO IT'S NOT ENTIRELY ON YOU TO LOOK AT EVERY ASPECT OF HOUSING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE, BUT IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM 17 BEFORE WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO? AS A ROLL CALL, I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

SO, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND INITIATE THE ROLL CALL.

THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES, MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS.

YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY.

[01:55:01]

RESENDEZ. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. NARVAEZ.

BAZALDUA. YES.

STEWART. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ.

MENDELSOHN. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS.

RIDLEY WITH 14 VOTING IN FAVOR ONE.

OPPOSE. THE ITEM PASSES.

MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.

NEXT ITEM PLEASE. THANK YOU.

[18. 24-379 Authorize the ratification of a resolution for the architectural and engineering professional services contract for emergency design of 1950 Forth Worth Avenue - Kirksey Architects Inc., dba Kirksey Architecture, most qualified bidder of two - Not to exceed $536,186.00 - Financing: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund]

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 18.

OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 18 AUTHORIZE THE RATIFICATION OF A RESOLUTION FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY DESIGN OF 1950 FORT WORTH AVENUE.

KIRKSEY ARCHITECTS, INC., DBA KIRKSEY.

KIRKSEY, ARCHITECT, MOST QUALIFIED BIDDER OF TWO NOT TO EXCEED $536,186.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN.

SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN MORENO CHAIRMAN WEST, THANK YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN SOME COMMENTS.

THIS PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT BY THE CITY THREE YEARS AGO IN MY DISTRICT.

AND TO THEIR CREDIT, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT ONE WHO LIVE NEARBY RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, AND THEY HAVE SUPPORTED THE PURCHASE. DESPITE A LOT OF HEARTACHE AND A LOT OF HARD CONVERSATIONS IN DISTRICT ONE.

TO SORT OF OVERCOME THE FEAR OF BRINGING THIS TYPE OF PROJECT INTO DISTRICT ONE.

BUT SINCE THIS WAS BOUGHT THREE YEARS AGO, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF MISSTEPS.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DELAYS THAT HAVE PREVENTED ANY PROGRESS OF THIS PROJECT.

IT'S A REAL SHAME, BECAUSE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS MUCH NEEDED TO TO FURTHER OUR HOMELESSNESS GOALS IN THE CITY.

AT THIS POINT, THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT, IN MY OPINION, LIES WITH THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND EXPERIENCED, HIGH QUALITY, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPER AND FACILITATOR.

AND I'M CONCERNED WITH THIS ITEM, BECAUSE OF STAFF'S INSISTENCE ON ENGAGING ITS OWN ARCHITECT AND DOING SO FIVE OR MORE MONTHS BEFORE A PROJECT DEVELOPER IS SELECTED.

SO WE GOT THE ARCHITECT, WE'RE APPROVING THAT.

AND THEN THEORETICALLY DOING DESIGN WORK BEFORE THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO USE IT, WOULD ACTUALLY BE AT THE TABLE.

SO MY QUESTIONS TO STAFF ARE GOING TO BE TO MAKE MYSELF.

SO BECAUSE I DO WANT TO SUPPORT THIS, I WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, BUT IT'S TO MAKE MYSELF AND HOPEFULLY MAKE MY COMMUNITY AND OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS FEEL BETTER.

SO FIRST OF ALL, PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF THE WORK THAT KIRKSEY, WILL BE LIMITED TO PRIOR TO THE SELECTION AND ENGAGEMENT OF A DEVELOPER THROUGH THE NOFA PROCESS.

DARREN WADE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KIRKSEY ARCHITECTS THEY WILL BE ONLY RIGHT NOW, AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, ARE DOING PRELIMINARY WORK, MEANING ASSESSING THE SITE, DETERMINING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WILL BE REHABILITATED FOR THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

AND I CAN ALSO ASSURE YOU AND THE CONSTITUENTS THAT THE ARCHITECT WILL COLLABORATE, COLLABORATE.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COLLABORATE WITH THE DEVELOPER ONCE THE DEVELOPER IS SELECTED.

AND THEY HAVE GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO THAT, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO ENSURE THAT HAPPENS.

AND WE WILL ENSURE THAT HAPPENS AS THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S OVERSEEING THIS PROJECT, THE DEVELOPMENT PIECE.

TWO QUESTIONS. ONE FOLLOW UP TO THAT, HOW CAN THE ARCHITECT DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS WHEN THE PROJECT DEVELOPER, THE FACILITATOR, ISN'T SELECTED YET? HOW CAN WE.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY.

IS THE ARCHITECT GOING TO KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FOOT THEY NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF PROJECT? SO WE HAVE A FLOOR OF WHERE THEY START, WHICH IS 40 UNITS.

THAT'S WHAT'S PUT INTO THEIR AGREEMENT.

BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY'LL BE COLLABORATING WITH THE DEVELOPER.

AND AND AGAIN, THIS PROPOSAL CLOSES MARCH 11TH.

THAT'S ONLY A FEW WEEKS AWAY WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THE DEVELOPER IN VERY QUICKLY AND START WORKING WITH THE A AND E COMPANY VERY, VERY QUICKLY.

BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE STARTING.

IT'S NOT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION ON ALL THE UNITS THAT NEED TO BE THERE.

THEY'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION.

AND I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT ALSO, AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, I BELIEVE IT'S FEBRUARY THE 27TH, WE WILL HAVE OUR FINAL PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING WITH OUR INTERESTED DEVELOPERS AND OPERATORS.

AND SO AS PART OF THAT AGENDA, THAT ITINERARY, WE WILL BRING ON THE ARCHITECT, THEY WILL BE PART OF THAT ITINERARY, AND THERE WILL BE COMMUNICATION WITH THE

[02:00:08]

ARCHITECT, AS WELL AS THE INTERESTED DEVELOPERS AND OPERATORS TO TALK ABOUT THESE VERY THINGS.

SO EVEN BEFORE THE OPERATOR SELECTED, THE ARCHITECT WILL BE TALKING TO EVERYBODY WHO'S IN THE POOL TO UNDERSTAND, HEY, YOU KNOW, DON'T GO OUT OF THESE BARRIERS IN YOUR DESIGN WORK, OKAY? THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.

YES, I WOULD FEEL CONCERNED ABOUT.

THE ARCHITECT DECIDING ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS WITHOUT BEFORE WE GET THERE THOUGH, SO I'D HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

I'M FINE MOVING FORWARD.

I JUST NEED TO GET THOSE QUESTIONS OUT.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY FOR THE PROCESS, FOR THE FUTURE AND YOU'RE JUST THE MESSENGER.

I'M BECAUSE YOU GUYS CAME IN LATE AND I'VE BEEN VERY HAPPY SINCE YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS.

BUT I DON'T LIKE THIS PROCESS OF SELECTING THE ARCHITECT BEFORE THE PROJECT.

I THINK THE PROJECT DEVELOPER SHOULD SELECT THEIR OWN ARCHITECT.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN THEIR POSITION.

SO I WILL SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THIS PROJECT MOVING.

AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL DO THE SAME.

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

THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT.

I CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED? THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO IN AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S ASSET AND TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF ITS RESIDENTS WITH THIS PROPERTY, WE DEEMED IT AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT WE WERE HAVING WITH THE PROPERTY SITE.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BREAK INS.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF VANDALISM EVENTS, FIRES SET BY, HOMELESS RESIDENTS THAT THAT WERE LIVING IN THE BASEMENT OF THE AREA.

SO IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY, TO ENSURE THAT WE PRESERVE THE ASSET DUE TO, RAIN, WHATEVER WEATHER RELATED ISSUES THAT WERE GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY, WE DEEM THE NECESSARY TO, INITIATE AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH, TO GET THIS WORTHY, TO GET US TO THIS POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

SO I'M NOT SURE THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU, BUT WHY WOULD IT SUDDENLY BE AN EMERGENCY AFTER THREE YEARS? WELL, I WILL.

I WILL SAY THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS, YOU KNOW, FALSE STARTS.

AS COUNCILMAN WEST INDICATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH JUST TRYING TO FIND A FACILITATOR AND OPERATOR DEVELOPER.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES, NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO GET THIS PROJECT UP AND RUNNING.

RIGHT. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE 3 OR 4 YEAR DELAY IS SOMETHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND IF IT WAS AN EMERGENCY, WHY IT WAS AN EMERGENCY THREE YEARS AGO.

THAT THAT'S KIND OF WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE RIGHT NOW.

BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW WE FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY, TO ADDRESS HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.

AND SO WE DEEMED IT AN EMERGENCY.

SO WE CAN GET THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT AND GET THE PROJECT SUCCESSFUL AND HAVE THE PROJECT HOUSING HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND PROVIDING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AS YOU ARE ADVOCATE FOR. CHRISTINE CROSSLEY, OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS AS AN EMERGENCY, EMERGENCY PROCESS AND WORKING WITH OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS ON THAT QUALIFICATION, EVERYTHING DARWIN JUST TALKED ABOUT, OF COURSE, HOMELESSNESS IS AN EMERGENCY, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THIS BUILDING ITSELF AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES COUNCIL MEMBER WEST REFERRED TO.

AND SO THERE IS A HEIGHTENED SENSE OF URGENCY TO GET THIS PROJECT, FINISHED BECAUSE OF THE VACANCY IN THE BUILDING AND THE THINGS THAT'S DOING AND THE FUNDING THAT WE ARE SPENDING TO KEEP IT SECURED.

IF YOU HAVE A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

I DON'T THINK HIRING AN ARCHITECT IS GOING TO SOLVE THAT.

THAT'S FIRST OFF.

SECOND, I HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN THIS BECAUSE OF COURSE, WE PURCHASED A PROPERTY IN DISTRICT 12 AT THE SAME TIME, AT THE SAME DAY, AT THE SAME MEETING.

THE PROPERTY IN DISTRICT 12 WAS IMMEDIATELY OPENED HAS SERVED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF HOMELESS FAMILIES.

IT'S DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT EVEN THAT FACILITY NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ENVIRONMENT THAT THAT PARTICULAR OPERATOR NEEDED. AND TO THE POINT THAT CHAIRMAN WEST IS MAKING IS WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN OPERATOR SELECTED AND YOU'VE GOT AN ARCHITECT, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHAT COMMON SPACE MIGHT BE NEEDED AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL UNITS? I AM AN ADVOCATE FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE SO LATE IN THE GAME.

[02:05:05]

I MEAN, THIS THIS SEEMS TO BE LIKE EVERY SINGLE HICCUP THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED OVER THREE YEARS.

AND I THINK CHAIRMAN MORENO YOU AS THE HOUSING CHAIR.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE MEETING, LOTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE, BUT THREE YEARS OF AN EMPTY BUILDING.

WHEN WE SAY WE HAVE A HOMELESS CRISIS AND THIS IS JUST THIS IS THIS IS EMBARRASSING FOR OUR CITY.

AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE CONTINUING IT BY NOW, HIRING AN ARCHITECT BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE THE OPERATOR TO KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

AND I'M AGAIN, NOT SURE HOW AN ARCHITECT IS GOING TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO I, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO CHAIRMAN WEST.

BUT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO DELAY THIS, I WOULD DEFINITELY SECOND THAT EMOTION, THAT THAT MOTION.

THAT'S A SONG.

IT IS. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ACTING WITH URGENCY.

I THINK YOU'VE HEARD OUR COLLEAGUES AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT WE WANT TO MOVE ON THIS PROJECT.

AND I HAVE FAITH THAT THE ARCHITECT IS GOING TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY, WITH WHATEVER PROVIDER PARTNER COMES IN WITH STAFF.

I DO ASK STAFF TO BE THAT MEDIATOR TO ENSURE THAT CONSTANT COMMUNICATION IS HAPPENING, HAPPENING.

BUT I DO WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TIMELINE THAT YOU ALL HAVE PROVIDED.

WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT IN A SOONER THAN LATER.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING AND GETTING INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED THAT HOUSING IN THOSE BEDS.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OF COURSE. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE ON ITEM 18.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF DESIGNATING THIS CONTRACT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? THE ATTORNEYS? YEAH.

SO AND AS WE TO TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS CONTRACT.

RIGHT. INITIALLY THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS BEFORE COUNCIL IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

OKAY. AND WE HAD THOSE ISSUES WITH THE PROCUREMENT.

SO IN AN EFFORT TO, TO HAVE THIS ITEM, YOU KNOW, PUSHED FORWARD, WE DEEMED IT AN EMERGENCY DUE TO ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT CHRISTINE WAS DEALING WITH.

AROUND THE SAFETY, AROUND VANDALISM, AROUND SECURITY AND FENCING.

SO IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH, WITH THIS ITEM, WE DEEMED IT AN EMERGENCY.

WE WENT THROUGH THE CITY'S INTERNAL PROCUREMENT PROCESSES TO PUSH THIS ITEM AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM.

WHEN YOU SEE THE A AND E, THE A AND E AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL RFQ THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE A AND E FIRM, WE REQUIRE THE A AND E FIRM TO COLLABORATE WITH THE CITY SELECTED DEVELOPER.

OKAY, NONE OF THAT IS ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION IS HOW DID THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS CHANGE? BY DESIGNATING THIS AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT, I NOTICED THAT IT WAS COMPETITIVELY BID.

SO THIS WASN'T MADE A NO BID CONTRACT.

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT AND A NORMAL CONTRACT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

DANIELLE THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRADITIONAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT PROCESS, THE PROCESS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.

HOWEVER, THE DESIGNATION FOR WHY WE PROCEED WITH AN EMERGENCY AND THE EXPEDITED PROCESS IS OUTLINED IN THE THE CODE BASICALLY STATING IT HAS TO BE A PUBLIC CALAMITY.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF NECESSARY DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH TO ONE OF OUR ASSETS, AS HE STATED.

SO BECAUSE THIS WAS A DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING, THERE WAS A PUBLIC ISSUE WITH THE HEALTH.

WE MOVED ON AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT, BUT THAT DOES NOT NULLIFY THAT.

THE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED.

SO WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.

IT WAS AN EXPEDITED PROCESS BECAUSE THIS WAS IN FACT DEEMED AN EMERGENCY.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU JUST GAVE THIS CONTRACT PROCUREMENT AN EXPEDITED REVIEW ABOVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT MIGHT HAVE COME IN BEFORE THIS ONE.

CORRECT. IT'S DEEMED AND THAT'S ALL THAT MEANS, THAT IT WAS DONE ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS.

IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE BIDDING PROCESS OR ANYTHING ELSE.

NO. SO AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT NULLIFY ANY OF THE PROCESSES.

WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S DEEMED AN EMERGENCY, THERE IS AN ESCALATED EFFORT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IMMEDIATELY TO TO ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY.

OKAY. SO I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE TO THIS HAVING BEEN DESIGNATED IN EMERGENCY.

IF ALL THAT DID WAS ACCELERATE THE PROCESS, THE SAME PROCESS THAT'S USED FOR REGULAR CONTRACTS.

[02:10:07]

SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A BIG ISSUE.

I AM INTERESTED TO KNOW IF STAFF HAS DEVELOPED A BUILDING PROGRAM FOR THIS PROJECT TO PROVIDE TO THE ARCHITECT, TO GUIDE THEIR DESIGN WORK.

YES, SIR. SO THERE IS A PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN THAT WAS INITIATED BY FORMER R&D FIRM BC WORKSHOP.

SO THAT THAT IS OUT THERE.

SO THE DESIGN FIRM AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE SEEKING TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS THROUGH THE NOFA PROCESS FOR THE REHABILITATION, THEY DO HAVE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS.

HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE REQUIRED COLLABORATION WITH THE NEW PLANS THAT STAND.

BUT WHAT ABOUT A PROGRAM FOR THE BUILDING THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, SPECIFIES SQUARE FOOTAGE, NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF COMMON AREAS, WHAT YOU WANT TO USE THE BUILDING FOR. THAT'S WHAT AN ARCHITECT CONSIDERS A BUILDING PROGRAM.

SO SO WE DO HAVE THAT.

AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE RFQ DOCUMENTS THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM.

AND THAT IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE NOFA THAT IS PROVIDED TO THE DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTING TEAM.

SO THE ARCHITECT IS NOT FREE TO START FROM SCRATCH AND DEVELOP SOME TAJ MAHAL THERE.

THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND THE BUILDING PROGRAM SO THAT WE GET WHAT WE WANT, REGARDLESS OF WHO THE DEVELOPER IS.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 18? I DON'T SEE ANY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 27.

ITEM 27 AUTHORIZE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH.

CEASE FIRE. NOW.

WE'LL TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS WHILE WE CLEAR THE GALLERY.

CEASE FIRE! ALL RIGHT. THIS MEETING IS BACK IN SESSION.

THANK YOU FOR THE TWO MINUTE RECESS, MADAM SECRETARY.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

THIS MEETING IS BACK IN SESSION.

THANK YOU FOR THE TWO MINUTE RECESS, MADAM SECRETARY.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 27.

[27. 24-172 Authorize a master cooperative agreement with Staples to provide critical non-food items, such as period products, diapers, adult diapers and other hygiene items for distribution in high needs communities or to residents for the period February 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 - Not to exceed $700,000.00 - Financing: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund ($300,000.00) and Equity Fund ($400,000.00)]

AUTHORIZE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH STAPLES TO PROVIDE CRITICAL NON-FOOD ITEMS SUCH AS PERIOD PRODUCTS, DIAPERS, ADULT DIAPERS, AND OTHER HYGIENE ITEMS FOR DISTRIBUTION IN HIGH NEEDS COMMUNITIES OR TO RESIDENTS FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2025 NOT TO EXCEED $700,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECOND DISCUSSION.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS AGENDA ITEM IS.

SO IS IT THAT WE'RE ALLOCATING $700,000 TO BUY TAMPONS AND PADS FOR PEOPLE? HI. JESSICA GARLICK, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CARE.

THE CONTRACT, ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS AGENDA ITEM IS DOING IS IT IS HELPING US WITH A PROGRAM THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTING TO TRANSITION TO A VENDOR. BECAUSE WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THE PRIOR VENDOR FOR OUR PAD PROGRAM.

[02:15:01]

SO IT'S NOT AN ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

THESE ARE FUNDS THAT ARE ALREADY COMMITTED FOR THE PROJECT, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING A NEW VENDOR OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, SUSTAINED, PROGRAMING AND RELIABILITY THROUGH THE END OF THE PROGRAM TERM.

AND WHEN IS THE END OF THE PROGRAM TERM? SO THE PROGRAM WE'RE WORKING ON OUR SUSTAINABILITY PLAN.

AND IN FACT, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS DURING THE WI MEETING, EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING, AS WE HAD ORIGINALLY KIND OF DISCUSSED FROM THE INITIAL, INITIATION OF THE PROJECT, WE'RE HOPING TO TRANSITION THE PROGRAM INTO ITS SUSTAINABLE PHASE WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS IN 2025.

SO DOES IT END THIS FISCAL YEAR? NO, MA'AM.

THE 20 2025.

SO IT ENDS THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 25.

WELL, IT'S TERM THROUGH THE END OF THE ANNUAL YEAR, THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2025, TO ALIGN WITH ARPA SPENDING.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS.

THE THING IS THAT I AM UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF OF FEMININE HYGIENE, RIGHT? I THINK ALL WOMEN UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE.

HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PAYING FOR THIS.

AND AS WE HAVE SPENT SO MANY MONTHS TALKING ABOUT THE URGENT NEEDS ACROSS OUR CITY, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY COME DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THIS ONE.

BUT I KNOW ABOUT OUR UNFUNDED PENSION.

I KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITION OF OUR STREETS.

I KNOW ABOUT LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT NEED DOLLARS AND.

I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ARE NOT STAYING IN OUR LANE.

AND THERE ARE NONPROFITS, INCLUDING FOOD BANKS, THAT ARE PROVIDING THESE RESOURCES TO FOLKS.

THE SECOND THING IS, SHOULD WE FEEL THE NEED TO TAKE ACTION IN THIS AREA, PERHAPS WE WOULD NOT USE A CONSUMABLE SOLUTION, BUT ACTUALLY A MORE SUSTAINABLE ONE.

SO THERE ARE REUSABLE, AMENITIES THAT PEOPLE CAN AVAIL THEMSELVES OF LONG BEFORE WE HAD DISPOSABLE HYGIENE ITEMS. FOR CENTURIES, WOMEN DEALT WITH THIS IN OTHER WAYS, SO I JUST WANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO VOTE NO.

I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON.

WE NEED TO GET VERY SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT OUR JOB IS LIKE REPLACING PLAYGROUNDS THAT ARE OUT OF DATE, FIXING STREETS, MAKING SURE THAT OUR BUILDINGS AND OTHER ASSETS ARE INTACT, MAKING SURE OUR CITY IS UP TO DATE.

BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE JUST BEYOND WHAT OUR CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING.

AND SO I JUST HOPE THAT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL START THINKING VERY SERIOUSLY ABOUT HOW WE'RE DOING THIS.

AND SO I'M JUST WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.

NO. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I AM NOT A SPORTS PERSON, BUT MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING IS, I THINK, A TERM THAT MEANS YOU COME BACK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED A WHILE AGO.

AND THIS ITEM HAS BEEN IN OPERATION NOW FOR QUITE A WHILE.

IT'S IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR LOCAL NONPROFITS.

WE HAVE HEARD STORY AFTER STORY THROUGH THE WE PROGRAM, THROUGH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT HOW IT'S ENABLED YOUNG WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL WHO ARE TOO EMBARRASSED TO BE ABLE TO.

OTHERWISE THEY WERE STAYING HOME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS.

SO THOUGH YES, MANY OF US MAY BE FEMALE, MOST OF US DID NOT HAVE THE THE INEQUITY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THESE ITEMS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

I BELIEVE THAT DALLAS STANDS FOR DIGNITY, AND THAT EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE OUR RESIDENTS DIGNITY, AND THIS IS BEING DONE THROUGH OUR LIBRARIES, OUR SCHOOLS, OUR REC CENTERS. AND IT WOULD BE SHAMEFUL, IN FACT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THESE FUNDS ARE NOT AFFECTING ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, PREVIOUSLY IN TERMS OF SORT OF SOURCES TO DENY THAT AND SAY TO THEM, SORRY, YOU FIGURE IT OUT.

SO I, I HAVE I AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF US WORKING THROUGH THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAD WITH OUR VENDOR AND THAT ALSO, REALLY RETOOLING THIS, WHICH I THINK DIRECTOR GALLISHAW YOU PRESENTED AND YOU PRESENTED WELL TO US AT WE YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB ON THIS, AND I WANT YOU TO BE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING AND ALL THE LIVES THAT YOU'RE HELPING MAKE BETTER IN DALLAS THROUGH PROGRAMS LIKE THIS.

I KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, MY OWN YOUTH COMMISSIONER IS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS HAVING AT HER HIGH SCHOOL.

[02:20:01]

AND SO AS WE MOVE TOWARD A SORT OF ADOPTION MODEL THROUGH THE VARIOUS PARKS AND REC CENTERS, WE COULD DO THIS VERY EASILY AND BE ABLE TO HELP IN MANY WAYS.

SO THANK YOU AND I WILL.

I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

AND I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD WORKED ON A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

SO IT'S NOT NEW TO THIS DISCUSSION.

CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS? OR BETTER YET, REFRESH US OF HOW THIS PROGRAM WORKS AND ALL THE DATA THAT WE'VE COLLECTED? HEY. YES, MA'AM.

SO, THE ACCESS DALLAS PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES, MENSTRUAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS, PADS AND TAMPONS THROUGH A CITY FACILITY, SITES ACROSS THE CITY.

IT STARTED INITIALLY WITH A HANDFUL OF SITES AND WAS ABLE TO BE EXPANDED TO ALL RECREATION CENTERS, LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY CENTERS. OVER THE LONG TERM, THAT'S OVER 70 SITES NOW WHERE THE PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE.

THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS, UPON REQUEST.

AND THEY CAN ALSO KIND OF BE GRABBED OUT OF THE RESTROOMS. WE'VE ACTUALLY NOTICED THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR TAKING PRODUCTS STRAIGHT FROM THE RESTROOM, AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID A DIRECT INTERACTION. SO WE'RE WORKING ON HOW WE CAN, GET EVEN MORE EFFICIENT IN THAT REGARD.

AS FAR AS THE DATA GOES, WE HAVE REALLY LEARNED A LOT, SOME INITIAL DATA THAT WE GOT EARLY ON IN THE PROGRAM SHOWED THAT OVER 40% OF THE RESPONDENTS ACTUALLY INDICATED THAT THEY HAD EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, MISS TWO OR MORE DAYS OF SCHOOL OR WORK DUE TO NOT HAVING ACCESS TO PRODUCTS.

AND SO THAT WAS REALLY KIND OF AN EYE OPENING ITEM.

AND WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON COLLECTING SOME ADDITIONAL DATA TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND OUT, FROM A BIGGER SAMPLE NOW THAT WE HAVE A LOT MORE DISTRIBUTION.

WE'VE SEEN THAT THE MAJORITY OF PRODUCTS REQUESTED TENDS TO BE THE PAD PRODUCTS.

WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF REQUESTS ACROSS VARIOUS AGE GROUPS, BUT ACTUALLY IT DOES SKEW A LITTLE BIT YOUNGER, WHICH IS KIND OF AN INTERESTING INSIGHT, ESPECIALLY WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT THE SCHOOLS AND THE INTEREST OF OUR YOUTH COMMISSION.

AND SO TAYLOR AND I ARE TALKING ABOUT THE YOUTH COMMISSION PARTNERSHIP INTO THE FUTURE AS WELL.

FROM THE LAUNCH OF THIS PROGRAM, OF COURSE, THE INTENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE.

THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND PHILANTHROPIES.

WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PURSUE THAT TO AN EXTENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING OVER THE NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THIS TO GO AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE ARPA GOES AWAY.

WE'RE VERY COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT THIS CONTINUES.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK OF THE WEEK.

MIDI AS WELL AS WE DID GET SOME COMMITMENTS OF FOLKS TO REALLY HELP US SUPPORT THAT SUSTAINABILITY WORK INTO THE FUTURE.

SO, THE I WANT I'M AS FAR AS DATA GOES, WE DID SEE A LARGE POPULATION OF LATINO OR LATINA, I SHOULD SAY, IN HISPANIC, INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING.

OUR COMMUNITY CENTERS ARE, OF COURSE, HIGH DISTRIBUTION RATES, BUT OUR LIBRARIES ARE GROWING MONTH AFTER MONTH.

WE SEE A LOT MORE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF ORGANIC, TYPE OF INSIGHT AND REQUESTS THAT ARE COMING AS WELL.

AND WE HAVE PEOPLE REQUESTING THESE THINGS ALL ACROSS THE CITY.

SO, WE WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE NECESSARILY ADDRESS THIS BODY IN A PUBLIC WAY ABOUT THIS NEED, WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK, EXPRESSIONS OF APPRECIATION.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF INQUIRIES, EVEN FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES.

THIS SEEMS TO BE A GROWING TREND ACROSS CITIES IN THE, IN THE COUNTRY.

MORE AND MORE CITIES ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO PROMOTE MENSTRUAL EQUITY.

AND SO, OVERALL, WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE PROGRAM.

BUT WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY IT'S A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM.

YEAH, IT HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.

IT'S USED AND IT IS NEEDED BECAUSE I THINK OUR DUTY IS WHEN THERE IS A VOID IN GETTING SOMETHING DONE, WE MUST STEP IN AND AT THE TUNE OF $400,000.

AND HOW BIG IS OUR BUDGET? IT'S OVER A BILLION.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW 400,000 IS GOING TO DO WHATEVER WAS SAID THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE, FIX OUR PENSION, WHICH IS A LITTLE BILLION DOLLAR HOLE.

SO, YES, YOU HAVE HEARD ME COMMITTED IN THE WE, COMMITTEE MEETING.

I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES AGAIN, I'VE BEEN LOOKING TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE PLAN.

I HAVE DROPPED THE BALL.

MY APOLOGIES.

I'M BACK ON IT.

BUT I DON'T WANT THIS TO GO AWAY BECAUSE THE WILL OF THE BODY ISN'T THERE.

THIS IS AN EQUITY ISSUE.

IT AFFECTS HALF THE POPULATION.

AND WE MUST FILL A VOID BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A BUSINESS ISSUE.

[02:25:02]

WHEN PEOPLE LOSE TWO DAYS OF SCHOOL OR WORK, IT IS A NEEDED THING AND IT HAPPENS WHETHER Y'ALL WANT IT TO OR NOT FOR FOR HALF OF OUR POPULATION.

SO, I AM PROUD TO STAND BY THIS, AND I AM ACTUALLY PROUD TO WORK WITH YOU.

AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID THEY WOULD WORK WITH ME IN THIS BECAUSE AGAIN, IF THERE IS A NEED, IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO MEET THAT NEED.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS TO COME FROM OUR COFFERS.

BUT I THINK AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL, WE SHOULDN'T JUST FOLD UP AND SAY WE'RE GOING HOME BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THE WILL THERE.

WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET THIS DONE.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I'M GLAD STAPLES IS GOING TO BE A WILLING VENDOR.

THE LAST THING YOU NEED IS A VENDOR WHO'S NOT WILLING TO PARTICIPATE.

BUT I DO THINK YOU HAVE AT LEAST ME IN HELPING YOU ACHIEVE OUR GOALS AND NOT JUST FOLD UP SHOP BECAUSE IT IS IT'S A NEEDED THING.

SO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA.

YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 27.

JESSICA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

ALSO, THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND THE YOUTH COMMISSION FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

I THINK IT THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE PROGRAM.

I HAVE A MIDDLE SCHOOL DAUGHTER WHO CAME TO ME AND ASKED ME TO MAKE A DONATION TO A CHARITY ONLINE FOR PERIOD POVERTY, AND THAT OPENED OUR EYES A LOT TO JUST HEARING FROM A YOUNG PERSON TO COME HOME AND SEE THAT SHE HAS SEEN THIS BE AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE THAT SHE GOES TO SCHOOL WITH, WANTING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO ME THAT THAT SAYS A LOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE DATA AND WHERE IT IS, I REMEMBER AS A TEACHER, THIS BEING AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE CONVERTED INTO THE THE CLEAR BACKPACKS, I THINK THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED A LOT MORE OPENLY AT THAT POINT.

BUT THE REALITY WAS THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, AND THERE WAS A NEED THAT WASN'T BEING MET.

I HAVE TALKED TO MY, COMMISSIONER FOR LIBRARIES, AND SHE HAS MENTIONED THAT SKYLINE BRANCH LIBRARY SPECIFICALLY HAS, INCREASED A LOT OF SUPPLY AND INCREASED A LOT OF USAGE OF THE LIBRARY IS CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL? YEAH. THE LIBRARIES HAVE REALLY GROWN IN TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION.

IT IS REALLY AN ORGANIC TYPE OF, GROWTH WHERE WE SEE EACH MONTH A FEW HUNDRED MORE, BEING REQUESTED COLLECTIVELY IN AGGREGATE. WE HAVE DONE, YOU KNOW, SOME OUTREACH WORK, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ALSO PROBABLY JUST A LOT OF KIND OF ORGANIC, TYPE WHEN PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT IT AND WHEN THEY, COMMUNICATED OR SHARE IT WITH THEIR FRIENDS.

SO WE HAVE.

DEFINITELY SEEN A LOT OF GROWTH.

WE'RE OUR COMMUNITY CENTERS, OF COURSE, HAVE KIND OF ALWAYS BEEN LEADERS IN THAT WORK, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE KIND OF ACCUSTOMED TO THAT TYPE OF PROGRAMING FROM A COMMUNITY CENTER. BUT LIBRARIES MIGHT BE ON THEIR WAY TO EVEN OVERTAKE SOME OF THE COMMUNITY CENTERS.

THAT'S AWESOME TO HEAR.

AND I KNOW I USED TO TEACH AT SKYLINE.

THE SKYLINE BRANCH LIBRARY SPECIFICALLY IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

WHEN I HEARD THE INFLUX OF THE OF AFTER SCHOOL YOUTH SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR THESE PRODUCTS.

AND THEN OF COURSE, ALSO UTILIZING THE COMPUTERS AND, AND CHECKING OUT BOOKS.

AND I THINK THAT IT HAS OVERALL BEEN A WIN TO MEET THE NEED THAT IS THERE.

I APPLAUD YOU FOR BEING COMMITTED TO GOING TO LOOK FOR PRIVATE PARTNERS, BUT AS LONG AS, THERE'S A NEED AND WE'RE ABLE TO FILL THAT NEED, I THINK THAT THIS IS WAY TOO IMPORTANT OF A PROGRAM TO MISS.

I JUST WILL ALSO ADD LOVE FIELD IS ONE OF OUR FACILITIES, RIGHT? AND I HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THREE DIFFERENT CITIES WHEN THEY WERE EITHER LANDING OR, IN AT CONNECTIONS, AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THE COOLEST THING THAT THEY COULD SEE, AND THEY WANTED TO GO HOME AND DO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY.

WE ALSO HAVE A SUPERINTENDENT WHO IMPLEMENTED THIS WHEN SHE WAS IN AUSTIN FOR AUSTIN, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE WORKING WITH US AND THAT SHE WILL PRIORITIZE THIS IN DALLAS ISD SO THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM MORE ROBUST AND OFF OF THE BURDEN OF THE CITY SPECIFICALLY, BUT TO JUST THROW OUR HANDS UP AND ACT AS IF THERE'S NOT A CLEAR ISSUE IN FRONT OF US THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY AS LEADERS TO SOLVE IS THE WRONG APPROACH, IN MY OPINION.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR. CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AND I'M I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS, ITEM THAT'S ON THE RECORD.

AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE, PAULA BLACKMON, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP TO BRING THIS TO US SO WE CAN START AND ALL THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO JOINED IN, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SOMETHING HAPPENING.

THIS STARTED BECAUSE OF A CONVERSATION AMONGST YOUTH COMMISSIONERS AND SAYING, HELP US BECAUSE THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR US AS

[02:30:05]

YOUTH AND OUR YOUTH COMMISSIONERS ARE SOME OF THE MOST BRILLIANT MINDS OF YOUTH IN OUR CITY.

AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE YOUTH COMMISSION.

A LOT OF US REFER TO THEM AS THE JUNIOR CITY COUNCIL, AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THEM AND STOP AND LISTEN, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN ADULTS GET QUIET AND YOU LISTEN TO YOUNG PEOPLE, WE LEARN SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY SEE THE WORLD THROUGH A DIFFERENT SET OF EYES THAN WE DO AS ADULTS.

WE HAVE A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN THEY DO.

THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM THAN WHAT HAPPENED TO US WHEN WE WERE IN HIGH SCHOOL, OR MIDDLE SCHOOL OR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGES.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN THIS STARTED AS NOT EVEN REALLY A PILOT, BUT JUST KIND OF A LET'S SEE WHAT COULD HAPPEN.

I WAS SHOCKED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAME TO THE WEST DALLAS FACILITIES IN ORDER TO GET, AND IT WAS THE NUMBER ONE AREA AT THAT TIME.

AND THAT REALLY SHOWED ME THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE.

I KNOW THAT THERE'S THINGS CALLED THE PINK TAX.

I HAD NO IDEA THAT THESE ITEMS WERE TAXED BECAUSE I'M NOT A MENSTRUATING PERSON.

THEREFORE I DO NOT PURCHASE THESE ITEMS. I LIVE ALONE, THEREFORE THERE'S NOBODY IN MY HOME THAT NEEDS THESE PRODUCTS.

AS I DID MORE RESEARCH AND SAW HOW EXPENSIVE THESE PRODUCTS ARE, I WAS FLOORED.

THE REASON THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS, THIS IS A MINUSCULE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT YOUNG MENSTRUATING PEOPLE MISS SCHOOL.

THAT'S MONEY OUT OF THE DISD AND OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ATTENDING CLASS THAT DAY.

AND NUMBER TWO, IF IT'S THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT ADULT MENSTRUATING PERSONS OR WORKING AGE MENSTRUATING PERSONS ARE MISSING SCHOOL, THAT IS BAD FOR BUSINESS BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S NOT AT WORK, AND THEN THAT IT JUST ADDS UP TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE DOING AND WORKING ON TO GET THAT REVENUE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO THINK OF IT FROM A REVENUE PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT IS LOST IN EVERYTHING ELSE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT, THE YOUTH COMMISSION HAS NOW HAS A, LIKE A CLOSET THAT THEY'RE STARTING TO EXPAND INTO OTHER PLACES THAT MY YOUTH COMMISSIONER, MARGARITA HERNANDEZ, STARTED AT PINKSTON HIGH SCHOOL GO VIKINGS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE AND A LOT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE CAME AND BROUGHT, PERIOD ACCESS TYPE PRODUCTS BEFORE WE HAD A PROGRAM.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT'S THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE STILL.

I MEAN, NUMBER ONE ITEM STILL TAKEN FROM THE COMMUNITY CLOSET FOR HYGIENE.

NUMBER ONE, STILL, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE NEED.

MENSTRUATE EVERY SINGLE MONTH ABOUT AND DOESN'T STOP UNTIL YOU HIT A CERTAIN AGE.

SO YOU KNOW AND THAT'S THIS IS THE REALITY.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME DOWN TO CITY HALL TO TELL THEIR STORIES ABOUT THEIR MENSTRUATION CYCLES AND WHAT'S GOING ON, AND THEN SAY, I DON'T HAVE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS PRODUCT. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WANT TO DO THAT.

AND OUR YOUTH COMMISSIONERS TOLD US, OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE TELLING US OUR PUBLIC IS ACCESSING THIS WITH VERY LITTLE.

ADVERTISING ON IT.

AND I LOVE THAT YOU SAID IT'S ORGANIC BECAUSE IT IS ORGANIC.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, STOLE MY THUNDER ON THIS ONE, BUT DALLAS LOVE FIELD, MR. MAYOR, WAS THE FIRST TO DO THIS ON THEIR OWN.

AND EVER SINCE THEY STARTED IT, I KID YOU NOT.

ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DAY, AT LEAST ONE OR MULTIPLE PEOPLE PLACE IT ON THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA WITH APPLAUSE FOR DALLAS LOVE FIELD.

THANK YOU, CITY OF DALLAS.

THEY MIGHT TELL THEIR EXPERIENCE, WHATEVER IT IS, THEY PUT IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND THERE'S A REASON THAT DALLAS LOVE FIELD IS THE NUMBER ONE AIRPORT IN THE NATION.

IT'S BECAUSE OF OUR COMMITMENT TO CUSTOMER SERVICE THERE.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ONE OF THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT'S CUSTOMER SERVICE, BECAUSE I'VE GONE INTO OTHER AIRPORTS TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT GETTING AN EMERGENCY, MENSTRUATING PRODUCT COST IN ONE OF THE STORES.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

IT COSTS AS MUCH AS A BOX.

SO IT'S LIKE, AND WE'RE GIVING IT FOR FREE.

AND PEOPLE LOVE THAT.

THAT MAKES THEM WANT TO USE LOVE FIELD EVEN MORE.

SO JUST ADD THAT INTO IT.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO.

AND THANK YOU, CHAIR BLACKMON, FOR SAYING THAT YOUR COMMITMENT TO GETTING THIS TO BE SUSTAINABLE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE? MR. SPEAKER, ORDER FOR AGAINST ITEM 27.

SEEING NONE. RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE HAVE DO A ROLL CALL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, MAYOR JOHNSON.

NO. MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS.

WHAT? YES AND NO.

I WANT TO READ IT.

[02:35:01]

YES. THANK YOU.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

MORENO. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER. GRACEY.

RESENDEZ. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

NARVAEZ. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER. BAZALDUA.

COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

STEWART. IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ.

MENDELSOHN. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS.

RIDLEY. WITH TEN VOTING IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED, TWO ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

WELL, THEN WE WILL ACTUALLY NOW TAKE A BREAK.

AND IF WE'RE OFF OF CONSENT, ARE WE DONE WITH CONSENT? THAT IS CORRECT, MR. MAYOR. WONDERFUL.

ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS, WE'RE GOING TO.

WE DO HAVE A HOLD ON.

WHAT NOW? BIRTHDAY.

YOU GUYS LOOK LIKE YOU'RE.

WE HAVE A BIRTHDAY.

