Sep 02, 2026 Council Briefing

YOU'RE WATCHING THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WITH MAYOR ERIC L JOHNSON, MAYOR PRO TEM JAIME RESENDEZ,

[00:00:09]

CHAD WEST ZARIN D GRACEY. JESSIE MORENO GAY DONNELL WILLIS.

LAURA. CADENA. ADAM. BAZALDUA. LORI. BLAIR. PAULA.

BLACKMON. CATHY STEWART. WILLIAM. ROTH CARA. MENDELSOHN.

PAUL E. RIDLEY. CITY. MANAGER. KIMBERLY BIZOR TOLBERT.

CITY SECRETARY BILLY RAY JOHNSON AND INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY BERT VANDENBERG.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A QUORUM. GOOD MORNING. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2026, AT TIMES 9:23 A.M..

[Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance Special Presentations Open Microphone Speakers]

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO RABBI PALEY FOR OUR INVOCATION, FOLLOWED BY OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. SOURCE OF LIFE AND SOURCE OF WISDOM.

WE COME TOGETHER THIS MORNING GRATEFUL FOR THE CITY WE CALL HOME.

FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SERVE HERE, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING IT.

AS THIS COUNCIL BEGINS ITS WORK TODAY, GRANT ITS MEMBERS WISDOM AND PATIENCE AND COURAGE AND THE FULL MEASURE OF COMPASSION, ESPECIALLY AS THEY WRESTLE WITH THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS OF A CITY BUDGET.

HELP THEM REMEMBER THAT BEHIND EVERY NUMBER IS A PERSON.

BEHIND EVERY LINE IS A CHOICE AND BEHIND EVERY CHOICE, OUR REAL LIVES ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS ROOM.

HELP US REMEMBER THAT A BUDGET IS MORE THAN A COLLECTION OF NUMBERS.

IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF OUR PRIORITIES. IT TELLS A STORY ABOUT WHAT MATTERS TO US, WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO INVEST IN, AND WHAT KIND OF CITY WE HOPE TO BE. SO GIVE THOSE WHO LEAD US THE COURAGE TO ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, THE HUMILITY TO LISTEN TO ANSWERS THEY MAY NOT EXPECT, AND THE WISDOM TO BALANCE THE MANY NEEDS OF A LARGE AND DIVERSE CITY.

MAY THEY LISTEN NOT ONLY TO THE LOUDEST VOICES, BUT ALSO TO THE VOICES THAT ARE TOO OFTEN DIFFICULT TO HEAR.

MAY DISAGREEMENT NEVER DIMINISH RESPECT, MAKE DIFFICULT CHOICES, NEVER DIMINISH COMPASSION, AND MAY THE PRESSURES OF TODAY NEVER CAUSE US TO LOSE SIGHT OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOMORROW.

BLESS THOSE WHO SERVE THIS CITY. THOSE WHO PROTECT IT, THOSE WHO CARE FOR IT, AND ALL THOSE WHO WORK EACH DAY TO MAKE OUR GREAT CITY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE. AND MAY THE DECISIONS MADE HERE TODAY REFLECT WISDOM, STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY, AND HELP US BUILD A CITY IN WHICH ALL OF US CAN FLOURISH.

MAY THE WORK OF THEIR HANDS BE BLESSED, AND MAY OUR CITY BE BLESSED THROUGH THEIR HARD WORK.

AMEN. IF EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE TO PLEASE RISE FOR OUR PLEDGE.

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 THEE.

TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVERYONE. YOU MAY BE SEATED AND I WILL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO OUR CITY MANAGER, KIM TOLBERT, FOR A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

WE HAVE TWO RECOGNITIONS FOR THIS MORNING. THE FIRST ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE, AN EXTRAORDINARY TEAM EFFORT THAT INVOLVED OUR DALLAS ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE FOR AN INCREDIBLE EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE READY WHEN EVERY SECOND COUNTS.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, DISD POLICE OFFICER JUSTIN JONES WAS SHOT IN THE LEG WHILE RESPONDING TO A CRISIS CALL.

HE WAS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED, SUFFERING LIFE THREATENING BLOOD LOSS.

D ISD OFFICER ARMANDO GONZALEZ ARRIVED FIRST ON THE SCENE AND THANKS TO HIS QUICK THINKING, HE WAS ABLE TO LIMIT THE BLOOD LOSS BY APPLYING A TOURNIQUET TO OFFICER JONES LEG.

WHEN DALLAS FIRE RESCUE ARRIVED, OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS WERE ABLE TO TRANSFUSE TWO PINTS OF BLOOD TO HIM RIGHT THERE

[00:05:07]

THIS IS WHAT INNOVATION LOOKS LIKE WHEN THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER.

SINCE THE BLOOD PROGRAM BEGAN, DALLAS FIRE RESCUE HAS ADMINISTERED BLOOD TO MORE THAN 75 PATIENTS ACROSS OUR CITY.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT MADE A REAL DIFFERENCE. AND SO TODAY WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE DISD OFFICER DALLAS, FIREFIGHTER, RESCUE FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS, PARAMEDICS FOR THEIR EXCEPTIONAL WORK.

I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE PARKLAND, BIOTEL, PARKLAND EMERGENCY AND TRAUMA SERVICES AND THE AMERICAN RED CROSS FOR THEIR PARTNERSHIP.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR PUBLIC SAFETY CHIEF ARTIST, CHIEF FIRE CHIEF EMS LEADERSHIP AND DFA'S OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR WHO HELPED MAKE THIS PROGRAM POSSIBLE. THIS IS SERVICE FIRST.

NOW IT IS MOST, IN ITS LITERAL SENSE, HAVING THE RIGHT PEOPLE, THE RIGHT TRAINING AND THE RIGHT RESOURCES AND PLACES THAT SAVE LIVES RIGHT NOW. MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THESE OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVANTS ON A JOB WELL DONE.

OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU ALL TO COME INSIDE THE RAILING FOR A PHOTOGRAPH.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.

WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL AND WHAT YOU DO YEAR ROUND, BUT WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB YOU GUYS DID IN THIS CASE.

YES. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHIEF BALL. I SEE HIM COMING TO THE PODIUM TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GO AHEAD CHIEF. MAKE YOUR REMARKS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GET YOU IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, TOO. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

BECAUSE WE'VE. I MIGHT AS WELL GIVE HIM THE CERTIFICATES WHILE I DO THIS.

BECAUSE WE'VE GOT CERTIFICATES FOR OUR FOLKS THAT HAD AN INVOLVEMENT ALSO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST THE BLOOD PROGRAM DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY.

BUT WHAT DOES IS THE FACT THAT THESE FIREFIGHTERS THAT HAPPENED TO BE THERE IN THE VICINITY, THEY RUSHED TO HELP THIS DOWNED OFFICER WHILE THE GUNMAN WAS STILL HE HE HADN'T BEEN NEUTRALIZED.

HE WAS STILL ON THE SCENE. SO THIS ISN'T JUST A, A, A, A FACT OF THEIR PRECISION AND TIMING AND EXCELLENCE IN THEIR JOB, BUT IT'S ALSO AN ACT OF BRAVERY.

SO THERE'S A LOT TO THIS. AND JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING US PROUD EVERY DAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL.

AND MADAM CITY MANAGER, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT THIS MORNING. OKAY.

[00:10:04]

WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE AN EXTRAORDINARY TEAM EFFORT THAT HELPED DALLAS SHARE A VERY SPECIAL PIECE OF OUR NATION'S HISTORY.

WITH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OVER THE SUMMER, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS OWNS AN ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, PRINTED IN 1776, KNOWN AS THE DALLAS LOST COPY.

IT IS ONE OF ONLY 26 KNOWN SURVIVING COPIES IN THE WORLD, AND THE ONLY ONE PUBLICLY DISPLAYED WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

IT'S AT THE PERMANENT HOME AT THE J. ERIK JONSSON CENTRAL LIBRARY.

BUT THIS SUMMER WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, MR. MAYOR, TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL AS PART OF OUR AMERICA 250 CELEBRATION.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS TEMPORARILY MOVED TO THE HALL OF STATE AT FAIR PARK FOR THE DECLARATION'S AMERICA AND TEXAS INDEPENDENCE EXHIBIT DURING THE FIFA FAN FESTIVAL. AND WHEN I SAY MOVED, I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THIS WAS NOT YOUR TYPICAL MOVE ACROSS TOWN.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY WE TRANSPORTED A NEARLY 250 YEAR OLD DOCUMENT THAT IS ONE OF ONLY 26 KNOWN COPIES IN EXISTENCE. THE DECLARATION TRAVELED IN AN ARMORED VEHICLE WITH A CONSERVATORY PRESENCE AND A FULL DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ESCORT.

STREETS WERE SHUT DOWN ALONG THE ROUTE TO ENSURE ITS UNINTERRUPTED, UNINTERRUPTED TRANSPORT.

AND ONCE IT ARRIVED AT THE HALL ESTATE, IT WAS PLACED IN A SPECIALLY DESIGNED DISPLAY CASE AND MONITORED DAILY THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WHILE DPD PROVIDED SECURITY AROUND THE CLOCK THROUGHOUT THE EXHIBIT.

THAT LEVEL OF CARE SPEAKS NOT ONLY TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT, BUT TO THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED WITH PROTECTING IT.

AND BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK, MORE THAN 4000 PEOPLE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE THIS EXHIBIT DURING THE FIFA FAN FEST, COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE. DALLAS RESIDENTS AND VISITORS FROM AROUND THE WORLD WERE ABLE TO STAND JUST FEET, JUST FEET AWAY FROM A DOCUMENT THAT HELPED CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

THE DECLARATION WAS DISPLAYED ALONG OTHER REMARKABLE PIECES FROM THE DALLAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

THE DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH JUNETEENTH, A REPRODUCTION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON'S DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION AND THE JOURNAL OF THE 1836 TEXAS CONVENTION. SO TODAY, WE'RE RECOGNIZING AND THANKING MANY OF OUR LEADERS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY FOR THEIR EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS IN HELPING US MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. I WANT TO THANK CARL CHOW, ASHLEY WIDER WITCHER, AND THE ENTIRE DALLAS HISTORICAL TEAM FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP IN CREATING THE EXHIBIT AND CARING FOR THESE HISTORIC ARTIFACTS TO REMIND YOU.

SHORT, OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARY TO YOUR ENTIRE TEAM, THANK YOU FOR OVERSEEING THE SAFE LOAN AND TRANSPORT OF THE DECLARATION FOR BUILDING MORE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMING AROUND AROUND THIS MOMENT TO ROSA FLEMING, OUR CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES TEAM.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE COORDINATION HAPPEN AND MAKING IT BE A POSSIBLE OF AN AMAZING EXHIBIT DURING FIFA FAN FEST.

I SEE THANK YOU TO THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR PROTECTING THIS PIECE OF HISTORY.

THANK YOU TO ALL THE SECURITY PERSONNEL WHO ENSURED THAT SECURITY WAS THERE AROUND THE CLOCK.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK MARIA WATTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

THANK YOU FOR WORKING IN COORDINATION WITH THE TEAM AND BRINGING ALL THE PARTNERS TOGETHER.

THIS WAS TRULY A ONE DALLAS EFFORT. SO FROM THE DALLAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THE DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, CONVENTION SERVICES, AND MR. MAYOR, YOUR OFFICE, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE REMARKABLE ROLE THAT YOU PLAYED IN MAKING THIS POSSIBLE.

WE APPLAUD YOUR PROFESSIONALISM. WE APPLAUD, APPLAUD THE COLLABORATION AND THE TREMENDOUS CARE THAT YOU BROUGHT TO THIS EFFORT.

MR. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, WILL YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN THANKING THIS TEAM FOR BEING A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT SERVICE FIRST LOOKS LIKE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER TOLBERT, DIRECTOR OF LIBRARIES.

I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T THANK MAYOR JOHNSON FOR THE IDEA OF MOVING THE DECLARATION TO FAIR PARK, DALLAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THEIR PARTNERSHIP.

AND OF COURSE THE DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFF, THE CITY STAFF WHO REALLY HELPED MAKE THIS THIS EFFORT POSSIBLE.

[00:15:01]

AND IF ANYONE WANTS A PRIVATE TOUR AND MAYBE TO SEE THE VAULT, LET ME KNOW.

WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. RIGHT? MISTY. THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH.

CARL CHOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DALLAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR LETTING US BORROW THIS AND TO CITY MANAGER FOR LETTING US DO THIS AS THE KEEPERS OF DALLAS HISTORY FOR 104 YEARS NOW. WE'RE GLAD THAT WE'RE STILL AT THE HALL OF STATE ON OUR 85TH YEAR.

SO WE ARE JUST PROUD TO BE THE KEEPERS OF DALLAS HISTORY.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. IF YOU CAN COME INSIDE THE RAIL, WE'LL TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH AND THAT WILL BE IT FOR OUR ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING.

SO COME ON PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. MADAM SECRETARY, I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO OUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS NOW, MADAM CITY MANAGER. WE'RE DONE WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, 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 SAME RULES OF 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 WILL BE 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, COREY KENNEDY. COREY KENNEDY OR KENNEDY.

IT'S NOT PRESENT. RUDY KARIMI.

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS RUDY KARIMI.

COUNCIL, DISTRICT 14. OUR BUDGET PROCESS IS LIKE A HUNGER GAMES BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL.

LAST WEEK, WE WERE FORCED TO WATCH YOU BICKER FOR HOURS OVER FRACTIONAL LINE ITEMS AFTER THE CITY MANAGER PITTED PARKS, LIBRARIES, ANIMAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND EVEN THE DALLAS ZOO AGAINST ONE ANOTHER.

MEANWHILE, ACCORDING TO THE NEW BUDGET, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOAT IS EXPANDING.

THE CITY MANAGER HAS CREATED A BRAND NEW OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE AND PUT $2.2 MILLION TOWARDS IT.

DIDN'T YOU ALL JUST FORK OVER $3 MILLION TO REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS? OTHER BUCKETS LIKE CONTRACTUAL OTHER SURGED FROM $129 MILLION TO $135 MILLION.

ANOTHER PURPOSELY VAGUE LINE ITEM CALLED NON DEPARTMENTAL FUNDS, JUMPED BY $2 MILLION.

THESE BUCKETS ARE GROWING BY MILLIONS OF UNACCOUNTABLE DOLLARS WHILE CORE SERVICES ARE SHRINKING.

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT SOUNDS TO RESIDENTS? HOW DO YOU THINK THAT SOUNDS TO YOUR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE GOING THROUGH FURLOUGHS AND LOSING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS? YOU CAN FREE UP OVER $10 MILLION IF YOU ELIMINATE THE BLOAT IN THE BUCKETS I JUST MENTIONED, AND SCALE THEM BACK 3% OVER $15 MILLION. IF YOU SCALE THEM BACK BY 5%, YOU COULD SLICE THAT OUT TODAY AND PUT IT TOWARDS

[00:20:07]

REMEMBER, YOU REPRESENT WE THE PEOPLE, NOT THE BILLIONAIRES, NOT THE DEVELOPERS, NOT THE DALLAS ESTABLISHMENT OR OTHER ENTITIES.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAVIORS OF OUR CITY. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY SAVIORS OF OUR CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOEY NEWBURY.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEY NEWBURY. I'M AN 11 YEAR RESIDENT OF EAST DALLAS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, DISTRICT 14. LIKE MY NEIGHBORS, I'VE SEEN DALLAS WATER UTILITIES BILL MY BILL DOUBLE IN THAT TIME DURING THAT 11 YEARS. AND THIS IS WITHOUT THE USE OF MY SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

SO WHEN I FIRST MOVED THERE, I USED THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PERFECTLY NORMALLY AND DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE WERE I USING THAT.

I AM HERE TO REQUEST THE COUNCIL NOT VOTE TO RAISE THE RATES OF DALLAS WATER UTILITIES THIS FALL, AND IN THE NEAR FUTURE. IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL, IN FACT, IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THEM SOMEHOW, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE NEW PROCESSING SYSTEM THEY PUT IN PLACE IN MAY INCURS ADDITIONAL FEES FOR PAYMENT JUST TO PAY THE BILL.

MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE RESORTED TO THE OLD FASHIONED, PUT A STAMP ON THE ENVELOPE AND MAILED THE PAYMENTS IN.

DUE TO THIS AND MIND YOU, I HAVE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO DALLAS WATER UTILITIES MANY TIMES ON THIS MATTER OVER THE YEARS INCLUDING HAVING A HIGH WATER BILL TEAM COME OUT AND DO AN ASSESSMENT.

SADLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THE TOTALITY OF THE BILL HAS CONTINUED TO RISE, INCLUDING SANITATION, STORMWATER, ETC. ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND FEES ASSOCIATED THEREIN.

SO IN CLOSING AND TO REITERATE, I'M KEEPING THIS BRIEF FOR Y'ALL.

PLEASE CONSIDER GIVING THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS A BREAK ON THEIR WATER UTILITIES THIS FALL AND IN TIMES TO COME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. AND YES, I AM WEARING PINK FOR DOLLY.

I HOPE SOME OF YOU GUYS HERE ARE AS WELL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHRIS. GOOD MORNING. I'M CHRIS AND I LIVE IN D2. AND OF COURSE I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ARTS.

BUT FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER FOR ADDING THE SERIES OF BUDGET TOWN HALLS EARLIER IN THE YEAR.

THIS CHANGE, I THINK, REALLY MADE A DIFFERENCE.

DALLAS TAXPAYERS LIKE ME WERE ABLE TO SHARE OUR PRIORITIES WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF EARLY IN THE PROCESS WHILE THE BUDGET WAS BEING CRAFTED, AND WE COULD STILL HAVE AN IMPACT. THE RECENT TOWN HALLS WERE CERTAINLY IMPORTANT TO REACT TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET, BUT AT THIS POINT IT'S PRETTY MUCH BAKED AND WE'RE JUST ADVOCATING FOR TINY ADJUSTMENTS.

I THINK THIS WAS A VERY POSITIVE CHANGE, AND I HOPE THAT IT CONTINUES GOING FORWARD.

NOW ON TO THE ARTS. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARTS SUPPORTERS AND MY COLLEAGUES IN THE CHAMBER TODAY.

WILL YOU ALL PLEASE STAND? AND WE ARE HERE TO ASK, AS YOU CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENTS, THAT WE HOLD THE LINE ON FURTHER CUTS TO ARTS FUNDING. THANK YOU ALL.

WOW. THERE'S A LOT THERE. DALLAS IS KNOWN AS A GLOBAL CENTER FOR BUSINESS, BUT WE ALSO DEFINE DALLAS BY THE THINGS THAT MAKE UP OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR ARTS, OUR PARKS, OUR DECK PARKS, OUR ZOO, OUR LIBRARIES, ARCHITECTURE, RESTAURANTS, NEIGHBORHOODS. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT MAKE LIVING IN DALLAS SPECIAL.

AND WHEN WE'RE PITCHING DALLAS TO POTENTIAL RELOCATIONS, WHETHER A BUSINESS OR JUST FAMILY AND FRIENDS THAT WE WANT TO MOVE HERE.

THE ARTS ARE AN INCREDIBLE SELLING POINT. OUR ARTS DISTRICT AND OUR ICONIC ARTS VENUES MAKE DALLAS STAND OUT.

PLANO AND FRISCO HAVE NOTHING LIKE THE WINSPEAR.

IRVING HAS NOTHING. APPROACHING THE DMA. THE MEYERSON IN MCKINNEY.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IT'S IN DALLAS. LATINO CULTURAL CENTER, THE SALMON CENTER.

MAJESTIC. KALITA. HUMPHREYS. THE BATHHOUSE. THESE ARE JEWELS IN OUR CULTURAL CROWN.

CROWN. AND SO ARE THE MANY ARTISTS AND ARTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT FILL THEM WITH ART.

GENERATIONS OF OUR LEADERS, THROUGH GOOD TIMES AND THROUGH TOUGH TIMES, HAVE LEANED INTO THE ARTS.

IN ADDITION TO ADDING BEAUTY TO OUR LIVES, THE ARTS ARE AN INVESTMENT.

[00:25:01]

WE KNOW THIS IS A TOUGH PERIOD FOR THE CITY, AND IT HURTS TO SEE BUDGET CUTS AND POSITIONS LOST IN THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE, BUT WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE MANAGER'S STRATEGIC APPROACH TO THE CUTS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON ARTISTS, ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FACILITIES SO THEY CAN CONTINUE FUELING THE RETURN ON THE CITY'S INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS.

WE THANK EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR GREAT CITY.

THANK YOU. SILKY. JONES.

GOOD MORNING. I'M AHAVA SILKY JONES, AND I'M A DALLAS RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN DISTRICT ONE.

I AM ALSO THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT.

IN FACT, TODAY IS MY SECOND DAY AND I'M HONORED TO SPEND THE MORNING WITH YOU, BECAUSE THE ARTS DISTRICT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD FOUNDED ON CULTURE.

WE HAVE A DEEP APPRECIATION FOR THE VISIONARY CIVIC INVESTMENT THAT TURNED A STAGNANT CORNER OF DOWNTOWN INTO THE LARGEST, FINEST ARTS DISTRICT IN THE NATION. WHAT WAS ONCE A BORDEN'S DAIRY AND A COLLECTION OF USED CAR DEALERSHIPS IS NOW FILLED WITH ICONIC ARTS VENUES ATTRACTING BUSINESSES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, JOBS, TAX REVENUE, TOURISM AND WAS TWICE VOTED THE BEST ARTS DISTRICT IN THE NATION BY READERS OF USA TODAY.

I RECOGNIZE THAT DALLAS HAS A DYNAMIC AND DIVERSE, VIBRANT ARTS COMMUNITY THAT STRETCHES WELL BEYOND OUR DISTRICT, AND WE ARE ALL PART OF THE CITY'S IMPORTANT ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM.

THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY WITH ALL OF THESE ARTS LEADERS ASKING YOU TO HOLD THE LINE ON ARTS FUNDING.

NO FURTHER CUTS TO THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE.

WE APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING BUDGET YEAR, AND WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER HAS MADE STRATEGIC CUTS SO THAT ARTISTS, ARTS ORGANIZATIONS. PUBLIC ART AND CULTURAL FACILITIES CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR DALLAS.

BUT MORE CUTS WOULD SEVERELY IMPACT OAC'S ABILITY TO SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS, VENUES AND PROTECT OUR PUBLIC ART COLLECTION. AS A DALLAS RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER, I WANT OUR ARTS COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO THRIVE SO THAT OUR CITY CAN THRIVE. YOUR SUPPORT WILL HELP KEEP OUR CULTURAL HEARTBEAT ALIVE, WHICH INCLUDES OUR DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT, GENERATING TREMENDOUS RETURNS FOR THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS AND PROVIDING AN EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU.

ARASH FARASAT. THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD TIME TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE ACTUALLY DON'T ALLOW FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION AND APPLAUSE AND ALL THAT STUFF, BUT I GET IT. YOU'RE FROM THE ARTS COMMUNITY AND APPLAUSE IS KIND OF PART OF THE DEAL. SO I GET IT.

BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY SUPPOSED TO DO IT. SO IF YOU COULD HELP ME OUT THERE, THAT'D BE GREAT.

GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ARI SHAPIRO. I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO CUT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY THAT THE CITY PASSED BACK IN 2015.

SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO CUT FROM THE LIVING WAGE, WHICH THE MIT CALCULATOR SAYS IS APPROXIMATELY $23 AN HOUR TO WHATEVER THE MARKET WAGES. AND THEN PICK WHICHEVER IS THE LOWER OF THE TWO.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT IT OFFERS THAT THEY WANT TO CUT THE WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING ELECTRICIANS BY LIKE ALMOST 30%.

GOOD LUCK GETTING A QUALIFIED ELECTRICAL WORK FOR $23 AN HOUR.

BUT THE PART THAT REALLY STRUCK ME WAS THE PART ABOUT CUTTING JANITORIAL SERVICES FROM $23 AN HOUR TO $16 AN HOUR WHEN THIS POLICY PASSED BACK IN 2015, WHICH, BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW, CREDIT TO THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.

THIS WAS A GROUNDBREAKING POLICY. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE PAY PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE WHEN IT WAS WHEN IT PASSED IN 2015 THE LIVING WAGE WAS $10.37 AN HOUR. AND THAT'S WHAT I GUESS THE CITY WAS OFFERING JANITORIAL SERVICES.

I WAS WORKING AS A JANITOR IN 2015 AND I WAS ACTUALLY GETTING ABOUT 20% MORE THAN THAT.

SO I GUESS UNDER THESE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID ME EVEN THAT MUCH, WHICH WAS ABOUT $12.50 AN HOUR.

[00:30:13]

WHAT I WANT THIS COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN YOU OFFER TO PAY A LIVABLE WAGE AS A WAGE THAT SOMEONE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE, TO RENT, TO BUY THEIR GROCERIES, LIKE YOU ARE BECOMING PART OF THE MARKET BY OFFERING THAT YOU ARE COMPETING AGAINST OTHER EMPLOYERS.

I WAS IN THE BANK THE OTHER DAY, AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, AND I HAPPENED TO NOTICE THAT A GUY STANDING NEXT TO ME HAD A DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CUSTODIAL SERVICES BADGE. AND I ASKED HIM, HEY, YOU KNOW, I WAS WONDERING WHAT YOU'RE GETTING PAID THESE DAYS BECAUSE I USED TO DO THAT, BUT IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. AND HE SAID, WELL, I GET 24 AN HOUR AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SO HE WAS ACTUALLY GETTING ABOUT A DOLLAR MORE THAN THE LIVING WAGE THAT'S BEING OFFERED HERE.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL CUTS ITS WAGES FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES? AND THOSE PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO WORK HERE. AND.

IT'S BRINGING THE MARKET DOWN FOR EVERYBODY. IT'S BRINGING MARK IT DOWN FOR THEM. IT COULD ECHO OUT TO THE AIRPORT, TO SOCIETY. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THIS CONCLUDES YOUR FIRST FIVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

MAYOR. YES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW THE REMAINDER OF SPEAKERS REMAINING DALLAS.

YES, THAT WAS THE MOTION. AND IS THERE ANY OBJECTION I OBJECT? I'D LIKE TO HEAR ALL THE REMAINING SPEAKERS. YOU ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT? THAT'S FINE. ANY OBJECTION TO AMENDING THE MOTION TO DO ALL? ALL. REGARDLESS OF ADDRESSING. AND IT'S SO ORDERED.

SO THE. MADAM SECRETARY WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL OF THEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER, ISAIAH ALVAREZ.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS AZAEL. I'M DISTRICT NINE.

YESTERDAY, DALLAS LEARNED THAT 321 FLOCK CAMERAS ARE BEING CANCELED TODAY.

THIS COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO ASK TO SPEND ANOTHER 1.5 MILLION IN DALLAS TAXPAYER MONEY ON FLOCK.

SO BEFORE YOU VOTE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE PAYING FOR? BECAUSE SOMETHING UNUSUAL IS HAPPENING IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW.

GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT JUST STOPPED STATE AGENCIES FROM FUNDING FLOCK CAMERAS AND LISTEN TO HIS REASONING.

ABBOTT SAID CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

THEY HAVE TO BE PROTECTED. THEIR PRIVACY MUST BE PROTECTED, HE SAID.

TEXANS DESERVE CLARITY ABOUT HOW CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE USING THIS TECHNOLOGY.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT IS RIGHT, AND DALLAS RESIDENTS DESERVE THAT CLARITY, TOO.

AND RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT. I REVIEWED DALLAS OWN FLOCK AUDIT RECORDS IN APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LAST YEAR, AND THIS WAS 2025. DPD'S OWN ORGANIZATION AUDIT HAD 59000 SEARCHES FROM 874 DIFFERENT USERNAMES AND ACCOUNTS. THAT'S ALMOST 2000 SEARCHES A DAY.

AND HERE'S THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD REALLY GET YOUR ATTENTION.

THERE'S A NETWORK AUDIT THAT HAD A MILLION QUERY QUERY RECORDS IN 30 DAYS THAT INCLUDED OR REACHED DALLAS NETWORK. NOW I WANT TO I WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE WITH THAT NUMBER.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY SEARCHED DALLAS 1 MILLION TIMES.

A SINGLE FLOCK SEARCH CAN REACH THOUSANDS OF PARTICIPATING NETWORKS.

BUT THAT'S THE POINT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A CAMERA TAKING A PICTURE OF A STOLEN CAR ON A DALLAS STREET.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NETWORK. A NETWORK WHERE INFORMATION CAN MOVE ACROSS JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE US.

AND DALLAS RETAINS OUR FLOCK DATA FOR 365 DAYS.

NOW, DPD SAYS FLOCK WORKS. WE SHOULD TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND 1.5 MILLION ON THIS TECHNOLOGY, WE SHOULD TAKE THE OTHER SIDE SERIOUSLY TOO.

SO BEFORE YOU VOTE, ANSWER FIVE QUESTIONS. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF BLOCK ACTIVITY ACTUALLY LEADS TO ARREST, RECOVERIES OR SOLVE CASES? WHY DOES DALLAS NEED TO KEEP OUR FLOC DATA FOR OUR ENTIRE YEAR? WHO OUTSIDE DALLAS CAN SEARCH OUR NETWORK? WHO IS REVIEWING THESE AUDIT LOGS FOR MISUSE?

[00:35:05]

GOVERNOR ABBOTT SAID FLOC MUST BE USED RESPONSIBLY IF THEY'RE USED AT ALL.

IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT A POWERFUL SURVEILLANCE TOOL IS WORTH THE MONEY AND WORTH OF THE PUBLIC'S TRUST.

AND I DID WANT TO MENTION THERE WAS ONE PERSON WHO DID USE OUR FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEMS, AND THEY.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAITLIN BEDFORD.

MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. CAITLIN BEDFORD OF DISTRICT TWO.

THIS MOMENT ASKS NEITHER NOSTALGIA, NO BLAME.

IT ASKS FOR STEWARDSHIP. YOU INHERITED BURDENS NO SINGLE BUDGET CAN RESOLVE.

BUT A GREAT CITY STAYS GREAT WHEN EACH GENERATION PROTECTS WHAT IT INHERITS AND PASSES IT FORWARD.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT ONLY TO BALANCE THE BOOKS, IT IS TO PROTECT THE CITY THOSE BOOKS EXIST TO SERVE.

RESIDENTS DO NOT EXPERIENCE BUDGETS AS SPREADSHEETS.

THEY EXPERIENCE OPEN DOORS OF FRIDAY NIGHT AT THE MAJESTIC, THE LATINO CULTURAL CENTER, JUST DOWN LIVE OAK FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WINSPEAR, THE WYLIE CITY OWNED AND OURS. CULTURE IS WHAT MAKES DALLAS MORE THAN AN ADDRESS.

ARTS AND CULTURE IS CUT NEARLY 17%. IN PLAIN TERMS, THE CITY'S TEN YEAR COMMITMENT TO THE WINSPEAR AND THE WYLIE ENDS MULTIPLE POSITIONS LEAVE THE ARTS OFFICE, AND THE CITY'S OWN PLAN EXPECTS 50,000 FEWER VIEWERS AT ITS VENUES.

THAT IS WHAT DALLAS LOSES. AND WHEN THE POSTED PACKET FOUND OFFSETS FOR ADULT LEARNING POOLS IN LIBRARIES, IT FOUND NONE FOR THE ARTS. THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE FINAL WORD.

FIND A DOCUMENTED, RESPONSIBLE OFFSET AND RESTORE THE FULL AMOUNT BEFORE FINAL ADOPTION OR THE MAXIMUM, AND PUBLISH EVERY PROGRAM, FACILITY, CONTRACT AND POSITION.

THE REST WILL TOUCH. THAT CHOICE WOULD RENEW CONFIDENCE IN WHAT DALLAS CAN BECOME.

BALANCE THE BOOKS. PROTECT THE CITY. DO NOT MAKE CULTURE THE QUIET PRICE OF BALANCE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ASHLEY.

ASHLEY. BIAS. OKAY. IT'S NOT PRESENT. MARVIN CRENSHAW. IT'S NOT PRESENT. THOMAS.

BARDWELL. THOMAS BARDWELL. IT'S NOT PRESENT. THANIA.

GUZMAN. VANILLA. VANILLA.

HI, MY NAME IS TANYA GUZMAN. I LIVE IN DISTRICT SIX.

THE FLOCK SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE HAVE BIGGER THINGS TO FUND. OUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULDN'T BE GOING TO SURVEILLANCE COMPANIES WHERE FOREIGNERS HAVE DATA AND INFORMATION.

WE SHOULD ALL BE SCARED. HOW ABOUT THEY PUT A CAMERA IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE? THE FLOCK SHOULD BE KEEPING TABS. SHOULDN'T BE KEEPING TABS ON ME FOR VISITING MY GRANDPARENTS HOUSE 50 TIMES THIS MONTH.

THIS SHOULDN'T QUESTION WHAT I'M DOING WITH MY FREE TIME, OR WONDER WHAT I'M DOING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN.

THESE FUNDS CAN GO TO BIGGER PROBLEMS THE CITY HAS TO WORRY ABOUT, LIKE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION, TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWERS, TEACHERS, AND OUR BELOVED DALLAS LIBRARIES.

OUR ROADS IN WEST DALLAS. SINGLETON. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE 26 YEARS I'VE LIVED, BORN AND RAISED HAS NEVER BEEN UPGRADED.

THESE POTHOLES HAVE DAMAGED MY RIMS AND TIRES.

I'VE HAD TO REPLACE OVER THREE RIMS IN THE PAST YEAR.

EVERY RIM HAS COST ME $512 FROM TOYOTA. AS A WORKING CLASS, I SHOULDN'T BE WORRIED ABOUT THE ROAD.

I'M HERE TO ASK THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL TO DEFUND OR CANCEL CONTRACTS COMPLETELY, OR PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JULIA ASH.

JULIA ASH IS NOT PRESENT. BONNIE. MATHIAS.

BONNIE. MATHIAS. OKAY, YOU MAY CONTINUE. GOOD MORNING.

I'M A 40 YEAR RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FIVE. THIS CITY HAS HAD MANY GRAND PLANS TO BECOME A WORLD CLASS CITY OVER THE PAST

[00:40:04]

MEANWHILE, WE STRUGGLE WITH A MASSIVE BUDGET SHORTFALL AND STAFF RECOMMENDING CUTS TO JOBS AND PAY.

NOT THEIR OWN. MIND YOU, THE OTHERS. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE ON THE BACKS OF THE SANITATION TRUCKS, THE PEOPLE SCRAPING DEAD ANIMALS OFF OF OUR STREETS AND DISPOSING OF THEM.

THE WORKERS THAT MAKE THIS CITY RUN, NOT FLOURISH, BUT EXIST AMONG REGIONAL PEERS.

DALLAS IS THE ONLY ENTITY IDENTIFIED WITH THE LIVING WAGE POLICY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTORS, AND THE REGIONAL PEERS ARE DFW AIRPORT, DART, DALLAS COUNTY, ARLINGTON, PLANO AND FORT WORTH.

SHOULDN'T WE BE PROUD OF THIS FACT? DOESN'T THIS MAKE US A STEP ABOVE OR AHEAD OF THE OTHERS? A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH WILL PROVIDE RENTAL RATES IN DALLAS.

THE AVERAGE ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, 650 TO 720FT², IS 1300 TO $1400 A MONTH.

SOUTH OF I 31,000 TO 1252 BEDROOMS, 1650 TO 1877.

THREE BEDROOM HOUSES ARE 2750 TO 3025 $3,025 A MONTH.

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THESE NUMBERS DO NOT INCLUDE UTILITIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, $1,500 RENT. YOU NEED TO MAKE $4,500 PER MONTH, OR ABOUT $54,000 A YEAR FOR $2,000 RENT. YOU NEED TO MAKE $6,000 A MONTH, 2306 AN HOUR IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY OF OUR CONTRACTOR CONTRACTORS WORKERS RICH. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT CONTRACTORS PAY THIS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THE CONTRACTOR WITHHOLDS TAXES.

THE WORKERS THEN NEED TO BUY GLOVES AND STEEL TOED BOOTS AND SON SHIRTS TO PROTECT THEIR SKIN.

JUST LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANY KIND OF CUT IN PAY FOR THESE WORKERS.

WHEN ARE WE TRULY GOING TO BECOME THAT WORLD CLASS CITY THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR 40 YEARS? STOP TRYING TO BALANCE THIS BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE WORKERS.

THAT IS THE WRONG THING TO DO FOR WORKERS IN DALLAS NEED A UNION.

THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED, SO THEY CAN TRULY FIGHT FOR THE BENEFITS AND THE WAGES THAT THEY DESERVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. JOHN MALONE.

MR. MALONE, YOUR AUDIO IS YOU NEED TO UNMUTE YOUR AUDIO, PLEASE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JOHN MALONE, DISTRICT TWO.

I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

I WANT TO START BY QUOTING PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT, WHO SAID THE FOLLOWING.

IN MY INAUGURAL, I LAID DOWN THE SIMPLE PROPOSITION THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO STARVE IN THIS COUNTRY.

IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE EQUALLY PLAIN THAT NO BUSINESS WHICH DEPENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF PAYING LESS THAN LIVING WAGES TO ITS WORKERS HAS ANY RIGHT TO CONTINUE IN THIS COUNTRY. OUR WORKERS I MEAN, ALL WORKERS, THE WHITE COLLAR CLASS AS WELL AS THE MEN IN OVERALLS.

AND BY LIVING WAGES I MEAN MORE THAN THE BARE SUBSISTENCE LEVEL.

I MEAN THE WAGES OF DECENT LIVING. AS ONE COUNCILMAN HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THIS BODY HAS ALREADY DECIDED IT WANTS TO PAY POLICE OFFICERS ABOVE A MARKET RATE PAY. THIS BODY HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT IT WANTS TO PAY CITY EMPLOYEES LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE.

A CITY EMPLOYEE CAN BE PAID AS LITTLE AS 2150.

NOW, THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY CAN GET AWAY WITH PAYING CONTRACTORS EVEN LESS.

A FULL TIME JANITOR MOVING FROM THE MIT LIVING WAGE TO THE BLS MARKET WAGE LOSES AROUND $13,000 A YEAR.

THAT'S RENT. THAT'S HEALTHCARE. THAT'S FOOD. BUT, JOHN, THE MARKET RATE, THE MARKET RATE.

LOOK AROUND OUTSIDE OF THE WEALTHY, THE MARKET ISN'T WORKING FOR ANYONE RIGHT NOW.

AS DOLLY PARTON FAMOUSLY WROTE, IT'S A RICH MAN'S GAME, NO MATTER WHAT THEY CALL IT, AND YOU SPEND YOUR LIFE PUTTING MONEY IN HIS WALLET.

THE LIVING WAGE WAS $10.94 IN 2017, AND NOW IT'S SCHEDULED TO GO TO 2331.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A HEALTHY MARKET? BUT, JOHN, PROVIDING A LIVING WAGE ISN'T A CORE FUNCTION OF THE CITY.

OKAY, SO THE CORE FUNCTION OF A CITY IS TO CREATE A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE GOOD STEWARDSHIP. I URGE YOU TO LOOK AT SLIDE FIVE OF YOUR OWN BRIEFING.

[00:45:01]

WHEN THE LIVING WAGE AND THE FEDERAL MARKET WAGE DISAGREE, THE CITY PAYS THE GREATER OF THE TWO.

YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT CHOICE FOR ONE SET OF WORKERS.

LOOK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS PAST BAZALDUA HIS AMENDMENT.

MAYBE EVEN CONSIDER A LIVING WAGE POLICY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.

ASK YOURSELF THIS IS THIS THE AMERICA FDR PROMISED US? IS THIS A POLICY THAT DOLLEY WOULD APPROVE OF? AND CITY WORKERS? IF YOU'RE LISTENING, JOIN YOUR UNION.

UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 9487 NORTH TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW MORE HICKS.

HELLO. MY NAME IS NOMURA. I KNOW A LOT OF YOU MAY NOT BE AS CONCERNED AS I AM ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS CITY AND STATE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WILL CHANGE AFTER I INFORM YOU OF HOW OUR MONEY, SAFETY, FREEDOM AND PRIVACY HAS BEEN GIVEN UP.

ON AUGUST 19TH IN AMARILLO, OFFICER WAS FIRED FOR USING FLOCK SAFETY 76 TIMES TO STALK HIS COWORKERS EX.

ON AUGUST 25TH, A KATY OFFICER WAS FIRED AFTER USING FLOCK CAMERAS TO STALK HER EX FOR HIS EX FOR ALMOST EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT.

ON AUGUST 20TH, AN OFFICER IN LUFKIN, TEXAS, WAS ARRESTED FOR USING FLOCK SAFETY OVER TEN 000 TIMES ONE PERSON 10,000 TIMES TO STALK HIS EX, HER FAMILY AND HER NEW LOVERS. THAT IS A TOTAL OF AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE PUT IN DANGER BY THE MISUSE OF THESE CAMERAS.

ONE ONE PERSON. THESE ARE ONLY THREE CASES REPORTED IN THE SPAN OF A MONTH, AND SOME OF THESE CRIMINALS TOOK YEARS FOR THEIR CRIMES TO EVEN BE DISCOVERED.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ANY PERSON WITH A BADGE AND ACCESS TO A FLOCK SAFETY DATABASE HAS THE POWER TO SKIP THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FOLLOW YOUR EVERY MOVE, AND RUN A FULL INVESTIGATION ON YOU BEFORE YOU ARE EVEN SUSPECTED OF A CRIME, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR AMENDMENTS AND PRIVACY.

BUT WHAT STUNS ME ABOUT THIS PHENOMENON IS NOT THE CASES THEMSELVES, BUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE SEE THESE CASES WHILE REFUSING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT THE $4 MILLION TAKEN OUT OF OUR POCKETS TO PUT THESE CAMERAS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO BUILD THIS NATIONWIDE AI STALKING DATABASE WITHOUT A SINGLE OUNCE OF DEMOCRACY. OUR MONEY WAS TAKEN, OUR PRIVACY, OUR OUR PRIVACY WAS STRIPPED, AND OUR SAFETY WAS PROMISED.

AND I LOOK AT THE GOVERNMENT AND ASK, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY? NOTHING. WHAT DOES THE CEO OF FLOC HAVE TO SAY? BECAUSE HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN ANSWER. HE SAYS THAT WE SHOULD COMPROMISE OUR SAFETY, OUR PRIVACY.

HE SAYS WE COMPROMISE OUR PRIVACY FOR SAFETY.

BUT WHAT SAFETY HAS WE GAINED? THE POTENTIAL TO BE STALKED IS NOT SAFETY.

THE POTENTIAL TO BE RANDOMLY SELECTED AND FOLLOWED THROUGH THE CITY IS NOT SAFETY.

SO I ASK AGAIN IF IT IS NOT SAFETY, WHY, IN HOPES OF THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH THAT THESE COMPANIES BOUGHT ALL OF OUR POLITICIANS LOYALTIES.

IS THE TRUTH THAT YOU AREN'T CONCERNED WITH SAFETY AT ALL, BUT CONCERNED WITH EXPANDING PRISON POPULATIONS TO PRODUCE FREE LABOR? IS THE TRUTH THAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR THE $51 BILLION SHORTFALL? I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS WE'LL NEVER KNOW. I GUESS YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN NEED A REASON TO DIG IN OUR POCKETS AND GIVE MONEY.

GIVE POWER TO ALREADY CORRUPT LAW ENFORCERS. I GUESS AS LONG AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, WE MIGHT NEVER KNOW.

BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.

WE DO NOT ASK FOR THIS. AND OUR AND I WILL NOT WATCH AS OUR BELOVED CITY BECOMES AN AUTHORITARIAN, POLICE CONTROLLED CITY. NO MATTER WHAT REASON YOU FABRICATE AND THROW AT US TO MAKE US FEEL LIKE THESE MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO ENSURE SAFETY.

WHEN MY TIME LEFT, I WANT TO SAY FREE PALESTINE, FREE GAZA, FREE THE WEST BANK, FREE CONGO, FREE CUBA, FREE PUERTO RICO, FREE HAWAII, FREE THE GUYS.

DALLAS COUNTY JUST JUST BANNED BOOKS AND MAGAZINES IN JAILS FOR INMATES.

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE THE RIGHT TO EDUCATE YOURSELF.

SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FROM YOU NO MATTER WHAT DECISIONS YOU MAKE. THANK YOU.

ROBERT QUINN. YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO NOT DO THAT ANYMORE, I HOPE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ROBERT QUINN. WE DON'T NEED ANY AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION OR ASSISTANCE FROM ANYONE.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A GOVERNMENT MEETING, SO THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. MAYOR COUNCILMAN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY MANAGER.

MY SUBJECT MAY BE A LITTLE OFF THE MARKET, BECAUSE I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT FAITH IN THE CITY AND NOT THE BUDGET, SO PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THAT. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR JOHNSON.

MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT.

MY NAME IS ROBERT QUEEN, A DISTINGUISHED, ORDAINED ELDER IN THE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST.

I'M HERE TODAY WITH A SIMPLE, MEANINGFUL PROPOSAL HOSTING A DAY OR NIGHT OF PRAYER ON THE GROUNDS OF THIS CITY HALL.

[00:50:01]

AND IN MY CONCLUSION, MAYOR JOHNSON, CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL MEMBERS, WITH THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, YOU HEAR THE ASSAULTS, YOU HEAR THE AGGRAVATION, YOU HEAR THE FRUSTRATION.

AND I'M NOT HERE TO REPRESENT THOSE. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE PEACE THAT COULD BE IN THE CITY, TO PROPOSE A DAY, A NIGHT SET ASIDE TO HAVE PEACE WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS WITH FAITH BASED LEADERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RICHARD BOROFF.

ALL RIGHT. RICK LEWIS STREET, DISTRICT 14. ALL RIGHT.

SUPPOSED TO LIMIT COMMENTS HERE TO ONE SUBJECT, BUT AS MANY CURRENT DYSTOPIAN SHENANIGANS OVERLAP.

LET'S GO. CAN WE RAISE OUR HANDS IF ANYBODY'S FOR MASS UNCHECKED SURVEILLANCE.

ANYONE? YEAH. HOW ABOUT KIDNAPING CITIZENS TERRORIZING PREGNANT WOMEN? OKAY, WELL, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE A BLIGHT SCORE.

ANYBODY HAVE A BLIGHT SCORE YET? YEAH. EVERYBODY OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE PROBABLY UNDERSTANDS OR KNOWS WHAT THAT IS RIGHT NOW.

BUT FOR THOSE AT HOME, LOCAL NBC HAS JUST REPORTED THAT OUR CITY TRASH TRUCKS NOW HAVE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS FOCUSED ON YOUR HOUSE.

YEAH. YOUR HOUSE, NOT YOUR LICENSE PLATE, NOT DANGEROUS TRAFFIC INTERSECTION OR A BORDER CROSSING.

OUR HOMES, MY HOUSE. YOUR HOUSE. AND THEY'RE GIVING OUT BLIGHT SCORES.

YOU GUYS ARE GIVING OUT BLIGHT SCORES NOW. AWESOME.

ARBITRARY SCORE BASED ON HOW BLIGHTED YOUR PROPERTY LOOKS.

AND THE CITY NOW WANTS TO GIVE OUT, I GUESS, THOUSANDS OF CITATIONS BASED ON THIS.

THAT'S BASICALLY THE MOST INNOCUOUS THING THAT'S GOING ON NOW WITH OUR MASS SURVEILLANCE.

MAYBE IF IT'S ABOUT REAL SAFETY, WE SHOULD FOLLOW ERIC, OUR MAYOR, TO YOUR MEETINGS WITH THE TINY, RADICAL MINORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO TERRORIZE THE VAST MAJORITY HERE.

WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE SAID THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HERE WHO STAND AT THIS PODIUM ARE NOT RADICAL.

AND, YOU KNOW, CITIZENS WHO RAISE THEIR VOICES ARE NOW ESCORTED OFF AND MANHANDLED OUT OF SUCH CHAMBERS ACROSS TEXAS IN THE COUNTRY.

WE'VE SEEN THAT HORRIBLE THE VAST MAJORITY CAN'T EVEN GET A PERMIT TO EXPRESS THEIR VERY NORMAL REACTIONS TO INSANE CLOWN CIRCUS THAT WILL DESCEND UPON US NEXT WEEK.

AND NOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING SPENDING MONEY ON PUTTING HIGHER FENCES AT LOVE FIELD TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM SEEING THE TERRORISTS WHO ARE BEING KIDNAPED ON PRIVATE PLANES THERE. IT WOULD BE CARTOONISH IF IT WASN'T SO DANGEROUS.

THIS SURVEILLANCE NETWORK IS FACTUALLY BEING ABUSED.

AS A YOUNG MAN OVER HERE JUST POINTED OUT FACTS, BEING ABUSED, ALL THESE THINGS.

AND TODAY, ERIC, YOU'RE ON THE WELCOMING COMMITTEE FOR THE RADICAL RACIST, PEDOPHILE EMBRACING TECH BRO CONVENTION NEXT WEEK.

YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE WEBSITE. YOU'RE TREMENDOUS HONOR. HERE YOU GO. THIS IS THE DALLAS HOST COMMITTEE WEBSITE. TREMENDOUS HONOR TO HOST IMPEACH FELONS, EMBRACE ILLEGAL ARMY OF RACIST, UNTRAINED, MASKED GOONS WEARING ELECTROSHOCK GLOVES.

AND WE DALLAS CITIZENS ARE PAYING FOR IT. SO WHILE DALLAS IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE SAD CLOWNISHNESS OF FLOCK AND OTHER SUCH SURVEILLANCE DYSTOPIAN TECH COMPANIES, WE ARE UNIQUE AS A DESTINATION FOR THE REAL RADICALS IN OUR COUNTRY WHO ARE COMING NEXT WEEK BECAUSE DALLAS IS A LITTLE PROVING GROUND, AS THEY'VE ALL SAID. ABBOTT ET CETERA. FOR WHAT THE MINORITY OF THE SAD TECH BROS AND FOLKS ARE TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH.

STAND UP, BE HUMAN. EVERYBODY HERE, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.

NO FLOCK, SAVE CITY HALL, FUND OUR PARKS AND LIBRARIES.

HOW ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE A SAFE, HEALTHY, INFORMED CITIZENRY IS A HAPPY CITIZENRY.

YOU MIGHT NOT NEED ANY OF THAT SURVEILLANCE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, EDWIN ROBINSON.

HOW Y'ALL DOING TODAY? MY NAME IS EDWIN ROBINSON, PROUD MEMBER OF DISTRICT SIX.

HOW ARE YOU DOING? I YIELD TO THE GOOD NEWS. I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

[00:55:09]

I WAS A PART OF THE COALITION. I ALSO REPRESENT THE BLACK FAITH COALITION.

DALLAS. BLACK CLERGY. REVEREND IS OFTEN IN FRONT OF MY NAME.

I'M RETIRED MILITARY AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS.

I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY THAT I HAVE A LOT OF INTERSECTIONS IN MY LIFE, AND I WAS A PART OF AN INTERSECTIONAL GROUP OF FOLKS WHO CAME TOGETHER TO HELP PASS THE LIVING WAGE POLICY HERE IN THE CITY. IT WAS BLACK PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE, BROWN PEOPLE.

IT WAS POOR, IT WAS RICH, IT WAS FAITH AND UNFAITH.

IT WAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO CAME TOGETHER AND DECIDED THAT MARKET RATE WAS NOT REALLY THE POLICY FOR OUR CITY AND FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE, BUT IT WAS TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LIVING WAGE.

I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETINGS, AND SOME YEARS AGO I WAS IN A COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING WHERE THERE WAS PROJECTED A RISE IN CRIME IN OUR CITY OVER THE NEXT DECADE, A SEVERE RISE IN CRIME.

AND THAT PROJECTION WAS BASED UPON POVERTY RATES.

WE ARE CLEAR THERE'S BEEN MANY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, CREATED SOME RIGHT HERE IN THIS CITY, THAT PROVE OUT THAT POVERTY IS ONE OF THE GREATEST DRIVERS OF CRIME.

IF WE ARE TAKING MONEY, FOOD, LIVING WAGES OFF THE TABLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR CITY, WE ARE ONLY CREATING PROBLEMS AT ANOTHER COUNCIL.

SOMETIME FROM NOW IS GOING TO HAVE TO FIX. I'M QUITE SURE YOU ALL HAVE VERY HARD DECISIONS TO MAKE, BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE ARTS. SHOUT OUT THE ARTS COMMUNITY AND WE ALSO NEED TO PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS IN THIS MOMENT.

SO PLEASE, I BEG YOU, LET US ALLOW OUR JANITORIAL STAFF TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME, SOME LEVEL AND SOME FIRM FOOTING UNDERNEATH THEM. AS YOU ALL CONTINUE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. BECAUSE THE SPEAKERS LIST IS SO LONG, I'M GOING TO CALL A GROUP OF SPEAKERS.

AND WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I WILL ASK IF YOU'RE IN, IF YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS CENTER SECTION. JETHRO WASHINGTON AND JETHRO WASHINGTON, YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM.

SARAH ABDEL MOTALEB, AMY. THARPE, GLORIA. REYES, TEJAS.

SOLOMON. BRITTANY. ENGLISH, NOEL. ESTRADA, MADISON.

MCNAIR, JESSICA. RAMIREZ, ROSIE. KURTZ. ANITA.

NUNEZ. RAMIREZ. GONZALEZ. POSADA. MYRNA. ALVARADO.

AARON. GLOVER. BRAD. PRITCHETT. MUBARAK. HASSAN.

ALEX. STEIN. SOCORRO. RAMOS. I'VE. AVILES.

MARIANA. HURTADO. JONATHAN. LOCKRIDGE. MADDIE.

OLSON. DIANA. RAMIREZ. BEN. SALAZAR. DAMANI. DANIEL.

DYLAN. THRASHER. MATTHEW. TINSLEY. GEORGE. LETO.

THE SECOND. HILLARY. BROWN AND LIZ. MENDOZA. JETHRO.

WASHINGTON. JETHRO. WASHINGTON IS NOT PRESENT.

SARA. ABDEL. YOU MAY COME FORWARD. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS SARAH ABDULMUTALLAB. I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST FLOCK AND IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA AMENDMENT.

I THINK A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT WHY FLOCK IS BAD, SO I WON'T REITERATE THAT.

BUT I DO WANT TO APPRECIATE BAZALDUA FOR THE AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SAFER STREETS AND IN EVICTION DEFENSE WILL HELP US ADDRESS SOME OF THE ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING A SURVEILLANCE STATE.

I USED TO WORK WITH DALLAS EVICTION ADVOCACY ADVOCACY CENTER, AND I SAW FIRSTHAND THE VALUE OF HAVING LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR OUR TENANTS. THIS YEAR, I BELIEVE THAT DEAC IS SCHEDULED TO REPRESENT 10,000 RESIDENTS, ESSENTIALLY PREVENTING WRONGFUL EVICTIONS AND HOMELESSNESS FOR MANY OF OUR DALLAS FAMILIES.

A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE REPRESENT, ACTUALLY MOST OF THEM ARE SINGLE WOMEN WITH CHILDREN.

[01:00:02]

SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AMY THARP.

MAYOR JOHNSON AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

MY NAME IS AMY THARP. I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AT DOWNTOWN DALLAS, INC.

OUR NONPROFIT IS PARTNERED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR THE PAST 34 YEARS TO MANAGE THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THANK YOU FOR REAFFIRMING YOUR COMMITMENT TO THAT PARTNERSHIP WITH YOUR UNANIMOUS VOTE LAST WEEK IN SUPPORT OF OUR 2027 SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN, INCLUDING THE CITY'S CONTINUED PARTICIPATION AS A RATE PAYING PROPERTY OWNER.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS TO KEEP DOWNTOWN SAFE AND CLEAN.

HERE IS SOME OF WHAT THE ASSESSMENT DIRECTLY FUNDS.

A SECURITY TEAM SUPPORTING DPD 365 DAYS A YEAR THAT FIELDED MORE THAN 32,000 QUALITY OF LIFE CALLS LAST YEAR, OUTREACH WORKERS WHO MADE 1437 ENGAGEMENTS WITH PEOPLE LIVING ON DOWNTOWN STREETS, CREWS WHO PULLED NEARLY 700,000 GALLONS OF TRASH OFF OUR SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC SPACES.

WE ALSO MANAGED 12 DOWNTOWN PARKS, KEEPING THEM SAFE, CLEAN AND PROGRAMED ALL YEAR AS PART OF A NO COST AGREEMENT WITH THE DALLAS PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. THOSE TEAMS D SECURITY, HOMELESS OUTREACH AND CLEAN TEAM ARE ALSO THE KEY FORCE BEHIND SAFE IN THE CITY, A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT LEVERAGES THE CITY'S AND RATEPAYERS COMMITMENT TO THE PIT.

D HAS LED AN UNPRECEDENTED COALITION OF PARTNERS, INCLUDING NUMEROUS CITY DEPARTMENTS.

HOUSING FOR DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS COLLEGE, DALLAS CITIZENS COUNCIL, DALLAS REGIONAL CHAMBER AND MANY MORE THROUGH AUGUST 30TH COMPARED WITH THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR, OVERALL CRIME IS DOWN 16.6%.

VIOLENT CRIME IS DOWN 12.7%. THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO MURDERS IN DOWNTOWN YEAR TO DATE.

SLEEPING IN PUBLIC IS DOWN 89.7% FROM 14,091 INCIDENTS TO 1450 FOR EVERY KNOWN ENCAMPMENT IN DOWNTOWN, CORE IS CLOSED.

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE HAVE MOVED INTO PERMANENT HOUSING AND MORE THAN 9 IN 10 ARE STILL HOUSED.

THIS WORK HAS ENABLED DOWNTOWN'S CLIMB OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS.

WHAT WAS ONCE A 9 TO 5 DISTRICT DISTRICT WITH FEW RESIDENTS IS NOW A COLLECTION OF NEIGHBORHOODS HOME TO MORE THAN 16,000 PEOPLE.

OUR WORK HAS FUELED TAX BASE GROWTH FROM ABOUT 3,000,000,000 IN 2005 TO MORE THAN 8.5 BILLION TODAY.

DOWNTOWN IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY, AND WE THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT WITH YOUR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GLORIA REYES.

HELLO. MY NAME IS GLORIA. I AM ONE OF THE TEACHERS THAT VOLUNTEERS TO TEACH THE ENGLISH CLASS AT THE DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY.

MY LIBRARY IS NORTH OAK CLIFF. THAT'S MY COMMUNITY.

OH. I'M SORRY. AND I'M FROM DISTRICT 11. I AM HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR SAVING OUR PROGRAM, FOR SAVING OUR CLASSROOM. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR CLASSROOMS. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR A SERVICE THAT WE OFFER THAT IS SO VALUABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE COUNCIL PERSONS THAT HAVE ADVOCATED FOR THE FOR SAVING THESE PROGRAMS. THERE ARE A LOT OF CITIES IN THE DFW AREA, SMALLER CITIES THAT ALSO OFFER ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES, CONVERSATIONAL CLASSES, AND THEY'RE INVITING AND WELCOMING.

