[3. 26-2374A An ordinance amending Chapter 12B, “Convenience Stores,” of the Dallas City Code by amending Sections 12B-2, 12B-14, 12B-18, and 12B-23; (1) providing a definition for a small box discount store; (2) amending surveillance camera system requirements; (3) amending store visibility requirements; (4) amending automatic teller machine requirements; (5) providing a saving clause; (6) providing a severability clause; and (7) providing an effective date - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AGENDA ITEM THREE. AGENDA ITEM THREE IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 B CONVENIENCE STORES OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 12 B 212, B-1412, B-18 AND 12, B-231, PROVIDING A DEFINITION FOR A SMALL BOX DISCOUNT STORE TO AMENDING SURVEILLANCE CAMERA SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

THREE AMENDING STORE VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDING AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE REQUIREMENTS FIVE.

PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE. SIX PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND SEVEN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH AND COUNCILMEMBER MORENO.

IS THERE A MOTION OR A MOTION TO APPROVE? AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION EITHER OF THE TWO MEMBERS WHO PULLED IT? YES. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM THREE. THANK YOU. I, I REALLY THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE NEEDS MORE STUDY.

IT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHTFULLY REVISITED. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF STAFF TO TRY TO ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IS NOT A REFLECTION ON TRYING TO HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB BETTER IN PROTECTING THE CITIZENRY AND THE BUSINESS OWNERS OF THOSE PARTICULAR TYPES OF PROJECTS. BUT I THINK THAT THE WRITING AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE MAY NOT REALLY BE SUFFICIENT AND MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE AND MAY NOT BE MEETING THE REALLY NEEDS OF, OF THAT BUSINESS OPERATION TYPE.

I WOULD, MY, MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'RE REALLY REGULATING THE OPERATIONS OF A BUSINESS.

THAT'S, THAT'S SOMEWHAT BEING CHILLED BY THE EFFORTS TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY POTENTIALLY OF THE BUSINESS OF OPERATIONS ALSO. AND I DO WANT TO LESSEN THE THE, THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS A LITTLE BIT ONEROUS TO MAYBE LARGER TYPE OF USERS, BUT I THINK IT ALSO IMPOSES AS THE ORDINANCE GENERALLY, IT IMPOSES, I THINK, A STRONG DISCOURAGEMENT, A STRONG DISADVANTAGE TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO OPERATE IN AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO DO BUSINESS IN.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TRY TO DO BUSINESS IN ALL PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND DO IT IN A, IN A WAY THAT THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE TO THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.

SO I WOULD, I THINK THERE'S, DIFFICULTIES IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF SMALL BOX USERS.

I THINK THERE'S DIFFICULTY IN, IN THE ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO THE VISIBILITY ISSUES ON, ON SIGNAGE AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THERE BE CERTAIN

[01:35:10]

AMOUNTS OF GLASS, ETCETERA, ON WINDOWS. AGAIN, THESE ARE BUSINESS ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE OPERATIONS THAT CERTAINLY HELPED THE SAFETY AND SECURITY, BUT IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS, IMPOSE COSTS AND BUSINESS OPERATION DIFFICULTIES TO SMALLER BUSINESS OWNERS. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS, THIS AND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, MOVE TO AMEND THE, THE APPROVAL TO, TO SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE SENT BACK TO THE, THE TO STAFF TO REVISIT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

AND I AND APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES HELPING ME DO IT WOULD IT WOULD BE TO REMAND THIS BACK TO THE STAFF TO, TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE AND SEE IF WE CAN CRAFT SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES THE SMALL BOX USERS WHO NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO BUSINESS THERE, BUT DOES NOT IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT I THINK IS, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND IS I WOULD LOOK AT THIS TOTAL CHAPTER 12 B AS BEING SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, AND I APOLOGIZE MAYOR FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEDURES, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD PUT THE PROPER WAY WOULD BE TO PUSH THIS BACK TO THE GROUP TO, TO REVISIT IT AND ASK US TO BRING IT BACK AND GET SOME OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COMMENTS ON ON THE STRUCTURING OF THIS ORDINANCE. MAYBE IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE'LL JUST LET SOMEONE ELSE MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THAT, MAYBE RECOGNIZE FOR WHAT PURPOSE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND.

WELL, WE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE AHEAD OF YOU, SO I'M GOING TO ASK HIM IF HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW.

IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GET SOME PEOPLE IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE IN THE QUEUE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND TO TO REMAND THIS BACK TO, I GUESS, TO QUALITY OF LIFE OR THIS ACTUALLY CAME FROM PUBLIC SAFETY, I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO REMAND IT BACK TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT DID NOT. IT CAME FROM BOTH. SECOND. OKAY, SO THE MOTION WAS TO REMAND BACK TO WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY, I BELIEVE. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THE MOTION. IS THERE A.

I WOULD DRAW MY SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE TO. THANK YOU.

AND AGAIN, MY MY INTEREST IS NOT TO TO ELIMINATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS.

TO TAKE OUT THE SMALL BOX AND CREATE THE DEFINITION THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN.

AND IT WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE ADVANTAGE TO THE SMALL BOX USERS.

BUT I THINK THAT SINCE THIS CAME WAS RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY, AND IT WAS AND IT CAME THROUGH PUBLIC SAFETY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE TO VET THE STAFF'S REVIEW OF THIS STUFF.

AND I KNOW THIS IS A SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT SUBJECT FOR YOU ALL.

AND AND I WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND THAT THAT WE GO THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE AS A AS A VETTING ISSUE TO BRING THIS BACK.

AND I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THIS. I WANT IT TO TO BE EXPEDITED IF WE CAN, BECAUSE I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THE SAFETY CONCERNS.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE NOT SADDLED WITH EXTRA COSTS UNNECESSARILY, AND THAT THERE'S ANY CHILLING OF THEIR ABILITY TO DO BUSINESS IN, IN WHEREVER IT IS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

SO, AND THAT'S REALLY MY PLEA TO THE GROUP IS TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO, TO PUT THIS BACK TO THAT GROUP.

THAT'S, THAT'S, I'LL RECOGNIZE CHAIRMAN MORENO FOR FIVE MINUTES IF YOU WANT, ON THE MOTION TO REMAND THE PUBLIC SAFETY, BECAUSE YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE ORIGINALLY FOR THE UNDERLYING MOTION. SO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I THINK THAT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'LL BE MAKING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REMOVE THE VISIBILITY REQUIREMENT.

I THINK THAT WAS WE HAD ROBUST CONVERSATION AT PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND I THINK THAT WAS THE ITEM THAT REALLY STUCK OUT TO MYSELF AND TO MY COLLEAGUES.

I COMPLETELY AGREE. WE HAVE TO APPROACH THIS IN A SMALL A PRO SMALL BUSINESS AND AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,

[01:40:01]

BUT I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE VISIBILITY FOR BOTH THE THE PATRONS AND THE CLERKS WORKING AT THESE SMALL BOX STORES.

AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. MR. BAZALDUA, IF YOU'D LIKE, ON THE MOTION TO REMAND THE PUBLIC SAFETY, SPECIFICALLY THAT FIVE MINUTES. DO YOU WANT THAT? THANK YOU. YOU'RE ASKED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT BRINGING IT BACK TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

I THINK THAT THE GROUP THAT WAS CONSULTED WITH THE SMALL BOX STORE GROUP MAY HAVE SOME CONCERNS ON WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS, I KNOW THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS VERY BRIEFLY BECAUSE IT WAS A BRIEFING MEMO AT QUALITY OF LIFE.

I'M NOT REAL SURE WHY IT WAS IN TWO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.

HOWEVER, THIS WAS DISCUSSED. AND I DO REMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER ROTH AT QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONING HOW READY THIS WAS TO COME TO COUNCIL.

THAT WAS THE LAST DISCUSSION THAT I WAS A PART OF AS THE BODY OF THE COMMITTEE ON QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND I WAS EXPECTING US TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER VET THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, I DID SPEAK TO THE CHAIR OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND CHAIRMAN GRACEY AND HE IS WILLING TO AND BECAUSE WE'VE STARTED THAT CONVERSATION I WOULD PREFER THAT WE CONTINUE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT DISCUSSION CONTINUING AT THE COMMITTEE THAT WE ORIGINATED FROM.

WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE SMALL BOX GROUP IN THE WAY THAT WE WANTED TO, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCIES.

I THINK THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT WE ALSO DISCUSSED THIS.

THERE'S THE C STORE COMPONENT IN THE. IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF OUR CITY IS SOMETHING THAT IS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT AS FAR AS CONCENTRATIONS OF, OF THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES VERSUS THAT OF THE NORTHERN PART OF OUR CITY.

AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY JUST TO, TO, TO, TO FURTHER VET THESE PROPOSED CHANGES.

SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE FLOOR TO GO TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

HOWEVER, IF IT IS IN ORDER, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMAND THIS ITEM TO THE COMMITTEE ON QUALITY OF LIFE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IT IS IN ORDER. SO WE'RE NOW ON A MOTION TO. THIS IS OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

SO WE'RE AT THE LIMIT FOR AMENDMENTS. BUT NOW WE ARE ON A MOTION TO REMAND TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THAT MOTION, IF YOU WANT IT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST BE ABLE TO HEAR SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM COLLEAGUES TODAY, BUT ALSO THE GROUP THAT APPARENTLY PUBLIC SAFETY DID GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO, OR THAT THAT THEY CONTACTED THEM IF YOU COULD, IF YOU WERE WILLING TO HAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA AND THE ABILITY TO SPEAK TO THAT WORKING GROUP AND FURTHER VET THESE CHANGES, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO.

MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN YOU RECOGNIZED FOR IF YOU WANT IT ON THE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THIS WAS ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY AGENDA JUST MONDAY, AND THERE WAS QUITE A ROBUST CONVERSATION.

I'M WONDERING CHIEF, COULD YOU GIVE US A DESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT CONVENIENCE STORES, BUT THIS ACTUALLY CREATES A BRAND NEW DEFINITION.

IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR LOCATIONS THAT HAVE A GAS STATION, FOR INSTANCE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO ALSO, WILL YOU TALK ABOUT POINT OF ORDER? MAYOR? SORRY. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I BELIEVE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DISCUSS A REMAND.

IT IS. IT'S A IT'S THE MOTION TO REMAND TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

SO MY CONTENTION WOULD BE THAT IT IS NOT A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE.

IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. AND SO I'M ASKING QUESTIONS RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY TO SHOW THE NATURE OF HOW IT RELATES.

OKAY. WE'LL WE'LL GO ALONG WITH THAT FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

THANK YOU. SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT ITEM TWO, AMENDING THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. THE ATM REQUIREMENTS WHICH SOME OF OUR STORES.

THIS IS A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. YES, MA'AM. THEY'RE PUTTING A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA ON THE ATM.

ON THE ATM, SPECIFICALLY FOR STORES THAT, ARE NOT ARE.

IF THEIR ATM IS LESS THAN 12FT AWAY FROM THE DOOR AND SOME.

POINT OF ORDER MAYOR. I'M SORRY. POINT OF ORDER.

I BELIEVE THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SHE'S REALLY TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT IT BELONGS IN A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE THAN THE ONE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMANDED TO.

SO I'M GOING TO GO. SOUNDS LIKE SHE'S GOING TO THE MERIT OF THE. I'M GOING TO AGENDA ITEM.

BUT THAT. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF COMMITTEE REFERRAL IS, IS IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE PROPER COMMITTEE FOR SUBJECT MATTER PURPOSES.

[01:45:06]

SO WE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER TO GET THERE. THAT'S THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ENDURE.

SO ENDURE WITH ME. SO CHIEF, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE IT AND I'M GOING TO SUGGEST YOU GO.

CHIEF, WAIT. LET ME LET ME RE-ASK THIS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THE ATM BE FAR FROM THE FRONT DOOR. AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. AND THE STORE OWNERS ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

SOME OF THEM WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CLOSER. AND SO YOU'VE COME UP WITH A WAY TO ADD A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BEING ABLE TO HAVE IT FAR AWAY. YOU CAN NOW HAVE IT CLOSER TO THE DOOR IF YOU PUT THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA IN.

IS THAT CORRECT? AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, YES AND NO.

OKAY. GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN. I SEE IT AS A MATTER OF WHETHER THIS BUSINESS IS CAPABLE OF DOING IT.

SOME BUSINESSES AREN'T CAPABLE OF ADHERING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF 12FT AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALL.

THEY'RE SMALL BODEGA TYPE CONVENIENCE STORES.

AND WE FOUND THAT IT WAS, IT COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR, FOR STORES THAT WERE BIGGER, THAT COULD PUT IT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE DOOR.

RIGHT. THERE. SO FROM THE POLICE SIDE, YES, I DO BELIEVE IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE WITH THE DAMAGE THAT WAS BEING CAUSED TO THEIR BUSINESSES.

FOR THE ONES THAT WERE FURTHER THAN 12FT AWAY, AND I DON'T THINK THEIR CONCERN WAS PUBLIC SAFETY. THEIR CONCERN WAS HOW MUCH PROPERTY DAMAGE WAS BEING CAUSED. SO I RECALL A HUGE RASH OF BREAK INS WHERE THEY WOULD CHAIN UP THE ATM AND THEY WOULD JUST DRAG IT THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR. IS THAT WHAT PRECIPITATED THE MOVING THIS ORDINANCE THAT MOVED THE ATM AWAY FROM THE DOOR? I BELIEVE SO, YES, MA'AM. YEAH. THE ITEM THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE STORE VISIBILITY RECEIVED A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE DISCUSSION REALLY CENTERED ON THE NATURE OF BEING ABLE TO TAKE A STORE.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO USE A CVS AS AN EXAMPLE, WHICH IS GENERALLY BRICKED UP EXCEPT FOR THE DOORS AND BEING ABLE TO PUT POSTERS OVER THOSE DOORS SO YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE.

AND WHAT I THINK YOU HEARD WAS PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WE THINK HAVING THE VISIBILITY MEANS AS A CUSTOMER WALKING IN, YOU CAN SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENING.

YOU COULD CALL BEFORE YOU'VE ENTERED A DANGEROUS SITUATION.

AND IF YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE, YOU CAN SEE A THREAT COMING TO YOU.

IF THERE'S NO POSTER THERE. BUT IF THE POSTERS ARE OBSCURING WHAT'S COMING TO YOU INSIDE, THAT'S ALSO INCREASING RISK.

SO THERE IS AN INTEREST, AND I THINK THAT YOU'LL HEAR AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THAT VISIBILITY ISSUE.

AND AMENDING IT. I THINK HAVING CLEAR DOORS PROVIDES THE PUBLIC AND THE EMPLOYEES AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SAFETY.

BUT THESE ARE SAFETY ISSUES. THESE ARE NOT QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES.

SO I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE REMANDED TO A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE.

I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT GOING TO TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD HAVE EVER GONE TO QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE ON THE MOTION TO REMAND TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I GUESS MY QUESTION, FIRST OF ALL IS HOW DID IT GET TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOW DID IT GET TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE? THAT'S CONFUSING TO ME. ANYONE CAN ASK ME THAT ANSWER BECAUSE I WAS TOLD IT WAS THAT QUALITY OF LIFE AT FIRST, AND THEN IT WENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. SO HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, I WILL ASSUME, BUT I'LL HAVE STAFF CONFIRM.

OFTENTIMES WE HAVE CERTAIN TOPICS THAT DO HAVE MORE THAN ONE LENS.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I KNOW I SEE MY CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM OUT THERE.

THEY ARE TYPICALLY ADDRESSING QUALITY OF LIFE TYPES OF CONCERNS AND THEN ALSO SEE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THEY'RE OFTEN DEALING WITH ISSUES AROUND SAFETY.

SO THERE ARE MANY OCCASIONS WHERE THERE IS A THERE'S AN OVERLAP, AND WE TRY TO WORK WITH THE RESPECTIVE CHAIRS OF THOSE COMMITTEES, SOMETIMES TO HOLD THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN A JOINT MEETING.

AND IF WE CAN'T MAKE THAT JOINT DISCUSSION HAPPEN THEN WE'RE OFTEN GOING TO TWO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES.

SO MY HOPE WOULD BE AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THIS THERE WILL BE A WAY TO WHERE STAFF WILL NOT HAVE TO GO BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT COMMITTEES TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

BUT THAT'S WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU SEE A SITUATION LIKE TODAY.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO PRETTY MUCH THE FULL COUNCIL PRETTY MUCH SAID FOR IT TO GO TO BOTH COMMITTEES.

[01:50:08]

IT'S NORMALLY NOT WHEN WE'RE WORKING ON POLICY RELATED ITEMS AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, WE REALLY TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VETTED, DISCUSSED, AND THAT WE GET THE INPUT FROM THE RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES BEFORE IT COMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO TODAY, THE ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL.

NOW I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEMS IF COUNCIL DECIDED THAT INSTEAD OF US TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S YOUR DECISION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT AT A FULL COUNCIL DISCUSSION? I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE DECISION OF THIS BODY THAT.

BUT THAT WHAT, MR. MAYOR, WOULDN'T THAT BE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT.

WE ALREADY HAVE TWO ON THE FLOOR. SO BASICALLY WE CANNOT DO THAT TO BRING IT MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO BRING IT TO A FULL COUNCIL.

FULL COUNCIL. CORRECT. I'LL TREAT THAT AS A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. AND THAT IS CORRECT. COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA, WOULD YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? I WOULD I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

SO, MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO BRING THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL.

HE CAN'T. YOU'RE NOT LATERALLY WITHDRAW A MOTION. THE CHAIR HAS TO MAKE A RULING ON THE WITHDRAWAL OR VOTE ON IT.

SO I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO HIS WITHDRAWAL.

IF THERE IS, WE'LL HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE A VOTE ON IT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE WITHDRAWAL? HEARING NONE.

SO ORDERED. SO WE'RE WITHDRAWING THE THE LAST MOTION.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR BRIEFING.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SO NOW YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ON A MOTION TO HAVE FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING.

AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE IT. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THIS TO A FULL BRIEFING DISCUSSION.

AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH SAY COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA AS WELL. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AS WELL CONCERNING THE SAFETY OF THE SEA STORES.

THAT'S IN DISTRICT FOUR AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN, I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA SAID IT BEST THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SEA STORES IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF DALLAS.

AND SO I THINK THIS, THIS DESERVES MORE CONVERSATION AND MORE TIME TO DISCUSS.

SO THAT'S MY, MY REASONING. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO HAVE A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING ON WHAT IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS ITEM THREE.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. IT'S NOW GOING TO BE BRIEFED TO FULL COUNCIL.

AND SO I IT'S BEEN DISPOSED OF AT THIS POINT.

UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT. MR.. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM FIVE.

[5. 26-2300A Authorize an application for a grant project from the U.S. Department of Justice to reduce violent crime, strengthen public safety response, enhance enforcement and deterrence, support prosecution and victim services, and build capacity to implement the City of Dallas’ Model Cities Initiative - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

AUTHORIZE AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT PROJECT FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME, STRENGTHEN PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE, ENHANCE ENFORCEMENT AND DETERRENCE, SUPPORT PROSECUTION AND VICTIM SERVICES, AND BUILD CAPACITY TO TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY OF DALLAS MODEL CITIES INITIATIVE.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON.

MOTION FOR DENIAL. SECOND. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO DENY.

ITEM FIVE. AND THERE'S A SECOND. MISS BLACK, WOULD YOU LIKE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES, PLEASE? FIVE MINUTES. SO WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION, CAN YOU COME AND EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND HOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT AND WHAT THE GRANT ACTUALLY IS.

GOOD MORNING. KEVIN ODEN, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND CRISIS RESPONSE.

IN JUNE, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISSUED FUNDING AVAILABLE UP TO $300 MILLION THAT THEY INTEND TO FUND BETWEEN 2 AND 4 CITIES FOR A AYE PROGRAM THEY'RE CALLING THE MODEL CITIES INITIATIVE.

THE THE FUNDING BUCKETS THAT THEY INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF FUNDING OR WHAT WERE READ INTO THE ITEM.

SO THIS IS VERY MUCH A RESPONSE. ENFORCEMENT STABILIZATION PROSECUTION AND VICTIM SERVICES GRANT.

AND WE ANTICIPATE BASED ON JUST THE DIVISION OF IT ALL, THAT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 75 AND $80 MILLION IN PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING SPREAD ACROSS THREE YEARS. SO IT'S 80 MILLION UP TO THREE YEARS.

WELL, WHEN YOU PULL THE MODEL CITIES INITIATIVE FROM THE DOJ WEBSITE, IT TALKS OF CITIES THAT HAVE VIOLENT CRIME ISSUES. AND ARE WE ARE WE SEEING AN INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME? OR TELL ME HOW THIS MONEY WOULD BE USED IN. BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT OUR NUMBERS ARE GOING DOWN.

[01:55:04]

SO I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE THOSE THINGS. YEAH.

SO SO WHAT WE BELIEVE THIS POSITIONS DALLAS TO DO IS TO CONTINUE TO ADVANCE THE THINGS THAT ARE WORKING RIGHT.

SO ALL OF THE CONTEMPLATION WE'VE HAD ON THIS IS BUILDING UPON CURRENT SUCCESSES.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE OUR RESPONSE, OUR TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING THE DRONE AS A FIRST RESPONDER, CONTINUING TO INVEST IN THE CHIEF'S VIOLENT CRIME PLAN.

SO HOT SPOTS PLACE NETWORK INVESTIGATION FOCUSED DETERRENCE.

WE'VE ALSO CONSIDERED HAVING MORE FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RESPONSE BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE IS ADDITIONAL CAPACITY NEEDED IN THAT AREA.

INVESTING IN PLACES. SO HIGH RISK PLACES THAT DRIVE CODE CONCERNS BLIGHT, VIOLENT CRIME, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

AND THEN LAST, WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE DA'S OFFICE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR PROSECUTION AND MOVING CASES THROUGH THEIR OFFICE, AS WELL AS INVESTING MONEY, ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN VICTIM SERVICES THROUGH DPD.

AND ALL THOSE ARE GREAT AND I SUPPORT HIM, BUT ONE GIVES ME PAUSE IN.

AGAIN, THIS. WHAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR WEBSITE IS THE DOJ DOJ PRIORITIES AND NUMBER ONE IS LISTED DIRECTLY SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS, INCLUDING IMMIGRATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS.

SO I'M KIND OF I'M WONDERING HOW WE WE BALANCE THAT WITH WHAT YOU'VE JUST LISTED BECAUSE I WANT ALL THOSE THINGS.

AND SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T BECOME AN ARM IN DOING.

AND WE'VE HEARD THE SPEAKERS AND WE'VE SEEN ALL THESE INSTANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME THAT.

I'M GOING TO THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON, FOR YOUR YOUR QUESTION AND YOUR CONCERNS.

I KNOW I SEE OUR CHIEF COMING OUT. I WANT TO REALLY GET TO THE WAYS THAT EVEN WITH SOME OF THE OTHER GRANTS, THE WAY WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, AS WELL AS HOW WE WOULD ENSURE CHIEF COMO, THAT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON HOW THOSE WOULD BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS MANY OF THE GRANTS THAT WE ARE ALREADY INVOLVED IN, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED HAS THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE IN IT.

SO MY GOAL IS TO CONTINUE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN DALLAS.

ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ABOUT, ABOUT THIS, THIS LOAN WAS FOR US TO CONTINUE TO GO AFTER THE WORST OF THE WORST IN DALLAS.

AND FOR US TO CONTINUE TO BRIDGE THAT RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE WITH THE US MARSHALS.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE THAT WE COULD PROVIDE TO YOU THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED HERE AS A COUNCIL.

YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT. CORRECT. THAT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR YEARS.

AND SO IT'S NO DIFFERENT. OKAY. SO YOU EXPLAINED DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.

CAN YOU GO MORE INTO THAT. AND THEN YOU SAY THE WORST OF THE WORST.

AND THAT MEANS ANY TYPE. I MEAN, ANYBODY, IF YOU'VE GOT A I THINK THIS BODY HAS SAID IF YOU ARE A VIOLENT CRIMINAL, REGARDLESS OF YOUR STATUS, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE.

YOU KNOW, WE WERE GOING TO COME, WE'RE GOING TO SEEK YOU OUT.

SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE IMMIGRATION PART OF THIS FOLDS INTO THIS.

IF WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER WHOMEVER IS THE WORST OF THE WORST, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT'S IN ALL THE OTHER GRANTS THAT WE GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

WELL, LET ME SAY, NOT ALL. AND YOU'VE STATED THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THEM.

YES. AND YOU'VE STATED IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE.

I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO UNPACK IT A LITTLE MORE.

WHEN YOU SAY IT'S THE SAME. SO TELL ME WHAT THAT IS, BECAUSE I DON'T I'M NOT IN YOUR DEPARTMENT.

SO WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I'LL HELP YOU. SO SO SPECIFICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN THE APPLICATION ARE TWO ITEMS, EIGHT U.S.C. 1373 AS WELL AS 1644. THESE ARE BOTH 30 YEAR OLD LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT I WENT BACK.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION LAST NIGHT. THIS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN IN GRANTS DATING BACK TO FY 16.

I WORKED ON A ON A JAG GRANT THAT THAT WAS IN THE MCI ITSELF DOES.

AND WHAT DALLAS HAS CONTEMPLATED WHAT WE ARE SUBMITTING, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

THERE ARE NO PROJECTS FOR IMMIGRATION. THERE ARE NO PROJECTS THAT WILL SUPPORT THAT.

AND WE'VE ALSO LEANED HEAVILY ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON SAFER COMMUNITIES INVESTING IN THAT.

THOSE ARE THE TWO BEDROCK DOCUMENTS THAT WILL MAKE UP DALLAS SUBMISSION FOR THIS APPLICATION IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THIS ITEM.

AND SO IF THE REQUIREMENT COMES TO ASSIST WITH IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE WORK WITH THAT, GIVEN WHAT WE WANT, WE BECAUSE WE HAVE A PLAN, RIGHT.

AND WE WANT TO FOLLOW THAT PLAN. HELP ME FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE OUT OF OUR PLANNING.

[02:00:02]

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TO DATE THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING, AND WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE. WE COOPERATE AND ASSIST WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING.

SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NUMEROUS TIMES HERE.

OKAY. AND I'M STILL CONFUSED ON WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING.

BUT SO IT'S FOLLOWING THE, THE PLAN, THE PLAN CRIME PLAN.

AND THIS MONEY WILL BE USED FOR THAT. IS THAT WHAT IT IS? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I WAS GOING TO JUMP IN IF COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON HAD AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

I THINK, AS THE CHIEF IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING, I THINK IT'S BACK TO THE WAY THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE ONGOING ROLE THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY AND THE WAY WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, IF REQUESTED, OUR PARTNERS.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE MEANS WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT CONTINUING TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE HAVE BEEN VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT ENSURING THAT OUR VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN, AS WELL AS THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER WHEN THE CHIEF SAYS THE WORST OF THE WORST. THAT'S PART OF OUR CONTINUATION. AND THIS GRANT REALLY, IF APPROVED BY COUNCIL, PROVIDES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR US TO CONTINUE THAT WORK.

SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE VEIN OF WHERE I THINK THE CHIEF IS GOING.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S BEING MEANT BY WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND IS THIS BECAUSE IT'S A GRANT AND WE'RE APPLYING FOR IT? IT'S NOT BAKED INTO THIS BUDGET. IT WOULD BE A SUPPLEMENT OR A WHAT WOULD BE A SUPPLANT OR SUPPLEMENT SOME OTHER FUNDING.

SO THE WAY THAT WE APPROACHED IT, WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THIS GRANT EARLY SUMMER.

AND SO AS WE STARTED THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND WAYS THAT WE CAN SUPPORT OUR ONGOING CRIME REDUCTION ACROSS THE CITY, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS GRANT TO PROVIDE THOSE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO EXPAND OUR DRONES AS FIRST RESPONDERS BUILT INTO THIS GRANT.

IF THIS GRANT MOVES FORWARD AND IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT SELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS STILL A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.

WE'RE NOT SELECTED THAT FUNDING FOR THE NUMBER OF DRONES THAT WE WOULD GET THROUGH.

THIS IS NOT BAKED INTO THE CURRENT BUDGET. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DENY BY MISS BLACKMON. WELL, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, AND I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING THAT WE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER NOT APPLYING FOR 75 TO $80 MILLION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. HELLO. OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS NEED PUBLIC SAFETY.

THEY TELL US THAT ALL THE TIME, MEN AND WOMEN OF DPD ARE OUT THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY TRYING TO TAKE THESE PEOPLE OFF OF THE STREETS.

IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT OUR CRIME NUMBERS, THEY ARE GOING DOWN FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

THEY'RE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB YEAR OVER YEAR OVER YEAR.

BUT WE STILL HAVE HIGH CRIME. WE ARE NOT THE SAFEST LARGE CITY IN AMERICA.

WE'RE NOT EVEN IN THE TOP TEN. AND IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO ADD THESE KINDS OF RESOURCES TO OUR CITY, WE SHOULD BE THANKING ANYBODY WILLING TO OFFER 75 TO $80 MILLION A YEAR.

I, I WILL PRAY TO GOD THAT WE GET THIS GRANT.

AND I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. AND I 100% SUPPORT IT.

AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS MOTION TO NOT APPLY.

THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS. THANK YOU. MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO NOT GO FOR THE GRANT.

I TO SUPPORT THIS ENDEAVOR TO GET 75 TO 80 MILLION.

CHIEF COMO, DID WE NOT JUST HAVE A MEETING IN MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS DEALING WITH WORST OF THE WORST IN DISTRICT EIGHT IN A PLAN.

DO WE NOT NOW HAVE A PLAN OF ATTACK THAT THIS MONEY WOULD SUPPORT AND AND.

DOING WHAT WE HAVE JUST IDENTIFIED AS A PLAN FOR D8.

YES. THIS WILL COMPLETELY HELP THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY BE SAFER ONCE.

THIS PLAN THAT WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER IS ENACTED AND THIS.

THESE FUNDS WOULD HELP SUPPORT THAT WE ARE WORKING AGAINST THROUGH DIFFERENT SILOS.

THAT WOULD BE YOU THAT WOULD BE CODE. THAT WOULD BE EMCR AND THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD HELP US WITH GETTING THE TOOLS THAT YOUR TEAMS NEED BODY CAMS, DRONES, LOOKING AT HOT SPOTS THAT THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC,

[02:05:03]

AREAS THAT WE CAN THEN IDENTIFY AND USE THESE FUNDS TO TARGET THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS.

YEAH. LOOK, THIS GRANT IS GOING TO HELP IN EVERY SINGLE WAY IN PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND I THINK IT WILL ALSO HELP WITH RESPONSE TIMES, BECAUSE WE WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO GET MORE TECHNOLOGY TO HELP US IN THAT AREA.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WITH TECHNOLOGY IS HELPING OUR RESPONSE TIMES.

AND IF WE CAN DOUBLE DOWN ON THAT AND DOUBLE OUR FLEET, I THINK THE CITY WILL BE EXTREMELY HAPPY.

CITY MANAGER, DID I NOT SEND THROUGH AN EMAIL IN WHICH THAT WAS FORWARDED THROUGH YOUR OFFICE TO HAVE ANSWERED? THERE WAS AN EMAIL WHERE I SENT SOME QUESTIONS THAT I NEEDED TO HAVE ANSWERS.

AND MR. ODIN, YOU WENT THROUGH ALL OF MY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERED THEM.

NOT ONE OF THEM. AND EVERYONE GOT A COPY OF THOSE.

THAT EMAIL, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YES. COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR.

OUR PRACTICE IS THAT IF WE GET QUESTIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS IN ADVANCE, THEN WE COMMITTED TO HAVING A MEMO OUT TO THE COUNCIL THE DAY BEFORE TO WHERE WE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. AND SO WE DID SEND THAT MEMO OUT ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT WE RECEIVED AS OF MONDAY AFTERNOON.

DID I NOT ALSO ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THIS GRANT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD REQUIRE US TO LOOK AT ICE KIND OF ACTIVITIES? AND WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER? I'LL HAVE TO PULL THE MEMO AND LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT IT.

IT WAS JUST A CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND I AND YOU, AND YOU ASSURED ME THAT THIS THAT AS THE THE CHIEF HAS JUST SAID WE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRING. IT WOULD NOT BE. IT WOULD NOT HAVE THOSE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES ATTACHED TO THIS PARTICULAR GRANT.

AND WE WOULD BE GREAT. IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR US TO LOOK FORWARD TO GOING TO GET THIS GRANT, BECAUSE WE COULD WE COULD WE COULD FOCUS ON THE ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WITHIN THE CITY TO DO A BETTER JOB WITH SAFETY.

WE WOULD CONTINUE, AS WE DO CURRENTLY, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE ROLE THAT WE PLAY AND HOW THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED.

I THINK WE DID IT PUBLICLY ABOUT THE STANCE AND THE DIRECTION THAT WE ARE IN AS IT RELATES TO VIOLENT CRIME AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS.

AND I, AND THAT WAS MY CONVERSATION, IS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I APPRECIATE WHAT BOTH OF YOU GUYS ARE DOING HERE.

I TOO, WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE.

I TOO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE OUR BEST AND WITHIN OUR BEST INTEREST TO GIVE OUR SAFETY ITEMS ALL THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO DO THE JOB, IN ORDER TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS EFFECTIVE AND, AND, AND PROACTIVE AND POSITIVE. THANK YOU MUCH. MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. I'M IN OPPOSITION OF THIS GRANT APPLICATION.

THIS IS FRAMED AS A VIOLENT CRIME GRANT, YET IT COMES WITH AN EXPECTATION TO COOPERATE WITH AN AGENCY THAT HAS ITSELF BEEN THE SOURCE OF DOCUMENTED VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.

THERE IS A BITTER IRONY NOW IN ACCEPTING MONEY MEANT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE WHILE BEING ASKED TO WORK ALONGSIDE AN AGENCY THAT HAS INFLICTED IT. THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN CLEAR WE ARE NOT GOING TO TURN CITY RESOURCES, CITY PERSONNEL OR CITY TIME INTO AN EXTENSION OF ICE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S THERE'S A FAILURE TO ARTICULATE THAT CLEARLY HERE FROM THE PODIUM.

PODIUM. IT SEEMS AS IF THE ANSWERS WERE SKIRTED AROUND FROM COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.

I UNDERSTAND A VAGUE RESPONSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE DOING WHAT WE ARE, BUT CAN WE HEAR WHAT THAT IS? SO THE DPD DOES NOT DO ANY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

WE WE HAVE NO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT THAT WE'RE DOING.

NOW. IF OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS ARE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND THEY NEED OUR ASSISTANCE IN CERTAIN AREAS, WE WILL DO THAT. WE JUST HAD A HUGE INVESTIGATION WITH HSI ON PROSTITUTION.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COMPLETELY WORKED WITH THEM ON.

THEY HAVE NOT CALLED US TO SAY, WILL YOU WORK AN IMMIGRATION CASE AND WE WILL NOT WORK AN IMMIGRATION CASE WITH HSI AND WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. SO I GUESS I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ATTORNEYS, JUST LIKE I DID FROM OUR OTHER ITEM, AND ASK IF YOU ALL CAN TELL US THE EXTENT OF VETTING FROM THE CLAUSES WITHIN THE PARTICULAR GRANT AND WHAT THAT WOULD BIND THE CITY

[02:10:08]

TO AND HOW YOU KNOW, IN ANY INSTANCE WE HAVE, LIKE WE HAD IN THE PAST, THE GOVERNOR THREATENED TO TAKE STATE FUNDING OR TO QUESTION OUR COMPLIANCE, ETC..

GUYS, WE'RE IN A SLIPPERY SLOPE. THE FRAMING OF THIS CONVERSATION TO BE ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT OR NOT IS ABSOLUTELY DISINGENUOUS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY WITH DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY GROUPS IN COMMUNITIES, MANY OF WHOM WHO HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED MARGINALIZATION AND VIOLENT EFFORTS THROUGH POLICY IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY. RIGHT NOW, THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY. THE LATINO COMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY IS BEING TARGETED.

WE ARE IN A MULTI YEAR HIGH OF DEATHS IN ICE CUSTODY, INCLUDING FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS HERE THIS SUMMER.

MOST RECENTLY, FOR US TO NOT TAKE THIS CONVERSATION TO BE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS AND NOT BE DISMISSIVE.

THERE IS A COMMUNITY OUT HERE WHO IS AFRAID TO CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THERE IS A COMMUNITY WHO IS AFRAID TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL WHEN THEY ARE SICK.

THERE'S A COMMUNITY WHO IS AFRAID TO GO TO THE SCHOOL WHERE THEIR KIDS ARE ATTENDING FOR THEIR EDUCATION, TO MEET THEIR TEACHERS BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM.

THERE IS A COMMUNITY WHO IS GOING THROUGH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO GAIN CITIZENSHIP, WHO ARE SHOWING UP AT THE COURTHOUSE AND ARE BEING TARGETED WHEN THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT.

FOR US TO IGNORE ALL OF THAT AND ACT LIKE THIS IS A ZERO SUM, BLACK AND WHITE.

THIS IS JUST SUPPORTING OUR POLICE OR NOT IS ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE.

IT'S MISLEADING, AND IT'S REALLY HURTFUL TO AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY WHO IS BEING TARGETED.

WE CAN BE NONCHALANT ABOUT THIS ALL DAY LONG, BUT I REFUSE TO SIT HERE AND BE QUIET WHILE WE IGNORE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND I ALSO REFUSE TO BE COMPLICIT.

THERE'S NOT A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT'S WORTH IT TO ME.

SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, OR AT LEAST COVER OUR BASIS TO SEE IF WE CAN PROTECT THE VERY PEOPLE THAT WE ARE HERE TO REPRESENT, THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION WITH VERY IMPORTANT TECHNICALITY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO JUST BE GROUPED IN WITH.

IT'S EITHER WE'RE TAKING THIS GRANT MONEY OR WE'RE JUST, WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IN SUCH A HORRIBLE WE'RE NOT PUTTING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IN A HORRIBLE PLACE. THAT'S BULL. THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

Y'ALL TAKE MORE THAN 60% OF OUR BUDGET. Y'ALL ARE CONTINUOUSLY COMING BACK WITH YOUR HANDS OPEN, ASKING US TO GIVE YOU MORE. WE NEVER SAY NO. SO FOR US TO SCRUTINIZE THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN IN OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT A COMMUNITY WHO IS BEING TARGETED.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A TONE TO THIS CONVERSATION THAT IS AS IF THIS IS ABOUT SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT.

IT'S WAY BEYOND THAT. ABSOLUTELY WILL SUPPORT THIS DENIAL, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT A DEFERRAL OR A DELAY IF THIS MEANT THAT WE COULD HAVE FURTHER VETTING IN A CONVERSATION WITH LEGAL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE COVERED OUR BASES.

BUT IF OUR BASES AREN'T GOING TO BE COVERED, GENERAL STATEMENTS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING DOESN'T SUFFICE.

THAT DOESN'T GIVE ASSURANCE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS IT MOST.

CHAIRMAN RIDLEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I SHARE MY THE CONCERNS OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT TAKING ANY ACTION BY THIS BODY THAT WOULD OBLIGATE THE CITY TO COOPERATE WITH OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

SO I WANT TO DIRECT A QUESTION TO WHOEVER IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR THIS GRANT, WHETHER THAT BE YOU, CHIEF OR MR. ODIN. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS GRANT PROGRAM THAT, IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD OBLIGATE THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY FORM OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

SHORT ANSWER NO. AND THEN I WOULD ADD TO THAT, THAT IF WE WERE SELECTED, IF WE APPLIED AND WERE SELECTED, WE WOULD STILL NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY TO ACCEPT THE MONEY.

IF ANYTHING CHANGED AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

BUT TODAY, WHAT WE KNOW FOR THE APPLICATION PHASE?

[02:15:02]

NO. AND IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE APPLICATION THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO SUBMIT? IF YOU HAVE THOUGHT THIS FAR, THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT WE WOULD UTILIZE ANY OF THE GRANT FUNDS FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT? UNEQUIVOCALLY, NO. SO YOU DON'T PLAN TO INCLUDE ANYTHING IN THE GRANT APPLICATION THAT WOULD PROPOSE TO UTILIZE ANY FUNDS FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. THERE IS THERE IS NO PROJECT CONTEMPLATED, OR THAT I WOULD IMAGINE WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT WOULD FOCUS AT ALL ON IMMIGRATION OPERATIONS. AS YOU HEARD THE CHIEF SAID, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CITY DOES. WELL, AND LET ME ASK THE CHIEF THIS QUESTION.

YOU HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GRANT PROGRAMS THAT THIS BODY HAS APPROVED IN THE PAST, AND THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO THE SAME THING THAT YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

SO PLEASE CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT IN THESE PRIOR GRANT APPLICATIONS, YOU HAVE RECEIVED NO MONEY THAT OBLIGATED THE CITY TO ENGAGE IN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND IT HAS THE EXACT SAME WORDING THAT WE'RE COLLECTING MONEY.

LIKE ONE, FOR INSTANCE, IS COPS, WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO HIRE MORE OFFICERS, SAME TYPE OF SITUATION, SAME WORDING. AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE APPLY FOR AND ARE AWARDED THIS GRANT AND THERE ARE ANY STRINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT THAT WOULD OBLIGATE US TO PARTICIPATE IN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, THIS BODY CAN REFUSE THE GRANT AT THAT POINT? YES, SIR. WE WOULD STILL NEED TO COME BACK TO THE BODY IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO APPLY, AND THEN IF WE ARE AWARDED TO ACCEPT THE FUNDS.

WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS MOTION CUTS OFF OUR NOSE TO SPITE OUR FACE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLYING FOR THIS GRANT WOULD APPLY TO ANY GRANT, ANY FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT LARGE.

ARE WE REALLY GOING TO CONTEMPLATE CUTTING OFF TRANSPORTATION GRANTS, OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT? MR. ODIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY NOTION OF HOW MUCH MONEY WE RECEIVE YEARLY IN FEDERAL GRANTS OR CITY MANAGER? I THINK IT'S TO THE TUNE OF TO THE NORTH OF ABOUT 300 MILLION.

I DO WANT TO COME IN. AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR HIS COMMENTS AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'VE HEARD WHAT WE WANTED TO ATTEMPT TODAY. AND I DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN SHARE THE DETAILS THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THIS GRANT APPLICATION.

WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL'S POSITION ON IMMIGRATION. YOU'VE MADE THAT VERY CLEAR AND WE WOULD NEVER BRING SOMETHING TO YOU.

IT WOULD NEVER BE OUR INTENTION TO BRING SOMETHING TO YOU THAT WOULD CAUSE FOR THIS COUNCIL'S POSITION THAT YOU'VE ALREADY TAKEN TO BE CIRCUMVENTED.

WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO TODAY IS TO SHARE AND TO HOPEFULLY RECEIVE YOUR SUPPORT TO GO THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

WE KNOW THAT WE'RE COMPETING, WE'LL BE COMPETING WITH OTHER CITIES AND AS MANY OTHER GRANTS THAT WE'VE HAD TO BRING BEFORE THE BODY.

YOU DO HAVE THE LIBERTY OF REJECTING THAT IF WE'RE SELECTED.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH EVERYTHING AROUND THE WAY WE MADE SOME INTENTIONAL EFFORTS TO SWITCH TO OUR DRIVERS OF OPPORTUNITY. NOW, WE ALL WENT AND WORKED TOGETHER ON HOW WE LOOKED AT DEI PROGRAMS. WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CERTIFY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE WAY WE'VE ADDRESSED THOSE, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THAT FEDERAL FUNDING.

SO WE WOULD NOT TREAT THIS ANY DIFFERENTLY. BUT I DO WANT TO SAY WE ACKNOWLEDGE, WE RESPECT AND WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT COUNCIL HAS TAKEN ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO NOT DO AS A CITY GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE WAY WE TURN OUR OFFICERS INTO IMMIGRATION OFFICERS, WE WILL NEVER MOVE AWAY FROM THAT UNLESS THIS BODY DIRECTS US TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

AND I KNOW THAT THE COMMITMENT THAT I HAVE DEMONSTRATED, ALONG WITH THE COMMITMENT OF OUR POLICE CHIEF, IS THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT.

SO IT'S TO THE NORTH OF 300 MILLION, AND I'M SORRY THAT I WAS LONG WINDED IN THAT ANSWER.

I WOULD NOTE IN CONCLUDING THAT THIS ITEM, UNLIKE ITEM FOUR THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED, WHICH WAS AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THIS ONE ONLY SAYS TO AUTHORIZE AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ACCEPTANCE LANGUAGE THAT SUPPORTS WHAT MR. ODIN HAS JUST TOLD US THAT IF WE DON'T LIKE ANY CONDITIONS OR ANY STRINGS ATTACHED FROM THE AWARD OF THE GRANT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE CAN REFUSE THE GRANT.

CORRECT. MR.. YES, SIR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

[02:20:01]

MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.

I WANTED TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY FOR HIS HIS ANALYSIS OF THIS, WHICH, WHICH I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS. I'M REFRESHED BY THE CANDOR BY BY THE STAFF RELATIVE TO EXPLAINING THIS SITUATION.

AND I THINK THAT PROCEEDING WITH THE APPLICATION IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT AND IS AND IS CRITICAL.

AND I THINK WE DO HAVE SUFFICIENT CHECKS AND BALANCES AND SAFETY IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE DEAL.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHIEF, YOU SAID THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND THIS COUNCIL HAS VOTED FOR.

AND YOU SAID THE SAME LANGUAGE. AND YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING.

CAN YOU CAN YOU? AND THIS MAY SOUND REDUNDANT, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

CONTINUE TO DOING WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING. WE'RE NOT FEDERAL AGENTS.

WE ARE HERE TO TAKE CARE AND PROTECT EVERYONE THAT LIVES IN DALLAS AND TRY TO KEEP EVERYONE SAFE.

WE DON'T HAVE AN IMMIGRATION PLAN WHERE WE GO AFTER AND SEEK OUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

IT'S NOT WHAT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES. SO WE'RE DOING WHAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD FOR ME TO LIKE. IT'S WHAT WE DO.

WE PROTECT AND SERVE. WE ANSWER 911 CALLS. WE'RE BEING VERY PROACTIVE IN TRYING TO GO AFTER THE WORST OF THE WORST AND GET EVERYONE OFF THE STREET.

I TAKE PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM ALL OF YOU AND TRYING TO KEEP EVERYONE SAFE AND TO TRY TO SAY THAT IF WE GET THIS GRANT, AT LEAST WHAT I'M FEELING AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF WE TAKE THIS GRANT, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE GOING TO BECOME FEDERAL AGENTS AND GO AFTER IMMIGRATION.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. AND IT'S NOT WHAT WE DO, AND IT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING.

AND I THINK I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THAT SINCE I'VE GOTTEN HERE FROM DAY ONE.

AND THAT THAT STANCE HASN'T CHANGED. IT JUST HASN'T CHANGED.

I CHAIR THE COMBINED PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND THE GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE WHEN WE FIRST GOT HERE.

ACTUALLY, THAT'S MY FIRST MEETING I CHAIRED WHEN WE WAS DEALING WITH THE 287 G AND WE DID NOT SUPPORT IT.

AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR YOUR POINT. I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA POINT WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION AND, AND THE BROWN PEOPLE THAT I SERVE AND ACROSS THIS COUNTRY THAT HAVE BEEN TARGETED.

AND I HEAR YOU SAYING, THAT'S NOT THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AND YOU HAVE COMMITTED TO SAYING THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. AND YOU PRETTY MUCH YOU HAVE BEING A MAN OF YOUR WORD. BUT I CANNOT. I CANNOT IGNORE.

THE PASSION THAT I HEAR IN COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA VOICE.

BECAUSE BLACK FOLKS HAVE BEEN TARGETED. SANDRA BLAND.

GEORGE FLOYD. JUST FOR BEING BLACK. AND SO.

AS THIS COUNCIL HAS VOTED PREVIOUSLY. AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE DONE WHAT YOU SAID THAT YOU WAS GOING TO DO.

THAT STILL DOES NOT. SUBTRACT THE CONCERN THAT I'M HEARING. AND THAT THAT'S WHERE I THAT'S WHERE MY HANGUP IS RIGHT NOW.

SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THIS GRANT IS GOING TO GO TOWARD, IF.

AND IT'S JUST IN THE APPLICATION, THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT. THEY'RE JUST SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR IT. AND I DID HEAR RIDLEY ASK THEY SAID THAT PRETTY MUCH IF WE DO GET IT, THAT YOU WOULD STILL BRING THIS BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR AN APPROVAL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY SEE THIS OR HOW THAT GOES.

RIGHT. SO I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S STILL IT'S WORTH SAYING THAT WE CAN'T TARGET COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT I'M HEARING FROM COUNCILMAN.

BAZALDUA. AND I SHARE THAT CONCERN AGAIN, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE BLACK COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TARGETED AND STILL GETS TARGETED THIS DAY.

[02:25:08]

WHICH IS STILL A CONCERN. MY NEXT QUESTION IS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESOURCES AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO HELP AND ETCETERA. WILL, WILL MONEY GO TOWARD CHIEF AND YOU CAN ANSWER THIS WITH MONEY GO TOWARD THE CRIME, VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS. WOULD THAT HELP? WHAT, HOW WOULD THAT WORK IN THE IF WE RECEIVE THIS MONEY? SO IN ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE CONTEMPLATED IS TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND THE FOCUSED DETERRENCE PROGRAM, WHICH IS NOTED BOTH ACADEMICALLY AND OPERATIONALLY.

ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE BEST WAYS OF COMBATING VIOLENCE THAT EXISTS TODAY.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND LIKELY WILL INCLUDE WILL INCLUDE AN EXPANSION OF THAT EFFORTS, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE CREDIBLE MESSENGERS AND OTHERS THAT HELP WITH THE FOCUSED DETERRENCE PROCESS AND THE CALL INS THAT THEY DO, AS WELL AS CONNECTING THE VOICE OF HOPE, VOICE OF PAIN THAT THAT YOU HEAR TALKED ABOUT WITHIN THAT PROGRAM.

THEY DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. SO IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN.

MR. MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO SEE IF I CAN HELP MY TEAM.

SO TALK ABOUT THE THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND THE FOCUS OF HOW THOSE ITEMS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HELP US EXPAND AND ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME, BECAUSE THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING WITH THE APPLICATION. SO JUST TALK MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THOSE ITEMS ARE.

AND THAT WAY, COUNCIL CAN HEAR THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN IN COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION WITH THE DA'S OFFICE AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS AS A JOINT APPLICATION TO WHERE THAT WOULD NOT BE A DIS ALIGNMENT OF WHAT OUR EFFORTS ARE, AS WELL AS THE DA'S EFFORTS AS WELL. AND ALSO TALKING THROUGH IT WITH HOW WE'VE WORKED WITH JUST THE COUNTY IN GENERAL.

SO JUST BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE'VE INCLUDED IN OUR POTENTIAL APPLICATION.

YES. SO THERE ARE SIX CATEGORIES WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO ANY DEPTH WE NEED TO ON EITHER ONE.

FIRST ONE IS VIOLENT CRIME, HOT SPOT POLICING THAT EXISTS IN THE CURRENT VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN.

WE WILL EXPAND OUR TARGETED OPERATIONS, INCLUDING A NUMBER OF MICROGRIDS THAT WE SERVE, DEPLOYMENT SUPPORT, BUYING EQUIPMENT FOR THE OFFICERS THAT ARE WORKING IN THOSE HOT SPOTS.

NUMBER TWO IS EXPANDING THE PLACE NETWORK INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH IS NUMBER TWO LEG OF THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN.

THAT EFFORT FOCUSES ON HIGH CRIME, HIGH BLIGHT AREAS WHERE MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS COME TOGETHER TO WORK, INVEST IN THE ENVIRONMENT. SO WE'RE DISRUPTION IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT ON AND, AND ARRESTING REPEAT OFFENDERS THAT, THAT UTILIZE PLACES THAT DRIVE RISK. AND I'LL GIVE YOU A STAT THAT'S THAT'S HUNG WITH ME FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

5% OF THE LAND AREA OF THE CITY ACCOUNTED FOR 40% OF THE MURDERS OVER A OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

LIKE THIS IS INVESTMENT IN THAT SORT OF WORK BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING LIGHTING.

WE'RE WE NEED TO TARGET BLIGHT. WE NEED TO TARGET POOR BAD PROPERTY OWNERS.

THAT MONEY WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THOSE EFFORTS.

THIRD IS AN EXPANSION OF FOCUSED DETERRENCE, WHICH I JUST TALKED ABOUT.

WE CAN DO MORE OF THAT. FOCUSED DETERRENCE IS AN EFFORT WHERE YOU TAKE THOSE THAT ARE EITHER HAVE OFFENDED OR AT A HIGH PROBABILITY OF REOFFENDING, AND YOU GIVE THEM AN OFF RAMP. YOU INVEST IN THE PERSON SO THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO GET HOUSING, JOBS, EDUCATION, OTHER SERVICES. THAT'S THE EXPANSION OF FOCUSED DETERRENCE.

WE ARE ALSO CONTEMPLATING INVESTING EXPANSION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS RESPONSE.

THAT WILL INCLUDE OUR OPERATIONS IN 911 WITH THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DESK WHERE WE ARE TAKING LIVE, 911 CALLS WHERE WE RULE OUT VIOLENCE. WE'RE NOT SENDING OFFICERS.

WE'RE NOT EVEN SENDING AMBULANCES AND ENGINES WHEN THEY'RE NOT NEEDED. WE CAN SEND OUR SPECIALIZED TEAMS SO THAT DESK WILL BE EXPANDED WITH THAT.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO INCREASE TELEHEALTH ACCESS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT, AS WELL AS SERVICE PATHWAYS AND PLACEMENT. SO ON OUR CRISIS RESPONSE TEAMS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE STRUGGLE WITH IS WHERE CAN WE TAKE FOLKS, RIGHT? AND SO THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS AT THE COUNTY OF ADDITIONAL DEFLECTION CENTERS.

WE KNOW THE CHALLENGES WITH THE ONE THAT'S IN SOUTH CENTRAL. IT'S HARD TO GET TO.

WE HAVE CONTEMPLATED PUTTING MONEY INTO EXPANDING THOSE EFFORTS SO OFFICERS AREN'T HAVING TO GO FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, NORTH CENTRAL ALL THE WAY TO SOUTH CENTRAL TO DO A QUICK DROP OFF.

WE CAN HELP WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO EXPAND THAT.

WE ALSO HAVE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH RISK PLACE STABILIZATION.

[02:30:01]

SO THAT IS LIGHTING THAT IS NUISANCE ABATEMENT.

CLEAN UP LITTER, ACCESS CONTROL, SHELTER AND DIVERSION CAPACITY, OVERNIGHT MONITORING AS WELL AS STABILIZATION.

SO AND THIS IS REALLY INVESTING IN PLACES AND AND PEOPLE.

SO CAN WE GET MORE BEDS TO PUT FOLKS IN WHEN WE'RE SERVING THEM AT ENCAMPMENTS.

CAN WE PUT UP MORE LIGHTING IN PLACES WHERE WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A LACK OF LIGHTING THAT HELPS PERPETUATE VIOLENT ACTS? THOSE ARE INTERVENTIONS WE ARE INVESTING IN WITH THAT.

AND THEN LAST IS WITH THE DA'S OFFICE INVESTING MONEY IN FIRST DPD VICTIM SERVICES.

SO THERE'S $2 MILLION. WE'VE CONTEMPLATED INVESTING THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED AS PART OF VIOLENCE.

AND THEN FOR THE DA'S OFFICE INVESTING IN THEIR STAFF SO THAT THEY CAN PROCESS CASES QUICKER SO THAT THEY GO TO TRIAL QUICKER.

AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE OFF THE CASE. I KNOW WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS ON, ON THAT BEING A NEED FOR FOR THEIR OFFICE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY. BUT I, I SUMMARIZE IT IN ONLY REALLY ONE OF THESE THINGS IS DIRECT LIKE POLICING.

THAT'S THE HOT SPOT POLICING. EVERYTHING ELSE IS INVESTING IN THE ROOT CAUSES, THE THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PEOPLE.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE DOJ IS LOOKING FOR IN THIS.

THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR BINARY SOLUTIONS. THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR US TO SUBMIT A WISH LIST OF PROJECTS.

THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S A SYSTEM THAT YOU'RE INVESTING IN.

AND WE'VE BEEN VERY DILIGENT IN TRYING TO BUILD THIS OUT WITH WHAT'S ALREADY WORKING AND IDENTIFYING WHAT THINGS CAN WE ADVANCE EARLIER AND GET DONE TO CONTINUE THE PROGRESS THAT THE CHIEF HAS LED ON HIS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN AND OTHERS HAVE LED LIKE IN CODE AND THE LIKE.

SO I HOPE THAT'S NOT TOO LONG WINDED OR TOO AMBIGUOUS.

I'M HAPPY TO DIG INTO IT FURTHER, MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD JUST ADD.

ADDITIONALLY, AND I WANTED TO ALSO NOTE THAT IN THE VERY, VERY FIRST MEETING BEFORE THIS DISCUSSION AROUND THIS APPLICATION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

I ATTENDED THE FIRST MEETING BECAUSE I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE, WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES WERE, AND IF IT WAS IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ACROSS THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE REDUCTION OF CRIME.

AND SO I HAVE SAID IN THE ROOM, I'VE PARTICIPATED AND THEN PRETTY MUCH ASKED THIS TEAM TO WORK AND ENSURE THAT WHAT WE PUT TOGETHER IS TRULY GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO THE COUNCIL THAT I DID THE INITIAL MEETING.

THE CHIEF TALKED ABOUT THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL. I SAID IN THE ROOM, WE HAD OUR DA IN THE ROOM JUST SO WE COULD ALL MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT THIS OPPORTUNITY WAS. AND IT WAS EVEN SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO GO AFTER.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER THANK YOU.

THAT THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME, UNDERSTANDING LIKE WHICH DIRECTION WE'RE TRYING TO GO BECAUSE AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING AND FEELING.

I DO BELIEVE STILL THAT THIS PROBABLY SHOULD.

OVERSEE SOME OF THE CVI PROGRAMS. AND I THINK IT DOES GOOD.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS BEING BEEN DEALING WITH WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIGHTING AND THE BLIGHT REMEDIATION AND ETCETERA.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. AND THE REASON WHY THAT SOME OF THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE, AND I SAID THIS TO CHIEF IN OUR MEETING YOU RESPOND TO THE SITUATIONS THAT HAPPENS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT THE EFFECT. BUT THE CAUSE IS IN MY DISTRICT, GOING BACK TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPING, BRINGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT CREATES OPPORTUNITY AND NO MORE BLIGHT AND CRIME.

BECAUSE WE'RE TIRED OF THE SAME OLD SITUATION THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING MORE GAS STATIONS ON TOP OF GAS STATIONS, MORE CONVENIENCE STORES THAT'S REALLY NOT SERVING THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN I GOT TO CALL YOU OUT HERE TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE SAME THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY TO GET A GRANT TO FIX, BUT IT STARTS IN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

IF THEY CAN STOP DOING THAT AND BRING REAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY, THEN SOME OF THIS STUFF WILL BE SOLVED IN THE TOP END AND NOT ON THE BACK END.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN STEWART RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION THAT IT'S PROMPTED.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO TO LOOK AT THE IMMIGRATION PIECE.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE GRANT MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT.

I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE TO CHIEF COMO, TO MR. ODIN, ACTUALLY TO COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY AS WELL FOR HIS QUESTIONS.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THE CITY MANAGER. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION OUT, AND I THINK THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS YOU GAVE OF THE VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN, THE THE GRIDS, THE P AND I AND THE FOCUS DETERRENTS.

YOU KNOW, I HEAR THAT EVERY MONTH, AS DO OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

AND OUR CHAIR IS CERTAINLY VERY WELL VERSED IN IT.

SO WE GET THAT WHEN YOU ALL TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POTS OF MONEY OR WHAT WORK IS BEING DONE,

[02:35:05]

BUT IT'S IT'S I FIND THE PLAN FASCINATING. AND IT'S THE THIRD RUNG OF IT, THE FOCUS DETERRENCE THAT ALWAYS GETS ME BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THERE'S HOPE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PEOPLE AND SAYING, WHAT CAN WE DO FOR YOU? WHAT DO YOU NEED? AND IT TURNS OUT THEY NEED A JOB.

THEY NEED HOUSING, THEY NEED FOOD. AND THEY'RE TALKING TO THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL.

SO I COULD GO ON ALL DAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE PIECES OF THAT PLAN.

I'M RELIEVED TO HEAR THAT THAT IS PRIMARILY WHERE THIS MONEY IS GOING TO THAT PLAN AS WELL AS OTHER RESOURCES.

OTHER PROGRAMS ARE IN PLACE. WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND WE KNOW THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I WON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND THE CONVERSATION.

AND I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT SOMETIMES TO GET THIS OUT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN WILL IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WELL, I AGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE WANTED TO EXPLORE THIS.

I THINK THIS IS DUE DILIGENCE. I THINK WE'RE RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND UNDERSTAND ANY STRINGS ATTACHED.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST SMART. DECISION MAKING AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS HERE THAT COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPRESSED BECAUSE SEEING U.S.

CITIZENS ENSNARED IN SOME OF THESE EFFORTS MANY, IF NOT MOST WHO ARE BROWN AND HAVING THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY THEY'VE BEEN VIOLATED.

SO I, I GET IT, I THINK EVERYONE IS HEIGHTENED AROUND THAT.

SO MY NUMBER ONE FOCUS IS ON KEEPING OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS SAFE AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD PULL DPD AWAY FROM DOING THAT, I WOULD HAVE A VERY HARD TIME SUPPORTING. SO IN THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION, CHIEF, I'M HEARING THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THIS GRANT TO REDIRECT A DALLAS POLICE OFFICER TO ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT. WOULD NOT.

SO WHAT I'M HEARING THEN IS THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT RESPONSE TIMES.

IF, AS YOU'VE SAID, WHICH IS OUR TOP GOAL. THIS GRANT IS ONLY GOING TO HELP US WITH RESPONSE TIMES BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO ADD TECHNOLOGY, QUITE FRANKLY, FOR MONEY THAT WE DON'T HAVE. IF I CAN PUT 30 DRONES UP TODAY, I WOULD LOVE TO PUT 30 DRONES UP TODAY.

AND YOU WOULD SEE RESPONSE TIMES GO DOWN IMMEDIATELY.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR 30 DRONES. BUT IF WE GET THIS, WE'LL EXPAND OUR DRONE PROGRAM IMMEDIATELY.

SO STAYING ON THAT FOCUS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN LISTENING FOR.

AND SO I'M HEARING THAT FROM YOU AND MR. ODIN.

THANK YOU FOR THAT DETAIL, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE TECHNOLOGY WHICH WE TALK ABOUT A LOT, YOU KNOW, IN REGARD TO DRONES AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU ALL CAN USE TOOLS TO HELP US SOLVE CRIMES.

BUT HEARING ABOUT THE MOVING OF PROSECUTION OF CASES FORWARD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DPD CAN CATCH THE BEAR, BUT THE DA'S GOT TO SKIN THE BEAR. AND SO WE'VE REALLY GOT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS LOOP CLOSED.

AND THEN HEARING ABOUT THE KNEE PLACE NETWORK INVESTIGATIONS, WE'VE GOT THIS ON EITHER SIDE OF DISTRICT 13 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA ON THE OTHER. AND THERE WAS AN AMAZING TRAFFICKING BUST ON AN OPERATION.

AND SO IF THIS HELPS FUEL THAT, THAT'S GREAT.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, VICTIM SERVICES. I'M VERY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THAT IS A PART OF THIS BECAUSE THAT IS VERY MUCH DESERVED.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER SEED PROGRAMS, IDEALLY WE WOULD GET TO PEOPLE BEFORE THEY MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THE LAW.

BUT ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THE FOCUSED DETERRENCE PROGRAM IS THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT CITY RESOURCES OR EVER HEAR ABOUT THEM THAT IF THEY DO RUN AFOUL AND THEY GET INTO THE FOCUSED DETERRENCE PROGRAM, THEY'RE JUST SURROUNDED WITH ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SUPPORT THEM AND GET THEM BACK INTO A BETTER SITUATION.

SO I THINK I'VE HEARD ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT A MOTION TO DENY APPLYING FOR THIS GRANT.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. THIS ONE'S DIFFICULT. THERE'S SO MUCH TO, TO THINK ABOUT AS WE TAKE THIS VOTE.

WE HAVE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SCARED. WE HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE LIVING IN FEAR.

AT THE SAME TIME, I'M HEARING HOW THESE DOLLARS COULD BE USED TO MAKE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS SAFER AND KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE DO NOT WANT OUR LOCAL DPD TO BE FEDERAL AGENTS.

I THINK OUR CITY MANAGER UNDERSTANDS OUR POSITION AND OUR DIRECTIVE.

YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT THIS IS A MULTI-STEP PROCESS, AT LEAST ANOTHER STEP MAKES GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM.

A QUESTION THAT I DO HAVE IS, IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM THIS APPLICATION, THIS GRANT FROM PREVIOUS GRANTS THAT WE HAVE

[02:40:06]

APPROVED IN THE LANGUAGE? SO NO I DID LOOK AT THIS AND I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE ON IN DECEMBER, DECEMBER 10TH, 2025, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THREE DOJ GRANTS.

ONE OF THOSE WAS THE COPS GRANT THAT THE CHIEF REFERRED TO.

THAT ALLOWS US TO HIRE 50 OFFICERS WITH A WITH A MATCH TO IT THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE, EIGHT U.S.C.

1373 WAS IN THAT LANGUAGE OR WAS IN THAT GRANT AS IN THIS ONE, AS IN EVERY OTHER DOJ GRANT THAT COMES OUT.

AGAIN, I'LL SAY THAT I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AFTER COUNCILWOMAN.

BLACKMON BROUGHT THIS TO ME. THIS SAME LANGUAGE WAS IN GRANTS DATING BACK TO 2016 THAT I RECALL WORKING ON.

SO THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON. WHAT IS INCLUDED? SO IF THIS GRANT WERE TO BE DENIED, WE WOULD STILL HAVE OTHER GRANTS WITH THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE IN THE BOOKS TODAY.

CORRECT. I'M MANAGING TWO RIGHT NOW, AND I CAN SAY THAT I HAVE HAD NO IMPACTS OF OF THAT LANGUAGE.

IN FACT, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE CITY MANAGER REFERENCED OF LOOKING AT COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, WE LOOKED AT THAT WITH THESE GRANTS AND WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE, SAME AS AS THE CHIEF MENTIONED, GOING THROUGH WITH THE STATE, REVIEWING HIS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND REVIEWING COMPLIANCE.