DO WE DO IT NOW? SHOULD WE DO IT NOW OR JUST DO IT IN THE LUNCHROOM? LET'S DO WHEN WE COME BACK. WHAT? WHAT IS THAT? SO WE CAN.

WE CAN. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AT THE HORSESHOE.

WE CAN DO IT IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

LET'S SING TO HIM. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE CAN STILL.

OKAY, OKAY. OKAY.

DEAL. ALL RIGHT, GUYS, WE ARE GOING.

THAT ALL TOOK PLACE ON THE RECORD.

THAT'S WONDERFUL. WE ARE GOING.

WE'RE GOING TO RECESS UNTIL 1 P.M..

THE MEETING STANDS AT RECESS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IT'S 1:17 P.M..

WE'RE BACK IN REGULAR SESSION.

AND, MADAM SECRETARY, WE'RE READY TO PICK UP WITH OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[37. 24-331 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 FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 37, WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS AFTERNOON. YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AND FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.

YOUR NOMINEE FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, TRACY WALLACE, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.

MISS WALLACE MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIENCE.

SPECIAL QUALIFICATION YOUR NOMINEES FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 19 BOARD.

CYPRESS WATERS VICTOR TOLEDO IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE TEN BOARD.

SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL MATT MATT FULGHAM FULGHAM IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO AND TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 13 BOARD, GRANT PARK SOUTH.

TERRY FLOWERS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

THESE ARE YOUR THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT AND OUR APPOINTEES ARE NOMINATED I MEAN ARE APPROVED.

THEY'RE THEY'RE ON THEY'RE ON THE BOARD NOW.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 38.

[38. 24-544 An ordinance (1) ordering a special election to be held in the city of Dallas (the City) on May 4, 2024, for the purpose of authorizing general obligation bonds for propositions on the purposes set forth; and (2) making provisions for the conduct of the election and other related provisions - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AGENDA ITEM 38 IS AN ORDINANCE ONE ORDERING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE CITY, ON MAY 4TH, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR PROPOSITIONS ON THE PURPOSES SET FORTH, AND TWO, MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION AND OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS.

YOU DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, CHRIS DENNEY.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHRIS DENNY, DISTRICT 14 RESIDENT DIRECTOR OF ADVANCEMENT FOR TURTLE CREEK CONSERVANCY.

ALSO IN DISTRICT 14, OUR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION MANAGES TURTLE CREEK PARK, FORMERLY LEE PARK, A 20 ACRE PARK IN THE HEART OF DALLAS.

ALONG WITH HISTORIC ARLINGTON HALL, WE ARE PART OF THE DALLAS PARKS COALITION, WHICH HAS BEEN ADVOCATING FOR FUNDING FOR PARKS IN THE UPCOMING BOND ELECTION.

I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE BOND ELECTION AND FOR THE BOND ALLOCATIONS RECENTLY PUBLISHED, WHICH INCLUDES $343 MILLION FOR PARKS, TRAILS AND GREEN SPACES IN DALLAS. THIS MEANS THAT OUR ORGANIZATION WILL BE ABLE TO ACTIVATE FIVE MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED ACRES OF TURTLE CREEK PARK, KNOWN AS THE SOUTH PARCEL, WITH $1.5 MILLION FROM THE BOND ELECTION TO BE MATCHED BY $4.5 MILLION OF OUR PRIVATE FUNDS.

ACTIVATION MEANS PROVIDING A BRIDGE FROM BONE AND TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD INTO THE PARK FOR EASIER ACCESS FOR CITIZENS COMING FROM THE SOUTH, CREATING A 1 TO 2 MILE SOFT SURFACE WALKING TRAIL FOR RESIDENTS TO BE IMMERSED IN NATURE, IMPROVING LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, AND IMPROVING LIGHTING FOR INCREASED SAFETY OF THOSE IN THE PARK.

CREEK EROSION IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PROJECT.

[02:40:01]

TURTLE CREEK CONSERVANCY IS EXTREMELY GRATEFUL FOR THE SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE AND FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY OUR DISTRICT 14 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RIDLEY, AND OUR DISTRICT 14 PARK AND REC BOARD REPRESENTATIVE RUDY KARIMI.

AS A VIBRANT DALLAS COMMUNITY PARK, WE WANT TO INVITE YOU TO OUR FREE EVENTS THIS YEAR.

WE HOLD EASTER IN TURTLE CREEK PARK ON EASTER SUNDAY AFTERNOON, WHICH IS MARCH 31ST WITH OVER 6000 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE.

OUR THIRD ANNUAL KIDS FISHING DERBY WILL BE ON SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 18TH.

MOVIE NIGHT IN TURTLE CREEK PARK HAPPENS ON FRIDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 18TH, AND OUR LIGHT UP TURTLE CREEK PARK ON WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER THE 4TH.

THROUGH ALL OF THESE EVENTS, OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE A PLACE FOR ALL DALLAS CITIZENS TO ENJOY FREE FAMILY EVENTS IN BEAUTIFUL TURTLE CREEK PARK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

THANK YOU LOUIS, DARA OR DARA SAY.

HOLD ON HERE.

OF COURSE I JUST.

MAYOR LOUIS DEROSSETT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE METROPLEX CIVIC AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT 13.

FIRST, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CAPITAL BOND.

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ISSUING A NEW BOND WHEN THE 2017 BOND STILL HAS 16%, OR 165 MILLION UNSPENT? WILL THESE PROJECTS OVERLAPPED BETWEEN THE TWO BONDS? SECOND, THE 2024 BOND IS CHOCK FULL OF MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT WORK.

NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THESE ITEMS DON'T NEED TO BE COMPLETED.

MY QUESTION IS WHY THE CITY CANNOT GET THIS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DONE THROUGH YOUR GENERAL FUND.

SINCE 2019, THE CITY'S BUDGET HAS INCREASED FROM 3.8 TO 4.8 BILLION, WHILE THE POPULATION HAS DECREASED 3.5%.

SO YOU'RE NOW TAXING LESS PEOPLE A LARGER AMOUNT OF MONEY, $1 BILLION MORE, WHICH LARGELY OUTPACES INFLATION.

BUT THE CAPITAL SPENDING ON THESE BONDS IS ONLY ABOUT 200 MILLION PER YEAR.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WHY THE CITY, WITH AN EXTRA BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR IN YOUR GENERAL FUND OR SPEND IN BUDGET, CAN'T GET $200 MILLION IN REPAIRS COMPLETED.

WHAT IS ALL THAT SPENDING AND EXTRA MONEY, IF NOT ON REPAIRS FOR ROADS OR MAINTAINING OUR COMMUNITIES? I AGREE WITH YOU, MAYOR.

PARKS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT DO OUR CONSTITUENTS REALIZE THAT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING THEM TO TAKE ON A DEBT BURDEN OF ROUGHLY $350 MILLION FOR PARKS, AND THEY WON'T ACTUALLY BE ANY NEW PARKS, JUST REFURBISHING AND UPGRADING HOLISTICALLY? WE'D LIKE TO SEE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY IN THE CITY'S SPENDING, AS IT SEEMS TO BE SLIGHTLY MISMANAGED.

I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST THE BOND TODAY, BUT I'M ASKING FOR AN INCREASED LEVEL OF DUE DILIGENCE AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

THE CITY'S INCREASES IN SPENDING AND DEBT WILL END UP BEING A BEING PAID VIA HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES FROM OUR POCKETS, ULTIMATELY MAKING THE CITY OF DALLAS LESS AFFORDABLE TO EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MARIE. CAMINO.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR JOHNSON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS MARIE CAMINO, AND I AM THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S TEXAS CHAPTER.

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT TODAY ON THE 2024 BOND.

SO I'VE SPOKEN TO THIS BODY BEFORE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF USING NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS AND GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2024 BOND PROJECTS.

TODAY, I'M HERE TO REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT AND THANK THE COUNCIL FOR SHOWING THEIR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE SITES AND VISION, AND FOR PRIORITIZING THE C-CAP RECOMMENDATIONS IN BOND IMPLEMENTATION.

NATURE, IN ALL ITS FORMS, IS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT PROVIDES STACKED PUBLIC BENEFITS SUCH AS FLOOD PROTECTION, IMPROVED WATER QUALITY, REDUCED URBAN HEAT AND AIR POLLUTION, INCREASED BIODIVERSITY, AND IMPROVED PUBLIC HEALTH OVERALL.

INTEGRATING NATURE INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CREATES EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTS.

WE KNOW NOW THAT DALLAS RESIDENTS AGREE.

OF THOSE POLLED, 81% OF DALLAS RESIDENTS SAY THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE BOND MEASURES IF THEY KNOW THAT ALL PROJECTS FUNDED BY BONDS WOULD BE BUILT IN WAYS THAT WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFITS THAT NATURE CAN PROVIDE.

TNC IS VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE 15% BUDGETED FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE SCORED BY THE BOND OFFICE TO ADVANCE THE C CAP.

WE'RE VERY HOPEFUL THAT COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT OTHER DEPARTMENTS MAKING SIMILAR COMMITMENTS TO ADVANCE THE CITY'S ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS.

DALLAS HAS SHOWN A REMARKABLE COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND I'VE ALREADY MET WITH SEVERAL OF YOU.

AND IN THE COMING WEEKS, I LOOK FORWARD TO VISITING WITH MORE OF YOU TO TALK MORE ABOUT NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS AND GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AS YOU CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER IN THIS WAY.

THANK YOU AGAIN AND I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS.

[02:45:01]

THANK YOU. BRUCE JAYNIE OR BRUCE DOWNEY? YES. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY NAME IS BRUCE AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT TEN.

AND, SORRY I HAD TO GO MOBILE HERE.

SPEEDING DOWN CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

ANYWAY, MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED IN DALLAS FOR 40 YEARS AND, RAISED OUR FAMILY THERE AND COULDN'T BE PROUDER OF THE CITY.

AND, JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE TODAY.

STILL VERY INVOLVED IN THE ELECTIONS.

I'LL BE A JUDGE, HERE IN MARCH AND, PRECINCT CHAIR AS WELL.

BUT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAST TRACKING TO NOVEMBER.

THE, THE BOND PACKAGE IS THREEFOLD, REALLY? FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S, WIDESPREAD KNOWLEDGE AMONG THE CITIZENRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW WHAT? ALL ISN'T CONTAINED. NO DOUBT THERE ARE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND IT'S VERY WORTHWHILE.

AND IT SPEAKS, STREETS, PARKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IN PUBLIC SAFETY, WE'VE LOST, 600 OFFICERS, IN RECENT TIME PERIOD.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO, TO ATTACK, ATTRACT AND RETAIN THEM IS NOT EASY NOWADAYS.

AND THAT IF WE HAVE, KNOWN FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHERE WE CAN'T FUND OUR, OUR LIABILITIES FOR THEIR RETIREMENT, THEY WILL GO TO OTHER PLACES.

SALINA, PROSPER, MCKINNEY, YOU NAME IT.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD, FIRST FIX THAT PENSION ISSUE.

SECONDLY, THE COST OF, YOU KNOW, FAST TRACKING TO THE MAY TIME PERIOD AND A $700,000 OR MORE COST TO DO THE SPECIAL ELECTION, WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IF WE WAITED TILL NOVEMBER WHEN WE HAVE A GENERAL ELECTION.

ALREADY SCHEDULED.

AND THEN FINALLY, MY NOTES HERE.

ALLOWING US TO HAVE IT THAT WAY.

WE HAVE THE MOST PARTICIPATION.

LIKELY. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THERE'S INTEREST IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO.

THANK YOU. LINUS SPILLER CRAFT IS NOT ONLINE.

IT'S NOT PRESENT.

LANE SULLIVAN HAS CANCELED ROB WALTERS.

ROB WALTERS IS NOT PRESENT.

TO MEET THE BARBA'S.

CORELLE. I'M SORRY.

TAMATHA. BARBOSA.

CURIO. HI, MY NAME IS TAMARA BARBOZA CURIEL.

I'M FROM DISTRICT FIVE, PLEASANT GROVE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE FUNDING FOR ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES.

THAT'S A GOOD STEWARDSHIP.

I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ADVOCATED FOR FIXING THE LIGHTS AND THE PLEASANT GROVE BLACK BOX LIBRARY, BECAUSE IN DISTRICT FIVE, OUR ARTS AND CULTURE PROGRAMING HAPPENS MOST OFTEN IN PARKS AND RECREATION CENTERS AND LIBRARIES.

SO WHILE MR. KARIMI CALLS IT THE MINISTRY OF HAPPINESS, I CALL THE OVERLAP ARTS, PARKS, LIBRARIES AND HEALTH AND WELLNESS IN GENERAL, THE MINISTRY OF MAGIC.

WE KNOW THAT LAND.

SO I WANT TO ADDRESS HOUSING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'M WANT TO DISCUSS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, FUNDS.

WE KNOW THAT LAND AND HOME OWNERSHIP IS A WAY FOR FAMILIES TO CREATE GENERATIONAL WEALTH.

WE ALSO KNOW WE NEED NEW MODELS FOR LIVING COMMUNITIES.

WE UNDERSTAND, BASED ON A NEW STUDY FROM CARNEGIE, THAT YOUTH NEED PREVENTATIVE PROGRAMING TO DECREASE, TO DECREASE THE NEED FOR JUVENILE RECIDIVISM PROGRAMING.

FROM THE ARTS ON PRESCRIPTION STUDY, WE KNOW THERE IS AN EPIDEMIC OF LONELINESS, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR ELDERS, AND THAT ELDERS WHO HELP CARE FOR GRANDCHILDREN LIVE FIVE YEARS LONGER ON AVERAGE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE OFFERED IN THE CITY LIMITS FOR FOLKS WITH COGNITIVE DISABILITIES AND THE WAY OF HOUSING, ARTS, SPORTS, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I TRAVEL VERY FAR TO TAKE MY SON TO HIS ACTIVITIES.

I'M ADVOCATING FOR MAKING SURE WE ARE INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF DISTRICT FIVE AND SOUTHERN DALLAS WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FOR INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT CENTER HOUSING WITH WRAPAROUND SUPPORTS LIKE ECONOMIC PATHWAYS, CULTURAL SPACE FOR SHARED CONNECTION, MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ACCESS, TRAINING FACILITIES, COLLABORATIONS WITH UNIVERSITIES AND CORPORATIONS, GREEN SPACE AND HOUSING SO THAT WE HONOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR BELOVED COMMUNITIES BY PROVIDING HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AVENUES TO SUPPORT OUR INDIVIDUALS, OUR INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE DREAMING.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

I DON'T SEE.

I NEED THE CHAIR OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO TO COME AND GET TO HIS SEAT REAL QUICK.

AND WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO BUY A LITTLE TIME AND SAY THIS BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION.

[02:50:07]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO.

I'M GOING TO ASK THE PARLIAMENTARIAN WHAT'S PROPER HERE.

I THINK, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU EITHER CLARIFY AT SOME POINT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST THE WAY TO DO IT DURING THE LAYOUT OF IT OR WHEN YOU READ IT, BUT I SEE A MOTION WHERE THERE'S A PHRASES LIKE INCREASE FROM, INCREASE FROM, OR REMAIN AT.

I'M NOT SURE WE KNOW WHAT THE STARTING POINT THAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE INCREASING FROM OR REMAINING AT IS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE NEEDS TO SAY IN THE MOTION WHAT THIS INCREASE FROM MEANS OR REMAINS THAT MEANS OR IF HE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN IT IN THE EXPLANATION. BUT WHAT'S WHAT'S WHAT DO YOU SAY PARLIAMENTARIAN ON THAT.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THE WE STARTED THE MOTION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, AND THAT'S WHERE HE'S STARTING FROM.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT RECOMMENDATION.

SO YOU JUST READ IT THE WAY IT IS WITH NO EXPLANATION DURING THE MOTION.

AND THEN YOU'LL EXPLAIN DURING THE MOTION.

OKAY. PERFECT. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO IT ALL RIGHT TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT.

EXCUSE ME, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSITIONS AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.

STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION INCREASED FROM 500 MILLION TO 521,200,000.

PARK AND RECREATION INCREASED FROM 310,500,000 TO 345,270,000.

LIBRARIES INCREASED FROM 43,500,000 TO 43,530,000.

HOUSING INCREASED FROM 24,400,000 TO 26,000,400.

OH, SORRY, THAT'S INCREASED FROM 400,000.

SORRY. THAT WAS THE SAME.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCREASED FROM 65,800,000 TO 72,300,000 HOMELESS, AND HOUSING INCREASED FROM 8,500,000 TO 19 MILLION.

FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM DRAINAGE REMAINS AT 52,000 152,100,000.

PUBLIC SAFETY REMAINS AT 90 MILLION.

CULTURAL ARTS FACILITIES REMAINS AT 50.

AT 75,200,000.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REMAINS AT 5 MILLION.

THE CITY HALL AND STEMMONS MUNICIPAL CENTER PROPOSITIONS REMAIN AT ZERO AND ARE DELETED FROM THIS ORDINANCE.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE FOR THE PUBLIC.

WE ARE ON ITEM 38.

ON OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO THIS, IS BASED ON WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

AND SO THE DOLLARS WHERE I SIT STARTING FROM ARE WHAT WAS AGREED TO THEN WITHOUT ANY KNOWING WHAT THE DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATIONS WERE GOING TO BE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO YOU NOTICE I DIDN'T SAY 75 MILLION FOR DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS NOW DESIGNATED WHERE THEY WANTED THOSE DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS TO GO. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO CHANGES IN THERE AS FAR AS WHAT IS HERE.

SO THAT'S THE TOTAL IS INCLUDING YOUR RECOMMEND, YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF WHERE YOU WANTED YOUR DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATIONS TO GO.

THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN WE DID GET WHERE PEOPLE HAD ASKED, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND A CHANGE IN PUBLIC SAFETY THAT IS 5 MILLION THAT HAD GOTTEN IN FROM DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATION BY ME THAT I CAN NO LONGER LEAVE THERE BECAUSE THE PROJECT THAT I WAS HOPING TO GET WAS TOO LARGE, AND I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FILL THE GAP.

AND SO AT THAT POINT, I HAD TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY ALL OF US COULD HAVE.

IF YOU STARTED LOOKING AT SOMETHING AND YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THAT, YOUR DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATIONS OUT, YOU HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.

SO FOR DISTRICT SIX'S DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATIONS, I ADDED 3 MILLION TO STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION AND 2 MILLION TO PARK AND RECREATION.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THOSE CHANGES.

ONLY, EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS VOTED NINE TO, I THINK SIX.

AND THIS IS THAT MOTION WITH THE DESIGNATIONS IN PLACE NOW.

SO THAT'S IT. SO A CLARIFICATION.

YES, MR. MAYOR. YEAH.

SO WHEN I LOOK THROUGH I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE NOW WE'VE GOT SO MANY PIECES OF PAPER.

SO WHEN I LOOK THROUGH WHAT WAS PREPARED BY STAFF FOR US.

TO USE AS THE BASELINE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

DO THOSE. THESE MATCH.

AND THEN YOU GOT YOUR AMENDMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

[02:55:01]

AND STAFF DRAFTED THIS AMENDMENT FOR ME.

SO. SO OKAY.

SO FOR SURE.

ALL OKAY OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO DO I SPEAK ON THIS NOW AND CAN MY.

YEAH. OKAY. SO SO GOING ON MY TIME.

GREAT. SO, FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THIS BODY, OUR STAFF, I KNOW A LOT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT A LOT OF HARD WORK AND EFFORT INTO THIS. OUR TASK FORCE.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DID.

IT IS NOT EASY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR 24 BILLION, $24 BILLION OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ACROSS OUR ENTIRE CITY, IN EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE DO, AND TRY TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT AND FIX IT WITH $1.250 BILLION, A LOT OF HARD CHOICES HAVE TO BE MADE.

A LOT OF FEELINGS GET HURT, A LOT OF PROJECTS ARE SUPER IMPORTANT AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE.

THIS IS WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP TO A SOLUTION TO MOVE FORWARD.

I HOPE TODAY, MR. MAYOR, THAT WE GET THIS ACROSS THE BOARD AND THE FINISH LINE SO WE CAN SEND IT TO THE VOTERS, AND THEN THEY GET TO DETERMINE YES OR NO ON EACH OF THE PROPOSITIONS THAT I READ OUT. THERE'S NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT ON HERE THAN ANOTHER.

WE NEED EVERY SINGLE THING STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION, PARK AND REC, LIBRARIES, HOUSING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HOMELESS AND HOUSING, FLOOD PROTECTION, PUBLIC SAFETY, CULTURAL ARTS, AND THE INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING IS PROBABLY EVEN MORE CONCERNING AT THIS TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

SO I IMPLORE FOLKS TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IF WE GET IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, MR. MAYOR, AND REALLY DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF AS A VOTER, DO YOU WANT THESE AND US TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THEM OR NOT? I OF COURSE, BELIEVE IN THIS.

THIS IS WHERE WE GOT TO.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL.

THERE'S THINGS THAT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO DONE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE COMPROMISES WHEN YOU'RE SITTING HERE FOR 1.25, 0 BILLION TO TRY TO WORK ON 24 BILLION.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE COMING THROUGH THIS.

A LOT OF POSITIVE THINGS IN HERE, STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION, PARK AND REC LIBRARIES.

AND HERE'S TWO BRAND NEW LIBRARIES FOR OUR CITY THAT WE'VE NEEDED FOREVER.

PARKS AND REC, A LOT OF AMAZING THINGS IN HERE THAT WE'VE JUST CATCHING UP ON, HOMELESS AND HOUSING.

TO OUR, OUR FRIENDS WHO WERE HERE ADVOCATING ON THAT.

I KNOW IT'S NOT 200 MILLION, BUT YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF WHAT YOU SEE IN HERE WHEN YOU SEE HOUSING 26.4 MILLION AND HOMELESSNESS 19 MILLION. THAT'S A WIN BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS MUCH BEFORE.

I KNOW IT'S NOT WHAT EVERYBODY WANTED.

NOBODY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED, INCLUDING ME.

AND WE NEED FLOOD PROTECTION.

WE NEED PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR CULTURAL ARTS FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IGNORED FOR DECADES.

WE JUST CANNOT LET OUR ASSETS FALL APART IN THIS CITY.

AND I THINK THAT THIS WILL HELP US GET THERE, MR. MAYOR. BUT IT'S NOT 24 BILLION, BUT IT'S 1.250.

SO WE CAN CONTINUE WORKING AND GETTING FORWARD AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DO WHAT OUR RESIDENTS WANT, WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE PLAY HERE AND WORK HERE SO THAT WE CAN BE THE BEST DALLAS THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN BE.

SO I URGE SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I APPRECIATE CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ COMMENTS, I THOUGHT.

VERY WELL SAID AND I WON'T REPEAT MOST OF THEM, BUT I DO AGREE WITH MOST OF THOSE COMMENTS.

I WILL SAY TODAY, IF WE PASS THIS, IT'S A WIN FOR FOR MOST OF THESE CATEGORIES.

YOU KNOW, ARTS I THINK IS VERY PROUD OF OUR ARTS ADVOCATES AND WHO'S BEEN WITH US THROUGH THESE LONG MEETINGS, LIBRARIES.

AS CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ SAID, WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS GETS PASSED, WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME SOME BADLY NEEDED RENOVATIONS.

NEW POLICE ACADEMY PARKS ARE LOOKING PRETTY GOOD AND OUR STREETS DEFINITELY LOOKING GOOD.

I'M A LITTLE LESS INSPIRED, AND I WON'T BELABOR IT, BUT WITH, YOU KNOW, HOMELESSNESS.

I DO APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES WHO CONTRIBUTED THEIR DISCRETIONARY MONEY TOWARDS THAT.

AND HOUSING AS WELL, I THINK TOOK A BIG HIT OVER THIS PROCESS.

I LIKE TO SEE THAT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS BE USED FOR THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A LARGER CHUNK IN ECHO DEV, AND I THINK IT CAN BE LEVERAGED FOR HOUSING IF THIS GETS PASSED.

I'M PERSONALLY COMMITTED FOR THE NORTH OAK CLIFF LIBRARY.

IF IT GETS BUILT TO INCLUDE A HOUSING ELEMENT ON TOP OF IT, BECAUSE WHY WOULDN'T WE? IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE CITY FACILITY.

AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL GO INTO MY I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.

FIRST IS FOR, I GUESS, THE BOND OFFICE.

[03:00:02]

MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE 36.6 MILLION THAT WAS MOVED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUCKET GETS EARMARKED OR RESTRICTED TO PROJECTS RESULTING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING? HOW DO WE DO THAT? THANK YOU. JENNY NIGHSWANDER, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF BOND AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.

SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT ON AND OFF FOR ABOUT A WEEK OR SO.

AND WE THINK THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THAT IS THROUGH A PROJECT LISTING, LIKE WE WOULD IN STREETS OR ANY OTHER PROPOSITION, AND HAVING A LINE ITEM FOR HOUSING WITH THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. WELL, CAN YOU EXPLAIN JUST FOR THE PUBLIC LIKE GENERALLY, HOW DOES THAT WORK? KIND OF HIGH LEVEL.

SURE. SO EACH PROPOSITION WOULD HAVE JUST A PROJECT LISTING.

STREETS WOULD HAVE THEIR LISTING FOR ALLEYS AND BRIDGES AND AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD GO IN THAT PROPOSITION.

SO WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JUST ITEMIZE BY LINE ITEM WHERE THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE GOING TOWARDS.

WOULD IT BE INCUMBENT UPON US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SORT OF BRING YOU THOSE IDEAS OR DEVELOPERS OR LIKE WHO WOULD BRING YOU STAFF'S JUST NOT GOING TO COME UP WITH IT RIGHT ON THEIR OWN. NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.

AND, GET WITH, ASK CYNTHIA TO COME IN FOR ANY DETAILS.

BUT YES, THE PROJECTS COME THROUGH.

WE WOULD IDENTIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT BUCKET OF MONEY WOULD ADDRESS THOSE PROJECTS.

OKAY? AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO THE WEEDS ON IT.

I JUST LIKE FOR THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.

I MEAN, WE'RE INSIDE BASEBALL HERE.

YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF KNOW HOW IT WORKS.

BUT I WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

YEAH. SO THANK YOU.

CYNTHIA ELLICKSON, INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING.

WHAT WE WOULD DO IS PUT IT IN OUR NOFA.

AND CERTAINLY WE'RE GOING TO KEEP UP WITH $36 MILLION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT BELONGS TO HOUSING.

SO WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE BOND OFFICE TO MAKE SURE WE GET OUR OUR SHARE OF FUNDS.

AND AS THE PROJECTS ARE IDENTIFIED, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH, ESPECIALLY OUR HHS COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE PUT ALL OF OUR MONEY IN OUR REPORT. AND THEN WITH THE BOND OFFICE, AS EACH PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE TRANCHES ARE GOING TO COME TO US.

THEY MAY COME IN, YOU KNOW, 10 MILLION A YEAR OR HOWEVER THAT COMES.

BUT AS THAT COMES, WE WILL CERTAINLY PUT IT OUT IN OUR NOFA WE WILL IDENTIFY IT AS BOND FUNDS.

AND THEN WE WOULD, SHOW THE ALLOCATION OR THE COMMITMENT TO THOSE FUNDS AS IT'S IDENTIFIED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSONAL ADVOCACY FOR HOUSING AND BEING BEING A PART OF THIS AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MY NEXT IS FOR PARKS.

IF I CAN GET MR. JENKINS OR SOMEONE FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT UP HERE.

HELLO THERE. ALL RIGHT.

JOHN JENKINS, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

HI, JOHN. WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED, AND I WON'T GET INTO ALL THE DISTRICT ONE PROJECTS I'M EXCITED ABOUT, BUT MOST OF THEM GOT FUNDING THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES.

HOPEFULLY THE VOTERS WILL SUPPORT THAT.

THE ONE THAT WAS LEFT OFF OF THIS, THAT IS A CITYWIDE ISSUE, BUT IS REALLY IN THE HEART OF DISTRICT ONE IS THE STEVENS PARK GOLF COURSE.

I KNOW WE'VE HAD FOLKS WORKING ON, WE HAVE ONE STALL FOR THE LADIES FOR THAT ENTIRE GOLF COURSE.

IT'S NOT ADA ACCESSIBLE ANYWHERE IN THE IN THE CLUBHOUSE.

THERE'S LEAKING ROOFS.

THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ISN'T.

IF IT'S NOT IN THIS BOND, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE.

YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WE CAN LET FOLKS KNOW IT'S IT'S OKAY.

THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE.

YEAH. YOU'RE EXACTLY YOU'RE CORRECT.

MY PLAN IS, SINCE IT'S NOT FUNDING THE BOND PROGRAM, WE WILL WE WILL SELL REVENUE BONDS, AND WE WILL RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUES AT THE GOLF COURSES SO WE CAN MAKE THEM MORE SELF SUSTAINABLE GOING FORWARD.

AND SO THIS IS ANOTHER AVENUE THAT YOU ALL HAVE CHARGED ME WITH, AS WELL AS THE PARK BOARD IS LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE WAYS THAT WE COULD FUND THINGS.

I MEAN, FUND IMPROVEMENTS AT SOME OF OUR PARKS AND AT THE GOLF COURSES.

I THINK THIS IS A MORE SUSTAINABLE PLAN TO START ISSUING REVENUE BONDS, WHICH WILL ALLOW ME TO MAKE REGULAR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE GOLF COURSES AS WE PAY OFF THOSE BONDS EVERY TEN YEARS, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A REVENUE SOURCE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST ASK IF CHAIR CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD TALK ABOUT IN COMMITTEE, MAYBE BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK.

ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL WORK.

I'M. WE'LL WORK WITH YOU, PARTNER WITH YOU.

WE WILL. WE WILL GET THIS FIGURED OUT.

AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANKS, MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT CITY HALL AND STEMMONS MUNICIPAL CENTER PROPOSITIONS REMAIN AT ZERO.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON CITY HALL.

THE HIGHEST CONSIDERATION FOR US, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE THINGS FOR OUR RESIDENTS, MUST BE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK AT CITY HALL.

[03:05:08]

AND SO I'D LIKE TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT'S FROM MR. JOHNSON OR MR. BROADNAX. THERE THE NEED FOR CITY HALL AND THEN WHAT THE REMIND US AGAIN OF WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, WHAT THE ITEMS WERE IN THE BOND. LET'S START WITH THAT, IF I MAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN JOHNSON.

THE NEEDS FOR CITY HALL TOTAL APPROXIMATELY $27.9 MILLION.

IT'S FOR PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED.

THERE ARE ELECTRICAL UPGRADES, REPLACEMENT OF THE GENERATOR SYSTEM, FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, UPGRADES AND RETROFITS TO THE AIR CONDITIONING BEFORE THE 2030 MANDATE TAKES EFFECT. SO ARE ANY OF THOSE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S CODE ISSUES WITH ARE THERE CODE ISSUES WITH ANY OF THESE ITEMS WHERE WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE FOR OUR OWN CITY? I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE CURRENTLY GRANDFATHERED IN, SO WHATEVER WORK WE WOULD DO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE BRINGING THEM UP TO THE CURRENT CODE.

SO I'M SORRY.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE DO NOTHING, WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF OUR CODE.

WE JUST WON'T. CORRECT.

WE ARE GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE OF THE TIME IT WAS BUILT, AND WE'VE MADE VERY LITTLE INVESTMENT IN THE FACILITY.

SO IF WE DID UNDERTAKE A MAJOR PROJECT AS A PART OF THAT, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRING IT UP TO CODE.

GOTCHA. AND THEN MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO IS THE PAST COUNCILS, THIS WAS THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

IS IT THE LAST THREE BOND ELECTIONS AND IT'S REJECTED EVERY TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THE PARTICULAR PROJECT YOU'RE THINKING OF IS THE WATER INFILTRATION PROJECT, WHICH TOTALS THE.

THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS $42 MILLION.

YES. AND IT WAS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE LAST THREE BOND PROGRAMS AND IT WAS NOT FUNDED.

OKAY. SO SO THE WATER FILTRATION IS PERHAPS WHEN YOU DRIVE OUT THE GARAGE, YOU SEE THERE'S LEAKING WATER OR THERE'S CRACKS WHERE WATER SEEPS IN THAT ERODES THE FOUNDATION.

YES, MA'AM. AND WHAT IS THE AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE ISSUES TODAY, BUT I JUST JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC, WHAT IS THE THREAT WITH THAT IF WE DON'T GET IT INVESTED FOR THE WATER INFILTRATION? YES, SIR. WELL, I THINK THAT'S A LONGER TERM CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS BUILDING, BECAUSE THE MORE THAT IT INFILTRATES AND GOES UNDER, THE FOUNDATION IS ERODED.

AND SO THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE COSTLY REPAIRS IF WE DO CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THIS BUILDING.

GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU.

BUT IN THE MEANWHILE, THE THE FOUR ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE THERE ARE YOU WOULD CONSIDER IF YOU WERE TO CONSIDER THEM NEEDED OR URGENT, CAN YOU JUST GO THROUGH EACH ONE AND SAY WHICH ONES ARE NEEDED AND WHICH ONES ARE URGENT? SO I THINK THAT THE GENERATORS AND THE ELECTRICAL UPGRADES ARE URGENT.

THE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND AC RETROFITS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT.

AND SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST GIVE ME THE NUMBERS FOR THE ELECTRICAL AND THE GENERATOR.

YES, MA'AM. THE ELECTRICAL IS 4.9 MILLION AND THE GENERATORS ARE 6.5.

AND THE FIRE, THE FIRE SUPPRESSION IS 8 MILLION AND THE RETROFITS IS 8.5 MILLION.

OKAY, SO MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO THE MATH WHILE I ASK.

COUNCILMAN 37.90 SORRY, BUT I WAS.

AND THEN I WAS BACKING OUT THE HVAC.

IF WE COULD COME TO COMPROMISES, THAT'S ALL.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND WHATEVER I CAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND NOW I'M GOING TO ASK CITY MANAGER BROADNAX.

SO IF WE TAKE THIS OUT.

ENTIRELY. HOW WILL WE GET, AT LEAST AT THE VERY MINIMUM, THE TWO URGENT AS WELL AS THE FIRE.

SO EVERYTHING OTHER THAN 8.5, HOW WILL WE GET THOSE FUNDED? DO YOU HAVE? I KNOW THERE'S A VARIETY OF TOOLS, AND SO IF YOU COULD JUST RUN THROUGH EACH ONE, ESPECIALLY REGARDING WHAT IT WILL COST US VERSUS PUTTING IT IN THE BOND.

SO YOU'RE ASKING IF THE 27.9.

I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING MINUS THE 8 MILLION IS NOT PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN THIS BOND PROGRAM.

HOW WOULD WE APPROACH THAT? YES, SIR. SO THERE'S BASICALLY THREE OPTIONS.

THE FIRST WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE TO FUND IT, OBVIOUSLY, AND ADJUST THE REVENUES OR THE ASSOCIATED BOND PROPOSITIONS TO ACCOMMODATE, THE 21 MILLION OR 28 MILLION.

YOU KNOW, I'LL STICK WITH THE 28 JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE DISCUSSION.

SO, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, IS APPROACHING IT THROUGH, GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WHICH IS A 20 YEAR TERM FOR A BOND.

THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE, AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT, PARTICULARLY AROUND STEMMONS IN SOME CASES, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE LEVEL OF THOSE PROPOSITIONS, WE WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO USE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION CODES, WHICH ARE NOT 20 YEAR BOND TERM, BUT TEN YEAR BOND TERMS. AND I THINK THE IMPACT OF THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY IS IF WE WERE TO BORROW, LET'S SAY, $30 MILLION, OF CEOS

[03:10:09]

VERSUS DOING A 20 YEAR NOTE, THEN THE EQUIVALENT OF 50, I THINK ABOUT $54 MILLION WOULD BE THE SHIFT IN HOW MUCH CAPACITY WOULD BE EATEN UP VERSUS THE 30.

SO JUST BECAUSE IT'S A SHORTER TIME AND YOU LOOK AT IT AS IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD A 20 YEAR MORTGAGE VERSUS A 30 YEAR MORTGAGE, YOUR PAYMENT GOES UP BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING IT OFF EARLIER. AND THEN THE THIRD, APPROACH THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IF NEITHER ONE OF THOSE WERE WHAT COUNCIL WANTED TO CONSIDER WOULD BE TO FIGURE OUT, HOW WE WOULD FUND THAT OUT OF OUR, ONGOING, GENERAL FUND REVENUES.

AND THEN LOOK AT THE TIMING OF THOSE.

AND SO THEY ALL WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN IN YEAR ONE.

SO IT WOULDN'T BE AN INITIAL 21 OR $28 MILLION ISSUE.

WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT AND DO TRIAGE ON WHICH ONE WE WANTED TO DO FIRST.

SO IT COULD BE I THINK THEY TYPICALLY, THE THINGS THAT JOHN MENTIONED RANGE FROM 5 TO $8 MILLION EACH.

AND SO WE'D LOOK, TO DO THAT EITHER ON OUR ANNUAL BUDGET AND OR FIGURE OUT LIKE WE'VE DONE, IN THE LAST MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENT, WHEN REVENUES, HAD COME IN GREATER THAN WHAT WE EXPECTED FUND VIA ONE TIME FUNDING DURING THAT TIME, IF, IN FACT, WE COULD.

AND SO THOSE WOULD BE THE STRATEGIES AND OR THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD THINK ABOUT DOING.

BUT AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT WOULD BE PRIORITIZED DIFFERENTLY, THROUGHOUT AN ONGOING BASIS, VERSUS EITHER DOING CFOS OR GENERAL OBLIGATION. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, DO WE HAVE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF WHAT THAT 30 MILLION WILL COST US IN THE BOND VERSUS IN THROUGH THE CO PROCESS VERSUS, WELL, THE BUDGET? WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, DO WE.

DO WE HAVE WE RUN THOSE NUMBERS? I THOUGHT I SAW IT SOMEWHERE BUT MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN.

YOU KNOW I'D HAVE TO GET OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

YEAH. THE COST OF MONEY ON THAT.

AND MR. IRELAND AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GIVING YOU FOR WARNING IN CASE.

THIS IS NEW. GOOD AFTERNOON.

JACK GARLAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND SO THE QUESTION WAS RELATED TO, ISSUING 30 YEAR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? MY QUESTION IS, YEAH.

GIVEN THE OPTIONS THAT OUR CITY MANAGER OFFERED, WHAT'S THE COST OF MONEY FOR DOING, GETTING FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET THEM INTO THIS BOND VERSUS THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT HE PRESENTED? OKAY. SO WHEN WE WE LOOKED AT THE CAPACITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR BOND PROGRAM, WE TOLD COUNCIL THAT WE HAD $1.1 BILLION OF CAPACITY AND THEN LATER CAME BACK.

AND THE REQUEST WAS TO REDUCE THE CAPACITY THAT WE HAD RESERVED FOR THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, REDUCE THAT FROM 400 MILLION TO TAKE 150 MILLION TO INCREASE THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT IT UP TO THE $1.25 BILLION.

SO THAT LEAVES $250 MILLION AS OUR RESERVE OR SET ASIDE AS POTENTIAL PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS.

IF WE WERE AT SOME POINT TO WANT TO GO THERE, AS MR. BROADNAX EXPLAINED, TO USE $30 MILLION OR TO ISSUE $30 MILLION OF, THE CAPACITY FOR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, PAYING IT IN TEN YEARS, AS OPPOSED TO 30 YEAR PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, WE WOULD REDUCE THAT BY 54 MILLION.

SO INSTEAD OF HAVING 250 MILLION SET ASIDE AS RESERVE, YOU'D HAVE 196 MILLION SET ASIDE.

THAT'S KIND OF THE TRADE OFF, 30,000,000 IN 10 YEARS.

CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION VERSUS $54 MILLION IN 30 YEAR PENSION OBLIGATION.

RESERVE. GOTCHA.

AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT THE DEBT SERVICE ON THOSE.

COULD YOU GIVE ME THE DIFFERENCE OF THE DEBT SERVICE IF YOU HAVE IT? I DO NOT HAVE THAT.

OKAY. BUT I BET I CAN GET IT.

OKAY. THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD IT.

JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THE COST OF THIS, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF IMPACTING THE POTENTIAL PENSION, BUT ALSO HOW MUCH MORE IN CASH IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO COST THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. I JUST DON'T HAVE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WITH ME.

