Feb 12, 2025 City Council Agenda Meetings

>> MOTION. I'M NOT SURE I HEARD A SECOND.

>> THANKS, COLLEAGUES.

>> I HEARD A MOTION IN A SECOND. CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO JUST CONFIRM THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND THAT OUR CURRENT ST. JUDE'S AT COTON LBJ, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CYNTHIA ELIXON DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS CORRECT, COUNCILWOMAN.

>> THE ST. JUDES PROPERTY HOUSES APPROXIMATELY 200 FORMERLY HOMELESS IN SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, CORRECT?

[00:40:05]

>> ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DARWIN WADE.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 136.

>> WELL, GUESS WHAT? THE OTHERS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE 200 ARE ALL LIVING OUTSIDE THAT PROPERTY.

THEY'RE AT LBJ AND QUENTIN ON THE OVERPASS, THEY'RE ALONG THE HIGHWAY, THEY'RE IN THE STREET AND QUENTIN ON EVERY SINGLE DAY, AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLERS, ENCAMPMENTS, EVER SINCE THAT PROPERTY BECAME ST. JUDES.

WHEN IT WAS A COMPLETELY VACANT HOTEL, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS MANY ISSUES.

IT'S NOT IN MY DISTRICT. I DRIVE BY IT EVERY SINGLE DAY.

IT IS TERRIBLE.

NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES CALLS ARE PUT IN, HOW MANY TIMES I'VE SENT PHOTOS TO CITY STAFF, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY BEING ADDRESSED.

THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS ADDING ANOTHER HUNDRED UNITS.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THESE ARE SENIORS AND DISABLED, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T HAVE AN OPERATOR WHO'S GOT THAT PROPERTY UNDER CONTROL, AND IT'S BECOME A BLIGHT FOR THAT ENTIRE AREA.

I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.

THE LAST ITEM I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING RUN UNDER CATHOLIC CHARITIES NOW.

THEY'VE REPLACED CITY SQUARE AS OUR DOMINANT NONPROFIT FOR HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OTHER VENDORS.

THEY MAY HAVE REACHED THEIR CAPACITY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING IN OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A PROBLEM AT THIS LOCATION.

I REMOVED IT NOT TO ASK YOU ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

BUT WHEN I DRIVE BY IT EVERY DAY, AND WHEN I SEND PHOTOS, AND WHEN I SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON NEXT DOOR AND THE CRIME IN THE AREA, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE BUSINESSES ARE FLEEING THAT AREA, AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. THANK YOU.

>> MISS SCHULTZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 13.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M JUST FLABBERGASTED BY THE INACCURACIES OF THIS.

WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH ONE PARTICULARLY AGGRESSIVE PANHANDLER AT QUENTIN 635 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 635.

THERE IS NO HOMELESSNESS, AND IN FACT, I'D LIKE TO CALL UP CHRISTINE CROSSLEY TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF OUR EFFORTS IN THAT AREA.

MS CROSSLEY, FIRST OF ALL, COULD YOU SHARE WITH US WHAT IS HAPPENING AT QUENTIN 635 REGARDING HOMELESSNESS AND PANHANDLING?

>> YES. CHRISTINE CROSSLEY OFFICE HOME SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR.

THIS IS WITH MANY OF OUR OTHER CITY HOT SPOTS AS A MIXTURE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS AND WHO ARE NOT.

AND OUR BI-QUADRANT OUTREACH AND OUR CITY STREET OUTREACH AND HEART TEAMS ARE CONSTANTLY IN THIS AREA AS ARE THE CLEAN TEAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENACTING A BEHAVIOR CHANGE WITH PEOPLE THERE.

>> THANK YOU. TO MY RECORD, I KNOW IN OUR OFFICE, MAYBE DISTRICT 12 IS GETTING ALL COMPLAINTS, BUT DISTRICT 11, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS, IS NOT GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE AREA AROUND ST. JUDES.

THERE IS NONE. IN FACT, THAT'S ALSO RIGHT WHERE COSTCO IS, AND COSTCO, BELIEVE ME, WOULD BE CALLING IF THERE WERE PROBLEMS OVER HERE.

SO OUR OFFICE IS UNDERSTANDING.

I GUESS YOU TAKE QUENTIN ROAD TO WORK. I DON'T KNOW.

BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM ANYWHERE AROUND ST. JUDES IN TERMS OF HOMELESSNESS, ENCAMPMENTS, OR PANHANDLING ON THAT SIDE.

THERE'S ONE PERSON WHO'S ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHO IS, IN FACT, A REAL CHALLENGE FOR OUR CITY, WHICH IS BEING ADDRESSED, BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE MISREPRESENTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE DO WORK WITH PEOPLE ALL ALONG THE CORRIDOR, BUT IN TERMS OF ST. JUDE, IF THERE IS ANYONE CONNECTED TO THE ST. JUDE PROPERTY, THEY CALL US RIGHT AWAY.

THEY'RE VERY GOOD ABOUT ENFORCING THOSE BOUNDARIES AND DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE.

>> MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE CONFUSION WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING FOR THE NEW FOOD PANTRY WITH PEOPLE THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED HOMELESS. I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THEY HAVE A NEW FOOD PANTRY THERE THAT THEY'RE SERVING AND THAT MAY BE WHAT'S BEING MISUNDERSTOOD IS POVERTY FOR HOMELESSNESS. I DON'T KNOW.

>> WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO ALL OF IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL ADDRESSED.

>> THANK YOU. THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED FOR SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED IN OUR AREA.

I HAVE BEEN ONE TO EMBRACE AS MUCH AFFORDABILITY AS WE CAN, AS WELL AS NEW LUXURY UNITS IN OUR DISTRICT, AND THIS IS A PROJECT THAT I FULLY SUPPORT AS DOES CATHOLIC HOUSING.

THEY'VE BEEN AN INCREDIBLE PARTNER, AND I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION FROM ANYBODY IN THE AREA.

[00:45:01]

THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

>> GERMAN WEST YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AGAIN, WE'RE ON ITEM 13.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE PROUDLY SECONDED THIS MOTION FOR THIS 9% LIGHT TECH DEAL.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR SENIOR HOUSING AT VARIOUS INCOME LEVELS, CORRECT? THERE MAY BE A PANHANDLER OR EVEN A HOMELESS PERSON WHO IS IN THE AREA.

THIS HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, CORRECT?

>> ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT WE NEED HOUSING FOR SENIORS IN THIS CITY?

>> YES, SIR. WE DO.

>> WE HAVE DATA THAT SUPPORTS THAT?

>> DO WE NEED DIFFERENT AMI LEVELS SUCH AS 0-30% AMI LEVELS AT WHICH THIS IS GOING TO PROVIDE?

>>YES, WE DO.

>> DOES THAT HELP OUR HOMELESS SITUATION WHEN WE HAVE HOUSING FOR THEM TO MOVE INTO?

>> CERTAINLY, AND ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE FOLKS AROUND THERE THAT NEED HOUSING, THIS EXPANDS THAT OPPORTUNITY, SO YES.

>> HOW DOES THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FURTHER OUR HOUSING GOALS AS A CITY?

>> IT PROVIDES US, AS YOU MENTIONED, VARIOUS INCOME LIMITS THAT WE NEED TO SERVE.

IT PROVIDES US NEW HOUSING THAT ISN'T ALREADY ON THE GROUND, AND IT HELPS US MEET THE 50% AND BELOW THRESHOLD THAT WE NEED TO MEET, AS WELL AS THE OTHER HIGHER INCOME LIMITS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET.

>> IF WE DO NOT SUPPORT OR DO NOT PROVIDE A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THIS 9% PROJECT, WILL IT MOST LIKELY NOT GET APPROVED BY THE STATE?

>> OUR APPROVAL IS VERY IMPORTANT TODAY. IT IS.

>> LASTLY, I'LL SAY, I'VE DRIVEN BY HERE SEVERAL TIMES.

I HAVEN'T REALLY WITNESSED ANY ISSUES, AND IF PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR INFORMATION OFF NEXT DOOR IF I GOVERNED OFF NEXT DOOR, I WOULD NEVER LEAVE MY HOUSE.

I'D BE TERRIFIED. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO USE THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US AND THE DATA THAT STAFF HAS PROVIDED US IN ORDER TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY NEED TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN A MOMENT.

BUT CAN WE HAVE CHRISTINE COME BACK UP?

>> YOU WERE JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

DID YOU SAY THIS AREA IS A HOT SPOT FOR YOU?

>> I DID.

>> IF IT'S A HOT SPOT, DOES THAT INDICATE THAT THERE'S SOME ISSUES HAPPENING THERE OR THAT THERE'S ONE PERSON WHO'S PANHANDLING.

>> A HOT SPOT COULD BE MULTIPLE THINGS, I THINK AS WE'VE SEEN IN SOME AREAS.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN TO THIS LOCATION?

>> YES, I DRIVE BY IT MOST DAYS.

>> ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU THINK THAT THERE'S ONE [OVERLAPPING]

>> POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR.

>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT LOCATION?

>> STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COMMENTS ARE GERMANE TO APPROVAL FOR HOUSING.

WE'RE GOING INTO A CONVERSATION OF HOMELESSNESS AND WE'RE TRYING TO APPROVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR HOUSING.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO ASK EVERYONE TO TRY TO REGAIN THE SPIRIT OF CIVILITY AND HELP US TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE AGENDA AND STAY FOCUSED ON BEING RESPECTFUL AND KIND TO EACH OTHER SO WE CAN GET OUR BUSINESS DONE TODAY.

EVERYONE, RECENTER, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IT WAS IMPLIED THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS INACCURATE.

AS YOU HAVE GONE PAST LBJ AND COY, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT AREA LOOKS LIKE FOR THIS ITEM THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AT THIS LOCATION.

CAN YOU TELL US, ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PANHANDLERS AND ENCAMPMENTS?

>> YES, COUNCIL MEMBER, IT CHANGES FROM DAY TO DAY, SOMETIMES IT'S ONE, SOMETIMES IT'S A FEW MORE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A HOT SPOT ON THE CORRIDOR.

I WOULDN'T TIE IT TO ST. JUDE.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE WORK WITH ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND THEY MOVE UP AND DOWN.

>> SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BEFORE ST. JUDE WAS THERE.

>> IT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE ST. JUDE WAS THERE.

>> CITY MANAGER, TWO FRIDAYS AGO, DID YOU TELL ME YOU PERSONALLY HOW TO GO OUT TO THAT AREA?

>> I WAS AT THE TOLLWAY AUTHORITY OFF OF THE NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AND ALPHA ROAD.

I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONCERNS ABOUT NOT ONLY THIS AREA OF OUR CITY, BUT ALL OF THE AREAS ACROSS THE CITY THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING.

I THINK, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE REALLY LOOKED AT OUR MODEL AND WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS AROUND MONITORING ONGOING ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS THE WAYS THAT WE'RE TRIAGING ALL OF THE AREAS AROUND THE CITY.

WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS MORNING IS TO HAVE STAFF TO DO A DEEP DIVE INTO EVERY SINGLE POCKET OR HOT SPOT THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING.

I THINK THROUGH THE HOUSING AND THE HOMELESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE,

[00:50:01]

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW WE'RE DOING DEFINITELY WANT THE FEEDBACK OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

I TAKE ALL PHOTOS.

WHETHER YOU SEND THEM TO ME AT MIDNIGHT OR AT THREE IN THE MORNING, WE ARE OUT THERE ACTIVELY WORKING.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO DO OR DEEPER DIVE AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS AREA.

I HAVE NOT BEEN TO ST. JUDES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, BUT I KNOW THAT THE HEART TEAM AND THE OUTREACH TEAM STAFF, THEY'RE OUT THERE CONSTANTLY.

THEY'RE CONSTANTLY ACROSS THIS ENTIRE CITY.

I'M LOOKING AT REQUEST AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING ALL THOSE HOT SPOTS.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THIS MORNING THAT MS CROSSLEY WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A COMPLETE RUNDOWN ON WHO'S THERE, WHO'S STANDING, WHO'S ON THE CORNER AT THIS TIME FOR THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED THAT OF HER HAD SHE NOT SAID SHE GOES BY IT VERY REGULARLY.

AS DO I, NOT JUST COMING DOWNTOWN, BUT BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN THE AREA.

SO I DID SEND YOU A TEXT AND YOU DID TELL ME YOU WERE LEAVING ALPHA AND THE TOLLWAY AND YOU WERE GOING OVER THERE AND YOU WERE SENDING, I THINK THE HEART TEAM TO ADDRESS.

BUT NO PROBLEM.

IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING NOTICES, I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAG YOU WITH THE PHOTOS, AND WE'LL JUST POST THEM FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE. THANK YOU.

>> MS. WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 13.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOME CONTEXTS TO THIS BECAUSE CATHOLIC CHARITIES HAS A ST. JUDE'S PROPERTY AT JOSE AND FOREST IN DISTRICT 13, IT'S 55 PLUS.

SO IT FITS THE SENIOR CATEGORY.

IT'S A HALF A MILE FROM A SCHOOL, A REC CENTER, A PARK, A SENIOR CENTER, AND WE HAVE NO COMPLAINTS AROUND THAT.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP SENIOR HOUSING MOVE FORWARD, DISABLED HOUSING MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE KNOW THIS IS SUCH AN AUDIENCE THAT SOMETIMES HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED.

THIS IS A WAY THAT WE CAN SAY WE SEE YOU AND UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEED A PLACE TO LIVE.

ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THIS ITEM IS THAT WE KNOW WE HEAR RESIDENTIAL PUSHBACK OFTENTIMES AS PEOPLE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW A SITE LIKE THE ONE THAT I HAVE IN DISTRICT 13 CAN BE SECURE, WELL RUN, AND INTEGRATE INTO THE COMMUNITY.

ONE THING ABOUT THIS SITE IS IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT.

IT'S OFFICE BUILDINGS, IT'S A DRUG STORE, A FAST FOOD PLACE.

THE COSTCO, WHO, YES, WOULD SPEAK UP IF THEY WERE HAVING AN ISSUE.

IN A WAY, IT HELPS US WITH THAT ISSUE AS WELL, NOT HAVING TO NECESSARILY HAVE NEIGHBORS FEEL LIKE THEY'RE UNCERTAIN ABOUT SOMETHING AND HAVING IT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANYWAY, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ITEM. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN.

>> MS. BLACKMAN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 13.

>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SERVICE REQUEST BECAUSE I'M HOPING ALL THIS DOES GET PUT IN THE SYSTEM SO WE CAN LOOK AT DATA.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP RELATED TO THE PROXIMITY OF WHERE THIS PAN HANDLING IS DISCUSSING, PLUS THE OTHER FACILITIES, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THE OTHER FACILITY IS ALSO THE PEOPLE DOING THE PAN HANDLING ON THE STREET OR ARE THEY TOTALLY NOT RELATED? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

BECAUSE I WOULD SAY NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING THEIR NEEDS MET.

IT'S UNFAIR, I THINK TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING IN A FACILITY ARE NOW GOING ACROSS THE STREET IN PANHANDLING.

>> YEAH. WE DON'T THINK IT'S RELATED, BUT WE'LL ASK MISS CROSSLEY IF SHE COULD RESPOND.

>> THEN CYNTHIA, IF YOU COULD ALSO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS OUR MAGIC NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO FIT OR IN ORDER TO HELP I MEAN, OUR SENIOR POPULATIONS?

>> WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC ON SENIORS.

WE KNOW BY INCOME, AND WE KNOW THAT SENIORS TYPICALLY FALL IN THE INCOMES THAT WE NEED TO SERVE.

WE NEED ABOUT 40,000 UNITS OF HOUSING AT 50% AND BELOW.

TYPICALLY, THAT'S WHERE OUR SENIORS ARE.

>> DID YOU SAY 40,000?

>> FORTY THOUSAND, YES, MA'AM. [OVERLAPPING]

>> AT 50% BELOW.

>> IT'S USUALLY OUR FIXED INCOME SENIOR POPULATION THAT FITS INTO THAT.

>> FITS INTO THAT CATEGORY. YES, MA'AM.

>> THEN CHRISTINE, OUR PANHANDLING POPULATION, ARE THEY 50? ARE THEY 50-YEARS-OLD?

>> AGAIN, PANHANDLING AND HOMELESSNESS ARE AREN'T NECESSARILY THE SAME THINGS?

>> THE AGE CAN RUN THE GAMIT, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WHEN ST. JUDE CAME TO THAT PROPERTY, NOT ONLY DID THE AREA GET MUCH MUCH BETTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY STRONG PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SKILLS.

[00:55:03]

THE REAL ESTATE VALUES ACTUALLY IMPROVED AROUND THE AREA AND CONTINUED TO IMPROVE, AT LEAST THEY DID LAST TIME I CHECKED.

>> BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS POPULATION, I WOULD ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THE ST.

JUDE AREN'T USUALLY THE ONES PANHANDLING THEIR OWN POINT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION.

>> WELL, AND I THINK YEAH. ST. JUDE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THAT AND IF THEY HAD NEEDS LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD BE MET AT THE PROPERTY.

>> WOULD THIS PROPERTY FOLLOW, I WOULD SAY THE SAME GUIDELINES AS WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR ST. JUDE? WOULD ST. MARGARET FOLLOW THAT?

>> I WOULD ASSUME SO.

>> CAN WE BE SURE THAT THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A CARRYOVER, THAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE STILL GOING TO BE THE SAME?

>> YES. I WOULD THINK THE SAME POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WOULD BE THE SAME FOR THIS BRODER AS WELL AS THE OTHER ST. JUDE PROPERTIES AND CENTERS.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> MR. SCHULTZ YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. FIRST, I WANT TO CLARIFY IT'S CATHOLIC HOUSING INITIATIVE, NOT CATHOLIC CHARITIES SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. THAT'S NUMBER 1.

NUMBER 2, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CORRELATION BETWEEN HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE'RE BUILDING HOUSING, HOW IS THAT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELESSNESS? IS THERE AN UNDERLYING THING ABOUT POVERTY? CAN YOU EXPLAIN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE EVEN MAKING THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE MAKING THAT CONNECTION EITHER, BUT HOUSING FOR US IS EXACTLY THAT.

FOLKS THAT NEED TO BE HOUSED AT WHATEVER INCOME LIMIT THAT THEY ARE AT.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO. WE BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FOLKS TO LIVE IN.

HOMELESS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION.

IT REQUIRES SERVICES AND OTHER THINGS THAT COME WITH IT.

BUT IN SOME INSTANCES, OUR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECTS SERVE FOLKS FOR HOMELESSNESS.

THAT'S HOW WE CONNECT IN WITH LIGHTECH.

BUT AS FAR AS JUST THE GENERAL CONVERSATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S EXACTLY THAT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>> JUST TO CLEAR THIS UP, HAVE YOU HAD ISSUES IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT YOU ALL HAVE SUPPORTED AND WORKED WITH THAT HAVE CAUSED HOMELESSNESS AND CRIME?

>> MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY INDICATION AT ALL THAT PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS IS GOING TO INCREASE HOMELESSNESS OR CRIME?

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE ON ITEM 13.

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO POST THREE PICTURES FROM THAT LOCATION ON MY TWITTER ACCOUNT. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 13? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> THE OPPOSED SAY NO. NOTE THE NOS, BUT THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

>> NOTED, MR. MAYOR.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 26, AGENDA ITEM 26,

[26. 25-278A Authorize amendment and restatement of the Chapter 380 Economic Development Loan Agreement and the Chapter 380 Economic Development Grant Agreement (collectively, the “Agreement”) with Shekinah Legacy Holdings, LLC (“Borrower/Grantee”) previously authorized by City Council on April 12, 2023 by Resolution No. 23-0499 related to the 1708 MLK Redevelopment Project (“Project”) proposed for the property addressed as 1708 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, including the following: (1) amend the Project completion deadlines; (2) clarify the minimum investment requirement; (3) clarify the Project scope; (4) clarify the requirements for grant payment; (5) amend the date by which the facility is opened to the public; (6) remove the job creation requirement from the loan agreement and add a job creation requirement of 10 jobs to the grant agreement; (7) amend the loan payment schedule to reflect forbearance of certain loan payments as attached in Exhibit A; (8) replace all references to “Small Business Center” with “Office of Economic Development”, and in consideration; and (9) reduce the term of the loan from 15 years to 2 years, in accordance with the Economic Development Incentive Policy - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AUTHORIZED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE CHAPTER 380 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE CHAPTER 380 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT WITH SHAKINA LEGACY HOLDINGS, LLC, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 12, 2023 BY RESOLUTION NUMBER 23-0499, RELATED TO THE 1708 MLK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PROPOSE FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AT 1708 MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING, ONE, AMEND THE PROJECT COMPLETION DEADLINES, TWO CLARIFY THE MINIMUM INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT.

THREE, CLARIFY THE PROJECT SCOPE.

FOUR, CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT PAYMENT.

FIVE, AMEND THE DATE BY WHICH THE FACILITY IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

SIX, REMOVE THE JOB CREATION REQUIREMENT FROM THE LOAN AGREEMENT, AND ADD A JOB CREATION REQUIREMENT OF 10 JOBS TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT.

SEVEN, AMEND THE LOAN PAYMENT SCHEDULE TO REFLECT FORBEARANCE OF CERTAIN LOAN PAYMENTS AS ATTACHED IN EXHIBIT A.

EIGHT, REPLACE ALL REFERENCES TO SMALL BUSINESS CENTER WITH OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND IN CONSIDERATION, AND NINE REDUCED THE TERM OF THE LOAN FROM 15 YEARS TO TWO YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON.

>> IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> TO MOVE IN SECOND. CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK ROBIN BENTLEY, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY ASKED HER.

>> GOOD MORNING. YES.

>> THANK YOU. SO IS IT CORRECT THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE

[01:00:01]

A CO AND OPEN FOR BUSINESS BY DECEMBER OF 2023?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. AS I MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT WAS DONE BY THE SMALL BUSINESS CENTER, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT THAT HAS SINCE DISSOLVED.

THE FILE WAS THEN MOVED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN THEY TOOK A LOOK, THE WAY THIS DEAL WAS STRUCTURED, IT WAS BASICALLY SET UP FOR A FAILURE.

THIS DEAL CAME TO COUNSEL IN APRIL OF '23.

THE CONTRACT WASN'T EVEN EXECUTED UNTIL AUGUST OF '23 AND THE DEADLINE TO COMPLETE WAS DECEMBER.

SO THERE WAS NO WAY THE DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

UNLIKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEALS, THIS ALSO CONTEMPLATED THAT ALL OF THE FUNDING WOULD BE ADVANCED OR THE LOAN FUNDING WOULD BE ADVANCED UPFRONT, INSTEAD OF PAID, AS WE USUALLY DO IS A REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BACK END.

SINCE THE MONEY WAS ALREADY OUT THE DOOR, WE DECIDED IT WAS BETTER TO TRY TO GET THIS DEAL BACK INTO GOOD STANDING, GET THE PROJECT COMPLETED SO THAT THE CITY COULD RECOUP THE LOAN PROCEEDS.

>> THEN JUST TO UNDERSTAND, SO THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE OPENED BY DECEMBER OF 2023, BUT IT'S NOW '25, AND WE'RE JUST NOW SEEING IT.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WE WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE GRANT WE GAVE THEM IN ADVANCE.

THE WORK DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THEY DIDN'T FULFILL IT, AND NOW IT'S MORE THAN A YEAR LATER BEFORE WE'RE SEEING IT.

>> RIGHT. WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LONG LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DEAL, IT WAS JUST A MESSY DEAL.

IT WASN'T STRUCTURED CORRECTLY.

I THINK THE DEVELOPER FELT LIKE THEY PROBABLY COULDN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'D ASKED THEM TO ACCOMPLISH, AND SO EVERYTHING JUST GROUND TO A HALT.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE TALKED TO THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, TALKED TO THE DEVELOPER AND JUST DECIDED THE BEST THING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE CITY WAS TO TRY TO GET THE PROJECT FINISHED AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, WHICH REQUIRED COMING BACK AND JUST REWORKING THE DEAL IN A MORE SUSTAINABLE AND COMPLETABLE WAY.

THE EXCHANGE WAS INSTEAD OF A 15 YEAR LOAN TERM, NOW THE DEVELOPERS AGREED TO A TWO YEAR LOAN TERM.

THE CITY WILL GET ITS FUNDING BACK A LITTLE BIT QUICKER THROUGH THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK OPPORTUNITY FUND AND THEN CAN REDEPLOY THAT TO ANOTHER PROJECT.

>> THEN I THINK IN THE PACKET, YOU HAVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS RECENTLY STARTED MAKING PAYMENTS, MAYBE TWO OR THREE OF THEM, BUT IS BEHIND ON PAYMENTS, MAYBE I THINK IS 28,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. DURING THIS TIME WHEN WE WERE NOT SURE HOW TO PROCEED, THE DEVELOPER STOPPED MAKING LOAN PAYMENTS.

HE HAS SINCE STARTED MAKING LOAN PAYMENTS AGAIN.

WE'RE GOING TO FORBEAR THOSE MISSED PAYMENTS AND ROLL THEM INTO THE BALLOON AT THE END, AND THE DEVELOPER IS HERE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

>> NO. SO THE CITY'S OPTIONS, IN YOUR VIEW ARE TO REDO IT, WHICH IS THE PATH YOU TOOK WHICH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY.

THEN THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO NOT REDO THE DEAL AND SUE TO RECLAIM OUR MONEY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE HAVE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY.

IT WOULD BE A FORECLOSURE OF A PARTIALLY COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OR TRY TO GET IT FINISHED.

WE OPTED TO TRY TO GET IT FINISHED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> SORRY, I DIDN'T CALL YOU DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MAZDA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION, ROBIN.

COLLEAGUES, THIS IS AS WE ALL HAVE HAD IN OUR DISTRICT, MANY DEALS THAT YOU HAVE TO REALLY HOLD THE HAND OF AND TO HELP NAVIGATE.

THE REALITY IS IS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR RESIDENTS, AND WE'VE ALL MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT A PRIORITY OF THE CITY IS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY GROWING SOUTH.

THIS IS A COMMUNITY IN SOUTH DALLAS THAT IS IS IN DIRE NEED OF AFFORDABLE OPTIONS AND NEW HOUSING OPTIONS.

THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THIS IS HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY.

THIS IS LITERALLY EVERYTHING WE SAY THAT WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT INVESTING IN WHEN IT COMES TO INVESTING IN.

>> I THINK TO COUNCIL MEMBER, BLACKMAN'S POINT EARLIER THIS MORNING.

THIS IS WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE FOR OUR COLLEAGUES TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK AND DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE WE GET TO THE HORSESHOE SO YOU CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

IT'S VERY HARD TO COMPREHEND WHAT HAS GONE IN TO A DEAL FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS WHEN YOU'VE CHOSEN TO SPEAK TO STAFF IN MINUTES BEFORE WE CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER HERE ON A WEDNESDAY.

I THINK IT'S NOT ONLY HAPHAZARD WAY OF GOVERNING, IT'S ALSO VERY DISRESPECTFUL TO OUR STAFF WHO HAS DEVOTED QUITE A BIT OF RESOURCES AND TIME.

I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY, VOTING AGAINST THIS OR NIT PICKING AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE THIS WHEN IT HAS NOT ONLY PROVIDING A, FILLING A GAP OF A NEED THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT'S ALSO QUITE FRANKLY ACTED AS AN EXAMPLE FOR WHAT WE COULD DO BETTER GOING FORWARD WITH THESE NOFA PROJECTS.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE A SMALLER DEVELOPER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A NOFA THAT NORMALLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO A DEVELOPER OF THIS SIZE,

[01:05:02]

BUT IT ALSO AFFORDED US THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO IS INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, WHO LIVES JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE HE'S BUILDING HOMES.

FOR US TO HAVE NOT DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS A CITY BEFORE ENTERING IN THIS AGREEMENT IN THE VERY FIRST PLACE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AND THE HOOPS THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS THROWN THROUGH, THE ADDED EXPENSES THAT WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE AGREEMENT.

IT WAS ONLY RIGHT FOR US TO GET BACK TO THE TABLE, WHICH WE HAVE HAD TO DO A FEW TIMES THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A SUCCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY.

TO TURN OUR BACK INTO NIT PICK AND TO TRY AND MICROMANAGE STAFF AND PROCESSES THAT HAVE GONE ON NOW FOR FIVE YEARS, IS TO ME, JUST VERY LAZY AND POOR GOVERNING.

I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT IN AND ALL OF THE POSITIVE CHANGE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING TO SOUTH DALLAS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> CHAIRMAN GRACEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 26.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.

TO AGAIN, I'VE SAT IN THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE.

WE'VE HEARD FROM DEVELOPERS LIKE MR. SMITH AND OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT TALK ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS SOMETIMES TO DO BUSINESS IN THE CITY WHEN THEY'RE TO TRYING TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS ABOUT HOUSING AND HOW TO GET THOSE THINGS DEVELOPED.

I JUST WANT TO THANK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THEN BEING ABLE TO PUMP THE BRAKES AND RESET THIS TO GIVE THIS DEVELOPER AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH OUT THE THINGS THAT HE STARTED WITHIN SOUTH DALLAS IN PARTICULAR.

HE'S DONE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH DALLAS AND MADE HIS MARK, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE HIS IMPRINTS ARE AND HOW HE'S CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

BUT ESPECIALLY IN SOUTH DALLAS.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND THANK YOU FOR BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE HUMILITY TO PUMP THE BRAKES AND SAY, HEY, SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THIS PROJECT.

SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THIS. LET'S GO OUT AND FIX IT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE MAKING SOUTH DALLAS BEAUTIFUL.

AGAIN, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE DEAL.

THERE'S NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING HOW THEIR GOVERNMENTS WORKING.

YOU JUST HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS WHO TALKED ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH WORKING AT CITY HALL ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE, AT EXPENSES.

THIS PROCESS OF DISCUSSING AN ITEM IS NOT MICROMANAGING, IT'S ACTUALLY GOVERNANCE, WHICH IS OUR JOB. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM 26? SEEING NONE ON FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NO.

PLEASE NOTE THE NOS, BUT THE EYES HAVE IT. THE NEXT ITEM.

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

[28. 25-272A Authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year contract with one option to extend for time only with Housing Forward, as a sole source, approved as to form by the City Attorney, for the coordination of the Street to Home Initiative enhancing the efforts of the Dallas Real Time Rehousing Project to provide financial assistance in the form of rental assistance and paid utilities to persons experiencing homelessness - Not to exceed $2,500,000.00 - Financing: ARPA Redevelopment Funds (subject to annual appropriations)]

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 28.

ITEM 28 AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE YEAR CONTRACT WITH ONE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TIME ONLY WITH HOUSING FORWARD AS A SOLE SOURCE APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE COORDINATION OF THE STREET OF HOME INITIATIVE, ENHANCING THE EFFORTS OF THE DALLAS REAL TIME REHOUSING PROJECT TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND PAID UTILITIES TO PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MARINO AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON.

>> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

>> PLEASE.

THE FUNDING AMOUNT IS REDUCED TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1 MILLION.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND ANY DISCUSSION?

>> CHAIR MARINO, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK OUR CITY MANAGER AND HER TEAM FOR HER FOCUS AND COMMITMENT TO ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS.

WHILE HOUSING FORWARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE COC, IT'S NOT THE ONLY HOMELESS RESPONSE MECHANISM WE HAVE IN THE CITY.

IN FACT, WHILE IT'S A GREAT AT HELPING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS GET OFF THE STREET.

IT IS NOT A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS. THE HOUSING FIRST POLICY REQUIRES UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS TO RAISE AGAINST THEIR PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY'RE KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOUSING DUE TO THOSE PROBLEMS. THAT'S A TERRIBLE WAY TO SOLVE COMPLEX ISSUES LIKE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL ILLNESS.

WE HEAR OFTEN THAT HOMELESSNESS IS REDUCED IN THE CITY, BUT CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS SEEMS MORE PREVALENT NOW THAN EVER.

IN FACT, IT IS LARGELY THIS TYPE OF HOMELESSNESS THAT PEOPLE SEE ON THE STREETS NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING OFF THE STREETS THROUGH HOUSING FORWARD PROGRAM.

THIS DEVELOPS A STIGMA IN HOMELESSNESS.

PEOPLE ONLY SEE THE MENTAL HEALTH OR THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS IN OUR HOMELESS COMMUNITY,

[01:10:01]

BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WE'RE LEAVING BEHIND WITH OUR CURRENT HOMELESS RESPONSE.

WE AS A CITY MUST THROW AS MUCH OF RESOURCES INTO MEETING UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS SUFFERING FROM THOSE PROBLEMS WHERE THEY'RE AT, AS WE DO WITH HOUSING FORWARD, WHO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADEQUATELY SUPPORT THE INDIVIDUALS WE SEE ON THE STREETS EVERY DAY, INCLUDING TODAY.

TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOCATING A LOT OF MONEY TO A PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE HOMELESS POPULATION, AND A PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN UNABLE TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE OR TRACK SUCCESS METRICS FOR.

IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER PROGRAM, THIS WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE AND ILL ADVISED.

HOUSING FORWARD ABSOLUTELY PLAYS A ROLE IN OUR HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM.

BUT IT IS ONLY A PIECE OF A PUZZLE AND ONE THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD AN ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THEIR METRICS.

UNTIL WE DEVELOP A BETTER PLAN, HOLD THIS ORGANIZATION ACCOUNTABLE FOR PUBLIC MONIES, WE ARE GIVING THEM AND UNTIL I CAN SEE EVIDENCE OF DRASTIC IMPROVEMENT OF OUR MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE DEPENDENT UNSHELTERED POPULATION, I'M NOT INCLINED TO ALLOCATE THE TOTAL MONETARY ASK.

NOW I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR OHS.

THANK YOU, CHRISTINE. WHAT IS THE TOTAL ALLOCATION THAT STAFF IS REQUESTING TODAY AND FROM FUTURE SESSIONS FOR THE STRICT TO HOME PROGRAM?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

CHRISTINE CROSSLEY OFFICE OF HOME LOS SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR.

TODAY, THE REQUEST IS 2.5.

THE TOTAL ASK IS 5.6.

>> IS THAT REQUEST COMING FROM OHS OR FROM HOUSING FORWARD AND HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT?

>> IT IS COMING FROM OUR ENTIRE CONTINUUM OF CARE, LOOKING AT THE AMOUNT THAT IS REQUESTED FROM THE CITY FOR A $30 MILLION PROJECT.

>> WHAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO HOUSE SOMEONE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM?

>> AS WE STATED DURING HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE BRIEFING, THE AVERAGE COST IS ABOUT 28,000 VERSUS THE PUBLIC COUNTY REPORT SHOWING ROUGHLY 43,000 TO KEEP THEM ON THE STREET?

>> WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL TOTAL IN DOLLARS THAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO HOUSING FORWARD?

>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DALLAS REAL TIME RAPID REHOUSING, IT WAS 25 MILLION FOR THE CITY.

WE HAD 1.36 FOR THE 16 FTES, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE 5.6 MILLION.

NOW, THAT'S A FRACTION OF WHAT HOUSING FORWARD HAS PULLED AND RAISED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATELY.

>> DO YOU HAVE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT A TOTAL FEDERAL COUNTY PRIVATE?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT I'D LIKE TO INVITE SARAH KHAN HOUSING FORWARD CEO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SHE IS ONLINE. SARAH?

>> I'M JOINING UP MY SON IS HOME SICK TODAY.

I APOLOGIZE THAT I CAN'T BE THERE IN PERSON.

I BELIEVE THE QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE RESOURCES THAT ARE COMING INTO THE COMMUNITY TO RESPOND TO HOMELESSNESS.

THIS INITIATIVE, IS TO HOME INITIATIVE, THE $30 MILLION INVESTMENT, WHICH INCLUDES $10 MILLION THAT WE'VE ALREADY SECURED IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES.

THEN THE MODEL INCLUDES $20 MILLION IN LOCAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOLLARS.

>> SARAH, I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT ONE, BUT MY INITIAL QUESTION WAS THE HISTORICAL FUNDING, NOT JUST FOR THIS REALM, BUT PREVIOUS ONES.

>> IN TERMS OF OUR FEDERAL FUNDING, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ABOUT THAT, WE HAVE A BASE FUNDING OF NOW $37 MILLION THAT IS OUR LARGEST SOURCE OF SUSTAINABLE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT COMES INTO THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK WHAT WE LEARNED THROUGH THE REAL TIME RAPID HOUSING INITIATIVE IN 2021 IS THAT AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE FALL INTO HOMELESSNESS, WE HAVE TO BE EQUIPPED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT INVESTMENTS AND RESOURCES THAT HELP CONNECT THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO RECOVERY SERVICES INTO HOUSING.