AND IT'S SAD THAT DALLAS. WE SHOULD BE LEADING THE CHARGE ON SERVICES, ESPECIALLY AS SUCH AN INTERNATIONAL CITY THAT WE ARE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE OUR CLASSROOMS RESTORED.

WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR CLASSROOMS. WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR COMMUNITY. AS FAR AS MY CLASS, I'M STILL GOING TO GO TO NORTH OAK CLIFF LIBRARY THIS SATURDAY AND TEACH MY STUDENTS, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO SIT AT A COMMUNITY TABLE OR ON THE FLOOR,

[01:05:03]

SO I ASKED THAT WE RESTORE OUR CLASSROOMS AND OR ANOTHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER IT'S AT ANOTHER FACILITY REC CENTERS, CULTURAL CENTERS JUST SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO LOSE THIS VALUABLE PROGRAM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SOLOMON.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS TYPEKIT SOLOMON REPRESENTING AFTER EIGHT TO EDUCATE.

WE'RE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION BASED IN DALLAS, SOUTH DALLAS, TO BE EXACT.

WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH DISD, WHERE WE'VE RENOVATED AN UNUTILIZED DISD SCHOOL INTO A DROP IN CENTER THAT ALLOWS UNHOUSED YOUTH AGES 14 TO 21 FROM ALL OVER THE CITY OF DALLAS TO HAVE A SAFE SPACE TO TRANSFORM THEIR LIVES FOR THE BETTER.

NOW, I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE BEING 16, 17, OR EVEN 18 YEARS OLD, AND INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT HOMEWORK, GRADUATION, OR WHAT YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP, YOUR BIGGEST QUESTION IS WHERE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT? THAT IS THE REALITY OF TOO MANY OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.

LAST YEAR, AFTER EIGHT TO EDUCATE SERVED MORE THAN 600 YOUTH EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

THAT'S 600 YOUNG PEOPLE WHO NEEDED SOMEWHERE TO GO, SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO AND SOMEONE TO TELL THEM.

YOUR LIFE DOESN'T HAVE TO END HERE. AND WE ARE OPEN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE HOMELESSNESS DOESN'T HAPPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

HUNGER DOESN'T WAIT FOR BUSINESS HOURS. TRAUMA DOESN'T TAKE WEEKENDS OFF.

OUR YOUNG PEOPLE COME TO US NEEDING THE MOST BASIC NEEDS THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED, SUCH AS MEALS, SHOWERS, CLEAN CLOTHES, TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS TO EDUCATION, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ASSISTANCE WITH OBTAINING THEIR IDENTITY IDENTIFICATION AND OTHER IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, A SAFE SPACE TO BE AND SOMEONE WILLING TO WALK ALONGSIDE.

BUT WE'RE DOING MORE THAN JUST MEETING THEIR IMMEDIATE NEEDS. WE'RE HELPING THE YOUNG PEOPLE SEE A FUTURE BEYOND THEIR CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

BECAUSE WHEN A YOUNG PERSON IS HOMELESS, DALLAS FEELS IT.

OUR SCHOOLS FEELS IT. OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FEELS IT, OUR WORKFORCE FEELS IT.

OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS FEELS IT. AND YEARS FROM NOW, OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY WILL FEEL THE CONSEQUENCES OR EVEN POSSIBLY THE THE BENEFITS.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO CHOOSE TODAY? WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT UNTIL A YOUNG PERSON BECOMES ANOTHER STATISTIC.

SO TODAY I'M ASKING EACH OF YOU TO SUPPORT AFTER EIGHT TO EDUCATE.

I'M INVITING EACH OF YOU TO COME AND VISIT AFTER EIGHT TO EDUCATE, TOUR OUR FACILITY, MEET OUR TEAM, LISTEN TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COMMUNITY REFUSES TO LET IT FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

DALLAS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD NOT JUST BY TALKING ABOUT YOUTH HOMELESSNESS, BUT BECOME, BUT BY BECOMING A CITY THAT MAKES SURE THAT YOUNG PERSON HAS A PATHWAY, A PATHWAY, HOME, HOPE AND FUTURE.

WE HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE IN THE URGENCY, AND WE HOPE TO MEET WITH YOU SOON.

THANK YOU. BRITTANY. ENGLISH. BRITTANY. ENGLISH.

GOOD MORNING. WE CAN HEAR YOU MISS ENGLISH. HOWEVER, YOUR VIDEO IS.

YES YOU CAN. YOU MAY CONTINUE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. I'M BRITTANY ENGLISH OF DISTRICT THREE.

AND I AM WANTED TO SPEAK TODAY TO SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT SEVEN, ADAM BAZALDUA, AS AMENDMENT TO SHIFT $1.5 MILLION FROM THE FLOCK CAMERAS TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVICTION ADVOCACY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL REALIZING THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT JUST A REACTIVE RESPONSE LIKE SURVEILLANCE.

WE HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. AND THAT INCLUDES MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE HOUSING.

JUST LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS SAID SINGLE MOTHERS AND THEIR KIDS.

AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ROADS ARE SAFE.

THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY AS WELL. AND I CANNOT BE CONVINCED THAT 247 SURVEILLANCE IS REALLY DOING MUCH FOR US AS RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUPPORT LEAVING THE LIVING WAGE AS IT IS.

I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST PROVIDE THAT $23 PER HOUR FOR PEOPLE.

[01:10:05]

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS NOEL ESTRADA. I'M A FORMER RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 11 AND NOW CURRENTLY RESIDING IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

I'M HERE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING THROUGHOUT THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AND KIND OF THE BUDGET TOWN HALLS AND THE REVIEWS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU ALL, I'VE BEEN PRETTY NEW AT LEARNING HOW TO STUDY THE BUDGET, BUT I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS AND MY PARENTS ARE TAXPAYERS, AND I, MY COMMUNITY, ARE TAXPAYERS. AND SO I FEEL LIKE WHEN I ADDRESS THE BUDGET, I NEED TO MAKE IT TANGIBLE AND DIGESTIBLE FOR THEM BECAUSE THESE ARE PRIMARILY SPANISH SPEAKING, PRIMARILY LATINO COMMUNITIES.

AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY PUT THEIR HARD WORKING MONEY TOWARDS, BUT THEN DON'T GET THE TRANSPARENCY THAT THEY DESERVE.

I DID GO TO THE DISTRICT, A BUDGET TOWN HALL AT THE RECREATION CENTER IN SOUTH DALLAS.

AND I SAW JUST THAT JUST IT WAS OFFERED, YOU KNOW, LIMITED KIND OF VERBIAGE, LIMITED TYPE OF LIKE TRANSPARENCY.

AND SO I'M HERE TO KIND OF ASKING THE COUNCIL TO REFLECT ON THE PRIORITIES THAT WAS DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET TOWN HALLS THROUGHOUT THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

YOU KNOW I AYE DIRECTING, YOU KNOW, WE FELT HEARD WHEN THIS AMENDMENT FOR THE 1.5 MILLION IS ASKED TO BE REDIRECTED.

THAT'S DEFINITELY, I THINK, A DIRECT RESULT OF OUR VOICING AND OUR DIRECT WORK AND IMPACT.

AND SO HONESTLY, THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION THAT IT NEEDS MORE.

YOU KNOW, AI SOFTWARE IS SHOWING NATIONWIDE HOW UNRELIABLE IT IS.

AND AS A WOMAN SPEAKING AS A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN IN THE CENTER OF THE NEWS WHEN IT COMES TO FLOCK SOFTWARE, IT'S ALARMING THAT MY OWN CITY IS OKAY TO ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE HERE.

SO AMENDMENTS LIKE THIS, THEY SHOULDN'T BE, YOU KNOW, A LIFELINE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CITY KIND OF ADDRESSES IN A, LIKE MISS BRITTANY SAID EARLIER IN A MORE OF A PROACTIVE VERSUS A REACTIVE WE TALK ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL STRUCTURES OF DALLAS.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAFE VIBRANCY, GROWING LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND PHYSICALLY SOUND.

AND SO THE FACT THAT FLOCK IS SOMETHING AND EVEN CONTINUATION OF FUNDING OF DALLAS POLICE WHILE GETTING RID OF LIBRARIES TRYING TO REDIRECT MONEY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION, FOR PARKS, FOR THE ARTS.

CULTURE IS SOMETHING THAT I, I ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR DALLAS IS NO, WE DO HAVE IT HERE.

AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY IS SO COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD NEXT YEAR TO DEFUNDING THAT JUST IT'S A LITTLE ALARMING.

AND I'M HERE JUST AS A VERY CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT.

SO I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK AND LIKE THE COUNCIL TO REFLECT THAT EVEN WITH THE PAY INCREASE OF SALARIES THAT DPD GOT OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS, THE TEN K YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THEY GOT AN INCREASE OF TEN K.

IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO KEEP SOME OF THESE DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS TO KEEP LIVING IN DALLAS.

AND SO A LOT OF THEM ARE TRAVELING OUTSIDE. THAT'S YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MADISON MCNAIR.

HELLO, MY NAME IS MADISON NOEL MCNAIR. I AM 29 YEARS OLD.

I'M A PROUD, LIFELONG DALLAS RESIDENT. I CURRENTLY LIVE IN DE ONE NEAR THE BISHOP ARTS DISTRICT OF OAK CLIFF, AND I WORK IN DEEP ELLUM AT A BOOKSHOP IN DE TWO.

I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO SAY I VOLUNTEER ALONGSIDE MANY THAT ARE SPEAKING HERE TODAY.

I ECHO ALL OF THEIR CONCERNS, BUT I'D PERSONALLY LIKE TO SPEAK ON SOME BUDGET CHOICES THIS CITY HAS MADE RECENTLY.

THE CITY HAS BUDGETED AROUND $758 MILLION FOR DPD IN 2026, A MASSIVE INCREASE OF $83 MILLION JUST THIS YEAR ALONE.

THE CITY HAS ALSO BUDGETED 5.74 MILLION FOR HUNDREDS OF FLOCK CAMERAS AND AI POWERED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM MEANT TO INVADE OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS, VIOLATE OUR PRIVACY AND ACTIVELY DESTROY THE ONLY EARTH WE HAVE ALL.

WHILE WE ALL. WHILE WE ARE IN SUCH A LARGE BUDGET DEFICIT THAT THE CITY HAD TO IMPLEMENT THREE DIFFERENT MANDATORY UNPAID FURLOUGH DAYS FOR MORE THAN 4200 CITY EMPLOYEES.

WE'VE SEEN A 3.3 MILLION CUT TO OUR LIBRARIES AND OUR PARKS, AND THE CITY WANTS TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE LIVABLE WAGE RULING AND EVICTION LEGAL DEFENSE PROTECTIONS. BECAUSE OF THIS BUDGET DEFICIT, THE CITY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEFER ADA UPDATES IN THIS VERY CITY HALL WE STAND IN TODAY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET RID OF IT. BUT IT DIDN'T STOP THERE.

THEY WERE ALSO ABLE TO DEFER ALL ADA UPDATES WE NEED IN OUR LIBRARIES AS WELL.

ALL OF THAT. AND WHILE WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVELY FALLING APART AROUND US, THAT IS NOT BEING REPAIRED OR FUNDED. OUR STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARE FALLING APART BY THE DAY AND THE CITY CANNOT PAY THE FULL REPAIR COSTS.

[01:15:04]

FYI, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS A $51 MILLION DEFICIT IN THE FUTURE BUDGET, AND THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING TO CLOSE A SEPARATE $30 MILLION DEFICIT IN THE CURRENT BUDGET. BUT WE SOMEHOW HAVE ENOUGH TO SPEND MILLIONS ON FLOCK CAMERAS AND EXPANDING DPD.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JESSICA RAMIREZ.

GOOD MORNING COUNCIL. MAYOR, MY NAME IS JESSICA RAMIREZ AND I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND CRIME WATCH, REPRESENTING THE KLEBERG NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR COMMUNITIES IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

I REMEMBER A CONVERSATION DURING THE JUNE DISTRICT EIGHT FIRESIDE CHAT WITH CHIEF COMEAUX AND OTHER DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP, AND WE RAISED SOME PRETTY TOUGH CONCERNS AND ASKED ASK SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BEING PRESENTED AS SOLUTIONS.

I ASKED, ARE THESE TOOLS ACTUALLY MAKING OUR COMMUNITY SAFER? COULD WE USE THAT MONEY TO BE BETTER, BE SPENT IN SERVICES THAT ACTUALLY REACH OUR RESIDENTS, LIKE MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES, COMMUNITY PROGRAMS, PREVENTION, AND OFFICERS THAT CAN ACTUALLY RESPOND TO US WHEN WE NEED THEM.

AND WE KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO FEEL FAR, FAR AWAY FROM RESOURCES.

WE KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE FOR POLICE RESPONSE AND OTHER CITY SERVICES TO BE NON-EXISTENT.

ANOTHER ANOTHER REMARK WAS MADE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT OUR CAMERAS ARE CONCERNED.

AND AND IF CHIEF WAS ABLE TO SAY THAT GUNSHOT TECHNOLOGY.

GUNSHOT GUNSHOT DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES WERE INEFFECTIVE, THEN I BELIEVE FLOCK CAMERAS ARE INEFFECTIVE AS WELL.

AND SO COMMUNITIES LIKE US CANNOT THRIVE WHEN THEY FEEL WATCHED, FORGOTTEN AND UNHEARD.

NO COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR. FEAR OF CRIME.

FEAR OF SURVEILLANCE. FEAR THAT GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS THAT ARE MEANT TO PROTECT US COULD INSTEAD BE USED AGAINST US.

AND A TIME WHEN FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT INTERSECTS WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WE NEED OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS WORKING TOGETHER, NOT IN SILOS.

WE NEED OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING MORE MORE RESOURCEFUL FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT FUNDING INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTRACTS FOR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

DEPARTMENT LEADERS, YOUR SEATS ARE A PRIVILEGE.

SERVING THE PEOPLE IS A PRIVILEGE. THOSE POSITION EXISTS BECAUSE RESIDENTS TRUSTED YOU WITH THEIR VOICES, WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS, AND COMMUNITIES TRUSTED YOU.

SO I ASK YOU TODAY, LISTEN TO US. INVEST IN US.

RILEY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. WE WANT TO BE A PARTNER IN BUILDING A SAFER, HEALTHIER, STRONGER AND MORE PROSPEROUS CITY OF DALLAS. AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT OATH TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

THEN PLEASE HONOR THAT OATH AND DO NOT TREAD ON OUR RIGHTS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ROSIE KURTZ. HI THERE. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD TO GO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. YOU MAY. AWESOME.

ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS ROSIE KURTZ. I AM THE CO-CHAIR OF THE NORTH TEXAS AREA LABOR FEDERATION'S POLITICAL COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION.

I AM HERE TODAY TO URGE YOU TO KEEP THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE POLICY.

I WANT YOU TO MAKE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IS CALLED THAT FOR A REASON.

SO ANY COUNCIL PERSON THAT WAS TO VOTE TO, TO CHANGE IT, AS IS BEING PROPOSED, IS AGAINST LIVING WAGES.

THEY'RE SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT THEY DON'T CARE IF DALLASITES ARE ABLE TO LIVE.

SO IF YOU ARE AGAINST LIVING WAGES, YOU'RE AGAINST PEOPLE LIVING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE RIGHT NOW TO MEET A BUDGET. NO ONE WANTS TO REDUCE FUNDING FOR ANYTHING, BUT IT IS CRUEL AND INHUMANE TO CONSIDER SACRIFICING ACTUAL WORKING PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOOD TO MEET THAT, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO EVEN AT THE LIVING WAGE, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE MAKING A TON OF MONEY, THEY'RE STILL HAVING TO BUDGET CAREFULLY. INFLATION IS SKYROCKETING.

AND, AND USING THE LEAST, THE LEAST FORTUNATE OF OUR CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO MEET OUR BUDGET IS UNCONSCIONABLE. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN A LARGE EMPLOYER CUTS WAGES, IT CAN HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECT.

OTHER EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY WILL SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CUT WAGES AS WELL, SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE ANYMORE WITH WHAT WE OFFER OUR CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES.

[01:20:01]

THAT'S 4.4 MILLION A YEAR. AND IF YOU DIVIDE THAT BY THE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT'S ABOUT A LITTLE OVER $3 OF SAVINGS PER DALLAS PER YEAR.

SO IT'S NOT THE THE MAKE OR BREAK OF MEETING OUR BUDGET, BUT IT COULD BE THE MAKE OR BREAK.

TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE TO THE WORKERS FOR WHOM THIS BUDGET, THIS WAGE REDUCTION COULD MEAN EVERYTHING TO THEM AND THEIR BUDGET.

THIS IS A CLEAR CUT LABOR ISSUE. SO IF YOU ARE CITY COUNCIL THAT HAS HAD THE LABOR DALLAS LABOR ENDORSEMENT IN THE PAST OR WANTS IT IN THE FUTURE, THIS IS A A CLEAR CUT ISSUE OF DO YOU SUPPORT WORKERS OR DO YOU NOT? AND IF YOU VOTE FOR CHANGING THIS POLICY AND REDUCING IT, THEN YOU ARE VOTING TO THROW WORKERS UNDER THE BUS AND MAKING A SACRIFICIAL LAMBS.

SO PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS POLICY WHEN IT COMES UP TO VOTE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANITA NUNEZ.

ANITA NUNEZ IS NOT PRESENT. NOR. GONZALEZ. TOSTADO.

NUMEROUS. GONZALEZ DE SOTO. NOT PRESENT. MYRNA ALVARADO.

MYRNA ALVARADO. THANK YOU. HI. YES. SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. YOU MAY CONTINUE. HI. MY NAME IS MYRNA ALVARADO AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT ONE.

I'M ASKING THE CITY OF DALLAS TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE USE OF CAMERAS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.

AND. AND IN SUPPORT OF COUNCILWOMAN BAZALDUA BUDGET AMENDMENT.

DALLAS RESIDENTS DESERVE CLEAR ANSWERS ABOUT HOW THIS DATA IS COLLECTED, STORED, ACCESSED, SHARED AND PROTECTED. PUBLIC SAFETY IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE OUR PRIVACY FOR IT.

FLOCK CAMERAS CAN CREATE DETAILED RECORDS OF INNOCENT RESIDENTS MOVEMENTS, AND DOCUMENTED CASES ACROSS TEXAS SHOW THAT THESE SYSTEMS CAN BE MISUSED OR LEAD TO WRONGFUL STOPS. WITHOUT STRONG SAFEGUARDS, THERE'S ALSO A RISK OF UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, SURVEILLANCE, AND DISPROPORTIONATE ENFORCEMENT. MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. I URGE THE CITY OF DALLAS TO PROVIDE GREATER TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE USE OF FLOCK CAMERAS, INCLUDING ITS COST TO TAXPAYERS DATA RETENTION POLICIES.

AGENCIES THAT CAN ACCESS THE DATA AND DOCUMENTED USES OR MISUSE OF THE SYSTEM.

DALLAS SHOULD ALSO ESTABLISH STRONG LIMITS ON DATA SHARING AND REQUIRE MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

WHEN THE LINE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND MASS SURVEILLANCE BECOMES BLURRED.

WE MUST ASK WHETHER THIS TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED RESPONSIBLY AND WHETHER IT BENEFITS TRULY OUTWEIGH THE COSTS TO OUR PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. AARON GLOVER.

HELLO AND GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF.

MY NAME IS AARON GLOVER, AND I PROUDLY LIVE IN AND RUN A SMALL ARTS ORGANIZATION IN DISTRICT ONE.

I'M THANKFUL TO THE CITY MANAGER AND TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR RECENT THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO THEIR CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ART FUND ARTS FUNDING, AS THEY FACE CHOICES AS TO THE ALLOTMENT OF RESOURCES IN OUR CITY.

ON BEHALF OF MANY IN OUR COMMUNITY, I THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT THE THOUSANDS OF JOBS DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY THESE RESOURCES MATTER.

NOT AS NICE TO HAVE STIPENDS, BUT AS ACTUAL JOBS FOR ACTUAL PEOPLE.

WE CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ECONOMY. WE ENRICH LIVES ACROSS THE CITY AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, FROM SUMMER CAMPS TAUGHT BY LOCAL ARTISTS, PROVIDING OUR CHILDREN OPPORTUNITIES TO GROW THEIR CREATIVE POWERS LIKE THE GARRETTS, THE WRITERS, GARRET, THE ORGANIZATION. I RUN OUR OWN RAIL RIDERS THAT TAKES KIDS ONTO THE DART LIGHT RAIL AND INTO THE CITY TO DISCOVER INCREDIBLE ARTS AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS, TO MOVEMENT CLASSES FACILITATED BY DANCERS IN SENIOR CENTERS, KEEPING BODIES AND MINDS ACTIVE AND A MYRIAD OF OTHER ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL EXPERIENCES.

IN ADDITION. FUNDING FOR THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE AFFECTS EVERY DISTRICT OUR PATRONS, OUR AUDIENCES, OUR BOARDS, AND OUR ARTISTS. WE LIVE AND CREATE EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY.

THANK YOU FOR PRIORITIZING THE LIVELIHOODS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS BY HOLDING THE LINE ON ARTS FUNDING AND KEEPING OAC FUNDING INTACT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRAD PRITCHETT. GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS BRAD PRITCHETT. I'M THE CHIEF EXPERIENCE OFFICER AT THE DALLAS MUSEUM OF ART.

I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE. I'M ASKING YOU THIS MORNING TO SAY NO TO FURTHER CUTS TO THE ARTS.

I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL WHAT I WITNESS ON A DAILY BASIS AT THE DMA.

I SEE FAMILIES WHO COME INTO OUR MUSEUM FROM OAK CLIFF, PLEASANT GROVE, WEST DALLAS AND FAR NORTH DALLAS.

[01:25:07]

WHO MADE THAT? THOSE COLORS ARE BEAUTIFUL. CAN I PAINT LIKE THAT? EXPERIENCING ART FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IMMEDIATELY OPENS A CHILD'S MIND TO CREATIVE POTENTIAL.

IT ALSO OPENS THE PARENTS MINDS. THIS HAPPENS THROUGH THE GENEROSITY OF ARTS PATRONS, DONORS, FOUNDATIONS, AND THE CITY OF DALLAS THROUGH SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE.

HELP DELIVER THE TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF THE ARTS TO DALLAS.

WE OFTEN TOUT THAT DALLAS HAS THE LARGEST ARTS DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY, LARGER THAN KENNEDY CENTER, LARGER THAN THE LINCOLN CENTER. WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED MANY ACCOLADES THAT WERE THE BEST ARTS DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY.

WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO THAT WITH FURTHER CUTS.

PLEASE, NO MORE CUTS TO ARTS FUNDING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MUBARAK. HASSAN. MUBARAK. HASSAN IS NOT PRESENT. ALEX. STEIN.

HELLO. DALLAS. MAYOR. I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD FUND THESE FLOCK CAMERAS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A WHITE SUPREMACIST IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, NAMED GOVERNOR ABBOTT THAT'S TRYING TO RESTRICT FLOCK TECHNOLOGIES.

AND I KNOW THAT OUR LEGAL LAW ENFORCEMENT RELIES ON THESE TO CATCH CRIMINALS.

AND SO I'M HERE TODAY WITH SOME OF THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY FROM ISRAEL.

I CONNECTED AND WORKED IN COLLABORATION WITH BENJAMIN NETANYAHU AND ELON MUSK, AND I'VE CREATED THE FLOCK.

DADDY. 9900. THIS IS THE NEWEST TECHNOLOGY ABLE TO FILM AT 960 DEGREES.

IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME, I CAN CATCH YOU. AND WHAT MAKES ME BETTER THAN GROCK IS I'M ACTUALLY MOBILE.

I MEAN, WHAT MAKES YOU BETTER THAN FLOCK IS I'M MOBILE, BUT I USE GROCK.

ANYTIME I SEE A LICENSE PLATE, I'M ABLE TO CONNECT INSTANTLY WITH GROCK.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, MARY JOHNSON, YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT THE RNC.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WHAT I CAN DO IS I CAN GO IN THE WOMEN'S RESTROOM AND MAKE SURE NO TRANNIES WALK IN THERE AND TRY TO TAKE A POOP NEXT TO MY GIRLFRIEND.

AND I THINK THAT THAT PROTECTS THEM MUCH BETTER THAN A FLOCK CAMERA THAT'S STUCK OUT ON THE STREET.

I CAN GO INTO A CHILDREN'S CLASSROOM AND FILM CHILDREN ALL DAY AND MAKE SURE THAT NO PEDOPHILES TRY TO ABDUCT THEM.

WHAT I'M DOING HERE TODAY IS GROUNDBREAKING TECHNOLOGY.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU THAT I WILL GIVE YOU A HOMETOWN DISCOUNT BECAUSE I AM ALEX STEIN.

I'M A LIFELONG DALLAS RESIDENT. AND I CAN BE YOUR FLOCK HERO.

AND IF YOU WANT TO JUST TRY TO SAVE SOME MONEY, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE BUDGET.

I KNOW IT'S HARD TO BALANCE, BUT JUST LIKE I BALANCE THESE CAMERAS ON MY HEAD, I CAN HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET AND I CAN BE YOUR HERO.

I CAN BE YOUR HERO. I CAN FILM ALL OF THE CHILDREN.

WHEN YOU CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE. I WON'T TELL LIKE THAT.

DOORBELL CAMERA. POINT OF ORDER. YOU CAN TRUST ME.

POINT OF ORDER. NOT SUPPOSED TO GET PERSONAL AND COMMENTS.

VIOLATION OF OUR RULES. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SUSTAIN.

THANK YOU. ERIC JOHNSON, I'M ON YOUR SIDE. I CAN FILM ALL OF THE TRENCH ENDERS WHEN THEY TRY TO PROVE NEXT TO MY BRIDE. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. I WANT TO BOMB IRAN AND KILL MORE WEDDINGS AND SCHOOLS, AND THIS TECHNOLOGY HELPS US BOMB CHILDREN IN ISRAEL AND PROTECT CHILDREN.

WHEN I'M SITTING AT THE SCHOOL. LET ME WORK FOR THIS CITY BECAUSE THESE COPS NEED MY HELP.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SO. CORRO.

RAMOS. AVILES.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SOCORRO RAMOS AVILES.

[01:30:03]

I'M IN DISTRICT SIX. I AM THE ORGANIZING MANAGER FOR WORKERS DEFENSE, AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSAL TO DIVORCE THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY FROM THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR.

THIS WOULD BE A MISTAKE. WE ALL KNOW THIS HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTEDLY DIFFICULT BUDGET SESSION.

YOU ARE FACING HARD CHOICES AND THE PRESSURE IS REAL.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. BUT SHIFTING THE BURDEN ONTO WORKERS WHO MAKE THIS CITY RUN WILL NOT FIX THE BUDGET.

IT WILL ONLY DEEPEN THE CRISIS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.

WHEN YOU REDUCE A LIVING WAGE TO A NUMBER ON A SPREADSHEET, IT MAY LOOK LIKE A SIMPLE ADJUSTMENT.

BUT FOR WORKERS AFFECTED THAT LINE ITEM IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING RENT OR OR FALLING BEHIND BETWEEN KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON OR FACING ANOTHER SHUT OFF NOTICE.

BETWEEN STABILITY AND CRISIS. DALLAS CANNOT BUILD A STRONGER FUTURE BY CUTTING WAGES FOR THE VERY PEOPLE WHO CLEAN OUR BUILDINGS, MAINTAIN OUR STREETS, CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES, AND KEEP THIS CITY FUNCTIONING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

IF THE CITY'S BUDGET IS STRAINED, THEN AS ELECTED LEADERS, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND SOLUTIONS THAT DO NOT BALANCE THE BOOKS ON THE BACKS OF WORKING PEOPLE. THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR IS NOT AN ABSTRACT.

IT REFLECTS THE REAL COST OF LIVING IN THIS CITY.

DISCONNECTING FROM IT WOULD MEAN ADOPTING A WAGE THAT YOU MAY KNOW, THAT YOU MAY KNOW IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A WORKER TO SURVIVE HERE.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A CHANCE, YOU CAN GO TO A GAS STATION OR A SUPERMARKET AND YOU CAN KNOW AND LEARN HOW TO MANAGE A BUDGET.

SO TODAY I AM ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO ON AMENDING THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY.

PROTECT THE WORKERS WHO MAKE DALLAS POSSIBLE.

PROTECT THE DIGNITY OF THE FAMILIES WHO DEPEND ON THESE WAGES TO LIVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. THANK YOU. MARIANA HURTADO. IT'S NOT ONLINE.

IT'S NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. NOT PRESENT. JONATHAN LOCKRIDGE.

HELLO, I'M JONATHAN LOCKRIDGE AND I'M FROM CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT ONE.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT ADAM BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD REMOVE FUNDING FROM FLOCK CAMERAS AND REALLOCATE THAT.

SO ONE THING I'M HERE TO SAY, WELL, MORE THAN ONE THING, BUT OPPOSITION TO FLOCK CAMERAS IS BIPARTISAN.

PEOPLE ON FROM ALL DIFFERENT SORTS OF PEOPLE DISLIKE SURVEILLANCE.

I KNOW PEOPLE IN GUN RIGHTS GROUPS WHO DISLIKE IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE CAMERAS BEING OUTSIDE THE GUN RANGES.

I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE IT BEING USED BY ICE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TRACK IMMIGRANTS.

IT'S THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT REASONS TO OPPOSE THIS TECHNOLOGY ALL ACROSS THE AISLE.

AND IN OAK CLIFF IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM THAT I CAN HARDLY LEAVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT GOING PAST ONE.

AND EVEN IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT MANY NOW.

I THINK WE'D BE BETTER OFF NOT EVEN USING THEM.

BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT ANGLE TO IT. BUT I'VE TALKED WITH PEOPLE IN INDIVISIBLE.

I'VE TALKED WITH PEOPLE IN LABOR GROUPS. I'VE TALKED WITH ALL PEOPLE, ALL ACROSS THE AISLE, LIBERTARIANS, GREENS, FORWARD PARTY REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, LIKE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THIS TECHNOLOGY ALL ACROSS THE SPECTRUM.

AS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID BEFORE, GREG ABBOTT RECENTLY CAME AND CURTAILED THE POLICY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING OUR CITY BUDGET.

AND AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, TALARICO JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO CAME OUT AGAINST FLOCK CAMERAS AS WELL.

THE MOMENTUM IS BUILDING AGAINST THIS TECHNOLOGY, AND WE NEED TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHETHER WE SHOULD BE USING IT AT ALL.

YEAH. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I THANK YOU FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL.

THANK YOU TO ADAM BAZALDUA FOR YOUR PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU, MADDIE OLSEN. MATTI OLSEN. IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT PRESENT. DIANA RAMIREZ. GOOD MORNING.

[01:35:02]

THE NORTH TEXAS AL HAS OVER 40,000 MEMBERS ACROSS NORTH TEXAS AND IS THE RESULT OF MERGING TARRANT AND DALLAS CENTRAL LABOR COUNCILS.

I AM HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

THE DALLAS LIVING WAGE POLICY REPRESENTS A HISTORIC COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT JOBS THAT ALLOW WORKERS TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY.

ROLLING BACK MORE THAN TEN YEARS WILL BE A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE WORKERS WHO MAKE YOUR CITY RUN.

THE COUNCIL MUST CREATE A BUDGET THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US, INSTEAD OF GRABBING FROM THE POCKETS OF OUR LOWEST PAID WORKERS.

I WANT TO THANK SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. LIKE BAZALDUA, CADENA, JOHNSON, MORENO AND GRACEY.

AND AS THE REST OF YOU TO. VOTE WITH WORKERS ON THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEN SALAZAR. GOOD MORNING.

I PROMISE I DON'T HAVE A SONG. HI. GOOD MORNING MAYOR.

I'M BERNARDO SALAZAR. I SERVE ON THE DALLAS OFFICE AND EQUITY AND INCLUSION, WHERE EQUITY DATA.

DATA AND GIS INTERSECTED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

I'VE USED DATA TO SERVE THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE CITY, THE DALLAS COUNTIES, VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.

I TAUGHT THREE GIS COURSES DOWN HERE AT THE CENTRAL LIBRARY FOR RESIDENTS.

WANTING TO STRENGTHEN THEIR NONPROFITS, BUSINESSES, AND NEIGHBORHOODS.

I REALLY BELIEVE IN GIS IS A VERY POWERFUL TOOL, AND I THINK ENTERPRISE GIS IS A POWERFUL CITY WIDE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT NEEDS CLEAR TECHNICAL OWNER PUBLISH SERVICE STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN OWNERSHIP IS OPAQUE.

DEPARTMENTS LOSE TIME, COMMUNITIES LOSE OPPORTUNITY, AND RESIDENTS LOSE TRUST.

FROM JULY 2024 TO JANUARY 2025, I ASKED IN WRITING WHO OWNS THE ARCHITECTURE, SECURITY, INTAKE, AND SERVICE STANDARDS? I HAVE THE EMAILS. THE ANSWERS WERE DELAY, REDIRECTION, OR SILENCE.

WHEN HOUSING NEEDED DATA FOR A BLIGHT STUDY DB, I WROTE BACK THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE DATA SOURCES AND DOES NOT CONDUCT RESEARCH FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS ANALYSTS. THEN GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT.

DEPARTMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BANG EACH OTHER TO DO PUBLIC WORK.

DB SIX SEEKS $2,176,746 FOR A COMBINED INTELLIGENCE, AI AND ADVANCED ANALYTICS SYSTEMS PROGRAM. IT IS NOT AN AI ONLY LINE, AND THE BROAD LABEL IS NOT AN OPEN OR A BLANK CHECK BEFORE FUNDING AUTOMATED DECISIONS. DALLAS NEEDS TECHNICAL OWNERSHIP, ENFORCEABLE GOVERNANCE, CYBER SECURITY, AUDIT TRAILS, AND HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY.

AI CANNOT WRITE ITS OWN PERMISSION SLIP. I ASKED FOR TWO ACTIONS TRANSFER THE FULL 2 MILLION.

TRANSFER THE FULL ENTERPRISE GIS APPROPRIATION TO ITS.

WITH EVERY POSITION, LICENSE, CONTRACT, BACKUP AND SERVICE OBLIGATION AND REMOVE THE COMBINED PROGRAM APPROPRIATION FROM DB ONTO.

THOSE CONTROLS ARE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. LISTEN TO THE CIO.

PUT TECHNOLOGY UNDER ACCOUNTABLE TECHNICAL LEADERSHIP AND RETURN GIS TO ITS.

PROTECT CONTINUITY. PROTECT STAFF. PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS SUPPOSED TO SERVE.

ADOPT THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DAMANI. DANIEL.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY MANAGER AND STAFF.

MY NAME IS DAMANI. DANIEL AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE DALLAS INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, A BOARD MEMBER OF THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION, A MEMBER OF THE OFFICE OF NIGHT TIME ECONOMIES NIGHTTIME NIGHTLIFE TASK FORCE, PARENT TO TWO DISD ARTS VANGUARD STUDENTS AND A LEADER WITHIN DALLAS CREATIVE ENGINE AND THE DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY MY LIFE IS CELEBRATING AND SUPPORTING CULTURE, AND I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LOVE THE ARTS, AND I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE NO FURTHER CUTS TO ARTS FUNDING.

DALLAS HAS SPENT THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS PURSUING A BOLD VISION THROUGH EMBRACING Y'ALL STREET.

WE'RE WORKING TO BECOME THE MOST BUSINESS FRIENDLY CITY IN AMERICA.

WE'VE SAID IT FROM THIS DAIS. WE'VE RECRUITED HEADQUARTERS, ATTRACTED INVESTMENT, AND INVITED COMPANIES FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD TO CALL DALLAS HOME. BUT THE CALLS WERE INVITING TO OUR STREETS OR PEOPLE.

AND WHEN THESE PEOPLE LEAVE THOSE BUSINESS FRIENDLY OFFICES, THEY WANT A CITY WORTH STAYING IN.

THEY WANT CULTURE TO ENGAGE THEM. THEY WANT ART TO INSPIRE THEM.

THEY WANT MUSIC TO MOVE THEM. THEY WANT MOMENTS THAT REMIND THEM WHY THEY CHOSE DALLAS.

BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T MOVE TO CITIES SIMPLY BECAUSE OF JOBS.

[01:40:02]

THEY STAY BECAUSE THE CITY FEELS ALIVE. THAT'S WHAT THE ARTS CREATE.

WE'VE HEARD A GREAT DEAL ABOUT OUR INCREDIBLE ARTS DISTRICT, AND RIGHTLY SO.

BUT THE ARTS DON'T STOP AT DOWNTOWN IN WEST DALLAS, ARTILLERY ON FORT WORTH AVENUE GIVES MULTIDISCIPLINARY ARTISTS A PLACE TO TELL STORIES UNIQUE TO OUR AND THEIR COMMUNITIES EVERY OCTOBER.

OCTOBER. BRASS AND JAZZ IN THE PARK FILLS MATTIE NASH, MYRTLE DAVIS PARK WITH FAMILIES ENJOYING FREE MUSIC TOGETHER AT JUBILEE CENTER AND JUANITA CRAFT HOUSE IN SOUTH DALLAS. SENIORS RECEIVE FREE DANCE CLASSES THAT IMPROVE HEALTH, CONFIDENCE AND CONNECTION.

THIS YEAR, BLUES IN THE BOTTOM BROUGHT ANOTHER FREE COMMUNITY CELEBRATION TO ELOISE LUNDY PARK, AND THERE ARE OVER 400 WORKS OF PUBLIC ART IN EVERY CORNER OF DALLAS, QUIETLY REMINDING EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT MATTERS.

THESE AREN'T ISOLATED PROGRAMS. THEY'RE INVESTMENTS. INVESTMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, INVESTMENTS IN BELONGING, INVESTMENTS IN TOURISM. INVESTMENTS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

VISITORS DON'T SIMPLY COME TO DALLAS FOR MEETINGS.

THEY STAY IN OUR HOTELS. THEY DINE IN OUR RESTAURANTS.

THEY SHOP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY VISIT OUR MUSEUMS. THEY EXPERIENCE OUR FESTIVALS. THEY DISCOVER OUR CULTURE, AND THEY LEAVE TALKING ABOUT DALLAS.

BECAUSE CULTURE IS HOW A CITY INTRODUCES ITSELF.

THE ARTS ARE HOW PEOPLE EXPERIENCE IT, AND COMMUNITY IS WHY THEY CHOOSE TO STAY.

IF WE WANT DALLAS TO COMPETE AS A GLOBAL CITY, THEN CULTURE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

THE ARTS ARE NOT THE DECORATION ON A GREAT CITY.

THEY ARE PART OF ITS FOUNDATION. THEY STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY ATTRACT VISITORS. THEY RETAIN TALENT. THEY CREATE COMMUNITY AND THEY FUEL THE KIND OF ECONOMY YOU AND WE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO BUILD. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU TO ALSO SUPPORT THE LIVING WAGE AMENDMENT, BECAUSE MARKET RATE TELLS US NOT AS MUCH ABOUT OUR CITY AS THE LIVING WAGE DOES.

IF WE'RE GOING TO INVITE THE WORLD TO BUSINESSES AND BUSINESSES TO DALLAS, WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WHEN THEY GET HERE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DYLAN THRASHER. HELLO. MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DYLAN THRASHER FROM DISTRICT TEN.

I'M THE OWNER OF AN EVICTION SERVICE COMPANY THAT SERVES LANDLORDS IN DALLAS.

MY CONCERN IS REGARDING THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS THAT ARE GOING ON UNCONTESTED IN DALLAS RIGHT NOW.

YOU ARE THE AMENDMENT THAT BAZALDUA HAS HAS BROUGHT BEFORE US IS IS ALLOCATING $500,000 IN FUNDING TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS PREPARED BY A LAWYER WHO IS A BUSINESS PARTNER WITH ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I KNOW, I KNOW, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO NAME ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS BY NAME, SO I WILL ONLY NAME THE BUSINESS OR THAT IS REGISTERED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FILE NUMBER 080629642. THE COMPANY'S NAME IS BAZALDUA CONSULTING COMPANY.

NO DISCLOSURES HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN FILED IN REGARDS TO THIS RELATIONSHIP.

AND YOU'RE ALLOCATING $500,000 TO YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER.

THAT LOOKS AND APPEARS TO BE BLATANT CORRUPTION.

DEACS CLAIMS THAT THEY SAY THEY HAVE A HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT THAT, THAT THEY THAT THEY, THAT IS CLAIMED BY THE THE PERRYMAN STUDY, WHICH IS UNABLE TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, THE, THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY HAVE IS NOT ABLE TO BE MEASURED.

THERE IS NO THERE'S NO. AND IF AND IF IT WAS THEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS $50 MILLION A YEAR THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING TO SAVE. SO WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT YOU REMOVE THE ALLOCATION OF THE $500,000 TO DC AND JUST PUT IT ALL, ALL TOWARD THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.

THE WAY, THE WAY THAT THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOCATING THE MONEY TO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MATTHEW. MATTHEW TENNELL IS NOT PRESENT.

GEORGE LIDO. YES. GOOD MORNING. AS A RESIDENT OF DALLAS, I'M ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO FLOCK CAMERAS, AND I BELIEVE THE ENTIRE FLOCK CONTRACT SHOULD BE TERMINATED AND REMOVED FROM OUR CITY ALL TOGETHER.

THIS IS NOT A MINOR CONCERN ABOUT EXPANDING A PROGRAM.

I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE IDEA OF OUR CITY USING A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS MOVEMENTS OF ORDINARY, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO BE TRACKED AND RECORDED.

THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IS REAL, AND THE FACT THAT THESE SYSTEMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MISUSED SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON FOR OUR CITY TO STEP BACK AND RECONSIDER.

PUBLIC SAFETY DOES NOT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO SACRIFICE OUR PRIVACY AND OUR LIBERTY.

I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD SURRENDER FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PROMISE OF BEING SAFER.

[01:45:02]

I'M ASKING FOR OUR CITY LEADERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT COMPLETELY REMOVE THE CAMERAS, STOP THE FUNDING AND PUT OUR TAX DOLLARS TOWARD IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY, NOT MONITORING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN IT. AND THEN LASTLY, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SAFETY AND LIBERTY.

OUR CITY SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF PROTECTING BOTH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HILLARY BROWN. HILLARY BROWN IS NOT PRESENT.

LIZ MENDOZA. WELL. YES. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M LIZ MENDOZA WITH SUNRISE DALLAS.

I'M HERE TO URGE THE CITY OF DALLAS TO END ITS CONTRACT WITH FLOC AND BAN ALPR CAMERAS IN DALLAS.

OUR IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORS ARE AFRAID TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES, TO GO TO WORK AND TO LIVE THEIR LIVES IN PEACE BECAUSE OF ICE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

WE DO NOT NEED MORE MASS SURVEILLANCE IN DALLAS COUNTY.

ALPR CAMERAS DO NOT KEEP US SAFER AND THEY ARE A VIOLATION OF OUR PRIVACY.

FLOC IS AN AI SURVEILLANCE COMPANY, WHICH EXPLAINS THE NEED FOR THE INSANE GROWTH OF AI HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS THAT TAKE UP ALL OF OUR RESOURCES.

IF WE NEED TO EXPAND A MASS SURVEILLANCE STATE, IT IS REALLY CONCERNING HOW THESE TWO ISSUES FLOCK CAMERAS AND DATA CENTERS INTERSECT AND HOW UNPOPULAR THEY BOTH ARE AMONGST THE PEOPLE.

YET SOME, EVEN MOST OF OUR CITY LEADERS ARE NOT LISTENING THAT WE DO NOT WANT EITHER FLOCK OR DATA CENTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

FLOCK CAMERAS COULD BE USED LOCALLY OR FEDERALLY AS A TOOL TO SILENCE ANY DISSENT AND POLICE FREE SPEECH.

THESE FLOCK CAMERAS HAVE BEEN USED TO TRACK PEOPLE ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL PROTEST ACTIVITY.

LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE PROBED THE SYSTEM USING SEARCH TERMS LIKE PROTEST, OR LOOKING UP THE LICENSE PLATES OF KNOWN ACTIVIST GROUPS.

CITIES LIKE PFLUGERVILLE AND WYLIE ARE CANCELING THEIR CONTRACTS WITH FLOCK DUE TO PRIVACY CONCERNS.

THE CITY OF PFLUGERVILLE DISCOVERED A SYSTEM ISSUE, AND PUBLIC RECORDS REVEALED THAT HUNDREDS OF UNAUTHORIZED NON PARTNER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SEARCH PFLUGERVILLE. PFLUGERVILLE S AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER DATA DALLAS MUST FOLLOW SUIT AND CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH FLOCK FOR THE SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF ITS PEOPLE IN JANUARY OF 2012, AN US VERSUS JONES, THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTACHMENT OF THE GPS DEVICE TO THE VEHICLE AND ITS USE OF THAT DEVICE TO MONITOR THE VEHICLE'S MOVEMENTS CONSTITUTES A SEARCH UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH PROTECTS AMERICANS FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, WHEN IT PLACED A GPS DEVICE TO ANTOINE JONES'S CAR AND TRACKED HIS MOVEMENTS CONTINUOUSLY FOR A MONTH.

ALPR CAMERAS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS THEY ARE A VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO TRACK YOUR MOVEMENT WITHOUT A WARRANT. I REITERATE TO DALLAS CITY LEADERS THAT WE DO NOT WANT CAMERAS IN DALLAS. AND ON THAT NOTE, WE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS EITHER.

I HATE TO QUOTE THOMAS JEFFERSON, BUT IT WOULD DO WELL TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THERE IS TYRANNY. AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THERE IS LIBERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS FOR THIS MEETING, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR VOTING AGENDA.

[VOTING AGENDA]

YOU DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS ONE, TWO AND THREE, ALEX SCOTT AND DELORES PHILLIPS.

ALEX SCOTT, YOU MAY COME TO THE PODIUM. I DO ASK THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU MUST SPEAK. WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR MULTIPLE ITEMS, YOU MUST SPEAK ON ALL THREE ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME UNDER THREE MINUTES.

AND I ALSO ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TO THE ITEMS, TO THE TOPIC OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA.

YOU MAY SPEAK. HELLO. HEY Y'ALL. ALEX SCOTT 6472 TRAMMEL DRIVE.

I'M YOUR NEIGHBOR IN DISTRICT NINE. FIRST OFF, YOU GUYS, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING EVERYONE TO SPEAK THIS MORNING.

I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR. IS THAT OBJECTION AND, YOU KNOW, SUSPENDING THE RULES AND LETTING EVERYONE GET ALONG WITH THEIR DAY. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY SERIOUSLY, THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE NEXT THING THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK. AND WHAT I WITNESSED LAST WEEK WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD A ZONING CASE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY CHOSE TO SUSPEND IT UNTIL LATER IN SEPTEMBER.

HOWEVER, THEIR PEOPLE CAME UP AND CAME TO SPEAK AT CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK, AND THEY WEREN'T GIVEN THAT ABILITY.

[01:50:02]

THOSE PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR MEETING AND GONE ON WITH THE REST OF THEIR DAY.

THEY COULD HAVE CANCELED THEIR MEETINGS. THEY COULD HAVE DONE ALL OF THESE THINGS.

BUT WE ARE AT THE. JUST AS OUR CITY MANAGER IS AT THE WHIM OF THIS COUNCIL, US AS INDIVIDUALS ARE AT THE WHIM OF THIS COUNCIL AND WHAT YOU ALL DECIDE TO DO.

AND AS SOMEONE AND I KNOW THAT OUR RELATIONSHIP OVER THIS PAST YEAR HAS HAD HIGHS AND HAD LOWS.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE COME UP HERE AND WE SPEAK, IT'S BECAUSE WE WANT Y'ALL TO WIN.

WE WANT YOU GUYS TO WIN. WE WANT YOU GUYS TO BE GOOD AT YOUR JOB BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE GOOD AT YOUR JOB, THAT MEANS OUR LIVES ARE BETTER, RIGHT? THAT'S HOW QUALITY OF LIFE SHOULD INCREASE HERE.

HOWEVER, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THIS VERY VITRIOLIC RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, RIGHT? AND THAT'S NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON THAT SIDE OF THE HORSESHOE.

HOWEVER, A LOT OF US ARE FEELING VERY ABUSED BY THE WAY, THAT OUR CITY MANAGER, BY THE WAY, THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE GOING ABOUT THE BASIC DUTIES OF THEIR JOB, WHETHER THAT'S BEING ON YOUR CELL PHONES WHILE PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING, WHETHER THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY HEARING OUT YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT.

HOWEVER, I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SUSPENDING THE RULES TODAY AND ALLOWING EVERYONE TO SPEAK BEFORE NOON.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE A VERY LONG DAY AHEAD OF YOU, AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE THE PROPER DISCERNMENT THAT YOU HEARD EVERYONE THAT SPOKE TODAY AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO US. AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL GIVE YOU ALL 30S BACK, BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DOLORES PHILLIPS. DOLORES PHILLIPS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

YOU DO HAVE HANDOUTS. YOU RECEIVED A HANDOUT LAST WEEK CONCERNING BUTTIGIEG.

BUTTIGIEG WAS INVESTIGATED BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS ANGRY.

POSSIBLY BECAUSE. PHILLIPS. I DO ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO.

THIS IS ABOUT BOARDING COMMISSIONS. THIS IS ABOUT BOARDING COMMISSIONS AND PEOPLE REPRESENTING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THE PEOPLE OF WHAT THEY'RE UP AGAINST.

AS I WAS SAYING, BUTTIGIEG WAS POSSIBLY TARGETED BECAUSE HE'S GAY.

SO ARE HETEROSEXUALS. BUTTIGIEG HAVE THE MONEY TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY HAD A YOUNG A GUY WHO WENT DOWN TO DPD Y'ALL NOT BEING HONEST WITH CHIEF COMEAUX.

IMMA COME WITH THE TRUTH. THEY HAD A POOR BOOTY CHECK WHO HAD HIS SON TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE SOMEBODY PUT FALSE INFORMATION IN C.P.S. DATABASE. THEY TOOK HIS SON. HE DIDN'T THINK HE WAS GOING TO GET HIS SON BACK.

HE WENT TO CRAIGSLIST AND GOT A TRUCK, CONVERTED IT TO A KILLING MACHINE, AND WENT DOWN ON D, P, D AND SPRAYED IT UP, NOT KNOWING THAT THE OFFICERS DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTING A WARRANT THAT WAS BEFORE THEM GETTING A WARRANT. STAY WITH ME, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK SLOWLY AND DISTINCTLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ME.

YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF ME. IRVING. POLICE REPORT G P REPORT DPD REPORT.

THEY'RE ALL FALSIFIED. FATHOM THIS BUILDING BEING A DATA CENTER, WHICH IS A DATA BREACH.

AND YOU ORCHESTRATE AND EXECUTE RETALIATION AGAINST PEOPLE THAT ANGER YOU.

MANY OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNTY EMPLOYEES, DPD OFFICERS, SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO IT YOURSELVES DURING INVESTIGATIONS. SCOTT GRIGGS, PHILLIP KINGSTON SO THIS WAS NEVER THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

STAY WITH ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DUTY. DUTY TO PROTECT YOURSELVES FIRST AND FOREMOST.

AND YOU HAVE A DUTY. DUTY TO PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE.

NOW, IN THIS MASSIVE ONGOING COVER UP. I'M SAYING ON THE RECORD, YOU POSSIBLY COULD BE GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE RECENTLY.

AND IT WAS METHODICAL. WHEN YOU ARRESTED ME AND TOOK ME TO GREEN OAKS, YOU INTERCEPTED COURT DOCUMENTS FROM COURT 12-11126 IS THE CASE AT THE UNITED STATES FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN LOUISIANA.

SO WHEN YOU SPEAK OF INJUSTICES, THERE ARE HEFTY PRICES TO PAY.

AND I'M GOING TO PRAY THAT PAY THAT PRICE BECAUSE MY DAD, HE WAS CRYING TO LIVE.

NOW I KNOW ALL THE FABRICATIONS. WHEN I WAS HERE SPEAKING FOR YOU BEFORE YOU ABOUT THE FABRICATED POLICE REPORT.

02732918. YOU HAD IRVIN. THIS IS A NETWORK OF CORRUPTION.

[01:55:04]

THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 11TH BUDGET WORKSHOP IN AUGUST 19TH.

COUNCIL MEETING. GRAND RISING.

EVERYONE. I'M SPEAKING ON ITEM 26-846A. THE MEETINGS FROM AUGUST 11TH AND AUGUST 19TH ARE INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS SUBMITTED IN JULY REGARDING THE DEATH OF DANIEL IRVING.

THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE CONNECTED TO A LARGER PATTERN INVOLVING NOLAN WELLS AND CARMELO ANTHONY. AND HERE JUST RECENTLY, ANOTHER BLACK MAN WAS FOUND DEAD IN GARLAND, TEXAS LAST SATURDAY, AUGUST 29TH. RULED SUICIDE BY DALLAS COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER, AGAIN WITH NO DETAILS ABOUT HOW HIS BODY WAS FOUND AND WHAT MANNER WAS HE FOUND NEAR THIS TREE LINE? NO TRANSPARENCY DETAILS FROM GARLAND, SHERIFF OR ANYBODY ELSE.

THESE CASES SHOW REPEATED HARM TO BLACK INDIVIDUALS ACROSS DIFFERENT STATES, AND THE CITY MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THIS PATTERN BEFORE APPROVING THESE MINUTES. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND ADD THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM TO THE NEXT OFFICIAL AGENDA.

WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY DESERVES TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE MUST CONTINUE TO SHOW UP UNTIL THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM IS ADDED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ON AGENDA ITEM ONE.

MR. MAYOR PAUL RIDLEY, WHERE'S YOUR MOTION? THERE IT IS.

IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY'S MOTION IS APPROVED.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM TWO IS CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THIS MORNING, YOU ONLY HAVE ONE NOMINEE FOR APPOINTMENT, YOUR NOMINEE FOR FULL COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

ADJUNCT MEMBERS VICKI S MEEK IS BEING NOMINATED BY MAYOR JOHNSON.

MISS MEEK MEETS THE VISUAL ARTS PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL QUALIFICATION.

THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE, MISTER MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, THERE'S A MOTION, A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY'S MOTION PASSES AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YOUR BRIEFINGS CONTINUE.

[BRIEFINGS]

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. MR. MAYOR. YOUR FIRST BRIEFING ITEM NUMBER AYE THIS MORNING IS A PRESENTATION ON THE LIVING WAGE POLICY REVIEW AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

THIS TOPIC WAS INCLUDED ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA FOR A TIME SINCE JUNE 12TH, AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON AUGUST THE 25TH.

TODAY'S BRIEFING PROVIDES A RESULT OF CITY COUNCIL'S GUIDANCE TO BRING THIS BRIEFING TO TODAY'S DISCUSSION.

AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE CITY HAS A LIVING WAGE POLICY THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2015.

THIS POLICY REQUIRES THAT AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT BE BASED ON THE MIT ANALYSIS FOR DALLAS COUNTY.

SO TODAY, OUR DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES, JUANITA ORTIZ AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KIMBERLY FRANKLIN WILL REVIEW THE POLICY, DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND GIVE COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MRS. ORTIZ TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JUANITA ORTIZ, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

AND WITH ME TODAY IS KIMBERLY FRANKLIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND PURCHASING AGENT.

TODAY, WE'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S CURRENT LIVING WAGE POLICY AND PRESENT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

THIS BRIEFING BRINGS TOGETHER THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, AND PROVIDE FULL COUNCIL WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE POLICY AND PROVIDE DIRECTION.

WE'LL START WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY AND ITS HISTORY, FOLLOWED BY A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT AND TRENDS.

DISCUSS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND THEN FOLLOWING THE FULL COUNCIL WITH NEXT STEPS BASED ON THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.

NEXT SLIDE. OUR PURPOSE TODAY FOR THIS BRIEFING IS TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION AND DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN CONTRACT WORKER COMPENSATION, CURRENT LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS, CITY WORKFORCE CONSIDERATIONS AND FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY.

STAFF WILL REVIEW THE CURRENT POLICY, THE ALTERNATIVES THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMITTEE,

[02:00:06]

NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE. THE CITY'S APPROACH TO CONTRACTUAL WAGE REQUIREMENTS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME. IN MAY OF 20 OF 2008, THE COUNCIL REMOVED ANY WAGE REQUIREMENTS ABOVE THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE, ALLOWING FOR THE MARKET TO SET THE WAGES FOR APPLICABLE CONTRACTS.

IN 2012, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE DAVIS-BACON PREVAILING WAGE RATES, WHICH ARE TRADE SPECIFIC AND GEOGRAPHICALLY BASED FOR CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, AND THIS WAS TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 2258 OF THE STATE CODE.

FOLLOWING THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON POVERTY, A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY, WHICH THEY DID IN NOVEMBER 2015 FOR COMPETITIVELY SOLICITED GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.

WITH THE INITIAL WAGE OF 1031 IN 2021, COUNCIL EXTENDED THAT REQUIREMENT TO PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS WHEN THE DAVIS-BACON WAGE IS LOWER THAN THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE. NEXT SLIDE. UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, THE LIVING WAGE APPLIES TO COMPETITIVELY SOLICITED CONTRACTS OVER $100,000. THE RATE IS BASED ON THE MIT LIVING WAGE, WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF HOUSING, FOOD, TRANSPORTATION AND TAXES FOR ONE ADULT WITH NO CHILDREN IN DALLAS COUNTY, THE APPLICABLE RATE IS ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION IS ISSUED, AND IT REMAINS INTACT THROUGH THE CONTRACT TERM.

AS A RESULT, ACTIVE CONTRACTS HAVE. ARRANGING A DIFFERENT WAGE RATES DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY WERE SOLICITED.

THE CURRENT RATE IS 2306, AND IT'S AN EFFECTIVE TO CHANGE.

OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 AT 2331. NEXT SLIDE. THE LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT IS INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT THE PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING PROCESS. THE APPLICABLE WAGE IS IDENTIFIED IN THE SOLICITATION AND PROPOSERS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE REQUIREMENT.

ONCE AWARDED, THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE RECORDS AND COMPLY WITH ALL THE REPORTING PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THEIR CONTRACT.

THE CITY MAY REQUEST DOCUMENTATION AND CONDUCT A COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

SPECIFICALLY, WHEN A COMPLAINT IS PLACED AND NONCOMPLIANCE MAY CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF CONTRACT.

NEXT SLIDE. THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS 234 GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

THAT POLICY APPLIES UNIFORMLY BASED ON THE PROCUREMENT METHOD, CONTRACT VALUE AND SERVICE CLASSIFICATION, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF LABOR IN THE CONTRACT.

SO WHILE MANY CONTRACTS INVOLVE LABOR INTENSIVE SERVICES SUCH AS JANITORIAL, LANDSCAPING AND SECURITY, OTHERS INVOLVE SOFTWARE, INSURANCE, TESTING, EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND SIMILAR SERVICES WHERE LABOR MAY NOT BE THE PRIMARY COMPONENT.

