Sep 09, 2026 City Council Agenda Meetings

[00:00:03]

YOU'RE WATCHING THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL WITH MAYOR ERIC L JOHNSON.

THIS WEBINAR IS BEING JAYNIE RESENDEZ DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MAXEY JOHNSON.

THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. CHAD. WEST. ZARIN D GRACEY.

JESSE. 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 VAN DEN BERG.

[AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 ORDER OF BUSINESS ]

IT'S WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026 TIMES 9:26 A.M..

AND I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER. WHERE IS CHAIRMAN GRACEY? IS HE MAKING HIS WAY? THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO.

ALRIGHT, CHAIRMAN GRACEY IS GOING TO PROVIDE US WITH OUR INVOCATION THIS MORNING.

[OPEN MICROPHONE]

LET US PRAY. FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY, JUST AS THE PSALMIST INSTRUCTED, ENTERING YOUR GATES WITH THANKSGIVING AND YOUR COURTS WITH PRAISE. WE ARE THANKFUL UNTO YOU, AND WE BLESS YOUR NAME, FOR YOU HAVE BEEN GOOD TO THIS CITY.

LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR THE SEEN AND UNSEEN HANDS THAT LABOR EVERY DAY TO MAKE DALLAS A PLACE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY, THE PUBLIC SERVANTS, THE VOLUNTEERS, AND THE NEIGHBORS WHO SHOW UP FOR ONE ANOTHER.

WE THANK YOU FOR TANGIBLE SIGNS OF PROGRESS ACROSS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPENING OF THE DALLAS WINGS PRACTICE FACILITY IN WEST OAK CLIFF, A SYMBOL OF INVESTMENT, VISIBILITY AND PRIDE FOR A COMMUNITY THAT HAS LONG DESERVED IT.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE GROUNDBREAKING AT GLENDALE PARK.

A PROMISE OF GREEN SPACE AND GATHERING FOR FAMILIES WHO WILL PLAY, REST AND BUILD MEMORIES THERE FOR GENERATIONS.

LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT OPEN THEIR DOORS AGAIN THIS YEAR, FOR THE CORRIDORS BEING REBUILT, FOR THE STUDENTS WHO GRADUATED AND STEPPED INTO THEIR FUTURES, AND FOR THE QUIET ACTS OF SERVICE HAPPENING IN EVERY DISTRICT.

LORD, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT DON'T ALWAYS MAKE THE HEADLINES BUT NEVER GO UNNOTICED BY YOU.

WE THANK YOU FOR RESILIENCE, FOR THE CITY THAT KEEPS CHOOSING TO REBUILD, REINVENT, AND REIMAGINE ITSELF EVEN AFTER HARD SEASONS.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT HAVE SHARPENED US AND THE CHALLENGES THAT HAVE HUMBLED US, BECAUSE EVEN THOSE HAVE TAUGHT US HOW TO LISTEN BETTER AND SERVE MORE FAITHFULLY.

SO, LORD, AS THIS COUNCIL GATHERS TODAY, LET US CARRY A SPIRIT OF GRATITUDE INTO OUR DELIBERATIONS.

LET THANKSGIVING SHAPE OUR TONE, HUMILITY, GUIDE OUR DECISIONS AND HOPE.

ANCHOR OUR WORK. FOR WE KNOW THAT EVERY GOOD AND LASTING THING THIS CITY HAS SEEN.

ULTIMATELY FLOWS FROM YOU. WE GIVE YOU THANKS.

WE BLESS YOUR NAME. IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY. AMEN.

IF EVERYONE IS ABLE, 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 VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OR SPECIAL PRESENTATION FROM OUR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OR SPECIAL PRESENTATION, WHICHEVER ONE IT IS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO HAVE DOCTOR WILLIE FRED JOHNSON COME DOWN.

PRINCIPAL AT SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL. EARLIER THIS LAST YEAR, WE RECOGNIZED THE FOOTBALL TEAM FOR THEIR EXCELLENCE ON STATE CHAMPIONSHIP.

BUT TODAY, MR. MAYOR, WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE PRINCIPAL OF SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL.

WE SAID LAST YEAR THAT HE WAS GOING. HE SAID LAST YEAR THAT HE WAS GOING TO GET THE SCHOOL TO A AYE.

THE HISTORY OF SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK OVER THE SCHOOL.

IT WAS A F RATED SCHOOL. THEY USED TO CALL THE SCHOOL SOC STANDARD FOR A SCHOOL OF CRIME.

TODAY HE HAS CHANGED THAT NARRATIVE AND HE HAS TAKEN SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL HIM AND HIS STAFF FROM A F RATED CAMPUS TO AN A RATED CAMPUS. SO THIS IS A ABSOLUTELY. WE TALK ABOUT ATHLETICS, BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ACADEMICS TODAY. THIS IS AN AWARD.

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE AWARD PRESENTED TO SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL.

AYE. RATED BY THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY. CITY OF DALLAS.

[00:05:03]

DEPUTY MAYOR. PRO. TEM. MAXEY. JOHNSON. DOCTOR JOHNSON, WOULD YOU, LIKE, HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? IS THIS OKAY WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR? THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. I CAN SAY MAXEY, BUT HE'S HE'S A FRIEND OF OURS.

SO FIRST, LET ME HONOR THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR PRO TEM MAXEY JOHNSON.

ON BEHALF OF SOUTH OAK CLIFF. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HONORING OUR COMMUNITY.

SOUTH OAK CLIFF IS BUILT ON PRIDE, PERSEVERANCE, HISTORY, AND GENERATIONS COMMITTED TO ITS FUTURE.

WE ARE PROUD OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, OUR LEADERS, OUR FAMILIES.

WE ACCEPT THAT WITH OUR HELP AT RISK, STUDENTS WILL ACHIEVE AT THE SAME RATES AS NOT AT RISK BECAUSE WE WORK WITH.

WITH A COMMITMENT TO STUDENTS AND A COMMITMENT TO THE PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE.

SO THOSE ARE OUR CORE BELIEFS. WE'RE NOT COMMITTED AND WE'RE NOT FINISHED.

WHAT I'M SAYING, WE'RE COMMITTED TO THE PROCESS.

WE'RE JUST WE HAVE A 91. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO A 95 NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT IF ONE STUDENT I MEAN, IF WE IF WE DON'T GET TO 100%. SOME STUDENTS FAIL.

WE'RE NOT OKAY WITH THAT. WE WANT ALL OF OUR STUDENTS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

SO I THANK YOU FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE AND RECOGNIZING OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU, DOCTOR JOHNSON. MR. MAYOR, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A PICTURE WITH HIM. MR. MAYOR, IF YOU WANT TO COME INSIDE THE RAIL, WE CAN. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR. MAYOR.

YES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? JUST TO. OH YEAH, GO AHEAD.

AND YOU DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT HIM TO STAY AT THE MICROPHONE OR DO YOU WANT HIM TO COME ON IN.

OKAY. I'M A FISHING. WE CAN COME AND DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. COME ON INSIDE. I KNOW IT'S I JUST WANTED TO PUBLICLY CONGRATULATE YOU, SIR. I REMEMBER YEARS AGO, WE WERE SITTING IN THE CIGAR SPOT, AND.

AND YOU'RE NOT JUST IN YOUR SCHOOL HAS IMPROVED, BUT YOU INVESTED IN YOURSELF TO MAN.

AND FROM A LEADERSHIP. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS. AND AND I WANT TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE YOU FOR INVESTING IN YOURSELF.

YOU INVESTED IN YOURSELF. YOU MADE YOURSELF BETTER. YOU MADE YOUR SCHOOL BETTER, MAN. SO IT WAS AN ALL AROUND OVERALL IMPROVEMENT.

AND IT STARTED WITH THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE TO THOSE STUDENTS, MAN.

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE INVESTING IN YOURSELF AND IN SOUTH OAK CLIFF MAN.

MR. MAYOR, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS DOCTOR JOHNSON.

DOCTOR JOHNSON, I HAVE HIGHLAND HILLS. HIGHLAND HILLS IS IN MY DISTRICT.

A LOT OF MY STUDENTS IN HIGHLAND HILLS GO TO SOCK YOU.

WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS YOU'VE ALSO CHANGED THE NARRATIVE OF STUDENTS THAT WERE GOING TO GO NOWHERE.

THEY WERE GOING TO SCHOOL TO GO NOWHERE. NOW THEY'RE GOING TO SCHOOL TO GET SOMEWHERE.

THEY'RE GOING TO SCHOOL TO BE SOMEBODY. AND YOU'VE GIVEN THEM THAT HOPE.

WHERE HOPE DID NOT EXIST, YOU GAVE YOU GAVE THEM THE ENCOURAGEMENT, WHERE ENCOURAGEMENT DID NOT EXIST BY WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN THE TIMELINE THAT YOU'VE DONE IT. YOU HAVE CHANGED THE NARRATIVE FOR OUR TOMORROW, AND I THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. COME ON. RIGHT HERE IN THE CENTER.

YOU GUYS ARRANGE YOURSELVES RIGHT THERE. AND YOU CAN'T BLOCK US BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH Y'ALL ARE PRETTY TALL ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS, AS YOU MAKE YOUR WAY BACK TO YOUR SEATS. I'M GOING TO THROW IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY SO WE CAN START OUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS. GO AHEAD, MADAM SECRETARY.

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.

SPEAKERS MUST OBSERVE THE SAME RULES OF PROPRIETY, DECORUM AND GOOD CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ANY SPEAKER MAKING PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT, SLANDEROUS, PROFANE OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM.

INDIVIDUALS. FOR THOSE IN PERSON SPEAKERS. FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS, YOU WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SESSION.

[00:10:05]

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, CHLOE CHARLES.

I WISH I COULD SAY IT WAS A GOOD MORNING, BUT IT'S IT'S NOT.

I'M CHLOE CHARLES. I'VE BEEN LIVING IN DALLAS FOR A LONG TIME.

BORN AND RAISED IN DESOTO, TEXAS. I VOLUNTEER A LOT AND GIVE BACK TO MY COMMUNITY.

AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS.

AS I STAND IN FRONT OF YOU. I'M RECALLING A SITUATION FROM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, A MUMFORD.

I WAS ALMOST ATTACKED BY A MAN WHILE SITTING IN MY CAR AT THE FEDEX STORE SO I COULD PRINT OUT AN ASSIGNMENT.

I ALWAYS ENSURE I GO OUT ONLY IN THE DAYTIME, CONSIDERING IT IS THE SAFEST TIME FOR A WOMAN TO GO OUT WITHOUT HARM.

WHEN I FOUND OUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS WERE FINALLY BEING DEFUNDED, I WAS PLEASANTLY, PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

THEN I FOUND OUT THAT DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT INSISTED THEY STAY UP, AND I WAS APPALLED.

THE MONEY WAS GOING AWAY FROM STRUCTURES THAT COULD ENSURE THE SAFETY OF MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CITY AND VISITORS FROM OUTSIDE AS WELL.

IT IS SUCH A SIMPLE LUXURY, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE IN PEACE. BUT INSTEAD I AM BEING TOLD NOT ONLY WILL I HAVE TO LOOK OUT FROM DANGER, BUT CONTINUOUSLY LOOK OUT FOR DANGER FROM CAMERAS THAT ARE IN USE BY OFFICERS WITH A HISTORY OF EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE AND PLAINLY BEING INCOMPETENT.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS STORIES WE COULD GO ON ABOUT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MISIDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND HOW IT CAN AND HAS RESULTED IN THE END OF LIFE OF OTHERS.

THE MINORITIES ON THIS COURT ARE SOLELY MISTAKEN IF THEY THINK THEY ARE SAFE.

BROWN INDIVIDUALS DON'T FATHOM THAT EVEN WITH A HIGHER TAX BRACKET, OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT SEEN AS CHILDREN BUT AS BEASTS.

OUR GIRLS ARE NOT SEEN AS GIRLS BUT AS PREY ANIMALS TO BE TARGETED, TO BE PLAYED WITH BY THOSE IN POWER.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS FLOCK CAMERAS UP AROUND THE LOCAL K THROUGH 12 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES THAT MAKE ME QUESTION OUR INTENTIONS.

IF IT'S TRULY MEANT FOR HIGHWAYS, WHY TARGET UNIVERSITY? WHY TARGET OUR CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS? I COULD HELP YOU SPECULATE WHAT COULD COME FROM THIS, CONSIDERING WE JUST RULED LEGAL FOR CSAM CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL TO BE CREATED AS IT DOESN'T USE REAL CHILDREN.

BUT AI CAN ONLY PULL FROM INTERNET IMAGES THAT ALREADY EXIST OF LIVING CHILDREN.

WE HAVE ALREADY STOPPED TALKING ABOUT THE FILES FOR A REASON, BECAUSE THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THEY WANT TO HUNT OUR CHILDREN DOWN AND TAKE THEIR SLIM PICKINGS, BUT I WON'T. I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE CITIZENS THAT ARE UNHAPPY AND.

THE STATE WAS DEEMED THE SECOND MOST MISERABLE IN THE COUNTRY FOR A REASON.

OR THAT EVERYONE'S INFORMATION IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH AI AND THE INTERNET FOR A SMALL PRICE, AND THAT NOBODY IS SAFE WITH THIS PASSING. NOT EVEN YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW MUCH YOU HAVE GIVEN BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITIES.

HOW MANY OF YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING BOOTS ON THE GROUND WORK TO HELP SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS? HOW DO WE KNOW YOU CARE? I AM TRUSTING IN MY COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE WORK I HAVE CONSTANTLY DONE TO PROVE THAT I LOVE THEM AND THAT I WANT US TO GROW AND THRIVE.

I HAVE DEDICATED ALMOST EVERY WEEK OF MY LIFE GIVING BACK AND HELPING SOMEONE.

WHO HAVE YOU GUYS HELPED? IF YOU HELPED, YOU WOULD KNOW.

WE ARE SCARED AND WE KNOW YOU ARE TOO. WE WOULD.

WE WOULD KNOW WE NEED TO HAVE EACH OTHER'S BACK AND TRUST THAT THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE CARE FOR US. INSTEAD, YOU ARE PROVING WHY WE ARE SO MISERABLE AS A STATE AND WHY PEOPLE THINK WE ARE A LAUGHING STOCK, JUST LIKE OUR PRESIDENT. I WANT THE STATE TO BE BETTER TO YOU, BECAUSE ALL I'M SEEING IS A COURT FULL OF PEDOPHILIC LOSERS WHO WANT TO SUPPORT THE EVIL ATROCITIES THAT FLOCK CAMERAS ARE BRINGING TO OUR STATE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, RON SEGAL. RON. THANK YOU.

THERE WERE SOME HANDOUTS. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL GOT THESE OR NOT.

THEY WERE TAKEN AWAY. I DON'T WE HAVE THOSE FOR COUNCIL.

YOU MAY CONTINUE. WE'LL WE HAVE THOSE. OKAY. WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IS IMMIGRATION LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.

I HAND OUT HAD THESE TO HAND OUT TO EACH OF YOU.

BASICALLY YOU THINK I REMEMBER PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SITTING ON A STAGE? HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION OR HE MADE A STATEMENT.

IF YOU ONLY KNEW WHY THEY WERE COMING HERE. WELL, ALL OF US CAME HERE FOR OUR ANCESTORS.

FOR A BETTER OPPORTUNITY. RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS. A LOT OF REASONS. I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME ADDITIONAL REASONS.

REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS INVOLVEMENT IN CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES CAUSED THEIR CITIZENS TO LEAVE AND SHOW UP IN THE USA.

19521953 TO PRESENT. STARTING WITH REPUBLICAN EISENHOWER, THE SAME ONE WHO OVERTHREW THE

[00:15:06]

SO MUCH FOR THAT. NOW, IN THE HANDS OF THE CLERICS GAVE CIA AUTHORIZATION TO OVERTHROW DEMOCRAT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF BANANAS.

GUATEMALA. GUATEMALA, AMONG OTHER CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES, IS THE NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF BANANAS ON PLANET EARTH.

JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THIS LAND IN GUATEMALA WAS OWNED BY WEALTHY USA LANDOWNERS.

PREVIOUSLY THIS IS IN 52. SECRETARY OF STATE DEAN ACHESON, WHO WHEN THE TRUMAN ADMINISTRATION SAID NO AND THE OPERATION WAS CANCELED. EISENHOWER COMES INTO OFFICE NOW.

CIA LIED ABOUT COMMUNIST INFLUENCE AND DID OVERTHROW THE GUATEMALAN GOVERNMENT TO BENEFIT WEALTHY U.S.

LANDOWNERS. OPERATION VARIOUS OPERATIONS. PRECEDED OPERATION PBFORTUNE OPERATION PBSUCCESS.

OPERATION WETBACK IS A FANTASTIC READ. IF YOU GOOGLE THAT EISENHOWER.

OPERATION WETBACK OPERATION BRACERO, WHICH WAS YOUR TIME, RIGHT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LILY JUSTICE. IT'S NOT ONLINE.

LILY. JUSTICE NOT PRESENT. NATHAN. PASS NOT ONLINE.

NATHAN. PASS IS NOT PRESENT. LEON. HOLMAN.

GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL. I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH CONCURRING AND SUPPORTING THE PREVIOUS.

THE INITIAL. HOW CAN YOU SAY IT? WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER WITH SOUTH OAK CLIFF? I'VE BEEN SUPPORTING SOUTH CLIFF FOR A LONG TIME, AND SOUTH OAK CLIFF IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN RESOURCES ARE PUT INTO AN AREA OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. IT GOES FROM F TO AYE SO IF THESE RESOURCES WERE PUT OVERALL, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS HOUSING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ETC. THAT AREA WOULD BE AS FUNCTIONAL AS THE NORTH THE NORTHERN SECTOR NORTH OF I-30. BUT MY REAL PURPOSE HERE IS TO TALK ABOUT AUSTERITY.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THE CITY'S BUDGET SHORTFALL.

NOW, FIRST OF ALL, THIS SHORTFALL ISSUE IS NOT UNIQUE TO DALLAS, AUSTIN, HOUSTON, FORT WORTH, EL PASO, THEY ALL HAVE BUDGET SHORTFALLS BECAUSE OF VARIOUS REASONS.

PERHAPS YOU COULD SAY INFLATION. PERHAPS YOU COULD SAY LOWER REVENUE.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT? BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DID A LITTLE MATH AND I SAID, WELL, WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT TOOK 1% ACROSS THE BOARD AND CUT IT FROM EACH DEPARTMENT.

AND WHEN YOU DO THE MATH, YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT THAT CREATES ABOUT $100 MILLION.

IF YOU TAKE ONE PENNY OF EACH DOLLAR, AND IF YOU DO THAT, I'M SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET AROUND $0.01.

AND WHAT THIS WILL DO WILL PREVENT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE FROM GETTING LAID OFF SERVICES FROM BEING CUT.

AND I THINK IT'S A SOLUTION THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

SO THAT'S WHY I COME TO THESE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND I PRESENT THESE OTHER WAYS OF TRYING TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS.

[00:20:08]

YOU PROBABLY SAY, I NEED THAT FACILITY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. LINDA NEWLAND HAS CANCELED LAURA GREEN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS LAURA GREEN, DISTRICT 13.

I DON'T LIKE TO BE PUT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO SAY NO.

BUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT PRESTON ROYAL IS SO OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT IS A NO FOR ME.

AND OVER 4800 PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION OPPOSING IT.

ADDITIONALLY, OVER 91% OF THE CITY'S BLUE CARD VOTERS RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE.

I LIVE AT 5800 ROYAL LANE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

5800 ROYAL LANE CONDOMINIUMS IS A SPECIAL COMMUNITY AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEE IT IN PERSON.

IT IS ABOUT 12 ACRES AND WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

THE STREETS ARE LARGE WITH A WONDERFUL TREE CANOPY.

THAT SAID 5800 ROYAL PROVIDES AFFORDABLE DENSITY WITH 200 RESIDENCES, AND IT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF DENSITY THAT DOES NOT ENCROACH ON OTHER PROPERTIES. IN FACT, MANY PEOPLE DRIVE BY EVERY DAY AND DON'T KNOW IT'S THERE.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS DUE EAST OF MY CONDOMINIUM BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT SETBACK, AND BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS.

NEITHER I NOR MY NEIGHBORS WILL HAVE MORNING SUN.

IMAGINE. HOW WOULD YOU BE IMPACTED IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE GLORIOUS MORNING SUN TO START EACH DAY? I ASK THAT YOU REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO LOWER THE HEIGHT AND INCREASE THE SETBACK SO THAT EVERYONE AT 5800 ROYAL LANE CONDOMINIUMS WILL HAVE MORNING SUN. THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN SAY YES TO. ADDITIONALLY, I WANT DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS A CANOPY OF TREES ON THE GROUND, NOT TREES AND PLANTERS ON TERRACES. I WANT DEVELOPMENT THAT IS AFFORDABLE FOR LOCAL SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS.

I CAN ENVISION A TREE LINED STREET THAT WINDS THROUGH THE PROPERTY, WITH TOWNHOMES AND MIXED USE DENSITY THAT WOULD BE BELOVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I CAN IMAGINE SO MANY POSSIBILITIES THAT I COULD SAY YES TO.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SHARON SHEPARD. SHARON SHEPARD IS NOT PRESENT.

JOHN PLOURDE. JOHN PLOURDE IS NOT PRESENT. ROMEO.

ROSS. PRESENT. PRESENT. OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE. COUNCIL. I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

OKAY. I'M SORRY, MISS ROSS. YOUR VIDEO IS NOT DISPLAYING.

OH. SHOULD MY VIDEO BE DISPLAYED? YES. OKAY. ONE SECOND.

LET ME FIGURE THAT OUT. OKAY. SORRY. I AM AT WORK RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON LIKE FIRST.

GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ROMEO ROSS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON DANIEL IRVING'S TODAY.

HE WAS A 18 YEAR OLD BLACK HONOR ROLL STUDENT SWIMMER WHOSE DEATH REMAINS UNSOLVED.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT. SO YEAH. SO HIS DEATH REMAINS IN UNSOLVED IN THE EYES OF HIS FAMILY AND COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH THE OFFICERS ROLLING SAYS HE'S.

HIS DROWNING WAS ACCIDENTAL. I AM NERVOUS. YEAH.

WAS ACCIDENTAL. OKAY, LET ME PULL UP MY NOTES.

THIS WILL BE MUCH EASIER FOR ME IF I DO IT LIKE THAT. SO.

YEAH. SO IN THE EYES OF HIS FAMILY AND COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH THE OFFICIAL RULING SAYS THE DROWNING WAS ACCIDENTAL, SERIOUS QUESTIONS REMAINS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE AND DURING AND AFTER HE ENTERED THE WATER.

OKAY. I AM HERE TODAY TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT DANIEL'S FAMILY, DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY,

[00:25:01]

HIS CLOTHING AND PHONE WERE ALLEGEDLY DISCARDED.

MESSAGES WERE ALLEGEDLY DELETED AND HIS FAMILY WAS LEFT SEARCHING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO HIM.

THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DESERVE CAREFUL AND IN AN IMPARTIAL LIKE TO BE INVESTIGATED WITHOUT BIAS. DANIEL DESERVES THE TRUTH AND HIS FAMILY DESERVES ANSWERS, AND THIS COMMUNITY DESERVE CONFIDENCE THAT HIS DEATH IS BEING TREATED WITH THE SAME URGENCY AND SERIOUSNESS AS ANY OTHER YOUNG PERSON'S DEATH IN AMERICA.

THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY TODAY, SO LET ME KNOW.

I MEAN, WAIT, THAT'S IT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY TODAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO FINISH ON, BASICALLY. SO I URGE THE COUNCIL TO HELP LIKE CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA.

BASICALLY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GIVE THE SAME ENERGY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE TO ANY OTHER CHILD THAT'S NOT OF COLOR, BASICALLY. AND THANK YOU. AND I AM FINISHED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR FIRST FIVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

THE REMAINING SPEAKER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE CONCLUSION OF ITS CITY BUSINESS.

MR. MAYOR, YOUR VOTING AGENDA IS NEXT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T A MOTION BEFORE I MOVED ON.

OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE VOTING AGENDA. THANK YOU, MR.

[MINUTES]

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

ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BEFORE WE MOVE TO YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, YOU HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON YOUR ITEMS. YOUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DOLORES PHILLIPS. MISS PHILLIPS HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS. MISS PHILLIPS, I WILL ANNOUNCE THAT. I WILL ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND SPEAK ON THE AGENDAS ON THE ITEM.

IF NOT, YOU WILL BE PREVENTED FROM SPEAKING. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

THIS IS DOLORES PHILLIPS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 35 FOR THE BOARD AND COMMISSIONS DUTIES.

YOU DO HAVE YOUR HANDS FULL COMING IN. AND I'M SPEAKING FOR THOSE WHO WILL BE SITTING IN SEATS CONCERNING THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS. LAST WEDNESDAY, WHEN I WAS OUT IN THE FLAG ROOM, SOMEONE TARGETED AND STOLE ALL OF MY CONFIRMATIONS OF OPEN RECORDS REQUEST IN MY NOTES RIGHT OUT HERE WHILE I WAS IN HERE THAT I WAS GOING TO TAKE TO DPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS ABOUT MY COMPLAINT.

I. SO THANK GOD FOR THE JOURNEY. I'M NOT UPSET AT ALL.

I'M NOT VIOLENT, HOMICIDAL, OR SUICIDAL. NEVER HAVE BEEN, NOR WILL I EVER BE.

YOU HAVE HANDOUTS. I DON'T KNOW IF MISS MARTINEZ GAVE THEM TO YOU, BUT THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD.

I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER. ENVISION YOUR DAD CRYING, YOUR MOM CRYING.

MY DAD CRIED TO ME. MISS PHILLIPS, THAT ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDAS FOR THE BOARD, IN THE COMMISSIONS THAT'S COMING IN THERE ABOUT THEIR DUTIES.

THIS IS FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS CITY BUSINESS.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE HANDOUTS YOUR DPD OFFICERS INVESTIGATED JPC-25-00916. THAT'S NOT ON TOPIC. IT IS THE TOPIC.

SO WHAT I'LL DO IS. MISS PHILLIPS, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TRY TO GET.

IT'S IT'S ON TOPIC. IT'S ON TOPIC. THIS WAS NEVER THE PEOPLE'S BUILDING.

BUILDING. THIS WAS NEVER THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE. AND THAT CONTINUES TO BE FACTUAL TO THIS VERY DAY.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS STAY ON TOPIC TO ALERT THE BOARD AND COMMISSIONS THAT'S COMING IN THAT THEY HAVE THEIR HANDS FULL.

IT'S DECEPTIVELY BRILLIANT HOW YOU INTERRUPT TO TAKE MY TIME AWAY.

NOW, WITH THIS BEING SAID, Y'ALL RAN DOWN THROUGH THERE, OVER THERE AND THEN PEOPLE NEIGHBORHOODS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY WITH THEM WARRANTS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BACKTRACK THOSE WARRANTS BECAUSE YOU WERE FACADE FILE BUILDING, NOT FACT BUILDING.

NOW, THE JUDGES DON'T KNOW, NOR THE CLERKS NOR THESE OFFICERS WHO RUN IN THOSE WARRANTS.

HOW DANGEROUS THIS IS WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY OBTAIN WARRANTS AND RUN UP IN PEOPLE'S HOUSES AND YOU DISTURB THEIR SPOUSES,

[00:30:04]

YOU ERASED ALL OF MY SPEAKING SINCE 2012. THE BOARD AND COMMISSIONERS NEED TO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU INHERIT, NO MATTER WHAT, IT IS BUSINESS FOR THE CITY. YOU CAN'T RUN FROM IT.

SO REMEMBER DF-92-11850, P-23-034292.

REMEMBER, IT IS MANY, MANY CASES CONNECTED TO GERALD BROOKS CASE.

JPC 250091612. JPC25-0095012, AND ALL THOSE WARRANTS WILL HAVE TO BE BACKTRACKED BECAUSE YOU DID IT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY TO THE POOR AND WHO YOU CONSIDER EXPENDABLES AND PEONS.

GOD DON'T SEE IT LIKE THAT. WE'RE ALL EQUAL. THANK YOU, MISS PHILLIPS.

YOU HAVE TWO. YOU HAVE. YOU HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM EIGHT.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER. ANUM MANTHIRAM.

GOOD MORNING. ON BEHALF OF THE BRIDGE HOMELESS RECOVERY CENTER, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TO THE CITY OF DALLAS CITY COUNCIL MAYOR THE COUNTY AND HUD FOR ITS CONTINUED AND ONGOING FUNDING SUPPORT.

THE SECOND ONE YEAR RENEWAL FOR OUR FY 2627 EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT WILL ENABLE US TO CONTINUE EMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES FOR UNHOUSED GUESTS.

FISCAL YEAR TO DATE, WE HAVE ALREADY SURPASSED OUR PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND OUTCOMES AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.

WE HAVE SERVED 6836 UNDUPLICATED GUESTS ON CAMPUS, 269% OF GOAL.

A NOTE THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL OF THE GUESTS.

WE ENGAGE OFF CAMPUS AND ON THE STREET, THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT 9000.

WE HAVE PROVIDED 2917 UNDUPLICATED GUESTS WITH CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 209% OF GOAL.

ON AVERAGE, IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY 27 CASE MANAGEMENT SESSIONS TO MOVE AN INDIVIDUAL FROM INITIAL ENGAGEMENT TO PERMANENT HOUSING.

GUESTS CAN SEE A CASE MANAGER THE SAME DAY. THAT TAKES DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT FOR BOTH OUR STAFF AND OUR GUESTS.

WE HAVE SHELTERED 2253 UNDUPLICATED GUESTS OVERNIGHT ON OUR CAMPUS, 378% OF GOAL.

WE HAVE CONNECTED 547 GUESTS TO PERMANENT HOUSING, 249% OF GOAL ON AVERAGE.

WE HOUSE MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER PROVIDER IN THE CONTINUUM, AND OUR METHODS WORK.

95% OF OUR GUESTS STAY STABLY HOUSED FOR 12 MONTHS OR LONGER.

DESPITE OUR STELLAR RESULTS, WE ARE STILL SEEING UNMET NEED.

APPROXIMATELY 100 TO 150 GUESTS ARE TURNED AWAY EVERY NIGHT BECAUSE WE LACK SHELTER BED CAPACITY.

IN ADDITION, WHEN YOU COMPARE THIS FISCAL YEAR WITH LAST FISCAL YEAR'S OUTCOMES, WE HAVE SEEN A 21% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNDUPLICATED GUESTS WE SERVED AND A 69% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF GUESTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PERMANENTLY HOUSE THE BRIDGE.

AND OUR SERVICES ARE NECESSARY, CRITICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE, AND WE COULDN'T DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT YOU.

THANK YOU FOR CARING ABOUT OUR UNSHELTERED CITIZENS AND FOR PROVIDING THEM WITH A DIGNIFIED AND COMPASSIONATE PATH FORWARD.

THANK YOU. ALSO SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM EIGHT, CHRISTINA CAVALIERE.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA CAVALIERE. I'M THE MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR THE SALVATION ARMY OF NORTH TEXAS, AND I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO ALL OF YOU FOR THE FUNDING THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THROUGH THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT.

WE ARE EXCITED TO REPORT THAT WE'VE ALSO EXCEEDED OUR GOALS FOR THE GRANT ALREADY IN THIS GRANT CONTRACT, THROUGH THIS GRANT ALONE, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE 981 UNDUPLICATED INDIVIDUALS WITH EMERGENCY SHELTER.

WE PROVIDED 981 UNDUPLICATED INDIVIDUALS WITH ESSENTIAL SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN CRITICAL FOR THEM RESOLVING THEIR HOMELESSNESS.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE 246 UNDUPLICATED INDIVIDUALS WITH WRAPAROUND CASE MANAGEMENT.

THIS IS BECAUSE OF THIS FUNDING. SO THANK YOU.

THIS COME THIS RENEWAL COMES AT AN IMPORTANT TIME FOR OUR CITY AND FOR THE SALVATION ARMY.

AS WE NEAR OPENING OF OUR NEW 21 ACRE CAMPUS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2027.

ON THAT CAMPUS, WE WILL BE EXPANDING AND DEEPENING OUR IMPACT.

AND SO AS YOU CONSIDER YOUR RENEWAL, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND ON THE CAMPUS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING AN INTEGRATED MEDICAL, DENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CLINIC, ON SITE CHILD CARE CENTER CHOICE FOOD PANTRY, CONTINUING EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL SHELTER, EXPANDING SHELTER FOR FAMILIES AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS, MEN AND WOMEN.

SO WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE RENEWAL, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.

[00:35:06]

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, MARCUS WOOD. I JUST WANT TO SAY I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET, PLEASE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THEN YOU CAN DO THAT. SHOW HER OUT, PLEASE.

WE'RE NOT. THIS IS NOT A WE DON'T. WE DON'T YELL AT THE AT THE TRIBUNAL.

JUST SHOW HER OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY AT SCHOOL, KIDS. THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. I'M MARCUS WOOD. SPEAKING ABOUT ITEM 16 IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

THE HICKORY CREEK FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY.

I'M NOT IN OPPOSITION. I'M IN SUPPORT. BUT I DO QUESTION THE SCOPE.

I THINK IT MAY NOT BE BROAD ENOUGH. BECAUSE THE KLEBERG AREA HAS SYSTEMIC FLOODING PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE.

AT LEAST PART OF THE STUDY, OR AT LEAST CONSIDERED.

I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN WITH SARAH STANDIFER AND THE STAFF.

I DO HAVE ONE CONCERN THOUGH, AND THAT IS I FEAR IT MAY DELAY THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND PARK.