WE HAVE NOT ADDED ANY PROGRAMS, CHANGED ANY POLICIES OR OPERATIONS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS GRANT THAT IS ALSO INCLUDED IN OTHERS.

TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMELINE. WHEN THE APPLICATION IS WHEN WE THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION.

YES. SO THAT'S PART OF THIS I'M DREADING IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, THERE WILL BE MANY 2 A.M.

NIGHTS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN BY SEPTEMBER 1ST.

MY GOAL IS TO HAVE THIS IN BY AUGUST 28TH. THAT'S A FRIDAY.

WHAT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS THAT THEY WILL COLLECT ALL THE APPLICATIONS.

THEY WILL REVIEW THEM IN SOME SCORING RUBRIC.

AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE A SUBSET OF THE APPLICATIONS.

THERE WILL THEN BE A SECOND ROUND OF SCRUTINY OF, OF THE APPLICATIONS WHERE A SUBSET OF THE CITIES THAT APPLY WILL WILL GO TO DC IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE PRESENT THEIR SYSTEM AND THEIR PLAN TO THE LEADERSHIP OF DOJ.

AND AT THAT POINT, THEY WOULD THEN THEN AWARD THE GRANT TO WHOEVER THEY SELECT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MAYOR CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF MY COLLEAGUES.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY FOR THEIR POINTS.

AND I WANT TO START WITH WITH COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON'S POINTS FIRST IN THAT AS A BLACK MAN, EVEN AS AN EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBER, WE ARE ALL AT RISK AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

I GOT STOPPED FOR WALKING IN THE PARKING LOT BY ONE OF OUR OWN AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, SO WE ARE ALL AT RISK.

WHETHER THIS HAPPENS OR NOT. DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT WAS AND ALL THAT.

IT'S OUR IT WAS YEARS AGO. BUT WE'RE ALL AT RISK IN THAT SENSE THERE.

SO, SO I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT PART OF IT THAT, THAT WE CAN APPRECIATE THE, WHAT, WHAT OUR BROWN RESIDENTS ARE GOING THROUGH IN THIS SENSE THERE. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY FOR FOR MAKING IT VERY CLEAR.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO ASK IT AGAIN, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BEEN ASKED A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT I SEE YOUR POSTURE, CHIEF, AND I SEE YOUR EYES AND EVERYTHING, MAN.

SO I'M CONFIDENT THAT THIS WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY TYPE OF ICE OPERATIONS AND THINGS.

AND IT HASN'T BEEN YEARS IN THE PAST. BUT AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU SAY IT ONE MORE TIME? I'LL ANSWER IT ONE MORE TIME. WE WILL NOT HAVE TO BECOME FEDERAL AGENTS.

AND AS LONG AS AND I'LL GO A STEP FURTHER. AS LONG AS I'M THE CHIEF OF POLICE, WE WILL NOT BECOME FEDERAL AGENTS.

I'VE DONE MY TIME WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I'M THE CHIEF OF DALLAS.

I'M HERE TO TAKE CARE OF DALLAS AND KEEP EVERYONE SAFE.

PERFECT. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT. WITH THAT SAID, THE OTHER POINT THAT WAS MADE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHO MADE THAT, BUT THIS IS THE APPLICATION SO I CAN SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION AND COMING BACK WITH MORE CONVERSATION UPON APPROVAL TO ENSURE TO COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA POINT THAT THIS IS NOT AT RISK.

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING I HAVE A RESIDENT MISSING RIGHT NOW.

HE'S NOT WITH DPD. HE'S NOT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS.

WE DON'T KNOW IF HE'S BEEN IN TROUBLE OR WHAT. SO I UNDERSTAND THE RISK THAT PEOPLE ARE FACING OUT IN THIS COMMUNITY.

SO I DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE THIS AT ALL. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

HOWEVER, YESTERDAY WE JUST HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BUDGET AND ALL OF THAT.

[02:45:03]

AND I DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS. SO LET ME ASK THIS.

IF WE DON'T GET THIS MONEY, WHAT DOESN'T HAPPEN? I THINK THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED AS WELL IN TERMS OF OPERATIONS, IN TERMS OF AND IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST LISTED OUT? ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD NOT HAPPEN IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE TEAM. AS I MENTIONED, THE WAY WE APPROACH THIS, BECAUSE WE WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY AS PART EARLY SUMMER. AND SO WE STARTED DOING OUR WORK. WE REACHED OUT TO THE PARTNERS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, WHO WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

AND SO THE APPROACH THAT WE TOOK, AND I THINK THIS IS BACK TO WHAT I BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL EXPECTS, IF WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO LEVERAGE OTHER RESOURCES TO HELP US ENHANCE AND EXPAND, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO IN.

AND WHETHER IT'S A COMPETITIVE PROCESS OR WE'RE DOING SOME OTHER DIRECT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE WAY THAT WE'VE APPROACHED IT. A LOT OF WHAT MR. ODIN HAS OUTLINED THAT'S IN OUR POTENTIAL PROPOSED APPLICATION.

THOSE ARE ALL EXPANSIONS. THOSE ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOID IN HOW WE CONTINUE TO ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME AND ALL OF THE OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE CURRENTLY EXIST. BUT THIS IS ABOUT GETTING ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO EVEN TAKE IT A STEP ABOVE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL FIND RESOURCES THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME FROM ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS IF WE CAN FIND THOSE RESOURCES, WHICH IS WHY WE WENT FORWARD WITH OUR CDBG FUNDING, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS COUNCIL WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE VERY SERVICES THAT ARE PROTECTING THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR CITY, THAT THEY STILL HAVE THAT FUNDING THAT SUPPORTS THEM.

SO THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE TREATED IT. IF, FOR WHATEVER REASON, COUNCIL DECIDES NOT TO MOVE FORWARD OR YOU DO AND WE ARE NOT SELECTED, WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING AROUND THE CRIME, THE VIOLENT CRIME PLAN.

BUT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT TAKING THAT PLAN A DIFFERENT STEP ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE TODAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AGREE WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS THAT SAID THIS IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE.

SO I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT DPD HAS DONE AND CONTINUES TO DO TO PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY AND BUILD TRUST WITH ALL COMMUNITIES ACROSS DALLAS, AND I APPRECIATE THE REASSURANCE FROM OUR CITY MANAGER AND POLICE CHIEF REGARDING DPD'S POSITION ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE POSITION THIS COUNCIL HAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN.

I TRUST Y'ALL'S INTENTIONS. IT'S THE INTENTIONS OF OTHERS THAT GIVE ME PAUSE AND SO MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THAT I HAD HAVE BEEN ASKED, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE. WHAT EXACTLY WOULD DALLAS BE COMMITTING TO WHEN APPENDIX C REQUIRES US TO WORK CLOSELY WITH AND AS APPROPRIATE, RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM DOJ? SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE KNOW IS WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE PROGRAM.

AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU AS A COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IF, IF THIS PASSES, WE SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.

IF WE'RE AWARDED, WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE MONEY.

AND AT THAT TIME, LIKE WITH EVERY OTHER GRANT, THERE WILL BE STANDARD FEDERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT AND ACCEPT THE, THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES IN THE PROGRAM MANUAL, EVEN UP TO THE FUNDING, LIKE I'VE HEARD WE HAVE UP TO 300 MILLION, WE MAY AWARD TWO CITIES, WE MAY AWARD FOUR CITIES.

I THINK AS WE ADVANCE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IF THIS IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL WE WILL CERTAINLY LEARN MORE.

AND THAT WILL CERTAINLY ALSO BE INCLUDED IN ANY FUTURE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNCIL IF IT IS AWARDED TO DALLAS.

AND WE CHOOSE TO BRING THAT FOR ACCEPTANCE. OKAY.

KEVIN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT OTHER GRANTS THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS ACCEPTED ALSO CONTAIN AN APPENDIX C OR A SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT THAT WE JUST THAT I JUST ASKED ABOUT.

SO THE, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS IN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ALL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ALL, BUT ALL OF THE ONES I HAVE LOOKED AT WHICH IS WHICH ARE MANY THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS APPROVED INCLUDE EIGHT U.S.C.

1373, WHICH IS AN INFORMATION SHARING LAW. THE ATTORNEYS CAN, CAN TELL YOU WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS.

THAT IS FREQUENT STANDARD COMMON LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN DOJ AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.

[02:50:06]

THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED IN GRANTS I MANAGE, AND I HAVE NEVER ONCE BEEN IMPACTED IN ANY WAY BY THAT LANGUAGE BEING INCLUDED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MY QUESTION WAS SPECIFIC TO APPENDIX C.

DO THE OTHER GRANTS YOU'VE LOOKED AT CONTAIN LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO APPENDIX C THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY TO RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM THE DOJ.

I HAVE I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT IN OTHER GRANTS, BUT THERE'S I WOULD SAY THERE'S MANY NUANCES TO THIS GRANT THAT I'VE ALSO NEVER SEEN.

LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE APPLICATION IS THEY WANT A 20 PAGE PAPER SUBMITTED.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES TO THIS THAT I THINK, AGAIN, WE WILL LEARN AS WE GO THROUGH WHAT SOME OF THE AMBIGUITIES ARE.

AND THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, WEIGH IN, APPROVE, DENY, MODIFY THOSE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

GOT IT. YEAH. SO THAT WAS JUST MY POINT, MAN.

THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. THIS ISN'T JUST A, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR OR EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OTHER OTHER GRANTS WE'VE, WE'VE ACCEPTED. AND SO ONE OTHER QUESTION COULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DETERMINE THAT AN EXISTING CITY POLICY OR PRACTICE CONCERNING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THIS GRANT.

IF SO WHAT HAPPENS? DO WE LOSE THE GRANT? DO WE HAVE TO REPAY THE MONEY OR HAVE TO CHANGE THE POLICY? I DON'T COMPLETELY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I'LL ANSWER IT THIS WAY.

BACK. WHAT WAS IT, 2024? 2025? WHEN THERE WERE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED RELATED TO ALL FEDERAL GRANTS RECEIVED BY CITIES? THE CITY MANAGER LED AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUPPORTED REVIEWING ALL POLICIES, ALL PROCEDURES, ALL EVERYTHING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER.

AND THEN THIS COUNCIL RECEIVED THE FINDINGS OF THAT.

ONCE IT WAS DETERMINED WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOTHING FROM THAT TIME HAS CHANGED.

NOTHING ABOUT OUR OPERATIONS HAVE CHANGED IN BEING IN COMPLIANCE.

SO I WOULD BE HIGHLY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT IF, IF THAT SCENARIO EVER DID COME UP.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I KNOW THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST WHEN I THINK VERY HIGH LEVEL, I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE MONEY CONTROLS SO MUCH.

YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT INVESTING IN PUBLIC SAFETY.

I SUPPORT GIVING OUR POLICE OFFICERS THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO, TO REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME, PROTECT VICTIMS, AND KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SUPPORT.

THE ITEM AS IT'S PRESENTED TO US TODAY. AND MY CONCERN IS NOT WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY GOALS OF THE GRANT.

IT'S JUST MY CONCERN IS WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT COME WITH THE MONEY THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A GRANT THAT GIVES DALLAS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND ALLOWS US TO DECIDE HOW BEST TO USE THEM.

THIS IS A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXPECTS TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM.

OVER THE LIFE OF THE AWARD. AS I AS I STATED, THE CITY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMMIT TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH DLG.

AND AS THE APPLICATION ITSELF STATES RECEIVING DIRECTION FROM DOJ IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INITIATIVES FUNDED THROUGH THE PROGRAM.

AND SO THAT ALONE DESERVES CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BY THIS COUNCIL.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION RELATED PROVISIONS.

THE GUIDELINES EXPRESSLY IDENTIFY SUPPORTING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS AS A AS A DOJ PRIORITY.

AND THAT CONCERNS ME EVEN MORE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, AS OUTLINED BY MR. BAZALDUA. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT FUNDING AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM AND THAT THERE ARE MANY WORTHWHILE PUBLIC SAFETY INITIATIVES THAT THESE DOLLARS COULD SUPPORT.

BUT FEDERAL MONEY IS NOT FREE MONEY WHEN ACCEPTING IT REQUIRES A CITY TO SURRENDER DISCRETION, ASSUME OBLIGATIONS OR POTENTIALLY ALTER ITS POLICIES.

AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THE PASSION THAT MR. BAZALDUA HAS, AND I, TOO, HAVE THAT SAME PASSION AS CHAIRMAN JOHNSON SHARED.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO A MOTHER WHO HAS A SON OF COLOR.

THIS IS. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUST COLOR, GUYS.

THIS IS ABOUT TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY AND FAIRLY.

[02:55:04]

THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING COMMUNITIES. THIS IS ABOUT DOING ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAY WE WANT TO DO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE DALLAS IS A WORLD CLASS CITY.

I ALSO HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT WE HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE AND STOP BEING SO REACTIVE.

THIS GRANT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT WAYS TO BE PROACTIVE IN HELPING TO SECURE OUR COMMUNITIES SO THAT VIOLENCE DOESN'T OCCUR AND CRIME DOESN'T OCCUR BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TYPE OF LIGHTING, AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TYPE OF TOOLS IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

ONE OF THE. BUT I ALSO WANT TO THANK. CHAIR RIDLEY BECAUSE HE WAS.

IN HIS ELOQUENCE, HE WAS ABLE TO SAY WHAT. AND ASK THE QUESTIONS AND GET THE INFORMATION OUT THAT I STUMBLED ACROSS TRYING TO DO. I THANK EVERYBODY ELSE WHO ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT I DIDN'T THINK TO ASK, BUT I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS GOT THE ANSWERS FOR.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I REALLY WANT US TO HIGHLIGHT IS AS WE VET IT AND AS WE VET THIS OPPORTUNITY, WE DON'T LOSE SIGHT IN THE FACT THAT GETTING THE PERMISSION TO ASK FOR THE MONEY DOES NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE MADE THE COMMITMENT TO ACCEPT IT. IF AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE FIND THAT THERE IS THINGS THAT WE DON'T WANT, WE DON'T LIKE, WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE MONEY.

THE ONLY THING WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF WE QUALIFY, AND IF WE CAN GET THE GRANT IN ORDER TO DO THINGS THAT MAKES THE CITY A BETTER CITY. SO DON'T DON'T GET STUCK ON WHAT THE GRANT SAYS.

GET STUCK ON. GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF WE CAN GET IT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR.

I'M SORRY WE HAD SOMEONE JUMP IN THE QUEUE. MISS CANADA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WELL, AS A LATINA, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE WORDING IN THE APPLICATION.

FOR SURE. IN TODAY'S CLIMATE, I WALK AROUND WITH MY PASSPORT AND MY PURSE AND I ECHO MAYOR PRO TEM CONCERN.

I DO HAVE PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S IN MY COMMUNITY AND I'VE WORKED WITH THE CHIEF.

I KNOW THEY'VE DONE SOME WORK. SO I CALLED THE DOJ YESTERDAY AND WAS TOLD THAT THE PROJECT WAS SIMILAR TO PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY WORKING IN MY DISTRICT AND ALSO IN COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART'S.

BUT UNLIKE THAT PROJECT, THIS IS A NEW PROJECT AND ONE THAT WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT.

I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THIS IS AN APPLICATION WITH THE OFFICE OF, OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND NOT HOMELAND SECURITY, WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE. I DO SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY.

I KNOW OUR OFFICERS WANT TO FOCUS ON, ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND NOT IMMIGRATION, BUT AS A LATINA, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS WILL AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY AND THE FEAR IT MAY CREATE.

WHILE THIS WILL AFFECT COMMUNITIES, THIS COULD CAUSE CONCERNS WITHIN THE LATINO COMMUNITY, AND THERE IS UNKNOWN BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM.

THANK YOU. MR.. MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD. SO ONE OF YOU BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT.

AND ONE OF THE POINTS IS THAT THIS IS A DOJ, AND WE WORK WITH DOJ EVERY SINGLE DAY AS A DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WHAT FALLS UNDER DOJ IS LIKE THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, THE FBI, ATF, AND THAT'S WHERE THIS ORIGINATED FROM.

AND THAT'S WHERE EVERY SINGLE DAY. THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WORKS WITH DOJ, AND THAT'S TO KEEP EVERYONE OFF THE STREET THAT DOESN'T BELONG ON THE STREET.

THE FELONY PROGRAMS THAT WE WORK EVERY SINGLE DAY TO KEEP EVERYONE SAFE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS.

AND THAT'S GOING TO HELP US IN THIS AREA. AND CHIEF, HOW HAS HOW HAVE YOU WORKED WITH THE DOJ MAYBE IN THE PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THIS PROGRAM? WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOJ IS DOING FOR US, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET THESE REPEAT OFFENDERS, THEY'RE TAKING A LOT OF THESE CASES FEDERALLY.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MORE. WHEN I SAY THE WORST OF THE WORST, WE HAVE MORE.

THE WORST OF THE WORST GONE FEDERAL. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THE COUNTY COURTS ANY LONGER.

WE ARE TAKING THE ONES WHO WERE CONSTANTLY ARRESTED AND CONSTANTLY GETTING REPEATED FELONY OFFENSES, GOING TO DOJ SO THEY CAN GET A TOUGHER AND A STIFFER SENTENCE.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, QUITE HONESTLY, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH US EVERY SINGLE DAY TO MAKE SURE ANYONE THAT WE PRESENT TO THEM,

[03:00:09]

THEY'RE TAKING THEM OFF OF THE STREETS. AND IT'S A BIG PART IN HOW WE'RE KEEPING DALLAS SAFE.

AND SO EVERY SINGLE DAY WE'RE WORKING WITH DOJ ALREADY.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

I ACTUALLY WOULD JUST LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK? MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I I'M CURIOUS ON THIS APPLICATION INFORMATION. WHAT PAGE? IT'S NOT NUMBERED. YEAH.

ON NUMBER PAGE NUMBER EIGHT. UNALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES.

THE FOLLOWING ARE CERTAIN UNALLOWABLE COSTS AND CERTAIN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OUT OF THE PROGRAM SCOPE AND WILL NOT BE FUNDED.

ANY PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES OR PROMOTES OR FACILITATES THE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EIGHT U.S.C.

1373 OR IMPEDES OR HINDERS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW, INCLUDING BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH EIGHT U.S.C.

1373. GIVE ACCESS GIVING ACCESS TO DHS AGENTS, OR HONOR DHS REQUESTS AND PROVIDE REQUESTED NOTICE TO DHS AGENTS. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS DOES NOT BIND US TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING.

SO I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AGAIN. EIGHT U.S.C.

1373 IS I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THAT. THIS IS LANGUAGE WE'VE HEARD BEFORE.

I'M ASKING IF WE ARE DEFINITIVELY SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO COMPLY, THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO WORK WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF FEDERAL AGENCY, THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW.

CORRECT. THAT WOULD DIRECTLY BE IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THIS SAYS WE HAVE TO COMMIT TO.

SO HOW ARE YOU ALL SAYING BOTH? ANSWER THAT FOR ME, PLEASE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD ANSWER BY SAYING WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EIGHT U.S.C.

1373. THAT WAS WHAT WAS PART OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR GRANTS, BECAUSE THIS IS, AGAIN, STANDARD LANGUAGE ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS CONTEMPLATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR GRANT THAT WOULD CHANGE, ADD, MODIFY ANY OF THE COMPLIANCE WE ALREADY HAVE WITH THAT STANDARD.

YOU'RE MISSING THE QUESTION. IF TOMORROW ICE CALLS UP THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TELLS THEM THAT THEY NEED THEM IN A IN A SPECIFIC MISSION, AND THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE.

WE'RE NOT FEDERAL AGENTS. WE'RE HAPPY TO DO WHAT WE DO FOR PERIMETER, ETC.

BUT WE ARE NOT PARTICIPATING. THAT IS DIRECTLY VIOLATING WHAT THIS SAYS.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTLY VIOLATES IT.

SO EXPLAIN TO ME IF OUR STANCE PUBLICLY AND WE'RE SAYING THIS ON RECORD TO THOSE WHO WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS GRANT APPLICATION, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION OF YOUR AGENCY BY SAYING THAT DEFINITIVELY AND STANDING ON BUSINESS.

HOW DOES THAT GIVE US COMPLIANCE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? SO WHAT I WOULD LEAN ON ON THAT, AND I'D PROBABLY REFER IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEYS FOR THEIR HELP, IS TO DISCUSS WHAT EIGHT U.S.C. 1373 IS. THAT'S NOT MY EXPERTISE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S INFORMATION SHARING.

IT'S NOT OPERATIONAL. INFORMATION SHARING IS A PROBLEM.

IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN, I KNOW THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS GETTING READY TO ADDRESS IT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, OF COURSE, THAT WE'RE ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

BUT WHAT WE'VE LAID OUT IN CONSULTATION AND WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEYS IS WHAT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL AS IT RELATES TO THE ITEMS THAT WE IDENTIFIED.

SO ANY QUESTIONS AROUND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE COMPLIANCE AND THE LEGALITIES OF IT? WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. MR. MAYOR, I GUESS I'LL START WITH 8381373. THAT IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. AND I WAS AFRAID OF FEEDBACK AND IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

SO THIS ACTUALLY PRETTY MUCH MIRRORS STATE LAW OR VICE VERSA, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW. A FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR OFFICIAL MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR IN ANY WAY RESTRICT ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR OFFICIAL FROM SENDING TO OR RECEIVING FROM THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

INFORMATION REGARDING THE CITIZENSHIP, CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS, LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL OF ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT'S ALREADY FEDERAL LAW.

THAT IS MYRIAD. WE HAVE STATE LAW THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO COOPERATE.

[03:05:02]

IT DOESN'T OBLIGATE ANYBODY TO TAKE AN ACTIVE PART.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD DEFER TO THE CHIEF, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE INFORMATION SHARING.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ASSURANCE IT GIVES FOR OUR ATTORNEYS TO SAY THAT HE THINKS THAT'S THIS ISN'T SOMETHING I WANT TO THINK.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO.

I WANT TO KNOW HOW THAT IMPACTS THE COMMUNITY. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT'S THE EXPECTATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S ENOUGH QUESTION THAT I DO INTEND ON SCRUTINIZING HEAVIER.

ONCE THE GRANT COMES BACK, IF WE WERE TO BE CHOSEN.

BUT I HOPE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF THEIR AGENCY.

ANOTHER THING THIS ISN'T THE SAME LANGUAGE, JUST A DIFFERENT DAY.

YOU HAVE SINCE AMENDED GENERAL ORDERS LIKE WE HAVE SINCE RESPONDED TO THE GOVERNOR BRINGING THIS UP.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN AN ALL TIME HIGH OF DEATHS IN ICE CUSTODY.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE SAME THING. DIFFERENT DAY. THAT'S YOUR TIME FOR THIS ROUND. YOU HAVE ONE MORE IF YOU NEED IT. MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AROUND HERE.

AND, I MEAN, WE'LL APPLY, BUT I WANT TO GO IN WITH OUR EYES WIDE OPEN BECAUSE AS MR. RESENDEZ SAYS IT, IN THE GRANT ITSELF, IT SAYS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY INTO A GROUP, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY MUST AGREE TO PARTNER WITH DOJ TO JOINTLY DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, ADMINISTER AND REVIEW THE PROJECTS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF HOSTILITY IN OUR COMMUNITIES AROUND THIS, THIS ISSUE.

AND IN THE FIRST PART OF THE GRANT, IT ACTUALLY USES MEMPHIS AND WASHINGTON AS THE EXAMPLES.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, I MEAN, I DON'T SEE OUR CITIES BEING LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN THAT CAPACITY OF VIOLENT CRIME.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE VIOLENT, CRIME GOES THE OTHER WAY.

YOU HAVE TO REPAY THE GRANT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO.

AND I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE GUARDIAN AND SOME CITIES ARE GOING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO AND THAT THE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE, STAFF IS AWARE, THIS BODY IS AWARE. AND WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT I THINK YOU EVEN SAID IT YOURSELF, MISTER, MISTER JOHNSON, THAT, YOU KNOW, BLOOD MONEY, RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME THAT HAS THERE'S HAND, YOU KNOW, YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF IT. AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT ON MY CONSCIENCE.

AND SO THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION.

I BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU THE FIVE THINGS YOU LAID OUT, MENTAL HEALTH, YOU KNOW, DETERRENCE, THOSE ARE TRULY VIOLENT CRIME, HOT SPOT POLICE NETWORKING FOCUS I THAT IS YES, SPOT ON.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T BEEN.

THIS ISN'T A TROJAN HORSE AND THAT WE DON'T BECOME THAT.

AND SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION.

AND IT'S MEANINGFUL TO US. AND I KNOW THAT IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, TO BE UP THERE FOR, YOU KNOW, AN HOUR. AND I APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU. BUT IT IS MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION TO US.

YES. THANK YOU. MAY I RESPOND QUICKLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT? I TOTALLY GET THE CONVERSATION ON ON ALL SIDES.

AND SO WE ARE GOING INTO THIS UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS AN AMBIGUOUS GRANT.

I'VE MANAGED GRANTS FOR MANY YEARS. AND THERE IS KIND OF LIKE A LAYMAN'S TERMS WRITING OF YOU'LL COOPERATE AND YOU'LL DO THIS, YOU'LL DO THAT. AND THAT'S IN EVERY GRANT I'VE EVER SEEN. IF YOU'RE GIVING OUT MONEY, YOU WANT THAT. WHAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO HERE, THOUGH, IS TO LEARN, WELL, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND BRING THAT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND BE TRANSPARENT WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THE ATTORNEY SAY? WHAT IS OUR INTERPRETATION AS AS STAFF PROVIDE THAT TO THE COUNCIL AND SEEK YOUR YOUR DIRECTION.

THANK YOU. YEAH. AND I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE A TROJAN HORSE THAT WE ARE GETTING ONE.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECOMES ANOTHER. AND WE'RE OUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

AND, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AS THAT'S BEEN STIPULATED, SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES ARE THEY'RE TERRIFIED.

AND I DON'T WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT. THANK YOU.

DID YOU WANT TO FEEL FREE? I DID, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I WANTED TO AGAIN ACKNOWLEDGE HOW WE GOT HERE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT WHEN WE ARE WORKING, JUST EVEN WITH SOME OF OUR LOCAL PARTNERS NOW, WHEN WE PROPOSE CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS, THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS IT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR VISION? SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE WAY IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE GET SOMETHING BACK, THERE'S GOING TO BE A RESPONSE, IN MY OPINION, AS TO WHAT WE SUBMIT.

AND BECAUSE WE'VE MADE A HEAVY FOCUS AND I THINK THIS COUNCIL HAS DONE IT, WHICH HAS BEEN ADVANTAGEOUS, IS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO GET DOWN TO THE ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME.

AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DEALING WITH THE SURFACE, BUT WHAT'S CAUSING IT IN OUR CITY, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BLIGHT,

[03:10:04]

WHICH I KNOW THERE'S A BIG PART OF THAT INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.

OTHER CITIES ARE GOING TO BE COMPETING, AND THEY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS A TRUE VETTING OF, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED AND THE TYPES OF WAYS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO USE THE GRANT, THEY WILL GIVE FEEDBACK. THEY WILL SAY IF THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE.

WE TALKED ABOUT EXPANDING SOME OF THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COMPONENTS THAT I THINK HAVE TRULY HELPED US.

IT'S REALLY ALLOWED FOR US TO REDIRECT OUR POLICE RESOURCES IN AREAS THAT IT MATTERS.

IT'S HELPED US CREATE A BETTER WORKING ENVIRONMENT OUT THERE IN THE FIELD WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS, THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE UNLESS WE NEED POLICE, WE DON'T WANT THEM IN THAT SPACE AND WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT THEM.

SO THEY WILL. THAT WOULD BE A PART OF WHAT I CONSIDER SOME OF THE VETTING, AND THAT COULD BE HOW THEY COME BACK AND SAY, IF WE MOVE FORWARD, WE SUPPORT OR WE DON'T. THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THE TYPES OF WAYS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT USING THE FUNDING ALIGNS WITH WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS ALL ABOUT CRIME REDUCTION.

SO I THINK THAT VETTING WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

I THINK IT HELPS US, EVEN WHEN WE THINK ABOUT OTHER GRANTS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO GO AFTER, IT WOULD GIVE US A WAY TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE AND BE ABLE TO EMPLOY THEM, THOSE BEST PRACTICES AND EVEN HOW WE LOOK AT OTHER GRANTS POTENTIALLY IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED FOR US TO CONTINUE TO FIND THESE OTHER SOURCES.

SO WE, I THINK WE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED, NOR ARE WE DEBATING YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PASSION AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO. THIS IS GOING TO BE, IN MY OPINION, A VERY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR OTHER CITIES.

AND AGAIN, WITH US NOT KNOWING IF IT'S GOING TO BE 3 OR 4 AND WHAT THE AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE.

I THINK THERE'S A BUCKET OF ABOUT 300 MILLION.

WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY THAT BASED ON THE RESPONSE, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE PROGRAMS THAT WE CAME UP WITH, THEN WE DEFINITELY WOULD NEED TO THEN PIVOT AND NOT EVEN CONTINUE DOWN THAT THAT PATH.

YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AT THAT TIME.

SO AGAIN, WE, WE NEED THE FEEDBACK, WE WANT THE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL.

AND WE DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO EVER DO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AGAINST POLICIES OF THIS BODY.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS. WE RECEIVE THE COMMENTS, WE UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS AND WE SUPPORT WHERE THIS BODY IS ASKING US TO GO WITH OUR EYES WIDE OPEN. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT, MADAM CITY MANAGER.

TO BE CLEAR, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH Y'ALL'S INTENT ON ON WHERE THIS THIS GOES.

THIS HAS NO. ASPERSIONS CAST ON WHAT THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE.

I BELIEVE I KNOW WHERE WE STAND, IT'S THE STRINGS THAT COME ALONG WITH IT.

THERE'S SPIDEY SENSES THAT ARE UP AND I'M ZERO TRUST.

WHENEVER WE'VE SEEN THIS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND HOW STRINGS HAVE BEEN USED TO THREATEN FUNDING FOR COMPLIANCE.

SO I WANT TO KNOW THAT THIS IS 100%. I DON'T WANT US TO EVEN GO FOR THIS LIKE THE OTHER CITIES THAT I'VE READ IN THE GUARDIAN AS WELL.

THIS, THIS JUST SHOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE BUDGETING FOR.

WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THESE DOLLARS AND THESE PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED THAT AREN'T GOING TO HAMSTRING US TO COMPLY WITH AGENCIES THAT WE DON'T AGREE PHILOSOPHICALLY WITH ON HOW THINGS ARE BEING HANDLED, BUT THAT'S APPARENTLY THERE'S A DOLLAR AMOUNT TO SELL OUR SOUL.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING A DENIAL.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY BY MISS BLACKMON SEEING NONE.

THE RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE. YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILLIS. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM. JOHNSON. NO. MAYOR. PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO. WITH FIVE VOTING IN FAVOR, TEN OPPOSED.

THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. MOVE! APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN MOVED.

AND SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. WE STARTED VOTING. DO YOU WANT TO? WELL, I'LL BACK IT UP. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NOT DO THAT.

[03:15:03]

THAT VOTE DIDN'T HAPPEN. HE DIDN'T. I DIDN'T SEE HIM IN YET.

SO WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE HAVE A EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE THIS ITEM COMES BACK, WHETHER IT'S FOR AN APPROVAL OR A DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION SO THAT WE CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCRUTINIZE ANY LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT AND TO HAVE A AN OFFICIAL RULING FROM OUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE ACTION OF THIS GRANT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO? GO AHEAD. WE WILL COMMIT TO BRINGING BACK IN DETAIL WHAT RESPONSE WE'VE RECEIVED, AND DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE EXECUTIVE SESSION LANGUAGE WOULD BE POSTED BEFORE YOU WOULD BE ASKED TO, TO VOTE ON ANY TYPE OF AN ACCEPTANCE. SO I SUPPORT THAT 100%.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER. I WILL SAY THAT IT IS IT IS UPSETTING, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THERE IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT IS MOST TRUE IN THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION. AND THAT'S JUST THE SAME THING.

DIFFERENT DAY. THIS IS DALLAS FOR YOU. IT TOOK THE FIVE LATINO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO STAND UP FOR THE LATINO COMMUNITY WHO'S BEING TARGETED.

WE'RE IN A VERY, VERY HARD TIME, AND THAT'S GOING TO CALL FOR HARD DISCUSSIONS AND HARD DECISIONS TO BE MADE.

AND CLEARLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WILL ENTICE US TO CONSIDER IGNORING AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING TARGETED, NO DIRECTION OR CHARGE TO ADMINISTRATION TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THESE AMBITIOUS GOALS OR PROGRAMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT STRINGS ATTACHED.

NO CHALLENGE TO THE AUTHORITY AT HIGHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT THAT CONTINUES TO TRY AND PREEMPT AND HAMSTRING US AT A LOCAL LEVEL.

THIS IS THIS IS COMPLACENCY. THIS IS COMPLICIT.

THIS IS IGNORING THE CALLS FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WE'VE HEARD FROM IN THE PUBLIC.

AND CLEARLY THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF DOLLAR AMOUNT OUT THERE WITHIN THIS 300 POTENTIAL MILLION THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE AWARDED CITIES THAT CAN ALLOW FOR US TO COMPROMISE THE VALUES THAT WE STATE WE STAND FOR IN THIS CITY.

I HOPE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRULY DIG DEEP INTO HOW THIS DISCUSSION HAS GONE, AND WHAT WE GET FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND HAVE HARD DISCUSSION TO WEIGH OUT WHAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS.

DO WE SELL OUR SOULS? DO WE COMPROMISE OUR VALUES? DO WE TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTHS AND SAY THAT WE'RE HERE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO NEED US THE MOST, THE ONES THAT ARE SCARED TO LEAVE THEIR HOUSE AND CAN'T COME TO THE BUILDING OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEIR FAMILY.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I'M ACTUALLY REALLY SHOCKED THAT THIS IS WHERE WE'RE LEFT WITH, WITH THIS DISCUSSION, BECAUSE CLEARLY I'M LEFT WITH THE NOTION THAT THERE'S SOME DOLLAR AMOUNT OUT THERE THAT'S WORTH IT.

AND TO ME, THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA, FOR REQUESTING THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN MORE DETAIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO WAKE UP EVERY MORNING AND WORRY ABOUT MY BLACK SON MAKING IT HOME. I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE.

I WAS LISTENING TO COUNCILMAN GRACEY AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, WALKING IN THE PARK AND BEING PROFILED.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN HAD FROM THIS GUYS WITH THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY, BECAUSE BLACK FOLKS HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR YEARS. BUT ONE THING I CAN PROMISE YOU, AND I'M NOT SHY ON SPEAKING UP FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY, NOT AT ALL. WHETHER PEOPLE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE OR NOT.

LIKE IT OR NOT, THIS IS WHO I AM. BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THIS IF SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT, WE WILL HOLD TRUE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THIS PROCESS. I SPOKE UP NOT ONLY FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY, BUT I'VE ALSO ADVOCATED VERY STRONGLY FOR THE BROWN

[03:20:07]

COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHO IT'S IN MY DISTRICT.

THAT'S WHO SERVES ME. THAT'S WHO'S WHO I SERVE.

THEY SERVE AT THE CHURCH, AND THAT'S COMMUNITY THAT I'VE BEEN I'VE GROWN UP IN.

SO THIS IS A CONCERN. AS COUNCILMAN MORENO SAID, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, BUT IT'S AN APPLICATION.

AND SO I WILL GIVE LIKE TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AND HER TEAM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITIES. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M VERY CAUTIOUS AND WE'LL BE WATCHING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

AND I SAID IT A LONG TIME AGO, ALL MONEY'S NOT GOOD MONEY, BUT WE STILL NEED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVOCACY. THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER FOR SAYING THAT YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT THIS IS A CONCERN. AND I WANT TO JUST MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, WE AS A BLACK COMMUNITY HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS FOR A LONG TIME.

AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CANNOT IGNORE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

YOU KNOW, THE POLICE CHIEF HAS SAID AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TIMES, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

BUT INSTEAD, WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO PARTIZAN RHETORIC, GRANDSTANDING AND STATEMENTS LIKE SELLING OUR SOUL.

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MINDS? THIS IS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

THIS IS ABOUT A BUDGETING OPPORTUNITY TO GO AFTER VERY SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS.

WE'RE BEING TOLD 75 TO $80 MILLION. I MEAN, THE HEADLINES ARE WE HAVE A $50 MILLION BUDGET GAP.

THIS IS NOT SELLING OUR SOULS. THIS IS FOCUSING EXACTLY ON WHAT OUR RESIDENTS WANT US TO WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY CHARGED TO DO HERE.

AND AS WE HEAR ABOUT THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, I'LL JUST REMIND YOU THEY ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF CRIME IN OUR CITY.

LOOK AT OUR DEMOGRAPHICS FOR MURDER. IT'S BLACK AND BROWN.

SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SPOKE HERE, YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CRIME IN YOUR SPECIFIC DISTRICTS.

SO, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

BUT I WILL JUST MENTION THE HIGHEST CRIME RATE IN OUR CITY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY CADENA HIGHEST MURDER.

I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY BAZALDUA. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO YOU TWO.

WE HAVE GOT TO BE FOCUSED ON PUBLIC SAFETY. EVERYONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT SAVING DOWNTOWN, SAVING DALLAS ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENING.

LET ME TELL YOU, THIS IS THE NOT CORNERSTONE.

THIS IS THE FOUNDATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL CITY AND THAT WE HAVE NOW SPENT AN HOUR AND A HALF DEBATING THE ABILITY TO BRING THESE KINDS OF DOLLARS TO OUR CITY TO MAKE IT LITERALLY A SAFER CITY FOR EVERY SINGLE KIND OF PERSON IS JUST ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S WRONG. SO WE HAD A HALF DOZEN DSA MEMBERS GET UP AND SPEAK THIS MORNING.

AND THAT SOMEHOW SUPPOSED TO INFLUENCE OUR PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY? I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT. PLEASE GO BACK AND LISTEN TO YOUR RESIDENTS.

THEY ALL SUPPORT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY DO.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION. HOW MANY TIMES DO THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HAVE TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT TO US? IS IT JUST TO MAKE THE SPEECH? IS THAT WHAT IT'S ABOUT? PLEASE, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON, FOR OR AGAINST? MR. MAYOR? CAN WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE? RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE. PLEASE STATE.

YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

NO. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES. WITH NINE VOTING IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED, ONE ABSENT, ONE VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR.

[03:25:02]

MAYOR. OKAY, MADAM SECRETARY, I'M GOING TO READ THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.

[CLOSED SESSION]

WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND SO IT IS.

12:52 P.M. ON AUGUST 12TH, 2026. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.07, ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER SIX AND 72.

WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 2:00. ALL RIGHT.

WE'VE GOT ALL THE PIECES IN PLACE. FINALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS COMPLETE. IT'S CLOSED SESSION IN SECTION FIVE, 51.071, THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, AND AT 2:15 P.M.

ON AUGUST 12TH, 2026, WE'VE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.

MADAM SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL GO BACK TO YOUR PULLED ITEMS.

[6. 26-2289A Authorize the (1) acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency passed through the Texas Office of the Governor Homeland Security Grants Division (HSGD) for the FY 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program which includes the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) (Federal/State Award ID No. EMW-2025-SS-05028, Grant Nos. 2980507, 2979907, 3418209, 3698808, 2980311, 3176410, and 4902603, Assistance Listing No. 97.067) in the amount of $5,582,137.61 to provide funding for activities related to enhancing preparedness and building capacity to prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and add one Process Improvement Analyst position for the period January 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027; (2) establishment of appropriations in an amount not to exceed $5,582,137.61 in the DHS 2025 Homeland Security UASI Fund; (3) receipt and deposit of funds in an amount not to exceed $5,582,137.61 in the DHS 2025 Homeland Security UASI Fund; and (4) execution of the grant agreement with HSGD and all terms, conditions, and documents required by the agreement - Not to exceed $5,582,137.61 - Financing: DHS 2025 Homeland Security UASI Fund]

YOUR NEXT PULLED ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM SIX. AUTHORIZE THE ONE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PASSED THROUGH THE TEXAS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS DIVISION FOR THE FY 2025 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE UASI IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,582,137.61 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ENHANCING PREPAREDNESS AND BUILDING CAPACITY TO PREPARE FOR, PREVENT AND RESPOND TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.

AND ADD ONE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT ANALYST POSITION FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1ST, 2026 THROUGH AUGUST 31ST, 2027. TWO. ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,582,137.61 IN THE DHS 2025 HOMELAND SECURITY UASI FUND. THREE RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $82,137.61 AND THE DHS 2025 HOMELAND SECURITY UASI FUND AND FOR EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH H, G, D AND ALL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT NOT TO EXCEED $5,582,137.61. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA MOVE TO APPROVE.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, CHAIRWOMAN? ACTUALLY MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE YOU'RE IN FIRST.

THANK YOU. KEVIN. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION OR TWO, PLEASE? EXCUSE ME, MR. ODUM. I'LL GO WITH WHATEVER YOU YOU GO WITH, MA'AM.

MR. ODUM, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG WILL. THE CITY HAS BEEN RECEIVING THIS GRANT? SINCE 2003. WHEN DID WE. HOW DID WE START GETTING THIS MONEY? THE GRANT WAS CREATED WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WAS ALSO CREATED, AND PART OF LEGISLATION THAT CAME OUT OF 911 AGAINST SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO TERRORIST INCIDENTS.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO, IF WE ELECT NOT TO RECEIVE THIS MONEY? THE BULK OF MY STAFF WILL NO LONGER BE HERE. I WILL NO LONGER FUND THE BULK OF THE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING THAT THE SWAT TEAM GETS.

THE FUSION CENTER WOULD LOSE A SIGNIFICANT FUNDING.

WE'D HAVE TO FIND OTHER POTS FOR THAT. ON THE FIRE SIDE, YOU WOULD LOSE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAINING EQUIPMENT AND CAPABILITY IN URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE AND HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TEAMS. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO FUND CYBERSECURITY INITIATIVES THROUGH THE IT DEPARTMENT.

SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING ON THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING TO CONTINUE THAT.

SO CITY MANAGER. IS THIS GRANT ALREADY BAKED INTO OUR BUDGET FOR 2020 627? THE ANSWER IS YES. THE FUNDING THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING FOR THIS PARTICULAR GRANT IS ALREADY BAKED INTO THE WAY WE'VE DEVELOPED THE BUDGET.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ITEMS THAT MR. ODIN ARTICULATED IN HIS RESPONSE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UTILIZING THESE FUNDS FOR IF THAT GRANT FUNDING IS NOT RECEIVED, WE WOULD HAVE TO IDENTIFY WITHIN OUR CURRENT PROPOSED BUDGET A WAY TO SUPPORT THOSE ITEMS. BUT IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET UTILIZING THOSE GRANT FUNDS.

MAY I, MAY I ADD ONE OTHER THING TOO, PLEASE? SO THE DALLAS FORT WORTH AND ARLINGTON URBAN AREA IS WHO IS AWARDED FUNDING? DALLAS GETS A CUT OF THAT, AS DOES FORT WORTH, AS DOES ARLINGTON, AS DO OTHER CITIES.

IF WE WERE TO NOT ACCEPT THIS FUND, WE WOULD ALSO BE JEOPARDIZING THE OTHER CITIES, TYPICALLY THOSE OF 100,000 POPULATION OR MORE IN OUR REGION,

[03:30:09]

THEY WOULD LIKELY NOT GET FUNDING EITHER. SO WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN TO THE DALLAS FORT WORTH AREA? BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT REGION YOU WOULD BE SPEAKING OF WOULD BE FORT WORTH.

WHAT OTHER ARLINGTON. AND IS THERE ANY OTHER.

CORRECT. SO DALLAS GETS OUR 5 MILLION, 6 MILLION ISH.

AND THEN FORT WORTH AND ARLINGTON BOTH GET ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, 3 MILLION.

BASED ON THAT. SO IF THEY WERE TO LOSE THAT FUNDING, THEY WOULD LOSE GENERALLY THEIR FUNDING, THE SAME CAPABILITIES AND TEAMS THAT WE ARE WITH THEIR ALLOCATION JUST AT A, AT A DIFFERENT CAPACITY LEVEL THAN WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO WITH THE MONEY WE GET.

SO CHIEF COMO. YES, SIR.

I REMEMBER WHAT I WAS DOING AT 911. I REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE I WAS WHEN WHEN THAT HAPPENED, AND I REMEMBER HOW THERE WAS A PUSH TO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES AND, AND TOOLS THAT WOULD HELP US NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOMETHING OF THAT, THAT, THAT I, THAT SOMETHING OF THAT MAGNITUDE EVER AGAIN.

IF WE ARE TO LOSE THIS FUNDING AND TO LOSE THE RESOURCES THAT THIS FUNDING GIVES US, AS WELL AS ARLINGTON AND FORT WORTH BECAUSE IT'S TIED TOGETHER, WOULD THAT NOT HAVE A MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE WAY WE ARE TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS IN THIS REGION? ASSISTANT CHIEF VILLARREAL YES, MA'AM. TO YOUR QUESTION, IT WOULD THERE'S VARIOUS EQUIPMENT.

I'VE BEEN OVER THIS KIND OF GRANT PROGRAM FOR DPD FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR OUR SPECIALIZED UNITS.

THIS YEAR, SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT WE'RE PURCHASING IS ADDITIONAL BLOCKER VEHICLES.

AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR OFFICERS WAS KILLED ON THE FREEWAY AND WE STARTED THE BLOCKER PROGRAM.

AND THERE'S A VARIOUS EQUIPMENT FOR OUR SPECIALIZED UNITS, AS KEVIN MENTIONED, OUR SWAT TEAM, OUR DIVE TEAM, OUR EXPLOSIVE ORDINANCE TEAM, AND SOME OTHER VARIOUS UNITS.

SO IT WOULD BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY, IN MY OPINION.

SO WHEN YOU SAY DIVE TEAM, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RECOVER FROM ANY OF OUR LAKES AND WATERWAYS? YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO LIKE WE'RE RECENTLY YOU GUYS DID A YOU FOUND TEN CARS THAT HAD BEEN IN, IN SOME SENSE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE WITH LAW RIGHT RIGHT HERE OFF OF COLORADO.

IF I WAS, WOULD THAT HAVE HINDERED YOUR ABILITY TO GO GET THOSE ITEMS? IN SOME ASPECTS, I MEAN, WE EVERY YEAR WE LOOK AT WHAT EQUIPMENT NEEDS WE HAVE.

THIS YEAR, THEY'VE REQUESTED A SONAR ROBOT TO ACCOMPANY THEIR DIVES.

SO YES, THAT'S DIRECTLY A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THAT DIVE TEAM.

SO NOT ONLY WOULD IT BE THE DRONES, IT WOULD BE DIVE TEAMS. IT'D BE SWAT, IT WOULD BE IT BODY CAMERAS, IT WOULD BE ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD.

I MEAN, THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME STUFF WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T ACQUIRE BODY, BODY WORN CAMERAS OR ANYTHING THAT ATTACHES TO WEAPONS. WE CAN'T CURRENTLY PURCHASE DRONES WITH THE UAC FUNDING, BUT THERE'S OTHER SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BALLISTIC VESTS, BALLISTIC HELMETS. KEEP OFFICERS SAFE OUT IN THE FIELD.

WOW. THANKS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM SIX? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? EYES. HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 32.

AUTHORIZE A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TIF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT WITH FAIR PARK.

FIRST DEVELOPER OR FPF IN THE AMOUNT OF $3 MILLION.

WITH THE TIF SUBSIDY BEING DISBURSED TO THE DALLAS FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF FPF PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING AGREEMENT. PAYABLE FROM THE DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT FUND TIF SUBSIDY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY PARK AT FAIR PARK PROJECT IN. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION.

THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED AND WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. STATE YOUR INQUIRY WAS.

[7. 26-2142A Authorize the Dallas Public Facility Corporation to (1) acquire, develop, and own Rivulet Apartments, a 240-unit, mixed-income, multifamily development to be located at 6400 University Hills Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75241 (Project); and (2) enter into a seventy-five-year lease agreement with Rivulet MF LandCo I, LLC or its affiliate, for the development of the Project - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund $1,185,925.15 (for 60 years; see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

ITEM SEVEN PURPOSELY SKIPPED. SEVEN. THERE WAS INADVERTENTLY, OKAY, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU.

[03:35:02]

OKAY, SO WE WILL GO BACK TO SEVEN SINCE WE HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY ACTION YET ON 32.

THANK YOU. YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD. MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND READ SEVEN INTO THE RECORD. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

AUTHORIZED THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION TO ONE ACQUIRE, DEVELOP AND OWN RIVERLAND APARTMENTS, A 240 UNIT MIXED INCOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 6400 UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS. 75241 PROJECT AND TWO ENTER INTO A 75 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MF LANAKILA ONE INC., LLC, OR ITS AFFILIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SWEDE HANSEN.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SWEET HANSEN. I GREW UP IN DISTRICT TEN.

CURRENTLY LIVE IN DISTRICT NINE. HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE TO WORK IN DISTRICT FOUR OVER THE LAST 4 OR 5 YEARS.

AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE THE SAME PLEASURE OF WORKING IN DISTRICT THREE HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

48,000 MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME 57% FEMALE. MEDIAN AGE 32.

LARGEST EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRY. HEALTH CARE. LARGEST SINGLE EMPLOYER DISD.

23 RESIDENTS EARNING OVER $70,000 ANNUALLY AND SEVERAL EARNING OVER 100,000.

THEY WORK AT AMAZON, AT&T. THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE DALLAS ZOO, CEDAR CREST ELEMENTARY, PARKLAND METHODIST HOSPITAL, UT SOUTHWESTERN, AND THE US POSTAL SERVICE.

ALL OF THIS WITHIN A LOW INCOME CENSUS TRACT WITHIN A 32,000, WITH A 3000 MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME.

WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE FINCH.

MY FIRST PROJECT IN THE FIRST NON TAX CREDIT, TRULY MIXED INCOME MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY IN DISTRICT FOUR, MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION PROGRAM.

WHAT BEGAN AS A TEST CASE? COULD WE BRING HIGH QUALITY, WELL-DESIGNED HOUSING NON TAX CREDIT HOUSING TO SOUTHERN DALLAS IS NOW A PROVEN STRATEGY. BUT DON'T TAKE IT FROM ME. HEAR IT FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS.

THANK YOU FOR BELIEVING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO MOVE BACK HOME FROM ONE OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY LEADERS.

THE FINCH REPRESENTS MORE THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION.

IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF CEDAR CREST.

ITS COMPLETION WILL BRING REAL BENEFITS, IMPROVED HOUSING DIVERSITY, RENEWED NEIGHBORHOOD PRIDE, AND A LASTING CONTRIBUTION TO THE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY.

WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY AND REPLICATING THAT SUCCESS FARTHER SOUTH IN DISTRICT THREE, WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF UNT DALLAS WITHIN THE RIVULET PROJECT, LED BY TERRENCE MAIDEN AND RUSSELL GLENN, THIS PROJECT IS THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT OF THE LARGER 90 ACRE MASTER PLAN, MIXED USE RIVULET DEVELOPMENT AT UNIVERSITY HILLS AND CAMP WISDOM DFC APPROVAL. APPROVAL IS THE FIRST STEP AND IN FULL TRANSPARENCY YOU WILL.

WE WILL LIKELY RETURN BEFORE THIS COUNCIL LATER THIS YEAR SEEKING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE APPROVALS.

BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW ONE IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT REASON WHY THE SOUTHERN DALLAS COMMUNITY DOES NOT WANT THE BURDEN OF MORE TAX CREDIT AFFORDABLE PROPERTIES, WHICH TO DATE HAVE BEEN THE ONLY TOOL USED TO ADD NEW HOUSING SUPPLY HERE.

SOUTHERN DALLAS STAKEHOLDERS WANT MARKET RATE HOUSING THAT'S ATTRACTIVE, WELL BUILT AND MADE TO LAST, JUST AS IT DID WITH THE FINCH. THIS PROJECT LEADS FROM THE FRONT SETTING THE MARKET COMP FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW IN A LOCATION SEEN EVEN MORE PIONEERING THAN THE FINCH.

I'VE SHARED WITH YOU THE REAL, MEASURABLE IMPACT THAT HIGH QUALITY, MIXED INCOME HOUSING AND PARTS OF DALLAS THE FINCH PROVE WHAT'S POSSIBLE.

THIS PROJECT IS HOW WE SHOW IT WASN'T A ONE TIME SUCCESS.

HOW PROMISING. TEST CASE BECOMES A REPEATABLE MODEL IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION ITEM SEVEN MOVE APPROVAL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? NO. SORRY.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

THANK YOU. WELL, I PULLED THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION ITEM.

THE FINANCING, IT MEANS THAT WE WILL HAVE DECADES OF REVENUE THAT WE WILL NOT RECEIVE.

[03:40:02]

NOT TEN YEARS, NOT 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 TO 75 YEARS WHERE WE DO NOT RECEIVE REVENUE.

AND IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY THAT WON'T RECEIVE REVENUE.

IT'S ALSO THE COUNTY IS ALSO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

DALLAS COLLEGE AND PARKLAND. WE ARE TAKING ALL OF THE TAX BURDEN FOR THIS AWAY.

AND IN RETURN, HE NEVER EVEN SAYS THAT WE'RE GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

HE WANTS TO ONLY PROMOTE THE MARKET RATE. AND I KNOW WHY.

BECAUSE POLITICALLY THAT SOUNDS BETTER IN DISTRICT THREE.

BUT THE ANSWER IS NO. ABOUT HALF OF IT IS AFFORDABLE.

AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PRETTY HIGH VACANCY RATE THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.

SO AT A TIME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FURLOUGHS, 50, $50 MILLION GAPS, WE'RE GOING TO STILL GIVE UP FOREVER REVENUE WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE VACANCY AVAILABLE.

EVERY SINGLE TIME WE APPROVE THESE. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

AT SOME POINT, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE MENDELSOHN HAS A POINT. MAYBE WE EITHER NEED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE GIVE A TAX EXEMPTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO SAY YES TO ANY SINGLE DEVELOPER THAT COMES TO US AND SAYS, I NEED A TAX EXEMPTION OR ELSE IT DOESN'T PENCIL? WELL, I'M TELLING YOU, THERE'S LOTS OF MARKET RATE GOING UP THAT'S GONE UP AND IT HASN'T NEEDED OUR HELP.

SO I'M A NO. THIS IS A TERRIBLE TAX SCHEME. THIS IS CREATING THE INSTABILITY IN OUR CITY WITH THESE UNBELIEVABLE DEALS THAT WE JUST KEEP SAYING YES TO EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY TIME.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YEAH. I CAN'T JUST LET THAT GO. SO I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS.

I WANT TO ASK MR. YAQUINTO TO COME DOWN HERE.

SO THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO ASK HIM IS, WHAT IS THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF THIS PIECE OF VACANT LAND? AND WHAT ARE WE MAKING EACH YEAR IN THE CITY ON THIS VACANT LAND FOR OUR TAX ROLLS? FIRST QUESTION. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WEST. EXCUSE ME.

I'M NOT SURE THE ACTUAL ASSESSED VALUE. I DO HAVE THE ACTUAL TAXES FOR THE YEAR.

IT'S ABOUT $22,000 TOTAL WITH $7,273 BEING ASSESSED FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO EACH YEAR, THE CITY IS MAKING $273 ON THIS VACANT LAND.

YES, SIR. SO IN EXCHANGE FOR FORGOING THAT $7,000 YEARLY PAYMENT.

WE ARE SUBSIDIZING A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE US WITH.

HOW MANY UNITS IN THE AFFORDABILITY CATEGORIES OF 60% AND 80% AMI.

SO THERE'S 120 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS. AND IN THE 60% CATEGORY.

LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE. ROUGHLY 20 2024. 24 UNITS IN THE 60% CATEGORY. OKAY. 24 UNITS IS 60% CATEGORY.

I'M LOOKING AT THE UNDERWRITING REPORT RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S 96 UNITS AT THE 80% AMI CATEGORY.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN WE HAVE 120 MARKET RATE UNITS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR THIS AS WELL.

YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IN ADDITION TO THE BENEFITS THAT WE GET FROM THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WE'RE ADDING, WE'RE ALSO WE ALSO RECEIVE A ANNUAL RENT PAYMENT THAT GOES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION TO HELP WITH OTHER DEALS IN THE FUTURE.

RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WHAT IS THAT PAYMENT? OR LET ME JUST HELP YOU. IN THE UNDERWRITING REPORT.

IT SAYS $256,000. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. DO. IS THIS AN AREA THAT COULD USE. AND I MIGHT ASK THAT TO MY COLLEAGUES.

AND HE'S GOING TO TALK HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT IT COULD USE SOME ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, IT'S A PART OF A LARGER MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY.

AND SO THERE ARE GOALS. AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER AND THE PFC BOARD WORKED WITH LOCAL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET INPUT AND SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THAT AREA OF TOWN. AND I THINK THIS IS A CATALYST THAT IS MEANT TO SET A MARKET RATE THERE, AS WELL AS PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY, AND AS THAT MARKET RATE, AS THOSE MARKET RATE UNITS GET LEASED UP, IT WILL INSPIRE AND HELP OTHER MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS COME IN AND COMPARE THEIR THEIR DEVELOPMENTS TO THAT AND JUST BE A CATALYST TO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENTIRE AREA, NOT JUST THAT SPECIFIC BLOCK.

SO WHEN WE'RE THROWING OUT PHRASES LIKE THIS IS A TAX SCHEME.

[03:45:03]

YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S A LIGHTNING ROD FOR MEDIA TO PICK UP.

AND THAT IS ALSO A DETERRENT FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO COME UP HERE TO THE HORSESHOE TO BE ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN SOME KIND OF TAX SCHEME.

IN REALITY, THIS IS A DEAL THAT HAS BEEN VETTED BY OUR 15 MEMBER APPOINTED PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD, AND THAT HAS BEEN VETTED BY UNDERWRITING. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND SO THE REALITY OF THIS SITUATION IS THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS STOOD UP BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT NO DEVELOPERS BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FREE.

CORRECT. CORRECT. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. I WORK WITH MR. SWEDE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND HE HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB WITH THE FINCH.

I VISITED THE SITE WHEN IT FIRST OPENED. MYSELF AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM CEDAR CREST.

AND HE HAS OPERATED WITH NOTHING BUT INTEGRITY.

AND ALWAYS KEEP A CONSTANT COMMUNICATION AND, AND WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN, IN DISTRICT FOUR.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT HE ALSO SUPPORTS THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

SO IT'S JUST NOT ABOUT HIS PROJECT, BUT ANY WAY WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMUNITY, HE COMES TO COMMUNITY MEETINGS. HE ALSO EXTENDS ANY RESOURCE THAT HE CAN DO TO HELP ANYONE IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND HE HAS OPERATED WITH SUCH HIGH INTEGRITY THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SURROUNDED HIM AND SUPPORTING HIM.

I SUPPORT HIS PROJECT AND LOOK FORWARD TO MORE PROJECTS THAT HE'S DOING.

I BELIEVE IT'S GOING IN DISTRICT THREE, SO I WANT TO LET MY COLLEAGUE KNOW PUBLICLY THIS THAT THAT MISS SWEDEN DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB.

AND I'M HOPING TO DO MORE WORK WITH HIM IN DISTRICT FOUR.

THAT PROJECT IS VERY NICE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE DALLAS ISD TEACHERS NOW GETTING BECOMING RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. SOME OF OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES, YOUNG PEOPLE THAT ARE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY MOVING INTO THAT AREA AS WELL.

IT'S VERY CLEAN. IT'S VERY UP, UP, UP. AND AGAIN, HE DOES TREMENDOUSLY WELL IN A TOUGH AREA.

SO THIS IS RIGHT OFF OF MORRELL AND DENNISON.

MORRELL AND CORINTH STREET. WE'RE ABOUT LIKE 30S FROM BENTLEY AND MORRELL, WHERE I HAVE.

I DO HAVE A LOT OF CRIME IN THAT AREA WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY.

WE JUST DID A TOUR NOT TOO LONG AGO, AND THEY SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE A LITTLE NERVOUS AND THEY WOULD TELL YOU THAT ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN GOT OUT OF THE CAR, AND WHEN THEY GOT OUT OF THE CAR, THEY STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND HUGGED MYSELF MR. BATTY AND DOCTOR JACKSON, WHO WAS THE FORMER PRINCIPAL OF O.W.

HOLMES MIDDLE SCHOOL NAMED JOHN LEWIS, NOW JOHN LEWIS. AND YOU LITERALLY SAW EVERYONE SCATTER WHEN THEY SAW THE COMMUNITY.

WHAT PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE AFRAID OF EMBRACE US BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IN THAT COMMUNITY.

SO TO, FOR MR. SWEDE TO PUT A NICE RESIDENCE, MULTI-USE RESIDENCE IN A TOUGH AREA AND HELP TRYING TO BRING SOME DIGNITY AND HELP ME AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, CLEAN UP THAT BLIGHT AND IS COMMITTED TO DOING EVERYTHING HE CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE THE NEW VISION THAT WE'RE HAVING IN DISTRICT FOUR. THAT'S NOT JUST LED BY ME, BUT LED BY OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR RESIDENTS, OUR COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. SO I WANT TO JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT CHAIR GRACEY THAT THE FACT THAT I SAW HIM COME DOWN HERE AND SPEAK, LET ME KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROJECT THAT I CAN SUPPORT.

AND I GUARANTEE YOU'LL BE JUST AS PLEASED AS I AM IN DISTRICT FOUR.

THANK YOU, MR. SWEET, FOR YOUR YOUR WORK. AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. YOU GUYS KEEP DOING A GREAT JOB AND I STILL LOOK FORWARD TO DOING MORE WORK IN DISTRICT FOUR. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND BEFORE I GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE.

I NEED TO MAKE A CORRECTION. SECTION ONE D OF THE RESOLUTION.

IT SAYS THIS IS AN IMPROVED PROPERTY. IT SHOULD SAY THAT THIS IS AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY.

THAT IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. THANK YOU. THORAX AND DIRECTOR, HOUSING COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT.

WE'RE AWARE WE'RE PREPARED TO CORRECT A MEMO TO CITY SECRETARY IF THIS ITEM WERE TO PASS TODAY.

THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW THAT WE GOT THAT OUT OF THE WAY AGAIN, IT'S NO SECRET I AM A FAN AND A PROPONENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATIONS BECAUSE OF WHAT IT CAN DO. IF YOU HAVEN'T SET IN YOUR OFFICE ARGUING WITH DEVELOPERS ABOUT WHY WE CAN'T GET MARKET RATE OVER HERE BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN THAT, BUT IT WAS REDLINED INTO THIS.

SO FOR US, IN ORDER FOR US TO GET THE PROPER MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREAS THAT WE WANT, WHERE WE KNOW THAT THERE IS GREAT OPPORTUNITY AND ALL THAT. THESE ARE SOME OF THE TOOLS THAT HAVE TO BE USED,

[03:50:03]

WHICH IS WHY I'VE BEEN A PROPONENT OF IT, OF THE PFC AS IT RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THE OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

THERE IS SO MUCH THAT MYSELF, COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR, ARE VERY PROUD OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ALL ALONG THAT CORRIDOR THERE.

IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM UNT. COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR HAS A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS.

AND THERE'S A CERTAIN POINT THAT I FOUND. IF YOU IF YOU DRIVE IT, YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK OVER AND SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING ALL THE WAY ALMOST TO THE FREEWAY. THERE. SO THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING. IF YOU HAVEN'T, I'D LOVE TO TAKE YOU OVER THERE TO SEE IT.

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF WHAT'S TO COME OVER THERE.

AND I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON, YOU'RE RIGHT.

HE HAS BEEN PRESENT IN EVERY COMMUNITY, EVEN WHEN THEY CAME WITH RESISTANCE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW OUR COMMUNITIES ARE.

AND, AND TO SAY THIS IS A POLITICAL THING ABOUT NOT WANTING ANY YOU KNOW, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, LOW INCOME, IT'S NOT POLITICAL. IT'S A REALITY THAT'S AROUND US.

ME AND COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR SAID WITHIN AN EIGHT MILE RADIUS, THERE ARE 13 OR SO.

IT WAS A 22, I CAN'T REMEMBER, LOW INCOME APARTMENTS WITHIN AN EIGHT MILE RADIUS.

SO WHEN WE SAY, OH, WE HAVE A RED BIRD, P, WE HAVE ALL THESE THINGS GOING AND WE WANT MARKET RATE, WE CAN'T GET IT BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.

SO AGAIN, I STAND ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT STAND ON THE FCS AND THE SMART PLACEMENT OF WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S NORTH OR SOUTH. I DO STAND ON WHAT IT CAN AND HOW IT CAN BENEFIT THIS COMMUNITY.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE TOWNHOMES THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT BEHIND ALL OF THIS.

THIS IS A 90 ACRE MASTER PLAN. SO THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF WHAT'S TO COME IN DISTRICT THREE.

THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING IN DISTRICT EIGHT, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU ALL.

I GUESS WE'RE ON. YEAH. MISS BLAIR FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING, BUT BECAUSE MY COUNTERPART OVER THERE CALLED MY NAME, I HAVE TO. I ACTUALLY WAS THE ZONING COMMISSIONER THAT DID THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I'M VERY INTIMATELY AWARE OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

AT THE TIME I WAS I HAD BOTH DISTRICT EIGHT AND DISTRICT THREE.

SO I WAS A ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR OVER HALF OF THE CITY.

YES, THIS IS 90 ACRES. YES, IT IS MY SIGNATURE.

IT STARTS OFF WITH RETAIL. IT'S THEN IT HAS APARTMENTS, THEN IT HAS TOWNHOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK, WHICH IS ALSO FOR SALE TOWNHOMES. AND THEN BEHIND THE TOWNHOMES IS A MAJOR PART OF FOR SALE HOMES IN MIXED INCOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DETACHED.

THAT'S MY SIGNATURE. IF YOU SEE ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT I'VE DONE AND ALL THE THE PLANNERS OUT THERE CAN SAY THAT IS MY SIGNATURE.

I, I WILL SAY I AM SUPPORTING COUNCILMAN CHAIR.

GRACEY IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BUT I WILL ALSO SAY THIS.

OUT OF ALL OF THIS. COUNCIL. IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I'VE DONE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN ANY OTHER COUNCIL IN THIS ENTIRE CITY.

I'M DOING NO MORE. OKAY, YOU HEAR THAT ON THE RECORD? I'M DOING NO MORE. BECAUSE AS I ALSO HEAR CHAIR MENDELSOHN SAY THAT WE HAVE TO STOP GIVING AWAY OUR TAX BASE. I'VE GIVEN AWAY ENOUGH. NOT ALL OTHER COUNCILS HAVE DONE THE SAME AND HAVE PROVIDED THE SAME.

