Sep 30, 2026 Dallas Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number Twenty Board of Directors Special Called Meeting

I CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING RECORDS FROM JANUARY 20TH, 2026.

ALL RIGHT.

[3. Action Item: Review and consideration of the Meeting Record of the Special Called Meeting of the Mall Area Redevelopment TIF District Board on January 20, 2026.]

SECOND.

ALRIGHT, SO MOVED.

IT WAS THE SECOND MAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

A A.

[4. Action Item: Review and consideration of amendments to the 2018 Tax Increment Development, Chapter 380 Grant, and Chapter 380 Loan Agreement (“Agreement”) with WCWRD Inc and its affiliate or subsidiaries (“Developer”) and all other necessary documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, related to the Reimagine RedBird Mall Redevelopment Project (“Project”), now known as the Shops at RedBird, generally located at the southeast corner of Camp Wisdom Road and Westmoreland Road in the Mall Area TIF District, specifically including the following (deletions are shown as strikethroughs; additions are shown in italicized and underlined font)]

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER GRANT YOU LIKE.

YEAH, I'LL, I'LL START IT AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. BROSKI.

UM, SO I DID INCLUDE A MEMO IN THE PACKET.

IT'S THREE OR FOUR PAGES.

UM, I HOPE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT AS A PRE-READ.

UM, I HADN'T INTENDED TO GO DEEP INTO THE HISTORY OF THIS DEAL.

YOU KNOW, IT DID TAKE DATES BACK 10 YEARS.

UH, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF IT.

UM, THIS IS AN AGREEMENT THAT IS, HAS A TAX INCREMENT FINANCE ELEMENT TO IT FROM THIS SMALL AREA REDEVELOPMENT TIP DISTRICT.

BUT IT IS A VERY LIMITED ROLE IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE AGREEMENT.

THE TIP IS A SMALL PART OF IT.

UM, IT IS ALSO A GRANT AGREEMENT AND A LOAN AGREEMENT.

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.

I IF YOU RECALL DURING YOUR ORIENTATION, I MAY HAVE WALKED YOU THROUGH ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT, UM, THIS IS AN AGREEMENT DATING BACK TO 2018.

THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED, UM, THIS AGREEMENT, AND SINCE THAT TIME, IT'S BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES, UM, TWICE IN 2020 ONCE AND 21.

AND, AND ON THE FOURTH TIME IN 2024, UM, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT CONTAINED IN IT, AND ALL THE COMMITMENTS OF THE DEVELOPER BACK IN 2018 WERE, UM, BASED ON A, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICATION PROCESS, A ROBUST, UH, PROFESSIONAL GUESS AS TO WHAT HE WAS GONNA DO WITH THE PROPERTY.

AND SO, IN EIGHT PLUS YEARS, THINGS HAVE EVOLVED.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED, AND, YOU KNOW, AMENDMENTS TO AN AGREEMENT LIKE THIS ARE NOT UNCOMMON.

UM, SO IT, SO THIS, UM, UH, SET OF AMENDMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE FIFTH, UH, AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT.

AND IT HAS TWO BASIC ELEMENTS TO IT.

THE FIRST IS, UM, CURRENTLY UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM OF 4,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF 40,000.

40,000, YEP.

OF, OF RETAIL RESTAURANT ENTERTAINMENT BUILDINGS.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THAT'S NOT REMODEL OF CURRENT, UH, OF EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THE SECOND PART OF IT IS, UM, THERE ARE, UH, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE DEVELOPER CAN SELL THE PROJECT, SELL THE PROPERTY, SELL THE AGREEMENT, SELL EVERYTHING

[00:05:01]

AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

AND, UH, THOSE, UH, STIPULATIONS FOR THE MOST PART ARE GOING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED.

BUT HE IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE, UH, A PART OF, OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN HIS MIND, SUBJECTIVE, UH, SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

AND THOSE WERE ADDED DURING 2021 AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE ON THE PROJECT.

AND THE, AT THE TIME, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER NEGOTIATED THE, THE, THERE ARE SEVERAL TIMES IN HERE WHERE THE WORD SOLE DISCRETION OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER WAS ADDED IN 2021.

NOW, HERE WE ARE FIVE PLUS YEARS LATER.

UM, NEARLY EVERYTHING IN THE, IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ALL THE COMMITMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER ARE, UH, COMPLETE.

UH, AND SO THERE'S, UH, MUCH MORE COMFORT BY THE STAFF IN, UM, IN BEING OKAY WITH REMOVING THE SOLE DISCRETION LANGUAGE.

WE'VE ALSO CONSULTED WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, AND THEY FEEL OKAY WITH THAT AS WELL.

SO, AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE THE TWO PARTS OF THE REQUEST.

THE FIRST IS THE DEVELOPER IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM OF 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL RESTAURANT ENTERTAINMENT BUILDINGS.

AT THIS TIME, HE'S COMPLETED 34,725 GROSS SQUARE FEET.

WHEN THE COUNCIL APPROVED, UH, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BACK IN MAY OF 2024, THE DEVELOPER HAD ANTICIPATED COMPLETELY SATISFYING THAT 40,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, BECAUSE AT THE TIME HE HAD JUST SIGNED THE LEASE WITH TOM THUMB.