I AGAIN REPEAT, I AM CONCERNED THAT IT MAY DELAY THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND.

PARK AT ECHO LAKE DRIVE. THERE IS ALSO THE DANGER NOW TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT COMMUNITY OF BEING SWEPT AWAY. PEOPLE HAD TO BE RESCUED BY DALLAS FIRE RESCUE IN 2022 ON DENMARK STREET.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS STUDY AND THE ACTIONS TAKING PLACE NOW CONSIDER THE RESIDENTS THERE AND THE DANGER TO THEM.

THERE'S NOT BEEN ENOUGH COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMUNITY.

THE KLEBERG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETS MONTHLY.

THE CITIZENS DON'T REALLY HEAR FROM THE CITY THAT OFTEN ABOUT THINGS.

MISS BLAIR TRIES HER BEST, BUT THE STAFF NEEDS TO DO MORE.

THE LAST THING THAT WE NEED IN THAT COMMUNITY IS ANOTHER STUDY.

ANOTHER STUDY THAT SITS ON THE SHELF. I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT HICKORY CREEK HAS BEEN STUDIED TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME.

THIS IS A PART OF THE STUDY FROM 2003 ABOUT HICKORY CREEK.

THIS STUDY RIGHT NOW IS WHAT I HOPE DOES NOT HAPPEN WITH THIS ONE THAT'S BEING VOTED ON TODAY.

THIS ONE IS TRASH. THAT'S THE POINT. AND I'M AFRAID THAT THIS RESULT IS GOING TO BE SIMPLY THIS. WE'VE GOT THE STUDY NOW. WE'LL WORK ON IT.

TEN YEARS, 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS, 40 YEARS, 50 YEARS.

KLEBERG RILEY HAS BEEN IN THE CITY SINCE 1998.

LET'S NOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER ON AGENDA ITEM 16, DAVID CARRANZA.

MAYOR JOHNSON AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS DAVID CARRANZA, PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND CRIME WATCH.

I'M HERE REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16 AND THE HICKORY CREEK FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

FIRST, THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING HICKORY CREEK, BUT I'M ALSO HERE TO ASK YOU, ALMOST BEG YOU PLEASE DON'T LET THIS JUST BE ANOTHER STUDY.

OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN STUDIED BEFORE. WE'VE BEEN TOLD OUR DRAINAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS BEFORE.

WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IS ENOUGH OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THOSE STUDIES TELL US WE NEED.

AND THERE'S A HISTORY BEHIND THAT. ZIP CODE SEVEN, FIVE, TWO, FIVE THREE REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 4% OF THE LAND AREA OF DALLAS AND 2% OF ITS POPULATION. YET, ACCORDING TO THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED TO US, OUR AREA RECEIVED ONLY 0.17% OF THE 2000 006 BOND, 0.20% OF THE 212 OR 20 2012 OR 2012 BOND, 0.43% OF THE 2017 BOND AND 1.54% OF THE 2024 BOND. THINK ABOUT THAT 4% OF THE LAND AND HISTORICALLY FRACTIONS OF 1% OF THE BOND MONIES. MEANWHILE, OUR RESIDENTS ARE FLOODING.

[00:40:03]

THIS IS OUR REALITY. WE HAVE PROPERTIES ON ROYAL OAKS AND WOODY.

FLOODING. WE HAVE STREETS FLOODING. WE HAVE DRAINAGE AREAS OBSTRUCTED BY DEBRIS.

WE HAVE EROSION. AND WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO WORRY EVERY TIME.

HEAVY RAIN FORECASTS. IN 2022, THE SITUATION BECAME SO DANGEROUS ALONG DENMARK STREET THAT RESIDENTS NEARLY DROWNED IN DALLAS FIRE. RESCUE BOATS WERE REQUIRED.

AND NOW DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES. LAND IS BEING CLEARED, FILLED AND ELEVATED.

THE WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE AND TOO OFTEN SUMMER IS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

AGENDA ITEM 16 AUTHORIZES MORE THAN $3 MILLION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT, EROSION CONTROL AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

DISTRICT AIDS PROJECT IS THE HICKORY CREEK FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY.

SO I'M ASKING YOU FOR SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE. PLEASE MAKE THIS STUDY DIFFERENT.

DON'T STOP AT AN OLD FEMA STUDY. BOUNDARIES. FOLLOW THE WATER INTO THE TRIBUTARIES, DITCHES, STREETS, AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FLOODING. AND DON'T JUST TELL US WHAT IS WRONG.

GIVE US A PATH TO FIX IT. DALLAS WATER UTILITIES AND CITY PLANNING COMMITTED A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE THE STUDY BEGINS.

HEARING DIRECTLY FROM OUR RESIDENTS AND BRINGING THOSE CONCERNS TO THE ENGINEERS.

WE WELCOME THAT COMMITMENT. BUT WHEN THE STUDY IDENTIFIES THE IMPROVEMENTS WE NEED, WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIGNED, PLACED INTO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FUNDED AND BUILT BECAUSE OF THIS DECADE RECEIVING CRUMBS INTO THE TABLE.

KLEBERG RALLY ISN'T ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.

WE'RE ASKING FOR OUR FAIR SHARE. THAT'S OUR HOMES MATTER. OUR SAFETY MATTERS, AND KLEBERG MATTERS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEM 16 HAS A CLARIFICATION, CLARIFYING THAT ONE OF THE ENGINEERS NAMES IS HDR ENGINEERING, INC. WITH NO DBA. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR SPEAKERS ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA.

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR CONSENT AGENDA. YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH 34.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

AGENDA ITEM SEVEN HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

AGENDA ITEM NINE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

AGENDA ITEM 12 WAS CORRECTED AND HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

AGENDA ITEM 21 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

AGENDA ITEM 22 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

AGENDA ITEM 32 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON AND AGENDA ITEM 34 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

THEREFORE, YOUR CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH FIVE.

EIGHT. TEN. 11. 13. THROUGH 20. 23 THROUGH 31 AND 33.

THIS IS YOUR CONSENT AGENDA, MR. MAYOR. APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT.

CONSENT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR FIRST ITEM. AGENDA ITEM SIX.

[6. 26-2586A Authorize an amendment to Resolution No. 22-0124, previously approved on January 12, 2022 for the Conditional Grant Agreement with Greenleaf Ventures, LLC and/or its affiliates for the Lake June development located in the Pleasant Grove area of East Dallas (Project), to (1) reduce the total number of single-family homes to be constructed from 125 to 95; and (2) increase the number of single-family homes to be reserved for households earning at or below 80% of the Area Median Income from 20% to 30% of the total number of homes in the Project - Financing: No cost consideration to the City *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON JANUARY 12TH, 2022, FOR THE CONDITIONAL GRANT AGREEMENT WITH GREENLEAF VENTURES LLC AND OR ITS AFFILIATES FOR THE LATE JUNE DEVELOPMENT. LOCATED IN THE PLEASANT GROVE AREA OF EAST DALLAS.

PROJECT TO ONE REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM 125 TO 95, AND TWO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE RESERVED FOR HOUSEHOLDS EARNING AT OR BELOW 80% OF THE AREA.

MEDIAN INCOME FROM 20% TO 30% FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE PROJECT.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. ALL RIGHT, A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CHAIRMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

IN THE DOCUMENTATION WE RECEIVED AND IN FACT, THE CITY SECRETARY JUST MENTIONED THAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS HAS CHANGED FROM 125 TO 95, AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A COMMITMENT OF INCREASED NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE FROM 20% TO 30%.

SOMETIMES THE WAY WE PRESENT INFORMATION SORT OF SKEWS OUR THOUGHTS ON IT.

CAN YOU TELL US. NOT IN A PERCENTAGE. BUT WHAT IS THE ACTUAL CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED TO WHAT IS PROPOSED NOW IN THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS? AND I DID SEND THIS TO YOU IN ADVANCE OR THE CITY MANAGER IN ADVANCE. HI. THOR ERIKSEN, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT.

I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THE ACTUAL NUMBER CHANGE, BUT I CAN GET THAT TO YOU REAL QUICK.

[00:45:05]

WELL, SO THE ANSWER IS EITHER 3 OR 4 ADDITIONAL HOMES WOULD BECOME AFFORDABLE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO FORGETTING 3 OR 4 MORE THAT ARE AFFORDABLE, WE LOSE 30 HOMES BEING BUILT, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH WE DESPERATELY NEED IN DALLAS.

YES. YEAH. BUT WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE AMOUNT WE'RE GIVING OF ARPA.

RIGHT. 1.854 MILLION. THAT'S CORRECT. AND STAFF DID CONFIRM THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS 25.

AND IT'S CHANGING TO 29 AFFORDABLE UNITS. OKAY.

SO FOR 80% FOR ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEN YES.

AND SO WHEN WE HAD 125 UNITS ORIGINALLY APPROVED THE CITY CONTRIBUTION THROUGH ARPA PER UNIT WAS $14,834 PER UNIT. YEAH. AND THIS IS HOME FUNDING.

THERE'S AN ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND. LISTED AS A PROPOSED FINANCING SOURCE.

SO ON THIS PROJECT I HAVE THE HOME FUNDS AT 1.9 MILLION IN THIS PROJECT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT USING ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUND FOR 1.8 MILLION? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S LISTED IN OUR AGENDA. I DO SEE THAT IT'S LISTED IN THE AGENDA ITEM.

CONFIRMING THAT IF THAT WAS A ISSUE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

WELL, I THINK IT'S THEN NOT POSTED PROPERLY. ARE WE ABLE TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM? CITY ATTORNEY? I NEED TO CONFIRM THIS REAL QUICK WITH STAFF.

MR. MAYOR, IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER, I WANT TO LOOK AT THE ITEM MYSELF. I DO APOLOGIZE.

YEAH. THIS IS IT WAS CHANGED TO THE ARPA REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS AT 1.8 RATHER THAN HOME FUNDS.

OKAY. SO ORIGINALLY WE WERE GOING TO SPEND 14,834 PER UNIT OF ARPA DOLLARS.

AND NOW WITH 95 UNITS, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $19,518 PER UNIT.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO HOW IS THIS NOT CONSIDERED A GIFT TO 95 LUCKY HOMEOWNERS TO GET A $19,500 GIFT FROM THE CITY? SO THIS IS NOT A GIFT.

THIS WAS AN UNDERWRITTEN PROJECT BASED ON THE GAP FINANCING NEED AS THE PROJECT WENT THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REENGINEERING AND REDESIGN.

DUE TO THE COUNTY'S PROJECT OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE LOTS, THE PROJECT WAS STILL NEEDING A DEVELOPMENT GAP IN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER ON THESE HOME OWNERSHIP UNITS.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE UNFORESEEN SITE CONSTRAINTS HAVE BEEN? YEAH. ONCE THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED AND A PLAT WAS APPROVED, DALLAS COUNTY DETERMINED THIS WAS THE SITE FOR THE GOVERNMENT CENTER.

ACREAGE WAS NEEDED FOR THAT AS WELL AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO TO COMPLETE THAT DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHILE THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED AT A 24 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, THE SITE WAS REDUCED TO 12 ACRES DUE TO THAT UNFORESEEN DALLAS COUNTY PROJECT.

AND SO ONCE THAT WAS DONE, THE DEVELOPER NEEDED TO WORK ON REENGINEERING, REDESIGN, REPLANNING AND GETTING THE PROJECT DEVELOPED.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS ON THIS SITE WERE STILL NEEDED IN ORDER TO PRODUCE ANY UNITS.

THEY STILL NEEDED TO DO THE WATER SEWER HORIZONTAL IMPROVEMENTS TO DELIVER THE UNITS.

THAT COST DOESN'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE FROM THE SITE DESIGN, AND THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROJECT WAS STILL NEEDED TO DELIVER ON THESE UNITS. AND WAS THERE CONSIDERATION OF REDUCING THE CONTRIBUTION FOR THIS PROJECT? THERE'S CONSIDERATION IN THAT. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT AND AS WE WERE THE GAP FUNDING IN IT, THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS WERE STILL THERE. OVER THE YEARS, DEVELOPMENT COSTS HAVE INCREASED, MATERIALS HAVE INCREASED, LABOR HAS INCREASED.

AND SO WHILE THE PROJECT WAS WAS FIRST STARTED A FEW YEARS AGO, THE NEW COST TO DEVELOP HAVE INCREASED,

[00:50:06]

SO RATHER THAN RE-ENGINEER THE THE FUNDING STRATEGY, WE WORKED ON INCREASING AFFORDABILITY TO BRING A DEEPER AFFORDABILITY TO THE PROJECT.

AND SO THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2022.

WHY ARE WE STILL. WHY? WHY HAS NOTHING HAPPENED IN ALL THIS TIME? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IN 2022, THEY STARTED WORKING ON IT.

THEY FINALIZED THEIR PLAT. IN 23 IS WHEN THEY GOT NOTICE THAT THE COUNTY WAS LOOKING AT PART OF THIS SITE FOR THEIR PROJECT.

THAT TOOK TWO YEARS TO CONFIRM THE AMOUNT OF LAND NEEDED.

ONCE WE DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WENT THROUGH AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND UNDERWRITE TO DETERMINE ITS FEASIBILITY TO STILL PRODUCE UNITS AT THE 12 ACRE SITE.

GIVEN THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION OF WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY, WE BRING THIS FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON THAT TIME FRAME.

IT'S A LONG TIME. YES. WHEN THE COUNTY SAID THEY NEEDED THE LAND, DID THEY PURCHASE THE LAND FROM THIS DEVELOPER OR DID THEY? I MEAN, HOW DID THAT TRANSACTION HAPPEN? I'LL HAVE TO GET DETAILS ON THAT TRANSACTION HISTORY, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS NOT A PURCHASE.

SO I'LL GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT. THEY JUST GAVE THEIR LAND AWAY.

AGAIN. I'LL GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT TRANSACTION, AND WHEN WOULD THAT BE? AS SOON AS THE STAFF HAS THAT DETAIL. WELL, I WOULD GUESS THAT THE COUNTY PAID FOR THE LAND AND THE DEVELOPER ALREADY GOT THOSE FUNDS AND THAT IT SEEMS REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT WE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER THE SAME AMOUNT OF ARPA DOLLARS WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY NEEDS THAT THAT COULD GO TOWARDS, WHETHER IT'S THE MOST BASIC ITEM OF STREET REPAIR OR ANY OF THE MULTITUDES OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT AROUND THIS COUNCIL THAT NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF DOLLARS.

SO I DO HAVE CONFIRMATION THE COUNTY DID PAY FOR THIS.

THE COUNTY OWNED THE THE PART OF THE LAND AS WELL AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

I DON'T HAVE THE TRANSACTION HISTORY OR THE, THE COST AT THIS POINT.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY PAID? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.

YEAH, BUT THEY DID. THE DEVELOPER ALREADY GOT FUNDS FOR THIS AND THEY COULD HAVE JUST SCALED BACK THEIR PROJECT AND COMMENSURATE REDUCTION IN THE ARPA.

BUT INSTEAD, WE'RE NOW SPENDING SPENDING $1.85 MILLION FOR 30 LESS HOMES.

AND WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR THAT ARE AFFORDABLE? SO I JUST THINK THIS IS NOT FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OF US.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM, ALTHOUGH I LOVE THAT WE HAVE SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES GOING IN DOWN THERE.

THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. AFTER CONSULTING WITH MY ATTORNEYS, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM.

I SAID THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.

WELL, MY QUESTION WAS WHEN HE WAS SAYING THAT ARPA WAS NOT THE SOURCE, BUT THEN HE CONFIRMED IT WAS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM BE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE IN TERMS OF HER LAST STATEMENT, WHEN SHE SAID IT'S EXCITING TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT THERE. AND THANK YOU FOR FOR ANSWERING ALL HER QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE EXCITEMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY AND MYSELF AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HAVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

IT'S IN A GREAT LOCATION. THERE'S A LOT OF PROGRESS THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN TERMS OF THE COUNTY FACILITY, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE PROGRESS AND MOMENTUM, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN SLOWER THAN YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE. THANK YOU. MR. ROTH, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO ALSO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR RAISING THESE ISSUES AND, AND DOING A DEEP DIVE INTO THE DETAILS OF THESE KIND OF TRANSACTIONS.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS A POLICY THAT WE REALLY DO LOOK AT THIS STUFF.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC ISSUE OF HAVING HOUSING, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED IN THIS PART OF TOWN, AND I THINK IT'S A VALUABLE COMMODITY TO HAVE, AND WE NEED IT.

BUT I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO KEEP KEEP IN MIND THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PROCESSES OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THESE KIND OF DEALS.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION.

I DO WANT TO SUPPORT HOUSING IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN, BUT I THINK IT SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE TO ALL OF US TO PLEASE TRY TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE NUMBERS, TO THE DEAL POINTS, AND TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS SEEM TO BE TAKING.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM SIX? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT NOTED. ONE NO. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN AUTHORIZED THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION TO ONE ACQUIRE,

[7. 26-2588A Authorize the Dallas Public Facility Corporation to (1) acquire, develop, and own Trinity West Villas, a 36-unit mixed-income multifamily development to be located at 3457 Normandy Brook Road, Dallas, Texas 75212, and Trinity West Lofts, a 100-unit mixed-income multifamily development to be located at 3155 Normandy Brook Road, Dallas, Texas 75212 (together, the Project); and (2) enter into a 75-year lease agreement with Builders of Hope CDC or its affiliate, for the development of the Project - Estimated Revenue Foregone: General Fund $1,488,374.60 to the City (for 60 years; see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

[00:55:07]

TOGETHER, THE PROJECT AND TWO ENTER INTO A 75 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BUILDERS OF HOPE, CDC OR ITS AFFILIATE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. YOU DO HAVE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, CHRIS LEWIS.

YOUR MICROPHONE. GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OH, THERE WE GO. GOOD MORNING, CHRIS LEWIS, 603 MANGO AVENUE, SUITE 100, DALLAS, TEXAS 75202. SOMETHING HAS SHIFTED IN THE CITY THAT FAMILIES FEEL EVERY TIME A LEASE RENEWS.

RENTS HERE QUIETLY CLIMB PAST LEVELS WE ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER CITIES WITHIN THE STATE.

TRINITY WEST WAS DESIGNED TO KEEP WORKING FAMILIES WITH DECENT HOUSING OPTIONS FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS.

BILLS OF HOPE MISSION HAS BEEN TO CONSTRUCT AND PRESERVE QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND THIS PROJECT PROVES IT. OUR ANTI-DISPLACEMENT WORK, A RIGHT TO STAY, SHOWS THAT NOT EVERY FAMILY READY FOR STABILITY IS READY TO BUY.

SOME NEED AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOME FIRST. THAT'S THE GAP THAT TRINITY WEST FEELS.

ONCE READY, OUR HUSTLE TO FEED. HOPE FOR HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP CENTER WALKS THEM FROM BEING A RENTER TO A HOMEOWNER.

THE SAME PIPELINE THAT ALREADY PRODUCED THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN THE PHASE ONE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

SOME MAY WORRY ABOUT THE PFC EXEMPTION MEANS THE CITY WALKS AWAY WITH SOMETHING LESS.

LOOK CLOSER. WHAT THIS STRUCTURE GENERATES IS MORE THAN JUST FORGONE TAXES.

DEEPER AFFORDABILITY AND FAMILY'S ABILITY TO STAY AND PUT DOWN ROOTS, ALONG WITH THE FORECASTED REVENUE FROM THE PROJECT, ADD UP TO BE MORE THAN A TAX REVENUE THAT THE LAND WOULD GENERATE AS A CONVENTIONAL TAXABLE PARCEL.

THE CITY ISN'T GIVING UP ANYTHING. IT'S GETTING A BETTER RETURN.

PFC DEALS SHOULD NOT BE EVALUATED SOLELY ON WHETHER THEY MEET A MINIMUM AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, BUT ON WHETHER THEY HAVE MAXIMIZED AFFORDABILITY AND PUBLIC BENEFIT.

THIS LAND WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY.

PUBLIC LAND WITH A PUBLIC PURPOSE. AND WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS THE NEXT PHASE OF THAT SAME PROMISE.

THE UNIT MIX FOLLOWS THE WEST DALLAS VISION PLAN.

ALSO IN IN MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION WEST DALLAS.

ONE. AND HOMEOWNERS WITHIN THIS SITE STAND BEHIND THIS PROJECT TODAY.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK COUNCILWOMAN CADENA, WHO HAS VOICED HER SUPPORT. DALLAS HAS AN AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM.

THOSE OF. HOPE HAS SPENT ALMOST 30 YEARS BUILDING THE ANSWER TO IT ONE FAMILY AT A TIME.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER. HUNT. NORA.

MAYOR. COUNCIL. MEMBERS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU SO QUICKLY.

BUT I WAS BROUGHT ON TO HELP BUILDERS OF HOPE ACHIEVE THEIR MISSION AND NOT DELIVERING THE FIRST PHASE OF A MIXED INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ACTUALLY THE SECOND PHASE AND HOPEFULLY LEADING TO A THIRD PHASE, WHICH WILL BE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE HERE AT THIS TRINITY WEST NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK, IS TRULY A CASE STUDY THAT SHOULD BE STUDIED AND RECOGNIZED FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT'S UNDERGONE A NATURAL LIFE CYCLE. AS CHRIS MENTIONED, DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY OWNED IT FOR PUBLIC HOUSING FOR 50 PLUS YEARS AGO. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT HOUSING FELL INTO DISREPAIR AND IT WAS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGED AREA.

FAST FORWARD NOW TO THE TRINITY WEST PROJECT AND IT IS A SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE FAMILY OWNERSHIP.

THAT WAS PHASE ONE. AND WITH BUILDERS OF HOPE, IT'S A MIXED INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO WEST DALLAS JUNIOR HIGH.

NOW, THE SECOND PHASE WITH HOMEOWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED IS TO BRING MIXED INCOME RENTAL PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE A TWO PHASE ON BOTH THE BACK AND THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT. AND THEN THE THIRD PHASE WILL ACTUALLY DELIVER A NEW COMMERCIAL STATION FOR DALLAS PD, AS WELL AS OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BEING PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONTINUED GROWTH.

[01:00:03]

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, IS TO GIVE BUILDERS OF HOPE TO DELIVER THIS HOUSING RESIDENCE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, AND DO IT IN A WAY THAT OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE DONE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. LANITA GRAHAM.

LANITA GRAHAM IS NOT PRESENT. ALTAMASH. ALTAMASH IS NOT PRESENT. STEPHANIE CHAMPION.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE CHAMPION. AND I SERVE AS CHIEF OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY AT BUILDERS OF HOPE CDC.

I AM ALSO A RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER IN WEST DALLAS, JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM THE PROPOSED TRINITY WEST DEVELOPMENT.

THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME AND HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE THIS HORSESHOE, KNOW THAT I'M ONE OF THE MOST STAUNCH ADVOCATES FOR AFFORDABLE AND TRULY MIXED INCOME HOUSING. I BELIEVE EVERY DALLAS RESIDENT, NO MATTER THEIR INCOME, SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO QUALITY HOUSING OPTIONS THAT THEY CAN AFFORD.

THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST IN WEST DALLAS.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR COMMUNITY, YOU'LL KNOW THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY AND STILL MAINTAIN ONE OF THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE CITY, PARTICULARLY IN CENSUS TRACT 205, WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED.

IN THE LAST DECADE, WE'VE SEEN AN INFLUX OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, HIGH END LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AND MILLION DOLLAR HOMES THAT TOWER OVER OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS HOUSING OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE IN BETWEEN.

THAT'S THE GAP THAT TRINITY WEST FILLS. IN 2024, I AUTHORED THE DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ANTI-DISPLACEMENT TOOLKIT TO ADVANCE POLICY AND PROGRAMS THAT WOULD PROTECT VULNERABLE RESIDENTS FROM DISPLACEMENT IN RAPIDLY GENTRIFYING NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE WEST DALLAS.

ONE OF THE THREE KEY GOALS FROM THE TOOLKIT WAS TO PRESERVE AND CONSTRUCT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS APPROPRIATELY TARGETED TO EXISTING AND FUTURE VULNERABLE RESIDENTS.

I BELIEVE TRINITY WEST ACCOMPLISHES THAT. TRINITY WEST IS 136 UNIT, MIXED INCOME APARTMENT COMMUNITY INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO SERVE HOUSEHOLDS FROM 50% TO 120% AMI WITH A MIX OF UNIT TYPES, INCLUDING TWO AND THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE FAMILIES.

MANY OF THE, QUOTE, AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME BEFORE YOU STOP AT 80%, AND RARELY DO THEY INCLUDE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS.

WE KNOW FROM DATA AND FROM THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

IT IS THIS PRECISE COMBINATION OF DEEPER AFFORDABILITY, FAMILY SIZED UNITS, AND A TRUE MIX OF INCOMES THAT MAKES TRINITY WEST STAND OUT.

I AM PROUD TO HAVE WORKED ALONGSIDE MY WEST DALLAS NEIGHBORS AND COMMUNITY TO HELP SHAPE THIS DEVELOPMENT, TO MEET OUR NEEDS AND OUR COLLECTIVE WEST DALLAS COMMUNITY VISION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN FOR A MOTION.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND IT WAS PULLED BY CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN SEVEN DISTRICTS THIS JUNE 7TH.

YOU PULL THIS ONE. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

WELL, SINCE WE DID THE WHOLE PFC DEBATE JUST TWO WEEKS AGO.

I'M ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO DO THAT WHOLE THING AGAIN FOR NOW, BUT I WAS JUST HOPING THAT WE COULD GET SOME NUMBERS ABOUT THE REVENUE FOREGONE ON PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE CITY, COUNTY, PARKLAND AND DISD.

QUINTO, GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE PFC. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. CHAIRMAN WILSON PULLED UP HERE.

WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN COUNCIL MEMBER. SORRY.

SO FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT 60 YEARS, THAT'S $1.4 MILLION, I BELIEVE. AND WHAT WAS THE REST OF THE QUESTION? SORRY. THE COUNTY PARKLAND AND DALLAS ISD.

DALLAS COUNTY. IT APPEARS TO BE ESTIMATED AT $458,000 FOR 60 YEARS.

AND FOR PARKLAND, THE ESTIMATE IS $451,000. AND THE

[01:05:04]

ALL RIGHT. WELL I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY LEAVE IT AT THAT SAYING WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP EXEMPTING PROPERTY AFTER PROPERTY AFTER PROPERTY.

WE NEED THIS REVENUE. WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THESE RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS. AND WE ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING.

IT IS AVAILABLE TODAY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WILL NOT BE SUPPORTIVE. ALL RIGHT. CHAIRMAN WAS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. AARON PLEASE STAY AT THE PODIUM.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M SECONDED THIS ITEM AND COUNCILWOMAN CADENAS MOTION.

I VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF IT TO ADDRESS, I'LL START WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE ON THE, THE TAXATION I'M SEEING IN THE MEMO THAT WAS PROVIDED TO COUNCIL THAT OUR CURRENT CITY OF DALLAS TAX BILL IS $9,128.

IS THAT PER YEAR? YES, I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, ON THIS VACANT PARCEL OF LAND, THE CITY IS BRINGING IN, YOU KNOW, 800 SOMETHING DOLLARS A MONTH IN TAXATION, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. ARE THERE? AND EVEN THOUGH WE WON'T BE GETTING PROPERTY TAX REVENUES WHILE THE AFFORDABILITY IS IN PLACE ON THIS PROJECT ARE THERE OTHER WAYS THE CITY AND I'M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE CORPORATION, BUT THE CITY CAN MAKE REVENUE. WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE IS RESIDENTS LIVING THEIR SALES TAX REVENUES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE BENEFITS THAT ARE NOT ENCOMPASSED IN THIS MEMO YOU PROVIDED US WITH.

SO I WOULD I WOULD ADD TO THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED FOR PROBABLY 6 OR 7 YEARS.

AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY PHASE TWO OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER PHASE ONE.

PHASE ONE WAS ABOUT 115 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. NOW THIS WAS EMPTY LAND.

AND SO ALL 115 OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS NOW ON THE TAX ROLLS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, JUST A ROUGH ESTIMATE, IF EVEN ANY OF THOSE HOMES PAID ABOUT $5,000 A YEAR IN TAXES, THAT'S GOING ON THE ROLLS EVERY SINGLE YEAR. SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED AS PHASE TWO OF THAT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S ONE HIDDEN ASPECT THAT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY STATED HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PFC DEVELOPMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT, PART OF THE WHOLE THAT HUNT MENTIONED HERE, THAT THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL ALSO BRING TAXES TO THE TAX ROLLS.

BUT BESIDES THAT, YOU HAVE THE, I GUESS, THE HIDDEN BENEFIT BRINGING 136 HOMES, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIVING LOCALLY.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING MONEY LOCALLY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE INTERACTING LOCALLY HERE.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN ADJACENT STUDIES, NOTHING IN DALLAS PARTICULARLY, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT, WHERE IT HAS SHOWN THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR OF TAX EXEMPTIONS GIVEN TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU CAN BRING BACK BETWEEN 2 AND $39 OF REVENUE BACK TO THE CITY. YOU'RE CITING SOME STUDIES THAT WERE PRODUCED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PFC AND HFC INVEST IN A STUDY OF OUR OWN HERE THAT CAN STUDY THE DALLAS MARKET.

WE'RE WORKING ON THAT CURRENTLY. GREAT. BACK TO THE UNIT MIX THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS HAD BROUGHT UP.

I THINK THIS HAS BEEN TOUTED AS A, A GREAT PROJECT FOR FAMILIES.

I'M, I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THAT, BUT I WILL SAY OF THE 136 UNITS THAT ARE TOUTED HERE.

IT'S LOOKS LIKE LESS THAN 20 OR RIGHT AT 20 THAT ARE THREE BEDROOM UNITS.

THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD RIGHT. IS THE PFC FOCUSING ON TRYING TO BRING MORE THREE BEDROOM UNITS INTO THE PIPELINE? BECAUSE I THINK YOU NEED TO. I'M ASKING THAT'S A QUESTION.

OH YEAH. POINT WELL TAKEN. WE HAVE TRIED TO DISSEMINATE THIS TO THE DEVELOPER PARTNERS.

OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE KIND OF AT THE MERCY OF WHAT PROJECTS ARE BROUGHT TO US.

WE DON'T WE'RE NOT THE DEVELOPER. WE'RE PARTNERED WITH THEM TO, TO PROVIDE THIS AVENUE OF FINANCING.

BUT WE HAVE MADE THAT POINT MORE RECENTLY TO OUR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS AND THEY SEEM TO RESPOND.

AND I THINK YOU AS COUNCIL WHO CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR MORE THREE AND POSSIBLY FOUR BEDROOM UNITS I THINK THAT POINT IS HITTING HOME AND WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE PROPOSALS WITH THOSE INCLUDED. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN A FOUR BEDROOM PROPOSAL IN THIS, THAT'S.

BUT I THINK WE NEED THEM BECAUSE THERE'S FAMILIES THAT THAT ARE THAT BIG, CLEARLY.

WHAT ABOUT WAS THIS PROJECT? DID IT CONTEMPLATE PROVIDING ANY TYPE OF DAYCARE SERVICES? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU TALK ABOUT IN THESE PROJECTS?

[01:10:02]

WELL, IT'S THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS JUST REPORTED THERE ARE 93,000 CHILDREN WAITING FOR DAYCARE IN THIS IN IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THE CORPORATION SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AND PUSHING AS WELL.

AND THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE I THINK I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL NOT HAVING ENOUGH DAYCARE SERVICES.

WE CAN'T PROVIDE IT. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT, BUT WE CAN UTILIZE OUR HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO HELP US WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M IN SUPPORT. MISS KENNEDY RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I'M PLEASED TO SUPPORT AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, WHICH WILL AUTHORIZE THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE, DEVELOP AND OWN TRINITY WEST VILLAS IN TRINITY WEST LOFTS IN DISTRICT SIX.

THIS WAS VACANT LAND FORMERLY OWNED BY DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY NEAR THE LEDGE SMELTER SITE, AND OUR COMMUNITY IS GLAD TO HAVE HOMES DEVELOPED HERE.

TOGETHER THESE TWO. THESE TWO NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL CREATE 136 MIXED INCOME HOMES IN WEST DALLAS, INCLUDING 71 INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS SERVING HOUSEHOLDS AT A RANGE OF INCOME LEVELS AND INCLUDES THREE BEDROOM UNITS.

THE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LOCATED NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT.

THOMAS, A EDISON MEDICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL, PINKSTON HIGH SCHOOL, KINGSBRIDGE PARK AND FISHTRAP LAKE PARK.

THIS PROJECT WAS AWARDED $1.9 MILLION IN HOME FUNDING, AND THIS PFC STRUCTURE ALLOWS FOR THE PROJECT TO CONTINUE.

WITHOUT THE PARTNERSHIP, THE PROJECT COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT INVESTMENT IN WEST DALLAS AND WILL EXPAND ACCESS TO QUALITY HOUSING WHILE SUPPORTING A MIXED INCOME COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE BUILDERS OF HOPE, THE DALLAS PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION AND ALL OF THE COMMUNITY IN WEST DALLAS THAT HAS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE FOR THIS PROJECT AND CITY STAFF IN HOUSING AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT FOR THEIR WORK TO ADVANCE THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT.

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

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO I THINK ALL FCS AND HFCS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD PARTNER HERE. BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.