OKAY, OKAY.

SO THAT MIGHT REAL CHALLENGE IS THAT WE NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO COST MORE AND PUT MORE AT RISK BECAUSE WE'RE UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ANYTHING, EVEN A SMALL HIT ACROSS THE SPREAD TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

BUT IT'S AN INCREDIBLE IT'S AN INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING MESSAGE FOR ME TO SWALLOW, TO SAY TO OUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES WHO WORK HERE THAT, THAT SO MANY OTHER THINGS MATTER MORE THAN YOU DO.

AND I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE US FIND A WAY TO JUST TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING.

I'LL EVEN, YOU KNOW, DO SOME IN TERMS OF, OF THE DISTRICT MONEY TO HELP TOWARD THIS, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR US TO SEND TO OUR

[03:15:09]

COWORKERS HERE AT CITY HALL.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSITIONS AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS, STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION TO 507 507,010,000.

PARKS AND RECREATION.

336,660,000. LIBRARIES.

42,730,000. HOUSING 25,000,900.

ECO DEV.

72,440,000. HOMELESS HOUSING TO 18,640,000.

FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM DRAINAGE 51,140,000.

PUBLIC SAFETY.

93,250,000. CULTURAL ARTS FACILITIES.

74,330,000. CITY HALL.

27,900,000. AND IT TO ZERO.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STEMMONS MUNICIPAL, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR YOUR DISCUSSION ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STEMMONS MUNICIPAL CENTER PROPOSITIONS ARE AT ZERO AND ARE DELETED FROM THIS ORDINANCE.

AND THE PROPOSITIONS ARE REIMBURSED TO REFLECT THIS.

ESSENTIALLY WE TALKED ABOUT THE IT ISSUE BEING IN A LOW, BOND PROPOSITION ON ITS OWN.

THAT LOW BOND PROPOSITION HAS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF NOT PASSING, IF THAT WERE TO NOT PASS, THE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE TO FUND, WOULD THEN NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THREE YEARS.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE, SAID AS A COUNCIL THAT WE PRIORITIZE IT, MOVING FORWARD.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE US PRIORITIZE THAT IN OUR NEXT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET.

BUT I WANT TO JUST SAY I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT MY COLLEAGUE, MISS SCHULTZ, JUST, DISCUSSED.

IN FACT, I THINK THAT IT'S IT IS ALSO.

REALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND CONTRADICTING TO OUR OWN MESSAGES.

FOR US TO PUT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO DEPARTMENTS THAT WE INTEND TO SEE PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED FROM.

YET WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THESE FUNDS.

IT'S IT'S JUST IT'S JUST IRRESPONSIBLE.

IN FACT, THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT I MEAN, THIS 27 NINE DOESN'T EVEN COVER WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDED IN CITY HALL.

AND THE REASON THAT THERE IS THAT DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IS THAT WE HAVE HAD BODIES BEFORE US DO EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING ATTEMPTED TO DO NOW AND KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

AND IF WE CONTINUE TO PRIORITIZE OTHER THINGS, OTHER PRIORITIES AND PUSH THIS TO THE SIDE, NOT ONLY IS THE AMOUNT GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE WORKING CONDITIONS LIKE INADEQUATE HVAC, AND EVERY SINGLE STAFF MEMBER THAT I KNOW HAS HEATERS.

WE HAVE BREAKERS THAT TRIP BECAUSE PEOPLE'S INDIVIDUAL HEATERS, JUST SO THAT THEY CAN BE COMFORTABLE AT WORK FOR NINE HOURS AT A TIME.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A SOLUTION, AND I WANT TO JUST EXPLAIN HOW I GOT TO THIS SOLUTION.

IF YOU LOOK, I HAVE A PAPER THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THAT IS COLOR CODED.

I DON'T WANT TO REHASH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PRIORITIZE ONE PROPOSITION OVER THE OTHER.

I'M NOT WANTING TO GO BACK INTO AN ARGUMENT OF WHO DESERVES WHAT, BUT I WANT ALL OF WHAT WE INVEST IN TO BE IMPLEMENTED SUCCESSFULLY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT LEAVING CITY HALL AT ZERO DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT.

SO INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, HOW AM I GOING TO SOLVE THIS? I DID A PRO-RATA APPROACH.

WE TOOK THE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT EACH PROPOSITION IS IN THE ENTIRE CAPACITY AT THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE SET, AND FROM THAT PERCENTAGE.

AFTER REMOVING THE 5 MILLION FROM IT, IT LEFT US WITH 22.9 MILLION THAT WE NEEDED TO GET MADE WHOLE.

[03:20:02]

WITH THAT 22.9 MILLION MADE UP WITH EXACT PERCENTAGES FROM EACH PROPOSITION OF WHAT IT IS REFLECTED OF THE CAPACITY.

THAT'S HOW I GOT TO THIS NUMBER.

AGAIN, THIS WASN'T ABOUT IDEOLOGY, OPINIONS, OR PRIORITIZING ONE OVER THE OTHER.

IN FACT, I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST HITS, OF COURSE, WERE THE BIGGEST PROPOSITIONS.

AND WE HAVE A $9 MILLION REDUCTION IN STREETS FROM THIS, PROPOSAL AND A $6.3 MILLION, REDUCTION IN PARKS. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT I HAVE A PLAN AS WELL, THAT I'VE TALKED WITH THE CHAIR OF PARKS ON, AND I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF US FIGURING OUT A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PARKS PROPOSITION IS STILL FULLY FUNDED.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO BE CREATIVE AROUND HERE.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SET POLICY, AND IF THERE IS ESSENTIALLY OVER FIVE YEARS, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 1 MILLION PER YEAR, THAT WE CAN, DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER OR, STAFF TO INCLUDE AS A MAINTENANCE PLAN OVER FIVE YEARS, WHICH WOULD JUST BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $1 MILLION.

I'M NOT TRYING TO CUT ANYONE'S PROJECTS IN ADDITION TO THAT, NONE OF WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS TOUCHING ONE PENNY OF THE DISCRETIONARY.

THAT WAS THE BIG CONTENTIOUS ITEM HERE.

EVERYONE PUT THEIR 5 MILLION WHERE THEY WANTED IT AND THIS ACTION WOULD NOT TOUCH IT.

EVERYONE STILL HAS WHERE THEY'VE PRIORITIZED.

IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE END NUMBER, IT GETS US AS CLOSE TO WHERE WE'VE FOUND A CONSENSUS AS A BODY THAT WE'VE GOTTEN TO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.

BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T DO IT AT THE EXPENSE OF ONE SOLE PROPOSITION BEING ZEROED OUT.

SO I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER, DOING WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE THIS AS FAIR AND BALANCED OF A, I MEAN, OF A PACKAGE THAT WE SEND TO THE VOTERS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, ARE YOU READY? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES IF YOU ARE.

AND WE'RE ON. JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE ON MR. BAZALDUA. HIS AMENDMENT TO ITEM 30 AS IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. FIVE MINUTES.

GOT IT. SO IF I MAY ASK COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

IF YOU'LL ANSWER THEM. YES YOU CAN.

GOT IT. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT YOU SHOW IS INCREASING FROM 72 3 TO 72 440.

250. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? I THOUGHT THE CONCEPT WAS THAT WE WOULD TAKE A PORTION OF EACH ONE OF THE PROPOSITIONS, TOTALING NOT 27,900,000, TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE CITY HALL PROPOSITION.

SO I'M WONDERING, WHY ARE THOSE TWO FIGURES INCREASING? IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DISCRETIONARY.

AND IF YOU SEE THE COLOR CODED TABLE THAT I GAVE YOU, THE ACTUAL BASE ALLOCATION HAS THE DISCRETIONARY BACKED OUT COMPLETELY BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT DISCRETIONARY WOULDN'T BE TOUCHED.

SO THEN ONCE IT PUTS BACK IN, IT JUST INCREASES TO.

BUT THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THIS, TO SEE WHERE EACH OF THEM WERE GOING.

WELL, I UNDERSTOOD FROM MR. BAZALDUA S MOTION AND THAT THE FIGURES THAT HE PRESENTED IN HIS MOTION INCLUDED THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS.

NARVAEZ. OH.

I'M SORRY. CORRECT. WHICH IS WHY THE WAY THAT IT WAS WORDED TO ME FROM STAFF WAS WAS NOT THE WAY THAT I WANTED TO READ IT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT WAS GOING BACK ON DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS.

THAT'S WHY I JUST GAVE WHAT THE ENDING POINT WAS.

BUT I GAVE YOU THIS TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE EACH OF THEM CAME AND WHERE THEY END.

AND YOU'LL SEE ON THIS, NOT ONE PROPOSITION WAS INCREASED.

NO IT WASN'T. WELL, I'M STILL CONFUSED BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS.

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO REFERENCE ONE MOTION VERSUS THE OTHER AND JUST GIVE THE AMOUNTS.

WELL, THE OTHER ITEM I'M ALSO NEED CLARIFICATION ON IS HOMELESS HOUSING AND HOUSING INCREASED FROM 19 MILLION TO 18 MILLION. 640. THAT'S A DECREASE.

IS IT JUST A TYPO? THAT'S WHY I DID NOT READ WHAT THEY PROVIDED, THE WAY THAT IT WAS WORDED.

OH, OKAY.

YOU READ IT AS AN INCREASE.

AS A DECREASE.

I DID NOT SAY INCREASE OR DECREASE BECAUSE I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY GAVE ME WAS ACCURATE AND IT WAS CONFUSING.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO AVOID.

SO I ONLY GAVE THE AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL PROPOSITION WHICH GOT TO ONE.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND.

I NEED A POINT OF INFORMATION.

SURE. CAN WE HAVE SOMEBODY COME AND EXPLAIN IT VERSUS THEM TWO OVER THERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT? I MEAN, IF HE CAN USE HIS TIME, HOW HE HOW HE WANTS, BUT HE'S CHOOSING TO ASK THE THE AUTHOR, THE MOVER OF THE MOTION TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

[03:25:04]

BUT HE COULD ALSO CHOOSE TO ASK STAFF.

BUT IT'S HIS CALL. IT'S IT'S MR. RIDLEY'S TIME.

MR. RIDLEY, DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON THE ON THE RECORD AT LEAST AND OUT LOUD? BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY.

BUT WE DO NEED TO HEAR IT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. VANDENBERG PREPARED THIS MOTION.

COULD I CALL HIM UP TO THE MICROPHONE TO EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT THESE NUMBERS? YOU CAN THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CAN SEND SOMEBODY UP THERE TO.

WE JUST WROTE THE MOTION AS GIVEN TO US, THE NUMBERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US AND JUST ASK THAT THEY, TOTAL THE, THE 1.25 MILLION AND THAT THEY DON'T AFFECT THE DISCRETION BILLION AND THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE DISCRETIONARY.

I'M SORRY. I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM THAT.

SO WHERE DID YOU GET THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFIC FUNDING.

SO WHERE DO THE NUMBERS COME FROM? FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO REQUESTED THE MOTION.

IS THAT RIGHT? BURT? BURT. VANDENBERG? YES. THEY DID.

SO IT IS CONFUSING.

WHAT HAPPENED IS WE TOOK THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, WHICH WAS OUR BASE NUMBER, THE $5 MILLION THAT WAS ALLOCATED OVER, EVERYBODY'S UNALLOCATED, DISTRICT SPECIFIC FUNDS ADDED THAT IN THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT STARTED THAT.

THEY PULL IT OUT. SO WE STARTED WITH THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NUMBER, WHICH HAD THE 75 MILLION OF SPECIFIC, DISTRICT SPECIFIC FUNDS THAT THEN GOT PUT INTO COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ MOTION.

SO YOU HAD FOR STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION AND WENT FROM 500 MILLION, WHICH WAS WHAT, ON JANUARY 31ST, YOU GOT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED.

THE 521 TWO IS WHAT IT WAS AFTER DISTRICT SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS WERE ADDED.

RIGHT. SO THEN IF YOU SWITCH OVER TO THE AMENDING MOTION AND LOOK AT STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION, IT DECREASES FROM THE 521, 200 MILLION, WHICH WAS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ RECOMMENDED OR MADE HIS MOTION FOR TO THE 507 OH 10,000 THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA HAS MADE THE MOTION FOR.

YEAH, I FOLLOW THAT, BUT THAT ISN'T CONSISTENTLY TRUE WITH THE OTHER PROPOSITIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IN THE NARVAEZ MOTION SHOWS THE FINAL AMOUNT WITH DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION OF 72 THREE AND MR. BAZALDUA MOTION SHOWING IT GOING UP FROM 72 3 TO 72 440.

CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THAT EXTRA MONEY COMES FROM? FROM THE CHART THAT I WAS GIVEN BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

WELL, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IT'S ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHERE DID IT COME FROM? I DID NOT DO THE ACCOUNTING ON THIS ONE.

I DO KNOW THAT WHEN ALL THE NUMBERS IN THE COLUMN WERE ADDED TOGETHER, THEY CAME TO 1.25 BILLION, WHICH IS THE ONE THING I WAS ABLE TO CHECK.

OKAY, THEN.

YEAH. SO DOES THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TOTAL UP TO A MILLION? A BILLION 250.

IT DOES, IT DOES.

WELL, I STILL CONFESS TO BEING CONFUSED ABOUT HOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCREASED.

FLOOD PROTECTION. I'M SORRY.

PUBLIC SAFETY INCREASED.

WHEN? I THOUGHT THE EXERCISE WAS TO TAKE MONEY FROM ALL THE PROPOSITIONS TO PUT MONEY INTO THE CITY HALL PROPOSITION.

IN THEIR OWN CATEGORIES. OKAY.

IS THAT A QUESTION DIRECTED TO STAFF, OR IS THAT BACK TO THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT OR WHAT WE GOT TO WE GOT TO GET BACK TO THE WAY WE NORMALLY DO THINGS AROUND HERE.

YOU CAN'T JUST THINK OUT LOUD AND HEAR THE HORSE.

YOU CALL THAT A COUNCIL MEETING? SO, MR. RIDLEY, DO YOU WANT DO WE WANT TO PAUSE YOUR TIME AND LET YOU, YEAH.

COLLECT YOUR THOUGHTS JUST A LITTLE BIT.

OKAY. WELL, NO, MY THOUGHT IS THAT YOU'RE BACK ON THE CLOCK.

I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD JUST THROW OUT THE WRITTEN MOTION AND LOOK AT THE TABLE THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGHOUT.

WHOSE WRITTEN MOTION? MR. BAZALDUA, HE DIDN'T WRITE ONE.

I DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN MOTION FOR MR. BAZALDUA, DO YOU? OH, YOU MEAN THIS THIS COLOR? NO. YES.

THAT'S RIGHT. OH, I DIDN'T GET THAT ONE.

YOU GUYS. YOU GUYS KEPT THAT ONE FROM ME.

[03:30:01]

OKAY, YOU GUYS ARE DOING SOME WEIRD STUFF, OKAY? ALL RIGHT. I JUST LIKE YOU GAVE THE MAYOR THE OLD COLOR CODED WEIRD ONE.

ALL RIGHT, I KNOW THAT TRICK.

ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

SO, MR. BAZALDUA, SHOULD WE IGNORE THE TYPED MOTION AND LOOK AT THE SPREADSHEET? THE TABLE? I THINK THAT WHAT WHAT OCCURRED WAS THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER.

NARVAEZ AMENDMENT WAS INCLUDED, AND THAT'S WHERE I.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN'T JUST GO BY THIS WAS THAT I WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT MR. NARVAEZ WAS CHANGING, AND HE CHANGED SOME FROM PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOUSING.

SO MY MY TOTALS ON THIS WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN TWO OF THE PROPOSITIONS BECAUSE OF MR. NARVAEZ AMENDMENT.

OH, SO THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THIS MOTION WAS WRITTEN WITH A STARTING POINT.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST BEFORE I GO BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN? WE'RE WE'RE. HOLD ON A SECOND.

YOU'RE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED ACTUALLY, RIGHT NOW FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO RISE UP AND SPEAK AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

YOU YOU JUST HEARD COMMENTS MADE BY MR. RIDLEY. IT INCREASES IN SOME PLACES.

DECREASES IN OTHER PLACES.

I I'M SURE THAT IT WAS.

YOU TRIED. I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF IT.

BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO WHAT I BELIEVE WAS THE WILL OF THIS BODY WHEN WE VOTED IN THE ON THE ORIGINAL DAY, ON WHAT TO MOVE FORWARD.

WHAT I READ IS THAT WILL PLUS THE DESIGNATED DOLLARS THAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR GOT OF 5 MILLION WHERE THEY WANTED IT TO GO.

SO IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE ACTUALLY VOTED ON, THIS DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT, WAS THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND, SO FOR JUST FOR THOSE TECHNICAL REASONS, I HAVE TO VOTE NO.

AND I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND AND AGREE IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE BECAUSE WE DID INCREASE IN SOME OTHERS AND DECREASE IN SOME OTHERS.

AS FAR AS THE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION GOES.

SO I IMPLORE YOU TO ALL TO, VOTE NO AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW.

SO, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU.

I ALSO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

COMPARED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ, THIS DECREASES STREETS BY 14 MILLION.

MANY OF US PUT MONEY INTO STREETS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

BECAUSE, FRANKLY, OUR STREETS ARE IN TERRIBLE CONDITION.

THIS IS I MEAN, TO GO TO $507 MILLION OUT OF A 1.25 BOND IS.

INSUFFICIENT. FRANKLY, EVEN OUR MOTION FROM.

COUNCIL MEMBER. NARVAEZ FOR 521 MILLION.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT STILL COULD INCREASE.

PARKS TO REDUCE 10 MILLION MORE FROM WHERE WE WERE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ MOTION UNACCEPTABLE.

THERE'S MANY OTHER ITEMS IN HERE THAT I'D BE CONCERNED WITH REDUCING.

BUT THE NUMBER TWO, THE TWO THAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON ARE CITY HALL AND IT THE IDEA THAT BECAUSE A PROPOSITION IS SMALLER, MEANING 5 MILLION, WHICH BY THE WAY, FOR MOST CITIES IS A MASSIVE, A MASSIVE PROPOSITION TO THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S SMALLER THAN OTHERS MEANS IT WOULDN'T PASS, I THINK IS EXTREMELY WRONG HEADED.

AND IN FACT, I THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE THE NEED FOR AN IT PROPOSITION.

SO THIS IS A NONSTARTER FOR ME.

THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CITY HALL PROPOSITION IS QUITE REMARKABLE.

CITY MANAGER, HAVE WE HAD A BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF THE FACILITY? I'M NOT SURE COUNCILWOMAN I DO NOT ATTEND GFM MEETINGS, SO I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE CHAIR AND OR YOURSELF AS THE FORMER CHAIR.

SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE.

AS A FORMER CHAIR, I'LL SAY WE NEVER HAD A BRIEFING ON THIS.

IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT BY STAFF TO ME AS AN AREA OF CONCERN.

I'VE HEARD PEOPLE CURRENT CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY.

I CONCUR, WE HAVEN'T.

YEAH. SO I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THAT IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED CITY HALL ITEMS WERE BEING CONSIDERED IN PRIOR BONDS.

I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.

IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN ANYTHING.

THERE WAS NEVER ONCE I WAS SAID, I WAS TOLD, HEY, WE HAVE THIS HUGE PROBLEM AT CITY HALL AND WE NEED SUPPORT ON IT, BECAUSE HAD THAT HAPPENED,

[03:35:06]

I WOULD HAVE ENCOURAGED YOU TO FUND IT IN OTHER WAYS.

AND MY QUESTION FOR YOU AT THIS POINT, WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM, IS KNOWING THAT YOU HAD THREE DIFFERENT BOND COMMITTEES THAT TURNED IT DOWN AS A PROPOSITION.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO TAKE CARE OF CITY HALL IN THAT INTERIM? SO LET ME FIRST CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS AROUND BRIEFINGS ON CITY HALL AND OR KNOWN DEFICIENCIES IN CITY HALL.

EVERY TIME THE TEMPERATURE FALLS BELOW A CERTAIN LEVEL AND OR EVERY TIME THE TEMPERATURE RISES TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF HEAT, I GET PHONE CALLS AND CALLS DIRECTLY FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN THIS BUILDING ABOUT THE INADEQUACY OF OUR HVAC AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.

I THINK THROUGHOUT THE BOND TASK FORCE STAFF, HAS DELIBERATELY SHARED, I THINK AND ROBERT CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE ISSUES IN, AND WHAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED.

AS IT RELATES TO THE MAINTENANCE IN THIS BUILDING.

SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE THREE PREVIOUS PROPOSITIONS BECAUSE I'VE ACTUALLY ONLY BEEN THE CITY MANAGER, FOR SEVEN YEARS.

AND SO I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING, YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND THE THINGS THAT JOHN JENKINS AND THE PRIOR DIRECTOR HAD DONE PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL, THAT WE'VE DONE THAT IN IT, WE'VE DONE THAT IN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, THAT WE TRY TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL AMOUNTS YEAR OVER YEAR TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THINGS THAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS, THAT COME UP.

AND SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE BOND PROGRAM.

I'LL DEFER TO ROBERT.

BUT, AGAIN, I THINK GIVEN THE LEVEL OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ACROSS ALL OF THESE PROPOSITIONS, I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS THOSE AS BEST WE CAN IN THE OPERATING BUDGET, GIVEN THE MANY PRIORITIES, BUT WE ALSO DO THAT OBVIOUSLY THROUGH THE BOND PROGRAM.

SO, ROBERT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION.

ONE SECOND POINT OF INFORMATION.

GO AHEAD, STATE IT THERE.

IT MAY NOT HAVE GONE TO A COMMITTEE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR ENTIRE COUNCIL WAS BRIEFED ON THIS.

THAT'S NOT A THAT'S NOT REALLY A POINT.

THAT'S. WELL, THAT WAS THE QUESTION I'M SORRY I'M SORRY.

YEAH. THAT'S KIND OF GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION OKAY.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD ROBERT.

THANK YOU. HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL ROBERT BETTIS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ, YOU ARE CORRECT.

WE DID BRIEF FULL COUNCIL.

IT WAS DECEMBER 22ND, THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT TO INCLUDE THE OVERALL FACILITIES NEEDS, TO WHICH CITY HALL WAS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION? THROUGH, CITY MANAGER BROADNAX LEADERSHIP.

WE ALSO DID, PROGRAM $3 MILLION AS PART OF THE MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENT LAST YEAR TO DO THE, THE BOILER WORK, HERE IN CITY HALL.

SO, SO FOR ALL THE NOISE THAT YOU HEARD THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

AND SO, SO, YES, WE DO UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS AND, AND WE PROGRAM FUNDS AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

EXCUSE ME REAL QUICK. AND MAJID JUST INFORMED ME THAT IN THE 2017 BOND, THERE WERE $6.2 MILLION APPROVED RELATED TO CITY HALL AND WHATEVER PROPOSITION IT WAS THAT WAS APPROVED AND THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TASK FORCE AT THAT POINT.

SO WHAT ARE THE DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN CITY HALL OVER THESE YEARS? COUNCILWOMAN I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT NUMBER AND YOU MAY KNOW IT.

AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT, I THINK WHAT'S RELEVANT TODAY IS THAT AS IT'S BEING DISCUSSED, THERE ARE $0 FOR CITY HALL AND THERE'S 1.25 BILLION FOR A MYRIAD OF OTHER GREAT THINGS THAT ACTUALLY WILL HELP THIS CITY AND MOVE IT FORWARD FROM PARKS, STREETS TO CULTURAL ARTS.

AND SO, THE DISCUSSION AROUND CITY HALL, AS I SHARED, IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE BOND PROGRAM, I GAVE THE THREE OPTIONS.

IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED, WE WILL FIGURE OUT HOW WE APPROACH IT AND COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER AT MID-YEAR, WHETHER DURING THE BUDGET AND OR AT ANY OTHER TIME, THAT WE CAN PULL TOGETHER A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER IT NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU'VE BEEN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSITION THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THE LAST THREE WEEKS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE DRILL DOWN NUMBERS OF WHAT HADN'T BEEN DONE.

WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND BUT THAT'S PROBABLY AS MUCH AS WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO DETAIL TODAY WITH IT.

I THINK JOHN SHARED THAT.

WELL, I'M FLATTERED THAT YOU THINK I KNOW THE NUMBER.

I DON'T FIRST OFF SECOND, I WOULD LIKE ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD, DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO LOOK UP THE DOLLARS THAT WERE BEEN PUT INTO FACILITY MAINTENANCE, MAYBE GOING BACK TO 2019, WHERE MANY OF US WERE ELECTED COMPARED TO WHAT THEY ARE FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR BUDGET.

AND IF YOU CAN TELL US WHAT THAT CHANGE HAS BEEN, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

SURE. YOU DID OUTLINE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT YOU COULD PAY FOR CITY HALL THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE BOND, AND WE SHOULD REMEMBER WHEN COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT THE

[03:40:10]

ESCALATING COST OF NOT REPAIRING CITY HALL, THAT OF COURSE, THE BOND HAS AN EXTRA COST OF INTEREST.

SO THIS IS A TAKING OUT DEBT TO REPAIR THIS BUILDING.

THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BESIDES THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE PENSION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING ASSETS.

IT'S SORT OF SHOCKING TO FIND OUT HOW MANY ASSETS THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS AND VARIOUS REVENUE STREAMS. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT ONE OF THOSE OR MORE MIGHT ACTUALLY JUST OUTRIGHT FUND THIS? NO, I HAVEN'T COUNCILWOMAN.

AND I'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN MY STATEMENT THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD STRATEGY JUST TO LOOK AT AND SELL OFF PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY IN MOST CASES WHERE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE VALUE ACTUALLY HAVE BUILDINGS ON THEM AND STAFF WORKING IN THEM.

AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A SECONDARY COST OF OF HAVING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE PLACE THOSE STAFF OR THAT EQUIPMENT.

AND SO AGAIN, THAT SHOULDN'T BE HOW WE FUND AND SUPPORT THE ONGOING EXPENSES AND OR PRIORITY ITEMS IN THIS CITY, PERIOD, BY SELLING OFF ASSETS TO DO IT.

THAT IS NOT A STRATEGY, BECAUSE WHEN I RUN OUT OF ITEMS TO SELL, I'LL STILL HAVE MORE NEEDS AFTER THAT, AND I ACTUALLY WON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS TO ACTUALLY DO WHAT I NEED TO DO IN THIS CITY.

SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT, BUT IT WOULD NEVER BE MY PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION, TO DO THAT TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY HALL.

AGAIN, I THINK THE POLICY LEVEL DISCUSSION FOR ME TODAY IS TOP LEVEL.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH BOND PROPOSITIONS, THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES, AND HOW WE FUND AND SUPPORT THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAINTAIN OUR BUILDINGS AS A RESPONSIBILITY, QUITE HONESTLY, OF ADMINISTRATION.

AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT.

THAT'S WHY THE LIGHTS ARE ON RIGHT NOW AND THE MICROPHONES ACTUALLY WORK TODAY, AND WE'RE DOING THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO, TO KEEP THIS BUILDING, IN A CONDITION WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY COME IN AND SAFELY.

SO AGAIN, NOT THAT YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO ON YOUR TIME.

BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARE GERMANE TO ESTABLISHING WHAT WE NEED TO DO SPECIFICALLY, WITH FUNDING AS A PART OF THIS PROPOSITION AND APPRECIATE YOUR AND IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND HOW WE REVIEW IT.

AND MANY OF THE PROPOSALS MADE TO REDUCE REVENUE TO ALLOW US TO PAY FOR THINGS IN THIS BUILDING.

APPRECIATE YOUR OUTLOOK. I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY GERMANE SINCE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR CITY HALL.

ALMOST $30 MILLION.

ARE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL THAT IT WOULD APPEAR SELF-SERVING FOR ALMOST $30 MILLION TO COME TO CITY HALL, WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S BENEFITING THE RESIDENTS, LIKE STREETS OR PARKS OR PUBLIC SAFETY WOULD.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION.

OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH.

I GUESS THAT WILL BE FOR THE VOTERS TO DETERMINE SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD.

I SEE I HAVE 30S LEFT.

I GUESS I WILL SAY THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR FOR ALL THE CITY ASSETS, WHERE WE ASKED WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS, AND I RECOLLECT YOUR RESPONSE, SAYING YOU DIDN'T KNOW AND THAT WE NEEDED TO DO A STUDY AND THE STUDY WOULD COST $5 MILLION AND THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE $5 MILLION.

IS THAT ACCURATE? WAS THAT A CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED DURING THE BUDGET? I CAN'T REMEMBER BECAUSE IT WASN'T SOMETHING I RECOMMENDED, SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE.

I BELIEVE IT WAS DURING THE BUDGET.

AND SO I THINK THE COMMENT YOU PROBABLY YOU MADE THE MOTION.

SO I PROBABLY NEED YOU TO, I GUESS, REPHRASE WHAT THE, MOTION WAS AND WHAT THE IMPACT AND WHERE THOSE DOLLARS WOULD HAVE COME FROM.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE BUDGET CONVERSATION LAST YEAR WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE UNUSUAL BUDGET CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD IN MY ENTIRE CAREER.

AND SO THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT I DON'T RECOLLECT FROM THAT, BECAUSE I WAS FOCUSED, OBVIOUSLY ON THE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING AND TRYING TO SHARE WITH COUNSEL TO ENSURE WE HAD A BALANCED BUDGET.

SO IF YOU WOULD REPEAT, I THINK WHAT YOUR SUGGESTION WAS, IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERN ABOUT WE WOULD FIND $5 MILLION SOMEWHERE, BUT I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.

COUNCILWOMAN THE OVERALL QUESTION IS THIS WHAT IS THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS NEEDED TO BRING ALL THE CITY ASSETS TO A STATE OF GOOD REPAIR?

[03:45:03]

AND I MEAN FACILITIES, NOT THINGS LIKE STREETS AND PARKS.

I THINK THE TEAM MAY HAVE THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE'VE SHARED NEEDS INVENTORY LISTS.

I THINK ACROSS ALL OF THE PROPOSITIONS WITH THE FANTASY, THE ANSWER WAS YOU DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE A STUDY.

WELL, AGAIN, WHEN DID I SAY THAT? TODAY. THAT WAS AT THE BUDGET MEETING.

WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S THE LAST QUESTION.

YOU CAN GET IT FOR THIS ROUND, BUT YOU HAVE TWO MORE.

COULD YOU PLEASE, IF YOU HAVE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, YES, WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR THAT ANSWER.

THE CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED IN DECEMBER OF 22 TO THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE IS WHERE WE BRIEFED THE FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

IT WAS LAST COMPLETED IN 2017, AND AT THAT TIME IT IDENTIFIED $113 MILLION IN NEEDS ADJUSTED FOR 2024.

THAT'S 137.

BUT THE KEY OF THAT IS THAT IT ONLY ASSESSED 220 OF THE 500 THEN BUILDINGS UNDER BUILDING SERVICES RESPONSIBILITY.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THIS IS ON THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. ON THE AMENDMENT.

I THINK THE PROBLEM IS, IS WE'VE MISSED THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THE DISCRETIONARY.

I THINK SOME OF THAT HAS MOVED.

SO CAN YOU COME AND TELL US OR GIVE US A NEW SPREADSHEET THAT SHOWS IT? BECAUSE WHEN YOU RECONCILE, STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION IS OFF, PARKS AND REC IS OFF.

PUBLIC SAFETY, ARTS AND CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME MOVEMENT WHICH THROWS THE WHOLE SHEET OFF AND IS CAUSING CONFUSION.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL US ALL 15 ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY.

FOR DISCRETIONARY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. POINT OF ORDER, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

THE MOTION, THE AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR AND THE STAFF DIDN'T WRITE THE AMENDMENT.

I MEAN, THE ATTORNEYS DID, BUT IT'S AN AMENDMENT BASED OFF OF WHAT A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED, NOT WHAT THEY WANTED.

SO THE AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR, WE SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO FIX THE AMENDMENT WHILE WE'RE ON THE FLOOR, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT.

I'M GOING TO LET THE PARLIAMENTARIAN, TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A REALLY A POINT OF ORDER THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED OR NOT.

IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT, THOUGH, BUT, WELL, IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES.

SO IT WOULD NOT BE A POINT OF ORDER.

BUT, IT.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT GERMANE TO THE AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR? I MEAN, I WANT TO CLARIFY THE NUMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE A SPREADSHEET AND WE HAVE TWO, TWO.

TRUST ME, I KNOW.

I'M MY FEEBLE BRAIN IS TRYING TO GET AROUND IT.

OKAY. POINT OF INFORMATION, PLEASE.

MAYOR. GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR POINT OF INFORMATION.

BUT REALLY, I THINK, I'M SORRY THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT BEFORE.

I WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY POINTED THAT OUT, BUT IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.

BUT THE QUESTION I NEED CLARITY AROUND THE QUESTION.

ARE WE ASKING STAFF TO IDENTIFY ALL THE PROJECTS WHERE WE PLACED OUR NO DISCRETIONARY.

NO NO NO NO NO.

SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR IS THIS MOTION BY CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA THAT I JUST THIS PIECE OF PAPER HERE FOR EVERYBODY'S, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS.

AND THE ONLY, THE ONLY DISCUSSION THAT'S GERMANE TO THAT WOULD BE TO DEBATE THESE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, THESE TOP LINE DOLLAR AMOUNTS WITH THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS THIS INFORMATION AND TO EVENTUALLY MAKE IT INTO THIS BOND ORDINANCE.

SO, THIS IS THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR, BUT IT HAS CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ NAME AT THE TOP.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT REALLY.

IT'S IT'S THIS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

SO, AND MAYOR, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE HAVE SHARED THE SCREEN.

IT'S A SPREADSHEET THAT SHOWS THE BASE OF WHAT THE BODY, STRAW VOTED IN ADDITION TO THE $75 MILLION, AND BY BY DISTRICT, BY PROP, SO THAT THIS THIS WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE GET TO, THE STARTING POINT OF THE AMENDMENTS FOR TODAY.

BUT CAN YOU TELL ME THE 75, HOW THAT'S BROKEN UP IN THE DISCRETIONARY? YOU'RE BACK ON THE CLOCK OF MISS BLACKMON.

HOPEFULLY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE'RE BREAKING UP THE 75 PER DISTRICT.

INTO WHAT? BUCKET ALLOCATION? I CAN'T SEE THAT.

YEAH, WE CAN GET YOU COPIES OF THIS.

I'M LIKE. WE NEED NEW I'VE AT CITY HALL.

I'M SORRY. MY.

NOW I GOT FEEBLE EYES, BUT I CAN'T.

SO. SO, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW BY.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW? OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? TELL ME THIS. WHICH ONE'S CHANGED? BECAUSE, LIKE, MINE NEVER CHANGED.

OKAY, SO.

[03:50:01]

SO FOR STREETS AND PROPOSITION OR STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION.

PROP. COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE ADDED ONE.

YES. PER THE DISCRETIONARY POOL.

RIGHT. THE 75 MILLION AND JENNINGS PASSING THAT OUT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SO BECAUSE BACK TO BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT SOME FOLKS WENT BACK AND WHERE IT SAYS REVISED AND IT CHANGED THE NUMBERS.

SO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT GOT IT HAD TO BACK OUT 5 MILLION.

SO THE BASELINE CHANGED OF WHICH TO GO AHEAD.

YOU KNOW, 90, $90 MILLION IS BACK TO FLAT TO 90.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN BUT BUT DO EXPLAIN HOW AND SO HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THE 93 235 WHEN WE WERE BACK AT 90 AND COUNCIL MEMBER? I THINK THAT'S WHERE, WE'RE HANDED THIS, WE'RE HANDED THIS AMENDMENT.

AND SO, I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW THE DOUBTS OF THE 3.5.

IT WAS PART OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS HANDED TO US.

GOT IT. OKAY.

SO, WE MAY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE THE ACCOUNTING ON THIS IF WE CAN, BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF CONFUSING.

BUT, THE ONE THING IS, IS THAT WE GOT TO HAVE A CITY CENTER, AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT MAYBE EVEN MOVING IT WITH A CONVENTION CENTER. LOOK, THIS, THIS, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, IS WHAT WE HAVE.

AND IT TOOK SINCE 1962, I BELIEVE, OR 60.

HOLD ON. I GOT GOT MORE PAPER HERE.

1964, IN GOLDSBORO, DALLAS, WITH THE ORIGINAL ERIC JOHNSON.

WHEN THEY BEGAN TALKING ABOUT A NEW CITY HALL, IT OPENED IN 78.

IT WAS ABOUT ALMOST IT WAS A LITTLE OVER $49 MILLION.

AND I.M.PEI BUILDING IT IS IT WOULD BE $1 BILLION NOW TO CONSTRUCT.

THIS IS A LONG CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE.

AND IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, THEN WE HAVE TO FIX WHAT WE HAVE.

I THINK I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE NEED TO KEEP OUR ASSETS UP.

WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR BUILDINGS.

WELL, THE DALLAS WAY IS BUILD IT AND THEN FORGET ABOUT IT.

AND I HATE TO SAY IT, I'VE BEEN AROUND THIS BUILDING LONG ENOUGH TO HEAR IT.

CAN YOU TELL ME, DOES WHAT OFFICE? WHAT ARE CRITICAL DEPARTMENTS IN THIS BUILDING? I MEAN, I CAN NAME THREE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FIRST AND FOREMOST.

THANK YOU. NO.

SO YOU HAVE, DWU.

YOU HAVE HUMAN RESOURCES.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOU HAVE A CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THIS BUILDING.

EOC IS HERE, PLANNING A REGIONAL CONTACT POINT OF CONTACT FOR OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

YES, MA'AM. SO IF CITY HALL GOES DOWN, OUR GENERATORS GO OUT.

WHAT DO WE DO? WE'LL PROBABLY LOOK AT OUR BACKUP FACILITIES.

I GUESS WE ALL GET A LITTLE TREADMILLS AND START RUNNING.

WHAT ABOUT 911? IS THAT OFFICE IN THIS BUILDING? I KNOW THERE'S DISCUSSION OF MOVING IT OUT.

WHERE ARE WE ON THAT DISCUSSION? OUR LAND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS IS DISCUSSING THAT.

SO HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE? SO, SO IT DEPENDS.

I MEAN, ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT WE HAVE IS, WHEN THE, BELLEVUE OR IBM BUILDING COMES ONLINE, THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL MOVE TO TO THAT FACILITY.

OR WHEN WILL THAT BE ONLINE ON THIS BOND? ISN'T IT OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 IS WHEN WE TAKE POSSESSION.

OKAY. AND SO THEN WE ALSO HAVE 311 RIGHT.

311 IS HERE AS WELL.

YES MA'AM. SO THE QUESTION IS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN I GUESS JOHN, IF WE HAVE TO MOVE OUT OR WE HAVE TO NOT IF WE DON'T HAVE ELECTRICAL AND IT CATCHES ON FIRE OR, YOU KNOW, WORSE COMES TO WORSE, WE START GETTING REALLY 100 DEGREE WEATHER AND OR ABOVE 100, AND WE CAN'T HAVE MEETINGS IN THIS BUILDING.

SO WHERE WOULD CITY WHERE WOULD THE CITY GOVERNMENT MOVE TO? WE WOULD FIGURE THAT OUT, MA'AM.

WE WOULD. WE WOULD LOOK TO OUR MOBILE FACILITIES AND FIGURE THAT OUT.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY RENT IF WE WENT TO A TEMPORARY FACILITY.

RIGHT. THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE ONE OPTION.

YES, MA'AM. SO, I MEAN, THE THING IS, IS WE EITHER DECIDE TO MAINTAIN THE ELECTRICAL IN YOUR OWN HOUSE.

IF IT'S BURNING, IF IT'S FALLING APART, YOU MAINTAIN IT OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN A SWIMMING POOL? YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE GOT TO FIX WHAT WE HAVE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S I KNOW IT'S BEEN THREE BONDS.

AND THE REASON WHY IS LET THE NEXT ONE, KIT, IT'S 2030.

LET THEM TAKE CARE OF IT.

THAT'S THE DALLAS. THAT'S HOW WE DO THINGS AROUND HERE.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN.

