[00:00:01]
[Special Called Finance Committee on June 12, 2026.]
IT IS 10 0 3 P AM NOT PM 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A AGENDA MEETING.UH, 10:03 AM UH, ON JUNE 12TH, 2026.
THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE IS CALLED TO ORDER.
UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE, UH, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUMP INTO BRIEFLY.
I'M GONNA GO OVER THE AGENDA REAL QUICK.
THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON HERE THAT WERE REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR US CALLING THIS MEETING THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING.
AND THEN THERE WERE TWO WE ADDED IN JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO THEM IN THE LAST MEETING.
UM, THE BRIEFING ITEM, WHICH WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP FIRST IS THE REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CURRENT LIVING WAGE POLICY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF POTENTIAL CHANGES.
THIS HAS A HUGE IMPACT OR ON OUR UPCOMING BUDGET.
UM, SO IT WAS VERY TIMELY FOR US TO TALK ABOUT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY EXPEDITIOUSLY AND BEFORE THE JULY BREAK.
THE OTHER ITEM THAT IS TIMELY IS ITEM D, AND THAT IS OUR PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 90TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND ONE 20TH CONGRESS.
UM, THOSE TWO ITEMS WERE, AS I MENTIONED, THE, THE IMPETUS FOR US DOING THIS SPECIAL CALL MEETING.
THE OTHER TWO, BRIEFING MEMOS, B AND C.
UM, WE DIDN'T GET TO THEM IN THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE QUORUM, AND THEY WERE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO, UM, JUSTIFY ADDING TO THIS AGENDA.
SO THAT'S THE OVERVIEW WE'RE GONNA TAKE, GO AHEAD AND GO INTO BRIEFING ITEM A I I THINK AFTER THAT WE'LL, WE'LL SPEND A COUPLE MINUTES GOING THROUGH D UH, AND THEN, UM, B AND C WE'LL TAKE, UM, IN ORDER AFTER D.
SO I WILL INVITE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES UP FOR BRIEFING ITEM A ALL, UH, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
UM, I'M JUANITA ORTIZ, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.
AND JOINING ME TODAY IS KIM FRANKLIN.
SHE'S THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND PURCHASING AGENT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
TODAY WE'RE GONNA BE PROVIDING YOU WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S CURRENT LIVING WAGE POLICY, HOW WE IMPLEMENT IT THROUGHOUT THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOU, UM, AS IF YOU WISH TO REVISIT THE POLICY.
THE OPTIONS PRESENTED TODAY ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT YOUR POLICY AND BUDGET DECISIONS.
WE'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION, WE WILL ASK FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION REGARDING ANY ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE OR POTENTIAL POLICY AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO EXPLORE.
TODAY'S BRIEFING IS ORGANIZED INTO FIVE SECTIONS.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT POLICY, DISCUSS HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED, REVIEW TRENDS AND IMPACTS THAT WE'VE OBSERVED OVER TIME, AND CONCLUDE WITH SEVERAL POLICY OPTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOUR DECISION MAKING.
BEFORE THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE POLICY WAS ADOPTED, THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A BROAD REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR WAGE ON ALL SERVICE CONTRACTS.
PRIOR TO 2008, THE CITY USED A CONTRACT SPECIFIC APPROACH REQUIRING WAGES ABOVE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM ONLY FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS THAT THE COUNCIL HAD IDENTIFIED AS A POLICY INTEREST.
MOST OF THESE WERE LABOR INTENSE CONTRACTS LIKE SECURITY JANITORIAL, AND TEMPORARY LABOR.
FOR MOST OTHER SERVICE CONTRACTS, THE COMPENSATION WAS DETERMINED BY MARKET CONDITIONS AND PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTORS STILL COMPLIED WITH THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THAT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FROM GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS HAVE LONG BEEN SUBJECT TO SEPARATE RULES, UH, FOR PRO, STATE AND FEDERAL PREVAILING WAGE LAWS, AND ARE NOT GOVERNED BY THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY.
IN 2008, CITY COUNCIL REMOVED CONTRACT SPECIFIC WAGE REQUIREMENTS ABOVE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS, ALLOWING THE MARKET TO ESTABLISH WAGES.
IN 2012, COUNCIL SEPARATELY ADDRESSED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS BY ADOPTING THE DAVIS BACON WAGE RATES AS THE CITY'S PREVAILING WAGE STANDARD.
THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON PROPERTY ON POVERTY RECOMMENDED ESTABLISHING A LIVING WAGE FLOOR FOR BOTH CITY EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS WORKING UNDER CITY CONTRACTS IN MAY OF 2014.
AND AT THAT TIME, IT WAS $10 AND 25 CENTS AN HOUR.
BUILDING ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, CITY COUNCIL
[00:05:01]
ADOPTED THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IN NOVEMBER, 2015, APPLYING AN ANNUAL ADJUSTED WAGE FLOOR TO COMPETITIVELY PROCURE GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.AND SINCE THAT TIME, THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN PLACE WITH THE WAGE FLOOR UPDATED ANNUALLY USING THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR.
WHEN COUNCIL ADOPTED THE LIVING WAGE POLICY, IT ESTABLISHED THREE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES PROMOTING AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD OF LIVING, SUPPORTING THE ECONOMIC WELLBEING OF DAOS WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND ENCOURAGING WORKFORCE STABILITY AND QUALITY SERVICE DELIVERY ON CITY CONTRACTS.
THESE OBJECTIVES PROVIDED THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE CURRENT POLICY AND HELP INFORM THE DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICY ALTERNATIVES LATER IN TODAY'S BRIEFING.
THE CITY'S WAGE FOR IS BASED ON THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR FOR THE DALLAS COUNTY REGION USING A STANDARDIZED METHODOLOGY RATHER THAN A RATE ESTABLISHED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE CITY.
THE WAGE FLOOR IS UPDATED ANNUALLY WITH ANY ADJUSTMENTS BECOMING EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1ST FOR ANY SOLICITATIONS ISSUED ON OR AFTER THAT DATE.
THE POLICY APPLIES TO COMPETITIVELY PROCURE GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, CONTRACTORS, AND APPLICABLE FIRST TIER SUBCONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY AT LEAST THE WAGE FLOOR ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION IS ISSUED AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN PLACE DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD.
AS MENTIONED, THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IS NOT A BLANKET REQUIREMENT FOR ALL CITY CONTRACTS.
IT ONLY APPLIES TO A DEFINED GROUP OF COMPETITIVELY PROCURED GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.
THE POLICY APPLIES TO SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE GREATER THAN $100,000, INCLUDING JANITORIAL, LANDSCAPING, SECURITY SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES, COOPERATIVE AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS, SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENTS, EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUCH AS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING SERVICES ARE EXCLUDED.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ARE ALSO EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE GOVERNED BY SEPARATE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY.
UM, THE FEDERAL DAVIS BACON REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FEDERALLY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AND TEXAS LAW REQUIRES THAT THE CITY ESTABLISH A PREVAILING WAGE RATE FOR ANY PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE.
AND WE SATISFY THAT BY ADOPTING THE DAVIS BACON WAGE DETERMINATION FOR OUR CONTRACTS.
UNLIKE THE LIVING WAGE POLICY, WHICH ESTABLISHES A SINGLE WAGE FLOOR FOR COVERED SERVICE CONTRACTS, THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS VARY BY LABOR CLASSIFICATION AND TRADE WITH DIFFERENT WAGE RATES ESTABLISHED FOR DIFFERENT CRAFTS AND OCCUPATIONS.
I'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO KIM TO REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.
NEXT WE WILL DISCUSS THE, UM, LIVING WAGE, HOW IT IS CALCULATED AND IMPLEMENTED INTO CITY CONTRACTS.
THE CITY RELIES ON THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR.
MIT ESTIMATES THE INCOME NECESSARY TO MEET THE BASIC NEEDS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THE CALCULATION INCLUDES, UM, HOUSING, FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, HEALTHCARE, AND OTHER NECESSITIES.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE, UM, SAVINGS AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
MIT UPDATES THESE CALCULATIONS ANNUALLY.
SO DALLAS UTILIZES THE ONE ADULT ZERO CHILDREN LIVING WAGE RATE AS ITS BASIS FOR THE WAGE FLOOR.
MIT UPDATED DALLAS COUNTY RATE TO $23 AND 31 CENTS PER HOUR IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
THIS RATE WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR SOLICITATIONS ISSUED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
THIS DOES REPRESENT, UM, A RELATIVELY MODEST INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 1%, UM, FROM THE CURRENT RATE OF $23 AND 6 CENTS PER HOUR.
THE TABLE ALSO ILLUSTRATES HOW THE LIVING WAGE ESTIMATES VARY SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON YOUR HOUSEHOLD MAKE UP.
SO THE WAGE FLOOR, IT IS ESTABLISHED WHEN SOLICITATIONS ARE ISSUED.
ONCE THE SOLICITATION IS AWARDED, THAT WAGE FLOOR BECOMES A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
THE WAGE REQUIREMENT REMAINS FIXED THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT, AND THEN WHEN THE CONTRACT IS RES SOLICITED, THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE AT THAT TIME IS INCORPORATED.
AND PLEASE NOTE WE HAVE THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE THAT STATE LAW DOES, UM, PREVENT THIS CITY FROM RETROACTIVELY MODIFYING CONTRACT TERMS. NEXT
[00:10:01]
SLIDE.SO, IN THE SOLICITATION PROCESS, CONTRACTORS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WAGE REQUIREMENTS AS A PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION.
SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS IDENTIFY THE WAGE RATE REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.
CONTRACTORS ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE WAGE FLOOR REMAINS IN EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE TERM OF THEIR CONTRACT.
AND, UM, ALSO THESE CONTRACTS PROVIDE, UM, ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS INCLUDING AUDITS AND DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENT REVIEWS.
THE CITY USES A COMPLAINT BASED COMPLIANCE PROCESS.
SO PAYROLL DOCUMENTATION IS NOT ROUTINELY COLLECTED FROM ALL CONTRACTORS.
WHEN CONCERNS ARISE, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND WE CONDUCT REVIEWS.
SO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH, UM, THE LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENTS, UM, ANY NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WE FIND, AND IT COULD LEAD TO A BREACH OF CONTRACT.
SO THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THE COMPLIANCE PROCESS.
SO COMPLAINTS ARE RECEIVED, UM, AND ACKNOWLEDGED.
AFTER THAT, THE CONTRACTORS ARE NOTIFIED AND ASKED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION.
WE REVIEW THE PAYROLL INFORMATION AND DETERMINE COMPLIANCE.
IF VIOLATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED, A FORMAL, UM, NOTICE OF DEFAULT MAY BE ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR.
HOWEVER, UM, WE DO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION BEFORE FURTHER ACTION IS CONSIDERED.
NOW WE WILL DISCUSS, UM, HOW THE POLICY HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME AND ITS IMPACTS ON CITY CONTRACTS.
SINCE 2015, THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE HAS INCREASED FROM $10 AND 37 CENTS TO $23 AND 31 CENTS PER HOUR.
THIS REPRESENTS A 125% INCREASE.
SO FOR COMPARISON DURING THIS TIME, THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED AT $7 AND 25 CENTS PER HOUR.
UM, THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE MINIMUM WAGE HAS ALSO INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT, UM, STILL REMAINS LOWER BELOW THE CONTRACTOR LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT.
SO THIS DOES DEMONSTRATE HOW, UM, THE LIVING WAGE HAS GROWN OVER THE PAST DECADE.
AND SINCE 2017, LIVING WAGE INCREASES HAVE AVERAGED APPROXIMATELY 9.3%, AND DURING THE SAME TIME, UM, INFLATION AVERAGED APPROXIMATELY 3% ANNUALLY.
THE LARGEST INCREASES OCCURRED DURING THE YEAR OF 20 21, 20 22, AND 2020.
UM, THOSE WERE THE LARGEST INCREASES.
SO THIS IS BECAUSE MIT METHODOLOGY MEASURES BASIC LIVING COSTS RATHER THAN INFLATION ALONE.
SO AS A RESULT, THE LIVING WAGE GROWTH CAN EXCEED CPI GROWTH.
SO FOR CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS, THE CITY'S REQUIRED WAGE EXCEEDS THE PREVAILING MARKET WAGES, FOR EXAMPLE, JANITORIAL SERVICES.
AND, UM, AS YOU CAN MOST RECENTLY KNOW THE SANITATION POSITIONS.
SO THE LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 26 TO 31% HIGHER THAN THE MEDIAN MARKET WAGES FOR THESE POSITIONS.
SO CONTRACTORS MUST INCORPORATE THESE HIGHER, HIGHER WAGE COSTS INTO THEIR PROPOSALS FOR CITY WORK.
OKAY, SO KEEP IN MIND, AS THE OLDER CONTRACTS EXPIRE AND THEY ARE RESCINDED, HIGHER LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE PRICING.
MANY EXISTING CONTRACTS ARE SOLICITED, UM, AT WAGE RATES BETWEEN 10 AND $15 AN HOUR.
BUT NOW THEY ARE CURRENTLY BEING RES SOLICITED AT WAGES THAT ARE OVER $23 PER HOUR.
THE LIVING WAGE IS JUST ONE FACTOR, UM, AFFECTING THE CONTRACT PRICING.
UM, THERE'S ALSO INFLATION FUEL, BENEFITS, MATERIALS, AND JUST REGULAR OVERHEAD COSTS.
THIS SLIDE PROVIDES A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE USING CITYWIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES.
SO THE WAGE FLOOR, IT'S, UM, THE WAGE FLOOR INCREASED FROM $12 AND 38 CENTS TO $22 AND 5 CENTS ON THE MOST RECENT, UM, SOLICITATION.
SO HOWEVER, THE WAGE INCREASE WAS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR IN, UM, AFFECTING THIS COST FOR THIS CONTRACT.
SO THERE WERE EQUIPMENT COSTS INCREASE, THE SERVICE STANDARDS WERE ENHANCED AND ELEVATED.
AND THEN, UH, LASTLY, ADDITIONALLY, UM, WE ADDED ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS WERE ADDED.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WERE MULTIPLE INFLUENCES AND FACTORS IN THAT CONTRACT PRICING.
