11. 25-2505A A resolution amending the City Plan Commission’s Rules of Procedure by updating its public hearing procedures and establishing qualifications for membership of the Thoroughfare Committee - Financing: No cost consideration to the City

[11. 25-2505A A resolution amending the City Plan Commission’s Rules of Procedure by updating its public hearing procedures and establishing qualifications for membership of the Thoroughfare Committee - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AND ESTABLISHING QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE THOROUGHFARE COMMITTEE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN AND COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY. IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM 11? I MOVE TO REMAND THIS ITEM TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSIDER ADDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN SECTION FIVE.

L CONSIDER LIMITED REMOTE. LIMITING REMOTE ATTENDANCE AND MAINTAIN THE LIVE QUORUM REQUIREMENT IN SECTION FIVE.

M. CONSIDER ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO DISCOURAGE DEVELOPER CHANGES AFTER THE CASE REPORT IS FINALIZED BY STAFF AND SECTION 13. E2 CONSIDER CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE AND REFLECT A BROAD INCLUSION OF COUNCIL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES IN THE STANDING COMMITTEES. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

DISCUSSION, MR. RIDLEY. YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

EVERYONE, WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM 11. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. RIDLEY THAT HE JUST READ THAT. SO WE'RE NOT ON THE AGENDA ITEM AS IT WAS PUBLISHED.

AND YOU HAVE THE FOUR FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

IN SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EIGHT YEARS, I BECAME VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

I THINK IT'S A HEALTHY PRACTICE FOR THE PLAN COMMISSION TO REVIEW THEIR RULES PERIODICALLY AND TO SUGGEST AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE BULK OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE ENUMERATED IN MY AMENDMENT. PARTICULAR CONCERN ABOUT ALLOWING A QUORUM TO CONSIST OF VIRTUALLY ATTENDING MEMBERS, SUCH THAT THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION COULD CONVENE A MEETING WITH EVERYONE ELSE ONLINE.

I THINK THAT IS A POOR PRACTICE TO DISCUSS IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITY.

I THINK IT PRESENTS A BAD IMPRESSION TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WHO COME DOWN TO SPEAK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF THEY'RE SPEAKING TO PEOPLE ON

[00:25:03]

A SCREEN, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD REMAIN THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS, THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM COMPOSED OF LIVE MEMBERS SITTING IN THE CHAMBER. THAT DOESN'T PRECLUDE OTHERS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE QUORUM FROM ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.

WITH REGARD TO SECTION FIVE M, THERE IS A FAIRLY COMMON PRACTICE OF DEVELOPERS MAKING CHANGES AT THE LAST MINUTE TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR THEIR ZONING REQUESTS, AFTER THE STAFF HAS ALREADY MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE CURRENT RULE PROVIDES THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD FOR TWO MEETINGS AFTER THAT PERIOD, I THINK THEY SHOULD CONSIDER, SINCE THAT IS STILL HAPPENING, LENGTHENING THAT PERIOD OR SOME OTHER INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE THEIR CHANGES SO THAT STAFF CAN CONSIDER THOSE IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THEREBY BY EXPEDITE THE HEARING OF ZONING CASES AND PREVENT THESE KINDS OF DEFERRALS. IN SECTION 1382, THERE HAS BEEN A PRACTICE OF HAVING REPRESENTATIVES OF DISTRICTS DOMINATE CERTAIN COMMITTEES BY NAMING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, A MAJORITY IN SOME CASES OF THE COMMITTEE FROM ONE PART OF THE CITY OR EVEN ONE DISTRICT.

AND THE INTENTION OF THIS IS TO SUGGEST THAT THEY CONSIDER CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE THE SELECTION OF A BROAD RANGE OF PEOPLE FROM ALL OF THE DISTRICTS IN THE CITY WHEN NAMING MEMBERS OF STANDING COMMITTEES.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO REMAND BY MR. RIDLEY. ITEM 11. THANK YOU. I KNOW THE BIG ATTENTION HAS BEEN ON THE VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE COMPONENT OF THIS, BUT THESE ARE THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT I LIKE THAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO FURTHER CONSIDER.

I THINK THEY WERE PROBABLY TRYING TO ADDRESS JUST SOME VERY SPECIFIC THINGS WITH THEIR CHANGES THAT THEY BROUGHT TO US.

BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED ON PLANNING COMMISSION HERE, AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT JUST SUGGEST THEY LOOK AT THESE, BUT ALSO OTHER ITEMS. AND BECAUSE THEY'VE LIVED IT, I HOPE THEY WILL.

SPEAKING FOR DISTRICT 12, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WE ARE NOT REPRESENTED ON MANY OF THESE STANDING COMMITTEES.

AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON OF THE SEVEN STANDING COMMITTEES, ONLY ONE PERSON WHO'S FROM DISTRICT 12.

AND YOU'RE MISSING AN ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE. THERE'S PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON THESE COMMITTEES WHO'VE NEVER EVEN BEEN IN DISTRICT 12.

AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOUTHEAST DALLAS, SOUTHWEST DALLAS OR ANY OF THE FAR NORTH AREAS THAT EVERY PART OF OUR CITY IS BEING THOUGHT ABOUT AS ITEMS ARE BEING DEVELOPED.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ATTENDANCE ISSUE AGAIN, BECAUSE DISTRICT 12 IS SO FAR FROM CITY HALL, I'VE HAD A REPRESENTATIVE WHO ALMOST NEVER ATTENDED IN PERSON.

AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN, WE DON'T KNOW HER AS WELL.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH HER. WE DON'T KNOW THE THINGS OF THIS.

AND SO I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME ELEMENT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN ACCOMMODATION.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT VOLUNTEER JOB. I THINK WE ASK A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SERVE IN THIS ROLE AND LIKE, WE SHOULD ALL BE THANKING RCBC COMMISSIONERS.

ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THE BIG POLICY ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.

BUT WE ALSO NEED THEM TO BE PART OF THE GROUP.

AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AGAIN, WE'RE SENDING IT BACK TO THEM FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH A MESSAGE THAT MAYBE WE DON'T AGREE WITH JUST HAVING THE CHAIR IN PERSON, BUT YET WE STILL WANT THERE TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT VOLUNTEER JOB. AND THEN THE LAST BIT IS THE DEVELOPER CHANGES.

THIS IS REALLY AN EFFICIENCY ISSUE. AND AS WE'VE HAD PLANNING COMMISSION I'M SORRY, PLANNING STAFF COME TO US WITH IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COULD MAKE THINGS GO FASTER. INVERSELY, REQUIRING IT TO GO SLOWER ACTUALLY WILL MAKE IT GO FASTER, MEANING A DEVELOPER ISN'T GOING TO PUT FORWARD A LAST MINUTE CHANGE IF THEY KNOW IT WILL END UP HOLDING UP THEIR PROJECT, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THEM DO THEIR WORK UP FRONT BEFORE STAFF TAKES THE TIME TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION. IT'S UNFAIR TO ASK THEM TO REDO THAT WORK JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE PUT IT IN AT THE LAST MINUTE, SO THEY KNOW THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY'RE HAVING AND THEY NEED TO ADDRESS THEM BEFORE THEY'VE ASKED STAFF TO FINALIZE THAT CASE REPORT.

[00:30:01]

SO I THINK THESE ARE WELL CONSIDERED. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR. THANK YOU.

I'M CHALLENGED WITH THE MOTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO ATTENDANCE.

I REMEMBER WHEN MY PARENTS PASSED AWAY, THE ONLY WAY I WAS ABLE TO FULFILL MY OBLIGATION AND TO BE IN CALIFORNIA, TO FILL MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A CHILD, BEARING A PARENT WAS THROUGH THE VIRTUAL PROCESS.

WHEN? WHEN? TODAY. I HAVE SEEN BEFORE I STEPPED DOWN, I HAVE SEEN SOME OF MY COMMISSIONERS GO THROUGH SOME MEDICAL CHALLENGES THAT MET THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY COULD FULFILL THEIR, THEIR OBLIGATIONS, WHICH THEY DID WAS THROUGH THE THROUGH VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE.

NOW, I DON'T AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE VIRTUALLY FOREVER, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT SINCE COVID, WE'VE COME TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN BE VIRTUAL AS WELL AS PHYSICALLY IN PERSON AND STILL GET THE JOB DONE WHILE I WAS GONE, I GOT THE JOB DONE AND I DID EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO DO, ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT.

I, I'M JUST NOW SEEING THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY CHAIR MENDELSOHN.

I'M NOT I, I NEED TIME TO, TO FORMAT AND TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE PRAYER.

PRAYER. THE WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS. A LOT OF TIMES WE WILL READ SOMETHING AND AND I AGREE.

NEGOTIATING ON THE FLOOR IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT, BUT TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY AWAY IS ALSO NOT THE WAY TO MOVE BUSINESS FORWARD. THE GETTING PROJECTS THROUGH THE PIPELINE IS ONE OF THE LARGEST THINGS WE HAVE GOING TO OUR GENERAL FUND, AND I, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF GETTING IT DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY, BUT AS OUTLINED THAT I'M JUST NOW SEEING I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SUPPORT WHAT I CAN'T, WHAT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING DONE AND THINK ABOUT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AT THIS TIME WITHOUT ME.

LETTING. LETTING WITHOUT ME HAVING MORE TIME TO CONSIDER IT.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MY QUESTIONS REALLY ARE FOR CHAIR BRADLEY ABOUT THE VIRTUAL ASPECT OF IT.

IF YOU HAVE A HEALTH ISSUE, IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY ISSUE, IT'S NOT PREVENTED.

I JUST NEED SOME CLARITY AROUND THAT. YOU'RE JUST ASKING.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COURT THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM OF OF IN PERSON, BUT THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE ALLOWANCES FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO BE VIRTUAL FOR SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT REASON.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. LET ME UNDERSCORE THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES BY MY MOTION IN THEIR RULES.

WE'RE SIMPLY REMANDING IT BACK TO CPC FOR THEM TO CONSIDER THESE ITEMS. AND SO THAT ALLOWS US A SECOND CHANCE WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US WITH THEIR PROPOSED CHANGES TO REVIEW, WHETHER WE THINK THEY'RE GOOD OR NOT. WITH REGARD TO SECTION FIVE L THAT YOU MENTIONED, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A LIVE PRESENCE OF MEMBERS HERE IN THE MEETING FOR A QUORUM.

THAT COULD MEAN THAT SEVEN PEOPLE ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY.

WITH REGARD TO LIMITING THE ABILITY TO ATTEND BY REMOTE MEANS.

THIS LEAVES IT OPEN FOR THE PLAN COMMISSION TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LONG TERM ILLNESSES, FOR EXAMPLE, UPON PRESENTATION OF A DOCTOR'S LETTER.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LEAVE UP TO THEM TO SUGGEST HOW THAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED, AND THEY COULD VERY WELL COME BACK TO US AND SAY, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, WE REJECT IT, AND THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO US TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION RELATING TO THE RESOLUTION.

[00:35:05]

IT TALKS ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE.

MY QUESTION IS, IF WE REMAIN ON THIS BACK. ARE WE STILL GOING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF A STATE LAW OR A CITY ORDINANCE? I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE RULE CHANGES, BUT LAURA MORRISON, IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. LAURA IS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SO THAT REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW IS A REFERENCE TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

RIGHT NOW OR PREVIOUSLY, THE PLAN COMMISSION DEVIATED SLIGHTLY FROM ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

AND SO THE CHANGES PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY AND WHAT PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSED WAS TIGHTENING THEM UP.

SO THE PROCEDURE MORE REFLECTS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

AND TO ALSO REFLECT THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT ALLOWS FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION.

SO WOULD WE IF WE REMAND THIS BACK? ARE WE GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TOMA? WE WILL STILL BE IF WE MAY. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO? WHY DO WE HAVE TO REMAND IT BACK? WHY CAN'T WE PASS THIS ON? SO WE GET EVERYTHING IN ORDER AS PRESCRIBED BY STATE LAW AND OUR CITY ORDINANCES, AND THEN TELL YOU TO ASK THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO CONSIDER WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. IN OTHER WORDS, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCHARGE THIS ITEM, BUT LET THEM DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THAT OTHER ONE, NOT HOLD THIS UP FOR THAT. THAT IS AN OPTION.

AN OPTION YOU HAVE TODAY IS TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY FOR THIS ITEM, WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW WHAT WAS IN THIS MOTION.

OKAY. BECAUSE HOW LONG DID THIS TAKE? I SEE THAT MID-JUNE IS WHEN IT'S TWO MORE MONTHS.

I MEAN, WE TALK ABOUT BEING IN COMPLIANCE AROUND THIS BODY ALL THE TIME WITH STATE LAW.

I MEAN, DO WE WANT 2 OR 3 MORE MONTHS? I MEAN, THAT'S WHEN IT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL, I MEAN, AT CPC. BUT THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT LED UP TO IT.

CORRECT. RIGHT. YES. IT TOOK MAYBE 3 OR 4 MONTHS.

THIS STARTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES COMMITTEE AND THEN WAS CONSIDERED BY THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL WENT ON RECESS. SO THERE WAS A SLIGHT DELAY IN GETTING IT.

I DON'T WANT TO HOLD SOMETHING UP IN ORDER TO GET SOMETHING ELSE DONE.

WE CAN ASK THEM TO LOOK AT IT AND MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE FORWARD.

BUT THIS IS THE WORK THAT THEY NEED. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT. AND SO I'M INCLINED NOT TO SUPPORT THIS ONLY BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT THE OTHER CAN HAPPEN IN A DIFFERENT TRACK.

SO THOSE THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I'M LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK IT IS A GOOD ONE TO HAVE. I COULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE REMAND OR HOLDING THIS OVER, BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IS FROM THE CHAIR OF CPC OR FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S ON THE BOARD.

EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION IS OPERATES DIFFERENTLY THAN CITY COUNCIL OPERATES.

AND AS WE KNOW, OUR I CAN ATTEST TO AT LEAST IT'S HARD TO FIND APPOINTEES SOMETIMES TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

SO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY. AND WE EMPOWER THE CHAIRS.

WE EMPOWER OUR APPOINTEES TO MAKE THEIR RULES AND OPERATE ACCORDINGLY.

SO IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CHAIR ON WHY THIS IS NEEDED AND I WOULD.

AND A REMAND IS FINE. I CAN LIVE WITH THAT OR DELAYING THIS UNTIL WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS WITH THEM UP HERE.

BUT OTHER. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF OF GOOD, YOU KNOW, EFFICIENCY, I.

IT SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE ON ROUND ONE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE IT AROUND TO COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL AMEND MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES BY CPC. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE ITEMS THAT I OUTLINED IN MY ORIGINAL MOTION, SO THAT THAT WILL INCORPORATE ANY NEED TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW WITH REGARD TO OPEN MEETINGS ACT AS THEY HAVE PROPOSED THOSE CHANGES, BUT REMANDED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING AT SECTIONS FIVE L, FIVE M AND 13 E TWO, WHICH WERE NOT THE SUBJECT, WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING AT QUORUM OF THEIR PROPOSED CHANGES.

WAS THAT AN AMENDED MOTION? YES. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

[00:40:05]

COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON SECOND. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. NO. THAT CHANGE IN MY MOTION WAS PROMPTED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMAN'S SUGGESTION, WHICH I THINK THERE'S NO REASON TO HOLD UP THE OTHER AMENDMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS THAT I'VE IDENTIFIED.

MIDDLETON. THANK YOU. LAURA. ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANOTHER QUESTION? THE AREA OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED IS ACTUALLY THE ITEM THAT COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY IS REFERRING.

SO FIVE SECTION FIVE ALC. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ALLOWS FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION, AND CURRENTLY THERE'S NO CITYWIDE BAN ON VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION AT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF TOMMY, ARE WE? NO, NO, THIS IS JUST TO ALLOW FOR SOMETHING THAT IS AVAILABLE UNDER TOMA BUT ISN'T CLARIFIED IN THEIR RULES.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. TO RECOGNIZE THAT VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION IS ALLOWED UNDER TOMA.

SO IT'S IT'S NOT THAT THIS HAS TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.

IT'S TO ALLOW FOR THE VIRTUAL ELEMENT. BUT YET THAT ELEMENT HAS BEEN DEFERRED IN THIS MOTION.

SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THAT. IS THAT CORRECT.

RIGHT OKAY. SO WHAT? WHAT IS THE NET EFFECT OF THE MOTION? WHAT WILL BE CHANGED THAT IS NECESSARY FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION AS OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE THING JUST BEING DEFERRED? WELL, MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY WILL ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT ITS MEETINGS MORE IN LINE WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, AND THEY'VE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THAT AT THE MEETINGS.

AND IN MY OPINION, THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN RUNNING SMOOTHER AND MORE EFFICIENTLY.

BIG FAN OF ROBERT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

AND, LAURA, WITH REGARD TO SECTION FIVE L, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT I AUTHORED HERE ABOUT REQUIRING A LIVE QUORUM THAT WOULD NOT. FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S WHAT THEIR CURRENT RULES PROVIDE FOR.

IS IT NOT? THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT RULES PROVIDE FOR.

OKAY. AND THAT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF TOMA. IS IT TO REQUIRE A LIVE QUORUM? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 12.

[12. 25-2494A An ordinance amending Chapter 52, “Administrative Procedures for the Construction Codes,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Sections 302.2.1 and 306.1 (1) providing that permits and certificates of occupancy may be granted for certain multifamily uses and mixed use projects, even if not allowed by the underlying zoning, if the projects comply with Chapter 218 of the Texas Local Government Code; (2) providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000.00; (3) providing a saving clause; (4) providing a severability clause; and (5) providing an effective date - Financing - This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

ITEM 12 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 52, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODES OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 302 .2.1 AND 306.11, PROVIDING THAT PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY MAY BE GRANTED FOR CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY USES AND MIXED USE PROJECTS, EVEN IF NOT ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

IF THE PROJECTS COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 218 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.

THREE PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND FIVE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. IS THERE A MOTION? THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. THANK YOU. MY PURPOSE FOR FOR PULLING THIS TO DISCUSS IT IS THAT THIS IS RELATIVE TO THE SB 840 LAW THAT'S BEEN PASSED BY THE STATE PROVIDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT IN COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE WE'RE DISCUSSING, I THINK, IS A ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCE THAT BASICALLY REQUIRES US TO TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE STATE LAW IS.

BUT IT IT MIGHT. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO ME, AND IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO CONSIDER THAT WE PROVIDE IN THAT ORDINANCE SOME KIND OF A CONDITIONAL REPEAL OR CLAUSE WHICH WOULD TAKE AND TAKE EFFECT IN THE EVENT THAT THAT STATE LAW IS,

[00:45:07]

IS ACTUALLY OVERTURNED AND OR INVALIDATED. AND THE REASON I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT THIS WOULD AT LEAST ALLOW US NOT TO HAVE TO COME BACK, REVISIT THE ISSUE THAT THE THIS ORDINANCE COMPLIED WITH, THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE AUTOMATICALLY RELEASE SO THAT IT WOULDN'T REMAIN ON THE BOOKS OR INADVERTENTLY BE A REMAIN IN OUR POLICY SITUATION.

I'M I'M I'M I'VE BEEN I'M SERIOUSLY CONCERNED.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT FEEL LIKE THERE MAY BE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND OTHER LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THIS STATE LAW.

AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE PREPARED THAT THAT THIS LAW COULD BE OVERTURNED OR IT COULD BE SUBJECT TO LITIGATION BEFORE THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD INCLUDE SOME LANGUAGE WITH A REPEAL OR DISCUSSION OR A REPEAL OR CLAUSE, RATHER. I ALSO OUTSIDE OF OF MY REQUEST FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AS A BODY THAT WE MAY WANT TO REVIEW OUR POSITION ON THIS SB 840, AND CONSIDER POSSIBLY TAKING LEGAL ACTION TO CONTEST THIS PARTICULAR STATE LAW DIRECTLY.

AS A CITY IN AN EFFORT TO REALLY BASICALLY PROTECT OUR HOME RULE RIGHTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR CITIZENS, AND OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL LAND USE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I'D BE HAPPY TO SUGGEST SOME PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IF, IF, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

OR I CAN WITH THE ATTORNEY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR LEGAL GUIDANCE ON THAT, AND I'LL LET YOU.

SO THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, I WILL FIRST ADDRESS THE AUTOMATIC REPEAL.

SO THE COURTS ARE VERY CLEAR WITH CITY ORDINANCES THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO REPEAL AN ORDINANCE, SO WE CAN'T PUT AN AUTOMATIC REPEAL IN THERE.

HOWEVER, IF THE STATE LAW IS INVALIDATED OR CHANGES, THEN OUR ORDINANCE THAT THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT AND SO WE WOULDN'T ENFORCE IT. AND SO WITH REGARD TO THAT, WITH REGARD TO YOUR OTHER QUESTION, I'M HAPPY TO POST AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S POSTED TODAY FOR THAT, BUT I CAN DO THAT AND WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY.

WITH REGARD TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION ON THE REPEAL TYPE OF SITUATION.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL WITHDRAW MY MY REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM 12.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 13. 13 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 52, ADMINISTRATIVE

[13. 25-2502A An ordinance amending Chapter 52, “Administrative Procedures for the Construction Codes,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Sections 102.3, 302.2.1, and 306.1 (1) providing that permits and certificates of occupancy may be granted for certain structures located on a small lot, even if the structure is not allowed by the development standards of the underlying zoning, if the project complies with the development standards for a small lot contained in Chapter 211, Subchapter D, of the Texas Local Government Code; (2) providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000.00; (3) providing a saving clause; (4) providing a severability clause; and (5) providing an effective date - Financing - This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODES OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 102.3, 302.1 AND 306.11, PROVIDING THAT PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY MAY BE GRANTED FOR CERTAIN STRUCTURES LOCATED ON A SMALL LOT, EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

IF THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SMALL LOT CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 211, SUBCHAPTER D OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO, PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.

THREE PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND FIVE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. ROFF, YOU PULLED IT. I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE.

THANK YOU. FIVE MINUTES. ITEM 13. MY COMMENTS AND REASON FOR PULLING THIS ITEM WERE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WE DISCUSSED, AS THIS IS RELATING TO SB 15, WHICH IS A SUBDIVISION OF OF LARGER LOTS.

THE STATE LAW IS IN FACT IN CERTAINLY IT. IT'S APPLIED THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY AUTHORIZES US TO TO ADHERE TO THAT LAW.

AGAIN, BASED ON THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS ON MY REQUEST WAS GOING TO BE TO INSERT A REPEAL OR CLAUSE INTO THAT.

ALSO, IF IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, I'LL CERTAINLY WITHDRAW THAT THAT REQUEST.

[00:50:06]

HOWEVER, I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE US TO CONSIDER PUTTING THAT ONTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION SITUATION, TO CONSIDER TAKING LEGAL ACTION OR OTHER ACTIONS TO CONTEST THAT PARTICULAR LAW, WHICH I THINK WOULD ALLOW US AS A MUNICIPALITY TO RETAIN SOME LAND USE AND OTHER HOME RULE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM US. SO WITH THAT, AND WITH THAT IN MIND, I'LL BE HAPPY TO WITHDRAW MY REQUEST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD TRY TO PUT THIS ON TO AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, A DISCUSSION LEVEL.

WE'LL ADD THAT ONE AS WELL. THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

ITEM 13. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO VOICE MY CONCURRENCE WITH COUNCILMAN ROSS REQUEST THAT THIS ALSO, LIKE THE PREVIOUS ITEM, BE THE SUBJECT OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

CHAIRWOMAN FOR FIVE MINUTES. ITEM 13. WELL, LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH AND RIDLEY, I ALSO.

AND I KNOW TAMI, YOU AND I HAVE ALREADY HAD THIS COMMUNICATION.

WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO PURSUE OUR LEGAL OPTIONS FOR THESE TWO BILLS, WHICH WE OPPOSED AS A CITY.

THANK YOU.

MISS BLAIR, YOUR REQUEST FOR FIVE MINUTES. ITEM 13.

I AM GOING TO ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN ROTH.

AS WE KNOW, SB 848 AND SB 15 IS REALLY GOING TO IMPACT THE THE WAY DISTRICT EIGHT LOOKS AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS IF IF WE DID HAVE TO DO IT.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS THERE ANYONE I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? AGENDA ITEM 13. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, MADAM SECRETARY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL MOVE AHEAD. SLIGHTLY AHEAD IN YOUR AGENDA TO ITEM 60.

[60. 25-2578A Authorize (1) designating approximately 2.9 acres of property currently addressed as 2601 Victory Avenue as the City of Dallas Neighborhood Empowerment Zone No. 23 (“NEZ No. 23”), pursuant to Chapter 378 of the Texas Local Government Code, to promote an increase in economic development in the zone, establish boundaries for the zone, and provide for an effective date for the zone; (2) an economic development incentive agreement with The Bank of Nova Scotia or an affiliate thereof (“Scotiabank”) to include: (a) a business personal property (“BPP”) tax abatement for a period of ten years in an amount equal to the City taxes assessed on ninety percent (90%) of the added taxable value of the business personal property resulting from the Project and (b) a Chapter 380 economic development grant in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000.00 consisting of: (i) an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00 for job relocation and/or creation and (ii) an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 for fees associated with expedited permitting and soft cost expenditures, in consideration of the job creation and investment associated with Scotiabank’s establishment and operation of a new regional office at 2601 Victory Avenue in NEZ No. 23; and (3) the City’s nomination of Scotiabank’s Project for designation as an Enterprise Zone Project under the Texas Enterprise Zone Act, as amended by the Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tourism division, through the Texas Economic Development Bank; in accordance with the City’s Economic Development Incentive Policy - Total not to exceed $2,700,000.00 - Financing: Public/Private Partnership Fund, and Estimated Revenue Foregone: $831,308.00 over a ten-year period (see Fiscal Information)]

INDIVIDUAL ITEM 60. I'LL READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM 60 AUTHORIZE ONE DESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AS 2601 VICTORY AVENUE AS THE CITY OF DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE NUMBER 23, NSC NUMBER 23, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 378 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO PROMOTE AN INCREASE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONE, ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR THE ZONE, AND PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE ZONE.

TWO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA OR AN AFFILIATE THEREOF.

SCOTIABANK TO INCLUDE 1AA BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY BPP TAX ABATEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE CITY'S TAXES, ASSESSED ON 90% OF THE ADDED VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE PROPERTY, AND B AT CHAPTER THREE AID ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,700,000, CONSISTING OF ONE AND AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000 FOR JOB RELOCATION AND OR CREATION, AND TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 FOR FEES ASSOCIATED WITH EXPEDITED PERMITTING AND SOFT COST EXPENDITURES.

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE JOB CREATION AND INVESTMENT ASSOCIATED WITH SCOTIA BANKS.

ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A NEW REGIONAL OFFICE AT TWO 601 VICTORY AVENUE, IN ANY NUMBER 23 AND THREE OF THE CITIES NOMINATION OF SCOTIA BANKS PROJECT FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ENTERPRISE ZONE PROJECT UNDER THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM DIVISION THROUGH THE TEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY, NOT TO EXCEED $2,700,000.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN WEST? MR. WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. BRINGING SCOTIABANK TO DALLAS IS GOING TO BE A HUGE WIN FOR OUR CITY AND OUR RESIDENTS.

DALLAS HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN RECENT YEARS THANKS TO LEADERSHIP OF OF OUR MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER,

[00:55:01]

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THE EDC UNDER LINDA MCMAHON, AND OUR PRIVATE PARTNERS IN MAKING DALLAS THE PLACE FOR CORPORATE RELOCATION PROJECT CREATES OVER 1000 HIGH PAYING JOBS, WITH AT LEAST 25% OF THOSE JOBS AND UP TO 40% GOING TO DALLAS RESIDENTS.

THAT MEANS MORE PEOPLE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES AND GENERATING SALES TAXES, WHICH HELP COVER THE COST.

THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STREETS, PARKS AND LIBRARIES.

I HEARD FROM SO MANY DISTRICT ONE RESIDENTS LAST NIGHT AT MY TOWN HALL THAT WE NEED TO SAVE ALL OF THESE SERVICES WITHOUT RAISING OUR TAXES.

THIS PACKAGE TO BRING SCOTIABANK TO DALLAS WILL HELP US DO JUST THAT.

LASTLY AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS PACKAGE INCLUDES AGREEMENTS WITH DALLAS COLLEGE, PAUL QUINN COLLEGE, AND UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS DALLAS, IN ADDITION TO DISD AND RICHARDSON ISD TO SUPPORT WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR REGION'S YOUTH. BIG DAY FOR CELEBRATION IN DALLAS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 16.

THANK YOU MAYOR. AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ENTIRE ECO DEV TEAM, OUR MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK TO REALLY MAKE DALLAS THE FACE OF THE FINANCIAL WORLD.

AND THIS IS A TESTAMENT TO THE INVESTMENT THAT THE CITY HAS DONE TO OUR PARKS AND TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND SO I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED. AND THIS IS GOING OVER IN VICTORY PARK IN DISTRICT TWO.

AND SO WE'RE EXCITED TO WELCOME THEM HOME. SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. BAZALDUA BACK IN HIS ORIGINAL SEAT.

ALL RIGHT. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 60.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I WANTED TO JUST ECHO SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS, BUT SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO OUR CITY STAFF, CITY MANAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO OUR MAYOR FOR HELPING TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO GROW OUR CITY RESPONSIBLY AND TO REALLY HIGHLIGHT THE IDENTITY.

I THINK THAT WE OFTEN STRUGGLE WITH OWNING AND EMBRACING, AND WE ARE ONE OF THE TOP TEN LARGEST CITIES IN OUR COUNTRY.

AND Y'ALL, STREET BELONGS IN DALLAS, TEXAS, AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE FRUITS OF THESE EFFORTS CONTINUE TO GROW AND PROSPER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE OPPORTUNITIES AS A BLUEPRINT FOR WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY LOOKS LIKE.

FOR THE LONGEST TIME, FOR DECADES, WE'VE ALLOWED OUR CITY TO HAVE AN IDENTITY CRISIS, AND WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH OUR IDENTITY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN MADE UP OF MICRO NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY. WE'VE HAD GREAT IDENTITY OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYTHING NEEDS TO COMPROMISE WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY. BUT TO CONFLATE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO GROW IN OUR FUTURE IS A DISSERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE.

NOW, JUST AS WAS MENTIONED WITH THESE BUDGET TOWN HALLS, WE HEAR ABOUT THE TAX BURDEN ON OUR RESIDENTS.

WE ALSO HEAR ABOUT THEIR DESIRE FOR US TO MAINTAIN QUALITY SERVICES AND BE A WORLD CLASS CITY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY CHOSE TO PLANT THEIR ROOTS HERE IN OUR CITY.

WITH THAT, WE CAN'T JUST TOUT THIS WIN AND CONTINUE TO TAKE ACTION AT THIS HORSESHOE THAT PREVENTS OUR ABILITY TO GROW OUR TAX BASE AND ATTRACT MORE OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS. THIS IS A HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK CITY.

I'M A FORMER NEW YORKER, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE TRANSITION FROM NEW YORK CITY TO LIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, IS ONE THAT IS EXTREME. YOU ARE GOING FROM BEING ABLE TO WALK TO EVERYWHERE THAT YOU WANT TO GET GROCERIES, TO GET YOUR DRY CLEANERS, TO CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE A CAR BECAUSE OF QUALITY TRANSIT SYSTEMS. WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT OUR INVESTMENT INTO INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPPORTUNITY OF OUR CITY TO PROVIDE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO COME AT THE COMPROMISE OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO BOTH.

THIS IS A AND CONVERSATION, NOT AN EITHER OR.

AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FROM THIS OPPORTUNITY.

BECAUSE THIS OPPORTUNITY DISPLAYS TRULY WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY LOOKS LIKE.

AND I CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR LOOKING AT AN INVESTMENT LIKE THIS AND WHAT THAT RETURN CAN BRING, AND HOW THAT CAN CONTINUE THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AROUND THE HORSESHOE HERE.

SO THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM.

AND THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR. MISTER RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CHOIR I DO WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR PUTTING TOGETHER AN EXCELLENT PACKAGE THAT'S REASONABLE IN TERMS OF TAX CONCESSIONS, AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT HOPEFULLY WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO LURE SCOTIABANK TO OUR BORDERS. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS, I THINK, INDICATIVE OF PLAYING TO

[01:00:03]

OUR STRENGTH AS A CITY, THAT THIS IS AN INDUSTRY.

FINANCIAL SERVICES, THAT WE HAVE AN EXTREMELY WELL QUALIFIED LABOR FORCE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STAFFING FOR THESE KINDS OF BUSINESSES. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT SO MANY ARE CHOOSING TO RELOCATE OR TO REMAIN IN DALLAS.

AND THAT, OF COURSE, IMPLICATES THE NEED FOR OUR CONTINUED EDUCATION OF PEOPLE WITHIN OUR BOUNDARIES FOR THESE KINDS OF JOBS, AND TO CULTIVATE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR CITY, TO ATTRACT PEOPLE OF THESE KINDS OF QUALIFICATIONS, TO COME AND LIVE IN OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT ALSO IS AN IMPORTANT HARBINGER OF THE FUTURE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS YEAR, SEVERAL STOCK EXCHANGES DECIDED TO LOCATE OPERATIONS IN DALLAS. THIS IS A MATTER OF SYNERGY THAT EACH ONE OF THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FEEDS ON ITSELF TO OUR STRENGTH, AND I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE DESIRABLE AS A REGIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CAPITAL, IF NOT ULTIMATELY A NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CAPITAL.

AND I WOULD SIMPLY COMPLIMENT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ASK THEM TO KEEP THEIR EYES FOCUSED ON THE BALL, TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE KINDS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BUSINESSES AND TO RETAIN THOSE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY ALREADY.

THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 60.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO WANT TO JOIN THE CHOIR, IF YOU WILL.

CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR CITY MANAGER. CITY MANAGER TOLD ME OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM.

AND, MAYOR JOHNSON, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOUR VISION, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION UNDER THIS LEADERSHIP.

AND THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR OUR CITY. IT'S A BIG WIN FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO HOW WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO THE BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE TEAM.

MR. GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ME ME ME ME ME.

JOINING THE CHOIR HERE. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE MAYOR.

CITY MANAGER TOLBERT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AGAIN, GROWING OUT RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE, I HAD THIS DREAM OF REALLY WORKING ON WALL STREET.

AND COMING FROM THAT FINANCIAL INDUSTRY, I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT THIS HAS AND IN SHAPES THE IDENTITY OF WHO WE ARE.

