Aug 03, 2026 Special Called Finance Committee

[00:00:02]

GOOD MORNING.

IT IS 8.09 A.M.

ON AUGUST 3RD, 2026.

I CALL THIS COMMITTEE ON FINANCE SPECIAL CALL MEETING TO ORDER.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MINUTES ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.

THE REASON, COLLEAGUES, THAT THIS MEETING WAS CALLED ORIGINALLY AND STILL THE PRIORITY FOR TODAY IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY AUDITOR REQUIREMENTS AS INDICATED IN THE CITY CHARTER WE HAVE RECEIVED AN INDICATION FROM OUR INTERIM CITY AUDITOR MOM'S MOM WITH THE SPARKS THAT SHE'S HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW JOB AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT A GAP IN THE CITY AUDITOR APPOINTMENT SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH ITEM A WE'RE JUST GONNA GO DOWN THE AGENDA I'M GONNA ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO COME UP HERE AND FILL US IN ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CITY AUDITOR SEARCH TAKE IT AWAY GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU.

NINA ARIAS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

WELCOME BACK.

THANK YOU.

WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING AN UPDATE THROUGH POLYHIRE, THE VENDOR THAT IS CONDUCTING THE SEARCH FOR THE CITY AUDITOR.

SO I'M ALSO HERE WITH ERICA GUERRERO, WHO'S GOING TO BE INTRODUCING OUR VENDOR.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS ERICA GUERRERO, TALENT ACQUISITION AND ONBOARDING MANAGER.

AND HERE WITH US, WE HAVE KENYATTA OZIL.

HE IS THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE SEARCH FOR US ON BEHALF OF POLYHIRE.

CAN YOU LET US GIVE US AN UPDATE? THANK YOU, ERICA.

THANK YOU, NINA.

GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

MY NAME IS KENYATTA AZELL.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE TO THE CITY AUDITOR RECRUITMENT PROCESS BEFORE I MEET WITH THE SELECTION COMMITTEE LATER THIS AFTERNOON.

AS YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE SEARCH IS TO REALLY IDENTIFY HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXECUTIVE LEADERS CAPABLE OF SERVING AS THE CITY AUDITOR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SINCE OUR ENGAGEMENT, WE'VE CONDUCTED A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL SEARCH.

OUR OUTREACH INCLUDED...

DIRECT RECRUITMENT, TARGETED EXECUTIVE NETWORKING, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, NATIONAL ADVERTISING, ALL DESIGNED TO ATTRACT STRONG INDIVIDUALS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FROM STATE GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL AGENCIES.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION HEALTHCARE AND A PRIVATE SECTOR WE USE A FEW COMPETENCIES OUTLINED EARLY IN THE PROCESS TO GO ABOUT OUR VETTING AND SCREENING OF CANDIDATES EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE AGAIN PUBLIC SECTOR EXPERIENCE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD EXPERIENCE AND REPORTING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS RISK MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION LEADERSHIP STYLE, ORGANIZATIONAL FIT, COMMUNICATION SKILLS, AND OVERALL ALL EXECUTIVE READINESS.

ANOTHER WAS SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO BRING STABILITY TO AN OFFICE IN TRANSITION.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT OUR EVALUATION EXTENDED WELL BEYOND JUST REVIEWING RESUMES.

WE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE FELT ARE WORTH SHARING WITH YOUR SELECTION COMMITTEE.

IT WAS DESIGNED TO UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THE TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCIES OF THAT PARTICULAR AUDITOR, BUT ALSO HOW THEY LEAD ORGANIZATIONS.

DEVELOP PEOPLE AND COMMUNICATE WITH GOVERNING BODIES AND THEIR APPROACH TO INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT.

THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT, THE PROFESSIONS WE'LL PRESENT TODAY REPRESENT AN EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG POOL OF FOLKS, DIVERSE FINALISTS FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS WHO I FEEL WILL BE EXCITING FOR YOUR COMMITTEE TO BEGIN TO LEARN MORE ABOUT.

EACH CANDIDATE MAY POSSESS THE TECHNICAL OF COMPETENCIES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF A CITY AUDITOR AND AGAIN AND WE ARE EXCITED TO HAVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS BE PRESENTED TODAY FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE.

OUR, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING TODAY'S MEETING AND THAT PRESENTATION, NOT ONLY WITH THIS COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO WITH YOUR, THE SELECTED COMMITTEE I'M MEETING WITH THIS AFTERNOON, POLYHIRE WILL REMAIN ENGAGED AND AVAILABLE TO HELP LEARN MORE ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND FACILITATE A STRONG, ROBUST PROCESS THAT EVENTUALLY CULMINATES INTO THE APPOINTMENT OF YOUR NEXT CITY.

THE AUDITOR.

[00:05:01]

THANK YOU.

SO I'LL JUST ASK DIRECTOR ARIAS, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT IS HAPPENING IN AUGUST ON THIS SEARCH.

SO WHAT CAN WE EXPECT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS? WHEN WILL THE FINAL CANDIDATES BE COMING BACK TO THE COUNTRY? COMMITTEE TO THIS COMMITTEE NOT THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE YES UM DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF TODAY'S COMMITTEE AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY MAKE RIGHT AFTER WHAT WE CAN EXPECT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND A SPECIAL POLL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE CANDIDATES AND THEN TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS IN TERMS OF WHERE WILL THE INTERVIEWS HAPPEN.

SO THAT IS THE DECISION POINT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE ONCE THE LIST OF CANDIDATES IS SUBMITTED BY THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

SO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO INTERVIEW THE LIST OF CANDIDATES.

IT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE VETTED SO THAT THERE'S NO MEDIA.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND OUT ANYTHING LATER THAT THERE'S NO QUALIFICATIONS ISSUES OR MEDIA ISSUES WITH THESE FOLKS.

AND THEN THOSE FINAL TWO OR THREE CANDIDATES WILL COME.

AND YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT LET'S GET TO LET'S FIGURE OUT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING OF WHEN THIS GROUP WILL INTERVIEW THOSE FINAL CANDIDATES.

I THINK IT WOULD ALSO BE USEFUL TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT OR THE HEAD OF THE NOMINATE, THE CHAIR OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO JOIN US FOR THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

WEEKEND.

CAN ASK HER DIRECTLY WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS THINKING YOU KNOW THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WHEN INTERVIEWING THESE CANDIDATES SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS AT THIS POINT BUT I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS NO THIS SIDE NO ALL RIGHT GREAT JOB THANK YOU THANK YOU PAULIE HEYER APPRECIATE IT AND WE WILL EXPECT GOOD THINGS LATER THIS MONTH FROM YOU.

THANK YOU MOVING ON TO ITEM B THIS ITEM IS TO DISCUSS MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM CITY AUDITOR THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON WE ARE HERE TODAY AND WHY THIS MEETING WAS SET RIGHT WHEN WE GET BACK FROM BREAK I'M GOING TO ASK NINA, DO YOU WANT TO, JUST TO BE UP HERE IN CASE THERE'S ANY HR ISSUES.

COLLEAGUES, WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM INTERIM CITY AUDITOR, MAMATHA SPARKS, THAT SHE HAS ACCEPTED ANOTHER POSITION.

SHE, HER FINAL DATE ON THE JOB, I BELIEVE, WAS GOING TO BE, DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT IS? WOULD YOU COME UP YEAH HERE IT IS MAMA SPARKS INTERIM CITY AUDITOR THE LAST DATE WOULD BE AUGUST 18TH WELL WE WILL WE WILL CERTAINLY MISS YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THE NEW OPPORTUNITY OUR CONCERN MAMATHA'S CONCERN WHICH SHE BROUGHT TO US ALSO CITY MANAGER'S CONCERN IS THAT AND ONE THAT WE SHOULD CERTAINLY SHARE IS HAVING A GAP AND HAVING A CITY AUDITOR APPOINTED WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER SO MISS SPARKS HAS GRACEFULLY EXTENDED HER TIME HERE I THINK SHE WANTED TO LEAVE A LITTLE EARLIER SO THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE WE GET A CITY AUDITOR INTERIM APPOINTED WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE FINAL ONE TO BE HIRED.

I KNOW THAT YOU HAD RECOMMENDED MR. GALTER AS A REPLACEMENT FOR YOU.

WOULD YOU JUST LIKE TO TAKE MAYBE A MINUTE OR TWO AND EXPLAIN WHY? SURE.

MR. GALTER HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.

HE'S A CPA.

HE'S CERTIFIED AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHARTER.

HE'S GOT PRIOR EXPERIENCE RUNNING HIS OWN CONSULTING FIRM, AND HE HAS OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN FINANCIAL...

AUDITING AS WELL AS PERFORMANCE AUDITING IN THE GOVERNMENT WORLD AND HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY PROCESSES AS WELL AS THE CITY DEPARTMENT HEADS AND HE CAN TAKE THE LEAD TO TAKE THE TEAM TO THE NEXT STEP THE CITY AUDIT PLAN HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND APPROVED RIGHT THE CURRENT YEAR CITY ORDER ON ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED AND RORY DOES HAVE THE DRAFT FOR NEXT YEAR'S ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN AS WELL TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER BUT WE MAY DELAY THAT UNTIL WE KNOW FURTHER ABOUT THE UPCOMING CITY AUDITOR SO THEY GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN BEFORE WE MAKE ANY FINAL DECISIONS DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT FROM TODAY OR HIS APPOINTMENT WHEN IT HAPPENS THROUGH THE DATE OF US HIRING AND NEW CITY AUDITOR THAT HE CAN CARRY

[00:10:03]

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SAY, MS. SPARKS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR STEPPING IN TO THE INTERIM ROLE, AND DALLAS'S LOSS IS A DARTS GAIN, AND SO WE WILL MISS YOU, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE WORK AND THE WAY YOU'VE LED THE DEPARTMENT.

I HAVE WORKED WITH MR. GALTER ON A NUMBER OF AUDITS SOME VERY COMPLEX AND I HAVE FAITH THAT FOR WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM AS MAYBE A SIX TO EIGHT WEEK PROCESS BEFORE WE HAVE OUR NEW CITY AUDITOR THAT I'VE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD AND SO FOR THAT REASON I WILL GO ON AND JUMP INTO MAKING A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR RORY GALTER TO BECOME INTERIM CITY AUDITOR MATCHING THE TERMS OF OUR PREVIOUS INTERIM CITY AUDITORS ARRANGEMENT TO BRIDGE US TO WHEN WE HAVE OUR PERMANENT POSITION THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND JUST TO GET A CLARIFICATION, WHEN WOULD THE DATE TAKE PLACE? SO IT WOULD BE OFFICIAL AS OF THE DATE THAT MS. SPARKS IS LAST DAY, CORRECT? SO MINE'S THE 18TH AND HE'LL START ON THE 19TH.

SO, COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS, ARE YOU OKAY ADJUSTING, AMENDING YOUR MOTION TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENT, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPOINTMENT TO BE AUGUST 19TH? YES ALL RIGHT OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE UM ANY DISCUSSION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES CONGRATULATIONS WELL ONCE IT GETS THROUGH COUNCIL ALL RIGHT THANK YOU YES OH DID I GO AHEAD YEAH, YEAH IT'S OKAY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.

AGAIN, MAMATHA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO STEP IN DURING THIS TRANSITION.

AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.

I'VE BEEN AUDITED BY YOU.

I'VE REVIEWED YOU.

STUFF AS WELL AND YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN FAIR AND I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE AND TRULY WHAT GAY JUST SAID IS TRULY A CITY, CITY OF DALLAS IS LOSING A TRUE GEM AND SOMEBODY THAT WAS DEDICATED TO BEING TRANS.

TRANSPARENT AND FAIR THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

SO BEST OF LUCK TO YOU.

I'M SORRY WE COULDN'T KEEP YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

AND WE'LL JUST ASK AT THE LAST FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING OR AGENDA IF YOU COULD JUST BE PREPARED TO COME UP AND WE'LL SAY PROBABLY THE FULL COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK UNLESS YOU WANT TO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHTY MOVING ON EXPEDITIOUSLY WE ARE NOW MOVING TO ITEM C DISCUSSED POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CITY OF DALLAS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA I'M GOING TO INVITE JACK IRELAND AND HIS VERY CAPABLE TEAM TO COME UP AND JOIN US THIS MORNING JACK YOU HAD APPROACHED ME ABOUT ASKING FOR THIS TO BE ADDED TO THE ALREADY CALLED SPECIAL CALLED MEETING I KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FMPC CRITERIA.

SO DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY THIS IS HERE AND WHY YOU WANTED IT TO BE SO EARLY IN THE MORNING? GOOD MORNING.

JACK IRELAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JOINED BY JEANETTE WHEDON, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

AND THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WEST.

YES, SIR, THIS ITEM WAS ONE THAT WE ASKED YOU TO ADD TO YOUR AGENDA TODAY.

WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS ITEM WITH POTENTIALLY BRIEFING IT TO THIS COMMITTEE PRIOR TO YOUR JULY RECESS.

DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU ADDED THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING DUE TO THE TIME SENSITIVITY RELATED TO THIS.

THE CITY AUDITOR WE WENT AHEAD AND ASKED YOU IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS FOR AN ITEM AS WELL AS THE LIVING WAGE POLICY THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED

[00:15:01]

SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BRING THIS TO YOU.

THIS IS A PRESENTATION THAT HAS HISTORICALLY COME TO THIS COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE ROUTINELY BROUGHT THE CRITERIA, THE FNPC, TO FINANCE COMMITTEE BEFORE TAKING IT TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR A VOTE.

SO WE'RE CONTINUING THAT PROCESS BY BRINGING IT TO YOU TODAY.

SO I'LL JUST WALK THROUGH THE SLIDES THAT WE HAVE AND THEN ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ME.

ON SLIDE TWO, AGAIN WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE FNPC, TALK ABOUT THE BACKGROUND, DISCUSS POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA, AND REVIEW OUR NEXT STEPS.

ON SLIDE THREE, THE CITY COUNCIL INITIALLY ADOPTED THE FNPC BACK IN 1978 TO SET FINANCIAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR DECISION MAKING.

THE FNPC CONTAINS 55 DIFFERENT CRITERIA, PLUS SEVEN I'M SORRY PLUS 13 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES CRITERIA CONSISTS OF THINGS FROM OPERATING PROGRAM PENSION BUDGET AND PLANNING CAPITAL AND DEBT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTING GRANTS AND THEN THE 13 FOR DALLAS WATER UTILITY THE FNPC IS REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

WE REVIEW IT.

MS. WHEDON'S OFFICE AND I LOOK AT THE FNPC DURING ANNUAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND CHECK FOR COMPLIANCE.

OF THE FISCAL YEAR TO CHECK FOR COMPLIANCE AND THEN EACH TIME THE CITY ISSUES DEBT WE REVIEW IT FOR COMPLIANCE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT ARE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH AS THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOES THE CALCULATIONS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS, DALLAS WATER UTILITIES CHECKS THEIRS, WE HAVE OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS THAT HELP US ON THE REVIEW.

SO WE ARE CONSTANTLY REVIEWING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, BEGINNING OF YEAR, END OF YEAR, AND DEBT ISSUANCE FOR COMPLIANCE.

WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT COMPLIANCE, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA.

PROPOSED REVISIONS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN RECOMMENDED BASED ON CHANGES IN STATE LAW, FEEDBACK FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR STAFF.

UH REVIEWED BY OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS LOOKING AT BEST PRACTICES INPUT FROM CITY COUNCIL JUST A VARIOUS ASSORTMENT OF DIFFERENT REASONS MIGHT LEAD US TO BRING FORWARD A EDIT AN ADDITION A DELETION TO OUR CRITERIA OUR MOST RECENT REVISIONS TO THE FMPC WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN MARCH OF 2025.

THERE IS NOT A PARTICULAR TIME OF THE YEAR THAT WE BRING CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION FOR EDITS ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS THE LAST SIX TIMES, TIMES HAVE BEEN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, SEPTEMBER OF 2011, OCTOBER OF 2014, DECEMBER OF 2017, JUNE OF 21, AUGUST OF 22, AND MARCH OF 25.

SO THERE'S NOT A STANDARD TIME THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT WE BRING CRITERIA FOR YOUR EDITS.

TODAY WE ARE RECOMMENDING 11 CHANGES.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE EDIT 09, THAT WE DELETE 1, AND THAT WE ADD 1.

AND AS YOU GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE DECK, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE, THE WAY THE CRITERIA IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE A RECOMMENDATION WHICH WILL HAVE IN RED TEXT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE ADDING OUR RED TEXT AND A STRIKETHROUGH FOR ANYTHING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DELETE FROM THE CRITERIA SO MOVING INTO THE 11 CRITERIA THAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY STARTING ON PAGE FIVE THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMIT, THIS IS A CRITERIA THAT WE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES TO AFTER 2019 WITH THE 3.5% STATE CAP.

WE WANTED TO MAKE A FEW CHANGES TO THE WORDING.

TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE ACT THAT WAS PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN 2019.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE INTENT OR THE MEANING OF THE CRITERIA.