SO I'M SUPPORTING YOU. COUNCILMAN GRACEY. BUT PLEASE HEAR.

I ALSO HEAR CHAIR MENDELSOHN SAY IF WE NEED INCOME AND WE NEED TO FUND OUR, OUR OUR OUR BUDGET, WE CAN'T KEEP GIVING AWAY THE HOUSEHOLD.

WE CAN'T KEEP GIVING AWAY THE CITY. YOU HAVE TO BE STRATEGIC IN WHERE YOU DO IT AND HOW YOU DO IT.

THERE ARE THERE ARE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT CAN AFFORD AFFORDABILITY.

I CAN'T COUNCILMAN GRACEY CAN SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS CAN, I CAN'T.

I'VE DONE ENOUGH. BUT SO. COUNCILMAN GRACEY, I AM WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTING YOU.

I KNOW WHAT'S TO COME ON THE BACK END OF THAT.

AND ON THE BACK END OF THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE MONEY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NOT GET ON THE FRONT END.

AND THE SMALL PORTION OF OF MIXED INCOME HOUSING IN THE APARTMENTS, BECAUSE ALL THE REST OF IT IS MARKET RATE.

THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[03:55:03]

I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOU. WE'RE BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY YOU VOTE WITH ME ON THAT.

WE HAVE YET TO SEE IT, BUT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

IS THE DEVELOPER AVAILABLE FOR A QUESTION? WAIT, ARE YOU STOPPING MY TIME? THANK YOU SIR. YOU MENTIONED THE FINCH, AND SO DID THE MAYOR. PRO TEM, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

WHEN DID YOU GET THE CEO FOR THAT? DECEMBER 2025.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAD A BRIEFING IN MAY OF 2026 ABOUT OCCUPANCY.

DO YOU WANT TO TELL US WHAT YOUR OCCUPANCY AT THAT LOCATION IS RIGHT NOW? RIGHT NOW WITH UNITS THAT ARE OCCUPIED AND PRE-LEASED, WE'RE 91% OCCUPIED.

YOU'RE 91% OCCUPIED, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. IF I GO ON COSERV, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

WELL, COSTAR DATA DOESN'T NECESSARILY COSTAR.

DATA DOESN'T NECESSARILY TRACK WHAT THE REAL WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE PROPERTY.

SO AT OUR BRIEFING IN MAY, YOU WERE AT 60%, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I'M SURE THAT IS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY.

OKAY. AND AARON. DO YOU VERIFY THE OCCUPANCY? THANK YOU. CHAIR. MENDELSOHN. SORRY, I'M DEALING WITH A LITTLE COLD HERE.

YES. WE VERIFY THE OCCUPANCY. WE HAVE AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING.

AND WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY OF THAT VERIFICATION? IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE MONTHLY, BUT THIS IS AGAIN.

BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. NOT AT THIS CURRENT PROPERTY.

NO, BUT. MR.. MR.. SWEET HERE HE OPERATES THE PROPERTY.

HE'S THERE WEEKLY. AND SO WHAT HE'S SAYING IS, IS 100% CORRECT.

OKAY. AND DID YOU MENTION THAT YOU WERE EXPECTING TO COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A SUBSIDY? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? FULL TRANSPARENCY, POTENTIALLY, YES.

I MEAN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, AS I'VE EXPERIENCED, TO WORK AND PROVIDE MARKET RATE HOUSING IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

SO IT'S WHAT PERCENTAGE MARKET RATE? SO AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PFC, 50% IS TO BE MARKET RATE.

UNFORTUNATELY, AT TIMES WE ARE NOT ABLE TO FULLY ACCESS THE MARKET RATE RENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE PROGRAM.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE REASON WHY I HIGHLIGHT THE MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME AT THE FINCH AT $48,000, WE'RE NOT MAXIMIZING OUR MARKET RATE CAPABILITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE PROGRAM.

WE ARE MEETING THE DEMANDS AND MEETING THE NEEDS, AND IN CATERING TO THOSE RESIDENTS THAT ARE AROUND US IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

AND IN EXCHANGE, YOU PAY NO PROPERTY TAX. CORRECT.

THAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM, CORRECT? RIGHT.

THAT'S THE TAX SCHEME. AND SO AT THIS PROPERTY, WHAT WOULD THE SUBSIDY NEED TO BE IN ADDITION TO NOT PAYING ANY PROPERTY TAX? SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH YOU TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT IT COSTS TO BRING HIGH QUALITY, WELL DESIGNED HOUSING THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD.

BUILDING WITH 90% OF YOUR MATERIAL IN BRICK IS VERY EXPENSIVE.

PUTTING FIBER CEMENT BOARD THAT HAS TO BE PAINTED EVERY TEN YEARS.

THAT THE PROPERTY MANAGER ENDS UP NOT MANAGING AND ENDS UP BECOMING AN EYESORE IS REALLY EASY TO DO, BUT MARKET RATE HOUSING, HIGH QUALITY BRICK MATERIALS THAT LAST, MANAGING IT IN A WAY THAT ENDS UP NOT BEING AN EYESORE TO THE SOUTHERN DALLAS COMMUNITY. IT'S EXPENSIVE. IT COSTS MONEY. AND YOU KNOW, IF IF IF I CAN'T GET YOU KNOW, WE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH AGAIN. MRS MENDELSOHN ABOUT YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THE RENTS AND WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T GET.

SO I DON'T NEED TO GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU'RE, YOU'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THAT, BUT IT'S, IT'S EXPENSIVE TO BUILD QUALITY PRODUCT.

WE COULD GO CHEAP, BUT THEN WE'D BE END UP LIKE EVERY OTHER TAX CREDIT DEAL THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN DISTRICT THREE AND DISTRICT EIGHT FOR YEARS.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR. IN ADDITION TO NOT PAYING PROPERTY TAX, YOU ALSO DON'T PAY SALES TAX FOR YOUR MATERIALS.

CORRECT. UNDER THE PFC PROGRAM. CORRECT. THERE IS A SALES AND USE TAX ABATEMENT.

WELL, I CERTAINLY HOPE THIS COUNCIL WILL REMEMBER THE MASSIVE TAX ABATEMENT THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO APPROVE AND NOT ADD AN ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY TO THAT. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF YOU IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING BACK.

THIS IS A 240 UNIT COMPLEX. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.

[04:00:05]

AND THEY EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION COST ON THIS IS ROUGHLY 70 MILLION PLUS OR MINUS.

I THINK THE LAST NUMBERS WE WERE CLOSER TO 54 MILLION IN TOTAL.

PROJECT COST 60 MILLION. SO BASICALLY THAT'S, THAT REPRESENTS ABOUT 300 TO 350, 300 TO $350,000 IN POTENTIAL TAXES. IF FOR THE CITY SIDE, IF IN FACT IT WAS A TAXABLE DEAL.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PFC SITUATION IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET 156 OR 160 AS A LEASE PAYMENT FROM YOU.

I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS 256,000 PER YEAR. THEY'RE GETTING 256.

YES, SIR. OKAY. I THOUGHT I HEARD 156. YES, SIR.

SO THERE IS A DELTA THERE. THERE IS SOME MONEY THAT'S COMING IN.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PRODUCTS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF AREAS TO STIMULATE GROWTH, TO MAINTAIN GROWTH. BUT I DO WANT TO ALSO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IN OUR MEETING YESTERDAY, $50 MILLION OF OUR BUDGET GAP IS COMING FROM REAL ESTATE TAXES. AND SO IF AND THAT'S PART OF OUR INCREMENTAL APPRAISED VALUE SITUATION.

I'M GOING TO APPROVE, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS SITUATION.

BUT BUT I REALLY AM CONCERNED GENERALLY WITH OUR POLICIES RELATED TO TAX ABATEMENTS BECAUSE THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE MONETARY INFLUX THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT FOR THE CITY'S BUDGETING PROCESS FOR NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE. AND I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO ALSO ALIGN WITH DISCUSSING WITH OUR, OUR PFC AND OUR HFC THE TERMS OF TAX ABATEMENTS, IN SOME OF THE ABILITIES TO MAYBE HAVE SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDS COMING BACK TO THE CITY AND SHARING AND IN PROFIT PARTICIPATION.

THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM, BUT THAT'S A POLICY ISSUE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS THAT NEED IT, THAT COULD BE USED AS A STIMULATION FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND COULD BASICALLY BE AN AUXILIARY USE FOR, FOR, FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA.

SO YOU'RE GETTING A BIG DEAL HERE. IF YOU GET IT PASSED AND WE APPROVE IT, YOU'RE GETTING A LOT OF OF ADVANTAGE HERE.

I'M CONCERNED. AND BUT I WANT TO TO EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THAT MAKES SENSE.

THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE TIMES. I'M NOT I WANT TO WHEN YOU COME BACK FOR YOUR NEXT SUBSIDY, THEN WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION. BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M PUTTING.

I'M I WANT TO APPLAUD. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR THEIR VIGILANCE IN WATCHING THE.

THE DOLLARS AND WATCHING THE. THE TAX MONEY THAT WE REALLY DESPERATELY NEED TO PRESERVE OUR OUR BUDGET AND FOR FUTURE BUDGET SITUATIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND THANK YOU FOR FOR YOUR SITUATION.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO AGAIN CONGRATULATE COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING, THE COLLABORATION THAT THEY'RE DOING. YOU SAID SOMETHING, AND I KNOW YOU DIDN'T WANT TO EXPOUND ON IT, BUT I WILL. ABOUT THE REDLINING. I DIDN'T, I HEAR ABOUT THE MARKET RATE AND ETCETERA.

BUT WHAT I DON'T WHAT I'VE BEEN HERE IS NO ONE COMPLAINS WHEN PROJECTS ARE GOING UP IN SOUTHERN DALLAS WE DON'T HEAR THIS CONVERSATION WHEN WE GET IN THE SAME OLD PROJECTS.

THE SAME OLD GAS STATIONS ON TOP OF ANOTHER GAS STATIONS.

THEN WE CAN'T GET GROCERY STORES BECAUSE WE GOT CONVENIENCE STORES THAT AIN'T REALLY FEEDING THE COMMUNITY.

YOU GO IN THERE, THE SHELVES ARE EMPTY, BUT IT'S CROWDED IN IN THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE THEY'RE GAMBLING IN THE BACK.

NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING. WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE BLIGHT IN SOUTHERN DALLAS, WE'RE DEALING WITH LOITERING IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

WHEN WE GOT HANGOUTS GOING ON IN FRONT OF THESE WHAT WE CALL STELLAR APARTMENTS, WHICH, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN WE JUST HAVE NOT BEEN WELL IN OUR COMMUNITIES. AND NOW WE'RE FINALLY GETTING SOMETHING GREAT AND CHANGING THE TRAJECTORY OF SOUTHERN DALLAS 45 LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM 75. AND WHEN WE REALLY WANT TO TALK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDLINING.

THAT'S BEEN THE HISTORY. SOUTHERN DALLAS DOES NOT GET THE SAME ATTENTION THAT NORTH DALLAS GET.

AND NOW WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, HE'S IN COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON DISTRICT.

HE'S COME INTO OUR DISTRICT AND HAS BEEN A PARTNER, HAS BEEN TRANSPARENT, HAS BEEN ACCOUNTABLE.

[04:05:04]

IF SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT, HE LISTENS TO THE COMMUNITY AND HE MAKES THE CHANGE.

SO I CAN SUPPORT SOMEONE THAT'S REALLY THAT'S HARDEST IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

BUT WHAT I CANNOT SUPPORT IS THE IS THE RED LINING THAT CREATES RACIAL DIVIDE.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO SOUTHERN DALLAS, WE KEEP GETTING THE SAME OLD STUFF.

SO I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING, AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO ON A RANT.

WHILE WE CAN'T GET A QUALITY GROCERY STORE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AROUND THAT SUPPORTS IT, ALTHOUGH WE'RE CREDIBLE CONSUMERS, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT FROM THEIR BUSINESS PLAN. AND YOU CAN BE PRO NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRO BUSINESS AT THE SAME TIME.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING PRO BUSINESS AND PRO NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE SAME TIME AND STILL WALK WITH INTEGRITY AND GET THE JOB DONE.

OUR COMMUNITY IN SOUTHERN DALLAS DESERVES DESERVES MARKET RATE.

NICE NICE LUXURY HOMES, APARTMENTS. AND GUESS WHAT? IT BRINGS MORE BUSINESS PEOPLE INTO OUR COMMUNITY, OUR TEACHERS, OUR FIGHTER, OUR FIREFIGHTERS, OUR POLICE OFFICERS. THEY WANT TO LIVE WHERE THEY SERVE AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SO.

SO I'M SUPPORTING IT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE QUIET WHEN IT COMES TO THIS RED LINE AND THIS RACIAL DIVIDE.

WHEN ONE ONE PART OF TOWN LOOK BETTER THAN THE OTHER PART OF TOWN, WE HEARD SOMEONE, ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS SPEAK ABOUT IT EARLIER. SO THANK YOU FOR CONTINUE TO DOING THIS WORK AND I SUPPORT IT. MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'M LISTENING.

AND I KIND OF UNDERSTAND MISS MENDELSON'S POINT OF VIEW IS THAT THERE'S A TIPPING POINT, RIGHT, OF WHERE YOU HAVE TOO MUCH OF SOMETHING AS A CITY, HAVE WE? WHAT IS OUR PROCESSES TO MAKE SURE WHEN AND WHERE, WHEN WE WILL MEET THAT AND HOW AND IF WE'RE THERE? AND DO WE HAVE ONE, I GUESS IS WHO'S COMING? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE PFC OR OUR OWN INTERNAL HOUSING, BUT I THINK WHAT WE THERE IS A SWEET SPOT, RIGHT.

AND I'M WONDERING WHAT IS HOW DO WE REALIZE WHEN WE GET TO THAT THRESHOLD? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WHEN WE JUST UNDERTOOK OUR LAST POLICY REFINEMENTS FOR THE PFC AND HFC, THIS IS ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE.

IT NEEDS FURTHER STUDY. WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH OUR OFFICE OF BUDGET MANAGEMENT AND LOOKING AT A THRESHOLD THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE WAY WE ANALYZE, SAY, TIF DISTRICTS FOR THAT CAP. OKAY. AND SO THAT'S FORTHCOMING WORK WITH MR. IRELAND AND MISS WEEDON THIS YEAR WHERE WE CAN START TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT.

AND DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT HAVE A MAP OF ALL THESE PROJECTS? YES. WE KNOW. OKAY. YEAH. AND A HOUSING COMMITTEE.

MR. QUINTO AND TEAM, THEY PREPARE THEIR QUARTERLY REPORTS.

NOW THAT SHOW YOU THE LOCATIONS AND EVERYTHING.

AS WELL AS LIKE THE OCCUPANCY DATA AND ALL THE INFORMATION ON ALL THE UNITS FOR BOTH PFC AND HFC PROPERTIES.

AND SO I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING ON A NEW POLICY RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT. WELL, WOULD THIS, WILL THIS BE PART OF THAT POLICY IS HOW WE DETERMINE BECAUSE EVEN AS THINGS ROLL OFF OR THEY SELL OFF, DO WE NEED TO ADD MORE? DOES IT GEOGRAPHICALLY BASED? I MEAN, WILL THERE BE A REALLY ROBUST UNDERSTANDING OF HOW ALL THIS WILL WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR OVERALL HOUSING POLICY? YEAH. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. OUR UPCOMING HOUSING POLICY WILL HAVE PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION GOALS IN IT THAT LOOK AT THE EXPIRING DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR PRESERVATION, THE HOMES THAT NEED PRESERVATION, WORK FROM A HOME OWNERSHIP STANDPOINT, AND OUR PRODUCTION GOALS.

WHILE THERE ARE VACANCY RATES, WE ALSO DO CONTINUE TO BUILD GREAT COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT SHOULD ATTRACT MORE RESIDENTS TO DALLAS.

AS WE ARE COMPETITIVE IN THE REGION. THAT'S PART OF OUR OVERALL MISSION IS TO RETAIN POPULATION AND GROW OUR POPULATION.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL NEED TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS BOTH CURRENT OCCUPIED AND A PIPELINE TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP HOUSING.

IN TERMS OF GETTING IN THE WEEDS OF THE POLICY, THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE ALL IN OUR DALLAS HOUSING RESOURCE CATALOG THAT LAY OUT OUR PROGRAM STATEMENTS FOR THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND POLICY WORK.

OUR DALLAS HOME POLICY IS THE OVERALL VISION AND GOALS THAT WILL COLLECTIVELY CONTINUE TO BRIEF YOU ON AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE CITY.

AND IN THAT, I MEAN, WHILE THE PROPERTY TAX IS FAR GONE, I MEAN, INDIVIDUALS DO SHOP IN THE AREA AND THEY THEY BUY THINGS.

SO THERE'S A SALES TAX YOU KNOW, COUNTERPART TO THAT.

IS THAT GOING TO BE ANALYZED IN THIS OR IS THAT HARDER TO DEFINE? SO THE HFC HAS CONDUCTED A STUDY WITH ECONOMICS PROFESSOR OUT OF SMU LOOKING TO ANSWER A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND SO AS THEY ROLL OUT THAT THAT TYPE OF RESEARCH AND STUDIES OVER THE NEXT YEAR WILL BE GETTING MORE INFORMATION ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NOT ONLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ACROSS THAT KIND OF SPECTRUM. BUT THE OVERALL ASSUMPTION IS THAT EVERYONE BUYS THEIR DAILY NEEDS, AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT IN DALLAS.

[04:10:01]

AND SO TO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM POINT, THERE IS A CONDITION WHERE WE NEED TO RECRUIT LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE HERE.

AND SO WE HAVE TO BUILD GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS AND HAVE PLACES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO CALL HOME TO SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE IT CREATES LIKE A MICRO ECONOMY.

THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY'LL GO TO THE DRY CLEANERS, GO GET THEIR HAIR CUT, YOU KNOW, DO SOME SHOPPING.

AND SO YOU THEN IT KIND OF JUST KIND OF WORKS ITS WAY THROUGH THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

AND, BUT IT STARTS AS A MICRO. OKAY. THAT'S JUST BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A THRESHOLD WHERE WE KIND OF GO, OKAY, WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE YOU NEED TO JUST KIND OF STOP AND ANALYZE OR, OR THAT WE'VE HIT THAT CRITICAL POINT.

AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO THE PROFESSIONALS FOR THAT GUIDANCE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

OKAY, WELL, FIRST OFF I WOULD LIKE A RECORD VOTE.

SECOND. THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT REDLINING.

DO WE HAVE REDLINING HAPPENING IN DALLAS? REDLINING WAS A PAST.

CURRENTLY. CURRENTLY. IT'S AN ISSUE WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE WE ARE STILL FACING THE REMNANTS OF HISTORIC DECISIONS.

BUT DO WE HAVE REDLINING RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF A BUSINESS PRACTICE FROM THE BANKING INSTITUTION? I CAN'T SPEAK FULLY TO ALL BANKING PRACTICES ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS IT OUTLAWED.

IS IT OUTLAWED? YES. OKAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'VE GOTTEN A SCREENSHOT FROM COSTAR THAT SHOWS 70% OCCUPANCY FOR THE FINCH. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. JUST A QUICK POINT. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS BRIEFED RECENTLY ON THE.

THE COSTS TO THE CITY OF THE PFC PROGRAM. IN 2020, THE PFC PROGRAM WAS PASSED AND IN SIX YEARS, THE PFC PROGRAM HAS COST THE CITY $800,000 IN LOST TAX REVENUE.

THAT'S ABOUT $100 PER AFFORDABLE UNIT PER YEAR.

YOU COMPARE THAT TO ANY OF THE AGENDA ITEMS ON HERE.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT ONE ON HERE. ITEM 53 $562,000 FOR ENGINEERING WORK, 54 $600,000 FOR FOUR STREETS TO BE ENGINEERED. WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON OTHER THINGS IN THE CITY, $800,000 OVER SIX YEARS TO FURTHER OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS IS WELL SPENT.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

NO, NO. YOU'RE OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE.

SO WAS THERE ANY RECORD VOTE REQUESTED ON THIS? OKAY. A RECORD VOTE TO REQUEST, MADAM SECRETARY. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. YES. COUNCILMEMBER CADENA COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR. COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER STEWART. YES. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCILMEMBER.

WILLIS. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. RIDLEY. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO. WITH THE 11 VOTING IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSE THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 32.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AGENDA ITEM 32. AUTHORIZE A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TIF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

[32. 26-2401A Authorize a tax increment financing (“TIF”) development agreement (“Agreement”) with Fair Park First (“Developer” or “FPF”) in the amount of $3,000,000.00 with the TIF Subsidy being disbursed to the Dallas Foundation on behalf of FPF, pursuant to the Fair Park Development and Fundraising Agreement, payable from the Deep Ellum TIF District Fund (“TIF Subsidy”), in consideration of the Community Park at Fair Park (“Project”), in accordance with the Economic Development Incentive Policy - Not to exceed $3,000,000.00 - Financing: Deep Ellum TIF District Fund *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.]

AGREEMENT WITH FAIR PARK FIRST DEVELOPER OR FPF IN THE AMOUNT OF $3 MILLION, WITH THE TIF SUBSIDY BEING DISBURSED TO THE DALLAS FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF FPF. PURSUANT TO THE FAIR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDRAISING AGREEMENT PAYABLE FROM THE DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT FUND TIF SUBSIDY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY PARK AT FAIR PARK PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION. THIS ITEM WAS CORRECTED AND WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION FROM WHO PULLED IT? MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APPLAUD COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR ALL THEIR ALL OF HIS EFFORTS IN GETTING THIS COMMUNITY PARK OVER THE, OVER THE GOAL LINE, MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS, IT'S, IT WAS A COMMUNITY FACILITY AND THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING DONE. MY OBJECTION AND MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT AND MY REASON FOR PULLING THIS ITEM IS THAT

[04:15:10]

I THINK THE ISSUE IS NOT THE COMMUNITY PARK. THE ISSUE IS THE FUNDING OF THIS ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION.

AND AND THIS IS A CONCERN FOR ME. WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'RE TRANSFERRING MONEY FROM A TIF THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT TIF DISTRICT INTO ANOTHER TIF DISTRICT. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SETS A BAD PRECEDENT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK THAT TIF FUNDS NEED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT THAT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR. THE COMMUNITY PARK HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

IT'S IT REALLY ADDRESSES THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

THAT THAT IS, IS ABSOLUTELY IMPACTED ON IT. BUT PART OF THAT APPROVAL WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDS REQUIRED, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE EFFORT TO, TO TO COLLECT UP TO $40 MILLION TO BUILD WHAT NEEDED TO BE BUILT.

AND THIS REQUEST SEEMS TO INDICATE TO ME THAT THEY'VE, THAT THEY'RE ASKING THE CITY TO THE TIF MONEY FROM A DIFFERENT DEDICATED TIF DISTRICT TO SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS OF THE PARK ITSELF.

THE DIFFERENCE OF THE 30, LET'S SAY THERE'S GOING TO BE 35 TO $37 MILLION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED.

THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A SIGNIFICANT, ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF MONIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS OF THAT COMMUNITY PARK.

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION NEEDS TO BE RAISED PRIVATELY, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE GROUP THAT IS PROMOTING IT, WHICH IS, I THINK, THE FAIR PARK FIRST GROUP.

IF THE PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE THE ADDITIONAL $30 MILLION AND THERE'S ONLY $37 MILLION WORTH OF STUFF, THEN YOU BUILD A $37 MILLION PARK, NOT A $40 MILLION PARK, AND YOU BUILD IT IN PHASES OR YOU BUILD IT YOU MODIFY THE PROJECT TO DO THAT. I'M ALSO NOT SURE THAT I HAVE A HARD NUMBERS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE OF THAT PARK.

AND IT MAY BE THAT IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND I RESPECT THAT.

IF IF I'VE MISSED THAT NUMBER, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER 30 MILLION, $35 MILLION IS A LOT, A LOT OF MONEY AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A LOT OF PARK WITH THAT MUCH MONEY.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT TAKING IT AWAY FROM A TIF THAT MAY HAVE ITS OWN OPPORTUNITIES IS APPROPRIATE.

THE LAST POINT BEING IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR TIF MAY BE EXPIRING IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.

AT THAT POINT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND CERTAINLY I'M SUBJECT TO CORRECTION, THAT THE FUNDS FROM THAT TIF THEN BECOME ARE OPPORTUNISTICALLY PUT INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AND AT THAT POINT, IF WE WANT TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS TO OTHER THINGS, WE LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT EXTRA $3 MILLION TO DO THAT.

IF IT'S IN FACT AVAILABLE. SO I WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE WHO HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS EFFORT IN, IN PROMOTING AND GETTING THIS COMMUNITY PARK ESTABLISHED FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA.

THIS IS AN ISSUE OF, OF POLICY AND, AND BAD PRECEDENT.

IF WE START TAKING MONEY OUT OF DEDICATED TIFS TO GIVE TO OTHER TIFS, EVEN IF THE TIF BOARDS AGREE TO IT, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT APPROACH. AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT TAKING MONEY FROM ONE GROUP AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER AS A, AS A MATTER OF COURSE. SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS MOTION BE DENIED AND THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF THIS MONEY FROM ONE TIFF TO THE OTHER.

THANK YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OR.

NO. YOU GOOD? OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I DO WANT TO HAVE STAFF EXPLAIN A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT YOU MADE ABOUT THE USE OF THE FUNDS FROM THIS PARTICULAR TIFF.

AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD HISTORICAL CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE INVESTMENT IN FAIR PARK.

[04:20:04]

THIS COUNCIL MADE A POLICY DECISION THAT THIS PARTICULAR TIFF UPON ITS EXPIRATION, THAT WE WOULD UTILIZE THAT FUNDING TO SUPPORT FAIR PARK. AND SO I WANT STAFF TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE MAKING WITH THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS IS ACTUALLY IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO.

SO JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.

BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

CITY MANAGER I'M KEVIN SPATH, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. FRANKLY, MANY OF THE THINGS THAT YOU STATED WERE INCORRECT.

AND SO IF YOU ALLOW ME THE TIME TO CORRECT SOME OF THOSE, I WILL.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, FAIR PARK ITSELF IS NOT IN ANY TIF DISTRICT.

SECOND POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED IN 2024, THE DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZED A PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT PLAN AND FINANCING PLAN FOR DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY OF 2024 TO EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE FUNDING FOR THIS VERY PROJECT. SO STATE TIF LAW ALLOWS FOR TIF DOLLARS TO BE SPENT OUTSIDE TIF DISTRICTS FOR PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY AND PARKS.

AND SO IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT THE BOARD ADOPTED AND THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IN 2020 FOR THE TIF DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS. AND SO THE PLAN FOR DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT IS HAS A WHOLE PART OF IT DEVOTED TO HELPING TO FUND THINGS IN THE FAIR PARK AREA, BECAUSE IT WILL BENEFIT DEEP ELLUM.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S LEGAL UNDER STATE LAW.

THAT'S WHY IT'S AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT THE DEEP ELLUM TIF DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED.

AND THAT'S WHY THE BOARD ALSO APPROVED THE FUNDING COMMITMENT OF THIS $3 MILLION.

THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE JUST GOT ON THE RECORD.

WE. AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE SENTIMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED AND THAT WE HEAR OFTEN ABOUT THE LACK OF INVESTMENT AND THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE INTO A VERY DELIBERATE WAY TO PUSH INVESTMENT IN THAT AREA.

AND THIS IS THE TOOL THAT THIS BODY HAS GIVEN US SUPPORT TO UTILIZE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS ITEM IS HERE TODAY. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS CLEAR.

AND AGAIN COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, WE WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S COMPLETELY SPELLED OUT IN THE ITEM.

AND IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT GOOD OF A JOB THIS TIME, I DO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, BUT I WANTED STAFF JUST TO EXPLAIN THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL POLICY. THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. DON'T GO TOO FAR, KEVIN. I DO WANT TO JUST REITERATE IT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER AS WELL FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, BUT TO, TO MY COLLEAGUE'S QUESTION AND POINT.

THE PROJECT, WHILE IT IS SITUATED ADJACENT TO THE GRAND PARK SOUTH TIF DISTRICT.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TIF DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN AND REINVESTMENT ZONE, WHICH WAS AMENDED BY THIS BODY ON FEBRUARY 28TH, 2024 BY ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING CAPACITY TO SUPPORT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY.

AND WHEN WE DID THAT ON JUNE 22ND, 2026 THE DEEP ELLUM TIF BOARD, OF COURSE MADE THEIR VOTE.

THIS IS ALL IN COMPLIANCE TO WHAT WE HAVE. BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ALLOTMENT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WERE EVEN SOME QUESTIONS FROM PEOPLE IN MY COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPECTING FROM THESE TIF FUNDS TO BE IN GRANT PARK SOUTH.

OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO BE VOTED ON TO BE USED, BUT DOES THIS TAKE AWAY OR IS THIS A, THIS IS A PUBLIC FACING.

COMPONENT. I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, BUT THIS HAS TO BE USED IN A IN A FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. SO THE FUNDING, THE BUDGET OF THE FILM TIF DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN THAT'S DEVOTED TO TO HELPING THE AREA AROUND FAIR PARK MUST BE USED FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR PUBLIC PARKS.

THAT'S IT. YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO ALSO MAKE THAT POINT TO THE TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THE ACTION FROM THESE TIF BOARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLETELY MAXIMIZE ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVE USES THAT COULD BE DONE WITH, WITH THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

ENLARGE WE HAD AN INFLUX OF HOME REPAIR DOLLARS.

[04:25:05]

THAT IS, IS MEANT TO HELP THE DISPLACEMENT. AND THE GENTRIFICATION THAT'S HAPPENING THROUGHOUT SOUTH DALLAS.

IT'S A VERY, VERY GOOD USE, BUT WE MAXED THAT OUT.

WE CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE. FOR WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS STATED THEIR PRIORITIES TO BE.

I ALSO WANT TO BRING UP THAT AT OUR SPECIAL CALLED PARKS, TRAILS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING IN.

FEBRUARY OF THIS, OF THIS YEAR, 2026. I MADE AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT WHERE WE WERE WITH THE FUNDRAISING AND ABOUT THE USE OF TIF FUNDS FOR THE COMMUNITY PARK AT FAIR PARK.

THE INTENT WAS TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PASSED WAS TO INITIATE THE FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE TIF DISTRICTS AND THEN WAS TO LEVERAGE AND UTILIZE THESE FUNDS TO BE A MATCHED TOOL TO HELP CLOSE THE REMAINING GAP. SO NOTHING THAT IS BEING BROUGHT TODAY.

NOTHING THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE TIFF BOARDS DIFFERS FROM A PRETTY EXTENSIVE RECORD HERE ON THE COUNCIL OF WHAT WE HAVE GIVEN POLICY DIRECTION TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ADVOCATED AND ASKED FOR AND WHAT OUR THE MEMBERS OF OUR VOLUNTARY BOARDS HAVE ALSO APPROVED AND SENT UP TO US. SO I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE OPPOSITION OTHER THAN MAYBE SOME CONFUSION OR SOME MAYBE EVEN FORGETTING, I THINK THAT THE, THE ACTUAL DECISION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM ONE TIFF TO THE OTHER IN THAT ORDINANCE.

THAT WAS IN 2024. IT WAS BEFORE WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF OUR CURRENT BODY.

AND SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS SPEAKS TO A LEVEL OF SCRUTINY TO PROJECTS IN THE SOUTH THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS. AND THIS SPEAKS TO US CONTINUING TO MAKE THERE BE BIGGER HOOPS FOR US TO JUMP THROUGH, OR FOR THIS, OR FOR SOUTH DALLAS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER JUST TO, TO GET THE ASSETS, THE RESOURCES, THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LONGING FOR FOR SO LONG.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WHEN WE HAD MEMBERS OF JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT SOUTH DALLAS AND ITS ADJACENCIES, ALL IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND ADVOCATING FOR THE SAME GOAL AND VERY EMPHATICALLY SUPPORTING WHERE WE ARE AND THE PROCESS TO GET TO THIS PLACE OF THE PARK.

I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH HOW MUCH OF AN ANOMALY THAT WAS FOR ME AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOUTH DALLAS.

WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BROUGHT US TOGETHER.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TRULY UNIFIED THE COMMUNITY, AND I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES TO NOT ALLOW FOR THEIR OWN CONFUSION OF HOW WE'VE GOTTEN HERE TO BE A HINDRANCE OF US BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US.

THE SIMPLE REALITY IS THAT DEEP ELLUM TIF IS THRIVING.

IT'S HEALTHY, AND WE CAN AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS AND TO HELP OUR NEIGHBORS SOUTH OF 30.

COLLEAGUES, I'M GRATEFUL TO THE CITY STAFF AND THE DEEP ELLUM TIF BOARD FOR THEIR COLLABORATION, ENSURING THE SUPPORT OF A PARK NEIGHBORING OUR DISTRICT AT FAIR PARK.

I KNOW THAT DEEP ELLUM TIF BOARD IS HAPPY TO SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORS IN DISTRICT SEVEN, AND THEY SEEK TO PURSUE THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE CITY IS WORKING TOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY TO BENEFIT THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

FOR ALL WHO PLAN TO VISIT FAIR PARK AND THE LONG OVERDUE COMMUNITY PARK.

HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS PROJECT MUST HAPPEN WITHOUT DELAY.

THIS RESOLUTION STATES THAT THE MONEY TRANSFER WILL ADVANCE THE COMMUNITY PARK AT FAIR PARK TO ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT DELAY.

PREVENT COST ESCALATION. ASSOCIATE WITH ASSOCIATED WITH POSTPONEMENT TO MAINTAIN AN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT, TIMELINESS AND STAKEHOLDERS COMMITMENTS AND LEVERAGE EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT.

I EXPECT THE CITY AND FAIR PARK FIRST TO UPHOLD THESE RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THIS PROCESS.

FAIR PARK FIRST IS NOT BEEN A SPOTLESS ORGANIZATION.

WHILE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. I'M CAUTIOUS ABOUT ACTIONS LIKE THIS ONE.

TODAY I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THE ITEM AS A COUNCIL MEMBER REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY.

HOWEVER, I DO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROJECT IS ONLY BEING COMPLETED IN THE TIMELINE.

AND FOR THOSE REASONS, GUYS, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN PROMISED TO THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER ON.

[04:30:07]

AND SO I JUST HOPE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAYS.

AND I CAN'T WAIT FOR US ALL TO BE AT THE GROUNDBREAKING AND, OR I THINK WE'VE ALREADY HAD A GROUNDBREAKING, RIGHT? COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. SO I GUESS THE RIBBON CUTTING WOULD BE THE NEXT ONE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MR. ROTH, WE'RE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KEVIN, FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE HISTORY WHICH DID PREDATE ME.

AND QUITE FRANKLY THIS, THIS INDICATES TO ME THAT AND, AND TO THE COMMUNITY TOO.

THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON THE, THE, THE SIGNIFICANCE, THE NEED, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARK.

MY CONCERN IS JUST GENERALLY PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE STRONG POLICY GUIDELINES AND GUARDRAILS AND CONTROL IN IN IN POSITION. AND THAT THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR AND I APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER'S ALSO HELPFULNESS IN CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION. I WILL CHANGE MY, MY CONCERN AND VOTE FOR IT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE ALL QUESTION THE ALLOCATION AND THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ABUSING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO TRANSFER FUNDS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A PROJECT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT.

THANK YOU. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION. I'M GLAD THAT WE CLEARED UP. I WANT TO SAY SOME THANK YOUS BEFORE I WANT TO FIRST SAY THANK YOU TO CITY MANAGER FROM THE AND THE PARKS STAFF. THIS IS DEFINITELY BEEN SOMETHING Y'ALL HAVE NOT ALLOWED TO GO BY THE WAYSIDE, AND WE'VE BEEN FULL STEAM AHEAD. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. I KNOW THE FIRST CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM WAS WHEN EXPLORING WHAT WE COULD DO WITH TIFF.

IT JUST LIKE ANY REPRESENTATIVE, I THINK WAS LIKE, WHY, WHY ARE YOU TAKING MY FUNDS? YOU KNOW, LIKE, BUT, BUT IT MADE SENSE BECAUSE OF IT WAS EITHER GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND. AND SO IT WAS, IT WAS VERY COLLABORATIVE.

AND IT WAS ALSO A PRECEDENT SETTING. AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF ACTION AND COLLABORATIVE ACTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE GROWTH HAPPEN IN PLACES THAT WE HAVEN'T TRADITIONALLY INVESTED IN. WE, WE HAVE A GREAT EFFORTS AND A HUGE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN MADE IN DEEP ELLUM.

THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE TO TURNING AROUND AND TO BUILDING UP THE DEEP ELLUM COMMUNITY.

BUT THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND, AS WAS MENTIONED BY MR. MORENO, THAT THEY NEED TO SEE THE SAME IN THE IN ITS ADJACENCY, TO TRULY SEE THEIR EFFORTS TO TO THE FULLEST.

AND WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE CAN REPLICATE ACROSS THE CITY IN MANY INSTANCES.

AND WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT AND AN INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS, TO SEE THOSE FUNDS SHIFTED TO PLACES THAT HAVE NOT HAD THE TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING TO SHORE UP SOME OF THESE INEQUITIES AND SOME OF THIS HISTORIC CONTEXT THAT'S KEPT SOME OF THESE COMMUNITIES DOWN.

SO I'M EXTREMELY EXCITED FOR THIS. AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE LEADERSHIP OF YOU IN DISTRICT TWO AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS WAS EVEN POSSIBLE FOR MY COMMUNITY.

AND WITH THAT, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO FAIR PARK FIRST.

THERE THERE'S A FEW PEOPLE FROM FAIR PARK FIRST HERE TODAY.

VOLETTA LIL, THE HONORABLE VOLETTA LITTLE. AND WE HAVE HEATHER STEPHENS AS WELL.

HEATHER IS NOW GOING TO SEE THIS APPROVAL AS A CALL TO TASK TO GO AND HELP US RAISE THE REST OF THE FUNDS.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY SHE'S DONE AN INCREDIBLE JOB.

UP TO THIS POINT A $40 MILLION INVESTMENT TO ANY ASSET IN SOUTH DALLAS IS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE JUST NOT USED TO BEING ABLE TO CELEBRATE. AND WE ARE JUST THIS MUCH CLOSER.

AND I BELIEVE IT IS ENLARGED ALSO BY THE INNOVATIVE THINKING OF OUR STAFF AT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WANT TO SAY A HUGE THANK YOU TO YOU, KEVIN, AND YOUR TEAM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE REALLY HELPED OUTLINE AND NAVIGATE A ROADMAP TO HOW WE CAN BRING DOLLARS TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND IT'S TANGIBLE.

THE GROUNDBREAKING IS SCHEDULED TO BE IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE UP THERE WITH ME MISS MORENO AND EVERY ONE OF Y'ALL, OF COURSE, TO BE THERE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM I'M 32.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 55.

[55. 26-2291A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the Construction Manager at Risk contract (“CMAR Contract”) with Swinerton Builders for the Dallas Police Department Law Enforcement Training Center on the University of North Texas at Dallas located at 7300 University Hills Boulevard to provide (1) City’s acceptance of Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) 1 for construction services in the amount not to exceed $26,392,747.00 (which includes the CMAR’s contingency of $747,241.00); and (2) Owner’s contingency of an amount not to exceed $2,639,275.00 for a total Supplemental Agreement No. 1 price not to exceed $29,032,022.00 increasing the total CMAR Contract price to date from $150,000.00 to $29,182,022.00 (which includes an owner’s contingency of $2,639,275.00 and a GMP 1 of $26,392,747.00) - Total not to exceed $29,032,022.00, from $150,000.00 to $29,182,022.00 - Financing: Public Safety Facilities (F) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Fund) *In alignment with Bond Implementation Program]

[04:35:08]

AGENDA ITEM 55. AUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK CONTRACT CMAR CONTRACT WITH SWINERTON BUILDERS FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER ON THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AT DALLAS, LOCATED AT 7300 UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD. TO PROVIDE ONE CITY'S ACCEPTANCE OF GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE GP1 FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,392,747, WHICH INCLUDES THE SEA MOSS CONTINGENCY OF $747,241 AND TWO OWNERS CONTINGENT CONTINGENCY OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,639,275 FOR A TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

NUMBER ONE PRICE NOT TO EXCEED $29,032,022, INCREASING THE TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE TO DATE FROM 150,000 TO $29,182,022, WHICH INCLUDES AN OWNER'S CONTINGENCY OF 2 MILLION $2,639,275 AND A GMP, ONE OF $26,392,747, NOT TO EXCEED $29,032,022 FROM $150,000 TO $29,392,747. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A CLARIFICATION.

THIS ITEM IS CLARIFYING THAT THIS IS A DECREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS, AND THAT THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE ONE IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,233,888. THE OWNER'S CONTINGENCY IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,623,388, FOR A TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, NUMBER ONE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $28,857,276, WHICH INCREASES THE TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE FROM $150,000 TO $29,007,276. THIS IS YOUR ITEM. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON MOVE TO APPROVE, A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND AND DISCUSSION.

WHO PULLED IT? MR. MCMAHON, YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES? YES. SO I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE. OKAY, SO THIS IS TAKING THE PART OF THE 50 MILLION THAT WE HAD IN THE BOND FROM 2024. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, JENNY. AND I WONDER IF THE BOND OFFICE AND YES, THIS A PORTION OF THIS IS BOND DOLLARS.

AND THEN WE HAVE SOME STATE GRANT DOLLARS IN HERE, TOO.

OKAY. AND WE ARE ABOUT TO PUT A MORE COULD POTENTIALLY PUT MORE ON FOR APPROVAL IN NOVEMBER.

CORRECT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT RELATIONSHIP WILL WORK UPON PASSAGE OR NOT? PASSAGE. SURE. JUST TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF WE MOVE THIS ON, IS THERE A WAY TO LIKE DELAY IT IF IT DOESN'T PASS OR WE NEED TO COME BACK IN MAY OR WHATNOT? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS THIS ITEM WITH THE ONE WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING UP LATER.

SURE. SO THIS GMP PACKAGE ONE, THIS IS FOR THE SITE WORK.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE BUILDING PADS UTILITIES.

IT ALSO INCLUDES SOME ENABLING WORK FOR SOME LONG LEAD ITEMS. SO WE CAN PUT THE ORDERS IN ON THAT. AND CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON WITH THE FUNDRAISERS HAVING COMPLETED THEIR MISSION AND GETTING US THE 70 MILLION THAT WOULD BRING US TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO THE SITE WORK AND TO BUILD THE BASIC ACADEMY AND THE PHYSICAL TRAINING COMPLEX AS WELL. SO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO COMPLETE THOSE BUILDINGS AND SOME SITE WORK.

SO THEY'RE NOT REALLY RELATE. LIKE ONE IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE OTHER.

CORRECT. SO WE THIS IS RIGHT. SO IN TERMS OF PRIORITY, I WAS WORKING WITH DPD.

THE BASIC WAS THE PRIORITY ANYWAY. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS GOING TO BE OUR STARTING POINT AND AND WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BOND.

AND IF THAT DOES NOT PASS, THEN WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE BASIC AND AND WE HAVE OUR SEEMA THAT'S, I MEAN, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE. THIS IS WILL THIS BE OUR THIRD SEEMA PROJECT.

IT'LL BE THE FIRST ONE IN THE BOND OFFICE, AND BUT YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S A FEW OTHERS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME HICCUPS ON ANOTHER ONE.

I'M JUST MAKING SURE IT'S TIGHT AND READY TO GO.

AND I THINK, DEB, YOU AND I HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.

[04:40:01]

SO BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF OUR PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

AND SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT Y'ALL ARE READY.

YEAH, NO, WE'VE BEEN REALLY HAPPY WITH WINTERTON TO DATE.

THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO ENGAGE SUBCONTRACTORS.

AND AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A REALLY GOOD PLACE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 55? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? EYES THAT I NOTED NOTED. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA HAS VOTED NO.

YOUR NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 63. AUTHORIZE ONE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE PRICE AGREEMENT FOR

[63. 26-2308A Authorize (1) a five-year service price agreement for the maintenance and repair of fitness equipment for various City departments - On Site Fitness Service, LLC in the estimated amount of $571,600.00; and (2) a five-year master agreement for the purchase of fitness and exercise equipment for various City departments - Comm-Fit Holdings LLC in the estimated amount of $1,225,745.90, Fit Supply, LLC in the estimated amount of $303,726.00, Johnson Health Retail, Inc dba Johnson Fitness & Wellness in the estimated amount of $589,000.00, and Technogym USA Corp in the estimated amount of $60,000.00, lowest responsible bidders of six - Total estimated amount of $2,750,071.90 - Financing: General Fund ($2,090,099.90) and Aviation Fund ($659,972.00) (subject to annual appropriations)]

THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF FITNESS EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS.

ON SITE FITNESS SERVICE, LLC IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $571,600 AND TWO.

A FIVE YEAR MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FITNESS AND AND EXERCISE EQUIPMENT FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS.

COMM FIT HOLDINGS, LLC IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,225,745.90.

FIT SUPPLY, LLC IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $303,726.

JOHNSON HEALTH RETAIL, INC., DBA JOHNSON FITNESS AND WELLNESS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $589,000, AND TECHNOGYM USA CORP. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $60,000.

LLOYD'S RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS OF SIX. TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF DOLLARS SEVEN 250 $202,750,071.90. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

LOOKING FOR A MOTION? I BELIEVE FOR A SECOND.

OKAY, I HEARD A SECOND, I THINK. YES. OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION, MR. ROTH, FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I REALLY WOULD JUST LIKE TO. I PULLED THIS BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD LIKE A CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT KIND OF WHAT THIS REALLY IS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE FITNESS EQUIPMENT, WHAT WHAT GROUPS ARE REALLY GETTING IT.

AND AND HOW WE'RE, WHY WE'RE IN THIS TYPE OF A FACILITY BUSINESS.

EVEN THOUGH THAT THE, I JUST REALLY WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON HOW WE'RE SPENDING $2.7 MILLION ON FITNESS AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR THAT.

JUANITA ORTIZ OFFICE OF PUBLIC OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

THIS ITEM IS FOR FITNESS EQUIPMENT AND REPAIR OF FITNESS EQUIPMENT.

MOST OF THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND THE RECREATION CENTERS.

ABOUT 80% OF THE GENERAL FUND. BUT THERE ALSO IS EQUIPMENT IN HERE FOR DPDD, FDFR AND AVIATION STAFF AREAS AS WELL. THIS IS A PRICE AGREEMENT.

SO IT'S SETTING THE PRICE. THERE'S NO MINIMUM ORDER THAT WE'RE GOING TO PLACE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND 2.7 MILLION. IT'S SETTING THE PRICE.

OVER SINCE 22. WE SPENT 1.3 ON THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT.

AND SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE, THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONTRACT.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY PART OF IT IS, IS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.

BUT ALSO PART OF IT IS ALLOCATING FUNDS IN CASE THEY NEED TO PURCHASE NEW EQUIPMENT IN OVER THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO THIS GIVES US BASICALLY FIXES THE PRICING.

SO THIS GIVES US A CONTRACT WHICH WE CAN PURCHASE OFF OF.

BUT THE BUDGET IS ADOPTED AT YOUR LEVEL BY THE DEPARTMENT.

SO IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BUDGET THEY WILL MAKE THOSE PURCHASES.

IF THEY DO NOT THEN WE WON'T PURCHASE OFF THIS CONTRACT.

AND SO THE 500 TO $600,000 A YEAR ALLOCATION, IS THAT SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS CONTRACTS THAT YOU'VE HAD BEFORE FOR THIS TYPE OF, OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 63? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[70. 26-2407A Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)]

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 70.

AGENDA ITEM 70 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS AFTERNOON YOU HAVE A FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT AND AN OFFICER APPOINTMENT.

THE TWO APPOINTMENTS WILL BE SEPARATED TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO VOTE TO ABSTAIN ON THE CHAIR.

APPOINTMENT. THE OFFICER APPOINTMENT. YOUR NOMINEE FOR.

FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONE SIX BOARD FARMERS MARKET ANGELA DOWNS IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON.

[04:45:04]

THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. IT'S YOUR OFFICER APPOINTMENT.

ANGELA DOWNS IS BEING NOMINATED CHAIR OF THE REINVESTMENT ZONE SIX BOARD FARMERS MARKET BY MAYOR JOHNSON.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM. OUR MOTION IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. I ABSTAIN, NOTED, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 71.

[71. 26-2257A Authorize (1) a three-year service contract for the period June 24, 2026 through June 23, 2029, with two one-year renewal options, for City paid basic life insurance and the administration of grandfathered life insurance policies for the Department of Human Resources - Standard Insurance Company; (2) a three-year service contract for the period June 24, 2026 through June 23, 2029, with two one-year renewal options, for voluntary benefits - Standard Insurance Company; (3) a three-year service contract for the period June 24, 2026 through June 23, 2029, with two one-year renewal options, for financial wellness and pet insurance - Metlife Pet Insurance Solutions, LLC; and (4) a three-year service contract for the period June 24, 2026 through June 23, 2029, with two one-year renewal options, for legal services - Metlife Legal Plans, Inc., most advantageous proposers of twelve - Not to exceed $2,925,466 - Financing: Employee Benefits Funds (subject to annual appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) (This item was deferred on June 24, 2026)]

AUTHORIZED ONE A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 24TH, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 23RD, 2029, WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR CITY PAID BASIC LIFE INSURANCE AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF GRANDFATHERED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY TO A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 24TH, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 23RD, 2029, WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR VOLUNTARY BENEFITS. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY. THREE A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 24TH, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 23RD, 2029 WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR FINANCIAL WELLNESS AND PET INSURANCE, METLIFE PET INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, AND FOR A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 24TH, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 23RD, 2029 WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR LEGAL SERVICES.

METLIFE LEGAL PLANS, INC. MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF 12 NOT TO EXCEED $2,925,466. THIS ITEM IS ALSO BEING CLARIFIED.

IT'S CLARIFYING THAT THE TERM FOR ALL FOUR CONTRACTS IS AUGUST 12TH, 2026 THROUGH AUGUST 11TH, 2029 AND REMOVING FINANCIAL WELLNESS SERVICES FROM CONTRACT NUMBER THREE.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON 71.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 73.

[73. 26-2590A An ordinance ordering a special election to be held in the city of Dallas (the City) on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, (1) for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City certain propositions pertaining to the issuance of bonds; (2) making provisions to conduct the election; and (3) providing an effective date - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

IS AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2021, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY.

CERTAIN PROPOSITIONS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, TO MAKING PROVISIONS TO CONDUCT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION, AND THREE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. YOU DO HAVE SIX INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER. JANUARY. FOX. JANUARY. FOX IS NOT PRESENT.

QUENTIN MATTHEWS HAS CANCELED. TAMARA HUTCHERSON.

TAMARA. YES, I AM HERE. OKAY. HI. MY NAME IS TAMARA HUTCHERSON, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT TWO.

I AM IN OPPOSITION OF THIS SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITIONS FOR THIS UPCOMING NOVEMBER 2026 ELECTION.

DUE TO THE LACK OF COMMUNITY INPUT, THE PROPOSED DRAFT OF THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSITIONS, IF PASSED, THAT WOULD BE ON THE BALLOT AND THE RUSHED TIMELINE TO PUT THIS AGENDA ITEM UP FOR A CITY COUNCIL VOTE.

IF PASSED, THIS ELECTION WOULD BE LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AWAY, AND THAT IS NOT FAIR TO VOTERS WITH HOW THESE PROPOSITIONS PROPOSITIONS ARE CURRENTLY STRUCTURED. I SPECIFICALLY TAKE ISSUE WITH PROPOSITION A.

PROPOSITION A ASKS FOR 441 MILLION, WITH 400 MILLION BEING ALLOTTED FOR THE DPD TRAINING COMPLEX, WHICH WAS PROJECTED TO BE BUILT ON TWO SITES.

THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY PROJECTED TO BE $140 MILLION AND HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED.

IN 2024. VOTERS APPROVED $50 MILLION FROM THE MAY SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THIS TRAINING FACILITY, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THIS PROJECT WOULD COST LESS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT NEEDED WOULD BE RAISED THROUGH PRIVATE DONORS.

THERE ALSO HAS BEEN MINIMAL INPUT FROM COMMUNITY IN A MAJORITY BLACK AND BROWN COUNCIL DISTRICT, WHERE BOTH SITES OF THIS TRAINING COMPLEX ARE PROJECTED TO BE BUILT.

[04:50:01]

VOTERS DESERVE TRANSPARENCY ON WHY THIS PROJECT KEEPS EXPANDING AND INCREASING IN COSTS BEFORE PLACING IT ON THE BALLOT.

THIS 400 MILLION FOR THIS TRAINING COMPLEX SHOULD NOT BE BUNDLED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE FUNDS BEING ASKED TO PROPOSITION A, WHICH WOULD FUND A NEW 911 AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AND A REPLACEMENT OF A FIRE STATION.

THESE ALL SHOULD BE ITEMIZED FOR A VOTE. AN AVERAGE VOTER MAY BE CONFLICTED, SINCE 1ST MAY SUPPORT THE FUNDING OF A FIRE STATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE AFTERMATH AND THE AFTERMATH OF THE OAK CLIFF APARTMENT EXPLOSION, AND BE HESITANT WITH THE PROPOSITION AS A WHOLE.

WE ARE FACING A BUDGET SHORTFALL AND A HIRING FREEZE.

IT WAS DISCLOSED RECENTLY. PUBLIC LIBRARY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE LAID OFF.

WE ARE IN. WE ARE IN THE BUDGET SEASON AND MORE CUTS ARE PROJECTED WHICH HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED OUR LIBRARIES AND PARKS.

I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS SPECIAL ELECTION, AND I ASK IF THIS COUNCIL TO DELAY THE SPECIAL ELECTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRITTANY. ENGLISH. GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS BRITTANY. MISS ENGLISH, YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

OKAY. SEE HERE. WE CAN SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

OKAY. MY NAME IS BRITTANY ENGLISH. I LIVE IN DISTRICT THREE.

I ALSO OWN A RENTAL HOME IN DISTRICT EIGHT, THE SAME DISTRICT WHERE THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING COMPLEX IS PLANNED AT UNT DALLAS.

I'M ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO REJECT CALLING THE NOVEMBER BOND ELECTION FOR THE $441 MILLION PUBLIC SAFETY PROPOSITION IN 2021, THE POLICE TRAINING COMPLEX AT UNT DALLAS WAS PROJECTED TO COST $140 MILLION.

NOW IT'S ESTIMATED TO BE OVER $400 MILLION, ALMOST THREE TIMES THE INITIAL ESTIMATE.

IN 2024, VOTERS APPROVED PROP F, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ISSUE $90 MILLION IN BONDS TO FUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES AND TO LEVY A TAX TO REPAY THE BONDS. IF THIS COUNCIL VOTES TO SEND ANOTHER BOND TO VOTERS FOR THE TRAINING COMPLEX, IT WILL BE THE CITY'S FIFTH TIME ASKING PERMISSION TO BORROW WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

MEANWHILE, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS ONLY SECURED $31 MILLION IN PRIVATE FUNDING.

THIS MISMANAGEMENT OF TAXPAYER FUNDS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY THERE IS AN EROSION OF TRUST AND CREDIBILITY BETWEEN DALLAS RESIDENTS AND THE COUNCIL.

AS ONE COUNCIL MEMBER STATED BEFORE LAST WEEK'S LATE NIGHT DECISION TO MOVE TOWARD A NOVEMBER BALLOT, WE ARE LIVING OUTSIDE OF OUR MEANS AND WE'RE TAKING OUT CREDIT TO DO IT, THE SAME COUNCIL MEMBER STATED.

IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ASK VOTERS FOR MORE BOND MONEY.

TO SUMMARIZE, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS ONE FAILED TO DELIVER A NEW POLICE TRAINING COMPLEX DESPITE GAINING VOTER APPROVAL FOR MONEY ON FOUR PREVIOUS BONDS, AND TWO FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PROJECT'S COST HAS NEARLY TRIPLED.

ADDITIONALLY, THE COUNCIL HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW IT CAME UP WITH THE $50 MILLION FIGURE THE CITY TOLD VOTERS IT NEEDED.

NOW, THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PLACE A PROPOSED $960 MILLION PUBLIC SAFETY AND PENSION BOND PACKAGE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT AND ALMOST $1 BILLION BOND PACKAGE FOR A DEPARTMENT THAT ALREADY RECEIVES 63% OF THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

MEANWHILE, THE CITY IS PROJECTING A $51 MILLION SHORTFALL.

A HIRING FREEZE AND CUTS TO LIBRARIES AND PARKS ASKING RESIDENTS TO TAKE ON NEARLY $1 BILLION IN NEW DEBT.

WHILE CORE SERVICES FACE CUTS DESERVES MORE SCRUTINY THAN ONE BUNDLED BALLOT MEASURE ALLOWS.

AS I MENTIONED, I OWN A RENTAL HOME IN THE SAME DISTRICT AS UNT DALLAS, JUST AN EIGHT MINUTE DRIVE FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

THE TENANTS IN MY RENTAL HOME, STUDENTS AT UNT, DALLAS AND PAUL QUINN AND ALL DISTRICT EIGHT RESIDENTS DESERVE TO BE INVESTED IN.

THEY DESERVE A SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF HIGHER WAGE JOBS.

CURRENTLY, THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS $49,000.

BASIC RETAIL AND GROCERY AMENITIES AND FOUNDATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'M ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO REJECT CALLING THE NOVEMBER BOND ELECTION FOR THE 441 MILLION AND TO PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, ESPECIALLY IN DISTRICT EIGHT. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THE HONORABLE VALETTA FORSYTHE. WELL.

GOOD AFTERNOON. LET ME START BY SAYING THAT NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO THE COMPLETION OF A POLICE TRAINING FACILITY.

IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED FOR DECADES. IT'S SUSTAINED THE SUPPORT, THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY THROUGH MULTIPLE BOND PROGRAMS AND THE GIFTS AND COMMITMENT

[04:55:01]

OF CIVIC VOLUNTEERS AND DONORS. HOWEVER, TRUST WITH THE PUBLIC CONTINUES TO ERODE BECAUSE THE CITY CONTINUES TO EXHIBIT A LACK OF PLANNING TRANSPARENCY. AND THEN THERE IS THE SUDDEN DESIRE TO TRANSFER.

911311. OUT OF CITY HALL. YOUR EXCUSE OF TRAFFIC JAMS AT THE CONVENTION CENTER IS QUESTIONABLE.

WE ALL KNOW THIS IS SIMPLY A TROJAN HORSE IN A CITY HALL ABANDONMENT PLAN.

IF YOU NEEDED FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO 911311, YOU PASSED UP THE $23 MILLION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDING THAT YOU'RE STILL SITTING ON FROM 2021.

YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THE 29 MILLION AND THE 24 BOND PROGRAM THAT YOUR CITIZEN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED.

AS YOU RUSH THROUGH, YOU ENSURE YOUR. PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOUR RESIDENTS ARE AWARE THAT THESE PROJECTS WILL CUT INTO THE FRONT OF THE LINE IN FRONT OF THEIR STREETS, PARKS, LIBRARIES, ETC.

WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF MORE TRANSPARENCY HERE.

WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF BETTER PLANNING. WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF OPEN DIALOG.

SEPARATE THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY IN THE BOND.

SEPARATE THESE ITEMS. SHOW THE PUBLIC YOUR PLAN.

START BUILDING THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY. STOP THE BUM'S RUSH OF ABANDONMENT OF CITY HALL AND STOP FUNDING PROJECTS YOU HAVE NOT PLANNED FOR AND DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALEX. SCOTT. ALEX SCOTT IS NOT PRESENT. MR. MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

MOVE TO NILE. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

STRIKE PROPOSITIONS B AND C SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

CHAIRMAN WEST, WOULD YOU LIKE FIVE MINUTES? YES, PLEASE.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AS I HAD MENTIONED IN OUR BRIEFING I DO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENTS OF THIS BOND.

AND I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ON A COUPLE OF THEM, BUT BUT MY SUPPORT ALIGNS WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES AND FROM THE PUBLIC. CERTAINLY ON THE TWO ITEMS, THE DPD PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING COMPLEX AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER AT T WHICH WE HAVE PROMISED THE VOTERS.

SO I SUPPORT CALLING A NOVEMBER BOND ELECTION LIMITED TO A CLEAN PROPOSITION, A FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL PROJECTS.

THESE FACILITIES CLOSE DOCUMENTED FUNDING GAPS FOR TRAINING EVIDENCE, INTEGRITY, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND FIRE STATION NEEDS.

PROPOSITION A IS IS CRITICAL TO KEEPING THE TWO PROJECTS I JUST MENTIONED ON TRACK.

WE PROMISED OUR VOTERS BACK IN 2024 THAT WE WOULD GET THIS PROJECT DONE AND OUR PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE HONORABLE TENNELL ATKINS, THE HONORABLE JENNIFER STAUBACH, GATES AND LYNN MCBEE, HAVE DONE THEIR PART TO RAISE PRIVATE FUNDS FOR THE FACILITY AT UNT DALLAS.

WE ALL KNOW THE HORRIBLE CONDITIONS OUR POLICE RECRUITS CURRENTLY TRAIN IN, AND GETTING THIS NEW CENTER FULLY FUNDED AND ON TRACK WILL ENSURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO RECRUIT DPD OFFICERS AT THE RATE THAT WE NEED.

THE PORTION OF THE BOND THAT HAS GIVEN ME A LITTLE HESITATION IS THE EVIDENCE FACILITY THAT'S PROPOSED, AND THE CRIME LAB FOR $150 MILLION. I DO THINK IT'S A LITTLE PREMATURE TO COMMIT TO PUTTING THIS FACILITY AT THE BIG LOCATION BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE REAL ESTATE MASTER PLAN. AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THIS BOND, YOU'LL COMMIT TO COMING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THE LOCATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED EVIDENTIAL VEHICLE STORAGE, PROPERTY ROOM AND CRIME LAB BEFORE FINALIZING THE LOCATION.

MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. AND IF I'M LISTENING CORRECTLY BEFORE SELECTING WHAT MIGHT BE THE POTENTIAL LOCATION YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO COME TO COUNCIL AND THEN GIVE STAFF THE ABILITY OR THE DIRECTION IF THE BONDS ARE APPROVED FOR WHEREVER IT GOES.

IF THE BOND DID APPROVE, THE BONDS ARE APPROVED. YES, SIR. I DO SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP IS WHY LIMIT THIS BALLOT TO PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL ONLY? YOU KNOW, THESE PROJECTS ARE ADDRESSING CLEAR, TIME SENSITIVE GAPS ON FACILITIES THAT ARE ALREADY PARTIALLY FUNDED,

[05:00:03]

DESIGNED OR UNDER ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT. THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN OPERATIONAL MERITS.

A SINGLE FOCUSED PROPOSITION IMPROVES VOTER CLARITY AND INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT GETTING PASSED.

RESIDENTS CAN EVALUATE MODERN POLICE TRAINING, SECURE EVIDENCE STORAGE, A FUNCTIONAL 911 EOC AND A NEW FIRE STATION WITHOUT HAVING TO WEIGH UNRELATED FINANCIAL OR FACILITY ITEMS. ADDING IN PENSIONS, PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS OR FLEET MAINTENANCE EXPANDS THE TOTAL ASK.

IT COMPLICATES THE MESSAGE AND IT INVITES OPPOSITION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES THEMSELVES.

BY REDUCING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BOND, ASK THAT WE WILL BE SENDING TO THE VOTERS.

MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WILL ASK THE CITY MANAGER OR CFO TO CONFIRM THIS, IS THAT ANY NEW.

THAT THE LOWERED BOND AUTHORIZATION WILL PRESERVE OUR ABILITY TO ADVANCE THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM ON ITS CURRENT SCHEDULE PRIORITIES WITH NO ADJUSTMENTS. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER. AND I'LL JUST I'LL START AND I SEE THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER COMING.

IF IT'S LIMITED TO THE PROPOSITION A, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE NEEDED PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, I BELIEVE THAT TOTAL IS ABOUT 443 MILLION. IF YOUR QUESTION IS, WOULD THIS ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS TO PROCEED ACCORDING TO THIS CURRENT SCHEDULE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES.

AND YES, SIR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. WEST.

JACK IRELAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND I TOO WOULD CONFIRM THAT THAT THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM OF $1.25 BILLION WAS PLANNED TO BE ISSUED IN FIVE TRANCHES. WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED THE FIRST TWO TRANCHES OF $250 MILLION EACH.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE AND DELIVER THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM, DELIVER ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS OVER THE FIVE YEARS.

IT WOULD NOT DELAY THE ISSUANCE SCHEDULE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS A BIG CONCERN. THE DELAYS FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS FROM MY RESIDENTS, BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF OUR LIBRARY PROJECT GOT PUSHED OUT TO YEAR SIX, AND I THINK SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAD SOME SIMILAR CONCERNS.

SO PROPOSITION B, WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING THAT AT THIS TIME IS BECAUSE I WANT TO WAIT FOR THE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN BEFORE WE START DETERMINING WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH OUR VARIOUS REPAIR FACILITIES. AND THEN PROPOSITION C, THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, LIKE A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES, I JUST BELIEVE IT'S TOO RISKY AT THIS TIME.

WE CAN COME BACK AND AUTHORIZE A BOND IN SIX MONTHS IF WE NEED TO.

IF THE MARKET'S BETTER. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT TIME FOR US TO DO THE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'VE SAID MY PIECE AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

THANK YOU. CHAIR WILL MENDELSOHN YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD A NEW PROPOSITION TO BE LOCATED FIRST BEFORE THE OTHER CITY OF DALLAS PROPOSITIONS TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER AND TWO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING COMPLEX FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $231 MILLION.

AT A NEW PROPOSITION TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION AND RELOCATION OF THE 911 IN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND THE AMOUNT OF 40 MILLION AND REDUCE PROPOSITION A, WHICH WOULD BE RENUMBERED TO BE PROPOSITION C BY 271 MILLION.

LET ME HEAR THE MOTIONS IN ORDER. IT IS IN ORDER AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SEPARATES OUT THE TWO LOCATIONS OF THE ACADEMY INTO PROPOSITION A, A FOR ACADEMY.

EASY MESSAGING. THE PEOPLE OF DALLAS SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY.

THEY SUPPORT AN ACADEMY THAT WILL PROVIDE THE KIND OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT OUR OFFICERS NEED IN A LOCATION THEY NEED.

I WILL AGREE THAT OUR FIRST WELL, OUR FIRST MODERN BOND VOTE ABOUT THIS FOR $50 MILLION.