I MEAN, WE EITHER TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE GOT OR WE DON'T BUILD ANYMORE.

THAT'S JUST TO ME, THAT'S JUST IT.

AND SO I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE MATH FIGURED OUT, AND I'LL BE WORKING ON IT WHILE I'M HERE.

BUT I JUST FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT WE BUILT.

IT'S AN I.M. PEI BUILDING.

WE HAVE THREE IN THIS CITY.

YEAH, IT'S. AND PEOPLE LOVE IT.

PEOPLE HATE IT. IT'S ICONIC.

AND WE HAVEN'T TAKEN CARE OF IT.

WE'VE BASTARDIZED IT.

[03:55:01]

YES, I SAID IT. IF IT'S NOT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OPEN GOVERNMENT.

IT'S NOT OPEN GOVERNMENT.

WE'VE CREATED HALLWAYS, WE'VE CREATED OFFICES.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS BUILT TO BE ICONIC.

AND WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT.

AND THE GOOD THING IS, BECAUSE IT'S BOND MONEY, IF WE DECIDE WE WANT TO MOVE, WE CAN USE IT TO BUILD A NEW ONE.

OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED $1 BILLION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

MR. JENKINS, PLEASE.

JOHN JENKINS FROM PARTS.

MR. JENKINS, I KNOW YOU HAD A SPECIAL CALL MEETING BEFORE WE STARTED, ALLOCATING MONEY FOR PARTS.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAD A PROPOSAL THAT YOU WENT BACK TO LOOK AT 275 300,000,003 25 AND YOUR BOARD CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF 307 SO THEREFORE I'M LOOKING AT BASIRE'S DUE TO PROPOSITION OF PROPOSITION IS 507, WITH THE BASE, BUT THAT INCLUDES DISCRETIONARY FUND.

SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THOSE PROJECTS? THAT'S CORRECT. CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON YOUR MIC? ALL RIGHT. IF IF I'M ASKED TO REDUCE THE BOND PROPOSITION, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROJECTS WOULD BE NEED TO BE, I MEAN, REDUCED OR ELIMINATED.

WHO WOULD IDENTIFY THE PROJECT? IT WOULD I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD AND GET THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE COUNCIL, UNLESS THIS BODY DECIDED TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION. SO WE REPEAT THAT AGAIN, PLEASE.

I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD TO GET THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON WHICH CUTS.

UNLESS THIS BODY MADE THE RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. STREETS.

CAN I GET SOMEONE TO TALK ABOUT STREETS? GOOD AFTERNOON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT STREETS IN THE.

PROPOSITION HERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE STREETS IN THE PROPOSITION.

SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? WHAT WOULD A PROCESS THE STREETS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER GOT TO GO BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT STREET THAT NEED TO BE IN THE PROPOSITION BEFORE FEBRUARY 28TH.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DON'T HAVE THE LIST? WELL, THE LIST SHOULD BE FINAL FOR THE BOND AND MIGHT BE ALSO A QUESTION FOR BOND OFFICE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A FINAL LEASE TO BE SET ON THE.

THE PACKAGE OF THE ONE I BELIEVE.

OKAY, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS IN THE 507, WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISCRETIONARY FUND IS IN THE 507 FIGURE? WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? THE 507 IS JUST JUST A MOMENT THAT IT WAS JUST MADE RIGHT NOW.

BUT FOR THE 500 IT WAS $75 MILLION.

77 IS 1616 MILLION, RIGHT? 500 TO 507.

MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM.

I'D HAVE TO ASK THE TEAM TO TO CONFIRM, BUT I THINK WE WENT FROM A BASE OF.

WAS IT FIVE? FIVE? YEAH, I THINK IT WAS 500 THAT WE WENT TO.

IT WOULD BE 507. SO THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY $7 MILLION OF DISCRETIONARY IN THERE.

BUT. OKAY.

WELL, OKAY. I'M LOOKING AT, MR. BAZALDUA SAID NINE, 9 MILLION.

SO IS THAT NOT INCLUDE DISCRETIONARY FUND? IT DOES. DISTRICT SPECIFIC.

DISTRICT SPECIFIC.

WELL, I ONLY HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR THE $500 MILLION SCENARIO.

MAY NEED THE HELP WITH BOND OFFICE IF IT'S POSSIBLE.

I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE STREET TRANSPORTATION NUMBER.

HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN DISCRETIONARY FUND IF YOU TAKE DISCRETIONARY FUND AWAY FROM THIS NUMBER.

SO I MEAN, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GET COMPLETED BY DISTRICT.

SO WE WOULD GO BACK AND IDENTIFY THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING BY PROPOSITION AND THEN BACK THAT OUT.

SO THAT STILL WOULD BE MAINTAINED.

AND THEN WE WOULD GO AND FIND WHAT THAT NEW BASELINE NUMBER, BASELINE NUMBER WOULD BE WITHOUT THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING.

[04:00:05]

SO THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING WOULDN'T BE TOUCHED BUT THE OVERALL BASE WOULD BE REDUCED.

OKAY. SO THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS CITY HALL, THE $27 MILLION, THE $27 MILLION WE GOT HERE.

NOW, IS THIS A THIS COULD BE A BUDGET ITEM.

I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION TO THE CITY MANAGER.

IT COULD BE A BUDGET ITEM.

AND AS I'VE BEEN ASKED BEFORE, I THINK THE ISSUE AND CHALLENGING AND JUST BASELINE STATEMENT IS THERE WOULDN'T BE $27 MILLION WORTH OF NEEDS OR REQUESTS IF IN FACT, WE COULD HAVE ALREADY FUNDED IT FROM OUR EXISTING RESOURCES, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO AND DO IT IF I HAD THE RESOURCES TO DO IT.

SO, AGAIN, AS I SAID, WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE ITEMS CONTAINED WITHIN THE 27 MILLION, AND DETERMINE, BASED ON PRIORITY, WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO FUND FIRST, GIVEN ALL THE OTHER NEEDS AND COMPETING, FINANCIAL NEEDS IN OUR CITY, AND TRY TO DO THAT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, HOW WE WOULD APPROACH IT.

IT WOULDN'T BE A FULL 27 IN 1 YEAR.

BUT I DO AND WOULD SAY, I THINK AS IT'S SITUATED NOW IN THE BOND PROGRAM, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SPREAD OUT OVER FIVE YEARS.

IF WE HAD THE RESOURCES, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO IT OVER 1 OR 2 YEARS OR AS, THE EQUIPMENT BECAME AVAILABLE.

ROBERT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THAT.

NOT TO THAT, SIR. BUT JUST TO COME BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TEM, IT'S A 21,000,021.2 MILLION IN DISCRETIONARY FUNDS THAT ARE IN THE STREETS PROPER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WHEN I SAID BUDGET.

SO. THE MAINTENANCE OF CITY HALL.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. CITY MANAGER. IT COULD BE SPREAD OUT OVER OVER FIVE YEARS.

THERE COULD BE 5 MILLION THIS YEAR.

5 MILLION NEXT YEAR.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE $27 MILLION TODAY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO SELL THE BUN TODAY.

SO WHEN WILL WE SELL THE BUN AND WHAT WE CAN PUT IN THE BUDGET.

IT COULD BE SALES TAX INCREASE.

IT COULD BE CUTTING SOMETHING ELSE.

YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT IT, IT COULD BE NUMEROUS THINGS THAT WE COULD FIX THE BUDGET SO WE COULD FIND THE MONEY AROUND HERE TO FIX THE BUDGET.

NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND $27 MILLION TODAY.

NOT TODAY, BUT WE GOT TO SELL THE BUN.

WE GOT TO GO TO THE VOTERS, AND THE VOTERS GOT TO VOTE ON IT.

SO HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE TO SPEND TODAY? BUT WHEN WILL WE SELL THE BONDS AND COLLECT THE MONEY FOR THE $27 MILLION TO PUT IN OUR COFFERS IN ORDER TO START DOING THE REPAIRS? SO, MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS, I BELIEVE THAT, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE SHARED, WE PROBABLY START THE PROGRAM WITH COMMERCIAL PAPER.

AND THEN THE FIRST TRANCHE WOULD BE IN 2025, 2025, SIR.

SO 2025, THE TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

RIGHT? TWO YEARS.

RIGHT. YEAH.

YEAH. YES. 20 2424.

SO SO THEREFORE 2526.

SO THEREFORE IT STILL COULD BE SALES TAX COULD GO UP.

YOU COULD USE THAT MONEY. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO ALLOCATE MONEY FOR SALE.

HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE ALLOCATE FOR THE CITY HALL FOR REPAIRS PER YEAR.

GOOD AFTERNOON. UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY A COUNCIL AMENDMENT WE DON'T ALLOCATE TO A SPECIFIC BUILDING.

PREVIOUSLY, THE COUNCIL MADE AN AMENDMENT FOR A $1.75 MILLION FOR FIRE FACILITIES, BUT IT JUST GOES IN A POOL AND THEN IT GOES BY NEED.

OKAY. SO THEREFORE WE DO HAVE A NEED, RIGHT? YES, SIR. SO WE'RE NOT QUITE WE DON'T ALLOCATE IF WE HAVE A NEED.

SO WE DO HAVE A MAJOR MAINTENANCE BUDGET THAT VARIES BETWEEN 8.3 MILLION AND 9 MILLION EVERY YEAR.

AND THAT GOES TO THE MAJOR MAINTENANCE COMPONENTS WHICH DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER ROUTINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE TO PRIORITIZE.

BUT THIS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

CORRECT. BUT WE'RE ALSO COMPETING WITH HVAC UNITS AND FIRE STATIONS, LIBRARIES, REC CENTERS, ALL OF THE ABOVE.

IT'S THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE, SO TO SPEAK.

OKAY, OKAY.

WITH THAT, I'M STILL SAYING THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS A BUDGET ITEM.

I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BOND.

IT'S GOING TO COST MORE MONEY, BUT I THINK IT'S CHEAPER TO PAY CASH AS WE GO AND GET CITY HALL TAKEN CARE OF.

I MEAN, IF WE GOT TO CUT SOMETHING ELSE, LET'S CUT SOMETHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, BESIDES ON A PROPOSITION.

BUT I THINK GOING TO THE VOTERS AND SAY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO HOW MUCH DO THEY COST US ON $27 MILLION? I GUESS THAT'D BE THE JACK ISLAND.

CLOSE QUESTION.

AND WE TALK ABOUT DOING COMMERCIAL PAPER.

THEN ALSO WE MIGHT NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THAT COMMERCIAL PAPER.

SO DO CITY HALL GET FIRST PRIORITY TO FOR COMMERCIAL PAPER THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS.

[04:05:03]

GOOD AFTERNOON. JACK ARLEN CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SO WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, ONE, ISSUING THE $27 MILLION OR APPROXIMATELY $30 MILLION IN CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

PAYING INTEREST ON THE $30 MILLION WILL COST US ABOUT $5 MILLION IN INTEREST OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD, OR IF WE ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR IT, IT WILL COST US NEARLY $10 MILLION IN INTEREST OVER 20 YEARS.

SO IT DOES COST MORE FOR THE 20 YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING MORE DEBT.

HOWEVER, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, IT IS A LOWER DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT, TO PAY IT ON A 20 YEAR REPAYMENT CYCLE. SO HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE COMMERCIAL PAPER AND PRO COMMERCIAL PAPER? WE USE AS SHORT TERM FINANCING IN ADVANCE OF ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.

SO WHEN WE HAVE AGENDA ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WE USE COMMERCIAL PAPER.

THAT IS WHAT IS BACKING THAT AGENDA ITEM.

IF WE START THE PROJECT AND HAVE INVOICES TO PAY, WE DRAW DOWN THE COMMERCIAL PAPER.

THEN WHEN WE HAVE AN ANNUAL GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SALE, WE REFUND ANY COMMERCIAL PAPER THAT WE ISSUED IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS.

SO IT'S JUST A TEMPORARY STOP GAP TO GET US THROUGH UNTIL BECAUSE WE ONLY ISSUE THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ONCE PER YEAR.

SO WHAT IS OUR BALANCE ON COMMERCIAL PAPER.

SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL PAPER OUTSTANDING AT THE CURRENT TIME.

WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT'S $350 MILLION.

SO WE COULD AWARD UP TO $350 MILLION BEFORE WE ACTUALLY WOULD NEED TO HAVE A BOND SALE.

THE WAY WE'VE SET UP THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM IS TO SELL ABOUT 220 TO $250 MILLION EVERY YEAR BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 25, 26, 27, 28, AND 29.

FOR THOSE FIVE YEARS TO GET TO THE 1.25 BILLION THAT WE'VE PRESENTED.

OKAY. WELL, I STILL THINK THAT WE CAN FIND THE MONEY.

I BELIEVE THAT IF THIS IS AN URGENT NEED TO GET DONE NOW, IT COULD BE PUT IN OUR BUDGET AND GET IT DONE.

THANK YOU. WELL, AS MR. JOHNSON EXPLAINED, WE WE PROVIDE ABOUT BETWEEN 8 AND $9 MILLION A YEAR FOR MAJOR MAINTENANCE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE 500 BUILDINGS THAT HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR.

AND HE TRIES TO PRIORITIZE THAT ANNUALLY.

BUT WE ARE THE POLICY MAKER.

WE CAN INCREASE THAT. WE'RE THE POLICY MAKER, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE THE POLICY MAKERS, WE CAN INCREASE THAT.

RIGHT? IT'S A IT'S A BUDGET.

YOU CAN COME TO US AND SAY WE NEED MORE MONEY TO DO MAINTENANCE.

IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S A BUDGET ITEM. IT'S A BUDGET ITEM.

WE ARE A POLICY MAKER. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WE CAN DO THAT.

DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MORENO.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES WE'RE ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE ITEM.

I, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES, MADE A DECISION ON WHERE TO ALLOCATE OUR COUNCIL SPECIFIC FUNDS BASED ON THE BASELINE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.

AND WHEN IT REALLY GO DEEP INTO CITY HALL, AS WE'VE HEARD, THERE'S A BIG NEED AT CITY HALL, AND I AGREE, WE NEED A PLAN.

AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, I HOPE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A, A GROUP THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS THE NEEDS OF DALLAS CITY HALL, OUR OWN NEEDS, INVENTORY COSTS FOR OVER $80 MILLION FOR CITY HALL, NOT INCLUDING THE PLAZA WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER MILLION, IN NEED.

IN THE 2017 BOND PROGRAM, THERE WAS ABOUT 7 MILLION ALLOCATED IN PROP H, ACCORDING TO THE BOND WEBSITE.

THOSE PROJECTS ARE ON HOLD.

CAN WE GET SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN WHY THOSE ARE ON HOLD OR IF THEY'VE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED? SO I HAVE ACTUALLY, I DON'T HAVE THAT LISTING WITH ME.

MY STAFF IS ACTUALLY WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW TO IDENTIFY WHERE ALL THOSE FUNDS ARE FOR CITY HALL.

OKAY. BUT ARE THEY COMING DOWN OR.

THEY'RE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW, SO.

YEAH.

[04:10:05]

SO IT MAY BE A FEW MINUTES, BUT THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW, SO APOLOGIES.

OKAY. WELL, AS WE WAIT ON THAT AGAIN, THE NEEDS AT CITY HALL ARE BIG AND WE NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR PATH FORWARD ON WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH CITY HALL.

AND, I DON'T THINK WE ARE THERE AT THIS TIME.

AND SO THEREFORE, I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CURRENT, AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE US.

THAT'S ALL, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT? OH. I'M SORRY. SEEING NONE.

OH. OH, I'M SORRY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, ARE YOU ARE YOU WANTING TO GET ON THE AMENDMENT? YES. OKAY. YEAH. FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. DEFINITELY.

I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO COVER MYSELF.

AS I'VE STATED WITH MY STAFF, I REALLY, REALLY WANT THE ENTIRE STAFF THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND EMPLOYEES TO KNOW THAT I DO SUPPORT AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN FUNDING FOR THE BUILDING IN WHICH EMPLOYEES WORK.

WE WORK. AND IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET A TAJ MAHAL, IT'S JUST A FUNCTIONAL BUILDING WHERE BUSINESS CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF.

I DEFINITELY AM ONE OF THOSE WHO WANT TO SEE US MOVE FROM THE VIRTUAL SPACE BACK TO THE BUILDING, BECAUSE AS I MOVE AROUND FROM DAY TO DAY IN MY STAFF, THERE ARE PEOPLE I NEED TO GET TO, AND OFTENTIMES IT'S VERY QUICKLY.

HOWEVER, WE ARE IN WHAT WE CALL A CONUNDRUM BECAUSE HERE WE ARE AT THE 11TH HOUR TRYING TO CALCULATE AND REMEDIATE, MISSTEPS.

IN MY OPINION, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED.

AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE OF HOW WE.

WERE NOT CONSCIOUS ENOUGH EARLY ENOUGH ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF HOUSING AND WHERE IT ACTUALLY NEEDED TO BE CLEARED, CLEARED UP, AND CLARIFIED AS TO THE CONNECTION TO ECONOMIC TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME OF THE PRESSURE OFF OF THIS CONVERSATION.

WE HAVE SOME WHO ARE GOING OUT, AND I KNOW I SEE SOME IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE TRYING TO ACCUSE US AS COUNCIL OF NOT WANTING TO FUND HOUSING WHEN LEGAL HAS TOLD US, EVEN LATE IN THE GAME, WHAT THE SITUATION IS.

AND SO WE'VE GOT TO CLEAR THAT UP SO THAT WE ARE NOT AS A CITY, SEEN AS TRYING TO NOT SUPPORT HOUSING.

I SUPPORT HOUSING, BUT AS CLEAR AS IT WAS TOLD TO US FROM THE ATTORNEYS, THERE ARE SOME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAUSES HOUSING TO BE FUNDED UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO MY POSITION TODAY WOULD BE TO TAKE ALL THE 24 MILLION THAT'S LISTED ON THE HOUSING, PUT IT IN CITY HALL AND LET HOUSING BE COVERED UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE CAN DO LEGALLY.

NOW, SOMETIMES AS WE TALK AROUND THE HORSESHOE, THE STATEMENT SOMETIMES WE MAKE STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT ARE KIND OF OVER THE HEADS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT AROUND THE HORSESHOE. BUT IF IF HOUSING CAN BE SUPPORTED THROUGH ECO, WHICH YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANY WAY TO GET AN INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE FACT THAT I DO SUPPORT HOUSING, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE OTHER PROGRAMS, AS STATED, THAT ALSO SUPPORT HOUSING.

AND I'M OFFENDED CONTINUOUSLY BY THE FACT THAT WE ARE LABELED AS ANTI HOUSING.

I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND I'M NOT.

MY DISTRICT NEEDS HOUSING.

THEY NEED HOME REPAIR.

THAT'S WHAT I GET A LOT OF NOW FROM THE FROM FROM THE OTHER PIECE TODAY THAT I'M WANTING TO CLEAR UP, MAYOR, IS THAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO USE THE TERM DISTRICT SPECIFIC, EVEN THOUGH IT STILL MEANS DISCRETIONARY BUT DISTRICT SPECIFIC.

AND THEN WE WERE ACCUSED BY SOME OF TAKING THE DISCRETIONARY MONEY THAT'S NOW LABELED AS DISTRICT, AS IF WE HAD TAKEN IT AND PUT IN OUR OWN BANK ACCOUNTS.

AND I'M STILL OFFENDED.

DISTRICT SPECIFIC MEANS WE WERE IDENTIFYING PROJECTS THAT WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME.

PERHAPS THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS OF BEING ACTIVATED, I ACTIVATED PROJECTS UNDER FUNDING THAT WOULD STIMULATE ECO DEV IN MY POSITION.

AND SO WHETHER I'M ATTACKED OF NOT WANTING HOUSING AND I'M STILL WORKING AND MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, CLARIFY THE FACT THAT IN MY CASE, DISTRICT SPECIFIC MEANT I NEEDED TO ACTIVATE CERTAIN PROJECTS, EVEN IF THEY CAME UNDER PARKS, BECAUSE IT WOULD STIMULATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD ALSO STIMULATE HOUSING.

SO I'M PAIN TODAY THAT THIS BUILDING THAT WE WORK IN, THAT WE PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY, DOESN'T HAVE FUNDING. BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT ALL THE MATH AND THE MISSTEPS AND THE FIVE FINGER DISCOUNTS AND CERTAIN CERTAIN CATEGORIES, WE'LL BE HERE

[04:15:05]

ALL NIGHT.

SO IF WE CAN WORK IT OUT WHERE AS A COUNCIL, WE CAN GET THE BUILDING THAT WE COME TO EVERY DAY TO TAKE CARE OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS, TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

I'M OKAY, BUT I JUST WANT THE STAFF.

I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE STAFF THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT, IF THAT'S THE WAY THE VOTE SERVES TODAY.

BUT IF IT WAS IN MY POWER EVEN INITIALLY, I SAID, IF I CAN GIVE MY 5 MILLION, I WOULD, BUT I REALIZE I WAS STILL SHORT.

SO WHEN I SAY MY FIVE THE THE DESIGNATED FOR DISTRICT, AND I KNOW MY DISTRICT IS REPRESENTED HERE THROUGH THIS SEAT, BUT IT COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF THE 30 MILLION THAT YOU NEEDED. SO I WANTED TO CLEAR MYSELF, MAYOR, FROM FROM THAT MISSTEP.

BUT JUST IN THE OTHER TWO THINGS I WANTED TO CLEAR.

BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TIME.

I THOUGHT YOU COULD SEE YOUR TIME.

I WASN'T GOING TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT OVER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT SO MUCH.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY TO YOU TOO.

YOU'RE WEARING MY FRATERNITY COLOR, SO YOU KNOW I LOVE IT.

OKAY. I GOT TO GO TO A ROUND TWO CHAIRWOMAN.

MENDELSOHN YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES.

WE'RE STILL ON THE AMENDMENT.

YEAH. I THINK THE SHOCKING NUMBER I'VE HEARD THROUGH THIS VERY CONFUSING DISCUSSION, WHICH I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSING FOR OUR CITY TO HAVE NOT AT THE 11TH HOUR, BUT AT THE 12TH HOUR.

LIKE, WE'RE LITERALLY GOING TO VOTE ON THIS IN A FEW MINUTES.

AND I THINK IT'S SHOCKING AND PERHAPS, MAYBE A VERY GOOD REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE MOVING THIS TO NOVEMBER.

ALONG WITH ACTUALLY TAKING CARE OF OUR PENSION AND HAVING A PLAN BEFORE WE ASK PEOPLE TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL DEBT.

BUT SPECIFIC TO THIS.

CONVERSATION. THE MOST SHOCKING NUMBER I'M HEARING IS $137 MILLION OF OF INVESTMENT NEEDED TO BRING LESS THAN HALF OF OUR CITY FACILITIES TO A STATE OF GOOD REPAIR.

IF THIS WAS SAID IN DECEMBER, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU I MISSED IT.

AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A NUMBER THAT I WOULD HAVE CHOKED ON, SO I AM SHOCKED TO HEAR IT.

I WOULD ASK CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE A LISTING OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS AND HOW MUCH FOR EACH ONE, POSSIBLY IN OUR BUDGET EVERY YEAR SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT. SO IT IS OUT THERE SO THAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY REMINDED, BECAUSE THIS IS THE BORING STUFF, AND WE HAVE TO BE INVESTING IN THE BORING STUFF.

SO THIS AMENDMENT I DO HAVE A QUESTION WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE BASE ALLOCATION FOR SOMETHING LIKE STREETS.

MR. PEREZ, PERHAPS YOU CAN ANSWER THIS.

SO THAT BASE ALLOCATION THEN HAS GONE DOWN 14 MILLION.

IS THAT CORRECT? APPROXIMATELY.

YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WHAT PROJECTS ARE YOU CUTTING? WELL, WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT, MA'AM.

WHAT WE DID, EARLIER IN THE IN THE REDUCTION WAS WE KIND OF PRORATED AMONGST THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS SO THAT NOT ANY ONE PROGRAM TOOK A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE.

SO WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AGAIN.

WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THIS SHOULD HAVE THE CUTS.

THE OTHER THING THAT I REALLY WANT TO, UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS LEVEL OF NEED, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 40% OF OUR TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT ARE OLDER THAN ME, I'M 57.

WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 17 BILLION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING FACILITIES, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, 137 MILLION FOR LESS THAN HALF OUR BUILDINGS, HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY BUILDING ANY NEW FACILITIES? HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY ANY NEW LIBRARY? HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY ANYTHING NEW WHEN WE'RE NOT TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? SO COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK THAT THE, THE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED, SUCH AS THE LIBRARY MASTER PLAN, SUCH AS, ANY OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT, TO INCLUDE THE TRAINING ACADEMY, POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY, THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED, THROUGH, COMMITTEE ON TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEES, THROUGH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

ULTIMATELY, MA'AM, COUNCIL CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.

BUT AS RECOMMENDATIONS, THESE ARE PROGRAMS THAT THAT WE BELIEVE WILL, BE VERY FRUITFUL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND A MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING IS TO ADDRESS EXISTING, INFRASTRUCTURE OR PROGRAMS. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU MADE AN INTERESTING COMMENT ABOUT DIRECTING THE CITY STAFF TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO ADDRESS ALL THESE NEEDS.

I ECHO YOUR REQUEST AND THINK THAT WE NEED A VERY SERIOUS BRIEFING WITH LOTS OF DETAIL.

AND, I, I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT, BUT, BOY, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE READY FOR THIS

[04:20:06]

PACKAGE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR OWN AMENDMENT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN.

I WILL SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY TO THE STAFF THAT I SUPPORT YOU.

WITH. NO BUTS.

I ALSO WILL SAY THAT ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT THE STAFF SUPPORTS HERE.

I SUPPORT.

I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHO WILL BE IMPLEMENTING 300 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS OF FUNDS, KNOWS THAT I SUPPORT, AND I'M TRYING TO DO WHAT I CAN.

IN FACT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND FAIR AND BALANCED.

I REALIZE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE'RE UP HERE, IT TURNS INTO A PISSING CONTEST, AND THAT'S JUST THE REALITY OF IT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE.

IT REALLY IS UNFORTUNATE.

I GET THAT POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO POLITIC, BUT AT SOME POINT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO FIND THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE. AND I GUESS IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO SEE SO MANY COMMENTS THAT ARE TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTHS. HOW MANY COMMENTS HAVE WE HEARD ABOUT NEEDING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN? MY MY COLLEAGUE TO THE LEFT OF ME THAT JUST TALKED ABOUT US NEEDING TO TAKE CARE OF MY OWN.

BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

AND IT'S NOTHING OTHER THAN POLITICS.

IT'S EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE.

WHAT HAS BEEN CLEARLY ARTICULATED IS THAT THERE IS A GREAT NEED.

THERE'S FAR GREATER NEED THAN THE RESOURCES WE HAVE TO MEET THAT NEED.

FOR US TO ALLOW FOR ANY OF THOSE NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY IGNORED IN ORDER FOR US TO FEEL LIKE WE HAVE WON A BATTLE.

IT'S A REALLY SAD DAY IN DALLAS.

IT'S A REALLY UNFORTUNATE DAY IN DALLAS, SO I WILL STAND BY WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO ACTUALLY STAND FOR SOMETHING.

AND THAT IS WHAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S TRYING TO BE BALANCED.

THAT'S WHAT'S NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY FROM ANYONE IN ORDER TO GET MINE.

THAT THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE PRIORITIZING.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS A LOT OF EXCUSES ON WHY WE SHOULD JUST CONTINUE TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

I WASN'T ELECTED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS REFLECTS.

SO AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT ME WANTING ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR.

THIS WAS ABOUT ME TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS BALANCED ACROSS ALL OF THE NEEDS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

AND IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT CAN'T BE THE SPIRIT OF THIS CONVERSATION.

INSTEAD, IT'S ABOUT POLITICKING.

SO I GUESS WE'LL SEE WHERE THE CHIPS FALL.

BUT ULTIMATELY, I, WISH THAT WE WOULD PRIORITIZE TAKING CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, TAKING CARE OF OUR ASSETS, AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US WITH THIS DECISION.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT. SO THANK YOU.

I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR TRYING AND BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION AND REALLY WORKING THIS.

AND I'VE OFTEN BEEN TOLD THE ESSENCE OF OF STRATEGY IS SACRIFICE.

IN SOME PLACES, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A SACRIFICE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE WHOLE BETTER.

AND I AGREE, WE'RE AT THE 12TH HOUR AND THIS IS IT.

WE'RE ABOUT TO INVEST $1.2 BILLION.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN NEXT TIME TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO INVEST THOSE DOLLARS.

WE DON'T HAVE ONE AS A CITY.

AND SO MAYBE A GFM, WE CAN START WORKING THROUGH THAT OR IN YOUR MR. ATKINS IN YOURS. BUT WE ARE ABOUT TO INVEST A LOT OF MONEY AND I JUST I FEEL THAT IT HAS BEEN POLITICS.

IT HAS NOT BEEN WHAT IS THE BEST THING THAT MOVES OUR CITY FORWARD IN THE REGION AND IN THE STATE AND IN THE NATION AND BUT WE WON'T GIVE UP TRYING.

SO I DO THINK, MR. CITY MANAGER, YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM THIS COUNCIL IS WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES TO GET THIS FIXED, WE WILL FIND IT.

AND THAT MAY MEAN THAT WE GIVE UP PROJECTS IN OUR GENERAL FUND, RIGHT, THAT WE MAY HAVE TO CUT BACK ON SOME THINGS IN ORDER TO GET IT DONE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A CITY CENTER.

AND IF WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN TO HAVE A CITY CENTER, THEN I CAN'T VERY WELL SAY, WE'RE SHUTTING OUR DOORS AND WE'RE MOVING TO A TOWER BECAUSE IT'S VACANT.

SO, I DO HOPE THAT WE WILL HAVE KEEP HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE, I'VE WORKED IN THIS BUILDING FOR A LONG TIME.

CHRIS AND I, WE WORKED HERE.

REMEMBER OUR OFFICE? WE HAD A CUBICLE, AND IT WAS HOT AS HELL.

OKAY. AND IT WAS COLD, TOO.

AND SO, YOU KNOW WHAT?

[04:25:03]

WE EITHER NEED TO DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING WITH OUR ASSETS, OUR BUILDINGS, AND INVEST IN THEM OR GET RID OF THEM.

AND I COULD I COULD HEAR THE ARTS COMMUNITY PROBABLY GOING NOT TO I.M.

PEI BUILDING. AND BUT, BUT THAT'S AN ALL OF OURS, MY REC CENTERS, MY LIBRARIES, THAT'S EVERYTHING.

SO I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO COME AS A CITY AND AS A COUNCIL AND LOOK FORWARD AND GET THIS DONE.

AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THE THING IS, IS MAYBE THE PROJECT LIST CHANGES, TOO.

MAYBE WE FIND OUT THAT WE DON'T NEED SOME OF THE THINGS AND WE CHANGE IT, SO I DO I WILL STAND CONTINUE TO STAND WITH THIS, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THIS BUILDING DOES MATTER AND THAT ALL OUR ASSETS MATTER.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THAT.

AND I DO HOPE THAT WE FIND A WAY THAT WE HAVE A A BETTER WAY OF MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AROUND HERE AND YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE 15 MEMBERS SITTING AROUND HERE WITH A POLICYMAKER.

IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY EVERY DAY TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET, TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

WE CANNOT DO.

IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

YOU CAN'T BLAME ONE COUNCILMAN YOU GOT TO BLAME ALL.

BECAUSE TO TAKE A MAJORITY TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

BUT WHEN WE STAND HERE AND SAY, HEY, WHO FAULT IS THIS? WHO FAULT IS THAT? THAT'S NOT US.

WE'RE HERE TO WORK TOGETHER AS A WHOLE TO MAKE SURE WE GOT A BETTER CITY.

MY REMARK WAS VERY SIMPLE BUDGET.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T ADD MANY MINUTES TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

MANY THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO ADD AND GOING AWAY.

WE DON'T HAVE MANY BAD INVESTMENTS THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE GONE AWAY.

SO DON'T SAY THE LAST TIME THAT IT'S POLITIC.

IT'S ALWAYS BY POLITICS BECAUSE WE POLITICIANS.

BECAUSE EVERYBODY RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL.

I'M NOT RUNNING.

I CAN SAY THAT I'M THROUGH.

I DID 20 YEARS.

I'M THROUGH. SO THE POINT IS WE HERE TO DO THE BEST FOR THE CITY.

WE ARE HERE THAT WE CAN DO A BUDGET.

WE APPROVE THE BUDGET.

IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

TIGHTEN OUR BELT TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES ARE WE REALLY CARE ABOUT EMPLOYEE LIKE WE REALLY DO.

HEY, WE GOT A CHANCE TO COME AROUND NEXT MONTH.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET.

PUT IT IN THE BUDGET.

WE THE POLICY MAKER.

SO IT'S UP TO US.

WE CONTROL THE BUDGET.

SO YOU'RE NOT UP TO THE THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON SOMETHING.

IT'S UP TO US.

IF WE KNOW AND WE NEED TO DO IT.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

LET'S GET TOGETHER, PUT UP A SLEEVE, FIND OUT HOW WE MAKE SURE OUR EMPLOYEES HERE AT CITY HALL IS WARM OR COOL OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S STILL OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

SO I WOULD DO ANYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EMPLOYEES ARE SAFE, COMFORTABLE HERE TO GET THIS IN THE NEXT BUDGET.

WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO SELL COMMERCIAL PAPER.

WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO SELL THE BUN.

WE CAN DO IT NOW. WE CAN START THIS NOW BECAUSE WE ARE THE POLICY MAKERS.

WE RUN THE CITY, NOT THE CITY MANAGER.

HE WORKED FOR US.

SO LET US ROLL UP AND DO OUR JOB AND DO OUR BUDGET AND SAY WE WANT TO TAKE OUR RESIDENT.

WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

LET'S DO IT. QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT.

JUST DO IT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON ON WHERE WE'RE AT.

I MEAN, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON A MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT AMENDMENT TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

IT'S NOT A IT'S IT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND IT'S THE CONVERSATION HAS TURNED INTO KIND OF A FINGER POINTING EXERCISE, WHICH WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT IN THIS BODY.

AND YOU DEALS ARE MADE.

THAT'S POLITICS.

AND SOME OF US DO STAND FOR SOMETHING AND SOME OF US SAY IT BUT DON'T REALLY MEAN IT UNLESS I'M GOING TO GET MY WAY. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT FOR ME.

WHAT THIS IS RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT IS NINE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

ANYONE? IT TAKES EIGHT AND THERE WERE NINE AGREED TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND THEN WE HAD TWO WEEKS WITH THE WEEK.

I'M NOT SURE WE HAD. SEEMS LIKE A YEAR OF PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO CUT DEALS TO, HEY, I NEED THIS, I NEED THAT, I WANT MORE HERE, I WANT MORE THERE.

THAT'S PART OF THIS EXERCISE.

IT'S PART OF HOW THE SAUSAGE GETS MADE.

AND SOMETIMES YOU'RE IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS AND SOMETIMES YOU'RE NOT.

[04:30:04]

AT POINTS DURING THIS BOND.

I HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS SOMETIMES DURING THIS BOND.

I HAVE BEEN IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS.

AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE DO.

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE TOWARDS THE END AND I CAN TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY HALL.

NOT NOT NOBODY HAS TALKED ABOUT CITY HALL UNTIL CITY HALL GOT CUT.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S BECOME WHAT WE CAN WE CAN LAND ON.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT NOBODY CARES ABOUT CITY HALL.

EVERYBODY HERE CARES ABOUT THIS BUILDING, EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T BUDGETED IT CORRECTLY ON MAINTENANCE OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOT JUST THIS BODY, BUT BODIES.

BEFORE WE DID NOT GET INTO $24 BILLION WORTH OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, WITH 100 MILLION OF IT BEING CITY HALL OVERNIGHT. AND IT'S A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE.

I'M HEARING WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY AND I'M GOING TO REMEMBER THIS TOMORROW.

MR. MAYOR, THE COMMITMENT THAT I HEARD FROM FOLKS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF CITY HALL.

AND I HOPE THAT WHEN THE PEOPLE GET TOGETHER TO PUT THAT TOGETHER, THAT I AM INVITED TO BE IN THE ROOM WHERE THAT HAPPENS, BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME IDEAS, I'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS ON IT.

AND I'M WITH I'M WITH MY COLLEAGUE, MR. TUNNELL. ATKINS I'M NOT COMING BACK NEXT TIME AROUND.

SO THERE'S NO POLITICKING COMING HERE.

IT'S A COMMITMENT TO FINISH THIS AND FINISH IT WELL.

AND SO LET'S LET'S GET THIS ACROSS THE BOARD VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT SO WE CAN PASS IT AND MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. ONCE AGAIN, I SUPPORT NOT SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SPEAKING IN TERMS OF MAKING A COMMITMENT TO CITY HALL, I HOPE THAT WE WILL BE COMMITTED. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I TALK ABOUT WE TALK ABOUT RACIAL EQUITY AND RACIAL EQUITY PROJECTS, AND THEN WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO THE WIRE OF ACTUALLY FUNDING, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY? WE START MOONWALKING.

AND SO I'M HOPING THAT WE WILL NOT MOONWALK ON THIS BUILDING.

AND I HOPE WE DON'T MOONWALK ON RACIAL EQUITY BECAUSE AS I LOOKED AT, THE DECISIONS WERE MADE WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE DISCRETIONARY I'M NOT SORRY, DISCRETIONARY NOW NOTED NOTED AS DISTRICT SPECIFIC, I MADE MY DECISIONS BASED ON RACIAL EQUITY.

AND THE NEED FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES TO GET THE OPPORTUNITY.

AND SO TO GET HOUSING, TO GET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO GET SOME REPAIRS DONE.

AND SO I'M SUPPORTING THE BOND PROPOSAL, THAT WE VOTED ON, A STRAW POLL, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO USE THE TERM WITH THE 1.25 BILLION, AS IT WAS NOW, IF WE WOULD HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK IT OUT, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT TIME.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TIME.

AND TIME IS NOW, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE WAITED, THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR CONTINUES TO GO DOWN.

SO WE NEED TO MOVE THIS PROPOSITION AND MOVE IT QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN GET THE MONEY ON THE STREETS TO TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS OF OUR DISTRICTS AND THIS CITY.

THANK YOU. MISS WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. ON THE AMENDMENT.

YES. AFTER THINKING THIS THROUGH AND LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION, I WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF WHAT, MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER ADAM BAZALDUA, HAS DONE IN BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD.

IT WAS TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, AROUND CITY HALL, AND THIS HAS BEEN KICKED DOWN THE ROAD.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW WHY, BECAUSE THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION FOR THE DOLLARS THAT COME AROUND WHEN IT'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT BUDGETING EVERY YEAR.

AND SO NOW HERE WE ARE.

AND WHILE I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT TO TIE THIS UP WITH A BOW AND HAVE A NICE VOTE AND MOVE ON, IT HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT MESSY, BUT I HOPE THAT THE FLIP SIDE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE OBSERVED IS THAT WE'RE THINKING REALLY HARD ABOUT THIS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SOME THINGS WORK, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE CATEGORIES REALLY SERIOUSLY. AND THE REASON WE ARE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE GOTTEN SO MUCH INPUT AND FEEDBACK FROM OUR RESIDENTS, FROM THE BOND COMMITTEES, FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEES.

AND SO WHAT WE SEE ON THIS PAPER AND THE WHOLE PROCESS, AS MESSY AS IT CAN BE TO GET HERE, IS BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH INPUT AND ALSO SO MUCH NEED, COMPETING FOR THESE DOLLARS.

AND SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF THIS.

I DO AND, I'VE STRUGGLED WITH IT.

[04:35:01]

NOW, I KNOW THAT I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT YOU ALL DECIDED TO MAKE ME BE QUIET BY GETTING STREETS OVER $500 MILLION AND BEYOND.

SO I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK, UNTIL WE TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN IN THE BUDGET, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BURNERS TURNED ON, ON THE BUDGET FOR 2020, 2024 AND 25.

AND SO THINGS ARE STARTING TO PERCOLATE NOW.

