[00:00:01]
          WELL. GOOD MORNING. THE TIME IS 9:06 A.M., AND WE'LL CALL THIS MORNING'S QUALITY OF LIFE
MEETING TO ORDER. 
          [Quality of Life, Arts and Culture Committee on February 17, 2026.]
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 20TH MINUTES. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION? SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSIONS? NOT ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? AND FORGIVE ME. BEFORE WE GET STARTED YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT THE REVEREND JESSE
JACKSON PASSED AWAY TODAY. 
          SO IF WE CAN, I'D LIKE TO JUST HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR HIS IMPACT THAT HE'S HAD ON
THE QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT JUST IN DALLAS DIRECTLY, BUT IN THIS COUNTRY AS WELL. 
          SO IF WE COULD JUST HAVE A BRIEF MOMENT OF SILENCE. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY. WE HAVE A PRETTY QUICK AGENDA TODAY. 
          WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS. AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO,
IF POSSIBLE, IS IF WE CAN TAKE THESE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER AND MOVE ITEM C, WE'LL MOVE ITEM C TO THE AGENDA FIRST. THERE. 
          SO IF WE CAN GET OUR FOLKS TOGETHER AND WE'LL CALL THIS ITEM C,
WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS ON THE AGENDA AND WE'LL GET THAT ONE GOING. 
          I SHOULD BE ON THE EDGE. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DUDE. 
          CHRIS WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE. I'LL SIT ON THIS END. 
          YEAH. I'LL JUST. WE'LL JUST SAY. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          GOOD MORNING. CHAIR. COMMITTEE. JEREMY REED,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CODE COMPLIANCE. 
          GOOD MORNING. FOLLOWING OUR LAST BRIEFING, WE ARE BACK FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD
EVENTS PRESENTATION AFTER WE HAVE COLLECTED DATA, SENT OUT A SURVEY AND DRAFTED SOME ORDINANCES
PER THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST. 
          JOINED TODAY WITH DPD AND CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES,
AND WE WILL GET STARTED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. TODAY WE'LL HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY RESULTS THAT WE FOR THE SURVEY WE
SENT OUT TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DATA WE COLLECTED AS WELL DISCUSS PARKING AND EVENT REGULATIONS, SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITTING CONSIDERATION AND
SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL. 
          AND THERE'S AN APPENDIX AT THE END FOR YOUR REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. SLIDE FOUR SHOWS AN OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE DATA THAT WE COLLECTED FOR CODE
COMPLIANCE, NOISE, LIGHTING AND PARKING CONCERNS, AS WELL AS DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT NOISE CONCERNS
AND TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS PARKING FOR EVENTS CONCERNS OVER THE LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS, AS WELL AS THE CHANGE FOR EVERY FISCAL YEAR. 
          AND THE FULL DATA IS DISPLAYED IN THE APPENDIX FOR YOUR REVIEW. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. SLIDE FIVE IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE COMMUNITY SURVEY THAT CODE COMPLIANCE SENT OUT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 311. 
          AND SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS HERE IS 13% OF THE RESIDENTS,
SORRY, OF THE RESPONDENTS STATED THAT THEY OFTEN OR VERY OFTEN EXPERIENCE PARKING OVERFLOW OR STREET CONGESTION WHEN THEY HAVE EVENTS ON THEIR IN THEIR AREAS. 
          78% OF RESPONDENTS DID NOT REPORT HAVING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PARKED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          14 RESPONDENTS, 14% OF RESPONDENTS STATED THAT THEY DID HAVE EXCESSIVE BRIGHTNESS FROM
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. THE FULL SURVEY RESULTS WERE ALSO DISPLAYED IN THE
APPENDIX. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THE NEXT SLIDE GOES OVER OUR CURRENT RIGHT OF WAY REGULATIONS FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT. 
          [00:05:01]
CURRENTLY, THE VALET PARKING DOES NOT AFFECT THIS AREA. 
          VALET PARKING ENFORCEMENT ONLY GOES TO AREAS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THERE HAS TO BE
MANEUVERING, OR AREAS WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY HAVING STANDING. 
          IT ONLY OCCURS FOR NOT ON OCCASIONAL OR SOCIAL EVENTS,
BUT FOR ROUTINE VALET OPERATIONS. 
          SO IT DOESN'T IMPACT THESE NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE EVENTS. 
          ON THE METER HITTING CURRENTLY, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE NEED TO RESERVE PARTS OF THE RIGHT OF
WAY, IF IT IS A METERED PARKING, WE DO SOMETHING THAT WE CALL A METER HITTING WHERE THEY CAN
RESERVE THE METERS. 
          IF IT'S AN AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE A METER, WE STILL USE A METER HITTING PROCESS SIMILAR TO
THAT AND DO WHAT'S CALLED A NO TEMPORARY, NO PARKING PERMIT IF PERMIT. IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN THOSE LITTLE SIGNS THAT ARE UP THAT SAY
NO PARKING BY PERMIT ONLY. 
          THOSE ARE WHERE WE DO RESERVATION OF THE CURB LANE FOR SPECIFIC USES. 
          SOMETIMES THOSE ARE USED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS THERE FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD,
BUT THEY'RE ALSO USED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ISSUES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE. AS YOU CAN SEE, SPECIAL EVENTS HAS ITS OWN ORDINANCE UNDER CHAPTER 42. 
          A AS MOST OF YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR. WE WORK WITH A LOT OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS ON GETTING
PERMITS FOR THEIR EVENTS IN THE CITY, BUT IT IS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 42.A AS A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR GATHERING WITH AN EXPECTED TOTAL
ATTENDANCE GREATER THAN 100. 
          WHICH ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY WHERE OTHERWISE
PROHIBITED BY ORDINANCE. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE CONSOLIDATED AREA THERE. 
          THE LAST TIME WE UPDATED THIS DEFINITION WAS IN 2019. 
          AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL CHALLENGES NEXT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. THIS SLIDE TOUCHES ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE WITH
EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS. THESE CHALLENGES ARE DUE MAINLY TO THE TO THE FACT THAT MANY RESIDENTIAL STREETS
AREN'T DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE HIGH VOLUMES OF PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND BECAUSE THESE STREETS A LOT OF THEM DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS. 
          THIS MEANS THAT DURING THESE EVENTS, PEDESTRIANS HAVE TO OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE AS
VEHICLES, CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. FOR EXAMPLE,
WE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD EVENT IN NORTH CENTRAL DALLAS THAT SPANNED NEARLY TWO MONTHS. PRIOR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SECURING A PERMIT FOR STREET CLOSURE FOR THIS EVENT
RESIDENTS COMPLAINED OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION, WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO ENTER AND EXIT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. THE CONGESTION
POSED A PROBLEM FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, AND THE CONGESTION ALSO OF THIS EVENT LED TO A VEHICLE COLLISION INVOLVING ONE OF OUR
OFFICERS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE IS AN OVERHEAD VIEW FROM AIR. 
          ONE OF THAT EVENT. IT SHOWS THE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CROWD
CONTROL CHALLENGES RELATED TO THAT EVENT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE COST AND PROJECTED COST FOR POLICE STAFFING FOR THIS
EVENT. 
          IN 2024 DPD STAFF, THIS EVENT FROM DECEMBER 20TH THROUGH DECEMBER 27TH WITH 250 HOURS. 
          IT COST OVER $17,000 TO STAFF IT OVER $7,000 FOR POLICE VEHICLE USAGE AND OVER $600 FOR
AIR ONE FOR A TOTAL OF OVER $25,000. NOW, IN 2025, DPD SHARED THE BURDEN OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD
EVENT DUE TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS THAT WERE GRANTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE EVENT WAS STAFFED FROM THE END OF OCTOBER TO THE END OF DECEMBER,
AND BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS, DPD COST WAS ONLY JUST OVER $30,000. THE NEXT LINE SHOWS WHAT IT WOULD COST IN FUTURE
YEARS. 
          GO BACK TO THE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. 
          RIGHT THERE. THE LAST LINE SHOWS WHAT IT WOULD COST IN FUTURE YEARS FOR DPD TO STAFF THIS
EVENT WITHOUT THE HELP OF NEIGHBORHOODS SHARING THE COST. 
          IF WE WERE TO STAFF THIS EVENT FROM OCTOBER 31ST THROUGH JANUARY 1ST,
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, FROM 5 P.M. 
          TO 2 A.M., IT WOULD TAKE OVER 1600 HOURS, LEADING TO $92,000 IN STAFFING,
WITH A FLEET COST OF OVER $48,000. 
          THE TOTAL COST WOULD BE OVER $140,000. SO THE KEY TAKEAWAY IS THAT THE USE OF SPECIAL
EVENT PERMITS DRASTICALLY REDUCES THE COST TO TAXPAYERS OF HAVING TO STAFF THESE SPECIAL EVENTS. 
          [00:10:05]
NEXT SLIDE. SO NOW WE'RE. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE
BURDEN ON NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE FIRST POLICY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ADD A SECTION TO
THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL EVENTS THAT ACTUALLY CORRELATES WITH ANOTHER SECTION IN OUR CODE,
WHICH IS CHAPTER 28-10 EMERGENCY AND EXPERIMENTAL REGULATIONS. BY MERGING THESE TWO IN OUR 42.A SPECIAL EVENT DEFINITION,
IT ALLOWS FOR DPD TO ASSESS AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE SITUATION AND REQUIRE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT ON THE PERSON PUTTING ON
THE DISPLAY. 
          GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY
HAS RECOMMENDED TO ADD A SECTION TO 42.A THAT WOULD READ A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY EXHIBITION WITH A
SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES AN EMERGENCY TRAFFIC PLAN AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 28-10. 
          AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS WORKS REALLY WELL BECAUSE IN A SPECIAL FOR FOR THE PROCESS
FOR A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT, IT DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW FOR ANY SORT OF YOU KNOW,
STREET MANAGEMENT, THE SALE OF ALCOHOL OR ATTENDANCE OVER 250. SO I THINK THIS WOULD WORK VERY WELL. NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS A RECOMMENDED AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO OUR NOISE CODE. 
          IN CHAPTER 30 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE, THERE IS A LIST OF NOISES THAT ARE PRESUMED
OFFENSIVE. 
          THIS IS AN ORDER TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A VIOLATION FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS IN 30-1. 
          IT STATES THAT A NOISE THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THE ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES OF A RESIDENT OF
THE CITY IS A VIOLATION. 
          AND THEN AFTER THAT, IN THIS SECTION IN 30-2,
THERE IS AN ENUMERATED LIST OF OFFENSIVE NOISES. 
          AND SO THE PROPOSAL HERE IS IN ORDER TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD AND MAKE IT MORE AN OBJECTIVE
STANDARD, RATHER THAN REQUIRING THAT DALLAS POLICE, WHEN THEY GO OUT TO ENFORCE NOISE LATE AT NIGHT
TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD HERE RATHER THAN HAVING TO HAVE A WITNESS THAT SAYS MY SENSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN DISTURBED TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF
AMPLIFIED SOUND EQUIPMENT AT A RESIDENCE THAT PRODUCES A SOUND AUDIBLE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE PREMISES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. 
          AND 7 P.M., IN ORDER AGAIN TO DECREASE THE SUBJECTIVITY AND ALLOW OFFICERS WHO HEARD THAT
NOISE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION UPON UPON HEARING. 
          NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS THE FINAL SLIDE FOR NEXT STEPS BASED ON COMMITTEE GUIDANCE. 
          TODAY WE'LL SEEK YOUR DIRECTION FOR AND CONSIDERATION FOR FULL COUNCIL OF THESE PROPOSED
ORDINANCES. 
          AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND WITH THAT I'LL START WITH ANY QUESTIONS STARTING ON MY LEFT. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. 
          OKAY. SO IF I CAN UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE SUGGESTED CHANGE WOULD BE WHAT EXACTLY. IS THIS FOR THE CHAPTER 30? YEAH. SO THIS SECTION 14 IS A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE LIST OF ITEMS THAT THE CODE STATES
ARE OFFENSIVE AND PRESUMED OFFENSIVE TO TO TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY. 
          CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH OUR NOISE ORDINANCE AND
THE TIMING THAT ALREADY EXISTS? SURE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER. 
          SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO DEFINITIVE TIME FOR AMPLIFIED SOUND COMING FROM A RESIDENCE. 
          THERE IS A SIMILAR APPROACH USED IN COMMERCIAL AREAS AND PUBLIC SPACES,
BUT NOT FOR RESIDENCES. 
          IN RESIDENCES WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO POLICE OFFICERS WHO RESPOND IS THE WITNESS SAYING
THAT THEY ARE DISTURBED BY THAT NOISE THAT I BELIEVE MAJOR COULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I BELIEVE THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO
TESTIFY OR STATE THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS NOISE. 
          AND WHAT THIS DOES IS IT MAKES IT MORE OF AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT ANYBODY AT THE EDGE
OF THAT PROPERTY LINE. 
          IF I CAN HEAR A SPEAKER AMPLIFYING NOISE YOU KNOW,
MUSIC FROM THE FROM THE RESIDENTS PAST A CERTAIN TIME, 
          [00:15:03]
AND I CAN ATTEST THAT IT'S COMING FROM THAT RESIDENCE,
THEN THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION. SO NOISE VIOLATIONS IS SOMETHING I THINK ALL OF US HAVE DEALT WITH. AND I HAVE A FEW FREQUENT FLIERS,
IF YOU WILL. 
          AND IT SEEMS AS IF THERE'S ALREADY RECOURSE FOR US. 
          THAT ISN'T TOO MUCH OF AN OVERREACH. EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS NEEDED. 
          AND I ASK BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS HAS GIVEN US EFFICIENT TOOLS TO ADDRESS. 
          WHEN I'VE HAD ISSUES OF RESIDENTS HAVING AMPLIFIED SOUND OF PARTIES GOING TOO LATE AND
THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND I AND I REALLY DON'T WANT US TO BE OVERREACHING AS A GOVERNMENT IF WE ALREADY HAVE
THINGS ON, TOO, IF WE ALREADY HAVE TOOLS ON THE BOOKS THAT WE CAN USE,
AND IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THEM, I'VE NEVER HAD STAFF COME BACK AND TELL ME THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT I'VE BROUGHT FORWARD. 
          SO CAN YOU ALL EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS NEEDED? AS FAR AS WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE. 
          I'M. I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHY A CHANGE WAS NEEDED. 
          AS FAR AS DALLAS POLICE IS CONCERNED, WHENEVER WE HAVE A LOUD MUSIC CALL US,
OFFICERS GO OUT. 
          IF THERE IS A IF THERE'S A WITNESS THAT STATES HOUSE A HAS A YOU KNOW,
THEY'VE HAD LOUD MUSIC GOING FOR THE PAST HOWEVER MANY HOURS WE GO OUT THERE. 
          IF WE DON'T, WE DON'T OBSERVE IT. WE'LL GO TO THE HOUSE,
WE'LL LET THEM KNOW. 
          HEY, WE WE WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN WHO'S CALLED POLICE BECAUSE THEY ARE THEY HAVE
BEEN BOTHERED BY THE LOUD MUSIC COMING FROM YOUR LOCATION. THIS IS JUST A WARNING. 
          FOR THE MOST PART. IF WE DON'T HEAR IT, WE REALLY CAN'T DO IT. WE WILL GIVE THEM A
WARNING. 
          IF WE GO BACK OUT. IF WE HEAR IT, LET'S SAY WE GO OUT THE FIRST TIME AND WE HEAR IT. 
          WE CAN WE CAN CITE THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. 
          THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER'S IN CARE AND CUSTODY OF THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION,
WE CAN CITE THEM OKAY. 