HOW MUCH CAPACITY CAN ONE DEVELOPER TAKE ON BEFORE WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE EXHAUSTED, THEIR CAPABILITIES? BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT HAS MULTIPLE PROJECTS GOING ON.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY PROJECTS DO WE ALLOW ONE DEVELOPER TO DO? AS FAR AS I KNOW WITH THE PFC. THIS IS THE FIRST AND ONLY PROJECT THAT BUILDS HFC AS WELL.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PROJECTS WITH HFC EITHER.

BUILDERS OF HOPE IS THEY'RE NOT A PARTNER ON THIS.

BUILDERS OF HOPE IS THE PARTNER. YES, SIR. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

CHAIRWOMAN MENDELSOHN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THREE MINUTES? YES. SO I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT THAT EVERY SINGLE DEAL THAT HAS COME TO US AS A PFC, WE'VE APPROVED EVERYONE, EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY ONE, AND WE CONTINUE TO GIVE AWAY OUR TAX BASE.

LONG TERM, WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION FOR THIS YEAR.

WE'RE MAKING A DECISION FOR 60 PLUS YEARS AHEAD.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HOUSING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN 60 YEARS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MIX OF UNITS AND AFFORDABILITY, WE'RE GETTING VERY LITTLE AND GIVING UP A LOT.

AND OUR SCHOOLS ARE STILL GOING TO EDUCATE THE KIDS WITHOUT TAXES.

WE'RE STILL GOING TO PROVIDE ALL THESE SERVICES.

SO THIS IS JUST YOUR FRIENDLY REMINDER FOR EVERY TIME WE HAVE A PFC THAT YOU ARE DESTROYING OUR TAX BASE, EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU DO THIS, THERE'S NO DATA THAT SAYS THAT THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE DON'T ALREADY LIVE IN OUR CITY.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING DOLLARS TODAY WON'T JUST BE THERE AND CONTINUE DOING SO.

WE HAVE NOT HAD BASICALLY ANY POPULATION GROWTH IN SEVEN YEARS.

SO I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT 130 UNITS IS GOING TO SUDDENLY SPUR AN INCREASE IN OUR TAX OR SALES TAX REVENUE.

AND SINCE WE HAVE APPROVED EVERY SINGLE DEAL.

I'LL JUST MENTION OUR SALES TAX REVENUE IS NOT GROWING AT THE RATE THAT IT USED TO.

SO THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO THE DATA THAT YOU SEEM TO SHARE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. WHEN NOTED, MR. MAYOR. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ITEM.

[9. 26-2305A Authorize the City to (1) enter into a four-year, four party agreement with Grambling State University, Prairie View A&M University, and the State Fair of Texas, which authorizes both universities to continue playing the annual State Fair Classic football game held annually at the Cotton Bowl Stadium located in Fair Park during the State Fair of Texas; (2) the City to pay Prairie View A&M University and Grambling State University in an amount not to exceed $175,000.000 each school for the 2025 State Fair Classic football game at the Cotton Bowl Stadium during the State Fair; and (3) pay Prairie View A&M University and Grambling State University in an amount not to exceed $250,000,00 to each school for the State Fair Classic football game held annually at the Cotton Bowl Stadium during the State Fair of Texas, beginning 2026 through 2029 in an amount not to exceed $2,350,000.00 - Total not to exceed $2,350,000.00 - Financing: Fair Park Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

[01:15:01]

ITEM NINE ALSO HAS A CLARIFICATION, CLARIFYING THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.

NUMBER TWO IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $175,000, AND NUMBER THREE IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $250,000.

THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. IS THERE A MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. THIS WAS PULLED BY MISS MENDELSOHN.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE CITY SECRETARY FOR CLARIFYING THOSE AMOUNTS SINCE I'VE NEVER SEEN THREE DECIMALS AFTER THE PERIOD.

AND THERE ARE NO DECIMALS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON THREE.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. POINT. I JUST WANT TO REALLY MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEAL IS. SO ARE YOU SAYING IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT UP UNTIL 2025, THE CITY PAID $75,000 TO EACH TEAM? IS THAT WHAT WAS HAPPENING? YES, MA'AM. GOOD MORNING, RYAN O'CONNOR, DALLAS PARKS. YOU ARE CORRECT. SO HISTORICALLY, THE CITY PAID 75,000 EACH TEAM FOR A TOTAL OF $150,000.

AND THEN NOW YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND PAY FOR A GAME THAT ALREADY HAPPENED, AN EXTRA 175,000 TO EACH TEAM. YES, MA'AM. SO TO CLARIFY, THE 2025 GAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID YET.

AND WHAT HAPPENED IN 2024 WAS THE COUNCIL AMENDED THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL $350,000 TOWARDS THIS GAME, FOR A TOTAL OF 500. BUT AGAIN, THE 2025 GAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID YET.

THIS WAS PROBABLY THE LAST PIECE OF HANGOVER FROM THE FAIR PARK FIRST OVG CONTRACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECTIFY, GETTING A NEW CONTRACT IN PLACE FOR THE 26TH THROUGH 29 GAMES.

WHY HAVEN'T WE PAID FOR THE 2025 GAME? BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE.

THERE WAS NOT A CONTRACT TO ASSUME, LIKE WE HAVE DONE WITH THE OTHER CONTRACTS THROUGHOUT.

AT FAIR PARK, THE CONTRACT HAD EXPIRED AND SO THEREFORE WE HAD NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO PAY THE THE 150, BUT WE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL 350,000 THAT COUNCIL APPROVED IN 2024.

IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SQUARE THE PAYMENTS FOR LAST YEAR'S GAME AND GET SET FOR THE REMAINING GAMES IN THE CONTRACT THROUGH 2029. I AGREE THAT IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU THESE QUESTIONS. YES, MA'AM. DID THE CONTRACT EXPIRE BECAUSE OF OVG OR SOME OTHER REASON? IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED WHILE OVG WAS WAS OPERATING THE PARK, BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? IS THAT OVG RESPONSIBILITY? THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTS WHILE THEY WERE OPERATING THE PARK. YES. OKAY.

AND SO JUST TO GO BACK, SO IN 2025, WE WERE PAYING 75000 TO EACH TEAM.

YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND PAY THEM AN ADDITIONAL 175 EACH? WELL YES, MA'AM. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT'S AN EXTRA 350,000.

AND AND THEN YOU'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS RESOLUTION FOR 2026 TO 2029 THAT YOU WOULD NOW PAY THEM 250, 000 EACH. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. THAT IS CORRECT.

500 TOTAL. SO THAT'S THE 2 MILLION? YES, MA'AM.

SO WHY WOULD IT GO FROM 75000 EACH? WE'LL JUST SAY IN 2024 TO NOW 250 ZERO ZERO 0 IN 2026. SURE. SO I MEAN THAT'S A BIG TUITION CHANGE.

SO THE, THE CONTRACT, THE 75000 PER TEAM GOES BACK TO 2008.

[01:20:07]

SO AS SEVERAL OF YOU ALL KNOW THAT THAT GAME IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT EVENT.

IT'S ANNUAL IN DALLAS IT, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR THEY HAD 56,000 IN ATTENDANCE.

SO THE COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO, IN RECOGNITION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GAME AND THE.

AND THE ATTENDANCE DECIDED TO INCREASE THE STIPEND FOR THAT GAME.

TAKING IT FROM 150 TO 500. BUT WHAT'S THE REASONING TO GO FROM 150 000 IN A GAME IN 2024 TO 500 000 A GAME IN 2026? AGAIN, JUST I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME RECOGNIZED THAT THE STIPEND HAD NOT INCREASED IN A NUMBER OF YEARS.

MEANWHILE, THE EXPENSES OF THE TEAMS HAD CONTINUED TO INCREASE.

AND IN RECOGNITION OF THE OF THE SIGNIFICANT EVENT THAT IT IS IN DALLAS, IT, IT ATTRACTS ROUTINELY OVER 50,000 ATTENDEES.

OKAY. WELL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO THAT.

THIS SEEMS PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS TO ME. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO GOES IN ONE YEAR FROM 150,000 TO ANOTHER YEAR FOR 500,000.

AND IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT ANYTHING MEASURABLE HAS CHANGED.

I MEAN, COULD SOME MARGINAL EXPENSES HAVE CHANGED FROM 2024 TO 2026? I SUPPOSE, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S SOME MASSIVE NEW INITIATIVE, SOME EXTRA 100,000 PEOPLE ARE ATTENDING. I DON'T I DON'T SEE THE REASON WHY, AGAIN, A TEAM WOULD GO FROM GETTING 75,000 TO GETTING 250,000. YES, MA'AM. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I JUST I REALLY THINK IT WAS THE DECISION MADE TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THE COUNCIL PROVIDED THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

I THINK IT WAS JUST IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE STIPEND HAD NOT INCREASED IN A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AND THE GAME HAS CONTINUED TO BE A BIG SUCCESS.

WELL, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. TWO YEARS AGO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A ONE TIME PAYMENT.

IT'S BEEN A RECURRING PAYMENT THAT THE CITY HAS MADE FOR MANY YEARS.

WELL, THE 2025 ONE, THAT'S A ONE TIME PAYMENT, THOUGH.

SO THE MONEY WAS LOADED INTO THE BUDGET. AND IT'S A IT'S A CONTINUING EXPENSE UNLESS THE THE COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER WOULD REMOVE THE FUNDING THROUGH THE BUDGET. BUT IT WAS A IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE AN ONGOING CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY.

WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN GO FROM $150,000 EXPENSE TO A $500,000 EXPENSE WHEN Y'ALL ARE SITTING UP HERE TELLING US YOU'RE CUTTING BACK MORE HOURS AT REC CENTERS, WHEN YOU'RE TELLING US ABOUT ALL THE FACILITY WORK THAT YOU NEED DONE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS YOU HAVE? AND WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR THIS? YES, MA'AM.

AGAIN, I, I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC BENEFITS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE GAME.

IN 2025, THE GAME HAD A DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 11.3 MILLION.

SO BUT WILL THAT BE ANY DIFFERENT IN A PRIOR IN A IN A SUCCESSIVE YEAR.

I MEAN, TO WARRANT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A $2.13 MILLION CONTRACT.

YES, MA'AM. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT AT LEAST LOOKING BACK TO 2022, THE THE DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFIT HAS INCREASED YEARLY WITH WITH ONE EXCEPTION.

SO IT IS CONTINUING TO GROW EVERY YEAR. AND WHAT'S THAT FORMULA FOR THE DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT.

SO THOSE ARE THE DOLLARS THAT ARE ACTUALLY SPENT BY THE ATTENDEES COMING TO THE GAME.

SO ON HOTEL NIGHTS, THOSE ARE THE FOLKS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, BUYING THE CONCESSION.

SO THAT'S THE DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFIT. THERE'S ALSO A SECONDARY ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT WE HAVEN'T TRACKED.

BUT THAT'S THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE FOR THE GAME, GOING TO RESTAURANTS, ETC.. WE DO NOT HAVE A NUMBER FOR THAT. BUT AS YOU SAY, IT'S THE STATE FAIR. PEOPLE MAY HAVE HOTEL ROOMS OR CONCESSIONS THAT ARE NOT RELATED.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. WELL, THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY.

THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE WE ARE JUST GIVING AWAY OUR TAX DOLLARS WHEN WE HAVE LOTS OF OTHER NEEDS AND OTHER USES.

SO I WAS FINE WITH THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. THIS SEEMS VERY EXCESSIVE, AND I AM PRETTY SURPRISED THAT NOBODY ON PARK BOARD OBJECTED. IF THAT'S IF THEY DID, I DON'T I HAD NOT HEARD.

[01:25:03]

AND THIS IS HOW WE END UP WITH BUDGET PROBLEMS. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN RIDLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO I, TOO, AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING FOR THIS GAME.

SUBSIDY. WHO ARRIVED AT THE $500,000 SUBSIDY FIGURE.

SO THAT WAS THE REQUEST OF THE OF THE GAME PROMOTER AND THE TWO SCHOOLS BACK IN 2024 OR DECEMBER OF 2023.

DID THEY DO ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY THAT INCREASE? OH YEAH. I WILL SAY WHEN AS, AS MR. O'CONNOR MENTIONED EARLIER, I'M SORRY.

JOHN JENKINS PARKS DIRECTOR YES, IT WAS A REQUEST FROM THE PROMOTER TWO YEARS AGO, 2024.

AND THE JUSTIFICATION WAS THAT THEIR EXPENSES HAVE GONE UP, THAT THEY NEED TO PAY THE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THE MONEY WE PAY DIRECTLY GOES TOWARDS THE SCHOOLS, AND THE PROMOTER MENTIONED THAT THE COST OF THE SCHOOLS, THEIR EXPENSES HAVE WENT HAD GONE UP.

THEY WANTED TO BE COMPENSATED MORE TO SCHOOLS.

AND ALSO THEY FELT LIKE THAT THEY HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL OVER THE LAST, I'D SAY AT LEAST 40 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN PLAYING OUT OR 30 YEARS PLUS THEY'VE BEEN PLAYING AT THE COTTON BOWL.

WE HAVE SEEN THEIR ATTENDANCE GO FROM I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST CAME TO TEXAS IN 19 1990, THEIR ATTENDANCE WAS PROBABLY LIKE 20, 25,000 AND THEIR ATTENDANCE IS HITTING 50, SOMETIMES 60.

AND SO THEY FELT LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO PAY THE SCHOOLS, THEY THEY MADE THE REQUEST.

WELL, TYPICALLY WHEN WE ALLOW OUTSIDE GROUPS TO USE CITY OWNED FACILITIES, WE CHARGE THEM RENT, DON'T WE? ARE WE CHARGING THESE TEAMS RENT TO USE THE COTTON BOWL? NO. NO, WE DON'T CHARGE. NO, WE DON'T CHARGE TEXAS.

OH, YOU OR PRAIRIE VIEW AND GRAMBLING. OKAY. SO DOES THE CITY RECEIVE ANY DIRECT REVENUE? DO WE GET THE GATE RECEIPTS, FOR EXAMPLE? NO. DO WE GET ANY OTHER DIRECT REVENUE FROM THIS GAME? ONLY DIRECT REVENUE. AND LIKE I SAID IT, IT'D BE HARD TO QUANTIFY.

IT'S JUST THAT WHEN WE GET THE WE GET THE EXCESS REVENUES FROM THE STATE FAIR.

IF THEY HAVE SUCCESSFUL, FAIR BASED. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE ANY EXCESS REVENUES FROM THE STATE FAIR.

HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT? YEAH, I WOULD SAY IT'D BE HARD TO QUANTIFY IT.

WELL, THIS MR. O'CONNOR IS MEASURED $11.3 MILLION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM HOTELS AND CONCESSIONS DUE TO THIS GAME. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT? YEAH. I MEAN VISIT DALLAS HAS THEIR FORMULA ON HOW THEY DETERMINE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE CITY.

AND THAT NUMBER CAME FROM VISIT DALLAS. SO THEY HAVE SOME MAGIC BOX.

THEY CAN TELL HOW MUCH THE ATTENDEES OF THE GAME ARE SPENDING ON HOTELS AND CONCESSIONS.

YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM? IT SAYS FINANCING IS FROM THE FAIR PARK FUND.

WHAT'S THE SOURCE OF THAT FUND? WHEN YOU SAY FAIR PARK FUND, IT'S JUST FROM OUR FAIR PARK BUDGET THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE FROM THE CITY EACH YEAR.

OKAY. SO IT'S COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. AND THESE TEAMS HAVE PLAYED THIS GAME FOR MANY YEARS.

IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THEY WOULDN'T CONTINUE PLAYING THIS GAME IF THEY DIDN'T PLAY AT THE COTTON BOWL? YEAH. I MEAN, I CAN'T SPECULATE, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THE BOTH UNIVERSITIES, TEXAS OU AS WELL AS I'M SORRY, GRAMBLING PRAIRIE VIEW TODAY THESE TEAMS, IF THEY STAYED HOME, THEY REALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AT THEIR OWN STADIUMS VERSUS WHEN THEY COME TO CITIES BRING THE GAME TO CITIES.

THAT'S WHAT ALL THE TEAMS TELL US NOW THAT THEY COULD STAY HOME AND MAKE MORE MONEY.

BUT. SO WHY DON'T WE LET THEM DO THAT? I THINK BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO USE THE TERM.

THINK I CAN JUST TELL YOU, I IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN BECAUSE THE CITY WANTED TO HAVE SIGNATURE TYPE EVENTS.

AND I JUST THINK THIS GAME WAS PUT IN PLACE AS WELL AS THE, THE, THE OTHER GAMES FOR THE CITY TO HAVE A SIGNATURE TYPE EVENT TO BRING IN FOLKS

[01:30:01]

AND THE THE FUNDING STIPEND PROVIDED BY THE CITY DID NOT CHANGE.

IT'S BEEN $1 MILLION TOTAL FOR TEXAS OU FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AND THAT GOES UNTIL 2036. OKAY. HAVE THE SCHOOLS OR THIS UNNAMED PROMOTER PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY OF THEIR INCREASED EXPENSES FOR THIS GAME? I KNOW OUR GENERAL MANAGER, BRETT WILKIE, HE WAS OUT FOR AN EMERGENCY TODAY.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, HE'S BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE PROMOTER AS WELL.

AS FAR AS TALKING WITH THE SCHOOLS. SO THE ANSWER IS I KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN IN TALKS AS WELL AS BRETT WITH THE SCHOOLS.

WELL, I UNDERSTAND THEY'VE BEEN IN TALKS, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ALMOST A THREE FOLD INCREASE IN THEIR COMPENSATION IN TWO YEARS.

AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THEY JUSTIFY THAT. SO WOULD YOU FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY DOCUMENTATION OF INCREASED EXPENSES, OR IS THIS JUST A GREEDY PROMOTER WHO WANTS MORE MONEY FOR HIS CLIENTS? WITHOUT TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT? I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS KIND OF HUGE INCREASE IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES AGENDA ITEM NINE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING SAID THERE WAS AN INCREASE BY THE COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO.

YES, SIR. YES, SIR. AND BECAUSE THEY'VE PROVEN THEMSELVES OVER THE YEARS TO BRING IN MORE REVENUE AND ETCETERA TO THE GRAMBLING. PERFECT GAME. CORRECT. YES.

THAT'S BEEN THE TREND. THEY HAVE WENT FROM AROUND AROUND 2000 NOW THEY'RE UP TO 50, 50 PLUS 56.

DO WE SUPPORT I, AND I HEARD YOU SAY THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO DO WE SUPPORT ANY OTHER SPORTS EVENT AT COTTON BOWL WITH THE STIPEND? YES, WE SUPPORT THE TEXAS. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GET THAT RIGHT.

TEXAS. OH, YOU INSTEAD OF SAYING OH, YOU. TEXAS YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

HOW MUCH DO WE GIVE THEM? WE GIVE THEM $1 MILLION A PIECE.

NO 500,000 EACH. HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN GIVING THEM 500,000? THAT'S A HALF MILLION DOLLARS. HOW MUCH HAVE WE BEEN GIVING THEM? I WANT TO SAY THAT NUMBER CHANGED BECAUSE IT USED TO BE 750 K.

I WANT TO SAY THAT NUMBER CHANGED PROBABLY AROUND TEN YEARS AGO WHERE IT WENT TO A MILLION.

SO IT WAS 100 K, AND THEN IT WENT FROM 100 K TO 500,750 K, AND THEN IT WENT, ARE YOU FOR TEXAS? OH, IT WENT FROM 750 TO 1 MILLION. I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO.

JOHN. THAT WAS IN 2018. OH I'M SORRY, 2018. OKAY.

SO THEY THEY HAD A SIGNIFICANT JUMP. YEAH, IT WENT UP TO 250 K.

YES. DID DID ANYONE THE COUNCIL THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT I WASN'T HERE THEN SO I'M ASKING.

YEAH, I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IT IT JUST BAFFLES ME TO HEAR SOME OF THE COMMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE HBCU SCHOOLS THIS TIME WHERE WE BRING BOTH SCHOOLS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. SOME OF THOSE KIDS HAVE PLAYED RIGHT HERE IN DALLAS.

WE WATCHED THEM PLAY LITTLE LEAGUE, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, AND NOW THEY'RE IN COLLEGE AND WE COME BACK AND THEY COME BACK AND THEY PLAY IN FRONT OF THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR HOMETOWN, AND IT'S A FAMILY REUNION.

IT BRINGS NOT ONLY REVENUE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT IT ALSO BRINGS EXCITEMENT.

AND TO HEAR THIS CONCERN, THE HBCU. IT'S A PROBLEM FOR ME, ESPECIALLY WHEN NO ONE ELSE ON THE COUNCIL IN TIMES PAST HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH TEXAS OR YOU GETTING $1 MILLION.

SO NOW BLACK SCHOOL GETS AN INCREASE AND NOW THE PROMOTER IS BAD.

THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM. AND I JUST CAN'T SIT HERE AND BE QUIET WHEN I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE MAKE THOSE KIND OF STATEMENTS.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE QUIET ABOUT IT. IF WE HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TEXAS, ALL YOU AND I DID SAY TEXAS FIRST.

[01:35:01]

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PRAIRIE VIEW, TEXAS. BUT I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN.

MENDELSOHN. LET'S GIVE THEM $1 MILLION TO. AS COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMON SAID, THEY'RE ALL OUR CHILDREN.

IT'S JUST IT'S A. IT'S A PROBLEM WHEN WE SEND THOSE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES WHEN IT COMES TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE THE ONE TO IGNORE IT.

IF YOU CAN SAY IT, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS IT. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ONE SCHOOL, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE OTHER.

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

THANK YOU. AND I'M GLAD MY COLLEAGUE SPOKE ON THAT.

I I'VE COME TO JUST EXPECT IT, UNFORTUNATELY.

MY QUESTION IS WHY DID WE INCREASE THE TEXAS OU CONTRIBUTION? YEAH. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER BECAUSE I WAS IN 2018 I DO NOT RECALL EXACTLY WHY THE NUMBER WENT UP.

IT IS. MADAM CITY MANAGER YOU HAPPEN TO REMEMBER? I'M JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY WE.

SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. AND I'M JUST REMEMBERING THIS BECAUSE DURING THAT TIME, I THINK THERE WERE SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THOSE TWO TEAMS MAKING DECISIONS TO POSSIBLY BEGIN TO PLAY AT THE AT&T STADIUM. AND BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE LONGEVITY OF HAVING THAT GAME AT THE COTTON BOWL AT THE TIME, WE WORKED WITH THE HEAD OF THE THE STATE FAIR, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE FAIR DURING THAT TIME TO TO RENEGOTIATE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE TWO TEAMS WOULD CONTINUE TO PLAY IN DALLAS.

SO IT WAS REALLY A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE WERE IN AT THE TIME.

AND THEN AS PART OF THAT ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THOSE TWO TEAMS, WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO A LONGER TERM CONTRACT.

SO THAT WAS DONE UNDER OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER.

BUT I WAS A PART OF WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE TEAMS WOULD COMMIT TO DALLAS FOR TEN ADDITIONAL YEARS, AND THAT FUNDING WAS USED TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO THIS IDEA OF, WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THEM GO? IT WASN'T CONSIDERED TO KEEP THE TEXAS OU GAME HERE.

AND THIS IS JUST YET ANOTHER ONE. AND THEN NOW REMIND ME HOW LONG WHAT, WHAT WHAT WERE WE PAYING OR WHAT TYPE OF STIPEND? HOW MUCH WERE WE GIVING THE PRAIRIE VIEW GRAMBLING GAME PRIOR TO THIS? WELL, YEAH. 150 TOTAL, 75000 EACH TEAM. SO HOW LONG HAS AND HOW LONG HAVE THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE? EVER SINCE 2008. SO SINCE 2008, WE'VE GIVEN THE PRAIRIE VIEW GREMLIN GAME 150,000.

AND EVEN WITH THAT 150,000, REGARDLESS, KNOWING IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAD AN INCREASE YEARS AGO, BUT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO GROW THE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES OVER THOSE YEARS TO WHERE WE'RE AT ABOUT 50,000 NOW.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO COLLEAGUES, I THINK THEY'VE PROVEN THEMSELVES AND THEY'VE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND, AND IT'S WELL PAST TIME TO DO THIS. AND AGAIN, THESE CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, I TRY NOT TO SPEAK ON ONE BECAUSE I GET SO UPSET ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL HAVING THESE TYPE OF RIDICULOUS CONVERSATIONS IN THE NAME OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IT'S DOING. YOU ASK WHAT THE IMPACT WAS IN THE CITY.

THESE FOLKS, GRAMBLING PRAIRIE VIEW, HAVE HUGE ALUMNI HERE IN DALLAS.

AND IT SPREADS THROUGHOUT NOT JUST DALLAS, BUT THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE CITY AND THE METROPLEX.

THEY HAVE EVENTS AND SEE THE HILL. THEY HAVE EVENTS IN DALLAS.

THEY HAVE EVENTS ALL OVER THE CITY, SO YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE SCATTERED THERE.

THESE KIDS ARE COMING AND VISITING HIGH SCHOOLS AND PLAYING WITH THE BAND.

MY SON IS A BAND MEMBER. HE IS GETTING CONNECTED AND IT'S OPENING UP DOORS TO SCHOOL AND OPPORTUNITIES.

SO IT GOES BEYOND JUST THAT FINANCIAL IMPACT.

THEY ARE HERE TRULY MAKING A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO I DO SUPPORT THIS AND IT'S LONG OVERDUE. AND AGAIN, THESE CONVERSATIONS OF, OF WHY AND ALL OF THIS IS, IS JUST, IT IS WHAT IT IS AND WE KNOW WHAT IT IS.

SO AGAIN, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. AND THANK YOU FOR, FOR BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL.

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

THANK YOU. MISS. MR. MAYOR, I TOO AM SUPPORTING THIS.

AND I AM ALSO ASHAMED TO SAY THAT THIS THIS GAME, THAT THESE THIS, THESE SCHOOLS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID FROM LAST YEAR. DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE CONTRACT SAID.

THEY CAME. THEY CAME IN GOOD FAITH. THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.

[01:40:05]

IT COSTS THE THE GREEDY PROMOTER, AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID, TO BRING THEM HERE.

AND HE. AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PAID, BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO COME AGAIN THIS YEAR.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GREED. I THINK THAT IS SOMEONE WHO HAS TRUST AND FAITH IN A CITY THAT THEY COME TO EVERY YEAR.

WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY. WHERE IS IT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO IF WE HAVEN'T PROVIDED THIS SCHOOL.

NO MATTER WHAT THEIR DIVERSITY LOOKS LIKE, THEIR SCHOOLS, THEY COME, THEY PROVIDE A SERVICE.

THEY EXPECT TO BE PAID. WE HAVEN'T DONE SO. SHAME ON US.

AND AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE INCREASE, THEY DID WHAT, $75,000 EACH SINCE THE BEGINNING.

AND WE HAVEN'T. BUT THE COST OF LIVING, THE COST TO COME UP, THE COST TO TRANSPORT, THE COST OF OF FEEDING THEM, THE COST OF PUTTING THEM IN HOTELS, ALL THOSE CHANGE.

AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL IT IS, DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE SCHOOL CAME FROM, THE COST ARE THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT BEING GREEDY.

THEY'RE BEING UNDERVALUED. THE COUNCIL THAT INCREASE THEIR THEIR PAY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT THEM TODAY. THE SAME COUNCIL THAT VOTED TO INCREASE THE SAME COUNCIL MEMBERS, EXCEPT FOR A FEW. NOW THEY'RE COMING IN AND WANTING TO TAKE AWAY.

SHAME ON US. I'M SUPPORTING THIS. I THINK WE ALL SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES THAT WE HAVEN'T PAID THEM. I THINK THE INCREASE IS NOT UNREASONABLE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE GAME THAT COMES THE FOLLOWING WEEK, WE'RE PAYING THEM MORE.

SHAME ON US AGAIN. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN BLAIR.

MR. BAZALDUA, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES AGENDA ITEM NINE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU ALL FOR THE BACK STORY.

I ALSO WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WHO MAY NOT KNOW, THE TEXAS OU GAME HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 1929. IT WAS UNTIL 1967 THAT BLACK DALLASITES WERE EVEN ALLOWED IN THE FAIRGROUNDS.

WE DIDN'T DESEGREGATE THE FAIRGROUNDS UNTIL MORE THAN, WHAT, 40 YEARS AFTER EVEN HAVING AN INSTITUTION OF A GAME? WE TALK ABOUT EQUALITY VERSUS EQUITY.

OFTEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUITABLY INVESTING IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN UNDERINVESTED IN.

WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY, MEANING THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY OR LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

WE'RE NOW DISCUSSING THE ABILITY TO HELP PROMOTE HBCUS IN ONE OF THE, IF NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT HBCU RIVALRY THAT THAT EXISTS ANNUALLY. NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE GAME THAT'S BEEN HERE SINCE 1929. NO ONE QUESTIONS IT WHEN PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF OR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE FAIRGROUNDS AT THOSE TIMES. I'LL FAST FORWARD A LITTLE BIT PAST 1929 AND TALK ABOUT THE COWBOYS TENURE AT THE COTTON BOWL. WE ALSO WERE NOT ALLOWED THERE. WE'LL TELL YOU THAT MY DAD WAS MY DAD AND MY UNCLE USED TO GO AND WAIT IN THE MORNINGS BEFORE COWBOY GAMES TO BE PICKED, TO GET TO WALK AROUND WITH CONCESSIONS AND SELL THEM.

THAT WAS THE ROLE THAT LATINOS OR BLACK PEOPLE PLAYED IN THE COTTON BOWL.

WE FAST FORWARD NOW TO 2026, AND JUST AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED, I MEAN, THE IMPACT THAT THIS HAS GONE, THAT THIS HAS MADE IS FAR BEYOND JUST A FISCAL NOTE, IT'S FAR BEYOND AN ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT CAN BE WRITTEN ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

THIS IS ABOUT INCLUSION. THIS IS ABOUT MAKING RIGHT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN EMINENT DOMAIN AND LIFTED UP OUT OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE PARKED AND WERE WERE HOME TO THE THE WEST PARKING LOTS RIGHT NOW.

[01:45:03]

THIS IS THE HISTORY THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY AND AN INVESTMENT INTO A GAME, IT'S FAR BEYOND A FISCAL NOTE.

THIS IS ABOUT INCLUSION. THIS IS ABOUT MAKING RIGHT.

THIS IS ABOUT SHORING UP WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DO, WHICH IS INVEST IN THE AFFLUENT AND THE WHITE COMMUNITY OF OUR CITY FOR A LONG TIME.

THAT MAY MAKE SOME PEOPLE FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE AND IT SHOULD, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

I WAS A PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE MOVEMENT FOR US TO INCREASE GRAMBLING AND PRAIRIE VIEWS STIPEND BEFORE THIS, THIS ANNUAL YEAR, BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW WHY IT WAS SO INEQUITABLE COMPARED TO WHAT FOR SO LONG WAS HAPPENING AT TEXAS OU.

SO THAT'S ALSO CONTEXT, JUST TO ADD TO WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, THE COUNCIL WAS WAS ADAMANT ABOUT SHORING UP THE INEQUITY THAT EXISTED THERE.

WHEN YOU'VE GONE FROM 20,000 TO 50,000, THIS IS A PART OF THE FABRIC OF WHAT PEOPLE LOOK FORWARD TO EVERY YEAR.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS HAS DONE SO MUCH HARM TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN SOUTH DALLAS, THAT'S THE HISTORY. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT RIGHT.

AND THIS IS A PART OF MAKING THAT RIGHT. AND THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS OPEN ARM OPE WITH OPEN ARMS, EMBRACES THIS GAME AS A PART OF THE FABRIC. THIS IS TWO OF THE THREE WEEKENDS IN WHAT IS ENGAGING ALMOST ALL OF OUR DISD SCHOOLS WITH BATTLE OF THE BANDS. IT'S ENGAGING ALMOST ALL OF OUR YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAMS IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.

THIS IS WAY MORE THAN WHAT CAN BE ARTICULATED ON A PIECE OF PAPER ON WHAT WE ARE INVESTING IN AND WHAT THE RETURN IS.

AND FOR US TO SCRUTINIZE IT ANY OTHER WAY IS DISINGENUOUS, MR. MAYOR. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT TELLING AND QUITE FRANKLY, UPSETTING THAT WE WOULD SPEND AS MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THAT IS, IS JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE EVER SCRUTINIZED THE TEXAS OU GAME IN THE SAME MANNER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT I HAVE TO POINT OUT WHY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MIDDLETON FOR THREE MINUTES ON AGENDA ITEM NINE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE COMMENTS THAT APPEAR TO BE VERY RACIALLY CHARGED, AND I'D ENCOURAGE AND APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE.

CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY SEATS ARE AT THE COTTON BOWL? NINE. YEAH, NINE AND 2000. AND DO BOTH GAMES FILL BOTH ALL THOSE SEATS? NO. CAN YOU ELABORATE? YEAH. I MEAN PRAIRIE VIEW.

MAKE SURE I GET THAT RIGHT TO PRAIRIE VIEW, PRAIRIE VIEW AND PRAIRIE VIEW AND GRAMBLING LIKE I SAID, COULD BE ANYWHERE NOW FROM 50 TO 60 K TEXAS O.U.

GAMES. IT MAXES OUT THE COTTON BOWL. OKAY. DID WE PLEDGE OVER 100 AND, I THINK $40 MILLION TO REDO THE COTTON BOWL? YES. AND WHY DID WE DO THAT? BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEPT THE COTTON BOWL COMPETITIVE AND ATTRACTIVE FOR BRINGING BIG VENUES. I MEAN, BIG, BIG ATTENDANCE AND DIFFERENT EVENTS.