THIS WAS COMPLETELY A LOW BALL AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE TIME.

THE MANAGER AT THE TIME WAS INSISTENT ON THE 50 MILLION AND THAT THE REST COULD BE RAISED PRIVATELY.

THERE ARE THINGS THIS COUNCIL DID NOT KNOW THAT WERE LIMITATIONS ON THE LOCATION AT UNT.

WE KNOW THEM NOW. EVERYTHING'S BEEN SCOPED OUT.

WE NEED THIS FUNDING TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF EXCELLENCE AND EDUCATION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS.

THE SECOND THING IT WILL DO IS IT WILL ADD A SEPARATE PROPOSITION FOR RELOCATING THE 911 CENTER.

I AM NOT FOR THAT ITEM, BUT ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS DESERVE TO INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDER EACH ITEM,

[05:05:01]

WHETHER THEY SUPPORT IT OR THEY DON'T SUPPORT IT.

AND THAT'S THE SAME THING. SO ALL OF THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING SEPARATED OUT SO PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN JUDICIAL DECISION ON WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO AUTHORIZE US TO TAKE OUT DEBT ON BY REDUCING PROPOSITION A BY 271 MILLION.

AND OF COURSE, THAT WOULD THEN AGAIN, MAKE IT PROPOSITION C.

WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER THEN ARE THE PROPERTY ROOM, EVIDENTIARY VEHICLE STORAGE AND CRIME LAB AND THE FIRE STATION.

THIS FIRE STATION WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED ON OUR LAST BOND.

IF YOU LOOK AT FIRE STATION FOUR, YOU KNOW IT'S ALL THE WAY AROUND IT.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AT ONE TIME.

DO YOU KNOW THAT STAFF WAS BEING CONSIDERED TO BE LAID OFF? STATION 18, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BUSIEST STATIONS IN OUR CITY, IS BEING REBUILT.

IT'S IT'S HAPPENING. IT'S A BIG, BUSY STATION.

IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS NEW AREA FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER.

WE SHOULD CONSIDER STATION FOUR WHEN WE KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE.

AND THERE'S NO NEED TO BUILD A FIRE STATION WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL ACTUALLY END UP IN THIS AREA.

THE PROPERTY ROOM, IT'S TERRIBLE, BUT THERE'S NO WAY WE SHOULD ASK OUR VOTERS FOR DEBT WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT SHOULD GO.

AND IT SHOULDN'T GO TO VILLE BIG, WHICH, BY THE WAY, HAS BEEN SINCE 2023 ON THE TOP TEN LIST OF PLACES WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO SELL.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THERE. THEY'RE VERY POLITICAL.

THERE'S MORE TO THIS STORY. MAYBE A REPORTER WILL GET DOWN TO IT.

IT DOES NEED TO MOVE. WE NEED A NEW WE NEED A NEW PROPERTY ROOM, BUT WE HAVEN'T QUITE HIT THE RIGHT ITEM AND WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I WILL END UP MAKING A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT SOME POINT FOR ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER ELECTION IN MAY.

BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT APPROVE MY AMENDMENT TO SEPARATE OUT THESE ITEMS, THE ENTIRE BOND WILL GO DOWN.

AND WE'LL BE BACK HERE TO DO THIS IN MAY FOR JUST THE ACADEMY ANYHOW.

SO I HOPE YOU WILL TRY TO SAVE US THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND SEPARATE IT TODAY.

GIVE OUR RESIDENTS THE ABILITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO THE ITEMS THAT THEY BELIEVE IN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MISS MENDELSOHN AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION.

I THINK I THINK THERE'S A MOTION TO BE SHARED.

I HAVE THE MOTION. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IT ACCURATELY. AND I ALSO WANT A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. INQUIRY.

WELL WHICH ORDER DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT IN. WELL I GUESS IF MISS MENDELSOHN WILL ANSWER MY QUESTIONS TO SEE IF I CAN BRING IT, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. SO I SEE THAT THAT YOU'RE DROPPING THE AMOUNT THAT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY LEAVING IN THE PROPOSITION ONLY THE TRAINING FACILITY AND THE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TRAINING COMPLEX. SO PROPOSITION A WOULD BECOME THE UNT PROPERTY AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FOR THE, I THINK THEY'RE CALLING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING.

AGAIN, I HOPE WE CHANGE THOSE NAMES SINCE NO ONE KNOWS WHAT'S WHAT.

AGREE. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD DO THAT.

AND THEN WHAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED IS PROPOSITION B WOULD BE TO MOVE THE 911 CENTER.

AND THEN PROPOSITION C WOULD BE THAT REMAINDER, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ROOM, VEHICLE STORAGE AND FIRE STATION.

OKAY. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WITH THIS ON THE FLOOR, I DO.

WELL, LET ME GO TO MY PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM AWARE OF WHAT IT IS THAT I'M DOING, BUT I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HELP STRUCTURE THE UNDERLYING MOTION TO BE.

EASIER TO STOMACH. I GUESS EVEN THOUGH I'M INTENDING ON NOT VOTING FOR IT.

SO WILL THIS STILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US IF WE VOTE FOR THIS SEPARATION TO VOTE DOWN? THERE STILL IS AN UNDERLYING MOTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE. YES.

SO THE WAY THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY. YOU WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE HAD AN ORIGINAL MOTION BY CHAIRMAN WEST, AND THEN CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD TWO PROPOSITIONS AND MODIFY THE ONE PROPOSITION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE.

SO NOW WE HAVE THIS AMENDMENT THAT DOES THAT.

[05:10:04]

IF IT SUCCEEDED, IT WOULD THEN BE THE THING THAT WAS VOTED ON.

IF IT FAILED, WE WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY MR. WEST. SO NOTHING WOULD ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THE NAKED MOTION.

YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL MOTION. IF THE AMENDMENT FAILS, IF THE AMENDMENT SUCCEEDS, THEN WHAT YOU WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO VOTE ON IS THE IS THE NEW VERSION. SO THE THE NEW IT'S THE WAY IT ALWAYS IS, IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOU'RE GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

IF THE AMENDMENT FAILS, IF THE AMENDMENT PASSES, YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDED VERSION. OKAY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO ADD AMENDMENTS WHEN IT'S BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AMENDED.

IF WE IF YOU MEAN IF THE AMENDMENT SUCCEEDS. CORRECT.

YES, SIR. WOULD YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND AGAIN? WOULD YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO.

YES. SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS IF THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE IN ORDER. YES. OKAY.

WELL, I DO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK THAT THIS IS GETTING CLOSER TO A TRANSPARENT PLACE THAT I HAVE ISSUE WITH.

I REALLY DO NOT LIKE SEEING THINGS GROUPED TOGETHER WHERE MYSELF AND MYSELF AS A VOTER, BUT THE VOTERS WHO I REPRESENT DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER.

I HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS WHO DO SUPPORT THE TRAINING FACILITY, FOR INSTANCE, BUT DO NOT SUPPORT FIRE STATION FOUR.

THEY HAVE ASKED EMPHATICALLY, WHY, WHY THAT? WASN'T THAT ON THE BOND THAT WE JUST PASSED? Y'ALL JUST ASKED US FOR A BOND AND THIS WAS NOT A PART OF Y'ALL'S NEEDS.

I HAVE PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATED IN A VERY EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS LEADING UP TO WHAT OUR LAST PACKAGE WAS.

THIS WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AS A NEED. THIS WAS NOT A NEED.

AND SO THERE IS QUESTIONS AND I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS.

I THINK THAT IT IS ALSO A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY FOR US TO GROUP THINGS TOGETHER AND MAKE PEOPLE FEEL OBLIGATED TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE QUESTIONING OR DON'T TRULY SUPPORT, JUST TO GET TO SOMETHING THAT THEY DO.

SO IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, I SUPPORT THIS MOTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO TO WHAT IT'S GOING TO RESULT FOR THE PUBLIC.

HOWEVER, AND I PLAN ON TALKING MORE. I DON'T SUPPORT THE BOND AS A WHOLE.

I THINK THIS IS A HORRIBLE TIME. I THINK THAT THIS IS THE MARKET HAS SHOWN US THAT THIS IS A HORRIBLE TIME.

I THINK WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO THE 2024 BOND, IT IS ONE THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY BREAK PROMISES TO OUR PUBLIC.

I THINK THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT ONLY GOING TO BE PUT ON HOLD IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.

THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT I BELIEVE ARE DEPENDENT ON MORE OF OUR BOND CAPACITY IN ORDER TO TO FULLY COMPLETE.

THAT WILL ALSO BE PUT ON HOLD. SO NOT JUST WHAT'S ON PAPER THAT WE KNOW WILL HAVE TO GO INTO A SIXTH YEAR, AND IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE A SEVENTH YEAR JUST IN WITH HISTORIC DATA AND HOW WE'VE ISSUED THESE BONDS.

IT WILL ALSO THEN BE THAT MANY MORE YEARS LATER, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY PULLED THE CREDIT CARD OUT BEFORE WE'VE EVEN FINISHED SELLING THESE BONDS. I THINK THAT THIS IS, IS, IS A HORRIBLE SOLUTION TO AN UNFORTUNATE PROBLEM.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF OUR MEANS.

WE ASK OUR RESIDENTS THE SAME. AND I THINK THAT THEY EXPECT THAT FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT.

SO I DESPITE THE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE NATURE OF EVEN CALLING AN ELECTION FOR A BOND RIGHT NOW.

I SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR SO THAT WE CAN SEPARATE IT AND AT LEAST TRY TO BRING A GLIMPSE OF TRANSPARENCY TO A PROCESS I BELIEVE HAS LACKED A LOT OF IT.

I WANT TO ALSO JUST EMPHASIZE THAT UP TO THIS POINT, WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE A VOTE AND CALL FOR AN ELECTION FOR A BOND.

ANY TIME IN HISTORY WHEN WE HAVE DONE THAT, WE HAVE HAD MONTHS OF AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS WITH AN ENDLESS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ENGAGED AND TO BE A PART OF IT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US HERE, GUYS.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU MAYOR. AT THIS TIME, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US.

WE EITHER SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY OR WE DON'T. I BELIEVE THAT BREAKING OUT THE PROPOSITIONS MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING.

CITY MANAGER QUESTION FOR YOU. TODAY WE ARE POSSIBLY APPROVING THE ORDERING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE TOTAL NUMBERS AND TOTAL PROPOSITIONS BROKEN OUT, OR JUST THE CALLING OF THE ELECTION? I'D HAVE TO ASK OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TO COME OUT. MR. IRELAND, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL BASED ON THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHERE WE GAVE COUNSEL THE DRAFT OF THE

[05:15:03]

LANGUAGE. I THINK TODAY WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS A REMOVAL OF TWO OF THE INTENDED ORIGINAL PROPOSITIONS.

AND THEN WE HEARD ANOTHER MOTION THAT INCLUDES A BREAKOUT OF THAT POTENTIAL PROPOSITION EVEN FURTHER.

SO I WOULD HAVE TO ASK MR. IRELAND TO TO EXPAND ON THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU AGAIN, JACK IRELAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND, AND YES, FOR CALLING THE ELECTION. WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE PROPOSITIONS AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSITIONS, AND I ASK TO COME DOWN. JULIE PARTAIN IS THE CITY'S BOND COUNCIL.

SHE WORKS WITH US AS OUR LEGAL ADVISOR ON EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE BONDS.

AND SO IF YOU WANT LEGAL, I MEAN, SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER ANSWER THAN I WOULD ABOUT IT.

JULIE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO. NO.

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE CALLING IT TODAY. SO WHEN YOU CALL IT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PAR AMOUNT AND SAY IT TODAY.

IT'LL HAVE TO BE IN THE ORDER. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT INFORMATION.

THE ELECTION ORDER WILL BE TURNED OVER TO OUR COUNTIES SO THEY CAN PREPARE THE BALLOT.

SO YES, YOU WOULD NEED THE ENTIRE INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THIS THE MOTION BY CHAIR MENDELSOHN ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE PROPOSITION C ON THE PENSION OBLIGATIONS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW SORRY.

RIGHT, RIGHT. I KNOW SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE TO CONTINUE SEEING EVEN, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SALE OF THOSE BONDS. BUT I'M OKAY WITH THAT BEING REMOVED FROM BOTH AMENDMENTS BEFORE US.

CITY MANAGER WHAT DOES THIS DO TO TO THE TIMELINE OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US BY CHAIR MENDELSOHN.

WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE TIMELINE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET THESE FACILITIES OPEN IN TIME BY? THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO.

SO WE ARE ANTICIPATING, I THINK WE'VE TALKED PUBLICLY ABOUT THE PLANNED GROUNDBREAKING FOR THE ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING ACADEMY.

I THINK YOU HAVE INVITATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

THAT DATE IS SEPTEMBER THE 3RD IN THE PLANNING AND THE MOST RECENT BRIEFING THAT WE SHARED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE GOAL WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FIRST FACILITY OPEN.

I THINK IT'S BY THE SUMMER OF 2028. WE ARE COMMITTED AFTER WE WENT THROUGH THE ROBUST DISCUSSIONS OVER THESE LAST THIS LAST YEAR AND A HALF, AS WE WERE WORKING TO FINALIZE THE COMPONENTS THAT WOULD BE HOUSED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AT DALLAS AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, WE WORKED THROUGH HOW THE REMAINING ITEMS WOULD HAVE TO BE LOCATED ELSEWHERE, AND WE'VE BROUGHT SEVERAL BRIEFINGS AND CONVERSATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THE COMMITMENT TO THOSE AND HOW WE WOULD DELIVER THOSE IN A PARALLEL WAY.

WE KNOW THAT WITH THE APPROVAL THAT THE VOTERS GAVE IN 2024 FOR THE ADDITIONAL 50 MILLION, WE KNOW THAT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH FIRST, AND I THINK WE'VE SHOWED THE OUTLINE FOR IT.

WE'VE COMPLETED THE FEASIBILITY FOR THE LOCATION OF THE SECOND FACILITY.

I THINK WE BROUGHT A BRIEFING AND SHARED THAT AT THIS TIME, THAT WOULD BE AT A CITY OWNED SITE, WHICH IS DALLAS EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE EXACT SCHEDULE OF DELIVERY ON THAT ONE.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK DEB RASTOGI, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BOND PROGRAM, TO SHARE THAT DATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR FACILITY.

THE OTHER ONES, IF THEY WERE INCLUDED, WOULD IT BE A PART OF OUR OVERALL DELIVERY SCHEDULE? I THINK WE'VE HEARD OFTEN OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER HAS GIVEN US THE AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT WE CAN ISSUE EACH YEAR.

WE SHOWED A SCHEDULE FOR EVEN THE BIGGER PROGRAM, HOW THAT WOULD FIT WITHIN A SIX YEAR WINDOW.

AND WITH THE AMOUNT, IF IT'S GOING TO BE REDUCED.

WE HAVE ALSO ACCOMMODATED FOR ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN 2024 TO CONTINUE.

AND IN FACT, LAST WEEK WE SHARED THAT EVEN WITH ANY POTENTIAL CHANGE, WITH A 2026 BOND ELECTION, THAT 95% OF THE PROJECTS WOULD STILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

BUT I'LL HAVE TO GIVE A MORE DEFINITE DATE FOR THE SECOND FACILITY.

COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE FOR THE SECOND FACILITY, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BOND PROGRAM WOULD PROVIDE THE CORE FUNDING.

HOWEVER WE'D ALSO BE USING AVIATION FUNDS TO DO THE ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND SO IF WE HAD CERTAINTY AROUND WHERE WE WERE GOING WITH THIS BOND ELECTION, WE WOULD BEGIN THAT WORK.

WE COULD BEGIN PROGRAMING AND DESIGN IN THE COMING YEAR.

THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT SECOND FACILITY ONLINE IN 2029 BASED ON THIS FUNDING.

[05:20:01]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. MISS KENNEDY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO SEPARATE.

WHILE I BELIEVE THAT A PROPERTY ROOM IS MUCH NEEDED, MUCH NEEDED.

AND UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IT IS CITY PROPERTY, EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS TO SIGN OFF.

SO THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT THAT THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR THE PROPERTY ROOM? BUT AS OF APRIL 15TH, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE DIVESTED.

I ONLY FOUND OUT THAT BILL WAS BEING CONSIDERED 15 DAYS AGO BECAUSE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER TOLD ME THEY DID NOT WANT THE PROJECT IN THEIR DISTRICT.

THIS WOULD MOVE THE PROPERTY ROOM FROM AN INDUSTRIAL AREA TO A MIXED USE WITH RESIDENTIAL.

WE WOULD NEED TO DO A SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND ALSO TRAFFIC STUDY.

THE COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT WILL BE GOING INTO THEIR COMMUNITY, AND I THINK ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD WANT THAT FOR THEIR OWN DISTRICT.

MY DISTRICT DOES SUPPORT THE TRAINING COMPLEX AND ACADEMY, SO THIS MOTION WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.

THANK YOU, MISS BLACKMON. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. SO THE PROPOSITION STILL STAYS AT 443 MILLION? THAT'S CORRECT. ARE YOU ASKING THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE TO ANSWER, IT'S GOING TO COME. OH, SHE DIDN'T MAKE BOND. COUNCIL DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION.

THOUGH THE MOTION WOULD THEN BE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 443.

SO IT STILL ACCUMULATES TO THAT. SO THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS WE TALK ABOUT SEPARATING CONFUSION VERSUS NOTHING NO CONFUSION. I THINK THIS ACTUALLY GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE PROPOSITION, IT'S PERMANENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. AND IT, IT REALLY KIND OF YOU HAVE TO GET IT DEEP INTO HEARING EQUIPPING PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S REALLY KIND OF DEEP IN THERE.

AND I'M HOPING THAT WAY THIS WOULD BE WORDED IS YOU WOULD KNOW IT UP FRONT THAT THIS IS FOR A TRAINING FACILITY.

THIS IS FOR A 911. SO I, I DO LIKE HOW IT'S ORGANIZED AND I DO THINK IT MAKES MORE CLARITY.

WE DO THAT WITH OUR NORMAL BONDS. WE PUT IT AS A AS A SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, AND SO THIS ONE IS JUST KIND OF BREAKING IT OUT AND GIVING IT MORE DEPTH.

SO BACK TO CAN WE TALK ABOUT FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR? AND I KNOW I'VE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS THE LAST TIME.

IT WAS NOT ON THAT. I BELIEVE IT WAS. YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS THE NEW ONE D SIX.

WHY NOW ARE WE GOING WITH A NEW FIRE STATION RIGHT THERE WHEN IT WAS ONLY ELECTRICAL AND HVAC THAT WAS IN THAT BOND IN 2024.

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. IN 24 WE HAD TO PRIORITIZE AND HAVE ONE STATION.

SO WE CHOSE STATION 43 WAS IN WORSE CONDITION AND STATION FOUR I'VE.

I'VE GOT A LIST FROM 2001. STATION FOUR FOR REPLACEMENT IS ON IT.

THERE'S, I BELIEVE, EIGHT STATIONS, 7 OR 8 STATIONS ABOVE IT.

THEY'VE ALL BEEN REPLACED OR REMODELED. ELEVENS AND 30 ONES WERE REMODELED.

ALL THE OTHERS HAVE BEEN REPLACED. THE NEXT STATION, HOWEVER, WHENEVER WE DO IT IS.

ON OUR LIST IS STATION FOUR. SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, THEN WE WON'T BE REPLACING STATIONS.

SO IT NEEDS A TOTAL REPLACEMENT. YEAH, WE LIKE IT'S 7072 YEARS OLD AND WE DO THEM IN ORDER. AND UNLESS A STATION IS IN PARTICULARLY BAD SHAPE, THEN THAT WILL JUMP THE YEARS.

BUT THAT'S THE NEXT ONE ON THE LIST. IT JUST THE FACT THAT 43 BEAT IT OUT IN 24 DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T A CONSIDERATION. SO YOU CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT BOND IN 28 OR 29, I THINK.

I DON'T RECOMMEND IT BECAUSE IT PUSHES ALL THE STATIONS BACK.

LIKE I SAID, THAT ONE'S NUMBER ONE. I GET FOLKS REACH OUT TO ME ALL THE TIME ABOUT CONDITIONS OF STATIONS IN THEIR AREA, THEIR BELOW STATION FOUR. WE DON'T GET TO THEM UNTIL WE START REPLACING STATIONS, WHICH STARTS WITH STATION FOUR, BUT IT WASN'T IN THE LAST BOND PACKAGE BECAUSE 43 IS BEAT IT OUT.

BUT NOW 43 AND 11, BUT NOW 43. SO THIS IS THE NEXT ONE IN LINE.

YES. AND WE HAVE TO DO IT NOW. I RECOMMEND WE DO IT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, SO WE CAN GET ON A SCHEDULE OF REPLACING STATIONS.

[05:25:10]

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO COME INTO THIS.

SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE A BIG PROBLEM. SO IS IT IS IT SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO DO IT? IS IT MODERNIZATION LIKE IT'S A STATION FROM THE THAT'S BUILT NOWADAYS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM A STATION BACK IN 72 YEARS AGO, THAT WAS LIKE A HOUSE.

NOW THERE'S A LOT OF EFFICIENCIES DECONTAMINATION AREA BECAUSE OF THE CARCINOGENS.

THERE'S, IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT A FIRE STATIONS A LOT DIFFERENT NOW.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE'VE GOT A LOT THAT NEED REPLACED.

SO IT'S BETTER TO GET STARTED ON IT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

IT WAS MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, BILL BIG COUNCILWOMAN.

I JUST LIKED THAT, THAT THAT PARTICULAR FIRE STATION ALSO AS, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE CITY HALL HERE.

SO AS YOU'RE COMING TO WORK, YOU SEE WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE HAVING TO DO IN THE MORNINGS.

THEY'VE GOT THEIR EQUIPMENT PULLED OUT. BLOCKING THE STREET.

DOESN'T MAKE FOR A SAFE FOR THE MOTORIST AND FOR ANYBODY TRYING TO GO UP AND DOWN.

PACKARD. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH SPACE AT THAT FIRE STATION.

IT'S VERY TIGHT AT SHIFT CHANGE. THE CARS ARE.

THE FIREFIGHTERS HAVE TO PARK OUT ON THE STREET.

IT'S JUST ALL AROUND NOT SAFE. WE'VE ALSO WITH THE MODERN FIRE STATIONS, WE HAVE CANCER PREVENTION EFFORTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

YEAH. AND NOW THAT THE BRIDGE IS GONE, I DON'T USE THAT AS MY CUTOFF.

SO IT'S IT'S EASIER, BUT I GET IT. THANK YOU.

I WAS JUST I WAS JUST CURIOUS ON WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW FOR THIS DISCUSSION AND NOT IN 24.

AND I DON'T REMEMBER IT EVER BEING MENTIONED.

SO BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. BILL BIG HAS BEEN ON THE TO SELL LIST, BUT I GUESS THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT YOU SAID THAT IF THIS PASSES ON THE VEHICLE STORAGE, THAT YOU WOULD BRING IT BACK TO US AND IT'D BE RELATION TO OUR REAL ESTATE STRATEGY.

IS THAT IS THAT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS? THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

AND IF YOU'LL RECALL, LAST WEEK WHEN WE INCLUDED THE IN THE BRIEFING, WE HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED THAT BEING AN OPPORTUNITY.

AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IF THAT WAS NOT THE OPPORTUNITY BUT WE HAD NOT COMPLETED ANY TYPE OF DESIGN WORK AT THIS POINT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, IF IT WOULD EVEN BE AT ALL BIG. WE KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD THE CONCERNS FROM COUNCILWOMAN CADENA.

SHE AND I SPOKE AGAIN LAST NIGHT. SO FOR US, IT'S ABOUT WE WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

WE WOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THAT WOULD BE A POTENTIAL LOCATION, ALTHOUGH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT. WE CURRENTLY DO HAVE SERVICES THERE.

THAT'S WHERE THE CURRENT EVIDENTIARY STORAGE AS WELL AS THE CRIME LAB IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.

AND WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED EVEN WHAT'S THERE NOW WHERE TO MOVE THOSE FUNCTIONS TO.

SO WE WOULD DEFINITELY COME BACK. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER WEST ASKED IF WE WOULD COME BACK BEFORE ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION IS EVEN IDENTIFIED.

SO THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE THE WAY WE WOULD CONTINUE.

IF THAT WAS THE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE I, I HATE PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT'S AMBIGUOUS.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT GOT US INTO THIS UN T DALLAS YOU KNOW, IT WAS A VERY AMBIGUOUS NUMBER.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE MAY DO IT AT VILLAGE, BUT WE MAY NOT DO IT AT VILLE BIG.

I THINK THE WAY WE WOULD APPROACH THAT COUNCILWOMAN AND AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HOW WE GOT TO $140 MILLION IN TOTAL FOR THE THE ACADEMY. I THINK I SAID THAT LAST WEEK. AND SO WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO DO, DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION THAT COUNCIL GOES AND IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, THAT WE WOULD COME BACK WITH AN OPTION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO BE WITHIN WHATEVER AMOUNT IS APPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT. THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A RELOCATION.

MAYBE THERE'S AN UPGRADE. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK THROUGH WHATEVER DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE THE COMMITMENT THAT I WOULD GIVE TO COUNCIL WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF THAT DETAIL RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO THIS WOULD BE OUR CEILING.

YES, MA'AM. THAT'S Y'ALL'S DECISION. OKAY. BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT GOING.

WELL, WE COULD HAVE THIS HERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW, AND THEN WE MAY HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD APPROACH. ASKING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TO FOR US TO USE THEIR TAX DOLLARS IN THAT MANNER.

I'M GOING TO BE LISTENING, BUT I, I DO LIKE THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT.

HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN PROMISING A TRAINING FACILITY? IS IT THE 90S? YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT IS OVERDUE.

AND I HATE IN THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN BECAUSE IT'S, IT WAS NOT REALLY IN THE, IN 2024.

[05:30:02]

IT WASN'T VERY SOLID, BUT HERE WE ARE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THIS DIRECTION.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. ARE YOU READY? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. SO I AGREE GENERALLY WITH THE AMENDMENTS EFFORT TO BREAK OUT THE DIFFERENT ITEMS ON THE BUDGET FOR PROPOSITION A SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THEY ARE VOTING FOR, AND THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF CHOOSING WHICH OF THOSE ITEMS THEY WANT TO SUPPORT.

RIGHT NOW IT IS SO VAGUE. IT SOUNDS LIKE A BIG SLUSH FUND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY WITHOUT BEING DIRECTED TO ANY PARTICULAR PROJECTS.

I ALSO OBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE AMOUNTS BEING INCLUDED IN PROP A FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING COMPLEX FOR THE REASON THAT WE. AS WE HEARD THE SPEAKER SAY, THE COST ANALYSIS FOR THESE HAS TRIPLED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. WE NEED TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS. THIS.

THERE HAS BEEN NO REAL SUSTAINED EFFORT AT VALUE ENGINEERING.

AS CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE RISEN, WE SHOULD HAVE REDUCED THE CONTENT IN THE BUILDING OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING TO BRING IT WITHIN WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. AND ALL THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THAT REGARD IS TO LOWER THE CEILINGS, WHICH I'M SURE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS.

WE NEED TO LOOK BACK AT HOW MANY SQUARE FEET OF THESE FACILITIES WE ACTUALLY NEED, HOW WE CAN CONSTRUCT THEM MORE EFFICIENTLY AND COST EFFECTIVELY TO BRING THEM WITHIN OUR BUDGET, PARTICULARLY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER, WHICH I FULLY SUPPORT.

BUT THE COST IS GETTING AWAY FROM US. IT'S OUT OF CONTROL AND WE NEED TO DO SOME SERIOUS VALUE ENGINEERING ON TO BRING THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PROP AYE DOWN. I ALSO OBJECT TO INCLUDING THE 911 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AT ALL IN THE BOND BECAUSE A IT IS NOT NECESSARY AND B IT'S SIMPLY A MISGUIDED EFFORT TO TAKE THE FIRST STEP TO ABANDON CITY HALL. THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT CAN'T CONTINUE TO OPERATE HERE IN A VERY SECURE LOCATION AT CITY HALL.

PAUSE YOUR TIME REALLY QUICK. I DON'T WANT TO PAUSE IT. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY OF HIS TIME. HE WAS AT 240. WHAT I WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T DO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, IS NOT TO HAVE THE SAME DEBATE TWICE.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE ON MISS MENDELSOHN AMENDMENT IS THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF BREAKING OUT THE PROPOSITIONS THAT WERE IN A INTO THESE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS THAT SHE'S PROPOSED.

BUT THE MERITS OF INCLUSION AT ALL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THE POINT OF AN UNDERLYING MOTION OR THE AMENDED MOTION AT THAT POINT.

SO THESE ARE SOUND LIKE POINTS THAT YOU WOULD MAKE ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE IN THERE AT ALL.

BUT HER AMENDMENT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ELIMINATE.

IT SEPARATES. SO IF IT'S ABOUT AND I'VE ADDRESSED THAT.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I NEED YOU TO. I'M THROUGH.

THANK YOU. I MEAN, TO DO THAT TO YOU. I WASN'T TRYING TO SHUT YOU DOWN.

BUT IF IF ALL YOUR COMMENTS WERE ABOUT ELIMINATION, THEN THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

SORRY. I THOUGHT PERHAPS COUNCILMAN RIDLEY HAD MORE.

MORE TO SAY. OKAY. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING CHAIR MENDELSON'S MOTION.

I AM IN FAVOR OF KEEPING EVERYTHING CONSOLIDATED.

WE KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE LONG STANDING PROMISE TO GET THE ACADEMY AND THE TACTICAL TRAINING AREAS DONE, AND THAT OBVIOUSLY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN WANTS TO PULL THAT OUT.

BUT I THINK THESE OTHER ITEMS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT.

WE KNOW THAT THE 911 OPERATORS NEED TO BE IN A BETTER SPACE.

WE KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY ROOM NEEDS TO MOVE, NEEDS TO IMPROVE, NEEDS TO EXPAND AND AND HAVE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

WE KNOW WE NEED A FIRE STATION. I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT VOTERS TO BE US.

I WANT THEM TO SEE THIS AS A CONCERTED EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE CITY TO LOOK AT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT AND TO.

AND THAT WE'VE DONE AN INVENTORY. WE'VE LOOKED AT LONG STANDING NEEDS.

WE'VE LOOKED AT NEEDS THAT HAVE ARISEN IN THE LAST, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS.

[05:35:04]

AND WE'VE PACKAGED THEM TOGETHER AND WE'RE COMING TO THEM AND SAYING, LET'S MAKE OUR PUBLIC SAFETY THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY.

LET'S GIVE THEM THE TRAINING, LET'S GIVE THEM THE THE TACTICAL AREAS THAT THEY NEED FOR EVOC AND GUN RANGE. LET'S, LET'S, LET'S HAVE, I THINK OUR OUR CHIEF COMO HAS SAID, LET'S HAVE THE BEST TRAINING FACILITY.

SO WE HAVE THE BEST OFFICERS IN THE COUNTRY, ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY WE HAVE THE BEST OFFICERS AT THIS POINT.

THERE'S IT'S A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE. IT'S LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS.

IT MAKES SENSE. THOSE ALL OF THOSE ITEMS ARE NEEDED.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LIKE I SAID, IT'S CONSOLIDATING, IT'S PULLING TOGETHER A PACKAGE OF ITEMS THAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO BE WHO WE NEED OUR DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE TO BE WHERE WE NEED THEM TO BE IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEY NEED THESE ITEMS TO GET THERE. I BELIEVE OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT.

THEY WILL SEE THE DIFFERENT PIECES. THEY ARE ABLE TO READ THROUGH A PROPOSITION AND UNDERSTAND THAT, YES, IT'S A TRAINING FACILITY. YES, IT'S A PROPERTY ROOM.

YES, IT'S A FIRE STATION. I JUST I THINK THEY CAN DISCERN THAT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO BREAK IT OUT FOR THEM SO THAT THEY WILL UNDERSTAND IT.

IT'LL BE MORE CLEAR. SO I SUPPORT KEEPING IT CONSOLIDATED AND NOT BREAKING IT OUT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF IT. LISTENING TO CHIEF BALL.

AND COUNCILMAN WEST. I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IT, KEEP IT TOGETHER.

THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE IF WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AND WE'RE HEARING FROM OUR POLICE CHIEF EARLIER, AND ALSO WE HEARD FROM HIM IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE THE OTHER DAY AND THE THINGS THAT'S NEEDED ALSO NOW HEARING FROM CHIEF BALL AND, AND, AND THE THINGS THAT'S NEEDED FROM OUR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO LISTEN TO THEM AND SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AS A WHOLE. SO BASED OFF THAT, I'M GOING TO BE, I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IF WE GET BACK TO IT THE AMENDMENT, UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE IS AMENDED THAT COUNCILMAN WEST BROUGHT FORTH, BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONCE AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AS A WHOLE.

THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU KNOW, CHIEF COMO STOOD HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND HE MADE THE POINT THAT THE GROWTH AND THE QUALITY OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT IS THE PART THAT EVERYBODY SEES IS NOT MATCHED ON THE INSIDE.

AND THAT IS WHERE THEY TRAIN TO SERVE US. THAT IS WHERE THEY CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES.

DALLAS HAS BEEN WOEFULLY BEHIND IN ALL OF THESE FACILITIES THAT WILL GO INTO THIS BOND, INTO PROPOSITION A, AS THE UNDERLYING MOTION MAKES. SO IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DISMANTLE A NEED THAT DALLAS RESIDENTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT, AND THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY. THEY NEED TO STAY TOGETHER.

THESE THINGS MUST STAY TOGETHER. THE REALITY IS THAT WE MUST CLOSE THE GAP ON FUNDING FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A TACTICAL TRAINING CENTER THAT HAS A TRACK AND A FIRING RANGE.

THESE OTHER CITY FACILITIES THEY'RE NOT REAL SEXY ON THEIR OWN.

EVIDENTIARY VEHICLE. DPD, PROPERTY ROOM, CRIME SCENE LAB.

BUT WE CAN'T KICK THE THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON THESE.

THESE FACILITIES ARE IN WANT AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ASKING US FOR ASSISTANCE.

TALK ABOUT A TROJAN HORSE. 911 AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ARE TWO DEPARTMENTS THAT I HOPE MOST DALLAS RESIDENTS DON'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF THEIR DAYS THINKING ABOUT.

BUT WHEN THEY NEED HELP, THESE SERVICES MUST LITERALLY ANSWER THE CALL.

SO DALLAS 911 AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS NEED MORE SPACE.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD THIS BY OUR STAFF AND IT'S BEEN STUDIED.

THEY NEED TO BE MODERNIZED. THEY HAVE TO BE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT CALL.

AND THEY DESERVE THE AMENITIES AND COMFORTS TO COPE WITH A JOB.

I MEAN, THESE OPERATORS LISTEN TO VIOLENCE PLAY OUT ON THE PHONE, NOT KNOWING THE OUTCOME AND THE UNRESOLVED STRESS THAT THAT BRINGS.

IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD PRACTICE TO HAVE. 911. AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS LOCATED IN ANOTHER CRITICAL FACILITY.

AND WE HAD A BRIEFING ON MARCH 4TH TALKING ABOUT HOW OTHER CITIES JUST DON'T DO IT.

COUNCILWOMAN, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE SAME WARNING I GAVE. I AM, I'M YES.

[05:40:01]

JIM RIDLEY THE, THE MERITS OF INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION ARE REALLY NOT AS RELEVANT TO AN AMENDMENT.

THAT'S ABOUT HOW THEY ARE PRESENTED, BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT PRESENTS THEM ALL JUST IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK. SURE. MAYOR, THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR THAT REMINDER.

SO VOTERS WILL HAVE THE DETAIL ON, ON ALL OF THESE FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPORTANCE.

IN FACT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO BREAK THEM ALL APART.

THEY CAN GO TO DALLAS.GOV AND LOOK UP ALL OF THIS INFORMATION.

SO I THINK WE MUST KEEP THESE TOGETHER. THANK YOU.

MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT THIS IS AND I APPLAUD.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR HER IDEA OF SPLITTING THIS UP.

I THINK ONE OF THE BASIC THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR OUR CITIZENS ARE UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON.

THAT IT'S TRANSPARENT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WITHOUT HAVING TO, TO MAKE EFFORTS ON THEIR OWN TO CLARIFY WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE SHOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT AND, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

AND I THINK THIS IS A STELLAR WAY TO DO THAT.

IT IDENTIFIES IN PARTICULAR THE, THE, THE MAIN ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO, TO GET FUNDING FOR.

I THINK IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO EVALUATE THESE ON, ON A, A PRODUCTIVE STANDPOINT.

AND IT, AND IT ABSOLUTELY STOPS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT A QUESTIONING OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE BEING TRANSPARENT OR WHETHER WE ARE MAKING IT LESS DIFFICULT FOR, FOR OUR CITIZENS TO BE MAKING AN ELECTING DECISION, A VOTING DECISION WITH THE BEST INFORMATION AS THEY CAN GET.

SO I APPLAUD, I APPLAUD THIS AMENDMENT, AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD.

MR. BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT. I WILL NOT BE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS THIS MOTION.

I FEEL LIKE A BROKEN RECORD OR TAPE RECORDER THAT'S ON REPEAT.

I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL DAY. I SUPPORT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY.

I. WHEN I THINK OF PUBLIC SAFETY. AND WHEN I REMEMBER WHAT WE ARE DOING, THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO GET IT DONE.

WE'RE SUPPORTING THIS. THIS THE WAY IT'S IT'S PUT TOGETHER.

IT SUPPORTS ALL OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THE PACKAGE THAT WILL AMENDMENT A, IT TAKES CARE OF THE NEEDS OF FIRE. THE MOST IMPORTANT NEED OF FIRE IS THAT FIRE STATION.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I CAN'T I WON'T SAY THE MERITS.

I'M GOING TO STAY ON ON, ON TASK. AND I'M HARD.

IT'S HARD, BUT IT SUPPORTS THE MOST MAJOR NEED FOR FIRE.

IT SUPPORTS ALL OF PUBLIC SAFETY. PUBLIC SAFETY, IN MY OPINION, STARTS FROM THE TIME YOU CALL 911.

WHEN YOU CALL 911 AND YOU GET TO AN OPERATOR, YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GO FROM POINT A TO POINT B, YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TRAIN THEM. YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THEM ALL OF THE TOOLS THEY NEED IN ORDER TO BE PROFICIENT AND EFFICIENT.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE THE AMENDMENT AND I WILL SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. REQUEST A RECORD VOTE, PLEASE. DULY NOTED.

I WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS POINT, THOUGH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM IT, BECAUSE IT'LL BE THE ONLY TIME I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION. I JUST WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS I THINK ARE BOTH FACTUALLY TRUE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE I WANT TO SAY IT OUT LOUD, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S THINKING ABOUT THIS BEFORE THEY VOTE.

NUMBER ONE, TO THE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S IN ANY WAY LESS TRANSPARENT OR ANY, ANY MORE CONFUSING.

THE REALITY IS THE INFORMATION IS ON THE BALLOT.

EITHER WAY, THE INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S IN THREE OR IN ONE, IT'S ALL THERE.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE IN ONE PROPOSITION, OR YOU SHOULD SPREAD OUT OVER THREE PROPOSITIONS SO YOU CAN VOTE THREE DIFFERENT TIMES ON THE UNDERLYING PARTS OF IT, BUT THE INFORMATION IS ALL THERE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S ONE WAY WE COULD PRESENT THIS WHERE WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON A, YOU KNOW, A PROPERTY, A NEW PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOM.

AND THERE'S NO, THERE'S, THERE'S NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO THAT HIDES THE INFORMATION.

IT'S THERE. IT'S HOW IT'S PRESENTED. SPEAKING TO THAT POINT, THOUGH, WHICH IS MY SECOND POINT ABOUT HOW IT'S PRESENTED,

[05:45:02]

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK IS A FACT ALSO, WHICH IS THAT I THINK THAT THE PRESENTATION OF THAT, OF THAT INFORMATION IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT WE WANT THE VOTERS TO THINK ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE PRESENTING.

AND YOU GET TO MAKE A DECISION THAT THIS HORSESHOE, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY.

BUT I THINK WHEN YOU PRESENT IT ALL TOGETHER, YOU'RE SAYING, WE THINK THIS IS ALL SO IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE WILLING TO HAVE IT ALL GO UP OR HAVE IT ALL GO DOWN. AND WHEN YOU PRESENT IT PRESENTED SEPARATELY.

YOU'RE SAYING GO THROUGH AND PICK AND CHOOSE.

YOU MAKE YOU YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU, YOU, YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU THINK OF WHAT THE POLICE CHIEF, WHAT THE FIRE CHIEF, WHAT THE CITY MANAGER, WHAT CITY COUNCIL THINKS IS IMPORTANT OF YOU TO PICK BETWEEN IT.

SO IT'S UP TO YOU WHAT MESSAGE YOU WANT TO SEND AND HOW YOU WANT THE INFORMATION PRESENTED.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS MERIT TO SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WE THINK THIS IS ALL IMPORTANT.

WE THINK IT'S ALL SO IMPORTANT BASED ON THE PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE HIRED TO DO THESE THINGS.

WE WANT TO PRESENT IT ALL TO YOU AS A PACKAGE.

BUT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT AND YOU THINK THAT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PICK AND CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM, THEN, THEN FINE. BUT I DO THINK THAT IS THE THE TRUTH.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT IS BEING AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE AS SAYING IT'S ABOUT HOW YOU WANT THE VOTERS TO BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY IMPACTED BY THE PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION.

AND I ACTUALLY WANT THE VOTERS TO SAY THE CITY OF DALLAS PEOPLE WHO WE'VE ELECTED THINK THAT ALL OF THIS IS A PACKAGE IS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO CONSIDER, AND THEY FEEL THAT STRONGLY ABOUT IT. THEY PRESENT IT TO US IN THAT WAY.

SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT IT PRESENTED AS A AS A SMORGASBORD OF STUFF THAT PEOPLE CAN SAMPLE A LITTLE OF THIS AND SAMPLE ALL OF THAT.

BUT EITHER WAY, THE INFORMATION IS ALL THERE FOR THEM TO CONSUME.

I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY WE CAN DO THIS, WHERE WE ARE HIDING THE BALL ON ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO SUPPORT, IT'S ALL THERE. SO WITH THAT, WE'VE HAD THE RECORD VOTE REQUEST.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO.

IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. I'M SORRY. NO.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILLIS. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. NO. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES.

MAYOR JOHNSON. NO. WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSED THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. SO THE AMENDMENT.

THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN. FAILED, MR. MAYOR. SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED. SO WE'RE NOW BACK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

AND WE HAD ONE PERSON, I THINK, WHO HAD SPOKEN ON IT WAS CHAIRMAN WEST.

MR. BAZALDUA, YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION? YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY MAYOR JOHNSON, BUT I DON'T AGREE. THE BALL. IT WASN'T HIDDEN, BUT THE BALL WAS COUPLED WITH ANOTHER BALL.

AND SOME RESIDENTS MAY JUST WANT ONE BALL. AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM THAT OPTION.

IF WE'RE SAYING TAKE ALL THE BALLS OR NONE AT ALL.

SO IT'S NOT HIDING IT, BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY REQUIRING YOU TO GET MORE THAN WHAT YOU MAY WANT.

AND THAT TO ME DOES LACK TRANSPARENCY. IT IS IT IS A MOVE BY GOVERNMENT THAT IS, IS OFTEN YOU KNOW, REFERRED TO AS A TROJAN HORSE OR A SPECIFIC LOSS LEADER THAT IS PUT ON THAT WILL ONLY SUCCEED IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CARRY IT OVER.

I THINK THE LAST TIME WE DID THAT WITH THE VOTERS, IT WAS HAVING FAIR PARK AS A PART OF THE BREMER BILL THAT WE ASKED THEM TO APPROVE.

AND I'M PRETTY POSITIVE POLLING SHOWED US THAT THAT WOULDN'T HAVE GONE ANYWHERE IF FAIR PARK WASN'T ON IT.

SO THIS ISN'T OUR FIRST RODEO. AND IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, LET'S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

WITH THAT, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE PROPOSITION A IN THE AMOUNT OF $22 MILLION IN CORRELATION TO THE REPORT

[05:50:01]

FROM THE BOND PRESENTATION FOR STATION 40, STATION FOUR.

SECOND, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM EVERY MOTION IS IN ORDER.

THAT'S GOING TO BE MY STANDARD PROCEDURE ON THIS, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET THIS WRONG, BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT. IT IS IN ORDER AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT, MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO I WAS LOOKING AT HOW THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND EVEN BEFORE HAVING MISS MENDELSON'S A MOTION TO DEBATE.

IT WHAT I BELIEVED OUR OPPORTUNITY WAS TO TO HAVE AN ACTUAL DEBATE AGAIN.

I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC, TO THIS POINT, FOR US TO BE CONSIDERING CALLING AN ELECTION AND SENDING A PACKAGE OUT TO THE VOTERS.

THIS WOULD HAVE HAD AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS. WE WOULD HAVE HAD A COMMITTEE THAT WAS APPOINTED BY EVERYONE THAT YOU ELECTED.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD SUBCOMMITTEES TO CORRELATE TO THE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS.

AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES DEVOTED TO PROVIDING DATA AND TO MAKE.

DECISIONS BASED ON TRUE DATA POINTS AND, AND REASONING.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ANECDOTE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BUREAUCRATS SAYING THIS IS WHAT'S NEEDED.

THAT'S THE EXTENT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. THAT'S NOT TRANSPARENCY.

THAT IS NOT ALLOWING FOR OUR PUBLIC TO WEIGH INTO THIS PROCESS.

SO THE ONLY WAY EVEN ME AS ONE MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY, FOR US TO TAKE UP EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PRESENTED TO US AS SUCH, THERE HASN'T BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS.

THIS DISCUSSION IS TAKING UP THIS AGENDA ITEM THAT'S ALL COUPLED UP TOGETHER.

AND WE COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, HONORING THE PROMISE THAT WE'VE MADE TO THE PUBLIC IN GIVING A TRAINING FACILITY TO OUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT'S BEEN ADVOCATED FOR FOR DECADES. HOWEVER, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT IF IT'S GOT THESE OTHER THINGS IN THERE THAT'S FORCING MY HAND.

I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE SAME WARNING.

AND I THINK YOU'RE DEBATING THE LAST AMENDMENT.

YOUR AMENDMENT JUST REDUCES THE FIRE STATION.

AND I'M EXPLAINING WHY. BUT YOU'RE REALLY SPEAKING TO.

NO I'M NOT. I'M EXPLAINING WHY. I'M WHY I NEED THIS TO BE LOWERED.

NO, YOU'RE EXPLAINING WHY THEY SHOULD BE. YOU LITERALLY JUST TALKED ABOUT THE THE POLICE ACADEMY, WHY YOU SHOULD BE. THESE THINGS SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY. I'M SAYING THAT THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF YOU WOULD HAVE LET ME FINISH MY STATEMENT. WELL, I'M THE WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY. I GET TO INTERRUPT YOU.

YEAH. I DIDN'T SAY YOU COULDN'T. I SAID IF I WAS ABLE TO FINISH MY STATEMENT, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT SINCE I'M NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, THE ONLY PROCEDURAL OPTION I HAVE IS TO GO INDIVIDUALLY AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PRESENTATION AND BRING IT DOWN IN COST. MY ADMONITION REMAINS. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TRY TO KEEP IT NARROWLY FOCUSED ON THE NEED TO REMOVE THE FIRE STATION, THE MERITS OF REMOVING THE FIRE STATION. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE SEPARATE PROPOSITIONS ANYMORE, SURE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I WASN'T ABLE TO JUST REMOVE THE FIRE STATION. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I ARTICULATE WHY THERE'S A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT I HAVE TO BACK OUT OF A TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT, BECAUSE WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF DEBATING EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LIKE YOU JUST MENTIONED, MR. MAYOR, WE WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE UP OR DOWN A TOTAL PACKAGE THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF MULTIPLE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRANSPARENTLY DEBATE TO THE PUBLIC.

SO SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY AND THERE WAS NO WAY FOR ME TO SAY, I MOVE TO REMOVE X PROJECT, Y PROJECT OR Z PROJECT, THE ONLY OPTION WE HAVE IS TO INDIVIDUALLY TAKE UP EACH PROJECT'S DOLLAR AMOUNT AND SEE IF THERE IS THE WILL OF THIS BODY TO BACK IT OUT OF THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THIS BUDGET.

SO THIS MOTION IS FOR $22 MILLION, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT MY INTENT FOR STAFF, IF THIS WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IS THAT THAT $22 MILLION IS CORRELATED TO STATION FOUR AS PRESENTED IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY PRESENTATION FOR THE BOND. THANK YOU. MAYOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

STATE YOUR INQUIRY. COUNCIL MEMBER JUST MENTIONED THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THE FIRE STATION AND ASSOCIATED DOLLARS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE HE WOULD, WOULDN'T HE? I WASN'T I DON'T MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS FOR HIM. HE MAKES HIS ARGUMENTS FOR HIMSELF, AND HE DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN A PARLIAMENTARY SENSE.

IT WOULD BE A MOTION IN ORDER TO MOVE TO REMOVE THE FIRE STATION AND THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, WOULD IT NOT? YOU'RE HELPING OUT THE ASSISTANT PARLIAMENTARIAN A LOT TODAY. BUT YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S TRUE.

THAT MOTION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ORDER. CORRECT.

CAN WE GET A RULING FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'LL LET HIM.

[05:55:03]

I'LL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT. BUT IF ANY, ANY ANY MOTIONS THAT ARE IN ORDER ARE ARE IN ORDER.

SO IF HE SAYS THAT IT WOULD BE THEN IT'D BE FINE.

WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THERE'S NO I'VE NOT ISSUED A PROHIBITION ON ANY TYPES OF AMENDMENTS.

I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE AN ORDER.

I THINK THE GOAL WAS TO KEEP IT WITH JUST THE NUMBERS, AND THAT WOULD PREVENT IT LATER.

IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANOTHER ITEM RELATED TO THE FIRE STATION.

IN THIS CASE, THAT WASN'T HER QUESTION, THOUGH, I DON'T THINK.

NO. HER QUESTION WAS SHE SHE RAISED A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY BASED ON A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE DURING THE DEBATE, WHICH, AGAIN, IT'S NOT MY JOB TO POLICE PEOPLE'S DEBATE POINTS.

BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HIS COMMENTS, HE SAID I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE FIRE STATION AS A PROPOSITION.

I CAN ONLY DO. AND THAT'S WHY HIS MOTION IS WHAT IT IS.

I CAN ONLY REMOVE THE CORRESPONDING DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE FIRE STATION AND TRY TO GET AT IT THAT WAY.

NOT MY JOB TO INTERJECT INTO HIS DEBATE AND CORRECT HIM, BUT HER PRELIMINARY INQUIRY IS.

IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? THE. THE PROPOSITION DOES NOT LIST OUT THE FIRE STATION.

IT LISTS OUT DOLLAR AMOUNTS. AND I CAN ASK JULIE PARTAIN, OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, TO CLARIFY THAT.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS REALLY THE CRUX OF WHY THAT LIMITATION IS THERE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY AN IMPORTANT PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.

SO YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THE PROPOSITION DOESN'T LIST FIRE STATION FOUR AS IN THE LANGUAGE, HE CAN'T REMOVE IT? YES. SO I HAVE ANOTHER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. YES. STATE YOUR INQUIRY.

GO AHEAD. HOW IS IT IN ORDER TO HAVE A PROPOSITION THAT DOESN'T LIST WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. JULIE PARTAIN WITH.

I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK MUCH CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? YOU CAN BRING IT. RIGHT. SORRY. SHORT. SHORT.

SO THE PROPOSITION AS WRITTEN IS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING FIRE, POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

RIGHT. IF YOU WANTED TO REMOVE FIRE STATION FOUR, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY FIRE PROJECT YOU HAD, YOU COULD JUST TAKE FIRE OUT OF THAT, RIGHT? YOU WOULD JUST SAY PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

BUT IF YOU HAD MORE THAN ONE FIRE PROJECT AND YOU ONLY WANTED TO TAKE ONE OF THEM OUT, WE DON'T LIST EACH IN THE PROPOSITION BECAUSE IF YOU THINK HOW LONG THAT PROPOSITION WOULD BE, TYPICALLY WE DON'T LIST IT. COULD YOU? YOU COULD, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE.

SO YOU COULD SAY, I'M GOING TO LOWER THE AMOUNT.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THE WORD FIRE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE PROPOSITION SO THAT IT WOULD ONLY COVER POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND THEN YOU COULD DO NO FIRE IMPROVEMENTS AT ALL.

RIGHT. IT WOULD ONLY TRIP YOU UP IF YOU HAD OTHER PRIOR PROJECTS YOU WANTED TO DO.

YOU WOULD LOSE THOSE AS WELL. IF YOU USE THE.

IF YOU PULLED THAT OUT, YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE A POLICY DECISION, RIGHT? INTERNALLY THAT YOU DIRECT STAFF. WE DON'T WANT FIRE STATION FOUR TO BE WHAT WE FUND WITH BONDS WHEN IT COMES TO US AND WHEN THE BOND WHEN THE BOND ORDER COMES TO YOU, YOU CAN SAY, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE IF WE'RE ISSUING FOR FIRE, WE'RE NOT ISSUING FOR STATION FOUR.

YOU CAN DO IT. YOU DO THAT CHECK AS WELL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THANK YOU. SINCE I WAS ONLY MAKING A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND AT THIS TIME.

BUT THANK YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

THAT TAKES CARE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK. THE FLOOR IS BACK TO YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IT FOR A MINUTE AND 49 MORE SECONDS.

SO I ULTIMATELY, THAT WAS THE CONFUSION. I'M GLAD.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY. I WAS TOLD WHEN MY INITIAL HOPE WAS TO BE ABLE TO ITEMIZE AND HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL DEBATE ON EACH OF THE PROJECTS, BUT IT WAS TOLD TO ME THAT THE PROPOSITION AND THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO INCLUDE THEM, SO THIS WAS THE BEST THAT I COULD COME UP WITH.

AND THANKS FOR THE HELP WITH THE ATTORNEYS AS FAR AS GETTING THE ABILITY TO DEBATE THE MERIT OF EACH PROJECT WITHIN THE PACKAGE INDIVIDUALLY IF YOU DON'T MOVE TO REMOVE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCRUTINIZE EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.

AND EVEN SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO I KNOW ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS UNDERLYING MOTION HAS HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN BEING ABLE TO SCRUTINIZE THESE PROJECTS INDIVIDUALLY.

SO THAT'S WHAT MY INTENT IS TO GIVE THIS BODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO.

IT'S RIGHT NOW A MOTION TO REDUCE PROPOSITION A BY $22 MILLION.

AND MY ENTIRE INTENT IS FOR THIS TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT FIRE STATION FOUR INCLUDED IN THIS HOLISTIC PACKAGE THAT WE ARE

[06:00:07]

NOW DEBATING ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING IF COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER AMEND HIS MOTION TO REMOVE THE WORD FIRE FROM THE PROPOSITION. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU TOOK THAT MONEY OUT, IT COULD BE THAT THE TRAINING ACADEMY WOULD LOSE THAT FUNDING AS OPPOSED TO.

AND THE FIRE ACADEMY, THE FIRE STATION COULD CONTINUE ON.

IF YOU REMOVE THE WORD FIRE, THEN ALL OF THE FUNDING HAS TO GO TO PUBLIC, TO POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

IF IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I WOULD CONSIDER IT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR DEBATE FROM COLLEAGUES ON WHETHER OR NOT IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A WILL TO GO THAT ROUTE.

I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. IF IF IT'S JUST THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IT'S NOT, WE COULD TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY AS WELL.

THE TRUTH IS, IF WE'RE ONLY GOING TO CONSIDER THIS AS A GROUPING, IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER BECAUSE I WILL TELL EVERYONE TO VOTE NO, TO VOTE NO FOR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. THAT IS NOT EVEN EXPLAINED.

AND HOW VERY, VERY SAD THAT I THINK SOMEONE WHO'S KNOWN FOR MAYBE EVEN BEING OVERBOARD PRO PUBLIC SAFETY WILL HAVE TO SAY NO. AND THERE'S SO MANY REASONS WHY. AND IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN FIRE STATION FOUR, I WILL.

I LOVE OUR FIREFIGHTERS. IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN THE 911 CENTER, I WILL.

YOU KNOW WHERE I WAS ON NEW YEAR'S EVE? I WAS DELIVERING FOOD TO THE 911 CENTER HERE.

SOMEBODY AROUND THE HORSESHOE ASKED ME, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE? AND I'M LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE THREE DOZEN TIMES. YEAH, I'VE BEEN THERE.

IT IT NEEDS A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS. THOSE KITCHENS NEED TO BE REDONE.

THEY NEED STAND SIT DESKS THAT HAVE FANS AND HEATERS.

AND WE NEED VIDEO WALLS. BUT THERE IS NO OTHER CITY HALL IN AMERICA THAT WAS BUILT FOR THEIR 911 CENTER TO BE HERE.

THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE IN THIS ENTIRE CITY THAT IS A SAFER, MORE REDUNDANT LOCATION THAN THIS BUILDING.

IT SHOULD NOT MOVE OUT OF THIS BUILDING. FIRE STATION FOUR WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED FOR THE BOND, AND FIRE WAS MORE THAN WILLING TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT BOND FOR IT.

THERE WOULD NEVER BE A DISCUSSION OF ADDING FIRE STATION FOUR, BUT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THIS BOND.

AND IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN A CALENDAR WITH FIREFIGHTERS, IT'S KIND OF AN EYE CANDY THING.

THAT'S WHAT FIRE STATION FOUR IS. IT'S EYE CANDY BECAUSE EVERYBODY LOVES THE F.R.

POLICE. A LITTLE MORE CONTROVERSIAL. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT ITEM IS ABOUT.

THEY'RE LIKING THAT COMMENT. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY CALM IT DOWN BOYS.

CALM IT DOWN. THAT'S RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION LATER.

THE PROPERTY ROOM. I'M THE FIRST COUNCIL MEMBER.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GIVE YOU THE SAME ADMONITION.

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES, RIGHT? SO I NEED YOU TO IT TAKES OUT 44 MILLION, BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHERE.

222 AND I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE YOU. WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I, I REALLY DO NEED YOU TO TAILOR YOUR COMMENTS TO THE MERITS OF HIS REDUCTION.

THAT'S WHAT HIS AMENDMENT DOES. HE IS NOT CHOSEN TO AMEND IN ANY OTHER WAY.

HE'S CHOSEN TO DO WHAT HE'S DONE. SO I NEED YOU TO SPEAK TO THAT.

SO THE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE IT, 22 MILLION PROBABLY DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

AND BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT IT'S FOR REMOVING THE FIRE STATION, IT COULD BE FOR OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NEEDED.

AND WHEN IT'S ALL LUMPED TOGETHER, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

YOU HAVE LITERALLY RUINED THE SOUP. YOU'VE PUT.

YOU'VE PUT SOMETHING BAD IN THE SOUP AND THE WHOLE THING HAS TO BE THROWN OUT NOW.

SO 22 MILLION DOESN'T MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE VOTED DOWN IF IT'S ALL TOGETHER.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA. SO ON THE AMENDMENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEANER, MR. BAZALDUA, IF WE DID TAILOR IT TO THE FIRE COMPONENT OF THE EXISTING PROP AYE FOR THE REASON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN HAS INDICATED IN THAT IF WE JUST DEDUCT 22 MILLION FROM IT, THAT COULD REDUCE THE BUDGET FOR THE FOR THE TRAINING POLICE TRAINING FACILITY OR FOR THE 911 CENTER, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE CUT OUT OF THE BUDGET UNLESS WE IDENTIFY AS I THINK IS YOUR INTENT, THE FIRE COMPONENT OF THE PROP AYE BY DELETING THAT COMPONENT.

[06:05:08]

SO THAT'S MY FEEDBACK. YOU ARE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THAT'S MY SUGGESTION THAT WE CHANGE YOUR MOTION TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE FIRE COMPONENT AS BEING DELETED. OKAY. IS THAT ARE YOU YIELDING THE FLOOR NOW? WELL ONE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS FOR ME TO AMEND MR. BAZALDUA. THAT IS TRUE. AND SO I WILL DO THAT BY MOVING TO AMEND IT TO RESTORE THE 22 MILLION TO THE BUDGET.

BUT DELETE. NO. I'M SORRY. LET ME START OVER.

I MOVED TO AMEND MR. BAZALDUA HIS MOTION TO DELETE THE WORD FIRE FROM PROPOSITION AYE.

OH, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.

SO WE KNOW WHAT THE MOTION IS AND YOU'RE LEAVING IN THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, CORRECT.

THE COURSE. YES. SO THAT'S THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND IN THE INTEREST OF BEING EFFICIENT.

I CAN DO THIS BY ACCLAMATION. I THINK IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION WE'LL SUBSTITUTE THE MOTION AND YOU'LL BE WITH YOUR AMENDMENT.

WITH FIRE REMOVED AS THE BOND COUNCIL SUGGESTED YOU COULD DO.

AND NOW WE'RE WE'RE STILL ON YOUR AMENDMENT. BUT NOW FIRE IS ALSO.

IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO IT, DO YOU OBJECT TO.

MR. MAYOR? I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT. I JUST WANT A PIECE OF CLARITY.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. I YOUR QUESTION TO HIM ON ON WHAT THAT DOES TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

YOU'RE LEAVING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE UNDERLYING OR YOU'RE LEAVING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN MY AMENDMENT. HE'S HE'S NOT TOUCHING HE'S NOT CHANGING YOUR AMENDMENT AT ALL OTHER THAN ADDING THE. YES. THAT'S ACCEPTED. NO. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? NO OBJECTION. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM ANYONE, THEN IT'S SO ORDERED. SO NOW WE'RE ON.

WE'LL HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AND IT'S MR. BAZALDUA ORIGINAL MOTION, BUT WITH THE WORD FIRE REMOVED.

EVERYBODY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING. SO WE'RE STILL ON THE SAME DEBATE POSTURE. AND I'M GOING TO GO TO LOOKS LIKE MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'VE SPOKEN ONCE ON YOUR AMENDMENT, SO I'M GOING TO LET MR..

JUSTIN REYNOLDS KNOW IT. IT'S IT'S YOU I'M SORRY, MR..

MAYOR, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM FOR FIVE MINUTES.

CHIEF BALL. AND CHIEF COMO.

I WENT DOWN TO VISIT 911 CENTER HERE IN THE FACILITY IN CITY HALL.

PLEASE EXPLAIN BECAUSE I HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO, BUT PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW LONG.

IT LOOKED LIKE THAT. IT LOOKS A BIT LIKE STATION FOUR.

IT'S A BIT. IT'S OLD NEEDS. IT'S WE'VE GROWN OUT OF IT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A KITCHEN LIKE WE, IT DOESN'T FACILITATE A KITCHEN AND IT'S NO PLACE TO, TO LIVE FOR 24 HOURS AND YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THAT AND, AND STATION FOUR, YOU'VE BEEN DOWN THERE AND SOME OF, SOME OF YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MISS TOLBERT HAVE BEEN TO SOME FIRE STATIONS.

AND THERE WAS ONE THAT THEY SAID, OH, WELL, THIS ONE NEEDS REPLACED.

THAT'S NUMBER TEN ON THE LIST. AND THEY WANTED THAT REPLACED.

SO IF WE DON'T REPLACE, I MEAN, WE IF WE DON'T PUT IT IN THE BOND PACKAGE, IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT FOR SOME IT'S THAT STATION IS TOP OF THE LIST.

AND THESE THESE FIREFIGHTERS MAKE 300,000 CALLS A YEAR.

THERE'S 36 PEOPLE THAT LIVE AT THAT STATION. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE A BIT BETTER ACCOMMODATIONS.

JUST LIKE A DISPATCH CHIEF. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU CONCERNING YOUR.

YEAH, WELL, MY OPINION ON THE 911 CENTER. IT'S OLD, IT'S OUTDATED.

AND WE ALSO HAVE UNWANTED VISITORS THERE ON A REGULAR.

THAT'S THE RODENTS THAT THAT'S DOWN THERE. IN THE FACILITY.

WELL, THE REASON I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT, BECAUSE WHEN I WENT DOWN THERE AND TALKED TO SOME OF THE WORKERS THAT ACTUALLY WORKED THERE POINT OF ORDER.

MAYOR STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. YOU ASKED US TO STAY NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE MOTION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRE AND 22 MILLION. SUSTAINED.

THANK YOU. SO GET BACK ON THE TOPIC OF FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR AND A REDUCTION IN THE IN THE AMOUNT OF 22 MILLION AND THE REMOVAL

[06:10:04]

OF THE WORD FIRE. OKAY. IF YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO WAIT.

THEN I'LL WAIT BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 911.

THANK YOU. ANOTHER AMENDMENT, MR. ROTH, FOR FIVE MINUTES.

LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU. COULD COULD I HAVE THE BOND COUNCIL PLEASE COME DOWN, PLEASE? IN IN IN THE SUGGESTION OF TAKING OUT THE WORD FIRE, THE THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSITION, A LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE.

IF YOU TAKE OUT THE WORD FIRE IT TO ME, IT IT CREATES A CONFUSION.

IT CREATES A DIFFICULTY. IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE NECESSARILY FIRE.

IT SAYS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MONEY THAT'S BEING REQUESTED, WHETHER IT'S 221 MILLION OR 200, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, IT'S FOR PLANNING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING POLICE, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES. IF YOU TAKE OUT THE WORD FIRE, YOU REALLY HAVEN'T ELIMINATED ANYTHING YOU'VE JUST SAID.

SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW WOULD YOU CRAFT THE LANGUAGE TO ABSOLUTELY TAKE OUT ANYTHING RELATED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE SITUATION? BECAUSE JUST ELIMINATING THE WORD FIRE, I DON'T THINK DOES WHAT YOU'RE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION TO ANSWER YOU. TWO WAYS.

NUMBER ONE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL VIEW THE INCLUDING LANGUAGE WHEN IT SAYS INCLUDING POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

THEY WILL READ IT AS IF YOU JUST SAID POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.

THEY WILL ASSUME THAT FIRE IS EXCLUDED. THAT'S THE WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LOOKS AT IT.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU WANTED TO LIMIT RIGHT, YOU COULD SAY INSTEAD OF EXPANDING AND EQUIPPING PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES, YOU COULD SAY EXPANDING AND EQUIPPING POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES.

IF YOU PREFER, THAT'S JUST EITHER ONE OF THOSE IS FINE.

SO IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE BODY'S WILL, WE CAN CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT.