          AS FAR AS WHAT LED TO THERE NEEDING TO BE A CHANGE? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. WELL, I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY TELLING,
AND I APPRECIATE THE THE RESPONSE AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE LACK THEREOF, BECAUSE I'M USED TO US BEING PROMPTED WITH CODE CHANGES OR SUBSTANTIVE
POLICY CHANGES BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HINDERED SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS FROM DOING THEIR JOB EFFECTIVELY. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING. WE DON'T HAVE DATA TO SUPPORT THAT A CHANGE IS NEEDED. 
          WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ON A WIDESPREAD BASIS CITYWIDE THAT HAS GIVEN US A REASON TO
ADDRESS THIS. 
          AND QUITE FRANKLY, EVEN THE SURVEY RESULTS SPECIFIC TO A CERTAIN EVENT,
DOESN'T EVEN REALLY WARRANT US FROM TAKING THIS, THIS APPROACH. I REALLY JUST AS I MENTIONED THE FIRST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE,
HAVE AN ISSUE WITH US TAKING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY CHANGING ORDINANCES THAT WILL IMPACT ALL RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY
BECAUSE OF SOME ANOMALY SITUATIONS. 
          AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I BELIEVE WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY. 
          AGAIN, IF I HAVE EXPERIENCED YOU ALL NOT BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT I'VE SEEN
COME UP WITH RESIDENTS, THEN I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE'D BE A NEED FOR SOME SORT OF CHANGE. BUT I'VE WATCHED YOU
ALL WORK COLLABORATIVELY. 
          INTERDEPARTMENTALLY WORK HAND IN HAND WITH CERTAIN RESIDENTS WHO HAVE REALLY BEEN LIVING
NIGHTMARES, QUITE FRANKLY, IN THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET TO THE THE BOTTOM OF
IT. 
          AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS PUT SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT HAS AN ADVERSE IMPACT
AND STARTS IMPACTING PEOPLE THAT IT WASN'T INTENDED TO. 
          AND I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW OR WHO IS GOING TO BE ENFORCING OR COUNTING THE AMOUNT OF
PEOPLE PRESENT AT THESE EVENTS TO KNOW IF WE'VE EXCEEDED 100 PEOPLE, ETC., IF THAT'S NEEDED AT ONE PARTICULAR TIME,
OR IF THAT'S ONGOING. 
          AND SO I JUST I THINK ULTIMATELY WE'RE MORE CREATING A PROBLEM THAN A SOLUTION,
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS THAT WE ARE NEEDING TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR. 
          SO I'M NOT FOR THESE CHANGES. I THINK THAT IT IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH. 
          I DON'T AGREE WITH THE BLANKET APPROACH AT ALL,
AND I QUITE FRANKLY DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE AT HAND. 
          [00:20:03]
I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS THESE ANOMALY TYPE SITUATIONS,
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD GET A LITTLE BIT MORE GRANULAR TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE WITHOUT HAVING TO IMPLEMENT ORDINANCES CITYWIDE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ALMOST GOT YOU. 
          DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA. 
          AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT TO TO THE COMMITTEE. 
          AND IT DOES IMPACT QUALITY OF LIFE MAY NOT BE ALL OF THE AREA,
BUT IT'S SOMETHING WORTH DISCUSSING, PARTICULARLY AS WE RAMP UP FOR FIFA AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING. SO THOUGH THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ANOMALIES,
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WORTH DISCUSSING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO IN PREPARATION FOR FIFA AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS AS WELL. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THE DISCUSSION. BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION. 
          NOW, I CAN SAY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM GAY DONNELL WILLIS,
THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          AND THANK YOU TO THIS TEAM FOR THE WORK AND THE THINKING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT A
YEAR AND A HALF ON, ON THIS ITEM. AND NOISE WAS NOT SOMETHING I BROUGHT FORTH IN THIS. 
          AND SO I'M, I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. I, I APPRECIATE YOUR LANGUAGE ABOUT DECREASING
SUBJECTIVITY. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT. BECAUSE IF IT THAT MAKES IT HARD FOR CODE FOR
DPD TO DO YOUR JOBS. 
          IF THERE'S ALL THIS SUBJECTIVITY, AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HAVE IN BLACK AND
WHITE, THEN THAT COULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. BUT REALLY,
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST SAID, THIS ISN'T ABOUT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL OR A BLANKET SOLUTION. 
          THIS IS VERY MUCH ABOUT DISCOVERING THROUGH EXPERIENCE,
WHERE THE CITY HAS A DEFICIT THAT COULD AFFECT RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          AND IT MAY NOT BE THE INTENTION OF SOMEONE WHO HAS AN EVENT OR A DISPLAY BUT THAT CROWDS
AND TRAFFIC COULD BUILD. AND WHEN THAT OCCURS, THE CITY IS UNEQUIPPED TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH IT,
AND IT'S CREATED A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. 
          AND SO I APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU ALL HAVE WORKED HARD ON TO GET TO A POINT WHERE
IF IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT AND DPD IS HAVING TO TAKE ACTION THAT YOU HAVE A MECHANISM THAT USES ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT TO HELP
PUT THAT ONUS ON THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE OR THE GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR IT VERSUS THE TAXPAYER,
WHICH YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN A SLIDE. 
          I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS. IF THEY HAD SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY OCCUR,
COULD THEY PAY $20,000 LIKE THE NEIGHBORS IN DISTRICT 13 HAD TO DO, TO HIRE OFF DUTY OFFICERS AND THEN STILL HAVE DPD SAY,
WE HAVE A PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY HERE, AND NOW WE HAVE TO CALL IN OFFICERS TO PICK UP WHERE THE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS PAID FOR LEFT
OFF TO THE TUNE OF $23,000. 
          SO IT JUST GIVES YOU ALL A MECHANISM TO STEP IN AND SAY,
WE NEED A PLAN HERE. 
          WE NEED A PLAN FOR THIS VERSUS JUST LETTING IT CONTINUE UNFETTERED. 
          I THINK I DON'T KNOW, MAJOR ASHFORD, IF YOU POINTED IT OUT OR CHIEF WILLIAMS WAS HERE AND
TALKED ABOUT STREETS AND WHETHER THEY'RE REALLY NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ARE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE CERTAIN TYPES OF THINGS. CROWDS, TRAFFIC. 
          RIGHT. YES, MA'AM. SO WITH THE SITUATION THAT WE HAD IN NORTH DALLAS WITH OUR
EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD EVENT THERE ARE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS UP IN THE NORTH CENTRAL AREA THAT DO NOT
HAVE SIDEWALKS. 
          IF THEY DID HAVE SIDEWALKS, IT WOULDN'T BE AS AS DANGEROUS TO HAVE THESE NEIGHBORHOOD
EVENTS THAT THAT ATTRACT A LOT OF TRAFFIC. OUR PEDESTRIANS CAN HAVE SIDEWALKS,
OUR VEHICLES COULD HAVE THE STREET. 
          BUT IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAD VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC OCCUPYING THE SAME SPACE,
WHICH WAS A NIGHTMARE FOR THE MOST PART AND AND VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. SO WOULD YOU SAY DPD IS ASKING FOR SOME HELP ON THIS? WE ARE. WE'RE ASKING. WELL, DPD IS ASKING FOR AND AS FAR AS FINANCIALLY IT WOULD BE
BECAUSE AS I STATED, WE WOULD HAVE TO, LET'S SAY, GOING FORWARD TO,
TO FUND AN EVENT OF THIS NATURE UP IN THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT. 
          IF WE'RE FOOTING THAT BILL OURSELVES, YOU CAN SEE IT'S GOING TO COST WELL OVER $100,000
FOR US TO FOOT IT OURSELVES. 
          BUT IF AGAIN, IF WE HAD THE HELP OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS GETTING THE,
THE PERMITS, 
          [00:25:06]
WE COULD WE COULD SHARE THAT THAT THAT BURDEN AND THE TAXPAYERS WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT
THAT MUCH MONEY. 
          LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, THIS THIS PAST YEAR AND AS EACH YEAR GOES ON WITH THIS PARTICULAR
EVENT, AS EACH YEAR GOES ON IT SEEMS TO STRETCH AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF DAYS THAT WE'RE HAVING TO
COVER IT. 
          WELL, I MEAN, THE INTENTION IS NOT TO MAKE IT ABOUT ONE,
THIS ONE PARTICULAR THING. 
          I MEAN, THERE ARE PART THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE CITY THAT DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS.
THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT WOULD FORCE PEOPLE INTO THE STREET. SO THIS IS JUST TO TO MAGNIFY AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT CREATED AN ISSUE THAT DPD HAD TO CALL IN AND BRING OFFICERS
INTO AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          IN FACT, AN OFFICER WAS INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT. 
          I MEAN, AT THE POINT WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOODS OFFICERS LEFT OFF. 
          WHY DID WHY DID DPD ORDER MORE OFFICERS TO THAT SITE? ONE MORE TIME. WHY DID DPD ORDER MORE OFFICERS AFTER THE ONES THE NEIGHBORS PAID FOR? GOT OFF OFF WORK AT 10:30 OR 11 OR SOMETHING. 
          RIGHT. SO THE PERMIT BASICALLY ALLOTTED FOR,
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. 
          WELL, THE PERMIT WENT TILL 10:30 OR 11, RIGHT. 
          WHY DID DPD SAY OKAY, IT'S IT'S OVER NOW. WHY DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAD TO HAVE MORE
OFFICERS THERE? BECAUSE IT WASN'T OVER. IT LASTED, SOME NIGHTS IT WOULD LAST UP UNTIL 12,
01:00 IN THE MORNING. 
          IT LASTED. I'M SORRY. WHAT LASTED? ALL THE THE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 
          OKAY. SO WE COULDN'T WE COULDN'T JUST LEAVE IT AND SAY,
OKAY YOUR PERMITS OVER AT TEN. 
          WE'RE WE'RE OUT OF HERE. WE COULDN'T DO THAT. WE HAD,
BECAUSE IT WAS A A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. 
          IT BECAME A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, AND WE COULDN'T JUST,
YOU KNOW, WIPE OUR HANDS AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE DONE. WE HAD TO WE HAD TO STAFF IT. AND THAT'S THE POINT I WOULD LIKE FOR MY
COLLEAGUES TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THIS WAS DPD'S CALL TO SAY IT'S THERE'S STILL THE TRAFFIC, THERE'S STILL THE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. OUR OFFICERS ARE IN DANGER,
TOO, BECAUSE OF ALL THAT. 
          THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE FOR A FEW OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE,
SO THIS SHOULDN'T TOUCH MUCH IN THIS CITY. 
          IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THE SURVEY HELPED SHOWS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING
OKAY. IF YOU GET TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS NO MECHANISM THIS THIS GIVES DPD AND OUR SPECIAL EVENTS OFFICE A WAY TO BRING SOME ORDER,
A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOMETHING ABOUT JUST AS WE DO IF THERE IS A TICKETED ADMISSION EVENT. SO I WOULD ASK FOR SUPPORT ON THIS AND JUST KNOW
THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY WE WON'T EVER HAVE TO ENACT, BUT THAT WE NEED. AND IT'S BEEN TESTED AND THIS DEFICIT HAS BEEN TESTED. 
          AND SO IT'S IT'S CRITICAL FOR REALLY THE PEACE OF NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. THANK YOU. CHAIR. 
          I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. WHAT LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT ALLOW US TO,
THAT ALLOW YOU TO TO BASICALLY SHUT DOWN OR MANAGE A CRAZY EVENT LIKE THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT'S
CAUSING US TO EVEN DEAL WITH THIS. 
          I MEAN, AREN'T THERE LAWS THAT THERE'S TRAFFIC LAWS,
THERE'S SAFETY LAWS. 
          THERE'S ABILITY FOR POLICE CODE, AREN'T THERE ALREADY LAWS THAT WE CAN ENFORCE TO SAY,
THIS IS A THIS IS A UNUSUAL, EXTRAORDINARY AND PURPOSELY UN UNAUTHORIZED EFFECT IS IS THERE LAWS THAT THAT ARE ALREADY
ON THE BOOKS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SECTION 28-10. 
          WHICH IS LOUDER, PLEASE. I'M SORRY. SECTION 28-10 OF THE TRAFFIC CODE IS THE REASON WHY
WE'RE USING IT AS A TRIGGER. 
          IT ALLOWS THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR IN A CASE OF
AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT OR AN EMERGENCY, TO CHANGE TRAFFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS. 
          THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THAT HAS BEEN TRIGGERED,
BUT THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND THAT THIS IS TO COMBINE THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT IF THERE IS A TRIGGER WHERE WE HAVE TO INVOKE SECTION 28-10 AND HAVE AN EMERGENCY REGULATION
OF AN AREA THAT'S OUT OF CONTROL, THAT THAT THEN TRIGGERS A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT SO THAT THE CITY CAN HAVE SOME COST
RECOVERY. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN ISSUE WE'RE HAVING HERE TODAY. 
          WHAT'S THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THE. THERE IS NO PENALTY AND THAT IS THE CURRENT
CONCERN. 
          YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE EVEN IN THE SECTION THAT'S ABOUT PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND THE TEMPORARY
PERMITS, THERE IS NO COST FOR THAT. SO AT THIS POINT WE ARE INCURRING 28-10 BUT THERE IS NO COST
ASSOCIATED. 
          SO WE'RE INCURRING THESE EXPENSES WITH NO PENALTY OR COST. 
          [00:30:04]
SO THIS IS TO THIS IS TO FIX AND ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT BURDEN. 
          AND I'M SORRY I AND I APOLOGIZE FOR TRYING FOR TALKING OVER YOU. 
          THE, I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE. SO IS IT REALLY JUST THE AUTHORITY OF OF THE POLICE OR CODE
IS TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T. THIS IS TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. IT'S CREATING SAFETY AND SECURITY. 
          THINGS SHUT IT DOWN. AND IF THEY DON'T SHUT IT DOWN,
THEN WHAT HAPPENS? ACTUALLY, NO. ONCE YOU KNOW, IF YOU ALL WERE TO DECIDE TO AMEND CHAPTER 42.A,
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS PARKING AND DPD WOULD COME IN, ASSESS THAT IT'S TOO DANGEROUS. THERE'S TOO MUCH PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES. 
          INSTEAD OF SHUTTING IT DOWN, YOU ARE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT AND WE PUT
IT THROUGH A SAFETY REVIEW. 
          WE PUT IT THROUGH A PLAN. WE WORK WITH YOU AND THE NEIGHBORS,
AND YOU GET A PERMIT. 
          BUT YOU DO PAY FOR THE COST OF OFF DUTY OFFICERS AND ANY OF THE OTHER COSTS THAT CURRENTLY
THE CITY IS IS INCURRING. 
          SORRY, I MUST BE CLUMSY IN MY QUESTION. WHEN THE EVENT IS HAPPENING,
THE POLICE COME OUT THERE AND SAY THERE'S A MILLION CARS HERE. THERE'S A MILLION PEOPLE ON THE STREET. 
          WHAT DO YOU DO? DO YOU SHUT IT DOWN? AND IF PEOPLE DON'T MOVE,
CAN YOU GIVE THEM TICKETS? CAN YOU GIVE THEM RESTRICTIONS? CAN YOU CLOSE THE STREET? WHAT IS YOUR. WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY AND POSITION? AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH MY QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU'VE GOT AUTHORITY,
IF WE HAVE RECOURSE, IF WE CAN STOP THE ACTIVITY EFFICIENTLY, THEN THEN THAT TO ME IS THERE'S AN ORDINANCE,
THERE'S A LAW ON THE BOOKS THAT'S ENFORCEABLE. TO CREATE ANOTHER ORDINANCE AND ANOTHER PROCESS AND DOESN'T SOLVE THE
IMMEDIATE PROBLEM, WHICH IS WHAT IS DISTRESSING TO ME, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING CLUMSY IN MY QUESTION,
BUT COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? WHAT CAN YOU DO WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE AND ALL THIS STUFF IS HAPPENING? YES, SIR. AND THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED THIS PAST YEAR WITH,
WITH THIS PARTICULAR EVENT THAT I'M REFERRING TO UP IN NORTH CENTRAL DALLAS. 
