>> IT IS NOW 1:07 P.M. ON JANUARY 20TH,
[Transportation and Infrastructure on January 20, 2026.]
[00:00:05]
AND I'M CONVENING THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE.OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 2ND, SPECIAL CALL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE DART BOARD. IS THERE A MOTION?
>> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> APPROVED. NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 2ND, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING, ANY MOTION?
>> ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY, AYE.
>> MOTION APPROVED. THIRD IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 8, SPECIAL CALL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION?
>> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
THE FIRST BRIEFING ACTION ITEM IS A, THE BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON DART MEMBER CITY NEGOTIATIONS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER RASTOGI AND JAKE ANDERSON.
WELCOME, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TO MAKE THIS PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR RIDLEY, MEMBERS OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF THE FULL COUNCIL WHO ARE PRESENT TODAY.
ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATIVES FROM DART, INCLUDING THE BOARD CHAIR, RANDALL BRYANT, THREE DALLAS BOARD MEMBERS, DART CEO, NADINE LEE, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DART LEADERSHIP STAFF.
ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MAYOR OF LEWISVILLE, TJ GILMORE, WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE NTC AND COG, AND WELCOME OTHER GUESTS AND STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE JOINING US HERE TODAY.
I'M DEV RASTOGI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, JOINED BY JAKE ANDERSON, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.
THE PRESENCE AT TODAY'S COMMITTEE MEETING UNDERSCORES THE CITYWIDE AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CITY MANAGER DISCUSSIONS.
WHEN MAYOR JOHNSON ASSIGNED PRIORITIES TO THIS COMMITTEE, HE INCLUDED OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH DART AND LONG TERM REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING THAT'S IN THE CITY'S BEST INTERESTS.
TODAY'S PRESENTATION ON THE ONGOING DART MEMBER CITY NEGOTIATIONS DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THIS PRIORITY.
NOW TURNING TO SLIDE 2, THIS IS OUR ROADMAP FOR TODAY'S BRIEFING.
WE'LL START WITH THE BACKGROUND ON MEMBER CITY CONCERNS, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP.
NEXT, WE'LL WALK THROUGH SPECIFIC GOVERNANCE, SERVICE, AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED, AND FINALLY, WE'LL CLOSE WITH NEXT STEPS TO GUIDE OUR ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS.
TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK AND PROVIDE A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR DALLAS, DAR, AND THE REGION, I'LL NOW HAND IT OVER TO JAKE TO TAKE US THROUGH THE BACKGROUND SECTION.
>> THANK YOU, DEV. GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, SOME OF THE 13 MEMBER CITIES IN DART HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT FALL INTO THREE MAJOR BUCKETS.
THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, SERVICE DELIVERY, AS WELL AS THE AGENCY'S FUNDING MODEL.
BACK IN THE SPRING, SEVERAL CITIES EVEN SUPPORTED BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE GOVERNANCE OR THE FUNDING MODEL, AND THE CITY OF DALLAS OPPOSED THOSE BILLS FOR VARIOUS REASONS, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO SHORTLY.
THEN IN NOVEMBER, FIVE CITIES BEGAN TO CALL WITHDRAWAL ELECTIONS FOR MAY 2026 TO ASK THEIR VOTERS WHETHER THEY SHOULD REMAIN IN DART.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 452 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY A CITY MAY WITHDRAW FROM DART, AND SUCH AN ELECTION MAY ONLY BE ORDERED EVERY SIX YEARS.
IN LIGHT OF THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY MEMBER CITIES, EVEN BEFORE THE PULL OUT ELECTIONS WERE CALLED, CITY LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN A WORKING GROUP THAT BEGAN IN SEPTEMBER 2025, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER CITY MANAGERS TO SEEK SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR THE MOST ACUTE ISSUES.
NEXT SLIDE. FOR FURTHER CONTEXT, WE HAVE A TIMELINE THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE MAJOR EVENTS DATING BACK TO SUMMER 2024.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS CONVERSATION GOES MUCH FURTHER BACK, BUT THE INFLECTION POINT REALLY CAME WHEN SIX CITIES PASSED RESOLUTIONS BACK THEN THAT SUPPORTED A REDUCTION IN THE SALES TAX BEING DIRECTED TO DART FROM $0.01 TO THREE QUARTERS OF A CENT, A 25% REDUCTION.
THIS CAME DURING A PERIOD WHEN TRANSIT 2.0 IS BEING LAUNCHED BY THE COG, AND THAT SERVES AS AN IMPORTANT OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGION UNDER WHICH THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN OCCURRING.
THEN IN THE FALL OF 2024, THE DART BOARD RECEIVED A PRESENTATION ON THE EY COST ALLOCATION REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023.
THIS STUDY SPARKED THE RESOLUTIONS THAT THE SIX CITIES HAD PASSED IN THE SUMMER.
THIS IS BECAUSE IT IDENTIFIED CERTAIN CITIES AS DONOR CITIES, SEVEN OF THEM COMPARED TO THE SIX CITIES THAT WERE DONOR CITIES,
[00:05:01]
MEANING THAT THE DONOR CITIES CONTRIBUTED MORE IN SALES TAX TO DART THAN THEY RECEIVED BACK IN SERVICE.I DO, HOWEVER, WANT TO NOTE THAT THE EY SURVEY WAS A POINT IN TIME STUDY, AND ITSELF NOTED SEVERAL LIMITATIONS THAT WE THINK ARE RELEVANT.
NAMELY, IT DID NOT INCLUDE MEASURES OF VALUE, SUCH AS WHO IS USING DART SYSTEM AND HOW OFTEN? IT DID NOT INCLUDE MAJOR EXPENDITURES, ESPECIALLY THOSE RELATED TO THE SILVER LINE, AS WELL AS OTHER ASSETS WHICH MAY FULLY DEPRECIATE BY FISCAL YEAR 2027, MEANING THAT ANY COST ALLOCATION STUDY COULD CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS, A FEW SHORT YEARS, REGARDLESS.
THE STUDY THAT CAME OUT BY EY AND THE RESULTING RESOLUTIONS LED INTO THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL BILLS FILED THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED DART.
IN RESPONSE, CITIES INCLUDING DALLAS ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS AFFIRMING THEIR SUPPORT FOR FULL DART FUNDING, AND THE DART BOARD APPROVED TWO RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO FUNDING AND GOVERNANCE. NEXT SLIDE.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE THE TIMELINE, I DO WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME SIGNIFICANT BILLS THAT WERE FILED DURING THE 89TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THE FIRST IS SB 2118, WHICH WAS RELATED TO DART GOVERNANCE, AND IT PROPOSED THAT EACH MEMBER CITY WOULD RECEIVE ONE SEAT ON THE DART BOARD AND WITH EACH SEAT RECEIVING A FULL VOTE.
ANY CITIES WITH A POPULATION ABOVE 350,000 WOULD RECEIVE AN EXTRA TWO VOTES.
IN THIS SCENARIO, DALLAS' DART BOARD REPRESENTATION WOULD DROP FROM MORE THAN 50% TO 20% WITH FURTHER EROSION POTENTIAL OVER TIME.
THIS BILL DID NOT RECEIVE A HEARING, BUT IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE LATER DOWN THE LINE, IT WAS CITED AS A POSSIBLE STARTING POINT FOR GOVERNANCE DISCUSSIONS.
THE SECOND BILL WAS HB 3187, WHICH IF YOU WERE AROUND CITY HALL THIS SPRING, YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT BILL.
IT WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE SALES TAX GOING TO DART BY 25%, WHILE ALSO REDUCING THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH WITHDRAWAL ELECTIONS MAY BE CALLED.
THE BILL DID RECEIVE A HEARING, BUT IT NEVER MADE IT TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, AND WE'VE LISTED ON THE SLIDE AS WELL, THE DART RESPONSES TO EACH.
THEY ADOPTED TWO RESOLUTIONS, THE BOARD DID.
THE FIRST BEING A GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION, WHICH WOULD HAVE GRANTED EACH MEMBER CITY ONE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DART BOARD AND WOULD HAVE USED WEIGHTED VOTES ACCORDING TO POPULATION, MEANING DALLAS WOULD HAVE RETAINED ITS VOTING MAJORITY.
THE SECOND LIST OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL MOBILITY PROGRAM FOR DONOR CITIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE EY REPORT, AND THAT GMP HAS BEEN INSTITUTED AND IS PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.
BUT GOING BACK TO THE TIMELINE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE SESSION ENDED WITH NO LEGISLATION PASSED THAT WOULD IMPACT DART.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE RTC RECEIVED A REPORT ON TRANSIT 2.0, WHICH IT ACKNOWLEDGED, THOUGH DID NOT ACCEPT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CONVERSATIONS AROUND DART GOVERNANCE CONTINUED, ESPECIALLY WHEN RE-APPORTIONMENT AROSE.
EVERY FIVE YEARS YOU SEE, THE DART BOARD IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE POPULATION SHIFT IN ITS SERVICE AREA AND RE-APPORTION BOARD SEATS BASED ON THOSE SHIFTS.
MEMBER CITIES RECEIVED A BRIEFING IN AUGUST 2025 ON THE RE-APPORTIONMENT PROCESS, AND IT WAS AT THIS MEETING THAT OTHER CITIES ASKED WHETHER DALLAS WOULD CONSIDER A DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE BOTTLE, WHICH STARTED WITH THE STARTING POINT WAS SB 2118, WHICH WE JUST MENTIONED.
FROM THAT MEETING, THE NTC AND COG CONVENED ALL MEMBER CITIES AND MAYORS TO BEGIN DISCUSSING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
IN SEPTEMBER, THE MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS OF ALL THE MEMBER CITIES MET, ALONG WITH DART LEADERSHIP AND BEGAN WORKING THROUGH ISSUES OF GOVERNANCE, SERVICE, AND FUNDING, AND AT THAT MEETING A WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED OF WHICH DALLAS IS A PARTICIPANT.
THEN THE LAST THING ON THE SLIDE THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS THAT AS THE GROUP HAS BEEN MEETING, AS I MENTIONED, FIVE MEMBER CITIES HAVE VOTED TO HOLD WITHDRAWAL ELECTIONS FROM DART.
THE WORKING GROUP STARTED MEETING BEFORE THOSE ELECTIONS WERE CALLED AND HAS CONTINUED TO MEET SINCE THOSE ELECTIONS WERE CALLED.
THEN ON SLIDE 7, WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW SOME KEY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS BY MEMBER CITIES AND THE DART RESPONSE TO THEM.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ONE THING THAT I REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE GMP THAT I MENTIONED THAT THE DART BOARD HAS INSTITUTED.
SO CONDITIONED UPON THE AGREEMENT TO AN ILA, SEVEN DONOR CITIES WOULD RECEIVE MONEY BACK FROM DART TO BE PUT TOWARDS SPECIFIC USES OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 452.
YOU CAN FIND DETAILS ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE GMP AND HOW MUCH EACH CITY IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE IN APPENDIX B TO THIS PRESENTATION.
THE OTHER THREE ITEMS PERTAIN TO REVENUE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CITY'S, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND GOVERNANCE.
THE BOARD HAS VOLUNTARILY INSTITUTED A FINANCIAL STANDARD WHICH LIMITS THEIR OWN REVENUE GROWTH TO REFLECT THAT OF ITS MEMBER CITIES.
ADDITIONALLY, THEY'VE APPROVED THE FRAMEWORK FOR AN ILA RELATED TO TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONES WITHIN THEIR SERVICE AREA.
THEN THROUGHOUT THE RE-APPORTIONMENT PROCESS, THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CHANGING HOW BOARD SEATS ARE ALLOCATED,
[00:10:03]
BUT ULTIMATELY THE BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES.WITH THAT BACKGROUND SAID, I WANT TO TURN IT BACK TO DEV TO TALK ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP.
>> THANK YOU, JAKE. THAT BACKGROUND ILLUSTRATES WHY DIALOGUE IS SO CRITICAL AT THIS MOMENT.
BUILDING FROM THE FOUNDATION, WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT THE CONVERSATION TO THE COLLABORATIVE WORK THAT'S HAPPENING NOW AT THE CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP.
AS YOU SEE FROM THIS SLIDE, THE GROUP WAS FORMED BY THE COG AND NTC CONVENING THE MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS FROM ACROSS ALL 13 MEMBER CITIES TO DISCUSS GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND FUNDING HEADS ON.
FROM THIS INITIAL MEETING, A FOCUS GROUP EMERGED, INCLUDING THE CITY OF DALLAS, MEMBERS FROM GARLAND, PLANO, RICHARDSON, AND ROWLETT, AND IRVING, ALONG WITH DART LEADERSHIP.
CITY MANAGER, TOLBERT, HAS BEEN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THIS WORKING GROUP SINCE DAY 1, HELPING STEER THE CONVERSATIONS TOWARD SOLUTIONS THAT PROTECT OUR INTEREST WHILE PRESERVING A STRONG AND VIABLE TRANSIT SYSTEM.
THE GROUP HAS NOW MET SEVEN TIMES THROUGH JANUARY 15, JUST LAST WEEK, AND CONVERSATIONS ARE STILL VERY MUCH ONGOING.
ON NOVEMBER 13, THE WORKING GROUP REPORTED ITS PROGRESS TO ALL 13 MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS, WHICH HELPED EVERYONE STAY ALIGNED AT A LEADERSHIP LEVEL.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS NOT YET REACHED CONSENSUS.
WHAT IT HAS DONE IS IDENTIFIED SEVERAL AREAS OF ALIGNMENT AND PROPOSED SHARED GOALS.
NEXT SLIDE. THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S BRIEFING IS TWOFOLD.
FIRST, WE WANT TO SHARE THE FRAMEWORK AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROACHED AND DISCUSSED IN THE CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP, WHICH AGAIN, NOT ONLY INCLUDES CITY MANAGER FROM DALLAS, BUT FIVE OTHER MEMBER CITIES AND DART LEADERSHIP DIRECTLY AT THE TABLE.
THE JOINT PARTICIPATION SHOWS THAT DART IS FULLY ENGAGED IN EXPLORING SOLUTIONS ON GOVERNANCE, SERVICE, AND FUNDING.
AS THE DIAGRAM SHOWS, EVERYTHING FLOWS FROM THIS WORKING GROUP CONVERSATION.
WE'VE BEEN EXPLORING THREE PILLARS, GOVERNANCE, SERVICE, AND FUNDING IN THAT ORDER.
SECOND, WE'RE HERE TO RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK, PARTICULARLY ON THE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK BEING DEVELOPED, YOUR INPUT WILL GUIDE THE TALKS IN THE COMING WEEKS.
WITH THAT IN MIND, LET'S TURN TO THE GOVERNANCE SECTION.
FROM THIS SLIDE, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED GOVERNANCE SHARED GOALS THAT HAVE EMERGED.
THIS STRUCTURE OF SHARED GOALS WAS REALLY THE GROUP'S WAY OF DEFINING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
THE WORKING GROUP COALESCED AROUND A SET OF PRINCIPLES THAT SAY THE NEW MODEL MUST KEEP EVERYONE COMMITTED TO DART'S OVERALL SUCCESS, GREAT SERVICE, GROWING RIDERSHIP, AND TRANSIT THAT FUELS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS.
SECOND, DELIVER EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION USING MULTIPLE FACTORS, POPULATION, FUNDING, JOBS, RIDERSHIP, NOT JUST ONE METRIC.
BE EFFECTIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE AND BUILT TO LAST FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS, BUT HOPEFULLY 20.
ENCOURAGE SYSTEM AND EXPANSION THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO BRING IN NEW MEMBER CITIES, AND CRITICALLY START WITH THE BASELINE OF ONE CITY, ONE VOTE.
THIS LAST POINT IS WORTH PAUSING ON BECAUSE THE ONE CITY ONE VOTE IS NOT ARBITRARY.
IT IS TIED DIRECTLY TO HOW DART IS FUNDED, THE 1% SALES TAX RATE.
THIS RATE CREATES AN EQUIVALENT FINANCIAL STAKE FROM EACH CITY, GIVING EACH CITY A FOUNDATIONAL EQUAL VOICE ON THE BOARD REPRESENTS THAT.
THESE SHARED GOALS GAVE THE WORKING GROUP A MEASURING STICK FOR THE GOVERNANCE MODEL.
ON SLIDE 12, WE LOOK AT A BOARD SIZES BASED ON BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER TRANSIT AGENCIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SPECTRUM, SIZES VARY FROM AS FEW AS THREE, FROM UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND VALLEY METRO TO 17-18 MEMBERS AT SOUND TRANSIT AND METRO TRANSIT IN MINNEAPOLIS.
WHAT STANDS OUT FROM THIS SLIDE IS THAT THERE ARE NO DIRECT PEER COMPARISONS THAT HAVE THE SITUATION LIKE OURS, ONE MAJORITY CITY.