AND MY RECOLLECTION IS YOU STOOD THERE AND TOLD US IT WAS FOR FOOTBALL GAMES.

LIKE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAMES. OH, NO. NOT BEEN REQUIRED FOR THE UT GAME.

RIGHT. WAS IT REQUIRED FOR THE. OH, YEAH. FOR TEXAS.

OH, YOU AS WELL AS THE, THE PURVIEW GRAMBLING GAME AS WELL AS TRYING TO TRACK BIG CONCERTS.

BUT WASN'T IT REQUIRED IN THE UT CONTRACT THAT WHERE THEY WANTED CERTAIN RENOVATIONS AT THE COTTON BOWL TO, TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. OKAY. SO WHAT? SOME OF MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES SEEM TO NOT UNDERSTAND IS I WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH HAVING ZERO CONTRIBUTION TO ANY FOOTBALL GAME. I DON'T THINK IT'S THE TAXPAYERS JOB TO PAY FOR THAT.

AND I ALSO THINK IT'S KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS THAT WE DON'T PAY PEOPLE.

WE DON'T CHARGE THEM TO USE THE STADIUM. ARE THERE OTHER EVENTS THAT HAPPEN THERE THAT WE ARE NOT CHARGING? WELL, THIS IS DURING THE STATE FAIR WINDOW WHERE THEY LEASE THE FACILITY FOR STATE FAIR.

[01:50:04]

THANK YOU. WELL, THAT WAS ACTUALLY MY POINT. WHY ISN'T THE STATE FAIR PAYING FOR THIS? YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY MANY YEARS AGO.

I THINK THE STATE FAIR OUGHT TO PAY FOR THIS.

MY OBJECTION IS, FRANKLY, NOT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS, THE AMOUNTS.

IT'S THAT I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR IT, PERIOD.

SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. STATE FAIR SEEMS TO BE MAKING JUST PLENTY OF MONEY.

LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ALL MY QUESTIONS HERE. I'VE NEVER ATTENDED THE TEXAS OU GAME, OF WHICH WE GET FREE TICKETS, AND MY HUSBAND IS SAD THAT I ALWAYS DECLINE THEM.

MANY OF YOU HAVE USED MY TICKETS. I'VE NEVER ATTENDED THE PRAIRIE VIEW GRAMBLING GAME.

AGAIN, MANY OF YOU HAVE USED MY TICKETS. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN ATTENDING.

BUT ALSO I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE CITY FUNDING THIS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE. AND WE SIT HERE AND CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT OUR BUDGET CRUNCH.

WE'VE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE STADIUM AND THEN WE'VE GIVEN IT TO HIM FOR FREE, AND THEN WE'RE GIVING THEM INCENTIVES TO COME PLAY.

AND NOW IT'S A MASSIVE INCREASE WITH NO REAL EXPLANATION OF WHY.

IF THE ANSWER IS EQUITY, I BELIEVE THAT HAS BECOME AN ILLEGAL ANSWER IN TEXAS.

SO I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ANSWER IS.

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

THANK YOU MAYOR. JOHN OR RYAN. SO IN 2025 WE'RE CATCHING UP TO THAT YEAR.

WAS THE CITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PAYMENT OR IS OVG NO, WE WERE WE WERE.

OKAY. WELL, WE'RE IN BETWEEN. YEAH. IT WAS, THAT WAS RIGHT IN THAT PERIOD WHERE FAIR PARK FIRST G WERE BEING TERMINATED AND WE WERE TAKING BACK ON OPERATIONS.

SO IT WAS IT WAS RIGHT IN THAT SAME TIME PERIOD.

AND SO OUR DOLLARS AVAILABLE THERE FROM THE DOLLARS THAT I DON'T KNOW, HAVE WE RECOUPED THOSE DOLLARS OR ARE WE STILL.

SO WE DID PAY BOTH TEAMS 150,000, BUT THEY ARE OWED FOR LAST YEAR'S GAME 350.

OKAY, SO HAVE WE SETTLED WITH OBG YET, OR HAVE THEY PAID THERE? NO, THAT'S. THAT'S ILLEGAL. THAT'S A LEGAL ISSUE.

OKAY. AND SO, I MEAN, I DO THINK THE TEAMS DESERVE AN INCREASE.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO DO IS GO BACK AND CREATE CRITERIAS ON WHEN THERE'S A, AN ASK OF WHAT THAT STIPEND SHOULD BE MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT, MEASURING SALES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE GOOD CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY THOSE DOLLARS. HAVE WE LOOKED AT POSSIBLY ADDING A FEE OF A DOLLAR OR SOMETHING TO THE TICKET TO HELP FUND THESE STIPENDS. WE HAVE NOT.

AND IT'S ONLY BECAUSE BUT WE CAN EXPLORE IT. IT'S ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS IN THAT WINDOW WHERE THE STATE FAIR PAYS A LEASE PAYMENT TO THE CITY.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING CITY MANAGER WE SHOULD POSSIBLY BE LOOKING AT TOWARDS TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO FUND THESE THESE GAMES THAT ARE, THEY ARE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT TO, TO THE CITY.

WE JUST NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IT. AND I KNOW VISIT DALLAS HAS SOME TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO HELP US TO GET THAT DONE.

THANK YOU MAYOR. MR. BASILIO RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I WOULD I WOULD AGREE, BUT DISAGREE WITH WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST MENTIONED.

I THINK A FEE WOULD BE AMAZING. I THINK THAT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS LEVERAGING THESE OPPORTUNITIES, THAT WE'RE FILLING THESE VENUES UP AND PUTTING DOLLARS BACK INTO THE ACTUAL FACILITIES THEMSELVES, NOT FOR AN ECONOMIC IMPACT. INCENTIVE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER TIME IS THAT AS LONG AS WE HAVE INVESTED IN BRINGING A REASON, THAT THERE'S A DEMAND FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND SPEND MONEY, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR US TO, TO UTILIZE IN THE GROUNDS. AND SO I ENTERTAIN THAT THAT CONVERSATION, BUT BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A MORE ROBUST ONE FOR US TO, TO CONSIDER WHEN IT COMES TO POTENTIAL FEES AT FAIR PARK.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT WHAT MISS MENDELSOHN SAID.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US HAVE THE STATE FAIR OF TEXAS KICK IN FOR THAT.

THAT'S NOT A PART OF THEIR CONTRACT. I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT UNTIL

[01:55:02]

BUT OVERALL, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS WAS A PART OF THE INVESTMENT THAT WE ASKED FOR THE VOTERS.

THE $140 MILLION WAS OUR PLEA NOT ONLY TO TAKE CARE OF FACILITIES THAT NEEDED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, BUT IT WAS ALSO TO GIVE US THE TOOLS WE NEED TO KEEP THESE REVENUE GENERATORS IN, IN OUR CITY, IN THIS FACILITY. AND SO I DO WANT TO REMIND THAT WHEN WE DID, WHEN WE CHANGED THE STIPEND FROM FOR TEXAS OU, THAT WAS AT A TIME WHEN THERE WERE VERY SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS BEING HAD FROM THOSE SCHOOLS TO GO TO ARLINGTON.

AND THERE WAS A VERY PROACTIVE APPROACH FROM ARLINGTON AND FROM AT&T TO GET THAT, THAT GAIN.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN THE SAME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER TEAM.

I THINK THAT, THAT WE KNOW THAT JERRY WORLD WOULD LOVE TO, TO TAKE OVER JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THAT BRINGS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT TO OUR CITY.

SO WHEN WE, WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE DO DO TO BE COMPETITIVE IN OUR REGION.

AND THIS CONVERSATION IS VERY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THAT EFFORT.

AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT AT THESE BEING A TRUE STAPLE FOR OUR CITY AND EMBRACING THEM AS SUCH.

AND I THINK THAT, AS WE CAN EXPECT, IF WE WANT TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF RETURN, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME SORT OF INVESTMENT.

SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU ALL SHORING THIS UP. I DO THINK THAT THIS IS VERY HELPFUL FOR THE LONGEVITY OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT AL WASH DOES GREAT WORK, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO KEEP HIM HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, SIMPLE MATH SAYS THAT IF YOU WANT TO SPEND $500,000 A YEAR ON THIS AND THERE'S 5000 PEOPLE THAT GO TO THE GAME, YOU'RE JUST ADDING A $10 TICKET FEE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CITY CAN'T DO IT DURING THE STATE FAIR, BUT THE STATE FAIR COULD, SO IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

BUT THE TEAMS COULD GET ANYTHING THEY WANT IF THEY JUST ADD THAT TICKET PRICE ON ONTO THE TICKET PRICE.

AND I DON'T CARE WHEN THE STATE FAIR CONTRACTS OVER, YOU COULD APPROACH THEM NOW AND SAY, WE CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR THIS.

THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR THIS. AND I SAY THE SAME THING FOR TEXAS, FOR THE TEXAS OU GAME.

I JUST DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD. AND I'LL JUST BET YOU THAT IF THEY WENT TO GO PLAY IN JERRY WORLD, THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM A FEE TO USE THAT STADIUM.

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

THANK YOU. THREE MINUTES. THREE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOME OF MY EARLIER COMMENTS, WHICH I THINK WERE MISINTERPRETED.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF GIVING STIPENDS TO ANY COLLEGE TEAMS TO PLAY IN THE COTTON BOWL, WHETHER THEY BE HBCU OR TEXAS. O.U. IF WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THEM A STIPEND, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE PARITY BETWEEN THE GAMES.

WHATEVER ONE TEAM GETS, IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR THE OTHER GAME.

I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE SPENDING OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY ON THIS KIND OF A STIPEND, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CORE CITY SERVICE.

THIS IS A LUXURY THAT WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD.

WE'RE CUTTING MONEY THROUGH OUT OUR DEPARTMENTS.

WE'RE CUTTING SERVICES. WE'RE CUTTING STAFF, WE'RE CUTTING LIBRARY HOURS.

WE'RE CUTTING BACK ON PARK EXPENDITURES. WE'RE CUTTING BACK ON THE ZOO.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD. AND I WASN'T HERE IN 2018 WHEN THE TEXAS OU CONTRACT WAS APPROVED.

BUT IF I HAD BEEN, I WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT.

AND IF IT COMES UP AGAIN DURING MY TENURE, I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT, JUST LIKE I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ONE.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NINE? MR. BAZALDUA RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED.

THAT'S NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK. YOU DON'T PAY TO PLAY AT A STADIUM USUALLY, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A MONEY GENERATOR.

UNIVERSITIES ARE ACTUALLY PAID STIPENDS TO HOST THEIR GAMES AT THESE STADIUMS. AND THAT'S THE RECRUITMENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.

AT&T IS NO DIFFERENT. MY BROTHER PLAYED DIVISION ONE COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE MONEY GAMES.

[02:00:08]

BUT THOSE ARE ALL WORKED OUT AS AN ECONOMIC PACKAGE.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE SCHOOL PAYING VERSUS THE OTHER.

THIS IS IF WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPETITIVE AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE COTTON BOWL BEING COMPARABLE TO THE ROSE BOWL OR HERE IN THE REGION, AT&T STADIUM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE WILLING TO PLAY THAT GAME IN A COMPETITIVE MANNER.

SO IT'S JUST IT'S JUST FALSE WHAT WAS PUT ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU TO COUNCILMAN BAZALDUA.

I DON'T KNOW, MR. AL WASH HEARD OF HIM, BUT DON'T BELIEVE HE'S A GREEDY PROMOTER.

WHICH I BELIEVE THE TERM THAT WAS SAID. AND IT'S A BIT DISINGENUOUS TO ME THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T HAD WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TECH.

SO YOU WHEN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS DONE. SO WHEN IT COMES TO A HBCU, IF STATEMENTS ARE SAID, THEN I WILL ADDRESS IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY APPEAR TO BE RACIST. THANK YOU, MR. BEAR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FOR AGAINST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. NEXT ITEM NOTED TO NOTICE AGENDA ITEM 12.

[12. 26-2615A Authorize a five-year and two-month lease agreement in an amount not to exceed $341,194.00 for the period September 18, 2026 through November 17, 2031, with one five-year renewal option with Nessun Dorma Properties, LLC, for approximately 5,243 square feet of office and warehouse space located at 8290 Moberly Lane, to be used as a City Store for the period September 18, 2026 through November 17, 2031 - Not to exceed $341,194.10 - Financing: Express Business Center Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

MENDELSOHN. LOOKING FOR A MOTION? I HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MISS MENDELSOHN RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. YOU PULLED IT IF YOU'D LIKE. THANK YOU.

WAS THIS ITEM BRIEFED TO ANY COMMITTEE? GOOD AFTERNOON, JOHN JOHNSON. NO, MA'AM. THIS WAS NOT BRIEFED. HOWEVER, AS WE MENTIONED IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AS A PART OF OUR SOFT ROLLOUT IN OCTOBER, WE'LL BE BRINGING AN UPDATE TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WITH KEY TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE LEASES AND OTHER REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS OF NOTE.

BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THAT HAPPENS? YES, MA'AM. THIS SAVES THE CITY OVER THE TERM OF THE LEASE $254,000.

I DON'T THINK WE CARE ABOUT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY ANYMORE. IT SEEMS PRETTY APPARENT TODAY.

SO THIS IS A NEW LOCATION FOR THE STORE, CORRECT? THIS REPLACES THE CURRENT LEASE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY.

AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR $62,916 A YEAR RENT FOR THE FIRST YEAR.

IS THAT RIGHT? FOR THE FIRST YEAR? NO, MA'AM.

IT'S 52,430 BECAUSE THEY ABATED THE FIRST TWO MONTHS.

SO I'M LOOKING AT THE NOVEMBER THROUGH SEPTEMBER PERIOD THAT'S OUTLINED NOVEMBER 18TH, 2026 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2027 AT 5243 A MONTH. SO THAT'D BE ANNUALLY 62,960.

THAT'S CORRECT. AFTER THE FIRST 12 MONTHS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT AMOUNT PAID EVERY YEAR, WE ALSO HAVE SOME LIABILITIES.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO PAY UTILITIES THERE.

YES, YOU'LL PAY UTILITIES. AND WHAT IS THE EXPECTED COST FOR THOSE UTILITIES? I DON'T KNOW. DO WE HAVE THE ANNUAL UTILITIES.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE COST EXPECTED OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR UTILITIES THE DUMPSTER JANITORIAL PEST CONTROL.

APPARENTLY WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SIGNAGE AS WELL AS PLUMBING ISSUES AND REPAIRS AS NECESSARY AS WELL AS WE'RE GOING TO BE MAINTAINING AND REPAIRING EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS, INCLUDING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING.

SO THE LEASE IS A TRIPLE NET LEASE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE IN OTHER LEASES IN THE CITY.

YES, MA'AM. SO THERE ARE BASE REPAIRS THAT THEY WILL MAKE TO THE FACILITY TO GET IT TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF ANYTHING WITHIN OUR LEASE SPACE.

[02:05:05]

WELL, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU THINK CORE IS, BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO GOING TO MAINTAIN THE GOOD REPAIR OF THE ROOF FOUNDATION WALLS.

SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT THE FAMILY GATEWAYS CONTRACT IS WE PAY FOR THE CORE SYSTEMS. AND THEN THERE ARE A PORTION THAT THEY PAY FOR AS WELL.

SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER FACILITIES. WELL I THINK THEY PAY FOR OPERATIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE. USING FAMILY GATEWAY IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.

HOW MUCH DID WE PAY IN REPAIRS FOR THAT? AT THIS POINT IT'S BEEN MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE USED TO. AS AN EXAMPLE, FOR OUR PROCESS AND PROCEDURES TO PREVENT THAT TYPE OF PURCHASE FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

SO WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN WITH FAMILY GATEWAY WAS THERE WASN'T A FULL CITY INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE WE PURCHASED IT.

POINT OF ORDER, MAYOR. STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROJECT RIGHT NOW. IT'S OVERRULED.

SO WHAT WAS MISSING IN FAMILY GATEWAY WAS WE DIDN'T DO A FULL INSPECTION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE WITH THE PROPERTY THAT WE WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

HAS THAT THERE WAS AN INSPECTION DONE? YES, MA'AM. THERE WAS A FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT COMPLETED.

DID IT FIND THAT THE WINDOWS WERE NOT PROPERLY INSTALLED? IT WAS NOT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT. THERE WAS A FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT COMPLETED. AND HOW MUCH DID WE PAY FOR THAT FACILITY? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. AND HOW EXTENSIVE WAS IT? IT WAS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD LEVEL INSPECTION FOR THAT FACILITY.

SO YOU WOULD DO THE SAME KIND OF INSPECTION ON FUTURE PROPERTIES? NO, MA'AM. THAT'S GATEWAY. NO. NO, MA'AM. WAS IT INSUFFICIENT WHAT WAS DONE FOR FAMILY GATEWAY AT THE TIME? IT WAS WHAT WE FOLLOWED WITH OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE IN PLACE.

BUT WE NOW FIND THAT TO BE INSUFFICIENT. CORRECT.

THIS BODY HAS ASKED US TO GO MORE IN DEPTH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH OUR NEW PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR REAL ESTATE, FOR DUE DILIGENCE AND FOR GOVERNANCE. YES, MA'AM.

WELL, THAT KIND OF INSPECTION WE DID FOR FAMILY GATEWAY IS THE SAME ONE WE DID FOR THE INDEPENDENCE PROPERTY THAT WE NOW HEAR IS FALLING APART.

THAT WAS DONE FOR STEMMONS PROPERTY. SO I THINK IT'S INSUFFICIENT.

I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT HERE.

I HOPE YOU WON'T. MY QUESTION IS WHAT WAS DONE TO INSPECT THIS PROPERTY BEFORE WE TAKE ON THE LIABILITY OF CARING FOR THIS BUILDING.

SO WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE SYSTEMS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.

THERE WAS A WALKTHROUGH. THERE WAS A LIST OF REPAIRS THAT WERE TO BE MADE BEFORE THE CITY TAKES OCCUPANCY.

THOSE WILL BE COMPLETED AND THAT WILL BE DOCUMENTED AS THE BASELINE FOR THIS FACILITY.

SO WITH HUNDREDS OF PROPERTIES THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY OWNS, WHY DO WE NEED TO LEASE A NEW PROPERTY? BECAUSE NONE FIT THE NEEDS FOR THIS OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOULD DISAGREE WHY DO WE EVEN NEED TO HAVE A STORE? JUANITA ORTIZ, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES PROCUREMENT SERVICES, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SURPLUS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, DISPOSAL, RESALE AND AUCTION OF THOSE ITEMS. AND SO WE NEED THIS SPACE SO THAT WHEN DEPARTMENTS DO NOT HAVE THE SPACE IN THEIR LOCATIONS TO BRING IT TO US, WE TAKE IT, WE PICK IT UP, WE PUT IT INTO LOTS, WE AUCTION IT OFF.

SO WE NEED A SPACE FOR POLICE CONFISCATED ITEMS. THE AIRPORT LOST AND FOUND AND OTHER CITY SURPLUS FROM DEPARTMENTS.

GREAT. AND ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES HAVING A CITY STORE? SO WE DON'T BELIEVE SO. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT THROUGH AND WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMOUNT OF SPACE WE HAD.

WE DEFINITELY HAD TOO MUCH SPACE IN OUR PREVIOUS LOCATION.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS LOCATION IS ABOUT 4000FT² SMALLER.

BUT I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO ALIGN OUR SPACE WITH OUR NEEDS AT THIS TIME.

WELL, I WENT TO THE FORMER LOCATION OR THE CURRENT LOCATION.

IT DIDN'T SEEM ACTUALLY OVERLY LARGE. BUT WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T SEE THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS, COULD WE NOT HIRE A VENDOR WHO DOES DISPOSAL, A VENDOR WHO DOES RESALE AND A VENDOR WHO DOES AUCTION? AND INSTEAD OF HIRING STAFF, WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO STAFF AT THE STORE AND PAYING RENT AND EXPOSING OURSELVES TO THIS LIABILITY AND THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTING THINGS. INSTEAD, HIRE A VENDOR WHO WILL COME ON SITE, REMOVE THE ITEMS, WHETHER THAT'S FOR DISPOSAL, AUCTION OR RESALE. WE DO HAVE AN AUCTION CONTRACT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE STORAGE.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE USING THE SPACE PRIMARILY FOR.

BUT THE AUCTION CONTRACT WE HAVE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE STORAGE OF OUR ITEMS. WELL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR CURRENT CONTRACT. I'M TALKING ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE TO AN OPERATION OF A CITY STORE AND INSTEAD MOVING TO AN OPERATION WHERE ALL OF THIS IS

[02:10:03]

WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT. OKAY, BUT HOW LONG IS THIS LEASE? IT IS FIVE YEARS. SO YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THIS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.

THERE'S CLAUSES FOR NON APPROPRIATION AT ANY TIME WITH THE ANY WITH THIS LEASE.

WELL I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EVEN EXPLORE NOT HAVING A CITY STORE, WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES AT CITY COUNCIL AND INSTEAD JUST USING VENDORS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.

WE'RE EXPOSING OURSELVES TO LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE'RE ADDING STAFF, WE'RE ADDING LIABILITY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE, AND WE'RE NOT ADDING STAFF.

THE TWO STAFF MEMBERS FOR THIS LOCATION IS WHAT WE'VE HAD BUDGETED.

IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A CITY STORE, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE THOSE EMPLOYEES.

CORRECT. THE TWO STAFF MEMBERS CORRECT. OKAY.

THAT'S THE STAFF THAT WE'RE ADDING, WHICH WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO MANAGE THOSE CONTRACTS AS WELL.

WELL, MAYBE ONE MAYBE. OKAY. WELL, I'M FOR THAT AND I AM NOT FOR HAVING A CITY STORE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. I NOTED TWO NO'S.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER. MENDELSOHN. COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

I'M SORRY. THREE NOS. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROTH, RIDLEY AND MENDELSOHN.

YOUR NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 21. AGENDA ITEM 21

[21. 26-2677A Authorize a one-year cooperative purchasing agreement for computer hardware, accessories, and related services for the Department of Information and Technology Services with GTS Technology Solutions, Inc through The Interlocal Purchasing System and Texas Department of Information Resources cooperative agreements - Estimated amount of $9,326,753.13 - Financing: Data Services Fund ($6,444,805.13), Master Lease Fiscal Year 2025 ($631,948.00), and Master Lease Fiscal Year 2026 Fund ($2,250,000.00)]

ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $9,326,753.13. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN.

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

MISS MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

THIS IS A NEARLY $10 MILLION ITEM. IT'S A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT.

AND SO WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR. I'M SORRY. 9.3 TO TO CLARIFY WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT LEVEL OF SPENDING AUTHORITY, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH OUR ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 24, 25 AND 26.

AND I DID SEND THIS LAST NIGHT AS A QUESTION.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THIS IS JEFF STOVALL, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER AND THE DIRECTOR OF ITS.

WE DID LOOK AT THE EXPENDITURES OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD.

AND THE EXPENDITURES ARE NOT EVEN EXPENDITURES.

AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY. IN 24 FISCAL YEAR 24 THE EXPENDITURE FOR COMPUTERS AND EQUIPMENT WAS ONLY $124,000 IN FY 25. IT WAS $6.9 MILLION IN FY 26. UP TO NOW, $3.4 MILLION IN FY 24. WE HAD A CONTRACT LAPSE WITH OUR MASTER LEASE THAT LASTED ALMOST TWO YEARS. SO DURING THAT TIME, WE DID NOT REFRESH THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY.

SO THE DIFFERENCE AS YOU GO IN FROM 24 TO 25 REPRESENTS SOME AMOUNT OF CATCH UP THAT WAS DONE DURING THAT PERIOD, BECAUSE WE ALSO HAD AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF, OF COMPUTERS THAT WERE LAPTOPS, PARTICULARLY THAT WERE PURCHASED DURING COVID.

OUR LAPTOPS TEND TO HAVE A THREE YEAR WARRANTY ASSOCIATED WITH IT IN A FOUR YEAR REPLACEMENT CYCLE.

SO THAT'S THE PAST EXPENDITURES FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT.

GOING INTO THIS CURRENT YEAR, WE ANTICIPATE APPROXIMATELY 2000 TO 2071 WAS IN THE QUOTE THAT WE GOT OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE REPLACED, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE BOTH HARDWARE, DESKTOP HARDWARE AS WELL AS LAPTOPS.

AND IS THAT TO REPLACE THEM BASED ON A SCHEDULE, OR IS THAT SOME OTHER REASON? SOME OF IT IS DEMAND BASED AS WE GET NEW EMPLOYEES AND ADD NEW EMPLOYEES INTO THE ORGANIZATION.

WE DO HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH COMPUTERS. SOME OF IT IS ON SCHEDULE IN TERMS OF AS WE HAVE UNITS THAT START TO AGE OUT, WE NEED TO REPLACE THEM, PARTICULARLY IF THERE ARE OPERATING SYSTEMS THAT THOSE UNITS SUPPORT ARE NO LONGER BEING SUPPORTED BY MICROSOFT.

[02:15:03]

AND WE HAVE ROUGHLY 2000 THAT WE EXPECT TO DO OUT OF 14,000 IN OUR FLEET FOR NEXT YEAR.

SO YOU'RE SAYING JUST ON A THREE YEAR SCHEDULE YOU'RE LOOKING TO REPLACE ALL OF THEM? NO, NO, WE DON'T REPLACE ALL OF OUR UNITS ON A THREE YEAR SCHEDULE.

SOME OF IT IS GOING TO BE DEMAND BASED BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING EMPLOYEES.

AS WE ADD EMPLOYEES INTO THE ORGANIZATION, WE DO HAVE TO PROVIDE NEW LAPTOPS FOR THEM.

WHEN EMPLOYEES MOVE FROM ONE TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT, PARTICULARLY IN PUBLIC SAFETY.

IF THEY'RE MOVING FROM A FIELD ASSIGNMENT TO A DESK ASSIGNMENT, THEN THEY HAVE TO GET A NEW COMPUTER BECAUSE THE FIELD COMPUTER THAT'S GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO A VEHICLE IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

SO IT'S A MIX OF BOTH DEMAND AS WELL AS THAT THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY AGED OUT IN OUR FLEET.

SO THE INCREASE IN STAFF THAT THE CITY HAS EXPERIENCED OVER THE YEARS, YOU'RE SAYING, CONTRIBUTES TO THIS COST? YES IT DOES. OKAY. SO IF SO, I WILL SAY DURING COVID YOU COULD WALK THROUGH THE HALLS, ESPECIALLY ON L ONE, AND THERE WOULD BE LARGE STACKS OF COMPUTERS, MOSTLY LAPTOPS.

AND THEY WERE JUST SITTING THERE. I MEAN, THE CITY BOUGHT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HARDWARE DURING THAT TIME.

SO I DO UNDERSTAND FISCAL YEAR 24 FOR, FOR SLOWING THAT DOWN.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE LAPSE OF CONTRACT. SO 25.

FISCAL YEAR 25 HAD A $6.9 MILLION SPEND. FISCAL YEAR 26, YOU'RE SAYING 3.4.

SO WHY DO YOU NEED 9.3 THIS YEAR, THE AVERAGE PRICE OF A UNIT THAT WE DEPLOY A LAPTOP OR A DESKTOP, WE'VE AVERAGED OUT THAT PRICE IS OVER $4,600.

AND THAT INCLUDES BOTH THE COST OF THE UNIT AS WELL AS THE COST OF THE WARRANTY THAT COMES WITH THAT UNIT.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT ROUGHLY 2000 OF THOSE DEVICES WILL BE DEPLOYED NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT REPRESENTS THE BULK OF HOW WE GET TO THAT NUMBER BASED OFF OF THE QUOTES, AS WELL AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT WE GET IN ORDER TO IMAGE THOSE DEVICES AND STORE THOSE DEVICES AS THEY'RE NEEDED. SO THE IMAGING IS ALSO PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT WE GET ON THIS MASTER LEASE.

SO THE $4,600 UNIT AND WARRANTY, I MEAN, THAT IS LIKE LOADED WITH SOFTWARE KIND OF THING OR SOFTWARE IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THAT.

NO, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE SOFTWARE. THIS WOULD JUST BE THE BASE IMAGE.

AND THE BASE IMAGE TYPICALLY IS JUST GOING TO BE YOUR MICROSOFT ENVIRONMENT.

WE WOULD ACTUALLY LOAD OTHER OTHER INFORMATION, OTHER SOFTWARE ON IT AS NEEDED, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE USE FOR THAT LAPTOP OR DESKTOP IS.

I CAN ONLY SAY BASED ON THE COMPUTERS THAT MY STAFF HAVE, AND I HAVE $4,600 A UNIT SEEMS VERY, VERY HIGH. IT IS HIGH. WE ARE WE'VE SEEN PRICE INCREASES FOR LAPTOPS AND DESKTOPS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, ALMOST DOUBLE IN PRICE AND UNIT PRICE. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE BROADER MARKET WITH DATA CENTERS AND MEMORY SHORTAGES.

MEMORY SHORTAGES ARE CAUSING HUGE PRICE INCREASES IN DESKTOPS AND LAPTOPS.

WE ANTICIPATE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, OR IT'S FORECAST THAT PRICES FOR LAPTOPS AND DESKTOPS WILL INCREASE 15 TO 20% PER YEAR.

SO THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL COST OF THE UNIT.

WHAT WE HAVE IS AN ESTIMATED COST, AND SO THE ESTIMATED COST DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL COST THAT WILL ACTUALLY PAY FOR A UNIT, WHICH IS LIKELY HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAD WHEN WE ESTIMATED THE FIRST TIME.

SO YOU'RE EXPECTING YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE THAN 4600 PER YEAR.

IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE ON AVERAGE, AND WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT WAYS TO FIND TO REUSE EQUIPMENT TO EXTEND OUT THE EQUIPMENT'S LIFESPAN. SO WE'RE NOT REPLACING THEM. AGAIN, THIS IS 2000 UNITS OUT OF A FLEET OF ABOUT 14,000.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO INCREASE THE LIFESPAN OF A UNIT.

SO WE'RE NOT REPLACING THEM AS FREQUENTLY. YEAH.

WELL I MEAN IT SOUNDS LIKE 14,000 UNITS. WE HAVE 14,000 EMPLOYEES.

AND CERTAINLY NOT EVERY EMPLOYEE NEEDS A DEDICATED COMPUTER.

OR EVEN SOME USE NONE. WELL, IN SOME CASES THERE ARE UNITS THAT ARE NOT ASSIGNED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AT ALL.

TAKE FOR INSTANCE IN YOUR LIBRARY SYSTEMS, THE LIBRARIES HAVE SEVERAL DESKTOPS THAT WOULD BE INSIDE OF A LIBRARY.

THOSE ARE NOT ASSIGNED TO AN INDIVIDUAL BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE.

I UNDERSTAND. WHEN IT SAYS RELATED SERVICES FOR THIS CONTRACT IT SAYS HARDWARE AND ACCESSORIES AND RELATED SERVICES.

[02:20:01]

RELATED SERVICES ARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, PRIMARILY IMAGING SERVICES FOR THOSE DEVICES.

OKAY. AND DID THIS GO TO A COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER? AND IF SO, WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM? YES. THIS ITEM DID GO TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 24TH.

AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. CHAIR WEST, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE ABOUT THIS ITEM THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE IMPORTANT? OKAY. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT, FRANKLY.

AND IF IT HAD COME BACK AND IT WAS SOMETHING MORE LIKE 5 MILLION, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN PULLED IT.

BUT BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A LARGE NUMBER AND MUCH MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE EVER SEEN COME THROUGH FOR THE IT DEPARTMENT, THAT'S WHY I DID. I WASN'T SURE WHAT THE NUMBERS WOULD BE.

SO THANK YOU FOR FOR SAYING THAT OUR HIGHEST NUMBER OF THOSE THREE YEARS IS 6.9 MILLION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE SPENT DURING COVID. THAT WAS KIND OF A FREE FOR ALL.

BUT I WOULD BET THAT WAS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST NUMBER WE'VE EVER HAD.

AND SO NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 30 PLUS PERCENT INCREASE OVER THE HIGHEST NUMBER WE EVER HAD.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE NEED TO DO A NEW PROCUREMENT BECAUSE I THINK YOU COULD GET HARDWARE FOR A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE. THAT IS HIGH QUALITY. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ARE OVERPAYING AND NOT BEING AS PRUDENT AS WE SHOULD BE WITH TAX DOLLARS AND PURCHASING THIS HARDWARE.

THANK YOU. MR. ROTH. IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THESE COMPUTERS THAT YOU'RE BUYING? NO. THESE ARE GENERALLY STANDARD UNITS THAT ARE COMING OFF OF THE DIR CONTRACT.

SO WE HAVE A RANGE OF DIFFERENT UNITS THAT ARE PURCHASED.

THEY'RE NOT ENTIRELY THE SAME DEPENDING ON WHAT THE USAGE IS.

BUT THE LARGEST VOLUME OF THEM WOULD JUST BE A REGULAR LAPTOP.

A REGULAR LAPTOP IS ON THE AVERAGE ABOUT $4,000.

THANK YOU. THERE'S NO WAY I'LL I'M IN FAVOR OF PAYING $4,500 FOR A FOR A LAPTOP COMPUTER.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. WE'RE SPENDING $910 MILLION TO BUY 2000 COMPUTERS.

THAT'S RIDICULOUS. I WOULDN'T BUY IT IN MY BUSINESS.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU ALL WOULD BUY THAT KIND OF THING IN YOUR BUSINESS.

WHY ARE WE DOING IT HERE? NOW, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY, BUT I DO.

I KNOW I GOT TO USE IT, AND I KNOW IT'S A IT'S A TOOL.