[00:15:02]
EXCELLENT.SO BY FY 27, WE UM, HAVE 178 SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT ARE EXPECTED TO EXPIRE AND BE RES SOLICITED.
SO APPROXIMATELY 75% OF THESE CONTRACTS WERE ORIGINALLY ISSUED UNDER WAGE FLOORS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN TODAY'S RATE.
SO AS THESE CONTRACTS COME BACK TO MARKET, THE CITY MAY CONTINUE TO SEE COST PRESSURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HIGHER WAGE REQUIREMENTS.
ALRIGHT, SO STAFF REVIEWED SEVERAL PEER CITIES.
SO DALLAS CURRENTLY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST CONTRACTOR WAGE REQUIREMENTS AMONG THE CITY SURVEYED.
MOST PEER CITIES USE CPI BASED ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS.
DALLAS AND AUSTIN HAVE SIMILAR WAGE LEVELS WHILE SAN JOSE, UM, DOES HAVE THE HIGHEST RATE IN THE GROUP.
DALLAS IS UNIQUE AMONG THE SURVEYED PEERS BECAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR WAGE REQUIREMENT DIRECTLY MATCHES THE MIT LIVING WAGE.
SEVERAL PEER CITIES REMAIN, UM, OR MAINTAIN CONTRACTOR WAGES THAT ARE BELOW THE LOCAL MIT LIVING WAGE ESTIMATES.
SO DALLAS IS ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ONLY, UM, THE ONLY REGIONAL ENTITY IDENTIFIED WITH A LIVING WAGE POLICY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS.
AND THIS IS, UM, THIS IS THIS CHART OR THIS TABLE HERE SHOWS YOU HOW DALLAS'S APPROACH IS DIFFERENT.
UM, IT DIFFERS BOTH NATIONALLY AND REGIONALLY.
OKAY, SO NOW WE'VE REVIEWED THE, UM, POLICIES, HISTORY, THE IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE IMPACTS AT THIS TIME.
STAFF, WE WILL BE PRESENTING OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
SO DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, COUNCIL IDENTIFIED THE LIVING WAGE AS AN EXPENSE DRIVER.
SO PULLING RESULTS REFLECTED MIXED VIEWS REGARDING THE CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT POLICY.
APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE RESPONDENTS EXPRESSED SUPPORT, UM, OF CONSIDERING A PAUSE OR A MODIFICATION DURING THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
STAFF IS PRESENTING OPTIONS TO SUPPORT THOSE POLICY DISCUSSIONS.
SO WE HAVE IDENTIFIED FOUR BROAD POLICY PATHWAYS.
WE CAN MAIN MAINTAIN THE CURRENT POLICY, MODIFY, REPLACE, OR RESCIND THE CURRENT POLICY.
EACH OPTION CARRIES DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, WE'LL DISCUSS EACH OPTION IN DETAIL.
SO MAINTAINING WE, WE CAN CONTINUE USING THE CURRENT MIT METHODOLOGY AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS.
THIS PRESERVES CONSISTENCY AND MAINTAINS ALIGNMENT WITH THE ORIGINAL POLICY OBJECTIVES.
A CONSIDERATION IS THAT FUTURE WAGE GROWTH COULD CONTINUE TO EXCEED INFLATION AND INCREASE COSTS, UM, ON OUR CURRENT CONTRACTS.
OPTION TWO WOULD BE MODIFYING THE EXISTING POLICY.
SO MAINTAIN THE POLICY BY, UM, WHILE MAKING TARGETED ADJUSTMENTS.
SO MODIFICATIONS, UM, COULD ADDRESS CONTRACT COVERAGE THRESHOLDS, EXEMPTIONS OR WAGE METHODOLOGY.
THIS OPTION ATTEMPTS TO BALANCE POLICY OBJECTIVES AND THE FISCAL IMPACTS.
HERE WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF MODIFICATIONS, WHICH INCLUDES RAISING THE THRESHOLDS, LIMITING COVERED SERVICES OR EXPANDING EXEMPTIONS.
COUNCIL COULD ALSO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES SUCH AS THE CPI BASED ADJUSTMENTS.
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE PLACING A CAP ON THE ANNUAL WAGE GROWTH OPTION THREE.
SO REPLACING THE MANDATORY WAGE REQUIREMENT WITH AN EVALUATION CRITERIA, WORKFORCE COMPENSATION COULD BECOME A FACTOR IN BEST VALUE PROCUREMENTS.
THIS APPROACH WOULD ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S DRIVE POLICY, AND I'LL GO INTO THE DRIVE POLICY ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS OPTION COULD LEVERAGE THE FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED UNDER THE DRIVE POLICY.
SO SIMILAR TO HOW THE DRIVE POLICY WORKS WITH LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT AND INCLUSION, WORKFORCE COMPENSATION COULD BECOME AN EVALUATION CRITERIA.
THIS WOULD SHIFT FROM A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO AN INCENTIVE BASED MODEL.
AND LASTLY, WE COULD RESCIND THE POLICY.
THIS OPTION WOULD ELIMINATE THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.
CONTRACTORS WOULD DETERMINE WAGES BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS.
THIS COULD REDUCE FUTURE, UM, COST PRESSURES.
[00:20:01]
REMOVE THE CITY'S CURRENT WAGE FLOOR PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS PERFORMING CITY SERVICES.ALRIGHT, AND NOW WE'LL GO OVER THE CONSIDERATIONS.
UM, THINGS TO CONSIDER ANY POLICY CHANGES WOULD LARGELY AFFECT FUTURE CONTRACTS.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION, EXISTING CONTRACTS CANNOT BE MODIFIED RETROACTIVELY, OPEN SOLICITATIONS CAN, UM, POTENTIALLY BE AMENDED.
AND THEN BECAUSE, UM, CURRENT CONTRACTS, THEY TYPICALLY SPAN THREE TO FIVE YEARS, EXISTING LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WOULD CONTINUE TO APPEAR IN CONTRACTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, EVEN AFTER THE POLICY CHANGE.
SO TO SUMMARIZE OUR OPTIONS HERE, COUNCIL HAS FOUR BROAD POLICY PATHS AVAILABLE.
EACH OPTION REPRESENTS DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON CONTRACT COSTS, WORKFORCE COMPENSATION, AND PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATION.
ANY FUTURE CHANGES WOULD ONLY AFFECT FUTURE SOLICITATIONS.
IF COUNCIL WISHES TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WHILE ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS IT HAS ON THE BUDGET, STAFF RECOMMENDS MODIFYING THE EXISTING POLICY.
UM, WE WILL IN, WE WILL CONCLUDE WITH GOING OVER THE NEXT STEPS.
UM, SO STAFF AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS SEEKING COMMITTEE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION BASED ON THAT DIRECTION.
UM, WE WILL DEVELOP POLICY AMENDMENTS AND IMPLEMENTA AND AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
ANY PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD RETURN FOR, UM, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
WE ARE OPEN TO FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS.
AND I, IN A SECOND, I'M GONNA START TO MY LEFT.
I JUST, UM, AND THEN WE WILL, WE'LL GO TO THE RIGHT AFTER THAT.
UM, SO TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS IS JUST SET FOR A BRIEFING ITEM TODAY, NOT AN ACTION ITEM.
YOU ARE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK HOWEVER.
AND SO IF IT, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, IF WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, UM, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, WE CAN DO THAT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, REALLY LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK BECAUSE IT MOST LIKELY WILL REQUIRE US TO GO BACK AND DO SOME ADDITIONAL WORK.
UH, AND BRING YOU A FINAL, UH, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR WHATEVER YOU, YOUR SUGGESTION MAY BE.
SO IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GO DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL.
WE MAY HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN BEFORE WE MOVE IT TO COUNCIL, BUT WE'LL LET Y'ALL, UH, DIRECT US ON HOW YOU WANT US TO APPROACH IT.
I MEAN, THIS IS GONNA BE VERY IMPACTFUL IF ON THE FALL BUDGET.
OBVIOUSLY, SO WE DON'T COME TO A RESOLUTION THIS MONTH.
YOU WOULD BE COMING BACK EARLY AUGUST.
AND WE MAY BE ABLE TO, UH, PUT IT ON THE, THE REGULAR, UH, JUNE MEETING, UH, DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE, THE COMMENTS ARE HERE TODAY.
I'LL START WITH, UH, DEPUTY MAYOR POIN.
AND I WANNA START BY COMMENDING YOU ALL ON THIS PRESENTATION.
UH, MS. FRANKLIN AND MS. ORTIZ, I FELT LIKE YOU HAD GOOD COMPARISONS AND RELEVANT EXAMPLES.
YOU HAD VERY GOOD READABLE GRAPHICS.
WE DON'T ALWAYS GET THAT AND CLEAR OPTIONS AND A RECOMMENDATION INFORMED BY YOUR EXPERTISE.
SO I JUST WANNA START BY SAYING I, I REALLY FOUND A LOT, VERY COMPLETE, UH, INFORMATION HERE.
UM, BUT LET'S DIG INTO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME ABOUT REEXAMINING THE LENGTHS OF OUR CONTRACTS.
BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T LIKE, AND I I DIDN'T LIKE THIS WHEN I HEARD IT WITH OUR SANITATION WORKERS TO HEAR THAT THEY HAD BEEN LOCKED INTO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT AND THAT THE BACK OF THE TRUCK WORKERS WERE AT A 15, UNDER $15 AND 50 CENTS AN HOUR WAGE FOR SUCH A DEMANDING AND DANGEROUS JOB, FRANKLY.
UM, SO OUR, AND I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE WAGE PER SE SO THAT WE CAN FACTOR THAT INTO BUDGETING.
BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE ON THOSE CONTRACTS.
'CAUSE IF YOU START GOING FROM FIVE TO THREE, I'M SURE WE'RE NOT GONNA GET SOME OF THE SAME BENEFITS THAT WE WOULD GET IF WE WERE ABLE TO COMMIT TO A LONGER TIME.
DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE? OR WOULD YOU NEED TO COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION? UM, CHANGING THE CONTRACT TERMS OR THE LENGTH OF OUR CONTRACTS, THE LENGTH, I MEAN, IF WE'RE, I MEAN, I HATE TO LOCK INTO A WAGE FOR FIVE YEARS WHEN I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING WHAT THAT HAS DONE, YOU KNOW, BY KEEPING SOME PEOPLE AT A REALLY A, A MUCH LOWER WAGE.
UM, SO WE CAN, WE CAN GO BACK WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND SEE, I KNOW SOMETIMES WE DO PRICING, UM, BASED ON THE YEAR.
SO WE'LL DO LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR ONE YEAR, TWO YEAR THREE PRICING.
AND THEN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW YEAR TWO, YEAR THREE WHAT THE MIT LIVING WAGE IS GONNA BE.
SO THAT'S WHERE I NEED TO, WE NEED TO
[00:25:01]
TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR, UM, GROWTH.EITHER AN AVERAGE OR A CAP OR, UM, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT WE CAN COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION.
SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY TRADE OFFS ON THAT FOR THE CITY.
UH, LOCKING IN A LONGER TERM KNOWN AMOUNT GIVES US MORE CERTAINTY FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE.
YOUR, UH, COMMENT I THINK IS COMING FROM THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSPECTIVE AND HOW IT LOCKS THEM INTO A WAGE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE.
SO IT'S TWO SIDES AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S, WE WOULD TAKE THE POLICY DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON HOW YOU WOULD PREFER US TO, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, I MEAN, EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS A VARIABLE TO IT.
I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S CONSUMER PRICE INDEX OR MIT LIVING WAGE, I MEAN, IT'S JUST, YOU CAN'T, HOW DO YOU BAKE THAT IN WITH SOMEONE AND HAVE THEM COMMIT TO THAT EXPENSE ON THEIR SIDE? UM, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT SOME DEPTH OR ON, ON THAT.
THE OTHER THING THAT OCCURRED TO ME IN LOOKING AT THIS IS DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT MINIMUM THRESHOLDS.
SO OURS IS AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
AND HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN? SO THE POLICY APPLIES TO COMPETITIVELY BID PROCUREMENT.
SO IT ACTUALLY WAS FOR 50,000 UNTIL LAST DECEMBER OR OCTOBER WHEN WE, UM, ADJUSTED OUR THRESHOLD TO 100,000.
SO NOW ANY CONTRACT OVER A HUNDRED THAT WE ISSUE A SOLICITATION FOR INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT.
SO WE'VE DONE A MARKET ADJUSTMENT ON THAT AND MAYBE WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYE ON THAT GOING FORWARD ON PAGE 28.
UH, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS, ACTUALLY, LET ME NOT JUMP TO THAT ONE YET.
UM, ON PAGE 12, WE TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER IN THE HOUSEHOLD, AND WE SEEM TO BE GEARING EVERYTHING TO THE ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLD.
BUT THEN I KNOW WE'VE ALSO CONSIDERED EVALUATING TASK-BASED, UM, WHERE, I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, AN OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE INTERN IS MAKING OVER $23 AN HOUR.
UH, FRONT DESK AT A REC CENTER IS $23.
I MEAN, I'M JUST, I, I'M, AND THEN YOU'VE ALSO GOT PEOPLE IN THE FIELD UNDER ARE MUCH MORE GRUELING AND CHALLENGING CONDITIONS, UH, WHO MAY HAVE THE SAME KIND OF SKILLSET REQUIREMENTS, BUT, UM, ARE AT THAT SAME RATE.
AND SO I, WHAT KIND OF INPUT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AROUND MODIFYING A, A WAGE TO A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY TO THE JOB INSTEAD OF SOMETHING THAT'S SO BLANKET? AND, AND SO FROM, FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE, FROM A CITY EMPLOYMENT PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE DID NOT MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT WITH MIT LIVING WAGE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS YEAR.
UM, EVEN THOUGH MIT MOVED UP, WE HAD A PRACTICE OF TRYING TO STAY SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE MIT LIVING WAGE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
BUT MS. TOLBERT RECOMMENDED THAT INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO TRY TO DO THAT TO KEEP UP, WE WOULD USE TASK PAY.
UH, WE'VE NOT, UH, ACTUALLY HAD TO USE THAT TOO MUCH AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING RECRUITING PROBLEMS. WE'RE NOT HIRING, HAVING HIRING OR RETENTION PROBLEMS. AND SO WE'VE REALLY NOT, UH, EXPERIENCED MUCH USE OF THE, THE TASK PAY YET.