[00:15:04]
NEXT SLIDE. ON SLIDE 13 IS THE WORKING MODEL THAT THE WORKING GROUP USED.WE STARTED WITH THE ONE CITY ONE VOTE BASELINE WITH POPULATION BASED WEIGHTING LAYERED ON TOP TO REFLECT SCALE.
THE TABLE SHOWS 2025 POPULATIONS, 2045 FORECASTS FROM COG, ASSIGNED BOARD SEATS, VOTE WEIGHTS, AND RESULTING PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VOTES, WHICH ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.
THE RULES FOR SCALING THE MODEL ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE TABLE.
CITIES OVER 250,000 IN POPULATION RECEIVE ONE ADDITIONAL SEAT.
ADDITIONAL VOTE WEIGHTING APPLIES FOR CITIES OVER 100,000 IN POPULATION.
NEW MEMBER CITIES WOULD BE ASSIGNED SEATS AND WEIGHTS BASED ON POPULATION AND OVERALL PERCENTAGE WOULD BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.
SOME OF THE KEY POINTS THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP ARE, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUR GROUPS IN THIS TABLE.
THE FIRST GROUP, THOSE LESS THAN 100,000 IN POPULATION, A SECOND GROUP, CITIES BETWEEN 100-200,000, A THIRD GROUP GREATER THAN 250,000, AND A FOURTH GROUP DALLAS.
THE WORK ON THIS MODEL WAS PAUSED UNTIL CITY COUNCIL COULD WEIGH IN.
THIS IS WHERE YOUR FEEDBACK FOR FUTURE WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND MODEL ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED. NEXT SLIDE.
>> NEXT, WE WANT TO BRIEFLY COVER SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS, THE SECOND PILLAR.
SLIDE 15 OUTLINES PROPOSED SHARED GOALS FOR THIS AREA.
RELIABLE ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY TO JOBS, EDUCATION, TO HEALTHCARE, AND DESTINATIONS, A BALANCED MIX OF FIXED ROUTES AND FLEXIBLE ROUTES LIKE GOLINK.
SERVICE DRIVEN BY MEASURABLE OUTCOMES, RIDERSHIP, COVERAGE, COST EFFECTIVENESS, CONSISTENT RELIABILITY AND SAFETY, ONGOING INNOVATION THROUGH PILOTS, TECHNOLOGY, AND PARTNERSHIP, AND AN INTERCONNECTED REGIONAL NETWORK THAT WORKS AS ONE SYSTEM.
NEXT SLIDE. ON SLIDE 16, WE SEE THE CURRENT SERVICE MODELS AND A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK.
TODAY'S DART SYSTEM INCLUDES COMMUTER RAIL, LIGHT RAIL SERVICE, BUS ROUTES, SHUTTLES, STREET CAR, FLEXIBLE GOLINK ON NON DEMAND ZONES.
IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE SERVICE MODES.
THEY'RE PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE APPENDIX, AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN BRIEFED ON THESE SERVICE MODELS PREVIOUSLY.
THE WORKING GROUP IS PROPOSING A FORWARD LOOKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE SERVICE MODEL.
PRIORITIZE CONNECTIVITY, INNOVATION, AND SAFETY ACROSS THE ENTIRE NETWORK.
IMPROVE THE AREA PLANNING PROCESS, SO EACH CITY'S UNIQUE NEEDS ARE BETTER INTEGRATED INTO DART'S PLANNING AND FINANCIAL CYCLES, GIVE MEMBER CITIES BETTER INSIGHT INTO SERVICE DECISIONS THROUGH ENHANCED TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT, AND KEEP RIDERS AND CITIES INFORMED ON CHANGES THROUGH STRENGTH AND COMMUNICATION.
THE OVERARCHING AIM FOR SERVICE IS RELIABLE AND HIGH PERFORMING. NEXT SLIDE.
ON SLIDE 18, WE REACHED THE THIRD PILLAR FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS.
AGAIN, WE BEGAN WITH PROPOSED SHARED GOALS.
THESE GOALS ARE BUILT AROUND FIVE CORE IDEAS; FULL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABLE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND DECISIONS, SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGIONAL BENEFIT WHILE DELIVERING LOCAL VALUE, FLEXIBILITY AND SCALABILITY TO ADAPT AS CITIES GROW AND NEEDS CHANGE, LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY TO SUPPORT PLANNING AND NEW REVENUE SOURCES, AND FINALLY, EQUITY AND FAIRNESS AROUND FUNDING AND SERVICE LEVELS.
OVERALL, THE FUNDING MODEL SHOULD FEEL FAIR AND PROPORTIONAL WHILE KEEPING DART FINANCIALLY STRONG TO SERVE THE REGION EFFECTIVELY. NEXT SLIDE.
ON SLIDE 19, WE SEE THE CURRENT FUNDING MODEL AND THE CONCEPTUAL DIRECTION THE WORKING GROUP IS EXPLORING.
[00:20:03]
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE CURRENT FUNDING MODEL IS THE STATE COMPTROLLER COLLECTS 1% OF LOCAL SALES TAX FROM EVERY MEMBER CITY, AND THAT FUNDING PROVIDES ROUGHLY 75% OF DART'S TOTAL REVENUE.THE WORKING GROUP IS EXPLORING MOVING FORWARD WITH WHAT WE'RE CALLING AN X+Y+Z FUNDING MODEL WITH X AS A CORE REGIONAL SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION, THE BASELINE FUNDING THAT KEEPS THE INTERCONNECTED NETWORK OPERATING RELIABLY ACROSS ALL MEMBER CITIES.
THERE'S AGREEMENT THAT THIS WOULD INCLUDE COMMUTER RAIL, LIGHT RAIL, AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES.
DISCUSSIONS CONTINUE REGARDING THE SELECTION OF BUS ROUTES AND POTENTIALLY GOLINK ZONES THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CORE REGIONAL SYSTEM.
Y IS THE INTRA CITY SERVICES THAT EACH CITY CAN CHOOSE AND TAILOR TO ITS OWN NEEDS AND PRIORITIES.
Z IS THE REMAINING REVENUE THAT DART CAN PROVIDE TO CITIES FOR OTHER PURPOSES UNDER CHAPTER 452.
THE STATUS OF FUNDING IS THAT THE FUNDING CONVERSATION IS DART IS CONDUCTING A FORWARD LOOKING RATE STUDY TO PROVIDE DATA FOR THIS MODEL.
THEY WILL PROVIDE THE DATA FOR THE X, Y AND Y VARIABLES, SO Z CAN ULTIMATELY BE CALCULATED.
THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE WORKING GROUP ON JANUARY 29TH AND JUST OVER A WEEK FROM NOW.
NEXT SLIDE. ON SLIDE 20, THE GROUP ALSO EXPLORED SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAMS THAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU.
THIS TABLE SHOWS OPTIONS BY TYPE, SOURCE, BARRIERS, LEGISLATIVE APPROVALS NEEDED ON A COUPLE OF CONCEPTS.
THE ONES I WANT TO START WITH ARE THE LOW BARRIER, NO LEGISLATION OPTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE BEING COG-RTC FUNDING, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING MOVEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING OPTION.
THIS ALLOWS MEMBER CITIES TO ACCESS CREDITS FOR TRANSIT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
RTC RECENTLY APPROVED TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CREDITS TO PROVIDE MORE FUNDING TO CITIES IN THE REGION THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TRANSIT AGENCIES.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS MADE THAT CORG AND RTC PUT THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE TO ENCOURAGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRANSIT.
THE SECOND IS, OF COURSE, FEDERAL STATE GRANTS THAT PRIORITIZE TRANSIT PROJECTS.
THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY.
WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THAT.
THE MEDIAN BARRIER OPTION IS MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.
I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME IDEAS EMERGE AROUND THIS BECAUSE WITH THE TRS ILA, THAT WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT THESE ARE FUNDS TIED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THE LAST IS A HIGHER BARRIER OPTION, BUT ONE THAT I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT IS A LOCAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE THAT COULD GENERATE NEW DOLLARS.
I THINK THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM THIS SLIDE IS THERE ARE REALISTIC PATHS TO NEW MONEY, THE BENEFIT, BOTH DART AND MEMBER CITIES, AND WE SHOULD EXPLORE THOSE.
LAST SLIDE. NEXT STEPS, THIS IS THE ROADMAP TO THE PATH FORWARD.
TODAY'S PRIMARY ASK IS YOUR FEEDBACK ON FEEDBACK ON THE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK.
THIS INPUT WILL GUIDE CITY MANAGER TOLBERT AND OUR TEAM IN THE REMAINING WORKING GROUP MEETINGS, AND AT THE NEXT FULL MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER SESSION ON FEBRUARY 12.
SOME IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES TO WATCH FEBRUARY 13TH, THE LAST DAY TO CALL A MAY ELECTION, LATE FEBRUARY, WHEN BALLOTS ARE BEING FINALIZED, MARCH 18, THE LAST DAY TO WITHDRAW AN ITEM FROM THE BALLOT, AND MAY 2ND, THE SPRING ELECTION.
ON THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE, IN THE FALL IN NOVEMBER, WE'VE GOT PRE FILING FOR THE 90TH SESSION, AND IN JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR, THE 90TH SESSION CONVENES.
OUR IMMEDIATE ACTIONS INCLUDE MONITORING CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE'LL BE COMMUNICATING THOSE TO THE MAYOR AND FULL COUNCIL.
BRIEFING THE FULL COUNCIL AT AN UPCOMING MEETING, AND OF COURSE, DEVELOPING DALLAS' LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THE 90TH SESSION.
[00:25:06]
IN SUMMARY, YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY WILL SHAPE OUR POSITION IN THESE FINAL WEEKS BEFORE THE MAY ELECTION DEADLINES.WITH THAT, WE CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION AND TURN IT BACK TO YOU, HURRIEDLY.
JAKE AND I ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BODY MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, DEV. JAKE THE REASON I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MONTH'S HEARING WAS SO THAT THE COMMITTEE AND GUESTS COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE DART MEMBER CITIES WAS.
WE HAVE BASICALLY NOT RECEIVED MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S BEING CONDUCTED AT THE CITY MANAGER AND MAYORAL LEVELS.
I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME THAT WE BE BRIEFED ON JUST WHERE WE STAND AND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS SO THAT WE COULD DISCUSS THEM AMONGST OURSELVES AND OBTAIN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M SURE MANY OF US HAVE OF STAFF.
AT THIS POINT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE FOLLOWED BY OUR GUESTS.
I'LL START ON MY LEFT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.
LET'S SEE. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY, CHAIR GRACEY. NO. COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ON.
IT IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY, BUT FOR THE REGION.
I LOVE TAKING A TRAIN WHEREVER, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT OTHER FOLKS DO AROUND THE COUNTRY.
DART IS PROBABLY WHAT 30-YEARS-OLD, IS THAT CORRECT? THIRTY PLUS YEARS.
>> THEY HAD THEIR 40 YEAR ANNIVERSARY RECENTLY SO IT'S OVER 40.
>> I'M LOOKING AS A MODERNIZATION? IT'S 40-YEARS-OLD.
IF I STILL DID PRACTICES THAT I DID FOR 40 YEARS AGO, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD, SO HAS DART EVER DONE A MODERNIZATION, AND IF SO, OTHER THAN, BECAUSE FOLKS HAVE LEFT, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME FOR THAT?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK WE WOULD REALLY NEED DART TO WEIGH IN ON ALL OF THE THINGS THAT DART HAS DONE.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GOING TO RAIL AND ALL THAT STUFF.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THEIR YOU LAID OUT AND GOVERNANCE FUNDING AND SERVICE.
SERVICE PROBABLY DART'S AS CITIES ARE DYNAMIC, BUT FOR FUNDING AND SERVICES, I THINK IT'S CAN WE JUST AS A BASELINE HAS PROBABLY BEEN SET FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
>> THE ONLY CHANGE THAT HAPPENED WAS IN THE '90S.
ORIGINALLY, THE DART BOARD WAS 25 MEMBERS.
THERE WERE TWO MEMBER CITIES THAT LEFT, AND IT WAS REDUCED TO 15 MEMBERS IN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE WE'VE HAD, I BELIEVE SINCE THE MID '90S.
>> THE MID '90S, THEY DID SOME LOOKING FORWARD.
THIS IS PROBABLY ABOUT THE TIME THAT THIS SHOULD BE HAPPENING. WOULDN'T YOU SAY? I THINK THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU SAVE THE PENNY OR IN THE WAY IT'S THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OR DO YOU SAVE THE AGENCY? BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING, IT'S READ THE TEE LEAVES.
IT'S LIKE WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A GOOD ROBUST REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WITH TAXATION COMES REPRESENTATION, SO YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHILE I HATE THINKING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY.
MAYBE IT'S TIME THAT IS THAT REALLY SO SOLID BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING MOST VOTES TAKE A TWO THIRDS VOTE ANYWAY.
DART'S GOVERNANCE REQUIRES A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY FOR CERTAIN KEY DECISIONS, INCLUDING THEIR BUDGETING AND THEIR SERVICE PLAN.
>> THEN LET'S GO AND LOOK AT THAT CHART BECAUSE I WAS NOTICING ON ONE SIDE, IT'S 104%.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION RELATED TO THE MODEL.
AS I MENTIONED IN MY REMARKS, THIS WAS VERY BETTER WORKING MODEL.
WE STARTED WITH THE ONE CITY, ONE VOTE, WE STARTED SEEING THESE CORE GROUPINGS OF SIZES OF DIFFERENT MEMBERS.
WE SAID, OKAY, HOW DO WE GET THE REPRESENTATION TO THOSE? THEN SAW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE.
THE OTHER THING I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THOSE PERCENTAGES ARE IN WHOLE NUMBERS, AND SO IF YOU DO THE MATH AND FRACTIONALLY, THEY ADD UP TO 100%, BUT WE DID ROUND THOSE UP TO WHOLE NUMBERS.
>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, IS THE VOTE WEIGHT ACTUALLY IS WHAT BRINGS IT MORE DOWN INTO EQUILIBRIUM?
[00:30:02]
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU HAVE 104% WHEN THE WHOLE PIE IS ONLY 100%.HOW WILL THAT AFFECT THE OVERALL VOTING, OR DOES IT?
>> I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY, NO, YOU WOULD NOT END WITH 104%, YOU'D HAVE TO GET THIS TO 100%.
HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE COMMITTEE, THE WORKING GROUP REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, WAS THIS A PERCENTAGE THAT DALLAS WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCEPT IN ORDER TO REACH THIS CONSENSUS TO GET TO THE ONE CITY, ONE VOTE MODEL.
>> IT APPEARS THAT NO ONE CITY ACTUALLY HAS MAJORITY.
>> BUT YET WE STILL MAINTAIN THE MOST ROBUST PRESENCE ON THAT BOARD WITH OUR 40% WEIGHTED VOTE.
IS THAT MY READING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE VOTE, THAT WE'VE ALLOWED EVERY CITY TO HAVE A VOICE OR NOT ALLOWED.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT, AND GIVEN HOW THE VOTES ARE TAKEN, THEN NOBODY ACTUALLY HAS THE MAJORITY, BUT YET WE STILL HAVE THE MOST ROBUST PRESENTATION ON THE BOARD.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. EACH CITY WOULD HAVE A BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTING THEM.
THEY CURRENTLY HAVE FRACTIONAL REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD.
>> WHEN YOU GET TO THE NEXT PAGE ON SERVICE, SINCE YOU WENT AHEAD AND PUT IT THERE, I PUT BOXES IN BETWEEN GLEN HEIGHTS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY AND THEN THE MOST EASTERN PART OF OUR CITY THAT GOES EAST.
IS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO BRING NEW CITIES INTO THIS? BECAUSE TO ME, ARE THOSE ARE BIG HOLES IN A REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM.
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE WANTED TO GO TO THIS OR THE WORKING GROUP TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE CITY, ONE VOTE BECAUSE WITH THE FRACTIONAL PERCENTAGES IN THE CURRENT APPORTIONMENT MODEL, A NEW MEMBER MAY OR MAY NOT GET A PERSON TO REPRESENT THEIR COMMUNITY ON THE BOARD.
DEPENDING ON THE WAY THE CURRENT APPORTIONMENT WORKS.
>> ON 19, WHO'S MANAGING THE MODEL? BECAUSE IT SAYS THE RATE STUDY WILL HAVE THE XYZ I THINK THE XYZ MODEL IS PRETTY INTERESTING.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHO IS THE ONE COMING UP WITH THAT?
>> DART IS DEVELOPING THE MODEL.
>> WITH THE INPUT FROM THE CITY MANAGERS AT THE TABLE?
>> CORRECT. AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS OF AGREEMENT OF WHAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE REGIONAL X, THE COMMUTER RAIL, THE LIGHT RAIL, PARATRANSIT, AND THERE WILL BE SOME ASPECTS OF THE BUS NETWORK, BUT WE HAVEN'T REACHED A DECISION ON WHAT.