THANK YOU. THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS WHEN WHEN THIS IF THIS GOES TO AN ELECTION AND WE ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE MARKET AND TRYING TO SUPPORT THE, THE BOND PROPOSITION IN THAT PROCESS, CAN WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST OR IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND IDENTIFY THOSE PROJECTS? OR IS HOW DO YOU SELL THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND AND DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ANY KIND OF PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION OR PROJECTS IN OUR MARKETING AND OUR PROMOTION? OR ARE WE LIMITED IN ANY WAY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE IN THAT OVERALL BOND FUNDS APPLICATION IF THEY'RE APPROVED? SO AS AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU CAN PROMOTE OR SUPPORT AND WHATEVER YOU WANT AS A BODY, YOU CANNOT USE PUBLIC RESOURCES TO ADVOCATE FOR AN ELECTION.

SO ALL THE INFORMATION YOU PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC MUST BE FACTUAL IN NATURE AND NOT OPINION.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, IT'S VERY TYPICAL FOR A CITY TO PUT OUT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OR A LIST OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.

YOU CAN DO ALL OF THAT AND SAY, THESE ARE THE LIST OF PROJECTS WE PLAN TO USE.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD CAUTION WOULD BE YOU KNOW, BE MINDFUL OF CREATING A CONTRACT WITH THE VOTERS.

TYPICALLY, I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT OUT A LIST OF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT OUT A LIST OF PROPOSED PROJECTS, MAKE SURE IT SAYS THESE ARE PROPOSED SUBJECT TO CHANGE BECAUSE THINGS DO CHANGE. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND YOURSELF IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T USE THE MONEY AT ALL LATER. BUT YES, YOU COULD. ABSOLUTELY. THE CITY WILL ABSOLUTELY PUT OUT SOMETHING ON THEIR WEBSITE MORE THAN LIKELY ABOUT HERE ARE OUR PLANNED PROJECTS, AND YOU COULD LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL. YOU JUST CAN'T ADVOCATE. I THINK THAT I THINK, I THINK WE'VE JUST, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING DOWN A ROAD THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO GET VOTERS APPROVAL FOR THIS KIND OF PROPOSITION.

AND I'M, I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD FAIL IN NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THE VOTERS TO UNDERSTAND AND, AND PARTICIPATE AND ENCOURAGE US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY.

AND I'M JUST, I'M DISTRESSED THAT THAT, THAT TAKING OUT THE WORD FIRE, TRYING TO PARSE WHAT'S INCLUDED AND WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED IS IS REALLY GOING TO BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR EFFORTS TO GET SOMETHING PASSED AT THAT, AT THAT LEVEL. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION.

[06:15:08]

MR. BAZALDUA, ARE YOU HERE? IS HE READY? YOUR YOUR YOUR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR OWN AMENDMENT.

IT'S I, I JUST, I JUST DO WHAT THE QUEUE HAS UP THERE, BUDDY.

I DON'T THINK IT FELL OFF FROM THE LAST TIME I SPOKE.

THE CITY SECRETARY IS TRYING TO TAKE HIM OFF THE QUEUE.

AND IF I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE, IT'S TIME TO VOTE.

RECORD VOTE. PLEASE. RECORD. VOTES WERE REQUESTED AND GRANTED PER RULE.

MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA FOLKS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE. YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO.

IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. JOHNSON. NO. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

NO. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO. WITH FOUR VOTING IN FAVOR, 11 OPPOSED.

THE MOTION FAILS. MR. MAYOR, WE'RE BACK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE UNDERLYING MOTION? MR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION YET, SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE 911.

IT'S THIS TIME. I CAN TALK ABOUT THE 911. YEAH IT IS.

YES. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT 911 RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO CHIEF COMO AND HE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK UP HERE.

SAY YOU A FEW STEPS UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO GET YOUR STEPS IN RIGHT NOW. CHIEF COMO MENTIONED THE RODENTS DOWN THERE WHEN I WENT DOWN THERE TO VISIT WITH THE WORKERS. THEY WERE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID.

THEY WAS AFRAID TO PUT THEIR PROPERTIES ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE OF THE RODENTS THAT WAS COMING.

AND EVEN GOING DOWN THERE, SOME OF THE ALLERGIES THAT JUST STARTED HAPPENING ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN I EXPERIENCED IT IT WAS DEPLORABLE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I LOOKED AT IT, IS ONE OF THE WHAT THEY CALL THE HEATER THAT COMES FROM THE DESK LOOK LIKE AN EXHAUST PIPE THAT CAME FROM SOMEONE'S CAR. NOW I ACTUALLY TOOK A PICTURE OF IT AND PUT IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

SO MY COMMUNITY AND THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS COULD SEE WHAT OUR NINE ONE, ONE AND 311 WORK IS ACTUALLY SITTING AT THE A C THAT'S ON THE DESK THAT THAT PRETTY MUCH DOES NOT WORK. THEN WENT ON TO THE OTHER SIDE TO SEE WHERE OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE AND TO SEE A KITCHEN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT TO CAVE IN. NOW, THAT'S WHY WE COULDN'T GET THIS DONE.

AND DUE TO THE ASBESTOS, IT WILL IT WILL COST A LOT.

AND THE UNFORESEEN THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN THAT WOULD POSSIBLY.

WHEN YOU START DIGGING AND FIXING IT, THEN YOU RUN INTO MORE PROBLEMS. THE UNFORESEEN THINGS WHICH. NOW THE COST GOES UP AND INFLATES.

SO LISTENING AND LOOKING UP AT THAT FACILITY AND LISTENING TO OUR FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS.

I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE WORKING. AND I, AND I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT IF YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THAT, THEY ARE ACTUALLY SOME OF THEM SLEEP THERE AT NIGHT TIME WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR SHIFT. IS THAT CORRECT? SO ROBERT URIBE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT OVER THE 911 CENTER I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT QUESTION TO FIRE.

THEY'RE PRIMARILY SLEEPING AT THEIR LOCATION.

ASSISTANT CHIEF JAMES RUSS, COMMUNICATIONS ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SIDE, WE WORK 24 HOUR SHIFTS, AND WE DO HAVE MEMBERS THAT SLEEP IN THE FACILITIES.

AND SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT FACILITY AND I THINK WHEN I VISITED, THERE WAS SOME THAT WAS RESTING IN THE ROOM BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT WAS ENDING THAT WAS RECUPERATING, RECOVERING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES.

WE HAVE A STAFF. WE THERE ARE 15 PEOPLE ASSIGNED THERE.

SO WE HAVE 60 PEOPLE THAT'S ASSIGNED THERE ON ALL FOUR SHIFTS.

AND WE ME RUN A STAFF OF 12 EVERY DAY. THAT'S A LOT OF TIME FOR BEING OFF.

SO OUT OF THE 12 PEOPLE THAT HAVE BREAKS DURING THE DAY WHERE THEY CAN GO REST.

SO YOU HAVE SIX BEDS THERE. SO AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY THEY CAN TAKE A BREAK AND REST ON THEIR SHIFT.

WELL, I WILL BE NERVOUS TO SLEEP THERE KNOWING THAT THE POTENTIAL RODENTS IF I SAW SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND I WAS SLEEPING.

I'M A BIG GUY, BUT I'LL BE RUNNING PROBABLY A FOUR ONE FLAT OR SOMETHING.

AND GETTING UP OUT OF THERE. BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

[06:20:03]

AGAIN, HIS, HIS MOTION. WE PUBLIC SAFETY IS MY MAIN PRIORITY.

AND I RAN ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND I'VE BEEN A BIG ADVOCATE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND SO IF FOR ME TO LISTEN TO THE CHIEF OF DALLAS FIRE AND RESCUE, TO LISTEN TO THE CHIEF OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO LISTEN TO THE WORKERS THAT GO IN AND THEY ARE 311911 TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE WHAT THEY NEEDED.

AND TO HEAR YOU GUYS SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.

WHEN I'M IN AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, WHEN I'M ADVOCATING FOR MY MY DISTRICT, AND I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT ME, IT'S BECAUSE I'VE HAD MEETINGS. IT'S BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT I NEED IN MY DISTRICT.

AND SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE SAME RESPECT THAT I WOULD WANT TO BE GIVEN TO ME AS A COUNCIL MEMBER ADVOCATING FOR MY PARTICULAR DISTRICT THAT ELECTED ME TO SERVE.

IF THIS IS WHAT WE NEED, THEN I'M, I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT IT.

SO IN THAT, IN THAT SPIRIT I WILL BE SUPPORTING BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE NOT ONLY, AGAIN, IS IT PUBLIC SAFETY, MY FIRST PARTY, BUT LISTENING TO THOSE THAT DO THIS WORK DAY IN AND DAY OUT, YOU KNOW WHAT THE FACILITIES LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND THEREFORE I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO, GENTLEMEN. DON'T GO, DON'T GO. IN FACT.

CHIEF! CHIEF! CHIEF! COME ON, COME ON, COME ON.

I JUST WANT ALL OF YOU GUYS THERE. I'M GONNA LISTEN TO THE QUESTION FIRST, BUT LET ME LET ME ASK THE QUESTION.

AND FIRST I'M GONNA ASK IT OF THE CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER. HAS ANYONE OTHER THAN THIS BODY IN OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY BEEN DOWN TO OUR TOWARD 911? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. AS YOU KNOW, COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR, CERTAIN PARTS OF OUR BUILDING ARE CONSIDERED ONLY FOR CERTAIN LEVEL OF PERSONNEL AND SECURED. AND SO WE DON'T JUST ENTERTAIN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMING TO THE CENTER.

I WILL SAY THAT IF THERE IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR A REQUEST, IT IS DONE THROUGH COORDINATION WITH THE THE LEADERSHIP TEAM FOR THE 911 AND THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CALL CENTERS.

AND THEN THERE'S RESTRICTED ACCESS, SO THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT NECESSARILY GO INTO SOME OF THE SPACES THAT I THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE TOUR OR SEE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO ON A REGULAR BASIS.

SO MY ANSWER WOULD BE, UNLESS IT'S BEEN DIRECTED TO A SPECIFIC NEED, THEN THERE'S NOT BEEN A GENERAL PUBLIC ENTRANCE OR WITHIN EITHER ONE OF THOSE CENTERS. SO LET ME REPHRASE THAT.

LET ME REFINE THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT. WOULD ANYBODY HAVE ACCESS TO TOURS THAT NEEDED THAT HAD THAT SPECIAL NEED FOR ANY TYPE OF LIKE WE DID FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER FOR FIFA? AND WE, WE HAD SPECIAL PEOPLE COME IN AND SEE IF IT WAS SUITABLE FOR THEIR, FOR THE, FOR THEIR, THEIR, THEIR FUNCTIONS. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER, WE'RE OFTEN IN AN EMERGENCY EVENT. WE HAVE A LOT OF OUR PARTNERS AROUND THE CITY.

WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENCORE, ATMOS, A LOT OF OUR PARTNERS AT THE COUNTY, IF WE'RE ACTIVATING THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER MANY OF THEM WILL COME IN AND ENTER THAT SPACE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE'RE WORKING AND TRIAGING TOGETHER DURING A PARTICULAR WEATHER EVENT.

IF IT'S A 911 PIECE, I'D HAVE TO DEFINITELY DEFER TO THE TEAM BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S SOME VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS ON IF THAT'S VISITATION.

I MEAN, EVEN MYSELF AS THE CITY MANAGER, I'M ESCORTED INTO THE SPACE.

I DON'T HAVE A BADGE THAT JUST BADGES ME IN TO GO INTO THE 911 CALL CENTER.

THAT IS ALL. THAT'S AN ESCORTED COMPONENT. SO I'LL LET THE CHIEF AND THE OTHER LEADERSHIP TEAM MEMBERS EXPLAIN THAT.

SO I DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS. YEAH, IT WOULD BE A REALLY TIGHT TOUR.

IT WOULD BE ONLY SO MUCH THAT YOU CAN SEE AT ANY GIVEN TIME DUE TO THE NATURE THAT GOES DOWN.

THAT HAPPENS IN THE 911 CENTER, JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAYING THAT PEOPLE SPEND THE NIGHT THERE.

WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF THAT WAS YOUR HOME? WOULD YOU INVITE PEOPLE TO YOUR HOME THAT DOWNSTAIRS IN YOUR HOME? WELL, I KNOW I MENTIONED ABOUT THE RODENTS EARLIER, BUT EVEN MORE THAN THE RODENTS AND THE LITTLE MICE AND RATS, IT'S REALLY THE TECHNOLOGY PART OF IT. I MEAN, WE'RE JUST BEHIND THE TIMES.

SO WHEN YOU'RE WHEN I KNOW NINE ONE, ONE OFF, I MEAN YOUR POLICE OFFICER COME AND THEY SIT AT THAT FACILITY.

AND, AND I DID A TOUR. I TOURED THE FACILITY AND I SAW ONE OF YOUR, YOUR, YOUR OFFICERS TRYING TO SIT AND GET KNOWLEDGE

[06:25:03]

AS TO WHAT HAPPENS. AND I SAW THE CHALLENGE THAT THAT HE WAS GOING THROUGH.

AND I'M CHALLENGED BY SAYING THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE WAY FOR ME TO, FOR US TO TRAIN OUR OFFICERS.

WE SEEM TO HAVE LOST HERE. THERE IS A NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES IN THIS SPACE.

BUT IF YOU GIVE IT JUST A MINUTE, IT WILL REBOOT IN JUST A MINUTE.

I KNOW THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. THE TECHNOLOGY IN 911 IS A LITTLE WORSE THAN THIS, I THINK.

DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR. YES, IT'LL IT'LL GIVE IT JUST A SECOND.

SOMETIMES IT JUST NEEDS TO REBOOT. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT PROVES MY POINT. PART OF MY POINT.

THERE WE GO. OKAY, WE'RE BACK UP. GO AHEAD. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALSO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN WHEN STAFF TAKES SOME VERY DIFFICULT CALLS, SOMETIMES THEY NEED TO DECOMPRESS.

I SAW THE FACILITY THAT THEY DECOMPRESSED IN.

THEY DO BETTER OFF GOING TO THEIR CAR AND CRYING FOR A GOOD BIT, WOULDN'T THEY? ABSOLUTELY. SO WE DO HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THE SPACE.

WITH THE CURRENT SPACE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE THOSE TYPES OF AMENITIES FOR THE STAFF, BUT ALSO TO EXPAND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S NEEDED TO CONTINUE OUR EVOLUTION OF WHAT OUR 901 CENTER WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.

TODAY WE ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. THE STAFF HAVE BEEN DOING BEEN VERY RESILIENT IN TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

HOWEVER, WE CAN DO A LOT MORE FOR THESE CITIZENS, SO WE REALLY ANTICIPATE THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL SPACE, WITH THE MODERNIZED SPACE, WITH THE INVESTMENT THAT WE NEED, WE WILL BE SETTING OURSELVES FOR A MUCH BETTER TECHNOLOGICAL FUTURE FOR OUR 911 CENTER. SO TO ME, I SEE THIS AS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

I EVERYONE KNOWS I USED TO WORK FOR AT&T. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT AT&T DID WAS THEY HAD THEIR OWN EOC.

THEY, THEY, THEY SET THE TONE AND THE STANDARD FOR ELKS.

BECAUSE YOUR TELEPHONE LINES ARE THE LIFELINES OF NOT ONLY THE CITY, BUT THE COUNTRY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, WHAT I NOTICED BACK IN THE 80S AND 90S, WE HAD BETTER TECHNOLOGY THAN WE HAVE DOWNSTAIRS.

I NEED YOU GUYS TO REST ON THAT. WE HAD BETTER TECHNOLOGY IN 1990S THAN WE HAVE IN 2026 DOWNSTAIRS.

SO I'VE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO VISIT AND WORK WITHIN SOME MODERN FACILITIES.

WE ARE BEHIND THE TIMES WHEN IT COMES TO THE AMENITIES THAT THE TECHNOLOGICAL AMENITIES THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO OUR STAFF.

AGAIN, THERE IS MUCH TO DO. I BELIEVE THAT MODERNIZING OUR FACILITY IS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE OF OUR 901 SYSTEM.

I'M GOING TO STOP THERE, BUT I DO, I DO APPRECIATE FROM THE EOC TO FIRE HAVING TO SLEEP THERE TO NINE TO THE 911 FACILITY. I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE US.

AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED WE OWE YOU MORE IN ORDER TO GET MORE OUT OF YOU.

I, BUT I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAID YOU GUYS HAVE BEDS THAT PEOPLE SLEEP IN, WHO WASHES THE SHEETS?

[06:30:01]

THEY DO. ARE YOU DONE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I NEED TO GO TO. I HAVE A CHAIR MENDELSOHN FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PROPOSITION A WOULD BE THE ONLY PROPOSITION, AND IT WOULD BE FOR 443 MILLION ON THE FACE VALUE.

IS THAT CORRECT? I GUESS YOU'D HAVE TO ASK CHAIRMAN WEST.

HE'S THE ONE WHO DRAFTED THE MOTION OR MADE IT.

HE'S ASKING ME TO REPEAT THE QUESTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT USE MY TIME FOR THAT.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE PROPOSITION.

IT WOULD BE PROPOSITION A, AND IT WOULD BE FOR A FACE VALUE OF 443 MILLION.

YES. AND CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE INTEREST WOULD BE? AND THE TOTAL REPAYMENT FOR A $443 MILLION PROPOSITION.

COME ON. WE DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT OFF THE TOP, BUT WE COULD.

IF YOU GIVE US A MINUTE, WE COULD GET IT CALCULATED. I THINK THE INTEREST NUMBER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ITEM WAS FOR THE TOTAL OF THE 960, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WE COULD GET THAT FOR YOU IN JUST A SECOND, PLEASE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. YES, MA'AM. THE THE PROPOSITION AS WRITTEN SHOWS TO BE FOR $443 MILLION, WITH A TOTAL REPAYMENT OF $629,618,180. IT'S ALSO SHOWS TO BE FINANCED OVER 20 YEARS.

20 YEARS. AND SO THE TOTAL REPAYMENT WAS 629 MILLION.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CORRECT A COUPLE THINGS.

I PERSONALLY HAVE GIVEN TOURS TO STATE REPS AND LEGISLATORS AND SENATORS.

WE OFFERED THAT AS PART OF OUR LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM THIS LAST SESSION.

IT WAS COME EARLY, COME HAVE A TOUR. AND THEY ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS SUPER COOL.

I'VE ALSO GIVEN MULTIPLE TOURS TO METRO TECHS TO THEIR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS GROUP.

AND IN FACT, JUST THIS WEEK THEY ASKED FOR THE SAME EXACT TOUR BECAUSE THEY FIND IT SO ILLUMINATING AND INTERESTING.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPOSED 901 RELOCATION.

THERE WAS A RFP THAT WAS RELEASED ABOUT BELLEVUE AS A LOCATION.

IS THIS LOCATION CONFIRMED? WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY LAST WEDNESDAY IN A CLOSED SESSION TO GET AN UPDATE ON THAT POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK WE ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND WE SHARED WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS.

AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WE HAVE TO DO ONCE THE RFQ CLOSES.

SO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL HAS GOTTEN AN AGENDA ITEM OR A BRIEFING THAT SAYS THAT THERE'S BEEN A FINAL DECISION MADE ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT WE GAVE DETAILS AND COUNCIL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS LAST WEDNESDAY DURING THAT MEETING.

SO WOULD THE PUBLIC KNOW WHERE THE 911 CENTER WOULD MOVE TO, OR THEY WOULD JUST BE TOLD IT WILL MOVE? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC ADDRESS THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL ITEM.

OKAY. SO I HAVE QUESTIONS. IF IT WAS TO GO TO BELLEVUE THAT I WOULD WANT TO ASK, BUT SINCE WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT, I WON'T. WHAT CONSIDERATIONS ARE BEING MADE FOR REDUNDANCY OF THE 911 CENTER.

LET ME AGAIN TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT. WE ARE NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO CALL THE SPECIAL ELECTION. HAVE WE BROUGHT A DESIGN REDUNDANCY, TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES?

[06:35:05]

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE DONE AT THIS POINT. I THINK WHAT THE NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IS FOR THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GO AND BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT FORWARD SO WE DON'T HAVE A BREAKDOWN. ON WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM AS TO ANY OF THAT PARTICULAR DETAIL.

I DO KNOW THAT THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT REDUNDANCY THAT THEY HAVE.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE NEEDS ARE GOING INTO THE FUTURE AND WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE 911 CALL CENTER AND THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS ARE BOTH HIGH PERFORMING WITH THE MODERNIZED TECHNOLOGY.

BUT RIGHT NOW WITHIN THIS ITEM, WE DON'T HAVE THAT REDUNDANCY OF WHAT WOULD BE GOING INTO A NEW POTENTIAL SITE.

SO JUST UNDERSTAND THE BUDGET. ON THE SHEET I HAVE IS $40 MILLION FOR THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 911 AND THE VOTERS WON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING. WHAT'S INCLUDED? IT'S JUST GIVE US $40 MILLION FOR US TO MOVE A 911 CENTER.

IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE ABOUT THIS? I'LL ASK OUR BOND OFFICE TO COME OUT. I KNOW THAT THEY'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE THE TEAM.

WE'VE SHARED WITH COUNCIL MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL EFFICIENCIES THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE WITH A MORE MODERNIZED SPACE. AND I'LL HAVE THEM TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD INCORPORATE.

BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS THAT WE PRESENTED IN A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF WHERE WE STILL ARE IN AN RFQ PROCESS THAT WE DON'T GET AHEAD OF THAT.

I THINK THAT PROCESS IS BEING IT'S ACTUALLY UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW AS WE SHARE IT WITH THE COUNCIL LAST WEEK.

CORRECT. JOHN JOHNSON CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. THE RFQ DOES WORK TO DEVELOP ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT.

SO THIS BODY AUTHORIZED IN JUNE WITH RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR A PREDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO IF AND WHEN THE RFQ IS CLOSED AND WE MAKE THAT SELECTION, THAT'S EXACTLY THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE REMAINING DUE DILIGENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR FINANCIALS, FOR FACILITY UPGRADES, FOR RESILIENCY, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED IS WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETED DURING THE DUE DILIGENCE PHASE. ARE YOU EXPECTING TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE VOTERS BEFORE THEY VOTE? WELL, WE WILL NOT BE MOVING FORWARD TO PHASE TWO UNTIL WE COME BACK TO THIS BODY.

SO WE WOULD NOT EVEN PROCEED TO THAT UNTIL WE RECEIVE THIS BODY'S APPROVAL.

OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO NOW GO TO THE PROPERTY ROOM, THE VEHICLE STORAGE AND CRIME LAB.

YOU'VE GOT $150 MILLION BUDGETED ON THAT ONE.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW MUCH IS FOR WHICH PART AND WHAT EXACTLY THAT COVERS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAD A REALLY DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THIS INFORMATION.

THANK YOU, JENNY, FOR COMING. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT IN THE BRIEFINGS THAT WE PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY, WE GAVE WHAT THE AMOUNTS WOULD BE FOR THE RELOCATION THAT WOULD SHOW THE EXISTING.

IF THERE IF IT WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE EXISTING LOCATION AT GILBERT VILLAGE.

I THINK WE GAVE A NUMBER. AND THEN WE ALSO SHOWED IF IT WAS AT ANOTHER PRIVATE SITE, BUT JAYNIE, IF YOU'LL JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT'S BUILT INTO THE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF NUMBERS THAT WE'VE SHOWED.

SURE, SURE. SO WE HAD BEEN PROVIDED SOME PROGRAMING INFORMATION FROM DPD AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS USED TO DEVELOP THOSE NUMBERS.

SO IT WAS IT WAS A PROGRAMING NUMBER. SO IT WAS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS ALLOCATED FOR EACH OF THE FACILITIES THAT WERE PROVIDED.

SO AND THEN FOR THE SITE OF BUILDING, WE DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH SITE WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED.

BUT FOR THE UNKNOWN SITE OR A VIRGIN SITE, THAT WE HAD A HIGHER NUMBER FOR THAT.

AND THAT INFORMATION COULD BE INCLUDED IN A FACT SHEET THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE VOTERS.

I CAN'T IMAGINE WE WOULD ASK ANYBODY TO VOTE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN SHARED TODAY.

I FIND IT ACTUALLY QUITE APPALLING AND POORLY THOUGHT OUT.

AGAIN, THAT LOCATION WAS, SINCE 2023, A TOP TEN LOCATION TO SELL FILL BIG.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW THERE THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE.

THAT LOCATION IS PRIME REAL ESTATE. AND AS WE SIT HERE AND HAVE THESE CRAZY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ABANDONING CITY HALL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO REDEVELOP THIS PRIME REAL ESTATE, WE'RE LITERALLY SITTING IN THE POINT OF ORDER NOW.

[06:40:01]

SUSTAINED. GOTCHA.

I AM GOING TO PAUSE AT THIS POINT AND CONSIDER IF I WANT TO COME BACK AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MISS CADENA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOU KNOW, I WANT ALL OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES TO HAVE GOOD WORKING CONDITIONS.

AND I WISH THERE WERE MORE FIRE STATIONS IN THIS BOND.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 911 CENTER TO GO AND VISIT THE FIRE STATIONS IN THEIR OWN DISTRICT.

I WENT AGAIN TO ONE IN MY DISTRICT AND INSTEAD OF BLINDS, THEY HAD A KITCHEN TOWEL THAT WAS BLOCKING THE SUN.

THESE ARE WHERE PEOPLE SLEEP. THEY HAVE TO WASH THEIR CLOTHES.

CLEAN STATIONS ARE A STANDARD IN FIRE SERVICE TO PREVENT CANCER.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN DOWN TO THE EOC WITH STATE REPS AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS.

IT SERVED ITS PURPOSE. IT DOES NEED SOME INVESTMENT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

AND I'VE ALSO PERSONALLY GIVEN TOURS TO THE 911 CENTER ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, TAKEN RESIDENTS DOWN THERE.

AND I'VE NEVER, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT NEEDS SOME TLC.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS WOULD BE FOR, BUT ARE THESE CONSIDERED NEW FACILITIES THAT WILL BE VOTING ON? AND I'M TALKING, I'M GOING TO BE ASKING ABOUT THE YEAH, THE FMPC. SO I'LL START WITH THE ACADEMY'S.

YOU CURRENTLY ARE LEASING SPACE, CURRENTLY LEASING SPACE FOR THE POLICE TRAINING FACILITY.

AND THIS PARTICULAR OPTION THAT COUNCIL HAS SUPPORTED THROUGH THE LEASE AMENDMENT, I MEAN, THROUGH THE LEASE WITH U. N T WOULD BE CONSIDERED, IN MY OPINION.

AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. THAT WOULD BE A FACILITY THAT WOULD BE OPENING, THAT WOULD BE CITY OWNED, WHICH WILL MAKE IT A FACILITY THAT WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE IN OUR PORTFOLIO.

SO WE DO NOT HAVE A TRAINING FACILITY RIGHT NOW THAT IS A BRICK AND MORTAR SITE THAT IS OWNED BY THE CITY.

SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE A REPLACEMENT. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CREATING ONE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER ON THAT. AS IT RELATES TO, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 911 AND THE 311 AGAIN, THIS IS A BACK TO THE LEGAL PIECE. WE CURRENTLY OWN THE SITE THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL ALSO KNOWS THAT THE FUNDING THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR ANY POTENTIAL RELOCATION IS ACTUALLY BUILT INTO THIS.

AND SO ALL OF THAT WILL COME DOWN TO WHAT DECISIONS ARE MADE AND WHETHER OR NOT IF THAT FUNDING EVEN BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR IT.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY EARLY ANSWER. BUT AGAIN, I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY BASED ON THEIR THEIR LEGAL INTERPRETATION.

MR. MAYOR, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS CORRECT REGARDING THE TRAINING CENTER, AND I ALSO BELIEVE SHE WAS CORRECT REGARDING THE 911 BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING YET.

AND SO WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHAT THAT BUILDING IS YET.

SO THAT LEADS TO MY NEXT QUESTION. WHEN WOULD WE VOTE FOR THE FMPC? AND WITH THE ADDRESSES NEED TO BE SPECIFIC AT THAT TIME.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S GOING TO BE GERMANE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR.

WE HAVE SAID, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARITY, FOR THE PUBLIC.

COUNCIL HAS NOT GIVEN US AUTHORITY TO RELOCATE THE 911 CENTER OR THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.

YOU GAVE ME AUTHORITY TO DO A PHASE ONE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND WE'VE BRIEFED AND UPDATED THE COUNCIL ON AS OF LAST WEEK.

WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED BEFORE WE COME BACK WITH PHASE TWO.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT EVEN WITH WHAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE YOU, DOES NOT MOVE US THERE UNTIL WE COME BACK.

I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY IS WHEN AND I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY PHIL BIG WHEN THE PROPERTY ROOM, WHEN WE WOULD KNOW OR HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON WHERE IT WOULD BE LOCATED IF THE BOND DOES PASS.

I THINK WHAT I HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER WES SUGGEST IS THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE DUE DILIGENCE OF POTENTIAL SITES, HOPING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, BUT FOR US TO NOT MAKE ANY FINAL DECISIONS ON THAT, AND FOR THAT TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HIS REQUEST WAS AS PART OF HIS MOTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN. STEWART YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

[06:45:08]

THANK YOU. MAYOR JOHNSON, JUST BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO MY QUESTIONS OR MY INFORMATION HERE, MAY I STILL TALK ABOUT THE FIRE STATION SINCE IT'S PART OF THE UNDERLYING MOTION? OH, YEAH. WE'RE ON. YEAH. WE'RE ON UNDERLYING.

SO I'M STILL WE'RE WE'RE ON. MR. WES ORIGINAL MOTION.

EVERYTHING THAT'S IN PROPOSITION A AT THIS POINT IS FAIR GAME FOR EVERYBODY.

OKAY. WELL, I JUST CAME ACROSS AND ACTUALLY LOOKED UP A COUPLE OF THINGS ON FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT'S 73 YEARS OLD, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REALLY GERMANE TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

IT IS NOT ADA COMPLIANT. APPARENTLY HAS A VERY BAD HVAC SYSTEM.

AND THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT IT'S A CANCER RISK AND THAT ALL OF THE CHEMICALS, I GUESS, THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN THAT STATION OVER 73 YEARS HAVE POTENTIALLY ABSORBED INTO MATERIALS AND WOULD THEREFORE PUT OTHER PEOPLE AT RISK.

SO I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS HELPFUL. I KNEW IT WAS OLD.

I KNEW WE, I KNOW WE NEED A NEW ONE, BUT JUST TO GIVE SOME OF THOSE DETAILS WAS HELPFUL TO ME, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE. THANK YOU. MAYOR JOHNSON.

CHAIRWOMAN WILL IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT 911. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SPENT AS MUCH TIME ON THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.

SO I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. ODIN IF HE COULD COME BACK UP TO GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES JUST IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHEN IS IT USED, WHAT IS IT USED FOR AND WHAT KIND OF STATE IS THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IN, AND HOW YOU COMPARE THAT TO PEER CITIES OR INDUSTRY STANDARDS? I MEAN, WHEN WHEN SOMEONE GOES DOWN THERE TO VISIT, I MEAN, IT LOOKS KIND OF COOL.

YOU SEE SCREENS AND YOU SEE NAMES OF DEPARTMENTS AND TABLES AND ALL OF THAT.

BUT THE REALITY IS IT GOES FAR BEYOND THAT. SO COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY THIS WOULD BE NEEDED? CORRECT. THANK YOU. CHAIR KEVIN ODIN, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND CRISIS RESPONSE.

SO THE EASIEST EXAMPLE I WOULD GIVE YOU OF WHAT IS A REASON FOR AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IS IF YOU, IF YOU CONSIDER A CITY BEING LIKE A SOLVED RUBIK'S CUBE, THAT'S ITS NORMAL STATE.

WHEN LARGE SCALE EMERGENCIES, DISASTERS HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS, CIVIL UNREST, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS HAPPEN.

THEY KIND OF MIX UP THE RUBIK'S CUBE. THE PURPOSE OF THAT FACILITY IS TO HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE, REPRESENTING MULTIPLE DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES AND FUNCTIONS, WORKING TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE CUBE.

RIGHT? SO OFTENTIMES WE HAVE ISSUES WITH TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH STORM DEBRIS OR CLEANUPS.

AND SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER TO GET STREETS BACK OPEN.

BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO CLEAN THE STREETS.

SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE IN A, IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.

MORE RECENTLY, AND NOW THAT THE EVENT IS BEHIND US, I CAN, I CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE FREELY ABOUT THE RECENT FIFA.

SO WE, WE OPERATED THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER CONTINUOUSLY FROM START TO FINISH.

SO THAT WAS ABOUT 39 DAYS. WE WERE UNIQUE IN THAT THE, OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS IN THAT EVENT CHOSE NOT TO BE LOCATED WITH THE CITY STAFF THAT WERE RUNNING THAT.

PART OF THE REASON, THE OBJECTIVE REASON THAT THEY CITED IS AS THEY WERE CITING OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.

THEY ALSO DID A RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE OF THE LOCATION, CITY HALL ITSELF, AS WELL AS STUDIED THE REDUNDANCIES WITHIN THE BUILDING.

AND SO ALL THIS CONVERSATION WAS ALL GOING ON WHILE THEY WERE DOING THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY, AT THAT TIME. AND WITH THAT MEASURE, THE CITY HALL DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA THAT THEY LOOKED FOR THE FEDERAL PARTNERS TO SITE THEIR OPERATIONS DURING FIFA. AND THAT CAUSED SOME, SOME ISSUE THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE TO, WE'RE HAVING TO HAVE THAT SAME ISSUE WITH A BIG UPCOMING EVENT.

AND THEY WILL NOT BE CITED HERE DURING THAT AS WELL.

SO CAN YOU DRILL INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT I MEAN? YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM ON. LIKE WHAT? CORRECT.

SO SO FROM A RISK PERSPECTIVE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, I'VE, I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THIS DAIS HAVING ALL OF YOUR GOVERNMENT CRITICAL FUNCTIONS ALL IN ONE PLACE IS, IS A RISK.

HAVING IT ALL IN A DOWNTOWN AREA CREATES ADDITIONAL RISK, RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU'RE DOING THAT SORT OF ASSESSMENT FOR WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT YOUR CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE SHARING OPERATIONS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S MY ABILITY TO ACCESS THAT TO OPERATE OUT OF THAT SITE? DOES THAT SITE HAVE THE REDUNDANCY? SO POWER INTERNET, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

[06:50:03]

AND IN THERE, THE FEDERAL LEVEL THE WAY THEY DID THAT STUDY, THEY FOUND THAT CITY HALL DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR THEM TO LOCATE HERE ALONGSIDE CITY STAFF. I WOULD SAY THAT IT, YOU KNOW, LIKE ANYTHING WE, WE WORK THROUGH THE BEST WE CAN.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS A LOT OF, THERE WAS A LOT OF PLAYING TELEPHONE TO GET INFORMATION BACK AND FORTH. THEY WERE LOCATED AT ANOTHER LOCATION FOR THE UPCOMING SPECIAL EVENT THAT WILL BE HERE. THEY'VE ALREADY TOLD US THEY WILL NOT BE HERE, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO PLAN AROUND THAT NOW AS WELL.

SO THAT'S A CONCERN THAT WE'VE GOT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING THEY CANNOT USE THIS FACILITY AS IT IS.

AND THAT, I MEAN, SO THAT MEANS OUR CITY STAFF HAS TO GO TO WHEREVER THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

AND IT JUST CONCERNS ME BECAUSE THESE ARE TWO BIG EVENTS.

BUT THEN WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY, I MEAN, IF WE'RE NOT MEETING CERTAIN MINIMUMS FOR THESE EVENTS THAT ARE PLANNED AND ARE COMING OUR WAY WHEN SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP, THAT'S A CUTE THAT WE AREN'T ANTICIPATING. I'M WORRIED THAT WE'RE NOT MEETING.

I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T BE MEETING A MINIMUM FOR THAT EITHER, CORRECT? IF WE HAD ANY SORT OF PROLONGED EMERGENCY EVENT THAT AFFECTED THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WE WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH GETTING OUR 911 WORKERS IN.

WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHERE MY STAFF IS, MUCH LESS ALL THE OTHER FUNCTIONS THAT ARE BASED HERE AT CITY HALL.

RIGHT. SOME OF THOSE FUNCTIONS, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN WORK OFFSITE OR YOU CAN HAVE THAT IN ANOTHER LOCATION WITH ALL OF OUR TECHNOLOGY AND OUR HUB BEING HERE AT CITY HALL, LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO RELOCATE THOSE THINGS.

SO IF THERE WAS EVER ANY REASON THAT CITY HALL WAS OFFLINE, WE WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES, BOTH WITH MY OPERATION AS WELL AS THE 911 OPERATION.

SO IT'S SAID THAT THIS IS A BUNKER. THERE'S NO SAFER PLACE TO BE IN DALLAS.

THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE PERFECT PLACE TO LOCATE SOMETHING LIKE AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER OR 911.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO I MEAN, YOU JUST MADE A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT MAKE, YOU KNOW, DRIVE THAT HOME, BUT WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT, OH, WE HAVE TO BE HERE BECAUSE IT'S CONCRETE AND WE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PLACE ELSE THAT WOULD BE SAFE. YEAH.

SO THE, THE BUILDING AND THE HARDENING OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS CERTAINLY ONE THING, AND I TAKE NO EXCEPTION TO THAT.

I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT AN EXPERT IN BUILDING BUILDINGS.

WHAT I AM KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT AND TRAINED IN IS THE LOCATION AND THE RISK OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN A LOCATION.

AND I GO BACK TO THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USED, IS THAT THE RISK FOR THEM WAS TOO HIGH TO BE OPERATING OUT OF HERE WITH US DURING THE FIFA AND THE, THE BIG UPCOMING EVENT.

AND I THINK THAT WE, WE CAN SOLVE THAT ISSUE.

AND THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE AND WE'VE KIND OF BROUGHT UP THE CHALLENGES THAT COME WITH THAT.

SO WHAT I HEAR THERE IS NOT JUST, IT'S THE RISK TO THAT, THAT GROUP THAT WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH THAT IS A RISK TO OUR RESIDENTS ULTIMATELY.

YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY POTENTIAL THAT IF THERE WAS A DISRUPTION TO SERVICE, EITHER DUE TO A LACK OF REDUNDANCY OR A LACK OF ACCESS TO THIS BUILDING YOU KNOW, LIKELY THAT WOULD OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE NEEDED, RIGHT? BECAUSE SOME SORT OF INCIDENT OCCURRED. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE WOULD BE TRYING TO RECONSTITUTE OPERATIONS SOMEWHERE ELSE AT SOME VERY DEGRADATED STATE WHILE WE TRIED TO BALANCE OUT.

SO WE NEED SOMETHING TOP NOTCH OFF OF THE SITE THAT IS ALSO A CRITICAL FACILITY THAT IS NOT SUCH A LIGHTNING ROD FOR ANY CITY HALL.

I MEAN, ADJACENT TO A PLAZA. DO OTHER TOP CITIES DO IT THIS WAY? APOLOGIES. YES. SO EVERYTHING THAT, THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, TO STUDY AND HAVE PROVIDED IN, IN THIS PROCESS HAS, HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT THAT OTHER BIG CITIES DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST, THEY HAVE CRITICAL FUNCTIONS TOGETHER.

NAMELY IN, IN MOST OPERATIONAL INSTANCES, YOU HAVE YOUR NINE ONE 1 IN 1 ROOM, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE THAT. WE HAVE THEM SEPARATED. AND THAT DOES CREATE COMMUNICATIONS AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES WITH WITH THE SEPARATION.

THE SECOND THING YOU DO IS, IS AGAIN THE SIGHTING, RIGHT? SO NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CONDITIONS AND THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, JUST THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL LOCATION AS WELL AS THE DESIGN OF HOW THAT LOCATION OPERATES.

AND ON THOSE TWO FRONTS, I THINK THAT WE WE MISSED THE MARK HERE.

WELL, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT. WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW TO SERVE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS IS NOT OPTIMAL.

I MEAN, ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE CITING AND YOU ARE THE EXPERT ON THIS.

THAT IT'S JUST NOT THE BEST IT COULD BE OR THE SAFEST IT COULD BE AT TIMES THAT WOULD BE THE MOST CRITICAL TO SERVE AND TO SUPPORT THOSE IN NEED AND IN

[06:55:07]

DANGER. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US THAT BACKGROUND.

I JUST DON'T THINK WE'VE DUG INTO IT INTO THAT DETAIL.

THANK YOU MAYOR. OKAY. I'M GOING TO, CHAIRMAN MORENO FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. THE TRUTH AND THE REALITY IS THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE PROJECTS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT.

THEY'RE NEEDED. THESE ARE NOT ONCE. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO GET DONE.

STATION FOUR RIGHT BEHIND US SERVES SEVERAL COMMUNITIES.

IT SERVES DOWNTOWNS IN DISTRICT 14. DISTRICT TWO WITH THE FARMERS MARKETS, THE CEDARS, AND TWO AND SEVEN PORTIONS OF ONE AND SIX AS WELL. SO THE REALITY THIS IS NOT JUST IN ONE DISTRICT, IT'S SERVING AN ENTIRE PART OF DOWNTOWN.

THERE'S SPECIAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S AT THIS STATION THAT CAN ONLY DO CERTAIN THINGS IN DOWNTOWN.

THE PROPERTY ROOM IS MUCH, MUCH NEEDED. I'LL JUST KEEP IT AT THAT.

I THINK HOPEFULLY BY NOW, EVERYONE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO DOWN THERE AND PAY A VISIT.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOND COUNCIL WHEN WE DO BONDS, LET'S SAY IN THE PARKS OR THE LIBRARIES, IT'S ALL IN ONE PROPOSITION. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THINGS THE WAY WE HAVE.

WE DON'T BREAK THEM OUT BY ONE ITEM AT A WITHIN A PROPOSITION.

CORRECT. SO PUBLIC SAFETY IS AN EXCEPTION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL ALLOW YOU TO GROUP YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY, FIRE, POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INTO ONE PROPOSITION.

BUT NO, YOU CANNOT COMBINE PARKS AND LIBRARIES.

THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE. I'M SORRY. SO I WAS MAKING MORE OF A REFERENCE WITHIN PARKS.

WE DON'T BREAK THAT OUT BY INDIVIDUAL PARK LINE ITEMS. IT'S AN ENTIRE. TYPICALLY YOU DO NOT KNOW. OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN HERE ARE IMPORTANT.

AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

THANK YOU MAYOR. OKAY. NOW WE'RE TO THREE MINUTES FOR MR. BAZALDUA.

MR. BAZALDUA, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE PROPOSITION A IN THE AMOUNT OF $150 MILLION IN REFERENCE TO THE PRESENTATION FOR THE DPD PROPERTY ROOM. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. LET ME JUST MAKE A NOTE HERE. THIS IS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CAN HELP EVERYBODY KEEP IT STRAIGHT.

DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS WHAT? 151 50 AND IT'S FOR THE PROPERTY ROOM.

YES, SIR. THE THE ONE BEFORE. OKAY. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON THAT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD ASK THE THE BOND COUNCIL JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE BROUGHT DOWN AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE THAT I THINK WAS, WAS MISINTERPRETED BY MY COLLEAGUE, MR. MORENO, IS I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSITIONS ARE USUALLY GROUPED BY A PROPOSITION.

IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, BY THE TIME IT GETS TO BEING WORKED INTO A GROUPED PROPOSITION, IS THERE EXTENSIVE SCRUTINY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROP? OF COURSE PROJECT WITHIN THE PROPOSITION.

LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

SO IS IT A NORMAL PROTOCOL FOR US TO ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY, AS THE GOVERNING BODY, TO CONSIDER THINGS GROUPED? OR IS THERE USUALLY A MORE EXTENSIVE PROCESS FOR US TO WORK INTO WHAT IS GROUPED IN THE END? WELL, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT TWO THINGS, YOUR PROCESS THAT YOU DO INTERNALLY IS NOT SOMETHING I HANDLE.

SO WHAT YOU DO HERE BEFORE IT GETS TO ME, I DON'T KNOW.

I DO NOT TYPICALLY SEE PROPOSITIONS THAT LIST OUT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT COMMON BECAUSE YOU WOULD TEND TO BIND YOURSELF AND IF YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND, YOU WOULD BE STUCK, RIGHT? SO TO YOUR POINT, IF YOU WERE ASKING, COULD I HAVE A PROPOSITION THAT SAYS YOU KNOW, 150 MILLION TO DO AND YOU LIST ALL THE PROJECTS THAT YOU WANT TO DO, YOU COULD HAVE THAT IT WOULD BIND YOU TO DO THOSE PROJECTS.

SURE. AND SO WITH THAT, WITH THAT SAID, THOUGH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO NOTE THE RISKS AS WELL.

[07:00:03]

AND BY GROUPING EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND IT BEING ALL OR NOTHING, IF THERE WERE IF IT WERE TO FAIL.

CORRECT. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? SO ANY PROPOSITION THAT FAILS YOU WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ISSUING NON-VOTING DEBT FOR THAT SAME PROJECT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS.

SO TO YOUR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD A PROPOSITION THAT SAYS WE WANT $5 MILLION TO RECONSTRUCT SMITH STREET, RIGHT? AND IT FAILED, THEN YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO SMITH STREET.

IF YOU HAVE A MORE BROAD PROPOSITION THAT SAYS, WE WANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO JUST CITY STREETS, AND IT FAILED, THERE IS A RISK THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T DO ANY STREET PROJECTS WITH NON-VOTING DEBT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. NOW, THAT DOES NOT PROHIBIT YOU FROM HAVING ANOTHER ELECTION.

SO YOU COULD TRY AGAIN AT THE NEXT ELECTION TO HAVE A PROPOSITION PASSED.

IT ONLY PROHIBITS YOU ON ISSUING NON-VOTING DEBT FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD.

SO I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE RISKS ASSOCIATED, I THINK THAT THERE'S OF COURSE, THERE'S THE POLITICAL WILL COMPONENT OF, OF GROUPING THINGS TOGETHER AND HOPING THAT SOME ARE MORE POPULAR AND IT'LL CARRY IT ALL TO THE END.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT IF GROUPING THIS ALL TOGETHER, MR. BAZALDUA, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE GETTING BACK TO THE MERITS OF GROUPING VERSUS NOT GROUPING VERSUS YOUR OWN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ABOUT 150 MILLION.

I KNOW I'M ONLY ASKING FOR SOME ADVICE ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS.

IT MAKES SENSE FOR ME TO PULL THIS BACK, BECAUSE IF IF THERE IS RISK ASSOCIATED, THEN I THINK THAT THAT IS IT WARRANTS MY CASE FOR WANTING TO BACK OUT SOME OF THESE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND BE ABLE TO INDIVIDUALLY SCRUTINIZE.

I BELIEVE THAT ABOUT THAT. THAT'S GREAT. YEAH.

WELL, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE FOR IT, MR. MAYOR, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THIS AND DON'T TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY ROOM INDIVIDUALLY AND POTENTIALLY GETTING TO MOVE THAT OUT, THIS PROPERTY ROOM COULD BE THE REASON THAT THE TRAINING FACILITY FOR DPD DOESN'T PASS AT ALL, AND IT COULD BE THE REASON THAT PREVENTS US FROM ISSUING ANY OTHER FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

JUST BECAUSE WE PUT ALL OF OUR EGGS IN ONE GROUPED TOGETHER PROPOSITION BASKET.

SO I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO ARTICULATE WHY IT IS THAT I AM AM MOVING TO BACK THIS AMOUNT OUT AND FOR WHAT PROJECT.

BUT I THINK IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE CONTEXT TO THE RISK THAT'S ASSOCIATED TO, TO WHY THIS IS IN ORDER AND WHY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE WOULD BE CONSIDERED FROM THE BODY. IT'S A LOT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED AND WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

ET-CETERA. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES TO THE POTENTIAL FAILURE OF ALL OF THE PROJECTS, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CHOOSING TO GROUP THEM IN TOGETHER.

SO FOR THAT, I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE ON WHY I BELIEVE BACKING $150 MILLION OUT OF THE 443 AND TOTAL PROPOSITION.

AND THIS SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY ROOM IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE.

BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE. CONFIDENT IN IN PUTTING THINGS ALL TOGETHER AND HOPING THAT THIS GETS IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WHEN I THINK THAT IT COULD ACTUALLY COME BACK TO BITE US.

AND IF WHAT IT IS THAT WE TRULY ARE TRYING TO GET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE IS THE PROMISE THAT WE'VE MADE TO PUBLIC SAFETY TO, TO THE, TO DPD, SPECIFICALLY TO FINISHING THE FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT.

I WOULD HATE TO SEE SOME OTHER 11TH HOUR PROJECT THAT WAS ADDED INTO THIS GROUP PROPOSITION BE WHAT FAILS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I SEE. SO FOR THAT, I'M MOVING TO, TO MOVE THIS 150 TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY ROOM AS A WHOLE SEPARATELY FOR US TO HAVE. A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE ADOPTING.

I, I APPRECIATE YOU FOR YOUR YOUR ANSWERS. COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA, IF YOU WILL ANSWER.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS PROPERTY ROOM WAS JUST TOLD TO YOU ABOUT 15 DAYS AGO.

YES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED FROM STAFF TO CONSIDER FUNDING FOR A PROJECT THAT EVEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN THE DISTRICT HAD NO CLUE ABOUT JUST TWO WEEKS AGO.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT THIS BODY WOULD DO MORE DUE DILIGENCE AND VETTING OF PROPOSALS THAN JUST A BLANK CHECK TO $150 MILLION FOR THE NOTION OF A PROJECT THAT THEY OWN.

COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF.

[07:05:01]

IF WE TALK ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WE TALK ABOUT DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS THE STEWARDS OF TAX DOLLARS, THE FACT THAT $150 MILLION IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED TO SEND TO THE VOTERS WHEN WE HAVE REALLY NO IDEA WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED TO BEING ASKED TO THE VOTERS IS VERY PROBLEMATIC.

I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COLLEAGUES WHO CAN'T GIVE ME MUCH MORE DETAIL AT ALL THAN THEY.

THEY SAID THEY NEED IT. THAT'S NOT A GOOD STEWARD OF TAXPAYERS.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. I HAVE SO MANY PIECES OF PAPER HERE, IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.

OKAY. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA RELATED TO $150 REDUCTION, $150 MILLION REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS AND RELATED TO THE PROPERTY ROOM.

THAT'S THE SCOPE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS ONE.

I'LL TELL YOU THAT. I THINK THIS WILL NOT BE VERY POPULAR WITH PEOPLE.

AND IN FACT, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS.

AND SO PART OF ME WANTS TO KEEP IT IN THERE BECAUSE IT'LL HELP SINK THIS WHOLE ITEM.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I APPRECIATE THAT. WELL, WHAT IF IT DOES ACTUALLY PASS AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS IN THERE.

SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT WITH IT.

I REALIZE YOU'RE PULLING IT OUT. BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA WAS ABOUT THE LACK OF REAL PLANNING THAT'S HAPPENED.

AND WE'VE SEEN THIS PROBLEM ACTUALLY IN SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AS WELL.

WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE ACADEMY, BUT NOW WE'VE GOT TWO LOCATIONS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WE WERE DOING, AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR THAT.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PROJECTS GOING ON IN THIS CITY, BY THE WAY.

THEY'RE NOT GOING THAT WELL. I'M NOT SURE THAT OUR STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ANOTHER BIG PROJECT LIKE MOVING THE 911 CENTER. LIKE MOVING THE PROPERTY ROOM.

ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO. I'M GOING TO IT. AND SO TAKING IT OUT TAKES SOME OF THOSE REALLY BIG PROJECTS AWAY BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NEED THEM TO FOCUS ON THE ONES AT HAND.

INCLUDING THE ACADEMIES. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SORT OF NOT SURE WHAT I WOULD WANT, HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE ON THIS.

I'M WONDERING FOR THE $150 MILLION ITEM IF WE COULD GET A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON HOW MUCH OF IT IS FOR THE PROPERTY ROOM, HOW MUCH OF IT IS FOR THE EVIDENTIARY VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY, AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS FOR THE CRIME LAB.

IS THERE ANY AMOUNT OF DETAIL ON THAT THAT YOU CAN SHARE? YES. I WANT TO GO BACK JUST FOR A SECOND ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION AND THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH COUNSEL, BECAUSE I HAVE TWO BRIEFINGS IN FRONT OF ME, AND I'M GOING TO DO ME ONE FAVOR ON HER TIME.

WILL YOU ANSWER HER QUESTIONS FIRST? SURE. YEAH, EXACTLY.

SO WE HAVE TWO BRIEFINGS. WE HAVE THE ONE FROM APRIL THE 15TH WHERE WE PROVIDED A BREAKDOWN OF FUNDING.

AND WE ALSO DID ANOTHER ONE ON JUNE THE 10TH.

AND I'LL REFER TO THE PAGE THAT ACTUALLY HAS THE BREAKDOWN ON PAGE SLIDE 24 FROM THE JUNE 10TH PRESENTATION, WHERE WE ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED BILL BIG AND THE ALTERNATIVE SITE IN JUNE, WE SHOW THE EVIDENTIARY VEHICLE SALVAGE AND BAIT CAR AT 21 MILLION. IF IT'S AT A SITE THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY.

WE SHOW THE DPD PROPERTY, ROOM AND CRIME SCENE AT 114 MILLION.

I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER, 114 MILLION.

AND THEN WE INCLUDE SITE WORK FOR VEHICLE STORAGE FOR 22,800 VEHICLES, PARKING AND UTILITIES AT 15 MILLION.

AND SO IN THAT JUNE BRIEFING, WE ACTUALLY PROVIDED A TABLE THAT INCLUDED THE BREAKDOWN.

NOW THAT WAS THE BREAKDOWN FOR THE TOTAL OF THE 150.

WHAT WE IDENTIFIED IN THAT BRIEFING IS THAT IF WE WERE TO DO IT AT A SITE THAT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY, WE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT SHOWS WHAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED IF WE HAD TO GO AND ACQUIRE POTENTIAL LAND IN ORDER TO DO IT.

AND SO THE TOTAL, IF WE DO IT AT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR THOSE SAME COMPONENTS, CAME TO 232 MILLION.

AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF THOSE NUMBERS IF YOU WOULD LIKE THEM.

SO WE'VE HAD TWO BRIEFINGS WHERE WE SHARED THAT BREAKDOWN APRIL 15TH.

AGAIN, ON JUNE 10TH WHEN WE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED VILL BE OKAY.

[07:10:02]

SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS. THE PROPERTY ROOM FOR 114 MILLION.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S THE PROPERTY ROOM AND CRIME SCENE.

114 MILLION IS WHAT'S IN THE JUNE BRIEFING. SO HAVING BEEN THERE, IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT THAN A WAREHOUSE.

YOU KNOW, THE EASIEST, LEAST EXPENSIVE THING TO ACTUALLY BUILD.

AND THE CRIME LAB. AGAIN, HAVING SEEN IT, THERE'S NO WAY THERE'S NO WAY $114 MILLION.

IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE 14 MILLION, LET ALONE 114 MILLION.

WELL, WHAT ARE WHAT ARE WE THINKING HERE? SO THE 114 MILLION FOR THE PROPERTY ROOM DID INCLUDE I WANT TO SAY LIKE 150, ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET WAS THE NUMBER THAT WE WERE GIVEN FOR PROGRAMING.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT DPD HAD FOR SOME OF THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO BE STORED SEPARATELY. SOME HAD TO BE CONDITIONED SEPARATELY.

AND SO THAT THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WENT INTO THOSE NUMBERS.

WELL, HAVING BEEN IN THE DRUG ROOM, THE GUN ROOM, HAVING SEEN HOW THEY DO THE BALLISTICS TESTING, AND I MEAN, THERE'S THREE MICROSCOPES, THERE'S ONE MACHINE FOR BALLISTIC TESTING.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING EXPANSIVE. IT'S REALLY SMALL.

SO AGAIN, IT WAS PROGRAMING NUMBERS THAT WE HAD.

AND BASED ON WHAT DPD PROVIDED US IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY NEEDED FOR THE NEW BUILDING, THOSE.

THAT'S WHERE OUR NUMBERS CAME FROM. IN FACT, IT'S SO SMALL.

HAVING SEEN PLANO'S PLANO'S CRIME LAB IS MUCH, MUCH LARGER THAN DPD'S.

IT'S SHOCKING. BUT $114 MILLION. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT NUMBER IS COMING UP, AND I CAN'T WAIT TO TALK TO THE VOTERS ABOUT IT.

SO BECAUSE I THINK THE VOTERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW BADLY WE ARE BEING MISLED WITH THIS BOND.

I THINK IT SHOULD STAY IN THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BECAUSE I THINK THEY NEED TO SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS COUNCIL IS BEING LED. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S FUNNY OUTSIDE PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THIS WEEK THAT THEY ARE BEING TOLD THESE ITEMS HAVE TO BE IN THE BOND NOW. WHY? THERE'S A VERY FAVORABLE COUNCIL.

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. IT MEANS WE'RE A BUNCH OF DUMMIES.

THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. THAT WE WILL BUY ANYTHING BEING TOLD TO US, AND WE WILL PUT IT TO THE VOTERS.

AND THE VOTERS GENERALLY SAY YES. WELL, STOP BEING SUCH A FAVORABLE COUNCIL.

USE YOUR BRAIN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA RELATED TO THE 150 MILLION IN THE PROPERTY ROOM.

GOT IT. A QUESTION TO THE BOND COUNCIL. YOU SHOULD COME CLOSER AND BE LESS.

LESS, TRAFFIC LESS. UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO GET YOUR STEPS IN TODAY.

THE THE, THE WAY THE PROPOSITION IS WRITTEN IS $443 MILLION.

THAT IS NOT THAT $443 MILLION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC PROJECT.

IT DOES NOT. IT'S BASICALLY A LINE OF CREDIT FOR $443 MILLION.

WE CAN SPEND IT REALLY TECHNICALLY ON ANYTHING RELATED TO FIRE SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY, WHATEVER THE DEFINITION IS.

WELL, ON A CAPITAL PROJECT, ON CAPITAL PROJECTS.

BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC PROJECTS. IT IS. IT IS NOT.

OKAY. SO IF WE REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE ASKING THE PUBLIC TO GIVE US, WE'RE BASICALLY NOT HAVING MONEY TO SPEND ON OTHER THINGS.

IF A PROJECT CAN'T BE DONE, IF THERE MAY BE AN OVERRIDE, IF WE IF WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT COMES UP. SO IT LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO SPEND THE MONEY WHEN WE GET WHEN WE OFFER THE BONDS OUT.

RIGHT. IF YOU TAKE. YOU HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND.

YES. CORRECT. OKAY. YOU HAVE LESS LINE OF CREDIT, RIGHT? OKAY. AND SO WE DON'T AND WE DON'T START PAYING ON THE BONDS UNTIL WE ISSUE THE BONDS.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GETTING THE VOTERS TO APPROVE $443 MILLION FOR US TO USE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. NOW, ANECDOTALLY, WE CAN PRIORITIZE OR WE CAN SUGGEST THAT THESE ARE PRIORITIES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROJECTS.

[07:15:02]

NO, YOU'RE YOU'RE JUST BOUND TO ONLY SPEND THE MONEY ON CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD CERTAINLY IF WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO THE VOTERS, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE VOTERS TO APPROVE US TO BE ABLE TO BORROW MONEY.

WE BETTER ASK FOR AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET FROM THEM.

AND SO IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT BY 150 MILLION OR BY ANY AMOUNT, BECAUSE WE FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT DOWN. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE THE MONEY OUT UNLESS WE SELL THE BONDS.

WE. WE CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT NOT TO SELL THE BONDS.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THE MONEY ANYWAY. WE'RE ESTABLISHING A LINE OF CREDIT, AND IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRIORITY.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTRACTUAL PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE TO DO.

BUT WE CAN DISCUSS A PRIORITY SYSTEM IF WE WANT TO.

IT ALLOWS US ALSO TO MOVE MONEY AROUND BETWEEN PROJECTS IF WE WOULD WANT TO.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER HANDCUFFS RELATED TO THE ABILITY TO USE THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD GET PERMISSION FROM THE VOTERS TO SPEND OTHER THAN THE CAPITAL CAPITAL PROJECT WITHIN THAT BUCKET? NO, NO, THAT WOULD BE AT THIS COUNCIL'S DISCRETION.

OKAY. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY WE DO NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT.

WE ASK FOR THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN GET. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE WE'RE JUST LIMITING TO 443 MILLION.

BUT I GET THAT THAT'S THAT'S AN AMOUNT ESTABLISHED BY ANTICIPATED COSTS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THOSE OF THE REQUESTED AMOUNT FOR THE BOND CHAIRMAN WAS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I HAD OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT FALLS UNDER THIS MOTION.

BUT ON THIS MOTION, I, I DO WANT TO GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPERTY.

THE CITY MANAGER CONFIRMED EARLIER THAT ON THE RECORD THAT BEFORE BILL BEGG WAS PROGRAMED FOR ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE ROOM, IF THE FUNDING IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS THE, THE STAFF WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE THAT LOCATION OR DISPROVE IT.

AND IDEALLY STAFF WOULD, MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE LOCATIONS IN MIND BESIDES JUST BILL BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY IS A IN A VALUABLE PART OF THE CITY.

IT'S IN DISTRICT SIX, RIGHT ACROSS THE THE HIGHWAY FROM FROM MY DISTRICT.

AND THAT AREA IS RAPIDLY INCREASING IN VALUE.

AND IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR FOR TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ACCUSATION MADE THAT THIS PLAN WAS ALREADY BAKED.

AND AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND I DID REFERENCE AGAIN THAT IN JUNE, ON JUNE THE 10TH, AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE BREAKOUT OF THE NEEDS ON SLIDE 24, IF YOU WANT TO GO AND REFER TO THE PRESENTATION LATER, WE ACTUALLY SHOWED VR BIG AS AN OPTION AS WELL AS AN ALTERNATIVE SITE.

WE DID NOT ONLY SHOW VR BIG. AND ABSOLUTELY. YOU HAVE EXPRESSED EARLIER IN THIS CONVERSATION A FEW HOURS AGO THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN, WHICH WE DON'T TAKE ACTION, WE WILL BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THIS COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY YES OR NO.

AND DEFINITELY WE UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

I WILL SAY THIS JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, THE CURRENT OPERATION AT VALE IS WHERE WE ARE HOUSING OUR CURRENT EVIDENTIARY VEHICLES THAT WE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN. EVEN IF THAT SITE IS DIVESTED IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THIS FUNDING IS PROVIDED, IT WILL HAVE TO GO SOMEPLACE IN THE CITY.

AND WE KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE COMMUNITY CONCERNS.

I MEAN, WE WILL BE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WE WILL STILL HAVE TO HAVE A LOCATION IN THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO STORE AND BE ABLE TO OPERATE THAT LOCATION. AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT EVEN IF WE FIND SOMETHING THAT WE BRING BACK, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL WANTS TO BRING AS MANY OPTIONS AS POSSIBLE.

IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY. UNLIKELY THAT IT WILL NOT BE IN A COUNCIL DISTRICT IN THE CITY.

SO WE WILL DO ALL OF THE WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE ALL THE CONCERNS, ADJACENCY WHAT'S AROUND IT? IS IT OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT IMPACT ANY COMMUNITIES.

WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. AND THAT WILL BE A PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE WILL DEFINITELY DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LESSENING ANY IMPACT ON ANY PARTICULAR DISTRICT, BUT IT WILL BE IN THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT.

[07:20:07]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

NO, I THINK SHE JUST ANSWERED THE QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST WAS ASKING, BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE COUNCILWOMAN BEING NOTIFIED IN 15 DAYS.

BUT YOU JUST ANSWERED. IT WAS IN A JUNETEENTH BRIEFING, CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. OKAY. THAT'S STILL COUNTED.

JUST SO YOU KNOW. MISS BLACKMON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW IT IS. IT COULD BE ON FILE.

WE LAID OUT TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN THAT JUNE 10TH BRIEFING, JUST TO SHOW THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE KNOW THIS COUNCIL WANTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT JUST SHOW BIG ONLY WE SHOWED VILLE BIG BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY OWN THE SITE AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING THE VEHICLE. THE EVIDENTIARY STORAGE CURRENTLY.

SO WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO SHOW IF WE COULD MAXIMIZE THAT SITE.

AND WE ALREADY OWN THE PROPERTY. AND WE ALSO INCLUDED A DIFFERENT COLUMN THAT SHOWED WHAT THE AMOUNTS MIGHT BE IF IT'S NOT AT THAT SITE, BUT COUNCIL HAS NOT SELECTED THAT AS THE SITE.

WE GAVE YOU TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS BASED ON WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH.

IF COUNCIL CHOOSES FOR US TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

OKAY, SO WE DO WE HAVE A PLAN B IF IT'S NOT PLAN, IF IT'S NOT REAL BIG, I GUESS WE'RE ASKING WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME OTHER SITES ALREADY.

OKAY. IN FACT, WE'VE LOOKED AT, I KNOW AT LEAST ONE OTHER SITE ALREADY.

THIS SUMMER WE WOULD BE ASKING THE TEAM TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT DUE DILIGENCE.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER OPTIONS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS AROUND SOME CONSOLIDATION.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE DOWN ON CANTON.

AND SO WE WILL CONTINUE THAT WORK. AND THEN OF COURSE, COME BACK TO COUNCIL WHEN WE BELIEVE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME FEASIBILITIES TO OTHER LOCATIONS. BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'LL BE BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL ACREAGE THERE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE IT.

BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT A DECISION THAT'S BEEN MADE AT THIS TIME.

BUT WE HAVE LOOKED AT ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE SITE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

AND I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THAT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE GIVEN ITS PROXIMITY TO DOWNTOWN.

I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS PRIME LAND TO DEVELOP.

AND DO WE HAVE THE APPRAISAL? I KNOW WE'VE ASKED FOR IT.

WHEN I WAS ON G P FM WE ASKED IN 2024. I'M JUST WONDERING, DID WE EVER GET AN APPRAISAL? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I'LL CHECK WITH STAFF AND WE CAN PROVIDE IT.

OKAY. BECAUSE I WENT. OKAY. AND BECAUSE IT WAS NUMBER FOUR TO SELL.

AND I WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S LIKE, THAT IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP.

AND I WOULDN'T PUT IT ON CANTON EITHER, BECAUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE CORE, I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING, BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE VOTERS TO TRUST US.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT THE PLAN.

BUT I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPROACH THIS NUMBER ONE.

EVEN IF I WANTED TO MOVE IT TODAY AND I WANTED TO DIVEST THAT SITE, I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO EVEN MOVE IT.

SO NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, IF THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THE COUNCIL AND YOU WANT US TO DIVEST THAT SITE, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT THAT THE EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE.

SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DEBATABLE, I'M NOT TRYING TO DEBATE IT.

I THINK WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT EVEN IF THAT IS THE DECISION, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE TO GO.