WE ARE A FINANCIAL INDUSTRY HUB. WE ARE A TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY HUB.

WE ARE A TECH HUB. WE ARE A SPORTS TOWN FOR SURE.

SO THESE ARE THE THINGS AND THESE ARE SHAPING UP WHO WE ARE BECOMING.

AND I'M HONORED AND PROUD TO BE A PART OF THIS BODY THAT'S HAPPY TO VOTE THIS IN AND BE A PART OF WHAT'S SHAPING THE FUTURE OF WHAT OUR CITY CAN LOOK LIKE. SO THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR REQUESTING A RECORD VOTE, SEEING NO ONE ELSE IS IN THE QUEUE.

MADAM SECRETARY, WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL. VOTE.

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. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. ABSOLUTELY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROBB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. YES.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENA.

YES. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES. WITH ALL 15 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT JOB EVERYONE.

WELL NEXT ITEM. WE WILL NOW GO BACK TO YOUR PULLED ITEMS. BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 14. AGENDA ITEM 14.

[14. 25-2504A An ordinance amending Chapter 52, “Administrative Procedures for the Construction Codes,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Section 301.2.1 (1) providing a defense to prosecution for certain construction and renovation work on county owned buildings in a county with a population of at least one million; (2) providing a penalty not to exceed $2,000.00; (3) providing a saving clause; (4) providing a severability clause; and (5) providing an effective date - Financing - This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information)]

IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 52, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODES OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 301.2 .11, PROVIDING A DEFENSE OF PROSECUTION FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION WORK ON COUNTY OWNED BUILDINGS IN A COUNTY WITH A

[01:05:02]

POPULATION OF AT LEAST 1 MILLION, TO PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.

THREE PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 14? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPLANATION THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GIVEN ME ON THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS, I WOULD I DON'T HAVE REALLY ANY OBJECTIONS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR YOU'RE ALLOWING ME TO TAKE IT OFF THE TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE CONSENT.

BUT I'M I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO IT. AND THAT'S WHAT SHE'S BEEN GOING FOR AGAINST ITEM 14.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 15. AUTHORIZE ONE.

[15. 25-2495A Authorize (1) the rejection of bids received for the Hillcrest Road Pump Station Project; and (2) the re-advertisement for new bids - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

THE REJECTION OF BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE HILLCREST ROAD PUMP STATION PROJECT AND TO THE RE ADVERTISEMENT OF NEW BIDS.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES.

MISTER GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I PULLED THIS ONE AGAIN. IT WAS ONE WHERE I NOTICED IT WAS FIRST THING I NOTICED, IT WAS A SINGLE BIDDER. AND THEN SECONDLY, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A REJECTION OF THAT SINGLE BIDDER.

STAFF DID COME AND SPEAK TO ME AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE ISSUE WAS WITH THAT ONE.

BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS JUST ONE BIDDER.

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

THANK YOU. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION BECAUSE IT IS ONLY ONE BIDDER, AND IT'S A VERY, VERY HIGH PRICE, WAY MORE THAN WHAT WAS BUDGETED.

AND SO I THINK STAFF'S GOING BACK TO DO SOME WORK TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS A SPECIFICATION THAT CAUSED THAT HUGE PRICE ESCALATION, OR OTHER PEOPLE TO NOT BID ON THE PROJECT. IT'S NOT A PARTICULARLY COMPLICATED PROJECT.

THANK YOU. MR. GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I'M JUST CURIOUS.

THIS IS FOR THE SILVER LINE, CORRECT? SARAH. NO, I'M ASKING SARAH.

SARAH. STANDARD FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES. THIS IS THE HOUSING AROUND THE EXISTING PUMP STATION THAT WAS BUILT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MCCALLUM.

IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO SILVER LINE AT THAT LOCATION.

BUT THIS IS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTED IMPROVEMENTS THAT COG IS FUNDING.

AND SO YOU DO PLAN TO PUT IT BACK OUT FOR BID? YES, MA'AM. AND HOW LONG DOES THAT PROCESS TAKE? ONCE WE GET REJECTION AUTHORITY TODAY, ASSUMING YOU GIVE US REJECTION AUTHORITY, THEN WE'VE GOT A LITTLE MORE DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY TO SEE IF IT WAS A TIMING ISSUE, THAT THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL SUB, THAT IT PUT A WRONG BID AMOUNT IN, THAT THEY'VE REALIZED THEY'VE DONE.

BUT WE WILL DO THAT AND THEN IT'LL BE BACK OUT.

THE PUMP STATION ITSELF IS FUNCTIONAL. SO THIS IS NOT A, AS I WAS WONDERING.

ABSENCE OF YES OPENS IF THE SILVER LINE THAT OPENS IN WE GET THESE RAINS AGAIN.

WHAT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO COMMUNITIES? THIS IS THE HOUSING THAT GOES AROUND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY IN SERVICE AND TIED TO OUR DATA SYSTEMS. AND DART OWNS THIS PUMP STATION, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM.

THIS IS PART OF WHAT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY? THIS IS PART OF THIS. OKAY? YES. THANK YOU. MR. BASIL, DULY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. SARAH.

DON'T GO TOO FAR. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS.

THIS TYPE OF PROJECT. IT SEEMS PRETTY UNIQUE.

FROM WHAT WE'VE HAD, WHEN HAVE WE FURNISHED A HOUSE AROUND PUMP STATIONS? IN THE PAST. SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. AS PART OF MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WATER PUMP STATIONS, WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS AND STORMWATER STATIONS, WE WILL ACTUALLY PUT A HOUSING AROUND IT SO THAT IT BLENDS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THEY THINK OF THIS AS JUST KIND OF A BRICK AND ROOF THAT'S GOING AROUND IT.

IT IS. IT WAS SURPRISING THAT THE BID PRICING CAME IN AS IT DID, WHICH IS PART OF WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR AUTHORITY TO REJECT AND GO BACK OUT.

I JUST REMEMBER CONVERSATIONS IN THE BEGINNING OF MY TENURE HERE ABOUT THE PUMP STATION AND THE SILVER LINE AND EXPECTATION, AND I'M IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S ALIGNED WITH HOW WE ADDRESS THOSE OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, FOR INSTANCE. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT HOW IT SEEMS THERE'S A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION TO PROVIDE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE NORTH OF OUR CITY, WHEN IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT SAME URGENCY OR PRIORITY.

[01:10:01]

WHENEVER WE ARE BUILDING THINGS OF INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE PUMP STATIONS, ETC.

IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY. SO I WAS ASKING IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ANY TANGIBLE EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE HAVE FURNISHED THIS IN THE PAST.

SO THE MOST RECENT ACTION ON COUNCIL, THE LAST VOTING COUNCIL AGENDA, WE DID SOME GOOD NEIGHBOR IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAKE JUNE PUMP STATION TO GET IN, SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, SOME ADDITIONAL TRAILS AND AMENITIES AROUND THERE.

WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OTHER I'M AWARE OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

I'M WONDERING ABOUT BUILDING A STRUCTURE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF LANDSCAPING BUFFERS.

I'VE SEEN A LOT OF FENCING, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT I SERVE.

I'VE NEVER NECESSARILY SEEN THE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND LOOKED TO FURNISH A DWELLING THAT MATCHES THE ESTHETICS OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE CHARLIE PUMP STATION, LOCATED AT DAIRY FARMS, ALSO WENT THROUGH A SERIES OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH THE BOTTOM NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHERS SO THAT THE ESTHETICS AROUND THAT PUMP STATION WILL MATCH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED IT TO LOOK LIKE, ALONG WITH THE EXISTING ZONING THAT IS. AND THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.

ABEL PUMP STATION HAD A ZONING THAT REQUIRED CERTAIN ESTHETICS.

SO WE DO PUT SOME ESTHETICS ON THERE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

AND THIS IS PART OF THAT COMMUNITY DRIVEN PROCESS.

SO WAS THIS BID SCOPE? WAS IT VARIED TO SHOW POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT ARE MORE TRADITIONAL THAT WE DO WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND STILL MAKING ESTHETIC APPEARANCE, THAT WOULD MAYBE BE MORE ECONOMICAL. I'M JUST CURIOUS ON BEING ABLE TO SEE THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, INSTEAD OF JUST BEING TOLD THIS IS WHAT WAS BEING PUT FOR BID, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THOSE BID SPECIFICATIONS ARE USUALLY PRETTY SPECIFIC. SO THIS ITEM WAS ACTUALLY WORKED THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD PROCESS.

SO THE FUNDING WAS PROVIDED BY COG FOR THIS. SO THIS IS NOT A CITY FUNDED ITEM.

OKAY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WENT THROUGH 3 OR 4 VERSIONS OF SCOPING OF DID THEY WANT DORMERS ON THE HOUSE? DID THEY WANT A WOOD SHINGLE OR A METAL SHINGLE TYPE OF ROOF? DID THEY WANT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING OR NOT? THE BID ITSELF WAS SET UP WITH MULTIPLE AD ALTERNATES, SO THAT CERTAIN ITEMS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE WITHIN THE BUDGET.

THE FACILITY ITSELF JUST CAME IN MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET ESTIMATE.

AND WITH ONE. WHAT WAS THAT? THE ORIGINAL BUDGET AND WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE IS 1.8 MILLION.

THE BID ITEM, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS RIGHT ABOUT 4.9.

AND THAT'S WHAT. SO WE ARE REJECTING IT. TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN FIND A BETTER, BETTER TIME TO BID AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THAT BETTER.

WELL, I JUST ASK THAT THIS BE UTILIZED AS A PRECEDENT BECAUSE AS WE SEE INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD OUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY AND SEEING HOW CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE OUR DART LINES, FOR INSTANCE, THAT GO THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS I'M SEEING A TOTAL DIFFERENT APPROACH ON HOW IT'S BEING HANDLED FOR A MORE AFFLUENT COMMUNITY VERSUS THAT OF OUR WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES.

AND I THINK THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY PERPETUATING THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS OF OUR CITY.

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. YOU CAN GIVE SOME SHRUBS TO A PUMP STATION.

YOU KNOW, DOWN THERE WE'VE GOT A PUMP STATION UP NORTH.

YOU GOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WITH PITCHFORKS, AND THEN WE COME IN WITH OUR CHECKBOOK.

AND THAT'S JUST SAME STUFF, DIFFERENT DAY IN THIS CITY.

SO I HOPE THAT THIS IS GOING TO ACT AS A PRECEDENT FOR US TO TREAT OUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBORS THE SAME WAY.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. JOHNSON RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MISS SARAH. IF YOU. IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I CONCUR WITH COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA. WHY? AND I JUST WANT TO ASK, WHY WAS IT SO HIGH? WHY IS THE PRICE SO HIGH? THE PRELIMINARY DUE DILIGENCE.

WE REALLY NEED TO REJECT THE BIDS FORMALLY BEFORE WE CAN HAVE MORE OPEN CONVERSATIONS.

BUT THERE IS A PARTICULAR SUBCONTRACTING ITEM IN WHICH THE SUBCONTRACTOR INADVERTENTLY WROTE DOWN.

CLOSER TO A 2 MILLION INSTEAD OF A $200,000 ITEM WITHIN THE BID ITEMS. BUT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE WILL DO. BUT JUST INITIAL CURSORY REVIEWS WHILE WE'RE IN A PROCUREMENT PHASE BEFORE WE CAN GO HAVE OPEN CONVERSATIONS.

WE'VE SEEN THAT. AND WHILE WE ONLY HAVE ONE BIDDER THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO TRY TO FIGURE OUT.

THE THE MARKET SOMETIMES BRINGS US MULTIPLE BIDDERS SOMETIMES ONLY BRINGS US ONE.

SO THAT'S PART OF OUR. THEY WERE IN OUR BIDDING SYSTEM.

THIS DID GO THROUGH OUR SYSTEM CALLED BONFIRE.

SO EVERY COMPANY THAT IS REGISTERED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION COMMODITY CODES DID RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THIS WAS OUT THERE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN BIDDING OR IF THERE WERE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

BUT WE WERE GOING TO GO BACK AND DO ADDITIONAL OUTREACH.

SO PRIOR TO THAT, DID YOU GUYS DO THAT HOMEWORK? DID YOU KIND OF INVESTIGATE WHY WE ONLY HAD ONE BIDDER?

[01:15:01]

SO WE'VE DONE PRELIMINARY, BUT UNTIL WE REJECT THE BIDS AND WE GET OUT OF A FORMAL PROCUREMENT, WE CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THE PROCUREMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S THE NEXT STEP WHEN WE GET DONE WITH TODAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I AGREE AGAIN I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA.

WE WANT THE SAME RESOURCES IN OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL.

THAT'S WHAT EQUITY IS TO ME. THANK YOU. CHAIR.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANKS FOR STAYING UP THERE, SARAH. YOU ACTUALLY WERE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS ALL ALONG.

GUS, I SEE YOU'RE BACK HERE ALSO. CAN YOU SAY AT WHAT POINT IN THIS PROJECT THE COMMUNITY STARTED TALKING ABOUT HAVING A PUMPHOUSE, PERHAPS GUS'S. YOU'RE AT MANY OF THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

GUS. GUS, DOCTOR CRONKITE IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG STANDING DISCUSSION. WELL, LET ME SAY THIS TO THE COMMUNITY.

GET INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION. SO BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN.

CORRECT. SO THIS ITEM, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

THAT WAS THE KEY DOCUMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SILVER LINE.

AND THEN AFTER THE DESIGN CHANGE IN THE ALIGNMENT, IF YOU WILL, OF HILLCREST AT MCCALLUM. THAT'S WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT THEY NEEDED TO PUT IN THE PUMP STATION AND THE PUMP STATION.

ANYTIME THAT YOU PUT IN A PUMP STATION, YOU HAVE TO DO A NOISE ANALYSIS AND THE LOCATION OF THE NOISE.

AND I MEAN, THE THE PUMP STATION WAS ACTUALLY NEXT TO INITIALLY WAS NEXT TO HOUSING HOUSES.

MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS IN THE BACKYARD OF SOME OF THE HOUSES IN THAT AREA.

SO THIS PROCESS IS PART OF THE UPDATING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THAT CAUSED THIS ITEM TO BE A RELOCATED TO THE CURRENT LOCATION, AND B TO MITIGATE THE NOISE THAT WILL BE EMANATING FROM THE PUMPS WHEN THEY ARE OPERATING AT THAT LOCATION. AND GUS, WAS I EVEN IN OFFICE WHEN THIS ALL BEGAN? NO, MA'AM. YOU WERE NOT. NO. ACTUALLY, MAYOR MIKE RAWLINGS WAS PART OF A WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PUMP STATION BECAUSE IT WAS OMITTED FROM THE PHASE.

THIS IS A FULLY DEVELOPED AREA. IN FACT, IT'S LESS THAN HALF A MILE AWAY FROM A FEDERALLY QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACT.

YOU KNOW, OUR LOWEST INCOME PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT A HOMOGENOUS AREA OF POINT OF ORDER.

MAYOR, PEOPLE, STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I THINK THE LINE OF COMMENTS ARE GOING AWAY FROM THE REJECTION OF THE BID.

WELL, I'M SORRY, I'M RESPONDING TO WHAT WAS SAID SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS BID.

OKAY. CAN YOU TRY? YES. GIVE US A LITTLE. OKAY.

SO THE. THIS PARTICULAR PUMP HOUSE WE LOOKED AT DESIGNS THAT MIRRORED OTHER PUMP HOUSES THROUGHOUT DALLAS.

IS THAT CORRECT, SARAH? YES, MA'AM. IT IS. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH CONCRETE WALLS AND ROOFING.

AND THE CITY IS NOT PAYING FOR THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, MA'AM. THIS FUNDING WAS ALLOCATED THROUGH COG AND THROUGH TEXAS PROCESS.

AND GUS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE COG IS PAYING FOR THIS? DO THEY USUALLY PAY FOR A PUMP HOUSE? AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE MITIGATION THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS.

AND HAD THIS ITEM BEEN INITIALLY INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE DEAL.

BUT BECAUSE DART LEFT IT OUT, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THEY NEEDED A PUMP STATION THERE, THIS WAS SORT OF A MITIGATION FOR THEIR ERROR.

IS THAT CORRECT? I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE MITIGATION COMPONENT.

THANK YOU. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, ARE THERE OTHER PUMP STATIONS IN DISTRICT 12 THAT HAVE NO HOUSE AROUND THEM.

OFF THE TOP. POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR. YES, MA'AM.

YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I THINK WE'RE GOING WAY OFF OF THE AGENDA.

LANGUAGE ON THE REJECTION OF A SPECIFIC BID.

IMMA SUSTAIN THE POINT OF ORDER AND ASKING YOU TO TIGHTEN IT UP AGAIN.

THAT'S FINE. THERE SEEMS TO BE A QUESTION ON THE THE NECESSITY OF THIS, AND I WILL JUST SAY THE STATE ROAD PUMP STATION HAS NO

[01:20:02]

PUMPHOUSE AROUND IT. IT WAS BUILT LONG BEFORE RESIDENTIAL WAS THERE IN THIS CASE.

THE PUMP STATION YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BE BUILT IS FULLY SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S ALSO A FRANKFURT PUMP STATION WITHOUT A PUMP HOUSE.

SO THIS IS A SPECIFIC SITUATION FOR A SPECIFIC INSTANCE, AND THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS REBUILDING IT FOR A PROPER AMOUNT.

AND I THINK I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK IN DESIGNING A PROJECT THAT WILL PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU, MR. GRACEY. FOR THREE MINUTES, I BELIEVE.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

AND AGAIN, MY INTENT FOR THIS ONE IS JUST TO REALLY CIRCLE BACK TO THIS.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE BITTERNESS. IT'S REALLY BEING ONLY BEING REJECTED, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS ONE BITTER, BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN OVERSTATEMENT IN THE IN THE PRICE, THE PRICE, THE BID WAS OVERSTATED FROM THERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO KEEP POINTING THAT OUT. SO AGAIN, EVERYTHING ELSE, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT TOO.

THAT IS VERY RELEVANT AS WELL. BUT I JUST FROM A FROM A OPERATIONAL FROM A SYSTEMATIC FROM A PROCUREMENT, ALL OF THESE. THE ONLY REASON THIS WAS REJECTED WAS BECAUSE THE PRICE WAS OVER WAS TOO HIGH.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? ITEM 15. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 16.

[16. 25-2216A Authorize a professional services contract with Westwood Professional Services, Inc. to provide engineering services for flood management and storm drainage system improvements at two locations (list attached to the Agenda Information Sheet) - Not to exceed $864,024.00 - Financing: 2025 Certificate of Obligation Fund]

AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.

TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT TWO LOCATIONS NOT TO EXCEED $864,024.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

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

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO, NO. NO, SIR. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 17. AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH DONNA WAY ASSOCIATES,

[17. 25-2217A Authorize a professional services contract with DUNAWAY ASSOCIATES, LLC to provide engineering services for the evaluation and design of erosion control improvements at three locations (list attached to the Agenda Information Sheet) - Not to exceed $288,135.00 - Financing: Flood Protection and Storm Drainage (C) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Fund)]

LLC TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS AT THREE LOCATIONS NOT TO EXCEED $288,135. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOVE APPROVAL.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND I THINK I HEARD A SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION? ANYONE SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 20.

[20. 25-2214A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the professional services contract with Alliance Geotechnical Group, Inc. to provide additional construction materials testing services for construction projects at the Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant - Not to exceed $300,000.00, from $300,000.00 to $600,000.00 - Financing: Water Capital Improvement G Fund ($186,000.00) and Water Construction Fund ($114,000.00)]

AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT THE ELM FORK WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

NOT TO EXCEED $300,000 FROM $300,000 TO $600,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOVE APPROVAL.

SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION, MR. GRACEY? YES, SIR. IN FIVE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 20.

AND I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE.

AGAIN, I SAW THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. I PULLED THESE AND STARTING TO TRY TO I JUST WANT TO AGAIN, CONSISTENTLY SHOW THESE THEMES HERE AND WHETHER THEY'RE GOOD OR BAD. IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A ONE OF THOSE WHERE I JUST LIKE I BELIEVE THAT IS MISS STANFORD TO COME UP AND JUST EXPLAIN THIS TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, BECAUSE WHEN I SAW IT INITIALLY, I WAS LIKE, THIS IS A, A THIS THIS CONTRACT HAS DOUBLED.

SO JUST EXPLAIN IN THIS CASE, THIS CONTRACT AND WHY IN THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WAS A PLANNED SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT.

SARAH STANDARD FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES. SO TO COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY IS SORT OF POINT.

WE OFTEN MAKE DECISIONS TO PLAN FUTURE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS.

AND AS WE'RE MOVING ALONG IN LARGER PROJECTS, THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN OVERALL $500 MILLION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT WILL GO THROUGH ABOUT 2031. YOU WILL SEE FUTURE ITEMS LIKE THIS.

IT'S JUST PRUDENT AS WE PLAN OUR WORK AND AS THE PIECES ARE EXECUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION, THAT WE THEN COME BACK IN AND NOT DO THEM ALL UP FRONT IN LIMITED CASES WHEN WE CAN DO THIS. AND THEN FROM A PROCUREMENT PERSPECTIVE, YOU PULL THE THE FIRMS THAT WORK.

JUST EXPLAIN KIND OF HOW YOU PULL THE THE FIRMS TO.

SO IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A SOLICITATION. THERE WERE 22 PROPOSERS, 14 OF THEM WERE SHORTLISTED.

AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE SHORTLISTING PROCESS, THE MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL FIRM IS THE ONE THAT IS AWARDED THIS WORK.

IN THIS CASE IT IS ALLIANCE. AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH FUTURE SUPPLEMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM? MR. RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. YES, SIR.

I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THIS POLICY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

DOESN'T THIS SORT OF PLAN, SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENT CIRCUMVENT THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE OTHER BIDDERS,

[01:25:07]

POTENTIAL BIDDERS FROM BIDDING ON THIS ADDITIONAL WORK? WHY DON'T WE JUST CREATE SEPARATE BID PACKAGES FOR THE DIFFERENT SCOPES OF WORK? COUNCIL MEMBER. IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, SO IT IS NOT A LOW BID.

IT IS BASED ON A QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION.

ONCE WE'VE KIND OF GONE THROUGH A PROCESS THEN WE WILL STAY WITH THEM WITH THIS PARTICULAR WORK PRODUCT.

AND THEN AS WE GET FURTHER IN, IT MAY BE AT A LATER DATE SOMEWHERE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, WHEN WE MOVE TO ANOTHER SET OF WORK, WE MAY GO WITH ANOTHER SOLICITATION, BUT THIS IS WHERE WE'LL BE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO WHEN YOU INITIALLY SELECTED THIS ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, DID YOU INDICATE TO THEM THAT THERE COULD PERHAPS BE A SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENT ADDING TO THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, OR IS THIS SOMETHING YOU DO DISCUSS WITH THEM? YES, SIR. THAT'S PART OF THE SOLICITATION PROCESS. AND DO YOU GET AN INDICATION AT THAT POINT OF WHAT THEY WOULD PRICE THOSE ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT? SO WE EACH TIME THAT WE GO IN BECAUSE THESE ARE NEGOTIATED SERVICES.

EACH SUPPLEMENT WILL BE NEGOTIATED. OH, OKAY.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? AGENDA ITEM 20. SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 21.

[21. 25-2433A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the janitorial services contract with LGC Global Energy FM, LLC, to continue the janitorial services at the City facility located at 2245 Irving Boulevard - Not to exceed $20,811.45, from $99,894.96 to $120,706.41 - Financing: Stormwater Drainage Management Fund]

AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE JANITORIAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LGC GLOBAL ENERGY FM, LLC TO CONTINUE THE JANITORIAL SERVICE AT THE CITY FACILITY LOCATED AT 2245 IRVING BOULEVARD, NOT TO EXCEED $20,811.45 FROM $99,894.96 TO $120,706.41. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT ITEM 21 HAS A CLARIFICATION.

THE THE CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE BACKGROUND FISCAL INFORMATION IS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2025 AND 2026.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. IS THERE A OR MOTION.

I HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? I HEARD A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. ROTH? YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. AGENDA ITEM 21. THANK YOU.

COULD I. COULD I ASK THE STAFF TO APPROACH US? AGAIN, THIS IS SORT OF IN LINE WITH THE THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ON ON THE CONTRACTING PROCESS AND ON ON THE SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT ARE BEING RENDERED.

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN? THE AMOUNT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT EXCESSIVE TO ME BASED ON SORT OF COMMERCIAL REASONABLE NUMBERS, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND MAYBE IF THERE'S SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CAUSE THIS, THIS AMOUNT TO BE THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEING SENT, OR IF IT INVOLVES OTHER SERVICES OR OTHER AREAS OR DATES OR REASONS THAT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT CHANGED.

YES, SIR. SARAH STANDS FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

JUANITA ORTIZ, OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THIS FACILITY OPENED IN BETWEEN THE CYCLES OF OUR MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT WE USE AS A CITY.

SO THIS HAD TO BE PROCURED SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY.

AND THREE BIDDERS DID BID ON THIS WORK BACK IN LATE 22, WALKING INTO JANUARY OF 2020 FOR THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.

AND IT WAS BID WITH ITEMS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.

SO POLISHING OF FLOORS, STAFFING, DAYTIME HOURS, NIGHTTIME HOURS, TRASH SERVICE, BATHROOM.

AND THERE'S ALSO SHOWER SERVICES. THIS IS CARPET NON CARPETED AREAS.

SO IT IS A PACKAGE THAT WHEN IT WAS BID THE THREE BIDDERS RANGED ON AVERAGE WHEN YOU PIECE ALL THE SERVICES TOGETHER IT RANGED FROM ABOUT 3800 TO $7000 A MONTH. BASED ON THE SERVICES WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD BE UTILIZING.

AND AGAIN, WE CAN PICK AND CHOOSE FROM THEM INCLUDED IN OUR BIDDING DOCUMENTS ARE THE LIVING WAGES.

IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. THIS ONE WAS A LIVING WAGE OF 1782.

IN OCTOBER EACH YEAR YOU ALL UPDATE THAT. SO THIS WAS 1782.

THIS ALSO REQUIRES GREEN SEAL PRODUCTS. BECAUSE THESE ARE LEED BUILDINGS.

THEY HAVE TO BE CLEANED WITH SPECIFIC LEED SPECIFIED PRODUCTS.

AND WE ALSO REQUIRE COMMERCIAL INSURANCE AND BONDING AND SURETIES AND ADDITIONAL ADD ONS.

SO WHEN YOU GET TO IT, THAT'S SORT OF AN ALL INCLUSIVE PACKAGE.

THIS PARTICULAR ACTION BUFFERS THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE EXISTING CONTRACT WE HAVE AND THE NEW CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN PLACE.

SO THIS WAS A LOW BID CONTRACT AND THIS IS JUST THE END OF THE CONTRACT PIECE IN TERM.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. IT'S JUST TO NOTE IT AND AND LOOK THIS IS A CONTRACT THAT YOU ALREADY MADE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FUTURE CONTRACTS SORT OF ALIGN WITH MORE COMMERCIAL

[01:30:01]

CONTRACT PRICING IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COSTS RELATED TO DEALING WITH THE MUNICIPALITY, BUT AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SECOND GUESS YOUR, YOUR NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, BUT ON FUTURE PROCUREMENTS, THIS TYPE OF A PER SQUARE FOOT COST ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS 20,000FT², IS EXCESSIVE AND AND SHOULD BE REVISITED IN YOUR RENEWAL CONTRACTS OR IN YOUR FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THIS GROUP OR OTHER CONTRACTORS THAT YOU'RE SOLICITING.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 21? SEEING NONE ON FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 23, WHICH HAS BEEN CORRECTED.

[23. 25-2239A Authorize the First Amendment No. 1 to and Restatement of the Development Participation Contract with the Texas Trees Foundation for the donation of privately funded design plans for a City of Dallas 2017 General Obligation Bond Program Project identified as the Southwestern Medical District Streetscape Plan/Harry Hines Boulevard Improvements (Market Center DART Station to Mockingbird Lane) project to (1) revise the scope of work to separate the Infrastructure Design component from the Project Enhancement Design component; and (2) identify the responsible parties of each project component - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information for potential future costs)]

AUTHORIZED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND REINSTATEMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION FOR THE DONATION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED DESIGN PLANS FOR A CITY OF DALLAS 2017 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM PROJECT, IDENTIFIED AS THE SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL DISTRICT STREETSCAPE PLAN.

HARRY HINES BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO ONE REVISE THE SCOPE OF WORK TO SEPARATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN COMPONENT FROM THE PROJECT ENHANCEMENT DESIGN COMPONENT, AND TO IDENTIFY THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES OF EACH PROJECT COMPONENT.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION.

MAYOR PRO TEM. YES, MA'AM. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AND THANK JANETTE AND THE TEXAS TREE FOUNDATION FOR THEIR HARD WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING AND WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH GUS.

THIS IS A BEEN YEARS IN THE MAKING, AND IT'S GOING TO ADD SOME GREEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS ALONG HARRY HINES.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE DOING THE WORK AND CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRESS.

THANK YOU MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 23? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 24.

[24. 25-2437A Authorize the (1) rejection of the proposal received for solicitation CIZ25-TRN-3149 - Harry Hines Boulevard from Southeast of Medical District Drive to Southeast of Inwood Road Engineering Services (CSJ 0918-47-278); and (2) re-advertisement for a new procurement - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM 24. AUTHORIZE THE ONE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED FOR SOLICITATION.

CI 2510 3149 HARRY HAINES BOULEVARD FROM SOUTHEAST OF MEDICAL DISTRICT DRIVE TO SOUTHEAST OF INWOOD ROAD. ENGINEERING SERVICES AND TWO ADVERTISEMENT OF A NEW PROCUREMENT.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY HEARD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN SECONDED AS WELL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MISTER GRACEY? YES. MR.. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU AGAIN.

JUST GOING THROUGH THESE ITEMS. THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE. A REJECTION OF A SINGLE BID.

THE STAFF DID EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME, SO I'M OKAY.

SORTA. BUT AGAIN, JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT THIS WAS A REJECTION OF ANOTHER SINGLE BID ITEM.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 24.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 26.

[26. 25-2230A Authorize (1) Supplemental Agreement No. 5 to the professional services contract with The Kercher Group, Inc. to provide pavement and asset management support for the enhancement of the City’s pavement management system to be used for the City’s annual maintenance plan and future bond programming for street repairs as well as continue the development of alley programming and modeling; and (2) an extension of the contract term until December 2026 - Not to exceed $376,297.86, from $1,673,893.53 to $2,050,191.39 - Financing: General Fund]

AUTHORIZE ONE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER FIVE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE KARCHER GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE PAVEMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE CITY'S PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

TO BE USED FOR THE CITY'S ANNUAL MAINTENANCE PLAN AND FUTURE BOND PROGRAMING FOR STREET REPAIRS, AS WELL AS CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALLIE PROGRAMING AND MODELING, AND TO AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT TERM UNTIL DECEMBER 2026, NOT TO EXCEED $376,297.86 FROM $1,673,893.53 TO $2,050,191.39. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION MOVE APPROVAL.

I HEARD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. GRACEY? ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

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

AGENDA ITEM 27. AUTHORIZE ONE. A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2025,

[27. 25-2303A Authorize (1) a public hearing to be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2025 to receive comments on a proposed tax rate; and (2) a proposal to consider adoption of a $0.6997 per $100 valuation tax rate, or a lower rate as may be proposed by the City Council for the 2025-26 fiscal year on Wednesday, September 17, 2025 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED TAX RATE AND TO A PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A 0.699 $0.07 PER $100 VALUATION TAX RATE, OR A LOWER RATE AS MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 20 2526 FISCAL YEAR.

ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2025, THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

[01:35:04]

IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE ONE MAYOR. I MOVED THAT THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TAX RATE BE MAINTAINED AT A TAX RATE OF 0.5109 PER $100 VALUATION, FOR A TOTAL TAX RATE OF 0.7022 PER $100 VALUATION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION TAX RATE, AND SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDED DEBT SERVICE RATE OF 0.1913 PER $100 VALUATION.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED, AND SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION, MISTER BAZALDUA? YES. THANK YOU MISTER. FIVE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM 27.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. JACK OR JEANETTE OR BOTH. I DIDN'T DO IT.

I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ALL IF YOU CAN JUST KIND OF FOR FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS WHAT THIS ITEM ACTUALLY IS AND MAKE SURE SET THE TONE FOR WHAT IT IS THAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. I'M JACK ARLEN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JOINED WITH JEANETTE WEEDEN, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET MANAGEMENT SERVICES. TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM DOES TWO THINGS.

IT CALLS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER THE 17TH ON THE TAX RATE.

AND IT ALSO SETS THE TAX RATE CEILING THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADOPT ON SEPTEMBER 17TH.

TODAY'S ACTION DOES NOT APPROVE THE TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26.

HOWEVER, IT SETS THE CEILING. WHATEVER YOU VOTE ON TODAY IS THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT YOU CAN HAVE ON SEPTEMBER 17TH.

YOU CAN ALWAYS LOWER IT BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER 17TH.

BUT TODAY WE'LL ESTABLISH THE CEILING. YOUR AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED TAX RATE KEEPS THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE THE SAME AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH IS A REDUCTION OF 0.2 $0.05 FOR A SAVINGS ABOUT $5.5 MILLION. HOWEVER, YOU CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL FOR THE O&M, OR THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE TAX RATE, KEEPING IT AT THE SAME AS THE CURRENT YEAR 51.0 $0.09, AS OPPOSED TO LOWERING IT AS THE MANAGER HAD RECOMMENDED.

THAT THEN RESULTS IN ABOUT $5.5 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE BEING MADE AVAILABLE BY HAVING A HIGHER TAX RATE THAN THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JACK.

AND, MAYOR, THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS MOTION FORWARD IS YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, TOMORROW.

I STILL HAVE A BUDGET TOWN HALL WITH THREE OF MY COLLEAGUES, AND WE HAVE A ROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THROUGH OUR BUDGETING ON PURPOSE, TO HEAR FROM OUR PUBLIC, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOCUMENT THAT IS ULTIMATELY PASSED IS A REFLECTION OF HEARING FROM OUR PUBLIC.

I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE PRELIMINARY FOR US TO MAKE AN ACTION THAT WOULD BIND US TO A CEILING WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ONE DISCUSSION.