BUT DART IS PREPARING THAT MODEL ACTIVELY NOW AS I INDICATED THE PRESENTATION ON.
>> WELL, THERE'LL BE PROJECTIONS ON REVENUES COMING FORWARD BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS A BIG DEAL AND LOOKING AT THAT IS THAT IF OUR ECONOMY STILL GOES THE SAME WAY, THE REVENUES WILL NOT DECREASE.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS A FORWARD LOOKING MODEL.
>> THEN LASTLY, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.
I KNOW IT'S NEVER FUN TO COME UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT I DO FEEL IF WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSIT AGENCY, THAT THE CITY, DALLAS NEEDS TO HAVE A MORE VOCAL VOICE AND GIVE Y'ALL SOME GUIDANCE.
THE THREE ITEMS THAT YOU'VE PUT AS WE DEVELOP OUR NIGHT, I KNOW THAT MISS MENDELSON WILL PROBABLY PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
I WAS LAST TIME THAT WE NEED TO GIVE YOU AS WELL AS ANYBODY WHO IS LISTENING THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM AND HELPING THEM WITH A PATH FORWARD BECAUSE I COULDN'T IMAGINE THE SECOND OR THE NINTH LARGEST CITY WITH THE POSSIBLE THIRD LARGEST REGION, NOT HAVING A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
I THINK THEN WITH THAT BEING SAID, IS THE REGION NEEDS TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND NOT HAVING A FRAGMENTED PRACTICE BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING IT, AS WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF BRIEFINGS ALREADY THIS MONTH RELATED TO FRAGMENTED SYSTEMS. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU. I WAS LOOKING AT THE GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION AND ON THE WEIGHTED PERCENTAGES ALSO, AND I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED AT
[00:35:02]
THE SMALL AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE IN THE POPULATION FORECASTS FOR THE VARIOUS CITIES.OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD, THEY'RE ONLY SHOWING 200,000 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN DALLAS, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.
UNLESS THEY WERE USING JUST A TEMPLATE FOR GENERAL INCREASES IN POPULATION.
I WOULD HOPE THAT IN 20 YEARS, DALLAS IS GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN 200,000 MORE PEOPLE.
MY QUESTION IS THIS RIDERSHIP OR LOOKS LIKE IT'S POPULATION?
>> IT IS POPULATION, SIR, AND THAT FORECAST IS A COG FORECAST.
WE DID NOT DEVELOP THAT, WE JUST SIMPLY USED WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED TODAY AS WE DEVELOP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS.
THESE ARE THE FORECASTS THAT ARE BEING USED FOR THESE MEMBER CITIES.
>> AGAIN, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT OUR PERCENTAGE OF VOTE? PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT SINCE DART IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR DALLAS ECONOMY THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO HAVE ROBUST AND EXTENSIVE REPRESENTATION.
I'M NOT SURE THAT 40% IS ENOUGH BECAUSE I THINK WE REALLY ARE THE DOG, NOT THE TAIL HERE, THAT WE'RE USING PEOPLE ARE COMING TO TOWN? WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME IN AND OUT OF TOWN.
WE ARE THE HUB FOR THE ACTIVITY LEVEL FOR THESE OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND WE'RE SERVICING THOSE OTHER COMMUNITIES, WHETHER THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT OR NOT IS THEIR ISSUE.
BUT FACT IS WE'RE PROVIDING A TREMENDOUS RESOURCE HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
I'M SORRY THAT I'M NOT WELL VERSED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS THING, BUT I'M PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THERE'S SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR ISSUES, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTITUENT COMMUNITIES TO HAVE A VOICE AND TO BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE THOSE DECISIONS, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE SURE THAT THE DALLAS PERCENTAGE IS SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT.
I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT DIED THAT YOU CAN STILL DISCUSS, IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S STILL PART OF THE WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION?
>> YES, THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER ARE ONGOING, WE WILL BE WE HAVE A MEETING ON THURSDAY THIS WEEK AND AGAIN ON THE 29TH AND THEN THE REPORT OUT.
>> THEN THE OTHER ON THE FUNDING MODEL, I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT FOR A CONSTITUENT COMMUNITY THAT EXITS THE SYSTEM, THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO COLLECT THE ONE SENT AND THAT THAT GOES TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHATEVER SO CALLED DEBT SERVICE THAT'S ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT COMMUNITY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHEN YOU SAY THAT IS A PULL OUT, IS THE CURRENT RULES AND REGULATION, DOES IT REQUIRE A COMPLETE PULLOUT, OR IS THERE AN ABILITY FOR PARTIAL PULL OUT, WHAT IS THE RULES ON IF A MEMBER CITY DECIDES TO EXIT?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF A MEMBER CITY DOES DECIDE TO EXIT VIA VOTE, AND THE POPULATION VOTES TO EXIT.
SERVICE WOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY.
THE $0.01 WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REMITTED TO DART UNTIL THEIR PORTION OF THE DEBT SERVICE IS PAID OFF, LIKE YOU STATED.
THAT COULD DEPENDING ON THE CITY AND THE AMOUNT OF DEBT SERVICE THAT COULD RANGE OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THEY WOULD STOP REMITTING THAT $0.01.
>> BUT THE EXIT IS RELATED TO ALL THE SERVICES OR JUST A PORTION OF SERVICE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'VE GOT BUS, WE'VE GOT BUS.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD BE ALL SERVICES.
>> THAT'S CLEAR, IS THAT IN DISCUSSION AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP AS TO WHAT THE PICTURE OF AN EXIT SITUATION WOULD LOOK LIKE?
>> OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON WHAT ARE SOME SOLUTIONS GOING FORWARD? WE REALLY HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THE EXIT PROCESS.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO START WITH ASKING
[00:40:04]
THE QUESTION OF WHY SHOULD THE CITY OF DALLAS GIVE UP GOVERNANCE CONTROL WHEN IT CONTRIBUTES HALF APPROXIMATELY THE REVENUE, HALF THE SERVICE AREA, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE RIDERSHIP.>> I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE ONE CITY ONE VOTE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO GET DALLAS TO FIT TO REMAIN AT 51%.
>> WELL, SURE, THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHOUT GIVING UP THE MAJORITY.
>> WHY ARE THOSE IDEAS NOT BEING PRESENTED?
>> I THINK THAT WHAT WE SAW WAS THAT PERSPECTIVE IS LIKELY GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHER MEMBER CITIES SAYING THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED ON THE DART BOARD AND THEREFORE WILL NOT REMAIN IN THE SYSTEM.
>> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO A NUMBER OF THE MAYORS IS THAT THEIR ISSUE IS LESS ABOUT GOVERNANCE THAN MORE ABOUT A RETURN OF A GENERAL MOBILITY PROGRAM.
HAS THERE BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ONE OVER THE OTHER?
>> THE MAYORS ARE NOT IN OUR CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP MEETINGS, AND SO WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT PERSPECTIVE IN OUR WORKING GROUPS AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS SHARED CLEARLY ON THE NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THEIR CITY MANAGERS ARE AWARE OF THAT.
SPECIFICALLY, WHEN YOU'RE THINKING AS A FRAMEWORK, WHAT PRINCIPLE, WHETHER IT'S A GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLE OR A FISCAL PRINCIPLE OR A DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE WOULD LEAD YOU TO AN ACTION TO ILLOGICALLY GIVE UP A MAJORITY CONTROL WHEN ONE IS GIVING THE MAJORITY OF THE DOLLARS AND HAS THE SERVICE AREA AND THE RIDERSHIP?
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, EVEN AT A SIMPLE MAJORITY AT 51%, DALLAS DOES NOT CONTROL ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE DARK GOVERNING BODY.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS THAT ALREADY REQUIRE A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY.
THAT 51% SIMPLE MAJORITY POSITION WAS ONE THAT WE FELT LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK WITH.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TRANSIT AGENCY WHERE THE LARGEST FUNDER HAS LESS THAN PROPORTIONAL CONTROL?
>> YES. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING AT OTHER PEER AGENCIES.
WE LOOKED AT OTHER PEER AGENCIES AND THE CLOSEST PEER AGENCY TO OURS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE IS THE MINNEAPOLIS TRANSIT SYSTEM AND THEY ARE THE MAJORITY CITY IN THE LOW 40S, IF I'M REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE PERCENTAGE.
>> IF DALLAS LOSES THE BOARD INFLUENCE, WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE DALLAS TAXPAYERS WHEN SERVICE CUTS ARE MADE AND THE FARES RISE?
>> THE DART BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, WILL CONTINUE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITY VOTERS ON DART SERVICE.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PERCENTAGE VOTE IS ONE GOVERNANCE TOOL, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT GOVERNANCE THAT COULD BE EXPLORED TO ADD, ADD DALLAS' WEIGHT OTHER THAN THE PERCENTAGE MAJORITY.
>> A LOT IS MADE OF THE ERNST AND YOUNG COST ALLOCATION AND HOW THEY ATTRIBUTED AND WEIGHTED VARIOUS PARTS OF THE SYSTEM.
I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY NOT DONE PROPERLY, THE WEIGHTING AND THE ALGORITHM BEHIND IT.
FOR INSTANCE, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE ORANGE AND RED LINE WHICH GOES UP TO PLANO, THE PLANO RAIL BECOMES COMPLETELY WORTHLESS WITHOUT THE DALLAS RAIL.
IF THERE WASN'T A SIGNIFICANT COST ATTRIBUTION OF THAT DALLAS RAIL THAT PROVIDES THE USEFULNESS FOR THE PLANO RAIL, THEN IT WASN'T ATTRIBUTED PROPERLY.
I THINK THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF SOME OF THIS IS SUSPECT ON HOW IT WAS COST ALLOCATED.
WHATEVER GENERAL MOBILITY PLAN IS OFFERED TO THE SUBURBS SHOULD ALSO BE OFFERED TO DALLAS.
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE SEEING IS AN UNBRIDLED SPENDING FROM THE DART BOARD, WHICH HAS CRIPPLED ALL OF OUR CITIES FINANCIALLY.
[00:45:02]
WHILE WE HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED IN GROWTH AND REVENUE, THE DART BOARD HAS NOT, AND HAS MADE SOME VERY QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENTS AND PAYMENTS.I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT TO THE POINT ABOUT A REGIONAL MOBILITY SYSTEM THAT EVEN IF ALL 13 MEMBERS STAY IN, WHICH THEY CERTAINLY WILL NOT, WE DON'T HAVE A REGIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAM, BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY CITIES THAT JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP ALONE SHOWS YOU OUR PEOPLE CANNOT GET TO ALL THE PLACES IN THE SUBURBS WHERE THERE'S JOBS.
EVEN IF THEY ALL STAY, WE HAVE NOT SAVED SOME REGIONAL SYSTEM.
WE'RE LACKING A REGIONAL SYSTEM.
THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE CHALLENGE IS.
TO SAY THAT THIS WILL SOMEHOW SUFFICE IS INCORRECT.
COUNCILOR ROTH, YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH.
THE POPULATION GROWTH NUMBERS ARE ACCURATE.
THEY'RE FROM THE STATE DEMOGRAPHER.
WHAT YOU'RE NOTICING IS THAT ALL THE DART MEMBER CITIES ARE NOT GROWING, AND ALL OF THE CITIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF DART ARE GROWING EXPONENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THAT PENNY TO ATTRACT AWAY OUR BUSINESSES, OUR SPORTS TEAMS, TO PROVIDE OTHER INCENTIVES.
THERE IS SOMETHING ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT ABOUT TRANSIT, DALLAS SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE TRANSIT AND FOR TRANSIT IN A CITY LIKE DALLAS, BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A COST TO IT.
IN OUR CASE, THAT COST IS $460 MILLION A YEAR.
THE $0.01 SALES TAX ESTABLISHED 40 YEARS AGO IS TOO HIGH.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ZERO NEW CITIES HAVE JOINED IN 40 YEARS.
THE VALUE PROPOSITION IS SIMPLY NOT THERE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR PEERS AROUND THE METROPLEX, YOU CALLED OUT MAYOR GILMORE FROM LOUISVILLE, IT'S A HALF CENT FOR DCTA, HALF CENT FOR TRINITY METRO.
EVEN OUR TRANSIT MEMBER CITIES, THEY'RE NOT PAYING WHAT WE'RE PAYING, AND THERE'S A REAL REASON, A LEGITIMATE REASON THAT THE SUBURBS ARE QUESTIONING THE VALUE THAT THEY'RE GETTING, AND WE SHOULD QUESTION IT ALSO, NOT THAT WE DON'T SAY IT'S IMPORTANT.
IT IS. BUT WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY IS ONLY 2% OF OUR PEOPLE USE DART TO GET TO WORK.
2%. IT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT.
IF SOMEBODY IS GETTING A GENERAL MOBILITY PROGRAM, WE NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IF WE GOT A QUARTER BACK, THAT'S $100 MILLION FOLKS.
WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT LIBRARIES.
WE'VE GOT BIG PENSION PAYMENTS COMING.
THERE'S SO MANY BACKED UP THINGS THAT WE COULD BE PAYING FOR $100 MILLION MORE A YEAR.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ASK SOME VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
ON SLIDE 20, YOU HAVE REVENUE STREAMS, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO PURSUE THEM.
I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THIS TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES FOR TRANSIT.
IT'S A FANTASY TO THINK THAT'LL HAPPEN.
THE IDEA THAT THE RTC COULD SOMEHOW INITIATE A TRANSIT MEMBER COMMUNITIES POLICY, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE MEMBER CITIES OF RTC ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO PENALIZE THEMSELVES FOR NOT BEING A TRANSIT MEMBER. IT WON'T HAPPEN.
ALREADY, THE RTC HAS GONE AGAINST THAT IDEA.
THEY FUNDED A PARKING GARAGE IN MANSFIELD, NOT A MEMBER OF A TRANSIT AGENCY.
ARLINGTON SEEMS TO BE GETTING THEIR WISH FOR SOME HIGH SPEED TRAIN, THEY'RE NOT A MEMBER OF A TRANSIT AGENCY.
HOW IS THAT EVEN HAPPENING? ALL OF THIS IS JUST SIMPLY A REUTH.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO ARE CHANGE RULES, FIRST OF ALL, THAT LIKE OTHER MEMBER CITIES, WE CAN APPOINT SOMEONE WHO'S AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, WE NEED TERM LIMITS FOR OUR APPOINTEES ON THIS BOARD, THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION.
THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE SUBURBS FROM GANGING UP TO VOTE ADDITIONAL SUBURBAN PERKS AT DALLAS'S EXPENSE.
>> AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE DART CURRENT GOVERNANCE HAS CERTAIN THINGS THAT REQUIRE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY.
SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD AT THE AT THE WORKING GROUP IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A MODEL LIKE THIS GO FORWARD, WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOME LARGE CITY EXCLUSIONS OF THINGS TO PROTECT DALLAS IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
>> BUT WHERE IS THAT CONSTRAINT WRITTEN?
[00:50:01]
HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT.AS YOUR PROPOSAL ON 13TH SAYS DALLAS WOULD HAVE 40%.
THAT MEANS THE SUBURBS HAVE 60%.
ALL IT TAKES IS ONE OPEN SEAT OR ONE MEMBER APPOINTED BY DALLAS TO MISS, AND THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY.
THEY HAVE THAT TWO THIRDS VOTE.
THIS IS PUTTING OUR CITY AT RISK FOR UNKNOWN REASONS.
HAS DART EVER BEEN PENALIZED EITHER FINANCIALLY OR STRUCTURALLY FOR MISSING RIDERSHIP ON TIME SAFETY, OR COST TARGETS?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PENALTIES, NO?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT THE RESPONSE TO UNDER PERFORMANCE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING, RATHER THAN COST CONTROL, RATHER THAN ROUTE RATIONALIZATION OR SOME SERVICE DISCIPLINE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOVERNANCE AGAIN.
I THINK THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA TO CHANGE GOVERNANCE MODELS, AND IT SAYS SOMETHING ACTUALLY QUITE UNFLATTERING ABOUT DALLAS CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU WOULD EVEN BRING THIS TO US AS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD POTENTIALLY CONSIDER ADOPTING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE JUST ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS ON THE ONE CITY ONE VOTE.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE WITH THOSE CITIES THAT DON'T HAVE THE ONE VOTE ALREADY? WOULD THAT MEAN THAT WE WOULD LOSE SOME OF OUR VOTES IN DART, OR DID IT MEAN DART BOARD WOULD EXPAND? WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?
THAT IS WHAT THE WORKING MODEL PROVIDES.
IN YOUR APPENDIX, WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE CURRENT MAKEUP OF THE DART GOVERNANCE BOARD.