AND THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS BUILDING, AND I HAVE TO SAY, ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THIS DOESN'T SERVE THE PUBLIC, I MEAN, FOR ALL THE THINGS WE'VE CALLED OUT, 911311 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, I MEAN, WE SEE YOU, WE SEE YOU, YOU WORK HERE, OTHER OTHERS WORK HERE.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR US TO GET SOMETHING STARTED THAT WOULD HAVE STARTED AT 1:00 AROUND ZONING CASES.

THEY'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS BUILDING WHO GET THEM TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.

SO THIS IS A VERY CRITICAL PART OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS CITY.

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OPTIONS, THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, I MEAN, IT'S GOT TO COME FROM OUR GENERAL FUND.

IF WE AREN'T GOING TO DO IT IN THIS AMENDMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.

AND IN TALKING ABOUT THE PENSION, WHICH I'VE HEARD PEOPLE MENTION, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT APPROACHING THAT THROUGH A BOND SCENARIO RIGHT NOW.

WHAT'S ON THE TABLE IS A RAMP UP OF $20 MILLION, THEN $40 MILLION, THEN $60 MILLION.

THAT'S GOT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

SO WE KNOW WE'RE GROWING AND WE'VE GOT SOME REVENUES INCREASING, BUT WE'VE GOT TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT OUR EFFICIENCY AT THE CITY AND AT DUPLICATION.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY TOUGH BUDGET YEAR.

WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT OUR OPERATIONS AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THEM TIGHTER SO THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF CITY HALL AND WE CAN TAKE CARE OF STREETS IN WAYS OTHER THAN IN BONDS. AND SO, I AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT IN THIS FORM. BUT I'M WATCHING YOU, AND WE'VE MADE COMMITMENTS HERE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE TODAY.

AND WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THOSE HARD NUMBERS, AND WE LOOK AT THE LINE ITEM FOR CITY HALL AND SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS CONVERSATION AND REMEMBER WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.

CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD ALL ALONG HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS THAT WE LISTENED TO OUR COMMITTEES AND OUR TASK FORCES, BUT THE ONE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A CONSTITUENCY DIDN'T GET IS EXACTLY WHAT GOT CUT TO ZERO, RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE CITY EMPLOYEES OUT HERE SAYING, PLEASE MAKE MY WORKSPACE SAFE BECAUSE THEY THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT THEY DO.

I AM.

BUT TO THE POINT THAT CHAIR WILLIS SAID, I'M GOING TO CONTINUE WITH MY SPORTS ANALOGIES TODAY, AND I'M GOING TO THROW A HAIL MARY.

AND I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IF WE CAN, AT LEAST FOR THE EMERGENCY IMMEDIATE NEEDS THAT MR. JOHNSON BROUGHT FORWARD, THAT THAT COMES TO $733,000 EACH THAT WE COULD TAKE FROM OUR DISCRETIONARY FUND TO PUT INTO THIS AND AT LEAST GET THE EMERGENCY MATTERS SETTLED.

THE FIRST TWO ITEMS, WHICH WERE THE ELECTRICAL AND THE GENERATOR.

SO I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE MY I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE.

PLUS IT'LL TAKE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE BUDGET A LITTLE BIT IF WE TAKE 11 MILLION OFF OF THAT.

SO THAT'S MY CHALLENGE TO MY COLLEAGUES.

TRY ONE LAST TIME TO GET AT LEAST SOMETHING.

AND CERTAINLY THE MESSAGE BACK TO OUR EMPLOYEES WHO WORK HERE, THAT YOU MATTER AS MUCH AS OUR NEW PARKS AND OUR NEW STREETS AND OUR NEW AND PRESERVING THE CULTURAL ARTS FACILITIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A VOICE IN THIS.

THANK. YOU. CHAIRMAN BASIL DULY RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

ON YOUR AMENDMENT. ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

I THINK THERE'S SOMEONE FOR A SECOND, A SECOND ROUND BEFORE ME.

NO, MR. MENDELSOHN IS ON A THIRD ROUND AS WELL.

I HAVE THREE STARS AND SHE HAS TWO.

SORRY. YOU CAN'T TRUST THE STARS.

YOU HAVE TO TRUST ME.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COMMENTS THAT I JUST HEARD SINCE MY LAST, I THINK SOME GOOD POINTS WERE BROUGHT UP, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST KIND OF CLOSE WITH THE FACT THAT.

YES, NOT ONLY DID WE NOT HAVE CONSTITUENCIES WITH THIS ITEM THAT WAS ZEROED OUT THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN COUNCIL AVERAGES, WE HAVE SEEN RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF, AND WE HAVE SEEN A ROBUST PROCESS OF A COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE THAT I ACTUALLY HEARD CONTRADICTING MESSAGES FROM A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON WANTING TO PRIORITIZE THE WORK THAT WAS PUT IN FROM OUR COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE.

ALL THREE RECOMMENDATIONS HAD CITY HALL IN IT, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO END WITH THE REASON THIS IS TAKEN OUT IS BECAUSE WE CHOSE FOR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS.

THIS BODY MADE AN ACTION THAT TOOK MONEY AWAY FROM WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED FROM ALL THREE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S IT'S FAIR OR GENUINE MESSAGING TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT WE JUST CAN'T DO IT.

[04:40:04]

WE CHOSE NOT TO, SO LET'S OWN IT.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS ZEROED OUT IN THIS AMENDMENT AND ALSO DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT CONSTITUENCY, ALTHOUGH EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN DALLAS, INCLUDING BUSINESS PEOPLE, ARE INDEED OUR CONSTITUENTS FOR IT, INCLUDING ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE RECORDS WERE LOST, INCLUDING ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T UTILIZE SERVICES WHILE WE WERE DEALING WITH THE RANSOMWARE, I'VE HEARD A COMMENT MADE THAT WE NEED $733,000 FOR CITY HALL.

WE, OF COURSE, HAVE MULTIPLE CONTINGENCY ACCOUNTS THAT ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF HANDLING THIS, AND SO I HAVE NO INTENTION OF GIVING UP THE VERY IMPORTANT DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECTS IN DISTRICT 12.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITH THIS BOND WITH SCORING PROJECTS BECAUSE OF EQUITY.

GOT TEN EXTRA POINTS.

MY DISTRICT DIDN'T HAVE PROJECTS WITH EQUITY PROJECTS BECAUSE OF HIGHER CRIME RATES.

GOT EXTRA ANOTHER TEN POINTS.

I'M BLESSED THAT A DISTRICT THAT HAS A LOW CRIME RATE.

SO DISTRICT PROJECTS GOT.

THAT'S YOUR TIME 20 POINTS.

THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE.

SO, MADAM SECRETARY, ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, LET'S HAVE A RECORD OF RECORD VOTE.

SO I DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S LOUDER.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

MAYOR JOHNSON. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS.

NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER.

MORENO. NO.

COUNCILMEMBER. GRACEY.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON.

STEWART. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SCHULTZ.

WITH THREE VOTING IN FAVOR, 12 OPPOSED.

MENDELSOHN. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR.

WE'RE BACK ON ITEM 38, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, AND WE HAD THREE FOLKS WHO HAD SPOKEN ON THAT. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 38? SEEING NONE, WERE YOU YOU WERE STILL WITH THREE STARS OVER FROM THE LAST ROUND.

DID YOU WANT TO GET IN NOW? OKAY, SO YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

YOU CAN'T TRUST THE STARS.

YOU CAN'T TRUST THE STARS OR THE COWBOYS.

LET'S GET IT. NO, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M EXCITED. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I'M EXCITED TO FINALLY GET TO THE END OF THIS, PROCESS.

I THINK THAT IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS PROCESS DID SHOW SOME TRUE COLORS.

AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK TO REALLY ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY AND, AND GET PAST A LOT OF THE GAMES THAT ARE BEING PLAYED.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE REALITY OF IT.

I'M SORRY IF I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT TOO CANDID, BUT THAT'S JUST THE REALITY.

THERE'S GAMES THAT ARE BEING PLAYED AND WE'VE GOT TO STOP IT.

THIS IS, THIS IS A THIS IS A HUGE INVESTMENT IN MANY FRONTS OF OUR CITY.

AND ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR WHERE THE PRIORITIES ARE OF OUR CITY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE END RESULT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE JUST THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER SOME BASES AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME BIG WINS.

ONE IN PARTICULAR IS OUR INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS COMMUNITY.

I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGEST, IF NOT THE LARGEST THAT WE'VE EVER HAD IN THE BOND PACKAGE, WHICH IS EXCITING.

WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE SEEN MORE HOUSING DOLLARS, BUT THIS IS, AGAIN, A HISTORIC, BOND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FOR HOMELESSNESS.

I WAS NOT A FAN OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS.

BUT I DID DECIDE TO USE MINE TOWARDS A CITYWIDE NEED THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED.

AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING A PROJECT OF EXPANDING MORE BEDS AT THE BRIDGE AND UTILIZING FOR DIFFERENT, HOUSING OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR UNSHELTERED POPULATION.

THAT WAS MY PRIORITY TO USE WITH A QUOTE UNQUOTE, DISCRETIONARY.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS, AT LEAST ANOTHER WIN THAT YOU CAN SAY, WE'VE GOT, ZERO DEGRADATION, WITH OUR STREETS INVESTMENT, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A 4 BILLION PLUS DOLLAR, NEED OUT THERE FOR, FOR STREETS.

AND SO, INSTEAD OF JUST SCRATCHING THE SURFACE WITH $150 MILLION EVERY FISCAL YEAR, I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME DAMAGE TO OUR STREETS.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU, ROBERT PEREZ, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND ADVOCACY, BECAUSE YOU WERE THE CONSTITUENCY GROUP THAT WAS, PUSHING FOR THAT ZERO DEGRADATION. AND THAT WAS A SUCCESSFUL BID.

SO THANK YOU. BUT OVERALL, IF WE WANT TO KEEP OUR GLASS HALF FULL, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME GOOD WINS FOR OUR CITY.

[04:45:03]

I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AN INVESTMENT THAT'S GOING TO, RESULT IN, SOME POSITIVE THINGS THAT SHOULD IMPACT QUALITY OF LIFE IN MULTIPLE FACETS ACROSS THE CITY.

BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO JUST REITERATE THAT I'M GOING TO HOLD ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES FEET TO THE FIRE ON THE COMMITMENT THEY SAID THEY HAVE TO THIS BUILDING AND TO OUR CITY STAFF.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38 AS IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND THANK THE COLLEAGUES, BUT ALSO I WANT TO THANK THE VOLUNTEERS AND ALL THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID A SURVEY, WE DID SAY STREETS, ALLEYS AND PARKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY'S NUMBER ONE CONCERN.

AND, AND AROUND HERE, THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

BUT ALSO I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS RIGHT HERE.

NUMBER ONE, WE THE POLICY MAKER HERE.

AND IF THIS ITEM IS PASSED, I HOPE WE HAVE A 15 ZERO VOTE TO SEND IT TO THE VOTERS TO MAKE SURE THE VOTERS THAT WE DO HEAR YOU, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF CITY HALL.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE CITY HALL IS TAKING CARE OF YOU BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES WORK HERE.

BUT AGAIN, WE DO NEED A 15 ZERO VOTE HERE TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE.

MADAM ATTORNEY.

WHEN WE PASSED THIS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS THERE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTION OF WHAT WE CAN SAY TO THE VOTERS.

WE CANNOT SAY WE. I CANNOT SAY THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE TIME FOR THAT CONVERSATION.

IT'S NOT NOT GERMANE TO THIS DEBATE.

JERMAINE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

BUT AGAIN.

THE RESIDENTS HAD HEARD THAT WE GOT STREETS AND THEY NEED TO BE REPAIRED.

ALICE NEEDED TO REPAIR LIBRARIES.

YOU KNOW THE LIBRARIES THAT AND COUNCILWOMAN J.

WILLIS AND YOUR DISTRICT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS BEEN SITTING THERE MANY, MANY YEARS NEED A NEW LIBRARY.

ALSO, I DID HEAR FROM CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN.

I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU YOU DID SAY AND HEY, QUALITY, QUALITY, QUALITY.

THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT DID NOT GET ON THE IN THIS BUDGET.

I DO HEAR YOU.

I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.

AND ALSO WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY.

YOU KNOW SOMETIMES SOME DISTRICTS GET MORE, SOME GET LESS.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND I WILL WORK WITH YOU.

ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HELP YOU IN YOUR DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE NEED TO SHARE THE PIE NORTH AND SOUTH, BECAUSE WE GOT TO GROW NORTH AND SOUTH, EAST AND WEST TOGETHER. IF WE WANT TO HAVE A STRONG CITY, WE CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S ALL THE WAY BY SOUTHERN PART OF THE DALLAS YOU GOT EAST PART OF DALLAS, YOU GOT WEST, YOU GOT THE NORTH.

IT'S ABOUT THE WHOLE CITY AS ONE.

AND I HOPE WE SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE VOTERS.

WE NEED YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HOLD RESPONSIBILITY OF WHAT WE PUT IN THESE PROPOSITIONS.

AND SO, STAFF, BE SURE YOU GIVE US A CORRECT INFORMATION.

AND I KNOW SOMETIMES STAFF RIGHT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY THE 28TH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGES AND STREETS, ALLEYS.

WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, PROJECTS GOING TO BE DONE.

STAFF WE ARE COMING YOUR WAY.

STAFF GET READY.

YOU WILL BE WORKING ON THE WEEKENDS.

YOU'LL BE WORKING AFTER FIVE.

MR. CITY MANAGER, I'M GOING TO CALL THEM BECAUSE WE NEED THEM TO BE READY ON DUE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE INFORMATION TO DO THE RIGHT THING BEFORE FEBRUARY 28TH.

THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38.

HOW MUCH I DO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

AND AS STATED EARLIER, WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS A TOUGH DECISION.

I'VE ALWAYS TOLD TOLD MY CONSTITUENTS IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT A FIGHT.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE ISSUE OF TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS FOR THIS CITY IS VERY IMPORTANT.

I CONTINUE TO UNDERSCORE RACIAL EQUITY, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THE FINANCIAL DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE, BECAUSE WE CANNOT GET AROUND THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT A WHOLE CITY AS WE SHOULD BE.

AND SO AS OUR INTENT IS TO TALK ABOUT IT, I WANT US TO BE ABOUT IT, ABOUT THIS BOND.

AND IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE TALKS ABOUT TAKING CARE OF CITY HALL.

NOW, I THINK IT'S MOVING FORWARD.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF AND THOSE I WILL NOT BE ON THIS COUNCIL WHEN WE HAVE ANOTHER BOND, BUT I THINK IT WILL HELP BE HELPFUL TO EDUCATE COUNCIL, AHEAD OF TIME SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A BOND, UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE, THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE BOND SO THAT SO THAT WE'RE NOT KIND OF CAUGHT ALWAYS IN THIS LAST MINUTE TRYING TO PUT A BAND-AID ON OR TRYING TO RESOLVE A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE.

NOW, I ALSO WANT TO SAY, MOVING ON FROM THAT, THANK JESSICA.

MRS. NIGHSWANDER, WHO I KNOW WE'VE ALL CALLED AND I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR HARD WORK, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, US, CITY MANAGER.

AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO JUST SHARE THE CITY MANAGER.

MY THANKS TO ALL OF THE STAFF MEMBERS WHO HAVE HELPED US TO GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

[04:50:03]

BUT JUST IN CLOSING, TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO THE MAYOR, I WANT TO SAY ONCE AGAIN.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS AND WE KNOW, YES, IT IS POLITICS BECAUSE WE ARE POLITICIANS, WE KNOW THAT.

BUT I THINK WHAT WHAT I WANT TO SAY FOR MYSELF IN DISTRICT FOUR AND BE IN THIS POSITION ALSO AS DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT WHEN IT'S TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

AND SO I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED WHEN WE HAVE THE MISREPRESENTATION OF ACTIONS AROUND THIS HORSESHOE AND THE DISCRETIONARY QUOTE.

NOW THE NEW THE PHRASE DISTRICT SPECIFIC WAS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT I WAS A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE IT'S JUST STILL WITHIN THE POWER OF THIS HORSESHOE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TO ADVOCATE FOR THEIR DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I KNOW I HAVE DONE.

ONCE AGAIN, THE MESSAGING NEEDS TO BE CLEAR.

WHATEVER WE CAN DO UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN STOP.

I'M GOING TO ASK LEGAL TO MAKE SURE.

TO CLARIFY RIGHT NOW, IF THEY CAN, THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHY WE HAD TO MOVE MONEY FROM HOUSING TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

CAN WE DO THAT, MAYOR? YEAH. I THINK SINCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YES, TOP LINE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND THAT KIND OF THING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION AWAY FROM, FROM, FROM GETTING TO POLITICAL STUFF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE VOTERS AND THAT KIND OF THING WE DON'T WANT, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING REAL CLOSE TO THAT PERIOD WHERE WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE, RIGHT.

USING CITY RESOURCES.

SO WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL.

THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.

JULIE PARTAIN IS AT THE PODIUM.

SHE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

YES. THANKS. SO, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO USE BOND PROCEEDS FOR SOMETHING THAT A CAPITAL OTHER THAN A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT.

REALLY, THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS ON YOUR ON YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSITION.

SO A BIG CHUNK OF WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FOR HOUSING WAS CASH INCENTIVE MONEY.

IT WAS NOT TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE, IT WAS CASH INCENTIVE MONEY.

IN ORDER TO USE BOND PROCEEDS FOR CASH INCENTIVE MONEY, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN A PROPOSITION.

THAT'S THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WE DID HAVE EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT YOUR PROPOSITIONS AND ABOUT HOW THEY WERE WORDED.

SHE BELIEVED THAT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT NEEDED TO BE SEPARATED, BUT THOSE ARE CAPITAL COSTS.

SHE ASKED ME SPECIFICALLY, THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION.

ARE THOSE CAPITAL COSTS? YES. THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, I WAS TOLD BY THE BOND OFFICE THAT THERE IS THERE WAS A BUNCH OF MONEY IN THAT 75 MILLION.

THAT'S CASH INCENTIVES.

SO WE CAN'T DO THAT IN THAT PROPOSITION.

WE HAVE TO MOVE IT TO A PROPOSITION WHERE YOU CAN.

AND THAT'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO THOSE PROGRAMS WILL NEED TO BE IN YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY IN ORDER FOR YOU TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON IT.

SO YOU JUST MOVED IT.

YOU DIDN'T GET RID OF IT.

YOU MOVED IT INTO A CATEGORY WHERE IT COULD BE PROPERLY SPENT THE WAY THAT YOU SPEND IT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? COUNCILWOMAN IT MAKES SENSE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET A WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT WHEN I WANT TO GET A SEGMENT OF THAT, SO THAT I CAN PUT ON MY WEBSITE SO THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE DIFFICULTY IN UNDERSTANDING THE COMPREHENDING THE NEXT AREA THAT I NEED TO BE DEFINED.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL IS THE DEFINITION OF DISTRICT SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW. CAN YOU DO THAT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE ANOTHER TERM? I CAN TELL YOU THERE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DISCRETIONARY SPENDING OF BOND MONEY, RIGHT? BOND MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE VOTED.

I BELIEVE THE INDICATION HERE IS THAT THIS ALLOWED COUNCIL TO SAY WITHIN EACH CATEGORY OF PROJECTS, I HAVE PROJECTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD THAT GET FUNDED.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING DISTRICT SPECIFIC.

YOU SORT OF EARMARKED PROJECTS WITHIN THAT PROPOSITION, BUT IT IT MEANS, OF COURSE, ALL BOND MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE.

IT WAS VOTED. SO IT DIDN'T CHANGE THAT.

IT JUST ALLOWED YOU TO MOVE YOUR PROJECTS TO THE TOP OF THE LIST, SO TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WERE CONFUSED BY WHAT YOU STATED EARLIER, IN YOUR PREVIOUS MEETING ABOUT THE LEGALITIES AND ONCE AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE ON THE BOND.

WALK US THROUGH THAT.

IN TERMS OF BEING APPROVED BY THE STATE, I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME FUZZY UNDERSTANDING THERE FOR SOME IN THE AUDIENCE AND WHO ARE LISTENING.

SO MOST OF YOUR PROPOSITIONS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE VOTED IN THE PAST.

THEY'RE NOT AN ISSUE. BUT WE ALWAYS PRE-CLEAR YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSITION.

WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU'RE ONE OF THE FEW CITIES THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO VOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BONDS BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR CHARTER.

SO WE SENT DOWN YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSITION AND YOUR HOUSING PROPOSITION AND YOUR HOMELESS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HAVE THEM REVIEW IT.

WE WENT THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.

WE TALKED THROUGH HOW IT WAS.

SO THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE SEEING IN THE PROPOSITION, IS LARGELY LANGUAGE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TOLD US THAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW YOU'RE VOTING THEM IN THOSE CATEGORIES. PLEASE CLARIFY.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS IS WHOM YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PUBLIC FINANCE DIVISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, WHO MUST APPROVE ALL BONDS ISSUED WITHIN THE

[04:55:02]

STATE. YES, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REVIEW YOUR ELECTION DOCUMENTS.

WHEN WE SEND THE WHEN WE SEND THEM DOWN WITH THE FIRST ISSUANCE OF BONDS OUT OF THIS ELECTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO AS WE CONTINUE AND I KNOW I WOULD CONTINUE TO QUESTION, THE USE OF TERMINOLOGY THAT REFERS TO HEAVILY RACIAL EQUITY. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE TO ALSO GET THAT CLEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE A STATE POSITION, A LEADERSHIP THAT DOES NOT WANT TO INCLUDE DIVERSITY WITH CERTAIN IN CERTAIN ELEMENTS? PLEASE CLARIFY.

SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO DEFINE WHAT EQUITY MEANS.

AND KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN YOU SEND DOWN A TRANSCRIPT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR BONDS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTS TO MATCH YOUR PURPOSE TO WHAT YOUR LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSITION WAS. SO THEN IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU PROVE UP EQUITY, RIGHT.

IN ADDITION, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN A PROPOSITION.

SO WHENEVER WE MOVE OUTSIDE OF THE NORM OF WHAT WE, AS BOND LAWYERS KNOW IS SORT OF THE NORM TO BE VOTED, WE CLEAR THAT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT? THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO SEND DOWN A BOND ISSUANCE TO THE AG AND THEN LOOK AT YOUR ELECTION AND SAY, I DON'T THINK I CAN APPROVE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVE IT UP.

SO THAT'S WHY WE SEND THESE THINGS DOWN IN ADVANCE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

THANK YOU TO STAFF, AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT US AS WE CONTINUE TO DO OUR BUSINESS WITH THIS BOND.

THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM.

CHAIRMAN GRACIE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38.

ALL RIGHT. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

AND AGAIN, JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF, FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK.

THANK YOU TO OUR VOLUNTEERS THAT VOLUNTEER ON THE BOND TASK FORCE, FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK.

THIS HAS BEEN QUITE AN EXPERIENCE FOR A FIRST TIME COUNCIL MEMBER.

JUST FASCINATING. IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING.

BUT WE'RE HERE NOW, AND I'M GLAD.

AND I THINK WE CAN GO FORWARD.

I WILL BE PAYING ATTENTION IN TERMS OF HOW THOSE DOLLARS ARE USED.

PARTICULARLY $500 MILLION IN STREETS IS A LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

FROM THERE. SO MAKING SURE THAT THAT GETS DISTRIBUTED EQUITABLY, FROM THERE.

SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL AS PARKS AND ALL OF THE OTHER PROPOSITIONS.

BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. AND THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.

TC GOD BLESS YOU.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY. CHAIRMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. IN MY TRADITION, THERE'S A CONCEPT OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN VERSUS THOSE THAT ARE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING RIGHT.

I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE THAT EVEN AFTER, AGAIN, IN MY TRADITION, YOU GO THROUGH SOME OF THE MOST VOCIFEROUS ARGUMENTS THAT YOU CAN.

YOU COME OUT AND YOU ARE FRIENDS IN THE END.

WHAT WE MUST FOCUS TOGETHER ON WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON NOW IN THIS BOND AND MOVE ON TO ENCOURAGE OUR RESIDENTS TO COME OUT AND VOTE IN THIS ELECTION.

THE MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC MUST BE ONE OF UNITY AND UNDERSTANDING THAT DESPITE THE STRUGGLE AND MAYBE EVEN SOME LINGERING FRUSTRATIONS, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER. I WANT TO TAKE MY LAST BIT OF TIME TO THANK THE 90 PLUS VOLUNTEERS WHO PUT IN COUNTLESS HOURS TO GET US TO THIS POINT, AND TO OUR INCREDIBLE STAFF WHO SUFFERED AND SUFFERED AND SUFFERED THROUGH OUR ENDLESS QUESTIONS, CRAZY NEGOTIATIONS, AND SOMETIMES SILLY POLITICS. MOST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK JENNY NISWANDER.

YOU ARE A SAINT AND I HOPE YOU GET SOME WELL-EARNED VACATION TIME AND TIME AT THE SPA AND ALL THE STUFF THAT YOU DESERVE.

AND EVERYONE TC, MR. CITY MANAGER AND YOUR ENTIRE TEAM, YOU KNOW EVERYONE AND HOW MUCH WORK THEY PUT INTO THIS.

SO I HOPE ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US, YOU WILL PUT IN OUR APPRECIATION AND ANY EFFORTS THAT WE CAN SUPPORT TOWARD THAT.

I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF OUR FULL SUPPORT, EVEN IF IT'S NOT ALL STATED.

SO THANK YOU.

AND TO MY COLLEAGUES, I HOPE THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO MOVE FORWARD TO SOME STRATEGIC VISIONING AS WE MOVE FORWARD FOR THE BUDGET, AND WORK TOGETHER TOWARD A CLEAR VISION FOR OUR CITY'S FUTURE.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MORENO.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO, WANT TO THANK THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS, STAFF, OUR CONSTITUENTS AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR ALL THE TIME THAT THEY'VE COMMITTED TO THIS BOND AND ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ'S SENTIMENTS ON OUR STAFF.

LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING SOME REST.

I KNOW THEY ALL HAD SOME LONG MEETINGS AND A LOT OF DAYS PUT INTO THAT, SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE PUT INTO THIS.

I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE AREAS THAT I THINK WERE IMPORTANT STREETS.

[05:00:03]

WE GOT THERE. AND SO YES, NOW IT'S TIME TO PRIORITIZE THEM AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING STREETS ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY, LOOKING AT THOSE STREETS THAT ARE USED BY, CITYWIDE STREETS ARE CRITICAL.

PUBLIC SAFETY WILL HAVE A NEW, TRAINING FACILITY, HOUSING, I THINK, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD SAID WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I HAD SOME CONCERNS ON THE LANGUAGE AND THE USE OF FUNDS FOR HOUSING.

NOT THAT I DID NOT WANT TO PRIORITIZE HOUSING, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE ATTORNEYS FOR CLEARING UP SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE THAT I HAD CONCERNS WITH.

WHEN IT COMES TO HOMELESSNESS, A BIG PRIORITY OF MINE, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS CITYWIDE.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO PROJECTS COMING, AS COMMITTED TO EVERY DISTRICT, ACROSS THE CITY.

THERE'S NO SECRET THAT, I HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING TIRELESSLY FOR FOR PARKS.

TODAY IS A BIG DAY, A BIG WIN FOR PARKS.

DALLAS IS SETTING THE STAGE FOR NOT ONLY THE STATE OF TEXAS, BUT AROUND THE COUNTRY AND BUILDING, BETTER PARKS THAT BRING A STRONGER ECONOMY THAT PLAY INTO OUR C-CAP.

JUST REALLY PROUD OF OF ALL THE WORK FOR ALL THE CONSTITUENTS AND THE VARIOUS GROUPS THAT HAVE COME, TIME AND AND TIME AGAIN.

AND WITH THAT AGAIN, THANK YOU.

I HOPE THAT, THIS IS A 15 ZERO VOTE, SO WE CAN SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT WE ARE, UNIFIED AND MOVING FORWARD AND CAN'T WAIT TO START GETTING THESE PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. RESENDEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 38.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO ECHO THE, GRATITUDE BEING EXPRESSED FOR STAFF, FOR COLLEAGUES, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, SPEAKERS.

I LOVE SEEING THE FOLKS FROM DISTRICT FIVE COMING UP HERE AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE BOND.

I'M EXCITED MOVING FORWARD ABOUT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE WE CAN MAKE CITYWIDE AND OBVIOUSLY IN DISTRICT FIVE AS WELL.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I'M JUST WANT TO CLOSE THIS OUT IF WE CAN.

IF NOT, I UNDERSTAND. BUT IS TO SAY, THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN HERE THIS WHOLE TIME, BUT EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS, WHETHER YOU SENT AN.

AN EMAIL, YOU WROTE A TEXT, WHATEVER IT WAS, YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THIS COMING TOGETHER.

I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES.

THIS HAS BEEN A WILD EXERCISE THAT I HOPE TO NEVER HAVE TO DO AGAIN.

AS FAR AS BEING ON THE ELECTED BODY, I WILL BE SEEING THE NEXT PEOPLE, THAT ARE SITTING HERE ON THE NEXT BOND, OUT HERE WITH THE REST OF MY, FELLOW NEIGHBORS.

I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF, MAN.

YOU GUYS JUST HAVING TO DEAL WITH US IS ENOUGH, BUT MUCH LESS HEARING FROM EVERYBODY IN THE ADVOCATES.

AND EVERYBODY'S GOT SOMETHING RIGHT.

JENNIFER NISWANDER APPLAUSE I MEAN, YOU DESERVE HUGE APPLAUSE.

AND AND.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOU DEALT WITH JUST MY PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS AND ALL THAT.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU GOT FROM EVERYBODY ELSE.

SO THANK YOU, JENNIFER, FOR YOUR COMMITMENT AND YOUR DEDICATION TO OUR CITY AND GETTING US TO THIS MOMENT.

AND, I ALSO WANT TO THANK, ALL THE ADVOCATES, ALL THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS LITERALLY HAS SOMETHING THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT'S ELECTED ON THIS BODY ASKED FOR WANTED, PUSHED, SUPPORTED.

THIS IS A REFLECTION OF EVERYONE OF US, WHICH IS A REFLECTION OF EVERY ONE OF YOU OUT THERE.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST BOND PACKAGE THAT I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME.

WHY? BECAUSE IT ADDRESSES SOME EQUITY ISSUES.

WE'VE NEVER HAD EQUITY AS A POLICY IN THIS CITY BEFORE.

THIS IS THE FIRST ONE.

IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S THE FIRST ONE TO HAVE IT.

STREETS AND ROADS ALLEYS.

THE SURVEY FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF OUR CITY.

THE PEOPLE SURVEY OF OUR CITY WAS FIX OUR STREETS.

NUMBER ONE.

FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

IT WASN'T PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT THAT WAS NUMBER TWO.

VERY CLOSE.

OUR LIBRARIES ARE HOUSING OUR HOMELESS, HELPING OUR HOMELESS, MAKING SURE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF.

I'M PROUD OF THIS BOND PROPOSAL.

I HOPE THAT WE GET A 15 ZERO VOTE, MR. MAYOR, TO SHOW THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE UNIFIED IN THE PAST.

[05:05:03]

THIS. AND I'M GOING TO CLOSE OUT WITH ARTS.

WE HAD ONE SHOT.

WE TOOK IT.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WIN IT.

ALL ALL I ALL I WILL ADD TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID BECAUSE YOU GUYS SAID IT ALL IS I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE AND ITS CHAIR, ARUN AGARWAL, AND ALL THE MEMBERS. I THINK THEY DID A FANTASTIC JOB.

ALL RIGHT.

AND MY LAST THANK YOU IS TO ALL OF YOU.

I THINK YOU GUYS DID AN AMAZING JOB AS A COUNCIL.

I SORT OF WATCHED YOU GUYS WORK AND WORK THROUGH THIS, AND I THINK YOU ENDED UP WITH AN INCREDIBLE BOND PACKAGE THAT I THINK THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT THEY OVERWHELMINGLY AGREE WITH YOU ON.

AND I'M JUST I'M VERY, VERY EXCITED TO ASK THE CITY SECRETARY TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE SO EVERYONE WILL KNOW.

SO, MADAM SECRETARY, WITH THAT, LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES. MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS.

YES. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

MORENO. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER. GRACEY.

RESENDEZ. YES.

COUNCILMEMBER. NARVAEZ.

BAZALDUA. NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN.

SCHULTZ. YES.

YES. WITH 14 VOTING IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.

WILLIS. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY.

THE ITEM PASSES.

MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

NO OUTBURST. NEXT ITEM, AGENDA ITEM 39.

[39. 24-400 Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to the service agreement with HR&A Advisors, Inc., approved as to form by the City Attorney, for analytical, strategic and community planning consultant services to: (1) extend the term from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025; and (2) increase the overall contract amount by $1,580,000.00, from $2,318,000.00 to $3,898,000.00 - Not to exceed $1,580,000.00 - Financing: General Fund]

AGENDA ITEM 39.

AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER THREE TO RECEIVE TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH H RNA ADVISORS, INC, APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR ANALYTICAL, STRATEGIC AND COMMUNITY PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES TO ONE.

EXTEND THE TERM FROM JUNE 30TH, 2024 TO JUNE 30TH OF 2025 AND TWO.

INCREASE THE OVERALL CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $1,580,000 FROM $2,318,000 TO $3,898,000, NOT TO EXCEED $1,580,000.

THIS IS YOUR. YES, YES, YES, THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 39.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

MAYOR. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK CZECH? CHAIRMAN WEST? ACTUALLY.

I'M GOOD. ALL MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED ON THIS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YEAH.

IT'S WEIRD. IT'S WEIRD. NEXT ITEM.

MADAM SECRETARY. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OH. GOT A PORTION ON THE FLOOR, SIR.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

REALLY? REALLY. REALLY.

REALLY. YES.

I'D LIKE STAFF TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS.

HONORABLE, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MAJID ALGAFARI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CONVENTION SERVICES.

WE ARE GETTING A LOT, FOR THAT, ACTUALLY $1.58 MILLION, WHICH IS NOT ONLY STRATEGIC ADVISORY SERVICES THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE 2021, AND THAT HAS PAID DIVIDENDS FOR US IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES POLICY, LEADERSHIP RECRUITMENT AND ONBOARDING.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS THIS, UPCOMING 18 MONTHS IS SEVERAL THINGS.

ONE OF THEM IS ON CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICY AND PLANNING THAT'S ACTUALLY PUT IN THE GOALS AND EXECUTING THE GOALS.

SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO DO, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S CONTINUUM OF SERVICE, FOR THAT, THE SMALL BUSINESS CENTER ROADMAP IMPLEMENTATION, IT'S A BIG DEAL FOR US.

SO IT CAN REALLY INTEGRATE WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIT. AND ALSO WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND GRANT MANAGEMENT UNIT.

THERE IS A ROADMAP THAT WE WANT TO EXECUTE AND IMPLEMENT.

AND SO THAT'S PART OF THAT AS WELL AS WELL AS THE SMART CITIES.

[05:10:04]

CROSS-DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION, SUPPORT.

WE CREATED THE SMART CITY ROADMAP, THE DALLAS SMART CITY ROADMAP IN 2017.

AND WE REALLY HAD DONE BITS AND PIECES OF THIS, THIS, THIS ROADMAP WE WANT TO TRULY FOCUS ON, ON THE NEXT EFFORT IN TERMS OF, DIGITAL, COMBATING DIGITAL DIVIDE, IN TERMS OF, CREATING SMART GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.

SO THERE'S A LOT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING IT STAFF AUGMENTATION AS WELL AS STAFF EXECUTION.

AND LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB FOR US.

MR. GODFREY, DO YOU KNOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT THE CITY HAS CONTRACTED TO PAY SRUGHNA OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS? IT IS GOING TO BE IN TOTAL, I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE, $3.9 MILLION, $3.898 MILLION UP TO JUNE 2025.

SO THAT INCLUDES THIS AMENDMENT.

SAY THAT AGAIN, THAT INCLUDES THIS AMENDMENT.

CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

MISS WILLIS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ITEM 39. THANK YOU.

SO WITH THE EDC, I WAS VISITING WITH THE VICE CHAIR OF THAT TODAY, AND SHE DIDN'T SEEM AWARE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A PLAN TO USE SHRNA TO WORK WITH THE EDC.

WHAT KIND OF CONVERSATIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITH THAT? WITH THEM? WE HAVEN'T HAD SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS WITH THE EDC, BUT ONE, ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT THIS, THIS TYPE OF CONTRACT WITH THE SHRNA ADVISORS IS THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO JUMP ON MATTERS THAT WE WANTED TO ADDRESS IMMEDIATELY, INCLUDING AND BECAUSE IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE TYPE OF AGREEMENT.

SO WE'VE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO TAP INTO THEM FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ACTIVITIES.

THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF THAT ORIGINAL CONTRACT BECAUSE IT'S STAFF AUGMENTATION.

SO ANYTHING THAT WE WANTED TO DO IN THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF MORE WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIT, IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ALL OF THESE ARE PART OF EXCLUSIVELY OR PART OF WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO.

I MEAN, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT WE NEED A PLAN FOR HOW ALL THESE ENTITIES ARE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER.

I JUST THEY KNOW NOW, I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE CITY MANAGER, IT'S EXPECTED.

AND SO, COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS, I DON'T BELIEVE STAFF HAS HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EDC.

I KNOW I HAVE SPOKEN DIRECTLY WITH THE CHAIR OF THE EDC TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE UTILIZATION AND PARTNERSHIP, AND PARTICULARLY THE ALIGNMENT AND STRATEGY AND STRATEGIC ADVICE TO REALLY ALIGN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTUALLY PREPARE FOR AND PARTNER ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THEIR ILA THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO MORE WORK AND EFFORT FOR US, IN ALIGNMENT WITH SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE PLAN TO DO OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

SO WE HAVE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AT LEAST I HAVE WITH THE CHAIR TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT ONE, SOME SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN HAND OFF TO THEM THAT ACTUALLY WILL THEN BE WORKED ON IN TANDEM WITH ALIGNMENT WITH HNA, REALLY HELPING US DEVELOP THOSE PLANS AND EXECUTION.

CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 39.

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND STAFF ON ON AN AIR AND A SPECIFICALLY AS WELL.

I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH THEM.

IN THE TIME THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE PULLING TOGETHER THE EDC AND THE TASK FORCE CHAIRED BY FORMER COUNCILWOMAN GATES, AND, HNA WAS REALLY THERE TO HELP FACILITATE THAT.

AND I JUST THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL MARRIAGE OF STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT AND TREK AND OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS, AND IT'S WORKED WELL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND I SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL OF THIS WHOLE UPSTANDING.

AND WE'LL COMMEND YOU FOR THAT.

AND I REALLY THINK AS WE ROLL OUT THE SIX PILLARS OF THE HOUSING POLICY, THAT WE COULD BENEFIT FROM THIS LEVEL OF HIGH LEVEL COLLABORATION FROM NONPROFITS, INDUSTRY CONSULTANT WHO'S GOT THIS VARIETY OF SKILL SET.

SO I'M GOING TO KEEP ASKING FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 39.

YEAH. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HR AND A TO ADVISOR TO HELP THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, BUT ALSO HAVE STAFF.

THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF BACK BACK STAFF THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HIRE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER TO HIRE THEM TO HIRE AN EMPLOYEE THERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER FOR DOING A GREAT JOB BECAUSE I BELIEVE, I GUESS, MAGIC.

[05:15:03]

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT ALL DEPARTMENTS WHICH THEY WOULD BE HELPING.

SO IT WILL INVOLVE, ALMOST ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS, IN THE CITY BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY A CONCERTED EFFORT TO WORK WITH ALL DEPARTMENTS, IN TERMS OF THE SMALL BUSINESS CENTER, IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIT, IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PLAN, STRATEGIC PLAN, IMPLEMENTATION AND GOALS, ACCOMPLISHMENT.

AND SO IN TERMS OF THE SMART DALLAS, ROADMAP.

SO ALMOST EVERY DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THEM.

AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY.

A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS WERE INVOLVED, NOT JUST THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OR THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT OR, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REALLY A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT. SO I SEE A LOT OF INVOLVEMENT FROM FROM EVERY DEPARTMENT, A CONTINUUM OF THAT INVOLVEMENT FROM EVERY DEPARTMENT.