IT'S JUST A CLEANUP OF THE TEXT.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE CRITERIA NUMBER TWO IS...

IS OUR UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE MINIMUM THIS CRITERIA HAS CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES OVER YEARS AS WE HAVE STRENGTHENED OUR FINANCIAL RESERVES PRIOR TO 2012 OUR CRITERIA WAS TO HAVE 18 DAYS OF RESERVE WE HAVE GRADUALLY INCREASED THAT WE INCREASED IT IN 2020 TO 40 DAYS WE INCREASED IT IN 22 TO BE BETWEEN 50 DAYS AND 70 DAYS AND TODAY WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT MINIMUM FROM 50 UP.

UP TO 55 DAYS AND STILL FOR THE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO BE BETWEEN 55 DAYS AND 70 DAYS.

MY GOAL WOULD BE FOR US TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60 DAYS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE THAT UP.

I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD UP OUR RESERVES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

BACK IN FISCAL YEAR 10, WHEN WE HAD THE LOWER CRITERIA,

[00:20:04]

OUR CURRENT RESERVE IS OVER $350 MILLION.

SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD UP OUR RESERVES, AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO STRENGTHEN THE RESERVE AND MOVE THAT UP.

RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA IS TO HAVE A RESERVE BETWEEN 50 DAYS AND 70.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAKE IT 55 DAYS TO 70 AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE THAT UP OVER TIME.

ON SLIDE 7, THE RISK RESERVE, THE ONLY CHANGE HERE IS JUST A CLEANUP BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S TITLED AS AN OPERATING RESERVE, IT'S ACTUALLY A RISK RESERVE AND JUST A CLEANUP ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

ON PAGE 8, THE FUND BALANCE FOR OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS HAS BEEN AT LEAST 30 DAYS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THE SAME AS WITH OUR GENERAL FUND, WE'RE WANTING TO MOVE THAT UP, AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO MOVE IT UP TO 40 DAYS AND IN FUTURE YEARS CONTINUE TO MOVE IT UP TO 40 DAYS.

TO MOVE THAT UP FURTHER TO STRENGTHEN OUR FINANCIAL POSITION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE RESERVES, NOT JUST IN THE GENERAL FUND, BUT ALSO IN OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT OPERATE LIKE BUSINESSES AND DO NOT RELY UPON THE GENERAL FUND.

ON PAGE 9 AND PAGE 10, YOU WILL SEE TWO CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY MARKED OURSELVES WHEN WE REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE AS BEING NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

AND SO BOTH OF THESE, WE HAVE MADE EDITS, HOPEFULLY, TO MAKE THE CRITERIA SOMETHING THAT IS STILL MEANINGFUL YET ATTAINABLE.

TO HAVE A CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE NEVER ABLE TO REACH IS SOMETHING THAT IS JUST MEANINGLESS AT THAT POINT.

BUT ON SLIDE NINE, THE CRUX OF THIS ONE IS THAT IT HAS STATED THAT THE COST WILL BE FULLY MAINTAINING CITY FACILITIES, STREETS, LEVEES, VEHICLES, BUILDINGS, AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROGRAMMED.

WE CANNOT FULLY FUND ALL OF THAT.

WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUND ALL OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE THAT'S NEEDED, ALL OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, ALL OF THE LEVEE MAINTENANCE THAT'S NEEDED.

THAT IS BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF OUR OPERATING BUDGET.

AND SO WE'VE MADE CHANGES SO THAT WE'RE STILL REVIEWING.

WE PUT TOGETHER PLANS.

WE BRING THOSE PLANS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, BUT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO FULLY FUND, BUT TO PRESENT INFORMATION TO YOU SO THAT PERHAPS WE CAN COME UP WITH A LONGER-TERM PLAN RATHER THAN A SINGLE YEAR TRYING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY FULLY FUNDING.

IT'S OUT OF REACH.

SIMILAR ON SLIDE 10, THE SAME THING APPLIES TO OUR EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.

SIMILARLY, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING THAT TO COUNCIL ON A FIVE-YEAR ROTATING.

BASIS FOR COUNCIL TO, FOR US TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON HOW WE FUND THOSE THINGS, BUT THEN TO GET COUNCIL'S AGREEMENT ON HOW WE WOULD FUND OVER A MULTI-YEAR APPROACH.

ON SLIDE 11 IS FMPC NUMBER 20 IT IS THE OPERATING IMPACT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS I'LL SPEND JUST A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THIS ONE IT IS ONE THAT HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION OVER THE LAST FIVE OR SIX MONTHS I GUESS AND I THINK THAT THERE'S AMBIGUITY WITH THE CRITERIA AND THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THAT AMBIGUITY PRIOR TO 2021 THE ONLY PART OF THE CRITERIA ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE STARTS WITH THE SENTENCE OPERATING EXPENDITURES WILL BE PROGRAMMED TO INCLUDE THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING SERVICE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FUTURE REVENUES NECESSARY FOR THESE EXPENDITURES WILL BE ESTIMATED AND PROVIDED FOR PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THIS HAD ALWAYS BEEN A CRITERIA ABOUT OPERATING COST THIS IS NOT A REAL ESTATE CRITERIA AND IN 2021 WE EXPANDED IT AND TALKED ABOUT ABOUT ALL THREE NEW FACILITIES, REPLACEMENT FACILITIES, AND REOPENING DECOMMISSIONED FACILITIES, AND WE PUT IN PLACE A REQUIREMENT THAT TWO OF THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL OF VOTE BY THE COUNCIL FOR THOSE NEW OR ADDITIONAL FACILITIES IN ANY REOPENED FACILITIES.

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THOSE PARTICULAR TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES ADD TO THE OPERATING IMPACT ON THE OPERATING BUDGET.

AGAIN, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE...

CRITERIA IS TO BE LOOKING AT THE OPERATING IMPACT ON THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY AND SO WHEN YOU ADD A NEW FACILITY THAT YOU'VE NOT HAD BEFORE THAT INCREASES THE OPERATING COST WHEN YOU HAVE A FACILITY THAT WE HAVE MADE A DECISION TO CLOSE AND YOU REOPEN THAT FACILITY THAT FACILITY THEN BRINGS BACK OPERATING COSTS THAT WE HAD NOT HAD SO WE HAD NOT SPECIFIED THAT TYPE OF BOAT REQUIREMENT FOR A REPLACEMENT FACILITY.

WE FREQUENTLY, THROUGH...

BOND PROGRAMS OR THROUGH OTHER PROGRAMS.

[00:25:01]

THE PLAN IS TO CLOSE ONE AFTER WE HAVE OPENED ANOTHER.

AND SO WE DID NOT, IN THIS CRITERIA THAT WAS UPDATED IN 21, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL ON A REPLACEMENT TYPE OF FACILITY.

SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE, TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY, WE WENT BACK AND JUST INDICATED THAT WHETHER IT'S AN, AN ADDED FACILITY, A REPLACEMENT FACILITY, OR A REOPENED FACILITY, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A MAJORITY VOTE AND TAKE AWAY THE AMBIGUITY OF THE OTHER.

ON SLIDE 12, THIS IS A CRITERIA THAT WAS PROBABLY ADDED ABOUT MAYBE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO FOR A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE SCENARIO.

STAFF HAVE FELT THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF VALUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE DELETED.

THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE IS A TAX RATE THAT GENERATES THE SAME REVENUE NEXT YEAR THAT YOU GENERATED THIS YEAR.

IT DOESN'T EVEN GIVE YOU ANY GROWTH.

IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO ADDRESS INFLATION.

IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN OUR TAX RATE TO A LOWER LEVEL THAT WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO RECOMMEND THAT LEVEL.

BUT WE HAVE THIS CRITERIA THAT REQUIRES US TO DO AN EXERCISE.

AND PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE VALUE IN SO IF IT DOESN'T ADD VALUE PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE DELETED ON THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 13 THIS CRITERIA IS ONE THAT WE USE WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS IT'S REGARDING REFUNDING OF BONDS THAT THE CITY HAS ISSUED WHEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE OUR FUTURE INTEREST COST IT ALLOWS US TO RESTRUCTURE SOME DEBT, RETIRE BONDS.

AND SO OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS HAD SUGGESTED THAT WE ADD THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE TENDER TRANSACTIONS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED, WHICH JUST GIVES ANOTHER TOOL.

IT EXPANDS THE OPTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL SAVINGS ON OUR DEBT.

THE NEXT SLIDE, 14, OUR ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT.

STATE LAW CHANGED IN 2025.

IT DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO FINISH.

OUR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT WITHIN 180 DAYS.

HOWEVER, IT DID PUT IN SOME PUNITIVE MEASURES IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO.

AND SO IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH COMPLETING OUR FINANCIAL REPORT WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER THE END OF OUR FISCAL YEAR, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE YOUR TAX RATE OR YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE FROM YOUR TAX RATE.

AND SO WE WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.

WE WANTED IT HERE THAT IT IS REQUIRED THAT WE COMPLETE THIS REPORT WITHIN 180 DAYS OF OUR LAST DAY OF OUR FISCAL YEAR.

ON SLIDE 15, WE'RE PROPOSING A NEW CRITERIA.

THIS CRITERIA IS ADDED TO INCORPORATE ORDINANCE 15680 THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1977.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT WHAT WE DO WHEN WE SELL ASSETS AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE PROCEEDS.

SINCE 1977, THE PRIMARY USE OF THOSE FUNDS IS FOR MAINTENANCE OF OUR CITY FACILITY.

SO IF WE SELL A CITY FACILITY, WE PUT THOSE FUNDS INTO A GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE, AND THEN WE SUBSEQUENTLY BUDGET THOSE FUNDS TO ADDRESS OUR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.

WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS ABOUT MONETIZING ASSETS AND DOING MORE OF THAT AND REALLY PUSHING THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT, WELL, ONE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES, WOULD BE IF WE ARE ABLE TO MONETIZE SOME SIGNIFICANT ASSETS, DO WE PUT IT IN DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OR DO WE CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE PENSION FUND OR OTHER PROGRAMS? SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE SET THE THRESHOLD AT $20 MILLION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION.

IF THE PROCEEDS ARE LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT, THEY JUST AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUE AS THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE 1977 TO GO INTO OUR GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE TO USE FOR MAINTENANCE.

IF IT'S MORE THAN $20 MILLION ON A INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE SOLD THE THE SERVICE CENTER DOWN ON CANTON STREET THAT WOULD GENERATE MORE THAN $20 MILLION.

WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THAT.

DO YOU WANT TO USE THAT TO BUILD NEW FACILITIES THAT WE'RE HAVING TO MOVE FROM CANTON STREET? OR DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT TOWARDS THE PENSION? OR DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT ALL TOWARDS MAINTENANCE? WE JUST SET A THRESHOLD OF $20 MILLION OF ANYTHING ABOVE THAT AMOUNT.

INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD WARRANT A RECOMMENDATION FROM.

STAFF AND AN INDIVIDUAL

[00:30:01]

RATHER THAN JUST AUTOMATICALLY FALLING BACK TO THE 1977, IT GOES TO GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVES.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO TWO THINGS, TAKE CARE OF OUR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZE WHEN THERE'S SIGNIFICANT ASSETS SOLD THAT COUNCIL SHOULD WEIGH IN ON THOSE TYPES OF DECISIONS.

SO THOSE ARE THE 11 CRITERIA THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, EITHER AN EDIT, A DELETION OR AN AD WE ARE OPEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO COME TO YOUR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TODAY WE WOULD PLAN TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE PRESENTATION ON AUGUST THE 19TH AND THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AT A VOTING MEETING ON AUGUST THE 25TH THAT'S ON TUESDAY AND A LOT OF YOU BE LIKE THAT'S NOT THE DAY WELL ON THE CITY CALENDAR WE'RE MEETING ON TUESDAY THE 25TH AND THEN WE'RE HAVING A BUDGET WORKSHOP ON THE 26TH, SO THAT MIGHT HAVE THROWN SOME PEOPLE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW OUR FNPC FOR COMPLIANCE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS WE ALWAYS HAVE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ONGOING UPDATES TO THIS COMMITTEE REGARDING FUTURE CHANGES AS THOSE MAY ARISE.

WITH THAT I HAVE COMPLETED REMARKS AND HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

GREAT, THANK YOU JACK.

WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH COMMITTEE MEMBERS FIRST AND THEN TO THE NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS AFTERWARDS FOR THIS ITEM.

I KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY QUITE A QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS FOLKS HAVE.

I'VE RECEIVED A FEW BEFORE THIS MEETING FROM COLLEAGUES AND, AND FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, MOSTLY ON THE PROCEDURE.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP REAL QUICK SO WE CAN GET INTO WHAT REALLY MATTERS, WHICH IS THE MEAT OF THE DISCUSSION.

ON THE PROCEDURE, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, UNLIKE A THREE SIGNATURE, FIVE SIGNATURE MEMO, THIS ITEM COULD HAVE JUST GONE DIRECTLY TO FULL COUNCIL FOR A VOTE THERE, BUT IT WAS THE REQUEST OF YOUR OFFICE TO COME AND BRIEF THIS COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR, IT IS CORRECT.

I WILL JUST AGAIN STATE THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY COME THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE WE GO TO FULL COUNCIL, BUT THE CITY MANAGER COULD TAKE THIS DIRECTLY TO FULL COUNCIL.

AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU HAD A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WITH ONE ITEM ON IT, I TOOK ADVANTAGE AND ASKED IF WE COULD BE ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND STILL WITH THE PLAN TO GO TO FULL COUNCIL.

AND SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR A VOTE TODAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE.

THIS IS GOING TO FULL COUNCIL WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS.

I OUR PLAN IS TO BRIEF THE FULL COUNCIL ON AUGUST THE 19TH AND TAKE FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON THE 25TH.

UNLESS YOU TELL ME, I GUESS YOU CAN VOTE FOR US NOT TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S OUR PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE ALREADY HAVE A PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION TODAY.

OKAY.

I WILL START TO MY LEFT WITH MY VICE CHAIR, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

OKAY.

MR. IRELAND, I THINK MY QUESTION IS FOR THE ITEM THAT IS ON SLIDE 15.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S A NEW CRITERIA.

SLIDE 13.

NO, 15, SORRY.

15.

I MIGHT HAVE SAID 13.

I'M HARD OF HEARING.

IT'S EARLY.

OKAY.

MY SUGGESTION IS IT LOOKS, SO IN THE LATTER PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.

BEGINNING WITH THE I THINK IT'S THIS THIRD SENTENCE IF THE PROCEEDS FROM A SINGLE TRANSACTION IN THE GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE EXCEEDS 20 MILLION AND THAT THEN IT HAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT PROCESS TO GO THROUGH IN TERMS OF DISPOSITION AND I'M WONDERING IF, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES WE WANT TO DISPOSE OF.

EXCUSE ME.

SO LET'S SAY WE GET ON A ROLL AND WE'RE STARTING TO SELL SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE ARE READY TO GET OFF OF OUR BOOKS.

AND WE HAVE A CLUSTER OF SALES THAT HAPPEN WITHIN A QUARTER, MAYBE THREE OR FOUR.

I THINK THAT COULD PROBABLY BE THE MAXIMUM WE WOULD EVER REACH.

BUT WE DO GET A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A CALENDAR QUARTER.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD THAT AS ALSO EXCEEDING THE $20 MILLION AND BE POSSIBLE FOR THE PROCEEDS FROM THOSE SALES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THESE OTHER? DISBURSEMENT.

SO TWO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY.

YEAH, NO, ABSOLUTELY.

SO THERE WOULD BE TWO CRITERIA FOR WHETHER IT DOESN'T GO DIRECTLY TO GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE BUT INSTEAD COMES TO THE BODY FOR CONSIDERATION WOULD BE IF A SINGLE TRANSACTION IS OVER $20 MILLION OR IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT EQUAL $20 MILLION.

YES, I GUESS WE COULD SAY $20 MILLION, YES.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME YOU'VE ACCUMULATED SOMETHING.

YOU HAVE, I THINK.

MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT...

THE 20 MILLION IS THERE BECAUSE

[00:35:01]

AND SO I THINK WHAT MY ASSUMPTION HERE IS THAT WHEN WE GET TO SOME NUMBER THAT IS A LITTLE BIGGER THAN MAYBE AVERAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIBRARY I BELIEVE THAT WE SOLD WAS 3 MILLION.

AND SO THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU HAD SOLD.

THREE OF THOSE TYPE PROPERTIES AND IN OTHER WORDS YOU'VE ACCUMULATED A LARGER AMOUNT THAN NORMAL AND THAT'S WHEN WE'D LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY TO POTENTIALLY USE THAT FOR ONE OF THESE OTHER PURPOSES SO I DON'T IT IF 20 MILLION IS THE THRESHOLD THAT MAKES SENSE I CERTAINLY RELY ON YOUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT THERE IT'S POSSIBLE NOT MAYBE PROBABLE BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.

THERE COULD BE A SERIES OF TRANSACTION TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A QUARTER A CALENDAR QUARTER.

IT'S UP TO YOU THOUGH AGAIN TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE JUST WHAT MAKES SENSE.

WE CAN ABSOLUTELY LOOK AT THAT.