UH, AND THAT WOULD'VE INCLUDED A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE DESCRIPTION STORE WITH SOME ANCILLARY, UH, RETAIL BUILDINGS NEXT TO IT.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T REQUEST THAT TO BE DEALT WITH IN 2024.

BUT TOM THUMB ENDED UP TERMINATING THAT LEASE AT THE END OF 2024, AND THE GROCERY STORE HADN'T, UH, DID NOT GET DEVELOPED.

UM, THE DEVELOPER WILL TELL YOU THAT HE IS IN CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH TWO RESTAURANTS AND ONE RETAILER, BUT HE DOESN'T SEE THAT, UM, RESULTING IN, YOU KNOW, IN THE TIME THAT HE'S REQUIRED TO, TO DELIVER THOSE BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, HE DOESN'T SEE THOSE, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING SIGNED, PERMITTED, CONSTRUCTED, AND OPEN BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

THE SECOND PART OF THE REQUEST IS, AGAIN, THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE LANGUAGE THAT GOVERNS THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPER'S POTENTIAL SALE OF THE PROJECT.

THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T OBJECT TO ALL THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT A PURCHASER IS FINANCIALLY VIABLE, GIVEN THAT THERE IS OUTSTANDING DE TO THE CITY, AND THE FACT THAT ANY PURCHASER OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A GUARANTEE OF THAT DEBT.

HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPER BELIEVES THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS CONTRADICTORY TO CONFUSING BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES BOTH OBJECTIVE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE CITY WOULD ASSESS THE POTENTIAL PURCHASER.

AND IT ALSO CONTAINS SUBJECTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND THAT'S THE SOLE DISCRETION LANGUAGE I REFER TO.

SO, UH, DEVELOPERS REQUESTING TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE, UH, SO THAT THE CITY'S APPROVAL ON ANY POTENTIAL OF ANY POTENTIAL PURCHASERS BASED ON ONLY THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, WHAT ARE KNOWN AS THE PROJECT SETTLE CONDITIONS IN CONSIDERATION FOR ASKING FOR THESE TWO AMENDMENTS, THE DEVELOPER IS OFFERING SOMETHING TO THE CITY.

SO WHENEVER WE MAKE AMENDMENTS TO AN AGREEMENT, THE CITY MUST GET ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION CONTRACTUALLY FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS.

AND SO THE DEVELOPER'S OFFERING A NO COST LEASE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR, UH, WHAT THEY CALL A RESOURCE CENTER, WOULD ULTIMATELY BE A STOREFRONT WITHIN THE, THE SHOPS AT REDBIRD PROJECT OF A MINIMUM 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND ALL THE EXPENSES, UH, TO RENOVATE THAT SPACE WOULD BE BORN BY THE DEVELOPER AND NOT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'LL STOP AND I'VE TURNED IT OVER TO MR. BROSKI.

UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE ANY COMMENTARY ON THAT? SURE.

WITH UT SOUTHWESTERN CHILDREN'S IN PARKLAND.

UM, WELL, I THINK, I THINK, UH, KEVIN SAID, WELL, I, I'VE BEEN ON THIS JOURNEY FOR 11 YEARS.

UH, I BOUGHT THIS MALL BACK IN 2015, UH, WITH AN IDEA THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IT A HIGH QUALITY EXPERIENCE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

UH, BUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT THAT MEANT.

UH, THE FATE OF RETAIL WAS UNCLEAR.

UH, WHEN I, WHEN I BOUGHT THEM ALL, THERE WERE STILL TWO ANCHORS OPEN.

THEY'VE BOTH SINCE CLOSED.

WE'VE HAD COVID, WE'VE HAD THE DECLINE OF FRICKING MORTAR RETAIL.

AND SO WE'VE ADJUSTED TO THE MARKET.

UM, AND WHAT WHAT WE'VE ENDED UP DOING IS, IS CREATING ABOUT 240,000 SQUARE FEET OF REALLY HIGH QUALITY MEDICAL FACILITIES

[00:10:01]

UH, WE HAVE SOME EDUCATION FACILITIES WITH DALLAS COLLEGE, UM, AND THE RETAIL RESTAURANT ARE REALLY COMING LAST NOW THAT WE HAVE REPOPULATED THE SITE, AND WE HAVE LOTS OF CARS THERE EVERY DAY.

AND IT'S A VIBRANT ENVIRONMENT.

NOW, RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS, RESTAURANT CHURCH ARE WANTING TO COME IN.

UM, THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UH, WE COULD HAVE MADE DIFFERENT DECISIONS, UH, THAT WOULD'VE SATISFIED THIS.

FOR INSTANCE, SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE HAD A BUILDING AND WE BASICALLY HAD A CHOICE OF WHETHER TO KNOCK DOWN THE BUILDING AND BUILD A NEW BUILDING OR JUST DO A TOP TO BOTTOM RENOVATION.

UH, WE ENDED UP DOING THE TOP TO BOTTOM RENOVATION.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE A NEW BUILDING, BUT IT DOESN'T TECHNICALLY MEET THE, THE DEFINITION, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TURNED FROM A, YOU KNOW, A, A SUIT AND SHOE OUTLET INTO FOUR RETAIL SPACES THAT HAS TWO RESTAURANTS, A BANK AND A DENTAL OFFICE.