TO DO THAT EFFECTIVELY, LOCAL DOLLARS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLEMENT THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ARE COMING IN SO THAT WE CAN KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND ON OUR SYSTEM.

WE HAVE $37 MILLION ANNUAL THAT'S COMING IN FOR FEDERAL SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES, AND REAL TIME WAS A TOTAL $72 MILLION TO AGAIN, THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SUPPLEMENT THAT GAP IN FUNDING, WHICH WAS WHAT ALLOWED US TO REALLY DRIVE DOWN THE NUMBERS

[01:15:03]

OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AS THAT FUNDING HAS ENDED.

THIS IS THE NEXT INFUSION OF FUNDING TO ENSURE THAT WE DO NOT BACKSLIDE.

>> THANK YOU. HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROGRAM ROLLS OUT? HAS IT ROLLED OUT ALREADY THIS NEW INITIATIVE, AND IS THAT 30 MILLION NEEDED UPFRONT, OR IS IT STAGGERED OVER A NUMBER OF MONTHS OR YEARS?

>> I'LL ANSWER AND THEN HAND IT OFF TO SARAH.

ALL OF THE FUNDING DOES DIFFERENT THINGS.

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE CITY FUNDING FOCUSES ON RAPID REHOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT ACCOMPANY THE RAPID REHOUSING, BUT IT IS PART OF A LARGER HOLE.

SARAH, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT COMPLEX SYSTEM ALL WORKS TOGETHER?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE IS REALLY A $30 MILLION PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INITIATIVE THAT AIMS TO REALLY ADDRESS CHRONIC UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS.

I REALLY PICKS UP WHERE REAL TIME LEFT OFF.

BUT WITH A CONCERTED EFFORT TO REALLY ANSWER THE CALLS FROM LOCAL BUSINESSES, THE CALLS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE STREET HOMELESSNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS IN PUBLIC SPACES ACROSS DOWNTOWN AND ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THESE FUNDS ARE CRITICAL FOR DOING TWO THINGS.

ONE IS TO REALLY TARGET AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE RESOLVING STREET HOMELESSNESS IN THOSE AREAS.

WE ARE DOING THAT BY PARTNERING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DOWNTOWN DALLAS INC TO TARGET AREAS TO END CAMPING, TO RESOLVE STREET HOMELESSNESS, TO BRING ADDICTION SERVICES AND BEHAVIOR OF HEALTHCARE DIRECTLY ON SITE AT THOSE LOCATIONS, AND THEN USING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AREAS ARE NOT REPOPULATED AGAIN AND THAT WE CAN REACTIVATE THOSE SPACES FOR PUBLIC USE BY THE COMMUNITY.

THE SECOND KEY PART OF STREET TO HOME IS ENSURING THAT WE ARE RAMPING UP HOUSING OUT OF OUR EXISTING SHELTER SYSTEM BECAUSE WE NEED TO CREATE THAT IMMEDIATE SHELTER CAPACITY SO WE CAN BRING MORE PEOPLE INSIDE.

THAT TWO PRONGED APPROACH IS GETTING AT REALLY A TARGETED 50% REDUCTION IN UP SHELTERED HOMELESSNESS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE KICKED OFF IN JULY IN THE AREA THAT WE REPORTED OUT ON TO THE COMMITTEE WHERE WE HOUSED 100 PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE LIBRARY EAST OF CITY HALL AND BEHIND CITY HALL, WE HOUSED A 100 PEOPLE IN 85 DAYS.

WE HOUSED ANOTHER 44 PEOPLE IN ANOTHER LARGE ENCAMPMENT DOWNTOWN.

THIS FUNDING ALLOWS US TO KEEP GOING AND EXPAND THAT EFFORT ACROSS THE CITY OF DALLAS.

>> THANK YOU. WHILE WE WERE ABLE TO HOUSE 100 OR SO PEOPLE IN THE THREE ZONES.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE STILL HAVE INDIVIDUALS SLEEPING ON SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC SPACES IN ALL THREE ZONES THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED.

>> THIS IS A CLOSURE MAINTENANCE ISSUE.

WE ARE DOING CLOSURE MAINTENANCE, WORKING WITH ENFORCEMENT AND CIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND GOING AND REMOVING PEOPLE FROM SPACES THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED.

THAT IS A REGULAR CYCLE THAT HAPPENS, I BELIEVE THREE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND MULTIPLE TIMES AT NIGHT.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN BE THERE EVERY SINGLE TIME.

EVERY TIME WE FIND NEW PEOPLE, WE'RE MOVING THEM ALONG AND THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE THERE.

I WILL SAY THAT STREET FEEDING CONTINUALLY PULLS PEOPLE BACK TO DOWNTOWN AND CONTINUALLY PULLS PEOPLE BACK TO A SPACE WHERE EVERYONE WHO WAS THERE, WE HAD HOUSED.

THAT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT WE COMBAT ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> WHAT ARE THE METRICS AND HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS WITH THIS PROGRAM?

>> WE MEASURE SUCCESS IN PEOPLE HOUSED AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THEY STAY HOUSED.

>> YOU TOUCHED A LITTLE BIT ON STREET FEEDING AND ENFORCEMENT.

WHAT ELSE ARE WE DOING TO ADDRESS OUR CITY AND STATE ORDINANCES WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS SUCH AS BLOCKING OF SIDEWALKS AND SLEEPING IN PUBLIC SPACES?

>> AS HAS BEEN OUR RESPONSE, WE ARE USING THE STREET TO HOME MODEL, WHICH WAS FORMERLY THE DALLAS REAL TIME RAPID REHOUSING INITIATIVE TO HOUSE PEOPLE SUSTAINABLY.

BUT IN THE MIDST OF THAT, AS YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED BEFORE, AND AS I HAVE SAID AT HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS, WE ALSO LIVE WITH THE TENSION OF HAVING EMERGENCY ISSUES WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO HOUSE PEOPLE AND WE DO HAVE TO MOVE THEM.

THAT'S IF WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS A CERTAIN DISTANCE CAMPING FROM A SCHOOL, CONFIRM WEAPONS DISCHARGE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEN THE HOMELESS ACTION RESPONSE TEAM WILL GO AND MOVE THEM WITHIN 24-48 HOURS.

MY PREFERENCE THEY KNOW IS 24.

WE DO LIVE WITH THAT TENSION, AND THEN THERE ARE SPACES THAT WE CLEAN AS WELL.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE WAY TO REALLY AFFECT CHANGE IS NOT TO JUST TELL PEOPLE TO MOVE WITHOUT A HOME FOR THEM TO MOVE INTO,

[01:20:02]

BUT TO ACTUALLY REHOUSE THEM.

>> THIS ITEM IS COMING THROUGH RP DALLAS.

WHAT CATEGORY IS THE REQUEST COMING? WHAT BUCKET OF DOLLARS IS IT GOING THROUGH?

>> THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ARPA REDEVELOPMENT.

THE ONES THAT COME LATER IN THE SPRING ARE RPA HOME.

>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT RED WHAT OTHER ITEMS COULD BE UNDER REDEVELOPMENT.

BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE VACANT PROPERTIES THAT WE BOUGHT FOR THE INTENTION OF ADDRESSING OUR HOMELESS POPULATION.

>> REDEVELOPMENT DOLLARS, THEY'RE ONE TIME FUNDS THAT ARE STILL MEANT TO DO THE HUD DESCRIPTION FOR ARPA, WHICH IS HELPING TAKE PEOPLE OUT OF HOMELESSNESS WITH A FOCUS ON BEST PRACTICES, WHICH, OF COURSE, FOR HUD IS HOUSING FIRST.

IN TERMS OF THE VACANT PROPERTIES, WE HAVE BOND DOLLARS, BUT THE TWO OF THOSE THAT ARE INACTIVE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES AROUND THEM.

I MEAN, THIS MONEY IS STILL TIME SENSITIVE.

WE'RE STILL BEING ENCOURAGED TO SPEND IT QUICKLY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DOVETAIL WITH THOSE PROPERTIES IN A WAY THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO SPEND DOWN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBERS MARINO, AND I THINK MANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE EITHER PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED, OR WE'VE SHARED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE MODEL THAT WE HAVE BUILT.

I WANT TO JUST TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS OVERALL THESE DOLLARS AND HOW THIS DOES NOT PREVENT.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER WAYS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT EXPANDING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING AND BRINGING ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS TO THE TABLE.

AS YOU WILL RECALL, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM THE HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE, STAFF MOVED FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE STREET.

WE UNDERSTAND AND WE REALIZE THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS, AND WE WELCOME THOSE PARTNERSHIPS.

THIS ITEM ALLOWS FOR THE WORK THAT WE HAVE BEGUN WITH THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE THAT I'VE HEARD MANY OF YOU ASK ME TO CONTINUE.

MANY OF YOU'VE PLACED IT ON YOUR PRIORITY LIST THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO ME TO ADDRESS, THESE FUNDS ARE EARMARKED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

WE CANNOT EXPECT, IN MY OPINION, AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS ACROSS THE CITY AND ASKING THEM TO COME TO THE TABLE AND SUPPORT OUR HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM IF WE'RE NOT STILL AT THE TABLE PROVIDING THOSE RESOURCES.

AS I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING WITH HOUSING FORWARD TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF PARTNERS THAT THEY ACTUALLY WORK WITH.

THIS FUNDING HELPS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

THIS IS NOT FUNDING THAT JUST GOES TO HOUSING FORWARD.

THEY'RE ABLE TO USE THIS FUNDING WITH ALL OF THE OTHER NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.

THIS IS A COORDINATED, COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, AS THIS COUNCIL REALIZES THAT UP UNTIL 2021, WAY THAT WE APPROACHED OUR HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM WAS THAT THE CITY HAD A BUCKET OF DOLLARS AND WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO SOLVE ALL THESE PROBLEMS ALONG, AND THAT DID NOT GET US TO THE RESULTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE TODAY.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DALLAS AND WE LOOK AT THE NATIONAL REPUTATION THAT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE EARNED, THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS RIGHT, IT'S BECAUSE OF PARTNERSHIPS LIKE THE PARTNERSHIP WITH HOUSING FORWARD AND THE WAY THEY CONTINUE TO COME TO THE TABLE TO WORK WITH US TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. THIS FUNDING DOES NOT PREVENT US BEING ABLE TO DO SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL TYPES OF HOUSING THAT I KNOW THAT THIS COUNCIL IS SEEKING.

WE HAVE FUNDS THAT YOU PROVIDED IN THE BOND PROGRAM THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE UTILIZED FOR THOSE SOURCES OF HOUSING TYPES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT US SUPPORTING THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE THEN PREVENTS US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ASKED US TO DO.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MENTALLY HEALTH AND THE SYSTEM ABUSE ISSUE THAT YOU MENTIONED.

OFTENTIMES I HEAR FROM THIS BODY THAT THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE ONLY THE ONE PROVIDING SUPPORTIVE FUNDING FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND MANY OTHERS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US DOING IT TOGETHER.

I HAVE A MEETING COMING UP WITH COMMISSIONER SUMMOMAN ON THE 18TH OF THIS MONTH, BECAUSE I'M CONTINUING TO PRESS UP ON THE COUNTY TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TO SUPPORT THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUCCESS, THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHERE WE KICKED OFF THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE, THAT WORK DOES HAVE PROVEN RESULTS.

WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME BACK INTO THOSE ZONES? WE TALK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME.

YES, PEOPLE DO COME BACK, BUT THAT IS NOT THE HOUSING FORWARD'S ISSUE.

THAT IS OUR ISSUE AND HOW WE CONTINUE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT AND CONTINUING THE MONITORING.

I DO BELIEVE THAT AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU WILL SEE THAT SOME OF THE NEW THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING DIFFERENTLY NOW,

[01:25:01]

THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN.

IT'S NOT ABOUT JUST SPENDING THE DOLLAR, IT'S ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE INVESTING SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO GET TO THE RESULTS THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS COUNCIL SEEKS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM AND WHAT WE KNOW THAT THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY WANTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THIS ITEM DOES NOT PREVENT THE ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO PARTNER WITH OTHERS TO CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THIS CRITICAL PROBLEM THAT WE KNOW IS IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR 5 MINUTES. ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MANO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT YOUR WORDS WERE REALLY HEARTFELT AND TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN COMMITTEE MANY TIMES.

I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS HORSESHOE, BUT ARE THINGS THAT I THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE ASKING ABOUT AND ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING ABOUT.

I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING FORWARD THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OUTCOMES, THE ACCOUNTABILITY, AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY SEEING AND HOW WE'RE MEASURING THAT.

I PULLED THIS FOR A DIFFERENT REASON.

I SECONDED YOUR MOTION TO AUTHORIZE A MILLION. I'LL STAND BY THAT.

BUT MY INTENTION WAS TO NOT FUND IT AT ALL.

THIS IS FOR 2.5 MILLION DOLLAR OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND UTILITIES, ALONG WITH A FUTURE ASK FOR ANOTHER 3.096 MILLION IN THE SPRING, IS WHAT IT SAYS.

MY QUESTION IS IN JUNE OF 2023, WE ALLOCATED $3 MILLION.

SAME THING. WE CALLED IT MASTER LEASE, BUT IT WAS A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

HAVE WE GOTTEN AN UPDATE ON HOW THAT 3 MILLION HAS BEEN SPENT?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THAT IS A SEPARATE PROGRAM.

I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF IT HAS BEEN UTILIZED, BUT THE INTENT OF MASTER LEASING THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM WAS ONLY TO BE UTILIZED AS NECESSARY, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MOST OF IT HAS BEEN UTILIZED.

AGAIN, IT WAS FROM THE PENSION FUND AND SO WE WERE HOPING WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO UTILIZE A LOT OF IT, BUT I CAN PULL A SPECIFIC REPORT FOR YOU.

>> YOU HAVE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE, WHICH IS LITERALLY WHAT IT SAID ON THE ITEM, RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

YOU HAVE THAT 3 MILLION POT.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH HAS BEEN EXPENDED?

>> AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THAT FOR YOU, BUT I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT WHEN WE BROUGHT THAT ITEM FORWARD, WE WERE CLEAR THAT WE HOPED WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND MOST OF IT OR THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOUP IT IF WE DID AS HOLD FEES BECAUSE IT IS FROM THE PENSION FUND.

WE WOULDN'T WANT TO EXPEND THE FULL 3 MILLION.

>> YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT YOU EXPECT TO SEE ABOUT $20,000 TO HOUSE ONE PERSON OR ONE FAMILY UNIT, AND THAT THE COST FOR THEM TO SAY ON THE STREETS WOULD BE 43,000, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND PER PERSON

>> TWENTY EIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE INTERESTING THING IN THE COUNTY STUDY THAT THEY PROVIDED TO US IS THAT MOST OF THOSE EXPENSES FOR THE 43,000 ARE ACTUALLY COUNTY EXPENSES.

THEY'RE INCLUDING PARKLAND, THE HOSPITAL, THOSE ACTIVITIES, AND VERY FEW OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY CITY EXPENSES. WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> I DON'T I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE REPORT.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY ARE ALL TAXPAYER BURDENS, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.

>> THEY ARE ALL TAXPAYER BURDENS, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT THE COUNTY COULD BE MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN HOMELESSNESS TO REDUCE THEIR OWN EXPENSES, AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY HAVING TO FUND A REDUCTION IN EXPENSES FOR THE COUNTY THROUGH HOMELESSNESS.

THIS ARGUMENT IS ACTUALLY ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE INVESTING IN HOMELESSNESS.

I WOULD SAY THE CITY HAS DONE EXTRAORDINARY WORK.

ADDING PROGRAMS, ADDING SHELTERS, AND FUNDING PROGRAMS, THE COUNTY HAS DONE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK.

THIS NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE COUNTY IN MY OPINION.

AS WE'RE SITTING HERE TODAY, THERE'S A SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT IN DISTRICT 10 THAT IT HAD UNITS AVAILABLE FOR NEXT MONTH, IT'LL BE A YEAR, 11 MONTHS, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL 25 UNITS AVAILABLE.

AGAIN, WHY WOULD WE BE ADDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING WHEN THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES THAT FOR 11 MONTHS, PEOPLE HAVE NOT TAKEN UP THE NEXT THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FACING US.

IN DECEMBER 2020, WE PURCHASED A BUILDING THAT IS STILL VACANT FOUR PLUS YEARS IN DISTRICT 1, 2.5 ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO, WE PURCHASED A HOTEL IN DISTRICT 8,

[01:30:02]

NOW IT'S IN DISTRICT 3 ON INDEPENDENCE.

WE LITERALLY KICKED PEOPLE OUT AND MADE THEM HOMELESS, AND THE BUILDING IS STILL VACANT AND THE COUNTIES REMOVED THEIR PORTION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HELP FUND FOR THIS.

THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING THAT WE PURCHASED TWO YEARS AGO, THAT'S A HOSPITAL AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT.

WE HAVE ALL THESE PLACES WE COULD HELP PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY GET OFF THE STREET AND GO INTO PROGRAMS. THIS FUNDING OUGHT TO GO, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE DOLLARS NECESSARY.

I THINK WE FULLY HAVE FUNDED THE DISTRICT 1 PROPERTY.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE FUNDED THE HOTEL AND INDEPENDENCE PROPERLY.

I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER RFP GOING OUT ON THAT, I BELIEVE, AND THEN WHO EVEN KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE HOSPITAL.

NUMBER 1, RESERVE THESE FUNDS TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE PROJECTS.

NUMBER 2, RESERVE THESE FUNDS FOR INNOVATIVE HOMELESS SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN OUR CITY.

NUMBER 3, WE HAD SOME VERY COMPELLING SPEAKERS TALKING ABOUT ADA THIS MORNING.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS MONEY GO AND FIX THEIR SIDEWALK ISSUES.

I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN A WHEELCHAIR THAT ARE ROLLING INTO THE STREETS TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE NEXT INTERSECTION.

I'D LOVE TO REDIRECT IT TO THAT.

THE FOURTH ONE, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IS THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A CLA FOR OUR POLICE FIRE PENSIONERS. THANK YOU.

>> CITY MANAGER, I'LL LET YOU JUMP IN BEFORE I GO TO CHAIRMAN WEST FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. LET ME SAY SOMETHING.

ON ONE HAND, WE HEAR THAT WE NEED TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND HOW WE ARE WORKING TO HOUSE PEOPLE AND GET THEM OFF THE STREET.

WE COME TO THE COUNCIL WITH AN ITEM THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO CONTINUE THE PROGRESS THAT WE ARE MAKING WITH THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE, WHICH WAS LAUNCHED IN 2024, AND WE'VE SHOWN PROGRESS.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN AND WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S FACILITIES THAT THE CITY OWNS, AND I THINK ALL OF YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY AND CONTINUOUSLY TALKING ABOUT THOSE PROJECTS.

IT IS NOT SILENT AND IT'S NOT FALLING ON DEATH EARS.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THIS BODY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE ACTIVITIES FORWARD.

THIS FUNDING HELPS US IN THE IMMEDIATE CURRENTLY CONTINUE TO HOUSE PEOPLE AND MOVE THEM OFF THE STREET.

THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THIS ITEM.

THAT'S WHY WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE HOUSING AND HOMES SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE INTENTIONAL ABOUT HOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HOUSING FORWARD, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING RAISED TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AND THE WORK THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO TO GET THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, AND WE'RE DOING THAT AND WE'RE ACTIVELY DOING IT.

I WELCOME COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AS I'M TALKING AND WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO ALSO WORK WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SEND YOUR MESSAGES TO THEM BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THAT.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO PUSH FOR THEM TO COME TO THE TABLE AND SUPPORT THIS EFFORT OVERALL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS NOT GETTING BEAT UP BECAUSE WE'RE ANSWERING YOUR CALL TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY, AND YOU'VE ASKED FOR ME AS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPAND THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE, WHICH WE HAVE AND CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON MOVING PEOPLE INTO HOUSING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS MODEL AND EXPAND IT ACROSS THE CITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

I WANT TO JUST THANK COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR CONTINUING TO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR COMMENTS.

WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT NUMBER ONE, THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE SOLVE THIS COMPLEX PROBLEMS, WHICH IS WHY THE PARTNERSHIPS, WHICH IS WHY THE CONTINUUM OF CARE, WHICH IS WHY THE ALL NEIGHBORS COALITION, ALL OF THOSE ENTITIES WORKING TOGETHER IS CRITICAL.

THIS IS A SYSTEM RESPONSE AND IT IS NOT JUST THE CITY ALONE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T MISS THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE ONLY THE CITY IS COMING TO THE TABLE AND HELPING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

THIS IS A COORDINATED COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK MISS TOLBERT FOR LAYING THAT OUT THERE.

I FELT LIKE FOR THE LAST 30 MINUTES, I'M SITTING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE HERE.

I MEAN, WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT MOST OF US, IF NOT ALL OF US, HAVE GONE TO THE PRESS CONFERENCES CELEBRATING THE SUCCESS THAT HOUSING FORWARD HAS HAD IN ACHIEVING A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND THEN WE WERE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOR THE STREET TO HOME INITIATIVE, WHICH WAS ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS WE JUST LISTENED TO FOR 30 MINUTES.

WE HAVE PROVEN TRACK RECORD FROM HUD ON THIS, WE'RE ONE OF THE CITIES.

[01:35:07]

THIS IS ACTUALLY WORKING, AND THEN YOU WANT TO THROW OUT YOUR SACRED HORSE HERE AND HOLD THE MONEY AND TRY TO APPLY IT TO FIX UP A BUILDING OR SOMETHING.

YOU DON'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER.

WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT YOU DON'T CUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY WORKING IN YOUR SYSTEM TO FIX THOSE.

YOU FIND OTHER SOURCES.

I WANT TO JUST QUICKLY GO TO SARAH FOR A MINUTE.

I THINK YOU'VE MOSTLY ADDRESSED THIS, BUT CAN YOU TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE GOALS OF THE STREET TO HOME PROGRAM AND ITS RESULTS AND HOW THIS FUNDING IS SO IMPORTANT TO LEVERAGE PRIVATE DOLLARS, AS MISS TOLBERT MENTIONED.

>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK RELATED TO THAT, I JUST ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT JUST SOME OF THE SUCCESS OF THE REAL TIME INITIATIVE, THE REAL TIME RAPID HOUSING INITIATIVE THAT THE CITY CHAMPIONED.

PRIOR TO 2021, WE WERE MANAGING HOMELESSNESS WITH CRISIS SERVICES AND SHELTER, BUT WE WEREN'T ADEQUATELY FILLING THE GAP AND NEED AND HELPING PEOPLE EXIT HOMELESSNESS AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD 2015 TO 2021, OUR SHELTERS FILLED UP, PEOPLE OVERFLOWED ONTO OUR STREETS, AND WE ACTUALLY SAW UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS TRICKLE DURING THAT PERIOD.

THE ONGOING INVESTMENT, IT'S NOT ABOUT HOUSING FIRST OR HOUSING LATER.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT HOW WE CONTINUE TO AVOID THOSE SPIKES IN UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS.

THAT WAY OF INVESTING OUR RESOURCES RESULTED IN A 24% REDUCTION IN UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS.

BUT EVERYONE, WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE A TON OF WORK TO DO, AND THERE ARE STILL WAY TOO MANY VULNERABLE PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE WHO NEED CARE AND NEED HOUSING.

STREET TO HOME IS REALLY THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS EFFORT.

IT'S A $30 MILLION PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INITIATIVE.THAT REALLY FOCUSES ON THIS CHRONIC UNSHELTERED POPULATION.

AGAIN, WE ARE AIMING TO DRIVE DOWN OUR NUMBERS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS WITH THIS FUNDING TO GET TO A 50% REDUCTION IN HOMELESSNESS.

BUT I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE ANSWERING THE CALLS FROM LOCAL BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO REALLY ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS AND STREET HOMELESSNESS IN OUR PUBLIC SPACES THAT ARE MOST PROBLEMATIC.

THIS FUNDING IS REALLY TO DO TWO THINGS.

WE ARE COMBINING CITY AND COUNTY FUNDS WITH OUR FEDERAL FUNDING SO THAT WE CAN BRING ADDICTION SERVICES AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE DIRECTLY ON SITE TO UNSHELTERED LOCATIONS, TO HOUSE PEOPLE, AND THEN USE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES TO KEEP THOSE PUBLIC SPACES CLEAR.

BUT THE SECOND PRONG IS WE ARE RAMPING UP HOUSING OUT OF OUR EXISTING SHELTERS SO THAT WE IMMEDIATELY CREATE THE TEMPORARY SHELTER SPACE THAT THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE AND BRING MORE PEOPLE INSIDE.

IT'S A TWO PRONGED APPROACH WHERE WE ARE RESOLING STREET HOMELESSES AND BRINGING MORE PEOPLE INSIDE THIS $30 MILLION INVESTMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE CARE ATTACHED.

>> HOW IMPORTANT SARAH IS THE 2.5 MILLION DOLLAR ALLOCATION TODAY IN ORDER TO LEVERAGE THAT WITH COUNTY AND PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING?

>> IT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE IT'S MAKING HOLE ON THE $30 MILLION INVESTMENT.

THAT FUNDING IS CRITICAL.

WE HAVE MODELED REALLY THE AMOUNT OF REHOUSING THAT WE NEED TO DO TO KEEP PACE WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING INTO HOMELESSNESS EACH YEAR.

UNTIL OUR COMMUNITY CAN SOLVE THE ISSUES THAT ARE CAUSING PEOPLE TO BECOME HOMELESS, WE HAVE TO INVEST EFFICIENTLY IN GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF HOMELESSNESS QUICKLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO AVOID LARGE SPIKES IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE.

THAT TAKES ALIGNED INVESTMENTS.

WE, AS A COALITION, HAVE BEEN MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WE CAN BRING INTO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I THINK WHAT REAL TIME RAPID REHOUSING INITIATIVE SHOWED US, NOW THAT THAT FUNDING IS GONE, IT'S REALLY THE LOCAL DOLLARS THAT ARE NEEDED TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT THE FEDERAL DOLLARS ARE ALLOWING US TO ACCOMPLISH.

IF THIS FIVE MILLION MAKES FULL OF THE $30,000,000 INITIATIVES SO THAT WE CAN LEVERAGE THOSE DIFFERENT RESOURCES AND FILL THAT GAP AND NEED.

IF WE DO NOT FILL THAT GAP IN NEED, WE WILL BE BACK TO A SITUATION WHERE WE WERE 2015 AND 2021, WHERE STREET HOMELESSNESS AND VISIBLE ENCAMPMENTS WILL GET WORSE AND WE'LL SEE PEOPLE OVERFLOWING FROM SHELTERS ONTO THE STREET BECAUSE WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING THROUGHPUT AND NOT GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF HOMELESSNESS QUICKLY ENOUGH.

>> THEN LASTLY, MISS TOLBERT, I WANT YOUR OPINION ON THIS.

WHAT MESSAGE WOULD WE BE SENDING TO OUR PRIVATE FUNDERS IF WE DO NOT PROVIDE THE 2.5 MILLION TODAY THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT OR ANY AMOUNT?

>> AS I'M OUT TALKING OFTEN ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO

[01:40:02]

PARTNER WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND WITH ALL OF OUR KEY STAKEHOLDERS.

I THINK THE MESSAGE IS ONE THAT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I WANT THE MESSAGE TO BE, AND THAT IS THAT THE CITY CONTINUES TO INVEST IN ENSURING THAT OUR HOMELESS RESPONSE SYSTEM IS WHOLESOME AND IT CREATES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHERS TO COME TO THE TABLE AND BE A PART OF THE SUCCESS THAT WE'RE SEEING.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE.

WE HAVE DEFINITELY WORKED ACROSS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO MAKE UP THE ALL NEIGHBORS COALITION THAT THEY'RE BEING HEARD.

WE HAVE DEALT WITH IMPROMPTU SITUATIONS.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO THEN BRING THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO THE TABLE.

SHOW THEM THE RESULTS AND THEN GET THEM TO COMMIT TO SUPPORTING IT.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE SUCCESS THAT WE'VE SEEN THUS FAR.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR BEING ONE OF THE CITIES WHO HAS ACTUALLY REDUCED HOMELESSNESS IN THIS LAST YEAR AND A HALF IF IT WERE NOT FOR THAT PARTNERSHIP.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THE MESSAGE IS THAT THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO INVEST IN THIS RESPONSE SYSTEM THAT IT IS INTACT, AND THAT THE MESSAGE IS THAT THE WORK WE'RE NOT DONE, AND WE MUST CONTINUE.

THAT'S HOW I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE TO BRING THEM TO THE TABLE TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT.

WHEN WE ANNOUNCED THE STREET TO HOMELESS INITIATIVE LAST YEAR, WE TALKED ABOUT THE $30 MILLION INVESTMENT.

THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN RAISED.

IT'S GONE TO THIS INITIATIVE, AND WE ARE STILL CONTINUING TO PUSH TO GET ADDITIONAL EVEN BEYOND THIS CURRENT INITIATIVE THAT WE CAN BRING AND BE ABLE TO SUPPORT OUR SYSTEM.

THAT WOULD BE THE HOPE THAT THAT MESSAGE IS POSITIVE AND ALLOWS FOR THEM TO REALLY SEE THAT THE CITY IS PUTTING ITS MONEY WHERE ITS MOUTH IS.

>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, MAYOR, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,001.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR TO ITEM 28 BY CHAIRMAN WEST, AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK I SAID IT ALL.

ONLY THING I WANT TO CLARIFY AS YOUR TIME.

I'M JUST KIDDING. I LOVE WHAT YOU GUYS SAY

>> I THINK I'VE SAID IT ALL AND YOU TALK FOR FIVE MORE MINUTES.

BUT GO AHEAD. I HAVE TO DO IT.

I DO IT ALL THE TIME TO ME.

>> I SET MYSELF UP FOR THAT.

THE $1 ADDITION WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST TO KEEP IT CLEAN SINCE THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS 2.5. THANK YOU.

>> I REALLY WASN'T TRYING TO SILENCE YOU.

I WAS JUST POINTING OUT YOU GUYS IT'S A TECHNIQUE YOU GUYS HAVE MASTERED.

I THINK I'VE SAID EVERYTHING I NEED TO SAY ON THIS AND THEN THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET FIVE MORE MINUTES.

DAVE MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR MAKING THE AMENDMENT.

I TOO FELT LIKE I WAS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

I THINK THAT WE WERE DEBATING FIRST WHEN WE STARTED TAKING UP OUR BUSINESS THAT WE WANTED OR THAT A COLLEAGUE WOULD LIKE TO NOT FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF UNSHELTERED OUTSIDE OF IT, BUT YET WE WANT TO REDUCE OUR FUNDING TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF THE STREET.

I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO CALL OUT POLITICS WHEN POLITICS ARE ARISING AND QUITE FRANKLY, PREVENTING US FROM BEING EFFECTIVE.

I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S JUST I MEAN, I HAVE TO FIND A BETTER WORD BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND DISINGENUOUS TO ACT AS IF THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE WITH THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS AND OUR PARTNERS WITH HOUSING FORWARD HASN'T MADE A DRASTIC CHANGE TO OUR CITY.

THE REALITY IS WE CANNOT TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTHS.

EITHER SUPPORTIVE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S IN OUR BACKYARD OR NOT, OR WE'RE NOT.

WE'RE EITHER SUPPORTIVE OF HELPING OUR UNSHELTERED.

THAT'S HOLISTICALLY, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR BACKERS FOR OUR CAMPAIGN WOULD PREFER TO SEE.

I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE ARE LEGISLATORS.

WE GET TO HELP MAKE POLICY AND THE APPROACH TO MAKING POLICY SHOULD NEVER BE OR TYPE OF ATTITUDE.

IT SHOULD BE AN END. LET'S GET THIS DONE.

IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES MENTION AND HIGHLIGHT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE NEW CITY MANAGER THAT WE JUST HIRED.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE A COMPROMISE OF BEING ABLE AND I'LL BE PERFECTLY HONEST.

I PICKED UP THE PHONE WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET PREPARED FOR THIS AGENDA, AND I TALKED TO STAFF BECAUSE I WAS MOST CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD IN ANY WAY, HINDER OUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN ALTERNATIVE MEASURES.

[01:45:04]

BUT ONCE THAT WAS REASSURED, JUST AS IT'S BEEN TODAY AND JUST AS I'M SURE IT WAS TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS THAT WOULD INSINUATE THE OPPOSITE, THAT NOTHING IS BEING TOUCHED IN OUR ABILITY TO BRING IN NEW INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS.

IN FACT, MY DISCRETIONARY FIVE MILLION FROM THIS LAST BOND WAS PUT ALL TOWARDS OTHER SOLUTIONS.

I'VE MET WITH OUR PARTNERS AT HOUSING FORWARD.

WE HAVE MET EXTENSIVELY WITH OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS.

THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE KNOWS WHERE MY PERSONAL PRIORITY IS, AND I KNOW WE HAVE CLEAR SUPPORT AROUND THE COUNCIL TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS DONE.

I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT SUPPORTING THIS ITEM AT THE FULL AMOUNT AND SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS WITH OUR PARTNERS IS ONE THAT IS NOT IN ANY WAY GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM OUR ABILITY TO ADDRESS THOSE WHO ARE NOT BEING SERVED NOW.

WE DO HAVE SOME WHO ARE MOST VULNERABLE THAT ARE CHRONIC IN DEFINITION BECAUSE OF ISSUES LIKE MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

WHAT WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING IS COMPROMISING OUR ABILITY TO ADDRESS WHERE WE KNOW WE CAN MAKE AN IMPACT, WHERE WE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN TO MAKE AN IMPACT IN ORDER TO SAY THAT WE AREN'T.

I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT WE HEARD FROM A PROPOSAL EARLIER IN THE WEEK, SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE THIS NARRATIVE THAT EVERYTHING IS THE PROBLEM OF THE POLICE.

WE WANT TO ACT AS IF OUR ONLY GOAL OR OBJECTIVE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE SHOULD BE TO POUND DOLLARS INTO BRINGING IN MORE BODIES AND POLICE WHEN FOR DECADES, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSOCIATIONS, THEY'VE ASKED FOR CERTAIN THINGS TO BE INVESTED IN.

NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR DEPARTMENT NOT BEING INVESTED IN, BUT THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT TRAINED AND EQUIPPED TO RESPOND TO OUR UNSHELTERED NEEDS.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE SEEN SUCH A DRASTIC CHANGE WITH THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS.

WE KNOW THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

WE KNOW THAT OUR FORMER CHIEF, CHIEF BROWN GOT NATIONAL ATTENTION BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONE WITH A BADGE ON HIS CHEST TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED TO BE CALLED FOR LOOSE DOGS.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE CALLED FOR OUR UNSHELTERED.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE CALLED FOR MENTAL HEALTH.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT THESE INVESTMENTS IN ALTERNATIVE OUTREACH AND SOLUTIONS TO THESE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN THROWN ONTO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY.

IF WE WANT TO SAY WE BACK THE BLUE, WE HAVE TO BACK THE BLUE HOLISTICALLY, WHICH MEANS INVESTING IN OTHER AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP MAKE THE BLUES JOB EASIER, NOT CONTINUE THE SAME RHETORIC THAT IS A VICIOUS CYCLE AND DOES NOT HELP PEOPLE GET OFF OF THE STREET.

I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT BACK TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> CHAIRMAN ROVIAS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I GOT IN A LITTLE LATE TODAY AND I THOUGHT I WALKED INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE. I REALLY REALLY DID.

AS I WAS WALKING DOWN THE HALL AND HEARD THE OTHER AMENDMENT, BUT THANK YOU FOR THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH I'M ON.

THESE DOLLARS ARE TO HELP THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE RESIDENTS, AND IF YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE THEM, CAN WE JUST CALL THEM HUMANS IN OUR CITY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WHAT DOES HOUSING DO FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO GET THEM INTO A SPACE THAT THEY CAN LIVE IN.

>> IT ENDS THE TRAUMA OF BEING OUTSIDE AND ALLOWS FOR THE RESIDENT TO ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY HAVE HELPED THEM BECOME HOMELESS OR KEPT THEM HOMELESS IN A HOLISTIC SETTING WITH SUPPORT.

>> THANK YOU. HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BENEFITED FROM THIS PROGRAM SINCE WE STARTED IT?

>> OVER 15,000 INDIVIDUAL HOUSING PLACEMENTS SINCE 2021.

>> FIFTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN OUR CITY, MR. MAYOR, HAVE BENEFITED FROM THIS PROGRAM.

WE'RE NOT DONE YET.

WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

BUT LET ME TELL YOU THIS TOOL IS WORKING AND TO CUT IT OR TO SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED IT, OR TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHEN MR. MAYOR SOME HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE ALLEGEDLY DEALING WITH THESE FOLKS.