WE HAVE SEVEN CITIES AND ONE SHARED SEAT, AND WHAT THE ONE CITY, ONE VOTE MODEL PROVIDES THOSE MEMBER CITIES THAT HAVE FRACTIONAL SEATS WITH NO FULL BOARD SEAT TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE.
>> ON PAGE 13, WE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WOULD HAVE FIVE VOTES TO 20 VOTES, CORRECT?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT WOULD BE FIVE SEATS.
BUT THE VOTES ARE WEIGHTED IN THE SECOND COLUMN FROM THE RIGHT.
YOU WOULD SEE WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE 10.5 SHARES OUT OF 26.5, WHICH EQUATES TO 40% OF THE VOTE WEIGHT.
>> AND JUST LIKE SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES HERE HAVE SAID THAT AT THIS RATE, WE WOULD LOSE THE TOTAL VOICE, WELL, THE MAJORITY VOICE OF DART.
I GET WHERE THERE MAY NEED TO BE SOME RESTRUCTURING.
BUT CAN WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS? AND OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
WHAT ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DROPPED, RIGHT NOW, IT'S $0.01, ON SALES TAX? IF WE DID IT AT A HALF CENT OR THREE-QUARTERS OF A CENT OPPOSED TO JUST DROPPING IT TO HALF A CENT.
DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A THREE-QUARTER-CENT FUNDING MODEL.
>> I DO THINK THAT THE RATE STUDY THAT DART IS CONDUCTING, WHICH IS INFORMING THAT X PLUS Y PLUS Z MODEL IS THE PLACE TO START FOR THOSE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE IF WE UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH ANYTHING COSTS, AND IF THERE'S LEFTOVER MONEY FOR CITIES, THEN THAT Z IS REALLY THE GMP, ESSENTIALLY.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE MONEY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK TO CITIES.
AND THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT IS A STRUCTURE FOR ALL MEMBER CITIES RATHER THAN JUST FOR DONOR CITIES, AS THE CURRENT GMP IS STRUCTURED.
AND THANK YOU, GUYS, FOR THE PRESENTATION.
FIRST, I WANT TO START OFF BY THANKING OUR CITY MANAGER, TOLBERT, FOR BEING AT THE TABLE AND BEING PRESENT.
AND SO INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, I'VE ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A COUPLE OF THESE MEETINGS.
AND THROUGH THAT COLLABORATIVE WORK THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH AN OUTCOME,
[00:55:04]
AND WE CAN TALK TODAY ABOUT THE SERVICE ISSUES WITH DART.WE CAN TALK TODAY ABOUT THE ISSUES WITH RIDERSHIP.
BUT THE REALITY IS IF WE DON'T GET BEYOND 33 PILLARS, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION TO HAVE.
AND I HAVE SEEN THAT THE GOVERNANCE HAS BEEN AT THE TOP OF THE DISCUSSION AT SOME OF THOSE MEETINGS.
I ALSO FEEL THAT IT'S ONE OF THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD OF THE THREE PILLARS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOBODY WANTS TO LOSE AND DILUTE THEIR VOTE, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE WERE AT RISK OF THIS THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATOR.
THIS IS, I BELIEVE, SHOWS A GOOD PATH FORWARD OF A GOOD FAITH EFFORT WORKING WITH OUR OTHER CITIES, BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THAT SOME OF THESE CITIES CAN GO TO THE STATE AND LOOK AT THE WEIGHING OF OUR VOTE, AND IT WOULD BE FAR MORE DILUTED THAN THE PROPOSED 40% THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY.
ONE OF THE PROPOSALS HAD IT AS LOW AS 20 AND 25%.
I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE GOVERNORS IF IT STAYS THIS WAY.
HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS ARE DART CURRENTLY?
>> CURRENTLY 15 BOARD MEMBERS.
>> FIFTEEN, SO IT WOULD GROW TO 20.
AND IF NEW CITIES WERE TO BE ADDED THROUGHOUT THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WOULD THE BOARD JUST CONTINUE TO GROW, OR WOULD IT BE WEIGHED SOLELY ON THAT POPULATION?
>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY, WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN A REASONABLE SIZE STRUCTURE FOR THE GOVERNANCE BOARD, AND THAT WAS A TOPIC THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE WORKING GROUP.
AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT PERHAPS CREATING AN EXECUTIVE BOARD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS, SHOULD THE DART BOARD GROW BEYOND A CERTAIN SIZE TO FACILITATE MOVING FORWARD WITH KEY DECISIONS.
AND AGAIN, WE DID NOT GO PAST THIS ONE CITY, ONE VOTE, AND PERCENTAGE WEIGHTING.
IN THE GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION, AND AS YOU POINT OUT, THERE ARE MANY OTHER ASPECTS THAT NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE MODEL, BUT THE ONE CITY, ONE VOTE IS CRITICAL.
>> OKAY. TALK TO ME ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME CITIES CURRENTLY THAT HAVE BEFORE THEM TO TAKE THIS TO THEIR VOTERS.
WHAT IS THE DEADLINE TO PULL OUT OF THAT VOTE?
>> IF YOU LOOK ON THE NEXT STEP SLIDE, I BELIEVE IT'S SLIDE 21, WE HAVE THOSE LISTED.
BUT CHAPTER 452 SAYS THAT THE 45TH DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR A VOTE TO BE CANCELED.
THAT'S MARCH 18 IS THE LAST DAY THAT A CITY HAS TO PULL OUT OF AN ELECTION.
>> DEV, IN YOUR CONVERSATION, IF THE CITY WERE TO TAKE ACTION ON A GOVERNANCE MODEL, WHAT DOES THAT INDICATE? WHAT DOES THAT TELL THE OTHER MEMBER CITIES?
>> WELL, I THINK THE FEEDBACK FROM THIS BODY IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE SOME OF THE CITIES AT THE TABLE ARE WAITING WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH THEIR VOTE, AND OTHERS ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT REPRESENTATION THAT THEY'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR.
AND SO THIS DISCUSSION AND YOUR FEEDBACK IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THAT ONGOING DIALOGUE.
BECAUSE IF DALLAS SIGNALS THAT WERE NOT PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN I THINK THE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING TO BE MORE STRAINED.
>> I THINK YOU KNOW IF IT'S THE WILL OF THIS BODY TO TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNANCE, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY JUST LET THOSE OTHER CITIES KNOW THAT DALLAS IS SERIOUS, THAT WE DO WANT TO BE COLLABORATIVE, THAT WE DO WANT TO WORK TOWARDS A SHARED REGIONAL GOAL.
AND THOSE THREE PILLARS ARE AT THE CORE OF THE FUTURE OF DART.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO START WITH THIS FIRST ONE OF GOVERNANCE AND GO FROM THERE AS WE CONTINUE TO GET MORE DATA ON THE FUNDING COMPONENT OF IT.
THANK YOU, CHAIR FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
[01:00:01]
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR RIDLEY. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING CLOSELY TO MY COLLEAGUES, AND I AM FINDING THAT MY THOUGHTS AND MY PERSPECTIVE ALIGN MORE WITH OUR MAYOR PRO TEM.
I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE FIVE CITIES WHO ARE CALLING AN ELECTION, I THINK THEY'RE WONDERING IF WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION. ARE WE LISTENING? DO WE SEE WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO BECAUSE OF THEIR FRUSTRATIONS, AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO LISTEN.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY THE DOG OR THE TAIL AS I'VE LISTENED TO THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION, BUT WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST PARTNERS IN THE ROOM, AND WHICH IS THE SYSTEM.
WE ARE NOT ALL OF IT, WE ARE A GOOD PORTION OF IT.
BUT OUR GOAL IS FOR THE SYSTEM TO SUCCEED, FOR THE SYSTEM TO BE HEALTHY, FOR THE SYSTEM TO BE RESPECTFUL, AND TO WORK TOGETHER AND NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MAYBE BEING THE BIGGEST PIECE IN THE SYSTEM.
BECAUSE I THINK AGAIN, OUR GOAL IS TO WORK TOGETHER TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM, AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THOSE OTHER CITIES.
IT IS MY HOPE THAT WE GIVE OUR CITY MANAGER WHAT SHE NEEDS TO GO TO THE WORKING GROUP.
I WAS VERY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THERE IS A WORKING GROUP.
IF YOU'RE JUST A RESIDENT AND YOU'RE JUST READING THE MEDIA, THE MEDIA JUST SAYS, THEY'RE LEAVE AND THAT'S IT.
I WAS SO REASSURED THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE CITIES, AS WELL AS DALLAS, WERE WILLING TO GET IN THE ROOM AND BEGIN TO START TRYING TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM AND FIND A SOLUTION.
WE ARE HERE TO TACKLE PROBLEMS AND NOT TO JUST WALK AWAY FROM THEM.
I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE DOING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THIS.BUT I DO SUPPORT GIVING OUR CITY MANAGER WHAT SHE NEEDS TO WORK THROUGH AND TO HOPEFULLY FIND A PATH FORWARD THAT REFLECTS THE GOALS AND THE VALUES OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.
> THANK YOU. I, TOO, BELIEVE IN PUBLIC TRANSIT.
I THINK IT'S CRITICAL WE'RE THE NINTH LARGEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY, AND AS WE'VE SEEN WITH FIFA COMING HERE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HOPE FOR, WE'VE GOT TO NURTURE THE HEART OF THIS PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONCERNS ALONG THE WAY.
I'M STILL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT EY STUDY AND HOW FACTUAL THE INFORMATION IS OR RATHER I SHOULD SAY HOW COMPLETE THE INFORMATION IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BASING THEIR TALKING POINTS AROUND TAKING A STUDY THAT IS JUST DOLLARS IN DOLLARS OUT THAT DOES NOT FACTOR IN ALL THE TAX EXEMPT LAND THAT DALLAS DOES IN THE HEAVY LIFTING OR JUST SOME OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF WHAT DALLAS CONTRIBUTES? I DO NOT THINK IT'S FAIR.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS BEING UPDATED, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S UNDERWAY.
>> AS PART OF THE GMP THAT DART BOARD DID ADOPT, THEY ARE CONDUCTING A COST ALLOCATION REPORT EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
THE FIRST TWO YEARS WILL FOLLOW THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THE EI REPORT.
HOWEVER, THE THIRD YEAR IS MEANT TO UPDATE THAT AND BE MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND REFLECT SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE JUST EXPRESSED.
FISCAL YEAR 26 IS THE FIRST YEAR.
I BELIEVE FISCAL YEAR 28, THEN, WOULD BE THE THIRD.
>> OUR STORY IS NOT GOING TO BE TOLD FOR A COUPLE OF MORE YEARS.
THAT'S CORRECT. COST ALLOCATION REPORT.
I ASK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THESE CITIES HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN THEY DO TO GAIN ON THIS ACTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS THAT WHEN I HEAR THE DISCUSSIONS, I'VE ATTENDED SOME OF THE MEETINGS, I'VE WATCHED SOME OF THE COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS ACROSS THE REGION.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 2% OF OUR POPULATION USING DART TO GET TO WORK, WELL, THEY'RE GOING SOMEWHERE.
IN SOME CASES, COMMUNITIES DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY THE RIDERSHIP THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO SEE, BUT THEY SURE ARE GETTING PEOPLE COMING INTO THEIR COMMUNITY, GETTING OFF OF THAT DARK TRAIN OR OFF OF THAT BUS TO GO WORK IN THAT COMMUNITY, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A LIFELINE THAT I DON'T THINK THEY WANT TO CUT, BUT I SURE DON'T HEAR THAT STORY BEING TOLD.
AND EVEN IN SOME SMALLER ROOMS, SENSE THAT THAT IS GETTING THROUGH.
BUT AN ELECTION, CALLING FOR AN ELECTION, IS NICE LEVERAGE IF YOU WANT TO GET SOME PEOPLE'S ATTENTION.
I HAVE ALSO HEARD THROUGH THE YEARS ABOUT THE WAY
[01:05:05]
THE STRUCTURE HAS WORKED WITH A REPRESENTATIVE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR CITY, AND THAT YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD, AND I GET THAT.IT SHOULD BE WORKING IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT IT'S NOT.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE ONE CITY ONE VOTE, AND IF IT'S WAITED, THEN I THINK THAT EVEN MAKES THAT MORE POWERFUL TO ALLOW VOICES TO BE AT THE TABLE SO THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER CLAIM THEY'RE NOT BEING HEARD.
AND FRANKLY, WE SHOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THEIR POTENTIAL NEEDS AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS AROUND THE 40%.
I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE SUPERMAJORITY ON SO MANY VOTES, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE FRIENDS.
WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE COMMUNITIES THAT WE ARE IN AN ALLIANCE WITH.
HOWEVER, THE WAITING, AND IF OUR CITY MANAGER AND OTHERS ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS A WAY THAT IT'S WORKABLE WHERE DALLAS' INTERESTS ARE STILL LOOKED OUT FOR, THEN I CAN TRY TO GET OVER THAT HESITATION, ALTHOUGH IT STILL NAGS ME.
I'M REALLY HOPING THAT AFTER 40 YEARS, 42 YEARS, WHATEVER OUR ANNIVERSARY IS NOW OF DART, THAT WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF IT BEING EXECUTED, THAT THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO GO GET PARTNERS, NEW PARTNERS, BECAUSE THE ROAD IS ALL AHEAD OF US NOW.
THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO JOIN THIS TRANSIT SYSTEM BECAUSE THERE ARE NEW PROJECTS THAT WILL BE IDENTIFIED THAT CAN BE BENEFICIAL.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S MY SALES PITCH TO GET OTHERS TO LISTEN AND WANT TO COME TO THE TABLE TO BE PART OF THIS.
IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR SUPPORT FOR THE ONE CITY, ONE VOTE, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IF IT'S ON THE 40%, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO HAVE OUR PARTNERS KNOW THAT WE'RE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE THAT.
I WOULD LOVE TO HOPE THAT THE DOOR IS STILL OPEN ON THAT TO A DEGREE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY BETTER THAN THE 20-25% THAT HAS BEEN BATTED AROUND.
AND I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE ALWAYS ARE VERY MINDFUL OF KEEPING ALLIANCES TO WHERE THAT'S LESS OF A CONCERN. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I THINK IT'S, YES, COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND AGAIN, NOT TO BE TOO REDUNDANT, BUT TO JUST KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS.
LET ME ASK JUST THIS ONE QUESTION BECAUSE I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT THIS ATTEMPT IN THIS 40% WAS MEANT TO DO.
IT WAS MEANT TO AS SORT OF A COMPROMISE AND THOSE THINGS.
WHAT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT THAT THE OTHER CITIES EITHER GAVE UP OR ARE PROPOSING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE WE'VE MADE IN A SENSE, SORT OF A COMPROMISE, WHICH I THINK IS FAIR.
WHAT OTHER COMPROMISES HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX, I'M FORGETTING WHICH ONE, BUT WE SHOW THE CURRENT PERCENTAGES IN TERMS OF POPULATION.
YOU'LL NOTE THAT CITIES LIKE PLANO, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION, THEY'RE AT 10%, THE NEW WEIGHTING MODEL WOULD REDUCE THEIR PERCENTAGE ALSO.
SO DALLAS IS NOT THE ONLY ONE COMPROMISING IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK PERHAPS IRVING IS ALSO ABOVE THAT 10% THRESHOLD I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT ESSENTIALLY, THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE COMPROMISING WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE IN ORDER TO GIVE EVERYBODY A SEAT AT THE TABLE.
WE WANT THEM AT THE TABLE AND BRINGING THEIR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF BETTER TRANSIT SOLUTIONS TO THE TABLE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAW IN TERMS OF OTHERS COMPROMISING, NOT JUST [INAUDIBLE].
>> AND THEN AGAIN, I'LL SUPPORT MOST OF THIS.
>> THE IDEA OF ACTIVELY RECRUITING NEW CITIES, AND I KNOW WE GOT TO GET THROUGH SOME DISCUSSIONS THERE IN TERMS OF THE PERCENTAGE OR THE HALF CENT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, BUT I REALLY WANT TO ACTIVELY AGGRESSIVELY.
LET ME SAY AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE NEW CITIES TO BRING A PARTIES, PARTICULARLY GOING SOUTH INTO THE AREA, BECAUSE I'D JUST BE CURIOUS.
WELL, ANYWAY, I'LL STOP THERE. THANK YOU.
>> MS. BLAIR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YES, GO AHEAD.
[01:10:02]
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE 2%, BUT MY AUNT BETTY ACTUALLY RODE THE BUS EVERY DAY FOR 30 YEARS.
SHE RETIRED FROM DALLAS COUNTY, AND SHE ACTUALLY RETIRED BECAUSE DARK CHANGED THEIR SERVICE, AND SHE WASN'T ABLE TO GET TO WORK ANYMORE.