I JUST WANT TO GET A SHOUT OUT TO HR AND ALSO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SHUE.

YOU KNOW, WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THEY DID A GREAT JOB OVER THERE, OVER 150 PEOPLE THERE.

THEY DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

I THINK THEY DID.

THEY EARNED THEIR KEEPS. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 39? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AND PUBLIC HEARING.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

[Z1. 24-385 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for an MU-1 Mixed Use District on property zoned an R-10(A) Single Family District, on the northeast line of Seagoville Road, southeast of Ravenview Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Denial without prejudice Z223-195(AU) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council before opening public hearing on December 13, 2023, and is scheduled for consideration on February 14, 2024.]

MR. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER ATKINS WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z1.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MR. ATKINS. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO MARCH 27TH, 2024.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.

ANYONE HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE.

IT'S DEFERRED. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS ON YOUR ZONING AGENDA.

THEREFORE, WE'LL MOVE TO YOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[PH1. 24-384 A public hearing to receive comments regarding consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas Development Code, with consideration to be given to amending Sections 51-4.204(4) and 51A-4.204(3), “Child-Care Facility;” 51-4.204(6) and 51A-4.204(1), “Adult Day Care Facility;” 51-4.217(b)(10) and 51A-4.217(b)(7.1) “Day home;” 51-4.407 and 51A-4.407, “Maximum lot coverage;” 51-4.408 and 51A-4.408 “Maximum building height;” 51A-13.306, “Uses;” and 51A-13.402, “Required Parking;” and related sections with consideration to be given to appropriate zoning districts and developing appropriate standards associated with adult day care facilities, child-care facilities, and day homes and an ordinance granting the amendments Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval DCA223-002(SM) Note: This item was held under advisement by the City Council at the public hearing on December 13, 2023 and is scheduled for consideration on February 14, 2024.]

PH ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING SECTIONS 51, DASH 4.2, ZERO, FOUR, FOUR AND 51, A-4.2043.

CHILD CARE FACILITY.

50 1-4.2, 046 AND 50 1A-4.2041 ADULT DAYCARE FACILITY.

50 1-4.217B TEN AND 50 1A-4.217B7.1 DAY HOME 50 1-4.407 AND 50 1A-4.407.

MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 50 1-4.408 AND 50 1A-4.408.

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 51.

A DASH 13.306 USES AND 51 A DASH 13.402.

REQUIRED PARKING AND RELATED SECTIONS, WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ADULT DAY CARE FACILITIES, CHILD CARE FACILITIES AND DAY HOMES, AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS.

YOU DO HAVE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, JACK COX.

I LIVE AT 7658 EL PENSADOR DRIVE IN DISTRICT 11.

MY NAME IS JACK COX.

AS A FATHER OF TWO, I HAVE A DEEP APPRECIATION OF THE NEED FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE.

NOT ONLY WAS IT A FACTOR IN THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF MY CHILDREN, BUT ALSO ALLOWED MY WIFE AND I TO WORK AND BOLSTER THE FINANCIAL SECURITY OF OUR FAMILY.

THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW CHILD CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY WRIGHT, RAISED CONCERNS FOR MYSELF AND OTHER DALLAS RESIDENTS.

REMOVING THE SUP REQUIREMENT AND ALLOWING THESE NEW USES BY WRIGHT ELIMINATES SPECIAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL BY CITY STAFF AND OTHERS.

EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IT OVERRIDES RESIDENTS RIGHTS TO HAVE A VOICE AS TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

KINDERCARE BY WRIGHT IS WRONG FOR DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS.

AS A NEIGHBOR, A HOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE DALLAS EXCUSE ME, BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION AND ALLIANCE, MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT

[05:20:02]

FEW DALLAS RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF THIS PROPOSAL.

THEY DO, HOWEVER, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE IT WHEN INFORMED AND HEAR THE WORDS BY WRIGHT.

I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY DEFINITIVE DATA PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSAL, AND THE SUPPOSITION THAT ALLOWING CHILD CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES BY WRIGHT AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS WILL RESULT IN THE AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE CARE.

THEREFORE, PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND AMEND THIS PROPOSAL BY CPC AND STAFF.

MAINTAIN THE SUP REQUIREMENT FOR THESE USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ALONG WITH THE OFF STREET PARKING MINIMUMS. BY DOING SO, YOU ENSURE EXISTING RIGHTS AND SAFEGUARDS REMAIN AVAILABLE TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE RESIDENTS NEIGHBORHOODS.

SELF-DETERMINATION CAN ONLY BE PRESERVED WHEN THOSE THAT STAND TO LOSE THE MOST ARE WILLING TO SPEAK OUT, AND LEADERS LIKE YOU ARE WILLING TO LISTEN AND PROTECT THE INTEREST OF DALLAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NICOLE GANN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

NICOLE GANN WITH JULIETTE FOWLER.

COMMUNITIES. DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT 14.

AND I WANT TO START OFF BY THANKING THE CITY STAFF FOR THEIR DETAILED REPORT AND THE TIME SPENT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR INFORMATION SESSIONS AT JULIETTE FOWLER.

COMMUNITIES WERE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS TOPIC BECAUSE FOR OVER 130 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN SERVING OUR COMMUNITY'S MOST VULNERABLE, OUR CHILDREN AND OUR ELDERS, AND OUR EXPERIENCE.

WE SEE THE GAP OF SERVICES AVAILABLE SPECIFICALLY IN THE AFFORDABLE SECTOR BASED ON CHILDREN AND ADULTS ALIKE.

FURTHER, WE'RE IN A UNIQUE TIME IN HISTORY WHERE MANY MORE INDIVIDUALS ARE CARING FOR CHILDREN AND AGING FAMILY MEMBERS SIMULTANEOUSLY, AS WELL AS WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME.

AND LACK OF CARE AND SERVICES IS AN IMPACT TO OUR WORKFORCE AND ECONOMY.

FOR EXAMPLE, 42% OF MILLENNIAL CAREGIVERS ARE SOLE CAREGIVERS, 50% STATED THAT THEIR CAREGIVING DUTIES INTERFERED WITH THEIR WORK, 33% REPORTED SEVERE INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR WORK, SUCH AS THE NEED TO CUT BACK HOURS, LOSING JOB BENEFITS, AND BEING FIRED.

CAREGIVING IMPACTS BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY BY AN ESTIMATED $34 BILLION NATIONALLY.

THEREFORE, GREATER ACCESS TO CAREGIVING SUPPORT SERVICES ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT OUR GROWING WORKFORCE AND ECONOMY.

FURTHER, WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR THE AWARENESS FOR NEEDED SERVICES FOR ADULT DAY PROGRAMING, SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE LIVING WITH ALZHEIMER'S AND DEMENTIA.

IN 2020, 400,000 TEXANS WERE LIVING WITH ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, A 22.5% INCREASE IN PROJECTED BETWEEN 2020 AND 20 25 TO 490,000 TEXANS.

TEXAS RANKS NUMBER TWO IN THE NATION IN ALZHEIMER'S DEATHS.

34% OF THOSE DEATHS ARE FROM ALZHEIMER'S ALONE, AND THEY ARE MORE THAN DOUBLE BREAST CANCER AND PROSTATE CANCER COMBINED.

IN OUR EXPERIENCE, THESE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES ARE LIVING WITH THIS DIAGNOSIS AND STRUGGLING ALONE IN THEIR HOMES, 85% ARE UNPAID CAREGIVERS.

IT IS ESTIMATED THAT EACH DEMENTIA CAREGIVER AVERAGES 30 HOURS OF CAREGIVING A WEEK.

MORE QUALITY ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS ALLOW RELIEF FOR CAREGIVERS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, ASHLEY BROWN.

HI, I'M ASHLEY BROWN, I LIVE IN DISTRICT 14 AND I WORK AT JULIET FOWLER IN DISTRICT TWO, IN DISTRICT 14, AND I'M ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE IN OUR CITY WITH DEMENTIA AND THEIR CAREGIVERS. AS YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW, WE'VE BEEN SERVING PEOPLE IN THIS SPACE FOR OVER 130 YEARS.

WE'VE SERVED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, OF ALL AGES.

AND TODAY, IN OUR RESIDENTIAL CARE COMMUNITY, ONE YEAR OF DEMENTIA CARE STARTS AT $70,000.

THAT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR MOST PEOPLE IN THE CITY.

AND, MORE DAY PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA ARE REALLY NEEDED.

SORRY. I'M NERVOUS.

RECENTLY IN THE NEWS, THERE WAS A WONDERFUL LADY.

SHE'S ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF MINE. WE GO TO CHURCH TOGETHER.

SHE WENT MISSING OVERNIGHT.

HER FAMILY CANNOT AFFORD DEMENTIA CARE.

TO LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM.

AND IF SHE HAD HAD ACCESS TO A DAY PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA CARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SHE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE GONE LOST.

BECAUSE PEOPLE IN A DAY PROGRAM FOR DEMENTIA CARE ARE ENGAGED.

THEY GET TO EXERCISE AND RECEIVE CARE, AND THAT KEEPS THEM SAFE.

AND GUESS WHAT? IT HELPS THE CAREGIVERS.

IT'S IMPORTANT THEY'RE SUFFERING TOO.

THEIR JOBS ARE SUFFERING.

THEIR HEALTH IS SUFFERING.

AND WE NEED MORE CARE. LIKE THIS.

AND JULIET FOWLER AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE US, WE ARE READY TO JUMP IN AND DO IT, AND WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT EASILY AND QUICKLY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.

ANGELA MEDRANO HAS CANCELED KAREN ROBERTS.

KAREN. OKAY.

PROGRAM FOR DEMENTIA CARE ARE ENGAGED.

[05:25:01]

THEY GET TO ESSER.

I'M SORRY. WHO'S SPEAKING? OKAY. ARE YOU? KAREN? YES, YES.

YOU MAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. KAREN ROBERTS 502 CAMERON IN DISTRICT 14, I RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR MORE CHILD CARE AND ADULT DAY CARE AND SUPPORT VALID EFFORTS TO IMPROVE AND INCREASE THIS CARE.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS NOT THE WAY TO INCREASE THIS CARE.

THIS CHANGE REMOVES THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE A VOICE IN BUSINESSES MOVING IN NEXT TO THEM.

THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE THE PLANS AND TERMS OF A BUSINESS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IS ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESS.

THESE FACILITIES MAY BE LOCATED ON A CORNER, BUT THEY WILL BE ADJACENT TO HOMES AND AND ACROSS STREETS FROM OTHER HOMES.

THE TRAFFIC OF PARENTS AND STAFF SYSCO TRUCKS DELIVERING GROCERIES WILL DRIVE THROUGH THE PARK, THROUGH AND PARK ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

THE CODE CHANGED.

THE CHANGE ALLOWS FACILITIES TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THEY NEED.

THINK ABOUT DRIVING THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE WHEN STUDENTS ARE ARRIVING OR BEING PICKED UP.

CARS BLOCK STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS WHILE WAITING FOR STUDENTS.

NOW THINK ABOUT A CHILD CARE CENTER WHERE PARENTS MUST PARK, GO IN TO PICK UP THEIR BABY OR TODDLERS, THEN SPEAK TO THE TEACHERS AND COLLECT THEIR CHILDREN'S STUFF.

ALL INFORMATION ON CHILD CARE STRESSES THAT THE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF STAFF IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE DECLINE IN THE AMOUNT OF CHILD CARE.

ELIMINATING THE SGP AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS WILL NOT HAVE THE IMPACT THIS CHANGE IMPLIES.

THERE'S NO GUARANTEE WHERE THE DESERT, WHERE THE CENTERS WILL GO IN THE DESERT, CHILD CARE DESERTS, AND IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THEY WILL GO IN COMMUNITIES WHERE PARENTS CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR QUALITY CARE.

ELIMINATING THE SUP IN RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AREAS IS NOT A SOLUTION TO THE CHILD AND CARE AND ADULT CARE PROBLEM, BUT IT IS A HUGE THREAT AND DANGER TO OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LISA MUMFORD.

MY NAME IS LISA MUMFORD.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH AT FOWLER COMMUNITIES IN EAST DALLAS.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE.

FOR OVER 130 YEARS, JULIETTE FOWLER COMMUNITIES HAS SERVED CHILDREN, YOUTH AND AGING INDIVIDUALS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THE CHILDREN AND YOUTH THAT WE SERVE COME FROM VERY HARD PLACES THAT INCLUDE FOSTER CARE, AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE, AND HOMELESSNESS.

WITH APPROXIMATELY 93,000 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE, IN DALLAS, THERE ARE ONLY 280 LICENSED DAYCARE CENTERS THAT ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 37% OF THE CITY'S CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE.

THE ZIP CODES IN THE SERVICE AREAS SURROUNDING FOWLER ALONE DEMONSTRATE A HIGH A NEED FOR HIGH QUALITY, SUBSIDIZED, OR LOW COST PRE-K PROVIDERS.

60% OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN NEED AFFORDABLE AND CONVENIENT CHILD CARE.

MANY OF THE ZIP CODES AROUND FOWLER SHOW THAT 20% OR MORE OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE FIVE ARE LIVING IN POVERTY, ONLY 38% PARTICIPATE IN SUBSIDIZED CARE, AND THERE ARE ONLY TWO OR FEWER HEAD START PROVIDERS ACCESSIBLE TO SOME OF THE HIGHEST POVERTY ZIP CODES.

FOWLER'S 130 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING CLOSELY WITH CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES CONFIRMS THAT POVERTY LOWERS SOCIAL CLASS AND ALL THE TRAUMA THAT ACCOMPANIES THAT UNDERMINE THE WELL-BEING OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.

EVEN SMALL AND SUBTLE DISADVANTAGES, LIKE NOT HAVING CONVENIENT AND DEPENDABLE DAYCARE, CAN HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT AFFECT PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, AND SELF ESTEEM AND RELATIONSHIPS.

APPROPRIATE, ACCESSIBLE, AND CONVENIENT DAYCARE IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ENSURING OUR COMMUNITIES CHILDREN HAVE THEIR MOST BASIC NEEDS MET.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

IT'S SARAH, I'M HERE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. EDITOR SARAH 1003 VALENCIA, DISTRICT 14.

AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES AND EXPENSE TO ESTABLISH MY BUSINESS, I DO NOT SUPPORT MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW CHILD CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

ZONING RULES ALREADY EXIST ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE ABOUT OPERATING A HOME BASED BUSINESS, AND THESE DAYCARES FAIL MOST REQUIREMENTS ONE THE OWNER IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE ANY ADVERTISEMENTS, SIGN, OR DISPLAY RELATED TO OCCUPATION.

TWO EMPLOY MORE THAN ONE PERSON ON THE PREMISES.

THREE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN RESIDENT.

[05:30:02]

WORK FOR MORE THAN FOUR HOURS IN ANY GIVEN WEEK.

FOUR INVOLVE MORE THAN THREE PEOPLE ON THE PREMISES AT ONE TIME OTHER THAN THE OWNER.

FIVE. GENERATE LOUD NOISE SIX.

SELL OR OFFER PRODUCTS OF THE HOME OCCUPATION SEVEN.

GENERATE PARKING CONGESTION THAT REDUCES THE AVAILABILITY OF ON STREET PARKING EIGHT.

AND THIS IS THE BIG ONE.

HOME OCCUPATION CANNOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 400FT² OR 25% OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA.

IN ADDITION, OWNERS MUST ENSURE THAT USE COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S ZONING AND OTHER LAWS THOUGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND MAKE THIS DECISION.

EVERY BUSINESS MUST OBTAIN A CO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEFORE OPERATING REQUIRES.

INSPECTIONS INCLUDE BUILDING FIRE, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, PARKING AND ADA REQUIREMENTS.

THIS PROPOSED CHILD CARE.

ADULT CARE, BY RIGHT AMENDMENT IS JUST ANOTHER ATTACK ON SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AND ELIMINATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION.

BY RIGHT IS THE DEAL BREAKER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ROBERT PRICE.

SO I'M ROB PRICE.

I'M THE DEAN OF SAINT MATTHEW'S CATHEDRAL AT ROSSLYN HENDERSON.

I LIVE IN 14 AND MY PARISH IS IN TWO, SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL.

I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU ALL, AND MAYBE SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN BEATEN UP A LITTLE BIT IN THE LATE AFTERNOON.

IT'S EASY TO SAY NO.

IT'S MUCH EASIER TO SAY NO, TO SAY YES.

AND SO I'M HOPING THAT I CAN GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THAT MIGHT OVERCOME THE BURDEN OF PRIOR RESTRAINT, TO ALLOW YOU TO MOVE INTO A PLACE OF PERMISSION AND SEEING THE BIG PICTURE.

SAINT. SAINT MATTHEW'S IS OPENING A PRESCHOOL ON OUR GROUNDS.

IT WAS REALLY HARD AND WE HAD A WHOLE LOT GOING FOR US TO NEGOTIATE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO, AND SO YOU WOULD THINK IT'D BE IN OUR INTEREST. ABSOLUTELY.

LESS CARE, MORE FOR US.

WE WANT TO JACK UP THE PRICES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE WORK.

IN MY TRADITION, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT, ESPECIALLY ON THIS DAY IN MY TRADITION, WHERE WE THINK ABOUT GIVING ALMS AND CARING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE AND SEEING THE DIVINE IN THOSE WHO ARE THE WEAKEST.

IN PARTICULAR, IN A TRADITION INSCRIBED BOTH IN TORAH AND IN THE GOSPEL, WE SEE A SACRED CARE FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS BEING PRIORITIZED AND INTERPRETED BROADLY.

THAT WOULD BE THOSE WHO ARE ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE AND THOSE WHO ARE CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT MAKING ALLOWING THIS CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE VULNERABLE CHILDREN, MORE VULNERABLE ELDERLY TO BE CARED FOR.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

CAN WE CARE FOR THEM IN A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE, IN A PLACE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD, IN A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE LOVED? AND THIS IS A TIME WHEN I THINK YOU GUYS COULD TRULY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN SO MANY LIVES.

GIVE PERMISSION.

SAY YES TO THAT WHICH IS BEST IN ALL OF THE TRADITIONS WE SHARE AND IS BEST IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JONATHAN VINCENT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR.

COUNCIL JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, REPRESENTING THE PARKLAND HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM.

I'M HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF YOU ON ONE VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE, AND I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS LAST TIME AND COMMUNICATED WITH ALL OF YOU ABOUT IT, AND THAT IS WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN CSS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

THERE IS A NONPROFIT CHILD CARE FACILITY CALLED ANNIE'S PLACE, WHICH IS ON BUTLER STREET ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PARKLAND SYSTEM, AND THEIR MISSION IS SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE NONPROFIT CHILD CARE FOR PATIENTS IN THE PARKLAND SYSTEM AS WELL AS STAFF.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS.

I THINK YOU CAN ALL FIGURE THAT OUT FOR YOURSELVES.

BUT BY REQUIRING AN SUP IN ER, ZONING, WHICH IS WHERE THIS IS SITUATED, THAT WOULD MAKE THEM LEGAL, NONCONFORMING, NOW YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE, BUT IT'S ALSO PROBLEMATIC IN TERMS OF FINANCING, FUNDRAISING AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, STATE LICENSING, WHICH REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE PROPER ZONING FOR YOUR CHILD CARE FACILITY. SO WE'VE WORKED VERY WELL WITH STAFF AND COMING OUT OF PLANNING COMMISSION.

THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED THAT'S IN THE CPC PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND YOUR STAFF REPORT, WHICH BASICALLY WE THINK SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

AND I'LL PARAPHRASE NO SUP REQUIRED AND CSS AND INDUSTRIAL WHEN THE CHILD CARE FACILITY IS AFFILIATED WITH A HOSPITAL, CERTAINLY OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

THAT'S A FACTUAL DETERMINATION, BUT WE THINK WE QUALIFY FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS.

[05:35:05]

PARKLAND OWNS THE PROPERTY.

THEY WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER.

THEY'RE LINKED ON PARKLAND'S WEBSITE.

SO WE THINK THAT, SOLVES OUR ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, IDEALLY NO SUP WOULD BE REQUIRED IN CSS AND INDUSTRIAL AT ALL.

THAT'S EVEN MORE CLARITY.

BUT WE THINK THIS WORKS FOR US.

SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO EITHER SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED OR EVEN BETTER, YOU KNOW, NO SUP REQUIREMENT AT ALL.

YOU KNOW, AS A FALLBACK IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THAT.

AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. RONNIE MESTAS.

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

RONNIE MAESTAS, 32, 15 RUSH STREET WEST, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THIS, PROPOSAL OR AMENDMENT.

IT'S JUST AN AMAZING, I'M THE GRANDFATHER OF FOUR GRANDCHILDREN.

THREE ARE AUTISTIC, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S NOT TO SEEM LIKE WE HAVE NO HEART OR CARE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR LOVED ONES AND OUR ELDERLY WHERE I'M GETTING THERE.

SO. BUT TO DO THIS, THIS, THIS AMENDMENT, THIS, THIS WHOLE PLAN IS TARGETING SPECIFIC AREAS AND SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS. AND YOU'RE COMING UP WITH NOW WHAT YOU HAVE A RACIAL EQUITY, RACIAL EQUITY, INCLUSION, DEPARTMENT.

AND ONE OF THE FIRST SENTENCES IN THERE IS, THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR SELF DETERMINATION.

AND BEFORE THIS LAST THE LAST MONTH'S MEETING, ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE THAT THIS WAS GOING ON.

THERE WAS NO, YOU KNOW, AND WE CAN'T BLAME IT ON ONE PERSON OR ANOTHER, BUT I THINK I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, DO THE RIGHT THING NOW TWICE.

AND I BELIEVE I CERTAINLY BELIEVE ONE PERSON THAT SAID IT, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND LET THE COMMUNITY DECIDE, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT BUSINESSES OR OTHER CAREGIVERS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THESE HOMES, EVEN EVEN THE AIRBNBS, THEY'RE EMPTY.

AND ONCE THIS PASSES AND IT'S ALLOWED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S GOING TO COME, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE UTILIZED FOR.

SO IT'S, THE TROJAN HORSE IN A BIG PACKAGE COMING TO OUR COMMUNITIES.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I HOPE YOU SAY NO TO THIS ONE.

THANK YOU, MARY PEREZ.

MY NAME IS MARY LOU PEREZ.

I'M A 2703 KINGSTON.

I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU.

COUNCIL. EVERYONE HERE IN THE HORSESHOE THAT I'M AS A COMMUNITY LEADER, A GRANDMOTHER, RAISING, GRANDKIDS.

AND I'M A PROPERTY OWNER.

I COME HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO NOT APPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I'M OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR AN SUP AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS, LEAVING NEIGHBORHOODS VULNERABLE TO THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS.

MY CONCERNS ARE SAFETY.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT PROVIDING CHILDCARE FOR FOR OUR FOR OUR OUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN.

THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE THAT THESE DAYCARES IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA NEXT TO ME COULD BE, COULD FALL IN THE WRONG HANDS AND THEN DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS, NOT BEING AN ASSET, BUT A LIABILITY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE LOOKED UP THE PEDOPHILES IN THE AREA.

WE HAVE THEM ALL OVER, AND I'M SURE EVERYONE DOES.

AND THAT'S IN THE HIGH CRIME RATES.

AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING JUST ANYBODY WITHOUT AN SUP DO CHILD CARES? CHILD CARES BELONG IN, IN, COMMERCIAL AREAS CHURCHES.

THERE'S CHILD CARE CENTERS IN MY AREA THAT I TOOK MY GRANDCHILDREN TO, AND LET'S, LET'S MAKE THEM LET'S BUILD THE CAPACITY TO THE EXISTING CHILD CARES. AND THEN ON THE ADULT CARES, I WORRY ABOUT THEM WANDERING OFF INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME.

NOW, I, I, I HAVE A I HAVE A HEART FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

IT'S THE SAFETY AND THE AND THE MONITORING OF THESE HOMES.

WITHOUT AN SUP, THERE'S A HOUSING SHORTAGE.

SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO USE THE LAND? THE HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, IN OUR BELOVED HOMES ARE PIECE.

THE ONLY PIECE THAT WE HAVE IS OUR RESIDENTS.

[05:40:02]

I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LOVE MY HOME.

LET'S BUILD CAPACITY IN DAYCARES.

AND LET'S NOT INFRINGE ON OUR TIME, MA'AM.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND MCKINLEY.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.

MY NAME IS ANN MCKINLEY.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT TEN AND I WORK IN DISTRICT 14.

I REPRESENT JULIET FOWLER'S DEMENTIA FRIENDLY DALLAS INITIATIVE.

DEMENTIA FRIENDLY DALLAS MISSION IS TO CREATE A LIVABLE COMMUNITY WHERE INDIVIDUALS WITH DEMENTIA AND THEIR CAREGIVERS CAN LIVE, AGE AND THRIVE.

12.6% OF OUR CITIZENS IN DALLAS HAVE DEMENTIA.

60% OF THEM LIVE IN THEIR HOMES.

BEHIND EVERY ONE PERSON LIVING WITH DEMENTIA STANDS AT LEAST FOUR WEARY CAREGIVERS.

DEMENTIA IS A DISEASE, AND IT LIVES EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY'RE ALREADY THERE.

I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EMBRACES A RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME AND ASSISTED LIVING ONE BLOCK FROM MY HOUSE.

DOES THIS HURT MY PROPERTY VALUE? NO, I SEE NO DATA THAT IT DOES.

ARE THE NEIGHBORS AFRAID OF THOSE WHO LIVE THERE? NO, QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EMBRACES THESE ELDERS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINGS CHRISTMAS CAROLS, TRICK OR TREATERS RING THEIR DOORBELL, AND CHILDREN BRING VALENTINES.

CAREGIVERS NEED ACCESSIBILITY.

MANY ARE WORKING, RAISING CHILDREN, CARING FOR MOM OR DAD.

IMAGINE HAVING TO GET YOURSELF, YOUR CHILDREN AND MOM READY AND OUT THE DOOR TO SCHOOL, DAY CARE AND BE AT WORK ON TIME AND HAVE TO DRIVE TO RICHARDSON OR DESOTO TO GET THE PROPER CARE FOR MOM.

WE THINK NOTHING OF HAVING SCHOOLS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOUR CONSTITUENTS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO DAY PROGRAMS FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS.

OUR FRIENDS WITH DEMENTIA NEED DAILY ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND THEY SHOULD BE NEAR THEIR HOMES, NOT IN A WAREHOUSE WITH LAWN CHAIRS.

SITTING ON THE CONCRETE PARKING LOT SURROUNDED BY A CHAIN LINK FENCE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOUR MOTHER? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOURSELVES? BECAUSE IF STATISTICS HOLD UP, 50% OF ALL OF US WILL HAVE DEMENTIA.

YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE FIRST THAT'S YOUR TIME FRIENDLY STATEMENT FOR OUR CITY BY CREATING TIME IS YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MA'AM DEBBIE SOLIS.

AND DEBI SOLIS, DISTRICT SIX.

I HAVE WORKED IN A DAY CARE AND SUPPORT THE NEED FOR CHILDCARE.

THIS ZONING DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT PROBLEM.

CHILD CARE IS EXPENSIVE.

TO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WE NEED TO SUBSIDIZE THE AMOUNT FOR MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME FAMILIES.

WE NEED TO ALSO REDUCE THE APPLICATION FEE FOR PEOPLE INTERESTED IN STARTING A DAYCARE FOR FAMILIES IN NEED.

I WORK WITH. WE STARTED A DAYCARE AND MOST OF THE KIDS ARE STAFF, CHILDREN AND CHILDREN WHO RECEIVE CA, WHICH IS CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE.

WE HAVE FAMILIES COME TO ME BECAUSE OTHER DAYCARES DO NOT WORK WITH THEM.

IF THEY COULD NOT PAY WHAT THEY WERE ASKING OR WERE RECEIVING CCI, WE MUST MAKE SURE OUR PEOPLE BENEFIT, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT CAN AFFORD DAYCARES.

WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS DISCRIMINATION FOR THE POOR BECAUSE THE DAYCARE HAS A RIGHT TO NOT SERVE THEM.

I CALL A COUPLE OF DAYCARES IN MY COMMUNITY TO SEE IF THEY HAD A WAITING LIST, AND THEY SAID NO WAITING LIST.

I'M CONCERNED THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL HARMFULLY AFFECT MY COMMUNITY.

I DO NOT LIVE IN A GATED COMMUNITY WITH A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OR LIVE IN A HISTORICAL DISTRICT WHERE I CAN BE PROTECTED FROM BAD NEIGHBORS.

I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.

I LEAD THE LEDBETTER CRIME WATCH COMMITTEE MEETING MONTHLY BECAUSE MY COMMUNITY NEEDS A PLACE TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS.

IN MY LAST MEETING, NO ONE WANTED THE DAYCARE.

WE NEED SPECIFICS IN PLACE TO MAKE THE ZONING WORK.

MY COMMUNITY DOES NOT WANT INVESTORS COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, BUYING HOUSES AND RENTING THEM AS DAYCARE BUSINESSES.

SIMILAR TO STRS.

RIGHT NOW WE SEE A LACK OF CITY SUPERVISION.

WE COMMUNITY MEMBERS MUST CALL IN THINGS WITHOUT PERMITS, WITHOUT LICENSE, AND ILLEGAL WORK AT NIGHT.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY OUR COMMUNITIES WITHOUT ALL THE NUISANCE WE FACE DAILY.

BECAUSE OF BAD NEIGHBORS.

WE BELIEVE IN NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION.

WE KNOW FIRSTHAND DISPARITIES EXIST IN WEST DALLAS, AND THIS FEW MINUTES IS NOT ABOUT ADULTS OR CHILD CARE.

IT'S JUST ABOUT MAKING SURE THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACES.

LET PARKLAND HAVE THEIR DAYCARE.

LET WHOEVER WANTS TO HAVE THEIR DAYCARE.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MINOTAUR AZIMI IS NOT PRESENT.

SARA EVANS.

HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU.

[05:45:02]

I'M HERE AS BOTH A PARENT.

OH, SORRY. I LIVE AT 9056 WESTBOROUGH DRIVE IN DISTRICT TWO.

I'M HERE WITH A PARENT AND A BOARD MEMBER FOR A LOCAL NONPROFIT, HART HOUSE, TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT CPC AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE SCP REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH ADULT AND CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS AND ALL ZONING AREAS OF DALLAS.

WE NOW LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE FOR MOST OF US WHO CHOOSE TO HAVE CHILDREN, BOTH PARENTS MUST WORK TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

THIS MEANS THAT FAMILIES HAVE TO LOOK FOR PAID CHILDCARE FOR THEIR SMALL CHILDREN SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO WORK.

THE FINANCIAL BURDEN IS IMMENSE.

WITH TWO CHILDREN IN DAYCARE, IT COSTS MORE THAN MY MORTGAGE.

BUT EVEN MORE STRESSFUL THAN THE COST BURDEN IS THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING AVAILABILITY FOR THOSE OF US WHO CAN EVEN AFFORD CARE.

THE DEMAND FOR DAYCARES IN DALLAS FAR OUTSTRIPS THE SUPPLY.

IF ALL DAYCARES IN THE CITY WERE TO MAXIMUM CAPACITY, IT WOULD ONLY MEET 54% OF THE DEMAND FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX AND ONLY 36% FOR TODDLERS AND INFANTS.

FOR ME AND MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHO ALSO HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN, WE PUT OUR NAMES ON VARIOUS WAITLISTS WITH EXPENSIVE FEES AND HOPES FOR ONE DAY GETTING A SPOT.

THE LACK OF AVAILABLE CHILDCARE IS A MASSIVE BURDEN TO WORKING FAMILIES.

I WANT DALLAS TO BE A PLACE WHERE YOUNG FAMILIES WANT TO LIVE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY BARRIERS THAT HAS CAUSED MANY FRIENDS OF MINE TO LOOK ELSEWHERE.

AS A BOARD MEMBER AT HART HOUSE, A NONPROFIT THAT SERVES IMMIGRANT AND LOW INCOME STUDENTS IN THE VICKERY MEADOW NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH AN AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM, THE COST AND TIME BURDEN OF THE SCP PROCESS HAS MADE IT ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND A PERMANENT HOME IN THE VICKERY MEADOW COMMUNITY.

THE NEEDS FOR FREE QUALITY SUPPORTS FOR CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY, AND FAMILIES IN THIS COMMUNITY CANNOT BE OVERSTATED.

30,000 PEOPLE LIVE IN JUST THREE SQUARE MILES.

THE MAJORITY OF LAND IS AN AREA THAT IS, THE MAJORITY OF LAND IN THAT AREA IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, WITH A FEW SMALL POCKETS OF COMMERCIAL AND DISD AND CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

WE HAVE OFFERS TO HOUSE OUR PROGRAM OUT OF SEVERAL APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THE AREA FOR FREE, AND THOUGH WE WOULD STILL NEED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF BURDENSOME STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD CARE CENTERS, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO OPERATE IN THE AREA NEAR THE FAMILIES WE SERVE, PROVIDING A HIGH QUALITY, FREE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS AND FAMILIES WHO DESPERATELY NEED THIS.

ELIMINATING THE SCP REQUIREMENT WILL SIMPLY REMOVE ONE TIME AND COST BURDEN FOR ADULT AND CHILD CARE CENTERS, IF EVEN ONE ADDITIONAL CHILDCARE CENTER IS.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THE CHANGE.

THANK YOU. MELANIE RUBIN.

MELANIE RUBIN IS NOT PRESENT.

LAURA PALMER.

LAURA PALMER IS NOT PRESENT.

SHANNON HENDRICKS.

MY NAME IS SHANNON HENDRIX.

I'M THE PROUD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HART HOUSE, A FREE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM SERVING PRIMARILY REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CHILDREN, IN VICKERY MEADOW, WHICH IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 13. NONPROFIT AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS PLAY AN INTEGRAL ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND WELL-BEING OF OUR YOUTH.

THESE PROGRAMS PROVIDE A SAFE AND NURTURING ENVIRONMENT, OFFERING EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT, MENTORSHIP, AND ENRICHING ACTIVITIES THAT CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE GROWTH OF OUR NEXT GENERATION.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE BURDENSOME SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ACT AS A FINANCIAL AND LOGISTICAL ROADBLOCK, IMPEDING THE SWIFT ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THESE VITAL PROGRAMS. THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING SUPS OFTEN STRAIN THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.

THESE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS DIVERT RESOURCES THAT COULD OTHERWISE BE DIRECTED TOWARDS ENHANCING THE QUALITY AND SCOPE OF AFTER SCHOOL SERVICES.

BY ELIMINATING THE SUP REQUIREMENT, WE CAN ENSURE THAT THESE NONPROFITS CAN ALLOCATE MORE OF THEIR FUNDS DIRECTLY TO THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT BENEFIT OUR CHILDREN.

THE SUP PROCESS IS ALSO HIGHLY SPECIALIZED AND CAN ALMOST NEVER BE COMPLETED ADEQUATELY WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS.

THAT CAN OFTEN COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS DOLLARS THAT HARDHOUSE HAS HAD TO SPEND IN THE PAST AND WILL HAVE TO SPEND IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CHANGE.

FURTHERMORE, THE EXTENDED APPROVAL PROCESS INTRODUCES UNNECESSARY DELAYS, PREVENTING TIMELY ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL AFTER SCHOOL RESOURCES.

OUR YOUTH DESERVE ACCESS TO THESE PROGRAMS WITHOUT UNNECESSARY BUREAUCRATIC OBSTACLES.

ELIMINATING THE SUP WILL STREAMLINE THE PROCESS, ENABLING PROGRAMS TO PROMPTLY RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND PROVIDE CONTINUOUS SUPPORT TO FAMILIES.

I URGE YOU ON THIS VALENTINE'S DAY TO SHOW THAT YOU LOVE THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITY AND SUPPORT THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I SEE TWO.

WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL TEND TO YOU JUST A SECOND.

BUT WE'RE NOT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

I THINK YOU'RE MY STAFF WILL GET WITH YOU.

WE'LL WE WILL SORT THAT OUT.

PLEASE STATE YOUR MR.

[05:50:02]

MAYOR. DALLAS CATHERINE, 2201 MAIN STREET.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

YOUR 2023 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY LISTED THIS AS A REALLY HIGH PRIORITY.

AND WHILE YOU KNOW I DON'T TAKE ANY REAL POSITION ON WHAT HAPPENS ON THE SINGLE FAMILY.

YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE HERE LIKE MR. WISEMAN AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.

OFFICE IS IN JUST THE WORST STATE IT'S BEEN, AND DAYCARE IS NOT ALLOWED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS SO THAT THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE, IN SOME CASES, NO TENANTS OR OCCUPANCY BELOW. YOU KNOW, 50% CAN MOVE THESE, YOU KNOW, DAYCARE FACILITIES IN I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE HAS ONE THAT'S LOCATED RIGHT ON THE DART LINE BY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND A BUILDING THAT'S COMPLETELY VACATED.

AND JULIET FOWLER, PEOPLE THAT ARE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WE NEED THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE ACTIVATED AGAIN.

AND SO IF THE SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX TOWNHOME PARK NEEDS TO STAY BEHIND FOR OTHER SCRUTINY, LET'S NOT WAIT.

I AGREE WITH MR. VINCENT THAT CS AND IRR ARE GOOD DISTRICTS FOR DAYCARE.

IMAGINE A LOGISTICS CENTER WHERE THERE IS NEXT DOOR.

YOU COULD BUILD A DAYCARE.

THAT'S A CLEAN GOOD USE.

MAYBE IM IS APPROPRIATE FOR, AN SUP, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE.

I'M NOT SURE IT NEEDS TO BE IN SINGLE FAMILY, BUT WE'VE GOT TO ACTIVATE THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS.

IT'S 25% OF DALLAS OFFICE SPACE IS UNOCCUPIED.

AND THAT DOES NOT COUNT ALL THE SUBLEASE MARKET.

SO PLEASE MOVE THIS FORWARD.

AND, AND PUT SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS BACK INTO USE FOR SOMETHING PEOPLE REALLY WANT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I'M TOLD THAT MELANIE RUBIN IS VIRTUAL AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

MELANIE RUBIN.

OKAY. YOU MAY PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

3102 MAPLE AVENUE.

I REPRESENT A VENTURE THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF MANVILLE AND LA SIERRA, THREE BLOCKS NORTH OF WALNUT HILL LANE.

AND IT'S BEEN A DOCTOR'S OFFICE.

IT WAS MEDICAL SPECIALIST FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.

IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND THIS AREA AT MANDEVILLE.

YOU KNOW, NORTH OF WALNUT HILL TO, META ROAD IS A CONFLUENCE OF HOTELS, OFFICE BUILDINGS.

NOW THERE'S A 350 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT GOING TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.

AND WE HAVE MADE A LEASE WITH, CELEBRI, WHICH IS A 50 STORE CHAIN OF VERY HIGH QUALITY, NURSERIES, SCHOOLS THAT, TAKE KIDS FROM, 0 TO 12 YEARS OLD, FROM INFANCY TO 12 YEARS OLD.

AND THEY'VE GOT A WONDERFUL TRACK RECORD.

THEY'D BE A GREAT ASSET TO THE CITY.

THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE IN THAT AREA AT THE HOSPITAL, NORTH PARK, WHATEVER, WHERE ALL THEIR HUGE EMPLOYMENT, FACILITIES ARE THAT THIS IS A VERY HIGH END NURSERY.

IT'S A PERFECT USE IN THIS AREA THAT HAS SO MANY DIFFERENT USES.

AND JUST THE FACT THAT IT IT DOESN'T.

WE THOUGHT THAT THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED BY A MISTAKE WHERE THE CALL WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND WE'RE TOLD THAT THEY, WERE THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE ZONING.

SO IN THE BUILDING, THEY STARTED DOING CONSTRUCTION WORK, THE CONSTRUCTION.

THEY'VE GOT A 15 YEAR LEASE THERE.

AND THE THE, RETROFIT OF THE BUILDING IS JUST BEAUTIFUL.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY HIGH END SCHOOL.

AND THEY'VE HAD THE TIME.

THEY'RE WAITING YOUR TIME FOR THIS ANSWER.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CARL CRAWLEY, 2201 MAIN STREET.