I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO KIM TO SHARE WITH YOU INFORMATION ON THE POLICIES, IMPACT AND TRENDS, AS WELL AS AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU JUANITA. NEXT SLIDE. SO SINCE 2015, THE LIVING WAGE HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, INCLUDING DOUBLE DIGIT GROWTH OUTPACING THE CPI.

SO THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE LIVING WAGE METHODOLOGY IS WRONG.

HOWEVER, IT DOES MEAN THAT THE POLICY IS MEASURING COST OF LIVING ALONG WITH THE MARKET WAGE FOR A SPECIFIC OCCUPATION.

COUNCIL, THEREFORE, HAS A POLICY CHOICE ABOUT HOW MUCH WEIGHT TO GIVE THE COST OF LIVING.

THE LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS, CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, AND FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY.

NEXT SLIDE. HERE, THIS CHART ILLUSTRATES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN OLDER CONTRACT IS REPLACED.

OUT IS PLACED OUT FOR A NEW SOLICITATION BECAUSE THE WAGE FLOOR IS FIXED THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT.

WHEN IT'S ORIGINALLY SOLICITED, A NEW CONTRACT WILL BE A I'M SORRY, AN EXISTING CONTRACT WILL BE IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AT THAT SAME RATE AS AS IT WENT OUT WHEN IT WAS SOLICITED. SO WHEN THAT CONTRACT IS SOLICITED, THE NEW SOLICITATION WILL USE THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE.

SO THE EXAMPLES HERE SHOW, AND IT DEMONSTRATES HOW THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS WAGE AND THE NEW WAGE FLOORS CAN BE, BECAUSE MANY OF THE SERVICE CONTRACTS RUN 3 TO 5 YEARS.

THIS PATTERN WILL CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL THE CONTRACT CYCLE THROUGH, AND THEY GO OUT FOR A SOLICITATION.

AGAIN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE WAGE RATES IS JUST ONE COMPONENT.

[02:05:02]

NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. AND HERE ON THIS CHART THIS SHOWS DALLAS LIVING WAGE AS IT HAS REMAINED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT OUR CURRENT LIVING WAGE IS $23.06 PER HOUR, WHILE THE CITY'S ENTRY EMPLOYEE WAGE IS AT $21.50 PER HOUR.

AND SINCE THE ADOPTION IN 2015, THE LIVING WAGE HAS INCREASED BY 123%.

NOW, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS HAVE INCREASED 123%, BUT IT DOES ILLUSTRATE HOW DRAMATICALLY THE WAGE FLOOR ITSELF CAN CHANGE OVER TIME. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SLIDE COMPARES THE ANNUAL GROWTH IN THE MIT LIVING WAGE WITH INFLATION IN THE DALLAS AREA. SO SINCE 2017, THE LIVING WAGE HAS INCREASED ON AN AVERAGE OF 9.3% ANNUALLY COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE DALLAS AREA CPI GROWTH AT JUST 3.6%.

SO THE LARGEST LIVING WAGE INCREASES WERE SHOWN DURING COVID YEARS IN 2122, AND THEN AGAIN IN 2024.

ONE KEY DISTINCTION IS THAT THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR IS NOT INDEXED TO CPI.

IT IS BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST OF LIVING BASED ON YOUR HOUSEHOLD MAKEUP.

SO AS A RESULT, CHANGES IN THE MIT RATE CAN BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE INFLATION RATE.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SLIDE DISTINGUISHES TWO DIFFERENT POLICY CONCEPTS.

THE MIT LIVING WAGE IS COST OF LIVING BASED. IT IS DESIGNED TO ESTIMATE WHAT A WORKER NEEDS TO MEET BASIC EXPENSES.

AND THE SAME WAGE FLOOR IS APPLIED ACROSS ALL OCCUPATIONS.

THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. OCCUPATIONAL WAGES ARE MARKET BASED.

THEY VARY BY OCCUPATION AND THEY REFLECT FACTORS SUCH AS SKILL LEVEL, TRADE, LABOR, LABOR SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

NEITHER APPROACH WILL ANSWER EVERY POLICY QUESTION.

THE LIVING WAGE WILL EMPHASIZE A MINIMUM ECONOMIC STANDARD, WHILE THE OCCUPATIONAL WAGES EMPHASIZE THE LABOR MARKET AND WHAT THE LABOR MARKET IS CURRENTLY PAYING FOR EACH SPECIFIC OCCUPATION.

SO THE PROPOSED HYBRID METHODOLOGY ATTEMPTS TO BRING BOTH CONCEPTS INTO THE POLICY.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS TABLE IT SHOWS WHY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO METHODOLOGIES MATTER.

SO THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE IS $23.06 FOR EVERY OCCUPATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE FOR JANITORS, THE BLS WAGE IS BELOW THAT AT $16.76.

AND THEN FOR SECURITY GUARDS, IT'S AT $18.28 IN THE IN THOSE OCCUPATIONS, THE LIVING WAGE IS ABOVE THE MEDIAN MARKET WAGE.

BUT FOR ELECTRICIANS, PLUMBERS, THERE'S SOME TRUCK DRIVERS HERE.

THE BLS MEDIAN WAGE EXCEEDS THE $23.06 PER HOUR.

SO THE CURRENT POLICY MAY BE ABOVE FOR SOME JOBS WHILE BELOW THE MEDIAN MARKET RATE FOR OTHERS.

THIS TABLE ALSO COMPARES THOSE FIGURES WITH THE CITY'S ENTRY WAGES.

AND THIS JUST. THIS IS JUST TO ILLUSTRATE WHERE THE COMPENSATION RELATIONSHIPS BEGIN TO OVERLAP.

NEXT SLIDE. SO WAGE COMPRESSION WAGE COMPRESSION OCCURS WHEN THE PAY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOBS WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SKILL, RESPONSIBILITY OR EXPERIENCE BECOME VERY SMALL.

SO CONTRACTOR WAGES AND CITY EMPLOYEE WAGES ARE ESTABLISHED THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. BUT THEY EXIST IN THE SAME LABOR MARKETS. SO AS THE CONTRACTOR LIVING WAGE INCREASES, THOSE WAGES MAY APPROACH OR EXCEED THE CITY'S WAGES FOR POSITIONS WITH GREATER RESPONSIBILITIES. SO THAT CAN CREATE PRESSURE TO ADJUST CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PAY RELATIONSHIPS. NEXT SLIDE. SO WE ARE USING THE SANITATION AGREEMENT AS AN EXAMPLE HERE.

SO AND IT WILL SHOW THIS EXAMPLE DOES SHOW A COMPRESSION ISSUE.

SO IT IS A TANGIBLE EXAMPLE. SO TEMPORARY CONTRACT LABORERS WORK ON THE BACK OF THE SANITATION TRUCKS.

CITY SANITATION TRUCK DRIVERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DRIVING AND OPERATING THE VEHICLE, COMPLETING THE ROUTE, MAINTAINING SAFETY AND SUPERVISING THE CONTRACT WORKERS.

AND UNDER THIS CONTRACT, TEMPORARY CONTRACT LABOR IS PAID $22.05 PER HOUR, WHILE THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOWN FOR THE SANITATION

[02:10:04]

NEXT SLIDE. OKAY, SO THIS TABLE, THIS TABLE ILLUSTRATES AND IT COMPARES US WITH PEER CITIES AND THEIR APPROACHES. SO YOU HAVE PHILADELPHIA DC, DENVER, SEATTLE.

THEY USE A CPI BASE OR SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS. AND THEN YOU HAVE AUSTIN.

THEY ESTABLISH ITS WAGE THROUGH A BUDGET PROCESS.

AND THEN LAST WE HAVE SAN JOSE. THEY USE A METHODOLOGY THAT'S TIED TO THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS OR CPI WITH A CAP.

SO THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT. DALLAS IS CURRENTLY AT THE $23.06 AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

AND OUR FLOOR WAGE, IT IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE MIT LIVING WAGE FOR DALLAS COUNTY.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS COMPARISON SHOWS THAT DALLAS IS THE ONLY CITY IN THE IN THIS PEER GROUP WHOSE WAGE FLOOR IS EQUAL TO ITS RESPECTIVE MIT LIVING WAGE.

SO SEVERAL OTHER CITIES MAINTAIN WAGE FLOORS BELOW THEIR RESPECTIVE MIT ESTIMATES, AND MOST USE CPI OR SOME TYPE OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR ANNUAL CHANGES. THE REGIONAL PEER REVIEW ALSO FOUND THAT AMONG THESE CITIES SURVEYED, DALLAS WAS THE ONLY ENTITY IDENTIFIED WITH A LIVING WAGE POLICY SPECIFICALLY FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS. NEXT SLIDE.

SO NOW WE WILL MOVE ON. MOVE ON TO THE PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU. SO WE'LL START THIS IS THE REVIEW PROCESS.

SO WE'LL START I KNOW BACK ON JUNE 12TH, THE WE INITIALLY HELD A BRIEFING WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE POLICY.

AND THAT WAS OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION. THEN ON JUNE 23RD, STAFF INTRODUCED ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

THEN ON AUGUST 3RD, STAFF RETURNED. WE WERE FINED.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND WE PROVIDED AN IMPACT ANALYSIS.

AND HERE, MOST RECENTLY, ON AUGUST 24TH WE INTRODUCED OR CONDUCTED ITS FINAL REVIEW TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

AND THEN ON AUGUST 25TH, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WAS DEFERRED.

AND FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING WAS REQUESTED. SO TODAY WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO STAFF CONSIDERED FOUR BROAD APPROACHES.

THE FIRST WAS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY AND CONTINUE USING THE MIT LIVING WAGE.

THE SECOND WAS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING POLICY THROUGH TARGETED AMENDMENTS.

THE THIRD WAS TO REPLACE THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WITH PROCUREMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA.

AND THEN THE LAST WAS TO RESCIND THE POLICY AND ALLOW CONTRACTOR WAGES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MARKET.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THESE ARE FIVE KEY THEMES THAT I WOULD SAY CONSISTENTLY CAME UP OR EMERGED DURING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS.

FIRST, MEMBERS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING A WAGE STANDARD FOR CONTRACT WORKERS.

SECOND, WE HAVE THAT THERE WAS INTEREST IN LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS.

WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT IN CONSIDERATION. AND THEN THIRD, COMMITTEE MEMBERS RAISED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTRACTOR WAGES AND CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. FOURTH, WE HAVE AN EMPHASIS ON THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY DURING PERIODS OF BUDGET CONSTRAINT.

AND THEN THE FINAL THEME THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, ANY REVISIONS TO THE METHODOLOGY NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE SOLUTION FOR EMPLOYEES, FOR VENDORS, FOR STAFF AND FOR COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND HOW THE WAGE REQUIREMENT WAS DETERMINED.

SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT I'M ABOUT TO REVIEW ARE INTENDED TO RESPOND COLLECTIVELY TO THESE FIVE THEMES.

NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO FIRST WE HAVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

IT IS TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT THRESHOLD FROM 100,000 TO GREATER THAN 300,000.

THIS INTENT IS TO FOCUS ON THE LARGER CONTRACTS, PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SMALLER PROCUREMENTS, AND THEN REDUCE THE BARRIERS FOR SMALLER BUSINESSES.

[02:15:01]

SO MOST OF OUR EXISTING PORTFOLIO WOULD STILL REMAIN UNDER OR STILL REMAIN UNDER THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT NARROWS THE APPLICABILITY TO LABOR INTENSIVE SERVICE CONTRACTS.

SO SERVICES SUCH AS YOUR JANITORIAL, LANDSCAPING TEMP LABOR WOULD CONTINUE TO REMAIN UNDER THE POLICY CONTRACTS WHERE LABOR IS INCIDENTAL TO THE DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE EQUIPMENT, TESTING SERVICES.

THESE TYPES OF CONTRACTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE THE POLICY WOULD BECOME MORE TARGETED TOWARDS CONTRACTS.

WHERE WAGES ARE MEANINGFUL ARE A MEANINGFUL COMPONENT TO THE SERVICE DELIVERY.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE THIRD AMENDMENT, WE STANDARDIZE THE LIVING WAGE CONTRACT TERMS AT THREE YEARS FOR THE BASE TERM WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS. SO THIS WOULD CREATE DEFINED POINTS AT WHICH THE WAGE REQUIREMENT CAN BE REASSESSED RATHER THAN ALLOWING FOR VERY LONG CONTRACTS AND PERIODS OF TIME, BUT WITHOUT THE WAGES BEING EVALUATED.

SO IT ALSO PROVIDES THE CITY WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO THE CHANGING LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ESTABLISHES A FORMAL POLICY REVIEW FOR, OR AT LEAST EVERY FOUR, AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS.

SO TODAY THERE IS NO DEFINED REVIEW IN PLACE.

A REGULAR REVIEW WOULD GIVE COUNCIL AND STAFF A STRUCTURED OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE POLICY IS MEETING ITS OBJECTIVES, AND TO CONSIDER ANY CHANGES AT THAT TIME. NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLICY AMENDMENT.

SO STAFF PROPOSED ESTABLISHING THE APPLICABLE WAGE FLOOR AS THE LESSER OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE BLS WAGE FOR AN APPLICABLE OCCUPATION. SO UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, EVERY COVERED OCCUPATION RECEIVES THE SAME MIT BASED MINIMUM.

UNDER THE PROPOSED APPROACH, THE CITY WOULD INTRODUCE AN OCCUPATION SPECIFIC MARKET COMPONENT.

SO THE INTENT IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT COMPENSATION VARIES BY OCCUPATION, SKILL LEVEL AND LABOR DEMAND FOR OCCUPATIONS WHERE THE MARKET WAGE IS BELOW MIT LIVING WAGE, THE BLS AMOUNT WOULD ESTABLISH THE FLOOR WAGE AND INSTANCES WHERE THE BLS WAGE EXCEEDS THE MIT.

THEN THE MIT WOULD REMAIN THE REQUIRED FLOOR WAGE UNDER THIS METHODOLOGY.

STAFF BELIEVES THIS APPROACH MAY REDUCE WAGE COMPRESSION IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS TABLE COMPARES HOW THE PROPOSED LESSER OF METHODOLOGY WOULD LOOK VERSUS THE ALTERNATIVE GREATER OF APPROACH. THE GREATER OF APPROACH WOULD OPERATE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

IT WOULD PRESERVE THE MIT LIVING WAGE AS THE MINIMUM IN LOWER WAGE OCCUPATIONS, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER WAGES FOR HIGHER PAID OCCUPATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE LOOK AT ELECTRICIANS USING THE GREATER OF APPROACH, THE HOURLY RATE WOULD BE $30.38 PER HOUR. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE LESSER OF APPROACH BECAUSE IT INTRODUCES MARKET ALIGNMENT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE REQUIRED WAGE TO EXCEED THE MIT LIVING WAGE.

NEXT SLIDE. AND THESE ARE THE FOUR BENEFITS THAT STAFF IDENTIFIED WITH GOING WITH THE HYBRID APPROACH.

FIRST, WE HAVE BUDGET SUSTAINABILITY. WE HAVE THE LABOR MARKET ALIGNMENT BECAUSE THE POLICY WOULD INCORPORATE OCCUPATION SPECIFIC MARKET WAGES RATHER THAN JUST USING ONE UNIVERSAL RATE. WE HAVE JOB JOB SPECIFIC APPROACH THAT ACKNOWLEDGES DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS, SKILL LEVEL AND DEMAND. AND THEN FINALLY, THE CITY WOULD CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AN ESTABLISHED CONTRACTOR WAGE REQUIREMENT, RATHER THAN SIMPLY RETURNING THE DECISION ON THE WAGES TO THE MARKET.

SO THE PROPOSAL MODIFIES THE WAGE STANDARD. AND GOING WITH THE HYBRID APPROACH, I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT.

IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE ONE OR THE OTHER. IT INCLUDES BOTH.

NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. AND I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO DIRECTOR ORTIZ TO GO OVER OUR POTENTIAL POLICY IMPACTS.

THANK YOU. THIS SLIDE HERE WILL SHOW YOU THE ANALYSIS THAT WE COMPLETED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH A ILLUSTRATIVE OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF THE POLICY. WE CANNOT SHARE ACTUAL SAVINGS OR YOU KNOW, CHANGES IN

[02:20:06]

AND SO THIS ANALYSIS LOOKED AT THE 42 CONTRACTS THAT WE'VE AWARDED SINCE OCTOBER 2025 THROUGH JUNE 2026 UNDER OUR CURRENT MIT LIVING WAGE. ALL 42 CONTRACTS WERE COVERED.

IF WE HAD A HYBRID POLICY IN PLACE, WE WOULD HAVE HAD 14 CONTRACTS THAT WOULD HAVE REMAINED COVERED UNDER THE PROPOSED LIVING WAGE POLICY. SO ALTHOUGH THERE ARE FEWER CONTRACTS, IT STILL REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 66% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE THAT WAS AWARDED.

SO THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPOSED CRITERIA WOULD CONCENTRATE THE POLICY ON LARGER LABOR INTENSIVE CONTRACTS, WHERE WAGES ARE A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY.

NEXT SLIDE. UNDER THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY, THE APPLICABLE WAGE FLOOR WOULD BE EITHER THE LOWER OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE BLS MEDIAN OCCUPATIONAL WAGE FOR THE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING PERFORMED.

SO FOR OCCUPATIONS SUCH AS JANITORIAL SERVICES, PEST MANAGEMENT, SECURITY AND GROUND MAINTENANCE, THE BLS MARKET WAGE IS LOWER AND WOULD ESTABLISH THE FLOOR FOR THOSE CONTRACTS.

FOR PAINTING IT, STAFFING, ELECTRICAL SERVICES AND LANE STRIPING, THE MIT RATE IS LOWER AND WOULD BE THE.

WE WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY THE MIT LIVING WAGE.

THIS APPROACH MAINTAINS A CITY ESTABLISHED WAGE REQUIREMENT WHILE RECOGNIZING THE DIFFERENTIAL IN WAGES ACROSS OCCUPATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS ANALYSIS ESTIMATES THAT THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CONTRACT COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED WAGE FOR THESE 14 CONTRACTS WOULD BE 100. IF WE ASSUME 100% OF THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL IS PASSED THROUGH TO THE CITY, WOULD BE $22 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS, OR ABOUT 6% OF THE COMBINED CONTRACT VALUE.

THE ACTUAL IMPACT, AGAIN WOULD DEPEND ON THE STAFFING LEVELS, THE HOURS WORKED OVERHEAD COMPETITION AND CONTRACTOR PRICING.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS FINAL SECTION SUMMARIZES THE POLICY DECISIONS BEFORE COUNCIL.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DEVELOPED FOR THE PRIOR DISCUSSIONS AND THE NEXT STEPS FOLLOWING COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INVOLVE SEVERAL POLICY CHOICES FOR COUNCIL.

THESE INCLUDE WHETHER THE WAGE FLOOR SHOULD BE BASED ON THE COST OF LIVING, OCCUPATIONAL MARKET WAGES OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.

WHETHER COVERAGE SHOULD REMAIN BROAD OR FOCUSED ON LABOR INTENSIVE SERVICES, AND WHAT CONTRACT VALUE THRESHOLDS SHOULD APPLY.

ULTIMATELY, THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WILL DETERMINE HOW THE POLICY BALANCES CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION, CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, SERVICE COSTS, AND LONG TERM BUDGET SUSTAINABILITY.

NEXT SLIDE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD MAKE FIVE PRINCIPAL CHANGES.

THEY WOULD INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD FROM 100 TO 300,000.

FOCUS THE POLICY ON LABOR INTENSIVE GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.

STANDARDIZE OUR CONTRACT TERMS TO THREE YEAR BASE WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS, REQUIRE A POLICY REVIEW AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS, AND ESTABLISH THE WAGE FLOOR AT THE LOWER OF THE MIT LIVING WAGE OR THE APPLICABLE BLS MEDIAN OCCUPATIONAL WAGE.

TOGETHER, THESE CHANGES ARE INTRODUCED TO PROVIDE A MORE TARGETED AND REGULARLY REVIEWED FRAMEWORK FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

NEXT SLIDE. SO, BASED ON COUNCIL'S FEEDBACK TODAY, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE SCHEDULED FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

IF APPROVED, PROCUREMENT SERVICES WILL INCORPORATE THE REVISED REQUIREMENTS INTO APPLICABLE SOLICITATIONS ISSUED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. EXISTING CONTRACTS WOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE WAGE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED WHEN THEY WERE SOLICITED AND THIS WOULD ONLY BE APPLIED TO CONTRACTS MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

AND AT THIS TIME, WE'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. WE'RE OUR BRIEFINGS FOR TODAY. BRIEFING AYE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. JUST ORGANIZING MY NOTES HERE.

SO I WANT TO FOR JUST JUST TO MAKE THIS EASIER, I WANT TO JUST USE SLIDE 35 BECAUSE JUST TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THESE, IF WE CAN PULL THAT UP. GREAT. AND I WANT TO START BY THANKING MY COLLEAGUES WHO PUT WORK INTO THIS COMPLICATED POLICY ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

BOTH COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SEVERAL NON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMBERS, COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CAME AS WELL.

[02:25:02]

COMPLICATED POLICIES LIKE THIS ARE NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT I DO THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE CHANGES, WHICH ARE INDICATED ON THIS SLIDE, ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL.

THANKS TO THE HARD WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AND CITY STAFF.

Y'ALL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I REALLY DON'T.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANY PUSHBACK ON THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS ON THIS.

I FELT LIKE THE COMMITTEE WAS PRETTY UNITED ON IT.

AND WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION AT AGENDA, WE WERE PRETTY UNITED ON THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS AS WELL.

BUT IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER DISAGREES WITH THAT, PLEASE BRING IT UP.

THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING THIS TODAY. THE FIFTH ITEM IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE ADVOCATES, AND WE'VE HEARD FROM A COUPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS ESPECIALLY THAT, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES HERE.

AND I THINK IT'S WORTH TALKING ABOUT. I DO WANT TO ALSO SAY I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DUTY TO ALL WORKERS IN THIS CITY.

BUT WE HAVE A DUTY, FIRST AND FOREMOST TO OUR CITY EMPLOYEES AND TO ENSURING THAT THEY ARE GETTING PAID A FAIR SHARE FOR THEIR WORK.

OUR CITY CONTRACTORS DESERVE FAIR PAY AS WELL, AND I HOPE THIS POLICY CAN HELP US ACHIEVE CLOSER PARITY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AND OUR CONTRACTORS. SO A FEW QUESTIONS. WHO INITIATED THIS PROCESS TO BEGIN WITH OF RECONSIDERING THE LIVING WAGE POLICY? THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. I'M JACK GARLAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

STAFF BROUGHT IT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION.

WE SAW SEVERAL CONTRACTS OVER THE PAST YEAR WHERE WE HAD SIGNIFICANT INCREASES FROM WHEN THE CONTRACTS WAS PREVIOUSLY SOLICITED. AND SO WHEN THEY WERE SOLICITED, IT HAD SIGNIFICANT INCREASES.

IT HAD BUDGET PRESSURES. AND WE WANTED THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THAT AND THEN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON YOUR PRIORITY, HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT IT WAS STAFF BROUGHT FORWARD.

STAFF BROUGHT IT FORWARD BASED BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT INCONSISTENCIES YOU'VE EXPERIENCED JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

RIGHT. AND THEN ALSO THE BUDGET SAVINGS OF $22 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS.

WOULD ANY CITY I HAD THIS QUESTION FROM AN EMPLOYEE.

WOULD ANY CITY EMPLOYEES SALARIES BE IMPACTED IN THIS? NO. SO THE LIVING WAGE APPLIES TO CONTRACTS CONTRACT WORKERS.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CITY EMPLOYEES. AND SO THAT'S DETERMINED THROUGH COMPENSATION STUDY THROUGH HR.

GOT IT. UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, ARE THERE SOME JOBS IN WHICH CONTRACTORS ARE GETTING PAID MORE THAN OUR OWN CITY EMPLOYEES? YES. SO WE DID SEE ON ONE OF THESE PAGES, WE SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY FOR SANITATION.

I THINK LET ME SEE WHAT SLIDE THAT WAS. BUT WE DO HAVE INSTANCES WHERE OUR LIVING WAGE IS HIGHER THAN SLIDE 15.

SO FOR JANITORIAL AND CLEANERS THE CITY ENTRY WAGE IS 2150.

THE CURRENT LIVING WAGE IS 2306 FOR PAINTERS, PEST CONTROL SECURITY GUARDS, LANDSCAPING, OUR ENTRY WAGE IS LOWER THAN THE LIVING WAGE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WOULD THE PROPOSED POLICY BY STAFF REDUCE THE GAP BETWEEN THE CITY CONTRACTORS AND CITY EMPLOYEES? IF THE HYBRID MODEL IS APPROVED, IT WOULD BRING IT TO MARKET WAGES SO IT WOULD ALIGN OUR CONTRACT COST FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS WITH THE MARKET RATHER THAN THE LIVING WAGE, AND THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT SEPARATION.

OKAY. AND FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, WE DO HAVE THE FLOOR OF 2150.

AND THEN AS WE ARE LOOKING AT POSITIONS INDIVIDUALLY, IT'S BASED ON MARKET.

AND BUT WE HAVE A FLOOR. IF MARKET IS BELOW THAT FLOOR, WE STAY AT THE.

WHAT IF WE SET THE FLOOR FOR CONTRACTORS AT THE FLOOR THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEES ARE AT? SO THERE'S NOBODY GOING BELOW THAT CERTAIN LEVEL THAT THE CITY.

THAT WAY THERE'S PARITY. WHAT WOULD BE THE. WOULD THE SAVINGS STILL BE SIGNIFICANT? SO WE LOOKED AT THAT. AND IF WE WENT TO 2150 THAT IS A SMALLER REDUCTION IN THE WAGE COMPARISON. AND SO IT WOULD BE 2.9 MILLION OR 1% OVER FIVE YEARS.

OKAY. AS OPPOSED TO THE 22. GOT IT. SO THERE IS STILL SOME SAVINGS.

IF WE CREATED THAT, THAT LEVEL OF PARITY THERE.

IT'S JUST NOT AS MUCH. OKAY. I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THOSE NUMBERS OUT HERE SO THAT WE'RE, WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. CAN IT PROCEDURALLY,

[02:30:08]

GOT IT. THAT'S IT FOR THIS ROUND. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS? CATHY STEWART, CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. I SIT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH US.

YOU'VE MADE MULTIPLE YOU'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS ON THIS.

BUT I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE DIFFICULTY OF THE DECISION.

IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T GET IT. IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WAGE COMPRESSION OR THE SAVINGS THAT WE COULD SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS IF WE WERE TO.

TO CHANGE THIS EQUATION AND HOW WE. WE COME UP WITH THIS NUMBER.

BUT IT IS HARD ALSO TO THINK OF THE IMPACT ON A FAMILY.

IF THE WAGE GOES FROM 2103 AN HOUR TO 16 TO 18.

I MEAN, I COULD, WE COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT YOUR CHART.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG, THAT'S A POTENTIALLY A BIG CHANGE FOR OUR FAMILY.

AND AND SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT. I MEAN, WHAT WE DO SO MUCH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL DAY IS, IS BALANCING NEEDS. AND SO I I WOULD, WELL, WE COULD, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF LOOKING AT MOVING IT TO THE, THE CITY.

WAGE THAT'S 21, WHAT WAS IT, 51, 20, 50, 2150.

SO IT WOULD GO FROM. 2306 SO IT WOULD COME DOWN TO.

2150 SO. AND WE'D HAVE ABOUT A $3 MILLION SAVINGS VERSUS THE 22 MILLION.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF EITHER THAT OR POTENTIALLY JUST FREEZING AT 2306 FOR A YEAR.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO THINK IN YOUR HEADS, OH GOSH, NOW SHE'S GOING TO KICK THE CAN DOWN FOR FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

BUT THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION TO GET. RIGHT.

I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS. AND I THINK THERE IS WISDOM IN, IN GIVING US TIME AND, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT GETS WORKED OUT.

IF WE CAN HAVE YOU KNOW, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF FINANCE OR SOMETHING.

SIT DOWN AND JUST BEGIN TO ASK SOME OF THE HARD QUESTIONS AND WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE GUARDRAILS WE COULD PUT IN PLACE.

I MEAN, PERHAPS WE SAY IT'S IT'S THE LESSER OF THE TWO AS LONG AS THE RATE DOESN'T DROP X PERCENT.

SO YOU'RE NOT TAKING A FAMILY DOWN $5 AN HOUR, YOU KNOW, IN PAY.

YES. JACK, I'M JUST CHATTING HERE. YOU CAN. I DO WANT TO COMMENT, IF I MAY.

YES, PLEASE. SO WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT ANY EXISTING CONTRACT BE REDUCED.

ABSOLUTELY. SO WHATEVER PAY IS WAS INCLUDED IN THE SOLICITATION WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE WAGES PAID THROUGHOUT THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT.

YES. IT WOULD ONLY BE WHEN IT CAME BACK UP FOR RENEWAL.

THE ONE THAT'S 1675 AN HOUR, THE JANITORIAL CONTRACT WAS ACTUALLY JUST AWARDED IN JUNE, I BELIEVE.

AND WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED AT THE $23. AND SO THE BLS RATE, OF COURSE, WOULD CHANGE IN FIVE YEARS WHEN IT WAS RENEWED.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL BE AT THIS POINT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING TO LOWER AN EXISTING PAY.

EXACTLY, EXACTLY. BUT THAT'S ON THE HORIZON. AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE NUMBERS WILL BE.

IT PROBABLY WON'T BE 23 AND 16. IT WILL BE. WELL, I GUESS IT'S STILL 20.

NO. WELL, HOW DOES THAT WORK WHEN THE CONTRACT GOES.

WHEN DOES THAT DOES IT. IT'S THE ADJUSTED. CURRENTLY IT'S THE MIT LIVING WAGE RATE AT THE TIME THAT THE SOLICITATION IS ISSUED.

SO IF THE CONTRACT EXPIRES IN THREE YEARS IT'S WHATEVER THE MIT WAGE IS AT THAT TIME.

BUT THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES THAT IT'S STILL THE MIT WAGE.

YES. WE'RE NOT RELYING ON POLICY, BUT ON THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT.

CORRECT. SO THEY, THE PROPOSERS, NEED TO KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION WHAT THAT RATE WILL BE THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T ADJUST IT. AND YOU SEE CONTRACTS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, 1121 AND THEN CONTRACTS THAT HAVE.

2306 AND 15 12 AND SO THEY, IT STAYS FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING DOING A THREE YEAR WITH TWO YEAR RENEWAL SO THAT THOSE GAPS OR THOSE, YOU KNOW, TIME FRAMES ARE SHORTER AND MORE PREDICTABLE.

[02:35:07]

AND I WOULD JUST HATE FOR THERE TO BE A DRAMATIC DROP IN THEIR, IN THEIR WAGES BECAUSE OUR POLICY HAD CHANGED.

AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO DEFINE OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS DRAMATIC.

I MEAN, WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS A DROP THAT WOULD MAKE SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE THAT, THAT THIS BODY IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT IMPACT ON THAT FAMILY? SO ANYWAY I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT A WHILE.

AND I, I STILL STRUGGLE AND I THINK AGAIN, THAT SPEAKS TO WHY WE KEEP ASKING YOU ALL TO COME BACK BECAUSE WE'RE HOPING, WELL, MAYBE THE NEXT TIME THEY'LL SAY IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE'LL BE LIKE, OH, THAT'S FINE, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. BUT IT'S JUST DIFFICULT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON. SORRY FOR THE RAMBLE. NEVER A RAMBLE.

CHAIRWOMAN STEWART. NEVER. IT'S NEVER A RAMBLE. CHAIRMAN GRACEY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I REMEMBER WHEN WE IMPLEMENTED THIS BECAUSE I WORKED ON IT, BUT INITIALLY WE HAD WE STRUGGLED WITH ENSURING THAT CONTRACTORS WOULD ACTUALLY PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES.

AND I REMEMBER WE SET UP A WHOLE THING WHERE IF THEY CALLED, WE HAD TO GO AND MAKE SURE AND HOLD THE CONTRACTORS ACCOUNTABLE.

HAS THAT BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THEN? DO WE KNOW HAVE WE BEEN REALLY STILL MAKING SURE THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE ACTUALLY GETTING PAID WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PAID? SO IT IS COMPLAINT DRIVEN AT THIS POINT. AND WE HAVE SINCE I CAME ON IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, WE'VE HAD TWO CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE TERMINATED AND ONE THAT'S UPCOMING ON YOUR AGENDA BECAUSE WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT.

AND WHEN WE INVESTIGATED, THE LIVING WAGE WAS NOT BEING APPLIED.

AND SO WE'VE HAD TO TERMINATE. SO WE HAVE HAD AT LEAST THREE INSTANCES SINCE I WAS APPOINTED.

AND THEN SO THAT HOW MANY COMPLAINTS ARE THOSE? THE ONLY THREE THAT YOU KNOW OF SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE HAD ANY THAT WERE WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

CORRECT. YEAH. SO THREE. OKAY. BECAUSE HOW DO WE ENSURE.

AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS NEXT ONE. IF WE GO THIS WAY AND I CAN APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING AND THE COMPROMISE AND TRYING TO GET IT BALANCED AND ALL OF THAT. BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS WHAT THE GENTLEMAN PRAYED FOR THIS MORNING.

AND THIS IS A REAL IMPACT. AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, DANG NEAR IMMEDIATE CHANGE WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY KIND OF BARELY, YOU KNOW, GETTING BY. HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT CONTRACTORS DON'T STOP IMMEDIATELY? IS IT STILL GOING TO BE A COMPLAINT BASED? WELL WE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PAYROLL DOCUMENTATION AND RESPOND TO ANY AUDITS THAT WE HAVE. SO WE CAN BE PROACTIVE AND DO THAT RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THREE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE CITY IN OUR DEPARTMENT.

SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF OF STAFFING, BUT WE COULD DO SURVEYS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE AND THEN JUST KEEP ON THE COMPLAINT BASED SYSTEM. IF WE RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL ONES, BUT THEY WILL BE TIED TO THE NUMBER THAT'S IN THEIR CONTRACT.

AND IF WE IF WE MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION, WHAT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION GOES OUT? WHAT DOES THAT COMMUNICATION LOOK LIKE? SO WE WILL, WE SET OUT THE LIVING WAGE.

EVERY YEAR WE DO DOCUMENTATION, WE PUT IT ON OUR INTERNET PAGE.

WE ALSO IN THE SOLICITATION ITSELF HAVE THE LIVING WAGE POLICY AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WILL MEET THAT POLICY.

FOR CURRENT CONTRACTORS, WE COULD ALWAYS SEND OUT A NOTIFICATION THAT SAYS THAT THIS DOES NOT IMPACT YOUR CONTRACT.

THIS IS MOVING FORWARD. AND SO THAT THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN RECORDS AND THE PAY, THE LIVING WAGE THAT'S IN THEIR CONTRACT NOW.

AND LAST QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ASK THIS ONE, BUT HOW DOES HOW DOES THIS PROPOSED CHANGE COMPARE TO THE POVERTY RATE IN DALLAS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE IS THE PAY DOES THIS PAY EVEN THE 23 WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, IS THAT ABOVE?

[02:40:04]

AND IF WE CHANGE IT, WILL IT SEND THEM BELOW IT JUST IT'S A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT NOW, BUT THOSE ARE SOMETHING I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE AGAIN, WHILE THE INTENTION BEHIND ALL OF THIS WAS TO MAKE IT WHAT WE CALL IT, A LIVABLE WAGE SO PEOPLE COULD SURVIVE, I UNDERSTAND, I SUPPOSE, WHILE WE'RE CHANGING IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT FOR THE SAKE OF PUTTING PEOPLE BELOW THE POVERTY.

THE RATE AGAIN BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO END UP PEOPLE ARE ALREADY LOSING HOMES, THEY'RE ALREADY STRUGGLING.

AND THESE CHANGES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, COULD POTENTIALLY COST US DOWN THE ROAD THROUGH AGAIN, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF WE DON'T IN OUR, IN THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT RECOMMEND JUST ENDING THE LIVING WAGE POLICY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BRING IT BACK TO THE 725 FEDERAL WAGE. AND WE THOUGHT THAT THIS HYBRID MODEL WOULD HELP ADDRESS NOT JUST THE BUDGET SAVINGS, BUT THE MARKET WAGE, THE COMPRESSION, AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BASED IT ON, ON OCCUPATION RATHER THAN A FLAT RATE.

BUT I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION ON THE POVERTY RATE.

AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THIS COMPROMISE. I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. WELL, I DO KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT, BUT I CAN APPRECIATE THE COMPROMISE THERE.

BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WITH EVERY DECISION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A CAUSE AND EFFECT. AND IS THAT CAUSE OR EFFECT GOING TO COST US MORE DOWN THE ROAD. FOR THE SAKE OF TRYING TO SAVE 22 MILLION.

BUT THEN WE END UP HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, PUT MORE IN HOUSING OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE BECAUSE OF THIS IMPACT THERE.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THOSE THAT ANSWER DOWN THE ROAD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. ROFF, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE IDEA OF, OF THE RENEWAL THE CONTRACTS BEING THREE YEARS WITH TWO RENEWALS, THE RENEWAL WOULD BE AT A RESET OF THE OF THE HYBRID MODEL.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROJECTING? SO RIGHT NOW OUR RENEWAL TERMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR AGREEMENT. BUT WE COULD, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD ADJUST THROUGH A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

SO IF THE NUMBER, IF THE RENEWAL NUMBER WENT WAY HIGH AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT.

IS THERE A IS THERE A WAY TO GET OUT OF THERE? IS IT A WHO GETS TO CHOOSE? YEAH. THE RENEWAL, THE RENEWALS ARE OPTIONS. AND SO IT'S UP TO THE CITY'S DISCRETION IF THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT THE RENEWAL.

YES. IT'S OUR OPTION TO ACCEPT A RENEWAL OR NOT BASED ON WHAT TO OFFER A RENEWAL.

THE VENDOR ACCEPTS IT OR NOT. OKAY. AND HOW DO OTHER PEER CITIES WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR ANALYSIS, HOW WHAT BASIS DID THEY USE AS THE BEGINNING NUMBER FOR CPI ADJUSTMENTS? SO I DO NOT HAVE KIND OF WHERE IT'S THEY'RE STARTED NUMBER.

I JUST HAVE THAT THEY ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BY CPI IN OUR REGION.

THERE'S NO OTHER CITY OR ENTITY DART DFW AIRPORT THAT HAVE A LIVING WAGE.

SO THERE'S NO SPECIFIC WAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR CONTRACTS.

MOST CITIES HAVE OR MOST ALL CITIES HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PREVAILING WAGE BECAUSE THAT IS REQUIRED.

BUT FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS, WE ARE THE ONLY ONE IN THIS REGION THAT HAS A LIVING WAGE POLICY AND BASICALLY THE SERVICE CONTRACTS IN OTHER CITIES.

WHAT WAS IT GENERALLY BELOW OURS? SO THEY'RE SINCE THEY'RE YES.

SO OF OTHER LARGE CITIES. YES. WE ARE AT THE MIT RATE WHERE THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT BELOW THE MIT RANGE.

THEY STARTED WITH ONE SPECIFIC RATE AND THEN ADJUSTED ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION.

AND SO IF YOU DID A COMPARISON ON THAT, WHERE WOULD WE BE? ACTUALLY, I THINK I HAD DONE THAT IF I CAN FIND IT.

IF WE DID A CPI ADJUSTMENT, CURRENTLY THE CPI ADJUSTMENT FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS 1%, AND THE MIT LIVING WAGE INCREASE IS 1%. SO FOR THIS YEAR, REALLY THERE WASN'T A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADJUSTING THE RATE FOR CPI AND ADJUSTING IT FOR THE MIT LIVING WAGE. BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

THE CPI, WHEN MORE THAN 1% IT WAS 3% OR SOMETHING, WASN'T IT? WE CAN GO BACK AND CONFIRM. OKAY. AGAIN, WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS, IS WHAT WOULD BE THE LESS EXPENSIVE PROCESS, BUT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR AN INFLATION HEDGE FOR, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING WORKING.

[02:45:01]

I THINK THAT IN THE FACT THAT CONTRACTS ARE, ARE GETTING BIGGER, THE COSTS ARE GETTING BIGGER.

AND I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE COULD TO BE ABLE TO BID ON THESE CONTRACTS.

AND I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IF THERE WAS ANY YOU KNOW, INTEREST IN IT BY THE BODY TO CONSIDER RAISING THAT CONTRACT LIMIT TO $1 MILLION. HOW MANY TEMPORARY LABORERS DO WE HAVE IN THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THE TRUCKS, ROUGHLY? AND I DON'T NEED THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT ROUGHLY THE LAST NUMBER THAT I BELIEVE IS 240.

240. OKAY. AND SO EACH OF THOSE FOLKS ARE MAKING $50,000.

AS ROUGHLY AS A MINIMUM WAGE AS THE BASED ON THE MIT WAGE.

YES. AND SO IF IT'S A 50,000 TIMES 200, THAT'S, THAT'S $10 MILLION. IS THAT RIGHT? I'M SORRY. LET ME MAKE THE COUNT.

MULTIPLY BY TWO. 11. IT'S 12. $12,500,000. THAT'S.

THAT'S THE SORT OF HOW MUCH THEY'RE GETTING AS SALARIES.

IF WE REDUCE THAT AMOUNT JUST IN THAT ONE LITTLE DEPARTMENT SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN TO FROM $23 TO $15, EITHER, THERE COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SAVINGS JUST IN THAT ONE LINE ITEM.

AND THOSE ARE DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING PASSED ON TO US BY A CONTRACTOR.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE FORCING SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO HIRE PEOPLE TO PASS THAT ON TO US.

AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT, THAT I THINK THERE'S, I'M ADVOCATING FOR A MODIFIED LOWER SITUATION THAN THE MIT WAGE.

AND I ALSO AM ADVOCATING FOR A HIGHER CAP ON THE CONTRACT SERVICES.

MAYBE THAT WILL HELP US SAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY AND YET STILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICES AND GET MORE COMPETITIVE BIDS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. CAN YOU REMIND ME, WAS IT THREE TIMES THAT THIS WAS HEARD IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE? IT WAS FOUR FOUR. AND THEN WE HEARD IT LAST MONTH WITH THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

AND THEN WE HAVE TODAY. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM.

CORRECT. SO THAT'S SEVEN TIMES THIS BODY WILL CONSIDER THIS POLICY.

AND IT'S JUST TRULY A SHAME THAT OUR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ISN'T HERE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A GREAT EFFICIENCY CONVERSATION.

I'M GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, BUT I WATCHED IT AND YOU KNOW, I AM SOMETIMES CRITICAL OF THE BRIEFINGS WE GET OR INFORMATION.

I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A SUPERIOR JOB IN PROVIDING VERY DETAILED INFORMATION, LOGICAL, COMPLETE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THE COMMENT MADE THAT THIS MIGHT BE A DIFFICULT DECISION.

I DON'T THINK IT IS. I THINK IT'S THAT SOME PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT'S A POLITICAL DECISION INSTEAD OF A FINANCIAL DECISION.

AND THAT IS THAT'S DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO DO THE POLITICS PART.

WE'RE ACTUALLY HERE TO SERVE AND TAKE CARE OF OUR TAXPAYERS.

AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A SAVINGS OF OVER $20 MILLION.

IF THIS CHANGE GOT MADE, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY OVERTAXING OUR RESIDENTS TO OVERPAY CERTAIN VENDORS. THE MARKET IS THE FORCE THAT SHOULD DRIVE THE WAGE AND TO PURPOSELY OVERPAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN TOO MUCH TAX DOLLARS FROM PEOPLE IS JUST WRONG.

AND SO I THINK YOU'VE LAID OUT A WAY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.

$20 MILLION SAVINGS WHEN WE ARE CUTTING BACK A LIBRARY DAY.

WHAT ARE Y'ALL THINKING, $20 MILLION SAVINGS? GUESS HOW MUCH THE INCREMENT THAT WE'RE ADDING FOR PENSION FOR POLICE FIRE THIS YEAR IS $20 MILLION.

I MEAN, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT MONEY. AND TO SIT THERE AND AND WAX POETIC THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT

[02:50:08]

SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR PROPOSAL. THANK YOU FOR THINKING IT THROUGH.

THANK YOU FOR FINDING THE SAVINGS THAT WE NEED, AND WE NEED YOU TO KEEP DOING THAT.

WE NEED YOU TO KEEP LOOKING FOR WAYS THAT WE CAN SAVE SUBSTANTIAL DOLLARS.

NOT 5000 HERE, BUT 22 MILLION. WE HAVE TO DO BUSINESS DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT IS WHY OUR BUDGET IS SO OUT OF CONTROL.

CITY MANAGER, THANK YOU. AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE POLITICAL FORCES THAT MADE THIS DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO BRING IT FORWARD.

AND SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THAT'S ALL. MISS GAVINO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I DIDN'T SEE THE SLIDE IN THIS PRESENTATION.

BUT IN THE PROPOSED POLICY COVERAGE, IN THE LAST PRESENTATION WE GOT, IT HAD COVERED CATEGORIES AND THEN EXCLUSIONS.

WHY WERE THOSE ITEMS EXCLUDED? WERE THOSE POSITIONS EXCLUDED? SO WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT LABOR INTENSIVE CONTRACTS.

SO CONTRACTS THAT THE PRIMARY THE PRIMARY COST DRIVER IS LABOR.

AGAIN JANITORIAL SECURITY GUARDS THE SANITATION TEMPORARY LABORERS.

THOSE ARE CONTRACTS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE COST IS THE LABOR.

THERE'S OTHER CONTRACTS WHERE LABOR IS IS PART OF, BUT INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT DELIVERY.

SO LIKE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE SUBSCRIPTIONS, INSPECTIONS, THOSE THINGS ARE CONSIDERED GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS.

SO THE, THE POLICY APPLIES CURRENTLY, BUT WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON THOSE LABOR INTENSIVE CONTRACTS.

AND FOR THE ONES THE POSITIONS THAT WERE NOT LABOR INTENSIVE.

DO WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR PAY? ARE THEY AT MARKET RATE ABOVE? ARE WE SEEING ANY. SO SO CURRENTLY ALL THOSE CONTRACTS HAVE TO PAY THE LIVING WAGE RATE AT LEAST THE LIVING WAGE RATE OF OF AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION.

SO THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO IT. NOW WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED, THEY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE GOING FORWARD FOR LIKE SOFTWARE INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT, THOSE TYPES OF POSITIONS.

OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PROPOSAL ON THE FLOOR ABOUT THE CITY WAGE.

SO I WAS A CITY WORKER AND WHEN I CAME TO WORK, I GOT PAID 60,000.

MY MASTER'S DEGREE DID NOT COUNT TOWARDS MY POSITION.

SO I WAS, I GUESS NOT QUALIFIED, SO TO SPEAK.

SOMEBODY GOT HIRED LIKE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER ME AND I THINK GOT PAID 15,000, 20,000 MORE THAN I DID.

AND SO HOW DO WE DO WAGE ADJUSTMENTS HERE AT THE CITY? THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK NINA ARIAS, OUR HR DIRECTOR, TO COME OUT AND HELP AS WELL.

BUT WE ALSO DO TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY, WHICH IS BASED ON MARKET.

AND SO THE HR DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE COMPENSATION STAFF WHO DO MARKET STUDIES TO DETERMINE WHAT POSITIONS SHOULD PAY IN COMPARISON TO MARKET. AND SO THAT HAS BEEN OUR PRACTICE. AND NINA, DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO KIND OF OUR APPROACH ON TOTAL COMP? THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. NINA ARIAS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES.

THERE, THERE IS A GLOBAL APPROACH, AS JACK MENTIONED.

AND THERE'S ALSO AN INDIVIDUAL APPROACH WHEN WE COMPARE INTERNALLY THE INTERNAL EQUITY OR HOW WE COMPARE A PERSON TO A PARTICULAR JOB DESCRIPTION. SO SOMETIMES THE JOB DESCRIPTION IS QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT AS SUBSTANTIAL AS THE PERSON'S BACKGROUND AND RESUME. AND IN THOSE CASES, WE FOLLOW THE GUIDELINE OF ADHERING TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION.

AND SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A SITUATION IN THIS CASE.

SO BOTH WE DO AN EXTERNAL MARKET AND AN INTERNAL EQUITY APPROACH TO SETTING SALARIES, ALL BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF HOW JOBS BUILD ON EACH OTHER.

AND HOW LONG DOES THE THE STUDY USUALLY TAKE? YES. BUDGET PERMITTING. AND DEPENDING ON HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS

[02:55:04]

YEAH. I DO RECALL THAT THAT HAPPENED FOR MY DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS DEFINITELY A, A BIG DIFFERENCE.

IT MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, I THINK FOR MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED WITH ME.

AND SO THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS YOU KNOW, I, I HAD FORGOTTEN I WAS HERE WHEN WE MADE THIS MIT LIVING WAGE CHANGE BUT HAD FORGOTTEN HOW IT HAD COME ABOUT. AND SO I FOUND THIS ARTICLE BY SCOTT GOLDSTEIN AND IT ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT MAYOR RAWLINGS.

MAYOR MIKE RAWLINGS SAYS CITY HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR GARBAGE WORKERS.

AND IN THIS ARTICLE, IT SAYS IT WORRIES ME WHEN TIMES GET GOOD THAT WE USE OUTSOURCING JUST TO PAY PEOPLE LESS MONEY, RAWLINGS SAID. THERE'S A POLICY ISSUE HERE. RAWLINGS NOTED THAT MOST OF THOSE CONTRACT WORKERS ARE MINORITIES, AND HE INVOKED WEDNESDAY'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY ON THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON.

PEOPLE ARE VERY CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THIS ECONOMIC JUSTICE IS ALL ABOUT, AND IT'S LOOKING IT'S STARING US RIGHT IN THE FACE, ROWLING SAID. WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THESE FOLKS A LIVING WAGE AND A CAREER THAT THEY CAN GROW IN THIS CITY.

AND AT THE TIME, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING THE SANITATION WORKER TO, TO MAKE THEM CITY EMPLOYEES.

AND IT WOULD COST $3.2 MILLION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GETTING RICH ON A LIVING WAGE.

IF YOU WORK FOR A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR GOVERNMENT WAGES ASSISTANCE.

AND THE LIVING WAGE IS REALLY ABOUT THE VALUES OF US AS A CITY.

AND SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE HAVING THE DISCUSSION AND THAT HOPEFULLY WE DO PUT IN A POLICY TO BRING IT UP AGAIN, BECAUSE WE NEED TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND DETERMINE WHAT WHAT IT IS WE BELIEVE AS A CITY AND HOW WE TREAT OUR WORKERS.

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

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW HARD LIFE IS RIGHT NOW FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THE COST OF HOUSING, GROCERIES, TRANSPORTATION, CHILD CARE, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING HAS GONE UP.

AND THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY WHO ARE WORKING FULL TIME, DOING EVERYTHING WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO AND STILL STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

I APPRECIATE STAFF TRYING TO ADDRESS LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT COST, WAGE COMPRESSION, ETC., BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL THAT IN TRYING TO IMPROVE THE POLICY, WE DON'T FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE WHAT A LIVING WAGE MEANS.

THE REASON WE HAVE A LIVING WAGE POLICY IS NOT SIMPLY TO REPLICATE WHATEVER THE LABOR MARKET CURRENTLY PAYS.

IT'S IT'S TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM STANDARD THAT REFLECTS WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS SOMEONE WORKING FULL TIME TO MEET BASIC NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT PAYING PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE IS ALSO PART OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

PUBLIC SAFETY ISN'T JUST ABOUT HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS WE HAVE OR HOW MUCH WE SPEND ON ENFORCEMENT.

IT'S ALSO ABOUT WHETHER WORKING FAMILIES HAVE THE ECONOMIC STABILITY TO PAY THEIR RENT, PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND REMAIN STABLE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

WHEN WE INVEST IN THAT KIND OF STABILITY, WE'RE ALSO INVESTING IN SAFER, STRONGER NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME WITH A METHODOLOGY THAT SAYS WHEN THE MARKET WAGE IS BELOW THE LIVING WAGE, WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT A LOWER NUMBER. IN SOME OF THE EXAMPLES BEFORE US, THAT MEANS REDUCTIONS OF 18, 20, EVEN 27%. THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS FOR THE WORKERS AFFECTED.

I'M OPEN MINDED ABOUT CONTINUING TO PURSUE A MORE BALANCED APPROACH THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT OUR BUDGET REALITIES.

BUT I'D ALSO LIKE US TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MAINTAINING THE MIT LIVING WAGE AS THE FLOOR, RATHER THAN.

RATHER THAN ALLOWING OCCUPATIONAL MARKET WAGES TO TAKE WORKERS BELOW IT.

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

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I COULD MAKE IT SHORT AND JUST SAY DITTO BECAUSE THAT WAS ARTICULATED VERY WELL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE THAT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU ALL TO BRING IT BACK.

AND WHAT I HAD A CONCERN WITH IS THAT IT'S NO LONGER A LIVING WAGE POLICY.

IF WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE COST OF LIVING, THAT COMPONENT ALONE HAS TO BE A DRIVING FORCE ON IF WE ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH IN MAKING A POLICY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN NOT ONLY WORK AND MAKE A COMPETITIVE WAGE, BUT THAT THAT COMPETITIVE WAGE IS WILL, WILL SUFFICE FOR THEM TO PAY THEIR BILLS TO LIVE WITHIN OUR CITY.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR THOSE WORDS.

I AM ALSO OPEN TO FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND. I DO THINK THAT THAT THERE COULD BE SOME VALUE IN WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART

[03:00:05]

THAT IS TRULY A LIVING WAGE POLICY STILL IN THE END.

AND WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO, TO, TO CONSIDER PASSING, I BELIEVE NEGATES THE ENTIRE INTENT OF THAT POLICY.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE PRESENTATION AGAIN. AND THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. SO I'M LOOKING AND THANK YOU ALL FOR THE WORK, BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

AND EACH TIME YOU COME BEFORE US, YOU'VE DUG A LITTLE DEEPER AND WORKED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SO I THINK WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ON PAGE 35 THESE AMENDMENTS.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET RESOLUTION ON THE. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY, AND THAT IS DETERMINING IF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE WHAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW POLICY THAT IS VOTED ON.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO THE LIVING WAGE POLICY AS IT STANDS, SAYS THAT THE LIVING WAGE WILL BE INCLUDED IN ALL COMPETITIVELY BID GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS AND THAT IT WILL BE UPDATED OCTOBER 1ST OF EVERY YEAR.

AND SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE EXTENT OF THE POLICY.

SO IF WE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE POLICY, THEN ON OCTOBER 1ST, WE WOULD INCLUDE A 2331 COST IN OUR POLICY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE ON THE FIRST FOUR AMENDMENTS THERE IS MAJORITY OR CONSENSUS.

IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE COMING DOWN TO IS BETWEEN MIT LIVING WAGE AND THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE CHART ON PAGE 31, WHERE IF ONE WAS TO LOOK AT, I MEAN, THERE ARE POSITIONS WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIT LIVING WAGE AND WHAT THE MARKET WAGE IS, IS $6.30. AND SO AS MUCH AS WE PROVIDE RESOURCES, PARTNER WITH OTHERS TO PROVIDE RESOURCES, WE ARE ALSO STEWARDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

AND OUR MARKET IS OUR MARKET. I SEE THESE I DO QUESTION ON SECURITY GUARDS A BIT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME JOBS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT HAVE HIGH LABOR. YOU'RE OUTSIDE, YOU'RE IN A RISKY POSITION.

I SEE THAT AS POTENTIALLY A RISKY POSITION. SO, I MEAN, I ASSUME YOU'RE PULLING THIS FROM THE BLS AND AND ARRIVING AT THAT.

BUT I'M THAT IS ONE THAT THAT GIVES ME PAUSE.

BUT I MEAN, WE'RE NOT A FAMILY FOUNDATION. THIS IS TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

WE ARE A MUNICIPALITY. AND WHILE I, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY HEAR THE CALL AND HAVE SUPPORTED IT IN THE PAST, YOU'VE, YOU'VE CALLED OUT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS SOME TREMENDOUS INCREASES THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN TO GET US THE CITY OF DALLAS MORE COMPETITIVE, BUT ALSO TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME WAGES WERE, WERE NOT APPROPRIATE.

AND SO I ALSO THINK WE'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE WE'VE GOT A LOT TO PAY FOR.

AND OUR RESIDENTS ARE ARE DEMANDING SERVICES, AND WE'VE GOT TO SQUEEZE ON US WHERE WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS NUMBER. AND WHEN I SEE AREAS WHERE IT IS OVER $6 MORE THAN THE MARKET THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE JUST AT A TIME PERIOD WHERE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM TODAY AND GOING FORWARD, THAT WE SHOULD DO THIS AND CONTINUALLY REVISIT IT.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF WE GROW OUR TAX BASE AND ARE ABLE TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE BACK INTO THAT ZONE, BUT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR.

THAT IS OUR COVENANT WITH THE TAXPAYER. I MEAN, OUR PAYING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, PAYING THEIR PENSION, PAVING OUR STREETS. SO I WOULD SUPPORT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, I HEAR YOU ON THE CONTRACT LEVEL, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE CLOSE TO A DECISION THAT COULD MOVE THIS FORWARD.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD COME BACK AND ANALYZE IN THE FUTURE.

AND I APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU DID ON PAGE 30 ABOUT HOW MANY CONTRACTS THIS COULD EVEN AFFECT.

BUT I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A WHOLE LOT.

AND WE'VE GOT TO BE NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THE OUTSIDE MARKET, BUT WHAT'S GOING ON INTERNALLY WITH OUR OWN BALANCE SHEET.

SO I WOULD SUPPORT MOVING THESE FORWARD. ALL OF THEM.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT TO RESOLVE HERE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU MAYOR. ON PAGE 24, CAN WE TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THIS HELPS LOCALLY SMALL OWNED BUSINESSES?

[03:05:08]

SOME OF THOSE SMALLER BUSINESSES HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WHEN THEY'RE HAVING TO MANAGE THAT COST.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST TO GET CLARITY CURRENT CONTRACTS, IF SOMEONE'S GETTING PAID $27 OR YOU NAME THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, THEY'LL. WILL THEY CONTINUE GETTING PAID THAT AMOUNT UNTIL THE CONTRACT EXPIRES? OR CAN THEY GO IN TOMORROW AND SAY, WELL, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET PAID $21? NO. SO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE CONTRACT WAGE RATE AT THE TIME.

AND SO THAT IS THE FLOOR, AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF 2205 OR 2306 WHATEVER THE WAGE FLOOR IS, THAT'S THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THEY HAVE TO PAY AND THAT'S MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT. SO UNTIL WE GO OUT AND SOLICIT FOR A CONTRACT THAT REPLACES AN EXISTING LIVING WAGE CONTRACT, THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE TO PAY. OKAY. AND NOW WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES, ARE THEY DALLAS RESIDENTS? ARE THEY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITIES OF NORTH TEXAS? ARE THEY COMING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN TO PERFORM THESE JOBS? SO ARE THEY BOUND TO BE A RESIDENT OF DALLAS? SO THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IS DALLAS RESIDENTS AND ANYONE WORKING ON A DALLAS CONTRACT.