WE KNOW THIS IS A HARD BUDGET YEAR. THIS IS A VERY HARD BUDGET YEAR, AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A PROPOSED BUDGET THAT IS ADDRESSING WHAT WE'VE HEARD TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERNS FROM OUR CITY MANAGER'S PERSPECTIVE, BUT WE HAVE A DULY ELECTED BODY THAT REPRESENT EACH UNIQUE CONSTITUENCY, AND WE HAVE NOT YET HEARD FROM THEM ALL. SO I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRELIMINARY FOR US TO SET A CEILING BEFORE HAVING A DISCUSSION TO SEE IF THERE ARE POTENTIAL VIABLE OPTIONS TO SAVE SOME OF THE CUTS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WERE BROUGHT FORTH WITH THIS PROPOSED BUDGET.

AND WITHOUT HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE HEARING FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WITHOUT SEEING THE POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ALL COULD BRING FORWARD DURING OUR BUDGET WORKSHOPS, I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE OF AN ACTION, AND I DON'T WANT TO BIND US.

THERE'S ALSO A COMPONENT OF BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS WE CAN TO THE PUBLIC.

IN SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR FROM, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT HARD DECISIONS TO MAKE WITH THIS BUDGET CYCLE.

WE ALSO HAVE SOME PRETTY STRONG PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW IN THE SPECIAL SESSION SOME THAT WILL HAVE VERY LARGE IMPACTS ON FUTURE FISCAL YEAR BUDGETS.

AND SO WE HAVE TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO HAVE POLICY DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS GOING TO BE PRUDENT AS WE MOVE INTO YEARS THAT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE EVEN MORE CUTS AND TIGHTEN OUR BELT EVEN FURTHER.

LONG STORY SHORT, WE HAVE BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO CLOSE OUT THIS PROCESS WHERE IT IS TRANSPARENT AND HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC, AND I WANT TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, IS SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN HEAR FROM THEM.

[01:40:03]

BEFORE WE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT, I BELIEVE MAKING THIS ACTION AND PRELIMINARILY DECIDING WHAT THAT CEILING LOOKS LIKE BEFORE BEING ABLE TO WEIGH OUT WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR OUR, OUR PUBLIC IS JUST PREMATURE.

AND WE WE COULD HAVE BETTER DISCUSSION IF WE ALLOW FOR THIS CEILING.

AND I'M NOT I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE CEILING TO BE AN INCREASE.

RIGHT. WE'RE STILL MAINTAINING WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE. THIS WOULD NOT RAISE THE TAXES.

CAN YOU JUST VERIFY THAT, PLEASE? YES, SIR. YOUR YOUR PROPOSAL STILL LOWERS THE OVERALL TAX RATE.

IT KEEPS THE GENERAL FUND OR O&M TAX RATE THE SAME, AND STILL LOWERS THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE FOR A TOTAL REDUCTION OF 0.2 $0.05.

THANK YOU. SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DEBATE OF THE ACTUAL BUDGET AND WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE WHEN FOCUSING SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT THIS ITEM IS ADDRESSING, WHICH IS SETTING A CEILING AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, I HOPE THAT OUR, MY COLLEAGUES WOULD CONSIDER TO NOT BIND US WITH THIS ACTION BEFORE WE HAVE THE MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION OF THE BUDGET BEFORE IT'S PASSED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA MOTION ON 27, WHICH. THANK YOU. WELL, FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT OUR COLLEAGUE IS ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL $0.50 OVER WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER IS EVEN PROPOSING.

SO WE NEED TO GO ON RECORD, ON ON MAKING SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS.

SECOND, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF 0.673196 FOR THE TOTAL TAX RATE.

SORRY. SO RESTATE YOUR MOTION, PLEASE. TO AMEND THE MOTION TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF 0.673196 FOR THE TOTAL PROPERTY TAX RATE. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. SO NOW I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRACKING EVERYTHING ACCURATELY.

EVERYONE. SO NOW WE ARE ON MISS MENDELSSOHN'S AMENDMENT TO MR. BAZALDUA MOTION. AND YOU WERE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. DALLAS IS AT A CROSSROADS, AND MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE ALREADY STRETCHED THIN FINANCIALLY.

GROCERIES COST MORE. UTILITIES COST MORE. HOUSING COSTS MORE.

THE LAST THING FAMILIES WHO ARE STRUGGLING NEED IS FOR THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN DALLAS.

THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ADOPT A NO NEW REVENUE PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 67.3196.

THIS RATE BRINGS THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE WE HAVE THIS FISCAL YEAR FROM EXISTING TAXPAYERS.

IT MEANS HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESS PROPERTY TAX BILL WON'T GO UP JUST BECAUSE THEIR APPRAISAL WENT UP.

IT MEANS OWNERS OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND RENTAL HOUSES AREN'T GOING TO GET A BILL FOR A HIGHER PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT THEY WILL THEN PASS ON TO THEIR RENTERS. A NO NEW REVENUE RATE MEANS DALLAS FAMILIES WILL KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN.

FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, IT MEANS WE HOLD THE LINE, WE PROTECT AFFORDABILITY, AND WE SHOW TAXPAYERS WE VALUE EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR THEY SEND TO CITY HALL. SO LET'S BE HONEST, DALLAS HAS ALREADY SET THE HIGHEST PROPERTY TAX RATE OF THE FIVE LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS. OUR DALLAS CITY MANAGER HAS PROPOSED A HALF CENT REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR THE 2026 FISCAL YEAR.

WE SEE HOUSTON WITH A PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 51.91 CENTS VERSUS OUR 69.9 $0.07, SAN ANTONIO PROPOSED TAX RATE 55.40 $0.06, COMPARED TO OUR 69.9 CENTS. AUSTIN LOOKING FOR A VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

THEY'RE GOING CRAZY DOWN THERE, RIGHT? BUT STILL, THAT WOULD ONLY GO TO 57.4017 COMPARED TO OUR 69.97 FORT WORTH. THEIR PROPOSED AMOUNT IS $0.67 AGAIN VERSUS OUR 69.97. IF HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, AUSTIN AND FORT WORTH CAN THRIVE WITH A LOWER PROPERTY TAX RATE, SO CAN DALLAS. IF WE EXPAND OUR THINKING BEYOND THE LARGE CITIES OF TEXAS TO NEARBY SUBURBS, YOU'LL SEE THEY HAVE A MUCH LOWER PROPERTY TAX RATE THAN DALLAS.

WE FIND FRISCO 42.551 $0.07. PLANO 44.06. COPPELL 44.497. MCKINNEY 45.019. CARROLLTON 53.875. RICHARDSON 54.218. IRVING 58.91. LANCASTER 60.4606. ARLINGTON

[01:45:07]

63.88. GRAND PRAIRIE $0.66. IN DESOTO 68.4934.

HOW CAN WE EXPECT TO ATTRACT FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES TO OUR CITY WHEN OUR PROPERTY TAX IS WAY BEYOND OUR PEERS? IF WE WANT DALLAS TO COME TO COMPETE, WE CAN'T KEEP BURDENING OUR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WITH SUCH A HEAVY LOAD.

ALL AROUND US, CITIES HAVE GROWN, BUT OUR POPULATION HAS STAGNATED.

IT'S PAST TIME FOR US TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE SOME NEIGHBORING CITIES WITH BETTER ROADS, QUICKER POLICE RESPONSE TIMES AND A PROPERTY TAX RATE THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN OUR PROPOSED RATE. THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE FORCES US TO DO WHAT EVERY HOUSEHOLD DOES.

LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS. IT MEANS MAKING CHOICES, TRIMMING WHAT ISN'T WORKING.

PUTTING OUR FOCUS ON WHERE IT BELONGS, WHICH IS PUBLIC SAFETY, STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CUTS. IT'S ABOUT PRIORITIES.

IT'S ABOUT DISCIPLINE. IT'S ABOUT SHOWING DALLAS THAT WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND COMPETITIVENESS.

THE LEGISLATURE IS ALREADY TIGHTENING LOCAL REVENUE CAPS AND OUR RESIDENTS DESERVE RELIEF.

EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN DALLAS HAS TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS, AND IT'S TIME DALLAS HALL CITY HALL DID THE SAME THING.

THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE MY CUE CHANGED SOMEHOW.

MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON.

WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN TO MR. BAZALDUA MOTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR. AND THIS IS EITHER FOR CHAIR MENDELSOHN OR FOR JACK.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OR HOW DOES IT REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND? DO WE HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT? TO LOWER THE TAX RATE TO 67.31 CENTS WOULD RESULT IN $30.47 MILLION OF LOST REVENUE, COMPARED TO THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET.

TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET, WE WILL NEED TO IDENTIFY $30.47 MILLION OF EXPENSES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE BUDGET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. MR. ROFF, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. I THE REASON I SECOND THIS THIS AMENDMENT IS TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO BE SURE THAT WE THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT ON TO THE TABLE, THAT WE DO HAVE INFORMATION ON NEIGHBORING TAX RATES FOR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.

I RESPECT AND AND APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA SUGGESTION THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TO ENGAGE ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

BUT I BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT IDENTIFICATION AND IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BRING UP AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THIS DISCUSSION FURTHER.

MISTER RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR. QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE WOULD THE CITY, IF IT WERE TO ADOPT THIS NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE HIRING OF 350 NEW POLICE OFFICERS? THE INCREASE IN PAY. UNDER THE MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT AND THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND.

SO IN THE ABSENCE OF CITY MANAGER TOLBERT, I WILL TRY AND THEN CHIEF ARTISTS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AS WELL.

AS I MENTIONED THAT IF WE LOWER THE TAX RATE AS PROPOSED IN THIS AMENDMENT, WE WOULD NEED TO IDENTIFY $30.5 MILLION TO REDUCE FROM THE BUDGET.

WE DID DISTRIBUTE TO THE CITY COUNCIL A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE SCENARIO THAT SHOWED WAYS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE REDUCTIONS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. INCLUDED WITHIN THAT WAS A REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS TO BE HIRED IN THE UPCOMING YEAR.

IT INCLUDED REDUCTIONS TO OTHER PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PRIORITY IN THE PAST, INCLUDING DALLAS ZOO, STIPENDS TO OUR PARTNER ENTITIES, CLOSING ALL THE POOLS IMMEDIATELY RATHER THAN DOING THAT OVER TIME REDUCING CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAIR PARK ACCELERATING THE CLOSURE OF LIBRARIES INSTEAD OF DOING THAT IN FISCAL YEAR 27, DOING THAT IN FISCAL YEAR 26, REDUCING THE HIRING OF POLICE OFFICERS BY 50, ELIMINATING THE SICK LEAVE EXCHANGE PROGRAM AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, REDUCING POLICE AND FIRE STARTING PAY, ELIMINATING RESCUE REMOUNT PROGRAM.

[01:50:06]

I'M SORRY. I THINK THERE'S THREE MORE HERE. REDUCING THE CIVILIAN MERIT FROM AN AVERAGE OF 3% TO AN AVERAGE OF 2%.

ELIMINATING FUNDING FOR STREET INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WAS RESIDENT NUMBER ONE PRIORITY REDUCING THE INCREASE IN THE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR OUR CITY FACILITIES AND THEN LASTLY REDUCING OUR INCREASE, FURTHER REDUCING OUR INCREASE FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR A TOTAL OF ABOUT $12 MILLION.

SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE CITY MANAGER LAID OUT IS HOW WE COULD ACCOMPLISH $30 MILLION IN SAVINGS.

SO A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU MENTIONED WAS PENSION, PENSION WOULD STILL BE FUNDING ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED JUNE OF LAST YEAR. BUT WE WOULD REDUCE THE THE STARTING PAY AND WE WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS BEING HIRED, AS WELL AS REDUCING STREET MAINTENANCE AGAIN, WHICH WAS THE NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO PRIORITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND POLICE SERVICE. THANK YOU JACK.

GIVEN THE DRACONIAN NATURE AND IMPACT OF SUCH BUDGET CUTS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. I GUESS IT MAKES MY LIBRARY LOOK PRETTY PITIFUL THERE'S NO NEW REVENUE, RIGHT? SO MY MY QUESTION WAS SAME ALONG THE LINES OF MR. RIDLEY IS WHAT BILL? BECAUSE WE HAVE BILLS THAT ARE DUE.

WE HAVE THE PENSION BILL THAT'S DUE. WE HAVE MEET AND CONFER.

PLUS WE'RE GOING INTO MEAT AND CONFIRM NEXT YEAR. CORRECT.

FOR A WHOLE NEW. YES, MA'AM. WE ARE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE A A NEW MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT AS WE TALK.

AND SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU YOU'RE ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS, CORRECT.

THESE BUDGET TOWN HALLS. I HAVE ONE TOMORROW AS WELL.

YES, MA'AM. I'VE BEEN TO SEVERAL ALREADY, AS MISS WHEATON HAS.

WE ALL ARE ATTENDING AND MINE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR MORE SERVICES.

THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR STREETS TO BE REPAIRED, FOR THE LIBRARY TO BE OPEN, FOR THEIR SPRAY PARKS TO HAVE MORE ACCESSIBILITY.

SO I GUESS HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT GIVEN WITH THIS NEW RATE? AND YOU'VE JUST LISTED ALL THAT STUFF. HOW WOULD WE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE BEING ASKED? THAT WILL BE Y'ALL'S DECISION ON HOW YOU DO THAT.

WE CAN'T. IT'S A PRIORITY EXERCISE. IT IS MATH FOR ME, RIGHT? IT'S HOW MUCH REVENUE DO WE HAVE AND HOW MUCH BALANCE EXPENSES CAN WE AFFORD WITH THE REVENUE? IF YOU CUT $30 MILLION OF REVENUE, YOU GOT TO CUT $30 MILLION OF EXPENSES.

AND IT WILL BE. WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU.

SO WITH THE SERVICES BEING LIMITED, PEOPLE FEELING A CRUNCH IN THEIR POCKETBOOK, THEY TEND TO TURN TO CITIES FOR THEIR LIBRARY TO CHECK OUT A BOOK SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO PAY FOR ONE AT BARNES AND NOBLE.

THEY GO TO A PARK BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, SIX FLAGS.

THEY START LOOKING TO CITIES TO HELP THEM IN THE CRUNCH.

AND SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO, TO SUPPORT THIS. AS I SAID, WE HAD OUR SPEAKER HERE TODAY TALKING ABOUT A $500,000 LIBRARY.

IT'S MAYBE 350. SO THE 30 MILLION MAKES THAT $350,000 LIBRARY.

IT DOESN'T. IT'S A BLIP ON THE RADAR. IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW.

WE'RE NOW INTO OPEN WATER, AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT SURVIVAL.

SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS, BUT I DO ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE.

AND SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU. MISS STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR. MISTER IRELAND, JUST TO CONFIRM, BECAUSE I DO REMEMBER THE MEMO, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU LISTED THERE WAS LIKE A FULL PAGE OF ITEMS. IN ORDER TO GET TO THE 30 MILLION, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE CUTS OR JUST A COMBINATION OF THOSE CUTS? YES, MA'AM. THE LIST TOTALED $30,472,942, WHICH IS THE EXACT AMOUNT TO GET TO THIS REDUCTION.

OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I FEARED. IT'S THAT'S THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT.

I HAD MY BUDGET TOWN HALL LAST NIGHT, AND I WOULD SAY OVERALL, I HAD A GOOD RESPONSE TO THE AMOUNT WE'RE SPENDING ON PUBLIC SAFETY.

THEY WERE GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE CAN GO FROM 300 TO 350 NEW OFFICERS THIS YEAR.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN AT 250 FOREVER. AND SO THAT'S LITERALLY JUMPING TO 100 OFFICERS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND A FAIRLY SHORT SPAN OF TIME, WHICH I THINK IS CRITICAL TO WHAT OUR TO ANSWERING WHAT OUR TAXPAYERS ARE ASKING.

MY RESIDENTS ARE ALWAYS ASKING THAT WE WE HIRE MORE OFFICERS.

[01:55:03]

I THINK THEY ALSO WANT TO PAY THEM A GOOD SALARY.

AND I THINK THE INCREASE THERE, IF THEY WERE NOT TO GET THAT INCREASE, THAT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING.

SO JUST BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING IN MY DISTRICT, I THINK THESE CUTS, I MEAN, THEY WOULD BE UP IN ARMS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO LIBRARIES AND TO DPD. IT WOULD JUST AND THEN THE STREETS.

THAT IS ANOTHER BIG ISSUE FOR THEM. SO I'M AFRAID THIS WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU. MR. WEST. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I DO APPRECIATE THE INTENT TO TRY TO SAVE KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES AND FIGHT DISPLACED DISPLACEMENT BY BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. IN THIS CASE, HEARING THE AMOUNT OF CUTS YOU KNOW, THE THE DETRIMENT TO OUR LIBRARIES, TO OUR OTHER CITY SERVICES THAT I HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM MY CONSTITUENTS LAST NIGHT THAT THEY THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THEM.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. NO NEW REVENUE. AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. MR. RESENDEZ, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT EITHER.

AND FOR THE NEW FOLKS ON HERE, WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ALMOST EVERY SINGLE YEAR, AND IT'S USUALLY A WASTE OF TIME.

OTHER THAN MAYBE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES FOR THE NEW FOLKS.

I THINK AS SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT IS IS A VOTE AGAINST PROGRESS.

IT'S A VOTE AGAINST PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S A VOTE AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT. AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ABOUT 85% OF THE TAX BASE IN THIS CITY IS NORTH OF I-30.

AND SO FOR THOSE OF US THAT REPRESENT DISTRICTS IN, YOU KNOW, SOUTHERN DALLAS SPECIFICALLY, IT WOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONSIBLE FOR US TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. SO MAKE SURE BEFORE I GO TO, MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THREE MINUTES THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AS I'VE BEEN HAVING MY TOWN HALL MEETINGS, WE'VE BEEN GOING IN WITH THE PROPOSED REVENUE CAP FROM OUR CITY MANAGER.

AND I DON'T HEAR ANYONE SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO GO ABOVE THAT.

SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT GOING ABOVE THE CITY MANAGER'S REVENUE CAP TODAY.

AND UNDERSTANDING THAT. SO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON MENDELSOHN RIGHT THERE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US IS REDUCING IT EVEN FURTHER.

THERE WAS A LIST PROVIDED BY CITY MANAGEMENT THAT RECOMMENDED SOME CUTS, SUCH AS POLICE TRANSPORTATION.

AND THOSE ARE SCARY THINGS TO TO THINK ABOUT.

BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE OUR STAFF TO LOOK AT OTHER WAYS TO POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT OUR BUDGET.

AND SO I JUST WANT SOME CLARITY FOR TODAY. IF WE.

WHATEVER RATE WE GO WITH TODAY, THAT RATE CAN STILL BE LOWER.

AT A LATER DATE. YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT. TODAY IS YOUR CEILING.

AND BY SEPTEMBER 17TH YOU CAN COME DOWN. BUT YOU CANNOT GO UP AFTER TODAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU WRITE US FOR THREE MINUTES.

SO IT'S REQUIRED THAT THE CITY MANAGER GIVE US A NO NEW REVENUE RATE LIST.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ABLE TO READ THAT OFF.

AND WE GET THAT EVERY YEAR, CORRECT? YES. YES, MA'AM.

IT IS A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA, CRITERIA THAT WE DO PROVIDE THAT EACH YEAR, WHICH WE HAVE DONE FOR SIX YEARS MAYBE OR SO.

DEFINITELY ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN AND THE SUGGESTED CUTS BY THE CITY MANAGER ARE TRADITIONALLY THE ONES THAT ARE NOT PALATABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S NOT PALATABLE FOR US TO CUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT'S NOT PALATABLE TO CUT. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS LIKE STREETS.

AND THIS IS WHAT IS DONE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

AND WE HAVE NOT YET HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUGGEST AMENDMENTS FOR OTHER KINDS OF CUTS.

AND OF COURSE, THAT'S COMING. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE. HOW MANY CARS DO YOU HAVE SITTING ON L2? THERE'S AT LEAST THREE CARS THAT HAVE FLEET CARS THAT ARE FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT.

CORRECT? I'VE DRIVEN BY HIM. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH.

THERE ARE VEHICLES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO INSPECTORS THAT WORK ON IN THE THE HUD UNIT.

YES, MA'AM. SO I'VE DRIVEN BY HIM EVERY DAY FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS.

SO THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE SORRY. I'M SORRY. ONE TIME BORDER STATE.

[02:00:02]

YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I JUST. I THINK THIS IS OPENING THE DOOR TO GO INTO AN AREA THAT'S NOT GERMANE.

AND EVERY SINGLE ITEM WITHIN EVERY DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY.

I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THAT AND ASK YOU TO BE MORE FOCUSED.

I APPRECIATE THAT. THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT NONE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE PROPOSED.

NONE OF THE THINGS THAT WON'T AFFECT THE RESIDENTS, THAT ARE TRULY THE FAT WITHIN THE CITY HALL BUDGET.

EVERY OTHER LARGE TEXAS CITY IS OPERATING ON A MUCH LOWER REVENUE PROPERTY TAX RATE.

IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO DO THAT AS WELL. BUT WE CAN'T JUST MAKE THE SCARY CUTS AS THE OPTION.

IT'S EITHER POLICE OR A LOWER OR A HIGHER TAX RATE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THE CHOICE IS. AND YOU KNOW, WE TIME THESE THINGS ON PURPOSE THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THAT WE'RE SETTING THIS RIGHT BEFORE WE'VE EVER EVEN HAD AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGET.

AND SO THIS IS OUR WAY TO ACTUALLY TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BUDGET AND HAVE THE VERY SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT WE NEED TO NOT TO CUT OFF AN ARM OR A LEG OF THE CITY, BUT TO ACTUALLY SHRINK THE BODY OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. AND I THINK WE NEED TO GO ON RECORD SAYING WE'RE READY.

WE'RE READY TO MAKE THOSE TOUGH DECISIONS. AND I AM.

AND IT'S NOT THE DECISIONS THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE RESIDENTS NOT HAVING SERVICES, BUT IT WOULD LEAD TO SOME ISSUES OF SOME OF THE STAFF IN THIS BUILDING NOT HAVING A POSITION.

THANK YOU. MAY I RESPOND? YOU CAN FOR SURE. AND YES.

GO AHEAD. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT IT IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION ON WHAT THOSE REDUCTIONS ARE.

THE LIST I READ OFF WAS THE LIST THAT THE CITY MANAGER PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH FMC.

AND SO ULTIMATELY, IT WILL BE YOUR DECISION ON IF WE HAVE TO REDUCE EXPENSES BY $30 MILLION, IT WILL BE THIS BODY THAT MAKES THAT DECISION.

WE WILL SUBMIT OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHICH I READ OFF, BUT IT WILL BE ULTIMATELY YOUR DECISION REGARDING THE TIMELINE AND DOING THIS TODAY.

THERE'S STATE LAW THAT DICTATES OUR TIMELINES OF WHEN WE HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, AND THE CITY CHARTER REQUIRES US TO APPROVE THE BUDGET IN TWO READINGS.

THE FIRST READING HAVE TO ADVERTISE IN THE NEWSPAPER.

A SECOND READING ALL THAT'S DICTATED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW AND CITY CHARTER.

AS FAR AS THE TIMING IS CONCERNED, I WISH THE TOWN HALLS WERE BEING COMPLETED.

NOW, YOU ALREADY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THE SCHEDULE TO REALLY DO TOWN HALLS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE TIMELINE TO ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING WE NEED.

AND LASTLY, IN REGARDS TO OTHER CITIES AND THEIR TAX RATES ONE THING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IS WHAT EXEMPTIONS THE OTHER CITIES HAVE. A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS, A LOT OF THE SUBURBS MAY NOT HAVE THE 20% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THAT EVERY HOMEOWNER IN DALLAS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE, OR THE $175,000 SENIOR EXEMPTION THAT WE HAVE IN DALLAS.

AND I KNOW SOME OF THE LARGE CITIES THAT THE COMPARISON IS BEING MADE TO.

THEY OWN DIFFERENT UTILITIES THAT HELP SUPPORT THEIR GENERAL FUND.

SO IT'S IT'S MORE THAN JUST A TAX RATE TO TAX RATE TO TAX RATE.

THAT REALLY GIVES YOU AN UNDERSTANDING OF EACH AND EVERY CITY'S FINANCE AND HOW THEY PREPARE THEIR BUDGET.

AND I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I BELIEVE I STILL HAD ONE MINUTE LEFT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE, BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT, CAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU'D LIE.

THANK YOU. SO GIVE HER A MINUTE. AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS AN EXTRA MINUTE.

I'M GOING TO TRUST YOU AS WELL. AND ASSUME THAT YOU WOULDN'T LIE TO THE CHAIR BECAUSE.

BECAUSE THE TIME DISAPPEARS, SO I CAN'T PROVE IT.

SO ANYWAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A MINUTE.

I'M ONLY LOOKING FOR A MINUTE. I ONLY BELIEVE YOU SO MUCH, BUT.

OKAY, SO THAT'S FINE. THE I ONLY WANT TO SAY BECAUSE OF JACK'S ANSWER, IS THAT, LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT PLANO, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, A LARGE BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 WITH A 44 CENT TAX RATE COMPARED TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER MY COLLEAGUE OF OVER $0.70, THERE ARE 44.06 TAX RATE DOES HAVE A 20% HOMESTEAD.

THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES ON HERE THAT HAVE THE APPLES TO APPLES HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS AND OUR UTILITIES ARE NOT.

THIS IS A POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE LINE OF COMMENTS ARE ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

[02:05:04]

THEY WERE LITERALLY THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT I SAID.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER CITIES RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT ONE AND LET IT CONTINUE.

I WANT TO HERE MAKE SURE THAT I THINK. I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY RELEVANT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPETITIVENESS ON THE TAX RATE.

WE SHOULD LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE OTHERS ARE DOING.

IT'S JUST WE ARE NOT COMPETITIVE WITH THEM. WE ARE SO FAR ABOVE WHERE OUR WHERE OUR COMPETITION IS.

WHEN YOU SAY HOUSTON HAS 51.91 CENTS AND WE ARE 6969 .97 AS A MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION, IT'S JUST CRAZY. IS YOUR TIME FOR THIS ROUND.

AND WE ARE TO MR. BASIL, DO IT FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO COMBAT SOME OF THOSE POINTS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WITH STAYING ON TOPIC NECESSARILY, BUT I THINK AFTER, YOU KNOW, APPROVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEALS OF HEADQUARTERS THAT WERE ACTUALLY BRINGING PEOPLE TO OUR CITY AND SEEING THAT WE'RE THE FASTEST GROWING REGION IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE AREN'T SETTING SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT IS MAYOR DISINGENUOUS. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT WE DO STILL HAVE AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN ASKED, I'M SORRY IT HAS TO BE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO ALLOW FOR THIS MISLEADING OF THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE NOT SETTING A TAX RATE HERE TODAY, AND WE'RE ALSO NOT COMPARING OURSELVES AS AN APPLE TO ALL THE ORANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED HERE.

DO DO WE HAVE A UTILITY THAT WE MANAGE AND OPERATE? OTHER THAN WATER UTILITIES THAT YOU COULD COMPARE TO THESE OTHER CITIES? SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES HAVE ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND GAS UTILITIES WAS MY REFERENCE.

BUT YES, SIR, WE DO HAVE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.

AND THERE'S ALSO VARIABLES WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER REVENUE SOURCES.

AND YOU KNOW, OUR HOT TAX, FOR INSTANCE, AND OUR PERCENTAGE THAT WE DO WITH STATE STATUTE ELIGIBLE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST TO ARBITRARILY PICK A MUNICIPALITY OF OUR STATE OUT TO THROW SOME DATA OUT AS A COMPARISON, BECAUSE IT HELPS. YOUR TALKING POINT ISN'T NECESSARILY AN ACCURATE ARGUMENT.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? IT'S IT'S A IT'S A BENCHMARK.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS THAT GO INTO IT WAS MY POINT, WHICH IS WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE OF A DISCUSSION AND DEBATE HERE ON THE COUNCIL. THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

IF WE WERE TO GO TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR IN A NO NEW REVENUE AND IMMEDIATELY START OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH A WHOLE OF 30 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS ON SUCH A HARD YEAR, I'LL TELL YOU SO FAR, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD WITH MY RESIDENCE IN WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BUDGET, IS THAT THEY LOVE SEEING THAT WE ARE FINALLY GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR LANE.

MILES NEED TO HIT ZERO DEGRADATION AND FINALLY ADDRESS OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE.

THEY LOVE SEEING THE FACT THAT WE ARE INVESTING MORE IN EFFICIENCY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME REALLY GOOD THINGS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THIS BUDGET AT THE EXPENSE OF SOME REALLY SUBSTANTIAL CUTS THAT ARE ALREADY BEING MADE.

AND SO WITH THIS BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT TASK THAT IS ON OUR JOB AS A COUNCIL MEMBER IN PASSING A BALANCED BUDGET.

TO START IT OFF IN A DEFICIT IS EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONTEXT IS, IS STILL CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO TODAY.

WE'RE NOT SETTING ANY RATES. PUBLIC DOESN'T NEED TO THINK WE ARE SETTING ANY RATES.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT IS WE'RE STILL HEARING FROM THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE SETTING ANYTHING. AND IN FACT, TO THAT LINE OF OF COMMENTARY, IF WE WERE TO ADOPT WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR NOW, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY NEGATING ANY FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR PUBLIC, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED IT.

AND THAT IS, IN FACT, SETTING A CEILING THAT BINDS US INTO THE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE THROUGH THE REST OF THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

SO THIS PROPOSED NO NEW REVENUE THAT'S ON THE FLOOR NOW, TO ME, IS IS NOT ONLY FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, IT'S ONE THAT IS VERY NEGLECTFUL TO THE PUBLIC PROCESS, THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.

I MEAN, PART OF THIS PROCESS. AND SO I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS.

I WOULD HOPE THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW FOR OURSELVES TO HAVE THESE TYPE OF ROBUST DISCUSSIONS LINE BY LINE, AS MR. WEST WAS MENTIONING, THAT WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO, AND THEN START TO WEIGH OUT WHAT WHERE OUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND HOW WE'RE

[02:10:06]

GOING TO HIT THE MARK OF THE PRIORITIES FROM OUR RESIDENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

MISS BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT. SORRY.

IT'S THREE THREE MINUTES FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR ANYONE.

YOU ARE OKAY. IT'LL BE REAL QUICK. SO THE BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED US.

THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET CURRENTLY DOES HAVE A $60,000,000 MILLION THAT WE HAD AN INCREASE, RIGHT? THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET HAS A YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASE IN REVENUE OF $61.6 MILLION. SO DOES THIS 30 MILLION HOLE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE.

DOES IT GET RID OF THAT? PLUS IT GOES 30 MILLION.

IT TAKES 30 MILLION OF THAT AWAY. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST MAKING. SO JUST AS A REMINDER, IN THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET, POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET IS UP $63 MILLION. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN? I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION MYSELF. IT'S A CLARIFYING QUESTION, AND IT'S SORT OF ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN WAS SAYING, BUT I THINK SHE WAS SAYING IT WITH WITH A LITTLE MORE OF COLOR AND VERVE.

AND I JUST WANT TO GET A BASIC, FACTUAL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

I THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET THAT WE GET, PER STANDARD POLICY, AS YOU'VE SAID FOR HOWEVER MANY YEARS, IS THE CITY MANAGER AND HER TEAM'S PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AS TO THE BEST WAY TO GET THERE. BUT IS IT A NOT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THERE, OR IS IT JUST THE PREFERRED WAY TO GET THERE BASED ON STAFF'S EXPERT OPINION? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY SIR. IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET THERE.

IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH FMC THAT WE PROVIDE THAT LISTING OUT TYPES OF REDUCTIONS THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH A $30 MILLION REDUCTION. IT WILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S JOB OF FIGURING THAT OUT.

IF WE ACTUALLY CUT THE REVENUE, WE WILL MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION.

Y'ALL WILL THEN FIGURE THAT OUT. SO JUST TO SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO WHAT ANYBODY'S MOTIVES ARE OR ARE NOT, WHICH ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN, WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PROVIDE SUCH A OR A POLICY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PROVIDE SUCH A BUDGET. YOU'VE. YOU'VE DONE THAT.

YES. PEOPLE CAN HAVE THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW HARD YOU TRIED, HOW HARD YOU DIDN'T TRY WHATEVER. BUT YOU DID THAT.

AND IT IT REPRESENTS A WAY TO GET TO THE NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

IF THAT WERE THE WILL OF THIS BODY. NOT JUST CORRECT, BUT YOU'RE NOT STATING TO THE PUBLIC OR TO US, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO THIS. YOU'RE STATING THIS IS THE PREFERRED WAY TO DO THIS IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION IN THE SAME MANNER.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. SO WE HAVE PROPOSED, BASED ON EVEN HOW WE PROPOSE THE ANNUAL BUDGET, THE WAY THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO GET THERE.

BUT AS MR. IRELAND MENTIONED, THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION OF THIS BODY.

SO OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT WE BELIEVE ALLOWS FOR US TO CONTINUE WITH OUR CORE SERVICES, DO OUR VERY, VERY BEST TO NOT HAVE I WOULD SAY, NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE WAY WE DELIVER SERVICES, BUT THERE ARE SOME SOME BIG PIECES WITHIN THAT RECOMMENDED NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET THAT THIS COUNCIL I KNOW WILL WANT TO WEIGH IN ON.

SO WE'VE PROVIDED THAT AND DEFINITELY WOULD ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT GOING FORWARD.

THANK YOU SIR. OKAY, SO BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS THAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES MADE TODAY FROM THE HORSESHOE, I THINK THERE WERE SOME SOME GOOD NUGGETS IN THERE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD TAKE AWAY THAT I THINK ARE ARE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I HEARD MR. BAZALDUA SAY THAT WE'RE NOT SETTING A RATE TODAY.

WE'RE SETTING A CEILING. AND THAT'S TRUE. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

I HEARD MR. RESENDEZ SAY THAT THIS HAPPENS ALMOST EVERY YEAR, AND IT ENDS UP BEING KIND OF AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE, WHICH IS ALSO SOMEWHAT TRUE, BECAUSE IT REALLY IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE BUDGET TO TO BE LAID OUT THERE.

THE FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IDEOLOGICALLY US, HAVE OUR HANDS TIED EARLY IN THE PROCESS SO THAT THIS ISN'T EVEN A DISCUSSION LATER VERSUS THE FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT A LITTLE HIGHER. SO THERE'S ROOM TO NEGOTIATE IT DOWN LATER.