I DIDN'T. I HAVE TO TRUST THIS EXPERT OVER HERE BECAUSE THIS EXPERT OVER HERE, SINCE SHE GOT HERE, DIRECTOR CROSSLEY, THANK YOU.

[01:50:02]

BECAUSE BEFORE WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE 7.5 YEARS AGO, WE JUST HAD A PROBLEM, A HUGE PROBLEM.

WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

BUT HOW MANY YEARS IN A ROW HAVE WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN OUR CITY NOW?

>> FOUR.

>> FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, MR. MAYOR.

FOUR YEARS. WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE IT WAS JUST GOING UP.

YOU DON'T DEFUND A TOOL THAT IS WORKING.

WE HAVE MORE TOOLS TO GO. I KNOW THIS.

HOMELESSNESS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR CENTURIES.

BUT I'VE BEEN TO PLACES WHERE YOU DON'T SEE THESE FOLKS BECAUSE THEY DO IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

WE STRUGGLE BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED OVERALL IF YOU COULD JUST HAVE ALL THE MONEY AND WE COULD JUST WRITE A BLANK CHECK BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH MONEY.

HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST COULD REALLY GET EVERYBODY OFF THE STREETS?

>> I WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE TO PUNT THAT QUESTION TO SARAH KAHN.

>> VERY GOOD. THAT'S GOOD WIN DIRECTOR.

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THE THING THAT I CHALLENGE US TO THINK ABOUT IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT ONE YEAR.

IT'S ACTUALLY AN ANNUAL INVESTMENT BECAUSE EACH YEAR THAT WE DON'T SOLVE THE ISSUES THAT CAUSE HOMELESSNESS, THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER OF NEW INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES THAT COME IN AND SO EACH YEAR, WE DO A MODELING EXERCISE ABOUT HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO ADDRESS THAT, AND I CAN BRING THAT DATA BACK TO THE COMMITTEE I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT IT'S REALLY AS WHAT WE LEARNED THROUGH REAL TIME IS EVERY YEAR NEW INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES ARE COMING IN.

WE HAVE TO ANNUALLY HOUSE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR AND PROVIDE THEM CARE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THAT PACE.

THAT AMOUNT CHANGES FROM YEAR TO COMING OUT THE DEMAND.

>> VERY GOOD. I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT IN THAT IT'S LIKE ATTRITION.

WE'RE GOING TO GAIN MORE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE HOUSING TO PROVIDE.

BEFORE WE DIDN'T, WE WOULD JUST SWEEP HUMAN BEINGS OUT OF THEIR ENCAMPMENTS, LIKE THEY WERE TRASH.

WE DIDN'T CARE WHERE THEY WENT SO THAT THEY COULD BE BACK IN A DAY OR TWO.

THAT WAS NOT WORKING.

YOU WEREN'T PART OF THAT. YOU GOT HERE.

WE HAD ALREADY STARTED SOME THINGS ROLLING, BUT WHEN YOU GOT HERE, DIRECTOR, YOU AND YOUR TEAM REALLY CHANGED THE TRAJECTORY THAT WE WERE IN. I APPLAUD THAT.

>> MY DISTRICT SIX COMMISSIONER ON THE CITIZENS HOMELESS COMMISSION, JASMINE FLORIDA, SHE HAD A MEETING WITH ME, WE MEET ALMOST EVERY OTHER WEEK BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, AND SHE GIVES ME INFORMATION THAT SHE'S LEARNING FROM YOU ALL AND THINGS FROM THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE ME.

SHE GAVE ME SOME STATISTICS IF YOU'RE NOT READY FOR THIS, WHAT IS THE LARGEST POPULATION OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS?

>> OLDER, SINGLE AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN.

>> AND WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT? IT'S LIKE 38 OR 40%? IT'S A HIGH NUMBER.

>> I WANT TO SAY IT'S 34, SARAH; DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU? I DON'T.

>> YEAH, I KNOW IT'S IN THE 30S.

AS THAT PERCENTAGE GOES, AND THAT'S A POPULATION THAT WE'VE GOT TO WORK ON.

BECAUSE SOME OF THESE FOLKS JUST DON'T TRUST US.

I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY ENDS UP THROUGH WHATEVER LUCK, WHATEVER IT IS THAT PUT THEM INTO HOMELESSNESS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF MISTRUST, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> SO WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS, MR. MAYOR, WHEN WE STARTED THIS RAPID REHOUSING, I KNOW THAT YOU BACKED IT WITH SOME DOLLARS FROM THE 2022 BOND.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK I WAS REMEMBERING TO GET STARTED.

AND I REMEMBER IT WAS HUGE.

THE FIRST TIME AND THAT WAS THANKS TO OUR NOW OFFICIAL CITY MANAGER KIM TOLBERT, AND HER LEADERSHIP OF BRINGING SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE TOGETHER.

I REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS SOMEBODY AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE AND AT THIS BODY THAT SAID THAT RAPID REHOUSING WOULD NOT WORK, AND THEY WERE ADAMANT ABOUT IT, THAT WE WOULD NOT SEE ONE INDIVIDUAL, ONE AND YOU JUST TOLD ME 15,000.

I'M GOING TO BET ON THIS ONE, MR. MAYOR BECAUSE IT WORKS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO RETURN TO AN ISSUE ORIGINALLY RAISED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MARINO, WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE SHELTER-RESISTANT HOMELESSNESS AND CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS.

THAT IS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND DRUG ADDICTION OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHY SHOULDN'T THIS ALLOCATION OF 2.5 MILLION AND ONE DOLLAR BE UTILIZED TO COMBAT THOSE SERIOUS CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS RATHER THAN JUST ADDING TO THE TALLY OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

[01:55:05]

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IN TERMS OF WHAT WE KNOW CAUSES CHRONICITY, I WOULD NOT ATTRIBUTE THE MAJORITY TO SUBSTANCE USE OR MENTAL HEALTH.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ONCE SOMEONE IS OUTSIDE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF IT IS A LACK OF TRUST DUE TO SYSTEMIC ISSUES THAT ARE SOCIETAL AND ECONOMIC.

HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF HOW THIS SYSTEM INTERACTS WITH HEALTH CARE, I DO WANT TO HAVE SARAH TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE CITY MONEY IS NOT LOOKING AT THAT, THE CITY MONEY IS FOR RENTAL AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, BUT THE LARGER 30 MILLION, AND OF COURSE, THE PROGRAM ITSELF IS ALREADY WORKING IN A WAY THAT INTEGRATES BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SARAH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT PART?

>> YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER, REALLY, WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING OUTSIDE WHO ARE VERY VULNERABLE AND HAVING VERY SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND ADDICTION ISSUES.

AND SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, A PORTION OF THIS 30 MILLION IS FUELING SOME NEW COMPREHENSIVE BEHAVIOR HEALTH CARE TEAMS THAT HAVE NOW INTEGRATED INTO OUR OUTREACH AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ROVING TEAMS THAT FOLLOW PEOPLE AS THEY TRANSITION BACK INTO HOUSING SO THAT WE'RE PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY SUPPORT TO PEOPLE TO MEET THEIR LEVEL OF NEED WHILE THEY'RE TRANSITIONING BACK INTO HOUSING.

BUT WE'RE STARTING TO PROVIDE THAT CARE DIRECTLY AS WE MEET PEOPLE ON THE STREET.

THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF OUR PROGRESS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WE WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE A FIRST-EVER WAIVER FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO PAIR SOME OF OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS WITH LOCAL AND STATE BEHAVIOR HEALTHCARE DOLLARS TO EXPAND ACCESS TO THESE NEW TEAMS, TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF CARE ARE GETTING THE CARE THAT THEY NEED.

AND THROUGH THIS 30 MILLION, WE WILL BE EXPANDING THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING TO MORE PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE BECAUSE AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED IN THE PAST, WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO NEED THAT COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT, AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT FROM THE FIRST POINT OF ENGAGEMENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE HOUSING SO PEOPLE REMAIN STABLE.

>> SO TO SUMMARIZE, SARAH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THIS $30 MILLION OTHER THAN THE CITY'S PROPOSED CONTRIBUTION WOULD GO FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE RESOLUTION?

>> ABSOLUTELY. AND WE'RE DOING THAT THROUGH COST SHARING WITH OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS AND WITH NORTH TEXAS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY AND SOME OF THE STATE DOLLARS, THEY'RE ABLE TO DRAW DOWN THROUGH AN INNOVATIVE FINANCING MODEL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN EXPAND THOSE SERVICES FOR MORE FOLKS THAT NEED THEM.

>> CHAIR MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT OUR CHAIR OF HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS WHO CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND IS LEADING US ON A PATH TOWARDS A COMPASSIONATE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO HOMELESS POLICY AND SERVICES.

IF YOU ASK THE PEOPLE IN NORTH DALLAS, THEY WILL OVERWHELMINGLY TELL YOU THAT HOMELESSNESS HAS INCREASED IN OUR CITY.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE SHOWING.

YOU JUST DID A POINT-IN-TIME COUNT WITH A VERY LOW NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS AND NO DOUBT, SHOW AN UNDERCOUNT THAT SHOWS THAT WE'VE RESOLVED EVEN MORE OF IT.

BUT YET THE SHELTER DIRECTORS SAY THEY ARE FULL.

BUT YET THE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HAVING NEVER SEEN THIS MANY PEOPLE ON THE STREET BEFORE.

NOT JUST ON THE STREET, IN THE CREEKS, IN THE PARKS, ALL OVER.

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT MATCH THE DATA YOU'RE SHARING.

THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET HAVE ALREADY HAD OUTREACH WORKERS VISIT THEM MANY TIMES.

THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE THEY ARE REFUSING TO GO TO SHELTER OR HOUSING, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO INVEST IN NEW SOLUTIONS AND NEW OPTIONS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE THAT FIRST STEP TO REGAIN THEIR INDEPENDENCE, TO REGAIN A LIFE THAT IS SOMEWHERE IN THE FUNCTIONING OF SOCIETY.

THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE SOME FOR UP TO FOUR YEARS OR MORE THAT ARE UNFINISHED WOULD BE ADDITIONAL HOUSING.

SO FOR ALL THE TIMES, WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS ASKING THE MOST INANE QUESTION OF, IS HOUSING IMPORTANT? WELL, AREN'T ALL OF THESE OTHER UNITS IMPORTANT? AND INSTEAD THEY LANGUISH.

THERE'S SOME POLITICAL COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE, AND I'LL SIMPLY SAY THIS.

[02:00:02]

THE PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER IF THEY'RE VOTING FOR A SLOGAN OR IF THEY'RE DOING THE DEEP CRITICAL AND CAREFUL THINKING NEEDED ON THIS SUBJECT.

I'VE PERSONALLY WORKED IN THIS SPACE AS A HOMELESS SHELTER DIRECTOR.

I'VE WORKED AS A VOLUNTEER, EVEN AS THE VICE CHAIR OF OUR OWN CITIZENS HOMELESS COMMISSION.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME, AND WE'RE NOT GOING ABOUT IT THE RIGHT WAY.

WE'VE HAD A VERY ROBUST RESPONSE TO OUR LEAD AGENCY IN TERMS OF FUNDING, TERMS OF TIME.

BUT I JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVEN YESTERDAY, I HAD A MAJOR BUSINESS IN OUR AREA COME AND TALK TO ME SAYING, WE CAN'T CONTINUE WITH JUST HOUSING FIRST.

THIS ISN'T WORKING FOR US.

I KNOW. SARAH, I THINK THEY MET WITH YOU YESTERDAY AS WELL.

AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT IT IS TIME TO SAY, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT OTHER SOLUTIONS BECAUSE HOMELESS ARE EVERYWHERE.

WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT FIFA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HOW CAN WE CLEAR THE HOMELESS.

I'M JUST SHOCKED THAT WE JUST CONTINUE TO OPEN THE CHECKBOOK AND GIVE DOLLARS, AS CHAIR MARINO SAID.

THERE'S NOT EVEN A STRATEGY THAT'S BEING GIVEN WITH IT.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T HOUSE ALL THE PEOPLE? WE HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER MONEY THAT'S STILL SITTING THERE UNSPENT, AND WE HAVE LOTS OF OTHER PRIORITIES.

SO FUND THE PROJECTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE OPEN, FUND INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, AND IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, THEN WE HAVE SOME OTHER PRIORITIES WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN, GRACEY, I THINK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT 28.

>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR.

>> AMENDMENT. TO NUMBER 28. EXCUSE ME.

>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY BAFFLING.

AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. I'LL START HERE.

BEFORE I GOT INTO THE SEAT, WE ESTABLISHED SOME POLICY WHERE WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO COME UP WITH A THING WHERE WE'D HAVE SOME PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN EVERYONE'S DISTRICT.

AND I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE YOU ALL, AND I'LL BE BRINGING THIS BEFORE THE HOUSING COMMITTEE TO REVISIT THAT POLICY, BUT ALSO CHALLENGE US TO LOOK AT THIS HOUSING CRISIS, HOMELESS CRISIS, WHICHEVER LENS, WHICHEVER END OF THE POLITICS YOU OWN, WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE YOU ALL TO LOOK AT IT AS IT APPLIES TO YOUR DISTRICT, AND WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION.

NOT JUST AN OVERALL, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A DALLAS ISSUE, HOUSING, AND HOMELESSNESS.

BUT I WANT YOU ALL TO LOOK AT IT THROUGH YOUR LENS OF YOUR DISTRICT AND TRULY LOOK AT WHAT IS THE SOLUTION FOR YOUR DISTRICT AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE SERVING.

WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS THIS.

SOMEBODY ALREADY BROUGHT IT UP AND AT THE RISK OF GETTING INTERRUPTED BY WHOEVER JERMAINE IS. IT'S A JOKE.

I'M GOING TO GET A T-SHIRT. WHO IS JERMAINE? AT THE RISK OF BEING INTERRUPTED, THOUGH, I NEED PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS SEAT, AND SINCE IT'S ALREADY COME UP, I'VE BEEN WORKING TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR MY DISTRICT.

THAT INCLUDES THOSE TWO PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT I INHERITED.

AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT INDEPENDENCE FIRST, AND I'M NOT GOING TO STAY THERE, SO I WILL MOVE ON OUR PROMISE, BUT WITH THAT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE SOLUTIONS FOR OUR DISTRICTS, WE TALK ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE THAT GOT MOVED OUT.

I INTENTIONALLY DID MY NATIONAL NIGHT OUT OVER THERE BECAUSE I WANTED YOU ALL TO COME AND SEE THIS COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE THAT GOT DISPLACED.

AND THE FIRST THING THEY DID IS SAYING, HEY, WHEN IS THAT SPOT GOING TO OPEN UP? BECAUSE I NEED A PLACE TO LIVE.

NOBODY IS TALKING TO THEM ABOUT THEIR HOUSING CRISIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

AND WHEN I TALK ABOUT THESE SOLUTIONS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

SO FOR ME, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS WORKED.

THE UNFORTUNATE PART ABOUT THIS IS THE PEOPLE THAT SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS ONES ARE THE ONES WHO MANAGED TO BENEFIT THE MOST IN TERMS OF GETTING 150 PEOPLE IN A MATTER OF WEEKS OFF THE STREET AND HOUSE.

AND IT TOOK ME MONTHS TO GET MS. ZENA HOUSED UNDER THIS SAME PROGRAM.

SO YOU'LL FORGIVE ME.

IF I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO LISTEN TO THIS.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICS AND HAVING REAL SOLUTIONS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE IN YOUR DISTRICT.

WHEN I TALK ABOUT THAT HAMPTON PROPERTY, THAT'S ONE THAT'S ONLY BEEN A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOUSING AND HOMELESS SOLUTIONS.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW, WELL, WHAT IS HE DOING WITH THAT, I'M MOVING IT OUT OF HOUSING COMMITTEE INTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SO IT CAN BE A TRUE DISCUSSION, NOT JUST ABOUT POTENTIALLY HOMELESS, BUT POTENTIALLY HOUSING TOO.

[02:05:01]

I SEE WHAT THE NEED IS IN MY DISTRICT, AND I'M TRULY TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR IT, BUT IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT WHEN I HAVE OTHER PEOPLE FLYING AROUND WITH DRONES, LOOKING AT THE AREA WHERE I HAVE KIDS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

I HAVE 16, 17-YEAR-OLDS WALKING AROUND IN THE AREA, LIVING IN MOTELS, KNOCKING ON DOORS WITH 20-SOMETHING-YEAR-OLDS JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE A SHOWER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROSTITUTE THEMSELVES OUT, AND YET EVERYBODY ELSE'S SOLUTION FOR THEIR HOMELESS CRISIS SEEMS TO COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I'M SERVING AND I'M TIRED.

SO I NEED YOU ALL TO HEAR ME NOW.

I'M TRYING NOT TO CUSS.

I AM, BUT THIS IS.

>> CASTER DON'T DO IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY.

BUT THIS IS BOY CRAP.

AND I DON'T CARE IF WHAT YOU THINK MY POSITION IS AND ALL OF THAT FROM DAY 1, I'VE DONE NOTHING BUT TRY TO MEET THE NEED BOTH A HOUSING NEED AND A HOMELESS NEED IN MY DISTRICT.

THIS IS NOT CAMPAIGNING. THIS IS A PLEA.

STOP THIS. STOP IT.

THERE ARE REAL NEEDS IN THESE DISTRICTS.

EVERYBODY HAS A PASSIONATE STORY.

I HAD FAMILY THAT STAYED IN THESE MOTELS.

RECENTLY. EVERYBODY HAS A STORY TIED TO THEIR WHY.

RESPECT THAT WHY AND HEAR THE SOLUTION, NOT FROM YOUR LENS, BUT FROM THE LENS OF THE PERSON REPRESENTING THAT DISTRICT.

THESE ARE ALL GREAT SOLUTIONS.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE YOUR SOLUTION ONTO ANOTHER PERSON'S DISTRICT, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

AND I'M SAYING IT NOW, STOP AND ALLOW US, AND I CHALLENGE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, LOOK AT YOUR DISTRICT FOR WHAT IT IS, AND COME UP WITH THAT SOLUTION FOR YOUR DISTRICT AND THEN PRESENT THAT.

NOT WHAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE IN ANOTHER PERSON'S DISTRICT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. SCHULTZ, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR HIS PASSION AND SUPPORT FOR HIS DISTRICT.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AGENDA IS IN MOVING THE GOALPOST.

IT SEEMS TO BE A NEW MODEL, A NEW PRACTICE HERE OF TRYING TO WHEN STAFF IS MAKING PROGRESS AND MOVING FORWARD AND HITTING NUMBERS, THEN THE GOALPOST GETS MOVED.

AND SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW CUTTING THIS PROGRAM COULD EVEN BEGIN TO HELP TOWARD THE SOLUTION.

I THINK IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA SAID IS THAT IN HIS RESEARCH FOR THIS ITEM, HE GOT THE ASSURANCE FROM YOU AND FROM A CITY MANAGER TOLBERT, THAT ALL THOSE OTHER INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS ARE STILL TO COME FORWARD TO US.

SO WE'RE NOT SACRIFICING ONE IN ORDER TO DO THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS VOTE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN SHULTZ, I'M SORRY.

I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THIS BODY THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TYPES OF INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS.

THIS ITEM DOES NOT PREVENT ANY OF THOSE SOLUTIONS.

I MENTIONED THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE STREET, OR WE'RE ASKING FOR IDEAS, REALLY SEEING WHAT THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT.

FOR ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT WE CAN BRING OTHER TYPES OF HOUSING TO THE TABLE TO HELP WITH UNSHELTERED ADULTS.

THIS DOES NOT PREVENT ANY OF THOSE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ANY ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS GOING FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU. SO IT SEEMS LIKE VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM THEN WOULD SIMPLY BE SAYING, LET'S SET OURSELVES UP FOR FAILURE SO THAT WE CAN BLAME THE CITY FOR YET ANOTHER FAILURE, AND I PERSONALLY WILL NOT BE PART OF THAT PROCESS, SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> CHAIR MARINO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

STREET AT HOME HAS BEEN FOCUSED IN DISTRICT 2 BECAUSE OF THE EXPECTATIONS SET BY MY COMMUNITIES.

I HAVE NOT SEEN ENOUGH PROGRESS IN THESE ZONE 1, ZONE 2 OR ZONE 3.

WE CAN GO OUTSIDE RIGHT NOW AND SEE OUR CHRONICALLY HOMELESS STILL SUFFERING ON OUR STREETS THAT WERE NOT HELPED THROUGH HOUSING FIRST.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ON THE STREETS FOR DECADES SUFFERING FROM TRAUMA.

I DO NOT SEE THAT THIS IS WORKING, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR MOST RECENT COMMUNITY SURVEY.

JUST THIS WEEK, DISTRICT 2 AND DISTRICT 14 HOSTED A COMMUNITY MEETING AND HOMELESSNESS CONTINUES TO BE A TOP PRIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ADDRESSING CHRONICALLY HOMELESS.

MAYBE MY EXPECTATIONS ARE JUST TOO HIGH.

MAYBE OUR RESIDENTS ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR TOO MUCH WHEN IT COMES TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO HOUSE PEOPLE, BUT I WANT THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL WHEN THEY'RE HOUSED.

[02:10:02]

WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY IS THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH HOUSING FIRST AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE MORE SERVICES.

I'M SIMPLY ASKING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESOURCES TO HOLD OUR PARTNERS ACCOUNTABLE.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN TO SEE IF THEIR SUPPORT IS FOR ALLOCATING A PORTION OF THESE FUNDS TO GO TO BEHAVIORAL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS. I'LL FOLLOW BACK UP IF THERE IS A SUPPORT AROUND DOING DOLLARS IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK WE'RE ON ROUND 2 NOW FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.

CHAIRMAN NAVIS YOU'RE UNLESS.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANTED TO START OFF BY I NEED TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS A BODY, NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON HERE HAS EVER SAID WE NEED TO CLEAR THE STREETS OF THE PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS FOR FIFA, FOR THE WORLD CUP.

I HAVE NOT EVER HEARD THAT SAID ONCE, AND I JUST NEEDED TO CORRECT THAT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED AND WHAT I'VE HEARD, BECAUSE PEOPLE START MAKING UP THINGS ON THIS BODY ON PURPOSE BECAUSE THEY GET AWAY WITH IT, AND I'M DONE WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU GOT TO BRING THE FACTS, AND THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH.

NOBODY HAS SAID THAT ON THIS BODY.

I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS BODY CARES, MR. MAYOR.

WE HAVE A LOT OF PASSION FOR THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I JUST HEARD IT FROM MY COLLEAGUE ACROSS OVER THERE, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY, I HEAR YOU AND I SEE YOU ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT.

I GOT IT IN CERTAIN POCKETS IN MY DISTRICT TOO.

I CAN'T GET THEM OUT OF THE M FORK.

I GOT TO HEAR ABOUT IT EVERY SINGLE DAY.

IT'S LIKE, HOW DO WE GET THERE? I GET YOU. I HEAR YOU.

WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT, THOUGH? I LIKE THAT.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ONE DAY DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITH THIS ITEM.

WHAT I WANTED TO SAY ALSO IS, I LIKE ALL THE IDEAS THAT ARE COMING UP, BUT YOU DON'T TAKE IT FROM THIS WORKING TOOL AND TAKE FUNDING FROM IT TO CREATE ANOTHER ONE.

WHAT YOU DO IS YOU KEEP FUNDING THIS ONE.

THEN WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST TO FOR THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND ALL OF THE DRUGS, ADDICTIONS, AND ALL THAT.

CAN WE ASK OUR PARTNER IF SHE CAN COMMENT ON SHE MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THERE'S ALREADY A PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH ON THAT, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

WHAT WOULD THAT DO IF WE TOOK $0.5 MILLION AND PUT IT OVER THERE? WOULD IT REALLY IMPACT OR COULD WE GET DOLLARS FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE TO HELP YOU ALL GET MORE DOLLARS FOR THAT?

>> SARAH?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE COMPLETELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE WHO HAVE SERIOUS ADDICTION ISSUES AND SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE HAVE BUILT A RESPONSE A PORTION OF THIS $30 MILLION RESPONSE IS TO MEET PEOPLE WHERE THEY'RE AT BY MAKING SURE THAT THROUGH A NEW ALLIANCE THAT WE FORMED WITH NORTH TEXAS BEHAVIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY, THEY HAVE FORMED NEW MULTI DISCIPLINARY BEHAVIOR HEALTH CARE TEAMS LIKE I HAVE TO THINK OF THEM AS THE NAVY SEALS OF BEHAVIOR HEALTHCARE TEAMS THAT ARE NOW INTEGRATED INTO OUR OUTREACH RESPONSE AND OUR REHOUSING RESPONSE.

WE HAVE FOUND INNOVATIVE WAYS TO LEVERAGE OUR FEDERAL DOLLARS AND TO PAIR THOSE THROUGH COST SHARING WITH STATE AND LOCAL AND COUNTY DOLLARS TO EXPAND THOSE SERVICES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE REACHING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING JUST HOUSING, WE'RE MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH ADDICTION SERVICES AND BEHAVIOR HEALTHCARE BACK AROUND SERVICES SO THAT THOSE TEAMS CAN FOLLOW PEOPLE AS THEY TRANSITION INTO THE COMMUNITY INTO PERMANENT HOUSING.

WE HAVE BUILT IN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THAT WE HAVE BUILT IN THOSE COSTS IN THE TOTAL 30 MILLION.

TEN MILLION OF THE 30 HAS ALREADY BEEN SECURED THROUGH FEDERAL DOLLARS WHEN THOSE FUNDS HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO THE MODEL.

>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

THERE'S ALREADY A PROGRAM HAPPENING WITH THIS, AND WE HEAR IT ON THIS BODY ALL THE TIME.

SOMEBODY ELSE SHOULD BE DOING THAT.

THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE CITY.

ALL OF A SUDDEN IT I'M HEARING THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT, SAY, WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS? WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS? IT'S LIKE MY HEAD IS EXPLODING FROM SAY IT ONE WAY, BUT THEN SAY IT ANOTHER WAY THAT HAPPENS ON ALL THE TIME.

IT'S DRIVING ME AND SAYING, I'M NOT AS UPSET AS MR. GRACEY IS WITH ALL OF THIS, BUT THAT'S WHY I FEEL HIS PASSION AND FEEL FROM HIM BECAUSE I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME.

I TUNE INTO THESE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND I'M LIKE, FIRST, WE NEED THIS TYPE OF HOUSING.

[02:15:01]

THEN THEY TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT WE DON'T, AND THEY WANT THIS, AND THEY DON'T.

IT'S LIKE, HOW IS STAFF SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO AND WHAT'S THE DIRECTION IF WE DON'T GIVE A CLEAR MESSAGE WHAT YOU ALL WANT.

WE DID WITH THIS. IT'S UP AGAIN.

LET'S FUND IT, MR. MAYOR.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS, AND WE CAN WORK ON THESE OTHER TOOLS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOING TO JUMP BACK UP TO CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET ON THIS FOR FIVE MINUTES, ON THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28.

>> I THOUGHT I'D SHARED JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ONE OF YOU, CHRISTINE. PERSPECTIVE IS THIS.

WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO DALLAS, IT WAS 1980 AND I WAS 22-YEARS-OLD AND IT WAS THE HOTTEST SUMMER EVER.

BUT ROB AND I JOINED FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE DID WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING OUTREACH AND MISSION TO THE HOMELESS.

THEY HAD STARTED A PROGRAM YEARS BEFORE.

IT WAS RUN BY BOB LIVELY AND IT WAS PROBABLY STARTED IN IN THE S BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE 1980.

THIS PROBLEM, IF WE WANT TO CALL IT IS, I GUESS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM.

I THINK SOMEBODY MENTIONED THIS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

IT'S PROBABLY ALWAYS BEEN AROUND.

YES, I DO THINK IT'S GROWN, AND YES, WE'VE BECOME SO MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED AND HOW WE DEAL WITH IT.

INITIALLY, THE STU POT PROVIDED A MEAL AND A PLACE FOR THEM TO HAVE THEIR DISABILITY OR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS MAILED TO.

THEN AFTER THAT, I REMEMBER WHEN THERE WAS TALK ABOUT THE AUSTIN STREET SHELTER AND THEY WERE BEGINNING TO BUY PROPERTY AND START THAT PROJECT.

IT'S ALWAYS EVOLVING.

WE HAVE LEARNED DRAMATICALLY.

I THINK I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO BOB LIVELY SOMETIME ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS WE'VE LEARNED IN THE PAST 40 SOME YEARS.

BUT IT'S A LOT, AND THE MENTAL HEALTH PIECE IS KEY.

MY QUESTION IS, IS MENTAL HEALTH THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNTY MORE THAN IT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY?

>> IS IT APPROPRIATE OR WISE FOR US TO SET OUR DOLLARS ASIDE THAT WOULD BE USED FOR MENTAL HEALTH, OR ARE WE ABLE TO WORK WITH SARAH AND HER TEAM AND USE THEIR DOLLARS FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH PIECE?

>> I WILL HAVE SARAH ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

WITH THE FRAMING THAT WORKING WITH NORTH TEXAS BEHAVIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY DOES HAVE SOME OF THAT CONNECTIVITY BACK TO THE COUNTY BUILT IN, SARAH?

>> AGAIN, WE ARE LEVERAGING A NEW ALLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY THROUGH THE NORTH TEXAS BEHAVIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY TO BRING TOGETHER FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY RESOURCES TO PUT THOSE BEHAVIOR HEALTH CARE PACKAGES TOGETHER.

THAT ALLOWS US TO LEVERAGE THE CITY DOLLARS FOR THE OTHER GAPS IN NEED.

>> FOR THE OTHER EXPENSES?

>> YES

>> CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, IF I COULD ALSO JUST JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM AND THE PURPOSE OF IT.

BUT I WANT TO JUST REMIND THE COUNSEL THAT ONE OF THE APPROACHES THAT WE ALSO TOOK WITH THIS, IF YOU WILL RECALL, THAT WE INCLUDED THE CASE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE AROUND THE DOLLARS THAT WE WERE GOING TO SPEND WHEN WE STARTED RAPID REHOUSING AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY WE DID THAT.

WE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. NUMBER 1, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE CASE MANAGERS IN THE OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS, BUT THAT WAS A NEED.

AS WE'VE IDENTIFIED PIECES OF THE MODEL THAT EITHER NEEDED TO BE DONE BY THE CITY, OR WE NEEDED TO GO RAISE PRIVATE DOLLARS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T USE ANY OF OUR FUNDING FOR START UP HOME KITS.

WE CAN'T GO IN AND PAY UPFRONT RENT AND THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO USE THE PRIVATE DOLLARS FOR.

AS WE CONTINUE WITH OUR ENGAGEMENT, WITH THE COUNTY.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THE COUNTY TO COME TO THE TABLE AND BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING, WHICH IS WHY I MENTIONED THE MEETING THAT'S COMING UP WITH COMMISSIONER SUMMOMAN ON FEBRUARY THE 18TH.

THEY WANT TO HELP, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STEER THEIR DOLLARS WHERE THE SYSTEM NEEDS THAT FUNDING, WHICH DEFINITELY, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE AROUND THE THINGS THAT THE CD CURRENTLY SHOULD NOT BE DOING.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> I'M GOING TO GO TO DAVE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE BAFFLED AT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE RIGHT THIS SECOND.

IN FACT, COULD YOU, FOR THE PUBLIC SAKE, TELL ME WHEN THE LAST TIME AND HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS BEEN SEEN BY COMMITTEE.

>> WE BROUGHT THIS PARTICULAR PACKAGE TO THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS COMMITTEE IN JANUARY.

PRIOR TO THAT STREET TO HOME ITSELF HAS BEEN

[02:20:02]

PART OF OUR QUARTERLY BRIEFING SINCE THE SUMMER.

>> THIS PARTICULAR PACKAGE WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO COMMITTEE.

WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM THE COMMITTEE OR EVEN, I GUESS, DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I'LL LET YOU ANSWER.

>> THERE WASN'T A RECOMMENDATION REQUESTED.

IT WAS JUST A BRIEFING THAT THIS IS COMING.

BUT THE DISCUSSION WAS AROUND SIMILAR QUESTIONS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH AND WHAT IT WOULD PAY FOR, AND WHO ELSE IS POTENTIALLY COMING TO THAT COLLECTIVE TABLE AND SARAH WAS HERE FOR THAT AS WELL?

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE OFTEN HEAR FROM OUR MAYOR ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT IT IS THAT HE'S ASKED US TO DO, AND A LOT OF THIS POLICY WORK SHOULD BE IRONED OUT AT A COMMITTEE LEVEL.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE WAS MUCH OF A DIRECTION GIVEN HERE.

I THINK THAT ONCE AGAIN, I'M GOING TO HAVE A NEW WORD BECAUSE THIS IS A HAPHAZARD WAY OF GOVERNING.

THIS IS BRINGING IT OUT ON THE FLOOR AND JUST THROWING SOMETHING AND SEEING WHAT STICKS TO THE WALL.

THAT'S NOT HOW WE SHOULD BE GOVERNING.

THAT'S NOT HOW WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING SUCH MAJOR ISSUES.

I KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD REFERENCE TO THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION.

LAST TIME I CHECKED, THE MAYOR DIDN'T APPOINT US TO BE CHAIRS OF A COMMITTEE TO BE UNILATERAL FIEFDOM KING.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HEARING THESE POLICIES OUT THROUGH THE BODIES THAT SIT ON THESE COMMITTEES.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HEAR RECOMMENDATIONS COME FROM THE COMMITTEES.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HEAR VETTING OF POLICY, NOT COMING DOWN, PRESSING THE MIC AND SAYING, WELL, I WANT TO TAKE A PORTION OF THIS TO DO X, Y OR Z.

THAT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE SPENDING OF THE TAX DOLLARS.

WE'VE GOT TO GET SERIOUS AND THIS HYPOCRISY THAT WE HEAR AROUND THIS HORSESHOE IS JUST OUTSTANDING.

IT'S INSANE.

I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO GET BACK TO THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE AND STOP WITH THE DAMN POLITICS.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. MAYOR PRO TEM.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE HOOVER DAM.

>> GOT YOU.

>> I'M TELLING YOU NOW THAT ANY ACTION OTHER THAN APPROVING THIS AND CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I EMPHASIZE AND, NOT OR, AND.

WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS TODAY, AND WE STILL HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF BRINGING IN MANY THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, AND ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT A COMMITTEE LEVEL, INSTEAD OF DOING IT RIGHT HERE IN A VERY MESSY WAY.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH SENSE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO GO IN SO THAT WE CAN GET BACK TO THE WORK AND GET OUR PARTNERS BACK ON THE STREET WHERE IT REALLY MATTERS.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNPRODUCTIVE OF OUR TIME AND OF OUR TAXPAYERS TIME.

I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEEN VETTED.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PLATFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY OUR MAYOR AND THE DIRECTION OF WHERE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GO WITH POLICY.

THIS IS NOT HOW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.

CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON WITH THE VOTE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> NO, WE'RE NOT QUITE DONE WITH THE DEBATES SOMEONE IS CALLING THE QUESTION.

>> IT WAS RHETORICAL.

>> OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT I HEARD TO CALL THE QUESTION FROM OVER HERE, BUT CHAIRMAN MARINO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DO WANT TO THANK OUR CITY MANAGER FOR HER DEDICATION TO THIS COMPLEX ISSUE.

HER AND HER TEAM HAVE DEVOTED A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORTS.

I JUST WANT TO THANK HER. I DO WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

TO ALLOCATE $1,500,001 TO HOUSING FORWARD AND ONE MILLION TO MENTAL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? PAULA. SEEING NONE, IT FAILS FOR WANT OF A SECOND.

AT THIS POINT, WE ARE STILL ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRMAN WEST TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 28.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON OR AGAINST AMENDMENT CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT TO ITEM 28?

>> I'M GOING TO RECONSIDER AND NOT SPEAK. THANK YOU.

>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRMAN WEST TO ITEM 28? SEEING NONE, A RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED ON CHAIRMAN WEST'S AMENDMENT, ITEM 28.

SO MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE, YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO IF YOU OPPOSE, AND I WILL ASK THAT YOU MAKE YOUR RESPONSE IN THE MICROPHONE.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT BEFORE WE START.

THIS IS ON THE CHAIRMAN WEST'S AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST?

[02:25:02]

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER ARNOLD?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON?

>> WITH 12 VOTING IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSE? THE AMENDMENT PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

>> WONDERFUL. MEMBERS, WHERE WE ARE NOW, IS ITEM 28 HAS BEEN AMENDED AS CHAIRMAN WEST HAS SUGGESTED.

WE ARE NOW BACK ON ITEM 28 AS AMENDED.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, NO ONE.

IS ANYONE OR WANTING TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM 28 AS AMENDED? SEEN NONE, A RECORD VOTE? NOT NECESSARY.