BUT THE IDEA WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU MENTIONED, IF THERE'S A NEED TO HELP US IMPROVE HIRING, TO IMPROVE RETENTION, THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE DEPENDING UPON THE TASK.
UM, WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HARD TO FILL ROLES, THE CHALLENGING AND GRUELING ROLES.
AND THAT'S WHERE I SEE THERE CAN BE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TROUBLE FILLING, UH, INTERN POSITIONS AT $23 AN HOUR
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
WHERE ARE WE OVERSHOOTING IN SOME AREAS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THOSE THAT ARE IN THE ROLES THAT REQUIRE MORE.
AND I KNOW IF YOU, IT'S A, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL SKILL LEVEL, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT KIND OF SOME BASELINE THAT SEEMS TO ALL BE AT THE SAME LEVEL, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD MOVE SOME BY CONSIDERING SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT I'VE, I'VE SHARED.
SO, UH, ON THE OPTIONS ON PAGE 28, DIRECTION WISE, I WOULD SAY I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN WHERE WE ARE, AND I DON'T WANNA RESCIND IT.
UM, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MODIFYING VERSUS REPLACING, AND I'M SURE OUR UNIONS AND THOSE THAT LOOK OUT FOR EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE ONE OPINION ON THOSE.
AND THEN OUR BUSINESSES AND THE MARKETPLACE, YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.
AND SO WHAT ARE ECONOMISTS SAYING, OR WHAT ARE THOSE WHO ARE MAYBE HAVE A MORE OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE, UM, RECOMMENDING BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS? SO, SO WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN INTERNALLY WITH OUR CONVERSATIONS AND NOW, UH, TO COUNCIL, WE CAN DO SOME ADDITIONAL REVIEWS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM THE PROCUREMENT SIDE, HAVING A, A POLICY OUTLINED IS EASIER FOR
[00:30:01]
US TO MANAGE, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE SETTING THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CONTRACTORS.SO ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS POLICY.
UM, SO THAT HELPS, UH, KIND OF EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYONE.
UM, I THINK FROM, FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE ASPECT, LIKE JACK MENTIONED, SOMETIMES THAT CAUSES, CAUSES FRICTION.
I KNOW WITH LIKE TRUCK DRIVERS MAKING A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THE PERSON ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK MAKING THE SAME AMOUNT OR A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, SO WE'RE KIND OF COMPETING WITH, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING THE MIT LIVING WAGE, BUT ALSO, UM, NOT CREATING, UH, MARKET CONDITIONS THAT IMPACT OTHER AREAS OF THE PROGRAM.
AND SO I'LL ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.
SINCE YOU MENTIONED THE SANITATION, UH, INDIVIDUALS ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK WITH THE RECENT CHANGE IN THAT CONTRACT, THAT WILL INCREASE THE, THE LABOR RATE FOR THAT, UH, POSITION.
IT'S GOING TO CAUSE COMPRESSION WITH THE TRUCK DRIVERS, CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE IN THOSE SAME VEHICLES, BUT DRIVING THE EQUIPMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EQUIPMENT.
AND WE ARE MOST LIKELY GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE THE TRUCK DRIVER PAY.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TRUCK DRIVER PAY AND OTHER NONS SANITATION DEPARTMENTS.
AND WHAT THAT IMPACT IS IN, IN TRYING TO KEEP SOME TYPE OF PARODY BETWEEN THOSE TYPES OF POSITIONS.
SO IT IS, UH, A COMPRESSION ISSUE.
UH, IN TALKING TO MS. TOLBERT ABOUT THE OPTIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT HERE, I'LL JUST SHARE, UH, YOU MENTIONED, UH, YOU DON'T REALLY WANNA MAINTAIN, YOU DON'T WANNA RESCIND.
SO WHERE IN THE MIDDLE WOULD WE FALL? EITHER TWO OR THREE, AND AS, UH, JUANITA MENTIONED THREE PUTS IT MORE TO THE, THE MARKET, AND THEN YOU'RE NOT REALLY GETTING APPLES TO APPLES BECAUSE ONE, UH, PROPOSAL MAY PAY $25 AN HOUR AND A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL MAY PAY $22 AN HOUR, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE THEN HAVING A PROBLEM, UH, WITH THAT TYPE OF EVALUATION.
SO MS. BERT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS REALLY TO MODIFY THE EXISTING POLICY AND REALLY LOOKING AT THE WAY WHAT, HOW WE'RE CALCULATING THE WAGE IN FINDING A DIFFERENT METRIC, A DIFFERENT, UH, METHODOLOGY THAN THE MIT LIVING WAGE.
AND HER RECOMMENDATION WAS GO TO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE, UH, MARKET BASED.
BUT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR, UH, THE THOUGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING MARKET BASED WOULD BE TO REPLACE, NOT MODIFY? NO, IT WOULD BE TO MODIFY INSTEAD OF USING MIT LIVING WAGE AS THE METRIC AND HOW WE CALCULATE IT, WE WOULD USE MARKET BASED DEPENDING UPON THE TYPE OF POSITION.
SO WHEN WE WERE GOING TO SOLICIT FOR, UH, LABORERS FOR THE SANITATION EQUIPMENT, WHAT IS THE MARKET FOR THAT TYPE OF POSITION WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT CUSTODIAL, WHAT IS THE, THE LOCAL MARKET FOR THAT TYPE OF POSITION? THAT PUTS MORE OF A BURDEN ON US TO DO THOSE TYPES OF MARKET STUDIES FOR DIFFERENT TYPE OF POSITIONS.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, EARLIER, POSITIONS ARE NOT EQUAL.
A CUSTODIAL POSITION HAS A DIFFERENT SKILLSET AND RISK FACTOR THAN SOMEONE WHO WRITES ON THE BACK OF A, UH, SANITATION TRUCK.
SO TRYING TO FOCUS WHAT WE REQUIRE IN THE SOLICITATION MORE UPON THAT TYPE OF POSITION AND WHAT THE MARKET WOULD DRIVE FOR THAT TYPE OF POSITION.
BUT IT'S A POLICY DECISION AND WE'RE, WE'RE HERE FOR Y'ALL.
WELL, AND I COULD SEE GOING WITH A MODIFICATION AT THIS POINT AND INVESTIGATING REPLACEMENT BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF BENEFITS AND ABOUT WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT THAT COULD, COULD HELP BUILD UP.
UM, BUT GETTING TO THE FACT THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE, I, I KNOW YOU WANT THE APPLES TO APPLES, BUT LOOKING AT THE INDUSTRY, AND THE OTHER THING IS, WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THE STUDY? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE, CAN WE ACCESS SOME TRUSTED INFORMATION ON MARKET, ON, ON RATES, UM, PAY RATES THAT WE COULD, WE COULD LOOK TO VERSUS PUTTING THAT ON THE CITY OR, AND SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY.
SO IF, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE TO MODIFYING THE POLICY, THEN WE WOULD GO BACK AND DETERMINE WHAT IS THAT CALCULATOR THAT WE WOULD USE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR CONTRACTS, NOT ALL CONTRACTS HAVE THE SAME POSITION TYPE, SO IT'LL BE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE LIVING WAGES WHEN, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO TO A MARKET BASED STUDY, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH THAT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
UM, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT APPLIES TO ALL GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.
SO NO MATTER WHAT CONTRACT YOU'RE, UM, YOU'RE BIDDING ON, YOU KNOW, DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING, UH, VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT APPRAISAL SERVICES.
SO SOME OF THESE AREN'T AS LABOR INTENSE POSITIONS, BUT IT STILL APPLIES.
UM, SO IT'LL, IT'LL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO REVIEW KIND OF WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES CONSIDERING AND, AND WHAT WOULD BE THAT SOURCE LIKE THE MIT THAT
[00:35:01]
WE WOULD USE.AND THIS CONVERSATION'S REALLY BEING FORCED, I THINK BY, I MEAN, IT'S GOOD TO ALWAYS EVALUATE THIS, BUT WE KNOW THAT WHAT WE'VE GOT COMING OUR WAY AND THAT YOU ARE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, NECK DEEP IN IS A TOUGH BUDGETARY TIME.
I MEAN, WE'RE DECLINING SALES TAX REVENUE.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S GONNA DO FOR US.
AND SO WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, BUT AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD LEAN TOWARD THE NUMBER TWO OPTION.
THANK YOU, MAYOR PROTO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, BEFORE I, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE SOME THOUGHTS AND BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TREMENDOUS RESPECT THAT I HAVE AND THAT I KNOW, UH, MY COLLEAGUES SHARE FOR WORKERS, UH, WHOSE EFFORTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR CITY.
AND I BELIEVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT WAGES SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS TO LIVE A RESPECT RESPECTABLE AND DIGNIFIED LIFE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
UH, I ALSO BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ASK THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS.
WE OWE IT TO THE WORKERS, TAXPAYERS, AND THE LONG-TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH OF OUR CITY TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF ANY POLICY CHANGES WE CONSIDER.
I, I, I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF NUMBER FOUR, WE SENDING THE POLICY AND RETURNING RETURN WAGE DETERMINATION TO MARKET CONDITIONS.
AND I THINK I AGREE ALSO WITH MY COLLEAGUE WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, BEING OPEN-MINDED ABOUT NOT CONTINUING WITH, UH, NUMBER ONE.
UM, BUT I, I, I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD OR SHOULD ALSO, UH, CONSIDER A HYBRID APPROACH.
SO I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD POTENTIALLY USE THE MIT, UM, TO ESTABLISH THE INITIAL LIVING WAGE BENCHMARK, UH, POTENTIALLY ADJUST ANNUALLY BY CPI OR REGIONAL INFLATION WITHIN THE CAP, UM, AND THEN POTENTIALLY CONDUCT A FULL MIT RESET EVERY THREE TO FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AT THIS TIME.
UM, I'LL GO TO CHAIRMAN GRACIE.
UM, AND THANK YOU ALL, BOTH, UH, FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL, UH, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS SOMETHING I, YOU KNOW, I WORKED ON THIS YEAH.
SO, UH, IT'S, IT'S NEAR AND DEAR AND I APPRECIATED THE SENTIMENT FROM WHICH IT CAME, UM, ORIGINALLY, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND, UH, KIND OF WHERE WE ARE NOW.
SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO MARK, UH, YOU KNOW, MY POSITION, I THINK I'D BE IN POSITION IN, YOU KNOW, I'D BE OKAY WITH MODIFYING NUMBER TWO.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I JUST ALWAYS STRUGGLE, STRUGGLE, STRUGGLE, STRUGGLE.
BECAUSE ANYTIME WE GET INTO THESE BUDGET CRUNCHES, IT SEEMS LIKE, OR, OR POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE BEYOND OUR LOCAL CONTROL AND WE'RE FORCED INTO THESE THINGS, IT ALWAYS SEEMS AS IF THE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE DOING BUSINESS WITH STAND TO BENEFIT MORE.
SO, AGAIN, I'M GONNA SAY THIS ON THE RECORD, THAT YES, WE DO NEED TO MODIFY THIS.
YES, THOSE COMPANIES WILL BENEFIT, AND YES, I'M SURE THERE'S PRESSURE, AND YES, WE HAVE OUR OWN PRESSURES INTERNALLY AS TO WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.
HOWEVER, THE SAME ENERGY WE PUT INTO SAYING, OKAY, WE GOTTA START FINDING DOLLARS TO SAVE OUR BUDGET, WE, HOW WE MANAGE THESE CONTRACTS AND HOW THESE PEOPLE ARE PERFORMING ON THESE CONTRACTS IS YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT AS WELL.
BECAUSE AGAIN, IF WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO BUSINESS WITH THESE SAME VENDORS, WE TALK ABOUT THIS AND TALK ABOUT THIS, AND I LET IT GO, BUT WE CONTINUE TO DO THESE SAME BUSINESS, THESE SAME, THE VENDORS, AND THEY CONTINUING TO COST US MONEY IN THE LONG TERM.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
I DID ALSO KIND OF MADE A LITTLE NOTE TO THAT, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE TO STICK WITH MIT, BUT WE ONLY DID IT EVERY FIVE YEARS, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH, UH, THE CONTRACT.
SO WHEREVER THE, THE THE, UM, AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT OR AT THE WARD, WHATEVER THE MIT IS AT THAT POSITION FOR, UH, AGAIN, WITH A HYBRID FOCUS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF POSITIONS, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT I'D LIKE, I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THE OTHER THING I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AND IT SEEMED LIKE IT CONTRADICTED ITSELF, AND MAYBE I'M OVERTHINKING IT, BUT AM I TO UNDERSTAND FOR WITHIN ON OUR CITY JOBS FOR TRUCK DRIVERS AS A, AS A, AS AN EXAMPLE, TRUCK DRIVERS HAVE DIFFERENT PAY, OUR OUR INTERNAL TRUCK DRIVERS HAVE DIFFERENT PAY.
AND IF, SO GOING BACK TO THE TASK BASED, UH, PAY THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHY, WHY WOULD THAT BE DIFFERENT IF IT IS? SO TRUCK DRIVERS WITHIN THE CITY, THERE IS SOME, UH, VARIATION, I BELIEVE BETWEEN THOSE IN SANITATION AND THOSE IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
UH, THERE WAS, UM, I, I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT SKILL SETS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE TRUCK DRIVER IN SANITATION THAN A TRUCK DRIVER THAT'S DRIVING A DUMP TRUCK OR SOMETHING
[00:40:01]
ELSE FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEPARTMENT, SUCH AS, UM, TRANSPORTATION.SO I DO BELIEVE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE, THE PAY GRADE FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES.
BUT WITH THE INCREASE IN THE LABORERS ON SANITATION, IT WILL PROBABLY PUSH UP THE SANITATION TRUCK DRIVERS AND THEN WE'LL NEED TO REEVALUATE THE OTHER TRUCK DRIVERS AS WELL.
DOES THAT GET TO YOUR QUESTION? YEAH.
AND, AND I GUESS, AND THEN THE MARKET BASED STUDY, WOULD THE MARKET BASED STUDY, IF WE WERE TO GO, OR, OR THE MARKET BASED RATE FOR TRUCK DRIVERS, WOULD THAT THEN APPLY IF GOING BACK TO THIS MODIFICATION, UM, IF, IF WE WERE TO DO THE MARKET BASED PAY, WOULD THAT THEN BE APPLIED TO OUR INTERNAL FOLKS TOO, OR JUST ON OUR CONTRACTS? SO WE ALREADY DO, UH, REGULAR, UH, COMPENSATION STUDIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO IT FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
WE, WE TALK ABOUT THAT EVERY YEAR, BUT WE DO IT FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES.