SO IF THEY ARE WORKING ON CITY PROPERTY ON A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEN THEY HAVE TO MAKE THAT WAGE NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE.

GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, CITY MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS BRIEFING ITEM? BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LUNCH BREAK AND COME BACK BEFORE WE PICK UP THE NEXT ONE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I JUST WANTED TO THANK CITY COUNCIL FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS A, A VERY IT'S A CONVERSATION THAT HAS A LOT OF VARIATIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT.

AND I THINK WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVEN BEFORE TODAY, THAT IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD NOT ANSWERED, THAT WE COULD DO SO AND THAT WE COULD GET A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE.

AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A COMBINATION OF THINGS, INCLUDING A POTENTIAL FREEZE OF THE CURRENT RATE, AND I THINK WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO BRING THIS ITEM FOR A COUNCIL VOTE ON THE NINTH, WHICH WILL BE NEXT WEDNESDAY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BASED ON TODAY'S CONVERSATION, THAT WE ARE STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH BRINGING THE ITEM FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION, AND THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT, THE WAY WE'VE DEVELOPED THE BUDGET THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST, WHATEVER DECISION THAT YOU MAKE AS PART OF THE BUDGET WITH THIS PARTICULAR POLICY WILL IMPACT US GOING FORWARD. SO WE REALLY DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE.

SO SEPTEMBER 9TH, THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WILL BE ON YOUR AGENDA.

OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE. THEN GO AHEAD.

YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN THERE. WHO'S TRYING? WHO WANTS TO TALK? CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A COMMENT? GOING TO ASK A QUESTION? I'D LOVE TO ASK A QUESTION.

SO THAT'S THAT HAS BEEN MY QUESTION IS, DOES THIS DECISION IMPACT OUR 2627 BUDGET OR DOES IT IMPACT THE NEXT BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP SAYING NEXT YEAR. AND I REALIZE THAT WE ALL MAY DEFINE NEXT YEAR DIFFERENTLY.

IT IMPACTS THE BUDGET GOING FORWARD. THE. 2627 YES.

SO IF THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN, THE LIVING WAGE WILL INCREASE TO 2331 YES, GOING FORWARD OCTOBER 1ST.

BUT OUR BUDGET IS COUNTING. THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS COUNTING ON THAT SAVINGS.

YES, WE HAVE FACTORED THAT SAVINGS INTO THIS BUDGET BASED ON US COMING TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE DIRECTION THAT WE WERE HEADED, WE FACTORED IT IN. SO WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE NEXT WEEK IF YOU DECIDE TO FREEZE AT THE CURRENT RATE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ADJUSTMENT THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO MAKE TO THE BUDGET.

OR IF YOU GO TO A DIFFERENT RATE THAN WHAT WE'VE BUILT THE BUDGET AROUND, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GO IN AND LOOK AT THAT IMPACT.

SO EITHER WAY, NEXT WEDNESDAY, WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE COUNCIL IS HEADED BECAUSE ON OCTOBER 1ST IT EITHER AUTOMATICALLY INCREASES OR WE'RE AT A FREEZE.

[03:10:08]

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL KNEW THAT WHEN THE POSTING HAPPENS TOMORROW, THIS ITEM WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THEN.

ALL RIGHT. THEN. WE'LL STAY AT RECESS UNTIL 130.

THANK YOU. ENJOY YOUR LUNCH. ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS 145.

146 NOW. MADAM SECRETARY, AND WE'RE BACK IN IN OUR COUNCIL BRIEFING FOR TODAY, SO I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. TODAY WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT YOUR BRIEFING ITEM NUMBER B, WHICH IS THE DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

WE HAVE PREPARED A DOCUMENT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THIS YEAR THAT WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE SEVEN BUDGET REVISIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, PLUS AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL THUS FAR, IF SUPPORTED TODAY BY A MAJORITY OF THE BODY, THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED TODAY WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE BUDGET AND INCLUDED IN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST READING OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET ON NEXT WEDNESDAY, WE HAVE OUR DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR JANETTE WEEDEN.

WE HAVE OTHER MEMBERS OF HER TEAM AND OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JACQUES ARLAND.

THEY WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE REVISIONS AGAIN.

WE PUT TOGETHER A POWERPOINT JUST TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, PROVIDE YOU WITH MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

WE TALK, WE WILL DISCUSS USES OF FUNDS, AND THEN MR. MAYOR WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU TO CONSIDER THESE THROUGH A STRAW POLL EXERCISE.

AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JANETTE TO BEGIN THE BUDGET DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU, MISS TOLBERT, AND GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO SLIDE NUMBER TWO OF THE PRESENTATION.

AND THIS IS JUST A REMINDER, THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET TO CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 11TH.

THAT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CITY CHARTER.

THE TOTAL BUDGET IS 5.66 BILLION. AND I ALWAYS LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THAT INCLUDES ALL FUNDS, THE GENERAL FUND, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, CAPITAL DEBT AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE BUDGET IS 2 BILLION.

THE BUDGET THAT WAS RECOMMENDED IS BALANCED. HEARD SOME COMMENTS THIS MORNING.

SO I DO WANT TO SAY THAT IT IS BALANCED WITH NO DEFICIT.

MOVING ON TO SLIDE THREE. ON AUGUST 26TH LAST WEEK, WE DISCUSSED REVISIONS TO THE BUDGET.

THIS IS A NEW PROCESS, A NEW APPROACH, AND IT'S REALLY IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO INITIAL FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND THE GOAL WAS TO ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR BUDGET AMENDMENTS.

TODAY WE WILL REVIEW AND CONSIDER BOTH THE CITY MANAGER REVISIONS, AS WELL AS BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND SO AS I MENTIONED LAST WEEK, WE REVIEWED THE CITY MANAGER'S REVISIONS.

WE LISTENED TO YOUR FEEDBACK AND WE HAVE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, SO I'LL WALK THROUGH THOSE ON THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.

SO STARTING HERE ON SLIDE FIVE WITH REVISION NUMBER ONE BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK, THERE WAS OR THERE IS A DESIRE TO TO DO MORE IN ANIMAL SERVICES. LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED ANIMAL CRUELTY.

AND BASED ON ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WE HAD, WE FEEL LIKE WE RESOLVED THOSE CONCERNS.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A DESIRE STILL A DESIRE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS AROUND SPAY AND NEUTER SERVICES.

AND SO THIS, THIS MODIFICATION ADDRESSES THE REQUEST FOR $175 FOR SPAY AND NEUTER SERVICES.

AFTER YOUR FEEDBACK LAST WEEK ON THE SOURCE OF FUNDS.

WE ARE NOW PROPOSING TO USE FUNDS BEING RETURNED TO THE CITY FROM A CIVIL PENALTY JUDGMENT.

AND SO WE WERE RECENTLY MADE AWARE OF A CIVIL PENALTY RELATED TO TRY OR TRY CITY HOSPITAL.

THAT AWARD WAS 300,000, AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO USE A PORTION OF THAT JUDGMENT FOR SPAY NEUTER SERVICES.

MOVING ON TO SLIDE NUMBER TWO. I'M SORRY. SLIDE SIX.

REVISION NUMBER TWO. THERE IS NO CHANGE FROM LAST WEEK.

COUNCIL MEMBERS DID VOICE CONCERN FOR LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TWO FUNDING SOURCES THAT WOULD MAKE THAT SUPPORT POSSIBLE.

THERE'S $75,000 IN THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR A NON UNIFORM EXECUTIVE POSITION THAT IS PARTIALLY FUNDED.

[03:15:07]

SO AGAIN THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED REVISION NUMBER TWO ON SLIDE SEVEN.

THERE IS A MODIFICATION TO REVISION NUMBER THREE.

THIS REVISION WOULD SUPPORT ADULT LEARNING SERVICES.

IT WOULD MAINTAIN LOW BARRIER ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH VOLUNTEER COORDINATION WITH LIMITED STAFF SUPPORT.

WHILE WE TRANSITION THIS PROGRAM TO A PARTNER LED SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL.

THE FUNDING WILL HELP ENSURE CONTINUED THE CONTINUATION OF SERVICES DURING THE TRANSITION.

THIS REVISION WOULD BE ONE TIME FUNDED FOR 12 MONTHS, AND THEN THE FUNDING FOR THIS THIS SUPPORT AND THIS TRANSITION WOULD COME FROM THE TRI CITY HOSPITAL JUDGMENT. AS I MENTIONED ON SLIDE FIVE, THAT JUDGMENT IS 300,000.

AND WE ARE USING THE BALANCE FROM THAT JUDGMENT TO SUPPORT ADULT ADULT LEARNING SERVICES.

AGAIN, THIS IS ONE TIME THE JUDGMENT IS ONE TIME AND THE USE IS ONE TIME ON SLIDE EIGHT, BASED ON ONGOING CONVERSATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY POOLS, WE HAVE MADE A REVISION TO THIS ADJUSTMENT.

THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO CONTINUE COMMUNITY POOLS AT PLEASANT OAKS.

HOWEVER, BASED ON FEEDBACK AND A DESIRE TO EXTEND ALL THE COMMUNITY POOLS THAT WERE SCHEDULED TO CLOSE, THIS IS A ONE TIME REQUEST TO EXTEND THE POOLS FOR ANOTHER SEASON USING ONE TIME FUNDS FROM A MULTI-YEAR FUND.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS SLIDE, THE SECOND BULLET THAT IF A POOL FAILS DURING THE SEASON DUE TO MAINTENANCE ISSUES, THE POOL MAY BE CLOSED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 2020 SEASON.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A REVISION BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION LAST WEEK AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM MORE THAN ONE COUNCIL MEMBER.

MOVING ON TO SLIDE NINE WHICH IS REVISION FIVE.

THIS WAS MODIFIED LAST WEEK AS WELL. SO LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED THE 3% REDUCTION TO PARK AND RECREATION PARTNER AND STIPENDS AND THE IMPACT OF THAT REDUCTION ON BOTH THE TRINITY RIVER AUDUBON AND THE CEDAR RIDGE PRESERVE.

WE DISCUSSED A REDUCTION IN PARK SECURITY PROGRAM AND THE IMPACTS OF THAT SOURCE OF FUNDS.

AND SO IN CONVERSATION WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO FUND THIS ALMOST $10,000 EXPENSE FROM WITHIN THEIR EXISTING DEPARTMENTAL ALLOCATION ON SLIDE TEN.

THIS IS REVISION NUMBER SIX. NO CHANGE. THIS WAS A CONSIDERATION TO RESTORE A REDUCTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, AS DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, REMAIN THE SAME.

REALLOCATING THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDING FROM THE ZEN CITY CONTRACT.

ELIMINATING YOUTH COMMISSION TRAVEL AND THEN REDUCTION IN FUNDING IN THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OFFICE.

AND THEN ON SLIDE NUMBER 11, THERE WAS A MODIFICATION TO REVISION NUMBER SEVEN.

LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED EVICTION ADVOCACY AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT INTERNAL LEGAL SERVICES IS IS NOT A CORE CITY FUNCTION OR GENERAL FUND FUNCTION, AND THAT A PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IS PROBABLY MORE SUSTAINABLE.

AFTER OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF REVIEWED EXISTING CONTRACTS AND FUNDING, AND WITH THE TRUE UP OF THE OUTSIDE SERVICES CONTRACT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED AT 1.3 MILLION, WE ARE ABLE TO RESTORE EVICTION ADVOCACY AT 500,000.

THIS WILL ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN SUPPORT WHILE WORKING TO SHIFT SERVICE DELIVERY TO A PARTNER THAT'S BEST POSITIONED TO ADMINISTER THESE SERVICES. SO AGAIN, SLIDES FIVE THROUGH 11 PROVIDE A RECAP OF THE CITY MANAGER REVISIONS TO THE BUDGET BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK.

ON THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WE WILL REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY CITY COUNCIL.

SO THIS REALLY IS OUR HISTORICAL PRACTICE. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MUST BE BALANCED WITH THE SOURCE OF FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE USE. SO BETWEEN FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND YESTERDAY, WE RECEIVED FOUR AMENDMENTS.

IN THE PAST, WE WOULD SHARE THAT TEMPLATE AND START THE VOTING PROCESS, AND WE WILL DO THAT HERE SHORTLY.

HOWEVER, NEW THIS YEAR, BASED ON CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK, WE HAVE PROVIDED A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED.

[03:20:08]

SO ON SLIDE 13, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WAS PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

THIS AMENDMENT IMPACTS ONE OF OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS SANITATION SERVICES.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE THE EXPENSE AND THE SERVICE OF THE AI CAMERA INITIATIVE.

THE USE OF FUNDS WOULD SEND THE SAVINGS BACK TO THE RATEPAYERS.

IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT $0.20 PER MONTH. THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.

WE HAVE IN THE PAST DISCUSSED THE BENEFITS OF THE AI CAMERA TECHNOLOGY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON BOTH EFFICIENCY AND COST.

AND SO WE'VE MENTIONED THAT THE CAMERAS PROVIDE A, YOU KNOW, CITY WIDE VISIBILITY INTO BULK AND BRUSHY OR BRUSH AND BULKY SET OUTS, AS WELL AS ALLOW COURTESY NOTICE NOTICES FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.

AND SO WE ARE PROVIDING THIS RESPONSE JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE CONTEXT AROUND THE SOURCE OF FUNDS.

ON SLIDE 414, AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THIS AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. THIS AMENDMENT REALLOCATES. FUNDING FROM ELECTIONS.

THE FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET INCLUDES 1.6 MILLION FOR ELECTIONS.

THE USE OF FUNDS ARE LISTED HERE. EVICTION ADVOCACY 723,000.

ADULT LEARNING AT 267,000, AND THEN ALMOST $10,000 FOR BOTH CEDAR RIDGE NATURE PRESERVE AND TRINITY RIVER AUDUBON.

AND SO MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, THE 1.6 MILLION THAT WAS BUDGETED IN ELECTIONS WAS FUNDING INCLUDED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2020 ELECTION. YOU ALL KNOW THAT THOSE COSTS ARE INCURRED IN FISCAL YEAR 27.

AND THEN WE'VE ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS AND ADDED FUNDING FOR A POTENTIAL MAY 2027 ELECTION.

AND SO COMBINED, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS ABOUT 800,000.

AND THEN THE MAY 2027 ELECTION CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 850,000 ON UP, DEPENDING ON THE POLLING LOCATIONS.

AND SO MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, WE'RE JUST KIND OF PROVIDING YOU WITH THE PLANNED USE OF FUNDS FOR THE SOURCES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED THERE.

MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE ON SLIDE 15 THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

THIS AMENDMENT ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR THE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS AND ALLOCATES THAT FUNDING TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS FOR SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING, OR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES FOR 1 MILLION, AND THEN EVICTION ADVOCACY FOR 500,000.

THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE. FLOCK CAMERAS DELIVER REAL TIME ALERTS FOR VEHICLES LINKED TO WANTED PERSONS, STOLEN PROPERTY OR VIOLENT CRIME. FOR YOUR AWARENESS DPD IS SCHEDULED TO BRIEF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY.

AND SO THEIR GOAL IS TO TALK ABOUT THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PLATFORM, DISCUSS HOW DATA IS ACCESSED AND SHARED, DISCUSS METRICS AND THEIR INTERNAL AUDITING PROCESSES. IN THAT BRIEFING, THEY WILL ALSO SHARE SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF FLOCK AND HOW IT SUPPORTS THEM IN SOLVING CASES.

ON SLIDE 16, THE FINAL AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.

THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY CO-SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEST AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

AND THIS AMENDMENT IDENTIFIES THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AS THE ELIMINATION OF PRESIDENT'S DAY.

IT ALSO IDENTIFIES A REDUCTION IN FUNDING AND DPD AND ALSO REDUCES PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THREE DEPARTMENTS, THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FACILITIES AND HR.

AND IT REALLOCATES THOSE FUNDING OR REALLOCATES THAT FUNDING TO RESTORE LIBRARY STAFFING AND HOURS.

JUST A FEW COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

PRESIDENT'S DAY IS A FEDERAL HOLIDAY. IT'S RECOGNIZED BY OTHER LARGE CITIES.

THE FURNITURE BUDGET FOR DPD WAS PLANNED TO BE USED FOR FURNITURE REPLACEMENT AND JACK EVANS AND AT THE SUBSTATIONS.

AND JUST FOR YOUR AWARENESS, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE OFFICES ALSO INCLUDES REQUIRED CERTIFICATION AND SOME FUNDING FOR LICENSING.

[03:25:05]

SO AFTER I'M DONE TALKING YOU WILL CONVENE AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO CONSIDER STRAW VOTES ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS THE CITY MANAGER REVISIONS.

YOU WILL ALSO APPROVE THE BUDGET ON FIRST READING, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER THREE ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

THE REMAINING STEPS ARE LISTED HERE. ON THE 16TH, WE WILL HOLD A TAX RATE PUBLIC HEARING, ADOPT THE BUDGET ON FINAL READING, APPROVE THE TAX RATE AND OTHER BUDGET RELATED ITEMS. AND THEN OUR NEW FISCAL YEAR BEGINS ON OCTOBER 1ST.

AND SO THIS CONCLUDES OUR PREPARED REMARKS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

CHAIRMAN WEST, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ON THE PRESENTATION.

ARE WE. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER AND HER TEAM FOR LISTENING TO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS FOR THE POOLS ADULT LEARNING SERVICES AT THE LIBRARIES.

I LEGISLATIVE HELP ANIMAL SERVICES. THESE WERE ALL ISSUES THAT COULD HAVE KEPT US HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT TONIGHT.

AND I HOPE THAT WE'RE GOING TO AVOID THAT BY, BY YOU LISTENING TO US AND HEARING US AND HEARING WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR RESIDENTS.

AND GREAT JOB, OF COURSE, TO THE TO THE TEAM UP AT THE TABLE TODAY.

ALL RIGHT, A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I WON'T PROLONG THIS MORE THAN I HAVE TO.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I WILL BE, WHEN WE GET INTO THE COMMITTEE OF A WHOLE WITHDRAWING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.

I DO WANT TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER THAT THE SANITATION AI CAMERAS WILL BE HEARD AT THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE FOR OUR DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY. BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS. COUNCILMEMBER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

AND MY ANSWER IS YES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT DURING THIS SUMMER, THAT WE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE INSTALLATION AND THAT WE WANTED TO START SHARING MORE BROADLY THE TYPE OF DATA THAT WE'RE RECEIVING, INCLUDING THE DASHBOARD.

I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE DASHBOARD, SO WE DEFINITELY WANT TO COME BACK AND SHARE HOW THAT DATA IS BEING UTILIZED.

TALK ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE'RE APPROACHING OUR DEPLOYMENT SUPPORTING CODE COMPLIANCE AND AT THE SAME TIME USING THE CAMERAS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR EFFICIENCIES ACROSS THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT.

SO WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND GIVE AN UPDATE.

SINCE WE'VE NOW COMPLETED THE INSTALLATION OF ALL THE CAMERAS ON THE SANITATION TRUCKS.

SO WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE.

I THINK YOU SAID THE CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR. THAT WAS MY REQUEST. I CLOSE BY DECEMBER 27TH.

DEFINITELY. WE CAN DO THAT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND COLLEAGUES, I HAVE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS IN A MEMO, SO I WON'T PROLONG THAT HERE.

BUT YOU GUYS SHOULD ALL HAVE IT NOW JUST ON THE UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CAMERAS.

IF THE CITY EVER DID CHOOSE TO ISSUE CITATIONS ON, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM WILL BE IN SOUTH DALLAS.

AND JUST BECAUSE OF WHERE THE HEAT MAPS ARE, ARE LOCATING THE VIOLATIONS, POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS.

SO THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN OF POTENTIAL MISUSE.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN OUR CURRENT DEPARTMENTS WOULD DO THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S A RISK WE NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT TO OUR TAXPAYERS.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP DURING THIS PART OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSION IS I'M STILL NOT 100% UNDERSTANDING HOW THE ADULT LEARNING IN THE LIBRARIES IS GOING TO BE TRANSITIONED OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? AND JUST VERY SIMPLE TERMS SO I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO MY ADVOCATES? YES. I'D LIKE TO START AND I'LL HAVE THE TEAM COME OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT IF I STATE SOMETHING INCORRECTLY, THAT THEY WILL CORRECT ME. SO THE WAY WE'VE ENVISIONED IT, WE LISTEN TO THE COUNCIL.

LAST WEEK WE ALSO RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM FROM MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ AS WELL AS FROM COUNCILWOMAN WILLIS.

AND THE ONE THING THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE HAVE A FULLY BAKED TRANSITION PLAN IN PLACE AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO INTERRUPTIONS.

AND SO THE WAY WE'VE APPROACHED THIS THROUGH WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS, AND WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO COME BACK AND BRING A POTENTIAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WILL ADDRESS THE USE OF THE PARTNERSHIP WITH.

WE TALKED ABOUT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS OF OF GREATER DALLAS.

IT'S ACTUALLY FUNDING THAT THEY RECEIVE. AND THEN DALLAS COLLEGE IS THE SUB RECIPIENT.

WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY BAKE IT. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE VOLUNTEER COMPONENT THAT TRULY DOES ADDRESS HOW OUR VOLUNTEERS ARE SUPPORTING THE PROGRAM WITHIN THE LIBRARY. THAT PIECE WOULD CONTINUE AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE TRANSITION WITH THE PARTNERSHIPS.

[03:30:04]

WE WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE PARTNERSHIP. WE WOULD NEED TO BRING BACK THE WAY THE PARTNERSHIP IS GOING TO WORK TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE, GIVE YOU ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY UNDERSTAND AND ASK QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE WOULD GO INTO IMPLEMENTATION.

SO THIS HAS TRULY GIVEN US A TRANSITION PLAN.

AND I NEED TO ADD. YEAH. DO I NEED TO WINK. WAS THAT GOOD? OKAY. THEY SAID THAT WAS GOOD. YOU WERE EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. FOR MY CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING THIS VERY CLOSELY, WILL THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THERE'S SOME CONCERNS OF HOW WILL THEY BRING THAT UP IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR AS WE GO THROUGH THIS TRANSITION? SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHAIR. WEST SHORE LIBRARY DIRECTOR, I WOULD WELCOME ANY AND ALL FEEDBACK FROM CONSTITUENTS.

MY EMAIL AND PHONE NUMBER ARE AVAILABLE. YOU ARE WELCOME TO GIVE THAT TO THEM.

WHAT WHAT CITY MANAGER TOLBERT'S PROPOSAL WILL ALLOW US TO DO IS HAVE A SOFTER RUNWAY FOR THIS.

WE WILL RETAIN TWO STAFF, THE MANAGER AND THE OFFICE ASSISTANT.

THEY WILL MANAGE THE VOLUNTEER FLEET. I KNOW WE'VE ALL HEARD FROM THE VOLUNTEERS WANTING TO STAY, WANTING TO TEACH, AND THIS WILL ALLOW THAT TO CONTINUE BECAUSE AS I SAID TO YOU LAST WEEK, WITHOUT STAFF, I HAVE NO ONE TO MANAGE THE VOLUNTEERS.

THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THAT AS WELL AS THE TRANSITION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THANK YOU. I SEE MY TIME STILL RUNNING, BUT I AM DONE WITH QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. MISS CADENA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M JUST WONDERING, ON REVISION NUMBER THREE.

AMENDMENT TWO, AN AMENDMENT FOUR, IF THOSE INCLUDE ARCADIA PARK LIBRARY.

THE AMOUNT THAT'S ON THERE UNDER REVISION REVISION NUMBER THREE.

ON SLIDE NUMBER SEVEN. YEAH. SO THREE AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT FOUR.

IN REVISION NUMBER THREE ON SLIDE SEVEN WHICH IS ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS THAT I'VE PRESENTED, THAT 125 SUPPORTS THE ADULT LEARNING PROGRAM OVERALL.

SO WHEREVER THE PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED, IT CONTINUES HAVING THAT VOLUNTEER COORDINATION PIECE WITH STAFF DEDICATED FOR THAT.

SO THAT CONTINUES. THE THE AMENDMENT, I THINK, IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY ASKING WHAT THAT CONTINUES WITH, WHICH IS IN THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION. YES.

THE TWO. EXCUSE ME. I THINK THAT'S ON SLIDE 14.

THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT THE ONE ON SLIDE 14? AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS A COUNCIL MEMBER AMENDMENT.

OKAY. SO THAT 266 908 I WOULD HAVE TO LET STAFF EXPLAIN WHAT THAT AMOUNT IS.

THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER. THAT 266 908 IS FOR ADULT LEARNING.

IT WAS TO RETAIN FIVE STAFF MEMBERS FOR ADULT LEARNING.

OKAY. SO IT IT WOULD INCLUDE IT SIMILAR TO THE OTHER.

OKAY. CORRECT. AND THEN NUMBER 16. THAT'S FOR THE LIBRARY FUNDING STAFFING AND HOURS.

THAT IS DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCADIA PARK. THAT IS FOR THE HOURS REDUCTION.

THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL YEAR.

THE 2.6 MILLION ARCADIA PARK IS A IS A SEPARATE INITIATIVE.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MY COLLEAGUES UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCADIA.

THANK YOU. OKAY. CHAIRMAN GRACEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY, I SUBMITTED AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO ON SLIDE 14.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS ON THIS, BUT I WANTED TO AMEND MY AMENDMENT IF I COULD.

AND IS THAT WHAT WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW? NO, WE HAVEN'T EVEN GONE INTO.

OH THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY PORTION OF THE MEETING WHERE WE'RE LAYING OUT AMENDMENTS.

BUT WE'RE ALMOST THERE. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WE'RE STILL ON THE BRIEFING. ITEM B TECHNICALLY RIGHT NOW, GUYS.

THANK YOU. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS CITY MANAGER YOU OR.

I'M SORRY. JEANETTE. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT RESERVING FUNDS FOR ELECTIONS, AND I CAN SEE WHERE THE NOVEMBER 27TH ELECTION WOULD BE IN THE NEXT FISCAL BUDGET NOT FISCAL YEAR 27, BUT IN FISCAL YEAR 28.

[03:35:01]

GOT IT. OKAY. AND SO WHERE WOULD THE FUNDING COME FROM IF THERE WAS A MAY 2027 ELECTION? SO THE 1.6 MILLION AS I MENTIONED, ASSUMES FUNDING FOR A NOVEMBER 2027 ELECTION WITH THE COST INCURRED IN FISCAL YEAR 27 AND A POTENTIAL MAY 2027 ELECTION.

AND SO COMBINED, THOSE TWO COSTS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 1.6.

OKAY. I THINK THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE AFTER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

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

THANK YOU MAYOR. ON THAT SAME AMENDMENT. WE JUST RECEIVED TODAY AN EMAIL MEMO FROM OUR CITY SECRETARY SAYING THAT THE CITY'S ALLOCATION FOR THE NOVEMBER 27TH ELECTION WOULD BE $2.6 MILLION.

HOW DO WE GET THAT OUT OF A $1.6 MILLION BUDGET? SO IF YOU RECALL OUR EXPERIENCE WITH PRIOR ELECTIONS, ANYTIME THE PROJECTED EXPENSE IS MORE THAN THE BUDGET, YOU DO SEE A GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO APPROVE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELECTION.

SO WHEN WE GO THROUGH BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE THINK THE ELECTION WILL COST.

BUT THEN BASED ON THE NUMBER OF POLLING SITES, WHO ELSE IS ON THE BALLOT, WHATEVER ELSE IS ON THE BALLOT THAT IN SOMEHOW MAY IMPACT THE COST. AND I'LL LET THE CITY SECRETARY OPINE AS WELL.

YEAH. DURING THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING THE BUDGET FOR ELECTIONS, THE ELECTION THAT WE KNOW OF IS THE GENERAL ELECTION.

SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS ARE WHAT WE CONSIDER UNKNOWN ELECTIONS, MEANING WE DON'T IT'S NOT WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A RUNOFF ELECTION OR, OR A SPECIAL ELECTION. BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THERE WILL BE A GENERAL ELECTION.

SO DURING OUR BUDGET, WE BUDGET FOR A GENERAL ELECTION, AND IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIAL ELECTIONS OR RUN OFF ELECTION TYPICALLY OR HISTORICALLY HAS COME FROM CONTINGENCY. WELL, I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

IF YOU'VE ONLY BUDGETED $1.6 MILLION AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CUT THAT IN HALF, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR A $2.6 MILLION GENERAL ELECTION? SO THIS NOVEMBER ELECTION IS CONSIDERED A SPECIAL ELECTION.

AND WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IS SO IT'S CONTINGENCY.

I UNDERSTAND FUNDS ARE BEING PAID OUT OF CONTINGENCY.

THE 1.6 IS DESIGNATED FOR A GENERAL ELECTION, SO WE WON'T HAVE A GENERAL ELECTION.

WHY ARE WE BUDGETING EVEN 1.6 MILLION? IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WILL HAVE A GENERAL ELECTION AND YOU WILL HAVE A NOVEMBER 2027 GENERAL ELECTION.

THAT'S NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. YOU KNOW, WE WILL GO TO COUNCIL.

THE CONTRACT WILL COME TO COUNCIL EITHER IN AUGUST LIKE WE JUST HAD OR SEPTEMBER.

SO IT WILL COME TO COUNCIL BEFORE THE FISCAL YEAR ENDS.

SO THIS 1.6 MILLION IN THE BUDGET IS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR A NOVEMBER 27TH GENERAL ELECTION.

THAT'S CORRECT. WILL THAT BE ENOUGH? YES. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE PROJECTING 2.6 MILLION FOR THIS NOVEMBER'S ELECTION.

NO, THE 2.6 FOR THIS FOR THE 2026. YEAH. IS CONTINGENCY WILL BE IT'S NOT WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

BUT THAT'S AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THIS ELECTION WILL COST.

WHY ARE WE EXPECTING THE GENERAL ELECTION IN 27 TO BE $1 MILLION LESS THAN WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING THE UPCOMING ELECTION TO BE? OKAY. SO DURING THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, WHAT I WAS SAYING, IT'S THE ONLY THING I KNEW OF IS A GENERAL ELECTION.

OKAY. FOR FOR NOVEMBER 27TH, I WASN'T MADE AWARE THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED OVER THE SUMMER.

I WASN'T MADE AWARE UNTIL LATE JULY OR AUGUST OF AYE OF THE NOVEMBER 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION.

SO THEREFORE, THOSE FUNDS WILL HAVE TO COME FROM CONTINGENCY.

AND THEY WERE THEY ON THE AGENDA ITEM. THEY CAME FROM THE CONTINGENCY.

BUT MY QUESTION NOW IS, WILL THE 1.6 MILLION YOU'VE BUDGETED THIS YEAR OR THE ALTERNATIVELY, THE 800,000 THAT WILL BE LEFT AFTER THIS AMENDMENT WERE IT TO BE APPROVED, IS THAT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO FUND THE NOVEMBER

[03:40:02]

NOVEMBER 20TH 2627. NOVEMBER 27TH. ABOUT $800,000 OF THE 1.6.

SO YOU DON'T NEED THE OTHER 800,000 IN YOUR BUDGET FOR.

SO IF I MAY, SAVINGS. YES. SO IF I MAY, AS PART OF THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE DISCUSSION.

I STATED THAT WE HAVE 1.6 BUDGETED. IT INCLUDES FUNDING FOR A NOVEMBER 2027 ELECTION AND A POTENTIAL MAY ELECTION. BUT THE MAY ELECTION WOULD NOT BE A GENERAL ELECTION.

SO WHY ARE WE PUTTING ANYTHING INTO THIS BUDGET FOR THAT? IF THAT HAS CONTINGENCY FUNDS, MAY I MAY I ANSWER THAT? BECAUSE DURING THE BUDGET, THE 1.6 IS FOR A NOVEMBER 27TH GENERAL ELECTION.

YEAH, I GOT THAT. AND YOU'VE SAID THAT'S 800,000.

IT WAS 1.6 DURING THE BUDGET, BUT IT'S BEEN DISCOVERED THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $800,000.

AND THEREFORE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY SINCE THE BUDGET WAS SET AT 1.6.

AND MISS JOHNSON HAS NOW INDICATED THAT THE COST OF THE NOVEMBER 27TH ELECTION IS PROJECTED TO BE 800,000, THAT WE WOULD HAVE $800,000 AVAILABLE FOR A MAY ELECTION IF THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO HAVE A MAY ELECTION, CORRECT? IF YOU CHOOSE TO SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE NOW AND WE STILL HAVE A MAY ELECTION, YOU'LL HAVE TO WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO CONTINGENCY OR FIND OTHER FUNDS FOR IT.

BUT IF NOW WE'RE THINKING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAY ELECTION AND A NOVEMBER ELECTION, WE NEED $1.6 MILLION AT LEAST.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MAY ELECTION, WE'D STILL NEED 800,000, WHICH MEANS THAT A MILLION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

CORRECT. BECAUSE THERE'S 1.6 AND YOU NEED 800 OF THE 1.6 FOR CERTAIN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE REVISIONS NUMBER FOR THE $700,000 THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE PARK'S MULTI-YEAR FUND IS YOU EXPLAINED IT THE LAST TIME WE HAD A MEETING ON THE MULTIYEAR FUNDS IS THAT WERE THOSE FUNDS REALLY DESIGNED TO BE RESERVE FUNDS OR REPAIR AND EMERGENCY FUNDS, OR ARE THEY ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OR, AND OR ARE THEY BEING USED? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE USED FOR, FOR, FOR REOPENING THESE SEVEN OR THESE SIX POOLS? SO I'M GOING TO ASK PARK DEPARTMENT STAFF IF THEY HAD COME FORWARD TO HELP ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUNDS.

ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN JENKINS, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.

AND THE QUESTION IS THE 700 K FROM THE MULTI-YEAR FUND AND RELATED TO THE MEMO I SENT TO THE BOARD COUNCIL.

YEAH, IT WOULD COME FROM THE FROM THE AQUATICS MULTI-YEAR FUND.

IT HAS A FUND BALANCE OF ABOUT A MILLION AND I THINK $30,000 IN IT.

AND SO WE ALLOW THOSE FUNDS TO ACCUMULATE OVER TIME.

THE LAST TIME THAT FUND WAS USED IS WHEN WE WERE BUILDING CRAWFORD AQUATICS FACILITY.

AND WE WERE FALLING SHORT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

SO WE USED THOSE FUNDS FOR THAT. BUT IT IS RESERVED FOR LIKE, IF I GET A SLIDE OR SOMETHING FAIL AT ONE OF THE FACILITIES, WE WILL HAVE THOSE FUNDS TO USE TO REPLACE IT.

SO THERE'S ABOUT $1 MILLION IN THAT FUND. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YEAH, IT'S ABOUT A MILLION, I THINK LIKE $36,000.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE REDUCING THAT FUND SIGNIFICANTLY.

YOU'LL BE DOWN TO ABOUT 300,000. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT FUNDS TYPICALLY BEING USED FOR REPAIRS AND FOR RESERVE, FOR EMERGENCIES, NOT FOR OPERATIONS.

NO, NOT FOR OPERATIONS AT ALL. OKAY. SO IS THIS IS THIS FUNDING FOR THE REOPENING OF THESE SIX POOLS? IS THAT FOR IS THIS MONEY GOING TO OPERATE? I'M TRYING AGAIN.

I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE. IS THIS IS THIS THE PROPER PLACE TO PULL THE MONEY OUT OF? IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. YEAH. THE 700 K WILL BE USED FOR OPERATIONS.

OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT PLACE.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL. OKAY. ANYWAY, THAT'S I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

[03:45:03]

IT'S THE ON NUMBER SEVEN, REVISION SEVEN WHEN IT SAYS TRUE UP THE OUTREACH CONTRACT. WHAT IS TRUING UP MEAN? I MEAN, THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS 1,000,003.

YES, SIR. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT'S 1,000,003, AND THOR IS ON HIS WAY OUT AND BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT.

BUT HAVING RELOOKED THE NEED FOR THAT CONTRACT, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CAN MAKE AVAILABLE A $500,000 FROM THAT CONTRACT.

THOR, YOU WANT TO HELP WITH THAT? GOOD AFTERNOON.

THOR ERIKSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. THE CURRENT CONTRACT WE HAVE TO DO STREET OUTREACH IS JUST SHORT OF 700 000.

AND WHILE WE WORKED ON HEARING COUNCIL PRIORITIES TO INCREASE OUR STREET OUTREACH FOR THE NEXT YEAR, WE CAN CONTINUE LEVEL FUNDING FOR STREET OUTREACH AND USE THE REMAINING 500 000 FOR EVICTION ASSISTANCE.

OKAY. I'M SORRY JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.

SO BASICALLY, WE'VE BEEN SPENDING SEVEN 7 TO 800,000 AND THAT YOU THINK THAT'LL BE ENOUGH TO CONTINUE THAT SAME PROGRAM THIS NEXT YEAR RATHER THAN 1,000,003. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU.

YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN THE EXTRA 500,000 WAS THAT WAS JUST BUDGETED.

BUT IT'S. SO NOW YOU'RE REALLOCATING IT TO THE EVICTION.

YES, SIR. AND IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO COME OUT OF FOR THIS TYPE OF SERVICES.

IS THAT PART OF THE HOUSING INITIATIVE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THAT'S THAT'S A PART OF YOUR DEPARTMENTAL POLICY AND MISSION? YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, MISS. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

SORRY. YOUR INQUIRY. MY INQUIRY IS FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

AMENDMENTS. THEY'RE STILL GOING TO NEED TO BE VOTED ON BY THE COUNCIL.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE. THAT'S CORRECT.

IF THEY'RE. YEAH. IF THEY'RE AMENDMENTS. YEAH.

AND THEN WHO WOULD BE MAKING THAT MOTION? HOW IS THAT.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BUT THEY'D HAVE TO.

THEY'D HAVE TO GET MOVED AND SOMEHOW. GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD. BERT. AND THEN MISS BLACKMON COMING TO YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MR. MAYOR AND JACK CAN CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THE REVISIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE BUDGET THAT ARE ALREADY THE CITY MANAGER'S REVISIONS, I THINK IT'S ONE THROUGH SEVEN. THOSE YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY INCLUDED THAT IN.

OH, THEY HAVE NOT. OKAY. THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

YEAH. WHAT I JUST SAID THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR.

MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH, I WAS I'M PREPARED AS FINANCE CHAIR TO DO THE CITY MANAGER'S AMENDMENTS IF NEEDED.

SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY MANAGER'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET TO WORK HERE PRETTY FAST ON SOMEBODY TO MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS FOR HER THEN. OKAY. GO AHEAD. PAULA BLACKMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO BACK TO THE ELECTION.

AND YOU HAVE 1.6 BUDGETED IS AND YOU SAID A RUNOFF IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND AND GIVEN THAT IT'S AN ODD YEAR, NOVEMBER, THERE'S USUALLY DROP OFFS.

SO DO WE. IS THIS MOSTLY TO FINANCE OR TO PAY FOR BALLOTS, ELECTION JUDGES, FACILITIES, ETC..

AND OF COURSE DURING A LIKE THIS COMING YEAR, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE.

IF YOU'RE SPEAKING OF THIS NOVEMBER 2020, ALL ELECTIONS ARE MOSTLY YOUR LOCATIONS, YOUR PERSONNEL.

SO THAT THAT DRIVES THE COST AND BALLOT PRINTING, RIGHT? THE BALLOT, NOT SO MUCH. I MEAN, IT'S JUST PRINTING.

OKAY. IT'S MOSTLY YOUR LOCATIONS AND YOUR PERSONNEL.

THOSE ARE THE THE HIGHEST COST DRIVERS OF AN ELECTION.

OKAY. AND IF THE MONEY IS NOT BUDGETED, BUT YET WE GET A REASON TO HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION, THEN WE, BY STATE LAW HAVE TO HOLD THAT ELECTION.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? I'M SORRY. SO SAY IF WE GET A PETITION AND WE NEED TO HAVE AN ELECTION, WE, BY STATE LAW, HAVE TO HOLD THAT ELECTION.

WE CAN'T KICK IT TO NOVEMBER OR IS OR CAN WE KICK IF IT IF THE NEXT UNIFORM DATE IS MAY AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, IT'S KICKED INTO NOVEMBER AND NOT IN MAY. RIGHT.

SO IF IT'S AN ELECTION DRIVEN, PETITION DRIVEN THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE REGARDLESS IF IT'S FUNDED OR NOT. REGARDLESS, I COULDN'T IF THE PETITION WAS VALIDATED PRIOR TO A MAY, I COULDN'T HOLD IT TO NOVEMBER. I WOULD HAVE TO PUT IT ON A BALLOT.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ON THE POOLS, I MEAN IS SO IS THIS A ONE TIME FOR THIS YEAR?

[03:50:09]

IS IS THE INTENT TO START CLOSING THEM NEXT YEAR? COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON. YES, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS IS ONE TIME FUNDING FOR THE 2027 SEASON AND THESE. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. AND ARE THESE THE LAST REMAINING POOLS THAT ARE SET TO BE CLOSED? YES, MA'AM. THESE ARE THE LAST REMAINING COMMUNITY POOLS.

AND SO HOW MANY YEARS HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT CLOSING THESE? I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW THE PARK DEPARTMENT TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND YOU CAN'T SEE. BUT JOHN'S ON HIS WAY BACK UP.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON JOHN JENKINS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT CLOSING THE POOLS SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE 2015 AQUATICS MASTER PLAN.

OKAY. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BITE THE BULLET SOMETIME.

AND I MEAN IT'S AND SO ON. SO IN THIS PROCESS, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THESE ARE TAKEN CARE OF WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S AMENDMENTS. BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED BY COUNCIL.

WILL THOSE JUST BE ELIMINATED FROM THAT AMENDMENT? COUNCIL MEMBER. BLACKMON, WILL YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HEARD YOU CORRECTLY. SO IN THE REVISIONS.

YES, MA'AM. VERSUS THE AMENDMENTS, THE CITY MANAGER'S REVISIONS, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE STATED THAT ARE GOING TO BE FINANCED OR BE FUNDED.

BUT THEN THERE'S SOME IN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AMENDMENTS.

WILL THOSE BE STRICKEN OUT OF THAT LINE ITEM OR WILL WE ONLY BE MASSAGED FOR OR HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE HANDLED? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANYTHING THAT I'VE PROPOSED AS A POTENTIAL REVISION THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY GET INCLUDED.

AND THEN YOU WOULD DO YOUR STRAW POLL ON THOSE AS WELL AS PART OF YOUR OVERALL PROCESS.

SO THOSE WOULD GO INTO, WHEN YOU GO INTO A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE READ IN, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED ON INDIVIDUALLY THROUGH THE STRAW POLL.

BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE DUPLICATES.

ARPA FUNDS. YES. AND SO I THINK BASED ON WHAT GETS APPROVED AS FAR AS WHAT GETS APPROVAL WITH THE STRAW VOTE, THEN IT COULD DEFINITELY NEGATE ONE THAT MIGHT DUPLICATE.

AND WE'LL, I THINK THAT'S WHY COUNCIL IS GOING TO TAKE THEM UP INDIVIDUALLY. GOT IT.

AND SO WE WILL BE THAT PART OF THE PROCESS. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. YES MA'AM. AND WE WILL WE WILL BE BALANCING AS WE GO.

OKAY. AND THEN CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY CITY HOLIDAYS OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE? I THINK IT'S A TOTAL OF 1112. IT'S A TOTAL OF 12.

OKAY. AND SO THERE'S BASICALLY ONE EACH MONTH.

CORRECT. TECHNICALLY. AND SO I GUESS I'M SUGGESTING THAT INSTEAD OF SAYING WHICH CITY HOLIDAY IS ELIMINATED, COULD YOU ESSENTIALLY I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS.

COULD YOU GET TO PICK ONE OR DO WE HAVE TO SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO OBSERVE PRESIDENTS DAY AND THAT'S IT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I KNOW THAT IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THEY'RE WHAT THEY CONSIDER A FLOAT, WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT HOLIDAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE OR NOT.

AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH DISCRETIONARY TO WHERE THAT EMPLOYEE COULD DECIDE WHAT THAT DAY IS.

AND SO YOU EITHER GIVE AN OPTION OR YOU JUST SAY, THESE ARE THE ONLY NUMBER TOTAL, AND YOU PICK WHICH ONE THAT YOU WANT TO USE AS THE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND THAT COULD BE THE WAY WE WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP KIND OF OUR OWN PERSONNEL PROCEDURE AROUND IT.

THAT WAY WE'RE CONSISTENT AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW TO ADDRESS IT, BUT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE DAY THAT YOU GET A CHANCE TO FLOAT AND PICK IT.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A DESIGNATED EXACT DATE, EXACT HOLIDAY.

YEAH. BECAUSE I'M THINKING, I MEAN, IT COULD GET.

WHICH ONE WOULD BE EASIER TO ADMINISTER AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATIVELY.

FINDING ONE DAY OR HAVING A FLOATING DAY THAT YOU GET TO THAT YOU GET YOU GET 11 DAYS VERSUS THE 12.

I THINK EITHER WAY, AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP THE PROCEDURES AROUND IT TO WHERE IN ONE DEPARTMENT, IT'S NOT BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN, THAN ANOTHER.

SO WE WOULD DEVELOP A PERSONAL RULE AROUND IT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR AND IT'S CONSISTENT.

BUT IN SOME PLACES IT'S YOU GET A FLOAT PICK WHICH ONE.

WE KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENS IN SOME ORGANIZATIONS.

[03:55:01]

ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ON SLIDE 13. ONE THING THAT CHAIR WEST MADE WITHDRAWAL, BUT HIS AMENDMENT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND OUR COACH COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THE AI CAMERAS. MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD ADDRESS THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

AND SO I THINK EARLIER ON, COUNCIL MEMBER WEST SUGGESTED THAT WE BRING BACK AN UPDATE ON THE THE CAMERA SYSTEM TO QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND SO WE WILL DEFINITELY WORK WITH YOU AS THE CHAIR OF COACH, AS WELL AS WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF CHAIRMAN GRACEY, AND SCHEDULE THAT JOINT MEETING SO WE CAN DO THAT.

AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR. CHAIR. CHAIRMAN GRACEY, I DID SPEAK WITH HIM AS WELL.

SO I THINK WE ARE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. YES, SIR.

WE'LL MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN WEST, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

MAYOR, IF APPROPRIATE. I HAVE A COUPLE OF MOTIONS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DONE WITH THE BRIEFING FIRST.

OKAY. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PANEL ON BRIEFING ITEM B BEFORE I ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS? OKAY. CHAIRMAN, ONCE YOU RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

THANK YOU. I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULE REQUIRING ONE SECOND FOR AN AMENDMENT AND INSTEAD REQUIRE TWO SECONDS FOR AMENDMENTS PRESENTED AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

THAT MOTION, I'M TOLD, IS NOT A DEBATABLE ONE.

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. COUNCILMEMBER WEST.

YES. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

BAZALDUA. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

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

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY. YES. DEPUTY MAYOR.

PRO TEM JOHNSON. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

YES. MAYOR JOHNSON. YES. WHAT 12 VOTING IN FAVOR.

THREE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO THAT RULE THEN WILL BE APPLICABLE IF WE GO INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A MOTION RELATED TO THAT, I DO.

OKAY, GO FOR IT. I MOVE THAT CITY COUNCIL GO INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR THIS ITEM.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THAT A DEBATABLE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THE VIRTUES OF GOING TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN, THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO DEBATE WHETHER WE SHOULD GO INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. WELL. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, IT'S AN IMPORTANT FEATURE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE OUR CHARTER OUTLINES WHEN WE CAN VOTE.

AND THIS IS THE WAY YOU ESSENTIALLY GET AROUND IT.

UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEBATE AT THE HORSESHOE IS BEING ABLE TO PRESENT A MINORITY OPINION AND THE PRIOR MOTION TO HAVE A DOUBLE SECOND REALLY LIMITS THAT, AND I FIND IT QUITE OFFENSIVE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION BY CHAIRMAN WEST TO GO INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. WE'RE NOW ACTING AS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

VOTES ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 2027 BUDGET ARE NOT FINAL ACTIONS.

MOTIONS ALLOWED IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ARE, AS YOU'LL RECALL, AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REMOVING OR STRIKING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.

POINTS OF ORDER ALWAYS APPEALS. HOPE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE.

AND INQUIRIES. ROLL CALL VOTES AND BALLOT VOTES ARE NOT ALLOWED.

WE'RE ONLY GOING TO USE THE CITY SEALS. HOPEFULLY THOSE HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED OR THEY'RE BEING PASSED OUT RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT IS YOUR WAY OF SIGNALING YOUR SUPPORT FOR AN AMENDMENT.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE IT ALL RIGHT NOW.

A FORMAL VOTE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN. BUT I THINK WE HAVE A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, OMAR NARVAEZ, TO THANK FOR THIS WRINKLE. NOW, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE YOUR NAME AND HOW YOU SUPPORT IT INDICATED BY THE CITY SECRETARY IN THE RECORD, BUT IT'S NOT A FORMAL VOTE. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW OUR NORMAL 531 VOTING PROCEDURE.

I MEAN OUR DEBATE PROCEDURE. AND WE WILL PROCEED AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

CHAIRMAN WEST YOU STILL HAVE IF YOU WANT FIVE MINUTES.

[04:00:07]

WELL YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR AN AMENDMENT THEN.

THANK YOU. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION ONE, I MOVE TO INCREASE FUNDING IN DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES FOR SPAY AND NEUTER SERVICES BY $175,000. ARE THERE TWO SECONDS? SECOND AND A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE A MOTION IN TWO SECONDS.

SO, CHAIRMAN WEST DO YOU WANT THE FLOOR TO EXPLAIN THAT AMENDMENT.

DOES ANYBODY CHAIR MENDELSOHN REQUEST FOR FIVE MINUTES ON.

WHAT ARE WE GIVING THAT. ALL THE AMENDMENTS NUMBERS.

REVISION ONE I THINK. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT REVISION ONE TWO.

THAT'S HOW IT'S IN OUR BRIEFING BOOK. YEAH. I'M SAYING SO IT'LL BE CLEAR THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE AMENDMENTS.

OKAY. REVISION ONE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. SO MY QUESTION IS THE USE OF THIS 170 000 OF THE 300 000 FROM THE TRI CITY HOSPITAL. YOU HAD SAID THAT THERE WAS AN UNEXPECTED JUDGMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED.

WHEN DID WE FIND OUT ABOUT THAT JUDGMENT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I'LL START WITH IT. I WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THAT NUMBER LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO.

AND SO WE DISCOVERED IT AND MADE THAT BE A PART OF THIS MOTION.

AFTER LAST WEEK, WE HAD GOTTEN THAT INFORMATION.

THIS IS BACK TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY ACTUALLY FUNDED.

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS IN 2025, THE DEMOLITION EXPENSE FOR THIS HOSPITAL, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT $1 MILLION.

AND SO WE ARE RECOUPING THAT. BUT THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED.

SO THIS WAS ADDITIONAL AND IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF OUR REIMBURSEMENTS THAT WE HAD IN THE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT.

SO IT'S ADDITIONAL IT'S ADDITIONAL FUNDS. SO THERE'S NO PLACE THAT IT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR BUDGET.

WE DOUBLE CHECKED THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

WE DOUBLE CHECKED THAT LAST WEEK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT DOUBLE COUNTING IT.

AND AFTER TALKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AS WELL AS WITH THE BUDGET TEAM, WE DETERMINED THAT THIS IS AN ADDITION.

SO IT WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN ANY OF OUR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES.

THANK YOU. THE ITEM SAYS INCREASED FUNDING IN DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES FOR SPAY AND NEUTER SERVICES.

AND I'M WONDERING IF IT NEEDS TO BE THAT SPECIFIC OR IF IT CAN BE JUST TO THE DEPARTMENT IN GENERAL, SINCE WE DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE OTHER EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES, INCLUDING WITH ANIMAL ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT. AND DEFINITELY WE WOULD WANT THE DIRECTOR TO USE DISCRETION ABOUT WHERE THE FUNDS WOULD BE NEEDED.

I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND INCREASING THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM, AND THAT'S WHY WE SPECIFIED IT HERE.

BUT IT DEFINITELY CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS WHATEVER NEEDS WE HAVE WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT.

SO I'M VERY MUCH FOR SPAYING AND NEUTERING. IT'S JUST THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NONPROFITS THAT WILL FUND THAT.

AND I KNOW THAT WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE ACCEPTED MANY GRANTS FOR SPAYING AND NEUTERING.

AND IF THEY WERE ABLE TO RECEIVE THOSE GRANTS TO THE LEVEL THAT WAS NEEDED, THEY WOULD HAVE MORE FUNDING FOR THE CRUELTY INVESTIGATIONS.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO JUST SAY, INCREASE FUNDING FOR DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES AND LEAVE IT AS A BLANKET ITEM SO THAT IT CAN BE PUT IN THE POT NECESSARY. I WILL SAY THAT EVEN IF IT WENT FORWARD WITH SPAY AND NEUTERING, THE DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO MOVE IT ANYHOW. BUT I THINK IT'S A STATEMENT TO THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CRUELTY ISSUES TO ANIMALS AND SPAYING AND NEUTERING. ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. BUT WE DO HAVE MANY OTHER PARTNERS THAT ARE DOING SPAYING AND NEUTERING.

SO SPCA OPERATION KINDNESS HAVE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC EFFORTS IN THAT REALM THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO DO ANIMAL CRUELTY INVESTIGATIONS.

WE ARE THE ONLY ONES. SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES.

AND EITHER WAY, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT. BUT I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT SPAY AND NEUTER DESIGNATION OFF.

I'LL SECOND THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. SORRY. WHAT HAPPENED? I COULDN'T EVEN TELL. WHO WAS THAT? THAT WAS BILL ROTH.

OH, YEAH? WHAT DID YOU SAY? HE SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY, SO YOU WOULD MAKE A FORMAL MOTION? IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO PAUSE A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENTS TO.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE FOR NOW, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S NOW ON THE FLOOR AS AN AMENDMENT.

WOULD YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ANY FURTHER? YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE DISCUSSED IT ENOUGH? ANYONE ELSE WANTED TO DISCUSS? CHAIRMAN RIDLEY? THIS IS NOW ON THE AMENDMENT TO REVISION ONE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PRETEND LIKE YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.

NO, I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, WHICH IS A QUESTION TO STAFF.

A JUDGMENT IS A PIECE OF PAPER. IT'S NOT MONEY IN THE BANK.

SINCE WE JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, I ASSUME WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE CASH YET.

[04:05:01]

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL START. MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SO THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE RECEIVED, COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IT'S SHOWING THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE EXPECTED BY JANUARY OF 27.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE NOTICE THAT WE RECEIVED SAYS.

AND I'D HAVE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT IT.

BUT THAT'S THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE RECEIVED. WELL, WHO WAS THAT NOTIFICATION FROM? AND WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE THAT THE MONEY WILL BE PAID IN JANUARY? AGAIN, SIR, I'D HAVE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEY'VE HANDLED THAT CASE AND I SEE THEM COMING OUT.

YEAH. I'LL HAVE JILL HANEY, CHIEF OF COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, ANSWER THAT.

HI. JILL HANEY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

HI, COUNCIL MEMBER. CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN? WHAT ASSURANCE DO WE HAVE THAT THIS $300,000 PENALTY WILL BE PAID IN JANUARY? AND WHO SENT US THE NOTIFICATION THAT IT WOULD BE PAID THEN? OUR OFFICE SENT THE NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE REGARDING THE THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT.

BASED UPON WHAT AN AGREED FINAL JUDGMENT. AND IT REQUIRES THAT THE CIVIL PENALTY BE WILL LUMP PAYMENT A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT BE PAID IN JANUARY 2027. AND WHAT DUE DILIGENCE HAVE WE DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE PARTY WHO HAS TO PAY THE PENALTY IS SOLVENT ENOUGH TO PAY IT AND HAS THE FUNDS TO PAY IT? IF THEY'RE DEFERRING IT UNTIL JANUARY, THAT TELLS ME THEY DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS RELEVANT TO CARA'S CLARIFYING AMENDMENT ABOUT SPAYING AND NEUTERING BEING SPECIFIED.

WELL, NOT NEEDING TO BE SPECIFIED. CLARIFYING AMENDMENT STILL DEPENDS UPON A SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT I AM ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT.

THAT WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT WHETHER THIS AMENDMENT, HER AMENDMENT SUCCEEDED OR FAILED.

IF HER AMENDMENT FAILED, WOULD YOUR QUESTIONS NOT STILL BE RELEVANT TO REVISION ONE? WELL, I'D STILL HAVE THE QUESTION WHETHER IT FAILS OR NOT.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL LET IT GO, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT DOES. BUT GO AHEAD. SO WHEN WE RECEIVE OR WHEN WE OBTAIN A JUDGMENT, THEN WE CAN PURSUE FORECLOSURE ON THAT JUDGMENT.

AND SO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY COULD RESULT IN, OR IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THAT AMOUNT.

SO THERE IS SOMETHING TO SECURE THE JUDGMENTS.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YES. AND THAT IS THE PROPERTY THE SITE OF THE HOSPITAL THAT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED.

YES. AND IS THE PROPERTY VALUE SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY THAT COST? WE BELIEVE SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN TO REVISION ONE.

SEEING NONE, INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THAT WITH.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. OKAY. SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

SORRY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I DIDN'T EVEN SEE YOU IN THERE. GO AHEAD. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. WE'RE NOT. IT'S NOT A VOTE ANYWAY. IT'S JUST A STRAW VOTE. BUT GO AHEAD.

JUST JUST REALLY QUICK. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I.

I DO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT GIVING DISCRETION.

BUT CAN I JUST ASK PAUL A QUESTION ON THAT DISCRETION.

YOU KNOW, PAUL'S GOING TO WANT TO ANSWER IT. HE LIKES TO DO THAT.

GO AHEAD PAUL. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECTOR OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER? NO.

THE DIRECTOR. OH, DIRECTOR RAMON. HE'LL GET IN THERE.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THE RIGHT PERSON. WELL, FIRST, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU.

YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE YOUR LAST TIME AT THE PODIUM WHENEVER WE SPOKE.

BUT THANK YOU FOR FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL DO.

WE DO WANT TO SEE MORE MONEY. GO TO DAS. I GUESS I'D LIKE TO JUST ASK YOU IF, IF THE CITY MANAGER WERE COMING TO YOU AND SAY AND AND SAYING, HEY, I HAVE $175,000 SAVINGS. WHAT LINE ITEM WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO BE IN? DO YOU LIKE WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS FOR THE DISCRETION, OR IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD POINT TO? WELL, IT WOULD BE UTILIZING THE CONTRACT SERVICES LINE ITEM, WHICH WOULD BE FOR SPAY AND NEUTER OR WHATEVER OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES THAT WE HAVE INTERNALLY TO SUPPORT THE A S. AND SO WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A POINT RAISED AND SPECIFIC TO THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH I DON'T. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IF IT'S HELPFUL TO YOU.

BUT IF YOU'RE. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THIS 175.