THE ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS WE MAY NOT KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT THREE OR FOUR WITHIN A QUARTER UNTIL TIME HAS ALREADY PASSED.

LIKE WHEN WE GET TO THE THIRD MONTH OF THAT QUARTER, SOMETHING POPS UP THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.

SO, AND WE MAY HAVE MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY.

SO JUST LET ME THINK THROUGH THAT.

YES.

AND SO I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING.

A CONCEPT IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SEE IF, IF, THERE'S A WAY TO UM SO WE CAN LOOK AT IF THERE'S MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS I THINK MULTIPLE TR IT SEEMS UNLIKELY WE'D HAVE MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS IN A MONTH UM BUT PERHAPS OVER A QUARTER WE WOULD SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO SEE A IF IT MAKES SENSE AND BE THE LOGISTICS AROUND IT BUT IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT THAT ABSOLUTELY WE'LL LOOK AT THAT AND JUST FOR REFERENCE LIKE YOU MENTIONED THE LIBRARY WAS A HIGHER VALUE WE USED TO OWN 500 SOUTH IRVAY WHICH IS KIND OF CATTY CORNERED ACROSS FROM HERE THAT WAS ABOUT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS BUT THOSE ARE KIND OF THE OUTLIERS USUALLY OUR SALES ARE THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND SO THEY'RE MUCH SMALLER BUT OKAY ABSOLUTELY WE WILL LOOK AT THAT OKAY THANK YOU SO MUCH MA'AM THANK YOU CHAIR THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS THANK YOU AND REGARDLESS OF WHOSE IDEA THIS WAS WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE REVIEWING OUR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AS I THINK IN REVIEWING THE TIMELINE THERE WAS ACTUALLY A PERIOD WHERE THEY WEREN'T REVIEWED OR CHANGED FROM 1981 TO 2011 THAT'S CRAZY TALK SO UM WE NEED TO BE ON THIS I MEAN AND SO UM I I THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE UM AND IF IT'S UNREALISTIC IF WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT ARE UNREALISTIC AND WHERE WE CAN'T COMPLY THEN WE WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT THAT IS OUR DUTY UM I I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT OUR FINANCIAL HEALTH AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY EXTENDING THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF RESERVES.

I THINK THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF A CITY AND OF DALLAS THAT WE LOVE.

AND LISTENING TO OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS ON WAYS THAT WE CAN MANAGE OUR DEBT AND ACHIEVE SOME SAVINGS THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SEEING ALL OF THIS THINKING COMING INTO A NUMBER OF THESE CRITERIA.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THOUGHTS ON NUMBER 11 ON FLEET.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE COMING INTO THAT FIFTH YEAR WITH THAT INFORMATION TO CONSIDER NOT INITIATING.

IN THE FIFTH YEAR BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO STAY ON TOP OF THAT.

AND THEN I'M SURE WE MAY HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE NUMBER 24, THE NO NEW REVENUE, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE JUST FROM YOUR GENERAL POLL THAT THAT WAS, THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF HEART FOR DOING THAT, AND THAT'S AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.

YOU ALL COULD BE DEDICATING YOUR TIME TO OTHER BUDGET ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH.

BUT GOING TO NUMBER 20, I JUST WANTED TO, I MEAN, THIS IS ABOUT OUR REAL ESTATE.

AND PART OF THE TASK OF THIS COMMITTEE FROM THE MAYOR'S MEMO OF AUGUST 2025 IS THAT WE NEED TO BE SURE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ARE EFFECTIVELY SUPPORTING CITY OPERATIONS AND BEST SERVE THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS.

AND SO WHAT IS THE HISTORY THAT KIND OF GOT US TO EVEN HAVING THIS? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE A FEW SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE A COUNCIL MEMBER USED THEIR DISCRETION BUT DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATION TO ALL OF US AND TO ALL THE TAXPAYERS OF A FUTURE BURDEN.

YES MA'AM IT CAN BE A BRIEF HISTORY YEAH UM SO AS I MENTIONED THE UH CRITERIA WAS UH LESS WORDS PRIOR TO 2021 AND THERE, THERE HAD BEEN SOME SITUATIONS WHERE FACILITIES THAT HAD BEEN CLOSED WERE REOPENED AND SO I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN KIND OF A SHORT TIME FRAME.

[00:40:02]

AND SO THE COUNCIL MEMBER WORKED WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

WE PUT SOME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK FUND MONIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

ME FVAC OR ROOF OR DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BRING THAT FACILITY BACK UP TO USE USEFULNESS AND THEN WE HAD OPERATING COSTS.

WE HAVE SECURITY WE HAVE UTILITIES THIS WAS A CLOSED BUILDING AND AGAIN THIS CRITERIA IS ABOUT THE OPERATING IMPACT AND SO WE HAD OPERATING IMPACT AS A RESULT OF REOPENING THAT OLD FIRE STATION THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN CLOSED WE HAD ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A LIBRARY THAT HAD BEEN CLOSED AND A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED TO USE THAT FOR THEIR DISTRICT ALL.

OFFICE AND THEN THEY INVITED OTHER DEPARTMENTS INTO THAT SPACE AND SO WE STARTED OPERATING A MINI COMMUNITY CENTER OUT OF AN OLD LIBRARY THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF OF OUR INVENTORY AND AGAIN WE HAVE SECURITY AND WE HAVE OPERATING COSTS AND WE HAVE TO UPKEEP RELATED TO THAT ANOTHER SITUATION WE BOUGHT A PARCEL FOR A PARK THAT HAD A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING ON IT THE THE PLAN WAS COMMUNICATED TO COUNSEL THAT WE WERE GOING TO DEMOLISH THAT AND USE THAT SPACE FOR PARKLAND AND NOW WE'RE OPERATING A A SMALL OFFICE BUILDING THAT WE HAVE SOME PRIVATE TENANTS IN AS WELL AS WE HAVE SOME CITY OFFICES IN AGAIN THAT WAS NOT THE PLAN AND THOSE THINGS DID NOT HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL FOR OUR APPROVAL AND SO WE WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE OPERATING COST IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD A NEW BUILDING THAT WE'VE NOT HAD BEFORE OR IF YOU WERE GOING TO REOPEN A BUILDING THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SHUT THAT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION AND A VOTE ABOUT THAT WE UH INTENTIONALLY ON THE BOTTOM UH SENTENCE WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT INCLUDE REPLACEMENT FACILITIES IN THAT BECAUSE TYPICALLY A REPLACEMENT FACILITY IS NOT EXACTLY A ONE FOR ONE BUT PRETTY CLOSE TO A ONE FOR ONE YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE A FIRE STATION YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN A FIRE STATION YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE A LIBRARY YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN A LIBRARY AND THOSE ARE REPLACEMENT AND IT TYPICALLY DOES DOESN'T CHANGE THE OPERATING COST THAT SIGNIFICANTLY WHEREAS OPENING A NEW BRAND NEW BUILDING THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD BEFORE DOES OR OPENING A BUILDING THAT HAD BEEN CLOSED BEFORE DOES AND SO THAT AGAIN WAS THE INTENT AND THE DIRECTION WE WERE TRYING TO GO BACK IN 2021 UNDER THE FORMER CITY UH MANAGER AND UNDER THE FORMER CFO AND NOW WE SEE THAT IT'S AMBIGUOUS AND MAYBE WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP SO EVEN THE INTENTIONS.

MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOOD TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IT ACTUALLY WAS SORT OF AN ABUSE OF THE BUDGET FOR FUTURE YEARS BECAUSE IT WAS PUTTING COSTS IN THAT THE BODY DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH AND SO I MEAN I THINK THOSE PIECES OF THIS ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT YOU NEED GREATER SCRUTINY AND YOU NEED THE, THE, DETAIL YOU NEED THE CAPITAL EXPENSE YOU NEED THE OPERATING EXPENSE AND YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHERE THAT IS GOING TO COME FROM.

SO THESE ARE ALL SMART COMPONENTS TO DOING DUE DILIGENCE.

SO I SUPPORT, I'M PUZZLED BY WHY THIS EVER HAD SUPERMAJORITY ATTACHED TO LIKE NEW AND THAT SORT OF THING, BECAUSE THAT'S 12 OUT OF 15.

AND WHEN PART OF OUR TASK IS TO LOOK AT REAL ESTATE AND HOW WE MIGHT DIVEST OR BE SMART ABOUT IT, THAT SEEMS LIKE QUITE A HURDLE.

IT IS, AND SO AS WE TALKED THROUGH TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE AMBIGUITY ON THIS, WE DID LOOK AT OTHER ACTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE VOTE THRESHOLD, AND THIS JUST SEEMED OUT OF LINE FOR.

UH LOOKING AT AN OPERATING COST DO WE HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IF WE WANT TO CLOSE A FACILITY AND NOT REPLACE IT NO MA'AM SO WE'RE THE SCALES ARE UNEVEN ON THAT UH SO THAT'S INCONSISTENT SO THIS IS SO MUCH THIS IS TIED CLOSELY TO WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE WITH A NEW CRITERIA THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE NUMBER YET ABOUT BEING ABLE TO GET AT DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND BE ABLE TO MOVE OUR REAL ESTATE DECISIONS THROUGH SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THOSE FUNDS AND HOPEFULLY GET AT THE BACKLOG THAT WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE.

I THINK MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT ON THAT ONE IS THAT WE CALL OUT ONE CRITERIA, THE PENSION SYSTEM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS JUST BE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OR OTHER USE.

SO THAT FUTURE COUNCILS DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE GIVING A DIRECTION.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A 30-YEAR-OLD.

[00:45:01]

AND YOU KNOW EVEN SPECIFICALLY TO ITEM 20.

WELL, NOT ITEM 20, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL ISSUES RECENTLY KNOWS THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CITY, ITS REAL ESTATE ASSETS, INCLUDING CITY HALL.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT EVEN...

UH HOW A SUPER MAJORITY IS EVEN DEFINED AND SO YOU KNOW FOR THOSE REASONS I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHAT SUPER MAJORITY MEANS WE HAVE TO ASK THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MAINTAINING A SUPER MAJORITY STANDARD AS A GUIDELINE IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND YOU KNOW I'VE GIVEN IT A LOT OF THOUGHT UM OVER THE WEEKEND, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A UNIVERSALLY CORRECT ANSWER.

YOU KNOW, TRADITIONALLY, MAJORITY RULE GOVERNS LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS, EVEN CONSEQUENTIAL ONES.

WHILE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENTS ARE GENERALLY RESERVED FOR ACTIONS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW OR CITY CHARTER, OR FOR ACTIONS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT.

AND THERE ARE MANY MUNICIPALITIES THAT ALLOW REAL ESTATE DISCUSSIONS.

REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, I'M SORRY, AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO BE APPROVED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE.

AND I'M GENUINELY OPEN ABOUT WHERE THE VOTING THRESHOLD SHOULD BE.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGING VOTING THRESHOLDS AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCES BETTER DECISIONS.

I THINK BETTER INFORMATION MAKES BETTER DECISIONS.

BUT WITH THAT IN MIND, I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

WHAT DOES SUPERMAJORITY MEAN? IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A SUPERMAJORITY IS THREE-FOURTHS OF THE BODY.

AND WHERE DOES THAT DEFINITION COME FROM? I GOT IT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THEM TO GIVE YOU A REFERENCE.

I'M SORRY SIR.

WILLOW ARE YOU ABLE TO? YES HELLO WILLOW SANCHEZ FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THROUGH PATTERN AND PRACTICE, OUR RULES HAVE DEFINED THE VOTING THRESHOLDS.

AND TYPICALLY WHEN THERE IS A NUMBER, IT IS STATES THAT IT'S TWO-THIRDS OF THE BODY PRESENT OR IN VARIOUS ZONING SITUATIONS, IT WILL SAY THE NUMERICAL THRESHOLD.

BUT THE HISTORICAL PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN THAT WHEN THE WORD SUPERMAJORITY IS USED IT REFERS TO THREE SO I'M ASSUMING THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT WOULD PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH HOW IT IS DEFINED IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINED.

AND I THINK IT'S WISE THAT IF THE CITY AND THIS BODY WANTS TO MAINTAIN THAT THRESHOLD, I THINK IT'S WISE FOR US TO DEFINE IT RATHER THAN LET A COURT DEFINE IT, FOR EXAMPLE.

IF THE SUPERMAJORITY MEANS TWO-THIRDS, PUT IT IN THE LANGUAGE.

AND THAT CAN KIND OF HELP AVOID SOME OF THE AMBIGUITY I THINK THAT YOU REFERENCE, JACK.

ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I THINK DESERVES SOME CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER DIFFERENT STANDARDS SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIONS.

SHOULD THERE BE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACQUIRING OR

[00:50:01]

PERMANENTLY SELLING OR DEMOLISHING AN ICONIC PUBLIC ASSET MAY PRESENT DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE THOSE DECISIONS ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO REVERSE.

SO AGAIN, I JUST THINK THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED.

WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF THESE OPTIONS? I THINK THERE IS A STRONG CONCEPTUAL ARGUMENT FOR REQUIRING BROADER CONSENSUS FOR THE PERMANENT DISPOSITION OF A UNIQUE PUBLIC ASSET THAN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A REPLACEMENT FACILITY.

BUT WHETHER THAT ARGUMENT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A SUPERMAJORITY IS ULTIMATELY A POLICY JUDGMENT.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT MANY CITIES CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND ALLOW BOTH ACTIONS TO BE APPROVED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

BELIEVING THAT ELECTORAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE APPROPRIATE CHECK ON SIGNIFICANT REAL ESTATE DECISIONS? EITHER WAY, I THINK IT'S A CONVERSATION WORTH HAVING.

AND BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THIS GUIDELINE SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE, I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT WHY IT WAS ADOPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND I KNOW YOU KIND OF TOUCHED ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT WHAT PROBLEM WAS THE CITY TRYING TO SOLVE WHEN THIS GUIDELINE WAS ADOPTED? IN 2021, YOU SAID? SO THE INITIAL POLICY, WHICH WAS MUCH SHORTER, IS MUCH OLDER THAN 2021.

BUT IN 2021 IS WHEN THE LANGUAGE WAS ADDED ABOUT THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR NEW AND REOPENED FACILITIES AND WE WERE SOLVING FOR THE PROBLEM OF OPERATING COSTS WERE BEING ADDED TO THE TO THE CITY TO THE BUDGET WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL BODY THE DECISIONS WERE BEING MADE THAT THIS BODY WAS NOT A PART OF BY REOPENING THOSE THREE EXAMPLES THAT I GAVE YOU OKAY AND SO WHAT IF IF ANYTHING, IS THE CITY DOING DIFFERENTLY TODAY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS? CONCERNS THAT LED US TO THAT POINT.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PURPOSE WAS TO BETTER SAFEGUARD TAXPAYER ASSETS, I MEAN, ARE THERE NOW ANY ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS? BEYOND THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA, THERE IS NOT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT AS A RESULT OF OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THERE'S A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED RELATED TO REAL ESTATE.

THERE'S A NEW POSITION RELATED TO REAL ESTATE.

SO THERE'S ACTION BEING TAKEN TO TRY TO IMPROVE OUR APPROACH, OUR PROCESS RELATED TO REAL ESTATE.

WE ACTUALLY HAD HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL EFFORT.

FNPC THAT IS NOT IN YOUR PACKET TODAY THAT WOULD ADDRESS MORE OF THE REAL ESTATE QUESTIONS THAN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DOES, BUT WE WERE NOT READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

BUT REAL ESTATE, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT, I HATE TO MENTION, BUT ALL THE WAY BACK TO STIMMONS, TO OTHER THINGS.

WE'VE GOT TO BE BETTER, AND I BELIEVE THE CITY MANAGER HAS COMMITTED TO TAKE ACTIONS ABOUT THAT, AND SO THERE'S STRENGTHENING OF THOSE PROCESSES AS A RESULT OF THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT EVENTUALLY INCORPORATED INTO AN ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

I'M JUST NOT READY FOR THAT RIGHT NOW OKAY, BUT SINCE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THERE, THERE, HAS BEEN MORE ROBUST DUE DILIGENCE.

YES, SIR OKAY, AND THEN WHAT ABOUT? ARE THERE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT? THAT YOU CAN THINK OF HAS IT IMPROVED DECISION-MAKING? NO, SIR, I DO NOT THINK SO.

OKAY.

I THINK IT'S LED TO A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT IT MEANS.

DOES IT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PREVENT THE CITY FROM MAKING AN OBJECTIVELY, AN OBJECTIVELY, A DECISION THAT'S OBJECTIVELY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY'S TAXPAYERS? I THINK AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, THE THING THAT'S GOING TO HELP THE BODY MAKE THE BEST DECISION IS INFORMATION.

AND SO BY INCLUDING THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH OPERATING COSTS, FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS, THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT...

THIS BODY NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION AND BEYOND THAT IT IS A POLICY DECISION ON WHAT YOUR THRESHOLD IS DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OTHER CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY I HAVE A FAIRLY SHORT LIST THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, CITY, SECRETARY'S OFFICE FROM REMOVING THE CITY MANAGER, EXPELLING A CITY COUNCIL

[00:55:02]

SO I'LL SAY THAT'S 10 DIFFERENT CRITERIA.