          OUR OFFICERS, IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE A VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC WAS IT WAS IT
IT HAD BECOME A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN. AND SO, YES, BECAUSE OF THAT,
WE HAD TO STEP IN AND SAY WE'RE WE HAD TO, TO TO SHUT THE STREETS DOWN FOR THE MOST PART. 
          BOTH ENDS OF, OF THAT PARTICULAR STREET WERE SHUT DOWN BY,
BY OUR OFFICERS AND THE STREET WAS CLEARED OUT. 
          IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH PEOPLE SAYING,
NO, I'M NOT GOING. 
          THE STREET WAS CLEARED OUT. NO ONE ELSE WAS ALLOWED TO COME ON THE STREET. 
          BUT WITH WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH WE WE DID THAT,
THERE WERE BECAUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL THIS, AND PEOPLE KNOWING WHEN POLICE MAY POTENTIALLY BE CLEARED OUT OF THE AREA. 
          TRAFFIC WOULD STILL STACK UP WAITING FOR US TO LEAVE. 
          SO WE HAD WE HAD TO BE THERE. WE HAD TO STAY THERE OR THERE WOULD BE OTHER ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH US LEAVING. 
          OKAY. AND MY SECOND MY LAST QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR GETTING A SPECIAL EVENTS
PERMITS? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? AND IS IT IS REALLY THE SOLUTION THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING
IS FOR AN ORGANIZED LONG TERM EVENT AS OPPOSED TO AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT THAT MAY HAVE SUCCESSIVE SITUATIONS. 
          SO HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT? WHAT DO YOU HAVE? WHAT HOOPS DOES A DOES AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION HAVE TO JUMP
THROUGH TO GET IT DONE? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. WE LOVE FOR PERMITS TO COME IN 30,
60 OR 120, BUT WE HAVE WORKED WITH EVERYONE UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT. SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU HAVE AS PART OF YOUR
SPECIAL EVENT AND HOW MANY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OR STAKEHOLDERS OR OUTSIDE ENTITIES NEED TO REVIEW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND EITHER APPROVE IT,
AMEND IT, OR DECLINE IT, RIGHT. SO IN THIS INSTANCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STREET CLOSURE. 
          AND SO THERE'S TWO ENTITIES THAT WOULD NEED TO APPROVE THAT OR AMEND IT. 
          THAT WOULD BE DPD AND TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WORKS. 
          AND SO THAT CAN BE DONE RATHER QUICKLY. YOU KNOW,
IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD FOOD OR ALCOHOL YOU MIGHT NEED INSURANCE AS WELL, AND SO THEN WE WOULD ENACT A THIRD DEPARTMENT. 
          SO BY ORDINANCE, WE GIVE OUR DEPARTMENTS TEN DAYS TO REVIEW A PERMIT. 
          BUT WE CAN DO IT QUICKLY. I MEAN, WE CAN DO IT UNDER TEN DAYS IF IF THEY ARE ABLE TO DO
IT. 
          AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT'S REALLY GENERATING THIS NEED FOR THIS
DISCUSSION, 
          [00:35:04]
YOU WOULD HAVE DENIED THIS PERMIT PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT BECAUSE OF THE WE KNOW
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. 
          SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY GO FORWARD, DECORATE THEIR HOUSE AND THEN DECIDE TO HAVE A
PUBLIC DISPLAY WITHOUT A PERMIT. 
          AND THEY'RE NOT ENCOURAGING. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT ADVERTISING. 
          THEY'RE NOT CHARGING. THEY'RE NOT. IT'S JUST DISPLAY. 
          HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? WELL, IF IF WE DID HAVE THIS NEW SECTION ADDED TO 42.A, WE COULD, THERE'S A 2000 AND A $500 FINE THAT WE COULD IMPOSE ON THE PERSON HAVING THE
DISPLAY. 
          AND THAT'S DAILY. AND SO WE WOULD IMPOSE FINES ON THEM. 
          THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. SO IN A PREVIOUS RESPONSE,
YOU USED THE PRONOUN YOU. 
          WHO DID THAT REFER TO? WHO APPLIES FOR THIS SPECIAL PERMIT? THE PERSON HOSTING THE EVENT OR OR ORGANIZING THE EVENT. 
          OKAY, SO WALK ME THROUGH HOW THIS WOULD WORK. 
          SOMEONE PUTS ON AN ELABORATE HOLIDAY DISPLAY. 
          THEY ADVERTISE IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY TALK IT UP,
IT CAUSES TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN PROBLEMS ON THE STREET. 
          DPD GETS CALLED BY A NEIGHBOR, YOU ASSESS OR DPD ASSESSES THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY
HAZARD. 
          WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP IF WE ADOPT THIS CHANGE? SO IT IS SIMILAR TO HOW WE, WHEN WE, WHEN FIRST AMENDMENT FOLKS COME INTO THE CITY OF
DALLAS, THEY WORK WITH DPD ON WHAT THEIR PLAN IS. IF THEIR PLAN RISES. 
          LET'S SAY THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LAW,
DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW. 
          THEY JUST WANT TO DECORATE THEIR HOUSE, THEY CAUSE A PROBLEM. 
          WHAT DOES DPD DO? WELL, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE ENGAGING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL. 
          AND THEN THEY WOULD INTRODUCE THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EVENTS. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD START WORKING WITH THEM AND REALLY TRY TO REMEDY WHAT THE CAUSES ARE. 
          OKAY. SO DPD GOES TO THE FRONT DOOR, ENGAGES THE HOMEOWNER,
SAYS YOU'RE CREATING A PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM. 
          YOU NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. AND YOU NEED TO TALK TO US ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? DOES DPD ALERT YOU AT OCE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM,
OR DO YOU JUST WAIT FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO CONTACT YOU? YES, BOTH DPD WOULD LET US KNOW, BUT THEN WE WOULD ALSO BE REACHING OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER
TO START THE PROCESS. 
          AND IF THEY REFUSED, WE WOULD WORK WITH CODE TO,
LIKE I SAID, ASSESS FINES FOR NOT HAVING A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. 
          OKAY. AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT? THAT WOULD BE NOT LIKE LIKE REQUIRING EMERGENCY TRAFFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER
28-10 AND NOT HAVING ONE. 
          SO DPD DETERMINES YOU HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC OUT HERE. 
          YOU NEED A TRAFFIC PLAN. THAT'S A PRETTY SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA. 
          BUT THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR YOUR PURPOSES IF DPD SAYS IT'S REQUIRED. 
          YES. A REQUIRED TRAFFIC PLAN IS ALSO PART OF CHAPTER 42,
A REQUIRED FOR A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. 
          OKAY. AND THEN WHO PREPARES THIS TRAFFIC PLAN? USUALLY THE EVENT ORGANIZER. AND THEN IT'S REVIEWED BY DPD. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, IF IT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED IT'S AMENDED. 
          AND THEN DPD ASSIGNS THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS REQUIRED TO EXECUTE THE TRAFFIC PLAN. 
          AND THEN ONCE THEY HIRE THOSE NUMBER OF OFFICERS OFF DUTY,
THEN WE ISSUE THE PERMIT. 
          OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THIS? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE COST OF THE PERMIT IS GOING TO BE? USUALLY WE DO HAVE, OUR FEES ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THE EVENT AND THEN ALSO
THE TYPE OF STREET CLOSURE. 
          THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE A SIMPLE STREET CLOSURE BECAUSE IT IS IN A RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOT IN A HIGH IMPACT AREA LIKE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD CHARGE THAT BASED ON THE ATTENDANCE PER DAY AND THE SIMPLE STREET
CLOSURE. 
          WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE FEE IS SUPPOSED TO DEFRAY THE COST OF DPD LABOR AND PATROL
VEHICLES. 
          SO DO YOU JUST HAVE A SCHEDULE? 100 PEOPLE. IS THIS FEE 200 PEOPLE? IS THIS FEE? OR DO YOU ACTUALLY RECOVER THE ACTUAL COSTS AS DETERMINED BY DPD? SO THIS IS JUST THE FEE FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. 
          BUT YES, THAT IS HOW IT'S CALCULATED. AND THEN TO HIRE OFF DUTY OFFICERS DPD USES ROLL
CALL AND I'LL LET DPD TALK ABOUT THAT 
          [00:40:09]
PROCESS. WELL THEN HOW DO YOU ASSESS THAT COST TO THE HOMEOWNER? WELL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SHOW US THAT THEY'VE HIRED THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS REQUIRED FOR
THE TRAFFIC PLAN. 
          AND ONCE THEY TURN IN THAT INFORMATION FROM ROLL CALL,
THEN WE RELEASE THE PERMIT. 
          AND THE COST OF OFFICERS DEPENDS ON THEIR RANK AND HOW MANY HOURS THEY'RE GOING TO BE
WORKING. 
          SO IT'S JUST UP TO THE LEFT, UP TO THE HOMEOWNER TO WORK WITH DPD,
TO HIRE THE OFF DUTY PATROL OFFICERS AND PAY THE EXPENSE. 
          YOU DON'T REALLY GET INVOLVED IN THAT AT OK. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, I THINK THE IDEA OF FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES ON THE HOST OF
THESE EVENTS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT ONE. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO PENALTY,
THERE'S NO COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          AND SO PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CREATE NUISANCES ESSENTIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS
WITHOUT ANY REPERCUSSIONS. 
          SO YES, I DO THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM. AND CERTAINLY WE'VE SEEN THAT DEMONSTRATED THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS AT ONE PROPERTY. 
          AND THERE'S POTENTIAL PROBLEM IN MANY PROPERTIES. 
          PEOPLE LIKE TO PUT ON ELABORATE DISPLAYS AND THEN ATTRACT PEOPLE TO THEM THROUGH SOCIAL
MEDIA. 
          AND SO IF THEY'RE NOT CREATING A PROBLEM, THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T HAVE ANY TEETH ON PEOPLE
WHO DON'T PROMOTE IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. 
          AND THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ISSUE. BUT IF THERE IS,
WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TEETH TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE. ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS CHARGE FEES BASED UPON
COST RECOVERY. 
          DPD SHOULDN'T BE SADDLED WITH OVER $100,000 IN PROJECTED COSTS JUST FOR PEOPLE PUTTING ON
DISPLAYS. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO DPD AND THEIR BUDGET THAT WE HAVE AN A PROCESS TO RECOVER
THAT COST FROM THE PERSON WHO IS PUTTING ON THESE KINDS OF EVENTS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WEST. THANK YOU, CHAIR,
AND APPRECIATE THE TEAM FOR THIS DETAILED WORK AND BRINGING THIS TO US TODAY. I'LL JUST SAY THAT GENERALLY, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH. I DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT FOR THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL EVENT
FOR CHAPTER 42 A.2. 
          YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND SEEN REALLY IN THE MEDIA
FOLLOWING THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S A IT'S A NEEDED ADDITION TO TO OUR TOOLS TO HELP YOU KNOW,
THESE ONE OFF SITUATIONS IN NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I DO APPRECIATE MR. ROTH'S COMMENTS AS WELL ABOUT THE PROCESS ITSELF OF OBTAINING A
SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT. 
          AND I WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO JUST SAY YOU KNOW,
WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB IN THE CITY OF CREATING NEW ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS THAT MAKE THINGS HARDER. AND IN THIS CASE,
IT WORKS. 
          BUT WE DON'T ALWAYS DO A GOOD JOB OF MAKING THINGS EASIER FOR FOR OUR RESIDENTS WHO WANT
TO BRING FUN EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES TO THE CITY. 
          AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THE SAME GROUP BRING FORWARD A WAY TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, GROUPS THAT COME EVERY YEAR AND DO THE SAME EVENT EVERY YEAR,
AND THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD THAT'S PROVEN. 
          WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOUR GROUP BRING FORWARD AN EXPEDITED PERMITTING PROCESS THAT DOESN'T
TAKE THE SAME AS A BRAND NEW GROUP THAT'S BEEN THAT'S JUST STARTING OFF. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US EASING THINGS UP JUST AS WE'RE MAKING THEM MORE
COMPLICATED. 
          I'VE ALSO HEARD COMPLAINTS THAT THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT PROCESS IS REALLY SIMPLE FOR
LARGE GROUPS. 
          IT'S VERY COMPLICATED FOR YOUR SMALL GROUPS,
YOUR NONPROFITS. 
          AND IT CAN BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO THEM. AND THOSE ARE THE ONES,
AT LEAST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT ARE PUTTING ON THESE THESE GREAT EVENTS THAT THE COMMUNITY LOVES. 
          SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT OFFSET SORT OF THIS NEW ORDINANCE WE'RE DOING. 
          I SHARE MR. BAZALDUA CONCERNS WITH 20 OR 30-2 AMENDMENT,
THE NOISE ORDINANCE. 
          I'M JUST NOT HEARING THE EVIDENCE FROM THE GROUP THAT THAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE
TOOLS WE ALREADY HAVE. 
          I FORESEE IT THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN,
IT COULD BE USED AS A WEAPON WITH NEIGHBOR ATTACKING NEIGHBOR. 
          AND I JUST I JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THE NOISE ORDINANCE. 
          BUT I'M HAPPY TO BE PROVEN WRONG. I JUST HAVEN'T HEARD IT YET. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR CADENA. 
          YES. SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO HOW WAS THE SURVEY DISTRIBUTED? 
          [00:45:01]
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THE SURVEY WAS PRIMARILY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH CODE COMPLIANCE,
NEIGHBORHOOD CODE REPS. 
          AFTER THIS COMMITTEE WAS BRIEFED IN OCTOBER,
I BELIEVE WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD ENGAGED WITH HOMEOWNERS, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. 
          AND SO CODE COMPLIANCE IS NEIGHBORHOOD CODE REPS REGULARLY ATTEND THESE NEIGHBORHOOD
GROUPS. 
          AND SO WE TOOK THE QR CODE FOR THAT SURVEY OUT TO THESE GROUPS. 
          AND OVER END OF NOVEMBER AND THROUGHOUT DECEMBER,
WHEN WE WENT TO THOSE MEETINGS, WE ASKED IF PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO TO TAKE THAT SURVEY AND TO GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK. 
          CODE COMPLIANCE ALSO SENT IT OUT IN OUR DECEMBER NEWSLETTER THAT I THINK HAS 11 OR 1200
RECIPIENTS AS WELL. 
          NOW, THAT WAS WHAT WE DID ASSERTIVELY. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT IT WAS IT WAS POSTED,
I BELIEVE MULTIPLE PLACES ONLINE VIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND BY THE NEWS AS WELL. OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN I KNOW AS A STAFFER,
WHEN I USED TO TAKE CALLS ABOUT NOISE WITH THE CURRENT COMPLAINT SYSTEM I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? SORRY. NOW, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REALLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. 
          I'M SAYING IF DPD GOES OUT THERE AND THEY ACTUALLY HEAR THE NOISE THEMSELVES,
THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND CITE IF THEY GO OUT THERE AND THEY DO NOT HEAR THE NOISE, WE WOULD REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF A WITNESS STATING THAT MY NEIGHBOR OVER HERE. 
          THEY, THEY KEEP PLAYING THE NOISE. YOU LEAVE,
THEY TURN IT OFF. THAT THAT THAT SORT OF THING. 
          BUT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING OF THAT,
THAT EFFECT AS FAR AS SOMEONE TELLING US THAT, YES, THERE HAS BEEN LOUD MUSIC. OKAY. AND IF THEY IF IT GOES FURTHER,
LIKE, I GUESS THERE'S AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO, THEY HAVE TO NAME THEMSELVES OR OR KNOW, LIKE IF IT IT'S A NUISANCE. 
