[3. 25-2373A Authorize (1) the third amendment to the contract with Dallas College for instructional services for police academy training; (2) the receipt and deposit of additional funds in an amount not to exceed $400,000.00 from Dallas College in the DCCCD El Centro Police Training Reimbursement Fund; and (3) an increase in appropriations in an amount not to exceed $400,000.00 in the DCCCD El Centro Police Training Reimbursement Fund for the period September 1, 2024 through August 31, 2025 - Not to exceed $400,000.00, from $1,045,000.00 to $1,445,000.00 - Financing: DCCCD El Centro Police Training Reimbursement Fund]

PULLED ITEMS. YOUR FIRST PULLED ITEM. BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM THREE.

SORRY. HAVING A LITTLE TECHNICAL ISSUE HERE. AGENDA ITEM THREE.

AUTHORIZE ONE. THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH DALLAS COLLEGE.

FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES. FOR POLICE ACADEMY TRAINING.

TO THE RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 FROM THE DALLAS COLLEGE IN THE EL CENTRO POLICE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT FUND, AND THREE AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 IN THE DCC DE EL CENTRO POLICE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT FUND FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2024 THROUGH AUGUST 31ST, 2025, NOT TO EXCEED $400,000 FROM $1,045,000 TO $1,445,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MR. GRACEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO.

NOT FOR THIS ONE. I'M SORRY. ANY COMMENTS? ANYONE? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE ITEM PASSES.

NEXT ITEM PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM FOUR. AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR A WEB BASED INVESTIGATIVE SOFTWARE SOLUTION.

[4. 25-1597A Authorize a three-year cooperative purchasing agreement for a web-based investigative software solution, TLOxp, for the Dallas Police Department with Carahsoft Technology Corp through the OMNIA cooperative agreement (R240303) - Not to exceed $399,000.24 - Financing: General Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

XP FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH CAROUSEL TECHNOLOGY CORP.

THROUGH THE OMNIA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $399,000.24.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION APPROVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED.

AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

EVERYONE, WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR TO PULL ITEM.

ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

FOR SOME OF THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS MAY BE A BIT OF AN EDUCATION.

FOR OTHERS, IT JUST MAY BE A BIT. I HOPE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A BIT OF A CLARIFICATION.

AS WE TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PROCUREMENT PROCESSES.

OFTENTIMES WE APPROVE THESE ITEMS ON CONSENT, AND MANY TIMES WE COME BACK IN SOME CASES WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE CONTRACT ENDED UP

[00:50:01]

THE WAY THAT IT DID. SO PERIODICALLY. I THINK IT'S JUST A GOOD EXERCISE FOR US TO PULL THESE IN THE FUTURE.

I'LL SPOT CHECK AND PULL SOME RANDOM ONES, BUT IN THE I WANTED TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE.

SO I'LL START WITH THIS ONE AND JUST REALLY TALK ABOUT IF I COULD GET MISS ORTIZ TO COME UP.

THANK YOU. WILL YOU JUST EXPLAIN THIS? THIS? THIS PARTICULAR PROCUREMENT TYPE? IT'S A IT'S A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT.

WILL YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS AND THE PROCESS FOR THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS? YES. SO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 791.

IT'S AN EXEMPTION TO OUR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS.

SO IF A OTHER CITY OR AGENCY SUCH AS TECH SHARE OR OMNIA, AS IN THIS CASE HAS A CONTRACT THAT WE CAN UTILIZE AS LONG AS IT MEETS OUR BASIC REQUIREMENTS, WE CAN IN LIEU OF GOING OUT TO FOR A SOLICITATION, WE CAN USE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. WE ASK THE DEPARTMENTS, PROVIDE US WITH A JUSTIFICATION THAT THEY DO A IN AN ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICING AND A JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY WE ARE GOING TO USE A COOPERATIVE VERSUS ASSOCIATION.

AND DO YOU ALL VERIFY? I KNOW AGAIN, AND I UNDERSTAND THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FROM A PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

IT SAVES A LOT OF TIME AND IN SOME CASES COST.

BUT DO YOU ALL ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND VERIFY THE SAVINGS ON ON THAT, OR DO YOU DO SOME FORM OF ANALYSIS PERIODICALLY TO, TO ENSURE THAT THE INTENT FROM THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS IS SLOWER, BUT FROM A SAVINGS? DO WE REVIEW THESE PERIODICALLY TO ENSURE WE DO? OUR OFFICE HAS TO APPROVE THE USE OF THE COOPERATIVE.

THERE ARE CASES THAT WILL REVIEW IT. AND IF THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE PRICING IS NOT WHERE WE THINK IT SHOULD BE, THEN WE WILL TELL THE DEPARTMENT THAT WE NEED TO DO A COMPETITIVE BID VERSUS THE COOPERATIVE.

AND THEN FROM AN OUTREACH PERSPECTIVE, IS IT THAT BECAUSE IT GOES THROUGH THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THAT THEY CAN JUST PICK AN EXISTING CONTRACT, OR IS THERE ANY OUTREACH THAT'S DONE? WHEN WE USE A COOPERATIVE THEY CAN THE DEPARTMENTS CAN KIND OF SHOP THE DIFFERENT COOPERATIVES, THEY MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT PRICING OR THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT VENDORS ON IT.

I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT OUR NEW PROGRAM WILL LOOK LIKE, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT, THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES THERE AS WELL. SO WE'VE, YOU KNOW, TALKED TO OUR PARTNERS ABOUT HOW DO WE GET OUR BUSINESSES IN THE LOCAL AND SMALL COMMUNITY BUSINESS COMMUNITY ON THESE BIGGER COOPERATIVES.

SO HAVING SOME ENGAGEMENT THERE WHERE WE CAN TELL THEM, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE PROCESS? IT'S ALWAYS EASIER IF THEY ARE IN A COOPERATIVE.

SO THAT'LL HELP US IN THAT CASE. PERFECT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? AGENDA ITEM FOUR. CHAIRWOMAN, REQUEST FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY FIRST, CONGRATULATIONS TO COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY SINCE HE HAS PULLED MORE ITEMS THAN ME BY FAR. SO I THINK YOU SHOULD GET AN AWARD FOR THAT.

NUMBER TWO, I ALSO WANT TO APPLAUD HIM FOR TALKING ABOUT OUR VARIOUS PROCUREMENT METHODS.

AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ARE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE OF.

I KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING MORE THAN WE HAD BEFORE.

DO YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW? OF HOW MANY OF OUR PROCUREMENTS ARE DONE THROUGH A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT? I DO NOT HAVE IT, BUT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

OKAY, WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING.

THE THE REALLY WONDERFUL THING ABOUT USING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS THAT IT HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH A FAIR, LEGITIMATE PROCESS TO SOURCE A, AN ITEM, A PRICE THAT'S REASONABLE AND IT CUTS DOWN ON THE TIME FRAME.

SO WE HAVE SAID AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE NUMBER IS STILL ACCURATE, THAT IT'S ABOUT NINE MONTHS TO DO A FULL ON PROCUREMENT.

AND THIS ALLOWS IMMEDIATE PURCHASE AT A FAIR PRICE.

IT USES ALL OF THE CRITERIA AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

SO I THINK LEANING ON OUR PARTNERS WHO HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN THAT PROCESS WHERE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME EXACT INTEREST AS US.

WE SHOULD. AND I THINK THAT'S HOW WE BECOME MORE EFFICIENT.

SO I'D LOVE A FOLLOW UP OF THAT NUMBER IF IT'S POSSIBLE.

BUT THANK YOU FOR POINTING ALL THIS OUT. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE CAN SAVE TIME AND MONEY.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE GONE FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR.

[5. 25-2324A Authorize (1) a ten-year beverage services contract with PepsiCo Sales Inc. to provide full-service vending, case sales, and fountain pouring rights at Park and Recreation Facilities; (2) establish appropriations in the amount of $235,009.50 $940,038.86; (3) the receipt and deposit revenue generated from this contract in the Imp. Maint. Rep . Programs/Sponsorships; (4) the disbursement of commission to The Superlative Group pursuant to Consultant Contract No . PKR-2021-000017177; and (5) authorize the transfer of 10 percent remaining after commission payment to the Park Endowment Fund - Estimated amount of $869,535.14 - Financing: Imp. Maint. Rep. Programs/Sponsorships Fund ($869,535.9514) and Park Endowment Fund ($70,502.9186); Estimated Revenue: Imp. Maint. Rep. Programs/Sponsorships $940,038.86]

[00:55:03]

MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE ITEM FIVE. AGENDA ITEM FIVE AUTHORIZE ONE A TEN YEAR BEVERAGE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PEPSICO SALES, INC. TO PROVIDE FULL SERVICE VENDING CASE SALES AND FOUNTAIN POURING RIGHTS AT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $940,038.86.

THREE THE RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT REVENUE GENERATED FROM THIS CONTRACT IN THE IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPRESENTATIVE PROGRAM.

SPONSORSHIPS FOR THE THE DISBURSEMENT OF COMMISSIONS TO THE SUPERLATIVE GROUP PURSUANT TO CONSULTANT CONTRACT NUMBER PK DASH TWO 2021. DASH 000017177 AND FIVE AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF 10% REMAINING AFTER COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE PARK ENDOWMENT FUND.

ESTIMATED AMOUNT $869,535.14. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION OF SOME SORT. MOTION TO APPROVE.

OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MR. GRACEY.

THANK YOU. AND AGAIN ON THIS ONE. I SEE RYAN COMING UP ON THIS ONE.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE. IT'S A CONTRACT, BUT IT'S A REVENUE CONTRACT. SO CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT IS? YES, SIR. RYAN O'CONNOR, DALLAS PARKS AND RECREATION.

SO WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH A PROCESS OVER THE PAST YEAR OR TWO TO FIND NEW WAYS TO MONETIZE THE PARK SYSTEM.

AND IN THIS CASE, THIS IS I'VE BEEN DESCRIBING AS KIND OF FOUND MONEY.

SO WE HAVE BEEN BUYING PRODUCT TO SELL AT OUR AQUATIC CENTERS, ETC., AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ACTUALLY GET REVENUE FROM A MANUFACTURER. SO IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A FUNDING SOURCE THAT HAS NOT THAT HAS NOT EXISTED FOR US IN THE RECENT PAST.

AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING, BUT NOW TO GET GUARANTEED MONEY FROM A FROM A VENDING COMPANY.

A MANUFACTURER OF SOFT DRINKS? SURE. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND PEPSICO IS A LARGE COMPANY. WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THEM. AND WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF WORK THAT THEY DO IN THE COMMUNITY. DO THEY HAVE ANY PROGRAMS THAT THAT CAN ASSIST OR ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL ENTREPRENEURS TO PARTICIPATE OR PERHAPS MENTORING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THIS? OR DO YOU KNOW THAT IF THEY HAVE ANY OF THOSE TYPE OF SIR, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO THEM TO GET MORE DETAIL ON THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES. BUT THIS IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A PURE REVENUE CONTRACT FOR US.

SO WE DIDN'T REALLY DIVE DEEP INTO THAT SORT OF THING.

SURE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT THAT WE'VE GOT A TEN YEAR CONTRACT WITH PEPSI FOR ALL OF OUR PARKS AND RECREATIONS, AND THE PROJECTED INCOME IS ONLY GOING TO BE $100,000 A YEAR, GIVE OR TAKE. SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LIGHT.

I'M NOT. I'M NOT COMMENTING ON THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE BASED ON OTHER TYPES OF CONTRACTS WITH SIMILAR CITIES OR OR SMALLER CITIES. I THINK WE'VE WE'RE LEAVING SOME A LOT OF MONEY ON THE TABLE HERE.

IT ALSO IN LOOKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A 25% COMMISSION TO THESE FOLKS, WHICH IS OKAY, YOU CAN HIRE PEOPLE TO HELP NEGOTIATE, BUT IF THEY'RE TAKING 25% OF THIS MILLION DOLLARS OFF THE TOP, WE'RE REALLY ONLY NETTING OUT HERE ABOUT 750,000.

AND THAT'S A TEN YEAR CONTRACT ON ALL OF OUR PARKS.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE REALLY I THINK WE'RE GIVING AWAY A BIG OPPORTUNITY.

I APPLAUD YOU TO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MONETIZE OUR OUR OPPORTUNITIES.

BUT I THINK WE'RE WE'RE LEAVING. I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THIS PARTICULAR KILLER ENTITLEMENT, WHICH I THINK IS A SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO IMPROVE OUR REVENUE SOURCE WITH PARTICULARLY THIS, THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF VENDING CONTRACT.

AGAIN, PEPSI IS A GREAT COMPANY. I'D LOVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.

CERTAINLY, IT MAKES SENSE TO UTILIZE THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION TO MONETIZE ALL OF OUR RESOURCES.

BUT WE'RE A PRETTY GOOD CUSTOMER HERE, AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THIS NET $700,000 OVER TEN YEARS INTO A SIGNIFICANT MORE MONEY. AND I WOULD I AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH IS ON THIS, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DEFER VOTING ON THIS APPROVAL UNTIL MAYBE YOU ALL COULD GO BACK AND SEE IF YOU COULD RETRAIN OR DISCUSS WHAT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THERE ARE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND LOOKING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS,

[01:00:04]

THERE ARE CONTRACTS LIKE THIS OUT IN THAT YOU CAN COMPARE WITH THESE KIND OF FOLKS DO DO OUR OUR GREAT COMMUNITY PLAYERS, THEIR GREAT COMMUNITY SPONSORS. THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO TO PROVIDE IN-KIND OR LIKE KIND ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO TO US AS A GREAT CONSUMER, I THINK WE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE EXPLORED THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN. MY COMMENT IS REALLY NOT DIRECTED AT PEPSI OR AT THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT, BUT GENERALLY, I THINK COUNCILMAN GRACIE'S POSITION IS THAT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY DILIGENT ON OUR PROCUREMENT, NOT ONLY IN MAKING SURE IT'S EFFICIENT AND THAT IT'S VETTED PROPERLY, BUT THAT WE REALLY ARE MAXIMIZING OUR OPPORTUNITIES TO TO CREATE THE BEST SAVINGS AND THE AND THE BEST YOU KNOW, RESPONSES AND REIMBURSEMENTS THAT WE CAN.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I WOULD. I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS.

I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE NOT A HUGE VOLUME USER OF SOFT DRINKS.

HOWEVER WE ARE, WE CERTAINLY DO SELL THEM AT CERTAIN FACILITIES.

AND IT WAS A VERY RIGOROUS NEGOTIATION PROCESS THAT OUR CONSULTANT WENT THROUGH WITH THESE WITH THESE THREE COMPANIES.

WE WERE, OF COURSE, CLOSELY INVOLVED AS WELL.

SO ANECDOTALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT GIVEN OUR VOLUME, THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US.

AND THE SECOND THING I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER TWO PRODUCERS, THIS OPPORTUNITY WAS FAR SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER TWO. BECAUSE BECAUSE IT OFFERED GUARANTEED MONEY, WHICH WAS IMPORTANT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION.

YOU MAY WANT TO I INVESTIGATE. REMEMBER THAT WE'RE MAKING A TEN YEAR CONTRACT HERE, AND HOPEFULLY THE CONTRACT LIKE THIS WOULD INCLUDE SOME INFLATION, SOME COST ANALYSIS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE IN TERMS OF GETTING COMMISSION REBATES, DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS IS A THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY ON TEN YEARS A LONG TIME.

AND THESE SOFT DRINKS ARE GOING TO BE MORE THAN $0.50 TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LEAVE LEAVE AS MUCH MONEY ON THE TABLE AS AS POSSIBLE.

YES, SIR. AND I THANK YOU. MY MY LAST COMMENT TO YOUR COMMENT.

THIS CONTRACT IS BASED UPON US SELLING 85% OF OUR HISTORICAL VOLUME.

IF WE EXCEED THAT, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND IT'S IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AGENDA ITEM, PEPSI IS ALSO PROVIDING US AT $20,000 A YEAR MARKETING BONUS.

I GUESS I'LL REFER TO IT AS. AND IF WE DON'T USE IT FOR THAT TRADITIONAL MARKETING PURPOSE, THAT'S JUST MORE MONEY TO US. SO ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS IT'S AN ADDITIONAL $200,000 IN VALUE OVER THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT.

AND AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT, IT INVOLVES THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES.

YES, SIR. AGAIN, I'M JUST NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD INCLUDE FAIR PARK CONCESSIONS.

IT WOULD INCLUDE ANY KIND OF OTHER OTHER PARKS OR RECREATION RATHER THAN JUST VENDING MACHINES, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE MAKING SURE THAT IF THOSE AREN'T INCLUDED OR IS NOT PART OF IT, WE NEED TO TO SORT OF TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT JUST AS A GENERAL NEGOTIATING STRATEGY.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. AND IT DOES OFFER US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE SITES.

SO THE THE CONTRACT IS SPECIFIC TO THE VENDING MACHINES, AND OUR BUILDINGS AND OUR REC CENTERS ARE POURING AT OUR AQUATICS CENTERS AND OUR TENNIS AND GOLF COURSES. SO AS FAIR PARK COMES BACK ONLINE, SO TO SPEAK, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD MORE FACILITIES INTO THE CONTRACT, WHICH WILL INCREASE OUR REVENUE FROM THIS CONTRACT.

CHAIRWOMAN MIDDLETON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM FIVE.

THANK YOU. WELL, I PULLED THIS ITEM FOR EXACTLY THE REASONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER ROTH OUTLINED.

I'M NO EXPERT ON THIS, BUT I LOOKED AT IT AND I WAS LIKE, WOW, TEN YEARS AND WE'RE GOING TO GET LESS THAN $100,000 A YEAR.

IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A GREAT CONTRACT. I WILL SAY, OF ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, I THINK THE PARK BOARD REVIEWS CONTRACTS PROBABLY MORE THOROUGHLY THAN THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO I AM HESITANT TO TO REALLY EVEN QUESTION WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO GO THROUGH THE CONTRACTS.

AND I'VE WATCHED SOME OF THESE MEETINGS VERY, VERY THOROUGHLY.

BUT I'M WONDERING, HAS THERE BEEN A COMPARISON TO WHAT WE GET EVEN AT CITY HALL WITH OUR VENDING MACHINES.

I MEAN, TEN YEARS IS A VERY LONG TIME. AND THIS IS NOT VERY MUCH MONEY.

[01:05:07]

HOW THOROUGHLY HAS THIS BEEN EVALUATED? I WOULD SAY IT WAS VERY THOROUGHLY EVALUATED FROM OUR CONSULTANT WHO WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH US, WHO NEGOTIATES THESE TYPES OF CONTRACTS. ON A REGULAR BASIS.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.

AND OF COURSE, I WOULD LOVE IT TO, TO GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT MORE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

BUT THE FACT IS, AS I MENTIONED TO COUNCILMAN ROTH, THIS ISN'T WE'RE NOT A HIGH VOLUME PRODUCER.

AS IT RELATES TO SOFT DRINKS, BUT IT'S IT'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MONETIZE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN MONETIZING IN THE RECENT PAST.

AND SO, IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER OFFERS THAT WE RECEIVED, IT IS IT IS A VERY GOOD DEAL FOR US AND THAT IT IS GUARANTEED REVENUE TO US. AND RYAN, HOW MANY OTHERS RESPONDED TO THIS? THERE WERE THREE TOTAL RESPONSES. AND WHY TEN YEARS? I MEAN, THAT SEEMS REALLY EXCESSIVE FOR SUCH A LOW VOLUME CONTRACT.

I THINK THAT'S JUST KIND OF A NORM IN THE POURING RIGHTS BUSINESS.

THAT WAS THAT WAS JUST THE THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS STRUCTURE OF THIS ARRANGEMENT FOR US TO MAXIMIZE THE REVENUE OPPORTUNITY.

CITY MANAGER, IS THERE ANYONE WE CAN ASK ABOUT THE CONTRACT WE HAVE AT CITY HALL, HOW MANY YEARS THAT'S FOR, AND THE KIND OF REVENUE SHARING THAT'S HAPPENING? IS THAT POSSIBLE, OR CAN WE DELAY THE ITEM AND GET THAT INFORMATION? I'M NOT EXPECTING SOMEONE JUST KNOWS THAT OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN. AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY THAT WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS. THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS THAT I KNOW THAT THE PARK AND REC DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED IN AND THEY'VE BEEN LEADING IT.

SO I WOULD HAVE TO REALLY JUST ASK THE QUESTION OF THIS TEAM IF THE DEFERRAL WOULD CAUSE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES FOR THEM.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT.

MADAM CITY MANAGER, I WOULD SAY THAT IS THERE AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF DEFERRAL? I WOULD SAY NO, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

WE INITIATED THIS LAST YEAR. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN KIND OF WAITING ON.

IT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED THROUGH THE PARK BOARD. IT WAS THROUGH TWO COMMITTEES AND THE FULL BOARD.

SO FROM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED WITH FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED. SO MY LAST ITEM IS, IS THE THE FEE THAT THE CONSULTANTS GETTING 25%? THIS SEEMS LIKE A LOT. AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE CONSULTANT ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE THAT LONG SO THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE GETTING THEIR FEE.

I WOULD LIKE TO DELAY THIS. AND I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DELAY IT TO AUGUST 27TH.

IT'S JUST TWO WEEKS. BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND DO A COMPARISON OF WHAT OUR CONTRACT LOOKS LIKE FOR EVEN, YOU KNOW, THIS BUILDING FOR OTHER CITY FACILITIES.

JUST BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

BUT THIS IS REALLY. IT JUMPS OFF THE PAPER TEN YEARS, NOT MUCH MONEY.

AND I AGREE, SOMETHING'S BETTER THAN NOTHING.

BUT WE MIGHT BE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY AND MAYBE NOT.

AND IF NOT, THEN IN TWO WEEKS WE'LL APPROVE IT AND LIFE WILL GO ON.

BUT I JUST THINK WE NEED TO PAUSE AND LOOK AT ALL OF THESE ITEMS THAT COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY PULLED, AND HE DID IT SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THESE PROCUREMENTS.

AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO HONOR THAT SPIRIT AND TO ANSWER JUST SOME REALLY SUPER BASIC QUESTIONS.

IF I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO DEFER IT TWO WEEKS AND DATE CERTAIN WAS THE I'M SORRY, AUGUST 27TH. SO THE MOTION IS TO DEFER TO AUGUST 27TH.

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

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, IF YOU'D LIKE, ON YOUR MOTION TO DEFER TO THE 27TH.

I BELIEVE EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY, I HAVE ALREADY SAID THANK YOU.

OKAY. NOW I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE EVERYONE.

WE ARE ON THIS MOTION TO DEFER NOW. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MERITS OF THE DEFERRAL SPECIFICALLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD BE IN THE QUEUE FOR. AND AFTER WE'VE DISPOSED OF THAT, THE UNDERLYING MOTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COMMENT ON IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

SO, MAYOR PRO TEM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MERITS? YES, OF THE DEFERRAL. OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THAT? THANK YOU. MAYOR. BRIAN, I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT MIGHT BE OKAY WITH TWO WEEKS, BUT HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS? AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING INTO THAT PERIOD.

AND IS THERE ANY. YES, SIR. THERE WOULD BE NO THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT TO THE FAIR.

[01:10:04]

SO AS AS I WAS MENTIONING TO COUNCILMAN ROTH, THE FAIR PARK IS NOT BAKED INTO THIS AGREEMENT.

AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE STATE FAIR.

SO THESE ARE JUST FOR OUR SMALLER. THIS IS YEAH.

FOR RIGHT NOW IT'S PRIMARILY THE REC CENTERS, THE AQUATICS CENTERS, GOLF COURSES AND TENNIS CENTERS.

GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. YES, MISS WILLIS, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER.

I'M SORRY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M NOT USED TO SEEING YOU THERE EITHER.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I SUPPORT THIS DEFERRAL.

I THIS ALSO MADE ME WONDER, BECAUSE WHEN THIS CAME OUT, YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION.

WELL, I THINK AND MY PARK BOARD REP AND I TALKED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT FELT LOW AND IT FELT LIKE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

AND SO HAVING, YOU KNOW, A PERIOD OF TIME PASS, I DON'T RECALL IN THE CONTRACT IF HAVING THIS KIND OF CONTRACT WOULD PRECLUDE PARK AND REC OR THE CITY FROM HAVING A SPONSORSHIP, LET'S SAY A COMMUNITY POOL, LET'S SAY COCA COLA WANTED TO SPONSOR A COMMUNITY POOL.

I MEAN, WE KNOW WE NEED MONEY FOR THOSE TO KEEP THOSE OPEN.

SO DOES THE CONTRACT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE A COKE BANNER AT A POOL WHERE A VENDING MACHINE MIGHT HAVE PEPSI? IT DOES. RELATED TO YOUR FIRST COMMENT, SO SHOULD COCA-COLA BE INTERESTED IN SPONSORING A POOL, FOR INSTANCE? THAT WOULD BE A THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT IN THE CONTRACT.

HOWEVER, THERE'S MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SPONSORSHIPS WITH DIFFERENT COMPANIES, JUST NOT SOFT DRINK COMPANIES.

WELL, I KNOW IT'S CONTRA INDICATION, I THINK, TO BE PROMOTING SOFT DRINKS AT OUR REC CENTERS AND HEALTHY OUTLETS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS PEOPLE CONSUME THEM. AND THAT THAT GIVES ME PAUSE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S AN EVENT, A CITYWIDE EVENT OR SOMETHING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CLOSING THAT DOOR FOR SPONSORSHIP DOLLARS.

AND I'VE SHARED WITH YOU AND MY PARK BOARD REP, I MEAN, I THINK ON THE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE CONTRACT.

OVERALL, I THINK IT'S A REAL LOWBALL $19 MILLION ACROSS TEN YEARS WHEN A CHARITY LUNCHEON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, CAN RAISE $2 MILLION AND, YOU KNOW, A DAY.

SO YES, I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER THIS AND GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION, COLLEAGUES, TO THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WE MAY NOT WANT TO CLOSE DOORS, ANY DOORS ON PEOPLE WHO COULD BE A GOOD, LOGICAL SPONSOR TO THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEND A COMMUNITY POOL OR AN AQUATICS, I MEAN, OR A TENNIS CENTER OR GOLF, ETC.. SO I KNOW THIS IS A KINK HERE AT THE END, BUT I'M THIS REALLY MAKES ME THINK OF BIG PICTURE POTENTIAL DOLLARS. WHEN YOU ALL NEED REVENUE AND THE CITY NEEDS A WANTS REVENUE.

THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER TO AUGUST 27TH BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. RYAN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY? REGARDING THE I GUESS LOW BAR OF THE CONTRACT TERMS THAT WAS THIS BROUGHT UP AT ALL IN DISCUSSION WITH OUR OUR PARK BOARD REPRESENTATIVES. IT WAS AND, YOU KNOW, THE THE INFORMATION THAT I PROVIDED IN RESPONSES TODAY IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED THROUGH AT THE BOARD, WHICH WAS GIVEN THE FACT OF OUR VOLUMES, THAT ANECDOTALLY, THIS IS A THIS IS A GOOD REVENUE OPPORTUNITY FOR US.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, WE DID DISCUSS THIS.

AND ESSENTIALLY I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT DOWNPLAYED AS A LOW AMOUNT, AND I GUESS EVERYTHING'S RELATIVE.

BUT THE REALITY IS THIS IS ESSENTIALLY COMING UP WITH A REVENUE SOURCE OF 1.9 MILLION PER YEAR ON AVERAGE FOR TEN YEARS.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST AND DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO DO ANYTHING MORE.

IS THAT ACCURATE? WELL, TO TO CLARIFY COUNCILMAN, IT'S $1 MILLION OVER APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION OVER TEN YEARS.

NEARLY A MILLION OVER TEN TOTAL. YES, SIR. THAT'S RIGHT.

RIGHT. AND WHAT WHAT CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH THE WITH PEPSICO ON THOSE NEGOTIATIONS? LIKE WHAT? WHAT LEEWAY DO YOU FEEL THERE IS? I GUESS THE BIGGEST QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING IS DO YOU DO YOU FEEL A DEFERRAL? I MEAN, A DELAY IN THIS ITEM IS GOING TO HELP YOU GET TO A BETTER NUMBER.

DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A PRODUCTIVE TOOL.