IT'S JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE, BUT IT IS TRUE. IT'S MORE OF AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND AND I ALSO THINK THAT CHAIRWOMAN MIDDLETON'S POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE WE GET THE MOST ROBUST EFFORT AT THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET THAT YOU GET TOWARDS THE FULL BUDGET THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY GET OR NOT, THAT'S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

NOT INTERESTED IN AND LITIGATING THAT TODAY, BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS VOTE MEANS. SO SINCE I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO NOW IS HAVE THAT RECORD VOTE,

[02:15:02]

WHICH I BELIEVE MISS BLACKMAN RECOMMENDED ON MISS MENDELSSOHN'S MOTION, WHICH WOULD TAKE THE CEILING DOWN TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD DO, AND I THINK MISS MENDELSOHN MADE A RECORD VOTE REQUEST ON MR. BAZALDUA MOTION IF THIS FAILS. SO THAT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED.

SO WITH THAT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. KADENA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WRATH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES. WITH TWO VOTING IN FAVOR, 13 OPPOSE.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE NOT BACK ON.

WE'RE STILL ON AGENDA ITEM 27, BUT WE ARE ON MR. BAZALDUA MOTION, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA IT WAS TO TAKE IT UP TO.

I'LL LET YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION JUST SO EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHAT THE NUMBER IS.

BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THE WHOLE MOTION, MAYOR.

OR THE NUMBER? YEAH. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, I MOVE THAT.

THE CURRENT MAIN MAINTENANCE AND INSTANT OPERATION TAX RATE BE MAINTAINED AT A TAX RATE OF 0.5109 PER $100 VALUATION, FOR A TOTAL TAX RATE OF 0.7022 PER $100 VALUATION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION TAX RATE, AND SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDED DEBT SERVICE RATE OF 0.1913 PER $100 VALUATION. OKAY, SO EVERYONE HEARD THAT, AND THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS SPOKEN ON THAT FOR FIVE MINUTES IS MR. BAZALDUA HIMSELF. SO I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE MR. RIDLEY NOW FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR. BAZALDUA MOTION TO DO WHAT HE JUST SAID.

SO I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS MOTION.

JACK, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION OF THE TAX RATE AND THE EFFECT THAT THIS MOTION WOULD HAVE ON THAT IN ITS IMPLICATIONS. YES, SIR.

IN REGARDS TO THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION OF THE TAX RATE, THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED REDUCING THE TAX RATE FOR THE DEBT SERVICE FROM 19.3 $0.08 PER $100 VALUATION TO 19.1 $0.03. THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

IT IS STILL A 0.25 CENT REDUCTION FOR THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE OF THE TAX RATE.

THAT IS BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

WHAT THE TAX RATE IS, WHAT OUR CURRENT DEBT IS, WHAT PROJECTED DEBT WE HAVE, MAINTAINING THE ABILITY.

AT SOME POINT, IF THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO ISSUE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, WE RESERVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEXT BOND PROGRAM OVER $1 BILLION.

SO WE FACTORED ALL OF THAT IN AND WE'RE ABLE TO STILL LOWER THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION OF THE TAX RATE BY 0.2 $0.05 FROM THE CURRENT YEAR, AND THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT WE RECOMMENDED.

OKAY, SO THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A REDUCTION OF 0.2 $0.05 IN THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX.

THAT IS CORRECT. BASED UPON YOUR EVALUATION OF FUTURE BONDING NEEDS AND EXISTING DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.

YES, SIR. SO THE ONLY CHANGE THAT THIS MOTION MAKES OVER THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO RESTORE IN THE CEILING ON THE TAX RATE, THE HALF CENT THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET HAD CUT, THE QUARTER CENT THE CITY, THE CURRENT GENERAL FUND OR O&M SIDE OF THE TAX RATE.

THE CURRENT IS 5109. THE CITY MANAGER PROPOSAL LOWERED THAT BY 0.2 $0.05 TO 50.84.

THIS PROPOSAL TAKES IT BACK UP TO THE CURRENT YEAR 51.09, SO THAT CHANGES IT BY 0.25.

REMEMBER WE HAD PROPOSED CUTTING 0.25 ON DEBT, CUTTING 0.25 ON OPERATING FOR A TOTAL OF 0.5.

WE'RE KEEPING THIS PROPOSAL KEEPS THE DEBT SERVICE THE SAME AS KIM RECOMMENDED, BUT TAKES THE GENERAL FUND BACK TO THE CURRENT YEAR.

THAT MAKES $5.5 MILLION OF REVENUE THEREFORE BACK AVAILABLE THAT MISS TALBOT'S RECOMMENDATION TOOK OUT OF THE BUDGET, RIGHT? OKAY. AND AS THIS IS JUST THE CEILING, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH

[02:20:10]

SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS TO VARY THAT CEILING TO A LOWER FIGURE.

YES, SIR. TODAY'S VOTE IS FOR THE CEILING. SEPTEMBER 17TH WILL BE THE VOTE ON THE ACTUAL TAX RATE.

SO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, IF YOU BRING IT DOWN OR IF YOU BRING IT DOWN ON THE DAY OF THE 17TH.

BUT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE 17TH, THAT'S IT. GREAT.

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

THANK YOU. I MOVED TO THANK YOU. I MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 69.9 $0.07. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. WE ARE NOW ON AN AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN TO THE AGENDA ITEM.

BASICALLY, AS IT WAS PRINTED. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. WELL, I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A LOWER TAX RATE.

I REALLY THINK OUR CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR NOT GOING TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.

AND HAVING WORKED REALLY HARD, I THINK, TO TRY TO SCRUB THIS BUDGET ALONG WITH JACK AND JEANETTE.

AND I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THOSE EFFORTS. I THINK YOU HAVE PRESENTED A FAIRLY BALANCED BUDGET IN TERMS OF COMPETING INTERESTS WITHIN THE CITY. AND WITH THAT, I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE STARTING AT ANY PLACE HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD VERIFY SOME FACTS, INCLUDING UNFUNDED LIABILITIES FOR OUR PENSIONS, BOTH PENSIONS. OUR DEBT IS APPROXIMATELY $7 BILLION.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK THAT NUMBER.

BUT YOU ALWAYS KNOW THE ANSWER BEFORE YOU ASK, SO I'M GOING TO TRUST YOU ON IT.

OKAY. WELL, LET'S JUST ASSUME IT'S ABOUT $7 BILLION.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL HAD DONE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, MEANING THE THE AMENDMENT UNDERLYING THIS ONE IS TO ADD MORE DEBT.

IS THAT CORRECT? ADD THE ABILITY FOR MORE DEBT.

LET ME SAY IT THAT WAY. I APOLOGIZE, COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? I DIDN'T THINK I GOT IT. THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO RAISE IT BEYOND THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION ALLOWS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE MORE DEBT.

NO, MA'AM. ONLY BECAUSE HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS TO BRING UP THE GENERAL FUND SIDE AND NOT THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE.

IT KEEPS THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE AT THE REDUCTION OF 0.2 $0.05 COMPARED TO THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH IS WHAT MISS TALBOT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS BRINGING THAT DOWN, NOT THE DEBT SIDE.

THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. SORRY. GOT IT. I DIDN'T SEE THAT AMENDMENT IN ADVANCE, AND I LIKE TO GENERALLY READ THESE THINGS, SO. OKAY. ANYHOW, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR CEILING, AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE WHEN WE HAVE OUR BUDGET AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU. STUART. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MENDELSOHN AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK I FIRST HAVE A POINT OF ORDER FOR MYSELF.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A THING, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK THAT IS.

WELL, MAY I ASK MR. IRELAND A QUESTION ABOUT MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, OR ARE WE JUST ON MISS MENDELSOHN AMENDMENT? WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY ASKING THE QUESTION AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS? I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY A OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED.

JUST ASK. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO HERE'S MY QUESTION.

IF WE ARE TO GO WITH THIS, THE TAX RATE PER MR..

MR.. MR.. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE REVENUE CAP? WHERE DO WE COME OUT ON THE REVENUE CAP? SO. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN TO STAY AT THE CURRENT GENERAL FUND TAX RATE VERSUS THE INCREASING THE TAX RATE BACK TO THE CURRENT YEAR GENERAL FUND IS A DIFFERENCE OF $5.5 MILLION. AND SO MRS. MENDELSSOHN'S PROPOSAL DOESN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE BECAUSE IT IS ACCORDING TO MISS TALBOT'S BUDGET RECOMMENDATION. MR. BAZALDUA RAISES THAT BACK UP.

THAT ADDS $5.5 MILLION MORE. THAT IS NOT IN PART OF MISS TALBOT'S BUDGET.

CORRECT. I THINK I FOLLOW THAT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAME UNDER THE 3.5% REVENUE CAP.

YES. AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF WE WHAT WHAT DOES THAT DO IF THIS IF THIS CHANGE WE MR..

[02:25:01]

BAZALDUA AND THE CURRENT YEAR TAX RATE IS STILL 0.1 CENT BELOW THE NO NEW, NO VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE. SO WE'RE STILL UNDER THE CAP EITHER WAY, EITHER BY POINT ONE OR.

YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MISS WILLIS. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. WELL, I WOULD LOVE TO LOWER OUR TAX RATES TO REFLECT THAT NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES ARE LIFTING THE COST OF HOMELESS STREET OUTREACH AND CLEARING ENCAMPMENTS OFF THE BACKS OF DALLAS TAXPAYERS. THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF A COST, A BURDEN THAT IS ON DALLAS TAXPAYERS AS A BIG CITY, THAT SOME OF OUR SMALLER COMMUNITIES, THAT THAT BORDER US, DON'T HAVE TO STAND UP A WHOLE DEPARTMENT TO DEAL WITH.

AND I'D LOVE TO HAVE A LOWER TAX RATE, LIKE SOME OTHER TOP TEXAS CITIES WHO HAVE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES THAT CONTRIBUTE PART OF THAT BACK TO THEIR GENERAL FUND. I MEAN, SAN ANTONIO'S UTILITY SINCE 14% BACK TO THEIR THEIR GENERAL FUND.

WOULDN'T WE LOVE TO HAVE THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE.

THAT'S NOT OUR MODEL. SO I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE TELLING THE TRUTH BEHIND THESE NUMBERS.

D13 STILL HAS ONE TOWN HALL MEETING TO GO. I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER TOWN HALL MEETINGS.

YOU KNOW, D13 HAS THE HIGHEST PROPERTY VALUES IN THE CITY, EVEN OVER DOWNTOWN.

AND SO I DEFINITELY HEAR ABOUT TAXES. BUT WHAT I HEAR ABOUT A LOT OF THE TIME IS THE WANTS.

WHAT DO I WANT? WHAT AM I MISSING? WHAT DO I NEED? THERE'S A DESIRE FOR STREET REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, FOR PAINTING CROSSWALKS, FOR SUPPORTING THE ARTS.

YES, THE ARTS AND LIBRARIES AND PARK AMENITIES, WHICH ARE SOME OF THE ATTRACTIVE THINGS THAT SOMEONE MAY TRADE OFF ON TAX RATES TO WANT TO LIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS. AND HONESTLY, I ALSO HEAR ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE POLICE OFFICERS AND MORE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS TO HELP DEAL WITH OUR PARTY HOUSE, EVENT CENTER, SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND THE EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTIONS THAT THEY CREATE.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THIS IS JUST ABOUT WE'RE NOT LOCKING IN A TAX RATE TODAY.

AND I'M WORKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSAL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE FOREGOING ABOVE THAT, BUT WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT TODAY IS AN AMENDMENT THAT'S SAYING NOT EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, AND WE NEED TO GIVE OUR RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

WE NEED TO HEAR THEM. AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF RAISING THE TAX RATE BACK UP OF WHAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS PROPOSED.

BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF HEARING FROM OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE WHO HAVE NOT YET HAD THE CHANCE TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD AT THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS, THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROMOTING AND ASKING FOR THEM TO ATTEND, SO WE CAN FACTOR THEIR THINKING INTO WHAT WE DO.

AND, YOU KNOW, A RECORD VOTE ON THIS WITH A VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY A VOTE FOR LISTENING TO OUR RESIDENTS ALL OVER THE CITY, NOT JUST IN OUR DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ELECTED TO REPRESENT. BUT I WANT TO HEAR BECAUSE THIS BUDGET IS FOR THE WHOLE CITY.

AND SO WE NEED TO HEAR THAT AND HEAR WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY.

SO WE'VE POSTED TOWN HALL MEETINGS. WE'VE INVITED THEM TO ATTEND.

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE DISINGENUOUS TO NOT LET THEM WEIGH IN ON ON THEIR COMMENTS AS WE GO INTO OUR AMENDMENTS AND OUR BUDGET SEASON DISCUSSIONS, ETC.. THANK YOU MAYOR. SO IS THAT A REQUEST FOR A RECORD? I THINK I THOUGHT NOT ON THIS ONE. I'M SORRY.

A RECORD VOTE IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

I'LL MAKE THAT A YES ON THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. SO THIS IS A NEW AMENDMENT BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

SO. OH. I'M SORRY. WAIT. MAYOR. MAYOR. THAT SOUNDS LIKE JACK SAYING WE NEED ONE ON WHATEVER.

ON WHATEVER. I, I WAS SPEAKING ON BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I DID NOT COME BACK THROUGH ON THAT.

SO I WAS IN SUPPORT OF OF HIS. YOU WERE TECHNICALLY SPEAKING ON THE WRONG.

I WAS, BUT BUT YOUR BUT THE COMMENTS SINCE WE'RE TECHNICALLY, ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE JUST CHANGING THE SAME RATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

SO IT'S THERE. YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST A DIRECTION ON THE SAME NUMBER.

SO IT'S KIND OF ALL GERMANE. I THINK WE'RE TO MR. BAZALDUA NOW ON THIS MENDELSSOHN'S AMENDMENT AND A RECORD VOTE IS REQUIRED.

SO NO ONE HAS TO REQUEST THAT ANYMORE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. I THINK THE SPIRIT OF MY ORIGINAL MOTION VERSUS THAT THAT'S ON THE FLOOR NOW IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS ARTICULATED BY MISS WILLIS.

AND IN THAT, I DON'T WANT TO START MY BUDGET TOWN HALL TOMORROW AND TELL MY RESIDENTS THAT WE'VE ASKED YOU AND ADVERTISED THIS FOR WEEKS BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK, BUT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED MOVING THE TRAIN.

SO YOUR FEEDBACK IS JUST CHECKING A BOX. THAT'S IT'S IT'S JUST NOT OKAY WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

[02:30:04]

I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE WEIGHING IN A LOT MORE THAN WHAT WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS HERE TODAY.

ONE IN PARTICULAR IS WHAT THE NEXT YEARS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I THINK MISS STEWART MENTIONED A GREAT POINT IN THAT THIS WAS A UNIQUE YEAR, AND I, I WILL ECHO MISS MENDELSOHN SENTIMENT IN GIVING YOU OUR CITY MANAGER KUDOS FOR JACK AND YOUR TEAM AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE GIVEN US AS A PROPOSED BUDGET. THE THE. THE REALITY IS, IS THAT YOU MADE CUTS, AND EVEN WITH WHAT I'M PROPOSING, IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A TAX RATE CUT.

YOU MADE CUTS IN THIS BUDGET. ALTHOUGH WE HAD THE ABILITY, PER STATE LAW, TO GO EVEN HIGHER.

CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN.

OUR NEW WORDS DO NOT INCLUDE CUTS. WE HAVE CONTINUED WITH OUR WORK THAT WE BEGAN LAST YEAR ON HOW WE REIMAGINE SERVICE DELIVERY. AND WE BRING OPTIMIZATION OF SERVICES TO THE TABLE TO SERVE THE PRIORITIES OF THIS COMMUNITY.

SO THE WORD CUTS IS NOT ONE OF OUR WORDS. WELL, I BET YOU WILL ADOPT THAT WORD.

IF WE WERE TO ADOPT A NEW NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN FINAGLE NOT CUTTING.

IF WE WERE GOING TO BE SLASHING THE BUDGET BEFORE WE'VE EVEN STARTED, WE WOULD REIMAGINE SERVICE DELIVERY.

SO BUT TO THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF NUMBERS AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, SOUND DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY GOING INTO SOMETHING THAT I KNOW OUR MAYOR IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT, WHICH IS BEING ON THE WORLD STAGE. WE'VE GOT VISITORS THAT ARE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD NEXT YEAR.

THIS FISCAL YEAR BUDGET NEEDS TO PRIORITIZE HOW WE CAN INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, IN MY OPINION, AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET IS BEING NOT IGNORED, BUT DE PRIORITIZED BECAUSE OF WHERE WE HAD TO BE SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MARKINGS AND CROSSWALKS.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN WHERE WE COULD IMPROVE.

I KNOW THAT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS HAS GIVEN US A ROBUST OUTLOOK OF WHAT? WHERE WE COULD BE INVESTING MORE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED, ESPECIALLY IN ALL OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE EXPECTING TO HAVE VISITORS FROM AROUND OUR CITY. BUT BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING IN OUR DOWNTOWN DALLAS, FOR INSTANCE, ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS WHO DON'T HAVE CROSSWALKS TO CROSS THE STREET SAFELY.

SO WHEN WHEN I'M LOOKING, I'M NOT LOOKING AT AT CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A SLUSH FUND TO GO HAVE PET PROJECTS.

I'M LOOKING AT A FUTURE YEARS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE TIGHTENING OUR BELT MORE THAN WE'VE EVER HAD TO IN OUR CITY'S HISTORY BECAUSE OF STATE LEGISLATION. WE HAVE NOT AT ALL, AS THE POLICY BODY, BEEN ABLE TO WEIGH OUT THE IMPACT THAT THAT LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE.

WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU ON WHAT A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WOULD, WOULD, WOULD BE.

WE'VE ALSO HEARD WHAT IS IS ESSENTIALLY LEFT ON THE TABLE PER OUR CAPABILITY WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF STATE STATUTE.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF OUR CAP WERE TO DECREASE DOWN TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED AT 2.5% AT THE STATE LEVEL REVENUE, OR EVEN 1%, WHICH IS WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED NOW AT THE LEGISLATURE.

YES, SIR. MY UNDERSTANDING OF CHANGING THE CAP FROM THE CURRENT 3.5% TO 2.5% IS ABOUT $11.5 MILLION IMPACT TO OUR REVENUE. SO IF WE WERE CAPPED AT THAT THIS YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOWER THE TAX RATE.

AGAIN, REVENUE IMPACT ABOUT $11.5 MILLION. REDUCE EXPENSES BY THE SAME AMOUNT.

IF IT WERE A 1% INSTEAD OF A 2.5. THAT GETS US UP CLOSER TO 28 TO $30 MILLION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CUT.

NOW, WITH THE 1%, THERE IS DISCUSSION I HEAR ABOUT SOME TYPE OF EXEMPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT HONESTLY, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT JUST YET, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT WOULD BE.

SO I'M SORRY I CAN'T TALK MORE ABOUT THAT ONE.

AND THE REALITY IS THERE'S ALREADY LEGISLATION THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR US TO GO UNDER WHAT WE'RE ALREADY SPENDING YEAR OVER YEAR IN PUBLIC SAFETY.

THAT'S THAT'S ONE PIECE. BUT THEN ALSO, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS CARVED OUT.

WE ARE CAN. CAN YOU PLEASE VERIFY? CITY MANAGER, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF OUR NEW REVENUE IS GOING TO PUBLIC

[02:35:02]

SAFETY AS OF NOW? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO I THINK OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS ABOUT 1.96 IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR OUR POLICE AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, JUST THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER, I THINK IT'S ABOUT 1.2 BILLION.

AND SO YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET HAS A TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET INCREASE OF OF WHAT, DOLLAR AMOUNT? I THINK IT'S RIGHT AT ABOUT 61.

YEAH, IT'S ABOUT $61.6 MILLION. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS ALONE.

WE PROPOSED AN INCREASE OF $63 MILLION. OKAY, SO IT'S MORE THAN A 100% INCREASE OR USE OF THAT INCREASE IN REVENUE. REVENUE WENT UP 61. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS WENT UP 63.

SO YOU HAVE TO REIMAGINE SOMETHING ELSE. EXACTLY.

SO THE ACTUAL NEW REVENUE WAS STILL NOT ENOUGH TO COVER THE FULL COST OF WHAT THE NEEDS WERE FOR BOTH OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS GOING INTO THE NEW YEAR.

THANK YOU. I THINK THAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE THE THE CITY MANAGER DID DO HER JOB, AND YOU HAVE HELPED US MAINTAIN A BUDGET THAT IS HAS COMPLETELY PRIORITIZED WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS PUT FORTH AS THEIR PRIORITY.

AND, AND THIS GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND IN THAT BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START MAKING SOME CUTS.

I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THAT WORD, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME CUTS IN THE FUTURE YEARS, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S HAPPENING IN AUSTIN. AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT. IS, IS IS IS STILL UP IN THE AIR.

BUT WITH THAT SAID, SINCE IT IS UP IN THE AIR FOR US TO MAKE DECISIONS TO PREMATURELY AND TO LOCK US IN AND NOT ALLOW FOR THE RESIDENTS TO WEIGH IN, I BELIEVE IS NOT A GOOD APPROACH. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AND I HOPE YOU ALL WILL SUPPORT MY UNDERLYING MOTION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN'S MOTION, WHICH IS THE AGENDA ITEM AS IT WAS PRINTED? MR. MORENO MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE. THANK YOU ON THAT.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS THAT I'VE HAD, I'VE BEEN GOING IN WITH THE PROPOSED TAX RATE CAP THAT OUR CITY MANAGER HAS PROPOSED, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK HER FOR BRINGING A BALANCED BUDGET TO US.

THANK YOU. MR. ROTH. YOU RECOGNIZED BY MR. MENDELSSOHN'S MOTION.

I, I REALLY WANT TO APPLAUD THE CITY MANAGER'S INTEREST IN TRYING TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE.

I THINK THAT SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO US ALSO, THAT THEY'RE MAKING EFFORTS TO TRY TO BALANCE A BUDGET WITHIN A LOWER TAX RATE FOR OUR CITIZENS. I THINK IT DOES CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A PRESSURE TO, TO, TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN IN A NICE WAY FOR STAFF TO LOOK FOR, FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE REVENUES AND, AND DEAL WITH POTENTIAL REEVALUATION OF DIFFERENT BUDGET LINE ITEMS. TO BUT I WOULD I DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN SUPPORTING A COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA APPROACH IN ALLOWING THE STAFF AND ALLOWING US TO MAINTAIN FOR DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BUDGET.

THE HIGHER LEVEL RATE, JUST TO GIVE US THAT FLEXIBILITY, IF, IN FACT, WE NEED THAT EXTRA 2.5% FOR SOME REASON.

I WOULD, THOUGH, CAUTION US TO USE THAT AS A REFERENDUM THAT WE'RE WILLING TO RAISE.

RAISE TAX RATES. THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF MY SUPPORTING THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE TIGHTENING OUR BELTS. I THINK THE THE COMMENTS AROUND, AROUND THIS TABLE HAS BEEN THAT WE NEED TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. WE NEED TO PRESERVE SERVICES AND AND PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING TO FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

BUT I WOULD NOT WANT THIS AMENDMENT THAT THAT'S BEING SUGGESTED TO IN ANY WAY INDICATE THAT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE AWAY, THAT WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP $5 MILLION IN POTENTIAL SAVINGS IN OUR BUDGET THAT HAVE BEEN THOUGHTFULLY ADDRESSED BY THE CITY MANAGEMENT ALREADY. SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS REALLY A CORRECTION OF A CEILING.

IT'S NOT A. ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX RATE. I WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH THE STRONG UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS BODY COME WHEN WE COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER 17TH, THAT WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO, TO CREATE A, TO APPROVE A BALANCED BUDGET THAT WOULD IN,

[02:40:01]

IN, IN ELUDE A REDUCTION IN THAT, IN THAT CEILING TAX RATE TO WHATEVER EXTENT THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.

AND I THINK THAT THAT PUTS AN ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON ALL OF US TO LOOK AT THIS BUDGET VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, TO LOOK AT THE ITEMS SIGNIFICANTLY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE SHOULD REALLOCATE AND LOOK AT DETAILED LINE ITEMS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE BUDGET, BUT NOT TO THE DETRIMENT OF OF OUR CITIZENS, AND THAT WE REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY PRIORITIZE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.

SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT AND THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT IN OUR FINAL DELIBERATIONS ON THIS SUBJECT IN SEPTEMBER, THAT WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO, TO COME, TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE SUGGESTED RATE THAT'S SUGGESTED BY THE, THE MANAGER, CITY MANAGER, AND BETTER IF WE COULD.

MR.. WEST RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MISS MENDELSSOHN'S AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. MY INCLINATION HAS BEEN TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET AMOUNT THAT'S SET BY THE CITY MANAGER.

AND AND THEN FOR US TO FIGHT THIS OUT IN THE HUNGER GAMES THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE UP HERE TO TRY TO RESTORE THE SERVICES WE ALL NEED IN THE FACE OF OF THE BUDGET ISSUES. BUT I DO I AM GOING TO SUPPORT BAZALDUA IN THIS ONE.

AND BECAUSE I LIKE HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY. WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THIS FROM THE STATE FROM OTHER ENTITIES AND US HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR ANOTHER 20 DAYS OR SO TO TO, TO BE ABLE TO FUND THINGS THAT WE, THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM OUR RESIDENTS, WE NEED TO FUND, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH, WITH MR. ROTH THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE CONVINCED THAT THAT THESE ARE THERE IS A REASON TO GO ABOVE WHAT THE CITY MANAGER IS RECOMMENDING AND HAS WORKED SO HARD TO PUT TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, PRESERVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, PROTECTING OUR LONG TERM RESIDENTS, AND FIGHTING DISPLACEMENT MEANS WE CAN'T TAX PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES IN THE FACE OF LAND VALUE INCREASES.

AND SO FOR ME, YOU KNOW, IT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME CONVINCING TO GET THERE.

AND I ALSO WANT I SPEAKING UP SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL WHEN LATER ON THAT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WHEN WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WAYS TO GROW THE TAX BASE BY PUTTING IN NEW HOUSING, BRINGING IN NEW BUSINESS. THAT IS THE KIND OF WAY I LIKE TO SEE US BRING MORE REVENUE TO THE CITY AS OPPOSED TO INCREASING OUR TAXES, MORE HOUSING, MORE DEVELOPMENT, MORE BUSINESSES COMING TO DALLAS.

AND THOSE WILL BE CONVERSATIONS I HOPE WE ALL EMBRACE.

THANK YOU. MR. GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO, WHILE I SUPPORT THE WORK THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS DONE IN PUTTING THIS BUDGET TOGETHER, AND ESPECIALLY ALL THE WORK THAT JACK AND JEANETTE HAVE GONE THROUGH, THIS IS NOT AN EASY TASK.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS. IT'S NEVER AN EASY DECISION FOR SURE TO DO THAT.

BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY SAY I SUPPORT WHERE COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA IS GOING WITH THIS AND WANT TO GIVE US JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE CUSHION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING THIS BUDGET.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT A REFLECTION OF ANYTHING THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS DONE OR ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE AS A STAFF PUTTING THIS BUDGET TOGETHER.

BUT I THINK AS A COUNCIL, IT JUST GIVES US THE ABILITY TO JUST EXPLORE AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITY.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. MR.. MR. BLAIR RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA PROPOSAL.

IT GIVES US A NEW LIMIT, A NEW HIGHER LIMIT. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO GO TO THAT THAT HIGHER LIMIT.

THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S THE CEILING TODAY. THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADE ON SEPTEMBER 17TH.

SO THE CEILING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, IF WE COULD GO ANYWHERE FROM WHAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS AND TO WHAT THE NEW PROPOSAL WILL BE CORRECT. IF THE CEILING IS SET, AS IN THE AMENDMENT TO GO UP TO 5109 FOR THE GENERAL FUND, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN JUST TO THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION.

YOU CAN GO LOWER THAN THAT. THIS IS JUST SETS THE CEILING.

AND THIS ALSO GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ROBUST DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT IT IS WE WE NEED AND WHAT IT IS WE WE WANT. CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. SO I.

[02:45:02]

KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF HAS IN HIS HER STAFF AND IN MR. IRELAND AND JANETTE, YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO GET US WHERE WE ARE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE MORE ROBUST DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE AFTER HAVING MY CITY, MY TOWN HALL MEETINGS, THIS, THIS LAST TWO DAYS, THE ONE THING I CONSISTENTLY HEARD IS WE CAN'T GIVE UP ANYTHING ELSE.

WE CAN'T. WE CANNOT RE-IMAGINE ANYTHING ELSE.

AND AT. AT. BUT WE ALSO NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO MORE HOUSING. I KNOW IN MY DISTRICT MORE HOUSING IS COMING.

AND YOU'LL HEAR A CASE TODAY WHERE IT'S ALL AT MARKET, RIGHT? AND I KNOW I'M OFF, BUT I'M GOING TO GET BACK THERE. SO DON'T DON'T GET DON'T DON'T BUZZ ME.

GET. SO I KNOW THAT THAT IS COMING. AND I KNOW THAT WILL GIVE US MORE TAX AND A LARGE, YOU KNOW, LARGER MONEY TO PUT MORE MONEY FOR OUR TAX RATE.

BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. SO I DO KNOW THAT FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, UNTIL THOSE HOUSES ARE AND THOSE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT. WE NEED THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO THIS GIVES US A TIME AND THE CONVERSATION TO HAVE THAT, TO SEE WHERE WE CAN GO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, DO SO.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. RESENDEZ RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I ALSO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING MISS MENDELSSOHN'S MOTION AND WILL SUPPORT MR. BAZALDUA MOTION. AND I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION MOST YEARS AS WELL, AND WE USUALLY GIVE OURSELVES THE FLEXIBILITY.

AND TYPICALLY THOUGH, THE MOTION WOULD BE MADE BY OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE OR YOUR PREDECESSOR, MISS BLAIR. AND SO, IN HONOR OF HIM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROCESS PROCEDURE.

WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF LISTENING TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY. BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS IN TERMS OF EXPANDING THE TAX BASE AND THE WAY WE PART OF THE WAY WE CAN DO THAT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE INVESTING IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

THAT'S WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY IS. AND SO FLEXIBILITY.

PROCESS, PROCEDURE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION.

THANK YOU. I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO CORRECT SOMETHING. MOST YEARS, WE SET THE CEILING AT THE MANAGERS LEVEL.

NO, ACTUALLY NOT EVENTUALLY. THAT'S WHAT WE DO AT THIS MEETING WHEN WE SET THE CEILING.

I THINK ALL SIX YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT DATA IN FRONT OF YOU ANECDOTALLY, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MOST YEARS THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING? THE BEST I CAN RECALL THAT IS THE CASE, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE DATA.

AND YOU'VE ONLY WORKED HERE FOR 29 YEARS. IS THAT RIGHT? 29 YEARS, FOUR MONTHS AND 23 DAYS. WELL, I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR SIX YEARS, BUT WHEN I STARTED, WE HAD A BUDGET IN THE CITY OF DALLAS OF $3.6 BILLION 3.6.

NOW WE'RE CONTEMPLATING A BUDGET OF 5.2 BILLION.

3.6 TO 5.2. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR SIX YEARS. THIS BUDGET CONTINUES TO GROW.

THIS IS NOT WHILE THE RATE IS REDUCING. THIS IS NOT REDUCING OUR BUDGET.

IT IS INCREASING TAXES. IT IS INCREASING HOW MUCH PEOPLE WILL WRITE A CHECK UNDER THE MANAGER'S PROPOSED AMOUNT.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADD IN A SLUSH FUND LEVEL OF ANOTHER.

IS IT 5,000,005.5 .55.5. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE FOR.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO THROW IT IN FOR FLEXIBILITY.

WELL, LET ME TELL YOU. FLEXIBILITY MEANS SLUSH FUND.

SO NOT GOING FOR A SLUSH FUND. EVERY DOLLAR AT LEAST HAS A NAME RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET.

THERE'S THINGS THAT COULD BE CUT IN THERE THAT WILL NOT IMPACT OUR RESIDENTS.

TWO YEARS AGO, I WROTE A MEMO. AND AT THAT TIME, HR HAD INCREASED MORE THAN 50% IN FIVE YEARS.

DID ANYONE FEEL ANY OF OUR RESIDENTS FEEL A DIFFERENCE? NO. AND IF IT HAD SHRUNK, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE FELT A DIFFERENCE EITHER.

AND THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WHERE CUTS CAN BE MADE.

EFFICIENCIES CAN BE HAD. AND SOME OF THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE MANAGER.

AND WE SEE THAT IN COMBINATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS.

ALL I'M SAYING IS IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE CUTTING POLICE.

[02:50:02]

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE STOPPING. ROAD ROAD REPAIR.

WE ALL THANKED THE MANAGER AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS THIS SCOTIABANK DEAL.

BUT PART OF THAT IS BEING COMPETITIVE, AND YOU'RE TAKING AWAY HER ABILITY TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH AN OUTRAGEOUS TAX RATE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MANAGER WHO HAS SPENT THE TIME AND AND OUR CFO AND BUDGET STAFF AND SAY THERE'S ALREADY FLEXIBILITY IN THERE. THAT'S WHAT OUR CONTINGENCY FUNDS ARE.

AND WE'VE GOT TO GET SERIOUS. IF YOU HAVE 4 OR 5 LIBRARY LADIES COME, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO DO MORE FOR LIBRARIES. THERE'S 1.3 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE CITY.

WE HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY.

THANK YOU.

I'M TRYING TO THINK WHO'S NEXT. MR. GRACEY, I THINK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I DON'T LIKE THE TERMS WHEN WE GO INTO THESE DEBATES AND THINGS.

I DON'T LIKE THESE TERMS. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

THIS IS NOT A SLUSH FUND. AND WE PUT THOSE KIND OF THOSE KIND OF TERMS OUT THERE AND IT JUST CREATES MORE CONFUSION.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE JUST DON'T WE CAN DEBATE. BUT IT'S NOT THIS IS REALLY GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MORE FROM THE COMMUNITY, TO GET FEEDBACK. AND IF THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO INCREASE SERVICES ELSEWHERE THAT HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN LOST, THEN THIS 5 MILLION GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. I JUST WANT THE RECORD.

IT'S NOT A SLUSH FUND. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S US TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE SOME AREAS WHERE POSITIONS HAVE BEEN CUT OR SERVICES HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE COMMUNITY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

MISS BLACKMON FOR FIVE MINUTES THIS TIME. YES.

AND THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, THERE FROM DAY NINE, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE BECAUSE LIBRARIES ARE IMPORTANT TO A COMMUNITY.