MANY OF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN ME UP HERE FOR 25 PLUS YEARS.

AND MY TEN YEARS I WORKED AT THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND I HAVE.

AND YOU SEE ME HERE, OBVIOUSLY REPRESENTING THE DISD AND THE PLANO ISD AND THE A LOT OF ISD'S, AMONG OTHER CLIENTS.

AND ONE OF MY PASSIONS IN THESE 25 OR 35 YEARS IN MY PRIVATE LIFE, OBVIOUSLY, IS EDUCATION.

AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF EDUCATION IS EARLY EDUCATION.

OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED CHILDREN TO BE EDUCATED AND CARED FOR AT AN EARLY AGE.

AND THEN ANOTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP IS I'M A BIG ADVOCATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND YOU CAN CALL IT WORKFORCE, AFFORDABLE, WHATEVER YOU WANT.

[05:55:05]

IN 2020, WHEN A LOT OF US GOT TO STAY HOME AND I DIDN'T STAY HOME, BUT A LOT OF US GOT TO STAY HOME, THERE WERE STILL PEOPLE WHO DELIVERED OUR GROCERIES AND WORKED FOR AMAZON, AND WE BECAME A TERM CALLED ESSENTIAL WORKERS, WHICH I DON'T THINK WAS A TERM BEFORE THE PANDEMIC BUT BECAME A TERM IN THE PANDEMIC.

AND THOSE ARE ESSENTIAL. WORKERS USUALLY AREN'T PAID IN SIX FIGURES.

IT'S PROBABLY IN THE LOW 5 OR 4 WHATEVER, BUT THEY STILL WERE THERE EVERY DAY DURING THE PANDEMIC AND THEY HAD TO MAKE CHOICES OF DO I WORK? DO I, WHAT DO I DO WITH MY CHILDREN? IS IT AFFORDABLE FOR ME TO PUT MY CHILDREN IN DAYCARE? IS IT AVAILABLE TO PUT MY CHILDREN IN DAYCARE? AND I'LL HAVE TO AGREE WITH DALLAS.

I DON'T KNOW IF SINGLE FAMILY IS THE WAY TO BE.

I KNOW WHEN I WORKED HERE WE HAD DID SOME FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IT WAS A QUICK PROCESS.

IT WAS EIGHT WEEKS AND THE FEE WAS $500 AND IT'S NOT THE SAME NOW, BUT LET'S MOVE ON WITH THE MULTIFAMILY.

WE'VE WORKED FOR HARD HOUSE, WE WORKED FOR JULIA FOWLER'S.

WE WORKED FOR WHAT HERB JUST TALKED TO YOU ABOUT.

LET'S MOVE ON SO WE CAN GET SOME OF THESE CLEARED UP AND GET MOVING FORWARD.

HART HOUSE HAD TO COME BECAUSE THEY TOOK CARE OF KIDS IN THE NEXT APARTMENT OVER.

IF THEY JUST TOOK CARE OF THEIR KIDS, THEY WOULD NEED AN SUPP.

SO FOR THE CARING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY GOT PENALIZED.

SO LET'S FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THIS AND GET SOME DAYCARE AND GET OUR CHILDREN TAKEN CARE OF.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. IS MISS RUBIN ON THE LINE? OKAY. I'M TOLD SHE'S NOT MR. MAYOR. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU HAVE A MOTION.

I DO. I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE ZOE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

ONE CHILD OR ADULT CARE.

DAYCARE FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN MULTIFAMILY, RETAIL, CENTRAL AREA, MIXED USE, MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND URBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICTS BY SUP IN R, A, D, A, T, H, A AND C CH DISTRICTS AND SUP IS NOT REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIAL, DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE OR CLUSTERED HOUSING DISTRICTS.

WHEN THE CHILD OR ADULT CARE FACILITY IS OPERATED ON PROPERTY THAT IS OPERATED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR LOCATED IN A CITY REC CENTER. TWO REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING.

NONE EXCEPT THAT IN RA, DA, THA, AND CH DISTRICTS.

IF AN SUP IS REQUIRED FOR THIS USE, AN OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN THE SUP, OTHERWISE ONE SPACE PER 500FT² OF FLOOR AREA.

THREE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

WHEN, IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

A MINIMUM SIDE OR REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR USE IN OUTDOOR RECREATION AND BE, EXCEPT IN OUR ADA TO CH AND MH DISTRICTS.

PLACEMENT OF OFF STREET PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD WHEN PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 51, A-4.301B FOR NO MORE THAN 12 DAY HOME ATTENDEES UNDER THE AGE OF 18 OR 8 OVER THE AGE OF 18, INCLUDING PERSONS IN FOSTER CARE AND THOSE RELATED TO THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE OR THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD BY BLOOD.

MARRIAGE OR ADOPTION ARE PERMITTED AT ANY TIME IN THE OPERATION OF THIS USE.

FIVE, THE USE CHART CHANGED TO REFLECT PARAGRAPH ONE ABOVE.

POINT OF INFORMATION.

OKAY. HOLD ON. THERE WE GO.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. BUT BEFORE I LET YOU HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF INFORMATION? I WANT TO CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT HE MADE, BECAUSE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THERE OR NOT.

ALL RIGHT. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, MR. RIDLEY. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION.

THE AMENDMENTS THAT I PROPOSE TODAY ARE INTENDED TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF EXPANDING ACCESS TO CHILD DAYCARE AND SELF-DETERMINATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS.

CHILD CARE ADVOCATES WANT TO INCREASE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE, WHILE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATES JEALOUSLY GUARD THE RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT ALLOWING COMMERCIAL LAND USES IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

THESE CONFLICTING INTERESTS RESULTED IN A DIVIDED 8 TO 7 DECISION AT THE CPC TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

WE NEED A BETTER COMPROMISE.

I THINK THAT I HAVE ARRIVED AT SUCH A COMPROMISE.

AFTER MUCH STUDY OF THE ISSUE AND CONSULTATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND FIRST WHAT CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS.

[06:00:04]

CHILD CARE A DAYCARE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TODAY FOR UP TO TEN CHILDREN WITH NO SUP.

IT'S ALSO PERMITTED IN CHURCHES.

IT IS NO SUP IS REQUIRED IN CHS OR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.

SCHOOLS PROVIDE PRESCHOOL AFTER AGE OF THREE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE BY RIGHT, AND ADULT DAYCARE IS ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITHOUT AN SUP UP TO FOUR INDIVIDUALS.

STAFF HAS PRESENTED NO DATA TO JUSTIFY MAJOR OVERHAUL OF OUR CURRENT SUP SYSTEM.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DATA ON THE SIZE OF THE GAP BETWEEN THE NEED AND CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES, ONLY ANECDOTAL.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DATA ON THE CAPACITY UTILIZATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES.

ARE OUR DAYCARES FULL TODAY? WE DON'T KNOW. THERE HAS BEEN NO DATA THAT THE SUP PROCESS REDUCES THE SUPPLY OF DAYCARE POSITIONS, AND THERE'S NO DATA THAT ELIMINATING AN SUP REQUIREMENT WILL RESULT IN MORE DAYCARE FACILITIES.

INDUSTRY ADVOCATES AGREE THAT INSUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF DAYCARE WORKERS AND THEIR COST ARE THE LARGEST OBSTACLES TO EXPANDING AFFORDABLE DAYCARE. THAT IS THE REAL BARRIER THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY.

CURRENTLY, THE CITY PROVIDES INCOME QUALIFIED CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES THROUGH THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CARE TO THE TUNE OF $650,000.

NOW, THAT WILL INCREASE BY OVER 100% TO 1.3 MILLION IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES.

AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, A STAFF RECOMMENDED TRANSFER OF CDBG FUNDS FROM COMMUNITY COURTS TO CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES.

IN ADDITION, AS WE'VE HEARD EARLIER TODAY IN OUR ITEM TWO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF A 100% PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION, APPROVED TODAY WILL ALSO HELP SUBSIDIZE CHILD CARE FACILITIES.

THOSE SUBSIDIES GET TO THE ROOT CAUSE BY INCENTIVIZING DAYCARE IN AREAS OF GREATEST NEED.

THE BALANCE THAT I PROPOSE ALLOWS REASONABLE EXPANSION OF DAYCARE CAPACITY BY RIGHT.

IT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF CHILD CARE ATTENDEES ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FROM 10 TO 12, AS RECOMMENDED BY CPC AND STAFF, AND ALLOWING THEM IN MULTIFAMILY AND IN ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.

IT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF ADULT CARE ATTENDEES ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FROM FOUR CURRENTLY TO TWICE THAT AMOUNT.

EIGHT IT ALLOWS THE CONTINUATION OF DAYCARE IN CHS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. FOR CLARIFICATION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I READ INTO MY MOTION UNDER ITEM ONE.

THE FINAL SENTENCE BY RIGHT, WITH APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR IN INDUSTRIAL AND CSE DISTRICTS.

YOUR POINT OF INFORMATION IS SUSTAINED, CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ.

I'M JUST KIDDING. INCREASING.

NO PARKING REQUIREMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND CPC IS WIDELY REJECTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

AND THEREFORE I PROPOSED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT UNLESS AN SUP WAS REQUIRED, AND THEN ONLY IF THE SUP PROVIDES FOR A PARKING REQUIREMENT.

IF THEY DO NOT IN THE SUP, THEN IT DEFAULTS TO 1 TO 500FT².

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN GIVE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR YARD FOR ACCESSORY RECREATION STRUCTURES PER CPC AND STAFF, BUT NOT IN FRONT YARD, AND PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD WILL BE ALLOWED EXCEPT IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

CHAIRMAN SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, BEFORE THAT, CAN I GET MY POINT OF CLARIFICATION BEFORE MY TIME STARTS? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.

MR. RIDLEY. DID YOU INCLUDE THE AA AND THE MHA? DISTRICTS IN YOUR IN NUMBER ONE ON YOUR FIRST CHANGE? YES. DID YOU INCLUDE THE AA AND THE MHA? AA AA AA THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.

THAT IS NOT IN MY MOTION.

SO IT'S SO IT IS NOT.

THEY WOULD NOT THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT BY RIGHT TO HAVE A DAYCARE FACILITY WITHOUT AN SUPP.

AND NOW YOU'RE GOING ON THE CLOCK.

I'M WAIT I YEAH, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT I MEAN EVEN FOR CLARIFICATION OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE SAID.

[06:05:07]

OKAY. WELL.

FINE, FINISH IT OUT.

BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY.

I NORMALLY MAKE THEM USE THE QUESTIONING PART OF THIS AGAINST THEIR TIME, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY.

I'M TRYING. IT'S IN THE SHEETS THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE WITH THAT SHEET.

I'M SORRY. WE DON'T HAVE THAT SHEET.

YOU KNOW, WE SELECTIVELY GIVE OUT SHEETS AROUND HERE.

OKAY. IT'S JUST GETTING OLD.

OKAY. KIDDING. I'M JUST KIDDING.

I'M JUST KIDDING. I MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. BEFORE I MAKE AN AMENDMENT, I'M GOING TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF STAFF, IF I MAY.

AND NOW MY TIME MAY START.

IF YOU MAY, IF. THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO CALL UP DOCTOR UDREA, PLEASE.

I'M TRYING TO. I'M TRYING TO SIT DOWN SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE ME.

OKAY? SURE. DOCTOR UDRE COULD YOU SHARE THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT SERVES OUR EQUITY AGENDA? SURE, I HAVE A LONG EXPLANATION, SO YOU CAN THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S A LOT TO SAY.

I WILL TRY TO MAKE AN EQUITY CASE.

I WILL TRY TO MAKE A SOCIAL CASE.

I WILL TRY TO LUMP ALL THE THINGS THAT I HAVE TO SAY.

SO, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF EDUCATION SINCE YOU DECIDED TO HOLD THE ITEMS. WE EDUCATED OURSELVES.

WE ENGAGED WITH THE, WITH THE EXPERTS, WITH THE PROVIDERS.

WE ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY WE LISTEN TO, THE CONCERNS AND THE FEARS.

WE'VE DONE A LOT SINCE DECEMBER.

SO WE ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE EDUCATED AND SOME THINGS, SOME DATA SURFACED THAT PROBABLY WE DIDN'T, EMPHASIZE UPON IN DECEMBER.

THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT THERE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL, FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES IS THAT THEY ARE TEMPORARY, THEY ARE BASED ON THE LOCATION, AND THEY ARE TYPICALLY TYPICALLY SHORT LIVED BECAUSE THEY NEED THE DEMAND.

RIGHT. SO I WOULD SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF I WORK IN DOWNTOWN AND I LIVE IN WEST DALLAS, I NEED A DAYCARE, USUALLY ON MY ROUTE, BEFORE WHERE BETWEEN WHERE I LIVE AND WHERE I WORK.

THIS TYPE OF SUPPORT SERVICES MAY TAKE MANY FORMS, BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING CENTER FACILITY OR A DESTINATION CENTER THAT ATTRACTS CUSTOMERS, WHICH ARE SOPHISTICATED OPERATORS THAT CAN NAVIGATE THE SUB PROCESS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD, SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD OPERATE TYPE OF FACILITIES THAT ARE FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT IN-HOME CENTERS THAT CAN OFFER A WIDE VARIETY OF THEIR TO, CERTIFIED.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT QUALITY EDUCATION OPTIONS FOR CHILDREN.

AND ALSO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVICES FOR THE ADULTS.

WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO, SUPPORT AND ADDRESS WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT ARE THOSE SMALL CENTERS, SMALL FACILITIES THAT ARE LIKE UNDER 100, I WOULD SAY THAT CAN GO AND FIND AN EMPTY CHURCH.

THEY CAN GO AND FIND OR PAIR WITH A REC CENTER.

THEY CAN PAIR WITH A AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL AND VACATED.

THEY NEED TO OCCUPY SOME VACANT BUILDINGS.

THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE WANTING AND THAT'S WHAT THE SUP IS HURTING THEM.

THE SUP IS NOT HURTING SOMEBODY WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUILD A NEW CENTER, BECAUSE USUALLY, AGAIN, WE HAVE AROUND 450 CENTERS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

BELIEVE ME, I LOOKED ALMOST AT ALL OF THEM.

USUALLY THE BIG ONES HAVE PDS, THEY HAVE PERMANENT SUPS.

THEY KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.

THE ONES THAT ARE SMALLER, THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE TEMPORARY.

THE ONES THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS TALKING ABOUT, LIKE WE HAD A DAYCARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN THERE WERE NO KIDS.

THE DAYCARE WENT AWAY, YES, BUT IT HAD AN SUP PROCESS ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

I WILL SWITCH A LITTLE BIT THE LENS FROM THE OPERATOR TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE'RE TALKING AS, A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY WAS TALKING ABOUT, FOR BOTH SIDES, A GROUP OF VULNERABLE PEOPLE WHO HAVE, WHO MUST HAVE OPTIONS THAT ARE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED AND ACCESSIBLE.

THE GROUP OF VULNERABLE PEOPLE IS NOT JUST THE CHILDREN AND THE ADULTS THAT ARE SERVED, IT'S ALSO THE WORKFORCE.

THIS IS THE ANGLE THAT WE BASICALLY GAINED SINCE DECEMBER.

THE STRAIN THAT THIS THE LACK OF SERVICES CONVENIENTLY LOCATED PLACES ON THE WORKFORCE.

I'M NOT GOING TO USE MY EXAMPLE AS A WORKING MOTHER.

BUT FOR INSTANCE, I WOULD SAY THEY HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THE WORKFORCE, ESPECIALLY THE VULNERABLE ONE FIRST GENERATION IMMIGRANTS, SINGLE

[06:10:07]

PARENTS, TRANSPLANTS WHO DON'T HAVE IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO HELP THEM WITH ANY OF THE, THE NEEDS THAT THEY HAVE.

BUT ALSO THEY NEED THE JOBS AND THEY HAVE LOW PAYING JOBS.

THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE A 30 MINUTE DETOUR TO GO TO THE CENTER THAT THEY CAN AFFORD.

THEY NEED THE CONVENIENCE OF THE LOCATION.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH THIS.

A LOT OF THE DATA YOU HEARD FROM THE FROM THE, SPEAKERS, I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT THAT, BUT THIS IS BASICALLY I'M TRYING TO, LIKE, SHED A LITTLE BIT MORE ANGLES TO THIS. THIS GROUPS USUALLY THE I WILL GO TO THE AGING GROUPS.

THEY PREFER TO, BE LOCATED IN COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE AS THE SPEAKERS WERE, WERE SAYING, THEY PREFER THEIR CONVENIENCE TO LIVE CLOSE TO THEIR FAMILIES AND THEN THEIR FAMILIES ARE WORKING.

RIGHT. WE TALKED TO OPERATORS THAT TOLD US.

THAT THEY HAVE. WAITING LISTS THAT ARE VERY LONG FOR ADULT DAYCARES IS THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICE THAT THEY ARE.

WAITING LIST THAT THEY HAVE FOR CHILDCARE FACILITIES IS STILL 1 TO 3.

THEY SAID THEY RECEIVED 1 IN 3 CALLS THAT THEY CANNOT ADDRESS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PLACES IN ADULT DAYCARES.

IT'S THE SAME WITH CHILDCARE FACILITIES.

THE NEED IS THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT WE DON'T KNOW THE CAPACITY.

WE KNOW THE CAPACITY THAT IS LICENSED IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO LIFE.

CAN YOU AFFORD THAT? LIKE, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW HOW MANY KIDS ARE ACTIVELY ENROLLED IN A DAYCARE AS A MOTHER, PROBABLY YOU ALL OR PARENTS WITH KIDS.

YOU ALL KNOW YOU START THE CLASS WITH THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN.

SOMETHING HAPPENS.

YOU LOSE SOME, YOU GAIN SOME.

NEXT YEAR. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

THAT'S THE NATURE OF LIFE.

WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY.

IT'S GOING TO BE 50 KIDS IN HERE.

WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WE CAN SERVE THE COMMUNITIES.

ANOTHER BIG POINT, ANOTHER BIG POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.

RESIDENTIAL USES AND THIS TYPE OF SERVICES, THESE ARE NOT COMPETING.

THESE ARE COMPLEMENTARY, THESE WORK IN SYMBIOSIS.

ME, WHEN I LIVE WHERE I LIVE IN MY HOME, I ALSO NEED CARE FOR MY KIDS OR FOR MY ELDERS, THE SAME AS I NEED MY WORK, RIGHT? THE SAME AS I NEED MY JOB.

IT'S REALLY HARD TO.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT BELONG IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

THERE ARE SERVICES THAT NEIGHBORHOODS NEED THE SAME, THAT THEY NEED A REC CENTER THE SAME, THAT THEY NEED A CHURCH.

ALL OF THESE COME TOGETHER TO MAKE A COMMUNITY WHOLE.

AND THAT'S AGAIN ANOTHER MESSAGE THAT WE WANT TO SEND WITH THIS CODE AMENDMENT TO SAY A NEIGHBORHOOD IS MORE THAN JUST A HOUSE.

IT'S ALSO WORKS IN SYMBIOSIS WITH THE USES THAT MAKE THE COMMUNITY COMPLETE.

AND AGAIN, I NEED MY PLACE OF WORSHIP.

I NEED THE PLACE WHERE I SEND MY KIDS TO SCHOOL.

I NEED A PLACE WHERE I SEND MY KIDS TO A TRUSTED DAYCARE.

I WILL SWITCH TO SUBAPPLICANTS.

HALF OF THEM ARE WOMEN OF COLOR.

MOST OF THEM ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CHURCHES.

THEY ARE COMING TO OCCUPY EITHER A VACANT CHURCH OR A CHURCH THAT BASICALLY IS NOT OPERATED BY THE CHURCH.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO.

YES, THEY ARE APPROVED, BUT WE SEE THE ONES THAT DON'T MAKE IT.

WE SEE THE ONES THAT DON'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WE SEE.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

WE HAD ONE LAST YEAR.

SHE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IT TOOK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS BECAUSE IT TAKES FEW ROUNDS OF REVIEW TO REVIEW THESE SUBS.

SHE CAME IN HERE, HER LANDLORD CHANGED HIS MIND.

HE ASKED FOR THE DENIAL.

IT WAS DENIED AND SHE NEEDED TO START AGAIN.

SHE CAME IN TEARS. SHE SAID IN MAY, I NEED TO OPEN, OTHERWISE I LOSE MY ENROLLMENT.

I CANNOT WAIT SO MUCH.

WE DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HELP HER.

IT WAS A TOTAL OF ONE YEAR BECAUSE OF AN SCP REQUIREMENT, AND SHE JUST MOVED FROM A CHURCH TO ANOTHER CHURCH.

THESE ARE REAL STORIES THAT WE DON'T SEE.

WE DO BECAUSE WE WORK WITH THESE OPERATORS AND THEN WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE SERVING.

THEY ARE SERVING USUALLY VULNERABLE KIDS.

THEY'RE GOING IN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.

THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE SOMEBODY TO DRAW A SITE PLAN FOR THEM.

WE KNOW THOSE STORIES.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER PLEA THAT I WILL MAKE.

IT PLAYS A ROLE.

IF YOU ARE ASKING US ANOTHER THING, YOU'RE ASKING US TO.

I HEARD THE COMMUNITY SAYING, WELL, EASE UP THE SUB PROCESS.

WE CAN'T.

WE OFFER NOTICE PER CODE COMPARED TO WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES.

I CAN'T FOUR MONTHS MEANS AROUND THE NOTICES FOR CPC, AROUND THE NOTICES FOR CITY COUNCIL.

WHERE WOULD I CUT? I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

THIS IS US TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR THESE SERVICES TO SERVE THE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, FOR THE COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A PROPER CHILDCARE FACILITY IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PARTNER WITH THE CHURCH, PARTNER WITH THE REC CENTER, PARTNER WITH A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER

[06:15:04]

AND TAKE THOSE SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

AND RIGHT NOW, PROBABLY THEY ARE VACANT AND THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU DO, YOU NEED AN SOP.

SO THIS IS WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM.

PROBABLY I MISSED A LOT OF POINTS.

I HAD A LOT. BUT THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME.

AND I KNOW I DON'T HAVE A TIMER, SO IT'S NOT FAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M GOING TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A REMARK ON THIS AND THEN I'LL MAKE MY AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY HAS WORKED VERY, VERY HARD ON THIS.

SOME OF US HAVE WORKED VERY, VERY HARD ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE TO REMOVE THE SUP REQUIREMENT ENTIRELY.

I THINK THERE ARE TIMES IN OUR LEADERSHIP WHEN WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IF WE HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT TO OUR FOR OUR CITY OR SUCCUMB TO PEOPLE'S FEARS.

THERE'S A DESPERATE NEED FOR CHILD CARE AND A GROWING NEED FOR ADULT DAYCARE.

THERE ARE 60,000 CHILDREN OF ALL INCOMES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY.

THEY'RE IN DESPERATE NEED OF EDUCATION, BEGINNING AS YOUNG AS THREE MONTHS.

WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.

THE IMPACT ON THE YOUNG BRAIN.

THIS ISN'T JUST BABYSITTING.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CARING FOR THE AGING IS GROWING EVERY YEAR, WITH 80% OF CAREGIVERS BEING FAMILY MEMBERS WHO NEED A PLACE NEAR THEIR HOME, THIS IS A SMALL STEP.

IT'S A COMPROMISE.

I BELIEVE THAT DALLAS IS BUILT ON BRAVERY AND NOT FEAR.

I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO REMOVE THE SOP REQUIREMENT ENTIRELY, BUT I THINK THE COMPROMISE CRAFTED IS A WIN WIN, AND I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO JUST MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A WIN FOR EVERYONE.

AND THAT IS ON ITEM FOUR, WHERE IT SAYS NO MORE THAN 12 DAY DAY HOME ATTENDEES UNDER THE AGE OF 18 OR OVER EIGHT OVER THE OVER THE AGE OF 18.

I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT TO 12 OVER THE AGE OF 18 SO THAT IT'S THE SAME FOR CHILDREN AND FOR ADULTS.

AND WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST, FAMILIES.

THIS IS MY MOTION. IS THERE IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, I DIDN'T YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO CONTINUE ON THIS NOW.

THANK YOU. AND I RESTART.

I'M SORRY. HOLD ON A SECOND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR CLOCK GETS RESTARTED.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

AND THEN THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE TO THIS IS REGARDING THE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUP THAT IT SAYS, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. DID YOU SAY ANOTHER AMENDMENT YOU WANT TO MAKE TO IT? I'M TRYING TO MAKE ONE AMENDMENT TO HIS AMENDMENT.

OH. I'M SORRY. OKAY.

WE NEEDED YOU TO MAKE THEM ALL IN ONE AMENDMENT, AND THEN WE CAN GET A SECOND FOR IT.

I'M SORRY, BUT BUT BUT WHAT YOU GOT TO DO IS YOU GOT TO CUT OUT ANYTHING THAT'S IN THERE THAT IS, THAT'S ADVOCACY.

OKAY? THIS IS WE NEED THE FACTS OF WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES SO WE CAN GET A SECOND FOR IT OR NOT.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT'S JUST SO DISJOINTED.

THE AMENDMENTS. I UNDERSTAND FROM HIM.

OKAY. HELP ME OUT, THOUGH.

OKAY? OKAY.

I'M TRYING. OKAY.

ON ITEM FOUR, IT WOULD SAY OR 12 OVER THE AGE OF 18.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

LATER INQUIRY. COULD THE MOTION BE SET AS A COMPLETE SENTENCE LIKE I MOVED TO BLANK.

I'M JUST HAVING A HARD I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE'S TRYING.

I'M TRYING TO INSERT THINGS.

SO IF THE ENTIRE YEAH, YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE, I JUST, I'M TRYING TO GET HER TO BETWEEN ALL THE PIECES OF PAPER, SHE HAS TO GET OUT WITHOUT ANY ADVOCACY IN THERE, JUST WHAT IT DOES SO WE CAN GET A SECOND FOR THAT OR NOT.

SO I'M JUST SAYING IT'S CONFUSING, SO I'M NOT SURE SHE'S INSERTING.

OKAY, I MOVE THAT.

WE AMEND THE MOTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS ON ITEM FOR 12 OVER THE AGE OF 18.

AND ON.

IT'S NOT NUMBERED, BUT IT SAYS.

SAYS AN SUPP IS NOT REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIAL, DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE OR CLUSTERED HOUSING DISTRICTS WHEN THE CHILD OR ADULT CARE FACILITY IS OPERATED ON PROPERTY THAT IS OPERATED OR WAS PREVIOUSLY OPERATED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL, OR RECREATION CENTER.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO LAY THAT OUT.

AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE WHAT I WAS DOING.

SIR, THANK YOU, IS TO ADD THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL AND EQUALIZE THE ADULTS FROM THE CHILDREN, ALL TO BE THE SAME NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S ALL I'M DOING. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN MR. RIDLEY'S MOTION IS ACCEPTABLE TO ME.

IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE FOR THIS DESPERATE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY, CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ.

I WANT TO JUST SAY CLARIFICATION FOR THE I THINK THE AUDIENCE FOR ME, WHAT WAS CPC'S RECOMMENDATION? WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED FOR CPC'S RECOMMENDATION? WHAT'S THE IMPACT HERE? AND AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE.

[06:20:01]

LIKE AND SUCCINCT, PLEASE.

SURE. SO CBC'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ALLOW THEM BY RIGHT IN, INCLUDING IN OUR DDH. AND THEN CBC'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO HAVE AN SCP IN INDUSTRIAL AND CS OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T.

OKAY, SO NOW WITH THIS NEW IF WE ACCEPT THIS AMENDED COMPROMISE, AMENDMENT, IT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE SUP.

IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE SUP.

IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT IN RELIGIOUS FACILITIES.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

AND REC CENTERS.

OKAY, THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGE.

THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE TO SAY THAT THE SCP WILL ESTABLISH THE PARKING, WHICH IS I DON'T SEE IT AS A CHANGE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT IS IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

THE OTHER CHANGE IS YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S MOTION.

THAT'S RIGHT. ONLY THE AMENDMENT.

I'LL STOP. OKAY.

ON THE AMENDMENT.

ALL RIGHT, SO THEN THE.

I THINK I THINK I'VE GOT THIS.

SO THEN THE SO THE SCP REQUIREMENT ONE MORE TIME IT WOULD BE FOR IT WOULD BE FOR BASICALLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT SOMEONE'S TRYING TO CONVERT OR A NEW FACILITY, THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

RIGHT. YES.

AND OTHERS. LIKE THERE ARE OTHER.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

THERE MAY BE OTHER TYPE OF FACILITIES THAT ALREADY EXIST IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY WILL NEED AN SUV LIKE IT HAPPENS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF A LOT.

THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT MAY HAPPEN AND THEY MAY LEAVE A BUILDING UNOCCUPIED.

BUT I THINK WE THIS MOTION CAPTURES THE ONES THAT ARE USUALLY ACCOMMODATING.

THIS USES. YOU ANTICIPATED MY NEXT QUESTION.

SO I WAS GOING TO SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DATA AND FACTS HERE AND WHAT THE NEED IS IN THE CITY.

LIKE WHAT YOU SAY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ONES THAT ARE EXPERIENCING THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUP PROCESS FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY THAT HAS MADE IT INTO THE COMPROMISE MOTION OF NOT NEEDING SUPS ANYMORE.

I WOULD SAY IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.

I WOULD SAY IT HELPS.

IT'S GOING TO HELP TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF THESE, EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE USED AS CHILDCARE OR ADULT DAYCARES.

GREAT. OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION, THOUGH.

IT SAYS OPERATED OR WAS PREVIOUSLY OPERATED.

OKAY. SO THAT OPENS FOR ALSO VACANT BUILDINGS THAT WERE CHURCHES.

THAT'S HELPFUL. AND I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE GOING AGAINST CPC'S RECOMMENDATION.

I MEAN, WE BRING IT UP UP HERE ALL THE TIME THAT THEY ARE OUR TRUSTED ADVISORS.

AND SO WHEN WE'RE NOT GOING WITHIN, I HEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS TODAY SAYING, LET'S NOT GO WITH CPC.

AND WE'RE IN THE PAST. THEY'RE LIKE, WHY WOULD WE EVER GO AGAINST CPC? SO LET'S JUST BE VERY CLEAR.

WE'RE WHEN THESE OTHER BODIES THEY ARE RECOMMENDING, THEY ARE RECOMMENDATION BODIES ONLY.

WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH THE WORK, BUT WE ROUTINELY THROW THEM OUT AND WE ROUTINELY USE THEM BASED ON WHATEVER FITS OUR NEEDS.

SO WE'LL MAKE THAT REALLY CLEAR AND I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE.

BUT I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS COMPROMISE MOTION.

I, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO MY NEIGHBORS.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT A BAD OPERATOR IN DISTRICT ONE.

I APPRECIATE MY NEIGHBORS OUT HERE WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT THAT.

AND, BUT IT IS A HUGE NEED IN THE CITY, AND I THINK THIS WILL HELP GET US THERE.

THANKS. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, WE'RE WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS SCHULTZ.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

MOST OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ALREADY COVERED BY MY MOTION.

AS I READ IN IN SUPP IS NOT REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIAL, DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE OR CLUSTERED HOUSING DISTRICTS WHEN THE CHILD OR ADULT CARE FACILITY IS OPERATED ON PROPERTY THAT IS OPERATED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR LOCATED IN A CITY REC CENTER, SO THAT WAS ALREADY READ IN.

IN ADDITION, EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS ALLOW THEM WITHOUT AN SUP IN A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL.

SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 4.204 PROVIDES IN THE DEFINITION OF CHILD OR ADULT CARE FACILITY THAT THIS USE DOES NOT INCLUDE AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ACCREDITED BY THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, ETC. THAT OPERATES PRIMARILY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES IN GRADES KINDERGARTEN AND ABOVE.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER PROVISIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS A KINDERGARTEN OR PRESCHOOL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM THAT IS OPERATED AS PART OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL OR A PRIVATE SCHOOL

[06:25:03]

ACCREDITED BY THE TO OR, AND THAT OFFERS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS THROUGH GRADE SIX AND DOES NOT PROVIDE CUSTODIAL CARE DURING THE HOURS BEFORE OR AFTER THE CUSTOMARY SCHOOL DAY.

SO THESE ARE NOT EVEN DEFINED AS DAYCARE FACILITIES.

THEY ALREADY ALLOW IN THE CONTEXT OF A SCHOOL AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY.

THE USE AS DAYCARE FOR PRESCHOOL, THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN SMP REQUIREMENT.

SO I SUBMIT THAT THAT IS REDUNDANT OF MY ORIGINAL MOTION.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT.

THE AMENDMENT IS SAYING THAT, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUP WHEN THE DAYCARE FACILITY IS IN A SCHOOL.

IS THAT RIGHT? IS.

THE AMENDMENT SAYS THAT IF.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ASKING FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND COUNCIL MEMBER REALLY IS CORRECT, BUT HIS IS A LITTLE BIT NARROWER THAN THE AMENDMENT.

THERE IS ALSO A CATEGORY LIKE IF THE SCHOOL LEAVES THE BUILDING REMAINS A CHILD CARE FACILITY CAN, COME AND OPERATE.

SO EVEN IF THE ISD WANTS TO OPEN JUST THE CHILD CARE, WITHOUT THE SCHOOL, THEY WOULD NEED AN SUPP WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ'S AMENDMENT.

THEY DON'T NEED THE SUPP ANYMORE.

OKAY, BUT RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE SUPS FOR ALL OUR SCHOOLS.

CORRECT? WE DO.

SO WHY WOULDN'T WE REQUIRE THE DAYCARE TO ALSO HAVE THAT SAME SUP IF IT'S THE SAME FACILITY? SAY IT'S A DIFFERENT OPERATION.

THEY ALREADY WERE THINKING THEY CAN ADAPTIVELY REUSE AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE ALREADY HAS PARKING.

IT ALREADY IS SITED LIKE THAT.

IT'S NOT THE SAME TYPE OF INTENSIVE TYPE OF USE AS A SCHOOL.

NONE THE ADULT OR A CHILD CARE FACILITY.

THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER SCALE, A SMALLER IMPACT TYPE OF OPERATION.

WELL, I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I'VE QUESTIONED AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, I'M SO LUCKY TO SIT NEXT TO COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY BECAUSE I'VE ASKED HIM A LOT OF ZONING QUESTIONS OVER THE YEARS.

AND I'VE ASKED HIM, WHY DO WE HAVE SHOPS FOR SCHOOLS? BECAUSE ONCE IT'S THERE, IT'S EITHER GOING TO STAY THERE.

I MEAN, LIKE, WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM KEEP COMING BACK? AND I OFTEN FOR THE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US, I EXTEND THAT SUP BECAUSE I'M LIKE, THIS DOESN'T NEED TO EVER COME BACK HERE.

RIGHT. SO BUT BECAUSE WE DO THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD ALSO DO IT FOR THIS FOR CONSISTENCY SAKE.

AND HIS ANSWER IS OFTEN, WELL, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH CARPOOL? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER THING, DAYCARE ALSO HAS CARPOOL.

AND YOU KNOW, YOU SAY THE INTENSITY OF THE USAGE.

BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, IN MY DISTRICT, THERE'S VERY SMALL SCHOOLS.

I'M THINKING OF ONE ON MAPLE SHADE.

I THINK IT ONLY HAS 15 KIDS IN IT.

IF IT CONVERTED TO A DAYCARE, IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME KIND OF USAGES.

AND I JUST I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T ASK FOR THEM TO ALSO HAVE AN SUP, OR MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THEM FOR SCHOOLS LIKE ONCE IT'S CITED.

WHY DO WE HAVE IT? THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT FOR THE SCHOOLS.

WE ARE COMING WITH A CODE AMENDMENT FOR THAT.

I PROMISE YOU IT'S ALREADY IN THE WORKS.

IT WAS MANDATED BY THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING A DAYCARE, CHILD CARE FACILITIES.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT MANDATORY TYPE OF EDUCATION.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME.

THEY DON'T ALL ARRIVE IN THE SAME TIME.

THAT'S WHY USUALLY LIKE THEIR DROP OFF IS BETWEEN 6 AND 9 OR TEN, WHEN WHEREVER IT'S ADJUSTED TO THE NEEDS OF THE PARENTS, IT'S THE SAME WITH PICK UP.

IT CAN BE BETWEEN 3 TO 7, EIGHT, NINE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE REGIMENTED, LIKE A SCHOOL.

YOU NEED TO BE HERE BY EIGHT.

THEREFORE, I'M GOING TO PAUSE AND JUST SAY I'VE HAD THREE CHILDREN IN DAYCARE.

THERE IS MOST CERTAINLY A CLUSTER OF WHEN PEOPLE COME AND GO AND THERE'S NO PARKING AVAILABLE.

AND I'VE LITERALLY THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY MANY YEARS AGO, SAT THERE WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO GO IN, DROP THEIR KID OFF SO I CAN HAVE THEIR PARKING SPOT.

SO I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID.

DID YOU SAY THERE'S 450 DAYCARES IN DALLAS? I WOULD SAY IT DEPENDS.

DO WE TAKE OUT THE ONES THAT OFFER ONLY AFTER SCHOOL? LIKE, IT'S A LOT OF SHADED, ON THE ON THE LICENSING FROM STATE.

SO I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY 450 FACILITIES.

IT MAY BE LESS JUST PURE NORMAL TYPE OF DAYCARE PROGRAM.

AND THAT INCLUDES DAY HOMES.

SO I HAVE TO PONDER THIS QUESTION WITH YOU.

SO PERSON AFTER PERSON HAS SAID, WOW, WE HAVE A DESPERATE NEED FOR DAYCARES.

YOU JUST GAVE A BIG NUMBER.

I LOOK AT THE POPULATION AND WE HAVE LESS AND LESS KIDS LIVING IN DALLAS, IN THE ACTUAL CITY, NOT IN THE METROPLEX.

[06:30:06]

AND WITH THESE LESS AND LESS KIDS, WE ALSO HAVE AN EVER EXPANDING FREE PRE-K PROGRAM IN OUR ISD'S.

OF COURSE, THERE'S ALSO PRIVATE PRE-K AND PRIVATE PRESCHOOLS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THIS IS HER AMENDMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, YOU KNOW, THIS ENTIRE IDEA OF PUTTING THEM IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS JUST GOES BACK TO THE IDEA OF TRYING TO PUT COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

AND I HOPE THAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM THIS COUNCIL, GUYS, WE REALLY DO HAVE TO REFRAIN FROM THAT.

YOU HAVE TO SNAP. THAT'S THE THING TODAY.

THAT'S THAT. THOSE ARE OUR RULES.

SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS LIKE, PLEASE ABSORB THESE COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE HEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AS YOU KEEP BRINGING THESE THINGS TO US.

I'M GOING TO SAY THEY DON'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

I DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP NEXT TO A KINDERCARE, BUT SHOULD MY NEIGHBOR WANT TO OPEN A DAYCARE? I THINK THAT'S LOVELY IN THEIR HOME.

I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL WHEN MY KIDS WERE YOUNGER, TO BE ABLE TO WALK THEM DOWN THE STREET TO SOMEONE WHO WAS TRUSTED.

I THINK THAT IS WONDERFUL, BUT IT'S ALREADY AVAILABLE BY THE STATE, SO, I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY HAS DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB IN NOT JUST RESEARCHING IT, BUT EXPLAINING IT TO EVERYONE.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT WORK.

CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES.

I'M SORRY. I GOT TO GO TO CHAIRMAN BAZALDUA FOR FIVE MINUTES FIRST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

AND, MISS MENDELSOHN, I'LL ALSO SUPPORT TAKING SHOPS AWAY FROM SCHOOLS.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT SOLUTION.

I THINK THAT OVERALL, THIS WAS A LOT OF WORK ON A LOT OF PEOPLE'S PART.

AND I'M VERY PLEASED AT, MR. RIDLEY'S, ATTEMPT TO TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT EVERYONE COULD GET TO.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF DETAILS THAT I WOULD, SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT FOR, THAT I DON'T THINK DOES REALLY ANYTHING TO THE OVERARCHING, INTENT OF WHAT THE MAIN MOTION DOES.

SO BY SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY'S. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY THAT SHOULD BE MADE VERY CLEAR.