OR DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE YOU COME BACK TO US IN TWO WEEKS, WITH THE SAME OUTCOME FOR US TO CONSIDER? HEY, COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. JOHN JENKINS, PARKS DIRECTOR I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEFERRAL.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, DO I THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE SITUATION IN TWO WEEKS? THE ANSWER WILL BE NO. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO GO BACK AND LOOK.

[01:15:06]

AND THE QUESTIONS I WAS BROUGHT UP BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH AND COUNCIL MEMBER.

IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO GO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK WHEN IT COMES TO THIS INFLATION PART.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE HISTORY. 30 YEARS. LET ME TELL YOU, I'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF RFPS GO OUT FOR CONCESSIONS.

AND LET ME TELL YOU, WE AIN'T NEVER HAD $1 MILLION NUMBER.

I KNOW YOU ALL THINK THAT YOU. BECAUSE WE HAD THIS PARK SYSTEM WITH 410 PARKS.

WE'RE NOT MONETIZING THE WHOLE ENTIRE PARK SYSTEM WITH THIS DEAL.

IT IS VERY SPECIFIC, AS RYAN MENTIONED, TO JUST THE VENDING MACHINES.

JUST A PAWN RIGHTS. IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THIS SPONSOR IS SUDDENLY GOING TO GET THEIR NAME ON EVERYTHING THROUGH THE PARK SYSTEM.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE. YES. THEN WE WILL BE LOOKING AT PROBABLY $1 MILLION A YEAR OR $2 MILLION A YEAR.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER THE LAST TIME WE DID THE VENDING MANY YEARS AGO, LIKE 25 YEARS WITH COKE.

NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU THAT NUMBER WAS NOWHERE CLOSE TO EVEN THIS MILLION DOLLARS.

WE ARE CHECKED WITH THE CITY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE PRUDENT THING TO DO TO SEE THE COMPARISON TO THEIR CONTRACT.

SO WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE TWO WEEKS DEFERRAL.

DOES YOUR CONTRACT ALLOW FOR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND TO OTHER PARK FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT? YES, SIR. IT DOES. OKAY. I GUESS, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEFERRAL AS WELL.

I JUST I DON'T UNDERSTAND USING DEFERRALS IF IT'S NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO RESULT IN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

AND I THINK THAT THE POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE TODAY, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT, IT SOUNDS FROM TALKING WITH MY REPRESENTATIVE AND HEARING FROM THE DISCUSSIONS AT PARK BOARD THAT THIS WAS WAS ALSO VERY WELL VETTED.

SO I'M NOT SOLD ON ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT A DEFERRAL WOULD DO, QUITE FRANKLY.

AND WOULD LIKE TO TO, TO DEFINITELY ASK THAT YOU ALL BRING US MORE INFORMATION REGARDING LIKE THE COMPARISON OF DEALS, IF THAT, IF THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT WE CAN GET FROM IT, THEN THEN THEN THAT'S FINE.

BUT I GUESS I ALSO LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING US BACK MORE INFORMATION, CAN YOU, CAN YOU GIVE US A, POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES ON WHAT THIS CONTRACT, EVEN AS WRITTEN, WOULD POSE FOR US IN THE FUTURE WITH OTHER PARKS AND REC ASSETS AND HOW THIS CONTRACT ESSENTIALLY COULD ACT AS A BASELINE AND HOW IT COULD POTENTIALLY EXPAND.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT.

ITEMS DEFERRED TO AUGUST 27TH. NEXT ITEM, MADAM SECRETARY.

[7. 25-2069A Authorize a professional services contract with Kirksey Architects, Inc . dba Kirksey Architecture for architectural and engineering services for the schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding and negotiation, and construction administration for the Exall Recreation Center Replacement Project located at 1355 Adair Street - Not to exceed $1,624,571.00 - Financing: Park and Recreation Facilities (B) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Fund)]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 710.

ITEM SEVEN. AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH KIRKSEY ARCHITECTS, INC., DBA KIRKSEY ARCHITECTURE, AND FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN, DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND NEGOTIATION AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION FOR THE EXILE RECREATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT, LOCATED AT 13558 AIR STREET, NOT TO EXCEED $1,624,571.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IS THERE A MOTION MOVE APPROVAL? IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MISTER GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ASK ON THIS ONE. IS THE PARKS DEPARTMENT PROCUREMENT ON THIS ONE? WHICH KIND OF GOES TO THAT. SO I'LL START WITH YOU, RYAN.

CAN YOU TELL ME, FOR THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR, HOW MANY ACTIVE CONTRACTS DOES THIS VENDOR CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THE CITY? I BELIEVE IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, DO YOU? I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS ZERO.

ZERO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR THE CITY.

THEY'VE DONE SOME BUILDINGS AT MCCOMAS LANDFILL. BUT THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN LET'S SEE. SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ACTIVE CONTRACTS.

I MADE A PROPOSAL. THIS PROCESS WAS DONE THROUGH A BID.

OKAY, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO BE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES VERSUS ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING AS AN EXAMPLE.

BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S FOR ARCHITECTS ENGINEERING, BUT IT'S DETERMINED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHO DETERMINES WHICH ONE IT WILL BE? WELL, FOR ALL OF OUR FOR ALL OF OUR DESIGN PROJECTS IN THE PARK SYSTEM, WHETHER IT'S FOR A PLAYGROUND OR A TRAIL OR A REC CENTER, ON THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE, WE ALWAYS USE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT

[01:20:05]

PROCESSES FOR THOSE PROJECTS, AND THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

SO OF COURSE THIS IS FOR THE EXCEL RECREATION CENTER.

AND WE UTILIZED AN R E PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THE BEST VALUE PROPOSER AND MOST QUALIFIED.

AND HOW MANY HOW MANY RESPONSES DO WE HAVE ON THIS ONE.

SO I BELIEVE ON THE RFQ PIECE THERE WERE 14. AND THEN FROM THAT IT WAS SHORTLISTED TO THREE, WHICH WE RECEIVED. THEN WE DID THE RFP, OF COURSE, AND IDENTIFIED KIRKSEY AS THE MOST QUALIFIED PROPOSER.

OKAY. AND THEN SO NOW I'M GONNA GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF KIND OF THE SPECIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THAT. WHO DEVELOPS THE SPECIFICATIONS.

IS THAT PARKS DEPARTMENT OR IS IT PROCUREMENT? IT'S THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, SIR. SO OUR, OUR PROJECT MANAGERS WORK WITH OUR PROGRAM MANAGERS TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

IN THE CASE OF EXCEL, IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION, KIND OF HOLISTIC RENOVATION OF THAT BUILDING.

SO IT'S THE PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT IDENTIFIES THE SCOPE OF WORK AND THEN USES THAT TO GO THROUGH A RFQ RFP PROCESS.

OKAY. NOW, IN THIS CASE, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BECAUSE YOU HEAR A LOT OF TIMES THAT THAT FROM AN EVALUATION, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE WHAT WAS THE EVALUATION CRITERIA? THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. SO IT WAS KIND OF OUR STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA.

THERE'S THERE'S A SCHEDULE COMPONENT. THERE'S A QUALIFICATIONS COMPONENT.

THERE'S SCORING CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH THE TEAM MEMBERS ACTUALLY ON THE JOB.

AT THE TIME THERE WAS A THERE WAS AN MWBE REQUIREMENT.

SO IT'S KIND OF OUR STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT WE USE FOR ALL.

DID YOU SAY VARIANCE? EXCUSE ME? DID YOU SAY EXPERIENCE? YES, SIR. AND HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU GRADE THAT? AND AGAIN, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, JUST SO YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I HAVEN'T I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS ISSUE. BUT AGAIN, FROM AN EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE, I WANT US TO WALK THROUGH HOW THESE THINGS ARE EVOLVED THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO GET WHERE THEY ARE.

SO FROM THE THE CRITERIA PERSPECTIVE EXPERIENCE, I'VE HEARD MANY BUSINESSES BLUE, GREEN, POLKA DOT COMPLAIN.

IT'S HARD TO GET INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND A LOT OF TIMES THAT EXPERIENCE QUESTION IS ONE OF THOSE.

SO SO IF I MAY, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AND I DON'T WANT TO TO JUMP IN AND TAKE AWAY ANY RESPONSES THAT YOU MIGHT GET FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF THIS BODY WANTS US TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY OUTSIDE OF A VOTING AGENDA MEETING TO GET INTO A CONVERSATION AROUND OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESSES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE ARE EVOLVING.

I THINK COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN MADE A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT WAYS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO NOT ONLY CREATE MORE EFFICIENCIES IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, BUT WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN THE DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS THAT WE GO AFTER SOLICITATIONS, HOW WE'RE ENSURING THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THE MARKETPLACE, HOW DO WE GROW OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES? AND I THINK THAT IS A BROADER CONVERSATION.

AND SO IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE CITY COUNCIL THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE DEFINITELY CAN BRING AS PART OF A MORE DEEPER BRIEFING DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT PROCUREMENT METHODS, THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, GOODS, CONSTRUCTION. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COUNCIL AND IT WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BRING THAT CONVERSATION.

I THINK IT WILL HELP ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING THIS MORNING, BUT DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE ITEM. BUT IF IT'S ABOUT THE OVERALL PROCUREMENT PROCESS, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS PARK AND RECREATION ITEM THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT TOO.

AND I, I THINK THAT BUT SOMETIMES HAVING THAT BRIEFING SEPARATE FROM REAL LIFE ITEMS, IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HIT HOME.

I WANTED TO, BUT I WOULD DO WELCOME THAT. THE OTHER QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU HOW DO YOU MONITOR PERFORMANCE AGAIN? GOING WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE EXPERIENCE QUESTION WAS A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL SAY YOU RANK THEM ON THE EXPERIENCE.

HAVE THEY DONE DA DA DA DA DA. BUT DO WE ACTUALLY MONITOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SOME OF THESE VENDORS.

AND SO HOW DOES THE DEPARTMENT MONITOR. HOW WILL YOU MONITOR THE PERFORMANCE ON THIS ONE.

AND THERE'S THERE'S BENCHMARKS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS.

SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET, A DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SET.

AND THERE ARE ESTIMATION EFFORTS THAT GO ALONG WITH EACH OF THOSE PACKAGES.

AND SO ULTIMATELY THE METRIC BY WHICH WE MEASURE PERFORMANCE IS ARE THEY DELIVERING US A PRODUCT THAT MEETS OUR REQUIREMENTS AND MEETS OUR BUDGET.

SO BEYOND THAT THERE'S SOME SOFTWARE MEASURES.

[01:25:02]

OF COURSE WE WANT RESPONSIVENESS. WE WANT TO ENSURE THE COMMUNITY'S BEING HEARD AND BEING RESPONDED TO.

SO THERE ARE SOME OTHER SOFTER MEASURES. BUT ULTIMATELY IN AN ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT, IS IS THE PRODUCT BEING DELIVERED TO BUDGET? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND AGAIN I'LL JUST I'LL MOVE ON FROM FROM THERE.

BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SOME OF THESE.

THESE THINGS THAT I'M HEARING FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TO DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND I WANT TO ENSURE AS WE'RE DEVELOPING, YOU SAID THE PROGRAM MANAGER DEVELOPS THE SPECIFICATIONS.

IT'S IT'S OUR IT'S OUR PLANNING DESIGN DIVISION.

SO IT COMES FROM OUR PROJECT MANAGERS, OUR PROGRAM MANAGERS AND OUR EXECUTIVE STAFF LOOKS AT THE SCOPE AND AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IT'S THE PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE DELIVERED. OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I MOVE ON.

WHO REVIEWS THE SPECIFICATIONS? ONCE UPON A TIME, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WOULD WRITE THE SPECIFICATIONS.

THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH PROCUREMENT OR SOMETHING TO REVIEW TO ENSURE IT WASN'T EXCLUSIVELY WRITTEN UNINTENTIONALLY OR INTENTIONALLY.

WHO DOES THAT NOW? SO AGAIN, FOR ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS, WE WE DRAFT THOSE SPECIFICATIONS THOSE THOSE SCOPE ITEMS. IT'S IT'S REVIEWED INTERNALLY. PROCUREMENT CERTAINLY HAS A ROLE TO PLAY BECAUSE THEY HELPED PUSH OUT THE SOLICITATION.

BUT THAT INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN ON THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION, RYAN.

I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO BACK TO KIND OF THE CONVERSATION THAT I WHAT I MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO.

WE HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD THE OVERSIGHT OF MORE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR DOWN AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL.

I THINK BECAUSE OF THE THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT SITTING EMBEDDED IN, I MEAN, IN PROCUREMENT, THAT'S KIND OF BEEN THE MODEL THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED.

SO IT'S BEEN MORE DECENTRALIZED. I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND WE TALK ABOUT WAYS THAT WE CAN BE MORE TRANSPARENT, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE ENTIRE PROCUREMENT ENVIRONMENT AS A CITY? BECAUSE IT'S A I MEAN, WHAT WE DO, WE BUY THINGS, GOODS AND SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. SO I THINK IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY, AS WE'RE TALKING WITH OUR MANAGEMENT TEAM.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT A PROJECT DELIVERY TYPE OF FUNCTION THAT TRULY CAN HELP US ENSURE THAT WE'VE GOT CONSISTENCY ACROSS EVALUATION CRITERIA.

HOW WE SCORE ALL THOSE THINGS. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT BROADER CONVERSATION AROUND PROJECTS PROCUREMENTS, THE OVERALL WAY THAT WE'RE DOING THAT BUSINESS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO COME BACK AND SHARE WITH THE COUNCIL AT A DEEPER LEVEL, AND I'M COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. I'LL STOP. MR. ROFF, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. JUST A QUESTION. AND IT'S REALLY FOR EDUCATION FOR ME IS WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE WHAT? WHAT ARE THE WHAT YOU ARE ALL DOING ON THIS PROJECT? ARE YOU EXPANDING THE BUILDING? HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE? WHAT HOW BIG OF A CHANGE ARE YOU DOING HERE? IT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVELY A NEW RECREATION CENTER THAT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED IN SIZE.

HOW ABOUT HOW BIG IS IT GOING TO BE? GENERAL, I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT.

JUST ROUGHLY. I MEAN. WELL, I THINK THE EXISTING BUILDING IS PROBABLY AROUND 15 OR 16,000FT².

IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL. I THINK THE INTENT IS TO TO GO TO THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE, BUT THAT WILL KIND OF GET WORKED THROUGH IN THE IN THE DESIGN PROCESS AND THAT IN THAT RECREATION CENTER. I'M SORRY THAT I'M NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT DOES IT HAVE A SWIMMING POOL? DOES IT HAVE A DIFFERENT IS IT BASKETBALL OR IS IT SORT OF ANYTHING UNUSUAL? NO, SIR. WELL, IT'S IT'S NOT UNUSUAL OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS SMALL.

IT'S ONE OF OUR SMALLEST RECREATION CENTERS. RIGHT.

SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO INCREASE THE, THE PROGRAMMATIC OFFERINGS THROUGH ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BUILDING.

AND SO IN, AS A PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST FOR MAKING A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT'S BASICALLY OFFICES OR RECREATIONAL AND WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL ATTENTION STUFF.

MY QUESTION WOULD BE IS THIS. IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL FEE, AN ARCHITECTURAL FEE, A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL PROJECTED COST OF A BUILDING? THAT WOULD BE MAYBE A QUESTION.

IS IT A IT'S GOING TO BE A, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE, 5 OR $6 MILLION PROJECT TO BUILD.

AND ARE WE SPENT? WE'RE SPENDING $2 MILLION OR A MILLION AND A HALF, RIGHT.

FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEES. IS THAT A REASONABLE NUMBER? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL ARE SORT OF REVIEWING WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS PROCUREMENT PROCESS? OH, YES. I'M I'M A STICKLER ON ARCHITECTURAL FEES.

I, I GIVE MY PROJECT MANAGERS AND PROGRAM MANAGERS KIND OF A HARD TIME ON THAT.

SO YES, IT IS WITHIN THE RANGE THAT WE TYPICALLY PAY, WHICH IS 12 TO 15% FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES.

[01:30:05]

BUT I PERSONALLY TAKE GREAT CARE IN ENSURING THAT WE'RE GETTING GOOD VALUE FROM OUR CONSULTANTS.

OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S SORT OF THE EDUCATION I NEEDED WAS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR COST IS GOING TO BE IN RELATIVE RELATIONSHIPS FOR ALL OF THESE CONSULTING FEES.

AND AGAIN, JUST AS A COMMENT, WE REALLY DO APPROVE A LOT A LOT OF PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING FEES HERE.

AND A LOT OF THAT MONEY IS HOPEFULLY BEING VETTED VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SOMETIMES GET OUR ARMS AROUND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING FOR THIS KIND OF A EXPENDITURE.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DO VERY LITTLE IN HOUSE DESIGN.

MOST OF THE WORK IS OUTSOURCED. MR. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY SOME NOMENCLATURE IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF, AS THE PROCURING AGENCY, DOESN'T PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS FOR A PROJECT.

THEY PREPARE A PROGRAM FOR THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. SPECIFICATIONS IS A SPECIFIC TERM OF ART IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING BUSINESS THAT DESCRIBES THE PACKAGE OF PROJECT MATERIALS AND ITEMS THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL SUPPLY TO THE PROJECT AND HOW THEY ARE PUT TOGETHER DURING CONSTRUCTION.

SO IT IS ACTUALLY THE ARCHITECT WHO PREPARES THE SPECIFICATIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? AGENDA ITEM SEVEN. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. AGENDA ITEM. PASSES.

NEXT ITEM. YOUR NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM NINE. ITEM NINE AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD

[9. 25-2212A Authorize a public hearing to be held on August 27, 2025 to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Dallas Downtown Improvement District (the “District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) consider approval of an ordinance; (a) levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided during 2026; (b) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the property owners thereof; (c) providing for the collection of the 2025 assessment; (d) requiring City staff to, not later than seven days after the City Council’s approval of the ordinance and Service Plan, file a copy of the approved Service Plan with the Dallas County Clerk; and (e) providing an effective date - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

ON AUGUST 27TH, 2025, TO RECEIVE COMMENTS CONCERNING ONE THE PROPOSED LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE DALLAS DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 372, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE.

A LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT FOR SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED DURING 2026.

B ESTABLISHING CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNERS THEREOF.

C PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE 2025 ASSESSMENT.

D REQUIRING CITY STAFF TO NOT LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AND SERVICE PLAN FILED A COPY OF THE APPROVED PROOF SERVICE PLAN, WITH THE DALLAS COUNTY CLERK AND EAP PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. MISTER BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICS.

IF MARIA SMITH FROM ECO DEV COULD COME IN.

GOOD MORNING. OH, YES.

GOOD MORNING. MARIA SMITH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

HI, MARIA. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME. JUST TO GIVE SOME CLARIFICATION, I JUST I KNOW WE'RE AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DETAILS IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING ARE ARE HIGHLIGHTED SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN MANY DIFFERENT FRONTS.

I, I'M JUST CURIOUS ON THE MECHANISM THAT'S BEEN UTILIZED SINCE, I BELIEVE, 1993 ON THE CITY'S VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS.

NINE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT, PLEASE? POINT OF ORDER, MR. MAYOR. PLEASE STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. THIS LINE OF INQUIRY IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ITEM BEFORE US.

THE ITEM BEFORE US IS STRICTLY A PROCEDURAL ITEM TO CALL AN AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR AUGUST 27TH, AT WHICH TIME THE MERITS OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND SERVICE PLAN WILL BE TAKEN UP.

[01:35:08]

DURING THAT STATE.

WE'RE GOING TO OVERRULE IT FOR NOW AND ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE.

BUT WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL MONITOR TO SEE IF THE SCOPE EXPANDS ANY FURTHER.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TOLD BY THE PARLIAMENTARIAN. GOOD MORNING.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THE CITY HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SINCE THE DID WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1993, AND THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN EVALUATED UPON RENEWAL.

AND CURRENTLY, CITY OWNED PROPERTY WITHOUT DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS ASSESSED BASED ON THE VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN DOWNTOWN, AND THE REASON FOR THAT THE CITY PARTICIPATES IN THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS BECAUSE OF THE DIRECT BENEFITS THAT CITY OWNED PROPERTY DOWNTOWN RECEIVES FROM THE FROM DE, SO SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CLEANING, BEAUTIFICATION, AND ENHANCED SECURITY THAT DOWNTOWN SAFETY PATROL AND DIS CLEAN TEAM PROVIDES.

AND HOW MUCH HAS THE CITY VOLUNTARILY ASSESSED FOR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR? SO FOR FY 26, BASED ON CURRENT CERTIFIED VALUES, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION, AND THAT WOULD BE PAID BETWEEN THE GENERAL FUND AND CONVENTION CENTER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I REALLY WANTED TO DAYLIGHT THESE FACTS, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE ASKING THE PUBLIC TO COME AND SPEAK ON AUGUST 27TH.

SO THANK YOU FOR THIS, FOR THESE ANSWERS AND AND FOR THE CLARIFICATION, I THINK THAT THIS BEGS A LARGER CONVERSATION THAT I'D LIKE THE CITY MANAGER TO BE WILLING TO TAKE UP ON AUGUST 27TH, AND HOPEFULLY, WHEN HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC ON WANTING TO SEE THE SAME PARTICIPATION OR WILLINGNESS FROM THE CITY TO HELP IGNITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY, THAT WOULD HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS. SO THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THESE.

AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR WORK. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NINE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 27. AUTHORIZE A CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

[27. 25-2209A Authorize a construction services contract for storm drainage improvements at two locations (List attached to the Agenda Information Sheet) - SYB Construction Co., Inc., lowest responsible bidder of five - Not to exceed $12,334,608.00 - Financing: Storm Drainage Management Capital Construction Fund ($7,340,393.00), Wastewater Capital Improvement G Fund ($2,353,135.00), Water Capital Improvement G Fund ($2,305,620.00) and 2025 Certificate of Obligation Fund ($335,460.00)]

CONTRACT FOR STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT TWO LOCATIONS.

SEB CONSTRUCTION CO, INC. LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OF FIVE, NOT TO EXCEED $4,608.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

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

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. GRACEY? YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. SIR.

AGENDA ITEM 27. THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME OF THE SAME LINE OF QUESTIONING THERE.

FOR THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR. THIS WAS A LOW BID, CORRECT? YES, SIR. SARAH STANDS FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

ALL RIGHT. AND HOW MANY BIDDERS? THERE WERE FIVE BIDDERS. OKAY.

AND THEN DOES THIS PARTICULAR FIRM, DO THEY HAVE ANY ACTIVE CONTRACTS OR HAVE THEY HAD ACTIVE CONTRACTS? YES, SIR. THEY HAVE FOUR ACTIVE CONTRACTS. ONE IS COMPLETED AND ONE IS PENDING. FINAL CLOSEOUT AND RELEASE OF RETAINER. OKAY. WHAT'S THE TOTAL VALUE ON THOSE? THE TOTAL VALUE OF THOSE SIX CONTRACTS IS 82,600,000. AND THERE ARE $22 MILLION IN REMAINING WORK LEFT OF THOSE SIX CONTRACTS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IN TERMS OF UTILIZATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS, I.E. SLOW PAYMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS, ARE THOSE TYPE OF THINGS TRACKED? SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS CONTRACTOR.

WE DO TRACK THOSE AND WE DO REQUIRE THAT THEY TURN IN THEIR CONTRACT OR AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS THAT THEY'VE PAID THEIR VENDORS.

IF THEIR VENDORS DO REACH OUT TO US, WE WORK WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

WE ALSO PROVIDE THEIR PAYMENT BONDING INFORMATION. IF THERE IS A CONTRACTOR STRUGGLING WITH MAKING PAYMENTS TO SUBS AND IT'S TRACKED.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? JENNA I'M 27. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 28.

[28. 25-2156A Authorize an increase in the construction services contract with Eagle Contracting, LLC for additional work required at the Jim Miller Pump Station - Not to exceed $1,724,718.55, from $36,345,225.92 to $38,069,944.47 - Financing: Water Capital Improvement F Fund ($924,718.55) and Water Capital Improvement G Fund ($800,000.00)]

AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH EAGLE CONTRACTING, LLC.

FOR ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIRED AT THE JIM MILLER PUMP STATION.

NOT TO EXCEED $1,724,718.55 FROM $0.92. TWO. $38,069,944.47. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED.

[01:40:02]

AND SECOND, A DISCUSSION. SAME THING, SIR. FIVE MINUTES.

YES, SIR. SAME THING WITH THIS ONE. DOES THIS VENDOR HAVE ACTIVE CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY? AND IF SO, WHAT'S THE CONTRACT VALUE? YES, SIR.

THIS IS A CONTRACTOR THAT HAS ONE ACTIVE CONTRACT WITH US.

IT IS THIS ONE. IT IS A TOTAL VALUE OF 36,345,000.

THERE IS CURRENTLY REMAINING VALUE OF 5 MILLION FOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED.

AND HAVE THEY DONE BUSINESS WITH THE CITY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? YES.

CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY? YES, SIR. THEY HAVE HAD CONTRACTS. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WHAT'S THIS INCREASE FOR AT THIS PARTICULAR INCREASE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SITE RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION ASSOCIATED WITH EVERGLADES PARK.

AS PART OF OUR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT AND PARK BOARD TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE RESTORE WAS WHAT WAS NEEDED IN THE AREA.

SO THERE'S SOME TRAIL WORK AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL VALVE AND GAUGE TYPE ISSUES WITH THIS ONE.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR HAS THAT.

YOU MAY HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH THE CITY BEFORE. THEY'VE DONE PRETTY MUCH THIS TYPE OF WORK.

I'M ASSUMING. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO I GUESS I STRUGGLE SOMETIMES WHEN I SEE THESE INCREASES, BECAUSE THE COMPLAINTS YOU HEAR SOMETIMES IS THEY WIN WITH THIS LOW BID, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU SEE ALL OF THESE INCREASES ON THE CONTRACTS.

MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY'VE DONE BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, HOW DO WE FIND OURSELVES IN THESE INCREASES.

SO. AND I KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT REASONS. SOMETIMES YOU RUN INTO SITUATIONS, SOMETIMES THE BUSTED PIPE OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT DO WE MANAGE WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE DO WE BUDGET FOR THESE INCREASES AND WHAT IF WE DO.

WHAT IS THAT PERCENTAGE. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THIS IS THESE ARE CHANGE ORDERS THAT ARE ASKED OF THE CONTRACTOR BY THE CITY.

WE KNEW THAT GOING INTO THIS WE WERE GOING TO NEED TO DO SOME SITE RESTORATION WORK. SO THERE WAS SOME BUDGET SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION WORK.

WHEN WE LOOK AT CONTRACTS AND AS WE DO OUR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION, AS WE SET THE PROCESS IN PLAY RIGHT, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE IF IT IS AN ACTUAL ISSUE ON THE GROUND, IF IT IS AN ERROR AND OMISSIONS IN THE DESIGN, IF THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECTURAL FIRM MISSED THAT, THEN WE WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THAT ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FIRM TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

SO IN THIS CASE THIS ONE'S NOT AN ISSUE. THAT IS A CONTRACTOR INDUCED CHANGE ORDER.

SURE. WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ASK THIS FROM A BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE.

I GUESS CITY MANAGER I'M GOING TO, I GUESS, ASK THAT WE CONTINUE TO TO DO ONGOING MONITOR OF THESE.

THE REASONS OF THESE CHANGE INCREASES BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN I SEE THESE SAME VENDORS COME THROUGH TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME, AT SOME POINT THE VENDOR HAS WORKED WITH THE CITY LONG ENOUGH TO GET IT RIGHT.

AND I GET CONCERNED WHEN AGAIN, THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS CASE.

AND MY FRIEND WILL CORRECT ME IF I MAY MISSPEAK AGAIN.

BUT IF THE DEPARTMENTS ARE PREPARING THOSE SPECIFICATIONS AND IT'S THAT AND LET ME ASK YOU, THAT IS THE IS IT THE SAME SITUATION AS PARKS AS THE PROGRAM MANAGER PREPARE THIS.

SO WE HIRE WE HIRE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FIRMS WHO WILL CREATE THE SPECIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO GET THE ACTUAL LINE ITEMS, UNITS, QUANTITIES. IT MEETS OUR NEED FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE.

WE'RE REVIEWING THE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING WORK AND THEN THEIR WORK ADDS TO THE COG ADDENDUM.