>> I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE, PLEASE.

>> RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED.

RECORD VOTE'S BEEN GRANTED.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THIS IS ITEM 28 AS AMENDED, VOTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO IF YOU OPPOSE, AND INTO YOUR MICROPHONES, PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER ARNOLD?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY?

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON?

>> WHAT 12 VOTING IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSE.

THE AMENDED ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

>> WONDERFUL. NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

>> WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION,

[42. 25-253A 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)]

BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 42.

AGENDA ITEM 42 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS MORNING, YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL FULL COUNCIL AND OFFICER APPOINTMENTS.

YOU DO HAVE A CHAIR APPOINTMENT THAT WILL BE SEPARATED TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO ABSTAIN HIMSELF.

I'M SORRY, ABSTAIN. THAT'S CORRECT.

YOUR NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD, MISTICA JACOB IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK OPPORTUNITY BOARD, JOHN JACK BUNNING IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

TO THE VETERAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION, GLENN RALPH HUNTER IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMAN.

YOUR NOMINEE FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 20 BOARD, MALL AREA REDEVELOPMENT; JOLIE NEWMAN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

YOUR VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENT: LEROY TEMPU IS BEING NOMINATED VICE CHAIR OF THE YOUTH COMMISSION BY MAYOR JOHNSON.

THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR?

>> ME APPROVAL.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, MISS BLACKMAN? YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES IF SO.

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON VOTING FOR LEROY TEMPU.

HE IS A RESIDENT OF D9 AND HE ATTENDS THE BARACK OBAMA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY, AND WHEN I WAS CHATTING WITH HIM ABOUT THIS POSITION ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION, MY KIDS POPPED IN AND WAS LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION AND THEY WERE BLOWN AWAY.

IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN YOU'VE GOT TEENAGE KIDS THAT ARE IMPRESSED BY THEIR FELLOW TEENAGE KIDS.

I'M HAPPY AND THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING THIS OPPORTUNITY.

HE'S THE AMBASSADOR OF THE COMMISSION ON SEVERAL SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS.

HE'S HELPED ORGANIZE WHITE ROCK TRASH PICKUPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TEEN HALLS.

HE IS HOPEFULLY SOMEBODY WHO WILL BE SITTING HERE IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

EVERY NOW AND THEN, HE LEAVES ME A NOTE IN MY DRAWER AND IT MAKES ME HAPPY.

I HOPE THAT Y'ALL WILL JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING HIM, AND HE DESERVES THIS.

HIS PEERS HAVE SAID THEY WANT HIM TO BE THE VICE CHAIR, AND SO I'M VERY PROUD OF A D9 RESIDENT STANDING UP AND SAYING, I WANT TO DO THIS. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE NOMINEES?

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY TO YOU?

>> PLEASE STATE IT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE COULD CONSIDER ADDING A RULE THAT WE ONLY APPOINT PEOPLE FROM OUR OWN DISTRICTS.

[02:30:02]

>> THAT'S REALLY NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, BUT IT'S DULY NOTED, AND I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR SURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO LIKES TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE NOMINEES THAT THE SECRETARY READ INTO THE RECORD, SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

THE NOMINEES ARE APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NOW, MOVE TO YOUR CHAIR APPOINTMENT.

KAREN UNMUTH IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD BY MAYOR JOHNSON. THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

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

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

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

ANY OPPOSED?

>> I NOTED TWO; COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ.

>> DO WE NEED A RECORD ON THAT OR ARE WE GOOD?

>> IT'S NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT THEY VOTED NO ON THE CHAIR APPOINTMENT ON THIS ITEM.

>> WELL, THEN THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE NAYS HAVE BEEN NOTED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> NOTE THAT I ABSTAINED.

>> NOTED, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 43.

[43. 25-387A A resolution authorizing approval for the City Manager to enter into an agreement between the City of Dallas (Host City Authority) and the North Texas FWC Organizing Committee (Hosting SPV) to set forth rights and obligations of both parties with respect to the fulfillment of obligations under the Host City Agreement for FIFA World Cup 2026, approved as to form by the City Attorney - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AGENDA ITEM 43 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS, HOST CITY AUTHORITY AND THE NORTH TEXAS FWC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE (HOSTING SPV) TO SET FORTH RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE HOST CITY AGREEMENT FOR FIFA WORLD CUP 2026, APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> THE MOTION.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND.

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

ANY OPPOSED? WAS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO ANY? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

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

[44. 25-566A Authorize a resolution to engage a new performance management consultant to assist the Dallas City Council and facilitate the performance evaluations of City Council - appointed positions (City Attorney, City Secretary, City Manager, City Auditor, and Inspector General) - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

44: AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION TO ENGAGE A NEW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT TO ASSIST THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL AND FACILITATE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF CITY COUNCIL, APPOINTED POSITIONS, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, CITY MANAGER, CITY AUDITOR, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED, AND THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS YOUR MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, MISS SCHULTZ?

>> YES. MR. MAYOR.

>> YOU GOT IN FIRST.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MISS SCHULTZ.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. I'D LIKE TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THIS ITEM AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, LIKE AS IT MOVES FORWARD? I DON'T KNOW WHO MAKES THAT DECISION OR HOW IT WORKS?

>> I'M NOT SURE. I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY RESPOND, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

>> I THINK MAYBE SHE CAN HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> I MEAN, YOU WOULD ENTER INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE IF YOU WEREN'T SURE ABOUT MOVING SOMETHING FORWARD AND JUST DO A STRAW VOTE.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WOULD.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESOLUTION IS TO ENGAGE A NEW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT, WHO WILL BE DOING THAT.

I WANT TO OPERATE AS THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, HOW DO I MAKE THAT MOTION TO DO THAT?

>> [BACKGROUND] WOULD NOT BE A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BECAUSE THE WHOLE COUNCIL WOULD BE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS ITEM IS CURRENTLY WITH THE AD HOC ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, AND I'LL LET THE CHAIR TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS.

>> WHEN YOU FINISH, I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT.

>> YOU CAN TAKE MY TIME.

>> DONZELL, WILL YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE?

>> A BETTER YET.

LET STAFF DO THAT INSTEAD OF YOU TAKING MY TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY INTELLIGENT ONE.

BUT ANYWAY, WE HAD THIS IN A COMMITTEE.

DONZELL, WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT THROUGH PROCUREMENT.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WE DESIGNED IN THE COMMITTEE?

>> YES, SIR. DONZELL GIPSON, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

LET ME DO SOME BACKGROUND REAL FAST.

INITIALLY, STAFF HAD PROCEEDED WITH WORKING WITH THE EXISTING CONTRACT THAT WAS WITH BAKER TILLY, THAT WOULD HAVE AFFORDED THE COUNCIL TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS.

WE HEARD VERY LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS THAT THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH BAKER TILLY.

DOING SO, THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND EXPRESSED THEIR INTEREST BY VOTING AT AD HOC TO DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER,

[02:35:01]

WHICH IS WHAT THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO TODAY, TO GO AHEAD AND PROCURE A NEW CONTRACT, WHICH IS BEING LED BY OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

IN THAT PROCESS, WE GAVE A BRIEFING WHERE WE HAD AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THE COMMITTEE WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY RECOMMEND AN AWARDEE TO FULL COUNCIL AT SOME LATER DATE THAT WOULD BE THE FULL BODY MAKING A DECISION ON WHO THE SAID CONSULTANT FOR THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS WOULD BE.

>> MY QUESTION THEN IS TO YOU, MR. GIPSON IS, SO IN THAT PROCESS, THEN YOU SAID THAT THE WHOLE COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THOSE POTENTIAL CONTRACTS?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WELL, THAT ONLY BE THROUGH THE COMMITTEE?

>> THE COMMITTEE'S WORK WILL INCLUDE ACTUALLY BEING BRIEFED BY THE RESPONDERS.

LET'S SAY WE HAVE FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE THAT WE BELIEVE ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE SOLICITATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEND OUT.

WE'RE GOING TO BRING THOSE PEOPLE TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.

THEY WILL PROVIDE A BRIEFING, AND THEY'LL BE Q&A BY THE COMMITTEE THAT WILL ALLOW THE COMMITTEE THEN TO CONVENE AND DECIDE, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL.

STAFF WILL PACKAGE THAT RECOMMENDATION COMING FROM AD HOC AND IT WILL BE PLACED ON YOUR AGENDA AS A VOTING ITEM FOR THE FULL BODY TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AS ATTRIBUTED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OR IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED THEY NEEDED TO MAKE ANOTHER DECISION, IT WOULD STILL BE HERE FOR A FULL VOTE.

>> WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THIS IS I FEEL VERY STRONGLY SINCE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ENTIRE COUNCIL TO EVALUATE THESE EMPLOYEES OF OURS.

I BELIEVE THAT OUR COUNCIL AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHO WE HIRE FOR THAT PROCESS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OR AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND THE MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE, THEN I GUESS IT GOES THROUGH A FIVE PERSON.

DOES IT GO THROUGH A MEMO, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY? HOW DOES IT GO SO THAT I CAN MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO THE COMMITTEE OF A WHOLE IN THE SELECTION OF THAT CONTRACT?

>> I'M SORRY, YOU CAN'T JUST JUMP IN THE DISCUSSION LIKE THAT.

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.

[OVERLAPPING] BUT YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER, SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE ATTORNEY TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE INQUIRY BY THE MEMBER; NOT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, BUT IT'S PART OF DEBATE.

>> I'M ON. THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IS HOW YOU TAKE IT FROM THE COMMITTEE AND GIVE IT TO ALL OF US.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE IT FROM COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE WHOLE BODY WOULD HEAR THE ITEM.

>> THAT'S WHAT I MOVE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS ITEM.

I'D MOVE THAT THIS ITEM BE MOVED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND ACTED ON AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

>> I THINK SHE'S LOOKING IN THE PARLIAMENTARY BOOK TO SEE HOW TO DO THAT PROPERLY.

WE'LL STAND AT EASE FOR JUST A MINUTE.

ASSUMING THERE'S A SECOND TO YOUR MOTION, IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN WEST.

WE'LL STAND AT EASE FOR JUST A MINUTE TO GET [OVERLAPPING] A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN EXPLAIN HOW THIS WOULD WORK AND THEN WE'LL START THE DISCUSSION ON YOUR DULY MADE AND SECONDED MOTION.

SHE'S GOING TO EXPLAIN WHERE WE ARE,

[02:40:01]

AND THEN EVERYBODY CAN HAVE THEIR NORMAL 531 DEBATE ON THE MOTION ITSELF, WHICH AGAIN HAS BEEN SECONDED.

IF SHE CAN FIND IT, WE DON'T USE THIS RULE VERY OFTEN.

>> MY APOLOGIES.

>> NO NEED.

>> MY APOLOGIES.

>> THIS IS WHAT WE PAY HER TO DO, AND IT'S FUN TO WATCH.

IT'S FUN TO WATCH.

I HAVE TO HELP HER TURN HER MICROPHONE ON NOW, SO WE GOT TO GET THAT FIXED.

>> THE PREMISE OF DISCHARGE THE COMMITTEE IS WHEN A QUESTION IS IN THE HANDS OF A COMMITTEE, THE ASSEMBLY CANNOT CONSIDER BASICALLY THE SAME TOPIC.

THIS MOTION DISCHARGE THE COMMITTEE, IT REQUIRES A SECOND, IT IS DEBATABLE AND IT IS AMENDABLE.

IF THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED, THEN THAT MEANS WE WOULD PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL TO DO WHAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE DOING, WHICH IS THE EVALUATION AND THEN RECOMMENDING OR ACTUALLY APPROVING WHO THEY WANT TO BE, THE CONTRACTOR.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOUR INTENT IS? EVERYONE, YOU HEARD THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE DEBATE.

THEN COUNT AGAINST ANYONE'S TIME, WE'RE CLARIFYING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

THAT MISS SCHULTZ'S MOTION WOULD DO EXACTLY THAT AND IT'S IN ORDER AND IT WAS SECONDED.

NOW ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOUR, AGAIN, I ASSUME YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST ON YOUR MOTION.

YOU RECOGNIZE FOR 5 MINUTES.

>> IF I MAY, SIR. I WANT TO BE CLEAR TO MY COLLEAGUES.

THIS IS IN NO WAY, A SECOND GUESSING OR DISPARAGE ANY OF THE WORDS THAT MIGHT BE USED IN A PEJORATIVE SENSE AGAINST THE COMMITTEE.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A WHOLE TO DEAL WITH THIS BECAUSE WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES.

WE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS AS A WHOLE, UNIFIED IN MAKING THAT DECISION.

ALSO, ADDITIONALLY, IT WILL MAKE THE PROCESS MUCH MORE EXPEDITIOUS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS.

THAT'S MY LOGIC. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST MISS SCHULTZ'S MOTION?

>> I JUST [OVERLAPPING].

>> MAYOR PRO [INAUDIBLE] TRYING TO I SAW YOUR LIGHT FIRST I SAW HER NAME FIRST. DID YOU WANT TO GO?

>> YES, I CAN GO.

>> YOU WERE TRYING TO GET IN. I KNOW.

YOU GO AND THEN MISS WILLIS, YOU'RE AFTER MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> I GUESS JUST A QUESTION, THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, IF IT'S LESS THAN $100,000, IT'S A AA.

THE CITY MANAGER, TO MAKE THAT DECISION, WHICH DID NOT COME BACK FOR THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON.

I'M TRYING TO FIND HOW TO DO THAT PLAY IN BECAUSE THE UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN IT CAME TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO A PROCUREMENT TO GET THIS PROCESS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO PROCUREMENT, IT WOULD STILL DO NOT HAVE COME TO IT, BUT I DID SAY WOULD HAVE STILL HAD COME TO THE FULL BODY IN ORDER TO VOTE ON THAT ISSUE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

IF IT'S BELOW THE THRESHOLD UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH AN AA, AS APPROVED TO FORM BY A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS, THE PROVISION OF SERVICES WILL BE DIRECTLY FOR COUNSEL AND WITH THE THOUGHT, IN FACT, THAT THE OTHER APPOINTED OFFICIALS, WHO ONE OF WHICH IS MY BOSS, WILL BE INVOLVED IN THAT PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN AN EFFORT TO GIVE US A SENSE OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE PROCESS.

WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WHERE WE WOULD BRING IT BACK TO THIS BODY 1 TO SELECT WHO YOU WERE GOING TO WORK WITH DIRECTLY.

THAT THIS BODY COULD MAKE THAT DECISION AND FEEL AS IF THERE WAS NO BIAS AND FELT FREE THAT THIS WAS A DECISION THAT THIS BODY COULD MAKE AS MUCH AS THIS BODY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO USE THE EXISTING CONTRACTOR.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION NOR PUT YOU IN THAT POSITION.

>> WHEN YOU SAID EXISTING CONTRACT, DID WE, AS A COMMITTEE, WE DECIDE NOT TO USE EXISTING CONTRACT?

>> YES, SIR. THERE WAS SOME EXPRESSED INTEREST AT THE COMMITTEE NOT TO USE THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE CHAIR OF GPFM, CHAIRMAN WEST, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME INTEREST FROM THAT COMMITTEE AS WELL, NOT TO USE THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

IN AN EFFORT FOR US TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE WITH THIS BODY, WHETHER IT REACHED THE ADMINISTRATIVE THRESHOLD THAT THE CITY MANAGER COULD HANDLE OR NOT, BECAUSE THIS PROVIDER WOULD BE SERVICING AND MAKING DIRECT CONTACT AND WOULD BE OPERATING BASICALLY UNDER YOUR SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION, AS IT RELATES TO THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA,

[02:45:02]

WE THOUGHT IT BEST WHETHER IT COULD BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY OR NOT TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS BODY.

HOWEVER, COUNSEL DECIDED, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH AD HOC, OR AS YOU GUYS ARE DEBATING NOW, WHETHER IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS.

BUT WE WOULD THEN TAKE AN ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CONTRACT AWARD REGARDLESS.

>> HAVE WE DISSOLVED THE EXISTING CONTRACT, WHICH BAKER AND TILLERSON, THAT WE DISCUSSED IN AD HOC COMMITTED? HOW DO WE DISSOLVE THAT CONTRACT THAT WE RECOMMEND NOT TO USE THAT PARTICULAR VENDOR TO GO FORWARD?

>> I THINK I MAY NEED SOME HELP FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THIS ONE.

I DO NOT BELIEVE WE DISSOLVED THAT EXISTING CONTRACT.

>> I DON'T THINK WE RECOMMEND TO GO TO COUNSEL SO I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WE DID HAVE A MOTION TO DISSOLVE THAT CONTRACT TO TAKE IT TO FULL COUNSEL.

>> AGAIN, I'LL NEED TO CONFER WITH THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

I DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

>> WHAT WAS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND WHAT'S BEFORE COUNSEL TODAY IS A RESOLUTION TO ENGAGE A NEW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT AND TO ASSIST THE COUNSEL TO FACILITATE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

THAT'S WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE COUNSEL TODAY.

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. THANK YOU.

>> I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION IS BAKER AND TILLERSON STILL ON A CONTRACT TO BE A ONE OF THE VENDOR, TO BE PART OF THE EVALUATION OF THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

BUT SINCE THEY ARE IN THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, THEY SAID THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THE AUDITOR.

>> YES, SIR. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BAKER AND TILLY CONTRACT FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS IS STILL AN ACTIVE CURRENT CONTRACT, AND HAS FUNDING AVAILABLE ON IT FOR USE, SHOULD THE COUNCIL DECIDE TO DO SO.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS BAKER AND TILLERSON IS RIGHT NOW IT'S UNDER CONTRACT WHO COULD DO THE EVALUATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY SECRETARY AS OF TODAY.

IS THAT THE CORRECT NOUNS? CAUTION.

>> NINA, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME SUPPORT ON THIS ONE? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ACCURATE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES, BUT WE'RE REVERTING BACK TO PREVIOUS DIRECTION THAT WE WERE GIVEN AT AD HOC, THE EXPRESSED INTEREST BY A VOTE NOT TO ACTUALLY USE BAKER TILLY.

BUT YES, SIR, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND ARE UNDER CONTRACT STILL AND COULD BE USED, SHOULD COUNSEL DECIDE TO DO SO.

NINA, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT FOR ME?

>> GOOD MORNING. NINA ARIAS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

YES. WE HAVE BAKER TILLY UNDER CONTRACT.

FORMERLY, THAT CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY BAKER TILLY.

OUR ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS WITH MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, ACQUIRED BY BAKER TILLY, SO THE CURRENT CONTRACT IS WITH BAKER TILLY.

>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN REALLY QUICKLY AND INFORM THE BODY OF SOMETHING THAT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN INFORM ME OF IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF PRECEDENT OF DISCHARGING THESE ITEMS. WHAT I'VE BEEN INFORMED OF IS THAT WHILE THIS MOTION IS IN ORDER AND WAS DULY MOVED AND SECONDED, IN TERMS OF PRECEDENCE, THE AGENDA ITEM SHOULD HAVE COME FIRST IN TERMS OF BEING RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION.

WHAT I WOULD ASK IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION IS TO FREEZE THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT WHERE IT IS, GO BACK TO THE AGENDA ITEM 44, RESOLVE IT, AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS ITEM.

WE'LL PICK UP EXACTLY WHERE WE HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS WRITE DOWN, EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE IN THE DEBATE SO I KNOW WHO'S SPOKEN IT FOR HOW LONG.

IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THAT WILL BE THE PROPER THING TO DO UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. IS THERE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NONE, THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO TO AGENDA ITEM 44, MADAM SECTOR, IF YOU CAN READ INTO THE RECORD AGAIN, WE NEED A MOTION IN A SECOND TO TAKE IT UP.

WE NEED TO HAVE THE DEBATE AND DISCUSSION, VOTE ON IT, AND THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO MISS SCHULTZ'S MOTION.

DO WE HAVE THE MOTION AND SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 44 ALREADY? THEN THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE, SO WE DO NOT NEED TO GO TO THE DISCUSSION.

>> CAN I INQUIRY?

>> YES, YOU SHOULD INQUIRE.

>> COULD YOU READ WHAT THE MOTION WAS?

>> GO AHEAD, MADAM SECTOR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND DOING THAT.

I THINK EVERYBODY COULD USE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS FIRST.

ITEM 44, PLEASE.

[02:50:02]

>> I READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

THEN COUNCIL MEMBER, ATKINS AND WEST MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ITEM ASKING FOR.

>> ACTUALLY, WHAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE PARLIAMENTARIAN IS THAT WASN'T AN AMENDMENT, IT WAS A PROCEDURAL MOTION.

IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF, AND SO WE NEED TO KNOW IF THE ORIGINAL ITEM, WHICH I'VE TOLD IT WAS, BUT I WANT TO CONFIRM IT.

WAS THE ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM 44 MOVED AND SECONDED AS AN AGENDA ITEM? IF IT WAS, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THAT POINT IN TIME.

>> IT WAS, MR. MAYOR. I NEED TO READ THE ITEM INTO THE [INAUDIBLE].

>> I THINK [INAUDIBLE] WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE MOTION IS THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO NOW GO INTO THE DISCUSSION ON.

EVERYBODY WHO'S IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE FOR MISS SCHULTZ'S MOTION, YOU SHOULD GET OUT AND GET BACK IN FOR A DISCUSSION THAT WE NEVER HAD ON ITEM 44.

GO AHEAD. DO YOU REMEMBER WHO MOVED AND SECONDED IT, BY THE WAY?

>> THE ORIGINAL MOTION?

>> BY MAYOR PRO TEM, ATKINS AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

>> EVERYBODY HEARD THAT, AND NOW THEY NEED TO HEAR THE MOTION, AND WE'LL BE GOOD TO GO.

WHAT WAS THE MOTION? ITEM 44?

>> THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL.

>> OF ITEM 44, WHICH YOU SEE IN YOUR AGENDA.

>> THAT'S AS PRESENTED.

DO YOU NEED TO READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD OR [INAUDIBLE].

>> SURE.

>> AGENDA ITEM 44, AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION TO ENGAGE A NEW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT TO ASSIST THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL AND FACILITATE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED POSITIONS, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, CITY MANAGER, CITY AUDITOR, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL.

>> THAT WAS THE ITEM I WAS MOVED AND SECONDED, AND NOW WE ARE IN THE DEBATE ON THAT.

I SEE IN MY Q FIRST, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR 5 MINUTES ON ITEM 44.

>> THANK YOU. DONZELL, CAN I ASK YOU? AM I CORRECT THAT THE COMMITTEE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR THIS ITEM?

>> YES, MA'AM. CORRECT. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

>> THERE'S ACTUALLY A ROBUST CONVERSATION, NOT JUST AT THIS MEETING, BUT I THINK A PRIOR ONE AS WELL, THAT THE COMMITTEE DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH BAKER TILLY.

>> I MEAN, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE BIG ISSUE IS HERE, BUT THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO HAVE, FIRST OF ALL, GONE THROUGH ADDITIONAL TRAINING ON PROCUREMENT, HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY SELECT BAKER TILLY FOR THE CITY MANAGER SEARCH.

>> ACTUALLY, ALL OF US READ, I THINK THERE WERE 40 OR 50, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS A LOT OF PROPOSALS IN THAT TIME, AND WHAT THAT'S DONE HAS GIVEN US A VIEW OF HOW MANY OF THESE SEARCH FIRMS OPERATE, AND THEN WE IN PERSON INTERVIEWED THREE DIFFERENT FIRMS, CORRECT?

>> I'LL NEED SOME HELP ON THAT.

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THE ENTIRE POINT OF WORKING THROUGH A COMMITTEE IS ACTUALLY TO PROVIDE EFFICIENCY.

AS WE HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY, CONVERSATIONS CAN GET SIDETRACKED BY UNRELATED ISSUES, GRANDSTANDING, AND ENDING UP WITH LENGTHY DELIBERATIONS.

OUR MAYOR HAS ACTUALLY APPOINTED AND SET UP MORE COMMITTEES THAN I REMEMBER IN DALLAS HISTORY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMITTEES, BOTH STANDING AND AD HOC.

THE PURPOSE IS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MORE EFFICIENT RESPONSE TO ADDRESSING ISSUES.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING WITH THE AD HOC.

THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS BEEN EXTREMELY OPEN TO CALLING SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS.

WHEN WE DO THINGS AS A FULL COUNCIL, WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR AN AGENDA DAY SO THAT WE CAN VOTE, UNLESS ON A BRIEFING DAY, WE GO INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

BUT THIS IS THE WAY OUR BUSINESS ACTUALLY GETS DONE.

MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THINGS GO TO COMMITTEE TO DIE, BUT ACTUALLY, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THINGS DONE OTHER THAN AGAIN, A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, WHICH WE SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN INTO.

WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE HAVING BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE.

IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A VERY INTERESTING UNIT OF SERVICE, BUT THERE'S A REASON WHY THE COMMITTEE HAS UNANIMOUSLY MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION, AND I STAND BY IT AND I AM GOING TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.

>> WILLIS, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE ORIGINAL ITEM 44 THAT YOU HEARD THE SECRETARY READING TO THE RECORD.

[02:55:01]

>> THERE'S DISCUSSION TO COME ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ PROPOSED WITH THAT.

>> WE'LL PICK UP EXACTLY WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

>> THEN LET ME BOW OUT ON THIS.

>> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON OR AGAINST ITEM 44, THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF? SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE

THE AGENDA ITEM IS ADOPTED.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE UP THE PROCEDURAL MATTER OF THIS DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE MOTION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAIN.

ON THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURAL MOVE.

IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ALREADY FOR FIVE MINUTES BY THE MEMBERS FROM DISTRICTS, 11 AND EIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT MY RECORDS. THE DISTINGUISHED GENERAL FROM DISTRICT 13, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE PROCEDURAL MOTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ IS PROPOSING.

I RESPECT THE COMMITTEE'S ADVICE TO COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO MAKING A CHANGE ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS. THAT'S A CHANGE.

I ACTUALLY CAME TO THE COMMITTEE AND ADVOCATED FOR OUR EMPLOYEES WHO HAVEN'T HAD A REVIEW IN ALMOST 2.5 YEARS GOING ON AND MOVING FORWARD WITH A CONTRACTED PARTNER, BUT THERE REALLY WASN'T HARD FOR THAT AT THE COMMITTEE AND I RESPECT THAT AND I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THAT ITEM.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOING FORWARD WITH WHAT THIS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROCURE HERE, AND SO MUCH MORE THAN A CONTRACT.

IT'S ABOUT ASSESSING, BUT ALSO FACILITATING GOALS THAT WILL CARRY US FORWARD.

I WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS NOT A ONE YEAR CONTRACT THAT WE WOULD LAND ON A VENDOR THAT WE'RE REALLY HAPPY WITH AND THAT THIS COULD BE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT OR MAYBE LONGER.

COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL CHANGE, BUT I THINK WE OWE IT TO OUR STAFF THAT OUR COUNSEL APPOINTED TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY SO THAT WE SET THESE POLICIES AND AS WE COME AND GO, THIS PROCESS IS OUTLINED AND WE'VE BEEN LACKING THIS.

WE KNOW THAT. THIS IS THAT OPPORTUNITY, AND I THINK FOR THAT REASON AND THAT THIS SETS THIS TONE GOING FORWARD, THAT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT HAS THE GRAVITAS OF HAVING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS WEIGH IN.

I DON'T WANT TO CLOUD IT WITH ANY BAGGAGE FROM ANY PREVIOUS MONTHS ACTIVITY.

I REALLY HOPE WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THIS IN A REALLY CLEAR HEADED WAY BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT SETTING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS, IT'S ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, IT'S ABOUT CONSEQUENCES IF PERFORMANCE ISN'T MET.

I REALLY FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALL GOING TO WANT TO FEEL PRETTY BOUGHT IN TO WHO THAT INCREDIBLE STRATEGIC PARTNER IS IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS FOR NOT ONLY OUR COUNSEL APPOINTED EMPLOYEES, BUT REALLY THIS IS FOR ALL OF WHO WE SIT HERE AND REPRESENT EVERY TIME WE COME TOGETHER.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ FOR BRINGING UP THIS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, AND I PORT GOING THAT DIRECTION.

BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE DEF MAYOR PRO TEM.

I WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.

IT WAS A PARLIAMENTARY MOTION, BUT IT WAS A DEBATABLE MOTION, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING A DEBATE ON IT.

WE'RE NOT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM ON OUR AGENDA RIGHT NOW FOR THE PUBLIC.

THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN SO FAR ON THAT ARE 11, EIGHT AND 13.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO'VE ALREADY SPOKEN FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I'M NOW RECOGNIZING THE DEEP MAYOR PRO TEM FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I WILL SAY, ULTIMATELY, I'M A LITTLE INDIFFERENT.

I AM SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT FORTH JUST FOR THE SIMPLE REASON I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE MORE BROAD BUY IN BEFORE GETTING TO JUST TAKING A VOTE.

I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT MY SUPPORT FOR THIS DOESN'T IS NOT MEANT TO ATTACK OR DISPARAGE THE WORK THAT HAS GONE IN AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

I THINK AS MISS SCHULTZ AS MISS WILLIS MENTIONED, I WANT TO AGAIN, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, FOR YOU ALLOWING FOR NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE AS MUCH OF A PART AS POSSIBLE.

BUT FOR THAT REASON, I FEEL THAT IT'S JUST ADDING A STEP IF WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE SHOWING UP TO THIS COMMITTEE MEETING AND THEN ALL HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

I THINK THAT THERE'S A THAT THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE OVERSEES AND IN NO WAY, DO I WANT THIS TO LOOK AS A PRECEDENT TO JUST TRY TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL COMMITTEE OR WHATEVER WHEN IT COMES TO GOING THROUGH OUR RULES OR GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT PROCEDURES MOVING FORWARD, HAVE FULL FAITH AND TRUST THAT THAT CAN GET DONE.

[03:00:01]

BUT WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT ONE OF OUR APPOINTEES, I THINK FROM WHAT I GATHERED DURING OUR CITY MANAGER SEARCHES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THERE BE MORE FEEDBACK FROM MORE MEMBERS THAN JUST THAT SELECTED FEW ON THE COMMITTEE.

I WILL SUPPORT THIS.

FOR THAT REASON, I DO NOT AGAIN WANT THIS TO BE SEEN FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE DO HERE AT CITY HALL.

I WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO BE AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE HALL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION.

WELCOME.

YOU GUYS CAN'T FIGURE OUT TO PRESS YOUR MICROPHONE BUTTON TODAY WHAT'S GOING ON.

MAYOR PRO TEM CITY ATTORNEY, THE LITTLE BUTTON THAT SAYS TALK. COME ON.

IT TURNS RED. GO. MAYOR PRO TEM. 5 MINUTES.

I SAID SOMETHING.

MINE'S WORN I TOUCH IT SO MUCH, MINE'S WORN OUT.

I CAN'T THE WORDS ARE GONE.

QUESTION, I JUST WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE.

I KNOW WE IN THE PAST, ITEM THAT WE DID INCLUDE EVERYONE, ALSO THE AUDITOR.

ARE WE GOING TO COMMIT A WHOLE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO FIND DO THAT FALL BACK INTO THIS RIM OR WHAT IN THIS MOTION? WHO I'M SORRY. WHO ARE YOU ASKING A QUESTION TO? ASK SECOND ATTORNEY.

GO AHEAD.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE WAS BASED ON ITEM 44 AND ALL OF THE APPOINTEES.

THEREFORE, CHAIRMAN WEST COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THE AUDITOR.

IT WILL GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE.

AS A WHOLE THING.

WE GOT TO DO THIS ON THE RECORD AND WHEREBY CAN HEAR THE DISCUSSION, WE CAN'T HAVE A LITTLE PRIVATE MUMBLE SESSION HERE.

YOU GOT TO ASK A QUESTION.

YOU GOT TO DIRECT IT TO SOMEONE AND THEY NEED TO ANSWER IT ON THE RECORD.

YOU'RE ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION? THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT'S WHAT'S THE QUESTION? THE QUESTION WAS THAT IN CHAIRMAN WEST, WE HAD THE CITY AUDITOR THAT RECOMMENDED BY BAKER TISON TO DO THE EVALUATION.

THEREFORE, WE IN THE PRIOR VOTE THAT WE DID THAT THE CITY AUDITOR WOULD GO AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, THE CITY AUDITOR, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN I ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CLARIFY IT SO EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.

YES. THE DISCHARGE WOULD BRINGING THIS TO THE FULL BODY WOULD INCLUDE THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY SECRETARY, CITY MANAGER, CITY AUDITOR, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL.

I JUST WANT TO SHOULD THAT BE CLEAR ON THE RECORD BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? STATE YOUR INQUIRY.

THE LIST YOU JUST GAVE INCLUDED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH, OF COURSE, WE CAN'T EVALUATE SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A PERMANENT ONE.

ARE YOU SAYING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IN TERMS OF DOING THE RECRUITMENT FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? THAT SPECIFICALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS GOING FORWARD.

AND AGAIN, SECOND PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. STATE YOUR INQUIRY.

PERHAPS A MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT I BELIEVE THE QUESTION TO HAVE BEEN ASKED WAS ABOUT NOT THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THE AUDITOR.

WAS THE QUESTION ASKED ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW FROM THE AUDITOR THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED GPFM ALSO BEING PART OF THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS? THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? GO AHEAD.

MR. RAN, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS DISCHARGING THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I'M SORRY, DISCHARGING THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS TO GET THIS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT FOR ALL OF THE LISTED APPOINTEES.

POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

STATE TRADE INQUIRY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WOULD STILL ENABLE OUR BODY AS A WHOLE AT ANY POINT TO THEN REMAND REMAINING BUSINESS BACK TO COMMITTEE.

IF IT WAS JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR BECAUSE IT WAS JUST CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS INCLUSIVE OF SO MUCH, BUT IF WE WERE TO FIND THE FIRM AND THEN PUSH THE PROCESS BACK TO COMMITTEE, IT WOULD STILL ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE CHARGED TO DO AS FAR AS THE REVIEWS.

PLEASE.

THAT IS CORRECT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE FULL BODY, IF THEY WANT TO REFER IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR ALL OR PORTIONS, THAT'S UP TO THE WHOLE BODY.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

YOUR LIGHTS STILL ON MAL. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE?

[03:05:04]

I DID NOT HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, ACTUALLY HAD COMMENTS. GOOD.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED THEN FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

THERE'S A REASON WHY THERE'S A COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THAT IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR FIVE PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER THAN TO TRY TO SCHEDULE FOR 15 FOR A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

AND THIS NEEDS TO GET DONE.

WE SAY IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BUT TO VERY MANY OTHER PEOPLE'S POINT, WE'RE DELAYED IN DOING IT.

OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO US, AND WE NEED TO MAKE IT A MUCH HIGHER PRIORITY.

I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS COMMITTED TO THAT.

I THINK EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE HAS SAID WE WILL MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE.

BUT WE ALL KNOW HOW HARD IT IS.

WE ALL HAVE VERY BUSY SCHEDULES.

THEN THE SECOND THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT THE MAYOR POSITION DOESN'T HAVE THAT MANY DUTIES, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM IS TO ASSIGN THE COMMITTEES.

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO PETITION THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU'RE ASSIGNED TO A COMMITTEE YOU WISH NOT TO BE PART OF, YOU CAN GO AND MAKE A PLEA TO THE MAYOR TO REMOVE YOU.

YOU COULD ASK TO BE ADDED TO SOMETHING.

BUT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN VIAS, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAN. I'M LUKEWARM ON THIS ONE.

I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WHO'S ASKING FOR IT.

BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS, I BELIEVE I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THE FOLKS THAT ARE ASKING FOR THIS CHANGE COMES FROM IS THAT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS THAT WE DID EARLIER STARTED LAST YEAR ABOUT A YEAR AGO NOW.

A MOTION WAS MADE BY ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BAR ALL OF THE NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PICKING IN THE SCORING OF THE THE ORGANIZATION THAT WAS EVENTUALLY PICKED.

I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE SOME OF IT COMES FROM IS IT WASN'T THE CHAIR BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS TRYING TO BE AS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE OF ALL OF AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

BUT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER WHO MADE A MOTION TO NOT ALLOW US TO BE PART OF THE SCORING, NOT ALLOW US TO BE THERE FOR THE DISCUSSION, NOT ALLOW AND THOSE THINGS PASSED.

HEY, YEAH, IT'S THE RIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE AND IT WAS A PERFECTLY DONE MOTION.

I'M NOT ON THAT COMMITTEE, NOR DID I ASK TO BE ON IT.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM IS THE EXCLUSION MOTIONS THAT WERE MADE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE YOU KNOW, PUSHED OUT OF THE WAY BECAUSE CERTAIN PEOPLE MAY HAVE HAD AN AGENDA OR SOMETHING.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.