I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CLOSE THE SITE DOWN, DIVEST IT, DEVELOP IT, AND THEN DO WHAT WITH THE VEHICLE.

SO WE IT IS STILL SOMETHING. THAT'S WHY I SAY WE STILL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH IT NO MATTER WHAT.

SO WE CAN AT LEAST BRING YOU SOME OPTIONS. YOU CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, MY, MY THING IS YOU CAN ACCEPT, REJECT, MODIFY. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO BEFORE ANY DECISIONS ARE MADE, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WEST HAS REQUESTED.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE BECAUSE I'M GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE.

HENSLEY FIELD WE ALREADY SAW CARS OUT THERE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PLAN AND.

BUT IT MAY BE THAT MAY BE A STOPGAP MEASURE UNTIL WE.

IT'S OKAY. WELL, TYLER AS A AUTO POUND FOR FILL BIG.

AND I MEAN, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO TALK, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITIES HERE THAT THAT COULD BE THERE AS A STOPGAP BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND IT'S LIKE, WOW, THAT IS LIKE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY.

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUILDING.

AND THAT IS THE HEIGHT. I MEAN, YOU GOT THAT SPROUTS.

DIDN'T WE JUST OPEN THAT WHAT, A YEAR AGO, MR.

[07:25:03]

WEST OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. AND IT'S GUYS.

SORRY. OKAY. BACK TO IT REALLY IS ABOUT NO, YOU'VE GIVEN ME A LOT OF LEEWAY, SO I, I DON'T I HATE THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH A KIND OF A PLAN, BUT NOT A REAL PLAN. AND, IT'S. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A LOT OF MONEY TO, TO, TO FIGURE OUT THE PLAN AS WE ARE BUILDING IT.

AND AND SO I THINK I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I DO FEEL THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. IS IT HERE OR ELSEWHERE? AND I DON'T, I FEEL IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO THE VOTERS TO SAY WE HAVE A PLACE FOR IT TO GO, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT A PLACE FOR IT TO GO BECAUSE WE STILL HAVEN'T DECIDED AS A BODY, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING. JUST MY THOUGHTS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA SEEING NONE ANYONE. REQUEST A RECORD ON THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. ALL RIGHT.

MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE A RECORD VOTE ON ALL THESE ITEMS RELATED TO THE BOND.

JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THANK YOU. I GOT YOU.

THANK YOU. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM. JOHNSON. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. NO. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO.

WITH FOUR VOTING IN FAVOR, 11 OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION AGAIN, MR. BAZALDUA. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE PROPOSITION A IN THE AMOUNT OF $40 MILLION IN REFERENCE TO THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER IN 911 MOVE.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. YOU GUYS KNOW THE DRILL BY NOW.

SAME FORMAT, SAME STRUCTURE, SAME CONCEPT. BUT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS HOW MUCH? 40 MILLION. 40 MILLION. AND THIS IS EC911. OKAY.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR OWN MOTION IF YOU WANT IT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO SIMILAR TO OTHERS, I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DEBATE INDIVIDUALLY.

THERE WAS NO WAY TO BRING UP PROJECT BY PROJECT.

THIS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AND 911 IT WAS MENTIONED THAT I THINK OR AT LEAST ALLUDED TO THAT THE FEDS HAVE HAD SOME, HAD SOME WAY IN. CAN, CAN SOMEONE EXPAND ON THAT? IT WAS KEVIN.

GOOD EVENING. I APOLOGIZE, I WAS I WAS IN THE BACK. COULD YOU MIND REPEATING THE QUESTION? I'LL DO IT.

SO I DIDN'T COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME. I CAN ALREADY SEE IT IN YOUR FACE. ELABORATE ON THE ISSUE WITH THE FEDS AND THE IN THE EOC AND NOT FINDING IT SUFFICIENT FOR WHATEVER THEIR PURPOSES WERE. YEAH. CORRECT. SO LOCATION SIGHTING OF, OF CITY HALL BEING RISK REDUNDANCIES WITHIN CITY HALL BEING SUSTAINABLE OPERATIONS. AND THAT WAS BEFORE WE EVEN GOT TO THE, TO THE SPACING AND DESIGN OF DOWNSTAIRS WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIT A FIT THEM ALSO WITH THAT, HOW MUCH HAVE YOU INVESTED IN MODERNIZING THIS FACILITY FROM A FROM A V PERSPECTIVE? WE'VE SPENT MONEY OVER THE YEARS ON LIKE SERVERS AND TECHNOLOGY THAT RUNS THAT.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL SPACE THAT WE OCCUPY, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME SPACE THAT WE OCCUPY 30, 40 YEARS AGO IN CITY HALL. THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

HOW MUCH HAVE YOU INVESTED IN THE SPACE? I'D HAVE TO.

I'D HAVE TO GET YOU A GOOD ANSWER. LIKE GO DO.

I'D HAVE TO GET YOU BACK FROM WHEN WE REMODELED AFTER KATRINA.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LAST TIME THAT ANY WORK WAS DONE IN THE EOC SPACE.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION. WHEN COULD YOU GET IT TO ME?

[07:30:02]

I'LL GO MAKE HASTE ON WHAT WAS DONE. AND WHAT I THINK BACK THEN, THOUGH, IT IT WASN'T LIKE THE SPACE WAS REMODELED.

IT WAS JUST LIKE NEW CARPET AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO I'LL GET WITH JOHN AND OTHERS AND SEE WHAT FILES WE HAVE IN PLACE.

BUT MOST OF OUR WORK IS TECHNOLOGY. WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE FEDS, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE EXCHANGE THERE AND WHAT WHAT FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN FROM THE FEDS? AGAIN, THE, THE, THE SPACING, THE OPERATIONS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR, THE SITE HOSTING THEM AND THE I'M ASKING FOR YOU TO ELABORATE, NOT SAY THE SAME THING. WHAT FEEDBACK DID THEY GIVE SPECIFIC TO THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY.

THIS SITE. WHAT SPACING DID THEY GIVE FEEDBACK ON? WHAT ARE THEY ASKING TO SEE DIFFERENTLY? AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IS WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP AS REASONING IN THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD LEADING UP TO THIS? SO WE TO, TO TAKE THAT APART WE WERE DOING A LOT OF THAT ANALYSIS OF WHO WAS GOING TO BE WHERE EITHER SIMULTANEOUSLY OR JUST AFTER SOME OF THIS CONVERSATION WAS GOING ON.

WHO IS WE? WE AS IN THE TEAM THAT WAS PLANNING FOR THE.

I'M ASKING WHAT THE FEDS GAVE US FEEDBACK ON.

YES, THE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID. WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO PLACE THEIR JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER.

SO CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ELABORATION TO THE FEEDBACK, PLEASE? YEAH, I THINK I MEAN, WE GOT THAT IT THIS SITE WAS NOT GOING TO BE SUITABLE FOR THEM.

I DIDN'T GET LIKE SOME REPORT THAT SAID, SO YOU'RE JUST GIVING US A VAGUE, ARBITRARY STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY SOMEBODY THAT WORKS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US DIRECT FEEDBACK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IT'S A PRETTY I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A PRETTY SERIOUS CLAIM TO SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY WEIGHED IN ON THIS. AND IF THEY HAVE, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.

IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE AS A VAGUE STATEMENT AND THEN HOPE THAT IT'S LIKE, VALIDATE IT, GIVE ME SOME VALIDATION, PLEASE. SO WE MET WITH THEM. WHO IS THEM? WITH THE TEAM RUNNING THE THE JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER.

SO THAT INCLUDED THE THAT WAS PRIMARILY LED BY THE FBI IN THAT CASE THAT WAS OPERATING THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

THAT'S HOW A JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER WORKS. IT'S LIKE AN A EOC FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES AND THINGS THAT GO IN THERE, AND THEY HAVE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SPACE AND THEIR NEEDS AND THE REDUNDANCIES AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. WE MET WITH THEM WITH THE HOPES THAT WE COULD CO-LOCATE THAT HERE.

RIGHT. AND BASED ON WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE WITH THEM, THEY TOLD US IT DID NOT MEET THEIR MINIMUM CRITERIA AND THEY CHOSE ANOTHER.

SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE? HOW DID IT NOT MEET THEIR CRITERIA? WHAT ARE THE SPECS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT IF THEY ARE GIVING FEEDBACK, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO GIVE US MORE THAN THESE VERY BLANKETED HIGH LEVEL STATEMENTS THAT YOU CAN'T ATTRIBUTE OR CITE THE FEDERAL.

THE FEDS WEIGHING IN ON THIS. IF YOU CAN'T MORE ELABORATE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'VE ASKED.

SO, BY THE WAY, THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND SAY IS DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT SAY IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR PROVIDING SECURITY FOR A MAJOR EVENT.

SURE. OKAY. SURE. DON'T DO ANYTHING STUPID. NO, I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS.

I'M ASKING. NO, NO, NO. THAT'S YOUR QUESTION.

YEAH. I'M REALLY SAYING MORE TO THE STAFF HERE.

DON'T ACCIDENTALLY SAY SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY. ABOUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS ARE TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR A MAJOR EVENT.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY ACTUALLY PUBLISH IN A PAMPHLET SOMEWHERE FOR A REASON.

FOR SURE. AND I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT PROTOCOL FOR AN EVENT. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE SPACE AND THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU HAVE ALLEGED WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY.

AND IN A VERY INFORMAL WAY, AND I'M TRYING TO GET SOME ELABORATION ON WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS STATED FROM THE FEDS, WHO THE FEDS WERE AND, AND, AND TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HAVE GIVEN US FEEDBACK ON WHAT WE COULD DO BETTER WITH THIS EOC.

OKAY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. MR. BAZALDUA, IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME, PLEASE.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MY TEAM BEFORE WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS FIRST BEFORE WE BLAB IT OUT.

SO CAN YOU GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE TO CONFER WITH MY TEAM? SURE. AND JUST A REMINDER, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THINGS THAT ARE SENSITIVE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT I THINK IT'S SOME CRITICAL INFORMATION I'D LIKE TO KNOW. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO YOU. DO YOU WANT TO DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ASK IF ANYONE ELSE WITH YOUR TIME? BECAUSE OTHERWISE AT THIS MOMENT. OTHERWISE I'M GOING TO SUSPEND YOUR TIME AT 225, MADAM SECRETARY, AND I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER PERSON. PERFECT.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT. I'M THE OTHER PERSON.

WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER PERSON IN THE QUEUE. SO I'M HOPING THAT EVERYONE HERE HAS BEEN TO THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.

[07:35:06]

IT'S PRETTY SMALL. THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY COULD CO-LOCATE IN THAT SPACE.

IT'S FAR TOO SMALL FOR THAT. THE FIRST TIME YOU GO THERE, I THINK YOU GO, OH, IS THIS IT? REALLY? OKAY BUT THEN YOU FIND OUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER, WHICH IS REALLY JUST GROUPS OF TABLES THAT HAVE A NAME SO THAT THE TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE CAN BE TOGETHER AND THE POLICE CAN BE TOGETHER.

AND MAYBE DART IS WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE, AND THEY CAN FIGURE OUT IN REAL TIME WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND HOW TO SOLVE IT.

AND YOU CAN GO OVER TO YOUR NEIGHBOR AND TALK WITH THAT TABLE AS WELL.

SO I HAVE BEEN THERE DURING CRISIS TIME THE NIGHT ON THE BRIDGE, THOSE OF US WHO ARE A LONG TIME, WE REMEMBER THAT NIGHT ON THE BRIDGE. I HAD SOME VERY INTERESTING VIEWS OF THAT.

THIS IDEA THAT OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER SHOULD NOT BE IN CITY HALL IS JUST COMPLETELY WRONG.

THIS BUILDING WAS ACTUALLY BUILT FOR THAT. SO LOTS OF 911 CENTERS ARE NO LONGER IN A CITY HALL, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CITY HALL LIKE THIS BUILDING.

THIS IS THE ONLY BUILDING IN THE COUNTRY THAT WAS REALLY DESIGNED FOR THIS KIND OF PURPOSE.

AND IT HAS SO MANY DIFFERENT REDUNDANCIES AND PLANS FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS THAT OTHERS NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WHICH WE HAVE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, I REALIZE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SHARED PUBLICLY.

IT'S CLEAR NOTHING MEASURES UP TO WHAT WE HAVE, AT LEAST IN THE BONES TODAY.

NOW, AS HAS BEEN SAID, AND I AGREE, THERE ARE DOLLARS NEEDED TO SORT OF UPDATE THE 911 CENTER.

I'VE OUTLINED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IT NEEDS.

SAME THING FOR EMERGENCY OPERATION. IT NEEDS A MUCH BETTER VIDEO WALL AND FRANKLY, IT NEEDS MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THERE'S NO WAY A FEDERAL AGENCY WOULD CHOOSE TO CO-LOCATE WITH US.

HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE DID THE FEDERAL AGENCY SELECT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY SELECTED A LOCATION.

CORRECT. OH, IT'S NOT MY TIME. SO MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THE UPCOMING BIG EVENT IS THAT THEY WILL OPERATE OUT OF THE DALLAS COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER WHICH IS UP NORTH.

AND IT'S BIG AND BEAUTIFUL AND VERY, VERY SPACIOUS.

LOTS OF PARKING. YOU YOU KNOW WHAT? IF WE WERE TO MOVE EMERGENCY OPERATION TO BELLEVUE, YOU GOT A SERIOUS PARKING PROBLEM.

IS THAT OKAY? I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S. IT'S PART OF.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE TYING IT TO THIS AMENDMENT AND WHAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD DO, NOT THE MERITS. OKAY. SO EMERGENCY OPERATION.

YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL STAFF. YOU'RE VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE NEED YOU.

HOW MANY STAFF MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE IN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS? WE HAVE 12 POSITIONS.

12. OKAY. AND A REGULAR SHIFT FOR 901 HAS ABOUT 100 PEOPLE DOWN THERE.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. ON THE ON THE POLICE SIDE.

AND THEN I BELIEVE IT'S ANOTHER DOZEN TO A DOZEN AND A HALF ON THE FIRE SIDE.

ROBERT, YOU'RE AGREEING WITH THAT? YEAH. YES, MA'AM.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. SO WHILE I DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ISSUE, THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE 911 CENTER, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF SHIFTS AND FRANKLY, A WHOLE LOT OF CALLS.

AND SO CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE INVESTMENTS WE HAVE MADE IN THE 911 CENTER IN TECHNOLOGY? SO WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH CAD AND MMS REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

HOWEVER, FROM THE FACILITY PERSPECTIVE I BELIEVE THE LAST REMODEL WAS COMPLETED.

SO I'M TALKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. OH, TECHNOLOGY.

I'M SORRY. TECHNOLOGY. SO OUR CAD SYSTEM HAS WAS IMPLEMENTED IN 2007.

SO THAT BASIC CAD SYSTEM WAS IS 021 YEARS OLD OR SO, 2020 SOME ODD YEARS OLD.

AS FAR AS THE 911 PHONE EQUIPMENT WE HAD A RECENT HARDWARE UPGRADE IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER OF 25.

THAT WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THAT. DO YOU REMEMBER 4.3 OR SO MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS PART OF THE NINE ANYONE FUND ALLOCATION THERE, BUT THAT THAT JUST BROUGHT OLD SERVERS UP TO CURRENT SERVER STATUS AND RENEWED SOME OF THE

[07:40:07]

CONTRACT PIECES TO THAT. SO THAT THAT INVESTMENT HAS ULTIMATELY HAS PUT US AT A SPACE WHERE WE'RE STILL RELYING ON, ON WHAT WE CALL ON PREMISE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONE, SOME OF THE OLDER TYPES OF SOLUTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE. SO FOR THE NEW SERVERS WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO MOVE TO A NEW LOCATION? THE, BY MOVING TO ANOTHER LOCATION UNDER THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION, WE WOULD HAVE TO EITHER REPURCHASE OR MOVE THE CURRENT SERVICES OR SERVERS TO A NEW LOCATION. BUT YOU COULDN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING OUR SYSTEM DOWN AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT DOWN.

CORRECT. OUR 911 SYSTEM SHOULD BE OPERATIONAL 247.

CORRECT. SO EVERYTHING WILL BE NEW IN A NEW CENTER.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. HOW ABOUT THE NEW CHAIRS YOU JUST BOUGHT? NEW CHAIRS. RIGHT. WE JUST BOUGHT NEW CHAIRS.

CORRECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MONITORS. MONITORS.

THEY THEY'RE ON A REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE. EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS.

WE DO RECEIVE NEW MONITORS. OKAY. IS THERE DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED TO REDO THE KITCHEN AND THE FIRE SIDE? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER. I BELIEVE IT WAS. I'LL LET CHIEF BALL TALK ABOUT IT.

I THINK THERE WAS SOME ISSUES THAT CAUSED THAT NOT TO HAPPEN.

FIRST SAY HOW MUCH IT IS AND THEN AND HOW. TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS MONEY.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I SAW IT. I WAS THINKING IT WAS 140,000.

BUT THE, THE THEN THEY REALIZED THEY'D HAVE TO PULL UP THE FLOOR AND THE WIRING THAT GOES UNDER THE FLOOR. AND THEN THE, THE OVEN, I DON'T THINK THEY CAN HAVE AN OVEN.

IT WAS A COLOSSAL AMOUNT TO BE ABLE TO VENT THE OVEN OUT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES WERE.

SO IT'S BEEN IT'S IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LIKE I HEARD TEN YEARS IN THE YOU RECEIVE FUNDING TO DO THIS, BUT IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO DO IT.

NO, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE FUNDING. WE, WE WE GOT MONEY BACK FROM REIMBURSEMENTS FROM DEPLOYMENTS AND WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT MONEY.

I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH WHAT YOU SAID. WE HAD A FUND THAT WE GOT MONEY BACK FROM OUR REIMBURSEMENTS WHEN WE DEPLOY, AND WE WERE GOING TO USE MONEY OUT OF THAT. WE HAD IT.

WE HAD MONIES FOR REMODELING STATIONS AND, AND THIS AND THAT, AND WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT MONEY.

HOW COME THIS WAS A FEW YEARS AGO? HOW COME YOU DIDN'T? HOW COME WE DIDN'T DO IT? BECAUSE IT GOT I'M NOT SURE ALL THE INFORMATION.

MAYBE CHIEF ROSS KNOWS, BUT I KNOW THEY CAME INTO PROBLEMS WITH THE OVEN AND THE.

PULLING THE WHOLE FLOOR UP BECAUSE OF THE. THE WIRING IS UNDER THE FLOOR AND IT ENDED UP BEING A LOT BIGGER DEAL THAN WE THOUGHT.

YEAH, WE'LL LET BILLING SERVICE BRIAN FROM DIRECTOR TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. BRIAN THOMPSON INTERIM DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT.

SO FOR THE DFR KITCHEN REMODEL WE DID START A DESIGN PROCESS, BUT DUE TO FUNDING RESTRICTIONS AND A LACK OF AVAILABLE FUNDING TO FINISH THAT PROJECT HAS NOT MOVED ON. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT FIGURES RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN PROVIDE THOSE TO YOU.

BUT THERE ACTUALLY WAS FUNDING. IT WAS JUST DECIDED IT WOULD END UP GOING TO A STATION INSTEAD.

CORRECT. I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU. I DON'T HAVE.

PRETTY SURE I'M CORRECT ON THIS. AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A TRACK FLOOR THAT'S CAVED IN.

AND SO INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE PANELS BACK ON THE TRACK SO THAT THE WIRES CAN BE UNDERNEATH, IT'S ALL WONKY. VERY. I MEAN, I HOPE THAT NOBODY IS WALKING ON IT.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHY THE PANELS WEREN'T JUST PICKED UP AND MAYBE SOME RUBBER LAID OVER.

THE WIRES HAVE A VERY FANCY OVEN STOVETOP, AND I GUESS THE INTEREST WAS IN ONLY GETTING THE NICEST ONE POSSIBLE. BUT I BET IF YOU WENT TO BEST BUY, YOU COULD GET SOMETHING THAT WOULD JUST ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THE WHOLE ISSUE FOR $140,000. SO I CAN SEE I'M ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF TIME.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT SLEEPING THERE, SLEEPING THERE, AND HAVING A 24 HOUR SHIFT IS A CHOICE. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.

[07:45:05]

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA RELATED TO THE 911 EOC? I THINK I'M STILL.

HEY, YOU STILL HAVE TIME? YEAH, IF YOU WANT IT.

BUT YOU'RE NOT IN THE QUEUE. DO YOU WANT. BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WERE COMING BACK TO ME. THEY'RE BRINGING ME ANSWERS. OH, DID THEY GET YOU YOUR ANSWERS? NO, I DIDN'T GET ANSWERS.

OKAY, WELL, THEN WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ITEM THEN OR SOMETHING.

OR ANOTHER DEAL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO RIGHT NOW.

WE GOTTA KEEP WE GOTTA KEEP THE WORKFLOW FLOWING. YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE MARKING MY TIME AT TWO MINUTES.

YEAH, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU TIME BACK, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, DO YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IT, OR DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT? I THINK HE DOES. I THINK HE DOES.

LET'S GO. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. YEAH. WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER APPROVED ANSWER.

SO IS IT 225? SO YOU'RE AT 225? YES. AND, MR. BASIL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? YES. SO WE WANTED TO HAVE THE FEDERAL OPERATION HERE WITH US DURING FIFA, JUST AS I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM HERE DURING THE BIG UPCOMING EVENT.

WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS THAT INCLUDED THE FBI, WHO WERE THE LEADS OF THAT PLANNING WE OFFERED.

THEY SAID, OKAY, WE HAVE TO DO OUR OWN ASSESSMENT.

INTERNAL. THOSE ARE THINGS I DON'T SEE. AND WE HOSTED THEM FOR THAT.

AND THE FEEDBACK WE GOT BACK WAS THE SIGHTING, AS IN THE RISK PROFILE OF CITY HALL ITSELF, AS WELL AS THE SPACE AND CONDITIONS WEREN'T GOING TO FIT THEIR OPERATIONAL NEEDS.

AND SO THEY CHOSE A DIFFERENT LOCATION AND THAT IS WHERE THEY OPERATED OUT OF.

THE CHALLENGE THERE WAS WE HAD TO THEN DUPLICATE STAFF, RIGHT? SO I HAD TO HAVE SOME FIRE PEOPLE HERE AND SOME FIRE PEOPLE THERE AND SOME POLICE HERE AND SOME POLICE THERE.

AND SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TELEPHONE GOING BACK AND FORTH.

THAT CAUSE ISSUE THAT WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED IF WE WERE ABLE TO HOST EVERYBODY IN THE ONE LOCATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. THAT WAS THE APPROVED ANSWER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, MADAM CITY MANAGER, AND THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER. THAT'S DEFINITELY HELPFUL.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSITION OR THIS COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSITION, WHICH IS WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO BACK OUT THE 40 MILLION. I WILL BE, OF COURSE, VOTING IN FAVOR OF MY MOTION, AND I'M HOPING TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE JUST ARE FOCUSING ON THE PROMISES THAT WE MADE WITH THE TRAINING FACILITY AND NOT BRINGING IN LAST MINUTE WISH LISTS AND MAXING OUT OUR CREDIT CARD WHEN IT'S NOT BEEN A NEED. THERE ARE A GREAT DEAL OF NEEDS THAT HAVE COME UP THROUGH THE DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL FUTURE BONDS, AND I THINK THAT NOT SEEING THEM INCLUDED IN HERE DRAWS QUESTION ON WHY IT THEY THEY HAVE BEEN DROPPED DOWN IN PRIORITY FROM PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS.

WE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FIRE SPECIFICALLY THAT IS NOW STILL IN THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

AND I WILL ASK QUESTIONS WHEN WE GET BACK THERE, BUT I'M CURIOUS WHY THE DOLPHIN TRAINING FACILITY, FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT A COMPONENT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH OUT OR IF THERE IS THE FLEXIBILITY SINCE IT'S NOT LISTED FOR THAT TO POTENTIALLY GET SOME FUNDS FROM THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE CASE, BUT ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE THAT ANSWER TO KNOW IF I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WE'RE TRYING TO DWINDLE THIS DOWN IS THE ANSWER.

I MEAN, IS THE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER. BAZALDUA.

IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE THE DOLPHIN TRAINING COMPONENT INTO THIS PACKAGE.

WELL, AS IT'S PRESENTED BECAUSE SINCE IT'S NOT ITEMIZED WITH EACH PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IF I WERE TO MOVE THIS 40, IF I WERE TO MOVE THIS 40 MILLION OUT, INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO KEEP IT IN FOR THE, THE TOTAL NUMBER.

AND THEN I HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADVOCATE FROM NOW UNTIL THEN TO TO MAKE THE DOLPHIN TRAINING FACILITY BE PRIORITIZED IN THE PACKAGE.

IS THAT EVEN A POSSIBILITY? I THINK COUNCIL HAS THAT ABILITY AS THE BOND COUNCIL EXPLAINED THAT THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT SOMETHING CHANGES. COUNCIL CHOOSES OTHER CAPITAL RELATED PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

THAT IS YOUR ABILITY. AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY JUST WORK THROUGH IT TOGETHER AND HOPEFULLY GET US ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WITH THE VOTERS.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT, REMEMBER, WE COME TO COUNCIL BEFORE WE EVEN ISSUE THE DEBT, AND THERE COULD BE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

BUT I THINK AS LONG AS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT IS FOCUSED ON THOSE CAPITAL RELATED PROJECTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY.

I KNOW THAT THE DAUPHIN ROAD TRAINING FACILITY IS A PART OF OUR SAFETY PORTFOLIO.

SO AGAIN, THAT COULD BE DIRECTLY THE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL AND YOUR GUIDANCE.

[07:50:05]

I WOULDN'T OPPOSE TO IT, BUT IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU COULD DO AT THAT TIME.

WE'RE STILL I THINK WE'RE STILL TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE SUPPORT TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD WOULD PROBABLY THINK THAT THERE'S SOME VALIDITY TO THE THE STRATEGY THAT MISS MENDELSON MENTIONED IN HAVING THIS BE AS LARGE OF A PROPOSITION AS POSSIBLE THAT GOES TO THE VOTERS.

SO FOR THAT, I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. NO. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? I OBJECT. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF HIM BEING ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ME? THE AYES HAVE IT, SO IT'S WITHDRAWN.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, CONGRESSMAN, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YEAH. THE MASTERS OF WASTING TIME. GREAT JOB CONGRESSMAN.

I HAVE A BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING HERE. THE CITY MANAGER IS ALSO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS UNDER OUR RULES, AND SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'S ASKED YOU TO DO THIS, BUT APPARENTLY ALL THE SPACE HEATER USAGE AT THE DIAS IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE CLOCK.

THE THE ACTUAL CLOCK, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BEING SHORTED OUT FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE OF ALL THE EXCESSIVE SPACE HEATER USAGE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THE MEMBERS TO JUST FOR A FEW, YOU KNOW, MOMENTS OF STOP THE SPACE HEATER USAGE SO WE CAN GET THE CLOCK WORKING AGAIN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES AND THIS IS ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

NO, MA'AM. WE'RE ACTUALLY WE'RE STILL ON. NO, WE'RE STILL ON.

BUT HE WITHDREW HIS MOTION. WOULD WE JUST DO THAT? OKAY. WE'RE BACK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION. SEE? YOU PAYING ATTENTION. YEAH. HE DID. HE WITHDREW IT. SO WE'RE BACK ON THE MAIN. SO I HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I BELIEVE I DO. YOU'RE ON A SECOND ROUND. THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. WHY? IN THE 2024 BOND WAS THE 911 CENTER NOT INCLUDED.

WONDERING IF CHIEF ARTIST COULD PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. I HAVE TO REMEMBER BACK.

I THINK AT THAT TIME I MAY HAVE STILL BEEN IN FIRE AT THAT TIME.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY. 911 WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE BOND.

I KNOW THAT WE WERE TRYING TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT UPGRADE, MAKE SOME UPGRADES BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING ISSUES DOWN IN THE 911 CENTER WITH OUR KITCHEN.

WE HAD SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES WITH SOME TECHNOLOGY ALSO DOWN THERE.

BUT THAT'S, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY IT WASN'T IN THE BOND, BUT DON'T YOU THINK IT'S SHOCKING THAT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT JUST TWO YEARS AGO IN A BOND AND NOW WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE TO ABANDON IT. WE CAN'T EVEN REPAIR THE CENTER.

NOT AT ALL. WITH HOW WE'VE SEEN TECHNOLOGY CONTINUES TO UPGRADE ITSELF, AS WELL AS HOW MACHINES JUST BREAK DOWN OVER TIME. WE'VE SEEN THE NEED TO UPGRADE IN MANY DIFFERENT SPACES, NOT ONLY IN 911.

DEFINITELY THE PROPERTY ROOM. IF YOU'VE BEEN OVER THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT DEFINITELY NEEDS A LOT OF HELP.

AND SO THESE ARE JUST AREAS THAT IT'S TIME AND NEEDED TO DO A LOT OF UPGRADES.

I THINK VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO QUESTION WHY WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THE PROPERTY ROOM IN THE 24 BOND.

IN MY CASE, I'LL SAY I NEVER SAW IT. I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW BAD IT WAS.

DID WE EVER HAVE A BRIEFING ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY ROOM OR THE 911 CENTER, OR THE E OR THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER? NOT ONCE. I DON'T BELIEVE AT PUBLIC SAFETY DID WE EVER HAVE A BRIEFING ABOUT THESE CONDITIONS? I BELIEVE THERE WAS A BRIEFING ABOUT THE 911, THE 911 AND THE EOC YEARS AGO.

I'M NOT SURE IF I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR SEVEN YEARS.

I'VE GONE BACK. THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE. I'VE BEEN HERE EITHER TO FULL COUNCIL OR TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, OF WHICH I'VE BEEN A MEMBER THE ENTIRE TIME, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A BRIEFING, AND I'M RECALLING THIS OFF THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY MIND.

BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO A BRIEFING ABOUT THE PROPERTY ROOM ALSO.

I THINK IN 2023, I BELIEVE. BUT I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DEFINITELY LOOK THAT UP.

RIGHT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT WHEN WE START SAYING THAT A BUILDING OR A FUNCTION HAS TO BE MOVED BECAUSE OF THE POOR CONDITION, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT, WE SHOULD ALL BE EXPECTING IT.

WE SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT OURSELVES.

[07:55:02]

SO WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY HALL ITSELF, WHERE WE WEREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS A YEAR AGO OR THE 911 CENTER, WHICH AGAIN WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED A YEAR AGO.

IT'S QUITE SHOCKING THAT NOW WE WOULD ASK FOR $443 MILLION OF OUR VOTERS WHEN WE HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE ISSUES.

TO TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA SAID HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, IF THESE DOLLARS COULD BE MOVED TO DOLPHIN ROAD TO THE FIRE ACADEMY.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THESE DOLLARS COULD BE MOVED TO THE BACKUP 911 CENTER.

GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING. AS MISS PARTAIN BOND COUNCIL HAS EXPLAINED A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW, YES, FUNDS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PROPOSITION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE USED FOR OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT COULD BE USED. AND SO WHY WASN'T IT CONSIDERED TO HAVE THAT AS A PROPOSITION? OUR BACKUP 911 CENTER IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE REDUNDANCY NEEDED.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SPACE CAPACITY. IT HAS MINIMAL BATHROOMS. THE KITCHEN IS MORE LIKE FOR A DORM ROOM. I MEAN, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR OR TWO TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE OUR CALL VOLUME. SO WHY WAS THAT NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS BOND PROPOSITION? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. AND SO LET ME JUST GO BACK TO THE POSITION AND HOW WE'VE COME INTO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

TWO YEARS AGO, WE CAME TO THE COUNCIL AND WE SHARED THE THE ONGOING NEEDS THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE CITY.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL FACILITIES. AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT CONDITIONS AND THE WAYS THAT BEST PRACTICES HAVE EVOLVED TO WHERE YOU'RE FUNDING THOSE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND DOING MORE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE. THE WAY WE APPROACH WHAT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY WAS DEFINITELY LOOKING AT A WAY TO MOVE WHAT WE'VE PUT FORTH FORWARD, BUT WE UNDERSTAND I'VE GOT 15 MORE FIRE STATIONS THAT ACTUALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

CAN I ADDRESS ALL 15 OF THOSE TODAY? I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL.

IF YOU WANT TO ADD THE BACK UP, TAKE IT OUT, NOT DO ONE OR NOT DO OTHER.

IT'S REALLY THE COUNCIL'S DECISION. BUT WHAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD IS BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW OUR NEEDS ARE CURRENTLY, AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITH A LOT OF OUR OTHER FACILITIES.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S REALLY THE COUNCIL'S DECISION.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO. OUR THINKING WAS, IS THAT WE'VE HAD I KNOW SINCE I'VE BEEN THE CITY MANAGER, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO 2024, BUT I'VE REALLY APPROACHED THIS TRYING TO MOVE US FORWARD AND BEGINNING TO DO SOME VERY CRITICAL WORK AROUND HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR ASSETS.

AND SO THAT'S MY ANSWER. IT WASN'T THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S ADEQUATE, BUT WE UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE.

AND WE WERE TRYING TO COME WITH AS MUCH OF A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH AS WE COULD RIGHT NOW TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THOSE MOST CRITICAL NEEDS.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. OKAY. WELL, TWO YEARS AGO, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BACKUP 901 CENTER.

AND TO SAY THAT, I MEAN, YOU WERE HERE IN 2020 FOR YOU WERE HERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND YOU WERE THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

SO WHAT WHAT I THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WITH THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF ARPA AND CRF FUNDING WE HAD, WE COULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF SO MANY OF THESE NEEDS.

AND INSTEAD, WE HAVE SQUANDERED THAT MONEY AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY NEEDS.

BUT ONE OF THOSE NEEDS IS NOT TO MOVE THE 911 CENTER, IT'S TO DO SOME BASIC REPAIR AND AND GET ON WITH THE REAL BUSINESS OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

EXCUSE ME. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CITY MANAGER'S GOT A QUESTION.

I REMEMBER A TIMELINE BEING SENT OUT CONCERNING BOND IN 2024, AND I.

MY MEMORY IS CORRECT. IT WAS $0. SO WHY DID WE NOT RECEIVE MONEY TO FIX CITY HALL IN 2024? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT SUPPORT THE FUNDING REQUEST THAT WAS INCLUDED BY STAFF.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND AND I THINK WHEN YOU SPOKE ORIGINALLY ON THE MOTION, MR. BAZALDUA, YOU YOU WERE ACTUALLY MAKING A MOTION.

[08:00:03]

SO I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THREE MINUTES ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I MOVE TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD A NEW PROPOSITION TO FUND THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING CITY HALL IN THE AMOUNT OF 100 MILLION.

SECOND. LET ME CHECK WHETHER THAT'S IN ORDER.

NO. WE VOTED. OKAY, SO I'M TOLD IT'S IN ORDER AND I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT DOES.

AND THEN WE WILL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES ON IT.

SO LET ME GET ANOTHER SHEET OF PAPER OUT HERE.

ALL RIGHT. MR. BAZALDUA. THE AMENDMENT DOES WHAT? ADDS A NEW PROPOSITION TO FUND THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING CITY HALL IN THE AMOUNT OF $100 MILLION 100 MILLION.

CITY HALL? YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. WELL, I'LL GO BACK TO THE 2024 BOND AND JUST SAY, EVEN AFTER AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, I VOTED AGAINST IT.

I VOTED AGAINST THE ENTIRE BOND BECAUSE WE FAILED TO ADDRESS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE DEBATING SOME 11TH HOUR WISH LIST BOND ITEMS BECAUSE OF THE SAME TREND THAT WE'VE CONTINUED IN NOT TAKING CARE OF OUR FACILITIES. ONE THING THAT WE HAVE HEARD FOR MONTHS NOW IS THE.

PUBLIC DEBATE ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WITH THIS BUILDING.

I THINK THAT IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THIS COUNCIL IT WAS A DIFFERENT ITERATION OF FAILED TO INVEST IN THE BUILDING WHEN WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

WELL, NOW WE ARE TAKING UP A UNUNIFORMED TIME TO GO TO THE VOTERS AND ASK FOR MORE DEBT, TO ASK FOR MORE DOLLARS FOR ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. THERE IS NO BETTER TIME TO SEND A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC FOR CITY HALL.

THERE IS NO BETTER TIME TO DECIDE ON THIS BEING A LITMUS TEST TO KNOW ON FOR.

FOR MYSELF AND SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BEEN STAUNCH OPPOSITION TO GETTING RID OF THIS BUILDING.

THAT LISTEN, IF THE VOTERS AREN'T GOING TO GIVE US DOLLARS TO PUT INTO THIS BUILDING, THEN MY FIGHT IS OVER.

AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT PUBLICLY. I CAN'T FIGHT FOR A BUILDING THAT HAS THIS AMOUNT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.

IF THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS TO GO TO THE VOTERS AND TO GET THEM TO GIVE US AN INFLUX OF CASH TO DO IT.

WE KNOW THE NEEDS HERE EXCEED ANYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WITHIN OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET, EVER. SO IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A FUTURE OF CITY HALL, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE BOND FUNDING.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE SEND A BOND THIS NOVEMBER TO GET THE PULSE FROM THE VOTERS? FOR THINGS THAT WE SAY ARE IMPORTANT AND FAIL TO GET THEM TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WITH THIS BUILDING? IT'S NOT ANECDOTAL. IT'S NOT JUST THIS, YOU KNOW, NOTION OF LIKE, SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE NOT? WE ARE GIVING A PROPOSITION, A PACKAGE WITH PROPOSITIONS TO THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE INVESTING IN.

WE'VE HEARD FROM ALL OF THE MEDIA SOURCES OF OUR CITY THE SPLIT OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE HERE.

WE'VE HEARD FROM COUNTLESS RESIDENTS WHO HAVE SPENT COUNTLESS AMOUNT OF TIME.

WE'VE HEARD FROM COALITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT, WE'VE HEARD FROM LITIGATION.

WE'VE HEARD FROM A LINGERING DISCUSSION THAT OFTEN DOESN'T SAY WHAT WE SHOULD SAY, WHICH IS THE DALLAS MAVERICKS.

AND WE CONTINUE TO FAIL TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION HEAD ON.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT UP TO THIS POINT, WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN ANY CLEARER OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE WILL OF THE PUBLIC THAN RIGHT NOW PUT A PROPOSITION ON, SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME PHASED AND PRIORITIZED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS ADDRESSED IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT. IN MY OPINION, JUST AS WITH THESE OTHER PROPOSITIONS, WE'RE NOT TRULY SERIOUS ABOUT THE PUBLIC WEIGHING IN ON WHAT THAT FATE IS.

THIS ISN'T CONTROVERSIAL. THIS ISN'T US MAKING A DECISION UNILATERALLY WITHOUT HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.

IN FACT, NOT TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY IS THAT'S US UNILATERALLY DECIDING THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS.

THE PUBLIC AND THE RESIDENTS FEEL THAT, SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO IGNORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE VOTERS,

[08:05:08]

AND WE'RE ALREADY SPENDING MONEY ON AN ELECTION AND ASKING THEM TO COME TO THE BALLOT BOX TO WEIGH IN ON OUR GOVERNING.

HERE IT IS. SO I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS ANY BETTER TIME TO BRING THIS ON AGAIN, AS A LITMUS TEST, AND AGAIN AS THE WILL OF TRULY HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS SAID NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THIS ISSUE YOU'RE ON. WELL, IF WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, HERE'S OUR OPPORTUNITY.

WE'RE ALREADY CLEARLY BRINGING IN OVER $400 MILLION FOR THIS BOND TO ADDRESS OTHER NEEDS THAT WEREN'T NEEDS WHEN WE JUST PUT A BOND OUT TWO YEARS AGO. BUT ONE THING THAT WAS A NEED, WHEN WE HAD A BOND TWO YEARS AGO, THAT AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO PUT INTO THE PACKAGE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN BY THIS GOVERNING BODY WAS CITY HALL.

HERE'S OUR OPPORTUNITY. WE SAY NO TO THIS. WE'RE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA RELATED TO CITY HALL, 100 MILLION. THANK YOU.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA HIS THOUGHTFULNESS IN THIS, AND I WOULD SUPPORT HIS MOTION.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR VISION WITH THE PUBLIC AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF CITY HALL AND THE THERE AND GET THEIR BUY IN AND IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING AND PROVIDING US FUNDS SO THAT WE CAN USE THIS FACILITY AND MAINTAIN THIS FACILITY AND KEEP THIS FACILITY.

AND I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM.

IT GIVES THE ELECTORATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION.

IT ALLOWS US A CLEAR MESSAGE AS TO THE SINCERITY OF THE PUBLIC.

INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THIS AND KEEPING THIS FACILITY.

AND I THINK THAT THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO IT AT ALL.

AND TO ADD AGAIN, THESE ARE THESE TO, TO GET ELECTION BOND MONEY.

IT'S TO ALLOW US TO BORROW THE MONEY IF WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.

AND IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE IF WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.

AND IT DOESN'T COST US ANYTHING UNTIL WE BORROW THE MONEY IF WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.

AND SO I THINK IT'S A WIN, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

AND, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER APPROVING THAT AMENDMENT AND MOVING THIS FORWARD.

THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA 100 MILLION CITY HALL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CITY MANAGER, DID THIS COUNCIL ALREADY TAKE ACTION NOT TO REPAIR CITY HALL AT THIS TIME? A LOT IS ON MY BRAIN RIGHT NOW, BUT LET ME JUST THINK, I BELIEVE THAT EARLIER IN THE SUMMER, THERE WAS AN ITEM ABOUT REPAIRING. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT ITEM CAME BEFORE THE BODY.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE THE FINAL VOTE WAS TO NOT MOVE THAT FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK OVER AT THE ATTORNEYS BECAUSE AGAIN, WE JUST CAME THROUGH A SUMMER WHERE WE'VE HAD NO TIME TO DO ANYTHING BUT WORK ON THE BUDGET. SO I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE DAY.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST 45 DAYS AS AN ATTORNEY.

THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST I THOUGHT WE DID.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CORRECT THAT WE TOOK ACTION NOT TO PRAY AT THIS TIME ON A ON A PHASED REPAIR PROGRAMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I KNOW WE HAVE A CAME OUT TO THE PUBLIC HOW MUCH IT COST TO FIX CITY HALL HOLISTICALLY.

$100 MILLION SEEMED LIKE MORE OF A PATCH REPAIR.

AND THEY WON'T EVEN DO THE BASICS. AND I DON'T SUPPORT PATCH REPAIRS.

I'VE SAID THAT PUBLICLY. I DON'T SUPPORT PATCH REPAIRS.

WE NEED TO HOLISTICALLY. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE AT CITY HALL, WE NEED TO HOLISTICALLY FIX IT AND FIND OUT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE. WE HAVE THE NUMBERS, WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. AND NOW WE'RE WAITING ON THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING BACK THE OTHER PART THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE ALREADY ASKED HER TO DO.

SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT PATTRIK PEREZ.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA 100 MILLION. CITY HALL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

[08:10:03]

I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS.

I THINK THEY ARE ANXIOUS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE AND SHOW THEIR SUPPORT FOR CITY HALL, AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS, BASICALLY.

AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY A CAPITAL NEED THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IN THE 2024 BOND PROPOSAL, BUT WE DID NOT AT THAT TIME. BUT WE SHOULD AT THIS TIME.

AND IT JUST MAKES SENSE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A BOND PROPOSAL TO THE VOTERS THAT WE INCLUDE CRITICAL NEEDS SUCH AS CITY HALL.

SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

100 MILLION CITY HALL PARDON? 100 MILLION CITY HALL.

THAT'S THE EYE TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE SO THEY CAN KEEP THEIR COMMENTS GERMANE.

THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT. I DO IT FOR EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS WAS PUT ON THE WHEN THIS WAS BEING DISCUSSED FOR THE 2024 BOND, IT WAS AT THE VERY LAST SECOND. IT WAS THE LAST DAY.

IT WAS FEBRUARY 14TH. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE TIME WHEN REPEATEDLY IT WAS ASKED WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO BE ABLE TO ADD THIS.

THERE WAS NO ANSWER. IT WAS UNKNOWN. AND WE LITERALLY WOULD HAVE SET FORWARD A BOND WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE PROJECTS WERE.

AND EVEN THOUGH THIS BOND PROPOSITION THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED DOESN'T IDENTIFY THE PROJECTS, THAT BOND, WHICH HAD ALL THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT MEETINGS ALL AROUND TOWN.

COMMISSION. OUR WEBSITE LISTED EVERY SINGLE PROJECT.

AND I KNOW BECAUSE I WENT TO THAT WEBSITE MANY TIMES, I SENT MY RESIDENTS TO THAT WEBSITE.

THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WOULD BE GETTING. THEY KNEW WHAT STREET WOULD BE DONE.

JENNY, YOU WANT TO SAY, DID YOU HAVE THAT ON THE WEBSITE? I THINK IT'S STILL ON THE WEBSITE TODAY. SO I WAS JUST WANTING TO ADDRESS THE CITY HALL ITEM THAT YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT SO THAT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY BOND TASK FORCE AND BROUGHT TO COUNCIL.

AND IT WAS ON THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE THAT WE HAD PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD BEFORE THE FEBRUARY 14TH MEETING, THE MEETING BEFORE THAT, WE HAD REMOVED IT. NO. THAT CAME. YES, YES, YES, YES.

AND WE HAD BEEN MEETING SINCE DECEMBER THROUGH JANUARY AND DECEMBER THROUGH JANUARY.

IT WAS THE COMMISSION NOT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL. IT WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL.

IT WAS REMOVED. NO, NOT NOT UNTIL THE VERY END, I THINK.

JANUARY 31ST. IT WAS IT WAS ONE OF THE LAST THINGS TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU APPROVED US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TO CALL AN ELECTION.

WELL, THE ELECTION WAS FEBRUARY 4TH. THE THAT VOTE WAS FEBRUARY 14TH.

AND THE COUNCIL ITSELF DECIDED AT THE END OF JANUARY WHAT THE PROJECTS WOULD BE.

IT WAS REMOVED AT THAT TIME, AND IT WAS ONLY PROPOSED TO COME BACK AGAIN IN THE LAST HOUR OF THE LAST DAY TO PUT IT BACK IN AND REMOVE UNKNOWN PROJECTS. AND I'VE GONE BACK AND WATCHED IT.

SO PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO SO. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

THE POINT IS THAT AT THE TIME, MY COMMENTS WERE WE SHOULDN'T BE USING DEBT TO PAY FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.

THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT O&M MEANS. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR BUILDINGS WITHIN OUR BUDGET WITHOUT TAKING OUT DEBT.

NOW WE'VE HAD EXTREME SITUATIONS HAPPEN, AND I WILL SAY, THERE'S NOT A PERSON HERE WHO HASN'T BEEN OVERWHELMED BY EMAILS FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS SAYING, DO NOT GET RID OF CITY HALL. EVERY ONE OF US HAS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL COPIED ON EACH OTHER'S.

AND I THINK YOU'RE TERRIFIED TO LET THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSITIONS, WHICH IS WHY YOU DIDN'T WANT IT SPLIT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD NOT MOVE.

911 AND NOW TO CONSIDER IT SEPARATELY, I WILL SAY I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF $100 MILLION OF DEBT TO FIX CITY HALL.

WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT FROM OUR GENERAL FUND.

BUT THEN AGAIN, I HADN'T GOTTEN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, AND THEY'RE NOT SPLIT.

THEY'RE 95, 97% SAVE CITY HALL. AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT DEBT.

I THINK WE LISTEN TO THEM. SO WHILE AS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF TAKING OUT DEBT FOR THIS KIND OF

[08:15:01]

THING. I CAN SEE WHY YOU'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD.

AND I THINK THERE'S A PUBLIC MANDATE FOR IT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE OVER AND OVER AT THIS HORSESHOE.

WE ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE FURIOUS WITH US.

I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

I'M PRETTY SURE I KNOW THE VOTE WILL BE NINE SIX, BUT I THINK AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO SAY WHO'S LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE HERE.

THANK YOU. MISS CADENA. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES 100 MILLION.

CITY HALL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION, AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED REPAIRS FOR CITY HALL.

I WENT BACK AND HAVE WATCHED COUNTLESS TAPES.

AND YOU WERE A VOICE THAT CONSISTENTLY ADVOCATED AS AN EMPLOYEE.

I HAD TO SIT HERE AND WATCH COUNCILS NOT PUT MONEY INTO THIS BUILDING, AND THAT WAS HARD.

BECAUSE WE DESERVE A GOOD PLACE TO WORK. AND I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE 911 CENTER IS NOT TIED TO CITY HALL WITH US MOVING OR NOT. BUT I THINK BY INCLUDING THIS, IT ALLOWS US TO SHOW RESIDENTS THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED.

AND IT ALSO ALLOWS RESIDENTS TO CHOOSE IF THEY WANT TO INVEST IN CITY HALL.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR. I'VE GONE TO COUNTLESS MEETINGS WITH MY COMMUNITY.

I'VE RECEIVED COUNTLESS EMAILS, I'VE RESPONDED AND CALLED MY CONSTITUENTS.

I'VE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT I HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. MRS BLACKMON RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

CITY HALL. THANK YOU. AND I VOTED WITH YOU. I BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY IT WAS A THREE VOTE.

AND I REMEMBER WATCHING THAT BOND DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE LOOK ON HIS FACE.

IT WAS BECAUSE I SAID OVER THERE AND JUST IT WAS IT WAS.

I LOOKED AT JAYNIE SCHULTZ AND SAID, HE'S LEAVING BECAUSE WE WE BASICALLY HE WAS BEGGING US TO DO THIS.

AND AND SO BERT, CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT WE VOTED ON ON THAT JUNE 10TH? I KNOW YOU SAID IT PRETTY FAST, BUT CAN YOU PLEASE REMIND US AS A BODY AND AS A PUBLIC, WHAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE MOTION AND WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY MEANT TO DO. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

HOWEVER, THE POSTED ITEM WAS THE TWO PHASED REPAIR PLANS AND THE COUNCIL VOTED NOT TO DO THE TWO PHASE REPAIR PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED ON, IS JUST THOSE TWO PLANS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY.

THAT WAS THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, WHICH MAKES THIS MOTION AND ORDER.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.

I THINK AS SOMEBODY SAID, IT PROBABLY WILL BE A NINE, 6 OR 9 SIX VOTE AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT I TO, I MEAN, I HEAR PEOPLE IN EAST DALLAS AND THEY, THEY WANT A VOICE IN THIS DISCUSSION.

AND I, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM THAT TO, TO LET THEM TO LET THEM INVEST.

IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THIS BUILDING, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN IT AND, AND HAVE A VOICE IN. AND I'M WITH MR. BAZALDUA IF THEY SAY, NO, WE'RE DONE THEN.

YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S NOT MY FIGHT ANYMORE. AND SO WE CAN MOVE ON AND WE CAN ALL START PACKING OUR BOXES.

THANK YOU, MISS BLAIR. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, 100 MILLION CITY HALL.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I THINK THE FIRST ONE WAS, AM I CORRECT IN REMEMBERING THAT THIS BODY VOTED NOT TO, TO GO INTO THE REPAIRS OF CITY HALL, THAT WE VOTED AGAINST REPAIRING CITY HALL? THE ITEM THAT I RECALL PRIOR TO US GOING INTO THE BUDGET PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE, WAS THAT THE TWO PHASE PROGRAM, AFTER WE BROUGHT YOU THE THIRD SET OF CONSULTANTS WAS, BAKED IN WITH A NUMBER, AND WE HAD AN AGENDA ITEM THAT ASKED THE COUNCIL IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND SO THAT'S THE ITEM THAT I WAS REFERRING TO, WHERE WE INCLUDED A NUMBER.

AND THEN WE ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT I STATE THIS BECAUSE WE DID BRING COUNCIL OPTIONS ON IF THE DECISION WAS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REPAIRS, NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH A BOND. WE DID A FULL BRIEFING WHERE WE SHOWED HOW THAT FUNDING WOULD COME ABOUT.

[08:20:04]

WE BROKE IT OUT WITH GENERAL FUND. WE SHOWED THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROGRAM.

WE ALSO GAVE YOU ALL OF THE WAYS THAT THAT BUDGET WOULD BE IMPACTED.

SO WE DID SPEND TIME DOING THAT BECAUSE COUNCIL REQUESTED IT.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT STAFF DID NOT BRING COUNCIL A PLAN THAT SHOWED HOW THAT PARTICULAR FUNDING COULD BE DONE THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND, AND WE WERE QUITE DETAILED IN HOW WE IDENTIFIED THE WAY TO DO IT.

SO WE DID DO IT. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE DID GET THE THE VOTE OF THE COUNCIL.

AND I CAN REFER BACK TO THE BRIEFING HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT WE DID DO THAT FOR THIS BODY. I DON'T KNOW IF I IF IF I UNDERSTOOD SO QUESTION DID WE SAY YES OR NO? NOT TO REPAIR CITY HALL. I'M SO SORRY. THE VOTE OF THE BODY, THE MAJORITY WAS NO, IT WAS NOT TO REPAIR IT.

OKAY. SO SO THEN I GUESS I HAVE NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BERT.

IF THE VOTE OF THE BODY WAS NOT TO REPAIR CITY HALL, AND NOW WE'RE ASKED, NOW WE'RE SAYING TO PUT 100,000 WAS $100,000, 100 MILLION, 100 MILLION INTO THE REPAIR OF CITY HALL.

IS THAT NOT THEN? NEGATING THE VOTE OF THE BODY BEFORE.

OR IS IT. IS IT NOW? IS THAT. HOW IS IT APPROPRIATE THAT WE.

WE VOTE ON IT ON SOMETHING. WE'VE ALREADY DISPOSED OF THE.

I THINK IT WAS JUNE 10TH VOTE WAS REGARDING SPECIFIC PHASE STRATEGIES THAT CONSULTANTS PRESENTED.

AND THOSE WERE REJECTED. CAN SOMEBODY JUST ANSWER.

SO IT WAS NEVER A VOTE NOT TO REPAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS A WHOLE CONVERSATION THAT NO ONE ELSE HEARD.

BUT I DID ANSWER YOUR. DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? ARE YOU RELINQUISHING THE FLOOR? KATHY STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, 100 MILLION CITY HALL.

THANK YOU. TO THAT POINT ABOUT WHAT WE VOTED ON, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ON JUNE 10TH, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSTPONED BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF A FOUR. THERE WERE FOUR DIFFERENT VOTES WHO WERE GOING TO MAKE.

AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A RESTRAINING ORDER THAT WE COULDN'T VOTE ON CERTAIN ONES.

AND I JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER, I JUST DON'T RECALL WHICH.

BUT I DO BELIEVE WE DID VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, AND THIS IS WHAT IT SAID.

AUTHORIZE ONE A PHASED CITY HALL REPAIR STRATEGY FOR 1500, MARILLA, AS PRESENTED ON JUNE 3RD AND TWO, THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE PHASED CITY HALL REPAIR STRATEGY FOR 1500.

MARILLA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CITY HALL REPAIR PROGRAM.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE VOTED NO, WE WOULD NOT PURSUE A PHASED CITY HALL REPAIR STRATEGY.

THIS ITEM, THIS DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY REFER TO ANY PARTICULAR STRATEGY THAT WAS PRESENTED.

SO I SEE IT, AS WE SAID, NO REPAIR STRATEGY FOR 1500, MARILLA.

AND WE DID NOT WANT THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE SELECTED PHASED CITY HALL REPAIR STRATEGY.

SO NO, NO REPAIR STRATEGY AND NO PHASED THE FIRST PART JUST SO IT'S AS CLEAR AS IT CAN BE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. WE'VE SAID NO, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD THEN AUTHORIZE OR ASK OUR OUR RESIDENTS TO AUTHORIZE $100 MILLION FOR REPAIR STRATEGY WHEN IT HAS BEEN THE WISDOM OF THIS COUNCIL TO NOT PURSUE THAT.

IT IS A DIFFICULT DECISION. IT IS A HEARTBREAKING DECISION.

IT IS NOT A DECISION THAT ANY OF US HAVE COME TO EASILY.

BUT AFTER LISTENING TO MULTIPLE, YOU KNOW, REPAIR OR COMPANIES COME IN LIKE A AECOM AND GRESHAM SMITH METH AND WILL MUNDINGER GROUP WHO YOU KNOW, DON POWELL, WHO TALKED TO THE ELECTRICIAN, IDENTIFIED 400 ELECTRIC PANELS THAT ARE FEDERAL PACIFIC.

I MEAN, WE GOT INTO SOME OF THE NITTY GRITTY ON THIS.

THIS IS NOT LIKE WE JUST STOOD FROM ABOVE AND WENT, OH, HECK NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.

WE DID NOT DO THAT. WE PUT IN THE WORK AND THE TIME AND THE EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IS AND HOW THE HECK WE GOT HERE. AND IT WAS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE.

AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I WAS ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN 2024 WHO WANTED THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND VOTED NOT TO SPEND THE $28 MILLION

[08:25:04]

AND I KNOW IT WAS 28 MILLION BECAUSE MY HUSBAND SAID ON THAT COMMITTEE AND HE SAW THOSE HVAC UNITS, HIS HIS INFORMATION ABOUT THIS BUILDING IS FAR GREATER THAN MINE.

HE'S BEEN IN THE IN THE BACK OF IT AND SEEN IT.

SO ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS IT'S NOT AN EASY DECISION AT ALL.

ONE BIT. EVERYONE HAS AGONIZED OVER IT. NOBODY HAS MADE THIS DECISION EASILY, BUT WE HAVE MADE IT WITH INFORMATION.

WE HAVE MADE IT BY, WITH DISCUSSION, WITH THOUGHT.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE USED EVERYTHING OUR HEAD, OUR HEART AND OUR SOULS IN MAKING THIS DECISION.

AND I HAVE SAT AT WHITE ROCK COFFEE WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND THEY'VE CALLED ME SOULLESS.

AND BY THE END OF THE CONVERSATION, I AM NO LONGER SOULLESS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND I HAVE PUT MY HEART AND MY SOUL INTO THIS DECISION.

SO SORRY. YOU GOT A SERMON FROM CATHY STEWART.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IT'S ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART FOR FOR SHARING THAT. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I THINK $100 MILLION IS JUST A NOMINAL FIGURE TOWARDS CITY HALL.

THIS IS LIKE AN ENDORSEMENT OF CREATING THAT 6 TO 10 YEAR PHASED PROGRAM AND MAKING THIS PLACE A CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC, BUT FOR FOR OUR CITY STAFF THAT WE RELY ON TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.

SO THIS IS REALLY JUST ASKING FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF SOME THINGS WE'VE ALREADY MADE DECISIONS ON.

AND IF YOU WANT TO DO A BOND FOR CITY HALL, LET'S BE HONEST WITH THE PUBLIC.

LET'S USE THE REAL NUMBER THAT IT WOULD TAKE.

SO WE'VE HAD AND IF YOU TAKE THE LOWEST RUNG THAT GRESHAM SMITH CAME BACK WITH, YOU'VE GOT 611 MILLION JUST FOR REPAIRS AND RENOVATION.

YOU'VE GOT 213 MILLION FOR MODERNIZATION. YOU CAN'T FINISH THIS OUT TO BE A WHITE BOX AND NOT MODERNIZE IT.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE FINISH OUT OF SPACE THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO THAT THE STAFF WOULD MOVE TO, AND THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE TO VISIT TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS.

SO THE THAT'S ABOUT $1.1 BILLION. SO IF WE WANT TO PUT THAT IN FRONT OF A VOTER AND SAY WE'VE ALSO GOT THIS PUBLIC SAFETY PACKAGE THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO COME UP A WINNER.

WE'D ALSO HAVE TO LEASE SPACE FOR EVERYONE TO MOVE INTO WHILE THIS BUILDING WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AND I HAVE HAD CONSTITUENTS TELL ME ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THAT IS THROWING MONEY INTO THE AIR TO LEASE SPACE.

SO SO YOU COULD MOVE OUT WHILE YOU DID THE REPAIRS.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I SAY IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, YOU PUT THE REAL PRICE TAG ON IT AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE HONEST WITH THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS THAT THIS IS $1 BILLION PROPOSITION.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK YOU'D SEE THE SUPPORT FOR IT WHEN YOU HANG THAT KIND OF PRICE TAG ON IT.

SO I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. JUST VERY QUICKLY.

THIS IS A REQUESTING THIS IS GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE FUNDING.

IF WE DECIDE TO DO SOME STUFF HERE AT CITY HALL.

$100 MILLION WILL GO FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND IT.

BUT IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT MONEY AVAILABLE, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEARCH FOR IT.

AND, AND THE THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN WITH A REFERENDUM OF THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DO THIS.

AND I AND IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT WAS THE PLAN THAT WAS REJECTED WAS A A PHASED IN CONSTRUCTION REMODELING PLAN.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSING A LINE OF CREDIT THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF, IN FACT, WE NEED TO DO SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY HALL.

AND THAT'S A BROAD OPPORTUNITY. IT'S NOT A COST OPPORTUNITY UNTIL WE TAKE THE MONEY DOWN.

AND I THINK WE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADD THIS TO THE BOND PACKAGE AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

SO PLEASE RECONSIDER IT. LET'S LET IT LET'S PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

IT'S A SEPARATE PROPOSITION. PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT.

THEY'LL REJECT IT. AND IF THEY DO WANT IT, THEN THEY'VE SENT A MESSAGE TO US THAT WE'VE GOT TO TO COOPERATE WITH THEM.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WEST. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, 100 MILLION.

CITY HALL. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.

AND I ALSO CAN APPRECIATE THE INTENT HERE. I'M GOING TO STICK TO THE DRUM THAT I'VE BEEN BEATING THIS WHOLE TIME THAT WE NEED BEFORE WE TAKE A DRASTIC ACTION LIKE THIS. WE NEED AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF THE COSTS OF ALL OPTIONS, INCLUDING STAYING IN CITY HALL, MOVING OUT OF CITY HALL, AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE OF THIS SITE.

[08:30:02]

IF WE PUT THIS TO THE VOTERS, IF WE MAKE THIS DECISION TODAY, WE ARE KILLING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE BECAUSE WE'LL BE SENDING A MESSAGE THAT WE ARE ALREADY MOVING.

THAT WE'RE GOING TO STAY HERE. SO FROM MY END, I WOULD BE UP FOR SUPPORTING THIS SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

IF AN ACTUAL NUMBER, NOT A MADE UP $100 MILLION NUMBER, BUT AN ACTUAL NUMBER THAT WILL ADDRESS OUR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS.

IF ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE FULL ANALYSIS OF STAYING VERSUS GOING, WHICH IS WHAT AT LEAST NINE OF US HAVE SUPPORTED THE WHOLE TIME, GETTING THE NUMBERS THAT WILL TRULY PUT PAINT A PICTURE FOR THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BAZALDUA RELATED TO CITY HALL? 100 MILLION. SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE REQUEST STANDING FOR ALL AMENDMENTS.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL, MADAM SECRETARY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE.

YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MENDELSOHN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. JOHNSON. NO.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. NO.

WITH SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED. THE MOTION FAILS.

MR. MAYOR, WE'RE BACK ON THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

CHAIRMAN WEST, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR. LET ME CHECK BACK A FEW PAGES.

THREE MINUTES. YOU KNOW WHAT, I WILL PASS. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION. YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE QUEUE. YOU'RE THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN US AND THE VOTE ANYWAY. I'LL MAKE SURE NOBODY COME ON THERE BECAUSE WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ALREADY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NO ONE ELSE ON THE ON THE MATTER OF AGENDA ITEM 73.

MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE. YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR. NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. HELL NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON YES.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES.

WITH THE 11 VOTING IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA.

MAYOR THERE. MAYOR. OH! HE LEFT. THERE ARE NO DEFERRALS FOR WILL. THEREFORE, WE WILL MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z ONE THROUGH Z 15.

Z ONE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR, Z TWO HAS BEEN PULLED.

MR. MAYOR, LET ME WILL YOU GIVE ME A FEW MINUTES? MR. MAYOR, THERE IS A DEFERRAL BEFORE I MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON.

GO AHEAD, MA'AM. I'LL LET YOU FINISH. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON, WOULD I BE RECOGNIZED? YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER UP NUMBER ITEM NUMBER Z 19 TO MOVE TO DEFER FURTHEST ITEM UNTIL AUGUST 25TH,

[08:35:01]

2026. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? NO, SIR. MR. ROFF. I MAY NOT KNOW THE PROCEDURE EXACTLY, BUT I'VE GOTTEN NOTICE THAT ON ITEM Z TEN IS THAT ITEM THAT HE JUST DEFERRED? WE'D LIKE TO REMAND IT BACK TO CPC.

WOULD THAT BE A A LATER AMENDMENT? WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A DEBATE ON A DISCUSSION ON THE DEFERRAL.

OH, I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY. I THOUGHT WE ALREADY APPROVED. GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO RESOLVE THIS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE ON THE FLOOR? YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. CHAIRWOMAN, IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DEFERRAL.

YES. GO AHEAD. THIS IS ON Z 19. AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEFERRED FROM JUNE 10TH TO TODAY.

WHY IS IT BEING DEFERRED AGAIN? I HAVE NOT SPOKE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S DOING THE HOUSE, AND I ALSO HAVE NOT HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETING.

WE HAVE TRIED TO SET UP A TIME TO DO SO, BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH MY COMMUNITY BEFORE WE DO SO, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY AN AREA THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS FAR AS CRIME IS CONCERNED.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY COMMUNITY. WELL, I JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I AM NOTICING THAT'S HAPPENING OVER AND OVER ON THESE ZONING CASES THAT THEY JUST KEEP GETTING DEFERRED, DEFERRED, DEFERRED, DEFERRED. AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING.

IT IS PART OF WHAT IS TAKING LONG FOR MANY OF THESE CASES.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUNE 10TH, AND HERE WE ARE ON AUGUST 12TH.

HOW LONG IS IT BEING DEFERRED FOR? AUGUST 25TH? OKAY. THANK YOU. WAS THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION? MR. ROTH, YOU'RE WAITING FOR ANOTHER ISSUE. OKAY.

I STILL SEE YOU IN THE QUEUE, BUT I'M GOING TO IGNORE. THANK YOU. AND I'M SORRY TO YOU. NOT TO YOU YET.

IF YOU'RE NOT DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON AGAINST THE DEFERRAL? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. ITEM DEFERRED. MADAM SECRETARY.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR DEFERRALS. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z ONE THROUGH Z 15, ITEM Z ONE BY COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR.

ITEM Z TWO HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS AND COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

ITEM Z THREE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

ITEM Z FIVE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

ITEM Z EIGHT HAS BEEN PLACED BACK ON THE AGENDA BY COUNCILMEMBER MORENO.

