[00:00:01] YOU'RE WATCHING THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WITH MAYOR ERIC L JOHNSON, MAYOR PRO TEM JESSE MORENO, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM GAY DONNELL WILLIS COUNCIL MEMBERS CHAD WEST, ZARIN D GRACEY MAXINE JOHNSON, JAIME RESENDEZ, LAURA CADENA, ADAM BAZALDUA, LORI BLAIR, PAULA BLACKMON, KATHY STEWART, WILLIAM ROTH, CARA MENDELSOHN, PAUL E RIDLEY, CITY MANAGER KIMBERLY BIZOR TOLBERT, CITY SECRETARY BILIERAE JOHNSON, AND CITY ATTORNEY TAMMY PALOMINO. GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE A QUORUM. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER THE 8TH, 2025. [CALL TO ORDER] THE TIMES 915 I NOW CALL THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER TODAY'S INVOCATION. SPEAKER IS OUR GOOD FRIEND RABBI PALEY FROM TEMPLE SHALOM, AND HE ALSO IS A CHAPLAIN WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO RABBI PALEY FOR OUR INVOCATION. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE EVERYONE STAND FOR OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG AND THE STATE OF TEXAS FLAG. RABBI PALEY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. AS WE BEGIN OUR TIME TOGETHER, HOLY ONE OF BLESSING GOD OF WISDOM AND COMPASSION, WE PAUSE AT THIS MOMENT IN OUR DAY TO REMEMBER THAT EVERY DECISION MADE HERE SHAPES THE LIVES OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY. WE CARRY THE WEIGHT OF RECENT DAYS, THE GRIEF OF YET ANOTHER ROUND OF VIOLENCE, THE STRAIN ON OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, AND THE EXHAUSTION THAT SO MANY FEEL IN THE FACE OF FEAR AND FRUSTRATION. STRENGTHEN US WITH COURAGE AND PATIENCE IN MOMENTS OF DISAGREEMENT. REMIND US OF OUR SHARED PURPOSE. GRANT THESE LEADERS BEFORE US WISDOM THAT SEES BEYOND DIVISIONS AND THE CLARITY TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT OVER WHAT IS EASY. BLESS THIS COUNCIL WITH PERSEVERANCE, IMAGINATION AND GRACE AS THEY WORK TO BUILD A CITY WHERE EVERY PERSON FEELS SEEN, FEELS SAFE AND FEELS VALUED. BLESS OUR POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, FIRST RESPONDERS AND CITY EMPLOYEES WHO LABOR EVERY DAY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR GREAT CITY. PROTECT THEM AND THEIR LOVED ONES AND RENEW THEIR SPIRITS AND GUIDE THEIR HEARTS. MAY THE WORK OF THIS DAY BRING HEALING WHERE THERE IS HURT, HOPE WHERE THERE IS DESPAIR AND STRENGTH TO CONTINUE TO BUILD A CITY OF JUSTICE, OF COMPASSION AND OF PEACE. AMEN. IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE RISE FOR OUR PLEDGES. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE. YOU MAY BE SEATED. OKAY. LET'S SEE. DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING? IT LOOKS LIKE WE. GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE ONE IMPORTANT ITEM FROM CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN. [Additional Item 1] AND THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION FROM MR. BAZALDUA, I BELIEVE. AND THEN I HAVE A ANOTHER BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT AFTER THAT. SO I THINK WE HAVE THREE THIS MORNING. SO IF YOU'RE READY, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU CAN GO FIRST. THANK YOU. MAYOR. WELL, FIRST, MAYBE I SHOULD TAKE A LITTLE SIP FROM MY DRINK WITH MY LONGHORN CUP. GOOD MORNING. I'M HAPPY TO READ A PROCLAMATION TODAY. AND I'M DRESSED APPROPRIATELY. AND THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS. WHEREAS FOR 125 YEARS, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LONGHORNS AND THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA SOONERS HAVE FACED OFF IN THE ANNUAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME, ESTABLISHING THE LONG STANDING RED RIVER RIVALRY BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOLS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE FANS. AND WHEREAS THE LONGHORNS AND SOONERS HAVE FACED OFF 120 TIMES SINCE 1900 AND WILL PLAY THEIR 121ST GAME ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11TH, 2025 AT THE COTTON BOWL STADIUM AT FAIR PARK IN DALLAS DURING THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS. AND WHEREAS THE LONGHORNS LEAD THE SERIES WITH A 6451 FIVE RECORD. AND WHEREAS THE ANNUAL SHOWDOWN HAS PROVIDED COUNTLESS MEMORIES AND LASTING AND EXCITING RIVALRY BETWEEN THE TWO TEAMS FANS. [00:05:03] AND WHEREAS THE CONTEST TAKES ITS NAME FROM THE RED RIVER, THE HISTORIC DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, AND SINCE THE 100TH GAME IN 2005, HAS BEEN FORMALLY RECOGNIZED AS THE RED RIVER RIVALRY. AND WHEREAS THE RED RIVER RIVALRY CONTINUES TO DRAW NATIONAL ATTENTION WITH AT LEAST ONE RANKED TEAM FEATURED IN 70 OF THE RECENT GAMES, HIGHLIGHTING ITS PRESTIGE AND COMPETITIVE SPIRIT. AND WHEREAS SINCE 1929, THE TEAMS HAVE PLAYED THE RED RIVER RIVALRY GAME AT THE COTTON BOWL STADIUM IN FAIR PARK, THE ANNUAL GAME BRINGS FANS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO DALLAS DURING THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS. AND WHEREAS DALLAS IS THRILLED TO HOST THE RED RIVER RIVALRY, AND ALL THE FANS DECKED OUT IN EITHER BURNT ORANGE OR CRIMSON ATTIRE, WHO COME TO CHEER ON THEIR TEAM AND ENJOY A DAY OF FUN AT THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS. AND WHEREAS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, THE RED RIVER RIVALRY HAS NOT ONLY SHOWCASED ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE BUT ALSO BECOME A DEFINING TRADITION THAT STRENGTHENS COMMUNITY TIES, HIGHLIGHTS DALLAS ON THE NATIONAL STAGE AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC VITALITY. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ERIC JOHNSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM OCTOBER 6TH, 2026 THROUGH 11, 2025 THE TEXAS OKLAHOMA RED RIVER RIVALRY RIVALRY WEEK IN DALLAS, TEXAS, THEREBY OFFICIALLY SETTLING THE DISPUTE OVER WHETHER TEXAS OR OKLAHOMA COMES FIRST. THAT WAS A GREAT LINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRWOMAN, FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT. AND MAYOR. YES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? MR. BAZALDUA JUST WANTED TO ADD TO WHAT WAS JUST. BY ALL MEANS PLEASE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO THE CITY OF DALLAS VOTERS BECAUSE WE HAD THE BREMER BILL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT RESULTED IN THE LARGEST INVESTMENT IN THE COTTON BOWL. AND ENLARGE THAT INVESTMENT IN THE COTTON BOWL IS THE REASON THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP THIS TRADITION OF TEXAS OU GAME ALIVE. I WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO OUR DEAR FRIEND, THE LATE PETE SHINKLE, AND THE WORK THAT HE PUT IN TO MAINTAIN THIS TRADITION FOR OUR CITY AND FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOL COMMUNITIES, AND FOR KEEPING THE COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE TO THE DALLAS RESIDENTS TO BRING FAIR PARK AND ALL OF ITS FACILITIES TO ITS GLORY. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO CELEBRATING ANOTHER HISTORIC GAME THIS WEEKEND. AND HOOKHAM, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO? [Additional Item 2] I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE I COME BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYOR. FOR 100 YEARS, THE MUSIC HALL AT FAIR PARK HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF OUR COMMUNITY, BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND CREATING UNFORGETTABLE CULTURAL MOMENTS RIGHT HERE IN DALLAS. THIS STAGE HAS HOSTED SOME OF THE MOST LEGENDARY PERFORMERS IN THE WORLD, AND CONTINUES TO BE HOME TO MAJOR BROADWAY PRODUCTIONS THAT KEEP DALLAS ON THE MAP AS TOP AS A TOP ARTS DESTINATION. TIME AFTER TIME, THE MUSIC HALL INVESTS IN OUR COMMUNITY BY OPENING ITS DOORS TO NEIGHBORS, OFFERING FREE TICKET PROGRAMS AND CREATING LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS EVERY YEAR. THROUGH ITS SUPPORT FOR YOUNG TALENT AND COMMITMENT TO ACCESSIBILITY, IT CONTINUES TO INSPIRE THE NEXT GENERATION AND STRENGTHEN THE CULTURAL HEARTBEAT OF OUR CITY. I WANT TO THANK THE LEADERSHIP TEAM KEN NARVAEZ, ELISABETH REICHE. DEBBIE TRIMBLE. JOSEPH YOSHITOMI. MIKE RICHMOND AND THE ENTIRE STAFF OF BROADWAY DALLAS. THIS FACILITY IS ALSO ONE THAT WE HAVE SEEN. INVESTMENT AND COMMITMENT TO BRING TO ITS GLORY. IT'S ONE THAT IS THE MOST SUSTAINABLE RIGHT NOW ENTITY THAT WE HAVE ON THE FAIRGROUNDS AND IT'S ONE THAT IS SHARED BY GENERATIONS OF DALLASITES. IT'S SHARED BY OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL KIDS TO OPEN UP THEIR EYES TO THEIR OPPORTUNITIES. AND IT'S ONE THAT REALLY HIGHLIGHTS AND EMBRACES THE ART CULTURE FOR OUR CITY. AND I CAN'T SAY THANK YOU ENOUGH TO YOU ALL, WE DO HAVE A PROCLAMATION FROM THE MAYOR HERE THAT I'M GOING TO READ A FEW OF THE WHEREASES, BUT Y'ALL GOT MORE WHEREASES THAN WHAT I'M GOING TO BRING OUT. WHEREAS ON OCTOBER 10TH, 1925. THE MUSIC HALL AT FAIR PARK, THEN CALLED FAIR PARK AUDITORIUM, FIRST OPENED AS A GRAND VENUE DESIGNED TO BRING NEIGHBORS TOGETHER AND ENRICH DALLAS WITH ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT AND FELLOWSHIP. AND WHEREAS OVER THE ENSUING 100 YEARS, THE MUSIC HALL HAS HOSTED MILLIONS OF PATRONS ATTENDING THOUSANDS OF BROADWAY [00:10:02] PERFORMANCES, CONCERTS, COMEDY SHOWS, CIVIC EVENTS, AND MORE. AND WHEREAS, THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY, THE MUSIC HALL HAS HOSTED LEGENDARY ARTISTS FROM GOLDEN AGE STARS FRANK SINATRA, ELLA FITZGERALD, ITZHAK PERLMAN TO GROUNDBREAKING ICONS RAY CHARLES, SOUTH DALLAS RESIDENT JOHNNY CASH AND LUCIANO PAVAROTTI TO MODERN LEGENDS PRINCE, ELTON JOHN, BOB DYLAN, PAUL SIMON, ZZ TOP, BETTE MIDLER, JIMI HENDRIX AND BEYONCE. AND WHEREAS EACH YEAR THE MUSIC HALL WELCOMES MORE THAN 400,000 PATRONS AND STRENGTHENS ITS COMMUNITY IMPACT THROUGH BROADWAY DALLAS CONNECT TICKETS PROGRAM, FREE EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE FOR DALLAS ISD STUDENTS AND TEACHERS, AND THE BROADWAY DALLAS HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL THEATER AWARDS, WHICH CELEBRATES YOUNG TALENT AND PROVIDES MORE THAN $65,000 IN SCHOLARSHIPS ANNUALLY. AND WHEREAS, FOR A FULL CENTURY, THE MUSIC HALL AT FAIR PARK HAS STOOD AS BOTH A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND A VIBRANT GATHERING PLACE, PRESERVING ITS HISTORY WHILE CONTINUING TO INSPIRE, ENTERTAIN AND UNITE GENERATIONS OF DALLAS RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ERIC JOHNSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM OCTOBER 10TH, 2025 AS MUSIC HALL'S 100TH BIRTHDAY. AND WE HAVE A SPECIAL CAKE THAT IS HERE TO CELEBRATE HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY, THAT IS GETTING WHEELED OUT NOW. AND SO IF WE CAN TAKE THIS. THIS IS BREAKFAST CAKE. SO LET'S LET'S GIVE A GOOD HAPPY BIRTHDAY FROM THE HORSESHOE FOR THE MUSIC HALL. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR MUSIC HALL. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. RIGHT. WOO. LET'S GET A, LET'S GET A WE'LL CUT THE CAKE. AND YOU GUYS CAN COME ON INSIDE THE RAILING HERE. WELCOME TO CITY HALL. WELCOME BACK TO CITY HALL, ELIZABETH. AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY, OCTOBER 10TH. THAT'S A GOOD DAY. THAT'S A GOOD BIRTHDAY. HEY, GOOD TO SEE YOU. I WANT TO SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY. YOU ALL READY? ONE, TWO. THREE. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO PAUL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FEW REMARKS, AND WE'LL LET'S SEE IF WE CAN RAISE THAT PODIUM UP A LITTLE BIT AND, AND LET OUR FOLKS FROM THE MUSIC HALL SAY A FEW WORDS. THANK YOU. WE JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR HONORING THE MUSIC HALL TODAY. I AND THE ENTIRE BROADWAY DALLAS TEAM, FROM OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO OUR FULL TIME AND PART TIME STAFF, ARE HONORED TO HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND CARE OF THE GRAND OLD DAME THAT IS THE MUSIC HALL. EVERY TIME I HEAR THAT LIST THAT WAS JUST READ OF OF SHOWS AT THE MUSIC HALL, IT JUST IMPRESSES ME WITH HOW WONDERFUL THIS BUILDING IS. I REALLY WONDER HOW MANY OTHER VENUES AROUND THE COUNTRY CAN CLAIM TO HAVE HOSTED BOTH DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING AND BEYONCE. WITH THE HELP OF THE CITY AND OUR GENEROUS GROWING DONOR COMMUNITY. [00:15:02] I HAVE A VERY STRONG BELIEF THAT THE FUTURE OF THE MUSIC HALL AS A YEAR ROUND CENTERPIECE OF THE FAIR PARK ECOSYSTEM WILL BE VERY BRIGHT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SURPRISES IN THE WORKS THIS YEAR THAT WILL CELEBRATE THE MUSIC HALLS LEGACY. STAY TUNED FOR MORE DETAILS THAT WILL BE RELEASED IN THE COMING WEEKS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR RECOGNIZING THE MUSIC HALL IN THIS VERY SPECIAL OCCASION. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY. THANK YOU AGAIN. AND WHAT AN AMAZING CULTURAL ASSET FOR OUR CITY. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING TIME TO COME DOWN HERE THIS MORNING TO CELEBRATE YOUR 100TH BIRTHDAY WITH WITH US. AND WE'LL PULL THAT CAKE OVER TO THE SIDE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ASHAMED. IF YOU WANT SOME BIRTHDAY BREAKFAST CAKE, HAVE AT IT. IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M SORRY. ARE YOU READY? GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION. [Additional Item 3] I'M GOING TO ASK OUR JUDGE PRESTON ROBINSON, TO PLEASE COME OUT TO THE PODIUM TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. GOOD MORNING. I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE ON TODAY. I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE SAMHSA GRANT THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS RECEIVED THIS SAMHSA GRANT FOR FY 26 COURT, SOUTH DALLAS DRUG COURT. THIS IS A THREE. THIS IS YEAR THREE OF THIS GRANT. THE AWARD AMOUNT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAT I HAVE HERE IS 386,579 TARGET POPULATION PEOPLE OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE WHO ARE DIAGNOSED WITH SUBSTANCE AND DISORDER AND HAVE A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. THIS GRANT PROVIDES DRUG COURT CLIENTS WITH MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE USE AND LEGAL DEFENSE SERVICES. ALSO ANOTHER GRANT THAT WE HAVE THAT THE CHECK THAT I HAVE FOR TODAY IS FOR THE VETERANS ASSISTANCE. TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED $180,000. PERIOD 7TH JULY OF 2025 TO AUGUST OF 2026. PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS GRANT ARE VETERANS DEPENDENTS, SURVIVING SPOUSES THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL NEED AND LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. SO ONCE AGAIN, VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE. VERY HAPPY TO PARTNER WITH THE TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION AND VERY HAPPY THAT THEY SAW FIT TO AWARD US THIS GRANT AGAIN THIS YEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUDGE ROBINSON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD BEFORE? I RECOGNIZE THAT, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, TO SAY A FEW WORDS, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. NO, I JUST HAVE A REQUEST FOR A QUICK PICTURE SO WE CAN SEND BACK TO THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE APPRECIATE THEIR GRANT. ABSOLUTELY. SO YOU WANT TO DO YOUR REMARKS FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL COME AND DO A PHOTO HERE, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. THANK YOU MAYOR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RECOGNIZE, AS THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS GRANT. THESE GRANTS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ROBINSON HAS JUST DESCRIBED THESE ARE GRANTS FROM THE TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION, THE FUND FOR VETERANS ASSISTANCE TO ASSIST, FOR EXAMPLE, THE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT IN SOUTH DALLAS TO SUPPORT REHABILITATION FOR JUSTICE INVOLVED VETS TO PREPARE THEM FOR REINTEGRATION WITH THEIR COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW WE HAVE MADE INROADS ON VETERAN HOMELESSNESS, AND THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM THAT IS ASSISTING IN REINTEGRATING VETERANS INTO THEIR COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND I APPLAUD JUDGE ROBINSON FOR THE WORK THAT HE IS DOING IN OBTAINING THESE GRANTS AND IMPLEMENTING THESE FUNDS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR VETERANS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING ON DOWN FOR A PHOTO. BRING THAT BIG CHECK WITH YOU, PLEASE. [00:20:36] ALL RIGHT IS EVERYONE MAKES THEIR WAY TO THEIR SEATS. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR ONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO OUR OPEN MICROPHONE. SPEAKERS. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. [Additional Item 4] MAYOR. YOU KNOW, IT WAS FUN TO READ THAT PROCLAMATION ABOUT TEXAS OU. AND CERTAINLY IT WAS A TONGUE TWISTER. BUT WHAT I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TODAY IS MUCH MORE SOMBER. YESTERDAY WE MARKED TWO YEARS SINCE THE OCTOBER 7TH, 2023 MASSACRE IN ISRAEL, A DAY OF UNIMAGINABLE TERROR, MURDER AND KIDNAPING, FAMILIES SHATTERED, COMMUNITIES DESTROYED AND HOSTAGES TAKEN. MEN. WOMEN. CHILDREN. SENIORS. 48 PEOPLE STILL BEING HELD HOSTAGE TODAY ACROSS THE WORLD. WE MUST CONDEMN TERRORISM IN ALL FORMS. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY HERE IN DALLAS AND AROUND THE WORLD CONTINUES TO GRIEVE THIS HORRIFIC DAY. WE PRAY ALL 48 REMAINING HOSTAGES, WHO'VE BEEN HELD 733 DAYS, WILL BE IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO THEIR FAMILIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK WE ARE NOW READY FOR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS, MADAM SECRETARY. [OPEN MICROPHONE] THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND GOOD MORNING. THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW HEAR ITS FIRST FIVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS. I'LL RECITE THE SPEAKER GUIDELINES. SPEAKERS MUST OBSERVE THE SAME RULES OF PROPRIETY, DECORUM AND GOOD CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY SPEAKER MAKING PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT, PROFANE, OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS, OR WHO BECOMES BOISTEROUS WHILE ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL, WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM. FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN PERSON. FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS, YOU WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SESSION. INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK FOR THOSE IN PERSON SPEAKERS, YOU'LL NOTICE THE TIMER. THE YOUR TIME AT THE ON THE MONITOR AT THE PODIUM. WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP, PLEASE STOP. FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS, I WILL ANNOUNCE WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. ALSO, SPEAKERS, PLEASE BE MINDFUL THAT DURING YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFER TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BY NAME AND ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO MAYOR JOHNSON. ONLY YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, TOM FORSYTH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON AND THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. I AM TOM FORSYTH. I AM A CITIZEN OF DISTRICT FOUR. I RESIDE AT 2115 SIESTA DRIVE. I SPEAK TODAY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, I'VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO SPEAK, BUT I READ LAST NIGHT THAT THE MEASURE OF ONE'S QUALITY OF LIFE IS DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT OF COURAGE THAT THEY SUMMON AT CRITICAL TIMES. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES FOR ME. I HOPE TO SUMMON A SMALL MEASURE OF COURAGE THAT YOU'LL SEE ON DISPLAY THIS AFTERNOON BY THE CITIZENS OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY IN IRVING. THESE ARE HARD WORKING, SPIRITED SOULS WHO CAME TO AMERICA FROM INDIA TO BUILD THEIR HOMES AND RAISE THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE VOTE THAT YOU TAKE TODAY ON ITEM Z2 ON YOUR AGENDA. A REASONABLE SOLUTION IS TO AMEND THE PD LANGUAGE FOR PD 942 TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW CELL TOWER IS BUILT WITH A SETBACK OF 600FT. FROM THERE, THE ENCORE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE SEPARATION FOR THE CELL TOWER FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THEIR HOMES AND AND THEIR CHILDREN'S PARK, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE ENCORE FACILITY. BUT ALSO, WE ASK THAT YOU AMEND THE ORDINANCE. I'M SORRY. THE PD LANGUAGE TO ASK ENCORE TO RESTORE THE TREE BUFFER THAT THEY RECENTLY CUT DOWN THE MATURE TREES THAT ENCORE CUT DOWN ONCE SHIELDED THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE POWER LINES AND THE WATER TOWER AND ALL THE [00:25:03] OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON THIS FACILITY. ACREAGE, WHICH IS 82 ACRES, BY THE WAY. IT SHOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE THAT ENCORE PLANS TO PUT IN A NEW TOWER THAT IS 70FT TALLER THAN THE CURRENT TOWER. THEY PLAN TO SITE THE NEW TOWER 290FT FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS HALF THE CURRENT DISTANCE OF THE TOWER THAT'S ON THE WATER TOWER TODAY. THAT'S ONLY 130FT. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEY CUT DOWN THE MATURE TREES AT THE ENTRANCE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M SORRY THAT THE ENTRANCE TO THE ENCORE FACILITY THAT ONCE SHIELDED THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORS FROM THAT, THAT FACILITY, AND THEY CUT DOWN THOSE TREES EVEN BEFORE YOU APPROVED THIS CASE, I MIGHT, I MIGHT ADD. WHILE THE FCC ACT PROHIBITS THE DENIAL OF NEW CELL TOWERS BASED ON HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, IT IS CLEAR THAT CITIES CAN AND DO REGULATE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. DEAN IS CANCELED. MICHAEL WILLIAMS. I'M MICHAEL WILLIAMS. I. I LIVE AT 715 LANCASTER DRIVE. I USED TO VOLUNTEER WITH A GROUP LIKE ANIMAL GROUPS, AND I GOT BIT, I GOT BIT, I GOT BIT SUNDAY OVER. I WAS FEEDING A DOG, AND I WENT TO THE HOSPITAL AND ALL THAT. AND THIS MY BOSS I WAS WORKING FOR TOLD ME AND MY VOLUNTEER THAT I WAS HELPING OUT. TOLD US LIKE SHE DID NOT KNOW SHE HAD SHOT, DIDN'T KNOW WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TEXT MESSAGES. SHE ADMITTED SHE DOES NOT KNOW IF THE DOGS THEY GET OUT, SHE CANNOT CONTROL THEM. NO. NO CONTROL OVER THAT. NO CONTROL. THERE'S NO STAFF. THE DOGS ARE IN KENNELS. I HATE TO SAY, LIKE I'VE LAID THEM IN AND OUT. I GOT I QUIT SATURDAY, I GOT FULLY REMOVED. BUT THESE INK KENNELS, SHE'S MOVING THEM FROM SHELTERS, PUT THEM IN KENNELS, AND THAT'S HOW THEY LIVE. THAT'S BASICALLY THAT'S BASICALLY HOW THEY LIVE. THEY BASICALLY LIKE THE HEARTBREAKING OF. IT LOOKED LIKE AN ILLEGAL SHELTER IN DISTRICT SEVEN. I'M NOT SAYING HER NAME. I'M NOT SAYING THE GROUP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE BACKFIRE. BUT ME, FOSTERERS AND VOLUNTEERS SEEN BEHIND THE SCENES OF LIKE, HOW IS IT LEGAL TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH KIDS AND YOU ADMITTED TO PEOPLE'S PARENTS YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OF THE DOGS BREAK OUT, NO CONTROL OF THE DOGS, ATTACK LIKE NO DOGS HAVE BITE RECORDS. I WAS A VOLUNTEER. I, I WAS HELPED. I DID A MEET AND GREET. I ADOPTED A I HELPED DID ADOPTION. SHE WAS SICK A DOG BIT ADOPTED PARENT LESS THAN 24 HOURS. IT WAS LIKE TWO MAYBE 30 MINUTES AND HAD IT WORSE DOWN THE ROAD TO GO GET THE DOG OUT OF CONTROL. NO COPS. AND ME AND MY FRIEND WAS HIGHLY AFRAID TO PUT THE DOG BACK IN HIS CAR, AND HE TOOK IT BACK TO THE GROUP AND BASICALLY NO QUARANTINE. NOTHING WAS DONE LIKE NOTHING. EVEN I GOT BIT. THERE WAS NO QUARANTINE. SHE TOLD ME AND MY FRIEND, IF ANIMAL CONTROL DID NOT THE 59 TIMES, 59 TIMES AND ALL SHE DOES LOOK AT THE RING DOORBELL, LOOK AT THE CAMERAS. AND SHE HAD IN BACK. MY FRIEND WAS A WITNESS THAT SATURDAY. SATURDAY WHEN I GOT BIT, SHE WAS LOOKING AT CAMERA. MY PHONE WAS GOING TO GO LOOK AND LET ME IN AND SHE SAID NO. THEY SAID, THIS IS BASICALLY HOW I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS EVEN POSSIBLE. LIKE THE NEIGHBORS ARE REALLY NEVER SEEN IT. BUT THAT HOUSE IS LABELED AS A DUMPING GROUND THAT FROM A FROM ANOTHER GROUP TO ANOTHER GROUP. BASICALLY WHAT IT IS, THAT'S ALL LIKE, HOW IS THAT EVEN LEGAL? HAVE THAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S WHEN I WAS LIKE, THE SAFETY FOR THE KIDS. IF THEY THE DOGS GOT OUT, SHE DON'T SHE CAN'T CONTROL THEM. THAT WAS JUST ONE. HOW IS THAT LEGAL? THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER, MICHAEL SIMMONS. GOOD MORNING, MISTER MAYOR. AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SIMMONS. I RESIDE AT 2515 LAWRENCE STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS. 75215. DISTRICT SEVEN. [00:30:07] I'M HERE THIS MORNING. TO SPEAK IN REGARDS TO. THE PROPERTY AT 27. I MEAN, I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME. 25, 11 LAWRENCE STREET. THE STATE OF TEXAS. DALLAS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DALLAS VIOLATED THE RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY AT 2511 LAWRENCE STREET. ALL OF THESE ENTITIES MENTIONED EXERCISED AN ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, REBELLION, AND DEFIANCE TO. OUR GREAT CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT WAS WRITTEN BY OUR FOREFATHERS AND OUR FOUR FOUR GRANDMOTHERS AND GRANDFATHERS, IF YOU WILL. I WOULD LIKE TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO READ THE. CONSTITUTION, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT AMENDMENT READS. THE PEOPLE, THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO SECURE THE. THE PERSONAL HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE, UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NOT NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPOSEDLY BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. AS I SAID, THE CITY OF DALLAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, DALLAS COUNTY DEMOLISHED THIS HOUSE DID NOT GIVE THE THE THE THE PROPERTY OWNER THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. BOGUS GREEN CARDS, UNSIGNED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS, STATE OF TEXAS AND THE COUNTY OF DALLAS. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, GOD BLESS YOU. AND YOU ALL ENDEAVOR TO RECTIFY SOME OF THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, CEDRIC LOONEY. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CEDRIC LOONEY. I'M A HOME BUILDER, CURRENTLY BUILDING AN IN AN AFFORDABLE HOME IN DISTRICT SEVEN AT 3514 DUNBAR. I NEED TO CUT A THREE BY FIVE FOOT HOLE IN THE STREET TO CONNECT THE WATER AND SEWER TO THE HOUSE THAT I'M BUILDING. THE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX FOR THIS BLOCK OF DUNBAR IS 73.4%. IT IS 3.4% OF ABOVE REQUIRING A SLURRY SEAL. ACCORDING TO THE DALLAS CODE, SECTION 40 3-1 41, I WILL BE REQUIRED TO SEAL SLURRY SEAL THE ENTIRE STREET. MY MY PROPERTY IS ONLY 50FT WIDE. AND THAT COST, THAT COST WOULD COST ME APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER $21,000 TO SLURRY SEAL THE ENTIRE BLOCK. THERE ARE FIVE OTHER VACANT LOTS AND ONE HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH A FULL REMODEL ON THE SAME BLOCK. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, WE WOULD ALL START AND FINISH AT THE SAME TIME. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. MY REASON FOR BEING HERE TODAY IS TO ASK FOR A CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF THE SLURRY SEAL, SINCE THE STREET PCI IS ON THE BORDERLINE. THE OTHER ADDRESS IS ON DUNBAR THAT THAT ARE VACANT LOTS. AND A FULL REMODEL, 3506 DUNBAR IS A FULL REMODEL. 3510 DUNBAR IS A VACANT LOT. 3536 TEN DUNBAR. VACANT LOT 36. 18. DUNBAR IS THE VACANT LOT 3634 DUNBAR IS A VACANT LOT. 3635 DUNBAR IS A VACANT LOT. AND THE ENTIRE BLOCK CONSISTS OF A LITTLE [00:35:10] OVER 900 FEET LONG. AND MY LIKE I SAID AGAIN, MY LOT IS ONLY 50FT WIDE. I ONLY NEED TO CUT A THREE BY FIVE FOOT HOLE IN THE STREET RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY LOT TO CONNECT THE WATER AND SEWER TO THE HOUSE, BUT I'M BEING TOLD THAT I HAVE TO SLURRY SEAL THE ENTIRE BLOCK. I'M ASKING FOR RELIEF IN THAT MANNER. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MURALI KRISHNAN, IT'S NOT ON VIRTUAL. NOT IN NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. MURALI KRISHNAN IS NOT PRESENT. AARON CONLON. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS AARON CONLIN. I'M BASICALLY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE AWARENESS OF 911 CALLS AND THE DELAY OR NON RESPONSE TIMES WITH IT. IT'S PRETTY I KNOW IT'S IN THE NEWS LATELY, BUT THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO. MY SISTER IS CURRENTLY FACING 15 YEARS IN PRISON BECAUSE OF IT. THE NON RESPONSE. SHE CALLED 911. I BELIEVE IT WAS 47 MINUTES BEFORE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. EXPECTING POLICE TO BE THERE LIKE SO MANY TIMES BEFORE. UNFORTUNATELY SHE WAS DEALING WITH A AN ADDICT WHO HAD A FELONY RECORD FOR IMPEDING BREATH. HE'D BEEN MULTIPLE TIMES ABUSIVE TO MY NIECE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, I GET IT. SHE GOES. SHE GOES BACK. AND I HATE TO PUT, YOU KNOW, NOBODY WANTS TO BE PUT IN THAT POSITION. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE PEOPLE. MY SISTER WAS A HARD WORKING PERSON. NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE. 51 YEARS OLD, DEPENDING ON THE POLICE TO BE THERE. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. UNLESS YOU KNOW SOMEBODY THAT'S A DRUG ADDICT, YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY'RE GOING TO REACT TO THINGS. THIS GUY COULD BE EXPLOSIVE AT ANY MINUTE. THE HOUSE WAS A COMPLETE MESS. I COULDN'T BELIEVE MY NIECE WAS EVEN LIVING LIKE THIS OR PUTTING UP WITH SUCH THINGS. YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IN IN DOMESTIC DISPUTES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, A LOT OF WOMEN CAN BE SILENT, YOU KNOW. AND UNFORTUNATELY, MY NIECE AND MY, MY SISTER, NEITHER ONE WOULD LET ME IN ON IT. AND SO WHEN I SAY THESE THINGS, LIKE MY NIECE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, WAS GETTING STAPLES IN THE BACK OF HER HEAD, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE WOULD EVEN GO BACK TO THIS GUY. BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO 911 CALLS LIKE PEOPLE BELIEVE POLICE WOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT THEM. AND ON THIS DAY, AS SO MANY TIMES BEFORE THEY WERE, THEY WEREN'T. AND IT BECAME AN ISSUE BECAUSE NOW MY SISTER IS GOING AWAY FOR 15 YEARS. FOR SOME THERE'S MORE TO IT, BUT IT'S JUST HARD TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED ON THAT DAY IF POLICE HAD JUST RESPONDED TO THAT CALL, AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT TO WAIT 47 MINUTES WHEN AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, THEY WERE LITERALLY THERE WITHIN FIVE. SO MAKE SOMEBODY MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. I'VE SENT LETTERS TO THE MAYOR, I'VE SENT LETTERS TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE, YOU KNOW, AND AT SOME POINT WE WOULD EXPECT ANSWERS, BECAUSE AS FAR AS WE KNOW, FROM THE 911 CALL, THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT POLICE NOT BEING DISPATCHED, YOU KNOW? AND AND WITH ALL THIS BEING SAID, MY SISTER IS A LICENSED CARRY THE CARRY HER HANDGUN. THE PERSON THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WITH WAS COURT ORDERED NOT TO BE AT THE HOUSE. IT WAS OUT ON BOND NOT TO BE AT THAT HOUSE. AND UNFORTUNATELY MY MY NIECE PUT EVERYBODY IN THIS POSITION BEHIND IT. AND IT'S A SAD STATE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I LOVE MY SISTER AND THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS FOR THIS MEETING, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR VOTING AGENDA. [MINUTES] THANK YOU, MADAM CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM ONE IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THIS IS YOUR ITEM. IT'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR CONSENT AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA] YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH 26. AGENDA ITEM SIX HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AND HAS ONE SPEAKER. AGENDA ITEM NINE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. AGENDA ITEM 14 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. AGENDA ITEM 15 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. [00:40:03] AGENDA ITEM 18 WAS CORRECTED. AGENDA ITEM 24 WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, AND AGENDA ITEM 26 WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. THEREFORE, YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH FIVE, EIGHT, TEN THROUGH 13, 16 THROUGH 23 AND 25. THIS IS YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, MR. MAYOR. SECOND, IT'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIR WEST. THANK YOU. MAYOR. JUST ONE QUICK ITEM THAT I'M PARTICULARLY EXCITED ABOUT IS THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS COUNTY FOR PHASE ONE OF THE CHALK HILL TRAIL. THIS IS ITEM FIVE, AND IT WILL BRIDGE ANOTHER PIECE OF THE CHALK HILL TRAIL THAT CONNECTS PARTS OF DISTRICT SIX. MY COLLEAGUE LAURA CADENA AND PARTS OF DISTRICT THREE, MY COLLEAGUES, AARON GRACEY AND WILL ALSO CONNECT TO THE JOEY G. PARK WHERE WE JUST BROKE GROUND ON THE WINGS PRACTICE FACILITY. SO THIS IS A A GREAT CONNECTOR PIECE, AND I WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP ON THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT. WE'LL BE STEPPING IN ON PHASE THREE AS A CITY, BUT THE COUNTY IS REALLY LEADING THE WAY ON PHASES ONE AND TWO, AND THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WALLACE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WELL, I'M SORRY THAT OUR USUAL CROWD OF PEOPLE IN RED T-SHIRTS WHO ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT LIBRARIES AREN'T HERE THIS MORNING, BUT I KNOW THEY'LL BE EXCITED ABOUT THIS ITEM. ITEM NUMBER. ITEM NUMBER 12. THIS AUTHORIZES DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RENOVATING AND EXPANDING THE PRESTON ROYAL LIBRARY. COMPLETE INTERIOR RENOVATION WITH NEW LIGHTING, HVAC FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES, AND NEW FURNITURE. THERE IS A 2000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF PUBLIC AREAS FOR ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT PUBLIC RESTROOMS. THE FACILITY WILL BE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE C-CAP GOALS FOR NET ZERO CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION, AND THE WORK IS FUNDED BY THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM THAT WAS APPROVED BY DALLAS VOTERS. PROPOSITION D AND WHAT'S REALLY EXCITING IS THAT THE FIRM THAT HAS BEEN HIRED FOR THESE RENOVATIONS HAVE EXPERIENCE IN HISTORIC RENOVATIONS. THIS IS A LITTLE MID MOD MASTERPIECE RIGHT THERE AT ROYAL AND THE TOLLWAY, AND THEY'LL BE LEADING THIS EFFORT. AND THIS IS HELPING US TAKE SOMETHING THAT'S A TREASURE IN THE COMMUNITY AND MAKE IT MODERN AND ACCESSIBLE AND SET IT UP FOR SUCCESS FOR THE NEXT 60 YEARS. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIR RIDLEY THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM EIGHT, THE MILL CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS A MAJOR MILESTONE IN TERMS OF STEMMING THE FLOODING THAT'S OCCURRING IN EAST DALLAS, IN THE MILL CREEK WATERSHED. THIS IS TO FUND THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING FOR THIS PROJECT OUT OF BOND PROCEEDS. IT WAS INCLUDED BY THE VOTERS IN THE BOND PROPOSITION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2024. I'M VERY PLEASED TO SEE IT PROGRESSING. THE SECOND ITEM I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE MYERSON ROOF REPAIR. THERE HAS BEEN WATER INFILTRATION FOR SOME TIME AT THE MYERSON. THE ROOF REALLY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. IT IS TIME TO GET THIS WORK DONE. AND THIS ITEM AUTHORIZES A CONTRACT WITH PHOENIX ONE TO DO THAT WORK. SO I'M VERY PLEASED TO SEE THAT GOING TO PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT ASSET IN OUR ARTS DISTRICT. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR. YES. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME KEY POINTS ON ITEM NUMBER TEN. THIS BRINGS OVER $660,000 IN STATE FUNDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES, AT NO COST TO THE DALLAS TAXPAYER. IT IT IMPROVES THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY ALONG THE CORRIDORS LIKE LANAKILA LEDBETTER, LANCASTER AND MLK. IT STRENGTHENS OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH TXDOT AND LEVERAGES FEDERAL DOLLARS FEDERAL SAFETY DOLLARS FOR OUR CITY. IT SHOWS OUR COMMITMENT FOR SAFER, SMARTER STREETS FOR ALL DALLAS RESIDENTS. THIS ITEM IS ALIGNED WITH THE CITY'S VISION ZERO PLAN. ALL SIX INTERSECTIONS ARE HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS. THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SMART TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH THE PROJECT WILL ENHANCE SAFETY, MOBILITY AT THE SECTION, AT THE INTERSECTIONS, AND ALONG THE LEDBETTER AND ROBERT B COLUMN CORRIDORS. THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COST CONSTRUCTION COST OF $5,342,996, IS ENTIRELY PAID BY TXDOT. THE CITY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN. THIS AGENDA ITEM WILL REIMBURSE THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR ALL CITY SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT FOR THIS PROJECT. [00:45:01] THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR SAFETY WITHIN OUR CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR PULLED ITEMS. YOUR FIRST PULLED ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM SIX. [6. 25-2771A Authorize a public hearing to be held on October 22, 2025 to receive comments on proposed amendments to the Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan (“Plan”) for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number Eleven, the Downtown Connection Tax Increment Financing District (“Zone”) to: (1) increase the geographic area of the Downtown Connection Sub-district of the Zone by approximately two acres of real property to promote development or redevelopment of the Zone; and (2) make corresponding modifications to the Zone’s boundary and Plan; and, at the close of the public hearing on October 22, 2025, consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 26096, previously approved on August 29, 2005, as amended, to reflect these amendments - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] AGENDA ITEM SIX AUTHORIZED A PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. I'M SORRY. LET ME PULL THE ITEM UP. OKAY. AGENDA ITEM SIX AUTHORIZED A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2025 TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROJECT PLAN AND REINVESTMENT ZONE FINANCING PLAN. PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 11. THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ZONE TWO ONE INCREASE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION SUBDISTRICT OF THE ZONE BY APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ZONE, AND TWO MAKE CORRESPONDING MODIFICATIONS TO TO THE ZONE'S BOUNDARY AND PLAN. AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2025, CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 26096, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON AUGUST 29TH, 2005, AS AMENDED, TO REFLECT THESE AMENDMENTS. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. MOVE APPROVAL. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CADENA, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE. CALLING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. 1401 COMMERCE STREET, WILL BE HELD UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. THERE'S A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN. MR. MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT POINT OF ORDER. THAT MOTION WAS OUT OF ORDER AS I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FIRST. AND IT WAS SECONDED. I HAD ADDRESSED COUNCILWOMAN CADENA TO MAKE THE MOTION. THANK YOU. MISS CADENA, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. SO WE WERE BRIEFED ON SOME OF THESE OVER IN ECO DOVE YESTERDAY, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS SPECIFIC ITEM, I WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR IT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS AN APPLICATION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THIS SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. CHAIR. ROTH. THANK YOU. I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE THE, A REVIEW OF THE 1401 COMMERCE TILL NOVEMBER 12TH. BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED SIGNIFICANT ITEM. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY REVIEW THE DETAILS OF IT SUFFICIENTLY. AND I THINK THAT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS STUFF SUFFICIENTLY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A MORE THOUGHTFUL DECISION ON IT. I ALSO THINK THAT THE THE I, THE ITEM REGARDING THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT, THE 901 PROJECT, IS ABSOLUTELY AN IMPORTANT PROJECT TO THE CITY. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN. BUT THIS IS ALSO A VERY COMPLICATED DEAL. AND IT'S IT INVOLVES POTENTIALLY THE GRANT OF $100 IN DOLLARS BY US FROM THE TIF TO TO SUBSIDIZE THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS POSSIBLY A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY SHOULD BE WELL ACQUAINTED WITH, SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON. AND I'M NOT. I'M CONCERNED THAT REVIEWING THIS ON AN OCTOBER 22ND DATE WOULD BE TOO SOON FOR US TO GET THE COMPLETE INFORMATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I DO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF REGARDING IT, BUT I CAN HOLD THAT. I'D BE HAPPY TO HOLD THAT. OR WE CAN GO AHEAD AND AND REVIEW THAT IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK HE'S WAITING ON STAFF TO COME DOWN. THEY ARE HERE. BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO ANSWER. YES, THERE'S SEVERAL OF THEM. OKAY. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TIF AND SEVERAL ITEMS RELATED TO THE TIF. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. I'M KEVIN SPATH, THE DIRECTOR. I'M SORRY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEAR THE CITY ATTORNEY IN MY EAR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THIS ITEM ACTUALLY IS. THIS ITEM IS TO CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S NOT FOR THE APPROVAL. IT'S TO AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BEGIN. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING. [00:50:03] RIGHT. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN TWO WEEKS, I THINK IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THAT IT'S TOO SOON, IT'S JUST TOO COMPLICATED OF AN ISSUE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS, THAT THIS BODY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN TWO WEEKS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THE DECISION, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT POSTPONING IT A COUPLE WEEKS WOULD ALLOW THE STAFF TO GIVE US BRIEFINGS ON IT, EITHER PERSONALLY OR AS A GROUP, TO GIVE US A MORE ADVANCED AND DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE IMPACT OF THIS COMPLICATED TRANSACTION. IT'S AN ABSOLUTE VITAL TRANSACTION TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT'S IN THE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BANK OF AMERICA IS A CRITICAL DOWNTOWN PROJECT. BUT WE ARE, AS A BODY, COMMITTED TO DEALING WITH GIVING UP $100 MILLION WITHOUT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US NOT TO POSTPONE THIS TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IN THE MEANTIME, I'M HAPPY TO, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ARE RELATED TO THE TO THE THE OPERATION OF THE TIF. I'M SORRY. IS THERE A QUESTION DIRECTED? WELL, I WAS RESPONDING TO THE TO THE MANAGER. IS THAT IS THAT AND TO THE TO THE THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THAT APPROPRIATE? FOR FOR ME TO HAVE THESE QUESTIONS, IF I MAY TRY TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS IF THAT WOULD HELP. SO THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIFF DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DID REVIEW AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TWO THINGS. LAST WEEK AT THEIR BOARD MEETING. ONE WAS AMENDING THE TIFF DISTRICTS PROJECT PLAN TO ADD THE PROPERTY AT 901 MAIN STREET, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWER SITS. ALSO, THE BOARD LAST WEEK REAFFIRMED THEIR PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF ADDING THE PROPERTY AT 1401 COMMERCE, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE MAGNOLIA HOTEL SITS. EARLIER THIS WEEK, THE STAFF BRIEFED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON BOTH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TIF DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN TO ADD THESE TWO PARCELS, AND THE PROPOSED INCENTIVE FOR THE 901 MAIN STREET OR THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. SO THIS ITEM TODAY ONLY DOES ONE THING. IT CALLS A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 22ND AND GIVES US, AS THE STAFF, THE AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER AND TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC GENERALLY ABOUT THAT PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 22ND. THERE WOULD BE TWO ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA. ONE WOULD BE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAN, AMENDMENT TO THE TIF DISTRICTS, PROJECT PLAN, AND THE BOUNDARY TO ADD THESE TWO PARCELS. THE OTHER WOULD BE A SEPARATE ITEM TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED INCENTIVE FOR THE 901 MAIN STREET OR BANK OF AMERICA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THANK YOU. MY MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT YOU'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON HERE. NUMBER ONE, YOU'VE GOT THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT BEING INCLUDED IN THE TIF DISTRICT. AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TO VET THIS, THESE ITEMS, AND I THINK IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IT, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. MY QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT THE TIF IS THAT ON THE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP REALLY DIDN'T GET ANY INFORMATION ON THIS STUFF UNTIL MONDAY MORNING AND THAT WE HAD A MEETING AT 1:00 ON MONDAY TO REVIEW THIS. I THINK THIS WAS A THAT WAS A REAL SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TO VET AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON A VERY COMPLICATED BIG DEAL. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEAL, BUT I'M OPPOSED TO IS FOR US TO BE MAKING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THESE DEALS ARE. AND SO MY SUGGESTION AND MY REQUEST IS, IS, IS YOU GIVE THIS GROUP A TIME AND GIVE US THE INFORMATION SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. AND IF WE PUSH THIS OUT FOR TWO WEEKS, I DON'T THINK IT KILLS THE DEAL. NUMBER ONE. YOU SAID THAT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FOR A FOR 15 MONTHS. WHAT'S TWO MORE WEEKS? I'D BE HAPPY TO COME SIT DOWN WITH YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. BUT WE AS A STAFF ARE FOLLOWING THE STANDARD PROCESS. UNDERSTAND? PLEASE UNDERSTAND. IT'S NOT A REFLECTION ON THE STAFF. IT'S A IT'S A REFLECTION ON THE ON THE NEEDS FOR US TO MAKE MAJOR DECISIONS. [00:55:03] I DO HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIF. THE TIF ITSELF, HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE TIF AND IF THIS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS OFFLINE WITH YOU. WELL, DOES IT HAVE TO BE OFFLINE OR SHOULD IT BE PUBLIC? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME. WE AREN'T PREPARED TO TAKE QUESTIONS LIKE THAT. WE WE PROVIDED ANSWERS ON MONDAY AT COMMITTEE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS AGAIN OFFLINE. IT IS THE THE CURRENT BOND OBLIGATION IN THE TIF THAT'S ABOUT $110 MILLION LEFT TO PAY. IS THAT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENTLY COVERED? YES, SIR. AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO COME WALK YOU THROUGH THIS OFFLINE. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TILL NOVEMBER 12TH. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I WOULD LIKE THIS BODY TO PUSH THIS TILL THE 12TH. ARE YOU. ARE YOU OKAY? JIM RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION BECAUSE I AM STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THESE PROJECTS. THIS PROJECT WAS HEARD AT. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON MONDAY. AS A RESULT OF THE TESTIMONY FROM STAFF AT THAT TIME, THE COMMITTEE VOTED 6 TO 1 TO FORWARD THIS MATTER TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AT THIS MEETING. I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT THAT DECISION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. THIS PROJECT IS OR THIS ITEM IS ENTIRELY WITHIN MY DISTRICT. IT IS AN INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW TO IMPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT IN DOWNTOWN. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS INSTRUMENTAL IN IN A CATALYTIC WAY OF CREATING A NODE OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING THAT WILL FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE LAMAR STREET CORRIDOR DOWN TO THE NEW CONVENTION CENTER. THIS IS A CRITICAL PROJECT WITH CRITICAL DEADLINES. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CALL UPON MR. MIKE SABLAN TO TALK ABOUT THE AS ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS, TO TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE DEADLINES AND A BRIEF SUMMARY, PERHAPS, OF THE PROJECT. COULD YOU COME FORWARD, SIR? TURN ON YOUR MIC. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE. I LIKE IT BETTER WHEN NOBODY HEARS ME. MIKE SABLAN PEGASUS SABLAN 5908 AZALEA MAYOR COUNCIL PERSONS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE CONVERSATION. WE HAVE ALL COLLECTIVELY BEEN IN DALLAS A LONG TIME. IF I STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE CBD IN DOWNTOWN, WHERE WE'RE AT, WHERE WE ASPIRE TO GO AND WHAT THE CRITICAL MOMENTS ARE. I'LL BE TELLING YOU SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WORK ON EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT'S NOT LOST ON ME, SO I'LL GET TO THE MORE SPECIFICITY OF THIS PROJECT. AT 1.8 MILLION FEET, IT'S THE LARGEST, TALLEST BUILDING IN DALLAS AT 70% IN DECLINING, WITH 685,000FT ALREADY HAVING TERMINATED OF THAT WITH 815,000FT² IN LINE DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PROJECT. TO ROLL, THE DEVASTATION IS INCREDIBLE. MORE LARGELY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP, THE BCG STUDY DONE FOR DD, IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LARGE COMPANIES LEAVE CBDS. THE TRAGEDY WOULD BE DETROIT WITH A 50% DEVALUATION OF ITS CBD WITH CHRYSLER AND GM. YOU CAN GO TO. I COULD QUOTE THEM ALL. I DON'T NEED TO. I DON'T WANT TO BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK POSITIVE, NOT NEGATIVE. WE HAVE A BEACHHEAD. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT IS WILLING AND HAS THE SUPPORT AND FINANCING TO MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A SELLER WHO HAS GIVEN US CONTRACT DATES AND WITH GREAT RESPECT TO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS ABOUT SCHEDULE, IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG SCHEDULE, A VERY HARD SCHEDULE, A VERY DEEP UNDERWRITING BY STAFF, BY A THIRD PARTY AT WHICH I'M COMING UP ON A DEADLINE. SO YES, I AM PUSHING TO MOVE FORWARD, TO HIT A DEADLINE THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO ME SO THAT I MAY ANSWER TO THAT AND MOVE FORWARD ON WHAT I NEED TO MOVE FORWARD TO. SO YES, THERE ARE HARD DEADLINES, HARD CONTRACT DATES, HARD MOVING FORWARD. I APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE AND RESPECT FOR A NEED TO HAVE GREAT UNDERWRITING. [01:00:06] I DO THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE A PHONE BOOK OF A JOB IN DATA? THE THIRD PARTY? EVERYTHING ELSE. WHAT QUESTIONS CAN I ANSWER THAT I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO? THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. AVALON. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE TIME TO REALLY DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE DEVELOPMENTS IS OCTOBER THE 22ND. NOT TODAY, BECAUSE TODAY WE ARE NOT APPROVING ANY SUBSIDIES TO THE DEVELOPER. WE ARE ONLY AUTHORIZING A HEARING ON EXPANSION OF THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, THE TIF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. AND SO WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON THE 22ND, WHICH GIVES TWO WEEKS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BONE UP ON THIS ITEM IF THEY WISH TO. BUT THIS HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED BY OUR STAFF OVER THE PAST YEAR, AND IT IS A PROJECT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN. THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE MAGNOLIA HOTEL, AND THAT IS A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT HOTEL TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH ARE GREATLY NEEDED IN DOWNTOWN. AND THAT IS ALSO GOING TO NEED AN EXPANSION OF THE TIF DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY STAFF BROUGHT BOTH ITEMS TO US AT ONCE. NOW, THE NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE SUBSIDIES FOR THE MAGNOLIA ARE STILL UNDERWAY AND ARE EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE SOON. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING DOWN TO THE SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE, MR. ZACH CRICHTON, WHO IS THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROJECT, TO TELL US ABOUT HIS TIMELINES AND WHY IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE TAKE THIS ITEM UP TODAY. MR. STENGEL. ZACH SYCAMORE DEVELOPMENT. SO OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME BEFORE. WE DO MIXED INCOME HOUSING. THIS IS A REALLY SPECIAL PROJECT. WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM HILTON TO DO A HOTEL, HILTON HOTEL, ON TOP OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE BY HILTON BRAND. SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. BUT THE MAIN DRIVER OF OUR TIMELINE, NOT ONLY THE ACQUISITION CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TAX CREDITS THAT WERE AWARDED $20 MILLION FROM TD FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS. THOSE HAVE A PLACE IN SERVICE DEADLINE THAT WE NEED TO MEET. AND SO DELAYING THIS JUST DELAYS THE PROCESS EVEN MORE ON A VERY, VERY TIGHT TIMELINE. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE UNDER A MONTH OF CUSHION BASED ON OUR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE. SO ANY DELAYS IN THIS RIGHT NOW ARE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED FOR PERMITS. WE ARE ALREADY OUT TO BID. WE ARE READY TO START THIS PROJECT. AND THE THE TIFF AWARD IS THE LAST PIECE OF THE PUZZLE TO GETTING THIS PROJECT UNDERWAY, AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO DO THAT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. THANK YOU, MR. STENGEL. SO I EMPHASIZE WE ARE NOT DECIDING ON ANY SUBSIDIES TODAY THAT WILL BE IN TWO WEEKS, WHICH PROVIDES SUFFICIENT TIME FOR STAFF TO BRIEF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WISHES MORE DETAILS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST VOTING ON AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TIF DISTRICT. WE'RE NOT EVEN EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES TODAY. WE'RE JUST AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE THIS MATTER UP IN TWO WEEKS. THEREFORE, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION AND IF THIS DOES NOT PASS, I WILL MOVE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. BEFORE MY TIME STARTS, I'D LIKE TO ASK A POINT OF INFORMATION. IS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITH OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE. I DON'T HAVE THE ADDRESS OF THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT, BUT THEN HOLDING FOR TWO WEEKS THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT. OKAY, SO THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO I'VE HAD TO REVISE MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE MR. RIDLEY REMINDED ME THAT THIS IS LITERALLY JUST TO OPEN UP THE HEARING, WHICH WILL GIVE US TWO WEEKS THAT FOLKS ARE ASKING FOR, TO HAVE TIME TO MEET WITH STAFF TO GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. BUT I DO WANT TO ASK KEVIN OR SOMEONE, WHOEVER WHAT KIND OF VETTING PROCESS DO THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS GO THROUGH TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY. I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIFF. [01:05:04] IN ORDER FOR THE TIFF TO DECIDE TO EXPAND BOUNDARIES OF ONE OF THEIR TIFS, AND THIS IS A VERY BIG TIFF. WHAT KIND OF VETTING PROCESS DO THEY GO THROUGH? WELL, THE PROJECT COMES TO US AS AN APPLICATION REQUESTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES TO BE PART OF THE CAPITAL STACK. WE HAVE AN APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. WE INTERNALLY EVALUATE THE PROJECT. WE INTERNALLY EVALUATE THE PROJECT AGAINST WHAT THE TIFF DISTRICT'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE AND ITS PROJECT PLAN. WE ALSO OUTSOURCE UNDERWRITING TO AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY THAT DOES THEIR OWN UNDERWRITING AND VERIFICATION OF ALL THE SOURCES, AND USES ALL THE DETAILS IN THE APPLICATION. THEN WE COME TO A POINT WHERE WE EITHER MAKE AN OFFER OR WE DON'T, AND WE'VE MADE AN OFFER. IT'S A VERY DETAILED TERM SHEET WITH LOTS OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN IT THAT GOES THROUGH A NEGOTIATION PROCESS WITH THE APPLICANT, EVENTUALLY ASSUMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THAT TERM SHEET, THEN WE BRING IT FORWARD FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BY THE TIF DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHICH THE BOARD DID REVIEW AND APPROVE THIS ITEM FOR THE FOR 901 MAIN STREET, THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT. LAST WEEK THEN IT WAS BRIEFED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS WEEK. AND SO THOSE THERE'S AN INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS. THERE'S AN OUTSIDE UNDERWRITING REVIEW PROCESS. AND THERE'S A OBVIOUSLY A FORMAL PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS AS WELL. WHAT ADDITIONAL BITES AT THE APPLE, SO TO SPEAK, WILL THIS COUNCIL HAVE IN THE EXPANSION OF THE TIF BOUNDARIES. AND THEN ALSO ON THE FINANCIAL AWARDS AFTER TODAY, OCTOBER 22ND? SO TWO, THE TWO THINGS YOU JUST DESCRIBED WILL BE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ITEMS. THEY WILL BE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ITEMS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THIS COUNCIL. SO WE HAVE TWO WEEKS TO GO THROUGH THE NUMBERS, MEET WITH YOU IF WE NEED IT TO GET THIS PROJECT, THESE PROJECTS THROUGH WITHOUT HOLDING UP ANY OF THE TIMELINES THAT WE KNOW THESE DEALS COULD BE HURT BY. THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE POSSIBLE WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THE RISKS OF HOLDING UP PROJECTS LIKE THESE IN TERMS OF MARKET FORCES? WELL, I THINK AS MR. AVALON JUST DESCRIBED, THE OBVIOUS RISK IS THAT THEY RUN OUT OF TIME TO CLOSE THEIR PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE SELLER. HE DIDN'T GO INTO MUCH DETAIL, BUT I KNOW THAT THE, THE THE OWNERS OF 901 MAIN STREET ARE A CHALLENGING BUNCH. NOT BASED IN THE UNITED STATES. AND SO TO EVEN GET A CONTRACT TO. AND WITH ENOUGH TIME TO WORK OUT ALL THE OTHER DETAILS. HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR MR. AVALON TO DO. SO IF IF THERE ARE DELAYS WITH THE FORMAL APPROVAL PROCESS, THEN THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE HIS ABILITY TO EVENTUALLY CONTROL THE PROPERTY AND DELIVER THE PROJECT. AND THEN IF THAT FALLS APART, THEN WHO KNOWS HOW LONG IT WOULD BE, IF EVER, THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT PROPERTY REPOSITIONED. IT'S IT'S A CRITICAL PROPERTY IN DOWNTOWN BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION, ITS SIZE. AND IT'S A SIGNAL TO THE MARKET FOR SURE. WELL, AND I'LL ASK THE CITY MANAGER THIS I MEAN, THESE PROPERTIES ARE BOTH CATALYSTS FOR DOWNTOWN IN DIFFERENT WAYS, RIGHT? I MEAN, AS MR. AVALON MENTIONED, THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWERS, OUR TALLEST BUILDING IN THE CITY. IT IF WE CONTINUE TO SEE THAT BUILDING EMPTY OUT I MEAN, IT'S JUST ONE MORE STRIKE TO DOWNTOWN THAT WE DON'T NEED THE OTHER ONE. THE MAGNOLIA PROPERTY IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX DEAL THAT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AND I KNOW THAT THE CONVERSATION AGAIN IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK ACROSS NOT ONLY THE CBD BUT ACROSS THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING OPPORTUNITIES ON REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH I'M THANKFUL FOR WHAT MR. AVALON DESCRIBED THIS MORNING, BUT ALSO THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT. I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING IS BRINGING THE PROJECTS FORWARD, KEEPING THE PROCESSES MOVING, AND THEN AT ANY POINT IN TIME, AS COUNCIL GOES INTO AN APPROVAL OF THE INCENTIVES AT THAT POINT YOU DEFINITELY HAVE THE OPTION TO VOTE UP OR DOWN, BUT IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HOLDING UP THE PROCESS, THE RELATIONSHIP AND THE PROCESS WITH OUR TIFF BOARDS ACROSS THE CITY ARE RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM SITTING DOWN AND SPENDING INDIVIDUAL TIME WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE NOT HOLDING THINGS UP WHEN WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE READY TO COME TO THIS BODY FOR APPROVAL. [01:10:03] SO, AS MR. SPATH MENTIONED, OCTOBER THE 22ND WOULD BE YOUR APPROVAL OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING AS IT RELATES TO THE INCENTIVES THAT COUNCIL. DEFINITELY. THAT IS YOUR DECISION TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT IF YOU WANT THOSE PROJECTS TO BE SUPPORTED AND HOW THEY MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER, AND I APPRECIATE THE THE SPIRIT MY COLLEAGUE BROUGHT THIS MOTION. I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING IT. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TODAY. FOLKS WILL HAVE TIME TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. AND IF WE NEED A DELAY AT THAT POINT I WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER IT. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. FIRST, I WANT TO MAKE IT EXTREMELY CLEAR THAT I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE EXPANSION OF 901 MAIN STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWER, INTO THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION. TIFF. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION BEFORE US BY DEFERRING 1401 COMMERCE WILL DELAY THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, IT'S IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DEFERRAL OF THE 901 MAIN STREET PARCEL TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 22ND. IF THAT'S THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING THAT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE ANY ISSUE ON THE ON THE PROCESS. OKAY. AND SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE IT WILL NOT AFFECT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWER. AND I WANT TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT THIS COUNCIL IS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT PROJECT RATHER THAN A DIVIDED VOTE. AND SO THEREFORE, FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. BLAIR. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS. I DID SECOND THE MOTION STRICTLY FOR THE CONVERSATION. THAT'S ALL THAT THAT I SECONDED FOR THIS IS WE DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE. THIS IS NOW THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO AUTHORIZE A HEARING TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THIS REQUEST. SO FOR THAT, THIS IS NOW ON THE RECORD THAT THIS IS ONLY TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING IF WE AS INDIVIDUALS, NEED TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SPATH, HIS TEAM OR CITY MANAGER OR EVEN MR. AVALON. WE HAVE THE THE OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. MR. AVALON HAS BEEN HERE. EVERY TIME WE DISCUSS THIS EXPANSION HE'S COMMITTED, HE HAS SHOWN HIS COMMITMENT. BUT WE. BUT IN ORDER FOR US AS A BODY TO ACT AS ONE, WE HAVE WE DO SOMETIMES NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE AS AS MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, TO SAY THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. WHAT I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT, THOUGH, IS THIS PROCESS. WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. I KNOW FROM MIKE AVALON. I DON'T KNOW IT FROM STAFF. AND WHAT I HEAR ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR OVER A YEAR. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW A COMMITTEE CAN HEAR IT MONDAY OR TUESDAY. WE'RE NOW ON WEDNESDAY ASKING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WILL HAPPEN IN TWO WEEKS FOR THE ACTUAL VOTE. SO THIS IS AN EXTREMELY CONSEQUENTIAL DEAL. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF DOWNTOWN IS RIDING ON THIS DEAL, BUT WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD THE STAFF ENGAGEMENT THAT ONE WOULD EXPECT. AND I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD HAVE SOME GREATER CLARITY ON WHAT THAT PROCESS OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE AND IF THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, OR IF PERHAPS A STEP WAS MISSED AND WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING OR, I DON'T KNOW, EIGHT MONTHS AGO, SIX MONTHS AGO, FOUR MONTHS AGO, TWO MONTHS AGO. WE SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE INFORMATION. CITY MANAGER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THAT? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT IT'S BACK TO THE PROCESS THAT IS BEFORE US. WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DIFFERENT TIFF BOARDS, WE DON'T TYPICALLY BRING A TIFF DEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL UNTIL IT'S GONE THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF THE TIFF BOARD, BECAUSE OFTENTIMES THAT COULD EITHER BE PREMATURE OR WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE OF THE BOARD. I WILL NOT OPPOSE THAT. IF CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE FOR US, WHEN WE'RE WORKING ON TIFF DEALS, [01:15:06] THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THAT WAS JUST HEARD THIS MONTH BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE BEFORE, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ITEMS COME BEFORE THE FULL BODY. IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S NOT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO DO THE VETTING IN ADVANCE. SO WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS DOING THAT. WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY, WHERE IT GOES TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AFTER THE TIFF BOARD, AND THEN IT COMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING, AND THEN IT COMES BACK FOR APPROVAL. WELL, IT'S A HUGE INVESTMENT. AND I THINK THAT WE DESERVE TO HAVE HAD MORE TIME AND INFORMATION, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES ARE ASKING FOR. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT REASON, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT IT SO THAT THEY CAN GET THE INFORMATION THEY NEED. BUT LUCKILY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT FROM THE PRIOR INCENTIVE, AND WE'VE HAD GOOD ADVOCACY FROM THE APPLICANT. SO WITHOUT THAT, I MEAN, I WOULD FOR SURE BE OPPOSED TO THE DEAL JUST ON THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION. AND, YOU KNOW, YES, WE HEARD THIS ITEM THIS MONTH, BUT TODAY IS ONLY THE EIGHTH. YOU HEARD IT 1 OR 2 DAYS AGO. SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THE TIMES WE CRITICIZED CITY HALL FOR BEING TOO SLOW, BOY, WHEN WE NEED A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING, IT SURE DOES HAPPEN FAST. THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. ER CAN SEE SECRETARY GIVE ME ANY DETAILS ON WHAT TRANSPIRED AT COMMITTEE WITH THIS ITEM OR ROBIN ANY ANYONE. SURE. THE ITEM WAS BRIEFED TO THE COMMITTEE. THERE WAS A VOTE TO MOVE THE ITEM FORWARD AS WRITTEN TODAY. AND ON THE 22ND BY 6 TO 1, I BELIEVE, WAS THE VOTE 6 TO 1. DO WE HAVE WHO WAS THE DISSENTING VOTE? I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. SO I'M I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF EXACTLY WHAT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US, ESPECIALLY UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT IN, IN THAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS NOT A TRUE APPROVAL. BUT I ALSO HAVE SOME STRONG OPINIONS ON THE FACT THAT JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO, THE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HEAR FROM MOST OFTEN AT THE HORSESHOE, IS WHERE THE VETTING OF THESE DEALS TAKE PLACE. THE COMMITTEE GAVE US 6 TO 1 RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BODY TO SEND IT FORWARD. I WOULD JUST ECHO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN WANTING TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY WAY OTHER THAN TO APPROVE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US, TO SEND THAT CLEAR MESSAGE. A DELAY TO ME IS A VERY MUDDY MESSAGE OF SUPPORT TO THIS PROJECT AND THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE PUT IN FOR QUITE SOME TIME HERE. SO I AM FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF OF THE SENTIMENT THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH BY COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY. I DON'T KNOW, JUST AS ALSO EXPLAINED BY MR. WEST WHY THIS HAS BECOME MUDDY. IT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND IT ALSO SEEMS THAT THERE'S CLEARLY BUILT IN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO FURTHER CONVERSE WITH STAFF, TO TAKE UP ANY OF OUR ISSUES THAT WE HAVE. FOR AN ACTUAL APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THAT TYPE OF ACTION TO TAKE PLACE. THIS IS NOT THAT TIME. THIS IS JUST MUDDYING THE WATER. AND IT'S ALSO COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE WORK THAT WE DO AND THAT WE SAY ALMOST ON A BIWEEKLY BASIS HERE ON THE HORSESHOE. THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR COMMITTEE WORK. AND ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ADVISORY IN NATURE WE OFTEN HEAR THE REASON FOR A DELAY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VET THEM IN COMMITTEE. THAT CAN'T BE STATED HERE. IN FACT, IT'S NOT ONLY BEEN VETTED, IT'S BEEN SUPPORTED BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I HAVE TO PUT SOME SORT OF FAITH IN THAT PROCESS THAT WE CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE AND NOT TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTHS FOR THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS DELAY. I DON'T THINK THE DELAY IS MEANT TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT IS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO CLEARLY WAS THE DISSENTING VOTE ON THE ITEM AS A WHOLE. SO TO ME, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING HERE, WHICH IS OPENING UP THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING, DOING OUR JOB IN OUR DUE DILIGENCE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, AND SPEAKING TO STAFF AND MAKING SURE ANY OF THOSE ISSUES ARE VETTED OUT. AND THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST DEBATE WITH ACTIONS TO BE INCLUDED AT A LATER DATE. [01:20:04] THAT'S THE WAY THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING DOWN. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DELAY IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO FOR THAT, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO DELAY. I THINK WE SHOULD OPEN UP THIS HEARING, AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE THE PROCESS AS LAID OUT AND AS PRESCRIBED FROM STAFF WITH THE THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN VETTED. SO THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. YES. SO I DO WANT TO SAY I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING. I A COUPLE, I GUESS IT WAS ABOUT A WEEK AGO. I DID ASK ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE DESIGN DISTRICT, AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS TOLD THAT IT NEEDED AN APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THAT EXPANSION TO HAPPEN. IN THIS CASE, THE EXPANSION IS HAPPENING, WHICH I DON'T KNOW, THAT YESTERDAY WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS AN APPLICATION. SO IS THAT TYPICAL FOR THAT TO HAPPEN? SO TYPICALLY ONCE WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S APPLIED AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THE INCENTIVES FOR THAT PROJECT WILL BE COMING FROM A TIF, WE BRING THE ITEMS TOGETHER. IN THIS CASE, THE MAGNOLIA DEAL WAS ALREADY RECOMMENDED BY THE TIF BOARD FOR INCLUSION BECAUSE OF A PRIOR APPLICATION THAT FELL THROUGH. WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION THAT WE DISCUSSED AT COMMITTEE ON MONDAY FOR THE PROJECT THAT MR. DANIEL MENTIONED. THE TIMING HERE IS A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE ONLY HAVE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEETING IN NOVEMBER, ONE COUNCIL MEETING IN DECEMBER. IT POTENTIALLY MAKES FOR A VERY LONG APPROVAL PROCESS TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THEIR INCENTIVES. WHICH IS WHY, SINCE THE TIFF BOARD HAD ALREADY APPROVED IT, AND WE'RE IMMINENTLY BRINGING YOU THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT TERM SHEET FOR APPROVAL, WE JUST WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED IT IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO PROCEDURALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BOUNDARY EXPANSION. IT DOES NOT APPROVE ANY INCENTIVES. IT DOESN'T APPROVE ANYTHING FOR THE PROJECT. IT LITERALLY JUST DRAWS A BOUNDARY AROUND THAT PARCEL SO THAT WE HAVE THAT SORT OF PROCEDURAL WORK OUT OF THE WAY FOR WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE WITH A TERM SHEET FOR THE MAGNOLIA DEAL FOR CONSIDERATION. THANKS FOR THAT. SO IT'S IT'S NOT NORMAL FOR THAT THEN TO HAPPEN. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT QUICKER THAN NORMAL. BUT YES, SINCE WE KNOW WE HAVE A PROJECT COMING, THAT'S WHY WE'RE FOLDING IT IN. WE DON'T JUST ADD PROPERTY WITH NO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN MIND. THAT DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT ANYONE, BECAUSE THE TIFF INCREMENT COMES FROM THE GROWTH IN THE TAX BASE. IF NOTHING'S HAPPENING, THERE'S NO GROWTH. AND SO SINCE WE KNOW SOMETHING'S COMING, THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THE ADDITION. SO, YOU KNOW, I AM STILL NEW TO THE COUNCIL. AND SO YESTERDAY I DID VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS OR MONDAY IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. BUT THEN AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT, I'M LIKE, I WAS TOLD THAT THE APPLICATION NEEDED WOOD IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE TIFF, AND SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE WOULD BE FAIR ACROSS THE BOARD WHENEVER WE'RE LOOKING AT THE EXPANSION OF TIF PROJECTS. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR, AND I AGREE ON THE FAIRNESS QUESTION. CERTAINLY, WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING ALL TIFS I WANT TO ALSO JUST THANK ROBIN FOR THE ADDITIONAL CLARITY THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT ON THE PROCESS AND WHY THE TIMELINE IS WHAT IT IS. YOU KNOW, THESE DEALS SHOULD NOT BE AN AUTOMATIC RUBBER STAMP BY ANY MEANS. BUT AS MR. BAZALDUA SAID A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO, WE NEED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE IT COMES TO COMMITTEE, IF WE IF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A CONCERN CERTAINLY WHEN IT'S IN COMMITTEE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER COMMITTEE WITH STAFF. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ON ME, THAT'S ON ALL OF US TO DO THAT. AND, AND I'LL JUST END BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS IS HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE AT CITY HALL. BUT WE I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE AN IMPRESSION THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, AS A COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN, INVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN. I THINK I WANT TO JUST THANK OUR, OUR APPLICANTS FOR INVESTING IN THE CITY, CARING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ABOUT CATALYST PROJECTS. SO THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK WE ALL NEED TO FOCUS ON THE STAKES OF THIS ITEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVER $400 MILLION INVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN WITH REGARD TO THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IN TERMS OF THE MAGNOLIA PROJECT, INVESTMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THROUGH THE LATECH PROGRAM, AND DESPERATELY NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOWNTOWN. THE STAKES ARE VERY HIGH HERE. ROBIN, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR THE COUNCIL THE ROLE OF THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIFF BOARD AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR ACTION IN APPROVING THIS ITEM TO GO FORWARD? WHAT KIND OF DILIGENCE DO THEY PERFORM AND WHAT ARE THEY RECOMMENDING TO THIS COUNCIL? SURE. SO TAMARA ACTUALLY BRIEFED THEM. I'M GOING TO ASK TAMARA TO STEP IN, BUT ALL OF THE TIFF BOARDS OR ADVISORY TIFF BOARDS, THEY REVIEW OUR PROJECTS, THEY LOOK AT OUR TERM SHEETS, THEY HEAR ABOUT OUR UNDERWRITING, [01:25:01] SORT OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO AT THE COMMITTEE. THEY ASK TONS OF QUESTIONS. THEY'RE APPOINTED BY ALL OF YOU. AND SO THEY MAKE AN ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION. TAMARA, CAN YOU DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE VOTE WAS? SURE. THE VOTE. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS BY THE TIFF BOARD. AND JUST TO ADD A LITTLE MORE FLAVOR TO THAT, ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIF DISTRICT ARE ACTUALLY EITHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN DOWNTOWN OR AGENTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS, SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE THAT DOWNTOWN IS FACING. THEY WERE VERY DILIGENT IN THEIR REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ADDED AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROJECT, AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT ENSURES THAT WE SEE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL OR HOTEL, AS A PART OF THIS FUTURE PHASES FOR THE BANK OF AMERICA TOWER. SO OUR TIFF BOARD AND ESPECIALLY THE DOWNTOWN CONNECTION TIFF BOARD IS REALLY WELL VERSED IN THE DOWNTOWN MARKET. THAT'S AN ISSUE. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. SO AGAIN, I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. BUT I HAVE TO SAY TWO THINGS. FIRST, THE COMMENT MADE THAT THERE'S A SIGNAL TO THE MARKET IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE WHAT IS THAT SIGNAL? I MEAN, IS THERE A SINGLE BUILDING DOWNTOWN THAT WE DON'T VALUE, THAT WE DON'T THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT ARE WE GOING TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO EVERY SINGLE ONE? THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING OUR CITY. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE FIRST PART. THE SECOND PART, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE MERITS OF A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT NOT THE SUBSTANCE. OKAY. SO MAKE SURE THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS ACTUALLY THE PROBLEM, WHICH IS STAFF'S WORKED ON THIS FOR A YEAR. THE COUNCIL HAS JUST OVER TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE VOTE, TWO WEEKS AND TWO DAYS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS SO, SO IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE HEARING THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN IS AT RISK. AND SO THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS THE ITEM, AND PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS IS THE ITEM. BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. AND SO WHEN WE HAVE REASONABLE REQUESTS FOR MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND A PROJECT LIKE THIS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE IT. AND ANYBODY WHO'S JUST RUSHING IT FORWARD, I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW IT SO MUCH BETTER EITHER. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT THE TIME WITH STAFF WITH COUNCIL, AND THIS IS HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE. THE CITY STAFF PUTS IT ALL TOGETHER, AND THEN WE ARE TOLD, DO IT OR DIE. AND ANYHOW, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE ITEM TO DELAY SO THAT MY COLLEAGUES CAN GET THE INFORMATION THEY NEED. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO BOTH THE APPLICANTS THIS IS NOT A REFERENDUM ON EITHER OF YOUR PROJECTS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU ALL. THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WE ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH TO HELP VET THESE PROJECTS AND HELP GET THESE PROJECTS OVER THE GOAL LINE. BOTH OF THE PROJECTS SEEM LIKE THEY'RE TERRIFIC PROJECTS. THEY'RE THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS, AND THEY'RE IMPORTANT PROJECTS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU ALL. YOU ALL ARE DOING WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN CALLED UPON. YOU'VE DONE IT THE PROPER WAY. YOU'RE DOING. YOU'RE DOING THE THE, THE, THE, ALL THE WORK AND THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT YOU NEED TO DO. WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS INTERNALLY, WITH THE CITY AND WITH US IN MAKING OUR DECISIONS IS DONE IN A CONSCIENTIOUS MANNER, IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER, AND WITH THE FACTS. AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR TWO PROJECTS. THEY'RE THEY'RE TERRIFIC PROJECTS. WHAT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF IS THE FACT THAT WE HADN'T HAD SUFFICIENT TIME AS A BODY TO HELP GRANT YOU THE THE RELIEFS THAT BOTH OF YOU NEED, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION. SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT WE APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR BOTH OF YOU, ALL YOUR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CITY, TO YOUR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN AND TO THE COMMITMENT OF OF MAKING THIS A VIABLE, TERRIFIC PLACE TO BE. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT A REFLECTION ON YOU, BUT THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS. I WOULD STILL REQUEST THAT MY COLLEAGUES VOTE IN FAVOR OF OF THE THE MOTION TO GRANT US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO VET THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MADAM CITY MANAGER, THEN. [01:30:03] CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, DID YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES OR 3 MINUTES? FIVE. FIVE. OKAY. NO, NO, NO. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT A FEW THINGS THAT I KNOW ARE HAVE BEEN STATED. THE PROCESS THAT WE UTILIZE IN WHEN WE BRING AN ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS ALSO IN THE TIME FRAME AROUND WHAT WE CAN START DISCUSSING DURING THE TIME THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATIONS. AND SO THE TIME FRAME FOR WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN TO US FOR AN INCENTIVE DEAL TO THE TIME THAT WE BRING IT BEFORE THE BODY FOR EITHER A COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OR FOR A VOTE. THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR US TO BEGIN TO TALK ABOUT THE DEAL WITH THE COUNCIL. SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. THIS IS NOT ABOUT STAFF HOLDING ON TO SOMETHING AND NOT SHARING THE INFORMATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS ABOUT A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND TALK TO COUNCIL WHILE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATIONS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT STAFF WITHHOLDING THE INFORMATION AND AND NOT SHARING IT WITH YOU ONCE. WE THEN PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL, WHICH IS DONE THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, THEN OPENS UP THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ITEM ITSELF. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE THE COMMENTS REGARDING HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT AND THAT WE DID NOT SHARE THAT WITH COUNCIL. THE CODE TELLS US THAT THAT IS KIND OF A A PERIOD OF EITHER SILENCE TO WHERE WE CANNOT BE ACTIVELY HAVING COUNCIL MEMBERS INVOLVED WHILE THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE BEING, BEING COMPLETED. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I REITERATED THAT, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WAS LISTENING TO THE DIALOG AROUND THE HORSESHOE. MY COLLEAGUES LISTENING TO COUNCILMAN ROTH. COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA. AND I WANT TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY THE QUESTION. WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS A HEARING. CORRECT? THE ITEM TODAY BEFORE US IS TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A HEARING ON OCTOBER THE 22ND, AT WHICH WE CAN RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THIS PROJECT. OKAY, SO WITHIN THE TWO WEEKS OF THE I GUESS IT'LL BE ON THE IN TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. WE HAVE TIME TO GET MORE INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED IF ANY OF US ARE REQUIRING OR INQUIRING MORE INFORMATION. CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY. AND STAFF HAS INDICATED THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE IN THAT INTERIM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE WE'VE TALKED OFTEN, YOU KNOW, IN THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROCESS AND HOW THINGS ARE DONE. AND THE LAST MESSAGE I WANT TO SEND THE PUBLIC IS THAT OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE THINGS AS BAKED AS POSSIBLE BEFORE WE COME HERE. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE POINT OF A PUBLIC HEARING IS TO BRING THE PUBLIC INTO THE DISCUSSION. OPENING THIS PUBLIC HEARING GIVES US THE ABILITY TO HEAR FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED AND STAKEHOLDERS LIKE HERE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. KEEPING THIS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, WE WANT TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL WE FEEL COMFORTABLE TO BRING THIS FORWARD. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SEMANTICS OF OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE REALLY CHASING HERE IN THIS DISCUSSION PREVENTING THIS PUBLIC HEARING GOING FORWARD IS ONLY PREVENTING AN INEVITABLE PROCESS. THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL OR A DEFINITIVE ACTION ON ANY MERIT OF, OF OF WHAT'S BEING PUT IN FRONT OF US WITH THIS TIF DEAL. THIS IS ALLOWING FOR THIS TO MOVE ALONG AND TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, AND I WANT TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY CAN YOU JUST GIVE A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE THE INTENT OR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING A PUBLIC HEARING LIKE THIS IS PLEASE. SO WHEN YOU AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC HEARING TO A CERTAIN DATE THAT ALLOWS, ON THAT DATE, THE PUBLIC TO COME AND PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT EXPANDING THE TIFF OR WHATEVER THE OTHER PUBLIC HEARING YOU MIGHT BE AUTHORIZING. THANK YOU. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR, BECAUSE WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN MY EYES IS ESSENTIALLY US TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY THAT THIS AFFORDS THE PUBLIC TO COME AND DO IN TWO WEEKS, WHICH MEANS WE GET TO DO THE VETTING. WE GET TO MAKE THE SAUSAGE HERE AT CITY HALL AND HAVE IT FULLY BAKED. [01:35:06] AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH THEATER. WHEN WE ACTUALLY OPEN IT UP, IF WE FEEL AS IF IT'S ALREADY BAKED, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING FROM OUR PUBLIC OPENING THIS UP AND ALLOWING FOR THEM TO COME AND BE AT THE TABLE AND BE A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, IN MY OPINION, HOLDING IT AND SAYING THAT WE WANT TO DO THAT BEFORE WE'VE EVEN GIVEN THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IS JUST BACKWARDS. WE'VE HAD THIS VETTED AT COMMITTEE. WE'VE HAD A RESOUNDING RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMITTEE TO THIS BODY TO OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING. OPENING THIS PUBLIC HEARING ALLOWS FOR US TO HEAR FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A DELAY IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH. AND I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THERE'S CONTEXT HERE. AND WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THIS WITH THE CONTEXT, AND I HOPE THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT A TRAJECTORY OF DELAYING EVERY ITEM WITH CERTAIN DEVELOPERS BECAUSE OF PAST, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS FEELS LIKE. IT SEEMS VERY PERSONAL, IT DOESN'T SEEM VERY PROFESSIONAL, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE WAY THAT THIS CITY IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. RECORD VOTE PLEASE. THANK YOU. DULY NOTED. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. WE'RE VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT TO DELAY. IS THIS CORRECT? OKAY. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO DELAY FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE A TWO WEEK SPAN WHERE IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO GET INFORMATION AND WORK WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, GET INFORMATION, WE HAVE THAT TIME THAT'S ALLOTTED, ALLOTTED. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE TO US. AND THIS HAS SEEMED LIKE THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ALREADY. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, AND I KNOW I JUST GOT HERE WITH JUST BECAUSE I JUST GOT HERE. DON'T MEAN THAT THIS WORK WAS NOT GOING ON PRIOR TO ME GETTING HERE. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND NOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. CITY ATTORNEY, JUST FOR CLARITY, CAN YOU AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT. CAN YOU LET US KNOW IF THE MOTION BEFORE US WOULD DELAY MOVING FORWARD WITH 901 MAIN STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS BANK OF AMERICA TOWER? IT DOES NOT DELAY THAT. IT SIMPLY DELAYS THE CALLING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AT 1401 COMMERCE STREET FOR TWO WEEKS, SO IT WOULD DELAY THE CALLING OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TWO WEEKS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE ON RECORD. VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE. OH, MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ASK STAFF IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE ME. THERE'S A COUPLE PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY THAT I REMEMBER. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS MOVING FAST, AND I KNOW THE ARGUMENT OF BEING FAIR AND CONSISTENT, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REGULATIONS WITHIN THE CODE THAT REQUIRE US TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION, AND THIS AND THAT, WHEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE SCOTIABANK DEAL SPECIFICALLY. AND ALSO I REMEMBER WITH FC TRINITY THOSE WERE VERY RAPID PACE AND CAN CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE TIMELINE WAS FOR THOSE PROJECTS. SO A TYPICAL DEAL WOULD GO TO COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL AND THAT'S ALL THIS ONE HAS A FEW MORE PUBLIC TOUCHES, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE TIFF, WHICH REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. IT ALSO INVOLVES TIFF INCENTIVES, WHICH REQUIRES A TIFF BOARD REVIEW. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S TIFF FUNDING. IT ALSO HAS TO GO TO URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW. SO THIS ONE HAD MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL STEPS FOR SOMETHING LIKE SCOTIA. WE BRIEFED IT TO COUNCIL. AND YOU VOTED FOR GOLDMAN SACHS. WE BRIEFED IT AT COMMITTEE. WE BROUGHT IT TO COUNCIL. AND YOU VOTED. THOSE ARE TYPICALLY JUST A TWO STEP PROCESS. THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LABORIOUS BECAUSE OF THE INCENTIVE SOURCE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE CONTEXT THAT THIS IS NOT STAFF SHOVING SOMETHING DOWN OUR THROAT. THIS WAS NOT ANY FASTER THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN UNANIMOUS VOTES AROUND THIS COUNCIL AND PRAISING THE WORK THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO US FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEALS. AND WHY THIS WOULD BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY IS BEYOND ME. BUT I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO CONTEXT THAT'S IMPORTANT BEFORE WE TAKE THIS VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSED COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. RESENDEZ. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. [01:40:04] STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROTH. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. NO. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. MAYOR. JOHNSON. NO. THANK YOU. ONE SECOND. I'M HAVING. WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE VOTE YET. ONE SECOND. I'M SORRY. I KNOW, WITH FOUR VOTING IN FAVOR, 11 OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS. MR. MAYOR. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, ANY DISCUSSION? NO, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY HAD SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION. THAT COUNTS AS DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO CALL FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M HAVING A LITTLE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN AUTHORIZED ONE. [7. 25-2529A Authorize (1) the first of two permitted ten year renewals with the North Texas Municipal Water District to transport North Texas Municipal Water District owned water supply from Lake Fork to Lake Tawakoni for the period October 14, 2025 through October 13, 2035; and (2) an amendment to reflect the terms of the Sabine River Authority Contract with the North Texas Municipal Water District - Estimated Annual Revenue: $3,462,101.65 (at current untreated water transportation rate)] THE FIRST OF TWO PERMITTED TEN YEAR RENEWALS FOR THE NORTH TEXAS NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TO TRANSPORT NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OWNED PROPERTY. WATER OWNED WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE TO LAKE TAWAKONI FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 14TH, 2025 25 THROUGH OCTOBER 13TH, 2035 AND TWO. AN AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE TERMS OF THE SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY CONTRACT WITH THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, KENNETH ANSCHUETZ. KENNETH ANSCHUETZ IS NOT PRESENT. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. ITEM SEVEN. MOVE TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN. YES. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. ITEM SEVEN. I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY AS THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT IS PURCHASING WATER FOR US TO ASK FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE UPSTREAM MAINTENANCE OF WATERWAYS THAT ARE BREAKING AND CAUSING DAMAGE IN DALLAS. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION ON COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN. WE OF COURSE, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN ALL OF THE RELATIONSHIPS WHERE WE'RE ADDRESSING WATER SUPPLY, WE ALSO WANT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND DEFINITELY WILL CONTINUE IN CONVERSATIONS AND HOW WE MOVE THAT FORWARD. THE ITEM TODAY IS DEFINITELY ABOUT WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION AND DOES NOT ADDRESS WASTEWATER, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TO PROTECT OUR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS ABOUT RAW WATER AS OPPOSED TO WASTEWATER. AND THE ISSUE WE'VE BEEN HAVING IS WITH WASTEWATER. BUT IT SEEMS THAT WHEN YOU'RE ENTERING INTO THIS KIND OF CONTRACT, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF LEVERAGE. AND THAT'S WHY I BRING THIS UP. NOW, I'VE HAD OFF CONVERSATIONS WITH SARAH FROM DWU. I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE SOME DISCUSSIONS HAPPENING, BUT WE CAN'T LET THE OPPORTUNITY GO BY TO NOT ASK FOR AND SHOW OUR HAND OF. WE DO HAVE A VOICE IN HOW THEIR AREA IS GOVERNED BECAUSE IT'S SO GREATLY IMPACTS OURS. AND WHILE DISTRICT 12 IS THE FIRST TO LITERALLY RECEIVE THE WASTEWATER COMING OUT OF THE NORTHERN CITIES OUT OF THAT MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, IT ENDS UP AT WHITE ROCK LAKE. AND SO IT'S TRAVELING ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH ALL OF OUR DISTRICTS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT DOESN'T JUST STOP AT WHITE ROCK LAKE, AND IT CONTINUES DOWN THROUGH THE TRINITY. AND SO WE NEED ALL OF OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS TO DO THE VERY BEST JOB THEY CAN, AND MAKE THE KINDS OF INVESTMENTS THAT LEAD TO A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL OF US. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT WASTEWATER RELATED, THAT BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A CONTRACT WITH THEM, THAT THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE TO PUSH FOR GREATER CAPITAL INVESTMENT SO THAT WE ARE BETTER PROTECTED. SO I KNOW THAT SHE'S DOING THAT AND I APPRECIATE IT. AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. BUT OUR RESIDENTS ALSO NEED TO KNOW THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN. AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE STATED AS WE WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL WAYS THAT FROM A CONTROL AND AN ENFORCEMENT, [01:45:08] WE WILL DEFINITELY COME BACK TO THE BODY AND SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THE VERY THINGS THAT YOU'VE RAISED THIS MORNING. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND STAFF IS DEFINITELY TAKEN ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM SEVEN SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NINE. [9. 25-2698A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the professional services contract with Halff Associates, Inc. to provide additional engineering services necessary for water and wastewater main installations at 21 locations (list attached to Agenda Information Sheet) - Not to exceed $883,900.00, from $1,281,170.00 to $2,165,070.00 - Financing: Wastewater Capital Improvement G Fund ($806,633.00) and Water Construction Fund ($77,267.00)] BUT BEFORE I READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON AGENDA ITEM NINE. I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NINE. BUT BEFORE I READ THAT ITEM INTO THE RECORD, COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? MISS BLAIR, I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND. 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. MISS BLAIR, TO EXPLAIN YOUR MOTION, I AM ASKING THAT WE HOLD THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 22ND SO THAT DW CAN COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT. THERE'S THERE'S ITEM IN THE CONTRACT THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISITED, AND THEY NEED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. AT WHICH TIME THEY WILL BE READY TO WE'LL BE READY TO BRING THIS BACK BEFORE THE BODY FOR A FULL VOTE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 14. AGENDA ITEM 14, AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT [14. 25-2667A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the design-build construction contract with G.P. Cooper Industries, Inc. dba Cooper General Contractors, to provide construction services for multiple public restroom accessibility renovations to achieve compliance with Texas Accessibility Standards at various locations - Not to exceed $2,605,780.00, from $567,224.00 to $3,173,004.00 - Financing: City Hall, City Service and Maintenance Facilities Funds (2006 General Obligation Bond Fund) ($628,428.00), Facilities (H) Fund (2017 General Obligation Bond Fund) ($628,428.00), Library Facilities (D) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Funds) ($1,190,732.00), and Cultural and Performing Arts Facilities (E) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Funds) ($158,192.00) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Human Rights ADA Transition Plan.] WITH GP COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., DBA COOPER GENERAL CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR MULTIPLE PUBLIC RESTROOM ACCESSIBILITY RENOVATIONS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS NOT TO EXCEED $2,605,780 FROM $567,224 TO $3,173,004. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST MOTION. YES. SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. THE LOCATION IN CITY HALL ARE HELD UNTIL AFTER THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS BRIEFED ON DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AT CITY HALL. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAYOR PRO TEM, DO YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM 14. FOLKS SEEING NONE. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM 14 AS IT WAS MOVED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. ARE YOU HOLDING THE ENTIRE MATTER TO REFER IT TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OR JUST A PORTION OF IT, JUST A CITY HALL PORTION? OH, OKAY. SO THE OTHER LOCATIONS WE WOULD BE APPROVING UNDER YOUR MOTION. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 15. AGENDA ITEM 15 AUTHORIZE A PAYMENT OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES AND CONTINUATION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN REGION OF THE AIRPORTS [15. 25-2707A Authorize payment of annual membership fees and continuation of arrangements for the North American Region of the Airports Council International in an amount not to exceed $110,000.00, American Association of Airport Executives in an amount not to exceed $60,000.00, Oncor Cities Steering Committee in an amount not to exceed $149,000.00, Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues in an amount not to exceed $49,500.00, North Central Texas Council of Governments in an amount not to exceed $141,000.00, Forrester Research, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $651,701.95, Atmos Cities Steering Committee in an amount not to exceed $67,252.35 - Total not to exceed $1,228,454.30 - Financing: General Fund ($406,752.35), Aviation Fund ($170,000.00), and Data Services Fund ($651,701.95)] COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $110,000. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 ON COR CITY STEERING COMMITTEE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $149,000. TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $49,500. NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $141,000. FORRESTER RESEARCH, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $651,701.95. ATMOS. CITY STEERING COMMITTEE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $67,252.35. TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $1,228,454.30. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH CHAIR RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE. THE AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF THE FORRESTER RESEARCH, INC. ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE IS COMMITTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. AND AFTER BEING HEARD AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL VOTING AGENDA MEETING. [01:50:06] SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND RIDLEY. GO AHEAD. YES. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT I RAISED QUESTIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT THIS $650,000 ALLOCATION FOR FORRESTER RESEARCH WAS FOR WHAT KIND OF MEMBERSHIP THIS WAS, AND STAFF RESPONDED THAT THEY THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO DELETE THIS ITEM FROM THIS MOTION AND REFER IT TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SO THAT THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS COULD BE ANSWERED WITH INPUT FROM THE ITS STAFF. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. THANK YOU. I WOULD SUPPORT THE THE THE MOTION. I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS THIS DEALS WITH A BUNCH OF MEMBERSHIP AND, AND OTHER SUGGESTED SUBSCRIPTIONS THAT WE HAD SEVERAL HOURS WORTH OF DISCUSSION DURING THE BUDGET. AND THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE TYPICALLY AROUND $100,000 IN IF, IF IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK THAT WE REMEMBER THAT THESE AMOUNTS OF MONIES, IF WE CHANGE OUR OUR ALLOCATION OF OF CAP ON ON WHAT'S VETTED BY THIS BODY WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO US. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE KIND OF REQUESTS ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED TO US, AS IN THIS SITUATION, THROUGH CONSENT AGENDA, WHERE WE CAN EVALUATE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS THAT MIGHT BE IN THE $100,000 RANGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AS WELL. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY A MEMBERSHIP. I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE CALLED THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS ACTUALLY CONSULTING SERVICES. $650,000. THE REALITY IS THAT I HOPE THE ITEM THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REALLY DELVES INTO IS WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY OUTSOURCED, THAT THIS IS NOT A FUNCTION THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY STAFF, THAT WE SHOULD GET EXPERTS WHO ARE WORKING WITH THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY, THE LATEST METHODOLOGY. WE ARE A CONSTANT TARGET AND WE ARE WAY, WAY, WAY BEHIND WHERE WE SHOULD BE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, MADAM SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 24. AGENDA ITEM 24. [24. 25-2718A Authorize a five-year service price agreement for vehicle and equipment appraisal services for the Department of Equipment and Fleet Management - Choice Solutions Services, Inc., lowest responsible bidder of two - Estimated amount of $623,500.00 - Financing: General Fund (subject to annual appropriations) *In alignment with CECAP.] AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE PRICE AGREEMENT FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND FLEET MANAGEMENT. CHOICE SOLUTIONS SERVICES, INC. LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER OF TWO. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $623,500. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCILWOMAN. BLACKMON. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. YES. THE REASON I PULLED THIS WAS REALLY PRIMARILY BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOR. AND AND AGAIN, IT I WAS I WAS HOPING THAT STAFF COULD EXPLAIN TO US WHAT WE'RE SPENDING $100,000 A YEAR ON ON APPRAISALS. NOT IT'S NOT A JUDGMENT CALL OF WHAT IT IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. AND I'D LIKE TO TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE SPENDING $600,000 ON. STAFF IS COMING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. GO AHEAD. VINCENT. GOOD MORNING, VINCENT OLSEN. FM FLEET DIRECTOR. THE THE EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS FOR A THIRD PARTY INSURANCE ADJUSTER TO EVALUATE VEHICLE DAMAGE. AND WE USE THAT WITH OUR OWN INTERNAL STAFF TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT REPAIRS, WHAT THE REPAIR COSTS SHOULD BE, AND VALIDATE THE ACTUAL PRICES. THOSE PRICES ARE COMPARED IN MITCHELL SERVICE MANUALS AND SOFTWARES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OVERPAYING FOR VEHICLE REPAIRS. SO AND SO THIS IS THIS IS A CONTRACTED SERVICE WITH A THIRD PARTY TO HELP YOU EVALUATE IF REPAIRS ON A DAMAGED VEHICLE ARE BEING ARE BEING COST EFFECTIVELY REPAIRED BY YOUR THIRD PARTY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE GROUP THAT YOU HIRE OUT. CORRECT. AND THAT'S SPECIFIC TO BODY SHOP. YES. SO THIS IS LIMITED. IT'S NOT APPRAISAL OF THE VALUATION OF OF YOUR FLEETS FOR FOR OTHER PURPOSES FOR NO IT'S STRICTLY FOR BODY SHOP [01:55:04] FUNCTION. OKAY. AND IT'S A IT'S A LICENSED IT'S A LICENSED POSITION. AND AND AGAIN IT'S LARGELY AN OUTSOURCED THAT IT'S KIND OF A HYBRID SOLUTION THAT WE HAVE ONE APPRAISAL IN-HOUSE. AND THAT WAY IF THERE'S BACK AND FORTH ON VEHICLES, THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PAYING THE RIGHT PRICE. AND WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE WE SELF-INSURE OUR VEHICLES AND SO IS THIS. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT MAYBE IS IS DONE THROUGHOUT THE THE IS DONE ON OTHER THINGS ALSO. YES, SIR. THIS IS A STANDARD PRACTICE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 26. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN HAS A CONFLICT AND HAS LEFT THE CHAMBER. [26. 25-2608A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the professional services contract with Jeffrey M. Tillotson, P.C. dba Tillotson Johnson & Patton for additional legal services to represent the City of Dallas in the lawsuit styled Dallas Police and Fire Pension System v. City of Dallas, Cause No. D-1-GN-24-004948 - Not to exceed $500,000.00, from $100,000.00 to $600,000.00 - Financing: Liability Reserve Fund] I'LL READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD. AGENDA ITEM 26 AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JEFFREY M TILLOTSON, P.C., DBA TILLOTSON, JOHNSON, AND PATTON. FOR ADDITIONAL LEGAL SERVICES TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF DALLAS IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. THE CITY OF DALLAS CALLS NUMBER 124004948. NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 FROM $100,000 TO $600,000. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. ALRIGHT. MISS STEWART, GO AHEAD. ANY DISCUSSION? NO, WE JUST NEEDED TO PULL IT FROM CONSENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION FROM ANYONE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THIS COMPLETES YOUR PULLED ITEMS. [27. 25-2768A 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)] WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL ITEM. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN CAN RETURN TO THE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. AGENDA ITEM 27 IS YOUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ITEM. ITEM 27 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. THIS MORNING YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL FULL COUNCIL AND OFFICER APPOINTMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT YOUR OFFICER APPOINTMENTS WILL BE SEPARATED TO ALLOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO BE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD BEFORE BEING APPOINTED OFFICER OF THE BOARD. YOUR NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION, STEPHANIE CASEY, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY. MISS CASEY MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE ADVISORY COMMISSION. JOHN JACK BUNNING IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. MR. BUNNING MEETS THE CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS MANAGEMENT SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MICHAEL HOROVITZ IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN TO THE CITIZEN HOMELESSNESS COMMISSION. MARK NUNLEY IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON. MR. NUNLEY MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. JACK D COX IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, AND CATHY KAUFMAN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. MIKE SIMS IS BEING NOMINATED TO THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST TO THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITIES. DILLON R ROCKWELL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ MR.. ROCKWELL MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD. OLIVER ROBINSON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION. HOWARD RUBIN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN. MR. RUBIN MEETS THE POSSESSES A JURIS DOCTORATE DEGREE. SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. RAGAN, C ROTHENBERGER IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN MR.. ROTHENBERGER MEETS THE URBAN PLANNER SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD. SANDBERG SAID, IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH TO THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD, AND HARDING IS BEING NOMINATED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIS TO THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD. LANE CONNOR IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN TO THE PERMIT AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD. ROBERT ROBERTS IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON TO THE SENIOR AFFAIRS COMMISSION. ROBERT FRIEDMAN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN, AND MR. FRIEDMAN MEETS THE 55 PLUS YEARS OF AGE SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK OPPORTUNITY FUND BOARD. SANTA AND CARSON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER RESENDEZ. MISS AND CARSON MEETS THE RESIDENT OF THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK FUND PROGRAM SPECIAL QUALIFICATION. [02:00:03] YOUR NOMINEES FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION. COURTNEY SPELLACY IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON. MISS SPELLACY MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE EIGHT BOARD DESIGN DISTRICT. NICOLE VILCHES IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD, FORT WORTH AVENUE. BRIAN TEEFEY IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA AND TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE 21 BOARD UNIVERSITY. SARAH WYANT IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. MISS WYANT MEETS THE OWNS REAL PROPERTY IN THE TIF DISTRICT. SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS. THESE ARE YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. AND MR. BAZALDUA WAS A NO. NOTED, MR. MAYOR. WELL, NOW WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR OFFICER APPOINTMENTS. YOU DO HAVE CHAIR AND TWO CHAIR APPOINTMENTS AND A VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENT. I WILL SEPARATE THE VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS FROM THE TWO CHAIR APPOINTMENTS TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO ABSTAIN ON THE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS, SO WE'LL BRING THE VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENT FORWARD FIRST. LAINE CONNOR IS BEING NOMINATED VICE CHAIR OF THE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MENDELSOHN WEST, STEWART RIDLEY AND BLAIR. THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. NOW YOUR CHAIR. APPOINTMENTS. MARK NUNLEY IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE CITIZEN HOMELESSNESS COMMISSION BY MAYOR JOHNSON. AND ROBERT ATKINS IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD BY MAYOR JOHNSON. THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO ASK OUR ATTORNEYS TO JUST BE COGNIZANT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOME BUILT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS NOMINEE, WITH SOME ITEMS COMING UP FORWARD. AND I HOPE THAT WE HAVE OUR DUE DILIGENCE DONE AHEAD OF TIME AND MAKE SURE THAT ANY CONFLICTS ARE HASHED OUT BEFORE. FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS NOMINEE. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN THE NOMINEE FOR CHAIRING THIS VERY IMPORTANT BOARD FOR OUR CITY. AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS NOMINATION. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. BUT NOTE THE NAY FROM NOTED, MR. MAYOR. MR. BAZALDUA. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOTE MY ABSTENTION, PLEASE. NOTED, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. ITEMS. AGENDA ITEM 28 WILL BE YOUR NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 28 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS TWO, [28. 25-2511A An ordinance amending Chapter 2, “Administration,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Sections 2-30, 2-31, 2-32 to (1) raise the thresholds for when a City contracts must be competitively bid from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00, as authorized by state law; (2) increase the threshold for certain administrative actions and contracts from $100,000.00 to $300,000.00 for goods, general, professional, personal, and other services, and $500,000.00 for architecture, engineering and construction services; (3) provide a savings clause; (4) provide a severability clause; and (5) provide an effective date - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] DASH 32, DASH 31, TWO, DASH 32 TO 1. RAISE THE THRESHOLDS FOR WHEN A CITY CONTRACT MUST BE COMPETITIVELY BID FROM $50,000 TO $100,000, AS AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW, TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD FOR CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND CONTRACTS FROM $110,000 TO $300,000 FOR GOODS, GENERAL, PROFESSIONAL, PERSONAL AND OTHER SERVICES, AND $500,000 FOR ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. THREE PROVIDE A SAVINGS CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND FIVE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE TO SEPARATE THE. I RECOGNIZE MR. WEST FIRST. SORRY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. MOVED AND SECONDED. MR.. MR. WEST, DO YOU HAVE DISCUSSION? I DO, MAYOR, FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES. I THINK WE HAD A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK ON THE ITEMS. AND AS A REMINDER, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY. THE FIRST ITEM IS RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING FROM 50,000 TO 100,000. IN LINE WITH THE THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY STATE LEGISLATION, THE THRESHOLD ON THIS FIRST ITEM OF 50,000 WAS SET IN 2007. SO ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION TODAY IT WOULD BE $79,000. SO WE KNOW THAT CONSTRUCTION AND EVERY OTHER COST HAS INCREASED BEYOND THE AVERAGE INFLATION RATE. SO THIS CHANGE HELPS US KEEP UP WITH THE INCREASED COSTS OF CONTRACTS. [02:05:03] THE SECOND ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THRESHOLD. CHANGING THIS THRESHOLD TO $300,000 FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AND $500,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS WE REVIEW, BUT IT WILL CHANGE THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTS WE REVIEW. WE LEARNED LAST WEDNESDAY THAT 96% OF CONTRACTS ARE AWARDED ON CONSENT, AND THAT OF THE 4% ACTUALLY PULLED FROM CONSENT, OVER THREE FOURTHS ARE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT REDUCING COUNCIL'S WORK, PER THE FRIDAY MEMO, WHICH WAS VERY DETAILED AND ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 2025 CONTRACTS, THE $300,000 THRESHOLD THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR GOODS, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING AND OTHER SERVICES WOULD AMOUNT TO US. STILL REVIEWING 98.7% OF TOTAL CONTRACT VALUES IN THE CITY, BUT ONLY 65.8% OF CONTRACTS FOR THE $500,000 CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT. IT MEANS THAT 97.9% OF CONTRACT VALUES WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE COUNCIL, AND 61.9% OF CONTRACTS FOR 2025. THIS IS ABOUT EFFICIENCY. THESE SMALLER CONTRACTS WILL SAVE TWO MONTHS BY SKIPPING THE LONG COUNCIL AGENDA PROCESS, MEANING MORE EFFICIENCY AND STREAMLINED SERVICES FOR OUR RESIDENTS. IF WE ARE SERIOUSLY COMMITTED TO MAKING CITY HALL WORK FASTER AND SMARTER, FOLLOWING THE DATA FROM CHILD POVERTY ACTION LAB AND CHANGING THE THRESHOLD WILL HELP US DO THAT. I KINDLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I MOVE TO SEPARATE THE TWO SUBITEMS IN ITEM 28. THAT IS TO CREATE SEPARATE VOTING ITEMS FOR RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING, WITH A SEPARATE ITEM BEING ITEM TWO. INCREASING THE THRESHOLD FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON YOUR MOTION? YES. IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. EXCUSE ME. SORRY. THERE'S NO IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. WE JUST NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. THAT'S WHAT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN JUST TOLD ME. SO WE'LL VOTE ON YOUR MOTION TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT'S TOO CLOSE. SO WE'LL NEED A RECORD, I CAN'T TELL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. JOHNSON. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. RESENDEZ. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. CADENA. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. ROTH. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. NO. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES. WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. WE'RE BACK ON ITEM 28, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY READ. WE HAD CHAIRMAN WEST GO FOR FIVE MINUTES. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 28? CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. WELL. THANK YOU. WELL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE DIDN'T SEPARATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A REAL CASE TO BE MADE TO MOVING TO $100,000 FOR THE RFP, BUT CERTAINLY NOT FOR EXPANDING THE CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT AUTHORITY. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER CONTRACTS WITHOUT BRINGING THEM TO CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL. THE PROPOSAL IS NOT JUST A PROCEDURAL CHANGE, IT'S A MAJOR SHIFT IN HOW WE GOVERN. IT REDUCES TRANSPARENCY, IT WEAKENS ACCOUNTABILITY, AND IT CUTS THE PUBLIC OUT OF THE PROCESS. EVERY CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IS SUBJECT TO OPEN DEBATE AND PUBLIC COMMENT. REMOVING THAT STEP REMOVES THE RESIDENTS OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HOW THEIR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT, AND TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR THOSE DECISIONS. GIVING AN UNELECTED CITY MANAGER MORE AUTHORITY TO COMMIT TAXPAYER FUNDS WITHOUT COUNCIL OVERSIGHT CONCENTRATES TOO MUCH POWER IN ONE OFFICE, AN OFFICE THAT ALREADY EXERCISES BROAD CONTROL OVER THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CITY. AND FRANKLY, WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH UNILATERAL DECISIONS ABOUT SANITATION, THE PUBLIC EXPECTS THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, NOT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATORS, TO MAKE AND DEBATE THE BIG SPENDING DECISIONS. [02:10:05] IT ALSO UNDERSCORES A DEEPER ISSUE WITH OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHEN RESIDENTS HAVE NO DIRECT RECOURSE TO THE PERSON MAKING THESE DECISIONS, THAT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S TIME WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER REFORMING OUR GOVERNANCE MODEL TO GIVE THE ELECTED MAYOR THE PERSON DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTERS, THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE AND FIRE THE CITY MANAGER, THE POLICE CHIEF AND FIRE CHIEF, AND THE POWER TO VETO THE BUDGET. IN MY VIEW, THIS MAY BE THE WORST IDEA PROPOSED SINCE I'VE BEEN ON CITY COUNCIL. IT MOVES US IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION TOWARDS LESS TRANSPARENCY, LESS ACCOUNTABILITY, AND LESS DEMOCRACY. I'LL BE VOTING NO AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS WROTE AN EDITORIAL THIS MORNING. I THINK ALL OF US HAVE IT AT OUR OUR PLACES. AND THEY OUTLINED ACTUALLY OUR DISCUSSION FROM TWO WEEKS AGO. IT'S SPOT ON. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, PAUSE AND DO THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY STANDING FOR REELECTION OR RUNNING FOR ANY OTHER OFFICE WHO VOTES TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. THIS THIS IS JUST ABSOLUTELY UNCONSCIONABLE THAT IT'S EVEN BEING BROUGHT FORWARD AND SERIOUSLY DEBATED. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM 28. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO JUST ECHO COUNCIL MENDELSON'S COMMENTS. I THINK THAT IF YOU SORT OF LOOK AT THE THE CONTRACTS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY 5 TO $10 MILLION WORTH OF CONTRACTS IN THE GOODS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. AND WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT 10 TO $20 MILLION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES BUCKET 15 TO $30 MILLION OF CONTRACTS. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, WE WOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT. AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A IT'S REALLY A, A IMPROPER EXERCISE OF OUR AUTHORITY TO NOT BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE KIND OF ITEMS. THE CONSENT AGENDA PROCESS ALLOWS THIS THESE ITEMS TO BE PRESENTED AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE NON-CONTROVERSIAL OR THAT THEY'RE VETTED ITEMS, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PROCESS ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT A DIFFICULTY. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PULL ITEMS AND TO LOOK AT ITEMS SPECIFICALLY AS WE'VE DONE IN THIS, THIS PAST ITEMS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY AND IN THE PAST. IT GIVES US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND BE CONSIDERATE OF OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT AND PAYING ATTENTION. I THINK THE TRANSPARENCY IS A TREMENDOUS, IMPORTANT SITUATION. I THINK THAT THE THE ABILITY TO HAVE SPLIT PROCUREMENTS AND TO, TO MANAGE APPROVALS BY DIVIDING LARGER PACKAGES OF, OF CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL FEES OR OTHER CONTRACTS INTO SMALLER UNITS WOULD BE AVOIDED. I THINK THAT OUR RELINQUISHING OUR CONTROL AND OUR OBLIGATION FOR OVERSIGHT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, I DON'T THINK THE STAFF SHOULD BE BURDENED WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING THAT DECISION, WHETHER THEY SHOULD APPROVE A CONTRACT OR NOT. I THINK THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY. WE REPRESENT THE CITIZENS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SPENDING THEIR MONEY. AND I THINK THAT IF WE'RE ABDICATING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, I THINK THAT'S SHAME ON US. I WOULD SAY THAT THE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THIS IS THAT EFFICIENCY. IT HELPS SPEED UP THE PROCESS. EFFICIENCY IS NOT A REASON TO LIMIT OUR CITIZENS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY. AND SO I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE THE THE RAISING OF THE CAPS TO THE 305 HUNDRED. I WOULD I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO GO AHEAD AND ALLOW FOR THE RAISING OF THE OF THE BASIC CAP TO THE 100,000. AND I'M SORRY THAT THE BIFURCATED AMENDMENT WASN'T APPROVED, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW THE INCREASE TO THE LEVELS THAT ARE REQUESTED. THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. [02:15:02] THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM. I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EFFICIENCY EXERCISE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERSIGHT, THAT WOULD BE FOREGONE OR RELINQUISHED AS AS MENTIONED BY MR. ROTH. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON, ON THE VALUES AND SEEING THAT WE STILL HAVE CONTROL OF 98% OF THE VALUES OF CONTRACTS THAT COME FORWARD, I THINK IS IS IS A VERY CRITICAL POINT TO, TO EMPHASIZE IN THIS DISCUSSION. I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RELINQUISHING OUR OVERSIGHT ABILITY AS ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE ARE IN A CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND OUR JOB AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PER SE, FOR OUR EXECUTIVES IS DIRECT OVERSIGHT. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MOST IMPORTANT HIRE THAT WE HAVE ARE OUR OUR DIRECT APPOINTEES TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH PROVIDES OVERSIGHT IN THE RESPECTIVE FIELDS. CITY MANAGER SPECIFICALLY OVERSEES AN ARMY OF 13,000 EMPLOYEES AND MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS. I THINK THAT THE A LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVE IN BEING IN HER, IN HER AND KIM SPECIFICALLY BEING A DIRECT REPORT TO THE COUNCIL, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IF THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT DOING THE JOB THAT SHE'S BEEN HIRED TO DO AS THE TOP EXECUTIVE OF OUR CITY, THEN IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE CRUCIAL FOR US TO TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND ROLE AND, AND UTILIZE OUR OVERSIGHT DIRECTLY ON OUR DIRECT REPORTS. SO I BELIEVE THAT INFERRING THAT OUR CITY MANAGER WOULD WORK AGAINST THE WILL OF THE BODY THAT EMPLOYS HER IS NOT ONLY SOMEWHAT INSULTING. I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO OUTRAGEOUS. SHE KNOWS WHO SHE ANSWERS TO TO KEEP HER JOB. AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE DO HERE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS IS MAKE SURE THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS THE WILL OF THIS BODY. AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT ANY OF OUR INVESTMENTS AND POLICY DECISIONS ARE BROUGHT FORTH NOW. DO WE HAVE ANY ABILITY TO PROVIDE MORE OVERSIGHT? SURE. WE CAN MICROMANAGE. WE CAN. WE CAN SPEAK AS IF WE KNOW MORE THAN THE PROFESSIONALS WE HAVE HIRED TO BE IN THESE POSITIONS, AND THAT HAPPENS QUITE OFTEN HERE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT, WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING TO THE CONSEQUENCES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, THAT NO ONE IN MY DISTRICT CAST THEIR VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT I AM THE EXPERT IN EVERY ONE OF THE FIELDS THAT I PROVIDE OVERSIGHT WITH. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE MEANT TO DO WHEN IT COMES TO OVERSIGHT AS ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE HAVE A MANAGER COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT REQUIRES US TO PUT TRUST AND A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY ONTO THE CITY MANAGER SPECIFICALLY FOR KEEPING THE SHIP MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF THAT MOST EMBODIES THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COUNCIL. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT WE GET FROM OUR CITY MANAGER. I DON'T LOVE THE NARRATIVE THAT THAT STAFF IS THIS IS A PERMISSION SLIP FOR STAFF TO GO ROGUE, OR THAT THIS TAKES AWAY FROM OUR ABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE ELECTED OFFICIALS BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT ACCURATE. IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE WOULD BE ACTUALLY ADDING TO THOSE THAT COULD GO INTO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, IT'S VERY MINIMAL. AND IT IS NOT HUGE AS FAR AS VALUE THAT WE ARE PUTTING FORWARD. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS ABOUT EFFICIENCY. I'VE SPOKEN ACTUALLY WITH STAKEHOLDERS THAT, THAT THIS TYPE OF POLICY WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT AND I'VE HEARD NOTHING OTHER THAN POSITIVITY BECAUSE WE LOOK AT HOW OFTEN TO CUT THE RED TAPE, TO CUT THE INEVITABLE BUREAUCRACY HERE AT CITY HALL. MANY TIMES THAT IS NOT NECESSARY. ALL IT IS, IS A SNAIL PACE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. SO I AM CONFIDENT IN THE HIRE THAT WE HAVE MADE AND THE CITY MANAGER THAT WE HAVE AS THE PROFESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE OF OUR CITY TO MAKE DECISIONS. [02:20:01] I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS TAKING ANY RIGHT OR, OR ABILITY OF US TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AS NECESSARY. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. WELL, THERE WAS A LOT OF WHAT WAS JUST SAID THAT I WOULD BE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH. I KNOW WE HAD A ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND THIS AT THE BRIEFING LAST WEEK, AND I THINK THAT IT DOES GET AT OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT WE'VE GOT A CEO AND THAT WE'RE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THAT THERE ARE SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES AROUND THE CITY AND INDEED THE COUNTRY, WHO DON'T OPERATE THIS WAY WITH THE, WITH LIMITS AND ALLOW THEIR CEO TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE APPROVE A BUDGET. AND SO THAT WE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THAT. THE PUBLIC WEIGHS IN ON THAT. AND THEN WHEN WE IMPLEMENT THAT BUDGET AND WE GO TO MARKET AND WE SIGN CONTRACTS OR WE MAKE DEALS YOU KNOW, HOW FAR INTO THAT HOW HOW DEEP DO WE WANT TO GO? OR DO WE NEED TO TRUST OUR CEO WHO DOES ANSWER TO US AND WHO WE CAN LET HER KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF HER JOB IS, OR IF WE LIKE SOMETHING SHE'S DOING, OR IF WE DON'T LIKE SOMETHING SHE'S DOING. I REALLY, AGAIN, DO NOT LIKE LETTING LINGER IN THE AIR THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GIVING UP OVERSIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD WANT TO DO THAT. IT IS SHIFTING IT FROM THE FRONT END OF THE PROCESS, WHERE IT CAN GUM UP A PROCESS THAT EXISTS AND IS LONG. AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE LEGAL AMOUNTS OF TIME YOU HAVE TO POST AN ITEM. THERE ARE. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE BUILT INTO TIMELINES IN PROCUREMENT THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY ON, AND WE CAN ONLY CRUNCH PART OF IT SO FAR WITH OUR STAFF AND ALSO ON WAITING ON RESPONSES FROM THOSE WHO MAY OWE US DOCUMENTS. AND I THINK CHAIR STEWART MADE A POINT ABOUT THAT WHEN SHE SERVED IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY AND AND TRYING TO GET DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DUE AND EVERYONE WANTED THEM TURNED IN, BUT IT WASN'T ALWAYS IN HER HANDS TO TO GET THOSE. AND SO THERE ARE JUST SOME ASPECTS THAT WE NEED TO RESPECT IN THE, IN THE MARKETPLACE. I THINK ANOTHER THING THAT THE STAFF, THE STAFF WAS RIGHT TO, TO DO THIS ANALYSIS TO SEE WHERE WE CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT AND ALSO TO LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF ANYONE'S DOING THIS BETTER THAN WE ARE. AND THE WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THERE ARE AND THEY DID A GREAT CHART FOR US THAT SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. BUT WHEN YOU COMPARE TO OTHER CITIES WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO BE THAT WE'RE A LITTLE LOW. AND SO I THINK THAT THIS GAVE ME THE CONFIDENCE TO SAY, IT IS TIME TO MAKE THIS CHANGE AND NOT LIVE IN THE DARK AGES ON OUR CAPS. THE MARKETPLACE IS DIFFERENT NOW. THINGS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. HOW CAN WE HELP THE FLOW OF OUR BUSINESS TO BE AT THE SPEED OF BUSINESS? YOU KNOW, I PROPOSE SOMETHING MORE CONSERVATIVE ON GOODS, PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER SERVICES THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED AT $300,000. AND SO I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT COME FORTH ON THIS RESOLUTION. BUT SINCE WE DISCUSSED THIS, I'VE HEARD FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD OF 500,000. AND THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF RIDICULOUS. THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS HIGH ENOUGH. SO I'M STILL COMFORTABLE SAYING, I THINK WE SHOULD GO WITH THAT NUMBER AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MARKETPLACE. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NOTICE OF THESE CONTRACTS. THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE WILL BE POSTING AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OUR PUBLIC MEMOS THAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN POST IT ON OUR OWN WEBSITES AND COMMUNICATE THAT. BUT THEN THE POST REPORTING IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL. THIS IS WHERE IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. WHAT IS THE PERFORMANCE? HOW IS THIS WORKING FOR US? IF IT'S NOT WORKING, WE CAN CHANGE IT. SO I WOULD SAY THAT INSTEAD OF DOING ALL OF THAT ON THE FRONT END, LET'S OPERATE MORE LIKE THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHERE WE CAN AND DO THE CHECKPOINTS AND LET OUR BUSINESS FLOW AND LET OUR PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR TAXPAYERS WANT, KNOWING THAT ON THE BACK END, WE ARE GOING TO BE CHECKING THIS FOR THEM AND MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO. SO I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS AD NAUSEAM LAST WEEK, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS AGAIN. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN JOHNSON. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WAS ON THE ROAD ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE. I WANT TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER, IF YOU DON'T MIND SOME QUESTIONS HERE. I'VE HEARD IT SAY IT'S EFFICIENCY. SAY MONTHS OF WORK. I'VE SPOKE WITH OTHERS OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL IN MY DISTRICT, AND SOME OF THOSE SMALL BUSINESS PARTNERS THAT FEEL THIS IS GREAT. IT WILL CUT, SAVE TIME AND HELP THEM WHEN THEY HAVE TO PAY THEIR, THEIR, THEIR INDIVIDUALS. THAT'S WORKING WITH THEM SUBCONTRACTORS AND ETCETERA. BUT I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NOT ASKED YOU THESE QUESTIONS. HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT YOU? BECAUSE IN THE LAST CONVERSATION WE HAD IT WAS SAYING THAT IT WOULD SAVE TIME. [02:25:02] I SAID I DIDN'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD SAVE TIME INCREASING THE THRESHOLD. BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME A LITTLE BIT MORE HOW THIS WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT? HOW WHAT PROJECTS WILL THAT WE WOULD NOT SEE HIM LISTENING TO? COUNCILMAN WAS SAYING THAT 97% OF THE CONTRACTS STILL WILL COME TO THE COUNCIL, SO WE'RE STILL DOING OUR JOB. CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE? BECAUSE I NEED THAT INFORMATION, PLEASE. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. SO AS WE COMMUNICATED LAST WEEK, WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT MAKING THE ADJUSTMENTS AND THE THRESHOLDS WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR US TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION BY MANY OF THE NEW AND THE AND I CALL THEM EMERGING BUSINESSES WHO HAVE NOT DONE BUSINESS WITH US BEFORE. WE THINK THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO ACCELERATE OUR PROCUREMENT TIMELINES. OFTENTIMES WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH SOME OF OUR SMALLER FIRMS, THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GET A CONTRACT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, BRING IT BEFORE THE COUNCIL FINISH UP THE NEGOTIATIONS. MANY OF THOSE ARE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE ARE ARE IN THAT GAP TO WHERE THE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL CAPACITY IS JUST NOT THERE FOR THEM TO CONTINUE. SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE MORE OF THOSE SMALLER FIRMS PARTICIPATING. IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE UNBUNDLING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UNBUNDLING PROJECTS, OFTENTIMES WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE MASSIVE PROJECTS AND BREAK THEM DOWN INTO SMALLER PARTS. THAT'S REALLY HOW YOU CAN CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. IT ALLOWS FOR US TO TAKE A LOT OF THE ROUTINE CONTRACTS THAT OFTENTIMES ARE JUST THINGS THAT WE DO AUTOMATICALLY EVERY YEAR. THINGS THAT WE'RE PURCHASING AUTOMATICALLY EVERY YEAR. AND THESE WOULD BE MORE OF THE ROUTINE ONES. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW IN ADVANCE THE PROCUREMENT TIMELINE AND WHAT ITEMS MIGHT FALL WITHIN THE THRESHOLD, AND ACTUALLY STILL GIVING COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT THOSE ARE EVEN BEFORE THEY'RE APPROVED FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT. AND IF ANYTHING POPS OUT THAT WE NEED TO THEN PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON, WE TALKED ABOUT NEW THINGS THAT MAYBE WE HAVE NOT PROCURED BEFORE, THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THOSE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL IF IT'S DESIRED. SO OVERALL, WE DO WANT TO CONTINUE WITH ALL OF THE EFFICIENCY REVIEWS THAT WE'RE DOING ACROSS NOT JUST PROCUREMENT, BUT EVERY ONE OF OUR BUSINESS PROCESSES ACROSS THE CITY. WE'RE TRYING TO DELIVER THINGS MUCH FASTER, BUT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO IT WITH DATA. Y, WE WE PROPOSE AND SHARED THE DATA THAT CLEARLY SHOWS WHAT THE BEST PRACTICES ARE IN THIS SPACE RIGHT NOW. WE DEFINITELY WANT TO REFINE IT. WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO UPDATE THE COUNCIL IF THIS ITEM MOVES FORWARD ABOUT HOW IT'S WORKING, AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT THROUGH A PROCUREMENT ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT THAT WOULD THEN BE SHARED WITH THE FULL BODY, SHOWS THE FRONT END AND THE BACK END AND DO THAT THROUGH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. BUT OVERALL, WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO NOT ONLY STREAMLINE, SPEED UP OUR PROCESSES, BUT ALSO BE ABLE TO BRING A LOT OF OUR OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES TO THE TABLE AND GET THEM ACROSS THE FINISH LINE A LOT SOONER. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. AND ONE MORE QUESTION, BECAUSE THIS WAS ASKED TO ME. SO I SAID I WAS GOING TO ASK IT. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SIDEWALKS AND WORKS IN THE STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WILL THIS FALL UNDERNEATH THAT AS WELL? THE WAY THE THRESHOLD IS RIGHT NOW ON THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THAT IF IT'S A GOOD OR SERVICES IT WOULD FALL INTO THE $300,000 THRESHOLD AMOUNT. AND IF IT'S CONSTRUCTION AND A AND E, THEN IT WOULD BE AT THE HALF A MILLION. MANY OF OUR MORE EXTENSIVE CONSTRUCTION AND AID PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY MUCH GREATER THAN THAT. HALF A MILLION. AND THAT'S WHY IN THE DATA THAT WE SHOWED FOR 2025, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING ANYWHERE BETWEEN 97% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THOSE TYPES OF CONTRACTS, EVEN WITH THIS CHANGE IN THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT. BUT SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE SMALLER WITH YOU HAVING THIS THRESHOLD, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE FASTER IN OUR DISTRICT AND GET MORE THINGS DONE AT A FASTER PACE? YES, SIR. THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT. AGAIN, I'M A LITTLE TORN HERE BETWEEN THAT. I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, ACTUALLY, IN OUR LAST, IN MY LAST ASSIGNMENT WHERE WE HAD SIMILAR, SIMILAR SITUATION I HEARD COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA LISTENING TO COUNCILMAN MENDELSOHN AND I, I WOKE UP AND I READ THIS AS WELL. I BELIEVE OUR JOB IS, I BELIEVE GOOD GOVERNANCE IS TO HOLD THE CITY MANAGER ACCOUNTABLE. WHERE I HAVE SOME SOME SOME CONCERN. I ALSO NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE BE ABLE TO HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STILL BEING TRANSPARENT AND THAT THAT'S WHERE I'M WRESTLING WITH. SO AS I'M LISTENING TO THE DIALOG, I KNOW THAT GOOD GOVERNANCE IS STEP BACK, GIVE YOU OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO AND HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE. AND IF IT'S DOES NOT WORK RIGHT, THEN I NEED TO BE ABLE TO COME TO YOU OR THIS COUNCIL, COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, [02:30:01] THIS IS NOT WORKING EFFICIENTLY AND IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AND GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU, BASED OFF WHAT YOU SAID AND BASED OFF THE CONVERSATION, I'VE HEARD IN MY COMMUNITY AND JUST OPERATE WHAT I CONSIDER GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT YOU SAID THIS IS GOING TO DO AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE IN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST IN MINE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS ONE. AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US. I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH CHAIR RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT. I THINK IT HAD SOME MIDDLE GROUND. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK AT EFFICIENCIES AND AT INFLATION. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, LOOKING AT THE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT ARE JUST GOING TO OVERRIDE THAT FOR ME. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT. AND I'M ASKING FOR A RECORD VOTE. THANK YOU MAYOR. IT'S BLAIR. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I READ THE ARTICLE THIS MORNING, TOO. I AND AND I'VE LISTENED TO MY CONSTITUENTS TALK ABOUT NEEDING MORE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. BUT I ALSO LOOK, I HEARD THEM SAY THAT WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING IN DISTRICT EIGHT AND THE CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THAT ARE COMING, THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THINGS MOVE FASTER. SO I'M EXTREMELY TORN. I'VE LISTENED TO CHAIR JOHNSON AND I'VE LISTENED TO COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA AND. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, CITY MANAGER. WHEN WHEN WE WHEN WE TALK. HOW CAN HOW DO WE AS THE BODY. I KNOW WE HAVE THAT. AS DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM STATED, WHERE WE ARE THE, THE THE CHAIR AND AND YOU'RE THE CEO, THAT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE ITEMS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US, THAT THAT $500,000 THRESHOLD, WE WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO SEE AND KNOW THAT IT'S WHAT IT'S FOR AND HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. AND COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK DURING THE CONVERSATION IS A PROCUREMENT ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT. THE REPORT WOULD PROVIDE AN ADVANCE ON ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE PIPELINE FROM A EITHER SOLICITATION OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT, WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES TODAY, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE A REPORT THAT THE COUNCIL COULD SEE BEFORE EVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ARE COMPLETED AND HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AT THAT TIME. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE OR THE COUNCIL FEELS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO COME TO THE BODY, TO BE ABLE TO THEN HAVE IT ON THE POSTED AGENDA, THAT WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. AND IN FACT, WE WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND THAT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE ROUTINE TYPES OF PURCHASES THAT WE'RE MAKING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT ON THE FRONT END, ON THE BACK END. WE ALSO WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A REPORT THAT WOULD THEN SHOW WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ITEM, WHAT IT'S FOR, THE AMOUNT THE, THE, THE CONTRACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WOULD ALL BE PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE SHARED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THE PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT WOULD ALSO BE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. WE DO THAT NOW WITH OUR BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT. AND WE ALSO HAVE A TECHNOLOGY REPORT THAT WE ALSO SHARE AND THAT WE POST. SO WE WOULD NOT TREAT THIS ANY DIFFERENTLY. WE TOO WANT TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO WANT TO INCREASE OUR ABILITIES TO BE MORE EFFICIENT IN HOW WE DELIVER ON ALL OF THE BUSINESS PROCESSES ACROSS THE CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. I GUESS SINCE THIS IS A RECORD VOTE, I'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT I'LL. IT'S NOT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT ONE. NO NO NO NO NO, I'M NOT GOING. NO NO NO NO. HOT FIRE. I REALLY STILL DON'T KNOW HOW HOW TO HOW TO REALLY JUDGE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO THIS. $500,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY. AND JUST TO TURN OVER THE THE ABILITY TO SEE THINGS. [02:35:07] BUT I ALSO KNOW THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN CONSTRUCTION HAS GREATLY RISEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND FIVE. AND IN THAT ARENA, $500,000 IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR I WELL, SPECIFICALLY, I'M GOING TO SEE IN MY DISTRICT. SO I'M INCLINED TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR MY DISTRICT AND TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS. NOT THAT I THINK IT'S THE WAY THAT WE NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THINGS, BUT I AM GOING TO TRUST THAT THAT WE HAVE THAT REPORTING. WE GET TO SEE THAT REPORTING, WE GET TO VET THAT REPORTING, WE GET TO VET IT PRIOR TO IT COMING BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY AND VOTING ON IT TOMORROW. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE YOU ALL HAVE SEEN ME PULL MULTIPLE ITEMS AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AND COMPETITION. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT ME, BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT JUST INCREASING COMPETITION SO THAT WE CAN LOWER COSTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THIS IS YET ANOTHER WAY THAT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SMALL, LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES TO JUMP IN NOT HAVE TO GET CONSUMED OR WITH, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO ACTUALLY COMPETE FOR A CONTRACT, NUMBER ONE. BUT THIS GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO JUMP IN AND BE INTRODUCED TO DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND POTENTIALLY GETTING A CONTRACT WITHOUT ALL THE BUREAUCRACY IT TAKES. THE SECOND SIDE OF THIS IS, WE'VE OFTEN SAID AROUND HERE TOWARDS YOU AND TALKED ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET PROCUREMENTS DONE. THIS ELIMINATES THAT. AND AGAIN, I CAN'T MY MIND CAN'T DO IT FAST ENOUGH. BUT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL PROCUREMENTS THAT WE TOUCH VERSUS THE ONES WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING VERSUS THE ONES WE ACTUALLY APPROVE ON CONSENT THIS ACTUALLY GIVES US THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT MORE OF THESE CONTRACTS WITHOUT JUST BLINDLY APPROVING THEM THROUGH CONSENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALLER ITEMS. BASED ON THE FORECASTS THAT ARE COMING, WE'LL KNOW WHAT'S COMING AND WE'LL KNOW WHAT'S WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED IN THERE. SO I THINK THIS CAN ONLY REALLY CREATE A BENEFIT AS WE EXPLORE THIS OPPORTUNITY. SO TO SAY NO SAYS WE WOULD JUST BE GETTING MORE OF THE SAME AND PERHAPS EVEN COMPLAINING MORE ABOUT PROCUREMENT PROCESS. THIS IS, I THINK, STAFF'S CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE TO US TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO DO BUSINESS AND BE MORE EFFICIENT IN HOW WE DO BUSINESS. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM AT THESE STANDARDS, TOO, BECAUSE I DOES. I DO THINK IT CREATES, AGAIN, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES TO GET INTO DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY WITHOUT THE BUREAUCRACY. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WEST RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR. AND THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION. WE WE HAD IT LAST WEEK AND IT'S IT'S IT'S I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE. TO ME, THIS THIS GOES BACK TO BALANCING REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT AT THE FRONT END WITH EFFICIENCY. SO THERE'S NOTHING SET IN STONE ABOUT OUR CURRENT THRESHOLDS. THERE'S NOT WE COULD REVIEW EVERY CONTRACT THAT'S $100 UP HERE EVERY WEEK. WE COULD REVIEW A BOX OF PAPER CLIPS PROCUREMENT IF WE WANTED TO. BUT I THINK WE'D ALL THINK THAT'S RIDICULOUS, RIGHT? SO THERE'S NOTHING. I THINK ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES USED THE WORD UNCONSCIONABLE ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION. THIS IS A HEALTHY CONVERSATION FOR US TO HAVE. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH MOVING THE THRESHOLDS TO ADJUST FOR INFLATION AND ADJUST FOR US TO STILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW 98.7% OF CONTRACT VALUES AND 97.9% OF CONTRACT VALUES FOR CONSTRUCTION. YOU KNOW, AS AS CHAIR GRACEY SAID IT REAL WELL, AS THE CITY MANAGER BROUGHT THIS TO US IN RESPONSE TO OUR COMPLAINTS OVER THE YEARS ABOUT THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS MOVING SLOW, AND AS WAS INDICATED LAST WEEK, HUNDREDS OF CONTRACTS WOULD NOW BE ABLE TO MOVE NINE WEEKS FASTER. YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED THE GARDEN BOX KIT THING LAST WEEK AND HOW I STRUGGLED WITH THAT IS AN ITEM IN MY MIND THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE CAUGHT UNTIL AFTER IT HAD GOTTEN GONE THROUGH. BUT I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY LATER FOR US TO TO TO SEE THE REPORT THAT COMES FROM THE CITY MANAGER. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY LATER TO HOLD EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT PROCESS. [02:40:02] AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I BELIEVE WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT REVIEWING THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THIS A YEAR FROM NOW. OR SIX MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS FROM NOW. IS CITY MANAGER JUST STATED, IF THIS ISN'T WORKING, LIKE WE CAN CHANGE IT, BUT I THINK WE GIVE IT A TRY TODAY AND AND WE COME BACK AND WE ADJUST FIRE AS NEEDED LATER. THANK YOU. YES. GO AHEAD, TAMMY, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE CHARTER'S CHAPTER 22, SECTION TWO B, SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE SECTION MORE THAN EVERY TWO YEARS. SO EVEN IF YOU ARE REVIEWING IT, YOU STILL COULD NOT AMEND. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, EXCUSE ME. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. COLLEAGUES, WE GIVE GREAT EMPHASIS AROUND THE HORSESHOE ON THE NEED. IN FACT, THE NECESSITY OF TRANSPARENCY. THIS ITEM PRESENTS CONFLICTING PRIORITIES FOR US. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, BUT WE MUST ALSO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE AND THE REASON WHY TRANSPARENCY IS AN IMPORTANT PRIORITY. AND IN CONTRAST TO THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY ANALOGY, WE ARE FUNDED BY PUBLIC DOLLARS PAID BY TAXPAYERS WHO WE ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT. THAT'S NOT THE SAME IN A PRIVATE CORPORATION. AND SO WE HAVE, AS A RESULT OF THESE CONFLICTING PRIORITIES, OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM. IF WE GO TOO FAR IN THE EFFICIENCY SIDE AND AGAINST TRANSPARENCY, WE WILL BE CEDING ALL OF OUR AUTHORITY TO STAFF TO MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS FOR THE CITY. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANTS THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE GO TOO FAR ON THE TRANSPARENCY SIDE, THEN WE ARE MICROMANAGING STAFF. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FIND A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE PRIORITIES. SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDPOINT WHERE WE CAN ACHIEVE EFFICIENCY AS WELL AS TRANSPARENCY. THIS ITEM IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE VOLUME OF THE CONTRACTS, IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTS THAT WE REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO THEM BEING APPROVED BY STAFF. WE ARE ELECTED TO OVERSEE STAFF. WE ARE AT A PLACE IN THE STATUS QUO WHERE I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY, AND ABSENT A COMPELLING REASON WHY WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT STATUS QUO AND UPSET THAT BALANCE IN FAVOR OF EFFICIENCY OVER LESS TRANSPARENCY. I THINK WE SHOULD STAY WITH THE STATUS QUO. I ACKNOWLEDGE THIS MAY BE A CLOSE QUESTION FOR MANY OF YOU, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. AND I THINK IT'S ONE WHERE, AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, IF WE ARE IN DOUBT ABOUT WHERE TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE, WE SHOULD ON THE SIDE OF TRANSPARENCY SO THAT WE CAN GUARD AGAINST THE USE OF FREQUENT FAVORITE CONTRACTORS. WITHOUT OVERSIGHT BY THIS BODY AND WITH OVERSIGHT OF THE DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING INTO CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS. WE MUST MANAGE THE BUDGET. THAT'S PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THAT. AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE BALANCE THAT TRANSPARENCY AGAINST EFFICIENCY, I WILL THEREFORE NOT SUPPORT THIS ITEM. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING. THIS ITEM DOES NOT FIX PROCUREMENT. ALL IT DOES IS SKIP PROCUREMENT. THIS ITEM DOES NOT FIX HOW THIS THE TIMELINE WORKS. IT JUST JUMPS OVER IT WITH AUTHORITY FROM A CITY MANAGER. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WANTING TO HAVE GREATER EFFICIENCY AT CITY HALL, I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU. LET'S FIX IT. BUT WHAT WE SAW IN THE BRIEFING WERE THE MASSIVE NUMBER OF WEEKS IT TAKES TO GET ANYTHING DONE. MULTIPLE WEEKS FOR PROCUREMENTS, MULTIPLE WEEKS TO GET ON A COUNCIL AGENDA. THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT'S FACING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND GETTING THINGS HERE FOR ZONING. SO WE NEED TO ACTUALLY FIX THE ITEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, NOT SKIP IT. NOT GIVE UP OUR AUTHORITY AND THE OVERSIGHT THAT IS NECESSARY. THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS THIS THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION THAT IS SHARED WITH COUNCIL. HAVE YOU READ EVERY BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT EVERY MONTH? DO YOU READ THAT THE TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, ALL THE AUDITS? [02:45:02] WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE PUBLICLY SAID THEY DON'T READ THE CONTRACTS THAT COME BEFORE US. YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT YOU WANT TO NOT HAVE COME BEFORE US. WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION TO READ. SO WHILE ANOTHER REPORT MIGHT BE COMING, ARE YOU GOING TO READ IT? ARE YOU GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS? ARE YOU GOING TO BRING IT BACK? BECAUSE WE CAN'T TAKE THIS BACK, NOT FOR TWO YEARS. AND I'LL BET YOU THERE'S NOT A CITY IN TEXAS THAT'S EVER GONE BACK AND REDUCED THE AMOUNT. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I HAPPEN TO CHAIR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. WE HAD THIS EXACT CONVERSATION. AND ALTHOUGH WE GREATLY TRUST AND APPRECIATE THE PROFESSIONAL THAT IS THE DIRECTOR, WE VOTED TO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE SAYING WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THIS CHANGE NOW ARE SAYING IT'S NOT A LOT OF EXTRA WORK. OKAY, THERE'S AN ITEM ON THERE TO TO BUY WATER OR WHATEVER IT IS. HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU ACTUALLY SPEND CONTEMPLATING THAT ITEM TODAY? PROBABLY VERY LITTLE. BUT WE DID HAVE AN ABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO COME TALK ON THAT ITEM. AND WE DID HAVE AN ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, TO SAY, HEY, WHILE YOU'VE GOT A CONTRACT OF SELLING WATER, CAN WE ALSO TALK TO THAT ENTITY ABOUT DOING A BETTER JOB FOR OUR CITY? SO THIS IS WHY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND AGAIN, I HOPE, MAYOR, YOU HEARD MAYOR PRO TEM ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL RECORD VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I, I WANTED TO SORT OF ECHO SOME OF THE SENTIMENT THAT'S BEEN CONVEYED AROUND THIS PLACE. THE THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON THE CITY MANAGER. THIS IS A REFLECTION ON OUR OBLIGATIONS TO TO MONITOR AND MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR CITIZENS. EFFICIENCY IS THE ISSUE HERE. AND EFFICIENCY IS A PROCESS ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A FINANCIAL ISSUE. IT'S A PROCESS ISSUE. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIX THE EFFICIENCY ISSUE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS IS A MANAGEMENT ISSUE. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MANAGER. IT'S A BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PROCESS. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MANAGING THE ALLOCATION OF OF OUR AUTHORITIES IS A IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. AND I THINK THIS IS A AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD ZEALOUSLY PRESERVE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THAT WE PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, TO LOOK AT THE CONTRACTS, TO LOOK AT THE STUFF AS COUNCIL PEOPLE. THIS IS OUR WAY TO MONITOR AND MANAGE THE EFFICIENCY OF PROGRAMS. AS COUNCILMAN GRACEY SAID, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO DO MORE SMALLER CONTRACTS WITH FOLKS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR THEIR ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH THROUGH OUR, OUR PROGRAMS. WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE DON'T SEE THESE THINGS, AND IF WE DON'T SEE HAVE ACCESS TO THEM IN AN EASY, MANAGEABLE WAY. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS REALLY IS THERE'S AN ONSLAUGHT OF INFORMATION THAT COMES TO US EVERY, EVERY WEEK. AND I THINK THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE WHICH PROVIDES THESE CONTRACTS TO SHOW UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. IT'S MANAGEABLE. IT GIVES US A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM AND TO PULL THEM IF WE NEED TO, TO GET MORE INFORMATION. IT'S THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE WORKING OKAY FROM OUR DUE DILIGENCE STANDPOINT. AND I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THAT. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT $100,000 LIMIT IS AN ADEQUATE AND A IN A CORRECT LIMIT FOR US TO BE VETTING THINGS. THE OTHER THING IS THERE'S ONLY WE'RE IN THIS LEVEL OF 500,000 AND BELOW. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 150 CONTRACTS FROM LAST YEAR OVER A YEAR. THAT'S NOT A LOT. 150 CONTRACTS IS NOT A LOT OVER 52 WEEKS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE, FOUR, FIVE A SESSION. THIS ISN'T AN INUNDATION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TO MAINTAIN AND AND MANAGE AND WATCH THIS THIS SITUATION. I WOULD OPPOSE THE, TO THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION PLEASE. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. IF I COULD HAVE DONZELL. COME UP, PLEASE. [02:50:07] DONZELL GIBSON, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. IF THERE WAS A QUESTION. I'M SORRY. I WAS TEXTING, AND I DIDN'T. I DIDN'T HEAR NO QUESTION YET. OH, OKAY. OKAY. I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU WHO GAVE US SOME REFERENCE TO NUMBERS FROM 1997 OF WHAT THOSE DOLLARS WERE IN THAT YEAR AND WHAT THEY ARE, WHAT THEY EQUATE TO TODAY. SO, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I WAS MAKING AN OFFHAND COMMENT THAT HAD TO DO WITH MY TENURE BECAUSE HE WAS HERE, HEAR. MY FULL TIME TENURE STARTED IN 97 AND I WAS JUST SHARING, I BELIEVE AT THAT TIME THAT THE THE THRESHOLD WAS $15,000. SO I THINK THE THERE WAS A QUESTION ON WHAT $50,000 EQUATES TO IN TODAY'S DOLLARS. AND I WANT TO SAY IT WAS IN THE 70 TO 80 RANGE. I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. I KNOW COUNCILMAN WEST REFERENCED THAT EARLIER THIS MORNING, AND I'M GOING TO TRUST THAT HIS NUMBERS ARE FAIR. OKAY. I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS I BROUGHT UP AN ECG FINDING THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ON HOW ADMINISTRATIVELY, SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS WERE HANDLED. WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THAT FINDING AND WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE? I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. WE WENT AND DID A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH RELATIVE TO THAT. WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE ECG AND ALSO CONFER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IN THE FRIDAY MEMO WE PREPARED, WE BASICALLY SAID WE STILL NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ACTIONS ARE, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE COULD MEAN THAT WE BRING AN ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL WITH A POTENTIAL RATIFICATION. BUT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT. BUT THAT'S THE HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF WHERE THIS MAY GO BASED ON THE STEPS THAT WE'RE TAKING IN THE CONTRACTING PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE MAYOR PRO TEM, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE ASKED. WE WERE ASKED LAST WEEK ABOUT HOW WE HAD TREATED AN AUDIT. AND THEN THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT AN OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT IN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT, WHICH IS NOT TYPICALLY HOW WE GET AUDIT REPORTS. THERE WERE NO RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, IF THERE IS AN AUDIT THAT PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGEMENT, WE RESPOND TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH HOW WE'RE GOING TO EITHER MOVE THOSE FORWARD OR IF WE'RE IN AGREEMENT OR IN ARE IN DISAGREEMENT. SO I THINK THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WERE BEING ASKED OF US LAST WEEK. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE MEMO THAT YOU RECEIVED ON LAST FRIDAY TO EXPLAIN THOSE TWO DIFFERENT. ONE WAS AN AUDIT AND ONE WAS ACTUALLY JUST AN OIG REPORT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. EITHER. DONZELL OR JUANITA. JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS MAY EVEN BE A CITY SECRETARY'S QUESTION, BUT WHAT PERCENT OF THESE PROCUREMENT ITEMS DO WE APPROVE ON CONSENT? WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER AGAIN? I THINK IT WAS IN THE SLIDE DECK FROM LAST WEEK. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, I THINK WE CAN GRAB THAT FOR YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. IS IT LIKE 97? YES, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE, AND THEN I THINK IT WAS LESS THAN 4% THAT ACTUALLY GET PULLED OFF OF THE AGENDA. YEAH. 96.4% WERE APPROVED VIA CONSENT IN FY 24. AND OF THOSE 13 CONTRACTS THAT WERE PULLED OF THOSE CONTRACTS, 76.9% WERE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. SO THEY WERE. SO GOT IT. SO 96% ARE GOING THROUGH CONSENT. IF WE MOVE TO THIS PROCESS, DO WE KNOW ROUGHLY WHAT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CONTRACTS THAT. WOULD NOT BE GOING THROUGH WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THIS THE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PROCESS. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT I UNDERSTAND. AND I HEARD 150 CONTRACTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GRAND SCHEME OF OF THIS, I JUST WANT TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF SO FOR FY 24 FOR GOODS, PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER SERVICES, THERE WERE 258 CONTRACTS. 89 OF THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN WOULD HAVE MET THE THRESHOLD. AND THEN FOR CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S 105 CONTRACTS IN FY 24, AND 41 OF THOSE WOULD HAVE MET THE THRESHOLD. RIGHT OKAY. SO PUTTING THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE, AS WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REVIEWING ON A MONTH TO MONTH BASIS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THIS 96% OF THEM THAT ARE GOING THROUGH CONSENT, [02:55:02] IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THEM. IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, BUT IT'S NOT BEING DISCUSSED PUBLICLY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. THE ONLY TIME THAT IT IS, IT GETS PULLED. AND WHEN IT IS, WHEN IT DOES GET PULLED, A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THOSE END UP BEING APPROVED IN ANY WAY GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO THIS AGAIN IS ABOUT TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO INCREASE EFFICIENCIES THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING THE GUARDRAILS NECESSARY TO DO THAT. SO WE ALL GET YOU'RE RIGHT. WE ALL GET A LOT OF DIFFERENT REPORTS. AND THOSE THAT MATTER ARE THE ONES WE TYPICALLY LEAN ON, ARE THE ONES WHERE WE ARE. THOSE ARE WHERE WE TEND TO STAY. AND I THINK AS A BODY, WE TEND TO COUNT ON, YOU KNOW, MISS MENDELSOHN COMING THROUGH AND PULLING CERTAIN ITEMS BECAUSE THAT'S HER M.O. AND THAT'S HER SUPERPOWER, AND THAT'S WHAT SHE BRINGS, THE GIFT SHE BRINGS TO THE BODY. WE ALL HAVE OUR SUPERPOWERS AND HOW WE DO THAT, AND WE DEPEND ON EACH OTHER TO TO DO THAT, TO BRING THOSE THINGS TO OUR ATTENTION. SO I'M SAYING THAT I CAN APPROVE THIS BECAUSE EACH ONE OF US WILL SPEAK ON IT IF IT MATTERS TO US, AND WE WILL BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IS OBLIGATED, AS SHE IS ALREADY COMMITTED TO BRING A FORECAST THAT WILL GIVE US THE ABILITY TO REVIEW IT AS WELL. SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS INTO A BIG PROCESS. WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO REVIEW ALL OF THESE ITEMS AS THEY COME ACROSS OUR DESK FROM THERE. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO SAY I SUPPORT THIS. AND IF AND AND GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IT WAS SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A IT'S JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF ITEMS THAT WAS BRINGING. I THINK COUNCILMAN ROSS SAID SOMETHING TO ALLUDED TO THAT. AND I'M LISTENING TO OTHER COLLEAGUES. SO I WENT BACK AND PULLED UP THE POWERPOINT. COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THREE WEEKS NOW THREE WEEKS INTAKE, SOLICITATION, NINE WEEKS AWARD 13 WEEKS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, THREE WEEKS INTAKE SOLICITATION, NINE WEEKS. FOUR WEEKS. AWARD, WHICH SAVES, IT SAYS 16. SO THE TOTAL TIME 16 WEEKS. NINE WEEKS OF SAVING ON THE AWARD. CITY MANAGER, CAN YOU TELL ME, ARE WE SKIPPING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS OR ARE WE REDUCING THE PROCUREMENT TIMELINE? THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. WE'RE NOT SKIPPING A PROCESS. WE ARE STILL DOING ALL OF THE COMPETITIVENESS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO, EVEN WITH THE THRESHOLD AT THE STATE. IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES TAKING THAT TO THE $100,000 LEVEL, WE ARE STILL RUNNING OUR PROCESSES. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THAT WE'RE STREAMLINING THE AMOUNT OF TIME FROM WHEN WE FINALIZE THE PROCUREMENT. WE DO THE EVALUATION, WE SELECT WHO THE AWARDED COMPANY IS AND HOW WE GET THAT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. WHAT WE DO NOW REQUIRES A LOT OF ADDITIONAL STEPS ON SOME OF THESE SMALLER CONTRACTS. AND WHAT WE'VE CONTINUED TO TALK ABOUT, HOW DO WE INCREASE THE LEVEL AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE WHAT I WOULD SAY ARE BARRIERS THAT SOMETIMES KEEP SMALL BUSINESSES AWAY FROM THE TABLE. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A TWO FOLD APPROACH. IT'S HELPING US TAKE OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS, FIND WAYS TO STREAMLINE IT. WE'VE NOT TALKED ABOUT EFFICIENCY FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, WHICH IS WHY LAST WEEK AND I'VE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES TODAY, WE STILL WANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE PROCUREMENTS ARE. THAT WOULD FIT IN THE THRESHOLD EVEN BEFORE THEY'RE APPROVED. GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AT ANY POINT IN TIME. THIS BODY. COUNCIL MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY CAN SAY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ITEM IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE, AND WE'D LIKE FOR THAT TO SHOW UP ON AN AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. WE WANT TO BUILD THAT INTO THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ALSO WANT TO DO, NOT ONLY HOLDING MYSELF ACCOUNTABLE, BUT THE STAFF. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ELIMINATE THIS. THIS DOES NOT ELIMINATE A PROCUREMENT PROCESS. THIS ALLOWS FOR US TO DO THE PROCESS, HAVE A MORE EFFECTIVE PROCESS, AND AN ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THINGS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WITH THAT SAME LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY. SO IT'S NOT ABOUT JUST THE TRUST. IT'S TRUST. AND WE WANT THE COUNCIL TO VERIFY. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. AND THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE A STATEMENT WAS STATED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD CLARITY. SO I HAD TO GO BACK AND FIND THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I BELIEVE EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS EFFICIENCY HERE. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE BARRIERS ARE REMOVED, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. A LOT OF THOSE SMALL BUSINESS INDIVIDUALS LOOK LIKE ME. AND SO TO HAVE THEM HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE BUREAUCRACY, THE BARRIERS, AND HAVE AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE PROCESS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE ADVOCATED FOR AND SAID TO, TO SOME MEMBERS IN, IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE MARKETPLACE THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT IF IT EVER COMES UP AND IT HAS COME UP. I'VE LISTENED TO A COUNCILMAN WES HIS PRESENTATION. [03:00:02] AND SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A SOLUTION THAT THAT I CAN SUPPORT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS A LITTLE TOUGH FOR ME AS MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, A LITTLE TOUGH DISCUSSION OR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS VERY HEAVY. SO I'M LEANING TO SUPPORT THIS AND HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PROCESS THAT YOU SAID WILL BE EFFECTIVE WILL BE EFFICIENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 28 BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE RECORD VOTE THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED A FEW TIMES. SEEING NONE. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. 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. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCILMEMBER. RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. WILLIS. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM MORENO. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO. WITH TEN VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEMS 29, 30 AND 31 ARE FOR CLOSED SESSION ITEMS. [32. 25-2852A Authorize the nomination of a candidate(s) for election to the Board of Directors of Dallas Central Appraisal District, in accordance with Senate Bill 2 (signed into law on July 24, 2023) - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] THEREFORE, WE'LL MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 32. AGENDA ITEM 32 AUTHORIZE THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL TWO, SIGNED INTO LAW JULY 24TH, 2023. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE NOMINATION OF LARRY OFFUTT FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN? ANY DISCUSSION. ANYONE SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR ITEMS FOR THIS SESSION. OKAY. IT IS 12:17 P.M. ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551 .071 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 29, 30 AND 31 AND UNDER SECTION 551 .072 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA. ITEM NUMBERS 29. SOMETHING I WANT YOU TO CALL ON ME BECAUSE I NEED TO RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART REAL QUICKLY ON SOMETHING. I'M SO SORRY. HOLD THE PHONE, EVERYONE. JUST JUST. YES. HOLD ON A SECOND, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT, AND THEN I WILL REREAD THAT LANGUAGE IN FULL. I WILL WAS WANTING TO RECOGNIZE YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE HAVE A BIRTHDAY. THAT IS I THINK A MILESTONE BIRTHDAY FOR YOU. AND SO WE WANT TO GIVE GIVE YOU THE CELEBRATION THAT WE NEED BEFORE WE GO ON THIS BREAK. AND I THINK LAURA WANTED TO HELP ME SING AGAIN. SO WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED. NO, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT TOGETHER. KIM. KIM CAN BE BACK. I'M A SOPRANO, AND SHE'S AN ALTO. Y'ALL READY? COME ON. LAURA. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR MAYOR JOHNSON. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU. Y'ALL THANK YOU SO MUCH Y'ALL THAT Y'ALL COMPLETELY CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE. I KIND OF FORGOT IT WAS MY BIRTHDAY BECAUSE I'M NOT I'M NOT FEELING SO GREAT THIS MORNING, SO THANK YOU GUYS. THAT'S REALLY SWEET. BEAUTIFUL IS A WHOLE LOT BETTER WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT. THANK GOODNESS. MAYOR. CAN WE GET A PHOTO WE WANT TO GET. CAN WE GET A PHOTO. YES. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GET A QUICK PICTURE WITH THE MAYOR WITH HIS CAKE. YEAH. YEAH. DON'T BE BREATHING ON THE CAKE. DON'T BREATHE ON IT. I REALLY AM GOING TO READ THE REST OF THAT LANGUAGE IN JUST A MINUTE, Y'ALL. SO DON'T LEAVE YET. I'M GOING TO GET A PHOTO. DON'T LET HIM DROP THE CAKE. YOU GOT IT. YOU GOT IT? YOU CAN HOLD. YOU GOT IT, I GOT IT, OKAY. YOUR STAFF IS RIGHT HERE. YES, THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. WE'RE READY. THANK YOU. NO. THAT'S GOOD. OH, YOU WANT US TO SQUEEZE IN MORE? COME ON, MISS JOHNSON. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. IT'S MY GUY. COME ON. ONE. TWO. THREE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. HE WANTS TO GET A PICTURE WITH YOU, BUT WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE BACK. OKAY. CAN YOU HAVE YOUR EYES BACK ON ALL FLOWERS OR JUST ON THE HYDRANGEAS? HYDRANGEAS ARE THE ONES THAT YOU THAT YOU. SO THEY HAVE A VERY SENSITIVE. [03:05:05] WHAT DID MY GRANDMOTHER. I DON'T KNOW. WHY? OKAY, EVERYONE, I'M GONNA TRY THIS AGAIN. [CLOSED SESSION] IT'S 12:20 P.M. ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551 .071 TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THE FOLLOWING TODAY'S AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER 2930 31 UNDER SECTION 551 .072, THE OPENING ACT ON THE AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER 2930. WE'LL RESUME AT 1 P.M.. WE STAND AT RECESS. THANK YOU. [ZONING CASES - CONSENT] THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS COMPLETED ITS CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS FIVE, FIVE, 1.071 AND 551.072 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, AND AT 2:16 P.M. ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025, WE HAVE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION. MADAM CITY SECRETARY, WE'RE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED ACTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOU'RE CORRECT. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA. YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS Z1, Z2, Z3. NO ITEMS WERE PULLED. I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM Z1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING R-7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST CORNER OF ROAD AND KLEBERG ROAD. ITEM Z2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 942 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST BELTLINE ROAD AND WEST LINE OF SOUTH NORTH LAKE ROAD. ITEM Z3 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2160 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND SCYENE ROAD. YOU DO HAVE 31 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM Z2, CONSENT ITEM Z2. ALL SPEAKERS DURING THE ZONING PERIOD WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. I'LL CALL THE FIRST 16 FORWARD. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WILL THE FIRST SPEAKER COME TO THE PODIUM AND THE AND THE REMAINING SPEAKERS HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS INTERSECTION, AND I WILL APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF I MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME. JENNIFER HIRAMOTO, YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM. ANDREA. SANDERS, MIKE. CHILDERS. ASHOK. TRIVEDI. SWETHA. GUNDA. KAVERI. PAVAN. KUMAR. BECKY. ISHRAT. SURESH. VANILLA. VANILLA. RATNA. VUPPALA. PRAVEEN. CHEN. THALAPATHI. PART. HASHIRA. ARATI. VEMURI. SARANYA. CHENNAMMA. CHINNASAMY. RAVINDRA. PRASANNA. GOUDA GHANI AND NIKHIL. NELL. NELL. NELL. I'M SO SORRY. JENNIFER. HIRAMOTO. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE TWO MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN. I'VE LEARNED MY LESSON. NEVER AGAIN. DENVER. YEAH. NOW I REPRESENT MYSELF WHEN I GET SUED BY THE HOA. OH, GOOD FOR YOU. I WENT TO. MISS HIRAMOTO. I HAD TO GET HELP FROM MARK. YES, MA'AM. I'M A FIRST TIMER AT SHARING MY SCREEN. WE CAN'T WAIT TO MOVE. YOU CAN. SOMEONE WILL ASSIST YOU, BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND BEGIN SPEAKING. SURE. YES. WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT SPEAKER. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANDREA SANDERS AND. MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ANDREA SANDERS. I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR DALLAS CUSTOMER SERVICE WITH ENCORE. [03:10:02] HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT FOR OUR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. MY MY COMMENTS WERE TO FOLLOW. JENNIFER, SO MANY OF YOU KNOW ME. WE'VE WE'VE SPOKEN OVER THE YEARS FOR A LONG TIME. AND OFTEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE ABOUT RELIABILITY AND ON COURSE COMMITMENT TO ENSURING SAFE AND RELIABLE SERVICE FOR THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS AND ALL OF THE THE CUSTOMERS THAT WE SERVE. AND WHAT JENNIFER HOPEFULLY WILL EXPLAIN HERE. AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE GOTTEN THE PRESENTATION ON THE THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO THE NETWORK THAT ALLOWS US TO MONITOR AND CONTROL OUR SYSTEM REMOTELY. THOSE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS ARE SO CRITICAL, PARTICULARLY DURING STORMS WHEN WE CAN RESTORE POWER AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. SO HELPING TO PREVENT OUTAGES INCHES AND SHORTEN RESTORATION TIMES. STRENGTHEN RELIABILITY. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT OUR CUSTOMERS DEPEND ON, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS COMMUNICATION TOWER WILL ENABLE US TO DO. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS EQUIPMENT IS SAFE WHERE IT IS. IT IS OPERATED SAFELY SINCE 2016, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE SAFELY WHEN IT IS RELOCATED. BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT WHILE THIS IS A WONDERFUL THING IN TERMS OF IN HELPING OUR SYSTEM AND PROVIDING RELIABILITY, WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA. THERE WERE SOME TREES THAT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED TOMORROW WITH OUR IRVING AREA MANAGER TO TALK ABOUT WHERE TREES CAN BE PLACED, AND WHERE SHADE SHIELDING CAN BE PROVIDED. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. JENNIFER HIRAMOTO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JENNIFER HIRAMOTO 10233 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY. REPRESENTING ENCORE IN THIS APPLICATION TO AMEND PD 942. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN A UTILITY SITE. THE OLDEST AERIAL I COULD FIND WAS 1959. WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. AND KIND OF QUICKLY ORIENT YOU. THIS IS 21 MILES AWAY FROM CITY HALL. AND IT IS CLEARLY DEVELOPED WITH A PUBLIC UTILITY SITE. THIS WAS THE AREA WHERE THE VEGETATION WAS REMOVED THAT WE'RE WORKING ON ADDRESSING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ANDREA JUST MENTIONED. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS TOWER EQUIPMENT THAT IS ON THE WATER TOWER ON THE LEFT SIDE. IT'S GOING TO BE REPLACED WITH A STANDALONE 200 FOOT TOWER FOR ENCORE CRITICAL COMMUNICATION NEEDS. THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL CELL TOWER. AND THEN I WANTED TO QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPLAIN THE LOCATION. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS OUR FIVE. AND THERE'S TWO SITES THAT WE CONSIDERED THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A 400 FOOT BUFFER, ESSENTIALLY AROUND THE 200 FOOT TALL TOWER IN CASE IT WERE TO FALL. THE R5 PROPERTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE. AND I'LL SHOW YOU THE NEXT SLIDE BECAUSE THAT'LL BE DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SUBSTATION THAT IS BEING EXPANDED. IT ALSO SHOWS SOME OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES THAT CRISSCROSSED THE 80 ACRES. BUT THERE'S LITERALLY NO OTHER PLACE FOR THIS TOWER TO GO AND BE SAFE. WE DID KEEP THE RESIDENTIAL USES IN MIND. BUT THE TOWER DOES NOT CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MIKE CHILDERS OKAY. NOT GOING TO SPEAK. NOT PRESENT. ASHOK TRIVEDI. OKAY. YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE. YEP. HI, MY NAME IS ASHOK. I AM A AM PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN COMMUNITY. I AM FROM FOURTH HOME AND THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES WE HAVE. [03:15:02] AS A RESIDENT DUE TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF TOWER. SO ITS PROXIMITY TO THE HOMES AND CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS. SO IT IS LIKE JUST THREE 50FT AWAY FROM THE HOMES AND THREE 50FT AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA AND ALSO THE PLACE WHERE WE REGULARLY WALK, IT IS CLOSE TO 300FT AWAY FROM THAT PLACE. AND CHILDREN'S SCHOOL BUSSES WILL ROAM AROUND THAT AREA AND IT WILL BE HAZARDOUS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THAT TOWER SUCH A CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, RISK OF LIGHTNING AND STRIKES OF POWER SURGES. SO WHENEVER LIGHTNING STRIKES OR SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THAT DIRECTLY FALLS ONTO THE TOWERS, WHICH ARE HIGH TENSION TOWERS NEAR TO THAT, AND THAT MAY CAUSE HAZARDS TO OUR HOMES WHICH ARE NEARBY AND ALSO THE ESTHETICS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO IT USED TO BE A GREENBELT EARLIER, SO THAT'S FINE. IT'S THEIR LAND. THEY REMOVE THE GREENBELT, BUT, ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THIS, AND WE ARE HEAVILY IMPACTED BECAUSE OF THAT AND NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES. SO WE HAVE ALREADY CHECKED THAT WHEN WE ENTER THE COMMUNITY, THERE ARE LARGE TOWERS WHICH IS BEING BUILT ALREADY, INCLUDING THIS. SO IT WILL BE DEFINITELY IMPACTING OUR PROPERTY VALUES 15 TO 20% AND LIMITED EMERGENCY ACCESS. SO WE HAVE ONLY ONE ENTRY AND ONE EXIT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO OUR ACCESS WILL BE LIMITED WHENEVER SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THIS TOWER OR NEARBY PREMISES. SO HAZARDS OF HIGH WINDS AS WE SEE LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR WE HAVE 90 PLUS MILES PER HOUR WINDS HAVE BEEN BLOWING IN THE DALLAS. SO SINCE WE ARE JUST TWO 50FT OR THREE 50FT FROM THIS TOWER, SO THERE IS A HIGH CHANCE THAT THEY MAY COME INTO OUR BACKYARD AND ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE AND ENVIRONMENT. SO I WANT TO SHOW YOU THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SWETA GUNDA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SHWETA GUNDA AND I REPRESENT THE SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY OF MORE THAN 210 FAMILIES AND OVER 800 RESIDENTS, INCLUDING MANY CHILDREN. MY FELLOW RESIDENTS ARE HERE. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND 20 PLUS RESIDENTS HAVE JOINED ONLINE. SO FIRST IT'S A SAFETY. SO WITH THIS TOWER SO CLOSE TO HOMES CREATES REAL RISK. IF IT COLLAPSES DUE TO THE STORMS OR THE HIGH WINDS, IT COULD CRASH INTO THE HIGH VOLTAGE LINES, ENDANGERING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. THE SECOND THING IS THE WILDLIFE AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT. THE TOWER AND ITS BASE STATION WILL DISTURB MIGRATORY BIRDS AND THE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS IN OUR AREA. BEYOND NATURE, HEAVY CONSTRUCTION BRINGS NAILS ON THE ROADS AND THE MUDDY STREETS, AND THE DAMAGE THAT BECOMES A FINANCIAL AND SAFETY BURDEN ON FAMILIES. HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS PROPOSAL FAILS ON SAFETY, HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND QUALITY OF LIFE GROUNDS. WE ARE NOT OPPOSING TECHNOLOGY, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR RESPONSIBLE PLANNING. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS ZONING CHANGE IN THE CURRENT FORM AND REQUIRE A SAFE SETBACK THAT PROTECTS FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND OUR ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. AS YOU COULD SEE. CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT THIS ONE? THANK YOU. I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER CONSTRUCTION. NEXT TO OUR COMMUNITY. CELL TOWERS EMIT RADIATION CLASSIFIED AS POSSIBLE CARCINOGEN BY INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER. RESEARCH LINKS LIKE RADIATION TO SERIOUS HEALTH ISSUES, INCLUDING CANCER AND HEADACHES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, AS SCIENTISTS RECOMMEND REDUCING THEIR EXPOSURE TO RADIATION, WHICH ALSO HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT ALSO. FIREFIGHTERS, AS YOU KNOW, OPPOSE CELL TOWERS AT THE STATION DUE TO THE HEALTH CONCERNS AND THE OUTDATED FCC RADIATION GUIDELINES FROM 1996, WHICH ARE NOT STILL UPDATED. IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG TIME, AND AS TECHNOLOGY MOVES FASTER, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE GUIDELINES HAVE TO BE ALSO BE CHANGED ACCORDINGLY. LET'S FOCUS HERE ON COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT WELL-BEING. I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS OR SOLUTIONS THAT EMPHASIZE COMMUNITY WELL-BEING. I REQUEST THAT ENCORE, AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND DALLAS COUNTY, WORK TOGETHER TO RELOCATE THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER TO AT LEAST 600FT FROM OUR [03:20:01] COMMUNITY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. LET'S WORK TOGETHER. WE ARE NOT AGAINST, BUT WE WANT A BETTER SOLUTION FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. PAVAN KUMAR. HI. RESPECTED COUNCILMAN. MY NAME IS PAVAN KUMAR, AND I'M I LIVE IN FIRST HOME IN THE KINGFISHER ROAD, VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION. I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CHANGE. JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BIG SAFETY HAZARD, AS YOU SEE IN THIS SCREEN. THERE IS A TOWER WHICH FELL IN CALIFORNIA RECENTLY IN 2013. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WERE NO HOMES CLOSE BY. LET'S SAY IF THIS HAPPENS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THERE WILL BE A BIG DISASTER BECAUSE THERE ARE POWER LINES WHICH ARE CLOSED. CLOSE BY. RIGHT. SO WITH 290 SETBACK. SO IT'S GOING TO FALL, THE TOWER IS GOING TO FALL ON THESE HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINES, WHICH ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE ROAD, SO THAT THE ONLY ROAD WE HAVE TO COMMUTE, GO OUT AND INTO THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S A BIG SAFETY HAZARD WHICH WE ARE LOOKING AT AND WE ARE CONCERNED WITH. YOU CAN SEE THE THE NEWS ABOUT THE RADIO TOWER COLLAPSE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE WE DON'T WANT TO REGRET LATER BY APPROVING APPROVING THIS ZONE RIGHT NOW. AND AND THE SETBACK RULES OF IRVING CITY. WE ARE PART OF IRVING CITY AS WE PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO IRVING CITY ARE. AND WE LIVE IN A BORDER OF IRVING COPPELL AREA AND DALLAS FOR THAT MATTER. IRVING HAS A 3 TO 1 DISTANCE TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE TO BUILD A 200 FOOT TOWER, THEN 600 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE REQUIRED. SO YOU CAN SEE THE REFERENCE CODE FOR THIS AND EVEN OTHER CITIES LIKE DENTON, GRAND PRAIRIE, JOHNSON CITY AND PATTISON CITY HAVE SAME SETBACK RULES. BUT DOES DALLAS CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY SETBACK RULES. UNFORTUNATELY. WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RASHAD BUSH. IS VIRTUAL. YOU MAY BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PRCHAL AND I'M ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY. AS SOME OF MY MEMBERS COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN, I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF ON SOME OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE CURRENT FORM OF THIS PD. 942. I AS A RESIDENT, OPPOSE THE LANGUAGE OF PD. 942 AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF A NUMBER OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE IS THE SETBACK RULES. IF ENCORE FACILITY AND PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN ANY OTHER CITY LIKE IRVING OR DENTON OR GRAND PRAIRIE, THEY HAD TO MAINTAIN A RULE OF AT LEAST 3 TO 1. SO IF THE PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER IS, LET'S SAY 200FT, AS WE HAVE HEARD, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 600FT AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT HOME AND THE CHILDREN'S PARK. NOW, TALKING ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S PARK SECURITY IS A BIG CONCERN. THIS IS THE ONLY CHILDREN'S PARK THAT WE HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVE KIDS PLAYING THERE. AND THAT'S THE KIND OF ONLY, ONLY HOPE FOR OUR KIDS. AND BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLOSE. AND NOT ONLY CLOSE, BUT ALSO EVERYTHING IS OPEN FROM FROM THE LOOKS PERSPECTIVE, FROM THE CHILDREN'S PARK WHERE KIND OF OUR KIDS AND CHILDREN ARE VULNERABLE TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE APPARATUS OF SPEED SUBSTATION VIA THE COMMUNICATION TOWER OR ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT. SO ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU KNOW, THIS LANGUAGE OF PD 942 SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST 3 TO 1 RATIO, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE ENCORE HAS A VERY LARGE PARCEL OF I GUESS 80 PLUS ACRES OF LAND. RIGHT. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOMES. WE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CHERRIES. VANILLA. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SURESH VANGALA. I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. AND TO CONTINUE WHAT MY COLLEAGUES OR MY FELLOW RESIDENTS MENTIONED. [03:25:07] SO WE WOULD LIKE TO AS A COMMUNITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THERE ARE THREE OTHER ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS WHERE ANCHOR CAN HAVE THIS RADIO TOWER CAN BE LIKE AN ESTABLISHED WHICH IS AWAY FROM OUR COMMUNITY AND ALSO LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO SUPPORT OUR ASK THE LINE WE THERE ARE AROUND 74 HOMES THAT ARE IMPACTED BECAUSE OF THIS ZONING CHANGE AND RADIO TOWER. SO WE SUBMITTED, LIKE, YOU KNOW 38 AGAINST THIS MOTION DURING THE CITY CPC HEARING. AND TODAY, LIKE, YOU KNOW 58 HOMEOWNERS SUBMITTED OUR FORMS, BLUE FORMS AGAINST THIS ZONING CHANGE. AND WE ARE LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS A UNIT UNITY COMMUNITY. WE ARE OPPOSING THIS. AND AS A MINIMUM, WE ARE REQUESTING, LIKE IN A COUNCIL MEMBERS TO OPPOSE THIS. AND AT LEAST LIKE IN ASKING TO ENFORCE A MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE OF AT LEAST THREE TIMES TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, SO THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY SETBACK REGULATIONS ARE ENFORCED AND ENSURE THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF OUR RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ROTHNA VUPPALA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RATNA UPPALA, RESIDENT OF SOUTH AVON COMMUNITY. WE ARE HERE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT. I HAVE TWO POINTS TO PUT FORWARD HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS A PRECEDENT. DALLAS HAS FACED THIS BEFORE IN 2020. IN 2015 AND 16, DISD PARENTS SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED TOWERS NEAR SCHOOLS. THEIR WINNING ARGUMENTS WERE PROXIMITY TO CHILDREN. AND WE HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT TODAY IN 2016 AND 17. PRESTON HOLLOW AND NORTH DALLAS RESIDENTS FOUGHT OFF 120 TO 1 50 FOOT TOWERS, ARGUING COLLAPSE ZONES AND CHARACTER INCOMPATIBILITY. THAT'S EXACTLY WINNING ARGUMENTS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER TODAY. IN 2017, LAKEWOOD NEIGHBORS BLOCKED A TOWER NEAR A HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE IT VIOLATED DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 51 A, WHICH REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IT HERE TODAY. WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY NEXT TO IT IN EVERY CASE. DALLAS SIDED WITH ITS RESIDENTS AND REJECTED TOWERS THAT WERE TOO CLOSE TO HOMES, SCHOOLS, PARKS, CHILDREN. THAT PRESIDENT SHOULD GUIDE TODAY'S DECISION. COUNCIL MEMBER SOUTHAVEN IS SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE SAME FAIRNESS AND PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTS HERE. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS, BUT THIS ZONING CHANGE IN ITS CURRENT FORM, IT'S FAILED BASIC SAFETY SETBACK COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS AMENDMENT UNLESS THIS TOWER IS RELOCATED WITH A MINIMUM 3 TO 1 SETBACK, WHICH IS A 600FT. THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR. JUST PUSH BACK EXPECT 600FT, CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER TEXAS CITIES AND DALLAS OWN PAST DECISIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES. THANK YOU. PRAVEEN CHINTALAPUDI. WILL BE VIRTUAL. YOU MAY. YOU MAY BEGIN. YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. OKAY, OKAY. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. DALLAS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND EVERYONE OUT THERE. I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL OF TOWER LOCATION, ALONG WITH ALL OUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE CHILDREN'S PARK AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUSY INTERSECTION. THAT BEING USED BY ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL KIDS. AND ALSO SOME SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS. I MEAN, LIKE, EVERY SINGLE DAY, MULTIPLE SCHOOL BUSSES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND CITY AND POSTAL VEHICLES PASS THROUGH THE SAME INTERSECTION, SO I'M OPPOSING BASED ON THE THREE KEY FACTORS ONE. IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD AS I MEAN, IF WE HAVE A TOWER VERY CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SECOND ONE IS LIKE THE ESTHETIC VALUES OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE THIRD ONE IS THE PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH IS A VERY HUGE IMPACT, ESPECIALLY THAT AFFECTS EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY, ALSO IN MULTIPLE CITIES AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING DALLAS COUNTY, AND ALSO BECAUSE I MEAN A LOT OF TAXES. SO I THINK I'M LOOKING YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING. [03:30:02] OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO YOU. HAVE A FEW MORE SECONDS. YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT SPEAKER. PARDHASARADHI. VEMURI. PARTHASARATHI. VEMURI NOT PRESENT. SARANYA CHINNASAMY. SARANYA CHINNASAMY IS NOT PRESENT. HAVE ENTRY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, ESTEEMED COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RAGHAVENDRA AND I AM A RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT IN THE CURRENT FORM. SO THE KEY ISSUE IS THE PROXIMITY. IT IS. THE ANCHOR WANTS TO BUILD THIS TOWER CLOSE TO CHILDREN'S PARK. IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD. WE HAVE SEEN SIMILAR TOWERS. TOWERS TOPPLE. AND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF IT HAPPENS, IT COULD FALL ON THE HIGH VOLTAGE LINES, OR WORSE, DIRECTLY ONTO THE NEARBY HOMES. IT IS. IT WILL ALSO IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF OUR FAMILIES. THIS WOULD RESULT IN 15 TO 20% REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT AND UNFAIR FINANCIAL BURDEN. SO I REQUEST TWO CONCRETE ACTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FROM THE ENCORE. FIRST IS TO REJECT AND SECOND, FOR THE ENCORE TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 600FT. A 3 TO 1 DISTANCE TO HEIGHT RATIO. CITIES LIKE DENTON AND GRAND PRAIRIE HAVE SIMILAR SAFETY STANDARDS. WE URGE YOU TO ENFORCE THIS MINIMUM STANDARD MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE OF THREE TIMES THE AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE TOWER HEIGHT. IF THIS COUNCIL FEELS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE TOWER, WE INSIST YOU REQUIRE TO AMEND THE PLAN FOR COMMUNITY ESTHETICS. WE ASK THAT YOU MANDATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCREENS OR ARCHITECTURAL COVERINGS TO BLOCK THE VISUAL BLIGHT OF THE SUBSTATION AND THE TOWER BASE FROM OUR HOMES AND CHILDREN'S PARK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. PRASANNA. GUNDOGAN. GUNDOGAN. GUNDOGAN. IT'S NOT PRESENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. NIL. NIL. LURIE. GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS NIKHIL. I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THERE'S A SAYING WE ALL KNOW VERY WELL. WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY. IN AN 81 ACRE PROPERTY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW ONCOR WOULD NOT FIND AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION, EVEN ONE WITH JUST A 400 FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE AWAY FROM OUR HOMES AND CHILDREN'S PARK. SO I ASK, WHOM SHOULD WE TURN TO? AND WHAT? WHAT MUST WE ASK WHEN REASON AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS SEEM TO BE OVERLOOKED? SIR, THE VISIBILITY RANGE OF A 200 FOOT TOWER IS 17.2 MILES. ON A CLEAR DAY, WE CAN STAND ON TOP OF THIS BUILDING AND SEE THE TOWER IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A MINIMUM SETBACK. PLEASE PUSH BEYOND 400FT AND THEN PLEASE FIND AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE 81 ACRES. PLEASE SEE THROUGH. SEE THAT IT HAPPENS. THANK YOU SIR. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW I'LL NOW CALL THE REMAINING SPEAKERS. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS INTERSECTION. PRASAD, CHOPA. PRASAD. CHAPA. YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM IF YOU'RE HERE. MUTE MADHURI BHUPATHI, RAGHAVENDRA RAVELLA ANIL KUMAR, HARDIK PATEL, HEMA NARASIMHAN, VASANT SRIVASTAV, OM MISHRA, VIMAL CASA SHASHI KUMAR REDDY, LINGALA VENKATA SURI, NAVEEN, AMBATI, GANESH, BABU, GOPAL, A.J. I'M SORRY, AJ COWAN AND THEN DONNA KAVURI PRASAD CHOPRA. [03:35:06] OKAY. YOU MAY BEGIN. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PRASAD CHOPRA FROM THE SAME COMMUNITY ARE GETTING STRAIGHT INTO THE POINTS, RIGHT? WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE TECHNOLOGY OR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. WE SIMPLY ASK THE DALLAS TO APPLY THE SAME SETBACK STANDARDS USED BY THE NEIGHBORING CITIES LIKE IRVING, DENTON AND GRAND PRAIRIE, WHICH REQUIRES REQUIRES AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER TO THE DISTANCE OF THE HOMES. NUMBER TWO, IF YOU SEE THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN, THERE ARE CASES IN THE PAST WHERE CPC DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF SUP FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS WITHIN THE AREAS OF THE DALLAS CITY. NOW, IF YOU SEE HERE PRESTON HARLOW 2016 2017 CPC DENIED 150 FOOT TOWER NEAR RESIDENTIAL STREET FOR BEING VISUALLY INCOMPATIBLE. EAST DALLAS LAKEWOOD 2017 TOWER REJECTED FOR DISRUPTING THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DECISION LIES WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. BUT BEFORE US MAKING THE FINAL DECISION, WE RESPECTFULLY INVITE YOU TO VISIT OUR COMMUNITY AND SEE THE GROUND REALITY FOR YOURSELF. THE PROXIMITY OF HOMES, THE PLAYGROUND, THE FAMILIES WHO WILL LIVE WITH THIS TOWER EVERY DAY. WE WOULD BE HONORED TO HOST YOU IN OUR IN OUR COMMUNITY TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT IS AT STAKE. LAST POINT, ALTHOUGH OUR COMMUNITY LIES WITHIN CITY LIMITS, THE PROJECT SITS INSIDE THE DALLAS JURISDICTION. SO RIGHT AT THE BORDER OF THE TWO CITIES. AS A RESULT, MORE THAN 200 FAMILIES ARE CAUGHT IN BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES. WITH NO SINGLE CITY FULLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE IMPACTS, WE REQUEST DALLAS AND IRVING TO JOIN. HAVE A JOINT REVIEW AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY BOTH CITIES BEFORE APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MADHURI BHUPATHI. 2.0. YES. YES. HI, THIS IS MADHURI. I'M ONE OF THE IMPACTED HOMEOWNERS. AND I LIVE THERE. I LIVE IN MY HOUSE WITH MY HUSBAND AND TWO, TWO KIDS. ONE IS NINE YEARS OLD AND ONE IS TWO YEAR OLD. EVEN THOUGH OUR HOME IS JUST OUTSIDE THE DALLAS CITY LIMITS, THE REZONING DIRECTLY AFFECTS US. THE NOISE, THE SIGHT OF 200 FOOT TOWER, THE LONG TERM HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS. THEY DON'T HAVE THE CITY BORDER. MY CHILDREN WILL GROW UP PLAYING IN THE BACKYARD, RIGHT IN THE VIEW OF THIS TOWER. AND I WORRY ABOUT THAT. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THEIR HEALTH AND THEIR SENSE OF SAFETY. WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED FORWARD DALLAS 2.0, IT COMMITTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, AND PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM INCOMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE LAND USES. THAT PLAN WAS BUILT ON FAIRNESS, MAKING SURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS ARE PLACED RESPONSIBILITY, NOT WHERE THEY BURDEN FAMILIES OR HARM COMMUNITY CHARACTER. APPROVING THIS REZONING WOULD GO AGAINST THAT VISION. IT WOULD PLACE AN INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE NEXT TO THE HOMES, RATHER THAN DIRECTING IT TO AN APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREA. IT WOULD SET A THAT CONVINCES CAN OUTWEIGH COMMUNITY WELL-BEING. SOMETIMES SOMETHING FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT. AS A MOTHER, I WANT MY BOYS TO GROW UP IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FEELS SAFE AND HEALTHY. I WANT THEM TO SEE THE CITY LEADERS VALUE FAMILIES AND THE PROMISES MADE IN FORWARD DALLAS 2.0. THAT GROWTH SHOULD HAPPEN RESPONSIBLY AND WITH RESPECT TO THE PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING THERE. I URGE TO PLEASE HAVE THE SETBACK RULE OF 3 TO 1 RATIO SO WE ALL FEEL SAFE. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME FOR LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF FAMILIES LIKE ME. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. RAGHAVENDRA RAVELLA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO MY NAME IS RAGHAVENDRA RAVELLA. SO THE MATURE, THE MATURE TREES CUT DOWN AND SHIELDED THE VIEW OF THE TOWERS AND POWER LINES OF THE FACILITY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT SHOULD SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF THE ONCOR WANTS TO PUT A NEW TOWER THAT IS 70FT TALLER THAN THE CURRENT ONE. SO THE NEW TOWER IS 20FT FROM THE FAMILIES IN THE SOUTH HAVEN. SO HALF OF THE CURRENT DISTANCE OF THE EXISTING TOWER. SO THIS CUT DOWN THE MATURE TREES EVEN BEFORE THE CASE IS DENIED. SO WHILE THE FCC ACT OF 1996 PROHIBITS THE DENIAL OF NEW CELL TOWERS BASED ON THE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENT FACTORS, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT CITIES CAN DO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF CELL TOWERS, INCLUDING HEIGHT, SETBACK AND ACIDIC BUFFERS. [03:40:08] THE CITIES OF THE EVENING, DENTON AND GRANBURY ALL HAVE ORDINANCES THAT REQUIRE SHELTERS TO BE LOCATED AT 3 TO 1 RATIO OF DISTANCE TO THE HEIGHT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. SO IF THE PROPERTY WERE IN, A NEW TOWER WOULD HAVE BEEN MINIMUM OF 600FT FROM THE SOUTH HAVEN, WHICH IS PROTECTION THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR YOU TODAY. SO ACTUALLY, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SHOW THAT PLACEMENT OF CELL TOWERS CAN HAVE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEM. SO I REQUEST SO PLEASE DO NOT PROCEED WITH THIS REQUEST. ALL THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ANIL KUMAR. IS VIRTUAL. YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU. HONORABLE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. AS A PROUD TEXAN AND A MEMBER OF THIS TIGHTLY KNIT COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A PRACTICAL AND A FORWARD LOOKING PERSPECTIVE. ONE THING WE CAN ALL AGREE ABOUT TEXAS. IT'S A STATE KNOWN FOR VAST LAND, BIG SKIES, AND BIG THINKING. AND WITH THAT IN MIND IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY A 200 FOOT INDUSTRIAL TOWER WOULD BE PROPOSED SO CLOSE TO HOME. CENTRAL PARK WHEN THERE ARE LIKELY OTHER LOCATIONS THAT COULD ACHIEVE THE SAME PURPOSE WITHOUT CREATING LONG TERM CONCERNS FOR THE COMMUNITY. NOW. OKAY, ONE ONCOR MAY HAVE CONSTRAINTS, WHETHER RELATED TO LAND, THE GRID, THE TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS ULTIMATELY AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM, AND ENGINEERING PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED. AS A COMMUNITY. WE ARE EVEN READY TO ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND HELP IDENTIFY A SOLUTION ONE THAT SUPPORTS THE UTILITY'S GOAL WHILE ALSO ENSURING THE SAFETY QUALITY OF LIFE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DALLAS. SO. I REALLY SEE THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN HELP, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THIS BROADER LONG TERM IMPACTS. AND YOU KNOW, VOTE FOR VOTE AGAINST IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HARDIK PATEL. HI, YES I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU. HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. IS THAT. YES, WE CAN HEAR. WE CAN SEE YOU. YES. PERFECT. THANK YOU. HELLO EVERYONE. THANKS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC. MY NAME IS HARDIK PATEL. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE SOUTH INDIAN COMMUNITY RESIDING AT 1349 BLUEGILL BAY ROAD. IT'S THE FIRST HOUSE ON THE STREET RIGHT NEXT TO THE CHILDREN'S PARK. IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING, RESIDENTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE FCC PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM CONSIDERING HEALTH EFFECTS OF CELLULAR TOWERS AND ZONING DECISIONS, WHICH IS FINE, BUT NOTING THAT LET ME HIGHLIGHT SOME OTHER VERY REAL CONCERNS THAT SUPPORT OUR OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING APPROVAL FOR THIS TOWER. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THERE IS AN INCREASED FREQUENCY OF LIGHTNING STRIKES. THERE IS A GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTER THAT WAS PUBLISHED. IT HAS 20 YEARS OF DATA THAT SAYS THAT IN AREAS THAT HAVE OVER 100 LIGHTNING OCCURRENCES, 99.8% OF THEM WERE WITHIN A MILE OF A ANTENNA TOWER, WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH THE FCC. BUT MORE WORRYING IN THIS TREND AND THIS DATA TREND, WAS THAT THE STUDY TOWERS THAT WERE NEW AND THERE WAS A THREE FOLD INCREASE IN LIGHTNING DENSITY WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE TOWER IN THE FIRST YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION. NOW THERE IS ALSO THE RISK OF COLLAPSE. 