THAT IS THE FIRST THING THAT PEOPLE SET UP WHEN THEY SETTLED HERE WAS A FREE AND PUBLIC LIBRARY.

AND IF WE WANT TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT HAVING IT, WE NEED TO FUND IT.

AS FAR AS SLUSH FUNDS, THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS STREETS IN D9, AND WE NEED TO FUND THAT BECAUSE THEN IT'S PUBLIC SAFETY WHICH HAS BEEN FUNDED. AND THEN IT GOES TO TRAFFIC MITIGATION.

SO SLUSH FUND. NO, THIS IS ABOUT GETTING THE WORK DONE.

THE CORE THINGS OUR LIBRARIES, OUR PARKS, OUR STREETS.

AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THERE'S A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET THE SERVICE YOU WANT.

AND KIM JAK, JANETTE, I THANK YOU ALL FOR BRINGING IT IN UNDER BUDGET.

UNDER THE RIGHT. RIGHT, I THANK YOU. I THINK YOU HEARD FROM US, BUT I THINK THERE COMES A TIME THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

IF WE ADD 5.5 MORE MILLION DOLLARS, WHAT IS THAT ROI? AND I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING.

ARE WE GOING TO GET SAFER COMMUNITIES AS FAR AS WALKING ACROSS THE STREET TO A PARK.

AND SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

IT'S BEEN A LONG MORNING AND I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE BEEN ATTENDING MEETINGS.

I KNOW YOU'RE EMAILING US. I MEAN, I'M SEEING IT.

AND SO PEOPLE ARE TELLING US WHAT THEY WANT IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND AND I'M WILLING TO.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT BAZALDUA MOTION, IT ACTUALLY DOES DROP THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE DROPPING THE DEBT SERVICE.

SO THE RATE DOES COME DOWN. IT'S JUST NOT COMING DOWN AT YOUR RECOMMENDED RATE.

MISS CITY MANAGER AND AND SORRY, BUT WHEN YOU HEAR FOLKS ON MY TOWN HALL SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE WANT SAFER STREETS, WE WANT OUR CROSSWALKS PAINTED, WE WANT OUR PARKS CLEAN, YOU KNOW IT.

THAT COSTS MONEY. AND EVERYTHING HAS GONE UP IN PRICE.

AND SO TO SAY THAT, NO, WE HAVE TO DO LESS WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE HAS GONE UP, IT'S KIND OF HARD.

SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU GUYS.

MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. IT WAS MENTIONED IN MISS MENDELSSOHN'S COMMENTS ABOUT HOW FAST THE BUDGET'S GROWN AND THE NUMBERS THAT WERE UTILIZED WERE NOT THE GENERAL FUND. IT WAS INCLUSIVE OF ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTS, WHICH HAS ALSO, WE'VE SEEN, GROW AT A MORE RAPID PACE. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE IMPACT THAT ANY TAX RATE WOULD HAVE ON THE BUDGETS THAT WERE REFERENCED? BECAUSE I THINK WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE NOTHER SUBJECT WHEN WE WANTED TO BRING IN THE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTS.

SO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE MENTIONED, LIKE $5.2 BILLION FOR THE NEW BUDGET, IS THE TOTAL BUDGET,

[02:55:01]

INCLUSIVE OF NOT JUST THE GENERAL FUND, BUT THE SEVEN ENTERPRISE FUNDS, THE DEBT SERVICE FUND FUNDS THAT WE GET FROM STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OUR CAPITAL FUNDS FOR BOTH ENTERPRISE AND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.

SO THE TOTAL IS THE 5.2 OUR YEAR OVER YEAR GROWTH IN OUR TOTAL BUDGET, I THINK, WAS ABOUT 4.5% FOR THE GENERAL FUND. IT WAS ABOUT 3.3%, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, CHANGING IT BY $5 MILLION OUT OF, YOU KNOW, 1.97 BILLION ISN'T GOING TO MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN A PERCENT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING, YOU KNOW, APPLES TO APPLES AGAIN.

AND WE'RE ALSO BEING AS GENUINE AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE.

I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS AND INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATION AND THESE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES ACROSS OUR CITY.

COMING FROM A PLACE WHERE WE JUST COMING FROM A PLACE OF PRIVILEGE, WHERE WE JUST APPROVED AN ITEM OF ALMOST $2 MILLION TO ESTHETICALLY APPEAL A PUMP STATION FOR A NORTHERN DALLAS COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WAS EMPHATICALLY SUPPORTED.

AND YET WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT IS LOOKING AT THE IMPACT TO CORE SERVICES, BECAUSE WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD AN ALLEY.

WE HAVE HAD RESIDENTS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A SIDEWALK TO WALK ON.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS AND WHAT WE ARE REALLY ADDRESSING HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE CAN THROW OUT ALL THESE BUZZWORDS AND WE CAN ALSO CONDEMN BUZZWORDS LIKE EQUITY.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT WE HAVE NOT DONE RIGHT BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS AS A WHOLE.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO PRELIMINARILY AND IN A KNEEJERK WAY, BIND OURSELVES AND TIE OUR HANDS WHILE WE STILL HAVE THESE AGENDA ITEMS TO GIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR ESTHETIC APPEALING IN NORTH DALLAS, MEANWHILE, WE HAVE STARVING PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EVEN HAVE SIDEWALKS IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE THE HISTORY OF OUR CITY.

OR WHAT WE COULD DO IS LOOK AT WHY WE WERE ELECTED, AND THAT'S TO MOVE OUR CITY FORWARD.

IT'S TO BRING DALLAS AS A PROGRESSIVE CITY FORWARD, NOT BACKWARDS.

I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO GO WITH THE MISTAKES OF OUR PAST.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS RHETORIC AND COMMENTARY IS.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S OFFENSIVE TO THE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. ROFF, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO TAKE THE EMOTION OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.

THIS IS A FISCAL COMMON SENSE BUDGETING DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO BE PROJECTING IN THE FUTURE.

I AM, I, I LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO, TO HAVE A GREATER DISCUSSION ON THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. I AM GOING IN SEPTEMBER 17TH.

I'M GOING TO BE PUSHING FOR THE. THE MOST EFFECTIVE, COST EFFECTIVE BUDGET THAT WE CAN HAVE.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PRESSURE TO PUSH THESE TAX RATES DOWN AS FAR AS WE CAN AT THAT POINT.

AND I AND I'M GOING TO ALSO PERSONALLY BE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE WITH THE CITY MANAGEMENT IN LOOKING AT THESE BUDGETS IN A VERY DETAILED POSITION.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY ON THIS TABLE TO ALSO DO THAT SAME THING.

THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE CITY MANAGER CREATE A BUDGET THAT WILL ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES. ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES WILL WE'LL ADDRESS THE, THE THE MAINTENANCE AND AND PRESERVATION OF SERVICES TO THE EXTENT WE CAN IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER. AND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX RATE IN THIS, IN THIS COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE HER WITH THOSE WITH, WITH, WITH THOSE SUGGESTIONS AND TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. COUNCILMAN MENDELSSOHN'S PLEA I, I HEAR IS, IS IS NOT ABOUT A MOTION. IT IS ABOUT LET'S BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

LET'S LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS. LET'S TRY TO RUN THIS BUSINESS IN THE RIGHT WAY IN A COST EFFECTIVE, COMMONSENSE WAY. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO DO SO.

THE COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA, HIS OPPORTUNITY IS, IS TO GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS AVAILABLE

[03:00:04]

IF WE IN FACT NEED TO CONSIDER THOSE, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THIS GROUP WHEN THE TIME COMES IN SEPTEMBER, TO BE AS TIGHT AS WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RUNNING THIS CITY ECONOMICALLY AND FISCALLY, RESPONSIBLY, TO OUR BEST ABILITY TO THE BENEFITS OF THE TAXPAYERS AND TO THE BENEFITS OF OF OF OUR CITY OPERATIONS.

MISS MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU.

IT WAS INCORRECTLY STATED THAT WE APPROVED THE PUMP STATION.

WE DID NOT. WE ACTUALLY REJECTED IT. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH AND TELL YOU THAT ADJACENT TO THAT PUMP STATION, OUR UNIMPROVED STREETS WITH NO SIDEWALKS, IT'S ONE OF THE HIGHEST DENSITY AREAS IN OUR CITY OUTSIDE OF UPTOWN.

IT WAS NOT ABOUT JUST ESTHETICS. IT'S ALSO A NOISE ISSUE FOR A FULLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, JACK. THE CITY PROPERTY VALUES, HAVE THEY INCREASED OR DECREASED? AND BY HOW MUCH? YES, MA'AM. THE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS HAVE INCREASED YEAR OVER YEAR, FROM JULY 24TH TO JULY 25TH. THEY INCREASED BY 5.3% IN TOTAL.

AND DO YOU HAVE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT? THE INCREASE WAS $11.3 BILLION 11.3 BILLION.

SO WHEN WE APPLY THE TAX RATE, EVEN IF IT'S LOWER, WILL WE BE RECEIVING MORE TAX REVENUE? YES. EVERY YEAR THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

SO THIS FLEXIBILITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETIMES, LIKE YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT OUR GAP IN BUDGET.

THE REALITY IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE MONEY THIS YEAR THAN WE HAVE THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR THAN WE HAVE CURRENTLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. THAT'S WHAT OUR FLEXIBILITY IS.

NOW WE NEED TO ADOPT OUR CITY MANAGER'S RATE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S YOUR TIME. AND WE ARE GOING TO GO TO MR. BAZALDUA FOR ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I JUST AM CURIOUS.

IF YOU COULD DISCUSS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE JUST MENTIONING, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF IF WE WERE IF WE WERE TO BE IF WE WERE TO ADOPT OR NOT ADOPT, IF WE WERE TO SET A CEILING AT A HIGHER RATE WE'RE NOT SETTING AN ACTUAL RATE. AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE REVENUE THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED.

IF WE WERE TO GO, LET'S SAY SLASH IT TO A NO NEW REVENUE, FOR INSTANCE CAN CAN YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THE POINT OF ORDER? STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. THE ITEM BEFORE US ISN'T ABOUT NO NEW REVENUE, BUT I'VE BEEN A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY FOR EVERYONE TO JUMP BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN RATES, BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT RATES WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE VIRTUES OF GOING UP OR DOWN.

SO WE'VE HAD AN AMENDMENT ABOUT NO NEAR REVENUE.

WE'VE HAD A REVENUE THAT BY GOING ABOVE ONE, THAT'S THE CITY MANAGER.

SO IT'S ALL RELEVANT TO THE IT'S ALL THE SAME DISCUSSION.

THE THE AMENDMENTS JUST DO A DIFFERENT NUMBER.

BUT IT'S ALL RELEVANT AND GERMANE. SO I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT RIGHT.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE EVALUATION. I MEAN THE VALUATIONS THAT ARE ARE HIGHER WE WHEN WE JUST HAVE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, FOR INSTANCE, AND JUST THE NORMAL, I GUESS 3% THAT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED.

DO YOU ANTICIPATE A BUDGET YEAR OVER YEAR TO GROW IN REVENUE JUST TO SUSTAIN EXISTING PROGRAMS? NO, SIR. THE THE YEAR OVER YEAR GROWTH IN OUR BUDGET IS MORE THAN JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH INFLATION, BECAUSE SAME AS PEOPLE AT HOME, THE CITY HAS COSTS GOING UP AS WELL.

SO IT'S MORE THAN JUST INFLATION. THERE ARE PRIORITIES THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS ASKED MISS TOLBERT TO ADDRESS, SUCH AS HIRING MORE POLICE OFFICERS, PAYING A HIGHER SALARY TO POLICE OFFICERS, ADDRESSING STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WE'VE TRIED TO INCLUDE IN THIS BUDGET THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE RESIDENT SURVEY THAT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY TO COUNCIL, INCREASING OUR COMMITMENT TO POLICE AND INCREASING OUR COMMITMENT TO ADDRESSING THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE.

GOING FROM 710 LANE MILES TO 750 LANE MILES AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO LONG ANSWER TO SAY YES, WE HAVE ADDED THINGS INTO THE BUDGET, NOT JUST INFLATION.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HAD A RECORD VOTE REQUIREMENT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANYONE REQUEST IT.

BUT BEFORE WE VOTE, I DO WANT TO SAY ON ON THIS THAT I THINK.

THAT OUR CITY MANAGER, FRANKLY AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE, I THINK WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER WHO IS, YOU KNOW, VERY EARNESTLY SET ABOUT TRYING TO RIGHT SIZE OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND CREATING A

[03:05:10]

TAX RATE THAT CREATES FUNDS, A BUDGET THAT DOES IN HER MIND WHAT WHAT SHE THINKS THAT IS.

AND SO I WANT TO BE IF IF NOTHING ELSE, I WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CHANGE AND EFFORT AND TONE AROUND HERE, BECAUSE I DO WANT TO SEE THAT CONTINUE LONG BEFORE, AFTER I'M GONE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR CITY MANAGER. YEAH. GOD WILLING, SHE'S AROUND LONGER THAN I'M EVEN HERE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CONTINUE. AND I DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE THAT EFFORT BY COMING HERE TODAY AND UNDERMINING THE THE HARD AND DIFFICULT WORK THAT WENT INTO COMING UP WITH THE RATE THAT WE HAVE.

SO I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. IF FOR NO OTHER REASON.

I MEAN, I COULD ALWAYS, OF COURSE, COME UP WITH A BUDGET THAT I THINK WOULD WOULD GO LOWER THAN THIS.

BUT I DO THINK FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE, I'VE SEEN A LEGITIMATE GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TRY TO RIGHT SIZE THIS ORGANIZATION AND DELIVER GREATER EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.

SO I WANT TO REWARD THAT BY SUPPORTING THAT AND NOT JUST INCENTIVIZING THAT IN THE FUTURE.

SO THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON IT, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AND WE'LL HAVE A VOTE.

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

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. NO. COUNCILMEMBER.

BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. YES. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. YES. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES.

WITH SIX VOTING IN FAVOR, NINE OPPOSE THE MOTION.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW BACK AGAIN TO MR. BAZALDUA MOTION ON ITEM 27. I WON'T MAKE HIM READ IT AGAIN, BUT I WILL NOT.

YOU GUYS SHOULD ALL REMEMBER, I HOPE, WHAT IT DOES.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD SPOKEN ON IT FOR FIVE MINUTES WERE MR. BAZALDUA HIMSELF AND MR. RIDLEY. SO THE QUEUE WILL PICK UP THERE.

SO ANYONE WANTED TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST MR. BAZALDUA MOTION. SEEING NONE. RECORD VOTES REQUIRED BY BY LAW.

SO WE'LL HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCILMEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. NO. COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

BLACKMON. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. STEWART. YES. SORRY.

COUNCILMEMBER. ROTH. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. MENDELSOHN.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER. RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

WILLIS. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. NO. MAYOR.

JOHNSON. NO. WITH TEN VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU ALL WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR ON LAUNDRY? SHOULD WE SHUT IT DOWN FOR LUNCH RIGHT NOW? I'M SHUTTING IT DOWN FOR LUNCH.

ALL RIGHT. SO. WE'RE GOING TO END THE WAR ON LUNCH.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EXECUTIVE SESSION SCRIPT. JUST GIVE ME ONE MOMENT TO GET THE RIGHT ONE FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO ON.

ALRIGHT, MEMBERS, IT IS 12:27 P.M. ON AUGUST 27TH, 2025.

[CLOSED SESSION]

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION FIVE, 51.071 AND 551 .074.

THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MANNER DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 62.

WE'LL STAND AT RECESS UNTIL 1:00. ALL RIGHT. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS COMPLETED.

ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION FIVE, 51.071 AND 551 .074 OF THE TEXAS OPENINGS ACT.

AT 1:25 P.M. ON AUGUST 27TH, 2025, WE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

MADAM SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL NOW RETURN TO YOUR REMAINING POOLED ITEMS BEGINNING WITH ITEM 28.

[28. 25-2514A Authorize (1) to initiate consideration of Substantial Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2025-26 Action Plan, including amendments to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan; amendments to the FY 2025-26 Action Plan; and amendments to the Community Development Block Grant CARES Act Program Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships American Rescue Plan Program Grant, and Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Grant, to: (a) incorporate adjustments to City of Dallas plans, policies, and programs, implemented by the City Manager pursuant to City Council authorization, to ensure compliance with Federal Executive Orders and other directives; (b) reflect departmental and operational efficiencies set forth in the City Manager’s Recommended FY 2025-26 Operating and Capital Budget, with realignment of funding in open HUD grant budgets; and (c) reprogram unspent CDBG Entitlement Funds in the amount of $2,000,000 for use on public improvement projects as FY 2025-26 Reprogramming Budget No. 1; and (2) a public hearing to be held on October 8, 2025, to accept comments on the proposed changes - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM 28 AUTHORIZE ONE TO INITIATE CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE FY 20 2526 ACTION

[03:10:07]

PLAN, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE FIVE YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 20 2526 ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CARES ACT PROGRAM, GRANT HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP'S AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN PROGRAM GRANT, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM GRANT TO A INCORPORATE ADJUSTMENTS TO CITY OF DALLAS PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND OTHER DIRECTIVES. B REFLECT DEPARTMENTAL AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY SET FORTH IN THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED FY 20 2526 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET WITH REALIGNMENT OF FUNDING.

IN OPEN GRANT HUD. I'M SORRY IN OPEN HUD GRANT BUDGETS AND SEE REPROGRAM UNSPENT CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION FOR USE ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AS FY 20 2526 REPROGRAMING BUDGET NUMBER ONE AND TWO.

A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025 TO ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN.

ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRWOMAN MIDDLETON, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. WE'RE ON ITEM 28, EVERYONE. THANK YOU.

I JUST PULLED IT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ATTACHMENT EXPLAINING WHAT THE DOLLARS WOULD BE USED FOR, AND I WAS LOOKING FOR STAFF TO SAY THAT. THEY'RE COMING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

JEANETTE WEEDON, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

THE ATTACHMENT REFERENCE IS ATTACHMENT A, AND WE ARE SHOWING ONE TIME REVENUE FOR PROGRAM FOR PROGRAM INCOME OF $2 MILLION. THE USE OF FUNDS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE PROJECT IDENTIFIED.

IT'S FAMILY GATEWAY. THE ESTIMATED COST IS ABOUT 1,325,000.

YOU WILL HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU IN OCTOBER.

AND THEN THE SECOND OR THE BALANCE OF THE 2 MILLION, WHICH IS A 675,000.

WE ARE PLANNING A NO FOR, FA ARE FOR NON-PROFITS.

SO THOSE ARE THE USES OF FUNDS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 28.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 40. AUTHORIZE ONE.

[40. 25-2403A Authorize (1) the rejection of bids received for Group 2 for analytical laboratory testing services; and (2) a three-year service price agreement for Groups 1, 3, and 4 for analytical laboratory testing services for the Dallas Water Utilities Department - Southern Petroleum Laboratories, Inc. in the estimated amount of $6,153,236.00 and North Water District Laboratory Services, Inc. in the estimated amount of $59,840.00, lowest responsible bidders of six - Total estimated amount of $6,213,076.00 - Financing: Dallas Water Utilities Fund ($5,823,270.00) and Stormwater Drainage Management Fund ($389,806.00) (subject to annual appropriations)]

THE REJECTION OF BIDS RECEIVED FOR GROUP TWO FOR THE ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES.

AND TO A THREE YEAR SERVICE PRICE AGREEMENT FOR GROUPS ONE, THREE AND FOUR FOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES FOR THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. SOUTHERN PETROLEUM LABORATORIES, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $6,153,236 IN NORTH WATER DISTRICT LABORATORY SERVICES, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $59,840.

LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS OF SIX. TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $6,213,076.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY LOOKING FOR A MOTION OF APPROVAL.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. GRACEY? YES.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON ITEM 40. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT STAFF DID TALK ABOUT THE NEED AND NECESSITY TO TO DO THIS.

BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK AND IF I COULD HAVE THEM COME OUT AND JUST EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THIS PARTICULAR REJECTION OF THIS GROUP COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE GROUPS AND ALL OF THOSE.

JUANITA ORTIZ, OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SOLICITATION, WE HAD FOUR GROUPS.

THIS GROUP WAS FOR A PARTICULAR TEST THAT OCCURS ONCE A YEAR, AND THE PRICE OF THE TEST WAS SO LOW THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO AWARD IT AT THIS TIME, AND WE WILL JUST AWARD IT THROUGH AN INFORMAL PROCESS.

WHEN THE TEST DOES COME UP, IT'S VERY INFREQUENT.

OKAY. SO THIS WOULDN'T THIS WASN'T A CASE WHERE YOU CAN LOCK IN A PRICE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

EXPLAIN. HE SAID THAT IT WAS SO LOW. IT WAS IT WAS LIKE A AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

SO I'M NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO GO INTO THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, BUT JUST THE, THE I THINK BECAUSE OF THE INFREQUENCY AND THE QUANTITIES,

[03:15:02]

THE AMOUNT CAME OUT VERY LOW. SO THAT'S WHY THE DEPARTMENT DECIDED IT'D BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO DO IT AS A SEPARATE INFORMAL PROCUREMENT WHEN IT DOES COME UP. OKAY. AND THEN FROM A, FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE MANY FIRMS PUT TOGETHER PACKAGES TO RESPOND WHERE WHY WAS THAT NOT FACTORED IN? I GUESS AT THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, VERSUS MAKING ALL THOSE BUSINESSES TAKE TIME TO RESPOND AND THEN ONLY TO SAY, NEVER MIND. YOU. YOU SEE WHAT I'M ASKING? YEAH.

I DON'T HAVE THE PARTICULARS IN FRONT OF ME TO SEE.

HOW MANY BID ON THAT PARTICULAR LINE? BUT IT MAY BE THAT WE AWARDED IT BY LINE.

LET ME SEE. BUT AND AGAIN, THE AND I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SAY GO INTO THE DETAILS, BUT IT'S THE PRACTICE OF WE SAID WE NEEDED THIS SERVICE AND THEN WE JUST DETERMINED THAT THE, THE AMOUNT WAS SO LOW THAT WE WOULD JUST, I GUESS, PROCURE IT ON A AS NEEDED BASIS.

I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. SORRY. LET ME SEE.

SO WE HAD WE HAD SIX BIDDERS AND THEN THAT AWARD WOULD HAVE GONE TO JUST ONE BIDDER FOR THAT PARTICULAR GROUP.

SO THE OTHER GROUPS WENT TO A DIFFERENT PROPOSER.

AND SO IF WE WOULD HAVE AWARDED THAT LINE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE CONTRACT FOR $84.

FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 40.

SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 51. AUTHORIZE A TWO YEAR PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TWO YEAR RENEWAL

[51. 25-2510A Authorize a two-year personal services contract, with one two-year renewal option with Lorena I. Campos dba Campos Consulting Group, LLC for state legislative and information services for the period August 27, 2025 through August 26, 2027 - Not to exceed $372,000.00 - Financing: General Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

OPTION WITH LORENA I COMPOST DBA COMPOST CONSULTING GROUP, LLC FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 27TH, 2025 THROUGH AUGUST 26TH, 2027, NOT TO EXCEED $372,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

MAYOR, I HAVE A MOTION. OKAY. MOVED TO APPROVE.

SECOND. THAT WAS A LOT OF DRAMA FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND SECOND. OKAY. IT'S MOVED. AND SECOND. ANY AID DISCUSSION.

YES. HAVING SPOKEN. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR A LOBBYIST CONTRACT. IT'S ONE OF OUR TEXAS LOBBYISTS.

AND HAVING SPOKEN TO THE LOBBYISTS, THIS WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT SHE'S REQUESTED.

SHE REQUESTED IT BASED ON THE RATE SHE CHARGES OTHER CITIES.

SO THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED AMOUNT. IT'S BASED ON HER LEVEL OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS ON OUR TEAM, AND ALSO BASED ON THE LENGTH OF TIME SHE HAS SPENT ON OUR TEAM.

SO ALL OF THESE CONTRACTS, OF WHICH WE APPROVED, ITEM 49 AND 52, IN OUR CONSENT AGENDA FOR OTHER STATE LOBBYISTS, WERE VETTED THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE AD HOC, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

AND I WILL SAY I THINK THAT SHE'S DOING A WONDERFUL JOB.

PROUD TO HAVE HER ON OUR TEAM AS WELL AS OUR OTHER LOBBYIST.

THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS TO AMEND THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

THE CONTRACT AMOUNT IS RAISED NOT TO EXCEED $457,000 FOR THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD.

SECOND. OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RIGHT. MR.. FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I WANT TO START BY READING A QUOTE THAT MY WIFE USES AS A MOTIVATION DAY TO DAY IN, IN HER 9 TO 5 IN CORPORATE AMERICA, MEN APPLY FOR A JOB WHEN THEY MEET ONLY 60% OF QUALIFICATIONS, BUT WOMEN APPLY ONLY IF THEY MEET 100%. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS REASONING THAT COULD BE HAD ON WHY THIS WAS PROPOSED. THE REALITY IS, IS US ALLOWING FOR THE DISPARITY TO EXIST IN THE THREE CONTRACTS THAT WE ARE PROVING HERE TODAY, AND IGNORE THE VERY CLEAR GENDER DISPARITY THAT EXISTS IN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, JUST PERPETUATES WHAT YOU COULD EASILY GOOGLE TO FIND OUT THAT THE GENDER PAY DISPARITY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GENDER WAGE GAP, REFERS TO THE DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE EARNINGS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. GLOBALLY, WOMEN EARN ON AVERAGE $0.83 FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT MEN EARN IN THE SAME POSITIONS.

THAT'S JUST THE REALITY OF THE OF THE WORKPLACE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A REALITY THAT I KNOW VERY WELL, BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A HOUSEHOLD WHERE MY MY WIFE IS OUR BREADWINNER,

[03:20:04]

AND I'VE WATCHED HER NAVIGATE CORPORATE AMERICA, AND I'VE SEEN HER BE HER WORK BE DIMINISHED JUST FROM HER COUNTERPART SITTING NEXT TO HER, BEING MALES AND MAKING MORE MONEY.

I ALSO LOOK AT AS A A FATHER OF A GIRL THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES AND HELP CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF WHAT IS VERY CLEARLY A GENDER WAGE DISPARITY.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THAT THESE WERE PROPOSED, YOU YOU SEE THAT THERE IS TWO MEN AND ONE WOMEN AT OUR STATE, ON OUR STATE LOBBY TEAM, THE MOST TENURED WAS BEING PROPOSED AT 504,000 TOTAL FOR THE DURATION OF THE FOUR YEARS. THE SECOND MOST TENURED KWAME WALKER THAT WE ALREADY APPROVED WAS AT 480,000.

IT'S ABOUT A 4.5% STEP DOWN FROM THE MOST TENURED.

THEN WE GO FROM $480,000 TO OUR WOMAN LOBBYISTS ON THE TEAM, AND IT'S 7000.

THAT'S ABOUT 30%. WE ARE IN LINE WITH EXACT STATISTICS.

THAT IS VERY EASY FOR YOU TO LOOK UP WITH. BEING WILLING TO PAY A WOMAN FOR THE SAME JOB THAT WE'RE PAYING A MAN IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET.

I HAVE TALKED WITH OUR LOBBY TEAM. I HAVE TALKED WITH I'VE WORKED WITH ALL THREE OF THEM EXTENSIVELY.

WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM, BY THE WAY. ALL OF THEM ARE VERY WELL EQUIPPED.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTATION. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR BODY AND AND THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTATION OF THE WORK OF THESE.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF CLIENTS THAT THEY HAVE OUTSIDE OF HOURS.

TO, TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS COULD EASILY BE BECAUSE OF PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES, WHICH IS NOT WHY I'M BRINGING THIS UP.

I'M BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE CARRYING AN ACTION TO RENEW OUR CONTRACTS, TO START OVER WITH THE CONTRACTS. THEY HAVE A RENEW.

IT'S A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH A RENEWAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS.

THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS ACCEPT, JUST BECAUSE OF A MODEST RESPONSE FROM OUR LOBBYIST, THAT THIS IS HER RATE. KNOWING THAT THIS IS HER RATE IS GREAT, BUT KNOWING THAT SHE IS ALSO BEING HIRED AND CONTRACTED BY A CITY THAT IS CURRENTLY PAYING A MUCH HIGHER RATE TO TWO MALES DOING THE SAME JOB THAT SHE'S EXPECTED TO DO DOWN IN AUSTIN.

I THINK IT IS A PROBLEM, SO I HOPE THAT WE COULD SHORE UP THIS DISPARITY GAP.

I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN WITH OUR CFO. THESE CONTRACT SALARIES ARE PAID OUT OF OUR NON-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET.

THIS IS A CLEARLY THIS IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT A $20,000.

THIS IS A ROUNDING ERROR PER YEAR. OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

THIS WILL NOT BREAK THE BANK AND DOES NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF ANY OTHER SERVICES OR FUNDED PRODUCT IN OUR BUDGET.

SO WITH THAT, I HOPE THAT Y'ALL WILL SUPPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

WELL, I MEAN, I WILL SAY I THINK IT'S INSULTING TO MAKE THIS A GENDER ISSUE.

THIS IS NOT A GENDER ISSUE. THIS IS A PAY INCREASE THAT SHE DID NOT ASK FOR.

AND FRANKLY, HAD THE COUNCIL MEMBER SPOKEN WITH HER, HE WOULD NOT HAVE PULLED THE ITEM.

I THINK IT IS ALMOST EMBARRASSING THIS DISCUSSION.

LOBBYISTS ESPECIALLY ARE PAID BASED ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND THEIR ABILITY.

I'M SORRY. ABILITY FOR INFLUENCE AND ACCESS. THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PAY RATE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY IT'S WHAT SHE'S CHARGING HER OTHER CLIENTS. SHE IS AN EXTREMELY CAPABLE WOMAN AND MY GUESS IS OVER THE YEARS, ASSUMING TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING CONTINUES, SHE WOULD CONTINUE TO INCREASE HER RATE. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE LITERALLY TAKING YOUR IDENTITY POLITICS AND GIVING SOMEBODY SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK FOR.

SHOCKINGLY, AFTER WE JUST HAD A VERY ROBUST BUDGET CONVERSATION.

IF YOU'RE HIRING A CARPENTER FOR YOUR HOME AND IT'S A FIRST YEAR CARPENTER, THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS A MASTER CARPENTER.

AND YOU PAY FOR THAT MASTER CARPENTER, EVEN THOUGH THEY BOTH ARE CARPENTERS.

AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

[03:25:06]

I'M A LITTLE BIT SHOCKED, GIVEN THE THE NARRATIVE FOR YOUR CASE THAT YOU DIDN'T ALSO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR FOR QUALMS CONTRACT.

I MEAN, WHY WOULDN'T ALL THREE BE THE SAME EXACT AMOUNT? SOMEHOW THAT ONE WAS OKAY FOR YOU. YOU ALSO MISSTATED THE AMOUNTS OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS 372.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT SHOCKING AND SURPRISING AND POSSIBLY WHAT'S EXACTLY WRONG? SITTING HERE AT THIS HORSESHOE. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION TO INCREASE A SALARY THAT SHE DIDN'T ASK FOR.

THAT SHE DOESN'T CHARGE ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN.

THAT IS ACTUALLY AN INSULTING ARGUMENT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I MEAN, I GUESS CLIFFORD'S COMING UP.

HEY, CLIFFORD. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW PROCEDURALLY WE COME UP WITH THE THE SALARY? IS IT THROUGH NEGOTIATION? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT TO EVALUATE THE COMPENSATION? WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TEM CLIFFORD SPARKS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. BASICALLY, WE TAKE A LOOK GENERALLY AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE MARKET.

WE LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE REQUESTING, AND WE SIZE IT UP WITH WHAT WE NEED.

AND THEN BASED ON THOSE NEEDS, WE LOOK AT THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF THE LOBBYISTS THAT WE'VE HAD AND ANY LOBBYISTS THAT ARE COMING ON.

AND WE ASKED THEM FOR THEIR RATES. WE SEE IF THAT'S IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES, AND WE MATCH THAT UP AS SO.

SO IS THERE ANY NEGOTIATION AT ALL THAT HAPPENS? OR ALTHOUGH THERE'S ALWAYS SOME NEGOTIATION, ESPECIALLY IF THE RATE LOOKS OUT OF WHACK, SO TO SPEAK, COMPARISON TO EXPERIENCE LEVEL. BUT WITH THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD LOBBYISTS, A COUPLE OF THE SAME LOBBYISTS FOR A LONG TIME, THEIR RATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WITHIN A REASONABLE MARGIN OF ERROR, SO TO SPEAK.

AND I, I'M NOT IN, IN THAT LINE OF WORK. AND SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOING RATE I MEAN I KNOW IT'S GOING TO VARY.

SO SO WHAT ARE THE FACTORS THAT GO INTO. IS IT.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. IS IT SUCCESS RATE. HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW WE MEASURE THAT.

YEAH. SO A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE.

A LOT OF THE LOBBYISTS AROUND THE STATE, THEY START OFF AS STAFFERS, THEY MATRICULATE THROUGH THE PROCESS, THEY BECOME CHIEFS OF STAFF. THEY THEN GO OUT ON THEIR OWN YOU KNOW, AND SO BASED ON THAT LEVEL IN HISTORY THAT THEY HAVE WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS OR IN AUSTIN PER SE. THAT REALLY HELPS JUDGE HOW WELL OR HOW MUCH THEY CAN CHARGE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME LOBBYISTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 30 PLUS YEARS THAT CHARGE A LOT LESS THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE LEVEL AND WHAT THEY DO OVERALL IN THE CAPITOL. OUR LOBBYISTS, THEY DO A LOT MORE BECAUSE THE CITY IS VERY ROBUST.

YOU KNOW, WE DO EVERYTHING FROM WATER TO POLICE TO CODE.

SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE WITH CITY POLITICS AND CITY OPERATIONS AND A VERY GOOD UNDERSTANDING. AND SO THAT ALSO WEIGHS HEAVILY IN ON, YOU KNOW, HOW THE WAY WE GRADE THEM OUT ON THAT.

AND WAS THERE AN INCREASE TO THIS PARTICULAR COMPENSATION? BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN WITH DALLAS? YES. SO WHEN SHE, SHE'S BEEN WITH DALLAS SINCE 2018.

AND SO WHEN SHE FIRST CAME IN, THE RATE THAT SHE'S CURRENTLY AT WAS NOT HER ORIGINAL RAID.

THE ENTIRE LOBBY TEAM ACTUALLY GOT A BUMP ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

AND THESE WERE THE RATES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT.