SO THERE'S SPECIFICATIONS THAT ARE STANDARD ITEMS ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE IN OUR COG AND OUR DALLAS ADDENDUM PIECES.

AND THEN THERE'S PROJECT SPECIFIC, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE PAID THE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FIRM TO DEVELOP. PERFECT. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S IT I GOT IT NOW. I REMEMBER DESIGN ENGINEER ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING DESIGNS IT CONSTRUCTION THE ALL RIGHT SPECIFICATIONS BASED ON THAT.

AND THEN THEY'LL DO THAT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK. HOW DO DID I.

DID I MISS SPEAK? YOU GOT TO CLOSE IT. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE RIGHT TRACK.

SO? SO AGAIN, WHEN YOU COME THROUGH THESE, THESE THESE PROCESSES, THE CONCERN FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FROM AN OUTREACH IS SOME OF THESE, THESE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BE EXCLUSIVE. AND I'M SAYING THAT OUT LOUD.

AND IT'S NOT AN ACCUSATION, BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT SOME OF THE BUSINESS EXPERIENCES HAVE BEEN.

SO AS WE TALK THROUGH THESE PROCESSES, MADAM CITY MANAGER UNDERSTANDING.

AND AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TO TO REALLY CENTRALIZING THIS PROCESS.

BUT AS WE TALK THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HERE, I'M TRYING TO STAY FOCUSED AND NOT LET COUSIN JERMAINE SHOW UP.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT. AGAIN, I KEEP SEEING THESE SAYING MY POINT HERE IS WE SEE THESE SAME VENDORS GETTING AWARDED CONTRACTS, AND THEN WE TURN AROUND AND SEE THESE INCREASES.

AND FROM A PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF THESE INCREASES ARE BEING ALLOWED.

AND THEN WHEN OTHER NEW BUSINESSES TRY TO COME IN, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN.

SO AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT ALL OF THIS TOGETHER TO SAY, I WANT US TO REALLY MONITOR AS WE WILL, YOU KNOW, FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, THE UTILIZATION OF THESE BUSINESSES, BUT ALSO TRACKING THE NUMBER OF INCREASES THAT THEY HAVE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

[01:45:03]

AND PERHAPS IN A REPORTING PERSPECTIVE, I'LL STOP.

THANK YOU. IF I CAN, MAYOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO JUMP IN AND THANK COUNCIL.

I'M A COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY, FOR YOUR YOUR COMMENTS THIS MORNING.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE QUESTIONS.

LET ME JUST SAY THIS. WE ACROSS ALL OF OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS, WE DO HAVE THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

CAN WE CONTINUE TO IMPROVE UPON THE WAY WE ARE LOOKING AT OUR CONTRACTING? HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL BUSINESSES TO DO CITY DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE AND THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR WHEN WE LOOK AT SPECIFICATIONS AND WHEN WE LOOK AT CRITERIA, WE ARE ENSURING THAT WE'RE BRINGING THE BEST POSSIBLE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO DO THE WORK TO WHAT WE BRING TO YOU.

WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT ARE THE WAYS THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO EXPAND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH OUR OUTREACH, WHICH IS WHY WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER TO EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS NEW COLLABORATIVE APPROACH THAT WE WANT TO DO ACROSS WORKING WITH A LOT OF OUR OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES, OUR MARKETPLACE, WE'RE ALL PULLING FROM THE SAME MARKETPLACE.

AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. AND THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY SPECIFICATIONS, WE DON'T WANT SPECIFICATIONS TO BE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE ANYONE.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CREATING THAT PLAN FIELD WHERE ALL OF OUR CONTRACTORS WHO AGAIN, ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE CAN DO THE WORK. AND WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT.

SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY. AND THIS IS WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR ENTIRE PROJECT DELIVERY MODEL TO WHERE WE CAN ENSURE THAT THERE'S TRANSPARENCY.

THERE ARE VERY CLEAR SPECIFICATIONS. WE'RE NOT CREATING BARRIERS ON THE FRONT END AND AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATING BUSINESSES FROM BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR CONTRACTING PORTFOLIOS ACROSS MANY, SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

AND THEN THE CONSISTENCY, I THINK, IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAYS THAT I KNOW PARK AND RECREATION HAVE THEIR PS DALLAS WHILE THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION. SO WE DEFINITELY WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING THE WORK.

WE HAVE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE, AND WE'RE NOT DOING EXCLUSIONARY TYPES OF CONTRACTS.

SO YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN. AND WHAT I WILL SAY, IF THESE ARE THE SAME QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ALL THE OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA, I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD WITH TELLING YOU NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTIONS, AND I KNOW MY TEAM UNDERSTANDS YOUR QUESTIONS, AND WE WANT TO BRING BACK THAT BIGGER, BROADER, DEEPER CONVERSATION. SO WE CAN EVEN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE WAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION, BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS ON THINGS THAT WE WANT TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE ARE TRULY OPEN FOR ALL BUSINESSES TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I HOPE THAT GLOBAL STATEMENT WILL HELP US GET THROUGH THESE OTHER ITEMS. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS, BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

HOW DO YOU MANAGE THE PERFORMANCE OF OF HOW DO YOU MANAGE OR MONITOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE VENDORS? AGAIN AND AGAIN. ONLY ONE SECOND. I WASN'T SURE IF YOUR TIME WAS EXPIRED.

OH, IT WAS, IT WAS. I'M SORRY. IT WAS. I DID TRY TO, BUT BUT LOOK.

NO. BUT YOU YOU HAVE TWO. NO, NO. BUT YOU YOU HAVE A THIRD.

YOU HAVE A SECOND ROUND IF YOU WANT IT. I MEAN, THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. DO YOU WANT US? DO YOU WANT TO TALK? WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP YOU FROM YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER. YOU NEED THREE MINUTES.

YOU GET THREE MINUTES. IT'S. DO YOU WANT THREE MINUTES OR NOT? OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

APOLOGY, SIR. AGAIN, THE OTHER LAYER TO THAT IS ONGOING MONITOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING.

JUST BECAUSE THEY COMPLETED THE CONTRACT AGAIN, I THINK AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT.

AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THESE INCREASES. WHY AND HOW MANY? AND AGAIN, YOU'VE BEEN DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME. AT SOME POINT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING INTO THESE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS.

AND AGAIN, THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT IS IT FEELS LIKE FOR SOME BUSINESSES THAT THAT DO THAT ARE WATCHING THIS ON THE OUTSIDE, THEY COME IN WITH THAT LOW BID AND THEN GET THESE INCREASES.

SO AGAIN, I'M JUST BRINGING THAT TO THE ATTENTION AS WE REVIEW THESE PROGRAMS. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND WE HEAR YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 28.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 29 AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BROWN REYNOLDS,

[29. 25-517A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the professional services contract with Brown Reynolds Watford Architects, Inc. for additional architectural and engineering services for the Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) Distribution Service Center at Scottsdale Avenue and DWU Service Center at 12000 Greenville Avenue - Not to exceed $692,391.00, from $2,956,045.00 to $3,648,436.00 - Financing: Wastewater Construction Fund ($412,391.00) and Water Construction Fund ($280,000.00)]

WATFORD ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES D.W.

DISTRIBUTION SERVICE CENTER AT SCOTTSDALE AVENUE AND D.W.

SERVICE CENTER AT 12,000 GREENVILLE AVENUE, NOT TO EXCEED $692,391, FROM

[01:50:01]

$2,956,045 TO $3,000,648, $63,648,436. THIS ITEM WAS PUT BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY. I NEED A MOTION OF SOME SORT.

MOVE. APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MR. GRAY. AND I HEARD YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER. AND I DO STILL HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES.

SO JUST EXPLAIN THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT VERSUS AN INCREASE.

SO SARAH STANDARD FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS AN INCREASE TO AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT.

SO THE INCREASE THAT THE INCREASED CONTRACT THAT YOU JUST HAD ASKED ME ABOUT WAS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION.

SO THIS IS AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT. THESE WERE THE THESE MODIFICATIONS WERE DISCOVERED GOING THIS IS PART OF THIS IS TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES TO HELP US AUGMENT STAFF EFFORTS. SO WE DO HAVE OUR OWN INSPECTION TEAMS, BUT WE ALSO UTILIZE THIS ACTIVITY SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW RFI AND OTHER COMPONENTS. AND AGAIN WAS THAT NOT KNOWN UPFRONT.

YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING. YES. SO WE OFTEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THAT WE DO OUR MODEL OF BUSINESS, WE WILL OFTEN ADD A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THESE TYPES OF SERVICES AFTER WE'VE GONE TO CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE AND HOW MUCH LEVEL OF WORK WE'RE GOING TO NEED ASSISTANCE WITH.

SO WE OFTEN WILL STACK THESE IN AS PLANNED FROM THE ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEMS AND PART OF OUR BUSINESS DECISIONS.

OKAY, THIS IS THE PROJECT $692 MILLION INCREASE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM 29.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT'S THE TOTAL ESTIMATED SCOPE OF THIS COST FOR THIS THIS WHOLE PROJECT? AND THESE ARE SO THIS IS THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS ABOUT A $3 MILLION, $3.5 MILLION, 3.6, SORRY, $3.6 MILLION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES.

I'M SORRY, 3.6 MILLION FOR THE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING.

NO, NO. I'M SORRY. WHAT IS THE THE TWO FACILITY? IT'S TWO DIFFERENT FACILITIES. EACH ONE OF THEM ARE ABOUT 30 MILLION APIECE.

SO THIS IS ABOUT $60 MILLION. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A $3,000,003.5 $3.5 MILLION.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING ON A $60 MILLION PROJECT.

YES, SIR. IT'S TWO SEPARATE FACILITIES. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOUR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 29.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 30.

[30. 25-2138A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the professional engineering services contract with CDM Smith, Inc. to provide additional services required for the Water Delivery Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition and Meandering Way High Improvements Project - Not to exceed $604,896.00, from $2,530,000.00 to $3,134,896.00 - Financing: Water Capital Improvement F Fund]

TEN. ITEM 30. AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CDM SMITH, INC.

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE WATER DELIVERY, SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION AND MEANDERING WAY HIGH IMPROVEMENTS.

PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $604,896 FROM $2,530,000 TO $3,134,896. $6. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY MOTION.

MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? YEAH.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, MISTER GRACEY. AGENDA ITEM 30.

AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO REVISIT THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST ASK THIS QUESTION EVERY TIME. DOES THIS DOES THIS VENDOR, DO THEY HAVE OR HAVE THEY HAD ACTIVE CONTRACTS OR HAVE THEY BEEN AWARDED CONTRACTS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? SARAH STANDARD FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES. YES, SIR. THIS CONTRACTOR CURRENTLY HAS THREE ACTIVE CONTRACTS WITH US. THE TOTAL VALUE IS 15.6 MILLION. THEY HAVE A REMAINING VALUE OF 1.1 MILLION LEFT OF THOSE CONTRACTS.

OKAY. AND HOW MANY PEOPLE RESPONDED ON THIS ON THIS? THERE WERE ACTUALLY SIX PROPOSALS INITIALLY IN JANUARY 2021.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND IT'S USUALLY MOST QUALIFIED. CORRECT.

YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 30.

SEEING NONE. OH, MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES AGAIN, THE SAME QUESTION.

WHAT'S THE SORT OF THE ESTIMATED TOTAL SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT COST? I MEAN, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT ON TOP OF OUR HEAD.

WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT. I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 25 MILLION FOR THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONTRACT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 30? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 31. AUTHORIZED ONE.

[31. 25-2200A Authorize (1) the rejection of all bids received for solicitation CIZ25-AVI-3146 for construction services for the Garages A & B Repairs Project at Dallas Love Field; and (2) the re-advertisement for new bids only for the Garage B Repairs Project at Dallas Love Field - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR SOLICITATION.

6253146. FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE GARAGES A AND B REPAIRS PROJECT AT

[01:55:09]

DALLAS LOVE FIELD. AND TWO THE RE ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS ONLY FOR THE GARAGE GARAGE B REPAIRS PROJECT AT DALLAS LOVE FIELD.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE APPROVAL? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. JUST REAL QUICK. AGAIN. IT'S DIFFERENT.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR. WHY IS THE REJECTION NOT TO BE QUICK? WHAT THE. WHAT? THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION. I THINK I CAN READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT. BUT AGAIN, AS WE GO THROUGH THESE, I JUST WANT TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PROCESSES. SO THANK YOU, PATRICK. WHY WAS THIS ONE BEING REJECTED? PATRICK PATRICK CARINO, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION.

THIS IS REJECTED AS WE MOVE THROUGH OUR NEW MASTER PLAN.

IN OUR NEW PROGRAM, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT GARAGE MAY BE COMING DOWN SOONER THAN WE ANTICIPATED WHEN WE ORIGINALLY HAD THIS IN A CAPITAL PROGRAM.

SO WE HAVE TO REJECT THESE BIDS, AND WE'LL BE GOING BACK OUT FOR THE GARAGE B REPAIRS ONLY.

GARAGE IS NOT IN ANY TYPE OF UNSAFE CONDITION OR ANYTHING.

IT JUST WASN'T WORTH THE INVESTMENT SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE COMING DOWN. FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT ON FRIDAYS BEFORE THE AGENDA, WE ACTUALLY SENT A MEMORANDUM FROM ME THAT HIGHLIGHTS ALL ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED, CORRECTED OR ADDED TO THE AGENDA SINCE YOU RECEIVED YOUR DRAFT.

WE WILL ADD A SECTION AS WELL TO THAT MEMO THAT TALKS ABOUT ANY ITEMS THAT WERE REJECTING BIDS, AND WE'LL PUT THE EXPLANATION IN THERE BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO THAT MEMO.

JUST SO YOU'LL HAVE KIND OF A A CHEAT SHEET FOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE AGENDA THAT'S CHANGED SINCE THE DRAFT.

SO WE'LL ADD THAT SECTION. AND THAT WAY IT'LL ALSO BE INCORPORATED IN THAT MEMO THAT WE SEND OUT ON FRIDAYS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT.

THANKS. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 3175.

EXCUSE ME. WHATEVER IT IS. 31, 37, 31. YOU GUYS HAVE EVERYTHING UP THERE ON THE SCREEN? IT'S 31, I BELIEVE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, AGENDA ITEM 37.

[37. 25-2242A Authorize a contract with Billingsley D&D, Inc. for the donation of privately funded design plans for the construction of a zero to four lane roadway identified as Copenhagen Avenue, which will include detailed design plans covering a segment of Copenhagen Avenue from East Belt Line Road to south of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit right-of-way in the City of Dallas and full schematic design plans covering Copenhagen Avenue from East Belt Line Road to Olympus Boulevard - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information for potential future costs)]

AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH BILLING, SLEET, D AND D ND, INC.

FOR THE DONATION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED DESIGN PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 0 TO 4 LANE ROADWAY IDENTIFIED AS COPENHAGEN AVENUE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE DETAILED DESIGN PLANS COVERING A SEGMENT OF COPENHAGEN AVENUE FROM EAST BELTLINE ROAD TO SOUTH OF THE DALLAS AREA, RAPID TRANSIT RIGHT OF WAY IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND FULL SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLANS COVERING COPENHAGEN AVENUE FROM EAST BELTLINE ROAD TO OLYMPUS BOULEVARD. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, A DISCUSSION.

YES, AND I'M FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. AND THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD TO YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER, IS THAT IF YOU WILL ALSO IN THAT REPORT WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS AGAIN COLLEAGUES, WE KEEP SEEING SOME OF THESE SAME VENDORS AND I DON'T WANT US TO OVERLOOK THIS. AND, AND SO PART OF THAT SHEET, IF YOU COULD GIVE US IF THAT VENDOR IS BEING AWARDED JUST A LITTLE HISTORY.

HOW MANY CONTRACTS, ACTIVE CONTRACTS DO THEY HAVE WITH THE CITY AND ALL OF THAT? BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START SEEING HOW MUCH WE SPEND WITH SOME OF THESE SAME VENDORS. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NOT EVEN A SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM, BUT JUST PURE COMPETITION. I WANT US TO START PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS.

WE KEEP GETTING THEM TO THE SAME. AND I GOT NOTHING AGAINST ANY OF THESE VENDORS OR ANY OF THAT.

BUT FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE AND A POTENTIAL TO TO CREATE SOME SAVINGS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE SOMETIMES SLIP INTO A HABIT OF UTILIZING THE SAME VENDORS FOR THESE CONTRACTS.

THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE WHOLE CONTRACTING PROGRAMS ACROSS THE CITY IS SOMETHING THAT I TAKE SERIOUSLY, AS YOU KNOW, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO ENSURE I TALKED ABOUT CONSISTENCY.

I TALKED ABOUT CREATING OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE MORE ACCESS.

AND THAT'S DEFINITELY PART OF WHY WE'RE GOING TO COME TO COUNCIL NEXT MONTH WITH WAYS THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE WAY WE UTILIZE CONTRACTS, CONTRACTORS, THE WAY WE'RE CREATING THIS PLAYING FIELD TO WHERE ALL BUSINESSES AND I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN, READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY ARE GIVEN THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO.

DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SHAPING POLICY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNCIL ABOUT EVEN HOW WE MOVE FORWARD.

WE'VE LEARNED A LOT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THROUGH LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND OUR OUTREACH.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE OF A COLLABORATIVE MODEL.

WE ARE IN A MARKETPLACE WHERE SEVERAL OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE ALSO PULLING FROM THAT SAME MARKET WHEN IT COMES TO WORKING WITH VENDORS.

BUT HOW DO WE NOW ENHANCE THE WAY THAT WE DO THAT? AND WE TALKED ABOUT MONITORING. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT LEAVING OFF THE TABLE.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEING A PART OF THE NEW WAYS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT EVEN REIMAGINING OUR DELIVERY OF PROCUREMENT ACROSS THE CITY.

[02:00:03]

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE'LL TAKE AND I'LL ADD THAT IN.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE MAKING SOME ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO YOUR AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET.

SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE ALSO THE LOCAL PARTICIPATION WAYS THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO BE A WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES EVEN THROUGH OUR CONTRACT.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND THE SPIRIT THAT IT'S GIVEN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 37? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 38. AUTHORIZE.

[38. 25-2377A Authorize a professional engineering services contract with HNTB Corporation, only proposer, to provide engineering services for Phase II of the Jefferson Boulevard Viaduct Modification and Realignment project for realignment of the Jefferson Boulevard Viaduct from north of the Texas Department of Transportation’s right-of-way over Interstate Highway 35E to Young Street as it relates to the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas construction project - Not to exceed $3,803,418.23 - Financing: Convention Center Construction Fund]

AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TB CORPORATION.

ONLY PROPOSER TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PHASE TWO OF THE JEFFERSON BOULEVARD VIADUCT.

MODIFICATION AND REALIGNMENT PROJECT FOR REALIGNMENT OF THE JEFFERSON BOULEVARD VIADUCT FROM NORTH OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S RIGHT OF WAY OVER INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 E TO YONGE STREET AS IT RELATES TO THE CAPE BAILEY HUTCHINSON CONVENTION CENTER DALLAS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

NOT TO EXCEED 3,000,008 $3,803,418.23. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

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

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, MR. MAYOR. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. OKAY.

IN THIS ONE HERE, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY ONE PROPOSAL.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. LET'S DO IT. GOOD MORNING GUYS. KIM CALI, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WORKS.

THAT IS CORRECT. SO IN A CASE. IN A CASE LIKE THAT, HOW ARE HOW IS THE PUBLIC TO RECEIVE THAT? IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH OUTREACH OR BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A SPECIALIZED SERVICE? JUST EXPLAIN. AND THEN FROM A PROCUREMENT PERSPECTIVE, I THOUGHT IF THERE WAS ONE PROPOSAL, YOU WOULD PUT IT BACK OUT TO ENSURE THAT. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO EDUCATE.

SO I START WITH THE ONE. SO THANK YOU. SO I'LL START BY DIFFERENTIATING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESSES THE ENGINEERING VERSUS THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES. THE ENGINEERING FOLLOWS THE STATE RULES UNDER THE STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.

SO IT HAS ITS OWN PATH. AND IF THERE ARE FEDERAL FUNDS THEN OBVIOUSLY IT FOLLOWS THE FEDERAL RULES.

IN THIS CASE THE PROJECT IS OR THE PARTICULAR SERVICE ON THIS ONE IS SUPER HIGHLY SPECIALIZED THAT WE DID HAVE A PLENTY OF TIME, PLENTY OF ADVANCE ADVERTISEMENT ON THIS PROJECT.

AND WE ONLY HAD THE ONE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD PROPOSE ON THAT ONE.

SPECIFICALLY, THIS ONE IMPACTS THE NOT ONLY THE STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF THE CLOSURE OF THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT TO TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO IF THE TRANSFER OF THE VEHICULAR MOVEMENT AND OTHER MOVEMENTS TO THE HOUSTON VIADUCT, WHICH IS A HISTORIC BRIDGE THAT HAS SPECIFIC LOADING CONDITIONS, WOULD BE IMPACTED AND THIS REQUIRED A SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.

SO WHEN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IS IT THAT WE DID THAT IN 18TH, THEY WERE THE ONLY RESPONDENT OR WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD DO THIS.

IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE THE ONLY RESPONDENT. OKAY.

PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. MR. WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. HEY, GUYS. SO THIS IS A DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT CONNECTION TO DOWNTOWN. RIGHT. SO THIS SPECIFIC CONTRACT WILL ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF THE THE MOVE OR THE CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON AND THE REROUTING OF THE TRAFFIC TO POTENTIALLY HOUSTON OR OTHER OPTIONS.

SO IT'S PRIMARILY THE IMPACT AS ONE COMPONENT OF IT.

AND THEN THE OTHER COMPONENT IS ANY OTHER POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE ADDED AS PART OF THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER? OKAY. ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE CLEAR.

I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU THEN, IS WHAT TYPE OF PUBLIC INPUT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PEOPLE TO WEIGH IN WITH THESE DESIGN CONSULTANTS? I FORESEE THAT WILL BE A A ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO SENSE THE SCOPE WILL INCLUDE THE IMPACT TO TRAVEL PATTERNS AND AND AS SUCH, WE WILL HAVE A

[02:05:10]

ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WITH WEATHER BEING HANDLED THROUGH THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER, MAIN CONSULTANTS OR THROUGH THE TV CONTRACT. SO BOTH HAVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE COMMITTING TO.

GREAT. I MEAN, I HEAR A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM THE OAKLEAF RUN CREW, WHICH NOW HAS HUNDREDS OF RUNNERS FROM ACROSS THE CITY THAT ARE JOINED, HAVE JOINED THEM AT FOUNDERS PARK, AND THEY ALL CROSS THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT AS PART OF THEIR ROUTE TWICE A WEEK.

AND IT'S I'VE HEARD LOTS OF STORIES ABOUT NEAR MISSES WITH CARS AND RUNNERS, SO IT'S BECOMING MORE ACTIVATED, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. BUT THIS IS A CHALLENGE.

PERSONALLY, I'VE EXPERIENCED RIDING MY BIKE FROM OAK CLIFF TO CITY HALL NEAR HITS AS YOU EXIT THE VIADUCT AND YOU GET ON TO, YOU KNOW, THE ROADWAY THERE. SO I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, WE GIVE THE USERS OF THE ROADWAY AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE DESIGN SCHEMATICS.

AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. YES, SIR. AND IT IS A VERY VALID POINT, AND WE'RE COMMITTING TO IT. GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE VOTING ON THIS ONE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM, MADAM SECRETARY.

[39. 25-2240A Authorize a professional engineering services contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., most highly qualified proposer of three, to develop preliminary engineering (design schematics, environmental documents, and public involvement), plans, specifications, and estimates for the reconstruction of the intersection at Harry Hines Boulevard (Bridge) and Mockingbird Lane for CSJ 0918-47-484 - Not to exceed $3,067,635.47 - Financing: FY24 TxDOT Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Fund ($2,940,000.00), Street and Transportation (A) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Fund) ($59,663.15), Wastewater Capital Improvement G Fund ($33,986.16), and Water Capital Improvement G Fund ($33,986.16)]

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 39 AUTHORIZE THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH AIKEN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.. MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED PROPOSER THREE TO DEVELOP PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSECTION AT HARRY HINES BOULEVARD BRIDGE IN MOCKINGBIRD LANE FOR CSR 091847484.

NOT TO EXCEED $3,067,635.47. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

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

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, I DO ACTUALLY. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS ONE I'M NOT GOING TO REVISIT, BUT HAVE THEY DO SUBCONTRACTING CHANGES? MADAM CITY MANAGER, IS THAT SOMETHING WE'LL BE TRACKING AS WELL? SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY THAT I'VE SHARED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO HOW WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING FORWARD, OUR CONTRACTING FROM A SUB STANDPOINT HAS BEEN VERY TAILORED AND FOCUSED ON CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES.

SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO A CONVERSATION AROUND HOW DO WE ELEVATE, EXPAND AND GROW THE CAPACITY OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS THE CITY. I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING THROUGH MORE ABOUT WHAT THOSE SUBCONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES LOOK LIKE.

I THINK WE'VE OVERUSED AND I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE OVERUSED THE WORD SUBCONTRACTING TO THE POINT WHERE IN A LOT OF WAYS, IT'S BEEN MORE DETRIMENTAL TO HOW WE BUILD AND GROW ON OUR OUR BUSINESSES IN THIS COMMUNITY.

SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON WAYS THAT WE CAN ELEVATE BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY THAT CAN.

AGAIN, BACK TO THE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO BE ABLE TO EVEN COME TO A LEVEL TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT BEING PUSHED OFF TO JUST WAIT AND RECEIVE SUBCONTRACTING.

IT'S REALLY MORE ABOUT HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO I'LL USE THIS WORD, HOW DO WE UNBUNDLE A LOT OF WHAT WE SEE IN SOME OF OUR BIGGER PROCUREMENTS, TO WHERE WE CAN IDENTIFY WAYS TO HAVE THOSE SMALLER PROJECTS THAT SOMETIMES THEN PROVIDE US WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE MORE WAR PLAYERS AT THE TABLE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU, AS A COUNCIL SHOULD BE ASKING US TO DO.

AND I THINK WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON IT WAS DIVIDED INTO SEVEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, INTENTIONALLY SO WE COULD GET TO TAKING THESE BIG, BIG PROJECTS AND SCALING THEM DOWN TO WHERE WE COULD HAVE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHERS TO PARTICIPATE OUTSIDE OF, AS YOU'VE STATED, A LOT OF THE LEGACY FIRMS, HOWEVER, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND WE'RE EVOLVING IN THAT DIRECTION. AND AS WE TALK ABOUT THE WAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO CHAMPION.

YOU TALKED ABOUT TRACKING AND MONITORING. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE KEY.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DATA.

SO IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT, OFTENTIMES IT'S JUST ABOUT HOW TO DO BUSINESS ACROSS THE CITY THAT HAS SO MANY DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES. WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DW AVIATION, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CREATING EVEN THOSE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES IN THE CITY. SO WE DON'T WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT IT FROM A SUBCONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE.

[02:10:01]

BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN THAT BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME, I THINK NOW WE NEED TO SHIFT AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT JUST DOING BUSINESS, PERIOD. AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE, AND HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO FIND WAYS TO UNBUNDLE PROJECTS THAT WE KNOW SOMETIMES ARE TOO COMPLEX? I THINK THIS IS A SPECIALIZED ONE THAT DEFINITELY WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN TOTALITY.

BUT ANY TIME THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO STILL BRING OTHERS TO THE TABLE, WE'RE GOING TO BE CHAMPIONING THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BE MONITORING THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE REPORTING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL ON THAT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. AND AGAIN, AND I KNOW WE'RE WE'RE CONTINUING TO SHAPE THAT. AND I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS.

JUST AGAIN ON ANOTHER LAYER TO TRACK AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN BLUE GREEN PURPLE SMALL BIG LITTLE THE UTILIZATION OR THE PRESENTATION OF THE UTILIZATION OF THESE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT DON'T OFTEN EVOLVE.

SO AGAIN, AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND I'M NOT ACCUSING THE FIRMS OR ANYTHING, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH AND WE CHANGE THESE PROGRAMS AND THEY START SHIFTING THINGS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS A MEASURE, WE'RE WE'RE MONITORING THAT AS WELL, THE CHANGE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND WHY.