UH, AND IT REALLY LOOKS BRAND NEW.

UM, AND THAT'S ANOTHER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITIONS WE AGREED TO, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO, TO COUNT THAT.

UH, ALONG THE WAY, WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE INCREASED OUR, UH, MINIMUM, UH, REQUIRED INVESTMENT FROM 115,000 TO 150,000.

WE ARE NOT ASKING, EXCUSE ME, A MILLION MILLION.

UH, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR RELIEF ON THAT BECAUSE, UH, WE, WE WILL MEET THAT.

AND REALLY, THE, THE, THE, THE DATE BY WHICH ALL THIS HAS TO BE DONE IS THE END OF THIS YEAR.

UM, AFTER 11 YEARS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FULFILLED ALL THESE.

I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE I HAVE, UH, FULFILLED THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL.

UH, BUT THE LETTER OF THE DEAL AS, AS KEVIN MENTIONED, WAS MY BEST GUESS BACK IN 2018.

AND THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN, AND WE'VE HAD TO CHANGE TOO.

UH, AND SO I'M ASKING FOR THIS AMENDMENT, UH, SO THAT I, UH, SO THAT I CAN HAVE FULFILLED.

IT'S JUST A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO STOP.

IT JUST MEANS THAT IT'S GONNA HAPPEN AFTER 1231 OF 26.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL FOR SOMEONE TO GIVE A CITY PERMISSION, UH, RIGHT.

GIVE THEM AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON CAN SELL AN ASSET THAT THEY OWN.

UH, THIS IS BY FAR THE LARGEST ASSET THAT I OWN BY FAR.

UH, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.

UH, AND I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF OUTSIDE INVESTORS NOW.

AND, UH, I REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE TIME DOES COME TO SELL AND THERE IS NO IMMINENT SALE, WE'RE NOT IN A PROCESS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WHEN THE TIME DOES COME TO SELL THAT, UH, THAT WE KNOW BEFOREHAND EXACTLY WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE THAT THE BUYER NEEDS TO HAVE.

UH, AND WE CAN, WE MAKE SURE THAT WHOEVER WE AGREE TO SELL TO MEETS THOSE CRITERIA.

AND IN REVIEWING THE DEFINITION, YOU KNOW, IT LISTS ALL THESE CRITERIA.

AND THEN IT SAYS THAT IT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER IN HER TOTAL DISCRETION.

AND THAT NEGATES THE OBJECTIVE NATURE OF THE CRITERIA, UH, SOLE DISCRETION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY IT COULD BE ANY REASON.

UM, THIS IS A HIGH PROFILE DEAL.

I DON'T WANT IT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN ANY POLITICS THAT THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE.

AND SO, UH, I'M ASKING THAT THIS JUST BE A VERY CLEAR SIX THINGS.

IF WE, IF, IF THE BUYER HAS THOSE SIX, THOSE SIX QUALITIES THAT, THAT SAFEGUARD THE CITY'S LOAN TO REDBIRD, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE GUARANTEE SOLVENT AND ABLE TO FULFILL THE GUARANTEE, UH, THAT THEN I'M ALLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSET, UM, THAT SENSE, YOU KNOW, I'M ALLOWED TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSET.

UM, AND, UH, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IN, IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, UH, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO SPEND, IT'LL BE ABOUT 150 TO $200,000 TO RENOVATE THE SPACE WE'RE PUTTING IN LOCKER ROOMS AND A BREAK ROOM AND, UH, ENHANCED SECURITY THAT DPD WOULD NEED, AND CAMERAS AND ALARMS AND ALL, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, AND FURNISHING IT, UH, AND CHARGING NO RENT.

AND, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO DO THAT.

IN FACT, WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE PAST.

THIS IS A MUCH MORE ELABORATE SPACE.

UM, SO IT'S A CONTINUATION OF A RELATIONSHIP, UM, AND WE WANNA BE A GOOD PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY

[00:15:01]

AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S THE BACKGROUND.

I HAVE A QUESTION TOO.

UH, UM, HOW MUCH OUTSTANDING DEBT WOULD THAT EFFECT BE TRANSFERRED TO A NEW BUYER AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE TOTAL DEBT PACKAGES INVOLVED IN IT? IT REALLY DEPENDS.

UH, THE, THE DEBT IS, YEAH, DEPENDS ON WHEN WE SELL THE, THE DEBT, THE, THE TERM, THE, THE DEBT TERMS ARE THAT IT'S A $12 MILLION LOAN, AND IT ACCRUES INTEREST AT 2% ANNUALLY.

AND THEN EVERY YEAR IT IS SERVICED BY, UH, TIFF INCREMENT FROM THIS TIFF.

UM, AND SO, UH, AT THE END OF 2038, WHEN IT MATURES, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH TIFF INCREMENT HAS BEEN, UH, CREATED, THAT WILL DETERMINE WHAT THE BALANCE IS.

FRANKLY, ONE THING THAT'S CHANGED SINCE 2018 IS IN 2018, I LITERALLY HAVE HIGH POINTS THAT VALUE VIEW WOULD BE DEVELOPED, AND WE WOULD BE GETTING SOME INCREMENTS FROM THERE.