COULD YOU PLEASE SEND ME THAT LIST? ABSOLUTELY.

AND, AGAIN, I RECEIVED THIS FROM MS. JOHNSON LATE LAST WEEK.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE IT WITH THE COMMITTEE.

OKAY.

AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHEN THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 2021, WAS IT ITSELF APPROVED? WAS THE THRESHOLD TO APPROVE THAT A SIMPLE MAJORITY? YES, IT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN CHANGES TO THE FNPC THEN, NOW, HAVE JUST BEEN BY SIMPLE MAJORITY.

OKAY.

WELL, I JUST THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR THE PUBLIC.

YOU KNOW, LEGISLATIVE BODIES ROUTINELY ESTABLISH AND LATER REVISIT THEIR OWN GOVERNANCE BY MAJORITY RULE.

I GUESS I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK THIS ONE LAST QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THIS DISCUSSION, I'VE SEEN AND HEARD WORDS LIKE CORRUPTION.

CORRUPTION, UNETHICAL, DISHONEST, AND ILLEGAL USED RATHER FREELY.

IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR SUGGESTING THAT A COUNCIL ACTING PURSUANT TO THE POWER THAT IT HAS WOULD BE SOMEHOW ACTING ILLEGALLY, DISHONESTLY, OR CORRUPTLY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CHOOSES TO REVISIT A GOVERNANCE RULE THAT WAS ITSELF ADOPTED BY A PREVIOUS COUNCIL? THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT THE FNPC AND MAKE CHANGES AT THE BODY'S WILL.

THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

THAT IS PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD FINANCIAL POLICIES.

OKAY, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THOSE ARE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS, AND I THINK THAT THEY DESERVE SERIOUS ANSWERS.

IF THERE ISN'T A LEGAL BASIS FOR THOSE CLAIMS, THEN I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD STOP USING THOSE WORDS SO CASUALLY.

I THINK IT DOES PROFOUND DAMAGE.

TO YOUR CREDIBILITY AND ULTIMATELY WEAKENS YOUR CAUSE.

THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE WE STILL WORKING ON IT OVER THERE? I GOT ONE QUESTION.

YOU READY? YEAH.

OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO BE PRETTY BRIEF HERE.

I JUST WANT TO ASK PROBABLY ONE QUESTION OR TWO.

FIRST, AND I'M ASKING THIS BECAUSE I'M FAIRLY NEW, A YEAR IN NOW.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE OPERATED AND MADE DECISIONS BASED OFF THE SUPER MAJORITY? I KNOW IT'S NOT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, BUT HOW MANY SINCE PRIOR TO ME COMING? FOR THIS PARTICULAR.

FOR ANY ITEM, MULTIPLE ITEMS. YEAH, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER THAT IN PART.

FOR THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT HAS BEEN USED PREVIOUSLY, BEFORE YOU GOT HERE OR SINCE.

THERE ARE ITEMS. THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE BODY THAT REQUIRE HIGHER THRESHOLDS.

FOR EXAMPLE, EACH YEAR THAT WE ADOPT THE TAX RATE, STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE APPROVED THE TAX RATE BY 60% VOTE, NOT 75%.

WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME ZONING ITEMS THAT PROBABLY REQUIRED YOU ALL TO VOTE AT HIGHER THRESHOLDS.

I WOULD HAVE TO REALLY DEFER TO THE CITY SECRETARY TO GET YOU AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT'S BEEN BEFORE THE BODY.

I'M SORRY.

OKAY, NO, THERE'S NO PROBLEM.

HOW MANY HAVE WE USED SIMPLE MAJORITY? MOST OF YOUR ACTIONS REQUIRED A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

GREAT, THAT WAS CURIOUS TO ME BECAUSE WITHIN THE LAST 48 HOURS, I GUESS WHEN I CAME BACK UP FROM SURGERY, OF TAP BACK IN I'VE BEEN HEARING A LOT OF SEEING A LOT AND SO I JUST I I THINK UH MAN PRO-TEM KIND OF ALLUDED TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT UM THAT I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AT UM WHERE A LOT OF THE THINGS HAVE BEEN SAYING LIKE THIS IS PRETTY MUCH ABSURD, ILLEGAL, THIS IS NOT FOLLOWING POLICY AND CHARTER.

SO THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION WHEN I HEAR THAT IT DOES CONCERN ME.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING NOW, OUTSIDE OF ALL THE HYPE AND MISINFORMATION, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL HAS OPERATED OFF A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CORRECT.

YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS CHALLENGING TO ME WHEN I HEAR DIFFERENT THINGS IS CREATING ANXIETY FOR OUR CITIZENS AND PUTTING THINGS OUT THERE THAT'S

[01:00:01]

AND SO.

I HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS WHERE SOME DO NOT ASK THE QUESTIONS THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO TO GET THESE ANSWERS FROM SO THEY, THEY, CARRIED IT AND I THINK IT'S NOT GOOD GOVERNANCE I HEAR ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAY THAT BEFORE OPERATING IN GOOD GOVERNANCE AND I BELIEVE WE NEED TO OPERATE IN GOOD GOVERNANCE AT ALL TIME NOT JUST WHEN A SUBJECT MATTER THAT WE LOVE OR LIKE OR SUPPORT EVEN WHEN WE DO NOT SUPPORT IT WE STILL NEED TO OPERATE IN GOOD GOVERNANCE AND THAT'S BEEN A CHALLENGE FOR ME SEEING FALSE INFORMATION PLACED OUT THERE AND RAISING THE ANXIETY LEVEL OF THOSE THAT DEPEND ON US TO BE TRANSPARENT ACCOUNTABLE AND HONEST WHETHER WE AGREE WITH SOMETHING TO DISAGREE WITH IT SO I APPRECIATE YOU JACK FOR GIVING ME THAT INFORMATION ALTHOUGH THANK YOU TO OUR MAYOR PRO TEM AND CHAIR FOR ALLOWING US TO BE ON THE AGENDA SO I AS A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER CAN KIND OF GET MORE INFORMATION FROM YOU, YOU, AS THE CFO AND THEN HEAR THAT ACTUALLY THAT WE'VE OPERATED.

ON SUPERMAJORITY, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, SIMPLE MAJORITY MORE THAN THE SUPERMAJORITY.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL COME BACK LATER SO HE CAN KIND OF HELP GET ME BACK ON.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

WE'LL GO ON TO CHAIRMAN GRACIE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

I WAS GONNA HOLD THIS BACK BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SAY IT BECAUSE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE OFTEN ALREADY REFERRED TO IT THIS WAY AND AGAIN I DON'T LIKE THESE ACCUSATIONS EITHER AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD GOVERNANCE VERSUS TOXIC.

ADVOCACY AND IN SOME CASES SOME PEOPLE MAY ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE ADVOCATING FOR NOT APPRECIATING THE HARM THAT IT'S CAUSING WHEN THERE ARE CITIZENS WHO ARE TRULY TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE DECISIONS TRULY MEAN.

SO THERE IS THAT GOOD GOVERNANCE VERSUS TOXIC ADVOCACY.

AND WE REALLY NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE WE'RE OPERATING IN SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS, OFTEN TIME, HERE LATELY, ACTUALLY, PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW, JUST I WOULD SAY THE LAST 10 TO 12 YEARS, 15 YEARS MAYBE, JUST SO I CAN INCLUDE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THIS SHARED RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE OFTEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS BASED ON ONE TREND.

TRANSACTION THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE APPRECIATED THE OUTCOME OF IT, AND AS A RESULT, WE TEND TO WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES ON THAT ONE THING.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT'S DONE US FINE IN MANY OTHER AREAS.

JACK, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IN A BOND PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE GO THROUGH, AND I KNOW YOU'VE REFERENCED FMPC BEFORE, BUT WHEN AND WE GO THROUGH THE BOND PROGRAM TO CONSIDER.

REPLACING BUILDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TYPICALLY THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE DONE THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY OR EVEN AT ALL CAN YOU JUST KIND OF WALK ME THROUGH THAT PROCESS YES SIR THOSE TYPICALLY THE BOND PROGRAMS ARE JUST HANDLED THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY IF THIS LANGUAGE STAYS IN THE WAY IT IS IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN ADDED FACILITY THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL VOTE SO IF IT'S A REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY IF IT'S AN ADDED FIRE STATION WE'RE GOING TO ADD ONE TO THE INVENTORY IT WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL BASED ON THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY BEEN WRITTEN ADDED VERSUS REPLACING YES SIR OKAY ALL RIGHT UM AND THEN YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S CHANGING, BUT HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED IT EARLIER, AND I THINK IT IS THE CITY MANAGER WILL PROVIDE TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS AND FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS ON ONGOING OPERATIONS.

OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN PLACE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

SO NOTHING IS CHANGING ON THAT SENSE.

SO MOVING FORWARD, THAT WILL STILL HAPPEN, WHETHER IT'S SIMPLE OR SUPER.

THINGS ARE HAPPENING ANYWAY.

YES SIR, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU AGAIN AS YOUR EXAMPLE OF A BOND PROGRAM WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHAT A OPERATING IMPACT WILL COME WITH YOUR DECISIONS.

OKAY, WELL IN THE SPIRIT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE I DO APPRECIATE THIS GOING TO FULL COUNSEL AND HAVING A FULL DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE SOME FACT-DRIVEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS AND NOT JUST...

WHAT PEOPLE MAY FEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION.

THE INTENTION IS TO MOVE GOVERNANCE FORWARD.

MOVING TO SLIDES 9 AND 10, I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT THE FLEET.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD THERE...

I UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE BEHIND THAT, BUT JACK, ARE THERE ANY RISKS TO MOVING

[01:05:01]

ARE ANTICIPATING OR THINKING ABOUT WHETHER WE KNOW IT OR NOT, BUT ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE ASSUMED RISKS THAT COULD CREATE A FINANCIAL SOMETHING BURDEN OR SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE OF SO I DON'T, NONE THAT COME TO MIND.

I THINK US HAVING SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT REALLY GETS AT BOTH ON CRITERIA NUMBER 10 AND CRITERIA NUMBER 11, OF US PUTTING TOGETHER GOOD FIVE-YEAR PLANS ON THE MAINTENANCE.

WHETHER IT'S FACILITIES, LEVEES, STREETS, OR EQUIPMENT, OR TECHNOLOGY, THAT OUR BEST APPROACH IS TO PUT TOGETHER SOME LONGER TERM PLANS SO THAT YOU HAVE INFORMATION SO YOU CAN MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

YEAH, NO, THAT'S FAIR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING OUT.

AND THEN MY LAST ONE IS ON SLIDE 15, AND I WANT TO THANK OUR VICE CHAIR FOR HER QUESTIONS BECAUSE I THINK I WAS KIND OF GOING AROUND THAT SAME THING AND I THINK I WANT TO ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY HOW MANY PROPERTIES MAYBE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD ASK PUBLICLY BUT ON AVERAGE HOW MANY PROPERTIES DO WE HAVE THAT WOULD EXCEED 20 MILLION BECAUSE TO TO HER POINT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT MANY THAT WOULD AND IF THERE'S IF THIS IS SOMETHING YEAH, LET ME STOP THERE.

HOW MANY? SO, YES, THE CITY HAS SEVERAL ASSETS THAT ARE VALUED AT MORE THAN $20 MILLION.

I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE ONES THAT WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING SELLING.

THE CONVENTION CENTER, LOVE FIELD.

YEP.

EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, YOU KNOW, THOSE SORTS OF FACILITIES, WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, ET CETERA.

MOST OF OUR FACILITIES ARE GOING TO BE VALUED AT LESS THAN THAT.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES, AND I MENTIONED THE CANTON.

STREET PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES IT IS, BUT IT HAS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON IT.

AND SO IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROPERTY.

AND SO IT PROBABLY CROSSES THAT THRESHOLD.

YEAH.

COUNCIL MEMBER EAGLEY SAID 22.3. OKAY.

AND TO HER POINT, I THINK, SO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH LEADS ME TO WHY THE 20 MILLION VERSUS 10 OR 15? SO WE HAVE SUCH A NEED IN OUR BACKLOG OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO SET IT TOO LOW, BUT ALSO, SO IT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, OKAY? IT COULD BE 10, IT COULD BE 50, IT COULD BE WHATEVER SWEET SPOT Y'ALL CHOOSE.

OUR SUGGESTION OF THAT SWEET SPOT IS 20, BECAUSE AS COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART MENTIONED, IF YOU ARE GOING TO SEND IT TO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION, YOU KNOW, 5 MILLION, THEY HAVE 3 BILLION UNFUNDED LIABILITY.

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

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MOVING ON WITH COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I WILL GO TO CHAIRMAN MORENO.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

IT'S NICE TO COME BACK WITH SUCH A SPLASH.

OBVIOUSLY, THESE CONVERSATIONS SOMETIMES ARE NOT EASY OR UNPOPULAR, BUT THEY'RE CONVERSATIONS WE MUST HAVE.

I'M GLAD THAT THESE ARE GOING TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSIONS.

THE FNPC'S 2 AND 7, I THINK THAT'S GREAT TO INCREASE OUR RESERVES AND MAKING SURE WE'RE FUNDED EVEN BETTER.

HAS THERE BECOME A TIME, JACK, THAT WE HAVE GONE UNDER THOSE MINIMUMS OR UNDER THOSE RESERVES? I DO NOT THINK SO.

EVEN BACK IN, LET ME FIND MY PAGE HERE.

OUR LOWEST POINT ON OUR RESERVE, I'M LOOKING BACK TO FISCAL YEAR 08.

IN FISCAL YEAR 10, WE HIT A LOW OF ONLY 21 DAYS IN RESERVE, WHICH WAS $59 MILLION.

[01:10:02]

ABOVE BUT OUR CRITERIA WAS SO LOW AT THAT POINT IF, IF, WE HAD THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TODAY ABSOLUTELY WE WOULD HAVE BEEN BELOW BUT WE HAVE AS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD OUR RESERVES WE CONTINUE TO MOVE THAT UH GOAL POST IF YOU WILL UH SO WE DON'T WANT TO DIP BACK BELOW THAT OKAY SO AS WE'RE BUILDING THOSE RESERVES IS THAT HELPING OUR BOND RATINGS? DOES IT MAKE IT HEALTHY? WHERE ARE WE AT TODAY? YEAH, THANK YOU.

SO RATING AGENCIES TEND TO THINK THAT 60 DAYS IS THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL FOR RESERVES.

AND SO OUR CRITERIA CURRENTLY STATES...

BETWEEN 50 AND 70 I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE OUR BETWEEN 60 AND 70 SO THAT OUR LOWER END IS AT THE 60 DAYS BUT AGAIN I JUST WANT TO GRADUALLY GET THERE OKAY I'M GONNA TIE NUMBERS 10 AND 20 TOGETHER BECAUSE I THINK THEY GO HAND IN HAND WITH IF WE'RE SELLING A PROPERTY AND WE'RE ABLE TO, TO, MAINTAIN OUR BUILDINGS AND OUR FACILITIES.

AND SO.

YOU KNOW, AS I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER 20, AND I HONESTLY DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A THRESHOLD THAT BUMPS DOLLARS INTO THE PENSION.

I THINK THAT'S AN OBLIGATION THIS COUNCIL HAS MADE, AN OBLIGATION THAT I'M MAKING, IS THAT WE ARE FUNDING AND WE ARE MEETING THOSE CRITERIA'S.

BUT ANYTHING THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND HELPS US IN MANY WAYS.

AND SO...

I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE NUMBER OF 20 MILLION.

I THINK THAT IS FOR ONE TRANSACTION ALONE.

I THINK IF IT'S OVER A MULTITUDE OF BUILDINGS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT MAYBE A SEPARATE CLAUSE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ONE BUILDING, 20 MILLION, THAT COULD BE THE MAGIC NUMBER.

BUT IT'S...

THREE OR FOUR BUILDINGS AND IT GOES OVER 50 MILLION IN AN ANNUAL YEAR OR IN A BUDGET YEAR, WE SHOULD CONTINUE LOOKING AT THOSE DOLLARS BEING DIVESTED TOWARDS THE PENSION.

I KNOW IT MIGHT BE MORE MATH.

I KNOW THAT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A SALE THAT CLOSES THAT TRANSACTION.

SO IT DOES GET A LITTLE COMPLICATED, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE.

OPEN FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO FULLY FUND OUR PENSION.

OKAY, AND SO I'VE HEARD MULTIPLE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT, AND WE CAN DO SOME RESEARCH AND COME BACK MAYBE WITH SOME ALTERNATIVES OR SOME SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE WILL START WITH GETTING YOU SOME HISTORY.

HISTORY ON WHAT OUR SALES HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST THREE OR FIVE YEARS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS WE HAVE HAD.