AND I KNOW WE USED TO DO THAT, BUT AGAIN IN THE RACE NEUTRAL. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AS A SMALL BUSINESS THAT THEY'RE STILL HAVING THESE OPPORTUNITIES.

ABSOLUTELY. AND THE SHIFT SHOULD NEVER BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF ANY OF OUR BUSINESSES.

IT SHOULD BE TO THE ADVANTAGES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL BUSINESSES CAN DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY WHO ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE. AND THEY'RE HAVING AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CHANGES ON THIS.

RIGHT. AND THIS, THIS FIRM. WHAT? LET ME SEE.

THAT'S NOT THAT MUCH. OKAY. I'M GOOD, I'M GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT THE THE PROCUREMENT, PROCUREMENT, PROCUREMENT INFORMATION, AND I'M SEEING THE SCORES. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE BREAKDOWN OF THE EVALUATION, HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THESE SCORES? DO WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF THAT? WHEN YOU SAY A BREAKDOWN. ARE YOU TALKING? ARE YOU ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA THAT WAS USED TO DO THE EVALUATION? YES. WE CAN DEFINITELY SHOW THE CRITERIA THAT WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IN ALL OF OUR PROCUREMENTS IS THAT THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE IS ACTUALLY IN THE SOLICITATION.

SO THERE'S NO SURPRISE WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO PROPOSE ON WORK FOR THE CITY.

THE CRITERIA IS SPELLED OUT. SO THEY CLEARLY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROPOSALS ARE GOING TO BE SCORED.

AND WE CAN SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU AS WELL. SO THAT'S NOT A HIDDEN SECRET, THAT'S PUBLIC, THAT'S A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT. AND WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, SIR. ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT.

THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 40.

[40. 25-1706A Authorize a professional services contract with Kleinfelder, Inc. to provide the construction material testing services needed during the construction of Special Project Group 17-5001 - Not to exceed $105,260.00 - Financing: 2024B Certificates of Obligation Fund]

AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH KLEINFELD, INC.

TO PROVIDE THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES NEEDED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIAL PROJECT GROUP 175001 NOT TO EXCEED $105,260. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, ON THIS ONE.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A DIFFERENT PROJECT. A CONTRACT TYPE HERE IS THIS PART OF WAS THIS A SINGLE PROCUREMENT OR IS THIS PART OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THOSE WHERE THEY ROTATE.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS ONE IS PART OF A BIGGER PROCUREMENT THAT WE HAD.

I THINK, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, ABOUT LIKE TEN FIRMS, THERE WERE 15 FIRMS THAT WERE SHORTLISTED AND AND THEN WHAT WE DO IS DO WE DO A SECONDARY ASSESSMENT. BASICALLY WE SEND A QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEN WE ASSESS THE CAPABILITY OF THE FIRM TO MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT.

AND THIS IS HOW THEY WERE SELECTED FROM THAT SHORTLISTED FIRM.

OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU JUST A REALLY QUICK QUESTION HERE OF THOSE FIRMS THAT HAVE BEEN SHORTLISTED.

HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN GOTTEN A CONTRACT? PRETTY MUCH. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE LIST RIGHT NOW, AND I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT ALL OF THEM WILL HAVE A WE'LL HAVE A AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND AND I'M NOT SAYING IT, I KNOW THERE'S A PROCUREMENT PROCESS THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH QUALIFICATIONS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT I THINK THE ASSUMPTION SOMETIMES IS WHEN THEY GET SHORTLISTED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY AT SOME POINT GET A CONTRACT THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING, IS THAT IT'S KIND OF RELATIVELY NEW.

SO WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW AS WE START GETTING PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

GOT IT. WE'RE DOING THAT, AND WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT PART OF OUR CRITERIA IS IF SOMEONE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN SOMETHING IN, YOU KNOW, WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SHORTLISTED.

HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU GUYS. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM, AGENDA ITEM 41. AUTHORIZE A CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE WALTON WALKER BOULEVARD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.

[41. 25-2241A Authorize a construction services contract for the Walton Walker Boulevard Lighting Improvements Project to construct lighting improvements along Walton Walker Boulevard from Spur 408 to Country Creek Drive - Tejas Utilities, LLC, lowest responsible bidder of three - Not to exceed $1,827,759.05 - Financing: Equity Fund ($1,683,000.00) and Street and Transportation (A) Fund (2017 General Obligation Bond Fund) ($144,759.05)]

[02:15:07]

TO CONSTRUCT LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WALTON WALKER BOULEVARD FROM SPUR 408 TO COUNTRY CREEK DRIVE.

TEJAS UTILITIES LLC, LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OF THREE NOT TO EXCEED $1,827,759.05.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY APPROVAL.

SECOND, THERE ITEMS HAVE BEEN. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY. THANK YOU FOR MY LIGHTS.

I APPRECIATE IT. BUT AGAIN, THE SAME APPLIES.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE LIGHTS FOR FOR THE DISTRICT THAT YOU'RE GOING DOWN WALTON AND WALKER BOULEVARD. BUT THE SAME COMMENTS APPLY.

THAT'S IT. NOTED. ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 53.

[53. 25-2300A Authorize a two-year cooperative purchasing agreement for the continued use of commercial wireless communication services and associated equipment for city employees for the Department of Information and Technology Services with Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless through the Texas Department of Information Resources cooperative agreement - Estimated amount of $6,388,340.88 - Financing: Data Services Fund ]

AUTHORIZE A TWO YEAR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF COMMERCIAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES WITH CELL CODE PARTNERSHIP, DBA VERIZON WIRELESS, THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $6,388,340.88. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. WE'VE. GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY ALMOST PULLED THIS ONE BECAUSE IT IS THE 6 MILLION I WAS TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY IN OUR BUDGET FOR CELL PHONES.

BUT WE DO NEED THE CELL PHONES, AND THAT'S NOT REALLY UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I WAS VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT IT WAS A COOPERATIVE.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT WAS JUST REITERATING THE BUDGET POINT THAT JUMPED OUT TO ME ON THIS ITEM.

BUT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING THE CONTRACTS.

AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER GRACIE'S POINT AND PULLING ALL OF THESE, BUT HOPEFULLY WE HAVE ALREADY READ THESE AND CONSIDER THEM IN OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WITHOUT DOING THEM ONE BY ONE. THIS IS THE POINT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 54.

[54. 25-2322A Authorize a two-year cooperative purchasing agreement for a cloud-based, cyber security monitoring system for the Dallas Police Department with Netsync Network Solutions, Inc., through The Interlocal Purchasing System agreement - Not to exceed $199,000.00 - Financing: FY 2024 BJA OJP Byrne Discretionary Grant Program Fund]

AUTHORIZE A TWO YEAR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR A CLOUD BASED CYBERSECURITY MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH NET SYNC NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. THROUGH THE INTERLOCAL PURCHASING SYSTEM AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $199,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY MOTION.

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

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 55.

[55. 25-2283A Authorize a four-year service contract, with a one-year renewal option, for the continuation of maintenance and support for the equipment tracking and deployment software for Dallas Fire-Rescue Department - Deccan International, sole source - Not to exceed $399,393.00 - Financing: Data Services Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

AUTHORIZE A FOUR YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH A ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT FOR THE EQUIPMENT TRACKING AND DEPLOYMENT SOFTWARE FOR DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT THAT CAN. INTERNATIONAL SOLE SOURCE NOT TO EXCEED HUNDRED AND $93.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY MOVE TO APPROVE.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 56. AUTHORIZE ONE.

[56. 25-2332A Authorize (1) an acquisition contract for the purchase of noise monitoring terminals, installation, implementation, data migration, and training in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00; and (2) a five-year service contract, with two one-year renewal options, for software license; and maintenance, and support services for the Noise and Operations Monitoring System and Flight Identification and Tracking System in an amount not to exceed $497,000.00, for the Department of Aviation - Casper Airport Solutions, Inc. dba Casper Airport Solutions, only proposer - Total amount not to exceed $517,000.00 - Financing: Aviation Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

AN ACQUISITION CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF NOISE MONITORING TERMINALS.

INSTALLATION, IMPLEMENTATION, DATA MIGRATION AND TRAINING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 AND TO A FIVE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR SOFTWARE LICENSE AND MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE NOISE AND OPERATIONS MONITORING SYSTEM AND FLIGHT IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING SYSTEM, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $497,000 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION.

CASPER AIRPORT SOLUTIONS, INC., DBA CASPER AIRPORT SOLUTION ONLY.

PROPOSER. TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $517,000.

THIS ITEM ALSO HAS A CLARIFICATION. ITEM 56 IS CLARIFYING THAT THIS ITEM IS A SINGLE CONTRACT AND NOT TWO SEPARATE CONTRACTS.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 57. AUTHORIZE ONE.

[57. 25-2309A Authorize (1) the rejection of the two proposals received for pipe bursting services for sanitary sewers for the Dallas Water Utilities Department; and (2) the re-advertisement for a new solicitation - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

[02:20:05]

THE REJECTION OF THE TWO PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR PIPE BURSTING SERVICES FOR SANITARY SEWERS FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, AND TO THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A NEW SOLICITATION.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY. JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW WHY THIS ONE WAS REJECTED.

57. ON THIS ITEM. WE ORIGINALLY HAD PUT IT OUT TO BID AS A SERVICE CONTRACT, BUT AFTER FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS AND IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AND SO WE WILL BE PUTTING IT BACK OUT TO BID.

THE DEPARTMENT WILL THROUGH FOR A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.

OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE CONFUSION, IF I MAY ADD? ORIGINALLY WE, I GUESS LOOKED AT IT AS A SERVICE, BUT WHEN THE ATTORNEYS REVIEWED IT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE'S ACTUAL WORK THAT'S BEING DONE TO THE PIPES THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 58.

[58. 25-1395A Authorize a one-year consultant services contract for security consultant services for the Park & Recreation Department - Guidepost Solutions, LLC, most advantageous proposer of six - Not to exceed $105,000.00 - Financing: General Fund]

AUTHORIZE A ONE YEAR CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR SECURITY CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

GUIDEPOST SOLUTIONS, LLC. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL SIX NOT TO EXCEED $105,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY APPROVAL.

THERE'S BEEN SECONDS. BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

OKAY. DISCUSSION. NO SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM.

[59. 25-2325A Authorize a three-year master agreement for the purchase of animal control and animal shelter related supplies for the Department of Dallas Animal Services - Nationwide Supplies, LP dba USA Supply, lowest responsible bidder of two - Estimated amount of $700,388.13 - Financing: General Fund]

AGENDA ITEM 59. AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND ANIMAL SHELTER RELATED SUPPLIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES. NATIONWIDE SUPPLIES, L.P., DBA US SUPPLY.

LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OF TWO. ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $700,388.13.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IS THERE A MOTION APPROVAL? IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ACTUALLY.

NO, THIS IS NOT THE ITEM. I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 60. AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF WATER METER CASTING RISER CAST

[60. 25-2317A Authorize a three-year master agreement for the purchase of water meter castings, risers, cast iron inlet frames, and covers for the Dallas Water Utilities Department - Fortiline Inc. dba Fortiline Waterworks in the estimated amount of $957,065.00 and Bass & Hays Foundry Inc in the estimated amount of $714,200.90, lowest responsible bidders of two - Total estimated amount of $1,671,265.90 - Financing: Dallas Water Utilities Fund]

IRON INLET FRAMES AND COVERS FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT.

FORT LINE. BORDERLINE, INC., DBA FOR THE LINE WATERWORKS.

IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $957,065 AND BASS BASED IN HAYES FOUNDRY, INC.

IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF 714,200 $200.90. LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS ARE TWO.

TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,671,265.90. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

IT'S BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SEVEN SECOND.

AND JUST TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW, MY MONITOR IS NOT PROMPTING.

SO PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND ALSO HIT YOUR BUTTON.

AND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 61. AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LARGE

[61. 25-2306A Authorize a three-year master agreement for the purchase of large diameter stormwater pipes for the Dallas Water Utilities Department - Southern Sourcing Solutions, LLC, only bidder - Estimated amount of $227,485.60 - Financing: Stormwater Drainage Management-Fund]

DIAMETER STORMWATER PIPES FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT.

SOUTHERN SOURCING SOLUTIONS, LLC. ONLY BIDDER.

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $227,485.60. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

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

ANY OPPOSED? I SEEING NONE MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM.

[62. 25-2313A Authorize a five-year master agreement for the purchase of veterinary pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for the Department of Dallas Animal Services - MWI Veterinary Supply Co. dba MWI Animal Health in the estimated amount of $8,702,076.88, IDEXX Distribution, Inc. in the estimated amount of $2,282,265.96, Dechra Veterinary Products, LLC in the estimated amount of $1,588,570.11, and Merck Animal Health in the estimated amount of $883,488.76, lowest responsible bidders of five - Total estimated amount of $13,456,401.71 - Financing: General Fund]

AGENDA ITEM 62. AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF VETERINARIAN, PHARMACEUTICALS AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES

[02:25:01]

MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY CO, DBA MWI ANIMAL HEALTH IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $8,702,076.88. INDEX DISTRIBUTION, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2,282,265.96. DECORAH VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LLC IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,588,570.11 IN MERCK. ANIMAL HEALTH. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $883,488.76. LAWRENCE. RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS OF FIVE.

TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT. $13,456,401.71. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? THERE'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. THANK YOU.

THIS IS THE ITEM I DID JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

A LOT OF THIS IS THE THE MEDICINE AND THINGS.

AND IF SOMEBODY WAS HERE TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY MANAGE, YOU KNOW, THE EXPIRATION.

AND IF WE HAVE A LOT OF WASTE OR, YOU KNOW, LEFT OVER.

AND HOW'S ALL OF THAT MANAGER. HOW DO WE MONITOR THE MEDICINE AND TELL US THE VALUE OF ANY EXPIRED MEDICINE THAT WE HAVE AT THE END OF THESE CONTRACTS? I WOULD HAVE TO GET. I'M SORRY. VICTORIA BENNETT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES.

I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK WITH OUR MEDICAL TEAM TO GET SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON ON THAT.

BUT WE DO HAVE A FULL FLEDGED MEDICAL TEAM THAT WOULD WOULD DEAL WITH THE MEDICATIONS AND EXPIRATION DATES, AND I'VE MET WITH THEM AND EVERYTHING. BUT AGAIN, AS I SEE THESE CONTRACTS, THAT'S $13 MILLION.

AND AGAIN, AS WE START TRYING TO PULL BETWEEN THE COUCHES AND FIND SOME CHANGE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, AGAIN, AS THE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE DOING ALL THAT WE CAN, AND I'M NOW NO DISCREDIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MONITORING ESPECIALLY EXPENSES THIS LARGE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO CREATE SAVINGS.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT REPORT.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, BACK TO THE PODIUM. SO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A FIVE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND SUPPLIES DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU BUY ALL THE PHARMACEUTICALS AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT FIVE YEARS AND USE THEM FOR FIVE YEARS, DOES IT? THAT'S CORRECT. YOU BUY THEM AS YOU NEED THEM.

YES, SIR. AND SO YOU CAN MANAGE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL EXPIRATION DATES BY BUYING THEM IN LINE WITH YOUR ANTICIPATED NEED BEFORE THAT MEDICATION EXPIRES.

CORRECT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU ENDEAVOR TO DO, I ASSUME? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY? THREE MINUTES. YEAH. THANK YOU, MISS RILEY AND I.

AND I ASSUME THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEING TRACKED AND MONITORED.

I'VE NEVER SEEN A REPORT OF THAT. AND IF IT EXISTS, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT REPORT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. COUNCIL MEMBER. JUST SO WE CAN ENSURE OUR RESPONSIVENESS TO YOU.

SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR A REPORT ON WHAT WE'RE BUYING AND HOW AND HOW IT'S MANAGED.

AND THEN IF, IF, IF, IF THERE ARE EXPIRED MEDICATION WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THAT EXPIRED MEDICATION.

AND IS THAT AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE HAVEN'T TO GO BACK THROUGH AND LOOK AT OUR PROCESSES TO ENSURE THAT THAT WE'RE BEING EFFICIENT? OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST LIKE TO ALWAYS MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

THANK YOU SIR. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. THANK YOU.

JUST A JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION. IS IS THIS A HOW DOES THIS A BUDGETED AMOUNT, THIS $13 MILLION COMPARED TO MAYBE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE SPENT OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, IS IS THIS WHAT YOU USUALLY SPEND ON MEDICINES FOR THE VET? STUFF OF 2.5 MILLION TO 3 MILLION A YEAR. SO WE TYPICALLY SPEND FROM THE GENERAL FUND, WE TYPICALLY SPEND APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION PER YEAR. BUT THERE ARE ITEMS IN THIS THAT ARE KIND OF WE NEED THE PATHWAY TO PURCHASE THESE ITEMS THAT WE MAY NOT NEED. I DEFINITELY NOT NEED, YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY.

BUT SOMETIMES WE HAVE THINGS THAT COME UP THAT WE NEED TO TREAT A CERTAIN SITUATION OR WITH AN ANIMAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING MORE.

DANSVILLE GIBSON CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. THIS CONTRACT ALLOWED US TO ASK FOR A LITANY OF COMMODITIES BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEM NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY NEED, AND IN DOING SO, IT KIND OF GROSSED UP WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTRACT VALUE IS.

BUT AGAIN, THE ANNUAL USAGE IS CLOSER TO 1.3 MILLION.

AND THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND ALL THIS MONEY.

YOU'RE BUYING STUFF AS YOU NEED IT. ABSOLUTELY, AND ONLY IF NEEDED.

[02:30:01]

BUT IT'S HARD TO NEED SOMETHING AND NOT HAVE PRICING AND NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A CONTRACT RIGHT AT THE TIME.

SO SO BASICALLY, THAT'S HOW WE BID IT OUT HOLISTICALLY, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE POSSIBILITY THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED.

WE KIND OF ORDERED THE CATALOG, SO TO SPEAK, WHEN WE DID IT.

AND YOUR PRICES ARE FIXED. AND THIS WAY YOU'RE SORT OF LOCKING IN SOME OPPORTUNITIES HERE.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS FOR THE FUTURE? ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DISCUSSION. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM.

[Items 63 - 70]

COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. YES, I'D LIKE TO. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THE REMAINING PULLED ITEMS BACK ON. ON CONSENT. WE'VE ALREADY VOTED IT ON THE CONSENT.

OF THE CITY SECRETARY. THE REQUEST IS TO HEAR ITEMS OR TAKE ITEM 63 THROUGH 70 COLLECTIVELY.

YES. OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT? SEEING NONE. MADAM CITY SECRETARY, IF YOU CAN READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. LET ME PROMPT ITEM 63 ONE SECOND.

OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 63. AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ONE TWO YEAR RENEWAL OPTION FOR OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF A GYMNASTIC, CHEER AND OR TUMBLING PROGRAM AT THE RIDGEWOOD BELCHER RECREATION CENTER FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, DBA RIDGEWOOD GYMNASTICS. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL OF THREE.

ESTIMATED REVENUE 456,000 $309,015. ITEM 64 AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR ACTUARIAL SERVICES OF OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PLANS FOR THE CITY COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

HOLMES, MURPHY AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF FIVE NOT TO EXCEED $275,000.

ITEM 65 AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH TWO TWO YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR A SNACK AND FRESH MARKET VENDING MACHINES CITYWIDE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.

COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.. ONLY PROPOSER. ITEM 66 AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR CASE AND POWDERED BEVERAGE SUPPLY AND FULL SERVICE VENDING MACHINES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE GROUP USA, INC.. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF THREE. ITEM 67 AUTHORIZE A THREE YEAR SERVICE PRICE AGREEMENT FOR CHEMICAL ROUTE CONTROL FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. ELITE ROUTE CONTROL, LLC IS RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OF TWO.

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2,188,500. ITEM 68 AUTHORIZED A FIVE YEAR SERVICE PRICE AGREEMENT FOR SITUATIONAL, SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT, TESTING AND PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR THE DALLAS FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT.

FRONTLINE MOBILE HEALTH PLC. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF FIVE AS ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,205,625.

ITEM 69 AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER TWO TO INCREASE THE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH 22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR CONTINUED SOFTWARE DEFINED WIDE AREA NETWORK TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES.

NOT TO EXCEED $316,671.43 FROM $1,337,685.72 TO $1,654,357.15 AN ITEM. 70 AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER FOR TO EXERCISE THE FOURTH OF FIVE ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS WITH ED CAMPBELL CONCESSIONS COMPANY, INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE, CONCESSION, CATERING, AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AT THE MAJESTIC THEATER FOR THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE. THESE ARE. ITEM 63 THROUGH 70.

MR. MAYOR, IS THERE A MOTION? BEEN MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

ALL RIGHT. COLLEAGUES, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN. TODAY, I PULLED MULTIPLE AGENDA ITEMS TO ADDRESS CRITICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS THAT DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND TRANSPARENCY.

MY CONCERNS ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD. BUSINESSES ACROSS DALLAS, WHETHER THEY'RE A SMALL, LOCAL, VETERAN OWNED, EMERGING, LARGE DESERVE CONSISTENT, TRANSPARENT AND FAIR ACCESS TO CITY CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES.

[02:35:04]

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM BUSINESSES BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS TROUBLING.

SOME REPORT CLEAR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT DURING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, WHILE OTHERS DESCRIBE CONFUSION, INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS, AND UNCLEAR PATHWAYS TO PARTICIPATION.

EVERY BUSINESS OWNER SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THE SAME LEVEL OF CUSTOMER SERVICE.

THE SAME CLEAR INFORMATION ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES AND THE SAME FAIR CONSIDERATION IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS.

QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED TODAY ABOUT THESE CONTRACTS AREN'T JUST ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AWARDS.

THEY'RE ABOUT SYSTEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON THE PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE DALLAS CAPACITY BUILDING COLLABORATIVE.

THIS RACE NEUTRAL APPROACH TO SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS OUR COMMITMENT TO CREATING OPPORTUNITIES WHILE MAINTAINING FEDERAL COMPLIANCE, BUT GOOD INTENTIONS WITHOUT CONSISTENT EXECUTION.

SERVE NO ONE MAN CITY MANAGER. AS WE TRANSITION TO THIS FRAMEWORK, I NEED YOUR COMMITMENT THAT WE WILL CENTRALIZE OVERSIGHT OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS TO ELIMINATE THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ACROSS DEPARTMENTS.

THE BEST PRACTICES SHOULDN'T BE OPTIONAL OR DEPENDENT ON WHICH DEPARTMENT IS MANAGING A CONTRACT.

THESE BUSINESSES DESERVE BETTER THAN A PROCUREMENT SYSTEM THAT WORKS DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHO THEY'RE DEALING WITH OR WHICH DEPARTMENT IS INVOLVED.

THROUGH TODAY'S QUESTIONS AND THE ONGOING OVERSIGHT, I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS IS SERVED ALL BUSINESSES FAIRLY AND THAT OUR TRANSITION TO THE DALLAS CAPACITY BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CREATES REAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS WATCHING. DALLAS RESIDENTS ARE COUNTING ON US, AND THE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE DOES NOT EXCUSE INCONSISTENT SERVICE OR REDUNDANCY.

REDUNDANCY REDUCED TRANSPARENCY. WE CAN AND MUST DO BETTER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MADAM CITY SECRETARY, I THINK THAT COMPLETES THE CONSENT ITEMS AND WILL NOW MOVE INTO THE INDIVIDUAL.

NO. THERE'S ONE MORE PULLED ITEM. ITEM 71. ITEM 71 IS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

[71. 25-2316A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 13 to increase the service contract with Locution Systems, Inc. for continued maintenance and support of the automated fire station alerting system for Dallas Fire-Rescue Department - Not to exceed $238,842.52, from $939,618.85 to $1,178,461.37 - Financing: Data Services Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

OKAY. OKAY, I'LL READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM 71 AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 13 TO INCREASE THE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LOCATION SYSTEMS, INC. FOR CONTINUED MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE AUTOMATED FIRE STATION ALERTING SYSTEM FOR DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT.

NOT TO EXCEED $238,842.52 FROM $939,618.85 TO $1,178,461.36. AGAIN, THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

IS THERE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE? MOVED. MOVED.

AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCIL CHAIR MIDDLETON.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

HELLO. SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE A NEW ALERTING SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN PROCURED AND IS CURRENTLY BEING INSTALLED? YES, MISS MENDELSOHN, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO WHY ARE WE EXTENDING THE LOCUTION CONTRACT? THE PROJECT TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION. THIS IS JUST THE GAP FILLER.

IN AN EFFORT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THE INSTALLATION RIGHT AND THE COMPLETION OF THE EXISTING PROJECT.

SO THE NEW VENDOR WAS SELECTED BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH AN OUTDATED LOCATION SYSTEM.

AND WHEN DID THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS BEGIN TO FIND A REPLACEMENT TO OUR OLD VERSION LOCATION? WHAT YEAR? HOW ABOUT THAT? YEAH. SO I'M SORRY.

INTERIM EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHIEF DANIEL SALAZAR.

THIS HAS BEEN A LONG, ARDUOUS PROCESS, BUT THAT PROCESS BEGAN ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO.

COULD YOU VERIFY THAT, ACTUALLY? BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS MAYBE 2022.

SURE. WE'LL GET THAT EXACT INFORMATION TO YOU.

SO WE STARTED OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS IN 22 OR 23.

WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO HAVE COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION? OKAY. WE HAD MAPPED IT OUT, AND WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT BY THE END OF 2026, WE WOULD HAVE THE SYSTEM INSTALLED.

BUT WE DO HAVE SOME OLDER FIRE STATIONS WITH ASBESTOS AND THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

SOME OF THE POLK THROWS INTEL COLLABORATION WITH OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE ASBESTOS LAY, NOT THE EQUIPMENT THAT MIGHT PUSH US A LITTLE BIT PAST THE END OF 2026 UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF 2027.

[02:40:07]

SO, CHIEF, THERE'S NOBODY IN BFR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SURPRISED THAT I WOULD PULL THIS ITEM.

Y'ALL DIDN'T EVEN CALL ME. AND I'M NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE I HAVE ASKED ABOUT THIS SO MANY TIMES.

THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT THIS OVER THE YEARS, BUT MY COLLEAGUE HERE PULLED OVER 30 CONTRACTS AND HE WAS REALLY TRYING TO, I THINK, MAKE THE POINT THAT THERE'S PROCUREMENT CHALLENGES AND TRYING TO MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT.

AND I BELIEVE HE'S LOOKING FOR EQUITABLE RESULTS AS WELL.

I THINK HE SAID ACROSS DEPARTMENTS. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, LIKE, THIS IS, I THINK, SHOCKING THAT IT WOULD TAKE SO MANY YEARS TO GET A NEW ALERTING SYSTEM WHEN THIS ONE WAS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY FOR ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, LIKE THE OLD FASHIONED BELL, LIKE HEY, THERE'S A FIRE! WAKE UP! GO DO IT! AND NOW YOU'RE EVEN SAYING 2027? I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY HEARD 2027 BEFORE. AND SO I THINK THE NEW SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE GREAT.

I LOVE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO WAKE UP FIREFIGHTERS WHEN IT'S A MEDICAL CALL, AND ONLY THE PARAMEDICS NEED TO BE AROUSED TO GO SERVE THE RESIDENTS.

BUT I JUST THINK IT'S SHOCKING. AND SO I JUST COULD NOT PASS IT ON CONSENT WITHOUT SAYING WE NEED TO BE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.

THE VENDOR WHO'S INSTALLING THIS IS LOCAL. WE SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED.

THEY SHOULD PUT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO GET THIS DONE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

AND I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH EVEN THE END OF 2026.

SO I'M I'M TRYING TO CALM MYSELF ABOUT 2027. BUT I DO THINK THIS HAS BEEN A DISAPPOINTING PROCESS.

AND I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU AND AND THE REST OF THE COMMAND TEAM TO EVALUATE WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO HAVE MADE THIS A BETTER, QUICKER PROCESS. THANK YOU MADAM.

SO, COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU HAVE OUR COMMITMENT THAT WE'LL WORK AS HARD AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS SYSTEM INSTALLED.

WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO IT, AS YOU MENTIONED, THAT PROVIDES AN AFFORDS TO OUR FIREFIGHTERS JUST MORE FUNCTIONALITY.