WE ALL KNOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.

I AM NOT ASKING FOR ANY RELIEF ON THE DEBT, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS DEFINITELY PART OF THE UNDERWRITING TO, UH, TO, TO, TO SURFACE THE DEBT.

UH, I'M, I'M, I'M LIVING WITH THAT COMMITMENT.

UH, BUT SO THE ANSWER IS RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD STILL BE ABOUT 12, 12 4, AND IT'S ALL BASICALLY ATTACHED SIMPLY TO THIS ONE 40,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING OR ? NO, NO, NO.

IT'S A, IT'S A HUNDRED ACRES.

UH, IT'S, IT IN HIS COLLATERAL IS OVER THE MAIN, SO IF YOU WANTED TO SELL SIMPLY THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING THAT YOU RENOVATE A BUILDING, RIGHT? YEAH.

WE'RE, WE'RE, WE ARE ALLOWED, WE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO SELL, UH, ANY PROPERTY ON REDBIRD WITHOUT THE CITY'S PERMISSION OTHER THAN THE MAIN MALL, AND TWO OF ITS ANCHORS.

SO THIS MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT, IS THAT ULTIMATELY THIS, THIS CHANGE IN THE, AND, AND, AND AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BASICALLY BEING REQUESTED WOULDN'T BASICALLY REMOVE THE ABILITY TO SIT RID OF THE ENTIRE DEBT BASED ON THE SALE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ON THE CAMPUS.

UH, THE, THE DEBT, WELL, THERE'S A GUAR.

I MEAN, HE IS THE GUARANTOR CURRENTLY, AND, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A RELEASE OF A GUARANTEE.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

THE ONLY THING WE'RE ASKING FOR.

SO, SO THERE ARE 12 OR 13 THINGS I HAVE TO CONFLICT.

WE COULD FLY 20 BY BY THE END OF 26.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T GET A CALL, THEN I'M IN DEFAULT, WHICH MEANS WHAT HAPPENS THEN? I GO BACK $28.4 MILLION IF THAT'S HOW MUCH MONEY THE CITY.

SO IF THIS REQUEST LOOK RIGHT, NO, BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED.

I'VE ACCOMPLISHED ALL OF THE OTHER CRITERIA OVER THE LAST 11 YEARS.

SO IT'S ONE THING THAT BASICALLY DOESN'T GET TAKEN CARE OF, BASICALLY DOESN'T GET TAKEN CARE OF.

IT PUTS YOU ENTIRELY IN DEFAULT.

AND YOU WOULD GO BY NOW, PROBABLY DO BY JAN LAST JANUARY THAT YOU WEREN'T GONNA GET THIS DONE.

NO, I ACTUALLY DIDN'T.

YOU THOUGHT IT'D GET DONE BY THE SEVEN 31ST OF THIS YEAR.

WELL, ALL I HAD TO BUILD WAS A 4,200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

BUT DID YOU START? NO, WE HAVEN'T STARTED, BUT, BUT I, BUT I STARTED THIS PROCESS WITH KEVIN SIX MONTHS AGO.

AND HOW DO YOU GET IT DONE? WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET IT DONE, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE AMENDMENT, BUT, BUT IN JANUARY, IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE TO DO.

TODAY IT'S NOT.

BUT I APPROACHED KEVIN ABOUT THIS MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.

UH, IT JUST TAKES A WHILE TO WIND THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEASE.

FOR THE SPACE, FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WHAT'S THE TERM OF THE LEASE? UH, IT IS, IT IS A LEASE THAT IS CANCELABLE ON 90 DAYS NOTICE.

HOWEVER, OR, YES, BUT THAT I, I WILL NOTE THAT WE DIDN'T NEGOTIATE THE LEASE AT ALL.

THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE DID NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THEIR, TO THEIR PROPOSED LEASE.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON SPENDING 150 TO $200,000 TO THEN TERMINATE THE LEASE.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

THE, THE LEASE IS FULLY NEGOTIATED, UH, AND HAS BEEN INITIAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

UH, BUT, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT IS NOT EXECUTED.

BASICALLY REMOVES ALL FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT ULTIMATELY MIGHT COME INTO PLAY ON ANY LOAN IN WHICH SOMEBODY TAKES IT.

LET ASK ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE TOTAL CYCLE.

SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THE CHANGE IN TERMS OF THIS OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT THE MANAGER WOULD'VE TO EITHER ACCEPT OR DENY A PARTICULAR SALE OF PROPERTY,

[00:20:01]

NOT ONLY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA INTO EFFECT, CONSIDERATION, BUT ALSO SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.

WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SELL IT TO A SPECIAL THAT HAS ZERO ASSETS, WELL, WHAT END UP HAPPENING? WELL, THERE, THE, THERE, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA IS THAT IT HAS TO HAVE THE SAME NET WORTH AS WELL AS THE CURRENT GUARANTOR.

SO NUMBER FIVE ISN'T CHANGING.

ALL THAT WE'RE CHANGING, WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE, IS REMOVING THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DIRECTOR.

SO THERE'S STILL A NET WORTH, UH, WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE IN ITS OWN RIGHT? RIGHT.

