* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] WELCOME [Community Development Commission on May 7, 2026.] EVERYBODY. APPRECIATE EVERYONE BEING HERE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MONTHLY MEETING ON MAY 7TH AT 6:01 PM CAN WE PLEASE HAVE OUR ROLL CALL CHAIR? LULU. HI, GRAMMY. HERE. COMMISSIONER DAVIS. HERE. COMMISSIONER KY. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LEWIS. COMMISSIONER BLACK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER WALTER. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. COMMISSIONER BAR HERE. COMMISSIONER JONES. COMMISSIONER WATTS. HERE. COMMISSIONER JEFFERSON. COMMISSIONER BACH. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GLOBIN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ. COMMISSIONER MILLS HERE. OKAY. AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VICTOR. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS JOINING US THIS EVENING? NO. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS ONLINE. THANK YOU. EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THEIR MONTHLY MINUTES FROM THE UM, APRIL 2ND MEETING. ARE THERE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, MAY I PLEASE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 2ND MEETING? SO MOVED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GLOBIN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. LOTS OF SECONDS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU ALL. CAN WE PLEASE NOW MOVE TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REPORTS A BRIEFING ITEM UPDATE ON THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED 26 27 US DEPARTMENT OF HUD CONSOLIDATED PLAN BUDGET, THE REMAINING TIMELINE. SHANNON? GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS. I'M SHARON WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH GETTING OUR HUD FY 26 27 HUD CONSOLIDATED PLAN BUDGET APPROVED. UM, VICTOR'S GONNA JUST PULL UP A, A SLIDE THERE JUST TO SHOW YOU WHERE, UH, WE ARE ON THE TIMELINE. ON YESTERDAY, UM, WE, UH, MET WITH THE CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND THAT STRAW VOTES WERE CONDUCTED ON MAY 6TH. YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE MEMO THAT, UM, WHEN WE BRIEFED THE COUNCIL ON APRIL 24TH, THEY WERE INVITED TO SUBMIT ANY AMENDMENTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE HAD FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED BUDGET. WE RECEIVED TWO AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE, UH, MEMO THAT YOU RECEIVED. ONE WAS TO, UM, REALLOCATE BOTH AMENDMENTS WERE FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND FACILITIES. UH, LINE ITEM ONE WAS TO, UH, DIRECT $1.2 MILLION SPECIFICALLY FOR A DA COMPLIANCE AT DALLAS CITY HALL. UH, AFTER DISCUSSION, THAT AMENDMENT DID NOT PASS THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS, UH, TO A DEDICATED SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES, AND THAT AMENDMENT WAS WITHDRAWN. I WILL SAY THAT, UM, BOTH OF THESE FUNDS, UM, AMENDMENTS WERE FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND WE ARE STILL, UH, LOOKING AT COMPLETING A DA COMPLIANCE AND SIDEWALKS ARE BOTH ELIGIBLE IN THAT CATEGORY, BUT WITH NO AMENDMENTS FROM YESTERDAY'S BUDGET. THE BUDGET MOVES FORWARD AS YOU GUYS HAD, UH, REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED. AND THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS WILL BE ON MAY 13TH. WE WILL HAVE PRELIMINARY ADOPTION OF THIS PROPOSED BUDGET AND CALL A PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC HEARING. THAT PUBLIC HEARING STARTS THE REQUIRED HUD 30 DAY REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD. YOU SEE ON MAY 24TH, THERE WILL BE AN AD IN THE PAPER. THEN ON JUNE 10TH, WE WILL HOLD THAT PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH FINAL ADOPTION PLAN FOR JUNE 24TH. OUR DOCUMENT IS DUE TO HUD BY AUGUST 16TH, BUT I BELIEVE AUGUST 14TH IS A FRIDAY. SO WE WILL SUBMIT EARLY WITH IMPLEMENTATION TO BEGIN ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. THAT'S COMPLETES THE BRIEF UPDATE, BUT WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. SHANNON. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, I DO. COMMISSIONER MILLS. THANK YOU. UM, I [00:05:01] APPRECIATE THE, UH, BRIEF UPDATE WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT ONE AND AMENDMENT TWO, AND I'M GONNA ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. UM, AT A PREVIOUS MEETING WE WERE PRESENTED WITH A PROPOSED BUDGET AND I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON THE ABILITY OF COMMISSIONERS TO, UH, PROPOSE ALTERNATE USES FOR FUNDS SIMILAR TO THE USES THAT WERE PROPOSED IN AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW A COMMISSION OR OR MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS CAN, UM, ASK QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE AND POSSIBLY PROVIDE AMENDMENTS TO INCORPORATE THAT FLEXIBILITY AT THIS POINT? NOT AT THIS POINT, NO. THAT, THAT IS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION THAT THAT COULD BE AT THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS IS WHAT I'M HEARING. SO THE BUDGET AS IT'S PRESENTED NOW, THERE ARE $4.4 MILLION. UNDERSTAND? NO, NO, THIS IS, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET, THIS IS THE TRULY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, RIGHT? SO RIGHT NOW THERE ARE, UM, IF A COMMISSION MEMBER SAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UH, A DA COMPLIANCE AT A LIBRARY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW THAT THEY NEED, THAT, YOU WOULD COMMIT THAT AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. STAFF WOULD TAKE THAT AND MOVE IT FORWARD AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WE'RE BUDGET, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S NEEDED AT LIBRARIES, REC CENTERS AND THOSE THINGS. IF THAT RECOMMENDATION CAME FORWARD, WE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR FEEDBACK AND WHERE THAT PROJECT MIGHT BE IN THE EXISTING PIPELINE THAT WE HAVE OR PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE, SO IT'S, IT IS AN ELIGIBLE USE. JUSTICE HAN, COULD YOU, UM, TALK ABOUT THE TIMING ON THAT? WHEN WOULD THE, WHEN WHAT, WHAT TIME PERIOD BEFORE THE BUDGET IS IN THE, IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, WOULD THAT RECOMMENDATION NEED TO BE MADE? WELL, IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS, GIVEN IN MARCH, THE, THE BUDGET IS GIVEN TO THE COMMITTEE, TO THE CDC. WHEN THE COMMITTEES MEET DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, EACH COMMITTEE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROPOSE AMENDMENT SIMILAR TO, TO WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED YESTERDAY. IT'LL BE DISCUSSED AT A COMMITTEE LEVEL AND IF THE COMMITTEE VOTES IT UP, IT'LL COME TO THE FULL COMMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE INCLUDED WHEN THE BUDGET GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, SAY, THIS IS WHAT CITY MEASURE PROPOSED, THIS IS WHAT THE CDC RECOMMENDED. NOW IT IS UP TO CITY COUNCIL TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY NEED TO DO FROM THERE. BUT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS THERE IN THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO AT THIS POINT, IF A COMMISSION MEMBER, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING AT THIS POINT? NO, I'M, I'M ASKING FIRST ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL. OH, LIKE JUST FOR OKAY. AT THE BEGINNING. YES. DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH WHEN THE COMMITTEES ARE REVIEWING THE BUDGET, WE PRESENT THE MANAGER'S BUDGET. THE BEGINNING OF MARCH, THE FIRST THURSDAY IN MARCH THROUGH THAT MONTH, WE'RE MEETING WITH THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES. IF THERE'S A DESIRE FOR ANY AMENDMENT FROM THIS COMMISSION AS JUSTICE SHARED, IT'S DURING THAT TIME. OKAY. BUT OUR COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT ARE NOT SERVING ON THAT PARTICULAR COMMITTEE IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL, PRECLUDED THEM FROM MAKING AN AMENDMENT WHEN THE COMMITTEE REPORT COMES BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, NO COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND COMMITTEE ME MEETINGS. AND AT THAT, STILL AT THAT COMMITTEE MEETING, AT THE DE PRE DESIRE OF THE CHAIR, THE CHAIR MAY OF THAT COMMITTEE MAY ENTERTAIN A RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENT FROM ANY COMMISSION MEMBER AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING. BUT, BUT MY QUESTION IS, ONCE IT'S REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE, ARE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRECLUDED? NO HONOR, NO. NOT PRECLUDED. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. DURING THE COMMITTEE, WHEN THE COMMITTEE CHAIR REPORTS OUT AT THE FULL COMMISSION MM-HMM . THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY YES. THAT IF A COMMISSION MEMBER CHOOSES, NOW IT'S THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND THAT DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD. ALRIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT PURSU THAT, UH, PARLIAMENTARY POINT. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT CITY BUILDINGS THAT SERVE, UM, PURPOSES SUCH AS A RECORDS BUILDING OR AN AUXILIARY OFFICE OR A CITY HALL UNDER USAGE FOR CBDG FUNDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE MAKE IT INELIGIBLE? YES. [00:10:01] YES. SO PUBLIC FACILITIES OR CBG FUNDS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES IN PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. FACILITIES THAT ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE USE OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ARE GENERALLY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CDBG FUNDS. YES. AND SO DA THE EXCEPT THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE MM-HMM . FOR A DA COMPLIANCE FOR INTEREST AND EXIT THE BUILDING ACCESS TO RESTROOMS AND THOSE TYPE OF A DA COMPLIANT REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXCEPTIONS OTHER THAN A DA REQUIREMENTS? NO, THAT I'M AWARE OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IF IT'S A GOVERNMENT SERVICE, A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, THE CITY HAS SOME SERVICE CENTERS FOR EQUIPMENT AND THOSE THINGS, THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE NEEDED USE BY THE PUBLIC, THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SO THOSE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE AND THEN YOU NEED TO BE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. OKAY. IF, UH, WE, THE AREA IN WHICH CITY HALL, UM, IS, IS ONE OF THE AREAS IN DALLAS THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR C-D-G-C-B-D-G FUNDS BECAUSE THE BRIDGE IS WITHIN A COUPLE OF BLOCKS OF HERE. NO, NO. CITY HALL. SO WE IT'S IN A DIFFERENT, IT IS IN A DIFFERENT, IT IS IN A DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC BUCKET THAN YOU'RE TELLING ME. NO, CITY HALL IS ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR A DA ACCESSIBILITY. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST, AND IN THAT CASE I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT GEOGRAPHY. CITY HALL WOULD NOT BE IF IT WERE NOT FOR A DA. OKAY. NO MATTER WHERE CITY HALL IS, NO MATTER WHERE CITY HALL IS LOCATED, YES. OKAY. IF IT'S A DA WE CAN DO A DA BECAUSE IN THIS CASE IT'S EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL. OKAY. UM, WOULD A DA INCLUDE, UM, TI THINK IT'S T-T-Y-T-T-Y, UM, SERVICES AS PART OF A 9 1 1 FACILITY? IF THE CITY, IF IT IS NOT ALREADY, I IT IS AN A DA ADAPTABILITY. OKAY. AND YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE TWO WAYS IN WHICH CBDG FUNDS COULD BE USED TO FUND EITHER PERMANENT AND PHYSICAL SERVICES OR, UH, WHAT I WOULD CALL VIRTUAL SERVICES. A DA COMPLIANCE. THAT WOULD, BUT WOULD THOSE TDY SERVICES BE CONSIDERED A DA COMPLIANCE SERVICES FOR THE TDY? WE HAVE TO LOOK AT FURTHER RESEARCH BECAUSE THE A DA IS ONLY THE AREAS THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN A DA IN AN EXECUTIVE OFFICE WHERE THE PUBLIC NEVER COMES, THAT ROOM IS NOT ELIGIBLE IN CUSTODY, BE A PLACE WHERE THE, WHERE THE, THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO. OKAY. SO IT IS PHYSICAL USAGE AS OPPOSED TO ACCESS FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, 9 1 1 SERVICES. SO I WILL SAY I HAVE NOT HAD THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAD BEEN A QUESTION BECAUSE THE CITY OUR SIZE FOR 9 1 1 EMERGENCY SERVICES AND 3 1 1, I WOULD NOT, THAT'S A GOVERNMENT SERVICE. AND BECAUSE IN ANOTHER ARENA TITLE SIX MM-HMM AS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE BE COMPLIANT WITH A DA SEPARATE FROM HUD OR ANYBODY ELSE. THE FACT THAT WE RECEIVED FEDERAL DOLLARS. SO I COULDN'T, I HAVE NOT HAD THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE THE CITY PUTTING IN A 9 1 1 SERVICE OR 3 1 1 FOR THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY AND NOT HAVE THAT. SO I WOULD WANT TO GO GO AND LOOK AND GET SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. OKAY. UH, BECAUSE IT IS, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ALONG THE LINES OF DISABILITIES MAKING A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOME RESEARCH. I WOULDN'T WANT TO JUST SAY YES OR NO ON THAT ONE. 'CAUSE THAT'S A NEW QUESTION FOR ME. JUSTICE MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION, BUT ALL RIGHT THEN. WELL, I'D BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING MORE EITHER IN A HEARING OR IN A COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THIS NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. UM, SO [00:15:01] I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. BUT BEFORE WE, JUST TO GO FURTHER ON THE LOCATION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT HAS TO BE THE AREA WHEREBY THE SERVICE AREA FOR THAT FACILITY HAS TO BE 51% OF 80 MILLION INCOME RESIDENT. IT MAY ASK HOW IS THAT DETERMINED FOR EVERY FACILITY THAT THE CITY HAS. BUT THAT IS A LIBRARY PARK, ANDRE, THERE'S A, A SERVICE AREA, THE OTHER TWO MILE THREE MILES, AND FOR PARK ANDRE BUILDING, THOSE ARE INDICATED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE THERE THAT THE SERVICE AREA FOR THIS IS LIKE THIS, LIKE IN, IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EVERY SCHOOL HAS ATTENDED ZONE. THAT ZONE COMPRESSES THE AREA. SO WHEN COMPLIANCE IS MADE, WE TAKE THE AREA TO MEL RADIUS, OVERLAY THAT WITH THE HARD MAPS SENSOR DRAFTS DATA, AND THEY GIVE IT TO YOU AND YOU EXPORT THAT TO AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. IT'LL TELL YOU THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. IF THE NUMBER IS LESS THAN 51%, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN IN RESIDENTIAL AREA, WE CANNOT SPEND CITY BIG MONEY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT FACILITY JUSTICE. THEN, UM, SINCE THE BRIDGE IS JUST A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY FROM WHERE WE ARE SITTING IN THIS MOMENT, UM, WOULD THAT NOT MEET THAT QUALIFICATION THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED? THE BRIDGE AS AN EXCEPTION OF LLOYD, BECAUSE THE BRIDGE IS SERVING, IT'S A, A PRESUMED ELIGIBLE AREA BECAUSE IT'S SERVING THE HOMELESS PEOPLE, HOMELESS RESIDENT WHO GO THERE ARE PRESUMED TO BE LOW INCOME BY NATURE. THAT IS WHY THAT SERVICE, THAT BUILDING IS GETTING FUNDS. IT'S A PRESUMED ELIGIBILITY, BUT FOR SOMEONE WHO IS HOMELESS, CANNOT ACCESS SERVICES AT THE BRIDGE, IT'S NOT A, AN OPEN SPACE TO JUST WANT TO GO OUT AND PAY MONEY AS A MOTEL, ORDER A HOTEL TO STAY HAVING BEEN, I'M SO SORRY, JUSTICE, BUT YOU ARE SPEAKING AWAY FROM YOUR MIC AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HEAR. YEAH, I SAID BECAUSE THE BRIDGE IS A PUBLIC FACILITY DISCIPLE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE UNSHELTERED, IT IS KEPT OUT FROM THE 51% THAT DEPENDS TO ALL THE SHELTERS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'D BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING IN MORE DETAIL IN THE FUTURE, BUT I THINK THIS SURE. I I THINK I CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLS. THANK YOU JUSTICE AND CHAIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ONLINE? THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT. I'LL MOVE INTO MY CHAIR'S REPORT AND I WANNA GIVE A GREAT BIG HEARTFELT THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR OUR AMAZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOUR. I THINK THAT EVERYBODY WHO WAS ABLE TO ATTEND IT GOT SO MUCH OUT OF IT. IT WAS JUST, IT REALLY IS A REAL PRIVILEGE TO GET TO GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND SEE THE WORK AND APPRECIATE ALL THE THOUGHT THAT WENT BEHIND IT, ALL THE LOGISTICS THAT WENT INTO PLANNING IT AND TO RUNNING IT. IT WAS A PHENOMENAL DAY AND I THINK IT, I JUST AM REALLY, REALLY GRATEFUL TO YOU ALL. I, I KNOW IT'S NO EASY TASK AND I, I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT. IT WAS A REALLY, REALLY GREAT DAY AND I THINK IT'S INSPIRING AND I THINK IT BRINGS US BACK TO THE TABLE AND GETS US READY TO DIG IN AND DO SOME MORE WORK. SO REALLY GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THAT. SO THANK YOU ALL. I ALSO WANNA WELCOME TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS TO THE COMMISSION. UM, WELCOME BACK TO COMMISSIONER JEFFERSON. UM, I DUNNO IF SHE WAS ABLE TO JOIN US TONIGHT, BUT VERY EXCITED TO HAVE HER BACK ON BOARD AND WORK WITH HER. AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME COMMISSIONER WATT. WE'RE REALLY GLAD YOU'RE HERE AND WELCOME ABOARD. DO YOU MIND GIVING US A FEW MINUTES OF INTRODUCING YOURSELF? SURE THING. PROBABLY WON'T TAKE A FEW MINUTES, BUT IT'S A REAL PLEASURE TO BE HERE IN PERSON WITH ALL OF Y'ALL TODAY. UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME AS A BACKGROUND. I'M A DALLAS NATIVE. I'VE LEARNED EVERYONE NORTH DALLAS WITH BISHOP ARTS EAST DALLAS. UM, MY BACKGROUND IS MOSTLY THAT AT FINANCE AND BUSINESS. I WENT TO SU ESTATE FINANCE AND ENGLISH WITH A BEND TOWARDS, UH, ENTREPRENEURSHIP. AND I OPERATE TODAY AS A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT. SO I WAS GONNA HELP BUSINESSES IMPROVE THEIR OPERATIONS AND, UM, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ME REPRESENTS THE CHANCE TO KINDA SEE ALL DIFFERENT NEEDS ACROSS THE CITY, GET A GOOD BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF WHERE, UM, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY ARE AT, UM, THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT SERVE AS DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY. AND BUILD MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT DALLAS LOOKS LIKE. UM, AS A NATIVE WHO'S KIND OF MORE PLUGGING INTO THE [00:20:01] POLITICAL SCENE FOR THE FIRST TIME. UH, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY A POLITICAL OPTION, BUT STILL I'M GRATEFUL TO THE WORK OF THIS COMMISSION IN THE PAST AND THE WORK THAT WE'LL DO TOGETHER GOING FORWARD. UH, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CITY. I LOVE. THANK YOU. WELCOME. WE'RE VERY EXCITED, YOU'RE HEAR AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR VICE CHAIR'S REPORT. VICE CHAIR BARTOS. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. UM, I REALLY JUST WANT TO ECHO CHAIR RUBEN'S SENTIMENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WEEK. UH, THANK YOU TO THE, TO OUR STAFF, TO CITY STAFF FOR YOUR TIRELESS EFFORTS AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING WAS AMAZING AND THANK THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WHO MADE TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN IN THE EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK FROM, IT WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE ALL THE PICTURES AND I REALLY HAD FOMO FROM LIKE, SEEING EVERYBODY AT THE THANK YOU COME AND GO PARTY TO THE RIBBON CUTTING AT ARMONIA AND EVEN TO LIKE THE BUS TOUR. UM, WE HAVE SOME REALLY GREAT FEEDBACK REGARDING THE COMMUNITY STYLE LUNCH THAT WAS PROVIDED, UH, BONTON FARMS AND WE'RE VERY, VERY THANKFUL TO BONTON FARMS FOR LIKE HOSTING US, AND WE'RE REALLY EXCITED. I THINK IT WAS SUCH, IT'S SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REJUVENATE OUR EFFORTS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. SO, UM, KUDOS TO EVERYONE INVOLVED AND THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU VICE CHAIR ATOS. AND, AND I, I WAS REMISS NOT TO MENTION THE WHOLE WEEK BECAUSE IT WASN'T JUST THE TOUR. SO THANK YOU STAFF, ALL THOSE EFFORTS. I DID HEAR BACK ON THE CHILDCARE PROGRAM THAT SEVERAL PROVIDERS WERE ABLE TO GET THE PROP TWO TAX RELIEF. AND SO I KNOW, THANK YOU, SHANA. THAT WAS A LOT, A LOT OF WORK AND IT REALLY PAID OFF. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF VISIBILITY FOR THE CITY AND A LOT OF PROVIDERS HAVE HAD SOME FOLLOW UP AND, AND REALLY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR THE, JUST A GREAT WEEK. IT WAS JUST SO NICE TO SEE HARMONIA. IT WAS GREAT TO, IT WAS JUST ACROSS THE BOARD AND IT WAS JUST WELL THOUGHT THROUGH AND, AND JUST REALLY APPRECIATE IT. SO THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO OUR COMMITTEE REPORTS, THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE, UH, CHAIR DAVIS. THANK YOU, CHAIR RUBIN. LET ME SAY GOOD EVENING EVERYONE AGAIN. THE, UH, UH, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE, UH, MET ON THURSDAY, APRIL THE 23RD, 2026. WE STARTED ON TIME AT 5:00 PM UM, WE HAD A BRIEFING ON THE, UH, CDVG NONPROFIT PUBLIC FACILITY AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. MS. SHANA, TONY, SHE'S A PROGRAM COMPLIANCE MANAGER, PRESENTED AN UPDATED FISCAL YEAR 25, 26 AND FISCAL YEAR 24 25. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, NONPROFIT PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. UH, WE DO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM THIS EVENING, BUT BEFORE WE PRESENT THAT, UH, ITEM, UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK OR INTRODUCE MS. TONY WHO WILL PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH A CLEAR, UH, UH, HAD INFORM THE PRESENTATION THAT SHE PRESENTED ON LAST TIME WE MET. AND SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO INVITE HER TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION KEY HIGHLIGHT FROM THAT PRESENTATION. MS. TONY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DAVIS. UM, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. AS STATED, MY NAME IS SHAYNA TONY, AND I'M PROGRAM AND COMPLIANCE MANAGER IN BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AND I'LL BE DELIVERING THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS DELIVERED ON APRIL 23RD. SO VICTOR, IF YOU WILL NAVIGATE TO SLIDE 11, PLEASE. PERFECT, THANK YOU. SO, BEGINNING WITH THE NOPA TIMELINE, UM, AS YOU GUYS ARE AWARE, UM, THE NOFA UH, ANNOUNCEMENT WAS RELEASED TO INFORM, UM, ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND, UM, ESSENTIALLY TO INVITE SUBMISSIONS. UM, WE ADVERTISED THE NOFA IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS ON DECEMBER 4TH AND DECEMBER 11TH, 2025. ON DECEMBER 18TH, 2025, WE HELD A FROM SOLICITATION CONFERENCE, UM, FROM DECEMBER 4TH TO JANUARY 16TH, 2026, THE NOFA WAS POSTED TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE ON JANUARY 16TH OF THIS YEAR. THE NOFA SUBMISSIONS, UM, WERE DUE TO BMS FOR REVIEW. ON JANUARY 26TH TO FEBRUARY 9TH, WE HELD THE EVALUATION PERIOD. NOW, DURING THIS TIME, WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 5,000 NOTICES SENT OUT. UM, WE UTILIZED 48 COMMODITY CODES ATTACHED TO THE NOFA. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 43 DOCUMENT TAKERS, AND WE, UM, IN THE END RECEIVED FOR, UH, PROPOSALS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND SO HERE, I'M JUST GONNA BE GOING OVER THE CRITERIA, UM, THAT THE EVALUATORS USE TO DETERMINE THE BEST CANDIDATE. UM, SO FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, THAT PARTICULAR CATEGORY WAS WEIGHTED AT 27 POINTS. AND SO THE PROPOSAL WAS EVALUATED TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSAL MET THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION TO ADMINISTER [00:25:01] AND SUSTAIN THE OVERALL PROJECT FOR FINANCIAL CAPACITY AND BUDGET COST REASONABLENESS, THIS CATEGORY WAS WITHIN AT 28 POINTS. AND SO EVALUATE EVALUATORS, UM, EXAMINE PROPOSALS FOR A 25% MATCH OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST. IN ADDITION TO REVIEWING PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES AND THEN EVALUATING ON THE AGENCY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITS, UM, WEIGHTED AT 30 POINTS, WE HAVE THE APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY, UH, CATEGORY. AND SO PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED ON THE OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND THE, THE GENERAL APPROACH TAKEN. NEXT, THEY WERE EVALUATED ON THE PROPOSAL'S STRATEGIC APPROACH TO ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF PROVIDING QUALITY SERVICES TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF DALLAS RESIDENTS THROUGH EQUITY, COLLABORATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND DATA. AND THEN WAITED AT 15 POINTS. WE HAD THE COMMITMENT TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT ENHANCE, UM, EQUALITY. AND SO WE WANTED TO KNOW ESSENTIALLY HOW THE PROJECT PROMOTES EQUITY AND SEEKS TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO FIND INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS AND RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHERS TO CONFRONT EQUALITY. AND SO OVERALL, THE PROJECT, UM, PROPOSALS COULD RECEIVE UP TO 100 POINTS AND APPLICANTS, UH, RECEIVING THE SCORE OF 70 AND ABOVE WERE CONSIDERED, UM, FOR BEING RECIPIENTS OF THE NOVA FUNDING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. GOING OVER THE REVIEW TEAM. AND SO THE NOVA REVIEW TEAM WAS COMPOSED OF FIVE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, BEGINNING WITH BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. AND SO THE EXPERTISE FOR THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WAS THEIR EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH HUD PROGRAMS FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITIES. THIS REPRESENTATIVE HAD EXPERIENCED COORDINATING INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS THAT ARE RELIABLE, SUSTAINABLE, AND RESILIENT, UM, FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. THIS REPRESENTATIVE HAD EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH NONPROFIT SERVICE PROVIDERS IN REVIEW OF NOVA FOR PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS AS WELL, OR FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT. THIS REVIEWER WAS SELECTED BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE MANAGING CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES AND OVERSEEING LARGE SCALE REPAIRS SIMILAR TO WHAT WILL MOST LIKELY OCCUR, UM, WITH THE PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THE NOPA. AND THEN LASTLY, THE COMPLIANCE SERVICES MEMBER WAS SELECTED DUE TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF BUILDING FIRE, ACCESSIBILITY, ZONING, AND HEAD FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA GO OVER THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. AND SO AGAIN, WE HAD FOUR SUBMISSIONS THAT RANGED FROM THE STEWPOT BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS BISHOP ARTS THEATER AND FOR OAK OAKLAND. SO BEGINNING WITH THE STEWPOT, UM, THEIR PROJECT ENTAILED REHABILITATING A 2,400 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL FACILITY WITHIN THE EXISTING MEDICAL PARTNERS BUILDING. UM, LOCATED UP ON MALCOLM X. THE PROJECT, UM, SOUGHT TO EXPAND ACCESS TO NO COST BARRIER, FREE MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND PSYCHIATRIC CARE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. SO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE WORK INCLUDED, UM, CONSTRUCTING EXAM AND CONSULTATION ROOMS, DENTAL TREATMENT BASED X-RAY ROOM AND NURSE STATION RESTROOMS, AND COMPLETING ALL ASSOCIATED INTERIOR U UTILITY UPGRADES, INCLUDING WATER AND WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS. SO ESSENTIALLY PUTTING IT IN PLACE, UM, A MEDICAL BUILDING TO ASSIST WITH OPERATIONS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS. UM, THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB WOULD LIKE TO REHABILITATE THE EAST DALLAS CLUB FACILITY TO ADDRESS AGING INFRASTRUCTURE IN CRITICAL LIFE SAFETY NEEDS. AND SO THE SCOPE OF THEIR PROJECT INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HVAC SYSTEM, UM, LED LIGHTING UPGRADES, STRUCTURAL AND INTERIOR REPAIRS, INCLUDING THE CEILING FLOORING AND WALL RESTORATION, RESTROOM SINK REPLACEMENTS, ENHANCED SECURITY FEATURES, AND THE CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING LUNCHROOM INTO A FULLY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY CAFETERIA. AND FOR BISHOP ARTS, THEIR UM, SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDED FRAMING, REPAIRS, WALL SUB REPLACEMENT, LEVELING OF EXTERIOR WALL PARTITIONS, REALIGNMENT OF DOORS, HVAC, ET CETERA, ALL THE ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES WITH THAT PROJECT. AND THEN FOUR OAK CLIFF PROPOSED REPLACING REHABILITATING A FAILING SANITARY SEWER LINE AT THE FOUR OAK CLIFF COMMUNITY CAMPUS, UM, TO ESSENTIALLY CORRECT ANY STRUCTURAL SLUMP, UM, THAT CAUSED RECURRING SEWER BACKUPS. SO IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY, UM, GOING OVER TO THE SCORE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STUPAC RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 92.8 POINTS. THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB RECEIVED 91.2 BISHOP ARTS, 83.2, AND FOR OAK CLIFF 80. AND SO BASED ON THOSE SUBMISSIONS, THE TWO THAT WERE SELECTED TO BE AWARDED WERE THE STUPOT IN THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, GREATER DALLAS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE'RE GONNA GO TO SLIDE 17, ACTUALLY. AND NOW GIVING YOU AN UPDATE ON THE FY 24 25 NOVA UPDATE. SO ON JANUARY 28TH, 2026, DALLAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AND A SECURED 0% INTEREST FOR LIVABLE LOAN [00:30:01] OF $650,000 TO AUSTIN STREET CENTER FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION FACILITY AT 29 29 HICKORY STREET, WHICH SUPPORTS THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AND CRISIS SERVICES PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. BMS IS ACTIVELY COORDINATING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FINALIZE THE CONTRACT, UM, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, ENSURING THAT ALL TERMS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION ARE FULLY COMPLETED AND READY FOR EXECUTION. AND SO FAR OUR NEXT STEPS, WE JUST INTEND TO FINALIZE THOSE CONTRACT TERMS AND PREPARE FOR CONTRACT EXECUTION. AND THAT CONCLUDES, UM, MY REVISIT OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PRESENTATION DELIVERED ON THE 23RD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE QUESTIONS BIN. WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION THAT NONE OF US, WHEN THE REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWS THE APPLICATIONS GAVE US THAT SCORE. SO IT IS BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK, WHAT THEY WROTE, HOW THE INTENT TO PERFORM, THE RUBRIC THAT WE GAVE YOU, OUTLINES HOW THEY SUPPOSEDLY REVIEWED, AND THE COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWS THEM IS DEPENDENT OF US. IT CONSISTS OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS FROM THAT COMMITTEE THAT WAS GIVEN IN THE IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. VICTOR, IF CAN GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE BEFORE YOU DO THAT JUSTICE, THIS IS, UH, VICE CHAIR BARTOS. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THOSE OF US ONLINE COULD NOT HEAR WHAT, WHAT QUESTION WAS POSED. I'M SORRY, I HAD MY BUTTON OFF. I ASKED THE REASON THAT THE, THE TWO, THE, THE, THE NUMBER THREE AND THE NUMBER FOUR OPTIONS WERE NOT SELECTED, UH, AND THAT THEIR SCORE TO RECEIVE FUNDING WAS SO MUCH LESS THAN THE OTHER TWO. SO MUCH LOWER WHAT BISHOP ARTS AND FOR YES. OH, CLIP, I BELIEVE IT WAS. SO WHEN WE HAVE , WE PUT TOGETHER A COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. UH, COULD YOU GO BACK INDEPENDENT OF US, UH, THERE'S A SLIDE THAT SHARES THE DEPARTMENTS AND WHAT THEIR EXPERTISE IS. AND SO THAT COMMITTEE, SO WE DO HAVE, UH, SOMEONE FROM, AND WE, THIS PRESENTATION OUTLINES WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE. WE HAVE FACILITIES IN REAL ESTATE WHERE THEY WORK WITH CONSTRUCTION AND BONDING. WE'VE GOT THE CODE FOR, FOR COMPLIANCE AREAS. WE'VE GOT, UH, HCU, WHO'S WORKED EXPERIENCE WITH NONPROFITS. WE HAVE A COMMITTEE TO PUT TOGETHER AND THEN THEY EVALUATE. SO I I I, I CAUGHT THAT POINT. WHAT I JUST, WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY, UM, THE, THE, THE LAST ONE, FOUR OAK CLIFF SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY, UH, IMPORTANT NEED IF THERE'S SEWER ISSUES. AND I JUST WONDER WHY IT WAS SELECTED NOT TO RECEIVE FUNDS WHEN THE OTHERS WERE BISHOP ARTS IN, IN MY MIND, I, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A FOR-PROFIT TYPE THING, BUT WELL, ANOTHER MAIN LIMITATION, THE, THE RFP, IF THEY SCORED 70 OR ABOVE, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR FUNDING UNTIL WE RUN OUT OF MONEY. OKAY. SO IF YOU'LL SEE IN THAT COLUMN, I THINK THE TOTAL REQUEST WAS LIKE 1.7 MILLION. RIGHT. AND WE, WE WERE JUST OUT OF MONEY. WE WERE JUST OUTTA MONEY. YEAH. YEAH. THERE, UH, YEAH. THAT, THAT'S THE, YEAH. SO IT WASN'T THAT THERE, THERE WASN'T AN IMPORTANT NEED OR OH, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS COHORT AND THE ONE THAT WE BROUGHT LAST TIME. LAST TIME, ONLY ONE APPLICANT WAS DEEMED ELIGIBLE, BUT IN THIS PART, ALL THE APPLICANTS WERE DEEMED ELIGIBLE. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WE RAN OUT OF MINE HAD WE HAD $1,700,000, THEY WOULD'VE ALL BEEN FUNDED. WHAT WE GOT WAS 9 0 7. SO AS A MATTER OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH FUNDS TO FUND ALL THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE DEEMED ELIGIBLE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULD HAVE FUNDED ALL FOUR. NO, NOT WITH THE MONEY WE HAD. WE PUT THEM IN THE, THE, THE, THE, THE GROUP THAT YOU OUTLINED PUT THESE IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OR PROPRIETY ACCORDING TO THEM ON THE SCORES BASED ON HOW THE PERFORMED GOT, YES. THANK YOU. IT'S A PERFORMANCE BASED RATING. THANK [00:35:01] YOU. COMMISSIONER MILLS. I, UH, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, UM, A POINT, AND THEN I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO, UH, REFERRING TO, UM, SLIDE PAGE 14, UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE JUST A SECOND AGO THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS ELIGIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTION WAS THIS 9 0 7 8 6 0. IS THAT CORRECT OR WAS IT A DIFFERENT NUMBER IN THE BUDGET? THE COUNCIL HAS A POLICY THAT EACH NEW ALLOCATION, WE COULD ONLY ALLOCATE UP TO 5%. OKAY. SO IN, IN THIS CASE, WE ALSO ENDED WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS HAD UNSPENT SAVINGS. SO WE WERE ABLE TO COBBLE TOGETHER A LITTLE MORE MONEY AVAILABLE TO FUND AS MUCH AS WE COULD, BECAUSE AT THE 655% OF THE GRANT ALLOCATION IS ABOUT SIX 50. SIX 50. OKAY. SO WE, WE WOULD'VE BEEN SHORT ON THE ONE. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT CREATIVITY. I APPRECIATE THAT SO MUCH. UM, HAVING, I HAVE SERVED ON, UM, NONPROFIT SELECTION COMMITTEES, UM, FOR AN ORGANIZATION IN DALLAS FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS. SO THE INS AND OUTS OF CHOOSING A BENEFICIARY FOR FUNDS IS A DAUNTING PROCESS. UM, BUT BACK TO THE SELECTION CRITERIA AND RUBRIC, IS THAT DELIBERATION PUBLIC INFORMATION? IT IS PUBLISHED IN THE NOFO. OKAY. SO THAT, TO REFER BACK TO CHAIR GLO OR CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BLAIN'S QUESTION AS TO THE NO, UH, AS TO THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHY ONE SCORING WAS ONE NUMBER VERSUS ANOTHER, THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE? NO. UHUH? NO. OKAY. SO HOW IS WHAT YOU SAID A MOMENT AGO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS SAID JUST NOW? THE RUBRIC OF HOW YOU'LL BE EVALUATED AND THE POINTS ARE LOCATED TO HOW YOU RESPOND IS PUBLISHED? YOU ARE TOLD THE CITY SAYS MUST HAVE BEEN IN, IN SERVICE FOR SIX YEARS TO BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE. IF YOU'RE BEING IN SERVICE FOR 10, YOU MAY GET MORE POINTS. SO IT IS BASED ON THE RUBRIC THAT IS PUBLISHED? YES. THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. I'LL SAY THE NONPROFITS THAT WERE NOT FUNDED, WE DO OFFER THEM AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IF THEY WANT TO COME DEBRIEF, HOW CAN WE MAKE OUR PROPOSAL? THAT AGENCY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH STAFF TO GO OVER SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR PROPOSAL, BUT THE DELIBERATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE IS NOT PUBLISHED. OKAY. THAT'S ABOUT THREE QUESTIONS AHEAD OF WHERE I, I AM RIGHT NOW. SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT BECAUSE I WAS HOPING THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBRIEFING AND, UM, YOU KNOW, CRITICISM ON AND THE ABILITY FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPROVED, UM, APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK THE NEXT QUESTION IS, ONE WAS FULLY FUNDED, ONE WAS, UM, LOOKS LIKE IT WAS FULLY FUNDED. IS THE FUNDING MECHANISM THAT IT IS FULL FUNDING, FULL FUNDING, FULL FUNDING UNTIL YOU RUN OUT OF MONEY? OR IS THERE PROPORTIONAL FUNDING IN THIS CASE? WE FULL FUNDED. FULL FUNDED UNTIL WE RAN OUT OF MONEY. AND SO THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO BENEFICIARIES AS TO HOW THEY CAN IMPROVE THEIR SUBMISSIONS SUCH THAT IT ISN'T A FULL FUNDING, FULL FUNDING, BUT MIGHT BE PROPORTIONAL. I'M SORRY, ASK THAT AGAIN. THAT'S OKAY. I, I THINK THAT IT CAN CERTAINLY BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSED IN A, UH, REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION. SO. OKAY. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MICHELLE LEWIS QUESTION. SO I WAS GONNA ASK THAT SAME QUESTION ABOUT THE FULL FUNDING AS OPPOSED TO, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, BUT MM-HMM. YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE ABOUT, BUT WHO MAKES THE DECISION? IS THAT JUST A POLICY? HELP ME AGAIN. YEAH, JUSTIN AND HIS TEAM MAY HAVE TO REMIND ME OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE, UH, OF THE, THE NOFA, BUT THERE ARE TWO THINGS HAPPENING. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, SAY, UM, BISHOP ARTS THEY REQUESTED WAS 750,000 [00:40:01] MM-HMM . AND SAY, WE COME UP WITH ANOTHER PROJECT MM-HMM . AND WE AT THIS TIME, AND WE SAID, OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE THE SEVEN 50, BUT WHAT ABOUT 3 50, 4 50, RIGHT? MM-HMM . WE ALSO, ONCE WE GIVE YOU, UH, THOSE CDBG FUNDS AND THEY'RE AWARDED, YOU START THE PROJECT, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO FINISH, FINISH IT WITHIN THE FIVE. THEN IF YOU DON'T FINISH MM-HMM . THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CERTIFY TO HUD THAT BY GIVING YOU THESE FUNDS, YOU CAN OPERATE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS MM-HMM . AND IT MAY NOT BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST MM-HMM . TO INVEST HALF OF THE MONEY, ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GONNA GET THE REST OF IT, ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GONNA GET, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THE CITY MM-HMM . FROM NON-FEDERAL FUNDS ARE RECON ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAYMENT. SO FOR US TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T GET THE PROGRAMS IN TROUBLE, BECAUSE IF WE START THIS ONE AND IT DOESN'T FINISH, OR YOU DIDN'T GET ALL YOUR MONEY IN LANES PARK, THAT JUST JEOPARDIZES THE WHOLE PROGRAM. SO IT IS ALWAYS BETTER FOR, IN MY OPINION MM-HMM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ASK FOR THIS AND WE TELL THEM 25% MATCH, WE'RE ALREADY GIVING THEM 75% OF IT, AND WE'RE TRUSTING THAT THE DOCUMENTATION, THE INFORMATION, THEY'RE GONNA FINISH THEIR PROJECT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY HUD BACK AND THAT WE CAN MEET THE FIVE YEAR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT. SO, SO BASICALLY, YEAH, YOU JUST HAVE THINK IT'S BEST PRACTICE. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A PRACTICE THAT WE RIGHT. DONE. THERE'S NO, I GUESS THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING. IS IT A THIS POSITIVE? NO, THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS, SAYS DON'T OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S, BUT, BUT I WILL SAY I'VE BEEN AROUND YEAH, NO, AS PROFESSIONALS IN THIS PART. NO, I UNDERSTAND. DID THAT, AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE NOW. YEARS AGO, UM, THERE WAS NOT A 25% MATCH. THE DEPART, THE NONPROFITS DID NOT REQUIRE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE CRITERIA BECAUSE ONE OF MY PROJECTS, WHEN I WAS, UH, ACTUALLY, UH, IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BUSINESS, THE BUSINESS WENT OUT. THEY, THEY LASTED THREE YEARS AFTER THE FUNDS WHERE HUD SAID TWO MORE, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS, THE CITY HAS TO CERTIFY THAT WE WILL, THIS BUSINESS WILL BE, THIS NONPROFIT WILL MANAGE. AND WE, THE CITY HAD TO SOME, WE ENDED UP PAYING BACK AND OTHERS WE HAD TO FIND OTHER NONPROFITS TO GO INTO THE FACILITIES TO FINISH THOSE SERVICES. SO IT'S JUST, IT, IT IS NOT, HUD SAYS, CITY, YOU GO AND BE GREAT. AND THEN THIS IS WHERE WE TRUST OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND WE WANT TO GIVE, PUT THEM IN THE BEST POSITION TO BE SUCCESSFUL. AND SOMETIMES, UM, NOT, UH, DOING EVERYTHING, UH, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. AND DEPENDING ON THAT DISCUSSION WHERE WE WANTED TO DO THE FLOORS AND THE AIR CONDITIONER, MAYBE WE CAN JUST, THIS IS TEXAS, LET'S DO THE AIR CONDITIONER. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAD THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE IN THIS NOFA. SO THAT'D BE SOMETHING. AND ALSO WE HAD, UH, WERE CONSIDERING, UM, WITH THE 43 TAKERS THAT ACTUALLY TOOK THE RFP DOING MAYBE A, A, A OPEN CALL FOR THEM TO COME IN AND TALK TO US ABOUT THINGS. UH, WHAT, WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE IT? OR WHAT OPPORTUNITIES, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS PROCESS BETTER? HOW DO WE GET MORE THAN FOUR? AFTER WE SENT OUT 5,048 PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT AND ALL THE THINGS. WE ENDED UP WITH FOUR, WHICH WAS LESS THAN 10% OF THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE PEOPLE. SO THAT WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY. AND SO THAT TYPE OF FEEDBACK, IF THAT COULD BE HELPFUL, MAYBE WE COULD CONSIDER THAT. BUT YEAH, I JUST, I WOULD JUST BE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THEY FINISHED. AND JUST IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S A CITY COUNCIL REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE WHO GETS FUNDING FROM THE CITY, THE CITY MUST PUT A LIEN ON THAT BUILDING FOR FIVE YEARS. AND THE CITY MUST BEEN IN FIRST POSITION. SO IF YOU COME TO US AND YOU NEED 700,000, WE GIVE YOU 300. YOU HAVE TO GO FIND MONEY FROM SOMEWHERE, ASSUMING THAT THE BANK GIVE YOU THE REMAINING 300, THE BANK WILL SAY, OUR LIEN IS GONNA BE IN FAST, OTHERWISE THERE'S NO MONEY FROM US. THAT'S A CONFLICT WITH THE CITY. SO THE CITY WILL SAY, NO, YOU TOOK OUR MONEY BASED ON THIS ASSUMPTION WE HAVE TO BE ON FIRST LIE BASIS. SO FOR THE CITY TO ENFORCE THAT, IT KIND OF JUST LEAVES US TO GIVE YOU ALL THAT, WHICH YOU ASKED FOR IN FULL. IF NOT, WE ARE PUTTING THE CITY NOT IN THE BEST LIGHT TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS WHAT THE CITY HAS APPROVED IN THE CITY COUNCIL. SO IT'S JUST KIND OF A GIVE AND TAKE, WHICH IS THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. YOU'LL BE ON FIRST LEAD BASIS UNDER FIVE YEAR LEAD IN TERMS OF SERVICE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BUCK. [00:45:01] YEAH, SO JUST A FOLLOW REAL QUICK, JAN. I, I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE PEOPLE THAT, UH, TOOK THE APPLICATIONS WE DIDN'T SUBMIT. BUT I, I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT NEXT YEAR. AND MY QUESTION REALLY IS, GOING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE THAT SCORES THIS, UM, YOU SAY YOU ALL HAVE NO INPUT OR KNOWLEDGE OF DISCUSSIONS OR ANYTHING. IS ANYONE PROVIDING OVERSIGHT? I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE REALLY RELYING ON WHAT, FOUR OR FIVE INDIVIDUALS MAKING THESE SCORINGS AND IS THERE ANYONE THAT THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO? WE HAVE ONE BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PERSON THAT'S EXPERIENCED WITH WORKING PROGRAMS. IT'S JUST NOT US ON THE, ON THE COMMITTEE. I, I I'M JUST CURIOUS THOUGH, I MEAN, IS SOMEONE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS OR, OR AT LEAST MONITORING THEM TO SEE THAT THERE ISN'T PERHAPS TWO OR THREE OF THEM GET TOGETHER, DECIDE THEY WANT TO, UH, SCORE A PARTICULAR PROJECT VERY HIGH AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO ONE WHO WOULD CHECK THAT? WELL, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEETS, WE MEET WITH THEM AS A DEPARTMENT, TELL THEM, THIS IS WHAT AN OFFICE STATES THIS IS, THESE ARE THE ITEMS IN THE NOFO, THIS IS WHAT WE'LL LOOK FOR. THIS IS THE, THE METRIC. THIS IS HOW TO REVIEW IT. AND BEFORE YOU CERTIFY, YOU MUST CERTIFY THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE'LL BE NO COLLUSION. YOU CERTIFY THAT BEFORE YOU COME IN. YEAH, BUT I MEAN, WE ALL SIGN THINGS AND ALL THAT. SO ONCE THEY BEGIN WATCHING, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP TO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, SUSPICIOUS SCORING. SO THERE REALLY IS NO OVERSIGHT FOR THE SCORING GOES ON. THEY'RE ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AND THERE'S SOME ETHICS AND SOME REQUIREMENTS AS A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD, BUT, UH, WE DO HAVE A STAFF PERSON THAT'S JUST SAYS, STAFF THIS STAFF MEETS WITH THEM. TELL 'EM WHAT THE CRITERIA AND THE EXPECTATION IS. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE PERSON FROM OUR DEPARTMENT. IN OUR GROUP, WE HAVE A GROUP OF ABOUT 30, 40 EMPLOYEES THAT ALL GRANTS. ONE OF THEM PARTICIPATES TO MAKE SURE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING. BUT SO THERE IS ONE PERSON FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT IN THE PRO YES. BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES? YES. IN THE, IN THE GROUP OF FIVE PERIOD BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT. YES. ONE OF OUR COMPLIANCE STAFF PEOPLE, AND THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. SO IF YOU SAID, I'M GIVING THEM FIVE POINTS, YOU MUST JUSTIFY WHY YOUR FIVE POINTS IS WHAT? FIVE POINTS. IF ALL OF YOU HAVE THE SAME ANSWER, THAT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE EACH PERSON IS DOING THE REVIEW INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC PORTAL. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE. YOU GIVE YOUR POINT, I'M NOT IN YOUR ROOM, I'M NOT SITTING WITH YOU A ELECTRONIC, YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY YOU GIVE THEM THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE. SO IF EVERYONE IS SAYING THE SAME THING, ALL THE FIVE OF THEM, THAT'S A CONCERN. WE ARE ABLE TO REVIEW WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND GET THE NUMBERS, BUT WE'RE NOT IN THE REVIEW. AND WE REVIEW WHAT WAS SAID IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT. WE CAN DETECT, THERE'S SOMETHING AMIS HERE. WHY IS EVERYONE HAVING THE SAME POINTS? IF THAT WAS THE CASE, EVERYBODY WOULD'VE GOTTEN 99 POINT OF TRUTH. DO, DO YOU EVER GO BACK AND AUDIT THE DECISIONS? WE, WE'VE GOT THE SCORING NOW. I MEAN, AND PRESUMABLY IT'S MADE, BUT DOES ANYONE EVER GO BACK AND SAY, HMM, IT'S ODD. WHY, WHY DID WE SCORE THIS ? NO, WE, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THERE, JUST LIKE IN THE JURY ROOM, IF YOU'RE NOT THERE TO LOOK AT WHAT, WHAT WAS BEING DONE, I DON'T WANT TO SECOND GUESS WHAT DID YOU GIVE THEM FIVE? BASED ON WHAT I READ, I TOOK TIME TO READ ALL THESE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THE RUBRIC THAT I WAS GIVEN. THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT I SAW. THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HERE, BASED ON MY LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE. 