WE FUSSED AND DISCUSSED AND COUNCIL APPROVED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MR. ROTH RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE A PARTICULAR COMMENT ON ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAL, BUT WHAT I WANT TO RAISE IS THE ISSUE THAT IN THE IN THE SIX ITEMS STARTING AT 49 TO 54, THESE ARE ALL CONSULTING LOBBYING FEES OF A TOTAL OF ABOUT $2.5 MILLION. AND TO OUR TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD PREVIOUSLY THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THESE KIND OF LINE ITEMS, CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL FEE BUDGETS, BUDGET LINE ITEMS TO REALLY FIGURE OUT IF HOW THEY FIT INTO THE OVERALL BUDGET THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CRAFT FOR THE FOR THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

[03:30:07]

IT'S ITEMS LIKE THIS THAT I THINK WE ALL NEED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE JUSTIFIED AND THAT THEY'RE COST EFFECTIVE.

MR. RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO, CLIFFORD, DOES THE YOUR OFFICE HAVE A. WELL, LET ME LET ME START A DIFFERENT WAY.

IN RESPONSE TO MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CRITERIA THAT YOU EVALUATE IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION RATES FOR THESE VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS, I DID NOT HEAR YOU SAY THAT ONE OF THEM WAS THE GENDER OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER.

IS THAT ONE OF YOUR CONSIDERATIONS? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THANK YOU. I DEFER TO THE CITY. I TAKE IT, BY THE VEHEMENCE OF THAT RESPONSE, THAT YOU WOULD BE AGAINST ANY SUCH BIAS IN YOUR PROCESS.

THAT IS CORRECT. THE BY SOMEONE'S GENDER HAS NO PLAY ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE INFLUENCE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS NEEDS TO GET THE JOB DONE EVERY SESSION.

AND IS THIS FIGURE OF 372,000? IS THAT THE RESULT OF A PROPOSAL THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM THIS CONSULTANT AND THE OTHER CONSULTANTS AS TO WHAT THEY WILL BE WILLING TO OFFER THEIR SERVICES FOR? THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO. IS IT THE PRACTICE OF THE CITY TO PAY PEOPLE FOR THEIR SERVICES MORE THAN THEY ASK FOR THEIR SERVICES? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE CFO AND THE COUNCIL ON THAT.

WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. IS IT THE PRACTICE OF THE CITY TO PAY IN COMPENSATION FOR MORE FOR THE SERVICE THAN THE MARKET REQUIRES US TO PAY FOR THAT SERVICE.

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO, AND I WOULD CAUTION US ON THAT, JUST BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT'S GOING ON DOWN IN AUSTIN.

AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A HOUSE BILL, 223 THAT PASSED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT CITIES ARE GETTING THE BEST VALUE FOR WHAT WE ARE CONTRACTING FOR OUR CONTRACT LOBBYISTS. AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO MOVING FORWARD, IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST VALUE OUT OF OUR LOBBYISTS OR OUT OF ANYONE THAT WANTS TO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

FAIR ENOUGH. WELL, I AM AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.

I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THROWING MORE MONEY AT SOMEONE THAN THEY'RE ASKING TO PERFORM THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICES.

AND INDEED, I CONSIDER THAT AGAINST OUR NORMAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, WE OBTAIN COMPETITIVE BIDDING TO GET THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID.

FOR MOST OF OUR PROCUREMENT ITEMS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THESE PARTICULAR CONSULTANTS ARE SUBJECT TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING.

BUT THE PHILOSOPHY SHOULD GOVERN. WE SHOULDN'T PAY MORE FOR SERVICES THAN ARE BEING REQUESTED FOR THOSE SERVICES IF WE WANT TO MAINTAIN A RESPONSIBLE AND EFFICIENT BUDGET. MR. BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. CAN YOU TELL ME THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE FOR EACH OF OUR THREE CONSULTANTS? SURE. RANDY CAIN HAS BEEN WITH US FOR 28, 29 INCLUDED.

WHO'S EMPLOYED? THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHEN HE WAS EMPLOYEE, BUT JUST FOR DISCLOSURE.

I KNOW ALL THESE PEOPLE VERY WELL. I WAS GOING TO PREFACE IT WITH THAT AS WELL.

YES. BUT KWAME WALKER, HE'S BEEN WITH US FOR ABOUT 22 TO 23 YEARS NOW.

LORENA CAMPOS HAS BEEN WITH US FOR SINCE 2018.

SO ROUGHLY EIGHT YEARS. EIGHT YEARS. AND THAT'S WITH US.

THAT'S WITH US WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND THEY'VE BEEN AT YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR HOW LONG? RIGHT. THEY SO THEY HAVE SO WHEN RANDY CAIN STARTED WITH US.

SO HE'S BEEN DOING IT FOR ABOUT 28, 29 YEARS.

SO THAT'S HIS WHOLE CAREER. CORRECT. IN THE LOBBYING WORLD.

SAME THING WITH KWAME WALKER AND WITH LORENA.

SHE'S BEEN DOING IT FOR ABOUT 14, 15 YEARS, BUT SHE WAS WITH A LOBBYING FIRM, SO SHE WASN'T, IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE, A LOBBYIST, BUT SHE WAS WORKING WITH THE LOBBYING FIRM.

BUT SHE CAME OUT ON HER OWN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO.

SO I GUESS HOW MANY YEARS EXPERIENCE DOES SHE HAVE ON HER OWN? EIGHT YEARS TOTAL? 14. BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT BEING A STAFFER DOES CONSIDER BEING CONSIDERED EXPERIENCE AS WELL.

SO I WOULD SAY OVERALL, IF YOU INCLUDE STAFFING WITH THE TIME THAT SHE WAS ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE CAPITOL AS A STAFFER 18, 18 YEARS. SO SHE'S SHE'S RIGHT UP THERE WITH I MEAN, SHE'S GOT 18 YEARS EXPERIENCE.

KWAME. HE'S GOT ABOUT, LET'S JUST SAY, 25 BECAUSE I THINK HE WAS AN INTERN STAFFER AS WELL.

[03:35:03]

AND RANDY'S GOT ABOUT 32. OKAY. SO SHE'S UP THERE AND HER ROLE IS TO DO WHAT HER ROLE IS TO SECURE RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DALLAS MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AUDIENCES WITH THE CORRECT MEMBERS THAT CAN HELP US SECURE THOSE RESOURCES WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND REALLY, THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY I CAN EXPLAIN IT. OKAY, SO SHE'S ACTING ON OUR BEHALF, CORRECT? AND I ASSUME BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN DOING THAT VERY WELL, YOU'VE ASKED HER TO COME BACK? OF COURSE. OKAY. AND WE DIDN'T PUT THIS OUT FOR COMPETITIVE BID BECAUSE BECAUSE IT HASN'T TRADITIONALLY BEEN OUR PRACTICE.

SO THAT'S AND AND THAT'S BEEN EVEN SINCE BEFORE I'VE GOTTEN HERE.

WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. SO SO IF YOU DON'T PUT IT OUT FOR COMPETITIVE BID THEN THAT MEANS THAT YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL SAYING THIS IS MY PRICE.

YES. AND WITHOUT US BEING. HERE'S THE WINDOW GIVEN WE WANT THIS AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CONSIDER. BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WRITE UP IN LIKE A RFQ, RFP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT'S AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AN $85,000 INCREASE FOR OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD.

YEAH, THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. AND SO WE WE GO FROM A LITTLE NORTH OF 500,000 TO THEN RIGHT BELOW IT, AND THEN IT DROPS DRAMATICALLY BY 186,000 AT 3.72 FOR THIS CONTRACT.

OH, STAGGERING. YES, MA'AM. BUT SHE'S GOT WHEN WE'VE JUST ESTABLISHED 18 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THIS ROLE.

SO I'M KIND OF THINKING SHE'S EARNED IT. I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAY IN THIS ROLE, YOU MEAN WITH THE CITY, I'M SORRY, IN THE IN THE ABILITIES TO SERVE THE CITY BECAUSE WE DID ESTABLISH RANDY'S GOT ABOUT 32 BECAUSE HE WAS A LOBBYIST.

AND THEN HE WENT ON TO BE HERE. KWAME WAS AN INTERN.

SO WE'RE DOING TOTALITY, RIGHT? GOTCHA. OKAY.

SO I'M KIND OF GOING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S TEN YEARS DIFFERENCE IN ALL OF THIS.

YOU ROUGHLY SAY THAT. YES. AND, MR. BASIL, DO I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT ABOUT THE WOMEN? BECAUSE I, TOO, WAS MAKING LESS WHEN I WAS A DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, AND ONE OF THE MAYORS CAME IN AND SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO MAKE? AND HE SAYS, YOU SHOULD MAKE WHAT THE MALE MAKES.

AND SO AND I HAD JUST AS MUCH EXPERIENCE. SO I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS.

IT'S 85,000. I KNOW HER, I KNOW ALL OF THESE.

AND WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM. SHE'S GOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE BEING FROM WEST TEXAS THAT SHE CAN TOUCH BECAUSE I ASK HER TO HELP ME. YOU KNOW, WITH THE SENATORS HAVING PROPERTY OUT THERE.

SO I, I'M SHE IS A VALUE TO OUR TEAM NO DOUBT.

I AGREE. I AGREE, AND I BELIEVE PAYING PEOPLE THE VALUE THAT THEY BRING TO THE TABLE AND WE AS WOMEN HAVE GOT TO STOP THINKING THAT WE'RE NOT VALUED. AND THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO AS A, AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

BUT I, I'M INCLINED TO PAY A FAIR WAGE TO, TO FAIR WORK.

AND IF YOU FEEL HER WORK IS GOOD ENOUGH TO BE ON THE TEAM, AND SHE SEEMS TO HAVE AS MUCH AS EXPERIENCE OR MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS THE TOP ONE, BUT IT'S, IT'S IT'S IN THERE. THEN I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH YOU KNOW, THE BUMP UP IF AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE MONEY IS THERE.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? I HAVE A DEFERRED CITY MANAGER.

IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO DO MORE THAN WHAT IS BEFORE YOU, THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVING ME DIRECTION TO IDENTIFY IT.

YES, MA'AM. SO THIS. THIS REALLY ISN'T ABOUT GENDER.

I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT ON EXPERIENCE WORKABILITY.

WHAT SHE DOES FOR THE CITY AND IN IN THEN IT ALSO BE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT SHE IS YOU KNOW A FEMALE AND THERE IS CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE NEED TO PRACTICE AS FEMALES THAT I HOPE WE WILL GET THERE.

RIGHT. AND BUT I DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION.

I WANT TO PAY A FAIR WAGE FOR FAIR WORK. THANK YOU, MISS STEWART.

YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR.

AND CLIFFORD, WHO WHICH OF THESE OTHER GROUPS IS CLOSEST TO WHAT MISS COMPOST DOES? WHAT? I MEAN, THERE? I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LOBBYISTS WHO COMPARES MOST CLOSELY TO HER. AND IN THESE OTHER CONTRACTS, WHEN YOU SAY WHO YOU MEAN IN ON THE TEAM OR ACROSS THE STATE? WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO COMPARE APPLES AND APPLES.

SO CONSULTING TEAM TWO CONSULTING TEAM IS THERE.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS THAT THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED OUR TEAM HAS BEEN A LOT DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TEAMS AROUND THE STATE.

WHEREAS THEY CONTRACT WITH EITHER SMALL, BOUTIQUE, MEDIUM SIZED, LARGE LOBBYING FIRMS.

[03:40:01]

WE CONTRACT WITH INDIVIDUALS WITHIN LOBBYING FIRMS OR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN LOBBYING FIRM.

SO IN THAT ASPECT, WE'RE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW.

SO IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN, IF WE CONTRACT WITH A LOBBYING FIRM, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE AT THAT FIRM AND ANY OTHER RESOURCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. WE IN TURN, JUST, YOU KNOW, CONTRACT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL AT THAT FIRM.

SO WHETHER OR NOT WE GET THOSE RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FIRM IS, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS UP IN THE AIR, BUT WE JUST CONTRACT WITH THAT ONE PERSON. SO TO KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

OKAY, SO I'D BUT WOULD MISS COMPOST COMPARE WITH, SAY, IS IT MR. WALKER? I DON'T KNOW THESE PEOPLE, MR. WALKER.

ARE THEY DOING SIMILAR WORK? SIMILAR CONTRACTS? YES. SO THE TYPE OF WORK THAT THEY DO IS ALL GOING TO BE THE SAME, BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE RELATIONSHIPS GET US IN THE DOORS THAT WE NEED AND SECURE RESOURCES. YOU KNOW, HOW THE WAY THEY'RE DEPLOYED IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, MY CALL, JUST BASED ON THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, YOU KNOW, JUST WATCHING THE FLOW OF SESSION AND YOU KNOW, WHO EITHER HAS A HOT HAND OR HAS A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH A MEMBER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER.

SO IT IT ALL IT'S IT'S AN EBB AND FLOW ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS DOWN THERE.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DISPARITY IN THOSE TWO NUMBERS.

IN HAS ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE TWO WORKED FOR US LONGER? DID SOMEBODY ASK FOR A LARGER INCREASE? HOW HOW ARE THEIR NUMBERS SO DIFFERENT? YES. SO INITIALLY WHEN WE GAVE THEM THE BUMP OF ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

WE I WAS TOLD TO GO ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANTED THEIR RATES TO BE.

AND THESE WERE THE RATES, THE CURRENT RATES THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR.

AND SO THESE WERE THE EACH INDIVIDUALIZED RATES THAT THEY ASKED FOR ON THEIR OWN.

YOU KNOW, YES, WE DID LOOK OVER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE STILL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR OF, YOU KNOW, OTHER TEAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T OVERPAYING.

BUT THIS IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THEY INDIVIDUALLY ASKED FOR.

OKAY. AND, WELL THEY WOULD HAVE FELT COMFORTABLE AT THAT POINT TO ASK FOR WHATEVER THERE WAS.

THE DOOR WAS OPEN. I MADE SURE THAT WHEN I PRESENTED THEM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUMP UP THEIR PAY, THAT THEY NEEDED TO ASK FOR WHAT THEY WANTED.

THESE WERE THE NUMBERS WE GOT BACK. I DID MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE BEFORE I PUT THEM IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, AND THEY SAID THEY WERE. AND THEN THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT THIS POINT.

ARRIVED AT THESE NUMBERS. AND BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE PUBLIC, MISS CAMPOS KNOWS WHAT MR. WALKER'S NUMBER HAS BEEN. IS THAT CORRECT? OH, ABSOLUTELY.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE THIS IN MY HEAD, AND I'M STRUGGLING.

I DON'T WANT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL OF MISS CAMPOS.

RIGHT? I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF HER BUSINESS AND THAT SHE KNOWS HER BUSINESS AND THAT THAT HER NUMBER REFLECTS ACCURATELY THAT BUT THERE IS SUCH A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO.

IT'S HARD. JUST APPLES TO APPLES. IT'S HARD TO RECONCILE THAT.

SO JUST STRUGGLING AND HOPING I COULD GET SOME FURTHER UNDERSTANDING, BUT THANK YOU.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, LET'S FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE.

ROUND WISE, I THINK MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AGAIN, I JUST LOOK AT THIS IN A WAY THAT I DO.

I DO SEE A PERPETUATION OF THE DISPARITY. AND I DID SPEAK WITH YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THESE CONTRACTS, AND I ALSO WORK WITH YOU QUITE A BIT DURING OUR SESSIONS.

CORRECT. WHEN I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THESE CONTRACTS AND SIMILAR TO THE LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT MISTER MORENO WAS, WAS ASKING. THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTATION FROM ANY OF THE THREE STATE LOBBYISTS THAT WE HAVE ON CONTRACT. IS THAT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE? SO AS FAR AS THE WORKLOAD, AS FAR AS THE TOUCHES OF OF REPRESENTATIVES ON OUR BEHALF AND SENATORS, IT ON AS FAR AS THE TIME MANAGEMENT AS FAR AS THE STAFFING OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFFERS THAT GO DOWN TO TESTIFY. THERE IS A IT IS AN EVEN SPLIT WITH THESE THREE THAT WE HAVE.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT.

THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING. I UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS THE REASON THAT I STARTED WITH THAT QUOTE THAT MY WIFE LIVES AND BREATHES BY IN HER CORPORATE AMERICA WORLD IS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A AN EXERCISE WHERE MISS CAMPOS

[03:45:04]

WAS ABLE TO GIVE HER RESPECTIVE RATE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DISPARITY AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A WOMAN TO BE AT THE TABLE.

IT'S NOT TO IT'S NOT SHOCKING TO ME FOR HER TO COME IN IN A MODEST RATE.

AND THAT'S WHERE I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN SAY THAT IF THESE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE WITH THREE PEOPLE, THAT WE EXPECT TO DO THE SAME JOB ON OUR BEHALF DOWN IN, IN AUSTIN, THAT WE CARE AND PRIORITIZE GENDER EQUALITY, RIGHT? WHEN IT COMES TO THE INCOME DISPARITY THAT EXISTS, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHORE THAT UP.

I'M NOT PUTTING THAT BURDEN ON MISS CAMPOS TO DO HER OWN HOMEWORK ON HER OWN COLLEAGUES, OR PIN EACH OTHER UP AGAINST EACH OTHER.

I DID BRING UP MISTER WALKER'S CONTRACT. IT WAS STATED THAT THAT IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP.

I DID BRING IT UP, AND I KNOW THAT HE HAS STAIR STEPPED DOWN FROM OUR MOST TENURED AT ABOUT 4.5%, AND I AM ASKING FOR OUR THIRD MOST TENURED TO BE STAIR STEPPED DOWN FROM MR. WALKER IN THE SAME PERCENTAGE POINTS AND NOT HAVE A DRASTIC DISPARITY THAT I'M TRYING TO SHORE UP, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY MOTION AND ALL I'M TRYING TO CORRECT MOVING FORWARD.

WE AS A COUNCIL SHOULD CATCH THIS AND STAND FOR SOMETHING BETTER.

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

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WANT TO GO BACK TO COUNCILWOMAN STEWART'S.

YEAH. FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THESE RATES, IF THEY ARE, THEY ARE PUBLIC RECORD. AND SO PEOPLE CAN SEE THESE RATES.

CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE ON OUR WEBSITE. AND WE THERE'S BEEN LAWS PASSED RECENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S TRANSPARENCY.

OKAY. AND AS FAR AS EXPECTATIONS AND WORKLOAD, DO WE KNOW IF ANY OF THESE CONSULTANTS WORK FOR MULTIPLE MUNICIPALITIES OR ARE SOME SOLELY WORKING FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES WE ARE. I WOULD CALL IT FORTUNATE THAT THEY WORK FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AS WELL.

SO ALL THREE OF THEM DO? YES. SO THERE'S MULTIPLE CONTRACTS THAT THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS ARE GETTING COMPENSATION FOR.

CORRECT. WE'RE NOT THEIR ONLY CONTRACT. AND THEN DO WE KNOW IF THIS WOULD AFFECT CERTAIN PEOPLE'S TAX BRACKET? SOMETIMES THERE'S A REASON WHY PEOPLE ASK FOR CERTAIN DOLLARS SO THAT THEY DON'T GET OUT OF A CERTAIN BRACKET.

AND SO NOT SURE IF WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO ASK.

I IN THE STREET VERNACULAR, I HAVE NOT POCKET WATCH LIKE THAT OR TRY TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S FINE.

BUT IT COULD BE A CONSIDERATION. AND I'LL JUST GUESS THIS IS FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY MANAGER.

IS THAT WOULD IT BE COMMON PRACTICE FOR US TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST OURSELVES? NO THANK YOU. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES, I THINK.

THANK YOU. CLIFFORD, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY IN THE LEGAL FIELD.

ARE THERE ATTORNEYS WHO WORK THE SAME NUMBER OF HOURS THAT GET PAID DIFFERENT AMOUNTS? WELL, JUST AS CORRECTION, I'M NOT ACTUALLY AN ATTORNEY. I PLAY ONE ON TV.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. YOU WENT TO LAW SCHOOL? NO, I ACTUALLY DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.

OKAY, TAMMY, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY DRIVEN BY A LAW SCHOOL THAT WAS IN LAW SCHOOL.

I HOPE THAT WAS A JOB REQUIREMENT. I AM A LAWYER.

THE QUESTION IS, DO DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS THAT WORK THE SAME NUMBER OF HOURS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT GET PAID DIFFERENT AMOUNTS ELSE, DEPENDING ON THEIR EXPERIENCE. YES. BUT IS IT BASED ON THEIR GENDER? NO. IS IT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF YEARS THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE JOB EXPERIENCE AND THEIR EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE? YES. OKAY, SO FOR LORENA, THERE'S BEEN A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF HER EXPERIENCE.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO PULL UP HER LINKEDIN. SHE'S HAD HER OWN CONSULTING FIRM FOR SIX YEARS AND NINE MONTHS.

SHE'S BEEN DOING THE LOBBYIST JOB, THE ACTUAL LOBBYIST JOB.

BEFORE THAT, SHE WORKED IN GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AS AN ASSOCIATE FOR TEXAS STRATEGY GROUP FOR FOUR YEARS AND ONE MONTH.

AND BEFORE THAT, SHE CHARACTERIZES HER OWN JOB AS ADMINISTRATIVE FOR THREE YEARS AND TEN MONTHS,

[03:50:06]

DOING MEETING AN EVENT ASSOCIATE THAT'S NOT A LOBBYIST.

SHE'S BEEN A LOBBYIST FOR ESSENTIALLY SEVEN YEARS.

IF YOU WANT TO SAY WORKING FOR AN ASSOCIATION IS ALSO A LOBBYIST.

THEN WE'LL SAY SHE'S BEEN A LOBBYIST FOR TEN YEARS, BUT THAT IN NO WAY COMPARES WITH RANDY.

FOR 32 YEARS, IT DOESN'T COMPARE WITH KWAME. HE'S DONE IT FOR 28 YEARS.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS EXACTLY THE PUSHBACK WE'RE HEARING ABOUT IDENTITY POLITICS.

SHE DID NOT ASK FOR THIS MONEY. SHE'S EMBARRASSED THAT WE'RE EVEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

I'VE TALKED TO HER, AND YOU'RE USING HER FOR A POLITICAL NARRATIVE AND A POLITICAL POINT.

SHE PUT FORWARD AN AMOUNT THAT SHE THINKS IS FAIR.

IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT. SHE. POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR.

DEFENDERS, STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. 12 A SPECIFICALLY ASKS MEMBERS NOT TO SPECULATE ON INTENT OF OTHER MEMBERS IN THEIR COMMENTARY. OVERRULED.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AROUND HERE. ALL THE TIME.

IT'S JUST OUR RULES. SORRY. OVERRULED. LOOKING AT LORRAINE'S HISTORY OF PAY WITH A CITY.

I HAVE IT WHERE IT'S FOR THE ONE YEAR AND THEN.

WHEREAS FOR THE TWO YEAR CONTRACT. AND SO I'VE BROKEN THEM DOWN FOR ONE YEAR IN 2022.

SHE WAS PAID $60,000. THE CONTRACT WE'RE CONSIDERING, AS POSTED, PUTS HER AT $186,000. THIS IS HARDLY COMPARABLE TO SOME KIND OF SLOGAN LIKE FAIR WAGE FOR FAIR WORK.

THIS IS NOT A MINIMUM WAGE JOB. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY HIGH PAID JOB.

WE ARE NOT HER FULL TIME JOB. SHE HAS OTHER CLIENTS, AND WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT $186,000 A YEAR, ESSENTIALLY FOR A PART TIME JOB. AND SHE'S LITERALLY DONE THAT JOB FOR SIX YEARS AND NINE MONTHS.

SO I THINK IT'S A COMPETITIVE RATE. I'M PROUD TO OFFER IT TO HER.

SHE DOES A FANTASTIC JOB. SHE'S A PRO AND I'M EMBARRASSED FOR HER THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE SHE'S BEING USED AS A PROP, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY DEMORALIZING WOMEN MORE THAN ANYTHING.

YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA? THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU MAYOR. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE IN THE INTENT TO BE MISCONSTRUED.

AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BRING IDENTITY POLITICS.

THIS IS IS CLEARLY A DISPARITY IN MY EYES. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IDENTITY POLITICS ANY MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, PUSHING TO DROP OUR RATE TO A NO NEW REVENUE.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY RESIDENTS ASK FOR THAT AS WELL.

SO THIS IS CLEARLY TRYING TO LOOK AT THE CONTRACTS AS IT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF US.

IT WAS SOMETHING I BROUGHT UP WHEN THE THE DRAFT AGENDA CAME OUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IDENTITY POLITICS, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ANY MEMBER COULD HAVE JOINED OUR AD HOC LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, AND I, I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL THAT IT'S HAPPENING AT THE HORSESHOE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA TO ITEM NUMBER 51? OKAY. YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO DECIDE IF I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING OR NOT. I'VE BEEN. I'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT IT FOR THE WHOLE TIME.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO SAY IT. I'M GOING TO SAY IT. OKAY.

LOOK. YOU CAN SIT DOWN, CLIFFORD. I'M NOT GOING TO NEED YOUR HELP.

THERE'S A CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THE STATE, HERE, LOCALLY.

AROUND IDENTITY POLITICS, DIVERSITY, DEI. YOU CAN CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT TO.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. AND TO ME, THIS IS EXACTLY HOW WE GOT HERE.

BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW, NOT WHAT I THINK, WHAT I KNOW ABOUT HOW AUSTIN WORKS AND HOW AND ALL OF THESE LOBBYISTS,

[03:55:03]

BECAUSE I ACTUALLY SERVED DOWN THERE FOR A DECADE.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR ME TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND SO FOR SIX YEARS, I PRETENDED LIKE I DIDN'T AND LET PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED DOWN THERE DO ALL THE TALKING ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.

BUT SINCE I'M A LAME DUCK MAYOR, RIGHT, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS, AND YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO. AND WE CAN COMPARE EACH OTHER'S ELECTION CERTIFICATES, AND YOU CAN SHOW ME HOW LONG YOU SERVE DOWN THERE.

OUR LOBBY TEAM. I'M GOING TO START THERE. I LET YOU GUYS SAY THE NUMBERS, HOW LONG THEY'VE SERVED. OUR LOBBY TEAM HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE I WAS IN, YOU KNOW, HIGH SCHOOL. DARN NEAR. DEMOCRAT PARTY WAS IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION AT ONE POINT DURING THIS TIME. THE SENATE. THE HOUSE.

THESE LOBBYISTS ARE IN PLACE IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT ERA OF TEXAS POLITICS.

AND. ONE OF THE LOBBYISTS HAD A BROTHER AT THE TIME WHO WAS A VERY POWERFUL STATE SENATOR WHO'S LONG SINCE LEFT OFFICE, IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD.

WE HAVE AN UPDATED, AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT, OUR LOBBY TEAM AND THOSE IN TERMS OF THOSE SENIOR FOLKS IN A VERY LONG TIME. I'M NOT SURE ANYBODY ON OUR LOBBY TEAM COULD GET A PHONE CALL RETURNED BY THE GOVERNOR OR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NOT ONE OF THEM.

WE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE LOBBY TEAM. IN MY OPINION.

AND IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY WE'RE GETTING THE RESULTS, WE'RE NOT GETTING THE RESULTS. WE'RE WANTING TO GET DOWN IN AUSTIN.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK ANY FURTHER THAN THE LOBBY TEAM, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE LOBBY TEAM, NOT ABOUT GENDER OR ANYTHING ELSE.

NOW, AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR LOBBYIST WHOSE CONTRACT SOMEHOW GOT CALLED OUT FROM THE REST TO DISCUSS THE THE AMOUNT WE'RE GOING TO PAY. HERE'S WHAT I'D SAY ABOUT THAT.

THERE ARE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND THE CAPITOL WHO ARE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.

DO WE THINK THEY ALL GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY? NO THEY DON'T. WE KNOW THAT. DO WE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY MAN AND EVERY WOMAN DOWN THERE, ALL THE MEN GET PAID A CERTAIN AMOUNT. ALL THE WOMEN GET PAID A CERTAIN AMOUNT? NO. WHAT'S DRIVING WHAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR LOBBYING DOWN THERE IS THEIR ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE FOR THEIR CLIENTS. IT'S THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.

IT'S THEIR EXPERIENCE. IT'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF FACTORS.

AND I'M JUST I'M BLOWN AWAY THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE.

TALKING ABOUT WHY SOMEONE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO MORE MONEY THAN OUR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO THIS BODY, AND THAT THEY'VE EVEN ASKED FOR FOR REASONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR ABILITY TO GET SOMETHING DONE IN AUSTIN. FOR US, THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT THEY EVERYONE DOWN THERE IS DOING THE SAME THING, ADVOCATING FOR THEIR CLIENTS, BUT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO DELIVER THE GOODS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION IS LINKED TO.

SO I'M JUST IN A LOT OF WAYS DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WOULD MAKE THIS CONVERSATION TODAY ABOUT THE VERY THING THAT I THINK HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF WELL-INTENTIONED FOLKS IN A TOUGH SPOT, BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE AROUND HERE VALUES AND UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING WOMEN AT THE TABLE, VERY QUALIFIED WOMEN AT THE TABLE. I WORK WITH THE MOST TALENTED WOMEN I'VE EVER WORKED WITH MY LIFE EVERY SINGLE DAY UP HERE.

BUT WE ASSIGN CONTRACTS AND WE PAY PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY TO DELIVER THE GOODS.

AND IF SOMEONE IS SERIOUSLY GOING TO ARGUE WITH ME THAT MISS CAMPOS EVEN WITHIN OUR LOBBY TEAM, HAS THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE LOBBY TEAM DO.

[04:00:04]

I DON'T THINK SHE DOES. I KNOW SHE DOESN'T. I ACTUALLY REMEMBER WHEN SHE STARTED LOBBYING, SO SHE DOESN'T. BUT I THINK OUR ENTIRE LOBBY TEAM, IF WE HOLD THEM TO THE STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, IS LACKING. AND I WISH WE HAD TALKED ABOUT MORE ROBUSTLY AT THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

JUST THE LACK OF RESULTS THAT WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THE LOBBY TEAM ALTOGETHER.

BUT I AM CERTAINLY NOT INTERESTED IN POURING MORE TAX DOLLARS INTO ANOTHER CONTRACT, MORE SO THAN IT'S EVEN BEEN REQUESTED.

WHEN WE ARE NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE IN AUSTIN WITH OUR LOBBY TEAM.

SO I WANT TO GO ON RECORD TODAY. I WANT EVERYBODY TO HEAR ME SAY, YOU GUYS.

I'M NOT MAD AT ANY OF YOU. VOTE THE WAY Y'ALL WANT TO VOTE.

DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. AND I DO HOPE WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE. BUT I'M GOING TO SAY OUR LOBBY TEAM IS NOT VERY GOOD.

AND I PUT UP OUR RESULTS AS THE EVIDENCE, AND I DO NOT THINK WE NEED TO THROW MORE MONEY AT A LOBBYIST SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

I THINK THAT'S RIDICULOUS. SHE'S THE LEAST EXPERIENCED MEMBER OF THE TEAM.

SHE'S THE LEAST EXPERIENCED MEMBER OF A NOT VERY GOOD TEAM.

AND SO I SAID IT. AND YOU CAN RUN TELL THAT TO WHO YOU WANT TO TELL IT TO.

I'M READY TO VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STAY.

YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE, STATE YOUR INQUIRY.

MY INQUIRY IS TO REPEAT THE MOTION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

YEAH. MR. BAZALDUA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REPEAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO? THE CONTRACT AMOUNT IS RAISED NOT TO EXCEED 457,000 FOR THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU AGAIN. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. NO. COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER CADENA NO. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. BLAIR. NO. COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. NO. COUNCILMEMBER.

ROTH. NO. COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCILMEMBER.

RIDLEY, NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. NO. MAYOR. JOHNSON. NO.

WITH ONE VOTING IN FAVOR, 14 OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A ORIGINAL MOTION ON 51, I THINK.

WHO MADE IT? I DID. WHO'S SECOND, PLEASE? WHO'S SECOND OF IT? RIDLEY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED IN.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED. AND YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN FOR FIVE MINUTES. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST 51? SEEING NONE ON RECORD. VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. RECORD VOTES BEEN GRANTED. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. YES. COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

ROTH. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCILMEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. YES. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES.

WITH ALL 15 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING IN FAVOR, THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION,

[55. 25-2144A Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)]

BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 55. AGENDA ITEM 55 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS AFTERNOON YOU HAVE SEVERAL NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL AND FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THESE MAJORITY OF THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE TO THE UPCOMING 2527 BOARD TERM, WHICH BEGINS OCTOBER 1ST, 2025. THERE ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING NOMINATED TO OTHER BOARD TERMS. I WILL ANNOUNCE THOSE OR IDENTIFY THOSE INDIVIDUALS AS I GO THROUGH THE LIST.

YOUR NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE ADVISORY BOARD, JAMES DOMANI DANIEL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER KADINA. MR. DALMENY MEETS THE VISUAL ARTS.

SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

KATHLEEN DAVIS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST, AND SARAH LAM IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEWART TO THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. JAMES T HOUSE RIGHT, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART TO THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD.

OZZIE SMITH IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

DEREK PEGRAM IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER KADINA, AND BRANDON FRIEDMAN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY TO THE HOUSING FINANCE

[04:05:09]

CORPORATION BOARD. TATIANA FERRO IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER KADINA, AND DAVID ELLIS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEWART TO THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION. LAUREN BLACK IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST, AND BARBARA CLAY IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON TO THE MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD. JOHN MITCHELL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA, AND KELLY DRAKE IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON TO THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD.

DEVIN ARMSTRONG IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA, AND DONNA DENNISON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY TO THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD AT STANISLAUS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

PETER YOUNG IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

PETER YOUNG IS ALSO BEING NOMINATED TO THE CURRENT.

THE REMAINING CURRENT 2325 BOARD TERM AS WELL.

SCOTT GOLDSTEIN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEWART, AND RUDY KARIMI IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY TO THE PERMIT AND LICENSED APPEAL BOARD. RICHARD CUCCIA IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON TO THE VETERAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION.

CHARLES M AYERS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

MR. AYERS MEETS THE SERVED AND US MILITARY SPECIAL QUALIFICATION.

YOUR NOMINEES FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

ALTERNATE MEMBERS ANDREW PHINNEY IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST TO THE ARTS AND ADVISORY ARTS AND CULTURE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

ADJUNCT MEMBERS. JEROME FLORES IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA.

MR. FLORES MEETS THE VISUAL ARTS SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.