IT'S JUST HOW IT FELT FOR ME.

I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES.

I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM.

THERE'S A MISTRUST, AND IT'S UNFAIR THAT IT'S ALWAYS FROM THE SAME AREA OF THIS BODY THAT THIS MISTRUST COMES FROM.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT, WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT, IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY THAT BIG OF A DEAL FOR US TO MEET IN ORDER TO DO THE CRITERIA, SCORE IT, AND GET IT DONE AND LET OUR STAFF GET GOING OR HOWEVER THAT PROCESS ENDS UP WORKING.

EVEN THAT COMMITTEE SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT HELP FROM LEGAL, THEY DIDN'T WANT HELP FROM OUR HR DEPARTMENT, AND THEY WERE THEY BANNED STAFF FROM PARTICIPATING.

THAT REALLY MADE IT A MESSY PROCESS.

I WAS THERE BECAUSE WE WERE ALLOWED TO BE PART OF THAT THOSE FIRST TWO MEETINGS. I REMEMBER BRINGING IT UP.

IF I HAD AN HR DEPARTMENT THAT I COULD LEAN ON, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN THE ROOM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS FOR.

WE GOT SOME PRETTY DARN GOOD PROFESSIONALS, AND OUR DIRECTOR OF HR, MISS NINA, SHE'S DONE GLOBAL COMPANIES.

I THINK THAT SHE KNOWS A THING OR TWO, AND I WOULD HAVE WANTED THEM THERE HAVING DONE A LITTLE BIT OF HR.

YOU WANT YOUR ATTORNEYS AND YOUR FOLKS THERE SO YOU GET IT RIGHT.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A LOT OF THE MISTAKES HAPPENED IS NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THOSE FOLKS TO MAYBE GIVE SOME INFORMATION.

HEY, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK FOR THIS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. IT'S JUST ADVICE, BUT I DO LEAN ON PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE DOING ALL OF THESE TYPES OF JOBS BECAUSE I'M NOT LIKE SOME IN THIS BODY.

SO MANY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES ON THIS BODY, BUT I'M NOT ONE OF THOSE FOLKS THAT HAS DONE EVERYTHING AND EVERY JOB AND CAN DO IT BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL.

I TRUST OUR PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE HERE UNLESS THEY PROVE ME OTHERWISE, BUT IT'S VERY RARE THAT THAT HAPPENS.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM AND I THINK WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO KEEP BELABORING IT AND APOLOGIZE THAT I AM,

[03:10:01]

BUT I'M GOING TO STOP NOW AND SAY, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S KIND, AND MAYBE THAT'LL BUILD SOME MORE TRUST BETWEEN US. THANK YOU, MR. MA.

CHAIR MARINO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

THANK OUR MAYOR PRO TEM IS LEADING THIS COMMITTEE WELL. HE'S INCLUSIVE.

HE INVITES PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE, AND WE JUST NEED TO GET THIS BACK ON TRACK AND NOT DELAY IT.

THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THAT IN ALL HEARINGS AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, OUR CHAIR THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS BEEN VERY INCLUSIVE INVITING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN DEBATE ON THE ISSUES BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO SO IN THIS CASE AS WELL.

I JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THIS ACTION ON A PROCEDURAL LEVEL, AND I THINK IT SHOULD REMAIN WITH THE COMMITTEE.

>> I'M GOING TO ROUND 2 NOW.

WELL, SO I MIGHT FELL OUT THAT SOLVE FIRST.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

RUN ROUND 2 ON THIS DEBATE ON THIS MOTION BY MS. SCHULTZ.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME GOOD DISCUSSION.

I WOULD AGREE THAT EITHER WAY, WE'RE GOING TO GET THE WORK DONE.

I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE MORE COLLABORATION IN SOME OF THE MOST CRITICAL DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.

BUT I ALSO WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED TO DO THE WORK IN THE COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT SPIRIT WITH THE REST OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT WHAT WE'VE HEARD EARLIER IN THE DAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> MS. SCHULTZ, WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO JUST BE VERY CLEAR TO MY COLLEAGUES THIS IS NOT ABOUT TAKING SOMETHING AWAY, IT'S ABOUT INCLUDING.

I THINK OUR MAYOR PRO TEM UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE'S A TON OF WORK STILL FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.

WE'VE GOT OUR RULES.

WE'VE GOT ALL OTHER THINGS THAT THEY STILL HAVE ON THEIR AGENDA.

NOBODY'S TAKING AWAY ANYTHING EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THIS PROCESS, WHICH, AS IT WAS SAID, COULD BE INCLUDED IN DURING BRIEFING TIMES.

THIS ISN'T ADDING WORK, IT'S NOT ADDING DELAYS.

IT'S JUST ADDING PEOPLE TO THE DISCUSSION.

FRANKLY, I THINK IT WILL ACTUALLY SPEED THINGS UP BECAUSE NOW IT'LL TAKE THINGS DIRECTLY TO US.

IT'S JUST ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE RATHER THAN PUTTING ANOTHER BURDEN ON THE COMMITTEE WHO HAS SO MUCH OTHER WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT PART OF THAT BURDEN IS PART OF THE DELAYS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THESE EVALUATIONS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON MISS SCHULTZ MOTION.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I LOOK AT PROCESS AND PROCEDURE, AND LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE THAT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE NOT EVALUATED OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND OUR CITY SECRETARY AND LOOK AT GOING FORWARD.

I WILL NOT BE HERE. HOPEFULLY, I WILL BE HERE TO AT LEAST EVALUATE THE TWO PEOPLE HERE, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE I LEAVE.

WHY I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, WE GOT TO EVALUATE THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF WE DO A PROCUREMENT, WHATEVER, WE GOT TO GET SOME DONE.

I DON'T KNOW WITH THE BRIEFING IN MARCH, THE TIMELINE I'M GOING TO GET IT DONE WITH THE FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE.

WITH THAT, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING.

>> COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE MOTION BY MS. SCHULTZ.

>> WELL, THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE THIS FINAL COMMENT FOR PEOPLE TO CONSIDER.

ALL OF THIS IS PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT WE MUST HAVE A CONSULTANT.

AS IT TURNS OUT, WE PROBABLY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE A CONSULTANT.

OUR MAYOR PRO TEM COULD WORK WITH HR AND OTHERS TO ACTUALLY JUST DEVELOP A TYPICAL EVALUATION FORM THAT COULD BE HANDED OUT TO ALL OF US THAT WE COULD ALL WRITE OUR OWN EVALUATION AND TURN THAT BACK IN.

THE ONLY NEGATIVE THAT I ALWAYS HEAR WHEN I BRING THIS UP IS, BUT THEN IT MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORDS.

BUT DON'T THE PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT WE ACTUALLY THINK.

THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A PROCUREMENT IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS HAVE TO HAPPEN. THANK YOU.

>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS ABOUT WE'VE RESOLVED THAT ON ITEM 44.

[03:15:01]

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHES BE ON FOR AGAINST THE PROCEDURAL MOTION BY MS. SCHULTZ? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

WE NEED A RECORD. I CAN'T TELL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE, YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO IF YOU OPPOSED AND INTO YOUR MICROPHONES.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WEST?

>> COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER ARNOLD.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WASCENDEZ?

>> COUNCILMEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMAN?

>> COUNCILMEMBER STEWART?

>> YEAH.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS?

>> COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY?

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON?

>> WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSE THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR.

>> [INAUDIBLE] OPPOSITE EIGHT YES.

>> CHLOE CONFIRM THAT'S CORRECT.

I TRUST YOU TO COUNT VOTES, BUT IS THAT RIGHT?

>> EIGHT YESES.

>> I SAW SOME FACES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY, YOU WERE YES. YOU WERE NO CORRECT.

>> SHE WAS A YES.

>> YOU WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE TALLY WAS CORRECT.

>> LET ME READ READ THE VOTES AGAIN, MR. MAYOR.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> MAYOR JOHNSON, NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM ATKINS, NO.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BAZALDUA, YES.

COUNCILOR WEST, YES.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MARINO, NO.

COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY, YES.

COUNCILMEMBER ARNOLD, NO.

COUNCILMEMBER WACINDEZ, YES.

COUNCILMEMBER NARVAEZ, YES, COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMAN, YES.

COUNCILMEMBER STEWART, NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER SCHULTZ, YES.

COUNCILOR MENDELSON, NO.

COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS, YES.

COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY, NO.

IT IS EIGHT IN FAVOR. NO OPPOSING, AND PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

>> EIGHTY SEVEN IN FAVOR, CORRECT?

>> IN FAVOR. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. THAT RESOLVE THAT PROCEDURAL MOTION.

LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FOR BEARING WITH US WHILE WE GOT THAT STARTED OUT.

>> YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 45.

[45. 25-564A Authorize a resolution to direct the City Manager to utilize MGT as the firm responsible for the search process to fill the Inspector General position - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AGENDA ITEM 45 AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO UTILIZE MGT AS THE FIRM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEARCH PROCESS TO FILL THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POSITION. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED IN A SECOND DISCUSSION. YOU ASKED FOR FIVE MINUTES [INAUDIBLE].

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> MGT IS SEPARATE.

I'M STILL GETTING CONFUSED OF WHO OWNS BAKER TILLY.

IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND? THAT'S NOT THE BAKER TILLY FIRM, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. YOU CAN RUN HER.

>> I'M SORRY SOMEBODY JUST NEEDS TO SAY IT'S NOT THE SAME FIRM OR IT IS.

I APOLOGIZE. I'M GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES CONFUSED.

>> NINA IS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES IS NOT.

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

>> ANYONE ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 45.

SEEING THAT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM.

[46. 25-63A Approval and adoption of the Seventieth and Seventy-First Supplemental Concurrent Bond Ordinances amending the Master Bond Ordinance relating to Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Joint Revenue Bonds, which will authorize the issuance of new debt not to exceed $3 billion for the period beginning March 1, 2025 and ending February 28, 2026, set parameters for bond sales, and authorize the use of bond proceeds to refund DFW’s outstanding commercial paper - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

>> AGENDA ITEM 46, APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE 70TH AND 71ST SUPPLEMENTAL CONCURRED BOND ORDINANCES AMENDING THE MASTER BOND ORDINANCE, RELATING TO DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DFW JOINT REVENUE BONDS, WHICH WILL AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF NEW DEBT NOT TO EXCEED $3 BILLION FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING MARCH 1ST, 2025, AND ENDING FEBRUARY 28TH, 2026.

SET PARAMETERS FOR BOND SALES AND AUTHORIZE THE USE OF BOND PROCEEDS TO REFUND DFS OUTSTANDING COMMERCIAL PAPER.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE A MOTION? I HEARD A MOTION AND THE SECOND. ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.

>> AGENDA ITEM 47, I'M SORRY,

[47. 25-627A An ordinance ordering a general election to be held in the City of Dallas on Saturday, May 3, 2025, for the purpose of electing 14 members to the City Council of the City of Dallas to represent Places 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 for the term beginning June 16, 2025 -Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM 47 IS AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DALLAS ON SATURDAY, MAY 3RD, 2025, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING 14 MEMBERS TO THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO REPRESENT PLACES 1,

[03:20:03]

02, 3, 4, 05, 6, 07, 8, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14 FOR THE TERM BEGINNING JUNE 16TH, 2025.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THEY GIVE ME CABBAGE PATCHING ON TV.

YEAH. NO 15.

IS THERE A MOTION A SECOND? DID I HEAR THAT? ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN OF FAVOR, SAY AYE.

CONGRATULATIONS. HAVE FUN WITH THAT.

>> THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 48.

[48. 25-641A Authorize an Interlocal Agreement between Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s Office and the Dallas Police Department to identify the disposition of proceeds from contraband seized and forfeited under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure for a term of 36 months - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AGENDA ITEM 48, AUTHORIZE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN DALLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY THE DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM CONTRABAND SIZED AND FORFEITED UNDER CHAPTER 59 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR A TERM OF 36 MONTHS.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR?

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

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

>> MR. MAYOR, THIS IS YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS SESSION?

>> WONDERFUL. BEFORE WE BREAK FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENE AT 1:00 P.M. WE HAVE A SPECIAL ANNOUNCES FROM CHAIRWOMAN KATHY STEWART.

>> GOT TO PUSH MY BUTTON. YES, WE NEED TO CELEBRATE A BIRTHDAY.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WE WOULD LOVE TO SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU AND CAKE IS COMING.

I DO HAVE TO TELL YOU WHEN MY STAFF WENT TO PICK UP YOUR CAKE YESTERDAY, SHE AND THE PERSON WHO WAS HANDING HER THE CAKE MANAGED TO DROP IT ON THE FLOOR.

>> IS THAT WHAT WE'RE EATING?

>> LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE EATING.

>> I'M LIKE THAT'S WEIRD.

>> THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE CAKE THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE REQUESTED BECAUSE WE HAD TO HAVE A PLAN B. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY, COULD YOU LEAD US IN HAPPY BIRTHDAY? THANK YOU.

>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR MAYOR, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.

>> EVERYBODY WE STAND AT RECESS UNTIL 1:00 P.M.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT'S 1:59 P.M. WE HAVE REESTABLISHED QUORUM.

WE'RE BACK IN REGULAR SESSION, MADAM SECRETARY.

LET'S PICK UP WITH OUR AGENDA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA.

BEFORE WE GO TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA, MR. MAYOR.

[Z2. 25-399A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for application for (1) an amendment to Tract II within Planned Development District No. 234; and (2) a Specific Use Permit for a service station on the east side of South Cockrell Hill Road, south of Corral Drive]

COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM 2C.

>> NO. I'M NOT DOING IT TODAY.

SORRY TO HEAR. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

YES. GO AHEAD. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT.

>> MR. MAYOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM.

I'M SORRY, THE MARCH 26TH AGENDA.

>> REMEMBER, YOU HEARD THE MOTION AND THERE'S A SECOND.

A DISCUSSION, CHAIRWOMAN GRACEY, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> COLLEAGUES I KNOW THIS ALWAYS COMES UP, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WHERE I'VE ACTUALLY HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPERS.

THEY HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES, IS A SERVICE STATION, A CONVENIENCE STORE.

THEY HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES OVER ON 35 AND OVERTON.

I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT ONE.

IT LOOKS CLEAN, BUT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE STAFF'S POSITION IN TERMS OF WHY THEY'RE PROPOSING A DENIAL.

I JUST WANT TO DELAY TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE CHAIRWOMAN, SO YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FOR MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER.

>> THANK YOU. I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO DEFER THAT AT MY COLLEAGUE'S REQUEST, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE DATE OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION, PLEASE.

>> STAFF ON ITS WAY. GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> YES. THE ITEM WAS SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2023.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED OR NO.

>> I'M DONE.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE ITEM IS DEFERRED. THANK YOU. ANY MORE DEFERRALS, MADAM SECRETARY. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO, MR. MAYOR. THAT'S IT.

>> LET'S TAKE UP ITEM PH2 THEN.

[PH2. 25-402A An ordinance amending Chapter 51A, “Dallas Development Code: Ordinance No. 19455, as amended,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Sections 51A-1.106, 51A-3.102, 51A-4.701, 51A-4.703, and 51A-4.704; providing (1) that additional notice must be given to owners and tenants of property whose use may become nonconforming due to an amendment to the Dallas Development Code or a change in zoning district; (2) a revised process for initiating and conducting a Board of Adjustment hearing to require that a nonconforming use cease operation; amending Chapter 52, “Administrative Procedures for the Constriction Codes,” by amending Sections 303.12.1.4, 303.12.1.6, 306.12.3, 306.14, and 306.15; removing the fees and the fee waiver process for a compliance request for a nonconforming use; (3) that a certificate of occupancy for a nonconforming use is void after the property owner or lessee has been fully compensated based on the property owner’s or lessee’s choice of remedy; (4) requirements for written notice of building official decisions; and (5) procedures for appealing building official decisions; to the Dallas Development Code to align with Texas Senate Bill 929, 88th Legislature]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM PH2 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 51A DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE,

[03:25:02]

ORDINANCE NUMBER 19455 AS AMENDED OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 51A- 1.106, 51A-3.102, 51A-4.701 51A-4.703 AND 51A- 4.704, PROVIDING ONE, THAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN TO OWNERS AND TENANTS OF PROPERTY WHOSE VIEWS MAY BECOME NON CONFORMING DUE TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE OR A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT.

TWO A REVISED PROCESS FOR INITIATING AND CONDUCTING A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING TO REQUIRE THAT A NON CONFORMING USE CEASE OPERATION, AMENDING CHAPTER 52 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRICTION CODES BY AMENDING SECTION 303.12.1.4, 303.

12.1.6, 306.12.3, 306.14, AND 306.15.

REMOVING THE FEES AND THE FEE WAIVER PROCESS FOR A COMPLIANCE REQUEST FOR A NON CONFORMING USE.

THREE THAT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A NON CONFORMING USE IS VOID AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER OR LEASE HAS BEEN FULLY COMPENSATED BASED ON THE PROPERTY'S OWNERS OR LEASE'S CHOICE OF REMEDY.

FOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISIONS, AND FIVE PROCEDURES FOR APPEALING BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISIONS TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALIGN WITH TEXAS SENATE BILL 92988 LEGISLATURE.

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

YOU DO HAVE ONE CANCELLATION.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER IS CANCELED.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

WE'LL BEGIN WITH EVELYN MAYO.

>> AS OUR SPEAKERS MAKE THEIR WAY DOWN, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN EVERY, WE'RE TAKING ITEM PH2 OUT OF ORDER AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DEAL WITH THAT MATTER BEFORE WE GO INTO THE ZONING AGENDA IN ORDER.

EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE IN ORDER AS IT WAS PUT ON YOUR AGENDA FOR TODAY, BUT WE'RE TAKING IT PH2 FIRST AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> THANK YOU. MS. MAYO, PRESENT.

I BELIEVE SHE'S VIRTUAL.

>> MS. MAYO IS NOT PRESENT.

ERIC WILSON? ERIC WILSON IS NOT PRESENT.

JAMIE CISNEROS.

JAMIE CISNEROS IS NOT PRESENT, CINDY HUA. IT'S VIRTUAL.

CINDY HUA. CINDY HUA IS NOT PRESENT.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM ITEM PH 2? I SEE INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

>> KEILER ROBERTS 2847 ALABAMA AVENUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DOWN WINTER IS AT RISK.

JUST TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT SB 929.

LOOK, UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL DIDN'T DECIDE.

THIS WAS BESTOWED ON YOU BY THE STATE.

UNDERSTAND THAT AS I'M SAYING THIS.

BUT THERE ARE SOME STIPULATIONS IN HERE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND.

FIRST, GOOD ZONING POLICY, GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IS STILL ABLE TO HAPPEN THROUGH SB 929.

ZONING CHANGES DOES NOT INCUR FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF SB 929.

ONLY TERMINATION OF NON CONFORMING USES.

THIS SHOULDN'T STOP ANY GOOD ZONING POLICY FROM HAPPENING IN THIS CITY.

ONE POINT THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS.

WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE ADVERSE IMPACT HEARING STILL HAPPENS BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATION COMES ABOUT.

TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE FINANCES ARE GOING TO BE USED TO PAY FOR SOMETHING BEFORE THE COMMUNITY GETS TO FIGURE OUT, IS THIS ACTUALLY HARMFUL OR NOT, CAN BE PROBLEMATIC.

THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN PRIVY TO, SO I DON'T KNOW ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE ALL DISCUSSED.

BUT IN A SENSE OF HAVING ANY TYPE OF CONSTRAINT ON FINANCES, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ALLOW THAT ADVERSE IMPACT HEARING TO HAPPEN AND THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION IF THIS IS IN THE PURVIEW OR ABLE TO HAPPEN FINANCIALLY BEFORE ANY TERMINATION OCCURS.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT RESIDENTS STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO

[03:30:03]

BRING THINGS FORTH TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, TO HEAR IF IT'S ADVERSELY IMPACTING THEIR COMMUNITY, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION ON FINANCES CONSTRAINS THAT CONVERSATION.

AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE STATE HAS PUT YOU ALL IN TERMS OF, WE DON'T WANT X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY WITHOUT A DISCUSSION.

BUT THAT ADVERSE IMPACT DOES NOT INCUR ANY TYPE OF FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT FROM THE CITY.

THE CITY STILL HAS A PLACE.

THEY CAN INTERJECT THAT PROCESS IN BETWEEN STEPS 1 AND 2 OF THAT AMORTIZATION PROCESS THAT IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TODAY.

I KNOW WE'RE REALLY INTO THE WEEDS OF WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT THE KEY THING IS ALLOW ADVERSE IMPACT TO BE DISCUSSED AND THEN FINANCIAL CONVERSATIONS TO HAPPEN AFTER THAT. APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

ITEM PH 2. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> MAYOR PRETEND, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?

>> YES. I DO. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, THE CHANGE TO SECTION 51A-4.704 AS OF FEBRUARY 1ST, 2023, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 32 OF SB 929.

>> MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, IT'S BEEN SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> I JUST WANT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY COME BACK TO EXPLAIN TO US WHAT WE WHAT THIS MOTION MEAN SO THE RESIDENT AND THE COMMUNITY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE VOTED ON.

BURT VANDENBERG WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND CASEY BURGESS.

>> THE MOTION APPROVES WHAT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, WHICH CONTROLS THE AMORTIZATION AND THE NOTICE PROCESS.

THE NUANCE IN THE MOTION MAKES IT COMPLY WITH THE ACTUAL SB 929, WHICH THE PORTION THAT DEALS WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR AMORTIZATION WAS RETROACTIVE IN THE BILL TO FEBRUARY 1ST, 2023, AND WE ARE MAKING OUR CODE COMPLY WITH THAT.

>> THAT'S IT. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM PH2.

SING NONE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

LET'S GO ON TO OUR ZONING AGENDA IN ORDER.

[Z1. 25-194A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an MU-3 Mixed Use District and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned Planned Development District No. 69, on the east side of South R. L. Thornton Freeway, south of East Overton Road]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ITEM Z1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE, GRANTING AN MU-3 [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT, AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH RL THORNTON FREEWAY, SOUTH OF EAST OVERTON ROAD.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 107 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED SIX REPLIES IN FAVOR AND FIVE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

>> THERE ARE NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? I SEE A SPEAKER COMING FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> YES, MR. MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600.

WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH OUR CLIENTS, JOHN WALKER AND PASK OF JOE BAR DEVELOPMENT AND OUR DESIGN TEAM AT RE STUDIO TO CREATE A VIBRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR A TRUE LEAVE WORK PLAY ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS ALIKE.

BUT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN COME TO FRUITION, THERE ARE MANY MEANINGFUL AND FRANKLY EXPENSIVE HURDLES TO OVERCOME TO GET THIS PROPERTY EVEN BASICALLY PRIMED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE EXISTING ZONING DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IMPROVEMENT, AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHY THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED FOR OVER 50 YEARS.

THE FIRST IS PERHAPS THE BIGGEST AND THAT IS ACCESS.

THERE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.

IF YOU VISIT TODAY ON APPROACH FROM SOUTH DECLEY AVENUE, YOU WILL NEED TO TRAVERSE ACROSS THE I35 E OFF RAMP AND DOWN AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.

UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, THE ONLY POINT OF ACCESS IS THROUGH THE OVERTON PARK APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH.

THE VEHICULAR ACCESS IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE AND GOLDEN BEARS WAY, BOTH DEAD END ONTO THE PROPERTY.

IN OUR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND TEXTOT, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE SOLUTION IS TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESS ROAD BETWEEN ANNE ARBOR AVENUE AND OVERTON ROAD AND RECONFIGURE THE ON AND OFF RAMPS FROM

[03:35:03]

AN EXISTING X CONFIGURATION TO A NEW Y CONFIGURATION.

IN OUR PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY AND TEXTOT.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE PREFERRED CONFIGURATION AND THAT WOULD ALSO HELP ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONSTRAINTS ALONG ANNE ARBOR AND OVERTON ROAD.

IN ORDER TO PROMPT THIS IMPROVEMENT, A CATALYST PROJECT, LIKE THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NECESSARY.

THE THREE OTHER SITE CONSTRAINTS INCLUDED ON THIS PROPERTY ARE THAT IT IS CURRENTLY UNPLATTED WITH SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED ACCESS TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES AND TREATMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND TREE MITIGATION.

THESE CONSTRAINTS IN COMBINATION WITH ONE ANOTHER WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT TO RESOLVE JUST TO GET THE PROPERTY READY FOR CONSTRUCTION.

REZONING THIS PROPERTY IS LONG OVERDUE AND NECESSARY TO BRING AN EAGERLY AWAITED OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS PROJECT AND THIS COMMUNITY.

WITH THAT, I WILL PASS IT TO SUZANNE KEDRIN TO DISCUSS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH AND THE PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS SUZANNE KEDRIN, 2323 ROSS AVENUE.

WITH THE HELP OF THE DISTRICT FOUR, COUNCILWOMAN, WE'VE PARTICIPATED IN SIX NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, INCLUDING INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS, SMALLER WORKSHOP MEETINGS.

WE'VE ALSO HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH HOMEOWNERS IN THE VICINITY AND MAJOR PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING THE SITE.

WE'VE RECEIVED MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK, AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST FOR AN MU3 DISTRICT COMBINED WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS.

THE DEED RESTRICTIONS COVER A FEW POINTS, AND I'D LIKE TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THOSE FOR YOU.

WE PROHIBITED A NUMBER OF USES IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE FELT WEREN'T COMPATIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'VE LIMITED THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO NO MORE THAN 120 FEET.

ALSO REALIZE THAT ALSO INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY AS WELL.

THE DENSITY HAS BEEN THOUGHTFULLY DISCUSSED TO LIMIT IT TO 1,400 UNITS AND ALSO HAVE TRIGGERS IN THERE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.

VEHICULAR ACCESS IS PROHIBITED FROM SUN VALLEY DRIVE.

WE'VE INCLUDED ENHANCED SETBACKS WHEN THERE'S A NON RESIDENTIAL USE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, AND WE ALSO HAVE ENHANCED FENCING AS WELL.

THREE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION AND THE TACHED DD RESTRICTIONS, THERE WERE THREE USES THAT WE HAD INCLUDED WITH AN SUP.

ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, AND CONVALESCENT NURSING HOME.

IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, THOSE CANNOT BE INCLUDED WITH AN SUP.

THEREFORE, WE ARE PROHIBITING ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, WE'RE PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, AND WE ARE KEEPING THE CONVALESCENT NURSING HOME USE.

WE HAVE FINE TUNED THE REQUEST TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO DATE AND RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION, AND WE'VE CONTINUED TO WORK THOUGHTFULLY AND ENGAGED WITH OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS BEFORE YOU WILL RESULT IN AN A CLASS PROJECT.

WE'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I I SEE TWO MORE COMING FORWARD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

IB PROTOCOL HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

I AM OM ALLEN 4111 SUMMIT RIDGE DRIVE 675216.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING FOR 30 YEARS IN MARCELLS PARK HOME ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FIGHTING THERE'S 21 ACRES IN SUN VALLEY PARK TO BE DEVELOPED.

WE HAVE LONG WANTED PLAYGROUNDS FOR OUR CHILDREN. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME.

NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE WORKED ENTIRELY TO DEVELOP A BEAUTIFUL BACKYARD AND PATIO, TO ENJOY AND ENTERTAIN FAMILIES AND FRIENDS, BUT TO NO AVAIL.

BUT BECAUSE OF ANIMALS, KNOWING INSECTS AND UNDEVELOPED FOREST.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME.

MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAS WORKED SO DILIGENT AND I'M NO LONGER WITH US.

THAT IS SO SAD. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME.

MANY OF OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS STARTED THIS JOURNEY, MR. LIPKINS, ALONG WITH BILLY JOE DUPRI, WHO WAS EX COWBOY.

MR. LARRY DUNCANS, MR. FRED BLAIR AND THANE COW FOR 30 YEARS.

OUR PRESENT CITY COUNCIL PERSON, MRS. ARNOLD, HAS WORKED VERY DILIGENT, AND SHE'S AWARE OF THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THIS LAND CREATING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT TAKES TIME FOR 30 YEARS, IS A LONG TIME.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT TIME DOES CAUSE YOU TO BE A LITTLE DISABLED.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE ARE PRESENTLY HAVE

[03:40:02]

NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE HEARD OUR CRY AND WHO WANT TO BE A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.

IT HAS BEEN TOO LONG.

PLEASE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CONSIDER OUR CRY AND DRY OUR TEARS.

IT IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

BUT I KNOW IS GOING TO COME. THANK YOU.

>> CARL CRAWLEY 221 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE REMAINING PART OF THE PD, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

WE REQUESTED AND GOT ONE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT.

AS MENTIONED, WE ARE THE OTHER HALF OF THIS PD.

THAT PD ALLOWS 740 UNITS, THEY'RE TAKING HALF THE PROPERTY AND DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

IT WILL BASICALLY BE 70 UNITS PER ACRE, MU 3 ZONING NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

OBVIOUSLY, I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS AND MOST OF YOU ALL KNOW ME.

I'VE BEEN HERE STANDING BEFORE YOU FOR 25 YEARS AND WAS WITH THE STAFF FOR 10 YEARS.

IF I HAD PROPOSED AN MU 3 NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, I THINK EVERYONE IN MY OFFICE WOULD HAVE THROWN ME OUT.

LETER ON I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED WHEN THE STAFF SAID, SURE, WE'RE OKAY WITH IT, AND THEY WEREN'T EVEN RECOMMENDING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, 70 UNITS PER ACRE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THAT'S A LOT OF UNITS PER ACRE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THEY REALLY TODAY HAS NO ACCESS EXCEPT ON GOLDEN BEAR WAY, GOLDEN BEAR WAY, WHICH RUNS NEXT TO THE TWO TIME STATE CHAMPIONSHIP, SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL, THREE TIMES IN A ROW IN THE STATE FINALS.

LAST GAME WE WON'T TALK ABOUT.

BUT THE PD NOW WOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT 20 UNITS PEER ACRE AND TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT AND WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A PARK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR FOR A LONG TIME AS A PARK, BUT THOSE AREN'T IN THERE.

THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE ASKED FOR SOME DIFFERENT THINGS IN DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEY COULD BUILD 600 UNITS DAY ONE WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANY NON RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE, NON RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S THE BASIS OF MIXED USE.

THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD BE 0.1% OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT OF 600 UNITS LIKELY AT 800 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT. THEY JUST HAVE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR IT.

IT DOESN'T SAY THEY EVER HAVE TO BUILD IT OR GET A CO, THEY JUST HAVE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR IT, WHICH WOULD BE PROBABLY ABOUT A $50,000 INVESTMENT TO THEN GO TO THE NEXT LEVEL, WHICH IS 900 DWELLING UNITS.

THEN THAT 900, THEY HAVE TO BUILD A WALKING TRAIL.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.

WE JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT.

NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY NEXT TO OUR TWO STORY APARTMENTS, WHICH THE OWNER HAS OWNED FOR NEARLY 15 YEARS AND HAS BASICALLY MAINTAINED THEM AS IF THEY WERE NEW APARTMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE 30 OR 40-YEARS-OLD.

THEY'RE VERY NICE APARTMENTS AND I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU ALL TO COME AND LOOK AT THEM AND STUFF.

WE JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AT THIS LOCATION. THANK YOU.

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

I'M SORRY, YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

>> LORIS PHILLIPS, I KNOW YOU VERY WELL.

ARE YOU SIGN UP FOR THIS OR YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS OR YOU WANT TO SPEAK DURING THE OPEN MICROPHONE THAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR ORIGINALLY BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HEAR BY THE END IF YOU.

>> BOTH.

>> BOTH, GO AHEAD AND TALK TO THE CITY SECRETARY ABOUT THIS ONE.

>> YOU MAY SPEAK ON ITEM.

>> THE LORD PHILLIPS 3001, EAST AVENUE K, BUILDING K APARTMENT 2007, GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS 75050-2662.

>> IT WAS A LOT SAID WHEN SOUTH O CLIFF WAS RENOVATED, THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY.

THIS PROJECT IS REALLY TRULY LONG OVERDUE, AS THE RESIDENT WHO SAID THIS WAS LIKE 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, MINORITIES, POOR PEOPLE, THEN RACE, MORE SO BLACK AND BROWN SHOULD ALWAYS BE HAPPY WHEN IT FINALLY HAPPENS TEEN CENTURIES LATER.

I'M ASKING YOU TO FIND IT IN YOUR HEARTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

VOTE. YES. IT IS LONG OVERDUE.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU. THESE ARE YOUR SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> IS THERE A MOTION ON Z1?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND.

CHAIRWOMAN ARNOLD, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE IT ON Z1.

>> THANK YOU. IF I COULD.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE HARD WORK OF STAFF AS WELL AS THE TEAM,

[03:45:06]

SUZANNE AND MISS VICTORIA.

I DON'T KNOW HERE YOU ALL RIGHT. THE HARD WORK OF MS. OLA ALLEN, REPRESENTING THE MARCELLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO MR. TOM FORSE WHO IS MY ZONING COMMISSIONER.

I KNOW THAT YOU SAID WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MAYOR AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO JUST HIT IT AND THEN AND MOVE ON.

BUT WHEN ARRIVING HERE SOME TIME AGO.

I THINK WHAT I NEED I JUST MY NOTICE HAD TO STALL FOR A MINUTE SO I COULD BE LEGAL.

HERE I HAVE MY SCRIPT.

I MOVED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION SUBJECT WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO READ?

>> ARE WE PAST THAT POINT NOW.

>> DID I READ IT RIGHT?

>> WELL, YOU JUST MOVE.

>> WE HAD TO CHANGE SOMETHING. WHERE IS ANDREA?

>> GUYS IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND DO THIS ONE NOW.

IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN. GO AHEAD.

>> COULD I HAVE MISS ANDREA COME UP SO I CAN MAKE SURE I'M READING THE RIGHT THING NOW.

[OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING OUT.

>> HERE'S MY QUESTION. DO YOU JUST NEED A MINUTE TO HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT THE MOTION BEFORE YOU READ IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE UNTIL YOU READ IT, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION TO TALK ABOUT?

>> COULD I JUST ASK YOU?

>> CAN SOMEBODY COME BEHIND THIS DIAS AND LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER AND LOOK AT YOUR MOTION AND SEE? [OVERLAPPING]

>> THE MAYOR IS ASKING ME A QUESTION I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO.

>> I NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE SURE SHE ACTUALLY IS GOING TO READ THE RIGHT MOTION SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THREE TIMES BECAUSE ON WE'RE ON TAKE TWO NOW.

>> DO I RECLAIM MY TIME?

>> DO LOOK AT IT. WE'RE GOING TO STAND AT S FOR ONE MINUTE, FOLKS.

>> MAY OR BE RECOGNIZED?

>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

>> I HAD ASKED ABOUT THE DATE OF SUBMITTAL AND THEN THIS HAS BEEN APPLICATIONS WERE SENT AROUND.

BUT FOR Z1, IT SAYS IT'S 12-13-2023.

BUT THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE DATE OF Z2 THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO.

>> YOU'RE SAYING SOME INFORMATION YOU GOT IS INACCURATE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL DATE OF APPLICATION FOR THIS ONE WAS BECAUSE I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

>> WE'RE NOT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE US RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE STAYING AT EASE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION.

>> NOT FOR THE MOTION, BUT JUST FOR THE ITEM Z1.

>> IT'S NOT ON THE FLOOR YET.

>> CAN YOU VERIFY FOR THE ONE WE DEFERRED Z2? WAS IT ACTUALLY 12-13-2023 OR?

>> I CAN'T CONFIRM ANY OF IT.

BUT STAFF COULD COME AND TALK TO YOU AS A SIDEBAR ABOUT ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE STAYING AT EASE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE GET A PROPER MOTION.

THE BODY WITHDREW A MOTION BY ACCLAMATION JUST A MINUTE AGO.

WE'RE JUST WAITING. YOU'RE READY TO GO, CAROLYN KING ARNOLD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION SUBJECT TO THE REVISED D RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE PODIUM.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

NOW, ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO, INCLUDING YOU, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, CAN BE RECOGNIZED ON Z1 NOW, BUT YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR OWN MOTION FIRST.

>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE GIVE US SOME SUPPORT TODAY AND THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR SOME TIME, AND AS I STATED, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM CAME TO US.

WE RODE THE PROPERTY.

I KNOW EXACTLY IT IS IN DISTRICT 4, AND I KNOW IT.

I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THEY ARRIVED IN A TIME FRAME WHERE AS MS. ALLEN STATED OVER THREE DECADES, BUT I WILL SAY THAT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT, I WAS ABLE TO START THE CONVERSATION AGAIN ABOUT WHAT WE NEED IN THAT COMMUNITY.