IT'S STILL SUPPORTING EVERYTHING THAT MR. RIDLEY BROUGHT FORWARD.

SO I THINK THAT IT WAS SOMEWHAT MIS FRAMED TO, SPEAK AS IF THESE ARE, POLAR OPPOSITE OR, EVEN VERY DIFFERENT FOR THAT MATTER.

SO I'M SHOWING SUPPORT FOR THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE UNDERLYING MOTION IS REMOVING SHOPS FROM SINGLE FAMILY. SO I THINK THAT IT'S WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR HERE, AND WHAT AND WHAT IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED.

OVERALL, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE THE BURDEN OFF OF, WORKING FAMILIES.

I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO TO SPEAK ABOUT US BEING THE CITY CENTER OF A REGIONAL AREA.

SOME PEOPLE WHO WORK LOOK FOR DAYCARES CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WORK.

THEY MAY NOT LIVE IN THE CITY.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S DATA THAT COULD SUPPORT SAYING THAT WE HAVE ANY LESS OF A DEMAND WHEN WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DRAWING IN A WORKFORCE FROM SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES, AND THEY COMMUTE HERE AND BACK AND FORTH EVERY DAY, AND THEY NEED OPTIONS.

I WILL JUST BRING UP THAT.

I THINK THAT THERE IS DEFINITELY IRONY IN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL WEDNESDAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT I CANNOT MAKE IT, TO PICK UP MY DAUGHTER.

AND WE DON'T HAVE CHILDCARE WHEN I'M GOING TO BE HERE, AT LATE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU ALL SEE HER ROAMING AROUND THE HORSESHOE ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOONS.

BUT IT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THIS TOUCHES ALL WALKS OF LIFE.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC.

PARENTS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT CHILD CARE.

AND THE MORE OPTIONS THAT WE PROVIDE FOR THEM IS MEETING A NEED.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

AND AND I ALSO HAVE BEEN I'VE ACTUALLY I'VE WORKED AT, CROWDED DAYCARES AND I'VE ALSO HAD SOLICIT ONES THAT WERE MORE CROWDED.

AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A VALID POINT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MAYBE A RUSH AT, DROP OFF AND PICK UP.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S AN IMPORTANT FACT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DAYCARE FACILITIES.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AT HOME FACILITIES.

AND THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MOST OF, WHAT, 12 KIDS.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE 12 KIDS FROM TEN KIDS IN MATCHING STATE STATUTE IS SOMETHING THAT I AM FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE JUST AS MANY OPTIONS FOR OUR

[06:35:02]

AGING ADULTS WHO ARE DISABLED AS WELL.

THE ANYONE WHO IS CARING FOR AN AGING ADULT, OF ANY SORT, THAT HAS DISABILITIES AND IS A DEPENDENT IS JUST AS MUCH OF A BURDEN OR RESPONSIBILITY AS IT IS TO HAVE A CHILD.

AND I THINK THAT THAT, THIS IS A HUGE CHANGE TO OUR CODE THAT PROVIDES A BETTER PATH FORWARD, WITH MORE RESOURCES FOR CHILD CARE.

SO I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AND WITH THE AMENDMENT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ, WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW FACTS.

FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A REAL WIN, I THINK, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHO WANTED THEIR SELF-DETERMINATION BECAUSE THE SUP REMAINS.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO CLEAR UP A COUPLE OF FACTS.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE MORE THAN 700,000 PEOPLE ON WAIT LISTS IN 40 STATES BACK IN 2017, WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA GROWING EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

SO THIS NEED FOR THE ADULT CENTERS IS ESSENTIAL.

AND IN TERMS OF DALLAS, SINCE MARCH OF 2020, 11% OF DALLAS COUNTY, THIS IS THE WHOLE COUNTY THAT, THEY HAVE 645 CHILD CARE PROVIDERS THAT ACCEPT SUBSIDIES HAVE CLOSED PERMANENTLY FROM MARCH 20TH TO FEBRUARY 23RD, THERE WAS A DECREASE OF 487 LICENSED HOMES AND CENTERS, AND THERE ARE OVER.

CURRENTLY OVER 5400 CHILDREN ON THE SUBSIDY WAITING LIST, NOT TO MENTION ALL THE ONES WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY OR CHOOSE TO PAY CLOSE TO WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR THEIR MORTGAGE FOR CHILDCARE.

SO WE DO HAVE NUMBERS.

WE DO KNOW THE NEEDS. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS THIS AMORPHOUS THING THAT WE'RE JUMPING INTO.

WE HAVE THIS AND I HOPE YOU WILL ALL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

BUT THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK MISS SCHULTZ'S COMMENTS UNDERSCORE THE FACT THAT THE SUP IS NOT THE BARRIER FOR EXPANDED CHILD CARE.

IN FACT, IF SO MANY INSTITUTIONS FAILED, THEY EITHER ALREADY HAD AN SUP OR THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE ONE.

THEY FAILED FOR OTHER REASONS, NOT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET AN SUP.

THEY FAILED BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AFFORD TO DO BUSINESS ANY LONGER, BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO FOUND HIGHER PAYING JOBS, ETC.

FOR OTHER CAUSES.

BUT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ONLY REAL SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THIS AMENDMENT FROM MY MOTION, WHICH IS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF ADULTS IN DAYCARE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FROM THE EXISTING EIGHT LIMIT TO AS PROPOSED IN THIS AMENDMENT 12. I HAD SEIZED UPON THE NUMBER EIGHT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR ADULTS IN HANDICAPPED GROUP HOMES.

SO WE HAVE A PRECEDENT THAT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

EIGHT ADULTS ARE ALLOWED IN CONGREGATE CARE.

THAT IS, AN INCREASE OF 100% OVER THE CURRENT LIMIT OF FOUR, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO STATISTICS ON WHETHER WE HAVE UNMET NEEDS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, NOT IN 40 OTHER STATES AS TO WHAT THAT NEED IS, THEN THAT'S WHY I SAID IT AT THAT LIMIT TO ONCE AGAIN PROVIDE A BALANCE WITH THE INTERESTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS WHO MAY BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ADULTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH DEMENTIA, GETTING LOOSE AND WANDERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAUSING POTENTIAL RISK TO THEMSELVES OR MOTORISTS OR OTHERS.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I LIMITED IT TO EIGHT.

I WILL RESPECTFULLY WISH OF THIS BODY AS TO WHAT THAT APPROPRIATE NUMBER IS.

BUT IF WE SET IT AT EIGHT AND WE FIND THAT WE NEED MORE SPACE, WE CAN ALWAYS END.

AND IT'S NOT A THREAT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE CAN ALWAYS INCREASE IT LATER TO 10 OR 12.

CHAIRMAN NARVAEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN SCHULTZ.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR THIS PART ABOUT THE EIGHT VERSES 12, BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF LIKE, WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND EITHER ONE? ONE REASON IS WE NEED MORE PEOPLE NEED MORE OF THIS TYPE OF HELP.

SO I GET THAT AND I UNDERSTAND IT.

THE OTHER SIDE JUST SAID, THERE IS A JUST KIND OF A STATUTE NOT ON THIS, BUT ON, DISABLED PERSONS.

AND SO THIS IS A HARD ONE, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN ADULT WHO HAS, DEMENTIA OR ANOTHER TYPE OF ISSUE THAT'S AFFECTING THE BRAIN, I MEAN, THROUGH MY EXPERIENCES IS THAT PERSON NEEDS A TON OF LIKE, CARE AND WATCHING THEM

[06:40:05]

MAKING SURE THAT, WHEN EPISODES HAPPEN OR WHEN THEY DO, NO LONGER HAVE THEIR REGULAR STATE OF MIND THAT THEY DO WANDER, THEY DO GO OFF.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S ALL THE TIME, BUT WE DO HEAR IT.

AND I'VE HEARD FROM FOLKS WHO ARE CAREGIVERS THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT TAKES FOR ONE ADULT.

AND I DON'T WANT TO COMPARE CHILDREN TO ADULTS BECAUSE IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE HERE.

AND WITH ADULTS, MY FEAR IS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

CAN THE CAREGIVER THAT OWNS THE FACILITY INSIDE OF THEIR HOME REALLY TAKE CARE OF 12 ADULTS? NOW, WHO ARE THE ADULTS IN HERE? BECAUSE I'M HEARING DEMENTIA, BUT IS THAT THE ONLY, ISSUE THAT'S GOING ON FOR ADULT DAYCARE? CAN, CAN CAN STAFF EXPLAIN WHAT OLDER ADULTS ARE IN ADULT DAYCARE? ABSOLUTELY. AND WE ALSO HAVE OPERATORS HERE WITH US.

THEY CAN EXPLAIN WAY BETTER THAN ME.

THEY ARE ALSO LICENSED BY STATE AND THEY HAVE, REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF PER ATTENDEE.

IT'S AT LEAST 1 TO 1.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

SO SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE TALKING IF WE IF IF WE VOTE FOR THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, THEN THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW THERE'S 1 TO 1.

SO THAT MEANS THERE'S 12 ADULTS BEING CARED FOR AND 12 ADULTS TAKING CARE OF THEM.

HI. COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ.

JESSICA GALLISHAW. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY CARE.

SO, TO ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT YOU POSED ABOUT THE OTHER TYPES OF CARE THAT CAN BE PROVIDED, IT COULD BE CARE FOR ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE THING THAT WE COMMONLY SAW DURING OUR RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

OKAY, I'M GONNA PAUSE YOU.

SO THERE'S THEY COULD BE DISABLED.

AND IS THERE A STATE STATUTE THAT LIMITS THAT TO EIGHT? NO, NO. A CITY, I'M SORRY.

CITY LIMITS TO EIGHT.

IT'S A DIFFERENT USE.

IT'S GROUP HOME.

NO, THAT THERE IS ADULT DAY CARE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE DISABILITIES.

IT COULD BE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED CARE MEDICATION DELIVERY DURING THE DAY.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY MAY BE THERE JUST FOR DURING THE DAY.

THEY'RE NOT SPENDING THE NIGHT.

SO THERE ARE GROUP HOMES.

THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES.

ARE WE TALKING NOW? BUT THEY'RE GETTING REAL CONFUSED.

I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I'M GETTING REAL CONFUSED HERE NOW, WHICH IS MAKING ME LEAN TO STAY WHERE IT'S BEEN STARTED.

AND I'M TRYING TO. I'M TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERNIGHT CARE.

SO I'M SORRY, I DON'T PLEASE TRY NOT TO DEBATE ME WHILE I'M DOING THIS BECAUSE I'M ASKING STAFF AND STAFF JUST TALKED ABOUT OVERNIGHT CARE, SO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO FOR ADULT DAY CARE, DEMENTIA IS A VERY COMMON USE.

HOWEVER, ADULTS WITH ANY TYPE OF DISABILITY MAY RECEIVE CARE.

IT MIGHT ENABLE A MOTHER OF A DISABLED ADULT CHILD TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK DURING THE DAY WITH CARE FOR THEIR A DISABLED ADULT CHILD, FOR EXAMPLE, IT COULD BE A PHYSICAL DISABILITY, A MENTAL AND SOME SORT OF A MENTAL ILLNESS OR OTHER ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CARE.

IT MAY BE SOMEBODY WHO HAS AN ILLNESS THAT REQUIRES REGULAR, CONSISTENT MEDICATION DELIVERY.

SO THERE CAN BE ASSISTANCE WITH THAT.

SO IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA.

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THAT IS A COMMON EXAMPLE BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEEDS, BECAUSE THE CARE IS SO REQUIRED AND REQUIRES SO VERY MUCH. AND SO I THINK THAT WHAT ANDREA HAD STATED WHEN SHE WAS MENTIONING THE, RATIOS CAN OFTEN BE AS HIGH AS ONE ON ONE WHEN IT COMES FOR DEMENTIA CARE.

WE HAVE HEARD THAT, FROM SOME PROVIDERS, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL TYPES OF CARE.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU THAT THAT MADE EVERYTHING CLEAR THAT I COULD LISTEN TO ONE PERSON THAT I'M ASKING THE QUESTION TO.

SO THE NEXT THING I WANT TO KNOW IS, IF YOU'RE SAYING 12, IT COULD BE 12 1 TO 1, IT COULD BE.

IS THERE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF.

THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I'VE HEARD SO FAR.

1 TO 1 IS FOR SOMEONE WITH DEMENTIA.

WHAT ARE THE OTHER CATEGORIES AND WHAT DO THEY REQUIRE BY BY STATE LICENSING? SO THERE ARE SPACING AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC DETAILS FOR EVERY DIFFERENT LEVEL OF THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE TRIED TO RESEARCH THAT IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO REALLY KIND OF GET AN UNDERSTANDING ON.

I'M NOT SURE. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME PROVIDERS IN THE ROOM.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD GET SOME INFORMATION ON SOME OF THOSE SPECIFICS.

I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF HARD BECAUSE NOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE RIGHT HERE ABOUT TO WE'RE DEBATING SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ANGRY OR ANYTHING.

I'M JUST WANTING IT'S HARD TO SIT AND WAIT FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WHEN WE COULD BE VOTING IN TWO SECONDS.

[06:45:05]

RIGHT. SO, MR. DRE, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING WITH WITHIN THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT WE ALREADY CAN DO IN THE CITY? OBVIOUSLY WE CAN.

AND WHEN YOU'RE HAVING TO DO ZONING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT SHOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CARE.

I DO HAVE A LIST OF HOW MANY ADULT DAYCARES WE HAVE IN THE CITY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

NO, I KNOW BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE SHORT.

I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S NOT A I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO HELP THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ADULTS THAT ARE IN, IN ADULT DAYCARE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE IT'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHY 12 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER, EXCEPT FOR SHE WANTS TO IT TO MATCH THE CHILDREN. I SEE THIS AS VERY DIFFERENT ADULTS VERSUS CHILDREN.

MR. RIDLEY ALREADY SAID WHY HE PICKED EIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO GO WITH 12 OR DO WE NOT? SO I'M TRYING TO ASK, HOW MANY ADULTS DOES IT TAKE TO CARE FOR, THESE INDIVIDUALS.

AND I ONLY KNOW 1 TO 1 ON DEMENTIA.

AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS BECAUSE I, IT GIVES ME THE ABILITY TO THINK ABOUT VEHICLES, PARKING SPACES, BECAUSE THIS IS INSIDE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT MAKES IT A LOT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE WIDE ENOUGH STREETS LIKE IN WEST DALLAS.

WHEN I HAVE AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE, ACCESS, WHEN YOU HAVE ALLEYS THAT DON'T OPERATE, WHEN YOU HAVE OTHER TYPES OF THINGS IN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT JUST DON'T ALLOW FOR EXTRA TYPES OF PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO, DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.

I WOULD SAY THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM.

IT CAN BE FOUR, IT CAN BE FIVE, IT CAN BE EIGHT, IT CAN BE 12.

WE HAVE LOTS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ONE ACRE LOTS.

THERE ARE FIVE ACRES LOTS.

THERE ARE LIKE 5000FT².

SO IF YOU COMBINE ALL OF THAT WITH THE STATE LICENSING AND YOU REALIZE THAT IN YOUR HOME PER STATE LICENSING FOR THE TYPE OF CARE THAT YOU OFFER, YOU CANNOT FIT IT IN THAT HOME, YOU WON'T BE LICENSED.

SO THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF AS A MAXIMUM.

VERY GOOD. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER.

AND THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS LEFT FOR ME UNANSWERED.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO STICK WITH MR. RIDLEY'S. IT CAN BE LOOKED AT AGAIN IN TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS, SEE IF IT'S WORKING OR NOT.

THIS IS NOT STOPPING IT.

AND IT ACTUALLY INCREASES BY A 100% THE NUMBER OF ADULTS THAT CAN BE IN THE ADULT DAYCARE FACILITY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.

I THINK WE ARE TO A ONE MINUTE FOR YOU ON ON THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO CLARIFY IN THIS DISCUSSION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD ALLOW, ADULT DAYCARE AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AT THE EIGHT LEVEL OR AT THE 12 LEVEL, THAT AT THE EIGHT LEVEL, THAT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON LARGER ADULT DAYCARES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN SCP, WHICH ALLOWS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROVIDE INPUT ABOUT WHETHER 12 OR MORE IS APPROPRIATE, AND IT PROVIDES PUBLIC REVIEW THROUGH THE CPC AND THIS BODY, WHETHER TO GRANT AN SCP.

SO IF IT'S A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND THEY'VE GOT A HOME THAT'S REMOVED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE 30.

THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THE SCP PROCESS.

BUT I SET THE EIGHT LIMIT BECAUSE WITH THAT'S BY RIGHT THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER NOT TO EXCEED WITHOUT THE REVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS BODY TO DETERMINE IF MORE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND I'M TRYING TO STAY TO THE POINT NOW, THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS I CAN'T SUPPORT.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED BY MR. RIDLEY. I HAVE ENOUGH SENSE AT THIS LEVEL OF LIGHT AT THIS AGE TO KNOW THAT.

IN IN RESIDENTIAL WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOUP.

AND I'LL JUST ASK.

IT'S ABOUT A MANAGEMENT PIECE.

AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INCREASING NUMBERS, ESPECIALLY EVEN WITH SUP AND RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH SPACE.

AND YOU BEGIN TO ASK, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T PROBE INTO THAT, WHERE ARE THEY PUTTING ALL THESE FOLKS? SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO US, FOR THE RECORD, WHAT IS AN SUP BY THE CODE DEFINITION? WHAT MUST WE PROVE WHEN WE GIVE SUP? AND SUPP IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT IS SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

WHAT THE SUPP CONTAINS IS, A SET OF CONDITIONS AND A SITE PLAN.

THE SITE PLAN ONLY REGULATES THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

[06:50:03]

NOT THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS.

AND WE CAN PUT, CONDITIONS LIKE THIS IS THE USE.

THIS IS THE TIME FRAME.

YOU CAN SAY THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IF NEED BE, BUT JUST VERY LIGHT TYPE OF OPERATIONAL, OPERATIONAL TYPE OF CONDITIONS. WE TRY TO STAY OUT OF, CAP ON ENROLLMENT BECAUSE IT USUALLY CONFLICTS OR IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OR EVEN MORE PERMISSIVE THAT STATE LICENSING.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE ANYBODY.

SO WE YOUR LICENSED SUPP IS FOR WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AGAIN MAKE SURE THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING.

ARE YOU ACCESSING VIA THE ALLEY.

ARE YOU ACCESSING THROUGH THE STREET.

DO YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK? STUFF LIKE THAT.

CAN YOU COMPLY WITH ARTICLE TEN? IF YOU ADD WHICH IS LANDSCAPING, IF YOU ADD ANY LANDSCAPING, IT'S PRETTY HIGH LEVEL.

IT DOESN'T GET INTO THEIR OPERATION.

WE ASK FOR THEM TO GIVE US AN EXPLANATION OF THEIR OPERATION AND WE TAKE THEIR WORD.

ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE SUPP HAPPENS BEFORE THE LICENSING.

SO, BECAUSE IT'S AN UNKNOWN IT'S SUCH A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.

THEY DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.

THEY KNOW WAY MORE DETAILS THAT PERMITTING IT AT SEO.

SO WE ASK THEM, THEY SAY, YEAH, MY GOAL IS TO OPEN A FACILITY FOR 30 PEOPLE AND FOR 30 CHILDREN OR 30 ADULTS, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY MAY GO TO LICENSING AND THEY MAY SAY YOU CANNOT BECAUSE THERE ARE LIKE RATIOS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO THE SUPP IS NOT THE ONE THAT CAPTURES THAT TYPE.

WE TAKE THEIR WORD AS OPERATORS, AND WE TRUST THE STATE LICENSING AND THE SEO AND PERMITTING PROCESS AS WELL.

SO WOULD YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I'M READING? IT SAYS THE SUPP PROVIDES A MEANS FOR DEVELOPING CERTAIN USES IN A MANNER WHICH WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WOULD YOU AGREE TO THAT, TO THAT STATEMENT? ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD YOU ALSO AGREE THAT IT SAYS THAT REQUIREMENT FOR USE IN A DISTRICT DOES NOT? WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT.

THE REGULATION I THINK I WANTED TO GET TO MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO I THINK IF I COULD DIRECT THE QUESTION, MAYOR, BACK TO MR. RIDLEY, IF YOU WILL ANSWER IT, YOU CAN.

SURE. SUP.

WE'RE WE ARE STILL PUSHING FOR A REQUIREMENT OF SUPP IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT THIS MOTION? YES. FOR CENTERS THAT HAVE MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN OR MORE THAN EIGHT ADULTS, THEY WOULD REQUIRE AN SUPP SINGLE FAMILY.

IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S WHAT I WANT.

I'M STILL TRYING TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WE CANNOT.

I MEAN, IT WOULD BE JUST WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN POORLY PLANNED, NO ALLEY ACCESS, LANDLOCKED PARKING ALREADY ON THE STREET, ALL WE'RE DOING IS ADDING ANOTHER LAYER OF FRUSTRATION.

THEN THE FIRST THING FOLKS WANT TO DO IS CALL THE POLICE, CALL THE POLICE.

THEN YOU END UP FIGHTING AND ALL OF THAT.

I HAVE THOSE TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND SO WHEN YOU TRY TO COME IN AND PUT 12 KIDS IN A HOUSE BY WRITING THAT WE ALREADY KNOW OFF THE RECORD, BUT ON THE RECORD, BIG MOM IS ALREADY KEEPING SOME OF THESE KIDS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.

BIG MAMA. MAMA.

YEAH. EHMCKE.

DOOBIE. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

ALL RIGHT. BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, LET'S HAVE SOME REGULATIONS IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHERE WE ARE NOW, JUST THINK ABOUT THE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY THAT WE HAVE IN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. MY QUESTION IS, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT 12 KIDS? EIGHT IS A IS IT EIGHT BY LAW NOW IN SUPP IT'S TEN NOW, TEN RIGHT NOW.

AND I'M ALREADY PERPLEXED WITH THAT.

BUT BOTTOM LINE IS I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY. BUT BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOW, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO OPEN UP.

IF WE BEGIN TO ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS TO CONTINUE TO INFILTRATE SINGLE FAMILY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE BACK TO THE SHORT TERM.

NEXT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE T SHIRT BUSINESS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THESE BUSINESSES AND AND BEHAVIORS THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE MARKETED TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN THEY BOUGHT INTO THE PROPERTY OF SINGLE FAMILIES IN THIS CITY.

AND WE KEEP TRYING TO BAIT AND SWITCH.

AND SO I, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY. I APPRECIATE MY, MY, MY, MY CHAIRWOMAN'S SUPPORT FOR JUST TRYING TO GET FOLKS WITH SOME HELP.

BUT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE AT THE END IT'S GOING TO COME BACK.

JOHANNES IS A CITY IF WE DON'T GET THIS RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, BUT I WILL SUPPORT MR..

MR. RIDLEY. BUT I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER BEHAVIORS WITH CHILD TRAFFICKING AND DRUG USE IN THE HOMES, AND WE CAN'T LET FOLKS JUST GO WILD.

[06:55:02]

SO WE AT LEAST TRY TO GET SOME CONTROL HERE.

THANK YOU. I SEE YOUR LIGHT ON MR. RIDLEY, BUT ACCORDING TO ME, YOU'RE OUT OF ROUNDS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY HIS LIGHT'S STILL ON.

MADAM SECRETARY, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT? IF NOT, YEAH, I DO, I JUST WANT.

OKAY. YOU YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, CHAIRMAN GRACIE.

FIVE MINUTES ON THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.

THIS IS ON THE SCHULTZ AMENDMENT. I STAND.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE AMENDMENT. YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE.

OKAY, GREAT.

ALL RIGHT THEN.

ANY OPPOSED? I CAN'T TELL. WE GOT TO DO A RECORD VOTE.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE MAYOR JOHNSON.

YES, MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ARNOLD.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

MORENO. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACIE.

RESENDEZ. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. NARVAEZ.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN NO COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS, I THINK, IS TRYING TO LOG IN, BUT MAY BE ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED, ONE ABSENT, ONE VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO NOW I, PH ONE HAS BEEN AMENDED, AS MISS SCHULTZ AMENDED.

SO IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDED MOTION? CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, ARE YOU TRYING TO GET IN? YES. I DON'T SEE YOU ON THE ON THE QUEUE YET, BUT YOU WILL BE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE AMENDED PH ONE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN I READ MY MOTION AND REFERRED TO BY RIGHT, WITH APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR AND INDUSTRIAL AND CS DISTRICTS, THAT REFERENCE TO DIRECTOR IS A REFERENCE TO THE DIR PROCESS, WHICH I INVITE STAFF TO EXPLAIN. IT IS CALLED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

HOW IS THAT CONDUCTED? SO THAT IS A PROCESS THAT OCCURS AT PERMITTING OR AT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY LEVEL.

IT LOOKS INTO THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING OPERATIONS.

MAINLY IT REQUIRES A SITE PLAN AND IF WARRANTED, IT REQUIRES A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

IT IS REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

AND IT DOES HAVE A PATH FOR DENIAL.

IT ALSO HAS A PATH FOR APPEAL TO CPC.

IT'S A PROCESS THAT AGAIN OCCURS WITH THE PERMIT AND WITH THE OR AND OR WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROCESS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST PH ONE SEEING HEARING NONE.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS PH TWO.

[PH2. 24-150 A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan” to change the designation of Elam Road between Pemberton Hill Road and Jim Miller Road from a minor six-lane divided roadway in 100 feet of right-of-way [M-6-D(a)] to a special two-lane undivided roadway with a shared-use path on the north side of the roadway in 75 feet of right-of-way [SPCL 2U]; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize an ordinance implementing the change - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

PH TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 20860.

CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF ISLAND ROAD BETWEEN PEMBERTON HILL ROAD AND JIM MILLER ROAD FROM A MINOR, SIX LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY IN 100FT OF RIGHT OF WAY TO A SPECIAL TWO LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY WITH A SHARED USE PATH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY IN 75FT OF RIGHT OF WAY, AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZED AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ITEM PH TWO.

NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

WONDERFUL. IS THERE A MOTION ON PAGE TWO? SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM IS FX THREE.

[PH3. 24-149 A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan” to remove Crown Road from Newkirk Street to Farmers Branch City Limits; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize an ordinance implementing the change - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

FX THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 20860.

CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE.

PLAN TO REMOVE CROWN ROAD FROM NEWKIRK STREET TO FARMERS BRANCH CITY LIMITS AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZED AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

OH, I'M SORRY. I'M.

I'M SORRY. ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK? YES. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM FX THREE? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. WONDERFUL. IS THERE A MOTION ON FX THREE MEMBERS? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

[PH4. 24-151 A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan” to remove (1) Harwood Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard; and (2) Harwood Street between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Al Lipscomb Way; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize an ordinance implementing the change - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 20860.

CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO REMOVE ONE HARWOOD STREET BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD AND TWO HARWOOD STREET BETWEEN

[07:00:07]

MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD AND AL LIPSCOMB WAY, AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZED AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR, LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU, MISS BLACK, FOR BEING ON IT TODAY.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST IT? AWESOME. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

ITEM FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY 8004 WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE LP, AN AFFILIATE OF APRIL

[PH5. 24-352 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application by 8004 West Virginia Drive, LP, an affiliate of April Housing (Applicant) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for West Virginia located at 8004 West Virginia Drive, Dallas, Texas 75228; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its application to TDHCA for the development of West Virginia Drive - Financing: No cost consideration to the City ]

HOUSING APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, TD HCA FOR A 4% NONCOMPETITIVE, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR WEST VIRGINIA.

LOCATED AT 8004 WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75228, AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS APPLICATION TO TD HCA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR, IS THERE A MOTION ON PAGE FIVE? SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. ITEM.

[PH6. 24-349 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application by 13695 Goldmark Drive Owner, LP, an affiliate of Waterford at Goldmark, LP (Applicant) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (4% Housing Tax Credits) for Waterford at Goldmark located at 13695 Goldmark Drive, Dallas Texas 75228; and, at the close of the public hearing authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its application to TDHCA for the development of Waterford at Goldmark - Financing: No cost consideration to the City ]

PAGE SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY 13695 GOLDMARK DRIVE OWNER, L.P., AN AFFILIATE OF WATERFORD AT GOLDMARK LP.

APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TD HCA FOR 4% NONCOMPETITIVE, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR WATERFORD AT GOLDMARK, LOCATED AT 13695 GOLDMARK DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS SEVEN FIVE, 228 AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS APPLICATION TO TD HCA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATERFORD AT GOLDMARK.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON FX SIX? NO SPEAKERS. MISTER MAYOR, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE A MOTION.

I DO NOT ANYONE HAVE A MOTION ON PAGE SIX.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON PAGE SIX.

THANK YOU. I HAVE, SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, PLEASE.

IS THERE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CRIME RATE IN THIS AREA? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE OVERALL CRIME RATE IN THE AREA AT THIS PROPERTY.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME REPORTS LATELY OF, I GUESS THERE HAS BEEN A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT DOWN THE STREET.

IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN, THE CITY'S BEEN DEALING WITH IT FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THE HFC ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO, REDEVELOP AND RENOVATE THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AND SEE SOME MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ADDITION OF 24 HOUR SECURITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND SO THIS PROPERTY, I GUESS THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS OF DRUG USE AND THINGS BY THE UNHOUSED POPULATION NEARBY AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK.

THERE ARE NEEDS OF SOME MORE SUPPORT IN THIS AREA.

OKAY, SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T PULL THE CRIME FOR THE AREA WHEN YOU'RE EVALUATING THIS? IT'S PART OF A LARGER EVALUATION.

YOU KNOW, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CRIME, THE THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AND SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS.

YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE.

AND I THINK THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IT'S A IT'S A SENIORS PROPERTY HERE, AND IT'S, IT'S IN NEED OF SOME RENOVATIONS.

AND SO THIS RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION, IT'S THE FIRST STEP IN OUR EVALUATION PROCESS.

SO THIS IS JUST A JUST A GO AHEAD FROM THE CITY TO THE DEVELOPER THAT SAYS, YEAH, YOU CAN APPLY TO TDHCA TO GET THIS, THESE TAX CREDITS.

THE DFCC HAS NOT YET PARTNERED WITH THIS.

SO SO THERE WILL BE A FURTHER EVALUATION AND ON A MUCH DEEPER LEVEL, AND WE WILL WE WILL SEE BEFORE ANYTHING REALLY IS DONE.

WOULD YOU SAY THERE'S ALREADY A CONCENTRATION OF LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THIS AREA? I WOULD SAY THERE IS HOUSING THERE THAT THAT IS CATERING TO THOSE WITH WITH LOWER.

IS THERE ANY HOUSING THAT'S NOT LOW INCOME IN THIS AREA? BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS.

I MEAN, I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

I HAVEN'T DRIVEN THE ENTIRE AREA.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO I THINK THIS IS A CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

[07:05:04]

I'M WONDERING IF CHAIRMAN SCHULTZ HAS ANYTHING THAT SHE WOULD WANT TO ADD.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH.

THIS AREA, THE ESPERANZA AREA, THIS IS ON THE EDGE OF IT, WHICH IS PART OF AN OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING THROUGH THIS.

THIS IS A RENOVATION OF THIS PROPERTY.

SO IT WILL ACTUALLY BRING IT UP.

THERE'S ACTUALLY VERY LITTLE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING OVER THERE AT ALL.

IN FACT, THIS PROPERTY IS SISTER PROPERTY.

AND ONE MORE ARE THE ONLY SUBSIDIZED PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE ENTIRE ESPERANZA.

THE REST IS MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE.

WELL, YOU AND I BOTH HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY RICHARDSON ISD CONCERNS ABOUT GANG ACTIVITY IN THIS AREA.

I LOOK AT CRIME IN YOUR DISTRICT AS PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR, AND THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS, THE AREA THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THE CRIME IN YOUR DISTRICT IS IN.

AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT HAS THIS KIND OF, STRUCTURE.

IN AN AREA THAT MAY BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP DIFFERENTLY.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I SAW THAT AND I WAS LIKE, WOW, THAT'S OVER AN ESPERANZA.

THIS IS PROBLEMATIC FOR ME.

I AM NOT COMFORTABLE JUST SAYING, YEAH, IT'S NO PROBLEM.

LET'S JUST SEE IF THE DEVELOPER IS AWARDED IT AND THEN THEY COME BACK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT.

WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO APPROVE IT.

IN FACT, IN FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER NOT APPROVED A SINGLE ONE.

SO I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC TO IF I'M IF I MAY RESPOND TO YOUR CONCERNS.

AND DEFINITELY WE HAVE THOSE CONCERNS AS WELL.

YES. AND WE ALSO HAVE BEEN RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THAT AREA.

WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT BY THE HFC PARTNERING WITH THIS PROPERTY OWNER, WE CAN MANAGE IT BETTER WITH THEM, THEM DOING IT ALONE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ASSISTANCE FROM US.

THEY'RE THEY'RE ON THEIR OWN.

THEY'RE TRYING TO MANAGE THEIR OWN PROPERTY THE WAY THAT THEY DO.

AND WITH THIS PARTNERSHIP WE BELIEVE WE CAN HELP.

MID PARK IS NEXT DOOR.

THEY ARE ATTENTIVE.

THEY ARE RESPONSIVE.

THEY TOO ARE ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON THERE.

AND WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS WHO IS MANAGING AND MANAGING THE HOMELESS SITUATION AT THE PARK.

SO WE ARE IN WE ARE AWARE OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE THERE NOW.

WE ARE AWARE OF HOW THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WORKING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE HAVE BEEN, RESPONSIVE TO THE ISSUES GOING ON IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE THINK THIS WOULD HELP IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY. WELL, I JUST I'M GOING TO AGAIN SAY PUTTING LOW INCOME SENIORS IN AN AREA WHERE YOU'VE HAD DOUBLE YOUR MURDER RATE AND THAT'S WHERE THE MURDERS ARE.

I THINK THIS IS UNWISE, AND I THINK IT'S NOT HELPFUL TO THE SENIORS, AND I, I, I JUST WISH YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER SO I COULD VOTE YES.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? MAYBE. MAYBE I CAN SAY SOMETHING TO ADD A LITTLE MORE COLOR.

I MEAN, THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY EXISTING AND IT ALREADY IS A SENIORS PROPERTY AND IT ALREADY HAS A TAX CREDIT LURA ON IT.

SO IN TERMS OF ADDING AN AFFORDABLE PROPERTY THERE, IT'S ALREADY THERE.

IT ALREADY EXISTS. SO WE'RE NOT REALLY ADDING TO IT.

IT JUST IS AT THAT AGE WHERE IT'S GOING TO NEED SOME RENOVATION.

AND SO THIS TAX CREDIT PROGRAM WILL ALLOW THAT EXTRA INFUSION OF CAPITAL TO, TO ASSIST THE CURRENT OWNER TO REALLY BRING IT UP TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF, OF QUALITY OF LIFE. RIGHT. AND SO REALLY THIS IS ALL ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

WE'RE I MEAN, NOTED THE ISSUES IN THE, IN THE AREA.

I ACTUALLY DROVE IT PERSONALLY YESTERDAY.

I WALKED AROUND THE PARKING LOTS.

I KIND OF LOOKED AROUND TO SEE WHERE THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTING TO, TO BE COMMITTING CRIMES WERE, YOU KNOW, WE WE TAKE A PERSONAL INTEREST IN EVERY, EVERY PROPERTY THAT WE DO TRY TO PARTNER WITH.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR OUR RENOVATION PROGRAM.

IT NEEDS IT.

AND SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET APPROVED TODAY WHEN IT SCORED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

DO THEY CONSIDER CRIME.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT STORY WHEN IT SCORED AT THE STATE LEVEL? DO THEY CONSIDER CRIME? SO THIS ONE IS A 4% RENOVATION.

SO IT'S NOT A COMPETITIVELY SCORED APPLICATION.

IT'S JUST DONE AND DONE.

SO IF I CAN JUST ASK CHAIR SCHULTZ ONE MORE TIME, LIKE YOUR SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA? 100%. AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHY WHEN I WHEN IT'S MY TURN TO TALK, IF YOU LIKE.

OR I CAN USE YOUR TIME.

I THINK THAT'S I THINK SHE WANTS YOU TO USE YOUR TIME.

OKAY. HAPPY TO.

SO THIS AREA IS WITH ITS CHALLENGES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE MINUTES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE EQUITY MAPS AROUND OUR CITY AND YOU LOOK UP NORTH, THERE ARE VERY FEW AREAS THAT MATCH SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE FACED BY MY

[07:10:06]

COLLEAGUES IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST AREAS IN TERMS OF CRIME, IN TERMS OF CONCENTRATIONS OF POVERTY.

EVERYTHING THAT MISS MENDELSOHN CHAIR MENDELSOHN JUST MENTIONED.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE TO FIX IT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE TO INVEST IN IT.

JUST LIKE SOUTHERN DALLAS, THERE HAS BEEN ZERO INVESTMENT IN THIS PART OF TOWN, WHICH IS PRIMARILY MADE UP OF, POVERTY STRICKEN SENIORS AND IMMIGRANTS FROM MOSTLY FROM CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, WHO WE'VE HAD ZERO INVESTMENT OVER THERE.

AND SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROJECTS THAT I'M WORKING ON IN MY DISTRICT.

AND SO THE IDEA OF INVESTING IN A PLACE THAT HAS THESE SENIORS, RATHER THAN DISPLACING POOR SENIORS, I THINK IS EXACTLY WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING. AND AS OUR DIRECTOR SAID, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PUT EYES ON IT WHERE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO WE DON'T OTHER THAN AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT'S BEING PUT ON THROUGH OUR OFFICE OF INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY SOLUTIONS.

THEY ARE ON THE SCENE. WE HAVE A FULL TEAM WORKING ON CODE AND ALL THE AREAS OVER THERE.

SO TO SAY NO, BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A POOR AREA WITH CRIME, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I AM VERY PLEASED ABOUT THIS.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE CRIME, A LOT OF THE AREAS, BECAUSE THE CREEK NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, WORKED ON IN TERMS OF OUR HOMELESS POPULATION.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF RICHARDSON.

WE HAVE A FULL TEAM ON THIS.

AND SO EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN THIS AREA IS EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO TURN AROUND THE CRIME, TURN AROUND THE AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE, PARTICULARLY OUR SENIORS.

SO I SAYING NO WOULD BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE THING TO DO.

THANK YOU. DID YOU GET IT? WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE RESTROOM BREAK HERE, BUT I CAN, I CAN, I CAN STILL I CAN LAY ON THE PLANE FOR IF YOU WANT TO.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? WE'RE ON PAGE SIX.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

[PH7. 24-346 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application by TX Illinois 2024, Ltd. an affiliate of Generation Housing Partners, LLC (Applicant) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for HiLine Illinois located at 4710 West Illinois Avenue, Dallas, TX 75211; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its application to TDHCA for the development of HiLine Illinois - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM SEVEN.

ITEM SEVEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY TT ILLINOIS 2024 LIMITED, AN AFFILIATE OF GENERATION HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TD HCA FOR 4% NONCOMPETITIVE, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR HIGHLINE, ILLINOIS, LOCATED AT 4710 WEST ILLINOIS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75211, AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION BY APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS APPLICATION TO TD HCA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHLINE HIGHLINE, ILLINOIS.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? NO SPEAKERS. MISTER MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. OKAY.

ANY COMMENT? NO.

THIS IS MISTER WEST'S, AND HE HAD TO GO PICK UP KIDS FROM DAYCARE, SO, HE ASKED ME TO HANDLE IT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED.

AYES CARRIED. NEXT ITEM.

[PH8. 24-347 A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application by TX Tenison 2024, Ltd. an affiliate of Generation Housing Partners, LLC (Applicant) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for Tenison Lofts located at 3600 Samuell Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75223; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its application to TDHCA for the development of Tenison Lofts - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM FF EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY DT TENNYSON 20 202 FOR LIMITED, AN AFFILIATE OF GENERATION HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TD HCA FOR A 4% NONCOMPETITIVE, LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR TENNYSON LOFTS LOCATED AT 33,600 SAMUEL BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 75223 AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? NO SPEAKERS, MISTER MAYOR.

WONDERFUL. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU HAVE A MOTION.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SO MOVED. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MISTER CHAIRMAN, ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE. SEEING NONE.