EVEN IF THE 2%, IF WE ARE CUTTING BACK ON SERVICES FOR OUR RESIDENTS, THAT AFFECTS OR COULD AFFECT SOMEBODY'S LIVELIHOOD.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING SERVICE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
I THINK OF MY FRIEND, GEORGE, HE STILL TAKES THE BUS EVERY DAY, AND IT HELPS HIM GET AROUND THE CITY TO VOLUNTEER AND DO ALL OF THE COMMUNITY WORK THAT HE DOES.
AS WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS, WE NEED TO HAVE A HEALTHY SYSTEM FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE HAVE REGIONAL PARTNERS THAT ARE STILL AT THE TABLE WILLING TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS AND SEEING HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
WE DON'T WANT TO CUT BACK ON SERVICES BECAUSE IT DOES AFFECT OUR RESIDENTS.
OF COURSE, WE STILL WOULD MAINTAIN 40% BUT ALSO GIVE MAYBE SOME OF OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS A VOICE AND A SEAT AT THE TABLE AS WELL.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER US BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND THE SOLUTIONS TO WHAT'S GOING ON THAN BEING REACTIVE TO WHAT COULD HAPPEN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER TINA.
I THINK WE'VE COVERED EVERYONE.
[LAUGHTER] JUST A FEW COMMENTS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE SEPARATE PILLARS IN OUR DISCUSSION.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT GOVERNANCE.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT FINANCES, BUT IT INCLUDES SERVICE AS WELL, AS HAS BEEN COMMENTED ON.
ALL THREE OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES, I BELIEVE, FOR ALL OF THE MEMBER CITIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE CONSIDERING WITHDRAWAL.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A PLAN BY WHICH DALLAS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS ON ONE OF THOSE PILLARS.
WITHOUT THAT ANY ASSURANCE THAT THAT WILL RESOLVE THE OVERALL ISSUES RAISED BY THE MEMBER CITIES SEEKING TO WITHDRAW.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PROGRESS IN THESE DISCUSSIONS ON THE SERVICE AND THE FINANCING PARTS SO THAT WE CAN GET CLOSER TO A SOLUTION AND CONTRIBUTE WHATEVER THOUGHTS WE HAVE AS A COUNCIL ABOUT THE GOVERNANCE.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE GIVING UP SOMETHING FOR NOTHING, AND I'M AGAINST THAT AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.
THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON GOVERNANCE, I THINK IS UNWORKABLE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES TOTALS UP TO 104%.
WHO'S GETTING GREED BY THAT EXTRA 4% LOSS? THERE'S NO REAL RYMER REASON TO THE VOTE WEIGHTING LISTED, AND I BELIEVE IT OPERATES UNDER A MISNOMER, THE NOTION OF ONE CITY, ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS REPRESENTS.
THIS REPRESENTS ONE CITY HAVING ONE SEAT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE NARRATIVE SHOULD BE.
I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE NARRATIVE, ONE THAT RESPECTS THE NOTION THAT EACH REPRESENTED BODY HAS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD.
TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE AN APPROPRIATE WEIGHTING TO RECOGNIZE THE PRIMACY OF DALLAS IN TERMS OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE POPULATION, MORE THAN 50% OF THE SALES TAX CONTRIBUTION, AND MORE THAN 50% OF THE RIDERSHIP.
I FIND 40% TO BE UNREASONABLY LOW AS A REPRESENTATION OF DALLAS OVER 50% OF THE POPULATION, NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT IN 2045 FORECASTS.
AT THE SAME TIME, I RECOGNIZE THAT DALLAS HAS A SIGNIFICANT VOICE IN THIS OVERALL DISCUSSION, AND THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE A COLLABORATIVE PARTNER IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
AS A RESULT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT DALLAS IS WILLING TO CONSIDER GOVERNANCE VARIANCES FROM THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT PRESENTED WITH ANY OPTIONS TO THE ONE ON SLIDE 13.
BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY OWN OPTION TO THAT,
[01:15:03]
WHICH PERPETUATES THE IDEA OF ONE CITY, ONE SEAT, INSTEAD OF ONE CITY, ONE VOTE, WHICH IS A MISNOMER TO START WITH.BOARD REPRESENTATION BASED ON POPULATION SCALING MODELED FROM THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION.
THIS GIVES UP DALLAS MAJORITY CONTROL, ENSURING THAT EACH MEMBER CITY HAS AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEMBER.
IT WOULD ALSO GIVE UP DALLAS VOTING MAJORITY CONTROL.
APPROACH MORE EQUITABLY BALANCES REPRESENTATION AMONG SMALL AND MID-SIZED CITIES, SOMETHING THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FAILS TO DO.
THIS WOULD BE BASED UPON POPULATION WITH CITIES MEMBER CITIES HAVING LESS THAN 50,000, HAVING ONE SEAT, AND A QUARTER VOTE, 50,000 TO 100,000, ONE SEAT, HALF A VOTE, 100 TO 150,001 SEAT, ONE VOTE, 150 TO 250, ONE SEAT, 1.5 VOTES, 250 TO 500, TWO SEATS, TWO FULL VOTES, 500 TO 750, THREE SEATS THREE VOTES, 750 TO 1 MILLION, FOUR SEATS FOUR VOTES AND OVER 1 MILLION AND ABOVE FIVE SEATS, TEN VOTES.
THESE RESULTS IN A TOTAL WEIGHT OF 20 SEATS, CONSTITUTING AN EVEN 100% OF THE VOTE, NOT EXCEEDING 100%, AND IT PROVIDES A FAIR PROPORTIONMENT OF THE VOTE BASED UPON POPULATION RANGES.
THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT IS CONTAINED IN OUR PRESENTATION AT SLIDE 13 THAT I THINK IS INDICATIVE OF DALLAS' WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE AND CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE.
I WOULD INVITE THE COMMITTEE'S COMMENTS ON IT. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELS.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY THOUGHTFUL SOLUTION.
I WOULD AGREE, AS I HAVE HEARD, VARIOUS CITIES SPEAK THAT IT SEEMS WRONG THAT THEY ARE SENDING TAX DOLLARS AND THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE. I AGREE.
I WOULD BE PRETTY UNHAPPY ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
I THINK YOU ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE DALLAS, AT THIS POINT, 50%.
I DO THINK ADDITIONAL THINGS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN HERE.
FOR INSTANCE, HOW FREQUENTLY THIS WOULD BE UPDATED.
WOULD IF THERE'S TWO DALLAS REPRESENTATIVES OR IN THIS CASE 5, IF ONLY ONE WAS THERE, ARE THEY ABLE TO EXECUTE ALL OF THE DALLAS VOTES? DO THEY CONTROL ALL OR DO THEY JUST RETAIN THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL? SOME SPECIFICATION ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I THINK YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB COMING UP WITH AN EXTREMELY RATIONAL SOLUTION.
I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN MORE THAN ONE OPTION PRESENTED ORIGINALLY. THANK YOU.
>> YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THE GRAPH, IT WAS THIS WAS AN EXAMPLE.
I GUESS WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT, WHO'S NEGOTIATING? IS IT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU IDEAS AND THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO FORTH AND OR IS IT GIVING YOU THE HEY, KEEP TALKING AMONGST THIS AND WORKING WITH US.
I'M CONFUSED ON WHAT ARE YOU NEEDING FROM US?
AS I MENTIONED IN MY REMARKS, THE MODEL THAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF YOU WAS ESSENTIALLY THE WORKING MODEL.
IT WAS WHERE THE CONVERSATION WAS PAUSED BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THAT A LOWER PERCENTAGE FOR DALLAS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY MANAGER COULD VOTE ON OR COULD TAKE A POSITION ON WITHOUT GETTING THE FEEDBACK OF THIS BODY.
>> WHAT YOU WANTED THE FEEDBACK.
IT'S JUST TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT.
I'M SURE THOUGH THAT WHEN SOME PEOPLE GO WHEN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR WORKING GROUP, SOME EYES MAY FALL OUT.
I DON'T KNOW. BUT SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THIS DO TO NEGOTIATIONS?
>> WELL, I THINK IT SHARES THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF DALLAS IN THAT NEGOTIATION.
THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND SEE IF THESE ADJUSTMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE WORKING GROUP.
[01:20:02]
THEN WILL BE CARRIED FORWARD BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] IF THERE ARE PERHAPS SOME OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON HOW OTHERS.>> WE COULD JUST SAY, WE WANT YOU TO KEEP NEGOTIATING WITH THESE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, AND HERE'S TWO THINGS TO START WITH.
HERE'S ONE THAT WAS THIS ONE AND THIS ONE CAME BACK FROM COUNSEL.
THAT WAY, WHAT WE CAN DO IS ESSENTIALLY KEEP THESE CONVERSATIONS GOING VERSUS SAYING THIS IS THE ONE WE TAKE ALL OR NOTHING.
>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT AND I'M HOPING THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING AS A BODY IS THAT LET'S TAKE IT ALL, AND WE CAN GIVE IT TO YOU, AND I THINK MORE IS ALWAYS BETTER AT THIS POINT.
BUT THE FOCUS HERE IS THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP DISCUSSING AND NEGOTIATING AND YOU COULD BRING IT BACK TO US AS NEEDED.
BUT THANK YOU FOR DOING THE WORK.
I THINK IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
IT GOT US TO 100, WHICH THE 4% WAS MAKING ME NERVOUS.
BUT AGAIN, SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO START AGAIN KEEPING THE CONVERSATION GOING AND NEGOTIATING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON YOUR PROACTIVENESS IN GETTING THIS REVIEWED AND MAKING THIS PRESENTATION.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT MY PARTICULAR INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FRONT AND CENTER THAT WE HAVE THAT WE RETAIN A 50% MINIMUM VOTE.
I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT POPULATION RATHER THAN FUTURE TRENDS IN ESTABLISHING THAT.
I THINK THE COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE REEVALUATION DATES, THE SUPERMAJORITY ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ARE THOSE SUPERMAJORITY CRITERIA AND THE BIG BUCKETS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ON SUPERMAJORITY ISSUES.
>> WE CAN PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. WE DO HAVE THAT LIST.
WHAT IS THAT? WE CAN PROVIDE THAT FULL LIST TO YOU.
WE DO HAVE THAT. WHAT IS BASICALLY BUDGET ITEMS, IS A BIG ROUTE DECISION.
>> YES. BUDGET ITEMS SERVICE PLAN ARE MAJOR ONES, BUT THEN THERE'S SEVERAL OTHERS AS WELL.
>> THE OTHER THING IS, I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE GOVERNANCE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THE SERVICE AND THE INFORMATION THAT I'M GETTING FROM MY CONSTITUENTS FROM ANECDOTAL INFORMATION THAT I'M GETTING IN MY OWN RIDERSHIP OF SOME OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS IN DART, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE QUALITY AND THE CLEANLINESS AND THE SECURITY THAT I'M FINDING IN PARTICULAR ONE OFF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY A BIG PART OF THIS, AND I THINK THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO DEMAND THAT THE ART REALLY DOES UP THEIR GAME, AND THAT WE PROVIDE THE PROPER SERVICE, THAT WE COMMUNICATE TO THE POPULATION THAT THIS IS A REAL RESOURCE, THIS IS A VITAL RESOURCE, AND IT'S A RESOURCE THAT WE SHOULD ENDORSE AND BRAND AND REALLY PROMOTE AS BEING THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY.
I THINK WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES CONCERNS ABOUT THE SPENDING, THE BUDGETING, THE USE OF FUNDS, I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
I REALLY WANT TO DRILL DOWN FROM OUR POSITION ON THIS DART BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR MONIES ARE BEING SPENT PROPERLY.
I THINK THAT THE GOVERNANCE IS IMPORTANT IN BEING ABLE TO NOT MANAGE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS OCCUR IN A RELEVANT PROPER MANNER.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL, AND THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IN OUR COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUENT CITIES THAT ARE AROUND US, FEEL COMFORTABLE IN PARTICIPATING.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE IN THIS THING.
I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE A ROBUST SYSTEM THAT SERVICES DALLAS.
IF DALLAS HAS BENEFITED BY THIS, THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO BE BENEFITED BY IT ALSO.
I THINK IT'S A WIN IF WE ALL GET ON THE RIGHT.
TABLE HERE, AND WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE FUNDING AND THE SERVICE PART OF THIS AS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR ROFF.
[01:25:01]
ANYONE ELSE? YES, COUNCILWOMAN CADE.>> I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
THE TABLE THAT'S IN HERE IS WHAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS BEEN WORKING ON AND HAS PROPOSED.
THEN, MR. RIDLEY, HAS THIS BEEN SHOWN TO THE DART BOARD OR TO ANYBODY ELSE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION? ALSO, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS NEW CITIES. I DON'T THINK.
>> NEITHER DOES THE SLIDE 13 THAT'S IN OUR PACKET? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE OPEN TO NEW MEMBERS TO ADD A REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES DEPENDING UPON THEIR POPULATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BOARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION IF THE BOARD DOES INCREASE IN SIZE TO ADOPTION OF AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO MANAGE THE PROCESS SUFFICIENTLY.
>> YES. IT DOES SAY A NEW MEMBER CITIES ARE ON IT'S BULLET 0.2.
THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, HAS THE BOARD BEEN ABLE TO SEE OR DART BEEN ABLE TO SEE THIS PROPOSAL?
>> IT HAS NOT BEEN CIRCULATED BEYOND THIS COMMITTEE.
I WANTED TO PRESENT IT TO THE COMMITTEE FIRST TO GET YOUR REACTIONS TO IT.
AT WHICH POINT, IT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH STAFF, AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE WITH THE DART BOARD, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT THE DECIDING PARTY ON GOVERNANCE.
IT'S THE CONSTITUENT CITIES THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS WORKING GROUP WHO REALLY NEED TO SOLVE THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE HERE BETWEEN THE WORKING GROUP PROPOSAL AND THE ONE THAT YOU RECOMMENDED, HANG ON.
>> I WONDER IF THERE COULD BE SOME GUIDANCE GIVEN ABOUT WHAT THE PRIORITY TOPICS ARE.
FOR ME, THE PRIORITY IS THAT WE RETAIN THE MAJORITY CONTROL, BUT I AM OPEN TO EVERYONE HAVING A SEAT.
THE PLAN FROM THE WORK GROUP DOES NOT.
PERHAPS IF, I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY ELSE FEELS ABOUT IT, BUT IF THERE WAS A MAJORITY OPINION OF THAT, THEN THEY COULD TAKE THAT BACK TO DISCUSS.
OR IF IT'S, WOW, WE LOVE WHAT THE WORK GROUP DID, THEN THEY CAN GO PURSUE THAT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO INFLUENCE WHAT THE OPINION IS.
I JUST THINK PERHAPS WE CAN GIVE GUIDANCE IF THERE IS SOME COALESCING AROUND AN IDEA.
>> A GOOD THOUGHT. THIS ITEM WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA AS A BRIEFING ITEM, NOT ONE FOR ACTION.
>> I BELIEVE IT SAYS ACTION ITEMS, BRIEFING/ACTION ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
>> BUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM.
>> LET'S LIST IT UNDERNEATH IT.
CAN WE GET A RULING FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
>> WELL, I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AS A BRIEFING ITEM.
I INSTRUCTED STAFF THAT IT WAS A BRIEFING ITEM, NOT AN AGENDA ITEM.
BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE INVOLVING MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET A BRIEFING ON IT FOR US TO CONSIDER AT LENGTH WITHOUT HAVING THE PRESSURE OF TAKING A VOTE ON IT.
>> I GET THAT, BUT GIVEN THE TIMELINE AND THE REMOVAL OF ELECTIONS.
I THINK OUR CITY MANAGER AND STAFF NEEDS GUIDANCE, SO I WOULD LIKE VIA CITY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM, TO PLEASE DEFINE WHAT IS THE COURSE OF ACTION GOING FORWARD.
>> I'M STILL ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> YEAH. IT'S BECOME THE CUSTOM FOR THESE TYPES OF BRIEFING ITEMS, REALLY ANY FOR THEM TO BE LISTED AS BRIEFING/ACTION ITEMS TO ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO TAKE ACTION IF THEY WANT TO, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO TAKE ACTION.
>> WELL, THE CITY MANAGER WHO I ORGANIZED THE AGENDAS WITH WAS UNDER INSTRUCTIONS THAT THIS WAS TO BE A BRIEFING ITEM ONLY.
CERTAINLY, WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO DO, BUT IT IS NOT POSTED FOR A VOTE AS AN AGENDA ITEM.
[01:30:04]
>> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND YOU'RE THE CHAIR, AND YOU MAKE THE DECISIONS AS TO WHAT GOES ON TO THE AGENDA.
I ALSO HEAR MS. BLACKMAN, WHEN SHE SAYS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS OR WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMELINE IS.
SO CAN YOU SHARE WITH US IF WE ARE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TODAY TO GO FORWARD, TO CHANGE SOMETHING, TO SIT STILL.
HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE TIMELINES FOR DART OR ANYBODY ELSE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD? IS DART LOOKING FOR A TIMELINE OR WHAT?
>> CHAIR, IF I MIGHT JUST AGAIN, REMIND THE GROUP THAT WHAT WE REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR FROM THIS GROUP IS A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CITY MANAGER WORKING GROUP, AND DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE IS WHAT WE NEED FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IN ORDER TO KEEP THE DISCUSSIONS GOING?
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT TODAY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THIS BODY TO SAY, GO FORWARD WITH WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED WITH LOOKING AT IT THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS, I.E.
THE OPTION FOR 50%, OPPOSED TO A 40%, AS AN OPTION FOR THIS OPPOSED TO THAT, OR ARE YOU JUST LOOKING TO SAY, IT'S JUST THIS OR NOTHING?
>> I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THIS BODY SO FAR IS 40% WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A FLOOR.
OUR DESIRE IS TO BE 50% AND IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THIS BODY, THEN THAT ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE FORWARD.
>> IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WORKABLE WITH THIS BODY? I'M ASKING THE CHAIR.
>> WELL, I'LL ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IS THERE A CONSENSUS ABOUT THE PROPOSED GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES AS TO WHETHER YOU FAVOR NO CHANGE, WHETHER YOU FAVOR THE PROPOSAL FROM THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH I'LL STRESS IS JUST A PROPOSAL NOW.
IT IS NOT BINDING ON US OR THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE THAT I PRESENTED.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY YES. THIS IS HOW I'M GOING TO SAY YES.
REALLY, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS IF WE CAN, MR. CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THOSE THREE GOVERNANCE FUNDING AND SERVICE ON TOP OF UNDER THAT GOVERNANCE PIECE DOING A RANGE, GIVING IN THE LEEWAY PARAMETERS TO GO BACK WITH A RANGE OF ANYWHERE BETWEEN 45-50%.
THAT WAY, THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GO BACK AND KEEP THIS MOVING, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DELAY IT.
THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, I'M MAKING A MOTION.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF THAT WAS A MOTION?
>> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION IS?
>> YES. COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT, COUNCILMAN GRACEY?
>> YEAH. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M MAKING A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE THREE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE, FUNDING, AND SERVICE.
ADDITIONALLY, UNDER THE GOVERNANCE PIECE, A RANGE OF WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? A VOTED WEIGHT BETWEEN 40 AND 50%, GIVEN WHAT WAS PRESENTED AND WHAT YOU PRESENT.
THAT GIVES THEM THE ROOM TO NEGOTIATE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.
>> WELL, YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, 45-50%.
ARE YOU NOW CHANGING YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION?
>> JUST BECAUSE 45 WAS NEVER INTRODUCED.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP WHAT WAS INTRODUCED VERSUS WHAT YOU PROPOSED, AND THAT'LL GIVE US THE FULL WINDOW.
>> BUT IF I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO GO TO 45, I DON'T KNOW IF I DO OR NOT, BUT.
>> OKAY. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECOND.
>> BECAUSE ALSO I THOUGHT THERE WAS TWO OTHER ONES, KNOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS REPRESENTATION, AND THEN THE WEIGHTED ONE IS DIP, SO REPRESENTATION, A WEIGHTED VOTE,
[01:35:02]
A RANGE AND NO CITY HAS THE SUPER MAJORITY OR HALF A MAJORITY.I THINK THOSE WERE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, AND I DO THINK YOUR PROPOSAL CAN GET THERE IS A NEXT ITERATION, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY NEEDED FOR OUR CITY MANAGER TO GO BACK.
I WANTED TO ADD THOSE TWO THINGS INTO IT.
>> I JUST NEEDED A CLARIFICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOLKS IN THE WORKING GROUP HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO BE CREATIVE TO USE THIS AS GUIDANCE AS OPPOSED TO A HARD AND FAST GUARD RAILS.
BECAUSE I THINK THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS, WE DO HAVE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP.
I DO WANT THEM THAT FLEXIBILITY, BUT I DO WANT A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US AND THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTED AS A CITY AND THAT WE'RE INVOLVED VERY HEAVILY IN ALL THREE OF THE DECISION MAKING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THROUGH THESE PILLARS.
I'M ALSO QUESTIONING AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP ON THIS? WILL THE WORKING GROUP BE PRESENTING BACK TO US A PROPOSAL OR A SUMMARY OR AN INTERIM IF THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON?
>> POINT OF ORDER. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE SOMETHING, IS THIS A FINAL SITUATION? ARE WE GOING TO BE RECEIVING SOME FURTHER FEEDBACK AS A RESULT OF THE WORKING GROUPS, DISCUSSION?
>> WELL, I WILL REQUEST STAFF TO KEEP THIS COMMITTEE INFORMED, EITHER AT SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS OR VIA MEMO AS TO THE PROGRESS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. MS. MENDELSOHN.
>> THANK YOU. WELL, NUMBER 1, I CAN'T SUPPORT A MOTION THAT DOESN'T CLARIFY THAT WE WILL NOT GIVE UP THE MAJORITY.
IT IS INSANE TO THINK THAT A CITY THAT IS PROVIDING HALF THE FUNDING, HALF THE SERVICE AREA, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE RIDERSHIP WOULD GIVE UP THAT MAJORITY.
NOW, TO ALLOW OTHER CITIES TO HAVE A SEAT, I AGREE. I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
THE OTHER THING WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IS THE CHAIRMANSHIP.
IN THE BRIEFING, IT TALKS ABOUT ROTATING THE CHAIRMANSHIP AMONGST ALL THE MEMBERS WITH NO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT PAGE WAS ON.
RIGHT NOW, WE ALTERNATE CHAIRMANSHIPS, EVERY OTHER YEAR, EVERY OTHER TERM.
AGAIN, I'M UNWILLING TO GIVE THAT UP.
WE WOULD SET THE AGENDA, WE WOULD RUN THE MEETING, AND TO ALLOW A TINY LITTLE CITY THAT GIVES VERY LITTLE MONEY, HAS VERY LITTLE RIDERSHIP, VERY LITTLE PART OF THE SERVICE TO THEN BE THE LEADER OF THAT, AGAIN, IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY POOR GOVERNANCE.
SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT AS WELL.
THEN THE LAST COMMENT I'M GOING TO SAY IS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO JUST DELEGATE THIS TO A CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND INFORM US? DO WE NOT HAVE TO RATIFY THIS? WE DO?
>> BUT IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, WE'VE ALL AGREED ON SOMETHING AND ALL THE OTHER CITIES ARE GOING TO RATIFY IT.
NOW, SORRY, DALLAS, YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.
IT'S GOING TO BE A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
I'M JUST SAYING, I'M LEAVING IT UNLESS WE ARE THE MAJORITY.
THAT IS, AGAIN, JUST POOR GOVERNANCE TO GIVE UP THAT ABILITY.
THERE'S A REASON THAT DART STARTS WITH A D. THANK YOU.
>> WELL, I'LL JUST ADD MY COMMENT.
I CAN'T SUPPORT GIVING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A 40% REPRESENTATION OF DALLAS.
I THINK IF WE IDENTIFIED THE PROPOSAL THAT I MADE WITH A 50% PORTION FOR DALLAS OF THE VOTING POWER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PROVIDE TO THE CITY MANAGER AS AT LEAST A GOAL TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE.
BUT 40% UNDERCUTS OUR OWN EFFORTS, AND THAT ALLOWS HER AUTHORITY TO SAY, WELL, YOU APPROVED 40%, SO THAT'S WHAT I AGREE TO.
I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS MOTION, UNFORTUNATELY.
SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
[01:40:02]
WELL, THE MOTION PASSES BY A SLIM MARGIN OF FOUR TO THREE.
>> I SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THAT.
OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM B, THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER, TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION PLAN.
>> WELCOME, ROSA FLEMING, DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION AND EVENTS SERVICES AND DR. GHASSAN KHANKARLI, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
WE ARE HERE TODAY BRIEFING ON THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON CONVENTION CENTER DALLAS MASTER PLAN, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION PLAN PORTION OF IT AT THE SUGGESTION OF CHAIR RIDLEY AND VICE CHAIR ROSS.
ON THIS PAGE, THERE ARE SEVERAL OVERLAPPING ACTIVITIES AND CONSTRUCTION TASKS THROUGH FIFA, TXDOT, AND THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON CONVENTION CENTER DALLAS MASTER PLAN THAT INTERSECT AND THAT REQUIRE CONTINUED MEETINGS TO ENSURE COHESIVE, AND CONTINUITY IN TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONTINUING OPERATIONS BECAUSE THEY INTERSECT AND OVERLAP EACH OTHER.
WE'VE OUTLINED SOME OF THESE HERE ON THIS PAGE.
I WILL NOT READ THEM ALL, BUT WE'LL DO AN OVERVIEW FOR YOU.
WE BEGAN PRE-ENABLING WORKS WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER IN 2025.
WE'VE STARTED DEMOLITION IN PART ALONG THE AREA THAT ABUTS THE DART TRAIN AS YOU CAN SEE AND HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED.
THE DART (ILA) WAS SIGNED OR INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED AND WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN CLOSING THE STATION ON JANUARY 5.
YOU'LL SEE JERSEY BARRIERS, FENCING, AND OTHER THINGS BEING ERECTED AROUND THERE SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE WORK TO BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COCOON THAT WILL START THE DEMOLITION ABOVE IT SOON.
THERE IS A TEMPORARY BUS STATION THAT WILL BE OPERATING ALONG MARILLA STREET NEAR AKARD TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE MAINTAINING TRAFFIC SERVICE AS WE BRIEFED YOU PREVIOUSLY.
FIFA HAS MOVED INTO THE BUILDING.
THEIR PERIOD OF OCCUPANCY IS JANUARY 14 THROUGH AUGUST 24, 2026 AND THERE WILL BE A CONSTRUCTION LOW IN TERMS OF A QUIET PERIOD WHERE WE'RE REQUIRED TO NOT EXCEED CERTAIN DECIBELS BETWEEN MAY 7 AND JULY 19, 2026.
WITH ALL THAT IN MIND, WE WANTED TO REMIND YOU ALL ON SLIDE 4 THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED THE BUILDING IN A WAY WHERE WE'RE NOT INTERSECTING WITH ANY OF THE HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CHAIR RIDLEY AND VICE CHAIR ROSS ASKED THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE STATED AT THIS PRESENTATION.
THIS SLIDE GIVES YOU AN OVER VIEW OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN.
TO BE REMINDED AND WE'LL DO A LARGER BRIEFING TOMORROW THAT GOES MORE IN DEPTH, THIS IS ABOUT 750,000 SQUARE FEET OF EXHIBIT SPACE IN THE NEW DESIGN, 180,000 OF MEETING SPACE, AND ABOUT 105,000 OF BALLROOM SPACE.
IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, THE MASS DEMOLITION OF HALLS D, E, F, THE VERTIPORT, AND THE TXCN BUILDING IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN FEBRUARY.
[01:45:02]
THOSE AREAS IN THIS ILLUSTRATION ARE OUTLINED IN RED AND SHADED IN PINK.THERE'S EXTENSIVE COORDINATION THAT GOES ON THROUGH WEEKLY MEETINGS AND QUARTERLY MEETINGS WITH DART, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, THE FAA, AND WITH TXDOT.
LATER ON, HALL A DEMOLITION IS PLANNED FOR 2026 AFTER FIFA'S TENANCY IS OVER AND THERE'S ONGOING OPERATIONS.
HALLS B AND C AS WE'LL TALK ABOUT TOMORROW WILL CONTINUE TO HOST EVENTS THROUGH 2028. NEXT SLIDE.
NOW THIS SLIDE ADMITTEDLY IS BUSY.
WHAT WE DID WAS PROVIDE AN ALL ENCOMPASSING LOOK AT ROAD CLOSURES SHARED BY TXDOT, BY FIFA, AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WE'VE STARTED IN PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-ENABLING WORKS, AND ALONG WITH DART AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
THE CLOSURES ARE BROKEN DOWN ON THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES, SO YOU CAN MORE EASILY AND THE PUBLIC CAN MORE CLEARLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CLOSURES.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR KHANKARLI SO HE CAN WALK THROUGH THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.
>> THANK YOU, ROSA. GHASSAN KHANKARLI, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS.
AS ROSA MENTIONED, THE NEXT SLIDES, BASICALLY HIGHLIGHTS THE CHANGES OR THE CLOSURES IN A TIMELINE.
THE FIRST ONE ON PAGE 7 IS THE CLOSURES OF BASICALLY AND FIFA TRAFFIC PATH FROM JANUARY TO APRIL 2026.
SOME OF THESE CLOSURES OBVIOUSLY HAPPENED THIS LAST WEEKEND FOR TXDOT WHEN THEY CLOSED THE FREEWAY, AND THEY REMOVED THE CADIZ BRIDGE, AS WELL AS THE CESAR CHAVEZ BRIDGE.
BUT WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS FROM JANUARY TO APRIL 2026, THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT WILL BE PART OF THE REMOVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE DEMOLITION FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER.
MEMORIAL STREET WILL ALSO BE BETWEEN HOTEL AND LAMAR WILL BE ALSO CLOSED.
IS THE LAMAR PORTION THAT IS BASICALLY UNDER THE BUILDINGS.
THE OTHER BRIDGES THAT WILL BE REMOVED, THE AKARD BRIDGE IS THIS.
AGAIN, WAS SLATED TO BE REMOVED LAST WEEKEND, BUT TXDOT PROBABLY WILL DO IT ON THE NEXT PHASE WHEN THEY CONTINUED THE REMOVAL OF THE BRIDGES.
THE CADIZ BRIDGE, THEY REMOVED THE DECK AND WE STILL HAVE THE SUBSTRUCTURE STILL UP.
THE GRIFFIN BRIDGE WILL BE BASICALLY SPLIT INTO TWO HALVES AS THEY WORK ON THAT IN ADDITION, AND THEN HOTEL STREET WILL BE CLOSED.
CERTAINLY, THE DART STATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.
NOW ALL THE MOVEMENT UNDER THE CONVENTION CENTER IS THROUGH MOVEMENT.
NUMBER 8 SHOWS BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS MAY TO AUGUST.
THIS IS WHERE WE'VE GOT THE FIFA ACTIVITIES IN PLACE.
THE BRIDGES AGAIN, THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED BASICALLY WILL REMAIN CLOSED THROUGH 2029, SO THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS.
HOWEVER, THE ONE CHANGE AT THE MOMENT IS THE FACT THAT THE LAMAR BRIDGE WHILE IT WILL BE CLOSED, BUT THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST UNTIL EITHER WE'RE INTO FIFA OR IS DONE.
THAT IS STILL PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
BY DOING SO, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE MARSHALING AND THE ACCESSIBILITY, MARSHALING OF TRUCKS THAT SERVE FIFA, FIFA'S IBC, AS WELL AS THE FIFA TECHNICAL YARD THAT IS AT GRIFFIN AND CANTON.
NUMBER 9 SHOWS THE POST FIFA OR AUGUST 2026 TO Q2 2027.
AGAIN, WE STILL HAVE THE SAME CLOSURES WHILE THE BUILDING IS PROGRESSING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON.
ROSA, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ON THE NEXT STEPS WE'LL CONTINUE BOTH CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES, AND TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS TO COORDINATE WITH TXDOT, DART, AND OUR OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON EACH OF THESE SLIDES, WE WERE CAREFUL TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS CLOSURE INFORMATION THAT'S CURRENT AS OF THE DAY THAT WE POSTED THE BRIEFING AS IS INEVITABLE WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THERE COULD BE CHANGES TO THOSE.
WE HAVE A PRETTY ROBUST COORDINATION PLAN FOR ENSURING THAT THE PUBLIC,
[01:50:02]
CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY LEADERSHIP ARE NOTIFIED OF THOSE CHANGES.CURRENTLY, THAT COORDINATION INCLUDES WEBSITE SHARING.
THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON CONVENTION CENTER MASTER PLAN CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ARE LOCATED AT DALLASCCMASTERPLAN.COM.
THAT THEN TAKES ON TXDOTS INFORMATION.
AS THEY ANNOUNCE THEIR CLOSURES, WE ARE SHOWING THOSE THAT ARE ON DRIVETEXAS.ORG.
THEN THE CITIES 311, CCX ARE WORKING WITH US ON PRESS RELEASES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS INFORMED OF CLOSURES PRIOR TO THEM HAPPENING.
LASTLY, TOMORROW WE WILL BE BRIEFING COUNCIL.
WE'LL HAVE A MORE ROBUST INFORMATION ABOUT THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON CONVENTION CENTER MASTER PLAN WITH A FOCUS ON COMPONENT 1, WHICH IS THE CONVENTION CENTER MASTER PLAN AND THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION COMPONENT.