NO, IT'S A NET WORTH AS A, YOU THINK NET WORTH AS AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

NET WORTH IS A, IS A, UH, NET NET WORTH IS A, IS A BALANCE SHEET NUMBER.

I KNOW WHO DID.

BUT DONALD TRUMP GOT IN TROUBLE FOR ESCALATING HIS ASSETS AS WELL.

WELL, YES, BUT MY, MY SUSPICION IS, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE GUARANTOR IS NOT ME PERSONALLY, THE GUARANTOR.

IT'S, IT'S THE COMPANY THAT OWNS REDBIRD, AND IT WAS CAPITALIZED IN A CERTAIN WAY SUCH THAT IT HAS A CERTAIN NET WORTH.

AND ANY NEW GUARANTOR WILL ALSO BE A COMPANY, UH, THAT WILL BE CAPITALIZED IN A CERTAIN WAY AND WILL THEREFORE HAVE A CERTAIN NET WORTH.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GONNA BE EXAMINING THE PERSONAL ASSETS OF ANY OF THE INVESTORS IN THE COMPANY, THE COMPANY THAT THE CITY WILL KNOW.

WELL, THIS IS A DEAL THAT IS BEING FINANCED WITH $60 MILLION OF EQUITY.

AND I'LL MAKE UP NUMBERS.

IT'S A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF EQUITY, $300 MILLION OF DEBT.

IT WILL HAVE, IT WILL HAVE A NET WORTH OF A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

IT'S, IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE FACT.

NEXT OBJECT.

IT IS OBJECTIVE.

IT, IT MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT OF EQUITY THAT GOES INTO ANY DEAL IN A NEW COMPANY IS THE NET WORTH ON THE BALANCE SHEET.

AND THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT THAT MUCH EQUITY WENT INTO THE COMPANY.

AND AN ACCOUNTANT CAN PREPARE A BALANCE SHEET.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE, IT'S NOT LIKE JOHN THE NET WORTH THAT'S ONLY DETERMINED BY THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF CASH EQUITY SUCCESS.

THE COMPANY, IF IT'S A BRAND NEW COMPANY, IF IT WERE A, A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR REIT, UH, THEY THERE, THAT'S A PUB THAT'S PUBLICLY TRADED.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THEIR NET WORTH IN THEIR 10 K.

SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT NET WORTH? AND THEY EXISTING ? UH, I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND.

I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BUT IT, IS IT PRETTY IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY I'M NOT, I'M NOT GONNA APPROVE THIS.

I THINK IT STINKS TO HIGH END.

WHY, WHAT STINKS ABOUT IT? BECAUSE I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT COMES IN HERE AT THE 11TH HOUR AND ULTIMATELY SHOULD, THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AWAY IN ADVANCE OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT? TODAY.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS A BAD LOAN.

WE NEED, WE NEED OUR 28 MILLION BUCKS.

IT'S NOT A BAD LOAN.

WASN'T PAY IT.

IT'S NOT DUE TILL 2038.

UNLESS YOU DEFAULT IF YOU'RE GETTING READY TO DEFAULT.

WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY, FIRST OF ALL, I'VE BEEN AN EXCELLENT PARTNER TO THE CITY.

I'VE INVESTED.

WE, I'VE, I'VE OBJECTED.

YES, IT IS.

MY OPINION IS THAT I'VE BEEN AN EXCELLENT PARTNER TO THE CITY.

SUBJECTIVE CITY OBJECT.

YOU DON'T WANNA INCLUDE THE SUBJECTIVE COURT.

PLEASE OBJECT.

IF I COULD, IF I COULD INTERJECT, I, I HAVE INVESTED, INVESTED.

I HAVE, PARDON ME? I HAVE INVESTED, INVESTED $50 MILLION MILLION INTO A MALL THAT WAS DEAD BEFORE I GOT THERE.

I KNOW THE, I KNOW THE BACKGROUNDS.

OVER A DECADE, AND THE WORK THAT HE HAS DONE IN SOUTH DALLAS HAS BEEN BEYOND REPROACH.

SO THE FACT THAT I REPORT 43 DETAIL 13 DIFFERENT CRITERIA, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WORTHY OF 20, IS THAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS IT'S, WELL, I'M TRYING TO CHANGE, NOT CHANGE THE DOCUMENT YEAR NOW BEING BROUGHT, THINGS HAVE TO WORKING THROUGH YOU THOUGHT HE WAS GONNA LAND ANOTHER.

I'M IN CONSTANT CONVERSATION, NOT A LAST MINUTE REQUEST AT ALL.

I DISAGREE.

IF I COULD, IF I COULD JUST, IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT HERE.

UM, I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN LEVELS OF DECORUM THAT WE NEED TO HAVE IN THESE KIND OF PROCEEDINGS.

AND SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S HELPFUL FOR US TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT I, I DO WANT US TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ON RECORD WHAT WE SAY ABOUT OUR PARTNERS.

UM, I HAVE KNOWN MR. BRODSKY FOR

[00:25:01]

UM, HE HAS DONE SO MUCH TO BUILD PARTNERSHIPS.

AND SO WHAT I'D LIKE FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT ON RECORD IS THE AMOUNT OF PARTNERSHIPS THAT HE'S ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, THE AMOUNT OF HOURS HIS COMPANY HAS PUT IN PRO BONO IN ORDER TO DO THIS PROJECT.