THE WHOLE THING ABOUT SLEEP DEPRIVATION, THIS SYSTEM ADDRESSES THAT ALONG WITH SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE LOOK FORWARD TO.

OKAY. LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. SO IF FIVE OF THE STATIONS HAVE THE NEW SYSTEM INSTALLED, WILL THEY BE IMMEDIATELY ACTIVATED? AND ONLY THE OTHER 50 PLUS WILL BE USING LOCUTION.

OR IS IT? NO. WE GOT TO TURN OFF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF LOCUTION AND TURN ON THE WHOLE NEW SYSTEM.

WE HAVE TO TURN OFF THE EXISTING SYSTEM AND TURN ON THE NEW SYSTEM.

BUT AS WE IMPLEMENT IT, WE WILL BE TESTING IT AS AS THOSE SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AT EACH OF THE BATTALIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

CHIEF, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT ASBESTOS IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY.

CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE WHERE THE ASBESTOS WAS FOUND AND WHY THAT'S DELAYING THE INSTALLATION OF THIS ALARM SYSTEM? SURE. SO THE ASBESTOS IS FOUND IN THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF OLD FIRE STATIONS.

AND THE WALL? IT'S A SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. THERE IS ASBESTOS IN THOSE MATERIALS.

AND SO WITH THAT, THERE'S ALWAYS THE CONCERN THAT THOSE FIBERS WILL GO AIRBORNE.

THE REMEDIATION COMPANIES HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO THOSE ASBESTOS FIBERS. IT'S MORE SO A PROBLEM WITH THE OLDER FIRE STATIONS.

SO YOU'RE HAVING TO RETAIN WORKERS, ASBESTOS REMEDIATION FIRMS TO, TO REMOVE THOSE ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BEFORE YOU CAN INSTALL THE ALARM.

NOT NECESSARILY REMOVING BUT TAKING PRECAUTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE FIBERS DO NOT GO AIRBORNE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO POKE THROUGH THE WALLS.

SO THE SOLUTION MAY BE ENCAPSULATION RATHER THAN REMOVAL.

EXACTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SURE. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER UP.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER, CHAIR MIDDLETON FOR THREE MINUTES.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THE PROCUREMENT ITSELF TOOK TWO YEARS.

THE INSTALLATION YOU'RE NOW SAYING IS GOING TO TAKE ABOUT TWO YEARS.

IT'S NOT JUST THE ASBESTOS IN THE INSTALLATION PROCESS.

IT'S BOTH. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU NEED TO GO AND DO RESEARCH AND EVALUATE.

[02:45:01]

I JUST, LIKE I SAID, WOULD LIKE TO SEE SORT OF AN AFTER ACTION OF WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG.

AND IS THERE ANYTHING YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM.

SO WE DON'T DO THIS AGAIN? BUT THIS IS A CRITICAL SYSTEM.

AND I AGAIN, JUST FIND IT SHOCKING THAT RULES THAT WERE MEANT TO HELP THE CITY MAKE SURE WE GET A FAIR CONTRACT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GETTING A BROTHER IN LAW DEAL HAVE LEFT US WITH OUR HANDS TIED TO TO OUR DETRIMENT AND OUR IN A SAFETY CONCERN.

SO. THANK YOU. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES WILL NOW GO TO OUR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.

[74. 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) 25-2279A]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 74 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS AFTERNOON. YOU ONLY HAVE ONE FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT.

MARTHA FERNANDEZ IS BEING NOMINATED TO THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION BOARD BY MAYOR JOHNSON.

THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE, MR. MAYOR. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS DOING THAT.

OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

CONGRATULATIONS. MARTHA FERNANDEZ. NEXT ITEM.

AGENDA ITEM 75 IS AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER 32346, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 9TH,

[75. 25-2153A An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 32346, passed by the City Council on November 9, 2022, and amending the Dallas City Code by (1) amending Section 1-5 of Chapter 1, “General Provisions”; (2) amending Section 2-44 of Chapter 2, “Administration”; (3) amending Sections 11-2, 11-18, and 11-19 of Chapter 11, “Cemeteries and Burials”; (4) amending Section 12B-23 of Chapter 12B, “Convenience Stores”; (5) adding a new Section 13-2.1 to Chapter 13, “Courts, Fines, and Imprisonments”; (6) amending Chapter 13A, “Dallas Transit System”; (7) amending Sections 14B-2, 14B-3, 14B-6, 14B-7, 14B-8, and adding a new Section 14B-7.1 of Chapter 14B, “Emergency Management”; (8) amending Sections 17-2.2 and 17-10.2 of Chapter 17, “Food Establishments”; (9) amending Sections 18-2, 18-4, 18-5, 18-6, 18-8, 18-9, and 18-32 of Chapter 18, “Municipal Solid Wastes”; (10) amending Chapter 20, “Earned Paid Sick Time”; (11) amending Chapter 25, “Loan Brokers”; (12) amending Chapter 25A, “Massage Establishments”; (13) amending Sections 27-11, 27-30, 27-31, and 27-42 of Chapter 27, “Minimum Property Standards”; (14) amending Section 28-128.6 of Chapter 28, “Motor Vehicles and Traffic”; (15) amending Sections 31-13.1 and 31-35 of Chapter 31, “Offenses-Miscellaneous”; (16) amending Sections 32-14 and 32-15 of Chapter 32, “Parks and Reservoirs”; (17) amending Sections 36-5, 36-27, 36-34, and 36-49 of Chapter 36, “Poles and Wires”; (18) amending Chapter 38, “Private Detectives”; (19) amending Chapter 39, “Railroads”; (20) amending Sections 43-126.17, 43-126.18, and 43-126.33 of Chapter 43, “Streets and Sidewalks”; (21) amending Sections 48-6, 48-8, and 48-11 of Chapter 48, “Trees and Shrubs”; (22) amending Sections 210.1, 210.3, 601.2, 602.3, and 610 of Chapter 52, “Administrative Procedures for the Construction Codes”; (23) providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000.00; (24) providing a saving clause; (25) providing a severability clause; and (26) providing an effective date - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (This item was deferred on June 11, 2025)]

2022, AND AMENDING THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY ONE, AMENDING SECTION 1-5 OF CHAPTER ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS TWO AMENDING SECTION TWO, DASH 44 OF CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION THREE AMENDING SECTIONS 11, TWO, 11, DASH 18 AND 1119 OF CHAPTER 11 CEMETERIES AND BURIALS FOUR.

AMENDING SECTION 12 B DASH 23 OF CHAPTER 12. B CONVENIENCE STORES FIVE.

ADDING A NEW SECTION 13 2.1 TO CHAPTER 13 COURTS FINES AND IMPRISONMENT SIX.

AMENDING CHAPTER 13 EIGHT DALLAS TRANSIT SYSTEM SEVEN.

AMENDING SECTION 14 B-2 14 B-3 14, B-6 14, B-7 14 B-8 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 14 BE DASH 7.1 OF CHAPTER 14 B EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EIGHT AMENDING SECTION 17, DASH 2.2 AND 17 10.2 OF CHAPTER 17. FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS NINE.

AMENDING SECTIONS 18, TWO, 18. DASH 418. DASH FIVE, 18, DASH SIX, 18, DASH EIGHT, 18, DASH NINE AND 1832 OF CHAPTER 18. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TEN.

AMENDING CHAPTER 20. EARNED PAID SICK TIME 11.

AMENDING CHAPTER 25. LOAN BROKERS 12. AMENDING.

CHAPTER 25 A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS 13. AMENDING SECTIONS 27, 11, 27, 30, 27, 31 AND 2742 OF CHAPTER 27, MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS 14 AMENDING SECTION 20 8-1 28.6 OF CHAPTER 28 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC 15. AMENDING SECTION 31, DASH 13.1 AND 31 DASH 35 OF CHAPTER 31 OFFENSES. UNITS. MISCELLANEOUS 16. AMENDING SECTIONS 32.

DASH 1432. DASH 15 OF CHAPTER 32. PARKS AND RESERVOIRS 17.

AMENDING SECTIONS 36, FIVE, 36, 27, 3634 AND 3649 OF CHAPTER 36.

POLES AND WIRES. 18. AMENDING CHAPTER 38 PRIVATE DETECTIVES.

19. AMENDING. CHAPTER 39 RAILROADS 20. AMENDING SECTIONS 40 3-1 26.17 43.

DASH ONE 26.18 AND 43. DASH ONE 26.33 OF CHAPTER 43 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.

21. AMENDING SECTIONS 48, SIX, 48, DASH EIGHT AND 4811 OF CHAPTER 48.

TREES AND SHRUBS 22. AMENDING SECTIONS TWO, 10.1 TO 10.360, 1.26, OH, 2.3 AND 16 OF CHAPTER 52 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODES 23 PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.

24 PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE. 25 PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND 26 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 75.

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

[02:50:01]

YES, MAYOR. YES. MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2025.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND THAT WE'RE NOW ON THE MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM TO THE.

WHAT WAS THE DATE? SEPTEMBER 10TH. SEPTEMBER 10TH? YES. OKAY. ANYONE WANTING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR. OH, OKAY. SORRY. YOU CAN GO FIRST. I DIDN'T SEE YOU.

GO AHEAD. MR.. DO YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION TO DEFER? THANK YOU. THIS WAS ALSO DEFERRED IN JUNE BECAUSE WE HAD TO DEFER WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BRIEFING.

WE JUST RECENTLY DID THAT THIS PAST WEEK AS WELL, AND HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY BRIEFED ON THIS AS YET.

I'VE SPOKEN WITH CITY MANAGER, AND SHE HAS ASSURED ME THAT WE WILL HAVE THE BRIEFING ON SEPTEMBER 3RD BEFORE GOING INTO VOTE ON THIS ITEM.

SO I HOPE WE'LL HAVE THE SUPPORT SO THAT WE CAN GET THE PROPER INFORMATION BEFORE MAKING THIS VOTE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER.

THANK YOU. I SECONDED THIS MOTION FOR THE VERY SAME REASON THAT COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA SAID, WHICH IS I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THE CITY BRIEFING.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. THANK YOU. SEPTEMBER 10TH WAS THE DATE, RIGHT? OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 17 IS CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM 77.

SECOND. ONE SECOND. MR. MAYOR.

[77. 25-2398A An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 32861, previously approved on September 18, 2024, as amended by Ordinance No. 32925 previously approved on December 11, 2024, as amended by Ordinance No. 33027 previously approved on March 26, 2025, as amended by Ordinance No. 33127 previously approved on June 11, 2025, authorizing (1) certain transfers and appropriation adjustments for FY 2024-25 for the maintenance and operation of various departments, and activities; and (2) the City Manager to implement those adjustments - Not to exceed $209,857,897 - Financing: Grants, Trust, and Other Funds $209,857,897]

AGENDA ITEM 77 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 32861, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 32925, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON DECEMBER 11TH, 2024, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 33027, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON MARCH 26TH, 2025, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 33127, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON JUNE 11TH, 2025, AUTHORIZING ONE CERTAIN TRANSFERS AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 20 2425.

FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND ACTIVITIES, AND TO THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THOSE ADJUSTMENTS NOT TO EXCEED $209,857,897. THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

ITEM 77. MOTION. ITEM 77. MEMBERS. IS THERE A SECOND? I HEARD A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS? OKAY.

OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

OR THE CFO? I GUESS I'M SO SORRY. YES, MA'AM.

NO PROBLEM. HAVE WE BEEN BRIEFED ON THIS ITEM? I'M LOOKING TO MY RIGHT, AND I SEE OUR DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER COMING OUT.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE WHICH ITEM WE WERE ON.

PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THAT. JEANETTE. JEANETTE WEEDEN, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

NO. THIS IS A CONTINGENCY REQUEST TO RESUME OPERATIONS OF OUR FAIR PARK EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER.

AND IS FAIR PARK. THE ONLY THAT IS THE ONLY ITEM IN THIS AGENDA.

OKAY, SO, I MEAN, I WENT THROUGH IT, AND I'LL SAY, THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED, IT'S REALLY NOT CLEAR.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME I'LL JUST SAY SOME SCABS IN THERE THAT YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT AND I'M LIKE, OH, WE'RE MOVING $2 MILLION OUT OF THE STABILIZATION, WHICH IS OUR RESERVE ACCOUNT, INTO GENERAL FUND, OR THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 3.3 MILLION OUT OF ARPA FUNDS INSTEAD OF OUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE.

THIS IS BREAD AND BUTTER. WHAT THE CITY DOES, PAVEMENT MARKINGS.

AND I BELIEVE IT SHOULD COME FROM OUR BREAD AND BUTTER PROPERTY TAXES TO JUST TAKE CARE OF OUR CITY INSTEAD OF USING ONE TIME MONEY THAT REALLY SHOULD BE USED FOR ONE TIME EXPENSES, WHETHER THAT'S MAINTENANCE OR PURCHASES.

BUT SO THOSE TWO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SORT OF GIVE ME WHIPLASH.

OBVIOUSLY THE ITEM 15 ON THERE, THE FAIR PARK WAS NEW.

I COULDN'T IDENTIFY IF THERE WERE OTHER NEW ONES.

[02:55:01]

AND I WONDER IF IN THE FUTURE, WHEN WE DO THIS KIND OF AN AMENDMENT, WHICH WE DO SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR USUALLY IT'S BRIEFED TO GPF IF YOU COULD MAYBE HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE CHANGES ARE INSTEAD OF SHOWING THE WHOLE OLD AND THE WHOLE NEW, ALTHOUGH I GUESS I COULD HAVE RUN IT THROUGH I SO IF I MAY COMMENT. SO THE THE DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU IS THE ACTUAL BUDGET ORDINANCE.

SO THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK IN SEPTEMBER FOR FISCAL YEAR 25.

SO WHENEVER WE AMEND THE BUDGET, WE PRESENT TO YOU A DOCUMENT THAT HAS THE STRIKE, STRIKETHROUGH AND UNDERLINE OF THE CHANGES.

SO THE ONLY CHANGE THAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU ALL TODAY IS A $4 MILLION CONTINGENCY REQUEST TO ESTABLISH THE FAIR PARK SPECIAL REVENUE FUND.

AND SO THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE ITS UNDERLYING ON PAGE FIVE.

THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE REFERENCED AS ONE TIME ITEMS, THAT WAS PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGET.

SO THAT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU ALL LAST AUGUST.

AND SO THAT IS HOW WE'RE OPERATING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 25.

I KNOW I'M STILL NOT GETTING OVER THOSE, THOUGH.

UNDERSTOOD. SO. AND IT'S FOR 3.7 MILLION THOUGH, RIGHT.

OR IS IT FOR 4 MILLION FOR. NO, IT'S FOR 4 MILLION.

IT'S ON PAGE FIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE WE REFERRED TO YOU TO THE RIGHT PAGE AND WE GOT IT. SO I THANK YOU. YOU SEE IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. OKAY. WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM 77. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. MADAM SECRETARY, MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR VOTING ITEMS FOR THIS SESSION.

WONDERFUL. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO READ YOU SOME STATUTORY LANGUAGE, AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN THE WAR ON LUNCH.

[CLOSED SESSION]

CAN CAN STOP FOR TODAY. IT IS 12:24 P.M. ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS NOW GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION FIVE, 51.071 AND SECTION 551 .074 OF THE TEXAS OPENING ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MANNER DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 76. WE'LL STAND AT RECESS UNTIL 130.

OKAY, I'M TOLD WE ARE BACK LIVE ON TV. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL, CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS COMPLETED ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS FIVE, 51.071 AND 551 .074 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND AT 2:11 P.M. ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, WE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

MADAM SECRETARY, WHERE ARE WE ON TODAY'S AGENDA?

[Z1. 25-2346A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district on property zoned NO(A) Neighborhood Office District, on the east line of Marvin D Love Freeway, north of West Camp Wisdom Road Recommendation of Staff: Denial Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Z-25-000046 / Z223-290(MP)]

MR. MAYOR, YOU'RE AT YOUR ZONING AGENDA. AND MR. MAYOR, THERE ARE SOME DEFERRALS. WONDERFUL. MR. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z ONE YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE AUGUST 27TH AGENDA.

WHICH ITEM? I'M SORRY, Z ONE. IS THERE A SECOND? YES. ANY DISCUSSION? NO. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. NEXT. MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z SEVEN.

[Z7. 25-1987A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a D(A) Duplex District and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the south line of East Kirnwood Drive, west of Lost Mirage Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Z245-149(JG)]

MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. YES.

MAYOR, ON THE ITEM OF Z7, I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 27TH, 2025.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. BLAIR? IS THERE A DISCUSSION, MR. BLAIR? NO, NOT. NOT YET. NOT YET. ANY DISCUSSION, MR. BLAIR? NO, NOT AT THIS MOMENT. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? COUNCIL MEMBERS, I MEAN, SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED.

MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z 13.

[Z13. 25-2355A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2316 for the sale of alcoholic beverages on property zoned RR Regional Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the northeast line of East Ledbetter Drive, east of R.L. Thornton Freeway Service Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-25-000061 / Z245-180(CC)]

MR. JOHNSON RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. YES. ON ITEM 13, I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER THE 8TH.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. JOHNSON? DISCUSSION, ANYONE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. NEXT ITEM, MR.

[Z15. 25-2357A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a R-10(A) Single Family District on property zoned an A(A) Agricultural District, on the west line of Cedar Ridge Drive, north of West Red Bird Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-25-000042 / Z245-195(RC)]

MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z 15.

MR. GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER ITEM Z 15 TO THE AUGUST 27TH AGENDA.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? NO, MA'AM. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. NEXT ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

[Z20. 25-2362A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an MF-1(A) Multifamily District on property zoned CR Community Retail District, on the northwest line of Paducah Avenue, between South Denley Drive and South Lancaster Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-25-000050]

COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z 20.

MR. JOHNSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION? YES.

ON ITEMS ON ITEM Z 20. I MOVE TO THE FURTHEST MOTION THIS ITEM UNTIL AUGUST 27TH.

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

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. JOHNSON? NO. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEMS DEFERRED. NEXT ITEM, MR. MAYOR.

[Z23. 25-2233A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a CS Commercial Service District and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned Planned Development District No. 635, on the north side of Royal Lane, between Newkirk Street and Goodnight Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Z245-174(LC) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on June 25, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 13, 2025.]

[03:00:04]

COUNCIL MEMBER KATINA WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z 23.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL AUGUST 27TH, 2021.

Z 23. Z 23 IS OUR SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECOND DISCUSSION, MR. CADENA. NO. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING? NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

ITEMS DEFERRED. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z ONE THROUGH Z 21.

HOWEVER, ITEM Z ONE WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED. ITEM Z3 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR.

ITEM Z4 WAS DELETED. ITEM Z SEVEN WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED.

ITEM Z TEN IS BEING PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON.

ITEM Z 13 WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED. ITEM ITEM Z 15 WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED.

ITEM Z 20 WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED AND THEREFORE YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS Z TWO, Z5, Z SIX, Z8 Z NINE Z11 Z 12.

Z. 14. Z. 16 THROUGH 19 AND Z. 21. I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM Z2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH BECKLEY AVENUE, NORTH OF EAST COMSTOCK STREET. ITEM Z5 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2088 FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY.

SALES AND SERVICE USE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SEVEN FREEWAY AND CADE ROAD.

ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN R-7.58 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTH STREET, SOUTH SAINT AUGUSTINE ROAD, WEST OF MIDDLEFIELD FEEL. STREET ITEM Z8 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CHS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BONNEY VIEW ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF TELEPHONE ROAD. ITEM Z9 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CHS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWKIRK STREET BETWEEN CROWN ROAD AND CINDY LANE.

ITEM Z 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2290 FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER.

USE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OATES DRIVE AND MARYMOUNT LANE.

ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2518 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE JUNE ROAD AND SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD.

ITEM Z 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2032 FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH LANCASTER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF SYLVIA STREET.

ITEM Z 16 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTHERN BOULEVARD AND NOEL ROAD.

ITEM Z 17 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2529 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST OF THE HOUSTON STREET VIADUCT.

ITEM Z 18 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN MF TO A MULTI DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH COLSON STREET BETWEEN COLUMBIA AVENUE AND MAIN PLACE.

ITEM Z 19 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JOON DRIVE AND SOUTHWEST MORELAND ROAD, AND ITEM Z 21 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD BETWEEN JEFFERSON BOULEVARD VIADUCT AND SOUTH I-35E FREEWAY.

YOU DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON CONSENT.

YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON YOUR ZONING ITEM.

Z6 JEFF CRANDALL, CORNELL. OKAY. I'M TOLD MR. CORNELL IS NOT PRESENT. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA,

[03:05:07]

ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD. OKAY.

THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT I AM TOLD THAT MR. CORNELL IS ONLINE NOW. SO, MR. CORNELL, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YES. THANK YOU. I JUST REALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND IF COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, BE HAPPY TO VISIT WITH THEM ON THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.

AND WE'VE GOT A VERY UNIQUE LITTLE ENFIELD PROJECT WITH A BEAUTIFUL LAKE THAT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AFTER THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IS CONSTRUCTED.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S INTEREST AND WE HOPE TO GET THIS PROJECT STARTED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED.

IS THERE A SECOND HEARING? A SECOND? SEEING NO DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM.

[Z3. 25-1982A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to and a renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 1661 for an open-enrollment charter school use on property zoned an IR Industrial Research District with Deed Restrictions (Z823-131), on property bounded by Beckleymeade Avenue, South Hampton Road, Westfall Drive, and Stoneview Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to an amended site plan and amended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to an amended site plan and amended conditions Z234-253(LL)]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR FIRST PULL ZONING ITEM.

ITEM Z3. ITEM Z3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO AND RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1661 FOR AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL USE ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY BECKLEY, MEAD AVENUE, SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, WESTFALL DRIVE AND STONE VIEW STREET.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 15 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

ITEM THREE I SEE A SPEAKER COMING FORWARD.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS YASMIN BHATIA.

I'M THE CEO OF UPLIFT EDUCATION. MY ADDRESSES 4230 BEACHWOOD LANE.

DALLAS 75220. I WANTED TO JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND JUST SHARE MY APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE.

GRATITUDE FOR COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR, FOR HER PARTNERSHIP THAT WE HAD TOGETHER OVER THE PAST 3 TO 4 YEARS WHEN SHE WAS ON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME BEING THOUGHT PARTNERS AND ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES TO FIGURE OUT OUR TRAFFIC SITUATION AT UPLIFT HAMPTON, AND I THINK IT WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW A K-12 SCHOOL SYSTEM AND THE CITY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE WE ARE MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE CITY SO SPECIFICALLY WE INCREASED POLICE AND OFFICER PRESENCE TO ADDRESS OUR TRAFFIC.

WE HOSTED TOWN HALL MEETINGS WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS AND OUR PARENTS.

WE EVEN MOVED CONES AROUND TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE OPTIMIZED.

WE STAGGERED OUR CAR LINE AND DISMISSAL, AND WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO KEEP OUR CREW ON SITE, AND WE KEPT OPEN COMMUNICATION. WHEN WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS POTENTIALLY PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS.

IT WAS THE START OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. WE WERE DOING SOME VOLUNTEER OR SERVICE EVENT, AND SO I FEEL LIKE THE RESULT IS THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE TRAFFIC SITUATION.

WE ARE A SCHOOL, WE'RE NOT PERFECT, BUT WE ARE ALWAYS WILLING TO HEAR THE FEEDBACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

AND I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN OURSELVES TO A REALLY GOOD PLACE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE AND SHARE MY GRATITUDE FOR OUR YEARS OF WORK IN THE MAKING TO GET TO THIS MOMENT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY FOR ME.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

ITEM Z THREE. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I YES I DO.

MR. MAYOR IN THE MATTER OF Z3, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

AFTER THE INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT UPDATES OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO THE DIRECTOR BY NOVEMBER 1ST ON EACH ODD NUMBER YEAR.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. YES I DO. AS DIRECTOR HESS HAS SAID, THIS HAS BEEN A FOUR YEAR PROCESS.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TOOK THAT I TOOK LIGHTLY, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WENT WITHOUT A LOT OF WORK.

I HAD TO WORK. THEY HAD TO WORK. WE TOOK A SCHOOL THAT HAD TRAFFIC ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND WE CONFINED IT TO THE PROPERTY DURING THE SCHOOL DAYS. THIS SHOWS, AS MISS BARTY HAS SAID, THAT ANY SCHOOL THAT USUALLY QUEUES ON THE STREETS CAN DO IT

[03:10:10]

SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY. IF YOU BOTH PUT YOUR MINDS TO IT AND WORK HARD.

BUT THAT I SAY THANK YOU AND I HOPE THAT I GET YOUR VOTES.

SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. NOTED. IT'S NOTED, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. THANK YOU.

[Z10. 25-2352A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 1336 for an adult day care facility on property zoned an R-10(A) Single Family District, on the northeast line of Wadsworth Drive and north of East Ledbetter Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a ten-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional ten-year periods, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a ten-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional ten-year periods, subject to a site plan and conditions Z245-177(CC)]

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM Z TEN. ITEM Z TEN. IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1336 FOR AN ADULT DAYCARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF WADSWORTH DRIVE AND NORTH OF EAST LEDBETTER DRIVE. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z TEN. NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. ON Z10, I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

THE SUP IS APPROVED FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO SEEING.

NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[Z22. 25-2237A A public hearing to receive comments regarding a City Plan Commission authorized hearing to determine the proper zoning for the area to include but not limited to use, development standards, and other appropriate regulations in an area generally along both sides of Hampton Road, between Wentworth Street to the north and Brandon Street to the south and along both sides of West Clarendon Drive, between the alley parallel to Hampton Road and Marlborough Avenue and containing approximately 35 acres and an ordinance granting the amendments and a resolution accepting the termination of deed restrictions (D.R. 190810) Recommendation of Staff: Approval of a WMU-3 Walkable Urban Mixed-Use District 3, approval of a Shopfront Overlay on a portion; and approval of the termination of deed restrictions (D.R. 190810) Recommendation of CPC: Approval of a WMU-3 Walkable Urban Mixed-Use District 3, approval of a Shopfront Overlay on a portion and to rezone the parcel located at the northeast corner of the authorized area - fronting the north side of 12th Street and the east side of Hampton Road - to WMU-3 with a Shopfront Overlay; and approval of the termination of deed restrictions (D.R. 190810) Z189-349(JP) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on June 25, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 13, 2025.]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL ZONING ITEMS, BEGINNING WITH ITEM Z 22.

ITEM Z 22. IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.

IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF HAMPTON ROAD BETWEEN WENTWORTH STREET TO THE NORTH AND BRANDON STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF WEST CLARENDON DRIVE BETWEEN THE ALLEY PARALLEL TO HAMPTON ROAD AND MARLBOROUGH AVENUE, AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES, AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TERMINATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 814 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED 33 REPLIES IN FAVOR AND 100 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE 16 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, AFTER WHICH IT WILL BE OPEN TO ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE A TRANSLATOR IN THE AUDIENCE, GINA UNDERWOOD.

SHE'LL BE IN THE AUDIENCE IF THERE'S ANY TRANSLATION SERVICES NEEDED.

SHE'S WITH TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATIONS NETWORK.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I'LL CALL THE FIRST EIGHT. AND IF I. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST TWO ROWS OF THIS INTERSECTION? MONICA SOLIS HERRERA, VICTOR MACIAS, CHRISTINE HOPKINS, VIOLETTA GALLARDO MONTANO, JENNIFER RANGEL, TEMPLE ANDERSON, RYAN SEARS, GERALDO FIGUEROA WITH MONICA SOLIS HERRERA.

PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. HELLO EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS MONICA HERRERA. I AM HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? SORRY. OKAY. I AM HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO TAKE A DAY OFF.

NOT ONLY DID I HAVE TO USE PTO TO BE HERE, WE ALSO HAD TO GET A BABYSITTER.

I AM HERE BECAUSE I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DEFEND MY DEAR AND CHERISHED OAK CLIFF.

I, ALONG WITH MY COMRADES, HAVE BLOCK WALKED AROUND THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE SPOKE TO WERE AGAINST THE REZONING.

WE FEAR DISPLACEMENT, AS WE HAVE SEEN WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN LITTLE MEXICO, NOW KNOWN AS UPTOWN IN LA BAJADA, NOW CALLED TRINITY GROVES. THAT IS HOW OUR HISTORY GETS ERASED.

I AM AWARE THAT THE STATE HAS PASSED SB 840 THAT ALLOWS COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS TO BECOME MIXED USE ZONING.

WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION MAKING FOR THE CHANGES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO BOLSTER, FUND AND ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ANTI GENTRIFICATION MEASURES ALREADY PASSED IN THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN.

[03:15:01]

WE WANT A TASK FORCE ESTABLISHED BY COMMUNITY LIKE RIO PLANNING, LA ALIANZA AND THE AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION.

I SPOKE TO A LADY WHEN DOING BLOCK WALKING WHO HAS LIVED IN BURLINGTON BOULEVARD FOR 36 YEARS.

SHE, LIKE MANY OF US, HAVE LIVED IN OAK CLIFF FOR GENERATIONS.

SHE LIKES WHERE SHE LIVES BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T DRIVE.

SHE CAN EASILY WALK TO GET GROCERIES, GO TO RESTAURANTS AND ITEMS THAT SHE NEEDS.

AND WE LIVE IN CHERISH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IT'S THRIVING AND WE JUST WANT TO PARTAKE IN THE DECISION MAKING OF THE CHANGES. THAT WILL BE MADE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

VICTOR MACIAS. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TO SPEAK ABOUT A VERY RECKLESS PROPOSAL. THE REZONING PLANS IN HAMPTON AND CLARENDON CORRIDOR.

YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL MAKE OAK CLIFF MORE APPEALING TO CONSUMERS? YOU ALL ARE GOING INTO THIS WITH THE INTENTION OF REVITALIZING THE AREA BY ESTABLISHING MULTIFAMILY HOMES, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR, AND IMPROVING WALKABILITY.

HOWEVER, HOW WILL YOU ENSURE DEVELOPERS CREATE AFFORDABLE UNITS? IS THERE A PLAN IN PLACE TO ENSURE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, THE CHILDREN OF THOSE RAISED IN THAT AREA, CAN AFFORD THOSE UNITS? VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS AGENDA WITHOUT PROPER SAFETY NETS FOR LONG STANDING RESIDENTS WILL IMPACT THE LIVES OF THE RESIDENTS LIVING NEAR AND ALONG THE CORRIDOR. ONLY FOCUSING ON PHYSICAL LAYOUTS OF THE CORRIDOR WILL GREATLY INCREASE PROPERTY TAX.

ALLOW GENTRIFICATION TO TAKE EFFECT AND PUSHING OUT PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC POPULATION CURRENTLY LIVING THERE.

THERE IS A CURRENT SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER HERE NOW TODAY THAT HAS STATED MY JOB AS A COUNCIL MEMBER IS TO LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN HAMPTON AND CLARENDON.

THEY HAVE TOLD ME THROUGH WORLD CUP AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LETTERS THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.

THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, WHAT IS IT? RESIDENTS FROM HAMPTON AND CLARENDON THAT WERE REACHING OUT TO REVITALIZE THIS CORRIDOR, OR WAS IT THE DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE BEEN THAT HAVE BEEN GIVING YOU MONEY TO APPROVE SUCH PLAN? BECAUSE WHEN ASKED WHAT MEASURES THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLING TO TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE KEPT IN THEIR HOMES, HE OR SHE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER. SINCE OUR COUNCIL, SINCE OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE FAILED TO DO THEIR JOBS OF INFORMING RESIDENTS, COMMUNITY LEADERS HAVE TAKEN THE INITIATIVE OF INFORMING RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA.

MANY, MANY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS ATROCIOUS PLAN.

SO I ADVISE YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT TODAY'S VOTE.

I URGE THE COUNCIL TO FUND MEASURES ALREADY PASSED IN WORLD CAP THAT SEEK TO ADDRESS ANTI DISPLACEMENT EFFORTS AS A STARTING POINT.

THIS INCLUDES CREATING A SPECIFIC D1 TASK AND FORCE TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.

FIND THE HOME IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM.

THIS FUND. MY BAD. THIS COMMUNITY IS FILLED WITH UNSUBSIDIZED HOUSING WHERE THE TITLE AND PROPERTIES ARE SOLD.

FORMAL SOLD OUTSIDE FORMAL INSTITUTIONS. SOCIAL FUND TITLES AND PROPERTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO APA.

IMPROVE HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN RECEIVE ACCESSIBLE LOANS TO PURCHASE HOMES.

I HAVE FOND MEMORIES WALKING THROUGH THIS AREA.

BIKING. RUNNING ALONG BURLINGTON AND SUPERIOR ROAD.

WALKING TO LA GUADALUPE TO GET GORDITA AND GROCERIES.

I HAVE FOND MEMORIES OF THIS PLACE, A PLACE MY FAMILY WAS DISPLACED FROM BECAUSE WE COULD NOT AFFORD RENT.

A PLACE I CAN NO LONGER AFFORD WITHOUT BEING HOUSE POOR.

MY FAMILY HELPED TO MAKE THIS AREA WHAT IT IS NOW.

I, LIKE MANY OTHER FAMILIES WHO HAVE PRIDE IN OAK CLIFF, ARE THE SAME ONES THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE THERE IN A PLACE THAT THEY ARE PROUD OF.

BUT WE STILL CALL IT OUR HOMES. AND WE WILL CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE COMMUNITY, NOT DEVELOPERS OR NOT THE ONES WHO NEED YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHRISTINE HOPKINS. MISS HOPKINS IS VIRTUAL.

CAN YOU SEE AND HEAR ME? YES WE CAN. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

ALL RIGHT. AND I DID DISTRIBUTE A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINE HOPKINS. I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE ON ELMWOOD BOULEVARD, AND I AM ALSO A LICENSED ATTORNEY, FULLY CAPABLE OF READING AND UNDERSTANDING LEGISLATION LIKE SB 840.

I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING TO PROTECT OAK CLIFF RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES FROM DISPLACEMENT SINCE 2020, AND THE VOTE ON THE CLARENDON HAMPTON REZONING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE CELEBRATED.

THE COMMUNITY MADE ITS VOICE CLEAR AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT I DO NOT WANT TO OPEN UP OUR SMALL BUSINESS CORRIDOR THAT IS FILLED WITH MEXICAN AND EL SALVADOR IN RESTAURANTS. SMALL LATINO OWNED MECHANIC SHOPS AND BEAUTY PARLORS.

WE DO NOT WANT TO OPEN UP THIS CORRIDOR TO LUXURY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD DISPLACE OUR SMALL BUSINESSES.

SB 846 THAT CITIES THE SIZE OF DALLAS AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025 CANNOT ENACT OR INFORMS

[03:20:08]

EMPHASIS ON, OR ENFORCE ORDINANCES OR ZONING THAT IMPOSE MORE RESTRICTIONS ON MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAN SB 840 ALLOWS.

REALLY, A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS THE ONLY THING THAT THIS COUNCIL CAN NOW DO TO PROTECT FOR CERTAIN THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR FOR FROM FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL TAKE OVER AND DISPLACE SMALL BUSINESSES.

THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THE CITY CAN DO IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR VOTE TODAY, THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION, IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU ALL DISCUSS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD WHETHER THE CITY PERMITTING OFFICE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GOING TO STAND BY THE SHOP OVERLAY, RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, THE SETBACK RESTRICTIONS AND ALL THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE FORMED.

THIS FORM BASED ZONING CHANGE IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY, OR IS THE CITY GOING TO CAVE TO SB 840? AND WILL THIS VOTE PRETTY MUCH BE MEANINGLESS, OTHER THAN THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED WE'VE ASKED FOR? SO AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, WHEN THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER ASKS FOR A PERMIT TO BUILD YOU KNOW, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR A TOWNHOME THAT DOESN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE AREA OF THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY, OR THAT OTHERWISE VIOLATES THE FORM BASED ZONING RESTRICTIONS? IS THE PERMITTING OFFICE GOING TO DENY THAT PERMIT? IS THE CITY COUNCIL GOING TO REQUIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FIGHT ANY LAWSUIT THAT IS FILED.

IS THE CITY GOING TO STAND UP TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS AND TO THE STATE? AND ACTUALLY, IF IT VOTES TO PASS THE ZONING CHANGE TODAY? STAND BY ITS VOTE AND STAND BY THE PROTECTIONS IT IS SUPPOSEDLY GIVING THE COMMUNITY.

I URGE YOU TO DISCUSS THAT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AND GIVE US ASSURANCES ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.

THANK YOU. VIOLETA COLLADO MONTANO. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM I WAS HERE IN JUNE 25TH, SPEAKING AGAINST THE REZONING OF THE HAMPTON CLARENDON AREA.

THAT DAY, MANY OTHERS WHO LIVE OR OWN BUSINESSES IN THE AREA MAKE THE EFFORT TO COME, TAKING TIME AWAY FROM WORK AND FAMILY.

THEY MADE A BIG SACRIFICE. I JUST WANT TO REMIND OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WAS HERE.

THEY WANT THEIR VOICE HEARD AND THEY LEFT THIS ROOM DISAPPOINTED.

STOP SAYING THAT. PEOPLE SUPPORT THIS SON, IN CASE THE TRUTH IS CLEAR.

MOST PEOPLE IN THIS AREA OPPOSE THIS PLAN. OVER 78% OF THE LETTERS RETURN.

MORE THAN 100 LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION WERE AGAINST IT, AND MANY BUSINESS OWNERS WROTE DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL MEMBERS OPPOSING THE ZONING.

DON'T TELL US THAT MAJORITY SUPPORTED WHEN THE DATA.

PERHAPS OTHERWISE, THIS COMMUNITY DESERVES HONESTY, NOT FALSE NARRATIVES.

WHY ARE PEOPLE OPPOSING THIS? THE REASON IS SIMPLE.

THE WEST CLIFF HAD A PLAN APPROVED ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO.

PROMISED ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOL FOR THIS AREA.

THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. INSTEAD, DISTRICT ONE LEADERSHIP HAS PRIORITY SIZE, FAST TRACKING, ZONING CHANGES OVER PROTECTING LONG TIME RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.

THEN CAME SBA 40 AND WHEN IT MATTERED MOST. ONLY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME WENT TO AUSTIN TO SPEAK AGAINST IT, AND ANOTHER SPOKE PUBLICLY IN OPPOSITION. PROTECTING THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS VITAL, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ASKING THE FULL COUNCIL TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST SBA 40 WITH SBA 40.

THE NEED FOR DISPLACEMENT PROTECTION IS MORE URGENT THAN EVER.

YET STILL NONE HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE. WE CAN ACT NOW BY REDUCING THE LOW RATE TO 45FT AND CREATING A TASK FORCE SPECIFICALLY FOR HAMPTON CLARENDON, CHOSEN BY THE COMMUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP REAL PROTECTION.

THIS WILL PRESERVE HAMPTON CLARENDON CHARACTER AND BEAUTY.

THIS IS ALREADY A BEAUTY PLACE. WE DON'T WANT EMPTY PROMISES OR TOKEN GESTURES.

THAT IS DOESN'T HELP. WE WANT MEANINGFUL COMMITMENT AND REAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WORK AND LIVE HERE.

THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO STAND WITH THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT, AND ANYTHING LESS WILL BE A DISSERVICE TO THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JENNIFER RANGEL. HI. CAN Y'ALL SEE AND HEAR ME?

[03:25:04]

YES WE CAN. YOU MAY CONTINUE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS JENNIFER RANGEL, CO-FOUNDER OF BIO PLANNING, A NONPROFIT THAT WORKS WITH COMMUNITIES TO FIGHT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE. AND I'M ALSO SOMEONE WHO GREW UP IN THIS PART OF OAKLAND IN QUESTION TODAY.

SINCE ITS LAUNCH IN 2020, WE WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT WHAT IS WOKE UP.

WE'VE CREATED EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS NEEDED AS THEY DECIDE WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THEM IN THE AREA.

WE HELP THEM AMPLIFY THEIR VOICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING TODAY BEFORE YOU CONTINUES TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THAT FIGHT.

IF YOU REMEMBER, BACK IN 2020, WE HAD GROUPS LIKE THE AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION OF OAK CLIFF AND NOW SOUTHAMPTON AND CLARENDON THAT CONTINUE TO ASK FOR THE CITY'S SUPPORT TO BE A PART OF THE VISION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND OF THE FUTURE.

SINCE 2020, COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED DURING THOSE MEETINGS THAT ANTI DISPLACEMENT IS A PRIORITY.

PEOPLE ARE FEELING THE EFFECTS OF BEING PUSHED OUT OF PLACE, AS YOU HEARD TODAY, FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE AREA AND THOSE WHO'VE HEARD PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN HERE IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS. HAS THE CITY TAKEN THE INITIATIVE AND THE LEADERSHIP AND THE TIME TO PUT IN PROTECTIVE MEASURES. A HANDFUL OF THEM ALREADY APPROVED IN THE WESTERN CLIFF AREA PLAN.

OUR SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A STRONGER POSITION IN LIGHT OF SB 40.

BUT THAT LEAVES US TO WHAT CAN WE DO NOW? COLLECTIVELY, AS LA ALIANZA SHARED IN THEIR LETTER, THEY'RE URGING THE CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE IN THEIR MOTION TODAY TO CREATE A DISTRICT ONE TASK FORCE FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING THE DRESS AND LOGO. CAP HAS ALREADY PROMISED TO DO THIS. DISTRICT ONE SPECIFIC TASK FORCE WILL ONLY COMPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S ONGOING CITYWIDE ANTI DISPLACEMENT INITIATIVE UNDERWAY.

WE URGE YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS REQUEST OF ANTI DISPLACEMENT MEASURES BACKED BY THE OVERWHELMING LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PIECE BEFORE YOU TODAY AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BEFORE USE AGAINST THIS CASE, BUT ARE NOW BEING IMPACTED BY SB 40, LEAVING THEM WITH VERY MINIMAL OPTIONS OF WHAT TO DO.

THIS WILL BE THE FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING THE LONG STANDING COMMUNITY CONCERNS, REPEATING VOICE THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME FOR YEARS.

SINCE 2020, WE'RE IN 2025, ALMOST THREE YEARS OUT AFTER WORLD CUP GOT APPROVED.

AND WE URGE YOU TO PLEASE DON'T IGNORE THE NEEDS OF THE MEMBERS BEING CONCERNED, OF BEING PUSHED OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITY AND THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE BEEN PUSHED OUT AND DESIRE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, TEMPLE ANDERSON. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. MY NAME IS TEMPLE ANDERSON AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE, ABOUT A MILE FROM THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR.

I SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AGENDA ITEM BACK IN JUNE, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT ONCE AGAIN.

I WANTED TO START BY THANKING COUNCILMAN WEST AND HIS TEAM, ALONG WITH CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR TAKING TIME ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT IN JULY TO DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF SB 840.

I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THANKS TO ALL OF MY OAK CLIFF NEIGHBORS WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING AND ASKED THOUGHTFUL, ON TOPIC QUESTIONS ABOUT SB 840.

I WON'T REPEAT ALL OF MY TALKING POINTS FROM THE JUNE MEETING, BUT WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOW IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING, UP FROM THREE. AT THE MEETING IN JUNE. TWO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE NEUTRAL, BUT NONE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING.

ADDITIONALLY, AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING IN JUNE, THE CITY HAD TO NOTIFY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

AT THE TIME, 88 OWNERS OR LESS THAN 11% OF NEIGHBORS WERE FORMALLY OPPOSED TO THE PLAN.

THE MEETING IN JUNE RESULTED IN CONSIDERABLE MEDIA ATTENTION, ALONG WITH ROBUST DISCUSSION ON NEIGHBORHOOD FACEBOOK PAGES.

ALL THAT ATTENTION RESULTED IN ONLY 12 MORE NEIGHBORS SUBMITTING FORMAL OPPOSITION.

THAT'S A TOTAL OF ONLY 12.2% OF NEIGHBORS OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING AND THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

LIKE I SAID IN JUNE, NO PLAN IS PERFECT, BUT THIS IS A GOOD BALANCE PLAN FOR THIS CORRIDOR, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF SB 840. THIS IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.

A YES VOTE IS A VOTE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION AND LOCAL CONTROL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU. RYAN SEARS.

GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR. PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS RYAN SEARS.

I LIVE WITH MY WIFE AND TWO SONS AT 110 NORTHAMPTON ROAD, A BLOCK NORTH OF THE CORRIDOR.

I'M A PASTOR AT A CHURCH THAT OWNS 1304 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, A BLOCK.

WELL, ACTUALLY JUST ACROSS THE STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND I SUPPORT THE REZONING, BUT WITH A LOT OF RETICENCE DUE TO LUXURY TOWNHOMES AND THE

[03:30:04]

NEIGHBORHOOD BEING SPLIT ON THE ISSUE. MOST OF WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT MORE PEOPLE HAVE TURNED IN NOTIFICATION LETTERS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION.

LAST TIME THERE WERE DOZENS OF PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.

AND SO IT IS A TENSE TOPIC THAT GIVES ME PAUSE, BUT I AM IN SUPPORT BECAUSE SB 40 HAS MOVED THE GOALPOSTS.

BUT BEFORE WE RUN TO A DECISION, I LIKE WHAT CHRISTINE HOPKINS HAS ASKED FOR AND THAT WE.

I NEED TO HAVE SOME ANSWERS. I FEEL LIKE I DON'T HAVE THEM.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WMU THREE PROVIDES SAFEGUARDS AGAINST WHAT SB 840 IS DOING.

THE MINIMUM THAT I CAN READ IN THE BILL SEEMS TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T PUSH AGAINST THESE FEW ITEMS. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT WMU THREE CAN REQUIRE CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS, CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY, WHICH WOULD LESSEN DENSITY IN THIS, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, ALREADY HEAVILY TRAFFICKED HEAVY CORRIDOR LIKE IT'S WHERE MY SONS WALK.

SO IT'S IT'S A BIG DEAL. WMU THREE MIGHT PROHIBIT NEW DRIVE THRUS UNLESS YOU GUYS WERE TO APPROVE NEW ONES COMING THROUGH.

IT MIGHT PUT PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS. WHICH IS BETTER FOR PEDESTRIANS, BETTER FOR THE HOMEOWNERS WHOSE PROPERTIES BACK UP TO THIS CORRIDOR.

IT MIGHT REQUIRE SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPING AND DESIGN FEATURES THAT WOULD ADD TREES AND PROOF SIDEWALKS AND WALKABILITY.

AND IT MIGHT MAINTAIN SPACES ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AS OPPOSED TO JUST AS MANY UNITS AS POSSIBLE CAN BE CRAMMED IN THERE.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE. IT MIGHT MEAN THAT DEVELOPERS CAN ONLY DO THREE AND A HALF STORIES INSTEAD OF FOUR.

IS THAT TRUE? WHAT IS POSSIBLE WITH WME THREE AS OPPOSED TO LEAVING IT CR WHAT IT IS AND SEEING WHAT SB 840 CAN DO? I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR GUYS THOUGHTS ON THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IF IT DOES OFFER THOSE PROTECTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY EXTENDED.

I KNOW THAT THE AUTO SHOPS HAVE SAID FROM WHEN THIS STARTED THAT THEY FELT THAT THEIR BUSINESSES WEREN'T GOING TO BE PROTECTED BY THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY, BUT I THINK THAT IT WOULD HELP WITH FUTURE DENSITY WHILE ALSO NOT DOING ANYTHING NEGATIVE FOR CURRENT BUSINESSES.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT. I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE IDEA OF A 45 FOOT HEIGHT OVERLAY, WHICH ISN'T MUCH, BUT IT'S SOMETHING. AND LASTLY, PLEASE, WHATEVER HAPPENS, UPHOLD YOUR STANDARDS.

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AREA FOR FUTURE FUNDING.

ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOLS AND THE LOCAL TASK FORCE IS BEING ASKED FOR.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. GERARDO FIGUEROA.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GERALDO FIGUEROA, 2220 WEST CLARENDON DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I WOULD LIKE I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO POINT OUT ALL THE OPPOSITION THAT THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING HAS SEEN FROM THE 1500 SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION, THE 78% OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT BACK TO THE CITY CAME BACK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PEOPLE THAT FILLED THIS ROOM AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL.

I KNOW A MAJORITY OF THE NAYS HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DON'T REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS AREA.

MOST PEOPLE THERE DON'T ATTEND OR EVEN KNOW THEY HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

IF IT WASN'T FOR SB 840, THIS ROOM WOULD BE PACKED TO THE BRIM WITH PEOPLE RIGHT NOW IN OPPOSITION.

AND I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. SB 840 CALLS FOR A MINIMUM OF 45FT.

WE ASK THE HEIGHT OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING BE AMENDED TO 45FT AS WELL.

I ASK THE CITYWIDE DISPLACED ANTI DISPLACEMENT TASK FORCE BE MADE OR A DISTRICT BY DISTRICT TASK FORCE.

IF THE CITY COUNCILMAN HAS TIME TO HAVE A HISTORY DETECTIVE TASK FORCE.

I THINK HE HAS TIME TO MAKE A TASK FORCE TO DO SOME GOOD FOR RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN OUR DISTRICT.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SB 840. WHY IS THE CITY OF DALLAS NOT DOING ANYTHING ON THAT BILL? A BILL THAT TAKES AWAY A NEIGHBORHOOD'S RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

WHAT WILL THIS COUNCIL DO IN SEPTEMBER WHEN SBA 40 GOES THROUGH, WILL YOU ALL STAND UP FOR CONSTITUENTS OR FOLD UP LIKE CHAIRS? I BELIEVE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HERE LOBBIED AGAINST SB 840.

I WANT YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO STAND UP FOR THESE RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW CALL THE REMAINING EIGHT SPEAKERS, REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

AND WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST TWO ROWS IN THIS INTERSECTION.

YOLANDA ALAMEDA, DANIEL HERNANDEZ, ALBERT MATA, LUIS MACIAS, HALEY HILL, RICKY GONZALEZ, ANDREW FEENEY, AND MIGUEL SERRANO, MISS ALAMEDA.

YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM.

[03:35:12]

I LEARNED SOME THINGS.

HI THERE, I'M YOLANDA. ALAMEDA DISTRICT ONE, ZIP CODE 75224.

I'M IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE ALIANZA, WHICH IS A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS, BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING.

THEY'VE ASKED COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT ONE FOR THE FOLLOWING.

REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO 45FT. MAINTAIN SHOP OVERLAYS AS OUTLINED AND CREATE A TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS THE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN WHATSAPP.

THERE ARE AT LEAST 12 RECOMMENDATIONS AND I QUOTE, TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND TO SUPPORT LOCAL MINORITY, IMMIGRANT AND WOMEN OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES. INCLUDED IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE CREATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE.

HOME REPAIR AND OWNERSHIP SUPPORT AND EXPLORING APPROPRIATE OVERLAYS, AS WELL AS SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS AIMED AT STABILIZING AND SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES. WILL CAP CALLED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN 1 TO 3 YEARS? THE PLAN WAS PASSED IN 2022. AND TO DATE, THOSE GO IGNORED.

OUR CONSISTENT MESSAGE HAS BEEN TO STOP PUSHING THROUGH AUTHORIZED HEARINGS WITHOUT ALSO ADDRESSING PROTECTIONS.

IN LIGHT OF OF THE SB 840, I EMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHO SUPPORT THIS ITEM BECAUSE THEY FEAR THE LESS RESTRICTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THAT SB 840 ALLOWS. AND I THINK AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY LIKE CHRISTINE, BUT MY SIMPLE READING, I ALSO THINK THAT THIS WILL BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THEIR POSITION. I APPRECIATED THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH MANY LEADERS AND MEMBERS OF THE NAS AND THEIR MUTUAL RESPECT AND IN CONSIDERATION.

EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER IN A DIVIDE AND CONQUER MENTALITY.

ALSO REMEMBER, OVER 100 LETTERS IN OPPOSITION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WELL OVER 10%.

I WORKED FOR THE CITY FOR OVER 15 YEARS IN CITY GOVERNMENT.

I CAN TELL YOU OVER 10% IS A GREAT RETURN, SO I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT BEING MINIMIZED.

I AM ULTIMATELY ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO. IN RECOGNITION OF THE DIVIDED COMMUNITY, AND ALSO IN RESPONSE TO THE FAILED PROCESS THAT DID NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY WORK TO CREATE ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOLS AS OUTLINED IN THE WAUCHOPE DOCUMENT.

I FOUGHT FOR A SEAT ON THE CAP TASK FORCE AND TO ENSURE THAT MEASURES WERE INCLUDED TO HELP EXISTING BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS.

THE CAB DOCUMENT IS ONLY A SUCCESS IF IT'S IMPLEMENTED IN ITS TOTALITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ASKED FOR. WE'VE NOT HEARD BACK FROM OUR COUNCIL MEMBER WITH REGARD TO A TASK FORCE.

I REACHED OUT TO HIM PERSONALLY ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, ASKING FOR HIM TO WORK WITH ALL OF WEST OAK CLIFF TO LOOK AT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, TO GET UPDATES, TO LEARN WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS SO WE CAN ALL BE BETTER PREPARED FOR A CITYWIDE TASK FORCE.

I'M SAD TO SAY THERE'S BEEN SILENCE. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DANIEL HERNANDEZ. MY NAME IS DANIEL HERNANDEZ, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE PARTY. I'M SORRY.

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

YES. SELECTED. PUSH IT AGAIN, PLEASE. HOW ABOUT NOW? MY NAME IS DANIEL HERNANDEZ, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE PARTY FOR SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION.

AND IN 2022, IN 2020, I WAS DISPLACED FROM MY HOME IN WEST DALLAS.

I MOVED INTO A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD CALLED LA BAJADA IN 2015, AND THIS WAS BEFORE THE TRINITY GREEN APARTMENTS TOWERED OVER MY NEIGHBORS ACROSS SINGLETON BOULEVARD. EVERY YEAR I SAW HUGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS GO UP AND BELOVED RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES GET PRICED OUT AND SHUT DOWN.

THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES PENETRATED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AS A RESULT, PROPERTY TAXES INCREASED AND THE COMMUNITY WAS FORCED TO FUNDRAISE SO ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS COULD KEEP THEIR HOME FOR ONE MORE YEAR.

AND EVERY YEAR, MY RENT WOULD SKYROCKET AND I STRUGGLED TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

IN THOSE FIVE YEARS, I ALSO BUILT MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIPS IN MY COMMUNITY.

I KNEW MY NEIGHBORS BY NAME. I WATCHED THE KIDS NEXT DOOR GROW UP, AND WE GAVE GABRIEL HIS FIRST SKATEBOARD, AND HE WROTE THAT THING EVERY DAY. I ADMIRED.

I ADMIRED MY NEIGHBOR, AN AMPUTEE WHO DIDN'T LET HIS DISABILITY SLOW HIM DOWN.

HE WOULD BUILD JUNGLE GYMS FOR HIS KIDS AND KEEP A BEAUTIFUL VEGETABLE GARDEN.

AND I WOULD ALSO BUY HOMEMADE CHORIZO AND QUESO FRESCO FROM MARIA AND HER HUSBAND ACROSS THE WAY FROM ME.

I'M TELLING YOU ALL THIS TO HUMANIZE OUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT RESIDENTS ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH REAL

[03:40:01]

LIVES, A MIXED USE REZONING FOR HAMPTON. CLARENDON WILL HAVE THE EXACT SAME CONSEQUENCES AS WE'VE SEEN IN WEST DALLAS.

IN THE YEAR THAT FOLLOWED MY DISPLACEMENT, THAT'S 75212 ZIP CODE THAT I USED TO LIVE IN HAD THE HIGHEST RENT SPIKE IN DALLAS.

RENTS WENT UP 20% IN 2021. THAT YEAR, UPWARDS TO 50% OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WERE BOUGHT BY INVESTORS IN PRIVATE EQUITY.

SINCE 2020, I HAVE NOT HAD STABLE HOUSING. I'VE MOVED SIX TIMES AND NOW RESIDE IN OAK CLIFF FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PLANS TO ENACT SIMILAR ZONING POLICIES.

THIS WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR TENANTS, HOMEOWNERS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES.

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER TRINITY GROVES OR BISHOP ARTS OR UPTOWN.

WE NEED COMMUNITY CONTROL OF OUR FUTURE. SB 840 GOES INTO EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.

THIS HANDS OVER THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF OUR DALLAS COMMUNITIES.

OVER TO PROPERTY DEVELOPERS. I OPPOSE THIS ZONING PLAN THAT CHAD WEST CONTINUES TO PUSH IN ALL SIMILAR PLANS THAT WILL CONTINUE UNDER THIS NEW BILL.