SOMETIMES WE DO A CITYWIDE, SOMETIMES WE DO TARGETED POSITIONS, UH, DEPENDING UPON WHAT'S GOING ON THAT, THAT WE MAY NEED TO ADDRESS.
BUT WE DO MARKET STUDIES TO TRY TO KEEP OUR CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, COMPARABLE TO THE MARKET.
NOW, WE ARE PROBABLY OUTPACING THE MARKET ON SOME OF OUR LOWER LEVEL POSITIONS BECAUSE WE KEPT MOVING OUR LOWER LEVEL POSITIONS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE.
AND SO WE ARE ABOVE MARKET IN SOME OF OUR LOWER PAID POSITIONS.
AND I'LL JUST USE, UH, UH, A LIFEGUARD AS AN EXAMPLE, I THINK AGAINST LIFEGUARDS, IT'S JUST MY EXAMPLE.
UH, WE'RE PROBABLY PAYING, UH, OUR LIFEGUARDS MORE THAN LIFEGUARDS ARE PAID AT OTHER, UH, POOLS AROUND THE CITY.
JUST BECAUSE WE TRIED TO KEEP UP WITH THE LIVING WAGE.
AND THEN, AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, UM, AND YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY SAID IT, BUT I, WHAT WOULD BE THE, BASED ON THESE OPTIONS, WHAT WOULD BE THE OVERALL SAVINGS WE WOULD REALIZE ROUGHLY RANGE BETWEEN EITHER ONE OF THESE MODIFICATIONS? DO WE KNOW THAT, THAT WOULD BE HARD TO DETERMINE, BECAUSE AS WE MENTIONED, THE LIVING WAGE IS JUST ONE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR BID.
AND SO, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH JANITORIAL THAT WE SHOWED, UM, WE'VE ADDED LOCATIONS, WE'VE ADDED HOURS, WE CHANGED THE CRITERIA IN THE SCOPE FOR THE CLEANLINESS FACTORS.
AND SO THE CONTRACT WILL INCREASE INFLATION.
WE JUST DON'T, WE CAN'T PINPOINT TO THIS MUCH FROM THE LIVING WAGE.
UM, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN APPLY THE PERCENT INCREASE IN THE MIT TO OUR CONTRACT SPEND, MAYBE AS AN EXAMPLE.
BUT IT'S JUST ONE PIECE OF THE CONTRACTOR PRICING.
AND, AND I, I CAN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT I'M GONNA FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE, UH, POINT TO PAGE 20, WHERE FOR THE RECENT, UH, SANITATION TECHNICIAN, UH, CONTRACT THAT WE AWARDED, UH, AND WE AWARDED AT 2205 AN HOUR, THE MARKET FOR THAT, UH, TYPE OF POSITION, UH, WOULD'VE BEEN $16 AND 80 CENTS AN HOUR.
SO THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, UH, IN THE MARKET VERSUS WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
I DON'T THINK WE WOULD GO BACKWARDS.
BUT JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD'VE DONE RIGHT NOW, UH, SO THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN, UM, LIKE JUAN ADA SAID, WE REALLY CAN'T QUANTIFY WHAT THAT TOTAL WOULD BE AT THIS POINT.
SO THEORETICALLY, SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR, IF WE SAYING MODIFY, THERE WOULD BE REALLY TWO POINTS OF SAVINGS.
THERE WOULD BE THE SAVINGS FROM POTENTIALLY THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE MOVING FORWARD, BUT THEN IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, IT WOULD ALSO BE A SAVINGS FROM A STAFF ONCE WE GO TO A MARKET RATE MARKET BASED OR TASK BASED PAY, RIGHT? WELL, FOR SURE ON THE CONTRACTS.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE, UH, MARKET BASED FOR CITY EMPLOYEES CONTINUE.
AND, UM, UH, WE JUST WOULD NOT HAVE THE PRESSURE OF CONSTANTLY TR MAKING, UH, DECISIONS ABOUT ARE WE GONNA KEEP TRYING TO MOVE, KEEP UP WITH MIT, ARE WE JUST SIMPLY GONNA STAY WITH MARKET AND WE'RE, WE'RE CURRENTLY STAYING WITH MARKET FAIR.
UH, I'M GONNA GO ON TO MY VICE CHAIR NEXT.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE A, A DISTINCTION OR CLARIFICATION IS THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SANITATION TECHNICIANS, THOSE ARE COSTS THAT ARE PASSED ON TO OUR, UM, PASSED ONTO OUR RESIDENTS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPACTS IN THIS DECISION FOR BOTH OUR GENERAL FUND, LIKE FOR OUR JANITORIAL SERVICES, BUT IN SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS, THESE ARE COSTS THAT ARE PASSED ON
[00:45:01]
TO OUR RESIDENTS.AND SO I, I MEAN, I'M JUST FRAMING THAT UP SO FOLKS KNOW, LIKE THIS HAS BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.
AND SO, SANITATION OBVIOUSLY DO, UH, OUR RESIDENTS PAY THROUGH THEIR SANITATION RATES FOR WATER POSITIONS YOU PAY THROUGH YOUR WATER RATES, UM, FOR GENERAL FUND POSITIONS YOU PAY THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY TAX.
I'LL GO TO VICE CHAIR OF STEWART NEXT.
I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS, UM, SHORT AND SWEET.
UM, I AM A NUMBER TWO AS WELL, THE MODIFY OPTION.
UM, I, I WANT US TO KEEP, I WOULD LIKE US TO KEEP THE, THE MIT LIVING WAGE AS A, AS OUT THERE AS PART OF THE POLICY.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, UM, JACK, YOU SAID WE'RE NOT GONNA GO BACKWARDS.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT WE JUST NEED TO FIND A WAY TO TREAD WATER FOR A LITTLE WHILE, RIGHT? WE CAN MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS WHERE NECESSARY, BUT WE'VE GOTTA FIND SOME SAVINGS IN THE BUDGET.
AND SO IF THIS IS GONNA PROVIDE THAT, UM, LET'S, LET'S ABSOLUTELY, UM, LOOK AT THESE OTHER FACTORS THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME SAVINGS.
UM, AND I, I GUESS I WOULD ASK AND HOPE THAT THIS MODIFIED APPROACH IS NOT, UH, FOREVER.
LIKE, LET'S RE-LOOK AT THIS AND WELL, I ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT EVERY YEAR.
YOU KNOW, ARE OUR BUDGET PRESSURES STILL THERE, STILL IMPACTING US, OR HAVE THEY LESSENED SOMEHOW? OR WE'VE INHERITED A LOT OF MONEY FROM A GREAT AUNT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CRAZY LIKE THAT.
UM, SO I, I JUST, I THINK WE SHOULD EVALUATE THEM ANNUALLY AND STICK WITH MODIFICATION, UM, AND NOT LOSE THAT, THAT GOAL OF THE MIT VOTING WAGE.
UH, CHAIR STEWART, THANK YOU FOR, FOR SAYING THAT YOU, UH, BOILED DOWN MY, MY BLOOD PRESSURE A LITTLE BIT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SO UN IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE HAVING TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.
UM, AS I LOOK AT PAGE SIX ON OUR LIVING WAGE POLICY AND GOALS, UH, THESE ARE GOALS.
I TRULY BELIEVE OUR CITY SHOULD STAND BY PROMOTING ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR WORKING INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY FOR OUR FAMILIES, UH, PRODUCTIVITY.
THESE ARE ALL GOALS THAT I ABSOLUTELY WANNA STAND BY.
AND SO THERE'S NO WAY I WOULD SUPPORT RESCINDING OUR CURRENT, UH, POLICY THAT WE HAVE.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE DILEMMA THAT WE ARE IN, IN THE CURRENT, UM, ECONOMIC, UM, PRESSURES.
AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS ANNUALLY, UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, ENSURE THAT WE ARE BEING GOOD STEWARDS, NOT ONLY OF OUR PUBLIC FUNDS, BUT OF OUR PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE UP OUR GREAT CITY.
SO, SAYING THAT, I ALSO WANNA LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITIES OF LOCAL, UH, HIRING ON THE CONTRACTORS.
A LOT OF THE TIMES THESE CONTRACTORS ARE BRINGING PEOPLE FROM OUT OF STATE OR FROM OTHER CITIES, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM TO NOT MAKE, NOT HAVE REQUIREMENTS IF THEY'RE DOING THAT, BUT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING PAID AND IMPACTED, OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS, WE SHOULD REALLY BE FOCUSING ON THAT.
AND SO, I MEAN, THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO, UH, TAKE IN, LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ALL.
UH, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M BETWEEN, UH, TWO AND THREE.
UM, I HATE THAT WE ARE HAVING TO EVEN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
UH, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PRESSURES, UM, LIFEGUARDS IN PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE, UH, UM, NO PEOPLE THAT, THAT LIFEGUARD FOR OUR, OUR, UH, AQUATIC CENTERS AND THEY ACTUALLY LEFT THE COUNTRY CLUBS 'CAUSE THEY'RE GETTING PAID ALMOST, UH, 50% MORE, UH, AT OUR MUNICIPAL CITY POOL.
BUT THEN I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE, UH, WORKING AS JANITORS WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MORE TEDIOUS, UH, JOB.
AND SO I, I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE JOBS AND, UH, WHAT THEY'RE PERFORMING.
UM, AND SO LET'S COME BACK WITH A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THREE AND FOUR.
UM, AGAIN, UM, HATE THAT WE'RE HAVING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IT ANNUALLY.
UH, HOPEFULLY WE COME BACK IN A TIME WHERE WE CAN GO BACK TO OUR TRUE PRINCIPLES AND OUR POLICIES.
UH, I'M LOOKING AT OPTION TWO, LITTLE UP THREE.
UM, NOT CARE WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM JUST SAID.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AND ALSO PROCESS BEING TO THE CODE DEPARTMENT TO COACH COMMITTEE TO, AS WE
[00:50:01]
ARE GOING FORWARD.UH, I'M SORRY, YOU SAID CODE? NO, CODE THE CODE DEPARTMENT.
YEAH, THE CITY OF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF EFFICIENCY.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TOO.
SO, UH, BUT I'M WRITING DOWN LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATIONS AND MY COLLEAGUES SINCE I'M BETWEEN TWO AND THREE RIGHT NOW.
I KEEP MISTAKENLY CALLING YOUR COMMITTEE DOGE, NOT COACH, WITH A COACH.
I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS IN SUPPORT OF SOME VERSION OF, OF NUMBER TWO.
UM, IN SOME INTEREST IN NUMBER THREE, NO INTEREST IN NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER FOUR.
UH, SO IS, IS GUIDANCE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR FOLKS? YES.
SO THEN WE'LL COME BACK, UM, WITH AN OPTION FOR TWO, UM, ON WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND AS MODIFICATIONS.
AND THEN ONCE THAT'S DONE, WE WILL HAVE TO DO A RESOLUTION TO AMEND OUR INSISTENT POLICY.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GREAT.
WHAT I'M HEARING FROM ALL MY COLLEAGUES TOO IS A SENSITIVITY MM-HMM
FOR THE FACT THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES MM-HMM
AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO TRY TO SET THE EXAMPLE AS THE CITY FOR THE REST OF OUR, OUR CORPORATE PARTNERS IN THE CITY.
AND SO IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO, YOU KNOW, I LIKE MAYOR PROTOS RECOMMENDATION OF LOOKING AT THIS EVERY YEAR.
AND, AND, AND WHAT CHAIR STEWART SAID WAS DOING A PAUSE AND THEN REOPENING IT EVERY YEAR IF OUR BUDGET GETS BETTER, UM, I MEAN, WE GOTTA, THE CITY, WE'VE GOTTA TIGHTEN OUR BELTS, OUR RESIDENTS ARE HURTING, WE'RE HURTING.
SO WE'VE GOTTA YOU, WE GOTTA TIGHTEN IT UP HERE.
BUT AS THINGS GET BETTER, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE, WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT HOLDING EVERYBODY BACK.
UM, MAKE SURE I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT TASK PAY IS JUST FOR ME? OH, WE GOT ONE MORE.
UM, IT'S A BASICALLY A STIPEND FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF POSITION.
SO YOU MAY GET, UH, AN EXTRA HOURLY OR, OR AN EXTRA $2 AN HOUR OR SOMETHING DEPENDING UPON THE TYPE OF POSITION.
SO A TASK PAY MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, THIRD SHIFT MIGHT BE A TASK PAY AS AN EXAMPLE, OR IT MAY BE SOMETHING SPECIFIC FOR, UH, A POSITION THAT HAS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR IT, BUT IT DOESN'T ADD TO THE BASE OF THE PAY.
IT JUST ADDS AS A STIPEND ON TOP.
AND THEN, I KNOW FOLKS NEED A SECOND ROUND, BUT I WANTED TO ALSO ASK FOR WHEN YOU COME BACK.
UM, SLIDE EIGHT INCLUDES THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY ANY CHANGES HERE.
AND I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, AND IT CAN BE BALLPARK, HOW OUR BUDGET WILL BE IMPACTED BY ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
AND ALSO HOW, IF IT'S NOT GENERAL FUND, IF IT'S ENTERPRISE FUND, WHAT THE SAVINGS OR IMPACT WOULD BE FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, SANITATION I THINK IS A BIG, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD A ADJUSTMENT OF THE PAYMENT RATE TO OUR CONTRACTORS ON THE BACK OF THE SANITATION TRUCKS IMPACT OUR, UM, AVERAGE BILL FOR OUR RESIDENTS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO? SO FOR SANITATION, YOU KNOW, WE RECENTLY AWARDED IT.
SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IF WE DO CHANGE THE POLICY AND IT'S THE COUNCIL'S DECISION, UM, WE COULD, WHEN WE GO BACK TO LICIT, USE THE NEW CALCULATOR, BUT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AWARDED, WE CAN'T RETROACTIVELY GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT AMOUNT.
FOR ANY DEPARTMENTS ON HERE THAT ARE ENTERPRISE FUNDED, IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, I WOULD JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT WOULD THEN BE MM-HMM.
UM, THAT, THAT WAS MY REQUEST.
UM, I DO YOU NEED SOMETHING CHAIRMAN GRAYSON? GO AHEAD.