AND IF WE'RE SPENDING IF WE'RE BUYING THE CADILLAC, WHEN WE SHOULD BE BUYING THE A KIA VIRGIN, WE, WE NEED TO RELOOK AT THIS STUFF. THIS IS RIDICULOUS TO ME.

AND I'M ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO SPENDING MONEY LIKE THIS OVER SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S A FUNGIBLE PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY.

THIS STUFF DISAPPEARS IN THREE YEARS. IT EXPIRES IN THREE YEARS.

AND WE'RE PAYING WE'RE PAYING FULL BOAT FOR THIS STUFF.

BAD, BAD DECISION FOLKS. I THINK I'M AGAINST IT.

OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NOTED FOR NOS. COUNCIL MEMBER. ROTH.

BLACKMON AND MENDELSOHN. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGENDA ITEM 22. AUTHORIZED ONE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

[22. 26-2678A Authorize (1) Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to increase the cooperative purchasing agreement with AT&T Enterprises, LLC for the purchase of hardware, software, and managed services to upgrade the City's 9-1-1 system for the Department of Information and Technology Services; and (2) extend the term for five years from August 10, 2026 to August 10, 2031 - Not to exceed $10,351,125.00, from $9,960,327.12 to $20,311,452.12 - Financing: 9-1-1 System Operations Fund (subject to annual appropriations)]

NOT TO EXCEED $10,351,125, FROM $9,916,327.12 TO $20,311,452.12. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN MOVED TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MISS MENDELSOHN.

YES, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS FOR 901 AND IT ALLOWS TEXT TO 911 VIDEO IMAGES.

THIS ALREADY EXISTS, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND IT'S THE SAME SOFTWARE OR IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[02:25:02]

THANK YOU. AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WOULD KNOW THIS QUESTION.

PERHAPS IT'S JACK, BUT HOW MUCH IS IN THE 911 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FUND THAT'S BEING USED TO PURCHASE THIS. LET ME TAKE A LOOK.

SO THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR 911. SO IN SO IN THE INFORMATION WE WERE GIVEN, THE FISCAL INFORMATION SAYS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE A 911 SYSTEM OPERATIONS FUND FOR THIS FOR $2 MILLION. YES. AND SO THAT FUND YOU GOT A LITTLE HELP COMING MAYBE.

YES. THANK YOU. YEAH. WE'RE AT $18 MILLION. $18 MILLION IS SITTING IN THAT FUND RIGHT NOW. CORRECT. THAT'S THE TOTAL EXTENT.

THAT WAS THE TOTAL EXPECTED EXPENDITURES ANTICIPATED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

I'M SORRY. YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S HOW MUCH YOU'RE EXPECTING TO SPEND ON 911 THIS YEAR? YES. OKAY. THAT'S NOT WHAT MY QUESTION IS. OKAY.

MY QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH IS IN THE 911 SYSTEM OPERATIONS FUND? THAT WAS THE FUND IDENTIFIED AS THE SOURCE TO PAY FOR THIS.

HERE COMES JACKIE'S. MORE HELP! COMING. MORE COMING.

HEY. GOOD AFTERNOON. OR GOOD MORNING? JACK GARLAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

THE EXPECTED ENDING FUND BALANCE FOR 911 SYSTEM FUND FOR SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 26 IS JUST UNDER $19 MILLION. WE DID INCREASE OUR REIMBURSEMENTS TO POLICE AND FIRE OUT OF FUND BALANCE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET. SO THERE IS A PLAN TO SPEND SOME OF THAT DOWN IN THE 27 BUDGET.

I DON'T RECALL THAT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE ARE ENDING THIS YEAR WITH JUST UNDER 19 MILLION.

AND IS THAT BUDGET RESTRICTED TO THIS KIND OF USE OR TO OTHER USES? IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO THIS TYPE OF USE. WE'VE USED IT FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR THEIR WORK IN 911 FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO ITS, FOR THEIR STAFF ASSOCIATED WITH IT OR FOR EQUIPMENT FOR THE 911 SYSTEM.

OKAY. AND SO THAT 19 MILLION THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER THIS 2 MILLION.

THE 2 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 27. SO IT'S GOING TO BE AFTER THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT'LL BE 19 AND THEN THE 2 MILLION WILL COME OUT OF THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN DID THE CONTRACT FOR THIS EXPIRE IN AUGUST.

LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK HERE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE FULLY EXPIRED AT THIS POINT.

NO, WE HAD AN EXTENSION ON THIS CONTRACT. THE AGREEMENT WOULD EXTEND THIS AGREEMENT INTO AUGUST OF OF NEXT YEAR.

AUGUST OF 2023 IS THE PLAN FOR THIS. SO IT'S A FIVE YEAR, BUT I THINK WE HAVE AN EXTENSION ON THAT.

I WOULD ASK THAT. WELL THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS I BELIEVE THE ITEM THAT THE CITY SECRETARY READ AND IS PART OF OUR AGENDA SAYS EXTEND THE TERM. AND THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM IS AUGUST OF THIS OF 2026.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT MAY HAVE EXPIRED. WE'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.

I'M SEEING WE'RE HAVING A CONFERENCE OVER HERE ON THE SIDE AS TO WHETHER THAT WAS AN EXPIRATION OR NOT.

AS A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, WERE YOU NOTIFIED THAT THE CONTRACT WOULD BE EXPIRING? I WOULD BE NOTIFIED IF THEY WERE EXPIRING. AND TYPICALLY IF IT WAS EXPIRING, WE WOULD ACCELERATE THE TIMING TO GET IT TO YOU BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE.

WELL, ONE WOULD HOPE, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

[02:30:03]

IT'S IN THIS INSTANCE AT&T HAD THE CONTRACT FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS ON THE RENEWAL, WHICH IS WHAT PASSED OUR LINE OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND ITS EXTENSION. AT&T REALIZED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY KEPT THIS CONTRACT AND IN ORDER TO LEAD LONG AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND SO THEY SENT US A SENT US DOCUMENTATION SAYING THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO DO OUR SERVICES WHILE WE WORK TO GET CONTRACT IN PLACE.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS TODAY. CITY MANAGER THIS IS VERY CONCERNING THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT SERVICE, 911, WAS ACTUALLY OPERATING RIGHT NOW WITHOUT A CONTRACT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF AT&T WAS HOLDING IT. IT'S OUR CONTRACT WITH THEM.

AND WE LET THE BALL. WE MISSED IT. AND I YOU KNOW IT'S ONLY BECAUSE IF YOU ACTUALLY START READING IT YOU KEEP SEEING THAT AUGUST DATE OVER AND OVER. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? YES. SO THE RENEWAL STARTED. WE STARTED THAT PROCESS IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE HERE AT THE CITY.

WE DIDN'T FACTOR IN A THREE MONTH GAP IN GETTING THAT DOCUMENTATION BACK FROM AT&T.

AND THAT IS HOW WE GOT TO THE POINT OF. SO WHAT KIND OF FOLLOW UP HAPPENED IN THAT THREE MONTHS WHILE YOU WERE WAITING FOR IT? WE CONTINUED LIKE I'D BE PHONING A FRIEND EVERY DAY.

YES. WELL, WE DID WE CONTINUED TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH AT&T REQUESTING THAT UPDATE THOSE RENEWAL REDLINES AND THINGS BACK SO THAT WE COULD GET THAT CONTRACT THROUGH.

AND IT ENDED UP BEING THREE MONTHS BEFORE THEY FINALLY GOT US THE FINAL CONTRACT BACK.

RESPECTFULLY, IF THIS WAS TOP OF MIND, I THINK JEFF WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE CONTRACT HAD EXPIRED.

SO, CHAIRMAN WEST, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO PUT THAT AS AN ITEM FOR THE AUDITOR TO EVALUATE THE EXPIRATION OF CONTRACTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY IMPROVE OUR PROCESS BECAUSE QUITE A FEW OF OUR CONTRACTS ARE FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS.

THANK YOU, MR. ROFF. THANK YOU. DON'T LEAVE, DON'T LEAVE ANYWAY.

OKAY. YOU CAN LEAVE. IT'S UP TO YOU. I'M REALLY AGAIN, THIS COMPUTER PURCHASING ALL THE THE IT THAT WE'RE PURCHASING. THIS IS MYSTERY PURCHASES TO ME.

AND I THINK IT'S MYSTERY PURCHASES FOR A LOT OF US.

AND THESE NUMBERS ARE HUGE. AND HERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT ARE YOU BUYING? WHAT KIND OF HARDWARE ARE YOU BUYING ON A CONTRACT THAT YOU'RE EXTENDING? ARE YOU BUYING NEW HARDWARE? ALSO THIS IS A MANAGED SERVICE.

AND SO THE HARDWARE THAT'S BEING PROCURED ON THIS SERVICE IS HARDWARE THAT WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY AT&T, NOT BY THE CITY. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE NEW CITY HARDWARE THAT WOULD BE BUYING ON THIS CONTRACT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT BUYING IT BUT WE'RE PAYING FOR IT.

WELL, IN A MANAGED SERVICE, THE SERVICE USUALLY INCORPORATES SOME LEVEL OF BOTH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT EXIST.

IT WOULD INCORPORATE SOME SOFTWARE THAT WOULD EXIST AND SOMETIMES HARDWARE DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE MANAGED SERVICE.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AT&T IS PROVIDING THE BULK OF THAT ACTIVITY.

AND SO THEY'RE CHARGING US FOR THE BASKET OF THOSE GOODS.

IT'S NOT ANY ONE PARTICULAR. IT'S THE BASKET OF THOSE GOODS THAT COMPRISE THE SERVICE.

THAT ALLOWS US TO HAVE 911 SERVICE WITH THE CITY.

AND SO THIS IS A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT. SO YOU'RE BASICALLY PAYING 2 MILLION BUCKS A YEAR IS THE THAT'S THE CONTRACT.

IT'S $2 $2 MILLION A YEAR FOR THIS SERVICE, SO TO SPEAK.

CORRECT. AND HOW DID THAT COMPARE TO THE PREVIOUS THREE YEAR SERVICE THAT YOU HAD THAT WAS ROUGHLY COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING AS WELL.

DID YOU GET A IS IT A DEAL FOR US? IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GETTING THE RIGHT VALUE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING? HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THIS STUFF WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THESE PROCUREMENTS? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. IT'S NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A VALUE JUDGMENT ON IF YOU NEED THIS MACHINE, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY ARE YOU HOW ARE YOU DECIDING HOW TO BUY IT? AND HOW ARE YOU DECIDING TO SPEND OUR MONEY TO DO THAT? AND WHEN I SAY YOU, I'M TALKING ABOUT US AS A AS A CITY.

HOW ARE WE DOING THIS? BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

IT'S OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY. AND THIS, THIS BUDGET FOR IT IS HUGE IN THIS IN THIS DEAL.

WE NEED IT. WE GOT TO BE WE GOT TO BE UP FRONT LINE.

WE GOT TO BE CUTTING EDGE. WE GOT TO BE UP TO DATE.

I'M NOT SAYING WE COMPROMISE ON OUR IT SERVICES AND OUR ABILITY TO TO BE PROACTIVE.

[02:35:03]

NET IS A SERVICE THAT'S A REGULATED SERVICE. THERE'S FEDERAL REGULATIONS AS WELL AS STATE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS SERVICE.

SO THE NUMBER OF VENDORS THAT CAN ACTUALLY APPLY RESPOND TO THIS IS VERY LIMITED.

AND IN THIS CASE, AT&T HAS BEEN THE VENDOR THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

WE'RE LOOKING TO CONTINUE THAT CONTRACT. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A DISRUPTION IN THAT CONTRACT AS WE'RE CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR PLANS AROUND HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR 911? WE THINK THAT THIS IS THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE 911 SERVICE FOR THE CITY.

I DO BELIEVE THAT AS WE'RE COMING TO THE END OF THIS, THAT WE DO NEED TO DO A COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT.

BUT THOSE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS TYPICALLY HAVE MAYBE A THREE YEAR RUNWAY ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED SYSTEM. IT'S NOT JUST A TELEPHONE SYSTEM.

IT'S CONNECTED TO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS. SO IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO ENGINEER IT. IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GO THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS AND MAKE A DECISION, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST AS WE COME TO THE END OF THIS ONE, TO GIVE OURSELVES THAT THREE YEAR RUNWAY, TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT FOR A COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT, TO SEE WHAT THE MARKET HAS AVAILABLE FOR US IN THIS AREA.

BUT AT&T HAS BEEN OUR PARTNER ON THIS FOR MANY YEARS.

IT'S NOT A REFLECTION ON AT&T. THEY'RE A GREAT.

THEY'RE A GREAT COMPANY. THEY'RE A GREAT SERVICE PROVIDER IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND IT'S. BUT WE DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE BUYING.

AND IF. ARE WE DOING A FIVE YEAR DEAL BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO A FIVE YEAR DEAL.

IF YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD EVALUATE THIS THING IN THREE YEARS, CAN WE DO IT IN.

OR WHAT IS THE WHAT'S THE RUNWAY AND LEAD TIME AND AGAIN.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M NOT TRYING TO TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO REEVALUATE TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES AND TECHNOLOGY CHANGES AND ADVANCEMENTS.

TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING REALLY, REALLY FAST. AND IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, ARE WE IS THIS THE RIGHT THING FIVE YEARS FROM NOW? AND I'M ASKING YOU, YOU GUYS ARE THE EXPERTS AND I'M NEEDING YOUR ADVICE AND YOUR DIRECTION.

AND IF YOU THINK THIS IS THE WAY WE SHOULD GO, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY.

WELL, GIVEN THE DURATION OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO ACTUALLY RUN A PROCUREMENT AND TO EXECUTE ON THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THIS IS THE RECOMMENDED PATH. WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PATH THAT WE WOULD TAKE IN A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GET THAT.

BECAUSE IF I WERE TO EVEN START TODAY AND TRY TO HAVE A SEPARATE VENDOR GO BACK INTO ANOTHER ENVIRONMENT, THAT WOULD EASILY BE THREE YEARS. IT COULD BE LONGER, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE AT THE END OF ONE CONTRACT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE THE NEXT CONTRACT AND BRING ON THE NEXT VENDOR AND BE MAKING A MOVE.

SO THE FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME IS RECOMMENDED FOR THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE.

THAT WOULD NOT BE TRUE FOR EVERY SERVICE. BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS PUBLIC SAFETY, IT'S VERY HIGHLY SPECIALIZED.

IT'S VERY THERE'S NOT A HUGE MARKET THAT YOU CAN GO FROM ONE VENDOR TO ANOTHER WITH THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE.

AND IT IS CRITICAL TO THE CITY SERVICES. FIVE YEARS IS RECOMMENDED HERE WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF BEING ABLE TO GO OUT IN THAT PERIOD FOR COMPETITIVE REBID.

I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION AND WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME AND WHICH I HOPE EVERYBODY IS UNDERSTANDING TOO, IS THAT WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE IN THINKING ABOUT THE STRATEGY TO REEVALUATE OUR CONTRACT PROCUREMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE WHEN WE HAVE SORT OF HANDCUFFED TYPES OF, OF ARRANGEMENTS WITH FOLKS, AND WE CAN'T MOVE OUT OF THOSE VERY EASILY. THAT'S NOT TO DISPARAGE THE FOLKS THAT ARE PROVIDING THIS GOOD SERVICE AND VALUE, BUT THEY NEED TO KNOW ALSO THAT WE HAVE A CHOICE AND THAT WE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMPETITIVE, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT MATERIALS, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT VALUES AND THAT WE'RE PAYING THE RIGHT PRICE.

AND, AND, AND I NEED YOU ALL TO BE HELPING US FORMULATE THAT PLAN AND PROCESS FOR STRATEGICALLY PURCHASING THESE KIND OF TECHNOLOGY STUFF THAT YOU ONLY, YOU'RE THE GUYS WHO KNOW ABOUT IT.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR, FOR ALLOWING ME TO, TO, TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

MR. RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO JUST FOR CLARITY.

DO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE COMMITTED TO PROCURING THIS SYSTEM DURING THE FIVE YEAR TERM OF THIS CONTRACT? I AM I'M COMMITTED TO ACTUALLY DOING A COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT.

YES. OKAY. NOW, THE ANSWER THAT YOU GAVE TO COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE

[02:40:02]

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IT'S AN EXTENSION OF CAPABILITIES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

OKAY. SO THE AGENDA WHERE IT SAYS THAT THIS WOULD BE AN UPGRADE TO THE CITY'S 911 SYSTEM IS REALLY A MISNOMER.

IT'S JUST A MAINTAINING OF THE EXISTING SYSTEMS CAPABILITIES.

I THINK THE BETTER WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT IS AN EVOLUTION OVER TIME.

WE STARTED WITH THE PROCESS AROUND MOVING TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS NEXT GENERATION 9113 YEARS AGO, WELL, ACTUALLY LONGER THAN THAT 2022 WHERE WE STARTED MOVING OVER THE ANALOG ENVIRONMENTS TO THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT.

SO THIS CONTINUES THAT TREND TO HELP US TO HELP KEEP US FEDERALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE 99911 REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR OUR PUBLIC ACCESS. SO AFTER FOUR YEARS, THIS DIGITAL CONVERSION IS STILL INCOMPLETE.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IT'S NOT INCOMPLETE IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S NO LONGER IT'S NOT FUNCTIONAL, BUT IT IS NOT COMPLETE IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE ALL THE CAPABILITIES THAT ARE ENVISIONED FOR A NEXT GENERATION 911 SYSTEM, BECAUSE THOSE THOSE SYSTEMS ARE NOT STAGNANT AND YOU DON'T DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE.

YOU HAVE TO APPROACH THIS OVER TIME. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S THE OBLIGATION OF AT&T TO CONTINUE THIS UPGRADE UNDER THIS CONTRACT? YES THEY WOULD. THE SCOPE OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO STAY CURRENT WITH THE NEXT GENERATION 911 PLAN. OKAY. AND THEN FINALLY THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS A $2 MILLION ANNUAL COST, EQUALING A LITTLE OVER $10 MILLION. SO WHY DOES THE AGENDA ITEM SAY THAT IT'S $10 MILLION FROM $9.9 MILLION TO $20 MILLION? BECAUSE IT'S AN EXTENSION OF A PRIOR CONTRACT.

SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT WE HAD AN EARLIER CONTRACT.

WE'RE EXTENDING THAT CONTRACT. AND WHAT YOU SEE IS THE EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT.

OH. SO THE 20 MILLION INCLUDES THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS.

YES. OKAY. AND SO THIS IS NOT AN INCREASE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

THIS IS RELATIVELY THE SAME AT 2 MILLION PER YEAR.

RELATIVELY THE SAME. I'M SURE WE HAVE SOME ESCALATION THAT'S BUILT IN TO THESE CONTRACTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS WELL.

BUT IT'S TYPICALLY SMALL. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SAME EXACT SERVICE WE HAVE TODAY THAT THIS WILL APPROVE. CONTRACTS WILL BE SIGNED. IT'LL BE THE SAME SERVICE TOMORROW, ALTHOUGH WE DO BENEFIT FROM ONGOING UPGRADES THAT AT&T MAKES TO THEIR OWN SERVICE BOTH IN TERMS OF CAPABILITIES AND SECURITY.

AND THEY MIGHT ADD ON ANOTHER FEATURE, BUT IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING WE HAVE.

CORRECT. SAME SERVICE. YEAH. SAME SERVICE. AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT I MEAN THIS, THIS WAS A MASSIVE UPGRADE FOR DALLAS.

WHEN WE GOT THIS SERVICE, IT ALLOWED PEOPLE TO TEXT US.

AND YOU CAN IMAGINE, ESPECIALLY WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE'S HIDING AND THEY CAN'T TALK ON THE PHONE OR SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T ABLE TO VERBALIZE CAN TEXT 911. NOW IT'S IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

OR THEY CAN SHOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THEIR SITUATION.

SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED THIS.

IT'S A CRITICAL, CRITICAL COMPONENT OF 901 AND IS PART OF THE NEXT GEN.

STANDARD AND AND EFFORTS THAT WE'VE BEEN MAKING.

HOWEVER, THAT'S WHY IT'S ALSO ALARMING THAT IT WENT OUT OF CONTRACT AND THAT WE WEREN'T WATCHING THAT.

AND I AM GLAD TO LEARN ABOUT THIS SYSTEM OPERATIONS FUND.

SO THANK YOU FOR, FOR SHARING THAT BALANCE. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 32. IS A RESOLUTION FOR THE OWNER CITIES OF DALLAS AND FORT WORTH TO

[32. 26-2765A A resolution for the Owner Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth to approve the purchase of the Hyatt Regency at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport as a Public Facility Improvement Corporation (PFIC) Project, as required under the Articles of Incorporation of the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport PFIC - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

PFIC PROJECT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

PFIC! THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMON.

I HEAR A MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION. ANYONE.

YES, PLEASE. MISS BLACKMON. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR ALL THE DATA.

I'VE TRIED TO RECONCILE IT ALL. I'VE TALKED TO MR.

[02:45:03]

BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN? WE'RE BUYING. WE'RE WE'RE THE THE DFW IS BUYING A HOTEL AND IT'S THE OLD ONE.

IT'S NOT TERMINAL D, CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. SO EXPLAIN. AND I TRULY DID READ THIS AND I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE IT, BUT THIS IS THE REALLY THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD OF THIS IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION.

SO IF YOU COULD BE VERY ELEMENTARY BUT QUICK, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATIVE.

YES. SO KEVIN HAAS, VP OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR DFW AIRPORT.

HAPPY TO BE HERE. SO P FIC, WHICH IS A SECONDARY ENTITY OF THE AIRPORT'S, WHICH WAS PUT IN PLACE IN THE EARLY 2000 TO FINANCE, OPERATE, CONSTRUCT AIRPORT PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT THE TRAVELING PUBLIC.

HOTELS, BEING ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF ENTERPRISES, HAS BUILT AND OPERATES THREE HOTELS ON THE AIRPORT.

THIS IS THE LEGACY HOTEL AT TERMINAL C THAT DATES BACK 50 YEARS.

IT'S ON A LONG TERM GROUND LEASE. THE OPPORTUNITY WAS PRESENTED FOR TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY SO THAT WE WOULD ULTIMATELY OWN ALL FOUR HOTELS ON THE AIRPORT.

OKAY. SO IS THIS THE FUND WHERE ALL OF YOUR. BECAUSE WE HAD ANOTHER ONE THAT WENT THROUGH CONSENT.

IS THIS THE FUND WHERE ALL OF THE HOTEL PROPERTIES ARE MANAGED, LIKE THE THE LOGISTICAL AND ALL OF THOSE AND THOSE THOSE ITEMS. RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE AS THE CITY OWNER DOES NOT GET ANY KIND OF DIVIDEND FROM THAT FUND, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. CAN I ASK WHY IS IT THE WAY IT WAS STRUCTURED? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S AN ENTERPRISE? COULD WE OPEN IT BACK UP AND SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, A ROYALTY CHECK FROM THERE BECAUSE WE ARE A CITY OWNER AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PAID FOR AND Y'ALL ARE IN.

SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS ON HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE AND NOT JUST THE AIRPORT, BUT THE OWNER CITIES TOO. AND IT'S JUST A QUESTION IN DISCUSSION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.

ABSOLUTELY. SO DUE TO THE, THE FEDERAL REVENUE DIVERSION REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE, THE REVENUE GENERATED BY THIS HOTEL WILL STAY ON THE AIRPORT AS AIRPORT REVENUE. IT IS NOT IT CANNOT BE SHARED LEGALLY WITH OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPORT.

AND THAT IS A THAT'S A FEDERAL RULE. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. AND SO IF THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED, YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS IN WHICH TO ALTER THAT RULING OR THAT, THAT LAW. CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE AND THIS IS A WAY IT IS ACROSS ALL AIRPORTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

CORRECT. AND DO MOST AIRPORTS OWN HOTELS ON THEIR PROPERTY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. DETROIT HAS ONE.

DENVER. SAN FRANCISCO. ORLANDO. THERE ARE DIFFERENT AIRPORTS THAT HAVE HOTELS ON THEM.

AND SO YOU SAID YOU THIS WAS SINCE THE EARLY 2000.

AND WHAT IS IN THIS PORTFOLIO? WE JUST DID THREE TODAY.

I THINK THREE PROPERTIES WENT INTO THE. CORRECT.

OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE'S THE OPERATING GRAND HYATT, THE HYATT PLACE.

WE'RE CONSTRUCTING THE HYATT HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

THIS WOULD BE THE FOURTH HOTEL. AGAIN, THIS IS ON A LONG TERM GROUND LEASE. THAT'S 40 YEARS IN RIGHT NOW.

SO THERE'S 59 YEARS REMAINING. SO THIS WILL BE AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASEHOLD FROM THE CURRENT LEASE HOLDER TO THE FIC ORGANIZATION.

THE ONLY OTHER ENTITY I BELIEVE IS THE I'M SORRY, THE RENTAL CAR CENTER IS A FIC ENTITY.

OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S A LEGACY OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THE CAR RENTAL WAS IN THERE.

OKAY. YEAH, I I WISH WE COULD FIGURE OUT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE.

ANYWAY, I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE WE COULD SOMEBODY CREATIVE ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MONETIZE THIS FOR OUR CITY, BECAUSE I KNOW FORT WORTH IS PROBABLY NEEDING IT, TOO.

AND, AND AS WE SEE WITH LEFT FIELD, THEY HAVE THE BEST ROADS GOING TO.

AND YOU ALL HAVE THE BEST ROADS TOO. AND IT'S LIKE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KEEP, YOU HAVE TO SPEND YOUR MONEY.

AND SO, BUT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING UNDER EVERY CUSHION.

AND SO IT'S NO, NO FAULT TO YOU GUYS, BUT IT WAS AN INVESTMENT MADE IN THE 60S AND IT'S PAID DIVIDENDS.

AND SO IT'S HOPEFUL THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, GIVE SOME TO MAMA AND DADDY ALONG THE WAY.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU, MR. RIDLEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO WHAT IS THE BUSINESS PLAN OF THE DFW AIRPORT BOARD TO ACQUIRE ALL OF THESE HOTELS? SO THREE OF THEM WERE BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED BY THE AIRPORT.

THIS ONE, AGAIN WAS BUILT, I THINK, 50 YEARS AGO AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.

THE, THE OPPORTUNITY CAME ABOUT TO OWN ALL FOUR HOTELS.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH THIS TRANSACTION AGAIN.

IT WOULD ALLOW US TO CONTROL OUR DESTINY AS FAR AS THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE, THE REVENUE AND THE EXPENSE THAT GOES INTO OPERATING THESE PROPERTIES.

WELL, IS THIS HOTEL PROFITABLE? YES. AND WHY IS A 50 YEAR OLD HOTEL WORTH $200 MILLION? THAT'S WHAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL SHOWS.

IT IS AS 59 YEARS OF TERM REMAINING BASED ON THE REVENUE, THE FORECAST OF PERFORMANCE OF THAT PROPERTY.

[02:50:02]

THAT'S CORRECT. DO YOU DOES DFW HAVE ANY PLANS TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.

CERTAINLY TO REFURBISH IT AND BRING IT BACK INTO FIRST CLASS CATEGORIES? ABSOLUTELY. WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF DFW AIRPORT THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR TRAVELING PUBLIC.

BUT YOU SEE IT AS LONG TERM, REMAINING A HOTEL THERE.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY FIGURES ON ITS OCCUPANCY RATE? I'M SORRY. OCCUPANCY RATE. IN THE 70S TO 80S AT ANY GIVEN DAY.

AT 70 TO 80%. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. MR. ROTH.

YOU'RE EDUCATING ME ABOUT HOW YOU ALL ARE OPERATING.

WHO OWNS THE GROUND LEASE? DOES THE AIRPORT OWNS THE GROUND LEASE? THE GROUND LEASE IS WITH WOULD. LET ME LET ME GET THE NAME.

IS IT A THIRD PARTY OR IS IT A RELATED PARTY TO THE TO THE.

IT IS NOT. IT WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS AN AFFILIATED ENTITY OF THE AIRPORT, BUT CURRENTLY IS WITH WOODLAKE HR, DFW HOTEL OWNER, LLC, THAT IS A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT HOLDS THAT GROUND LEASE RIGHT NOW.

REALLY. SO IN THE AIRPORT, THERE'S PRIVATE LANDOWNERS THAT HAVE GROUND LEASES IN THE AIRPORT.

THEY, THEY THE AIRPORT IS THE FEE SIMPLE OWNER.

AND THERE ARE GROUND LEASES ACROSS THE AIRPORT.

YES. I'M SORRY. OKAY. SO THIS. THERE'S A LEASE.

SOMEBODY LEASING FROM THE AIRPORT. THE GROUND.

CORRECT. AND THEY'RE THEN. THEN THEY'RE ALLOWING HYATT TO BUILD THE HOUSE, THE BUILD THE BUILDING ON TOP OF IT.

WE'RE BUYING. THE AIRPORT'S BUYING THE BUILDING.

WE'RE BUYING THE LEASEHOLD OF THE BUILDING BACK. YES.

AND THE LEASEHOLD. YES. OKAY. HOW BIG IS THE.

HOW MANY ROOMS IS THE. IS THE HYATT. 811 KEYS.

OKAY. AND IT'S $200 MILLION. 1193.65 TO BE ACCURATE, GIVE OR TAKE.

JUST FOR THE RECORD. ALRIGHTY. AND WHAT'S THE PROCESS ON APPROVING THAT THE THE AIRPORT BOARD HAS TO APPROVE IT.

THE DOES THIS P WHAT IS IT CALLED? THE PFIC IS IT'S GOT A SEPARATE IT'S A SEPARATE ENTITY.

IT'S GOT A SEPARATE BOARD. CORRECT. WHAT'S THE PROCESS OF OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS BEFORE IT COMES TO US AS AN OWNER? AS A PART OWNER OF THE AIRPORT. SO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED IT ON JULY 29TH, AND THE AIRPORT BOARD APPROVED IT ON AUGUST 6TH.

SO FOR, FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND FOR FORT WORTH CITY COUNCIL, IT'S TO DESIGNATE THE PROJECT AS A ELIGIBLE PROJECT, WHICH IS PART OF THE ORIGINATING DOCUMENTS AND FOUNDING OF FIC AS AN ORGANIZATION.

AND WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM TO BUY THIS FROM FIC.

AND THEY HAVE. THEY GO OUT. DO THEY SUBMIT BONDS? DO THEY. WHAT DO THEY. HOW DO THEY FIND. DO THEY HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BANK SITTING THERE? YEAH. THIS IS BRIAN BUTLER. I'M THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT.

I'M SORRY. I'M THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AT DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

SO WE MENTIONED THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER THERE.

THEY ARE GENERATING CASH FLOW TO GENERATE THE FUNDS REQUIRED FOR THIS ACQUISITION.

THERE WILL BE SOME DEBT FINANCING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

INITIALLY, IT WILL GO ON A COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM THAT THE AIRPORT HAS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S ALL PAID THROUGH THE. ORGANIZATION, THROUGH THE CASH FLOW GENERATION OF THE PROPERTIES.

OKAY. SO IT'S A SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL, SORT OF SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL. IT'S A NONPROFIT. IT'S BASICALLY SIMILAR TO A PFC OR HFC.

SOMETHING SIMILAR. CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. BAZALDUA THANK YOU. MAYOR. CAN YOU KIND OF GIVE ME A JUST HIGH LEVEL OF WHAT? WHY IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR FOR DFW TO OPERATE THIS ENTITY? YEAH. I JUST THINK STRATEGICALLY, AS THE OWNER OF THREE OF THE HOTELS TO OWN THE FOURTH ALLOWS US TO HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THEM AND TAKE THE DESTINY OF IT NOT BEING HELD BY A AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ENTITY. IT'S THE WHY IS IT BENEFICIAL FOR THAT FOR THE FOR DFW AIRPORT TO HAVE THIS ENTITY IMPLEMENTED AND BEING ABLE TO MAKE PURCHASES, ETC..

YEAH. SO THIS IS A, AS KEVIN MENTIONED, THIS WAS AN ENTITY SET UP IN THE EARLY 2000.

WE HAVE A LOT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS GOING ON AT THE AIRPORT.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE REQUIRE THE AIRLINES APPROVAL.

THIS IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE AIRLINE APPROVAL FOR KIND OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE FIC BOARD OUR AIRPORT BOARD, AS WELL AS BOTH THE CITIES OF DALLAS AND FORT WORTH, TO DESIGNATE ANY POTENTIAL BUSINESS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PORTFOLIO.

BASED ON THAT, WE CAN THEN USE THE FUNDS INSIDE OF THAT TO FURTHER THE TRAVELING EXPERIENCE.

[02:55:04]

SO THEY, WE DON'T NEED THEIR OFFICIAL APPROVAL TO PURSUE THESE.

THAT MAKES SENSE. IT'S MORE STREAMLINED, A LITTLE EASIER FOR THE AIRPORT TO GET THINGS DONE WITHOUT THE BUREAUCRACY AND THE RED TAPE.

NOW WITH THAT SAID, WHO IS OPERATING AND UNDER WHAT BUDGET IS THE OPERATIONS OF THIS FACILITY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED FROM FID? IS IT IS IT A ON YOUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET? SO SO AGAIN, IT HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE BUDGET, HAS ITS OWN REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES.

NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FID. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL NOW AS NOT BEING OWNED BY FID.

OKAY. SO I MEAN CURRENTLY YEAH. IT'S IT'S, IT'S, IT'S OPERATED BY THE CURRENT OWNER.

IT WILL NOW BE OPERATED BY PFI ONCE WE ASSUME THE LEASE.