ALL I HEARD WHEN I CAME HERE WAS THAT THERE WAS A PROMISE MADE BY BILLY JOE DUPRI AND SOMEONE WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW UP AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

NOW WE HAVE A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN TO THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK IT'S MORE THAN SIX MEETINGS TEAM. I REALLY DO.

I TOLD YOU WHEN WE FIRST MET YOU THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING RIDE.

I WILL SAY WE NEED THAT NEW CATALYST IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THEY HAVE DEALT WITH OVERGROWN WEEDS, OVERGROWN VEGETATION, ANIMALS, OTHER CRITTERS LIVING ALONG WITH THEM, AND I THINK THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING NEW LIFE TO THAT COMMUNITY.

ALSO, REGARDING THE ACCESS, WE ARE WORKING.

I THINK THEY'LL BE WORKING WITH TEXT DOT TO TRY TO GET ANOTHER ACCESS POINT HERE.

ALL I CAN SAY TO YOU IS THAT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE, BUT I WILL BE WORKING AND PROBABLY RIGHT AFTER I SAY WHAT I NEED TO SAY, TO MAKE SURE. THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO.

MS. ALLEN, I THINK I JUST TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE NEIGHBORS GET ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S NEVER A DOUBT ABOUT WHAT THE CITY SAID AND WHAT THE PARTNERS SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE PROJECTS THAT THEY FAIL.

[03:50:03]

WE DON'T WANT ANYONE TO SAY WHAT WE COULD HAVE WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE DONE.

I'LL BE WORKING ON THAT AS SOON AS WE VOTE.

MS. ALLEN AND THE TEAM, I'M SURE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR 115.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS COMMUNITY IS LONG OVERDUE.

NOT ONLY DO I THANK THE PARTNERS, BUT I THANK ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

I CALL THEM MR. RICKY AND HIS TEAM FOR INTRODUCING ME TO THE PROMISED LAND, WHEN I MET THEM CANVASSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DRINKING THEIR LIGHT BEVERAGES.

WE SIT OUT AND I SAID, I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING WE MUST PURSUE.

THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING THAT EFFORT TO COME.

I HAVE JUST A FEW MINUTES.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE DEVELOPERS TO BE ON CAMERA.

DO YOU ALL MIND? COME DOWN TO SAY BECAUSE I HAVE TWO MINUTES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MANY DEVELOPERS WHO WILL COME IN AND PUT THIS TYPE OF MONEY AND INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I ALSO THANK MR. PATRICK HOGGINS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT HE'S BEEN A FAITHFUL MEMBER, THE APARTMENT OWNER, AND WE RESPECT HIS SPACE AS WELL.

HE'S A GREAT PROPERTY OWNER, AND I THINK TOGETHER YOU ALL WILL BE ABLE TO WORK OUT WHATEVER CHALLENGES THAT MAY EXIST.

>> YOU GUYS READY FOR YOUR CLOSE UP.

THAT'S A THROWBACK TO AN OLD MOVIE. GO AHEAD.

>> THERE WE GO. SORRY. HI. MY NAME IS JOHN WALKER, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, MR. MAYOR AND ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY PARTNER AND I, BART BLASCOF.

WE SAW THIS AS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH DALLAS, AND WE GOT TO WORK WITH MRS. ARNOLD.

>> EXCUSE ME SOUTHERN?

>> SOUTHERN DALLAS.

[OVERLAPPING] BUT WE GOT TO WORK WITH MRS. ARNOLD AND MRS. ALLEN, WHO SPOKE PREVIOUSLY AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TOOK SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS AND THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO DEVELOPING THE PROJECT.

THIS IS MY PARTNER BART, AND I'LL LET HIM SAY A FEW WORDS.

>> MY NAME IS BART PASCOV. NICE TO MEET YOU ALL.

THANKS FOR HAVING US.

FOR ME, THIS IS A LEGACY PROJECT.

I'M A FOURTH GENERATION TEXAN, AND I'VE BUILT A FEW THINGS AROUND THE CITY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO REVITALIZING THIS AREA.

WE'VE HAD MANY MEETINGS WITH THE HOMEOWNERS, AND I THINK THEY'RE ALL ON BOARD, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG, LONG PROCESS, BUT IT'S TIME TO COME TO AN END AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET 15. THANK YOU.

>> STILL ON YOUR TIME. YOU WERE STILL ON YOUR TIME.

YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.

>> THANKING YOU ALL ONCE AGAIN SERIOUSLY.

THEN THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE AND JUST JUST ASKING FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOWING THAT WE HAVE BEEN VERY THOROUGH IN THIS EFFORT TO BRING NEW LIFE TO THIS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN MILESON, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE A GREAT PROJECT.

I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE DATE OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION, PLEASE.

>> ALL MY APOLOGIES, YOU ARE RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME.

I DID READ IT WRONG.

ITEM Z1, WHICH IS THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, WAS FILED IN DECEMBER 13, 2023, AND ITEM Z2 THAT WAS DEFERRED WAS FILED ON APRIL 29, 2024.

ALL MY APOLOGIES, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CONFUSE.

>> NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OREGON ZONING ITEMS Z1.

SEEING NONE. ON FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU.

>> ITEM Z3. ITEM Z3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A CITY PLAN COMMISSION

[Z3. 25-90A A public hearing to receive comments regarding a City Plan Commission authorized hearing to determine the appropriate zoning for the area to include but not limited to uses, development standards, and other appropriate regulations in an area generally bounded by River Oaks Road to the north, Union Pacific Railroad to the east, McCommas Bluff Road to the south, and Julius Schepps Freeway to the west, and containing approximately 522.18 acres and an ordinance granting an A(A) Agricultural District; a CR Community Retail District; a new Planned Development District; an R-1/2 ac(A) Single Family District; an R-1 ac(A) Single Family District; an amendment to Planned Development District No. 778; an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 773 for a metal processing facility, and a resolution terminating the deed restriction (D.R. Z067-152)]

AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVER OAKS ROAD TO THE NORTH, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TO THE EAST, MACOMAS BLUFF ROAD TO THE SOUTH, AND JULIA SHEPS FREEWAY TO THE WEST, AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 522.18 ACRES AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND R-1 HALF AC A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AND R-1 AC A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 778, AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 773 FOR A METAL PROCESSING FACILITY, AND A RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.

[03:55:01]

YOU DO HAVE 22 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES. I'M SORRY. I'LL LET THE.

>> NO WORRIES. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 113 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED FIVE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND 22 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

DUE TO THE 20% OR MORE OPPOSITION, A THREE VOTE IS REQUIRED TO PASS THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU. YOU DO HAVE 22 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I'M GOING TO CALL SPEAKERS NAMES.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT IN THE CENTER SECTION, THE FIRST COUPLE OF ROWS IN THE CENTER SECTION.

MARCIA JACKSON, IF YOU'RE IN PERSON, YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM.

MARCIA JACKSON, EVELYN MAYO, ALAN MCGILL, CALEB ROBERTS, ERIC WILSON, JAMES HATLEY JUNIOR, GAIL TERRELL, JENNIFER RANGEL, BUNNY MATHIAS, JAMIE CISNEROS, CHRIS BOWERS, ELI AMSAG, GABRIEL AMSAG, SURAJ BORAT.

I'LL CALL THE REMAINING SPEAKERS LATER.

MISS MARSHA JACKSON, ARE YOU PRESENT? YOU'LL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES, AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE OF THAT MICROPHONE IF YOU WOULD SELECT.

>> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR JOHNSON, COUNCIL.

>>THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS DR. MARSHA JACKSON, 49 20 SHOT ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I AM HERE AND SPEAK ON FAVOR OF THE CPC APPROVAL AND CONSENT.

YOU HAVE HEARD MY STORY PREVIOUSLY, AND I'M HERE AGAIN TO STATE THAT WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH STAFF, ALSO IN PERSON, VIRTUALLY.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST SIX YEARS BECAUSE OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE THAT WE CONSTANTLY SPEAK ON OUR HEALTH.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST BUSINESS, BUT WE ARE AGAINST THE POLLUTERS.

WE HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES, THE BUSINESS OWNERS SAY THAT THEY'RE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT MAKING MONEY.

WE'LL CONTINUE WORRYING ABOUT OUR HEALTH, OUR COMMUNITY.

I HAVE EXPERIENCED PERMANENT DAMAGE.

RESIDENTS HAVE EXPERIENCED PERMANENT DAMAGE.

NO ONE WE HEAR THAT EVEN SPEAK ON OUR CONCERNS ABOUT OUR HEALTH.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED BECAUSE IT IS ALSO SPOKEN ABOUT THE LANDFILL AND LANDFILL IS NOT IN OUR MAPPING.

THIS IS ONE THING I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CONSIDER THAT WE HAVE BEEN HERE NUMEROUS TIMES.

WE HAVE TENDED EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND IT'S ALSO SPOKEN AND SAID THAT MANY RESIDENTS ARE NOT HERE.

RESIDENTS WORK.

THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESS LIKE THE BUSINESS OWNERS DO.

I HOPE THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING US IN THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. EVELYN MAYO IS VIRTUAL. MS. MAYO?

>> YES, I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR?

>> WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

>> EVELYN MAYO 2833 PROVINCE LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75228, COUNCIL DISTRICT 2.

I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING TO REZONE THE FLOOR OF FARMS COMMUNITY.

I URGE THE COUNCIL TO FOLLOW CPC'S RECOMMENDATION.

YOU WILL RESOLVE MORE NON CONFORMING USES BY PASSING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAN THE NON CONFORMING USES THAT EXIST TODAY.

YOU'LL HEAR A LOT FROM THE BUSINESSES HOW SHINGLE MOUNTAIN WAS ONE BAD APPLE.

BUT THE TRUTH IS THERE'S MORE BUSINESSES LACKING CORRECT PERMITS TODAY THAN THERE ARE WITH ACCURATE PERMITS.

SUPPORT CPC, SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY AND PASS ITS RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ALAN MCGILL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, MY NAME IS ALAN MCGILL.

I LIVE AT 14:4055 VIRG DRIVE.

I'M HERE TO URGE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE FLOREA FARMS COMMUNITY TO CONDUCT AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.

THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY LONG JOURNEY FOR THESE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY UNDER GREAT DURESS.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE SUPPORT THAT THEY HAVE EARNED OVER THIS LONG JOURNEY BY UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING THE CPC'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. CALEB ROBERTS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CALEB ROBERTS 2847, ALABAMA AVENUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT DOWNWINDERS AT RISK.

I'M GOING TO KEEP IT SHORT.

[04:00:01]

THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.

IT HAS BEEN APPROVED THROUGH EVERY PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE APPOINTED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

THESE RESIDENTS HAVE FOUGHT EJ ISSUES FOR SIX YEARS.

WE'RE ACTUALLY CORRECTING A LOT OF THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THINK ABOUT THIS CASE OF CORRECTING A HISTORY OF INCONGRUENT USES, THINGS THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE, WE ARE MAKING LESS NONCONFORMING USES, NOT MORE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE UNANIMOUS.

THIS SHOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE PASSED, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WISE.

PLEASE KEEP THAT TREND GOING. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ERIC WILSON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, MAYOR.

MY NAME IS ERIC WILSON.

I RESIDE AT 7942 JUBILANT DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I AM A PROUD MEMBER OF SOUTHERN SECTOR RISING.

AS YOU'VE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY COMING DOWN AND VOICES OR CONCERNS, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

A LONG TIME COMING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT.

THIS HAS BEEN NOT ONLY A PRESIDENT, BUT ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW DALLAS AND THIS LEADERSHIP, IT'S CARE FOR ITS COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE AND CORRECTING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST SO THAT WE MAY HAVE A BRIGHTER FUTURE.

YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INS AND OUT OF THIS.

YOU'LL HEAR FROM MANY MORE INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

I THINK A HAPPY WORK AROUND HAPPY MEDIA HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE.

I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE THE COURAGE AND THE WILL TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AT 15-0 TO SHOW DALLAS NOT ONLY FOR THE MEMBERS OF FLORAL FARMS, BUT FOR THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS THAT WE DO CARE, NOT ONLY ABOUT YOU FROM A TAX BASE, BUT WE CARE ABOUT YOU FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BASE AS WELL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. JAMES HATLEY JR.

>> GOOD EVENING. DR. JAMES HATLEY JR. PROPERTY OWNER.

I'M OPPOSING THE ZONING CHANGE.

AS A TAXPAYER, IT'S UNFAIR TO PAY COMMERCIAL TAXES FOR 24 YEARS, AND A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED AND THE PROPERTY VALUE IS DEVALUED ON THESE BASIS.

IF I WANTED MY PROPERTY REZONED, I WOULD HAVE REQUESTED IT TO BE REZONED ON MY OWN.

MY PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT AS AN INVESTMENT, AND THIS CHANGES AND DEVALUES MY PROPERTY.

THAT SHINGLE PILE THAT WAS MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM MY PROPERTY, HAS NOT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MY PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE CHANGE.

I'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA FOR 24 YEARS.

I'M 72-YEARS-OLD, I DON'T TAKE A PILL, I DON'T HAVE ANY ILLNESS, AND I'M NOT SICK.

HIGHWAY 75, IF IT'S NOT THE OLDEST IT'S ONE OF THE OLDEST HIGHWAYS IN DALLAS, AND IT WAS MEANT FOR COMMERCIAL USE, AND IT'S STILL BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE RIGHT NOW.

I SPENT THE BETTER PART OF MY LIFE PAYING FOR THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

NOW SOMEONE WITH MORE INFLUENCE IS ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF MY PROPERTY.

9049 IS MY RETIREMENT.

AND I DON'T WANT MY ZONING CHANGE.

I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WHEN I WAS 49-YEARS-OLD, I'M 72-YEARS-OLD NOW.

>> THAT'S YOUR TIME.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. GAIL TERRELL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

GAIL TERRELL 1445 FIREBIRD DRIVE.

DISTRICT A COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP COALITIONS COORDINATOR.

I AM HERE TODAY TO ASK AND URGE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE REZONING FOR FLORAL FARMS. THEIR HEALTH IS AT RISK.

IT'S BEEN AT RISK, AND WE WANT TO PAY ATTENTION AND TRY TO KEEP THOSE PEOPLE LIVING AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.

[04:05:07]

SO I ASK AND URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE 15-0 FOR THE SUPPORTING OF THE REZONING FOR FLORAL FARMS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. JENNIFER RANGEL, IS VIRTUAL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JENNIFER RANGEL.

ADDRESS 207 NORTH MOROCCO AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75211.

I SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RAYO PLANNING, AND I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE OUTLINE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FLORAL FARMS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE CITY OF DALLAS RESILIENCY IS A TOP PRIORITY, AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THAT WORD, IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE LOOK AT IT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK FOR HOUSING.

WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ENFORCING FOR HOUSING FOR FOLKS TO NOT BE AFFECTED BY HEAVY INDUSTRY.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LAND THAT EXIST AT FLORAL FARMS. IS CLOSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AS WE GROW AND DEVELOP, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IN CASE OF FUTURE [INAUDIBLE] THAT PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED.

WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ZONING? ZONING WAS CREATED AND GRANTED AS A POWER TO MUNICIPALITIES IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL.

THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW THAT SPIRIT, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ENFORCE FAIR HOUSING, AND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ALSO POSE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

AS YOU'VE HEARD, MANY FOLKS HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH HEAVY INDUSTRY IN FLORAL FARMS SINCE BEFORE SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

PLEASE WE ASK FOR ALSO UNANIMOUS SUPPORT IN FAVOR OF THE COMMUNITY, IN FAVOR OF A RESILIENT FUTURE FOR EVERYONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. BUNNY MATHIAS IS NOT PRESENT.

JAMIE CISNEROS.

>> I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR FLORAL FARMS. IT ALIGNS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GOALS OF FORWARD DALLAS AND THE FUTURE VISION OF OUR CITY.

IT'S TAKEN SIX YEARS FOR THIS VOTE.

DURING THAT TIME, RESIDENTS OF FLORAL FARMS HAVE ENDURED IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND UNNECESSARY STRESS.

DALLAS HAS BEEN WATCHING THE NEGLECT OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ITS NEEDS.

IN THE SINGLETON CORRIDOR IN WEST DALLAS, OUR AUTHORIZED HEARING WHICH INITIATED DECEMBER 2021 WITH THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION ANTICIPATING THE PROCESS TO START IN THE SPRING OF 2022.

IT IS NOW 2025, AND THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO MOVEMENT.

ONE COULD SURMISE THAT THE APPROVAL OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING IS A CITY TACTIC TO PLACATE A COMMUNITY WITH LEGITIMATE NEEDS.

IT'S CRUEL TO DANGLE A PROMISE TIED TO AN INDEFINITE TIME FRAME, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT AN INJUSTICE IS BEING SERVED.

TODAY, PLEASE HONOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND APPROVE THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR FLORAL FARMS. SIX YEARS AGO, THERE WAS NO FORWARD DALLAS, TODAY THERE IS.

SHOW THAT IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER WAY TO PLACATE THOSE THAT WANT A BETTER DALLAS FOR THEIR FUTURE.

>> THANK YOU. CHRIS BOWERS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHRIS BOWERS, SUSTER LAW GROUP.

I RESIDE AT 4115 RAINSONG, DALLAS, TEXAS 75287.

I REPRESENT AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL AND TRADING CORPORATION AT 9505 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

BUT MUCH OF WHAT I SAY ALSO APPLIES TO MANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THE STATED PURPOSE OF THIS MASSIVE DOWN ZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO AGRICULTURE IS TO "PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY OF AREA RESIDENTS FROM THE IMPACTS OF INDUSTRIAL USES." BUT LET'S LOOK AT THAT STATEMENT.

THE AREA HAS ONLY 25 RESIDENCES ACCORDING TO DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

THE ZONING MAP SHOWS A NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST, BUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BOUGHT OUT BY THE CITY IN THE 90S AND I WAS A PART OF THAT.

NO ONE LIVES THERE TODAY.

SECOND, AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, AIT, MY CLIENT DOES NOT POLLUTE.

IN FACT, MANY OF THE OTHER USES HERE DO NOT POLLUTE.

NOT ONE PERSON IN THESE LAST SIX YEARS HAS SAID THAT AIT POLLUTES, AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT DOES NOT.

THIS AREA HAS BEEN IDEAL FOR INDUSTRIAL USES FOR 100 YEARS BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THREE MAJOR FREEWAYS, A RAILROAD LINE, AND THE CITY'S LANDFILL.

THE CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE 1950S WHEN IT ANNEXED THE AREA BECAUSE IT ZONED IT TO INDUSTRIAL SOON THEREAFTER.

REZONING AIT AND MANY OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

[04:10:01]

TO AGRICULTURE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS FOR SEVERAL REASONS.

FIRST, AITS PROPERTY IS ALREADY DEVELOPED.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY BUY IT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES? IT'S TOO SMALL TO GROW CROPS OR TO RAISE LIVESTOCK.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE ITSELF SAYS THAT AG ZONING IS FOR PROPERTIES AT THE EDGE OF A CITY AND IT'S MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY UNTIL THE AREA IS DEVELOPED.

WELL, THAT HAS HAPPENED, SO THIS IS CONTRARY TO YOUR OWN ZONING ORDINANCE.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IT WILL NOT EVEN ALLOW A RESIDENCE.

>> THAT'S YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. ELI AMZALLAG.

>> DO YOU HAVE THE POWERPOINT THAT I SENT? I SENT IT. CAN YOU GET THAT UP. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

>> I'M SORRY. YOU NEED TO?

>> POWER POINT.

>> WELL EMAIL IT TO COUNSEL.

>> I JUST WANT TO SHOW IT FOR EVERYONE, BUT ANYWAY.

MY NAME IS ELI AMZALLAG, 4403 RIVER OAKS ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING TO THIS POINT.

THE REASON WHY THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LITTLE UNDER SIX YEARS IS BECAUSE MOST OF THE OWNERS HERE HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS REZONING WAS HAPPENING. NO IDEA.

I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH MY BROTHER THREE YEARS AGO.

I HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS HAPPENING UP UNTIL LAST YEAR, AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED AND SO WOULD HAVE EVERYONE ELSE CLEARLY, AS YOU KNOW WITH THE VOTES, IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESIDENTS, ONLY FIVE PEOPLE OUT OF HOWEVER MANY RESIDENTS THERE WERE VOTED AGAINST THIS SORRY, IN FAVOR OF THIS.

TWENTY-TWO PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST THIS, 22 PEOPLE.

IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED AGAINST THIS REZONING, NO ONE WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN AND I KNOW ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE DO NOT WANT THIS REZONING TO HAPPEN.

YOU GUYS KNOW THAT IT IS TOTALLY ABSURD, GETTING THIS REZONED TO AGRICULTURE OR WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE IS THE WRONG MOVE AND IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM ALL THE PROGRESS THAT YOU HAVE MADE.

IF YOU HAD THE POWERPOINT THAT I SHOWED AND PUT UP THERE, I WANT TO SHOW THIS HERE SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT.

BUT THIS IS THE WHOLE REZONING AREA OF THE MAP.

THE ORANGE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE VOTING AGAINST THIS REZONING AND THE PURPLE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE VOTING FOR THIS REZONING.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S 295 ACRES OF LAND THAT ARE VOTING AGAINST THIS REZONING AND ONLY 9.5 ACRES, FOR THIS REZONING.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S ACREAGE BECAUSE OF COMMERCIAL AND SO FORTH.

THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR THIS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS AREA, AND IT'S FIVE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS, 22 AGAINST THIS.

NOW, THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING, "OH, THE PEOPLE DIDN'T SHOW UP AND THEY CAN'T SPEAK BECAUSE THEY HAVE JOBS AND SO FORTH." WELL, AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERYONE HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND ONLY FIVE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS, 22 AGAINST THIS.

THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR ITSELF HERE.

NO ONE WANTS THIS REZONING [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S YOUR TIME. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S VERY OBVIOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I'D LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW, MR. AMZALLAG, YOUR PRESENTATION WAS EMAILED TO COUNSEL.

>> IT WAS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GABRIEL AMZALLAG.

>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

LIKE MY BROTHER JUST SAID, THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN REITERATED MANY TIMES BEFORE.

SHINGLE MOUNTAIN WAS A VERY POOR THING THAT HAPPENED, TERRIBLE FOR EVERYBODY, THE BUSINESSES, THE NEIGHBORS, EVERYBODY, AND WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE RECREATED AT ALL FOR SURE OR NOT.

WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

WE BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESSES ARE IN COMPLIANCE, AND IF THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, BY ALL MEANS, YOU SHOULD EVICT THEM OR MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO COMPLIANCE.

I DON'T THINK THAT REZONING THIS ENTIRE 522 ACRES IS GOING TO PUT PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO STAY AND BE A NONCONFORMING USE, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO DIG IN FURTHER AND NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES OR ADJUSTMENTS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.

IF WE WANT TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, "WELL, YOU'RE NONCONFORMING USE.

I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE ANY CHANGES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE." IT'S A SNAPSHOT IN TIME, STUCK WITH THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE, NOT BEING ABLE TO IMPROVE IT AND HOPE THAT WE CAN JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE OUR USE CONTINUE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. SURAJ BORAT.

[04:15:03]

>> HELLO. SURAJ BORAT, 8500 SOUTH [INAUDIBLE] FREEWAY.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK ABOUT THE BUSINESS OWNERS, THEY SPEAK ABOUT THEM AS IF THEY'RE NOT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS WELL, AND THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DEMONIZE THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN THIS AREA.

ON OUR SIDE ALONE, IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT, THERE'S INDIVIDUAL TRUCK PARKING THAT'S HAPPENING AND THESE INDIVIDUAL TRUCKS ARE ALL SMALL BUSINESSES THEMSELVES.

THE ONE MAN VANS THAT HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO THAT HAVE CONTINUED TO BE PUSHED OUT FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

WHEN THE CITY FINALLY DECIDES THAT IT'S THEIR TIME TO USE THIS LAND, THEY KEEP PUSHING THEM FURTHER AND FURTHER AND FURTHER OUT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD THREATEN THEIR LIVELIHOOD.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT JUST BUSINESS MEMBERS ISOLATED FROM THIS AREA.

WE ARE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY, WE CLEAN UP ALL OF THE WRONGDOING.

I MEAN, WE COME IN AND IMPROVE THE AREA, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

WE'RE NOT SEPARATE. WE ARE THE COMMUNITY HERE AS WELL. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL NOW CALL THE REMAINING SPEAKERS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT IN THIS INTERSECTION ON THE FIRST TWO ROWS.

JONATHAN SUCCOP, JERRY SUCCOP, WAYNE YAPRO, [INAUDIBLE], STEVE DARLING, GREG OBLOY, ROBERT MIKLOS, AND CINDY HUA.

JONATHAN SUCCOP, IS VIRTUAL.

>> JONATHAN SUCCOP.

>> YES. MY NAME IS JONATHAN SUCCOP.

I'M THE MANAGER OF WEST PERENNIALS AT 9205 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

WE HAVE TWO TOMES ON OUR PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO OUR GREENHOUSES.

I SPEAK HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS ALMOST FIVE YEARS AGO, AND JUST AS AN ATTEMPT TO REMEDY MANY OF THE PROBLEMS HERE IN THE ORAL FARMS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS AREA IS A FORGOTTEN AREA OF DALLAS WHERE ANYTHING GOES.

NO REGARD FOR WHO LIVES HERE, WHO WORKS HERE.

MANY HOMES AND BUSINESSES, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE CITY FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY, STILL DON'T HAVE MUNICIPAL CITY SEWER SERVICES.

PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BRINGING CRIME AND GAMBLING WHILE DEVELOPERS HIRE CHEAP PROPERTY.

FOR USES NOT TOLERATED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

WE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO PROPOSE THESE CHANGES TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME BASIC REGULATION OF HEAVY INDUSTRY, NEAR OUR HOMES AND BUSINESSES.

THESE CHANGES ARE AT BEST A COMPROMISE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SB 929.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FORCE ANY OF THESE EXISTING BUSINESSES OUT.

ALL WE GAIN IS LIMITING NEW HEAVY INDUSTRY FROM DEVELOPING NEAR HOMES.

AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A LONG, FIVE YEARS.

I'VE ATTENDED DOZENS OF THESE MEETINGS CONCERNING THESE CHANGES.

I ASK YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPROVE THESE CHANGES TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. JERRY SUCCOP.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JERRY SUCCOP.

I'M OWNER OF SOUTHWEST PERENNIALS AT 9205 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

I'VE BEEN IN THIS LOCATION FOR 10 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN IN THE GREENHOUSE GROWING BUSINESS FOR 54 YEARS IN THIS AREA.

I WAS HERE BEFORE I45 IN THE LANDFILL.

THE PTT FAMILY OWNED THE PROPERTY IN THE GREEN HOUSES SINCE 1928, BEFORE THE CITY LIMITS.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ZONING AS PRESENTED TODAY.

THERE ARE A LOT OF NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MORE THAN 30-40 YEARS.

YOU SAID THEY'RE HOME NOW.

WE HAVE INVESTORS COMING IN TO DESTROY WHAT THEY HAVE TO FILL THEIR POCKETS AND DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY OF THESE HOME OWNERS.

FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, HOW WOULD BE LIKE TO TRADE YOUR NICE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOMES FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH? NONSTOP TRUCKING, DUST, AIR, AND WATER POLLUTION.

HAS ANYONE DRIVEN DOWN BURT LANE TO SEE THE TOTAL DISREGARD FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT AREA? WHERE IS THEIR BASIC RESPECT FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR? WHERE IS THE STORM WATER CONTROL OR RETAINMENT FOR RECENTLY FILLED SITES? THERE'S ALSO TALK OF FILLING A LARGE SPRING-FED LAKE THAT NEVER GOES DRY.

FILLING THE LAKE WOULD LEAD TO GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION.

WHO KNOWS WHAT CONTAMINANTS? CHEMICALS, OIL, AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE WOULD COME FROM ALL THE DEMOLITION SITES? MAYBE THE EPA NEEDS TO OVERSEE THIS PILL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. WAYNE YAPRO.

WAYNE YAPRO IS NOT PRESENT.

RUY GUEDES TEIXEIRA IS VIRTUAL. MR. TEIXEIRA?

[04:20:08]

>> THIS IS GUEDES TEIXEIRA [INAUDIBLE] TWO RIVER OAK DRIVE.

>> YOU MAY BEGIN.

I'M AGAINST THE REZONING HERE.

I THINK IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE CRUCIFIED BECAUSE OF ONE BAD OWNER OF ONE PERSON THAT DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO IN THERE ON THE PROPERTY.

CLEARLY YOU CAN SEE A MINORITY OF THEM ONLY FIVE PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.

EVERYBODY ELSE THEIR OWN BUSINESS IN THIS PLACE.

THEY BRING THE VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY.

THEY REDEVELOP THEIR PLACES, MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAN, THEY MAKE SURE THEY PAY THE TAXES ON TIME, ARE AGAINST THIS REZONING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT AND WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION, YOU TAKE EVERYTHING IN CONSIDERATION, MAKES THE RIGHT CHOICE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. STEVE, DARLING.

>> STEVE DARLING, 5823, SAN HURST LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I AM AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WARRIOR, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I SERVED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 2019 AND 2022, PROSECUTING STORMWATER VIOLATIONS AND CODE COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AT NO POINT DO I RECALL EVER PROSECUTING THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND FOR THAT REASON, IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FIVE VIRTUES THAT I HAD TO OBSERVE WHEN I WAS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

OF, ALL THOSE FIVE ES, BUT PRINCIPALLY HERE, EMPATHY AND EXCELLENCE.

EMPATHY, I THINK HAS BEEN BROADLY STATED.

EVERYONE HERE CERTAINLY DESERVES TO BE HEARD AND EVERYTHING THEY ARE ASKING FOR DESERVES TO BE GRANTED, BUT CITY COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT THE ISSUE IS IS THAT EMPATHY ISN'T BEING POINTED TOWARDS, OF COURSE, THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO, AT LEAST FOR THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT I'VE REPRESENTED, HAVE THEIR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANY VIOLATIONS FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS.

NO NOTIFICATIONS, NOTHING, NOT WHEN I WAS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CERTAINLY NOT WHEN I WAS A PROSECUTOR AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

THE ISSUE THEN BECOMES WHAT TO DO ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE SOMETHING HASN'T BEEN DONE BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE EXCELLENCE COMES INTO PLAY.

AT ANY POINT, THE CITY COULD POINT ITS MANY MECHANISMS OF ENFORCEMENTS TOWARDS THE VARIOUS OFFENDERS THAT THEY THINK ARE DOWN THERE WITHOUT TRYING TO REZONE OVER 500 ACRES OF PROPERTY IN ORDER TO JUST ASSIST A SMALL CONTINGENT OF RESIDENTS WHO ABSOLUTELY DESERVE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT.

I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I WORKED WITH MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAY BE ABLE TO HEAR MY VOICE, I WAS HERE WHEN CASEY BURGESS STILL HAD LONG HAIR.

THE MAIN THING I'M TRYING TO STATE THOUGH, AGAIN, IS THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT THE CITY CAN EMPLOY IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY WHO WAS A RESIDENT HERE IS HELPED WITHOUT SENDING A MESSAGE THAT IF YOU INVEST AND ARE HERE FOR DECADES AS A BUSINESS OWNER, THAT YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS UNLESS WELL, YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU. GREG OBLOY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MY NAME IS GREG OBLOY HERE ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL AND UTSI, 09,000 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, 50 ACRE PARCEL, PROBABLY THE LARGEST IN THE DISTRICT ZONED IR.

WE USE IT SIMPLY FOR CONTAINER STORAGE.

THERE'S NO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES GOING ON.

MOST OF OUR EMPLOYERS ARE INDEPENDENT DRIVERS IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE ALL KNOW WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

SHINGLE MOUNTAIN WAS A BAD OPERATOR AND FAILURE OF THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE ACTION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THERE.

OUR PROPERTY IS AGAINST A RAILROAD.

WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL AROUND US.

DOWN ZONING US TO COMMERCIAL IS COMICAL, AND EVEN REZONING THIS AREA TO MAKE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR AGRICULTURAL MORE HABITABLE IS COMICAL.

THERE'S TWO NORTH SOUTH RAILS, TWO NORTH SOUTH EXPRESSWAYS.

YOU HAVE A LANDFILL, A JAIL, AND MAJOR INDUSTRIAL TO THE SOUTH.

THAT INDUSTRIAL THE SOUTH IS SENDING A TON OF TRAFFIC UP AND DOWN THESE CORRIDORS.

THE IMPACTS ARE THERE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING AWAY, AND THESE USES IN THE AREA WILL CONTINUE.

THUS FAR TODAY, I'VE HEARD ONE OWNER IN THIS AREA ADVOCATE FOR THIS REZONING, JUST ONE TODAY.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ALL THE OTHER OWNERS AND OPERATORS IN THIS AREA SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT.

LIKE ONE GENTLEMAN SAID BEFORE, WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS REZONING UNTIL THE SPRING.

WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS OPERATING WITHOUT ANY VIOLATIONS WITH THE CITY AND OPERATING SUCCESSFULLY.

THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY OBJECT TO THIS REZONING AND ALTERNATIVELY,

[04:25:05]

CONSIDER THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS GOING TO MOVE THE PROPERTIES DOWN FROM IR TO LI, AS OPPOSED TO COMMERCIAL.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER MIDDLE GROUND.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADOPT IT, I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE A TWO OR A THREE YEAR EFFECTIVENESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. ROBERT MIKLOS.

>> ROBERT MIKLOS, 2,500 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 600 PLANO, TEXAS 75093, ALTHOUGH I LIVE IN MISQUIT.

THE HISTORY OF THIS LOCATION IS THAT PRIOR TO THE FACT THAT THIS AREA WAS EVEN A PART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, IT WAS INDUSTRIAL.

I REPRESENT ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA WHO PREDECESSOR, BUT THE SAME USE WAS OPERATING AT THE SAME LOCATION WITH THE SAME USE 80 YEARS AGO.

THIS HAS BEEN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA FOR THAT EXTENT AND PERIOD OF TIME, THAT IT WAS AN EXTENDED THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND THEN IT WAS ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

IT WAS NEVER ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL.

THE HANDFUL OF RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE AND GOD LOVE THEM, BUT IT WAS NEVER ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL.

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL INDIVIDUALS.

THEY DON'T HAVE PERMITS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE BUILDING PERMITS.

THEY CAN'T EXTEND THEIR HOMES IN THE AREA.

THEY CAN'T REPAIR THEIR HOMES IN THE AREA BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LEGAL THERE, BUT ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL USES WERE LEGAL.

LEGALLY INTENDED.

YOUR PREDECESSORS ENCOURAGED EVERYONE BEHIND HERE WHO'S AGAINST THE ZONING, PLEASE COME TO DALLAS.

WE'RE OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

WE WANT YOUR TAX DOLLARS, WE WANT YOUR JOBS, WE WANT YOUR EMPLOYMENT, PLEASE COME HERE.

THEN SHINGLE MOUNTAIN HAPPENED.

NOW, NONE OF THESE GUYS DID SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

THIS WAS AN ABJECT FAILURE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO ENFORCE THEIR CODES, AND WE CAN GO AND LOOK AT ALL THE EMAILS, PLEASE HELP.

NOTHING HAPPENED FOR A DECADE.

UNTIL FINALLY, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. WHAT DO WE DO? WE PUNISH ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL USERS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A CITATION, WHO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, WHO EMPLOY EVERYONE IN THE AREA, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE RESULT OF A DESTRUCTIVE TAX BASE, LACK OF EMPLOYMENT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL HAVE.

I KNOW HOW THIS WILL GO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. CINDY HEWIT, IS NOT PRESENT.

WE'LL GO BACK TO BUNNY MATHIAS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME BUNNY MATHIAS 904 LUFKIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75217.

I SERVE AS THE SECRETARY ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR SOUTHERN SECTOR RISING.

I WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS YESTERDAY REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING.

I KEEP HEARING ALL THESE BUSINESS OWNERS TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY WILL BE HURT, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE AREA.

IT HAS NOT BEEN FAIR TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

THIS MAN SAID THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE WHILE THEY ARE THERE AND THEY'RE HURT, SO THEY NEED TO BE HAVE RESTITUTION.

CADILLAC HIGHT'S GOT THEIR PARK.

AFTER MANY MANY YEARS OF FIGHTING FOR IT, FLORAL FARMS NEEDS TO HAVE THEIR PARK, AND I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL LOOK AT THIS AND UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

WE'RE NOT PUTTING THESE BUSINESS OWNERS OUT.

THEY JUST HAVE TO COMPLY.