WITH THAT, WE ARE OPEN FOR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, ROSA AND GUS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
WE'RE BACK ON RECORD WITH THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE AT 3:01 P.M.
I'M OPENING IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER TRANSPORTATION PLANS. YES. [INAUDIBLE]
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION IS, ARE YOU ALL ANTICIPATING ANY ISSUES WITH PROGRESSING WITH THESE TIMELINES ON CLOSURES AND STUFF? IS EVERYTHING GOING ON SCHEDULE? ARE YOU ANTICIPATING SOME DELAYS OR SOME CHANGES THAT WOULD IMPACT SOME OF YOUR DEADLINES?
>> NO EVERYTHING IS GOING AS PLANNED CURRENTLY, BUT WE DID CAVE OUT AT THE BOTTOM BECAUSE IT IS A MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AND SO THERE CAN ALWAYS BE A CHANGE.
AS OF TODAY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THESE TIMELINES.
>> I UNDERSTAND CONSTRUCTIONS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
WE'LL HAVE CHANGES THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR TIMELINE AND WITH THIS IS RUNNING REAL CLOSE TO FIFA.
HOW WILL WE MANAGE OR IS THERE A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR TRAFFIC AROUND THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON CENTER IF SOMETHING SLIPS?
>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IN NEGOTIATING WITH FIFA AND I'LL PINE A BIT, AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO GUS TO TO ADD SOME COLOR TO IT.
BUT WE HAVE A SECURITY PERIMETER THAT WE'LL BRIEF A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TOMORROW THAT GOES AROUND THE CENTER.
THAT PREVENTS INTERRUPTION ON ANY OF THE IN AND OUT TRAFFIC FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BROADCAST CENTER.
>> THANK YOU. LOOKING AT SLIDE 4, I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHEN I TURN THAT PAGE I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO SEE THE DEMARCATION OF A HIGH SPEED RAIL EASTERN ALIGNMENT WHEN WE HAVE A RESOLUTION SAYING NO HIGH SPEED RAIL EASTERN ALIGNMENT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE IT ON THE MAP?
>> YES. WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT WE HAD PLANNED FOR BOTH AND WE CAN REMOVE THAT IN ANY FUTURE PRESENTATIONS.
WE ARE AWARE THAT YOU HAVE SAID NO TO EASTERN ALIGNMENT, AND SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT.
BUT I BELIEVE THE DIRECTION WAS TO SHOW THAT WE HAD PLANNED FOR BOTH, AND SO WE WERE SIMPLY FOLLOWING DIRECTION.
>> WELL, I SURE WOULD LIKE YOU TO HAVE NOTED THAT THIS IS NO LONGER AN OPTION PER RESOLUTION.
>> ABSOLUTELY, AND THAT'S MY OVERSIGHT.
I'LL MAKE SURE WE'LL DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.
>> THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WESTERN ALIGNMENT WHICH HAS A PROBLEM BASED ON THE ITEM WE HAVE SENT FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL.
>> YES, MA'AM. I WAS IN DEBRIEFING THE DAY THAT DIRECTOR KEN CARLEY DELIVERED IT.
WE ARE SIMPLY FOLLOWING WHATEVER DIRECTIVE IT IS THAT COUNSEL PROVIDES TO US AND WE'LL PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
>> WELL I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A NICE OR POPULAR THING TO SAY.
BUT WHEN THE HIGH SPEED RAIL STATION IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SAME ONE WHO'S UNDER CONTROL OF THE CONVENTION CENTER, THAT CONFLICT BECOMES SO APPARENT.
WHEN I SAW THAT, THAT'S THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT OF IS,
[01:55:01]
MAN, THEY WILL NOT GIVE IT UP.I THINK IT IS HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC.
I THINK IT'S EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO BE THE PROJECT MANAGER.
IT'S THAT INFLUENCE THAT LEADS TO HAVE AN ALIGNMENT THAT UNANIMOUSLY THIS COUNCIL SAID, WELL THE PRIOR COUNCIL SAID NO.
I'LL SAY I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON SLIDE 7.
MY NEIGHBOR HERE TOLD ME HE HAS THE SAME QUESTIONS, SO I'M GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ASK THEM. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS? QUESTIONS?
>> I'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A MOMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE ALL TAKEN CARE OF FIRST.
YES, GO AHEAD COUNCILMAN JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE SLIDE AND I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE I'M LITTLE CONFUSED.
WHAT STREETS, BRIDGES ALLOW SOUTHERN DALLAS TO ACCESS DOWNTOWN DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION? WHEN I'M LOOKING HERE I DON'T SEE THAT.
THE QUESTION IS DURING CONSTRUCTION OR WHAT NOW?
>> WHAT STREET BRIDGES ALLOW SOUTHERN DALLAS TO ACCESS DOWNTOWN DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION?
>> DEFINITELY I WOULD SAY, CURRENTLY IT'S JEFFERSON THAT TAKES YOU INTO DOWNTOWN.
DURING CONSTRUCTION WHEN JEFFERSON IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, THE CURRENT PLAN IS TO TEMPORARILY CONVERT HOUSTON INTO A TWO WAY OPERATION TO MAINTAIN THAT CONNECTIVITY.
>> BUT WON'T JEFFERSON BE CLOSED?
>> HOW CAN THEY ACCESS TO JEFFERSON IF IT WILL BE CLOSED?
>> AGAIN, THERE WILL BE A DIVERSION JUST ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE BRIDGE AT THE MOMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL TO PUT THE TRAFFIC ON HOUSTON DURING THE CONSTRUCTION.
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR MY COMMUNITY.
HOUSTON IS TWO WAY LANE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR MY COMMUNITY.
AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS, THAT MEANS THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WHEN I HAVE ACCESS.
THAT'S A PROBLEM. HOW CAN WE FIX IT?
>> CURRENTLY WE'RE STILL, AT LEAST IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DESIGNERS OF THE CONVENTION CENTER TO IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND BASICALLY WHAT THE LONG TERM ALIGNMENT OF THE JEFFERSON BRIDGE IS GOING TO BE WHILE WE DECIDE OR WE MAKE A DECISION BASICALLY ON HOW THE ALIGNMENT IS GOING TO WORK AND WHAT THAT ALIGNMENT LOOKS LIKE.
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY ONE LANE EACH WAY?
>> AT THE MOMENT, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION.
>> THIS IS A HUGE CONCERN, AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS BEING WELL THOUGHT OUT.
>> IF I COULD ADD A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR TO THAT.
FROM JUNE THROUGH NOVEMBER, WE HAD SEVERAL WHAT ARE CALLED POP UPS AND WORKSHOPS AND FOCUS GROUPS TO TALK ABOUT MOBILITY.
WE'VE NOT BROUGHT FORWARD ANY DECISION.
WE WOULD NOT MAKE A POLICY DECISION THAT THIS BODY SHOULD BE MAKING.
WHAT WE HAVE ARE EIGHT SCENARIOS WITH TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WE'LL BRING FORWARD.
I THINK THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO BRIEF THIS COMMITTEE SOON.
WE WILL BE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST IS WHAT'S BEST SOLUTION FOR USERS.
THEN COST TIME AND THEN THE LAST IS INTERACTION WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD BECAUSE THAT CAN CAUSE A DELAY IN A PROJECT, AS WE BRIEFED BEFORE.
WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO INTERRUPTION TO RIDE SHARE, TO BUSES, TO CARS, TO BIKES, AND CERTAINLY TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC OR ANY INTERRUPTION TO THE STREET CAR.
BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED BECAUSE THAT'S A DECISION THAT WE BRING HERE.
WE WILL BRING THOSE VERY SOON.
>> THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. THIS IS NOT A DECISION.
THIS IS JUST A PRESENTATION OF UNDECIDED THOUGHT?
>> NO, SIR. ON THE TERMS OF THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT IF YOU'LL.
>> LET ME MENTION ONE THING IS THAT THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT IS ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
[02:00:03]
BECAUSE IT IS ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, STAFF CANNOT MAKE A DECISION ON IT.IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN COMMITTEE, HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CPC, AND THEN IT WILL BE A DECISION BY THIS BODY WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH WHATEVER THE CONVENTION CENTER STAFF OR DESIGNERS ARE PLANNING TO PUT FORWARD.
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A FORMAL REQUEST YET FOR A THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT, AND THEREFORE, ALL THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE AT THE MOMENT IS THEY'RE STILL LOOKING AT IT AND SEE WHAT IS NEXT.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, THAT'S THE ONLY OUTSTANDING QUESTION ON THIS.
IF THE TECH START CLOSURES, THOSE ARE ALL DECIDED.
THAT WAS A STATE DECISION AS THEY PHASED THEIR PROJECT, THE MEMORIAL, THE LAMAR STREET, THOSE WERE BRIEFED AS CLOSURES THAT WOULD HAPPEN AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
THE FIFA TRUCK PATH AND THE FIFA TECHNICAL YARD WERE ALL BRIEFED TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES SO THAT YOU ALL WOULD KNOW WHAT THOSE CLOSURES WOULD BE.
WE BROUGHT THE SECURITY PERIMETER IN BRIEF BECAUSE WE CAN'T BRING YOU THE ENTIRE SAFETY PLAN FOR A VENUE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF EVENT IN IT, BUT WE DID BRING YOU THAT.
THE ITEM THAT WE OWE THIS COMMITTEE IS THE LONG TERM QUESTION ABOUT HOW JEFFERSON AND HOUSTON INTERSECT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR OAK FARMS AND THROUGH THE BIKE PLAN.
>> I WANT TO DIGRESS, BUT THIS IS A PROBLEM.
I WANT TO GO ON RECORD SAYING, THIS IS A PROBLEM AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS WELL THOUGHT OUT. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO ME BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY.
THIS FIRST PERTAINS ALSO TO HOW WILL THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT TRAFFIC BE HANDLED DURING THE THREE YEARS OF CLOSURE? YOU'VE ALREADY RESPONDED TO THAT.
SECONDLY, HE ASKED CLOSING JEFFERSON WOULD ELIMINATE THE TWO WAY BIKE LANE THAT EXISTS.
WHAT ALTERNATIVE ROUTE WILL BE CREATED TO SAFELY GET CYCLISTS BETWEEN OAKLIFF AND DOWNTOWN? WILL IT ALSO BE A PROJECTED TWO WAY BIKE LANE, WILL IT BE OPEN BEFORE THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT IS CLOSED TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSITION FOR CYCLISTS?
>> WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS ASK OUR DESIGN TEAM, PERKINS AND WILL.
THEN CARLOS AGUILAR, IF HE COULD COME DOWN.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER IS THAT WE STILL HAVE THE EIGHT SCENARIOS THAT WE NEED TO BRING TO YOU.
I THINK YOU'LL SEE AS WE WORK THROUGH THOSE AND TELL YOU THE PROS AND CONS OF EACH ONE AND WORK IN ALIGNMENT WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND WITH VIEW OF WHAT WAS DECIDED AS YOU WORK THROUGH OAK FARMS WITH THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, ETC, AS WE WORK THROUGH.
EACH OF THOSE WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND WE'LL BRING THOSE HERE TO THIS BODY TO WALK THROUGH STEP BY STEP AND TO LOOK AT WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF EACH ARE.
>> IS PERKINS AND WILL AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> HELLO. I AM CLAYTON LANE WITH NELSON\NYGAARD, A MOBILITY CONSULTING FIRM.
WE ARE PART OF PERKINS AND WILL AND PART OF THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT.
>> TOM REISENBICHLER, MANAGING PRINCIPAL FOR PERKINS AND WILL IN THE PROJECT.
>> CARLOS AGUILAR, CEO INSPIRE DALLAS.
>> MAY I ASK AGAIN, JUST WHICH QUESTION WE SHOULD FOCUS ON?
>> HOW ARE WE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE BIKE TRAFFIC THAT CURRENTLY USES JEFFERSON VIADUCT DURING THE THREE YEARS WHEN IT IS CLOSED.
>> I'D LIKE TO ASK THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR THE JEFFERSON VIADUCT IS ACTUALLY BEING DONE OUTSIDE OF OUR PROJECT BY HNTB, AND I WONDER IF GUS MIGHT BE ABLE TO INFORM THIS QUESTION.
[02:05:01]
>> THE CURRENT TEAM HAS NOT LOOKED AT THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTING FOR THE BIKE LANES.
HOWEVER, INTERNAL STAFF DISCUSSIONS, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A TEMPORARY CONNECTIVITY FOR THE CURRENT BIKE SYSTEM TO CONNECT INTO DOWNTOWN.
>> DOES THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR JEFFERSON VIADUCT INCLUDE BIKE LANES?
HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE, BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED DURING THE OAK FARM DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY WAS TO CONVERT JEFFERSON INTO TWO LANE TWO WAY, AND THEN CONVERT THE HOUSTON VIADUCT INTO A GREEN WAY SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE BICYCLISTS.
YOU HAVE A DEDICATED BRIDGE PATH, IF YOU WILL, FOR I CALL IT MULTIMODAL MOBILITY, WHICH IS BICYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, AND STREET CAR AND TRANSIT IN GENERAL?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS ROSA SAID, MULTIPLE OPTIONS HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT, ALL CONSIDERING GREENWAY AS PART OF IT.
BIKE PATH AND PEDESTRIAN ON HOUSTON, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE PATH THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED DURING THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS FOR THE OAK FARMS REALIGNMENT AND HOW THAT INCORPORATES INTO THE CONVENTION CENTER AS WELL, AND IN AND AROUND THE MULTI MODAL FACILITY THAT WE'LL HAVE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER, INCLUDING GREENWAYS THAT GO ON LAMAR AFTER THROUGH THE CONVENTION CENTER AND OUT.
ALL OF THESE ARE PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE.
>> BUT I TAKE IT THAT CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO PROPOSED PREFERRED PLAN FOR ACCOMMODATING BIKE TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION.
>> CURRENTLY, THE CURRENT PLANS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, DOES NOT.
HOWEVER, WE INTERNALLY ARE LOOKING AT IT.
ONCE WE HAVE THE CONCEPT IN, WE WILL PROVIDE IT TO ONE OF OUR CONSULTANTS THAT WE HAVE ON CONTRACT TO PERFORM THE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE THE ACCESSIBILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION.
>> IF I COULD GIVE YOU AN ORG CHART, PERKINS AND WILL IS WORKING ON THE BUILDING, AND THEY'RE WORKING ON THE ENTRANCE AND EGRESSES AROUND THE BUILDING.
WE ENGAGED JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
WE BROUGHT TO THIS BODY, AND I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE.
BUT JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WE BROUGHT HNTB AND GRESHAM SMITH ON BOARD.
PERKINS AND WILL IS DEVELOPING THE SCENARIOS, AND THEN GRESHAM, HNTB, AND TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS ARE VETTING THEM IN RELATION TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THAT WAY, WE CAN MAKE SURE BEFORE WE BRING IT TO YOU THAT WE DON'T BRING YOU FIVE OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO WORK.
IT'S A PROGRESSIVE WORK, AND WE ARE CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE OPTIONS THAT WE CAN BRING TO THIS BODY.
WE WOULD NEVER BRING JUST ONE OPTION IN SOMETHING THIS BIG THAT'S SO IMPACTFUL IN HOW WE GET IN AND OUT OF THE CITY.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE AN OPTION TO OPINE ON THAT AND BALANCE EACH OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS NEEDS AS WE LOOK AT THESE PLANS.
>> HOW SOON DO YOU ANTICIPATE BEING PREPARED TO GIVE A PRESENTATION TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS ISSUE?
>> WE COULD DO THAT IN A MONTH.
>> THEN LET'S LOOK AT PUTTING IT ON THE FEBRUARY AGENDA.
I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION WITH REGARD TO SLIDE 4.
YOU INDICATE IN PINK, THE WESTERN ALIGNMENT FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, I WOULD ADD HASTILY.
IT INTRUDES IN THAT PINK OUTLINED TRIANGLE, WHICH IS PART OF THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT LOT E?
>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THAT IS LOT E, AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED FIRE STATION LOCATION AT PRESENT.
WE'VE HAD, I BELIEVE FOUR MEETINGS WITH OUR FIRE REPRESENTATIVES,
[02:10:03]
AND WE ARE TOOLING WHERE THAT BUILDING WILL BE AND LOOKING AT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED AND REQUIRE IN THE BUILDING, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT WHAT THE RESPONSE TIME WILL BE.SO FAR, THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT, OBVIOUSLY, IS THEIR ABILITY TO RESPOND IN AND AROUND THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND INTO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> IN THE FIRE STATION PROPOSED NEEDS TO HAVE READY ACCESS TO CITY STREETS, CORRECT?