PAM GERBER IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBERS RIDLEY, CADENA AND WEST TO THE CYPRESS WATER MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

THESE INDIVIDUALS WILL SERVE ARE BEING NOMINATED TO THE 2529 TERM.

LUCIDO PENA IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA.

AND ELIZABETH BLACKWELL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA.

BOTH INDIVIDUALS MEETS THE AGENT OF A PERSON IN THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE THREE BOARD, OAK CLIFF GATEWAY.

TOM PITTS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST AND JUD, WHO IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE EIGHT BOARD DESIGN DISTRICT.

PAM DAWSON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA AND ROBERT BERRY.

RODON, HOWEVER, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE TEN BOARD.

SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL STEVE IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA TO REINVESTMENT ZONE 15 BOARD FORT WORTH AVENUE.

KYLE WICK IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST, AND MICHAELA RAMBLER IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 16 BOARD. DAVIS GARDEN, JENNIFER LONGFELLOW, AND WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN ARE BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 17 BOARD. TODD TOT AKE AND BRITTON WILLIAMS IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST AND TO THE TRINITY RIVER WEST MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IS FOR A UPCOMING 20 2529 BOARD TERM.

JAY STEWART FITZ IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER CADENA.

MR. FITZ MEETS THE AGENT OF A PROPERTY IN THE TIFF SPECIAL QUALIFICATION.

THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. WAS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? OKAY, GREAT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. CONGRATULATIONS. ALL THOSE NOMINEES ARE SEVERAL OF THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 56, JUNE, ITEM 56.

[56. 25-2389A Authorize (1) an increase in the size of the acquisition area; and (2) condemnation by eminent domain of a tract of vacant land containing approximately 545,477 square feet from domain from Barbara Ann Ondrusek and Wolfe Timpy Kay Ondrusek; Independent Executrix of The Estate of Joseph C. Ondrusek, located on East 11th Street near its intersection with Cedar Crest Boulevard for the Dallas Floodway Extension Project - Not to exceed $2,743,400.00, increased from $502,034.00 to $3,245,434.00 ($2,727,400.00, plus closing costs and title expenses not to exceed $16,000.00) - Financing: Flood Protection and Storm Drainage Facilities Fund (2006 General Obligation Bond Funds)]

AUTHORIZE ONE. AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE ACQUISITION AREA AND CONDEMNATION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A TRACT OF VACANT LAND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 545,477FT² FROM DOMAIN FROM BARBARA ANN. AND WOLF, TIMP K O BRUNSWICK, INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH C ANDRE ANDREWS. LOCATED ON EAST 11TH STREET NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD FOR THE DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION PROJECT.

NOT TO EXCEED 2,000,743 $743,400. THIS ITEM WILL REQUIRE RECORD VOTE AS IT IS AN EMINENT DOMAIN ITEM, MR. MAYOR, FOR A MOTION OR A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE IN RECORD VOTES REQUIRED.

[04:10:06]

DO YOU WANT TO GET IN OR NO? YES. OKAY. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I WANTED TO ASK IF THE PROPERTY OWNER AGREED TO THE MINUTE DOMAIN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, SARAH STANFORD, DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER AND THE EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE HAVE SECURED LEGAL SUPPORT.

OUR LEGAL TEAMS ARE IN IN DISCUSSIONS, AND EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT WE WILL BE HEADED TO SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT AS DESIRED.

WAS THAT ALL YOUR OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM 56. A RECORD VOTE IS REQUIRED BY LAW, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE WANTED TO GET IN.

OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE. THANK YOU. AND I CALL YOUR NAME.

PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. I'LL COME BACK. COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CADENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROBB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. YES.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENA.

MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES. WITH 13 VOTING IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED TO ABSENT.

ONE VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN ARE ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

THIS ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM.

AGENDA ITEM 57. AUTHORIZE ONE AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF

[57. 25-2331A Authorize (1) an increase in the size of the acquisition area; and (2) condemnation by eminent domain of two tracts of land improved with commercial structures and supporting facilities containing a total of approximately 6.7 acres, from Valley Proteins, Inc., Estate of Virginia Cash, as their interest may appear and Estate of Mary Nell Cash, as their interest may appear, located on Pontiac Avenue near its intersection with Cedar Crest Boulevard for the Dallas Floodway Extension Project - Not to exceed $1,230,000.00 ($1,220,000.00 plus closing costs and title expenses not to exceed $10,000.00) - Financing: Trinity River Corridor Fund ($1,220,000.00) and Flood Protection and Storm Drainage Facilities Fund ($10,000.00)]

THE ACQUISITION AREA AND TO A CONDEMNATION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF TWO TRACTS OF LAND.

IMPROVE WITH COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES CONTAINING A TOTAL OF A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 6.7 ACRES FROM VALLEY PROTEINS, INC., THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. CASH AS THEIR INTEREST MAY APPEAR IN THE STATE OF MARY NELLE CASH AS THEIR INTEREST MAY APPEAR.

LOCATED ON PONTIAC AVENUE NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD FOR THE DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION PROJECT, NOT TO EXCEED $1,230,000. THIS ITEM WILL REQUIRE RECORD VOTE AS IT IS AN EMINENT DOMAIN ITEM.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR, AND IT WILL REQUIRE A RECORD VOTE AS IT IS IN THE EMINENT DOMAIN ITEM.

I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND AS A MOTION.

AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, MISS KIDD? ANY. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES? YES.

I WANTED TO ASK IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN.

AS SARAH STANDS FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES, THE PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUES TO COMMUNICATE WITH US.

THEY DO HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS TRANSACTION AND LOOK FORWARD TO RESOLVING IT THROUGH CONDEMNATION AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS.

ARE YOU ARE YOU ARE YOU DONE, MISS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO BE GONE FOR OR AGAINST.

ITEM 57 RECORD VOTES REQUIRED BY LAW. SO, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STAY. YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. IT'S ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RESENDEZ. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES.

MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. MAYOR. JOHNSON. YES. WITH 14 VOTING IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.

ONE AS ONE. VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 58. ITEM 58.

[58. 25-2501A Authorize (1) the City’s contracted Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP/ROCIP) broker of record, Marsh USA, LLC, to purchase the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Master Plan Renovation and Expansion Project insurance policies for commercial general and excess liability, workers’ compensation, contractor’s pollution liability, railroad protective liability, owners protective professional indemnity, and builders risk, and other lines of coverage as needed for the period August 27, 2025 to August 27, 2030; and (2) an increase in appropriations in an amount not to exceed $58,760,667 in the CCT 2025 Senior Lien Special Tax Revenue Notes Fund - Not to exceed $58,760,667 ($36,334,542 for OCIP insurance and $22,426,125 for Collateral and Retained Losses) - Financing: CCT 2025 Senior Lien Special Tax Revenue Notes Fund]

AUTHORIZE ONE THE CITY'S CONTRACTED OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM.

OSIP R O SIP, BROKER OF RECORD MARSH USA, LLC TO PURCHASE THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER MASTER PLAN RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT, INSURANCE POLICIES FOR COMMERCIAL, GENERAL AND EXCESS LIABILITY WORKERS COMPENSATION, CONTRACTORS, POLLUTION LIABILITY, RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY OWNERS, PROTECTIVE PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY AND BUILDER'S RISK, AND OTHER LINES OF COVERAGE AS NEEDED FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 27TH, 2025 TO AUGUST 27TH, 2030,

[04:15:02]

AND TO AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,760,667 IN THE LEAST 2025 SENIOR LIEN SPECIAL TAX REVENUE NOTES FUND NOT TO EXCEED $58,760,667. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MAYOR.

MAYOR PRO TEM, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, MAYOR? NO, SIR.

ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? MR. ROTH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

I'D JUST LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE AND WHAT THIS REALLY IS COVERING.

AND OF THIS $58 MILLION, $36,000,334, FIVE, EXCUSE ME, 36,334,542 IS FOR INSURANCE PREMIUMS. AND THE LINES OF COVERAGE THAT WE ARE PURCHASING WOULD BE COMMERCIAL, GENERAL AND EXCESS LIABILITY, WORKER'S COMPENSATION.

CONTRACTOR POLLUTION LIABILITY. RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY.

ABILITY, BUILDER'S RISK, AND OWNER'S PROTECTIVE PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY FOR A BREAKDOWN OR DEFINITION FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE.

THAT WOULD BE IN THE FRIDAY'S MEMO THAT I SENT OUT FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

AND IT GIVES A DEFINITION FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE LINES OF COVERAGE.

HOW MUCH IS THE IS THE BIG COVERAGES, WHAT KIND OF LEVELS OF COVERAGES? I DIDN'T SEE THAT MINIMAL POSSESSION. SO YOU'RE WANTING TO KNOW THE LIMITS.

YEAH OKAY. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME BUT I CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

SO SO I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MASSIVE PROGRAM. AND AGAIN I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GET THAT. IS THIS RELATED TO THE.

I CAN BRING UP MARSH OR OUR INSURANCE BROKER? THEY CAN MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE DETAILS WITH THEM.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO FOR THE EXCESS LIABILITY. FOR THE LIABILITY.

EXCESS LIABILITY IS GOING TO BE 320 MILLION. AND LIMITS ON WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND STATUTORY.

LET'S SEE HERE BUILDER'S RISK. I NEED SOME I CAN'T SEE ON THIS PROJECT.

IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE PROJECT VALUE. AND FOR CONSTRUCTION VALUES, WE'RE LOOKING AT ANYWHERE BETWEEN 3.3 BILLION AND 3.5 BILLION.

THEN ON THE CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY IS GOING TO BE 50 MILLION.

AND THE RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED.

WE'RE SHOWING IN SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THAT PIECE.

AND THEN 25 MILLION ON THE OWNER'S PROTECTED PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY.

I THANK YOU. AND THIS IS THIS IS INSURANCE THAT THE THAT OUR CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONVENTION CENTER IS IS IS OBTAINING OR IF IT'S NOT, WHAT IS IT? OKAY. WHO'S GETTING THE.

SURE. OKAY. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO THE PROGRAM IS OUR OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM, WHICH IS A CENTRALIZED INSURANCE PROGRAM.

AND IN THIS CASE THE OWNER, WHICH IS THE CITY.

WE WILL BE PURCHASING THE INSURANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IS TAKING THE ONUS AND ONUS AWAY FROM CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS AND REMOVING THE OBSTACLE, THE INSURANCE OBSTACLE THAT HAS PREVENTED MANY ORGANIZATIONS OR SMALLER COMPANIES FOR BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PROJECTS THIS SIZE.

AND THIS IS IS THIS A LEVEL OF INSURANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING, OR IS IT REALLY SORT OF A YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHAT YOU GET? NO, THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY ONE OF THE I'M ASKING THE INSURANCE FOLKS.

OH, YEAH. SURE. ARE YOU ASKING THEM? BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE SO EXCITED ABOUT HAVING AN OCR PROGRAM IS BECAUSE WE ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ONE OF THE LARGEST BROKERS NOT IN THE COUNTRY, BUT IN THE WORLD. AND THEIR POSITION IN THE INDUSTRY ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE MORE LEVERAGE IN THE MARKET WITH THE CARRIERS THAT ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE LIMITS THAT WE NEED.

RIGHT. SO VERSUS A CONTRACTOR'S AGENT TRYING TO GET THIS INSURANCE AND PURCHASE IT.

NOW WE HAVE BETTER BARGAINING POWER IN THE MARKET WHEN WE USE A BROKER SUCH AS MARSH.

[04:20:04]

SO THE COMPETITIVE. YES. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS IS THIS COVERS BASICALLY A FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF INSURANCE.

IS THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO SO IT'S A MULTIPLE IT'S A MULTIYEAR POLICY.

IT'S NOT A ONE YEAR POLICY OR A TWO. I MEAN, IT'S A LONG TERM POLICY.

YEAH. THIS IS A COVER THE FIVE YEARS, AND IT'S A FIXED RATE.

IT'S ALREADY FIXED. AND THE AMOUNT IS SORT OF SET.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND IT'S BASED ON SOME SIGNIFICANT VALUES FOR BUILDER'S RISK, WHICH INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF COSTS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED FOR THE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER IN THIS COULD BE AMENDED AND CHANGED IF THE AS THOSE RISKS NEED TO BE CHANGED LATER ON IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. YES. THANK YOU. MR. GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

AND AND AGAIN, AS THOSE LINE OF QUESTIONS IS SPOT ON.

MR. ROFF. COUNCIL MEMBER ROSS, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THEN I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT I WAS EXTREMELY EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE STUDY AFTER STUDY AFTER STUDY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS OUT, IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORTS THAT STAFF IS DOING TO ACTUALLY CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL BUSINESSES.

AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WHERE ONE OF THE ONGOING COMPLAINTS HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITH THE CITY.

WELL, REALLY IN GENERAL IS TRYING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INSURANCE TO EVEN DO A LARGE PROJECT.

AND WHAT THIS INSURANCE PROGRAM DOES IS ACTUALLY SAYS THE CITY WILL CARRY THAT INSURANCE AND NOW OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL BUSINESSES TO BYPASS OR NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT EVEN BEING QUALIFIED FOR THE INSURANCE AND ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS TO PARTICIPATE ON A CONTRACT OF THIS SIZE.

SO THIS IS REALLY A GOOD THING. AND AS MUCH AS I'VE BEEN HARKING ON COMPETITION AND ALL OF THAT, IT IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT I PUBLICLY SAY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS THAT ACTUALLY INCREASES, I'LL SAY, COMPETITION AND CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND LARGE BUSINESSES IN THE WAY THAT THIS IS STRUCTURED AND A CONTRACT THE SIZE OF THE CONVENTION CENTER.

THIS IS ONE THAT DOES A REALLY GOOD THING FOR ALL BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN THAT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, FOR HEARING MY CRIES. MR. ROFF, DID YOU WANT TO GET BACK IN FOR THREE MINUTES? YES.

I'M SORRY. THERE'S ONE OTHER QUESTION I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BRINGING IT UP EARLIER.

HOW? THIS. I NOTICED THAT THIS IS BEING FINANCED THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE NOTES.

IS THAT IS THAT A THAT'S SOMEHOW RELATED TO IS IT RELATED TO SOME KIND OF BOND FINANCING OR AND IT'S NOT BOND, IT'S NOT FINANCING, BUT. SO AS YOU'LL RECALL AT THE END OF JUNE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A $1 BILLION BRIDGE LOAN WITH J.P.

MORGAN FOR THE INTERIM FINANCING. THIS IS COMING FROM THAT THAT INTERIM LOAN, AND IT WILL BE ROLLED INTO THE REVENUE BONDS BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE PROJECT COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.

SO IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE FINANCING PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.

SO THIS 50 MILLION IS PART OF THE BILLION DOLLAR LOAN.

YES, SIR. THAT WE DID WITH THE OMNI. OKAY. SO THIS IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL COST.

IF WE DIDN'T DO IT THIS WAY, IT WOULD BE BUILT INTO EACH OF THE CONTRACTORS INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND WE WOULD PAY MORE FOR IT THAT WAY AS OPPOSED, WE ARE CENTRALIZING IT FOR TO GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS TO SAVE MONEY RATHER THAN HAVING EACH CONTRACTOR CARRY THEIR OWN.

AND AGAIN, JUST AS CLARIFICATION, THE $50 MILLION IS NOT AN ANNUAL CHARGE.

IT'S FOR THE ENTIRE TEAM. IT'S A FIVE YEAR CHARGE.

YES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE AT THAT MICROPHONE. MY GOODNESS. Y'ALL SIT DOWN. Y'ALL ARE MAKING ME NERVOUS.

SIT DOWN. GO GO GO. ALL OF YOU, GO. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? I DON'T THINK SO. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A RECORD VOTE ON THIS ONE? THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. NO, NO, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

GOOD, THEN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 59.

[59. 25-2562A 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 $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 ($869,535.95) and Park Endowment Fund ($70,502.91); Estimated Revenue: Imp. Maint. Rep. Programs/Sponsorships $940,038.86 (This item was deferred on August 13, 2025)]

ITEM 59. AUTHORIZED ONE, A TEN YEAR BEVERAGE SERVICE 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 DISBURSEMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE SUPERLATIVE GROUP PURSUANT TO CONSULTING CONTRACT NUMBER DASH 2021, DASH 000017177 AND FIVE AUTHORIZE A TRANSFER OF 10% REMAINING AFTER COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE PARK ENDOWMENT FUND.

[04:25:01]

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $869,535.14. YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ALEX SCOTT. MR. SCOTT, YOU'LL BE GIVING THREE MINUTES.

SCOTT, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I'M SORRY. IS THAT BETTER? ALL RIGHT. COOL. HEY, Y'ALL.

I'M ALEX SCOTT, 64, 72 TRAMMELL DRIVE. I'M YOUR NEIGHBOR IN DISTRICT NINE.

FOR EIGHT YEARS, I WORKED IN SALES, MANAGING MULTIYEAR AND MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS.

TODAY, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 59 AND ENCOURAGED CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SUPERLATIVE GROUP AND PEPSICO FOR A MORE FAVORABLE POURING RIGHTS CONTRACT. I'M GOING TO POINT OUT THREE ITEMS TO THAT WERE FROM TWO WEEKS AGO AND ONE FROM THE MEMORANDUM TODAY.

A QUESTION WAS POSED WHY TEN YEARS? I MEAN, THAT SEEMS REALLY EXCESSIVE FOR SUCH A LOW VOLUME CONTRACT.

AND THE RESPONSE WAS, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF JUST THE NORM IN THE POURING RIGHTS BUSINESS.

ANY SALESPERSON WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LONGEST CONTRACT POSSIBLE IS THE NORM.

IT IS A NEGOTIATION. IT'S A NEGOTIATION TACTIC BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THE VENDOR, NOT THE CITY.

A LONG CONTRACT LOCKS IN DALLAS IN TODAY'S LOWEST REVENUE TERMS, WHILE PEPSICO RECEIVES GUARANTEED REOCCURRING REVENUE IN A DECADE OF GROWTH WITHOUT HAVING TO RETURN TO THE TABLE. MEANWHILE, OUR CITY WILL CONTINUE TO GROW, AND WE'RE LEFT UNABLE TO NEGOTIATE FOR BETTER TERMS. THE SECOND ONE WAS, I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE NOT A HUGE VOLUME USER OF SOFT DRINKS.

WITH RESPECT, I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME RECONCILING THAT STATEMENT THAT DALLAS IS NOT A HUGE VOLUME USER OF ANYTHING.

WE ARE A CITY OF 1.3 MILLION RESIDENTS IN A METROPOLITAN AREA OF 8.1 MILLION CITIZENS, AND OUR PROPOSED POURING RIGHTS VENDING CONTRACT COVERS 43 RECREATION CENTERS, SIX GOLF COURSES. AND I MAY BE WRONG ON THIS NINE AQUATIC CENTERS I KNOW A COUPLE ARE CLOSING.

DALLAS PARKS AND REC BOASTS AN AVERAGE OF 30 MILLION ANNUAL VISITORS.

TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, WESTFIELD, INDIANA, A CITY OF JUST 50,000 PEOPLE, SECURED A $2 MILLION, TEN YEAR PEPSICO CONTRACT FOR ONE SINGULAR SPORTS COMPLEX WITH EIGHT CONCESSION STANDS THAT'S ONLY HOSTING 650,000 VISITORS.

SO ARE WE REALLY TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF DALLAS, WITH VASTLY GREATER SCALE AND FACILITIES, REPRESENTS LESS VOLUME THAN ONE SUBURBAN SPORTS PARK IN INDIANA? I DON'T THINK SO. AND FINALLY, I READ IN TODAY'S MEMORANDUM, TO BE CLEAR, THIS AGREEMENT WITH PEPSICO IS A POURING RIGHTS DEAL, MEANING THAT PEPSICO IS PAYING US OVER 1.1 MILLION FOR TEN YEARS FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT TO OUR PATRONS.

I WANT TO REFRAME THIS. I REALLY DON'T SEE THIS AS A PRIVILEGE.

THAT ONE OF THE MOST ADDICTIVE AND UNHEALTHY PRODUCTS IS TO BE PLACED IN OUR SPORTS AND RECREATION CENTERS FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, WITHOUT REAL ALTERNATIVES AND HEALTHY RETURNS.

IF PEPSICO WANTS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO OUR FACILITIES, AND THEY SHOULD ALSO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR INVESTING IN THE HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT MEANS THIS CONTRACT SHOULDN'T JUST BE SECURING POURING RIGHTS, IT SHOULD BE SECURING COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

WE SHOULD BE NEGOTIATING FOR PROGRAMING, FOR SCHOLARSHIPS, FOR FUNDING FOR NUTRITION AND HEALTH.

WE'RE CLOSING DOWN POOLS. WE'RE CLOSING DOWN CENTERS, AND WE'RE GETTING UNHEALTHY PRODUCTS INTO THESE PLACES WITHOUT ANYTHING IN RETURN FOR A COMMUNITY. I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE ONE.

MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU.

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

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. ROFF? YES.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT IS IN CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH PEPSICO, AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE OUR FOLKS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE BETTER DEAL.

MISS WILLIS, ARE YOU READY FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU.

I WILL SUPPORT THE DELAY ON THIS. AND THIS IS NOTHING I HAVEN'T SHARED WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT, BUT I REMAIN CONCERNED AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT BLUNTS US FROM SPONSORSHIPS OF OTHER SOFT DRINKS.

WHEN YOU THINK OF PARK AND REC, WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S A HEALTHY THING TO DRINK OR NOT.

THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE EYEBALLS AND PEOPLE AND FAMILIES AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AND I JUST DON'T CARE FOR A TEN YEAR CONTRACT THAT IS GOING TO KEEP ANOTHER BEVERAGE IN THAT CATEGORY FOR COMING FROM COMING IN AND SPONSORING A TRACK OR A REC CENTER OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE SUPERLATIVE CONTRACT FOR YEARS, AND NOW WE'VE GOT IT, AND THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE A REAL A PERFORMANCE.

[04:30:01]

IF I WAS TO CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT IS VENDING ONLY, IT BETTER COME WITH LIKE A $100,000 SPONSORSHIP OF BAHAMA BEACH OR SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES JUST THE VENDING MACHINE THAT JUST KNOCKS OUR LEGS OUT FROM UNDER US.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THAT IS THE MINDSET THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE US TAKING ON THIS.

I KNOW A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN PUT INTO IT, BUT IT'S JUST NOT DOING THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE IN THE THE STARTING BLOCKS.

ON LAUNCHING AN AMAZING SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM VERSUS THROWING A STICK IN OUR SPOKES RIGHT FROM THE GET GO.

THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO WILL SUPPORT THE DEFERRAL.

I ENJOYED THE HER SPEECH AND I AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAID.

WE NEED MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, MORE TRANSPARENCY.

AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE PRAYER. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 59 OR.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[61. 25-2558A Authorize the approval of the Rockwall Central Appraisal District’s (RCAD) proposal to complete the 2nd floor renovation containing 7,500 sq. ft. at the site of the current appraisal office located at 841 Justin Road, Rockwall, Texas, pursuant to § 6.051 of the Tex. Tax Code which requires such proposal be approved by three-fourths (3/4) of all taxing units entitled to vote on the appointment of RCAD board members which includes the City of Dallas - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information for future cost)]

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 61. AS ITEM 60 WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AGENDA ITEM 61.

AUTHORIZE THE APPROVAL OF THE ROCKWALL CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICTS ARCADE PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE THE SECOND FLOOR RENOVATION CONTAINING 7500FT² AT THE SITE OF THE CURRENT APPRAISAL OFFICE, LOCATED AT 841 JUSTIN ROAD, ROCKWALL, TEXAS, PURSUANT TO 6.051 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE, WHICH REQUIRES SUCH PROPOSAL BE APPROVED BY THREE FOURTHS VOTE OF ALL TAXING UNITS ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF ARCADE BOARD MEMBERS, WHICH INCLUDES THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

ITEM 61 MEMBERS. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 62. JANE. ITEM 62,

[62. 25-2419A A resolution discharging Timothy J. Menke as Inspector General for the City of Dallas, effective ______ - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

A RESOLUTION DISCHARGING TIMOTHY J. MINK AS INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

EFFECTIVE. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU HAVE A MOTION.

YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO DISCHARGE TIMOTHY J. MINK AS INSPECTOR GENERAL, EFFECTIVE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2025. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM? NO, MAYOR. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 63 IS A RESOLUTION AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 9.1 COMMITTEES THESE

[63. 25-2421A A resolution amending Subsections 9.1, “Committees Established,” and 9.3, “Committee Meetings,” of Section 9 “City Council Committees,” of the City Council Rules of Procedure changing the name of the Committee on Government Performance and Financial Management to Committee on Finance, changing the name of the Committee on Workforce, Education, and Equity to Committee on Government Efficiency, and requiring in-person attendance at meetings of City Council committees - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ESTABLISHED AND 9.3 COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SECTION NINE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

RULES OF PROCEDURE. CHANGING THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TO COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

CHANGING THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EDUCATION AND EQUITY.

TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND REQUIRING IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

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

ANY OPPOSED? I MAY, I'D LIKE TO. WHAT? YEAH, THAT'S HOW IT GOES.

NEXT ITEM. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA, MR.

[Z5. 25-2573A 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 public hearings on June 25, 2025, and August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 27, 2025.]

MAYOR. BEFORE WE GET TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, COUNCILMEMBER CADENA WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z5.

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

ITEM NUMBER Z5. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z1 THROUGH Z.

FOR ITEM Z, ONE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR AND ITEM C2 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEM Z3 AND Z4.

I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM Z3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RETIREMENT HOUSING ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH WESTMORELAND ROAD, SOUTH OF WATERSHIP LANE.

ITEM Z4 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN MF TO A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT, AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON

[04:35:08]

THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST WHEATLAND ROAD, WEST OF CLARK ROAD.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ZONING CONSENT ITEMS? THE TWO ITEMS THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD ITEM Z3 AND Z4.

NO SPEAKERS. MADAM MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SECOND. SORRY. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. ACTUALLY, YES.

SO THESE TWO ITEMS ARE IN MY DISTRICT. ONE OF THEM.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. OH. SORRY ABOUT THAT. FIVE.

FIVE MINUTES. YES, MA'AM. SO THE FIRST THE FIRST ITEM IS, IS FOR TOWNHOMES THAT ARE GOING TO BE SUPPORTING SENIORS OFF OF WESTMORLAND BOULEVARD.

THE SECOND ONE IS. IS A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX, AND WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY'VE MADE SOME COMMITMENTS IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES THE SAFETY IN AND AROUND THE AREA.

SO WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE. BUT THEY HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO BOTH MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY TO ENSURE SOME SAFETY.

SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. BUT I AM IN SUPPORT OF BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS.

THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. YES, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO COME AND LET US KNOW THE DATE OF EACH OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATE. FOR THESE CASES, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LIST.

STAFF WILL COME UP COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

AND WE DO APOLOGIZE THAT THE LIST WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED BEFORE THE MEETING.

ARE YOU INTENDING TO DISTRIBUTE A LIST? YES, YES.

YES, MA'AM. AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY PASSING IT OUT NOW.

YES, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO WE ARE AT ITEM Z3 AND Z FOR ITEM Z THREE WAS SUBMITTED IN MARCH 25TH, 2025 AND ITEM Z4 ON APRIL 14TH, 2025.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? THIS IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED? CITY SECRETARY.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE Z1.

[Z1. 25-2497A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the west line of University Hills Boulevard, between East Camp Wisdom Road and Kirnwood Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions with changes to the conceptual plan and conditions Z234-348(LC/LG) / Z-25-000008]

ITEM Z1. ITEM Z1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD, BETWEEN EAST CAMP WISDOM ROAD IN KIRKWOOD DRIVE.

MRS. MAYOR, WE SENT 94 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE REQUEST OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. I'M SORRY, MADAM MAYOR.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I SEE ONE COMING FORWARD.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROB BALDWIN. I OFFICE AT 3904 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING AND WELL THOUGHT OUT CASES I'VE WORKED ON IN A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. IT'S LOCATED RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS.

IT'S A TRUE MIXED USE, HORIZONTALLY MIXED USE PROJECT WITH RETAIL AND OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACES RIGHT ALONG UNIVERSITY HILLS. THEN THERE'S A SET OF TOWNHOMES, WHICH WILL BE EITHER FOR PROFESSORS OR STUDENTS UNT ARE OPEN TO ANYBODY, BUT THAT'S WHO THE TARGET MARKET IS. AND THEN FINALLY, IN THE BACK IS A POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD OF DETACHED COTTAGES AND THEN A BIG OPEN SPACE WITH A POND. VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT. WE HAD A REALLY GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

THERE WAS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT. AND I WANT TO THANK NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, SHE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS WHEN SHE WAS STILL ON PENS.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM C1 NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MADAM MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON C1? I DO I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS EXCUSE ME, MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A SECOND.

I WOULD I MOVED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

OH, I WASN'T FINISHED. OKAY. DECORATIVE IRON FENCING IS REQUIRED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE OPEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WITH GATES TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE POND.

HOW DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, MA'AM. YES, MADAM MAYOR.

[04:40:03]

COLLEAGUES, THIS ZONING REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD.

NEW LOOK FOR DISTRICT EIGHT. IT BRINGS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DELIVER QUALITY MARKET RATE, HOUSING OPTION, CREATING SPACE FOR A DIVERSE RANGE OF FAMILIES.

THE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THE PLAN ARE INTENTIONAL, FORWARD LOOKING, AND DESIGNED TO ELEVATE EXPECTATIONS.

THEY WILL NOT ONLY SHAPE THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY HILLS, BUT ALSO SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE BROADER SOUTH OAK CLIFF COMMUNITIES BY PRIORITIES, UPSCALE DESIGN, STRONG DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DIVERSITY.

THIS PROJECT DEMONSTRATES WHAT THOUGHTFUL GROWTH CAN AND SHOULD, LIKE LOOK LIKE IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM AS AN ESTABLISHMENT OF A MODEL FOR HOW WE ARE TO CONTINUE BUILDING A STRONGER, MORE INCLUSIVE DISTRICT EIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON Z1? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE Z3. ITEM Z3. MY APOLOGIES.

YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE Z2. ITEM Z2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD

[Z2. 25-2499A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District or a CR Community Retail District and a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an R-10(A) Single Family District, on the northeast corner of Webb Chapel Road and Royal Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval of the proposed NS(A) Neighborhood Service District Recommendation of CPC: Approval of the proposed NS(A) Neighborhood Service District, subject to deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant Z245-143(LC)]

SERVICE DISTRICT OR A KR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEBB CHAPEL ROAD AND ROLL LANE.

MADAM MAYOR, WE SENT 15 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND TWO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD.

YOU WILL GET THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

EXCUSE ME. CARL CRAWLEY 3333. WELBURN. SORRY.

WE'VE MOVED. DALLAS, TEXAS 75219. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE REQUEST.

SO FIRST I WANT TO START WITH THANKING PLANNING COMMISSIONER HALL.

AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIS FOR HELPING US WITH THIS REQUEST.

WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS AND TWO FORMAL MEETINGS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS OUT THERE.

IT'S IT'S KIND OF AN UNUSUAL REQUEST, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO TO A, A RETAIL DISTRICT. WE'VE OFFERED A LOT OF DEED RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTING THE USES AND THE HEIGHT AND THE DEVELOPMENT STUFF.

I'D LOVE TO SAY WE'RE WELL. NO ONE'S HERE IN OPPOSITION THAT I'M AWARE OF.

I'D LOVE TO SAY EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS US, BUT WE DIDN'T GET THERE.

I KNOW IT WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT AN EDITORIAL ABOUT IT.

WE ARE VERY WE WE THE FIRST MEETING I WAS IN THERE, I ALWAYS SORT OF JOKINGLY SAY, AND Y'ALL KNOW I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES.

NO ONE WITH PITCHFORKS OR TORCHES SHOWED UP. FORTUNATELY AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT MEETING, THERE WAS PROBABLY MORE OPPOSITION THAN IN FAVOR.

AT THE END OF THE MEETING, THERE WAS PROBABLY MORE IN FAVOR THAN IN OPPOSITION. AND IN THE SECOND MEETING, I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE STILL A FEW NEIGHBORS WHO AREN'T REALLY THRILLED ABOUT IT.

BUT I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IS GOOD WITH WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND SUPPORTIVE.

I THINK IT'LL BE IT'LL BE AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THAT ONE LOT.

FOR SURE. IT WAS A LOT THAT WAS AT A CORNER OF WEBB CHAPEL AND ROYAL, AND OBVIOUSLY A HOUSE THAT WAS IN DISREPAIR AND WAS REMOVED.

AND AND THE IDEA, I THINK WILL BE A LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING DEVELOPMENT, A COFFEE SHOP OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

SO I THINK WE CAME A LONG WAY, WITH THE HELP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER, TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE, AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

SO WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, THOUGH. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ITEM Z TO MOVE TO APPROVE? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM.

ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST LINE OF MARVIN D LOVE FREEWAY,

[Z6. 25-2565A 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) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 27, 2025.]

NORTH OF WEST CAMP WISDOM ROAD. MADAM MAYOR, WE SENT 47 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND NINE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

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? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL. I SEE YOU. YOU MAY COME FORWARD.

BOTH. BOTH INDIVIDUALS CAN COME FORWARD. OKAY.

[04:45:10]

YES. OKAY. OKAY. YOU MAY GO FIRST AND THEN I WILL HEAR THE THE THE LADY IN THE BACK. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

IS DANIEL PARISH FOR VISUAL ARCHITECTURE, 1430 DRAGON STREET, SUITE 25.

I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT. WE WERE THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

WE'VE COME BEFORE THIS COUNCIL AND ALSO AND, AND TRIED TO WORK ON A PRODUCT THAT THE COMMUNITY IS.

WE ORIGINALLY STARTED THIS PROJECT AS A OVER 200 UNIT RENTAL PROJECT, BUT AFTER MULTIPLE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THREE ALONG THIS YEAR, WE'VE CHANGED THAT AND REVISED OUR APPLICATION TO A MARKET VALUE FOR SALE TOWNHOME PRODUCT.

WE'VE DEFINITELY HAD COMMUNITY MEETING AND WE'VE HAD SOME OPPOSITION, BUT SOME IN SUPPORT.

BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T TONE DEAF TO THE COMMUNITY.

HAD EVEN HAD ONE LAST WEEK WITH THE COMMUNITY AROUND TABLE FOR THAT.

BUT WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO PUT A PRODUCT THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD BE PROUD OF.

AND AGAIN, MARKET VALUE FOR NON RENTAL FOR SALE.

SO WE HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL DEFINITELY SEE OUR EFFORTS IN THAT IN THIS PRODUCT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN THE BACK.

WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS DANNY. AND MY ADDRESS, FIVE RIDGEWOOD DRIVE.

SIX. 5237. I AM REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY AS.

THE. CITY SECRETARY. WE MAY BE HAVING SOME MIC PROBLEMS, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

OKAY, WE'RE OPPOSING IT. AND WE HAVE REASONS.

BASICALLY REASONABLE. AND WE'RE APPROACHING IT.

NO ONE IS SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO US. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AFFECTS RIGHT THERE AT CAMP WISDOM AND MARVIN D LOVE. NO ONE HAS CAME AND AS SPOKEN TO OUR COMMUNITY.

WE'VE HEARD THAT THEY'VE SPOKEN TO SOME GROUP OF WAY.

THURGOOD MARSHALL. IS THIS BETTER? DO I NEED TO REPEAT ANYTHING? OKAY. AND WE HEARD THAT THEY'VE SPOKEN TO OTHER PEOPLE, BUT NO ONE HAS SPOKEN TO OUR COMMUNITY.

AND HOW THIS WILL AFFECT US. THAT'S ONE. TWO.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, IS ON THE SIDE OF A SERVICE ROAD.

WE SEE THAT AS A DANGER FOR POLICE, FIRE, EMS, FOR CHILDREN BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT, RIGHT ON THE SERVICE ROAD. THERE IS A 7-ELEVEN RIGHT THERE AT MARVIN DO LOVE AND CAMP WISDOM.

YOU CAN IMAGINE KIDS LEAVING THOSE APARTMENTS TO WALK DOWN THAT STREET, TO GO TO THAT 7-ELEVEN.

THAT'S DANGEROUS. ANOTHER REASON WHY WE DON'T WANT IT.

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEN, AS WE WERE DISCARDED BEFORE CRIME, WE CONSTANTLY REPORT ABOUT CRIME, NOISE, TRASH IN THAT AREA. WHY PUT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN AN AREA THAT YOU HAVEN'T RESOLVED? WHAT WE CONSTANTLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE AT CARMODY LOVE AND CAMP WISDOM, WHERE OUR COMMUNITY IS AT, AND IT'S A HIDDEN COMMUNITY.

NO ONE IS PROBABLY CAME TO SEE THAT WE'RE RIGHT THERE.

ANOTHER REASON WHY WE'RE NOT WE WANT WANT IT AS THE NOISE.

AND YOU SAID THEY'RE GOING TO PROTECT US FROM NOISE.

HOW? FROM AN AIRPORT? YOU CAN'T YOU. THERE'S NO WAY.

BUT WE SEE IT AS INTO NOISE AND CRIME. AND ALSO WE HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTING US FROM THE STATE OF TAXES, FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE. THAT TAX PROTECTS US FROM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BUILT IN THAT AREA.

AND SO WE'RE OPPOSING IT. WE'VE SENT OUT LET US BEFORE SAYING NO, WE SEND TO THEM AGAIN SAYING NO.

WE CAME UP AND REPRESENTED US SAYING NO. IT'S NOT WANTED OR NEEDED RIGHT THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THAT SERVICE ROAD.

AND THEY SAID, IF THEY'VE SPOKEN WITH US, NO ONE IS SPOKEN WITH US.

WE'RE THE TRUE AFFECTED COMMUNITY FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, THE DOG. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z6 NO FURTHER. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. YOU'VE SPOKEN ALREADY, SIR.

[04:50:04]

THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS, MADAM MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE! APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. AND I JUST WANT TO, FIRST OF ALL, THANK THE YOUNG LADY FOR COMING AND SPEAKING TODAY AND JUST INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

AND AS THE DEVELOPER SAID, IT STARTED OUT FOR RENT FROM THERE.

AND WE WERE ABLE, AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS MOVED THIS TOWARDS, AND THIS WAS ONE THAT I DELAYED TO HAVE ONE MORE MEETING TO ENSURE I DELAYED THIS FROM THE LAST COUNCIL TO ENSURE EVERYTHING HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF WHAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE.

AND A MAJORITY OF THOSE CONCERNS HAD SOME HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS. AND THEN THE BIGGEST ONE WAS CAN THEY BE FOR SALE? AND THAT IS ALL BEING DONE. IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS, I WILL COME UP AND CARLTON IS RIGHT BEHIND YOU TO TALK TO YOU AS WELL, TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN AND AROUND THAT AREA.

BUT THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR AND SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I MISS STATE THIS, BUT WITH SB 840 COMING, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THESE TOWNHOMES FOR SALE, THEORETICALLY SOMEBODY COULD COME AND PUT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THERE BASED ON WHATEVER THOSE SIZE REQUIREMENTS ARE.

SO ANOTHER REASON TO NEED TO APPROVE THIS IS THIS DEVELOPER IS A DEVELOPER THAT'S WILLING TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD DO FOR SALE UNITS, WHICH TO ME WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAD OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES STILL, NOT JUST RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES. SO THIS HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY SEVERAL TIMES.

WE'VE GOTTEN SEVERAL FEEDBACKS AND I DO APOLOGIZE THAT WE MISS YOU, BUT I AM HAPPY TO COME UP AND TALK TO YOU AND EXPLAIN SOME MORE. AFTER I THINK I HAVE ANOTHER ITEM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO COME AND TALK TO YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND WAITING. SO WE CAN FURTHER DISCUSS THIS AND EXPLAIN THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT APPROVING THIS ONE AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR HUMORING.

THANK ME FOR ALLOWING ME TO DELAY THIS LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

MR. MAYOR AND MRS. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM I SUPPORT THIS.

OBVIOUSLY, I SECONDED IT AND SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE.

APPRECIATE THE OUTREACH. I KNOW YOU DID IN YOUR COMMUNITY.

AND I JUST WANT TO ASK A STAFF A QUESTION IF THEY COULD COME UP ABOUT SB 840.

MY UNDERSTANDING AND I, THE COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY SAID IT REALLY? WELL, I THINK IT'S THAT IF THIS IS DENIED TODAY, THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN DO MULTIFAMILY BY.

RIGHT, PURSUANT TO THE NEW STATE LAW THAT WAS JUST PASSED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YES. OKAY. SO THE CHOICES ON THE TABLE WHICH WE HAVE ARE EITHER THIS PLAN THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD INPUT IN, THAT THIS DEVELOPER HAS WORKED WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE COMMUNITY OR LIKE WE DID IN THE HAMPTON CLARENDON CASE, YOU KNOW, LAST TIME, OR WE HAVE THE STATE IMPOSED MULTIFAMILY WITH WITH PROBABLY HIGHER HEIGHTS AND LESS SETBACKS. SO THOSE ARE OUR TWO OPTIONS HERE.

SO I THINK AS WE GO INTO FUTURE CASES AND DEVELOPMENT CASES.

AS A COUNCIL, WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE WANT TO DO ZONING CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENT WITH US AND NOT RUNNING THEM THROUGH THE WRINGER, BECAUSE IT'S MUCH EASIER TO JUST BUILD BUY RIGHT WITH THE ZONING THAT'S THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS A AS STAFF, AS A COUNCIL, AS A CITY, WE NEED TO BE WELCOMING TO HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS AND NOT DELAYING THEM, THESE ZONING CASES AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WORKED OUT WELL CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU. ITEM Z7 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A D A DUPLEX DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED

[Z7. 25-2566A 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) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 27, 2025.]

RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST KIRKWOOD DRIVE, WEST OF LOS MIRAGE DRIVE. MADAM MAYOR, WE SENT 59 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND NINE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

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

FIRST SPEAKER WALTER SHEFFIELD WALTER SHEFFIELD WILL BE VIRTUAL.

MR. SHEFFIELD. HELLO. I CAN HEAR YOU. HOWEVER, I CANNOT.

YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

[04:55:04]

I SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO ACTIVATE THE VIDEO. OKAY, WELL, I WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO FIX THAT.

WE'LL GO TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER. ERIC WILSON. ERIC WILSON WILL ALSO BE VIRTUAL.

CAN YOU SEE ME? ERIC WILSON. YES. YOU MAY. WE CAN SEE YOU.

YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF GARY WOODS SUBDIVISION.

RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO ZONING. THIS REQUEST TO REZONE 2.87 ACRES FROM R7 FIVE SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SHOULD BE DENIED. THIS COMMUNITY IS MADE UP OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE STOREY STOREY HOMES BUILT AROUND 1979 ON MODEST BLOCK ENTRANCE.

THE ENTRANCE IMMEDIATELY, OFTEN S-CURVE ON KERN WOOD WHERE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A CONCERN.

THE AREA HAS LOW CRIME AND STRONG FAMILY CHARACTER AND NORMAL RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC THAT REFLECTS THE CURRENT DENSITY.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 12 DUPLEXES WOULD DOUBLE THE DENSITY, BRING AS MANY AS 48 CARS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH NARROW STREETS ALREADY LINED WITH PARKS BUILDINGS.

THERE ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH PARKING CAPACITIES FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, THEIR GUESTS, OR, IN THE CASE OF FAMILY GATHERINGS.

THIS CREATES NOT ONLY AN INCONVENIENCE, BUT ALSO DAILY CONGESTION AND SAFETY HAZARDS FOR CHILDREN, PEDESTRIANS, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE RESIDENTS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSE THIS CHANGE.

THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN A COMMUNITY OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, NOT TRANSITION INTO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STYLE HOUSING.

APPROVING THIS REZONING ALSO SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. A NEARBY DUPLEX PROJECT WAS APPROVED OVER FIVE YEARS AGO THAT WAS STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE COUNCIL.

I'M OPPOSED TO THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IT HAS CREATED A FUNDAMENTAL ALTERNATIVE STATE IN AND THE COMMUNITY IN THIS CASE WOULD ONLY ENCOURAGE MORE REQUESTS. ERODING THE STABILITY OF LONG STANDING FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

FINALLY, THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THE CREEK RUNS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND INCREASED DENSITY RISK THAT A DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND EROSIONS THAT WILL HARM BOTH THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING HOMES. WHILE HOUSE BILLS 24TH MAY HAVE CHANGED THE PETITION PROCESS, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE INCOMPATIBLE REZONING.

THE COUNCIL STILL HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO WEIGH NEIGHBORHOODS, CHARACTER, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY FOR THOSE REASONS.

TRAFFIC, PARKING PRECEDENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS.

I'M ASKING THAT YOU URGE TO PROTECT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND TO NOT TO DENY THIS REZONING REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISTER SHEFFIELD. YES. OKAY.

WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

OKAY. OKAY. SO MY NAME IS WALTER SHEFFIELD. I ACTUALLY RESIDE AT 1438 WITH ROCK CANYON DRIVE, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON.

I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE PROPERTY AND THE REZONING OF IT.

I'M NOT AGAINST BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO REMAIN AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WAS ACTUALLY IN ATTENDANCE AT THE CPC HEARING, WHICH MADE A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CASE.

AND I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH HEARING ALL THE WHAT I FELT WAS UNFINISHED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED AND IT WAS GOING FORWARD. I AM ALSO VERY DISAPPOINTED IN.

THERE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE NOTIFICATIONS THAT HAS BEEN GOING OUT TO, ESPECIALLY THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE CLOSEST TO WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON, AND I THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST BEEN GIVEN DUE PROCESS.

AFTER THE DECISION WAS MADE AT THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING TO REQUEST THAT AN APPEAL BE DONE IN ORDER FOR OUR TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR VOICES WERE BEING HEARD, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS POINT, EVEN LISTENING EARLIER TO THAT, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION SUBMITTED. I'VE SUBMITTED EVERY FORM THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN ACTUALLY SENT TO MY HOUSE, AND I PUT IT IN THE MAIL. I'VE SENT EMAILS AND EVERYTHING SAYING THAT I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

SO TO HEAR THAT THERE WAS ZERO OPPOSITION JUST GOES BACK TO ME BEING VERY DISAPPOINTED AT HOW THIS IS BEING HANDLED AND HOW WE'RE BEING FORCED TO ACCEPT DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE. WHEN I THOUGHT THAT Y'ALL WERE HERE PLACED TO HELP US AND NOT JUST FORCE US TO

[05:00:03]

BE TO ACCEPT THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE BY BOTH THE COMMISSIONING AND THE COUNSELING BOARDS.

I'M NOT AGAINST ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BEING BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY.

AND WE HAVE HAD IN 2022, WE HAD BUILDERS COME IN AND THEY BUILT PROPERTIES.

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTIES. IN 2022. SO WHAT WE'RE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ASKING.

AND I FEEL THAT THERE'S A MAJORITY OF US THAT FEELS THIS WAY IS THAT YOU CONTINUE TO ALLOW US TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT.

AND THE STATEMENT THAT IT'S ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEFINITELY NOT TRUE.

THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE, WHERE THESE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT AND SURROUNDED BY HOMES.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. AND THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL? I SEE ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S COMING FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS VINCENT WALKER. ADDRESS 422 WHISPERING HILLS, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS.

75137. I'M FROM THIS COMMUNITY. I'M THE BUILDER ON THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

I COME FROM A LONG LINE OF BUILDERS. MY DAD IS A BUILDER, MY GRANDPARENTS WERE, MY COUSINS ARE, AND FOUR OF MY UNCLES. SO BUILDING IS IN MY BLOOD.

SO I'M URGING YOUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR THIS CASE.

THIS IS A MODEST, THOUGHTFUL PROPOSAL. JUST 12 DUPLEXES CREATING 24 NEW HOMES ON LAND THAT IS CRYING OUT FOR A PURPOSE.

THE IMPACT IS HUGE. OVER THE NEXT DECADE, THIS PROJECT WILL INJECT MORE THAN $80 MILLION IN TAXABLE VALUE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THAT FUELS BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE. THRIVING PARKS AND TOP TIER CITY SERVICE BUT MORE THAN DOLLARS.

THIS PROJECT IS ABOUT FAMILIES, WORKING PROFESSIONALS.

FIRST TIME BUYERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OWN AFFORDABLE HOMES.

THREE BEDROOMS, TWO AND A HALF BATHS WHERE THEY CAN PLANT THEIR ROOTS.

DOUBLING FROM 12 TO 24 CREATES MORE DEMAND FOR SCHOOLS, STRENGTHENS PUBLIC SAFETY AND SUPPORTS LOCAL BUSINESSES. VACANT LOTS WILL NO LONGER INVITE CRIME.

THEY'LL BE FILLED WITH FAMILIES. AND THIS JUST ISN'T MY VISION.

IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE SEVEN HOMES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ON LAS MIRAGE AND ADJACENT SIX ARE IN FAVOR.

LINDA THOMAS, A 50 YEAR RESIDENT ON MIRAGE BRYCE CANYON, MADDIE JONES CALLING IT HOME ON MILL STREAM FOR 49 YEARS. BARBARA LEWIS OVER 50 YEARS ON LAS MIRAGE AND HER BROTHER NEXT DOOR.

ANOTHER HALF CENTURY VETERAN. THESE WISE ONES WHO'VE SEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY RECOGNIZE THE BENEFIT HERE.

THEY'VE SIGNED ON BY SEVERAL MORE, AND THEY WANT THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.

IN THIS PROJECT, IT ALIGNS WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0, SENATE BILL 15, AND SENATE BILL 840, ALL OF WHICH SUPPORT DIVERSE HOUSING AND SMART INFILL. DALLAS HAS SEEN IT BEFORE OLD EAST DALLAS, WEST DALLAS NEAR TRINITY GROVE'S BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT.

THEY ALL FLOURISHED WHEN DENSITY AND DESIGN WERE EMBRACED.

SO, COUNCIL, THIS JUST ISN'T ZONING. IT'S A MOVE TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER, MORE PROSPEROUS DALLAS.

THE COMMUNITY VOTED YES. THE HEAD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED YES.

THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF VOTED YES.

AND YOUR COMMISSIONERS? THEY VOTED YES. AND NOW I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE YES.

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

NEXT SPEAKER.

VINCENT WALKER IS MY NAME. I THINK HE PROBABLY PICK UP THE REST.

BUT LOCATED AT FOUR, TWO, TWO WHISPERING HILLS DRIVE, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS.

AND SO, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE NEED FOR CHANGE AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE AREA THAT WAS ONCE A VERY THRIVING AREA.

WE ONCE LIVED THERE. WE LIVED IN SINGING HILLS.

[05:05:01]

WE WOULD ALWAYS GO THERE AND SHOP. AND IN THE AREA WHERE THERE WAS A GROCERY STORE, GOOD ANCHOR TENANTS, THERE WERE FAMILIES. MY WIFE AND I, WE ALL, WE WOULD ALWAYS SHOP AND LIVE THERE.

WE LIVE THERE AND SHOP THERE. BUT OVER THE YEARS, WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE AREA? BUSINESSES HAVE CLOSED, FAMILIES HAVE MOVED OUT AND ONCE A FLOURISHING AREA HAS WENT INTO DECLINE.

SO THE TRUTH IS THAT CHANGE HAS ALREADY COME.

ALTHOUGH THE ALTHOUGH SOME FEAR CHANGE. THE CHANGE HAS ALREADY COME.

AND WHAT DO WE SEE TODAY? WE SEE THE RESULTS OF THE CHANGE.

THOSE RESULTS ARE MANY OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT WERE THERE THAT WERE THRIVING.

WELL, THEY SAID VACANT. NOW MANY OF THE PROPERTIES, THEY'RE NO LONGER A PROPERTIES.

THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES NOW. SO THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT WHETHER CHANGE WILL CONTINUE, BUT WHETHER WE WILL HAVE THE CHANGE TO DIRECT WHERE WE GO IN THE FUTURE.

NOW, MY SON, HE MENTIONED THAT WE WERE BUILDERS.

WE BUILT IN DALLAS FOR MANY YEARS. I'VE BUILT HERE IN OAK CLIFF IN EAST DALLAS, RIGHT NEAR HASKELL AND 75 AREA WE BUILT THERE.

BUT WE PURCHASED PROPERTIES OVER THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY $100,000.

AND WE NOW WHAT IS THE TAX BASE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WE BUILT? DUPLEXES ON? 1.3 MILLION 1.4 MILLION. CASE IN POINT 2316 2318.

NORTH PRAIRIE 4219. DELANO. THOSE ARE PROPERTIES THAT WE DID.

SO IT HAS HELPED WITH BUSINESSES TO COME IN TO IMPROVE THE AREA, TO BRING BRING ABOUT A GREAT TAX BASE FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO WHAT? WHAT MAKES THIS TYPE OF HOUSING SO IMPORTANT IS THAT IT ATTRACTS FAMILIES, JUST AS IT DID IN EAST DALLAS.

CHILDREN, THEY'RE THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE PIVOTAL TO THE CITY'S GROWTH.

WE'RE BASICALLY TAKING WHAT WE'VE DONE THERE AND PUT THERE INTO THE OAK CLIFF AREA.

THAT'S THE KIND OF PROGRESS THAT WE NEED. SO WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO REALLY SUPPORT THIS CHANGE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, MADAM MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES I DO. MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, MA'AM.

THERE WAS SOME. THERE WAS. WE HAD OUR COMMUNITY MEETING.

IN FACT, AFTER IT PASSED CPC, I HAD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN AND LET ME ADDRESS THE ITEMS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THOSE WHO SPOKE, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO DRAINAGE, I PERSONALLY SPOKE WITH THE ENGINEERS. THEY SAID THAT THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE AND IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF IN IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO NOTIFICATION, I MADE SURE THAT I MADE SURE THAT THE SIGNS WERE ALWAYS VISIBLE WHEN IT WAS WORN AND WEATHERED.

I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE APPLICANT AND TOLD HIM I THAT HE HAD TO GET NEW SIGNS.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE DUPLEXES THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE COMMUNITY, THOSE DUPLEX WERE BY RIGHT.

THEY NEVER WENT TO CPC, THEY NEVER WENT TO CITY COUNCIL.

THEY WERE JUST BUILT. WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO GARY WOOD COMMUNITY, THE PRESIDENT OF GARY WOOD HAS PUBLICLY TOLD ME SHE APPROVED. WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE NOTIFICATIONS OF OUR POSITION, I HAD MY STAFF THIS LAST WEEK.

CONTACT EVERYBODY ON THE NOTIFICATION LIST, THE 59 RESIDENTS ON THE NOTIFICATION LIST OF THOSE OF THOSE THAT WERE OF THE 22. LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE IT RIGHT. OF THOSE THAT WERE CONTACTED, OTHER 59 PEOPLE THAT WERE ON THE LIST, 20. THERE WERE 22 LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

15 OF THEM WERE CONFIRMED BY OUR OWN PHONE CALLS, NOT BY THE APPLICANT.

WE DIDN'T. WE DID OUR OWN IN CALLS. THE THOSE THAT WERE ON THE LIST THAT ARE ON YOUR LIST, THE SEVEN THAT OPPOSED WERE THE SEVEN THAT'S STILL OPPOSED.

SO WE'VE DONE OUR HOMEWORK WHEN AND OUT OF MY OFFICE WE'VE DONE THE HOMEWORK.

FROM GARY, WHAT WE'VE DONE, WE WENT THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE DRAINAGE ISSUES I'VE ADDRESSED.

I'VE ASKED ENGINEERING TO LOOK AT THE CREEK. EROSION.

[05:10:08]

AND THEY HAVE APPROVED. THEY HAVE ASSURED ME THAT ANY DESIGN THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS WILL USE WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EROSION OF THE CREEK. THERE IS NO REASON FOR FOR ME TO NOT TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICANT, BUT TO MOVE IT FORWARD.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS AGAIN TO 12 MARKET RATE. IF IF IT WAS BUILT TODAY, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY TOLD ME THAT THESE WOULD BE $600,000.

HOUSES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT STANDS AT 300,000 320,000.

SO WE AGAIN, WE ARE WE ARE ADDING TO THE TAX BASE NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO DISTRICT EIGHT.

SO I ASKED YOU GUYS TO AGREE WITH ME AND TO APPROVE THIS THIS CASE.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR.

A FULL SUPPORT OF MY COLLEAGUE. CONGRATS ON WORKING SO HARD ON THIS.

AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY.

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TAX RATE EARLIER.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF GENTLE ADDING TO OUR TAX BASE THAT WE NEED TO TO SHORE UP REVENUE SHORTAGES IN THE CITY.

SO IN ADDITION TO BEING NEW NEW STOCK FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SOMETHING NEW FOR THE DISTRICT, IT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY. SO I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU. THANKS.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM. ITEM Z8, ITEM Z8 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AR A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON

[Z8. 25-2571A 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) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 27, 2025.]

PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE, NORTH OF WEST REDBIRD LANE.

MADAM MAYOR, WE SEND NINE NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

DUE TO MORE THAN 20% OPPOSITION, THIS ITEM REQUIRES THREE QUARTERS VOTE TO PASS.

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

FIRST SPEAKER ROBERT PATTERSON, SENIOR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.

I AM ROBERT PATTERSON. I RESIDE AT 5520 CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE IN DALLAS AND HAVE LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS FOR 31 YEARS. I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING REQUEST FOR A COUPLE OF PRIMARY REASONS.

NUMBER ONE, I FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUILT ON 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AT A MINIMUM. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS MADE UP OF HOMES THAT SIT ON A MINIMUM OF 1.57 ACRES, AND ONE OF THE LARGER PROJECTS HOMES IN THIS AREA SITS ON APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRES, SO IN NO WAY DO WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE AND WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT GOING FORWARD.

THE SECOND REASON I AM OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING CHANGE HAS TO DO WITH POTENTIAL FLOODING ISSUES TO MY PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PLOT OF LAND.

IT SITS ON A HILL ABOVE THE STREET, CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE.

MY HOME SITS BELOW LOW THIS STREET ON CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE.

THE ONLY WAY THAT WATER THAT WOULD BE DISPLACED FROM THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

THE ONLY WAY FOR IT TO ENTER THE CREEK THAT SITS BEHIND MY HOME IS TO RUN THROUGH THE ONE DRAINAGE PIPE THAT GOES UNDER CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE. I WANT TO STRESS THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS

[05:15:04]

AREA TO DEAL WITH WATER AND FLOODING. AND TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, IT'S NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE.

IT HASN'T BEEN REQUIRED HISTORICALLY BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE TREES EVERYWHERE, AND THE ONLY THERE IS A DITCH THAT RUNS DOWN ON EACH SIDE OF CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE, AND THAT IS HOW THE WATER IS DISPERSED TO THE CREEK.

AGAIN, IT'S NATURAL, IT WORKS. BUT THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AS MENTIONED. THAT'S YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER, SHARON BRIGGS.

HELLO, COUNCIL PEOPLE AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS SHARON BRIGGS.

I LIVE AT 5725 CEDAR RIDGE, DALLAS. 75236. I LIVE ON PROPERTY THAT MY HUSBAND'S FAMILY BOUGHT IN THE EARLY 40S. IT WAS 50 ACRES AND A MANSION THAT IS SET BACK ON THIS PROPERTY.

WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE MANSION, ORIGINALLY THEY WANTED IT ON A HILL, SO THEY DUG OUT A HUGE PORTION WHICH IS PROBABLY TWICE THE SIZE, I'M SORRY, TWICE THE SIZE OF THIS BUILDING.

THIS ROOM TO MAKE A LAKE. WELL, IT DIDN'T GO FAST ENOUGH, SO THEY DYNAMITED IT.

AND WHEN THEY DID, IT BROKE THE BASS. SO IT WON'T HOLD WATER.

NOW I HAVE A MAP HERE, WHICH IS A FLOOD ZONE, WHICH IS PART OF MY PROPERTY.

BUT I DO HAVE SHOWING YOU WHERE ALL THIS WATER GOES INTO THE EVACUATED LAKE.

CAN YOU SHOW THAT ONE FOR ME, PLEASE? THIS IS THE BACK YARDS CIRCLING THE I'M GOING TO SAY HOLE BECAUSE MY HUSBAND AND THE FAMILY ALWAYS REFERRED TO IT AS THE HOLE.

THIS WATER COMES DOWN NORTH, ALL OF THESE HOMES AND GOES INTO THE HOLE.

NOW THE WATER HAS NOWHERE TO GO. SO IT SITS IN MY IN MY BACKYARD AND I HAVE TO THROW AT LEAST 5 TO 7 GALLONS OF VEGETABLE OIL SO THAT THERE'S NO MOSQUITOES.

AND WE DO THAT LIKE THREE TIMES A YEAR. HERE IS THE QUOTE HOLE.

AND I'M INSIDE THE HOLE. NOW, IF THIS PERSON BUILDS THIS PROPERTY HE CAN'T.

THE HOLE IS THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW HE CAN. HE OWNS MAYBE A TINY PORTION, BUT IT'S A PIE SHAPED HOLE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SEPTIC TANKS AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE NORTHERN FLOODING.

HE THIS MAN THOUGHT THE OWNER THOUGHT THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT TO HIM, BECAUSE MY HUSBAND WENT TO HIM AND SAID, YOU CAN'T BUILD BECAUSE OF THE HOLE. AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO.

WELL, HE CAME AND ASKED ME FOR PROPERTY AND I TOLD HIM NO, BECAUSE HE CAN'T BUILD.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST IT. SOMEBODY WAS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND I WOULD HAVE HAD TO SELL HIM SOME OF IT TO FINISH BUILDING, AND I, AND I WAS GOING TO. BUT THEN I DECIDED NOT TO.

BUT IT'S UNBELIEVABLE THE WAY IT IS AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SAY IT.

I JUST IT'S NOT BUILDABLE AND IT'S I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO COMPLEMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M DONE. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, FRANK FORD.

GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS FRANK FORD AND I RESIDE AT 5410 CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.

75236. AND I'VE LIVED AT THAT PROPERTY NOW FOR, OH, AND EIGHT YEARS.

I'M HERE TO BACK UP AND CORROBORATE WITH MY CONCERNED NEIGHBORS.

HAVE SAID THIS IS A VERY SMALL LOT, A VERY SMALL PARCEL OF LAND UP ON TOP OF THE HILL.

AND THERE WOULD NEED TO BE ALLOCATIONS MADE FOR THE ENTRYWAY.

DRIVEWAY. THERE'S A HISTORIC THIS. AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES, 100 YEAR OLD TREES THAT TAKE UP A LOT OF SPACE AND HAVE A LOT OF ROOTS.

THERE WAS ONE ON TOP OF THIS HILL. SO IT'S A VERY, VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND THAT THE BUILDER WANTS TO BUILD ON.

AND IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE EXCAVATION FOR THE LAKE THAT SHARON WAS TALKING ABOUT.

THAT HAS SOME STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ISSUES. AGAIN, WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS, AND

[05:20:03]

THE RUNOFF AFFECTS THEIR PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY.

BUT CERTAINLY ROBERT'S PROPERTY THE MOST. AND WITHOUT SEEING ANY SORT OF STONE WALLS OR WHERE THE SEPTIC TANKS WOULD GO OR HOW PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS IN AND OUT.

NONE OF THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO US, AND IT'S A TALL ORDER TO BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY IN A SAFE WAY.

IT'S UNSAFE TO BUILD THERE AS IS, AND IT CERTAINLY IS UNSAFE FOR THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SURROUNDING LOTS AND PROPERTY LINES BECAUSE OF THE OVERFLOW AND THE RUNOFF AND THE FLOODING.

SO WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO CONSIDER, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING.

WE JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT'S POSSIBLE TO BUILD THERE, GIVEN THE AREA AND THE NATURAL ELEMENTS THAT SURROUND IT.

AND YEAH, THAT'S MY TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. LESLIE BRIGGS.

THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE OF THAT OF YOUR MICROPHONE.

OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? ALL RIGHT. I'M LESLIE BRIGGS, AND I LIVE AT 5401 CEDAR RIDGE DRIVE IN DALLAS.

I WAS I WAS THERE WHEN I WAS A BABY. MY GRANDPARENTS BOUGHT IT.

THE HOUSES THERE ARE THERE ARE ON MUCH BIGGER PROPERTY THAN TEN SQUARE FOOT.

I'M WAY OPPOSED TO THIS. IT'S BESIDE MY PROPERTY ON THE MY.

I HAVE MY GRANDPARENTS DRIVEWAY. I MOVED BACK IN 2012 FROM WHEN MY MY PARENTS DIED.

SO I'VE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND I HAD FLOODING AT OUR GATE BECAUSE THAT MY DAD HAD A HE PUT IN A CATTLE GUARD AND IT FILLS UP AND THE MUD COMES DOWN THOSE HILLS AND IT'S FULL OF ALWAYS.

WE PUT ROCK IN AND IT WASHES OUT ALL TO TRY TO GET WHERE YOU CAN GET THROUGH.

I CAN IMAGINE WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT ALL THREE OF THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TALKED TODAY, BECAUSE THE FLOODING WILL BE REALLY BAD, AND ESPECIALLY ON ROBERTS PROPERTY, IT IS ALREADY TEARING UP THE WALL WHEN IT COMES ACROSS THERE THAT GOES INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY.

SO I'M REALLY VERY OPPOSED TO SMALL HOUSES. WE HAVE LIKE WITH ALL THE LAND THAT THAT MY DAD GAVE THE HOUSE IS, IS HE'S ALMOST GOT EIGHT ACRES. MY SISTER HAS ALMOST TWO ACRES AND I HAVE THREE ACRES, SO THAT ALL THAT LAND IS RIGHT THERE.

THERE'S JUST NOT HOUSES ON THAT PROPERTY THAT ARE THAT CLOSE TOGETHER, AND THAT'S SMALL.

THEY'RE NICE SIZED HOUSES. IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THAT AREA IS, AND I'M JUST REALLY OPPOSED TO IT.

AND THANK YOU ALL FOR LETTING ME TALK. THIS IS OUR THIRD TIME DOWN HERE, AND WE FINALLY GOT TO TELL US WHAT Y'ALL WHAT WE THOUGHT.

AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM C8. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MADAM MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE DENIAL OF THIS ITEM.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, MR. GRACEY, FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM I DELAYED FOR A WEEK BECAUSE I WANTED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.

THIS PARTICULAR AREA HAS A UNIQUE LAYOUT IN TERMS OF HOW THE LOTS ARE.

IT'S NOT YOUR REGULAR RECTANGLES. THEY'RE. THEY HAVE ALL DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES.

THEY'RE AND IT'S A REALLY UNIQUE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THE STYLE OF THE HOMES AND ALL OF THAT. SO ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO DELAY THIS WAS BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A UNIQUE SHAPE LOT. I WANTED TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ATTENDING, ATTEMPTING TO OR WANTING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

BUT AGAIN, HAVING TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, I DID HOST COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T SHOW UP, SO I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN TALK TO THE DEVELOPER FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE TO, TO GIVE THAT FEEDBACK.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WANT TO DENY THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO. TO DENY.

[05:25:07]

ALL RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM Z9. ITEM Z9 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN MF ONE A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF PADUCAH

[Z9. 25-2572A 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 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on August 27, 2025.]

AVENUE BETWEEN SOUTH NEEDLE DRIVE AND SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD.

MR.. MADAM MAYOR, WE SENT 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED THE ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

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 Z9 NO SPEAKERS, MADAM MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS A RA R5 A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IN LIEU OF AMAMF1A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. CARRIES. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS FF ONE.

[PH1. 25-1094A A public hearing to receive comments on the FY 2025-26 Operating, Capital, and Grant & Trust Budgets - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ITEM FF ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE FY 20 2526 OPERATING CAPITAL AND GRANT AND TRUST BUDGETS.

YOU DO HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.

AFTER THOSE SPEAKERS HAVE SPOKEN, THEY WILL BE OPEN TO ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE.

NORA. SOTO. NORA. SO HEAR ME. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

MY NAME IS NORA SOTO AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FOUR.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE DEFUNDING OF OUR MUNICIPAL SERVICES IN FAVOR OF AN INCREASE TO THE POLICE BUDGET.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN, RESIDENTS OF DALLAS HAVE SHOWN UP AND PARTICIPATED IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS, SESSIONS AND SURVEYS REGARDING THE BUDGET. WE TAKE THE TIME OUT OF OUR BUSY SCHEDULES.

WE MISS WORK, INVALUABLE TIME WITH OUR FAMILIES TO BE PRESENT AND ADVOCATE FOR A BETTER CITY TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER IGNORE OUR REQUESTS.

YEAR AFTER YEAR, WE SEE THE POLICE BUDGET GROW AND OUR COMMUNITY RESOURCES SHRINK.

THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE AND YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO HIDE IT.

IT'S LAID OUT AS EASY TO UNDERSTAND AS POSSIBLE IN YOUR LITTLE PIE CHARTS.