AND, AND TO, TO THAT POINT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO KINDA ASK FOR.
I KNOW I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WERE COMING BACK FOR AND WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF MODIFICATIONS.
IF WE'RE SAYING AND, AND ASSUMING AN ASSUMPTION LOOKS LIKE IT'D BE CORRECT.
IF THE ASSUMPTION IS THEN THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO TOO.
WHAT WOULD THE ACTUAL SAVINGS BE, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE TYPES OF CONTRACTS.
BUT THE OTHER THING IS WHEN WE SAY FOR ME, IF I'M LOOKING FOR A MODIFICATION, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS, I THINK WHAT, UH, UH, UH, NO, NO, NO.
I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF HIS NEW TITLE.
UH, I CAN'T THINK OF WHICH ONE.
ANYWAY, MY GUY RIGHT HERE, UM,
AND THEN TO, UH, CHAIR WEST, UH, POINT, WHAT WOULD
[00:55:01]
THEN BE THOSE IMPACT FOR ALL OF THOSE LISTED UP THERE ON THAT, SO THAT WE CAN GET, I'M, I WANNA REALLY TRY TO GET TO, IS THIS ACTUALLY GONNA BE THE SAVINGS THAT WE THINK IT IS? AND IF SO, BY HOW MUCH? THANK YOU.THANK YOU MAYOR PROTON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? ALRIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON AND JUMP TO ITEM D NEXT.
COLLEAGUES, IF YOU CAME IN A COUPLE MINUTES LATE, UH, I'VE MENTIONED THAT THIS MEETING REALLY WAS INTENDED TO COVER ITEMS A AND D, UM, AS THERE, THERE'S TIMELINESS ISSUES AND WE ADDED B AND C JUST 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T GET TO 'EM IN THE LAST MEETING.
SO ITEM D AND I HAVE COPIES IF ANYBODY NEEDS THEM TO GO OVER.
THANKS TO OUR OGA STAFF, THIS IS THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 90TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
AND 120TH CONGRESS WILL ASK, UH, DIRECTOR, UH, DOMINGUEZ TO COME.
WOULD YOU PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE JUST TIMELINE OF, OF WHERE WE'RE AT ON, ON PROVIDING THESE UP TO THE, UH, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE AND, AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FROM US, PLEASE? YES.
ERIC DOMINGUEZ, DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.
UM, TODAY IS REALLY A REPRESENTATION OF OUR CALL PRIORITY SUBMISSIONS THAT, UH, WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 22ND, 2026.
YOUR OFFICE, AS WELL AS DEPARTMENTS HAVE PROVIDED INPUT AS IT RELATES TO THOSE PRIORITIES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SET FORTH AS BEING A PART OF THE CITY OF DALLAS' LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BEFORE OUR TEXAS BODY AND THE, UH, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE CAPITAL IN AUSTIN, AS WELL AS IN OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS.
AND SO TODAY IT'S REALLY A REPRESENTATION OF A VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE WHO'D LIKE TO GO BEFORE, UH, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE UNDER CHAIRMAN MENDELSON'S LEADERSHIP.
UM, AS A SNAPSHOT, WE ARE 214 DAYS AWAY FROM THE START OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN AUSTIN.
UH, SO TODAY, UH, REALLY HAND IN HAND HOW WE GET, UH, BEFORE OUR LAWMAKERS AND OUR DELEGATION ON WHAT PRIORITIES THE CITY FEELS IS PERTINENT AND IMPORTANT BEFORE THE BODY.
AND SO THE CHAIR, UM, CHAIR MENDELSSOHN HAS ASKED FOR COMMITTEES TO SUBMIT THEIR PRIORITIES BY THE END OF JUNE.
UM, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY REASON, LIKE WHY, LIKE WHY IS THAT DATE IMPORTANT? YES.
UM, WE REALLY WOULD LIKE AS THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS TO GO, UM, IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, UH, TO PASS A FULL SLATE OF PRIORITIES THAT WILL THEN GO BEFORE THE BODY AND CITY COUNCIL.
SO ON THIS MEMO YOU'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, OH, YOU GOT EIGHT PRIORITIES.
HOW DID THESE GET AT, OR POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS? I SHOULD CLARIFY, HOW DID THESE GET ADDED ON HERE? WHERE THIS COME FROM? YES, THAT DIRECTIONS COMES FROM CHAIR MIDDLESTON, UM, UH, ABOUT WHAT COULD BE ALLOCATED, UM, PER EACH COMMITTEE? YES.
WERE THERE ANY POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS THAT WERE SUGGESTED BUT NOT ADDED TO THIS MEMO? UH, NO, THIS, THIS IS EMBODIMENT OF WHAT, UM, THE COMMITTEE ISSUES BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE? YES.
DID ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, AND I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE A PRECONCEIVED ANSWER OF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SAY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, DID ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS THAT WOULD'VE FALLEN UNDER THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE DETERMINED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT OR THE CHAIR OR SOMEONE ELSE THAT WERE NOT BEING PRESENTED TO US TODAY? UH, THE ANSWER IS NO.
UH, YOU, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, ISSUES THAT YOU FELT WERE IMPORTANT AND ALSO DEPARTMENTS IS EMBODIMENT OF THIS MEMO.
SO THE WORLD THAT WAS PRESENTED TO TO YOU AND THE CHAIR IS IN HERE? THAT'S WHAT I, YES, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
AND, UM, THERE'S NO REASON COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY WANT, COULDN'T, COULDN'T SUBMIT SOMETHING NEW TO THIS AGENDA TODAY, RIGHT? CORRECT.
I'M NOT ON, I'VE NEVER BEEN ON THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, SO I'M LEARNING AS I GO HERE.
UM, LET'S JUST GO DOWN THROUGH 'EM, COLLEAGUES.
I'M NOT SURE HOW ELSE TO, TO HANDLE THIS.
AND WE CAN, UH, TALK ABOUT IT AS A GROUP.
I THINK THIS IS HOW WE DID IT WHEN I SHARED HOUSING, WE WENT IT LINE BY LINE AND THEN WE JUST DECIDED IF WE WANTED TO SUPPORT IT OR NOT.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD, DIRECTOR? YES, IT DOES.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS OPPOSE LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING CASINO GAMING EXPANSION.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? DID WE TAKE A POSITION PREVIOUSLY TO OPPOSE? WE DID, YES.
UM, SO WE WENT OVER THIS IN, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION THERE WAS TO ADD A LINE IF WE HAVE, UH, HAD THIS AS A PRIORITY IN PRIOR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS,
[01:00:01]
WHERE IF IT'S A NEW ITEM, THAT WAY WE CAN TRACK IT AS A, YOU KNOW, THAT WAY WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND SO WE COULD JUST ADD A NEW COLUMN, WHETHER THIS BODY HAS APPROVED OR SUPPORTED THAT ITEM PREVIOUSLY OR IF IT'S A NEW ONE.SO I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE CAN ADD THAT.
UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW OFFHAND, DIRECTOR ON THIS ONE IF WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED IT OR NOT? I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ARE NODDING.
I REMEMBER PREVIOUSLY WE'D ALSO HAD CARD ROOM CLARIFY CARD ROOM LEGALIZATION THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT ON HERE.
IT DID NOT, UM, BILL INTO THE LIST OF PRIORITIES FOR THE 90TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
LET'S TALK ABOUT CASINO GAMING EXPANSION.
UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT? ALRIGHT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RESENDEZ, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON IT AND I WANTED TO PUBLICLY, UH, EXPRESS MY ADAMANT AND SUPPORT FOR MAINTAINING THE, UH, THIS ITEM ON THE LEGISLATIVE, UH, AGENDA, UH, OPPOSING LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING CASINO GAMING EXPANSION.
SO IN CASE ANYBODY WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR.
UM, DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT OVER HERE? ALL RIGHT.
IF, IF NO ONE HAS A COMMENT, I'M ASSUMING I'M JUST GONNA MAKE THE ASSUMPTION YOU SUPPORT WHAT'S PRESENTED.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD WITH THE FIRST ONE.
MOVING ON TO THE SECOND ITEM, SUPPORT VOTER APPROVED MUNICIPAL FLEXIBILITY TO EXCEED THE CURRENT 3.5% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CAP.
I'LL START ON MY RIGHT THIS TIME.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE OR QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY? UM, YEAH, THERE'S MORE TO BE SAID NEXT.
ANYBODY ON MY LEFT SIDE HAVE COMMENTS ON NUMBER TWO OR DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THAT? OKAY.
AND LAST YEAR WE SUPPORTED THAT AS WELL? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
UM, NUMBER THREE IS OPPOSE ADDITIONAL STATE IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON MUNICIPAL REVENUE AUTHORITY, INCLUDING FURTHER CAPS ON ASSESSED PROPERTY TAX VALUES, MUNICIPAL TAX RATES, UM, OR LOCAL REVENUE GENERATION.
AND THIS IS ALL ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL, RIGHT? UM, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.
OPPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON MUNICIPAL UTILITY COST RECOVERY MECHANISMS AND LIMITATIONS AFFECTING ISSUANCE OR ADMINISTRATION OF REVENUE BONDS.
UH, SUPPORT EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE REVENUES TO MUNICIPALITIES WITH JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES EXTENDING ACROSS MULTIPLE COUNTIES.
I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS ONE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY REC, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT THAT WOULD AFFECT? YES.
AND SO THIS CURRENTLY, UH, SPEAKS TO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE CITIES ALIGNED WITH THE COUNTIES, UH, WITH REGISTRATION FEES.
UM, I HAD MY COLLEAGUE HERE AS WELL THAT WE THIS, UH, ISSUE DURING LAST SESSION.
AND SO BRINGING FORTH, UH, TODAY FOR THE 90TH SESSION IS ALONG THOSE LINES WITH FINDING THOSE SOLUTIONS.
ANY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION PLEASE?
THIS NEXT ONE I BELIEVE CAME UP BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME COLLEAGUES WHO WERE WONDERING WHY WE PAID FOR, UH, SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS AS OPPOSED TO THE DISD DOING THAT.
SO SUPPORTING
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING DIRECTOR? CORRECT.
AND MR. IRELAND, I'M WONDERING IF YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IS GENERATED BY THESE CITATIONS AND WHAT ARE EXPENSES FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS? 'CAUSE I SEE THE NEXT ITEM ALSO ADDRESS THE SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAMS. AND IF THIS MECHANISM ALLOWS US TO OFFSET THAT EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER, I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD BE MORE POINTED IN IT, OR, UM, I KNOW MR. DOMINGUEZ WOULD PROBABLY ADVISE US TO MAYBE KEEP IT MORE BROAD, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF WHAT IS GENERATED FROM THAT AND THEN WHAT OUR EXPENSES AND WHAT THAT GAP IS? THE GAP BETWEEN THE EXPENSE, UH, I BELIEVE IS ABOUT $6 MILLION.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S APPROXIMATELY $8 MILLION TO, UH, EXPENSE FOR THE PROGRAM.
AND FROM A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REVENUE SOURCES, WE GENERATE ABOUT TWO.
AND SO I THINK THERE'S ABOUT A $6 MILLION GAP.
UH, AND THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THE REGISTRATION FEE.
THERE'S SOME OTHER FEES THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT, UH, PROVIDED AN ANSWER.
[01:05:01]
I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE DETAIL OF THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THE DIFFERENCE WAS ABOUT $6 MILLION.SO SURELY THAT CITATION FEE IS NOT JUST 25 OR IS THAT JUST THE FEE? IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GETTING INTO LIKE THE SPEED LIMIT AND HOW FAR YOU'RE EXCEEDING IT IN A SCHOOL ZONE.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT IT'S A BIG TICKET.
I, I WOULD HAVE TO GET YOU THE DETAILS ON, BECAUSE THEY, THEY LISTED OFF MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT, UH, SOURCES OF DIFFERENT FEES THAT TOGETHER GOT THEM TO THE TWO, TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OF REVENUE.
WELL, I WOULD WONDER ABOUT THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT A LEGISLATOR COULD REALLY WRAP THEIR HEAD AROUND AS FAR AS A TRANSGRESSOR WHO'S SPEEDING THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE, YOU KNOW, BEING PENALIZED, UM, AND HELPING IT FUND THOSE THAT ARE INTENDED TO KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE WHEN IN SCHOOL ZONES AND TRYING TO GET TO SCHOOL.
SO I, I'D LOVE A LITTLE MORE DEPTH ON THAT ONE.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THE LEFT? ANYBODY? OH, CHAIRMAN JOHNSON? YES.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IF THIS, THIS IS CONCERNING THE CROSSING GUARDS, CORRECT? UH, YES SIR.
THIS IS THE SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN YOUR COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND, UH, SOMEONE FROM THE MARSHALL'S OFFICE.
I JUST FORGETTING ALL THE DETAILS OF IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND WE'RE ALSO GOING BE DISCUSSING THIS, THIS UPCOMING.
IT DOES, IF YOU DID ASK FOR IT TO COME BACK.
AND SO AT THIS UPCOMING MEETING OF THIS MONTH, THERE WILL BE INFORMATION THAT BREAKS DOWN THAT VARIANCE FOR ME.
'CAUSE I KNOW, UM, IM WANNA MAKE SURE I KNOW I'M BE POSSIBLY TRYING TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THIS MATTER.
IT, IT'S A BIG COST AND I, I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO BE HANDLING THIS COST.
AND I'VE ALSO SAID THAT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DALLAS
SO I'M LOOKING TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, UH, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLICLY AND OMMUNITY AS WELL.
LOOKS LIKE WE SUPPORT THAT AND WE WERE TECHNICALLY ON THE, THE $25 FEE, BUT THE SECOND ONE WE SUPPORT AS WELL.
SO, ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA KEEP MOVING.
SO I'M GONNA ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE.
SUPPORT EXPANDED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE USE OF THE HOT REVENUES TO ALLOW INVESTMENT IN TOURISM RELATED IMPROVEMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, IT, IT SOUNDS EXTREMELY BROAD.
UM, WHAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND THAT AS IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT? YES.
AND SO, UH, THIS, THIS ITEM WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL.
UM, AND SO IT DEFINITELY, AS I WOULD LEAN IN TO SAY IT'S, UH, PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX AS IT RELATES TO REVENUE.