          WOULD THEY HAVE TO WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF A WITNESS. 
          YES. FOR, FOR ANYTHING TO COME OF IT AS FAR AS ANY TYPE OF AS FAR AS ANYTHING HAPPENING TO
THE, TO THE HOMEOWNER, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A AS IN,
AS IN EVERYTHING AS FAR AS WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A WITNESS. 
          OKAY. I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS A COUPLE OF CALLS THAT WE GOT WHERE PEOPLE WERE HESITANT TO
NAME THEMSELVES OR, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT THEY WERE THE COMPLAINANT. 
          I THINK IN SOME CASES, WE EVEN HAD TO GET CODE INVOLVED WHERE THEY WOULD GO. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, LOOK, YOU KNOW, ON THE WEEKENDS,
WHENEVER THEY THOUGHT THAT THE, THE ISSUE MIGHT HAPPEN THAT THAT DID HAPPEN A COUPLE OF TIMES. SO AND THEN I THINK IN TERMS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS, HOW DO OTHER CITIES DEAL WITH THESE TYPES OF ISSUES? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. WE DID DO A LOT OF RESEARCH. 
          AND I KNOW FORT WORTH JUST PASSED SOME SOME TYPE OF ORDINANCE,
AND I, I'M TRYING I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR THAT AND FIND THAT, AND I'LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU ALL. BUT MOST OF OUR RESEARCH,
THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING WE COULD FIND. 
          YEAH, I KNOW WHEN I WENT TO SEE CHRISTMAS LIGHTS,
ACTUALLY, THIS SEASON I WAS INTERESTING TO GO TO SOME OTHER CITIES. 
          SOME JUST PUT OUT PARKING OR LIKE TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGNS. 
          I THINK ONLY IN DALLAS WAS IT, I THINK, DIFFICULT TO YOU KNOW,
GO DOWN CERTAIN STREETS. 
          BUT THE OTHER ONES THAT THEY THE TRAFFIC SEEMED TO FLOW PRETTY,
YOU KNOW, EASILY. 
          ONE OF MY QUESTIONS ALSO IS REGARDING LIKE A SPECIAL EVENT,
LIKE NEW YEAR'S EVE. 
          SO IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MY DISTRICT PEOPLE WERE NOT EVEN ABLE TO,
TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES. 
          I MEAN, THE TRAFFIC WAS COMPLETELY BACKED UP. 
          AND SO IN CASES LIKE THIS OUR PARKING ENFORCEMENT REQUIRED OR LIKE,
I GUESS WHOEVER PULLS THE PERMIT DO THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE TO CHECK? CURRENTLY, NO. CURRENTLY, THAT IS NOT ON ANY OF OUR COST RECOVERY MODELS,
BUT I'M SURE THAT'S. I'LL LET WENDY TALK ABOUT THAT. I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU MEAN
BY PARKING ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE PARKING ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T DO TRAFFIC CONTROL. 
          ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CONTROL OF THE ON STREET PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, I WOULD SAY BLOCKING PEOPLE INTO THEIR HOMES. 
          SO. SO DURING NEW YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE FIREWORKS AND I THINK THAT WEST DALLAS
WASN'T CONSIDERED IN SOME OF THE THE PLANS. AND SO PEOPLE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR HOMES. 
          AND OF COURSE, DPD WAS OVERWHELMED WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON. 
          SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF PARKING ENFORCEMENT MIGHT BE ANOTHER TOOL THAT COULD BE ADDED TO
SOME OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS, LIKE A NEW YEAR'S EVE PRODUCTION AS RESIDENTS ARE NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR HOMES. 
          [00:50:05]
I MEAN, WE COULDN'T EVEN GET AN AMBULANCE. I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD HAVE EASILY BEEN ABLE
TO GET DOWN SOME OF OUR STREETS IN WEST DALLAS. 
          IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL SOME OF THOSE SITUATIONS IN LARGE EVENTS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, WITH SAINT PATRICK'S DAY, THAT'S AN ONGOING ISSUE. 
          THE CONCERN AND THE ISSUE BECOMES WHEN IT IS A PARKED VEHICLE BLOCKED. 
          THE ONLY WAY TO ADDRESS THAT IS BY TOWING THE VEHICLE NORMALLY. 
          AND IN THOSE CONGESTED SITUATIONS, SOMETIMES TOWING BECOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. 
          THERE ARE SOME STRATEGIES THAT WE USE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IN THE LAST SAINT
PATRICK'S DAY PARADE OR THAT TYPE OF ISSUE, WHEN WE FIND OUT ABOUT IT, WE MOVED TO A DIFFERENT MODEL,
BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS TRYING TO ACTIVELY ENFORCE ALL OF THE STREETS AND ALL THE AREAS. WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL, AND IT'S ALSO TOO DIFFICULT TO TOW. 
          SO WE WILL DO SOME THINGS, LIKE IF YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH SAINT PATRICK'S DAY OR SOME OF THE
OTHER LARGER EVENTS LATELY, YOU MIGHT SEE GREEN STICKERS ON VEHICLES AND THAT'S SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE,
HEY, IF YOU PARK HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE TOWED. SO IT STOPS SOMETIMES FROM THE BLOCK BEING PARKED UP. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN DO IS IN THESE SITUATIONS,
ASK FOR THE TEMPORARY NO PARKING SO THAT THEY GET THOSE SIGNS TO BE PUT NEAR OR AROUND THEIR DRIVEWAYS TO HELP ALERT THE PUBLIC THAT YOU SHOULD NOT PARK
HERE. 
          I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THAT'S NOT 100% EFFECTIVE,
BUT IT IS A REDUCTION. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN SOME OTHER LARGER
EVENTS, AND THAT'S BEEN ON THE REQUEST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT PARKING ENFORCEMENT COULD CONTROL OR DO ORGANICALLY,
BUT IF WE ARE NOTIFIED ABOUT IT AND SOMETIMES IT WILL COME THROUGH WITH A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT, OR SOMETIMES IT WILL COME AS JUST AN EVENT ASKING ON ITS OWN WHERE IT DOESN'T NEED
A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT, BUT THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          THEN YES, WE'LL WORK WITH WORK WITH THEM. FOR EXAMPLE ON FRIDAY WE HAD SOMEONE FROM THE
BISHOP ARTS NEIGHBORHOOD COME BY OUR OFFICE TO SAY, HEY, DID YOU GUYS REALIZE WE HAVE VALENTINE'S DAY IN THE MARDI GRAS PARADE BACK TO BACK? AND WE THINK IN OUR RPO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK HERE AND WE HAVE AN EVENT,
SO WE ISSUED THOSE TEMPORARY NO PARKING EVENTS TO THEM RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT AND SCHEDULED FOR EXTRA PATROLS, BECAUSE THAT WAS A KNOWN AREA THAT WHEN THOSE TYPES OF THINGS
HAPPENED, SOMETIMES THEY GET BLOCKED DRIVEWAYS. SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'VE DONE IS THAT WE FOUND OUT
THAT RECENTLY THAT 311 WAS CALLED IN. 
          IF YOU ALL DIDN'T KNOW, THERE'S ONE TYPE OF CALL IN THAT'S DISPATCH ONLY WHERE YOU CAN'T
TYPE IT IN, YOU CALL IT IN, AND IT'S ACTUALLY DISPATCHED TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT. AND THAT'S FOR STREET
BLOCKAGE. SO THAT SOMEONE IMMEDIATELY GOES OUT AND LOOKS FOR THE BLOCKAGE IN A TOW. 
          SO WE HAVE REQUESTED AND I THINK THAT 31 HAS ALREADY MADE THE CHANGE WHERE DRIVEWAY
BLOCKAGES ARE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS A STREET BLOCKAGE. 
          SO IT WILL BE A DISPATCH CALL TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT. 
          SO WE'RE HOPING JUST IN THOSE ROUTINE AREAS WHERE WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BLOCKED
DRIVEWAYS, IT WILL BE BETTER. BEFORE IT WAS COMING IN AS A ROUTINE PARKING VIOLATION,
WHICH IS YOUR TWO DAY RESPONSE, WHICH IS NOT EFFECTIVE WHEN SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY IS BLOCKED. 
          SO WE HOPE THAT THIS WILL ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT WHERE WE'RE HAVING A DELAYED RESPONSE
BECAUSE OF HOW THE 311 NOTICE WAS COMING TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT. 
          SO WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THOSE MEASURES. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. 
          SO IS THERE A COST FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR THOSE NO PARKING? NO, THERE IS NOT. THAT'S WHY THAT WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED IN TODAY'S BRIEFING. 
          AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL ADDRESS HOLISTICALLY WHEN WE COME BACK LATER THIS
SPRING, ABOUT SOME GENERAL PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND PARKING ISSUES ON COST RECOVERY FOR THE NO
PARKING PERMITS, THE TEMPORARY ONES, BECAUSE THEY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE STRUCTURE. SINCE WE'RE KIND OF
DOING THOSE UNDER 28-10 THE METERED PARKING, THE PAID PARKING IS LAID OUT IN THE CODE SPECIFICALLY THE AREAS WHERE THERE IS NOT METERS
IS NOT LAID OUT AS SPECIFICALLY, BUT STILL HAS TO BE WORKED THROUGH BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTION,
YOU HAVE EVENTS, YOU HAVE REASONS WHY YOU NEED TO RESERVE THE CURB LANE, WHETHER IT'S METERED PARKING OR NOT. OKAY, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          AND AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO PUTTING ALL OF THIS TOGETHER. I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. AND THEN A SIMPLE QUESTION IS, BASED ON THE DATA, I KNOW WE HAD THE DATA BY DISTRICTS AND ALL OF THAT BASED ON THAT DATA. 
          FOR THE EVENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT OR ANY OTHER HISTORICAL EVENTS IS AND I'M TALKING
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CHAPTER 42.A IN 2018 ARE THERE DOES THE DATA SUGGEST THAT THIS COULD BE USEFUL IN OTHER DISTRICTS? NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO,
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER SIMILAR EVENTS THAT WOULD ALSO KIND OF JUSTIFY THE NECESSITY FOR THIS AMENDMENT? BECAUSE VICE CHAIR CADENA BROUGHT UP A GREAT
POINT IN NEW YEAR'S EVE AND THINGS LIKE 
          [00:55:04]
THAT, AND MAYBE EVEN 4TH OF JULY. HOW WOULD THIS THEN BE APPLIED TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? AND THEN YEAH, I'LL STOP BECAUSE I HAVE A FEW. 
          SO I THINK THAT THIS POLICY RECOMMENDATION TO 42.A SPECIFICALLY DOES,
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR ORDINANCE, REALLY TALK ABOUT THE SPECTATORS VERSUS JUST WHAT THE EVENT ORGANIZER IS PUTTING ON,
WHICH IS WHAT A LOT OF OUR PERMIT FOCUSES ON. 
          WELL, MOST OF OUR PERMIT. SO I DO THINK, YOU KNOW,
HAVING THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THE SPECTATORS ARE, ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, CAUSING AN IMPACT TO PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE CAN,
YOU KNOW, ADD OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE PERMIT PROCESS,
WHICH IS WHAT WHAT THE PERMIT PROCESS IS FOR IS TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY MANAGE PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE WHEN EVENTS COME IN. 
          SO THAT IT'S NOT AFFECTED NEGATIVELY. BUT THEN BASED ON ON THE DATA,
YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT IT BRIEFLY IN TERMS OF I SAW SOME SPIKES IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WHERE IT SEEMED TO BE HIGHER THAN OTHERS. AND EVEN IN THOSE DISTRICTS,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THEM, I THINK IF MEMORY SERVES ME, WERE EITHER DOWNTOWN OR NORTH. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, DID ANY OF THOSE EVENTS THAT SPIKE THAT DATA? WOULD THIS AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN USEFUL TO ADDRESS THOSE EVENTS? AM I ASKING THIS RIGHT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO COMMUNICATE? YES,
I THINK SO. 
          I MEAN, WE DO HAVE KIND OF A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF EVENTS IN DISTRICTS 2 AND 14. 
          JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF CITY ASSETS IN THOSE DISTRICTS,
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, ETC.. 
          SO YOU KNOW, YES, I DO THINK THIS WOULD HAVE HELPED THE NEW YEAR'S EVE SITUATION. 
          AND I CAN'T THINK RIGHT OFFHAND OF, YOU KNOW,
OTHER SPECIFIC EVENTS THAT THIS MAY NOT THAT THIS MAY HAVE ASSISTED, BUT I THINK THAT DATA IS SPIKED IN THOSE DISTRICTS BECAUSE JUST THE NUMBER,
THE SHEER AMOUNT OF EVENTS WE HAVE IN THOSE DISTRICTS. 
          SURE. OKAY. AND I CAN APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES PERSPECTIVES REALLY ON ALL. 
          HONESTLY, ALL OF THEM. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO TO MY COLLEAGUE BAZALDUA POINT IS,
I DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO ADD AN ORDINANCE AND TO EVEN CHAIR WEST COMMENTS IN, IN TERMS OF MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLICATED WITHOUT MAKING
THINGS MORE EFFICIENT. FROM THERE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING I GUESS I
UNDERSTAND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPLIED WHEN NECESSARY. 
          AND I GUESS GOING BACK TO WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH WAS ASKING. 
          AND THAT'S THE PART I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH MY HEAD. THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS WOULD BE
APPLIED IS AFTER THE FACT, ESSENTIALLY. OR DURING THE FACT. YES. RIGHT. YEAH. 
          DURING. I'M SORRY. WELL, WHEN I SAY AFTER EVENT ONE DAY,
ONE HAPPENS. 
          NOBODY CALLS. DAY TWO NOBODY CALLS. DAY THREE. 
          ALL RIGHT. LOOK. THIS NEEDS TO BE PUT UNDER CONTROL AT THIS POINT. 
          SO THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO ANTICIPATE IT,
I GUESS. 
          THERE'S NO WAY TO BE PREEMPTIVE IN THIS SENSE. 
          IT HAS TO BE BASED ON A CALL TO TRIGGER THIS ORDINANCE TO GO INTO EFFECT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO ANOTHER. 
          OKAY. OKAY, I'LL STOP THERE. ALL RIGHT. I THINK CHAIR ROTH,
I MEAN, I'M SORRY, CHAIR RIDLEY HAD AN. 
          I DO TOO, CHAIR WHEN YOU HAVE A SECOND. WELL,
ACTUALLY LET ME I'LL START HERE AND GO BACK THIS WAY. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO ADDRESSING THE NOISE ISSUE,
I NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE DATA IN THIS PRESENTATION INDICATING 3600 NOISE COMPLAINTS IN THE MOST RECENT YEAR. 
          THAT'S TEN A DAY ACROSS THE CITY. THAT'S MORE THAN DPD CAN HANDLE. 
          SO I THINK THERE IS JUSTIFICATION IN THE DATA TO DO SOMETHING. 
          AND AS THE APPENDIX INDICATES, I HAVE THE MOST NOISE COMPLAINTS OF ANY DISTRICT IN
DISTRICT 14. 
          AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HEAR FREQUENTLY FROM CONSTITUENTS ABOUT. 
          NOW, ALL OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE NOT, ALTHOUGH THAT 3600 IS JUST IN NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF ENTERTAINMENT VENUES WITH CLOSE BY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT
OF FREQUENT NOISE COMPLAINTS. 
          AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS,
THE STANDARD IS WHETHER YOU CAN HEAR THE NOISE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          IS THAT NOT CORRECT, MAYOR? IF I'M NOT, IF I'M IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN,
I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. SO THERE'S APPARENTLY A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE THAT APPLIES TO BUSINESSES GENERATING
NOISE THAN THERE IS RESIDENCES FOR WHICH THERE IS JUST 
          [01:00:06]
A AN ORDINANCE BASED UPON COMPLAINT OF OFFENSIVE NOISE. 
          IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. 
          SO WHAT YOU WERE CONTEMPLATING HERE IS SIMPLY APPLYING THE SAME STANDARD THAT WE ALREADY
HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO RESIDENCES, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND I LIKE THAT APPROACH BECAUSE IT'S OBJECTIVE AND IT ALLOWS
THE HOMEOWNER TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE BY THEMSELVES. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE TO WONDER IF SOME NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO COMPLAIN THAT THE NOISE IS
OFFENSIVE. 
          THEY CAN GO OUT TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY CAN HEAR THE MUSIC OR
NOT. 
          IF THEY CAN, THEY'RE IN VIOLATION. IF THEY CAN'T,
THEY KNOW THEY'RE SAFE. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT TODAY. WE JUST HAVE TO WONDER IF SOME NEIGHBOR WHO MAY HAVE A GRUDGE
AGAINST ME THINKS MY NOISE IS TOO LOUD AND THEY CALL UP DPD. 
          SO I THINK THIS APPROACH ELIMINATES SOME A LOT OF THAT SUBJECTIVITY. 
          IT ALLOWS HOMEOWNERS TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY'RE IN VIOLATION AND WHEN THEY AREN'T. 
          AND IT AVOIDS A SITUATION OF VINDICTIVE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE TARGETING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY
DON'T LIKE THEM. 
          THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN HEAR THE NOISE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          SO FROM DPD'S PERSPECTIVE, DOESN'T THIS MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT? FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PATROL CAR IS ROUTINELY PATROLLING A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY HEAR A LOUD
PARTY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLAINANT. THEY CAN TAKE ACTION RIGHT THEN. 
          ABSOLUTELY. AND THE THING IS, WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT NOW IF WE IF WE HEAR THE LOUD MUSIC,
OF COURSE, AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE SAY, HEY,
THIS IS OFFENSIVE. 
          MY SENSIBILITY. SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORS AND KNOCK ON THE DOOR AT 12:00 AND SAY, ARE YOU BEING KEPT UP BY THE NEIGHBOR'S MUSIC? IS THAT A COMFORTABLE SITUATION FOR YOU? YEAH,
THIS WOULD DEFINITELY HELP. 
          EXACTLY RIGHT. OKAY, WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING NOISE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. 
          THANK YOU. LOOK, I'M NOT IN FAVOR. I'M NOT CONDONING,
AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A SITUATION FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL PUBLICITY. THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT. 
          THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY THAT'S AFFECTING AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING A
NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M NOT CONDONING THAT ACTIVITY, AND I DON'T WANT TO PROMOTE THAT ACTIVITY. 
          HOWEVER, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE REALLY RARELY.,
ARE FAIRLY RARELY A RARE ACTIVITIES HERE THAT ARE SO EGREGIOUS THAT THEY'RE CREATING A NEED FOR A NEW ORDINANCE. 
          AND I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT LEGISLATING ANYTHING THAT'S CAUSED BY VERY SMALL NUMBERS OF
OF EVENTS. 
          AND EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE YOU'VE GOT A SURVEY HERE,
I'M NOT REALLY CONVINCED THAT THE SURVEY RESULTS REALLY ARE REFLECTIVE OF A BIGGER PROBLEM THAT IS NOT ALREADY BEING HANDLED BY CURRENT ORDINANCES AND LAWS. 
          AND I TO, TO TO THE TO THE REALLY THE COMPLIMENT OF MY COLLEAGUES. 
          I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT LAYERING ON MORE ORDINANCES THAT FORCE US
TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT CREATE MORE REGULATIONS TO OUR CITIZENS THAT THAT REALLY ARE WIDELY NOT ADVERSELY
CAUSING THE PROBLEM. AND I THINK THAT IT'S DIFFICULT, SOUND IS A DIFFICULT THING TO REGULATE. 
          AND I THINK WEAPONIZING SOUND ORDINANCES IS A VERY UNIQUE POSSIBILITY. 
          I THINK DISPLAY ALSO IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE ISSUE. 
          AND I THINK IT'S HARD TO ENFORCE THAT UNLESS IT'S REALLY EGREGIOUS. 
          I THINK THAT THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT PROCESS IS DIFFICULT. 
          IT'S TEDIOUS. IT'S NOT. IT'S IT'S IT'S POST POST EVENT REACTIVE IN IN THE EVENT OF THESE
UNUSUAL, RARE ACTIVITIES AND IT NEEDS TO BE SIMPLIFIED FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY TRYING TO
COMPLY. 
          AND I THINK THAT I THINK THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM,
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING HERE IS THE CORRECT ONE AND I AND I, I'M WITH WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE WHO ARE HAVING A PARTICULAR
ISSUES IN SOME OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          [01:05:07]
I THINK THIS AS A CITYWIDE SITUATION, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY,
VERY CAREFUL ABOUT LAYERING ON AND ADDING NEW ORDINANCES THAT MAY THAT MAY REALLY NOT ADD ENOUGH VALUE TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIVITY. 
          SO I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH AT THIS TIME,
AND I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF PURSUING THESE SUGGESTED POLICY CHANGES. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT IN, IN, IN ACQUIESCENCE TO BAD ACTORS,
BUT LET'S NOT PENALIZE A MILLION PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE CITY,
OR 500,000 HOUSES OR A MILLION AND A HALF PEOPLE IN THE CITY FOR THE BAD ACTIONS OF A FEW PEOPLE. THANK YOU. 
          DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIS. THANK YOU. WELL,
I'LL FOLLOW ALONG ON THAT. 
          THAT THIS, THIS REALLY SHOULDN'T TOUCH HARDLY ANY OF OUR RESIDENTS. 
          THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED EXTRAORDINARY. I ENJOYED DRIVING AROUND IN THE HOLIDAYS OR,
YOU KNOW, SEEING OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL NOSTALGIC NEIGHBORHOOD
EVENTS THAT OCCUR. 
          HOME TOURS AND 4TH OF JULY PARADES AND ALL OF THOSE WONDERFUL THINGS. 
          IT'S WHEN SOMETHING TRIPS OVER INTO BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS AND TO CREATING HAZARDS IN STREETS, NOT BY A COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION,
BUT BY OUR VERY OWN DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS SAYING THIS IS OUT OF HAND, THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC, FOR OUR OFFICERS,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR THEM. 
          I MEAN, I'M I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO HEAR THOSE WHO ARE TRAINED TO SERVE AND PROTECT US
EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          WHEN THEY SAY, I NEED TO BE EQUIPPED WITH SOMETHING THAT CAN HELP IN THIS INSTANCE AND TO
THE CHAIR'S POINT YOU KNOW, SOMETHING MAY GO ON DAY AFTER DAY AND NOT BE ON ANY KIND OF RADAR. 
          IN FACT, YOU SEE IT AS YOU DRIVE THROUGH THE CITY. 
          I MEAN, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN THE HOLIDAYS,
THERE ARE DISPLAYS, NEIGHBORHOODS AREN'T OVERRUN WITH TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. 
          AND SO THIS REALLY SHOULDN'T AFFECT MANY PEOPLE. 
          BUT WHEN IT DOES OCCUR, WE HAVE NOTHING TO GIVE DPD CODE,
SPECIAL EVENTS, A TOOL TO HELP. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. NOT ABOUT THE EVERYDAY BUT ABOUT THE ACUTE SITUATION. 
          SO IT'S NOT ABOUT I MEAN, PEOPLE CAN PROMOTE WHAT THEY WANT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. 
          IT'S REALLY NOT ABOUT THAT. NOT MANY OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS CREATE THE NEGATIVE
SECONDARY EFFECTS THAT SOME THINGS DO, THAT THIS ISN'T A KNEE JERK REACTION. THIS HAS BEEN IN WORK FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS,
REALLY FINE TUNING TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING TO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT INFRINGE, THAT IS VERY LASER FOCUSED ON JUST WHEN SOMETHING IS CREATING AN
EMERGENCY CONDITION, A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR EXHIBITION WITH SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES AN
EMERGENCY TRAFFIC REGULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-10. 
          SO THIS IS PRETTY FOCUSED ON IT'S GOT TO BE A PRETTY BIG DEAL AND CREATING SAFETY CONCERNS
TO EVEN BE CALLED INTO EFFECT, WHICH SHOULD NOT TOUCH MOST IF ANYBODY. 
          SO THAT IS WHY I DO SUPPORT THIS. AND I KNOW THE KIND OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS AND WE
HAVE TO COUNCIL MEMBER CADENAS POINT LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES AND HOW THINGS ARE HANDLED, AND THIS SORT OF SITUATION ISN'T HASN'T OCCURRED THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND. 
          BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE REALLY BEEN TURNING OVER EVERY STONE TO FIND WHAT WE COULD
POINT TO ON THIS. 
          AND SO THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON IN DALLAS,
AND THAT IS YOU'VE REALLY BEEN CRYING OUT FOR AS A WAY TO BRING SOME CONTROL WHEN THERE IS A LACK OF ORDER. SO THAT IS WHY I AM I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT. 
          THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I, I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT A LOT,
WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WE'RE TAKING UP A CITY WIDE ORDINANCE FOR IT. THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING. AND THE FIRST QUESTION THAT
I ASKED YOU ALL IS THAT IS, IS IF YOU HAVE TOOLS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS TO ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS,
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TURNED TO IN, IN DISTRICT SEVEN WHEN WE'VE HAD THESE ISSUES,
AND Y'ALL'S RESPONSES WERE PRETTY RESOUNDING. 
          I HADN'T HEARD FROM STAFF THAT'S ASKED FOR THIS. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK THAT THIS IS, IS THERE'S A GRAY AREA. 
          [01:10:02]
I, I WANT TO GO TO ONE THING THAT WAS MENTIONED AS FAR AS NOISE NUISANCE IN IN A COMMENT
THAT WAS MADE FROM MY COLLEAGUE, MR. RIDLEY, SPECIFICALLY ON ADDRESSING HOMES LIKE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. 
          IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN IN MANY CASES
THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT AND REALLY SEPARATING THE RIGHTS OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS THAT OF A COMMERCIAL OWNER,
AND ALSO DIFFERENTIATING THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT IS EXPECTED AND THE RIGHTS OF A HOMEOWNER IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS VERSUS THAT ON A COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR. 
          AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S A GRAY LINE,
AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TREAT THEM ALL THE SAME. 
          I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT. IF YOU CAN, IF IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME BETTER DETAILS ON THE
THE DATA CHART THAT YOU PUT ON SLIDE FOUR, ALL OF THOSE ARE LISTED AS CONCERNS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT A CONCERN MEANS. 
          DID THAT RESULT IN A CITATION? HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE JUST WARNINGS? IF YOU COULD BREAK THAT DOWN INTO RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL WERE THOSE COMPLAINTS
BEING MADE BY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS? I JUST THINK THAT IT'S THE,
THE THE THE TABLE ITSELF DOESN'T REALLY TELL US ANYTHING. IT JUST TELLS US THAT THERE'S BEEN CERTAIN CONCERNS. 
          I MEAN, THAT COULD EASILY RESULT IN 60% OF THE CASES BEING CLOSED AND NO ONE WAS EVEN
ADDRESSED. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO OUR ATTORNEYS, THOUGH. 
          I SEE JILL HENNING IS HERE. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU SPECIFICALLY ON VESTED RIGHTS
FROM HOMEOWNERS. IN ADDITION TO THAT JUST THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS AND
ITS ENFORCEABILITY, BECAUSE I'M REALLY I'M, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ON WE GO TO SOMETHING THAT THAT IS CLEARLY
SUBJECTIVE. 
          I MEAN, HOW DOES ONE HOW DOES ONE FORECAST THAT THEY WILL HAVE 100 PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THEIR
HOME? AND IF SOMEONE DIDN'T ADEQUATELY FORECAST, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN 100 PEOPLE SHOWED UP
IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME, ARE THEY NOW BEING PENALIZED? LIKE, I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOME LEGALITY ISSUES AND I'M
NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A CASE THAT I WOULD LOVE TO BE AN ATTORNEY AND DEFEND A HOMEOWNER
ON AGAINST THE CITY, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH SUBJECTIVE NATURE TO THE LANGUAGE
THAT IS HERE. 
          THERE'S A HOUSE OVER IN BY GENEVA HEIGHTS THAT MY FAMILY AND I GO TO GET OUT OF THE CAR
AND WALK THE STREET AND DO IT EVERY YEAR. 
          THERE'S GOT TO BE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. IT'S NOT NEAR THE SPECTACLE THAT WE SEE UP IN IN
NORTH DALLAS. 
          BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT HOMEOWNER? RIGHT. THERE'S ONE OVER IN MOUNT AUBURN THAT GATHERS
PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. 
          I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED THAT WE LOOKED AROUND AT BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER
CITIES. 
          I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IN COLLIN COUNTY, THERE ARE HOMES THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY THE SAME TYPE
OF DISPLAY, THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN THAT ANOMALY SITUATION IN NORTH DALLAS,
BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THESE OTHER CITIES REACTING IN THIS WAY. 
          SO I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO,
TO BRING THAT DATA IN. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THAT NOTHING EXISTS MAY TELL US THAT THIS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN
OVERREACH. 
          SO ATTORNEYS, CAN YOU JUST TALK FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,
PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO I'LL TRY TO GET TO THE QUESTIONS OKAY. 
          SO I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS TODAY. 
          BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, MAYBE WE CAN SET A MEETING OR WE CAN COME BACK TO THE
BODY. 
          OKAY. AS FOR I THINK THE NEED THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW,
FROM A COMMUNITY PROSECUTION PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO EVALUATE HOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES,
WE WE DID NOT HAVE A WAY OTHER THAN YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT WAS ON THE BOOKS FOR LIGHTING, GLARE,
NOISE. 
          BUT AS EVERYONE'S MENTIONED, WE DID NOT HAVE A WAY TO TO LIMIT THE DISPLAY SO AS TO LIMIT
THE TRAFFIC, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY THE ISSUE. AND SO I THINK,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT IS, IS VERY NARROW. AND WHILE IT AT THIS POINT HOPEFULLY IS ONLY GOING TO IMPACT THIS SPECIFIC
ISSUE IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF THIS ISSUE WERE TO ARISE AND ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE DISTRICT. 
          AND THAT IS WHY IT IS WRITTEN SO NARROWLY, SO AS TO ADDRESS DISPLAY AND THE 28-10 PUBLIC
SAFETY EXCEPTION, SO THAT THOSE ARE THE CONNECTIONS. SO THAT IS VERY NARROW. 
          OKAY. THAT'S I THINK SO IF A HOMEOWNER WERE TO HAVE A DISPLAY AND NEVER EXCEED 90 PEOPLE,
AND THEN ONE DAY 
          [01:15:10]
AFTER 30 DAYS OF HAVING THIS DISPLAY HAS 100 PEOPLE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE CLICKING A BUTTON. 
          I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW IT'S ENFORCEABLE. BUT AT THAT POINT,
WHAT LEG DO WE HAVE TO STAND ON TO PUT THE BURDEN ON THAT HOMEOWNER? TO HAVE HAD TO HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE,
OR JUST THE SIMPLE FACT THAT I'VE NEVER HAD 100 PEOPLE OUT THERE I'VE DO THESE LIGHTS EVERY YEAR. I WANT TO SHARE THIS WITH MY. I MEAN,
THIS IS MY RIGHT. 
          THIS IS MY HOME. I CAN I CAN DISPLAY WHAT I WANT TO DISPLAY AT MY HOME NOW,
BECAUSE THERE'S 100 PEOPLE THAT HAS GATHERED OUTSIDE IN A PUBLIC REALM. 