CHAD WEST SAYS THAT HE WANTS HISTORICAL DESIGNATIONS IN OAK CLIFF TO PROTECT RESIDENTS, BUT I WAS ALREADY KICKED OUT OF A HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN LA BAJADA.

THERE WERE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND THEY WERE IGNORED ANYWAY, SO WE MUST FIND A WAY TO ENFORCE THESE PROTECTIONS.

THAT'S WHY I STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH LA ALIANZA, MY NEIGHBORS AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, TO DEMAND THE CREATION OF A TASK FORCE WITH THE GOAL OF COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DEFEND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF WEST OAK CLIFF RESIDENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS, NOT THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER FRIENDS OF CITY COUNCIL.

IF THESE PLANS ARE GOING TO BE FORCED THROUGH, THEN WE NEED A DIRECT SAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ALBERT MOTTA. IT'S VIRTUAL.

MR. MOTTA. HI. I'M TURNING ON MY CAMERA. OKAY, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING. OKAY, WE CAN SEE YOU.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS AMBER MARTHA.

I LIVE AT 101 WEST DAVIS STREET HERE IN DISTRICT ONE, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SOLIDARITY WITH LA JUNTA, WHICH IS A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS, BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA.

AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR MANY THINGS. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A REDUCTION IN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 45FT.

AND I WANT TO DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT OF 45FT.

AND I, I WOULD ADD TO THIS BE DONE IN AREAS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.

BUT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA HAS MANY AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.

FOR THOSE AREAS, I WOULD ASK THIS BODY TO CONSIDER ADDING A HIGH OVERLAY THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, CAPPING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO TWO STORIES. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS IS THAT MANY RESIDENTS COMMUNICATED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE TALL, TOWERING, EXPENSIVE LUXURY TOWNHOMES IN THE AREA.

OR IN THIS CORRIDOR. HEIGHT LIMITS DONE VIA A HIGH OVERLAY WILL NOT PREVENT TOWNHOMES FROM BEING BUILT, BUT IT WILL KEEP THEM TO A SMALLER SCALE, MORE CONSIDERABLE, MORE RELATED TO SOME OF THE EXISTING SCALE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT FOR DEVELOPERS WHO CHOOSE TO SPECULATE IN THE CORRIDOR.

A HIGH OVERLAY IN THESE AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY IS ALSO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE A RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE FOR TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA MORE CAUTIOUS OF THE TALL, TOWERING LUXURY TOWNHOMES, WE SHOULD CONSIDER ADDING A HIGH OVERLAY IN THE AREAS IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING ZONE THAT DO NOT HAVE A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY. I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN, HOW MANY SPEAKERS HAVE TODAY THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR LETTERS TO THE CITY HAVE BEEN IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. AND SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE STATE HAS PREEMPTED THE CITY IN SOME WAYS.

I WOULD ASK THIS BODY TO BE AS RESTRICTIVE AS POSSIBLE AND WHATEVER ZONING, THEY EVENTUALLY MOVE FORWARD.

ADDITIONALLY, I WANT TO REITERATE THE REQUEST THAT OTHERS HAVE MADE FOR THE POSITION OF THE TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN WORLD CUP RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE OVER THREE YEARS AGO.

BUT SINCE THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN ALMOST NO MOVEMENT OR HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME LISTENING TO ME.

THANK YOU. LUIS MACIAS. HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. HI, MY NAME IS LUIS MACIAS. I AM A DISPLACED MEMBER OF THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR WHO USED TO LIVE OFF OF BURLINGTON IN AND SUPERIOR, AND I STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH LA SALLE'S PROPOSALS TO REDUCE THE HEIGHTS OF 45FT AND MAINTAIN SHOPFRONT OVERLAYS AS OUTLINED ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS TRACT

[03:45:03]

DATA. THE SURROUNDING THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR, THERE ARE TRACKS WITH MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BETWEEN 46 TO $59,000 A YEAR.

IF WE LOOK AT FEMALE FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS, THAT NUMBER DROPS TO $19,000 PER YEAR.

05,454% OF HOUSEHOLDS IN ONE CENSUS TRACT THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE CORRIDOR PAY 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME ON RENT AND 27.5% PAY OVER 50% OF THEIR INCOME ON RENT RENT.

THIS IS BLATANTLY UNSUSTAINABLE FOR FAMILIES IN THIS AREA.

MODIFYING THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE LAND WITHOUT ADDRESSING SYSTEMIC ISSUES AND INEQUITIES, OR ENSURING PROPER REGULATIONS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM.

AS A RESEARCHER, PART OF MY RESEARCH INVOLVES THE GROWING NUMBER OF INFORMAL HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

THESE ARE AREAS THAT LACK PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE AND CREATE HAZARDOUS HOUSING CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE.

RECENT RESEARCH SHOWS AN INCREASE OF THESE INFORMAL LIVING ARRANGEMENTS IN DALLAS COUNTY.

A COMMUNITY THAT I WORK IN, SAN BRANCH EVEN LACKS WATER ACCESS.

WHILE INTERVIEWING PEOPLE HERE, MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS SAY THAT THEY HAVE TIES TO DALLAS CITY AND EVEN OAK CLIFF.

THEY MOVED BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.

CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, JANITORS, MECHANICS, SCRAPPERS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL WORKERS LIVE IN PERIPHERAL AREAS LIKE THESE, FORCED TO LIVE IN SUBPAR LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, HINTING AT AN URBAN CRISIS.

OF THOSE WHO WORK THE LAND, UNABLE TO LIVE ON THE LAND THAT THEY WORK AS A TEACHER FOR SIX YEARS, I WOULD ASK MY STUDENTS, HOW MANY OF Y'ALL HAVE TIES TO OAK CLIFF? AND HANDS WOULD GO UP. WHEN I ASKED THEM HOW MANY OF THEM STILL LIVE IN OAK CLIFF? HANDS WOULD START TO GO DOWN CITING UNAFFORDABLE CITY.

WHY WAS IT THAT OUR PEOPLE COULD AFFORD TO LIVE HERE 20 TO 30 YEARS AGO? WHAT'S CHANGED? WHY IS THERE A WORKING CLASS FLIGHT.

HAPPENING NOW. WHAT MISTAKES WERE MADE IN THE 60S AND 70S THAT CITY OFFICIALS AND POLICYMAKERS HAVE ARE STILL NOT RECOGNIZING? WHY DO WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE PAYING OVER 50% OF THEIR INCOME ON RENT? WHY DO WE HAVE COMMUNITIES WITHOUT RUNNING WATER IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS? I'M ASKING THE CITY TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THEIR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION, TO ENFORCE ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOLS ALREADY PASSED IN CAP TO IMPROVE AND FUND PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO HELP PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOMES WHILE CREATING MORE HOUSING.

PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY OVER 30% OF THEIR INCOMES ON RENT.

STOP TAKING MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS. FUND PROGRAMS LIKE HYP, CREATE MORE TIF INCENTIVIZED PROJECTS AND TAX ABATEMENT TOOLS, EXPAND NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONES, FUND HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, AND GO EVEN FURTHER, CREATING PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS TO ESTABLISH SET WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR WORKERS WHO BUILD AND MAINTAIN OUR CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HALEY HILL. HEAL.

HI, MY NAME IS HAYLEY HILL. I'M A MEMBER OF THE PARTY FOR SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION, AND I'M HERE IN SOLIDARITY WITH NEIGHBORS IN OAK CLIFF AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN OAK CLIFF WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING AND WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR VOICES BEING HEARD ON THIS.

I'M HERE ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T ABLE TO TAKE OFF WORK TODAY.

SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S ATTENTION. OAK CLIFF IS THE HEART OF DALLAS.

SO DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF OAK CLIFF, SPECIFICALLY THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR, DESERVE TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES MADE BY THE CITY? I WANT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM TO KNOW THAT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS WORKED VERY HARD ON THEIR DAYS OFF TO GO DOOR TO DOOR IN WEST OAK CLIFF, TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS ABOUT THEIR PROPOSAL AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THEM.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME REZONING IN DALLAS HAS BEEN THE CATALYST FOR RAPID GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT.

WE'VE SEEN THIS ACROSS DALLAS AND WEST AND EAST DALLAS, AS WELL AS BISHOP ARTS AND TRINITY GROVES, LIKE NEIGHBORS HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO BREAK THE PATTERN OF BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS BEING PRICED OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WEALTHY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS.

THEY DO NOT CARE IF RENT SKYROCKETS. WHEN THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY, THEY'LL TAKE IT.

OAK CLIFF NEEDS RENT CONTROL AND PROTECTION FOR RENTERS.

OAK CLIFF NEEDS TO ANCHOR ITS CURRENT RESIDENTS.

OAK CLIFF NEEDS THEIR VOICES HEARD. IT'S UP TO YOU, AS DALLAS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO ENSURE PROPER TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE YOU SERVE IN OAK CLIFF, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY, AND DECISIONS AROUND NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND COMMUNITY

[03:50:01]

LAND TRUSTS WILL HELP GIVE RESIDENTS A SAY IN SOME OF THESE DECISIONS.

RENTERS SHOULD BE PROTECTED WITH RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND RENT CONTROL MEASURES.

THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE WHOSE DAILY LIVES WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS REZONING.

IF DALLAS CITY COUNCIL KEEPS MOVING MONEY AND POWER TOWARDS THE PLACES AND SPACES WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT IS HIGHEST, THE CITY WILL NEVER REACH ITS FULL POTENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE ENDLESS DISRUPTION TO THE LIVES AND CONDITIONS OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR PATH.

WE DESERVE PEOPLE CENTERED INVESTMENTS IN OUR CITIES.

SAMUEL STEIN, A HOUSING POLICY ANALYST, SAID THE CITY MUST BELONG TO THOSE WHO BUILD IT, NOT WHO BUY IT.

AND I BELIEVE DALLAS MUST BELONG TO THOSE WHO BUILD IT AND NOT WHO BUY IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RICKY GONZALEZ. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR JOHNSON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. MY NAME IS RICKY GONZALEZ.

I LIVE AT 4283 SOUTH CREST HAVEN, DALLAS, TEXAS.

IT'S ACTUALLY OVER BY EAST ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOVE FIELD AIRPORT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THAT IS ANYMORE. I GOT A CALL FROM A NEIGHBOR THAT'S A MECHANIC OUT HERE IN OAK CLIFF, AND HE ASKED ME TO ATTEND A MEETING WITH HIM A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

SO I WENT TO THAT JUNE MEETING, AND THAT'S WHAT BRINGS ME HERE TODAY.

I SENT EVERYBODY A COPY OF THAT LETTER I WROTE ON MONDAY, AND I HOPE EVERYBODY TOOK THE TIME TO READ IT.

THAT MEETING WAS TERRIBLE. AND I GOTTA TELL YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, WHEN I LEFT THAT MEETING, I FELT DIRTY. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BEING WALKED ON.

IT WAS NOT FUNNY. WHEN SOMEBODY BRINGS UP ANTI DISPLACEMENT.

THERE'S NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THAT. YOU HAVE GRANDCHILDREN.

YOU HAVE GRANDKIDS. GRANDPARENTS? EVERYBODY. LIKE THEY SAID, THEY'VE BEEN OUT THERE FOR GENERATIONS.

THIS NEIGHBORS BOUGHT OUT THERE WHEN NOBODY ELSE WOULD BUY OUT THERE.

AND NOW FOR A STRANGER HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THESE PEOPLE, HAS COME OUT THERE FOR EIGHT YEARS AND DONE A STUDY FOR EIGHT YEARS.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON. HE JUST DIDN'T STARTED INVITING PEOPLE LAST YEAR.

AND IF Y'ALL LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK, THERE MIGHT BE TWO REAL MEETINGS.

BUT THAT MEETING, THE LAST MEETING WAS A FARCE.

I'M SORRY, SIR, BUT THAT WAS JUST TO TELL THESE PEOPLE YOU'RE HAVING MEETINGS, LAUGHING AT THEM, USING THIS SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION YOU CREATED AS A MEANS TO TO DEAL WITH ANY, ANY DISPLACEMENT.

THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR LOANS FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SECURITY. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE REAL VOICE THAT YOU BRING THEM.

THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THEIR INTEREST.

WHEN I TALK TO THE PLANNER AFTER THE MEETING, I TALK TO THEM.

ABOUT WHAT? ABOUT NOTIFICATIONS. OBVIOUSLY, YOU MADE IT CLEAR THE PLANNER MADE IT CLEAR, THE SMALL BUSINESS PERSON MADE IT CLEAR THERE WAS A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM.

ALL THREE ALL MADE THAT POINT IN THAT MEETING AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER.

AND THEN AFTER THE MEETING, I TALKED TO THE PLANNER. HE SAYS, WELL, I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT NOTIFICATIONS.

I SAID, WHERE'S ALL THE NOTIFICATIONS? DID Y'ALL PUT HIM OUT THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? HE WASN'T SURE ANY EXISTED.

SO FOR 30 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS ON ZONING, MY HOUSE WAS FIRST.

I DID THIS IN 2002, WAS THE FIRST ZONING CASE I WAS A PART OF.

AND I'VE LEARNED THE ZONING PROCESS OVER AND OVER, AND I'VE WATCHED HOW PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED BY IT OR RAN OVER BEFORE THEY EVEN CATCH ON TO HOW IT WORKS, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM CATCH UP AND BE A PART OF IT.

BUT THE WAY IT'S SET UP FOR YOU, SIR, YOU HAVE IT TO WHERE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS GOING TO COME THROUGH YOU.

SO THEY'RE ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED. THAT MEANS THE FUTURE IS GOING TO COME THROUGH YOU.

WHEN I'M USED TO SEEING IT COME THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND WANT TO DEVELOP THINGS, THEY WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY. THEY WORK WITH THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY.

THEY DON'T JUST COME OUT THERE AND LAUGH AT THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT THEY'RE BEING REPLACED AND DISPLACED FOR SOMEBODY THAT NEVER CARED ABOUT THE AREA.

I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR LISTENING TO ME FOR A SECOND.

BUT Y'ALL ARE THE VOICE THAT WE HAVE. WE RELY ON YOU GUYS TO TO REPRESENT US IN AN HONEST WAY.

AND THE CITY CHARTER IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT US.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. ANDREW FINNEY IS VIRTUAL.

ANDREW FINNEY, ONE SECOND. STARTING MY VIDEO.

OKAY. OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU.

YOU MAY BEGIN. HELLO. MY NAME IS ANDREW FINNEY.

I'M THE PRESIDENT OF CLIFF, ONE OF WESTERN CLIFFS NEWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THE WEST PARK AREA.

EVEN THOUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS TWO MILES WEST OF HAMPTON AND CLARENDON, I SPEAK TODAY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING SETS THE TONE FOR FUTURE HEARINGS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM THE FOURTH GENERATION OF MY FAMILY TO LIVE IN OAK CLIFF, BUT I DID NOT GROW UP HERE.

I AM FROM A PLACE WE CALL HOUSTON, TEXAS. IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT EVERYONE LISTENING KNOWS ABOUT HOUSTON, IT'S THAT THEIR ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN OUR OWN.

[03:55:02]

AS A RESULT, I GREW UP SURROUNDED BY SOME OF THE DARKEST, MOST INHUMANE DEVELOPMENTS ONE COULD IMAGINE.

AND BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN DEVELOPERS ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD WITHOUT PROPER RESTRICTIONS.

THAT IS WHY I'M HERE TO ASK THIS COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THIS ZONING CHANGE.

REJECTING THIS ZONING CHANGE IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF SENATE BILL 840.

SB 840 ALLOWS FOR GREATER ENTITLEMENTS THAN PROPOSED REZONING, WHICH TYPICALLY LEADS TO GREATER LAND VALUE AND DISPLACEMENT SINCE THIS PROCESS BEGAN. COUNCILMEMBER WEST AND HIS TEAM HAVE BEEN OPEN FOR FEEDBACK FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS AND HAVE AGREED TO SEVERAL COMPROMISES.

THESE COMPROMISES INCLUDE REDUCING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO 45FT AND RESTRICTING THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY TO THE CORNERS OF HINTON AND CLARENDON.

BUT THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN REQUESTS FOR A LOCAL TASK FORCE AND INTO DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT.

AND GIVEN THAT NOT THOSE ARE NOT ZONING RELATED ISSUES AT THIS POINT, IT'S IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE PUTTING THE SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE SECOND TO THE ZONING? AND IF THIS CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT PASS THE ZONING CHANGE, IT WILL BE A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

FOR ALL OF THE MOST CYNICAL SCENARIOS THAT SOME CONCERNED CITIZENS HAVE EXPRESSED.

DISPLACEMENT WILL HAPPEN FASTER TO A HIGHER DEGREE, AND THE COMMUNITY WILL NOT GET THE INPUT THAT IT'S DOESN'T HAVE.

THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S TRUE. UNDER SB 840. THERE'S NO NEUTRALITY.

NEUTRALITY IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF IT. EXPLICIT GENTRIFICATION, DISPLACEMENT OF MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, AND THE TERRAFORMING OF WESLEY CLARK INTO ANOTHER PLAYGROUND FOR THE RICH.

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS ZONING CHANGE TO HELP PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN WEST OAKLAND.

THANK YOU. MIGUEL SERRANO IS NOT ONLINE. IT'S MIGUEL SERRANO IN THE AUDIENCE.

OKAY. MIGUEL SERRANO IS NOT PRESENT. THESE ARE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL? I SEE SEVERAL. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? AND, SIR, YOU MAY COME. YOU MAY COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ITEM Z 22, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THESE FIRST FEW ROWS IN THIS INTERSECTION. THERE'S A YEAH, THERE YOU GO. AND I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES AND YOU MAY BEGIN. HELLO.

HELLO. YOUR MIC. YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOT ON. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE OF THAT MICROPHONE.

TRY SELECTING IT AGAIN. HELLO? MAYBE. MAYBE GETTING A LITTLE CLOSER.

HELLO? THERE YOU GO. HELLO. MY NAME IS MIKE MATTHEWS.

I LIVE AT 27 002 ASTOR STREET. THAT'S 75211. AND I'M WEARING MY NORTHCLIFFE NEIGHBORHOOD T-SHIRT FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, TO THANK THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL FOR UNANIMOUSLY PASSING THE REZONING OF OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER LAST MARCH.

AND SECOND, TO SUPPORT THE CPC PROPOSAL WMU3 FOR THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BORDERS AS THE NORTHCLIFFE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE FOR HERITAGE OAK CLIFF.

I NETWORK WITH NEIGHBORS AND PRESENTED THE ZONING OPTIONS FOR THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR.

AT OUR LAST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I LETTER I LATER EMAILED ALL CONTACTS, A DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT ZONING AND THE STAFF.

CPC PROPOSED ZONING WITH THIS QUESTION DO YOU WANT ONE, THE CURRENT ZONING OR TWO, THE PROPOSED ZONING. AND I RECEIVED 25 RESPONSES.

TWO RESPONDENTS WANT THE CURRENT ZONING AND 23 RESPONDENTS FROM SIX STREETS.

ASTOR. BURLINGTON, KATHARINE, CLARENDON, GLADSTONE AND AVONDALE.

WANT THE STAFF? CPC PROPOSED ZONING. YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER WITH THE RESPONDENTS NAMES AND THE STREETS WHERE THEY LIVE. SO MANY RESIDENTS, QUOTE, ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THE EMU THREE PROPOSED ZONING END QUOTE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS BETTER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS WITH PORTIONS OF STOREFRONT OVERLAYS.

[04:00:01]

THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS DRIVE THRUS THAT WE DO NOT WANT, LACKS DESIGN STANDARDS, AND LACKS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. SINCE TEXAS SB 840 GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST, THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL VOTE TODAY IS A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CORRIDOR THAT BORDERS MY NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR THESE REASONS, I ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE SPC PROPOSAL OF WMU. THREE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. HELLO, MY NAME IS JEANETTE AND I AM CURRENTLY LIVING AT 1409 NORTH ZHENG BOULEVARD IN DISTRICT ONE.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AS A SOMEBODY THAT'S LIVED IN THE CITY FOR 26 YEARS, I HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF MULTIPLE DISTRICTS AROUND THE CITY FROM DISTRICT ONE TO DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT 14 AND DISTRICT SEVEN.

MY FAMILY HAS HAD TO MOVE MULTIPLE TIMES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE LIVING IN THIS CITY.

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

MANY PEOPLE COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO TAKE TIME OFF OF WORK.

MOTHERS, FATHERS, CHILDREN'S AND SCHOOLS COULD NOT COME HERE AND MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD TO YOU.

MANY OF YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION EVEN NOW, AND ARE ALWAYS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ELECTED YOU TO YOUR SEAT. ALL WE ASK IS FOR YOU TO HEAR OUR VOICES AND TAKE OUR CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION.

WITH THE REZONING, NOT ONLY HERE, BUT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.

ALL WE WANT IS TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ANGELINA. WHO ARE YOU? I LIVE AT 2430 CATHERINE STREET AND I AM OPPOSED TO THE ZONING.

I AM LIVING WHAT'S CALLED THE AMERICAN DREAM, WHERE YOU ARE ABLE TO PAY OFF YOUR HOUSE.

I DON'T PLAN ON MOVING. I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE'S 3 TO 5 STOREY BUILDINGS HOVERING OVER MY HOME.

THERE'S SOME HOUSES ON ZANE STREET THAT THAT'S HAPPENED TO.

EVERYBODY HAS TALKED ABOUT GENTRIFICATION. AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT CLOSELY.

PAY ATTENTION. DO YOU SEE THAT? IT'S THE BROWN PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED HERE.

THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE MOVING IN AND THEY'RE CHASING US OUT.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU REALLY PAY ATTENTION, YOU'LL SEE THIS HAPPENING.

THIS IS THE TRUTH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MARK LOMBARDI. 6728. BRIER COVE.

I'M NOT HERE BECAUSE I NECESSARILY OPPOSE OR SUPPORT THIS REZONING CASE THAT I AM HERE BECAUSE I THINK IT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR ALL OF US CITY COUNCIL RESIDENTS, DEVELOPERS, CITY STAFF. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HIGHLIGHT IT AND TRY TO GET AN ANSWER TO IT.

A LOT OF THESE FOLKS HAVE ALREADY BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH ON IT, BUT PERHAPS I CAN PUT A BOW ON IT.

AND WE CAN WE CAN SEEK CLARITY. DALLAS MORNING NEWS EDITORIAL BOARD PIECE THIS MORNING STATED, THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL HAS A CHANCE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF OF AN IMPORTANT REZONING EFFORT FOR A 35 ACRE PIECE OF OAK CLIFF.

THE HAMPTON CLARION CORRIDOR PLAN HAS POTENTIAL TO BRING SOME GENTLE GROWTH, WITH BENEFITS FLOWING TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND HERE'S THE FIRST IMPORTANT PART. BUT TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

A NEW STATE LAW, SB 40, WILL SOON ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE WITHOUT THE GUARDRAILS THIS PLAN ENVISIONS.

IMPLICATION BEING THE PD IS A SHIELD. THE PIECE GOES ON TO STATE, AFTER A CONTENTIOUS MEETING IN JUNE WHERE ACTIVISTS SPOKE AGAINST THE PLAN, A VOTE WAS POSTPONED. THIS ALLOWED ROOM FOR MORE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO ASKED FOR MORE TIME TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SB EIGHT.

44 OUT OF SIX SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS NOW SUPPORT THE PLAN.

ONE HAS GIVEN ITS CONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL SUPPORT.

THE SIX NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REMAINED NEUTRAL. THE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT ONE TOLD US THAT MUCH OF THE VOCAL OPPOSITION HAS CALMED DOWN, PARTICULARLY AFTER NEWS ABOUT SB 840 SPREAD. AGAIN, THE IMPLICATION BEING A PD IS A SHIELD.

THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A SHIELD TO SB 840. SO THE QUESTION IS, AND I KNOW THAT WAS THE THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS WORDS,

[04:05:04]

BUT IT WAS POSTED TO THE COUNCILMEMBER FROM DISTRICT ONE'S FACEBOOK.

SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE CITY'S POSITION? I KNOW WE LOBBIED AGAINST THE BILL WHEN WE WERE THERE.

WHAT IS THE CITY'S POSITION NOW AND HOW DOES SB A40 INTERACT WITH PDS? THIS IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY. THIS CASE IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO ASK OUR CITY STAFF THAT QUESTION AND GET RESOLUTION.

SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. IT ONLY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IF THE COUNCIL IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE RESIDENTS, THE DEVELOPERS AND THE STAFF. SO IF WE GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, YOU GUYS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE QUESTIONS YOU THINK MAKES SENSE WITH THAT BACKGROUND, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR EVERYONE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM C 22. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON C22? I'LL JUMP AT ONCE.

YES. MR. WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR A MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES A 45 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT MAP OVERLAY IS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND TO RETAIN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF EMMET STREET WEST OF HAMPTON ROAD, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF ZONING CASE Z178374.

PD. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, THAT.

MR. WEST, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS? YEAH, LET'S DO IT. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKERS WHO CAME OUT TODAY.

SPECIAL THANKS TO THE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPOKE TODAY, WHO LIVE IN THE AREA OF NOTIFICATION AND SPECIAL THANKS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. THE FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT PROVIDED LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND THE.

AND THEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, MARY LOU PARIS, WHO DID PROVIDE A LETTER AS WELL.

TODAY IS THE CULMINATION OF A YEARS LONG PROCESS.

AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER, WE HELD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT ON JUNE 25TH DUE TO A TECHNICAL ERROR, AND TO GIVE US MORE TIME TO DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF SB 840 WITH THE RESIDENTS.

THE ONLY CHANGES SINCE JUNE ARE THAT AN ADDITIONAL TWO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT BECAUSE OF SB 840.

WE REALLY HAVE TWO OPTIONS BEFORE US TODAY. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH COME SEPTEMBER 1ST, WILL ALLOW FOR BY RIGHT MULTIFAMILY UP TO FOUR STOREYS AND 54FT, WITH NO DESIGN STANDARDS OR PUBLIC REALM REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR, WITH NO PROTECTIONS FOR THE CURRENT RETAIL USES, AND IT WOULD ALSO CONTINUE TO ALLOW FOR DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS BY RIGHT.

THE SECOND OPTION IS FOR US TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, WHICH RECEIVED INPUT FROM THOUSANDS OF NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING 952 WHO COMPLETED SURVEYS.

THE PLAN CLEARLY RECOMMENDS WMU THREE, OR WALKABLE MIXED USE ZONING TO HELP ALLOW A GREATER DIVERSITY OF USES.

THE WMU THREE ZONING WOULD BE LIMITED TO THREE AND A HALF STORIES INSTEAD OF FOUR AND 50FT, WITH NEW DEVELOPMENTS BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS LIKE PARKING IN THE BACK AND WIDER SIDEWALKS.

DRIVE THRUS WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

WITH MY AMENDED LANGUAGE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE LOWERED DOWN TO 45FT, THE LOWEST HEIGHT ALLOWED UNDER SB 40.

THIS CHANGE WAS REQUESTED BY THE SUNSET HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH REPRESENTS THE LARGEST PIECE OF THE ZONING AREA.

THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT OVERLAY WAS ALSO THE ONE ZONING MODIFICATION REQUESTED BY LA ALIANZA GROUP, THE ONLY OPPOSITION GROUP WHO BROUGHT OUT SO MANY SPEAKERS LAST TIME AND THIS TIME.

FOR YEARS WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WANT SAFER STREETS, FEWER VACANT LOTS AND MORE SMALL BUSINESSES SO THAT NEIGHBORS CAN EASILY SUPPORT THIS COMMERCIAL NODE ALONG HAMPTON AND CLARENDON. MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS REZONING AND ALONG WITH THE STRONG SUPPORT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, WILL DO JUST THAT. THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE'VE HEARD REAL CONCERNS FROM SEVERAL BUSINESS OWNERS AND ADVOCATES FROM ALL OVER DISTRICT ONE AND ACROSS THE CITY.

THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT RISING PROPERTY VALUES AND GENTRIFICATION ISSUES IMPACTING MANY REGIONS, FROM OAK CLIFF TO WEST DALLAS AND EAST DALLAS.