OKAY, AND THEN JUST WRAPPING UP ON NUMBER 20, WHEN THIS COUNCIL AND WHEN OUR RESIDENTS APPROVE A BOND AND WE OPEN A NEW RECREATION CENTER OR A NEW LIBRARY OR A NEW CITY FACILITY, NOT A REPLACEMENT BUT OPENING A NEW ONE, DOES THAT REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO OPEN A NEW FACILITY? SO UNDER THE CRITERIA THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, IT WOULD REQUIRE COUNSEL IF IT'S GOING TO BE A NEW AND ADDED TYPE OF FACILITY THAT IT WOULD.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS, NO.

LIKE IF IT'S ON A BOND PROGRAM, THEY...

APPROVE IT AT YOU KNOW SIMPLE MAJORITY APPROVES A PROPOSITION SO WALK ME THROUGH THE STEPS IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN SO THE VOTERS APPROVE OPENING UP A NEW RECREATION CENTER OR A NEW LIBRARY IT PASSES THE RECREATION CENTER THE LIBRARY GETS BUILT AND THEN IT TAKES A SUPER MAJORITY TO APPROVE THAT OPERATING COSTS? SO GOING FORWARD, I THINK THE PATH WOULD BE IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL FACILITY THAT APPROVAL IS NEEDED UP FRONT BEFORE WE SELL THE BONDS.

SO HAS THAT...

THAT HAPPEN HAS THAT TAKEN PLACE I KNOW THAT WE'RE HAVING AT LEAST SO THIS IS STILL A FAIRLY NEW CRITERIA AND MOST OF OUR FACILITIES I BELIEVE EVEN EVEN STIMMON'S WAS INTENDED TO BE A REPLACEMENT OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ADD TO THE INVENTORY IT WAS INTENDED TO REPLACE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT SO WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED A BOND AND THIS COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO OPEN THAT RECREATION CENTER.

BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS OR SUPER MAJORITY.

SO RIGHT NOW THE PROCESS WOULD BE BEFORE WE SELL THE BONDS FOR THE NEW FACILITY THAT WE WOULD NEED AN ADDITIONAL VOTE.

AND AGAIN, THE- THE PROCESS IS KIND OF AMBIGUOUS AND HOW WE WOULD DO THAT AND SO TRYING TO CLEAN THAT UP IS I THINK IMPORTANT SO

[01:15:01]

WITH SOME RECENT STATE-LED CHANGES, SOME OF THOSE ARE NO LONGER A SUPERMAJORITY, CORRECT? SOME OF THEM ARE NOW JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE STATE BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED.

I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE FOR THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS.

ALL RIGHT.

AGAIN, I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OUR NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE WITH US TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD FOR THIS GOING TO FULL COUNCIL.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL START OVER HERE WITH COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.

SO I KNOW YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON FNPC ITEM 20.

UH I KNOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON ALL OF THEM AND I SAY JUST ON THE THE OTHER FMPC ITEMS ONE TWO FIVE SEVEN TEN ELEVEN THIRTY NINE FIFTY ONE I SUPPORT THOSE AS PROPOSED THE NEW CRITERIA ITEM SUBJECT TO CHAIRWOMAN STEWART'S COMMENTS I DO SUPPORT THAT AS WELL BUT I, I, THOUGHT THOSE WERE, WERE, GOOD, GOOD, COMMENTS I THINK FMPC 24 THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE SCENARIO I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN EXERCISE THAT IS A LOT OF WORK.

WORK FOR YOU I THINK THAT I GENERALLY SUPPORT WHY YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT CRITERIA BUT I THINK I'M HAPPY WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH FULL COUNCIL BECAUSE I KNOW AT LEAST ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO'S NOT HERE IS GONNA HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THAT AND BEFORE WE MAKE ANY VOTES I THINK SHE'LL WANT TO HAVE HER, HER, THOUGHTS HEARD AND THEN ON ITEM 20 JUST GOING INTO THIS I REMEMBER WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGE TO THIS FMPC ITEM A FEW YEARS AGO AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE DID THAT YOU KNOW THE COUNCIL IS WAITING RIGHT NOW ON THE FINAL NUMBERS TO UNDERSTAND THE COST OF RENTING OR LEASING AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITY HALL SITE THIS FINANCIAL DECISION SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE RULES WE HAVE ALREADY SET TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM BAD REAL ESTATE DECISIONS I DON'T BELIEVE LEAVE THE ROLE.

SHOULD CHANGE BEFORE THE CITY DECISION ON CITY HALL JUST SO WE CAN HAVE A RUSHED RESULT.

I URGE MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALL OF COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF CITY HALL BASED ON THE FINANCIAL NUMBERS.

THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN BUMPY TO SAY THE LEAST AND CHANGING THE VOTE THRESHOLD FROM A SUPER MAJORITY TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY IN THE MIDDLE OF PROCESS IN MY OPINION UNDERMINES THE PROCESS I KNOW MANY RESIDENTS HAVE LOST LOST TRUST IN THE CITY, AND I FEEL LIKE THIS CHANGE IS GOING TO FURTHER ERODE THAT TRUST.

WE NEED TO START EARNING OUR CONSTITUENTS' TRUST BACK.

THAT'S MY FEELINGS ON ITEM 20.

ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE TIMING OF IT.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.

THANK YOU OKAY GIVEN OUR TIME I'M JUST GOING TO JUMP RIGHT IN OKAY ON 24 THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE YOU USUALLY GIVE US LIKE A MEMO RIGHT THAT KIND OF IS THAT WILL IT ELIMINATE THAT BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT MEMO DOES GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT OF IF WE DON'T BRING IN X THEN YOU DON'T GET Y AND I THINK THAT THAT SO I'M NOT SAYING DO A HUGE EXERCISE BUT I THINK IT DOES PUT CONTEXT AROUND THAT IF WE NOT IF IT WHAT THE REALITY IS AND SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY IF WE ELIMINATE THIS HOW DO WE STILL GET THAT SAME INFORMATION IF COUNCIL FINDS VALUE IN IT, THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T DELETE IT.

BUT I'VE HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT NO ONE HAS VALUE, FINDS VALUE IN THE EXERCISE FROM THE COUNCIL STANDPOINT.

I MEAN, I DO.

I JUST, I MAY NOT USE IT.

BUT I DO REALIZE THAT IF WE DON'T COLLECT THIS, THEN WE GET TO HAVE TO CUT THIS.

AND SO IT IS AN EXERCISE THAT WE'RE CRITICIZED FOR, THAT WE'RE TOLD THAT IT'S MEANINGLESS, THAT WE PUT.

THINGS FORWARD THAT WE KNOW Y'ALL CAN'T CUT AND THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR INTENTION.

OUR INTENTION IS REALLY TO PROVIDE OPTIONS BUT AGAIN IT WAS ADDED BECAUSE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED IT AND NO A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED IT AND IF IT'S STILL THE DESIRE OF THE BODY THEN WE'LL KEEP IT BUT WE FELT THAT IT WAS ONE THAT WASN'T AS WE WERE

[01:20:01]

CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? DOES FNPC NUMBER 20 APPLY TO A SALE, A RELOCATION, ETC.

OF CITY HALL? AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE WORDS.

YES, IT DEPENDS ON THE FACT SITUATION.

SO THE ATTORNEYS HAVE SAID, DEPENDING ON THE WORDING, IT WOULD APPLY.

AND SO THE WORDING INDICATES THAT A SUPERMAJORITY IS REQUIRED IF IT IS A NEW OR REOPENED.

IN PRACTICE, THIS WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT FACILITY, NOT A NEW FACILITY, UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO CITY HALLS.

THEN IT'S AN ADDED FACILITY AND IF THE INTENTION IS TO ADD A TO KEEP 1500 MARILLA AND TO ADD ANOTHER CITY HALL AND OPERATE TWO CITY HALLS THAT INCREASE THE OPERATING COST TO THE CITY THEN IT'S A NEW FACILITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE SUPER MAJORITY IF WE ARE LIKE FOR LIKE BASICALLY RELATIVELY SPEAKING GETTING RID OF ONE CITY HALL GETTING A NEW CITY HALL GETTING RID OF ONE LIBRARY GETTING A NEW LIBRARY FIRE STATION FOR FIRE STATION IT IS A REPLACEMENT AND THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN EXCLUDED REPLACEMENTS FROM THE SUPERMAJORITY.

AND THEREFORE, THERE'S AMBIGUITY BECAUSE WE SEE IT DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE SOME OTHER PEOPLE SEE IT.

I'VE SEEN IN THE NEWSPAPER, THE NEWSPAPER SAID A REPLACEMENT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY.

IT DOESN'T SAY A REPLACEMENT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THAT'S THE AMBIGUITY THAT WE NEED TO CLEAR UP SO THAT WE'RE NOT IN COURT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A FNPC MEANS.

COLLEAGUES, I'VE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT OUR WEBEX IS OUT.

WE NEED TO GO INTO RECESS FOR A FEW MINUTES FOR 20 MINUTES JUST CALL IT 10.

THANKS OKAY I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER RECESS IS OVER THIS IS THE SPECIAL CALLED FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING AND OUR CHAIR IS RETURNED THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO BACK TO EXPLAINING THE M.

SO IS IT THE THREE QUARTERS VOTE THAT IS GIVING YOU IS THAT ANOTHER PAUSE AS WELL BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE TAKE THREE QUARTERS VOTE, YOU KNOW, FOR SUSPENDING OUR RULE OR IT'S A HIGHER THRESHOLD.

SUSPENDING OUR RULES, SPEAKERS.

I MEAN, WE DO THAT, CALLING THE QUESTION.

SO I'M KIND OF CURIOUS ON WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCRUTINY OVER OUR REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO AND HAVING HIGHER SCRUTINY, BUT YET WE'RE KEEPING IT AT A SIMPLE MAJORITY THRESHOLD WHEN SIMPLY CHANGING OUR COUNCIL RULES OR SUSPENDING THEM ARE AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS.

AND LET'S JUST BE HONEST, OUR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS LATELY HAVE NOT BEEN STELLAR.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE REAL ESTATE CRITERIA.

IT'S INTENDED TO BE A CRITERIA THAT LOOKS AT OPERATING COSTS.

AND THE PART THAT THE AMBIGUITY IS AROUND WHETHER A FACILITY, WHETHER WHAT.

WHAT APPLIES TO EACH FACILITY.

AND THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN, THE SUPERMAJORITY ONLY APPLIES TO NEW OR ADDED FACILITIES, THOSE THAT GET ADDED TO THE INVENTORY AND THOSE THAT ARE RE-OPENED.

OPEN BEING ADDED BACK TO THE INVENTORY YET THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION ABOUT THAT THE REPLACEMENT FACILITIES THE SUPERMAJORITY DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE'S CONFUSION ABOUT THAT AND SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ON ALL THREE OF THOSE CRITERIAS WHETHER IT IS A ADDED FACILITY BRINGING BACK A FACILITY THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CLOSED OR REPLACING A FACILITY SO THERE'S NOT CONFUSION OF WHEN THE CRITERIA APPLY.

APPLIES AND WHEN IT DOESN'T, OR WHEN THE HIGHER THRESHOLD APPLIES AND WHEN IT DOESN'T.

IF THERE'S ONE THRESHOLD, WE KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS.

SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT WHEN YOU ADD OR REPLACE OR REOPEN, IT'S JUST A BASIC SIMPLE

[01:25:01]

OKAY, SO GIVEN, LET ME LOOK THROUGH THIS, BACK TO THE SUPER MAJORITY VERSUS THE SIMPLE MAJORITY, WAS THERE EVER DISCUSSION AT CITY STAFF ON JUST CREATING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE? THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT EDITING THE CRITERIA TO SPECIFY THAT THE ADDED FACILITIES AND THE REOPENED FACILITIES STILL REQUIRE THE SUPERMAJORITY AND SPECIFYING THAT THE REOPENED FACILITIES STILL REQUIRE THE SUPERMAJORITY.

REPLACEMENT FACILITIES WOULD REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY BUT THEN WE HAD CONVERSATION WELL THERE MIGHT BE CONFUSION OVER WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS SOME PEOPLE WILL ARGUE THAT A REPLACEMENT FACILITY IS A NEW FACILITY AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK IN THE SAME PLACE WHAT DOES THAT WORD MEAN VERSUS THAT WORD AND SO WE DIDN'T INTEND FOR FNPC TO BE A TOOL USED TO FIGHT.

WE INTENDED TO HELP WITH OUR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL WAS MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT FUTURE OPERATING COSTS.

BUT BY NATURE OF THIS ONE, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN CARE OF OUR BUILDINGS, WHICH IS WHY WE NEEDED THIS INFORMATION.

AND SO I'M WITH THIS.

YEAH, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.

IT'S NOT UNETHICAL.

BUT IT DOES SMELL WHEN YOU CHANGE A RULE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MEETING YOUR THRESHOLD OF THE RULE.

AND I DO THINK WE NEED DEEPER, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DEEPER SCRUTINY OF OUR REAL ESTATE.

THE LEMON ON STEMMONS, THERE WE GO.

IT WAS, AND IT WAS A REPLACEMENT, TRUE, RIGHT? IT WAS A REPLACEMENT.

AND WE'D LOST OUR SHIRT FOR THAT.

INDEPENDENCE, HAMPTON.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD TRACK RECORD AT ALL.

AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO WANT US TO HAVE HIGHER SCRUTINY ON THESE TRANSACTIONS, BUT A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO PASS IT.

NOW, YOU KNOW, I FIND THAT VERY HARD TO SWALLOW BECAUSE WE, I MEAN IT WAS A HARD HIT TO OUR BOTTOM LINE.

AND GIVEN TIME, AND THIS IS COMING TO A FULL COUNCIL, I THINK I'VE GOT OTHER COLLEAGUES HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS VERY PECULIAR IN THE TIMING.

YES, THIS NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT, BUT I THINK WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM IN MARCH, AND I GUESS JUST NOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, PUT OUT BEFORE US BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO GET IT ON THE 26TH, I BELIEVE, WE GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT OUTLINE.

WHAT THE NEW, THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAID, IS THAT CORRECT? SO OUR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE FNPC IS TO BRING IT TO FULL COUNCIL ON THE 19TH AND BRING THIS ITEM FOR CHANGES TO THE FNPC TO THE BODY ON THE 25TH.

AND WILL THEY TAKE IMMEDIATE? THEY TAKE IMMEDIATE.

IT TAKES IMMEDIATE.

ON THE 25TH, IF WE ADOPT IT, IT WILL BE IMMEDIATE, CORRECT? YES, USUALLY.

AND THEN ON THE 26TH, YOU BRING US THE INFORMATION FROM CBRE TO LOOK AT.

THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE RESOLUTION SO I GUESS WE'LL BE VOTING ON THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENS I DIDN'T CHECK THAT THERE'S A RESOLUTION THE RESOLUTION SAYS THE 26TH WE'LL BE GETTING THAT INFORMATION OKAY SEE WHAT I'M SAYING IT'S JUST PECULIAR IN THE TIMING THANK YOU THANK YOU I'M GOING ON TO COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH UH THANK YOU UM I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME SIT IN ON THIS MEETING FROM A STANDPOINT OF CORPORATE GOVERNMENTS, ANY CHANGES TO THIS POLICY, TO THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICY IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE.

AND I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.

THAT THESE CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE NOT DIMINISHED, ARE NOT WATERED DOWN, ARE NOT LIMITED.

WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ON ANY CHANGES TO ANY DECISION-MAKING ON THESE POTENTIAL REVISIONS, WHICH EITHER ELIMINATE OR LIMIT OR TRANSFER THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO FOR OUR CITIZENS.

IT IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO LIMIT FINANCIAL CONTROLS.

IT IS NOT GOOD FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP TO LIMIT FINANCIAL CONTROLS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE NOT RUNNING, WE'RE NOT THE MANAGERS OF THE CITY.

WE'RE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WE'RE THE COUNCIL PEOPLE OF THE CITY.

AND SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A

[01:30:01]

DECISION MAKING OR POTENTIALLY FLAWED DECISION MAKING.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON OUR STAFF.

WE HAVE EXCELLENT STAFF.

WE HAVE EXCELLENT MANAGEMENT.

WE HAVE GOOD PEOPLE HERE.

BUT WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS HERE AND MAKING POLICIES HERE THAT ARE FOR FUTURE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO OUTLIVE US SITTING IN THESE SEATS.

SO NUMBER ONE, I AM VERY, VERY MUCH OPPOSED.

OPPOSED TO CHANGING LIMITATIONS ON HOW WE MANAGE DECISION MAKING HERE.

AND I THINK SUPER MAJORITIES ARE IMPORTANT.

MOST CORPORATE.

BUSINESSES DO HAVE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR BYLAWS WE ARE A MAJOR COMPANY WE'RE A FIVE BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY AND, AND, WE SHOULD HAVE UH LIMITATIONS AND, AND, DOUBLE CHECKING ON MAKING REAL ESTATE DECISIONS OUR BIGGEST ONE OF OUR BIGGEST ASSETS IS REAL ESTATE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE CLEAR CRITERIA AND WE SHOULD HAVE SUPER MAJORITY IF WE HAVE TO REPLACE OR CREATE A NEW BUILDING OR ADD OR REOPEN A FACILITY.