PLEASE, SHOW US YOUR EMPATHY AND YOUR COMPASSION FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FLORAL FARMS. BY THE WAY, THOSE LETTERS WERE ALL SENT OUT TO THOSE RESIDENTS IN FLORAL FARMS, FIVE OF THEM MORE RETURNED 22 WERE NOT RETURNED.

THAT MEANS THAT THEY DIDN'T VOTE BECAUSE THE DATES HAVE KEPT CHANGING CONSISTENTLY OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS.

I'M AFRAID THAT YOU ARE INCORRECT ABOUT THEM NOT WANTING BUSINESS OR RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA.

ALL THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THAT LETTER BECAUSE OF COURSE, IT'S DONE IN CITY SPEAK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I REALLY HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE 15, 0 ON THIS PARTICULAR REZONING SO THAT FLORAL FARMS CAN FINALLY GET THEIR RESTITUTION AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR REGISTER SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND THE FIRST SPEAKER CAN COME TO THE PODIUM.

THE OTHERS CAN SIT ON THE FIRST COUPLE OF ROWS IN THIS INTERSECTION, PLEASE.

[04:30:06]

YOU MAY COME. THE FIRST SPEAKER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?

>> YES, PLEASE. TREY BROWN 11143 GOOD NIGHT LANE, DALLAS, REPRESENTING BROWN FAMILY PROPERTIES.

OUR PROPERTY OWNED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS 90601 SOUTH CENTRAL.

MR. MAYOR, HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS ZONING.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO RESPOND.

WE OWN THE 26 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

I AM THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO CALLED DALLAS ENVIRONMENT ABOUT THIS, AND THREE DAYS LATER WAS TOLD THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE BLUE STAR FACILITY.

AMAZING. WHAT DID I DO? I DID NOT CALL FOR AN OVERLAY REZONING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT IS WHAT WAS NEEDED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

THIS CASE IS AFFECTING ADJACENT BUSINESSES AND LANDOWNERS WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BLUE STARS EVIL WAYS.

REMEMBER, THE CITY'S RECORDED FIVE NOTICES IN FAVOR AND 22 NOTICES IN OPPOSITION.

WE ARE STILL THE REGION THAT'S SURROUNDED BY MAJOR HIGHWAYS, UP RAILROAD, AND THE LANDFILL.

THOSE FACTORS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

DON'T TRY TO CHANGE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO CONTINUE OUR BUSINESSES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF OUR OPPOSITION.

>> BELTS AGUP PROPERTY OWNER AT 8,800, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE.

WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

WHILE THE CITY DID THE RIGHT THING TO SHUT SHINGLE MOUNTAIN DOWN AND END ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT A CAUSE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT SHINGLE MOUNTAIN WAS AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAWFUL BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA.

THE COURT IN JACKSON VERSUS CITY OF DALLAS, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CAUSE OF SHINGLE MOUNTAIN WAS AN ENFORCEMENT FAILURE, NOT A ZONING ONE.

THE COURT RULED THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITED A SHINGLE RECYCLING FACILITY OR SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ON SITE.

THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT BLUE STAR, THE COMPANY THAT OPERATED SHINGLE MOUNTAIN, DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORIZATION FOR HIS ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY.

ON APPEAL, THE COURT REAFFIRMED THAT JACKSON, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE, FAILED TO POSITIVELY ALLEGE THAT THE CITY'S ZONING POLICY WAS A MOVING FORCE BEHIND THE ILLEGAL SHINGLE OPERATION.

THEREFORE, IF THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED THAT BLUE STAR VIOLATED ITS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND OPERATED ILLEGALLY, THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN CONSIDERING A ZONING CASE THAT PUNISHES PROPERTY OWNERS WHO FOLLOW THE LAW? IF THERE'S ANY ZONING CHANGE TO BE MADE.

IT SHOULD BE TO THE 2000 ACRE CITY OF DALLAS LANDFILL THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO THESE PEOPLE'S HOMES, NOT OUR PROPERTIES.

THE LAWFUL BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS AND FLORAL FARMS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SHINGLE MOUNTAIN, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENFORCEMENT FAILURES BEYOND OUR CONTROL.

I URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS REZONING PROPOSAL AND INSTEAD FOCUS ON STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS THAT PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT HARMING THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF DALLAS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH GOUGH, AND I'M THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL SERVICES AT 9220 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, AND I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED REZONING.

I HAVE WORKED FOR UNIVERSAL FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS WITH THE PAST FOUR AT OUR LOCATION IN SOUTH DALLAS.

WE CURRENTLY EMPLOY 20 PEOPLE AND USE DAILY THE SERVICES OF OVER 60 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, MANY OF WHOM LIVE IN DALLAS.

WE ALSO UTILIZE AND FREQUENT THE AREAS BUSINESSES FOR FUEL, MEALS, AND SUPPLIES, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMERS TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES OF DALLAS.

UNIVERSAL HAS ALWAYS WORKED TO BE A GOOD STEWARD TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

DURING COVID, WE AND MANY OF THE OTHER TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONING, WERE DEEMED ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND OUR DEDICATED TEAMS CAME IN PERSON EVERY DAY TO ENSURE NEEDED COMMODITIES AND SUPPLIES WERE AVAILABLE ON STORE SHELVES.

OUR CURRENT LOCATION IS CRITICAL TO OPERATING OUR BUSINESS DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE UP DALLAS' INTERMODAL RAIL TERMINAL IN HUTCHINS, TEXAS.

TO MOVE FROM OUR CURRENT FACILITY WOULD GREATLY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE THE HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE WE DO TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND COULD JEOPARDIZE OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM, PUTTING OUR OVERALL ABILITY TO OPERATE AT RISK.

WE ALSO OPERATE AS A CONTAINER YARD, SERVICING ALL DALLAS AREA DRAY CARRIERS, AND ALONG WITH AFFECTING OUR OWN STAFF, CONTRACTORS, AND CUSTOMERS, BEING FORCED TO MOVE WOULD HAVE IMPACTS ON THOSE OTHER CARRIERS OPERATING WITHIN DALLAS AS WELL.

UNIVERSAL HAS PROVIDED ME PERSONALLY SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT OVER MY TENURE WITH THE COMPANY,

[04:35:02]

AND WE STRIVE TO PROVIDE SIMILAR OPPORTUNITIES FROM MANY OTHERS IN THE DALLAS AREA AS WE HAVE FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS THAT WE HAVE CALLED SOUTH DALLAS OUR HOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> LA QUINTERO 330 LINKWOOD DRIVE, BOARD MEMBER OF DOWN WINTER AT RISK.

I'M URGING YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS AMENDMENT.

THIS HAS BEEN SIX YEARS IN THE MAKING.

YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF SUITS, AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH PRIVILEGE AND RESOURCES, AND YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO GOT PAID TO BE HERE.

MOST OF THE RESIDENTS COULDN'T BE HERE AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REASONS AS TO WHY MANY OF THEM BECAUSE OF JOBS, ETC.

A LOT OF THESE FOLKS THAT ARE VOTING, NO, DO NOT KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMUNITY, NOR DO THEY UNDERSTAND THE REALITIES OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COMMUNITY.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT MARSHA AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ARE EXPERIENCING IN THIS COMMUNITY.

IT IS TIME FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT IS STATED ON FORWARD DALLAS, WHICH WAS VOTED ON RECENTLY, AND TO VOTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, HOUSING RIGHTS, AND AS WELL AS SOCIAL JUSTICE.

DALLAS HAS A TRAJECTORY OF VOTING AND ALLOWING BUSINESSES TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN THIS CITY.

IT IS TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY VOTE AND HELP THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR THEIR HEALTH AND FOR THEIR WELL BEING.

AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE FOR THE HEALTH OF THE RESIDENTS, FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. THANK YOU.

>> HI. MY NAME IS IMAN MAJID.

I LIVE AT 348 WATERVIEW DRIVE COPPELL, TEXAS.

I'M HERE TODAY TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACT AND WHAT THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH ON HOW MUCH POLLUTION THERE IS AND WHAT IT CAUSES.

I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD KNOW THE FACTS.

THE FACTS ARE THAT THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THESE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS AND HEALTH IMPACTS THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN SO MANY TIMES, NOT JUST IN DALLAS, NOT JUST IN THE US, BUT ACROSS THE WORLD.

IF I PRINTED OUT ALL THE STUDIES, LINKAGING THIS POLLUTION TO WHAT IT DOES TO PEOPLE'S BODIES, THOSE STUDIES WOULD FILL UP THIS ROOM TO THE VERY TOP.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNDER QUESTION.

WHAT DID THOSE HEALTH IMPACTS ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS GETTING SICK.

WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS, AND I CAN SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE I'M A PHYSICIAN.

IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU HAVE A CLASS OF 20 PEOPLE, A KINDERGARTEN CLASS OF 20 PEOPLE, MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN OF THEM ARE GETTING ASTHMA.

IN A DIFFERENT PART OF DALLAS, THEY'RE NOT GETTING ASTHMA.

THAT'S A RISK AND A SITUATION THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A CITY LIKE DALLAS THAT WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD.

LASTLY, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COSTS.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF BUSINESS OWNERS COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THEIR COSTS AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH.

THOSE ARE NOT THE ONLY COSTS INVOLVED.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK, THEY'RE PAYING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

THERE'S COSTS TO OUR ALREADY STRESSED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

WE COULD ACTUALLY AVOID THOSE PATIENTS HAVING TO GO IN FOR THOSE THINGS AT ALL.

WHEN PEOPLE GET ILLNESSES LIKE ASTHMA, INCREASE RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR ISSUES.

ONCE THESE EVENTS HAPPEN, THEY'RE NOT REVERSIBLE, BUT THEY ARE PREVENTABLE BY TAKING AWAY THE SOURCE OF POLLUTION.

THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS IF YOU WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR CHILD UNDERGOING THIS RISK OF POLLUTION, YOU SHOULDN'T ASK OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN TO.

>> HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ROBERT FERNANDEZ.

I'M NOT A PROPERTY OWNER; I SIMPLY I'M EMPLOYED THERE AT FLORAL FARMS ON THAT AREA.

I JUST WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION.

I'M AGAINST THE CPC'S RECOMMENDATION.

I'VE ATTENDED ALL BUT ONE OF THE MEETINGS AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE TIME, I WAS ALWAYS TOLD THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE MAYBE CHANGED OVER TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THERE AT THE LAST MINUTE, CPC RECOMMENDED THAT IT'S CHANGE TO WHAT IS IT A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I'M HERE TO REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 55-60 EMPLOYEES FOR WW ROWLAND AND WINNERS.

WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS THERE IN THAT AREA FOR PROBABLY ABOUT 45 YEARS.

I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO HEAR US ALL OUT, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT EVERYBODY.

YOU'RE NOT ONLY AFFECTING COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THAT AREA, YOU'RE AFFECTING A LOT OF EMPLOYEES.

[04:40:02]

WE STRONGLY URGE YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER YOUR DECISION ON WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> GOOD EVENING. HERSHAL BRADLEY, WW ROWLAND AND WWINNERS CONTAINER SERVICE, 4416 RIVER OAKS ROAD.

WE WE VOTE AGAINST THE REZONING AND STUFF.

REITERATING WHAT BOBBY HAD STATED IS THAT, YES, WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS AREA FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

WE DO EMPLOY ABOUT 60 EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING TRUCK DRIVERS, AND WE DO CONTRIBUTE TO DALLAS AS FAR AS THE INDUSTRY BRINGING IN PRODUCTS AND STUFF.

LIKE THE LADY SAID EARLIER, WE ARE ESSENTIAL WORKERS, WE WERE THERE WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE WASN'T ABLE TO WORK, BUT WE STILL BROUGHT THE PRODUCTS IN.

LIKE I SAID, REZONING THIS PROPERTY AND STUFF WOULD MAYBE FORCE US OUT TO MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHICH WOULD CAUSE OUR EMPLOYEES A LOT OF GRIEF BECAUSE WE DO HAVE EMPLOYEES WHO DO LIVE IN AREA, WHICH WOULD COST THEM MORE MONEY AND STUFF.

ONE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT ON 4416 RIVER OAKS, FOR YEARS, WE'VE ASKED THE CITY TO HELP US MAINTAIN THAT ROAD.

THE CITY HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO HELP US.

AT OUR OWN EXPENSE, WE MAINTAIN THAT ROAD OURSELVES.

TO COME IN AND REZONING AND STUFF FOR AGRICULTURE AND STUFF WOULD DEFINITELY AFFECT US.

WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AS IT IS TODAY SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO OPERATE AND KEEP OUR EMPLOYEES AND EVERYBODY ELSE WORKING TO HELP THE CITY OF DALLAS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, DOUG MCCLAY.

HI FINDS PROPANE 9323 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

MAYOR, COUNCIL PEOPLE, COUNCIL PERSON.

WE'D ASK YOU TO OPPOSE THIS.

WE'VE OPERATED IN THE PROPANE BUSINESS SINCE 1939 AT THE SITE, AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT. THANK YOU.

>> I'M NEIL GOLDBERG, 5036 RADBROOK PLACE.

I WAS BORN IN DALLAS 70 YEARS AGO AND I'VE LIVED HERE MY WHOLE LIFE.

THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED PROBLEM THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO FIX WITH A SIMPLE SOLUTION.

THIS DOESN'T WORK.

THIS PROPOSED SOLUTION WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE OR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

I WOULDN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT PROTECTING RESIDENTS RIGHTS.

I AGREE WITH ABOUT 90% OF PEOPLE, THE COMMENTS THAT THEY'VE MADE TODAY FOR AND AGAINST THIS.

I DON'T WANT MARSHA JACKSON TO HAVE AN UNHEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE IN.

THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

THIS IS FITTING A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.

IT'S NOT FAIR FOR THE CITY TO PUT ANYBODY IN THE POSITION OF WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON THE CITY IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS, THAT I HAVE TO ARGUE AND TAKE A POSITION AGAINST MARSHA JACKSON AND AGAINST HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND INJUSTICE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

THIS IS JUST REZONING THAT IS UNFAIR.

IT IS NOT THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE HERE, THE PEOPLE THAT OWN PROPERTY, AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ONES THAT ARE AGAINST THIS IS BECAUSE WE'RE BLINDSIDED ON THIS.

IT'S JUST NOT FAIR THAT THERE ARE CODES AND THERE ARE ZONING ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD FIX AS MUCH OF THE PROBLEMS AS THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

I'D BEG YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND NOT CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ON DAY 2 IF THIS PASSES.

TOMORROW, NOTHING CHANGES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

>> THAT'S YOUR TIME.

>> THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE OPERATING TODAY WILL OPERATE TOMORROW.

>> NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] 9505 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.

WE'RE HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ZONING.

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT THEY'RE UNDER DURESS, THEY CAN'T SLEEP, THEY'RE BEING HURT, BUT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FROM THE CITY OR FROM ANYONE ELSE STATING THAT THERE'S BEING ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION GOING ON CURRENTLY.

[04:45:02]

I WOULD LOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO ASK THE STAFF TO PROVIDE SUCH DATA.

WHY IS THIS CASE GOING ON? I WISH THEY WOULD BRING SOME DATA OUT TODAY IN THIS CASE.

WE ARE STRONGLY AGAINST THIS.

THIS IS OUR PARTICULAR PROPERTIES BEING DOWN ZONED FROM IR, WHICH WE PURCHASED IT FOR TO AA, WHICH IS TALKING TO DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS AND DIFFERENT PREVIOUS COUNSEL MEMBERS.

THEY SAID THIS IS THE BIGGEST JUMP IN ZONING THAT THEY'VE EVER SEEN AND THAT IT'S NOT FAIR, AND WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS UNJUST FOR US FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

WE'RE BREATHING THE SAME AIR, AND WE'RE WORKING ALONGSIDE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THIS AREA.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A BAD ENVIRONMENT WHERE NO ONE CAN WORK THAT WILL HARM OURSELVES AS WELL.

PLEASE VOTE NO AGAINST THIS. THANK YOU.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE].

I'M ALSO ONE OF THE OWNERS AT 9505 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, AND I'M HERE TO VOTE AGAINST THE REZONING CHANGE.

INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES, THE CITY OF DALLAS IS ECONOMIC PLANNING TEAM, AND DISTRICT COUNCIL SHOULD FOCUS ON SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING THIS AREA, ATTRACTING MORE BUSINESSES AND IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

THE CITY CAN HELP FOSTER SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.

YOU GUYS HAVE THE TOOLS, THE EXPERTISE, AND ALREADY HAVE CITY MANAGERS AND PLANNERS WITH WELL EQUIPPED GUIDANCE FOR US TO ADOPT.

THE BUSINESS OWNERS HERE WERE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE DO CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.

WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE.

INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD, THIS AREA WILL BE MOVING BACKWARD.

THIS DISTRICT NEEDS HELP, ECONOMIC HELP.

WE ASK THAT YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THE BUSINESSES IN THE OWNERS POSITION AND THINK ABOUT HOW THIS ZONING RECOMMENDATION WOULD IMPACT BUSINESSES, FAMILIES, EMPLOYEES, AND REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE URGE YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED AND CHALLENGED THEMSELVES, THE BUSINESS OWNERS HERE TOO, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORS WITH ALL THE MARKET CHANGES, COVID TIMES, AND TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY AND EMPLOYEES WORK HERE IN DALLAS.

I'M HERE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ZONING CHANGE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO GO TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

IT IS NOW 3:30 WE HAVE RECONVENE.

I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

THE NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD 11-11 IS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THREE PROPERTIES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND MCCOMA ROUGH ROAD.

LOT ONE IN CITY BLOCK 8006 A 4.84 ACRE TRACT IN CITY BLOCK 8006 AND A 2.91 ACRE TRACT IN CITY BLOCK 8006.

IN PD 11-11, A MINI WAREHOUSE USE AND AN OFFICE SHOW ROOM WAREHOUSE USE ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

A WAREHOUSE USE IS PERMITTED SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, AND A MACHINE OR WELDING SHOP USE IS PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

>> I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU, MAYOR.

>> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> MISS MENDELSON, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT'S THE PROXIMITY TO THE LANDFILL FOR THIS PROPERTY?

>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE USE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION, IF THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS ABOUT 1,500 FEET FROM THE LANDFILL.

>> 1,500 FEET FROM THE LANDFILL? ARE THERE ODOR ISSUES IN THIS AREA?

[04:50:04]

>> I DID TALK WITH SANITATION.

THEY ARE UNDER VERY STRICT REGULATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO, AND THEY TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY WITH PROXIMITY ISSUES.

>> HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN TO OUR LANDFILL? HAVE YOU SMELLED IT?

>> I HAVE.

>> IT'S TERRIBLE. I WOULD NOT ASK ANYONE TO LIVE THERE AS PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOMELESS SOLUTIONS AND THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING IT THERE.

I LIKE PEOPLE DON'T BELONG BY A LANDFILL, THEY'RE NOT TRASH.

I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE NEARBY DO EITHER.

HOW MANY TRUCKS PER DAY GO IN THAT AREA?

>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

WELL, ACTUALLY, LET'S SEE.

WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 1,500 TRUCKS ENTER AND EXIT THE FACILITY DAILY.

>> WHEN I'VE BEEN TO THE LANDFILL, THOSE AREN'T LIKE PICKUP TRUCKS.

THEY'RE 18 WHEELER TRUCKS CARRYING LARGE LOADS OF DEBRIS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY QUALIFY AS WHAT KIND OF TRUCK.

>> I'LL JUST SAY THEY ARE. WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THE LANDFILL? IS THERE A PLAN TO CLOSE IT OR EXPAND IT, DO YOU KNOW?

>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, FROM WHAT I LOOKED INTO THAT THERE'S ROUGHLY STILL A 30 YEAR LIFESPAN ON THE LANDFILL.

>> THERE'S LAND JUST NORTH OF IT TO EXPAND THE LANDFILL, WHICH WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER SITE.

THIS IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND.

THE AREA IS NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL ZONING FOR THE AREA?

>> THERE'S A MIX OF ZONING.

IT'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING, DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL ZONING, THERE'S AGRICULTURAL ZONING.

>> BUT THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL ZONING, CORRECT?

>> WELL, AND TO CLARIFY, IT WAS RE ZONED IN THE 80S.

THERE WERE A LOT OF HOMES PRE ANY TYPE OF REZONING.

SO IF YOU ACTUALLY GO BACK AND LOOK HISTORICALLY AT THE MAPS, IT INDICATES A LOT OF HOMES IN THE AREA GOING BACK 100 YEARS.

>> THERE WERE HOMES, BUT THEY NEVER HAD RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS? CORRECT.

>> THE ISSUE WAS PREVIOUSLY, PRE 1980, THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED CUMULATIVE ZONING.

THE GREATER THE SCALE, YOU GOT THE ZONING SCALE, YOU COULD DO EVERY SINGLE USE WITHIN THAT.

AT A CERTAIN POINT, RESIDENTIAL HOMES WERE ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES.

THIS WASN'T ANNEXED INTO THE CITY UNTIL AFTER THE 1950S.

AGAIN, IT'S HARD, WE CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT TYPE OF USE WAS NEVER ALLOWED.

>> WELL, I THINK I'M EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO ANNEXING AREAS THAT HAVE SOME WEIRD ZONING AND FUNKY SITUATIONS.

I CERTAINLY HAVE THAT FROM WHEN WE HAVE THE AREA THAT'S NOW THE FORMERLY TOWNSHIP OF RUNNER.

WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS, IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THERE'S 27 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES?

>> OBVIOUSLY. YES.

>> THERE'S 27 PROPERTIES TOTAL, IS THAT, OR THEY RESIDENTIAL?

>> RESIDENTIAL.

>> TWENTY-SEVEN RESIDENTIAL. HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE ZONING?

>> I THINK WE HEARD BACK FROM FIVE.

>> FIVE. WHY DID PEOPLE MAKE THIS THEIR RESIDENCE WHEN THERE'S A GIANT LANDFILL RIGHT THERE?

>> I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THEM.

I THINK YOU CAN GO BY THE NAMES, FLORAL FARMS. YOU CAN IMAGINE HISTORICALLY THAT THIS WAS A VERY DIFFERENT AREA, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT HISTORIC MAPS, IT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT LOOKING AREA.

WHEN A LOT OF THOSE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES, IT WASN'T THIS TYPE OF AREA.

FLORAL FARMS IT'S FLORAL AS FLOWERS.

CLEARLY THERE WE'VE GOT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TREE CANOPY, WE HAVE LARGE OPEN SPACES, WE HAVE CREEKS, WE HAVE A POND, TRAILS ALL OVER.

AGAIN, YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE RESIDENTS BUT I THINK THERE WAS A VERY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT AND IT FELT PEOPLE ENJOYED THE RURAL ASPECT OF THAT AREA.

>> I HAVE ACTUALLY ASKED A NUMBER OF THE RESIDENTS, AND THE THING IS, IT'S NOT THAT THERE WERE NATURALLY OCCURRING FLORAL AREAS, IT'S THAT THEY WERE GROWERS.

TO THIS DAY, WE STILL HAVE RUBLES AND OTHERS THAT ARE GROWING IN THAT AREA.

WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS AREA THEN AS AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS AREA?

>> I THINK THERE ARE PORTIONS OF IT THAT ARE, YES.

THE PORTIONS THAT ARE CLOSEST TO SOUTH CENTRAL 310, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS AREA THAT IS UNDEVELOPED, AND THAT'S WHERE WE FOCUS SOME OF THE SHIFTING IS IN THOSE UNDEVELOPED AND VERY TREE-CANOPIED AREAS.

>> YOU AS A PLANNER, YOUR INTEREST IS IN TAKING UNDEVELOPED LAND AND MAKING IT RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO A LANDFILL?

[04:55:05]

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE DID NOT, THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THIS AREA.

IT IS LARGE LOTS OF INDIVIDUALS.

THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE RECOMMENDED IS HALF ACRE.

THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE ONE ACRE, AND THEN YOU CAN DO RESIDENTIAL WITHIN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, DISTRICT, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE AT MINIMUM A THREE-ACRE.

PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THIS INFLUX OF NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, BUT THE FACT IS PEOPLE LIVE THERE AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HONORING THAT AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN HONORED FOR THE PAST DECADES.

WE HAVE TO FIND SOME RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE FACTS OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND AND THE REALITIES OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND ALSO HOW IT HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED AROUND THAT AREA AND IMMEDIATELY WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA, AND THEN SURROUNDING IT AS WELL.

WE>> ESTABLISH THAT THERE'S 27 HOUSEHOLDS, 27 RESIDENCES.

HOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE THERE?

>> THE BUSINESS TOTAL IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES.

>> JUST THE AGGREGATE NUMBER.

>> I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PARCELS.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS IS 124.

WE'VE GOT ABOUT 16 FOR COMMERCIAL TRUCKING, 50 VACANT UNDEVELOPED, SEVEN WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION, SEVEN WITHIN UTILITIES, SIX THAT ARE STRAIGHT INDUSTRIAL, A COUPLE THAT ARE AGG.

>> YOU IDENTIFIED 160 PLUS A COUPLE THAT WERE AGG, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE, BUT WE'LL JUST SAY 160 BUSINESSES.

NO, THERE ARE 124 TOTAL PARCELS IN HERE.

>> I'M SAYING 50 OF THEM ARE UNDEVELOPED, VACANT OR UNDEVELOPED.

16 ARE COMMERCIAL OR TRUCKING.

WE'VE GOT 11 AT RETAILER PERSONAL SERVICES.

AGAIN, THESE ARE SOME OF THESE ARE GUESTIMATES BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO FIELD CHECK, WHAT'S GOING ON.

SEVEN ARE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION, SEVEN UTILITY, ABOUT SIX ARE STRAIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND THEN WE HAVE TWO SHOWING AS AGRICULTURE.

>> TWELVE, 14, 15.

YOU'VE GOT 49, IS THAT RIGHT? I'M COUNTING 49.

>> AS NON-RESIDENTIAL.

>> AS NON-RESIDENTIAL BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING NOT VACANT LAND IN 27 RESIDENTS.

>> WELL, I WOULD CLARIFY THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BUSINESSES OPERATING.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE LAND USE WAS OR THERE WAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT SOME POINT.

IT IS HARD TO DETERMINE WHAT IS ACTUALLY OPERATING IN SOME OF THESE AREAS, OR IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY ACTIVE.

>> SEEMS LIKE AN IMPORTANT CASE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SENT PEOPLE DOWN TO CHECK OUT WHAT 49 DIFFERENT THINGS ARE, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT.

DO YOU FIND ANY OF THIS DISCUSSION TO BE UNFAIR TO THE BUSINESSES?

I>> THINK WE HAVE HAD THREE YEARS OF CONVERSATION.

I WILL SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE BUSINESSES.

WE'RE ALSO NOT SAYING ANYONE HAS TO STOP OPERATING.

WE'RE NOT PURSUING ANYTHING TO STOP ANYONE FROM OPERATING.

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

THERE ARE MANY OF THE BUSINESSES TODAY.

I SHOULDN'T SAY MANY.

THERE ARE SOME OF THEM THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING AS THEY ARE TODAY.

THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS AREA.

WE'VE TRIED TO TEASE IT OUT AND WHAT WE THINK IS A FAIR WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS, WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING, WHEREAS SOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, WHERE YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO TAKING LARGELY INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AS WELL.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PLANS ADOPTED WITHIN THE CITY THAT WE SAY THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THAT OUT, DID WE GET IT COMPLETELY RIGHT? PROBABLY NOT, AND THAT'S WHY WE GO THROUGH THE SERIES OF INPUT THAT WE HAVE.

>> HAVE WE CONSIDERED BUYING OUT ANY OF THE RESIDENCES AND JUST CLOSING THEM DOWN AND LETTING THEM MOVE ON?

>> THAT WOULD BE UP TO Y'ALL TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

>> WELL, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE NEAR A LANDFILL. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF NOT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO THE AREA TO MAKE IT THEIR RESIDENTS?

>> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT.

THAT IS NOT THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF A ZONING OR A LAND USE FUNCTION.

>> HOW MANY OTHER PLACES IN THE CITY DO WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL AREAS?

>> WE HAVE A LOT OF PLACES WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE INDUSTRIAL AREAS.

>> COULD YOU NAME A COUPLE?

[05:00:02]

>> THEY'RE ALL OVER THE CITY. D6 IS ONE OF THE MAJOR ONES.

WE'VE GOT A LOT IN D8.

WE HAVE QUITE A FEW IN D3.

WE EVEN HAVE SOME UP NORTH.

I THINK IT'S D11.

WE'VE GOT THEM ALL OVER THE CITY.

WE'VE GOT THEM ALL MAPPED THROUGH FORWARD DALLAS.

WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING MAPPED THROUGH FORWARD DALLAS THAT HAS INCONSISTENCIES THAT HAS INDUSTRIAL NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

>> I WENT AND DROVE THE ENTIRE THING BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN COMING UP FOR A LONG TIME.

I HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE.

SOME OF THEM HAVE LIVED THERE A LONG TIME, BUT SOME OF THEM HAVEN'T.

THEY WANTED TO LIVE THERE BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE A HORSE, THEY COULD HAVE SOME LAND, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY DO THAT IN FAR NORTH DALLAS.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.

SO THEY CHOSE TO LIVE IN THIS AREA.

NOW THEY'RE ASKING US TO TAKE A REALLY SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HIT.

THE THING THAT HAPPENS AROUND THIS HORSERAW ALL THE TIME IS THAT PEOPLE DECRY THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TAX REVENUE WE HAVE NORTH AND SOUTH OF I30.

IF WE DO THIS, WE'LL HAVE EVEN LESS TAX REVENUE COMING FROM SOUTHERN DALLAS AND LESS JOBS FOR PEOPLE IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

HAS THAT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION?

>> YES. THERE ARE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE.

THERE WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THERE WAS A CPC RECOMMENDATION THAT MODIFIED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

WE ABSOLUTELY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE BUSINESSES OUT THERE THAT ARE AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

THEY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

NOBODY IS SHUTTING ANYBODY DOWN, NOBODY'S ASKING ANYBODY TO SHUT DOWN.

ALONG SOUTH CENTRAL, ALONG 310, WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES, WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TREE CANOPY LEFT ON THOSE LOTS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THE TRUCK PARKING AND THE VEHICLE STORAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THERE IS CPC RECOMMENDED A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THERE IS A MIX OF ZONING STILL HERE, WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF BUSINESS OPERATION THAT CAN STILL HAPPEN.

WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS, WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS, BOTH FROM STAFF AND FROM CPC WAS TO SOFTEN THE INTENSITY OF SOME OF THOSE INDUSTRIAL USES.

BECAUSE TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK, THERE'S SOME REALLY HEAVY INTENSE STUFF HAPPENING IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS, AND IF IT WERE TO CHANGE AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WERE TO SHIFT, THE IDEA IS TO SOFTEN SOME OF THE INTENSITY IN THIS AREA.

>> WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HAVING A GIANT LANDFILL IN THAT LOCATION IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR THINGS LIKE TRUCK PARKING AND SCRAP YARDS.

LIKE, IT SHOULD BE ADJACENT.

WHAT SHOULDN'T BE ADJACENT IS RESIDENTIAL.

AND FROM THE VERY FIRST TIME I MET MARSHA JACKSON, I'M LIKE, CAN WE MOVE YOU OUT? CAN WE BUY YOUR PLACE? THAT I BELIEVE BE OUR POSTURE. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN, REALLY? FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANDREA, IS IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE A NON-CONTIGUOUS PD? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

>> YEAH, WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH LEGAL AND IT HAS BEEN DONE IN CERTAIN CASES BEFORE, AND SO THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT HERE.

>> WILL THIS REZONING, IF WE PASS THE CPC VERSION WITH THE AMENDMENT, WILL THAT CREATE ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL LAND THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES?

>> NO, NOT FOR THE RS, BUT YOU CAN HAVE ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE EVERY THREE ACRES IF YOU'RE ZONED AGRICULTURE.

THERE ARE MORE AREAS THAT ARE ZONED AGRICULTURE, THEORETICALLY, YOU COULD PUT A HOUSE ON SOME OF THOSE WHERE TODAY THERE ISN'T A HOUSE, BUT YOU NEED TO HAVE THREE ACRES.

>> BUT IN TERMS OF CREATING OUR ZONED PROPERTY, WE'RE ONLY DOING THAT FOR AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

>> THEY HAVE STRUCTURES IN THE AREA BY BERMUDA.

I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE VACANT STRUCTURES, BUT THEY'RE ALL PLATTED.

THEY'VE EITHER GOT IF IT'S NOT AN ACTIVE OR THERE'S SOMEBODY LIVING IN THE STRUCTURE, IT MAY BE IN BETWEEN PROPERTY THAT WAS IN BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL ACTIVE RESIDENTIAL HOMES, AND THAT DID GET ZONED, EITHER THE R75 HALF ACRE OR ONE ACRE,

[05:05:02]

AND IT'S ALREADY PLATTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

>> OKAY.

>> WE'RE NOT EXPANDING INTO NEW AREAS.

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE INDUSTRIAL LAND NOW, ARE YOU CREATING ANY NEW NON-CONFORMING USES WITH THIS REZONING?

>> THERE MAY BE SOME NEW NON-CONFORMING USES.

WE SENT OUT AND THIS IS WHERE I MAY ASK STAFF IF THEY THINK THAT THERE MAY BE ANYTHING NEW BASED ON THIS.

I'LL TRY TO GET THOSE NUMBERS FROM THAT, BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME NEW NON-CONFORMING, BUT THERE ARE SOME OF THE BUSINESSES THAT WILL BE NON-CONFORMING THAT ARE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING, AND YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING MORE NON-CONFORMING THAT'S ALREADY NON-CONFORMING.

>> WELL, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN ANY NEWLY CREATED NON-CONFORMANCIES TODAY.

>> NO. WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY.

>> THERE ARE NONE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK. I'LL GET AN ANSWER FOR YOU.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WE'LL ANSWER.

>> I TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER THAT THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR NON CONFORMING USES.

WILL THOSE REMAIN NON CONFORMING UNDER THIS ZONING? IN TERMS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL

>> YES. SOME OF THOSE WILL REMAIN NON CONFORMING UNDER THIS.

>> IS THERE ANY EFFORT TO CHANGE THE ZONING SO THAT THOSE USES WOULD BE CONFORMING WITH THE NEW ZONING?

>> THEY'RE PRITY INTENSE USES.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE IR, THE IM ZONING DISTRICT.

>> THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS, NO, THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO MAKE THEM CONFORMING IN THE NEW ZONING.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT WITH THE LI ZONING DISTRICT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY STAFF, SOME OF THEM WOULD HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THAT AS A CONFORMING USE.

WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT CPC PUT IN PLACE, THEY REMOVED A LOT OF THOSE USES THAT CORRESPONDED TO SOME OF THOSE USES OUT THERE.

WITH THE PD, IT MAKES MORE OF THE INDUSTRIAL USES NON CONFORMING.

IT MAKES THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> WELL, NO, IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM NON CONFORMING, THEY REMAIN NONCONFORMING.

>> CORRECT. YES.

>> CAN YOU DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF STRAIGHT LI ZONING AS OPPOSED TO CPC'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE PD?

>> SURE. WHEN STAFF LOOKED AT IT, BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME, WE LOOKED AT IT WITH A CLEAN LENS.

WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT WHAT IS DEVELOPED VERSUS WHAT'S NOT DEVELOPED? WHAT HAS BEEN SCRAPED AS FAR AS THE LAND VERSUS WHAT'S STILL INTACT FROM HAVING EITHER TREES OR CLOSE TO STREAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHERE IS MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING? WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'VE GOT SOUTH CENTRAL, WHICH IS A MAJOR CORRIDOR.

THEN WE STARTED TO PLACE THE LI IN THOSE AREAS.

I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT THE LI IN THOSE AREAS.

THEN WE LOOKED AT IT AS IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL? CAN WE ENSURE THAT THERE IS SOME SPACE IF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS BETWEEN SOME OF THIS MORE LI TYPE USE AND ANY OF THAT RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S HOW THAT FIT OUT IS REALLY LOOKING AT WHERE YOU HAD ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY, WHERE YOU HAD UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHERE YOU HAD THE MOST DEVELOPED LAND AND ALREADY FOR THE MOST INTENSE USES.

THEN WAS THERE WERE THERE ADJACENCY ISSUES THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADDRESS? THEN EVEN WITH THE ADJACENCY ISSUES, BECAUSE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SCATTERED INDIVIDUALLY, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT VERSUS TRYING TO CLUSTER THINGS IN AN AREA WHERE MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL OCCURRED, WHICH IS ALONG THE BERMUDA AND THE HOW AREA?