          IT'S MY ISSUE. WELL, I THINK THE WAY THE RECOMMENDATION IS DRAFTED IS THAT THESE ARE TWO
SEPARATE. 
          THE 100 PEOPLE IS WHAT EXISTS NOW. THE THE SUBSECTION B IS SEPARATE. 
          SO IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T BE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. 
          I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THAT ALONE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. AND HOW ARE WE
ENFORCING IT IS THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING. WELL, I THINK MAYBE JACKIE SHOULD MAYBE EXPLAIN THAT. 
          SO CURRENTLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE AND ONE OF THE OTHER TRIGGERS,
RIGHT? THERE'S EIGHT TRIGGERS. SO ARE YOU CLOSING A STREET ON YOUR OWN? MAYBE YOU'RE A NEIGHBORHOOD AND AND YOU DON'T HAVE A BLOCK PARTY,
OR YOU HAVE A BIGGER EVENT THAN A BLOCK PARTY PERMIT, WHICH IS ISSUED THROUGH TRANSPORTATION ALLOWS,
SO THEN YOU NEED TO COME TO OUR OFFICE AND AND GET A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST 100 PEOPLE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, CLOSING A STREET OR, OR OR BLOCKING IT WITH SOME SOMETHING RESTRICTING
ACCESS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY, SELLING FOOD, ALCOHOL OR OTHER BEVERAGES WERE OTHERWISE NOT PERMITTED,
ERECTION OF A TENT LARGER THAN 399FT², INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY STAGE BANDSHELL,
OUTDOOR PROJECTION TECHNOLOGY, TRAILER VAN, GRANDSTAND BLEACHERS OR PORTABLE TOILETS FOR PUBLIC USE, OUR USE OF CITY HALL PLAZA A RUN,
WALK, RIDE OR SPECIAL EVENT PARADE. 
          AND THEN PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY NO PARKING, DIRECTIONAL OVERSIZE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS OR
BANNERS IN CONNECTION WITH AN EVENT THAT ARE PLACED OVER A RIGHT OF WAY. 
          OR CLEAN ZONE. SO. SO WHAT WOULD BOUND A HOMEOWNER TO HAVE TO ADHERE TO ANY OF THOSE IF
THEY JUST WANT TO PUT LIGHTS ON THEIR HOUSE? HOW IS IT THEIR BURDEN THAT PEOPLE ARE STOPPING TO LOOK AT THEM? WHY ARE WE WHY ARE WE MAKING IT A HOMEOWNERS BURDEN? AND I THINK YOUR POINT IS THE GAP THAT EXISTS,
THAT RIGHT NOW, IF YOU PUT UP THE LIGHTS AND 100 PEOPLE COME AND BLOCK THE STREET, THERE IS THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR THE CITY TO ADDRESS IT. 
          WE. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE HOMEOWNERS ISSUE. THEIR ISSUE,
WHAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY? WHAT IS THE HOMEOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE BODY IS CONSIDERING. 
          NO, I'M ASKING YOU. THE RIGHTS OF A HOMEOWNER,
WHAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY? WELL, THEIR PROPERTY. CORRECT. WERE TO PASS. SO? SO WE'RE WE ARE PASSING THE ONUS OF OUR OWN PUBLIC FUNCTION TO PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS. 
          NOW, THIS IS THIS TO ME IS JUST TAKING NIMBY TO THE NEXT LEVEL. 
          PUTTING. PUTTING ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS THAT WE HAVE STAFF EXPLICITLY TELLING US REALLY
DOESN'T APPLY TO THE MAJORITY OF OUR CITY. 
          WHY ARE WE PUTTING IT THERE? TO HAVE A SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF ENFORCEMENT,
DEPENDING ON THE PRESSURES THAT MAY BE COMING FROM ONE COUNCIL MEMBER TO ANOTHER IN ONE AREA OF OUR CITY VERSUS THE OTHER. 
          THAT, TO ME, ISN'T SMART LEGISLATION. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT PUTTING IN POLICY ON THE
BOOKS THAT'S GOING TO HELP MORE STREAMLINE AND EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT ARE HAPPENING CITYWIDE. 
          THIS IS THIS IS A SLEDGEHAMMER WITH A AN ORDINANCE THAT DOESN'T ISN'T NEEDED. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE MOST CRITICAL DEPARTMENTS HERE THAT THIS WOULD
THAT Y'ALL NEED THIS. 
          AND Y'ALL NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TELLING US WHAT Y'ALL NEED IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
REALLY GOING TO MAKE Y'ALL TURN AROUND AND BE ABLE TO GO DO A MORE EFFECTIVE JOB. 
          SO I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE CREATING AN ISSUE,
AND I REALLY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH GOING DOWN THIS ROUTE, THIS ROAD. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO CAUSE US A LOT OF LEGAL ISSUES. 
          AND I THINK THERE'S A REASON WHY OUR ATTORNEYS AREN'T CHIMING IN ON THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. LISTEN, THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR POINTS. 
          I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS TO TO A VOTE. 
          BUT BEFORE I DO, I DO WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THE INTENT AND THE HEART BEHIND WHY WE'RE
HERE TO. 
          [01:20:06]
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO VENTILATE, VILLAINIZE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS. 
          AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE,
HOLIDAY CHEER, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T WANT US TO COME OFF LIKE WE'RE A BUNCH OF GRINCHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WE ALSO KNOW HOW SOMETIMES THESE THINGS CAN GROW OUT OF CONTROL, AND IT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE HOMEOWNER. SO I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR TO THE
HOMEOWNER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK AGAINST A HOMEOWNER WHO'S DOING THIS EVENT AND WHO ACTUALLY ENJOYS THIS. 
          I PERSONALLY ENJOY DOING THE DECORATIONS. I DON'T DO OUTSIDE,
BUT I LOVE DECORATING THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. 
          I ABSOLUTELY DO BECAUSE IT BRINGS THAT THAT THE WHAT I THINK THIS CITY AND THE WORLD NEEDS
IS THAT THAT HEART AND LOVE AND HOPE AND AND HONOR OF OF JESSE JACKSON JUST THAT BRINGING THAT HOPE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO I DON'T WANT US TO GET LOST IN THESE CONVERSATIONS BEHIND THE INTENT OF,
OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN TERMS OF US TRYING TO VILLAINIZE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ENJOY THIS AND REALLY THINK IT DOES SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          THERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO STOP THERE AND MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR TO THE RESIDENTS THAT THIS
IS NOT AN INTENT TO TO VILLAINIZE THOSE WHO ENJOY THIS HOLIDAY. 
          SO WITH THAT, I DO WANT TO BRING THIS TO A VOTE. 
          AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS TWO WAYS. THE FIRST ONE,
BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFENSIVE NOISE WAS NECESSARY AND EVEN THIS ONE. SO I WANT TO TAKE THIS IN TWO SEPARATE VOTES TO SEE IF
THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO TAKE TO FULL BODY. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE THE AMENDMENT FOR
OFFENSIVE NOISE CODE TO THE FULL BODY. 
          SO MOVED. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE PROPERLY. SECOND TO TAKE THIS ONE TO FULL BODY. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? YES, MR. CHAIR, I THINK RATHER THAN CHARACTERIZING IT,
CHARACTERIZING IT AS AN OFFENSIVE NOISE ORDINANCE, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. THAT'S THE STANDARD. 
          INSTEAD, IT SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS AN AMENDMENT FOR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR NOISE
COMPLAINTS. 
          IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE MOTION? I GUESS. 
          WELL, THAT IS MY MOTION. ALL RIGHT, I SECOND THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TO. 
          TAKE THIS AMENDMENT FOR WHAT YOU CALL IT. WOULD YOU SAY OBJECTIVE ADOPTION OF AN OBJECTIVE
STANDARD FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS AS STAFF HAS OUTLINED IT? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. 
          NAY. THAT'S FOUR. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS ONE WILL NOT MOVE TO THE FULL BODY. 
          THE SECOND ONE IS THE AMENDMENT FOR CHAPTER 42-A BY LINKING SECTION 28-10. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT TO FULL BODY? SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE PROPERLY. 
          SECOND, TO MOVE THIS ONE TO THE FULL BODY. ANY DISCUSSION,
IF NOT. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. WAS THAT ONE. 
          TWO. THREE. FOUR. FOUR. I'M COUNTING ME. ALRIGHT. 
          DID I DID? I'M SORRY. DID I KNOW IT WAS FOR FOR FOR TWO. 
          THREE? NO. OPPOSED? YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS JUST VOICE. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECORD OF WHO. WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECORD. 
          WE DIDN'T ASK FOR A RECORD. SO CADENA, GRACEY,
ROTH AND BAZALDUA OPPOSED. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. WE HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA. 
          WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO OUR FIRST ONE AND MOVE TO FERAL CATS NEXT. 
          AND WE'LL GET THAT ONE GOING AND. BRING ON THE CATS. 
          GREAT DISCUSSIONS. AND THANK YOU ALL, STAFF,
FOR YOUR WORK AND ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE DONE TO TO PREPARE FOR THIS BRIEFING. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. WE'RE IN YOUR HANDS. 
          ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. 
          CHAIR. GRACEY. VICE CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS PAUL RAMON, DIRECTOR FOR DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES. 
          I HAVE WITH HERE WITH ME TODAY, MY ASSISTANT DIRECTORS,
AMANDA EARL AND VICTORIA BENNETT. 
          TODAY, WE'LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW ON FERAL CATS AND COMMUNITY CATS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. TODAY'S PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE PURPOSES,
THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION. 
          [01:25:07]
KEY DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND FOR CONTEXT SERVICE REQUEST DATA AND OPERATIONAL FINDINGS. 
          COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND CONCERNS A COMPARISON OF APPROACHES USED BY OTHER CITIES. 
          CURRENT CITY CODE, LANGUAGE AND POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS,
THE MERITS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN PROPOSED NEXT STEPS. SLIDE FOUR PLEASE. 
          THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS THREEFOLD,
TO PROVIDE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF FERAL AND COMMUNITY CATS AND HOW THEY DIFFER. 
          TO OUTLINE IMPACTS, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH FREE ROAMING CAT
POPULATIONS AND TO SEEK COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON POLICY DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS. SLIDE FIVE PLEASE. I'M GOING TO DO HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW SO THAT WE COULD
GET THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION PRETTY QUICKLY. 
          A FERAL CAT IS A HOMELESS CAT UNSOCIALIZED CAT THAT AVOIDS HUMAN CONTACT AND TYPICALLY
LIVES INDEPENDENTLY OF PEOPLE. 
          A COMMUNITY CAT IS ANY CAT FREE ROAMING, REGARDLESS OF SOCIALIZATION LEVEL,
THAT IS CARED FOR BY ONE OR MORE RESIDENTS WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO IS BEHAVIOR. 
          FERAL CAT TENDS TO REMAIN HIDDEN AND AVOID INTERACTION. 
          COMMUNITY CAT IS MORE VISIBLE AND TOLERANT OF HUMAN INTERACTION. 
          SLIDE SIX. DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES BEGAN HEARING INCREASED CONCERNS RELATED TO COMMUNITY
CATS THROUGH OUR ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUE,
THE IS IMPLEMENTED A COMMUNITY CAT SERVICE REQUEST IN FISCAL YEAR 24. 
          USING THIS DATA, DAS LAUNCHED A TRAP, NEUTER,
RETURN PILOT IN FISCAL YEAR OF 25. 
          DURING THIS PILOT, WHAT WE'VE GLEANED WAS DAS COMPLETED OVER 1451 TNR SURGERIES FOR THESE
CATS, PREVENTING AN ESTIMATED 9000 POTENTIAL BIRTHS AND REDUCING MORE THAN 5000 POTENTIAL
NEONATE KITTEN INTAKES. 
          ADDITIONAL BENEFITS INCLUDED REDUCED POPULATION GROWTH,
VACCINATIONS THAT HELPED MITIGATE A DISEASE, INCLUDING RABIES, AND OTHERS. EXPANDED COLLABORATION EFFORTS WITH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS,
WHO COMPLETED ON THEIR OWN OVER 3000 ADDITIONAL TNR SURGERIES. 
          SLIDE EIGHT. AS YOU SEE, THE SERVICE REQUEST DATA ALLOWED DAS TO VISUALIZE BOTH THE
SCALING GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY CAT CONCERNS. THE HEATMAP ILLUSTRATES DENSITY TRENDS WHILE THE CHART HIGHLIGHTS THE MOST
IMPACTED AREAS. 
          THIS INFORMATION IS HELPFUL WHEN CONSIDERING TARGETED STRATEGIES FOR POPULATION
STABILIZATION AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND OUTREACH. 
          SLIDE NINE PLEASE. OVER THE SAME TWO YEAR PERIOD,
DAS RECEIVED MORE THAN 10,000 NEONATE KITTENS THROUGH FIELD OPERATIONS AND OVER THE COUNTER INTAKE. THE MAP HIGHLIGHTS INTAKE DENSITY BY ZIP CODE,
REFLECTING THE SIMILAR PATTERNS SEEN IN THE SERVICE REQUESTS. 
          NEONATES REQUIRE INTENSIVE AROUND THE CLOCK CARE,
FEEDING EVERY FOUR HOURS, SPECIALIZED MEDICAL OVERSIGHT, SIGNIFICANT STAFFING, AND FOSTER RESOURCES. KITTEN SEASON TYPICALLY BEGINS IN MARCH AND
RUNS THROUGH OCTOBER, CREATING A PREDICTABLE SEASONAL PRESSURES AND SHELTER CAPACITY AND RESOURCE STRAINS. 
          SLIDE 11. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK HAS CENTERED ON SEVERAL AREAS QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACTS FOR
RESIDENTS AND FERAL COMMUNITY CATS, PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS, ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS AND IN APRIL OF FISCAL YEAR 25,
DISENGAGED RESIDENTS AND BEGAN AND BUSINESS OWNERS THROUGH AN INITIAL LISTENING SESSION IN A HIGHLY IMPACTED COMMUNITY. 
          SINCE THEN, WE HAVE REVIEWED STATE LAW, CITY CODE,
AND REGIONAL PRACTICES WHILE WORKING TO EXPAND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ALONGSIDE OUR ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSIONERS. THIS EFFORT IS ONGOING. 
          SLIDE 13. AS PART OF OUR RESEARCH, DAS CONSULTED WITH SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS,
INCLUDING BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY, AND REVIEWED APPROACHES USED BY PEER TEXAS MUNICIPALITIES. 
          SEVERAL CITIES HAVE FORMALIZED THEIR TNR POLICIES THROUGH ORDINANCE,
LANGUAGE AND OR FRAMEWORKS THAT DEFINE TNR STANDARDS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROTECTIONS. SLIDE 15. AS YOU SEE CURRENTLY IN CHAPTER SEVEN TO THE
LEFT OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE, IT CONTAINS LIMITED REFERENCES TO TNR WITH NO CLEAR FRAMEWORK OR
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE. 
          THE AREA TO THE RIGHT ARE POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION WHERE WE MAY INCLUDE CLEAR
DEFINITIONS, STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS, POSSIBLE DEFENSES TO PROSECUTION FOR TNR PARTICIPANTS,
AND AN OVERALL STRUCTURE OF TNR. 
          SLIDE 17. ESTABLISHING A CLEAR FRAMEWORK COULD PROVIDE SEVERAL BENEFITS. 
          [01:30:03]
IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES THROUGH VACCINATION EFFORTS. 
          POPULATION STABILIZATION THROUGH SPAY AND NEUTER. 
          REDUCED NUISANCE AND BEHAVIORS AND IMPROVE WELFARE OUTCOMES AND POTENTIAL COST AVOIDANCE
ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH VOLUME NEONATAL INTAKE AND LONG TERM SHELTERING. 
          SLIDE 18. WITH THE TNR, THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES THAT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. 
          WILDLIFE IMPACTS MAY CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN. 