THE WORDING IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S NOT TO WATER DOWN THE WORDING, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THE WORDING IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR AND THAT WE DO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IN ALL OF THOSE SITUATIONS.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF REPORTING THAT WE GET FROM THE STAFF.

WE GET THESE DECISIONS TO BE MADE TO BASIS, LIMITED SHORT TERM TIME.

THESE ARE COMPLICATED ISSUES.

AND I'M VERY DISTRESSED THAT WE DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE IN-DEPTH WORKSHOPPING ON THIS STUFF WHEN IT DEALS WITH MAJOR THINGS LIKE THIS.

AGAIN, MY QUESTIONS TO YOU, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR, THESE ARE ALL LEADING UP TO QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS.

ON THE EQUIPMENT AND MAINTENANCE DEAL, I THINK FIVE YEARS TO CONDUCT ASSESSMENTS ON OUR FLEETS IS IRRESPONSIBLE.

WE NEED TO HAVE ANNUAL MEETINGS.

WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES.

WE HAVE THOUSANDS, WE HAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF VEHICLES THAT WE'RE IN THE VEHICLE BUSINESS, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.

WE NEED TO KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US TO MAKE DECISIONS ON ALLOCATING STUFF WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE WE ARE REPLACING VERSUS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES IN OUR CURRENT DEAL.

IF IT SAYS FULLY MAINTAINING INFRASTRUCTURE, IF FULLY IS THE WRONG WORD, THEN WE BETTER FIND OUT A WORD THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO ADEQUATELY, RESPONSIBLY, REASONABLY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC WORD IS.

THE LEGAL STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

BUT JUST TO SAY MAINTAIN DOESN'T MEAN PUTTING A BAND AID OVER AN AMPUTATION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT ADEQUATE STRENGTH THAT WE CAN ENFORCE.

OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE FOR OUR CITIZENS AND FOR OUR PROPERTIES.

I LOVE THE IDEA THAT YOU WANT TO INCREASE YOUR RESERVES.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT EVEN MORE.

RESERVES ARE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN.

I WANT TO APPLAUD CHAIRMAN WEST FOR SUGGESTING THAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE ON THE POLICY.

FOR THE SUPER MAJORITY AND THE CAPITAL IMPACT IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE POSTPONED.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE HANDLED UNTIL AFTER.

THE BUDGET HAS DECIDED THIS IS IT'S IT'S, IT'S, BAD OPTICS I THINK IT'S THE WRONG TIME AND I THINK THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF AN ISSUE TO DEAL WITH AT THIS TIME I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF CHANGING THE ADVANCE FUNDING CURRENT REFUNDING CRITERIA TO A NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATION UNLESS WE HAVE STRICT IDENTIFICATION OF WHAT THAT NET PRESENT VALUE FORMULA IS GOING TO ENTAIL BECAUSE THAT'S THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS ON HOW YOU COME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS.

AND I ALSO DON'T WANT TO, I WANT A CLARIFICATION, JACK, ON WHEN IT SAYS PROCEEDS, ON THE USE OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE, AND I'M HEARING DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.

HERE AND I'M GETTING CONFUSED THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE UP TO 20 MILLION WOULD FOR ANY SINGLE TRANSACTION WOULD BE DEPOSITED THAT MEANS THAT IF WE SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A DOLLAR THAT DOLLAR WOULD GO INTO THE CAPITAL RESERVE IS THAT CORRECT YES SIR THAT IS THE CURRENT POLICY IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE IS THAT WHAT THE RED LINE SAYS SO THE CURRENT POLICY THIS THE RED LINES ON THIS WE DO NOT

[01:35:03]

IN THAT OLD ORDINANCE, ANYTHING THAT WE, ANY ASSET THAT WE SELL, ANY REAL ESTATE THAT WE SELL, THE PROCEEDS GOES TO THE GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE AND IS USED FOR MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES.

WE'RE SUGGESTING, AND THAT DOESN'T COME TO COUNCIL FOR A DISCUSSION.

IF RIGHT NOW, IF WE SELL SOMETHING FOR A DOLLAR OR A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE.

WE'RE SUGGESTING GOING FORWARD, IF WE WERE TO HAVE A TRANSACTION.

OF 20 MILLION OR GREATER THAT WE WOULD COME SPECIFICALLY TO THE COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT TO DO WITH IT AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL CAPITAL RESERVE BECAUSE IS IT ON THE EXCESS OF THE 20 MILLION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR IS IT THE 20 MILLION IT WOULD BE THE TOTAL 20 MILLION OKAY THEN I DON'T THINK THIS IS WRITTEN CORRECTLY OKAY AND I AND THAT'S NOT AND I WON'T APPROVE THAT I WON'T AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT MONEY HAS TO BE PUT INTO OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESERVES AND THAT'S WHAT MONEY'S FOR AND IT'S NOT TO STEAL TO SELL PRODUCTS TO TAKE THE MONEY AND NOT STEAL IS NOT THE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WORD, THAT'S NOT THE WORD.

TO TAKE THE MONEY FROM A CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND PUT IT INTO AN OPERATING INVESTMENT IS NOT, AN OPERATING RESERVE IS NOT CORRECT.

IT SHOULD BE CAPITAL.

SO WE WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT IT INTO AN OPERATING RESERVE.

WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO WITH IT WOULD BE ASK COUNCIL WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT.

DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU STILL WANT TO USE IT FOR FACILITY MAINTENANCE OR DO YOU WANT TO SPEND IT ON STREET IMPROVEMENT? OR DO YOU WANT TO SPEND IT ON POLICE AND FIRE PENSION OR WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT? IF IT REACHED THE THRESHOLD OF BEING OVER 20 MILLION WE SUGGESTED THAT IT NOT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, BUT IT COME TO YOU FOR A DECISION WHICH MIGHT BE TO PUT IT INTO MAINTENANCE BUT SOMETHING THAT BIG I THINK YOU NEED AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON OKAY, AND AGAIN THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS OF THE WORDING IF MONEY COMES FROM A SALE, IT NEEDS TO GO INTO A CAPITAL DEAL.

IT'S OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THE BODY SAYS, OKAY, IF WE GET A WINDFALL OF A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY OR WE WANT TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE SELLING BUILDINGS JUST TO BE FUNDING DEFICIT OPERATING.

NEVER, NO, WELL, THAT'S WHAT, I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A PROBLEM.

I AGREE.

AND THIS MIGHT ALSO BE A SITUATION WHERE A SUPER MAJORITY SITUATION MIGHT BE IN ORDER IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE FORM DOLLARS FOR A FEW.

FUTURE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT REPLACING AND REPAIRING AND FIXING THE STUFF THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

ANYWAY, THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT MORE TIME AND EFFORT ON MY PERSONAL PART IN FIGURING OUT WHAT THIS SAYS.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT TO THE GROUP HERE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS IN TRYING TO GET THIS ON THE TABLE.

AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT ANY DECISIONS ON VOTING ON THIS DON'T OCCUR UNTIL AFTER WE FINISH.

THE BUDGET.

THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

JACK, WITH REGARD TO FNPC NUMBER TWO, INCREASING THE MINIMUM RESERVE TO 55 DAYS FROM 50 WILL REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF DOLLARS TO THAT RESERVE FUND OUT OF THE...

GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

HAVE YOU CALCULATED WHAT KIND OF A BUDGET HOLE THAT WILL CREATE? SO CURRENTLY WE ARE AT ABOUT 62 DAYS, SO WE WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE.

I JUST WANT TO MOVE IT UP SO THAT WE DON'T FALL.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN TO 50.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN TO 55, BUT WE ARE ALREADY WITHIN.

WE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HIGHER THRESHOLD ALREADY.

IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DO THAT.

OKAY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE CRITERIA IS BETWEEN 50 AND 70 AND WE ARE AT ABOUT 62 AND SO MOVING IT FROM 50 TO BE BETWEEN 55 AND 70.

WE'RE STILL ALREADY AT 62 DAYS SO WE'RE ALREADY IN THAT RANGE.

WHAT'S THE DOLLAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 50-DAY RESERVE AND 55? ONE SECOND ON THAT.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO, CAN WE GO AHEAD TO YOUR NEXT QUESTION? AND JEANETTE, SHE'S OVER HERE CALCULATING.

GIVE HER ONE SECOND.

PAGE 15 OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE.

YOU YOURSELF SAID THAT THE $20 MILLION THRESHOLD FOR DISCRETIONARY.

AND THAT WE RARELY, IF EVER, CAN POINT TO ANY TRANSACTIONS THAT EXCEEDED $20 MILLION.

I THEREFORE PROPOSE THAT THAT BE CHANGED TO $10 MILLION, WHICH I THINK WILL SWEEP UP THE COST OF THE PROJECT.

SWEEP IN POTENTIAL TRANSACTIONS THAT AREN'T INCLUDED

[01:40:01]

AND I ALSO WOULD SUPPORT A QUARTERLY LOOK AT A CUMULATIVE FIGURE OF TRANSACTION SALES.

YOU SHOULD KNOW BY THE BEGINNING OF A QUARTER WHAT TRANSACTIONS ARE LIKELY TO CLOSE FOR SALES WITHIN THAT QUARTER.

SO I THINK YOU CAN MANAGE THAT PROCESS.

NOW ON TO FMPC 20.

THIS IS VERY CONCERNING THAT IN THE MIDST OF THIS HEATED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF CITY HALL, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD ATTEMPT TO BRING UP A CHANGE IN THE RULES THAT WOULD GOVERN THE APPROVAL FOR SUCH A TRANSACTION.

IT'S IMPROPER FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME.

I COMPLETELY CONCUR WITH CHAIR WEST THAT THIS IS NOT A TIME TO DO THIS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, I DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD NEW AS EXCLUDING THE WORD REPLACEMENT FACILITY.

I THINK ANY NEW FACILITY WOULD SWEEP IN ANY...

NEW ADDRESS THAT WE ADD TO OUR ROSTER OF CITY FACILITIES.

WE CAN DEBATE TILL THE COW JUMPS OVER THE MOON WHETHER IT'S A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT, IT'S A 50- 50% REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FACILITY OR A 10% REPLACEMENT.

BUT IF IT'S A NEW FACILITY, IT'S A RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING FACILITY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S SWEPT INTO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF FMPC NUMBER 20.

I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE THIS.

WE ALREADY USE A SUPERMAJORITY STANDARD FOR MUCH LESS IMPORTANT DECISIONS AT CITY COUNCIL.

FOR EXAMPLE, ANY TIME WE DECIDE TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE PLAN COMMISSION, THAT REQUIRES A SUPERANNUATION.

SUPERMAJORITY.

TRADITIONALLY, IF THERE WAS A 20% PROTEST OF LANDOWNERS AROUND A ZONING CASE, THAT REQUIRED A SUPERMAJORITY.

ALTHOUGH THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THAT WAS WHAT WE DECIDED REQUIRED A SUPERMAJORITY.

WE ALSO HAVE OTHER DECISIONS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED BY NUMBER OF 10 THAT REQUIRE IT.

SUPERMAJORITY SO IT'S NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY TO REQUIRE THAT I THINK THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT IN THE PAST WITH REGARD TO ACQUISITION OF HAMPTON AND OTHER FACILITIES BUT THAT'S PAST HISTORY AT THIS POINT I SEE NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR CHANGING THE FM PC 20 PARTICULARLY THE DELETION OF THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE THANK YOU IF I MAY AND PART OF WHAT YOU SAID IS ONE WE THOUGHT THAT IT NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED BECAUSE YOU'RE READING IT THAT A NEW ADDRESS MEANS IT'S A ADDED ASSET AND REQUIRES A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OF VOTE WHEREAS THERE'S ALSO OTHERS THAT ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT DOESN'T BECAUSE IT'S A REPLACEMENT AND WHEN THERE'S UNCERTAINTY WHEN THERE'S AMBIGUITY WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT SO THAT WE'RE NOT SUING EACH OTHER I MEAN IT'S JUST IT'S IT GETS UGLY AND WE NEED TO CLARIFY.

WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE SOME OF YOU THINK IT MEANS ONE THING AND SOME OF YOU THINK IT MEANS ANOTHER AND THAT'S UNFAIR TO THE BODY FOR THERE TO BE UNCERTAINTY AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO HELP WITH OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO LET EVERYBODY FINISH UP HERE IN JUST A SECOND, BUT WE'VE GOT A RECESS FOR A MOMENT TO CALL THE PARKS COMMITTEE.

SO AT THIS TIME, THE SPECIAL CALL TO FINANCE COMMITTEE IS ON RECESS FOR FOUR MINUTES.

DO I HAVE TO WAIT FOR IT TO HELP? OKAY, WE'RE ON RECESS.

WE HAVE IT SWITCHING US OVER.

OKAY, THIS MEETING OF THE SPECIAL CALLED COMMITTEE ON FINANCE IS CALLED BACK TO ORDER AND WE LEFT OFF ON COUNCIL MEMBER BASILDUA.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ATTORNEYS TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THAT HAVE HAD ON THE HIGHER THRESHOLDS.

A VOTE, UM, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS AS MENTIONED BY MR. RIDLEY, SPECIFIC TO.

IF THERE WERE NEIGHBOR PROTESTS, UM, ON ZONING OR THE ZONING COMMISSION.

DENIED OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS I BELIEVE THERE WAS A VOTE THRESHOLD SPECIFIC TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT WE JUST ADDRESSED WITH CHARTER AMENDMENTS CAN, CAN, YOU PLEASE EXPAND ON THAT GOOD MORNING,

[01:45:24]

ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THREE-QUARTER VOTE THRESHOLDS AT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? CORRECT, YEAH.

YEAH, CPC DOES HAVE AT LEAST TWO THREE-QUARTER VOTE THRESHOLDS THAT THAT I CAN THINK OF JUST RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

THEY HAVE A THREE-QUARTER VOTE THRESHOLD IF THERE'S A HISTORIC DISTRICT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE OWNER IS NOT IN SUPPORT.

SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A THREE-QUARTER VOTE AT LANDMARK COMMISSION, CB.

AND CITY COUNCIL.

THERE'S ALSO A THREE-QUARTER VOTE THRESHOLD FOR SOME PLATS.

SO IF A PROPERTY OWNER IS DOING A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT AND THEY'RE TRYING TO REMOVE OR ALTER A BUILDING LINE, THAT REQUIRES A THREE-QUARTER VOTE AT CPC.

AND THEN ANYTHING THAT GETS APPROVED AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES REQUIRE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR THAT APPROVAL.

AND IN THOSE INSTANCES, CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE WHY A HIGHER THRESHOLD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR CERTAIN DECISIONS, POLICY DECISIONS? I CAN SAY FOR MOST OF THOSE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY JUST A PRODUCT OF STATE LAW.

SO THEY COME FROM TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

AND THEN THERE'S BUILT IN CHECKS AND BALANCES.

YOU SAID THAT THOUGH EVEN WHEN THERE'S HIGHER THRESHOLD, THEY STILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED AT THAT THRESHOLD WITH THE OTHER GOVERNING BODIES THAT TAKE UP.

RESPECTIVE UH DISCUSSIONS THAT WOULD BE FOR YEAH DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS SO YEAH ON THAT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THAT MOVING FORWARD THAT WOULD REQUIRE A THREE QUARTER VOTE AT ALL THREE LEVELS SO LANDMARK COMMISSION CPC AND CITY COUNCIL WHAT ABOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT UH WITH THE OIG CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AT ALL I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF OF THAT ONE UNFORTUNATELY.

WILLOW SANCHEZ FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT? I'M JUST ASKING WAS THERE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS BODY TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD FOR SOMETHING DURING OUR CHARTER REVIEW? YES, TO REMOVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IT REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A CHANGE, THIS WAS A NEW SECTION, A NEW UM UH SECTION TO THE CHARTER THAT WAS ADDED SURE I THINK ANY ADDED LANGUAGE WOULD BE A CHANGE SO UM I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION UM I'M WANTING TO FRAME SOME CONTEXT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE HIGHER THRESHOLDS IN PLACE SPECIFICALLY, SPECIFICALLY, FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS.

AND WHETHER IT'S MANDATED BY THE STATE OR NOT, I THINK THAT FNPC NUMBER 20 IS COMPLETELY IN LINE.

IF WE WERE TO TAKE UP A NEW FACILITY AS LAID OUT IN FNPC 20, ARE WE ABLE TO, DOES ANOTHER BODY SEE THESE DECISIONS BEFORE THE COUNCIL WERE TO TAKE THEM UP? NO, SIR.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY LESS CHECKS AND BALANCES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR AN ACTION THAT FNPC ADDRESSES THAN WHERE THERE ARE OTHER HIGHER SCRUTINY FOR THE HIGHER THRESHOLD VOTES THROUGHOUT OUR CITY GOVERNMENT.

IS THAT ACCURATE? IN SOME CASES, YES.

I THINK IN EVERY CASE THAT HE JUST MENTIONED, IT'S GOING TO BE HEARD FROM ANOTHER BODY BEFORE IT REACHES OUR STAMP OF APPROVAL.

IS THAT ACCURATE TO SAY? I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT.

IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU JUST HEARD? THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT.

THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT ARE.

OR IN THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT HAVE HIGHER THRESHOLD.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT GOES THROUGH A DIFFERENT BODY FIRST.