'CAUSE EVERYONE BRINGS THEIR EXPERTISE TO THE TABLE. PEOPLE COME FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. THAT'S WHY WE LIST THOSE DEPARTMENTS IN THERE. WE, IF WE ONLY HAVE A GROUP FROM THE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN. BUT THESE ARE PEOPLE IN THE LEVELS OF EXPERTISE AND THEY ALL COME TOGETHER. THEY LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT WITH DIFFERENT EYES. SOMEONE FROM CODE FACILITY AND REAL ESTATE, HOUSING AND WATER. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, BUT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO AND THEY COME AND LOOK AT THESE DOCUMENTS AND THEY SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND THE SYSTEM AGGREGATES THOSE NUMBERS AND GIVE US THE FINAL SCOPE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. [00:50:02] THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE, EXCUSE ME HAVE A QUESTION. UH, MAY WE PLEASE RETURN TO THE RUBRIC? SO THIS, THIS IS WHAT IS PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS? NO, NO, THIS IS IN THE NORFOLK. OKAY, SO THIS IS AN INTERNAL RUBRIC? NO, NO, NO. IT IS PUBLISHED ON THE PROCUREMENT PORTAL. OKAY. WHEN YOU GO TO THE NORFOLK, THE NOTICE OF FUNDING IT GIVE YOU THIS. BUT IN ADDITION TO THIS, IT GIVE YOU THE BREAKDOWN. FOR INSTANCE, IF IT IS 30 POINTS, HOW MANY POINT IS FROM EACH LINE ITEM? OKAY, PERFECT. YOU DO THOSE THINGS AND IT IT ADDS TO 30. YEAH. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION WAS JUST WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT ADDS UP TO 30 FOR THE ENTIRE SECTION? YES. THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THIS IS AVAILABLE IS WHAT'S IN THE PAPER IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. THE CITY IS SEEKING RES UH, RESPONSES FOR THIS TYPE OF THING. AND THEN THERE'S, FOR THOSE WHO, UM, HAVE REGISTERED AS VENDORS, THEY'RE NOTIFIED VIA THEIR EMAIL AND THE, THE PUBLIC. AND THEN WHEN THEY GET THE FULL DOCUMENT, IT'S ABOUT 20, 30 PAGES AND EVERYTHING IS IN GREATER DETAIL. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I AM, I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, I THINK YOU, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT THE LEVEL OF CONCERN RELATIVE TO HOW MANY, UH, ORGANIZATIONS ACTUALLY APPLIED, AND THEN HOW MANY RECEIVE FUNDING IS OF A CONCERN TO THE COMMISSION. UM, MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO WHAT DEGREE DOES THIS COMMITTEE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO GET AHEAD OF THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR NEXT YEAR AND DO WHAT WE CAN OR PERHAPS TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF WAY, UH, THAT THOSE SMALLER ORGANIZATIONS, UH, WOULD HAVE A, A CHANCE TO GET, UH, GET THEIR NEEDS MET, UH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE APPRECIATE, WE APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY HEARD THAT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THAT WILL REQUIRE MORE MEETINGS FROM THE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS DEBRIEF WITH THE 43 THAT DID TAKE AND DIDN'T, WHICH ON, WE ARE LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH, UM, SOME OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE WHO THEY GO OUT AND DO EDUCATION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND SOME OF THEIR, UH, WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS WITH SMALL BUSINESSES. WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, IN JANUARY, WE'RE GONNA JUST HIGHLIGHT MORE IN OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS. UH, THERE WAS A SLIDE IN THE JANUARY BRIEFINGS WHEN WE DO ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS IN JANUARY. THERE WAS A SLIDE THERE, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MORE PROMINENT, MAYBE HIGHLIGHT IT A LITTLE MORE. SO AS WE GET PAST THIS AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE IS WELCOME TO MEET A MAYBE A LITTLE MORE REGULAR AND WE'LL BE PROVIDING MORE FEEDBACK AS WE GO ALONG WITH WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR AND HOW WE'RE LOOKING TO IMPLEMENT THAT TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. AND THAT'LL BE SOME IN THE MONTHS COMING. AND CHAIR AND CHAIR DAVIS, ONE OF THE THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW IS 5% BASED ON CITY COUNCIL. SO THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMISSION CAN SAY, MR. COUNCIL CAN INCREASE THIS TO 6%, 7%. THIS YEAR WAS AN ODD YEAR BECAUSE WE HAD FUNDS FROM THE, THE REPROGRAMMING FUNDS THAT WERE THE REPROGRAM. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN SIX 50, WHICH MEANS THE STEWARD WOULD'VE BEEN PUT AT A, A CHANCE TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHAT DO I DO? SO CITY COUNCIL HAS THE, THE PRIVILEGE AND THE PROGRAM TO INCREASE IT. BUT UNTIL THAT ONE IS IN, IS INCREASED ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. WE MAY BE AT SIX 50 COME NOVEMBER WHEN, WHEN WE PUBLISH IT. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMITTEE CAN HAVE AN INPUT CAN NOT A MEMO TO YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I MEAN, TO SAY, OKAY, CAN WE CONSIDER INCREASING THIS? WHEN WOULD, WHEN WOULD WE NEED TO APPROACH THE COUNCIL TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE? IT DEPENDS ON THE COMMISSION. IT DEPENDS. I'M SORRY, IT DEPENDS ON THE COMMISSION. ANYTIME. WELL, NOT ANY TIME WHEN THEY CAN'T DO IT NOW, BUT WHEN IN THE CYCLE THINGS, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO APPROACH THE COUNCIL FOR THEM TO INCREASE YOUR PERCENTAGE? SO THAT GOT INTO THE, UH, AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED. SO THIS IS A COMMITTEE THING, RIGHT? [00:55:01] IT IT IS. AND, AND THERE'S OPPORTUNITY. I KNOW EACH OF YOU GUYS MEET WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM AND SEE, UH, ONE-ON-ONE WHERE THEY, WHERE DID THEIR POSITION GET THEIR FEEDBACK? BECAUSE BEFORE, UM, THE, WHEN THE FIRST POLICY WAS IMPLE, WHEN THIS POLICY WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED, THE 25% MATCH HAD TO BE CASH, RIGHT? AND SO WE WENT THROUGH A COUPLE OF CYCLES AND, UH, WE DIDN'T GET RESPONSES. NO ONE RESPONDED. UH, THIS COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE BARRIERS AT THAT TIME WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE CASH MATCH. AND THE, THE TYPICALLY IN THE NONPROFIT SPACE MATCH CAN BE DONATED HOURS, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. THE COMMISSION STARTED TALKING WITH THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SAY, WHY ARE WE REQUIRING A MATCH FOR A NONPROFIT WHO TYPICALLY ARE STRAINED WITH RESOURCES? RIGHT? SO WITH THAT FEEDBACK, THE COMMITTEE STARTED MEETING, THEY GOT CONSENSUS AND THEY FELT PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT. THEY STARTED WITH MEMOS TO THE COUNCIL, GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK TO THE POINT WHERE WE, THE COMMITTEE FELT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE AND WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. WE HAD TO GO BACK AND AMEND THE COUNCIL'S POLICY. SO THAT WAS SOME WORK FOR THE COMMITTEE, BUT THEY STARTED WITH GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK AND THE CONSENSUS FROM THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO YOU COULD START WITH THAT AND THEN IN YOUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS, DISCUSS IT AND MOVE THROUGH THAT WAY. AND THEN THAT, THAT PROCESS IS ANYTIME AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY MORE? ANY MORE THOUGHTS, CONCERNS? QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, MS. TONY AND THE REST OF THE STAFF. SO WE NEED TO ENTERTAIN AN ACTION ITEM. UH, THE, UH, UH, THE COMMITTEE DID HAVE A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS WE JUST DISCUSSED HERE, BUT I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE ALLOCATION, UH, OF FISCAL YEAR 2025, NOFO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK GRANT, NONPROFIT, UH, UH, PUBLIC FACILITY AND IMPROVEMENT FUNDS THAT THE STUPOT AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 800,000 AND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB GREATER DALLAS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 107000.860. UH, TO SUPPORT THEIR, UH, RESPECTIVE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. UH, THESE INVESTMENTS, UH, WE BELIEVE WILL ENHANCE THE SERVICE CAPACITY, IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF CRITICAL COMMUNITY SPACES, AND STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION'S ABILITY TO DELIVER ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS TO DALLAS RESIDENTS. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT ALL OF THAT, BUT WE JUST NEED TO RECEIVE A MOTION. SO MOVED. UM, I HAVE A POINT OF INFORMATION, PLEASE. ALRIGHT. UM, UM, THIS WOULD BE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION TO STAFF. UM, I AM CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. IF BY INACTION AT THIS MEETING TODAY, WE WOULD JEOPARDIZE SPENDING OF THESE FUNDS. BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSION MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT I AM ASKING STAFF AS TO WHETHER FINDING OUT THE ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS AND HAVING THIS PUT TO A VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING. JEOPARDIZES THIS FUNDING. IT DOESN'T JEOPARDIZE THE FUNDING, IT DELAYS THE PROCESS AND THE PROJECTS THAT ARE PENDING AT THE NONPROFIT LEVEL. SO IT MAY BE SOME CONCERN FOR THEM. IS IT, IS THE DELAY THEN AT, AT THE, UH, BENEFICIARY LEVEL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IN YOUR ANSWER AT WHEN YOU SAY BENEFICIARY, YOU MEAN THE NONPROFIT? YES. YES. OKAY. SO IT JUST MEANS THAT, UM, THEY MAY BE DELAYED A MONTH OR 90 DAYS OR 60 DAYS IF, IF THIS IS MO TABLED TO NEXT MONTH. AND QUESTIONS GOT ANSWERED. SO QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED. WHAT WERE THEY? I, I WASN'T AWARE. [01:00:01] WELL, I WASN'T TAKING NOTES. NO, I'M JUST SAYING I ACTUALLY, CAN I, CAN I JUMP IN HERE? CAN WE ACTUALLY JUST SEE IF COMMISSIONERS ARE FEELING UNEASY ENOUGH THAT THEY WOULD RATHER DELAY IT? OR IF YOU'RE FEELING LIKE WE DO WANNA LOOK INTO THIS PROCESS FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS YEAR. AND, AND THAT IS THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION. . YEAH, JUSTICE WAS, UH, SIDEBAR IN HERE AND I MISSED SIDEBAR. 'CAUSE THIS IS A REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE. THE COMMISSION NEED TO VOTE UP OR DOWN. SO BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION MADE DELIBERATED AND TOOK A VOTE TO BRING TO THE FULL COMMISSION. JUSTICE, CAN I JUST ASK? SURE. COMMISSIONERS, IS ANYONE FEELING LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD? I THINK WE'VE RAISED SOME GREAT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE AND COLLECTING MORE INFORMATION MOVING FORWARD. BUT I DIDN'T GET A SENSE THAT PEOPLE WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS SPECIFIC ALLOCATION. IF THERE IS, I DO WANNA DELAY IT. SO CAN YOU ALL SPEAK UP IF YOU ARE FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE TO PASS THIS RECOMMENDATION CHAIR RUBIN? YES. UH, MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED AND I WAS, UM, EVEN MORE HAPPY WHEN I LEARNED THAT THERE'S A PROCESS OR THERE WILL BE A PROCESS BY WHICH THOSE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE FUNDS TO BE COUNSELED FOR, FOR GETTING THOSE FUNDS IN OTHER WAYS OR AT OTHER TIMES. THANK YOU. IS ANYONE FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION? 'CAUSE THEN I DO. OKAY. SORRY. THANK YOU. OH, NO, NO. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, AND GATHERING FROM, UM, OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS, THEN, UH, THAT POINT OF INFORMATION REQUEST IS WITHDRAWN. THANK YOU. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION. ANY SECOND? SECOND. ANY QUESTION FOR THE MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT, UM, THAT FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE HERE, THEN THE COMMITMENT WOULD BE AHEAD OF NEXT YEAR'S CYCLE. THAT WE GET AHEAD OF IT. AND IF NOTHING ELSE, UH, IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK GOOD, RIGHT? FOR SO MANY, SO MANY TO APPLY. AND THEN, UH, SO, SO MANY DIDN'T GET, GET A TURNED DOWN. SO, UH, THAT'D BE MY POINT OF OF RECORD. WE HEARD YOU AND WE'RE ON IT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY, UH, SECONDED. SEEING THAT THERE IS NO MORE QUESTION, ALL IN FAVOR THAT THE MOTION BE APPROVED, WOULD YOU SIGNIFY WITH AN AYE? AYE. AYE. ANY PROPOSALS? ALRIGHT, THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU. NOT, NOT OFF THE HOOK YET. CHAIR DAVIS, CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK REPORT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, PLEASE? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU AGAIN. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MET ON THURSDAY, UM, APRIL 22ND, UH, 23RD AT 6:00 PM MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER. UH, WE RECEIVED A BRIEFING FOR THE CD, UH, PT SPIN PLAN REPORT AS OF MARCH, 2026. UH, SHANNON, UH, WILLIAMS AND THE TEAM DID A WONDERFUL JOB. WE UPDATED, WE WERE UPDATED WITH THE HUD TIMELINE, TIMELINESS TEST, ALSO UPDATED WITH THE EXPENDITURE GOALS. AND THEN THE CURRENT STATUS AS OF MARCH, UH, 31ST, 2026, UH, THE CITY HAD SPENT 7.6 MILLION LEAVING APPROXIMATELY 9.3 MILLION REMAINING TO BE SPENT IN THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS. UH, WE DID HAVE A, UH, A CONVERSATION CENTERED AROUND, UH, THE CONCERN THAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THE FUNDS ALLOCATED, UH, ON TIME. UM, AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, SHOVEL READY PROJECTS, UM, THAT WE WERE INVITING, UH, COMMISSIONERS TO, UH, UH, GO BACK TO THEIR PRECINCTS TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND FROM THEIR CITY COUNCIL PERSON SHOVEL READY PROJECTS, UH, SO THAT WE CAN, UH, MEET THE STANDARD, UH, COME, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, AUGUST 2ND. UM, UH, UH, FOR THE HOOD REQUIREMENT, UM, DEPARTMENT STRATEGIES, WE TALKED ABOUT THE SHOVEL, RED PROJECTS, THE BRIDGE REPAIRS, UH, CONSERVATIVE PROJECTIONS, AND THEN THE SECTION, UH, 1 0 8, UH, PAYMENT. UM, AND THEN THE MEETING ADJOIN AT, AT 6 21, UH, PM THAT'S MY REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHAIR DAVIS? THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS THAT HAVE JOINED US AT THIS POINT? VICTOR? NO. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION? [01:05:02] COMMISSIONER MILLS? UM, PRIMARY VOTING WILL BE STARTING, UH, LATER THIS MONTH. AND PLEASE REFER TO DALLAS COUNTY VOTES FOR, UH, INFORMATION THAT IS SPECIFIC TO YOUR LOCATION. AND THANKFULLY WE HAVE, UM, COUNTYWIDE, UH, VOTING AVAILABLE. AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? AND I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH, SORRY. COMMISSIONER ROSE. NO, I JUST WANT TO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE SPOT FOR, BUT I'M REALLY JUST IN MY HEAD TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT THE NEXT STEP OF ALL THIS DISCUSSING ABOUT PUBLIC THIS, WHAT, WHAT CAME OUT TODAY WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOU ALL THE STAFF COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS, OR AGREE THAT THAT NOW WOULD BE PART OF THE CHARGE FOR THE COMMITTEE YES. TO ADDRESS THESE, THESE THINGS GOING FORWARD? CORRECT? CORRECT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT'S, IT GETS SOLVED. THIS MAY BE WHERE WE START. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS THEN I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE. SO MOVE. AND A SECOND. SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND YOUR INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS AND STAFF. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK. I WOULD LIKE TO ADJOURN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 7TH AT 7:07 PM THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. MAY SEVEN. MAY OH SEVEN. THERE'S A LOT OF. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.