IF IT'S ALLOCATED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT, YOUR INTENT WOULD BE TO GO TO THE CONTRACTED SERVICES AND IT WOULD BE USED FOR SPAY AND NEUTER.

IT COULD BE USED FOR SPAY AND NEUTER. YES IT WOULD.

IT WOULD INCREASE OUR SPAY AND NEUTER CAPACITY FOR SUBSIDIES BY AT LEAST 1800 ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIZED SPAY NEUTER SURGERIES.

WELL, I MEAN, I FOR THAT THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM YOU BECAUSE I,

[04:10:05]

I MEAN, IN TALKING TO YOU AND THIS IS WHERE IT WOULD GO, I WILL, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY.

I THINK THE AMENDMENT, IF I MAY ADD TO WHAT WAS SAID, PROVIDES HIM WITH THE FLEXIBILITY, IF IT'S NEEDED, THERE OR SOMEWHERE ELSE. I KNOW, AND I JUST ASKED WHERE IT WOULD BE USED, AND HE HAS A SPECIFIC PLACE THAT IT WOULD BE USED, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD CHANGE IT. I THINK SPAY AND NEUTER WAS SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAD ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE A PRIORITY, AND ONE THAT WE NEEDED TO SEE MORE FUNDING TO.

AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S ANY, ANY QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD USE THESE EXTRA FUNDS SPECIFICALLY FOR SPAY AND NEUTER.

SO I THINK THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES THAT WE SHOULD BE PASSING THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFIC TO WHAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT SAYS THE HIGHEST NEED IS.

SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IF I COULD ADD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO SPAY AND NEUTER IS ALSO CONDUCTED WITHIN THE OPERATIONS OF DAS.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE OPERATING AT A 300 SPAY AND NEUTER SURGERY DEFICIT IN HOUSE FOR OUR ANIMALS.

SO WE COULD USE THOSE FUNDS AS WELL FOR CONTRACTED VETERINARIANS TO COME IN AND SUPPORT OUR DOCTORS TO GET THOSE ANIMALS OUT OF THE SHELTER.

YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NELSON. YOU WANT TO GET BACK IN THERE FOR THREE MINUTES? I'M SORRY. SORRY. ACTUALLY, ON THE AMENDMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO ASK FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

SO I KNOW YOU ARE BEHIND IN SPAY AND NEUTERING, AND IT'S PROHIBITING SOME ADOPTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES.

I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT IF YOU GOT IN A WHOLE SERIES OF ANIMAL CRUELTY CASES, YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLACE TO PULL MONEY, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T FORECAST HOW MANY ANIMAL CRUELTY CASES YOU'LL HAVE OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR IT'S GROWING EXPONENTIALLY.

YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE SHELTER, WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE HAVE TO PULL ANIMALS AND TO ADD RESOURCES, JUST AS YOU SAID EARLIER WITH OUR PARTNERS, WITH OPK AND AND SPAY NEUTER NETWORK AND ALL THOSE OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THEY PROVIDE SUPPORT WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY MANEUVER AND USE THE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE TO SUPPORT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AS IT RELATES TO SUSPECTED ANIMAL CRUELTY.

SO SPAY AND NEUTER NETWORK IS A GREAT EXAMPLE WHERE THEY CAN TAKE THAT ACTUAL THING.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO GIVE YOU MORE FLEXIBILITY, NO MATTER WHAT COMES YOUR WAY, AS OPPOSED TO LIMITING IT TO THE SPAY AND NEUTER.

WHICH AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE OLD LIKE ME AND YOU GREW UP HEARING BOB BARKER SAY SPAY AND NEUTER YOUR ANIMALS THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING WE'LL ALWAYS BE DOING. AND I THINK IF WE GAVE YOU $1 MILLION FOR SPAY AND NEUTER, YOU STILL WOULD NEED TO DO MORE. THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY IN DALLAS.

SO I DEFINITELY WANT YOU TO DO MORE SPAY AND NEUTER.

WE CRITICALLY NEED YOU TO I, I AM AWARE OF THAT SITUATION, BUT I ALSO KNOW WHEN ANIMAL CRUELTY COMES, YOU HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT THAT'S IN YOUR BUDGET.

SO ANYHOW, THAT'S WHAT THE POINT OF THE MOTION IS.

THANK YOU. JOE MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE REVISION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. PAUL, IF YOU WERE IF THIS WAS BROAD LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW, BEING RECOMMENDED OUTSIDE OF SPAY AND NEUTER, WHAT OTHER AREAS ARE WOULD BE IN NEED? OR ARE YOU OR ARE YOU BUDGETED FOR THAT? WELL, AS JUST STATED, ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW IS SUSPECTED ANIMAL CRUELTY.

SO ANY FUNDS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE COULD UTILIZE FOR SUSPECTED ANIMAL CRUELTY WILL DO SO.

BUT AS I JUST STATED, WE'LL LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS.

WE, WE RECENTLY WORKED WITH THE REESE JONES FOUNDATION WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO TRY AND PULL IN OUTSIDE RESOURCES TO ASSIST.

AND WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MECHANISMS AS WELL, BUT WORKING WITHIN THE CAPACITY OF WHAT WE HAVE IS WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO INTEND TO DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AMENDMENT TO THE REVISION NUMBER ONE.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. I'M SORRY.

SHOW YOUR PLACARDS. WE'RE NOT DOING ANY SAYING ANYTHING? YES. SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH.

BLAIR STEWART. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MORENO WEST. MENDELSOHN RIDLEY. GRACEY WITH MAJORITY SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

THE AMENDMENT MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, SO I RAISED MY HAND.

SORRY. AND I'M SORRY, I WILL I WILL LOOK TO THE BLACKMON.

THAT'S NOT A SEAL THAT WILL NOT BE COUNTED. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO THAT AMENDMENT NOW MAKES IT ON TO REVISION NUMBER ONE.

SO WE'RE NOW BACK TO REVISION NUMBER ONE. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST REVISION NUMBER ONE.

[04:15:04]

COUNCIL MEMBERS ROTH BLAIR STEWART BAZALDUA DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

MAYOR PRO. TEM. RESENDEZ. COUNCIL MEMBERS. MORENO.

WEST. MENDELSOHN. RIDLEY, GRACEY AND WILLIS. WITH MAJORITY SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

THE AMENDMENT MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, MR. WEST, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? NEXT MOTION. OKAY. YOU RECOGNIZE REVISION.

THANK YOU. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER TWO.

I MOVE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE UPCOMING 90TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO BEGIN IN JANUARY 2027 OF $300,000.

SECOND. OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. AT LEAST TWICE.

CHAIRMAN WEST, DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN YOUR MOTION? CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DO. YOU RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION NUMBER TWO.

OKAY. WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF GROUNDHOG DAY SINCE WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT THIS RECENTLY, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO REMOVE OUR LOBBYISTS.

AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING TO PUT IT RIGHT BACK.

WE HAVE BEEN FLIP FLOPPING AND NOT MAKING DECISIONS ON POLICY AROUND THIS COUNCIL FOR A LOT.

OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. AND HERE WE GO AGAIN. WE NEED TO PICK A POLICY AND STICK WITH IT.

THE CHANGE THAT WE MADE BY NOT HAVING LOBBYISTS HAVE BEEN VERY WELL RECEIVED IN AUSTIN AND DOORS HAVE OPENED SAYING, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US. THANK YOU FOR DOING THE THING WE ASKED YOU TO DO.

GOING TO SAY THAT PART. THERE'S NO INDICATION HERE EVEN WHAT KIND OF LOBBYISTS WE WOULD GET AND WHAT THEIR ROLE WOULD BE.

I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT PART ALONE. THE SOURCE OF FUNDS ALSO PROBLEMATIC, REDUCING $78,000 FROM DPD ON A VACANT PARTIALLY FUNDED NON UNIFORM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR POSITION CITY MANAGER, WOULD YOU HAVE PUT A POSITION IN THE BUDGET THAT WASN'T NEEDED? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS POSITION, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS TO DETERMINE, AS THE CHIEF CONTINUES WITH LOOKING AT CIVILIAN POSITIONS AND UNIFORMS IN CERTAIN ROLES, WHAT WAS NEEDED.

WE USED IT AS A REDUCTION BECAUSE WE TOOK PARTIAL FUNDING AWAY FROM IT.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD, WE DO BELIEVE THAT ANY SUPPORT THAT WE GET AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL WOULD ALSO HELP DPD.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING A VACANT, NOT A FILLED POSITION.

SO THE PROBLEM IS YOU TOLD ME YOU SCRUBBED THIS BUDGET.

YOU WENT DOWN TO THE BONE, YOU WENT AS LOW AS YOU COULD GO.

THE MAYOR DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO SUPPORT A LOWER TAX CEILING, BECAUSE THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT'S GOING TO GET.

BUT YET YOU HAVE A POSITION HERE THAT YOU SAY NOW YOU DON'T NEED.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THIS POSITION WAS POSITION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT USING FOR A PURPOSE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. THE ROLE OF POTENTIALLY HAVING SUPPORT IN AUSTIN AT THE LEGISLATIVE.

WE BELIEVE, SUPERSEDES THE NEED FOR THIS POSITION IN THE BUDGET.

WHAT WAS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TO WHAT WHAT WAS THAT POSITION ACTUALLY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY AN OLD POSITION. WE HAD A FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR POSITION THAT WE ACTUALLY ELEVATED.

SO IT'S A CIVILIAN POSITION THAT WE ELEVATED THE PERSON IN THE DEPARTMENT TO A MORE OF A DEPUTY.

AND THIS POSITION HAD BEEN VACANT. SO IN THE BUDGET, WE REDUCED THE FUNDING FOR THAT POSITION.

BUT THE PERSON AND THE FUNCTION IS ACTUALLY BEING PROVIDED THROUGH A HIGHER LEVEL POSITION.

SO I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT DIVISION WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IN? I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT POSITION SITS OVER IN PRETTY MUCH ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE.

THE WAY THE PROGRAM IS LAID OUT, THAT POSITION SUPPORTS BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

I THINK IT OVERSEES THE PROCUREMENT COMPONENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT.

SO THE POSITION THAT WE NEED IS STILL THERE. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

IT'S CONSIDERED A I THINK IT'S CALLED A DEPUTY A DEPUTY DIRECTOR POSITION.

SO WE STEPPED THE POSITION UP AND THE PERSON.

SO I SEE CHIEF, IF I'M CORRECT, I THINK THIS IS MR. MARTIN'S POSITION THAT WE ELEVATED THE POSITION.

YES. SO IT WAS HIS OLD POSITION.

THIS IS. DID YOU BECOME A DIRECTOR? CONGRATULATIONS.

I'M DEPUTY DIRECTOR. MARKETING DIRECTOR? YES.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. SO WHY WAS THIS EVER INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THEN?

[04:20:03]

WHY WAS THIS EVER IN THE BUDGET? AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT GOES TO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S MARTIN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CHIEF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CITY MANAGER. BUT IT MAKES ME CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER POSITIONS ALL THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET THAT MAYBE AREN'T AS NECESSARY. AND MAYBE IF WE COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHER THINGS WE THINK WE NEED, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THOSE OTHER POSITIONS. IF COUNCIL WILL RECALL, IN APRIL, MARCH, LATE APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WE DID A HIRING FREEZE. AND THAT HIRING FREEZE INCLUDED HIRING FOR ANY CIVILIAN POSITIONS.

THAT MEANT THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF POSITIONS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THAT WE THAT WE FROZE.

WE KNOW THAT GOING INTO THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR, SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE HELD, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEED TO MOVE SOME OF THOSE FORWARD. SO YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IN SOME POSITIONS, IN SOME DEPARTMENTS WHERE WE KEPT THEM ON HOLD, WAITING FOR US TO BALANCE THIS CURRENT YEAR. WE DID NOT ELIMINATE EVERY SINGLE VACANT POSITION IN THE CITY.

SO THIS IS A POSITION THAT WAS STILL IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS AN INTENDED PURPOSE.

AND AFTER HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, WE BELIEVE THAT HAVING THE SUPPORT AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL, WE HAD ALREADY REDUCED THE FUNDING FROM THIS POSITION AFTER MR. RIOS WAS PROMOTED, THAT WE COULD THEN USE THIS FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

LOOK, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A NO WIN QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS, EITHER YOU HAD A POSITION THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED AND YOU PUT IT IN THE BUDGET, OR YOU DON'T NEED THE POSITION. THERE'S A BETTER USE FOR IT.

BUT IT'S A PROBLEMATIC QUESTION BECAUSE WHY WOULD A POSITION HAVE BEEN IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU DON'T REALLY NEED? WELL, LET ME INITIALLY WE WERE THINKING THAT WE WOULD FILL IT AND THEN IT WAS IT WAS THROUGH IT WAS THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH BUDGET DELIBERATION, MEETING WITH THE TEAM, US MEETING INTERNALLY WITH THE COMMAND STAFF, WE DISCUSSED HOW WE MIGHT.

HOW CAN WE. WHAT CAN WE DO AND WHAT CHANGES CAN WE MAKE? SO. INITIALLY IT WAS DESIGNED TO FILL. BUT IT WAS ONLY THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS OF BEING MORE EFFICIENT THAT WE SAID, LET'S TRY TO DO IT THIS WAY. SO WE, WE, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY TRIED TO MAKE THIS ADJUSTMENT TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.

BUT IF THIS IS DOING ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCUREMENT WORK, THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ASSISTED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES.

NO, I WOULD I LET ME CLARIFY THAT WE ARE GOING TO ABSORB THE WORK WITH THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE AND BECOME BY BEING MORE EFFICIENT, NOT NEEDING THAT POSITION.

AND I LOVE THAT. AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT WAY IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.

AND NOW I'M SUSPICIOUS THAT ALL THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION, THERE'S POSITIONS THAT PROBABLY THE WORK COULD HAVE BEEN ABSORBED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PRESS FOR SOMETHING.

AND BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE PRESSED FOR THIS $300,000, WELL, THEN WE WENT BACK AND WE FOUND ONE WHERE WE CAN GIVE IT UP.

AND I'M WONDERING IF WE KEPT PRESSING FOR MORE THINGS SOMEWHERE ELSE, WOULD WE ACTUALLY GET THE DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST DPD, ANY DEPARTMENT TO SAY WE COULD PROBABLY ABSORB IT WITHOUT THAT POSITION.

AND THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE BLOAT AND THE REDUNDANCY AND INEFFICIENCY THAT WE HEAR MAYOR JOHNSON TALK ABOUT, THAT I TALK ABOUT AND THAT THE CITY CAN SEE IT'S WHY OUR BUDGET IS GROWING SO MUCH, BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDED A THOUSAND PEOPLE HEADCOUNT. I ACKNOWLEDGE PROBABLY 650 OF THEM ARE SWORN OFFICERS.

THAT'S GREAT. OR IN POLICE AND FIRE, BUT IT'S STILL MORE THAN 300 OTHER STAFF MEMBERS WE HAVE ADDED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS WITHOUT ADDING POPULATION IN THE CITY.

WHY DO WE HAVE 300 MORE POSITIONS? SO THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

ELIMINATING THE 222,000 FOR THE SURVEYING FROM ZEN CITY.

I'M 100% FOR THAT. NOT NECESSARILY FOR THIS USE.

WE SHOULDN'T WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES WITH OUR RESIDENTS.

WE'RE A GOVERNMENT. WE ARE NOT A PR AGENCY. THANK YOU.

JIM MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST FOR THE CITY MANAGER IS THIS REVISION NUMBER TWO, WHY WAS IT NOT IN THE FIRST READING OF THE BUDGET? WHY DID WE NOT FUND THAT INITIALLY? AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO THE WAY WE'VE APPROACHED THE REVISION PROCESS.

[04:25:01]

WE'VE LISTENED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, INCLUDING MY ONE ON ONE MEETINGS, AS I'VE LAID OUT WHAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND THIS CAME UP MULTIPLE TIMES.

SO WHEN WE BROUGHT PROPOSED REVISIONS FROM THE MANAGER, I TALKED ABOUT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO SUPPORT HAVING LEGISLATIVE JUST OVERALL GROUND SUPPORT IN AUSTIN THAT THIS WOULD BE THE WAY THAT WE WOULD DO IT.

AND THEN WE PROPOSE THE ACTUAL SOURCE. SO IT WASN'T THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

IT WAS MORE ABOUT KEEPING IN LINE WITH WHAT COUNCIL ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

BUT SINCE THAT TIME, AS MANY OTHER REVISIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WE'RE, WE'RE JUST RESPONDING TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ASKED FOR.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY. THANK YOU. ERIC, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MUCH WAS BUDGETED FOR THE CONTRACTS IN 2025? YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER ERIC DOMINGUEZ, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. THE AMOUNT WAS $339,000.

THAT WAS AMOUNT ALLOCATED PRIOR, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE STATE LOBBYIST CONTRACTS.

THANKS, MAYOR. OF COURSE. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST.

THIS IS REVISION NUMBER TWO. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'LL IF YOU SUPPORT IT INDICATED WITH.

RAISE YOUR PLACARD. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. BLAIR.

KATANA STEWART BAZALDUA. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

COUNCILMEMBER WEST. RIDLEY GRACEY AND WILLIS.

WITH MAJORITY OF SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR, THE AMENDMENT MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, WHO'S GOT AN AMENDMENT OR REVISION? CHAIRMAN WESCH. I'M READY. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER THREE MOVE TO SUPPORT LIBRARY DEPARTMENTS.

ADULT LEARNING SERVICES FOR 12 MONTHS FOR $125,000.

ALL RIGHT. TWO SECONDS. CHAIRMAN WEST, ANYTHING ANYBODY? CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION NUMBER THREE. THANK YOU.

CITY MANAGER, THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN COVERED QUITE EXTENSIVELY, BUT THE ADULT LEARNING SERVICES YOU ARE PROPOSING ORIGINALLY WERE ALL FROM NON-PROFITS, STATE AGENCIES OR LEARNING INSTITUTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? EVEN WITH THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCILWOMAN. MENDELSOHN. THIS WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR US TO MOVE TOWARDS THE PARTNERSHIP MODEL.

THIS WOULD JUST GIVE US THE ABILITY THAT DURING THAT TRANSITION, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A GAP WITH THE VOLUNTEER SUPPORT.

WHAT DIRECTOR MONYA MENTIONED LAST WEEK IS THAT SHE NEEDED TO HAVE.

IF WE WERE GOING TO CONTINUE DURING THIS TRANSITION PERIOD, SHE NEEDED TO HAVE SUPERVISION TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE VOLUNTEERS.

SO THIS WOULD GIVE US THAT SUPPORT TO CONTINUE AND DO THE TRANSITION.

SO WE WOULD STILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PARTNERSHIP THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS OF GREATER DALLAS AND WITH DALLAS COLLEGE.

BUT THIS JUST GIVES US TRANSITION TIME TO WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO INTERRUPTION.

THANK YOU. AND SO WAS IT THAT THERE WAS A GOAL TO SAY, THIS WILL TAKE US THROUGH THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR, AND THE PARTNERSHIPS WOULD BEGIN IN JANUARY, OR IS IT JUST INDEFINITE SOMEHOW THROUGH THE YEAR AND THEN OUR NEXT BUDGET, WE WON'T SEE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE GOAL WOULD BE TO WRAP UP THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE ALREADY HAVING BRING BACK THE, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, THE SERVICES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVING THROUGH THOSE PARTNERS AND HAVE THAT BAKED IN THE FIRST QUARTER.

SO ONCE WE GET THE BUDGET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, THE GOAL WOULD BE BY JANUARY, WE WOULD HAVE THE PARTNERSHIP COMPLETELY DONE.

THIS WOULD GIVE SERVICES FOR THE VOLUNTEERS FOR THAT 12 MONTHS.

SO THIS WOULD BE 12 MONTHS FOR THOSE SERVICES.

THANK YOU. I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT KIND OF DEADLINE. I'M ASSUMING THEN YOU WOULD BRIEF QUALITY OF LIFE ON THAT TRANSITION, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND TALK MORE DIRECTLY ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP.

THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY WILL DO, WHAT THEY WILL NOT DO, HOW IT WOULD WORK, WHAT TYPE OF METRICS. SO WE WANT TO HAVE ALL THAT FULLY BAKED BEFORE WE ACTUALLY DO THE IMPLEMENTATION.

THANK YOU. ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT MY MOTHER WAS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER AND VOLUNTEER FOR PUERTO RICAN CHILDREN TO LEARN ENGLISH.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST REVISION NUMBER THREE? SEEING NONE. INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT BY SHOWING YOUR PLACARD. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. BLAIR CADENAS STEWART BAZALDUA DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. COUNCILMAN MORENO WEST.

RIDLEY GRACEY MENDELSOHN AND WILLIS. WITH MAJORITY SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR, OF THE REVISION MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, CHAIRMAN WEST. THANK YOU.

ANOTHER MOTION? OKAY. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER FOUR.

I MOVE TO OPERATE COMMUNITY POOLS AT BONNYVIEW EVERGLADE, MARTIN WEISS, PLEASANT GROVE, TOMMY ALLEN AND WALNUT HILLS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 TO 27,

[04:30:08]

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN REQUESTS FOR FIVE MINUTES. REVISION NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I'M SO SAD TO FIND OUT THAT THIS COMING FRIDAY AND MONDAY, MEANING LABOR DAY AND THE FRIDAY OF THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY, OUR POOLS ARE CLOSED. NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY POOLS, BUT OUR AQUATIC CENTERS TO A TIME WHEN FAMILIES REALLY HAVE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO USE IT. AND WE HAVE HAD QUITE THE HEAT WAVE.

BUT WHAT'S REALLY, REALLY SAD IS THAT WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT SOME BAND AID LAST DITCH EFFORT TO KEEP POOLS OPEN THAT SHOULD HAVE CLOSED MORE THAN A DOZEN YEARS AGO.

AND IT'S NOT JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S THE ACTUAL INABILITY OF THIS GROUP TO DO THAT HARD DECISION.

THERE'S AN AQUATIC MASTER PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED BEFORE ANY OF US WERE IN OFFICE.

IT WAS VETTED, RESEARCHED, APPROVED BY THE PARK BOARD AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TIME.

ALL THE SPLASH PADS WERE BUILT. ALL THE AQUATIC CENTERS WERE BUILT, BUT NOBODY EVER HAS HAD THE GUTS TO CLOSE THESE COMMUNITY POOLS.

AND I CAN'T BELIEVE IT. AND SO WE ARE CONTINUING TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

AND I AM COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO SAY WE WOULD USE $700,000, WHICH VERY EASILY COULD BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET AS SOON AS ONE OF THOSE PARTS BREAK AND THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THAT PART.

IT'S NOT EVEN MADE. SOME OF THEM THEY CAN'T EVEN MAKE ON THE CNC MACHINE.

SO THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. AND YOU WERE NOT SENT HERE TO JUST MAKE THE EASY DECISIONS.

YOU HAVE TO BE A LEADER AND YOU HAVE TO SAY WE'RE FOLLOWING THE PLAN.

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS? I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL SEVEN.

THE ANSWER IS SEVEN FOR ME. I'M NOT WILLING TO KEEP DOING THIS.

SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT POOLS. ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE A LITTLE JOKE GOING OVER HERE ABOUT CHARGING PEOPLE $20 FOR TALKING ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

MISS CADENA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION NUMBER FOUR.

I'M WONDERING IF JOHN JENKINS CAN COME OUT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I BELIEVE HE IS COMING MOMENTARILY, BUT I WILL FILL IN FOR THE TIME BEING.

RYAN O'CONNOR DALLAS PARKS. SO I MEAN, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND CLOSING SWIMMING POOLS.

I REMEMBER ANITA MARTINEZ CLOSED EIGHT YEARS AGO AND IT'S STILL THERE.

ALTHOUGH WE DON'T USE IT, IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE YOU KNOW, AND I REMEMBER IN 2017 WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ CAME INTO OFFICE WEST DALLAS WAS ACTUALLY LEFT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE AQUATIC PLAN. LIKE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A WATER HOSE. SO AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO GET.

WE'RE GETTING A SWIMMING POOL THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT.

GOT TWO SPLASH GROUNDS. ACTUALLY THIS SUMMER I WAS AT MARTIN WEISS QUITE A BIT.

AND I KNOW THAT THE COMMUNITY THERE ENJOYS THAT POOL, BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WITH THE MULTI-YEAR FUND.

IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT ANYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT? WELL, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD BE IF WE USE THE 700 000 TOWARDS OPERATING THE POOLS FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR, IT WOULD BE FUNDING THAT WOULD BE FORGONE FOR, FOR OTHER PURPOSES, THINGS LIKE POTENTIALLY REPLACING SLIDES AT OUR AQUATIC CENTERS, YOU KNOW, THINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE WOULD BE USING THE FUNDS TO OPERATE THE POOLS AND NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE OTHER TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING AQUATIC CENTERS. AND HOW MUCH IS IN THE FUND RIGHT NOW? PARDON ME. HOW MUCH IS IN THE FUND RIGHT NOW? HOW MUCH IS IN THE FUND RIGHT NOW? IT'S ABOUT $1 MILLION. ABOUT A MILLION.

OKAY. 1.088, TO BE EXACT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT MAYBE THE USE, IF IT WOULD IMPACT YOUR SERVICE AT ALL IF WE WERE TO USE THIS FOR THE SWIMMING POOLS.

I MEAN IT WOULD JUST BE THE, THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE NORMALLY GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF RESOURCES DEDICATED TOWARDS HIRING ALL THE LIFEGUARDS AND ALL THE

[04:35:05]

OKAY, THAT'S IT THEN. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. I RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION NUMBER FOUR.

JUST A CLARIFICATION AND MAYBE YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW MANY FOLKS ARE WE, ARE WE SERVICING AT THESE AT THESE SIX POOLS DURING THE SUMMER TYPICALLY? YES, SIR. IT VARIES. BUT I DID PULL SOME NUMBERS FOR THIS MOST RECENT AQUATIC SEASON THAT IS CONCLUDING AND IT RANGES FROM 1200 UP TO 5600. OVER OVER THE COURSE OF AN 8 TO 10 WEEK SEASON.

AND THAT'S OVER SIX. YEAH. SO THE THE LOW ATTENDANCE WOULD BE 1200.

THE HIGH ATTENDANCE WOULD BE 5600. THE AVERAGE APPEARS TO BE AROUND 2000 2500.

THAT'S FOR ALL OF THE POOLS. CORRECT? YES, SIR.

THOSE THOSE SIX SPECIFICALLY. SO THERE'S ABOUT 500 PEOPLE A POOL, GIVE OR TAKE.

IT'S 3000 AVERAGE. OR IS. LET ME JUST DO SOME QUICK MATH.

12 2013. YEAH, IT'S. OH, IT'S ABOUT 2000. OVER THE COURSE OF THE SEASON PER POOL.

SO IN TOTAL, I DIDN'T DO THE EXACT MATH, BUT AROUND 12000 PEOPLE USE THOSE POOLS, THOSE SIX POOLS OVER THE COURSE OF THE AQUATIC SEASON.

OKAY. I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE TAKING MONEY THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR REPAIRS, FOR MAINTENANCE AND FOR RESERVES FOR OPERATIONS.

AND I, I, IT IS A HARD DECISION. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT NOT ACCOMMODATING FOLKS THAT NEED TO HAVE A POOL.

ARE THERE OTHER POOLS WITHIN A THAT ARE WITHIN A, NOT WHEN I SAY REASONABLE AREA IN A SERVICE RADIUS THAT THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THESE FOLKS THAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE YOU KNOW, COMING TO THESE PARTICULAR SIX POOLS. WELL, SO AS A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN THAT WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER, WE DID LOOK AT SERVICE GAPS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY EVENTUALLY CLOSING THESE POOLS.

AND SO THE NEW AQUATIC CENTERS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT DID ATTEMPT TO BE ARRANGED IN A WAY THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE SERVICE GAPS.

BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT TOTALLY CLOSED EVERY SERVICE GAP.

YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT MARTIN WEISS QUITE A BIT.

AND THERE'S AND THERE'S FRANKLY, THERE'S NOT AN AQUATIC CENTER SUPER CLOSE TO MARTIN WEISS, BUT BUT THE WAY THAT THE SITES WERE LOCATED AS A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN DID TRY TO ADDRESS SERVICE GAPS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THESE POOLS CLOSING.

I WOULD IT'S A HARD DECISION. IT'S A HARD SITUATION.

BUT I THINK WE'RE WE'RE GOING DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN WE START PULLING FUNDS OUT OF DESIGNATED ACCOUNTS FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. AND, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT DOING THAT.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THE FUNDS THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR USE.

SO I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS ISN'T AN APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION.

CHAIR MORENO YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS REVISION.

AS A FORMER PARK BOARD MEMBER, I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS EXTREMELY CLOSELY.

I WAS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE AQUATICS.

AND AS EVERYBODY KNOWS AROUND THIS, HORSESHOE POOLS AND PARKS ARE NEAR AND DEAR TO ME.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD TO MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS IN CLOSING POOLS IN DISTRICT TWO AS WELL.

BUT PLANNING FOR THAT THROUGH BOND PROJECTS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FILLING IN THOSE GAPS WAS PART OF THE SACRIFICES THAT WE HAD TO MAKE IN DECIDING WHERE THOSE DOLLARS WOULD GO. RYAN, ARE THESE ALL THE COMMUNITY POOLS THAT ARE STILL IN PLACE OR.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE MISSING SOME POOLS ON HERE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, DRYWALLER.

I THINK MARTINEZ AND OTHERS. WHY ARE ALL THE POOLS NOT LISTED? WHY IS THERE ONLY A HANDFUL SELECTED? WELL, THESE WERE THE SIX THAT WERE OPENED THIS MOST CURRENT AQUATIC SEASON.

SO THAT WAS THE I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION LAST WEEK.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL THREE POOLS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENED HISTORICALLY, AND THOSE INCLUDE GLENDALE, BRAUWEILER AND JC ZARAGOZA.

WHAT'S THE THE AVERAGE PER POOL TO KEEP IT OPERATING?

[04:40:04]

CAN YOU GIVE ME OR DO YOU ALL TRACK UNIQUE VISITS? SO FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN GO TO A POOL MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.

ARE YOU TRACKING THAT OR ARE THESE NUMBERS, OVERALL NUMBERS? THESE ARE I BELIEVE OVERALL UNIQUE ATTENDANCE NUMBERS.

IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND CAME OUT ON A GIVEN DAY, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED WITHIN THESE NUMBERS.

OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE. THE SOURCE OF THESE FUNDS COULD GO TOWARDS ITEMS LIKE A NEW SLIDE, NEW EQUIPMENT.

HOW MUCH IS THE COST OF A NEW SLIDE GOES OUT AT ONE OF OUR EXISTING AQUATIC CENTERS? THAT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SAY, BUT YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THAT GIVEN THE THE DESIGN OF THE NEW AQUATIC CENTERS, WHICH WE ALL, I THINK AGREE ARE REALLY, REALLY GREAT, I WOULD GUESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF A MAJOR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AT ONE OF THOSE AQUATIC CENTERS COULD RUN ANYWHERE FROM 100 GRAND TO 200 GRAND, MAYBE EVEN NORTH OF THAT NUMBER.

OKAY. COULD THOSE DOLLARS BE USED FOR A NEW FACILITY? YES. OKAY. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A POOL NEEDS REPAIR. I KNOW THAT I'VE DISCOVERED THAT WE HAVE PUT OFF SOME BOND ITEMS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REPAIR OUR POOLS, AND I'M GUESSING THAT THAT'S BECAUSE THAT REPAIR IS DONE INTERNALLY THROUGH OUR OWN DEPARTMENT.

AND SO IF WE GET REPAIRS AGAIN, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE PUSHING BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE REPAIRS BEFORE WE GET NEW PLAYGROUNDS INSTALLED? SO I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A FUNDING STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

SO, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS FUNDING SOURCE NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE FOR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT AND MAJOR MAINTENANCE OF THE POOLS, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A FUNDING STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THAT.

AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME COMBINATION OF HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OF YOU ALL ABOUT YOUR BOND ALLOCATIONS, AND WOULD ALSO PERHAPS LOOK TOWARDS THE GENERAL FUND, THE OPERATING BUDGET TO TRY TO MAKE THOSE REPAIRS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYOR. CHAIRMAN. WEST. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY SECRET THAT I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES THAT I BELIEVE PROVIDING PUBLIC POOLS WITH EASY ACCESS TO RESIDENTS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY, JUST LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY, LIBRARIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND WE FIND MONEY IN OUR BUDGET FOR LOTS OF OTHER THINGS SUPPORTING OUR PUBLIC POOLS FOR THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T HAVE PRIVATE POOLS AND ACCESS TO THEM IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING.

I BELIEVE THAT THE POOL MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS OVER TEN YEARS OLD, IS OUTDATED.

AND SO MY QUESTION, AND I DON'T THINK IT, I DON'T THINK I THINK THEY GOT IT WRONG, FRANKLY, AT LEAST I HAVEN'T FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO CAN YOU TELL ME, JOHN RYAN, HOW WE HOW WE GO ABOUT UPDATING THE POOL MASTER PLAN. WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM COUNCIL TO GET PARK BOARD TO WORK ON THAT? YES, SIR. SO THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS WE ARE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY UPDATING THAT AQUATICS MASTER PLAN.

AND UPON COMPLETION OF IT, WE WOULD BRING IT FORWARD FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE COUNCIL'S.

OKAY. AND WHO SETS THE. IT WAS SHOCKING TO ME TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUE BROUGHT UP.

THE POOLS ARE CLOSED ON LABOR DAY WEEKEND. WHO COMES UP WITH THE SCHEDULE OF.

WHEN THE POOLS ARE OPEN AND WHEN THEY'RE CLOSED? POINT OF ORDER. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. IS THAT A GERMANE QUESTION? PROBABLY NOT, ACTUALLY, BUT I'LL LET IT GO. THANK YOU.

I THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WITH WITH ME LATER ON.

THANK YOU. SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM AND I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES DO AS WELL.

THANK YOU. MISS BLAIR RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

REVISION NUMBER FOUR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BRIAN.

MR. O'CONNOR, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY POOLS IN THE IN THE HOW MANY OF THE HOW MANY AQUATIC CENTERS DO WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY? AND HOW MANY AQUATIC CENTERS DO WE HAVE WHERE THAT'S CLOSE TO WHERE THESE POOLS ARE BEING LOOKED AT? SURE. SO THERE ARE CURRENTLY SIX COMMUNITY POOLS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THE MOMENT.

THERE ARE NINE AQUATIC CENTERS. AND I'LL HAVE TO GET YOU A PERFECTLY FACTUAL ANSWER ON THE NUMBER OF SPRAY GROUNDS, BUT I WANT TO SAY IT'S 17, 18 OR 19 SPRAY GROUNDS.

[04:45:03]

SO LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, PLEASE. AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY AT DISTRICT EIGHT.

HOW MANY, HOW, HOW CLOSE IS THE SPRAY GROUND OR ANY SPRAY GROUND TO TOMMY ALLEN? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT A MAP TO, TO BE SPECIFIC ON THAT.

OH. OKAY. THAT'S NOT A SPRAY GROUND CLOSE TO THAT'S NOT A SPRAY GROUND CLOSE TO TOMMY ALLEN.

SO THERE'S NOT A PLAYGROUND CLOSE TO TOMMY ALLEN.

AND IN NEAR TOMMY ALLEN. THERE VARIOUS PLANS FOR A SPRAYGROUND.

WHAT IS A SPRAYGROUND SUPPOSED TO OPEN UP? YEAH, I DON'T BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE BOND INFORMATION FROM HIM, BUT I'M NOT FOR SURE IF IF IT'S 2024 BOND FOR THE, THE SINGING HILLS THAT WON'T GO WELL, THAT WON'T BE FUNDED IN 2028, WHICH MEANS BY THE TIME YOU DESIGN IT AND BUILD, IT WON'T BE UNTIL 20 2031.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT TAKING OUT AN AQUATICS LOCATION IN A DISTRICT THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY UNDERSERVED UNDER, UNDER WELL, UNDERSERVED AND GIVING THEM NOTHING FOR 5 TO 6 YEARS.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR LONGER? NO. 20 IF IT'S SCHEDULED FOR 2028.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LOVE TO DO IS MOVE THAT UP BY MOVING SOME BOND FUNDS AROUND TO GET THAT GOING WITH THE REST OF THEM.

NORMALLY IT'S GOING TO TAKE US ABOUT NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR FOR DESIGN.

THEN IT TAKES US ANOTHER YEAR FOR CONSTRUCTION.

SO IF WE STAYED ON THE 28TH SCHEDULE, YOU'LL BE LOOKING AT 2030.

SO CHANGING THE THE, THE SUBJECT TO WHAT? CHAIR WEST SAID ABOUT YOUR 2015 AQUATICS MASTER PLAN. MASTER PLAN. HOW COME THE MASTER PLAN WASN'T WASN'T FOLLOWED? IF IT WAS DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED IN 2015. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS OR BOARDS.

I JUST KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE CURRENT COUNCIL OR BOARD WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THEIR POLICY DECISIONS.

SO IF WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE WAS A MASTER PLAN, IT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED SINCE 2015.

AND BUT OF THESE POOLS, HOW MANY OF THEM ARE STILL OPERATIONAL? YEAH. SO IT'S A TOTAL OF 19 POOLS IN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

SO THE QUESTION WAS. HAS THE MASTER PLAN BEEN FOLLOWED? AND HOW MANY POOLS ARE STILL IN OPERATION? IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY, SO SIX POOLS. HOW MANY ARE STILL IN OPERATION? YEAH. OUT OF THE NINE COMMUNITY POOLS THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO TO CLOSE THIS YEAR, SIX WERE STILL IN OPERATIONS.

AND ARE THESE THE SIX THAT WERE STILL IN OPERATION? THESE WERE THE SIX THAT OPERATED THIS YEAR. OKAY.

AND SO CONCEIVABLY THEY CAN GO BACK UP TO NEXT YEAR AND BE TURNED ON.

AND IF THEY DON'T TURN ON, THEY DON'T TURN ON BASED ON WHAT THE PLAN IF A POOL FAILS DURING THE SEASONS, DURING THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE, THE THE POOL WILL REMAIN CLOSED.

SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS AS LONG AS THEY'RE OPERATIONAL UNTIL YOUR NEW MASTER PLAN IS IS ENACTED AND AQUATICS ARE BUILT, IF THEY DON'T TURN ON, THEY JUST DON'T TURN ON.

IF THEY DO TURN ON, THEN THE COMMUNITY STILL GETS TO UTILIZE SERVICES THAT ARE THERE.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO. THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST GOT TO A POINT NOW THAT YOU CAN'T GET THE PARTS.

SO IF THERE'S A FAILURE, THERE'S A FAILURE. THERE'S JUST A FAILURE. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY JUST WON'T REOPEN THAT YEAR IF THERE'S NOT A IF WE CAN'T REPAIR THEM.

SO IF THERE ISN'T A FAILURE, IT STILL TURNS BACK ON AND THE COMMUNITY CAN STILL UTILIZE SOMETHING THAT IS.

SO BASICALLY THE ELECTRICITY IS ON LIGHTS COME ON.

THEY STAY ON. ELECTRICITY IS OFF. LIGHTS DON'T COME ON.

THEY DON'T STAY. THERE IS NO LIGHTS. IT'S DARK.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN THE NEXT THING WOULD BE, HOW SOON DO YOU HAVE THE PLANS FOR YOUR AQUATIC CENTERS TO BE TURNED BACK UP? YES. I WOULD SAY WE ARE VERY LIKE PROBABLY A COUPLE WEEKS AWAY A MONTH JUST TO, TO, TO BRING THE AQUATICS,

[04:50:03]

BUT THE COST WAS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE THESE POOLS, THE ONES THAT WE BUILT FIVE YEARS AGO YOU CAN'T BUILD ONE FOR NOT TOO TIGHT. THE SAME TYPE OF POOL. YOU CAN'T BUILD IT FOR THE LOW END WHERE IT WAS ONLY 6 MILLION ON THE LOW END FOR LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD POOL AND THEN AS HIGH AS 10 MILLION FOR ONE OF THE, I MEAN, ONE OF THE REGIONAL AQUATICS FACILITY.

THAT PRICE TODAY JUST FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD POOL WOULD BE ALMOST $10 MILLION.

BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTANT ON THE MASTER PLAN.

CAN WE GET A PROTOTYPE THAT KIND OF BLENDS THE POOL ELEMENT AS WELL AS THE SPRAYGROUND TOGETHER SO THEY CAN OPERATE LONGER THROUGHOUT THE YEAR? AND THAT PROTOTYPE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS RUNNING AROUND $6.5 MILLION.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE A PROTOTYPE THAT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT FOR POOLS, BUT YOU'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING TO PUT IN MORE POOLS.

YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO FRAGRANCE. AND AS FAR AS AQUATICS ARE CONCERNED, AM I CORRECT? NO, IT'LL BE A POOL. IT'LL BE IT'LL BE A COMBINATION.

SO BECAUSE WHAT THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT WE HEAR IS AND YOU ALL JUST KIND OF TOUCHED ON A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT WE HEAR IS THESE THINGS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE THESE NEW AQUATICS FACILITIES, BUT YOU ONLY OPERATE THEM 8 TO 10 WEEKS OUT OF THE YEAR.

SO HOW CAN WE DEVELOP SOMETHING GET INNOVATIVE WHERE YOU YOU KNOW, ABOUT STATE LAW BECAUSE OF THE THE POOLS AND THE DEPTH, THAT PORTION OF THE POOL COULD BE SHUT OFF AFTER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TEN WEEKS.

BUT THEN THE OTHER PART OF THIS, THIS NEW FACILITY, LIKE THE SPRAYGROUND COMPONENT, COULD OPERATE LONGER THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THEY COULD TRULY OPERATE PROBABLY TEN MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR.

I MEAN, I'M SORRY ABOUT NINE MONTHS. SO BUT OKAY, SO LET ME PIVOT TO WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM, THE $700,000. YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS COMING. TELL US MORE ABOUT WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

YEAH, IT'S JUST COMING FROM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, JUST COMING FROM A AQUATICS IT'S A, IT'S AQUATICS MULTI-YEAR FUND SET UP MANY YEARS AGO.

AND I GAVE AN EXAMPLE, THE LAST TIME THAT WE UTILIZED IT WAS PROBABLY WHEN WE BUILT CRAWFORD AQUATICS FACILITY WHERE WE WAS FALLING SHORT ON GETTING THE, THE, THE THE, THE POOL BUILT. AND WE USED AT THAT TIME OUT OF THAT, OUT OF THAT FUND WE USED, I WANT TO SAY IT WAS LIKE 3 OR $500,000 TO COMPLETE BUILDING THE CRAWFORD AQUATICS FACILITY.

HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? THAT WAS PROBABLY PROBABLY, WHAT, EIGHT YEARS AGO? SO THE MONEY HAS MAYBE SEVEN. SO THE MONEY HASN'T BEEN USED YET? SEVEN YEARS AGO. WELL, NOT THAT LONG. RYAN TOLD ME IT WAS PROBABLY LIKE FIVE YEARS AGO.

OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU TRY TO LET IT BUILD UP.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. SO YOU'RE. BUT YOU'RE GAINING INTEREST ON THIS MONEY.

SO THAT'S HOW COME YOU HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE. SO IF SO, AND YOU USE BOND MONEY FOR THE NEW AQUATICS.

CORRECT. YOU DO. THAT'S CORRECT. SO YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE MONEY IF YOU IF YOU'RE SHORT ON BOND MONEY.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE TRY VERY HARD WHEN WE'RE NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL.

BUT YOU HAVE THE OPTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY OR TO BE GIFTED MONEY FROM OTHER SOURCES.

CORRECT? YES, YES. SO THIS MONEY, THE 700,000, IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO GOING TO GO TO AQUATICS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE AQUATICS, NEW AQUATICS CENTER IS GOING TO BE DONE OUT OF BOND MONEY, AND THIS MONEY IS GOING TO BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THERE'S A SHORTFALL, A COMBINATION, A COMBINATION OF BOTH, AS WE MENTIONED, LIKE SHOULD BE USED LIKE IF A SLIDE FAIL AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE THOSE SLIDES OR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT THE POOL THAT FAIL.

SO IT'D BE A COMBINATION OF, OF, OF REALLY BOND FUNDS TO REALLY BUILD THE NEW FACILITIES.

SO OF, SO GOING BACK TO TOMMY ALLEN, WHAT OTHER SERVICES THAT TOMMY ALLEN ARE IN THAT COMMUNITY OF TOMMY ALLEN DOES THE RESIDENTS HAVE IN THE SUMMERTIME, IF NOT THIS POOL? THEY DON'T I MEAN, I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT TOMMY ALLEN, YOU HAVE I 45, YOU HAVE BONNIE VIEW RIGHT THERE.

AND THEN YOU GO UP TO THE NEXT CLOSEST THING FOR BONNIE VIEW IS GOING TO BE SINGING HILLS WILL BE THE NEXT. SO I CAN ACTUALLY TELL YOU IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

THE NEXT CLOSEST THING FOR WATER IS ALL THE WAY IN KLEBERG, WHICH IS ABOUT 20 MILES AWAY.

[04:55:07]

CORRECT? NO. THAT'S CORRECT. AND UNTIL WE BUILD A NEW POOL THAT'S SINGING HILLS.

THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NOTHING AT BONNIE AT AT TOMMY ALLEN FOR THE KIDS TO DO.

EVEN THE ADULTS. BECAUSE THERE'S NO AIR. A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAVE NO AIR IN THEIR HOME.

SO THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE THEY GO TO COOL OFF.

CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THEIR CLOSEST POOL. THANK YOU.

YOUR TIME. MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ITEM FOR THE REASONS THAT CHAD WEST MENTIONED, AND I THINK THAT YOU ALL SHOULD BE SUPPORTIVE AS WELL, UNLESS Y'ALL WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ALL OVER AGAIN WHEN I MOVE TO ONLY INCLUDE PLEASANT OAKS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST IT? ALL RIGHT. A SHOW OF PLACARDS. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF REVISION NUMBER FOUR AS IT SHOWS ON YOUR SCREEN FOLKS.

REVISION NUMBER FOUR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR CADENA STEWART BAZALDUA.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

GRACEY. COUNCIL MEMBER. WILLIS. NOT PERMISSIBLE.

I DIDN'T COUNT THAT ONE, BUT IT IS A MAJORITY RAISED IN FAVOR, MR. MAYOR. THIS REVISION IS MOVED FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU DID YOU JUST HOLD THAT THING UP REAL QUICK? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WEST. OKAY. WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

MR. MAYOR, THIS REVISION MOVES FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT. YES, MAYOR. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER FIVE.

I MOVE TO RESTORE FUNDING IN PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TRINITY RIVER AUDUBON OF $6,000 IN CEDAR RIDGE PRESERVE OF $3,649.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HEARD MULTIPLE SECONDS. SO CHAIRMAN WEST, ANYTHING? CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN. ANYTHING? WELL, I JUST YEAH.

FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT THEY'RE JUST USING IT WITHIN THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT ALLOCATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NOTHING FOR US TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON. I GUESS THERE'S SOMETHING FOR YOU TO VOTE ON JUST WHETHER IT'S I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A REVISED AMENDMENT. I DON'T IT'S SHOWING ON MY SCREEN IS REVISION NUMBER FIVE.

SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TREAT IT AS SUCH AS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE.

HERE COMES THE CITY MANAGER. THE QUESTION IS ABOUT NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS RESTORING THE FUNDING FOR THE AUDUBON AND CEDAR RIDGE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT HERE. RIGHT. I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST DOING IT WITHIN THEIR OWN FUNDS.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. REVISION NUMBER FOUR ON THE ACTUAL REVISION.

NUMBER FIVE. HOLD ON. I'M SO SORRY. SHE WAS ASKING ABOUT WHO WAS IN THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET.

THIS THIS IS THIS IS AN ABSORPTION WITHIN THE EXISTING ALLOCATION FOR PARKS AND REC, THAT THESE EXPENSES WILL BE JUST INCORPORATED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO SAY THAT IT'S COMING OUT OF I THINK BEFORE THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT REDUCING THEIR SECURITY FUNDING.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER. SO THE QUESTION IS JUST IS THERE AN AMENDMENT NEEDED? I DON'T THE REASON THAT WE INCLUDED IT IS BECAUSE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WE SPECIFICALLY SAID WE WERE REDUCING THESE TWO THINGS, AND WE'RE NO LONGER DOING THAT. SO BUT BUT IT'S NOT CHANGING THE ACTUAL ALLOCATION.

LIKE THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GETTING MORE MONEY. THAT IS CORRECT. IN THE BUDGET. WE'RE NOT MOVING MONEY AROUND. SO THEY'RE JUST ABSORBING IT WITHIN THEIR BUDGET. AND SO IF THE QUESTION IS DO WE NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE? IF WE LOOK AT THE 3% CUTS THAT WERE GIVEN ACROSS THE BOARD.

THESE BOTH WERE INCLUDED IN THE 3% CUTS FROM THE PARK BOARD.

SO I GUESS THE POINT IS, DOES THE BODY NEED TO ACT ON IT THROUGH A STRAW VOTE TODAY FOR THAT TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THIS, FOR THIS. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS OVER INTO THE DEPARTMENT TO COVER THESE.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABSORBED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S NEEDED, BUT LET ME DEFER TO THE BOARD.

IF NOT NEEDED THEM, WE CAN WITHDRAW AND WE CAN. I THINK WE CAN. I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. THAT'S MY OPINION.

DO YOU WANT TO? IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER? THAT'S MY FINAL ANSWER.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION TO THE DEPARTMENT. I DON'T HEAR ANY OBJECTION. SO IT'S WITHDRAWN. LET'S NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME. LET'S NOT LIONEL RICHIE ALL THESE. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

OKAY? ALL NIGHT LONG. OKAY. I'M READY FOR ANOTHER MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER SIX.

I MOVE TO RESTORE $114,000 IN FUNDING IN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO ADD MODERN INVESTIGATIVE PLATFORMS, PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM AND SUPPORT SHIFT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE INTO AN INVESTIGATIVE ROLE.

[05:00:02]

NO COMMENTS FROM YOU. CHAIRMAN WEST, THEN DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION SIX.

I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING REVISION SIX TO ELIMINATE YOUTH COMMISSION TRAVEL FOR 23,000.

MY SON AND DAUGHTER SERVED AS THE YOUTH COMMISSION HERE WHEN I WAS SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE.

AND I KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT PARTICULAR COMMISSION AND THE THINGS THAT THEY LEARN AS THEY TRAVEL.

AND IT'S VERY EDUCATIONAL FOR OUR, FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.

ALSO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES TO OUR BUDGET WITH THE WORK THAT WE DO IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING TO REDUCE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL'S FUNDING AS WELL.

MR. ROTH RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES REVISION NUMBER SIX.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS RESTORATION OF THESE FUNDS, NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE FOCUS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT SOME POINT.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING THE THE CODES OF ETHICS OF OF ORGANIZING THAT THAT OFFICE. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A A PERMANENT POSITION IN THERE, ALTHOUGH I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH WITH THE LEADERSHIP THAT WE HAVE IN THAT POSITION. AND I THINK THAT FOR THE NEXT YEAR, THAT 100,000 THAT $114,000 COULD BE BETTER SERVED AS AS NOT BEING SPENT OR ALLOCATED.

BUT CERTAINLY I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD WANT TO FUND THESE INITIATIVES.

IN A SUBSEQUENT BUDGET. AND AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE CONSIDER CONTINUING OUR IDENTIFICATION OF, OF THIS DEPARTMENT AS A VERY SERIOUS, IMPORTANT DEPARTMENT.

BUT BASED ON OUR OUR LACK OF, OF FUNDS RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT THESE FUNDS COULD BE DEFERRED AND ARE NOT NECESSARY TO BE ALLOCATED AT THIS TIME. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE NOT APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR VISION NUMBER SIX. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE REDUCTION FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FUNDING WOULD COME FROM SPECIFICALLY, AND IF IT'S ALLOCATED ACROSS ALL COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE EQUITABLY, OR HOW IS HOW IS THAT WORKING? IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED ACROSS ALL COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.

THE $56,000 EQUATES TO ABOUT $3,733 PER DISTRICT, INCLUDING THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.

OKAY. AND SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF ELIMINATING THE YOUTH COMMISSION TRAVEL.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ARE 15 SPECIAL CHILDREN WHO GET A TRIP, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A GIFT.

WE DON'T OFFER THAT KIND OF TRAVEL FOR ANY OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, EXCEPT MAYBE A PARK BOARD MEMBER WHO'S GOING TO GO VISIT SOME KIND OF SPECIAL PARK.

I THINK IT'S KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS WHAT WE DO FOR THAT COMMISSION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LIMITED FEEDBACK WE GET AS COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE EVER MADE A POLICY BASED ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHY WE HAVE A YOUTH COMMISSION. I THINK EACH DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER COULD GET AN ADVISORY GROUP OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TO HELP ENGAGE THEM. BUT IN TERMS OF THE CITY AND THE DOLLARS WE PUT TOWARDS IT, I'M PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE REMOVING THAT.

THE SURVEY THING I THINK I'VE ALREADY NOTED AS COMPLETELY WORTHY OF CUTS.

THE IG'S OFFICE IS SO ESSENTIAL FOR THIS CITY AND THE REPUTATION OF OUR CITY.

AND IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO WE HAD COUNCIL MEMBERS IN JAIL.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISTRUST OF OUR CURRENT COUNCIL.

THERE'S NO WAY. WE DON'T KNOW THAT, BY THE WAY, THEY COME HERE AND TELL US THAT ALL THE TIME, AND THE THING WE SHOULD DO IS HELP ENSURE TRANSPARENCY AND AN OPENNESS TO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ACTING IN THE MOST ETHICAL, TRANSPARENT WAY WE CAN AND PROVIDE THE RESOURCES THAT ENSURE THAT TO THE PUBLIC AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN UNDER OUR INTERIM ECG IS SOME REALLY BIG STEPS FORWARD.

IT'S AN EFFORT THAT ONLY STARTED UNDER MAYOR JOHNSON AND CHARGING.

I MEAN, I WAS THE FIRST CHAIR OF IT. PAULA BLACKMON WAS ALSO VERY INVOLVED IN THIS, AND THE WHOLE COUNCIL SUPPORTED MOVING IN THIS IN

[05:05:04]

IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO GROW AND BECOME A FULLY FUNCTIONING SELF-FUNDING DEPARTMENT.

AND I THINK WE'RE SEEING THAT WE'RE HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION NOW.

AND IT HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF YEARS TO REFINE PROVISIONS, DEFINE ROLES, BUILD STAFF AND CAPACITY.

THERE ARE LIMITED GOVERNMENTS IN TEXAS THAT HAVE AN ECG AT A MUNICIPAL LEVEL.

WE NEED IT. OUR RESIDENTS NEED US TO HAVE THIS.

AND SO I AM VERY SUPPORTIVE. AGAIN, IT'S $114,000, BUT IT MIGHT ALSO BE THE DIFFERENCE IN HOW VENDORS LOOK AT US, HOW VENDORS ACT, THAT WE CONTRACT WITH. AND IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU KNOW THAT HAVING A REPUTATION THAT PROVIDES CONFIDENCE TO OUR RESIDENTS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TO OUR BUSINESSES.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON REVISION SIX.

THANK YOU MAYOR. WELL, I'M DEFINITELY A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ALSO IN THE SOURCES OF FUNDING HERE.

I WE DO HAVE A YOUTH COMMISSION THAT HELPS WITH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AMONGST HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.

SO I BELIEVE IN THE YOUTH COMMISSION, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE TRAVEL FOR A SELECT GROUP IS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES. I THINK THE AFFIRMATION OF COUNCIL OFFICES MAKING A CONTRIBUTION HERE IS A REAL SHOW OF SUPPORT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY.

HOW MUCH WE BELIEVE IN SUSSING OUT FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE INSIDE THE DOORS, OUTSIDE THE DOORS.

SO IF YOU READ THE MOST RECENT REPORT BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OVER, I THINK THE OFFICE IS OVER PAID FOR ITSELF IN THE SENSE THAT NOT EVERYTHING MAY BE RECOVERABLE, BUT SOME MISDEEDS MAY HAVE BEEN INTERRUPTED, WHICH WILL SAVE US IN THE LONG RUN.

AND ANOTHER 1.7 MILLION IS BEING TEED UP IN CITY EXPENDITURES OR POTENTIAL FINANCIAL EXPOSURE.

AND I AGREE THIS SENDS A MESSAGE. SO WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS AN OFFICE LIKE THIS OPERATING.

AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE KNOCKED IT BACK FROM WHERE IT STARTED. SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO MAKE UP SOME GROUND, BUT IT SENDS A REAL MESSAGE TO OUR VENDORS, TO PEOPLE INSIDE THESE WALLS.

LAST MONTH, THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CLOSED 58 CASES, WHICH MAY BE A NEW RECORD IN Q1 TO Q3 OF THIS YEAR, 353 NEW COMPLAINTS, FULL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS.

19 LAST YEAR, THERE WAS ONE ALERT SENT TO US.

THIS YEAR THERE HAVE BEEN. SEVEN. SO IT'S WORKING AND IT NEEDS OUR SUPPORT TO BE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE WAY THEIR CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATES WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS. SO I SUPPORT THIS AS IT STANDS.

THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

REVISION NUMBER SIX. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON.

I TO SUPPORT THIS. IN OUR RECENT REPORT WE WERE GIVEN ACTUAL.

IN FACT, BARON, COULD YOU COME AND FILL IN THE BLANKS THAT I HAVE UNFORTUNATELY SINCE FORGOTTEN ON SOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY. AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS MAY HAVE JUST COVERED SOME OF THIS, BUT I THINK HEARING IT FROM YOU COULD BE HELPFUL.

THE. I THINK WE HAD UNDERCUT. WE HAD FOUND A CONTRACT, PERHAPS WHERE WE HAD OVERPAID A CERTAIN AMOUNT OR BEEN BILLED OVER THE ACTUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER SAVINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYEE ORIENTED.

WHAT? ANYWAY, IN YOUR MOST RECENT REPORT, WHAT CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS? SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL BARON ELIASON.

WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS REFERRING TO IS THE RECENT MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION AND ETHICS.

I PUT OUT A REPORT THAT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SEEN, BUT THAT WAS REALLY BASED ON A MEMO THAT WENT TO THAT COMMITTEE, AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THOSE CASES. AND IT'S ALSO ALWAYS A LITTLE DIFFICULT BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN PROCESS.

BUT WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE WAS IS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

AND IN THAT CONTRACT THERE'S $227,000 THAT HAS BEEN OVERBILLED TO THE CITY.

[05:10:01]

AND SO THAT'S A DIRECT SAVINGS TO THE CITY AND THAT THAT PROCESS IS BEING LOOKED AT.

I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE OTHER STORIES THAT THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART IS REFERRING TO HAVE TO DO WITH SOME DUAL EMPLOYMENT ISSUES.

WE'VE FOUND FOUR OF THOSE. AND SO THAT'S DUAL EMPLOYMENT.