UM, THE NUMBER OF SOCIAL SERVICES THAT ARE NOW PROVIDED TO THE SOUTH DALLAS COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF HIS WORK.

I THINK THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

CLARIFICATION.

BEFORE I SPEAK, I'LL SAY THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR LONG ENOUGH TO SEE, TO SEE THE COMMITMENT THAT MR. BRO HAS MADE, MADE THE SITUATIONS THAT COME UP, ALTERATIONS, SOMETIMES ANY PRECEDENT.

WE SEE COVID, WE SEE A C MOVIE THEATER.

EVERYONE WANTS RESTAURANT.

WE A LOT OF, OH, AND SUZANNE, COULD YOU, IT'S ECHOING HERE.

ANNOUNCE, MIC CHECK.

CAN YOU HEAR US TODAY? OKAY.

YOU CAN ANNOUNCE THE RESTART MEETING AT 3 33.

UH, RESTARTING TODAY'S MEETING, SEPTEMBER 30TH AT 3:33 PM UH, CONTINUING WITH MY COMMENTS ON THE, OF THE DEVELOPER OVER THE YEARS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS, UH, SUCCEEDED FAR AND ABOVE, UH, THE EXPECTATIONS AS WELL AS THOSE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF MS. RETIRED DISTRICT.

SO THAT BEING SAID, WITH THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH THE MEDICAL FACILITIES, WITH EVERYTHING I KNOW MR. BRODSKY HAS COMMITTED TO, AGAIN, THROUGH COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE HAD TO BE ALTERED FROM TIME TO TIME OVER THE YEARS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, THEY VARIED.

THAT BEING SAID, I KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT A PROJECT THAT HE WILL ALLOW TO GO OVER THE PHONE OR WILL SET UP HIS PARTNERS THAT HE'S BROUGHT ALONG WITH HIM SINCE HE WAS THE SOLE INVESTOR, PRIMARILY.

UH, THAT BEING SAID, I'M CONFIDENT THAT, UH, THIS ALONG WITH OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO MAKE A BENEFICIAL RETURN AS THEY'RE ADJUSTED AND DEVELOPED AS THE COURSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT SEES FIT.

MS. BRO, THANK YOU.

UH, SUZANNE, WHAT DID YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT? I JUST WANTED YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

I MEAN, SO TO ME, YOU HAVE BROUGHT, UM, A NUMBER OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO THAT COMMUNITY.

YOU BUILT A NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIPS.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS CONTRACT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED THIS COMMITTEE TO TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL.

JUST THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT YOU'RE NOW BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE AN AREA WHERE THERE WERE MANY DESERTS PRIOR TO.

UH, AND BELIEVE THAT PARTNERS, UH, WHEN THEY'RE BOTH WORKING IN GOOD FAITH, UH, NEED TO GIVE EACH OTHER, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE WHEN SITUATIONS CHANGE.

THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL IDEA WAS THAT THIS WAS A RETAIL AND RESTAURANT DESERT.

WHEN I BOUGHT THE MALL AND GOT TO KNOW THE COMMUNITY, I BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS A DESERT FOR LOTS OF THINGS.

UH, AND ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WAS MEDICAL.

UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE HOSPITAL THAT SERVED ALL OF SOUTHERN DALLAS, WHICH IS A 200 SQUARE MILE AREA.

UH, WE BROUGHT IN THREE HOSPITAL GROUPS, UH, UT SOUTHWESTERN CHILDREN'S IN PARKLAND, TWO OF WHICH DID NOT HAVE A PRESENT SOUTH OF I 30 BEFOREHAND.

UH, AND WE'VE DONE SO IN A FIRST CLASS MANNER SUCH THAT THEY'RE HIGHLY UTILIZED.

UM, WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP THAT BRONX COLLEGE, UH, IN WHICH THEY HAVE A, UH, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER.

WE'VE DONATED 14,500 SQUARE FEET TO GLOBAL ALCOVE TO PROVIDE CHILDCARE IN THE COMMUNITY.

UH, WE HAVE BEEN VERY COMMUNITY MINDED.

UH, WE COULD NOT HAVE, UH, NOT HAVE PROJECTED BACK IN 2008 EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPONENTS WOULD BE.

UM, AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE OVERESTIMATED ON RETAIL, BUT WE'D UNDERESTIMATED ON, THERE WERE NO MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS.

WE'VE DELIVERED OVER 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT.

SO, UH, IF THE COMMITTEE FEELS THAT THAT IS, THAT, THAT THE LACK OF 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL IS WORTHY OF A DEFAULT, UH, THAT THAT'S YOUR JUDGMENT TO MAKE, UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS TO MAKE THIS A SUCCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY, UH, TO MAKE THIS A SUCCESS FOR INVESTORS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY HAS GOT, GET, GETS ITS RETURN IN THE FORM OF INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES.

UH, AND IT'S SUBJECTIVE, BUT I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE,

[00:30:01]

AND I THINK ANYONE THAT HAS EVER DONE A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? WELL, I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.

IT'S OKAY.

SURE.

UM, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO DECORUM THAT I THINK HAS BEEN OUT, OUT OF ORDER, I THINK.