>> WELL, SO CAN YOU TELL THE COUNSEL WHAT TYPES OF USES ARE PERMITTED IN LI STRAIGHT ZONING?

>> SURE. I HAVE THAT.

[05:10:04]

IT IS A VERY LONG LIST, SO I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF THE AGRICULTURAL USES YOU CAN DO CROP PRODUCTION, COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS, BUILDING REPAIR, CATERING SERVICE, BUS STATIONS, LAUNDRIES, COMMERCIAL CLEANERS, ELECTRONIC SERVICE CENTER, MACHINE OR WELDING SHOP, MACHINERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS COMING OUT OF CPC, MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY, TECHNICAL SCHOOL, TOOL OR EQUIPMENT RENTAL.

THE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING, GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION BY SUP.

IN INDUSTRIAL INSIDE FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL INSIDE WITH RESIDENTIAL RAR.

CONCRETE BATCH, WHICH IS SUP.

INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE USES ARE ADULT DAYCARE, CHILD DAYCARE, CREMATORIUM, OR MAUSOLEUM.

>> LET ME JUST STOP YOU THERE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CPC DECIDED THAT THAT WAS TOO EXTENSIVE A LIST OF USES FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED TO CREATE A PD, WHICH LIMITED SOME OF THOSE HEAVIER INDUSTRIAL USES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHICH USES DID THEY CUT OUT? SURE.

>> I'VE GOT THAT TOO. I WENT THROUGH.

THEY'VE CUT AND ADDED A FEW THINGS.

UNDER AGRICULTURE, THEY ADDED COMMERCIAL STABLE.

UNDER COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES, THEY REMOVED BUS OR RAIL TRANSIT, COMMERCIAL BUS STATION OR TERMINAL, COMMERCIAL CLEANING OR LAUNDRY PLANT, LABOR HALL, MACHINE OR WELDING SHOP, WHICH IS PART OF THIS MOTION, MACHINERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES.

THEY ADDED TWO TOOL OR EQUIPMENT RENTAL THAT NO OUTDOOR STORAGE WAS ALLOWED.

THEY REMOVED VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR MAINTENANCE.

UNDER INDUSTRIAL USES, THEY REMOVED ALCOHOL BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING, GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION, INSIDE INDUSTRIAL, TEMPORARY CONCRETE OR ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT, UNDER INSTITUTIONAL, THEY REMOVED CEMETERY OR MAUSOLEUM.

HALFWAY HOUSE, UNDER LODGING, THEY SHIFTED AROUND WHAT YOU COULD DO AS A HOTEL OR MOTEL.

UNDER RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES, THEY REMOVED CAR WASH, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE, LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION, WHICH IS BY SUP, BUT THEY REMOVED THAT PARAPHERNALIA SHOP, TRUCK STOP, WHICH IS SUP.

MANY OF THESE ARE REQUIRED BY SUP LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION USES, THEY REMOVED COMMERCIAL BUS STATION TERMINAL, HELLPORT, HELL STOP, UTILITIES, COMMERCIAL RADIO, TELEVISION TRANSMITTING STATION, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE, FREIGHT TERMINAL, MANUFACTURING BUILDING SALES, OUTSIDE STORAGE, RECYCLING BUYBACK CENTER, RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER, RECYCLING DROP OFF CENTER, RECYCLING DROP OFF FOR SPECIAL OCCASION COLLECTION.

TRADE CENTER, WAREHOUSE, AND ALL OF THE ACCESSORY USES, BUT ADDED BACK IN LIVE WORK.

>> UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF FOR AN LI OPEN ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AT SOUTH OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD, WE COULD HAVE FREIGHT CENTERS, OUTSIDE STORAGE, RECYCLING YARDS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> NO, WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ANY OF THE LI WOULD BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

>> WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT ACCORDING TO THE MAP ON PAGE 49.

>> OF THE STAFF PROPOSAL?

>> YES. JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD SOUTH SIDE, YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL?

>> I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY A VERY DEVELOPED LOT ON SOUTH CENTRAL.

YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THEY WOULD NEED.

NOW, THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL THE RAR WOULD APPLY OR BY SUP.

I DIDN'T GO THROUGH WHICH OF ALL OF THEM THAT INCLUDED RAR OR SUP.

>> IS RAR OR AN SUP REQUIRED FOR ANY OF THOSE HEAVIER INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE LI DISTRICT.

>> MANY OF THEM, YES.

>> YOU THINK THAT WILL ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IF THAT'S DEVELOPED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SENSEN STEWART?

>> WELL, IT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED.

>> WHAT'S THERE NOW?

[05:15:02]

>> I'M SORRY?

>> WHAT'S THERE NOW?

>> THERE IS COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TRUCK PARKING.

>> WELL, BUT THE LI WOULD OPEN UP A VARIETY OF NEW INDUSTRIAL USES FOR THAT SITE, CORRECT?

>> THERE'S NO REAL INVESTMENT IN THAT IF IT'S JUST SURFACE TRUCK PARKING.

THERE'S NO BUILDING OR PLANTS THERE, CORRECT CURRENTLY? WOULD BE EASY TO REDEVELOP THAT.

>> WELL, IT'S CONCRETE. I DON'T KNOW HOW EASY IT WOULD BE TO REDEVELOP.

>> BUT THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES.

THERE ARE NO PLANTS.

>> IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE ARE PLANTS.

THERE MIGHT BE SMALLER STRUCTURES, YES.

>> DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION ABOUT NON CONFORMING USES? AS LONG AS THEY WORKED IN US, THEY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEADS.

>> BASED ON WHAT WE CAN DISCERN AND WE ERRON THE SIDE OF CAUTION BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE TO NOTICE FOR NON CONFORMING.

THERE WERE 16 THAT WE THINK BECOME NON CONFORMING.

>> A NOTICE OF NON CONFORMING ZONING BASED ON THIS CASE WAS SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS?

>> IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT'S WHY BECAUSE YOU'RE CREATING 16 NEW TRACKS AS BEING NON CONFORMING THAT ARE CONFORMING TODAY? POTENTIALLY, YES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> ASMA SHOT.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GET THE HISTORY RIGHT, AND THEN I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THE EFFORTS THAT OUR MAYOR HAS PUT FORWARD.

PEOPLE LIVED OUT HERE BEFORE IT WAS DALLAS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVED OUT HERE BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO DURING THE TIME OF RED LINING AND OTHER THINGS, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONLY PLACE OR ONE OF THE ONLY PLACES THEY COULD LIVE IN DALLAS, CORRECT?

>> THEN INDUSTRIAL USES CAME IN, DALLAS ANNEXED THE AREA AND ZONED IT FOR THOSE INDUSTRIAL USES OR THOSE HEAVIER USES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I THINK THERE WERE SOME INDUSTRIAL USES BEFORE THE ANNEXATION.

>> RIGHT. THEY STARTED COMING IN, DALLAS COMES IN, DALLAS AND LEGITIMIZES THE INDUSTRIALIZATION, BUT NOT THE RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WELL, SOME OF IT WAS TEMPORARILY ZONED AND THEN THEY DID SOME INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

THEY IN THE 60S DID THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING, AND THEN, YES, IN THE 80S.

THEY NEVER REALLY TOOK CARE OF THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> THEN WE GET TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS BROUGHT BY SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE THERE, BUT THEY WEREN'T ZONED AS A PROTECTED UNIT THERE, CORRECT?

>> NOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS THAT'S THERE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOT TOGETHER.

THEY GOT OTHER PEOPLE TO HELP THEM WHO WERE EXPERTS IN THIS, TO HELP THEM WORK WITH CITY STAFF IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO DO THEIR BEST TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AS YOU SAID, NOBODY WHO'S WORKING THERE NOW IS GOING TO BE HARMED ECONOMICALLY IN THE SENSE OF THEIR BUSINESS OR THEIR RIGHTS OR ANYTHING TAKEN AWAY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO UTILIZE YOUR BUSINESS.

>> THANK YOU AND MR. MAYOR, COULD YOU SHARE WITH US OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS OR FIVE YEARS NOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN TERMS OF I KNOW YOU'VE DONE ENDLESS AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER ON THIS SO THAT WE COULD GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

>> WELL, I'M GOING TO WAIT TIL EVERYBODY FINISH.

>> THIS TO ME SEEMS LIKE FOR THOSE IF WE FOLLOW, IF WE BELIEVE IN OUR CPC, IF WE BELIEVE IN OUR PROCESSES, THEN TO ME, THEY EVEN PUT IN THE THINGS TO PROTECT THE EXISTING BUSINESSES, THIS IS ACTUALLY A WIN WIN.

THE ONLY WAY THAT IT WOULD BE OUT OF BALANCE FOR THAT WOULD BE FOR US TO SAY TO THE FOLKS WHO LIVE THERE OR THE FOLKS WHO OWN BUSINESS THERE,

[05:20:04]

NO, AND WE'RE SAYING NEITHER TO NEITHER.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A VALIANT EFFORT, AND I KNOW YOU AND STAFF HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE OF ALL THE RESIDENTS.

I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE OF THE BUSINESSES.

THOUGH THAT RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE WILL NOT BE GOING AWAY, I'M SORRY TO DISAPPOINT SOME FOLKS, AND I'M SORRY TO DISAPPOINT OTHERS TO SAY THE BUSINESSES WILL BE GOING AWAY.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYBODY TO LEARN TO LIVE TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT HELPS EACH OTHER.

WITH THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

>> CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO ASK CHRIS BOWERS TO COME BACK TO THE MIKE.

MR. BOWERS, YOU REPRESENT AN INDUSTRY THAT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA, CORRECT? YOU EXPRESSED ON THEIR BEHALF, OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CHANGE, CORRECT?

>> WELL, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OR HEARD THEM ORALLY TO WHAT THE PLAN COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED WITH REGARD TO CHANGING SOME OF THE CR ZONING THAT PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AT THE CORNER OF CENTRAL AND MCCOMAS BLUFF AND ALLOWING CERTAIN USES IN THE PD?

>> I HEARD THE AMENDMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT APPLIED TO MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY OR NOT.

>> WELL, I DON'T EITHER, BUT HERE'S MY QUESTION.

YOU'VE HEARD, NO DOUBT, THE STAFF TESTIFY THAT THE ZONING CHANGE RECOMMENDED BY THE CPC WILL NOT FORCE ANY BUSINESS TO CLOSE OR SHUT DOWN THEIR OPERATIONS.

IN LIGHT OF THAT, WHAT, IF ANY, REMAINING OBJECTION DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE TO THIS REZONING?

>> YES. WHEN A BUSINESS BECOMES NON CONFORMING AND THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CPC AND STAFF WOULD MAKE MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND OTHERS NON CONFORMING.

BANKS ARE RELUCTANT TO LEND.

THE BUSINESS CANNOT EXPAND.

IT LOWERS MARKET VALUE BECAUSE THERE'S A PART OF THE MARKET THAT WILL NOT BUY A NON CONFORMING PROPERTY.

FOR REASONS LIKE THAT, IT STILL HAS A SERIOUS ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THESE PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> IS YOUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY ONE OF THE ONES THAT'S RECEIVED A NOTICE THAT WE HEARD ONE OF THE 16 TRACKS THAT RECEIVED NOTICE OF BECOMING NON CONFORMING?

>> HOW LARGE IS YOUR CLIENT'S TRACT?

>> IT'S 2.6 ACRES.

IF IT'S ZONED AGRICULTURAL, IT CANNOT HAVE A HOME ON IT.

>> I SEE BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN THREE ACRES.

GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. BOWERS. ANYONE ELSE?

>> WELL, A LONG TIME AGO, I GUESS 2017, THIS FIRST CAME ABOUT.

AND THIS IS NOT A EASY TASK WHEN YOU TRY TO LOOK AT THE WELL BEING OF THE COMMUNITY THAT FEEL LIKE THAT HERE IS SHINGLE MOUNTAIN START.

A SODA DAD, ALL THE PUBLIC PUBLICITY IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

I HAD TWO CPC PERSON WHO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.

THE FIRST ONE WHO DID AUTHORIZE HEARING, AND ALSO MISS BLAIR, WHO BROUGHT A CPC TO BRING IT TO US TO DISCUSS.

THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE TODAY IS NUMBER 1, HOW TO REFER TO THE RESIDENT, HOW TO REFER TO THE COMMUNITY, AND ALSO HAVE TO REFER TO THE BUSINESS PEOPLE.

AND WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS JOURNEY, AS I SAID MANY TIMES, WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH CPC REPRESENTING PLANNERS.

AND AUTHORIZED HEARING, I STILL HAVE A AUTHOR HEARING IN KALEY RILEY, WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 19 YEARS AND STILL HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD OF.

THIS JUMPED BEFORE THE ONE IN KALEY RILEY BECAUSE OF POLITICAL ISSUES, ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE, ALL THAT CAME ABOUT THE RESIDENT AND ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

ONE LIFE MEAN THE WORLD TO ME.

ONE HELP MEAN THE WORLD TO ME IS BY PEOPLE BY HUMAN BEINGS, AND YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY A LIFE ABOUT BUSINESS OR BY DOLLARS IF YOU HAVE A LOVED ONE.

WE HAD TO SAY OF DALLAS, WE SHOULD HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB.

[05:25:01]

WE GOT TO DO A BETTER JOB, BUT THEN HOW DO WE COMPROMISE? HOW DO WE WORK TOGETHER? I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND THANK THE COMMISSION WORKING TOGETHER AND THIS COUNCIL TRYING TO LOOK AT HOW WE GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

BUT I ALSO HAD TO GO BACK AND THANK SOME OF MY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO STARTED A JOURNAL WHITMAN, LIKE JENNIFER GATE.

YOU LOOK AT THOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WENT TO SHINGLE MOUNTAIN, WHO WENT AND LOOK AT THAT.

SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT BE HERE.

WHEN THEY WENT OUT THERE TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, WE HAD TO TAKE THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH US BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A QUORUM.

WE WONDER HOW THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN IN THIS CITY.

WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE PROMISED OURSELVES WE WOULD NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

TO DO THAT, I MADE A PROMISE THAT I WILL LOOK INTO IT.

I WOULD MAKE SURE I HEAR EVERYONE.

I MIGHT AGREE WITH YOU, OR DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY.

I TRIED NOT TO GO BACK ON MY PROMISE, ESPECIALLY ON HELP IN THE ISSUES.

YOU DID SAY OUT THERE THE CITY OF DALLAS CAUSED THIS ISSUE BEE THE PROBLEM THAT BEEN REPEATED BEEN IN THE PRESSED, BUT WE ALSO TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THE MANY MEETINGS THAT I HAD HAD WITH SOME OF THE BUSINESS AND A RESIDENT OUT THERE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS COMPLEX ISSUE AND TRY TO MAKE SURE MY COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND.

AS RIGHT NOW, WE SAT IN HERE AND WE NEED 12 VOTES TO EVEN PASS THIS.

WE NEED A SUPER MAJORITY.

WHEN I LOOK AT A SUPER MAJORITY, I LOOK AT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SAYING, HEY, IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO? IS THIS BEST FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS? I KNOW IT'S IN MY DISTRICT, AND I'M GOING TO PULL THAT IN DISTRICT, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ENVIRONMENT ADJUSTER I HAD IN DISTRICT. I HAD LANE PLAYING.

IT'S A SUPER FAR SITE.

IT TOOK ME 10 YEARS TO CLEAN IT UP, BUT IT IS CLEAN UP.

SHINGLE MOUNTAIN TOOK ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS, BUT IT'S CLEAN UP.

WE ALL GOING FALL ON USED TO ENVIRONMENT ADJUSTERS.

BUT IT'S A TIME THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A STAND TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE RESIDENT AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

ALSO TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE PROTECTION TO THE BUSINESS PEOPLE.

WITH THAT, I WANT TO SAID, THANK KALEY, IF YOU SUPPORT ME, YOU DON'T SUPPORT ME, WHATEVER.

BUT I HAVE CPC REPRESENT ON THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.

WE HAD AN ENVIRONMENTAL.

I REMEMBER WE HAD AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADJUSTER.

OMA WAS A CHAIR AND I WAS A VICE CHAIR.

I REMEMBER MANY PEOPLE PICKING MY HOUSE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

I DIDN'T TAKE FOR GRANTED, BUT I DID GET UPSET WHEN THEY THREW UP PUTTING SIGNS IN MY FRONT YARDS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

I WANT TO THROW THAT OUT.

YOU CANNOT SCARE ME TO MAKE A DECISION.

I DO IT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

BUT WITH THAT, AND I SEE I GOT ALA BELL TO DO IT JUST RAISE THIS AND LET HIM SPEAK BEFORE I CLEAN UP.

GO AHEAD, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.

>> I WON'T BELABOR, BUT I WOULD JUST WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE POINTS THAT YOU MADE AND JUST COMMEND YOU AND YOUR LEADERSHIP, AND THANK YOU FOR SOMETIMES THESE DECISIONS OFTENTIMES, ESPECIALLY WITH ZONING, THESE DECISIONS DON'T COME EASY.

I THINK THAT AS WE'VE HEARD FROM SPEAKERS TODAY, AS WE BEEN INUNDATED WITH EMAILS.

I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT NO MATTER WHICH WAY THE VOTE GOES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.

THE REALITY IS, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LEVEL OF COMPROMISE TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED VERSUS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY BEING PROPOSED.

I THINK THAT IT SPEAKS TO A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF IMPACT ON WHAT IT COULD BE.

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU AND SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP TO GET US TO THIS PLACE.

I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN DAVIAS.

>> THANK YOU, MARAKIN.

I AFTER HEARING YOU SPEAK, IT BROUGHT A LOT OF MEMORIES.

THEY WEREN'T ALL GOOD MEMORIES.

SOME OF IT WAS REALLY TOUGH,

[05:30:01]

AND THE SHINGLE MOUNTAIN THING WAS NOT SOMETHING ANY OF US IS PROUD OF.

NOBODY IN THIS CITY IS PROUD OF THAT.

BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SO PLEASANT WITH YOU.

IT'S HARD HERE BECAUSE EVERYBODY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BACK THERE, BECAUSE WE GET A LOT OF INFORMATION AND SOMETIMES WE CAN'T SHARE IT.

IT'S LEGAL ISSUES OR THIS THAT AND THE OTHER, AND WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR MOUTH SHUT.

YOU DID THE BEST YOU COULD IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT YOU COULD.

LET ME TELL YOU YOUR LEADERSHIP WAS IMPACTFUL, STRONG.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT CLEANED UP AS FAST WITHOUT YOU BEING IN CHARGE OF THAT PROJECT.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WILL SAY THAT I ALSO THANK THE ACTIVISTS BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE PEOPLE SOMETIMES DON'T TELL US AND WE DON'T MAYBE GO PAST THAT AREA ALL THE TIME.

I ALSO WANT TO THAN THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND MR. BAZ DO OUR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, IT WAS EXACTLY RIGHT.

THIS IS A COMPROMISE, AND NOT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE HAPPY.

IT'S NOT PERFECT FOR EITHER SIDE, FOR ANYBODY, BUT IT'S BETTER, AND WE CAN KEEP WORKING ON IT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A DOCUMENT.

YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING, AND THIS IS WHAT CAN WORK, AND I WANTED TO GIVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE LANDFILL AND WHETHER YOU FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY SHOULD LIVE THERE OR NOT.

THESE ARE PEOPLE'S HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.

THERE WERE HOMES THERE BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL THERE POCKETS OF IT.

I BET YOU THAT, THAT LANDFILL GOT PUT THERE, EITHER RIGHT AFTER WE ANNEXED THAT AREA OR THE COUNTY DID IT RIGHT BEFORE.

BECAUSE WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT'S USUALLY WHERE DO THEY PUT THEM BACK THEN IN BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORHOODS.

LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS EQUITY.

THIS IS EQUITY.

I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY THAT WORD.

EQUITY IS WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

IT'S ALSO ABOUT INCLUSION, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN INCLUDED AND THE BUSINESSES, AS WELL AS THERE'S DIVERSITY IN THIS AREA.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICY AND DOING THINGS BETTER.

MAYBE SOME FOLKS HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF NOT HAVING TO LIVE BY A LANDFILL.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE. GOOD FOR THEM.

MY FAMILY'S BEEN IN WEST DALLAS FOR 90 YEARS, MR. MAYOR, AND A CEMENT BATCH PLANT.

THAT'S WHAT WE KNEW BACK THEN BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY LET US LIVE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER THEY WANTED TO OR DIDN'T WANT TO.

I BET YOU THAT THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE AND ALL THE RESIDENTS PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN GET A SAY SO, WHETHER THAT DUMP WAS GOING TO GO THERE.

BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN WEST DALLAS ON TOP OF A LANDFILL.

JC ZARAGOZA PARK ON TOP OF A LANDFILL.

WE KNOW WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

IF YOU'RE TOO PRIVILEGED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT'S OKAY.

BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THERE'S FOLKS HERE THAT ARE WORKING ON IT DAY IN AND DAY OUT.

WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

WE GOT TO TELL THE TRUTH.

TO MISS MARSHA JACKSON, THANK YOU FOR HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH ME TOO BACK THEN.

I DID ASK YOU THE SAME THING. WHAT IF WE MOVE YOU? I'M SHOCKED THAT ANYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT EMINENT DOMAINING PEOPLE'S HOMES.

THAT'S YOUR HOME. THAT'S WHERE YOU WANTED TO BE.

YOU TOLD ME FLOOD OUT. I WANT TO STAY HERE.

NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION IS WHAT WE ALL SAY ALL THE TIME.

BUT DO WE REALLY MEAN IT? MAYBE NOT IF YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF NOT HAVING TO LIVE THERE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU, MR. MAYOR THAT PEOPLE HAVE WORKED IT OUT.

I'M GOING TO TRUST THE BLACK WOMAN IN LEADERSHIP THERE AT FLORAL FARMS BECAUSE SHE HAS NOT QUIT. SHE HAS NOT STOPPED.

I'VE BEEN HERE EIGHT YEARS ALMOST, MR. MAYOR, AND SHE WAS WORKING ON THIS BEFORE I GOT HERE.

I'M GLAD THIS DAY IS HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO WRAP IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING YOUR OWN PROMISE TO YOUR OWN COMMUNITY BECAUSE I'M DEALING WITH THE SAME THING RIGHT NOW.

SIMILAR. IT'S HARD.

IT'S HARD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO EVERYTHING EXACTLY HOW PEOPLE WANT IT.

BUT WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT THINGS WILL GET DONE.

WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE FAITH IN EACH OTHER AND TRUST EACH OTHER AND THAT'S THE HARDEST PART. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU.

I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN PASS IT, MR. MAYOR BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME AND WORKING REALLY HARD ON IT.

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

>> CHAIRMAN MILLER, THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK A REALLY IMPORTANT [NOISE] STATEMENT WAS JUST MADE ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD DETERMINATION.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN NEIGHBORHOOD DETERMINATION.

IT'S JUST THIS IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE WHAT 27 HOMES.

[05:35:08]

OUT OF I DON'T KNOW, 293 ACRES, 27 HOMES.

IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S THE THING THAT WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME ABOUT TRYING TO PROTECT THEM.

ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD TRY TO MOVE THE FOLKS OUT INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT THEM.

BUT RIGHT NOW, EITHER THEY CAME BEFORE THE LANDFILL, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS OPENED IN 1973, OR THEY CAME AFTER KNOWING IT WAS THERE AND KNOWING THESE BUSINESSES WHICH GENERALLY WERE THERE BEFORE THEM.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN TURN YOUR BACK ON A BUSINESS.

YOU KNOW THE NUMBER ONE THING WE SAY ABOUT OUR CITY, WE'RE A CAN DO CITY, WE'RE A BUSINESS CITY.

IF WE DO THIS, NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT A BUSINESS CITY, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE UP SO MUCH REVENUE, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR EQUITY, AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF EQUITY.

THE EQUITY FOR 27 FAMILIES OF WHICH ONLY FIVE ARE OPPOSING THIS.

OR THEIR FINANCIAL EQUITY THAT THEY HAVE BUILT OUT OVER TIME, AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING VOTE.

I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU.

>> DEPUTY MAR PROTO IN BAZOO.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS DONE, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T ADDRESS WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

I THINK IT'S UNBECOMING AND ABSOLUTELY EMBARRASSING TO SEE A LEADER MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF ANY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE, WHETHER IT'S ONE HOME OR 27 HOMES.

WE'RE HERE TO REPRESENT EVERY RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND CLEARLY IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IF 27 HOMES EXIST THERE.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY OF OUR CITY, WHY WE HAVE IT SO SEGREGATED? WHY WE'RE ALWAYS SPEAKING ABOUT EQUITY? WHY WE ARE STILL BRINGING IN POLICIES TO UNDO PRACTICES FROM LEADERS IN THE PAST THAT PROBABLY SAID VERY SIMILAR THINGS ON THE MICROPHONE THAT WAS JUST SAID FROM A COLLEAGUE OF MINE NOW? WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS OF OUR CITY.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW RHETORIC FROM THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE HERE ON THE HORSESHOE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF SOME RESIDENTS IN OUR CITY.

SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE, SOME WHO HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THINGS THAT OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY THAT YOU DO CONSIDER RESIDENTIAL HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT, NEVER.

TO IGNORE THE PLIGHT OF PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND IS NOT LEADERSHIP.

IT IS EMBARRASSING.

I WANT TO SAY I AM SORRY, MISS JACKSON.

>> I AM SORRY TO ANYONE ELSE WHO IS LISTENING BECAUSE THAT'S VERY SIMILAR DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT PEOPLE DID AND SAID TO MY RESIDENTS OF JAPI IN DISTRICT 7.

WE CAN IGNORE THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BLACK DALLAS SITES AND WHAT YOU ALL HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT SIGNIFICANCE.

WE CAN IGNORE THAT AND WE CAN EVEN PRIORITIZE VERBALLY.

BUSINESS OWNERS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY CONTRIBUTE TO OUR CITY VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERED TO, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

IN FACT, YOUR EXISTENCE IN OUR CITY IS CONTRIBUTING JUST AS MUCH AS ANY TAX BASE COULD BRING AS WELL, AND WE HAVE TO START GOVERNING IN THAT LIGHT.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE POLICIES THAT JUST EXACERBATE A MINDSET OF HAVES AND HAVE NOTS.

THIS IS A COMPROMISE.

THIS WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE ZERO SUM FOR EITHER SIDE.

I THINK THAT IT'S PERFECTLY FINE FOR ANYONE TO OPPOSE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THERE RIGHT AND WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT THE DISTRICT THAT BROUGHT US HERE.

BUT TO ALLOW THAT TO BE ATTACHED TO A COMMENTARY THAT MINIMIZES AND DIMINISHES THE ROLE THAT YOU PLAY IN OUR CITY IS JUST NOT OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> COUNCILMAN BLACKMAN.

>> THANK YOU AND I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO, AND I WANT TO SAY THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF BUSINESS.

THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF RESIDENTS.

IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD OF A LANDFILL, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES.

NEIGHBORHOODS IS A COMPILATION OF ALL THOSE THINGS, AND IT'S ALL WORKING TOGETHER SOMEHOW.

I DO RECOGNIZE YOU AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, EVEN THE BUSINESS FOLKS, I RECOGNIZE THAT.

I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE SELF DETERMINATION IN THAT PURVIEW.

[05:40:04]

SO I'M SORRY THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO HEAR THIS BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID IN THE 50S AND THE 60S WHEN WE PUSHED PEOPLE TO THESE PARTS OF THE WORLD OR PARTS OF OUR CITY.

I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK. I WAS JUST GOING TO VOTE, BUT AFTER HEARING SOME COMMENTS, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I SEE EACH OF YOU AS PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONE IS NOT OVER THE OTHER, BUT YOU DO HAVE EQUAL FOOTING AND YOU DO HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION, IF YOU WILL.

BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE AS A CITY AS A POLICY MAKERS THAT NEED TO DO TO MOVE OUR INITIATIVES THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

I KNOW IT'S A LONG DAY.

WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE NINE, BUT IT MATTERS, YOUR E MAILS MATTER, YOUR PHONE CALLS MATTER.

BUT WE DO SEE YOU, WE DO HEAR YOU NO MATTER WHERE AND WHAT PART OF THIS EQUATION YOU'RE IN. THANK YOU.

>> MISS MILESON, 1 MINUTE.

>> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE TO ME WAS ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO BROADEN IT IN SOME WAY TO CRITICIZE ME ABOUT HAVING SAID THAT.

WELL, IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE BUSINESSES.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT I'VE MET WITH MARCIA JACKSON, I'VE TALKED ON THE PHONE WITH MARCIA JACKSON, AND SHE MOVED INTO HER HOUSE, I BELIEVE IN 1995, MORE THAN 20 YEARS AFTER THAT LANDFILL WAS OPENED.

IT WAS A CHOICE. SHE WASN'T RED LINED.

SHE WANTED TO LIVE THERE.

SHE WANTED TO HAVE A HORSE, SHE WANTED TO HAVE BIG LAND, SHE WANT TO BE ON A CREEK.

THAT IS CERTAINLY HER CHOICE.

BUT TO THEN DO THIS TO ALL THESE BUSINESS OWNERS BECAUSE SHE MADE THIS CHOICE.

FIVE HOMEOWNERS ARE COMPLAINING AND WE'RE GOING TO SUDDENLY BRING UP EVERY HISTORY ITEM FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS IS A BAD DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

YOU CAN CRITICIZE ME ALL YOU WANT.

>> YOUR TIME IS UP.

>> THIS IS AN INTERESTING THING THAT JUST HAPPENED.

>>CHAIR MAMA.

I'M GETTING ALMOST SIX YEARS OF THIS, AND I'M REALLY USED TO IT MOST OF THE TIME, AND I DON'T LISTEN TO THE NOISE BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT I NEED TO LET BOTHER ME.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS BECAUSE I HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BUSINESSES IN THEM BECAUSE YOU NEED BUSINESSES IN ORDER TO HAVE HOMES, AND TO HAVE THE HOMES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE JOBS.

NOT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DRIVE AND GO FAR AWAY TO GET TO A JOB.

I DON'T CARE WHEN MISS JACKSON MOVED IN THERE AND WHY SHE MOVED IN THERE.

IF SHE WANTED A HORSE, GREAT FOR HER.

SHE FOUND A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS WHERE SHE COULD DO THAT.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT JUST ANYWHERE.

I GET IT THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH JUST SEEING EMINENT DOMAIN AND PUSH PEOPLE OUT FROM WHERE THEY LIVE, BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT AND IT'S NOT OKAY, AND IT'S NOT FAIR.

I GET IT IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE OF WHERE YOUR PRIVILEGE COMES FROM. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.

BUT DON'T PUT YOUR DEFINITION OF YOURSELF AND WHAT YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN GET ON TOP OF THESE RESIDENTS AND THESE BUSINESS OWNERS AND ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING BECAUSE IT'S HATEFUL AND IT'S HURTFUL.

THAT'S JUST HOW I'M GOING TO SAY IT.

BECAUSE FOR FAR TOO LONG, WE'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS, AND IT'S NOT RIGHT, IT'S NOT OKAY AND IT'S NOT FAIR.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU DIDN'T DESERVE ANY OF THAT, ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OUT THERE, AND NEITHER DID THESE BUSINESS OWNERS.

THAT'S NOT HOW THE CITY OF DALLAS IS SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THINGS, MR. MAYOR, AT ALL, EVER.

I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT GO ANYMORE. TOO LONG.

I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT AND JUST BEEN TOLD TO KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT AND NOT TO CALL IT OUT, NOT TO SAY SOMETHING. NO MORE.

NO MORE, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THIS NATION GOT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE WERE ALL TOLD TO BE QUIET AND TO SHUT UP AND MIND YOUR PS AND QUES.

I'M NOT MINDING MY PS AND QUES ANYMORE.

BECAUSE THOSE EXACT SAME TYPES OF ATTITUDES ARE WHAT ARE HURTING US. I GET IT.

SO PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THAT, BUT TOO BAD, SO SAD.

THIS IS ABOUT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION IN THAT AREA, AND IT'S BUILDING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. I GET IT.

IF I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE NOT TO LIVE NEXT TO THE LANDFILL, I'M NOT GOING TO.

MAYBE YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXTRA ACREAGE.

I DON'T KNOW THE REASONS WHY PEOPLE CHOSE TO LIVE THERE.

WHATEVER CHOICE IT WAS YOU MADE, IT'S YOUR HOME AND WE GOT TO GET IT RIGHT.

IF THE RESIDENTS ARE OKAY WITH IT, THE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE SEMI OKAY WITH IT.

WE HAVE A GREAT LEADER IN TEL ATKINS, AMIR PRO TEM, WHO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU NAVIGATED THIS, MR. MAYOR.

BUT THANK YOU BECAUSE WE ARE SOMEWHERE HERE AND I'M SORRY THAT THIS TURNED THE WAY IT HAD TO TURN, BUT I THINK IT JUST HAD TO BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO CALL IT OUT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[05:45:04]

>> WITH THAT, I LOVE EVERYBODY.

MARCIA JACKSON, I LOVE YOU TOO.

>> THE KEY IS, MARCIA JACKSON, WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS.

WE AGREE WITH DISAGREE, BUT WE KNOW HOW TO DEGREE, KNOW HOW TO DISAGREE.

WE KNOW HOW TO GO INTO BACKGROUND AND TALK ABOUT IT.

ALSO WITH THE BUSINESS PEOPLE.

BUT THE POINT IS, WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE AND I THOUGHT WE'D NEVER BE AT THE TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THE TAIL OF THE TWO CITIES, THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, THAT HAS AND HAVE NOT.

WE ARE ONE CITY, ONE GREAT CITY.

WE CAN DISAGREE OR WE CAN AGREE ON EACH OTHER.

SOMETIME, WE'RE NOT PERFECT, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR TEN YEARS, TEN YEARS.

I KNOW WITH SO ALL THERE, WITH ALL THE PRESS, IT BEEN OUT THERE IN THE PAPER, IT BEEN IN THE NEWSPAPER, EVERYTHING WITH SHINGLE MOUNTAIN.

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S TIME TO DO IT, AND TO ME, IT IS THE BEST COMPROMISE THAT I COULD DO.

I WANT TO THANK MY CPC PERSON, MISS LAURA BLAIR, YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID WITH THIS, AND ALSO ALL OTHER CPC WHO WORKED FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER.

WITH THAT, WE ALL A RECORD VOTE.

A RECORD VOTE WOULD BE HER. MADAM SECRETARY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU IN FAVOR, KNOW IF YOU OPPOSE.

I DO ASK THAT YOU MAKE YOUR RESPONSES IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER ARNOLD IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART?

>>YES.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY?

>> DEPUTY MAYOR POTE BAZALDUA?

>> MAYOR POTE ATKINS?

>> MAYOR JOHNSON IS ABSENT FROM VOTE TAKEN? 12 VOTING IN FAVOR.

ONE OPPOSED, TWO ABSENT AND VOTE TAKEN.

THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

[Z4. 25-240A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and a resolution granting an amendment to deed restrictions [Z856-107 and Z867-125] as volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an IR Industrial Research District, on the east line of South Hampton Road, north of West Danieldale Road]

>> NEXT ITEM.

>> ITEM Z FOUR.

ITEM Z FOUR.

IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTHAMPTON ROAD NORTH OF WEST DANGEL DALE ROAD.

>> MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED TWO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

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

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER IS THE HONORABLE ANGELA HUNT.

>> A MICHAEL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANGELA AND 500 NORTH ACKERD STREET.

I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

>> THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER, MICHAEL KOGAN.

MICHAEL KOGAN IS NOT PRESENT. I'M SORRY, HE'S VIRTUAL.

>> I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY CAMERA.

>> MR. KOGAN?

>> YES. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> HE IS PROPERTY OWNER.

>> OKAY. WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM, ITEM Z FOUR? THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS.

MR. KOGAN, READY?

>> I CAN HEAR YOU MR. KOGAN.

HOWEVER, I CANNOT SEE YOU.

YOUR VIDEO MUST BE DISPLAYED.

WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU.

>> YEAH. JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> IN THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF AYE. NEXT ITEM.

[PH1. 25-401A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting the creation of a new subdistrict, Lawyers Building, within the West End Historic Sign District on a property zoned CA-1(A) Central Area District with Historic Overlay No. 2, on the southwest corner of Main Street and South Austin Street]

[05:50:08]

>> THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO IT ITEM PH1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE CREATION OF A NEW SUBDISTRICT LAWYERS BUILDING WITHIN THE WEST END HISTORIC SIGN DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND SOUTH AUSTIN STREET.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM? ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ASSIST SPEAKER COMING FORWARD? YOU'LL BE GIVEN 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

>> SURE, VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER 23 23 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY'S TIME, WE'RE JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM PH1? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>>YES. I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF CPC FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.