I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. WHAT IS DUAL EMPLOYMENT? GREAT QUESTION. I'M SORRY. I GET SO FAMILIAR WITH THIS STUFF.

OKAY. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT DUAL EMPLOYMENT IS, IS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS A FULL TIME JOB FOR THE CITY, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING 9 TO 5. AND THEN IT TURNS OUT THEY ALSO HAVE A FULL TIME JOB WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE, 9 TO 5. AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS, LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN OTHER PLACES.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEY SHOULD BE WORKING FOR THE CITY. NOW, WHAT'S THE VALUE OF THAT? IT'S VERY HARD TO DISCERN AND TO VALUE HOW MUCH OF THAT EIGHT HOURS ARE THEY SPENDING FOR THE CITY AND HOW MUCH ARE THEY SPENDING FOR THE OTHER EMPLOYER? BUT WE CAN PUT A NUMBER ON HOW MUCH WE HAVE PAID THEM WHILE THEY WERE WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND IN THOSE FOUR CASES, IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

$692,000 AND WE CAN ANNUALIZE HOW MUCH WE PAY THAT PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR AND SAY, WELL, IF WE JUST CONTINUE TO ALLOW THEM TO BE EMPLOYED HERE, THIS IS HOW MUCH WE'D BE PAYING THEM WHILE THEY WERE WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT THE OIG HAS BEEN DOING THIS YEAR.

SOME OF THE NUMBERS, NOT, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE BIG NUMBERS AND THERE'S MORE TO COME.

AND SO THE 114,000 CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE PERHAPS OF HOW THAT COULD BE USED? I KNOW ONE THING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE IG'S OFFICE IS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO BE VERY REACTIVE BECAUSE OF YOUR SIZE AND IT'S A NEW OFFICE AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. PERHAPS FUNDING IS ONE OF THEM.

IT HAS TO BE A MORE REACTIVE, LIKE SOMEBODY NEEDS TO TURN SOMETHING IN FOR YOU TO BE AWARE OF IT AS AN OFFICE.

WE'RE NOT YET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ALL CAN BE PROACTIVE AND FIND SOMETHING ON, YOU KNOW, BASED ON YOUR EFFORTS, NOT THAT YOU DON'T THEN INVESTIGATE WHEN SOMETHING'S BEEN TURNED IN.

SO I DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT IT'S LIKE A, IT'S WE'RE IN OUR EARLY STAGES OF AN ECG OFFICE AND AS WE MATURE, WE'D LIKE TO BE MORE PROACTIVE. CORRECT, CORRECT.

AND DOES SOME OF THIS 114,000 GET US MOVING THAT DIRECTION? THAT'S THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF OF THOSE MONIES.

AND IT FALLS INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. BUT THE MAIN ONE HAS TO DO WITH SOME TOOLS THAT'S AUDIT BASED.

OUR OFFICE WAS AUDITED A FEW YEARS AGO. THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY RECOGNIZED WE NEEDED WAS CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE TRANSITION THROUGH NOBODY'S FAULT, BUT THE KIND OF TOOLS THAT WE HAD TO DO THE WORK WERE LOST.

WE'RE LITERALLY WORKING WITH PENCILS AND PAPER, AND IT'S, IT'S GOING FINE, BUT WE CAN DO MORE BETTER, FASTER WITH, WITH TOOLS. THAT'S ANOTHER AUDIT FINDING.

AND THEN THERE'S SOME TRAINING ISSUES AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON THAT AS WELL.

I THINK THIS IS VERY HELPFUL. I THINK SOMETIMES WE JUST SEE NUMBERS ON A SCREEN AND SOME WORDS WITH THAT.

AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THEIR PURPOSE AND HOW TRANSFORMATIVE THEY CAN BE.

114,000 IS IN THE SCHEME OF THE CITY'S BUDGET IS A SMALL AMOUNT.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE TAKING IT FROM IS PAINFUL.

IF FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ASK THIS, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT A GO.

IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE TO GIVE YOU 91,000 AND TAKE OUT THE 23,000 WITH THE 91, STILL BE EFFECTIVE, BE ARE WE RE CRIPPLING. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO OR IS IS THAT AT ALL DOABLE? EVERYTHING WILL BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WE WILL MAKE GOOD USE OF OF THOSE FUNDS TO BREAK IT DOWN.

YOU KNOW, FOR YOU, WHICH I DON'T THINK COUNCIL WANTS RIGHT NOW.

BUT. IF COUNCIL GIVES US THE MONEY, YOU WILL SEE A RETURN IN SPADES.

PERIOD. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE NEEDED HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MAYOR JOHNSON, I THINK I'M FINISHED, BUT I DID JUST PROCEDURALLY.

CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? OF COURSE YOU CAN.

THERE'S NO AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THERE'S JUST A REVISION. RIGHT. WE'RE DOING REVISIONS TWICE.

[05:15:04]

OKAY. YEAH. GO AHEAD. GO FOR IT. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO FOR IT. Y'ALL CAN DISCUSS AND DECIDE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

BUT ANYWAY, I WOULD. AMENDMENTS. GO AHEAD. I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE REVISION TO ELIMINATE THE YOUTH COMMISSION TRAVEL AS FUNDING FOR THIS REVISION SO THAT THE THE AMOUNT THAT IS RESTORED TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, I BELIEVE IS 91,000 INSTEAD OF 114.

SECOND. OKAY. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE SECONDS THAT YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT TO REVISION NUMBER SIX.

I KNOW Y'ALL ARE GOING TO GET TIRED OF HEARING ME SAY BALANCE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING HERE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET THESE FUNDS TO OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL SO WE CAN BEGIN TO MOVE THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO HEAD. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME OF THE YOUTH TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON, DC IS AGAIN, POTENTIALLY TRANSFORMATIVE TO THE, TO THE YOUTH.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT IN OUR YOUTH.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THE TRAVEL BUDGET FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION, BUT ALSO HOPEFULLY GIVE SOME DOLLARS THAT CAN BE USED BY OUR INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL. SOME OF YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE BEFORE THAT AMENDMENT, SO DON'T PRETEND LIKE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AMENDMENT UNLESS YOU REALLY DO, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION AFTER WE RESOLVE THIS. SO, MR. ROTH, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHAIRWOMAN STEWART'S AMENDMENT? FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

I DO WANT TO ALSO COMPLIMENT YOU IN YOUR LEADERSHIP OF THE OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, THE STRIDES YOU'VE MADE.

CERTAINLY MY COMMENTS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH, WITH THE, WITH THE, THE IMPORTANCE AND THE VALIDITY OF YOUR MISSION THERE.

IT WAS REALLY BASED ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE NEXT YEAR, AND WHETHER THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE TIME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE REDUCED AND THAT YOU'VE EXPLAINED WHAT YOU NEED THOSE FUNDS FOR RELATIVE TO THE AUDIT, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT THESE ARE NOT ASPIRATIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE REQUIRED, BUT ARE, ARE, ARE REQUESTED, BUT ARE REQUIRED FUNDS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS AUDITED SITUATIONS AND CONTINUE YOUR, YOUR FOUNDATIONAL BASIS OF BUILDING WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

SO IN THAT RESPECT, I WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR SITUATION AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. REVISION NUMBER SIX. THANK YOU MAYOR.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION, OBVIOUSLY SEE GREAT VALUE THERE.

I DO SEE OUR STUDENTS. THEY'RE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN HOW CITY GOVERNANCE IS WORKING.

AND I DO HAVE FREQUENT AND STRONG COMMUNICATION WITH MY YOUTH COMMISSIONER AND THEM GIVING ME UPDATES.

MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY FOR JACK AND FOR OUR ATTORNEY.

IS FUNDING WISE, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO FUND OUR YOUTH COMMISSIONERS TRAVEL WITHIN OUR OWN BUDGET THROUGH THE MCC? IF WE WANTED TO ALLOW OUR YOUTH COMMISSIONER TO TRAVEL? WOULD WE BE ABLE TO FUND THAT FROM OUR OWN BUDGET? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO, BUT THEY'RE TAKING $56,000 FROM US.

RECOMMEND IT SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FUND IT IF THEY'RE TAKING MONEY FROM OUR OUR BUDGET.

SO I DON'T SUPPORT IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO. MR. MAYOR MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO TAKE THE $56,000 FOR ESCORTS FOR 91,000 TO 35 000.

I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE. TO TAKE THE $56,000 OUT OF THIS.

YES OR NO? I DON'T WANT I DON'T SUPPORT REDUCING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FUNDING.

OKAY. SO YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE SOURCES OF THE $113,000 REDUCTION BY 56,000, WHICH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE FLOOR WOULD BE WHAT, 35000? IS THAT CORRECT? IF IT'S 91000. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE BODY KNOWS WHAT BEFORE.

[05:20:03]

ARE THERE TWO SECONDS FOR THAT? OKAY. THERE ARE TWO SECONDS FOR.

SO NOW YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

YES. NUMBER SIX IN MY IN MY OFFICE, WE USE EVERY SINGLE DIME FOR OUR COMMUNITY WHERE STAFF AND EVERY SINGLE DIME.

SO THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR NO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT THIS, THIS FUND IS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

I KNOW IT'S 3030. I THINK IT COMES OUT TO BE 37 AND 33 PER COUNCIL MEMBER IF MY MATH IS CORRECT.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THAT. AND I APPRECIATE CHURCH STEWART ADVOCATING ALONG WITH ME FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE WORK THAT WE DO AS A COUNCIL IN OUR OFFICE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

SO I CANNOT JUST SUPPORT THAT. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE, FINE.

BUT WHERE THEY COME FROM, WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT THAT.

SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM? OKAY. SEEING NONE. IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE INDICATE BY SHOWING YOUR PLACARD.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED. COUNCILMEMBER SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. MAYOR. PRO TEM.

RESENDEZ. COUNCIL MEMBER. RIDLEY WITH ONLY SIX.

A HAND AND FIVE OTHER SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO WE'RE BACK TO THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN STEWART, WHICH STILL HAS THE REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE YOUTH TRAVEL ONLY IN IT. MR. BAZALDUA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS JUST ATTEMPTED TO BE DONE.

I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE THE MCC LINE WITH NON DEPARTMENTAL SAVINGS OF $56,000. SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TWICE.

SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE HAD A BUDGET THAT GAVE US A LINE ITEM FROM THE DOWNTOWN DALLAS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THAT WAS 78,000 MORE THAN WHAT THE ASSESSED VALUE CAME IN AT.

SO THERE WAS A BUILT IN SAVINGS OF $78,000 IN.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO USE. THE $56,000 FROM.

THIS KEEPS THE STIPEND COMPLETELY WHOLE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE WAS A FORECAST OF HAVING A HIGHER EVALUATION ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO.

AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT SAVINGS? JEANETTE. YES.

WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN JUNE AND JULY, WE HAD A FORECAST OF WHAT THE FISCAL YEAR 27 PARTICIPATION IN THE DOWNTOWN PIT WOULD BE. AND THE GENERAL FUND PORTION WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 725,358. BASED ON A REVISED ASSESSMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED, ADOPTED THE ASSESSMENT WENT DOWN. AND SO THE NEW AMOUNT FOR THE GENERAL FUND IS AND 4700007 $647,079. AND SO THE DIFFERENCE IS 78,000 TO 79. SO THE COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE USE IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS AS IF THERE'S A, A CONSENSUS TO SUPPORT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE COMMENTS THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS OF THE USE WE ALREADY HAD THE YOUTH COUNCIL TRAVEL, YOUTH COMMISSION TRAVEL BACKED OUT OF THAT AND IT WAS LEAVING THE 56,000 FROM MCC, WITH THAT BEING AT LEAST, AT LEAST A HANDFUL OF COLLEAGUES STICKING POINT WITH GETTING THAT THROUGH.

I THINK THAT THIS IS AN EASY SWAP. IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET.

THIS WAS A BUILT IN SAVINGS AS PROPOSED. SO I DO WANT TO REITERATE THIS IS NOT PROPOSING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM DEE DEE.

THERE ARE $78,000 THAT THEY BUDGETED WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF VALUES BEING AT A CERTAIN LEVEL WHEN VALUES CAME IN AT A LOWER

[05:25:10]

AND I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE USE. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THIS IS MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN STEWART.

YES. VERY INTERESTING. WERE WE NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS CHANGE? SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE. NO. THE QUESTION CAME UP AS ONE OF THE Q AND A'S.

AND SO WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE A DETAILED SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS BUDGETED AND NON-DEPARTMENTAL.

SO WE DID PROVIDE THAT TO CITY COUNCIL ON THAT LIST WAS THE DOWNTOWN PIT, AND THE AMOUNT WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE ITEMS FUNDED IN NON-DEPARTMENTAL. WE RECEIVED A QUESTION FROM DISTRICT SEVEN ASKING WHAT WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 25TH.

AND SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THE DIFFERENCE IS WHAT WAS BUDGETED AND WHAT WAS APPROVED.

YEAH. SEE, THIS IS KIND OF THE GAME THAT GETS PLAYED THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE GET TOLD CERTAIN THINGS AND EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T.

AND I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED IT IF WE WOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE'S $78,000 AVAILABLE.

AND WHAT IS YOUR PRIORITY TO DO IT INSTEAD OF SOMEBODY KNOWING ABOUT IT TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT WHEN OTHERS DIDN'T? SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM.

WE ARE ACTUALLY ON THE FOURTH SET. THIS RESPONSE WILL BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONS WE RECEIVE RELATED TO FLOC.

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IN 3099 ACROSS THE CITY.

THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE SENDING OUT TO CITY COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. I'VE READ YOUR THREE SETS. WHAT I'D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER THEN IN THAT FOURTH SET IS ANY DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MAKE AMENDMENTS SO THAT ALL OF US HAVE THE SAME SET OF INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. AS FAR AS THIS ITEM, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU OUR COUNCIL OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FUNDING IS OVER BUDGETED. I KNOW YOU THINK IT'S SO HARD TO HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES ONLY.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EVERY OTHER COUNCIL BEFORE HAD TWO.

AND THEY DID IT. AND THEY DID THE SAME JOB WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

AND MANY OF YOU HAVE LESS PEOPLE THAN YOUR DISTRICT BEFORE, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OUR POPULATION HASN'T CHANGED AND I HAVE 97,000.

SO THEREFORE SOMEBODY'S GOT TO HAVE LESS. AND THEY DID IT WITH TWO.

MANY OF YOU ARE NOT EVEN A COMMITTEE CHAIR. I CHAIR THREE COMMITTEES.

I HAVE TWO STAFF MEMBERS. IT CAN BE DONE. YOU NEED TO BE ORGANIZED.

YOU NEED TO BE FOCUSED. BUT I'M SORRY, YOU DON'T HAVE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AND MORE NEEDS THAN ANY OTHER DISTRICT.

AND WE SHOULD ONLY HAVE TWO PEOPLE. IT'S OVER $1 MILLION EXTRA IN OUR BUDGET FOR US TO HAVE A THIRD PERSON.

SO WE SHOULD BE TAKING OUT A LOT MORE THAN THAT FROM MCC, IN MY OPINION.

SO I'M DEFINITELY NOT FOR USING THE MONEY FOR THIS, THE PYD EXPECTED DOLLARS, IT SHOULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING AND WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT.

BUT I'LL JUST REMIND YOU WE HAD TWO PRIORITIES, TOP TWO PRIORITIES ON OUR RESIDENT SURVEY AND THEY WERE STREETS AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO WITH THAT NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT ITEM. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH, IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IF A MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL HAS A CHILD WHO'S ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION AND THEY'RE VOTING ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. OKAY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE BAZALDUA AMENDMENT TO CHAIRMAN STEWART'S AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DID SAY THAT IF WE COULD FIND ANOTHER SOURCE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA FOR LOCATING AND FINDING ANOTHER SOURCE TO GET THIS DONE TO SIT AND SAY SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I JUST HEARD FROM MY COUNCIL MEMBER COLLEAGUE, I DISAGREE.

EVERY DISTRICT IS NOT THE SAME AND EVERY DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME CHALLENGES.

SO EVERY, EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT. A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT'S IN FAR NORTH DALLAS ARE NOT THE SAME CHALLENGES.

THAT'S IN SOUTHERN DALLAS. EVERY WORKLOAD IS DIFFERENT.

AND SO TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT, THAT'S VERY DISINGENUOUS.

[05:30:01]

AND I CAN TELL YOU A LOT OF THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING IN MY COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN A LOT OF AREAS IN FAR NORTH OR EAST.

AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU'RE HAVING IN FORT NORTH OR EAST DALLAS IS NOT HAPPENING IN SOUTHERN DALLAS.

SO WE ALL HAVE OUR DIFFERENT CHALLENGES, AND EACH COUNCIL MEMBER, I BELIEVE, DOES A GREAT JOB WORKING IN THEIR PARTICULAR DISTRICT.

I CANNOT GO TO DISTRICT ONE AND SAY THAT HE'S DOING SOMETHING AND NOT DOING SOMETHING IN THIS DISTRICT, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE WORK THAT HE'S NOT DOING OR NOT DOING.

SO TO TO SAY THAT WE, SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT ORGANIZED BECAUSE WHEN OUR COLLEAGUES FEEL THAT THAT'S HER OPINION, SHE'S ENTITLED TO IT. BUT THAT'S, IN MY OPINION, VERY DISRESPECTFUL TO OUR COLLEAGUES, AND I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

LISTEN TO ME. WE'RE NOT ENGAGING IN THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY STUFF.

KEEP IT ON THE POLICY LEVEL. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASSESS WHETHER THE COMMENTS WERE MADE WERE DISRESPECTFUL OR NOT DISRESPECTFUL AND ALL THAT STUFF.

LET'S JUST STICK TO DEBATING A BUDGET. PRETEND LIKE WE'RE PROFESSIONALS HERE.

HOW ABOUT THAT? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THE COMMENT WAS SAID SO I WOULD ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT WAS SAID PUBLICLY. BUT THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT OUR COLLEAGUES ARE PROFESSIONAL, AND I BELIEVE THAT OUR MAYOR, THAT I SUPPORT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA IS TRYING TO DO AND THE AMENDMENT THAT HE THE SOURCE THAT HE FOUND THAT HE FOUND TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO A FEW MINUTES AGO, I WILL STOP RIGHT THERE BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SAID, MR. MAYOR, OUT OF RESPECT. THANK YOU, MR. RIDLEY.

RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO JEANETTE, CLARIFICATION ON WHERE THE 78,000 IS COMING FROM? IS IT ULTIMATELY COMING OUT OF THE. DDI ALLOCATION? CORRECT. SO WITHIN NON-DEPARTMENTAL THERE WAS A LINE ITEM FOR DOWNTOWN PITT.

RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THIS REALLOCATION IS.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS $1 MILLION FOR DOWNTOWN PITT.

YEAH. NO IT'S 725,000 FOR THE DOWNTOWN PITT. AND THAT'S BASED UPON THE ANTICIPATED APPRAISAL OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE PITT. SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ASSESSMENT RATE.

SO THE YEAR OVER YEAR RATE WAS REDUCED FROM 0.13 $0.09 PER 100 VALUATION TO 0.12 $0.09 PER 100 VALUATION.

OH. SO THEY REDUCED THEIR ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT.

CORRECT. SO IS THAT REFLECTED IN THEIR SERVICE PLAN THAT WE APPROVED A WEEK OR TWO AGO.

SO FOR THAT QUESTION I WILL HAVE TO. OH I SEE THEM SAYING YES.

SO THAT IS CORRECT. AND.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MARIA SMITH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND JUST TO CONFIRM, YES, THE THE AMOUNT THAT CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION NEXT YEAR IS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

THE GENERAL FUND PORTION IS 647,708, $708.60.

SO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS BUDGETED IN NON-DEPARTMENTAL FOR THE FY 27 PAYMENT WAS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THAT 725,000.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS. SO IT LEAVES THE SURPLUS OF 78,000.

CORRECT. WELL WASN'T THAT ANTICIPATED BEFORE TODAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE 78,000 LEFT WITH NO ALLOCATION. SO WE DON'T RECEIVE, WE DON'T RECEIVE.

THE CERTIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLLS UNTIL THE END OF JULY, JULY 25TH.

AND SO IT TAKES US SOME TIME TO CALCULATE WHAT THE CITY'S PAYMENT IS GOING TO BE.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL REALLY EARLY AUGUST.

AND THAT'S ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE BUDGET GOES TO BED.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THERE'S ALWAYS A TIMING ISSUE.

OKAY. THANK YOU MAYOR. MR. ROTH. THANK YOU. JUST LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION.

JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT. WE DID APPROVE, I THINK, 900,000 PLUS OR MINUS FOR THE OVERALL RPID PAYMENT. WHAT YOU'RE DEFINING IS THAT 700,000 PLUS OR MINUS IS FROM THE GENERAL FUND, AND THEN THE OTHER 300,000 WAS FROM WHERE? FROM CONVENTION AND CONVENTION AND EVENT SERVICES.

SO IT WAS IT WAS $1 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

IT WASN'T. SO MY MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IS IF WE GET A BILL FROM THE PYD FOR THE PYD ASSESSMENT, ARE WE. DO WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY ALLOCATED TO PAY IT? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. YES. IF THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ANY CHANGE, THEN THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE THE THE ASSESSED VALUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE TAX RATE OR THE PYD RATE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

[05:35:06]

CORRECT. THE ACTUAL PAYMENT WILL BE $958,000, 647,000 WILL COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS BUDGETED IN NON-DEPARTMENTAL AND 311,000 FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER. SO THE 78,000 WE'VE GOT IT IN.

WE JUST WE HAVE IT. WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR ANYTHING.

AND WE COULD WE COULD USE IT. WE COULD NOT USE IT.

WE COULD SAVE IT. THIS IS JUST EXTRA MONEY THAT WE CAN DO IT, BUT IT'S NOT AFFECTING DEE DEE.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. CORRECT. AND THE BID.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM WE ARE ON.

MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT. EXCUSE ME, CHAIR I HAVE RAISED A POINT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.

CAN WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN ANSWER FROM THEM? IF YOU ARE DISCUSSING IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ANY ETHICS QUESTION, IS THAT WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WE WILL NOT DISCUSS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE RECORD.

WE ONLY TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THANK YOU. WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY HOW I GOT TREATED WITH ME, THOUGH.

THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MR. BAZALDUA AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER STEWART.

BLAIR. BAZALDUA, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON, MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ COUNCIL MEMBER WEST, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS.

WITH MAJORITY OF THE SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. THIS AMENDMENT MOVES FORWARD.

MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW WE ARE ON MISS STEWART'S AMENDMENT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR DEAL. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. BLAIR STEWART BAZALDUA DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON.

MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ COUNCIL MEMBER WEST GRACEY AND WILLIS, WITH MAJORITY OF THE SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR OF THIS REVISION, MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. ALRIGHTY. SO NOW WE ARE ON THE MAIN REVISION NUMBER SIX WITH THE AMENDMENTS APPROVED.

SEEING NO ONE WANTING TO SPEAK. YEAH, OKAY. GO AHEAD, MR. WEST. THIS IS WE'RE. YOU'RE READY FOR REVISION SEVEN? NO, NO, NO, WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE WE'RE NOT APPROVED.

REVISION SIX. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REVISION SIX, AS AMENDED, RAISE THIS DEAL HERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR. SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR. STEWART COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, BAZALDUA DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO COUNCIL MEMBER WEST.

COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN RIDLEY, GRACEY AND WILLIS.

WITH MAJORITY OF THE SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR, THE REVISION MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. WEST. ALL RIGHT. PURSUANT TO CITY MANAGER REVISION NUMBER SEVEN, I MOVE TO RESTORE EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000. I HEARD A MOTION AND TWO SECONDS, MR. WEST. NO COMMENTS, MISS MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU.

CITY MANAGER, WHY DID YOU ORIGINALLY PULL THAT ITEM OUT OR NOT RECOMMEND IT FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

THANK YOU. AND I PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO VERBATIM GIVE MY COMMENTS FROM LAST WEEK.

BUT DURING THE BUDGET WORKSHOP, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED VERY CLEARLY IS THAT AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH OUR SECOND YEAR OF PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING, IT REALLY DOES REQUIRE US TO LOOK AT THE RANKING OF OUR PROGRAMS AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS YEAR'S PROCESS.

THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM DID NOT RECEIVE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE UPPER RANKINGS, WHAT WE CALL ABOVE THE LINE.

AND A LOT OF THAT IS BASED ON CAN THE SERVICE BE PROVIDED OUTSIDE THE CITY? ARE THERE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE SERVICE AND DOES IT RISE TO OUR TOP PRIORITIES AS A RESULT OF OUR COMMUNITY SURVEY? AND SO IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET BASED ON OUR CURRENT NEEDS AND THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING WE FELT THAT THIS COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH THOSE OUTSIDE RESOURCES.

AGAIN, I LISTENED TO COUNCIL OVER THESE LAST FEW WEEKS AS WE LAID OUT AND ROLLED OUT THE BUDGET, AND I HEARD FROM OVER A MAJORITY, OVER A MAJORITY OF YOU, ASKING IF THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ANY EXISTING PROGRAMS THAT WE COULD EITHER ADJUST AND MAKE THIS BE A, A SERVICE.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. AND SO WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IS IF THE GOAL IS TO BALANCE THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WE CAN KEEP HOUSED TO KEEP THEM FROM

[05:40:06]

THANK YOU. SO IT IS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL.

BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET.

SO WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THAT THERE ARE SERVICES AVAILABLE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR THIS SERVICE.

IS THAT CORRECT? BASED ON OUR INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS WAS ONE THAT WE REALLY LOOKED AT QUITE EXTENSIVELY WHEN WE FUNDED THE EVICTION ADVOCACY PROGRAM BEFORE, IT WAS NOT A GENERAL FUND EXPENSE. WE WERE USING ARPA FUNDING.

AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE IN THE MARKET OR OUT IN OUTSIDE THE CITY, WOULD THERE STILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES TO OUR RESIDENTS? AND WHAT WE DETERMINED IS THAT WITH THE SUPPORT THAT'S OUT THERE, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH OTHER NONPROFITS AS WELL AS I KNOW, THE COUNTY'S SUPPORT THAT IT'S THERE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ME RESPONDING BACK TO THIS BODY WHERE THE MAJORITY HAS HAVE ASKED FOR ME TO CONSIDER HOW TO SUPPORT IT IN THE BUDGET. SO YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT, WHICH IS WE FUNDED IT THROUGH ARPA ONE TIME FUNDING.

WE WERE TRYING TO DO A GOOD THING, AND NOW IT'S GOING TO BE AN ANNUAL EXPENSE IN OUR GENERAL FUND.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW WE GET TO A $5.66 BILLION BUDGET AND LOTS OF THINGS THAT STARTED AS A PILOT PROGRAM.

WE LIVE WITH THEM NOW BECAUSE ONCE IT GETS IN THERE, IT NEVER COMES OUT.

AND IF IT DOES, WE SPEND 12 YEARS TALKING ABOUT CLOSING POOLS AND NEVER DO IT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. SO WITH THIS EVICTION ADVOCACY, I KNOW WE HAVE SEEN NUMBERS.

I'VE SEEN THEM FOR MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT HOW MANY ARE REPRESENTED, BUT WHAT I HAVEN'T SEEN IS THE DISPOSITION, NOT IF THEY WON OR LOST THE CASE, BUT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU WIN THE CASE, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO PUT MONEY IN WITH THE COURT BECAUSE YOU ARE LATE ON RENT.

BUT THEN THE, THE PERSON SAYS, WELL, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY AND THEY'RE EVICTED ANYHOW.

ALL THAT EFFORTS JUST HAPPENED AND THEY'RE EVICTED.

OR THE CASE IS ONE SUCCESSFULLY AND THEY ARE NOT HOUSED FOR VERY MANY DAYS LONGER.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF DOLLARS SPENT AND A LOT OF TIME SPENT WITH NOT A LOT OF CHANGE IN IN SUSTAINED HOUSING.

SO WHAT KIND OF OUTCOMES AND WHAT KIND OF MEASUREMENTS ARE YOU GETTING FROM NONPROFITS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN FUNDED THROUGH THE ARPA FUNDS? I'D HAVE TO ASK THE STAFF TO COME OUT. I KNOW THAT WE AGAIN, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS QUITE EXTENSIVELY.

WE'VE ALSO LOOKED AT WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DO WE HAVE TO EVEN IF COUNCIL MOVES THIS FORWARD, WHAT TYPE OF CHANGES IN SOME OF THE DATA AND SOME OF THE METRICS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SO WE CAN COME BACK AND TRULY PROVE UP THE RETURN BECAUSE THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN MY OPINION.

I'LL LET DIRECTOR THOR SHARE ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS THAT HE'S RECEIVED FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY WITH THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER THORAX AND DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. WITH THE CURRENT CONTRACTS UNDER ARPA, WE WERE ONLY TRACKING CASES, SO SOME OF THE MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN THEY MIGHT FACE EVICTION AGAIN OR HOW LONG DO THEY STAY HOUSED WAS NOT IN OUR CURRENT SOLICITATION. PART OF OUR REJECTING BIDS ON THAT UPCOMING SOLICITATION WAS TO REDO OUR PERFORMANCE CRITERIA TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPACT AND OUTCOME OF SOME OF THIS WORK. AND SO THAT HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, OUR PROGRAM AGAINST STATE AND FEDERAL MANDATES AGAINST OUR PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING.

AND THIS BECAME FORWARD AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY THE POINT THAT WE'VE BEEN TRACKING CERTAIN METRICS LIKE THIS MANY CASES, THIS MANY PEOPLE, THIS IS WHAT WE WON OR LOST, RIGHT? BUT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY EVALUATING WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS EFFORT.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WERE YOU WERE LIVING AT IN AMLI PROPERTY, YOU ARE GOING THROUGH AN EVICTION AND SIX MONTHS LATER YOU'RE STILL AT THAT SAME AMLI PROPERTY. BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GUESS IT'S PRETTY LOW.

MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT I'VE SEEN NUMBERS FOR DALLAS COUNTY.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING SERVICE IN COLLIN IN DENTON FROM THE SERVICES THAT WE'VE HAD.

AND I THINK THE DISTRICT 12 PORTION THAT'S IN DALLAS COUNTY HAS BEEN SERVED, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ACTUALLY CITYWIDE.

WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF EVICTIONS IN COLLIN AND DENTON COUNTY BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY APARTMENTS.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT AS WE IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, I THINK WE DO WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND SHARE THE WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT

[05:45:04]

AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS TO CONTINUE, MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO DEFINITELY LOOK AT THIS RIGHT NOW AS A ONE YEAR AND NOT NECESSARILY A CONTINUATION UNTIL WE KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE BEYOND 2027.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE FUNDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS JUST FOR YEAR ONE.

IT'S NOT FOR 27 AND AGAIN FOR 28. AND ON THE RESIDENT SURVEY, WHERE DID THEY PLACE EVICTION SERVICES? I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING A DIRECT QUESTION. I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT IN THE TOP FIVE, IF THAT'S THE WAY I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I KNOW IT'S IN THE TOP FIVE, BUT I WILL SAY THAT IN THE TOP FIVE, HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS IS IN THE TOP FIVE.

AND SO IT IS, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE, THE LINKAGE AND THE ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW WE'RE INVESTING INTO OUR HOMELESS ECOSYSTEM.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY PEOPLE WHO ARE EVICTED, WHO BECOME HOMELESS, BUT VERY OFTEN PEOPLE ARE EVICTED, DO NOT BECOME HOMELESS, AND THEY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS.

AND THAT IS JUST A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU GO THROUGH AN EVICTION AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES WHO REGULARLY TAKE PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST EVICTED AND IN FACT, SOMETIMES THEY JUST MOVE ACROSS THE STREET.

SO THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THE SURVEY ITSELF RATING HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS AS A TOP NUMBER.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE SURVEY DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN I WANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND I WANT MY CITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES, WHICH I BELIEVE ALL RESIDENTS DO WANT THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT ALSO THEY PRIORITIZE IT BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO DO ENFORCEMENT.

AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING AT THE LEVEL THEY EXPECT, AND THEY WANT YOU TO GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

AND SO THERE ISN'T ANY DISTINCTION IN THAT SURVEY ON WHAT THE ISSUE IS WITH THAT.

SO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. MR. RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT DIVERTING FUNDING FROM STREET OUTREACH, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S CALLED TRUING UP, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING TO ME. THOR, WILL THIS NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR STREET OUTREACH EFFORTS? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THIS WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CURRENT STREET OUTREACH CONTRACT, AS THE CURRENT CONTRACT IS JUST SHY OF $700,000.

SO MOVING FORWARD IN THE BUDGET, ASSUMING LEVEL FUNDING OF THAT WORK, WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE STREET OUTREACH WORK AT THE SAME AMOUNT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL. SO IS THAT A MULTIYEAR CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR THAT CONDUCTS THAT OUTREACH? WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT WITH THE LEAD AGENCY OF THE CONTINUUM OF CARE.

WE ARE WORKING ON A SOLICITATION, THOUGH, FOR AN RFP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE MOST COMPETITIVE PROCESS AVAILABLE FOR STREET OUTREACH.

OF COURSE, THAT IS CONTINGENT ON THE FINAL APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE AMOUNT THAT WE CAN FINALIZE THAT SOLICITATION FOR POSTING IN THE NEW FISCAL YEAR.

WELL, AND YOU DO HAVE METRICS INDICATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR STREET OUTREACH HOMELESS PROGRAMS, DO YOU NOT? YES. AND JUST GIVE US A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THOSE.

WE LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE OBVIOUSLY LIKE LOGGED IN TO HMIS, WHICH IS THE MAIN CENTRAL DATABASE FOR LOGGING ALL NEW CASES.

WE'RE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REFERRALS, THE PLACEMENTS, THE SERVICES PROVIDED.

IT TAPS INTO THE PREVIOUSLY AWARDED STREET TO HOME CONTRACT, PROVIDING THE THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING SUPPORT ASSISTANCE NEEDED AS PEOPLE MAKE THAT TRANSITION FROM STREET TO BACK TO HOUSING.

SO THERE'S A NUMEROUS TYPES OF EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT STREET OUTREACH DIRECTLY WORKS WITH SOME OF THE HARDER TO HOUSE POPULATION, WHICH TAKES MULTIPLE TOUCH POINTS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO GET THEM INTO SHELTER AND SERVICES, WHICH IS A VERY DIFFERENT SERVICE. WE ALSO HAVE CONTRACTS FOR DIVERSION, WHICH HELP WHEN PEOPLE MIGHT BE FACING EVICTION OR ABOUT TO BECOME HOMELESS, USING SOME DIFFERENT SERVICES TO DIVERT THEM FROM THE SHELTERS AND GET PLACEMENT THROUGH A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT MEANS, WHICH IS PART OF OUR OVERALL HOMELESSNESS SERVICES, TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF OUTREACH AND CARE TO PEOPLE.

SO PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS REVISION, HOW DID YOU PLAN TO USE THIS 500,000? IT WAS PART OF GROWING THE STREET TO HOME WORK OR THE I'M SORRY, THE STREET OUTREACH WORK.

I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL THROUGH HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS WITH THAT LAST CONTRACT, THAT DOING MORE WORK WITH THE HARDEST TO HOUSE POPULATION IS NEEDED.

[05:50:02]

THAT WILL BE A POLICY DECISION UP TO COUNCIL.

WELL, IF WE TAKE 500 000 FROM THE BUDGET FOR HOMELESS OUTREACH, YOU WON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO SPEND ON THE CHRONICALLY HOMELESS STREET OUTREACH. CORRECT. WE'LL STILL HAVE FUNDING OF LEVEL FUNDING THAT WAS CURRENTLY AWARDED, BUT NOT TO GROW IT. CORRECT. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THAT EFFORT.

IT WILL BE AT THE SAME LEVEL OR THE SAME COST LEVEL ANYWAY AS THIS CURRENT YEAR.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. HELP ME OUT. WHO HASN'T? WHO'S WANTING TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T SPOKEN BEFORE? I GO TO LOOKS LIKE CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR A SECOND ROUND. IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

ALL RIGHT. YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO CHAIR RIDLEY FOR ASKING THE STREET OUTREACH QUESTIONS.

I RAN OUT OF TIME THERE, AND YOU ASKED GREAT QUESTIONS.

AND I'M NOT SURE IT WAS REALLY INDICATED IN THIS WRITE UP.

AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE EFFORTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ON CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS.

PEOPLE LITERALLY LIVING ON THE STREET. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN JUST YESTERDAY THEY WENT ON THE STREET.

YOU WANT TO GIVE THE DEFINITION OF CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS. BY ALL MEANS, NO, YOU CAN DO THAT.

I MEAN, CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE STREET FOR QUITE A PERIOD OF TIME THAT ARE RESISTANT TO SHELTERS, RESISTANCE TO SERVICES, AND THEY'RE OFTEN IN THE DIFFERENT CAMPS THAT TRAVEL AROUND TOWN.

SO IT'S A SERIES OF TIMES. THEY'VE BEEN HOMELESS, STREET HOMELESS OVER THREE YEARS.

AND. ONCE YOU'VE BEEN CHRONICALLY HOMELESS, IT IS MUCH HARDER TO REINTEGRATE INTO SOCIETY.

AND HELPING THEM, WHO ARE OFTEN DESIGNATED THE THE MOST EXPENSIVE RESIDENTS IN OUR CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THE HOSPITALS AND THEY'RE USING EMERGENCY SERVICES, BUT THEY'RE ALSO VERY THEY'RE AT HIGH RISK OF DEATH.

LIKE LITERALLY, ONCE YOU BECOME STREET HOMELESS, YOUR LIFESPAN IS AT RISK.

SO I DO NOT WANT TO REMOVE DOLLARS FROM THAT.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, THIS IS OUR MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S OVERDOSE, VIOLENCE, HOMELESS, ON HOMELESS, THE ELEMENTS THEMSELVES, OTHER POOR INDICATORS BECAUSE THEY OFTEN ONLY RECEIVE EMERGENCY SERVICE HEALTH CARE.

WE HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE, AND I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO REMOVE THAT FUNDING.

THANK YOU. MR. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR THREE MINUTES, I BELIEVE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES. SO I, TOO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT STRIPPING THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THE HOUSING STREET OUTREACH BUDGET. OUR CITIZENS HAVE INDICATED THAT IT IS A PRIORITY THAT WE ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS, AND IT'S THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES TO DEAL WITH THAT THIS MONEY WILL BE ALLOCATED TO.

I THEREFORE PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT BY WAY OF MOTION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RESTORATION TO 250,000.

SECOND, I DIDN'T HEAR THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS TO REDUCE THE RESTORATION OF EVICTION ADVOCACY COURT SUPPORT TO 250,000. IN OTHER WORDS, HALF OF WHAT IT IS IN THIS CURRENT AMENDMENT.

OKAY. AND THERE WAS ONE SECOND. IS THERE ANOTHER SECOND? OKAY, SO THERE'S TWO SECONDS. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SUPPORT ON THIS COUNCIL FOR RESTORING SOME EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT, BUT UNTIL WE RECEIVE REAL METRICS THAT SHOW THAT THIS PROGRAM IS EFFECTIVELY KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF HOMELESSNESS AND IS ALLOWING THEM TO BE HOUSED FOR MORE THAN A FEW EXTRA DAYS, I THINK IT'S QUESTIONABLE HOW THIS MONEY IS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVELY USED. NOW, HOPEFULLY WITH THE RFP SOLICITATION THAT THOR REFERENCED, THEY'LL BE USING THOSE KINDS OF STATISTICS TO MEASURE WHETHER THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE USE OF OUR FUNDING.

BUT I SUGGEST THAT WE SPLIT THE BABY AT THIS POINT, PUT HALF OF THIS MONEY INTO EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT, AND KEEP THE OTHER 250,000 IN OUR IMPORTANT STREET OUTREACH FOR THE HOMELESS, FOR WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE SUCCESS SHOWING METRICS. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON MR.

[05:55:04]

YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S DOING, I ASSUME? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MADAM CITY MANAGER, IF YOU COULD I KNOW THAT YOU SUGGESTED THIS AFTER ACTUALLY SUGGESTING FOR THIS TO NOT BE IN THE BUDGET.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO SPECIFY YOU ALREADY WERE NOT PRIORITIZING THIS BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED IT NOT TO BE A CITY FUNCTION AND THAT IT WAS ONE THAT WE COULD TALK TO OUR OTHER PARTNERS ON. YOU HEARD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THE COUNCIL THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED PRIORITIZED IN THIS BUDGET.

WOULD YOU HAVE CHOSEN A FUNDING SOURCE THAT WAS GOING TO NOT BALANCE OUR BUDGET OR ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE SERVICE IN THE AREA THAT YOU'VE CUT OR THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING CUTS FROM? THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA.

NO, I WOULD NOT. AS WE CAREFULLY DEVELOP AND PREPARE THE BUDGET, WE'RE ALWAYS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE SHARPENING OUR PENCIL AND THE WAY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS. AND I WANTED TO TO JUST ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM DIRECTOR THOR, BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS.

NUMBER ONE, WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF STREET OUTREACH.

AND I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTED SOMETHING FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.

WE USED TO DO STREET OUTREACH JUST WITHIN THE RESOURCES AND USING OUR EXISTING STAFF AT THE CITY.

AND THREE YEARS AGO, WE CAME TO THIS BODY AND WE SAID, WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN GET A LOT MORE COVERAGE AS WELL AS GET OUT OF DOING OUTREACH, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A CORE FOR US AS A CITY.

AND SO WE WENT INTO THIS RELATIONSHIP WHERE WE CAN PUT IT OUT AND HAVE IT DONE EXTERNALLY.

WE'VE GOT ENOUGH DATA UNDER OUR BELT THAT SHOWS WHAT IS BEING DONE AND HOW MUCH IS NEEDED.

THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR THIS PARTICULAR LINE ITEM.

SO IT'S NOT A DECREASE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING GOING FORWARD.

IT'S HOW WE UTILIZE THE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE. WE MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS.

AND REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE OTHER OUTREACH COMPONENTS OUT THERE AS WELL.

THE CITY OF DALLAS IS NOT THE ONLY ORGANIZATION FUNDING OUTREACH AS IT RELATES TO OUR UNSHELTERED POPULATION.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, YES, WE HAVE SINCE EVEN IMPLEMENTED THIS SEEING PARTNERS STEP UP, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE KIND OF TAG TEAMING THIS OUTREACH.

WE HAVE A CONSORTIUM NOW, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD BEFORE.

BEFORE THE CITY WAS DOING A LOT OF THIS ON ITS OWN, USING JUST OUR RESOURCES.

AND IN THE MODEL THAT WE BUILT IN 2022 WAS TO TRULY HAVE AN OUTREACH SYSTEM THAT IS BROAD.

DEI DOES OUTREACH, THE BRIDGE DOES OUTREACH, AUSTIN STREET DOES OUTREACH.

SO THERE ARE MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE OUTREACH COMPONENT.

SO THIS IS NOT JUST FUNDING FROM THE CITY. SO BASED ON WHAT WE'VE, WE'VE PROPOSED AND BASED ON WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT THIS DEAL ALLOWS FOR US TO SUPPORT THE OUTREACH WORK. AND IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF SUPPORTING EVICTION ADVOCACY, THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO DO IT. SO NO, I WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVED WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO GOING FORWARD.

AND WHAT WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE PROCURED? THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, WAS, I THINK A MILLION, I BELIEVE.

AND SO AGAIN, THAT WAS THROUGH OTHER FUNDING.

THAT'S NOT GENERAL FUND. THAT WAS ARPA DOLLARS.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THIS IS SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD LET'S LOOK AT DOING IT FOR 2027.

I WOULD NOT COMMIT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING EXPENSE ON THE GENERAL FUND, AND WE SHOULD BE SENDING A MESSAGE VERY LOUD AND CLEAR THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO USE 2027 AS A BRIDGE YEAR, AND BEYOND THAT, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT HAVING THIS BEING DONE OUTSIDE THE CITY.

THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION, AND I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN I BUILD THE BUDGET FOR 2028, I WILL NOT BE BUILDING A BUDGET IN THE GENERAL FUND WITH THIS LINE ITEM UNLESS COUNCIL DIRECTS THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I BELIEVE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID COMMEND YOU ON CITY MANAGER WAS THIS ADDED PROCESS AND THE REVISION COMPONENT THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN USED TO.

I THINK THAT IT'S BEEN TANGIBLE. IT'S ALSO BEEN VERY COLLABORATIVE.

YOU DIDN'T ACT ON ANYTHING THAT THERE WASN'T A CLEAR CONSENSUS ON.

WE ASKED YOU TO GO FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU WEREN'T WILLING TO PUT INTO YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET.

SO THAT'S ALREADY YOU FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL, YOU FOUND ENOUGH THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, DIDN'T GET US TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT THAT WE ALL ADVOCATED ON GETTING RESTORED.

BUT YOU GOT US AS CLOSE AS YOU COULD, AND YOU GOT IT FROM A SOURCE THAT YOU BELIEVE WASN'T GOING TO IMPACT SERVICES AND PRIORITIES FOR THAT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

I THINK THAT THE CITY MANAGER DID EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED HER TO DO AS OUR EMPLOYEE, WHICH WAS TAKE THE WILL OF THIS BODY,

[06:00:04]

NOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THAT AND THEN ADD AN EXTRA LAYER OF MICROMANAGEMENT, I THINK THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY BE HERE ALL NIGHT LONG.

AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE DON'T GO THAT ROUTE.

SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AND HOPE THAT WE COULD VOTE UP OR DOWN THE REVISION AS PROPOSED FROM THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE DILIGENCE THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO GIVING US THIS AS A SOLUTION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

ALL NIGHT LONG. CARA MENDELSOHN. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THEY'RE DANCING IN THE STREETS ALL NIGHT LONG.

ME? YES, MA'AM. YOU. WELL COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA SAID IT WELL, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THE CITY MANAGER SAID IN HER ACTUAL PROPOSAL WAS $0.

THAT'S WHAT SHE ACTUALLY PROPOSED. SHE ONLY CAME BACK BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL SAID, I HAVE A FRIEND THAT HAS AN EVICTION ORGANIZATION THAT DIDN'T GET FUNDED.

AND SO SHE PROPOSED IT. IN TALKING ABOUT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO STREET OUTREACH FOR HOMELESSNESS, AREN'T THERE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO EVICTION WORK? IN MY COMMENTS EARLIER, I DID MENTION THAT THROUGH OUR ANALYSIS AND OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE DID DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE SEVERAL NONPROFITS THAT PROVIDE SERVICES. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE LEVEL IS.

AND I DO KNOW THAT IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY THAT THEY'VE SUPPORTED THIS PROGRAM AS WELL.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO SUPPORT IT ALSO GOING FORWARD.

THAT'S JUST FROM OUR DUE DILIGENCE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE COUNTY IS GOING TO SPEND $2 MILLION THIS YEAR ON EVICTION WORK.

IS THAT CORRECT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? I THINK I THINK SORRY, I THINK THAT'S ROUGHLY THE AMOUNT THAT I HEARD AS WELL.

SO YOU KNOW WHY THEY'RE DOING THAT. BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY FUNCTION, NOT A CITY FUNCTION.

AND AGAIN HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO FUND THINGS BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO DO, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A GOOD THING TO DO, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY NOT OUR JOB.

AND WE NEED TO DO WHAT IS REQUIRED OF CITY WORK IN AN EXCELLENT WAY.

ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS STREET REPAIR. OUR PEOPLE ARE TELLING US WE'RE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB WITH THAT.

NOT ENOUGH. OUR STREETS ARE IN BAD CONDITION.

PUBLIC SAFETY. GUESS WHAT? CRIME'S GOING DOWN.

CRIME IS STILL REALLY HIGH. SORRY. WE'RE THE NINTH HIGHEST CRIME IN AMERICA.

THEY WANT MORE. SO WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIES ARE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EVICTION, IT'S REALLY NOT EVEN A CITY FUNCTION, BUT PEOPLE LAYING ON OUR SIDEWALK, PEOPLE IN TROUBLE THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS TO GO HELP. THEY ARE OUR RESPONSIBILITY. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DEFER MONEY THAT IS MEANT TO HELP LITERALLY PEOPLE SLEEPING UNDER OUR BRIDGES, DOWN BY OUR CREEKS, IN OUR PARKS THAT NEED US, THAT NEED US TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET THEM INTO SHELTER AND INTO HOUSING AND STABILIZE INTO LIFE.

THERE IS MONEY FOR EVICTION, 2 MILLION FROM DALLAS COUNTY.

WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE THIS MONEY AWAY FROM HOMELESS SERVICES FOR EVICTION.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR.

AGAINST MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT TO AN AMENDMENT? OKAY. SEEING NONE. SHOW YOUR PLACARDS IF YOU SUPPORT MR. RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT. SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH, COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN AND COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

WITH THE MINORITY OF SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. THE AMENDMENT FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO REVERT BACK TO WHATEVER AMENDMENT WAS PRIOR.

AND I HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE I WASN'T WRITING IT, WHO ACTUALLY SPOKE ON THAT.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO USE THE HONOR SYSTEM. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THAT AMENDMENT? WAS THERE AN AMENDMENT OR JUST THE REVISIONS? JUST, JUST THE JUST THE ORIGINAL REVISION. OKAY.

ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST REVISION SEVEN? IT HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED SUCCESSFULLY, IT APPEARS.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT BY SHOWING YOUR PLACARDS.

COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND RAISED IN FAVOR.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCIL MEMBER. STEWART.

BAZALDUA. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM JOHNSON. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MORENO. WEST GRACEY AND WILLIS.

WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR, THE REVISION MOVES FORWARD, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. ANY MORE MOTIONS, CHAIRMAN WEST.

[06:05:03]

NOW IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST ONE IS IS MINE, WHICH AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I AM WITHDRAWING THAT AMENDMENT.

OKAY. AND I ALREADY MADE MY STATEMENT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT? YES. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION, CHAIRMAN GRACEY.

OKAY. MR. MAYOR, I ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, BUT I'D LIKE TO.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS. IF I CAN JUST MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS RIGHT NOW, ACTUALLY, SINCE IT'S NOT BEEN READ INTO IT, I GUESS YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT AND STATE HOW YOU WANT TO, AND WE'LL JUST WALK US THROUGH WHAT IT'S DOING.

AND IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE THE ORIGINAL MOTION AT THAT POINT.

OKAY. SO IN THIS CASE, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MOVE TO TO, TO CHANGE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM 1 MILLION, FROM THE CITY SECRETARY ELECTION FUND TO 600,000, AND THE USE TO INCLUDE EVICTION ADVOCACY FOR 423,595 AND ARCADIA PARK LIBRARY FOR 176 405.

SECOND ARCADIA PARK LIBRARY. OKAY, I HEARD TWO SECONDS.

SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS FOLLOWING, INCLUDING MYSELF.

THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, YOU'RE NOW DOING REDUCING FROM ONE BILIERAE ELECTION FUND FOR 600,000.

7 MILLION. EVICTION ADVOCACY FOR 42359595. AND ARCADIA PARK LIBRARY FOR HOW MUCH.

176405176405405. OKAY. THAT'S THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED.

TWICE. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN YOUR AMENDMENT.

YES. AGAIN, I KNOW WE JUST HAD THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE EVICTION ADVOCACY.

AND WHAT THIS DOES IS BRING THAT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL 949949245 NUMBER THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET.

SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE JUST PASSED, THIS GIVES AN ADDITIONAL 4.23595 TO BRING IT TO MAKE IT WHOLE.

THERE AND THEN FOR ARCADIA PARK, WE ARE THIS ONE.

WE'RE I'M PUTTING IT IN HERE FOR NOW. LAURA AND I ARE MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC THURSDAY TO, TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM ABOUT THIS ONE. SO IF DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GOES, WE COME BACK NEXT WEEK AND MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

BUT FOR NOW, I WANT TO PUT THIS IN AS A PLACEHOLDER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.

YEAH. THANK YOU. I, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH WHERE I DID FEEL SOME HICCUPS, I GUESS, WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE SAUCE. AND SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

MADAM CITY SECRETARY, CAN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO IF THIS WERE TO BE THIS LINE ITEM WERE TO BE REDUCED BY WHAT WAS IT, SEVEN? NO, 600 TOTAL. 700 TOTAL. IT'S 600, I BELIEVE.

600 TOTAL. IF IT'S REDUCED BY 600 TOTAL. THAT WOULD GIVE YOU STILL SOME SAVINGS OUTSIDE OF THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. AND YOU'RE CONFIDENT THAT YOU DO HAVE ENOUGH BUDGETED FOR YOUR NOVEMBER ELECTION.

IS THAT ACCURATE? NOVEMBER. YES. NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER IS NOW OUR ONE AND ONLY GENERAL ELECTION.

IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT. HISTORICALLY, HAS THERE BEEN A NEED FOR YOU TO BUDGET FOR ANTICIPATED SPECIAL CALLED ELECTIONS OR RUNOFFS? NO. WHERE HAS SPECIAL CALLED ELECTIONS AND RUNOFFS BEEN FUNDED IN THE PAST? CONTINGENCY. SO IF WE WERE TO GET THE NOVEMBER ELECTION COMPLETELY FUNDED WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL SAVINGS, I THINK THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL OF DE ISD COMING AND MAYBE BEING ADDITIONAL SAVINGS.

BUT AS OF NOW, WITH FUNDING IT AND AS IT IS CURRENTLY, WHAT SAVINGS WOULD YOU STILL BE AFFORDED WITH THE $600,000 BACKED OUT OF THIS? WITH ONLY 400,000. SO THE NOVEMBER ESTIMATE THAT I RECEIVED FROM DALLAS COUNTY THE THE NUMBER I GOT JUST INCLUDED DALLAS AND DALLAS COUNTY AND CITY OF DALLAS ON THE NOVEMBER 2027 ELECTION WAS ABOUT $800,000. AND LIKE YOU SAID, IT MAY BE OTHER ENTITIES, MAYBE NOT, BUT THAT WAS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

SO THAT'S WHERE I CAME UP WITH THE THE 800,000 AGAINST THE 1.6.

SO IF COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY IS. SO THAT LEAVES A MILLION.

SO IF COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY IS ASKING TO TAKE 600 600,000 AGAINST THE 1 MILLION, THAT WOULD ONLY LEAVE 400, 400, 000. OKAY. AND THEN THEN WITH THAT, IF WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL ELECTION NEEDED TO BE CALLED,

[06:10:05]

WHAT WOULD THE DELTA BE THAT WOULD THAT THAT THE CONTINGENCY WOULD HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR? SO THE ESTIMATE THAT DALLAS COUNTY GAVE ME ON ON YESTERDAY, TUESDAY, I BELIEVE, FOR FOR A MAY ELECTION.

WITH ANYWHERE FROM 800,000 TO, TO, TO $1.6 MILLION.

OKAY. JACK, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW MUCH IS IN OUR CONTINGENCY FUND THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE USED FOR A RUNOFF OR A SPECIAL ELECTION? I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A ROUGH NUMBER. JEANETTE LOOKS LOOKING IT UP.

I'M GOING TO SAY IT'S ABOUT $11 MILLION IN CONTINGENCY EACH YEAR.

OKAY. SO I COUNCIL I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERATE OF.

THIS IS CHANGING. OUR GENERAL ELECTION FROM MAY UNTIL NOVEMBER, IT HASN'T BEEN A PRACTICE IN BUDGET YEARS IN THE PAST, WHERE THE CITY SECRETARY HAS BUDGETED FOR ANTICIPATION OF A SPECIAL AND OR EVEN THE RUNOFF.

SHE HAS BUDGETED COMPLETELY FOR A UNIFORMED GENERAL ELECTION.

AND THEN EVEN WITH THE MAJORITY OF THOSE GENERAL ELECTIONS RESULTING IN A RUN OFF ELECTION THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN USED CONTINGENCY FUNDS TO TO FURNISH, SO I FOR THAT REASON, THIS ISN'T COMPLETELY WIPING OUT THE SAVINGS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT IN TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S BUDGET FOR ELECTION. HOWEVER, IT IS ADDRESSING THAT THERE IS AN OVER BUDGET FOR THE ELECTION NEEDS THAT SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AND HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN, AND IT ALSO DOES NOT LEAVE US IN A POSITION TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO CALL A MAY ELECTION AND EVEN A RUNOFF NEXT DECEMBER IF NEEDED.

SO FOR THAT I WILL SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER GRACIE'S AMENDMENT.

I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND YOU. I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME OTHER EFFORTS TOWARDS LIBRARIES.

I THINK THAT THERE'S CONCERN ON WHETHER OR NOT ONE Y'ALL'S THAT YOU SHARE AT A LINE WAS INCLUDED.

AND I JUST APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S PROACTIVENESS TO FIND SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO YOUR DISTRICT.

ALTHOUGH I DO OF COURSE LOVE TO HAVE CITY WIDE STUFF, BUT THOSE THINGS AREN'T GOING TO BE FOUGHT FOR UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUND IT.

AND I KNOW THIS IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO AN UPDATE FROM WHAT YOUR COMMUNITY SAYS THIS WEEK WHEN Y'ALL MEET WITH THEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THANK YOU.

SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY RECOGNIZING WE'RE TAKING THIS OUT OF CONTINGENCY, BECAUSE BY REDUCING THE CITY SECRETARY'S ELECTION FUND, WHEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION IN MAY, AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THERE'S VOTER PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND, THERE'S POSSIBLY WE WILL DECIDE TO HAVE AN ELECTION IN MAY.

JUST WATCH. YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOU'RE GOING TO GET SOLICITED TO TO DO THIS.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECOGNIZE REALITY. SO WE HAVEN'T HAD NOVEMBER ELECTIONS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS BEFORE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SHE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.

IF THERE'S A VOTER PROP TO PUT IT ON MAY, SHE WILL BE REQUIRED, WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE CITY THEN TO TAKE IT FROM CONTINGENCY.

SO NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO SPEND EVERY DOLLAR WE POSSIBLY CAN, WE'RE GOING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND TAKE MONEY AWAY WHERE WE COULD CONSERVATIVELY BUDGET FOR SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS GOING TO COME IN IN MAY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT MONEY TOO, SO THAT WE HAVE TO GO INTO CONTINGENCY FOR THAT.

SO IT'S JUST VERY, VERY IRRESPONSIBLE. AND WE'VE ALREADY JUST FUNDED EVICTION.

NOW YOU'RE COMING BACK WITH ANOTHER HALF MILLION.

I'M SORRY, 423,595. I'D LIKE TO ASK WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ARCADIA PARK MONEY FOR.

CAN ANYONE SHARE THAT WITH ME? THAT LIBRARY WAS NOT CLOSING.

IS IT SCHOOL HOURS? IS THERE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I'LL HAVE THE STAFF TO COME OUT, AND I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I'M EXPLAINING THIS, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT ARCADIA, AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO AFFECT, NUMBER ONE, AS WE SHARE IT WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR, AFTER COUNCIL GAVE A REALLY GOOD GUIDANCE ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BUDGET.