UM, SO I, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT I ABOUT THERE.

UM, SECONDLY, UM, IT SEEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF ON ONE HAND YOU CAN USE SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND YOU CAN'T.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM, YOU KNOW, RIGHT.

AND, AND THIS IS LIKE, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN TAKE A CONTRACT AND AGREE TO SOMETHING IN 2000, YOU KNOW, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THEN CHANGE IT LATER.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT SEEMS TO ME BY READING THIS, THAT THE CITY IS GIVING UP SOME OVERSIGHT ON THE DEAL WHEN THE TIME COMES TO SELL.

AND IF CHANGE FOR THAT, THEY'RE SAYING, THIS IS WHAT YOU HEARING, THAT YOU'RE OFFERING A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT FLEET, IT GOES AWAY IN 90 DAYS.

SO, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF APPLES AND ORANGES, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT ADDS UP.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY WANTS TO DO THIS, LET THE CITY DO IT, I GUESS.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY HAS HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT THAT IS BEING TAKEN AWAY.

UM, AND IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HEY, THINGS WEREN'T, YOU KNOW, WHEN I MADE THE DECISION BACK IN 2015 TO BUY IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL FACTORS HAPPEN TO ALL OF US MAKE INVESTMENTS, WHETHER WE BUY A STOCK AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMETHING HAPPENS AND OH, YOU CAN'T CALL UP THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO CHANGE THE CRITERIA.

SO, UM, I JUST, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, BUT JUST THOSE ARE MY HIGH LEVEL, UH, COMMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU AND I DON'T KNOW, UH, ANYONE ELSE, BUT IN TERMS OF JUST, I GUESS COMMON OR UNCOMMON COMMON SENSE, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS, WELL, I, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO ASK KEVIN TO THE COMMENT ABOUT HOW THE AGREEMENT SHOULD NEVER BE AMENDED.

HOW FREQUENTLY DO THESE SORTS OF CONTRACTS GET AMENDED? ALL THE TIME.

WELL SEE, YOU CAN SEE TO ME, THAT'S FINE.

BUT THESE ARE SPECIFIC CHANGES.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I, GO AHEAD.

NO, NO, I I, WHEN YOU'RE DONE ON, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HAS ANY RELEVANCE WITH RESPECT TO THESE SPECIFIC CHANGES.

THAN MADE UP FOR IN WHAT WASN'T REQUIRED OF HIM, WHICH WAS THE 200, YOU KNOW, HE'S DELIVERED 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW MEDICAL OFFICE.

OR THESE SPECIFIC TYPES OF CHANGES VERY COMMON ALL THE TIME.

AND, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BUT, AND THE FACT THAT, HEY, LOOK, I SIGNED THIS AND I'D AGREED TO THIS, BUT THINGS DIDN'T TURN OUT THE WAY I WANTED THEM TO TURN OUT.

SO NOW I'M ASKING TO HAVE THEM REMOVED.

DID YOU NOT KNOW THEY WERE IN THERE WHEN YOU SIGNED IT ORIGINALLY? THAT WOULD BE NOT, NOT YOU PERSONALLY.

I'M JUST TALKING GENERALLY TO SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SIGNED, YOU KNOW, I SIGNED A MORTGAGE, UM, FOR MY HOUSE, BUT NOW FIVE YEARS LATER, I WANT SAY I, I, I NOTICE THIS HERE SOMETHING, IF SOMETHING CHANGED, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY KIDS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO LIVE HERE IS NOT GONNA LIVE HERE ANYMORE, SO I DON'T REALLY NEED THIS EXTRA ROOM.

SO I'D LIKE THE MORTGAGE TO BE, UM, CHANGED.

BUT I, I'VE DONE REALLY GOOD WITH MY OTHER KIDS.

IT'S JUST THIS ONE HERE.

I DON'T REALLY NEED THIS EXTRA SPACE.

SO YEAH.

WITH REAL ESTATE DEALS, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

THE MARKET CHANGES AND IT'S REALLY ANYONE'S BEST GUESS AT THE TIME.

AN AGREEMENT IS NEGOTIATED, UNDERWRITTEN, AND APPROVED, AND REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE TAKE 3, 5, 7, 10 YEARS.

THE MARKET CHANGES THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN DOWNTOWN, WHICH ARE ANALOGOUS IN SCALE.

UH, WE'LL SEE THREE FIVE AMENDMENTS OVER A SEVEN TO 10 YEAR PERIOD.

UM, SO FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HEARTBURN WITH THIS.

UM, THE REDUCTION IN RETAIL IS MORE

[00:35:01]

THAT WAS NEVER IN THE DEAL, AS HE DESCRIBED.

UM, THE SOLE DISCRETION THING DOESN'T BOTHER US EITHER, BECAUSE WE ALREADY ASKED THE SIX PROJECT SALE CONDITIONS THAT WE WILL REVIEW.

WE DO CHECK ALL THESE THINGS WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE STILL FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ADEQUATE CONTROL IF THERE'S A PROJECT SALE AND THE CONSIDERATION, WELL, YES, IT'S A MONTH TO MONTH LEASE.

THE REALITY IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE AND HE'S SPENDING 200,000.

YEAH, GO AHEAD.

UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S BILATERALLY, UH, CANCELABLE.