          TNR EFFORTS REQUIRE SUSTAINED PARTNERSHIPS, RESOURCE PARTNERSHIPS,
AND PUBLIC EDUCATION. 
          POPULATION STABILIZATION TAKES TIME AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS MAY PERSIST DURING
IMPLEMENTATION. 
          THIS APPROACH IS NOT A QUICK FIX. SLIDE 20. SHOULD THE COMMUNITY SHOULD THE COMMITTEE WISH
TO MOVE FORWARD, DAS WOULD INCORPORATE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK INTO DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE,
IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, AND RETURN TO THIS COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION BY FULL COUNCIL. 
          WITH THAT. WE'RE OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS PRESENTATION. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. CHAIR WEST. THANK YOU CHAIR. AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS TO THE
COMMITTEE. 
          I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THIS AND YOUR WORK IN MY COMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY AND I'M
ASSUMING IN OTHERS, BECAUSE I DID NOT REALIZE THERE WERE THAT MANY COMMUNITY CAT POPULATIONS ACROSS THE CITY. 
          QUICK QUESTION ON THE PROCEDURAL STATUS YOU MENTIONED. 
          YOU DID GREAT THERE ON THE LAST SLIDE LAYING THAT OUT. 
          BUT HAS THIS GONE TO THE COMMISSION, THE ANIMAL SERVICES COMMISSION? WE'VE BRIEFED IT TO THE COMMISSION BRIEFLY, BUT WE WERE HOPING ONCE WE GET FEEDBACK FROM
THE COMMITTEE AND WE DECIDE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, WE WOULD GO FURTHER WITH A BRIEFING TO THEM AS WELL. 
          I WOULD ASK IF, YOU KNOW, IF THE CHAIR AGREES LIKE THAT,
THEY ACTUALLY COMB THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AS WELL ONCE YOU PROPOSE IT, ASSUMING THIS GROUP SUPPORTS IT SO THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY,
BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE ADVOCATES, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR FOR OUR ANIMALS. COLLEAGUES,
YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN EMMA RUBY'S COVER PAGE STORY ON THE DALLAS OBSERVER CALLED THE CATASTROPHE OF BISHOP ARTS. THIS WAS A SITUATION IN WHICH WE HAD A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS
TRYING, YOU KNOW, DOING HIS RIGHT AS A PROPERTY OWNER,
TRYING TO TRAP I BELIEVE POSSUMS AND CATS WERE GETTING TRAPPED. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS THIS WHOLE SITUATION ON DEFINING WHAT IS A COMMUNITY CAT VERSUS JUST A
HOUSE CAT VERSUS A FERAL CAT. 
          AND MY ASK TO STAFF WAS TO HELP US SORT ALL THIS OUT. 
          SO WE ARE HERE TODAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO REALLY GIVE COMMUNITY CATS A DEFINITION WHILE
STILL PROTECTING PROPERTY OWNERS. CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY JUST IN LAYMAN'S TERMS,
LIKE WHAT? HOW DO WE BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS VERSUS THE NEED TO HAVE THESE COMMUNITY
CAT COLONIES, YOU KNOW, SORT OF KEEPING THE POPULATION IN CHECK AND SURVIVING. 
          AND I WILL ALLOW ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EARL. SHE HAS OVER 27 YEARS IN ANIMAL WELFARE AND
ACTUALLY HAS IMPLEMENTED THIS IN ANOTHER CITY. 
          SO. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CATS ARE ALREADY. 
          SPEAK UP PLEASE. I'M SORRY. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
CATS ARE ALREADY THERE. 
          THIS IS JUST A MEANS OF HUMANE POPULATION CONTROL. 
          WHEN I WAS IN ANOTHER CITY, THE LIVE RELEASE RATE FOR CATS ENTERED OUR SHELTER WAS AT 42%. 
          AFTER IMPLEMENTING A TNR PROGRAM WITH A PARTNER ORGANIZATION,
IT WAS 93%. 
          WE HAD MORE COMMUNITY EDUCATION, LESS PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE POPULATIONS
WITHIN THOSE COMMUNITY CAT COLONIES THEY NATURALLY DECLINE. 
          THE ALTERNATIVE, IF WE DO NOTHING, THE POPULATION CONTINUES TO BUILD. 
          THERE CONTINUES TO BE NUISANCE COMPLAINTS. THERE CONTINUES TO BE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES,
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES DISEASE SPREAD ALL THE THINGS. 
          BUT BY USING A COMMUNITY CAT PROGRAM, A TNR TRAP NEUTER RELEASE PROGRAM AT THE POPULATION
TENDS TO DECREASE THROUGH ATTRITION. 
          SO BY DOING NOTHING WE'RE DOING NOTHING WE'RE JUST ENHANCING THE PROBLEM. 
          THIS THIS PROPOSAL HELPS ADD SOME GUIDELINES THAT PROTECTS BOTH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS,
THE RESIDENTS AND THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THOSE COLONIES. 
          IT ADDS GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT WHAT IS ACTUALLY A NUISANCE? WHAT WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF OF THOSE NUISANCES AND WHAT WE CAN DO OUR STAFF AND OUR
COMMUNITY TO HELP MITIGATE THOSE NUISANCES. SO IF I'M A PROPERTY OWNER RIGHT NOW,
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE I'M TRYING TO TRAP A THE PROPERTY OWNER IS TRYING TO TRAP A RACCOON OR SOMETHING TO GET THE RACCOON OUT OF THERE. 
          AND YOU TRAP A CAT AND IT'S A COMMUNITY CAT. IS THERE LIKE IS WHAT CAN THE PROPERTY OWNER
DO OR NOT DO WITH THAT CAT? 
          [01:35:05]
THEY CAN RELEASE THE CAT. IF IT HAS AN EAR TIP,
THAT MEANS IT'S STERILIZED. 
          THAT MEANS IT'S VACCINATED. THAT MEANS IT'S UNLESS IT'S A NUISANCE CAT,
WHICH THIS WOULD HELP DEFINE WHAT A NUISANCE IS. 
          THAT'S GOOD. OKAY, GREAT. SO IF IT'S NOT A NUISANCE CAT,
THEN YOU JUST LET IT GO. 
          YEAH. BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU REMOVE THE CATS,
YOU CREATE A VACUUM. 
          IT'S ECOLOGY 101. YOU YOU OPEN UP RESOURCES. MORE ANIMALS COME IN,
WHETHER IT BE A POSSUM OR RACCOON OR CATS. 
          SO THEY'RE THEY'RE THIS IS JUST A HUMANE WAY TO HELP MAINTAIN THAT POPULATION. 
          AND THIS WOULD HELP DEFINE THOSE GUIDELINES FOR THOSE WHO ARE TRAPPING AND THOSE WHO ARE
PROPERTY OWNERS AS FAR AS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S UNCLEAR TO THEM THAT WAS PART OF THE ISSUE WE RAN IS. 
          NOTHING RIGHT NOW. YEAH. OKAY. AND SO WE'RE JUST YOU'RE JUST ASKING US TO BE ABLE TO GO
FORWARD AND START DRAFTING THIS AND BRING BACK THE DRAFT. 
          SO I'M FULL SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WELL THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND AGAIN I WILL CONCUR WITH CHAIR WEST IN TERMS OF JUST TAKING
THIS BACK TO THE ADVISORY BOARD TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK AND HAVE IT AND INCLUDING THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK IN APRIL FOR US. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          APPRECIATE IT. I'M SORRY. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING. OH THANK YOU. 
          YOU CLARIFY MY, THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, THE COMMITTEE I APOLOGIZE. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM B,
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 50. 
          STREET VENDOR. 
          MORNING, MR. CHRISTIAN. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
          WE'RE BACK TO GO OVER SOME OPTIONS AND AN UPDATE TO THE CHAPTER 50 STREET VENDOR
AMENDMENTS. 
          WE WERE HERE IN JANUARY. WE WENT THROUGH THE PRESENTATION FOR YOU ALL. 
          YOU SENT US BACK TO GET SOME DATA AND TO BRING BACK SOME RESEARCH AND ALSO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CODE. SO WE HAVE THOSE ITEMS HERE FOR YOU TODAY,
AND WE'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE ITEMS. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION CHAIR. SO I KNOW IN THE INTEREST OF TIME,
WE WANTED TO JUMP RIGHT TO THOSE SLIDES. 
          AND SO IF YOU CAN GO WITH ME TO SLIDE NINE THAT'S WHERE WE'LL START TODAY. 
          OKAY. RIGHT THERE. SO AGAIN HERE ARE THE KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE WILL CALL TODAY IS OPTION ONE. 
          THIS OPTION ALIGNS OUR CODE STRUCTURE BY MOVING CERTAIN DEFENSES FROM CHAPTER 17 TO
CHAPTER 50, WHERE STREET VENDING AND FOOD DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITIES ARE ACTUALLY REGULATED. 
          IT CLARIFIES THAT THE SERVICE OR DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD OR DRINK,
WHETHER SOLD OR PROVIDED FOR FREE OF CHARGE, FALLS UNDER ONE CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK. INSTEAD OF RELYING ON A DEFENSE AFTER CITATION,
THIS APPROACH ESTABLISHES CLEAR UPFRONT REQUIREMENTS SO EXPECTATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT. 
          THE PROPOSED PERMIT WOULD BE SIMPLE AND LOW BURDEN,
INTENDED TO IDENTIFY A RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND ENSURE BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH, SANITATION AND SAFETY STANDARDS ARE MET. THE GOAL IS CLARITY,
CONSISTENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT DETERRENCE, WHILE PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOODS,
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT YOU ALL DID NOT SEE THE LAST TIME. 
          THIS IS A NEW OPTION. THIS CAME UP IN CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMITTEE. 
          AND SO WE WANTED TO BE SURE TO INCLUDE THIS. THIS OPTION MAINTAINS THE EXISTING DEFENSES
AS IS, BUT RELOCATES THEM TO CHAPTER 50 TO BETTER ALIGN WITH WHERE STREET VENDING AND FOOD
DISTRIBUTION ARE REGULATED. 
          THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE OUR EXISTING DEFENSES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES FRAMEWORK THAT
CURRENTLY EXISTS IN CHAPTER 17. 
          IT WOULD SIMPLY MOVE IT OVER TO CHAPTER 50 WHERE IT WOULD BE REGULATED UNDER THE NEW
TRANSITION. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS SLIDE REPRESENTS OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR ROLLOUT. 
          IF OPTION ONE IS THE CHOSEN OPTION, THIS WOULD BE OUR OUTREACH AND MARKETING STRATEGY. 
          HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT STANDING UP THE NEW PERMIT SYSTEM IF IF OPTION ONE WE WE'RE WE'RE
ASKING FOR A LOW BURDEN PERMIT. 
          AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THAT SOFTWARE SET UP TO SUPPORT THAT APPLICATION AND PERMIT
PROCESS. 
          THIS IS THE OUTREACH AND MARKETING AS WELL AS THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT THIS SLIDE JUST
JUST DICTATES HOW WE WILL PROCEED WITH ROLLOUT. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IF OPTION TWO WAS THE SELECTED OPTION AND THE AND THE, AND THE WILL OF THIS BODY WAS TO JUST MOVE THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK AS IS TO
CHAPTER 50, 
          [01:40:05]
THIS WILL REPRESENT OUR ONGOING MEETINGS WITH OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS,
OUR VENDORS, AND OUR CONTINUED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, REGARDLESS ON THE EXISTING DEFENSES TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND SEEKING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE
UNDER THAT FRAMEWORK. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO BASED ON THE COMMITTEE'S GUIDANCE TODAY,
STAFF WILL FINALIZE THE ORDINANCE AND INCORPORATE ANY REVISIONS WE ARE TARGETING. WE ARE TARGETING A CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING APRIL THE 1ST. 
          IF THIS BODY WILLS FOR OPTION ONE, FORMAL CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WOULD FOLLOW ON APRIL
8TH. 
          BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WE WILL REFINE THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO
REFLECT THE COMMITTEE'S DIRECTION. 
          AND AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I WILL JUST START AND I'LL GO THROUGH THERE. 
          BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING ON THIS AND JUST REALLY
PREFACE THIS BY SAYING PERSONALLY OPTION ONE IS THE IS THE OPTION I WOULD GO FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. ONE, AS WE MOVE TOWARDS OUR DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY,
THIS REGISTRATION, EVEN A SIMPLIFIED REGISTRATION PROCESS, AS THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE SERVING THOSE ON THE STREETS,
GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT WITH SOME OF OUR PARTNERS THAT ARE ALREADY IN OUR DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY NETWORK SO THAT THEY CAN BRING THEM IN. 
          AND IT CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SERVICE THE NEEDS OF THOSE THAT,
THAT NEED OUR HELP AND NEED THOSE, THESE SERVICES COLLECTIVELY AND NOT JUST THESE ONE OFFS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT. SO WITH THAT,
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO CHAIR RIDLEY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOU. 
          I'M IN FAVOR OF BOTH. OPTION ONE. IF WE WERE TO PURSUE OPTION TWO,
WHICH IS THE DE MINIMIS OPTION, WE'RE PERPETUATING THE CURRENT BROKEN SYSTEM. 
          WE'RE NOT IMPROVING CONDITIONS. WE'RE ALLOWING STREET FEEDERS TO FEED WHATEVER THEY WANT
TO WITH NO RESTRICTION TO WHOMEVER THEY WANT TO FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO BEGIN WITH,
TO ANY KIND OF FOOD BORNE ILLNESS, AND IT REALLY IS JUST A PERPETUATION OF A BROKEN SYSTEM AND COMMITTED TO OPTION ONE IN TERMS OF THE POLICY,
THEN I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO PURSUE OPTION ONE FOR COMMUNICATION, OUTREACH AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. CHAIR. ROTH. 
          THANK YOU. CHAIR. THIS TO ME IS IS NOT ABOUT PERMITS. 
          THIS IS ABOUT THAT WE ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY HAVING THE RIGHT PARTNERS DEALING WITH THE FOOD
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES IN WITH THE HOMELESS FOLKS. AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT IT'S ABOUT. 
          IT'S ABOUT DEALING WITH THE AGGREGATION OF THE HOMELESS FEEDING PROGRAMS THAT ARE
OCCURRING DOWNTOWN. 
          AND I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. WE JUST GAVE $10 MILLION TO HOUSING FORWARD. 
          THE COUNTY'S GIVING $10 MILLION. THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPERTS
IN FIGURING OUT HOW TO DISTRIBUTE FOOD TO PEOPLE. 
          AND IF THERE IF THERE'S A HUGE POPULATION OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO THEIR VENUE AND
THAT THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING OR THEY'RE NOT PERMITTING OR THEY'RE NOT EFFECTIVELY SERVING THAT COMMUNITY AND THAT
COMMUNITY, WHICH IS THE CUSTOMER, SO TO SPEAK, IS GOING TO OTHER PROVIDERS FOR THAT. 
          WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEMIC PROBLEM ON WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE SERVICE. 
          THIS IS A REGULATION AGAINST PEOPLE TRYING TO PROVIDE GOOD SAMARITAN STUFF. 
          AND I THINK IT'S WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE WRONG DIRECTION HERE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. 
          AND I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THE CHANGES TO THE PERMITTING SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE,
THE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PART, CHANGING THE THE SECTIONS AND PUTTING IN A DIFFERENT DEAL. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPOSING PERMITS,
REQUIREMENTS ON PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO CHARITABLE WORK. 
          AND, AND IT'S AND IT'S GOING TO BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF US,
OF US TAGGING FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO DO GOOD DEEDS. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY MISSING THE BOAT ON IS THAT WE'RE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF GETTING
THESE FOLKS INTO THE SYSTEM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO DO IT. 