AND LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I THINK WE HEARD. WHAT WE HEARD WAS, IS CAN YOU DEVELOP A BUDGET THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY CLOSURES? WE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACTS AT ALL TO THE LIBRARY SYSTEM.

AND SO AS WE WENT THROUGH THE COURSE OF DEVELOPING THE BUDGET AND WE LOOKED AT ARCADIA AND WE LOOKED AT USAGE AND WE LOOKED AT THE HOURS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH DISD TO WHERE DURING THE TIME THAT THE LIBRARY NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO SERVICE THE SCHOOL,

[06:15:07]

SO I BELIEVE THAT THE FUNDING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY I BELIEVE IS PUTTING BACK WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT, THAT THAT LIBRARY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE BEYOND WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE USAGE IS WHERE THE DEMAND IS.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE WAY THAT WE LOOKED AT THE BUDGET, IT IS NOT A CLOSURE.

I'VE HEARD THAT SEVERAL TIMES. WE NEVER PROPOSED TO CLOSE THE LIBRARY.

WHAT WE PROPOSED IS, IS TO CREATE A PARTNERSHIP WITH DISD TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE LIBRARY DURING THE TIMES THAT IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN FOR THE STUDENTS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT SEVERAL TIMES AND IT'S BEEN REALLY TROUBLING BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW WE PRESENTED IT IN THE BUDGET AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. SO THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW FOR IT TO BE OPEN OUTSIDE OF THE HOURS THAT WE BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE UTILIZED.

I WELCOME AND UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER CADENA WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT COMMUNITY MEETING.

I WELCOME THAT AND DEFINITELY JUST WANT TO WORK WITH THEM.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS ITEM WOULD DO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF MAKING SURE ARCADIA PARK LIBRARY HAS THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO STAY OPEN.

PERIOD. I'M FOR THAT. I'M NOT FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

SO I HOPE WHEN WE DO THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS AGAIN, IF THIS DOESN'T PASS THE WAY IT IS, PERHAPS IT WILL.

BUT IF IT DOESN'T BRING BACK A DIFFERENT ONE WITH A DIFFERENT SOURCE OF FUNDS, I'LL TOTALLY SUPPORT IT.

I WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT OTHER ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR LIBRARIES, BUT ABSOLUTELY FOR THIS I'M 100% IN.

BUT WE'RE JUST RIGHT BACK HERE WITH THIS EVICTION, EXCEPT WE'RE NOW USING SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW WILL RESULT IN A CONTINGENCY USAGE.

AND THIS IS FOR SOMETHING OUR MANAGER DIDN'T EVEN RECOMMEND WE FUND AT ALL.

AND WE JUST FUNDED, I THINK, 500,000. AND THE COUNTY IS FUNDING $202 MILLION.

AND WE KNOW LEGAL AID HAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT EVICTION PRACTICE.

WE KNOW MARK MELTON HAS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT EVICTION PRACTICE.

SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU THINK ALL THIS MONEY IS COMING FROM.

AND IT'S VERY CONCERNING. AND THIS IS THE EXACT KIND OF LACK OF CONSERVATIVE BUDGETING THAT PUTS US AT RISK.

WE HAVE VERY REAL NEEDS. AND THIS THIS FEELS LIKE A FRIEND ISSUE NOW.

THANK YOU, MR. ROTH RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT IT'S IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT WE PRESERVE THE FUNDS FOR THE POTENTIAL ELECTIONS BOTH IN NOVEMBER AND MAY.

I THINK THERE PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE A NEED FOR THOSE FUNDS IN MAY.

AND I THINK THAT WE'VE, WE'VE DONE A GREAT SERVICE ALREADY BY ALLOCATING $500,000 TO THE EVICTION. I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO TO HAVE A FULL MILLION.

I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THEM TO START RAISING ADDITIONAL FUNDS AND AND SORT OF GETTING WEANED OFF OF OUR OUR ABILITY TO FUND THIS PROGRAM COMPLETELY. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY MADE SOME STRONG STATEMENTS AND GIVEN FUNDS FOR THE ADULT LEARNING AND, AND THE OTHER TWO PRESERVE AND AUDUBON ACQUISITION OF FUNDS FROM THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

SO I WOULD, I THINK THAT THIS OVERALL AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE PASSED.

AND I, AND I, I UNDERSTAND AND I RECOGNIZE AND APPRECIATE THE COUNCILMAN GRACIE'S INTEREST IN TRYING TO ENHANCE THE BUDGETS FOR THOSE, THOSE VARIOUS ITEMS. BUT I THINK WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND, AND GIVEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDS TO THOSE, TO THOSE ITEMS, AND ARE PUTTING OURSELVES AT RISK BY TAKING THE FUNDS OUT OF THE ELECTION BUDGET, OUT OF THE ELECTION BUDGET FUND. SO I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE THIS DOWN AND THAT IF THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUESTS FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES OR OTHER ITEMS, THAT THOSE BE BROUGHT TO US IN A IN A SEPARATE SITUATION, PLEASE. OKAY. LET ME GO TO MISS CADENA FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YES. SO I DID WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT ARCADIA.

SO IT IS NOW WE DO PARTNER WITH DISD. WE GET REIMBURSED FOR TWO POSITIONS AND THEY PAY FOR A PART OF ELECTRICITY AS WELL. THE BIG CHANGE IS THAT RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CHECK OUT BOOKS.

[06:20:04]

IT WAS ACTUALLY A LARGE INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT IS CONVERTING TO RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE HAVING NEW APARTMENTS COME IN. THE WINGS FACILITY IS NEARBY.

AND PULLING THE DEMOGRAPHICS, 78.7% IS HISPANIC OR LATINO.

SINGLE PARENTS, 58.9% SPEAK ENGLISH LESS THAN VERY WELL IS 28.9% POVERTY LEVEL 18%. HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS AND SNAP IS 16.6%.

AND SO THIS AREA DEFINITELY DESERVES TO HAVE A LIBRARY.

WE ARE HAVING A COMMUNITY MEETING TOMORROW TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING.

SO I HOPE THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MY COLLEAGUES IF THIS DOES NOT PASS.

BUT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LIBRARY IN THIS COMMUNITY.

DESERVES TO HAVE TO TO HAVE RESOURCES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANKS. CHAIR MORENO, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. CAN WE COME BACK UP, PLEASE? SO I, I DO SUPPORT THIS. I JUST WANT TO GET MORE CLARITY BECAUSE I KNOW THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET SORT OF UNIVERSAL HOURS ACROSS OUR BRANCH LIBRARIES OR COMMUNITY CENTERS, BUT THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S INSIDE OF A CAMPUS.

AND SO THE GOAL IS TO HAVE HOURS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE DOLLARS WILL DO.

SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. MONICA SHAW, LIBRARY DIRECTOR ARCADIA PARK IS AN INTERESTING BRANCH FOR US.

UNLIKE OUR OTHER DISD CO-LOCATION, ARCADIA PARK IS NOT WELL USED BY THE COMMUNITY AND WE SHOW THIS WITH THE DATA OVER TIME.

SO THE IDEA WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET IS TO CHANGE THE HOURS TO SERVE THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY, BUT IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC LIBRARY.

ALL OPEN HOURS SO THE COMMUNITY STILL COULD COME IN.

THEY COULD CHECK OUT BOOKS AND THEY COULD COULD USE COMPUTERS.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD RESTORE THE THE BUDGET, THE BRANCH UP TO ITS CURRENT BUDGET.

AND SO IT'S HOURS WOULD EXPAND TO BACK TO MATCH THE REST OF THE BRANCHES.

EXCEPT THE WEEKENDS OR THE WEEKENDS. WITH THIS AMENDMENT, IT WOULD GO BACK TO BEING A BRANCH LIKE ALL THE OTHERS.

SO IT WOULD BE AT FIVE DAYS A WEEK. GOT IT. THANK YOU.

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

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I GENERALLY OPEN TO BOTH OF THE CREDITS.

I, I DON'T LIKE THE DEBIT, FRANKLY. I SHARE MY COLLEAGUES CONCERNS HERE FROM THE ELECTION FUND.

I FEEL LIKE WE NEED A BUDGET FOR THE ELECTION FOR MAY, YOU KNOW, AND IF IF WE DON'T, WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT THE SOURCES CONTINGENCY FUNDS, BECAUSE I FORESEE THAT HAPPENING. SO I'M WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUES, YOU KNOW, ON THIS IF WE CAN GET A DIFFERENT SOURCE AND FIGURE THIS OUT IN THE NEXT WEEK.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. GRACEY WE'RE BACK TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES.

I'M SORRY, MISS BLACKMON FOR FIVE. THANK YOU.

SO WHEN YOU SAY IT WOULD RESTORE THE HOURS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? LIKE WHAT? BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE CLOSING THE LIBRARY EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT GOING TO BE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OPEN. I MEAN, LIKE, IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE CLOSING IT EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO BE A SCHOOL LIBRARY.

BUT YOU CAN, YOU DID SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO ACCESS IT DURING THE DAY.

YES, WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT CLOSING THE ARCADIA PARK BRANCH LIBRARY.

WE ARE CHANGING THE HOURS. SO CURRENTLY IT IS OPEN AT 8 A.M..

WE WOULD MOVE TO JUST 9 TO 5 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, BUT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY BRANCH THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD USE. SO THE NEW. SO THEN WHAT WOULD THIS 176 ISH THOUSAND DOLLARS DO? WOULD IT GIVE THEM WHAT KIND OF HOURS IT WOULD TAKE THE HOURS TO WHAT THE OTHER BRANCHES WILL BE.

SO THAT WOULD BE 51 HOURS A WEEK, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.

OKAY. SO IT'S 11 MORE HOURS. CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE 9 TO 5 IS ABOUT.

I'M SORRY. YES. 11 MORE HOURS. OKAY. AND BUT 9 TO 5 IS THE TIME THAT THAT'S THE SCHOOL DAY HOURS AND THAT IS GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

[06:25:04]

SO LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. WHAT WOULD IT COST TO RESTORE THE LIBRARY FUNDING FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, INCLUDING ARCADIA PARK? IS IT ABOUT 2.6? IT IS 2.817740.

OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET THE SOURCE OF FUNDS BECAUSE JUST GO AHEAD AND CHALK IT UP FOR CONTINGENCY AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. BUT I DO WANT A, I DON'T WANT LIBRARIES TO CLOSE IN A, IN AN AREA.

SO THIS IS INTERESTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT.

OKAY, CHAIRMAN GRACE, WE'RE GOING TO YOU FOR THREE MINUTES.

YEAH. AND AGAIN, I THINK SO I COULD POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKE A WE COULD MAKE A MAKE AN AMENDMENT DEPENDING ON HOW THIS MEETING GOES.

TOMORROW, AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS.

WE'RE TALKING LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A MAY ELECTION.

AND AGAIN, NOT TO GO DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE, BUT IF WE KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A MAY, WHY DIDN'T WE PLAN FOR IT TO BE IN NOVEMBER WITH THE REST OF THEM AGAIN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, I KNOW SOMETIMES THERE ARE CONDITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT DON'T GET US THERE.

BUT PART OF THE IDEA OF MOVING FROM A MAY ELECTION TO A NOVEMBER WAS TO INCLUDE TO HAVE INCLUSION AND GET MORE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

AND YET WE'RE STILL PLANNING FOR THAT. SO IT'S LIKE WE WERE MOVING, AND I THINK IT WOULD POTENTIALLY SAVE US MONEY ON THOSE OFF YEARS.

IT WOULD SAVE US MONEY. ON THE OFF YEARS. I YEARS.

I THINK IT WAS THE EVEN OR ODD CITY SECRETARY, WAS IT, WAS IT THE ODD NUMBERS THAT SAVE US, WHICH IS WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY MOVED TO THAT SAVES US ON ELECTION DOLLARS.

CORRECT. I'M SORRY. I CAUGHT THE TAIL END OF NOVEMBER.

NOVEMBER ELECTIONS IN ODD YEARS, WHICH IS WHAT WE MOVE TO FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS WAS INTENDED TO SAVE US MONEY, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE I WANT US TO BE.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T PLAN FOR THIS WHEN WE HAD THIS WHOLE NOVEMBER ELECTION DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO I'M GOING TO STOP RIGHT THERE. AND JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

IF NOT, WE CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR YOU CAN DO THE HONOR SYSTEM AND TRUSTEE.

I KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF THE DOLLARS IS AN ISSUE, BUT THE OTHER THING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IS MOST OF THE TIME THESE SPECIAL ELECTIONS HAVE COME FROM CONTINGENCY. AND I'M TRYING TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT.

IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT. SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND RUNOFFS COME FROM CONTINGENCY.

NOT ALWAYS. SO IF IF WE IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY, IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PLAN AND WE KNOW OR ANTICIPATE THAT SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WE SHOULD INCLUDE IT IN THE BUDGET AND SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR IT.

WE DO TYPICALLY NOT FUND RUNOFF ELECTIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR NOT.

AND SO WE DO DRAW FROM CONTINGENCY FOR THAT. AND WHEN THIS 1.6 WAS PUT INTO THE BUDGET, WAS IT PUT IN IN ANTICIPATION OF JUST THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, OR WAS IT IN ANTICIPATION OF A NO ENEMY? IT WAS AN ERROR ON OUR.

THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS OUR BUDGET. IT WAS AN ERROR.

IT WAS BASED ON. IT'S KIND OF A CARRYOVER FROM.

WITH THE INTENT OF A MAY ELECTION AND NOT REALIZING LATER THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE IN NOVEMBER AND THE COST IS DIFFERENT.

THAT'S RIGHT. AND WHEN MISS JOHNSON MADE ME AWARE OF THAT ERROR, WHICH WAS AFTER THE BUDGET WAS PRESENTED, I SAID THAT WOULD BE OKAY BECAUSE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE THE THE MAY ELECTION ANYWAY AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE FUNDING.

BUT FOR THE LAST THREE ELECTIONS, WHERE DID THAT RUNOFF AND THE SPECIAL ELECTIONS COME FROM? HOW WAS IT PAID? I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.

I DON'T RECALL. AND CAN I JUST ADD SOMETHING? AND I DO APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF THIS CONVERSATION.

WE TALK ABOUT THE CONTINGENCY VERY LOOSELY. WE SHOULD NOT BE, IN MY OPINION, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, MAKING DECISIONS THAT JUST MAKE THAT THE DEFAULT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO AS PROFESSIONALS.

I THINK YOU WANT US TO COME TO YOU WITH REAL BUDGETS THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUES, AND WE'RE NOT CREATING THOSE DEFAULTS THAT NEED TO BE NATURAL.

SO JUST BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE THAT WAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST PRACTICE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE COMING AND TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET AS A PLAN, AND WE SHOULD BE PUTTING OUT WHAT WE KNOW, AND WE SHOULD BE BUDGETING ACCORDINGLY. A CONTINGENCY FUND SHOULD BE USED FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, NOT AS A DEFAULT, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PUT IT INTO THE BUDGET.

[06:30:03]

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THINGS, AS YOU STATED, AND WE'RE NOT JUST DEFAULTING TO, WELL, WE'LL JUST USE CONTINGENCY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICE GOING FORWARD. MAY I SAY SOMETHING AS WELL? AND I DO AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

HOWEVER THAT'S NOT HOW IT THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS DURING AN ELECTION.

SPECIAL ELECTIONS AGAIN AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS ARE UNKNOWN ELECTIONS AND IN THE TIMING OF THE BUDGET.

SO WHEN WE'RE DOING A BUDGET AND BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE, THE ONLY THING THE DEPARTMENT MY DEPARTMENT KNOWS IS THAT THERE IS A GENERAL ELECTION, AND RUNOFF ELECTIONS GO INTO THE EARLIER PART OF THE FOLLOWING.

FISCAL YEAR, AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING IN THE RUNOFF.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE IN THE RUNOFF.

SO THAT HAS BEEN THE THAT HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

WHAT WE'VE USED, WE'VE ONLY BUDGETED FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS.

AND THE SAME THING GOES FOR SPECIAL ELECTIONS.

A LOT OF TIMES THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THE BUDGET.

AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO BUDGET FOR THAT.

BUT NO ONE IS DIPPING INTO THE CONTINGENCY FUND.

IT'S JUST THE TIMING OF IT AND THE UNKNOWN. ALL RIGHT, MISS BLAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MR.. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CAN I ASK ZARIN A QUESTION IF HE WILL RESPOND? YES YOU CAN. WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO HOLDING THIS AND LOOKING AT THIS FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE FUNDING SOURCE? WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE FUNDING SOURCE IS QUESTIONABLE, AND I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE ARCADIA LIBRARY. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF ALL LIBRARIES, BUT I'M HEARING THE CONCERN ABOUT TAKING MONEY FROM ELECTIONS.

WOULD YOU BE AMICABLE TO DOING IT THAT WAY? OKAY.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER, CAN MAYOR CAN I ASK CITY MANAGER QUESTION? OF COURSE YOU CAN. I MEAN, IF SHE'LL ANSWER. I'M JUST KIDDING.

OF COURSE THAT'S HER JOB, I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW IF IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY FROM WHETHER CITY MANAGER SOURCE OR OR CITY SECRETARY SOURCE. I HEAR WHAT EVERYONE I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE ORIGINALLY 1.6 MILLION FOR ELECTION AND YOU MAY HAVE PULLED THE TIMING INCORRECTLY.

SO AND HISTORICALLY, IF THERE IS A RUNOFF OR IF THERE IS.

A RUNOFF OR SPECIAL RECALL ELECTION, IT COMES OUT A CONTINGENCY PLAN FUND.

CORRECT. CITY MANAGER, DO WE HAVE I KNOW FUNDING IS TIGHT, BUT DO WE HAVE CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR.

IF IN THE EVENT WE TAKE TOO MUCH MONEY OUT OF THIS.

AND AND WE HAVE TO TO FUND SOMETHING MORE. LET ME LET ME START BY, FIRST OF ALL, ACKNOWLEDGING THE QUESTION, I THINK IN THE SPIRIT THAT YOU'RE GIVING IT. WE, WE.

MY COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED AT. WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN EXPENDITURE THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET, THAT WE SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY SAY, THEN LET'S JUST TAKE THAT OUT OF CONTINGENCY.

THAT'S MY POINT IN THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS.

AND THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TALKS ABOUT A MAY 2027 ELECTION.

CONTINGENCY IS FOR THINGS THAT YOU DO NOT BUDGET FOR.

AND IF SOMETHING ARISES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WE DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY.

WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONTINGENCY FUNDS THAT YOU THEN USE TO SUPPORT THAT.

BECAUSE THERE ARE UNKNOWNS THAT HAPPEN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S DESIGNED.

MY CONTEXT IS REALLY ABOUT WHAT WE KNOW AND THEN WHAT WE SHOULD THEN PLAN FOR ACCORDINGLY.

AND SO THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF MY COMMENTS. IT'S REALLY ABOUT WE BELIEVE THAT MAY THERE WILL BE AN ELECTION REGARDLESS IF THAT COULD HAPPEN THIS YEAR OR NOT. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN MAY.

SO WE KNOW THAT THERE IS AN UPCOMING PLANNED EXPENSE.

[06:35:04]

NOW COUNCIL MAKES THE DECISION. IF WE THEN PULL ANYTHING FROM CONTINGENCY, IT COMES TO COUNCIL TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN.

AND THAT'S BEEN THE PROCESS. ANY TIME WE USE ANY OF THOSE CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

SO AND THEN I WHEN I'M HEARING AND I'M SITTING HERE TODAY AND JUST TAKING IT ALL IN, WHAT I'M ALSO HEARING IS THERE'S A, THERE'S A CHALLENGE OR THERE'S A CONCERN IN REGARDS TO $700,000 FOR EVICTION ADVOCACY.

SO. BUT, BUT AND THERE'S $176,000 FOR THE ARCADIA LIBRARY. SO IF YOU. SO. AND WE'VE ALREADY VOTED TO TAKE TO TO REDUCE EVICTION ADVOCACY OUT OF THE PREVIOUS ONE FROM 500,000 TO 250,000, IS THERE.

CHAIR GRACEY CAN I ASK IS THERE IS IS THERE REALLY A ANOTHER NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER $700,000 OUT FOR EVICTION ADVOCACY AND OR, OR AM I STILL DID I MISREAD OR MISUNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR CHANGES OR WHAT YOU. WERE YOU BRINGING.

OKAY. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS THIS? WHAT ARE WE.

YOU'RE ASKING US TO VOTE ON? ARE YOU STILL KEEPING EVICTION ADVOCACY IN THIS? YES. WHAT I AM PROPOSING IS TO REDUCE WHAT WAS NOT PLANNED, WHAT WAS PUT IN THE BUDGET IN AN ELECTION FUND BY ACCIDENT, OR IT IT JUST WASN'T PLANNED ORIGINALLY, THAT $1 MILLION WAS NOT ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.

THE $600,000, WHATEVER IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS.

IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE ORIGINALLY. SO THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THERE WAS A A PLANNED MAY ELECTION.

AND YET THE CITY SECRETARY JUST TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS OR JUST SAID PUBLICLY THAT THIS WAS A IT WAS IT WAS MISPLACED OR IT WAS PUT IN THAT FUND BY ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO FOR ME, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PLAN FOR A MAY ELECTION AT THAT TIME, WHICH IS WHY I'M TRYING TO USE IT FOR THIS. SO ANYWAY, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT YOU ASKED, BUT WE CAN JUST VOTE THIS. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO I THINK WE ARE TO WE'LL GO TO MISS CANADA FOR THREE MINUTES.

YOU KNOW, AS I'M LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION, I THINK PART OF PART OF IT IS THAT WE WERE SOLD ON MOVING ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER TO SAVE MONEY. AND SO NOW I'M WONDERING, AFTER LISTENING TO EVERYBODY, ARE WE GOING TO NEED TO BUDGET FOR TWO ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S SOUNDING LIKE TO ME SO THAT WE'RE NOT USING CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

AND SO THEN WE'RE A BIT OF A BROADER SCOPE QUESTION THAN THE QUESTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW THOUGH.

BUT YEAH, BUT ANYWAY, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN IRRELEVANT QUESTION.

IT'S JUST IT'S EXPANDING THE SCOPE. YEAH. AND SO I THINK THAT'S AT LEAST WHERE I'M COMING FROM, I DO WANT TO MENTION WITH ARCADIA. SO FOR THIS YEAR THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT STILL LEAVING IT OPEN AS A PUBLIC LIBRARY WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME IN, THE HOURS WOULD BE REDUCED. BUT DURING THIS YEAR THERE.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF THEM TALKING WITH DISD ABOUT IT BEING A DISD ONLY SCHOOL WHERE THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHECK OUT BOOKS OR GO THERE. SO THAT IS HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION.

SO THAT IS ALSO A CONCERN WITH ALL OF THIS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, I'D JUST LIKE TO GIVE THE DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COUNCIL WOMAN CADENA, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, AGAIN, WE ARE BEING CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE APPROACH THAT WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE WITH THE BUDGET DIRECTOR SHAW.

YES, THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER TOLBERT THAT IS CORRECT THAT THIS FISCAL YEAR, THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET REDUCES THE HOURS TO SERVE THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY, BUT THAT WOULD STILL INVOLVE THE PUBLIC.

BUT IN FY 28, WE ARE IN TALKS WITH DISD FOR THEM TO TAKE IT OVER AND RUN IT AS A SCHOOL LIBRARY ONLY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN AFTER THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. CITY SECRETARY, YOU MENTIONED APPROXIMATELY 800,000 TO RUN A MAY ELECTION, BUT YOU SAID THAT NUMBER CAME FROM DALLAS COUNTY.

AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU'VE GOTTEN NUMBERS FROM COLLIN AND DENTON COUNTY FOR THE SAME.

I DID NOT SPEAK WITH COLLIN AND DENTON COUNTY.

[06:40:01]

AND THE, THE 750,000 IS DALLAS. IS DENTON AND COLLIN CORRECT? THE $2.7 MILLION FOR THIS NOVEMBER 26TH ELECTION.

YES. SO COLIN IS 65,000 AND DENTON IS 45,000 AND IT WAS 2.6 FROM DALLAS COUNTY, BUT THEY SENT AN AMENDMENT OVER.

I SENT THAT EMAIL TO YOU. I GUESS IT'S STILL LIKE 2.6, BUT IT'S ABOUT 2.6.

SO THAT'S ALL DALLAS COUNTY. OKAY. SO I GUESS I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IF IT WAS 800,000 FOR DALLAS COUNTY, WHAT THAT COMPARABLE COST WOULD BE IN COLLIN AND DENTON COUNTY IF IT WOULD STAY THE SAME, BECAUSE THOSE ARE JUST INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS.

THERE'S ONE LOCATION, COLLIN. THERE'S ONE LOCATION IN DENTON, BUT THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO STAFF AS HEAVILY.

CORRECT. SO THE ESTIMATE ON GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR COLLIN, IT'S ABOUT $22,000 IN DENTON, ABOUT $13,000. GREAT. THANK YOU. IS IT TOO LATE FOR US TO PULL BACK THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IF WE WANTED TO.

YES. OKAY. I'LL JUST NOTE THAT I DID SUGGEST WE NOT DO IT IN NOVEMBER.

AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED. HOW WHEN THE CITY DID THE BOND ELECTION IN MAY OF 2024, WASN'T IT.

NO. I'M SORRY. IT WAS IN NOVEMBER 2024. SO IT WAS THE OFF CYCLE, RIGHT? LIKE WE WERE STILL DOING COUNCIL ELECTIONS IN MAY, BUT WE DID IN NOVEMBER 2024 BOND.

DID WE BUDGET FOR THAT? I DON'T RECALL. IT'S A FAIR ANSWER.

OKAY. THE THING ABOUT THIS NOVEMBER ELECTION IS WE NEVER EVEN HAD A BOND COMMISSION.

AND I DO THINK THAT WE WILL SEE A MAY ELECTION.

AND IT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE BOND. IT'S ABOUT MANY OTHER VOTER PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE SWIRLING AROUND FROM EVERYTHING FROM STRONG OR STRONGER MAYOR TO OTHER THINGS THAT I FEEL CONFIDENT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAIN ELECTION.

AND THAT'S WHY I HATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS 2.75 MILLION NOW, 2.6 MILLION FOR NOVEMBER.

ANYHOW, I THINK THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT THAT'S ON THIS LIST BUT CAN'T SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. AND SO I'M HAPPY TO OFFER SUGGESTIONS TO YOU OFFLINE OF A PLACE FOR SOURCE OF FUNDS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT BY SHOWING YOUR CITY OF DALLAS SEAL.

OKAY. SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR CADENA BAZALDUA.

DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO TEM. JOHNSON. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ COUNCIL MEMBER MORENO COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

WITH ONLY SEVEN VOTING IN FAVOR, THE AMENDMENT FAILS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. ANYONE HAVE AN AMENDMENT.

MAYOR. YES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I'D LIKE TO. LAY AN AMENDMENT.

YES, BY ALL MEANS. I ELIMINATE, I MOVE TO ELIMINATE ALL FUNDING FOR AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE, INSTALLATION, SOFTWARE, SUBSCRIPTIONS, MAINTENANCE, TECHNICAL SUPPORT, AND RELATED SERVICES FOR FLOCK SAFETY CAMERAS OF $1,500 WITH THE USE OF FUNDS AT $1 MILLION FOR DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING, SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, AND 500 000 FOR EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT.

ARE THERE TWO SECONDS FOR THAT? I THINK I HEARD TWO.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. BAZALDUA, ON YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I CAN'T RECITE EXACTLY WHAT IT ALL DID, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW.

WELL, IT'S TAKING 1.5 MILLION OF OUR GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION TO THE FLOCK.

CONTRACT. AND AND IT IS ASKING TO USE 1 MILLION OF IT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS SPECIFIC TO DISTRICT, WHICH IS SOMETHING I TALKED WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT. IT'S APPARENTLY SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP OFTEN WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ASK TO HAVE A, AN ABILITY TO TAP INTO SOME DISCRETIONARY DOLLARS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AS THEY COME UP.

AND AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS SO WITH A MILLION, IT'S 75,000 PER DISTRICT, INCLUDING DISTRICT 15.

[06:45:09]

THEY CATALOG EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE THAT PASSES THE.

MAKE THE MODEL, THE COLOR, THE LICENSE PLATE, EVEN BUMPER STICKERS AND SCRATCHES SCRATCHES ON THE VEHICLES AND STORES IT FOR AS LONG AS THE OPERATOR DECIDES WE ARE LONGER THAN MOST OF OUR PEER ENTITIES.

WE HAVE FOUR PILLARS OF CONCERNS THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON RIGHT NOW WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR, NOT THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICERS USING IT TO STALK PEOPLE.

FLOCKS OWN CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER HAS PUBLICLY ADMITTED THAT OFFICERS TRACKING EXES IS THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF ABUSE OF THEIR PLATFORM. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN DALLAS AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.

THIS ISN'T BECAUSE I WANT TO PREVENT DPD FROM DOING ANYTHING.

THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND THERE ARE A LACK OF CONTROLS FOR THIS TO HAVE BEEN ABUSED.

AND I WOULD HATE FOR THAT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD HAPPEN WITHIN OUR OWN DEPARTMENT.

WARRANTLESS IMMIGRATION TRACKING, TWO WAYS FEDERAL AGENCIES GET IN A FRONT DOOR, LOCAL POLICE RUNNING SEARCHES FOR ICE DIRECTLY AND IMMIGRATION AND ICE AND BACK DOOR HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST COMMON SEARCH KEYWORD TERMS IN THE NETWORK. A SCHOOL PARKING LOT CAMERA IN TEXAS BECAME A NODE IN A NATIONAL IMMIGRATION DRAGNET.

AND NOBODY AT THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVED ANY OF ITS ACCESS.

NUMBER THREE, TRACKING PEOPLE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

A TEXAS ABORTION INVESTIGATION REACHED INTO TWO STATES THAT PASSED LAWS TO STOP EXACTLY THAT FROM HAPPENING.

THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH A NATIONWIDE OPT IN SHARING NETWORK, STATE PROTECTIONS ONLY HAVE A STRONG, AS STRONG AS THE WEAKEST STATE CONNECTED TO IT NUMBER FOR DATA SHARING WITH NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

BRANDON UPCHURCH WAS MISIDENTIFIED BY A FLOCK CAMERA IN 2024.

HE WAS ATTACKED BY A POLICE DOG AND JAILED. HE WAS THE TRUCK'S ACTUAL REGISTERED OWNER.

THE PLATE WASN'T STOLEN. IT WAS MISREAD FROM FLOCK TECHNOLOGY.

FEWER THAN 1% OF SCANNED LICENSE PLATES EVER CONNECT TO A CRIME.

ROUGHLY 1 IN 10 READS MISIDENTIFY WITH THE STATE ENTIRELY.

WE ARE ACCEPTING A SYSTEM THAT'S WRONG ON BASIC DETAILS, LIKE THE STATE OF THE PLATE, WITH ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN TIMES THE TREATING OF THE OUTPUT AS RELIABLE ENOUGH TO SEND AN OFFICER OR A DOG AFTER SOMEONE SHOWS THERE'S STRONG CONCERN THERE.

THE DATA SHARING IS THE PIECE THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WHEN IT COMES TO FLOC.

WE'VE SEEN A TREND ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE'VE SEEN MULTIPLE STATE LEGISLATURES, LEGISLATURES TAKE UP LEGISLATION TO TRY TO REGULATE.

RIGHT NOW, WE ARE AN OUTLIER, NOT JUST WITH PEER CITIES, BUT WITH ENTITIES ACROSS THE NATION.

WE MAINTAIN AND RETAIN OUR INFORMATION FOR 365 DAYS A YEAR, 365 DAYS A YEAR.

FLOC, AS AN ENTITY, IS SUGGESTING A SEVEN DAY RETENTION FOR ALL NEW ACCOUNTS, THEIR STATE LEGISLATION THAT HAS LIMITED IT TO 21 DAYS AND BELOW 365 DAYS IS OUTRAGEOUS. IT ALSO MAKES OUR NETWORK OUR COMPONENT OF THE NETWORK, AND IT MAKES OUR DATA THAT MUCH MORE VALUABLE. CURRENTLY ARE SHARING DATA WITH 54 OTHER AGENCIES WE CANNOT CONTROL WHO HAS ACCESS TO OUR TECHNOLOGY. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TECHNOLOGY, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE COMPARABLE PRODUCTS THAT DON'T HAVE A NATIONWIDE NETWORK ATTACHED TO THEM. SOMETHING THAT COULD BE HANDLED IN HOUSE IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE I COULD STOMACH A LOT MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO CALL OUT A LACK OF CONTROLS ON A TOOL THAT WE WERE WILLING TO EMBRACE ORIGINALLY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING MY COLLEAGUES CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT BECAUSE FLIGHT CAMERAS HELP CATCH CRIMINALS. THEY HELP SOLVE BUSINESS ROBBERIES.

[06:50:01]

PUBLIC SAFETY. I'VE SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES. MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY RAN ON IT, AND I SUPPORT IT.

AND TO HAVE THIS RESOURCE TO HELP US WITH THE CRIME IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY VOICE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTING.

WE CAN'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. WE HAVE THINGS THAT HAPPEN AND WE UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES PEOPLE MAY MAY ABUSE CERTAIN THINGS, BUT I BELIEVE ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES WANT US TO FIND CRIMINALS, WANT THE RESOURCES TO FIND CRIMINALS, WANT THE RESOURCES TO HELP FAMILIES FIND THEIR MISSING LOVED ONES, WANT THE CRIMINALS, WANT THE POLICE AND THESE RESOURCES TO HELP WITH STOLEN VEHICLES AND HELP SOLVE HOMICIDES. SO BASED OFF THE INFORMATION AND THE FINDINGS AND THE RESOURCES THAT THE FLOCK CAMERAS DO BRING TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY THE DISTRICT FOUR I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

I WILL SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AND KEEPING THIS RESOURCE TO HELP NOT JUST DISTRICT FOUR, BUT ALL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT THREE.

THANK YOU. I WOULD SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THE FLOCK FUNDING, BUT I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE USE OF THE FUNDS FOR THE 1.5 MILLION ALL BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING AND THAT THE EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT BE DELETED. I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ON AN EARLIER AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT THE 500,000 THAT WE'VE GIVEN FOR THE EVICTION ADVOCACY IS, IS ADEQUATE.

I THINK IT SENDS A SUPPORT FOR THAT PROGRAM. AND IT ALLOWS THE THE PROGRAM TO FLOURISH AND ENCOURAGES THEM TO FUND IT LATER. I THINK THAT A MORE, MORE DEFINITIVE, PRIORITIZED REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE IS THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND I WOULD SUPPORT THIS MOTION, THIS AMENDMENT IF WE COULD MAKE ALL OF THE FUNDS GO TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND IN THAT RESPECT, I WOULD ASK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THIS AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT THAT REQUIREMENT TO ELIMINATE THE EVICTION ADVOCACY SUPPORT AND MOVE THOSE FUNDS INTO ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITY. I KNOW THAT. CHAIRWOMAN STEWART. ACTUALLY.

I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR FIVE MINUTES FIRST.

I MADE A I MADE A I, I DID I DID AN AMENDMENT.

IS THAT APPROPRIATE OR NOT? OF COURSE IT IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT IT HAS IN IT.

COULD THE AMENDMENT BE REPEATED? I DIDN'T HEAR IT. MY AMENDMENT IS THAT WE ELIMINATE THE USE OF FUNDS FOR EVICTION ADVOCACY, SUPPORT AND TRANSFER THAT $500,000 INTO ADDITIONAL DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING.

IF YOU CAN GET TWO SECONDS FOR IT. THAT SOUNDS IN ORDER.

ARE THERE TWO SECONDS FOR THAT? GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE.

FAILS FOR WANT OF TWO SECONDS PER RULE. YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR, THOUGH.

THAT'S FINE. OKAY. CHAIRWOMAN MIDDLETON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.

I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD HAVE SOME ANSWERS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE IN DALLAS ABOUT FLOCK.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN. WE'LL HAVE OUR I SEE OUR TEAM HERE FROM DPD.

LET'S HAVE THEM COME OUT SO THEY CAN GIVE YOU SOME SOME FACTS.

A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR THEM ACTUALLY. OH THAT'S GOOD.

LET'S JUST GET THEM ON OUT HERE. DISAPPEAR THAT QUICKLY AND THEY EITHER.

YEAH. JACK AND JEANETTE RAN. YEAH. THE BUILDING GUYS.

YEAH. I WANTED YOU TO GET THEM OUT HERE. THEY'VE BEEN WAITING.

SO HERE WE GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BUDGET TEAM MIGHT WANT TO, LIKE, TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A WHILE.

I SHOULD SET MY LIPSTICK FIRST. SHOULD I SET MY LIPSTICK FIRST? I HATE THE CAMERA. I KNOW. NO. I'M SUSAN REINHART WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL TECHNOLOGY UNIT.

AND TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, AND IF YOU'LL JUST MOVE THAT MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

THANK YOU. MY APOLOGIES. I DON'T WANT TO YELL INTO IT EITHER.

SO CURRENTLY WE DO WEEKLY AUDITS. SO EVERY WEEK WE PULL A CSV FILE.

[06:55:02]

OKAY. SO SAFEGUARDS WE DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO ACCESS THE SYSTEM.

THE, THE SYSTEM IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE TO OFFICERS AND DPD PERSONNEL THAT HAVE THE GONE THROUGH THE TRAINING AND HAVE THAT JOB RESPONSIBILITY.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE USING THE SYSTEM AND SEARCHING LICENSE PLATES.

SO HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IS THAT? CURRENTLY IT'S 1900.

1900 HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE IT. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WE GUARD WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT TO THEN BE ABLE TO SEARCH THE SYSTEM.

AND THEN WHENEVER THEY ARE IN THE SYSTEM, THEY HAVE TO PUT IN AN INVESTIGATIVE REASON AND A CASE NUMBER OR CARD NUMBER TO THEN TRACK IT TO THAT INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSE WHENEVER THEY'RE DOING A SEARCH. SO THAT'S HOW WE GET TO THE AUDIT LOGS.

AND THEN WHEN THE AUDIT LOGS ARE PRODUCED EVERY WEEK, IT THEN PRINTS OUT THAT OFFICER'S NAME, THE INVESTIGATIVE REASON, AND THEN ALSO THAT CAT OR CASE NUMBER THAT THEN WE CHECK TO SEE IF THAT IS A VALID NUMBER.

OKAY. SO ONLY CERTAIN SWORN OFFICERS ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT HAS TO HAVE A PURPOSE, HAS TO HAVE A CASE NUMBER.

AND THEN THERE'S AN AUDIT LOG THAT'S THEN VERIFIED.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTING THIS IN DALLAS? DO YOU KNOW? GABRIEL CANDELARIA, MAJOR AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS.

AT THE TIME, I WAS A SERGEANT IN TECHNOLOGY WHEN WE PROCURED THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH.

IT'S NOT, IT WASN'T WHAT WAS THAT CALLED? THIS IS MARTIN MORENO, HOUSE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I THINK IT WAS IN 2022. I THINK WE HAD A COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT, AND WE PIGGYBACKED OFF OF A FORT WORTH AGREEMENT.

AND THEN RECENTLY WE WENT TO COUNCIL IN 2025, AND WE DID A SOLE SOURCE, AND WE PROCURED FLOC THROUGH A SOLE SOURCE.

SO WE'VE SINCE THAT TIME TO NOW WE'VE HAD FLOC SERVICES.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE VOTE WAS FOR THOSE. I DON'T KNOW, MA'AM.

DO YOU REMEMBER IF EDDIE GARCIA CAME AND SPOKE TO EACH COUNCIL MEMBER INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM AND CONCERNS AND EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO US? I DON'T KNOW IF HE DID. I'LL BE HONEST. I DON'T KNOW IF HE DID.

OKAY. I DO. AND WERE THERE ANY PRESENTATIONS AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ABOUT FLOC AND ABOUT USING CAMERAS AND WHAT KIND OF SAFEGUARDS WOULD BE IN PLACE? NOT THAT I WAS A PART OF. SO I THINK IF YOU GO BACK, YOU'LL FIND THAT THERE WERE.

THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION. WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S REPORTED MISSING THAT HAS DEMENTIA OR ALZHEIMER'S, AND THEY'VE DRIVEN A CAR AWAY. WHAT IS YOUR BEST WAY OF FINDING THEM? I'M. I'M DEPUTY. I'M DEPUTY CHIEF WILLIAM GRIFFITH, THE COMMANDER OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION GROUP.

THAT IS A THAT IS A MAIN REASON WE START LOOKING FOR.

IS USING FLOCK TO FIND OUT WHERE THAT CAR HAS BEEN DURING A CRITICAL MISSING SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE IS DRIVEN OFF LIKE THAT.

SO YOU IMMEDIATELY SAY, HERE'S MY CASE NUMBER, HERE'S MY PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, FIND MISSING SENIOR WITH DEMENTIA.

I KNOW THE KIND OF CAR BECAUSE THEY'VE TAKEN THEIR OWN VEHICLE.

AND THEN YOU LOOK FOR HITS ON THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE TRACKED IT SO FAR IS INTO ARKANSAS ON ONE CRITICAL MISSING INCIDENT THAT WE HAD.

WOW. HOW OFTEN IS FLOCK USED IN DALLAS? TO ME AN INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES USED EVERY DAY.

WE GET VEHICLE LEADS THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS, WHETHER IT'S A HOMICIDE OR MURDER, A BUSINESS ROBBERY AND ASSAULT.

A CRITICAL MISSING. SO THE SYSTEM IS USED EVERY DAY FOR APPREHENSION.

WE MAY HAVE INFORMATION ON. WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SUSPECT WHO'S DRIVING A SPECIFIC VEHICLE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY A WARRANT OUT.

SO WE USE THAT SYSTEM TO HELP US TRY TO LOCATE THE WANTED INDIVIDUAL AS WELL.

BUT DO YOU HAVE THE STATISTIC OF HOW OFTEN IT'S USED, WHETHER IT'S WEEKLY OR MONTHLY OR HOW MANY TIMES WE USED IT IN 2025? DO WE HAVE A USAGE NUMBER LIKE THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SEARCHES OR LINKED TO? YEAH.

SO WE RUN ABOUT 13,000 SEARCHES PER WEEK WITHIN THE SYSTEM ON WITHIN DPD.

BUT WHEN YOU BREAK IT DOWN TO UNIQUE LICENSE PLATES, THAT IT ONLY COMES OUT TO ABOUT 2100 UNIQUE LICENSE PLATES RUN PER WEEK FROM OUR OFFICERS.

SO A LITTLE OVER 1.1. THAT DISPARITY TO ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO. SO WHEN LET'S SAY THERE'S A CRITICAL INCIDENT, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO THE SCENE, WHETHER IT'S A ROBBERY OR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ACTIVE SHOOTER SHOOTING. AND WE HAVE A LICENSE PLATE ON THAT CALL SHEET.

EVERY OFFICER THAT IS ASSIGNED TO THAT CALL SHEETS RUNNING THAT SAME LICENSE PLATE.

SO THAT OFFICER SO YOU HAVE MULTIPLE OFFICERS RUNNING THAT SAME PLATE MULTIPLE TIMES AS THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY THERE,

[07:00:02]

SO IT'S ME AND MY TEAM THAT PULL THAT AUDIT LOG, RUN SOME EXCEL FORMULAS TO, TO PULL OUT NUMBERS THAT DON'T MATCH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

AND THEN THE SUPERVISORS ARE EMAILED THAT SPREADSHEET THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THEIR PERSONNEL THAT'S ASSIGNED TO THEM FOR THEM TO FOLLOW UP AND REVIEW IT AND TO ENSURE THAT THOSE THAT THOSE SEARCHES WERE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE.

SO LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT, I MEAN, YOU SAID 13000 A WEEK, BUT IT'S REALLY ACTUALLY 2100 VEHICLES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

SO OF THAT LOG YOU'RE GOING TO GET WITH A 2100 VEHICLES, ARE YOU THEN SENDING EVERY SINGLE ONE OUT TO A SUPERVISOR? DO YOU DO SOME RANDOM SAMPLE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO IT'S ONLY THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE A CAT OR CASE NUMBER, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFIABLE NUMBER TO OUR OWN SYSTEM THAT WE THEN SEND OUT TO THE SUPERVISORS.

SO ON A WEEKLY BASIS, IT'S AN AVERAGE OF, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 60 JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LINE UP WITH THAT.

SO A LOT OF TIMES IT'S BECAUSE IT'S USING A WARRANT NUMBER THAT'S ON THE COUNTY SIDE, RIGHT? THAT DOESN'T CORRELATE TO ONE OF OUR CASE NUMBERS OR CAT INCIDENT NUMBERS.

AND DID THE SUPERVISOR HAVE TO BE CONSULTED BEFORE THEY EVER DID THE FLOCK SEARCH OR NOT NECESSARILY.

THAT MAY HAVE BEEN JUST HOW WE STARTED. HOW DOES THE SUPERVISOR GET CONSULTED? I'M SORRY IF AN OFFICER WANTS TO USE FLOCK AND DO A SEARCH, DO THEY HAVE TO CHECK IN WITH THE SUPERVISOR FIRST? OR THEY CAN JUST DO IT. THEY CAN JUST DO THEIR CERTIFIED.

YEAH, YEAH, ONCE THEY DO IT. BUT OF COURSE THEY HAVE TO GET ACCESS FIRST.

AND SO THEY DO HAVE TO GET ACCESS AND DO REVIEW SOME TRAINING ON HOW TO USE THE SYSTEM BEFORE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO IT.

HOW IS FLOCK DIFFERENT THAN A TOLL TAG CAMERA? LIKE WHEN YOU GO THROUGH A TOLL BOOTH OR WE DON'T HAVE THE BOOTHS ANYMORE, BUT THE OVERHEAD.

WELL, I MEAN, ACTUALLY THE TOLL BOOTHS HAVE LPR CAMERAS, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A TOLL TAG, IT THEN TAKES A PICTURE OF YOUR VEHICLE AND THE LICENSE PLATE AND THEN SENDS YOU A BILL IN THE MAIL BASED OFF OF YOUR REGISTRATION, YOU KNOW, WHO'S, WHO'S THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE.

AND SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY LPR CAMERAS AT EVERY TOLL BOOTH, BUT IT ALSO WILL TAKE A PICTURE FROM THE FRONT.

RIGHT. YOUR FACE IS ON THERE. I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ONE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES.

BUT YES, BECAUSE WHAT THE TOLL TECH COMPANY IS TRYING TO DO IS IDENTIFY THE DRIVERS SO THAT THEY CAN HOLD THEM LIABLE FOR THAT FINE LATER ON.

IT ALSO PULLS THE REGISTRATION INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, OWNER, THAT'S HOW THEY KNOW HOW TO MAIL THAT THAT BILL TO YOU.

THE FLOCK SYSTEM DOESN'T DO THAT. IT DOES NOT CHECK THE REGISTRATION. IT DOES NOT KNOW THE OWNER OR THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE.

WELL, I'VE ONLY HAD IT WHEN I'M ON VACATION IN OTHER STATE AND A RENTAL CAR, AND I DIDN'T HAVE A TOLL TAG. AND I DID GET THAT LETTER.

HOW IS IT DIFFERENT THAN, LET'S SAY, A CAMERA ON A BUS? SO WE'VE GOT CARS THAT ARE GOING AROUND. THERE'S SOME BUSSES THAT HAVE A CAMERA.

I'M NOT UP TO SPEED ON THE WHAT TECHNOLOGY THE CAMERAS HAVE ON THE SCHOOL BUSSES, BUT FROM, YOU KNOW, PAST, I GUESS, NEWS REPORTS ON IT, IT DOES TAKE VIDEO AND LICENSE PLATE INFORMATION FOR VIOLATIONS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY PASSED THE SCHOOL BUS WITH THE STOP SIGN OUT. WHEN WE THINK ABOUT CAMERAS FOR BODY CAMS FOR OUR OFFICERS, DO ALL OF OUR PATROL OFFICERS NOW HAVE BODY CAMS? THEY DO, AND THE BODY CAM IS ACTUALLY TAKING PICTURES OF PEOPLE'S FACES, MAYBE INSIDE THEIR HOMES.

IF THE INCIDENTS IN A HOME OR INSIDE A BUSINESS IN A PRIVATE PLACE, IT COULD BE.

HOW IS THAT AN INVASION OF PRIVACY COMPARED TO FLOCK? I MEAN, ONE IS A CALL FOR SERVICE, RIGHT? AND YOU'RE CALLING US TO BE THERE FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHETHER YOU'RE A VICTIM OR NEED HELP IN SOME SORT OF FASHION.

FLOCK, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS JUST A CAMERA, IF YOU WILL, A POLL ON A PUBLIC STREET, JUST TAKING PICTURES AS, AS THE VEHICLE DRIVES BY. SO ONE IS YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE THERE ON A 911 CALL.

AND THE OTHER ONE IS, IS YOU'RE DRIVING ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY.

SURE. BUT IF THERE'S AN INCIDENT OUTSIDE OF WALMART AND THE PARKING LOT AND I'M WALKING BY, I'M I'M NOW ON SOMEBODY'S BODY CAM, RIGHT? CORRECT.

IF WE'RE RECORDING. YES. OKAY. SO TELL ME ABOUT A PATROL CAR.

SOME OF OUR PATROL CARS HAVE LICENSE PLATE READERS, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN A FLOCK PRIVACY ISSUE? THE DIFFERENCE IS, IS IT'S MOBILE. SO AS THE VEHICLE DRIVES AROUND, IT GETS A LICENSE PLATE THAT WAY INSTEAD OF INTO THE SAME DATABASE.

[07:05:03]

OKAY, GREAT. I HAVE A MINUTE 17 LEFT. I'M GOING TO SAY I'M DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT TO BASICALLY DO DEFUND THE POLICE 2.0. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTIGATIVE TOOL THAT I'VE SEEN. I THINK, ALTHOUGH OUR VIOLENT CRIME PLAN IS PLANS.

GREAT PART OF OUR VIOLENT CRIME PLAN HAS BEEN USING FLOCK TO HELP SOLVE CASES.

LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

I SAW AN INTERVIEW AND THE INTERVIEW WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY HOMICIDES WERE SOLVED THIS YEAR.

CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INFORMATION THIS YEAR? LAST YEAR.

CHIEF, YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOT GOOD. SO YES. SO THIS YEAR WE'VE CLEARED ABOUT 13, WELL, ACTUALLY 14 MURDERS BASED ON USING THE FLOCK SYSTEM.

WE HAD A MURDER ON SUNDAY EVENING ON BRUTON ROAD.

AND THE RACING AND SPEEDING TASK FORCE WAS GIVEN THE VEHICLE INFORMATION ON THE MURDER SUSPECT'S VEHICLE AND WERE ABLE TO APPREHEND THE SUSPECT WITHIN HOURS OF THE HOMICIDE TAKING PLACE. SO IT'S IT'S CLEARED ABOUT 14% OF OUR MURDERS THIS YEAR.

IT'S ABOUT 15% LAST YEAR. SO IT'S, IT'S INCREASING.

SO AND WE'RE JUST HALFWAY THROUGH AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, RIGHT.

SO WE EXPECT THAT, THAT THE ALPR SYSTEM WILL CLEAR MORE MURDERS AS WELL WITH OUR BUSINESS ROBBERIES.

WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLEAR 50 BUSINESS ROBBERIES BASED ON THE USE OF THE ARP SYSTEM, WHICH IS ABOUT 14% OF OUR BUSINESS ROBBERIES AS WELL. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN A YEAR SINCE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE HAS LOOKED AT CLEARANCE RATES.

LAST WE DID, I THINK IT WAS CLOSE TO 68%, WHICH IS JUST AN ABSOLUTELY WAY SKY HIGH NUMBER OUT OF SIGHT.

MOST POLICE DEPARTMENTS ARE IN THE 30S AND Y'ALL ARE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

SO HOW MUCH OF THAT WOULD YOU ATTRIBUTE TO HAVING THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY? A TREMENDOUS I BELIEVE THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY, OUR CLEARANCE RATE WOULD REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY BOTH IN HOMICIDES, IN BUSINESS ROBBERIES, ROBBERIES THEMSELVES, OR ASSAULTS.

WE'RE JUST NOW STARTING TO LOOK AT THE KEY SOLVING FACTOR FOR FOR ASSAULTS AS WELL.

SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE NUMBERS VERY, VERY SOON AS WELL.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN OUR CLEARANCE RATE.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE ABOUT 80% IN CLEARANCE ON OUR MURDERS.

AND THAT'S WAY ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, WAY ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN CLEARING BUSINESS ROBBERIES AS WELL.

WE'RE ABOUT 43%. MOST OTHER CITIES ARE IN THE 20S.

SO I THINK THAT THAT TECHNOLOGY ITSELF IS ASSISTED US IN CLEARING THESE OFFENSES AND GETTING THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES CLOSURE.

MAYOR. THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE BRIEFING ABOUT IT IS ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY AGENDA FOR THIS MONTH.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. BUT I WILL JUST SAY, WITHOUT IT, I THINK IT PUTS OUR ENTIRE PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM IN JEOPARDY.

AND THE GUARDRAILS YOU'VE PUT IN ARE WHAT'S SO NECESSARY.

THANK YOU. YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN STEWART RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. ALL NIGHT LONG. THANK YOU, MAYOR JOHNSON.

ALL RIGHT. I ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE CONCERNS OF THE POTENTIAL MISUSE OF FLOCK CAMERAS.

ANY TECHNOLOGY THAT PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THIS KIND OF INFORMATION NEEDS CLEAR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE OUTWEIGHS THE PUBLIC SAFETY VALUE OF THIS TOOL.

IT HELPS OUR OFFICERS IDENTIFY SUSPECTS AND LOCATE VEHICLES AND SOLVE CRIMES.

AS YOU ALL HAVE JUST SAID, SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER.

THE ANSWER TO MISUSE IS STRONGER SAFEGUARDS, NOT ELIMINATING AN EFFECTIVE TOOL.

I HAVE JUST, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF DISTRICT TEN AND THINGS THAT I HAVE SEEN.

I KNOW WE HAD SHOTS FIRED IN A PARKING LOT OF A PARK A FEW YEARS BACK, AND YOU ALL WERE VERY QUICKLY ABLE TO, AND IT WAS AT SOME STUDENTS, WHICH MADE IT A HIGHER PRIORITY.

AND YOU ALL WERE ABLE TO FIND THAT THAT GROUP OF SUSPECTS PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD CAMERA.

MOST RECENTLY WE HAD, UNFORTUNATELY, A MURDER IN DISTRICT TEN.

A WOMAN WITH TWO CHILDREN AND SHE WAS STABBED AND PASSED AWAY.

BUT THE SUSPECT WAS APPREHENDED WITHIN ABOUT 48 HOURS.

[07:10:01]

SO WE DO WANT TO, OBVIOUSLY AT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING, ASK MORE QUESTIONS TO YOU ALL AND GET MORE ASSURANCES THAT THE SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE.

AND PERHAPS HEAR REPORTS ON WHERE THE SAFEGUARDS HAVE NOT WORKED BECAUSE WE NEED TO FACE THAT HARSH REALITY.

BUT I DO SEE IT TIME AND AGAIN WORK. WELL, WHEN I WAS FIRST ELECTED, I HAD SOME DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WAS TO AUTHORIZE 25 FLOCK CAMERAS FOR DISTRICT TEN.

AND, AND THEY WERE PRIMARILY FOREST ON AUDELIA.

THEY WERE THEY WERE REALLY IN OUR JUST OUR INTERSECTIONS, OUR, YOU KNOW, HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDORS.

AND I THINK IT'S MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. AND I COULD GO INTO MY CRIME STATS AND HOMICIDE RATE BEING SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN FROM 24 TO WHERE WE AVERAGED AROUND 17 HOMICIDES A YEAR UNTIL RECENTLY.

AND LAST YEAR WE HAD SIX. SO I KNOW FLOCK CAMERAS DON'T NECESSARILY PREVENT HOMICIDES, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY HELPING. I THINK THEY'RE JUST PART OF THE OVERALL CRIME PLAN AND I THINK THEY'RE HAVE A BENEFICIAL USE.

SO I WOULD NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE FUNDING CITY MANAGER OF OUR FLOCK CAMERAS AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS BLAIR, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

NUMBER THREE. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ALL NIGHT LONG.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO. IT'S EVERY NOW AND THEN.

OH, OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TOO WILL AM UNABLE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I ACTUALLY KNOW THE ANSWERS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TO TO STAY IN MY DISTRICT.

I HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ASKING FOR CAMERAS AT, AT HIGH INTENSIVE AREAS TO DO A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS. ONE IS FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY AND, AND, AND THINGS OF, IN, IN AVENUES THAT ARE, ARE QUITE ACTIVE. I SUPPORT YOUR, YOUR USE OF THE CAMERAS.

I'VE HAD YOU GUYS USE IT FOR, ON A PERSONAL NOTE FOR ME AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LINE OF DUTY AND IT BECAME QUITE.

RESOURCEFUL AND INFORMATIVE AND PROTECTIVE. AND SO I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU'VE HAD IT.

I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU USED IT. I'M GRATEFUL THAT THIS TOOL IS AVAILABLE TO US.

THE TO NOW, I WILL ALSO SAY STATE WE NEED EVERY DIME THAT WE CAN GET FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO TAKE THE MONEY FROM.

EVERY TOOL THAT YOU GUYS CAN GET IS A TOOL THAT WE NEED.

EVERY CAMERA I CAN GET, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR IT.

IF I HAD MONEY IN MY BUDGET, I'D BUY SOME FOR YOU, AND I WOULD HAVE STRATEGIC LOCATIONS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLACE THEM.

SO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. IT'S NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, THERE'S CAMERAS EVERYWHERE.

HERE'S A CAMERA. I GOT THREE OF THEM. I GOT THREE OF THEM.

AND EVERY ONE OF US USE OUR CAMERAS AND WE CATCH THINGS ON OUR CAMERAS.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I HAVE YEAH, I GOT THREE PHONES.

I GOT THREE CAMERAS. SO BUT WE, YOU KNOW, I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE CAMERAS. WE USE THEM ALL THE TIME. I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOCK AND RING.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU GUYS ASK PEOPLE TO, TO GIVE US YOUR RING TO, TO SHARE OUR RING? I SAW A VIDEO OF SOMEBODY'S RING WHERE SOMEBODY IN, IN DISTRICT FOUR WAS JUST SHOOTING.

SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER. COME ON, YOU GUYS. THIS IS NOT A HARD ONE FOR ME.

[07:15:07]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, CHAIRMAN GRACEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I'M GOING TO START WITH THE DATA SECURITY. I HEARD THE YOUNG MAN SAY EARLIER THAT WE KEEP THIS THE RECORDS ON FILE FOR 365 DAYS.

IS THAT IS THAT TRUE? AND IF SO, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? YES, SIR. WE DO KEEP IT FOR 365 DAYS. THE MAIN PURPOSE IS THE INVESTIGATIVE VALUE OF IT.

IT DOES TAKE US A WHILE SOMETIMES TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT LICENSE PLATE FOR A SUSPECT OR AN OFFENSE THAT WE ARE INVESTIGATING.