MANY SEE BISHOP ARTS AND THEY SEE TRINITY GROVES, AND THEY FEAR THAT THE HAMPTON CLARENDON REZONING COULD CREATE THE NEXT BISHOP ARTS 2.0.

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR. THIS ZONING IS NOTHING LIKE BISHOP ARTS.

IT'S NOTHING LIKE TRINITY GROVES. THE PROPOSED WMU THREE WOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE MORE RESTRICTIONS THAN THE KRE ZONING.

[04:10:01]

THE COMMUNITY RETAIL ZONING WOULD ALLOW UNDER SBA 40.

THIS IS WHY SO MANY NEIGHBORS HAVE ASKED THAT WE URGENTLY PASS THIS ZONING CHANGE.

AHEAD OF SEPTEMBER 1ST DEADLINE, WHEN SB 840 TAKES THIS OUT OF OUR CONTROL.

THIS ZONING WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING THE AUTO SHOPS THAT WE ALL LOVE, THE RESTAURANTS AND THE HOUSING. JUST LIKE DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD, WHICH REZONED TO WMU THREE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

MOVING FORWARD WITH W CM3 WITH SHOPFRONT OVERLAY JUST LIKE WAS REQUESTED BY LA ALIANZA IN KEY AREAS, WILL ALSO MEAN THAT THE HISTORIC RETAIL CHARACTER OF THESE CORRIDORS CONTINUE.

LASTLY, ON THE MOST TALKED ABOUT PIECE TODAY, THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT TASK FORCE AND THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT MEASURES, I WANT TO THANK THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR GETTING INVOLVED AND OFFERING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO MEET WITH SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RESPONSE TO THESE OFFERS, I CONTINUE TO KEEP AN OPEN DOOR TO HELP SET UP MEETINGS.

FURTHER, I'VE SPOKEN WITH CITY MANAGER TOLBERT ABOUT CREATING A CITYWIDE TASK FORCE TO LOOK INTO GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT CONCERNS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO FORWARD TO PARTNERING TO ENSURE THAT DISTRICT ONE IS REPRESENTED ON THIS TASK FORCE.

I WANT TO GIVE A SPECIAL THANKS TO ANDREA GILLIS AND JALEN PORSHA FOR THEIR HARD WORK, INCLUDING MANY EVENING MEETINGS OVER THE LAST YEAR.

THIS CASE TOOK SO LONG NOT BECAUSE STAFF WAS WORKING SLOWLY, BUT RATHER BECAUSE THEY WORKED SO DILIGENTLY TO MAKE SURE EVERY MEETING WAS ATTENDED AND EVERY QUESTION ANSWERED. COLLEAGUES, I REQUEST FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT TODAY'S MOTION.

I AGAIN WANT TO THANK THOSE RESIDENTS I CAME OUT TO, SPOKE TODAY AND TO THE MANY MORE THAT SPOKE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

I'M NOT HEARING FROM RESIDENTS SAYING NO TO ANY CHANGES.

WHAT I'M HEARING, THEY SIMPLY WANT TO BE HEARD AND THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS.

THEY WANT PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

BACK IN MARCH, I SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 840, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTED WAS COMMUNITIES KNOW BEST AND ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

AND SO TODAY, I WILL AGAIN STAND WITH THE COMMUNITY IN NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. WELL, CAP CAME BEFORE US AT CITY COUNCIL AND CPC.

I'M GETTING MIXED UP. WHEN I WAS ON CPC, WE WORKED DILIGENTLY, AND WE SPOKE, AND WE ALLOWED RESIDENTS TO SPEAK OUT AND SPEAK FOR WO CAP. THIS IS A MULTI-YEAR PROCESS.

IT STARTED WITH CPC WHEN I WAS ON CPC. WE HEARD THE RESIDENTS AND WE HEARD THEM LOUD AND CLEAR. WHEN WE HEARD WHEN WE AND WHEN IT WAS AT CPC THAT THEY DID WANT THE PROTECTIONS OF THAT WE THAT THE MU WOULD GIVE MU W3. CURRENTLY SB 840 IS ACTUALLY ADDING HINDRANCE TO OUR PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT HERE AT OUR DOOR. AND SB 840 WITH ITS OVERLAYS, BRING IN THINGS BY RIGHT THAT WE HAVE ASKED NOT TO DO WITH THE PROTECTIONS WITH STAFF AND CPC'S PROPOSAL.

I AGREE WITH CHAD WEST. WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT ONE THAT THIS MULTIFAMILY OVERLAY, THROUGH A PROPOSAL THROUGH SB AND SBS, SB 840 IS CHALLENGING AND AND IT'S ONE THAT THE RESIDENTS AND WE DID NOT ASK FOR. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING BROUGHT DOWN TO US BY BY THE STATE.

AND WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT IN THINGS THAT AND IT'S LOOKING TO PUT IN THINGS THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL THAT MY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS PUT OUT, BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID DISCUSS THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS. IT WAS DISCUSSED THROUGH CPC, AND IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THE

[04:15:06]

COUNCIL MEMBER HAS HAS DONE. I HEAR HIM LOUD AND CLEAR AND I AM GOING TO SUPPORT HIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. I CAN ASK FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.

THE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS DID RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PD WOULD BE A PROTECTIVE TOOL TO BATTLE THE THE THE SB 840 ENTITLEMENT. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY REVIEW OF THAT POSITION BY OUR FOLKS, BY OUR LEGAL STAFF OR OR THROUGH BEING DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND ZONING ON THAT.

ANDREW GILLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR ME FROM A WHAT YOU MEAN BY PROTECTION? I GUESS SO I CAN HELP. DOES A DOES A PD TRUMP THE SB 840? NOTHING CAN TRUMP THE SB 840. SO SB THAT'S THAT'S STATE LAW.

SO WE HAVE TO GO BY THAT. BUT WHAT. AND IT'S NOT A PD, IT'S A BASE ZONING.

WMU THREE IS A BASE ZONING DISTRICT. WHAT IT DOES IS IT IT FILLS IN SOME GAPS WHERE 840 DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT SORT OF THE PUBLIC REALM.

WHAT WMU THREE DOES IS FILL IN THOSE GAPS. SO WITHOUT WMU THREE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THOSE STANDARDS.

OKAY. I'M SORRY I'M NOT CLEAR. MAYBE MY QUESTION WAS NOT CLEAR.

IS, IS ANY PROTECTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT? DO THOSE PROTECTIONS NEGATE THE ANY PART OF THE ENTITLEMENT THAT 840 WOULD? WE CANNOT THE LOCAL JURISDICTION CANNOT NEGATE STATE LAW.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AND PLEASE, IF I'M BEING CLUMSY IN MY QUESTION, BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

AND IS THERE. IS THERE A SUFFICIENT PROTECTION FROM BY THE FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT THE OVERLAY WOULD ALLOW IF AN EVENT. 840 IS IS THE ENTITLEMENTS PROVIDED BY 840 ARE ENFORCED? I GUESS THE QUESTION. SO ARE YOU ASKING IF WE DID NOTHING RIGHT? OKAY. IF WE DID NOTHING, YOU WOULD GET GREATER HEIGHT.

THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION LOWERS THE HEIGHT.

SO STATE LAW 840 SAYS MINIMUM 45FT. CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS UP TO 54FT, AND WITH THE HEIGHT OVERLAY OF 45FT, THAT DECREASES IT OBVIOUSLY.

TO WHAT? TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE STATE LAW. AND THEN THERE ARE EXTRA DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN WMU THREE THAT IF YOU DID NOTHING YOU DON'T GET THOSE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH PARKING WHERE YOU PARK CURB CUTS THE WIDTH OF YOUR SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING.

ALL OF THOSE ARE ONLY WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED UNDER WMU THREE IF WE DON'T APPLY WMU THREE.

THOSE STANDARDS DON'T EXIST. OKAY. THERE WAS ALSO A MENTION I THINK BY BY THE COUNCILMAN THAT THERE WERE SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE THAT THERE WERE AS PART OF THESE OF THIS PROPOSED PROPOSAL.

RIGHT. WHAT ARE THOSE? SO WHAT THOSE ARE. SO THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE A LONG TIME AGO.

WHAT WE TRIED TO DO THROUGH THE AUTHORIZE, BECAUSE IT WAS THE AUTHORIZED HEARING.

THERE WAS THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY THAT LIMITED, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THEY CAN BE ENFORCED TODAY BECAUSE IT LIMITED THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS YOU COULD PUT ON A PROPERTY. AND BECAUSE THERE WAS A REZONE, THE THE REZONING PROPOSAL THAT WAS GOING THROUGH, WE OFFERED TO RELIEVE AS PART OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO MATCH UP EVERYTHING UNDER THE NEW ZONING.

BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO SIGN ON AND AGREE TO THAT AND THEN FILE IT WITH THE COUNTY.

THE PROPERTY OWNER OPTED NOT TO DO THAT, SO WE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITH THE THE DEED RESTRICTION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE, AND SO THE DEED RESTRICTION IS ALSO USURPED BY 840.

IF THERE'S A DEED RESTRICTION AGAINST RESIDENTIAL USE, THERE IS.

DOES 840 STILL GIVE THE THE RIGHT THE THE ENTITLEMENT TO PUT RESIDENTIAL THERE?

[04:20:04]

YES. AND I WOULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE LEGAL STAFF, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT 840 WOULD TRUMP THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT SAYS I COULD BE WRONG.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THEY'RE CHECKING NOW AND THEY'RE COMING FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, DANIEL MORRIS, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. THE SENATE BILL 840 WOULD TRUMP THE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEED RESTRICTION SAYS WE CANNOT ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PURPORT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER. OKAY. SO IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SAY THE MAX HEIGHT IS 30FT, SENATE BILL 840 WOULD KICK IN AND SAY THE MAX HEIGHT IS 45FT.

SO DOES THAT IF THERE ARE OTHER PORTIONS THAT ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY 840.

THOSE WOULD STILL BE ENFORCEABLE. SO IF DEIDRE SIX IT SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT RESIDENTIAL THERE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION PREVENT RESIDENTIAL IF THERE'S IN THE EFFECT OF SB 840. NO NO BECAUSE THE SO SENATE BILL 840 WOULD REQUIRE MULTIFAMILY USES AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO, SO AND I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

I'M NOT TRYING TO TO, TO PRETEND THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT THERE REALLY IS NOT A DEED RESTRICTION WAY TO PREVENT A RESIDENTIAL USE FROM GOING INTO A COMMERCIAL USE IN ORDER TO BLOCK THE 840 EFFECTS ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IS THAT IS THAT YOUR YOUR READING ON THIS? I'M SORRY. CAN YOU. CAN YOU? IN OTHER WORDS, IF I HAVE A COMMERCIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A RESIDENTIAL BUY, RIGHT? IF I PUT A DEED RESTRICTION ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, 840 WOULD STILL ALLOW THAT PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO RESIDENTIAL USE. IF THAT DEED RESTRICTION IS ONE THAT GOES THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS AND THE CITY IS TRYING TO ENFORCE IT, THE CITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT. IF IT'S A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION, WOULD THAT THAT WOULD NOT THAT WOULD NOT BE VALID EITHER IF IT WAS A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION THAT THE CITY IS NOT ENFORCING, THAT WOULD BE A VALID DEED RESTRICTION, THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IS IT A CITY DEED RESTRICTION OR WAS IT A PRIVATE? IT IS A PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTION. IT'S A IT'S A CITY POSITION.

SO IT'S A DEED RESTRICTION THAT THAT WAS PART OF YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PLANNING SITUATION OR, OR PART OF THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT.

YES. IT WAS ONE THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED SEVERAL DECADES AGO.

OKAY. SO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS PARTICULAR CORRIDOR COULD RESTRICT THEIR OWN PROPERTIES AGAINST CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF OF RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT, ETC., BASED ON IF FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE TO BE BLOCKING THE THE ENTITLEMENT OF 840.

BUT A CITY IMPOSED DEED RESTRICTION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THAT POWER.

YOU GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I I'M I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT NEIGHBORS.

LOSING THEIR VOICE AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN MY POSITION, IN MY POSITION HERE ARE PARAMOUNT.

THEY DESERVE PRIORITY. NEIGHBORS NEED TO BE PROTECTED.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT, COMPLICATED PROCESS.

AND AND I APPLAUD EVERYBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'S BEEN MAKING EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS AND WHO HAVE COME TO THIS COUNCIL TO TRY TO EDUCATE US AND TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS.

AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO TO TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR YOUR FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS AND YOUR IN YOUR PERSONAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION, AND I'M LISTENING TO A LOT OF MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

MY QUESTION IS THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE.

THAT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE? THOSE MOM AND POP SHOPS, THOSE PEOPLE THAT'S BEEN THERE, BUILT THE COMMUNITY, LABORED IN THE COMMUNITY.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES? NOTHING.

[04:25:01]

THEY CAN CONTINUE. NOTHING WILL CONTINUE. THEY CAN CONTINUE.

YES. THIS ZONING CHANGE, THIS ZONING CHANGE DOESN'T IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE.

IT DOESN'T PUSH ANYBODY OUT. IT DOESN'T PUSH ANYBODY OUT.

NO. OKAY. HOW MANY COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN, MR. MAYOR, I CAN ADD COUNCILMAN WEST, SINCE THIS IS HIS DISTRICT.

HOW MANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS DID YOU HAVE CONCERNING THIS MATTER? BECAUSE A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAME AND SPOKE AGAINST IT.

SO WHAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT YOU HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS INVOLVED IN? AND CAN YOU TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT FEELING PUSHED OFF.

ALTHOUGH ADMINISTRATION SAID NO ONE WILL BE PUSHED OUT, WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THAT INFORMATION FROM AS WELL? HE CAN REPLY IF HE'D LIKE AND IT WILL COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME. JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOUR CLOCK'S GOING TO RUN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. NOW THANK YOU.

AND IF I'M TALKING TO YOU ALONE, JUST CUT ME OFF.

SO THIS ALL STARTED SEVEN YEARS AGO. THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN HAD 17,000 PEOPLE PROVIDE INPUT.

952 PEOPLE COMPLETED SURVEYS. THERE WERE DOZENS OF MEETINGS, I'D SAY FROM FROM.

WHOA. CAP. AND THEN AFTER THE AREA PLAN WAS PASSED ANDREA, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER BETTER THAN ME BECAUSE YOU DID ALL THE MEETINGS, BUT I'D SAY 14, 14 COMMUNITY MEETINGS. STAFF ALSO AGREED TO MEET WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR HOMES AND IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.

ONE ON ONE, IF REQUESTED. AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO INDIVIDUAL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS HELD MEETINGS THAT EITHER MY STAFF OR PLANNING STAFF WENT TO. SO THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WAY WE'LL EVER GET 100% OF THE PEOPLE INFORMED.

I WISH WE COULD. AND I THINK THE CITY SHOULD DO BETTER.

BUT THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A LONG PROCESS. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IT IS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN ENGAGED FOR 7 TO 8 YEARS IN THE PROCESS NOW. DID YOU ATTEND ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS? DID YOU LEAD ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS AS A COUNCIL MEMBER? YEAH, I WAS YES, I WAS AT PROBABLY HALF OF THEM OVER THE SEVEN YEARS.

EVEN DURING COVID, WE WERE HOLDING THEM ONLINE AND OUT AT PARKS AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, AND KEITH PARK, WE HELD A COUPLE OF THEM AND AND SO THEY WERE ALWAYS WELL ATTENDED, I WOULD SAY.

WOULDN'T YOU SAY? ANDREA, I THINK WE ALWAYS HAD PRETTY GOOD ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETINGS.

WERE THEY, YOU KNOW, DID WE GET 100% OF PEOPLE INFORMED? NO, BUT WE TRIED. AND TO BE FAIR, A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM WERE VERY HELPFUL GETTING PEOPLE OUT TO THE MEETINGS.

I EVEN ATTENDED ONE THAT WAS HOSTED BY RYAN PLANNING.

YOU KNOW WHO'S BEEN SKEPTICAL OF THE PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING? SO THANK YOU. THE REASON WHY I ASK IS ASK THIS QUESTION.

I WANT TO RESPECT YOU. ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBER OF THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.

COMMUNITY INPUT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS VERY CRUCIAL TO ME.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. AND THIS SEEMED LIKE A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS.

AND THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMUNITY COME IN, SOME OF THE BROWN COMMUNITY CAME IN AND FELT THAT THEY WAS BEING PUSHED OUT.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE I'M STILL ON THE FENCE ON HERE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY, NUMBER ONE, THEIR VOICE HAS BEEN HEARD. NUMBER TWO, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUSHED OUT.

THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BROWN COMMUNITY WILL NOT BE PUSHED OUT, AND THOSE THAT ARE IN THAT AREA WILL NOT BE PUSHED OUT.

IS THAT CORRECT? CAN I? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. I MEAN, ONE THING THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND CONSISTENT IS THAT NEIGHBORS DID NOT WANT THIS CORRIDOR TO BE THE NEXT BISHOP BART'S.

LIKE, PEOPLE LIKE SOME ASPECTS OF BISHOP BART'S.

BUT THE BIG CONCERN WAS, WE DO NOT WANT THIS MASSIVE EXODUS OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT RESULTED FROM THE OLD ZONING OF BISHOP ARTS.

AND SO THE ZONING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE FIVE STORY CONSOLIDATED BLOCK APARTMENT BLOCKS THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR BISHOP ARTS. AND I THINK SOME MIGHT ARGUE. TRINITY GROVES, THIS IS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE 25% OF VACANT LOTS IN THE AREA.

WHILE DOING THE BEST IT CAN TO ALLOW BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE TO THRIVE.

AND THERE'S NO PERFECT FORMULA, I DON'T THINK.

I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING GENTRIFICATION ALL OVER THE CITY, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE PUSHED OUT.

THERE'S ANY BUSINESS THAT'S THERE IS GRANDFATHERED IN.

THANK YOU. MISS CADENA. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE ON ITEM 22 FOR THE PUBLIC ZONING ITEM Z 22.

ANDRE, IF YOU CAN COME UP AGAIN. I HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN SB 840 AND THE WM3.

SO THE IF WE DID THE HEIGHT OVERLAY, IT PRETTY MUCH NEUTRALIZES THE THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE,

[04:30:09]

BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING IS 45FT, THEN WITH THE HEIGHT OVERLAY THE SB 840 HAS THE MINIMUM OF 45FT.

SO IT BASICALLY NOW IF WE KEPT THE 50FT RIGHT WHERE WMU THREE CURRENTLY HAS A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 50FT OR 3.5 STORIES. THERE COULD BE THAT BETWEEN 45 AND 50FT.

RFPS COULD APPLY DEPENDING ON THE DEPTH OF THE LOT.

A LOT OF THESE ARE SHALLOW DEPTHS. SO IT'S A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO.

THIS DOESN'T REMOVE RFPS OR I SHOULD SAY DOES NOT GET REMOVED IN THESE SCENARIOS, BUT IT BECOMES THE RPS THAT WE KNEW BEFORE IS NOW CHANGED BECAUSE OF 840, BUT WITH THE HEIGHT OVERLAY.

AND AGAIN THIS IS JUST FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

RPS STILL APPLIES IF YOU'RE JUST DOING SOLELY COMMERCIAL, SOLELY OFFICE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

THIS IS IF YOU WERE DOING SOME HOUSING COMPONENT.

AND MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE WHERE DO YOU MEASURE FROM FOR THE HEIGHT? BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT IN LA BAJADA A LONG TIME AGO WHEN WE PUSHED, WE PASSED THE OVERLAY.

SO JUST WONDERING FOR THIS. SO LA BAJADA WAS WAS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THAT WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY.

SO THAT ACTUALLY GOT MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THIS AREA WOULD BE UNDER THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE CITYWIDE RFPS.

SO WHEREVER YOU'RE GOING TO FIND YOURSELF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT APPLIES THE ANGLES START GOING FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

SO IT WOULD IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. MR. WEST RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. JUST A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS FOR REALLY PUBLIC AND MEDIA.

IF THIS COMES UP, I'M GOING TO ASK ANDREA TO STAY UP HERE, IF YOU WOULD.

ALL RIGHT. CURRENT ZONING, WHICH WOULD CONVERT TO EIGHT.

SB 840 ALLOWS MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL OR NEW BUILDINGS UP TO 54FT.

CORRECT. CORRECT. AS IN CONTRAST. PROPOSAL. WE'RE LIMITING IT TO 45FT.

RIGHT. WITH THE OVERLAY. YES, 45FT. BY HAVING THE OVERLAY OF 45FT.

IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIVE. RESTRICTIVE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? MEANING IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE HARDER TO COME IN AND DISPLACE ANYONE.

IT WOULD. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I, I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY COMPLETE DISPLACEMENT, BUT YES, IT WOULD, IT WOULD FURTHER CONSTRAIN WHAT YOU COULD DEVELOP.

AND I AND AGAIN I REMIND EVERYONE IT'S 45FT OR 3.5 STORIES.

SO AGAIN IT'S NEVER GOING TO GET ABOVE 3.5 STORIES PER WMU THREE.

SO SPEAKING OF STORIES UNDER SB EIGHT, 44 STORIES UNDER PROPOSED ZONING, THREE AND A HALF STORIES, CORRECT? OKAY. UNDER SB 840, WHERE THERE'S NO SHOPFRONT OVERLAY, RESIDENTIAL COULD BE BUILT ANYWHERE.

CORRECT? CORRECT ENTIRELY. YES AND YES. VERSUS UNDER THE PROPOSAL SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.

WE'RE LIMITING WHERE RESIDENTIAL CAN BE BUILT.

GENERALLY YOU'RE REQUIRING THERE'S STILL TO BE RETAIL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR THROUGHOUT THE WMU AREA.

CORRECT. AND I WOULD CLARIFY THAT SB 840 PREEMPTS US BEING ABLE TO USE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.

THE REASON WE CAN USE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY IN THIS CASE IS BECAUSE IT'S WMU THREE.

IT'S A MIXED USE DISTRICT. WE CAN'T USE THAT IN SINGLE USE DISTRICTS.

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. WE CAN'T APPLY A SHOP FOR AN OVERLAY.

WE CAN ONLY APPLY IT HERE BECAUSE IT'S A MIXED USE DISTRICT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

FROM A USE PERSPECTIVE, I MEAN THE SMALL BUSINESSES, IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE FOR THE THE CURRENT USERS UNDER SB 840 VERSUS WMU THREE FOR FOR USES FOR THE CURRENT BUSINESSES? NO. FROM FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, YOU CAN GET THE SAME MIX OF OF BUSINESSES AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

ANY BUSINESS THAT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AND EXISTING UNDER THE HAMPDEN CLARENDON CORRIDOR UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT PUSHES THEM OUT FROM THE ZONING PACKAGE? NO. OKAY. UNDER ON PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS.

UNDER SB 840. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT TO DO WIDER SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO. UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING, IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR WIDER SIDEWALKS? IS A REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFERS? YES. THE WALKABLE MIXED USE DISTRICT DOES.

I MEAN, ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF THAT IN DIFFERENT.

AND WHAT IS HOW IT IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER BASE ZONING DISTRICTS OR OTHER DISTRICTS THAT WE SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY IS THERE'S MORE EMPHASIS ON THE PUBLIC REALM.

SO SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING, THINGS LIKE THAT, CURB CUTS.

YEAH. THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, TO ADDRESS ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS WAS, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THIS PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS?

[04:35:03]

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ANSWERS IT EXACTLY, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE SPOKEN THROUGH WHATSAPP.

THEY'VE SPOKEN THROUGH THE FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT SAYING WE WANT RESTRICTED HEIGHT.

WE WANT MORE WALKABILITY. WE LOVE THE EXISTING BUSINESSES, BUT NEW THINGS THAT COME IN.

WE WANT THEM TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON OUR WALKABLE, MIXED USE COMMUNITY VERSUS THE THOROUGHFARE THAT WE KNOW HAMPTON TO BE TODAY WITH SIX LANES OF SPEEDING TRAFFIC. SO THAT'S IN MY MIND THE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ZONING ITEMS? 22. SEEING MR. JOHNSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I MAY SEEM A LITTLE REDUNDANT HERE, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME.

AND I'VE HEARD THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GOING ON RECORD BECAUSE I'M RECEIVING TEXT MESSAGES.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M BACK ON RECORD ASKING YOU THIS AGAIN.

I REMEMBER I KNOW GENTRIFICATION IS A CONCERN FOR A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITY IN THE DISTRICT.

AND WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR HISTORY IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY, WE'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOMPSON HALL AND HOW THAT GENTRIFICATION REALLY PUSHED THE BLACK COMMUNITY OUT. SO THAT IS A VERY SENSITIVE TIVE OF SUBJECT IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE'VE EXPERIENCED THE BAD END OF THAT.

AND I'VE I'VE HEARD A LOT FROM A BROWN COMMUNITY HERE.

SO I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN THIS DEVELOPMENT WHERE THIS, THIS GENTRIFICATION, THIS PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE SEEMED LIKE YOU HAVE REALLY WORKED OVER THE YEARS AND HAD A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

AND AS YOU SAY, YOU WAS THERE OVER HALF OF THEM, AND YOU DEALT WITH THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY AND TALK TO EVERYBODY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE ON RECORD THAT THIS PROCESS AND PROJECT WOULD NOT PUSH THOSE COMMUNITY MEMBERS OUT AND PUSH THE COMMUNITY OUT, WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND THRIVE AS THEY ARE DOING CURRENTLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY MAGIC BULLET TO PREVENT GENTRIFICATION. YOU KNOW, IT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE CITY.

IT'S HAPPENING ESPECIALLY IN OAK CLIFF, AS YOU KNOW, IN YOUR DISTRICT AND IN MIND.

AND NEW DEVELOPMENT CREATES THAT THIS AREA. SUNSET HILL IS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT.

WE HAD SPEAKERS FROM SUNSET HILL WHEN I MOVED INTO OAK CLIFF.

HOMES WERE FOR SALE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 180 $200,000.

THERE WAS A HOUSE LAST MONTH ON THE MARKET FOR OVER $600,000.

SO IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING IN NORTH OAK CLIFF.

THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE BUSINESSES THAT WE HAVE THERE WHILE PUTTING MORE GUIDELINES IN PLACE THAN SBA 40 WOULD HAVE. SO I DON'T WANT TO BE ON RECORD SAYING THIS WILL SOLVE EVERY GENTRIFICATION PROBLEM ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL, BUT I THINK IT DOES THE BEST JOB IT CAN, GIVEN THE TOOLS WE HAVE.

AND I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE THIS ON THE TABLE TO EVEN TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST BE SUBJECT TO THE SEPTEMBER 1ST, YOU KNOW? BUT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY WOULD NOT PUSH ANYONE OUT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THEY SAID THAT THE EXISTING BUSINESSES ARE GRANDFATHERED IN.

THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ZONING? MS. 22 BEFORE WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

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. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ. NO. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROFF. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. NO. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES.

BUT 12 VOTING IN FAVOR. THREE OPPOSE. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR.

[PH2. A public hearing to receive comments regarding consideration of removing Section 51A-4.701(e) “Postponements” to eliminate the non-discretionary postponement process for zoning amendments and an ordinance granting the amendments Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of ZOAC: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval DCA245-006(JP) Note: This item was held under advisement by the City Council at the public hearing on June 25, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 13, 2025. 25-2238A]

MAYOR. ITEM Z3 WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED. ITEM P1 WAS DELETED.

I'M SORRY, FF ONE WAS DELETED. ITEM FF TWO. I READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM FF TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF REMOVING SECTION 51,

[04:40:01]

A-4.701E POSTPONEMENTS TO ELIMINATE THE NON-DISCRETIONARY POSTPONEMENT PROCESS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS. YOU DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DAMIEN LEVESQUE. MR. LEVESQUE.

DAMIEN LEVESQUE IT'S NOT VIRTUAL OR PRESENT. ZAHRA.

I'M HERE. OKAY, I, I CAN SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

YOU MAY BEGIN. MY NAME IS ED ZAHRA. 1003 VALENCIA, DISTRICT 14.

PLEASE VOTE TO KEEP SECTION 50 1A4 .7018 POSTPONEMENT OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.

IT'S THE ONLY TOOL THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE TO PAUSE A ZONING REQUEST, WHETHER IT'S GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS, GETTING RID OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. GETTING OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE WRITTEN BY A $2 MILLION FEE.

CHICAGO CONSULTANT. GETTING RID OF THE BAN ON STRS.