88 OUT OF 176 COLLAPSES THAT HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY WERE WEATHER RELATED. WINDSTORMS, THUNDERSTORMS, ICE STORMS, ALL OF THOSE WHICH ARE POSSIBLE IN OUR AREAS AND THE PROXIMITY OF THAT TOWER TO OUR HOUSES SIDEWALK CHILDREN'S PARK POSE A PHYSICAL RISK THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED. WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE ESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH DIRECTLY IMPACTS PROPERTY VALUES. THERE'S NUMEROUS REPORTS, WHETHER IT'S INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS, JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND ECONOMICS, EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS LETTERS, THE APPRAISAL JOURNAL ALL STATE THAT WHEN THERE'S A CELL PHONE TOWER IN OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THERE IS AN IMPACT, A NEGATIVE IMPACT OF UP TO 20% TO THE PROPERTY VALUE. SO MY MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SHARED THE SAME THING. THAT'S YOUR TIME. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HEMA NARASIMHAN. HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS HEMA NARASIMHAN AND I'M ONE OF THE RESIDENTS AFFECTED [03:45:01] BY THIS ZONING CHANGE. WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOME A FEW YEARS BACK, IT WAS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. OUR KIDS COULD PLAY FREELY IN THE PARK AND IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS. PROPERTY VALUES ENSURED WE HAD AN INVESTMENT FOR OUR FUTURE IN A SUBURBAN ATMOSPHERE CLOSE TO THE CITIES. WITH THIS COMMUNICATION TOWER, I FEAR WE WILL LOSE ALL THESE OBJECTIVES. IT IS SIMPLY VERY, VERY CLOSE TO US. IT WILL HAVE OUR KIDS PLAY AND SENIORS WALK RIGHT UNDER ITS SHADOW. PROPERTY VALUES WILL DROP WITH THE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. AS A COMMUNITY, WE ARE LOCATED IN TWO CITIES IRVING AND DALLAS. IN FACT, SOUTHAVEN OWNS TWO PARCELS OF LAND IN AND PAYS TAXES FOR THEM TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. THESE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED BY ONCOR FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT FOR THE COMMUNICATION TOWER. WE HAVE PROPOSED THREE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS WITH WIDER EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES. I'M SURE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE. A SOLUTION THAT IS FAR ENOUGH FROM OUR HOMES. FOR FURTHER REFERENCE. CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE STATES IN ARTICLE 24 OF THEIR CITY CODE THAT CITIES HAVE LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF SUCH FACILITIES. IF OUR CITY LINES WERE A FEW FEET TO THE WEST, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE, AS CITY OF IRVING WILL NEED A 200 FOOT TOWER TO BE AT LEAST 600FT FROM OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. I AM HERE WITH MY NEIGHBORS TO REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGY, OR A FURTHER LOCATION BEFORE APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE THAT WILL PERMANENTLY AFFECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND TO FURTHER GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF DEMOGRAPHICS IN OUR COMMUNITY, SOME OF THE PARENTS HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE THE SCHOOL BUS WILL COME ON TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PRASAD SRIVASTAV. PRASAD SRIVASTAV IS NOT PRESENT. OM MISHRA. GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AS A SOUTHAMPTON FAMILIES, WE ARE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT THE PLAN TO BUILD A MASSIVE 200 FOOT CELL TOWERS JUST STEPS FROM OUR HOME AND WHERE OUR CHILDREN PLAY EVERY DAY. PARENTS WATCH THEIR KIDS RUN AND LAUGH IN THE PARK. PLACING A TOWER THIS CLOSE MAKES US FEAR FOR OUR THEIR SAFETY AND HEALTH. WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE A SAFE PLACE WHERE FAMILIES FEEL SECURE. BUT WE WORRY ABOUT THE RISK THIS BRINGS POTENTIAL HEALTH ISSUES, FALLING PROPERTY VALUES, AND CONSTANT NOISE AND THE FEAR THAT IF THE WORST HAPPENS LIKE A TOWER COLLAPSE, OUR COMMUNITY WILL SUFFER. OTHER CITIES HAVE MADE SURE THIS TOWER, THESE TOWERS, ARE SET FURTHER FROM THE PEOPLE'S HOME. WHY SHOULD OUR FAMILIES BE ANY LESS PROTECTED? WE ASK COUNCIL TO STAND WITH US. AND PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS PROJECT AS IS. IT IS. I HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL DO DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE TAKING THAT DECISION. HELP US TO KEEP SOUTH HAVEN SAFE, HEALTHY PLACE TO LIVE AND RAISE OUR CHILDREN. AND I WOULD LIKE TO TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK TOM FAWCETT FOR ALL THE RESEARCH AND HELP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FROM ALCAZAR. FROM ALCAZAR. IT'S NOT PRESENT. SHASHI KUMAR REDDY. LINGALA. SHASHI KUMAR REDDY. LINGALA IS NOT PRESENT. VENKATA SURI. CAN YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. RESPECTED MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHILE I GO WITH ALL WHAT MY FELLOW RESIDENTS HAVE SAID. THE COUNCILS HAVE PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION. I'D LIKE TO ADD IN SOME MORE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. THE PLANNER SAID THAT WE. THERE ARE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT CANNOT BE USED BUT ARE LOOKING AT THE MAP AND ALSO THE DIAGRAMS THAT THEY PROVIDED AS PER THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, WHICH SAYS THE SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE CELL TOWER COULD BE AS LOW AS 10 TO 15FT. I STRONGLY FEEL THAT THERE'S LOT OF SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS AWAY FROM OUR RESIDENCES THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY WANT TO LOOK INTO. WHY THERE CANNOT BE MORE. ANY OTHER PLACE WHERE THE CELL TOWER CAN BE INSTALLED AND ALSO, AS PER THE FCC, ALLOWED RF EXPOSURE LIMITS. [03:50:04] WE WOULD LIKE WE HAVE BEEN ASKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF RF RADIATION THIS CELL TOWER WOULD PRODUCE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE 10%, 20% OF THE ALLOWED OR 50% OF THE ALLOWED RADIATION LEVELS. WE HAVEN'T GOT ANY OF SUCH VALUES. SO I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE WORK DONE INTO IDENTIFYING A LOCATION FOR SURE. NOT EVEN HAVING THE ALLOWED RF EXPOSURE VALUES OR ESTIMATED VALUES, AT LEAST FOR THE CELL TOWER. AND ALSO THE CASE REPORT SAYS THAT THE AGRICULTURE, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, WHEREAS THAT IS ONLY ABOUT 20 TO 30FT. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY IS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, BUT WE HAVE THE CLOSEST RESIDENCES WITHIN 100FT FROM THE PROPERTY BORDER. SO I THINK THAT TO THE EAST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONSIDERED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES INSTEAD OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PARK IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED TOWER. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NAVEEN. AMBATI. OKAY. NAVEEN. AMBATI IS NOT PRESENT. GANESH. BABU. GOPAL. GOPAL. GANESH. BABU GOPAL IS NOT PRESENT. AJ. CHOWHAN. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, AND WE CAN SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS AJ CHOWHAN AND I AM A PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR COMMUNITY'S OPPOSITION TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER, WHICH IS PLANNED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONER TOM FORSYTH FOR BEING THE ONLY COMMISSIONER TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF OUR COMMUNITY AT THE LAST MONTH'S MEETING. WE ALSO THANK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE TAKEN TIME OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS TO LISTEN TO OUR CONCERNS AND ENGAGE WITH OUR COMMUNITY. YOUR SUPPORT AND ATTENTION MEAN A GREAT DEAL TO US. ADDITIONALLY, WE ACKNOWLEDGE ON COURSE EFFORT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND UPDATES REGARDING THE SUBSTATION WORK. WE VALUE OPEN COMMUNICATION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE AS GOOD NEIGHBORS. THAT SAID, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT ONCOR RECONSIDER THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TOWER AND EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE SITES WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBOR NEARBY HOMES. IF RELOCATION IS NOT FEASIBLE, WE STRONGLY URGE ONCOR TO ESTABLISH CLEAR PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARIES AND IMPLEMENT ROBUST SCREENING MEASURES, INCLUDING DENSE VEGETATION, ARCHITECTURAL FENCING AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL STYLE BUFFERING, SO THE AREA PRESENTS A NEIGHBORHOOD APPROPRIATE APPEARANCE RATHER THAN A LARGE INDUSTRIAL SUBSTATION. THESE STEPS ARE ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER, PROTECT RESIDENTS WELL-BEING, AND MAINTAIN PROPERTY VALUES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR CONSIDERING THE CONCERNS OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. NANDANA KAVURI. WILL BE VIRTUAL. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS NAGDCA AND I SERVE AS A BOARD OF DIRECTOR FOR THE SOUTH HAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE SOUTH HAVEN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. I AM HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR COMMUNITY'S OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING AND THE INCREASE IN TOWER HEIGHT TO 200FT NEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR CONCERN IS THAT OUR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES, WHICH COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER, APPEARANCE AND PROPERTY VALUES OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK TO EXPLORE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR THE TOWER THAT ARE FURTHER FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IF THE PROJECT MUST MOVE FORWARD AT THE CURRENT SITE, WE REQUEST ADDITIONAL STEPS TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR SURROUNDINGS, SUCH AS ADDING DIVIDERS OR LANDSCAPING THAT BLENDS WITH NEARBY HOMES USING FENCING AND SIGNAGE. DESIGN SUITED TO A RESIDENTIAL SETTING RATHER THAN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND TAKING PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO ADDRESS ANY POTENTIAL HAZARDS. WE ALSO URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO OPPOSE THE REZONING TO HELP PRESERVE THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY'S CONCERN. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS. [03:55:05] ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE NOT ADDRESSED CITY COUNCIL? WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING ITEMS THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD ITEM Z1, Z2, AND Z3. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHICH ZONING ITEM YOU WILL BE SPEAKING ON AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES. MY NAME IS BILL WALKER. I REPRESENT THE BILLINGSLEY COMPANY ON THE CYPRESS WATERS PROPERTY, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS AREA AND ALSO TO THE WEST. WE WE'RE SORT OF IN A DIFFERENT POSITION. WE WE SUPPORT THIS TOWER FROM A VERY SIMPLE, PRAGMATIC VIEW THAT WE THAT WE NEED THE POWER IN THE AREA TO MAINTAIN THE AREA. WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS TOWER SUPPORTS THE VARIOUS COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED AND TO PROVIDE SAFE AND RELIABLE POWER. NOW, WITH ALL THE OUTAGES, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I WAS LOOKING AT THE CHART WHEN WE WERE DOING THAT. THAT MAP THAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW, THAT TOWER THAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS ROUGHLY 390FT FROM THOSE HOUSES. SO THAT'S A 2 TO 1 RATIO. THEY'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE 3 TO 1 AND ALL THAT. BUT I JUST I JUST HAPPEN TO NOTICE IT. AND THEN AS FAR AS ECONOMICS OF THIS THING, I HATE TO BRING UP ECONOMICS WHEN IT'S HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THEIR SENTIMENT. BUT WE PAID IN 2020 FOR THAT. CYPRESS WATERS IS VALUED AT 1.2 BILLION, AND IN 25 YEARS AT FULL BUILD OUT, WE'RE GOING TO BE UP AROUND 3.3. THAT MEANS WE PAID TOTAL TAXES OF 27 MILLION LAST YEAR, OF WHICH 8.6 WENT TO DALLAS AND AT FULL BUILD OUT WILL PAY 73 MILLION, OF WHICH 23.3 WILL GO TO DALLAS. SO I LIKE I SAID, I HATE TO BRING IT UP, BUT IT'S JUST THE REALITY THAT HAVING THIS TOWER IS IMPORTANT AND AND WE DO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING ITEMS THAT WERE READ IN THE RECORD? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. OKAY. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR MY CUE TO UPDATE SO I CAN GET IT STRAIGHTENED OUT HERE. WAS THAT CHAIRMAN JOHNSON? YES, SIR. NOW IT'S COMPLETELY OFFLINE. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. CAN I GET SOME TECH HELP? THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I SPOKE WITH THE COMMUNITY CONCERNING THIS MATTER. I JUST FOUND OUT WHAT DISTRICT IT WAS IN YESTERDAY. ONCOR WANTS TO PUT A NEW TOWER THAT IS 70FT TALLER THAN THE CURRENT ONE. PLANS TO PUT THE NEW TOWER 290FT FROM THE FAMILIES IN SOUTH HAVEN, HALF THE CURRENT DISTANCE OF THE EXISTING TOWER. IT CUTS DOWN MATURE TREES EVEN BEFORE THIS CASE WAS EVEN DECIDED. WHAT I FOUND OUT YOU HEARD EARLIER THAT THE FCC ACT OF 1996 PROHIBITS THE DENIAL OF NEW CELL TOWERS BASED ON HEALTH ENVIRONMENT FACTORS. IT'S ALSO CLEAR THAT THE CITY CAN AND DO REGULATE PLACEMENT ON CELL TOWERS, INCLUDING HEIGHT SETBACK. AND SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS HEARD THAT IT WAS LOCATED 3 TO 1 THE GENTLEMAN FROM BILLINGSLEY SAID IT WAS 2 TO 1 RATIO OF DISTANCE TO THE HEIGHT FROM RESIDENCE STRUCTURES. AND SO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SHOW THAT THE PLACEMENT OF CELL TOWERS CAN HAVE AN ADVERSE HEALTH RISK IN THE POINT OF ORDER. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE STAYING ON TOPIC ON THE ZONING LAND USE ONLY. WE'RE STILL ON TOPIC. MAYOR JOHNSON, WHAT I'M TRYING TO PROVE IS THE HEALTH RISK OF HAVING A CELL TOWER CLOSE. YOU GOTTA KEEP IT. LAND USE. THANK YOU, SIR. SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH RISK. MAYOR AND OTHER OTHER FACTORS. LAND USE. I CANNOT SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE PARKS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE KIDS PLAY, WHERE KIDS ARE. AND SO THAT IS MY CONCERN AND THEREFORE I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR WORKING WITH ME ON THAT. AND THANK YOU, PARLIAMENTARIAN. CHAIRMAN GRACEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, IT GETS FUNNY WITH ALL THESE RULES AND STUFF. AND I WANT GERMAINE TO SHOW UP EITHER. BUT I'M GONNA TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT. I DO HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. [04:00:01] AND MAYBE. PERHAPS ANDRE FROM ENCORE. JUST TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. OH. I'M SORRY. YEAH. SO THERE'S THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. I'M GONNA START HERE WITH THESE, WITH THE THREE OPTIONS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO ENCORE. THE FIRST OPTION IS REALLY ABOUT THE LOCATION ON THE LAND THAT IT'S THAT IT'S IT'S BEING PROPOSED. THE FIRST ONE IS WHY NOT DO ANOTHER ONE ON TOP OF THE WATER TOWER? CAN WE JUST EXPLAIN THAT ANSWER? THE WATER TOWER IS GOING TO GO AWAY. IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXPANSION OF THE SUBSTATION. OKAY. SO WHICH BRINGS TO MY NEXT QUESTION. IN TERMS OF LOCATION, IF THE WATER TOWER IS GOING TO GO AWAY. WHY CAN'T IT BE CONSIDERED TO PUT THE TOWER RIGHT THERE WHERE THE WATER TOWER IS GOING IS LEAVING? THAT MAY BE ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT WERE IN THAT LOCATION THAT THE EQUIPMENT WOULD NOT WORK WITH THE SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S ON THE WATER TOWER NOW IS NOT PERFORMING AS THEY DESIRE. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW TOWER WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO BETTER TECHNOLOGY AND TO HAVE BETTER EQUIPMENT. OKAY. THERE WON'T BE THAT CONFLICT. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE THAT I UNDERSTAND IS IT WAS OF ALL OF THAT REAL ESTATE THAT'S THAT'S THERE. HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND WHY IT HAD TO BE THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. I UNDERSTAND, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD SIMILAR QUESTIONS. THE AREA. SO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS SOME OF THE MAJOR LINES THAT SERVE THE SUBSTATION. THERE'S OTHER LINES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY THAT DON'T SHOW UP. THERE'S AN AREA THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT DOESN'T SHOW WIRES, BUT THERE ARE OVERHEAD WIRES AND ALSO ATMOS FACILITIES. SO THAT AREA IS ONLY 300FT. SO IT WOULDN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH DISTANCE FOR FOR THE FALL ZONE BASICALLY. SO I UNDERSTAND IT'S 80 ACRES. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER PLACE IF THERE WAS ANOTHER PLACE. WE WOULDN'T HAVE OUR THESE NEIGHBORS HERE IN OPPOSITION. WE WOULD HAVE CHOSEN ANOTHER PLACE. OKAY. AND THEN SO THE FALL ZONE BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD OPTION. THAT COULD BE AND THAT WAS I THINK I'VE HEARD OF THESE COLLAPSIBLE TOWERS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO, TO KIND OF FALL IN A PILE WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY, IN MY MIND, HELP CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF IT WERE TO COLLAPSE, THEN THE FALL ZONE THAT CHANGES THE POTENTIAL FALL ZONE IN TERMS OF AREAS, WHY NOT A COLLAPSIBLE TOWER AS AN OPTION? THAT ONE IS ABOVE MY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE. SO I'LL PHONE A FRIEND. OKAY. AND I'VE GOT MY COLLEAGUE HERE TO BACK ME UP HERE. SO WHAT IT IS, IS THIS IS ACTUALLY SO THERE ARE THOSE COLLAPSIBLE TOWERS. THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS A SELF-SUPPORTING OR WHAT WE CALL A GUYED TOWER WHERE IT IS. WELL, THOSE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAVE THE GUY WIRES AND THEY FALL. IT KEEPS THEM FROM FALLING OVER. THIS IS SELF-SUPPORTING, WHICH MEANS IT WILL FALL OVER, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED THAT THAT PARTICULAR SPACE. THERE'S NOT A THERE'S NOT A TOWER THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT WOULD MEET OUR. THERE'S NOT A TOWER THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT WOULD MEET OUR. ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR THIS TOWER. SO IT'S A CLASS FOUR TOWER. IT'S A IT'S THE HIGHEST THAT WE CAN MAKE ON IT. OKAY. AND THEN TALK TO ME ABOUT BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE I'M THINK I'M GOING SOMEWHERE. BUT TALK TO ME ABOUT WHY. WHAT DOES THIS TOWER DO AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS. BECAUSE AS A REGULAR PERSON. YEAH. SO YOU HAVE THESE OPTIONS AND THEN IT SAYS, WELL, WE CAN'T USE A COLLAPSIBLE BECAUSE OF THIS. HELP ME UNDERSTAND. RIGHT. SO THE THE WATER TOWER THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 80S, THE THE COMMUNICATIONS ON THAT TOWER ARE FOR US TO MONITOR AND CONTROL OUR SUBSTATIONS. WE'RE ALSO ADDING, WE'VE ADDED TECHNOLOGY IN THE LAST DECADE THAT HELPS RESTORE POWER FASTER. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD THE TERM INTERRUPTERS. SO THAT'S PART OF THAT TECHNOLOGY. BUT TO REALLY CLEAR THINGS UP, THIS IS NOT A CELL PHONE TOWER. IT DOES NOT TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE ALL THE TIME. AND THE MICROWAVE PASS THAT ARE ON THIS TOWER HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 1980. I MEAN, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. WE'RE JUST MOVING THE STUFF THAT'S ON THE WATER TOWER OVER TO THIS NEW LOCATION. AND THAT TOWER IS MEANT TO DO WHAT? SAY IT ONE MORE TIME. SORRY. SO IT. SO IT MONITORS. IT HELPS MONITOR AND CONTROL THE SUBSTATIONS. AND IT HELPS WITH OUR RESTORATION OF POWER. SO IT'S IT'S IT'S A CRITICAL COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ELECTRIC GRID. OKAY. AND JUST JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE NO OTHER FALL ZONE SAFE FALL ZONE AREAS ON THIS, [04:05:08] HOWEVER MANY ACRES TO. SO IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT BUFFER ZONE THAT THEY'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THE EXAMPLE YOU SAID WHY CAN'T WE PUT IT WHERE THE WATER TOWER IS? WELL, IT WOULD BE IN TOO CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THOSE HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINES. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE MOVED TO THIS PARTICULAR SPOT. AND EVERYTHING THAT THE, THE ENGINEERS HAVE DONE TO LOOK AT THIS, THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THAT TOWER WAS TO FALL, IT WOULD FALL ON ENCORE'S PROPERTY, NOT ON ANY, NOT ON THE STREET OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S ALL OF MY QUESTIONS FOR ENCORE. I THANK YOU ALL, I APPRECIATE THAT. SOMEBODY FROM PLANNING AND ZONING. I JUST A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS. HOW ARE YOU? I AM HERE. I'M GOOD. SO I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I SAW THAT THERE WERE 95, 94 ITEMS MAILED IN, 58 48 RESPONSES THAT WERE AGAINST THIS LOCATION. IF THIS WERE A LITTLE BIT, IF THIS WERE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THESE WERE ALL DALLAS RESIDENTS, WHAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION AT THAT POINT? SO PER OUR LAST COUNT ON FRIDAY, THERE WERE 64 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION. AND LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY. IS IT ARE YOU ASKING WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF OPPOSITION, OR ARE WE ASKING IF THE OPPOSITION WILL CHANGE STAFF OR CPC OR COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION? IF IF IF THE THIS MUCH OPPOSITION WOULD THAT NORMALLY CHANGE STAFF AND CPCS? I WILL RESPOND BOTH QUESTIONS. WE DID SCENARIO IT AS IF IT WAS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE AREA SURROUNDING OR THE AREA OF NOTIFICATION IN OPPOSITION. AND BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, SO I CAN I'M ASSUMING THESE 60 OR SO RESPONSES WERE FROM THE RESIDENTS LIVING IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HAPPENS TO BE IN IRVING, CORRECT? YES, YES, YES, YES. ALL OF THEM ARE FROM THAT AREA. YES. AND YOU GOT YOUR PACKET ON FRIDAY AS WELL. SO IT'S 5% OF THE AREA OF NOTIFICATION JUST FOR FROM A TRIGGER PERSPECTIVE. I WOULD SAY I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR STAFF AND I'M CPC FOLLOWED THE SAME RATIONALE. WE, WE ASSESSED THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH DISTANCE. IT'S ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE TOWER LOCATION AND THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS AROUND 400, 450. WE ALSO ASSESSED THAT IT'S IN AN ONSHORE SUBSTATION. IT IS COMPARABLE WITH WHAT WE NORMALLY SEE FOR CELL TOWERS. SO IT WOULD NOT CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON IS THIS A GOOD USE OF LAND AT THIS LOCATION? ALL RIGHT. I'M GONNA TRY TO ASK THIS QUESTION AND SEE IF I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. AS I LOOK AT THE MAYOR. BUT IF IF, IF. IF THIS WERE AN ITEM NOT RELATED TO A CELL TOWER, JUST IN GENERAL, A REGULAR DEVELOPMENT DEAL, AND YOU HAD THAT MUCH OPPOSITION. HOW WOULD WHAT WOULD WHAT THEN? HOW WOULD YOU CONSIDER A POSITION FOR A CITY STAFF? IT DEPENDS WHAT WHAT THE ASK IS. AND AS AS YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS, CITY STAFF IS LOOKING FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE. IS IT COMPLIANT WITH FOR DALLAS AND OUR PLANS, OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES? DOES IT IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE BUILT AT THAT LOCATION? WE LOOK AT IT ONLY FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE. THE WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY INPUT COMES TOGETHER WITH CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE CONSIDER STRICTLY LAND USE AND TECHNICAL RATIONALE. DOES IT CONFIRM OR IS IT IN THE VISION THAT'S VOTED AND ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. TECHNICALLY, IS IT POSSIBLE? AND AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND IT, WE DO. LOOK, IS IT A GOOD IS IT IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AND THE GOOD USE OF THE LOCATION AT THIS LOCATION? OKAY, I'LL STOP FOR NOW. OKAY. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. ANDRE, I'M GOING TO ASK ENCORE TO COME BACK UP HERE FOR A SECOND JUST TO ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS. SO THIS PROJECT FACT SHEET, I'M NOT SURE WHO PRODUCED IT. IT LOOKS LIKE ENCORE PROBABLY DID. BUT IT'S VERY HELPFUL. SO THIS LOCATION HAS BEEN HAS THERE BEEN A TOWER AT THIS LOCATION FOR 30 YEARS, OR HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN THERE? [04:10:03] THE THE WATER TOWER HAS PROBABLY BEEN THERE FOR LONGER THAN 30 YEARS. BUT THE COMMUNICATION ON THE TOWER HAS BEEN THERE SINCE ABOUT THE 80S MID 80S. OKAY. SO SINCE, YOU KNOW, FOR DECADES THERE HAS BEEN SOME TYPE OF USE AT THIS FACILITY TO FACILITATE ENCORE AND ITS ONGOING NETWORK. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN TALKING ABOUT JUST THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, AND TO BE FAIR, IF THIS WAS DOWN THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT TOO. SO I TOTALLY CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. BUT THE WATER TOWER THAT WAS THERE AND HAS BEEN THERE IS 505FT TALL FROM GROUND LEVEL. GROUND LEVEL? YES, SIR. THERE'S ABOUT 25FT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROUND LEVEL. THAT'S WHY THE EXTRA HEIGHT ON THE TOWER. OKAY. AND THEN THE TOWER, ACCORDING TO THIS FACT SHEET, IS GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 480FT TALL. GROUND LEVEL? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE FAIRLY CLOSE FROM THE GROUND, LOOKING UP OF THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT WATER TOWER. 25FT DIFFERENCE, I THINK. BUT THE OVERALL HEIGHT, THE TOP, LIKE THE TOP OF THE WATER TOWER TO THE TOP OF THIS TOWER WOULD BE THE SAME HEIGHT ONCE IT'S BUILT. I UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, AND JUST THINKING OF MY OWN PERSPECTIVE AS A NEIGHBOR, NOT LOVING THIS NECESSARILY NEXT TO MY HOME, BUT HAVING THIS PROPERTY THERE WITH THESE OTHER UTILITIES ON SITE. I MEAN, THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF EXPECTATION, I THINK, THAT THERE THAT THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE COURSE OF NORMAL BUSINESS. IT ALSO GIVES ME SOME COMFORT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT THAT THIS ISN'T A CELL PHONE TOWER. YOU ARE REALLY JUST COMMUNICATING WITH THE OTHER SUBSTATIONS, INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS. WE DON'T. IT'S STRICTLY FOR ELECTRICAL GRID TO SERVE OUR SUBSTATIONS AND MONITORING AND CONTROL. WE DON'T RUN ANY OTHER KIND OF DATA ACROSS IT WITHOUT HAVING THESE TYPES OF SERVICES, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN FOR THE END USERS? FOR US AS PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR FOR OUR OWN VIABILITY? ANDRE, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO USE OUR AUTOMATED AUTOMATION SYSTEMS IT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE FROM US RECOGNIZING WHEN THERE'S A POWER OUTAGE AND BEING ABLE TO BEFORE A CUSTOMER CALLS. IN THOSE CASES, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO TO DO THAT WITHOUT RUNNING A TRUCK AND THEN HAVING TO SEND ANOTHER CREW OUT, THAT IT ALLOWS US TO DO SOME SWITCHING SO THAT WE CAN RESTORE POWER MUCH QUICKER THAN WE WOULD OTHERWISE. SO THE, THE, OUR CUSTOMERS WOULD SEE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN, IN SERVICE. LET ME, LET ME ADD ONE THING. SO PART OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS TO OUR SUBSTATION, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING GRADED BY THE PUC IN ERCOT ON AVAILABILITY AND A DECADE AGO WHEN WE USED PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, OUR AVAILABILITY WAS VERY LOW. TODAY, WE'RE IN THE 99 PLUS PERCENTAGE ON AVAILABILITY. SO IT'S SO WE HAVE TO HAVE HIGH AVAILABILITY TO MONITOR ALL OF OUR SUBSTATIONS. IT'S VERY CRITICAL. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF ON THE CASE REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT MENTIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE TEN FOR LANDSCAPING ARE THEY'RE GOING TO BE ANY TYPES OF SCREENING OR NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HELP SORT OF MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THIS TOWER FOR THE NEIGHBORS. I DON'T THERE ARE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THE PD THAT REQUIRES MORE THAN ARTICLE TEN, SO IT WILL BE JUST VERTICAL. WHAT ARTICLE TEN REQUIRES? I THINK IT'S A NORMAL BUFFER. PROBABLY TEN FEET, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MORE. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES. IF THEY ARE TRIGGERED. BUT JUST BASIC ARTICLE TEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS CADENA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. YES. SO I'M EXTREMELY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. WHEN I WORKED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ, WE WORKED IN THIS AREA FOR EIGHT YEARS. BOTH IRVING COPPELL AND CYPRESS WATERS. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE ENCORE TEAM. SO DID THIS. DOES THIS TOWER HAVE FEDERAL APPROVAL? HAS IT RECEIVED THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE IT'S SEPTEMBER 9TH. WE DID RECEIVE THE APPROVAL FROM FAA AND ALSO THE FCC, ESSENTIALLY THEIR APPROVAL OF THE TOWER EQUIPMENT'S ALL THE SAME JUST BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE OTHER TOWER. AND A PART OF THAT APPROVAL. THERE'S ALSO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT'S REQUIRED. [04:15:03] CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT? IF Y'ALL IF THIS TOWER IS PAST THAT. SO. SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED BY THE FCC. ESSENTIALLY, YOU HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN GUIDELINES. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THE RF THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED FROM THAT TOWER WOULD HAVE TO BE SO HIGH, OURS SIGNIFICANTLY LOW. SO IT DIDN'T QUALIFY, OR THE TOWER WOULD HAVE TO BE OVER 450FT HIGH. AND SO THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE THAT THIS TOWER WOULD NOT NEED TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF APPROVAL OR THAT NEXT PROCESS BECAUSE OF IT'S NOT THAT HIGH. AND ALSO THE RF RATINGS WERE PRETTY LOW. OKAY. SO BASICALLY IT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE FCC GUIDELINES. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND I KNOW ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEARD FROM RESIDENTS WAS ABOUT FENCING AND AND GREENERY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT ON COURSE COMMITTEE TO DO IN THIS AREA? ABSOLUTELY. SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES. TREES AROUND THEM, THEY DON'T GET ALONG VERY WELL. BUT WE DO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE TREES THAT WERE THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT. SIGNIFICANT TO THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT PROVIDED THAT SHIELDING AND. MUCH OF THAT HAS HAD TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE SPACE. AND SO WHAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO DO IS NUMBER ONE IS WE'VE GOT SOME SHIELDING OPTIONS. AND THAT THAT WOULD DON'T HAVE THE MAP THAT WOULD GO RIGHT KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THE PLAYGROUND IS AND SHIELD THAT AREA SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO LOOK AT THAT. WE GET THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. AND WHILE WE'RE DOING WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR RELIABILITY, WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE ARE GOING TO COME HOME EVERY DAY. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO WHAT WE CAN TO TRY TO PROVIDE SOME BEAUTIFICATION. AND THERE'S A MEETING WITH THE IRVING ENCORE IRVING AREA MANAGER SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW LATER THIS WEEK, WHERE THEY WILL GO ON SITE TO LOOK AT WHERE PLANTING OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AND WHAT WE COULD DO. IN ADDITION TO THAT, SHIELDING TO PROVIDE SOME SOME PLANTING TO CREATE SOME BEAUTIFICATION, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PARTNERING WITH THEM TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY AS BEAUTIFUL AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO THIS AREA IS BOOMING. WE HAVE THE SOUND. WE HAVE NEW RESTAURANTS. WE HAVE HOUSING. THERE'S HEADQUARTERS FOR FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES. THIS INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IS GOING TO HELP RESTORE ELECTRICITY AND IMPROVE SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE REGION, NOT JUST FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS OR FOR THAT REGION. THAT'S CORRECT. FOR FOR THIS COMMUNITY THERE IN IRVING. DALLAS. AND SOME OF THE OTHER I THINK, GRAPE VINES. SO THERE THERE ARE SEVERAL ALL COMMUNITIES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE ABILITY FOR US TO USE THIS AUTOMATED SYSTEM. SO YES, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO TO MORE THAN JUST DALLAS, BUT THE SURROUNDING AREAS. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU FROM PLEASE. I'M SORRY. I'M NOT REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE THE ACTUAL WIRING AND STUFF. THERE IS. HOW CLOSE IS THIS TOWER TO SOME ACTUAL OVERHEAD LINES? LINES? I DON'T HAVE THAT. IS IT WITHIN A 200 OR 400 OR 500FT? ARE YOU TALKING WHERE THE NEW TOWER WILL BE? YES. RIGHT. SO, YEAH, IT'S IT'S 200. IT'S A 200 FOOT. I THOUGHT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER 200 FOOT BUFFER. SO IT'S A 600 FOOT TOWER AND IT'S 600FT TALL. IT'S 200FT FROM A WIRE. IF IT FALLS DOWN, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD FALL ON THE WIRE. TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE ASKING HOW TALL THE TOWER. SO THE TOWER IS AT 195, IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S 600FT, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THE TOWER IS PROPOSED AT 200FT TALL, AND THEREFORE THE BUFFER AROUND IT WOULD BE 400FT. SO IT COULD FALL 200 ON EACH SIDE. THE LOCATION IS 290FT FROM THE CLOSEST PROPERTY LINE, AND ABOUT 400FT FROM THE CLOSEST SOUTH HAVEN RESIDENT. OKAY. I'M SORRY TO BE SO THICK ON THIS AGAIN. NO, NO. YOU'RE FINE. IT. RIGHT NOW, IT'S IT'S ON TOP OF A WATER TOWER. OH. THE CURRENT AND IT'S AND IT'S TOTAL 500FT FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE WATER TOWER RIGHT NOW. AND THIS CURRENT ONE IS ALSO GOING TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP. THE TOWER ITSELF WILL ONLY BE 195FT ABOVE GROUND. THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE HOW LONG? YES, THE TOTAL STRUCTURE WILL BE 195FT ABOVE GROUND. THE NEW TOWER. THE NEW TOWER. SO I'M SORRY, I WAS CONFUSED. I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GROUND ELEVATION. [04:20:01] THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. MAYBE I'M. I'M SORRY TO. AND I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THIS IS A 200 FOOT FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP, NOT 500FT FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP. SO IF SOMETHING FELL DOWN, IT WOULDN'T HIT THE WIRES THAT ARE 200FT. THAT'S CORRECT. NEXT TO IT. YES, THAT'S OUR BUFFER ZONE. SO IT WOULDN'T HIT ANY OF THE ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OKAY. I'M, I'M, I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT BECAUSE I, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A 600 FOOT STRUCTURE. OH NO, SIR, WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO TO MOVE THE WIRES THAT WOULD BE IN PROXIMITY TO THAT STRUCTURE IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, WITHOUT HAVING TO REDO ALL OF YOUR STRUCTURAL WIRING TO SORT OF AMELIORATE OR ELIMINATE A CONCERN THAT THE FOLKS WOULD HAVE, THAT THERE COULD BE A, A HAZARDOUS SITUATION WITH INTERACTION WITH YOUR HIGH VOLTAGE WIRING. YEAH. THAT'S WHY THEY PICKED THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING IF THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING DID HAPPEN TO THAT TOWER AND THERE'S NO OTHER SO SO THERE'S. OKAY, SO IT'S A 200 FOOT TOWER INSTEAD OF A 600 FOOT TOWER. THANK YOU. SO LET ME ALSO JUST SAY, I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS REALLY DO HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. I, I REALLY APPLAUD YOU ALL FOR COMING IN AND ADVOCATING FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I AND I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE TO THIS TO YOU ALL. AND AND YOU DO HAVE PRIORITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON THAT AFFECTS YOU ALL. THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS OWNED AND IT'S AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. BUT TO WHATEVER EXTENT THE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO, TO HELP AND MITIGATE SOME OF THIS STUFF, I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU REACH OUT TO THESE FOLKS AND TRY TO TO REALLY HELP THEM YOU KNOW, AMELIORATE SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS. BUT I DO WANT TO APPLAUD YOU ALL FOR COMING IN AND ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THE NEIGHBORS DO HAVE A SERIOUS CONCERN AND A SERIOUS VOICE HERE. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. ANDREA, HOW FREQUENTLY DOES A TOWER FALL? SO I I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN A, WHEN ONE OF OUR, OUR TOWERS HAVE FALLEN. I ASKED THAT QUESTION AS WELL. SO I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SINCE 1980. AND WE'VE HAD A LEASE TOWER IN CEDAR HILL THAT COLLAPSED YEARS AGO. WE HAD A ANOTHER TOWER THAT A TORNADO BLEW A MOBILE HOME INTO IT, AND IT DID COLLAPSE. SO IT'S RARE THAT THIS HAPPENS AND IT'S GENERALLY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AROUND TORNADOES FOR THE MOST PART. SO TWICE IN 45 YEARS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HAS HAPPENED IN THE ENCORE AREA? YEAH. LIKE I SAID, WE WE DO LEASE SOME TOWERS AND WE'VE HAD SOME OF THOSE GO DOWN. BUT THE ENCORE TOWERS ITSELF. MAYBE TWO, BUT DUE TO A TORNADO THE RECENT BELL COUNTY TORNADO THAT WENT THROUGH LAST YEAR. THAT TOWER, IT ACTUALLY BENT. IT DIDN'T FALL DOWN. BUT SINCE THAT PARTICULAR EVENT ALL OF MY NEW TOWERS THAT WE'RE BUILDING WILL BE BUILT TO THE CLASS FOUR STANDARD. HIGHEST STANDARD THAT WE CAN BUILD THEM TO. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MEAN, I DON'T RECALL HEARING ABOUT TOWERS FALLING, BUT I HAVE SEEN TRAINS DERAIL, AND I'VE SEEN CARS VEER INTO HOMES RANDOMLY. AND THERE ARE TRAGIC THINGS THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU LIVE IN AN ADJACENCY TO OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE. SO CYPRESS WATERS IS A REALLY AMAZING, GROWING COMMUNITY. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN, Y'ALL SHOULD GO UP THERE BECAUSE AS MANY TIMES AS PEOPLE SAY, OH, DISTRICT 12, IT DOESN'T EVEN SEEM LIKE DALLAS CYPRESS WATERS REALLY DOESN'T FEEL LIKE DALLAS. BUT WONDERFUL RESTAURANTS, GREAT COMMUNITY, VERY FUN PLACE. AND I CAN DEFINITELY SEE WHY YOU NEED TO BE EXPANDING YOUR, YOUR ENERGY NEEDS THERE, BECAUSE THAT AREA IS GROWING INCREDIBLY. AND, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC RELIABILITY IS SO CRITICAL. WE'RE NOT THAT FAR FROM THE BIG FREEZE WHERE EVERYBODY LOST POWER FOR SO LONG. [04:25:01] AND I WOULD NEVER WANT A COMMUNITY TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH THOSE THOSE LONG, LONG WEEKS. THERE'S AN INTERESTING THING. AND MANY OF YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT VERY COMPASSIONATE VIEWS TOWARDS THE RESIDENTS, AND I ECHO THOSE. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE THE TIME SAYING THE SAME THINGS, BUT THERE IS THIS ONE ELEMENT THAT MAYBE I LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE MOSTLY THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE ARE NOT DALLAS RESIDENTS. AND IN DISTRICT 12, WHERE WE BORDER SO MANY OTHER CITIES, WE HAVE HAD THE SAME SORT OF IMPACTS. MEANING RICHARDSON APPROVED A ZONING CASE FOR A FACILITY THAT BACKS UP TO DALLAS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT AND THEY HAD NO POWER TO IMPACT. BUT RICHARDSON PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY. THEY HEARD THEM SAID, OKAY, FINE, BUT WE'RE PASSING IT ANYHOW. CARROLLTON APPROVED, ACTUALLY, A BILLINGSLEY PROPERTY TWO SIDES OF IT BACK UP TO DALLAS. IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE PASSED IN DALLAS, BUT IT ISN'T DALLAS. IT WAS CARROLLTON. AND THEY SAID, YES. PLANO IS ACTUALLY THE GROUP THAT OPPOSED THE FAMILY GATEWAY HOMELESS SHELTER. IT WASN'T THE DALLAS PEOPLE. IT WAS THE PLANO PEOPLE. AND GUESS WHAT? ACROSS THE STREET FROM FAMILY GATEWAY IS PLANO. AND SO I'M JUST SAYING, WHEN YOU LIVE ON THE BORDER, YOU LOSE YOUR SAY. AND THAT'S A DIFFICULT THING FOR ME TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU TO YOUR FACE, BUT IT'S THE TRUTH. AND SO THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WHAT IF THESE WERE DALLAS RESIDENTS? THE FACT IS THEY'RE NOT. AND WHAT WE KNOW IS OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS NEED ELECTRIC RELIABILITY. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, BLOCK A HUGE TOWER. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S POSSIBLE. BUT MOST OF US HAVE PARTS OF OUR DISTRICTS. I HAPPEN TO LIVE VERY CLOSE TO MINE WITH VERY LARGE TRANSMISSION LINES. WE CALL OURS. THE PRESTON RIDGE TRAIL, BUT IT'S LARGE TRANSMISSION LINES. WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT THAT RUNS FOR A TRAIL THAT'S COMING. BUT THIS IS JUST A FACT OF URBANIZED LIFE WITH LOTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE THE OVERARCHING GOAL IS NOT THAT YOU HAVE A PRETTY VIEW OF A SLIGHTLY SMALLER TOWER. IT'S THAT YOU HAVE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WANTED TO JUST ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF YOU COULD I FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT ABOUT HALF OF IT HAS BEEN IRRELEVANT TO THE DECISION WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE TODAY. AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE PARAMETERS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING WHEN MAKING A LAND USE DECISION, AND EVEN GOING OUTSIDE OF THOSE PARAMETERS? WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE CITY? SO THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE IS UNIQUE IN THAT THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 PREEMPTED THE CITY FROM MANY REGULATIONS. WE ARE REALLY LIMITED TO THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION OF FACILITIES. SO AS PART OF THE ACT, DECISIONS CAN'T HAVE THE EFFECT OF COMPLETELY PROHIBITING THE SERVICES. THEY CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AMONG PROVIDERS. APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE TIMELY UNDER THE ACT. THEY HAVE TO BE PROCESSED TIMELY. DENIAL OF ANY LAND USE MUST BE IN WRITING AND SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD A LAND USE. RATIONALE AND DECISIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RADIO WAVES, BECAUSE THOSE ARE WE'RE PREEMPTED BY DOING THAT. THE FCC CONTROLS THAT. SO WE'RE LIMITED TO THE LAND USE, THE LOCATION, THE PLACEMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THOSE ARE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. BUT IN ANY OTHER CASE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, CAN YOU SPEAK TO OUR ABILITY, IF YOU WILL TO BASE OUR LAND USE DECISIONS ON VISIBILITY VIEW OR EVEN AIR RIGHTS FOR THAT MATTER? THERE ARE NO AIR RIGHTS OR VISIBILITY. YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY OF THOSE. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE HERE TO MAKE A LAND USE DECISION. AND ALTHOUGH WE HEARD FROM MANY RESIDENTS THAT WOULD DESIRE FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THINGS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN'T BY LAW. THE REALITY IS, IS THAT WE COULD WE COULD MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD BY SAYING THAT THOSE REASONS ARE ENOUGH FOR US TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS, QUITE FRANKLY, ILLEGAL. BUT THE LAST THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE'RE GOING TO END UP IN LITIGATION AND THAT LITIGATION IS GOING TO BE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW THAT PREEMPTS US AT A LOCAL LEVEL. AND IN THE END, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH THE CELL TOWER OR THE THE TOWER AS A WHOLE. [04:30:05] IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT THESE LAND USE CONVERSATIONS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE HERE AROUND THE HORSESHOE, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THEM IN. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT PARTNERS LIKE ENCORE THAT HAVE VOLUNTARILY BEEN WILLING TO MAKE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE THE SAID PROJECT TO ENHANCE THE ESTHETICS, TO TRY TO LIGHTEN THE ESTHETIC IMPACT TO TRY TO HELP PROVIDE SOME OF THE PACIFICATION OF WHAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT FORTH AS A CONCERN. I THINK THAT THAT'S AS MUCH THAT CAN BE DONE, QUITE FRANKLY, WHEN WE HAVE HEARD MULTIPLE CASES. I HEARD A COUPLE OF YOU CITE LAKEWOOD RESIDENTS, FOR INSTANCE, Y'ALL SHOULD GO TALK TO THOSE LAKEWOOD RESIDENTS ABOUT THE SHORELINE. I MEAN, THE TRAILHEAD PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE THE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE THE VIEW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE LOSING. WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT. AND AND SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS GO IT'S NOT AS COOKIE CUTTER AS SAYING THAT THESE CASES THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT FORTH ARE A BLUEPRINT OR A PRECEDENT, AS ONE SPEAKER MENTIONED, FOR US TO MAKE THIS DECISION, THIS DECISION NEEDS TO BE SOLELY BASED ON LAND USE AND WHEN WHEN CONSIDERING LAND USE AND NOT EMOTION. I AM FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF US APPROVING THIS, AND I THINK THAT IT IS IT'S. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS OF US IN OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITY TO LOOK AT WHAT WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO OPPOSE A DECISION LIKE THIS WHEN THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN DISCUSSION HAS BEEN THINGS THAT WE, BY LAW, ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING THESE DECISIONS BASED ON. SO FOR THAT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS THIS TOWER. I DO APPRECIATE YOU ALL TAKING THE TIME. ALWAYS APPRECIATE NEIGHBORS ADVOCATING FOR YOUR BEST INTEREST. YOUR YOUR VOICE DOES MATTER. BUT I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST ARTICULATE TO YOU WHERE MY HEAD IS AND WHY. THIS IS A PRETTY CLEAN CUT DECISION. AND THIS IS BASED ON LAND USE, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEGATING THE CONCERNS YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD. IT'S JUST I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION I'M BEING ASKED TO MAKE RIGHT NOW CAN ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT YOU ALL HAVE WITH THIS CASE IN FRONT OF US. SO FOR THAT, I WILL BE APPROVING. I WILL BE VOTING TO APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO CHAIRMAN JOHNSON. THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IF I CAN GET SOMEONE FROM ENCORE SANDERS. HE'S GOT ONE QUESTION. IS, IS THE TAIL? IT'S THE CELL PHONE. IT'S A CELL TOWER 70FT HIGHER. I'M GOING INTO MY NOTES HERE. IS IT 70FT TALLER THAN THE CURRENT ONE? SO THE THE NEW COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WILL BE ABOUT 20FT HIGHER THAN THE THE EXISTING. IT'S 20FT HIGHER. YES, SIR. IT'S NOT. IT WILL BE 20. YES, SIR. SO IT'S NOT 70FT HIGH. IT'S NOT 70FT OKAY. WHAT MAKE WHAT'S MAKING IT HIGHER. IS IT THE GROUND ELEVATOR? ARE YOU GUYS PUTTING IT ON A CONCRETE? YEAH. SO IF YOU IF YOU GO, IF YOU GO OUT THERE, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO WALK UP A HILL. AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE TOP OF THE HILL, YOU'LL SEE THE CURRENT WATER TOWER. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR, OUR, OUR COMMUNICATION TOOLS ARE, ARE LOCATED THEN. BUT WHERE THE NEW TOWER, IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL. AND SO TO GET THE ROUGHLY THE SAME HEIGHT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE, THE VARIANCE. SO IT CAN BE TALLER AND IT WOULD STILL BE ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK. LISTENING TO OUR DIALOG AND I WANT TO THANK CHAIR MENDELSOHN. I THINK SHE JUST SPOKE, IN MY OPINION, TOO STRAIGHTFORWARD. THIS IS WHAT IT IS. AND THAT IT MAY BE, AND I THINK AS A BAZALDUA, OUR COUNCILWOMAN COUNCILMAN SAID THE SAME IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I DON'T FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THE COMMUNITY IS NOT OPPOSING THE TOWER. THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE PUSHED BACK. THEY'RE ASKING THE A LOCATION TO BE DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. AND ALSO LISTEN TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S REPRESENTING BILLINGSLEY. I THINK LISTENING TO HIM TALK. I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME DEVELOPMENT ALSO THAT'S GOING THERE AS WELL. SO THAT'S A TOUGH SITUATION BECAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY DIDN'T WANT THE TOWERS CLOSE TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. AND THEN THE COMMUNITY DON'T WANT THE TOWERS CLOSE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL REASONS. SO IT IS A TOUGH, TOUGH SITUATION TO BE IN TO THE RESIDENTS. [04:35:02] HOWEVER I'M NOT A FAN OF HAVING THAT CLOSE TO CHILDREN. AND SO THEREFORE I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S SAYING THAT DON'T SUPPORT IT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S MY REASON. BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO CHILDREN. AND WHAT I SAID EARLIER WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULES. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISTER MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. OKAY, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ENCORE. IS THIS A CELL TOWER? NO, BUT YOU GOT TO SAY IT ON CAMERA. IT'S A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. SO SO THERE. SO WHEN ALL CELL TOWERS ARE COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, BUT ALL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS ARE NOT CELL TOWERS. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF HOW THE THE WAVES ARE TRANSMITTED AND HOW OFTEN. I'LL LET MY COLLEAGUES SPEAK FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE. WE INCLUDED THE RADIO MICROWAVE, TOWER, LAND USE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PD, AND WE ADDED THE TOWER COMMUNICATION TOWER ANTENNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION BECAUSE BOTH TYPES OF EQUIPMENT ARE PLANNED FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. WE DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY CONFUSION OF PERMITTING, BUT YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON MAKING IT A CELL TOWER, ARE YOU? NO, IT IT'LL HAVE BOTH TYPES OF EQUIPMENT. AND FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, WE IDENTIFIED BOTH IN THE PD CONDITIONS. WELL, I GUESS THAT'S REALLY ACTUALLY MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU NEED A PD FOR A CELL TOWER? IF IT'S NOT A CELL TOWER? THE PD IS FOR THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION. IT WAS CREATED IN 2016 WHEN THEY WERE PLANNING THE THE REPLACEMENT STATION. WE INCLUDED THAT BECAUSE WE WERE HERE FOR THE HEIGHT AND IN PROTECTION FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS. I DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY QUESTIONS OF, OH, WELL, WHAT IS THAT TOWER OR WHAT IS THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT? WHAT IS THAT? SO IT'S BELT AND SUSPENDERS WAS MY APPROACH. WELL, I GUESS YOU KNOW, OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS QUOTING THE TELECOMMUNICATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A CELL TOWER. SO I AM WONDERING IF IT ACTUALLY APPLIES. WELL, THERE'S ONLY FOUR LAND USES IN OUR CODE, AND ONE OF THEM, WHICH SHE'S REFERRING TO, IS THE OTHER CELLULAR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS. AND SO THAT'S A CATCH ALL FOR US. LIKE SHE SAID, THEY'RE ALL CALLED CELL TOWERS, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL. YOU YOU SAID IT FLIPPED IT AROUND, BUT SO IT FITS INTO THIS CATEGORY OF CELL TOWER. BUT IT'S NOT A CELL TOWER. IT CONTAINS CELLULAR EQUIPMENT. AND IN THE PROTECTION OF ENCORE, I INCLUDED IT IN THE PD CONDITIONS. OKAY, SO I GUESS WHEN YOU'RE QUOTING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, WOULD A PRIVATE TOWER LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THAT? OR IS THAT ONLY FOR CELL TOWERS? IT'S YOU KNOW, AN AT&T TOWER IS A IS A PRIVATE TOWER AS WELL. THEY'RE ALL PRIVATE TOWERS. AND SO THEY'RE JUST. THAT'S A CATEGORY. CELLULAR TOWERS. THERE'S MULTIPLE CELLULAR TOWER TYPE USES. I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT IT, BUT YEAH, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A CELL TOWER. IT'S A STRICTLY COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR THE ELECTRIC GRID. YOU MENTIONED THE THE THE ICE AND THE WEATHER WE HAD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN A LOT OF THE STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER. THIS SYSTEM WAS UP THE ENTIRE TIME. IT WAS CRITICAL TO MONITORING ALL OF OUR SUBSTATIONS TO WHERE WHEN THE POWER WAS AVAILABLE, WE WERE ABLE TO START RESTORING POWER THROUGH OUR WIRES. SO IT WAS A VERY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENCORE. BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CELL TOWERS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE WAS SAYING EARLIER IS IT'S IT'S A DIFFERENT IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION WHERE IT'S IT'S PUBLIC. IT'S CONSTANTLY COMMUNICATING IN THIS PARTICULAR, AS SHE WAS SAYING, THERE'S CELLULAR TYPE EQUIPMENT, BUT WE REFER TO IT AS A COMMUNICATION TOWER BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE USE IT. AND SO ARE YOU. I'M SORRY, ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY? I'M SORRY. I'M A ZONING CONSULTANT. AND ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M FREQUENTLY SAYING PEOPLE ARE ATTORNEYS, THAT THEY'RE NOT, SO. OKAY. NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE COVERED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT. THIS TOWER. DO YOU THINK IT IS? I WROTE THE ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED TOWER. I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OKAY, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT HAVING BROUGHT UP THIS ACT, I'M ACTUALLY NERVOUS NOW THAT NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LAWSUIT. I MEAN, THIS SEEMS TO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH IT. [04:40:05] THANK YOU. ARE YOU ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT HOW WE'RE USING THIS TOWER OR HOW WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE TOWER? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITY HAVING A DISCUSSION THAT THIS MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO BE UNDER THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT FOR A CELL TOWER, WHEN IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A CELL TOWER. SO I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY. SO I KNOW ON ONE HAND, WE SAID WE'RE MOVING IT OFF THE WATER TOWER BECAUSE THE WATER TOWER IS COMING DOWN BECAUSE EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP A BUILD A STATION THERE OR SOMETHING. CORRECT. OKAY. YES, SIR. WHAT I MISSED WAS, I GUESS, GOING BACK TO JUST KIND OF THE PLACEMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR TOWER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, I'M KIND OF NOT THERE. I'M STILL STUCK ON WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE. AND I THE ONE I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON IS I WENT ON AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE LAND, AND THERE ARE SO MANY OPTIONS AWAY FROM EVEN THE THE POWER LINES, AND I FORGET THE COLLAPSE ZONES OR WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM. SURE. IS IT BECAUSE IS THE REASON THOSE OTHER AREAS FURTHER AWAY, EVEN 200FT FURTHER AWAY, IS THE REASON THAT THAT'S NOT AN OPTION, IS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOMETHING BUILT IN ITS PLACE COMING FORWARD. YES, SIR. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY ON THE SHADING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS FOR THE SUBSTATION COVER, PROBABLY 3/5 OF THE SITE. GOT IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S OKAY. GOT IT. SO THEN. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I MISSED WAS COLLAPSIBLE VERSUS TOPPLE OVER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. AND WHY YOU CAN'T USE THE COLLAPSIBLE VERSION FOR THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF TOWER. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REASON WE'RE USING THIS PARTICULAR TIRE, NOT THE COLLAPSIBLE VERSION, IN PART BECAUSE OF THE SPACE YOU NEED QUITE A BIT MORE SPACE FOR THOSE BECAUSE I MENTIONED EARLIER THE GUIDE WIRES, AND SO YOU NEED QUITE A BIT MORE SPACE THAN WHAT WE NEED FOR THIS ONE, BUT ALSO JUST THE TYPE OF TOWER THIS IS AS HE WAS STATING, WHICH IS JUST A STRONGER AND BETTER TOWER THAN OKAY, SO SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IT AND IT WAS THE THE COLLAPSIBLE, WE'D EVEN NEED MORE SPACE. WE WOULD NEED A WIDER AREA TO TO DO WHICH THEN RUNS INTO THE BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT PART. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WHERE AGAIN I. YOU HAVE THIS THESE MANY PEOPLE AND THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT OPPOSED TO IT. THEY JUST WANT IT TO BE MOVED. AND AGAIN, MY LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR THIS WAS TO ENSURE THAT ALL POSSIBLE NOT THAT Y'ALL HAVEN'T DONE IT. NOT THAT Y'ALL HAVEN'T HAD THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY. BUT ON PUBLICLY, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS, AT LEAST FROM MY COMPREHENSION, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. AND THIS IS WHERE IT IS. ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY HAVE BEEN. AND AS I THINK JENNIFER SAID EARLIER, IF WE COULD PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE WE HAD THE BUFFER ZONE AND THE ABILITY FOR THAT TOWER TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OTHER SUBSTATIONS, WE DO THAT. BUT SINCE WE CAN'T, WHAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON IS MAKING SURE THAT WE COULD DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY RESTORE THAT BEAUTIFICATION, PROVIDE THAT SHIELDING PLANT WHERE WE CAN. SO I GET IT. THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T LIVE IN DALLAS, BUT THEY'RE OUR CUSTOMERS. AND SO WE WE CARE ABOUT HOW THIS IMPACTS THEM, JUST AS IF THEY WERE IN DALLAS. AND SO OUR OUR GOAL AND OUR FOCUS IS TO MAKE SURE, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE ALREADY SCHEDULED AN ON SITE MEETING. AND WE'LL TALK TO THEM. WE'LL SHOW THEM OPTIONS FOR SHIELDING AND OPTIONS FOR PLANTING. PERFECT. AND THAT'S THE PLAN. WE ARE GOING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR WHILE WE DO OUR BEST TO PROVIDE SAFE AND RELIABLE SERVICE. AND YOU ARE. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, ONCOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN TERMS OF THOSE ASPECTS. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET THIS CONVERSATION CONFUSED ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. IT'S JUST AGAIN, AS WE LISTEN, YOU HAVE THIS MANY RESIDENTS THAT ARE OPPOSING THIS. IT'S HARD TO IGNORE. AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE HARD TO IGNORE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, WHETHER YOU KNOW THEY'RE IN OUR JURISDICTION OR NOT. THERE'S OPPOSITION THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO HAVE THOSE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS TO ENSURE, ONE, THEY GET THEIR BEAUTIFICATION BACK, BUT ALSO IF THERE'S A WAY TO SHIELD THAT AND PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE ESTHETICALLY. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA? [04:45:06] ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. NOTED, MR. MAYOR. AYES HAVE IT. AND NOTE THE NAY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM Z4. [Z4. 25-2568A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2316 for the sale of alcoholic beverages on property zoned RR Regional Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the northeast line of East Ledbetter Drive, east of R.L. Thornton Freeway Service Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-25-000061 / Z245-180(CC) Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 13, 2025, and is scheduled for consideration on October 8, 2025. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.] ITEM Z4 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2316 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF EAST LEDBETTER DRIVE, EAST OF R.L. THORNTON FREEWAY SERVICE ROAD. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT NINE NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, JENNIFER HIRAMOTO. YOU'LL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. YOU MAY BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNIFER HIRAMOTO. I'M HERE TO REQUEST A 30 DAY DELAY SO THAT WE CAN HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. THIS CASE WAS HELD OVER IN AUGUST FOR 60 DAYS. AND THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHO WAS SCHEDULING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT CONFUSION. WE WANTED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE OUR CASE AND TO SHOW THAT WE'RE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE'VE MADE CHANGES WITHIN THE STORE TO SEPARATE THE ALCOHOL FROM CANDY AND ICE CREAM. REDUCED THE ALCOHOL SIGNS. WE'VE CLEANED UP THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY FEEDBACK, ANY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? Z4. I SEE TWO INDIVIDUALS COMING FORWARD. OKAY. THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL CAN COME TO THE PODIUM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MONTY RANDHAWA. ADDRESS IS 533 COYOTE ROAD. THAT'S IN SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, 76092. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY A LITTLE SURPRISED AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS LOCATION OF WHY THIS SUP IS BEING DENIED. WE'VE HAD APPROVAL TO SELL ALCOHOL AT THIS LOCATION APPROVED MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS WITH NO INCIDENTS. PERHAPS I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE AND OPPOSITION. AS WE HAVE TRIED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE ASSIGNED COUNCIL MEMBER TO DISCUSS WHAT THE ISSUE IS. HOWEVER, WE'VE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE, NO COMMUNICATION. BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE COUNCIL MEMBERS THE THE IMPACT THIS WILL HAVE IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED AND DENIED. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS OUR BEER AND WINE SALES AT THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION ACCOUNT FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 40% OF OUR SALES. WE PAY APPROXIMATELY 6 TO $7000 MONTHLY IN TAX BY RUNNING THAT STORE. ELIMINATING THIS REVENUE STREAM FOR US IS GOING TO BE DEVASTATING. IT'S GOING TO FORCE OUR BUSINESS TO PERHAPS SHUT DOWN. AND WE JUST WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE GUIDANCE ON WHAT EXACTLY IS THE REASON THAT THIS IS BEING DENIED. AS NOT A MILE AWAY FROM OUR LOCATION, THERE'S A CUTESY GAS STATION THAT ALSO SELLS ALCOHOL. SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED. I OWN SIX DIFFERENT PROPERTIES GAS STATION SEE STORES IN THE DALLAS AREA. THEY ALL RUN PERFECTLY. WE'VE HAD ZERO ISSUES, ZERO COMPLAINTS. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY VIOLATIONS WITH ABC, AND WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LOCAL DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS ROBERT BRAKE. I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY ONLY REPRESENTING THE OWNERSHIP GROUP OF 303 LEDBETTER. BUT ALSO AS A FATHER. GRANDFATHER WHO DEEPLY CARES ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOODS OUR CHILDREN GROW UP IN. I WANT TO BEGIN BY SAYING THIS. WE'RE NOT JUST ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO BUSINESS AT LEDBETTER. WE'RE ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY WITH INTEGRITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND RESPECT FOR THE FAMILIES AND RESIDENTS WHO CALL THIS PART OF DALLAS HOME. WHEN CONCERNS WERE RAISED ABOUT ALCOHOL AND LIQUOR SALES OR ALCOHOL AND BEER SALES HERE I PERSONALLY WENT OVER TO THE STORE AND SET FOR FOUR HOURS INTERVIEWING SOME OF THE CONSTITUENTS IN THAT DISTRICT. ALSO GOING THROUGH THE STORE AND FIGURING OUT MAYBE WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS CONSIDERING AND WE DID ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ALCOHOL BEING IN THE SAME AISLE AS SOME OF THE MY FAVORITE AISLE, [04:50:02] THE TWINKIES AND HOHOS AND SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF. I LIKE THAT AISLE. AND THERE WAS SOME ALCOHOL NEXT TO THAT. WE ELIMINATED THAT. WE TOOK THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION. ALSO, WE SPENT SOME TIME SEPARATING THE ALCOHOL SIGNS. THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE OF ALCOHOL SIGNS. WE TOOK MANY OF THE ALCOHOL SIGNS DOWN. IF YOU GO TO THE GO TO THE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, IT'S CLEAN. IT'S WELL LIT. THERE IS A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT THAT'S HAD SOME CONCERN BEHIND IT. NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR FACILITY. BUT THEY DO ACCESS OUR PROPERTY TO GET GET TO OUR FACILITY. I WALKED THAT HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT. THERE'S ABOUT 30 NEIGHBORS SET UP THERE. NOT THAT WE'RE DENYING THEM, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AT FAULT FROM OUR OUR CONVENIENCE STORE. BY NO MEANS WE'VE TAKEN OUT SOME OF THE SOME OF THE DIGITAL MACHINES THAT WERE IN THERE. THAT JUST GAVE US A BAD LOOK ALTOGETHER. BUT WE DIDN'T STOP THERE. WE JUST THE OUTSIDE AS WELL. BEAUTIFUL. BEAUTIFYING THE LANDSCAPE, ADDING ADDITIONAL LIGHTING TO THE FACILITY, AND THEN LOOKING AT PUTTING UP SOME WROUGHT IRON FENCE ACROSS THE BACK JUST TO BEAUTIFY IT EVEN MORE, KEEP THE HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT ON ON THEIR SIDE OF THE STREET. I ALSO WANT YOU TO KNOW WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY. ALCOHOL IS REPRESENTED IN OUR COMMUNITIES. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU GUYS. HAVE A GREAT DAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM C FOUR? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR, I DO HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE TO DENY THIS ITEM WITH PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN JOHNSON? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. ITEM FF ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING. [PH1. 25-2751A A public hearing (1) to receive comments on Substantial Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2025-26 Action Plan; and at the close of the public hearing; and (2) authorize Substantial Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2025-26 Action Plan, including amendments to the FY 2024-25 through FY 2028-29 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 remain in ensure compliance with federal grant requirements new Federal Executive Orders and other fFederal directives; (b) reflect departmental and operational efficiencies set forth in the FY 2025-26 Operating and Capital Budget, with realignment of funding in open HUD grant budgets; and (c) reprogram unspent CDBG Funds in the amount of $2,000,000 for use on public improvement projects as FY 2025-26 Reprogramming Budget No. 1 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with HUD Consolidated Plan.] ONE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE FY 20 2526 ACTION PLAN. AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE FY 2526 ACTION PLAN, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 20 2425 THROUGH FY 20 2829 FIVE YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2526 ACTION PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, CARES ACT PROGRAM GRANT HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN PROGRAM GRANT, AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAM GRANT TO A INCORPORATE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION. TO REMAIN IN ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS WITH FEDERAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND OTHER FEDERAL DIRECTIVES. B REFLECT DEPARTMENTAL AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY SET FORTH IN THE FY 2526 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET, WITH REALIGNMENT OF FUNDING AND OPEN HUD GRANT BUDGETS, AND C REPROGRAM UNSPENT CDBG FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION FOR USE ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AS FY 20 2526 REPROGRAMING BUDGET NUMBER ONE. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM PF ONE? NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR, IS THERE A MOTION? CHAIRMAN WEST YES, MAYOR. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL DECEMBER 10TH, 2025. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN WEST. YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THIS IS A STAFF REQUEST SO THAT COUNCIL CAN REVIEW PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT INFORM THE HUD CONSOLIDATED PLANS. IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, JEANETTE WEEDEN IS PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT OTHERWISE, IT JUST ASKS YOU TO SUPPORT THE ITEM. PLEASE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR FIVE MINUTES. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM. CHAIRMAN WEST HAS ASKED ME TO ADD IT TO THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS AGENDA. AND WHILE I'M NOT SURE WE CAN DO IT OCTOBER, I'M SURE WE CAN GET IT IN FOR NOVEMBER. SO WE'LL PLAN TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. EVERYBODY'S WELCOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. OKAY. AND DO WE TAKE ALL THE SPEAKERS ALREADY? YES. MR. MAYOR, YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS. THERE ARE NO. ALL RIGHT. CLOSED 4:05 P.M.. AND THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL FOR THE BIRTHDAY CAKE AND THE BIRTHDAY WISHES AND THE BEAUTIFUL SINGING. THAT WAS REALLY SWEET. I REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.