UH, AND SO WITHIN THAT STATUTE, US BEING ABLE TO PERHAPS BROADEN THAT AND EXPAND IN THAT IT PROVIDES THAT OVERARCHING THEME TO ALLOW CITIES TO CREATE MORE REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES OR REVENUE STREAMS. JUST ASKING THE STATE TO RELAX THEIR RESTRICTIONS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE LOCAL CONTROL, ESSENTIALLY.
YEAH, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS ON THIS ONE.
UH, BUT RIGHT NOW OUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, OBVIOUSLY WE USE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, UH, WE USE IT FOR THE DALLAS VISTAS BUREAU, AND THEN WE, THERE'S A PERCENT THAT COMES THAT WE USE FOR THE CITY GENERAL FUND TYPES OF ACTIVITIES FOR CULTURAL AFFAIRS.
AND SO THERE'S A NARROW, UH, SCOPE.
UH, DO YOU WANNA TALK MORE ABOUT IT? UH, I THINK THAT'S, UH, EXPANDING THE USE.
UH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE BACK.
ROSA FLEMING, DIRECTOR FOR CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.
SO CURRENTLY THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN FOR THE CITY AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, UM, HAS THE ARTS AND CULTURE AT THE STATUTORY 15% USE AS WHAT WE PROVIDE THEM.
WE SCALED UP TO THAT OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR YEARS.
UM, WE PROVIDE, UH, 17.6% TO VISIT DALLAS TO PAY FOR THE OVERALL MARKETING OF THE CITY.
TOURISM MARKETING, BRINGING IN NOT JUST THINGS TO THE CONVENTION CENTER, BUT ALSO NOW SELLING FAIR PARK AND SELLING UNION STATION, BRINGING IN FIFA AND OTHER LARGE SPORTS ACTIVITIES AND JUST OVERALL MARKETING THE CITY AS A WHOLE FOR TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY.
AND THEN THE OTHER IS CURRENTLY RESTRICTED FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEBT SERVICE ON THE CONVENTION, ON THE CONVENTION CENTER.
SO IT'S KIND OF RESTRICTED AT, AT PRESENT.
I THINK THE GOAL IS THERE'S NINE ALLOWABLE USES OF HOT ONLY, A FEW OF WHICH APPLY TO OUR CITY.
IT'S A VERY LARGE STATUTE, LONG STATUTE.
[01:10:01]
AND IT SAYS CITY BY CITY BY DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S ALLOWABLE IN OUR CURRENT, UH, IN THE CURRENT CITY OF DALLAS MODEL.AND SO WE OPTED AS A, AS A BODY CITY COUNCIL, OPTED FOUR YEARS AGO TO REALLY CONCENTRATE ON THE DELIVERY OF ARTS AND CULTURE, SO ON PROGRAMMING, ET CETERA.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE PROVIDE TO THEM.
AND WE'VE MET THAT, THAT STATUTE.
NOW, WE HAVE ALREADY USED, UH, SOME OF OUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX TO HELP WITH OTHER VENUES.
SO WE USE SOME OF IT ON UNION STATION.
WE HAVE USED A LIMITED AMOUNT ON, UM, FAIR PARK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR RENOVATIONS THERE.
SO WE'RE ALREADY DOING SOME OF THAT, UM, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE STATUTE.
AND AS WE PAY UP OUR DEBT SERVICE AND HAVE LESS INVESTMENT, UM, IN FUTURE YEARS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT INTO THE CONVENTION CENTER, AT THAT POINT, IT'LL BE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN WHAT WE CAN DO FROM HOT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, STATUTORILY WE'RE MEETING ALL THE CAPS.
MY, MY END, JUST BECAUSE THIS SEEMS SO BROAD, UM, MY CONCERN WOULD BE IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE BUY-IN FROM, LET'S SAY VISIT DALLAS AND FROM OUR ARTS ADVOCATES ON THIS LEGISLATIVE ITEM AND US FOR PUSHING IT UP, COULD CREATE A FIRESTORM.
LIKE WHAT DO YOU, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO DO? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THIS HAS BEEN SUPPORT EITHER SUPPORTED OR AT LEAST LOOKED AT BY OUR, OUR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS WHO EVERYBODY BENEFITS FROM THE HOT.
IT HAS NOT BEEN, IT HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED AT.
UH, I BELIEVE A COUNCIL PROVIDED THAT TO US.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, I'LL HAVE TO VISIT WITH VISIT DALLAS AND, AND WITH, UH, MARTINE AND HER ARTS ORGANIZATIONS.
BUT I THINK YOU MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK AT, AT PRESENT JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF, OF CO IS ALREADY TAKEN UP FOR DEBT SERVICE CURRENTLY.
AND SO THEY'LL BE CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY TOO MAKE THEIR REVENUE FROM WHAT WE BRING INTO THE CONVENTION CENTER.
'CAUSE WE'RE BRINGING THEM CUSTOMERS.
AND DI DIRECTOR, THIS WAS, THIS ITEM'S BEEN ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA PREVIOUSLY, CORRECT? YES.
MR. CHAIR PRICE, IT HASN'T BEEN FLAGGED FOR US BEFORE.
COLLEAGUES, IF YOU DON'T OBJECT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HOLD THIS ITEM, THIS PARTICULAR ONE UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING AND GIVE OUR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND, AND VISIT DALLAS A CHANCE TO OPINE ON IT.
BUT I'LL SAY, I'LL START WITH MAYOR TIME.
SO I'M ALL FOR INCREASE, UH, EXPANDING OUR REVENUE STREAM.
I THINK THAT'S, UH, AN EASY ONE, BUT BRING IN MORE DOLLARS.
BUT I DO WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT PULLING AWAY FROM THE INTENDED USE AT, WITH OUR ARTS AND OUR CONVENTION CENTER.
UM, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TALKING TO THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT PULLING AWAY FOR THE INTENDED USES.
UH, I'M GONNA GO TO CHAIRMAN GRACIE.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA RECOMMEND THE SAME THING.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS HAS, UH, BEEN, COME THROUGH QUALITY OF LIFE TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
UH, SO I'D LIKE FOR IT TO COME THROUGH, UH, AT LEAST SO WE CAN HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT, UH, FROM THAT POINT TOO.
BUT I ALSO WANTED TO JUST GET SOME CLARITY ON THIS TOO.
AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU MENTIONED THERE ARE NINE USES FOR, FOR, UH, THE HOT TAX AND IS, IS THIS PROPOSING TO ADD A TENT USE THAT COULD BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE? SO, AND, AND JUST TO PUT THIS IN A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE, JUST SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS FOR, UH, UH, UM, THE MAJESTIC.
WOULD IT MEAN THAT SOME OF THE REVENUE FROM THIS COULD THEN BE USED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES IN THE MAJESTIC? IS THAT WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS IS? I, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I DIDN'T DRAFT IT.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS.
I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS TO UNDERSTAND OKAY.
UH, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT, UM, WAY THAT THE ORDINANCES WRITTEN AND WHAT WE ALREADY DO, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE AND WE'VE INVESTED IN SOME OF OUR, UM, ARTS AND CULTURE FACILITIES, SO IT WOULDN'T BROADEN WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING.
AND OF THOSE ALLOWABLE NINE USES, DALLAS IS NOT, UH, WE, WE CAN'T USE IT FOR ALL OF THE NINE BECAUSE IT BASICALLY, THE, THE STATUTE AND, AND THE ORDINANCE KIND OF SAYS FOR DALLAS YOU CAN USE IT FOR THESE, THESE ONES
[01:15:01]
OF THE NINE.SO, AND, AND THEN THE LAST THING IT, AND, AND THEN I'M LOOKING KIND OF OVER TO MY AUDITORS A LITTLE BIT TOO.
WAS THIS, DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING ASSOCIATED TO DO WITH THE RECENT AUDIT THAT YOU ALL DID, UH, IN TERMS OF SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS? IS, COULD THIS BE, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE INTENT OF WHAT THIS WAS AND COULD IT BE TO ADDRESS MAYBE SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? UM, THE AUDIT WAS FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE FUNDS WERE BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTES AND THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'VE HAD.
SO IT DIDN'T DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHETHER THIS WAS ONE OF THE ALLOWABLE USES, JUST THAT WHAT IT'S BEING USED FOR IS CURRENTLY BEING USED.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTES.
AND I APPRECIATE MAYOR PROTO HAS GRACIOUSLY OFFERED TO, UM, TALK WITH VISIT DALLAS ABOUT THIS AND, AND CHAIRMAN'S CHAIRWOMAN STEWART'S GONNA OF TALK WITH, UM, UH, ARE YOU TALKING CHRIS AUGH
AND YEAH, WHAT DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? OH, I'M SORRY.
WELL I CAN TELL YOU OR DIVINE WHAT THE RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE AND IT'S GONNA BE LIKE, DON'T TOUCH OUR HOT MONEY.
SO, UM, I, I LOOK AT THIS AS MORE OF BEING ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW CONVENTION CENTER.
I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT.
I MEAN, WE'LL SEE THINGS THAT COME ALONG WITH THAT.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THOSE HOTELS ARE IN DALLAS SO THAT WE GENERATE THE HOT TAX IN OUR DALLAS HOTELS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THAT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING WE SHOULD LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN ON AND THEN SET WITH CITY POLICY, HOW WE DELINEATE.
DO WE SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, 85% IS FOR OUR ARTS FACILITIES.
UH, AND 15% GOES TO THE ROADS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT HELP YOU GET TO THOSE ARTS FACILITIES.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO NOT JUST CLOSE THE DOOR ON THAT.
AND WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK, I MEAN, WE CAN GET THAT KIND OF INPUT, BUT WE'VE ALSO GOT A CITY TO OPERATE HERE.
AND, UH, THE RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THAT THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE ITEM.
LET'S NOT FORGET IN OUR RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY, 13 TO 14 DISTRICTS, UM, AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT SOME OF THESE, UH, OUR ARTS AND CULTURE FACILITIES ALSO HAVE SOME PRIVATE REVENUE.
WHEN THE CITY SHOWS THAT WE PUT IN FUNDS, EVEN IF IT'S FROM HOT TAX OR OTHER THINGS FROM GENERAL FUND, THEY CAN LEVERAGE THAT WITH DONORS.
NOBODY WANTS TO SPONSOR AN ALLEY, YOU KNOW, SO, SO WE DON'T HAVE THOSE KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT WHILE WE CAN LISTEN THAT WE ALSO NEED TO BE PRAGMATIC ABOUT THE REALITIES OF, UM, OUR REALLY BIG TAB, IF YOU REMEMBER, OUR TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
I MEAN, EVEN THE MASSIVE SPEND ONLY REALLY HELPS US TREAD WATER.
AND SO I KNOW THIS IS QUALITY OF LIFE'S MEETING ON MONDAY, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY THERE.
AND SO THIS ITEM WILL PROBABLY BE COVERED THERE.
IF WE DON'T HAVE, LET'S PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME TOO.
UM, JUST IN CASE WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS FROM OUR, OUR PARTNERS IN TIME FOR MONDAY.
WE'RE GONNA BRING THAT ITEM ONLY SO FAR BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE ON THE 23RD.
NEXT WE'VE GOT SUPPORT LEGISLATION ALLOWING CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD DIRECTORS TO BE ELECTED BY PLURALITY RATHER THAN MAJORITY VOTE, REDUCING THE NEED FOR COSTLY RUNOFF ELECTIONS THAT INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS.
CAN YOU GIVE US THE LAYMAN'S TERMS ON WHAT THIS WOULD DO? HAPPY TO DO SO, AND THIS REALLY, UH, BUILDS INTO THE BUY-IN ABOUT GETTING STAKEHOLDER, UM, INTERNALLY INPUT PROVIDED BECAUSE, UH, THE DEPARTMENT THAT HAD SUBMITTED THIS FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE HAD ESTIMATED THAT THE COST FOR A POTENTIAL RUNOFF, UM, IS UP TO $3 MILLION, WHICH THAT ADDITIONAL COST IF A RUNOFF ELECTION, UM, IS HELD HANDY, PASS ON TO THOSE CITIES.
UH, AND SO WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT, UH, THIS ISSUE COMING BEFORE, UM, YOUR APPROVAL FOR IT TO EITHER BE UNDER A SUPPORT MONITOR OR OPPOSED POSITION, IT'S REALLY JUST TRYING TO SHOW AS, UH, THIS COMMITTEE TAKES THIS ISSUE UP.
I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A NO-BRAINER.
ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE? NO, EVERYBODY'S GOOD.
THE ONE I WANTED TO ADD, UM, WANNA GET MY COLLEAGUES' FEEDBACK ON IS, UH, RETURNING TO THE AGENDA, CLARIFICATION OF CARD ROOM LEGALIZATION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ON THERE.
'CAUSE WE'RE STILL IN LITIGATION ON THAT, I BELIEVE.
UM, COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE ANY HEARTBURN ON ADDING THAT BACK IN? GO AHEAD.
I, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
UM, AND CERTAINLY CONSIDER IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS A BIG POINT OF DISCUSSION LAST YEAR, SO I'D BE OPEN TO DIGGING INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND, AND GETTING YOUR READ ON THAT.
[01:20:01]
ABLE TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT ON THE 23RD OR WHAT ARE YOU ASKING EXACTLY? UM, SURE.I MEAN, I'D LOVE MORE DEPTH ON THAT.
I MEAN, IF WE WANNA ADD IT, IT'S HOW WE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT SHOULD OUR LANGUAGE BE? HOW BROAD SHOULD IT BE? WHAT WOULD WE NOT WANT TO SEE, UM, INCLUDED.
SO I'D JUST LIKE SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT.
ON THE 23RD WITH THE OTHER ITEM WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? UH, MAYOR
UM, ERIC, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, SO ONCE THE COMMITTEE MAKES THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THIS WILL GO BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ON THIS LIST, IT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING DOWN TO LOBBY ON ALL THESE NINE ITEMS. ARE WE GOING TO PRIORITIZE A CONSOLIDATED LIST AT THE LEGISLATIVE AD HOC AND THEN JUST FOLLOW SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT AREN'T A PRIORITY? CORRECT.
AND IF I MAY ADD, UM, YOUR MOTION TO SUPPORT OPPOSE MONITOR, UH, REALLY PROVIDES A GOOD OVERVIEW, UH, BEFORE OUR DELEGATION THAT WOULD HAVE THIS AS AN APPENDIX, IF YOU WILL, ON WHAT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN SHARED IN PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS AND REALLY BUILDS OUT THOSE GUIDELINES AND GUARDRAILS.