          AND I'M REALLY I WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTION WHY ARE THESE WHY ARE THE HOMELESS FOLKS NOT
GOING TO THE SHELTERS THAT WE'RE PAYING, THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING FUNDS FOR WHAT? WHAT IS THE WHY AREN'T THEY GOING THERE? AND I'M ASKING FROM A REAL KNOWLEDGE BASE I WANT
TO LEARN. 
          WHY AREN'T THEY GOING THERE? WHAT'S PREVENTING. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH,
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING THERE AT ALL. I THINK ACTUALLY THEY ARE GOING THERE AND SERVICES ARE BEING PROVIDED THERE. I JUST THINK OUR VULNERABLE POPULATION,
THEY THEY ARE BEING SERVED WHERE THEY ARE. 
          [01:45:10]
AND SO IF THEY'RE DOWNTOWN, IF THEY'RE THERE DOWNTOWN AND A VENDOR COMES DOWNTOWN AND POPS
THE TRUNK OF A CAR AND HOPS OUT WITH CONTAINERS AND FOOD, IF THEY'RE THERE DOWNTOWN, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO GET THE CONTAINERS AND THEY'RE GOING
TO GO GET THE FOOD THAT'S THERE IN FRONT OF THEM RIGHT THERE AT THAT MOMENT. IT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT THEY'RE NOT FREQUENTING ALSO OUR NONPROFIT PARTNER SHELTERS AND
GETTING FOOD FROM THOSE PLACES AS WELL, OR SLEEPING IN SHELTER BEDS OVERNIGHT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S NOT OCCURRING. 
          IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED. 
          FOR US, IT'S A LOW BARRIER PERMIT THAT WE FEEL LIKE HELPS US WITH AWARENESS. 
          IT HELPS US WITH THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND SANITATION COMPONENTS,
AND IT GIVES US THE TOOLS THAT WE NEED TO ENFORCE WHEN NECESSARY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THOSE TOOLS AND WE HAVE NOTHING. AND SO IF IF SOMEONE
WANTS TO COME AND VEND FROM A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER'S PARKING LOT WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, AND THEY WANT TO SET UP SHOP AND DISTRIBUTE FOOD AND SNACKS AND SANDWICHES,
THEY CAN DO SO. 
          ARE THOSE FOOD SAFE? HAVE THEY BEEN HELD IN THE RIGHT TIME AND TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR
SAFETY TIME RANGES THAT ARE PROVEN BY THE FDA TO BE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS? WE DON'T KNOW. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY AWARENESS AND WE'RE NOT THERE,
THEN THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. 
          AND BECAUSE OUR VULNERABLE POPULATION IS ACCEPTING FOOD FOR FREE,
DOES THAT MEAN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AND OUR RESTAURANTS, AND THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO OUR TEMPORARY PERMITS? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S FOR THIS BODY TO DECIDE. 
          BUT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT, BUT I THINK YOU'RE TURNING AROUND THE ANSWER TO WHAT I'M
REALLY GOING AT. 
          THIS IS NOT ABOUT PEOPLE. IT'S I UNDERSTAND FOOD SAFETY. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING HURT PHYSICALLY BY THE FOOD SAFETY ISSUE HERE. 
          WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING HERE, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 1 OR 2 PEOPLE SHOWING UP. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 100 PEOPLE SHOWING UP IN A LINE,
AND THAT THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT POPULATION THAT IS A MILE AWAY, OR A HALF A MILE AWAY FROM A FACILITY THAT COULD BE BE SATISFYING THEM. 
          YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS,
WHY AREN'T THESE PEOPLE GOING TO THOSE SHELTERS FOR FOR. 
          WHY ARE THOSE 100 PEOPLE NOT GOING THERE? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. 
          I'M JUST NOT THE SME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A LEGITIMATE ANSWER. AND IF I IF I MAY,
LET ME CHIME IN JUST A LITTLE BIT. 
          NO, NO, I APPRECIATE I ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING. 
          AND JUST FOR, FOR A MATTER OF CLARITY, WHAT THIS DOES,
AND YOU ALL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WHAT THIS DOES IS IT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          ONE, IT CONNECTS ALL OF THOSE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS,
FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS WHO MEAN WELL. 
          IT NOW CONNECTS THEM AND REQUIRES THEM. THEY CAN STILL SERVE THE FOOD,
THIS JUST NOW REQUIRES THEM TO GO TO ONE OF OUR PARTNERS AND SERVE THE FOOD THERE, AND NOT AT RANDOM LOCATIONS. 
          AND WHAT THAT DOES IS FROM A CLEANUP PERSPECTIVE,
FROM A HEALTH PERSPECTIVE AND ALL OF THAT. 
          BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL OF
OUR DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY AND ALL OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ONE OFFS DOING THIS, ONE OFFS, DOING THAT, THIS IS ANOTHER TOOL THAT PUSHES SOME OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WHO MAY
NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF AND AGAIN, COMING IN MINISTRY AND SERVING AT BOTH BIG CHURCHES,
SMALL CHURCHES, NOT EVERY CHURCH KNOWS THAT THEY COULD PARTNER WITH AN [INAUDIBLE] STREET, COULD PARTNER WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS,
OR NONPROFIT OR ANY OF THOSE WHO AREN'T FAITH BASED, WHO JUST WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET CONNECTED TO A
SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY DOING IT, SO THAT WE CAN BETTER DO IT MORE EFFICIENTLY IN A WAY AND HEALTHY,
BUT ALSO FROM A CLEANUP PERSPECTIVE. 
          AND MR. RIDLEY'S DISTRICT IN DOWNTOWN AND AREA,
IT HELPS FROM A CONTROLLED PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE PARTNERS WHO CAN ASSIST IN THE CLEANUP. SO THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT, THE IDEA THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS WILL HAVE TO MOVE TO
THOSE NONPROFITS TO SERVE THE FOOD. THE PEOPLE WILL COME AND GO TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND GET THE GET THE
FOOD ONCE THE WORK GETS OUT. 
          SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE HOMELESS FOLKS HAVING ACCESS. 
          I'M NOT NECESSARILY WORRIED ABOUT THAT. I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT
THE ENTIRE DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY NETWORK AND BRING SOME OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE INTO THIS OPPORTUNITY. 
          I THINK THAT'S THANK YOU. SO, CHAIR, I JUST WANT YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING. AND IT'S THE FORCED HAVING TO GO TO THE NONPROFITS
AND FEES. 
          THEY WILL NOT UNDER THIS THIS CODE AMENDMENT. 
          THEY ARE THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE FREE TO SERVE WHEREVER THEY WANT TO SERVE. 
          THEY WILL JUST BE REQUIRED TO LET US KNOW TWO DAYS IN ADVANCE AND FOLLOW THE PERMIT
FRAMEWORK. 
          [01:50:02]
AND THE DEFENSES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE IN CHAPTER 17 WILL BECOME AFFIRMATIVE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. 
          AND SO WE WILL BE GOING OUT, WE WILL BE INSPECTING THOSE LOCATIONS,
AND WE WILL BE ENFORCING THINGS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICE OF FOOD. 
          NOW, WHAT WE WANT TO DO, BUT WHAT WE DID NOT CODIFY WAS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO TO THE
NONPROFITS AND FEED FROM THERE. 
          AND WE DID SPEAK WITH THEM. THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. THEY WANT THAT. 
          THEY WANT TO PARTNER WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS,
AND THEY WANT TO GET THEM THERE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY HAVE ALL THOSE OTHER ADDITIONAL WRAPAROUND SERVICES AS WELL, BESIDES THE FOOD,
LIKE HELPING FOLKS TO FIND HOUSING AND, AND SHELTER AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND JUST THE SERVICE OF FOOD. AND SO WHILE WE'RE ENCOURAGING THAT WE COULDN'T CODIFY THAT
BECAUSE FROM THE RESEARCH THAT WE'VE DONE FROM OTHER CITIES PLACE DESIGNATION WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD WOULD HOLD UP AGAINST LEGAL MUSTER,
WE THOUGHT. 
          AND SO WE DIDN'T GO THAT ROUTE. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. 
          WOULD WOULD THERE BE OPPORTUNITY FOR A ANOTHER GROUP TO OPERATE UNDER THE EGIS OF A PERMIT
FROM ONE OF OUR SORT OF ORGANIZED GROUPS? IN OTHER WORDS,
COULD COULD AUSTIN STREET OR BRIDGE OR WHATEVER IT IS, CONTRACT WITH, NOT CONTRACT, BUT SAY TO A MISSION CHURCH,
A A NONPROFIT GROUP TO SAY, WE'LL LET YOU USE OUR PERMIT. 
          WE. YOU'RE AUTHORIZED TO BE UNDER OUR PERMIT TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT YOU WANT,
TO PROVIDE THESE FOOD IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN AT OUR PLACE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T READ THAT IN THIS ORDINANCE. 
          YEAH. SO IT'S NOT CODIFIED AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          BUT IF IF I'M, IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY AND IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY,
IT'S JUST WOULD A STREET VENDOR UNDER THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THE PERMIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED BY A STEWPOT OR AUSTIN STREET CENTER OR THE BRIDGE,
COULD THEY GO TO THAT LOCATION AND PROVIDE THEIR SERVICE UNDER THAT PERMIT AND UNDER THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? AND THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES. DO THEY,
IS IT LOCATION SPECIFIC, THE PERMIT? IT IS. AND SO THE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS FOR THAT LOCATION. 
          AND, AND THERE ARE RULES RELATED TO THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPROVAL IS FOR THAT
ADDRESS AND FOR THAT SPECIFIC VENUE. 
          AND SO IT WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T APPLY DOWNTOWN. 
          I'VE HEARD, AND I'M ASKING THE QUESTION TO GET FEEDBACK. 
          I'VE HEARD THAT PEOPLE, SOME A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T GO TO THE TO THESE SORT OF ORGANIZED
SHELTERS FOR FOOD DISTRIBUTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE REQUIRED ID THEY MAY NOT THEY MAY DON'T THEY MAY NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN WHATEVER
RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS. 
          THEY MAY NOT WANT TO GIVE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE THAT THEY'RE BLOCKED PERSONALLY. 
          THEY HAVE PROBLEMS DOING THIS. WE'RE DEALING WITH A WITH A DISADVANTAGED POPULATION,
NUMBER ONE. 
          BUT NUMBER TWO, THAT IT'S NOT THAT THERE ARE BLOCKAGES TO GET INTO THESE PLACES,
THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THAT COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP ARE NOT GOING THERE FOR A REASON. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS,
IS WHETHER OUR RESOURCES THAT WE'RE GIVING OUT COULD BE REDEPLOYED TO HELP THESE FOLKS GET FOOD, NOT NECESSARILY GET THEM INTO A BUILDING,
BUT GIVE THEM THE FOOD AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SECURITY, WHICH WE'RE PROVIDING MONEY FOR, THAT WE WE PROVIDE CLEANUP,
WHICH WE'RE GIVING MONEY FOR. 
          WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO HELP US IMPLEMENT THIS SYSTEM PROPERLY,
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PENALIZING AND PERMITTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE UP THE LACK OF SERVICE THAT OUR OUR
LEGITIMATE PARTNERS ARE TRYING TO DO. 
          UNDERSTOOD. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. 
          AND I THINK IF IT'S THE WILL OF THIS BODY FOR US TO GO TO THE FULL COUNCIL,
THEN WE WOULD BE SURE TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE PROVIDERS HERE WITH US AND ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS IN DEPTH. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIS,
THANK YOU. 
          WELL, I'LL ECHO CHAIR RIDLEY'S COMMENTS ON SUPPORTING OPTION ONE AND THE NEED FOR THIS. 
          I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE CONTRACTS WE HAVE THAT WE GAVE $10 MILLION FOR,
AND THAT THE COUNTY DID, IS ABOUT RAPID REHOUSING AND OUTREACH AROUND THAT. 
          IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO PROVIDING FEEDING THAT MIGHT BE PART OF IT,
BUT THAT WOULD BE OFF CONTRACT AND PROBABLY ILLEGAL, I GUESS IF WE DIRECTED THEM TO DO THAT AND IT WASN'T IN THE CONTRACT. SO THAT'S ABOUT
GETTING PEOPLE HOUSED. 
          SO ANYWAY, I WON'T BELABOR IT, BUT I THINK YOU ALL ARE ASKING FOR SOME MEASURES TO PUT
AROUND THIS. 
          IT DOESN'T HINDER ANYONE FROM DOING THIS. IT JUST HELPS EDUCATE THOSE WHO MAY BE UNAWARE
OF SOME BETTER CHANNELS TO TRULY HELP PEOPLE IN A MORE ROBUST WAY, AND ALSO TO GIVE A MECHANISM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DEFIANT,
FRANKLY, IN HELPING THE CITY 
          [01:55:09]
MANAGE LITTER AND THAT SORT OF THINGS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. 
          ALL RIGHT, CHAIR WEST. THANK YOU. I AM LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORTING OPTION ONE,
LIKE A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES THERE. 
          DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE MOVE TO ADDRESS THE STREET FEEDING ISSUE. 
          I'VE HEARD FROM OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS IT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. 
          I AM A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ORDINANCE. 
          SO YOU LED OFF WITH SLIDE NINE SAYING THIS IS GOING TO BE A SIMPLE LOW BURDEN PERMIT. 
          I HAVE YET TO FIND A SIMPLE LOW BURDEN PERMIT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          SO I'M VERY SKEPTICAL OF THAT. SO A FEW EXAMPLES THAT I WANT TO SEE HOW THIS WOULD APPLY. 
          SO DURING THE WORLD CUP WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS HANDING OUT BOTTLES OF WATER TO PEOPLE,
PEDESTRIANS WALKING ON THE STREET OR AT AN EVENT THAT'S ORGANIZED BY VISIT DALLAS. WILL THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO HAND OUT BOTTLES OF WATER? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. 
          IN THE ORDINANCE YOU WILL SEE UNDER PUBLIC PROPERTY VENDING AND PRIVATE PROPERTY VENDING,
THERE IS A LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. 
          AND ONE OF THOSE IS IF YOU'RE OPERATING UNDER ANOTHER SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT OR CBD
CONCESSION LICENSE OR ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BY THE CITY, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO ALSO HAVE THIS PERMIT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE SCENARIO THEN? YOU JUST ANSWERED ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          SO WHAT? BUT WHAT ABOUT ON THE DALLAS MARATHON? RUNNERS RUNNING THROUGH VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS,
AND YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS HANDING OUT BOTTLES OF WATER TO THE RUNNERS. 
          WHAT? A RESIDENT NEED TO GET A PERMIT TO HAND OUT BOTTLES OF WATER. 
          THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WILL BE OUT
INVESTIGATING OR OR LOOKING INTO AS IT'S RELATED TO THIS CODE AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY, I JUST WOULD WELL, IF THERE BECOMES AN ISSUE,
I DEFINITELY WOULD WANT TO BRING THAT BACK UP. 
          OKAY. THE OTHER ONES YOU ANSWERED. SO IF YOU'RE UNDER ANOTHER VALID SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT, IT'S COVERED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE COMMENTS? AND I THINK WE NEED A MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO THE
FULL BODY AS WELL. 
          MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF OPTION ONE ON SLIDE NINE AND OPTION ONE ON
SLIDE 11. 
          SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE. NAY. THIS MOVES FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES,
THE LAST COUPLE OF ITEMS WE HAVE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF BRIEFING MEMOS. 
          I'LL JUST SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE UPDATE ON THE CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM
GUIDELINES. 
          ITEM E IS RECEIVING ALLOCATION OF LOVE YOUR BLOCK GRANT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? AND THEN THE DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY UPDATE,
IRONICALLY ENOUGH. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHTY. WE'LL HAVE THE UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS COMING UP IN THE NEXT MONTH. 
          WITH THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADJOURN AT 11:04. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.