BUT WE WILL HAVE A HOTEL MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HYATT, WHICH IS LONG STANDING. AND IT RUNS THE SAME TERM AS THE LEASE AGREEMENT ITSELF. SO HYATT WILL BE THE MANAGER THROUGH THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT OF THAT PROPERTY AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THE PROFIT AND LOSS.

DOES THIS PURCHASE TAKE ANY BURDEN OFF OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET OF THE DFW AIRPORT? IS THERE ANY FISCAL NOTE AT ALL TO THIS? I MEAN, THESE ARE SEPARATE LEGAL FUNDS AND THE REVENUES GENERATED AT THE AIRPORT ARE NOT TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE OPERATIONS OF THE FIC. NO, I GET THAT.

I GUESS WHAT I'M WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHAT MISS BLACKMON BROUGHT UP, WHICH I DO THINK IS IS WORTH A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION.

I WAS GOING TO ASK CHAIRMAN RIDLEY IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO BRING THE DFW BOARD MEMBERS TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ON HOW WE COULD LOOK IF, IF NOT IN A DIRECT WAY OF WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ON MONETIZING ASSETS OR LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH LIKE SURROUNDING DEVELOPABLE LAND AT DFW, BUT ALSO IN, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE FID ORGANIZATION IN IN THEORY WILL FREE UP SOME BURDEN AT ALL WITHIN THE, WITHIN DFW BUDGET.

DOES THAT OPEN UP OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STIPEND SITUATION OR SOME SORT OF SUCCESS METRIC. BUT I BELIEVE THAT I MEAN, THAT THAT FORT WORTH AS WELL WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF REVENUE GENERATOR OUT OF, OUT OF THIS MORE SO THAN WHAT IT IS NOW INDIRECTLY FROM ECONOMIC IMPACT.

SO IF YOU'RE WILLING, I'D LOVE TO HAVE MORE OF A CONVERSATION.

MAY I RESPOND, MR. MAYOR? NO, SIR. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.

I'LL CERTAINLY TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT. IT STRIKES ME THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A RENEGOTIATION OF THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT WITH FORT WORTH AND DFW AIRPORT. MR. CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL? JUST BRIEFLY. VERY BRIEFLY. IT WOULD REQUIRE A NUMBER OF THINGS.

I DON'T EVEN. I'D HAVE TO LOOK THE DOCUMENT TO SEE ALL THAT IT WOULD ENTAIL FOR US TO START THAT PROCESS.

WELL, I WILL COMMIT TO VISITING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF THIS IS LEGALLY FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES, AND THEN PROCEED ACCORDINGLY IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO PUT IT ON THE THE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RIDLEY. AND MADAM CITY MANAGER, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TALKED OFTEN ABOUT THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE ON MONETIZING OUR ASSETS. I KNOW THAT DFW SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION.

IF, IF WE COULD JUST ADD THIS AS A PRIORITY, I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ON IF, WHEN THE TIMELINE WOULD BE THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF IMPACT. BUT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE EXPLORING ANY AND ALL OPTIONS AS THEY COME UP.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR. WE DEFINITELY CAN COMMIT TO THAT.

I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME PRIOR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY OF FORT WORTH.

AND I THINK FROM EVEN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED DURING OUR DART PROCESS RECENTLY, I THINK THAT WE COULD WORK IN COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN RIDLEY AS WELL AS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR.

[34. 26-2766A An ordinance amending Ordinance No. (number), previously approved on (appropriate date), authorizing amendments to the Chapter 1, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport’s Code of Rules and Regulations, in accordance with Section 1-8 to provide for fines consistent with state law, including fines of up to $500.00 for violations of the Airport’s rules and regulations, except for violations relating to fire safety, public health and sanitation, or the dumping of refuse, for which the maximum fine is $2,000.00, and except when another fine is fixed by state law - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON AGENDA ITEM 34.

RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2026 AND DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO RE NOTICE THIS ITEM

[03:00:02]

AND SO WE NEED TO DEFER IT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING SO THAT IT CAN BE PROPERLY NOTICED.

OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW AT YOUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION,

[35. 26-2545A Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)]

MARGARET H. PATTERSON PEARSON IS BEING NOMINATED TO THE COMMISSION ON DISABILITIES BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

MISS PATTERSON PEARSON MEETS THE. COMMITTED TO THE COMMUNITY OF DISABLED PERSONS SPECIAL QUALIFICATION.

THIS IS YOUR NOMINEE, MR. MAYOR. DO I HAVE A MOTION? HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 36. AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER

[36. 26-2902A Authorize an amendment to Resolution No. 15-2141, previously approved on November 10, 2015 for the City’s Living Wage Policy to revise the policy’s threshold, applicability, wage floor methodology, contract terms, and policy review requirements - Financing: No cost consideration to the City (This item was deferred on August 25, 2026)]

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

FIRST SPEAKER JETHRO WASHINGTON.

YOUR MICROPHONE. THERE'S A BUTTON AT THE BASE.

HELLO, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMAN. MY NAME IS JETHRO WASHINGTON.

I'M A RESIDENT HERE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, AND ALSO A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AT THE TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECTS.

I'M HERE TODAY IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE LABOR ALLIES, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHO BELIEVE THAT IT'S UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE CITY TO GO BACK, BACKTRACK ON THE LIVING WAGE POLICY FOR JANITORIAL STAFF AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RISING COST OF THIS ECONOMY.

YES, DALLAS IS UP AGAINST FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS, BUT THE BUDGET SHOULD NOT BE BALANCED ON THE BACK OF WORKERS WHO CARRY OUT ESSENTIAL DUTIES, LIKE KEEPING OUR FACILITIES SAFE AND CLEAN AND SECURE.

I VOTE TO CUT LIVING WAGE RATES WILL UNDOUBTEDLY, UNDOUBTEDLY HURT THE WORKERS MORALE AND VALUE WISE.

SEND A TERRIBLE MESSAGE. A QUOTE FROM DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING.

NO WORK IS INSIGNIFICANT. ALL LABOR THAT IS UPLIFTS HUMANITY, HAS DIGNITY AND IMPORTANCE AND SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY PENN STATE.

EXCELLENCE. WORDS THAT RINGS AS TRUE AS EVER TODAY.

AGAIN, A VOTE TO CUT LIVING WAGE RATES IS A STEP BACKWARDS FOR OUR CITY.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, I URGE YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER, TO MOVE, TO MOVE.

THAT WILL. TO MOVE. THIS MOVE WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT WORKING CLASS FAMILIES WHO PROUDLY CALL DALLAS HOME.

OUR CITY, STATE AND NATION JUST CELEBRATED LABOR DAY.

LET'S FOCUS ON UPLIFTING WORKERS WITH SMART POLICIES AND NOT REDUCING THEIR PAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE REMAINING SPEAKERS.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, I WILL ASK THAT YOU COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT ON THE FIRST THREE ROWS OF THIS INTERSECTION.

AND FOR THOSE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS, I WILL ASK THAT YOU HAVE YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO READY.

JOHN MALYON. ARASH. FARASAT. BRENDA. GURUMURTHY.

ROSEMARY. KURTZ. JAMES. TRUITT. STEPHANIE. DRINKA.

EDWIN. ROBINSON. JESSICA. LENDVAY. ARI. STAROSTIN.

ANITA. NUNEZ. DAVID. LOWERY. JUDY BRYANT HAS CANCELED.

MARIA. GARZA. LUIS. MENDOZA, AND ARACELI CRUZ.

JOHN MALLON. GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

YES. OKAY. GOOD MORNING OR GOOD AFTERNOON NOW.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WANT TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO ANY CHANGES TO THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

AS YOU KNOW, A LIVING WAGE SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR A WORKER TO LIVE ON.

SO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WOULD NOT BE A LIVING WAGE AT ALL.

BRIEFLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE CITY EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE WATCHING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR UNION.

AS YOU WATCH THESE MEETINGS AND SEE HOW LITTLE THIS BODY CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CITY.

[03:05:05]

THEY'RE PUTTING YOU ON FURLOUGH. UNLIKE THE FOLKS WHO ARE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK TODAY, YOU HAVE A UNION, THE NORTH TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, UNITED STEELWORKERS, LOCAL 948, SEVEN.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN SO YOU CAN WRITE IT DOWN AND LOOK IT UP LATER.

USW9487. THE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS POLICY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN A UNION.

THEY CAN'T JUST GOOGLE USW9487. CLICK BECOME A MEMBER AND THEN CLICK CITY MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND FILL IT OUT IN LESS THAN A MINUTE.

YOU HAVE THIS POWER TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHO I SAW AT THE LABOR DAY COOKOUT ON MONDAY WERE PLANNING TO NEUTER THIS POLICY.

AND I WON'T NAME NAMES TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES.

I HOPE YOU ARE SELF-AWARE ENOUGH TO FEEL SHAME FOR WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.

CLEARLY YOU MISSED THE POINT OF THAT HOLIDAY.

I THINK YOU OWE EVERY ONE OF YOUR WORKING CONSTITUENTS AN APOLOGY.

NEXT YEAR, I SUGGEST YOU STAY HOME. BUT, JOHN, GETTING RID OF THE LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT WOULD OPEN THE BIDDING PROCESS TO MORE SMALL BUSINESSES. OKAY. I WOULD PUT FORWARD THAT A BUSINESS THAT DEPENDS ON PAYING ITS WORKERS A POVERTY WAGE SHOULD NOT BE IN BUSINESS.

IF A BUSINESS ONLY PROVIDES A LIVING FOR ITS OWNER, THEN WE HAVE COMPLETELY LOST THE PLOT.

BUT JOHN, WE COULD SAVE $22 MILLION. OKAY. $22 MILLION AT MOST.

OVER FIVE YEARS. THAT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET.

I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE DOING THIS TO BE MALICIOUS OR IF YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SOCIAL COSTS, BUT THIS WILL DRIVE UP POVERTY AND CRIME AND TURN GOOD JOBS INTO BAD JOBS.

EVEN IF YOU DO SAVE THIS MONEY IN LANDSCAPING AND SECURITY, YOU WILL BE PAYING MORE IN HOMELESS SERVICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

BUT JOHN, THE MARKET, THE MARKET, IF THE MARKET SAYS THAT LABORERS DON'T DESERVE ENOUGH TO LIVE, THEN THE MARKET IS WRONG. FULL STOP. THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE IN AN AGE OF ABUNDANCE.

DO THE RIGHT THING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARASH FARASAT.

YOUR MICROPHONE. OH, GOOD MORNING, MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS ARI FARASAT. I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON LIVING WAGE.

I REGRET THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE YOU ALL SPEAK ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK.

I HAD TO GO TO WORK, BUT I WAS ABLE TO SEE THE VIDEO AFTERWARDS AND HEAR THE COMMENTS FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM THIS COUNCIL.

AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I WAS DEEPLY ENCOURAGED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL AND THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PAYING A LIVING WAGE OF YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SURVIVE IN THIS CITY, THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE US AND, YOU KNOW, CLEAN OUR BUILDINGS AND PICK UP TRASH.

I DID WANT TO COMMENT ON A COMPROMISE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY MY COUNCIL PERSON, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS, YOU KNOW, IN GOOD FAITH ABOUT POTENTIALLY BRINGING THE WAGE DOWN TO THE BASE OF DIRECTLY EMPLOYED CITY STAFF OF I BELIEVE IT WAS 21, 50 AN HOUR. I REALIZED THIS WAS MEANT IN GOOD FAITH.

BUT I DO NEED TO POINT OUT, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED ON CITY OR ON CONTRACTS AS A CONTRACTOR AND SOMEONE WHO'S WORKED AS A TEMP, WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE JOBS, YOU YOU DON'T GET ANY BENEFITS.

LIKE THERE'S NO PTO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PAID SICK DAYS, THERE'S NO HEALTH PLAN.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN FOR ALL OF THAT. SO IF I WAS IN THE POSITION OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING THAT CHOICE, I WOULD RATHER TAKE THE JOB, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS PAYING 2150 BUT HAD SOME BENEFITS.

SO I WOULD LIKE THIS COUNCIL TO KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A PARITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO DEALS THAT THE WORKER IS POTENTIALLY GETTING. I ALSO WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW I FELT ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS.

I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WHEN TRYING TO MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT, SOME OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING THIS CITY, THE PEOPLE THAT PICK UP YOUR TRASH TO CLEAN YOUR BUILDINGS, THAT PROVIDE YOU SECURITY.

WHERE IS THE MORAL CASE THERE? I HOW COULD YOU JUST LOOK PAST THAT? IT IS BAFFLING TO ME. AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SPEAK ON IS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ON OPEN MIC THAT I TALKED TO A CUSTODIAN FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HE, YOU KNOW, HE SHARED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW WITH THE SITUATION.

HE ASKED ME WHEN WE WERE DONE TALKING LIKE, WELL, WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR?

[03:10:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BRENDA GURUMURTHY. BRENDA GURUMURTHY IS NOT ONLINE. NOT IN THE AUDIENCE.

BRENDA GURUMURTHY IS NOT ONLINE. ROSEMARY KURTZ.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ROSIE KURTZ AND I'M SPEAKING HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE NORTH TEXAS AREA LABOR FEDERATION.

IF THAT NAME SOUNDS UNFAMILIAR TO SOME PEOPLE, THIS IS THE MERGED RECONFIGURATION OF.

WITH TARRANT OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL.

SO WE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAVE HANDLED THE AFL-CIO CITY COUNCIL ENDORSEMENTS IN THE PAST AND ARE THE ONES WHO WILL BE HANDLING THEM IN THE FUTURE.

LABOR IS RELEVANT TO ALL ISSUES BECAUSE OUR CITY IS SO OVERWHELMINGLY WORKING CLASS.

THAT IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT ARE MORE CLEARLY, EXPLICITLY, PRIMARILY A WORKER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

AND THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IS ONE OF THESE ISSUES.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EVEN FATHOM HOW ANYONE COULD DECIDE.

IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO TRY TO MEET OUR BUDGET BY TAKING AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY STRUGGLE TO GET BY.

IMAGINE TRYING TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE VERY WORKERS WHO MAKE THE CITY GREAT.

IMAGINE SUPPORTING PAYING WORKERS A WAGE THAT THEY, BY DEFINITION, CANNOT LIVE ON.

A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO BACKS AWAY FROM THE LIVING WAGE POLICY IS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO DOESN'T CARE IF THESE WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES LIVE OR DIE.

THEY'RE SAYING, WE CONSIDER YOUR LIVES A SACRIFICE WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE.

KEEP IN MIND A PERSON MAKING A LIVING WAGE IS NOT RICH.

THEY STILL NEED TO BUDGET CAREFULLY. CHANGING THIS POLICY RUINS THIS PLANNING.

HOWEVER, FOR THE CITY, AS JOHN MENTIONED, THE MONEY SAVED IS A DROP IN THE BUCKET.

IT IS NOT A MAKE OR BREAK FOR OUR BUDGET. THE MONEY SAVED COMES OUT TO ABOUT $3.38 PER DALLAS PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

I HAVE $3.38 IN MY CAR RIGHT NOW, AND I'M HAPPY TO DONATE MY PORTION OF THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK MANY OTHERS WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO THE SAME. ENDING THIS POLICY ALSO MAKES LIFE MORE DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE METROPLEX.

EMPLOYED IN SIMILAR INDUSTRIES, THEIR EMPLOYERS WOULD NO LONGER HAVE TO COMPETE WITH THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WHEN THEY HIRE.

WORKERS ALREADY FIGHTING FOR HIGHER WAGES WOULD HAVE A HARDER FIGHT AHEAD OF THEM.

AND AS REFERENCED, IF YOU CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, POVERTY, INCREASE IN POVERTY AND INCREASE IN CRIME GO HAND IN HAND AS YOU PUSH PEOPLE INTO MORE DESPERATE SITUATIONS. BUDGETS ARE MORAL DOCUMENTS.

THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR TODAY GET TO CHOOSE.

THEY COULD TAKE A DISASTROUS STEP TODAY THAT MOVES THE CITY BACKWARDS AND MAKES LIVING IN DALLAS EVEN LESS AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS BETTER THAN THIS, AND I HOPE THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES SO AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JAMES TRUITT. JAMES TRUITT.

IT'S NOT ON LINE. NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. NOT PRESENT.

STEPHANIE. HELLO. STEPHANIE DRINKA, DISTRICT TWO.

DURING LAST WEEK'S MEETING, IT WAS STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WAS A FINANCIAL DECISION, NOT A POLITICAL ONE. THE WORDS POLITICAL AND POLICY HAVE THE SAME ANCIENT GREEK ROOTS POLIS, A SELF-GOVERNING GOVERNING COMMUNITY WHERE CITIZENS SHARE BOTH RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, A CONCEPT THAT SHAPES HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY.

YOU RAN FOR OFFICE. YOU ASKED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR YOU.

YOU TOOK AN OATH TO REPRESENT THEM. EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE BEHIND THAT HORSESHOE IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL BECAUSE YOU ARE IN A SEAT OF POWER.

THE POWER TO DECIDE WHO GETS HEARD, WHOSE INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED, HOW MUCH PEOPLE GET PAID, WHAT THEY ARE ASKED TO SACRIFICE, AND WHICH PRIORITIES MATTER.

YOU CAN SEEK BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS, BUT YOU CAN'T PRETEND.

CHOICES IMPACTING WAGES, PUBLIC SPENDING, LABOR, AND FINANCIAL STABILITY EXIST OUTSIDE OF POLITICS.

YOU CAN'T CLAIM YOUR DECISIONS AREN'T POLITICAL.

WHILE SPENDING MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO HOST A REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE CONSIDERING POLICIES THAT WOULD SLASH THE EARNINGS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE AND KEEP THE CITY RUNNING.

IF WE CAN MAKE THE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS NECESSARY TO WELCOME A POLITICAL PARTIES EMBARRASSING SPECTACLE AND ACCOMMODATE ITS VISITORS, THEN WE CAN AND MUST PROTECT OUR WORKERS HERE AS WELL.

[03:15:02]

EDWIN ROBINSON. EDWIN ROBINSON IS NOT PRESENT.

JESSICA LENDVAY. THANK YOU. JESSICA LENDVAY. DISTRICT NINE.

I'M HAVING A HARD TIME JUST GAINING MY COMPOSURE BECAUSE I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M WITNESSING SOMETHING SO HORRIBLE. I'M WITNESSING SUCH GREAT HARM TO.

TO DALLAS RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BARELY HANGING ON.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW. WHEN I DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND I SEE SOMEONE BARELY HANGING ON, I.

I SEE MYSELF IN THAT PERSON AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE PEOPLE IN THE MOST POWERFUL CHAIRS IN THIS CITY DO NOT SEE THEMSELVES IN THOSE PEOPLE.

WHAT? WHY? I MEAN, WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DECIDE IS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE EAT OR LIVE IN A HOME, OR PAY THEIR INSURANCE OR THEIR BILLS.

I MEAN, I CAN BARELY CONTAIN MYSELF. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, THIS IS BASIC.

IT IS SO BASIC THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO HARM PEOPLE AND WE CANNOT ABSTRACT THIS.

THERE'S NO WAY TO ABSTRACT IT. THE LIVING WAGE IS WAS CREATED SO THAT WE COULD NOT ABSTRACT THIS INFORMATION, AND WE COULD NOT DISCONNECT IT FROM LIFE. AND THE RATE THAT WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT IS FOR ONE ADULT WITH WITH ZERO CHILDREN. THERE ARE ACTUALLY 12 DIFFERENT RATES AND THE THE LOWEST IS ZERO CHILDREN.

I KNOW THESE PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN, AND I WANT FOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY TIME LIMIT IS, BUT I WANT FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS CITY, WHO WORK FULL TIME, WHO USE THEIR HANDS, WHO WE ALL RELY ON, WHO ARE OUR NEIGHBORS? WHO ARE ME? WHO ARE YOU? WHO COULD BE ANY OF US? WE CANNOT. WE CANNOT ABSTRACT THEM. THEY ARE PEOPLE AND THEY DESERVE TO SURVIVE.

AND I DO NOT WANT US SERVICE. I AM NOT COMPLICIT IN HARVESTING A SERVICE FROM SOMEONE AND SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T EAT, LIVE, PAY THEIR BILLS, TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.

I AM NOT COMPLICIT IN THAT. AND I DEMAND THAT MY CITY LEADERS, NOT MY LEADERS, BUT MY REPRESENTATIVES NOT BE COMPLICIT IN THAT EITHER.

I DEMAND THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARI. AUSTIN.

HELLO, DALLAS CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ARI NICOLAI.

I'M A DISTRICT NINE RESIDENT. I'M A UNIONIZED ELECTRICIAN.

I'M ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF Y'ALL, TX, WHICH IS A CONSTITUENT CONSTITUENT OF A YOUNGER VERY ENERGIZED ADVOCATES WITHIN THE AFL-CIO.

I'M HERE TO SIMPLY SAY THAT YOU CANNOT PUT A PRICE ON THE LIVES AND THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE WORK THAT KEEP THIS THE CITY RUNNING.

AND MY MESSAGE FROM Y'ALL TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS THAT WE ARE PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS THING.

AND IF YOU ARE A COUNCIL PERSON WHO VOTES TO AUTHORIZE THIS AMENDMENT I CAN JUST SAY THAT WE CAN START SAYING GOODBYE TO SOME CITY COUNCIL CAREERS.

I CAN SAY THAT AS A MEMBER OF A, OF A CONSTITUENCY THAT IS VERY GOOD AT ORGANIZING.

I CAN PROMISE YOU ALL THIS. IF YOU MESS WITH OUR MONEY, WE ARE GOING TO MESS WITH YOUR MONEY.

AND, YOU KNOW AS A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE, I WILL BE EXPECTING MY COUNCIL PERSON TO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANITA NUNEZ.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ANITA. I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WORKERS DEFENSE ACTION FUND.

AND I WANT TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE NOT AMEND THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW, Y'ALL ARE UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE WITH THE BUDGET.

BUT CUTTING PEOPLE'S WAGES SETS BACK THE CLOCK AND LIKE STRAIGHT UP THE AMOUNT THAT YOU WOULD CUT IS NOT THAT MUCH.

AND IT'S DEFINITELY NOT WORTH THE HARM THAT IT WOULD DO TO WORKERS JANITORS, LANDSCAPERS, AUTOMOTIVE WORKERS, GROUND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS, FACILITY AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE MANAGERS.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE BACKBONE OF DALLAS.

[03:20:03]

AND IT'S REALLY UNFAIR THAT PROFESSIONALS IN SEATS OF POWER IN DALLAS WHO CAN WORK IN, WITH AC, WITH ACCESS TO WATER, WITH ACCESS TO BREAKS, TO LUNCH, TO SICK TIME VACATION, Y'ALL ARE CRUNCHING SOME NUMBERS AND DECIDING THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO JUST CUT PEOPLE'S PAY TO SAVE A FEW DOLLARS.

THAT IS LIKE CLEARLY JUST UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR JOB TITLE, THEIR PROFESSION, THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. DALLAS LOVES TO FRAME ITSELF AS A WORLD CLASS CITY, BUT HOW CAN WE SAY THAT WHEN CITY COUNCIL IS WILLING TO PAY SOME OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL WORKERS BELOW A LIVING WAGE? THAT'S LITERALLY IT.

IT'S BELOW A LIVING WAGE, RIGHT? AND IT DOESN'T JUST STOP AT ONE INDIVIDUAL WORKERS.

THIS INFECTION AFFECTS ENTIRE FAMILIES. IT MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T MAKE RENT.

THEY CAN'T PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. CUTTING THIS POLICY SETS A STANDARD THAT THE HARDEST WORKING PEOPLE IN THE CITY ARE, CAN BE DEVALUED WHENEVER THE BUDGET GETS TIGHT.

SO I, I JUST WANT TO IMPLORE YOU THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH THE CITY AND YOU SEE WORKERS CLEANING UP AND CARING FOR DALLAS REMEMBER THAT THEY'RE THE ONES WHO BUILD THE CITY AND KEEP IT RUNNING. EVERY TIME YOU PASS ONE OF THEM, YOU'LL SIT BACK AND THINK HOW YOU VOTED TODAY.

SO PLEASE LIKE VOTE IN A WAY THAT YOU'RE PROUD OF.

DON'T CUT THEIR PAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DAVID LOWERY.

DAVID LOWERY. IT'S NOT PRESENT. JUDY BRYANT HAS CANCELED MARIA GARZA.

HELLO. HI. MY NAME IS MARIA DE JESUS GARZA. I'M AN ORGANIZER WITH WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT.

I'M ALSO A PROUD UNION MEMBER WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL SERVICE WORKERS LOCAL 2320.

AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

IT WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE TO CHANGE THE CURRENT POLICY YOU CURRENTLY HAVE.

IT LITERALLY WILL NOT FIX YOUR BUDGET. AND SHIFTING THAT DOWNFALL, THAT SHORTFALL THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH ONTO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE MOST ESSENTIAL WORK HERE FOR THE CITY IS JUST UNTHINKABLE.

CUTTING WAGES FOR CONTRACTED WORKERS WILL DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF WHAT'S DRIVING UP THE COST OF LIVING HERE IN DALLAS.

I HEARD SOMEONE IN THIS HORSESHOE MENTIONED THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

EARLIER TODAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S POSSIBLE.

WE ABSOLUTELY NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS, THE ROOT CAUSE OF A LOT OF THE ISSUES OF WHY DALLAS, THE COST OF LIVING IN DALLAS IS GOING UP IS BECAUSE HOUSING IS SO EXPENSIVE.

IT'S I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE WHY A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD SAY THAT, KNOWING THAT IT IS AN ISSUE ACROSS THE CITY, MAYBE NOT IN YOUR SPECIFIC DISTRICT, MAYBE IT'S NOT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

MAYBE YOU DON'T DRIVE BY AND SEE IT ALL THE TIME.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING ACROSS THE CITY.

SO CUTTING THE WAGES OF WORKERS JUST SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE SOME NUMBER ON YOUR BUDGET WORK IS JUST NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP ANYONE BUT YOUR BUDGET.

IT MIGHT HELP YOU TO LOOK GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DONATING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE, BUT FOR THE REST OF THE CITY, FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY OUT THERE DOING WORK, MAKING THIS CITY WHAT IT IS, THE WONDERFUL CITY THAT IT IS, IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP.

AND THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO IS THAT WHEN DALLAS, WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS SETS A STANDARD, IT ACTUALLY AFFECTS OTHER CITIES NEARBY.

SO THE MOMENT THAT YOU START CUTTING WAGES HERE IN DALLAS, YOU'RE ALSO AFFECTING FOLKS IN GARLAND, YOU'RE AFFECTING FOLKS IN IRVING, YOU'RE AFFECTING ALL THE SMALLER CITIES AROUND.

SO IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CITY, I SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK PAST WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE YOU DRIVE EVERY DAY, AND REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LIZ MENDOZA. LIZ MENDOZA.

BRENDA GURU-MURTHY IS ON NOW. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

HELLO, I'M LIZ MENDOZA WITH SUNRISE MOVEMENT DALLAS.

AND I WILL REITERATE A LOT OF THE SAME SENTIMENTS AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE ME.

[03:25:02]

ONE OF THE COUNCIL PEOPLE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME THAT THE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES, AND THAT THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS TO THE CITY IS HIS PRIORITY VERSUS OVERPAYING WORKERS.

SO IT SEEMS WE NEED AN ECONOMICS LESSON. SUPPOSEDLY IN A FREE MARKET, WHEN TWO PEOPLE MAKE AN EXCHANGE, THEY'RE BOTH BETTER OFF IF BOTH PARTIES DIDN'T EXPECT TO BENEFIT, THEY WOULDN'T AGREE TO TRADE.

BUT THAT'S WHY FREE MARKET ECONOMICS FAILS EVERY TIME.

THERE IS NO REAL CHOICE. THE PARTY WITH THE UPPER HAND WILL ALWAYS STEAMROLL THE OTHER PARTY.

HOW WOULD A PERSON GETTING PAID LESSER FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK EVER BE BETTER OFF? WHY WOULD THEY EVER AGREE TO THAT? NO ONE WOULD AGREE TO THAT.

SO HOW IS IT FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES WHEN YOU ARE UNILATERALLY TRYING TO MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR THEM? CUTTING WAGES IS VILE AND INHUMANE. IT'S BEEN OVER 40 YEARS AND THE MONEY HAS NOT TRICKLED DOWN YET, AND IT NEVER WILL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK. SEEMS TO BE WORKING FOR SOME AS INTENDED THOUGH, AND BANKRUPTING US ALL. WHEN A SELECT FEW BILLIONAIRES ENJOY A LAVISH LIFE OFF THE BACKS OF THE WORKING CLASS.

IT WILL NEVER WORK. WHEN WE TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THE WORKING CLASS, REDUCE ALL THE BROADER ECONOMY.

WHILE FREE MARKET THEORY SUGGESTS THAT REDUCING GOVERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY.

IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO OVERLOOK THE UNIQUE ROLE THE WORKING CLASS PLAYS IN DRIVING DEMAND.

CUTTING WORKING CLASS BUDGETS DESTROYS THE CONSUMER BASE THAT BUSINESSES RELY ON TO SURVIVE.

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT WHEN WE PUT THE.

PUT MORE MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE WORKING CLASS.

THEN AND ONLY THEN DO. ECONOMIES FLOURISH. ROLLING BACK THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT STEP BACKWARD FOR WORKING PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE YOU WERE HIRED TO SERVE. PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR RENT OR THEIR MORTGAGE, THEIR BILLS, THEIR GROCERIES, AND STILL HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO ENJOY WITH THEIR FAMILY AFTER WORKING HARD ALL WEEK.

WHO ARE YOU TO TAKE THIS AWAY FROM ANYONE? BY REDUCING WAGES, YOU ARE TAKING MEALS AWAY FROM FAMILIES.

YOU ARE TAKING AWAY SCHOOL SUPPLIES FROM KIDS.

YOU ARE TAKING AWAY THE DIGNITY OF THE PEOPLE.

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

THE CITY THE CITY SHOULD NOT ADDRESS ITS BUDGET CHALLENGES BY SHIFTING THE BURDEN ONTO THE VERY WORKERS WHO KEEP THE CITY RUNNING, THE VERY SAME TAXPAYERS WHO PAY TO KEEP IT RUNNING.

I HIGHLY DOUBT ANY OF YOU WOULD TAKE A PAY CUT.

SO WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THESE ON THIS? ON THE WORKERS? GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND FIGURE IT OUT WITHOUT SCREWING OVER THE PEOPLE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SERVE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARACELY CRUZ. OUR SALLY CRUZ IS NOT IN PERSON.

NOT ONLINE, NOT PRESENT. WE'LL GO BACK TO. SPEAKER FOUR BRENDA GURUMOORTHY.

HELLO. CAN YOU SEE SLASH HERE? YES. OKAY, GREAT.

YEAH. MY NAME IS BRENDA GURUMOORTHY. I AM A CO-CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA AND ALSO A PROUD UNION MEMBER ON MY LUNCH BREAK RIGHT NOW.

TO TALK ABOUT WHAT FOLKS HAVE ALREADY SAID REGARDING THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING IT AS IT IS. I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO SCREW SOME OF OUR LOWEST WAGE CONTRACTORS.

CONTRACTORS ARE ALSO JUST WORKERS AND THEY DO THE UNGLAMOROUS WORK OF KEEPING OUR CITY RUNNING.

I DO, I AM ACTUALLY VERY SYMPATHETIC TO HAVING FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS.

IT DRIVES ME CRAZY THAT WE HAVE STATE CONSTRAINTS ON HOW MUCH REVENUE WE CAN RAISE.

WE HAVE PROP. WE CAN'T REALLY ADJUST OUR POLICE BUDGET, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I UNDERSTAND WE'RE IN A PICKLE, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IN AN AGE WHERE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY IN DALLAS AND THAT THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THAT WE SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT PROBLEM, MAKING IT HARDER FOR OUR LOWEST WAGE EARNERS TO STAY IN DALLAS, WHERE IT PROBABLY ALREADY IS A HERCULEAN ENDEAVOR TO MAKE ENDS MEET AND STAY HERE.

I WOULD SAY I JUST HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL CAN LOOK TO ANY OTHER PLACE WHERE THINGS CAN BE CUT DOWN.

ARE THERE CONSULTANTS WE DON'T NEED? ARE THERE CONTRACTS THAT WE ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR CITY? BUT I THINK THAT TO SCREW OUR LOWEST INCOME WORKERS, TO TRY AND MAKE ENDS MEET FOR THE BUDGET IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR US.

IF WE ARE TRULY A WORLD CLASS CITY, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S JUST MEASURED BY WHICH CORPORATIONS COME HERE AND WHICH ONES.

WE GIVE TAX BREAKS. BUT IT'S ALSO CAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.

THE AVERAGE DALLAS I GET BY. AND IF WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO MAKING THAT WORSE, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THAT.

SO PLEASE KEEP THE POLICY AS IS WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE CALCULATOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MR. WEST, I SEE YOUR LIGHT IS ON. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

AMEND EXHIBIT A TO ONE. PAUSE. THE OCTOBER 1ST, 2026MIT INCREASE KEEPING THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE RATE AT $23.06. TWO INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD TO CONTRACTS EXCEEDING $300,000.