AND SO THAT WHEN WE ARE APPROACHED BY MEMBERS ON THE CITY'S OFFICIAL, UH, STANCE ON AN ISSUE OR BILL, WE HAVE THAT AS A FRAMEWORK.
AND SO, UM, JUST PARAPHRASING AND, AND SPEAKING, UH, OR MADAM CHAIR MENDELSON, LIKE THIS PROVIDES ANOTHER AVENUE EVEN BEFORE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON, UH, PROPOSING POTENTIAL LEGISLATION OR SUPPORT ON ISSUES.
SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE ON WHETHER WE ARE, UH, OPPOSING A, UH, UH, UH, APPROVING OR MONITORING AT THIS POINT, OR IS THAT SOLELY GONNA BE DONE AT THE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE VOTE, SIR.
AND SO TODAY'S, UH, WITH YOUR MOTIONS OF SUPPORTING MONITORING, BRINGING BACK THIS ISSUE IS REALLY PROVIDES THAT GUIDANCE BEFORE THE AD HOC.
AND THEN I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION GENERALLY ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS REALLY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE.
I DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY HEADS UP ON THIS, SO MY APOLOGIES, BUT DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, DO THEY, IF, IF, IF WE'RE IN LITIGATION ON SOMETHING LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE CARDONES IS A, AS A IS A PRIME EXAMPLE, DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GIVE US RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST IN CONSTANT LITIGATION ON RANDOM
I, I DON'T REALLY WANNA OPEN THAT DOOR TODAY, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE JUST LIKE CARTER, THAT WE'RE IN CONSTANT LITIGATION NUMBER, SO BELOW SANCHEZ FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND, UH, WE DO PROVIDE INPUT WHEN WE ARE, UM, WORKING WITH YOU ALL.
AND I KNOW THAT WE DO WORK WITH THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, UM, CLOSELY ON THE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.
AND SO THE TOPICS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED, I'LL MAKE SURE RECEIVE ATTENTION SO THAT WE CAN GET THE FEEDBACK THAT WE ARE SEEKING.
MY REQUEST, THANK YOU, WOULD JUST BE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
IF YOUR OFFICE HAS ANY THINGS THAT YOU'VE, YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THAT YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER, PLEASE SEND IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON ITEM NUMBER D? LOVELY.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM B, WHICH IS OUR AUDIT INSIGHTS FOR APRIL 21ST TO 20 TO MAY 21ST, 2026.
I'M GONNA INVITE OUR, UM, CITY AUDITOR TO COME UP AND JUST DO A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THESE THREE ITEMS AND, UM, THEN WE CAN DIG INTO THEM ONE AT A TIME.
UM, WELL WITH PARKS, INTERIM CITY AUDITOR, THREE REPORTS THAT WE HAD PUT OUT WERE RELATED TO PREVENTION, DATA CENTER AND CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS, AND THE COVID GRANT FOR TEXAS PARK WILDLIFE BANKING AND CAPITAL.
HEY MAMA, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP TO THE TABLE? IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU FROM THAT MIC.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA START OVER AGAIN.
UM, THERE WERE THREE REPORTS THAT WERE ISSUED BETWEEN APRIL AND MARK MAY.
[01:25:01]
THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS RELATED, OR THE MOST RECENT ONE, WHICH IS THE AUDIT OF CONVENTION CENTER AND CONSTRUCTION MON UH, MONITORING CONTROLS.THE OBJECTIVES OF THAT AUDIT WILL JUST EVALUATE HOW, UM, THE PROCESSES GOING RIGHT NOW WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND WHETHER WE HAVE, UM, ALL THE CONTROLS IN PLACE TO MONITOR THE BUDGET AND WHAT ARE WE DOING RISK MONITORING, HOW ARE WE WORKING WITH THE OWNER REPRESENTATIVES AND HOW ARE WE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THEM AS WELL AS THE OTHER PARTNERS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
UM, DAN GANS IS HERE, WHO'S, UH, THE AUDIT MANAGER THAT WORKED ON THE REPORT, AND YOU CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAILS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TOPIC.
DID WE WANNA STOP HERE OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE GETTING A REQUEST TO DO IT ONE AT A TIME? SO LET'S PAUSE ON THIS ONE FIRST AND I WILL START WITH, YOU'RE GOOD.
SO AT, UM, THE MEETING EARLIER THIS WEEK, UM, OR, WELL, WHEN YOU ADDRESSED, UM, MR. IRELAND, THE COST OR THE BUDGET OF THE CONVENTION CENTER, AND YOU WENT THROUGH A DETAIL OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND THEN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE BUDGET BEING 3.080 BILLION.
AND SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE FINDINGS HERE, IT DOESN'T RECONCILE WITH THAT NUMBER.
I THINK, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS INCLUDES MORE THAN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT BUDGET, BUT MY QUESTION TO THE AUDIT TEAM IS WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THESE NUMBERS SHOWING THAT IT'S OVER WHAT WE HAD ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATED AT 3.5 BILLION AND THIS IS SHOWING THAT IT'S GOING OVER AND THEN WE'VE GOT THIS BUDGET THAT WE'VE SET AT THE NUMBER I JUST GAVE YOU WAS THIS, THIS WAS ALREADY COMPLETED BY THAT TIME OR THIS IN THE TIMEFRAME, THAT NUMBER DIDN'T PLAY A ROLE, BUT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT GAP BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY BIG.
I'M WITH THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
UH, THE, THE CHALLENGES THAT THE, WHAT WE LOOKED AT WAS PRIMARILY COMPONENT ONE, WHICH WAS THE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ESTIMATED THAT THE 3.08 BILLION THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT.
BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE OVERALL CONVENTION CENTER COSTS, WHICH INCLUDE THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED.
AND WHEN YOU SEE THE ESTIMATE OF UP TO, UH, OF UP TO 3.3 BILLION, THAT INCLUDES SOME OTHER COSTS.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL 3.8 BILLION UP, UP TO 3.8 BILLION, THAT INCLUDES COMPONENTS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THAT 3.08 BILLION.
NOW THE, THERE IS A TIMING ISSUE WITH WHEN OUR REPORT WAS, WHEN OUR WORK WAS DONE AND WHEN THAT 3.08 BILLION ESTIMATE WAS.
SO WE, SO THERE IS A SLIGHT ISSUE ABOUT THAT, BUT WE WERE, WHEN YOU SEE THE LARGER NUMBER IN OUR REPORT, THAT'S BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING AT OTHER WORK THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.
AND SO YOUR WORK CONCLUDED BEFORE THIS NEW NUMBER CAME OUT, WHICH I KNOW REFLECTED SOME SAVINGS AND THEN SOME THINGS SETTLED ON, I THINK, MATERIALS THAT CAME DOWN AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT YOU JUST DON'T FACTOR THAT IN 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN THE SILO THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO REVIEW.
THE LAST ESTIMATE THAT WE HAD SEEN WHEN WE WERE DOING THE REPORT WAS 3.1 TO 3.3 BILLION FOR COMPONENT ONE.
AND IT HAD SINCE BEEN UPDATED TO 3.08.
SO IF WE JUST WANTED TO TALLY THESE NUMBERS ON OUR OWN, WE WOULD PLUG IN THAT NEWER NUMBER AND THEN WE WOULD BE BACK IN OUR RANGE OF, AND THE CONVENTION DEPARTMENT HERE IS HERE IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BUT YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
ANYBODY ELSE? I THINK I'M GOOD ON THIS ONE.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
SO THE OTHER AUDIT THAT WAS ISSUED WAS THE AUDIT OF HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS OUTSOURCED WITH BAKER TILLY.
AND THE FOCUS ON THIS REPORT WAS HOW WELL ARE WE TRAINING OUR STAFF AND THEIR COMPENSATION STRUCTURE IN TECHNICAL AND SKILLSOFT TRAINING AND OFFBOARDING INFORMATION.
OVERALL, THEY WERE THREE PRIMARY, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WAS TO, UH, CONTINUE IMPROVING THEIR BELIEVE, BELIEVE, UM, LEMME JUST, SORRY.
OKAY, SO IT WAS TO DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO VERIFY THE EDUCATION PAY DOCUMENTATION TO RECONCILE SOME RECORDS WITH TRAINING, UH, IMPLEMENT AN ESCALATION PROCESS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTERNALLY WITHIN HR, WHICH WERE NOT BEING COMPLETED TIMELY WHEN THEY WERE INITIATED.
[01:30:01]
THEN THE LAST ONE WAS TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES TO UPDATE THOSE.CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN, UH, ABOUT THAT WAS, UM, NOT HAPPENING ON A TIMELY BASIS.
I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, UM, UH, LET'S SEE, THE HR INTEGRATION, RIGHT.
SO THE, UM, INVESTIGATIONS WERE RELATED TO QUESTIONS THAT CAME INTO HR THAT WENT TO HR PARTNERS THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO INVESTIGATE ANY REQUESTS THAT CAME IN FROM EMPLOYEES.
THE SAMPLE THAT BAKER TILLY, UH, BAKER TILLY WENT THROUGH, FOUND THAT THEY WERE NOT BEING RESPONDED TO ON A TIMELY BASIS AND THEY WERE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED PLUS DAYS.
THEY WERE SO WHO WAS NOT BEING RESPONDED TO EMPLOYEES, THEY PUT IN REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS OVER CERTAIN TOPICS FOR THEIR AREAS.
AND SO YOU WENT TO THE HR PARTNERS TO, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE IF THOSE ISSUES WERE BEING VETTED OUT.
AND THE RESULT OF BAKER TILL'S REPORT SAYS THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN, UM, RESOLVED TIMELY OF THEIR SAMPLES.
SO A HUNDRED, YOU SAID 120 DAYS.
THE AVERAGE IS, WHAT I'VE GOT IS 120 DAYS, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
AND THESE ARE EMPLOYEES REQUESTING HELP FROM, FROM HR FOR VARIOUS TOPICS.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING ACCORDING TO BAKER TILL'S REPORT, YES.
I I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT STAFF'S, WHAT, WHAT STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THAT IS COUNCIL MEMBER.
I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE FROM HR WITH US, BUT, UH, YES, THE, UH, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE WORKING WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DID ACKNOWLEDGE THE AREAS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDITOR AND AGREED TO IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS THOSE.
SO I'M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT TIMELINES THAT ARE REFERENCED, BUT, UM, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA AND FOR THE FOLLOW UP, UH, AGREED TO IMPLEMENT A FORMAL TRACKING AND ESCALATION PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, UH, DO NOT, UH, TAKE THE TIME THAT WAS INDICATED.
WELL, I MEAN, I, I, MY FIRST CONCERN IS THAT HR IS NOT HERE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AUDIT OF THAT PARTNER.
UM, MY SECOND CONCERN IS 120 DAYS AND, AND LACK OF RESPONSE.
AND THAT'S ON AVERAGE TO, UH, AN EMPLOYEE, UM, YOU KNOW, QUESTION ABOUT A PROCESS.
SO, UM, I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO JOIN US NEXT TIME AND HR CAN ACTUALLY, UM, HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH US, UM, WHEN, SINCE THEY'RE NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? GO AHEAD.
SO AS I DIG INTO THIS, I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE SOME CASES THAT WERE EEOC, SO THAT GETS OUT OF OUR CONTROL, THAT'S OUR TIMELINE.
UM, AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER ONES MANAGED BY DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
I THINK UNDERSTANDING THE DEPTH AROUND HOW MUCH OF THIS, UH, DELAY WAS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT HR IS INTENDED TO DO VERSUS OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL.
BUT IT IS CONCERNING THAT THAT SAMPLE YIELDED A 50% ISSUE, BUT EVEN GREATER THAN THIS, I NOTE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR THAT PRACTICES WILL BE CODIFIED IN A WRITTEN PROCEDURE AND JUST WANNA SEND THE CLARION CALL THAT IF THERE'S A DEPARTMENT AROUND HERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE WRITTEN PROCEDURES, IT'S TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, GET OUT THE TABLET AND CHISEL AND IT'S TIME TO, YOU KNOW, PUT SOME THINGS IN WRITING AND, UH, 'CAUSE THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ALL THESE AUDITS THAT WE DO, I THINK IS BECAUSE, UM, THINGS ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD.
UH, WELL, SO I, I JUST, I WOULD LIKE MORE DEPTH AROUND THAT.
I, I IF YOU ALL, OR MAYBE THAT REALLY NEEDS TO COME FROM HR, I MEAN IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL REVEALED A SITUATION AND THAT WE NEED TO PARSE OUT, OUT OF THEIR CONTROL, WITHIN THEIR CONTROL TO UNDERSTAND DOES THAT REFLECT A 50% RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE? THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO INTO THE LAST ONE.
THE LAST REPORT FOCUSED ON WHETHER WE WERE, UM, USING THE LOW COVID COR CORONAVIRUS FISCAL RECOVERY GRANT FUNDS TO APPROPRIATELY, UM, TO USE 'EM THE WAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE USED THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
SO WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THE FUNDS WERE RECEIVED, THEY WERE APPROPRIATED AND THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
UH, WE HAD NO MAJOR EXCEPTIONS.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF HICCUPS DURING THE PROCESS, BUT THOSE WERE ALL EXPLAINED BY MANAGEMENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY, UH, MAJOR CONCERNS THERE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE STEWARDSHIPS OF THE FUNDS THEMSELVES, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE BEING RECEIVED, THEY'RE BEING EXPENDED IN IMPORTANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND UM, THERE WERE NO MAJOR CONCERNS.
ANYBODY ON MY RIGHT LEFT? DEPUTY MAYOR, GO FOR IT.
[01:35:01]
IN LOOKING AT A STATEMENT ABOUT NOTICING MINOR OR INTERNAL IRREGULARITIES, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT EVALUATION SHEETS, CRITERIA SHEETS BEING MANUALLY WEIGHTED BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS AS TO, I MEAN, OR WHEN I HEAR MANUALLY ANYTHING.UM, I JUST WONDER ABOUT WHAT THE CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE AROUND THAT.
SO COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? SO THE NORMAL PROCESS FOR THE EVALUATION IS THE DEPARTMENT SETS IT UP WITH THEIR EVALUATION CRITERIA.
EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE REVIEWED SO FAR HAS BEEN MANUAL.
IT GOES THROUGH EXCEL SPREADSHEETS AND OUR DOCUMENTS, AND THEN THEY'RE CONSOLIDATED TO GET THE FINAL RESULT IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN ROLLED UP OVERALL THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTS AND THEN THEY GET THE FINAL CRITERIA THAT WAY THE PROCUREMENT GETS THE FINAL CRITERIA FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AND THEN THEY CONSOLIDATE IT.
AND ALL OF IT IS MANUAL IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FOR THE ATTESTATIONS THAT WE PERFORM TO DATE AND ALL THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
SO AM I THINKING THAT INSTEAD OF MANUALLY IT'S SUBJECTIVE, THERE'S AN EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT FOR EACH PROCUREMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT SET UP AHEAD OF TIME THAT SAYS, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO EVALUATE THIS VENDOR ON BEFORE WE GIVE OUT THE AWARD.
THAT CRITERIA IS SET DIFFERENTLY BASED ON THE PROCUREMENT THAT WE'RE AFTER.
SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, FOR LANDSCAPING, THEY WERE CERTAIN ITEMS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.
AND SO THEY HAD SET THAT UP AHEAD OF TIME.
AND SO WHEN THE PUZZLES COME IN, THEY USE THAT CRITERIA TO SAY WHERE DID THEY STAND? SO THIS WAS NOT AS AS BIG OF A CONCERN, BUT YOU WERE JUST TRYING TO WORK ON A BETTER SYSTEM.
SO BASICALLY THE CRITERIA HERE WAS WITHIN THE RFP, THEY HAD A SPEC SPECIFIC ITEM, ITEM THAT THEY WANTED, BUT IT WASN'T FEASIBLE FOR THE CRITERIA TO ACTUALLY EVALUATE IT THE WAY THEY WANTED TO HAVE IT EVALUATED.
SO WHAT THEY DID WAS UPDATE THE CRITERIA TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MET THE NEEDS OF WHAT THEY NEEDED THE PROCUREMENT FOR, WHICH IS FOR LANDSCAPING.
SO THEY CHANGED THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY MADE IT CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL OF THEM.
SO EVERYONE GOT TO SEE ALL OF IT AND THEY REEVALUATED BASED ON THAT NEW CRITERIA.
ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM C, THE 20 25, 26 QUARTERLY REPORT ON REMAINING UNENCUMBERED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUNDS FOR PERIOD TWO.
I'M GONNA ASK, UH, DIRECTOR, NICE WONDER TO COME ON UP AND SHE'S ALREADY DOING SO THANK YOU TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF HOW WE'RE DOING AND THIS WAS HER SUGGESTION TO ADD HERSELF AS A QUARTERLY BRIEFER TO US, UM, WHICH WE APPRECIATE, UM, JUST TO KIND OF KEEP COUNSEL INFORMED OF, OF, UH, WHERE WE'RE AT ON OUR BOND PROGRAMS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE OUR EYES ARE ON IT SO WE'RE NOT SURPRISED AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO WE APPRECIATE GETTING THIS QUARTERLY REPORT.
UH, JENNY AND I WHEN ARE IN THE BOND OFFICE, SO THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, I, UM, JUST GIVE YOU SOME, SOME HIGH LEVEL, UM, REVIEW OF WHAT WE PUT TOGETHER.
SO WE DO, UM, WE ARE SHOWING THAT WE HAVE $120 MILLION THAT'S BEEN ENCUMBERED FROM THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM AND WE'RE PROJECTING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE ABOUT ANOTHER 164 PROCURED, UM, OR ENCUMBERED, UH, THIS FISCAL YEAR.
AND THAT'S WITH OUR, UM, OUR DEPARTMENT WILL REACH OUT TO ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT WORK WITH THE, UH, BOND FUNDS.
AND SO WE TRY AND GET THEIR FORECAST TO, UM, UPDATE THIS REPORT QUARTERLY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THAT IS REFLECTING, UH, ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT INCORPORATES THAT 164 MILLION IS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING, UH, PROJECT THAT'S COMING IN AUGUST.
SO THAT'LL BE A BIG PORTION OF IT.
UM, AND NOW THIS REPORT DOES GO THROUGH MARCH AND I KNOW IN APRIL THERE IS A, A LARGE RESURFACING PROJECT THAT HAD QUITE A BIT OF BOND DOLLARS ASSOCIATED WITH IT TOO.
SO THAT'S NOT REFLECTED OF IN THIS REPORT, BUT IT WILL BE, UM, IN SUBSEQUENT REPORTS COMING UP.
SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVITY SINCE THE END OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD IS KIND OF WHAT, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HIGHLIGHTED.
UM, OUR LEGACY PRO PROGRAMS ARE GOING REALLY WELL AS, UM, ALSO, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE SUMMARY PAGE, UM, ON THE 2006, 2012 WE'RE IN THE SINGLE DIGITS IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF DOLLARS REMAINING.
UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST AS A REMINDER AND IN THE MEMO THAT WE PROVIDE, THERE'S A LINK TO OUR WEBSITE AND THAT WEBSITE HAS THE LIST OR, UH, AN EXCEL SHEET THAT ACCOMP ACCOMPLISHED ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT.
AND IT HAS ALL THE BOND PROGRAMS THAT ARE LISTED IN ALL THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ROLLED UP INTO THIS REPORT.
SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT PROJECTS ARE, ARE, ARE MAKING UP THESE NUMBERS.
SO, UH, WITH THAT, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS WE'D BE HAPPY TO TO TAKE THEM.
UM, JUST WITH LIKE A HIGH LEVEL QUESTION, UM, WHAT SHOULD THE PUBLIC,
[01:40:01]
WHAT SHOULD COUNCIL TAKE AWAY FROM THIS UPDATE? UM, ARE WE GENERALLY ON TRACK, UM, IN ROLLING OUT OUR BOND APPROPRIATIONS? UM, THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.THE SECOND QUESTION WILL BE IF WE END UP NEEDING TO DO A, ANOTHER BOND ELECTION FOR, FOR CITY HALL OR IF THAT ENDS UP BEING THE CHOICE THAT'S MADE BY COUNCIL TO REPAIR CITY HALL, HOW WILL THAT IMPACT, UM, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE BEING ON THE GROUND AND UH, DOING THE WORK? UM, OUR ABILITY TO ENACT THESE BONDS? GOTCHA.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
UM, THERE ARE SOME, UH, PROPOSITIONS THAT KIND OF HAVE HAD A SLOWER START AND YOU CAN JUST SEE THAT WITH THE REMAINING UNENCUMBERED BALANCES THAT ARE, THAT ARE LEFT.
UM, SO THERE IS, IS THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE, BUT CAN YOU USE AN EXAMPLE, UM, JUST SO FOR THE PUBLIC, SO I'M LOOKING AT PAGE TWO RIGHT NOW.
I I MEAN I'M, WE'RE NOT GONNA PICK ON ANY DEPARTMENT, BUT JUST GIVE US AN EXAMPLE AND EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
SO I'LL, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST TAKE THE FIRST ONE FOR, FOR STREET.
SO WE HAVE ENCUMBERED 54 MILLION.
THERE'S AN UNENCUMBERED BALANCE OF 157 AND THEY'RE PROJECTING ABOUT 70 MILLION, UH, FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.
SO THAT WOULD LEAVE A REMAINING BALANCE OF THAT 80 MILLION, UM, DOES, HAS YET TO BE ENCUMBERED.
SO, AND YOU WERE PROJECTED TO HAVE AN ENCUMBERED 80 MILLION, BUT IT HAS BEEN ENCUMBERED, RIGHT? OR THE GOAL WAS TO ENCUMBER THAT 80 MILLION, SO WE'RE PROJECTING ANOTHER 70 THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WOULD LEAVE A BALANCE OF ABOUT 80 MILLION IF I'M DOING THE MATH IN MY HEAD.
THAT WOULD BE, BUT TO HIT THE TARGET IT, WE WOULD'VE HIT THE WHOLE 150 MILLION.
SO WE ARE BEHIND, THAT'S WHERE WE CAN SEE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND.
SO YES, LOOKING HISTORICALLY THOUGH, I THINK WE'RE, WE KIND OF, WE'RE TRACKING WHAT WE, WE NORMALLY DO.
SO WE MAY BE A LITTLE, UM, AMBITIOUS IN GETTING ALL OF OUR DOLLARS ENUM EVERY YEAR.
UM, SO, BUT TO UM, ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT, UM, FUTURE BONDS, WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT TAKING A REALLY CLOSE LOOK AT PROJECT SCHEDULES.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT WE WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT IN TERMS OF, UM, NOT NOT DELAYING ANY PROJECTS, RIGHT? SO IF THE PROJECT SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW SHOWS THAT UM, WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS IN YEAR THREE, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A DESIGN, UM, THAT'S UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW, THEN THOSE, THOSE DOLLARS COULD BE PUSHED BACK ANOTHER YEAR AND IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE SCHEDULE, RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO, TO MOVE THOSE BOND DOLLARS SO THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT SPECIFIC PROJECTS.
UM, SO I THINK, SO IF WE GO DOWN THE ROAD OF, OF REPAIRING CITY HALL AND ACTUALLY USING BOND FUNDS TO DO SO, ANY PROJECT THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN DESIGN PHASE COULD LIKELY BE PUSHED BACK TO VIEW FAR INTO THE FUTURE.
THAT'S, THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY.
WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT THE DOLLARS THAT ARE, HAVE YET TO BE, UM, ENCUMBERED THAT 80 MILLION FOR THAT, FOR THAT ONE ROW AND SEE WHERE, WHERE ARE THOSE GONNA LAND? WHAT, WHAT ARE THE REAL, YOU KNOW, PROJECT SCHEDULES FOR THAT AND IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THOSE DOLLARS FORWARD WHEN WE KNOW THAT THEY WON'T BE NEEDED IN A CERTAIN YEAR.
SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS GONNA BE ANOTHER LEVEL THAT WE, UM, HAVEN'T TAKEN A VERY CLOSE LOOK AT YET, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPPORTUNITY.
UM, I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'VE BEEN TALKING TO MIKE AND UH, UH, COLLEAGUES.
YOU GOT ANYTHING? UH, CHAIRMAN GRACIE AND, AND, UH, CHAIR WEST WAS GOING WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS TOO, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS SCHEDULE AND HOW EVERYTHING IS, WHETHER WE ISSUE BONDS FOR CITY HALL OR WE ISSUE BONDS FOR THE POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY.
EITHER WAY SOME OF THESE PROJECTS WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO BE REAL OR, OR, UH, RESCHEDULED I GUESS FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY TO, TO SAY IT.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO, GOING BACK TO SOMETHING JACK SAID THE OTHER DAY, EVEN IF WE ISSUE THE BONDS FOR CITY HALL OR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE MARKET IS, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO EVEN ACCESS THAT DEBT JUST YET BECAUSE THE RATES WOULD BE TOO HIGH.
SO THERE'S NOT EVEN A GUARANTEE OF HOW LONG THE RATES, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE IN, YOU KNOW, IN THIS ECONOMY NOW, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THOSE RATES ARE GONNA GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION ANYTIME SOON, WHICH MEANS THAT YEAH, FOR THE FIRST YEARS OR SO, WE COULD ANTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY ACCESSING THIS, THIS DEBT, THIS TRA OF MONEY TO COME BACK AND DO THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DELAYED IF THE MARKET CONDITIONS ARE.
[01:45:01]
LET ME CLARIFY, I, I APOLOGIZE IF I WASN'T CLEAR.WAS THAT YESTERDAY, I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL RUNS TOGETHER THESE DAYS.
THAT COMMENT WAS, UH, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS.
LAST NOVEMBER WHEN WE SOLD THE SECOND TRANCHE OF $250 MILLION, THE UH, INTEREST RATE RATE WAS 3.62%, WHICH WAS A GOOD RATE, RIGHT? WE STILL GET VERY COMPETITIVE RATES FOR OUR GO BONDS, BUT WE DID ASK HILLTOP SECURITIES, OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, WHAT KIND OF RATE WE WOULD GET IN THE MARKET NOW FOR PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS AND THEY SAID 6.2.
OKAY THAT'S TOO HIGH, RIGHT? BUT THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS NOT OUR GO, UH, OR FOR THESE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
RIGHT? BUT, SO YOU'RE SPOT ON.
WE WOULD NEED TO WATCH THE MARKET FOR ISSUANCE OF POB, BUT I, I THINK WE'RE IN A GOOD PLACE STILL WITH CONTINUING TO ISSUE ANNUALLY FOR OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT DEPENDING UPON IF WE DID A PROPOSITION FOR PRIORITY PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECTS, IF WE DID A PROPOSITION RELATED TO CITY HALL OR ANYTHING ELSE, THEN IT JUST BECOMES AN ISSUE OF WHAT IS PRIORITY TO GO FIRST.
YOU CAN'T DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE.
AND SO IF FINISHING THE, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, THE, THE TWO ACADEMY COMPLEX, UH, OR FACILITIES, THOSE ARE PRIORITY, IT WILL RESULT IN SOME OF THE 24 PROJECTS BEING DELAYED.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO.
IT'S ABOUT PRIORITY AT THAT POINT.
AND, AND I GUESS AT SOME POINT I, I'D BE CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHAT THOSE DELAYS LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, FROM A SCENARIO PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S CITY HALL OR UH, THE, UH, PUBLIC, UH, TRAINING FACILITY, SOMETHING'S GONNA HAVE TO GIVE.
AND I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT AND HOW, WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY ABOUT TO DETERMINE WHICH ONE OF THOSE, UM, ARE.
AND I THINK YOU, YOU ADDRESSED IT INITIALLY BY SAYING IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A DESIGN THEN IT'LL PROBABLY BE DELAYED FOR SOME SORT, NOT NECESSARILY DELAYED, BUT KIND OF ALIGNING THE DOLLARS WITH THE, THE DOLLARS SCHEDULE.
YEAH, WE REALLOCATE FAIR ENOUGH.
SO, AND, AND THAT'S REALLY THE FOCUS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GONNA GET US A HUNDRED PERCENT OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE EVERY YEAR.
BUT THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OUR FIRST LINE OF, UH, METHODOLOGY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COLLEAGUES.
IT IS 11:51 AM AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.