ITEM Z TEN HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROTH.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS Z4Z6 THROUGH Z NINE AND Z 11 THROUGH Z 15. I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD.

ITEM Z FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING KR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF CHALK HILL ROAD, SOUTH OF CHIPPAWA DRIVE.

ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE GREATER THAN 3500FT² ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF LAKE JUNE ROAD.

ITEM Z SEVEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING LEE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF LANCASTER HUTCHIN'S ROAD, NORTH OF WHITT ROAD.

ITEM Z EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING WMU FIVE WALKABLE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE AND FOREST PARK ROAD.

ITEM ITEM Z NINE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN EXPANSION OF SUBDISTRICT ONE H WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 714 ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF WEST MAIN STREET, WEST OF NORTH BECKLEY AVENUE.

ITEM Z 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY COMMUNITY CENTER.

PRIVATE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST 10TH STREET, WEST OF EAST CLARENDON DRIVE.

ITEM 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE IN OR DRIVE

[08:40:01]

THRU SERVICE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PEAVY ROAD, NORTHWEST OF GARLAND ROAD.

ITEM 13 IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2424 FOR A TOWER ANTENNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION ON PROPERTY BETWEEN PLEASANT DRIVE AND BAYWOOD DRIVE, NORTH OF LAKE JUNE ROAD.

ITEM 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2500 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, 3500FT² OR LESS ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST LINE OF NORTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF CHENNAULT STREET, AND ITEM 15 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2561 FOR A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THRU SERVICE ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH I-35 FREEWAY BETWEEN EAST EIGHTH STREET AND DALE STREET. YOU DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ONE OF YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.

ITEM Z SIX FIRST SPEAKER JAY SHARROCK.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. YOU MAY BEGIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WE ARE HERE AS A FOLLOW UP TO SEE IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING OUR REQUEST FOR THE LICENSE TO SELL BEER AT OUR GROCERY STORE. THIS WAS A FOLLOW UP FROM A FORMER MEETING.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM C SIX.

WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE COUNCIL.

SORRY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. CATHERINE CHAMBLEE.

I BELIEVE MISS LEE IS VIRTUAL. HI. YES. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

HI. YES, MY NAME IS CATHERINE CHAMBLEE WITH BRACKEN SCHWARTZ, PLLC, ON BEHALF OF NEPAL ENTERPRISES LLC, WHICH IS DOING BUSINESS AS EL RANCHO NUMBER EIGHT THERE IN DALLAS.

I KNOW THIS MEETING HAS ALREADY RUN QUITE LONG AND THIS IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO ALL I'M GOING TO SAY, I'M GOING TO JUST CUT MY COMMENTS SHORT AND SAY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

BOTH MYSELF AND JAY SCHROCK ARE AVAILABLE, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION HERE TODAY AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD? NO. SPEAKERS. FURTHER SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

WE'RE NOT THERE YET. HOLD ON. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

ONE SECOND. I'M SORRY. THERE WAS A LAST MINUTE CHANGE ON YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEM Z 14 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON.

I'LL RESTATE FOR THE RECORD YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL.

YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA NOW CONSISTS OF ITEMS. Z4Z6 THROUGH Z NINE, Z 11 THROUGH Z 13 AND Z 15. THAT'S YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, MR. MAYOR.

WONDERFUL. I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION. THANK YOU SIR.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. ROFF, ON THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I THINK SINCE I PULLED Z FIVE, I THINK IT IS.

IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. IF IT'S PULLED, IT'S NOT ON THE ZONING CONSENT. SO THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. YOU'RE CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE EXCEPT FOR MR. ROFF WHO WILL NOT GET OUT OF THE QUEUE FOR SOME REASON, I DON'T KNOW WHY I WON'T. IT WON'T DISAPPEAR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. SO THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED.

Y'ALL, WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS NOW.

YOU'RE ALMOST THERE. MR. ROFF. THANK YOU. FIVE IS THAT THE ONE? IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING OUT FOR? OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL GO DOWN. WE'LL START NOW WITH YOUR FIRST POOL ZONING ITEM Z ONE.

[Z1. 26-2273A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District on property zoned R-10(A) Residential District, on the north line of Rylie Crest Drive, between Garden Grove Drive and Seagoville Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-25-000223 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF RILEY CREST DRIVE,

[08:45:06]

BETWEEN GARDEN GROVE DRIVE AND SEAGOVILLE ROAD.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT SEVEN NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

JUSTIN COE.

GOOD EVENING. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR CASE, AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z ONE? NO FURTHER. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. I DON'T NEED TO DO THIS.

MAYOR, I MOVE TO REMAND THIS BACK TO CITY COUNCIL.

I MEAN, BACK TO CPC. IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. BLAIR? YES, SIR. FOR FIVE MINUTES.

BASED ON WHAT THE THE REQUEST SAYS IS THE APPLICATION FOR PNZ NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL R TEN.

AND THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY ON THE PROPERTY TO ACCESS A PROPOSED OFFICE, NURSERY AND RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE THRU USE.

BASED ON WHAT WE NEED, WE NEED RESIDENTIAL I HAVE I.

I AM HARD PRESSED TO TAKE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, CHANGE IT INTO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SO YOU CAN HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH A DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS COMMERCIAL RETAIL PROPERTY.

IN MY ALL OF MY UNDERSTANDING HOW WE DO ZONING.

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE. THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ACCESS COMMERCIAL RETAIL THROUGH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

CHANGING THE. A PIECE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SO YOU CAN ACCESS THE.

THE RETAIL THROUGH RESIDENTIAL SERVICES ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET.

THIS STREET IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET. IT IS NOT DESIGNED.

IT IS NOT FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES TO ACCESS PROPERTY ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

IT'S TO ME, IT BEGS TO ASK THE QUESTION IF WE IF IT WAS TO GO THROUGH PERMITTING AND GET PERMITTED, THEN WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TPW AND ASK THEM TO CONSISTENTLY GO INTO A COMMUNITY THAT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES AND ASK THEM TO REDESIGN, AND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO BUDGET AND PAY FOR THE REDESIGN OF A RESIDENTIAL STREET TO ACCEPT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

WE'RE IN A BUDGET CRISIS. THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT.

IF YOU NEED TO ACCESS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GET THE ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOT GOING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL USE. SO FOR THAT PARTICULAR REASON, I'M ASKING US TO REMAND THIS BACK TO TO CPC TO HAVE A BETTER VIEW AND TO DO THE ZONING AND TO DESIGN APPROPRIATELY.

THAT DOESN'T CAUSE CHALLENGES TO ALREADY STRUGGLING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

AND I'M THROUGH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED? NO. THERE WAS ONE.

NO. IT'S NOTED. COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY THANK YOU.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM Z2. ITEM Z2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT

[Z2. 26-2274A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 1060, on the north line of Forest Lane, between Quincy Lane and Nuestra Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to amended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to amended conditions Z-26-000008 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1060 ON THE NORTH LINE OF FOREST LANE BETWEEN QUINCY LANE AND WESTWOOD DRIVE.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 85 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND SEVEN REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

RICHARD BROWN.

YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON. THERE YOU GO.

[08:50:01]

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS RICHARD BROWN.

I LIVE AT 11 931 QUINCY LANE. FIVE YEARS AGO, I STOOD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND URGED THEM TO DENOTE DENY THE ZONING REQUEST THAT CREATED THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S HEARING. ALTHOUGH WE LOST THAT FIGHT, THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED SOME VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS A 21 FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN THE NEW HOMES AND THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE SETBACKS WERE KEY PROVISIONS INTENDED TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW, AFTER FOUR HOMES HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE DEVELOPER VIOLATED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

I DON'T BE FOOLED BY ANY TALK OF TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SETBACKS BETWEEN COVERED PATIOS AND THE HOUSE.

THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. THEY ARE ONE STRUCTURE.

AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THAT A BUILDING INSPECTOR CAME OUT, FOUND VIOLATION.

NOW, IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE DEVELOPER, THE BUILDER WOULD HAVE TO CURE THAT PROBLEM.

BUT THEY CAME UP WITH A DIFFERENT STRATEGY. AND THAT WAS TO COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU TO CHANGE THE ZONING SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

NOW, LET ME ASK YOU WHAT VALUE DO THESE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AGREEMENTS HAVE IF THEY CAN SIMPLY BE CHANGED AFTER CONSTRUCTION BEGINS? I MEAN, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY DECISION.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO REWARD A BUILDER FOR BREAKING THE RULES? I MEAN, WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE IS THAT GOING TO SEND? I BEGAN MY REMARKS TODAY BY ADDRESSING YOU AS THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AND THAT'S THE TITLE THAT YOU ALL DESERVE.

THE WORD HONORABLE MEANS HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY, AND ACTING WITH INTEGRITY.

AN HONORABLE PERSON KEEPS PROMISES. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL FOR TODAY.

KEEP THE PROMISE THAT WAS MADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE YEARS AGO.

KEEP THIS PROTECTION OF THIS 21 FOOT SETBACK IN PLACE.

YOU KNOW, YOUR DECISION TODAY IS GOING TO ESTABLISH AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT.

WILL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL REMAIN MEANINGFUL AND ENFORCEABLE, OR CAN THEY BE CHANGED AFTER A VIOLATION OCCURS? AND WHEN COMPLIANCE BECOMES INCONVENIENT FOR A DEVELOPER.

KEEP THE ZONING REQUEST AND DENY IT. PRESERVE THE SETBACK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z TWO, I SEE TWO SPEAKERS. 1ST MAY COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN. THERE'S YOUR MICROPHONE.

THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE ON. MY NAME IS MARGARET CHABRIS.

I LIVE AT 5715 ORCHID LANE. I'M ABOUT TO READ THE FOLLOWING FROM A NEIGHBOR WHO HAD TO LEAVE HERE THIS AFTERNOON ON AN EMERGENCY THAT IS CAROLYN PEARSON OF 5640 BROOKSTONE DRIVE IN MELCHIOR ESTATES.

SHE LIVES RIGHT NEXT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, THIS PROJECT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE WERE OVERRULED AND THE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED ANYWAY.

BUT WITH SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING A 21 FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND HER HOME.

THIS SETBACK WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. TODAY, ONLY SEVEN OF THE PLANNED 26 HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT.

FIVE OF THESE WERE BUILT IN VIOLATION OF THAT APPROVED SETBACK.

AND NOW, INSTEAD OF REQUIRING THE DEVELOPER TO COMPLY, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THE RULES TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. THINK ABOUT THIS BUILD FIRST, VIOLATE THE APPROVED PLAN.

THEN ASK THE CITY TO MAKE THE VIOLATION PERMISSIBLE.

DISTRICT 13 COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS RECENTLY WROTE THAT LISTENING TO RESIDENTS DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE RECEIVES THE SAME OUTCOME THEY PREFER. THIS IS NOT ABOUT PREFERENCE. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR OUR PREFERRED OUTCOME.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ENFORCE YOURS. THE CITY APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE DEVELOPER ACCEPTED THE CONDITIONS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PROMISED PROTECTIONS.

[08:55:02]

IF FIVE NON-COMPLIANT HOMES BECOME THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGING AN APPROVED PLAN, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEXT 20? WHAT INCENTIVE DOES ANY DEVELOPER HAVE TO FOLLOW AN APPROVED ZONING PLAN? IF THE RULES CAN SIMPLY BE REWRITTEN AFTER BEING VIOLATED.

THE COST OF INCONVENIENCE OF CORRECTING NONCOMPLIANCE BELONGS TO THE PARTY THAT CREATED IT, NOT TO THE HOMEOWNERS WHO FOLLOWED THE RULES.

WE ALREADY LOST THE FIGHT OVER THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO SURRENDER THE PROTECTIONS THAT CAME WITH ITS APPROVAL.

WE ASK DO NOT REWARD NONCOMPLIANCE. DO NOT RETROACTIVELY LEGITIMIZE IT.

PLEASE ENFORCE THE PLAN YOU APPROVED. PRESERVE THE 21 FOOT SETBACK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

THERE'S YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE ON.

YES. OKAY. MAYOR, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS BILL DAVIS.

I'M THE DEVELOPER OF MELCHER PARK. I THINK WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING, AND THAT THE FIRST FOUR PERMITS SENT BY THE BUILDER TO THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE, THE CITY PERMITTING OFFICE, WERE APPROVED. THEY APPROVED 5525 FOR SOME WAY, 55, 29, 55, 33, 55, 37 WHEN 5553 WAS SUBMITTED, THEN IT WAS DENIED. IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY SAID, OOPS, WE MADE A MISTAKE.

WE MISINTERPRETED THE PATIO SITUATION. WELL, THE HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT, THE HOUSES WERE BUILT.

THERE'S ONLY 11 HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND WE HAVE BUILT FIVE OF THEM.

THE 21 FOOT SETBACK IS WHAT WE ACCOMMODATED THESE FOLKS WHEN WE DID IT.

WE HAVE A BLANK WALL, SO WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT, CAN'T EVEN PUT HOUSES.

I CAN'T PUT WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, CAN'T PUT WINDOWS ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

YOU CAN'T LOOK BACK ACROSS THE ALLEY AT THESE FOLKS HOUSES.

EVERYTHING IS LOOKING THE OTHER DIRECTION. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE COULD.

THE 21 FOOT SETBACK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOMES.

HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A TEN BY 11 FOOT PATIO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

TOMMY. MAN 500. WINSTEAD. BUILDING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

I WANT TO ACCENTUATE AND CLARIFY HOW WE ARRIVED HERE A LITTLE BIT.

FIRST OF ALL THIS APPROVED PD DOES NOT HAVE A BLANKET 21 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

IT HAS MULTIPLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FIRST, AND IT GOES BY STORY.

THE GARAGE HAS A THREE FOOT SETBACK. THE SECOND STORY ABOVE THE GARAGE HAS A TEN FOOT SETBACK.

THE SECOND STORY OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE IN THAT FACADE HAS THE 21 FOOT SETBACK.

THERE IS NOT ONE BLANKET, 21 FOOT SETBACK. WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REQUESTING HERE IS ONLY OUTDOOR PATIOS AT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE GROUND LEVEL.

THOSE ARE SET BACK FARTHER THAN THE GARAGE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS THAT I ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF THIS MAP TO HELP ORIENT YOU, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THE PATIOS LOOK LIKE.

AND THEY WERE PERMITTED. AND THEY WERE THERE WHEN THE PERMITTING ISSUE WAS RAISED.

BILL CONTACTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY INDICATED THEY DID NOT HAVE A CONCERN.

SO WE ELECTED THE EASIER ROUTE OF SIMPLY AMENDING THE PD VERSUS 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE FOLLOWED UP WITH THEM AGAIN PRIOR TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY INDICATED THEY STILL HAD NO CONCERN.

THE ITEM REMAINED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WAS PASSED WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITHIN THE LAST WEEK.

CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED AND WE ARE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY THEM, BUT HOPEFULLY THE CLARITY I'VE PROVIDED HERE WILL LET YOU KNOW AND LET THEM KNOW WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD ANYTHING NEW. WE HAD APPROVAL FOR 26 HOMES ON 4600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS FIVE YEARS AGO.

IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THIS, WE STILL HAVE 26 HOMES ON 4600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

THESE PATIOS DON'T ADD ANY DENSITY. THEY DON'T ADD ANY TRIPS.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS THAT I'VE GOT HERE, BOTH FROM OUR SIDE OF THE ALLEY AND FROM THE NEIGHBOR SIDE OF THE ALLEY,

[09:00:07]

YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM. THEY LITERALLY HAVE NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER.

RATHER THAN ARGUE WITH CITY STAFF OVER THE PERMITTING INTERPRETATION, WE JUST SAID, HEY, WE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH IT. WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

NONE OF THIS WAS DONE IN VIOLATION OR FLAGGED.

IT WAS JUST A MISTAKE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM C TWO? I SEE ONE MORE SPEAKER. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS BY SHOW OF HANDS.

THIS IS YOUR LAST SPEAKER. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

HI, MY NAME IS OLIVIA CASEY. I AM AT 2611 SOUTHLAND AND I HEARD A LOT ABOUT PLANNING, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT FIRE SAFETY OR THE FIRE INSPECTOR OR FLOOD PLANNING OR LAND SURVEYING.

AND I'M SAYING THESE THINGS BECAUSE MY CAPACITY.

I'M A THIRD PARTY BUILDING AND ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT, AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF PROCESSES THAT WE NEED TO RIGOROUSLY GO THROUGH. AND SO MANY TIMES WE HAVE INSPECTORS GO OUT ONTO THE FIELD WITH THESE DEVELOPERS, AND IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, BUT THEY'RE PUSHED OFF OF THE LOT ANYWAYS.

AND SO JUST SPEAKING FROM MY POINT OF VIEW AND JUST TAKING THE SIDE OF THE RESIDENT, THERE'S, THERE'S A REASON WHY THESE SETBACKS ARE IN PLACE IS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, FIRE PREVENTION, AIR BARRIER REASONS WHY WE DON'T PUT BUILDINGS THIS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

AND SO IF WE DON'T CORRECT THE PROBLEM NOW, AND IF WE KEEP REWARDING DEVELOPERS DOING CREATING INCORRECT WORK, THEN WHAT PRESIDENT IS THAT SETTING FOR DEVELOPERS IN DALLAS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS AND COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. MOVE! APPROVAL.

WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. DISCUSSION.

YES, I KNOW IT'S 50 DEGREES IN HERE, BUT IT'S 100 DEGREES OUTSIDE.

AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF COVERING HOT PATIOS IN DALLAS.

SINCE THIS PROJECT STARTED THESE ARE ABOUT $2 MILLION, $2.25 MILLION HOMES.

AND THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOTTEN FROM RESIDENTS SINCE THE TIME THE MASONRY BALL WALL WAS BUILT THAT WE AGREED ON.

THE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING CAME IN HAS ALL BEEN POSITIVE.

WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS ISSUE, THOUGH, ABOUT A COVERED PATIO BEING CONSIDERED PART OF THE STRUCTURE, MY FIRST CONCERN WAS FOR THAT COVENANT THAT WE MADE YEARS AGO THAT WE WORKED WITH WITH NEIGHBORS IN 2021.

AND SO I WENT TO STAFF AND ASKED ABOUT THAT. AND I WAS TOLD BY STAFF THAT THE IMPACT IS MINIMAL TO NON-EXISTENT, WHICH YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS. THEY SAID THEY ALSO ASK INTERNALLY, YOU KNOW, IS A PATIO WITH A COVER APPROPRIATE AND CITY STAFF DETERMINED? YES, IT IS APPROPRIATE. AND THE CPC UNANIMOUSLY SAID YES.

SO WE'VE GOT CITY SPEAK LANGUAGE THAT I CAN'T STAND IN WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS.

BUT WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORD SETBACK, IT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN.

AND SO THE, THE DOCUMENT FROM THE PLANNER SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THIS IS THE COVERING A PATIO PRIMARILY RELATED TO SETBACKS FOR COVERED GROUND FLOOR PATIOS.

BUT THE STATEMENT GOES ON TO SAY THE BASIC LAYOUT, DENSITY AND HEIGHT OF THE OVERALL PROJECT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED AT ALL.

SO THIS WAS A FORMER TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME AT FOREST IN THE TOLLWAY, IT USED TO BE A CHURCH, AND THE CITY BOUGHT IT IN A BOND PROGRAM TO BUILD A LIBRARY.

AND THEN WE ENDED UP SELLING IT. AND SO NOW WHEN THESE HOMES ARE FINISHED, WHAT WAS TAX EXEMPT WILL BE WORTH $55 MILLION ON OUR TAX ROLLS.

BUT THAT'S REALLY AN ASIDE. THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE THIS WAS BEING PERMITTED.

AND THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. AND YOU ALL HAVE COME BACK THIS WAY INSTEAD OF DOING THE 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES.

SO I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. BLACKMON YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO CAN STAFF HELP UNDER HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW WHEN I REMEMBER THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW WHY.

I THINK IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE NO WINDOWS ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S ODD, BUT AND I DO REMEMBER IT WAS IT WAS PACKED. THEY SAT HERE AND WE.

[09:05:01]

IT WAS A VERY DELICATE STITCHING OF ITEMS. SO HOW DID IT GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS? AND IT GOT ACTUALLY ALLOWED. AND IS IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONSIDERED OR IT WAS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS HAPPENED IN LITTLE FOREST HILLS. IT'S HAPPENED IN I THINK ELM THICKET AND, AND, AND THANK YOU, TOMMY, FOR EXPLAINING BECAUSE I WAS LIKE GOING TO ASK ABOUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHY DIDN'T YOU GO THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EVERY SINGLE TIME.

AND SO GO AHEAD. MEGAN. YEAH. HI. MEGAN WEIMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS, I THINK TOMMY ALLUDED TO IT MAYBE A DIFFERENCE OF INTERPRETATION OF HOW TO APPLY THE SETBACK TO THE PATIOS. IF THE PATIOS WERE UNCOVERED. IT'S JUST CONSIDERED FLATWORK.

IT'S NOT A STRUCTURE. IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE ALLOWED IN A SETBACK, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS.

THE. SO THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE AIR CONDITIONED SPACE IS AT 21FT.

IT MEETS THE SETBACK. SO THERE WAS, I BELIEVE THE STAFF REVIEWING THE PERMITS AT THE TIME LOOKED AT THE PATIO.

IT'S JUST NOT PART OF THE STRUCTURE. IT'S JUST A PATIO.

THEREFORE IT WAS APPROVED. THERE WAS ANOTHER ROUND OF PERMITS THAT CAME IN.

THERE ARE SEVERAL IN REVIEW RIGHT NOW AND IT WAS FLAGGED AT THAT TIME.

OKAY. SO IT'S REALLY THE ROOF THAT KIND OF MAKES IT THE PART THAT IT WAS INTERPRETED AS PART OF THE ROOM.

BECAUSE IF IT'S THE TILE, THEN IT'S JUST PART OF THE YARD.

IT'S JUST PART OF THE YARD. AND IT COULD HAVE A TABLE THERE WITH A UMBRELLA.

UMBRELLA. YES. OKAY. BUT BECAUSE IT HAS THAT LITTLE OVERHANG.

YES. AND SO HOW AND I SEE THE SETBACK AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME LANDSCAPING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO IN AS WELL.

IS THAT CORRECT? SOME TREES. TOMMY, IS THAT TRUE? IS THAT HOW MY RECOLLECTION. THERE WAS SOME TREES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO.

THE TREES. YOU CAN SEE IN THE THIRD PICTURE, THE EXISTING MATURE TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE WERE THE ONES THAT EVERYBODY WANTED TO MAKE SURE WERE PROTECTED. THOSE ARE ACTUALLY MOSTLY IN THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARDS. OKAY, SO NOT ANY TREES ON THE NEW PROPERTY.

RIGHT. OKAY. AND SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING BOTH BY NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS, THE DEVELOPER AND ANYBODY THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS PART OF THE CONSISTED IN THE SETBACK AND NOT HOW DO WE MAKE SURE? BECAUSE I KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S IT'S HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES.

YEAH. I GUESS WHAT I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT IS IT'S, IT'S A GOOD TRAINING OPPORTUNITY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN WE HAVE EXAMPLES, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO SHARE THESE WITH STAFF AND, YOU KNOW, SO THEY SEE A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF, HEY, THIS IS THE INTERPRETATION, THIS IS THE PLAN.

SO IT'S TRAINING GOING FORWARD. SO THE FIVE HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT HAVE THIS OVER THIS ROOF STRUCTURE.

CORRECT. AND INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CHANGING THE PD AND ALLOWING ALL OF THEM TO LOOK THE SAME.

CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. COUNCILWOMAN. MENDELSOHN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

WELL, LIKE. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. I DEFINITELY REMEMBER THIS CASE.

IT WAS BEFORE PEPPER SQUARE SET A NEW BAR, BUT IT PROBABLY WAS OUR MOST WELL ATTENDED ZONING CASE AT THE TIME. AND THE PEOPLE WERE NOT FOR THIS DEAL AT ALL.

AND I WOULDN'T SAY THERE WAS A NEGOTIATION AND THEN EVERYONE WAS OKAY.

THAT ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WALKED OUT VERY, VERY UNHAPPY, BUT THERE WAS CONCESSIONS MADE, AND ONE OF THOSE CONCESSIONS WAS THE SETBACK.

AND WHAT LOOKS LIKE HAPPENING TO ME IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS JUST DOING WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CODIFY IT. THERE'S JUST ACTUALLY NO REPERCUSSION FOR THEM TO HAVE IGNORED WHAT WAS DECIDED AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING. NONE AT ALL.

AND I DO THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

I THINK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL TELL THEM TO TAKE IT OUT. SO I THINK THEY CAME HERE THINKING THAT THEY COULD GET IT DONE.

WAS THERE A COMMENT MADE THAT TOMMY DOESN'T KNOW THAT A COVERED PATIO IS PART OF THE STRUCTURE? THAT WAS WHAT WAS SAID. I MEAN, THAT CAN'T BE NEWS TO YOU. IS THAT TRUE? I DON'T THINK THAT COMMENT WAS MADE BY ME. WELL, IT WASN'T MADE BY YOU, BUT IT WAS MADE.

[09:10:01]

SO I KNOW WHAT A STRUCTURE IS AND I KNOW THAT IT IS A COVERED PATIO, A STRUCTURE.

YES, BUT SO IT'S NOT ALLOWED. WHEN I READ THE PD.

NOT THAT THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE, AND THIS IS THE DISCUSSION I HAD WITH STAFF.

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE STRUCTURE. IT APPLIES TO THE DWELLING. AND I DON'T BELIEVE A PATIO IS PART OF THE DWELLING. BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY RATHER THAN ARGUE ABOUT THAT, IT WAS EASIER.

EXCUSE ME. I'M DONE ASKING YOU A QUESTION. THANK YOU.

IT'S NOT WHAT OUR CODE SAYS. OUR CODE SAYS THAT THE PATIO IS PART OF THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S A COVERED PATIO.

SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE HEAR FROM STAFF THAT WE CAN'T DO MORE THIRD PARTY WORK BECAUSE IT'S TOO COMPLICATED AND THEY WON'T GET IT RIGHT.

BUT I KEEP SEEING THESE REALLY BAD CASES WHERE STAFF'S NOT GETTING IT RIGHT.

AND IN FACT, I'LL REMIND YOU OF THE POKER ROOM ZONING WHERE STAFF DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT.

WE'VE HAD OTHER CASES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN POINT OF ORDER.

WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF ORDER? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POKER ROOMS. NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. IT'S A ZONING ISSUE.

AND WHAT HAPPENED IS WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INSPECTION.

STOP IT IMMEDIATELY. BUT WE ALSO HAD A DEVELOPER WHO DID IT INTENTIONALLY.

I HAVE NO PLAN TO VOTE FOR THIS TODAY, TO NOW ALLOW SOMEBODY TO DO WHAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE.

AND THEY KNOW BETTER. AND I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT FIVE YEARS AGO EITHER.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CADENA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I'M HAVING A BIT OF DÉJA VU BECAUSE I REPRESENT ELM THICKET, NORTH PARK AND LA BAJADA, AND SIMILAR THINGS HAPPEN. AND THOSE DEVELOPERS HAD TO GO BACK TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF THOSE ISSUES.

SO I MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE BACK. CAN SOMEONE REPEAT WHY THIS CASE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OR DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT OR WHOEVER? I GUESS STAFF.

YES. SO THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. EACH CASE WOULD BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.

IT WOULD NEED TO BE A SERIES OF CASES. THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO ADDRESS IT HOLISTICALLY BY AMENDING THE PD RATHER THAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ROUTE. YEAH. I MEAN, I REMEMBER IN THE LA BAJADA CASE, THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE HEIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S VERY SIMILAR. AND SO WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH STAFF? BECAUSE IT DOES COST A LOT OF ISSUES FOR THE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO FOR THE DEVELOPER.

YOU KNOW WHAT? ARE THERE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING SO THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.

SEE, EMILY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT. MY NAME IS EMILY LIU, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS VERY ISSUE. JUST BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, 30 YEAR EXPERIENCE 30 YEARS WORKING IN DIFFERENT STATE, DIFFERENT CITY. THERE'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS ON THE SETBACK IN THE CITY LIKE THIS.

MOST CITY INTERPRETED AS IF THE STRUCTURE IS ENCLOSED, MEANING YOU HAVE WINDOWS ENCLOSED, NOT JUST A ROOF. IT DEFINITELY NEED TO BE YOU KNOW, RESERVE OR OBSERVE THE SETBACK.

BUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE ENCLOSURE, JUST HAVE A ROOF.

MANY CITIES ALLOWS THAT TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK.

SO IT'S IT'S NOT SOMETHING LIKE BLACK WHITE. WHEN WE HAVE A PD WE ADOPTED WITH DIFFERENT SETBACK.

I WOULD SAY SOMETIME IT IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO BE MORE DILIGENT, BUT SOMETIMES IT MAKES MISTAKE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT.

SO SOMETIMES I HAVE DEFINITELY WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN THE FUTURE.

DIFFERENT PEOPLE LOOK AT IT WILL HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ON WHAT IS A SETBACK FOR.

THIS IS A STRUCTURE. DO YOU NEED TO OBSERVE IT? BUT DIFFERENT CITY INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY NEED TO COME TOGETHER WITH.

ONE INTERPRETATION THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL IN THIS ONE, WE WE ARE INTERPRETED ON THE STRICT SIDE, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T SAY, YEAH, IT CAN ENCOURAGE THAT, BUT WE ARE REALLY ON THE STRICT SIDE, MEANING WE ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO OBSERVE IT.

AT FIRST IT WAS NOT INTERPRETED THAT. BUT I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION ISSUE, BUT MOVING FORWARD, WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.

A LOT OF TIME YOU KNOW, THE CITY DALLAS, I GUESS IT IS HOW PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE THAT COVER IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE COVERAGE, DEFINITELY 100% DOES NOT NEED TO BE OBSERVED.

SETBACK IS JUST A PATIO. SO WITHOUT THE ENCLOSURE YOU CAN INTERPRET DIFFERENTLY.

[09:15:06]

I DO SEE THERE'S A GRAY AREA IN HERE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND I APOLOGIZE.

YOU CAN SEE MY MISTAKE OR YOU CAN SAY IT'S DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.

TO ME. IT IS A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. SO THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH LA BAJADA AND I THINK WHERE THEY MEASURED THE, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION. AND WE HAD TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT CAPPED THE HEIGHT.

AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE SOMETHING SIMILAR SO THAT MAYBE THE HEIGHT.

IT IS ANOTHER THING. SO TYPICALLY STANDARD PLANNING DEFINITION THE HEIGHT GABLE ROOF YOU MEASURE AT THE MIDDLE.

BUT I HAVE SEEN SOME PD AND SOME OTHER THINGS HAVE A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS SOMETIME STAFF REVIEW IT, IT COULD MAKE A MISTAKE.

SO STANDARD INTERPRETATION OF HEIGHT IS MIDDLE OF THE PITCHED ROOF.

OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN THIS THIS THE FIELD PLANNING AND YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SOMETIME A LOT THINGS LOOK UGLY.

SO IT DEPENDS ON PEOPLE INTERPRETATION. IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY.

AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE I THINK IT TOOK SEVERAL CASES BEFORE STAFF REALIZED THAT, THAT WE HAD TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENT SO THAT THE MISTAKE DIDN'T KEEP HAPPENING OR THAT THE INTERPRETATION.

RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M ASKING IS.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ALSO A LESSON LEARNED WHEN THE FUTURE WE AMEND PD, WHATEVER.

TRYING TO STANDARDIZE IS VERY HELPFUL. INSTEAD OF THIS PT HAVE THIS MEASUREMENT.

SO THAT'S MAKE IT VERY EASY, VERY PRONE TO MAKE A MISTAKE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A STANDARD INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT OR BUILDING SETBACK. I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING IN THE I WILL SAY IN THE DALLAS ZONING REFORM WERE TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY EXCUSE ME.

I THINK WE CAN. CAN WE STICK WITH THE TOPIC? I KNOW WE'RE WAY OFF RIGHT NOW.

SO LET'S STICK WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE ZONING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. I'LL JUST SAY QUICKLY ABOUT LA LA BAJADA, THAT ONE.

AND THIS IS CIRCLING BACK TO HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THIS HERE.

THERE WAS A POINT OF ORDER. WHAT'S YOUR POINT OF ORDER? WE CAN STICK TO THE AGENDA ITEM. OKAY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

SO LET'S AGAIN, LET'S JUST STICK WITH THE AGENDA ITEM.

SO WE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. SO IT'S COMMUNICATION AND USING THIS AS A TRAINING OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER MISTAKES.

THANK YOU MEGAN. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I NEED TO SPEAK TO BOTH OF YOU IF YOU'LL STAY AROUND.

MY MY FIRST QUESTION I WAS NOT AROUND FIVE YEARS AGO, SO I, I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY, ALTHOUGH I DO REMEMBER JUST IN THE PRESS, THAT WAS REALLY ONE OF THE EARLY SORT OF IMPORTANT ZONING CASES IN DALLAS THAT WERE CONTROVERSIAL.

MY QUESTION IS, WERE THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE HERE, WERE YOU ALL ACTIVE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PD? COVENANTS? WERE YOU THE ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS? YES. SO IT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO, RIGHT. AND OBVIOUSLY IT DIDN'T HAVE THE HOMES DESIGNED AT THAT TIME.

I'M SORRY. SO OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T HAVE THE HOMES DESIGNED FIVE YEARS AGO.

BUT YES, WE WERE AND BILL AND I WERE INVOLVED WITH THE CREATION OF THIS PD.

YES, SIR. OKAY. SO SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS NEW TO YOU THAT YOU ALL WERE, WERE, WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE ZONING, THE THE NEGOTIATED PD REQUIREMENTS.

YES, THERE WERE SEVERAL FOR. SO IT WAS, LIKE I SAID, THREE FOOT FOR THE GARAGE, TEN FOOT FOR THE SECOND STORY ABOVE THE GARAGE, 21 FOOT FOR OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE AND NO WINDOWS ON THE NORTHERN FACADE.

SO THESE PATIOS WERE NOT PART OF THE BUILDING, IF YOU WILL, AND WEREN'T KNOWN AT THE TIME WE WERE NEGOTIATING THAT.

ARE YOU ALL ARE YOU ALL HOME DEVELOPERS? DO YOU DO THIS QUITE A BIT? DO YOU USE ATTORNEY? BUT I'M SORRY, I'M A LAND USE ATTORNEY, SO I DON'T BUILD ANYTHING.

OH, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. YOU DON'T WANT ME BUILDING IT. BUT YES, BILL AND THE HOME BUILDER DEFINITELY HAVE BUILT MANY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOODS AND BUILT HOMES. AND GENERALLY IN THE HOME BUILDING WORLD, A PATIO IS NOT PART OF THE HOME.

OKAY. AND WERE YOU LIKE, A GARAGE IS NOT IN THE FLOOR AREA WHEN YOU BUY A HOUSE? RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'RE WE'RE WHEN THIS CAME UP AND WHEN THIS WAS DISCOVERED DID YOU GET A RECOMMENDATION OF WHICH WAY TO PROCEED FROM THE STAFF OR FROM OTHER, SOME, SOME OTHER CONTACTS? OR DID YOU GIVE THE RECOMMENDATION WHETHER TO GO TO ZONING ADJUSTMENT OR TO ASK FOR A PLAN TO A VARIANCE TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONING CODE? SO WHAT WE DID, JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT WE STILL OWN ALL OF THESE.

[09:20:01]

NOW, TWO OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY UNDER CONTRACT TO HOME BUYERS.

BUT SO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ENFORCED ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS.

AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS FOR THE SAME HOME FROM ONE OWNER.

SO WHAT WE ACTUALLY DID WAS MEET WITH BILL, REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EXPLAINED THE ISSUE.

EVERYONE'S THERE'S NO MYSTERY, RIGHT? THEY EXIST.

THERE'S AN OPEN HOUSE EVERY WEEKEND. PEOPLE CAN WALK AROUND AND SEE WHAT THEY ARE.

SO, AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT EVERYONE WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE NEIGHBORS THOUGHT.

AND WE UNDERSTOOD THEY OPPOSED THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, BUT THEY INDICATED THEY DIDN'T HAVE CONCERNS WITH THESE PATIOS.

SO BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, WE SAID, OKAY, WE'LL JUST DO A PD AMENDMENT.

AND LITERALLY UNTIL LAST WEEK, THIS WAS MOVING ALONG WITH NO DISCUSSION AS A CONSENT ITEM.

AND NOW WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY.

IT WOULD THESE IF THESE, IF THIS AREA WAS ENCLOSED LATER ON, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE HOUSE? OH YEAH. AND THEY WON'T BE ABLE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT FOR THAT. RIGHT.

BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VERY SPECIFIC.

IT ONLY SAYS COVERED PATIOS. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE HOME OR FLOOR AREA.

I'M, I'M A LITTLE BIT DISTRESSED THAT AGAIN, MISTAKES HAPPEN.

THERE'S PROBLEMS SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES YOUR INTERPRETATION ISSUES.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I'M A LITTLE BIT DISTRESSED THAT THE FOLKS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PD AND THE CONTROVERSY AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS A REALLY HEATED ISSUE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN KNOWN ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE EXPERIENCED. THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS EXPERIENCED.

THE CITY WAS EXPERIENCED. I'M A LITTLE BIT DISTRESSED THAT THIS IS EVEN COMING UP.

AND THAT YOU'RE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FIVE HOUSES, NOT 11.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'VE GOT FIVE UP RIGHT NOW? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, THERE'S 11 HOUSES THAT ARE ALONG THE ALLEY.

FIVE HAVE BEEN BUILT SO FAR, RIGHT. WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THE PATIOS ON ALL OF THEM ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT. RIGHT. SIX OF THEM HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET.

AND SO IS THERE, SO GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE VARIANCE ON THOSE FIVE, WOULD THAT BE AN ALTERNATIVE.

AND THEN GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP THE OTHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

WOULD THAT BE AN OPPORTUNITY? IT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE REQUESTED.

WE DON'T. WE THINK AS A MATTER OF POLICY. AND IF YOU'RE EVALUATING THIS IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS, THAT THESE PATIOS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS, AND IT'S SIMPLER AND MAKES MORE SENSE TO DO THIS.

WHAT DISTRESSES ME IS THAT MISTAKES HAPPEN, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AVOIDING ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT I'M, I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY.

I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED, BUT IT WAS VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

AND I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP SOME INFORMATION SO THAT I COULD MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

YEAH, IT'S JUST KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE FIVE YEARS BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING APPROVAL AND THESE PERMITS, AND THEY WERE PERMITTED. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WENT OUT AND BUILT IT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THEN GOT FLAGGED.

SO IT'S UNFORTUNATE HOW WE ENDED UP HERE, BUT IT DIDN'T ALL JUST HAPPEN IN THE LAST WEEK.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. ROTH, I THINK YOU GOT IT RIGHT WHEN YOU SAID THIS IS AN INSTANCE OF A KNOWLEDGEABLE DEVELOPER WHO WAS DENIED PERMISSION ON THE FRONT END, WENT AHEAD AND BUILT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PD CONDITIONS, AND NOW IS ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS.

AND I DON'T THINK WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING FORGIVENESS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE INTENTIONALLY OR INADVERTENTLY VIOLATED THE PD CONDITIONS. WHY DO I SAY THAT? I'M LOOKING AT THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REGULATIONS IN THIS PD, WHICH CLEARLY SPECIFIES MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN ALLEY FOR THE GROUND STORY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT STRUCTURE IS THREE FEET FOR THE GARAGE AND 21FT FOR ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE.

NOW, IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR TO ME FOR AT LEAST THE 15 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN CITY GOVERNMENT, THAT A STRUCTURE INVOLVES ANY STRUCTURE, ANY ASSEMBLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS THAT'S OVER A FOOT HIGH.

THAT'S WHY A PATIO IS NOT CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE, BUT A ROOFED PATIO IS, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALLS.

NOW, IF THIS APPLICANT IS SUCH A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED DEVELOPER AND HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS, HE SHOULD KNOW THAT I DON'T SEE ANY AMBIGUITY IN THIS PROVISION AT ALL.

[09:25:04]

STRUCTURE IS A STRUCTURE THAT'S ANYTHING ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.

THEY BUILT THESE INTENTIONALLY. I DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY THINK IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT.

THAT IS NOT THE LITMUS TEST. THE LITMUS TEST IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE PD.

THEY VIOLATED IT. IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEY'RE FREE TO DO THAT.

BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE CHANGING THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.

I'M AGAINST CHANGING THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.

ALL IN FAVOR? RECORD VOTE, PLEASE. WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED. THIS IS ITEM C TWO COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER. MORENO COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CADENET. NO. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

ROTH. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILLIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

YES. AND MAYOR JOHNSON IS ABSENT. AND VOTE TAKEN.

WITH EIGHT VOTING IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED, THREE ABSENT AND VOTE TAKEN.

THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ZONING ITEM.

[Z3. 26-2275A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new Specific Use Permit for a private recreation club or area on property zoned Tract 1A, Planned Development District No. 160, on the southwest and southeast corners of West Canty Street and North Vernon Avenue Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a one-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional three-year periods, subject to a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a one-year period, subject to a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions Z-26-000032 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z THREE.

ITEM Z THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CLUB OR AREA ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WEST CANTEY STREET AND NORTH VERNON AVENUE.

ALL RIGHT. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 58 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED 17 REPLIES IN FAVOR AND PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.

DO WE HAVE QUORUM? I DON'T THINK SHE'S IN THE CHAMBER AREA.

WE HAVE. HOW MANY COUNCIL MEMBER AND GRACEY ONLINE.

GO AHEAD. CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. YES WE WERE. WE RECEIVED 17 REPLIES IN FAVOR AND FIVE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, JENNIFER GIRT.

HI, THIS IS JENNIFER. I'M TRYING TO TURN ON YOUR VIDEO.

YES. THANK YOU. I HIT THE START BUTTON, BUT.

I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PERSON? YES, I WILL WHILE YOU WORK ON THAT. I'M SO SORRY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NATHANIEL CHENEY. NATHANIEL CHENEY.

OKAY. WE CAN SEE YOU. HOWEVER YOU ARE, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU, MR. CHENEY. YOUR AUDIO IS YOUR. IT'S MUTED. WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR YOU, MR. CHENEY. SO I WILL COME BACK TO YOU AS WELL.

STEVIE VESSELS. HELLO. HELLO.

MR. JAYNIE. HOLD ON. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU, STEVIE.

VESSELS. YOU MAY. HI. MY NAME IS STEVIE VESSELS.

I LIVE AT 730 WINSTON STREET, A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM THE SUP.

I THINK YOU NEED TO HIT THE MIC BUTTON. IT'S GREEN LIGHT ON.

IT'S GREEN. GOOD. OKAY, OKAY. IS THAT BETTER? YEAH. ANYWAY, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

AND ALSO, BEFORE I START, IF I CAN, THANK YOU FOR SAVING MY GARBAGE ALLEY COLLECTION.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IT WAS MORE THAN A NECESSITY IN RESPONSE TO THE SUP.

[09:30:02]

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DO FACE SERIOUS CHALLENGES ON OUR STREET.

IT'S CONDITIONS THERE SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND THERE'S OUTSIDE DEVELOPERS TRYING TO BUY HOUSES AND TURN THEM INTO EXPENSIVE RENTALS.

THIS PROPOSED SVP IS NOT A THREAT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE MANY WAYS IN WHICH MR. MADISON'S EFFORTS HAVE ALREADY MADE IT A BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN THE ADJOINING AREAS ALL POINT TO APPROVING THIS SUP. I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED SOME VOCAL RESONANCE IN.

THE. KIDS RECEIVED SOME RESPONSES FROM SOME VOCAL RESIDENTS IN THE KIDS SPRINGS AREA THAT DON'T LIVE IN OUR PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY OPPOSE ANYTHING NEW. MISS MADISON HAS DONE HER BEST TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED.

I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE OF US WHO LIVE CLOSE BY AND HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH HER.

THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU. I'LL GO BACK TO NATHANIEL JAYNIE.

OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS NATHANIEL JAYNIE AND I AM A RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER IN KIDD SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD IN DISTRICT ONE.

I'M ASKING THAT YOU DENY THIS PERMIT. AND I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHY THESE TWO PROPERTIES WERE BUILT AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THEY WERE FINANCED WITH RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGES ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS FOR ROUGHLY THREE YEARS.

THEY WERE OPERATED AS AS A COMMERCIAL ENTITY, CHARGING DUES FOR PAYING MEMBERSHIP WHILE HOSTING CONCERTS, A WEDDING AND A WELLNESS PROGRAM, AND WELLNESS WELLNESS PROGRAMING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND WITHOUT THE ZONING THAT THE USE REQUIRES.

WE CANNOT CALL THIS A PAPERWORK OVERSIGHT AND IN DEED.

AND IN A D MAGAZINE ARTICLE, MISS MADISON IS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT SHE HAS HAD A ZONING LAWYER WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2019.

HOWEVER, IT WASN'T UNTIL THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD TO FORMALLY NOTIFY BOTH PROPERTIES THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE AND ORDERED THEM TO CEASE OPERATIONS THAT LA SOUL SOUGHT. THIS SUP. I RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE SUSPENDED PAID MEMBERSHIP AND IS NOW GOING THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS.

AND TO BE FAIR, THAT PROCESS IS EXACTLY HOW THIS KIND OF CONFLICT SHOULD GET RESOLVED.

BUT I'D ASK YOU TO WEIGH WHY THAT PROCESS STARTED ONLY AFTER A CODE ENFORCEMENT FORCED THE ISSUE, AND NOT BEFORE. EVEN YOUR OWN PLAN COMMISSION SPLIT SEVEN FOUR ON THIS, AND THE COMMISSIONERS IN THE MINORITY SAID PLAINLY THAT THE APPLICANT'S HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE WAS THE REASON. NOW, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.

LA SOUL ISN'T FILLING A GAP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

NEARLY EVERYTHING THAT THEY MARKET TO THEIR MEMBERS YOGA CLASSES, A POOL, SOUND BATHS, GUIDED MEDITATION, COFFEE, TEA. I COULD GO ON IS ALREADY AVAILABLE.

LITERALLY A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY IN ZONED COMMERCIAL SPACES WITHIN BISHOP ARTS, THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF WELLNESS OFFERINGS IN THIS AREA THAT REQUIRES CONVERTING A MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES TO MEET IT.

ON TOP OF THIS, LA SOUL CLAIMS THAT ONLY 25% OF THEIR MEMBERS LIVE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE.

SO THIS GOES AGAINST ANY ARGUMENTS THAT THEY ARE CREATING A THIRD SPACE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS IT SUPPORTS MOSTLY THOSE FROM OUTSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND WITH THE MEMBERSHIP FEE OF $250 A MONTH, IT PLACES IT WELL OUTSIDE MOST RESIDENTS ABILITY TO AFFORD THESE SERVICES THEMSELVES.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT THESE TWO HOUSES. KIDS SPRINGS IS A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER FORWARD DALLAS.

THE PLAN'S OWN LANGUAGE SAYS THAT THESE AREAS EXIST TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT THE FOUNDATION OF OUR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

DOT BISHOP ARTS TWO MINUTES AWAY IS THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR THE CITY HAS ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR EXACTLY THIS KIND OF BUSINESS AND WHICH BUSINESSES ALREADY EXIST, GRANTING AN SUP TO A COMMERCIAL CLUB IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY BLOCK DOESN'T JUST AFFECT THESE TWO LOTS.

IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK COULD BE NEXT, SO LONG AS SOMEONE RUNS AN UNSANCTIONED BUSINESS FIRST AND THEN BOTHERS TO ASK FOR PERMISSION LATER WHEN CAUGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

JENNIFER. HIRAMOTO.

GOOD EVENING, JENNIFER HIRAMOTO. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND I HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2019.

I AM THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOUL IN THIS REQUEST FOR AN SCP FOR A PRIVATE REC CENTER.

WE ARE A MEMBERSHIP BASED WELLNESS CENTER. WE OFFER YOGA, CO-WORKING, AND MEMBER ONLY CLASSES.

THE SCP CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED ARE VERY STRICT.

WE'RE PROPOSING OFFER HOURS OF OPERATION OF 8 A.M.

[09:35:02]

TO 8 P.M. NO OUTDOOR SPEAKERS. THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES WILL MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER, HAVE NO VISIBLE SIGNAGE FROM THE STREET AND OPERATE PEACEFULLY WITHIN THE URBAN FABRIC OF THE KIDD SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A LOW IMPACT, LOW INTENSITY LAND USE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE KIDD SPRINGS REC CENTER.

OUR OPERATION IS SIMILAR, BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE KIDD SPRINGS REC CENTER, NOT A RETAIL BUSINESS. WE PROVIDE EYES ON THE STREET DURING THE DAYTIME, HAVE LONG TERM CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, AND WE NETWORK AND SUPPORT WITH OTHER OAKCLIFF SMALL BUSINESSES.

COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED AT LEAST 150 EMAILS OF SUPPORT FROM THE SOUL FROM THE COMMUNITY.

THE KIDD SPRINGS HOA HOSTED US IN JUNE, BUT THEY DID NOT MAKE AN OFFICIAL VOTE ON THIS SUP.

WE BEGAN MEETING WITH PLANNING STAFF MONTHS BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 25TH NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOT 2019, BUT WE HAVE FULLY COOPERATED WITH CODE COMPLIANCE.

AND AS WE UNDERWENT THIS PROCESS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. ALEXANDRIA WASHBURN.

HELLO, MY NAME IS ALEX WASHBURN. I LIVE AT 801 HAINES AVENUE, JUST A FEW BLOCKS FROM LASALLE.

AND I URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

BY MY COUNT, IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN ABOUT FOUR YEARS OF ILLEGAL OPERATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I AM BAFFLED THAT THIS IS EVEN A CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT.

I'VE HAD MANY. I PERSONALLY HAVE MANY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THIS.

SUP, BUT THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH IS WHAT I'LL FOCUS ON HERE. TO BE IN LINE WITH THAT, THIS CORRIDOR WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A COMMERCIAL SPACE.

THE STREETS THAT CONNECT LA SOUL ARE FAR SMALLER THAN THE FOUR LANES OF UNDIVIDED STREET THAT ARE STANDARD IN DALLAS FOR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHEN BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET ARE FULLY FILLED WITH PARKING, YOU HAVE ONE LANE THROUGH COUNTY. THAT'S ONE LANE FOR A FIRE TRUCK THAT MAY NOT FIT BECAUSE THOSE ARE ABOUT 8 TO 10FT WIDE.

I BELIEVE IN THE CITY. THAT'S ONE LANE FOR CARS GOING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM AN IMPORTANT PARK THAT HOSTS CHILDREN ON A REGULAR BASIS ALL SUMMER. SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH VISION ZERO, THIS ACTUALLY SEEMS TO BE OPPOSED TO THAT SAFETY ISSUE.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF ANY STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE VISIBILITY IMPACT ON THE STREET.

WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS WHY I'VE NARROWED MY FOCUS OF THAT TODAY TO THIS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NATE HEMBY.

GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS NATE HEMBY. I RESIDE AT 336 BECKLEY WOOD BOULEVARD.

AND I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS CIP.

LOZOL IS ONE OF MY THIRD PLACES. IT'S WHERE MY WIFE AND I SPEND OUR WEEKENDS.

AND IT'S WHERE WE MEET MORE NEIGHBORS, MORE NEW NEIGHBORS THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN OUR LIFE.

UNIQUE, VIBRANT PLACES LIKE LOZOL ARE A PART OF THE REASON THAT WE CHOOSE TO LIVE AND ARE PROUD TO LIVE IN OAK CLIFF, AS OPPOSED TO GOING NORTH TO THE SUBURBS, OR GOING TO A DIFFERENT CITY IN A CITY THAT HAS FEWER PLACES THAN EVER TO MEET YOUR NEIGHBOR.

I THINK THAT IT'S UNWISE TO PUT ONE OF THEM OUT OF OPERATION NOW.

OPPONENTS TO THIS STEP HAVE RAISED SEVERAL CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, AND I WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THEM DIRECTLY.

FIRST ONE, THAT THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

IT'S ON. THESE PROPERTIES ARE ON TWO ADJACENT LOTS BORDERING KID SPRINGS PARK.

THEY'RE ON THE SAME BLOCK AS A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX, AND IT'S ON THE EDGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BORDERING A SUPPORTING USE IN THE PARK.

NOT ON A PARCEL IN AN INTERIOR BLOCK, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.

NUMBER TWO, THERE'S BEEN CLAIMS THAT IT CREATES TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, BUT DIRECT NEIGHBORS TO THE PROPERTY, BOTH ON VERNON AND ON CANTY, THE TWO CROSSROADS THAT IT SITS ON REPORTED AT CPC THAT THEY HADN'T SEEN AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND PARTICULARLY HADN'T SEEN AN INCREASE COMPARED TO THE ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENS AT KID SPRINGS PARK.

NUMBER THREE, THERE'S BEEN CLAIMS THAT THEY'RE BAD NEIGHBORS. BUT IN APRIL 26 ARTICLE IN THE OAK CLIFF, ADVOCATE QUOTED THE RESIDENT DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM IN THE ALLEY SAYING THAT THE COUPLE OF TIMES THAT HE FLAGGED ANY VOLUME ISSUES, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN CARE OF BY STAFF. THAT'S A THAT'S A RESPONSIVE OPERATOR AND THAT'S WHAT A GOOD NEIGHBOR LOOKS LIKE,

[09:40:06]

AT LEAST TO ME. AND IF THERE'S EVER ANY COMPLIANCE CONCERNS WITH THE OPERATION, I THINK, WHICH I THINK IS THE MAIN QUESTION HERE, THE SCP IS WHAT THE FIX IS. IF YOU APPROVE IT, YOU ATTACH A SITE PLAN, YOU ATTACH CONDITIONS AND YOU HAVE REVOCATION AUTHORITY OF THE SCP. FOR THAT PROPERTY. IT BECOMES BASICALLY A TRIAL PERIOD.

AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL.

YOU JUST LET THE SCP EXPIRE AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO COME BACK AND APPLY AGAIN AND DO THIS PROCESS ALL OVER IN ORDER TO CONTINUE OPERATION, THEY'VE GOT TO COME BACK TO YOU AND SHOW THAT THEY HAD A CLEAN YEAR OF OPERATIONS AND BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THEY GET TO PROVE THEMSELVES AND YOU GUYS GET TO RESERVE THAT RIGHT TO REVOKE IT.

ANOTHER NOTE, JUST IN BROADER A BROADER NOTE, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE DALLAS ZONING HASN'T QUITE CAUGHT UP WITH SPACES THAT ARE CREATED IN OUR CITY TODAY. SPACES LIKE THIS THAT BLEND COMMUNITY AND WELLNESS, AND SMALL GATHERINGS DON'T REALLY FIT NEATLY INTO OUR SINGLE USE EXISTING ZONING, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE CLEARLY ADDING VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IN CLOSING, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT.

THANK YOU. CAROLINE LEE. CAROLINE LEE. HELLO.

IS THIS WORKING? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

OH, GREAT. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

I'M CAROLINE LEE AND OF 1022 NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE AND DALLAS.

I AM A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST AND HAVE BEEN IN OAK CLIFF RESIDENT FOR OVER A DECADE, AND I'M HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF LA SOUL.

AND I WANT TO START BY BEING VERY TRANSPARENT THAT TAYLOR MADISON, THE FOUNDER OF LA SOUL, IS MY BEST FRIEND. BUT I'M NOT HERE JUST BECAUSE I LOVE HER.

I AM HERE BECAUSE FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE WATCHED SOMETHING INCREDIBLY RARE BLOSSOM IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND AT LA SOUL OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

PURSUING AN SUV IS NOT EASY. IT IS NOT CHEAP.

IT REQUIRES TIME, MONEY, PERSISTENCE, AND THE HARD, GRITTY WORK OF BUILDING ENOUGH TRUST AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT TO EVEN MAKE THIS POSSIBLE.

AS A PSYCHOLOGIST, I WORK EVERY DAY WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE DEEPLY ISOLATED AND COMMUNITIES.

AS A COMMUNITY, WE NEED SPACES WHOSE PRIMARY GOAL IS CONNECTION.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SEEN TAYLOR FOR HER ENTIRE SOUL INTO OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS IS GETTING PEOPLE CONNECTED IN OAK CLIFF.

WE NEED PLACES OUTSIDE OF HOME AND WORK WHERE WE CAN GATHER, LINGER AND LEARN TO TRUST ONE ANOTHER.

THE SOUL IS ONE OF THOSE SPACES. I HAVE WATCHED COUNTLESS WOMEN IN PARTICULAR BUILD THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES.

NEW MOTHERS COME IN FOR A CUP OF COFFEE. NEW RESIDENTS SAY, I'M NEW HERE, I NEED FRIENDS.

WHERE DO I GO? I NEED A REALTOR. HOW DO I START A BUSINESS HERE? AND THE COMMUNITY AT LA SOUL HAS PARTICULARLY SUPPORTED WOMEN THAT ARE MOTHERS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND NEED CONNECTION IN ORDER TO BALANCE EVERYTHING.

AND I CAN SAY THIS PLAINLY THAT I WOULD HAVE LEFT DALLAS WITHOUT THIS KIND OF COMMUNITY.

SPACES LIKE LA SOUL ARE PART OF WHAT MAKE PEOPLE STAY AND INVEST ENERGETICALLY, FINANCIALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, BELONG AND BUILD A LIFE. LA SOUL HAS EARNED THE TRUST OF THIS COMMUNITY, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS. SUP? THANK YOU. THANK YOU OLIVIA, AGAIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.

I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF LA SOUL. ALSO WITH MY TWO CHILDREN BEHIND ME.

ONE OF THEM THAT JUST PULLED OUT HIS OWN TOOTH.

SO THAT MIGHT BE A FIRST FOR THE CHAMBER. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I'M A MOTHER.

I'M A BUSINESS OWNER A HOMEOWNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD A NEIGHBOR.

AND I'VE BEEN A PROUD DALLASITE FOR 20 YEARS.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, I LIVE MY LIFE IN OAK CLIFF.

MY FRIENDSHIPS ARE HERE, MY BUSINESSES ARE HERE.

I'M RAISING MY CHILDREN HERE. MY HOUSE THAT'S BEEN TAKING TOO LONG TO RENOVATE.

ONE OF THE THREE RESTAURANTS I OWN MY KIDS SCHOOL, THEIR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AT KIDS SPRINGS ACROSS THE STREET ARE ALL WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE SOLE. I'M WONDERING WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD,

[09:45:04]

WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT. AND I THINK OF MY KIDS WHO IN JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS WILL HAVE SOCIAL LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT KIND OF PLACES THAT I WANT THEM TO BE INTERACTING WITH.

AND I SHARE MANY OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE OPPOSITION.

I DON'T WANT GENERIC DEVELOPMENT OR CORPORATIONS MOVING IN AND STANDING OFF EVERYTHING INTERESTING ABOUT OAK CLIFF.

I DON'T WANT THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THIS DIVERSE COMMUNITY PUSHED OUT OF IT.

BUT LA SOUL ISN'T THAT LA SOUL IS THE THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING.

I KNOW THAT BECAUSE MY OWN BUSINESSES ARE BETTER BECAUSE LA SOUL EXISTS.

WHEN MY FIRST RESTAURANT WAS STILL GROWING THROUGH COVID, TAYLOR GAVE ME A PLATFORM AND OFFERED COLLABORATION.

SHE PUT MY BUSINESSES IN FRONT OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NEVER HAVE FOUND IT OTHERWISE.

THOSE PEOPLE BECAME CUSTOMERS. THEY TOLD OTHER PEOPLE.

THEY CAME BACK AND A LOT OF BECAME A PART OF MY COMMUNITY.

I CAN DRAW A DIRECT LINE BETWEEN TAYLOR OPENING HER DOORS TO A SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS LIKE MINE AND THE GROWTH THAT FOUNTAIN EXPERIENCED AFTERWARDS.

THAT MATTERS IF WE ACTUALLY WANT A NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMY RATHER THAN JUST BUSINESSES LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

DURING THE 2021 FREEZE, WHEN MY HOUSE WAS 20 DEGREES AND EVERY HOTEL WAS FULL, TAYLOR, WHO BARELY KNEW ME AT THE TIME OUTSIDE OF A FEW CATERING JOBS THAT I HAD DONE THERE, OPENED LA SOUL TO ME AND MY TWO SMALL CHILDREN WHO WERE JUST TWO AND FIVE AT THE TIME.

AND WE STAYED THERE FOR TWO NIGHTS. AND THAT'S WHO TAYLOR IS AND THAT'S WHAT COMMUNITY LOOKS LIKE.

AND THAT'S WHAT LA SOUL REPRESENTS. YOU KNOW, AUSTIN SPENT DECADES SAYING KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD WHILE SLOWLY LOSING MANY OF THE INDEPENDENT PLACES THAT MADE AUSTIN. AUSTIN. AND FOR A WHILE THEY SAID, DON'T DALLAS MY.

AUSTIN. AND MAYBE NOW OUR CAUTIONARY TALE IS DON'T.

AUSTIN. MY. DALLAS. MY KIDS ARE HERE TODAY WITH ME.

OF COURSE I SAID THAT BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SHOW UP FOR EACH OTHER, AND BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT PLACES LIKE THIS EXIST FOR THEM AS THEY GET OLDER.

OAK CLIFF WILL CHANGE THE QUESTION WHETHER WE IS WHETHER WE BECOME MORE GENERIC AS WE GROW, OR MAKE ROOM FOR PEOPLE IN PLACES THAT KEEP US DISTINCTLY OURS.

I THINK THIS IS THE BEST COMMUNITY IN DALLAS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JENNIFER. JENNIFER. GERT.

HI, THIS IS JENNIFER GARRETT. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET MY CAMERA TO WORK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, SO. WELL, OKAY. WELL. THANK YOU. WHAT NATHANIEL SAID.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z THREE.

I SEE ONE COMING FORWARD. YES. OKAY. FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO SPEAK, WILL YOU COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST TWO ROWS? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANDREW MADISON AND I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF KIDD SPRINGS, BUT I AM TAYLOR MADISON'S BROTHER.

AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SPEAK ON TWO, TWO THINGS.

THE, THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT CONNECTION AND COMMUNITY.

AND THIS IDEA AND ALL OF THIS WAS BORN OUT OF COVID.

YOU KNOW, SHE WAS A TRAVEL AGENT. SHE, SHE HAD A BUSINESS AND IT AND IT, AND IT WENT AWAY BECAUSE OF COVID AND, AND EVERYBODY WAS STUCK AT HOME AND EVERYBODY NEEDED A PLACE FOR, FOR, TO, TO, TO COME AND, AND FIND COMMUNITY AND FIND A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN WORK OR MEET PEOPLE OR CONNECT WITH PEOPLE.

AND, AND IT EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING, SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER.

AND, AND THAT'S WHEN I WAS ABLE TO GET INVOLVED.

I AM A FORMER ENGINEER WITH HYATT AND HILTON.

I WENT OUT ON THE ROAD RENOVATING COURTYARD MARRIOTT, AND SO I HAVE HELPED HER DO ALL THE RENOVATIONS AND THE BEAUTIFICATION FOR THESE PROPERTIES. AND IT HAS ALLOWED ME TO FORM A STRONGER CONNECTION WITH MY SIBLING AND MY MOTHER.

AND, AND WE'VE MADE THIS A FAMILY BUSINESS AND IT HAS, IT HAS REALLY, IT HAS BROUGHT US TOGETHER.

AND SO, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ALSO, I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON POINT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL OF OUR INSPECTIONS TO, TO BRING US UP AND, AND GET OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

I AM WORKING AS THE POINT PERSON WITH ALL OF OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT THINGS TO MEET ALL OF OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OF OUR TREES, EVERYTHING THAT THAT REQUIRES THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES FOR YOU TO, TO MEET THEIR STANDARDS.

AND SO WE ARE WORKING TO TRY AND BEAUTIFY AND AND, AND BUILD THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT IS AN AMAZING PLACE RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT SHE HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB AND I WOULDN'T BE WHERE I'M AT TODAY WITHOUT HER HELP.

AND I THINK SHE COULD SAY SOME OF THE SAME THINGS ABOUT ME.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALLOW HER TO CONTINUE AND KNOW THAT WE WILL MEET YOUR, YOUR STANDARD OR YOUR, THE, THE, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS. AND, AND WE WILL, WE WILL STICK TO THEM STRINGENTLY.

[09:50:06]

WE WILL NOT PUSH LINES LIKE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO MEET INSPECTIONS AND, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO MEET BUILDING INSPECTIONS, FIRE INSPECTIONS. AND SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE WILL BE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THEM TO MEET ALL OF THOSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT, SPEAKER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS VALERIE RIVAS HEMBY AND I LIVE AT 336 BECKLEY WOOD BOULEVARD, DISTRICT FOUR.

HI, MAXIE. OKAY. I CAN START BY SAYING THAT I AND MY HUSBAND COMES HERE REGULARLY, AND I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD SEE A DAY WHEN I WOULD, BUT I AM, AND LET'S START. OKAY, SO I AM AN OAK CLIFF RESIDENT, HOMEOWNER, REALTOR, AND A MEMBER OF LA SOUL. I'M NOT HERE TO READ YOU MY LOVE LETTER TO LA SOUL.

YOU CAN FIND THAT IN THE EMAILS THAT I SENT YESTERDAY AND TODAY.

YOU HAVE MUCH BIGGER FISH TO FRY BASED ON THE LAST EIGHT HOURS I'VE BEEN HERE TODAY AND I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME.

YOU GUYS NEED TO GO HOME AND EAT DINNER, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE FACTS.

LA SOUL SITS ACROSS A 31 ACRE PARK. THAT'S KID SPRINGS PARK, A RECREATION CENTER, A GYM, AND AN AQUATIC CENTER WHERE OAK CLIFF KIDS COME AND HANG OUT AND SWIM DURING THE SUMMER.

IT'S ALSO NEXT TO A VERY LONG ROW OF MULTIFAMILY TO THE RIGHT AND JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM IT YOU WILL FIND DAVIS STREET WITH COMMERCIAL SPACES LIKE BARS. OLD MONK.

IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE COFFEE SHOPS, ICE CREAM SHOPS, TACO SHOPS, CO-WORKING SPACES AND SO MUCH MORE.

COMMERCIAL SPACE JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND A LOT MORE DEVELOPMENT COMING.

I UNDERSTAND EACH OF YOU MAY BE WORRIED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENING IN YOUR DISTRICTS, ESPECIALLY SOME OF YOUR DISTRICTS HAVING INCREDIBLE RESIDENTIAL.

I'VE SEEN IT. I SELL REAL ESTATE FOR A LIVING, BUT WE ALL KNOW ZONING CHANGES ARE CASE BY CASE.