OKAY.

WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT WAS JUST LAID OUT TO US WOULD DIFFER IN THAT.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT MONTH IN 2021 FNPC NUMBER 20 WAS ADOPTED? ON JUNE THE 19TH. JUNE THE 19TH, OKAY.

SO THAT MEANS THERE'S A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL HERE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE NOW ADVOCATING TO UNDO THIS, THAT VOTED IN A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADD IN THIS PROTECTION.

THAT'S ACCURATE, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHO'S...

I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHO WAS ON THE COUNCIL IN 21 VERSUS WHO IS ON THE COUNCIL NOW.

THAT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, PRETTY EASY.

IT IS, I WOULD HAVE TO GO LOOK.

I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC CAN DO THAT FOR ME JUST LAYING THAT OUT.

OUT.

I THINK IT'S, IT'S, YOU'VE

[01:50:01]

IS THAT ACCURATE? I THINK THAT IS CORRECT, YES SIR.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A BODY OF LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE PASSED A REGULATION IT'S NEVER HAD TO BE TRIGGERED OR USED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HAS AMNESIA FOR WHY IT WAS NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

NO, I KNOW WHY WE PUT IT IN PLACE.

I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNING BODY WHO ALL VOTED FOR IT AND NOW HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

THE NEW FACILITY VERSUS REPLACEMENT, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

I THINK THAT A NEW FACILITY VERSUS A REPLACEMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR.

WE WERE TO BE PURCHASING A NEW FACILITY.

REGARDLESS IF IT WAS FOR THE SAME USE, THAT IT WOULD STILL IN FACT BE A NEW FACILITY.

I WANT TO POINT OUT SOME VERBIAGE BECAUSE IT MATTERS THAT YOU RESPONDED AND SAID THAT IT IS A NEW, IT'S NOT A NEW ASSET.

IN THE LANGUAGE IN FNPC, DOES IT SPECIFY AN ASSET OR A FACILITY? THE FNPC SAYS FACILITY SLASH BUILDING, AND I USED THE WORD INTERCHANGEABLY WITH ASSET.

I'M SORRY IF I CONFUSED YOU.

WELL, YOU SAID WORDS MATTER, AND THEY DO.

AND TO INTERCHANGEABLY USE THE WORD NEW FACILITY VERSUS ASSET, THAT WOULD NOT...

MATERIALLY BE THE SAME.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILIZING A VERY BRAND NEW FACILITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A FUNDING SOURCE, ETC.

FOR AN ASSET.

IF WE WERE TO JUST REPURPOSE IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO PURPOSE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR PORTFOLIO TO BE USED AS AN EXISTING ASSET IT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT FACILITY IT ISN'T IT PRACTICAL, ISN'T THE PRACTICAL REASON FOR DELETING SUPER THAT THE PROPONENTS OF REPLACING CITY HALL DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING RULE THAT IS NOT THE REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OKAY PLEASE EXPLAIN UM HOW THIS ONLY REMOVES AMBIGUITY WHEN IT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGES A VOTE THRESHOLD BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT AMONGST STAFF LEAVING THE CITY COUNCIL WILL AUTHORIZE EACH NEW OR REOPENED FACILITY SLASH BUILDING BY SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AND SIMPLY ADD ADDING ANOTHER SENTENCE THAT SAYS THAT REPLACEMENT FACILITIES SLASH BUILDINGS WOULD REQUIRE MAJORITY VOTE.

AND THEN THERE IS STILL CONFUSION OVER WHAT NEW VERSUS REOPENED VERSUS REPLACED MEANS.

SO YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT LEVEL OF VOTE IS REQUIRED, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO STILL BE DEBATING WHAT NEW, REOPENED, AND REPLACEMENT MEANS.

AND THE ONLY WAY TO CLARIFY THAT IS THROUGH THE CHANGE IN THE VOTE WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.

IT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE IT.

IN FACT, WE OFTEN DEBATE PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE AND I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT WE SETTLE THOSE DEBATES IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRETTY SKILLED LEGAL TEAM.

WHAT DOES THE LEGAL TEAM WEIGH IN TO SAY THAT THESE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE MEAN? I DON'T KNOW OFTEN WHEN OUR CITY ATTORNEYS HAVE RELINQUISHED THEIR OFFICES RESPONSIBILITY AND SAYS, LET'S JUST LET THEM DEBATE ON WHAT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IS.

WHAT IS Y'ALL'S INTERPRETATION AND HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND THIS IN COURT? IS THAT A QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED? TYPICALLY, THE PRACTICE, THIS IS WILLOW SANCHEZ, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE LEGAL APPROACH THAT COURTS FOLLOW FOR STATUTORY LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION IS TO FOLLOW THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN.

SO WE WOULD LOOK TO THE DEFINITION OF REPLY.

REPLACEMENT TO SEE WHAT REPLACEMENT MEANS WE WOULD LOOK TO THE DEFINITION OF NEW TO SEE WHAT NEW MEANS OKAY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WORD REPLACEMENT WHAT SIGNIFICANCE WOULD IT HAVE IN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS AND WOULD YOU AGREE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT THE WORDS ASSET AND NEW FACILITY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE? SO WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO WHAT A DEFINITION IS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET LEGAL ANALYSIS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CHAIR DECLARE THAT WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION THEN? THE QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS THE DEFINITION OF ASSET AND WHETHER THAT IS INTERCHANGEABLE? NO, NO, NO, THAT WAS THE SECOND QUESTION.

OH MY GOODNESS, WHAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION,

[01:55:01]

SO WE DISCUSSED REPLACEMENT VERSUS NEW FACILITY AND THAT DISCREPANCY.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE IMPLICATION OF OUR BOND RATING TO THE SALE OF A FACILITY VERSUS THE PURCHASE OF A NEW ONE? I DON'T THINK EITHER WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT, EITHER NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE, ON OUR BOND RATING.

SO THE DEBT MARKETS AND BOND RATING WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED AT ALL FROM US TAKING ON NEW DEBT TO PURCHASE A FACILITY? MR. BASILDO, I THINK WE'RE GETTING BEYOND THE GERMANENESS OF THE FNPC ITEM.

ABSOLUTELY NOT I'M, I'M, ABSOLUTELY IT'S ABSOLUTELY WITHIN THE, THE, REALM OF FMPC20 IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW FACILITIES I'M CURIOUS TO WHY WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM OUR BOND COUNCIL AND WHY WE HAVEN'T HAD EXHAUSTIVE INFORMATION ON WHY A CHANGE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE LIKE THIS AND HOW IT WOULD HAVE ANY POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS TO OUR BOND RATING I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY IN LINE I HEAR YOU YOU'RE MENTIONING THE CITY HALL SALE WHERE THIS ITEM I'M NOT MENTIONING THE CITY HALL SALE I'M MENTIONING AN FMT NUMBER 20 IN THE WAY THAT IT IS LISTED IF THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS TO OUR BOND RATING AND THEN WHY WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM OUR BOND COUNCIL THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I HEARD BUT THAT QUESTION IS GERMAINE GO AHEAD FNPC 20, I DO NOT BELIEVE WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR BOND RATING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED.

OKAY.

PURCHASE OF A NEW FACILITY, WOULD IT HAVE AN IMPACT OF OUR BOND RATING? NO.

EVEN IF IT REQUIRED US TO TAKE ON DEBT TO PURCHASE? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE TAKE ON DEBT EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND WE DO NOT GET A DOWNGRADE JUST BECAUSE WE TAKE ON NEW DEBT THEY REEVALUATE OUR BOND RATING EVERY TIME THAT WE HAVE A NEW DEBT ISSUANCE AND THEY TYPICALLY SUSTAIN OR MAINTAIN THE RATING THAT WE HAVE SO WHICH CITY FINANCIAL OR MUNICIPAL, MUNICIPAL, ADVISOR REVIEWED THESE EXACT PROPOSED CHANGES TO FM PC NUMBERS 10 11 AND 20 AND THE NEW SALE PROCEEDS CRITERIA.

NO ONE SO WITH NONE, THEN NO ADVISOR HAS PROVIDED US WITH ANY WRITTEN ANALYSIS.

AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT JUST BECAUSE WE ISSUE DEBT, WE DON'T GET A BOND DOWNGRADE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED.

IS THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL ADVISOR PRESENT TODAY TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL MARKET AND RATING IMPLICATIONS? NO, SIR.

SEEMS LIKE A MISSTEP.

IS BOND COUNCIL PRESENT TO DISCUSS LEGALITY? IS DISCLOSURE COUNCIL PRESENT TO DISCUSS WHAT MUST BE DISCLOSED IN FUTURE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS? IF NOT, WHY IS THIS ITEM PROCEEDING WITHOUT THEM? ITEM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUING BONDS IF WE ARE ISSUING BONDS WE WILL HAVE BOND COUNCIL PRESENT WE WILL HAVE FINANCIAL ADVISORS PRESENT THIS PARTICULAR PRESENTATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUING DEBT OR THE NEED TO HAVE BOND COUNCIL PRESENT WHAT WAS THE DOCUMENTED FINANCIAL RATIONALE FOR ADDING FMPC NUMBER 20 SUPER MAJORITY IN 2021 I APOLOGIZE, ASK AGAIN.

WHAT WAS THE DOCUMENTED FINANCIAL RATIONALE? THE RATIONALE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WORKED DIRECTLY WITH STAFF TO REOPEN FACILITIES THAT HAD NOT COME BEFORE THE BODY.

AND IT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO...

TO ADDRESS THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMENDED IN JUNE OF 2021 TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE.

WAS IT CONNECTED TO RATING AGENCY PENSION GOVERNANCE OR DEBT MANAGEMENT CONCERNS? NO, SIR.

HAS ANYONE ASKED THE RATING AGENCIES HOW THEY WOULD VIEW ELIMINATION OF A HEIGHTENED VOTE CONTROL? NO.

NO, SIR.

REDUCED MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY.

REDUCED ASSET.

HAVE YOU ASKED THEM ABOUT REDUCED MAINTENANCE ASSET FREQUENCY? NO, SIR.

HOW ABOUT DELETION OF AN EXPRESS OPERATING BUDGET MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT? NO.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE ASKED THEM WHEN WE PUT IT IN.

WELL, NO, I'M SORRY.

I KNOW FOR A FACT WE DID NOT ASK THEM WHEN WE ADDED THAT CRITERIA THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO BE DELETED TODAY EITHER.

DID WE ASK THEM ABOUT BROAD DISCRETION OVER REAL ESTATE SALE PROCEEDS? NO, SIR.

COULD THESE CHANGES BE VIEWED AS WEAKENING FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE OR ASSET MANAGEMENT CONTROLS? AS CFO, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.

WILL THE NEXT OFFICIAL STATEMENT...

DISCLOSE THAT COUNCIL ELIMINATED THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT WHILE CONSIDERING REPLACEMENT OF CITY HALL NO IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A CRITERIA RELATED TO OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHAT WOULD A 10 25 OR 50 BASE POINT INCREASE

[02:00:01]

MOVE ON TO COUNCILMAN BLAIR THANK YOU I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA TAKE AS MUCH TIME BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY ASKED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I ALREADY HAVE SO BUT I DO WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE PROCESS FROM BOND APPROVAL TO COUNCIL APPROVAL I MY JESSE EXCUSE ME CHAIR MORENO HE KIND OF GOT TO IT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALL FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF I'M CORRECT AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT THAT IN THE PROCESS WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO COMES UP WITH A BOND REQUIREMENT THAT BOND REQUIREMENT THEN GETS VOTED ON BY OUTSIDE BODIES THAT OUTSIDE BODY MEANING THE VOTERS.

AND THEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL IF WE ARE UNABLE TO FINANCE THAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SO CAN YOU PLEASE JUST REALLY BREAK IT DOWN SO THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS? SO THE PROCESS OF UH BOND ISSUANCE I'M SORRY UM SO FOR EXAMPLE IN THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM THAT WAS PACKAGED TOGETHER BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN UH 23 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS FOR APPROVAL OF MAY OF 24.

ONCE YOU HAVE VOTER AUTHORIZATION, THEN WE ISSUE THE BONDS OVER TIME BASED UPON OUR FINANCIAL CAPACITY.

AFTER WE...

ISSUE THE BONDS THEN WE BRING INDIVIDUAL ITEMS BEFORE COUNCIL TO APPROVE WHETHER IT'S A STREET PROJECT OR A PARK PROJECT OR A FACILITY PROJECT AND SO THAT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE STEPS OF APPROVAL YOU ALL APPROVE THE BOND PROGRAM THE VOTERS APPROVE GIVE YOU AUTHORIZATION THEN THE COUNCIL AGAIN HAS TO APPROVE US BORROWING THE MONEY AND THEN AGAIN A COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM THAT HAS TO BE AWARDED SO IT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE STEPS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GO FORWARD WITH THE CAPITAL PROJECT SO IN A CAPITAL PROJECT, IT CONCEIVABLY COULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON TO DO ONE THING, AND BASED ON OUR ABILITY TO FINANCE THAT PROJECT, IT COULD ACTUALLY GET TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT ON THE BACK END BECAUSE WE MAY NOT HAVE THE CAPITAL IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, CORRECT? UM THERE'S SOME INSTANCES WHERE WE MAY HAVE TO UH ADJUST THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IF, IF, THE BIDS COME IN AT A HIGHER COST OR A LOT OF TIMES WE WILL HAVE SAVINGS ON SOME PROJECTS THAT ENABLE US TO DEAL WITH HIGHER COST ON OTHERS IN SOME CASES WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE VOTERS AND ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING IF A PROJECT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SHORT OF WHAT WAS NEEDED SO WE TRY TO DELIVER WHAT THE THE VOTERS WERE APPROVED SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME EXTRA HOOPS TO GET THERE SO BASICALLY ALSO THAT IT COULD BE THAT THE BOND WAS APPROVED, APPROVED, TODAY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, AND BY THE TIME WE'RE READY TO ENACT THAT PROCESS OR THAT ALLOCATION, THE COST TO DO SO MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED BASED ON THE TIMING.

SO THAT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR IS NOT WHAT WE CAN FINANCE TOMORROW.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT DOES HAPPEN, AND THEN WE TRY TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE.

SO THEN WE EITHER HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, OR WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

COME BACK AND RAISE ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

WE HAVE TO REALLOCATE FUNDS, OR WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ORDER TO BRING FORTH WHAT WAS ACTUALLY AGREED UPON IN THE VERY BEGINNING, CORRECT? THAT HAPPENS, YES, MA'AM.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, RIGHT? IT HAPPENS.

THANK YOU.

WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING FROM SUPERMAJORITY TO MAJORITY, AND THERE WAS A CONVERSATION, OR THE PROCESS WHERE IT WAS QUESTIONED ON DATE AND TIMING, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE, OR HOW SEAMLESS WOULD IT BE IF WE SAID, LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS FOR THIS, BUT CHANGE IT FOR THAT.

LEAVE IT FOR THAT, BUT CHANGE IT FOR THIS.

WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY OR THIS CITY COULD

[02:05:01]

WOULD IT NOT BE THEN? A BETTER WAY TO PROCESS BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE CITY AND WHAT WE DO TO COME UP WITH A DATE, A DATE CERTAIN, AND SAY AS OF THIS DATE, THESE ARE WHAT THE NEW RULES ARE OPPOSED TO SAY.

SAYING THESE THIS RULE FOR THIS THING GOES THIS DATE BUT FOR THE OTHER THING GOES ANOTHER DATE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT, ALL OF THESE REVISIONS TO FPM PC THEN WHEN, WHEN, IT'S VOTED ON IT'S ALL VOTED ON, ON, THE SAME TIME AND NOT SAY WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA DO THIS ONE TODAY BUT THIS ONE TOMORROW YES MA'AM TYPICALLY THE RESOLUTION THAT AMENDS THE FMPC USUALLY IS EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT AGENDA ITEM TYPICALLY BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON THAT SPECIFIC DATE SO THIS THIS BRIEFING THAT WE'RE GETTING TODAY IS GOING TO GO BE YOU SAID TO COUNCIL THE 19TH IT WOULD GO FOR A PRESENTATION AND BRIEFING AND ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE 19TH AND THEN BE PLACED ON YOUR VOTING AGENDA ON AUGUST 25TH OKAY, SO WITH SOME POTENTIAL CHANGES BASED UPON FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE HEARING THROUGH THE THIS PROCESS SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US AGAIN BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IS SITTING AT THIS THIS TABLE RIGHT NOW AND HAVE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND TO GET ANSWERS.

SO WHEN WE HEAR IT ON THE 19TH, HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A SHORT CONVERSATION AND NOT A 20 HOUR CONVERSATION.

THEN WE WILL BRIEF.

BRIEF IT ON THE 19TH AND BASED ON CHANGES YOU HEARD TODAY AND UPGRADES THAT YOU HEARD TODAY AND LIKE DEFINING THINGS BETTER BASED ON WHAT THE CONVERSATIONS ARE TODAY ON THE 19TH AND THEN THE VOTE IS THE FINAL FOLLOWING WEEK.