AND SO WE HAD A FEW DETECTIVES THAT HAD COME TO US AND SAID, I WISH WE WOULD HAVE HAD IT, YOU KNOW, FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET A LICENSE PLATE FOR 40 OR 60 DAYS LATER.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHY WE, WE WENT WITH THE EXTENDED RETENTION OF IT.

AND, AND ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, AND I'M NOT SURE IF CITY MANAGER, OUR, OUR IT DIRECTOR IS IS AROUND.

BUT TYPICALLY WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE PROCUREMENTS, WE USUALLY HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT OUR DATA REMAINS ON OUR SERVER AND ALL OF THAT. IS THAT STILL TRUE IN TERMS OF ACCESSING THAT DATA? I DO BELIEVE IT'S TRUE, BUT I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FLOCK OPERATION, AND I'LL LET THE THE EXPERTS OUT THERE EXPLAIN IT, IS THAT I THINK IT'S A PART OF A SYSTEM. AND I THINK THAT SYSTEM PROVIDES THE ABILITY TO THEN HAVE DATA SHARED ACROSS EVERYONE THAT'S PARTICIPATING IN THAT SYSTEM.

AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M REMEMBERING IT THAT WAY.

THAT'S HOW WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INTEROPERABILITY.

THAT'S RIGHT. DURING MY DAYS AT THE TOLLWAY AUTHORITY, IT WAS TO ALLOW FOR OTHER STATES TO BE ABLE TO ALSO SEE THAT SAME TOLL TECH INFORMATION.

I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO HOW THEY CAUGHT THE PERSON. I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT. YES. SO IF SOMEONE IS IN OUR CITY AND THEY COMMIT A CRIME AND THEY GO TO ANOTHER CITY GOING INTO THAT SYSTEM. YOU CAN FIND THEM EVEN IF THEY'VE LEFT OUR CITY, EVEN IF THEY'VE LEFT OUR STATE.

I BELIEVE IT'S THE WAY THAT IT WORKS, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE EXPERTS.

SO THE WAY THAT THIS SYSTEM WORKS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LIKE AN ON PREM ON PREMISE IS THAT IT'S STORED IN THE CLOUD INSTEAD OF ON PREMISE.

AND THAT DOES ALLOW FOR THE EASIER SHARING WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET A CONNECTION INTO AN ON PREM SERVER THROUGH THE NETWORK, YOU KNOW, CITY NETWORK IS DONE THROUGH THE CLOUD. OKAY.

CAN I ADD TO THAT AS WELL? SO A CRIME, YOU KNOW, SUSPECTS DO NOT HAVE BORDERS WITH REGARDS TO COMMITTING CRIMES AND.

RIGHT. A LOT OF WE DO HAVE TIMES WHERE INDIVIDUALS COME FROM OTHER CITIES, LIKE ALL THE WAY FROM HOUSTON TO COME HERE TO COMMIT CRIMES AND THEN RETURN BACK.

AND WE HAVE WORKED AN 8 A.M. ROBBERY WHERE THE SUSPECTS HAD RENTED CARS HERE, PLACED ONE AT ONE LOCATION, PLACED IT AT ANOTHER. LUCKILY, WE HAD A WITNESS SEEING THAT SWITCH OUT OCCUR.

WE KNEW WHAT THE NEW VEHICLE DESCRIPTION AND LICENSE PLATE WAS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO TRACK THEM ALL THE WAY DOWN TO NEAR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WHERE WE HAD DPS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY THERE WAITING ON THEM.

AND WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE ALL SIX ROBBERY SUSPECTS INTO CUSTODY.

WE HAVE TRACKED ENDANGERED MISSING ADULTS ALL THE WAY TO ARKANSAS.

BASED ON, ON HAVING ACCESS TO OTHER CAMERA SYSTEMS. SO THEY, THEY DO CROSS BORDERS. WE'VE WORKED AUTO THEFTS AUTO THEFT RING WHERE THEY CROSSED BORDERS.

AND THE REASON FOR THE 365 DAYS IS IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO PUT BUILD A CASE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY WERE CHANGING LICENSE PLATES ON THE VEHICLES. BUT WE SINCE WE HAD A LONGER TIME SPAN TO GO BACK WITH THOSE CAMERAS, CAMERAS AND IDENTIFY THOSE VEHICLES AND LICENSE PLATES THAT WERE BEING USED, WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAR THE CASE AND RECOVERED ALMOST $7 MILLION WORTH OF STOLEN VEHICLES IN THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I THINK THE THING YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT I WILL MENTION IS YOU REALLY CAN'T PUT A NUMBER ON THE NUMBER OF CRIMES IT'S PREVENTED IN MY DISTRICT.

WE HAD A SERIES OF GUNSHOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND WE'VE INVESTIGATED, PUT SOME AND WE PUT THOSE FLOCK CAMERAS.

TURNS OUT THEY WERE SELLING GUNS BACK THERE, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD GO TO TEST THEM. AND SINCE WE PUT THOSE FLOCK CAMERAS, THEY'VE RELOCATED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS ANYMORE.

ANOTHER SIDE, SAME THING. WE'RE HAVING A MEETING NEXT WEEK WITH THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY ABOUT THAT SAFETY AND HOW WE CAN INCORPORATE THOSE, THE FLOCK CAMERAS BECAUSE OF THE SAME THING. AND IT'S PUTTING NEIGHBORS IN DANGER BECAUSE OF WHERE THESE BULLETS ARE LANDING.

FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO THAT'S ONE. WITH, WITH, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA MOTION.

[07:20:02]

WHAT WOULD THIS DO TO THE NETWORK? SO FLOCK SELLS ALSO TO PRIVATE COMPANIES.

AND SO THERE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT BUY FLOCK CAMERAS.

AND THEN IT'S UP TO THAT PRIVATE COMPANY, WHETHER THEY ALLOW US TO, YOU KNOW, OR SHARE THEIR CAMERAS WITH US AND ALLOW US TO SEARCH WITHIN THEIR CAMERA NETWORK. SO, BUT IT IS BASED SOLELY ON THE THAT OTHER COMPANY OR THAT PRIVATE COMPANY ALLOWING THAT.

SO EVEN WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THIS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEXES LOSE, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULDN'T LOSE ACCESS TO IT.

THEY WOULD JUST BE THEIR OWN LITTLE. WELL, WE WOULD LOSE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE YOU WOULD LOSE ACCESS.

WE WOULD LOSE ACCESS TO TO SEARCH THOSE CAMERAS IF THEY SHARED THEM WITH US.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE STATE AND ANYTHING FUNDING WAS FOR THE FOR DVD DOESN'T AFFECT THOSE INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES OR THOSE PRIVATE COMPANIES FROM HAVING FLOCK CAMERAS, BUT IT ALMOST DEFEATS THE PURPOSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY CAN LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OH YEAH, THERE IT IS. BUT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YES, SIR. THAT THAT PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE BUYING INTO WHEN THEY BUY THOSE CAMERAS AND SHARE THEM WITH US, WHAT THEY WOULD LOSE THAT. OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS FLOCK THE ONLY PROVIDER? NO, SIR. THERE ARE OTHER COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE LPR TECHNOLOGY.

YOU KNOW, LPR TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES.

IT'S NOT NEW. SO THERE ARE OTHER VENDORS, OTHER ESTABLISHED VENDORS AS WELL.

OKAY. AND OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIRWOMAN WILLIS, FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR DALLAS NEEDS FLOCK CAMERAS BECAUSE IT HELPS DALLAS POLICE ARREST SUSPECTS AND SOLVE CRIMES.

THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS WERE. FLOCK CAMERAS ARE USED NOT.

I MEAN NOT JUST BY THEMSELVES, BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT, BUT THEY'RE USED IN TANDEM WITH SO MANY THINGS THAT WE ENCOUNTER EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I MEAN, THINGS LIKE OUR DOORBELL CAMERAS OR IN RETAIL SHOPS OR RESTAURANTS, THERE ARE CAMERAS THERE AND YOU ARE BEING RECORDED.

THEY ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CELL TOWER PINGS.

I MEAN, YOU ALL PUT ALL OF THESE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT AND PURSUE AND THEN GO GET THEM.

YOU KNOW, I'M READING SOMETHING. IF PEOPLE LIKE CRIME SHOWS, I MEAN, YOU'RE THE REAL DEAL. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT VOLUMES OF CASES WHERE THESE HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THESE DIFFERENT PIECES, APARTMENT COMPLEXES, TO THE POINT THAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS JUST MAKING.

THEY'VE GOT SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AND MIGHT GET A LICENSE PLATE.

I MEAN, WE HAD A FEW MONTHS AGO, YOU KNOW, SOME BAD GUYS, MULTIPLE FIREARMS HAD COMMITTED A MURDER.

AND BETWEEN THAT APARTMENT SURVEILLANCE CAMERA, THE FLOCK CAMERA AND THEN THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.

YOU FOUND THEM AND CAUGHT THEM AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO MURDER AGAIN.

I HOPE IN THIS CITY. SO I HEAR, WELL, ANOTHER RIDING ALONG WITH THE PROSTITUTION TASK FORCE, YOU KNOW, ON HARRY HINES ON THE BLADE AND HEARING FROM THE OFFICERS.

WE'VE GOT ONE FLOCK CAMERA HERE AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT WE REALLY NEED ONE AT THE OTHER END ON SHADY TRAIL.

AND THAT WILL HELP US CLOSE IN ON THESE SEX BUYERS AND THOSE WHO ARE TARGETING MINORS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AND SO IT HAS HELPED IN SO MANY WAYS THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND I'M SURE IN SO MANY THAT I'M NOT AS WELL.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT KEEPS EVERYONE SAFE.

AND SO I DO HEAR THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.

OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY BROUGHT UP SOME DIFFERENT CONCERNS, BUT THOSE ARE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.

IT'S NOT IN DALLAS. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE DALLAS REALLY ANTICIPATED THE NEED FOR HAVING THESE GUIDELINES AND MONITORING AND ACCESS IS ONLY GRANTED TO AUTHORIZED USERS. I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN USING LICENSE PLATE READERS SINCE 2013.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO BE COMING TO THE FOREFRONT NOW.

BUT I UNDERSTAND DPD CAN TRACK EACH TIME AN OFFICER ACCESSES THE CAMERA.

SO WE'VE GOT DIGITAL FOOTPRINTS ON EVERYBODY OR DIGITAL FINGERPRINTS.

AND THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION WHEN THEY ACCESS THAT DATA.

SO I WOULD SAY IT SOUNDS LIKE DALLASITES, YOUR CITY IS LEADING IN THE PREVENTIVE MEASURES AROUND HOW FLOCK IS USED.

HOWEVER, IF THEY CAN BE STRENGTHENED, FURTHER POLICIES, IF WE LEARN MORE.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE OPEN TO DOING THAT AND REFINING THEM.

SO IT KEEPS THIS TOOL STRONG. BUT I WANTED TO ASK BECAUSE ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS WHO CAN ACCESS THESE CAMERAS? WE HEAR ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT AGENCIES. SO CAN WE CONTROL ACCESS? CAN DALLAS CONTROL ACCESS TO THESE CAMERAS? YES, MA'AM.

WE CAN. SO ANY SHARING THAT'S ALLOWED, AS IS AGREED UPON WITHIN THE PLATFORM, AND IT'S ONLY WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

SO WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING WHAT WHO WE CURRENTLY SHARE WITH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABIDING BY OUR OWN POLICIES AND STATE LAWS AS WELL.

[07:25:06]

AND I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN HOW YOU'RE ABLE TO SOLVE GET AT SOLVING CRIMES? YOU MENTIONED A NUMBER OF HOMICIDES THAT ARE HELPING SOME OF THOSE DISTRICTS THAT REALLY STRUGGLE.

ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT STRUGGLE WITH THIS. I MEAN, IS THERE ARE YOU SEEING MORE CRIME SOLVED AND GETTING MORE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS? YES, WE STARTED EACH YEAR SEE AN INCREASE IN USING THE FLOCK SYSTEM AS PART OF AN INVESTIGATIVE LEAD.

YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE ALPR SYSTEM IS JUST A LEAD THAT EVENTUALLY LEADS TO AN ARREST, BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT LEAD. WE MAY GET A VEHICLE DESCRIPTION FROM A RING CAMERA IN THAT AREA, AND THEN BASED ON USING THE PR SYSTEM, WE CAN DEVELOP A MORE SUSPECT INFORMATION.

SO IT'S JUST PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL THAT WE USE TO CLEAR THE CASE.

BUT IT'S BEEN, LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, GODSEND TO HELP US CLEAR CLEAR THESE CRIMES AND GET CLOSURE MORE QUICKLY.

AND WE BECOME MORE EFFICIENT IN WHAT WE DO. AND SPEAKING WITH THE DETECTIVES, I WORK WITH THEM EVERY DAY.

HOW HOW DETERMINED AND THEY WANT TO CLEAR THIS CASE, RIGHT? THEY WANT TO BRING CLOSURE TO THE VICTIMS AND HOW WE DO IT, AND WE DO IT IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY.

AND I THINK DALLAS LEADS THE COUNTRY IN IN OUR PROFESSIONALISM, AND WE DO THE TRAINING FOR FOR THE SYSTEM ITSELF AND HOW WE USE IT.

AND IT'S MONITORED AND WE HAVE AN AUDIT SYSTEM.

SO ALL THOSE PUT TOGETHER, I THINK IS A GOOD COMBINATION FOR DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WELL, TO THE POINT MADE. YOU KNOW, CRIMINALS ARE DRIVING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

IT'S NOT DISTRICT BY DISTRICT, BUT THAT'S HOW WE TEND TO GET OUR INFORMATION.

AND SO I SAW A COUPLE OF ARRESTS ON AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.

AND IT MAKES ME HAPPY TO KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DISTRICT RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT 13 ARE SAFER BECAUSE OF THOSE ARRESTS, BUT ALSO ALL OVER THE CITY. THIS HELPS US ALL.

SO I DO NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN MORENO, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US.

FLOCKING TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVEN TO BE A GREAT TOOL FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AT OUR NEXT SEPTEMBER 8TH PUBLIC SAFETY MEETING WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSING FLOC.

SO THAT'S UPCOMING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE ASKING QUESTIONS.

DO I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THIS MORE SECURE, TO PUT GUARDRAILS? ABSOLUTELY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S A GREAT TOOL, BUT WE DO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THAT ABUSE THE TOOL GET HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO TIGHTEN AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING.

CAN WE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PRECISION AND THE CLEAR RATE FOR CRIMES THAT ARE SOLVED? SO BEFORE FLOC, HOW MANY MAN HOURS DID IT TAKE TO GO THROUGH CAMERAS TO GO THROUGH KNOCKING ON DOORS TO TRY TO SOLVE A CRIME? AND HOW HAS THAT EXPEDITED WITH THE HELP OF LUCK? WELL, I HAVE, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT MAN HOURS, BUT I'M SURE IT'S A LOT.

I WAS A DETECTIVE BACK IN THE DAY AND IT WAS A LOT OF FOOTWORK GOING KNOCKING ON DOORS AND AND CANVASING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE STILL DO DO SOME CANVASING, BUT I THINK WE'RE MORE EFFICIENT AND WE'RE ABLE TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE.

ONCE WE GET A LEAD, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S DOOR RING DOOR CAMERAS EVERYWHERE.

AND WHEN WE NOTICE ONE AT A CRIME, WE CAN GET INFORMATION FROM THAT CAN BE SHARED AND THEN START DEVELOPING SUSPECT LEADS THERE.

SO IT TAKES A LOT OF HOURS OFF THE DETECTIVE IN THEIR INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.

I'M SURE IT'S A LOT OF, LOT OF HOURS THAT'S BEEN SAVED.

OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE PRECISION? LIKE, HAS THAT HELPED? OH, ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE SEEN IT BEGIN TO SEE A CLEARANCE INCREASE OF ALL OF OUR OFFENSES.

WE USED TO BE IN THE 40S AND THE 50S IN HOMICIDES TEN YEARS AGO.

NOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WAY ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, WHICH IS ABOUT 51 TO 52% WHERE WE'RE IN THE 80S RIGHT NOW IN OUR CLEARANCE RATE ON MURDERS. SO WE'VE JUST SEEN AN INCREASE DRASTICALLY EVERY YEAR.

IF YOU START LOOKING AT THE I CAN GET YOU THE STATS ON THE LAST TEN YEARS, HOW IT'S INCREASED IN OUR CLEARANCE RATE ON ALL THE VIOLENT CRIMES.

AND HOW HAS TECHNOLOGY WITHIN FLOCK CHANGED IN THIS SHORT PERIOD? HAS THERE BEEN ANY ADVANCEMENTS ANY HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES TO FLOCK.

YEAH. FLOCK, YOU KNOW, ANNOUNCED SOME CHANGES WITHIN THE PLATFORM ON THE AUDITING AND TRACKING SIDE OF IT.

YOU KNOW, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM ON HOW THOSE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF IT.

AND SO WE'RE STILL BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM TRYING TO GET MORE DETAILS SO WE CAN THEN FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT GUARDRAILS THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO THE SYSTEM THAT WE CAN THEN TAKE

[07:30:06]

SO 5 TO 6 YEARS AGO, OUR AUTO THEFTS WERE IN THE IN THE PLUS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING AT -25% ON AUTO THEFTS.

AND THE SUPERVISOR OVER THE AUTO THEFT UNIT HAS TOLD ME HE'S CONTRIBUTED USING THE A LPAPR SYSTEM IN THAT CONTRIBUTED TO CLEARING THOSE. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STOP AUTO THEFT RINGS FROM STEALING MORE CARS AND MORE CARS.

AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN PART OF IT. OKAY. AGAIN, YOU KNOW PUBLIC SAFETY CONTINUES TO BE AT THE TOP TWO OF NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS, BUT THIS COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR WHAT Y'ALL DO.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I'M GOING TO ROUND TWO. I'M GOING TO GO TO MR. ROTH FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR ALLOWING THESE FOLKS TO EDUCATE ME AND THE PUBLIC ALSO ABOUT THIS, THIS TECHNOLOGY AND ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING USING A MECHANISM THAT I WAS NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING. I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC MAY NOT UNDERSTAND IT EITHER.

AND SO YOUR PRESENTATION HAS REALLY BEEN EFFECTIVE FOR ME.

IT'S BEEN PERSUASIVE FOR ME, AND I APPRECIATE THE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU ALL TO, TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT GOOD THIS THIS SYSTEM DOES. WHAT YOU'VE ALSO EXPLAINED TO ME AND OTHERS AND THE PUBLIC IS THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS TECHNOLOGY TO HAVE CONTROLS, TO HAVE THE GUARDRAILS, TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY COULD BE ABUSED.

AND I'M PERSUADED THAT YOU ALL ARE IDENTIFYING THAT AS A CRITICAL ISSUE AND THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING IT.

AND THAT'S POSITIVE FOR ME, AND THAT ENCOURAGES ME.

THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT MONEY. IT'S ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR YOU ALL TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THE JOB THAT YOU NEED TO DO.

AND YOU'VE PERSUADED ME THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING AT THE RIGHT TIME AND THAT YOU ALL ARE HANDLING IT PROPERLY.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S SENTIMENT IN, IN ALLOWING US TO HEAR THE THE ACTUAL POSITIVE, EFFECTIVE STORIES OF HOW THIS ACTUALLY HAS WORKED.

AND IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. THAN ON A HIGH LEVEL THING.

SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR YOUR DOING. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.

AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS BODY AND IN THIS TYPE OF A SCENARIO TO BE REEDUCATED AND TO BE ABLE TO, TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE'RE MAKING A DECISION LIKE THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS. THANK YOU FOR, FOR FOR INFORMING US ABOUT THIS.

THANK YOU. HOPEFULLY THE PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE GOT RESPONSIBLE THOUGHTFUL, EFFECTIVE TOOLS OUT THERE THAT ARE BEING MANAGED PROPERLY BY THE FOLKS THAT ARE USING THEM.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU CAN SAY I DON'T KNOW TO THIS QUESTION, BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THE RULINGS FROM THE APPELLATE COURTS ON IF FLOC IS VIOLATING ANYBODY'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO BEEN NO SUPREME COURT RULING RULINGS REGARDING THE USE OF THE ALPR SYSTEM.

AND WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH US USING THAT SYSTEM AS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS.

AND I THINK THAT EVERY TIME AN APPELLATE COURT HAS RULED, THEY HAVE SAID THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. FOR THE FLOCK CAMERAS, ARE THEY ONLY IN ONE PART OF TOWN? ARE THEY IN TWO PARTS OF TOWN OR ARE THEY EVERYWHERE.

SO THEY'RE THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT FLOCK TO THE TO THE TABLE, WE, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE VIOLENT CRIME PLAN THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE.

AND THEN FROM THERE, LOOK AT THE LOCATIONS AND THEN TRY TO EQUITABLY, EQUITABLY SPREAD IT OUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY.

GREAT. AND WOULD YOU SAY FLOCK CAMERAS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE AT AN INTERSECTION? ARE THEY POINTING AT ANYBODY'S HOUSE OR ARE THEY POINTING AT ANYBODY'S BUSINESS? NO. SO WHEN WE WHEN WE INSTALL OR HAVE A CAMERAS INSTALLED, THEY ARE ON PUBLIC STREETS RIGHT OF WAYS.

THEY DON'T POINT TOWARDS PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PRIVATE RESIDENCES.

[07:35:02]

SOMETIMES I'LL HAVE SOMEBODY SAY, OH, I JUST DON'T WANT THOSE CAMERAS SURVEILLING ME.

I DON'T I CAN'T EVEN WALK OUTSIDE MY HOUSE WITHOUT BEING, YOU KNOW, FILMED, WHICH IS OF COURSE NOT TRUE BECAUSE THERE'S NO CAMERA IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE. UNLESS THEIR NEIGHBOR HAS A RING CAMERA, THEN THEY PROBABLY ARE BEING WATCHED.

AND THEN ALSO YOU'RE NOT BEING SURVEILLED BECAUSE THAT MEANS WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING YOU.

LIKE YOU'RE TRULY GOING BY THE CAMERA BY CHOICE, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE SAID.

WHAT I HAVE SAID TO PEOPLE IS THAT DALLAS DID IT RIGHT.

AND WHILE SOMETIMES I COMPLAIN A LOT ABOUT THE BUREAUCRACY HERE, BECAUSE WE'RE A LARGE DEPARTMENT AND THERE ARE LOTS OF LAYERS, THERE'S LOTS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. AND THE CASES THAT I'VE SEEN WHICH SOME OF WHICH COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA SPOKE ABOUT, WHICH ARE NOT GOOD, RIGHT? LIKE THAT ARE VERY, VERY PROBLEMATIC.

AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIRED OR DISCIPLINED FOR THOSE SEEM TO BE IN SMALLER RURAL COUNTIES WHERE THERE ISN'T A LOT OF LAYERS AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OVERSIGHT. SO I JUST THINK Y'ALL HAVE DONE IT RIGHT.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL THESE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE.

WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT IT AT PUBLIC SAFETY. BUT I ALSO THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE MODEL FOR WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO BE ABLE TO GIVE COMFORT TO RESIDENTS THAT YOU'RE NOT BEING SURVEILLED, YOU'RE ASSISTING IN MODERN POLICING, WHICH INCLUDES TECHNOLOGY.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT PART. I'M GLAD THAT CHIEF GRIFFIN, I'M GLAD YOU TALKED ABOUT THE WHICH IS THE UN UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, 25% DOWN.

AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, WE HAD HUGE, HUGE NUMBERS.

YES. SO THAT'S BEEN GREAT TO SEE. THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU.

IS ACTUALLY I'M JUST GOING TO MENTION SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID, WHICH IS HOW MUCH TIME OFFICERS USED TO HAVE TO SPEND GOING DOOR TO DOOR ASKING FOR THAT RING CAMERA, WATCHING ALL OF IT, GOING TO STORES.

I WAS ON A RIDE ALONG THERE WAS SHOPLIFTING AT A, AT A SUPERTARGET AND WE SAT THERE AND WATCHED PROBABLY AN HOUR OF VIDEO AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T MATTER IN THE FLAK THING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IT JUST TAKES SO MUCH TIME FOR THE OFFICERS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN SO HELPFUL. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY.

I'M GOING TO GO TO THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM NOW FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. HAS ANY REPORTS, CHIEF, ANYONE CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT HAVE ANY REPORTS IDENTIFIED MISCONDUCT BY ANY DALLAS OFFICER SINCE WE INSTALLED FLOC? IN IN DALLAS UNDER FORMER CHIEF GARCIA OR CHIEF YOU, CHIEF.

AND THE QUESTION IS JUST STRICTLY RELATED TO FLOC.

YES. SO THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES. AND BUT I WILL SAY JUST AS A CAVEAT, WHEN WE WHEN PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, WE'VE HAD LPR SINCE 2013, RIGHT? AND SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DATA PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, LOOKING AT ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF CITY EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS KIND OF THE OVERALL OVERARCHING ALLEGATION, RIGHT? WE'VE HAD 104 INVESTIGATIONS, 77 OF THOSE BEEN SUSTAINED, WHETHER IT BE USING THEIR CELL PHONE INCORRECTLY FOR PERSONAL USE OR THE CAD SYSTEM. AND IN THIS CASE, BASED ON THE AUDIT THAT WAS MADE MORE RECENTLY, IT WAS GIVEN TO A SUPERVISOR WHERE IT WAS A POLICY VIOLATION, WHERE THEY RECOGNIZED THE CASE NUMBER WAS WRONG AND THEY GAVE HIM SOME SUMMARY DISCIPLINE.

I SAID EARLIER THAT IT HELPS SOLVE HOMICIDE, HELP FIND MISSING PEOPLE.

THE CAMERAS ALSO HELP FIND CRIMINALS AND ETCETERA.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS IN MY PARTICULAR DISTRICT AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE HAD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS DATA AND HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN USING IT, BUT WHAT COUNCIL DISTRICT HAS THE MOST WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FINDING MURDERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THAT THAT NATURE, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER HAS THE MOST MURDER CASES THAT WAS SOLVED BY ACTUALLY FLOCK CAMERAS.

DO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION? SO THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN SOLVED IN 2026 USING THE ALPR SYSTEM.

SO IT SO DISTRICT SEVEN HAD WE'VE SOLVED THREE AS A RESULT OF USING THE ALPR SYSTEM.

OH, PLUS ONE. WE HAVE ONE MORE, THE ONE ON BRUTON ROAD AS WELL.

[07:40:01]

THAT THAT IS THE MOST COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR HAS TWO DISTRICT HAS TWO AS WELL. OKAY. CHIEF, CAN YOU CAN YOU GO A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL WITH THE FLOCK CAMERAS? I'VE HEARD Y'ALL MENDELSOHN WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO RING CAMERAS AND ETCETERA RING CAMERAS FOR FROM NEIGHBORS AND ETCETERA, TRY TO ASSIST. BUT HOW IS THIS TWO RESOURCES REALLY HELPING? BECAUSE YOU HEAR A LOT OF THE POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STATE AND ETCETERA.

SO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS AND YOUR EXPERTISE AND HOW THIS REALLY WOULD HELP SOLVE CRIME IN OUR CITY IN PARTICULAR, AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU DON'T MIND. IT'S AN EXTRA TOOL TO HELP US SOLVE EVERYTHING.

WHEN YOU PUT A PLATE IN THERE, OFTENTIMES YOU'LL GET INDIVIDUALS THAT COMMIT CRIMES AND THEY'LL GET A LICENSE PLATE.

IT'S VERY EASY THEN FOR US TO PUT THAT LICENSE PLATE IN AND TRACK THE PLATE BY THE CAMERAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE CAMERAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, YOU LITERALLY WOULD HAVE OFFICERS RIDING ALONG THE STREETS TRYING TO FIND A PLATE.

WHEN YOU HAVE THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, THE TECHNOLOGY IS REALLY DOING THE WORK AND ALL WE'RE DOING IS ENTERING IT INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM, WHICH HAS GIVEN US A READOUT AND CAN TELL US WHERE THE VEHICLE IS, AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY FOLLOW VEHICLES UNTIL WE GET IT INTO A VERY SMALL AREA WHERE WE KNOW IT'S THERE, THEN WE CAN SATURATE THE AREA WITH OFFICERS AND FINDING VEHICLES.

OTHERWISE, IT'S REALLY A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK IN A CITY LIKE DALLAS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ADD IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND EVERYTHING, TRYING TO FIND THE VEHICLES DOING THE IMPOSSIBLE.

THIS TOOL IS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED FOR TO KEEP EVERYONE SAFE.

OKAY, CAN I, CAN I ADD ON TO THAT FOR JUST REAL QUICK, JUST LIKE ON BRUTON ROAD WHEN WE WERE FINDING OUT WHERE THE SUSPECT VEHICLE IS, LIKE THE CHIEF SAID, WE STARTED TO GET IN, NARROW IT IN TO WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS AT AND THEN WAS ABLE TO FIND IT ON EAST LEDBETTER, WHICH IS A QUITE DISTANCE AWAY FROM FROM WHERE THIS OFFENSE OCCURRED.

SO USING THE FLOCK OF THE ALPR SYSTEM WAS ABLE TO NARROW IT DOWN, AND THEN USING OFFICERS TO DRIVE AROUND THAT SMALL AREA WAS ABLE TO FIND THE SUSPECT VEHICLE. THANK YOU. AGAIN, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.

I DO HEAR THE CONCERN. BUT ALSO HEAR OUR CHIEF OF POLICE AND THOSE THAT WORK IN THIS FIELD SAYING THIS IS A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS, THAT IS NEEDED.

AND I KNOW THOSE FAMILIES THAT, THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THOSE HOMICIDES AND WANT THOSE ANSWERS FOR THOSE CLOSURES.

I KNOW WHEN I LOST MY SON, THAT'S ONE THING THAT I KEPT ASKING, CAN YOU HELP ME FIND WHO DID THIS? AND SO THAT LIVED EXPERIENCE, SOMETHING THAT YOU'LL NEVER FORGET HELPING FINDING FAMILIES THAT'S MISSING LOVED ONES AND FINDING CRIMINALS WHEN YOU'VE BEEN VIOLATED TO HELP WITH THAT, THAT TECHNOLOGY TO HELP WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU NEED THIS AND WE SEE THE RESULTS THAT IS THAT THAT WILL COME FROM THE POSITIVE RESULTS.

AGAIN, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING, I WOULD BE SUPPORTING MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS RESOURCE TO HELP, NOT JUST MY PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, BUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS.

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

THANK YOU MAYOR. SO CAN YOU EXPAND ON THE OTHER PRODUCTS? I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I NEVER ONCE TRIED TO DISPUTE THAT IT WAS A HELPFUL TOOL.

I THINK MY ISSUE IS WITH THE PARTICULAR VENDOR.

YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE DOLLARS TO PURCHASE SIMILAR PRODUCTS.

THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE US INTO A MASS NETWORK OF SURVEILLANCE.

IS THAT NOT ACCURATE? NO THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE OTHER VENDORS THAT CAN, CAN PROVIDE THE SAME CAPABILITY.

SO WE COULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM OUR RESIDENTS AND STILL PROVIDE THE TOOL FOR YOU ALL THAT YOU HAVE TOUTED AS SUCH A HELPFUL RESOURCE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS CONVERSATION WAS MEANT TO BE.

RIGHT NOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CHEERLEADING FOR ONE PARTICULAR VENDOR, AND ONE PARTICULAR VENDOR IS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN ISSUES IN PRIVACY CONCERNS IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROCURE AND SOURCE THE SAME TECHNOLOGY THAT EVERYONE WANTED TO HEAR DIFFERENT ANECDOTES ON, ON HOW IT'S BEEN SO HELPFUL. THAT DOESN'T COMPROMISE ONE'S PRIVACY, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GRAY AREA.

AS MISS MENDELSON MENTIONED, THERE HAVE BEEN COURT RULINGS AND OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES.

[07:45:01]

THERE HAVE ABSOLUTELY BEEN NEXUS TO CASE LAW THAT HAS ATTRIBUTED IT TO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS GPS TRACKING, WHICH WAS WITHOUT A WARRANT. AND SO WE'VE SEEN COURT OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES.

THIS IS THIS IS NOT AT ALL A BLACK AND WHITE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SOMETHING TO ME THAT THE RISK OUTWEIGHS THE I MEAN, THE REWARD OUTWEIGHS THE RISK OF US ALLOWING FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO BE A PART OF, OF AN EXPERIMENT WHEN THERE CLEARLY IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A RESOURCE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE COMPONENT THAT I THINK THERE'S CONCERNS FROM. AND SO I GUESS I'D, I'D ASK, WHY ARE YOU ALL SOLD ON FLOC? IF THERE ARE OTHER PRODUCTS, WILL YOU, YOU ALL HAVE TO REMEMBER AS WELL THAT SUSPECTS DO NOT MIND BORDERS.

RIGHT. AND A LOT OF SUSPECTS GO IN AND OUT OF OUR CITY QUITE FREQUENTLY.

AND SO HAVING THAT ABILITY TO SEE OTHER FLOCK CAMERAS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, I, I ONCE I TOLD YOU ALL A LITTLE BIT AGO ABOUT SOME SUSPECT, SIX SUSPECTS CAME FROM HOUSTON, RENTED CARS HERE, COMMITTED AT 8 P.M.

ROBBERY AND THEN FLED BACK TO HOUSTON RIGHT AFTER IT.

WE HAD THE ABILITY TO SEE THEIR THE WAY THEY WERE GOING BACK ON 45.

SO WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE HEADED BACK TOWARDS THE HOUSTON AREA.

SO WE WAS ABLE TO NOTIFY THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF THIS VEHICLE THAT WAS TRAVELING BACK THAT HAD THE SUSPECTS IN IT.

SO WE NEED THAT FLOCK SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO DO SEARCHES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BECAUSE THEY DO CROSS BORDERS AND A LOT AND SUSPECTS DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF DALLAS.

WELL, I WOULD ARGUE IT'S HELPFUL THAT YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY, BUT YOU DON'T NEED, BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT YOU ALL HAVE GIVEN HERE TODAY WAS NOT ACROSS JURISDICTIONS. SO YES, IT CAN BE HELPFUL, BUT THAT IS NOT A NEED FOR THE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TOUTED AS A SUCCESS. HOW MANY AGENCIES HAVE ACCESS TO OUR DATA? I DON'T HAVE THE LIST OR THE NUMBERS RIGHT OFF THE HERE WITH ME, BUT I CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

I CAN GET YOU A LIST OF THE AGENCIES THAT WE SHARE WITH.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NUMBER I'VE BEEN GIVEN WAS 54.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER, BUT THERE'S 54 OTHER AGENCIES THAT CAN ACCESS OUR TECHNOLOGY.

LIKE I SAID, I CAN I CAN PULL THAT FOR YOU AND SEND IT TO YOU.

I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT SAYING ONE OR THE OTHER.

OKAY, SO I'M, I, I'M ALSO PROUD OF THE, THE CONTROLS THAT YOU ALL SAY YOU ALL HAVE IN PLACE.

I DON'T LOVE THE RETENTION. I THINK THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GET SHORED UP.

HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE THESE CONTROLS THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE FOR OUR OFFICERS EXTENDED TO THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ACCESS TO OUR TECHNOLOGY, KNOW THE CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR INTERNAL ARE NOT EXTENDED TO THE OTHER AGENCIES.

THE OTHER AGENCIES ARE MANAGED BY THEIR OWN POLICIES.

OKAY. YOU'RE BOTH ON A LAST ROUND NOW. SO CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN FOR ONE MINUTE, THEN.

MR. BAZALDUA, IF YOU WANT, FOR A MINUTE. RESIDENTS ARE TOLD REPEATEDLY THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS A TOP COMMITMENT FROM CITY HALL.

AND IF WE REMOVE FLOCK FUNDING TO PAY FOR SOMETHING ELSE, THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT OUR WORDS DO NOT MATCH OUR VOTES.

I WON'T SUPPORT THAT, AND I WON'T TELL RESIDENTS THAT PUBLIC SAFETY MATTERS AND THEN VOTE TO WEAKEN IT.

SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO REJECT THIS MOTION, PROTECT THE TOOLS THAT OUR OFFICERS USE RESPONSIBLY, AND HONOR THE PRIORITIES THAT DALLAS RESIDENTS HAVE CLEARLY GIVEN TO US.

PUBLIC SAFETY IS A CORE CITY RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT MUST REMAIN A BUDGET PRIORITY.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DISMISS THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE TECHNOLOGY.

NO ONE HERE IS MINIMIZING THE THE PUBLIC SAFETY VALUE OF FLOCK.

THESE CAMERAS HAVE HELPED DPD SOLVE SERIOUS CRIMES AND GET DANGEROUS PEOPLE OFF OF OUR STREETS.

AS AN ATTORNEY, I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN PEOPLE ADMIT IN COURT TO EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDUCT AFTER EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH THIS TECHNOLOGY PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN IDENTIFYING THEM. THAT'S REAL, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD PRETEND OTHERWISE.

BUT EFFECTIVENESS ALONE CAN'T BE THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE DECIDE HOW MUCH SURVEILLANCE WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT.

A TECHNOLOGY CAN BE EFFECTIVE. IT CAN HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT SOLVE CRIMES, AND IT CAN MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER AND STILL RAISE SERIOUS AND LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY, CIVIL LIBERTIES, GOVERNMENT OVERREACH, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE.

[07:50:03]

THERE'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN GIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, AND PROTECTING THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT.

AND RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT CONVINCED WE'VE WE'VE STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE.

ALSO, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE FUNDS.

THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING, THAT THE CONTROLS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE ARE ONLY AS FAR AS THE USERS THAT WE ALLOW WITHIN OUR DATABASE, BUT WE HAVE 54 OTHER AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT ONE OF THE MOST RECENT CITIES CANCELED THEIR CONTRACTS WITH FLOC WAS PFLUGERVILLE.

THEY HAVE 5000 REQUESTS ON THEIR OWN CAMERAS.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES MADE UP 1.5 MILLION IN THEIR IN IN THEIR NETWORK.

AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER ALPR TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USEFUL.

WE'VE GOT THAT. I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT IN ANY WAY.

IT'S WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO LET A PRIVATE COMPANY BUILD THE RULES FOR IT, OR IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD OUR OWN AND WE CAN ONLY BUILD OUR OWN FOR OUR OWN OFFICERS, AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN MISUSED AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE MISUSED.

AND Y'ALL CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT US BEING A PART OF THAT NETWORK IS NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MISUSE, WHETHER IT'S FROM IN-HOUSE OFFICERS OR OTHERS.

WE'RE STILL COMPLICIT IF THAT'S THE CASE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT ON YOUR SCREEN? IT'S NOT BEEN AMENDED. SO WE WILL INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT WITH THE SHOW OF YOUR PLACARDS IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF IT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON, THAT IS NOT A PLACARD.

SORRY. MR. BLACKMON OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT COUNTS AS HER HANDS RAISED, SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER BAZALDUA. DEPUTY MAYOR. MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

MR. MAYOR WITH ONLY THREE RAISING THEIR HANDS OR PLACARDS IN FAVOR, THE AMENDMENT FAILS.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S KEEP GOING. WHO'S GOT AN AMENDMENT, MR. MAYOR? YES, I MOVE TO PASS AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS TO RESTORE LIBRARY FUNDING, STAFFING AND HOURS TO THE TUNE OF $2,641,335. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TWICE.

SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR. RIDLEY, ON YOUR AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR, IS IT AS IT'S PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN? DOES IT DO IS IT IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. WITH ONE EXCEPTION WHICH I'LL ADDRESS.

OKAY. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I BELIEVE IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN OUR LIBRARY HOURS AT THE EXISTING 51 HOURS A WEEK, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SATURDAY OPENING.

THIS BUDGET CUTS THAT BACK TO 9 TO 5 FIVE DAYS A WEEK, WHICH IS INCONVENIENT FOR MANY USERS, MANY FAMILIES. IT ALSO LAYS OFF 59 CITY EMPLOYEES, WHICH MY AMENDMENT WOULD REVERSE.

NOW, THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS PRIMARILY FROM ELIMINATING A CITY EMPLOYEE HOLIDAY, PRESIDENTS DAY.

THIS CREATES A RECURRING ANNUAL SAVINGS RATHER THAN A ONE TIME BUDGET REDUCTION.

THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE SAME SAVINGS AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

EMPLOYEES DO NOT LOSE UNDER THIS AMENDMENT ANY SALARY OR COMPENSATION.

THE SAVINGS ARE PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL HOLIDAY PAY COSTS FOR DALLAS FIRE RESCUE PERSONNEL.

IN ADDITION, THE OTHER SOURCES FOR THIS USE ARE REDUCING LINE ITEM 2730, WHICH IS A FURNITURE LINE ITEM THAT WAS CUT BY $28,000 TO THE SAME FUNDING IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.

SO THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE CITY MANAGER'S.

I'M SORRY FOR THE FURNITURE EXPENDITURE, AND DPD WOULD STILL BE SIGNIFICANT HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING ALLOCATION.

THEY WOULD STILL RETAIN APPROXIMATELY $216,000 FOR FURNITURE UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS $128,000 MORE THAN THE DEPARTMENT HAS SPENT THIS YEAR, WHICH WAS ONLY 90,000.

SO THAT ACTUALLY LEAVES A MORE THAN 100% INCREASE FOR DPD'S FURNITURE EXPENDITURE.

THE OTHER SOURCE WOULD BE THE REDUCTION OF $28,000 FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE,

[07:55:04]

AND THE FINAL SOURCE WOULD BE THE REMAINING $22,000 FROM THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL ALLOCATION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, PART OF THAT $78,000 THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO DDI BEFORE WE GOT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT FIGURES.

SO THAT'S A SLIGHT DEPARTURE IN THAT LAST SOURCE FROM WHAT YOU SEE PRINTED IN THE AGENDA.

SO CURRENTLY DALLAS HAS 12 CITY HOLIDAYS. DALLAS COUNTY HAS BUT 11.

FORT WORTH HAS BUT 11. ALSO, SAN ANTONIO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE PRESIDENTS DAY AS A CITY HOLIDAY, CONTRARY TO THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE TO THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT ITEM.

THE CITY SHOULD BE OPERATING IN AN ESSENTIAL SPENDING ONLY MINDSET.

DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO TAKE A HAIRCUT FOR CONFERENCE TRAVEL, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER DISCRETIONARY BUDGETS BEFORE REDUCING PERSONNEL OR CORE SERVICES, AS THE CURRENT BUDGET DOES WITH RESPECT TO LIBRARIES.

SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM TO RESTORE OUR CITY LIBRARY STAFF AND HOURS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.

THANK YOU. WELL, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. AND I BELIEVE WHEN OUR TAXPAYERS HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS TO BUILD AND OPERATE OUR LIBRARIES ALL ACROSS THE CITY, THEY'VE INVESTED IN THESE FIXED ASSETS AND MANY FIXED COSTS.

THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM.

AND CUTTING BACK THE HOURS DOES NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE TO ME.

THEY'RE IMPORTANT. THEY ARE AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, WHETHER IT'S THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A JOB AND THEY NEED THE COMPUTER ACCESS, WHETHER IT'S A MEET UP SPOT, HOMEWORK, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES.

WE NEED TO HAVE OUR LIBRARIES OPEN. SO I LOVE THE USE OF FUNDS.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, I WILL SAY, GIVES ME HOPE AND PAUSE.

HOPE. BECAUSE FOR YEARS I HAVE SAID, MY GOODNESS, WE HAVE SUCH AN OVERLY GENEROUS TIME OFF POLICY AND BENEFIT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES THAT IT'S KILLING THE EFFICIENCY AND WE HAVE TO HIRE EXTRA PEOPLE BECAUSE OF ALL THE TIME OFF THAT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE TAKING.

SO I DON'T LOVE THAT IT'S PRESIDENT'S DAY. I THINK WE SHOULD BE OFF FOR PRESIDENT'S DAY.

I THINK IT'S AN INCREDIBLY PATRIOTIC HOLIDAY AND RECOGNITION.

BUT IN ORDER TO GET IT PASSED TO REMOVE A HOLIDAY, I'M WILLING TO SAY YES.

SO I DON'T LOVE THAT. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT OUR THAT THERE'S INCENTIVES FOR JUST SHOWING UP FOR WORK.

BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WHEN WE WERE IN SCHOOL AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PERFECT ATTENDANCE BECAUSE IF YOU SCHEDULE YOUR TIME OFF, WELL, YOU'RE STILL CONSIDERED TO BE ELIGIBLE.

SO IT IS WE HAVE A VERY, VERY GENEROUS TIME OFF POLICY.

SO I APPRECIATE, AGAIN, THE SENTIMENT OF LET'S JUST REIN THAT BACK IN.

IT'S GOVERNMENT. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF TIME OFF.

THE, THE THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU TOOK, MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

I DO WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

INSTEAD OF REDUCING FURNITURE FOR DPD IN THAT AMOUNT, I WOULD SAY JUST REDUCE 2710 THAT OBJECT CODE AND ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO REDUCE FURNITURE AT HER DISCRETION IN ANY DEPARTMENT, MEANING IT MIGHT BE THAT DPD NEEDS THAT SPECIFIC FURNITURE AT A STATION OR SOMETHING ELSE, AND SHE MAY KNOW OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THAT THERE'S DOLLARS BUDGETED FOR FURNITURE THAT PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO USE IT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE IT AROUND. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE OUT THAT SPECIFICATION OF IT BEING TO DPD, BUT STILL KEEP IT FOR FURNITURE. AND THEN SECOND, FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INSTEAD OF SPECIFYING THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR DEE DEE FOR THAT REDUCTION, KEEP THE DEE DEE, BUT ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER AGAIN USE THAT OBJECT CODE 3361 FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LET HER ADJUST IT.

SHE MAY HAVE VERY SPECIFIC GOALS FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ON A SUCCESSION PLAN OR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SHE NEEDS TO GET TO A CERTAIN THING TO

[08:00:04]

SO I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN THAT FOR HER AND USE THAT.

BUT I, YOU KNOW, THIS MONEY IS INTERESTING. SO THAT'S THE POINT OF INFORMATION IS, ARE YOU MAKING AN AMENDMENT? I AM OKAY, SO AMENDING THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF INFORMATION WORK.

CHAD. YOU KNOW THAT POINT OF ORDER, I GUESS. GO AHEAD.

CAROL, YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. THE ANSWER IS THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO CHAIRMAN RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT.

SECOND. SECOND. WE'RE ON YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT NOW.

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED IT IN MY VERY LONG WINDED AMENDMENT.

NOW YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, CHAIRMAN WEST, IF YOU LIKE IT, FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

I WILL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. I ALSO AGREE TO SUPPORT CHAIR RIDLEY'S AMENDMENT, SINCE THIS CHANGE WILL FULLY FUND OUR LIBRARIES WITHOUT REDUCING EMPLOYEE SALARIES, CUTTING STAFF OR SERVICES.

AS MANY OF US HAVE HEARD FROM OUR LIBRARY USERS OR KNOW FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE, OUR LIBRARIES DESERVE CRITICAL PROVIDE CRITICAL PUBLIC SERVICES ACROSS OUR CITY. THEY DON'T JUST OFFER BOOKS, BUT READING CLASSES FOR KIDS, INTERNET ACCESS TO THOSE WITHOUT IT, AND MUCH MORE. I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT BY SUPPORTING THIS REQUEST, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CLOSE THE DOOR ON CONTINUING TO EVALUATE THE LIBRARY AND SEE HOW WE CAN SHIFT HOURS TO TO BETTER PROVIDE SERVICES.

WHILE I OPPOSE CLOSING LIBRARIES, I THINK EXPLORING THE FLAGSHIP MODEL.

THAT MEANS LOCATIONS WOULD HAVE LONGER AND CONSISTENT HOURS COULD PROVIDE BENEFITS TO OUR RESIDENTS.

AND I THINK THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE FUTURE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT TODAY, THOUGH.

THE FLAGSHIP. WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT.

BUT BY PROVIDING FULL FUNDING, WE GIVE OUR LIBRARY DEPARTMENT MORE ABILITY TO CREATE BETTER SERVICES RATHER THAN DIFFICULT CHOICES ABOUT CUTS TO PROGRAMS, HOURS, AND STAFF. AND I ALSO LIKE THE CHANGES, WHICH IS WHY I SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. ANY. QUESTION BEFORE I RECOGNIZE YOU.

DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, OR DID YOU WANT TO GET ON THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT ONCE IT'S AMENDED? OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. OKAY.

SO I'M LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORTING THIS. I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS WHEN IT GOES TO THE RESTORING OF LIBRARY HOURS. DOES THAT INCLUDE ALL LIBRARIES, INCLUDING ARCADIA, OR IS THAT ONE STILL LEFT OUT? GOOD EVENING, MONA SHAW, LIBRARY DIRECTOR. THAT WOULD NOT INCLUDE ARCADIA PARK.

OKAY. AND THEN ON THE. SOURCE OF FUNDS. WELL ACTUALLY THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE FOR THE FOR THE MAIN MOTION TO.

I'LL WAIT. MISS BLACKMON, DID YOU WANT THE UNDERLYING MOTION OR THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? I THIS ONE'S FINE TOO. OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, BONNIE. YEAH. YOU SAID IT WAS 2.8 TO DO THE ENTIRE.

AND THIS ONE'S AT 2.6. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 176 TO GET ARCADIA BACK INTO THIS SCENARIO.

DO IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT NOW HERE WITH THIS ONE, AND MAYBE PUT IN A STOP GAP LINE, AND I MAY EVEN HAVE TO DO A AMENDMENT TO DO A STOP GAP OF AND THEN COME AND FIX IT LATER ON, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DO ARCADIA PARK TOO.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THE LIBRARY SYSTEM, THEN IT SHOULD BE THE SYSTEM.

IT SHOULDN'T BE EVERYBODY. BUT AND IT'S WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT 176,000.

SO IS SO YOU'RE TELLING ME ARCADIA IS NOT IN HERE? AND IS THERE A PLACE THAT WE CAN FIND IT TO AMEND THIS MOTION SO WE CAN GET IT INCLUDED? I'D LIKE TO START THAT QUESTION ON. COUNCILWOMAN.

BLACKMON. SO THE CURRENT AMENDMENT HAS A SOURCE SOURCES.

AND IF COUNCIL WANTS TO GIVE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO ALSO INCLUDE ARCADIA, AND YOU WANT US TO GO BACK AND BRING THAT FOR YOU? THEN I HAVE NO PROBLEMS DOING THAT. BUT WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT ADDITIONAL 176 AMOUNT.

TIM, ARE YOU AND KIM? THAT WOULD BE DIRECTION TO DO THAT APPROACH.

I'M SORRY. COUNCILWOMAN SAY THAT AGAIN. WOULD YOU PREFER THAT APPROACH THAN US TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT HERE ON THE FLY? I ALWAYS PREFER THAT APPROACH AND IT MAKES IT A LOT.

[08:05:06]

AND SO IF COUNCIL WANTS THIS AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE ARCADIA AND YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION, THEN ASKED US TO BRING THAT BACK. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO I THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T VOTE IN IT ON IT LAST TIME IS BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THIS ONE AND I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE INCLUDED. SO IT'S JUST CLEANER.

AND I SUPPORT THAT. AND IN FACT AGAIN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT.

AND THEN WE COULD COME BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT IT THEN COVERS THE LIBRARIES AS A WHOLE, THE HOURS.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FLAGSHIP MODEL.

I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT CONTINUING WITH THAT, AS WELL AS RESTORING THE HOURS THAT I THINK COUNCIL IS TRYING TO DO ACROSS ALL OF THE BRANCHES TO INCLUDE ARCADIA. AND SO I HAVE NO PROBLEMS DOING THAT AND BRINGING IT BACK.

OKAY. DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS, I GUESS JUST TO ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH THE MOTION AND EVERYTHING.

I THINK THE CITY MANAGER'S OF THE MIND THAT ACTUALLY THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN, ESSENTIALLY, AND YOU'D HAVE TO DO A NEW AMENDMENT TO DO THAT, I THINK IS THE IDEA.

BUT THEN WOULDN'T WE BE IMBALANCED, AS YOU EXPLAIN YOUR RATIONALE THERE? BUT EXACTLY. IN ITS CURRENT FORM THAT WAS PRESENTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE IT.

SO IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT I THINK YOU WANT US TO INCORPORATE, YOU WOULD BE ASKING US TO HOLD THIS ONE, IDENTIFY THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING, AND THEN THIS ONE WOULD COME BACK MAKING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WHOLE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE BODY IS WILLING TO PUT IT ON, YOU KNOW, TO TABLE IT FOR TWO WEEKS AND THEN BRING IT BACK.

SO IF ANYBODY, IF, IF THE MOTION MAKERS, IF THE LEADS AND THE CO-SPONSORS, AND THEN THE AMENDMENT PERSON WANTS TO DO IT, THEY CAN DO IT ON THEIR, YOU KNOW, SECOND ROUND, BUT I THINK IT'D BE BETTER JUST TO GET ALL OF IT DONE AT ONE SWOOP.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO WANTS TO CHIME IN ON SOMETHING, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S POSSIBLE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN IF WE WERE. SO THIS COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. THIS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WILL END TODAY AT THE CLOSE OF THIS ITEM.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN HOLD AN ITEM IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING INTO IT. SO I THINK THIS MOTION WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN TO MAKE IT CLEAN. IT WOULD BE WITHDRAWN AND JUST RESUBMITTED, BECAUSE YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AT A LATER TIME.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR OR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? WHAT ARE YOU ON YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW? I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE FLOOR, PLEASE. OKAY.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. THAT'S YOURS. THANK YOU. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WITHDRAWING THIS AMENDMENT.

OR SEEING. THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER WITHDRAW HIS.

EITHER BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THIS DONE. I WANT IT SOLIDIFIED AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THE MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH, I GUESS NUMBER SIX OF THE MANAGERS. WHAT WERE WE CALLING THEM? ADJUSTMENTS, REVISIONS, AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR ARCADIA PARK.

AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD EVERYBODY HERE IS GOING TO SUPPORT THAT, BUT LET'S JUST DISPOSE OF THIS AND GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF AMENDMENTS AT OUR NEXT TIME WE DO THIS.

SO WE'RE ALREADY AT 644. I THINK WE OUGHT TO JUST TAKE CARE OF THIS.

VOTE IT LET'S GET OUR LIBRARIES BACK TOGETHER.

BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN, IN ACTUALLY MAKING IT MORE COMPLICATED TO TRY TO MAKE IT CLEAN.

TO CLEAN IS TO PASS THIS, BRING BRING FORWARD ARCADIA, THEN LET'S PASS THAT.

SO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S SUPPORT FOR THIS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. RIDLEY, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO YOUR AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I CONCUR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

I'M NOT WILLING TO WITHDRAW THIS AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS.

LET'S CONSIDER THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. WE CAN EASILY ADDRESS THE ARCADIA LIBRARY AS A SPECIFIC ITEM IF FUNDS ARE FOUND. FOR THAT. I COULD NOT FIND FUNDS FOR THAT.

THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED. IT WASN'T ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR LIBRARY.

[08:10:01]

BUT I'M CERTAINLY OPEN MINDED IF THE CITY MANAGER CAN FIND ADDITIONAL SOURCES UNDER HER CONTROL TO ADDRESS THAT AT OUR NEXT SESSION.

BUT I THINK THAT WHILE WE'RE HERE, WE SHOULD VOTE UP OR DOWN THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

NOW. MR. BAZALDUA FOR FIVE MINUTES ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE USE OF FUNDS.

I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE SOURCE. I BELIEVE THIS BUDGET CYCLE HAS A A THEME AND IT'S TO BALANCE IT ON THE BACKS OF THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF OUR CITY.

WE CONTINUE TO SEE THE BIGGEST AMENDMENTS OR CUTS OR CHANGES TO THE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR FRONT LINE. WE HAVE NOW ASKED, IN ADDITION TO THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO HAVE FURLOUGHS.

MAYOR. I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M SORRY. WHAT IS WHAT IS IT THAT YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER OR A POINT OF ORDER? I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS GERMANE TO THE ACTUAL ITEM BEING DISCUSSED, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT SUSTAINED.

GET FOCUSED ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. BUT GO AHEAD, KEEP GOING.

OH, IF I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK, IT IS ABSOLUTELY GERMANE.

AND SO THE USE OF THE FUNDS IS IS SOMETHING THAT I FULLY SUPPORT BECAUSE I WANT TO STATE YOUR INQUIRY. AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THE USE OF FUNDS WAS NOT PART OF MY AMENDMENT.

MY AMENDMENT WAS STRICTLY ABOUT REMOVING THE THE D P, D PART OF THE OBJECT CODE SO THAT IT WAS JUST OBJECT CODE 2710 FOR THE MANAGER, WHICH IS FURNITURE AND REMOVING THE SPECIFICATION OF OBJECT CODE 3361, WHICH IS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. SO AGAIN, THE MANAGER COULD DESIGNATE WHERE THAT WOULD GO AS APPROPRIATE.

THANK YOU TO RESTRICT YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

IF I COULD FINISH A SENTENCE, I COULD PROBABLY GET TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDS, BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FINISH A THOUGHT.

I'M SUSTAINING IT. BUT I'M TELLING YOU, THAT'S THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GET TO.

OKAY, WELL, I GUESS I'LL JUST WAIT TILL THE NEXT AMENDMENT.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CRAZY THAT WHEN THIS WAS THE.

MR. RIDLEY'S INITIAL INTENT WAS TO ACTUALLY DO THE HOMEWORK AND GET DOWN.

AND THEN IT'S APPARENTLY BEEN DEFENDED BY A COLLEAGUE WHO HAS AN OPINION ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE CHOSE THE DPD'S FURNITURE, WHICH I SUPPORT. IT'S THE DEPARTMENT THAT WE HAVE THE HIGHEST BURDEN OF OUR GENERAL FUND FROM, AND THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND SO THAT'S BEEN THE ARGUMENT ON WANTING TO GO AGAINST ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING TO PULL FROM DPD.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A VERY NOMINAL AMOUNT, FIRST OF ALL.

AND SECOND, IT'S SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING A LINE ITEM THAT WAS CHOSEN BY THE AMENDMENT MAKER.

AND SO JUST TO BROADEN THAT, BECAUSE SOMEONE IS OFFENDED ON THE DEPARTMENT THAT WAS POINTED OUT, I DEFINITELY DON'T SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN? ALL RIGHT. WE NEED YOU TO USE YOUR PLACARDS TO INDICATE YOUR UNDERLYING MOTION, BUT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FIRST.

THE RULES HAVEN'T CHANGED. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT'S ON THE FLOOR FIRST.

SHOW YOUR PLACARDS IF YOU SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON HAS HER HAND UP.

SEALS RAISED IN FAVOR. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH, MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ COUNCIL MEMBER.

MORENO WEST MENDELSOHN AND RIDLEY, WITH ONLY SEVEN BEING RAISED IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT FAILS, MR. MAYOR. SO NOW WE'RE BACK ON. MR. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY'S ORIGINAL AMENDMENT AS HE LAID IT OUT.

IT'S NOT AS IT APPEARS ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT'S HOW HE DESCRIBED IT.