AND IN THIS CASE, I CAN TELL YOU IT'S LOCATION MAKES SENSE FROM A THIRD PLACE PERSPECTIVE.

IT DOESN'T SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF A PURELY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT RATHER SURROUNDED BY RECREATION, MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY, AND PLENTY OF COMMERCIAL SPACE.

AND I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, AND THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL COME UP.

LORI, I HEARD YOU. I FEEL YOU ON THAT. WE NEED A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I SEE IT WITH MY COMMUNITY AND MY CLIENTS, AND WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

BUT I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES HERE, TWO HOMES.

AND THE IMPACT THAT THESE PROPERTIES HAVE ON US MENTALLY AND IN FRIENDSHIP AND IN COMMUNITY IS SO MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT AND IMPACTFUL. IT'S A WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS WHERE I GET TO COME IN AND TALK TO WONDERFUL WOMEN, AND IT HAS TRULY HELPED ME COME AND STAND IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, IN AN ERA AND IN A CITY WHERE WE'RE SO FOCUSED ON CARS AND GOING FROM WORK TO HOME AND NOT HAVING A SOCIAL LIFE. SO I ASK THAT EACH OF YOU CONSIDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE PLACES LIKE THIS IN OUR CITY TO CONTINUE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. ANYONE CAN COME FORWARD.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY NAME IS PAULETTE PEARSON.

I LIVE AT 6835 CASA LOMA AVENUE. I'M A MEMBER OF LA SOUL, AND I AM HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF LA SOUL'S SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

MY HUSBAND'S WORK BROUGHT ME TO DALLAS A DECADE AGO, BUT BEFORE JOINING LA SOUL TWO YEARS AGO, I STRUGGLED TO FIND COMMUNITY IN DALLAS WHERE I FELT A SENSE OF BELONGING.

AT LA SOUL, I WAS WELCOMED IN A WAY THAT FELT GENUINE AND RARE.

THE FACES AND SPACES THERE HAVE BEEN DEEPLY MEANINGFUL TO ME, BOTH PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY.

I RECENTLY TRANSITIONED INTO A NEW CAREER AS A FULL TIME ARTIST IN LA.

SOUL HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE SOURCE OF ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.

THEY HAVE A KNACK FOR SUPPORTING AND CONNECTING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE WOMEN AND ESPECIALLY THOSE IN ITS NEIGHBORHOOD.

OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, I'VE ALSO FACED SOME HEALTH CHALLENGES, AND THIS COMMUNITY HELPED CARRY ME THROUGH SOME VERY DIFFICULT WEEKS.

THE WELLNESS PROGRAMS AT LASALLE IN PARTICULAR, HAVE BEEN A CRITICAL PART OF MY LIFE, OFFERING NOT ONLY PHYSICAL SUPPORT BUT ALSO A SENSE OF PLACE. IT'S NOT JUST A YOGA STUDIO, AND IT'S NOT JUST A COFFEE SHOP.

LOZOL IS MY REFUGE IN THE CITY, AND I TRULY DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO WITHOUT IT.

I WOULD HONESTLY WANT TO LEAVE DALLAS. SPACES LIKE LOZOL ARE DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY, BUT THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE FABRIC OF A CITY.

THEY HELP SHAPE WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL ROOTED, CONNECTED AND INVESTED IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY LIVE.

[09:55:03]

LOSING LOZOL WOULD MEAN LOSING ONE OF THOSE PLACES.

ONE OF THE FEW PLACES I KNOW LIKE THAT IN DALLAS THAT GENUINELY FOSTERS THAT KIND OF CONNECTION AND BELONGING.

I HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY, BUT I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK, SO I JUST WANT TO END WITH LOZOL IS A THOUGHTFUL, COMMUNITY FOCUSED GATHERING SPACE THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER IN A TRULY MEANINGFUL AND VERY UNIQUE WAY.

AND I SINCERELY HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JEREMY AND I LIVE ON 617 NORTH TYLER STREET. SO I'M ACTUALLY A WALKING DISTANCE FROM LASALLE.

I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS SOUP BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF Y'ALL HAVE BEEN TO BISHOP ARTS, BUT IT'S THE FEW PLACES THAT YOU WALK INTO WHAT LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE AND VOILA, IT'S A BOOKSTORE.

AND THIS IS A VERY CHARM OF BISHOP ARTS OF OAK CLIFF THAT WE HAVE SPACES LIKE THIS.

LA SOUL, LA SOUL IS SITTING ON TWO ADJACENT STREETS THAT ARE FACING KIDD SPRINGS RECREATION CENTER AND AS WELL AS THE GYM.

SO IT'S ALMOST BECOME THIS CONGLOMERATE AND THIS HUB OF WELLNESS.

AND I THINK WE ARE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION HERE.

AND THE QUESTION HAS BEEN. WHILE. IF WE GIVE AN SUP.

WHAT IF SOMEONE WAKES UP TOMORROW AND DECIDES TO TURN THEIR HOUSE INTO A BAR OR A RESTAURANT? AND I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING OURSELVES IS, WHAT KIND OF CHANGE ERODES THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT KIND OF CHANGE STRENGTHENS THE COMMUNITY? WE HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE, ESPECIALLY WOMEN, AND THIS HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL ONE STOP SHOP FOR US TO JUST COME AND REST.

YES, WE DO HAVE BISHOP ARTS NEAR US THAT HAS BARS AND STREETS, BUT YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE A ONE STOP SHOP WHERE YOU CAN READ A BOOK YOU CAN TALK TO OTHER WOMEN, YOU CAN REST. IT IS TRULY A SPECIAL SPACE.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE KNOW THAT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE IN DALLAS AND TRANSFORMATION IS NOT.

AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TRANSFORM HOW OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AND ALLOW SUCH SPACES TO START EVOLVING IN WHAT HAS BECOME A HIGHLY COMMERCIALIZED CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

CHRISTIAN CHERNOCK 1611 RIO VISTA DRIVE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE SUP TODAY FOR LASALLE.

I'VE LIVED IN THE DISTRICT FOR 26 YEARS. I'VE OWNED PROPERTY IN KIDD SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 15 YEARS.

I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH LA SOUL. I DID NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THEM UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER THIS SUP WAS FILED.

BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE, AND I WANTED TO FOCUS ON FACTS AND THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE LOCATION AND THE USE.

WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT THIS IS A WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS, INDEPENDENT BUSINESS THAT REFLECTS MANY OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY WANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HEALTH AND WELLNESS SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS COMMUNITY.

SMALL SCALE GATHERING IN A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN FEEL CONNECTED.

WHAT I ALSO FOUND IS THAT LA SOUL'S LOCATION IS NOT EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A QUIET RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.

IT SITS ON THE MORE FRINGE LOCATION DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM KID SPRINGS RECREATION CENTER.

THAT REC CENTER HAS A POOL, A GYMNASIUM, WEIGHT ROOM, LARGE FIELDS THAT SUPPORT OTHER ACTIVITIES LIKE ATHLETIC EVENTS, CONCERTS, AND THINGS LIKE FOOD, COOK OFF COMPETITIONS, THINGS THAT HAPPEN AT KID SPRINGS REC CENTER SERVE THE COMMUNITY THROUGH SUPPORTING WELLNESS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY GATHERING AT A MUCH LARGER PUBLIC SCALE THAN LA SOUL.

SO WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE SAY THAT LA SOUL DOES NOT FIT AT THIS LOCATION, I STRUGGLE WITH THAT.

IF WELLNESS AND GATHERING AND RECREATION AND COMMUNITY DO NOT BELONG AT THIS LOCATION, THEN WE'D HAVE TO QUESTION ALSO KID SPRINGS RECREATION CENTER TOO.

BUT WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT KID SPRINGS IS A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S IDENTITY AND PROVIDES TREMENDOUS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY IN THE SAME WAY THAT LA SOUL WILL. I ALSO THOUGHT CAREFULLY ABOUT WHETHER LA SOUL'S OPERATION WOULD BE TOO COMMERCIAL TO ME.

COMMERCIAL USES BRING THINGS LIKE BOX TRUCK DELIVERIES, LARGE TRASH, DUMPSTERS, DUMPSTERS, EMPLOYEE PARKING, LARGE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE, LATE NIGHT OPERATIONS, AND HIGH CONSTANT PATRON TURNOVER.

THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING AT LA SOUL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOGA AND SWIMMING, ART EVENTS, SOUND BATHS, QUIET GATHERINGS AND PEOPLE SPENDING TIME TOGETHER.

THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT FOREIGN TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

WILL THERE BE INCREASED ACTIVITY? I THINK THERE WILL BE.

COULD THERE OCCASIONALLY BE MORE CARS OR SOUND THAN ON A QUIET DAY? PROBABLY. BUT WHAT HAPPENS? BUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH BIRTHDAYS AND GRADUATIONS AND HOLIDAYS AND SUNDAY FAMILY

[10:00:01]

GATHERINGS IN BACKYARD POOLS. THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS AT LA SOUL IS RESIDENTIAL IN ITS NATURE.

IT DOESN'T RESEMBLE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND EXTERNALITIES.

THE REAL QUESTION IS SCALE AND FREQUENCY. DOES THE ACTIVITY RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT BECOMES INCOMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING AREA? THAT IS CRITICAL TO THE FOUR POINT PROVE UP ON A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

HELLO, EVERYONE. I'M TAYLOR MADISON. I'M THE FOUNDER OF LA SOUL.

THE TRUTH IS OAK CLIFF ACTUALLY CREATED LA SOUL.

DALLAS CREATED LA SOUL. AND THIS COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO CREATE LA SOUL.

SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, I SIMPLY BECAME A CONDUIT.

I DID NOT BEGIN THE SOUL WITH THE PREDETERMINED BUSINESS PLAN AND THEN ASK A COMMUNITY OR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO FIT INTO IT.

IN FACT, IT WAS THE OPPOSITE. LA SOUL WAS BORN AND HAS GROWN THROUGH CO-CREATION WITH THIS COMMUNITY AND AN OPEN DOOR.

THROUGH LISTENING, LEARNING, RESPONDING, CARING, AND ALLOWING PEOPLE AROUND US TO SHAPE WHAT THE SOUL HAS BECOME.

AND THAT DOOR OPENS INTO A HOME. IF YOU WALKED INTO THE HOMES OF THE SOUL WITH NO ONE THERE, YOU MIGHT THINK A FAMILY HAD SIMPLY GONE AWAY FOR THE WEEKEND.

THERE ARE BOOKS ON THE SHELVES, ART ON THE WALLS, GARDENS OUTSIDE AND CHICKENS IN THE YARD.

THAT FEELING OF HOME IS NOT ACCIDENTAL. IT IS THE HEART OF LA SOUL.

I HEAR AND UNDERSTAND THE FEARS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

BUT THE IRONY HERE IS THAT IF WE CAN LOOK BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE FEAR, THESE SPACES ARE ACTUALLY HELPING TO PRESERVE THE VERY CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE ARE ALL SEEKING TO PROTECT. I AM NOT ASKING TO CHANGE WHAT MAKES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SO SPECIAL.

I AM ASKING YOU TO ALLOW US TO KEEP CONTRIBUTING TO IT.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS IS WHEN I MOVED INTO 734 WEST CANTY IN 2016, THE STREET LOOKED COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

STILL TO THIS DAY, THERE IS CONSTANT TRASH FROM THE PARK.

THERE IS. A LOT OF ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENS AND I.

I'M CONSTANTLY PICKING UP TRASH. WE ARE SUCH GOOD NEIGHBORS TO HELP BEAUTIFY.

NO ONE ELSE IS LOOKING AFTER CANTY STREET NEXT TO ME.

I HAVE TWO CONDOS GOING UP FOR SALE. THERE'S AN AIRBNB NEXT DOOR, AND THEN THERE'S A VACANT HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND ME.

AND I TRULY AM THE ONE PERSON RIGHT THERE AT FORKER THAT IS LOOKING AFTER THE AFTERMATH OF WHAT HAPPENS FROM THE PARK AND FROM ALL THOSE GATHERINGS.

THERE'S BEER BOTTLES, THERE'S CONSTANT JUST CHIP BAGS.

AND AND SO I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SOMEBODY LIKE ME WASN'T THERE BECAUSE THE HOUSE ACROSS FROM 734 DID SIT ON THE MARKET FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS, AND NOBODY WAS LOOKING TO RESTORE IT AND HAD THE ENERGY TO PRESERVE IT. AND SO ANYWAYS, I JUST.

I WISH ALL MY NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN WITH ME FOR THE LAST FOUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS COULD BE HERE BECAUSE THEIR VOICES HAVE BEEN SO LOUD.

EVERYONE THAT IS NEXT TO THESE PROPERTIES IS IN SUCH HIGH SUPPORT OF THIS.

AND I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHELSEA BILLUPS.

MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE ON SEVEN TWO, THREE CEDAR HILL AVENUE.

I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR AND I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN DALLAS.

OVER THE YEARS, MY FAMILY HAS ESTABLISHED ROOTS ACROSS DALLAS COUNTY, INCLUDING BISHOP DUNNE, UT SOUTHWESTERN CONCORD, CONCORD CHURCH AND GENESIS WOMEN'S SHELTER, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS.

AS A WOMAN OF COLOR, THERE AREN'T A TON OF SPACES WHERE I CAN WALK IN AND IMMEDIATELY FEEL SAFE, WELCOMED, INSPIRED, HEARD, AND CONNECTED. YET THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

MY FIRST EXPERIENCE, MY FIRST TIME STEPPING INTO LA SOUL AND EVERY TIME AFTER.

MY HUSBAND AND I RECENTLY JUST MOVED TWO BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET AND WERE SO EXCITED AND DEVOTED TO PLANTING ROOTS IN OAK CLIFF AND POURING INTO OUR NEIGHBORS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT GROWTH AND CHANGE.

I CARE ABOUT PRESERVING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TOO, WITH SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN OAK CLIFF OVER THE YEARS, I'VE QUESTIONED WHAT IT WAS BECOMING AND HAVE CONSIDERED BUILDING MY LIFE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

LA SOUL IS DIFFERENT. TAYLOR IS DIFFERENT. SHE'S NOT A LARGE DEVELOPER CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SHE'S A DALLAS RESIDENT WHO DECIDED TO BUILD A LIFE HERE FOR HERSELF.

[10:05:04]

AND WITH THAT, SHE ORGANICALLY, ALMOST ACCIDENTALLY BUILT A COMMUNITY THAT'S NOW KNOWN AS AS LA SOUL.

IT'S NATURAL FOR OUR BRAIN TO RESIST CHANGE. IT'S SCARY.

LA SOUL SYMBOLIZES THAT GROWTH CAN ALSO BRING RESTORATION, OPPORTUNITY, PRESERVATION, AND COMMUNITY.

VOTING YES DOES NOT EQUATE TO DEVALUING OR DESTROYING COMMUNITY IN OAK CLIFF.

VOTING YES STRENGTHENS THE COMMUNITY ALREADY HERE IN KIDD SPRINGS AND CREATES MORE CONNECTION IN A WORLD THAT FEELS INCREASINGLY DISCONNECTED.

I IMAGINE MOST OF US CAN ACKNOWLEDGE HOW RARE GENUINE SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY IS, AND THE THOUGHT OF LOSING THIS ONE HAS RESULTED IN ME STANDING BEFORE ALL OF YOU TODAY, WAY OUT OF MY COMFORT ZONE TO TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS SPACE.

LA SOUL ISN'T JUST SOMEWHERE TO GO FOR A QUICK BITE OR A WORKOUT.

IT'S A PLACE. IT'S A SPACE THAT'S ALLOWED ME TO LEARN HOW TO RESTORE, AND IT'S MADE THE CITY THAT I'VE LIVED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE FEEL MORE LIKE HOME.

I'M ASKING YOU TO JUDGE LA SOUL BASED ON WHAT IT SERVES AS, AND ITS ACTUAL IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORS, RATHER THAN TREATING IT AS A PRECEDENT FOR WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE.

I HUMBLY ASK YOU TO VOTE YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, MAYOR, I DO. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

THE SUP EXPIRES ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 2027. WE HAVE A MOTION.

HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES. THIS HAS BEEN ANOTHER DISTRICT, ONE CASE THAT HAS GENERATED A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND HAS SEVERAL YEARS OF HISTORY BEHIND IT. LIKE MANY WE'VE HAD IN DISTRICT ONE, THIS INVOLVES AN APPLICANT WHO LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE, WHO ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.

THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS ALSO ABOUT FIVE BLOCKS FROM MY HOUSE AND IS ON MY ROUTE TO ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT I DRIVE BY EVERY SINGLE DAY, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. MY, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS.

MY CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER HELD A MEETING WITH THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH ABOUT 50 ATTENDEES.

MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE SUPPORTED THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

I HELD ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING THIS LAST MONDAY NIGHT WITH ABOUT 40 ATTENDEES.

MISS HIRAMOTO PRESENTED ANSWERED QUESTIONS, AND RESIDENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE PROVIDED INPUT.

I PULLED THE ATTENDEES THERE AND 26 SUPPORTED, NINE OPPOSED AND THREE WERE NEUTRAL.

LOOKING AT THE OFFICIAL RESPONSES FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, 17 WERE IN SUPPORT AND FIVE WERE OPPOSED.

AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU GUYS SAW THE SUPPORT IN, IN THE ROOM TONIGHT.

SO TO ME, ONE OF THE MOST TELLING PARTS OF THIS CASE IS THE STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

AND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES, VIRTUALLY AND IN PERSON, ESPECIALLY THE KIDS WHO ARE HERE FOR STICKING WITH US IN THIS COLD ROOM FOR 7 OR 8 HOURS NOW. SO ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HAD A QUESTION THAT RESONATED WITH ME AND I WROTE IT DOWN.

BECAUSE CHANGE IS HARD. AND THE QUESTION WAS WHAT KIND OF CHANGE HARMS A COMMUNITY AND WHAT KIND OF CHANGE ENRICHES A COMMUNITY? I AM PERSUADED BY THE SPEAKERS, BY THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT COULD ENRICH A COMMUNITY, EVEN THOUGH IT TAKES US OUTSIDE OF OUR COMFORT ZONE.

I VIEW THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS A TEST CASE, AS A PILOT THAT WE CAN WATCH CLOSELY.

LET'S SEE HOW THIS OPERATOR PERFORMS OVER THE DURATION OF THE SUP.

A PRIVATE RECREATION CLUB IS A RELATIVELY NEW TYPE OF USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, SIMILAR TO OTHER USES LIKE CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT GENERATE A WHOLE LOT LESS TRAFFIC THAN THOSE USES DO IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND IDEALLY IF IT'S USED BY NEIGHBORS, AS IT SEEMS TO BE, IT'LL PREVENT NEIGHBORS FROM HAVING TO DRIVE ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ACROSS TOWN TO GO TO OTHER PRIVATE RECREATION CLUBS. WE ARE NOT PERMANENTLY CHANGING THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

WE ARE GIVING THIS ESTABLISHMENT A SHORT LEASH OF A YEAR AND A HALF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT CAN BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND OPERATE AS A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS WITH A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND ALL REQUIRED PERMITS. IN MY SEVEN YEARS ON COUNCIL AND TWO YEARS AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED AN SUP FOR DISTRICT ONE UNDER TWO YEARS.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER GONE BELOW TWO YEARS, BUT I AM DOING SO HERE BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A UNIQUE USE.

[10:10:01]

AND, AND I WANT TO GIVE THEM A LIMITED PERIOD TO PROVE THEMSELVES AND BRING THEIR SUP BACK TO THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE WE WILL STILL BE HERE IN NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR TO REVIEW THE SUP AGAIN AND DECIDE IF WE WANT TO RENEW IT OR NOT.

IF THE BUSINESS OPERATES WITHIN THE PARAMETERS, COMPLIES WITH THE RULES, AND MAINTAINS THE SUPPORT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, WE CAN CONSIDER APPROVING THE SUP AGAIN AND EXTEND IT.

POSSIBLY IF THEY VIOLATE THE RULES OR FAIL THEIR NEIGHBORS, WE CAN DENY THE SUP.

THE UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL ZONING REMAINS IN PLACE, AND THE PROPERTY CAN RETURN TO ITS USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE SLIGHTLY MODIFIED CPC RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THIS VERY SHORT SUP.

IT PROVIDES GUARDRAILS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, WHILE GIVING THE SMALL BUSINESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE PROVING ITSELF TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OFFERING IN DEMAND SERVICES FOR ITS MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. MENDELSOHN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

WELL, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE SOMEBODY DIDN'T HAVE THE APPROVAL TO DO WHAT THEY WERE WANTING TO DO, SO THEY JUST DID IT ANYHOW. THIS IS A HOUSE THAT SOMEBODY TURNED INTO A BUSINESS.

THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND NOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO AGAIN CHANGE THE RULES TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE HEAR FROM OUR OWN COLLEAGUE IS TO MAKE IT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? IT HASN'T BEEN A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.

I'M NOT INCLINED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO FOLLOW THE RULES ORIGINALLY, AND THEY GOT BUSTED. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SETTING A PRECEDENT OF ALLOWING BUSINESSES TO OPERATE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TIME AND AGAIN.

I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF DOING FOR DALLAS TO DECIDE THIS IS RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS NOT. SO I'M A HARD NO. AND I THINK LIKE THEY SHOULD BE CITED, THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR DOING SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

AND THEY KNEW IT. AND THEY'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO THIS FOR YEARS NOW.

SO ABSOLUTELY NO. AND GO MOVE TO A COMMERCIAL AREA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO IN THE CAN YOU TELL ME IN THE HOURS ARE GOING TO BE 8 TO 8.

IS THAT CORRECT OF OPERATION. OH, HERE COMES JENNIFER. HI. YES, MA'AM. SO IT'S GOING TO BE 8 TO 8, SO.

AND THEN NO SPEAKERS OUTSIDE. CORRECT. AND EVEN WITH THE USE OF THE POOL.

YES. OKAY. SO IT'S OKAY. AND THEN I WAS READING ON THE THE WEBSITE.

OR DO THEY STILL TAKE APPLICATIONS. I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE ANYBODY.

TELL ME ABOUT THE PROCESS OF HOW THEY VET THEIR FOLKS COMING THROUGH.

YES. SO IT IS MEMBERSHIP BASED. THERE ARE APPLICATIONS.

THE ORDER WE HAVE FROM MARCH SAID THAT WE COULD NOT CHARGE MEMBERSHIP FEES.

SO WE HAVE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE. PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO COME INTO THE, TO THE FACILITIES.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE FEES. WE'VE BEEN COMPLIANT WITH THAT. I BELIEVE APPLICATIONS ARE STILL OPEN.

THERE'S BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT ARE PERFORMED BEFORE THEY TAKE IN NEW MEMBERS, AND THEY DO A TOUR SO THAT THEY KNOW THEY'RE COMPATIBLE.

OKAY. AND I KNOW SOMEBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING SITUATION, AND USUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE STREET PARKING, BUT IF THEY'RE COMING FOR A YOGA CLASS, MAYBE AN HOUR AND A HALF, RIGHT? IT'S PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT AT THIS LIKE MORNING LUNCH EVENING.

OKAY. OKAY. YES. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE WORKING THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DAY AND IT'S TAKEN UP, BUT IT IS, IT DOES. THERE IS PEOPLE MOVING FROM PARKING IN.

ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS. I MEAN, IT CAN GET TIGHT IN THOSE PARKING SPOTS IN THAT IN USING ON STREET PARKING.

YES. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT KANTE STREET ACTUALLY HAS A VERY WIDE PAVEMENT WIDTH.

IT'S VERY COMFORTABLE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AND TO HAVE THE TWO TRAVEL LANES.

IT'S VERY COMFORTABLE. AND ON STREET PARKING IS TRAFFIC CALMING.

BUT THIS IS AN AREA THAT SOME OF THE HOMES IN OUR VICINITY DON'T HAVE GARAGES.

SO THERE'S ALREADY PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET.

OKAY. AND DOES IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS A VERY LOCAL GROUP.

LIKE, I MEAN, IT SEEMS VERY COMMUNAL. YES. AND MAYBE THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED MORE IN, YOU KNOW,

[10:15:06]

IT'S NOT TRANSIENT. I GUESS IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A VERY TIGHT KNIT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE VERY THEY'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH EACH OTHER.

YES. OKAY. AND I MEAN, I'M A YOGI, SO I GO TO UPTOWN YOGA AND SO IT'S LIKE IN UPTOWN, RIGHT? AND SO YOU PARK ON THE STREET, YOU GET YOUR MAT, YOU GO FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF, YOU LEAVE.

AND SO I, AND IT'S USUALLY YOU'RE VERY ZEN WHEN YOU LEAVE AND IT'S VERY CALM AND NOBODY GETS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIFFERENT FEELING. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT HAPPENS HERE? LIKE IT'S NOT A BAR. ABSOLUTELY NOT A BAR. IT IS VERY LOW KEY, VERY COZY.

IF PEOPLE LINGER, MAYBE THEY STAY TO CO-WORK.

MAYBE THEY STAY FOR A CUP OF COFFEE TO TALK TO THEIR NEIGHBOR OR, YOU KNOW, CLASSMATE.

THE TYPICAL YOGA CLASSES THAT THEY HAVE DURING THE DAY ARE 3 TO 5 PEOPLE.

IT'S NOT HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE LIKE THEY SHOULD.

I'D LOVE TO HAVE THE SOUND BATH WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE AT 9:00.

SO ANYWAY, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE CONCEPT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE RULES AND PROCEDURES.

SO AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE MECHANISMS FOR IF THERE'S VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD TRIGGER CURING THOSE VIOLATIONS.

ABSOLUTELY. THIS WAS AN ORGANIC BUSINESS THAT HAPPENED.

AND THAT IS VERY COMMON WITH SMALL BUSINESSES.

THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE A BUSINESS OR THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET STARTED.

THEY WERE A HOME OCCUPATION IN CODE COMPLIANCE EYES FOR MANY YEARS.

SO ONCE WE WERE BEYOND THE HOME OCCUPATION SCALE, WE WERE IN A GRAY AREA.

AND, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS CASE FOR THE LAST YEAR.

SO THIS ACTUALLY THE SUP GIVES GUARDRAILS LIKE, AND IT KEEPS THE ZONING, KEEPS THE ZONING.

SO THIS ACTS LIKE AN OVERLAY, BUT IT GIVES US HOW WE CAN RULES FOR US TO OPERATE AND FOR THE CITY TO ENFORCE THEM AS NEEDED.

AND MR. WEST, I THINK YOUR, YOUR COMMUNITY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN MOST OF OUR RESIDENCES AROUND THE CITY.

IT'S, IT'S NOT IT'S, IT, IT'S GOT AN URBAN FEEL, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS HAS KIND OF GOT AN URBAN FEEL WITH IT, THAT IT'S NOT IN A, IT'S NOT IN A STRIP CENTER.

IT'S, IT SHOULD BE PROBABLY IN A HOME OR A, OR A SMALL LITTLE CONFINED AREA.

RIGHT. AND PART OF THE PROPERTY IS A LARGE OPEN SPACE.

AND THEY HAVE A BAMBOO GARDEN WHERE THEY DO MEDITATION.

SO THE LOCATION PHYSICALLY IS REALLY PART OF THE SOUL.

AND I BELIEVE FOR DALLAS DOES TALK ABOUT THE CORNERS BEING ABLE TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICING SMALL BUSINESSES.

AND CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING A WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS.

IT'S PRETTY COOL. I WAS I'M LOOKING AT THE AT THE PHOTOS.

AND SO I HAVE A FRIEND WHO WENT TO A SOUND BATH THERE.

SO SHE, I WAS LIKE, OH, I KIND OF FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LORI BLAIR COUNCILMAN YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I HAVE TO SAY CHAIR WEST, YOU CHANGED MY MIND.

I WAS OKAY FOR A MINUTE UNTIL YOU SAID. I SO WORK SO HARD IN MY COMMUNITY TO RUN ENTERTAINMENT OUT OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

IF I DO, IF I VOTE AGAINST WHAT I DO IN MY COMMUNITY, MY NEIGHBOR, MY COMMUNITY WOULD REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME. ONE OF MY VERY FIRST ZONING CASES, ACTUALLY, MY VERY FIRST ZONING CASE, I GOT IT SAID I WAS AN APPLICANT WHO CAME AND WAS ASKING FOR US TO APPROVE THEM OPERATING FOR YEARS WITHOUT A CO. AND I HAD, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING.

I WAS MY VERY FIRST CASE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING THE FIRST THING I DID.

AND AS I ASKED THE CONSULTANT, MISS BUCKLEY, YOU MEAN TO TELL ME AND MY LAWYER ISM, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO APPROVE AN APPLICANT WHO'S BEEN WORKING OUT OF COMPLIANCE FOR YEARS? AND SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SHE SAID, WELL, YES.

AND I DENIED THE CASE. I DON'T, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I HAVE TO STAY CONSISTENT TO WHAT I DO IN MY COMMUNITY, IN MY COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH NONCOMPLIANCE, ENTERTAINMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, RESIDENTS CHANGING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INTO BUSINESSES, AND THEN BEING IN AN ADVERSE POSITION WITH THE WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE

[10:20:05]

AROUND THEM. THIS MAY NOT NOT THIS MAY VERY WELL NOT BE THAT.

AND I KNOW HARMONY CDC, I KNOW WE GROW PEOPLE.

I KNOW ALL OF THAT AND I KNOW WHO YOU GUYS ARE.

I KNOW WHAT YOU DO. BUT I ALSO HAVE TO BE TRUE TO MY COMMUNITY, JUST AS YOU GUYS ARE BEING TRUE TO YOURS.

AND I'M NOT FAULTING WHAT YOU DO. I'M JUST SAYING I HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR DISTRICT EIGHT AND WHAT I'VE DONE AND WHAT I'VE BEEN CONSISTENTLY DOING IN THE ZONING PROCESS AND THE CODE VIOLATION PROCESS.

IF THIS HAD BEEN THROUGH CODE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CITATION.

YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD TO CEASE AND DESIST.

YOU'RE VERY FORTUNATE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOU HAVE A COUNCIL, YOU HAVE A COMMISSIONER AND A COUNCIL AND A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT LIVES IN A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN I DO. AND I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T GET DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE'S DOING. I JUST HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

SO FOR THAT REASONS, I CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR MOTION.

I, EVEN THOUGH I WOULD PREFER THAT WAS ONE YEAR INSTEAD OF A YEAR AND A HALF.

BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T COME BACK IN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME, WE WON'T CATCH IT.

IT WILL GO TO THE NEXT COUNCIL TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION BY THE TIME IT DOES COME BACK.

SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. I LOOK YOU KNOW, I LOOK SO FORWARD FOR YOU GUYS TO CONTINUE TO GET IT RIGHT.

THANKS. COUNCILMAN RIDLEY YOU RECOGNIZE THE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN ON THIS.

I THINK THIS IS A COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

AND I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH THE STATISTIC THAT THEY OFFERED THAT 75% OF THEIR PATRONS DON'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE DRIVING THERE, WHICH MEANS IT'S MORE A REGIONAL DRAW, WHICH MEANS IT'S MORE OF A COMMERCIAL USE, NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M A NO. OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CORRECTION FOR MY COLLEAGUE, MISS BLAIR.

I JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CONFUSION, BECAUSE IF IT DOES IMPACT YOUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION, IS THE MOTION THAT I MADE WAS FOR THIS TO RETURN TO US IN NOVEMBER OF 27.

SO WE, AS A COUNCIL, AS YOU KNOW, HAVE MOVED THE ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER.

SO INAUGURATION WILL LIKELY BE SOMETIME IN DECEMBER.

SO WE WILL, AS A COUNCIL THAT'S SITTING HERE TODAY, BE ABLE TO HEAR THIS CASE WHEN IT COMES BACK.

THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY PICKED NOVEMBER. AND I DIDN'T DO LIKE A TWO YEAR SUP OR SOMETHING.

COUNCILWOMAN BLAIR, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. JUST TO ANSWER THAT, I CAN.

CAN WE AMEND YOUR MOTION TO A YEAR INSTEAD OF A YEAR IN SOME MONTHS? BECAUSE THEN IF IT COMES BACK AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME NEXT YEAR, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE DECISION, WHETHER IT'S YES OR NO. IF YOU, IF IT COMES BACK IN NOVEMBER, WE MAY NOT SEE IT UNTIL JANUARY.

IF THEY APPLY ON THE DAY THAT IT EXPIRES OR IF THEY DON'T APPLY ON THE DAY THAT IT EXPIRES OR DEPENDING UPON THE WORKLOAD OF STAFF, WE MAY NOT SEE IT. MAY I RESPOND? LET ME. I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I CAN APPRECIATE BOTH WHAT MY COLLEAGUE LORI BLAIR SAID, AS WELL AS MENDELSOHN AND RIDLEY IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, I THINK THE REASON WHY I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS IS BECAUSE MANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING IT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I LOVE DISTRICT THREE. ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT AND LOVE ITS POTENTIAL AND EVERYTHING IT HAS.

BUT BUT DISTRICT ONE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE DISTRICTS BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUENESS AND BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT DESIGN, PARTICULARLY AROUND THAT BISHOP ARTS AREA, WHERE YOU DO HAVE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO BUSINESSES AND, AND SO FORTH, AND ALL THESE LITTLE POP UP SHOPS THAT THEY HAVE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS FITS THAT PARTICULAR AREA AND ALL THAT'S HAPPENING IN AND AROUND THAT AREA.

FOR THEIR HADN'T HEARD OF IT. LOOKED IT UP. SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY COOL PLACE.

APPARENTLY IT'S ONLY FOR WOMEN. I WOULD OPPOSE IT JUST FOR THAT REASON, BUT I'M NOT.

[10:25:02]

BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD A GOOD PROJECT THAT FITS WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THAT COMMUNITY SUPPORT, I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THIS AS A HINDRANCE OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY HAVE THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, BUT CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUE, MISS BLAIR. THANK YOU. I WANT TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER WEST SO HE CAN ADDRESS COUNCILWOMAN.

BLAIR. I'LL I'LL JUST MAYOR. I'LL JUST DO IT ON MY LAST MINUTE, IF THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE I'VE GOT ANOTHER COMMENT TO ADD TO IT.

ABSOLUTELY. COUNCILWOMAN. MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT SETTING A PRECEDENCE BY ALLOWING COMMERCIAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE CITY. WE DON'T DO ZONING BY DISTRICT.

YOU'RE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING WHAT'S ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED.

AND THE QUESTION OF WHEN IT COMES BACK, WELL, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE EVALUATING? THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING. THERE'S CLEARLY NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEM OR THEY WOULDN'T ALL BE HERE.

RIGHT? THEY'RE NOT HAVING WILD PARTIES AND LOUD MUSIC AND BLOCKING OFF THE STREET, OR ELSE WE WOULD ALREADY BE HEARING THAT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HEARING. THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT A DISTURBANCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S ABOUT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE ZONING INCREMENTALLY BY SUP, AND THAT IS A PROBLEM.

THAT IS A CITY WIDE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO STOP BEFORE IT TAKES ROOT, BECAUSE IN EVERY ONE OF OUR DISTRICTS, PEOPLE WILL BE LIKE, WELL, I'LL JUST CHANGE MY HOUSE INTO A BUSINESS AND NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND WHEN I GET BUSTED, I'LL JUST COME UP HERE AND ASK FOR AN SUP, AND THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST SAY, FORGET ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE WE'LL JUST BE HOUSTON AND I DON'T WANT TO BE HOUSTON.

AND BY THE WAY, IN HOUSTON, THEY HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT OURS DON'T HAVE.

SO IT'S VERY PROBLEMATIC TO START ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO BECOME COMMERCIAL.

AND IT'S NOT JUST IN DISTRICT ONE, IT WILL END UP BEING EVERYWHERE.

AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK YOU'RE CAUSING A DISTURBANCE.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S ALLOWED. AND I THINK YOU'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW THIS. I THINK IT WAS PUT VERY WELL, I THINK, BY COUNCILMEMBER WEST ABOUT BEING OUTSIDE OF THE COMFORT ZONE.

THIS IS UNUSUAL. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING SOME OF THE STRUGGLE.

SOME IT'S VERY CUT AND DRIED. BUT I'M HEARING WHAT YOU'VE SAID.

AND ALSO IN DISTRICT 13, WE'VE GOT SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, SINGLE FAMILY THAT ARE BUILT AROUND CLUBHOUSES THAT MIGHT HAVE A POOL AND TENNIS COURTS, BUT THEY'VE GOT A GATHERING SPACE, NOT QUITE LIKE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE, BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.

SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN EXPOSED TO.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M INCLINED AND BECAUSE OF THE VERY SHORT PERIOD TO LOOK AT THIS, JUST TO WORK THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE PARKING ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED? I MEAN, I HEARD THAT TOO. AND WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS ABOUT OTHERS WANTING TO DO THIS SORT OF THING? I MEAN, IF IT'S WELCOMED BY, YOU KNOW, VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WILL, THAT BECOMES KIND OF A CLUBHOUSE AND MAYBE A WARM NEIGHBORHOOD SPACE.

SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE. AND YES, WE'VE GOT RULES ON THE BOOKS, BUT THIS JUST SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT AS EASY OF A FIT AS SOME OF THE BUSINESS ISSUES I'VE DEALT WITH ON STREETS THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT THIS KIND OF PRODUCT.

SO FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND BECAUSE I THINK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WEST IS GOING TO MAYBE HAVE SOME OTHER OPTION, I DON'T KNOW. I'M WILLING TO KIND OF FEEL IT OUT TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS.

AND SO I WILL SUPPORT THE SUP. COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I JUST DO WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE REASON WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO GO TO NOVEMBER OF 27 WAS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE PERMIT PROCESS.

THEY DO NEED SOME TIME TO GET THAT TOGETHER BEFORE COMING BACK TO FILE TO RENEW THE SUP IF IT'S A ONE YEAR'S U P, THEY'RE LITERALLY BACK HERE IN FOUR MONTHS. SO I WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO BUILD A TRACK RECORD WHILE STILL COMING BACK TO THIS COUNCIL BY NOVEMBER. THANK YOU. ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

SEE, WE HAVE NO OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED. LET'S DO A RECORD VOTE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

[10:30:03]

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN.

COUNCILMEMBER GRACEY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA IS ABSENT WHEN BOUTTE TAKEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. YES. MAYOR JOHNSON IS ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN.

WITH EIGHT VOTING IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED, THREE ABSENT.

VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ZONING ITEM, ITEM Z FIVE.

[Z5. 26-2277A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and (1) an ordinance granting NO(A) Neighborhood Office District; and (2) an ordinance terminating Specific Use Permit No. 45 for a branch library on property zoned R-1ac(A) Single Family District, on the south line of Royal Lane, between Netherland Drive and Royal Way Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-26-000035 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND WON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING NOA NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT AND TWO AN ORDINANCE TERMINATING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 45 FOR A BRANCH LIBRARY ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ROYAL LANE BETWEEN NETHERLAND DRIVE AND ROLL WAY. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 28 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED FOUR REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z FIVE? I BELIEVE I SEE A SPEAKER COMING FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN. GOOD EVENING. KEISHA K 1900, FURMAN, SUITE 400, RICHARDSON 75081.

I'M GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BRIEF BECAUSE I DO WANT TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF OF HOW WE GOT HERE.

OUR ORIGINAL CASE WAS SUBMITTED AS AN SUP AMENDMENT, BUT THROUGH THE STAFF REVIEW PROCESS, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE EXISTING PRESS AND ROYAL BRANCH LIBRARY WAS ACTUALLY OVER THE COVERAGE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

SO WE HAD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, WHICH OF COURSE WE CAN'T EXPAND ON.

THIS BRANCH LIBRARY IS VERY SUCCESSFUL AND VERY BUSY AND PROVIDES A LOT OF GREAT AMENITIES TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THE CASE WAS CHANGED TO PROPOSE THE NOAA DISTRICT.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z FIVE? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE! APPROVAL. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? I'M SORRY. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? YES. SO THIS IS A LIBRARY THAT'S PART OF OUR 2024 BOND PROGRAM.

IT HELPED COMPLETE THE LAST ROUND OF THE LIBRARY MASTER PLAN.

SO IT WAS VERY EXCITING TO BE ABLE TO HELP OUR LIBRARIES AND OUR RESIDENTS ACHIEVE THAT.

THERE HAS BEEN NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT. YOU'VE GOT A VERY ACTIVE FRIENDS GROUP.

THEY'RE RAISING MONEY TO HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC ART THAT WILL BE PART OF THIS LIBRARY.

SO I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT. YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT VOTERS APPROVED.

SO I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON OUR LIBRARY FROM THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM.

COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

I ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE FOR THE CHANGE, AND WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES TO ALSO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, OF THIS SITUATION AND APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENDORSE IT.

SEEING. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. YOUR NEXT ITEM, ITEM Z TEN, IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A

[Z10. 26-2282A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new Specific Use Permit for a self-service storage on property zoned Subdistrict 4A within Planned Development District No. 887, the Valley View - the Galleria Area Special Purpose District, on the northwest corner of Montfort Drive and Valley View Trail Recommendation of Staff: Approval for a thirty-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a thirty-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-26-000061 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

SELF-SERVICE STORAGE ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONTFORT DRIVE AND VALLEY VIEW TRAIL.

[10:35:01]

RIGHT, MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 14 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. KEISHA K 1900, FURMAN, SUITE 400, RICHARDSON 75081. SO THIS CASE HAS GONE FANTASTIC.

WORKING WITH PLAN COMMISSION AND COUNCIL VERY, VERY GREAT.

HOWEVER, WE HAD VERY LAST MINUTE CHANGES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE FULLY DISCUSSED AND DIGESTED WITH PLAN COMMISSION AND OUR COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO WE'RE FULLY ACCEPTING TO BE REMANDED BACK TO PLAN COMMISSION SO WE CAN DISCUSS THOSE CHANGES.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z TEN? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. FURTHER SPEAKERS? YEAH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMAND THIS ITEM BACK TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I WOULD REFER THEM TO THE TO MISS KEISHA GAY AND BUT I THINK THAT IT WAS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

AND SINCE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IT, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TAKE CARE OF THE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS THEY NEED TO.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO THE CPC. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEM Z 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN

[Z14. 26-2286A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2500 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise or food store 3,500 square feet or less, on property zoned RR Regional Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the east line of North Buckner Boulevard and north of Chenault Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to conditions Z-26-000087 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2500 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE. 3500FT² OR LESS ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST LINE OF NORTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF CHENNAULT STREET.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 11 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE? YOU MAY COME FORWARD.

PLEASE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

HI. GOOD EVENING. LAURA HOFFMAN, 2728 NORTH HARWOOD STREET.

THIS IS A RENEWAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING RACEWAY GAS STATION.

WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE FERGUSON ROAD INITIATIVE, AND THEY'VE BEEN A GREAT PARTNER THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. AND WE DISCUSSED WITH THEM THAT THEY WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD ON THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM C 14? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.

THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT EXPIRES IN FIVE YEARS WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.

THERE'S A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED EYES. HAVE IT. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL ZONING ITEMS.

[Z16. 26-2145A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2302 for an attached projecting non-premise district activity videoboard sign on property zoned CA-1(A) Central Area District, on the east line of North Cesar Chavez Boulevard, between Elm Street and Main Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a six-year period, subject to conditions Z234-342(JG)/Z-25-000126 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council on June 10, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on August 12, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM C 16 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2302 FOR AN ATTACHED PROJECTING NON PREMISE DISTRICT ACTIVITY.

VIDEO BOARD SIGN ON PROPERTY ON THE EAST LINE OF NORTH CESAR CHAVEZ BOULEVARD BETWEEN ELM STREET AND MAIN STREET.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 16 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS? I SEE AN INDIVIDUAL COMING FORWARD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SANTOS MARTINEZ, 2489 CAMINO LOOP, NORTHEAST RIO RANCHO, NEW MEXICO, 87144. HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY KNOW, THE WHEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THIS ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THESE VIDEO BOARDS, THEY WERE SPECIFIC TO THE AREA AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WHERE THESE WOULD BE PERMITTED.

THIS IS THE ONLY VIDEO BOARD ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE'S A NETWORK OF THESE VIDEO BOARDS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PLACEMENT, WHERE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON AT THE MAJESTIC, THEY CAN ALL BE SIMULTANEOUS CAST ON THESE BOARDS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PART OF DOWNTOWN YOU'RE AT.

WHAT THIS. WITH THIS BOARD, WITH ITS PROXIMITY TO FARMERS MARKET, I THINK THERE'S ALSO A HIGH VALUE TO RENEW THIS SUP FOR THE

[10:40:06]

MESSAGING AND NOT JUST FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT, BUT FOR THE PSA AND THE STRENGTH THAT IT HAS FOR DOWNTOWN ACTIVITIES AND THINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WE HAD NO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION AT PLAN COMMISSION.

NONE WAS FORWARDED TO STAFF. WE DO STAND IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TIME PERIOD WITH THE S P AND STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 16? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR. IT IS A DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEM Z 17 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MU DASH ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT

[Z17. 26-1814A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting MU-1 Mixed-Use District on property zoned LI Light Industrial District, on the south line of Compton Street, west of Glidden Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-25-000200 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on May 13, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on August 12, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF COMPTON STREET, WEST OF CLINTON STREET.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 32 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED FOUR REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 17? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. COUNCILMAN BLAIR, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THE MOTION? YES. I MOVED TO DENY THIS ITEM WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

THE MOTION SECOND AND DISCUSSION. YEAH, WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? I DID.

WELL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHY. WHY? WHY IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IT? WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THAT PART. ITEM Z 18 IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE WAS AT THE POINT OF VOTING.

SO WE ALL DECIDED TO SAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I OPPOSED.

AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE PASSED THAT PART.

SO NEXT ITEM.

ARE WE ARE WE WE'VE DISPOSED, WE'VE MOVED ON OR TAKEN ACTION ON ITEM C 17.

OKAY. ITEM Z 18. YEAH. MY LIGHTS ON FOR 18 SO THAT I DON'T GET OVERLOOKED.

[Z18. 26-1815A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting TH-3(A) Townhouse District on property zoned R-5(A) Single Family District, on the west line of Bonnie View Road, south of East 11th Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Approval Z-26-000016 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on May 13, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on August 12, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z 18 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TH DASH THREE A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST LINE OF BONNIE VIEW ROAD, SOUTH OF EAST 11TH STREET. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 25 NOTICES TO OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED TWO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

ALI. JORDAN. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW IT'S BEEN KIND OF A LONG DAY.

NOW WE'RE INTO THE NIGHT. KIND OF JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WILL BE A MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT OF 30FT VOLUNTARILY. SO THERE IS A VOLUNTARY DEED THAT'S GOING TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.

AND WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING TO DEVELOP A TOWNHOME BASICALLY IN THE AREA.

THAT WILL BE KIND OF LIKE A VALUE ADD A REVENUE ADD FOR THE DISTRICT AS WELL.

IN ADDITION TO THAT WE'RE WORKING A SUBCONTRACT BASICALLY WITH INDIVIDUALS, COMPANIES THAT HAVE WORKED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

I'VE ACTUALLY BUILT 4 TO 6 HOMES MYSELF IN THE PAST 4 OR 5 YEARS AS WELL.

SO WELL QUALIFIED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. WE JUST WANT TO STAY WITHIN EXCUSE ME.

WE JUST WANT TO STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULES, REGULATIONS EVERYTHING THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOWNHOME ZONING AND ESPECIALLY SETBACKS EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT WITHIN THE REGULATIONS AND MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THINGS RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION. YES.

[10:45:06]

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO DENY THE ZONING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A MOTION.

AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCILWOMAN.

WHY ARE YOU DENYING IT? WE'RE DENYING IT BECAUSE AFTER I SPOKE WITH MY COMMUNITY, WHICH IS NOT PUTTING PLACES, HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND CERTAIN RESIDENTS, THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE PREDATORY DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM CEDAR CREST NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT BY ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL.

SO THESE ARE TOWNHOMES. CORRECT. THAT'S LOOKING OVER PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS.

SO MY COMMUNITY IS NOT SUPPORTING THAT. WELL, YOU COULD DO EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH MELCHIOR AND NOT HAVE WINDOWS ON THE BACK AND DO A SETBACK. BUT WHAT I KEEP HEARING IS HOW WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING BESIDES LOW INCOME MULTIFAMILY.

AND HERE YOU HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR AN OWNERSHIP PRODUCT.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE NOT DOING IT.

AND THIS GETS SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SOUTHERN DALLAS WE'VE GOT TO HAVE OWNERSHIP.

WE CAN'T JUST HAVE THE LOW INCOME RENTAL. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

YOU LIKE OVER AND OVER WE'VE GOT TO DEVELOP SOUTHERN DALLAS.

AND THEN WE HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO DO IT.

AND WE'RE NOT SAYING YES. THIS ISN'T EVEN A HE'S NOT EVEN ASKING FOR A TAX EXEMPTION.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THERE IS A I'M SORRY, NO ONE AT THIS POINT ASKED YOU TO SPEAK.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US? I THINK I'M ALLOWED TO ASK YOU THAT AS A QUESTION.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. WELL, PLEASE, PLEASE GO TO THE MICROPHONE.

THERE WAS ONE THING I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT. THERE ARE TOWNHOMES 3 OR 4 LOTS OVER TO THE PROPERTY.

AND THERE IS A MULTI-FAMILY 17 UNIT COMPLEX ACROSS FROM THE LOT ALREADY AS WELL.

THOSE ARE ALREADY RENTED OUT. THEY BUILT IT OUT.

THEY'RE ALREADY LIVING THERE. SO IT'S A 17 UNIT BUILDING THAT'S PRETTY HIGH.

AND AND ALSO PRETTY LARGE. WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO DO A TOWNHOME WHICH IS BASICALLY GOING WITH THE FLOW OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT GOING AGAINST THE, ANY STRUCTURAL ISSUES YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON ALREADY.

SO STAYING COMPLIANT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDER THAT LOOKS, YOU KNOW, THAT IT SHOULDN'T BELONG THERE. THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT.

IT'S BEEN GOING ON IN THE PAST FIVE, FIVE, SIX YEARS AT LEAST.

OKAY. WELL THANK YOU. I'M JUST SAYING, I AM CONFUSED BY WHAT IS BEING DENIED WHEN THIS SEEMS TO BE THE THING THAT WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT AS WANTING TO HAVE IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO PUT IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

I'M JUST REFLECTING BACK WHAT I KEEP HEARING.

AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE LOW INCOME MULTIFAMILY, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF LOW INCOME MULTIFAMILY, I GET IT. BUT NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TOWNHOMES.

AND TRADITIONALLY I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY ONLINE.

HE'S ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE CONDOS AND TOWNHOMES.

AND HERE WE ARE WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY. SO I'M JUST I'M CONFUSED WHY WE ARE DENYING THIS.

AND I HOPE THAT IN TIME THIS WILL GET CLARIFIED.

THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WELL, I DID WANT TO ASK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AS WE HEARD EARLIER TODAY AND BECAUSE OF OTHER ZONING CASES, THERE ARE THINGS I DON'T KNOW IF THE NEIGHBORS THOUGHT ABOUT OR WERE ASKED OR THAT MIGHT BE WILLING TO BE PROVIDED LIKE A TREE IN BACKYARDS OR.

YEAH. NO WINDOWS. I MEAN, WE DID NO WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR SO YOU COULDN'T LOOK OUT.

OR, YOU KNOW, THE DISTANCE AND THAT SORT OF THING WHERE THEY OPEN TO THAT OR JUST.

NO. WELL, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE HOMES THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS DONE BY MY PREDECESSOR AND WHAT ACROSS THE STREET WAS AN OLD MOTEL THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR PRETTY MUCH SINCE I WAS A CHILD. AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THAT AREA, I JUST BUILT A $64 MILLION SCHOOL, ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL, RIGHT BEFORE I CAME TO THE COUNCIL. AND A LOT OF THOSE HOMES ARE REALLY FLAT.

SO NOW WE'RE JUST PUTTING HOMES UP THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE COMMUNITY.

THE COMMUNITY HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY'RE NOT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE WANTING. SO I'M DENYING IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WORK WITH THE GENTLEMAN SO WE CAN FIND A LOCATION IN DISTRICT FOUR THAT WILL MATCH THE KIND OF HOMES THAT HE'S TRYING TO BUILD. YEAH, I SEE, SO AND I HEAR THAT FLAT ROOF BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER THING YOU HEAR A LOT ABOUT. LIKE WE REQUIRED PITCHES ON ROOFS AND THAT YOU COULD NOT DO FLAT ROOFS.

SO MAYBE THERE'S THE TIME TO RETRIEVE THIS AND WORK ON IT AND LISTEN AND HEAR SOME OF THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WORKABLE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY

[10:50:06]

THAT GOT NEIGHBORS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER. SEE, THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS PH ONE.

ITEM. PH ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 51.

AYE DASH 13 DOT ITEM C 19 WAS DEFERRED. YES. THANK YOU.

[Z19. 26-2147A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new Specific Use Permit for a handicapped group dwelling unit on property zoned R-5(A) Single Family District, on the southeast line of Prosperity Avenue, west of Stanley Smith Drive Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval for a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions Z-26-000038 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council on June 10, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on August 12, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 51,

[PH1. 26-2299A A public hearing to receive comments regarding consideration of amendments to Section 51A-13.306 of the Dallas City Code to list tattoo and body piercing as an example of permitted personal service uses instead of as an example of prohibited personal service uses in form-based zoning districts, and an ordinance granting the amendments allowing “Tattoo or body piercing” in Article XIII Form Districts Recommendation of Staff: Approval of the proposed amendments Recommendation of ZOAC: Approval of the proposed amendments Recommendation of CPC: Approval of the proposed amendments DCA 256-007(MW) *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

A DASH 13.306 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO LIST TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF PERMITTED PERSONAL USE PERSONAL SERVICE USES INSTEAD OF.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF PROHIBITED PERSONAL SERVICE USES IN FORM BASED ZONING DISTRICTS AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE AMENDMENTS ALLOWING TATTOO OR BODY PIERCING IN ARTICLE 13 FORM DISTRICTS. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL? YOU MAY COME FORWARD ON ITEM PH ONE.

AND. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SATCHEL VICTORY. MY ADDRESS IS 240 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE.

I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR, ASSOCIATE FORMER EDUCATOR OF NINE YEARS AT BOOKER T WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS.

THE OWNER OF VICTORY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND VICTORY MIND LAB, AND CO-OWNER OF PEGASUS TATTOO AND WELLNESS.

MY BUSINESS PARTNER, STEPHANIE ADELINA, AND I ARE HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, REMOVING TATTOO STUDIOS AS A PROHIBITED PERSONAL SERVICE USE WITHIN WALKABLE, MIXED USE THREE DISTRICTS.

STEPHANIE HAS OPERATED PEGASUS TATTOO STUDIOS IN THE ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 2017.

DURING THAT TIME, SHE'S BUILT STRONG RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS, NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES, AND CLIENTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY THROUGH PEGASUS.

WE'VE ALSO USED TATTOOING TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY, INCLUDING RAISING MORE THAN $3,000 FOR OUR COMMUNITY CARE FUND, WHICH HELPS PROVIDE FREE AND LOW COST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

THE PROPERTY THAT INITIATED THIS ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS IS THE SAME PROPERTY WHERE OUR COUNSELING AND COACHING BUSINESSES NOW OPERATE, BUT WE'RE TATTOOING REMAINS PROHIBITED. WHEN THE AREA WAS REZONED IN 2020 FOR TATTOOING BECAME A PROHIBITED PERSONAL SERVICE USE WITHIN THE WALKABLE MIXED USE DISTRICT. AS A RESULT, ALTHOUGH OUR COUNSELING AND COACHING BUSINESSES WERE PERMITTED TO RELOCATE INTO THE NEW SPACE, TATTOOING WAS NOT. THE ISSUE DID NOT ARISE BECAUSE TATTOOING BECAME INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT AROSE BECAUSE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGED.

I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ZONING REGULATION AND THE EXISTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING TATTOO BUSINESSES.

TATTOO STUDIOS ARE ALREADY LICENSED, INSPECTED AND REGULATED BUSINESSES.

STATE LAW GOVERNS SANITATION, STERILIZATION, RECORD KEEPING, CLIENT PROTECTIONS, AND AGE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

CONCERNS REGARDING HEALTH AND SAFETY ARE ADDRESSED THROUGH THAT EXISTING FRAMEWORK.

THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOT WHETHER TATTOOING SHOULD BE REGULATED. IT ALREADY IS.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A LICENSED, REGULATED TATTOO STUDIO SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED FROM A MIXED USE DISTRICT WHERE LICENSED COUNSELING AND COACHING SERVICES ARE ALREADY PERMITTED. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE CURRENT CODE PERMITS ME TO OPERATE COUNSELING AND COACHING SERVICES FROM THIS PROPERTY, WHILE PROHIBITING TATTOO SERVICES. ALL THREE ARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SERVING MEMBERS OF THE SAME COMMUNITY.

THE DISTINCTION REFLECTS AN OUTDATED CLASSIFICATION RATHER THAN THE OPERATIONAL REALITIES OF MODERN TATTOO BUSINESSES.

THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE RESPECTED THE CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS AND HAVE NOT OPERATED TATTOO SERVICES FROM THE PROPERTY WHILE AWAITING YOUR DECISION.

WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE THROUGH THE PROPER PUBLIC PROCESS.

THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT REMOVE REGULATION. IT SIMPLY REMOVES A CATEGORICAL PROHIBITION AND ALIGNS THE CODE WITH THE REALITIES OF MODERN TATTOO BUSINESSES WHILE PRESERVING THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REGULATE HEALTH, SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY THROUGH EXISTING PROCESSES.

FOR THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM H ONE? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

I HAVE A MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? BRIEFLY. YES, COLLEAGUES.

THIS CAME FROM A FIVE SIGNATURE MEMO THAT WAS INITIATED BY MYSELF AND FOUR COLLEAGUES.

[10:55:03]

THANK YOU. I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHO THAT WAS, BUT WHOEVER SIGNED ON TO IT, AND I BELIEVE THIS EITHER WENT THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR QUALITY OF LIFE. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE THAT WAS EITHER, BUT IT WAS VETTED OUT THERE.

AND WALKABLE MIXED USE IS ONE OF THOSE ZONING FORM ZONING CATEGORIES THAT AFFECTS ALMOST ENTIRELY.

A LOT OF MY DISTRICT, I THINK I HAVE LIKE 85% OF IT IN THE CITY.

I KNOW THAT STAFF HAD ASSEMBLED WHERE IT AFFECTED IN TERMS OF THE REST OF THE CITY, AND IT WAS PRETTY MINOR.

IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE OLD PROVISIONS THAT WAS INSIDE THE CODE THAT PROHIBITED TATTOOS FROM BACK IN THE DAY WHEN I GUESS THEY WERE MORE TABOO. WHEREAS THEY'RE MORE ACCEPTED NOW, CERTAINLY IN MY DISTRICT AND IN DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD.

SO THIS MOVE UPDATES THE CODE TO ALLOW FOR TATTOO PARLORS TO EXIST IN WALKABLE, MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS.

PLEASE SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, BUT I JUST WANT AGAIN ON THE RECORD FROM STAFF THAT THE DEEP ELLUM COMMUNITY THIS AMENDMENT ON FORM DISTRICTS DOES NOT AFFECT DEEP ELLUM. THAT IS CORRECT. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT DEEP ELLUM, ONLY THE FORM DISTRICT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

THANK YOU. SEE, THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? NOTED. COUNCIL MEMBER. AYES HAVE IT.

I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH AND COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN VOTING NO ON ITEM FF ONE AND GRACEY.

ITEM FF TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY TITANIUM HOUSING PARTNERS,

[PH2. 26-2138A (1) A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application by Titanium Housing Partners, LLC and/or its affiliate(s) (collectively referred to as Applicant) to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for The Pemberton at Dennis, a 188-unit mixed-income multifamily complex located at 11301 Dennis Road, Dallas, Texas 75229 (Project); (2) pursuant to Section 394.9025 of the Texas Local Government Code regarding bonds to be issued by the City of Dallas Housing Finance Corporation to finance the Project; and, at the close of the public hearing (3) authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its upcoming application to TDHCA for development of the Project - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

LLC AND OR ITS AFFILIATE, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS APPLICANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

TDHCA FOR A 4% NONCOMPETITIVE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR THE PEMBERTON AT DENNIS, A 188 UNIT MIXED INCOME MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX LOCATED AT 11301 DENNIS ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS.

75229 PROJECT TWO. PURSUANT TO SECTION THREE NINE, 4.9025 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION CORPORATION TO FINANCE THE PROJECT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THREE AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS UPCOMING APPLICATION TO TDCA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN.

TRAVIS BARBER, TITANIUM HOUSING PARTNERS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'LL JUST BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE.

MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKER. THANK YOU FOR THIS ITEM.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YEAH. MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. WE HAVE A MOTION. YES. GO AHEAD.

THIS ITEM BEFORE US TODAY IS A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT THEIR 4% HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION TO THE STATE.

THE PROJECT IS IN NORTHWEST DALLAS ALONG A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AND WILL DELIVER 188 ATTAINABLE UNITS, OF WHICH TEN OF THE UNITS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 30% AND BELOW THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

21 OF THE UNITS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 50% AND BELOW THE A M I, 103 UNITS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING AT OR BELOW 60% OF THE A M I. 36 OF THE UNITS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 70% AND BELOW THE A M I AND 18 OF THE UNITS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR MARKET RATE. THIS IS A HEALTHY BALANCE IN. THE COMMUNITY EXPRESSED THEIR NEED FOR THREE BEDROOMS DUE TO TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND THE DEVELOPER HAS DELIVERED, BRINGING 591 BEDROOMS, 109 TWO BEDROOMS AND 23 BEDROOMS. A KEY STRENGTH OF THIS PROJECT IS ITS LOCATION.

PROXIMITY TO JOBS ALSO STRENGTHENS THE LOCAL WORKFORCE, SUPPORTS BUSINESSES AND CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE STABLE AND RESILIENT LOCAL ECONOMY.

WHEN PEOPLE CAN LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK, COMMUNITIES SEE IMPROVED VIBRANCY, STRONGER SMALL BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

[11:00:06]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE THE ISSUE.

THIS IS AN HFC PROJECT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.

WE WILL BE GOING TO THE HFC FOR A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP.

AND THEY'RE ALSO INDUCING THE BONDS FOR THE 4% OR FOR THE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO HAVE THEY ALREADY. SO HAVE YOU ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE HFC? WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THEIR BOARD ONE TIME TO INDUCE THE BONDS.

AND WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ON THEIR PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE.

IT'S THE SAME STRUCTURE WE'VE USED ON ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT OUR PRINCIPALS HAVE DONE IN THE CITY.

WHAT IS THAT STRUCTURE? IT'S WHERE THE HFC IS A GENERAL PARTNER.

THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE OWNERSHIP AND THEY PROVIDE A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.

AND IN TURN WE PAY THEM A GROUND LEASE FEE LONG TERM OVER THE TERM OF A LONG TERM GROUND LEASE.

SO THERE IS A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ALSO. SO IN ADDITION TO THE BOND, THE BONDS THAT WERE ISSUING THROUGH THE HFC.

YES, SIR. AND WHAT IS THAT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PERIOD? I'M SORRY. DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE HOW LONG? HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE PROPERTY TAX? IT WOULD BE FOR THE PERIOD OF THE TERM OF THE LEASE, WHICH IS TYPICALLY 75 YEARS TO 99 YEARS.

OH YEAH. IF I MAY, SIR. THORAX AND DIRECTOR, HOUSING COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AREA. QUINTO IS ALSO ONLINE GENERAL MANAGER OF HFC, WHO CAN ANSWER SOME OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HFC STRUCTURE.

IF YOU PREFER TO TURN TO AARON ONLINE. I'M NOT CLEAR.

WHAT ARE YOU. WHAT ARE YOU TELLING ME? DO YOU WANT ME TO ASK SOMEBODY ELSE? YEAH, AARON FROM THE HFC IS ONLINE.

OKAY, WE'LL LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION AND ANSWER HFC.

THANK YOU. THAT'D BE FINE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.

SO THE CURRENT TAXES ARE $5,840 FOR THIS YEAR OVER THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD.

THAT'S ABOUT 30 YEARS. THAT'S WHAT WE ESTIMATE.

THAT WILL BE ABOUT $277,000. I'M SENSITIVE TO THE TO THE ENDORSEMENT BY MY COLLEAGUE. AND IF I'M AGAIN, I WANT TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS IN APPROVING THESE KIND OF DEALS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE POTENTIALLY COSTING FUTURE REVENUE LOSSES.

HOWEVER, I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN, IN STANCES WHEN THESE CAN BE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND PROVIDE REQUIRED HOUSING IN AREAS THAT REALLY DO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND, BUT I WOULD CAUTION OUR, OUR BODY TO TO VET THESE, TYPES OF PROJECTS VERY, VERY HEAVILY AND CLOSELY AS THEY COME UP IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. I SEE THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS. OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. ITEM THREE IS A

[PH3. 26-2127A A public hearing to receive comments on the proposed use of a portion of parkland at Joey Georgusis Park located at 1200 Stone Mesa Drive, totaling approximately 106,891 square feet (2.45 acres) of land, for one Sidewalk Easement, one Water and Wastewater Easement, one Detention Area Easement, one Detention Area Access Easement, one Drainage Easement, and one Water Easement for the Joey Georgusis Park plat, as required by plat; and, at the close of the public hearing, consideration of a resolution authorizing the proposed use of parkland pursuant to Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF A PORTION OF PARK LAND AT JOEY ZARAGOZA PARK, LOCATED AT 1200 STONE MESA DRIVE, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 106,891FT², 2.45 ACRES OF LAND FOR ONE SIDEWALK EASEMENT, ONE WATER AND WASTEWATER EASEMENT, ONE DETENTION AREA, ONE WATER EASEMENT FOR THE JOEY WON DETENTION AREA ACCESS EASEMENT, ONE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND ONE WATER EASEMENT FOR THE JOEY YOUR PARK PLAT AS REQUIRED BY PLAT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED USE OF PARKLAND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, AND THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE, NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR ON THIS COUNCILMAN WISH YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. HAD A MOTION A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? I BELIEVE THERE'S A THERE'S A RESOLUTION.

THERE'S A RESOLUTION AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION.

JUST PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. YEAH. IS THE MOTION TO JUST CLOSE THE HEARING, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE WAS MADE.

BUT IS THERE A MOTION ABOUT APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING THE ITEM.

[11:05:06]

THERE'S A RESOLUTION. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS JUST CLOSING.

WELL. IT'S JUST TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE'S A.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THIS ITEM IS COMING BACK TO US TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON.

I MEAN, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE DIDN'T DISPOSE OF AN ACTION.

CAN'T HEAR YOU. PUSH THE BUTTON. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.