I DID UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS, IT WAS SAID THAT THAT MAY NOT BE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET A BRIEFING AND THEN GET THE VOTE BUT ISN'T THAT WE TYPICALLY THE WAY WE TYPICALLY OPERATE IS WE BRIEF IT TODAY UNLESS THE AT THE BRIEFING IT'S DETERMINED IT NEEDS TO BE MORE TIME BASED ON THE BODY THAT THAT'S WHAT WE DO YES MA'AM AND SO IF WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE 25TH THAT'S 22 DAYS FROM TODAY THREE WEEKS OKAY AND THAT AND AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNS OR ISSUES WE CAN GO TO YOU OR MS. WHEATON AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS OH, PLEASE.

YES, MA'AM.

ANSWER ALL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS, ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.

YES, WITH THAT CAVEAT.

I GOT IT.

I'M LEARNING.

I'M LEARNING HOW TO SPEAK LEGALESE.

IT'S HARD SOMETIMES.

THEN I THINK THE LAST THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE REOPENING OF FACILITIES THAT HAVE ONCE UPON A TIME BEEN CLOSED.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT AND THE IDEOLATION WHY THE CHANGE WAS REQUESTED.

UM BECAUSE AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE DO THAT THERE'S NEVER REALLY A COMPLETE CONSIDERATION AS TO HOW LONG THOSE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CLOSED HOW DRY ROTTED THINGS ARE AND IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPGRADE SO THAT THEY WORK FOR THE LONGEVITY BUT ONCE THEY'RE OPEN AND THEY'RE THEY'RE BROUGHT BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

FOR MAINTENANCE.

UM AND AFTER A YEAR WE, WE, THEN HAVE AN IDEA WHAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE YEAR AFTER THAT WE WOULD HOPE CORRECT WOULD THAT BE A CORRECT STATEMENT YES MA'AM WE WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND I THINK IN THE PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT IT WASN'T AN ISSUE THAT IT WAS OPENED AS A DISTRICT OFFICE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT OFFICE WAS PAID FOR OUT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ACCOUNT HOWEVER OTHER CITY SERVICES STARTED MOVING INTO THAT SPACE AS WELL AND THEREFORE WASN'T GOING TO BE PAID OUT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ACCOUNT AND THAT BECAME MORE OF A COST ON THE GENERAL FUND AND KIND OF CREPT LARGER AND LARGER OVER A FEW YEARS SO WE JUST WANTED TO BE CAREFUL OF THOSE THINGS SO WELL AND I GET WHERE WE HAVE

[02:10:03]

SO THEN ANY OTHER CITY GENERAL FUND ITEMS OR OPPORTUNITIES, THEN WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MATTER? STILL COSTS MONEY, STILL INCREASES THE BUDGET.

RESIDENTS ARE STILL PAYING FOR IT.

EVEN IF IT'S THROUGH A UTILITY? OKAY UM SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY THAT MAY BE OPEN FOR A LARGER DISCUSSION AT ANOTHER DAY YES ANOTHER TIME I I THINK I'M DONE UH CHAIR ALL RIGHT THANK YOU AND COLLEAGUES UM WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO SECOND ROUND BECAUSE THIS IS AN ITEM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO DISCUSS ON AUGUST 19TH AND THEN A VOTE ON AUGUST 25TH DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD I DO THANK YOU I WANTED TO ANSWER COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S QUESTION GOING FROM 50 DAYS TO 55 DAYS IS A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 27 MILLION BUT WE ARE ALREADY OVER THAT THRESHOLD AGAIN BUT THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT THAT MAKES I APOLOGIZE I JUST TOOK US A SECOND OKAY AND ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE OR COMMENTS FEEL FREE TO SEND THEM TO THE TEAM SO THEY'RE PREPARED WHEN WE DO HAVE THE FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING ON AUGUST 19TH WITH THAT BEING SAID WE HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT FINAL ITEM BEFORE WE GO TO THE, THE, PARKS COMMITTEE MY VERY PATIENT COLLEAGUE OVER HERE WE DO NEED TO FINALIZE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY AND ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR ORTIZ, ORTIZ, TO COME TO THE PODIUM FOR ITEM D THANK YOU AND AS WE SET THIS UP, COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE, AGAIN, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE'VE HAD THIS BRIEFING.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL ON IT.

IF, MS. ORTIZ, YOU WANT TO JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT HAD COME UP.

AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING AND TAKE THEM PUBLICLY AND THEN IF COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY'RE WELCOME TO ASK YES AS COUNCILMEMBER WEST OR CHAIR WEST MENTIONED WE HAVE BRIEFED THIS A FEW TIME OR A COUPLE A COUPLE OF TIMES TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT COULD YOU EXPECT AS AN OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF THE CHANGES IN THE POLICY.

AND AS WE'VE STATED BEFORE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO ASSESS WHAT SAVINGS WE COULD HAVE WHEN WE HAVEN'T YET PUT OUT A CONTRACT TO BID.

AND SO WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK AN ANALYSIS OF THE AWARDS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE SINCE OCTOBER.

WE CAN JUST SKIP DOWN TO PAGE.

PAGE 14, AND SO WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL CONTRACTS THAT WERE AWARDED WITH THE LIVING WAGE.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE DETERMINED THAT 28 OF THOSE, OR 67% OF THOSE CONTRACTS WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE LIVING WAGE APPLY, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LABOR INTENSIVE CONTRACTS.

AND SO OF THE ONES THAT WERE REMAINING, THE 14, WE LOOKED AT THOSE.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE DIFFERENCE LIED BETWEEN THE MARKET WAGE AND THE LIVING WAGE.

AND A LOT OF THESE INSTANCES, WE ALREADY PAY ABOVE THE MARKET WAGE.

THE MARKET WAGE IS 50% BASED ON THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.

OF THAT, SOME WE PAY ABOVE AND SOME WE PAY BELOW.

SO ON PAGE 16, LOOKING AT THAT, IF THE POLICY HAD BEEN IN PLACE AT THE TIME.

IF THESE CONTRACTS WERE SOLICITED, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL $22 MILLION SAVINGS OVER FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS 6% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE.

AGAIN, THIS IS ILLUSTRATIVE IMPACT, NOT NECESSARILY ACTUAL SAVINGS.

BUT IF THE VENDORS HAD A LOWER LIVING WAGE TO HAVE TO MEET, THEN THEIR CONTRACTS COULD POTENTIALLY BE MUCH LOWER.

THAT WAS THE ONLY STEP THAT WE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE YOU EARLIER AND SO WE WILL UM BRING AN ITEM TO YOUR TO THE COUNCIL ON AUGUST 25TH TO VOTE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO THE LIVING WAGE THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'LL START WITH CHAIRMAN GRACIE THANK YOU CHAIR UM WHY DON'T YOU JUST REAL QUICKLY WHY ARE WE DOING THIS SO I THINK UM PART OF IT IS WE HAVE NOT LOOKED

[02:15:01]

SO I THINK YOU SAW SANITATION, JANITORIAL CONTRACTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER WAGE.

AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICABILITY.

OK.

AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH REVIEWING IT.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.

IF THIS IS IN AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO SAVE THE CITY A LITTLE MONEY ON THE SIDE, THEN WHAT DO WE, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS THE LAST TIME, WE'RE PROJECTED TO BE ROUGHLY ABOUT $22 MILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AGAIN, ESTIMATE BASED ON THIS SCENARIO, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS THEN IT WOULD ULTIMATELY, SAVE THE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE DOING BUSINESS WITH MONEY TOO, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN KIND OF COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT.

IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH, SO THIS WILL BE APPLIED TO NEW CONTRACTS.

SO THE EXISTING CONTRACTS, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR LIVING WAGE.

SO THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT THERE.

BUT GOING FORWARD, THERE WOULD BE A LOWER THRESHOLD IN SOME INSTANCES THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET.

OKAY.

AND, AND, I'LL JUST WRAP IT UP WITH THIS MR. CHAIR I, I DON'T MIND DOING THIS I'M NOT ALL THE WAY HAPPY WITH IT BECAUSE OF WHO IT IMPACTS UM AND THESE ARE SOME OF OUR, OUR, FOLKS THAT THAT REALLY NEED THESE WAGES TO TO GET BY AND IT'S SOMETIMES NOT EVEN A PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK SCENARIO IT'S A PAYCHECK TO ONE WEEK AND I'M ALL OUT OF EXPENSES SO MY HEART IS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS WE WANT TO SAVE THE CITY MONEY AND IF WE'RE DOING THIS, THEN I WANT TO MAKE SURE, AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE PROCUREMENT SIDE, IT'S NOT ATTACKING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS PER SE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS THESE COMPANIES COME BACK AND WE'RE PROVIDING THIS RELIEF, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE TO THEM, IF WE'RE PROVIDING THAT RELIEF, THEN I WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE REGULATION ON TERMS OF HOW THEIR PERFORMANCES, I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT THEIR PERFORMANCES ON THESE CONTRACTS, AND I THINK AS WE'RE GETTING, YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET IS GETTING TIGHTER AND TIGHTER, A LOT OF THESE THINGS CAN NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED AND I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING UP AND HOLDING THESE BUSINESSES ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO SAVE US A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY MORE SO THAN IT WILL THEM.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

AS WE DO BUSINESS WITH THEM SO YOU WILL BE HEARING A LOT MORE QUESTIONS AS PROCUREMENTS COME ACROSS SO JUST FYI THANK YOU MR. CHAIR THANK YOU CHAIR MORENO YOU HAVE ANYTHING UH MOVING ON TO VICE CHAIR NO QUESTIONS NO NO QUESTIONS ANY OF OUR, OUR, GUESTS, CHAIRMAN ROTH.

MR. ROTH.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

THE PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE, I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR AS TO THE THRESHOLD, THE 300,000, THE PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN? YES, SO THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT POLICY APPLIES TO ANY SOLICITATION OVER OR ANY CONTRACT OVER $100,000.

WE ARE REQUESTING THAT WE MOVE THAT TO 300,000 IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR.

CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION THRESHOLDS THAT WE IMPLEMENTED RECENTLY WE ALSO ARE REQUESTING THAT WE NARROW THE DEFINITION OF COMPA OF WHAT APPLIES SO RIGHT NOW ANY SERVICE CONTRACT WILL HAVE THE LIVING WAGE INCLUDED AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DEFINITION TO BE REVISED TO LABOR-INTENSIVE SO THAT IF WE HAVE A CONTRACT FOR FOUR PARTS AND YOU KNOW WATER SYSTEM PARTS WE AND THERE'S A COMPONENT THAT HAS SERVICES IS RELATED TO IT, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPLY.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HIGHER IMPACT.

SO JANITORIAL SERVICES, SECURITY SERVICES, WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE PERSONNEL AT THE CITY DOING THE JOB.

WE ALSO ARE CHANGING THE METHODOLOGY.

SO INSTEAD OF IT BEING THE MIT LIVING WAGE ACROSS ALL JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, WE WOULD USE THE LESSER OF THE TWO BETWEEN THE MIT LIVING WAGE AND THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS WAY.

THIS WILL HELP US KIND OF BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE MARKET OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE ARE CONTRACTING FOR.

WE ARE LIMITING THE CONTRACT TERM TO THREE YEARS WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS.

AND THEN ALSO STATING IN THE POLICY THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ANY CHANGES OR REVIEW

[02:20:01]

OKAY, AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY MY SIDE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ASKING A CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THAT THEY'RE BASING THEIR BIDS TO US BASED ON A LIVING WAGE POLICY OF EITHER 50% OF THE REGULAR.

LIVING THE REGULAR DEPARTMENT LABOR WAGE VERSUS THE MIT WAGE AS A THRESHOLD UH AND SO THAT POTENTIALLY IS PASSING THOSE EXTRA COSTS ON TO US IN ANY COMPETITIVE BID IS THAT CORRECT YES SO RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW IT'S 2306, NO MATTER WHAT SERVICE WE'RE REQUESTING.

IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE 2306 OR 50% OF THE LABOR MARKET OR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 50TH PERCENTILE WAGE FOR THAT JOB.

I ALSO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT LABOR INTENSIVE MEANS.

BECAUSE THAT'S, AGAIN, IT'S IN THE DEFINITIONS.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE RAISING.

THE THRESHOLD OF 300 000 THAT'S MAKING THAT BIGGER CONTRACTS THEN IS, IS, THIS THAT BIGGER CONTRACTS ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THIS OR IS THAT THIS AUTHORIZES US TO USE THIS POLICY ON BIGGER CONTRACTS I'M NOT CLEAR SO RIGHT NOW THE CONCH THE POLICY APPLIES TO ALL CONTRACTS THAT ARE OVER A HUNDRED SO IF THEY'RE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IT'LL INCLUDE THE LIVING WAGE UH 2306 RATE SO NOW WE'RE SAYING INSTEAD OF IT BEING A HUNDRED IT'S GOING TO BE 300 000 SO THOSE SMALL SMALLER CONTRACTS BETWEEN ONE AND 300,000 WOULDN'T HAVE TO, WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT.

AND THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR SOME OF THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO KIND OF CARRY THE.

THE COST OF A HIGHER WAGE SO THAT WOULD HELP SMALLER BUSINESSES WHICH I WHICH I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF YES BUT WHEN IT'S ATTENDING TO OUR REAL BUDGET ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BIG OUR BIG ENTERPRISES ETC. THAT ARE CONTRACT AND THE CITY THAT'S CONTRACTING FOR MAJOR, MAJOR, CONTRACTS JANITORIAL UH YOU KNOW DUMPSTER I MEAN PEOPLE WORKING ON THE ON THE TRASH COLLECTION STUFF THOSE ARE ALL CONTRACTED SERVICES WHICH ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT ALLOCATING, FORCING CONTRACTORS TO CHARGE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE, IN EFFECT, PASSING BACK ON TO OUR CITIZENS.

SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS IS IMPLEMENTED AND WHAT THE NUMBERS REALLY COME OUT TO BE.

THIS IS A VERY COSTLY SITUATION ON BIG, BIG CONTRACTS.

AND I WOULD CAUTION MY COLLEAGUES TO REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THIS.

THIS IS A REAL BIG ECONOMIC CRISIS.

ATOMIC IMPOSITION ON OUR ABILITY TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES OUTSIDE AND GET SOME SAVINGS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN RIDLEY.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING I FULLY SUPPORT OUR RETHINKING THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES, RESTRICTIONS ON THE REVENUES THAT WE CAN COLLECT FROM THE STATE LEVEL AND OUR BUDGET DEFICITS.

WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BE PAYING MORE THAN MARKET RATE FOR GOODS AND SERVICES.

MY QUESTION ABOUT LABOR INTENSIVE WAS RAISED BY COUNCILMAN ROTH AS WELL.

WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A LABOR INTENSIVE CONTRACT? SO WE HAVE DRAFTED A POLICY THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY THE RESOLUTION, AND SO WE'LL SHARE THAT WITH YOU.

BUT IT HAS CERTAIN POSITIONS OR CERTAIN CATEGORIES ALREADY IDENTIFIED WITH THE KIND OF ABILITY FOR OUR DEPARTMENT.

TO ADD ANY ITEMS TO THAT LIST OR UM BUT NOT SUBTRACT ITEMS AND SO ON THE PAGE RIGHT NOW IT SHOWS WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER LABOR INTENSIVE WOULD BE JANITORIAL AND CUSTODIAL WHERE WE'RE PAYING AN HOURLY RATE TO THE CONTRACTOR, SECURITY GUARD SERVICES, TEMPORARY STAFFING, ANYTHING WHERE WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF STAFF PERFORMING THE WORK AT THE CITY NOT COVERED, WE WOULD HAVE LIKE OUR SUBSCRIPTIONS AND SOFTWARE'S RIGHT NOW, THOSE ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE A SERVICE CONTRACT OVER 100,000 WHERE GENERALLY WE'RE ACCEPTING A SERVICE.

THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY LABOR BEING PROVIDED TO US DIRECTLY.

BUT WE'RE STILL MAKING THAT REQUIREMENT.

WELL, PRESUMABLY ANY CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH A VENDOR WHERE WE HAVE IN THE PAST SAID, WE WANT YOU TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW WHATEVER THAT DOLLAR PER HOUR LIVING WAGE IS AS ADJUSTED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND SO I PRESUME THAT THIS WOULD SWEEP IN ANY SUCH CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR THAT SPECIFIES THAT THEY HAVE

[02:25:01]

SO THOSE ARE PROBABLY AUDITING SOFTWARE KIND OF SYSTEMS. WE'RE ALREADY REDUCING WHAT'S IMPACTED BY THE LIVING WAGE POLICY BY 67%. SO THEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE 14 REMAINING WHERE THE POLICY WOULD APPLY. AND WE DETERMINED THAT OF THOSE 14, SIX OF THEM HAVE A LIVING WAGE THAT IS LOWER THAN THE MARKET WAGE. AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD HAVE SAVED SOME MONEY THERE BECAUSE WE ARE CHARGING IN EXCESS OF THE 50TH PERCENTILE OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.

OKAY, THANK YOU MR. MR. CHAIR. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL CALL TO FINANCE MEETING. THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.