>> AND SO UNTIL THAT PLAN IS FINALIZED AND THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF THAT FACILITY IS FINALIZED, IS THERE ANY WAY TO COMMIT TO THIS PROPOSED WESTERN ALIGNMENT UNTIL THE CONVENTION CENTER IS COMPLETELY DESIGNED, OR ARE YOU OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING THE ALIGNMENT GO THROUGH LOT E IS NOT A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AT ALL.
>> TOM REISENBICHLER WITH PERKINS AND WILL.
THE WESTERN ALIGNMENT, RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY INFLUENCE THAT WOULD HAVE IN THE LOT E IS OVER THE MARSHALING YARD FOR THE TRUCKS THAT WERE COMING TO THE CONVENTION CENTER, AND THE IMPACT WOULD BE RESTRIPING THAT STAGING LOT RIGHT THERE.
IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE FIRE STATION OR THE MOBILITY FROM THE FIRE STATION TO EMERGENCY CALLS.
>> WHAT IS THE FUTURE PLAN FOR LOT E ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED?
>> THE FUTURE PLAN FOR THE HIGH SPEED RAIL?
>> I'M SORRY. I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION.
>> LOT E WILL INCLUDE A MARSHALING YARD.
IT WILL INCLUDE SOME SWELL THAT'LL BE AROUND IT, AND SWELL TO INCORPORATE SOME OF OUR SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES.
IT'LL INCLUDE OUR ENERGY COMPONENT, THAT THINGS THAT POWER THE BUILDING AND SOME OF THE ABUTTING BUILDINGS AROUND US.
IT'LL ALSO INCLUDE THE FIRE STATION AND THE LOADING DUCKS, SORRY.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE SINCE THOSE PLANS ARE SOMEWHAT UP IN THE AIR, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO SIGN OFF ON A WESTERN ALIGNMENT FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR PLANNING FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER. WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> WE'VE TAKEN WHAT IS KNOWN THROUGH COG AND OTHER SOURCES ABOUT THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AND PLANNED THE CONVENTION CENTER TO 100% SCHEMATIC, TAKING INTO WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THAT HIGH SPEED RAIL, WESTERN ALIGNMENT ONLY AT PRESENT.
>> YOU SAY IT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?
WE KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO RUN AS PROPOSED.
WE HAVE PLANNED THE BUILDING WITH THAT IN MIND.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, TOM?
>> YEAH, THE ALIGNMENT YOU SEE HERE IS PROVIDED TO US FROM THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR WORK SO FAR ON THE HIGH SPEED RAIL.
IT'S INDICATIVE OF THEIR PLANNING TO DATE, AND WE ARE WORKING THE PLAN TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR PANEL? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE HIGH SPEED RAIL ISSUE.
AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THAT ALSO DOESN'T MEET OUR RESOLUTION, NOR DOES IT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE THAT THE TRAIN WOULD GO NORTH OF I 30? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL STOP.
THE PROPOSED STOP IS BELOW I 30 AT THAT STATION, AND THEN ARLINGTON.
BUT FOR SOME REASON, EVERYBODY KEEPS PUSHING THAT TRAIN TO CLIP THE JAIL AS IF THE RTC IS GOING TO SOMEHOW PAY FOR THE $5 BILLION RELOCATION OF A JAIL.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY DRAW IT.
IT ALSO THEN BISECTS THE PARK.
THE 20, I'M SORRY, $200 MILLION PARK SIMMONS PARK.
WHY WOULD WE ALLOW A HIGH SPEED RAIL UNNECESSARILY TO BISECT SUCH AN INCREDIBLE GIFT TO OUR CITY SO THAT THE COUNTY GETS SOME MONEY FOR THE JAIL.
WHAT OUR RESOLUTION DOES IS IT SAYS, YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT OTHER ALIGNMENTS THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR DOWNTOWN PLANS.
IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THIS DRAWING,
[02:15:02]
YOU'RE INTERFERING WITH THE DOWNTOWN PLANS.I'M ACTUALLY INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT WE DESIGNED A CONVENTION CENTER TO MEET WITH SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN ALIGNMENT WE DON'T AGREE WITH FOR A HIGH SPEED RAIL THAT'LL PROBABLY NEVER BE BUILT.
BUT YET WE'RE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT ON IT.
SO NOW WE'VE CHANGED THOSE PLANS, AND IF THAT IS THE CAUSE OF ANY ADDITIONAL REAL ESTATE OR DELAYS AND EXPENSES FOR A PROJECT THAT ALREADY LOOKS PROBLEMATIC WITH EXPENSES WAY MORE THAN WHAT WE TOLD THE VOTERS.
I AGAIN, AM AMAZED AT HOW THIS HIGH SPEED RAIL HAS EVOLVED AS AN ISSUE, WHICH, AGAIN, I BELIEVE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH OUR INSPIRE DALLAS OR INSPIRE, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU. CHAIR, MENDELSON WITH THAT.
BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CHANGES, MR. DOCTOR KARLY, HAS THAT THOSE CHANGES BEEN PRESENTED TO CPC OR WHERE IS IT IN THE PROCESS?
>> WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY BEEN REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION YET AND START PROCESSING THE APPLICATION.
AT THIS POINT, OFFICIALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FORMAL YET FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE PAPERWORK TO BEGIN THE PROCESS.
>> IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THOROUGHFARE COMMITTEE AND THEN CPC AND THEN COUNSEL.
IT HASN'T EVEN GONE THROUGH OUGFARE COMMITTEE YET, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM. IT HAS NOT.
SO COMMITTEE, THOROUGHFARE COMMITTEE, CPC, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS COMING TO US MAYBE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
IF IT'S EXPRESSED, IF IT'S PUSHED THROUGH QUICKLY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. AT THE EARLIEST, IT WILL BE SIX MONTHS.
IF WE'RE STARTING THE PROCESS TOMORROW.
>> IF YOU SO IF WE WERE STARTING THE PROCESS TOMORROW, AND IT WOULD BE AT THE FAST, AT THE QUICKEST SIX MONTHS.
THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT WORLD CUP.
AREN'T WE AREN'T WE GREATLY BEHIND SCHEDULE?
>> THE FIFA IS NOT GOING TO BE NECESSARILY IMPACTED BY THIS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CLOSURE OF JEFFERSON WILL BE COMPENSATED BY THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL THAT WILL BE IN PLACE TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION MOVEMENT ON HOUSTON.
AS I LEFT MY HOUSE THIS MORNING AT 8:15, AND I ONLY LIVE A 10-15 MINUTE DRIVE.
IT TOOK ME OVER 30 MINUTES TO GET HERE BECAUSE OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE THIS WEEKEND.
THEN I HAD TO GET OFF AT A DIFFERENT SPOT, DOUBLE BACK, AND GO AROUND TO GET INTO THE PARKING LOT.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK AND I KNOW I'M BEING STRONG, BUT IT'S STRONG INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE I'M SPEAKING NOT ONLY FOR DISTRICT 8, BUT DISTRICT 8, SUM OF DISTRICT 3, AND EVERY MUNICIPALITY THAT COMES INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS BEHIND ME.
THIS IS DEFINITELY CUTTING OFF THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN SECTOR OF THE CITY OF THE COUNTY AND ANY OTHER COUNTY THAT WANTS TO COME INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
YOU ONCE AGAIN ARE SAYING TO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, WE DON'T CARE, WE DON'T LIKE YOU, AND WE DON'T WANT YOU.
IF YOU CAN'T PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT'S COHESIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH THAT SAYS, ALL OF YOU GUYS ARE WELCOME, THEN WHY ARE WE HERE? I CAN'T DO A 45 MINUTE DRIVE FOR ONLY 10-15 MINUTE DRIVE BECAUSE WE CAN'T PLAN.
AND WE CAN PLAN IF YOU LISTEN.
AGAIN, CONSISTENTLY, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.
EVERY TIME WE SAY SOUTHERN SECTOR, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT AND BEG TO BE LET IN AND TO BE LET OUT.
[02:20:04]
ENOUGH. FIGURE IT OUT, BRING TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE WHOLE SOUTHERN SECTOR ONE LANE IN, ONE LANE OUT, AND TAKE AWAY ALL THE BENEFITS OF BIKE LANES AND ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE GAINED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS AWAY BECAUSE OF POOR PLANNING. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE CLOSURES THIS WEEKEND WERE TEXT DOT.
WE'RE COMMITTED, AS I SAID EARLIER, TO BRINGING BACK THE EIGHT SCENARIOS TO YOU ALL TO LOOK AT AND OPINE ON.
THERE WILL NEVER BE A TIME WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS PROJECT, AND WE HAVE NOT.
HERE TO FOUR, MADE A DECISION THAT IMPACTS SOUTHERN DALLAS OR ANY OF THE OTHER PORTIONS OF DALLAS WITHOUT BRINGING SOMETHING HERE TO COUNSEL AND LISTENING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, SO I, WE DO HEAR YOU.
>> LET ME SAY THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TEXT DOT, IT IMPACTED THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
ABS THE SOUTHERN SECTOR DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S TEX DOT, CITY OF DALLAS, COUNTY OF DALLAS, OR ANYBODY ELSE.
THEY'RE IMPACTED NEGATIVELY, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO DID THE IMPACT, THE IMPACT STILL EXISTS.
FOR ONCE WE WANT YOU TO HEAR US AND WHETHER WE'RE TALKING TO TEXT DOT, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
WE WANT TO BE HEARD, AND TODAY IS THE DAY I'M GOING TO TELL YOU HEAR ME.
BECAUSE I'VE GOT A WHOLE CONSTITUENCY THAT'S GOING TO COME TO ME, FLOOD MY PHONE AND TELL ME, HOW COME I CAN'T GET DOWNTOWN, AND THEN SAY THAT YOU'RE TAKING THIS AWAY FROM ME, BUT YOU'RE MAKING IT WHERE I CAN'T GET DOWNTOWN FOR YOU TO COME AND SEE ME.
YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY OFFICE, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THIS, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THAT.
THEY'RE TIRED, AND I'M TIRED OF HAVING TO ANSWER AND BE NICE.
THE BUCK STOPS HERE TODAY. FIGURE IT OUT.
MAKE SURE I CAN GET MY CONSTITUENCY DISTRICT 4, AND DISTRICT THREE INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS WITHOUT HAVING TO SAY, WE'RE SECOND THOUGHT.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANYBODY TO RESPOND TO ME.
I'VE SAID WHAT I NEED TO SAY, AND I NEED YOU TO HEAR ME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR.
>> I HAVE ONLY BEEN INVOLVED WITH ONE THOROUGH, FAIR CHANGE.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS JEFFERSON ITEM GOES TO CPC AND THEY RECOMMEND NO, AND IT COMES TO COUNCIL.
WE HAVE INCREDIBLE IMPASSIONED SPEECHES ABOUT WOW, SOUTHERN SECTOR CAN'T GET INTO DOWNTOWN, AND MAYBE A ONE LANE EACH DIRECTION FOR THREE YEARS ISN'T GOING TO WORK FOR US? SOWHAT IF WE VOTE NO, THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
>> LET ME CLARIFY THE PROCESS.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS CONCERNED, IS THE ULTIMATE DESIGN AND ALIGNMENT OF JEFFERSON.
THAT IS THE KEY BASICALLY OF WHAT JEFFERSON IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE BETWEEN NOW AND 100 YEARS FROM TODAY.
>> WAIT, IS THAT CHANGING GOING BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS THAT I MIGHT NOT BE UNDERSTANDING THAT.
>> THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS TO CHANGE THE ALIGNMENT TO WORK WITH THE BUILDING.
IF THAT IS TO CHANGE, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE BRING IN TO THE THOROUGHFARE COMMITTEE AND THEN CPC AND THEN COUNCIL.
IF THE POLICY BODY CHOOSES NOT TO APPROVE THAT CHANGE, THEN JEFFERSON HAS TO REMAIN WHERE IT'S AT AND HAS TO FUNCTION THE WAY IT IS FUNCTIONING TODAY.
>> NOW, WE HAVE A WHOLE BRIEFING TOMORROW.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE, ESPECIALLY WE'RE LATE ON TIME.
IS THIS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TOMORROW?
>> I'LL SAY MY QUESTIONS FOR TOMORROW BECAUSE I THINK MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE TODAY. IS THAT FAIR?
>> WILL YOU FAIR TO TALK ABOUT THIS FOR TOMORROW? I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF WE VOTE NO.
IF THAT MEANS DESIGN CHANGES OR LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED THAT, LIKE, WELL, IT COULD GO THIS WAY OR IT COULD GO THAT WAY? YES, YOU HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MORENOS.
>> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM C ON OUR AGENDA, THE MILL CREEK PEAKS BRANCH, STATE THOMAS DRAINAGE RELIEF TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING ITEM.
WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BRIEFING MEMORANDUM?
[02:25:01]
>> THOSE OF US WHO SERVED A LONG TIME, WE WENT DOWN IN THE TUNNEL, WHICH WAS REALLY ONE OF THE MORE EXTRAORDINARY THINGS THAT I FEEL LIKE I'VE DONE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND READING THAT MEMO, ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, WHICH IS DISAPPOINTING, WHAT THE COST IS AND WHAT THAT COST MEANS TO THE SYSTEM AND OUR RATE HOLDERS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. SARAH STANO FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES.
I ALSO HAVE OUR SUPERINTENDENT AND PROGRAM MANAGER TANYA LEN AND MILTON BROOKS WITH US IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
WE STILL HAVE SOME REMAINING MONEY ON THE TABLE AS THIS CONTINUES TO DEVELOP.
WE WILL HAVE A PATH FORWARD THAT WILL BRING TO ALL IN SOME FUTURE MEETINGS IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL COSTS, BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'RE STILL WITHIN THE 06 AND 2012 BOND PROGRAM FUNDING.
>> WELL, I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE DOING THIS BRIEFING WITHOUT SETTING UP THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US FOR MORE MONEY.
>> I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL ARE AWARE THAT THE SCHEDULE HAS SLID AGAIN.
THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE PROVIDED AS AN UPDATE PERIODICALLY.
THIS IS REALLY WHAT THIS INTENT WAS WAS TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP THAT WE'RE IN THAT BOAT. THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL MOVE ON TO BRIEFING MEMORANDUM D, THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT ITEM? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KATINA.
>> WELL, MY COMMENT IS, I NOTICED THAT IT SAYS DISSEMINATING INFORMATION TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNICATING THE DESIRES OF THE COUNCIL.
I I DON'T KNOW MY DISTRICT SIX PERSON, SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF I CAN GET CONTACT INFORMATION AND A COPY OF THEIR APPLICATION AS WELL.
>> YES, STEFF, CAN YOU ARRANGE THAT?
>> YES, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> WE'LL PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED AND THAT LED TO THE SELECTION.
THEN I THINK IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE ISSUED A PREVIOUS MEMO ON THE CRITERIA AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. SO WE CAN PROVIDE THAT.
I WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN OVER THAT THE APPOINTMENT TOO.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THOSE FOLKS ARE.
I DIDN'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE RECEIVED A AN OBVIOUS REQUEST FOR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS.
I WE'RE APPOINTING SOMEBODY TO REPRESENT MY DISTRICT WHO I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN.
IF IT'S SHAME ON ME, I APOLOGIZE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS THERE. JOHN WHO.
AGAIN, I'M CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MY DISTRICT WITHOUT ME AND AGAIN, IF IT'S ON ME, SO SORRY.
BUT I THINK I WOULD I WOULD REQUEST THAT SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT OF GETTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A PARTICULAR DISTRICT THAT IF I DON'T RESPOND OR OUR DISTRICT DOESN'T RESPOND, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED PROPERLY.
>> HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP OFFLINE.
>> CHAIR. YES. I ALSO AM UNAWARE OF THIS APPOINTMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE MY APPOINTEE.
BECAUSE HAD I KNOWN, I WOULD HAVE HAD SOMEBODY WHO, I THINK, WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT TO DO THAT, FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, UNDERSTANDS THE CHALLENGES.
YOU HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF EMPOWERING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE APPOINTEES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE MY APPOINTEE.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH SOMEBODY WHO I DID NOT APPOINT.
>> UNDERSTOOD. DOCTOR K CARLY, IS THAT POSSIBLE?
>> YES, SIR. AND AGAIN, I WILL PROBABLY GO BACK AND BRING THE MEMO THAT WE SENT TO COUNSEL WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS WITH THE CRITERIA AND HOW THAT PROCESS WORKED.
BUT I MEAN, WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT MY OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHOEVER IS SERVING ON THAT COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE VALUE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> THANK YOU, DOCTOR. CARLY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM D? MOVING ON TO ITEM E, THE 2024 BOND UPDATE ON PROP A, STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION AND PROP C, FLOOD PROTECTION, AND STORM DRAINAGE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS. WE'LL TAKE THOSE ON MASS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS G THROUGH N?
[02:30:03]
SEEING NONE IS NOW 3:39 P.M. ON JANUARY 20, AND THE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE IS NOW ADJOURNED.