[03:30:02]

FOUR REQUIRE POLICY REVIEW AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS, AND FIVE ESTABLISH A STANDARD INITIAL CONTRACT TERM OF THREE YEARS WITH UP TO TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS. SECOND, OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MR. WEST, YOU WANT TO BEGIN? THANK YOU. AND I'LL ASK STAFF TO COME UP HERE TO GIVE US SOME HIGHLIGHTS ON THE FOUR AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY THAT WE, IF APPROVED, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TODAY. SO JUST TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT, I WANT TO THANK AFL-CIO WORKERS DEFENSE AND THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE COME OUT TO SUPPORT THIS. AND FOR THE, THE MASSIVE OUTREACH THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM VARIOUS GROUPS AND FOLKS ASKING REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS AND THEN ALSO ADVOCATING.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK CITY STAFF AGAIN FOR THEIR HARD WORK OVER THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS.

I THINK THIS IS THE SIXTH TIME WE'VE HEARD THIS NOW AT THE, AT THE HORSESHOE AND ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES FOR THE ROBUST DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY LAST WEEK ON THIS ITEM IN THE BRIEFING.

SO I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYBODY NOT SUPPORTING THE MAJORITY OF THESE CHANGES.

WITH THE ONES STICKING POINT BEING IF AND HOW WE, WE WOULD CHANGE THE LIVING WAGE TO BE SUSTAINABLE WHILE ENSURING THAT OUR CONTRACTORS ARE PAID A FAIR WAGE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT DESERVES A DISCUSSION LATER.

AND WITH, WITH A LOT MORE ENGAGEMENT ON THE FRONT END FROM OUR, OUR, OUR VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS, I KNOW THAT CITY MANAGER IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TOUGH BUDGET YEARS AHEAD.

AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT BEFORE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET IS CONSIDERED.

WE BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK MAYBE IN APRIL TO TO FINANCE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN THERE.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I DO WANT TO ASK STAFF IF YOU CAN GIVE US ON THE FOUR ITEMS THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD TODAY, IF APPROVED, IF YOU CAN GIVE US A BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT THAT WILL DO AND WHY THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.

OKAY. JUANITA ORTIZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.

THE FIRST OF THE THOSE AMENDMENTS IS TO LIMIT THE POLICY TO COMPETITIVELY SOLICITED LABOR INTENSIVE SERVICE CONTRACTS.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE POLICY APPLIES TO ALL SERVICE CONTRACTS.

WE'RE LOOKING TO NARROW THAT DOWN TO THOSE CONTRACTS WHERE LABOR IS THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN THE COST AND IN THE IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES RATHER THAN ANCILLARY. SO WE'LL LOOK AT LANDSCAPING, TEMPORARY STAFF, LABOR AND SECURITY GUARDS, BUT WE WILL NOT, WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT AND ANYTHING WHERE LABOR'S ANCILLARY, SO INSPECTIONS SOFTWARE AND OTHER SERVICE CONTRACTS LIKE THAT.

OUR SECOND IS TO INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD FROM 100,000 TO 300,000.

WE BELIEVE THIS WILL HELP WITH SMALL BUSINESSES THAT BID ON SMALLER CONTRACTS THAT DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON THE LABOR MARKET, AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH SOME ABILITY TO HELP THEM MANAGE THE COST OF THE LIVING WAGE AS A SMALL BUSINESS, AND KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE TO CARRY THAT COST THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT.

WE ALSO ARE ASKING TO STANDARDIZE THE CONTRACT TERM TO THREE YEARS WITH TWO ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS.

THE LIVING WAGE ONLY INCREASES AT THE ONSET OF THE SOLICITATION.

AND SO THIS WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE A STANDARDIZED TIME FRAME FOR THOSE RENEWALS AND FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO REVIEW THE WAGES AT THAT TIME.

AND THEN THE POLICY WAS ADOPTED IN 2015, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED IN 11 YEARS.

AND SO WE'RE ASKING THAT WE INCORPORATE A REVIEW AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS TO LOOK AT THE LABOR MARKET, THE LIVING WAGE, THE METHODOLOGY AND THE POLICY.

GOT IT. AND THEN CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT BY.

PAUSING AS I READ INTO THE RECORD, PAUSING THE OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 INCREASE, KEEPING THE LIVING WAGE AT 23.06 PER HOUR.

THAT EFFECTIVELY MIRRORS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. SO THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE POLICY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

THE 2306 CORRECT. SO THE FY 27 INCREASE WOULD BE.

2331 AND WE'RE FREEZING IT AT 2306. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING US MORE INFORMATION.

I WANT TO FIRST SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS AND ADVOCATES.

I WANT YOU TO, TO SEE POLICY MAKING IN ACTION IN A WAY THAT MAKES YOU REALIZE THAT Y'ALL'S ADVOCACY IS NOT IN VAIN. I'LL TELL YOU, I'M NOT ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

[03:35:04]

IT DIDN'T MEAN THAT THAT WAS A FULLY BAKED POLICY WHEN IT GOT HERE.

AND I WANT YOU ALL TO SEE THAT I HAVE COLLEAGUES, EVEN NOW TODAY, WHO WERE ALMOST PERTURBED AT IT EVEN BEING PULLED AND WERE FULL SPEED AHEAD TO MAKE DRASTIC CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE REALLY IMPACTED THE LABOR FORCE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE DONE A FULL 180 TODAY. AND SO YOUR ADVOCACY DOES MATTER. YOUR VOICES MATTER, AND THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO MATTERS.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WORK AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS ONE THAT REMOVED THE HUMAN FACTOR OUT OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

AND FOR THAT, I AM ASKING THAT THIS NOT BE TALKED TO, TALKED ABOUT ONLY AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THIS SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED AS JUST A FINANCIAL POLICY TO BE MADE.

THIS IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE. AND JUST AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED, WE SET PRECEDENT FOR THE REGION.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR THE CHAIR OF QUALITY OF LIFE TO ALSO COMMIT TO BEING A PART OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, WHETHER IT BE IN A JOINT COMMITTEE FORM, BUT AT LEAST FOR US TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT THIS POLICY WAS MEANT TO BE.

AND I THINK THE INTEGRITY OF THIS POLICY WAS COMPLETELY BASTARDIZED.

AND IT WAS TAKEN TO A PLACE THAT WAS NICKEL AND DIMING OUR LABOR FORCE, OUR THE PEOPLE THAT WE LOOK TO DO SOME OF THE JOBS THAT QUITE FRANKLY, WE CONTRACT OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING IN THE DEMAND HERE IN HOUSE.

AND SO I WANT TO THANK CHAIR WEST FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BRING BACK THE POLICY IN A WAY THAT IS MUCH MORE FAVORABLE. I DON'T WANT TO LET PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

SO I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS AS IT'S PRESENTED.

I THINK THAT THERE'S ESSENTIALLY A QUARTER DIFFERENCE ON WHAT THE ACTUAL MINIMUM WAGE OR THE FLOOR WAGE WOULD BE SET AT.

SO THAT WAS NOT WORTH IT. I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME SOME KIND OF AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE ON WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE APPROVING HERE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION.

I THINK THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME SUBJECTIVITY TO WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LABOR INTENSIVE SPECIFICALLY.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S OUR. ROLE AS POLICY MAKERS TO DECIDE WHOSE JOBS ARE MORE LABOR INTENSIVE THAN OTHERS. AND THEN I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S KIND OF PRIORITIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN ROLES VERSUS OTHERS THAT I THINK THAT WE COULD WORK THROUGH AND MAYBE HAVE MORE OF A SCIENTIFIC METRIC ON WHY WE ARE WANTING TO DIFFERENTIATE CERTAIN INDUSTRIES INSTEAD OF AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE. SO I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I SEE THAT THERE.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT VOTE AGAINST IT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AT LEAST PASS THIS AND MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND DON'T TAKE ACTION THAT AUTOMATICALLY CUTS PEOPLE'S HOURLY WAGES BY 30%.

AND AND EVEN HIGHER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO APPRECIATE US BEING WILLING TO GET BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND BRING BACK A BETTER SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T HURT.

THE DALLAS SITES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP AND THROUGHOUT THE REGION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN. THANK YOU.

FIRST, MY QUESTION IS, WITH THESE CHANGES THAT CHAIRMAN WEST READ IN, WHAT IS THE EXPECTED COST SAVINGS.

SO AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT COST SAVINGS BECAUSE IT'S FUTURE CONTRACTS GOING INTO FUTURE CONTRACTS.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS OF THIS FISCAL YEAR FROM OCTOBER 2025 WE HAD ABOUT 40 CONTRACTS THAT WERE AWARDED WITH THE LIVING WAGE. AND THEN THIS WILL BE GOING TO ABOUT 15, I BELIEVE.

RIGHT. SO I WASN'T ASKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTS. YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TOLD US FOR THE ITEM THAT WAS POSTED, NOT WITH THE CHANGES THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EXPECTED SAVINGS OVER THAT TIME.

AND SO THAT WAS WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS. THAT PREVIOUSLY IT WAS $22 MILLION.

AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE LIVING MARKET WAGE.

I MEAN, THE LIVING WAGE FOR MIT AND THE MARKET WAGE.

YES. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS MARKET WAGE. OKAY.

AND SO WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS.

WELL, THE CHANGES IN THIS AMENDMENT, WHAT IS THE NUMBER YOU'RE EXPECTING NOW?

[03:40:05]

AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT. 22. SORRY.

THAT WAS THE 2 MILLION IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE.

2306 AND THEN THE 2331 I BELIEVE. SO I'M SORRY.

SO TO CLARIFY THE AMENDMENT WE'RE CONSIDERING, YOU WOULD EXPECT OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE WOULD REDUCE FIVE YEARS, FIVE YEARS. WE WOULD SAVE FIVE, 2.9 MILLION COMPARED TO THE 22 MILLION FOR THE ITEM THAT AS IT WAS POSTED.

YES. OKAY. WOULD YOU SAY THAT SETTING A LIVING WAGE ARTIFICIALLY INFLATES THE COST OF OUR CONTRACTS. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE LIVING WAGE, THEN IT DOES TAKE OUT THE MARKET WAGE PROCESS, THE MARKET PROCESS. OKAY. WELL, MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO BE THE POLITICIAN.

VERY GOOD. LIVING WAGE ASSUMPTIONS NO MATTER HOW THEY'RE CALCULATED.

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THEY DEPEND HEAVILY ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE MADE, INCLUDING FAMILY SIZE AND EXPECTED COSTS WITH THAT AND THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE A LIVING WAGE THAT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO EVERY PERSON, BECAUSE ONE MIGHT BE AN INDIVIDUAL SINGLE PERSON AND ONE MIGHT HAVE A LARGE FAMILY.

AND SO WHEN YOU SET A SET LIVING WAGE, THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY A NUMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT'S BEING DEFINED HERE IS A LIVING WAGE FOR BOTH PEOPLE. THE MIT LIVING WAGE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS USES IS CALCULATED BASED ON ONE INDIVIDUAL WITH NO CHILDREN.

SO THAT ISN'T REALLY A LIVING WAGE. THEN IF SOMEBODY HAS FIVE CHILDREN.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST IT'S JUST AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN THE MATERIALS PRESENTED FOR THIS ITEM OR PREVIOUS MATERIALS, BUT IS IT TRUE THAT OUR LIVING WAGE HAS GROWN 9.3%? ANNUALLY? YES, 123% FROM THE ONSET IN 2015 FROM THE ADOPTION.

AND THAT'S COMPARED TO THE 3.6 GROWTH THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

SO WE'VE SEEN 3.6% GROWTH, BUT THE LIVING WAGE HAS GROWN 9.3%.

YES. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT ARTIFICIALLY INFLATING THE COST OF CONTRACTS.

THANK YOU. DO YOU SOMETIMES SEE AS THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT, THAT WE SUFFER FROM A LACK OF RESPONDENTS TO THE RFP? IN SOME CASES, WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, 1 OR 2 BIDS ON A CONTRACT DEPENDS ON THE COMPLEXITY AND THE MARKET, THAT OF THE VENDORS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE VOTED MULTIPLE TIMES ON REAUTHORIZING AN RFP BECAUSE OF A LACK OF RESPONSIVENESS.

AND I WILL SAY, I THINK THAT HAVING THESE KINDS OF POLICIES DIRECTLY IMPACT THE WILLINGNESS OF FOLKS TO WORK WITH US.

THE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK, AND I APPRECIATE HEARING FROM THEM.

ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING THINGS IS HOW MANY OF THEM IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS BEING SOCIALISTS.

AND WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST SOCIETY. WE'RE A MARKET BASED ECONOMY.

AND WE OUGHT TO ALLOW THE FREE MARKET THE ABILITY TO SET PRICES FOR THEIR LABOR AS THEY ARE ABLE.

AND CONSIDER THOSE CONTRACTS AS APPROPRIATE. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT.

CERTAINLY NOT THESE AMENDMENTS, WHICH WHAT'S THE POINT OF EVEN CHANGING THOSE FOLKS IF WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO HAVE A COST SAVINGS? BUT SECOND, THIS POLICY HAS FAILED FROM THE BEGINNING.

IT'S JUST NOT EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR GOVERNMENT TO BE ARTIFICIALLY CHARGING ITSELF MORE AND CHARGING THE TAXPAYERS TO, TO PAY VENDORS MORE THAN IS NECESSARY. THANK YOU, MR. ROTH. THANK YOU. THIS IS REALLY NOT A REFERENDUM ON ON EMPLOYEES AND THE VALUE OF PEOPLE AND THE VALUE OF SERVICE. THIS IS THIS IS A FINANCIAL SITUATION.

THIS IS WE ARE WE ARE HERE TO MANAGE THE CITY'S MONEY.

WE'RE HERE TO MANAGE THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CITY.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PUTTING THE THE BURDEN ON THE BACKS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

THIS IS ABOUT BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR OF OUR FACILITIES AND OUR MONIES.

[03:45:04]

IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY. THIS IS A.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT STUFF IN A IN A BUSINESS LIKE MANNER, JUST LIKE YOU RUN YOUR HOUSE, JUST LIKE YOU RUN YOUR OWN YOUR OWN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, YOU CAN ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU CAN GET AND YOU CAN ONLY MAKE WHAT YOU CAN GET.

AND I'M, AND I'M TRYING TO DO THIS IN A SENSITIVE WAY.

I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE. I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO TO BE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO IT RESPONSIBLY. AND IF WE DO IT RESPONSIBLY, WE CAN PROVIDE A LOT OF SERVICES.

ALL THE BOATS WILL RISE HERE. AND MY MY FEELING IS VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO REDUCE PEOPLE'S BURDEN TO GO DOWN TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. VALUE IS NOT A HUGE CHANGE.

IT. I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE METRICS FROM MIT ARE VALID.

IN OUR PART OF THE COUNTRY. WE'RE GETTING RESOURCES.

WE'RE GETTING INFORMATION ON HOW TO ESTABLISH A LIVING WAGE FROM SOME.

THAT'S THAT'S JUST IT'S A CALCULATION. IT'S NOT REALLY, TO ME NOT AN OFFICIAL CALCULATION.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE MARKET HAS TO HAVE A HAS TO HAVE A BEARING IN THIS DISCUSSION.

AND I THINK THAT TO, TO TAKE THE ORIGINAL THEORY OF HAVING WHATEVER'S THE LOWEST, THE BLS OR THE.

THE MIT REALLY DOES HELP US GET TO A REALISTIC VALUE OF WHAT OUR PARTICULAR AREA OF THE COUNTRY IS REALLY DOING. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I THINK THAT IT REALLY PUTS A BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ASKING TO HELP US DO WORK IN THIS CITY, THE CONTRACTORS THAT WE'RE RELYING ON TO.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT CONTRACTORS CAN DO BUSINESS WITH THIS CITY.

AND I AND I REALLY WANT TO OPEN UP OUR ABILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SMALL BUSINESSES TO BE ABLE TO HIRE THE PEOPLE THAT THEY FEEL ARE QUALIFIED AND THAT THEY FEEL THAT CAN THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO, TO SERVE US.

THAT'S WHO WE'RE TRYING TO HELP IS PEOPLE WHO ARE EMPLOYING PEOPLE TO HELP US.

AND IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO TELL SOMEBODY WHAT THEY SHOULD PAY.

I DON'T IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO DIRECT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PRIVATE THAT BUSINESS IF WE DON'T FEEL THE PEOPLE THEY'RE HIRING ARE CORRECT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO QUALIFY THEM. IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE GOOD VENDORS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO QUALIFY THEM.

IF THEY'RE PAYING THE WHAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING AND THEY'VE GOT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING FOR THEM, THEN THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IT'S NOT UP TO US TO DIRECT OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESSES.

WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF HANDLING YOUR MONEY.

AND SO I'M, I'M, I'M DISTRESSED THAT WE THAT WE HAD A COMPROMISED ON THE RATE INCREASE.

AND I'M, AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE GO BACK TO THE, TO THE MODIFIED SITUATION AS ONE POTENTIAL.

BUT SECOND OF ALL, I WANT TO SUGGEST AN AMENDMENT TO THIS, THAT WE INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD TO THESE CONTRACTS TO $1 MILLION. I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND AND HELP ME WORK WITH THE MIT LIVING WAGE SITUATION IF THESE CONTRACTS WERE $1 MILLION. I THINK THAT THAT GIVES US A BROADER OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTRACTORS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR IN OUR PROCUREMENT SITUATION.

AND IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO TO CONTROL THE, THE, THE POTENTIAL OF HANDLING THE CONCERNS OF THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE, THAT ARE CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH.

I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR.. MR. GRACEY, DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS? OKAY. BECAUSE I SEE MR. ROTH. GO AHEAD. I'D LIKE TO TALK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

I REALLY FEEL LIKE $1 MILLION CONTRACT IS IS REALLY IN OUR WORLD HERE IS A REASONABLE, REALISTIC, SMALL CONTRACT. I KNOW $1 MILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT BUT IN, IN A, IN A BUSINESS THAT WE'RE IN, MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS ARE REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING SMALLER CONTRACTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN.

AND I THINK BY ALLOWING US TO HAVE THAT LARGER THRESHOLD, WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO THE ABILITY TO OFFER A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO

[03:50:05]

AND WE GIVE OUR, WE GIVE PEOPLE AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO HIRE FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO, TO LIVE, TO WORK AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THINGS. AND, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD.

IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IT, IT DOESN'T HURT US.

I THINK IT, IT, WE STILL MAINTAIN THE, THE REQUISITE LIVING WAGE POLICY FOR LARGE LARGER GROUPS.

AND I REALLY THINK IT'S A IT'S A SMART WAY FOR US TO OPEN UP AND, AND EXPLAIN TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO BUSINESS HERE, THAT WE WANT TO HELP PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO BUSINESS HERE AND WHO WANT TO LIVE HERE.

AND I WOULD I WOULD REALLY ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO PLEASE CONSIDER ALLOWING US TO RAISE THIS CONTRACTUAL THRESHOLD TO THE MILLION DOLLAR LEVEL. THANK YOU, MR. BAZALDUA. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CALL OUT THE, THE I DON'T I DON'T REALLY EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

BUT THIS AMENDMENT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN JUST PULLED OUT OF A HAT.

I, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS IN THE BEGINNING OF MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS, HE MENTIONED THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OF A SCIENTIFIC METRIC, BUT THEN HE MAKES A MOTION AND HIS REASONING FOR IT WAS BECAUSE HE REALLY FEELS LIKE THIS IS A GOOD AMOUNT.

WE NEED CONSISTENCY AND WE DO HAVE A METRIC MIT WAGE.

LIVING WAGE STANDARD IS SPECIFIC TO OUR REGION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR. WE ARE NOT USING BOSTON'S DATA.

I KNOW THAT IT EXISTS THERE, BUT THEY HAVE THE DATA POOLED FOR ALL OF THE DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIFIC TO OUR LIVING WAGE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS NUMBER JUST ARBITRARILY PULLED OUT OF THE HAT TO REPLACE ONE OF, OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE MOTION BY MR. WEST IS SMART BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO SUPPORT WHY THAT WOULD WOULD WORK.

IT'S COMPLETELY ANECDOTAL. AND SO IF, IF THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PAYING A LIVING WAGE TO OUR LABOR FORCE IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF A SCIENTIFIC METRIC TO BACK WHY THAT IT WOULD IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIATED.

I THINK THAT IT WOULD JUST BE COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR US TO TAKE UP AN AMENDMENT AND ARBITRARILY CHANGE A THRESHOLD DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC METRIC OR BACKING AT ALL. SO IN THE SPIRIT OF CONSISTENCY ALONE, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND I'LL STICK WITH THE WORK, ESPECIALLY WITH THE THRESHOLD THAT WAS VETTED SPECIFICALLY IN COMMITTEE, BY GOING OVER CONTRACTS AND SEEING HOW THIS WOULD TRULY IMPACT THE POLICY BEING IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MISS MENDELSOHN, THANK YOU.

LOOK LIKE YOU MIGHT BE DOING SOME WORK OVER THERE.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE? I DON'T HAVE A FISCAL IMPACT. I WAS LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTS THAT ARE BETWEEN OR LESS THAN $1 MILLION, AND THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 96% OF THE CONTRACTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE A LIVING WAGE WOULD NOT HAVE A LIVING WAGE APPLY GOING FORWARD. OKAY. SO WHAT IS THAT TWO THEN? THAT WOULD BE IS THAT THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTS. IT WOULD BE ABOUT TEN IF THAT. OKAY.

BECAUSE THERE WAS 233 CONTRACTS AND 96% OF THOSE ARE OVER A MILLION OR LESS THAN $1 MILLION.

OKAY. AND YOU AREN'T ABLE TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT I'M NOT SURE ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. WEST I'D STEPPED OUT FOR JUST A SECOND, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION AND THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IT.

SO IT'S TO RAISE THE ESTIMATED CONTRACT VALUE UP TO $1 MILLION.

SO THE ONLY THE LIVING WAGE POLICY WOULD THEN, IF THIS IS APPROVED, WOULD ONLY APPLY TO CONTRACTS OVER $1 MILLION.

IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN PER YOUR ANSWER, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE ALL CONTRACTS, BUT JUST TEN OR LESS THAT FROM FROM THE LIVING WAGE POLICY.

SO THERE WOULD JUST BE IT WOULD PRETTY MUCH MAKE IT NOT EVEN EXISTENT FOR MOST OF OUR CONTRACTS.

SO I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S JUST REALLY TRYING TO GET AROUND HAVING THE POLICY AT ALL.

IT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME. SO MISS GAVINO, MISS GAVINO.

[03:55:01]

AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WE PROVIDE WORKERS A LIVING WAGE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING.

I MET WITH MY RESIDENTS LAST NIGHT IN BRADFORD ESTATES, AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP.

AND THEY WERE PASSIONATE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT OUR WORKERS ARE PAID A LIVING WAGE AND THEY RECOGNIZE THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS THAT THEY WORKED UNDER.

ONE OF THEM EVEN RECALLED THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT THAT HAPPENED YOU KNOW, SO THEY, THEY'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S DANGEROUS CONDITIONS THAT THESE WORKERS YOU KNOW, WORK ON. AND SO OUR RESIDENTS, THEY TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS ONE THAT RECEIVED A RAISE THE OTHER DAY THAT HE WAS ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK AND THEY ALL CELEBRATED WITH HIM.

THE DRIVER TOLD HIM, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO WE'LL HAVE WATER AND SNACKS FOR YOU WHEN YOU COME OUT HERE.

AND SO THEY KNOW THEIR WORKERS WHO ARE ON THEIR REGULAR ROUTES.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO FOR THE WORKERS THAT ARE THERE.

MY FATHER HAD A LABOR INTENSIVE JOB AND IT'S NOT EASY TO WORK OUT IN THE TEXAS SUN.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL, I'VE BEEN OUT WITH THE SANITATION WORKERS BEFORE WHEN I WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER NARVAEZ.

WHEN WE BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO.

EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, GO OUT WITH OUR SANITATION WORKERS TO SEE THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK ON.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I MET WITH STAFF EARLIER, WE TALKED ABOUT THE JOBS THAT WERE COVERED AND NOT COVERED IN THIS AND THE ONES THAT WERE NOT COVERED, IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING PAID A LIVING WAGE OR HIGHER.

AND THE OTHER ONES WERE NOT. AND SO THESE LABOR INTENSIVE JOBS ARE NOT EASY.

THEY REQUIRE PEOPLE TO BE OUT IN THE SUN. AND WE NEED TO BE PAYING THEM.

THE CONTRACT WORKERS DON'T RECEIVE THE SAME BENEFITS THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS WORKERS GET.

AND SO EVEN GETTING PAID A FEW DOLLARS MORE THEY DON'T GET OUR PENSION, THEY DON'T GET OUR INSURANCE.

THEY DESERVE THE COUPLE OF EXTRA DOLLARS PAY THAT THEY'RE GETTING.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, A RECORD VOTE HAS BEEN REQUESTED ON MR. ROTH'S AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD TO CONTRACTS EXCEEDING 1 MILLION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YES, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR.

NO. IF YOU OPPOSE COUNCILMEMBER WEST. NO. COUNCILMEMBER MORENO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. GRACEY. NO. COUNCILMEMBER CADENA.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER BAZALDUA. NO. COUNCILMEMBER BLAIR.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER BLACKMON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

STEWART. NO. COUNCILMEMBER ROTH. YES. COUNCILMEMBER MENDELSOHN.

NO. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIS. NO. COUNCILMEMBER RIDLEY.

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

NO. MAYOR JOHNSON IS ABSENT. VOTE TAKEN. WITH ONE VOTING IN FAVOR, 13 OPPOSED. ONE ABSENT VOTE TAKEN. THE MOTION FAILS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, WE'RE BACK ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION. MR. GRACEY, YOU WERE UP.

DO YOU STILL WANT TO SPEAK ON THE MAIN MOTION? GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FRAME THIS QUESTION BECAUSE AGAIN, ONE THANK YOU, CHAIR, CHAIR WEST, FOR FOR COMING UP WITH THIS.

I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. I STRUGGLED WITH THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THERE, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS, BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT HOW WE NEED TO BE REVIEWING ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS JUST FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COST. SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THIS AND YOU JUST GO WITH IT.

AND ON AVERAGE, WHAT PERCENT PRICE INCREASE SHOULD WE EXPECT WHEN A CONTRACT IS RENEWED OR REBID? AT THE EXPIRATION BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET THE UNDERSTANDING OF OKAY, YES, WE HAVE THESE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WAGE FLOOR POLICY.

WHICH BY THE WAY, WE DID THAT AT THE SAME TIME FOR LOCAL WITH LOCAL PREFERENCE AND EVERYTHING IT WAS REALLY MEANT TO TAKE CARE OF DALLAS, BUT ALSO OUR DALLAS RESIDENTS AND EVERYTHING. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT IN IN PLACE AS WELL.

BUT WHEN WE DID THAT OR WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHEN IT COMES TO AN EXPIRATION FROM A PROCUREMENT PERSPECTIVE, WE ANTICIPATE THE NEXT TIME THIS CONTRACT IS TO COME UP FOR BID, THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE.

WHAT IS THAT PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE THAT WE ANTICIPATE USUALLY FROM A BUDGETING PERSPECTIVE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIVING WAGE OR JUST IN GENERAL, JUST IN GENERAL? JUSTIN. I WOULD SAY 10 TO 12%, RIGHT. OKAY. SO SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT.

[04:00:03]

AND MY THEORY ON THAT IS BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN DOING BUSINESS WITH US FOR SO LONG, THEY KIND OF KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE SOME OF THIS.

SO WHEN WE SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS WAGE FLOOR IS COSTING US, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAGE FLOOR OR EVEN IF IT IS THE WAGE FLOOR FROM A MATH PERSPECTIVE, EVEN IF THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT OUR CONTRACTS ARE GOING UP, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THERE'S MORE ROOM FOR US TO NEGOTIATE MORE IN THESE CONTRACTS TO GIVE US THAT SAVINGS, TO OFFSET THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT, TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN OFFSET THIS WAGE FLOOR AND NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE THE WAGES AS A WAY TO CREATE THE SAVINGS, AND I GUESS, PUBLICLY ENCOURAGING YOU ALL TO DO MORE AND SOME OF THE DEPARTMENTS TO DO MORE. THE OTHER PIECE IS A LOT OF REASONS. SOME OF THESE VENDORS DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS IS SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF HOW THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE WRITTEN. THEY'RE WRITTEN SOMETIMES TO EXCLUDE.

SOMETIMES THEY'RE WRITTEN TO INCLUDE. I'VE BEEN ON THE SIDE WHERE, HEY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ENCOURAGES COMPETITION SO THAT WE CAN LOWER PRICES.

AND YET SOME DEPARTMENTS WANT TO KEEP THOSE CONTRACTS IN PLACE.

NOT SAYING IT'S A REGULAR PRACTICE, BUT IT IS VERY MUCH A THING THAT THEY WRITE THESE SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THEY CAN LIMIT COMPETITION, SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THOSE CERTAIN VENDORS THAT COME BACK CONTRACT AFTER CONTRACT AFTER CONTRACT.

SO THERE IS THAT FIGHT. OH, TOO BAD WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.

WELL, LET ME STOP TO HELP WITH THOSE TYPE OF THINGS ANYMORE.

BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT LIKE LIVING WAGE IS THE ONLY REASON THESE CONTRACTS.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT IT IS, BUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO OFFSET WHAT THIS LIVING WAGE POLICY OR WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IN PARTICULAR, WOULD DO TO HELP US SAVE MONEY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT AS IT NOT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS.

AND THE COMMENT WAS ALREADY MADE ABOUT TIGHTENING UP ON OUR NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONTRACTS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, MISS WILLIS. THANK YOU.

WELL, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DOES REPRESENT SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND MOVE US A LITTLE FARTHER ALONG IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE CAREFULLY STUDIED.

I LIKE RAISING THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD, DISTINGUISHING THAT ALL JOBS ARE NOT THE SAME AND HAVE DIFFERENT RISK FACTORS.

POLICY REVIEW PRIOR TO BUDGETING THE NEXT YEAR, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WEST BROUGHT THAT UP IN APRIL OR SOMETHING SO THAT IT CAN MAKE AN IMPACT ON NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. EXAMINING THIS, THE CONTRACTS AT THREE YEARS WITH THE ONE YEAR RENEWALS VERSUS FIVE YEARS, SOMETIMES WE LOCK INTO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT, WHICH I'M SURE WE GET FAVORABILITY ON, BUT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WAGE THAT WAS IN LINE FIVE YEARS PRIOR, BUT GETS A LITTLE OUT OF WHACK.

AND SO I DO AGREE WITH BEING ABLE TO COME BACK AND EXAMINE THAT SOONER.

I THINK THE AMENDMENT IS WELL TAKEN. I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT AS WE COME BACK IN AND LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENT LEVELS.

MAYBE IT'S NOT $1 MILLION BECAUSE TO THE POINT MADE, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ELIMINATING 96% OF THESE CONTRACTS, THAT'S WHY YOU CAN DO THIS. SO BUT THERE COULD BE A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD THAT IS IDENTIFIED THAT IS HELPING SMALL BUSINESS, BUT IS NOT HARMING OUR, OUR LABOR POOL. I, YOU KNOW, AS I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THIS, WHAT I FOUND MYSELF HOPING FOR WAS SOMETHING LIKE A BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS PLUS RATE. SO MAYBE IT IS NOT THE LIVING WAGE.

DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ROLE IS, BECAUSE YOU IDENTIFIED SOME WHERE WE ARE PAYING OVER MARKET AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S RESPONSIBLE TO THE TAXPAYERS.

HOWEVER, WE'VE ALSO LOOKED AT SOME WAGES THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE INCREASED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, 123%, THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE REALLY OUT OF LINE AND JUST NOT RIGHT.

AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS A MIDDLE, MIDDLE GROUND IN THERE.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE COULD FURTHER EXPLORE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I HEARD SOME WORDS TODAY ABOUT A MORAL CASE.

AND TO BALANCE THIS BUDGET, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT JUST MAKING A LOWER WAGE, THEY ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS.

SO THEIR JOB AND THEIR BENEFITS GO AWAY SO WE CAN BALANCE THE BUDGET.

SO THERE'S ALSO A MORAL STORY TO THAT AS WELL THAT I WANT TO BE SURE EVERYONE TAKES HOME WITH THEM.

THANK YOU, MISS BLAIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M SUPPORTING ITEM 36 WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY'S LIVING WAGE POLICY. FOR TEN YEARS, I WAS A CWA WORKER.

I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A THRESHOLD AND A FLOOR, AND I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU'RE AT THAT FLOOR.

AND THE COMPANY NEEDS TO SAVE MONEY SO THEY LOWER THE FLOOR.

[04:05:02]

THEY'RE AT THE LOW END. AND I KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT, BUT I ALSO KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO BE GOOD STEWARDS FOR THE CITIZENS AND ALSO FOR THE WORKERS.

THIS IS NOT AN EASY JOB, BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE WERE ELECTED TO DO.

I SUPPORT THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT IT FROM A THREE YEAR CONTRACT TERM WITH TWO OPTIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWALS.

IT GIVES BOTH THE CITY AND THE CONTRACTORS GREATER STABILITY, WHILE STILL ALLOWING US TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE WHEN WE HAVE WHEN WE LOCK IN TOO LONG AND THINGS ARE CHANGING AS RAPIDLY AS THEY'RE CHANGING TODAY, NOT LOCKING US IN FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME, BUT BEING ABLE TO COME BACK AND TALK. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND TALK AND AND REEVALUATE IF WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THINGS, AND WHETHER WE NEED TO RELOOK AT HOW WE ARE.

WE'RE SETTING OUR FLOOR AND SEE IF WE'RE USING THE RIGHT METRICS AND THE RIGHT TOOLS.

