* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] YOU ARE WATCHING THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WITH MAYOR ERIC L. JOHNSON, MAYOR PRO TEM JAIME RESENDEZ, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MAXI JOHNSON. WEBINAR COUNCIL MEMBERS BEING TRANSCRIBED. AND SUMMERS DE GRACIE, JESSE MORENO GAY DANELLE WILLIS, LAURA KADENA, ADAM BASIL DOA. LORI BLAIR, PAULA BLACKMAN, KATHY STEWART, WILLIAM ROTH, KARA MENDELSON, PAUL E RIDLEY, CITY MANAGER KIMBERLY VISOR. TOLBERT CITY SECRETARY BILLY RAY JOHNSON. AND INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY BURT VANDENBERG. ALRIGHT, [AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026 ORDER OF BUSINESS ] GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE A QUORUM. TODAY'S TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH, 2026 TIME'S 9:29 AM AND I CALL THIS MEETING AT DOWN CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER OUR INVOCATION. SPEAKERS THIS MORNING IS OUR COLLEAGUE, UH, CHAIRMAN ZAIN GRACIE. I'LL TURN OVER TO HIM FOR THE INVOCATION. THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US FLAG AND THE TEXAS FLAG. GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR, AND GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. LET US PRAY. GRACIOUS AND EVERLASTING, GOD, WE COME BEFORE YOU THIS DAY, GRATEFUL FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING THE CITY OF DALLAS. MINDFUL THAT EVERY SEAT AT THIS DIES AND EVERY VOICE IN THIS CHAMBER IS A, IS A TRUST YOU HAVE PLACED IN OUR HANDS. YOUR WORD REMINDS US IN PSALM 105, FOR THE LORD IS GOOD AND HIS LOVE ENDURES FOREVER. HIS FAITHFULNESS CONTINUES THROUGH ALL GENERATIONS. LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOODNESS OVER THIS CITY, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT MAKE UP ITS HEART. FROM OAK CLIFF TO EVERY CORNER OF DALLAS, FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS OPENING THEIR DOORS THIS MORNING FOR THE FAMILIES RAISING THEIR CHILDREN'S HERE AND HOPING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW. FOR THE PUBLIC SERVANTS, CITY STAFF, AND FIRST RESPONDERS WHO SHOW UP WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE, ARE WATCHING OR NOT, WE THANK YOU THAT YOUR LOVE ENDURES FOREVER. NOT DEPENDENT ON OUR BUDGETS, OUR POLITICS, OR OUR PROGRESS, BUT STEADY AND UNSHAKEN IN A CITY THAT IS GROWING AND CHANGING SO QUICKLY. LET THAT SAME STEADINESS MARK THE DECISIONS MADE HERE TODAY. GIVE THIS COUNCIL WISDOM THAT OUTLAST ANY SINGLE VOTE AND HEARTS COMMITTED TO WELLBEING OF EVERY RESIDENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE OFTEN GONE AND HEARD. AND LORD, WE HOLD YOU. HOLD ON TO YOUR FAITHFULNESS, A FAITHFULNESS THAT CONTINUES THROUGH ALL GENERATIONS AS WE DELIBERATE POLICY THAT WILL SHAPE THIS CITY. LONG AFTER WE'VE LEFT THESE SEATS, REMIND US THAT WE ARE SIMPLY STEWARDS OF WHAT YOU ARE BUILDING HERE. LET THE WORK OF THIS COUNCIL TODAY PLANT SOMETHING FAITHFUL FOR THE GENERATIONS OF DALLAS, OF DALLAS THAT WILL COME AFTER US, OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN. SO WE ASK YOUR BLESSINGS OVER THIS MEETING FOR CLARITY IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, INTEGRITY IN OUR DECISIONS, AND UNITY IN OUR PURPOSE. MAY EVERYTHING DONE HERE TODAY REFLECT YOUR GOODNESS, YOUR ENDURING LOVE, YOUR FAITHFULNESS TO THE CITY. WE ARE HONORED HERE TO SERVE. IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN. IF EVERYONE IS ABLE, WOULD PLEASE RISE FOR OUR PLEDGES. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPECIAL PRESENTATION THIS MORNING FROM CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THAT PURPOSE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS PAST WEEKEND I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SPEAKING TO THE UKRAINIAN CLUB OF DALLAS. AND UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, MAYOR JOHNSON, UM, AND I WERE ABLE TO WELCOME HER EXCELLENCY, FIRST LADY ALENA ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE TO DALLAS TO ADD A UKRAINIAN BOOKSHELF TO OUR PUBLIC LIBRARY. OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE THIS UKRAINIAN BOOKSHELF HAVE THEM IN AT UNIVERSITY SO THEY'RE NOT AS ACCESSIBLE, BUT IN DALLAS, TEXAS IT IS. AND SO THANK YOU MAYOR FOR A SPECIAL RECOGNITION THAT I READ AND THEY WERE SO HONORED TO HAVE THIS. SO I'D LIKE TO READ THIS TODAY. WHEREAS ON AUGUST 24TH, 1991, THE PARLIAMENT OF UKRAINE FORMERLY DECLARED AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINIAN STATE ESTABLISHING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF UKRAINE, WHICH AN OVERWHELMINGLY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF UKRAINIANS UPHELD IN A NATIONAL REFERENDUM IN DECEMBER OF THAT SAME YEAR. AND WHEREAS FOR CENTURIES, THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE HAVE STRUGGLED TO ACHIEVE AN INDEPENDENT STATE THAT WOULD PRESERVE THEIR CULTURE, LANGUAGE, AND SELF-IDENTITY. AND WHEREAS ON FEBRUARY 24TH, 2022 RUSSIAN FORCES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF VLADIMIR PUTIN LAUNCHED AN INVASION OF UKRAINE KILLING THOUSANDS AND FORCING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS TO FLEE. AND WHEREAS THE UNITED STATES HAS CONDEMNED THIS UNPROVOKED AND UNJUSTIFIED ATTACK AND SUPPORTS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY AND ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN DEFENDING UKRAINE. AND WHEREAS ON MARCH 9TH, 2022, [00:05:02] THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT CONDEMNS RUSSIA'S ILLEGAL INVASION OF UKRAINE AND CALLS FOR PEACE AND AN END TO VLADIMIR PUTIN'S WAR. AND WHEREAS UKRAINIAN AMERICANS MAKE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CULTURAL FABRIC OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHILE EMBRACING THEIR RICH HISTORY AND HERITAGE THAT ENCOMPASSES SHARED VALUES OF FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, AND THE RULE OF LAW. NOW ON BEHALF OF ERIC JOHNSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE DO HEREBY EXTEND SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY, THEIR 35TH ANNIVERSARY TO THE UKRAINIAN COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY MORE ANNOUNCES THIS MORNING, SO I'LL TURN OVER TO OUR CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. [OPEN MICROPHONE] AND GOOD MORNING. THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW HEAR ITS FIRST FIVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS. I WILL RECITE THE SPEAKER GUIDELINES. SPEAKERS MUST OBSERVE THE, THE SAME RULES OF DECORUM, THE PROPRIETY DECORUM AND GOOD CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY SPEAKER MAKING PERSONAL AND PERTINENT PROFANE OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS OR WHO BECOMES BOISTEROUS. WHILE ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN PERSON FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS. YOU WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SESSION. INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK FOR THOSE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. YOU WILL NOTICE THE TIME ON THE MONITOR AT THE PODIUM WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP. PLEASE STOP FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS. I WILL ANNOUNCE WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. ALSO, SPEAKERS, PLEASE BE MINDFUL THAT DURING YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFER TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BY NAME AND TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO MAYOR JOHNSON, ONLY YOUR FIRST SPEAKER. DEVONTE PETERS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I'M DEVONTE PEANUTS, OWNER OF THE ALKALINE HOUR. I'M ALSO A PART OF COMMUNITY MOVEMENT BUILDERS. I WROTE A LITTLE SPEECH TODAY SO YOU KNOW, I COULD STAY FOCUSED, SO BEAR WITH ME. UH, WELL GOOD MORNING. SO, UM, TODAY I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS AS WELL. AND, UM, I'M NOT HERE TO TELL Y'ALL TO RIP 'EM OUT, TAKE 'EM DOWN 'CAUSE I'M SURE WE GONNA HAVE SOME GOOD, UH, PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, YOU KNOW. BUT WHAT I'M HERE TO DO IS TO TELL YOU THAT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT Y'ALL BOUGHT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL DIDN'T FULLY AUDIT. UM, IN MAY OF 25, UH, YOU GUYS APPROVED OF 5.7 MILLION, UM, FOR FLOCK, AND NOW THERE'S ALMOST 700 FLOCK CAMERAS IN THIS CITY. AND, UM, THERE IS NO OPTION FOR RESIDENTS TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE, IF THEY'RE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSES, IF THEY'RE WATCHING THEIR KIDS, UH, AT THEIR PLAYGROUND AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. UM, AND HERE'S THE PART THAT I WANT ON THE RECORD. FLOCK'S OWN DEFAULT RETENTION IS NOW SEVEN DAYS. BUT DALLAS, Y'ALL, WE KEEP IT FOR THAT DATA FOR A WHOLE YEAR. UM, YOUR OWN, UH, POLICE DEPARTMENT EVEN ASKED FOR THAT. AND BECAUSE DALLAS SITS AT A YEAR, 365 DAYS FLOCK'S NEW AUDIT TOOL, THE ONE THAT WAS BUILT TO CATCH OFFICERS, A MISUSE IN THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK IN DALLAS, TEXAS. UM, YOU'RE RUNNING THE LONGEST RETENTION, UH, WITH THE WEAKEST OVERSIGHT. UH, AND THAT IS NOT THE THEORETICAL, UH, IN JOHNSON COUNTY. UH, JUST LAST YEAR, UH, A DEPUTY RAN A SEARCH FOR 80 OR MORE THAN 83,000, UH, CAMERAS, UH, FOR A WOMAN WHO WAS BASICALLY, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A WOMAN WHO HAD AN ABORTION. OUR CAMERAS WERE UTILIZED AND TOGGLED. UH, IN THAT, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER EVENTUALLY, UH, FOUND OUT THAT THE, UH, ABORTED FETUS WAS ACTUALLY A, UH, BLOOD CLOT. ALL RIGHT. UH, AND THERE'S NO WAY IN DALLAS FOR US TO ADDRESS THAT. UM, ALSO, $125,000 OF THIS CONTRACT CAME FROM HOMELAND SECURITY, THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT SUPPORTS ICE. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF CITIZENS THAT DON'T, DON'T, DON'T SUPPORT THAT HERE. BUT MEANWHILE, WE FURLOUGHED 4,200 CITI, UH, CITIZENS, UH, CITY WORKERS. UH, WE, WE'VE CLOSED LIBRARIES. AND EVEN IN HOLLAND HILLS, MAN, WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR, UH, STREETLIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED. THE CITY IGNORED US, UH, AND WE HAD TO INSTALL IT OURSELVES. UM, MY ORGANI, UH, UH, CMB, WE PUT THAT OR THOSE LIGHTS UP, NOT THE CITY. AND SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, JUST TO CUT RETENTION FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS. SO THE AUDIT TOOL ACTUALLY WORKS IN DALLAS, TURN OFF NATIONAL AND STATEWIDE LOOKUP, UH, SHARING THE WAY FLAGSTAFF DID PUBLISH A QUARTERLY PUBLIC AUDIT, INCLUDING THE REASON FAILED, UH, UH, REASON FAILED ON EVERY SEARCH AND REQUIRE A RECORDED COUNCIL VOTE BEFORE, UH, EITHER RENEWAL OPTION GETS EXERCISED IN 28. IF DALLAS CAN AFFORD 1.9 MILLION A YEAR TO WATCH US. I BELIEVE Y'ALL CAN LIGHT US UP AND THEN SUPPORT US AS WELL. I THINK Y'ALL FORGOT TIME. THANK YOU. CAROL BELL WALTON [00:10:01] HAS CANCELED. TAMMY KLA. MS YOU'RE MUTED. MS. KUKLA YOUR AUDIO, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU. OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK. WE'LL COME BACK TO MS. KUKLA. MARY JANE COX. I AM MARY JANE COX, EXCUSE ME. I LIVE 500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED PRESTON ROYAL DEVELOPMENT. THE ZONING COMMISSION SAID THE OTHER DAY THAT WE WOULD NOT MOVE FROM THE CURRENT 54 FOOT HEIGHT AT PRESTON ROYAL. THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE ARE ALSO HEARING WE'VE NOT TRIED TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER LELAND BURKE. THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE MET WITH HIM ON MAY THE FIRST. OUR PREFERENCE IS TO KEEP 54 FEET BECAUSE ALL OF THE OTHER CORNERS ON THIS DEVELOP, UH, ON THIS CORNER OF PRESTON ROYAL HAVE DONE THAT, DONE THAT EVER SINCE. UH, THEY REBUILT AFTER THE 2019 TORNADO. BUT WE ARE WILLING TO COMPROMISE. WE WILL GO TO 75 FEET, WHICH GIVES THE DEVELOPER SU SUBSTANTIAL HEIGHT AND FLEXIBILITY. 240 FEET IS SIMPLY UNREASONABLE FOR A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HEAR THIS SITE IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RATHER THAN HOMES. THAT'S NOT TRUE. ALL FOUR CORNERS BACK UP TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ON ALL THE OTHER CORNERS ARE NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES. AND BY THE WAY, WE ALSO HEAR THAT PRESTON ROAD IS A STATE HIGHWAY. TECHNICALLY YES, BUT SO ARE LANCASTER ROAD AND WEST DAVIS. NO ONE IS TRAVELING 2 89 TO OKLAHOMA OR 80 TO FORT WORTH, OR 3 42 TO RED OAK. WE HAVE ALSO TRIED TO HAVE A REASONABLE DIALOGUE WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE. WE ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD ATTEND A COMMUNITY MEETING, AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS TOO FEARFUL TO COME YET. SHE HELD THREE MEETINGS WITH A DEVELOPER AND WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. FINALLY, I ASK YOU DELAY YOUR DECISION. DALLAS TOO OFTEN APPROVES DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOVERS DURING PERMITTING THAT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS REMAIN UNSOLVED. SO PUT THE CART, THE HORSE BEFORE THE CART. THIS TIME WE'RE ASKING FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. 97% OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS OPPOSE THIS. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE LIVING, WHO WILL BE LIVING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR DECISION EVERY DAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE MS. KLER IS READY NOW. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. NO. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. I WANNA TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RECOGNIZE PAUL RAMON, WHO IS RETIRING FROM THE CITY AND HIS LEADERSHIP AT DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES. PAUL PROVED THAT LONG BEFORE BECOMING DIRECTOR UNDER MELISSA WEBER AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HE MANAGED THE FIELD OPERATIONS WITH GRACE AND WITH EXCELLENT ABILITIES. AND HE DIDN'T JUST MANAGE PEOPLE, HE CARED ABOUT THEM. I WATCHED PAUL VISIT EMPLOYEES IN THE HOSPITAL. I WATCHED HIM SHOW UP ON HIS TEAM, EXPERIENCE LOSS AND SPEAK AT FUNERALS HIM. HIS EMPLOYEES WEREN'T IN POSITIONS ON AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. THEY WERE PEOPLE AND PAUL HAD THEIR BACKS. I SAW THAT SAME COMPASSION WITH THE PUBLIC. AN ELDERLY COUPLE CAME TO DAS WITH THEIR BELOVED DOG. AT THE END OF ITS LIFE, PAUL COULD HAVE DELEGATED IT. INSTEAD, HE GRABBED MARY MARTIN. THEY WENT TO THEIR CAR SO THEIR DOG COULD PEACEFULLY TRANSITION IN THE CAR. PAUL STOOD THERE WITH THAT FAMILY. HE GAVE THEM TIME AND HE MADE SURE THEY GOT A PAW PRINT. THAT TO ME IS ANIMAL WELFARE. AND NOW WE KNOW THAT WITH HIS NEXT TRANSITION, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE CITY WILL CONSIDER LOOKING AT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT RUNNING AS AN INTERIM AS ANIMAL SERVICES. DURING THE 15 YEARS WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES. THE BEST RUN SHELTER WAS UNDER DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. ANIMALS ARRIVING IN AFTER HORRIFIC CRUELTY, ONE WITH ACID THROWN [00:15:01] ON ITS FACE, AND THEY ATTACKED BY A MACHETE. BARBARA AND THE DPD TEAM ACTIVATED. THEY GOT THOSE ANIMALS, MEDICAL CARE AND SAFETY. THEY WORKED TOWARDS LOVING OUTCOMES AND THEY ADDRESS THE CRUELTY. THAT'S THE INTERSECTION OF A NORMAL WELFARE AND PUBLIC SAFETY. AND THAT DURING THAT PERIOD, WE ARE WATCHING DAS REPEAT, UM, THE CENTER OF FIRESTORMS AND DAMAGING PUBLIC TALK CONTROVERSY TODAY THAT TRUST WITH POVERTY, WILL LEAD REBUILDING. CHUCK HAD A POSTURE COMING IN, WAS DATES FOR COCO, HAD AN ADOPTER ACTIVELY COMMUNICATING WITH DAS AND WAS ALSO EUTHANIZED. OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS WILL ESTABLISH EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. TWO POTENTIAL LAB OUTCOMES WERE LOST IN ONE WEEK. SO WITH ALL RETIRING, ASKING DALLAS TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER, BUT DALLAS WAS BACK UNDER THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ANIMAL, UM, AND PARENT STRUCTURE THAT INSTEAD OF RESPECT, LEADERSHIP, ALL OF TEXAS, MULTIPLE ANIMAL SHELTERS. IT'S NOT HIS NEEDS. I'D ALSO LIKE IT THIS CALL TO JUST SAY, PAUL, CONGRATULATIONS ONCE AGAIN ON YOUR RETIREMENT. WE WILL MISS YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, YOUR GRACE, YOUR COMPASSION, AND FOR CARING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS DIFFICULT WORK ALONGSIDE YOU. WE SINCERELY WISH YOU THE BEST, AND THANK YOU. YOU WILL BE MISSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RICHARD COX. RICHARD COX IS NOT PRESENT. CATHERINE WOO. CATHERINE WOOTEN. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. CATHERINE PUTIN, DISTRICT THREE. UM, I'M A LIFELONG EDUCATOR AND I RECENTLY TAUGHT ESL AT HAMPTON, ILLINOIS BRANCH LIBRARY AS A VOLUNTEER. THE ADULT LEARNING DEPARTMENT AT THE LIBRARY IS VITAL FOR MY STUDENTS AND THE SOUTH DALLAS COMMUNION. AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED. TO BEGIN, I'M BAFFLED AS I TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHY THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO KEEP THE PART OF THIS PROGRAM THAT IS FREE. THE COORDINATION OF VOLUNTEERS WHO GIVE HUNDREDS OF HOURS TO THE LIBRARY TO TEACH E-S-L-G-E-D AND CITIZENSHIP CLASSES. THESE COURSES ARE FREE. THEY DON'T REQUIRE PRE-REGISTRATION AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ID. YOU CAN SEE THESE 17 LOCATIONS ON THE FIRST MAP. WE WOULD'VE HAD CLASSES HERE ON SEPTEMBER 5TH. WE WERE TOLD THAT REDUCING THE ADULT LEARNING DEPARTMENT WITH PART AND REPLACING WITH PARTNERSHIPS WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE ACCESSING THESE IMPORTANT SERVICES AND REDUCE DUPLICATION. BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. IF I WAS AN UNDOCUMENTED PERSON LIVING IN A SOUTH DALLAS DISTRICT, WHICH MY STUDENTS ARE, I WOULD HAVE NO OPTIONS FOR CLASSES LOCATED IN MY DISTRICT. THE MAIN PARTNERS, DALLAS COLLEGE AND WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS DON'T MEET THE BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MOST OF MY CURRENT STUDENTS. SO DOES WILKINSON CENTER. OUT OF THE 12 OPTIONS, I WOULD HAVE NINE LEFT. BUT BUCKNER DOESN'T OFFER ESL CLASSES. CLASSES AT CATHOLIC CHARITIES IN DALLAS WELCOME CENTER ONLY SERVE SPECIFIC POPULATIONS. ON THIS FINAL MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE SIX OPTIONS LEFT ALL IN NORTH DALLAS. UM, CLASSES AT LITERACY ACHIEVE SERVE 7 5 2 3 1, AND 7 5 2 4 6. AND OUT OF THESE SIX FINAL ONES, ONLY TWO ARE FREE CLASSES. UH, REGISTRATION FOR CLASSES AT JUBILEE PARK, ASPIRE, CASA DE LAGO AND BIG BROTHERS HELPING HAND HAS ALREADY CLOSED, WHICH WOULD LEAVE ME AS A STUDENT IN SOUTH DALLAS WITH ONE OPTION, WHICH IS 30 MINUTES FROM MY HOUSE. I LIVE 10 MINUTES FROM HAMPTON, ILLINOIS BRANCH LIBRARY. UH, THE ELIMINATION OF CLASSES AT OUR LIBRARIES WOULD MEAN THAT NO OPTIONS EXIST FOR OUR UNDOCUMENTED NEIGHBORS IN SOUTH DALLAS. I FIND THIS UNACCEPTABLE AND I HOPE THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS OF SOUTH DALLAS WILL AGREE WITH ME. THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ELIMINATING THE COORDINATION OF TRAINED VOLUNTEERS WHO TEACH FREE CLASSES FOR FREE AT THE LIBRARY. I ASK THAT OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ADVOCATE FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE ALREADY TAKING CLASSES AT THE LIBRARY AND ENSURE THESE VITAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT ELIMINATED. OUR UNDOCUMENTED NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY SPENT MUCH OF THE LAST TWO YEARS LIVING IN FEAR, WHICH CAUSED A DECLINE IN ATTENDANCE, WHICH WAS JUST USED TO JUSTIFY ELIMINATING THESE PROGRAMS. IT IS UNFAIR TO FOR FURTHER PUNISH OUR STUDENTS BY ELIMINATING THEIR PATHWAYS TO ADVANCEMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JAMES FOWLER. JAMES FOWLER IS NOT PRESENT. CHRIS HEBA. GOOD MORNING. I'M CHRIS HEINBACH AND I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AT CITY HALL FOR ALMOST 27 YEARS AS A REPORTER FOR CHANNEL EIGHT AS CHIEF OF [00:20:01] STAFF FOR MAYOR TOM LEPERT. AND I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR THE ARTS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. AND NEVER IN ALL THAT TIME HAVE I SEEN SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS REFERRED TO AS A STIPEND. A STIPEND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING USED IN THE BRIEFINGS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY. THE STIPEND OF THIS FUNDING RATHER, IS CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS. A STIPEND IS LIKE A MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT OR A LUNCH ALLOWANCE. THAT WORD CHEAPENS WHAT WE DO AND CHEAPENS WHAT THE ARTS BRING TO THE CITY. NOW I KNOW TECHNICALLY SOMEONE SOMEWHERE PROBABLY FOUND A DEFINITION, DUG IT UP SOMEWHERE. BUT THE USE OF THIS LANGUAGE, ESPECIALLY IN AN IMPORTANT COMMITTEE DESIGNED TO TARGET SPENDING CUTS FINE EFFICIENCIES. THIS IS VERY INTENTIONAL BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO CUT SOMETHING LIKE A LUNCH ALLOWANCE THAN CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS. THE ARTS GENERATE ECONOMIC IMPACT, JOBS, CORPORATE RELOCATIONS, CULTURAL TOURISM, QUALITY OF LIFE. THEY BOOST EDUCATION OUTCOMES. YOU DON'T GET ALL OF THAT FROM A STIPEND. YOU DO GET THAT AND HAVE BEEN GETTING THAT FROM THE INVESTMENT YOU WISELY MAKE IN THE ARTS EVERY YEAR. ARTS FUNDING IS NOT A STIPEND, IT'S AN INVESTMENT THAT PAYS OFF OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR DALLAS. PLEASE DON'T ACCEPT THIS WORDS MATTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR FIRST FIVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS. THE REMAINING SPEAKERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE CONCLUSION OF ITS CITY BUSINESS. MR. MAYOR, YOUR VOTING AGENDAS. MR. MAYOR, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? UH, I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO HEAR THE SPEAKERS. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? ALL OF THEM SEEING NONE SO ORDERED. WE'LL HEAR IT WAS FOR MR. BALE. BEFORE YOU, UH, MR. BASIL? DO BEFORE YOU LEAVE ALL SPEAKERS, ALL OF THE SPEAKERS WAS THE MOTION. ANY OBJECTION? SO ORDERED. WE'LL HEAR 'EM ALL. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. WE'LL CONTINUE. MARGARET CHABRA. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MARGARET CHARE AND I LIVE AT 57 15 ORCHID LANE, ABOUT 300 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED PRESTON ROYAL DEVELOPMENT. BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU SOON, I ASK IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH RELIABLE INFORMATION TO MAKE A FULLY INFORMED DECISION. THE PRESERVE PRESTON HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION PAID TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER'S TRAFFIC STUDY INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED BY THE ZO GROUP, A DALLAS BASED ENGINEERING FIRM. IT FOUND ERRORS IN THE DEVELOPER'S T DATA, INCONSISTENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES, INCOMPLETE Q ANALYSIS AND ROADWAY AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS THAT DO NOT MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. THESE ISSUES CAN AFFECT PROJECTED CONGESTION, DELAYS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE AND POSSIBLY SAFETY NEAR THE FIRE STATION NUMBER 41 AND ST. MARK'S SCHOOL. THE DEVELOPER STUDY ALSO PROVIDES LIMITED ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL CIRCULATION, PARKING AND ACCESS, INCLUDING TRAFFIC THAT ENTERS AND LEAVES THE DEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT BACKING ONTO PRESTON ROAD, ROYAL LANE AND SURROUNDING STREETS, WE ASK THAT THESE ISSUES BE RESOLVED AND EFFECTIVE TRAFFIC MITIGATION IDENTIFIED BEFORE YOUR VOTE. I ALSO ASK THE CITY TO DETERMINE THE CAPACITY AND COST OF WATER, WASTE WATER DRAINAGE, AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. AND HOW MUCH OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER VERSUS TAXPAYERS AND RATE PAYERS. AGAIN, BEFORE YOU VOTE. AND FINALLY, PLEASE ESTABLISH ENFORCEABLE LIMITS ON RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO. CLARIFY WHETHER THE PROPOSED UNIT AND HOTEL NUMBERS ARE BINDING REQUIRE FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS A MAJOR LONG-TERM DECISION FOR DALLAS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. JASON JONES. JASON JONES. IT'S NOT PRESENT. ROBERT QUEEN. ROBERT [00:25:01] QUEEN IS NOT PRESENT. TAMMY DERRICKS. WILLIAM, GOOD MORNING ALL AS A COMMUNITY ADVOCATE BEFORE YOU TODAY I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS, SPECIFICALLY THE FIVE MILE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BOND THIS COMING NOVEMBER. TRUE PUBLIC SAFETY RELIES ON A SEAMLESS UNIFIED NETWORK. OUR 9 1 1 DISPATCH, POLICE OFFICER AND FIRE AND RESCUE TEAMS RESPOND TOGETHER IN OUR MOST CRITICAL MOMENTS. AS A COMMUNITY, WE MUST ENSURE THAT ALL THREE ESSENTIAL SERVICES HAVE THE ROBUST FUNDING AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO KEEP EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRULY POSITION DALLAS. AS A WORLD-CLASS CITY, WE CANNOT LEAVE ANY PART OF OUR COMMUNITY BEHIND FULLY. RESOURCING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS DIRECTLY TARGETS HISTORICAL SERVICE GAPS AND BUILDS A STRONGER, SAFER, AND MORE RESILIENT FOUNDATION, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. PASSING THIS FUND IS CRITICAL TO COMPLETING THE NEW DALLAS POLICE ACADEMY AND TRAINING FACILITY. INVESTING IN STATE-OF-THE-ART TRAINING EQUIPS OUR OFFICERS WITH MODERN, HIGH STANDARD SKILLS, IMPROVES RETENTION AND STRENGTHENS TRUST BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEY SERVE. THANK YOU AGAIN. TAMMY DARIUS WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE FIVE MILE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. KEY WEST KEY WEST DISTRICT SIX A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY. AS WE SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT SPECIAL PERMITS, A WOMAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY. AS WE TALK ABOUT GIVING ASSETS TO INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES TO CONTINUE TO POLLUTE OUR COMMUNITY, A MAN WAS LEGALLY LYNCHED A COUNTY OVER BY RACIST REPUBLICANS IN A CORRUPT JUDICIAL CULTURE. A MAN WAS LYNCHED THE OTHER DAY, BUT IT WAS RULE SUICIDE. BUT I REACHED OUT TO THIS CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING THE DEATH OF DANIEL IRVING TO THE CITY SECRETARY, THE CITY MANAGER, AS WELL AS THE MAYOR, AND CC'D EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HERE TO BRING THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM CONCERNING DANIEL'S DEATH. AND IT HAS BEEN SILENCE. I SENT THIS BACK IN JULY. WE ARE AT THE END OF AUGUST. A MAN, A WOMAN, A BLACK MAN, A BLACK WOMAN WAS LYNCHED. AS WE SIT HERE AND CASUALLY TALK ABOUT ARTS AND THE POLICE GIVING THEM MORE MONEY, HOW TONE DEAF ARE WE? HOW OUT OF TOUCH ARE WE? OUR PUBLIC SAFETY IS IN DANGER. OUR PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT THERE. I COME TO YOU TODAY ASKING EACH AND EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU TO ADD THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM CONCERNING, CONCERNING DANIEL IRVING AND THE RULING FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER CLAIMING THAT IT WAS AN ACCIDENTAL DROWNING, DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT TWO WHITE BOYS LEFT WITH DANIEL AND HE DID NOT MAKE IT HOME. THEY TOOK HIS CLOTHES AND TRIED TO THROW 'EM AWAY. THEY HAD HIS PHONE AND DISCARDED THE MESSAGES. DO THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? NOLAN WELLS. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MISSISSIPPI, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DALLAS COUNTY. THIS HAS MADE IT HERE TO OUR HOME. I SIT HERE WITH MY CHILDREN AS EVERYONE CONVENE, AS IF IT'S A REGULAR DAY, AS IF BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT DYING CONSISTENTLY. AGAIN. IT HAS NEVER STOPPED. SO I COME TO THIS CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CARE. I KNOW YOU CARE. ADD THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM. ADDRESS THIS MEDICAL EXAMINER RULING. MAKE THIS RIGHT. [00:30:01] THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU ING ING ACTUALLY SING. OKAY. OKAY, MR. MS SING, IF YOU HEAR ME, WILL YOU CONNECT NEXT? I WILL MOVE ON. CLAUDIA FOWLER. WELL, GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, IT SAYS ON HERE THAT MY COUNCIL DISTRICT WAS NOT PROVIDED. EVERYBODY KNOW I'M DISTRICT SEVEN SOUTH SIDE BY WAY OF DROPPING. OKAY. I WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP. I I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND TO SAY THAT, UH, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WE HAD A LITTLE INCIDENT IN OF A GUY WITH MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS. THAT WAS A SITUATION OR AN INCIDENT THAT WAS PRETTY BAD. BUT I WANTED TO SAY TO DPD AND THAT HE'S NOT HERE, BUT LET COME ON KNOW. DPD WAS ON IT. THEY CAUGHT THE GUY THAT SAME EVENING AND IT WAS A VERY BAD SITUATION OF WHAT HE HAD DID TO A FAMILY MEMBER, SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT DAY, I WANNA SAY THEY GOT IT RIGHT. SO ON PUBLIC SAFETY, I AM SO HOPING THAT PART OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN WILL INCLUDE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT BECAUSE SOME OF YOUR BEST EYES AND YOUR BEST EARS ARE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT FAR AS PUBLIC, FAR AS FUNDING, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE DPD EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED DOLLAR WISE DOWN TO THE LAST BED PENNY, WHEN THAT'S NOT PENNY ANYMORE. BUT JOHN, GET WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT THEY GET EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN OUR COMMUNITIES. I WATCHED A LITTLE BOY, UH, LEAVE OUT FROM HIS HOUSE AND HE'S JUST RIDING HIS BICYCLE AND I'M SITTING AT THE PARK AND I'M JUST HOPING THAT HE MAKES IT BACK HOME WITH KIDNAPPINGS, TRAFFICKING, CHILDREN BEING, COMING UP MISSING. I DEPEND ON OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE REALLY BEEFED IT UP IN THE DROPPER COMMUNITY. WE SEE HIM DRIVING THROUGH HOLLER ADAMS, THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO I HAVE TO SAY THE DPD FAR AS JAPANESE BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW TO HOLD UP. WAIT A MINUTE. YOU NOT GOT TO ALWAYS PUT SOME JAPPY IN IT. THAT JING HAS REALLY, UM, TURNED THE TABLES WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN OUT. THEY'VE ALWAYS CAME TO OUR RESCUE, BUT THEY ALWAYS SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN, WHICH WE DO. BUT THAT DAY, IT WAS JUST SOMETHING ABOUT HOW INTENSE THE SITUATION WAS. AND DPD WAS OUT THERE AND THEY WERE ON IT. SO I WANNA SAY TO THEM, THANK YOU. AND I AM SUPPORTING PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY FOR AS, UH, FOR AS THAT IS CONCERNED. AND THAT I LOOK AT IT AND I READ THINGS ABOUT DATA DRIVEN AND ALL THAT. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS RESULTS. AND, AND, AND, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR PUBLIC, THAT OUR COMMUNITY, NOT JUST , BUT THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ARE SAFE. 'CAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, BETTER PUBLIC, BETTER PUBLIC SAFETY, BETTER COMMUNITIES, AND BETTER, UH, A BETTER CITY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. NOW I'M GONNA SAY IT LIKE I ALWAYS SAY. GOOD, BETTER, BEST. NEVER LET IT REST UNTIL YOUR GOOD IS BETTER AND YOUR BETTER IS BEST. ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SINGH. MR. SINGH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE MUTED. YOUR AUDIO. PLEASE UNMUTE YOUR AUDIO. MR. SINGH, WE STILL CANNOT HEAR YOU. I'LL, I'LL, ILL COME BACK. TRACY EVANS. TRACY EVANS. IT'S NOT ONLINE, NOT IN PERSON. IT'S NOT PRESENT. MR. SINGH, WE'RE GONNA TRY ONE MORE TIME. WE STILL CANNOT HEAR YOU, [00:35:06] PHILLIP. OKAY. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ACTUALLY SINGH AND I AM THE FOUNDER OF A STARTUP COMPANY CALLED IZE. I'M VERY ABLE TO BE PART OF THIS CONVERSATION TODAY, AND I LIKE TO NOTE WHAT THE MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES WHICH DALLAS IS CURRENTLY FACING, AND HOW WE CAN SUPPORT THE GROWING POPULATION, UH, A OF THE AGING POPULATION WHILE HELPING THEM REMAIN SAFE, INDEPENDENT, AND CONNECTED TO THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUN. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAME INCREDIBLY PERSONAL TO ME. OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THROUGH, THROUGH MY OWN FAMILY AND PEOPLE I'VE KNOWN, I'VE SEEN HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE TO STAY CONNECTED WITH AGING LAW, ESPECIALLY WHEN FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE IN DIFFERENT CITIES OR STATES. SO SOMETIMES A PHONE CALL CAN PROVIDE REASSURANCE BASED ON ALWAYS PROVIDING THE PICTURES OF SOMEONE'S DAY-TO-DAY WELLBEING. CHANGES IN ACTIVITY, HEALTH OR ROUTINE MAY NOT IMMEDIATELY BE VISIBLE TO A FAMILY MEMBER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVE FAR AWAY. THAT QUESTION BECAME THE FOUNDATION OF MY STARTER COMPANY THAT'S PARTICULARLY RELEVANT HERE IN DALLAS. THE CITY NOW HAS OVER 150 THOUSANDS RESIDENTS WHO ARE 65 OR OLDER, AND A SENIOR POPULATION HAS BEEN GROWING BY APPROXIMATELY 42% SINCE 2010. MORE THAN 30% OF DALLAS SENIORS ALSO TEND TO, AT THE SAME TIME, CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. DALLAS COUNTY IDENTIFIES HEART DISEASE AS A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH. AND IN MOST, IN ITS MOST RECENT COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS, IT CONTINUES TO IDENTIFY CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND CONDITIONS AS SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CONCERN IN THE, IN THE COUNTY. FOR ME, THESE TWO ISSUES COME TOGETHER AS OUR COMMUNITIES AGE. WE NEED TO NOT ONLY THINK ABOUT HEALTHCARE WHEN SOMEONE BECOMES SICK, BUT ALSO HOW WE CAN SUPPORT AWARENESS, INDEPENDENCE, CONNECTION, AND HEALTHY DAILY LIVING. THANK YOU VERYBODY. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE. SPEAKERS FOR THIS MEETING, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON [MINUTES] TO OUR VOTING AGENDA. THANK YOU. YOUR FIRST ITEM AGENDA. ITEM ONE IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12TH, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU MR. MARY. BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING. DOLORES PHILLIPS. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON ALL ITEMS. DOLORES PHILLIPS, YOU DO HAVE HANDOUTS. I DID GIVE YOU A HANDOUT, UH, CONCERNING BU I THINK IT'S PRONOUNCED. BUT CHECK, BUT CHECK WAS QUESTIONED BY CPS. HE WAS SET UP BY SOME LADY, UM, IN SOME TOWN THAT HE NEVER BEEN IN. I STAND BEFORE YOU TO SAY THAT YOU BILL FOULS AND NOT ONLY DO YOU BILL FOULS, THERE ARE FABRICATED FILES IN THE DPD REPORT. 0 2 7 3 2 9 1 A OCTOBER 25TH, 2013. THAT WAS PREARRANGED BY MAYOR ROLLINS. THAT WAS FABRICATED AND IT WAS PREMEDITATED. I JUST FOUND OUT JULY THIS YEAR, THE FBI SAID THEY HAD A HIT IRVING 11 DASH 2 3 8 14 ARREST OF ME WITH SOMEONE. MY FINGERPRINTS, NOT ME. STAY WITH ME. 'CAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS. IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. BUDGIE HAD THE MONEY TO GET AN INVESTIGATION TO PROSECUTE THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO WERE INVOLVED. NOT POOR PEOPLE. THEY HAVE TO BE REVICTIMIZED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO SAVE PEOPLE FROM THIS THEMSELVES. THIS BUILDING HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED NOT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, BUT FOR THE BAD. EVEN THOSE WHO WORK IN IT. AND FOR IT. 1500 MARILLA IS BAD NEWS TO ITSELF. IT WAS NEVER THE PEOPLE'S PLACE. I STAND BEFORE YOU WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SETTLEMENTS. REMEMBER, DC DASH 21 DASH 0 6 2 9 9. WE'RE STILL IN THE COURT OF LAW IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR ZERO FIVE DASH 26 DASH 0 1 0 9 4 DASH CV. MY DAD, HE PLEADED WITH ME TO SAVE HIM. NOW WE KNOW WHEN HONORABLE JUDGE WARNED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP CASE, WHEN YOU CAUSED HIS DEMISE BEFORE HIS TIME [00:40:01] TO SPEND HIS MONEY, SHE WAS REFERENCING ALL THESE FABRICATIONS THAT I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT AND THEY'RE STRICKEN. STAY WITH ME NOW. 1500 MARILLA FOR CITY HALL AIN'T WHAT YOU WANT. 'CAUSE YOU GOT WHITE PEOPLE IN MY SHOES. SEE, IT'S FUNNY TO YOU WHEN I STAND BEFORE YOU, BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME OLD NEWS, A BLACK PERSON STANDING BEFORE YOU CRYING AND WHINING. 'CAUSE THEY LOVE ONE GONE AND THEY KNOW THEY WAS TAKEN OUT BY SOMEONE SUPPOSEDLY BIGGER THAN THEM. WELL, GOD BIGGER THAN US ALL. AND ONE THING FOR SURE. THAT'S TIME. EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM GOTTA GO ONE DAY. THAT'S YOUR TIME. KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR CONSENT [CONSENT AGENDA] AGENDA. YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH 43 AND THERE WERE CHANGES, LAST MINUTE CHANGES TO YOUR PULLED ITEMS. AGENDA ITEM FOUR HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. AGENDA ITEM 14 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. AGENDA ITEM 15 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. AGENDA ITEM 16 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. AGENDA ITEM 31 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. AGENDA ITEM 33 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAA AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN AGENDA ITEM 34 HAS BEEN CORRECTED. AGENDA ITEM 35 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUA AND AGENDA ITEM 39 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. THEREFORE, YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS 2, 3 5 THROUGH 1317 THROUGH 30, 32, 34, 36 THROUGH 38, AND 40 THROUGH 43. SECOND, I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON CONSENT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ALRIGHT, I'M JUST GONNA COMMENT ON CONSENT ON ITEM NUMBER 27. UH, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, TO, UM, RECOGNIZE THIS CHANGE ORDER FOR, UH, DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD COMPLETE STREET PROJECT. THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT ACHIEVES THE SAFETY GOALS THAT RESIDENTS DEMANDED AND RIGHTFULLY EXPECT. UM, WHEN COMPLETE THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLIMENT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AND GIVE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD AND GIVE NEIGHBORS SAFER WAYS TO WALK, BIKE AND FREQUENT BUSINESSES IN DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD. THANK YOU MS. BLAIR. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANNA SPEAK ABOUT ITEMS NUMBER 28 AND 29. I'M GONNA SPEAK ABOUT THEM TOGETHER. THIS IS FOR THE, UH, NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAININGS FACILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS IN DALLAS. UM, AND FOR AWARD GRANTED BY THAT, WE ARE ANTICIPATING BEING GRANTED BY, UM, THE TEXAS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION FOR A TOTAL OF $15 MILLION. THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL HELP WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS, UH, ACTUAL BEAUTIFUL IDEAL OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL GRANT US THE ABILITY TO ADD TO OUR, UH, TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NEW LAW OF ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FACILITY. UH, ON MARCH 24TH, CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT NUMBER 4 9 2 2 9 0 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF OF 10 MILLION. AND, UM, AND THEY ALL FOR 10 MILLION. AND THERE WAS ANOTHER AWARD FOR FIVE THAT WE WAS GRANTED FOR 5 MILLION. AND BOTH OF THESE GRANTS WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO ADVANCE THE PROJECT INTO CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION. TOGETHER THESE, THE STATE INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATES A STRONG COMMITMENT TO MODERNIZATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FACILITY, ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY. IN DALLAS, THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LEVERAGES STATE, LOCAL, AND THE UNIVERSITY'S RESOURCES TO DELIVER A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESS ASSET FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. THESE GRANTS REPRESENT AN IMPORTANT INVESTMENT TO DALLAS PUBLIC SAFETY WITH NO, UH, WITH NO COST CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY. THROUGH THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS AND UNTD DALLAS, UH, WE ARE HELPING PROVIDE DPD OFFICERS WITH A MODERN, MODERN STATE-OF-THE-ART TRAINING AND ENVIRONMENT THAT SUPPORTS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARES OFFICERS TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY AND PROFESSIONALLY. THE IN THE NEXT STEPS, THE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM FOR GRANTS FOR BOTH OF THESE GRANTS, [00:45:01] UH, IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 14TH PENDING AWARD NOTIFICATION. I HOPE THAT WE WILL GET THIS GRANT AND I HOPE THAT ALL WILL BE, UH, THAT THE, OUR, WHEN WE DO GET IT, THE WE WILL ALL AGREE TO ACCEPT THE THE GRANTS. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. CHAIR RIDLEY, RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS AN APPARENT ERROR IN THESE TWO ITEMS, DESCRIPTIONS IN THE AGENDA. UH, CITY SECRETARY, PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIFY THAT THESE ARE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR APPLICATIONS TO THE TEXAS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, NOT FROM THE TEXAS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AS NOTED HERE, I'M NOT SURE I CAN CLARIFY THAT. I, I'M, UM, WHAT ITEMS ARE YOU SPEAKING? 28 AND 29. 28 AND TWO NINE. I'M ASKED FOR YOU TO REPEAT THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SHOULDN'T THE FROM BE TWO IF IT'S FROM, IT MAKES NO SENSE. LET'S, WE'LL, I REMEMBER YOUR TIME WAS AT ABOUT 4 25. IT'S STILL RUNNING, BUT I'LL, I'LL STOP IT. WE'RE WORKING ON AN ANSWER FOR YOU AS COUNCIL MEMBER AND IF YOU COULD GIVE HIM BACK, UM, HIS, PUT HIS TIME BACK AT 4 25. YES, WILL DO. SURE. THE, UH, ATTORNEY'S GOING SPEAK TO THE LANGUAGE, MR. MAYOR. THE GRANT COMES FROM THE TEXAS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. UH, THEREFORE I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED, BUT WE COULD EASILY JUST SAY TWO, UH, AS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY SUGGESTED CHAIRMAN GRACIE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. ITEM NUMBER 43 IS AN ADDITIONAL, UH, UH, SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, UH, TO CONTINUE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF, UH, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AT HENSLEY FIELD. I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, UH, WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. THIS IS JUST IN AN EFFORT TO CONTINUE, UH, UH, MOVING TOWARDS A DIRECTION OF SETTLEMENT SO THAT WE COULD, UH, BEGIN THINKING ABOUT POSSIBILITIES FOR HENSLEY FIELD. SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THE CONSENT AGENDAS ADOPTED. MADAM SECRETARY. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE [4. 26-2402A An ordinance amending Chapter 2, “College Advisory Commission,” of the Dallas City Code, by amending Article XXX; to sunset the College Advisory Commission of the City - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] TO YOUR FIRST PULLED ITEM AGENDA. ITEM FOUR. AGENDA ITEM FOUR IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMISSION OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 30 TO SUNSET THE COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMISSION OF THE CITY. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. IS THERE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE? SECOND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, THE ADDITION OF THE DALLAS AREA PARTNERSHIP ON ENDING HOMELESSNESS WOULD ALSO BE SUNSET AS WELL AS THE NORTH TEXAS EDUCATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION. UM, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN WEST. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, I APPRECIATE THAT THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT FORWARD. UM, AS NOTED IN A RECENT MEMO, THERE ARE EIGHT VACANCIES ON THE COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMISSION. I THINK COLLEGE IS SUPER IMPORTANT. I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT MY BABY JUST GRADUATED AND I'VE GOT THREE DONE. UM, BUT THE CITY IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO ADVISE PEOPLE ON COLLEGE. AND WE HAVE WONDERFUL, UM, EDUCATIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING AS WELL AS SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE MUCH BETTER QUALIFIED TO, UM, NOT ONLY PROVIDE THAT DIRECTLY, BUT ALSO TO GATHER AND, UM, UH, WORK WITH THEIR RESIDENTS TO, TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ADVISORY SERVICES. SO I DON'T THINK WE EVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT BUSINESS. SO THAT'S ONE. BUT WHAT I DID IS I ADDED THE DALLAS AREA PARTNERSHIP ON ENDING HOMELESSNESS CHAIRWOMAN MEN, LISTEN, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UH, POINT OF ORDER HAS BEEN RAISED THAT IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, NOT AN ORDER TO ADD THE, THE TWO THAT YOU DID AND HOWEVER MANY THERE WERE IN ADDITION TO THE COLLEGE ADVISORY BOARD. SO ARE YOU WILLING TO, TO DEAL WITH THE COLLEGE ADVISORY BOARD ONLY AND AMEND YOUR MOTION AT THIS POINT? OR THE WHOLE MOTION HAS TO BE RULED OUT OF ORDER? UM, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT'S OUT OF ORDER? I WOULD LET THE PARLIAMENTARIAN DO JUST THAT. MR. MAYOR, THE ITEM WAS POSTED ONLY TO DEAL WITH CHAPTER TWO, THE COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMISSION OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE. UM, THE OTHER BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED WERE NOT POSTED. THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD [00:50:01] NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON THEM. IT CAN, THE COUNCIL MEMBER COULD ASK THAT IT BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA THOUGH, PROCEDURALLY. UM, AND WOULD THAT ALSO, WOULD IT ALSO BE AN ORDER IF IT WAS A BUDGET ITEM TO REMOVE THEM SINCE THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST? I WOULD DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE, UH, OUR CFO, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE IN ORDER. I WOULD LIKE TO DOUBLE CHECK THOUGH. OKAY. UM, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND JUST DO COLLEGE ADVISORY. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO HER AMENDING HER MOTION TO JUST DEAL WITH THE COLLEGE ADVISORY THAT WAS POSTED? SORRY. YEAH, WE WE'RE HER MOTION AT THIS POINT, IF YOU WILL ALLOW, IT WILL BE AMENDED TO ONLY DEAL WITH THE COLLEGE ADVISORY BOARD AND TO REMOVE THE OTHER ONES. SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, IT'S SO ORDERED AND YOUR MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS DEALING WITH THE ONLY THE BOARD THAT WAS POSTED. OKAY. WELL, THE OTHER ONES I WAS GOING TO ADD, UM, UH, ARE THE ONLY REASON I PULLED IT AND OTHERWISE IT WOULD'VE BEEN ON CONSENT. SO I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS OTHER THAN I SUPPORT REMOVING THIS ITEM. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM FOUR. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, UH, COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE REASONINGS AND I BELIEVE AS WE ENTER INTO A VERY TOUGH BUDGET SEASON, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO, UM, DETERMINE IF THEY ARE A DRAIN ON STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES OR WHETHER, UM, THEY NEED TO STAY IN PLACE. I THINK MANY OF THEM ARE, ARE, UM, VERY WORTHWHILE. BUT AT THIS TIME, WHEN WE'RE ASKING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE CUTS AND WE'RE FURLOUGHING AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE WE'RE GOING THROUGH A TOUGH TIME WITH THE CITY. UM, IT'S IN BECOMING ON US AS A COUNCIL TO ALSO LOOK AT OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO DETERMINE, UM, WHAT SHOULD STAY AND WHAT SHOULD GO. AND THEN THIS IS ONE THAT I SUPPORT. SUNSETTING CHAIRMAN GRACIE, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM FOUR. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE. AND THEN IN FACT, WE CAN ADD THAT TO, UH, THE QUALITY OF LIFE AGENDA. AND WE'VE DONE THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THEY DOING, NUMBER ONE, ARE THERE POSITIONS BEING FILLED? ARE THEY ACTIVE? AND ARE, ARE ANY OF THOSE ACTIVITIES ROLLING UP? WE'VE STARTED HAVING SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT QUALITY OF LIFE AND IF THERE ARE SOME THAT YOU WANNA PROPOSE, HAPPY TO, UH, HAVE THAT DISCUSSION OR WE CAN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM FOUR. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN RESTORED BACK TO JUST DEALING WITH COLLEGE ADVISORY COMMISSION SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM PLEASE. [14. 26-2233A Authorize a historic preservation tax exemption for tax revenue foregone, estimate of $8,582.00 annually for a ten-year period in a total estimated revenue foregone of $85,817.00 for the property at 5020 Swiss Avenue in the Swiss Avenue Historic District, on added value of the land and structure value - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund ($62,346.00) and Debt Service Fund ($23,471.00), over a ten-year period] AGENDA ITEM 14, AUTHORIZE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX EXEMPTION FOR TAX REVENUE FOR GONE ESTIMATE OF $8,582 ANNUALLY FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD IN A TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR GONE OF $85,817 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 0 2 0 SWISS AVENUE IN THE SWISS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON ADDED VALUE OF THE LAND AND STRUCTURE VALUE, THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON, GENERAL MENDELSON FOR WHAT PURPOSE? SECOND. ALRIGHT, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. APPARENTLY, UM, YOU PULLED IT SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. WELL, I PULLED ITEM 14, WHICH IS, UM, A $2.69 MILLION HOME WITH A $1.2 MILLION PROPOSED RENOVATION AND AN $85,817 TAX EXEMPTION. I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE GIVING AN $85,000 TAX EXEMPTION TO SOMEBODY WHO OWNS A $2.6 MILLION HOME WITH A $1.2 MILLION RENOVATION. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESERVATIONISTS. I WOULD BELIEVE THIS HOUSE WOULD BE PRESERVED NO MATTER WHAT. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING TAX DOLLARS AND GIVING UP TAX DOLLARS THAT WE NEED FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S MORE THAN CAPABLE OF PAYING THESE TAXES. AND THE TAX DOLLARS WOULD PROBABLY BE USED FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS WELL OFF. AND I JUST THINK IT'S CRAZY. SO I'M OPPOSED TO THIS. IT IS TRULY, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S LOTS OF NATIONAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TAXING THE TAX ABATEMENTS FOR THE RICH. WELL THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THIS IS. IT'S LITERALLY GIVING VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE A TAX EXEMPTION THAT ANY OF US REDOING OUR HOMES WOULD BE PAYING FOR. AND SO I I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. NOW WHAT'S FUNNY IS WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PRESERVATIONISTS AND YOU KNOW, I'M ON THE SIDE OF SAVING CITY HALL. I'M ON THE SIDE OF SAVING CITY HALL BECAUSE IT IS FISCALLY [00:55:01] PRUDENT BECAUSE IT'S COMMON SENSE, BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT STRUCTURE FOR WHAT WE DO. I'M NOT REALLY PRESERVATION MR. MAYOR. POINT OF ORDER. SO THE, THE LANDMARK, UH, I'M SORRY, THE WHO, WHO HAD A POINT OF ORDER I DID. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CITY HALL. THIS IS, THIS IS ABOUT A LOT. I FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE SHE'S COMING ROUND TO MAKING HER HISTORICAL PRESERVATIONS AR ARGUMENT. I THANK YOU. I FEEL, I FEEL IT. I FEEL THE PLANE ABOUT THE LAND, THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THIS. AND WHAT IT SAYS IN OUR CODE IS THAT IT DOES GO TO THE COMMISSION FIRST, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE THE COMMISSION APPROVED IT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD BE GIVING THIS TAX EXEMPTION. AND SO I'M GLAD THAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA PRESERVE THIS HOME. I AM, I'M THRILLED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A TAX EXEMPTION'S APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. SO THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR THE NEXT TWO AS WELL. HONESTLY, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE OTHER TWO. IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT. I'M OPPOSED TO GIVING TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO REMODEL THEIR HOMES AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE ARE EXPENSIVE HOMES AND THE REMODELS ARE 1.2 MILLION 530,000 AND 165,000. SO THAT'S MY CASE. I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE NO, WHICH IS WHY I PULLED IT OFF. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS COUNCIL GET SERIOUS ABOUT OUR FINANCIAL SITUATION. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES AGENDA ITEM 14. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I ACKNOWLEDGE THE OBJECTIONS THAT COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSSOHN HAS TO THIS ITEM, BUT THIS IS A POLICY DECISION FOR US TO MAKE. WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? DO WE ESTABLISH INCOME LIMITS ON PEOPLE WHO CAN APPLY FOR TAX EXEMPTIONS? WHERE DO WE ESTABLISH THAT? HOW DO WE ESTABLISH THAT? DO WE ESTABLISH PROPERTY VALUE LIMITATIONS? NEITHER ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE PRESENT IN OUR HISTORIC TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM. WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND THOSE PROGRAMS TO ESTABLISH SUCH LIMITATIONS. PERHAPS WE SHOULD, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER WE SHOULD INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE LIVING IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO RESTORE THE FABRIC OF THEIR HISTORIC BUILDINGS. I'M A STRONG PROPONENT OF DOING THAT. WE HAVE SEEN THE TREMENDOUS REJUVENATION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS OF JUNIORS HEIGHTS IN WHICH THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE LOCATED OF SWISS AVENUE, OF MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD OF MUNGER PLACE. WITHOUT THESE TAX INCENTIVES, THERE WOULD NOT BE THE SCOPE OF RENOVATION THAT WE HAVE SEEN. I HAVE, I'M CONFIDENT OF THAT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH DISSENT THAT THESE ARE A GOOD IDEA. THE ISSUE RAISED BY COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSSOHN IS WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF FINANCIAL LIMITS ON THEM. BUT I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY WHO SHOULD APPLY FOR THESE AND WHO SHOULDN'T BASED UPON THEIR INCOME OR THEIR PROPERTY VALUE. IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE, THEN WE NEED TO SEND THAT BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR THEM TO CONSIDER A POLICY ISSUE. BUT THAT SHOULD NOT ARGUE AGAINST APPROVING THIS ITEM TODAY BECAUSE IT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT WE CAN FREELY NIX ANY OF THESE APPLICATIONS THAT WE LIKE BECAUSE OF OTHER EXTRANEOUS REASONS OTHER THAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION. BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THIS STREET DESERVES THIS KIND OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL REASONS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE MAKING THOSE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS. STAFF HAS VETTED THESE APPLICATIONS TO DETERMINE THAT THEY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. WE SHOULD APPROVE THEM. DEPUTY MAYOR PROTE, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION, TO ME IT SOUND LIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, THE LAW OR LETTER, UH, VERSUS THE LETTER OF THE, OF THE LAW, IF I CAN SAY IT THAT WAY. SO I SUPPORT WHAT, UH, COUNCILWOMAN CARRIE IS SAYING. UH, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, UH, THAT THIS HOUSE HAS, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY CAN AFFORD IT. SO, UH, I DO SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND YOUR POINT WAS WELL TAKEN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? UH, OKAY. WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE JUMPED IN NOW. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING, [01:00:01] UH, CHAIR RIDLEY'S, UH, MOTION. UH, DISCUSSING THE VALUE OF A HOME OR WHERE THE HOME IS LOCATED, I DON'T BELIEVE IS PART OF THE MERIT OF WHETHER AN ITEM SHOULD BE APPROVED OR DENIED OF. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN THE FUTURE. AS A CAVEAT, I'M OPEN TO THAT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD, UH, DENY THE ITEM SOLELY FOR THE REASON OF A COST OF THE HOME. SO I HOPE WE CAN SUPPORT THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. MR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, UH, I I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS POSED A, UM, A GREAT, UH, DEBATE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, UM, NOT HERE ON THE FLOOR FOR, UH, APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS. QUITE FRANKLY, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A LARGER DISCUSSION THAT COULD, UH, INCORPORATE, UM, OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DISCUSSION. UH, I I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, SMART OR, UH, SET A GOOD PRECEDENT FOR THAT FUTURE CONVERSATION IF ACTION WERE TO BE MADE TODAY, UH, ON THE FLY FOR THIS AGENDA. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING, UH, MR. RIDLEY'S, UH, MOTION, BUT I, UH, IN THEORY ALSO SUPPORT, UH, MS. MENDELSSOHN TO BRING THIS UP SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A, A, A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN WEST RE THIS FOR FIVE MINUTES. I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT. UM, IF WE'RE GONNA BE, UH, WE CHANGING POLICY, WE NEED TO DO IT IN COMMITTEE AND WORK THROUGH THE TRAPS ON DOING IT AND NOT PICKING OUT A SINGLE CASE TO TRY TO MAKE A POLICY STATEMENT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 14? YES, CHAIRMAN OLSON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, FIRST I'D LIKE TO HAVE A RECORD VOTE. AND SECOND, UM, I, I FEEL LIKE ALL THREE OF THESE, WHICH AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE COMMENTS IN THE OTHER TWO, IT'S THE SAME DEBATE, UM, THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE A POORLY DESIGNED HISTORICAL, UM, TAX EXEMPTION POLICY OR PLAN. UM, AND PERHAPS IT DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT SOMEBODY VERY WEALTHY WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NOT PAYING TAXES TO DO WHAT IS PROBABLY RENOVATIONS FOR THEIR OWN AESTHETICS. AND I, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING OUR HISTORY AND FRANKLY, I THINK IT WAS DESIGNED FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I THINK IT WAS DESIGNED FOR MORE LIKE THE 10TH STREET AREA WHERE A PERSON CAN'T BOTH RENOVATE THEIR HOME AND PAY THEIR TAXES AND WE'RE GONNA LET YOU NOT PAY THE TAXES SO YOU CAN GET YOUR HOME REPAIRED. IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE A TAX ABATEMENT ESSENTIALLY FOR, YOU KNOW, VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE TO, UH, TO EXPLOIT WE NEED THIS TAX REVENUE. AND IT IS NOT A CHANGE IN POLICY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO VOTE. NO. IT LITERALLY IS MEANT TO COME TO US TO CONSIDER. AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT IT, I SAY, MY GOSH, IF YOU CAN AFFORD A $1.2 MILLION RENOVATION ON A $2.6 MILLION HOME, YOU CAN PROBABLY PAY $85,000 IN TAXES OVER FIVE YEARS. SO THIS IS WHAT THE ISSUE IS. AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN VOTE HOW THEY WANT, BUT THE POLICY DOESN'T SAY WE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE EVERYTHING THE POLICY SAYS. IT GOES TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE IF THIS IS REASONABLE. AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK THE THREE OF THESE ARE NOT REASONABLE. AND THAT'S WHY I PULLED IT SO THAT I COULD VOTE NO ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR PROTE, RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. AND, UH, ONCE AGAIN, I AGREE WITH CHAIR ANDERSON. THAT'S EXACTLY THE COMMUNITY I WAS THINKING. I WAS TALKING TO MAYOR PROTI ABOUT IT. 10TH STREET WILL BENEFIT FROM A POLICY OF SUCH. UM, AGAIN, THE DEBATE WAS UNDERSTOOD. I THINK YOU BROUGHT UP VERY, UH, STRONG POINT AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER IN, UH, IN OUR COMMITTEES. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THERE ARE TIMES WHERE WE CAN, UH, THE POLICIES, THEY IS THERE, BUT THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE CAN ALSO ABUSE IT. THOSE THAT CAN, AND WE, AND THIS IN THE, IN THIS CASE, UM, THAT'S WHAT I SEE, UH, COMMUNITIES LIKE 10TH STREET AND OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH HARDSHIP, UH, THAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS. AND I, AS I SAID TO MAYOR, UH, PRO TEM, NOT EVERY AREA IN MY DISTRICT WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME PROMINENT AREAS, BUT THOSE THAT REALLY NEED THIS, THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE ARGUMENT. I LOOK FORWARD TO, UH, COMMITTEE MEETINGS DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GRACIE, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I CAN APPRECIATE ALL OF THESE COMMENTS. I JUST, ONCE WE START OPENING THE DOOR TO TRY TO SET THESE PARAMETERS, IT STARTS, IT JUST GETS TO ME, IT GETS VERY [01:05:01] SUBJECTIVE, UH, IN, IN THAT SENSE. AND WE RUN A RISK OF, OF UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES WHEN WE START DOING THIS KIND OF THING. SO VERY MUCH OPEN TO THIS DISCUSSION AND LISTENING TO IT. UH, BUT I WOULD JUST WARN AGAINST, UH, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND HOW THIS COULD, THE OUTCOME OF WHAT THIS COULD BE. SO THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA? ITEM 14. SEEING NONE A RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED. 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 GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KANA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? NO. NO. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO. TIM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PRO. TIM RESENDEZ? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH THE 11. VOTING IN FAVOR FOR OPPOSED? THE ITEM PASSES MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM. NEXT ITEM. [15. 26-2481A Authorize a historic preservation tax exemption for tax revenue foregone, estimate of $9,301.00 annually for a ten-year period, in a total estimated revenue foregone of $93,010.00 for the property at 725 Lowell Street in the Junius Heights Historic District on 100 percent of the land and structure value - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund ($67,572.00) and Debt Service Fund ($25,438.00) over a ten-year period] [16. 26-2482A Authorize a historic preservation tax exemption for tax revenue foregone, estimate of $5,388.00 annually for a ten-year period in a total estimated revenue foregone of $53,881.00 for the property at 722 Nesbitt Drive in the Junius Heights Historic District, on 100 percent of the land and structure value - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund ($39,145.00) and Debt Service Fund ($14,736.00), over a ten-year period] THIS AGENDA. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT? PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. YES. OKAY. GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR INQUIRY. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT ITEMS 15 AND 16 BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THEY'RE THE SAME ISSUE AND I HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THEM, BUT I WOULD LIKE A RECORD VOTE ON IT. WHAT'S THE, THE PARLIAMENTARY IS TO NOT TAKE ONE ITEM, BUT TO TAKE BOTH ITEMS. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO TAKING THEM UP TOGETHER? SEEING NONE SOLE ORDERED? WE'LL TAKE 'EM UP TOGETHER. 15 AND 16? YES. ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND READ 'EM BOTH INTO THE RECORD AND WE'LL TAKE A MOTION ON BOTH OF THEM. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. JUNE, ITEM 15. AUTHORIZE, AUTHORIZE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX EXEMPTION FOR TAX REVENUE FOR FOREGONE ESTIMATE OF 9,301,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD AND A TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE FOREGONE OF $93,010 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7 2 5 LOWELL STREET IN THE JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT ON 100% OF THE LAND AND STRUCTURE VALUE. ITEM 16, AUTHORIZE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX EXEMPTION FOR TAX REVENUE FOREGONE ESTIMATE OF $5,388 ANNUALLY FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD IN A TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE FOREGONE OF $53,881 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7 2 2 NESBIT DRIVE IN THE JUNIOR HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT ON 100% OF THE LAND AND STRUCTURE VALUE. THESE ARE YOUR, THESE ARE YOUR ITEMS, MR. MAYOR. SECOND. ALL A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I'M SEEING NONE ON. AND JUST REMINDER THAT I HAD REQUESTED A RECORD VOTE. DID YOU OWN BOTH OF THESE AS WELL? YES. SO RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED BY SECRETARY, SO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED ON ITEMS 15 AND 16. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KADENA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DOA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH THE 11. VOTING IN FAVOR FOR OPPOSE THE ITEMS TO PASS MR. MAYOR. OKAY, NEXT ITEM, [31. 26-2262A Authorize Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the design-build construction contract with METCO Engineering, Inc. to provide construction services for capital improvement upgrades at The Bridge Homeless Recovery Center - Not to exceed $1,442,767.00, from $440,126.00 to $1,882,893.00 - Financing: Homeless Assistance Facilities (I) Fund (2024 General Obligation Bond Fund) *In alignment with Bond Implementation Program.] AGENDA ITEM 31. AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MEDCO ENGINEERING INC. TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UPGRADES AT THE BRIDGE HOMELESS RECOVERY CENTER, NOT TO EXCEED $1,442,767 FROM $440,126 TO $1,882,893. YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AN EM. [01:10:09] GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS RUM, I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE BRIDGE ON BEHALF OF THE BRIDGE HOMELESS RECOVERY CENTER. THANK YOU MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE CITY'S SUPPORT TODAY, I WANNA SHARE WHY A BACKUP GENERATOR, WHICH WILL SERVE AS AN EMERGENCY BACKUP POWER SOURCE FOR THE BRIDGE IS A CRITICAL PRIORITY FOR US. THIS GENERATOR WOULD ENABLE US TO POWER ALL SIX BUILDINGS FOR UP TO THREE DAYS, WHICH MATCHES THE WORST OUTAGE WE'VE EXPERIENCED THUS FAR. FOR CONTEXT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, THE BRIDGE HAS SUFFERED FROM AT LEAST TWO OUTAGES PER YEAR, RANGING FROM 30 MINUTES TO THREE DAYS. FOUNDED IN 2008, THE BRIDGE'S DALLAS'S LARGEST LOW BARRIER HOMELESS SHELTER. EVERY DAY, APPROXIMATELY 600 PEOPLE RECEIVE SERVICES AT THE BRIDGE. YET WE OFFER SO MUCH MORE THAN SHELTER. WE ALSO PERMANENTLY HOUSED OVER 700 PEOPLE LAST YEAR, AND OF THAT NUMBER, 95% REMAINED HOUSED FOR 12 MONTHS OR LONGER. WE OPERATE ON A UNDER A GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT AND REMAIN COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND PARTNERS TO ENSURE OUR HOMELESS RESIDENTS GET THE HELP THEY NEED TO MOVE OFF THE STREET AND INTO SHELTER AND HOUSING. THE BRIDGE SERVES AS A LIFELINE FOR OUR CITY'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS. IMPLEMENTING A RELIABLE COMMERCIAL GRADE BACKUP GENERATOR ENSURES SAFETY, MAINTAINS ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND REDUCES CITY LIABILITY DURING MAJOR GRID FAILURES. ON AVERAGE, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF ALL OF OUR DAY AND NIGHT GUESTS SUFFER FROM A CHRONIC HEALTH OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY. HAVING A BACKUP GENERATOR GUARANTEES MEDICAL DEVICE DEPENDABILITY FOR THOSE RELYING ON OXYGEN CONCENTRATORS, NEBULIZERS, OR CPAP MACHINES, PROTECTION FROM EXTREME CLIMATE CONDITIONS, WHICH CAN LEAD TO HYPOTHERMIA OR HEAT STROKE. DURING THE SNOWSTORM IN 2022, WE WERE WITHOUT POWER AND HEAT FOR THREE DAYS. THIS COULD BE FATAL FOR SOME OF OUR GUESTS. ELEVATORS REMAIN WORKING, WHEELCHAIR GUESTS STAYING IN OUR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ARE STRANDED IN THEIR ROOMS IF THE POWER GOES OUT, SAFE OCCUPANCY AND EVACUATION BY ENSURING EMERGENCY LIGHTING, FIRE SUPPRESSION, AND SECURITY SYSTEMS ARE ACTIVE DURING AN EMERGENCY. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE CONTINUITY OF SERVICES IN THE EVENT OF A POWER OUTAGE. IF WE WERE TO LOSE POWER TODAY, WE ARE UNABLE TO KEEP OUR INDUSTRIAL KIT KITCHEN OPERATIONAL TO SERVE MEALS. OUR GUESTS WOULD BE UNABLE TO USE THE BATHROOM, LAUNDRY, AND SHOWER FACILITIES WITHOUT AMPLE LIGHT. THERE ARE ALSO FISCAL AND CIVIC COSTS. IF WE DON'T HAVE A BACKUP GENERATOR IN THE EVENT OF AN OUTAGE, WE WOULD HAVE TO EVACUATE NEARLY 600 PEOPLE. THIS COULD PROVE TO BE A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE AND PLACE SEVERE BURDEN ON OUR PARTNER AGENCIES, HOSPITALS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMS, WHICH ARE ALREADY AT CAPACITY AND WOULD BE UNABLE TO MEET THIS NEED. LASTLY, UNTIL AND UNLESS AN OFFICIAL DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ON WHETHER TO CLOSE AND OR MOVE THE BRIDGE, MY COMMITMENT REMAINS TO THE UNSHELTERED GUESTS WHO DEPEND ON OUR CARE. RIGHT NOW. A POWER OUTAGE COULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, AND GIVEN THE VULNERABILITIES OF OUR GUESTS, PEOPLE COULD DIE. WE HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THIS TRAGEDY DOES NOT HAPPEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO, I HEARD DECEMBER 9TH. I HEARD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. FIRST, SECOND AND A SECOND. YOU PULLED IT. SO YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. CHAIRMAN MENDELSON. THANK YOU. UH, CITY MANAGER, CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON ANY DISCUSSIONS OR KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OF POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF THE BRIDGE BY THE DALLAS PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITY? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UH, COUNCILOR MENDELSON, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY UPDATES OR DISCUSSIONS I WOULD SAY IN THE LAST 120 DAYS REGARDING RELOCATION OF THE BRIDGE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT, THE CONVERSATIONS ARE NOT HAPPENING, SO WHY DON'T TELL US WHAT YOU'VE KNOWN BEFORE THAT THEY HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU'RE FULLY UP TO DATE. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THERE IS A PRIVATE SECTOR, UM, COORDINATION HAPPENING. UM, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN IT. UM, AND THAT THAT INFORMATION IS CURRENTLY, UM, WITHIN THE GROUP THAT'S WORKING THROUGH IT. UM, I HAVE NO DETAILS. I HAVE NO DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND THAT IT'S ALL BEING LED ON THE PRIVATE, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS LEADING, NOR HAS STAFF SAT IN ANY, UH, MEETINGS, UM, WHERE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE HAPPENING. YOUR STAFF HAS ACTUALLY SAT IN THOSE MEETINGS. I'VE BEEN WITH THEM AND, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MORE THAN $50 MILLION BEEN COMMITTED TO THIS LAND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. AND MY ISSUE IS NOT THAT THE BRIDGE SHOULDN'T HAVE AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR, OF COURSE IT SHOULD. OF COURSE, THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN OPEN SINCE 2008 WITHOUT AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR. SO WE CAN'T SAY THAT SOMEHOW TODAY IS THE MOST URGENT DAY TO DO IT. BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT WE'RE GONNA ISSUE $1.4 MILLION OF DEBT FOR A BUILDING THAT'S NOT GONNA BE THERE LONG TERM. AND THAT'S JUST A FACT. AND I THINK MAYBE WITH THE CITY HALL HALL CONVERSATION, MAYBE OTHER THINGS YOU'VE [01:15:01] NOTICED AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE CITY WORKS WHEN THE PHILANTHROPIC AND ELITE OF OUR CITY HAVE DECIDED TO PUT THEIR OWN DOLLARS BEHIND AN EFFORT TO BUILD A MUCH BETTER FACILITY THAN WHAT WE HAVE AT THE BRIDGE, WHICH OPENED TOO SMALL, WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT AT CAPACITY ON DAY ONE WHEN THEY HAVE OFFERED TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE FULL WRAPAROUND SERVICES, ENOUGH BEDS AND SERVICES FOR ALL THAT NEED IT AT NO COST TO THE CITY, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN. AND SO THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW WHAT MY MOM WOULD SAY, THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD. WE DON'T NEED TO DO THIS TODAY. LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN GET IT TOGETHER. LET'S SEE IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THE WORLD CLASS FACILITY. THEY SAY THEY WILL. AND IF THEY ARE, MAYBE THIS 1.4 CAN GO TO HELP THAT EFFORT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT MEANS I SUPPORT MOVING IT OR NOT, BUT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO IF WE SPEND THIS MONEY, YOU'RE GONNA BE INVESTING IN A BUILDING THAT IS NOT GONNA BE THERE LONG TERM. AND THIS WILL BE A CONVERSATION FOR THE CITY SINCE WE OWN IT, ABOUT HOW THAT BECOMES REDEVELOPED AND WHAT ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USES. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US TO START INVESTING IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN A FACILITY THAT IS NOT GONNA BE THERE. AND SO I HAVE ASKED THAT SOMEBODY WILL COME AND GIVE US AN UPDATE AT THE NEXT HHS MEETING ABOUT THIS TOPIC. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL, BUT THE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'VE CONSIDERED MANY, MANY DIFFERENT SITES. I THINK THEY'RE SET ON ONE. WE HAD AN AGENDA MEETING WHERE I BROUGHT THIS UP, WHERE WE WERE FUNDING BETWEEN THE STEW POT AND AUSTIN STREET. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING. THEY WILL BE PART OF THAT CAMPUS. IT WILL EXPAND THAT AREA. THAT'S THEIR PLAN. IT NEEDS SOME CHANGES ON ZONING. IT PROBABLY NEEDS AN SUP. THERE'S PROPERTIES TO BE PURCHASED. IT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M INVOLVED WITH, BUT IT IS SOMETHING I'M AWARE OF AND SOMETHING THAT I KNOW WILL LIKELY HAPPEN BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE CITY WHO GET THINGS DONE ARE BEHIND IT, AND THEY'RE BEHIND IT WITH THEIR OWN PHILANTHROPIC DOLLARS, AGAIN, IN EXCESS OF $50 MILLION. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER THIS UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER IT. SO I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST ISSUING IT IF THAT'S THE MOTION, BUT AGAIN, WOULD ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IF OTHERS AGREE WITH ME AND YOU WANNA MAKE THE MOTION TO DEFER. I WOULD LOVE TO SECOND THAT CHAIRMAN MORE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE APPROVING TODAY. I WANT TO THANK OUR NEW CEO FOR JOINING US AND FOR HER COMMITMENT TO HONORING OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT. UH, THIS IS REALLY A, UM, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. UH, AS WE TALKED ABOUT OUR HOUSING AND HOMELESS MEETING YESTERDAY, WE'VE LOST A NUMBER OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS DUE TO THE EXTREME HEAT, UH, IN THE OUTDOORS. UH, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM INTO SHELTERS INTO SPACES THAT ARE COOL. AND SO THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AS FAR AS ANY CHANGES AT THE LOCATION, I'M SURE THE GENERATOR IS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT COULD BE RELOCATED TO A NEW BUILDING. AND SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS ITEM BEFORE US TODAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. MS. BLACK MAY RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. AND, UM, I'M, I'M A DONOR TO THE BRIDGE. I HAVE A BRICK. I BOUGHT ONE IN 2007, UH, BECAUSE I BELIEVED IN THE MISSION THAT THE BRIDGE PUT FORTH, AND I STILL BELIEVE IN THAT MISSION. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WHEN THIS NEW CAMPUS THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT OPENS THAT, THAT THE BRIDGE WILL GO AWAY. ACTUALLY, I THINK IT JUST MEANS IT MAY CHANGE THE SERVICES. IT MAY BE FOR THE CHRONIC HOMELESS THAT ARE IN DOWNTOWN, AND THEY, WE NEED TO GET THEM INTO A SPACE THAT IS SAFE AND NOT ON THE STREET. I WILL DRIVE BY THERE WHEN WE FINISH LATE. AND WHEN YOU SEE PEOPLE LAYING OUTSIDE BY THE DOOR, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S NO SPACE IN THE END. AND WE'VE GOT TO CREATE SPACE BECAUSE THEY WANNA BE SAFE. THEY WANNA BE CLOSE TO THE SERVICES. AND SO THAT IS UP TO US AS A CITY TO DO THAT. AND WE SHOULDN'T RELY ONLY ON OUR PARTNERS TO PROVIDE A VITAL, A VITAL SERVICE. AND SO, BECAUSE THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT SERVICE IS DECIDED BY THE DONORS OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT THEY DON'T WANNA PARTICIPATE, THEN WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? SO I DO BELIEVE IN THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE [01:20:01] AT THE BRIDGE AND ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND, UM, THAT, THAT SERVE ON YOUR BOARD, THAT, THAT REALLY WORK WITH YOU. AND WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OH, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT, WE, WE MUST LET IT GO. WE MUST PUT PEOPLE AT HARM. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE, 'CAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA GET ANY COOLER. WE'VE SEEN THE WEATHER REPORTS AND IT'S ONLY GONNA GET HOTTER. AND SO I'M, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS AND I'M NEVER GONNA SUPPORT CLOSING IT. NOW WILL IT CHANGE? MAYBE? AND THAT'S OKAY. BUT WE AS A CITY MUST HAVE A PLACE THAT THE CITY SPONSORS LOW BARRIER ACCESS TO, UH, TO A FACILITY. AND I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU MR. BASIL. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, ANAM, DO YOU MIND COMING FORWARD AND ANSWERING SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME? UH, I'LL START WHILE YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAKING YOUR WAY DOWN JUST BY SAYING I, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MORENOS, UH, COMMENTS THAT, UH, ON HOW CRITICAL THIS IS. UH, THIS IS DEFINITELY AN INVESTMENT THAT I THINK WORTHWHILE TO THE POINTS MADE BY, UH, MS. MENDELSSOHN, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON THE UNCERTAINTY OF, OF THE BUILDING. I THINK IF THAT THEORY WERE TO HOLD TRUE, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE ADVOCATING TO PUT MONEY INTO THIS BUILDING NOT KNOWING ITS, ITS, UH, UH, FUTURE AND THE UNCERTAINTY. AND SO, I I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, UH, UH, YOUR, THE NOTION OF, OF WHAT COULD BE, SHOULD PREVENT US FROM WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE PRESENT. UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, UH, WHAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT, UH, UP HERE TODAY ON RECORD YOU AS THE CEO? WHAT PLANS DO YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE BRIDGE? I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY PLANS DIRECTLY TO MOVE THE BRIDGE. OKAY. UM, IS THAT, UH, AT ALL SOMETHING THAT YOUR BOARD HAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU? NO. HAVE YOU LOOKED FOR ANY, UM, UH, OF A, OF A CAPITAL CAMPAIGN OR AN ACQUISITION OF LAND OR PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER, UH, PROVIDERS TO EXPLORE THIS CONVERSATION? NO, BUT I WILL SAY IF THERE WAS A DECISION TO RELOCATE THE BRIDGE, WE WOULD NEED A LOT OF TIME. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, NEARLY 400 PEOPLE WHO SLEEP ON OUR FACILITY EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. WE HAVE 600 PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING TO THE LOCATION. SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN LITERALLY WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, THOR, WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION YESTERDAY IN COMMITTEE ABOUT, UM, THE BRIDGE AND, AND THE FUTURE FATE. I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO BRING US A BRIEFING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? UM, GOOD MORNING. THOR ERICKSON, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. WE'RE WORKING ON A STATE OF HOMELESSNESS, UH, BRIEFING, UM, AS REQUESTED FROM A FIVE SIGNATURE MEMO THROUGH HOUSING COMMITTEE. UM, IN THAT BRIEFING, WE WILL DISCUSS THE FACILITIES THAT WE OWN AS WELL AS OPTIONS WITH OUR, UH, OUR HOMELESS BOND FUNDS. UM, THE BRIDGE OBVIOUSLY IS WE ARE THE OWNER IN IT AND BRIDGE STEPS IS THE, UM, MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR OF IT. WE'LL BE PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. SO AS THE OWNER, ARE WE STILL, UH, INVESTING FROM OUR GENERAL FUND IN THE, UH, THE BRIDGE? UM, YES, SIR. WE, WE INVEST, UM, UH, 4.6 MILLION IN OUR GENERAL FUND YEARLY. AND AN ITEM THAT WAS BRIEFED AT HOUSING COMMITTEE YESTERDAY WILL ACCEPT AWARD FROM THE COUNTY TO INVEST 1.3 MILLION, UM, IN OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES AT THE BRIDGE. SO, SO IN NO WAY HAVE WE RELINQUISHED OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS FACILITY? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, DO YOU SEE THIS AS A, AN A PROPOSED INVESTMENT WORTHWHILE? UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TASKED WITH SERVING OUR UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS AS THE, UH, OWNER OF, UH, THE LARGEST CITY OWNED FACILITY IN THE CITY. I, I BELIEVE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A SAFE SOUND PLACE FOR OUR UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS TO, TO SLEEP. THANK YOU THOR. UM, MAYOR, I, UH, WILL SAY THAT THIS IS, IS TO ME NOT REALLY EVEN A DEBATE WORTH HAVING. I THINK THAT WE HAVE, UM, ONE OF OUR MOST CRITICAL RESOURCES THAT IS, UM, SUPPORTED AND SUSTAINED, UH, FROM, UH, CITY FUNDS, FROM TAXPAYERS. UH, THIS IS AN EXPECTATION, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD FROM DOWNTOWN. GOD FORBID, WE HAVE, UH, EMERGENCY, UH, TAKE PLACE AND OUR MOST VULNERABLE NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NECESSARY AND IT BE ON OUR WATCH. UM, IT BE, UH, UH, UNDER OUR, UM, UH, PURVIEW COMPLETELY. UM, SO TO, TO, TO JUST THROW OUR HANDS UP TO ME IS NOT, UH, A VERY RESPONSIBLE WAY TO HANDLE THIS. THE, THE FUTURE OF THE BRIDGE, JUST AS WAS MENTIONED, WE MAY SEE A LOT FROM THE OUTSIDE. WE MAY SEE A LOT FROM THE PHIL, UH, THE, THE PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITY. WE MAY SEE A LOT FROM THE, THE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE HOMELESS PEOPLE. UH, THAT IS, IS WHAT WHAT I'VE HEARD, UH, QUITE FRANKLY, UM, [01:25:01] AND, AND WHAT THE MOTIVATION WAS FOR EVEN MOVING THEM. AND I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, AS THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE OF DISTRICT SEVEN SOUTH DALLAS, UM, I'LL BE DAMNED IF Y'ALL THINK THAT THAT MEANS THAT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BRING THEM TO THE SOUTH BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE. I BELIEVE THOSE DAYS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS ARE OVER. AND THAT CONVERSATION IS GOING TO BE AN EXHAUSTIVE ONE. UH, THAT WE ARE NOWHERE CLOSE TO SEEING WHAT A RESOLUTION WOULD LOOK LIKE. UH, WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO SPREAD SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND JUST AS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN MENTIONED, UM, THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN EITHER OR, BUT INSTEAD, UH, UM, UH, A A BOTH AND TYPE OF, UM, A SCENARIO. AND, UH, IF WE WERE TO INCREASE OUR HOMELESS RESOURCES AS WE'RE ALREADY PROPOSING FOR A TINY, UH, HOME OR PALLET HOME, UH, COMMUNITY IN DISTRICT SEVEN, UM, WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT WITHOUT RUINING THE PROGRESS, DELAYING THE PROGRESS, AND PROLONGING THE OVERALL GOAL TO MITIGATE HOMELESSNESS. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO MOVE THE BRIDGE WOULD PUT A HUGE HINDRANCE IN THE PROGRESS WE'RE ALREADY MAKING WITH OUR UNSHELTERED POPULATION. AND IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT A DISCUSSION THAT WE ARE ENTERTAINING RIGHT NOW. IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUTSIDE AGITATORS ARE. UM, AND THEY CAN CONTINUE TO AGITATE ON THE OUTSIDE. UH, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS ON THE INSIDE. AND RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S BEFORE US, TO ME, IS A VERY RESPONSIBLE, UM, INVESTMENT INTO, UH, OUR UNSHELTERED, UM, UH, EFFORTS. SO I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, AND I HOPE THAT THE BODY WILL BE AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE BECAUSE I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS A NECESSARY INVESTMENT. THE BRIDGE IS A REFUGE FOR OUR UNSHELTERED POPULATION. IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT THAT DURING TIME PERIODS OF INCLEMENT WEATHER, WHETHER WINTER OR SUMMER, THAT THIS BE AND CONTINUE TO BE A REFUGE FOR THE UNSHELTERED WHO HAVE NO OTHER OPTION TO SEE COOLING IN THE SUMMER OR WARMTH IN THE WINTER. AND THEREFORE, I THINK IT'S AN IMPERATIVE THAT WE DO INVEST THIS. AND INDEED, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THE 2024 BOND ELECTION FOR $10 MILLION TO SUPPORT HOMELESS PROGRAMS ARE ALSO IN FAVOR OF THIS SORT OF INVESTMENT IN OUR UNSHELTERED POPULATION. THIS IS A VERY APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE BOND, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT DOES NOT AFFECT OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET. BUT I WOULD CLOSE BY SAYING THAT EVEN IF THERE ARE PLANS AFOOT TO RELOCATE THE BRIDGE TO SOME OTHER LOCATION, THAT THE DIFFERENT TASKS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN MENTIONED, INCLUDING ZONING AND DESIGN OF A NEW FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION, THAT'S A FIVE YEAR PROGRAM BEFORE ALL OF THAT COULD HAPPEN. AND WE NEED THAT OPERATION TO CONTINUE DURING THAT FIVE YEARS. BUT EVEN AFTER THAT FIVE YEARS, THIS IS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT CAN EASILY BE RELOCATED TO THE NEW FACILITY. IT WILL BE NEEDED AT A NEW FACILITY JUST AS IT IS NEEDED AT THE CURRENT ONE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE BUILDINGS SUCH THAT IT CAN'T BE RELOCATED. I'M THEREFORE IN FAVOR. MS. KADENA, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? YES, I AGREE WITH, UM, CHAIR RIDLEY, THAT THE BRIDGE IS A REFUGE. UM, DISTRICT SIX WILL ACTUALLY BE BRINGING 600 BEDS ONLINE WITH 150 EMERGENCY SHELTER. AND EVEN IF THERE IS A MOVE, I REMEMBER WHEN WE WENT THROUGH OUR ZONING CASE FROM FIRST DISCUSSION TO ZONING CHANGE, AND EVEN TO NOW, IT'S BEEN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. AND SO IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY WHERE OUR UNHOUSED, UM, NEIGHBORS NEED, UM, THIS GENERATOR, UM, THAT'S A REALLY LONG TIME AND WE STILL HAVEN'T OPENED THE SALVATION ARMY ARMY FACILITY. UM, AND IT TOOK A WHILE FOR THE PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITY TO RAISE ALL OF THOSE FUNDS. SO I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR A DELAY IN, UM, PROVIDING THESE FUNDS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GRACIE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I I CONCUR WITH A LOT OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY SAID. UM, THE NEEDS DON'T STOP JUST 'CAUSE THERE'S A PLAN, POTENTIAL PLAN IN PLACE, UH, AND THEN THE MAINTENANCE, UH, AND INVESTMENT IN THE FACILITY IS STILL SOMETHING, AN OBLIGATION THAT WE, UH, SHOULD DO IF WE HAVEN'T LEARNED ANYTHING ELSE, IS A CONTINUED MAINTENANCE AND INVESTMENT INTO OUR FACILITIES ON AN ONGOING BASIS. UH, SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THIS ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. YOU RE ASK FOR FIVE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU. UM, I [01:30:01] WANNA APPLAUD, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN FOR RAISING A VERY VALUABLE ISSUE. UM, SHE'S, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING, UH, STRATEGICALLY FOR LOOKING AT ALL WAYS TO, TO BE MORE FINANCIAL STEWARDS AND BE MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. UM, TO RAISE AN ISSUE LIKE THIS IN A VERY SENSITIVE, DIFFICULT SITUATION MAKES US ALL HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WE'VE GOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE'RE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE PRIORITY, UH, THINGS THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT, THAT THESE ARE CORE SERVICES, AND THAT THESE MONIES ARE BEING MADE IN AN INVESTMENT, THOUGHTFUL AND CORRECT WAY. UM, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THE MONIES ARE ALLOCATED TO THIS SHOULD BE PUT IN. IT'S AN INVESTMENT IN A BUILDING. IT'S AN INVESTMENT IN A PROGRAM THAT BENEFITS OUR CITIZENS AND IS A NEEDED CORE SERVICE. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE POINT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN IS FORCING US AND ALLOWING US TO PAY ATTENTION TO, IS THAT WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE IN LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS AND LOOKING AT OUR BUDGET, AND THAT THERE REALLY ARE NO SACRED COWS. AND THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO ANALYZE THIS STUFF, WHETHER IT'S HISTORICAL PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S HOMELESS PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S IT'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S IT'S, UH, CORE SERVICES. WE'VE GOT TO NOT BE AFRAID AND BE ACTUALLY PROACTIVE IN MAKING HARD DECISIONS AND MAKE AND LOOKING AT HARD FACTS. UH, SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR RAISING THIS ISSUE TO THIS BODY. UH, UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T SUPPORT IT, BUT, UH, I THINK IT'S A VERY VALUABLE DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THE BUDGET. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, SO IT'S INTERESTING SOME OF THE COMMENTS BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S NOT QUITE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRIDGE. THEY DON'T OWN THE LAND. THEY'RE A MANAGEMENT SERVICES FIRM. AND ANYWHERE A BUILDING IS BUILT THAT NEEDS HOMELESS SERVICES, THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO RUN THEM AND WOULD BE A GREAT, UM, WOULD BE A GREAT OPTION SHOULD THIS GROUP BUILD THIS EXTENSIVE HOMELESS, UH, CAMPUS TO RUN THE EMERGENCY SHELTER THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'LL HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONVERSATIONS HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED, UM, WHETHER THAT WAS DR. WOODY OR WITH ANYBODY, BUT THEY DON'T OWN THE LAND AND THEY DON'T OWN THE BUILDING. THE CITY DOES. UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KANA, CORRECT. EIGHT YEARS, I THINK FOR SALVATION ARMY. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CAPITAL CAMPAIGN THAT BEGAN BEFORE THE ZONING WAS APPROVED. THIS ALREADY HAS, UM, MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT SALVATION ARMY RAISED, ALREADY COMMITTED IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IT MAY ALREADY BE FULLY FUNDED AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW. UM, THE HOMELESS HAVE MANY OPTIONS IN DALLAS. MANY, MANY OPTIONS. SOME OF THEM ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDED, LIKE THE BRIDGE AS IT SHOULD BE AS OUR LOWEST BARRIER SHELTER. BUT THERE ARE MANY, UM, OTHER OPTIONS. AND I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS ALSO MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAN, THAN AN IDEA. THERE ARE ALREADY PLANNERS AND ARCHITECTS WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT PUBLICLY AT THE HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING, AT A PRIOR AGENDA MEETING. AND AGAIN, TODAY BECAUSE WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T, UM, NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR ECOSYSTEM. THE, THE MEETING THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN AND BASLOW DUA WALKED IN ON WAS ABOUT A WHOLE DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THE SAME GROUP THAT IS, THAT IS WORKING ON THIS. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. SO IF YOU SAY IT TAKES EIGHT YEARS, WELL, SOME OF THOSE YEARS HAVE ALREADY PASSED. UM, MOST CERTAINLY NOTHING IS GONNA OPEN IN THREE MONTHS. BUT THE REASON THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WE WAIT ON THIS TILL AT LEAST DECEMBER, IS BECAUSE WE WILL SEE HOW FAR ALONG THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET. AND THEY SEEM TO BE AT A TURNING POINT. THERE'S, UM, A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AND THE LAST THING I'M GONNA SAY IS THAT, UM, I'M, I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT PART ALONE, SO I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT IT CAN BE MOVED WITH THAT. THESE DOLLARS ARE NOT FOR OPERATIONS. OPERATIONS SHOULD CONTINUE. WE ALREADY APPROVED 1.3, ACCEPTING FROM THE COUNTY. AS THOR SAID, WE ALREADY FUND THIS. OPERATIONS SHOULD CONTINUE, BUT CAPITAL INVESTMENT, [01:35:01] I BELIEVE SHOULD DELAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA? ITEM 31. SEEING NONE, WAS THERE A RECORD VOTED REQUESTED ON THIS ONE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED NOTE THE NO. I NOTED ONE NOTE AND THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. [33. 26-2604A Authorize (1) a public hearing to be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 to receive comments on a proposed tax rate; and (2) a proposal to consider adoption of a $0.6978 per $100 valuation tax rate, or a lower rate as may be proposed by the City Council for the 2026-27 fiscal year on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 33. AGENDA ITEM 33, AUTHORIZE ONE, A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026 TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED TAX RATE. AND TWO, A PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A $0.70 PER $100 VALUATION TAX RATE, OR A LOWER RATE AS MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 20 26 27 FISCAL YEAR ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. CHAIRMAN WEST. YOU RECOGNIZE? THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A 0.6978 PER $100 VALUATION TAX RATE, OR A LOWER RATE AS MAY BE PROPOSED. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? CHAIRMAN WEST? YES, MA'AM. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. AGENDA ITEM 33. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. THIS, UM, IS THE ANNUAL, UH, DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE ON SETTING THE TAX RATE. UH, THIS WAS THE AMOUNT AS PROPOSED IN THE CITY MANAGER'S, UH, INITIAL RECOMMENDED BUDGET. UM, AND IT, IT IS A SLIGHT REDUCTION OF 0.10 CENTS. THE, UH, THIS MOTION WOULD SET THIS AMOUNT AS A CAP. WE COULD STILL GO LOWER. WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO ABOVE THIS AMOUNT IF WE APPROVE THIS ITEM TODAY. THANK YOU, MR. BASIL. DO IT. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT WE CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE LOWER, UH, TAX RATE EQUAL TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, WHICH IS SEVEN 0.63 CENTS PER $100 VALUATION. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED BEFORE YOU START. SO, MR. BE, I ASSUME YOU WANT YOUR, YOUR, UH, FIVE MINUTES. LET ME JUST MAKE SURE WE GET THE NUMBER RIGHT SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING. UM, WHAT'S THE RATE? 7 0 6 3 2 5. IT'S THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE. 7 0 6 3 2 5 3 2 5. EVERYONE YOU HEARD THAT? AND YOU HAVE THE FOUR FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. BASIL. DO IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, JACK OR JEANETTE? I, I FIRST JUST WANNA START BY SAYING THAT THIS, UH, TO ME IS, IS A DISCUSSION OF COURSE THAT WE DO HAVE EVERY YEAR. I DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE PRUDENT FOR US TO LIMIT OURSELVES BEFORE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE BUDGET DISCUSSION. THIS IS IN FACT A CEILING, A CAP AS MR. WEST MENTIONED. HOWEVER, UM, UH, LOWERING IT, THE, FOR ANY LOWER THAN WHAT THE TAX THE VOTERS APPROVE FOR US TO BE AT, UH, LIMITS OUR DISCUSSION AND ABILITY TO AMEND THE, UH, CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. UM, RIGHT NOW, UM, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CUTS THAT WE'VE MADE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION IN PREVIOUS BUDGETS THAT HAVE AFFORDED US SOME GOOD MEDIA COVERAGE TO SAY THAT WE'VE LOWERED THE TAX RATE WHEN IN FACT WE HAVEN'T. UH, IT'S JUST BEEN THE PER TAX RATE PERCENTAGE, BUT THESE HAVE BEEN VERY NOMINAL CUTS THAT HAVE, UM, UH, IMPLICATIONS IN THE END. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 10 PLUS YEARS OF, UM, CUTTING THE TAX RATE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THAT HAS DONE TO THE REVENUE THAT WE HAVE GENERATED? Y YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, JACK ARLAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. AND SO OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS AND THE PROPOSED BUDGET BEING THE 11TH, UH, CONSECUTIVE YEAR, UH, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED, UH, AGAIN, A REDUCTION TO THE TAX RATE. UH, IN FISCAL YEAR 2016, THE TOTAL TAX RATE WAS 79.70 CENTS. AND SO WE ARE IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET RECOMMENDING 69.78 CENTS. THAT IS NEARLY A 10 CENT REDUCTION OVER THE 11 YEARS. MM-HMM . IT IS A 9.92 CENT, UH, REDUCTION. AND SO THAT IS A LITTLE OVER 12% FROM WHAT IT WAS BACK IN FISCAL YEAR 16. THE REVENUE FOR GONE, IF OUR CURRENT TAX RATE WAS 79 70, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS BACK IN FISCAL YEAR 16, UH, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $230 MILLION OR SO. THAT'S THE REVENUE FOR GONE. NOW, [01:40:01] THAT IS ASSUMING THAT WE COULD GO BACK TO THE 79, 70. SURE. UH, BECAUSE, UH, SOME OF THE YEARS THAT THE REDUCTIONS WERE MADE, UH, STATE LAW, THE CAP IN STATE LAW MM-HMM . DID REQUIRE US TO MAKE SOME REDUCTIONS MM-HMM . SO SOME OF THEM WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE, WE WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE MADE REDUCTIONS ALONG THE WAY. BUT THEORETICALLY, 10 YEARS, WE'VE CUT 10 CENTS. THE VALUE OF 10 CENTS IS ABOUT $229 MILLION. THANK YOU. I I WANTED JUST THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE HAVE, UH, FOREGONE FROM MAKING THESE, UH, CUTS. THESE MAY BE, UM, UH, POPULAR IN THE MOMENT, UH, TO SAY THAT WE'VE CUT A RATE, BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE HAMSTRUNG OUR CITY THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS IN, UH, MORE RESTRAINED YEARS. LIKE THIS YEAR, WE, UH, APPROACHED THIS BUDGET, UM, UH, WITH THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, UM, UH, HAVING A SHORTFALL THAT HAD TO, TO, TO BE, UH, COMPENSATED FOR. WE'VE HA UH, PRO, UM, UH, APPROACHED THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO SEE THAT, UM, WE HAVE MORE THAN A HUNDRED, UH, POSITIONS THAT WERE FILLED THAT, UH, WE HA THAT HAD TO BE ELIMINATED. AND AN ADDITIONAL A HUNDRED POSITIONS THAT WEREN'T FILLED THAT WERE ALSO ELIMINATED. UM, THE, THE, THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING TO YOU IS THAT WAS TO, TO COMPENSATE FOR A $50 MILLION SHORTFALL WHEN WE HAVE KNOWINGLY OVER THE PAST DECADE, UH, PREVENTED OURSELVES AND KEPT MORE THAN 200 MILLION OF REVENUE OFF THE TABLE. SO WE HAVE TO BE, UH, PRUDENT WITH THESE DECISIONS. WE CAN'T KEEP CHASING A HEADLINE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE, UH, NOMINALLY CHANGED YOUR TAX RATE WHEN WE ARE DOING IT AT THE EXPENSE OF, UH, PROVIDING QUALITY SERVICES AND RESOURCES FOR OUR RESIDENTS. EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION AROUND US THAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY TAX BILL IS GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION. THEY'RE ASKING VOTERS TO APPROVE MORE, THEY'RE IMPOSING FEES TO, TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE. AND WE NEED TO, TO LOOK AT WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO, NOT JUST TO THIS YEAR, BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO WHITTLE DOWN THIS TAX RATE IN A WAY THAT IS UNATTAINABLE, UH, FUTURE COUNCILS ARE GONNA HAVE, UH, EXTREMELY HARD TIME TO, UH, UM, ADHERE TO THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PASSED FOR THE SOLVENCY OF OUR, OUR POLICE AND FIRE PENSION. AND SO SUBSEQUENT YEARS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE EVEN MORE HARD. UM, THIS IS MY SECOND TO LAST BUDGET. UH, I WILL PROBABLY NOT BE A PART OF THE HARDEST, UH, CONVERSATIONS THAT'LL, THAT'LL BE HAD, BUT SOME OF YOU AROUND THIS DUS WILL. SO THESE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE TODAY, WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING THOSE HARD DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TOMORROW. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THOSE WERE A CONSIDERATION WHEN WE WHITTLED THIS RATE DOWN TO WHERE IT IS NOW AND HAS LEFT US IN THIS POSITION. SO AT THE VERY LEAST, I'M ASKING THAT OUR CEILING BE PUT TO WHAT THE TA THE VOTERS HAVE APPROVED AT, UH, A RATE FOR, SO THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, WE HAVE AS MUCH WIGGLE ROOM AS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE AND HAVE A, TO HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF AUTOMATICALLY OUT OF THE GATE BEFORE WE'VE EVEN CONSIDERED ANY AMENDMENTS, HAMSTRINGING OURSELF TO A ARBITRARY NUMBER THAT THE, UH, CITY MANAGER HAS CHOSEN WITH HER PROPOSED BUDGET. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BASIL DUA. THANK YOU. UM, IT APPEARS MY COLLEAGUE HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE DEFINITION OF VOTER APPROVAL RATE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS WHAT THE VOTERS ASKED US TO DO. IT MEANS THIS IS THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN GO BEFORE YOU HAVE TO ASK THE VOTERS. CAN YOU GO THAT HIGH? IT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OR EVEN LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO BEFORE THE VOTERS HAVE TO CHECK OUR WORK. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS TO THINK THAT WE WOULD RAISE OUR TAXES TO 70 CENTS, 70.6325. UM, WOW. SO THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS MADE. THIS BUDGET DOES NOT DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE WE HAVE. IT'S A RECORD BUDGET. WE'VE NEVER HAD A BUDGET THIS BIG. AND IN FACT, FROM OUR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO OUR NEXT ONE, IT RAISES TOTAL REVENUE, I BELIEVE 400 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND. 800 MILLION. IS THAT CORRECT? NO, MA'AM. UM, PROPOSED THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS AN 80 MILLION INCREASE. AN 80 MILLION FOR GENERAL FUND. YES. YOU SAID 800 AND 400 MILLION FOR TOTAL REVENUE FOR THE WHOLE BUDGET. I, I, THAT'S, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT YES, THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE NUMBER I WAS JUST CORRECTING ON. I HEARD YOU SAY 800 MILLION FOR GENERAL FUND. IT'S 80. I'M SORRY, I SAID 80. YES. UM, YOU, YOU MENTIONED, JACK, THAT WE'VE REDUCED 12% OF OUR TAX RATE OVER 10 YEARS AND FOREGONE 230 MILLION THIS YEAR. HAD WE KEPT THAT TAX RATE. BUT WHAT HAS BEEN THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE [01:45:01] OVER THAT TIME? HAS IT EXCEEDED 12% IN TOTAL? YES, MA'AM. IT WOULD'VE, UH, EXCEEDED, UH, 12%. UH, OUR 10 YEAR AVERAGE IS ABOUT 8% GROWTH PER YEAR. BUT WHAT IS THE PERCENT OVER THAT 10 YEARS? YEAH, I WOULD HAVE TO CALCULATE THAT FOR YOU. BUT IT'S, IT'S RUNNING ABOUT 8% PER YEAR. SO 80% INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE AND WE'VE LOWERED THE TAX RATE 12%. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. MENEN? I'LL HAVE TO DO THE MATH. CAN YOU, UM, LET HIM DO THE MATH OR SOMEONE DO THE MATH AND YOU CAN KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS? WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR HIM TO DO ARITHMETIC OVER HERE. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE HE'S GOT ADD UP 10 YEARS OF NUMBERS. HAVE YOU ALREADY DONE IT? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S OKAY. GO. IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 125%, 125% INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE. BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY LOWERED THE TAX RATE ONLY 12%. YES, MA'AM. THIS IS WHY OUR TAXPAYERS ARE SUFFERING, THIS IS WHY THEY ARE CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY TAX, NOT JUST FOR CITY, BUT THEIR ENTIRE BILL. BECAUSE WE WANNA SIT HERE AND SAY, OH, WE'VE LOWERED YOUR TAXES, BUT IT'S YOUR RATE, BUT YOU'RE WRITING A BIGGER BILL EVERY SINGLE YEAR. PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID. THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE WRITING A BIGGER CHECK. AND IF WE'RE GONNA SIT HERE AND CRY THAT WE'RE GIVING UP $230 MILLION BECAUSE WE'VE REDUCED 12% OF THE RATE WITH A HUNDRED AND I'M SORRY, 20%, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? THAT IS WHAT I SAID, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 136. A HUNDRED THIRTY SIX SIX. LEMME CHECK MY WORK. I TRIED TO BUY YOU MORE TIME TO DO ARITHMETIC, JACK, BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO SHOW OFF, SO, WOW. IT'S BIGGER THAN I THOUGHT. OKAY. SO I ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION FOR YOU, MAYOR, IF IT'S IN ORDER. WE HAVE ONE ON THE FLOOR. SO GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO AMEND THE TAX RATE PROPOSED TO 68 CENTS. OKAY. NOW LOOK, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE KIND OF JUST JUMPING AROUND AND DO JUST DOING DIFFERENT RATES. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO DO THIS EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED RATE. NOW WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO GO UP TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE. AND NOW YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT TO GO TO, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK SO. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, UM, THEY'RE NOT INCONSISTENT IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM, I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY REMAINING CHANGING THE AMOUNT, WHICH, YES. SO WE'RE, IF YOU HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT, THEN YOU'LL JUST NEED TO TELL ME WHAT THE RATE IS AND WE'LL BE ON THAT 68 CENTS. 68, EVEN FOR 1000, IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT PER ONE? NO, THAT WOULD BE 1000. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. SO A SECOND TO KEEP MY NOTES CLEAR HERE. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TECHNICALLY TO THE AMENDMENT FOR 68 CENTS EVEN, AND YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES ON, ON THAT AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THE REASON WHY I'M MAKING THIS AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE TRADITIONALLY DONE IS WHATEVER NUMBER WE SET TODAY, THAT'S THE NUMBER. I WILL SAY LAST YEAR THERE WAS A TEENY TINY LITTLE DECREASE AFTER MAYOR. YOU MADE A BIG PITCH FOR US TO, TO TRY TO WIPE OUT SOME MONEY. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SAID TO ME AT THE VERY END IS WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT AND THAT'S ALL IT DECREASED. AND I SAID, YEAH. SO THE TIME TO ACTUALLY SET THE BUDGET IS NOW AND THEN WORK BACKWARDS. SO 60 EIGHT'S A NICE ROUND NUMBER. IT IS 68, NOT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS 66.2063. SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, BUT IT'S LESS THAN WE HAVE THIS YEAR, AND IT'S LESS THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED BY THE MANAGER'S BUDGET AND CERTAINLY MUCH LESS THAN THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE. SO THAT'S WHY I OFFER THIS NUMBER. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE 68 CENTS BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN. THANK YOU, MAYOR JACK, CAN YOU CALCULATE HOW MUCH THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CURRENT PROPOSED BUDGET TO BE DECREASED TO ALIGN REVENUE WITH EXPENDITURE? YES, SIR. UH, TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE FROM THE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER OF 69.78 TO 68.00, IT'S A $41.2 MILLION REDUCTION IN REVENUE, AND WE NEED A $41.2 MILLION REDUCTION IN EXPENSES TO STAY BALANCED. [01:50:05] WELL, I THINK THAT IS A HUGE HIT TO THE BUDGET. UM, WE'RE ACQUIRING A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN SERVICES. UM, I I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO THERE. UM, I'LL HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS IF THIS DOES NOT PASS. AND WE REVERT TO THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE 68 CENTS. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION. ANY OF THIS RELATED TO THIS AMENDMENT? UH, DOES THE PREVIOUS MOTION ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION FROM THE, UH, 69 78? UH, THAT TO A LOWER AMOUNT, BUT IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE THE ORIGINAL MOTION? I'M SORRY. YES, SIR. SO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UH, I BELIEVE WAS 69.78 CENTS. AND SO WHATEVER YOU VOTE TODAY BECOMES THE CEILING THAT YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT ON SEPTEMBER THE 16TH. AND SO YOU'RE SETTING THE CEILING TODAY BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER THE 16TH. YOU CAN LOWER IT, BUT YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE WHATEVER WE RECORD AND, AND VOTE ON TODAY. SO WHETHER IT'S 69, 78, AS I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST SUGGESTED, OR 70.63 COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL, OR 68 THAT MS. MENDELSON SUGGESTED WHEREVER WE END, THAT'S YOUR, YOUR MAXIMUM, YOUR CEILING. UM, AND JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, BASED ON OUR 69 70 8 CENT, UH, UH, THE, UH, THE INCREMENTAL, UH, DECREASE IN THE TAX REVENUE WAS, WAS A FEW, WAS A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT POINT. 10 CENTS. YES, SIR. YOU'RE CORRECT. IT WAS $2.3 MILLION. AND SO, AND THE, UH, INCREASE IN THE TAXES THAT WE WERE GETTING WITH THAT RATE WAS APPROXIMATELY $50 MILLION IS WHAT THE, THE INCREMENTAL, BASED ON THE ASSESSED VALUE INCREASE OF 236 BILLION VERSUS THE PREVIOUS OF 226 BILLION. GIVE OR TAKE. GIVE US JUST ONE SECOND. WE'LL CHECK THE, THE REVENUE TOTALS. JUST MAYOR, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. PLEASE. UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING US SOME MINUTES TO WORK THROUGH. WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT. UH, ABOUT $51.7 MILLION WAS THE INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE FROM THE GROWTH IN VALUES APPLIED AGAINST THE TAX RATE. EXACTLY. SO AS MS. MENDELSON HAS POINTED OUT, THE REVENUES CONTINUE TO GO UP, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE LOWERED THE TAX RATE BECAUSE OF THE VALUE INCREASES. AND, AND, UH, AND THAT WOULD BE, SO THAT'S, THAT'S SIMILAR. THAT 1 CENT DEDUCTION REPRESENTS ABOUT, LIKE YOU SAID, $40 MILLION, TH 30 TO $40 MILLION REDUCTION IN REVENUE. SO THE, THE PROPOSED, OH, WELL, FIRST, I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S BASED ON THE 70 CENTS, NOT ON $3. IT'S ON 70 CENTS. SO IT WOULD BE, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE COMING UP WITH THE $40 MILLION REDUCTION. THE $40 MILLION REDUCTION IS BASED ON A 1.78 CENT REDUCTION FROM 69 78 TO AN EVEN 68 EACH 1 CENT IS ABOUT $23 MILLION. THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR THE GROUP, IS THAT 1 CENT EQUALS $23 MILLION, GIVE OR TAKE. YEAH, APPROXIMATELY. THANK YOU, MR. BASEL. DO DEWEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. 68 CENTS. 68 CENTS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, SO I DEFINITELY DO NOT SUPPORT US GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. I, I, I THINK THAT WE'RE ALREADY MAKING, UH, SACRIFICES AND COMPROMISES IN ORDER TO, TO MAKE THIS, UH, HARD BUDGET EVEN A, A VIABLE ONE. I THINK IF WE WERE LOOKING AT ANOTHER $50 MILLION, [01:55:01] IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, UH, REGARDING SOME, UH, UH, WHAT COULD BE SAVINGS OR NOT SAVINGS, BUT THE ABILITY, UH, TO HAVE MORE REVENUE, UM, TO WORK WITH. WOULD WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DIRECT SOME OF THESE FUNDS DURING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, UM, TO BE PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT OR IN, UM, A SAVINGS SPECIFICALLY TO, TO BE UTILIZED IN FUTURE YEARS FOR PENSION? I'D LIKE TO START THAT, UH, IF, IF, IF I CAN. MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, COUNCILMAN. BE, UM, I WANNA ANSWER IT IN TWO PARTS. NUMBER ONE, COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE ABILITY, UH, TO DIRECT FUNDS. AND IF THE DECISION OF THE BODY IS TO HAVE, UM, FUNDS SET ASIDE, WE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE, OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, ESTABLISHED A REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND, WHICH HAS REALLY HELPED DURING SOME TIMES, UH, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I THINK WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT EVEN OUR CURRENT YEAR BUDGET. UM, SO COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT DESIGNATION. AND I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, IF NOTHING ELSE, UH, WE KNOW, UM, THAT WE ARE IN A NEW NORMAL, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT REPEATEDLY. AND ANYTHING THAT WE DO, WHETHER IT'S ADDITIONAL REVENUE, IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO NOT SPEND EVERY DIME THAT WE HAVE, AND I THINK WE'VE GOTTA BEGIN TO START PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE. SO THAT WOULD BE A DECISION OF THE COUNCIL TO SET ITS ASIDE TO A SPECIAL FUND. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. UH, THE LAST THING THAT I WANT, THE, THE, THE BODY TO THINK THAT WHAT, WHAT I'M PUSHING SPECIFICALLY ON WHY I DON'T WANNA SEE US GO THAT DIRECTION, BUT INSTEAD, THE OTHER IS THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION DURING OUR AMENDMENT PROCESS TO SEE IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PUT SOME BACK TOWARDS PENSION. UM, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAMSTRING US AND SPEND EVERY DOLLAR, UH, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BRING OUT A, A $10 MILLION SLUSH FUND FOR US TO, UH, UH, PUT IN THINGS THAT, THAT CLEARLY WE DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFF TO SUPPORT, UH, IN, IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH THIS BALANCED BUDGET. THIS IS MEANT TO BE PRUDENT. THIS IS MEANT FOR US TO, UH, UH, LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE YEARS AHEAD AND TO NOT STRAP OURSELVES AS, UH, AS STRAPPED AS POSSIBLE NOW, BUT INSTEAD LOOK AT HOW WE COULD BE MINIMIZING THE BURDEN IN FUTURE YEARS. UM, $10 MILLION IS, IS MONEY. IT'S REAL MONEY, IT'S SUBSTANTIAL. AND LEAVING THAT ON THE TABLE, UM, AND TO, TO NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO, UM, UH, WEIGH OUT HOW IT COULD BE SOMETHING TO LIGHTEN OUR BURDEN IN, IN FUTURE YEARS IS, IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ARE, ARE, ARE REALLY MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR. SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AS AN EXERCISE TO HELP, UH, THE CITY MANAGER, UM, IN, IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO HELP US MAINTAIN, UM, THE OBLIGATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE PAST PLAN FOR OUR, UH, PENSION FOR THE POLICE AND FIRE, AND FOR THAT TO NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF A HUGE SLASH IN SERVICES IN A, IN, IN A COUPLE OF FISCAL YEARS AHEAD OF US, UH, IN ORDER TO, TO ACCOMPLISH IT. SO, UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A, A, A, A VERY SMART DIRECTION TO GO. AND I I HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE A REAL DEBATE ON GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION. THANK YOU. THIS IS BLAIR, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES, 68 CENTS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. UM, CAN YOU TELL US, UH, MR. IRELAND, WHAT IS THE STATE CAP THAT WE CAN GO TO? SO WITHOUT A VOTER APPROVAL, WE CAN GO TO 70.63 CENTS. IF WE SET A TAX RATE HIGHER THAN 70.63 CENTS, WE, WE CAN GET THE AUTHORIZATION TO DO THAT, BUT ONLY THE VOTERS CAN GIVE YOU THE AUTHORIZATION TO GO ABOVE THAT NUMBER. SO MR. VA'S, UH, PROPOSAL WAS TO TAKE US TO THE STATE CAP, CORRECT? YES. AND MS. WHEDON JUST POINTED OUT A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT WITHOUT A VOTER APPROVAL, AND WE PASSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR A VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE ELECTION. SO YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE THIS YEAR THE VOTER APPROVAL BECAUSE YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE CALLED THE ELECTION ON THE 12TH LAST AUGUST. LAST IN THE 1ST OF AUGUST, RIGHT? YES. YES, MA'AM. SO IT, WE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE 70.6325 AND THE, THE, THE RED AND WHAT THE CITY MAN MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION IS SIX IS 0.6 9, 7 8. IF WE GO BE, IF WE GO BELOW THAT, I, I DON'T REMEMBER [02:00:01] WHAT YOU SAID, WE WOULD LOSE, IF WE GO TO 60, THE 68 CENTS, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH REVENUE WOULD WE LOSE? MM-HMM . TO, TO GO FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSAL, WHICH IS 69.78 TO GO TO THE 68 CENT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING AT THIS POINT. IT'S A REDUCTION OF $41.2 MILLION OF REVENUE NEEDS TO BE OFFSET WITH THE $41.2 MILLION REDUCTION IN EXPENSES FROM WHAT THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED TO YOU TWO WEEKS AGO. SO WE STARTED OUT WITH A CITY MANAGER. UH, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION, PLEASE? WE STARTED OUT WITH A $51 MILLION IMBALANCE THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION HAS BALANCED CORRECT. WE PRESENTED YOU A BALANCED BUDGET BALANCING REVENUES AND EXPENSES, AND THAT'S, BUT THAT COST US, UM, FURLOUGH DAYS AND SOME HEAD COUNT. CORRECT. THERE ARE NO FURLOUGH DAYS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT CITY COUNCIL, UH, RECEIVED ON AUGUST THE 11TH, AND A REDUCTION IN HEADCOUNT. THE REDUCTION IN HEADCOUNT IS THE STAFFING OPTIMIZATION MODEL THAT WE STARTED TWO YEARS AGO, LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, UM, LOOKING AT THE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT OUR STAFFING MODELS, WHAT WE'RE DELIVERING, HOW WE'RE DELIVERING, AND THE LEVEL OF POSITIONS THAT WE'VE NEEDED. AND SO, IF COUNCIL WILL RECALL IN 2024, UH, 2025, WE STARTED DOING STAFFING OPTIMIZATION. AND THAT WORK CONTINUES. IT'S REALLY ABOUT LOOKING AT OUR SERVICE LEVELS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE OPERATING EFFICIENTLY. AND SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS, UH, LEVERAGING, UM, UM, RESOURCES IN A WAY THAT ALLOW FOR US TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE AND TO TRULY, UM, EMPOWER OUR TEAMS, UM, TO NOT NECESSARILY OPERATE THE WAY THAT WE ALREADY ALWAYS HAVE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS PROPOSED IS A RESULT OF THAT THIRD YEAR OF LOOKING AT OUR STAFFING OPTIMIZATION. UM, WE KNOW THAT WE NEVER WANT TO IMPACT, UH, POSITIONS. HOWEVER, IF WE ARE OPERATING MORE EFFICIENTLY, IF THERE ARE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT CAN BE BETTER DONE OUTSIDE THE CITY, THERE WILL BE, UH, THOSE TYPES OF IMPACTS, UM, UM, GOING FORWARD. BUT WE DID LOOK AT VACANT POSITIONS, UM, WHICH GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO THEN MINIMIZE, UH, WHAT IMPACTS WE HAD ON OUR TOTAL, UH, WORKFORCE. SO EVEN WITH THE NUMBER OF REDUCTIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS LESS THAN 1% OF OUR TOTAL WORKFORCE. OKAY, SO I, I GET IT. IT IT'S THE 24, NOT THE 2024 OPTIMIZATION PROCESS THAT WE'RE STILL UNDER. AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE SEEING THE REDUCTION, BECAUSE WE'RE RE THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR OF THAT, OH, EXCUSE, THIRD YEAR OF THAT OPTIMIZATION. BUT, AND THE REALITY IS, AND THROUGH THAT OPTIMIZATION, WE DID CUT SOME HEAD. WE DID, WE DID REDUCE OUR HEAD COUNT SO THAT WE ARE MORE EFFICIENT. THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. YES, MA'AM. AND SO IF WE GO TO THE, IF WE, IF WE ADOPT AN A RESOLUTION BASED ON WHAT, UH, MR. BAIDU HAS SAID, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THAT HIGH. WE CAN GO ANYWHERE UNDERNEATH THERE. WE WANT TO, BUT WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OUR PROPERTY TAX TO THE CEILING, CORRECT? MR. ARLAND? YES, MA'AM. WHATEVER YOU VOTE ON TODAY IS THE, IS YOUR CEILING, AND YOU CAN GO UP TO IT, BUT YOU CAN'T GO, YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE IT. NOW, I, I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, AS A TAXPAYER, NONE OF US WANT TO, TO SAY WE, WE WILLINGLY PAY MORE. UM, BUT ALSO WE HAVE TO BE IN A POSITION OF REALIZATION THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS, THERE'S A, THERE'S A HIGHER COST TO DO BUSINESS, WE HAVE TO STILL COME BACK AND BE, BE BALANCED. I, I CAN'T SUPPORT RE UH, UH, CHANGE. THAT WOULD MEAN WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND 42, 41 0.2 MORE MILLION DOLLARS IN COST SAVINGS THROUGH, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE HAVE LEFT IS THE SERVICES WE RECEIVE. WE'RE STR YOU KNOW, WE'RE STRUGGLING NOW. I CAN'T, I SUPPORT, I CANNOT PERSONALLY SUPPORT A 68 CENTS RE A TOP CEILING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO USE IN ORDER TO BALANCE THIS BUDGET. WE DON'T, I DON'T SEE THIS GOING TO BE A EASY TASK. I PERSONALLY AM NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT WE, THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH BASED ON WHAT I SAW LAST YEAR AND HAD TO EXPERIENCE LAST YEAR. UM, I WISH WE COULD JUST SAY IT'S DONE AND, AND [02:05:01] MOVE ON, BUT THIS IS OUR, THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. I, I WOULD, I, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THE 70, THE 68%. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. 68 CENTS. THANK YOU. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US. WHILE I AM NOT OPPOSED TO REDUCING THE RATE, I BELIEVE THE, UH, AMENDMENT THAT, UH, CHAIR WEST HAS, UH, PUT FORWARD WILL ALLOW US TO REDUCE THAT RATE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO, TO DO. UM, BUT I, I BELIEVE THIS IS A CAUSE AND EFFECT, UH, TYPE, UH, MOTION. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WOULD BE PULLING, UH, OVER $40 MILLION IN CUTS. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, UH, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE ITEM. UH, I DO THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES WITH CONSULTANT COSTS, TRAVEL AND EQUIPMENT, UH, TO MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL CUTS, BUT AT THIS TIME, UM, I AM NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US. THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR, PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. UH, JUST, I CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. MORENO JUST SAID. UH, PLEASE GUYS, DON'T SUPPORT THE 68 CENTS. THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET IS ALREADY PROPOSING CUTS, MORE CUTS THAN I THINK A LOT OF US ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, EVEN THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT THE CITY IS IN. UM, AND SO OBVIOUSLY IF YOU LOWER THE RATE, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE LOOKING FOR MORE CUTS, AND TYPICALLY THAT GOES, UH, IN THE DIRECTION OF CUTTING THE SERVICES THAT OUR RESIDENTS RELY ON. SO, VOTE NO. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES, 68 CENTS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I DON'T SUPPORT THIS EITHER. UH, THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET WAS CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO BALANCE FISCAL DISCIPLINE WITH GIVING US SOME FLEXIBILITY AS A COUNCIL. AND SO FOR US TO, TO CUT OUR KNEES OFF BY GOING DOWN EVEN LOWER, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY NOT KNOWING WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE AT THIS POINT, I THINK IS VERY DANGEROUS, UH, POLICY FOR US TO BE DOING A PEER. WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, WHAT CUTS WOULD, WOULD NEED TO OCCUR, BUT IF THIS COUNCIL CHOOSES TO MAKE THOSE CUTS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE CAN ALWAYS GO DOWN THE, WHAT THE 69 78 ORIGINAL MOTION WAS MEANT TO DO IS SET THE CEILING. WE CAN ALWAYS GO DOWN TO THE 68 IF COUNSEL CHOOSES. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. HE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU. UM, THE REASON I I THINK THIS IS A, A, A GOOD DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOLKS OF A $5.2 BILLION BUDGET WE HAD LAST YEAR. WE ARE NOW INCREASING IT TO $5.6 BILLION. THAT'S $400 MILLION. AND SO FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FIND $40 MILLION IN THIS KIND OF A BUDGET, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THAT KIND OF MONEY. NOW, THE, I, UM, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF STAFFS AND THE CITY MANAGERS ATTEMPT TO HELP US BALANCE A BUDGET. THEY FOUND $50 MILLION. THEY ALSO, TO THEIR CREDIT, LAST YEAR, SAVED $36 MILLION AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR SAVED 17 MILLION. THEY'VE SAVED $50 MILLION IN THEIR OPERATIONS TOO. SO I WOULDN'T, I'M NOT NERVOUS ABOUT RECEIVING LESS REVENUE BECAUSE IT FORCES US AS A BODY TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THIS PUBLIC'S MONEY. AND IF WE, AND, AND THIS IS A TRUE SAVINGS TO OUR RESIDENTS, UH, AND I, AND I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S THE DISCUSSION IS THE AMOUNT, AND MAYBE WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT THE THEORY, THE POLICY THAT THIS WOULD FORCE US TO DO IS LOOK AT OUR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. IT WOULD FORCE US TO LOOK AT OUR GIVEAWAYS. IT WOULD FORCE US TO LOOK AT OUR TAX ABATEMENTS. IT WOULD FORCE US TO LOOK AT CORE SERVICES, UH, THAT NEED TO BE MODIFIED. THIS FORCES US TO BE RESPONSIBLE. AND IT'S ONLY $40 MILLION. I KNOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ONLY, IT'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT IN A BUDGET OF $5.6 BILLION, IF WE CAN'T FIND $40 MILLION, UM, AND I, I'M, I'M SURPRISED. ANYWAY, I, I, I, I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. AND THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO AVOID CORE SERVICES. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO OUR, TO OUR CITIZENS. WHAT WE, OUR DUTY IS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND FORCE OURSELVES TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS. AND WE'VE GOT TO FIND SAVINGS, AND WE'VE GOTTA FIND OTHER REVENUE SOURCES, AND WE'VE GOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE ARE GIVING [02:10:01] AWAY. AND THIS FORCES US TO DO THAT ANYWAY. UH, THAT'S THE REASON THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO LOOK AT A REDUCTION IN THE TAX RATE, UH, AS A, AS A, UH, STRONG INCENTIVE FOR US TO BE MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GONNA TIGHTEN OUR BUDGET WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PRESSURE. THANK YOU. MAYOR, IF I MAY CLARIFY ONE POINT YES. IF, IF I, IF I MAY CLARIFY ONE POINT I, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. ABSOLUTELY. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. UH, THE TOTAL BUDGET IS OVER $5 BILLION. UH, THE GENERAL FUND PORTION IS ABOUT 2 BILLION, AND THAT'S WHERE ANY REDUCTION ON THE TAX RATE WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT FROM THE GENERAL FUND PORTION. YOU COULDN'T CUT IT FROM THE WATER UTILITY OR AVIATION OR SOME OTHER PART OF THE 5 BILLION. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT POINT. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. UM, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, FOR SOME VERY, VERY IMPORTANT COMMENTS. I HOPE THAT EVERYONE REALLY PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. JACK, DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORICAL, UM, INFORMATION FOR US WHEN THE CEILING HAS BEEN SET AT THIS MEETING, UM, IN PRIOR YEARS, LET'S SAY OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, HOW OFTEN DID WE END UP ADOPTING THE PUBLISHED RATE? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T BRING THAT. I I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. SO I'M JUST GONNA SAY, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IF THIS IS MY SEVENTH BUDGET LAST YEAR, WE DID NOT GO WITH THE PUBLISH RATE. IT WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER BECAUSE OF YOUR EFFORTS, MAYOR, BUT ALL THE OTHER YEARS, THE PUBLISH RATE WAS THE LIMIT. WOULD YOU SAY IN GENERAL, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS? I WOULD WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK, UH, EVERY, EVERY YEAR WHEN THE RATE IS SET, UH, THEN WE GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND THERE'S SOME AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE IT, SOME AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE. SO I WOULD JUST REALLY WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK BEFORE I MADE A STATEMENT. I, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT ACTUALLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, THIS IS IMPORTANT TO DO. AND I, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL HEAR THE OUTCRY OF YOUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR TAX BILL. BUT ALSO, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT TALKS TO US ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS TAX RATE. EVERY SINGLE RENTER PART OF THEIR RENT IS RELATED TO THIS TAX RATE. OUR TAX RATE IS HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIUM OR LARGE CITY IN THE METROPLEX. WE ARE LOSING TO ALL THE OTHER CITIES. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A LARGE COMPANY LEAVING, WHETHER IT'S DOWNTOWN OR ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY, THAT TAX RATE IS PART OF THEIR CALCULUS. YES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CRIME. YES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMELESSNESS, BUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY CAN SAVE GOING FROM A CITY LIKE DALLAS WHERE OUR TAX RATE STARTS WITH A 69 CENTS TO ANOTHER CITY LIKE PLANO THAT STARTS WITH A 43 CENTS, IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. AND PEOPLE AND COMPANIES WILL MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THIS TAX RATE. SO WE HAVE TO DO THE THINGS THAT HELP US STAY COMPETITIVE. AND IT MIGHT MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE AN URBAN GARDEN PROGRAM, SORRY. THAT IS NOT OUR ROLE. THAT IS A NONPROFIT JOB. AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WE RIGHTLY IDENTIFY NEEDS IN THE CITY. IT'S VERY EASY TO SEE THEM, AND WE HEAR ABOUT THEM, AND WE SEE ALL THIS MONEY IN THE CITY, AND WE WANNA SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD, BUT WE CAN'T. WE NEED TO DO A GOOD JOB DOING THE THINGS THAT WE ARE IN CHARGE OF. WE NEED TO HAVE STRONG PUBLIC SAFETY. WE NEED OUR ROADS FIXED. WE HAVE THINGS THAT WE ARE IN CHARGE OF AND WE NEED TO DO THEM VERY, VERY WELL. AND WE NEED TO LET GO OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ANOTHER JURISDICTION'S JOB. AND THAT IS HOW WE CAN REDUCE OUR TAX RATE AND THE BUREAUCRACY THAT IS RIGHT HERE IN OUR CITY. SO I HOPE THAT WE WILL SEE SOME SUPPORT FOR COMMON SENSE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, 68 CENTS. THANK YOU. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT PLANO HAS 300,000 PEOPLE. WE HAVE A MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THAT. SO THIS IS NOT EXACTLY APPLES TO APPLES, BUT I, I DON'T SUPPORT GOING TO 68 CENTS. THAT'S, THAT'S DRASTIC. AND PEOPLE WOULD FEEL IT AND THEY WOULD NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT IT. UM, HAS THE CITY BUDGET GROWN? YES. UH, THE CITY DOES NOT PAY SHAMEFULLY LOW WAGES ANYMORE. COST OF LABOR AND MATERIALS HAVE INCREASED. THEY'VE SKYROCKETED. WE'VE GOT CONCRETE, WE, WE'VE GOT ASPHALT TO PAY FOR, BUT THAT'S TO DELIVER THE NUMBER ONE DESIRE OF OUR [02:15:01] RESIDENTS, WHICH IS INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, BELOVED SERVICES AND PROGRAMS. SOME WILL STAY, SOME WILL GO AND BE REHOMED. UH, GREAT JOB ON THAT CITY MANAGER. AND THEN SOME MAY GO. AND THAT'S PART OF RUNNING AN EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT. SO I'VE ACTUALLY HAD SOME D 13 RESIDENTS REACH OUT TO ME, SURPRISINGLY TO SAY, HOLD THE LINE. WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T GO ANY LOWER. AND, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS, I'M CONSIDERING TOO, BUT I I, THIS WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US AND THE WAY IT SHOULD BE DONE, BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME EXERCISES IN MY FIVE YEARS, AND I THINK THIS, THIS YEAR WE'VE REALLY GONE AT IT THE RIGHT WAY. YOU DIRECT YOUR CITY MANAGER WHAT YOU WANT. DO YOU WANT TO, TO LOWER THE TAX RATE? WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO US? WE SHARED PRIORITIES, AND THEN YOU BUILD THE BUDGET AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE DONE. AND SO YOU OFFERED A TAX RATE REDUCTION. IT'S SYMBOLIC. IT'S NOT A LOT, BUT I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT IT KEEPS US IN FOCUS. IT IS KEEPING US EFFICIENT AND IT BRINGS THE SCRUTINY THAT I KNOW THAT YOUR TEAMS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SINCE JANUARY. BUT THE CITY'S EFFECTIVENESS IS SOMETHING WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HEAR ABOUT FROM OUR RESIDENTS. SO THERE'S A DELICATE BALANCE HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK, THINK TAKING A DRASTIC MEASURE IS SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY OUR RESIDENTS WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH US ON. THANK YOU. MR. BASIL, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES, 68 CENTS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, CONCUR THAT I, I THINK THAT IT'S, IT IS HELPFUL TO HEAR WHAT OTHER, UH, CONSTITUENTS HAVE, UM, EXPRESSED IN THESE BUDGET TOWN HALLS. THAT'S WHY WE DO THEM. UM, AND I, UH, HAVE HEARD PRETTY OVERWHELMINGLY IN MY DISTRICT SO FAR THAT, UH, THEY APPRECIATE THE INTENT, UM, UH, OF, OF A, A TAX RATE CUT, BUT BASICALLY SAID, PLEASE USE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO RE TO KEEP SERVICES AT A LEVEL THAT WE NEED. UM, AND SO THEY, THEY, THE RESIDENTS ARE ALSO, UM, HAVING TO NAVIGATE THEIR OWN DELICATE BALANCE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT US TO JUST CUT, JUST TO CUT IF IT'S GONNA COME AT THE EXPENSE OF SERVICES THAT THEY EXPECT FROM US. THEY WANT THEIR STREETS REPAIRED, THEY WANT THEIR PARKS SERVICED. THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN OUR UNSHELTERED. THEY WANT TO SEE US ADHERE TO THE CCAP THAT WE'VE PASSED. THEY WANT TO SEE THEIR LIBRARIES. I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL FEEDBACK, DIRECT FEEDBACK THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM CONSTITUENTS IN, UH, THE DISTRICT. AND, UM, THERE WERE MULTIPLE CARDS AT LAST NIGHT'S BUDGET TOWN HALL OF QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT WERE WRITTEN DOWN THAT BASICALLY SAID, KEEP YOUR 0.01, UH, UH, SENT AND USE IT TO, UH, KEEP PROVIDING SERVICES. AND IT'S THE SAME SENTIMENT THAT I'VE HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS, UH, EXPRESSED DURING THIS BUDGET CYCLE. THEY DON'T WANT TO FEEL IT. THEY UNDERSTAND WE'RE IN DIRE, UH, UM, UH, POSITION, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO FEEL THAT, UM, WITH THE, THE RESOURCES AND THE SERVICES THAT THEY EXPECT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST, UH, THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRMAN MENDELSON TO GO DOWN TO 68 CENTS? ALRIGHT, I I, I DO WANNA WEIGH IN ON, ON THIS JUST BECAUSE I THINK, UM, IT'LL BE APPLICABLE TO, UM, ALL OF THE THREE RATES THAT ARE SORT OF BEFORE US AT THIS POINT. I THINK WE GOT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A, A CHOICE OF THREE RATES IN TERMS OF HOW WE WANT TO LIMIT OURSELVES. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, FIRST OF ALL, TO POINT TO REMIND OURSELVES WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. I, IT'S, A FEW PEOPLE HAVE HAVE RAISED IT AND SAID IT VERY ACCURATELY AND WELL. BUT I WANNA SAY IT AGAIN THAT TODAY FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THEIR SECOND BUDGET OR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE KIND OF NOT AS LONG IN THE TOOTH AS SOME OF US AROUND HERE, THIS IS THE DAY, UM, THAT WE SET THE CAP, NOT THE DAY WE SET THE RATE. BUT THAT'S STILL IMPORTANT 'CAUSE OF WHAT CHAIRMAN MENDELSON SAID BECAUSE UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK HIS, HISTORICALLY THE CAP HAS BEEN RELEVANT. YOU KNOW, IT HAS PLAYED INTO, UH, WHAT WE ULTIMATELY END UP WITH. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING TO KEEP IN, IN YOUR HEAD. SO THE QUESTION FOR ME, AND THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT IS, UM, WHAT IS OF THESE THREE RATES WE'RE ULTIMATELY GONNA BE CHOOSING FROM TODAY? I GUESS THERE COULD BE MORE PEOPLE COULD PROPOSE DIFFERENT ONES, BUT I DO THINK IT GETS DILATORY AT SOME POINT. WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP THROWING OUT. WELL, HOW ABOUT ZERO ZERO 1 CENTS MORE? HOW ABOUT ZERO ZERO 1 CENT LESS? WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE ON THE TABLE THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED RATE, THE VOTER APPROVED RATE AND A RATE THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN MENDELSSOHN HAS PROPOSED. UM, THE ONE THAT'S BEFORE TECHNICALLY IS [02:20:01] THE 68 CENT RATE. THAT'S CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN PROPOSED. I'LL, I'LL START WITH THAT AND SAY IN, IN, IN THEORY, I'M IN FAVOR OF PUSHING US TOWARD A, YOU KNOW, MORE DISCIPLINED APPROACH TO BUDGETING THAT WOULD BE AIDED BY HAVING A LOWER RATE. THAT MY PROBLEM THOUGH IS THAT THE 68 CENT RATE IS NOT AS THOUGHT THROUGH AS WHAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS PROPOSED. 'CAUSE SHE'S ACTUALLY PUT IN THE, THE WORK AND THIS RATE JUST SORT OF CAME OUT TODAY AND IT, GIVEN IT WOULD BECOME THE CEILING, WE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO, TO FIGURE THAT OUT. AND IT'S JUST NOT A GUARANTEE THAT WE, THAT WE WOULD FIGURE THAT OUT IN A WAY, GIVEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, THAT WE COULD LIVE WITH. AND SO IT'S JUST TOO RISKY FOR ME. IT'S JUST TOO RISKY TO, TO SAY THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO FIND 41 40, 40 1 MILLION IN CUTS WITHOUT HAVING HAD MORE THOUGHT PUT INTO THAT AHEAD OF TIME. IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S TOO BIG OF A GAMBLE EVEN FOR SOMEONE WHO REALLY WANTS TO CUT THE RATE LIKE I DO. SO, 68, TOO AGGRESSIVE FOR ME. UM, AND THAT LEAVES REALLY THE OTHER TWO RATES THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE IF THIS DOESN'T PASS. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I DO THINK THAT GOING UP TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS NOT THE MESSAGE I WANT TO SEND FOR COMPETITIVENESS PURPOSES. THAT WE WILL TAX THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS TO THE HIGHEST EXTENT WE CAN WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS. AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE NOT EVEN GONNA CONTEMPLATE GOING BACK TO THE VOTERS. 'CAUSE WE CAN'T, IS NOT EXACTLY I THINK THE MESSAGE WE WANNA SEND. ALTHOUGH EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW. AGAIN, THESE ARE, THESE ARE CAPS WE, WE CAN, WE CAN GO DOWN, CAN'T GO UP. SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, DISMISS THAT RATE TODAY, YOU CAN'T GO UP TO IT. I'M ACTUALLY OKAY WITH THAT. I JUST WANNA GO ON RECORD SAYING I'M OKAY WITH SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROCEED WITH THIS DEBATE. UM, WITH THE HIGHEST RATE WE COULD POSSIBLY GO TO WITHOUT STATE LAW IMPOSING A, AN ELECTION ON US, UM, FOR US TO DEBATE GOING FORWARD. I'M, I'M ACTUALLY OKAY WITH HAVING MORE FISCAL DISCIPLINE IMPOSED ON US AT THIS POINT THAN THAT RATE WOULD ALLOW. SO THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY CHAIRMAN WEST IN TERMS OF WHERE I'M PROBABLY GONNA COME OUT ON THIS. BUT AS FAR AS 68 CENTS, WHICH IS WHAT IS BEFORE US, I THINK IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S PUTTING TOO MUCH RISK INTO THIS EQUATION FOR ME IN TERMS OF HOW WE WOULD GET DOWN 41 MILLION MORE DOLLARS. SO I, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON'S, UM, RATE, ALTHOUGH I COMMEND AND APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT IDEA. SO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU. UM, MAYOR, YOU MADE A COUPLE POINTS. UM, THE FIRST POINT I'LL SAY IS THAT HAVING STUDIED THE BUDGET, I DO THINK WE COULD CUT WAY MORE THAN 41 MILLION AND WE SHOULD. UM, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, JACK, CAN YOU SHARE WITH US WHAT IS, UM, THE INCREASE IN THE, UM, PROPERTY TAX THAT WOULD BE PAID FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S, WELL, I'M NOT, I'M GONNA SAY THIS WRONG, SO I'M RUNNING OUTTA TIME. IT'S FINE. I'LL, I'LL STOP. WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE CAN'T, I'M DEFINITELY NOT SAYING THAT WE CAN'T FIND 40 MILLION. I'M SAYING TO VOTE FOR THAT RATE OF SIX 8 CENTS TODAY WOULD COMPEL US TO DO IT AS OPPOSED TO ALLOWING IT, IT'S STILL ON THE TABLE. IT, IT, WE WE COULD DO IT. MAYOR THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE COMPELLED. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE, I UNDERSTAND ON MY TIME, I'M, I'M GONNA SAY THAT I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING IT BE ON THE TABLE AS A POSSIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT BE COMPELLED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. I CAN'T STAND BEHIND SAYING THAT. I KNOW HOW WE WOULD GET DOWN 40 MILLION IN A AND AND THAT BE DONE IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. I THINK IT CAN BE DONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD COME UP WITH. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT MY UNILATERAL DECISION. IT'S NOT HER UNILATERAL DECISION. IT'S NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL'S UNILATERAL DECISION. IT WOULD BE WHATEVER THIS COLLECTIVE COULD COME UP WITH. AND THAT'S JUST A LOT OF RISK. SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, FOR YOU, MY POSITION IS THAT I DO THINK THERE'S $41 MILLION OF SAVINGS IN THERE. HOW I WOULD GET THERE VERSUS HOW SHE WOULD GET THERE VERSUS HOW THIS COLLECTIVE WOULD GET, THERE ARE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME TOGETHER BY SEPTEMBER 16TH AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND IT'S JUST TOO RISKY FOR ME. SO, UM, ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE 68 CENTS BEFORE WE, UH, HAVE THAT RECORD VOTE? MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. 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 GRACIE? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER KANA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL [02:25:01] MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PROAM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PRO. TIM RESENDEZ? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. WITH TWO VOTING IN FAVOR. 13. OPPOSED? THE MOTION FAILS MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, WE'RE KIND OF JUST PICKING RATES AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'RE TECHNICALLY BACK TO THE BASIL DU AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS FOUR POINT 70.6325. AND I HAD THAT, UM, DISTRICT SEVEN AND DISTRICT 12 HAD SPOKEN ON IT ALREADY. MS. BLACKMAN YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON 70.6325. THE BASIL DUO ONE. YES. THANK YOU. UM, AND I DO WANNA THANK STAFF FOR ATTENDING ALL OF OUR TOWN HALLS. I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN PUT IN A LONG DAY AND THEN, UH, YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, COME FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I'M HAVE, I'M GLAD I'VE HEARD, UM, VARIOUS SCENARIOS FROM DIFFERENT DISTRICTS ACROSS THE CITY. SO ON THE 70 CENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT GIVES US $10 MILLION AS INCREMENT THAT'S CORRECT. ON THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE SIDE. AND CAN WE DO ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT'S OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE? THAT IS CORRECT. INCLUDING PUT IT IN A SAVINGS FOR FUTURE USE. THAT IS CORRECT. BECAUSE JACK, TELL US HOW MANY, WHAT IS OUR PENSION PAYMENT GOING FORWARD IN? 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A BIG ONE THAT COMES UP IN YEAR FIVE. JEANETTE'S PULLING IT UP. SO I'M GONNA LET HER WALK THROUGH. I FIGURED YOU'D HAVE IT TATTOOED SOMEWHERE. , I THINK I HAVE IT. I HAVE IT TO MEMORY. OH, YOU HAD IT TATTOOED . SO THE UNIFORM PENSION, UM, AND THE CIVILIAN PENSION COMBINED GOING INTO 2027. I THINK IT'S NORTH OF 400 MILLION FOR THE TWO TOGETHER GOING INTO IN THIS, IN THIS BUDGET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE KNOW, UM, THE AMOUNTS THAT THOSE STEP UP TO IN THE YEARS AFTERWARDS. BUT IN 2027, THE TWO TOGETHER IS ABOUT 400 MILLION. I WANNA SAY IT'S LIKE 404 MILLION. THAT IS CORRECT. THE COMBINED AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 27 IS 404.4 MILLION. AND THEN FOR FISCAL YEAR 28 IS 436.2 MILLION. SO DOES IT GO UP ABOUT 20 MILLION EACH YEAR? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S ON BOTH SIDES? THAT'S ON THE UNIFORM SIDE AND THE CIVIL, WELL THAT'S TO COVER BOTH SIDES. IT'S NOT ON EACH SIDE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT WHAT THE DELTA IS BETWEEN EACH YEAR AND IT'S ABOUT 30 MILLION. RIGHT. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, UM, POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM IS ABOUT 20 MILLION. AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE, UH, EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND IS ABOUT 10 MILLION. SO 30, THE DELTA'S 30 FOR EACH YEAR. AND THAT IS MY CONCERN. I'M TERMED OUT. BUT THOSE THAT ARE GONNA BE HERE, THE FRESHMEN, IT'S GONNA ONLY GET MORE AND MORE TIGHT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS NOT TO GO INTO CREATING MORE PROJECTS OR FUNDING, BUT TO ACTUALLY PUT AWAY, TO BE USED FOR THOSE YEARS WHEN WE'RE GONNA NEED IT IN YEAR THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE. 'CAUSE IT GETS, IT STARTS ACCUMULATING PRETTY FAST. AND YOU KNOW, LOOKING BACK ON IT, WHEN WE FIRST CAME ON, THERE WERE A THREE, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE CUT IT PRETTY DEEP 'CAUSE WE COULD, AND LOOKING BACK AT NOW WITH THIS PAYMENT THAT IS GONNA COME IN, SOME PEOPLE DID SAY WE SHOULD STASH IT AWAY, WE SHOULD STASH IT AWAY. AND WE DIDN'T. AND I'M AFRAID THOUGH THAT, THAT IN YEAR THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE IS WHEN THOSE DEEP CUTS AND YOU MAY HAVE TO CUT $41 MILLION IN ORDER TO GET THAT PAYMENT DONE. AND SO THIS IS ONLY, AND AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS ONLY TO ADVERTISE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S WHAT WE TAKE IT, UH, WHEN WE ACTUALLY VOTE CORRECT. TODAY IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT, UM, THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON, ADVERTISE AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 16TH. AND, UM, SO I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT AND, AND I WOULD ONLY SUPPORT THE MONEY GOING TO A A, A FUND THAT WE USE FOR FUTURE PENSION PAYMENTS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S, UH, IT'S GONNA BE REALLY TIGHT. IT UM, I DON'T WANNA SEE THAT HAPPEN TO OTHER COUNCILS AND GOING TO THE BARE BONES, UH, TO MAKE SURE A BALANCED BUDGET IS PUT FORTH. SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON 70.6325 BY MR. BASIL DUA. THANK YOU. GOD, ALL THOSE NUMBERS. UM, OKAY, BACK ON THE PENSION REAL QUICK. WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING UP 20 MILLION PER YEAR [02:30:01] FOR THE UNIFORM PENSION. HOWEVER WE'RE GOING UP, WE, WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO GO UP MORE THAN THAT ONCE WE GET TO THE END OF OUR FIVE YEAR STEP UP. AND WHAT YEAR IS THAT? 2031. 2031. AND THAT'S A NUMBER. UM, I KNOW WE'VE PUT SOME PARAMETERS AROUND HOW IT WILL BE DETERMINED, BUT IT IS NOT YET DETERMINED. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. THERE'S PROJECTIONS, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE WILL BE, UM, THE ACTUARIAL DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE WILL GO INTO EFFECT THEN. UH, RIGHT. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES THAT WILL CALCULATE THAT NUMBER. DO YOU MIND SHARING WHAT THE PROJECTION IS OR DO YOU HAVE THAT HANDY? SORRY, I JUST MIGHT AS WELL. OH, THAT'S TATTOOED . THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT COUNCIL ONE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. WE JUST GET AN IDEA OF HOW, WHAT THE JUMP IS. YES. WE HAVE A FULL SCHEDULE THAT SHOWS IT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT HERE IN FRONT OF US. UM, BUT DEFINITELY CAN PROVIDE THAT TO COUNCIL. I KNOW THAT NEXT WEEK WE ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO TALK MORE BUDGET TOMORROW, MORE BUDGET. BUT WE DO HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT SHOWS IT. OKAY. I JUST REALLY WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT IS POTENTIALLY QUITE A JUMP. IT'S NOT JUST THE 20 MILLION, UM, JUMP THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING. IT COULD, IT COULD BE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THAT OR NOT. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE GOT A ROUGH YEAR, UM, AROUND 29, 20, 30. AND THEN I THINK IT STARTS TO LEVEL OFF BEYOND THAT. IT WAS REALLY THE RAMP UP, WHICH IS KIND OF WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE STARTED THE NEGOTIATIONS ON PENSION, IS THAT WE KNEW THAT WE NEEDED TIME TO GET TO, UM, A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY BEING MORE EFFICIENT. HOW DO WE LOOK AT OUR STAFFING? WHAT ARE THE SERVICE MODELS THAT WE NEED TO BE SHIFTING TO VERSUS THE WAY WE'VE OPERATED IN THE PAST TO GIVE US TIME. AND, AND I CALL THAT KINDA RECASTING THE ORGANIZATION. AND SO WE'RE DOING THAT WORK NOW. SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT, I WOULD SAY THOSE PINCH YEARS THAT WE'VE DONE THE WORK ALREADY AND WE'RE NOT WAITING TO GET THERE. AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. RIGHT. SO IT'S A PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING NOW. AND, AND MY ONLY POINT IN THIS IS THAT, UM, WE NEED TO BE PUTTING DOLLARS ASIDE FOR THAT PAYMENT. UM, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH, UM, ALONG THE WAY, WHETHER WE'RE SELLING PROPERTY, WHETHER WE, WE DECIDE TO PUT MONEY IN A SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND EARMARK IT, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED SO THAT IT WOULD GO FOR THE PENSION. WE COULDN'T CHANGE OUR MIND. 'CAUSE SOMETIMES WE DO CHANGE OUR MIND. UM, BUT ANYWAY, I I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT POINT. UM, WE ARE, WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR ALL, YOU KNOW, FOR OTHER SOURCES POTENTIALLY TO, UM, TO HELP WITH THAT PAYMENT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. SO, UM, MY NEXT QUESTION IS JUST FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. THE CAP ON OUR INCREASE, UM, THE CAP ON OUR INCREASE, I BELIEVE IS 3.5%. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND, AND THAT TIES TO THE 70.6325. GO AHEAD. SO THAT RATE GIVES US AN INCREASE OF 3.5%, WHICH IS THE, THE CAP THAT THE STATE HAS PUT ON OUR, THE INCREASE IN OUR GENERAL FUND. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. UM, THANK YOU MR. MAYOR CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, I'M SORRY, SO LONG. THE KEY LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN RESET, BUT TECHNICALLY I HAVE 7, 12, 9 AND 10 AS HAVING ALREADY SPOKEN ON THIS. SO I'M GONNA GO TO MR. ROTH FOR FIVE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU. UM, I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO GOING TO THE, UH, 70.63 CENTS, UH, LEVEL. I THINK IT SENDS THE ABSOLUTE WRONG MESSAGE TO OUR CITIZENRY, UH, THAT, UH, UH, WHO, THAT WE ARE INCREASING TAXES THAT THEY'RE BEARING THE BURDEN ON. UH, AND THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THEIR, THEIR COSTS. WE'RE ALREADY, THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING $50 MILLION IN EXTRA, UH, REAL ESTATE TAXES BECAUSE OF THE CES VALUE IMPROVEMENTS INCREASES. AND THIS IS ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF ADDITIONAL COST TO OUR FOLKS, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, UM, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY OF GAINING THE PUBLIC'S TRUST. IF, AND AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S TRUST. AND I THINK THAT IT'S UP TO US TO FORCE OURSELVES AS A BODY TO MAKE THAT EFFORT AND PROVE TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. AND THAT MEANS PUTTING LIMITS ON OURSELVES, FORCING US TO DO HARD DECISIONS AND WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF, OF, UH, OF, OF WHAT WE CAN AFFORD TO DO. AND THIS SENDS AN ABSOLUTE WRONG, WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC. IT ALSO, UH, SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT WE'RE SHIRKING OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND PUSHING THE BURDEN [02:35:01] ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE. AND I THINK WE OWE IT TO EVERYBODY, UH, IN OUR CONSTITUENCY TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE GONNA TAKE HARD DECISIONS. WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS HAPPEN. WE'RE GONNA FIND THE, THE MONEY THAT WE NEED TO FIND WITHOUT HAVING TO, UH, REDUCE OUR CORE SERVICES. CORE SERVICES ARE VERY, IS THE, IS THE REAL, UH, WORD. WE'VE GOT TO GET TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR BUSINESS, WHAT DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE? AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF RESOURCES, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ASSETS, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF OF MONEY THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US IN OTHER AREAS. AND ABSOLUTELY RAISING A TAX RATE SO THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PLAY WITH MONEY AND TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAT WE SHOULDN'T, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYWAY, IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO OUR PARTNERS, TO OUR CONSTITUENTS, TO OUR, UH, TO, TO OUR NEIGHBORING, UH, UH, TO OUR, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, INCLUDE AND BRING INTO THIS CITY. SO I, I WOULD, UH, STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, UH, TURN DOWN THIS MOTION. CHAIRMAN, GRACIE, YOU RE US FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, LET'S BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. UH, BUT I THINK, UH, MY COLLEAGUES BROUGHT SOME COMPELLING ARGUMENTS, UH, SOME COMPELLING POINTS IN TERMS OF WHY I COULD BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF, OF THIS, UH, 70.6 3, 2 5, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS, IF WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK SPECIFICALLY FOR PENSION, I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, I THINK THESE ARE RIGHT NOW DECISIONS THAT CAN BE MADE THAT CAN PREVENT, UH, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW'S CATASTROPHE, UH, FROM THERE. SO I, I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF DOING THAT SO I CAN SUPPORT IT FOR THAT REASON. AND THEN AS WE TALK ABOUT THOSE CORE SERVICES, I JUST, OUR CORE SERVICES ARE TAKING A HIT TOO, UH, THROUGH THIS BUDGET. THEY CONTINUE TO TAKE A HIT. I MEAN, ALL OF THEM. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT OUT OF ANY RESORT WE'RE MAKING DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE. BUT AGAIN, I WANNA REMIND THAT PUBLIC SAFETY TOOK UP A LOT OF THIS, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR CORE SERVICES, BUT SOME OF THOSE OTHER CORE SERVICES ARE TAKING HITS AS A RESULT OF THIS. SO I CAN APPRECIATE, UM, THIS IDEA OF LOWERING THE TAXES AND ALL OF THAT, BUT WHEN WE ALSO SAY, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE ARE HAVING TO PAY FROM ALL OF THE FEES THAT HAVE BEEN INCREASED AND ALL OF THIS, THERE'S NOT BEEN A REAL IMPACT. SO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US, THIS, YOU KNOW, GOING, UH, YOU KNOW, DOWN IS NOT GONNA HAVE THE SAME IMPACT THAT WE THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE ON A RESIDENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING UP ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT JUST WHAT WE ARE IN CONTROL OF, BUT ACROSS THE BOARD, THESE THINGS ARE INCREASING. SO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THIS AND BE RESPONSIBLE AND PUTTING US IN POSITION SO THAT FUTURE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE TO MAKE, HAVE SUCH A, AS BIG OF AN IMPACT, THEN I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN GET BEHIND AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING. AGAIN, I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, SINCE 2016, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE COMPROMISES I THINK CAN HELP US POSITION THE CITY. UH, AND SOME OF US WHO WILL STILL BE HERE, UH, UH, POSITION US TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT. SO I COULD SUPPORT THIS CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE, UH, INCREASE IN THE RATE BEFORE US RIGHT NOW. UH, I THINK IT'S WORTHY TO SAY WE'RE GONNA EARMARK DOLLARS TOWARDS SAVINGS AND THE PENSION. UH, BUT JACK, IS THERE ANY GUARDRAILS OR ANY LIMITATIONS THAT WE COULD TAKE TODAY SAYING ANY ADDITIONAL DOLLARS OVER THE CURRENT PROPOSED BUDGET MUST GO TO PENSION OBLIGATION OR MUST GO TO SAVINGS? OR IS THAT JUST THE WILL OF THE BODY ON HOW WE VOTE ON WHERE THOSE DOLLARS GO TO? IT WOULD BE THE WILL OF THE BODY, HOWEVER YOU DIRECT IT. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THOSE PROTECTIONS ON, UH, YOU'RE MARKING THOSE DOLLARS TOWARDS SAVINGS OR PENSION, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. UH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REEMPHASIZE, UH, THAT SETTING THE CEILING TODAY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ADOPTING THE TAX RATE. UH, WE'LL HAVE THE DEBATE AND MAKE THAT DECISION LATER. AT THIS STAGE, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD PRESERVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. WE HAVE NOT YET CONSIDERED ALL ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY BRING FORWARD, AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO CONSTRAIN THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE WE'VE EVEN HAD THEM. UH, I ALSO APPROACH THIS ISSUE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DISTRICT. I REPRESENT. SOUTHERN DALLAS HAS SIGNIFICANT NEEDS, AND MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS DEPEND HEAVILY ON BASIC CITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT. MY RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT SIMPLY TO PURSUE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE RATE, IT'S TO WEIGH THE BURDEN OF TAXATION AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES [02:40:01] OF UNDERINVESTING IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF OUR TAX BASE. A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX BASE IS CONCENTRATED IN AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PROPERTY VALUES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD BE INDIFFERENT TO THE BURDEN OF PROPERTY TAXES, PARTICULARLY FOR HOMEOWNERS ON FIXED OR MODERATE INCOMES. WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD CONSIDER AFFORDABILITY, BUT I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY TREAT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE TAX RATE AS THE BEST OR ONLY MEASURE OF RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING. RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING ALSO MEANS ADEQUATELY FUNDING PUBLIC SAFETY, STREETS, PARKS, LIBRARIES, ARTS, HOUSING, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, AND MAKING THE INVESTMENTS OUR RESIDENTS EXPECT FROM THEIR CITY GOVERNMENT. IF WE HAD SET THE CEILING TOO LOW TODAY, AS MS. MENDELSSOHN PROPOSED IN THE MOTION WE JUST VOTED DOWN, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENTS LATER IF WE SET THE CAP HIGHER. AS THIS MOTION PROPOSES, WE RETAIN THE ABILITY TO ULTIMATELY ADOPT A LOWER RATE. PRESERVING AN OPTION DOES NOT COMMIT US TO EXERCISING IT. I'D RATHER ESTABLISH A CEILING THAT GIVES THIS COUNCIL ROOM TO CONSIDER ANY PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND THEN DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TAX RATE ONCE WE KNOW WHAT BUDGET WE ACTUALLY WANT TO FUND. PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS MOTION. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS, UH, AMENDMENT EITHER. I'M GONNA STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE. I THINK WE'VE GOTTA SEND A, I DON'T WANNA SEND A MESSAGE TO THE TAXPAYERS THAT WE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, GONNA GO UP TO THE, THE HIGHEST RATE POSSIBLE ALLOWED BY LAW. UM, WE ARE, IN TERMS OF MAJOR CITIES IN TEXAS, UH, RIGHT NOW, UH, WE'RE AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF ANYONE AT 69.88 CENTS, UM, FOLLOWED BY FORT WORTH, WHO IS LOOKING AT RAISING THEIR TAX RATE. UM, AND THEN SAN ANTONIO'S ALL THE WAY DOWN AT 54.16 CENTS. AND AUSTIN AT 52.40 CENTS. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT'S, AS I SAID EARLIER, THIS IS A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN, UM, HAVING THE FUNDS IN OUR BUDGET TO PAY FOR SERVICES, WHICH WE'RE DOING, BUT IT'S, IT'S TIGHT THANKS TO THE CITY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, MAKING THE CUTS NECESSARY TO BRING US A BALANCED BUDGET, UM, AND ALSO PROTECTING OUR TAXPAYERS AND OUR HOMEOWNERS AND NOT SENDING A MESSAGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERY PENNY FROM 'EM WE CAN ALLOWED BY LAW. SO FOR ME, I'M GONNA STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BEAR WITH ME. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE ARE, I'M ON THE, EVERYONE'S ON A THREE MINUTE. I THINK WE ARE. OKAY. SO CHAIRWOMAN MIDDLESTON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, JACK. WHAT, UM, WITH THIS PROPOSED VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE INCREASED OVER THIS CURRENT YEAR? SO WE'VE, I THINK YOU'RE MEANING IN ADDITION TO THE 51 OR SO THAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, THAT WAS AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY, UH, TAX REVENUE. THIS IS ANOTHER 10. SO $61 MILLION. SO $61 MILLION, ROUGHLY. ROUGHLY. OKAY. $61 MILLION TAX INCREASE FOR OUR VOTERS FOLKS. OKAY. UM, I'LL JUST SAY THAT IF WE DO HAVE DOLLARS WE'RE SETTING ASIDE FOR THE PENSION, I HOPE WE DON'T HOLD ONTO THEM. I HOPE WE SEND IT TO THEM IMMEDIATELY TO HELP, UM, REDUCE OUR UNFUNDED LIABILITY. AND WHAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS THAT WE NEED TO SELL, AND THOSE DOLLARS NEED TO GO TO THAT PENSION ISSUE. UM, TRYING TO SET THE MAXIMUM RATE. OH, I JUST CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHO VOTES FOR THAT. I JUST CAN'T WAIT. IT'S GONNA BE REALLY INTERESTING. UM, THE COMBINATION OF A SUPER HIGH TAX RATE, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITH ALL THE ABATEMENTS THAT THIS COUNCIL PASSES OVER AND OVER IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS DESTABILIZING OUR BUDGET. IT IS PUTTING OUR TRAJECTORY IN A FISCAL CRISIS. AND I HAVE SAID THIS FOR YEARS, WE CONTINUE TO DO IT. LET'S GIVE MORE ABATEMENTS SO WE DON'T HAVE REVENUE, AND THEN LET'S RAISE TAXES ON THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY PAY. DO YOU NOT SEE THAT? THIS DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. SO, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE A COURSE IN BUDGETING FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD EVER APPROVE THIS MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. BASIL DOULA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, SO CAN, CAN YOU, UM, SAY WHAT THE INCREASE IS ON THE, UM, PROPOSED THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR VERSUS THAT IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET? [02:45:01] UM, SAME QUESTION MS. MENDELSON ASKED YOU, BUT WITH THE CHANGE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THIS MOTION, NOT FROM THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. SORRY, MY COMPUTER SHUT DOWN AND I WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK UP. NO WORRIES. DO YOU HAVE THAT MAYOR? I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A RECORD VOTE PLEASE. I THINK, I FEEL LIKE THAT HAD BEEN DONE ALREADY, BUT YES, OF COURSE. COUNCILMAN BEDU. WILL YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, 'CAUSE I THINK I HAVE THE ANSWER WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IT. I THINK I KNOW QUESTION. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. JUST, UM, I, IT WAS WANTING THE SAME, UH, WHAT THIS WOULD INCREASE, BUT BASED ON THE FISCAL, THE, THE WHAT'S PROPOSED INSTEAD OF WHAT MS. MENDELSON ASKED FROM THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. OKAY. SO COUNCIL MEMBER, THE CURRENT TAX RATE, UH, AS RECOMMENDED WAS 69.78 CENTS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THIS INCREASES THE TAX RATE TO 70.63 CENTS, WHICH GENERATES AN ADDITIONAL $10.4 MILLION OF REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL FUND. IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING? I HAVE 9.9. WHAT WAS THE NUMBER YOU JUST GAVE JACK? 10. 10.4. YOU GOT 10.4? YES. DO YOU MIND GIVING US JUST A MINUTE TO CONFER MM-HMM . AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. IT'S, IT'S 9.9. IT'S 9.9. I APOLOGIZE, SIR. THAT'S OKAY. I JACK, I FELT LIKE I KNEW IT'S SO, SO I WANT Y'ALL TO WRITE THAT DOWN. YOU STAY AT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS THIS MORNING. CITY MORNING MANAGER KNEW THE ASSET. . I'M SORRY. THAT WAS GOOD. UM, I, UM, LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT 'CAUSE THAT WAS FUNNY. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I, I WILL SAY, UM, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. UH, ONE, THE, THERE, THERE THERE'S THIS NOTION THAT WE'RE SENDING A MESSAGE THAT WE'RE GOING UP. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN, UH, THAT, UH, WHAT MR. REDA SAYS IS THAT WE ARE SETTING A CEILING. UM, HOWEVER, UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEEN KIND OF FRAMED AS IF WE WOULD BE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE TAXPAYERS BY GOING UP, WHERE DID THIS CAP COME FROM? WHERE DID THIS 3.5% COME FROM? IT'S STATE MANDATED. WHEN WAS THAT EMPLOYED? I WANNA SAY 2019. SO IT'S THE SB TWO, THE 2019 TAX TRANSPARENCY REFORM ACT. ANY, ANY IDEA OF WHERE WE STOOD, UH, ON THAT LEGISLATION AS A A CITY? WE WERE OPPOSED TO IT. WE WERE OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN LOCAL CONTROL, CORRECT? SURE. OKAY. SO IF WE TAKE THAT STANCE DOWN AT THE LEGISLATURE, NOW THAT IT'S IMPOSED TO STAND HERE AT, AT THE HORSESHOE AND SAY THAT WE WANT TO, TO, UH, UM, GLAMORIZE THIS ARBITRARY NUMBER THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS IMPOSED ON US, UH, THE TAKING AWAY AND LIMITING OUR LOCAL CONTROL IS JUST ABSURD. UH, IT'S, IT'S ABSOLUTELY ABSURD. UH, LEAVING $10 MILLION ON THE TABLE, YOU KNOW, TO SAY THAT YOU SUPPORT THE NOTION OF USING THAT $10 MILLION FOR POLICE AND FIRE PENSION, BUT YOU'RE GONNA VOTE AGAINST THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN HAVE THE DEBATE TRULY SAYS YOU DO NOT SUPPORT PUTTING THAT MONEY ASIDE FOR POLICE AND FIRE PENSION. LET'S JUST BE HONEST. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING A CEILING AND ALLOWING FOR US TO HAVE A DEBATE AND A DISCUSSION. I'M TELLING YOU NOW AS THE, UH, UM, UH, MAKER OF THE MOTION THAT MY INTENT IS NOT TO USE THIS $10 MILLION AS A SLUSH FUND FOR BIKE LANES OR FOR PROJECTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IN FACT, I THINK THAT THAT MINDSET OF THIS COUNCIL IS WHAT HAS GOT US INTO SUCH TIGHT POSITION. UH, I'M ASKING FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DEBATE WITH, UH, POTENTIAL. IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION. I THINK IT WAS ARTICULATED VERY WELL FROM MR. GRACIE THAT THIS MONEY WOULD NOT EVEN, WE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO CONSIDER IT IF IT WASN'T HERE ALREADY, NOT ALLOCATED. THIS IS NOT FOR OTHER PROJECTS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AT THE EXPENSE OF FINDING A FUNDING SOURCE THAT WOULD CUT AWAY FROM WHAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS, UH, PROPOSED. THIS IS MONEY THAT, UH, WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US IF WE AS A BODY DECIDE TO TAKE ACTION DURING THIS BUDGET PROCESS AND MAKE A DECISION TO EARMARK THIS SPECIFICALLY FOR SAVINGS SO THAT WE CAN LIGHTEN THE BURDEN, UM, UH, GOING FORWARD ON THE PENSION. THAT'S TRULY WHAT THIS IS. AND WE HAVE NOT YET TAKEN PRUDENT POSITIONS LIKE THAT. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE HONEST DISCUSSION, HONEST DEBATE, AND TO FRAME IT FOR WHAT IT IS. WE ARE EITHER GOING TO SUPPORT THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO TO HELP US BE IN A BETTER POSITION WITH OUR PENSION OR IT'S NOT. UH, SO FOR THAT, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE AND I WILL SUPPORT, UH, THIS, THIS MOTION. THANK YOU DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE [02:50:01] MINUTES. THANK YOU. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, FOR THE 76 3 2 5 TAX PROPOSED, I BELIEVE WE'RE SAYING THE AMOUNT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CITY WILL COLLECT THIS 10 MILLION OR IS A LITTLE OVER 10 MILLION. YES, IT'S 9.9 IF THE RATE CHANGES TO WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR. SO I I'M I'M ASKING THIS BECAUSE I HAVE PEOPLE REALLY LISTENING, OR ARE WE, ARE WE VOTING TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE OR WE VOTING TO THE CEILING TO CAP THE, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE VOTING? WHAT IS THIS VOTE CONSIDERING YOU, YOU'RE SETTING THE MAXIMUM. I I CAN'T HEAR YOU, JACK. I'M SORRY. NO, UH, YOU'RE SETTING THE MAXIMUM THAT YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT ON SEPTEMBER THE 16TH. YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SETTING THE TAX RATE TODAY, YOU'RE JUST SETTING A CEILING. IF THIS IS THE TAX RATE THAT YOU ULTIMATELY ADOPT, IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OVER THE CURRENT YEAR'S TAX RATE AND IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OVER, UM, UH, THE PROPOSED RATES. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE RESIDENTS, UH, PARTICULARLY IN SOUTHERN DALLAS, THAT WHERE I READ, UH, WHERE I SERVE. SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THEM? AND THEN ALSO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE BUDGET, THE BALANCED BUDGET? SO SETTING A HIGHER TAX RATE GENERATES ADDITIONAL REVENUE. IN THIS CASE IT'S ABOUT $10 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED INTO THE BUDGET AS AN EXPENSE. SO, UM, AND THEN A TAX RATE INCREASE, UM, WOULD HAVE A, A PROBABLY A MINOR IMPACT ON THE RESIDENT TAX BILL. UH, JEANETTE, ARE YOU ABLE TO GO AHEAD. THE INCREASE IS $25 AND 49 CENTS. SO ALTHOUGH BE VOTERS WOULD PLAY A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, FOR CITY PROPERTY TAXES, HOW, HOW WOULD THAT, HOW WOULD THE, THAT AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES? WILL THAT ACTUALLY GROW UP? UH, DOESN'T CHANGE THE VALUES. THE VALUES ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. AND SO, UM, IN SOME CASES EVERYONE'S SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. THE ACTUAL MEDIAN VALUE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS WENT DOWN THIS YEAR. BUT IT'S DEPENDING UPON YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL SITUATION, UM, MANY OF US PROBABLY EXPERIENCE GROWTH IN OUR VALUES. GROWTH IN YOUR VALUE WILL RESULT IN A HIGHER TAX BILL, INCREASING THE TAX RATE WILL INCREASE, WILL RESULT IN A HIGHER TAX BILL. SO SOMEONE THAT'S LISTENING, LIKE RIGHT NOW THAT'S STRUGGLING WITH THIS CONVERSATION AND THEY'RE ASKING, IF WE GO IN THIS DIRECTION, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THEM IN, IN THE MOST SIMPLEST TERMS? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE ANSWER BE? SO IF YOU END UP ADOPTING THE TAX RATE THAT WE'RE SETTING, POTENTIALLY SETTING THE CEILING AT 70.6325, AND YOU HAVE A MEDIAN VALUE HOME, YOUR TAX BILL INCREASE WOULD BE $25 A YEAR, A YEAR. MR. MAYOR, CAN I JUMP IN FOR JUST A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR. THE TAX BILL IS NOT JUST THE CITY OF DALLAS. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE CITY COMPONENT, THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THEIR RATES, THAT ALSO IMPACTS THE TAX BILL. BUT I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT INCREASE IS, THAT'S ON THE CITY'S PORTION, NOT THE OVERALL PARTICULAR OF ANSWERS. LIKE, LIKE IZED, ET CETERA. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. EXACTLY, YES. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF THIS, IF WE VOTE TODAY FOR THE CEILING TO RAISE THE CEILING, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE DEFINITELY A DEBATE, BUT ALSO A POSSIBILITY THAT IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON TO HIT THAT MAX. AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT THOSE, THAT $10 MILLION WOULD GO TOWARD. UH, I HEARD MY COLLEAGUES SAYING POLICE PENSION AND ET CETERA, UH, AND I DEFINITELY SUPPORT, UH, A POLICE AND FIRE. BUT IS, IS THAT PRETTY MUCH HOW THAT WOULD BE OR WHATEVER THIS COUNCIL DECIDES TO DO? YES, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION ON IF THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE THAT RESULTED IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE, THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO WITH THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE. AND MY LAST QUESTION, WHAT'S THE MEDIUM HOUSE PRICE THAT YOU GUYS USE TO GET A $25? SO THE MEDIAN VALUE IN DALLAS, UH, FOR 27 IS $373,805. 3 73 8 0 5 IS THE MEDIAN VALUE IN DALLAS. [02:55:02] THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, CHAIRWOMAN, CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. UM, I JUST KEEP MAKING NOTES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, , AND YOU KNOW, PART OF ME SEES A VERY THOUGHTFUL BUDGET IN FRONT OF US, A BUDGET THAT, UM, THE CITY MANAGER AND HER STAFF HAVE WORKED VERY HARD AT, UM, AT PUTTING TOGETHER AND MAKING VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS. AND I WANNA BE VERY RESPECTFUL OF THAT. UM, AND YET, AND I ALSO SEE THAT THE PERCEPTION, I MEAN, IT'LL BE TRUE. IT'S IF WE ADOPT, IF WE END UP ADOPTING THE CAP, UM, THE BUDGET, THE RATE WILL, WILL GO UP AND, UM, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, I THINK, UH, COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED AGAINST US JUST BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN THE TAX RATE UP. SO, UM, WITH THE PERCEPTION THAT THE TAX RATE GOES UP AND THE WORK THAT THE, UM, CITY MANAGER HAS PUT INTO, UM, THIS BUDGET, I'M LEANING TOWARDS, UM, VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION. BUT IT IS ALSO HARD BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE, UM, THOSE DOLLARS FOR THE PENSION OR PROBABLY SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH. AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED. SO I'LL FLIP A COIN OVER HERE AND YOU'LL SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT , BUT THIS IS A TOUGH DECISION FOR ME. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MS. BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I HAVE LISTENED TO ALL OF THIS AND I DO LIKE, UH, CHAIR STEWART HAS JUST SAID, RESPECT THE WORK THAT CITY MANAGER HAS DONE AND PUTTING TOGETHER A THOUGHTFUL BUDGET. UM, THE MESSAGE THAT, BUT LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID, THE MESSAGE THAT IT MAY SEND TO THE RESIDENTS OF DALLAS IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO A PLACE OF TAXING THEM, OF TAXING THEM MORE. AND THERE THERE'S SO MANY THAT ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR TAX BURDENS AS IT IS NOW. I DO WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING, THAT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS MULTIPLE ENTITIES IN OUR TAX BILL. THERE'S, THERE'S PARKLAND AND, AND COUNTY AND, AND DISD COLLEGE. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF ENTITIES THAT GO INTO THE TAXES, NOT JUST THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND THE PORTION THAT IS OURS IS THE LOWEST OF ALL OF THE OTHER ENTITIES. SO WHEN YOU GET YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL AND YOU SEE THIS COST IT ALL, THAT MONEY IS NOT GOING TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT'S JUST A FRACTION OF IT. AND, AND, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A HARD TIME AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE HAVE, IF LIKE MOST, IF YOU HAVE MORE, YOU SPEND MORE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT THE, THE, THE WE'RE, WE HAVEN'T LEARNED QUITE YET HOW TO PUT MONEY ASIDE AND NOT SPEND WHAT WE HAVE. SO I'M, I'M STRUGGLING TO SAY YES TO THE SEVEN, THE THE 70.6 3, 2 5 AND JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. SO I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHERE I'M GOING, BUT WITH THIS, BUT I DO NEED TO UN, I NEED EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, MOST OF US ARE STRUGGLING WITH JUST HOW DO WE DO THIS? HOW DO WE PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE FOR OUR RESIDENT, YET HOW TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT AND RESPECTFUL OF THE FACT THAT IN THE TIMES THAT WE'RE IN, THINGS COST MORE SALARIES DON'T INCREASE AT THE RATE OF WHAT THE EXPENSES ARE AND HOW DO WE STILL MANAGE AND, AND BALANCE THIS BUDGET. SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA DO. WHEN YOU ASK MY NAME, I THEN I WILL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHAT I DO. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MS. CENA, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. THIS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT DECISION. ON THE ONE HAND, I JUST HAD MY BUDGET TOWN HALLS AND I HEARD RESIDENTS UPSET WITH SOME OF THE CUTS AND SERVICES. UM, AND I KNOW WE HAVE THESE PENSION, UH, OBLIGATIONS AS WELL. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE WEREN'T GOING TO THINK ABOUT MAYBE SETTING THIS MONEY ASIDE SO THAT OUR, OUR RESIDENTS ARE NOT, UM, AFFECTED IN THE FUTURE SOMEHOW, UM, IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH THE DISCUSSION TO SEE. UM, I'M KIND OF LIKE MY COLLEAGUES. [03:00:01] I'M LIKE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M GONNA DO RIGHT NOW. 'CAUSE IT IS A HARD DECISION. I KNOW, UM, IN SOME OF MY DISTRICT, UH, INCREASING THE TAX RATE IS, IS DIFFICULT. UM, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER ENTITIES ARE GONNA DO, OR SOME OF THEM HAVE RAISED THEIR RATE. AND SO HAVING A BIGGER TAX BILL DEFINITELY AFFECTS OUR RESIDENTS. UM, BUT, UM, WE'LL SEE WHAT I, I END UP VOTING OVER HERE, BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY WORTH A DISCUSSION. I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GRACIE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, AND I GUESS I'M, BECAUSE I GET IT RIGHT, IF, IF IF WE, WE, WE ADD THIS, YOU RUN SEVERAL RISKS. THERE'S THE RISK THAT OKAY, GIVES US A BUNCH OF, YOU KNOW, $10 MILLION. WE HAVE SHORT MEMORIES WHEN IT COMES TIME TO BUDGET DELIBERATIONS. NOW WE GONNA START TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE CAN PUT IT AND WHICH PROGRAMS WE CAN SAVE AND ALL OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU MAY HAVE IT, WE TALKING PUBLIC SAFETY. NOW YOU PROBABLY GOT POLICE AND FIRE SITTING THERE LISTENING LIKE, OOH, MAYBE I CAN GO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHAT PARAMETERS COULD, COULD I ATTACH TO, TO THIS, TO THIS VOTE? I DON'T THINK I CAN ADD ANY MORE MINUTES, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD OBLIGATE US AND COMMIT US TO DOING WHATEVER IT IS WE'RE SAYING? SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE SAYING WE WANT THIS TO GO TO PENSION. IS THERE A DOCUMENT OR SOMETHING THAT COULD COME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS THAT WOULD COMMIT US TO THIS SO THAT WE DON'T TURN AROUND AND AND FORGET ABOUT WHAT WE SAID BECAUSE THINGS START SOUNDING INTERESTING? THAT WAS A, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM, I THINK THAT WE HAVE, UM, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED OVER THE YEARS AND I, I THINK IT'S REALLY THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. UM, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, UM, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT RESTRICTING AND THEN IF IT'S NEEDED AND IT'S AVAILABLE, THEN IS IT REALLY RESTRICTED? SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S THEN'S REALLY A POLICY DECISION OF THE BODY. UH, WE DEFINITELY WILL, UM, IMPLEMENT WHATEVER YOU PUT OUT THERE. UM, AND WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE CONVERSATION, WHICH I'M NOT, UM, UM, AGAINST THE WAY COUNCIL IS THINKING THROUGH THIS. UM, BUT I THINK YOU'RE ALSO CHALLENGING US, UM, EVEN BEYOND THIS, JUST THE WAY WE HAVE TO OPERATE GOING FORWARD. AND I'VE SAID THIS TO THE TEAM, AND I'LL JUST SAY IT PUBLICLY HERE. THE DAYS WHERE WE COULD JUST THROW MORE, WHETHER IT'S STAFF OR MORE FUNDS TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, UM, THOSE DAYS ARE, ARE GONE. AND SO WE ARE CHALLENGING OURSELVES. I KNOW THAT, UM, UM, CUTS ARE NOT ANYTHING THAT'S JAZZY. UM, BUT WE DON'T SEE EVEN THE THINGS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET, UM, AS CUTS, WE SEE THEM AS THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE, UM, TO LOOK AT THE OPERATIONS OF THE ORGANIZATION DIFFERENTLY. AND THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN TRYING TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON SERVICES AND DEFINITELY NOT, UM, UM, TAKEN AWAY, BUT REALLY ABOUT HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO ENHANCE AT THE RIGHT LEVELS. AND I THINK THAT IS THE BALANCING ACT THAT WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED OVER THESE LAST FEW YEARS. AND WE KNOW THAT COUNCIL WANTS US TO CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE. SO WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO ANYTHING THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED. UH, IT'S REALLY THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL AND WHICH DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO. AND IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THE WAY THOSE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED OR NOT, UM, OR IN PLACE, BUT ELITE, I GUESS IF THERE'S NO ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING WE CAN PASS TO, TO COMMIT THESE DOLLARS SO THAT WE CAN'T UNDO AS A RESULT OF POLITICS OR FEELINGS IN THE MOMENT. WELL, ON THE 13TH OF SEPTEMBER YOU'LL VOTE ON THE BUDGET ORDINANCE. YOU COULD SPECIFY IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE, BUT THE BUDGET ORDINANCE GETS AMENDED MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO PUTTING IT IN AN ORDINANCE. YES. AND AND THAT WAS MY POINT. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEN HAPPENS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN, BUT AGAIN, IT'S UM, COUNSEL'S, UM, PREROGATIVE AND IT'S YOUR DECISION. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU MS. BLACKMAN. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. OKAY. KIND OF GOING ON WHAT MR. GRACIE WAS SAYING. I MEAN, WHEN WE DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE A SOURCE OF FUNDS IN THE USE OF FUNDS, RIGHT? SO YOU, WITH THE USE OF FUNDS, IS THERE A LINE ITEM THAT SAYS PENSION? WE COULD SPECIFY. USUALLY WHEN YOU DO AMENDMENTS, YOU'RE SAYING TAKE MONEY FROM ONE PLACE AND PUT IT IN ANOTHER. YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR CODE OR WHATEVER THAT MINE ITEM UNDER ITEM. YES. AND SO THAT CAN JUST BE DONE THAT THIS INCREMENT GOES THERE. [03:05:01] YES. OR WE CAN AND IT'S THERE AS A, JUST IN A HOLDING AND THEN ONLY THIS BODY CAN UNDO IT, RIGHT? ONLY THIS BODY CAN AMEND THE BUDGET ORDINANCE THAT YOU AMEND MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGH THE YEAR ANYWAY, AND YOU BRING IT TO, TO FINANCE. WE, AND IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS MM-HMM . AND SO WE TALK ABOUT HAVING, UM, THE WILL I GUESS TO ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAVE RESTRAINT AND USING THIS INCREMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S GONNA TAKE IS US SAYING WE, THIS IS A BILL THAT'S COMING DUE AND WE NEED THIS MONEY HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, THEN WE WILL, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT HERE IN YEAR THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE AND THEN YEAR 20 WHAT? 26 WHEN IT GETS TO BE REALLY OUTRAGEOUS. I'M JUST TRYING TO SET UP A PROCESS OR SOMETHING THAT SHOWS THAT WE ARE TRYING, THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT EVERY PENNY AND STUFFING IT IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A BIG, BIG BILL. AND, UM, THIS ISN'T A DING ON ANYBODY'S WORK. IT'S JUST, I THINK WE'VE GOTTA BE REALLY STRONG ON THIS BODY AND SAY, WE MADE THIS PROMISE, WE OWE THIS MONEY, AND THIS IS OUR LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT. ANYTIME WE SELL MONEY, IT SHOULD GO THERE, RIGHT? THIS IS OUR EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WHOLE. BUT IT, IT IS THE WHEEL OF US TO ACTUALLY HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE AND SAID, WE SAID WE WEREN'T GONNA TOUCH IT AND IT SHOULDN'T BE TOUCHED BECAUSE IT IS FOR THIS PURPOSE. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT GONNA BE HERE AND IT'S GONNA BE ON, YOU KNOW, POVS IS NOT THE OPTION EITHER, AND THIS IS A WAY TO AT LEAST GET US AWAY FROM HAVING TO GO BACK FOR A HALF A BILLION DOLLAR LOAN. SO I MEAN, IT, IT'S, IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT MONEY IS PROTECTED WITHOUT, UH, HAVING A RESOLUTION. AND, UM, AND I JUST THINK THAT WE, WE SHOULD SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF WE POST IT AND PEOPLE SAY, NO, IT'S $25, LITERALLY $2 A MONTH FOR A HOUSE OF 3 75. UM, AND I KNOW IN SOME CASES THAT COULD BE A LOT, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY THIS BILL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT BETTER. I MEAN, LET'S START NOW. THANK YOU MR. UH, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS VOTE IS NOT A FINAL SETTING OF THE TAX RATE. IF YOU VOTE YES, THEN THAT GIVES YOU THE OPTION TO EITHER SET A LOWER TAX RATE BY THE 13TH OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. IF YOU VOTE NO ON THIS, YOU'LL BE FOREVER DECIDING THAT IN THIS BUDGET YOU DO NOT WANNA SET ASIDE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE PENSION. THAT WILL BE A FINAL DECISION. IF YOU VOTE YES ON THIS, YOU'LL BE PRESERVING THE OPTION TO DO THAT. I THINK IT'S WORTH PRESERVING THAT OPTION. CHAIRMAN, MARRE, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR, UH, JACK, OR CITY MANAGER. UM, WHAT ARE, WHAT DO WE PUT IN PLACE CURRENTLY TO TRY TO SOLVE FOR OUR PENSION? I KNOW THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT, UH, PENSION OBLIGATIONS. WE DECIDED NOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE. UH, WE'RE ALSO ACTIVELY LOOKING AT SELLING REAL ESTATE AND DOING A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD, UH, DEDICATE A PORTION OF THOSE DOLLARS TOWARDS THE PENSION. UM, HAVE WE EVER DISCUSSED A PENSION RESERVE FUND OR WHAT, WHAT ARE THE, JUST TELL ME ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT MECHANISMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR OUR PENSION. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND, AND YES. UM, IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS AGO NOW, BUT WE, THE CITY MANAGER THEN THE FORMER CITY MANAGER INCLUDED AS PART OF, UH, ONE OF HIS RECOMMENDED BUDGETS, AND I'LL FORGET THE AMOUNT, BUT IT WAS 10 MILLION OR $14 MILLION, UH, IN A PENSION RESERVE FUND THAT GOT USED THROUGH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT PROCESS AND WAS NOT THEREFORE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. UH, SO AT THAT POINT, UH, MR. BROAD NEXT WANTED TO SET SOME FUNDS ASIDE. UM, NOW THAT WE HAVE A FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT DECEMBER OF 25. THE BOARD APPROVED IT DECEMBER OF 25. UM, OUR PATH FORWARD THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED TO THE PRB IS ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT GO UP OVER TIME. UH, I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY TO REDUCE THAT GENERAL FUND BURDEN OVER TIME. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PENSION OBLIGATION BOND SHOULD BE SOLD NOW. I THINK AT SOME POINT THE BODY MAY WANNA CONSIDER HAVING THE AUTHORIZATION TO PULL THAT TRIGGER IF THE TIME IN THE MARKET IS CORRECT. UH, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AS [03:10:01] YOU MENTIONED, UH, UH, DIVESTING OF SOME ASSETS, BUT OUR PRIMARY PATH FORWARD IS ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH THE OPERATING BUDGET AND, AND IT WILL FULLY FUND AS LONG AS WE MAKE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU MAYOR. MS. MAYOR ALSO WANTS DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. JACK, I, I, I KNOW THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA JUST ASKED THE QUESTION, BUT SAME QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER. I COULDN'T HEAR. SO IN THE SIMPLEST FORM, HAVE WE EVER SET UP A PENSION RESERVE FUND? THIS FORMER CITY MANAGER RECOMMEND SETTING UP A PENSION RESERVE FUND, BUT THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, THAT WAS ELIMINATED AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE PENSION RESERVE FUND, THEREFORE IT WAS $14 MILLION RECOMMENDED. UH, WE ENDED UP USING THAT THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. UM, IT WAS REDUCED DOWN TO 1.8. WHAT DID WE USE THE 1.8? IT WAS REDUCED DOWN FROM WHAT MR. RODNICK RECOMMENDED AT $14 MILLION REDUCED DOWN TO $1.8 MILLION. AND WE DO HAVE THE $1.8 MILLION THAT STILL SET ASIDE FOR A FUTURE CONTRIBUTION. SO WE HAVE $1.8 MILLION FOR SET ASIDE FOR THE PENSION FUND RESERVE. YES, SIR. AGAIN, THIS, WE, WE ARE HERE TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS, UM, AT TIMES LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES AND WHAT, WHAT I'M, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. WHAT, WHAT I'M CONCERNED IS, IS WHAT I THINK WHAT COUNCILMAN GRACIE WAS SAYING, UH, WILL WE SWITCH IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS IS WHAT MY CONCERN IS. 'CAUSE ALSO THE CITY, FORMER CITY MANAGER ALSO WANTED TO PUT MONEY SET ASIDE FOR CITY HALL, AND THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. SO THE ACCOUNTABILITY, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE IF THINGS WERE TAKEN CARE OF, EVEN WITH OUR OWN, WHAT WE CALL OUR PEOPLE'S HOME. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT. AND, AND I APPRECIATE HIM BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE IT, IT PUTS US NOW, UH, AT A DEBATE, DO WE DO THIS OR DO WE NOT? BASED OFF, BASED OFF OUR EXPERIENCE AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN HAPPEN. SO AT THIS POINT, I, I GUESS I'LL FIND OUT WHICH WAY WE ARE GOING, UM, IN A MINUTE. BUT THAT, THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME. UM, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE OPTION TO GET THIS DONE IS GREAT, BUT NOT KNOWING HOW THIS BODY WOULD, WOULD GO IN THAT DIRECTION IS ALSO FOR ME, UM, CHALLENGING. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING, UH, OR VOTE ANY KIND OF WAY THAT LEAVES AN OPEN DOOR FOR A MAJOR INCREASE WITH THE HISTORY OF, UH, HOW THIS BODY HAS VOTED CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR SPACE THAT WE'RE IN NOW, WHICH WE CALL OUR CITY HALL. THANK YOU, MR. BASIL, DO YOU REGISTER? THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT IT'S, IT'S BEEN ARTICULATED ENOUGH FROM ENOUGH MEMBERS HERE THAT I, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE'S NOT THE WILL OF THE BODY FOR THIS TO JUST BE A SLUSH FUND. UM, SO I, I GET THE RESERVATIONS AND THE FEAR, BUT ANY OF THOSE FEARS HAVE TO BE VALIDATED BY EIGHT MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, UH, VOTING IN FAVOR TO USE THESE FUNDS FOR, FOR ONE THING OR ANOTHER. UM, I WILL ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YES, WE DID HAVE, UH, THIS SUGGESTION FROM A FORMER CITY MANAGER, AND I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT LEADERSHIP IS ABOUT SEEING HOW WE CAN CORRECT THE FUTURE BY LEARNING FROM MISTAKES OF OUR PAST. AND IF WE LEAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY, UH, UM, COMPLETELY OFF OF THE TABLE TO EVEN EXPLORE, THEN WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PERPETUATING EXACTLY WHAT WE DID AT THAT TIME. WE USED THE MONEY THAT WE HAD AVAILABLE TO PUT IN A SAVINGS FOR THE PENSION. HERE WE'RE GONNA MAKE A DECISION THAT'S GONNA PREVENT US FROM EVEN HAVING MONEY TO CONSIDER TO PUT AWAY FOR THE PENSION. AND SO I, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO, UH, BRING THE FUTURE INTO A BETTER PLACE THAN WHERE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, IT WOULD BE LEARNING FROM THOSE MISTAKES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR US TO LOOK AT THIS OPPORTUNITY AND NOT TAKE IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN REFERENCING HOW WE MADE THAT MISTAKE IN THE PAST WHEN OUR CITY MANAGER ASKED US TO DO IT INSTEAD, AT THAT TIME, WE LOOKED AT THAT AS HIS SLUSH FUND. WE LOOKED AT THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US [03:15:01] TO PUT IT TO THE PROJECTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE. AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE PASSED A, A SOLVENCY PLAN THAT WASN'T EVEN IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS PROPOSED FROM OUR CITY MANAGER. WE'RE IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PLACE. THERE'S NO OPEN LITIGATION ON THE PENSION, UH, SOLVENCY PLAN RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, UH, RIGHT NOW VERSUS WHEN THERE WAS SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY COUNTING APPLES TO APPLES, HOWEVER, BY LE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY DIE, UH, WE ARE NOT LEARNING FROM WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR ONE MINUTE THANK YOU. INSTEAD OF THIS MASSIVE TAX INCREASE, UM, THIS GROUP NEEDS TO GET OUT OF GROUP. THINK Y'ALL HAVE GONE DOWN A RABBIT HOLE. WHAT HAPPENED IN 2022 IS A HISTORY LESSON IS $14 MILLION WAS PROPOSED FOR THE PENSION STABILIZATION. WE SET OUR TAX RATE WITH THAT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED? THE CITY MANAGER HIMSELF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TAKE THAT MONEY AWAY. MANAGER, I'M SORRY, MAYOR, YOU DID ALSO FOR FUNDING NECESSARY FIRE EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS THE MASTER LEASE PROGRAM, WHICH WAS NOT THE MASTER LEASE PROGRAM. AND IN FACT, THE DOCUMENT ITSELF CALLED IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I'M JUST GONNA TELL YOU, IT HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN USED AS A SLUSH FUND. AND IF YOU SET THIS TAX RATE, WHICH AGAIN IS A MASSIVE INCREASE, IT WILL ALSO BE USED AS A SLASH FUND. OUR REAL ESTATE IS HOW WE WILL GET OUT OF THIS WITH A PENSION. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BASIL DUA? 70.6325. I'LL JUST GO ON RECORD SAYING I DO THINK WE NEED MORE FISCAL DISCIPLINE THAN, THAN THAT RATE ALLOWS. AGAIN, I THINK 68 WAS TOO, TOO TIGHT, BUT THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS, UM, JUST NO DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER. SO I'M GONNA BE OPPOSED TO THAT FOR THAT REASON. ALRIGHT, RECORD VOTES HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, I THINK FOR THIS. SO GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU IN FAVOR? NO. IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KAZANA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DOA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. BUT SIX. VOTING IN FAVOR. NINE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, WE'RE BACK TO CHAIRMAN WEST MOTION AT 69.78. JUST ANOTHER NUMBER HERE. 69.78. AND I HAVE ON THAT CHAIRMAN WEST IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO'S SPOKEN ON IT. SO IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 6, 9, 7 8. ANYONE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST? SIX NINE. SEVEN EIGHT. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THIS RATE IS TOO HIGH. THANK YOU. WHY DOES IT SAY 9 99? UH, THAT'S WEIRD. OKAY. UM, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED FOR ALL OF THESE? I BELIEVE SO. MADAM SECRETARY, YOU CAN 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 GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KADENA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BASEL DOA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? NO. DEPUTY MAYOR APPROACH HIM. JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR. APPROACH HIM. RESENDEZ. NO, I'M SORRY. NO, THANK YOU. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. MM-HMM . WITH EIGHT. VOTING IN FAVOR. SIX OPPOSED? ONE ABSENT VOTE. TAKEN. THE MOTION PASSES. MR. MAYOR. OKAY. UM, HOW, HOLD ON A SECOND. [03:20:21] NEXT ITEM, MADAM [35. 26-2592A Authorize an amendment to Resolution No. 15-2141, previously approved on November 10, 2015 for the City’s Living Wage Policy to revise the policy’s threshold, applicability, wage floor methodology, contract terms, and policy review requirements - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] SECRETARY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 35. ITEM 35. AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE FIVE DASH 2041, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 10TH, 2015 FOR THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY TO REVISE THE POLICY'S THRESHOLD, APPLICABILITY WAGE FLOOR METHODOLOGY, CONTRACT TERMS, AND POLICY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BASEL DUA. IS THERE A MOTION? YES. MR. WEST, DO YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THAT PURPOSE, MOVE TO APPROVE? IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND A SECOND. CHAIRMAN, LET YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. ITEM 35. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU, MAYOR. UH, FIRST OFF, I WANT TO START BY THANKING THE, UH, PROCUREMENT TEAM AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS. THIS ITEM ON LIVING WAGE CAME TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, THREE TIMES. UH, WE HAD ROBUST DISCUSSIONS TWICE AND WITH THE COMMITTEE LASTING MOST OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING. AND THEN THE THIRD TIME WAS THIS WEEK, AND THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE'D BEEN THROUGH IT, UH, QUITE A BIT LEADING UP TO IT. SO I WANT TO THANK JUANITA ORTIZ, THE DIRECTOR, AND KIMBERLY FRANKLIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS. AND THEN IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WILLOW SANCHEZ, CASEY BURGESS, AND ASHLEY STOCKTON FOR THEIR WORK. UM, AND I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO, FOR, FOR A MINUTE OR TWO TO, TO JACK OR JUANITA TO TALK ABOUT WHY THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION. AND, UM, WHY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A RECAP OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN, AND I CAN ALSO CHIME IN WITH THE REST OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, UH, JACK ARLAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. AND I'LL START AND THEN TURN IT TO, UM, MS. ORTIZ. UM, AS FAR AS WHY IT FIRST CAME UP, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE SEEING WITH SEVERAL OF OUR CONTRACTS THAT WERE COMING BEFORE COUNCIL, THAT WE WERE, UH, INCREASING THE COST ON THOSE CONTRACTS, UH, BECAUSE WE WERE FOLLOWING THE LIVING WAGE POLICY. AND THE LIVING WAGE POLICY REQUIRES THAT WE PAY, UH, THE MIT LIVING WAGE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK AT THE CITY ON CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS. AND IN SOME CASES, THOSE, UH, SALARIES THAT WOULD BE PAID TO THOSE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES ARE ABOVE MARKET FOR THAT TYPE OF WORK. AND SO, THEREFORE, WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT WE COULD BE OVERPAYING FOR CERTAIN TYPE OF WORK, AND WE ASKED THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE LOOK AT THAT AND CONSIDER IF THEY WANTED ANY CHANGES, UH, TO THAT POLICY OR NOT. FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE. UH, OVERPAY, UH, PAYING ABOVE MARKET, UM, DOES COME WITH A COST, UM, NOT QUESTIONING THE VALUE OF THE POLICY. I WAS JUST APPROACHING IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE COST TO THE CITY WAS. AND THAT COST, OF COURSE, IS PASSED ON TO OUR RESIDENTS. AND SO THE COMMITTEE, UH, LOOKED AT THE POLICY, UH, MS. ORTIZ RECOMMENDED SOME AMENDMENTS TO IT, AND I'M GONNA LET JUANITA TALK ABOUT THOSE, UH, AND THEN WE'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JUANITA ORTIZ, OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES. UM, SO AS JACK MENTIONED, WE, UM, HAVE BEEN BRIEFING THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON THIS AGENDA, UM, ITEM HERE WITH YOU TODAY. WE GAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT IT WAS, UM, OBVIOUS AFTER OUR FIRST VISIT THAT THEY STILL WANTED TO MAINTAIN SOME SORT OF, UH, WAGE FLOOR FOR THE EMPLOYEES, FOR THE CONTRACTORS. AND SO WE CAME BACK WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE THINK BALANCE THE, UH, BUDGET IMPACT AS WELL AS PRESERVING A WAGE STANDARD ON CONTRACTS. UM, SO WE CAME UP WITH A HYBRID RESOLUTION. UM, IN THIS RESOLUTION, IT ADDRESSES A WAGE FLOOR, UM, OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE, OR THE LESSER OF THE 50TH PERCENTILE OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS BASED ON THE OCCUPATION. AND SO WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE RATE AS IT IS NOW, UM, IT IS A FLAT RATE ACROSS ALL DISCIPLINES. AND SO THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALIGN WITH THE MARKET, UM, THE WAGES THAT WE ARE PAID, PAYING OUR CONTRACTORS, UM, BASED ON OCCUPATION, BUT WE'RE STILL MAINTAINING A PREVAILING WAGE, WHICH IS DEFINITELY HIGHER THAN THE FEDERAL WAGE RATE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY 7 25 AS WELL. [03:25:04] ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, AND I, I, I'LL JUST WRAP UP MY COMMENTS ON THIS PART OF IT BY JUST SAYING THE, THE COMMITTEE DID STRUGGLE WITH ADJUSTING THE RATE. WE, WE TALKED THROUGH IT QUITE A BIT. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WANTED TO BALANCE, UH, PAYING THE LIVING WAGE AND PAYING A WAGE THAT, THAT WAS, WAS COMPETITIVE, BUT NOT OVERPAYING WHAT THE MARKET WAS OFFERING. AND, AND, AND SORT OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE MAKING CUTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, WHEN WE'RE FUR PUTTING FURLOUGHS OUT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, UM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE OVERPAYING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE MARKET WAS, WAS PAYING, UH, FOR OUR CONTRACT LABOR. SO THAT'S WH WHY WE ENDED UP WITH THIS. IT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT IT'S ONE THAT THE COMMITTEE WORKED, UH, QUITE A BIT ON. THANK YOU, MR. BAAL. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. AGENDA ITEM 35. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THE WAGE FLOOR THE GREATER OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 50TH PERCENTILE RATE. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MR. BASIL. DO IT. THANK YOU. THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THIS. UM, A A LOT OF IT ACTUALLY WASN'T TRULY EVEN A, A ADDRESSING LIVING WAGE. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LIVING WAGE POLICY AND NONE OF THE DISCUSSION, UH, DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE 10 TIMES, WAS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE COST OF LIVING FOR THOSE WHO ARE GETTING THESE WAGES. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE IS COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THE FACTOR OF AN INDEX ON THE, UH, COST OF LIVING AND WHAT IT TAKES FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO SURVIVE, UH, LIVING IN THE CITY. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT, UM, ANY RATIO THAT YOU HAVE OF PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES THAT LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR CONTRACTORS? WE DO NOT HAVE A RATIO OF WHERE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES RESIDE, BUT DO THEY GET POINTS IN THEIR CONTRACT BIDDING? SO WE, OR HAVING LOCAL HIRE, WE HAVE A LOCAL PREFERENCE POLICY, WHICH DOES PROVIDE, UM, A PREFERENCE BASED ON IF YOU'RE HEADQUARTERED IN THE CITY OR IF AT LEAST 20% OF YOUR, UM, EMPLOYEES OR 100 FULL-TIME FTES LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO KNOWING THAT WE, UM, ARE INCENTIVIZING CONTRACTS, UM, THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR LOCAL HIRE AND, UM, ENCOURAGING, WE'RE ALWAYS ENCOURAGING FOR, UH, EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN MANY CASES, THAT'S NOT ATTAINABLE BECAUSE OF THE COST OF LIVING AND TO IGNORE THE COST OF LIVING COMPONENT. WE MAY AS WELL HAVE JUST, UH, PROPOSED IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO REPEAL THE LIVING WAGE, UH, POLICY BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOES. THIS IS LOW HANGING FRUIT, TRYING TO SAVE A FEW DOLLARS ON THE BACKS OF THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF THIS CITY. WE WORKED VERY HARD TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD AND SET A PRECEDENT TO SAY THAT WE WANT THE MOST LABOR INTENSIVE, UH, UM, INDUSTRIES, THE POOL OF LABOR THAT WE EXPECT TO DO THE HARDEST WORK TO BE PAID A LIVING WAGE. AND I WANT TO KEEP EMPHASIZING THE TERM LIVING WAGE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A MARKET STUDY ON, UH, WHAT CERTAIN POSITIONS MAKE IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES. THAT'S THE EXTENT OF WHAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING HERE TODAY. THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT COSTS TO PAY RENT IN OUR CITY TO PAY BILLS IN OUR CITY TO LIVE AND EAT IN OUR CITY. THERE, THERE, NONE OF THOSE FACTORS ARE, ARE, ARE CONSIDERATE. SO IF WE'RE LOSING, UM, DATA THAT IS NOT IN GRANULAR ENOUGH TO TRULY CONSIDER WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE FOR THESE EMPLOYEES, BUT INSTEAD JUST LOOKING AT THE MARKET STANDARD FOR INDUSTRY POSITIONS, THEN WE HAVE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED WORK IN THE POLICY REALM THAT WE'VE DONE TO TRY TO PROMOTE AN ACTUAL LIVING WAGE FOR THE RESIDENTS IN OUR CITY. SO I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED WITH THE WAY THAT THIS IS BEING PROPOSED, WHICH IS WHY I'VE MADE THE MOTION TO JUST CORRECT ONE WORD. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT, UM, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDING, UH, APPLICABILITY TO LABOR INTENSIVE GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS. UH, INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD FROM 100 TO 300,000, ESTABLISH, UH, THE APPLICABLE LIVING WAGE IS LESSER THAN, AND THIS IS THE PART THAT I'VE ASKED TO AMEND IS THE GREATER THAN SO THAT IT ACTUALLY IS CONSIDERING THE INDEX OF THE MIT WAGE LIVING WAGE THAT WE ALL HAVE REFERENCED MULTIPLE TIMES EVERY YEAR. I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL AND WAS A PART OF THE, UH, THE POLICY THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED ESTABLISH A STANDARD CONTRACT TERM FOR CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE AS THREE YEARS WITH TWO ONE YEAR. UH, RENEWAL [03:30:01] OPTIONS REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES TO REVIEW THE LIVING WAGE POLICY AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS AND PRESENT ANY RECOMMENDED, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS APPROPRIATE. I'M NOT ARGUING OR TRYING TO CHANGE ANY OF THOSE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH THROUGH THE COMMITTEE WORK. I'M ASKING FOR ONE WORD, ONE WORD THAT IS, WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS STILL A LIVING WAGE POLICY OR IF WE HAVE DECIDED TO REPEAL, UM, BEING CONSIDERATE OF THE WAGES THAT WE ARE PAYING PEOPLE AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S COMMENSURATE WITH EXPECTING THEM TO RESIDE IN OUR CITY. UM, AGAIN, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE TOUCHING INDUSTRIES OF SOME OF THE MOST LABOR INTENSIVE, UH, WORK THAT WE EXPECT DONE IN THE SERVICES FOR OUR, UH, OUR RESIDENTS. AND, UM, UH, THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS TO SAY THAT, UH, WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE SAME AGENDA, UM, THAT MS. MENDELSSOHN BROUGHT UP THAT WE'RE GONNA GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE GONNA CUT DOWN THE LIVING WAGE TO THE WORKING CLASS OF OUR CITY. WHAT MESSAGES DOES THAT SEND? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN GRACIE RECKONS FOR FIVE MINUTES. YEAH. UM, WASN'T WET BALED TO AMENDMENT. YEAH, I WASN'T, WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT, BUT I DO WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION. YOU WERE NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANNA SPEAK TO OR YOU DO? I CAN, SIR. YEAH. OKAY. I WAS GONNA SAY 'CAUSE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE UNDERLYING MOTION LATER IF YOU WANT. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. UM, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT, UM, OF THAT? I THINK IT WAS JUST REALLY LESSER OF TO GREATER OF. SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE, UM, AMENDMENT WOULD BE, IT WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF THE PROGRAM BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE PAYING, UH, THE MIT LIVING WAGE ON THESE CONTRACTS. THE MIT LIVING WAGE IS 23, OH, CURRENTLY $23 AND 6 CENTS AN HOUR. AND SO ON THESE, UH, PROCUREMENTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE PAY FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES. IF IT IS THE GREATER OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE BUREAU OF BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS MARKET WAGE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, IN SOME CASES WE'RE GONNA BE PAYING A HIGHER NUMBER THAN MIT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UH, GROUND MAINTENANCE 23.06 IS THE MIT LIVING WAGE. THE MARKET WAGE IS 1882. AND WAS THAT, WAS, ARE THOSE THE POSITIONS THAT KIND OF HAD THE CONFLICT IN SALARIES? NO, BUT THEY WERE PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, WE WOULD PAY THE MIT LIVING WAGE, WHICH IS 2306. HOWEVER, ON A PAINTING CONTRACT, UH, THE MIT LIVING WAGE IS 2306, BUT THE, UH, BLS WAGE IS HIGHER. IT'S AT 2375. SO WE WOULD PAY A HIGHER WAGE THAN IF WE HAD JUST STUCK WHERE WE ARE NOW AND KEPT THE MIT LIVING WAGE AS IT IS. SO ON SOME CONTRACTS, YOU'RE GONNA PAY WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING NOW OR YOU'RE GONNA PAY SOMETHING HIGHER. FOR THOSE THAT WE IDENTIFIED FOR THOSE, I THINK WE SAID THERE WERE CERTAIN CONTRACTS WHERE THIS WOULD BE IMPACTED MORE THAN OTHERS. YES. FOR THOSE TYPE OF CONTRACTS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. WOULD IT BE, WOULD IT RESULT IN A LOWER OR HIGHER WAGE? THE AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN A HIGHER WAGE. UM, SO WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT THE PAST CONTRACTS WERE THAT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SINCE OCTOBER, AND WE DID A COMP A COMPARISON AND SAID, IF WE HAD THIS, SO THIS NEW HYBRID POLICY IN PLACE, WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT BE? AND IT WOULD'VE SAVED THE CITY $22 MILLION OR 6% OF MOST CONTRACTS. NOW IF WE GO TO THE GREATER, THEN IT'LL BE AN INCREASE. OKAY. UM, WELL FIRST OF ALL, THANK Y'ALL FOR, FOR GOING THROUGH THIS WORK. YI KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS. I DON'T LIKE ANY OF IT, UM, TO BE HONEST. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS IS, IS JUST A BUNCH OF PASS THROUGH THAT WE GET FROM OUR, FROM OUR CONTRACTORS AND, AND SOME OF IT IS, IS LEGIT IN TERMS OF PAYMENT. SO I DON'T WANNA BE INSENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I I, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE, THE, THE, THE, THE WORKERS THAT ARE ENDED UP TAKING YET ANOTHER IMPACT AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO FIX THIS BUDGET. SO, UM, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND WE'LL SEE. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT BY MR. BASIL DUA. UM, ACTUALLY, OKAY, CHAIRWOMAN MENON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? SAME AMENDMENT. OKAY. I JUST HEARD DOLLY PARTON DIED. I'M JUST GONNA TELL YOU GUYS THAT I'M DEVASTATED. WAIT, WAIT, [03:35:01] WHAT? DOLLY PARTON DIED. SO, BREAKING NEWS. OKAY, SO NOW I'M GONNA GET ALL ON THE BUDGET HERE. UM, SO JACK, YOU SAID, QUOTE, WE WILL PAY, BUT IT'S NOT US THAT PAYS. IT'S THE TAXPAYER THAT PAYS. AND WE ARE MAKING POLICY TO ENSURE OUR TAXPAYERS PAY THE VERY MOST POSSIBLE WITH THIS AMENDMENT. AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUDGETARY PRESSURES, AND WE ARE GONNA ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE COST OF ALL THESE CONTRACTS THAT OUR TAXPAYERS ARE GONNA PAY. THIS IS KIND OF AN INSANE CONVERSATION. AND WHEN WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO LITERALLY IS TALKING ABOUT THE COST OF LIVING IN THE CITY BEING TOO HIGH, BUT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WAS TRYING TO RAISE OUR TAX RATE TO THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SO I I KIND OF THINK IT'S HUMOROUS, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT AT ALL. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WORKING CLASS PEOPLE AND DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THEM, IT'S NOT OVERPAYING. IT'S HELPING THEM STRUGGLE. WHEN THEY'RE STRUGGLING WITH THEIR BILLS AND WE ARE CAUSING THEIR BILLS TO BE TOO HIGH, OUR RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT TO PAY MORE THAN WHAT IS COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET. AND SO THIS, OUR DUTY IS TO BE FISCAL STEWARDS. OUR DUTY IS NOT TO ENGINEER SOCIETY AT A CERTAIN RATE. SO I'M JUST GONNA SAY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANNA STAND UNDER THE BANNER OF SOME PROGRESSIVE LIVING WAGE, I DON'T SUPPORT THAT. I SUPPORT LETTING THE MARKET WORK. LET THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTRACTS COME TO US AND LET'S MAKE THE BEST DEAL WE CAN FOR OUR TAXPAYERS. 'CAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY OUR JOB. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. RECOGNIZED FOR, FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN OUR CAPITALIST SYSTEM AND ITS FREE MARKETS WHICH REGULATE THE PRICE THAT WE PAY FOR LABOR, GOODS AND SERVICES. I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD SUBSIDIZE PAY RATES ABOVE WHAT THE MARKET RATE IS. THIS PROPOSAL THAT STAFF HAS PREPARED, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESEARCH ON THIS, WILL SAVE THE CITY $22 MILLION. THE AMENDMENT WILL COST US THAT $22 MILLION IN SAVINGS, PLUS MILLIONS MORE AS THE STAFF HAS INDICATED. BUT PHILOSOPHICALLY, I JUST DON'T SEE WHY WE ARE GOING TO PAY MORE THAN WHAT OTHER EMPLOYERS PAY FOR THE SAME SKILL LEVEL, THE SAME QUALIFIED LABORERS. SO I'M AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED. MS. KANI, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT BUDGET BECAUSE AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE, WE HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF HITS. ALL OF THE POSITIONS I SEE IN HERE ARE LABOR INTENSIVE. AND FOR MY DISTRICT, MY DISTRICT IS A LABOR INTENSIVE DISTRICT WHERE PEOPLE WORK IN THESE FACTORIES IN GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, TEMPORARY SANITATION, LABOR, UM, JANITORIAL. THESE ARE ALL THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE AND MAKE UP MY DISTRICT AND SOME OF THE VERY COMPANIES THAT ARE LOCATED IN MY DISTRICT. AND SO I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE MONEY, BUT THESE AFFECT REAL PEOPLE AND REAL FAMILIES TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING HERE IN THE CITY. WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE AIRPORT WORKERS WHO ARE NOT MAKING A LIVING WAGE, AND I HEAR A LOT OF SYMPATHY TOWARDS THEM. THIS IS A WAY FOR THE CITY TO ALSO PROVIDE A LIVING WAGE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING CONTRACT WORK FOR US. THANK YOU. THAT THREW ME OFF A LITTLE BIT THERE. UM, WERE WERE YOU FINISHED, MS. CADE? OKAY. UM, MS. BLACKMAN, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, SO IF ANY, IF THIS CHANGES, IS IT GONNA AFFECT THE BUDGET IN ANY WAY? THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH? UH, NO MA'AM. I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. THE, UH, CONTRACTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE AS THE, THE WAGE OFFERED WOULD NOT CHANGE. THEY WOULD STAY IN PLACE. IT WOULD AFFECT ANY NEW CONTRACTS THAT WERE GONNA LET OVER THE, OR GO OUT ON A PROCUREMENT OVER THE, THIS YEAR. UM, SO THERE MAY BE SOME MARGINAL AMOUNT OF, UH, BUT IT'S NOT ANYTHING WE WOULD CHANGE AT THIS POINT IN THE BUDGET. [03:40:01] WHEN YOU SAY MARGINAL, WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WE HAVEN'T DONE THE, UM, WE HAVEN'T PULLED THE BBLS NUMBERS FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRACTS THAT WE MIGHT, UH, GO OUT, UH, FOR SOLICITATION FOR THIS YEAR. UH, SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. UH, BUT WE DO, WE HAVE NOT PULLED THOSE AT THIS POINT. IT'S REALLY GONNA DEPEND ON WHAT CONTRACTS ARE COMING UP FOR, UH, RENEWAL, AND WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. BALU. WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO, UM, REMIND EVERYONE, UH, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE ON, ON PAYING MORE FOR THE SAME POSITION, THE EQUIVALENT OF THE SCALE BEING USED AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WOULD ALLUDE TO, UM, OFFICERS, OUR UNIFORMED OFFICERS, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT AVERAGES ALL RANGING FROM 58,000 TO 71,000. THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD ASSUME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MARKET SAYS. BUT OUR PAY SCALE IS OVER 82,000 AND WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON PAYING A LIVING WAGE FOR OUR OFFICERS. WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON TRYING TO CONTINUE TO, UH, UM, STICK WITH THESE TIMES AND BE ABOVE THE CURVE BECAUSE WE WANT OUR OFFICERS TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY SERVE. BUT APPARENTLY WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SENTIMENT FOR THE WORKERS IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY. WE'RE WILLING TO PAY THEM WELL BELOW THE AVERAGE OF WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE HERE. SO AGAIN, THE HYPOCRISY IN THE DEBATE AND THE POINTS THAT ARE BEING MADE, IF THIS WAS JUST ABOUT MARKET STUDY DICTATING WAGES, WHY ARE WE PASSING A BUDGET WITH A HUGE STRAIN SIMPLY TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, A VERY HIGH PAYING SALARY RANGE FOR OUR COPS? IT'S TIME THAT WE START TREATING OUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WITH THE SAME RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT WE DO THE POLICE OFFICERS, BUT MAYBE IT JUST WOULD REQUIRE THERE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A POLITICAL HOT BUTTON FOR THAT TO GET THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY. I, FOR ONE, THINK THAT THOSE WHO ARE STANDING ON THE BACK OF OUR, UH, UM, TRASH TRUCKS THAT ARE DOING THE JOBS THAT A LOT OF US DON'T WANT TO DO IS JUST AS ADMIRABLE TO TAKE CARE OF, IS JUST AS MUCH OF A PRIORITY FOR US TO, UM, UH, ADHERE TO. IF NOT, IT IS SENDING A MESSAGE TO SO MANY OF OUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES THAT THEIR JOB ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT TO US, AND WE DO PRIORITIZE OTHER INDUSTRIES HIGHER THAN YOURS. AND WE'RE WILLING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE MARKET SAYS THAT YOU'RE WORTH BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S HOW WE CAN RETAIN GOOD TALENT. IF THAT WAS THE MINDSET IN ONE SECTOR, WHY IS THAT NOT THE MINDSET IN OTHERS? WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW OUR WORKING CLASS TO BE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT AND THE EASY CHIPS OFF THE BLOCK FOR US TO TAKE, UH, TO BALANCE A BUDGET? THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE, HAVE COME, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN ARTICULATED WITH THE DEBATE HERE TODAY. UM, WE ARE CONTEMPLATING COMPLETELY ELIMINATING ANY INDEX THAT CONSIDERS COST OF LIVING. AND WE STILL EXPECT FOR THESE CONTRACTS TO HIRE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OUR CITY, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT'S A HIGHER COST OF LIVING. DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, SO WE DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS IN LENGTH AT A FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW IT WAS, UH, A LOT AT STAKE. YOU KNOW, THESE WERE PEOPLE'S CAREERS, PEOPLE'S JOBS, UM, AND, AND SOME STUCK OUT MORE THAN OTHERS, LIKE SANITATION WORKERS. I I REMEMBER MAYBE THE SANITATION, SANITATION WORKERS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS OR THERE WAS, UH, CAN YOU REMIND ME OF HOW SANITATION WORKERS WOULD BE IMPACTED? YEAH, THE, IT IS CONSIDERED A LABOR INTENSIVE, UH, CATEGORY. SO THEY WOULD BE, THAT CONTRACT WAS ALREADY AWARDED, SO THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT, UM, UNTIL IT'S, UNTIL IT'S RESCINDED. THEN WE WOULD USE WHATEVER THE POLICY IS AT THAT POINT. OKAY. AND, AND A NEW, IF I MAY YES. ADD TO, UH, A NEW ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP, WHICH WE ANTICIPATED WAS, I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF SANITATION, UH, ABOUT THIS BECAUSE NOW THAT WE'VE INCREASED THE LABORERS, UH, WE'VE GOT COMPRESSION IN THE SALARIES WITH THE, UH, CITY EMPLOYEES THAT WORK ON THE TRUCKS THAT DRIVE THE TRUCKS. AND SO NOW WE'RE EVALUATING WHETHER WE NEED TO INCREASE NOW THAT WE'VE INCREASED THE LABORERS, DO WE ALSO NEED TO INCREASE THE DRIVERS BECAUSE WE CREATED A COMPRESSION ISSUE. OKAY. SO, SO IT HAS SOME OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. RIGHT. AND, AND THAT WAS, I WAS, THAT WAS GONNA BE A FOLLOW UP, IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY IN THEORY ONLY AFFECTS [03:45:01] CONTRACT WORKERS, BUT IT HAS A IMPACT ON OUR, UH, FULL-TIME SALARY EMPLOYEES, UH, IN THOSE CASES SUCH AS THAT WITH, UH, SANITATION. IT DOES. UH, WE HAVE, WE DO NOT HAVE A POLICY TO PROVIDE THE LIVING WAGE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. WE TRIED FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO STAY AHEAD OF THAT. SO IF THE, UH, MIT LIVING WAGE WAS $21 AN HOUR, WE TRIED TO COME IN AT 2150 FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. WE TRIED TO STAY UP, UH, JUST AHEAD OF IT. UH, WE STOPPED, UM, MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO, A YEAR AGO. UH, CITY EMPLOYEES, THE MINIMUM PAID NOW IS 2150. WE DID NOT CONTINUE TO GO UP TO THE 23.06 THAT THE MIT LIVING WAGE. UH, WE INSTEAD RECOMMENDED THAT WE USE TASK PAY FOR THOSE CITY EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE, UH, PARTICULAR PROBLEMS TRYING TO RECRUIT AND FILL POSITIONS THAT INSTEAD OF INCREASING JUST ACROSS THE BOARD ALL HOURLY PAY, WE INSTEAD USE TASK PAY TO ADDRESS TARGETED SITUATIONS. OKAY. UH, AND SO HOW IS, HOW DO WE DETERMINE PAY FOR, WHETHER IT'S A SANITATION WORKER OR A POLICE OFFICER, HOW DO WE DETERMINE THOSE, UH, RATES OF PAY? THANK YOU. UH, THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DOES A, UM, A MARKET STUDY LOOKING AT SIMILAR POSITIONS, UH, IN THE INDUSTRY TO DETERMINE, UH, WHAT THE, UH, THE MARKET, THE 50TH PERCENTILE IS, THE AVERAGE IS. AND THAT IS WHAT WE SET AS MARKET, UM, FOR POLICE AND FIRE. UH, THE MEET AND CONFER METHODOLOGY THAT IS USED HAS 17 PEER CITIES, AND IT AVERAGES THOSE. THE TARGET IS NOT TO BE AT THE TOP OF THE MEET AND CONFER PEER CITIES. THE TARGET IS TO BE AT THE AVERAGE OF THE MEET AND CONFER CITIES. NOW, SINCE WE HAD PROPOSITION U INTRODUCED, UH, LAST YEAR, AND AGAIN IN THIS RECOMMENDED BUDGET OR CURRENT YEAR, AND IN THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET, WE HAVE PROPOSED INSTEAD OF JUST, UH, GOING WITH THE, UH, 50TH PERCENTILE, THE AVERAGE OF THOSE, UH, OTHER 17 PEER CITIES, UH, INSTEAD WE'RE PROPOSING TO STEP, SKIP STEP ZERO AND START ON STEP ONE, WHICH GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THE MARKET, BUT MARKET BASED IS THE, THE PHILOSOPHY. OKAY. AND SO I HEARD A NUMBER EARLIER ABOUT 20 MILLION. UM, I GUESS WE, WE WOULD BE PAYING IN CONTRACTS AN ADDITIONAL 20 MILLION, BUT IT DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT, UH, FOR THIS PREVIOUS YEAR. BUT MOVING FORWARD, KIND OF FORECASTING, UH, CONTRACTS THAT ARE NOT, UH, EXPIRED YET, NEW CONTRACTS, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT THAT WOULD COST? UH, THE CITY OF DALLAS, YEAH. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT ANALYSIS BECAUSE WHATEVER OUR POLICY IS, THERE'S STILL OTHER, UM, FACTORS THAT GO INTO A CONTRACTOR'S BID. SO, UM, IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON KIND OF OTHER FACTORS INCLUDING WHAT THE WAGE FLOOR IS AT THE TIME. OKAY. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, IS REVIEWING THESE VERY, UH, LIKE ALMOST ANNUALLY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE MARKET OR THE BUDGET. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. UM, SO PART, SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HELPED US IDENTIFY OR RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. THE MAKING THE STANDARD, UH, RENEWAL PERIOD, OR THE STANDARD CONTRACT TERM THREE YEARS WITH TWO RENEWALS, GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT FOR SOLICITATION MORE OFTEN, UM, REVIEWING THE CONTRACTS, UH, OR REVIEWING THE POLICY WITH THE COUNCIL EVERY TWO YEARS AS WELL. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO, UM, HOPEFULLY KEEP PACE WITH THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. UM, CITY MANAGER, UM, EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE NOT, UH, CITY EMPLOYEES, UM, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS VALUE WHERE YOU STAND ON, UH, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR OUR, FOR OUR STAFF AND, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THE BACKBONE OF THE CITY. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UM, THE MODEL THAT'S BEFORE US AND HOW THIS IS, UH, A PATH FORWARD THAT WE COULD SUPPORT OR, UH, AND THEN TO THAT IS, IS THERE A TIME, UH, CONSTRAINT TO THIS, UH, ITEM TODAY BEING APPROVED TODAY? THE EXISTING, UM, LIVING WAGE POLICY SAYS THAT EVERY YEAR ON OCTOBER 1ST, WE WILL INCREASE, UM, THE LIVING WAGE. UM, IT IT WILL BE 2331 STARTING OCTOBER 1ST FOR ANY SOLICITATIONS THAT WE ISSUE. UM, SO WE WOULD WANT IT APPROVED PRIOR TO SO THAT WE ARE READY AND PREPARED TO START WITH THE NEW FISCAL YEAR. THANK YOU. LET ME JUST ADD, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM, COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO, ONE OF THE THINGS TOO THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND AND, AND, UM, I HEAR THE [03:50:01] COMMENTS REGARDING, UM, OUR EMPLOYEES AND THE WHOLE COMPETITIVENESS. UM, BUT AS WE WENT INTO A REVIEW OF THESE POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS THAT, NUMBER ONE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MARKET THAT WE'RE IN AND CERTAIN POSITIONS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE EVEN HAVE IN THE CITY, ARE WE STILL COMPETITIVE? I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTRACTUAL SIDE OF THIS, BUT ARE WE COMPETITIVE? AND WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO, UM, TO IDENTIFY, AND I THINK WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST YEAR, IS THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE HIGHEST EVEN ON MINIMUM WAGE. AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THIS COUNCIL, UH, SEVERAL YEARS AGO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS, UM, THE WAY WE LOOK AT EVEN THE POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S BACK TO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE, WE, WE ARE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN POSITIONS THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE EXECUTIVE LEVEL POSITIONS. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE HAVE, DO THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF OUR SMALLER BUSINESSES, TO WHERE THEY CAN BE COMPETITIVE. SO IT'S A BALANCE AND ACT ON BOTH, UH, SIDES. SO I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE, UM, WE'VE APPROACHED THIS WITH THAT IN MIND, BOTH ON THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS THE EXTERNAL. AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS IS THAT THIS WILL PROBABLY NOT BE A ONE TIME CONVERSATION. WE NEED TO BE OUT THERE LOOKING AT THIS, UM, THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKET AS WELL AS THOSE HARD TO FILL POSITIONS, WHICH IS WHY I WANNA THANK THE COUNCIL FOR SUPPORTING THE TASK PAID PHILOSOPHY, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY ALLOWED FOR US TO LOOK AT POSITIONS LIKE SANITATION AND OTHERS WHERE WE KNOW THEY'RE VERY LABOR INTENSIVE AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUT MORE, UH, ON TOP OF WHAT THOSE MINIMUM WAGES ARE FOR THOSE POSITIONS TO CONTINUE TO BE COMPETITIVE. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THIS BODY. SO JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US IN BEING ABLE TO KEEP THAT PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD. CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. UM, WE I THINK MADE THIS DECISION IN COMMITTEE OR THE DISCUSSION WAS WANTING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS, UM, ENVIRONMENT. UM, BUT I THINK WE ALL HAD A DEEP CONCERN OVER THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL WORKERS THAT, UM, WERE WRAPPED UP IN THESE CONTRACTS. SO I THINK, UM, CITY MANAGER, TO YOUR POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE IMPACT OF THIS DECISION. I SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BUT I, UM, I THINK WE WANNA KNOW HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S IMPACTING, UM, THE WORKERS, YOU KNOW, TIED TO THE CONTRACTS. SO I THINK ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO GET A REPORT ON HOW OFTEN, WHAT WAS THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO, WHEN WE'RE GONNA CHOOSE THE LESSER OF MIT OR THE LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, HOW OFTEN, UM, OR WHAT WAS THE DISPARITY IN THOSE TWO NUMBERS? BECAUSE IF IT'S, IF IT'S 10 CENTS OR 21 CENTS, THAT'S ONE THING. IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING, RIGHT? BUT IF IT'S THREE, FOUR, $5 OR AN HOUR DIFFERENCE, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND I THINK WE MIGHT WANNA, UM, JUST BE AWARE OF THAT IMPACT. WHAT'S THE DISCREPANCY THERE? UM, YOU KNOW, IF SAVING THE CITY $23 MILLION IN CONTRACTS, THAT'S HUGE. UM, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN, UM, IGNORE. WE HAD, WE HAD, WE HAD TO LOOK AT THIS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE, UM, IMPACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO I THINK IN OUR, IN OUR HEARTS. AND SO IF WE COULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE, WE KNOW KIND OF WHERE THE TRADE, WHAT THE TRADE OFF HAS BEEN, I THINK WE CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT WITH THAT RIGHT NOW. OH, GREAT. AND IF IT'S, IF YOU NEED MORE, WE CAN PROVIDE MORE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE CONTEXT. YEAH. SO WE DID, WE PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES IN THE MAIN KIND OF LABOR INTENSE POSITIONS THAT WE HAD. UM, AND THE VARIANCE THERE BEING IN THE, PRETTY MUCH $4 ALL THE WAY UP TO $9 WHERE WE'RE PAYING ABOVE THE LA THE 50TH PERCENTILE. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT WE WOULD BE PAYING MORE UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. UM, BUT WE ALSO LOOKED AT THOSE CONTRACTS THAT WE LOOKED AT. WE HAD 42 CONTRACTS, I BELIEVE, OF THOSE, UM, 28 WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE LIVING WAGE APPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LABOR INTENSIVE. SO THEY HAD LABOR COMPONENTS, BUT IT WASN'T THE MAIN, UH, FUNCTION OF THAT, OF THAT CONTRACT. SIMILAR TO SOFTWARE INSTALLATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, AND THEN AT OF THOSE 14, [03:55:01] EIGHT OF THEM WOULD HAVE HAD THE POLICY, UM, NOT APPLY BASED ON THIS HYBRID POLICY THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE SAVINGS, UH, PROJECTION OF WHAT WE COULD HAVE SAVED OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. AND, AND IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAIL, WE CAN, WE CAN PROVIDE, BUT JUST TRYING TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT OF THE WORK THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN RESEARCHED. YES, I REM I REMEMBER READING THAT AND I WAS WONDERING WHY THE 22 DIDN'T, UM, QUALIFY. SO I THINK JUST MORE INFORMATION PERHAPS JUST KEEPING THIS ON THE, UM, AGENDA FOR FINANCE AND, AND LOOKING AT IT AND CONTINUING TO PROVIDE US INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR PROAM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JACK, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT, WHAT IS OUR LIVING WAGE RIGHT NOW? I THINK YOU GAVE IT BEFORE. SO THE CURRENT, UM, MIT LIVING WAGE ON CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE SOLICITED, UH, USING THE MIT LIVING WAGE POLICY IS $23 AND 6 CENTS AN HOUR. UH, THAT NEW RATE THAT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER. THE FIRST IS $23 AND 31 CENTS AN HOUR, AND THE CITY'S LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEE MAKES $21 AND 50 CENTS AN HOUR. $21, 2150. SO WE WERE, WE WERE STAYING UP WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THEN, UH, WE VEERED OFF THAT, WE PAUSED CONTINUING THOSE INCREASES, UM, AND WENT TO A, UH, TASK PAY PHILOSOPHY. UH, BUT WE KEPT OUR MINIMUM. I MEAN, THE FEDERAL MINIMUM IS SEVEN AND A QUARTER. YES. SEVEN. AND THE CITY'S MINIMUM IS 2150. OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE LIVING WAGE. MIT EDUCATION IS ABOUT 2331 FOR THIS LIVING WAGE, AND THAT'S WITH NO CHILDREN. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, MR. MAYOR, BECAUSE I, THIS IS A VERY, UH, IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN DEFER THIS UNTIL OUR NEXT BRIEFING FOR A BRIEFING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL? SECOND, MAYBE , LET'S, LET'S GET THE CITY MANAGER BACK IN HER SEAT JUST TO FIND OUT, UM, WHAT SHE SAYS. BUT THE, I THINK THE MOTION IS FINE IF, OF COURSE THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY. BUT GO AHEAD, MADAM CITY MANAGER. I WAS ASKING CAN WE DEFER THIS UNTIL OUR NEXT BRIEFING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE FULL COUNCIL? I THINK BASED ON THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M HEARING TODAY, AND I THINK IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO LOOK A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTERNALLY AND THEN BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE HEARD. UM, WE HAVE A BUDGET, UH, WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 2ND, AND WE CAN MAKE IT BE A PART OF THAT PRESENTATION IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. SO, MS. MAYOR, WILL THAT BE A MOTION THAT I WILL, I, I THINK THAT IS, I'M JUST ASKING NOW IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION. OKAY. YES. SORRY. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT MOTION. OH, OKAY. ON THE MOTION TO DEFER IT? YEP, YEP. FINISH. IS THERE, IT'S, IT'S, AM I RECOGNIZED? YEAH, I WILL IN ONE SECOND. WE'LL DO IT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION AND IN A SECOND THEN THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. SO IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. IT'S BEEN SECONDED. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN START OFF THE DISCUSSION ON THAT THEN IF THERE'S GONNA BE ANY FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, I'M SORRY THAT CHAIRMAN WEST IS NOT HERE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS HE SHARED WITH US, THIS WAS THREE TIMES THREE TIMES ON THE COMMITTEE AGENDA. I KNOW YESTERDAY AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE I ATTENDED, I'M NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. I KNOW I SAW YOU. COUNCILOR RIDLEY, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU'RE ON THE COMMITTEE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN IS SAYING SHE WAS THERE AND SHE'S NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UM, I THINK IS REALLY WONDERFUL ABOUT HOW THE CITY COUNCIL OPERATES IS THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER CAN ATTEND ANY COMMITTEE. AND I THINK THAT, UM, IS, IS REALLY GOOD. SO THREE TIMES IT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA. THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T EVEN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT LAST YESTERDAY. SO IF SOMEBODY HAD ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH THERE SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND AFTER THREE MEETINGS WHY COMMITTEE WORK WASN'T DONE AT THE COMMITTEE. AND IT'S NOW HAPPENING AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 1 28 AND NO OFFENSE, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD LUNCH, SO I DON'T WANNA DEFER IT. WE HAVE THREE TIMES HAD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT IF PEOPLE WANT TO. I CAME PREPARED TO VOTE ON IT, CAME PREPARED TO TALK ON IT IN CASE THERE WAS AN ISSUE. AND I JUST THINK THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE LIKE WE'VE HAD SO MUCH INFORMATION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVEN MORE INFORMATION HAD WE WON IT, WHY WOULD WE CONTINUE TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD? AND ALSO, THIS ISN'T THAT COMPLICATED. THIS IS REALLY A PHILOSOPH PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE. DO YOU WANT TO [04:00:01] LET THE MARKET DETERMINE WHAT PAY RATES SHOULD BE THAT WE THEN PASS ON TO THE TAXPAYER? OR DO WE WANNA ARTIFICIALLY SET A NUMBER BASED ON SOME RESEARCH GROUP, WHETHER IT'S THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS OR MIT, WHICH I DON'T, TO THEN TELL US THAT IT HAS TO BE THIS AND THEN, OH, NOW THE AMENDMENT IS, OH, WHICHEVER ONE'S THE HIGHEST, LET'S DO EVEN THAT. THIS IS A CRAZY CONVERSATION. SO I'M PREPARED TO VOTE AND I AM NOT PREPARED TO APPROVE A MOTION TO DEFER. THANK YOU MS. CENA. UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK ON THE MOTION TO DEFER THE MERITS OF DEFERRING THIS ITEM OR DO YOU WANT US WAIT UNTIL WE GET BACK IF IT FAILS SOMEHOW? OKAY. SO YOU WERE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. YEAH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. I JUST WANTED TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR MAKING THE MOTION TO DEFER 'CAUSE I DO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. I DID ATTEND FINANCE YESTERDAY, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SIT IN ON SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. I'M ON LIKE SIX OR SEVEN COMMITTEES, SO I HAVE A LOT GOING ON AND I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS AND LOOKING AT THIS, BUT I STILL HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND SOME CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY WHEN I SEE WHAT'S NOT COVERED IN HERE. SO I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, MAKING THE MOTION DIFFERENT AND I WILL SUPPORT IT. MR. BALEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I WILL ALSO SUPPORT THIS. I, UH, AM AWARE THAT MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD. I ALSO AM AWARE THAT THIS ITEM HAS BEEN, UH, PRESENTED, UH, FOR MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS AT, UH, THE COMMITTEE WITH, UH, AN INTENDED OUTCOME. AND SO THAT WASN'T A TRUE POLICY DISCUSSION. I WANT US TO HAVE A TRUE POLICY DISCUSSION WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS, UH, CHANGE INSTEAD OF JUST RAM ROTTING THE CHANGE THROUGH. UM, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE WAS, WAS, WAS HAD. THIS IS, THIS IS A CITYWIDE ISSUE. UM, SO I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE COMMITTEE WORK, BUT, UM, RIGHT HERE, JUST IN THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP, UM, THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED FROM STAFF. AND SO YOU MUST NOT HAVE EXHAUSTED THE CONVERSATION AT THE COMMITTEE. UM, OR STAFF WOULD BE PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT WOULD COME THEIR WAY. SINCE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN HOLES POKED THROUGH THERE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION TO BE HAD AND IT NEEDS TO EXPAND TO MEMBERS BEYOND, UH, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IF THESE QUESTIONS WERE NOT RAISED BY THOSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SO I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, WITH THE SENTIMENT. I APPRECIATE YOU, UH, CITY MANAGER FOR BEING WILLING TO BRING THIS. UM, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AS WELL, UH, PREPARING FOR THIS BRIEFING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THIS, UM, UH, DECISION IS BEING MADE WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE IT. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST. RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER. UH, NORMALLY I WOULD SU I DO SUPPORT DEFERRALS, UM, TO, TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT ITEMS. BUT I MEAN, THIS ITEM WAS LITERALLY DISCUSSED FOR HOURS IN, IN FINANCE TWICE. AND, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBER, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS THERE TO FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF. UM, AND THEN WE HAD, THE REASON THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION EARLIER THIS WEEK IS BECAUSE WE HAD EXHAUSTED THOSE QUESTIONS. AND, UM, AT OUR EARLIER FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, WE HAD MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THOSE MEETINGS. I THINK IN PART 'CAUSE WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE, FUTURE OF CITY HALL THERE. SO WE HAD A SUPER MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AT LEAST ONE TIME. SO I, IN MY OPINION, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, JUST DELAYING THIS IS JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, IT'S, IT'S, THE MOTION INCLUDES A REVIEW IN TWO YEARS, WE'LL COME BACK AND DO IT. AND IF, UM, THERE'S A NEED TO BRING IT BEFORE TWO YEARS IN THE NEXT YEAR, WE CAN BRING IT EARLIER. SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AND I'M GONNA VOTE NO ON THE DEFERRAL. CHAIRMAN RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE MOTION TO DEFER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE DEFERRAL. UM, I AM ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND I CAN TELL YOU WE DID HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION, UH, AND A A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY TO THE NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES, THEY WERE WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. UH, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE, THIS IS A, A BIG DECISION ON THE WAY WE MOVE FORWARD AND I JUST WANNA GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR QUESTIONS ADDRESSED AND TO GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, EITHER MAKE US COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION OR, UH, IF WE WANNA GO IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THE DEFERRAL. CHAIRMAN GRACIE RECKONS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION TO DEFER. THANK YOU. UM, I'LL SUPPORT THE DEFERRAL TOO. I TOO WAS A PART SITTING ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND I WAS A PART OF ALL OF THIS. UM, HOWEVER, I JUST WASN'T ALWAYS CONVINCED, I WASN'T ALWAYS CONVINCED WE DID IT AND WE MOVED FORWARD AND I WAS APPRECIATIVE, APPRECIATIVE OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO GET TO THE COMPROMISE, BUT I'M JUST NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA SAVE US ANY REAL DOLLARS, UH, FROM THERE. UM, SO I GUESS I [04:05:01] LOST MY QUESTION. OH, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE, WE SAID THERE WAS GONNA BE A PROPOSED A, WE, WE THINK THERE WAS GONNA BE A SAVINGS ROUGHLY OF ABOUT 22 MILLION I THINK IT WAS. SO WE SAID WE COULDN'T GIVE YOU A SAVINGS NUMBER BECAUSE COST IN THE SALARY THAT'S PAID TO A CONTRACTOR IS ONE COMPONENT OF THE ENTIRE CONTRACT, UH, PROPOSAL. SO I CAN'T TELL YOU YOU'RE GONNA SAVE THIS MUCH. BUT WHAT WE DID DO IS WE SAID, IF THIS POLICY DID NOT, WAS NOT IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF OCTOBER 1ST THAT WE STARTED AWARDING CONTRACTS, WHAT COULD WE HAVE POTENTIALLY SAVED IF THE CONTRACTOR HAD PASSED THROUGH THAT SAVINGS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN 22 MILLION OVER THE CONTRACT TERM. SO IT, IT WAS, IF THEY WOULD'VE HAVE PASSED IT THROUGH. AND AGAIN, I GUESS MY, MY CONCERN IS, AND AGAIN, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY, IS YEAH, THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL SAVINGS JUST IN THEORY BASED ON THE MATH OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WE PAY AT A CERTAIN RATE VERSUS HOW MUCH THE MARKET PAYS. BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT ALL OF THESE VENDORS, WHAT I'VE BEEN HARPING ON FOREVER, ALL OF THESE VENDORS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING BUSINESS WITH FOR THE UMPTEENTH YEARS IN A ROW AND CONTRACT AFTER CONTRACT AFTER CONTRACT, THAT THESE CONTRACTS STILL INCREASE. SOME OF IT'S DUE TO INFLATION, ALL OF THAT, SOME OF THEM IS DUE JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO DO BUSINESS AND HOW TO PLAY THE GAME WITH THE CITY. SO THERE'S ALWAYS THAT CONFUSION. SO I WAS NEVER REALLY CONVINCED THAT THIS COULD CREATE THE SAVINGS THAT WE HOPED IT WOULD, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN REALLY PROVE THAT IT WILL. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M OKAY WITH DEFERRING IT AND IF THERE'S SOME NUMBERS THAT WE CAN GET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN WE CAN REVISIT THIS CONVERSATION. IF I, IF I COULD CLARIFY. YES. SO LOOKING BACKWARDS, IF THE REVISED POLICY HAD BEEN IN PLACE BACKWARDS AND WE HAD EITHER APPLIED THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE BLS WAGE, DEPENDING UPON WHERE IT WAS APPLICABLE, THAT CHANGE WOULD'VE NETTED $22 MILLION OF SAVINGS. SO IF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY THAT WE'VE TAKEN COMMITTEE, HAD THAT BEEN THE POLICY, WE WOULD'VE SAVED 22 BILLION MILLION. 22 MILLION. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. LET ME JUST CLARIFY ONE THING BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO, UM, COMMUNICATE THAT AS, UM, IT'S GOING TO VARY BASED ON THE CONTRACTS. CERTAIN CONTRACTS HAVE CERTAIN TIMEFRAMES ON THEM, SOME ARE THREE YEARS, SOME ARE FIVE YEARS. SO I THINK THE WAY WE LOOKED AT THAT NUMBER IS THAT THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAD THEN BASED ON LENGTH, BASED ON THE SERVICE, THAT'S THE TOTALITY. THAT'S NOT ONE PARTICULAR CONTRACT. JUST TO BE CLEAR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO, TIM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION. THANK YOU. AND I CONCUR WITH COUNCILMAN, UM, MORENO, UH, CHAIR WEST HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB ON, UH, FINANCIAL COUNSEL SERVED AS SERVING AS CHAIR, AND HE HAS HAD ROBUST CONVERSATIONS AND I RESPECT HIS PROFESSIONALISM AND HIS WORK. SO THIS IS BY NO MEANS SAYING THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY. UM, AND WE DID NOT HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. SO HE'S DONE WELL, VERY WELL, UH, IN MY OPINION. UM, WHEN I WAS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, UM, WHICH PRETTY BASICALLY A YEAR AGO, I ADVOCATED VERY STRONGLY FOR OUR WORKERS TO BE BUMPED UP AND GET MINIMUM WAGE AND EVEN BEFORE MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE IT WASN'T MEETING THE NEED OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT COUNCILMAN BASA HAS SAID, UH, AND THEN LISTENING TO OUR, MY COLLEAGUES AND NEEDING MORE TIME, I, I, I KNOW WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY COLLEAGUES, UH, DEAL WITH ON THEIR, WHEN THEY'RE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, COULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND ET CETERA, THAT THEY COULD NOT ATTEND, UH, ONLINE OR EVEN IN PERSON, UH, TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS, THESE ROBUST DISCUSSIONS. HOWEVER, UH, I THINK, UH, THE FACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS OKAY WITH THE DEFERRING THIS ITEM SO WE CAN GET MORE QUESTIONS TO HER SO HER STAFF CAN BE ABLE TO ANSWER ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS IN, IN, UH, A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY IS, IS A REASON WHY, UH, I THOUGHT TO DEFER THIS ITEM. SO I APPRECIATE THOSE THAT WILL SUPPORT IT, SO WE CAN GET THOSE ANSWERS TO OUR COLLEAGUES AS COUNCILMAN MORENO JUST SUGGESTED AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES MOTION TO DEFER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU KNOW, I KEEP HEARING THIS REFERRED TO AS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT I THINK ACROSS THE COURSE OF THOSE THREE MEETINGS, IT HAS DEFINITELY EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING THAT HAS COUNCIL OWNERSHIP. UM, BUT THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOOD AND IT HAS, UM, REVEALED THE, THE STRATA OF ALL OF THE LAYERS OF THIS, UM, DIFFERENT CONTRACT THRESHOLDS AND HOW MANY IT WOULD AFFECT. YOU ALL HAVE BROKEN THAT OUT FOR US, THE DIFFERENT JOBS AND HOW LABOR INTENSIVE THEY ARE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE'VE KIND OF LUMPED EVERYONE TOGETHER AND SOME ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS. ALSO, WHERE THE CITY IS PAYING [04:10:01] ABOVE MARKET RATE AND NOT IN HARDER TO FILL LABOR INTENSIVE JOBS, WHICH WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AND THEN ALSO WHERE THE PRIVATE SECTOR'S DOLLARS AND BENEFITS HAVE PUT A CHILL ON THE CITY'S HI HIRING ABILITY AND WHERE WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE WE WOULD PAY HIGHER JUST TO BE ABLE TO FILL JOBS TO SERVE OUR RESIDENTS. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE, BUT SOUNDS LIKE MORE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED. UH, CITY MANAGER, YOU MENTIONED THE SEPTEMBER 2ND BUDGET WORKSHOP. WOULD THIS JUST BE A MODULE WE WOULD PLUG INTO THAT? OKAY. UM, I, I DO THINK FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND WHO DID NOT ATTEND, UM, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T ON THE COMMITTEE, THERE'S SOME VALUABLE LEARNING SO THAT WE'RE NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH ON IT, UM, TO, TO LEARN ABOUT ALL THAT DISCUSSION, BUT THAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, UM, THIS DELAY SO THAT WE COULD HEAR THIS AT A SEPARATE, I GUESS IN A BRIEFING AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP TO DRILL INTO SOME OF THE OTHER ONES. AND THE REASON I'M, I'M FOR IT, BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS HAD A LOT OF EXAMINATION, IS I DO RESPECT THE FACT THESE ARE HUMAN LIVES. THESE ARE JOBS, THIS IS ABOUT ECONOMIC MOBILITY. THIS IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WHAT COULD COME BACK TO US AND THE NEED TO PROVIDE RESOURCES. SO, UM, THAT IS WHY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, OF, UH, GETTING ANOTHER BRIEFING. MR. ROTH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, I, I WANT TO, UH, UH, UM, UNFORTUNATELY, I I'M GONNA HAVE TO, UH, NOT BE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING. I REALLY FEEL LIKE, UH, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON IT. UH, I THINK IF WE WANT TO CHANGE SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF IT, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO AMEND THE, THE, UH, ORIGINAL MOTION WHEN IT COMES TO, FOR, TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS. UM, I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE MARKET DETERMINING WHAT OUR CONTRACTORS ARE SUPPOSED TO PAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S UP TO, TO US, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD, UH, BE, UH, PAYING THEIR EMPLOYEES AND HOW THEY WANNA DO THEIR BUSINESS. I ALSO AM VERY MUCH CONCERNED THAT THE, UM, THE LIMITATION ON THIS, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR, THAT SMALLER CONTRACTS ARE ABSOLUTELY, UH, NOT PENALIZED BY BEING, UH, UH, FORCED TO PAY A, A HIGHER WAGE. UH, AND, AND I THINK THE $300,000 LIMIT PERSONALLY IS TOO LOW. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A MILLION DOLLARS. IT SHOULD NOT APPLY TO CONTRACTS THAT, THAT, UH, I THINK WE NEED TO OPEN UP OUR, OUR COMMUNITY, UH, OPPORTUNITIES FOR, FOR VENDORS TO SOLICIT OUR BUSINESS AS A CITY AND TO GIVE MORE PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. AND IF THE WAGE POLICY IS PREVENTING THOSE FOLKS FROM HIRING PEOPLE THAT THEY FEEL COULD DO THE JOB AND FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE AMOUNT THEY WANNA PAY, THAT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE. IT'S NOT UP TO US TO DECIDE WE ARE NOT IN THE EMPLOYMENT BUSINESS. THAT IS NOT OUR CORE SERVICE. FOCUS ON WHAT IS OUR CORE SERVICES FOLKS, WE'RE SAVING 23 MILLION BUCKS, AND THAT MAY BE THE TIP OF THE, OF THE OPPORTUNITY. SO AGAIN, I, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO, UH, I THINK THE, THE POSITION HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, ELIMINATE USING AN ARTIFICIAL, UH, MARKET, UH, ARTIFICIAL, UH, UH, BENCHMARK FOR, FROM, FROM SOME OTHER GROUP THAT, UH, MAY, UH, COLOR THE, THE ISSUE OF HOW MUCH WE PAY PEOPLE AND HOW MUCH OUR CONTRACTORS PAY PEOPLE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BODY. THE MARKET SHOULD RULE, AND I THINK THIS, UH, CURRENT POLICY ALLOWS US TO AT LEAST REDUCE THIS DOWN TO A MARKET WAGE NUMBER ONE. BUT I PERSONALLY, IF WE, IF WE PROCEED WITH THIS, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE INCREASE THE LIMIT, UH, ON THE VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS, THAT THESE ARE EX, THAT, UH, THAT THESE ARE, THAT THIS, ANY KIND OF LIVING WAGE OR MINIMUM WAGE IS, IS ATTRIBUTABLE. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO, UH, IMPOSE THIS ONTO, UH, SMALLER CONTRACTORS. AND A MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT IS GETTING TO BE SMALLER CONTRACTS NOW. SO I'M GONNA OPPOSE THE DEFERRAL. MR. BASA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UH, REQUEST A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. UM, I, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO CREATE A RECORD, UM, BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT TONE WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTION SEASON AND ASKING FOR ENDORSEMENTS FROM LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SITTING? NONE THE RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ON THE MOTION TO DEFER EVERYONE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, [04:15:01] WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU IN FAVOR? NO. IF YOU OPPOSE. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KAENA IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DOA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROSS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO. TIMM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? NOPE. WITH NINE. VOTING IN FAVOR. FIVE OPPOSED? ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE MOTION PASSES MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, MOVING ON. [39. 26-2589A Authorize a five-year service contract for aircraft landing fee collection and billing services for the Department of Aviation - Vector Airport Systems, LLC, most advantageous proposer of two - Estimated Annual Gross Revenue: Aviation Fund $9,776,565.00 *In alignment with Dallas Love Field Master Plan.] ITEM 39. AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING STAYING BETWEEN US AND LUNCH. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. KEEP THAT IN MIND, FOLKS. KEEP THAT IN MIND. AGENDA ITEM 39. AUTHORIZE A FIVE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT FOR AIRCRAFT LANDING FEE COLLECTION AND BILLING SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION VECTOR AIRPORT SYSTEMS LLC MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSER OF TWO. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST FOR A MOTION. I'M MOVED TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO OCTOBER 14TH, 2026. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECONDARY DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION TO DEFER. UM, THIS WAS A REQUEST BY STAFF TO DEFER THIS ITEM THAT ALL OF YOUR DISCUSSION, ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON BEFORE AGAINST MOTION TO DEFER? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. ALRIGHT, HOLD ON EVERYONE. LET'S STAND EACH FOR JUST ONE SECOND. I WANNA CONFER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY QUICKLY. ALRIGHT. I JUST WANTED [CLOSED SESSION] TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE RIGHT ITEMS. SO IT'D BE ALL NICE AND LEGAL. OKAY. IT'S 1:46 PM ON AUGUST 25TH, 2026. THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTIONS 5 51 0.071 AND 5 51 0.072 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA. ITEM NUMBERS 47 AND 48 AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT TWO 30. THANKS. OKAY, WE'RE BACK UP AND RUNNING. SO, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS COMPLETE. ITS CLOSED SECTION OF SECTIONS 5 51 0.0 7 1 5 51 0.072 OF THE TEXAS OPENINGS ACT NET 4:02 PM [44. 26-2566A 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)] ON AUGUST 25TH, 2026. WE'VE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION. MADAM SECRETARY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. WE ARE NOW AT YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. I WILL PULL THAT ITEM UP BEGINNING WITH AGENDA ITEM 44. AGENDA ITEM 44 IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS, BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS. THIS AFTERNOON YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL FULL COUNSEL AND CITY MANAGER PRESENTED APPOINTMENTS, YOUR NOMINEES FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. ANDREW SIEGEL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. MR. SIEGEL MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC SPECIAL QUALIFICATION ALSO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. CYAN AMARI IS BEING NOMINATED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. MS. AMARI MEETS THE GENERAL PUBLIC SPECIAL QUALIFICATION TO THE SENIOR AFFAIRS COMMISSION. DAVID C. TYSON IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART. MR. TYSON MEETS THE 55 PLUS YEARS OF AGE SPECIAL QUALIFICATION AND TO THE SENIOR AFFAIRS COMMISSION. VERNA VERNA G MITCHELL IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE MS. MITCHELL MEETS THE 55 PLUS YEARS OF AGE SPECIAL QUALIFICATION. YOUR NOMINEES FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE REINVESTMENTS ZONE 14 BOARD SKILLMAN CORRIDOR. ASHE L WARREN IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, ALSO TO THE REINVESTMENTS ZONE 14 BOARD SKILLMAN CORRIDOR. ALLEN RET IS BEING NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART, YOUR NOMINEE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TECHNICAL PANEL. CATHERINE G JACK IS BEING NOMINATED AGAIN BY THE CITY MANAGER. MS. JACK MEETS THE ENERGY SPECIAL QUALIFICATION. THESE ARE YOUR NOMINEES, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? [04:20:01] SECOND. OKAY, I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. CONGRATULATIONS NOMINEES. UH, NEXT ITEM PLEASE. [45. 26-2483A Authorize the second step of acquisition for condemnation by eminent domain to acquire a water and wastewater easement from Texas Ranch Land of approximately 540 square feet of land, located near the intersection of Louisiana and Ramsey Avenues for the Water and Wastewater Main Replacements Design Contract No. 18-283/284E Project - Not to exceed $4,970.00 ($2,970.00, plus closing cost and title expenses not to exceed $2,000.00) - Financing: Wastewater Capital Improvement F Fund *In alignment with Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program.] THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 45 AUTHORIZED A SECOND STEP OF ACQUISITION FOR CONDEMNATION BY EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE A WATER AND WASTEWATER EASEMENT FROM TEXAS RANCH LAND APPROXIMATELY 540 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF LOUISIANA AND RAMSEY AVENUES FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS. DESIGNED NOT TO EXCEED $4,970. BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMMINENT DOMAIN ITEM, IT WILL REQUIRE RECORD VOTE. MR. MAYOR. OKAY. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? ANYONE WANNA MOVE ITEMS? 45 SECOND. OKAY. IT'S HELPFUL WHEN IT'S ON THE MICROPHONE THOUGH. OKAY. IT'S, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY MOVE? MOVE TO APPROVE. THANK YOU. AND I HEARD A SECOND. UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AT 45? SEE NONE ON THE RECORD. VOTES REQUIRED. SO, MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL. ROLL PLEASE. THANK YOU. MAYOR, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STAY. YES. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR, NO. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO, UH, MORENO, DID YOU WANNA VOTE? COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO. THIS IS A ITEM 45. YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KAENA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BAZEL? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH 14. VOTING IN FAVOR? NO OPPOSED? ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES MR. MAYOR. OKAY, NEXT ITEM. [46. 26-2707A Authorize the Dallas Public Facility Corporation to (1) acquire, develop, and own DNT Housing, a 350-unit workforce housing community located at 18438 and 18470 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas 75287 (Project); and (2) enter into a seventy-five-year lease agreement with GHN Holdings, LLC or its affiliate, for the development of the Project - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund $10,961,950.48 (for 60 years; see Fiscal Information) (This item was deferred on August 12, 2026) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.] AGENDA. ITEM 46. AUTHORIZE THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION TO ONE, ACQUIRE, DEVELOP, AND OWN D AND T HOUSING, A 350 UNIT WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMUNITY. LOCATED AT 1 8 4 3 8 AND 1 8 4 7 0 DALLAS PARKWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 8 7 PROJECT AND TWO, ENTER INTO A 75 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GHN HOLDINGS, LC, OR ITS AFFILIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. YOU DO HAVE SEVEN INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK HUNT. NEW. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR JOHNSON. COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. I'M HUNT ROHR. I'M WITH THE DEVELOPER AND APPLICANT GH N HOLDINGS. TODAY I'M VERY EXCITED TO PRESENT A PFC HOUSING PROJECT FOR CLASS A NEW CONSTRUCTION MIXED INCOME HOUSING. IT MEETS THE VENN DIAGRAM OF WHAT THE PFC IS MEANT TO, TO CREATE BASED ON A RECENTLY ADOPTED DALLAS HOUSING POLICY. IT'S TARGETING A POVERTY CENSUS TRACT, CREATING AN ECONOMIC CATALYST FOR A DEPRESSED AREA WHILE CREATING REAL AFFORDABILITY. THIS IS BEING ACHIEVED WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS REPLACING 20 YEAR VACANT, AS WELL AS BLIGHTED PROPERTY WHERE THE PFC REVENUES WILL EXCEED THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAXES. THE LOCATION IS FAR NORTH DALLAS OFF OF FRANKFORT ROAD IN THE TOLLWAY. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO DALLAS PFCS OR HFCS WITHIN THE CENSUS TRACT OR WITHIN A 4.5 MILE RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY TWO VACANT PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE REPLACED WITH 350 UNITS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE SUBMARKET IS A TAIL OF TWO CITIES. YOU HAVE VERY HIGH END SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND DETERIORATING 1980S APARTMENTS. THIS CLASS, A NEW CONSTRUCTION PFC PROJECT, WILL PROVIDE LITERALLY THE MISSING MIDDLE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO ENDS OF THE BARBELL DUE TO THE DILAPIDATED APARTMENTS IN THIS CENSUS TRACT. THIS PROPERTY PROPERTY SITS IN A 20% PLUS POVERTY CENSUS TRACT. THE RECENTLY APPROVED CITY HOUSING POLICY [04:25:01] RECOMMENDS THAT THIS IS WHERE THE PFC PROJECT SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED TODAY, THE VACANCY VACUUM OF THIS PROPERTY AND PRIOR BOARDED UP EXTENDED STAY HAVE LED TO HIGH LEVELS OF CRIME ON THIS PROPERTY. AND THE LAST FIVE YEARS, 59 CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED HERE. AS AN EXAMPLE, THE ECONOMIC CATALYST, THE PROJECT WILL SUPPORT A FAILING GROCERY ANCHORED RETAIL ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT WHEN EXCLUDING THE TOM THUMB IS 75% OCCUPIED, 25% VACANT. IT'LL ALSO ENCOURAGE MUCH NEEDED INVESTMENT INTO THE SURROUNDING DILAPIDATED APARTMENTS BECAUSE OF THE 20 YEAR VACANCY. TODAY'S PROPERTY TAX IS 169,000. THE PFC GROUND RENT WILL EXCEED THE PROPERTY TAX BY 50%. ADDITIONALLY, THE PFC WILL EARN CLOSING FEES AND PROPERTY SALE REVENUES WERE OVER 10 YEARS. IT'S ESTIMATED THE PFC WILL BE A FOUR X INCREASE IN REVENUE. THE PROJECT HELD A COMMUNITY-WIDE TOWN HALL IN WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON, UM, STATED THAT CLASS A INVESTMENT WOULD BE GOOD AND WOULD LIKELY DETER CRIME. HERE THIS PROJECT HAS ROBUST COMMUNITY SUPPORT FROM THE ADJACENT HOAS, INCLUDING A SUPPORT LETTER FROM, UH, VENTRE WEST, THE PRESIDENT OF VENTRY, NORTH AND NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE REPRESENTING A HUNDRED HOAS FOR, FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SAMUEL WEGER. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. HOWEVER, I CANNOT SEE YOUR VIDEO. YOUR VIDEO MUST BE DISPLAYED TURNING IT ON IN ALL VIRTUAL SPEAKERS. I WILL ASK THAT YOU HAVE YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO READY. OKAY. WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU. MR. INGER, ARE YOU ABLE TO CONNECT? I'LL, I'LL COME BACK. HOLLY PARNELL? YES, MA'AM, I'M HERE. OKAY. WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE. THANK YOU. UM, MY NAME'S HOLLY PERNELL AND I HAVE OVER 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE MULTIFAMILY, UH, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FROM AN OPERATIONS PERSPECTIVE, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS VENT SUBMARKET WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED, UM, THE CURRENT PRODUCT IN THIS HOUSING MARKET IS SIGNIFICANTLY AGED WITH SUBURBAN CHARACTER. AND AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, A PROPOSED CLASS A PROPERTY WOULD HELP PROVIDE A MIDDLE HOUSING OPTION FOR RESIDENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SEEKING TO STAY OR RELOCATE TO THIS MARKET AND PROVIDE A CATALYST FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SAMUEL WINSER. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YES, CAN. OKAY. I I, YOUR VIDEO'S STILL NOT DISPLAYING? YES. OKAY, I'LL, I'LL COME BACK. YES. THOMAS DUPREE ALLY. I DID SEE SAM ON THE SCREEN UP HERE. HE WAS ON A LITTLE WINDOW. I'LL COME BACK TO HIM. YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY. I'M TOM DUPREY. I LIVE AT 51 32 BEL RAY DRIVE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. AND I'VE SERVED ON THE ENTRY NORTH HOA BOARD MULTIPLE TIMES, CURRENTLY SERVING AS A VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. AND I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF THE NORTH DALLAS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OR NDNA WHO SERVES MANY H HOAS IN DISTRICTS 11 AND 12. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IN DALLAS, NORTH OF 6 35. WITH BOTH ORGANIZATIONS, I SERVE A COMMON PURPOSE, WHICH IS STRIVING TO MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD SANCTITY AND INTEGRITY TO ENSURE THAT DALLAS' SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE WHERE WE ALL WANT TO LIVE AND RAISE OUR FAMILIES BY WORKING TO PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS AS SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS. THOUGH PEOPLE THINK OF DISTRICT 12 AS BEING REMOTE, THEY'RE SURPRISED TO LEARN. IT IS THE SECOND MOST DENSELY POPULATED DISTRICT IN THE CITY. AND THIS IS DUE TO THE ABUNDANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AND VOUCHER IN SECTION EIGHT HOUSING. IN THE AREAS SURROUNDING, THERE'S SURROUNDING WHERE HUNT IS LOOKING FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S OVER 6,000 CLASS C APARTMENTS, THEREFORE, I'M ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS INTO ANY INCREASE OF DENSITY IN OUR AREA. THAT BEING SAID, THIS PROJECT IS A UNIQUE WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED. IT REMOVES AN EMPTY EYESORE REPLACING TWO LONG VACATED AND NEGLECTED HIGH CRIME [04:30:01] PROPERTIES, FREQUENTED BY VI VAGRANTS DRUG ADDICTS AND PROVIDES 350 UNITS OF CLASS, A MIXED AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING TO AN AREA CHARACTERIZED BY AGING, HIGHLY DISTRESSED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING NEW SIDEWALKS, IMPROVED LANDSCAPING AND UPGRADED UTILITY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL AND WILL COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES BY OFFERING HIGH-END FINISHES SUCH AS MASONRY, MODERN WINDOW SYSTEMS AND OTHER ELEMENTS TO UPGRADE AND ENHANCE THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. INCONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT. IT'LL BRING A NEW INVESTMENT TO AN AREA THAT FOR DECADES HAS BEEN IN SLOW DECLINE, HELPING TO REENERGIZE THE AREA AND PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR NEW RESIDENTS. AND UNLIKE THE 6,000 APARTMENTS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE NO PROJECT BASED VOUCHERS ALLOWING, ATTACKED AS A BUFFER ZONE OFFERING AFFORDABLE AND MID-LEVEL HOUSING BETWEEN LOW INCOME AND UPPER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS PROJECT IS A WIN FOR ALL INVOLVED. LOW INCOMES COMMUNITIES WIN WITH REMOVAL OF HIGH CRIME NUISANCE. THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BENEFIT WITH REMOVAL, REMOVAL OF TWO EYES SORES. AND SO WITH THE SUPPORT FOR THESE REASONS, WITH THE SUPPORT OF NDNA, THE PRESIDENT OF OUR HOA AND I STRONGLY DO SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. ER. YES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ISSUES AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. COUNSEL. UM, AS A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA, I'M THRILLED TO SEE A LOCAL DEVELOPER TAKE ON THIS PROJECT. SEEMS LIKE FOR FAR TOO LONG, THE PROPERTY'S BEEN A MAJOR SOURCE OF CRIME AND AN EYESORE, AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM OTHER FOLKS. ALTHOUGH IT IS ADJACENT TO AFFLUENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN THE NEGATIVE IMPACT IT HAS ON THE SURROUNDING RETAIL AND THE CONDITION OF THE VACANT PROPERTIES HAS ONLY MADE THE SITUATION WORSE. I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN OUT THERE AND WITNESSED HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS USING THE VACANT LAND AS A BATHROOM. IT'S NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR FAMILIES WHO ARE GOING TO FREQUENT THE DOG PARK. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, GONNA BE A BETTER SITUATION ONCE IT IS DEVELOPED. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SEEMS VERY COMPATIBLE. IT'S AN ALLOWED USE SPY. RIGHT? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, IT'LL REMAIN AS WELL MAINTAINED IN HIGH QUALITY HOUSING COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT'S DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. SO IT NOT ONLY IS A BENEFIT FOR THE WORKFORCE OF THIS AREA WHO'S STRUGGLING TO FIND A PLACE BETWEEN THE HIGH END HOMES AND THE LOW INCOME HOUSING OFFERED AT SIGNIFICANTLY RUN DOWN APARTMENTS, BUT THE PROJECT GENERATING THE REVENUE FOR THE CITY THAT ITS PROJECTION WILL, WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FOR THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE CITY, UH, NORTH DALLAS NEEDS LIKE THIS. AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS VACANT, DETERIORATING PROPERTY FINALLY BEING PLANNED AS A PRODUCTIVE USE. AND I WANT TO THANK THE GHN GROUP FOR STEPPING UP AND MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. CRYSTAL HUNT. CRYSTAL HUNT. HEAR ME AND SEE ME. I CAN HEAR YOU. YES, I CAN HEAR YOU. MS. HUNT. I CAN SEE YOU NOW AND YOU CAN SEE ME. OKAY. PERFECT. UH, GOOD EVENING MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL HUNT. I'VE LIVED IN DALLAS SINCE EARLY 2018. BOUGHT MY FIRST HOME IN NORTH DALLAS IN MID 23. I SERVE AS THE SECRETARY ON THE BEN TREE WEST, HOA BOARD, AS WELL AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BEN TREE WEST SWIM AND TENNIS CENTER BOARD. I'VE WORKED IN INVESTMENTS SINCE 2014 WITH A FOCUS ON MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. I PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS CLASS A TRANSACTIONS BEYOND TEXAS, EVALUATING PROJECTS ON FUNDAMENTALS, INCLUDING LOCATION, PRODUCT QUALITY, CAPABILITY, AND MARKET DEMAND. WITH A LONG-TERM GOAL VALUE, OR SORRY, WITH A GOAL OF LONG-TERM VALUE FOR BOTH INVESTORS AND THE COMMUNITIES. THESE PROJECTS ARE BUILT IN. I'M HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF GHN HOLDINGS PROPOSAL. I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN THERE IN PERSON. I KEPT THE ORIGINAL DAY CLEAR WHEN IT WAS MOVED, I WASN'T ABLE TO REARRANGE, WHICH IS WHY I'M JOINING BY ZOOM. I MENTIONED THAT ONLY BECAUSE WORKING PEOPLE TODAY DO MAKE AN EFFORT TO SHOW UP FOR THESE MEETINGS. AND I ASK THE CITY COUNCIL APPEAR TO BE CONSIDERED OF US CLASS A MULTIFAMILY CONTINUES TO SHOW SOLID ABSORPTION AND HEALTHY OCCUPANCY IN THE SUBMARKET. NEW, WELL-DESIGNED PRODUCT IS LEASING EFFECTIVELY AND SUPPORTING LONG-TERM STABILITY. THIS IS A CLEAR UPGRADE FOR THE CORRIDOR. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY VACANCIES. THE DESIGN FEATURES A FULL AMENITY PACKAGE, INCLUDING A POOL, COURTYARD, FITNESS CENTER, AND A PARKING GARAGE WRAPPED BY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SO THE STREET PRESIDENT OR PRESENCE IS RESIDENTIAL RATHER THAN SURFACE PARKING. TO MAKE THE PROJECT FEASIBLE, THE CITY IS ASKED TO PROVIDE A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION. [04:35:01] IN EXCHANGE, GA HOLDINGS IS COMMITTING TO A MEANINGFUL AND ENFORCEABLE TRADE, WHICH IS REAL INCOME DIVERSITY THAT MOST CLASS A CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT OFFER. THE PROJECT ALSO DELIVERS TANGIBLE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, BEARING THE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINES ALONG THE SERVICE ROAD, REMOVING OUTDATED BLANK RETAIL SIGNAGE AND INSTALLING NEW SIDEWALKS FROM AN INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING PERSPECTIVE. THIS TYPE OF PROJECT WILL SUCCEED WHEN DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE PRODUCT QUALITY IN A THOUGHTFUL PUBLIC PRIVATE STRUCTURE LINE. IT REPLACES A CRIME GENERATING SITE WITH A BEAUTIFUL HOUSING THAT SERVES MARKET RATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WHILE IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY. I'D LIKE TO ASK THIS FORM TO WEIGH PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC INPUT MATTERS AND EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD. HOWEVER, NOT EVERY SPEAKER HAS A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF HOW DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY GETS BUILT. FEASIBILITY, UNDERWRITING ABSORPTION, OR CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS, IT'S NOT A KNOCK ON ANYONE. IT'S SIMPLY A REASON TO KEEP THE DECISION YOU MAKE ANCHORED TO THE UNDERLYING MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL, NOT JUST THE VOLUME OR TONE OF THE COMMENTS IT DRAWS. WHEN WE HAD OUR LAST LITTLE ADVENTURE DOWN TO CITY HALL IN FRONT OF PFC, THIS PROJECT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. I HOPE IT RECEIVES THE SAME CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TODAY FOCUSED ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL RATHER THAN PROCESS OR POLITICS. I RESPECTFULLY URGE ALL VOTING PARTIES TO PROVE THE NECESSARY PARTNERSHIP ELEMENTS SO THIS REDEVELOPMENT CAN MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. BRANDON HUNT? YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. UH, MY NAME IS BRANDON HUNT REE WEST. WE'RE ABOUT TWO BLOCKS OR SO FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. UM, AND FOR THE, UH, UH, PFC PARTNERSHIP, I'M ABOUT 20 YEARS IN MY CAREER IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, ACROSS THE COUNTRY. UM, AND I THINK JUST REALLY IMPORTANT, THIS IS A LOCAL, YOU KNOW, REAL ESTATE'S ALWAYS LOCAL, BUT THE STATUS QUO, THIS LOCATION IS NOT NEUTRAL. UH, THESE TWO PARCELS AS HUNT DESCRIBES, UM, ARE BOARDED UP EXTENDED STAY WITH CODE VIOLATIONS. THERE'S RETAIL THAT SAT EMPTY FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS. SO IT'S BEEN A NEXUS FOR CRIME, UH, PEOPLE SLEEPING ON THE GROUND. IT'S REALLY A DISARRAY. SO IT'S NOT A PROPERTY THAT'S SITTING QUIETLY ON THE TAX ROLL WAITING FOR A BETTER OFFER. IT'S, UH, IT'S REALLY AN ACTIVE DRAG ON EVERYTHING AROUND IT. THE FRANKER CROSSING, WHICH WAS MENTIONED, RETAIL CENTER THAT BORDERS THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE IS STRUGGLING WITH MAJOR VACANCY ISSUES. AND I THINK THE COMMUNITIES NEXT DOOR WERE BUILT BETWEEN 1984 AND 1991. AND THEY'RE LOSING TENANTS TO NEWER PRODUCTS. SO I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE TAX ROLL, WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THE WHOLE BLOCK. AND EVERY YEAR THE SITE SITS VACANT. THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES ARE OUT IN ROADS AND REINVESTMENT HERE IS REALLY WHAT STABILIZES THAT. UM, IT'S REALLY ABOUT TURNING AN AREA THAT IT TAKES REAL CAPITAL. SO THIS IS A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PLUS PROJECT THE SIZE THAT DRAWS IT IN. YOU KNOW, THE INVESTORS TO OUR AREA THAT WE NEED TO HELP SPUR ACTIVITY, UM, AND APARTMENTS ON THE RIGHT USE HERE. THE MARKET HAS ALREADY TOLD US, YOU KNOW, RETAIL DIDN'T WORK, HOSPITALITY DIDN'T SURVIVE, UM, WHAT MIGHT PENCIL OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, SELF STORE TO CAR WASH, INDUSTRIAL, UM, NONE OF THOSE RAISE THE QUALITY OF ANYTHING OR ANYONE AROUND THEM. AND SO THERE'S A REAL GAP THAT ALSO FILLS FOR THE MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS WHERE THERE'S ESSENTIALLY NO CLASS A OPTION IN THIS PART OF DISTRICT 12 FOR HOUSEHOLDS EARNING CALLED 50 TO 90,000. UH, WHAT'S AVAILABLE THEN TO RIGHT NOW IS, IS UH, IS OLDER AGING DETERIORATED. AND I KNOW THIS CAN, THIS PROJECT CAN BE BUILT BY, RIGHT? UM, I'M HERE BECAUSE IF THE SITE IS GETTING REDEVELOPED ANYWAY, THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE A PFC TOOL BELONGS. IT'S GENUINELY, GENUINELY BLIGHTED. THERE'S NO ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY. THERE'S NO DISPLACEMENT OF ANY KIND IN DALLAS CITY PARTNER WITH APPROVAL RIGHTS OVER ITS MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY. UH, SO OUR HOA OBVIOUSLY, AS CRYSTAL MENTIONED, OUR BOARD SUPPORTS IT AND I'D ASK YOU TO, UH, VOTE YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BRUCE RUSSO. GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR. AND CONS. I AM BRUCE RUSSO. I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE OHOA OF OUR OAK TREE. AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, MANY YEARS AGO, THIS PARTICULAR AREA WAS A CLASS, A SECTION OF THE CITY. UM, AND AS WE KNOW, ALL REAL ESTATE CYCLES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. AND I THINK WE'VE SEEN NUMEROUS CYCLES IN THIS AREA WITH THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND RETAIL. UM, WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN, WHAT THIS GROUP IS LOOKING TO DO FOR THAT PROPERTY IS DEFINITELY CLASS [04:40:01] A. AND I THINK WE NEED THAT CLASS A SPARK IN THE AREA TO SPARK MORE CLASS A. THE RETAIL THAT WE HAVE THERE IS BC CLASS LOOK AND WE CAN'T ATTRACT A CLASS TENANTS WITH C REAL ESTATE. SO THE RETAIL NEEDS TO START MATCHING WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN, WHAT THIS GROUP IS LOOKING TO DO WITH THIS HOUSING. AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT, GREAT POSITIVE DIRECTION THAT WILL HELP THE ENTIRE AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, I'M LOOKING FORWARD. MOTION MOVE TO DENY. SECOND. ALRIGHT, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOURE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION TO DENY ITEM 46. THANK YOU. WE HAD A PRETTY BLISTERING MORNING TALKING ABOUT OUR BUDGET AND OUR TAX RATE, AND I HOPE YOU'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU LISTEN TO THE REST OF MY COMMENTS. LAST NIGHT WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 60 PEOPLE ON A VIRTUAL TOWN HALL, AND I WAS SO THANKFUL TO HEAR, UM, THEIR INPUT. ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS I TOLD THEM IS, THIS CAN BE BUILT BY RIGHT? THERE'S NO SAY IN IT. THIS IS ALL SB EIGHT 40. ALL OF YOU POTENTIALLY ARE DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE. AND THE TRUTH IS, WHICH I SAID TO THEM, THIS MIGHT BE THE RIGHT THING TO BUILD IT'S APARTMENTS. AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD GO, OH, CAROL'S NOT GONNA BE FOR APARTMENTS. 'CAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE SO VERY MANY APARTMENTS. HOWEVER, THERE'S TWO PARCELS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ONE OF THEM USED TO BE THE SMITH AND WALINSKI, UM, STEAKHOUSE. AND IF YOU WIN, IT'S VERY NICE. YOU SHOULD GO IN NEW YORK. UM, NOTHING FUNCTIONAL HAS BEEN THERE IN 20 YEARS. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY. THERE HAVE BEEN LOTS OF SORT OF CRAZY IDEAS ON HOW TO REDEVELOP IT, INCLUDING A CIGAR BAR WITH VIRTUAL GOLFING. AND I MEAN, JUST SOME REALLY INTERESTING IDEAS. UM, THE NEXT PARCEL, UM, HAS BEEN A MOTEL THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. SO PLEASE, AS YOU'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION OF THIS BOARDED UP HOTEL, WHICH WAS ONE OF THEM, WE CONSIDERED, BY THE WAY, FOR THE HOMELESS SHELTER IN DISTRICT DISTRICT 12. UM, IT'S NOT BEEN THAT WAY. THIS IS NOT THE MISSING MIDDLE. IT'S NOT THE ONLY PLACE WITH CLASS A MULTIFAMILY. SO JUST AT FRANKFURT IN THE TOLLWAY, THERE'S A VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT UP AT HORIZON NORTH, WHICH IS THE NORTHERN MOST PART OF OUR CITY IS ACTUALLY THE MOST NORTHERN STREET. UM, ALSO, I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL CLASS A. THE RETAIL, IF YOU HEAR RETAIL STRIP IS 25% VACANT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR RETAIL LOOKS LIKE, BUT ALL OF THE RETAIL STRIP CENTERS IN DISTRICT 12 ARE 25% VACANT. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING SPECIAL OR NEW. I LOVE THAT THERE'S SUPPORT LETTERS FROM HOAS. THESE ARE NOT THE HOAS THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD THE TOWN HALL LAST NIGHT. THE DEVELOPER WENT TO CERTAIN HOAS, WHICH AS YOU COULD SEE WERE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE QUESTION IS THE FINANCING. NOW, YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE TIME WE HAVE A PFC, I'M GONNA SIT HERE AND SAY, MY GOD, HOW CAN WE GIVE AWAY 60 YEARS OF PROPERTY TAXES? BUT LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THEY WERE TELLING YOU ABOUT THE NEARBY AREA. AND IN THE NEARBY AREA. LET ME TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY UNITS ARE IN THE NEARBY AREA OF APARTMENTS. IT'S 5,925 UNITS. THERE'S A LOT OF APARTMENTS, 13.2% VACANCY. YOU CAN GO INTO ONE OF THESE APARTMENTS TODAY WITH THE PFCA 60% UNIT FOR ONE BEDROOM. HE'S GONNA CHARGE YOU $1,408. THAT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. IF YOU GO RIGHT NOW TO GET ONE OF THESE APARTMENTS THAT'S BUILT 1090 $9. SO YOU'RE GONNA SPEND $300 MORE FOR THE SUBSIDIZED APARTMENT WHERE THEY'RE NOT PAYING TAXES, OR YOU CAN SPEND $300 LESS AND WE'RE RECEIVING THE REVENUE AT THE 80% LEVEL, SAME THING, $1,749. AND WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THAT RATE. WHEN THEY COULD BE SPENDING 1099 MARKET RATE, HE'S GONNA CHARGE 1,965, ALL THOSE 5,925 UNITS, 1099. SO WHEN WE REALLY TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND HAVING THAT AVAILABLE, IT'S THE [04:45:01] UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE THAT ARE VACANT. AND SO HOW ARE YOU GONNA JUSTIFY BUILDING A CLASS A PROPERTY? AND TRUST ME, YOU WOULD LOVE THIS FACILITY IN ANY OF YOUR DISTRICTS. IT'S REALLY NICE. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. I'M OPPOSED TO THE PFC FORCING US TO GIVE UP THIS REVENUE. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. YOU KNOW, IT JUST FROM OUR CONVERSATION THIS MORNING. SO IF YOU'VE NEVER VOTED NO ON A PFC, NOW IS THE TIME. AND I HOPE YOU BUILD IT WITHOUT THE PFC JUST AS IT IS AND I'LL SUPPORT THAT. BUT I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SAY YES, WE NEED, I MEAN, WHAT IS THE NUMBER IN HERE THAT WE'RE GIVING UP? $10.9 MILLION OVER SIX YEARS. WE JUST HAD A BIG FIGHT OVER 10, $11 MILLION THAT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUO WANTED TO PULL OUT. COME ON GUYS. SO THIS IS WHY IT'S A NO, IT'S THE FINANCING NOT THE PROJECT, WHICH AGAIN, THEY CAN DO BY RIGHT? AND I HOPE THEY DO. THANK YOU MR. ROTH. RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY ITEM 46. UH, THANK YOU. UH, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS, UM, ON, ON THE PROJECT. MAYBE THE DEVELOPER MIGHT BE ABLE IF YOU, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TASKS, SOME, SOME QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. SO, UH, BASED ON, SO YOU'VE GOT 350 UNITS, YOUR CONSTRUCTION COST IS GONNA BE ABOUT HOW MUCH? $80 MILLION. RIGHT? UM, AND THEN THE, UH, WHAT IS YOUR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES GONNA BE? IT'S GONNA BE TWO 50 BASED ON THE IMPROVED VALUE. WELL, WHAT ARE YOU PAYING THE PFC OH, $255,000. OKAY. AND SO THAT'S YOUR, THAT THAT'S PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAX. IT'S IT'S THE PILOT AND THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL IT PILOT. YES, SIR. AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE, UH, FOR THE 60 YEARS, IS THAT INCREASED THE 60 YEARS? YES, SIR. WITH OTHER REVENUE AS WELL. BUT THAT'S THE BASE ANNUAL REVENUE. YES. WHAT OTHER REVENUE DO THEY GET? THERE'S CLOSING REVENUE, THAT'S $750,000. AND THEN EVERY TIME THE PROPERTY SELLS, THE INITIAL SALE IS 2.5% OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS GO TO THE CITY. SO IF IT SELLS FOR A HUNDRED MILLION, THAT'S 2.5. AND THEN ALL SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS ARE 2% OF GROSS SALE PROCEEDS. OKAY. AND THOSE PROCEEDS GO INTO THE PFC, THEY DON'T GO TO THE CITY OR DO THEY GO TO THE CITY OR DO THEY GO TO THE PFC? THEY GO TO THE PFC. RIGHT. SO MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT I'M LEARNING IS THAT THE CITY, THE, ALL THE CASH THAT'S GOING IN IS GOING INTO THE PFC BUCKET. IT DOESN'T COME INTO THE GENERAL REVENUE BUCKET. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE HEARTBURNS I HAVE. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON YOUR PROJECT. YOU ALL ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. YOU'RE PROVIDING HOUSING, YOU'RE PROVIDING GOOD QUALITY, YOU'RE PROVIDING RENTS THAT ARE IN THE, IN THE MARKET, GIVE OR TAKE. BUT THE FACT IS, THE CITY IS NOT BENEFITING FROM ANY OF THE MONEY THAT'S COMING IN THE CITY IS. IT'S ALL GOING INTO THE PFC, WHICH IS CREATING THIS BUCKET OF MONEY THAT'S RESTRICTED TO JUST DOING PFC PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME HEARTBURN. IF THAT'S IN FACT HOW IT WORKS, AND MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO ME, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WHY CAN'T SOME OF THAT PILOT MONEY, IF NOT, SOME OF IT, IF NOT ALL OF IT, COME INTO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WHY CAN'T THE PROFIT ON THE SALES AT TWO POINT A HALF PERCENT, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE FIVE OR 10%. AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER. THOSE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE NEGOTIATED. YOU CAN CREATE ANY NUMBER YOU WANT TO. THAT SHOULD COME TO THE CITY, NOT INTO THE PFC. AND THAT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF MY PERSONAL CONCERN THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REVENUE TO PAY FOR FIXING THE STREETS. IT'S GOING INTO THE PFC. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FINDING OTHER REVENUE SOURCES. THIS IS ONE OF 'EM, IT'S MONEY THAT THEY'RE PAYING, BUT IT'S NOT GOING INTO THE RIGHT BUCKET, WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND BUCKET. AND, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT AMOUNT IS NECESSARILY CORRECT EITHER. $60 MILLION REPRESENTS HOW MUCH TAXES IN THE REAL WORLD, GIVE OR TAKE FOR YOU. LET'S SAY IT'S GONNA BE $3 MILLION A YEAR, 600. IT IS 70 CENTS IS 600,000 BUCKS A YEAR, GIVE OR TAKE. SO I MEAN, THAT'S A LOT OF OF MONEY THAT WE'RE GIVING UP. SO INSTEAD OF TWO 50 THAT YOU'RE, THAT WE COULD GET, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE LOSING 600, WE'RE LOSING 350. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU ALL TO CHANGE YOUR PERCENTAGE ON THE PROFIT, ON THE SALE, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IS THERE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THE PFC TO CHANGE [04:50:01] THE PILOT PROGRAM SO THAT THAT MONEY COMES INTO THE GENERAL FUND, OR SOME SIGNIFICANT PART COMES INTO THE GENERAL FUND RATHER THAN TO THE PFC. AND NUMBER THREE, CAN WE INCREASE THE, THE PILOT AMOUNT FROM TWO 50 TO SOME OTHER AMOUNT? DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 600. I WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS ENOUGH RUNWAY TO GET YOUR PROJECT UP, GET IT SOLD, GET IT BUILT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY, THAT WE GET SOME MONEY TO BASICALLY RUN THE BUILDING, RUN OUR BUSINESS. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THORAX AND DIRECTOR OF HOUSING COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, UM, THE, THERE'S STATE GUIDELINES ON HOW THE PUBLIC FACILITY, CORPORATIONS AND HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS ARE STRUCTURED. HOW FEES ARE STRUCTURED, HOW THE REVENUES IS SOURCED, HOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BACK IT, YOUR QUESTIONS ARE WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT AT THIS TIME, THE PROGRAMS ARE SET UP TO FOLLOW THE STATE GUIDELINES THAT ALLOW FOR THE CITY TO OFFER THE EXEMPTION AND THE FEES AND REVENUE TO SUPPORT THE, THE CORPORATIONS. THE CORPORATIONS THEN, AS WE JUST AMENDED IN APRIL OF 26, HAVE SOME USE OF THOSE FUNDS WHERE THEY REINVEST THOSE FUNDS INTO PROJECTS. SO IF A DEVELOPER WERE TO SEEK GAP FUNDING THAT'S A PFC OR HFC RATHER THAN COMING TO THE CITY FOR THAT INCENTIVE, THEY WOULD APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE PFC TO USE THOSE FUNDS. AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHERE THE STATE LEGISLATION MIGHT TAKE US IN TERMS OF EXPANDING THE USE OF FUNDS AND THE WAY THAT THAT CAN BE SET UP. BUT AT THIS TIME, THIS PROGRAM AND THIS PROJECT IS FOLLOWING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE RULES ON OUR, OUR CURRENT POLICY AND THE STATE GUIDELINES. UM, AND IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT YOU'RE GETTING FOR, UH, FOR GAP FUNDING FOR, UH, SECOND FUNDING FOR OTHER OTHER COM OTHER MONEY FROM PFC? NO, SIR. THIS WILL BE THE ONLY REQUEST FROM THE CITY. THANK YOU. AND THEN, AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU CAN, UH, THOR IF YOU COULD HELP CLARIFY IT, AND AGAIN, I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS BEING AN EXPERT ON PFCS OR HFCS, BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS SOME, THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PFC TO DESIGNATE OR ALLOW PART OF THE PILOT MONEY TO GO INTO THE CITY. IS THAT NOT IN FACT THE CASE? OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THE, THE LAW? SO, SO PART OF, PART OF THE REVENUE COMES TO REIMBURSE STAFF COSTS. SO THE STAFF AND OFFICE OF HOUSING COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT FOR OUR TIME SPENT PREPARING THESE AGENDA ITEMS AS THE LIAISON, UH, TIME SPENT IN LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE. SO SOME OF MY STAFF IN ONE OF MY PROGRAMS IS LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE, WHERE WE DO ONSITE MONITORING OF THIS PORTFOLIO AS WELL AS OUR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS. AND SO THE CORPORATIONS REIMBURSE US FOR THOSE STAFF COSTS. IN TERMS OF OTHER COSTS, GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND, UM, THE, THE FUNDING REALLY IS RESTRICTED TO VERY SPECIFIC USES OF FUNDING WHEN IT COMES INTO THE REVENUE. UM, BUT WE, WE CAN GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE DEEPLY. WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE SPECIFICS? SO THEY ARE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, UH, PRIMARILY. OH, FOR, WE COULD USE THAT MONEY TO HELP TO WORK ON OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES. UM, THEY'RE, THEY HAVE TO REINVEST THE MONEY IN PUBLIC FACILITIES. YES. AND THAT'S, THIS BE AN OPPORTUNITY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PUBLIC FACILITY WOULD BE. AND, UM, THAT, THAT'S GREAT TO KNOW. UM, BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT PUBLIC FACILITIES AND WHAT PUBLIC PURPOSE I WOULD NEED, UH, FURTHER GUIDANCE AND, AND LEGAL REVIEW OF EXACTLY HOW THAT COULD WORK. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THE PFC HAVE IN THEIR BUCKET? JUST SHY OF 6.6 MILLION. HOW MUCH? UH, SAM MCDANIEL, ASSISTANT GM OF THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION. $6.6 MILLION. JUST SHY OF, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE IN RESERVES CORRECT. FOR GIVING OTHER THINGS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I, UH, HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR WHO, WHOEVER IS IN THERE TO REPRESENT THE PS PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION. I KNOW AARON IS TRAVELING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'S AVAILABLE? HI, CHAD. YES. UH, SAM MCDANIEL, ASSISTANT GM. GREAT. OKAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS PROJECT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE PFC AND THEN ALSO EXPLAIN, UM, THE CENSUS TRACK THAT IT'S IN AND THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT IT IT'S IN AS WELL? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UH, THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY, UH, BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT, UH, ONE FOR THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT THAT IT, IT RECEIVED. THAT WAS, UH, NORMALLY YOU DON'T HAVE FOLKS COMING TO SHOW UP TO AN INITIAL HEARING TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMING TO THEIR, [04:55:01] UH, TO THEIR AREAS. UH, ESPECIALLY NOT IN MASS. SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY LOOKED, LOOKED AT, UH, AND IT, IT WEIGHED HEAVILY ON THEIR DECISION. UM, ADDITIONALLY, UH, GETTING RID OF THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE. UM, ONE HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS. THE OTHER ONE HAS WATER DAMAGE. THE, UH, THE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL, UH, WHICH IS WHY IT SHUT DOWN. UM, SO WE'RE GETTING RID OF TWO BUILDINGS THAT ONE, ONE OF 'EM IS GONNA BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. UM, THE OTHER, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH IT FOR A WHILE AND IT'S EXPERIENCING HIGH LEVELS OF CRIME. UH, SO THAT WEIGHED ON ON THEIR DECISION. UH, PLUS THE PUBLIC BENEFIT PERCENTAGES IS PRETTY GOOD. IT'S GOOD. AND FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAY, UH, WHICH IS WHAT WE CONSIDER THE PROJECTS TO BE, UH, WHEN THEY'RE IN A CENSUS TRACT OF 20% OR HIGHER POVERTY, THEY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WAS, WAS REALLY OFF, OFF THE CHARTS, UH, AS FAR AS THE CALCULATION GOES. UM, BUT YEAH, THAT CENSUS TRACK IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT, UH, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UH, AND THE CITY HAVE, HAVE TASKED US TO, TO, UH, TO FOCUS ON. GREAT. UH, I WANNA BRING THE DEVELOPER DOWN FOR A MINUTE. UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE HILLTOP SECURITIES UNDERWRITING REPORT AND ONE OF THE MYTHS THAT I HEARD MENTIONED, UH, BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IS THAT THE, THE, THE 60% A MI UNITS AND THE 80% A MI UNITS ARE REALLY NOT THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE MARKET RATE UNITS. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SEEING REFLECTED IN THE UNDERWRITING REPORT. I SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST, AND I WANNA ASK IF THIS IS CORRECT, UH, 35 UNITS AT THE 60% A MI 141 AT THE 80% A MI AND THEN 174 MARKET RATE UNITS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MARKET RATE RENT VERSUS THE RENTS AT THOSE TWO LEVELS? YES, SIR. UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM, THERE IS HUGE DEMAND FOR MARKET RATE HOUSING IN THIS CENSUS TRACT AND AREA. IT'S THE PLATINUM CORRIDOR, IT'S THE ENVY OF THE COUNTRY, UH, THE NORTH DALLAS TOLLWAY. THAT BEING SAID, BECAUSE OF THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION BEING SURROUNDED BY DETERIORATING HOUSING AND FAILING RETAIL, A HUNDRED PERCENT MARKET RATE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CAPITAL MARKETS. WE PURSUED THE CAPITAL MARKETS FOR A MARKET RATE STRATEGY 'CAUSE I KNOW WHICH DISTRICT THIS IS IN. AND, AND THE SENTIMENT ON THE PFC STRUCTURE, UH, HOWEVER, THIS, THE SPREAD AND THE REAL AFFORDABILITY BEING CREATED BETWEEN MARKET 80 AND 60 IS VERY LEGITIMATE. EVEN MORE SO, THE 60 AND 80% HOUSING DOESN'T EXIST IN THIS MARKET BECAUSE IT'S TWO ENDS OF THE BARBELL OF REAL HIGH END SINGLE FAMILY AND EVERYTHING THAT GOT BUILT IN THE EIGHTIES, BUT HAS FALLEN TO SUBURBAN WASTE, UH, AND DILAPIDATION. UM, SO YES, THAT'S, IT'S ALL LEGITIMATE INFORMATION SUPPORTED BY MARKET RATE DATA. I'M LOOKING AT, TO YOUR POINT, UH, SLIDE NUMBER THREE ON THE PFC UM, UH, PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MADE THIS SLIDE OR IF THE PFC DID, BUT IT'S GOT A, UM, THE VINTAGE 19 86, 84 85 HOUSING THAT'S, THAT WAS OF RENTAL HOUSING THAT WAS BUILT AROUND THIS SITE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WITH THE SORT OF LOW END VINTAGE HOUSING? YES, SIR. IT'S, IT'S ON THE AERIAL. YOU, YOU ARE LOOKING AT, UM, SO 360, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH OR EAST IS THAT VINTAGE. GOT IT. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO, AND I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO OUR PRIORITIES AS A CITY. LIKE WE KNOW THAT NO ONE IS BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR FREE. DEVELOPERS ARE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT. IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO, UM, PRIORITIZE HAVING HOUSING IN THE CITY THAT OUR WORKERS CAN LIVE AT OUR POLICE, FIRE NURSES, UM, HOSPITAL TECHS CAN LIVE AT OUR TEACHERS, UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUT MONEY INTO IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT'S EITHER THROUGH A TAX ABATEMENT OR IT'S THROUGH SOME OTHER SUBSIDY. AND, UM, I DON'T, I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY DOES BENEFIT BY THE PFC DEALS BECAUSE IT ENABLES US TO FURTHER BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UH, THE PF C'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN A PFC ACTUALLY BE DONE IN THIS DISTRICT. AND, UM, IT'S TIME WE SEE ONE AND THIS ONE PENCILS OUT IN UNDERWRITING. IT WAS SUPPORTED BY OUR [05:00:01] COUNSEL APPOINTED PFC AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DENY IT. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM. THANK YOU. IS THAT IT? CHAIRMAN WEST. OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO, IF I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE, BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. UM, FIRST I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH FOR REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE OF THE PFC. UM, THE RESIDENTS LAST NIGHT DID TALK ABOUT CRIME BECAUSE THIS IS THE HIGHEST CRIME AREA IN DISTRICT 12, ALTHOUGH STILL THE LOWEST CRIME IN THE CITY. AND ANYBODY WHO'S HEARD ME TALK ABOUT HOMELESSNESS HAS HEARD ME TALK ABOUT FRANKFURT AND THE TOLLWAY. SINCE I'VE BEEN SITTING ON THE HORSESHOE TODAY, I'VE GOTTEN MESSAGES ABOUT HOMELESS WHO ARE AT FRANKFURT AND THE TOLLWAY. AND MANY TIMES THEY HAVE TAKEN UP SHELTER IN THE OLD RESTAURANT. AND THAT'S JUST A FACT. THE RESIDENTS THAT WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM DO WANT IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS, UM, NOT HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMETHING UNDEVELOPED IN OUR SITUATION. AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WHY. THE REAL QUESTION THEY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH IS, WELL, IF YOU'RE GIVING AWAY THE TAX DOLLARS, IF THERE'S THIS EXEMPTION WHO'S PAYING FOR THE POLICE THAT WILL FOR SURE HAVE TO GO THERE. WHO'S PAYING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THERE POINT OF ORDER? 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE TAX DOLLARS. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. UH, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SPECULATION. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY STICK GERMANE TO THE AGENDA ITEM. THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED AT MY TOWN HALL. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. NOTHING OR FIRE. IT WAS ABOUT, THIS PROPERTY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICE OR FIRE ON THE AGENDA. IT'S ABOUT THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE WITH OUR TAXES. OKAY. HE'S SAYING, HE, HE'S SAYING I SHOULD GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF LATITUDE ON THIS POINT. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK? WHO'S, WHO'S OUR PFC GUY? WHY DON'T YOU COME AND SPEAK? DID YOU HEAR LAST NIGHT THEM TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELESSNESS? AND HOW WOULD WE PAY FOR THAT IF WE'RE GIVING UP THE TAX EXEMPTION? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM, YES, THEY DID. THEY, THERE WAS, UH, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SERVICES AND THEN, AND PRIMARILY HOMELESSNESS AND CRIME WAS, WAS A BIG TALKING POINT, UH, TO PEOPLE. THANK YOU. THAT'S REALLY ALL I NEEDED YOU TO SAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO THE NEXT THING I'M GONNA ASK FOR, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THOR OR THIS IS THROUGH THE PFC. I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE YOU TO PROVIDE THE COSTAR SHEETS BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT COSTAR RIGHT NOW, I'VE GOT A ONE BEDROOM FOR THIS WHOLE AREA THAT SAYS 1099 TWO BEDROOM 15 15 3 BEDROOM 2000 156 WITH A 9.5 CONCESSION RATE. ARE YOU DISAGREEING THAT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS DEVELOPERS? THANK YOU. UH, WE CAN, WE CAN WORK WITH, UH, THE PFC. THEY, THEY GET COMPS WITH THEIR APPLICATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MARKET RATES WOULD BE. UM, SO THEY, THEY GET REAL PAGE AND, AND COSTAR AND YEAH. AND SO WE, I WOULD LIKE THAT AS A FACT SHEET FOR EVERY SINGLE PROJECT. 'CAUSE I'M HEARING THINGS THAT ARE JUST NOT WHAT'S HERE. AND THIS IS REAL TIME, REAL INFORMATION. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AND IT SAYS ONE BEDROOM 1099 AND THE LOWEST PRICE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS 1400 OR A TWO BEDROOM. I'M LOOKING AT COSTAR, WHICH SAYS 1515. AND THE LOWEST FOR A TWO BEDROOM IS 1,584. SO THAT IS SAYING THE MARKET RATE WHERE THEY ARE PAYING TAX IS LOWER THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE HERE. NOW I WILL SAY THE UNITS ARE NOT CLASS A AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. AND LIKE I SAID, ANY ONE OF US WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR PROJECT. IT'S TRUE. NOW, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WERE SO SWAYED TO HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPER COME AND SAY THAT. WELL, THAT'S WHO HAS BEEN SPEAKING. OKAY. SO ALL I'M SAYING, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, TWO WEEKS AGO, YOU SAID THE NEXT PFC, YOU'RE GONNA VOTE WITH ME. I HOPE THAT'S TRUE. THAT IS YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, MR. BASIL, DO YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE MS. BLAIR SAY WHEN SHE SPOKE IN THE LAST, UM, CASE, UM, SAM ON A PERSONAL BASIS, [05:05:02] JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU GET YOUR STEPS IN, SIR. YEAH. PERFECT. UM, UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP FROM THE PFC BOARD, CORRECT? PARDON? YES. THIS, THIS, THIS. HOW, HOW DID THAT VOTE GO? UH, IT WAS UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS, UNANIMOUS. INCLUDING THE REPRESENTATION FROM DISTRICT 12. YES. THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT, UH, REALLY WAS A BIG REASON WHY IT ENDED UP GETTING UNANIMOUS. OKAY. UH, APPROVAL. UM, WELL, A A UA UNANIMOUS VOTE TELLS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY THAN WHAT WE'RE GETTING HERE. UM, I I'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD FROM, UH, OTHERS THAT THERE WAS, THERE HAS BEEN, UH, SUPPORT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN OPPOSITION. IT, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE OP ABOUT THE OPPOSITION. HAS THERE BEEN SUPPORT FOR THIS CASE FROM THE COMMUNITY? OH YEAH. WE HAVE, UH, FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS. ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ACTUALLY REPRESENTS, UH, OVER A HUNDRED DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, IN THE NORTH DALLAS AREA. AND, UH, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE SHOWED UP AT THE DALLAS PFC INITIAL HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. SO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I GUESS, UM, WHAT HAVE YOU RUN INTO AS A STICKING POINT WITH OPPOSITION OF CONCERNS THAT NEEDED TO BE MET FROM THE COMMUNITY, UH, CONCESSIONS, MAYBE EVEN FROM SITE PLANS. WHAT, CAN YOU JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH WHAT, WHAT THAT HAS LOOKED LIKE, WHAT THE OPPOSITION LOOKS LIKE TO THIS PROJECT? I MEAN, THE PRIMARY OPPOSITION, I, I, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY UNTIL LAST NIGHT AT HER MEETING, UH, AT MS. MENDELSSOHN'S MEETING. THERE WAS, THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, THE CRIME IN THE AREA AND HOW THEY WOULD, UM, THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO LOWER THEIR RENTS AND THEREFORE NOT ATTRACT, UH, CLASS A TENANTS. UM, AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S PRIMARILY, UH, THE BIG ONE THAT I, UH, NOTICED WAS, WAS MULTIPLE PEOPLE SAID THAT IN THE GROUP CHAT LAST NIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. I, THE REASON I WAS, I CALLED A POINT OF ORDER ON MY COLLEAGUE IS I, I THOUGHT THERE WAS DEFINITELY MORE LATITUDE THAN NEEDED TO BE GIVEN WHENEVER THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO CORRELATE, UH, NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO, UH, CONCENTRATION OF CRIME. THAT SEEMS TO BE, UH, VERY, UM, UNFORTUNATE, UM, CORRELATION WHEN WE COULD, WE COULD EASILY TALK ABOUT THE CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND HOW THAT HAD CORRELATES TO CRIME. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE THAT, UH, NEED TO LIVE IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING WILL EQUATE TO HAVING CRIME. AND THAT'S JUST A NOTION TO ME. THAT IS, IT IS VERY INSULTING AND IT'S A LOT OF WHY WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. UM, OUR CITY IS EXTREMELY SEGREGATED. IT IS EXTREMELY SEGREGATED, UH, PROBABLY MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER CITY IN THE COUNTRY. UM, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC SEGREGATION OF OUR CITY HAS CREATED THIS, UH, HAVES AND HAVE NOTS MINDSET. UM, AND SO WITH THAT, THE EASIEST, UH, INFORMATION TO EQUIP OPPOSITION WITH IS TO TELL THEM THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE BIG, BAD, POOR PEOPLE SHOW UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT MEANS THEY'RE GONNA BRING CRIME. DON'T YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AFFLUENT? DON'T YOU WANT TO KEEP IT TO LOOK LIKE YOU AND ME? THAT'S WHAT I HEAR WHEN I HEAR THESE COMPLAINTS. SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY ABSURD. UH, THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS, THERE'S NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE, THAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING ANY CRIME OTHER THAN THIS IS GOING TO AFFORD, UH, A DIFFERENT CLASS OF, UH, RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS TO LIVE IN A DIFFERENT PART OF OUR CITY, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PRIORITY FOR THIS COUNCIL. IT HAS BEEN IN MANY FRONTS, NOT JUST WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ALSO WITH MARKET RATE HOUSING WHERE WE'VE CONCENTRATED POVERTY LIKE IN DISTRICTS OF OURS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY, UM, UH, OUTRAGEOUS FOR US TO EVEN CONSIDER DENYING A PROJECT BASED OFF OF ONE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAS THIS NOTION THAT PERPETUATES RACISM, THAT JUST PERPETUATES THE SEGREGATION. IT IS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE POINT OF ORDERER. MAYOR, STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDERER. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. HIS COMMENTS AND OUTRAGEOUS. AND THIS IS THE SECOND DAY IN A ROW. WE'VE HAD THIS SUSTAIN WATCH YOURSELF COUNCIL MEMBER. WELL, I'VE SAID WHAT I HAD TO SAY, SO A LITTLE LATE ON THAT ONE. I, I'VE GOT IT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IT'S DEFINITELY ALREADY THERE. UM, AND I THINK THAT IT, IT, IT'S SENDS A HUGE MESSAGE TO, UH, THE HOUSING COMMUNITY, TO THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. AND IT ALSO EMPOWERS, UH, A LEVEL OF HATRED THAT WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP US AS SEGREGATED AS WE ARE. MAYOR AGAIN, THESE COMMENTS ARE OUTRAGEOUS. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN IT. COUNCIL MEMBER, PLEASE HELP [05:10:01] ME OUT HERE. JUST TRYING TO GIVE MY REASONING, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND NOT ALL OF US PERSON ARE GIVEN LATITUDE, PERSONALITY AND PRIVILEGE. AVOID THOSE. UM, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING A DENIAL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THIS PASSED. UH, HOPE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERYONE IN EVERY CORNER OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. OKAY, I AM GOING TO MR. ROTH AND THEN CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSSOHN AND THEN CHAIRMAN WEST IN THAT ORDER. UH, THANK YOU. UM, I HEARD VERY CLEARLY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN THAT, THAT SHE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TYPE OF A PROJECT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION AND THAT IT WAS BASICALLY THE RIGHT PLACE, THE RIGHT THING, THE RIGHT KIND OF THING. BUT THAT THE ISSUE IS THE FINANCING. THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON THE DEVELOPER. I'M PROUD OF YOU. I'M, I'M, I'M HONOR YOU AND I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING A PROJECT LIKE THIS FORTH TO US. THE PROBLEM IS IT'S COSTING THE CITY MONEY, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT OF THE MONEY THAT'S COMING INTO THIS. IT'S GOING TO THE PFC AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE. THE, THE, THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES IS A NEGOTIATED PAYMENT. THE PROFITS THAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM THE SALE IS A NEGOTIATED DEAL. THE, THE DEAL ITSELF IS NOT GIVING US ENOUGH MONEY TO JUSTIFY THE BENEFIT THAT, THAT WE'RE OFFERING. THE INCENTIVE THAT WE'RE GIVING THESE FOLKS, THESE FOLKS SHOULD GET A TAX OR SOME KIND OF A REDUCTION IN, IN COST BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE FOLKS THAT NEED, UH, NEED SUBSIDIZED, UH, AND, AND, AND, UH, ADVANTAGEOUS RENTALS. I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THEY SHOULD DO IT. I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE YOU SOME MONEY, BUT I THINK THAT, THAT SOME REDUCTION IN, IN YOUR COSTS, BUT IT'S NOT FOREVER. IT SHOULDN'T BE FOR 60 YEARS AND IT SHOULD BE, IF WE ARE DOING IT, WE SHOULD BE GETTING PART OF THAT INTO OUR GENERAL FUND SO WE CAN SUPPORT THE, THE, UH, SECURITY, THE UH, THE UH, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE, THE UH, THE NEEDS OF THAT COMMUNITY OVER A 60 YEAR PERIOD. WE'VE GOTTA HAVE MONEY TO, TO KEEP THE PROPERTIES AND THE, AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS UP SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THE VALUE AND THE QUALITY FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THERE. SO THIS IS TO EVERYBODY'S BENEFIT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SUGGEST THAT THIS PROJECT GO BACK FOR NEGOTIATION. THAT IT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT THAT YOU'ALL GO BACK AND SAY, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO A LITTLE BETTER ON OUR NUMBERS. MAYBE IT'S NOT TWO 50, MAYBE IT'S THREE 50, MAYBE IT'S NOT 2.5%, MAYBE IT'S 5%, MAYBE IT'S 10. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MAGIC NUMBER IS, BUT THOR, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, OR THE PFC FOLKS, YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NEGOTIATING ON OUR BEHALF, RIGHT? UH, SO I WANT YOU TO DO A BETTER DEAL FOR US, AND I WANT YOU TO MAKE US MORE MONEY HERE. AND I WANT THAT MONEY TO BE ALLOCATED SO THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PILOT MONEY CAN COME BACK TO THE CITY, SOME PORTION OF IT TRY TO GET US, TRY TO HELP US DO WHAT WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT AND WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT, UH, AND HELPING US GET SOME FOLKS SOME MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS BUDGET. AND I WANT THIS TO BE DONE NOW. AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY MR. HUNT, THIS IS, YOU HAVE TO BE THE GUY THAT THAT STEPPED UP. BUT THIS IS AN, AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY HELP US AND HELP THEM. THANK YOU. TIME. OKAY. I MAY HAVE HAD THAT OUT OF ORDER. I THINK I GOTTA GO TO CHAIRMAN WEST BEFORE I GO BACK TO YOU. CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, UM, CHAIRMAN WEST, RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, I JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. I, I, I, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST SAID. EVERY WORD OF IT. AND I WILL SAY THAT, UM, MR. UH, UH, THOR, MR. ERICKSON AND TO OUR PFC GROUP, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE NOT GONNA BE, WE SHOULD NOT BE UP HERE AS A POLICY, UH, NEGOTIATING DEALS, UM, AND CH CHANGING TERMS AND SENDING IT BACK. WE AGREE WITH A PROJECT, WE SUPPORT IT. IF WE DISAGREE, WE DENY IT. AND, UM, YOU ALL JUST NEED TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN NEGOTIATING THESE DEALS. BRING THEM TO US. WHAT I WILL SAY FROM A GENERAL POLICY STANDPOINT IS I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE THREE BEDROOM UNITS IN THE FUTURE. I'M LOOKING AT THIS. WE HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH UNITS IN THIS PROJECT. UM, HALF OF WHICH ARE IN THE MARKET RATE. I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE PFC BOARD, UM, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, UM, BRING US MORE THREE BEDROOM UNITS. SO I WILL SAY THAT, AND TO MR. ROSS COMMENTS, IF WE WANNA CHANGE OUR POLICY, WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, WITH THE, THE, WHERE THE, THE TAXES COME IN, UM, THEN [05:15:01] WE NEED TO DO THAT AS A COUNSEL, AS A POLICY, AND NOT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. UM, THE OTHER COMMENT I'LL, I'LL SAY IS TO MR. BEA'S POINTS, I AGREE WITH, WITH WITH SOME OF THEM. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS IS ABOUT FINANCING, BUT I'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FROM THE COMMUNITY, APPARENTLY AT THIS MEETING, THAT PEOPLE WERE EQUATING CRIME TO PEOPLE OF LOW INCOMES. AND THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. AND WE DON'T WANNA SEND THAT MESSAGE AS A COUNSEL THAT WE BELIEVE THAT. AND, UM, I THINK WE NEED TO SUPPORT THIS CASE TO JUST SHOW THAT WE DON'T. THANK YOU CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR ONE MINUTE. WELL, YOU HAVE ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE ISSUE BACKWARDS. THE ISSUE WAS THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE MARKET RATE. PEOPLE WHO WOULD TAKE THIS AND THE CRIME AND THE PEOPLE MOVING IN WOULD BE, FIRST OF ALL, THE PEOPLE MOVING IN WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER INCOME THAN CURRENT, MUCH HIGHER. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'VE MADE THIS OUT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT LOWER INCOME PEOPLE. THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE ALREADY LIVE THERE. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE MUCH, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. IT WILL NOT ATTRACT A LOWER INCOME PEOPLE. THEY WILL EXPERIENCE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE QUESTION WAS, GIVEN THE HIGH RATE OF CRIME, HOW WILL THEY BE ABLE TO BEAR SOME OF THAT EXPENSE? THERE'S A PF UH, PI THAT'S LOOKING TO START IN THIS AREA. WE HAD A MEETING, IN FACT, JUST MONDAY. AND THE QUESTION IS, OH, THIS PROPERTY WON'T BE PAYING INTO THE PI 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A PFC. AND IF IT WAS STRICTLY MARKET RATE, IT WOULD BE PAYING IN, WHICH WOULD HELP LOWER THE CRIME THAT IT HAPPENS TO BE THE HIGHEST CRIME AREA IS NO SURPRISE, BECAUSE IT IS OUR NUMBER ONE CRIME ISSUE IN DALLAS CHAIR IS AT APARTMENTS. THANK YOU WOMAN MENDELSON. THANK YOU. UM, DEPUTY MAYOR TEM, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WELL, I, I WANNA APPRECIATE, UH, YOU GUYS, UH, FOR THE WORK THAT YOU, YOU ARE DOING, AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TO DISTRICT FOUR. UM, I HAVE A THING ABOUT WHAT I CALL PREDATORY BUILDING, UH, UH, PREDATORY DEVELOPERS. AND, AND I'VE SAID NO TO, TO SOME WHEN MY RESIDENTS SAID, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. UH, BUT HOWEVER, I TOOK YOU AROUND IN MY COMMUNITY, UM, AND YOU ACTUALLY SAW SOME OF THE, THE CHALLENGES AND WE WERE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA. AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAID THAT WE WAS GONNA DO, WHICH MY COMMUNITY SUPPORTS, IS BRINGING THOSE RESOURCES TO OUR COMMUNITY, UH, TO CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF THAT, TO BRING, UH, OTHER PEOPLE LIKE FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS, AND EDUCATORS THAT, THAT WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WANTS TO ALSO LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND YOU'RE BRINGING THAT RESOURCE AND YOU'RE HELPING ME. I KNOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS NOW, SO I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THAT WORK AND I CONTINUE TO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. EVERY DEVELOPER MAY NOT BE, UH, IN EVERY COMMUNITY, BUT WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY, COUNCILMAN JOHNSON IS GOING TO SUPPORT AND WE NEED MORE DENSITY IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND I'M WELCOMING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING, AND AGAIN, LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. ROTH. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR ONE MINUTE, I'M SORRY. OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. GO AHEAD. RECORD, VOTE PLEASE WHEN YOU GET THERE. YOU GOT IT. GO AHEAD. UH, MR. ROTH, UH, THANK YOU. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, TO SHOW, UH, SUPPORT FOR A DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, HELP THE COMMUNITY BUILD THE RIGHT PRODUCT, HELP HELP US SOLVE SOME, SOME, SOME, UH, RES, UH, SOME RESIDENT HOUSING ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. UM, THE, THE, IT IS UP TO US TO TO BE A STOP GAP FOR, FOR DECISIONS THAT COME OUT OF OUR COMMITTEES. WE ARE NOT HERE JUST TO RUBBER STAMP STUFF. WE ARE HERE TO ANALYZE STUFF. WE ARE HERE TO QUESTION STUFF. AND IF WE CAN DO A BETTER DEAL AND WE CAN ENCOURAGE OUR STAFF IN OUR, IN OUR, OUR QUALITY OF STAFF TO DO, WHICH WE HAVE QUALITY STAFF TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS, TO MAKE, UH, MORE THOUGHTFUL DECISIONS, TO GIVE ADVICE, TO HELP US MAKE BETTER DECISIONS, THAT'S OUR OBLIGATION AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO BACK TO THESE FOLKS AND LET 'EM MAKE A BETTER DEAL FOR US. THAT'LL BE GOOD FOR THEM AND GOOD FOR US. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY ITEM 46? REMEMBER, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY SEEING THAT THE RECORD BOARDS BEEN REQUESTED. SO 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, NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE, NO. COUNCIL MEMBER KANNA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BASEL DOA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART? NO. COUNCIL [05:20:01] MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PRO TIMM RESENDEZ? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? YES. WITH THREE VOTING IN FAVOR. 12. OPPOSED? THE MOTION FAILS. MR. MAYOR, MOVE TO APPROVE. HEARD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL IN A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. HAVE IT. I NOTED TWO NOS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM, [49. 26-2716A A resolution authorizing (1) a joint elections agreement and election services contract between the City of Dallas, Dallas County, and various other jurisdictions within Dallas County, for the conduct of a special election to be held Tuesday, November 3, 2026 in the amount of $1,616,907.58; (2) election notices and advertising services in the amount of $200,000.00; and (3) an increase in appropriations in an amount not to exceed $1,816,908.00 in the City Secretary’s Office from the General Fund Contingency Reserve - Total not to exceed $1,816,908.00 - Financing: General Fund Contingency Reserve (see Fiscal Information)] YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 49. AGENDA ITEM 49 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ONE, A JOINT ELECTIONS AGREEMENT AND ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, AND OTHER VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS WITHIN DALLAS COUNTY FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,616,907 AND 58 CENTS. TWO ELECTION NOTICES AND ADVERTISING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 AND THREE, AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,816,908 IN THE CITY SECRETARY OFFICE FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE NOT TO EXCEED $1,816,908. I WOULD LIKE TO, TO ANNOUNCE THAT OR TO NOTE THAT THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS CANCELED THEIR ELECTION, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE OVERALL CONTRACT, UM, ACCOUNT. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. MOVE TO DENY. THE MOTION IS TO DENY AND IT WAS SECONDED. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOUR RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES, CAN YOU TELL US THE REVISED AMOUNT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE COST OF THE ELECTION? YES, I CAN. UM, IT'S AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT, UM, OF $2,648,772 AND 67 CENTS. AND I'M SORRY, TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED AND TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS AND 67 CENTS. WOW. SO OVER $2.7 MILLION WHEN YOU ADD IN COLIN IN DENTON COUNTY, IS THAT CORRECT? NEARLY $3 MILLION FOR JUST THE ELECTION, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, ANOTHER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. UH, 45,000 FOR, UH, DENTON AND 65 FOR, THANK YOU. YES. CITY MANAGER. HAS THERE BEEN ANY POLLING ON THIS BOND THAT IS ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY? I DO NOT HAVE, I DO NOT HAVE RECEIPT OF ANY POLLING. I'M SORRY. I DO NOT HAVE ANY RECEIPT OF ANY POLLING. DID YOU AUTHORIZE OR ASK FOR ANY POLLING TO BE DONE? I'M NOT. UM, THE BODY TO AUTHORIZE POLLING, WE'RE NOT USING CITY FUNDING FOR IT, SO I WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED IT. OKAY. SO, BUT THERE HAS BEEN POLLING DONE. UM, I THINK MARVIN SINGLETON DID IT AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER POLLING THAT'S BEEN DONE AND I DON'T THINK THIS BOND'S GONNA PASS. ARE YOU GOING TO GET TO THE AGENDA ITEM AT ANY POINT OR AM I SURE AM SUSTAIN A POINT OF ORDER. I'M SUPER CONCERNED THAT WE ARE GONNA WASTE JUST ANOTHER $3 MILLION ON AN ELECTION. WE'RE ALREADY, IN MY OPINION, WASTING $3 MILLION ON EXPLORING OTHER BUILDINGS. SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF MONEY TO PLAY AROUND WITH. AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO TRULY CARE ABOUT OUR BUDGET AND VOTE NO. AND LET'S REDO THESE PROPOSITIONS SO THAT WE OUTLINE EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM AND IT CAN PASS FOR THE POLICE ACADEMY. SO THANK YOU CHAIRMAN WILLIS, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY. THANK YOU MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THIS BODY DECIDED THAT WE WANTED TO BUNDLE WHAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRST RESPONDERS HAVE COME TO US AND SAID THEY HAVE TREMENDOUS NEED FOR, WE NEED TO HEAR THEM. WE MADE DECISIONS, WE EXPLORED THIS, AND WE NEED TO LET OUR VOTERS DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN ASKING US FOR SO THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR JOB. AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A TRAINING FACILITY THAT'S TOP-NOTCH AND THEN LETTING EVERYTHING ELSE REMAIN RUN DOWN AND OVERCROWDED. IT'S ABOUT SUPPORTING THEM AND GOING ALL IN. IT'S ALSO ABOUT REPLACING A 73-YEAR-OLD FIRE STATION THAT'S RIGHT OUT OUR BACK DOOR. SO I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS AND STOP THE SUPPOSITION [05:25:01] ABOUT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT PASS. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS. THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO PUT THIS TO THE VOTERS. SO, UM, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THAT MOTION. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS 'CAUSE, AND I APOLOGIZE, NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS FOR THE ELECTION. UM, BUT IS IT WHEN, WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR 1,000,008 APPROVAL FOR THE, FOR THE ELECTION AND NOW IT'S GONNA GO UP TO 2,000,007 OR 2,000,006 IS IS THERE A, HAS IS IS THIS PROPERLY POSTED? IS THIS THE PROPER, UH, UH, IS THIS THE PROPER ITEM TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON TODAY? AND AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO TO TO, UH, TO KILL THE DEAL OR NOT KILL THE DEAL. I I NEED TO UNDERSTAND, WE, WE'VE, WE'RE ARE WE VOTING ON 1,000,008 OR ARE WE VOTING ON A MIL ON 2,000,006? YOU'RE VOTING, I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, YOU'RE VOTING ON THE 1 MILLION OR 1.8, THE 1,000,006 FOR THE CONTRACT AND 200,000 FOR ADVERTISING. THE 2.6 OR 2.7 IS FROM DALLAS COUNTY IS AN, IS AN ESTIMATE AND THAT WILL BE, UM, THE ACTUAL COST WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ELECTION. THERE'S AN AUDIT THAT'S DONE. THIS IS JUST THEIR ESTIMATE BECAUSE OF, OF THE ENTITY, UM, DA DROPPING OUT OF THE ELECTION. AND, AND IS THIS, IS THIS UH, UH, RESOLUTION NECESSARY TO BE DONE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME? IS THERE A DATE, IS IT DATE SENSITIVE, TIME SENSITIVE? UH, IS DOES IT HAVE TO BE DONE TODAY? YES, IT DOES. IN ORDER TO GET ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, THAT IS CORRECT. THE CITY, UH, THE COUNTIES IN THIS, ON THE DALLAS COUNTY ELECTIONS CONTRACT, UM, NEED THOSE FUNDS IN ORDER TO ADMINISTER THE ELECTION. SO YES, THEY HAVE A DEADLINE. DEADLINE ON FUNDS BEING RECEIVED, SO YES. AND SO, SO WOULD WE HAVE TO, UH, APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS LATER ON IF THERE'S EXTRA, UM, APPROPRIATIONS NEEDED TO PAY FOR THE THING? YES, CORRECT. SO AFTER THE, THE CONTRACT STATES THAT THEREAFTER THE ELECTION, UM, THE COUNTY DOES AN AUDIT OF 180 DAYS, THEY HAVE TO GIVE US THE FINAL COST AND THAT'S A PART OF THE AUDIT, AND THEN WE WILL LOOK AT THAT AMOUNT AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AUDIT THOSE NUMBERS. SO YES, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS OR NOT, BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, WE HAVE A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR WHATEVER THE FINAL COST IS. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES ON YOUR MOTION. UM, THANK YOU. CITY SECRETARY. UM, YOU JUST SAID THAT THE COUNTY HAS CANCELED THEIR ELECTION, BUT NO, DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS COUNSEL ELECTION. GOT IT. I'M SORRY. AND SO THE ONLY ONE SHARING THE ELECTION THEN WOULD BE US AND DALLAS COUNTY? NO, DALLAS COUNTY IS NOT ON THIS. UH, UH DON'T THEY HAVE THE HOMELESS TAX? THE ONLY ENTITIES THAT ARE ON THE ELECTION NOW IS CITY OF DALLAS, CITY OF GARLAND, IRVING, ISD, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK AND CITY OF WILEY. BUT DIDN'T THEY PUT ON THEIR BALLOT TO HAVE A HOMELESS, A DEDICATED HOMELESS TAX THAT'S ON THIS IS, THIS IS THE CONTRACT THAT'S BEFORE US NOW THIS IS THE CONTRACT. THESE ARE THE ENTITIES THAT ARE ON THE CONTRACT. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE A FINAL CONTRACT THEN? NO. UH, I BELIEVE THE DEADLINE TO WITHDRAW, UM, HAS PASSED. I BELIEVE IT WAS YESTERDAY. I, I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET YOU THE EXACT DATE, BUT THERE IS A DEADLINE TO WITHDRAW YOUR ELECTIONS. DO WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE PERSON WHO CAN TELL US WHAT'S HAPPENED? UM, AS FAR AS JUST YESTERDAY, THAT ITEM WAS ON THE DALLAS COUNTY BALLOT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. ARE YOU ASKING WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BE ON THE, THE BALLOT OR WHO ELSE IS PART OF THIS CONTRACT ON THE BALLOT? BECAUSE THEN THEY'D BE SHARING COST. SO DALLAS COUNTY, UH, THE ESEE COUNTY IS HAVING ELECTION FOR STATE AND COUNTY OFFICES? YES. OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD DROPPED OFF FROM THE PREVIOUS ESTIMATE IS, IS D CD? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? UH, THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION. I WANNA FOLLOW [05:30:01] UP ON IT TOO TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. UH, THE, WE ARE DOING, IF THIS PASSES, WE WOULD BE, UH, SHARING THE COST WITH THE COUNTY BECAUSE THERE IS AN UPCOMING ELECTION FOR THEM FOR THE HOMELESSNESS BOND. RIGHT. SO THE COUNTY'S IN THIS, AND THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE ITEM, SO I CAN'T CONFIRM IF DALLAS COUNTY, I, I CAN FIND THAT OUT IF THEY'RE HAVING A HOMELESS, A BOND OR NOT. I, I CAN'T SPEAK ON THAT. I DO KNOW THERE ARE COUNTY AND STATE OFFICES THAT ARE ON THE BALLOT, BUT I, I WOULD HAVE TO FIND OUT IF A HOMELESS PROPOSITION, IF DALLAS COUNTY HAS A HOMELESS PROPOSITION, I CAN, IF YOU GIMME A FEW MINUTES, I CAN FIND THAT OUT. I'M NOT CERTAIN ON THAT DALLAS COUNTY'S PROPOSITION OTHER THAN STATE AND, UM, COUNTY OFFICES BEING ON THERE. MY CONCERN WOULD BE PASSING THIS AND THEN THE CONTRACTS ALL GET, UM, CONFUSING FOR, FOR STAFF AND FOR THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES IF, IF THEY'RE ALSO GONNA BE PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION. LIKE WE ABSOLUTELY WANNA SHARE COST IF WE CAN. WELL, DALLAS COUNTY, THERE ARE STATE AND COUNTY OFFICES, ELECTED OFFICES THAT ARE ON THE BALLOT. THE HOMELESS PROPOSITION, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT. I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND AN ANSWER IF THAT'S ON THE BALLOT OR NOT. LET ME GO BACK TO JUST BASIC QUESTION IS ARE WE SHARING COSTS WITH THE COUNTY WITH THIS SELECTION? IF THIS PASSES YES. SINCE THEY HAVE STATE AND THE, UH, COUNTY OFFICES, YES. OKAY, THEN I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE ITEM. I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION BECAUSE WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE ALREADY SAID WE'RE GONNA PUT THIS, WE VOTED TO PUT, UM, THE PUBLIC SAFETY BOND ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, SO THIS IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO DO IT, RIGHT, BILLY? YES. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES MOTION TO DENY. THANK YOU. UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US. UH, JUST I THINK MAYBE TO ADD SOME CLARITY, THE DALLAS COUNTY WILL HAVE A PROPOSITION WHETHER THEY HAVE ONE OR TWO. DOES IT MATTER THAT WE'LL STILL HAVE A SHARED COST? AND REGARDLESS, WE WILL COME BACK AND GET, THESE ARE ESTIMATES WE'LL GET A FINAL COST IF THERE'S ANY FLUCTUATION. THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT NOVEMBER, EVEN NUMBERED ELECTIONS ARE THE HIGHEST, UM, COST. THE, THE HIGHEST THE ELECTIONS WITH THE HIGHEST COST BECAUSE IT'S EITHER A GOVERNOR'S RACE, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT'S A GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION OR A PRESIDENTIAL, SO ANY NOVEMBER ELECTION WILL BE, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE IN, UM, UH, SECURITY. UM, JUST, IT'S, IT'S THE OTHER COST THAT DRIVES UP THE NUMBER, EVEN IF IT'S SHARED WITH DALLAS COUNTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY REC? REQUEST A RECORD VOTE? YES, MA'AM. RECORD. VOTE TO REQUEST A MATTER. SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, WILL 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 GRACIE? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER KANA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PROM JOHNSON? NO. MAYOR PROM RESENDEZ? NO. MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. WITH FIVE VOTING IN FAVOR. EIGHT OPPOSED? TWO ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE MOTION FAILS. MR. MAYOR, MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. I HEARD A MOTION TO APPROVE IN A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. RECORD VOTES BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 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 GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ENA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BAA NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR IS ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. I, NO, SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL [05:35:01] MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? NO. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO. TIMM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH EIGHT. VOTING IN FAVOR. FIVE OPPOSED TO ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE MOTION PASSES MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, LET'S KEEP ON MOVING. GO AHEAD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE BEFORE WE MOVE ON THAT DALLAS COUNTY, I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE COUNTY, THEY WILL HAVE A HOMELESS PROPOSITION AGENDA [50. 26-2717A A resolution authorizing (1) a joint elections agreement and election services contract between the City of Collin, Dallas County, and various other jurisdictions within Collin County, for the conduct of a special election to be held Tuesday, November 3, 2026 in the amount of $65,000.00; and (2) an increase in appropriations in an amount not to exceed $65,000.00 in the City Secretary’s Office from the General Fund Contingency Reserve - Total not to exceed $65,000.00 - Financing: General Fund Contingency Reserve (see Fiscal Information)] ITEM 50 AND THIS ITEM IS BEING CORRECTED. UM, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ONE, A JOINT ELECTIONS AGREEMENT AND ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COLLIN COUNTY AND CO CITY OF COLLIN AND COLLIN COUNTY AND VARIOUS OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN COLLIN COUNTY FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 AND AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS NOT TO EXCEED $65,000 IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE. TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $65,000. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MOVE TO DENY. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. CITY SECRETARY FOR $65,000 FOR COLLIN COUNTY VOTING. UM, TRADITIONALLY THERE'S ONLY ONE LOCATION. IT'S THE PRESTON, IT'S THE RENTER FRANKFURT LIBRARY. IS THAT THE ONLY LOCATION THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED FOR $65,000? WE DON'T HAVE THE FINAL, BUT, UM, SO FAR, YES. WOW. UM, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. UM, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE AS BEFORE. WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO HAVE THIS ELECTION AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY MOVE IT TO MAY AND IT IS MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE AS WE ALREADY HEARD AND WE CAN REFINE WHAT THE PROPOSITION IS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY? CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. UH, THANK YOU MAYOR. UM, CITY SECRETARY, DO WE NEED, UM, COLLIN COUNTY TO BE PART OF THE, UM, OF THE, UH, VOTING OR COULD IT JUST BE DALLAS? OH NO, IT'S, IT'S, UM, THIS IS A CITYWIDE ELECTION AND UM, YOU DO HAVE REGISTERED VOTERS, CITY OF DALLAS REGISTERED VOTERS IN COLLIN COUNTY. UM, I UNDER, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT UM, WOULD WE NEED TO INCLUDE THEM IF THIS WERE, IF THIS WERE TO, UH, BE DENIED, WOULD THAT ELECTION SEAL BE ABLE TO BE, UH, PROCEED? I WOULD, I WOULD SAY YES, BUT, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE A CITY OF DALLAS REGISTERED VOTERS WHO WOULD NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS ELECTION. SO I WOULD SAY YES. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE, UH, THE LANGUAGE OF THE, UH, OF THE RESOLUTION. IT SAYS, UH, THAT THIS IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COLLIN, DALLAS COUNTY. THERE'S NO CITY. I THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING THERE, ISN'T THERE? IS IT THE CITY OF DALLAS AND OR WHAT'S MISSING? NO, IT'S, IT'S CORRECTED. INSTEAD OF SAYING, UH, DALLAS, IT SHOULD SAY COLLIN COUNTY. THAT'S THE CORRECTION. IT'S CITY OF COLLIN. COLLIN. UM, THERE'S NO CITY OF COLLIN. THERE'S NO COLLIN. IT'S CORRECTED TO SAY COLLIN COUNTY. SO IT'S NOT THE CITY, IT'S CITY OF DALLAS REGISTERED VOTERS IN COLLIN COUNTY. IT, SO I NOTED THE CORRECTION WHEN READING IT AND THE SAME THING'S GONNA HAPPEN IN 51 COLLIN, I'M SORRY, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, IT'S, IT'S, IT WILL BE CORRECTED TO SAY CITY OF DALLAS, COLLIN COUNTY. OKAY. YES. AND THE NEXT ONE WILL SAY THIS AND WE'LL SAY CITY OF DALLAS, DENTON COUNTY. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. SN YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THIS WOULD BE JUST A REMINDER THAT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THERE'S MORE THAN 55,000 PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN COLLIN COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, NOT DALLAS COUNTY. THEY ONLY HAVE ONE PLACE TO VOTE IN CITY ELECTIONS. IT'S THE RENNER FRANKFURT LIBRARY THAT THEY SOW VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED, UM, FROM BUDGET CUTS. AND IT IS ALSO, WE HAVE NO REC CENTER IN THE COLLIN COUNTY, PART OF THE CITY, AND THIS IS THEIR EVERYTHING LOCATION. UM, I WOULD [05:40:01] PERHAPS SUGGEST MADAME SECRETARY BECAUSE OF THE EXCELLENT QUESTION BY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO THAT ALL THREE CONTRACTS SHOULD PROBABLY BE LISTED TOGETHER BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY CAN'T HAVE COLLIN COUNTY NOT VOTE IN A CITYWIDE ELECTION. SO THIS, GIVEN THAT THE FIRST ITEM THAT 49 PASSED 50 AND 51 HAVE TO PASS TO ALLOW THE 28,000 PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN DENTON COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO VOTE, WHO VOTE AT TIMBERLAND REC CENTER AS WELL AS THE COLLIN COUNTY PEOPLE, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE DEPENDENT UPON EACH OTHER AND WE COULDN'T HAVE TURNED DOWN DALLAS COUNTY, BUT KEEP COLIN AND DENTON. I MEAN THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO BE TOGETHER. NO COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON, WE CONTRACT SEPARATELY WITH EACH COUNTY, EACH, UH, ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR WITH EACH COUNTY. SO NO, THEY CANNOT BE COMBINED. AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT COLLIN COUNTY HAS VOTE CENTERS AS WELL. SO, UM, ANY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS REGISTERED VOTERS CAN VOTE ANYWHERE IN COLLIN COUNTY, UM, NOT JUST TIMBER GLEN. SO THE, UM, CLOSEST LOCATIONS ARE IN PLANO AND NOT VERY CLOSE TO DALLAS, MUCH FURTHER THAN LET'S SAY WHERE THE STARS MIGHT BE GOING. UM, IN THIS CASE, UH, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO DENY BECAUSE THERE'S NO UNIVERSE WHERE I DON'T WANT MY CALLING COUNTY PEOPLE TO HAVE A VOTE, SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION, HEARING NOT SO ORDERED MOTIONS. WITHDRAWN. MOTION. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THOUGH. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN WEST? NO THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE? SEEING NONE? DID ANYBODY WANT A RECORD VOTE ON THAT? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS NOW ON A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 40. UH, ITEM 50 A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 50, EVERYONE, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, AND 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 GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KANA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASEL DOA? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT AND VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. MOTION TO. OKAY. GOT IT. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. DEPUTY MAYOR PROTE JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO. TIMM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH THE 11 VOTING IN FAVOR. THREE OPPOSED? ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, NEXT [51. 26-2718A A resolution authorizing (1) a joint elections agreement and election services contract between the City of Denton, Dallas County, and various other jurisdictions within Denton County, for the conduct of a special election to be held Tuesday, November 3, 2026 in the amount of $45,000.00; and (2) an increase in appropriations in an amount not to exceed $45,000.00 in the City Secretary’s Office from the General Fund Contingency Reserve - Total not to exceed $45,000.00 - Financing: General Fund Contingency Reserve (see Fiscal Information)] ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 51 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND THIS ITEM IS BEING CORRECTED AS WELL. IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ONE, A JOINT ELECTIONS AGREEMENT AND ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DENTON COUNTY AND OTHER VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS WITHIN DENTON COUNTY FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 AND TO AN INCREASE IN THE APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $45,000 IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVE. TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $45,000. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? RECORD VOTE. I I, I'M SORRY, MY NAME. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSON. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT THIS WOULD BE FOR DENTON COUNTY FOR THE 28,000 RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE. I WOULD SAY A LARGE PERCENTAGE ARE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. DIVERSE POPULATION, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, BASA. AND, UM, IT IS IN ONE OF THE TWO CITY OWNED BUILDINGS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY, ONE OF WHICH IS TIMBER GLENN REC CENTER, AND ONE OF WHICH IS TIMBER GLENN LIBRARY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WE SHOULD SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION? SEEING NONE OF RECORD VOTES IS ANY REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE RULE. 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 MORENA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ENA. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DUA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. [05:45:04] WITH THE 11 VOTING IN FAVOR. THREE OPPOSED? ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, LET'S KEEP ROLLING. [52. 26-2719A A resolution authorizing the Mayor to appoint an Ad Hoc City Council Canvassing Committee to meet and review the returns of the November 3, 2026 special election, and submit a canvass report to the full City Council at its Tuesday, November 10, 2026 City Council meeting or at a special called city council meeting - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM 52 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPOINT AN AD HOC CITY COUNCIL CANVASSING COMMITTEE TO MEET AND REVIEW THE RETURNS OF THE NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION AND SUBMIT A CANVAS REPORT TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL AT ITS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10TH, 2026. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OR AT A SPECIAL CALL, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THIS IS YOUR ITEM MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION. ITEM 52. MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SO SECOND. ENTHUSIASTIC. ALL RIGHT, WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THE RECORD. OH, SORRY. THE RECORD VOTE'S BEEN REQUESTED. MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ITEM 52. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES IF YOU IN FAVOR? NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER ENA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DOA. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PROTE RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? YES. WITH 12 VOTING IN FAVOR. ONE OPPOSED? TWO ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES. MR. MAYOR. NEXT ITEM. THANK [53. 26-2698A An ordinance abandoning a water easement to Urban Smart Growth LP, the abutting owner, containing approximately 5,094 square feet of land, located near the intersection of Haskell Avenue and North Central Expressway - Revenue: General Fund $11,150.00, plus the $20.00 ordinance publication fee] YOU. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 53. AGENDA ITEM 53 IS AN ORDINANCE ABANDONING A WATER EASEMENT TO URBAN SMART GROWTH LP. THE BUDDING OWNER CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 5,094 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HASKELL AVENUE AND NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR LOOKING FOR MOTION. ALL RIGHT, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ITEM 53 FOLKS. SEEING NONE, NO RECORD. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. AYES HAVE IT? NO. WERE THERE SOME NAYS THERE? OKAY. THANK YOU [ZONING CASES - CONSENT] MR. MAYOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING AGENDA BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL MEMBER GRACIE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z FOUR. YOU RECOGNIZE YOU WANT US TO COME? ARE YOU READY? YES. I, I NEED, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. MOVE TO DE FURTHEST ITEM, UH, TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. SEPTEMBER 9TH. IS THERE SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? SAY NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA. YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM Z ONE THROUGH Z 13. ITEM Z THREE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON AND ITEM Z FOUR WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED. THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEM Z ONE, Z TWO AND Z FIVE THROUGH Z 13. I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL LIMITED TO AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LATE JUNE ROAD EAST OF RETO STREET, WEST LINE OF NORTH MASTERS DRIVE. ITEM Z TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB OR AREA ON PROPERTY. NORTHWEST LINE OF EAST LAKE HIGHLANDS DRIVE BETWEEN HARD ROAD AND PV ROAD. ITEM Z FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING ONE A NEW SUBDISTRICT FOR LC LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES. AND TWO, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MINI WAREHOUSE USE ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE AND HEDGE GRO HEDGE ROAD DRIVE. ITEM Z SIX IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN MF DASH TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT AND DA DUPLEX DISTRICT AND A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST AND AND NORTHEAST LINES OF KIRBY STREET BETWEEN CAPITAL AVENUE AND BELMONT AVENUE. ITEM Z SEVEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 3 7 7 FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAIRY MILK LANE AND ZODIAC LANE, AKA 8 2 8 5 0 DAIRY MILK LANE. ITEM Z [05:50:01] EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE JUNE ROAD BETWEEN HILLBURN DRIVE AND ROSE GARDEN AVENUE. ITEM Z NINE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ONE AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT FOR GR GENERAL RETAIL SUBDISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY. AND TWO, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE REMOVAL OF A D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON A PORTION FOUNDED BY MAPLE AVENUE, SHELBY AVENUE, FAIRMONT STREET AND REAGAN STREET. ITEM Z 10 IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SUB AREA TWO ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF OAK LANE AND MEYER STREET AND THE WEST CORNER OF ASH LANE AND MEYER STREET. ITEM Z 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ONE AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SUBDISTRICT ONE SUB AREA B ON PROPERTY ZONE SD DASH D SOUTH DALLAS DUPLEX SUBDISTRICT, AND TO AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AND AMENDMENT TWO AND AN EXPANSION OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 5 3 0 FOR A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE USE ON PROPERTY BETWEEN SM WRIGHT FREEWAY, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND PEABODY AVENUE AND I 45 FREEWAY. ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 5 3 1 FOR A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE USED ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD IN SM WRIGHT PARKWAY. ITEM Z 13 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BAR LOUNGE OR A TAVERN AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PARK FOR A BAR, LOUNGE OR A TAVERN. AND INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COMMERCE STREET AND MALCOLM X BOULEVARD, AKA 2 9 0 1 COMMERCE STREET. YOU DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ONE OF YOUR ZONING ITEMS. CONSENT ITEMS, ITEMS Z 10. JEFFREY NEWTON. JEFFREY NEWTON, UM, HERE. OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, YOU MAY CONTINUE. GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JEFFREY NEWTON. I'M WITH MMH DEVELOPMENT GROUP. WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY DEVELOPING IN JEFFREY MEYERS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS AND THIS REQUEST IS REALLY A CONTINUATION OF THAT INVESTMENT. THE PROPOSED CHANGE ALLOWS US TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY TAKING PLACE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH PLANNING STAFF, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, WHICH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE CASE. WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I'M HERE TODAY PRIMARILY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNSEL MAY HAVE AND RESPECT RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDI OR ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR. SECOND. I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND ON OUR ZONING EXTENSION. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. , HE OPPOSED. AYE HAVE IT. EVERYBODY SEEMS SO STUNNED. OKAY, IT'S THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. NEXT ITEM. THANK [Z3. 26-1955A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district for R-5(A) Single Family District uses on property zoned R-16(A) Single Family District, on the north line of Walnut Hill Lane and the east line of Betty Jane Lane, east of Marsh Lane Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Z-25-000224 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.] YOU MS. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW GO TO YOUR PULLED ZONING ITEM ITEM Z THREE. ITEM Z THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING PULL IT UP IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R DASH FIVE. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE AND THE EAST LINE OF BETTY JANE LANE, EAST OF MARSH LANE. MOVE TO DEFER. ONE SECOND. UM, PLANNING ITEM Z THREE. SHE WANTED TO BE RECOGNIZED TO DEFERRED. OH, I'M SORRY. NO, SHE DIDN'T, SHE DIDN'T SAY DEFER DEFERRED THAT DONE. I DON'T READ DEFER AND IT DOESN'T SAY DEFER. MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM E THREE FOR WHAT PURPOSE? CHAIR ONE WILLIS, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 23RD. SO WE MOVED IN SECOND AID DISCUSSION CHAIR WILL NO, JUST NEED A FEW MORE THINGS TO WORK OUT ON THIS CASE. OKAY, THAT COUNTS AS DISCUSSION. [05:55:01] BUT TECHNICALLY, CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES? UM, YES. SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK WILL THEY STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OR IF IT'S DEFERRED, THEY'VE COME DOWN HERE AND SAT FOR MANY HOURS FOR NO REASON. PROCEDURALLY IT WAS NEVER READ INTO THE RECORD. IT WAS DEFERRED BEFORE. IT WAS ACTUALLY, BEFORE IT BECAME AN ITEM CALLED. WELL, SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA VOTE, YOU THOUGHT WE WERE STUNNED OR SOMETHING ELSE? EVERYBODY LOOKED SO STUNNED, BUT THERE WERE SIGNALS GOING ON AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ALL LOOKING AT. OH YEAH. I DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO Y'ALL SIGNALS. I JUST DO IT BY THE BOOK. I JUST DO IT BY THE BOOK TELLING HER NOT TO READ IT IN. OH. SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T GET TO SPEAK. SO THIS IS IN DISCUSSION. THIS IS LIKE A PERMANENT INQUIRY AND YOU RIGHT, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION. YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT ALL OF THAT, BUT IT DIDN'T GET INTO THE RECORD AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THAT'S WHY THE SPEAKERS AREN'T GONNA BE HEARD 'CAUSE OKAY, WELL I'M GONNA VOTE NO. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. SO YOU'RE GONNA BE RECOGNIZED NOW ON THE, ON THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR FIVE MINUTES. GO AHEAD. YOU RUN OUR CLOCK. WELL, I'M GONNA VOTE NO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY AND THEN IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO DEFER IT, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S REASONABLE AND I WOULD SUPPORT IT, BUT I, I THINK IT'S JUST INCREDIBLY DISRESPECTFUL FOR US TO NOT LET PEOPLE SPEAK AFTER THEY'VE BEEN WAITING, I DON'T KNOW, FOUR HOURS AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU MR. ROTHI. RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES AGAIN, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE, UH, AROUND THE HORSESHOE. KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING. THIS IS A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM TO, WHAT DATE WAS IT? SEPTEMBER. SEPTEMBER 23RD. SEPTEMBER 23RD. AND WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. WE'RE NOT ON THE ITEM ITSELF. SO MR. YOU RECOGNIZED WE'RE ON THE MOTION TO DEFER . I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT, UH, THE COMMENTS OF, UH, COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN TO, TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE TO SPEAK, UH, WITH THE IDEA THAT AFTERWARDS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN TAKE UP THE MOTION TO DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 20TH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER THE MERITS OF THE MOTION TO DEFER? I'D LIKE A RECORD VOTE PLEASE. I DULY NOTED AND OF COURSE GRANTED, CHAIRWOMAN WILL RECOGNIZED FOR, UH, FOR FIVE MINUTES. YOU NEVER SPOKE ON IT. FIVE MINUTES. SURE. UM, THERE ARE SOME NEW POSSIBILITIES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SHARE WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBORS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO BE WORKED OUT. AND SO, UM, I'M FINE IF YOU CAME DOWN HERE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT, THAT'S FINE. UM, BUT THERE COULD BE FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. SO, UM, I'M, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE INVESTED SOME TIME HERE, SO I'M, I'M WILLING TO HEAR FROM YOU ON THIS. I'M, UH, ANYWAY, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO SPEAK ON CHAIRWOMAN MENTALLY RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES? WELL, THANK YOU. GIVEN THE COUNCILMAN'S COMMENTS, I'M WONDERING IF SHE WOULD WITHDRAW HER MOTION TO DEFER IT SO THAT THE ITEM COULD BE READ INTO THE RECORD. WE COULD HEAR THE SPEAKERS AND THEN SHE CAN MAKE THAT MOTION AFTERWARDS, OF WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT. YEAH, THAT SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO RESPOND TO THAT UNLESS SHE WANTS TO AND IT'S, UH, UP TO HER. MY MOTION WILL STAND. THAT WAS A RESPONSE ON YOUR TIME CHAIRMAN. SO YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. SO EFFECTIVELY THEN THE OFFER IS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU, BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN UNLESS THE REST OF THE COUNCIL VOTES DOWN THE MOTION, WHICH GENERALLY WE TRY NOT TO GET IN EACH OTHER'S BUSINESS ABOUT ZONING. ALTHOUGH YOU DID JUST OVERRIDE ME ON THE PFC BY THE WAY. UM, SO, UM, ALL THAT TO SAY, I JUST WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, THAT BY NOT WITHDRAWING THAT MOTION TO DEFER THAT ACTION IS WHAT IS BLOCKING THE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING. SO TO VOCALIZE THAT YOU WANNA HEAR FROM PEOPLE BUT NOT WITHDRAW THE MOTION, YOU ARE SAYING CONFLICTING THINGS. ANYONE ELSE WISHING YOU TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST THE MOTION TO DEFER. SEEING NONE A RECORD VOTE WAS REQUESTED, I BELIEVE. AND SO, MADAM SECRETARY, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE MEMBERS SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON. MOTION TO DEFER BY, UH, CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS OF ZONING. ITEM Z THREE. 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 GRACIE? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KADENA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BASIL DOA? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS ABSENT WHEN VOTE TAKEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON? NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS? [06:00:02] YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY? YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM JOHNSON? YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ? YES. MAYOR JOHNSON? NO. WITH 10 VOTING IN FAVOR. THREE OPPOSED? TWO ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN. THE ITEM PASSES MR. MAYOR. OKAY, NEXT ITEM. YOUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM [Z14. 26-2708A 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 August 12, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on August 25, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.] Z 14. I HAVE A MOTION. ITEM Z 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A HANDICAPPED GROUP DWELLING UNIT ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF PROSPERITY AVENUE WEST OF STANLEY SMITH DRIVE. DEPUTY MAYOR PROM, YOU HAVE A MOTION? NO. YES. NO, I'M SORRY. OH, WE HAVE SPEAKERS. RIGHT. UH, MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 51 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION. YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. PHILIP BANKS? YES. OKAY, WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE. UH, I'M PHILIP BANKS, THE OWNER OF 28 26 PROSPERITY AVENUE. I'M JUST HERE TO, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 14? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, NOW WE'RE READY FOR THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S BEEN MOVED TO SECONDARY DISCUSSION. MAYOR PROM? NO. ANY DISCUSSION? A ONE. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, [PH1. 26-1057A A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan,” to change the designation of Crouch Road between Patrol Way and South Lancaster Road from a standard two-lane undivided roadway within 56 feet of right-of-way and 36 feet of pavement (S-2-U) to a minimum four-lane undivided roadway in 60 feet of right-of-way and 40 feet of pavement (M-4-U); and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize an amendment to the ordinance - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with Thoroughfare Plan.] ITEM PH ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 0 8 6 0 CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE. PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CROUCH ROAD BETWEEN PATROL WAY AND SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD FROM A STANDARD TWO LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY WITHIN 56 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AND 36 FEET OF PAVEMENT TO A MINIMUM FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY IN 60 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AND 40 FEET OF PAVEMENT. AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM OR THERE ARE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM PH ONE. NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND IT LET'S BE MOVED IN SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THIS IS PH ONE. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, ITEM ITEM PH [PH2. 26-1804A A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan,” to change the designation of Grady Niblo Road between 3,650 feet east of Mountain Creek Parkway and Merrifield Road from a standard six-lane divided principal arterial roadway in 107 feet of right-of-way (S-6-D) to a minimum four-lane divided minor arterial roadway in 80 feet of right-of-way (M-4-D(A)); and at the close of the public hearing, authorize an ordinance implementing the change - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with Thoroughfare Plan.] TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 8 2 0 8 6 0 CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE. PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF GRADY NELO ROAD BETWEEN 3,650 FEET EAST OF MOUNTAIN CREEK PARKWAY AND MARYFIELD ROAD FROM A STANDARD SIX LANE DIVIDED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY IN 107 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO A MINIMUM FOUR LANE DIVIDED MINOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY IN 80 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE. 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 PH TWO? NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR LOOKING FOR A MOTION, PLEASE MOVE APPROVAL. ALRIGHT, I SAW, I HEARD A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SAY NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM, ITEM [PH3. 26-1053A A public hearing to receive comments to amend Ordinance No. 20860, “City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan” to remove Colonial Avenue between Pennsylvania Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard; and, at the close of the public hearing, authorize an ordinance implementing the change - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with Thoroughfare Plan.] PH THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 0 8 6 0 CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE. PLAN TO REMOVE COLONIAL AVENUE BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZE AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE. 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 PH THREE? NO SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. ALRIGHT, SO MOVING SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. MR. BASEL. DO A PH THREE JUST, UH, VERY BRIEFLY JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A HUGE MILESTONE FOR, UH, THE, UM, FOREST FORWARD, UH, PROJECT. AND, UM, I WANNA THANK STAFF FOR, UH, GETTING THIS DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER. UH, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING FOREST THEATER LIGHT UP ON NOVEMBER 1ST FOR [06:05:01] THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES. SO, UH, THANK YOU, UH, FOR Y'ALL'S APPROVAL HERE. ANYONE ELSE WE SHOULD SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST ITEM PH THREE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. , ANY OPPOSED? EYES HAVE IT. BARELY . NEXT ITEM. THANK [PH4. 26-2568A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Dallas Downtown Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Downtown Dallas, Inc.; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $10,981,412.15 - Financing: Dallas Downtown Improvement District Fund ($10,023,327.14), General Fund ($647,078.60), and Convention and Event Services Enterprise Fund ($311,006.41) (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH5. 26-2569A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District (“District”), in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on Dallas hotels with 100 or more rooms; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final FY 2026-27 Service Plan, the final FY 2026-27 Assessment Plan and the FY 2026-27 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary), and FY 2026-27 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the hearing and levying a special assessment on Dallas hotels with 100 or more rooms for services and improvements to be provided during FY 2026-27; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the FY 2026-27 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments to Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $20,581,651.00 - Financing: Dallas Tourism Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH6. 26-2570A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Deep Ellum Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Deep Ellum Foundation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $1,824,503.00 - Financing: Deep Ellum Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH7. 26-2571A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Far East Dallas Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary), 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County) and the establishment of appropriations in the District Fund; (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Ferguson Road Initiative; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $581,789.00 - Financing: Far East Dallas Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH8. 26-2572A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Halperin Park Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary), and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Southern Gateway Public Foundation; (10) authorizing the establishment of appropriations in the District Fund; and (11) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $137,741.00 - Financing: Halperin Park Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH9. 26-2573A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Klyde Warren Park/Dallas Arts District Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $4,160,659.00 - Financing: Klyde Warren Park/Dallas Arts District Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH10. 26-2574A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Knox Street Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Knox Street Improvement District Corporation; (10) authorizing amendments to the District’s adopted 2026 Service Plan in accordance with the Act; (11) requiring City staff to file a copy of the amended service plan and notice with the Dallas County Clerk; and (12) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $905,606.00 - Financing: Knox Street Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH11. 26-2575A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Lake Highlands Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Lake Highlands Improvement District Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $1,443,206.00 - Financing: Lake Highlands Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH12. 26-2576A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Midtown Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to MID Management Corporation; (10) authorizing amendments to the District’s adopted 2026 Service Plan in accordance with the Act; (11) requiring City staff to file a copy of the amended service plan and notice with the Dallas county clerk; and (12) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $1,666,858.00 - Financing: Midtown Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH13. 26-2577A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the North Lake Highlands Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Lake Highlands Improvement District Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $1,013,292.00 - Financing: North Lake Highlands Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH14. 26-2578A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Oak Lawn-Hi Line Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Oak Lawn-Hi Line Improvement Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $837,958.00 - Financing: Oak Lawn-Hi Line Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH15. 26-2579A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Prestonwood Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Prestonwood Homeowners Association; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $660,733.00 - Financing: Prestonwood Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH16. 26-2580A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Red Bird Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary), 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County) and the establishment of appropriations in the District Fund; (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing a correction to Resolution No. 25-0872 which mistakenly identified the name of the District as RedBird Public Improvement District instead of as Red Bird Public Improvement District (10) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Red Bird Public Improvement District Inc.; and (11) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $335,127.00 - Financing: Red Bird Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH17. 26-2581A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the South Side Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to South Side Quarter Development Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $522,715.00 - Financing: South Side Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH18. 26-2582A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the University Crossing Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to University Crossing Improvement District Corporation; and (10) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $1,278,723.00 - Financing: University Crossing Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] [PH19. 26-2583A A public hearing to receive comments concerning: (1) the proposed levy of assessment for the Uptown Public Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, for the purpose of providing supplemental public services to be funded by special assessments on property in the District; and, at the close of the public hearing; (2) authorize an ordinance approving and adopting the final 2027 Service Plan, the final 2026 Assessment Plan, the 2026 Assessment Roll (to be kept on file with the City Secretary) and 2027 Notice of Obligation to Pay Improvement District Assessment (to be filed with Dallas County); (3) establishing classifications for the apportionment of costs and the methods of assessing special assessments for the services and improvements to property in the District; (4) closing the public hearing and levying a special assessment on property in the District for services and improvements to be provided in the District during 2027; (5) providing for reimbursement of City administrative costs for operational oversight of the District; (6) establishing charges and liens against the property in the District and against the owners thereof; (7) providing for the collection of the 2026 assessment; (8) authorizing the receipt and deposit of assessments from Dallas County; (9) authorizing the disbursement of assessments and interest to Uptown Dallas Inc.; (10) authorizing amendments to the District’s adopted 2026 Service Plan in accordance with the Act; (11) requiring City staff to file a copy of the amended service plan and notice with the Dallas county clerk; and (12) providing for an effective date - Not to exceed actual collections estimated at $4,290,157.00 - Financing: Uptown Public Improvement District Fund (subject to appropriations) (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Economic Development Incentive Policy.] YOU MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT I, IF I COULD COMBINE ITEMS PH FOUR THROUGH PH 19 AS THEY'RE ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ITEMS. IS THERE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NONE. IT'S SO ORDERED. PH FOUR THROUGH 19 I'M GONNA, ARE GONNA BE BUNDLED. SHE'S GONNA NEED TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. I, I SUPPOSE I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL OF THEM. IT'S COMBINED. THE LANGUAGES ARE COMBINED. SO IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSAL OF LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN EACH RESPECTIVE DISTRICT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. AUTHORIZED ORDINANCES, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE APPLICABLE FINAL 2027 SERVICE PLANS. FINAL 2026 ASSESSMENT PLANS, 2026 ASSESSMENT ROLES IN 2027. NOTICES OF OBLIGATIONS TO PAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS OR FOR THE, FOR THE DALLAS TOURISM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THE FINAL FY 2027 SERVICE PLAN, ASSESSMENT PLAN, ASSESSMENT ROLE AND NOTICE OF OBLIGATION TO PAY IMPROVEMENT. DISTRICT ASSESSMENT. TWO. ESTABLISH, UH, CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF COST AND METHODS OF ASSESSING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS. THREE. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED DURING 2027 OR FFY. 2026. 27 AS APPLICABLE. FOUR. PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT. FIVE. ESTABLISHED CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST PROPERTY AND THE DISTRICTS AND THE OWNERS THEREOF AS APPLICABLE. SIX. PROVIDE FOR A COLLECTION, RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT OF THE ASSESSMENTS. SEVEN. AUTHORIZED DISBURSEMENTS OF ASSESSMENTS AND INTEREST TO THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT ENTITIES. EIGHT. AUTHORIZED ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS WERE APPLICABLE. NINE. AUTHORIZED AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT A SERVICE. PLANS AND RELATED COUNTY FILINGS WERE APPLICABLE. 10. AUTHORIZED NINE AUTHORIZED AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT A SERVICE. PLANS AND RELATED COUNTY FILINGS WERE APPLICABLE. 10. AUTHORIZED THE CORRECTION TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 DASH 8 72 TO REFLECT THE NAME REDBIRD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND 11 PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE DATES. YOU DO HAVE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS HAVE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON, ON SEVERAL OF YOUR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES. MR. MAYOR? SURE. THANK YOU. UM, FIRST SPEAKER, JENNIFER SCRIPPS WHO'LL BE SPEAKING ON PH FOUR. GOOD EVENING. JENNIFER SCRIPPS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF DDI DOWNTOWN DALLAS, INC. I'M REALLY JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER SPEAKERS WHO DID HAVE TO LEAVE THAT WERE HERE IN SUPPORT, SO THANKS AGAIN. THANK THANK YOU. AMY LEWIS HOFFLAND. ITEM PH FOUR. IT'S NOT PRESENT. ALSO ON ITEM PH FOUR. SARAH HUGHES. IT'S NOT PRESENT. ITEM PH FIVE. FRED ELLER. IT'S NOT PRESENT. PH SIX. STEPHANIE KELLER BERG. IT'S NOT PRESENT. PH SEVEN DOLORES SOSA GREEN. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS DOLORES SA GREEN. I'M THE MANAGER OF THE FAR EAST DALLAS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND A PROUD SEVEN FIVE TO TWO EIGHT PRESIDENT FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS. I JOINED THE FED PIT IN MID-MARCH AS THE NEW MANAGER AND AS A FIRST YEAR PI, WE'VE ALREADY MADE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. WE'VE HIRED AN EXTENDED NEIGHBORHOOD POLICE COORDINATOR AND PATROL OFFICERS WHO PROVIDE UP TO 70 PLUS HOURS PER WEEK OF COVERAGE AND SEEING SMALL BUTTON IMPORTANT WINS. UM, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING CALLING CODE ENFORCEMENT 9 1 1 3 1 1. EDUCATING COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO DO THAT. AND SO WE'RE SEEING WINS ON THAT AND ALSO ENCOURAGING OUR PROPERTY OWNERS TO, UH, APPLY FOR CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVITS SO THAT WE [06:10:01] CAN MAKE OUR OUR COMMUNITY SAFER. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, SO, UH, JUST LET ME KNOW AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANN HAGAN IS VIRTUAL PH EIGHT. YOU MAY BEGIN. MS. HAGAN. HI, I AM ANN HAGAN, UM, VP OF STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AT HALPERN PARK. UM, I'M REALLY JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON. I WAS THERE AND JUST HAD TO, UM, RUN HOME TO COVER KITS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DORSEY CLARK, PH NINE. HI, DORSEY CLARK WITH CLYDE WARREN PARK. JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND PARTNERSHIP HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HENIKA DIAL ITEM PH 10 IS NOT PRESENT. SALLY RAW. HELLO. HI, I AM SALLY WITH THE KNOX STREET PI. I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICKI TAYLOR, PH 11. VICKI TAYLOR. HI, THIS IS VICKI TAYLOR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? BARELY, BUT YES, YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY. SORRY. UH, MY NAME IS VICKI TAYLOR. I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR LAKE COLLEGE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE P THANK YOU NICK PAEZ ITEM, UH, PH 12. HI, NICK PAL, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MIDTOWN DALLAS, INC. JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR SERVICE PLAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. VICKI TAYLOR AGAIN, ITEM PH 13. HI, VICKI TAYLOR AGAIN. UM, UM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR NORTH LAKE COLLINS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. AGAIN, HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. CHARLOTTE CARR. ITEM PH 14. I'M HERE. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? THANK YOU. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? THANK YOU. MARK GOODMAN, PH 15. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TERRANCE MAIDEN, PH 16 TERRANCE MAIDEN IS NOT PRESENT. BOWIE WYNN PH 17. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BOWIE WYNN WITH THE SOUTH SIDE PIT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. EVERETT UPSHAW, PH 17. HELLO. AFTER, UH, SIX YEARS OF, UH, COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, UH, IN THESE DISTRICTS, I WAS VERY EXCITING TO BE, UH, CONTACTED BY BYRON, UH, FROM MY DISTRICT TODAY. SO I HAVE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO, UH, REQUEST THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA APPROVE THE FUNDS FOR THIS DISTRICT, THEY SHOULD BE CONDITIONED ON NUMBER ONE, REQUIRING THE BOARD TO SOLICIT PUBLIC FEEDBACK BEFORE DELIBERATING ON PROJECTS TO FUND. NUMBER TWO, YOU SHOULD REQUIRE THE BOARD TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS. NUMBER THREE, THE BOARD SHOULD BE PUBLICLY ELECTED INSTEAD OF A SELF PERPETUATING INSIDERS CLUB THAT GETS TO APPOINT ITS OWN SUCCESSORS. NUMBER FOUR, THE BOARD SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF A CROSS SECTION OF PEOPLE FROM THE DISTRICT INSTEAD OF SPECIAL INTERESTS WITH THE MOST INFLUENCE. NUMBER FIVE, TAXES AND SERVICES SHOULD BE EQUALIZED ACROSS THE DISTRICT RATHER THAN, UM, LEVYING HIGHER CLASSES ON WHAT IS A WORKING CLASS, MIDDLE CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, TO FUND OTHER PARTS OF THE, UH, DISTRICT NUMBER SIX. UM, YOU SHOULD STOP TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR COUNTYWIDE SERVICES ONTO OUR DISTRICT AND THEN ASKING US TO FUND THEM. AND NUMBER SEVEN, I GUESS I, I JUST WOULD REGISTER THAT IT'S WEIRD. UH, WELL, I GUESS TO HAVE A GERRYMANDERED PID UM, SO I NOTICED THAT THE ONE, THE ADDITION TO THE [06:15:01] PID IS NOT EVEN CONTIGUOUS WITH, UH, THE, THE CORE PART. AND I, YOU KNOW, I I GUESS AS I SORT OF TRY TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES, UH, UH, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS MONEY IS NEEDED OVER NEAR OLD CITY PARK. AND SO YOU DECIDED TO TAKE OUR MONEY FROM OUR DISTRICT AND GO DUMP IT OVER THERE. UH, AND I, I I OBJECT TO THAT. SO, UM, WE ARE NOT A WEALTHIER INFLUENTIAL DISTRICT. UM, THIS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF ROBINHOOD TAKING MONEY FROM A MIDDLE CLASS GROUP TO DISTRIBUTE, UH, AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR COUNTYWIDE SERVICES WHEN, UH, IN FACT IT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT THE WEALTHIEST BY FAR. MY, MY PER MY PER FOOT VALUE OF MY HOME IS ABOUT A THIRD TO A QUARTER OF SIMILAR CONDOS, LESS THAN SIX BLOCKS AWAY . UM, SO THAT, THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY HERE TODAY. AND, UM, I HOPE THAT, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE MORE SERIOUSLY IN THE FUTURE. UM, THE, THE IDEA THAT THESE, IF WE'RE GONNA TAX PEOPLE IN SPECIAL DISTRICTS, THAT, UM, WE SHOULD ACTUALLY TRY TO BE REPRESENTATIVE, UH, OF THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BENEFITS ARE GOING TO THE PEOPLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PATRICK SANDERS ON PH 18. YES. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PATRICK SANDERS. I MANAGE THE UNIVERSITY CROSSING PIT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. KELLUM BUTTS ON ITEM PH 19. YES, I, I REPRESENT THE, UH, UPTOWN DALLAS THINK PIT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, BROOKE. BROOKLYN LESNER ON PH 19 BROOKLYN. HI THERE. UM, I, I AM ALSO WITH, UM, UPTOWN DALLAS PIT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA FLETCHER, ITEM PH 2020. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S CHRISTINA FLETCHER AND I SERVE AS A PARTNERSHIP COACH WITH DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL. IN MY ROLE, I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH DALLAS PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF TO SEE FIRSTHAND THE COMMITMENT THAT THEY HAVE MADE TO PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN ACROSS OUR CITY. WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME ISN'T SIMPLY THAT THESE PROGRAMS EXIST. IT'S THE PEOPLE BEHIND THEM. PARK AND RECREATION STAFF CONSISTENTLY SHOW A WILLINGNESS TO LEARN, GROW, AND IMPROVE. THEY PARTICIPATE IN TRAINING, WELCOME COACHING, AND FEEDBACK, WORK THROUGH THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS, AND CONTINUALLY LOOK FOR WAYS TO CREATE SAFER, STRONGER, AND MORE ENGAGING ENVIRONMENTS FOR THE CHILDREN THEY SERVE. QUALITY DOESN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. IT ACTS, IT TAKES INTENTIONALITY. IT TAKES STAFF WHO ARE WILLING TO BE TRAINED, COACH, ASSESS, AND CHALLENGE TO GROW. DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION. YEAH, RATED THAT COMMITMENT LAST YEAR. DALLAS AFTERSCHOOL CERTIFIED NINE PARKS AND A REC SITES FOR MEETING ALTON. ELEMENTS OF HIGH QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING AND EVERY SITE PASS 100% OF ITS SAFETY ASSESSMENTS. BUT BEHIND THOSE NUMBERS ARE CHILDREN. THOSE ARE CHILDREN WHO HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO GO AFTER SCHOOL. CHILDREN WHO HAVE ADULTS THAT KNOW THEIR NAMES, ENCOURAGE THEM, HELP THEM LEARN AND GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES THEY MAY NOT HAVE OTHERWISE HAD. AND THERE ARE WORKING FAMILIES WHO CAN GO TO WORK KNOWING THEIR CHILDREN ARE SAFE AND AT AN AFFORDABLE CARING PROGRAM. I'VE SEEN THE WORK BEING DONE. I'VE SEEN THE COMMITMENT OF THE STAFF AND I'VE SEEN THEIR DESIRE TO CONTINUE GETTING BETTER FOR THE CHILDREN THEY SERVE. DALLAS PARKS AND RECREATION AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS AREN'T SIMPLY PROVIDING A FACE, PROVIDING A PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO GO AFTER SCHOOL. THEY ARE INVESTING IN DALLAS CHILDREN, DALLAS FAMILIES, AND DALLAS COMMUNITIES, AND THAT IS AN INVESTMENT WORTH PROTECTING. DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT IN THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMMING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THOUGH, THE, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS. FIRST, LET ME MAKE SURE THERE, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ITEMS? ITEMS PH FOUR THROUGH PH 19. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. MR. MAYOR, THESE ARE YOUR SPEAKERS ON ITEMS PH FOUR THROUGH PH 19. NOW MR. RIDLEY SECOND. OKAY, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. THE AYES HAVE IT. THAT'S PH FOUR THROUGH 19. THAT'S CORRECT, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. THEY'RE ALL APPROVED. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT [PH20. 26-1376A A public hearing to receive comments on the FY 2026-27 Operating, Capital, and Grant & Trust Budgets - Financing: No cost consideration to the City] ITEM IS ITEM PH 20. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE FY 26 27 OPERATING CAPITAL AND GRANT AND TRUST BUDGETS. THIS IS, [06:20:01] THERE ARE NO, YOU DO HAVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. YOU'VE HEARD FROM CHRISTINA FLETCHER. KEVIN MALONES. KEVIN MALONES IS NOT PRESENT. OLGA GONZALEZ? YES. GOOD MOR. UH, WELCOME. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ORGA GONZALEZ AND I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAM SERVICES AT DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL, WHICH IS DALLAS'S CITYWIDE OUT OF SCHOOL TIME INTERMEDIARY. SO I WANNA EMPHASIZE WHY SUSTAINING INVESTMENT IN PARKS AND RECS, OST OUTOF SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMMING MATTERS NOT JUST FOR INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS, BUT FOR THE ENTIRE OUT OF SCHOOL TIME ECOSYSTEM AND FOR DALLAS'S FUTURE ECONOMIC MOBILITY. WE KNOW THAT HIGH QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE, WORKING FAMILIES, AND ULTIMATELY OUR WORKFORCE AND DALLAS PARKS AND RECREATION IS ALREADY A STRONG EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT INVESTMENT CAN PRODUCE THROUGH OUR PARTNERSHIP. AS STATED BEFORE, CHRISTINA SAID NINE PARKS AND NINE PARKS AND RECREATION AFTER SCHOOL SITES OPERATING ON DALLAS ISD CAMPUSES HAVE ACHIEVED DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL CERTIFICATION DEMONSTRATING COM COMPETENCY ACROSS ALL 10 ELEMENTS OF HIGH QUALITY PROGRAMMING AND A HUNDRED PERCENT SAFETY COMPLIANCE JUST AS IMPORTANT. IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY HAS INVESTED IN ITS PEOPLE, PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF HAVE PARTICIPATED IN TRAINING AND COACHING ACROSS MORE THAN 40 CRITICAL TOPICS, WHICH INCLUDE ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS AND YOUTH ENGAGEMENT TO CPR AND CHILD SAFETY. THEIR COMMITMENT TO JOB QUALITY EARNED THE DEPARTMENT DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL'S INAUGURAL JOB QUALITY COMMITMENT AWARD. THIS IS WHAT SYSTEMS INVESTMENT LOOKS LIKE. STRONG PROGRAMS, A PREPARED WORKFORCE AND GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND WORKING FAMILIES DALLAS AFTER SCHOOL. THANKS YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT AND FUNDING PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES, AND HOPES TO SEE THAT REFLECTED IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERESA ENS THERE GOINS IS NOT PRESENT. PAT RODRIGUEZ. PAT RODRIGUEZ IS NOT PRESENT. BARRETT JOHNSTON? YES, I'M HERE ONLINE. OKAY, YOU MAY CONTINUE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BARRETT JOHNSTON AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT SIX. WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ALL DAY TODAY AND AT ALL OF THE BUDGET TOWN HALLS I ATTENDED OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS IS THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS A PUBLIC TRUST PROBLEM. ITEM TWO ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, APPROVED THIS MORNING, HANDS $3.2 MILLION TO LEADS ONLINE. A COMPANY ALREADY FACING SCRUTINY FOR MONOPOLIZING PAWN SHOP AND SECONDHAND TRANSACTION DATA. ANOTHER SURVEILLANCE TECH COMPANY, SOLE SOURCE, NO BID, JUST LIKE THE FLOCK CONTRACT YOU SIGNED LAST YEAR THAT COULD FUND A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS YOU CUT IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. MEANWHILE, ITEMS 14 THROUGH 16, HANDOUT 10 YEAR PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS TO OWNERS OF HISTORIC HOMES IN SWISS AVENUE AND JUNIORS HEIGHTS HOMES THAT BY THE CITY'S OWN CRITERIA WERE NEVER IN DANGER OF DEMOLITION AND NEVER NEEDED A SUBSIDY TO SURVIVE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE WEALTHIEST BLOCKS IN DALLAS, AND THIS COUNCIL JUST AGREED TO KEEP SIX FIGURES IN PROPERTY TAXES OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE NEXT DECADE. THE SAME GENERAL FUND YOU'RE TELLING EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT TO SHRINK TO FIT INTO, EXCEPT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. OF COURSE, ITEM 33 PROPOSES CUTTING THE TAX RATE. AGAIN, ONE COUNCIL MEMBER ARGUED TODAY THAT OUR RATE IS ALREADY TOO HIGH. COMPARE TO OTHER CITIES AND THAT STAYING COMPETITIVE MIGHT MEAN IN HER WORDS, WE DON'T GET TO HAVE CERTAIN THINGS LIKE AN URBAN GARDEN BECAUSE, QUOTE, SORRY, THAT'S A NONPROFIT JOB. NO MA'AM. THAT'S YOUR JOB. TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE TAXPAYERS. IF THIS COUNCIL PUT OUR TAX DOLLARS TOWARDS HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS, INSTEAD OF POURING NEARLY EVERY FREE DOLLAR OF THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE POLICE BUDGET, PEOPLE WOULD BE A LOT MORE WILLING TO PAY A SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE BECAUSE THEY'D ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR. STOP CUTTING OUR TAXES, USE THEM ON US. I MIGHT BE A RADICAL IDEA TO SOME, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT GOVERNMENT IS INTENDED FOR. FUND THE THINGS THAT KEEP DALLAS RUNNING. STOP SUBSIDIZING WEALTH. START ANSWERING THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR ALL OF IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ZALE ALVAREZ. UH, GOOD EVENING, UH, EVERYONE, I HAVE SPENT SOME TIME GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET AND WATCHING THE DISCUSSIONS AND THERE'S ONE THING THAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO BEFORE DALLAS DECIDES HOW MUCH MONEY A PROGRAM GETS. THE CITY IS STARTING TO SCORE THESE PROGRAMS BASED ON HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE. UH, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE. WE HAVE LIMITED MONEY. WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S WORKING, WHAT'S REQUIRED, AND WHERE'S OUR MONEY GOING, [06:25:01] RIGHT? BUT THEN I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT HOW THE SCORING ACTUALLY WORKS. WHETHER SOMETHING IS LEGALLY REQUIRED IS WORTH 25% OF THE SCORE. WHETHER THERE'S EVIDENCE IT WORKS IS 20%, COST RECOVERY IS 15%, BUT RESIDENT DEMAND 5%. AND THEN I GOT TO THE DEFINITION OF A CORE CITY PROGRAM. THE CITY'S OWN RUBRIC SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT USES LIBRARIES AND REC CENTERS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS AND CULTURAL CENTERS AS EXAMPLES OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOT CORE. THEY GET A ZERO OUT OF FOUR ON THAT PART OF THE SCORE. AND THAT'S WHERE I STOPPED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE IN DALLAS KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. THINK ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MAYBE YOUR LIBRARY IS WHERE YOUR KID GOES AFTER SCHOOL. MAYBE YOUR REC CENTER IS WHERE YOU PLAY BASKETBALL. MAYBE YOU'VE NEVER STEPPED INSIDE EACH ONE OF THOSE, BUT IF IT DISAPPEARED TOMORROW, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS STILL LOSE SOMETHING. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO PUT EVERYTHING A CITY DOES INTO A FORMULA. JUST BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE SOMETHING LAST YEAR DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T VALUE IT. I DIDN'T CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR, BUT I'M HAPPY THAT THEY'RE THERE SO I CAN CALL THEM. AND THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION I THINK WE NEED TO ASK. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SERVICE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ONE PART OF DALLAS BUT NOT HEAVILY USED CITYWIDE? BECAUSE DALLAS ISN'T STARTING FROM AN EQUAL PLACE. SOME NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY HAVE MORE PARKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAN OTHERS, BUT IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL, WE COULD LOOK AT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS LESS AND LESS THAN USE A SERVICE AND USE THAT AS EVIDENCE SO WE CAN GIVE THEM, UH, EVEN LESS. THAT'S NOT EFFICIENCY, THAT'S JUST INEQUALITY GETTING BAKED INTO THAT SPREADSHEET. AND I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD THROW THIS WHOLE SYSTEM AWAY. I ACTUALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF ASKING WHETHER THESE PROGRAMS WORK. BUT IF WE'RE GONNA USE THESE SCORES TO HELP DECIDE WHERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS GO, THEN SHOW US THE SCORES, PUT 'EM ONLINE. TELL US WHO SCORED EACH PROGRAM. TELL US WHY IT GOT THE SCORE THAT IT DID. SHOW US THE EVIDENCE AND LET RESIDENTS SEE HOW THEIR LIBRARY, THE REC CENTER, THEIR HOUSING PROGRAM WERE EVALUATED. AND HERE'S WHAT WORRIES ME MOST A YEAR FROM NOW. I DON'T WANT SOMEONE STANDING HERE SAYING, SORRY, THIS PROGRAM WAS LOW PRIORITY. AND THE PUBLIC'S FIRST RESPONSE BEING, WAIT, WHO DECIDED THAT THAT'S THE CONVERSATION WE SHOULD BE HAVING FROM NOW ON BEFORE THE CUTS, NOT AFTER? BECAUSE THIS REALLY ISN'T ABOUT A SPREADSHEET, IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING SIMPLER. WHAT DO WE THINK A CITY OWES THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE? AND THAT'S A QUESTION TO A FORMULA. CAN HELP US ANSWER THAT YOUR TIME, BUT IT SHOULDN'T GET US TO ANSWER IT FOR US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE YOU MAY COME FORWARD? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU MAY BEGIN. MY NAME IS NORA SOTO. MY ADDRESS IS 1418 CLOUD STREET. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANNA CLARIFY SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY A COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE MEETING ON AUGUST 12TH ABOUT DSA MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO SPOKE. UH, I AM A PROUD DSA MEMBER OF THE NORTH TEXAS CHAPTER AND I WANNA CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT JUST DSA MEMBERS, WE ARE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE CITY WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHO DESERVED TO HAVE INPUT IN OUR BUDGET. SO I'M GONNA MOVE ON AT THIS POINT. AFTER COMING TO THESE THINGS FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS NOW, EIGHT SEASONS IF YOU WILL, EIGHT BUDGET CYCLES. I HAVE REALIZED THAT BY THE TIME WE GET TO THIS POINT, I'M NOT GOING TO REACH ANY OF YOU BASED ON YOUR MORALS. THERE'S COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE HORSESHOE WHO OWN LAND IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE. THERE'S COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE HORSESHOE THAT WILL SPEAK WITH THEIR WORDS TO DEFEND IMMIGRANTS BUT NOT WITH THEIR ACTIONS. AND I CAN'T REALLY GO OR TAKE THE STRATEGY OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY WITH YOU EITHER BECAUSE MOST OF YOU ARE FUNDED BY THE DALLAS POLICE ASSOCIATION. SO WHAT I WILL DO IS LIKE A DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBER SUGGESTED AT ONE OF THESE TOWN HALLS THAT I HAVE ATTENDED, I WILL GIVE YOU IDEAS. I WILL GIVE YOU IDEAS ON WHERE TO TAKE MONEY FROM CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS TO FUND THE ONES THAT ARE BEING CUT. THE UM, RESIDENTS THAT I'VE HEARD SPEAK AT THESE BUDGET TOWN HALLS OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS AND TODAY HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT FOR LIBRARIES, THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS, HOW IMPORTANT THE ARTS ARE, HOW IMPORTANT THE LIBRARIES ARE, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO NOT CANCEL EVICTION GRANTS TO THE TUNE OF 1 MILLION, WHICH IS MINUSCULE COMPARED TO EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS BUDGET AND THE FIRED CITY EMPLOYEES. SO I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN WHICH YOU CAN CANCEL CONTRACTS, [06:30:01] SPECIFICALLY SURVEILLANCE CONTRACTS LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU APPROVED TODAY WITH NO VOTES, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC. THAT WAS ABOUT $3 MILLION, $3.2 MILLION. THERE'S ANOTHER CONTRACT, THE FLOCK CONTRACT, WHO WAS, THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR. UM, THAT IS OVER $5 MILLION AND GROWING BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU KEEP ADDING CAMERAS. IT STARTED OFF AT 600, THEN SIX 70, NOW SIX 90 CANCELING AXON CONTRACTS WITH YOUR, UH, THAT PROVIDE YOU THE DRONES AS FIRST RESPONDERS, WHICH IS A TERRIFYING IMAGE. UM, I COULD KEEP GOING IN REGARDS TO THE 10 MILLION THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY SAVE, UM, BY RAISING THE TAX RATE THAT ONE COUNCIL MEMBER CALLED A SLUSH FUND. DPD BUDGET IS ACTUALLY THE BIGGEST LUSH FUND IN THE BUDGET. BUT UH, HE WAS OKAY WITH PUTTING PARAMETERS ON THAT TO ONLY USE IT FOR THE PENSION, BUT NOT TO PUT PARAMETERS ON THE TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM. UM, TA PARAMETERS AROUND INCOME FOR THAT. SO THERE YOU COULD SAVE SOME MONEY. THAT'S YOUR TIME. HERE YOU GO. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. MR. MAYOR. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FROM, ACTUALLY I MOVE RECOGNIZED CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS. THANK YOU. I'M FOR A MOTION ON THIS. IS THIS PH 20? CORRECT? IT'S GO AHEAD. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VERY WELL SAID. AND SECOND, THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ANYONE SEEING NONE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT MA'AM. SECRETARY AYE. THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. ARE THERE ANY MORE? UM, OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. NO SPEAKERS. ALRIGHT, WELL THEN IT'S SIX 16 AND THIS MEETING'S ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MEMBERS. GREAT WORK TODAY. PROUD OF ALL OF YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.