SO GIVING US TELLING US TO COME BACK EVERY TWO YEARS AS OPPOSED TO COMING BACK EVERY FIVE YEARS, IT'S BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. MAYBE, MAYBE YOUR FLOOR WOULD BE TOO LOW.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TOMORROW'S GOING TO BRING. SO FOR THAT, FOR THOSE REASONS AND FOR THE RESIDENTS OUT THERE IN MY DISTRICT THAT ARE LISTENING TO ME, I AM SUPPORTING THEM. I WANT THEM TO HEAR THAT I AM SUPPORTING THEM WHILE STILL TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AS WHAT YOU ELECTED ME TO DO.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT REASON. I AM SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT THAT THAT THAT CHAIR WEST HAS BROUGHT BACK TO US.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MORENO. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I WANT TO THANK YOU AND ALL THE TEAM FOR ALL THE WORK THAT Y'ALL PUT INTO THIS.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THOUGHT. IT'S GONE THROUGH COMMITTEE.

MADAM CITY MANAGER, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BACK TO US.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE REVIEW THIS AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS.

I'M EXCITED THAT THAT'S IN THERE. WE PROBABLY NEED TO REVIEW IT ANNUALLY JUST TO, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING.

SO I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ALSO, JUST THE 300, 300 MILLION, I THINK IS THE RIGHT NUMBER THERE OR SORRY, 300 000 TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GIVING SMALL BUSINESSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO GROW HERE WITH THE CITY.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH, IS WHAT SORT OF AUDITING IS DONE TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONTRACTORS ARE ACTUALLY PAYING THAT LIVING WAGE AND THAT WHAT WE'RE UP HERE VOTING ON ACTUALLY IS REFLECTED IN PEOPLE'S PAYCHECKS.

SO WE CURRENTLY DO NOT DO AN AUDIT OR COMPLIANT COMPLAINT BASED.

SO IF AN INDIVIDUAL COMES TO US AND STATES THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID THE LIVING WAGE, THEN WE DO REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE US WITH PAYROLL DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT WHETHER THEY ARE OR THEY'RE NOT. IF THEY ARE NOT, THEN WE DO CURED A NOTICE TO CURE.

AND IF THEY DO NOT CURE, THEN WE HAVE, WE TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.

AND HAVE WE EVER FOUND THAT TO WE, WE'VE DONE IT THAT I KNOW OF ABOUT THREE TIMES.

OKAY. AND THEN DO, DO OTHER EMPLOYERS OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFITS WHEN THEY ARE PAYING HOURLY WAGES. SO THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IN OUR SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE LIVING WAGE TO PAY THE LIVING WAGE FLOOR AND THEN TO COMPLY WITH ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAWS REGARDING HEALTH BENEFITS. BUT WE DIDN'T WE DO NOT REQUIRE BENEFITS.

OKAY. AND MAYBE OFFLINE, WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AT WHAT POINT THINGS TRIGGER.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY'RE WORKING OVER A PART TIME.

WORK OR IF THEY'RE EVEN WORKING OVERTIME. OKAY.

IF THEY ARE WORKING OVERTIME, IS THAT JUST FEDERAL REGULATION OR DOES THIS OR DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY MANDATES? WE DO ON OUR, ON OUR BID TABLES, WE'LL HAVE THE HOURLY RATE AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN OVERTIME RATE AS WELL.

AND THEN THEY'LL, WHEN THEY PROVIDE THEIR DOCUMENTATION, THEY NEED TO SHOW THE HOURS OF OVERTIME AND THE HOURS OF REGULAR PAY.

OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I NOTED TWO IN OPPOSITION, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH AND COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN. MOTION CARRIES ARIES AGENDA ITEM 37 AND 38 ARE YOUR CLOSED SESSION ITEMS.

[04:10:03]

[39. 26-2888A Authorize the (1) acceptance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program for the federal share of the eligible capital improvement project for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law at Dallas Love Field (Grant No. 3-48-0062-077-2026, Assistance Listing No. 20.106) in the amount of $151,050.00 to acquire and install up to 55 approved Vehicle Movement Area Transmitter units where the performance period shall be four years from the date of acceptance; (2) establishment of appropriations in an amount not to exceed $151,050.00 in the FY26 FAA AIP Non-Competitive Discretionary Supplemental Grant Fund; (3) receipt and deposit of grant funds in an amount not to exceed $151,050.00 in the FY26 FAA AIP Non-Competitive Discretionary Supplemental Grant Fund; and (4) execution of the grant agreement with FAA and all terms, conditions, and documents required by the agreement - Not to exceed $151,050.00 - Financing: FY26 FAA AIP Non-Competitive Discretionary Supplemental Grant Fund]

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 40.

[40. 26-2797A Authorize a Discretionary Service Agreement between the City and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor) at 701 South Lamar Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 for the Oncor removal of four existing vaults and all cables serving the vaults collectively identified as VC643, vault F, and the abandonment of duct bank and manholes on the private Memorial Street located within the Convention Center complex, for Work Order No. 31218595, for Component One of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas Master Plan - Not to exceed $544,709.68 - Financing: Convention Center Construction Fund]

FOR COMPONENT ONE OF THE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON CONVENTION CENTER, DALLAS MASTER PLAN NOT TO EXCEED $544,709.68.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, MR. MAYOR. MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM.

MR. MAYOR, YOUR ZONING ITEMS ARE NEXT. IF NOT, THEN THIS COMPLETES YOUR FIRST SESSION ITEMS. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

SO THE TIME RIGHT NOW IS 1:38 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026.

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER SECTION 551.07.

ONE OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER DESCRIBED ON TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 38.

WE WILL RETURN NO EARLIER THAN 30 MINUTES FROM NOW.

THANK YOU. OKAY, THE TIME IS 235. THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL IS NOW BACK IN SESSION. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM Z FIVE.

MR. GRACEY I MOVE TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2026.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA.

[ZONING CASES - CONSENT]

ITEM Z TWO HAS BEEN PULLED BY MAYOR PRO TEM RESENDEZ.

ITEM Z THREE WAS DELETED. ITEM Z FOUR HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

ITEM Z FIVE WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY.

ITEM Z SIX HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR AND ITEM Z NINE HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY.

THEREFORE, YOUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS Z1Z7, Z EIGHT AND Z TEN THROUGH Z 14. I'LL READ THOSE ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. ITEM Z ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MF TWO.

A DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COTILLION DRIVE BETWEEN FERGUSON ROAD AND AND DUMBARTON DRIVE.

ITEM Z SIX. ITEM C7 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1851 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE OR FOOD STORE,

[04:15:04]

ITEM Z EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER CORNER OF MCBROOM STREET AND NORTH WESTMORELAND ROAD.

ITEM Z TEN IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A UTILITY OR GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION OTHER THAN LISTED ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH AND WEST LINES OF BLANCO DRIVE, EAST OF BONNYVIEW ROAD.

ITEM 11 IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE MOUNTAIN CREEK INTERURBAN BRIDGE ADJACENT ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD BETWEEN SOUTH WESTMORELAND ROAD TO THE EAST AND SOUTH COCKRELL HILL ROAD TO THE WEST.

ITEM Z 12 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AMENDMENTS TO DIVISION 51, A 7.900 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW SUB DISTRICT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICT.

SPD AND A REDUCTION IN AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN PERIMETER SUB DISTRICT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SP.

SD ON PROPERTY ON THE WEST CORNER OF WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY AND NORTH HARWOOD STREET.

ITEM Z 13 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE.

LIMITED TO A DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ELM STREET, EAST OF NORTH GOOD LATIMER EXPRESSWAY AND ITEM Z 14 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO AND AN EXPANSION OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2549 FOR A PEDESTRIAN SKY BRIDGE ON PROPERTY ON THE RIGHT.

ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD BETWEEN PLANTATION ROAD AND RECORD CROSSING ROAD.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THESE ITEMS. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY OF THE ZONING ITEMS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. MOVE APPROVAL. OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, MISS BLACKMON.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO POINT OUT Z ONE. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON FERGUSON ROAD, YOU KNOW, IT'S BASICALLY CHURCH ALLEY.

AND WHAT WE'VE GOTTEN HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE SOME PARKING LOTS INTO TOWNHOMES FOR SALE.

AND SO THIS IS WHEN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE THE COMMUNITY WITH THE FAITH BASED, WITH OUR PLANNING AND WORKING WITH FORWARD DALLAS AND REALLY WORKING.

IT WASN'T WELCOMED AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BUT WORKING THROUGH THOSE ISSUES AND COMING TOGETHER WITH SOMETHING THAT REALLY FORMS A BENEFIT IN THIS AREA IN FAR NORTHEAST DALLAS. SO THE COORDINATION AMONG THESE PARTIES, WE HAVE REALLY CREATED A LONG TERM LAND USE PLAN GOALS FOR THIS AREA THAT IS MOVING TOWARDS HOME OWNERSHIP AND WORKING WITH VACANT PROPERTY THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IN A MORE THOUGHTFUL WAY.

SO I WANT TO THANK OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE, THE CONSULTANT THAT WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND REALLY GOT THEM OKAY. WITH THIS AND IT MADE MY JOB EASIER. SO THANK YOU.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT THE PRODUCT ENDS UP WITH.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ITEM WE'LL MOVE TO YOUR FIRST ITEM. ITEM Z TWO.

[Z2. 26-2650A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for MU-1 Mixed Use District on property zoned MF-2(A) Multifamily District, on the north line of Great Trinity Forest Way, between Hillburn Drive and North Murdeaux Lane, [AKA 7601 Great Trinity Forest Way] Recommendation of Staff: Approval Recommendation of CPC: Denial Z-25-000238 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY. I'M SORRY. Z TWO IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR MU-1 MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH LINE OF GREAT TRINITY FOREST WAY BETWEEN HILLBURN DRIVE AND NORTH MYRTLE LANE, ALSO KNOWN AS 7601 GREAT TRINITY FOREST WAY. MISS BLACKMON.

YES, I HAVE A MOTION. I'M SORRY. ONE SECOND. RIGHT.

MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 26 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED TWO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z TWO? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. MISS BLACKMON, I MOVE TO REMAND THIS ITEM TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.

SECOND. GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? THIS IS OUR MAYOR PRO TEM PROJECT, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON REWORKING THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT AND PUSHING IT BACK TO CPC IS WAS WHAT

[04:20:04]

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. ITEM Z FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO SUB DISTRICT 30

[Z4. 26-2653A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Subdistrict 30 within Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on the north corner of Reagan Street and Brown Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to a development plan and amended conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to a development plan and amended conditions Z-26-000054 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

WE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z FOUR? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? YES.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

NUMBER ONE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE. HEIGHT IS 45FT FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURES AND TWO REMOVE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA PROVISIONS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN SECTION S-30.107D. IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. THESE ARE CHANGES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED TO BE ADDED TO THIS MOTION TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 40.

THEY ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE INITIATED, BUT THIS COMES FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU.

[Z6. 26-2642A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting an amendment to Planned Development District No. 241 with consideration for a CS Commercial Service District on property zoned Planned Development District No. 241, on the southeast corner of Haymarket Road and C.F. Hawn Freeway, [AKA 10600 C.F. Hawn Freeway] Recommendation of Staff: Approval of a CS Commercial Service District Recommendation of CPC: Approval of an amendment to Planned Development District No. 241, subject to a conceptual plan and conditions Z-26-000091 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

WE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION.

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

BRIAN. STATS. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BRANT STEWART.

I'M WITH POPE HARDWICK. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT PROGRESS LAND DEVELOPMENT.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. BUT THE APPLICANT HOPES TO BUILD A TECHNICAL SCHOOL ON THE FRONT HALF OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM Z SIX. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? YES, SIR. MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 7TH.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, THIS THIS IS A I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS TO LOOK AT SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT THAT THIS PROJECT MAY PRESENT. SO I WANT TO HOLD IT UNTIL OCTOBER 7TH.

IN ORDER FOR ME TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE I ALLOW SOMETHING TO MOVE FORWARD.

OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM ITEM Z NINE.

[Z9. 26-2645A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new subdistrict for a mix of uses, on property zoned Subdistrict 4 within Planned Development District No. 462, the Henderson Avenue Special Purpose District, on the southwest line of North Henderson Avenue, northwest of Fuqua Street Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to conditions Z-26-000100 *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

WE RECEIVED TWO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? NO SPEAKERS, MISTER MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

AGRICULTURAL USES ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN SUB DISTRICT FIVE.

A NO MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR MULTIFAMILY IN SUB DISTRICT FIVE A IN SECTIONS 51, P-462.108, J AND K. THE FOLLOWING URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR MODIFICATIONS OR OTHER EXTERIOR STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS DO NOT APPLY IN SUB DISTRICT FIVE.

A COLON. USE OF METALS ON FACADES. REFLECTIVE GLASS AND FACADE MATERIALS.

IS THERE A SECOND? WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? YES. ONCE AGAIN, THIS WAS A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ADVISED ARE NECESSITATED TO COMPLY WITH

[04:25:08]

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

[Z15. 26-2901A A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for and an ordinance granting a new planned development district for LI Light Industrial District uses on property zoned A(A) Agricultural District, on the south line of Cleveland Road, west of Lancaster-Hutchins Road Recommendation of Staff: Approval, subject to conditions Recommendation of CPC: Approval, subject to conditions Z-25-000229 Note: This item was deferred by the City Council at the public hearing on August 25, 2026, and is scheduled for consideration on September 9, 2026. *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

ITEM Z 15 IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LEE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF CLEVELAND ROAD, WEST OF LANCASTER HUTCHENS ROAD.

ALL RIGHT. MR. MAYOR, WE SENT 20 NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST.

WE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM Z 15? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I'VE. YES. SORRY. MISS MENDELSOHN.

THANK YOU. IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER AVAILABLE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM? YES, I KNOW SHE DOES INTEND TO DEFER IT. CAN YOU TELL US ON THE REPLIES THAT WERE OPPOSED? CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE OPPOSED? NO. I'M SORRY, I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING MEGHAN IF SHE WOULD DO THAT.

OH, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THOSE AT MY FINGERTIPS.

I CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT AND WHAT THE OPPOSITION WAS THOUGH, AND IN THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS IN GENERAL TO THIS ITEM? I AM NOT AWARE. OKAY.

SO MY QUESTION COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, WAS IF YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS TO THIS ITEM AND WHERE YOU STAND ON IT.

THANK YOU. THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND YOU WEREN'T HERE, SO I'M ASKING FOR YOUR INPUT. I WOULD. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HOLD THIS UNTIL.

SEPTEMBER 23RD. THE APPLICANT AND I ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CREEK.

IT'S. THIS PROPERTY SITS ON THE MIDDLE OF A CREEK.

BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION, CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE YOUR MOTION AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND AND THEN I'M SORRY.

I'M MOVED TO HOLD UNTIL DEFER UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23RD.

OKAY. MOTION AND A SECOND, MISS BLAIR. DISCUSSION. CAN'T RUN AND TALK AND THINK AT THE SAME TIME.

TOO MANY THINGS. THIS THIS THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT SITS ON THE MIDDLE OF A CREEK.

IT IS IN THE THE INLAND PORT. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BEST WAYS TO MANAGE THE CREEK GOING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A PROPERTY.

THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL USES AROUND IT. THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT GOES ON IN THE INLAND PORT.

SO WE, THE APPLICANT AND I, ARE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THE FINAL DISCUSSION ITEMS AND TO WORK WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE STILL THERE. THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE HOLDING THE CASE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED TO MEET NEXT TUESDAY.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DEFER? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHOEVER'S HERE TO SPEAK ON PH TWO, PH THREE. IF YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON, PLEASE COME ON TOWARDS THE FRONT SO WE CAN BE EFFICIENT.

GO AHEAD, MR. CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER GRACEY WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ITEM PH ONE, MR. GRACEY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO DEFER ITEM PAGE ONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2026. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CEREMONIAL STREET NAMING OF THE HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE.

SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WAIT ONE SECOND.

TIME OUT. ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. YEAH.

YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT UNTIL THE DATE OF. DON'T DO THAT. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY CAN GET IT TURNED AROUND THAT. BUT JUST IN CASE THEY DON'T GET IT TURNED AROUND THAT FAST. I JUST WANT TO SAY UNTIL THIS EVENT, BUT I WANT IT TO BE THERE SO I CAN GET IT.

I'M JUST SAYING, YOU SAID THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TOLD US.

[04:30:04]

PROCESS REAL QUICK. NOT. NOT. PROBABLY. THEY SAY THEY JUST GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL.

I DON'T CARE. CAN WE COME BACK TO THIS ONE? CAN WE TABLE THIS FOR TILL THE END OF THE WEEK? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING.

NO PROBLEM, MR. MAYOR. YOUR NEXT ITEM WILL BE PAGE TWO.

[PH2. 26-2593A A public hearing (1) to receive comments regarding an application by Dallas Leased Housing Associates XIV, LP and/or its affiliate(s) (collectively referred to as Applicant), to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2026 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for West Davis Senior Apartments, a 280-unit multifamily residential development for persons of low and moderate income to be located at 4600 West Davis Street, Dallas, Texas 75211 (Project); and (2) pursuant to Section 394.9025 of the Texas Local Government Code regarding bonds to be issued by the City of Dallas Housing Finance Corporation to finance the Project; and, at the close of the public hearing, (3) authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant, related to its upcoming application to TDHCA for the development of the Project - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

TDHCA. FOR 2026 4% NON COMPETITIVE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR WEST DAVIS SENIOR APARTMENTS, A 280 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PERSONS OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME, TO BE LOCATED AT 4600 WEST DAVIS STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75211 PROJECT AND TWO PURSUANT TO SECTION 394.9025 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO FINANCE THE PROJECT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THREE AUTHORIZE A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS UPCOMING APPLICATION TO TDHCA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. YOU DO HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, ANDREW WARREN. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ANDREW WARREN AND I'M AN ELDER AT FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF DALLAS AND A LEADER WITH DALLAS AREA INTERFAITH.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF DALLAS AREA INTERFAITH IN SUPPORT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIORS AND FAMILIES AT 4600 WEST DAVIS STREET, DIE REPRESENTS 45/40 FAITH INSTITUTIONS, NONPROFITS, SCHOOLS AND LABOR UNIONS FROM ALL OVER THE DALLAS AREA, INCLUDING SAINT CECILIA CATHOLIC CHURCH, SAINT MARY OF CARMEL CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SANTA TERESITA CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH ARE NEAR THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THIS PROJECT.

IN DIE CONGREGATIONS AND COMMUNITY MINISTRIES, WE SEE FIRSTHAND THE FINANCIAL PRESSURES ON SENIORS AND FAMILIES DUE TO THE HIGH COST OF HOUSING. DIFFICULT CHOICES ARE MADE EVERY DAY BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION, GROCERIES, HEALTH CARE, CHILD CARE, PAYING RENT, AND SAVING FOR THE FUTURE.

SENIORS AND FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITIES NEED MORE OPTIONS FOR QUALITY, AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HOUSING THAT IS PRICED AFFORDABLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOUR NEXT SPEAKER. ON ITEM TWO IS SUZANNA CANTU? GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SUZANNA CANTU AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE DISCALCED CARMELITE FRIARS.

THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY ON 4600 WEST DAVIS.

MY REMARKS THIS AFTERNOON ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE WEST DAVIS SENIOR AND WEST DAVIS FAMILY.

PROJECTS PROPOSED BY DOMINION TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE FRIARS MOUNT CARMEL CENTER SITE.

JUST WANT TO SHARE ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF MOUNT CARMEL CENTER, WHICH WAS A.

A CAREFULLY EVALUATED SEVEN YEAR ENDEAVOR WITH THE CARMELITE FRIARS, WITH THE GOAL OF RAISING FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF BOTH MEDICAL RETIREMENT AND AND HOUSING NEEDS OF THE AGING FRIARS.

THE FRIARS CAREFULLY EVALUATED THE MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING INDUSTRIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ULTIMATELY, THE FRIARS. THEY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT WHAT WILL BE BUILT AND HOW IT WILL SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

AFTER A NATIONWIDE SEARCH FOR THE RIGHT PROJECT AND THE RIGHT BUYER, THE FRIARS HAVE SELECTED DOMINION'S AFFORDABLE FAMILY AND SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AS THE OPTION BEST ALIGNED WITH THE CARMELITES GOALS AND DESIRE TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RALPH REYES.

[04:35:22]

I REPRESENT THE DISCALCED CARMELITE FRIARS. A FEW YEARS AGO, WE STARTED RESTRUCTURING BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING OLD.

FEW IN NUMBER AND ALSO SICKLY. THERE'S ILLNESS.

SO FOR THAT REASON, WE DECIDED TO SELL MOUNT CARMEL CENTER TO TAKE CARE OF OUR AGING FRIARS AND ALSO OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE ILL. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SELLING MOUNT CARMEL DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE'RE LEAVING DALLAS.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE DALLAS TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

OUR PEOPLE ARE VERY GOOD, KIND, GENEROUS. FOR THAT REASON, WE DECIDED TO STAY IN DALLAS.

DALLAS IS GOOD. WE ARE SUPPORTING DOMINIONS WEST DAVIS SENIOR AND WEST DAVIS FAMILY PROJECTS BECAUSE TO US, DOMINION REPRESENTS OUR LEGACY.

THEY CARE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. THEY CARE FOR THE PEOPLE AROUND MOUNT CARMEL, AND THEY CARE ABOUT DALLAS.

FOR THAT REASON, WE SUPPORT DOMINION BUYING THE PROPERTY.

THEY WILL CONTINUE THAT LEGACY, WHICH WE HAVE LOVINGLY SERVED HERE IN DALLAS.

AND I THINK WITH THEM IT WILL CONTINUE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE YOUR REGISTERED REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM FF TWO? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. MR. WEST. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION, MR. WEST. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKERS WHO'VE COME TODAY, ESPECIALLY FATHER REYES, FOR BEING HERE. AND I WANT TO COMMEND DALLAS AREA INTERFAITH, ESPECIALLY FOR PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS.

I KNOW THEY REACHED OUT TO ME SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND MET WITH A LARGE DELEGATION EXPRESSING THEIR INTEREST IN HELPING THE CITY WITH SEVERAL OF OUR CHALLENGES, INCLUDING HOUSING. AND IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE WITH THE ORGANIZATION.

WHEN MOUNT CARMEL FIRST EXPRESSED INTEREST PUBLICLY IN DOING SOMETHING WITH THE PART OF THE MONASTERY CAMPUS, I PROBABLY GOT A PHONE CALL A DAY FROM DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY, AND OF COURSE I SENT IT ALL TO THEM, BUT THEY. I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE CHOICE THAT WAS MADE BY THE INSTITUTION WAS FOR HOUSING.

SO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE PARTNERING WITH DOMINION IT'S A LARGE PROJECT WITH 640 UNITS, BOTH WITH MULTI-FAMILY AND SENIOR HOUSING BEING INTEGRATED TOGETHER.

THIS COULD HAVE VERY EASILY AND POSSIBLY FOR MORE MONEY BEEN SOLD TO AN INDUSTRIAL USER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL USES OVER BY JOEY PARK, BUT THERE'S A DEFINITE NEED FOR HOUSING IN THE CITY.

AND THIS IS A GREAT USE FOR THIS, FOR THIS LAND.

AND I'M VERY CONFIDENT IN DOMINION'S ABILITY TO GET THIS DONE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS THEY'VE DONE MANY PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN STATES, INCLUDING IN TEXAS. BUT THIS IS THE FIRST DALLAS PROJECT, SO IT'S EXCITING TO SEE THEM BRING THEIR SKILL SET AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE TO US.

AND I WANT TO LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THANK MY VOLUNTEER HOUSING ADVISOR, CHARLIE O'CONNELL, FOR WORKING SORT OF THROUGH THE NUMBERS FOR ME.

AND I'M GLAD I GET TO TALK ABOUT IT TODAY, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN BLOCKED OFF FROM COMMUNICATING DURING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HOPE EVERYBODY WILL SUPPORT THIS.

MRS GAVINO. I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE MY COLLEAGUE.

I ACTUALLY GREW UP DRIVING BY THE MONASTERY AND HAD FAMILY MEMBERS THAT ATTENDED.

AND IT'S RIGHT NEAR DISTRICT SIX IN ARCADIA PARK, WHICH IS A GROWING COMMUNITY.

IT IS ON THE VERGE OF WHERE THE CEMENTO GRANDE USED TO BE AND IT WAS INDUSTRIAL AREA.

AND SO TO SEE FAMILIES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING GO.

[04:40:01]

MRS STEWART. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AM JUST TOUCHED BY ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION AND HOW THEY ARE LIVING OUT THE COMMANDMENT TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

AND THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE SEE OFTEN IN THIS ROOM.

AND I'VE JUST REALLY BEEN TOUCHED BY IT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND ENCOURAGEMENT.

AND I WISH EVERYBODY THE BEST IN GETTING THIS TAKEN CARE OF AND GET DONE.

THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. ITEM THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING ONE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING AN APPLICATION

[PH3. 26-2597A A public hearing (1) to receive comments regarding an application by Dallas Leased Housing Associates XIII, LP and/or its affiliate(s) (collectively referred to as Applicant), to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2026 4% Non-Competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits for West Davis Family Apartments, a 360-unit multifamily residential development for persons of low and moderate income to be located at 4600 West Davis Street, Dallas, Texas, 75211 (Project); (2) pursuant to Section 394.9025 of the Texas Local Government Code regarding bonds to be issued by the City of Dallas Housing Finance Corporation to finance the Project; and, at the close of the public hearing, (3) authorize a Resolution of No Objection for Applicant related to its upcoming application to the TDHCA for the Project, acknowledging the Project’s location within one linear mile of another development serving the same target population, which received a Housing Tax Credit allocation in the three-year period preceding the date the TDHCA application round began - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with Dallas Housing Resource Catalog.]

752112. PURSUANT TO SECTION 394.905 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO FINANCE THE PROJECT AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AUTHORIZED A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR APPLICANT RELATED TO ITS UPCOMING APPLICATION TO THE TDCA FOR THE PROJECT, ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROJECT'S LOCATION WITHIN ONE LINEAR MILE OF ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT SERVING THE SAME TARGET POPULATION, WHICH RECEIVED A HOUSING TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION IN THE THREE YEAR PERIOD PRECEDING THE DATE, THE TDC APPLICATION ROUND BEGAN. YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

ANDREW WARREN. ITEM PAGE THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM THREE? NO. NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. MR. WEST. MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOTION. AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? QUICKLY. YES.

THANK YOU. THIS IS PART OF THE SAME PACKAGE. I JUST KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THEM BOTH TOGETHER.

I JUST WILL ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER. IF YOU END UP GETTING THE TAX CREDITS FOR THIS, I ASSUME YOU WILL BECAUSE IT'S 4%.

PLEASE CONSIDER DOING A LOT OF THREE BEDROOM FAMILY TYPE UNITS.

I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU EVER FILED, BUT THAT IS IF YOU WERE HERE EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A DEFINITE NEED IN THE CITY.

SO PLEASE CONSIDER DOING THAT AND MAKING THIS HOUSING FOR ALL SENIORS.

THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. ITEM PAGE FOUR IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ONE RE ADOPTING AND CONTINUING

[PH4. 26-2294A A public hearing to receive comments on (1) re-adopting and continuing in effect Chapter 12, "City Youth Program Standards of Care," of the Dallas City Code, to re-establish standards of care for certain city youth programs sponsored by the City of Dallas in compliance with state law; and, at the close of the public hearing (2) approving of an ordinance to re-adopt Chapter 12 of the Dallas City Code; (3) providing a penalty clause; (4) providing a severability clause; and (5) providing an effective date and an expiration date - Financing: No cost consideration to the City]

ESTABLISH STANDARDS OF CARE FOR CERTAIN CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVING AN ORDINANCE TO RE ADOPT CHAPTER 12 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE THREE, PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND FIVE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN EXPIRATION DATE.

THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEM FF FOUR? NO SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. IS THERE A MOTION? GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ITEM. MR. MAYOR, WE ARE BACK TO ITEM FF ONE.

[PH1. 26-2721A A public hearing to receive comments regarding a proposal to change the name of Houston Street Bridge (Houston Street Viaduct) between Zang Boulevard and Young Street to “Pettis Norman Bridge” and an ordinance granting the name change - STNAME-26-000005 - Financing: This action has no cost consideration to the City (see Fiscal Information) *In alignment with ForwardDallas.]

GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. TO A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CEREMONIAL STREET NAME CHANGE, SIR.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW I DID. MY MOTION IS TO IS TO DO IT TO TO TO MOVE IT TO THIS ONE.

WHAT I SAID, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE EITHER A DATE OR AN EVENT, NOT JUST A PUBLIC HEARING.

WELL, THEN LET ME GIVE A DATE. YOU SAID I CAN'T GIVE A DATE. YOU GIVE THE 2030.

OKAY. I MEAN, I GIVE YOU 23. IT WON'T BE READY FOR THE CEREMONY.

YOU CAN HEAR THIS, THOUGH. YOU CAN'T HEAR THE ITEM.

[04:45:07]

UNTIL THE DATE OF A CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CEREMONIAL STREET NAMING OF THE HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE.

GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

MR. MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA. ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING.

HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL LEFT OVER ON YOUR OPEN MIC.

I'LL CALL THAT NAME TO SEE IF THAT PERSON IS IN THE AUDIENCE.

STEPHANIE. ROSS OKAY, MISS ROSS, WHILE YOU'RE COMING FORWARD, I WILL RECITE THE SPEAKER GUIDELINES.

OKAY. SPEAKER MUST OBSERVE THE SAME RULES OF PROPRIETY, DECORUM AND GOOD CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ANY SPEAKER MAKING PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT, PROFANE OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS, OR WHO BECOMES BOISTEROUS WHILE ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOM. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

YOU'LL NOTICE THE TIMER, THE TIME ON THE MONITOR WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP.

PLEASE STOP. ALSO, DURING YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFER TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER BY NAME AND ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO MAYOR RESENDEZ ONLY YOU MAY BEGIN. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE ROSS.

I CURRENTLY RESIDE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS, BUT I AM A DALLAS NATIVE AND SMU GRADUATE.

I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK SPEAK ON THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CRUSOE'S UNFAIR HANDLING OF FORMER DALLAS POLICE OFFICER MELVIN WILLIAMS. MANY WITHIN DPD AND THE CITY ARE WELL AWARE. YET NO ONE WILL SAY ANYTHING.

MY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF COURT RECORDS AND THE VIDEO EVIDENCE SUGGESTS HE WAS UNFAIRLY TARGETED FOR ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER DIRECT LEADERSHIP DURING THE SUMMER 22, 2020 PROTESTS AND RIOTS. VIDEO EVIDENCE, MEDICAL RECORDS AND AN FBI INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED MR. WILLIAMS DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ROUNDS THAT CAUSED INJURIES TO INDIVIDUALS IN THE MCKEE AND DOYLE INCIDENTS.

WHILE AN INITIAL GRAND JURY REVIEWED ALL EVIDENCE AND RETURNED A NO BILL, A SECOND PROCEEDING WHICH EXCLUDED KEY DEFENSE TESTIMONIES LED TO HIS INDICTMENT.

DE LA CRUZ CONVENED A SECOND GRAND JURY, RESTRICTING THE PRESENT, RESTRICTING THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND DISMISSING 40 VPD OFFICERS BEFORE THEY COULD TESTIFY. THIS INCLUDED LIEUTENANT MARK VERNON, WHO HAD PROVIDED A FIVE PAGE AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING WILLIAMS ACTED UNDER EXPLICIT COMMAND ORDERS. IN JULY 2021 INCIDENT VIDEO SHOWS MR. WILLIAMS. MR. WILLIAMS NEUTRALIZING A THREAT FROM AGGRESSIVE FROM AN AGGRESSIVE, INTOXICATED INDIVIDUAL WHO IGNORED VERBAL ORDERS WHILE ENGAGING IN A VIOLENT ALTERCATION.

DEEP ELLUM HAS SHOWN US A NEVER ENDING LOOP OF STREET FIGHTS, SHOOTINGS, MURDERS, AND CONFLICTS WITH THE POLICE.

YOU CAN'T STOP AND HAVE A LOGICAL REASONING WITH PEOPLE WHEN THEIR BEHAVIOR IS ALREADY OUT OF CONTROL.

AND YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER THAN THIS YEAR TO SEE THAT DESPITE AN FBI CLEARANCE AND A NEARLY 20 YEAR RECORD DECORATED WITH 46 COMMENDATIONS, THE MEDICAL MEDAL OF HONOR, THE MEDAL OF VALOR.

MR. WILLIAMS WAS THE ONLY OFFICER TO RECEIVE A FELONY CONVICTION, THREE YEAR PROBATION TERMINATION, PERMANENT REVOCATION OF HIS LICENSE, AND COMPLETE LOSS OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

OTHER OFFICERS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SEVERE INJURIES RECEIVED MISDEMEANOR PROBATION AND RETURN RETAIN THEIR PENSIONS AND LICENSES.

FOR COMPARISON, I LISTENED TO A FEW INFRACTIONS AMONGST OFFICERS IN DALLAS COUNTY, AND THOSE PENALTIES ARE, ALONG WITH OFFICER MABRY. THERE WAS OFFICER MABRY WHO CAUSED AN INJURY TO BRANDON SAINZ.

HE RECEIVED A. LET'S SEE.

HE RECEIVED A TWO YEAR PROBATION. MISDEMEANOR ASSAULT.

HE CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT WITH DPD, DPD, AND HE ALSO WAS ABLE TO REACTIVATE HIS LICENSE AND HE IS NOW EMPLOYED ACTIVE DUTY WITH ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.

THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES YOUR OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS FOR THIS MEETING, MR. MAYOR, AND ALSO YOUR AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE TIME IS NOW 311, AND THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.