SURE.

BUT THAT'S THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST.

WELL, BILATERAL, IF IT'S BILATERAL, THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT'S NOT PAYING ANYTHING, RIGHT? CORRECT.

THIS IS A NO NO RENT LEASE.

SO BILATERAL MEANS TO ME THAT IF HE SELLS IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THEY CAN CANCEL THAT NEW PERSON CAN CANCEL THE POLICE BENEFIT, A BENEFIT TO THE POLICE.

IS THAT NOT TRUE? UH, THEY COULD, YEAH.

SO THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY WHAT REAL VALUE YOU COULD, WHAT, HOW ABOUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS? LET'S SAY WE DON'T LIKE THE POLICE.

UH, LIKE IF YOU TOLD ME IT WAS THE POLICE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PLACE FOR 10 YEARS.

UM, AND THE NEW OWNER CAN'T KICK THE POLICE OUT.

I THINK THAT'S MORE VALUE THAN THE POLICE CAN BE KICKED OUT IN 90 DAYS.

SO WERE ANY OTHER CONCESSIONS OFFERED OTHER THAN THE 90 DAYS, 5,000 SQUARE FEET? I THINK BEFORE WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MAYBE YOU SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE'S WILLING TO HAVE THAT CONDITION ATTACHED.

IT WAS NOT MY IDEA TO HAVE THE 90 DAY CANCELLATION.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT, I I AGREED TO THE DPDS FORM, AND I THINK IT IS, UM, I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT THIS COMMITTEE DOESN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF IS, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, BUSINESS MOVES AT THE SPEED OF TRUST.

AND OVER THE PAST 11 YEARS, THE CITY AND I HAVE DEVELOPED A TRUSTFUL RELATIONSHIP.

KEVIN AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FIELD TOGETHER SINCE 2015.

AND YOU SAY TOGETHER BECAUSE THE CITY'S A PARTNER.

LIKE IT'S NOT THERE.

THERE ARE VERY FEW REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS LIKE THIS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, RIGHT.

WE ARE A TRUE PARTNER.

WE HAVE A COLLATERAL POSITION ON A LOT OF PROPERTY.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE UP A LARGE LOAN TO MAKE THIS DEAL HAPPEN.

WE WERE THE ONLY PARTNER HE HAD AT THE BEGINNING, AND WE'VE BEEN THERE THE WHOLE TIME.

AND, UH, YOU CAN ASK KEVIN WHETHER I'VE, WHETHER HE VIEWS ME AS TRUSTWORTHY, BUT DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EGG I WOULD HAVE ON MY FACE IF I SIGNED THIS DEAL AND THEN CANCELED THE POLICE? I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

I, THE ONLY REASON WHY IT'S CANCELABLE IS BECAUSE THE POLICE, THE POLICE FORM DID THAT.

I DID NOT ASK FOR THAT.

UH, AND, UM, YES, IN A, IN A, UH, IN THE MOST NEGATIVE LIFE CAST, UH, THIS COULD BE A 90 DAY LEASE AND I COULD JUST BE BASICALLY PAYING $200,000, UH, FOR, UH, WASTING $200,000 FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

UH, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THAT'S NOT WHAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT HAP WHAT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT, UH, CRITICIZING YOUR TRUSTWORTH TRUSTWORTHINESS AT ALL.

THIS IS NOT PERSONAL.

I'M NOT IMPLYING THAT IT'S PERSONAL, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE AFTER THIS IT'S CHANGE THAT YOU CAN SELL A PROPERTY TO SOMEBODY ELSE? IS THAT TRUE? YES.

SO THEREFORE WHAT YOU WOULD DO, YOU'RE NO LONGER IN CONTROL.

RIGHT? SO THEN TO SAY THAT YOU WOULD NEVER CANCEL A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LEASE TO THE POLICE BECAUSE YOU WOULD'VE EGG ON YOUR FACE ONCE YOU SELL IT, THAT'S NO LONGER

[00:40:01]

YOUR EGG.

THAT'S TRUE.

SO THEN TO BRING THAT POINT IN TO ME, IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THIS.

OR, OR DOESN'T REALLY, UH, HEIGHTEN YOUR, UH, IT'S NOT DEMONSTRATION OF YOUR TRUST IN THE PARTNERSHIP.

NOW, ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CITY IS A PARTNER, HOW MUCH MONEY HAS THE CITY INVESTED IN THIS PROJECT? 28.4 MILLION.

I RESPOND? I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

WHICH IS, UH, ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE EQUITY INVESTORS HAVE INVESTED.

AND THEN OF COURSE, 12 OF THAT IS LOAN THAT EITHER HAS TO BE REPAID THROUGH TIP INCREMENT OR THROUGH THE COMPANY.

SO NET IN, IN NET WILL BE, UH, 16.4 MILLION BECAUSE 12 GOOD NEEDS TO BE, THIS BODY HAS THE ABILITY TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE WERE BRINGING TO YOU AS THE STAFF.

MM-HMM .

SO WELL, MAY I ASK WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS? THANKS.

UM, I THINK THAT WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN RED IS REMARKABLE, UH, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MARKETS FINANCIAL SITUATIONS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH.

WE'VE SEEN THE TOTAL UP ENDING OF RETAILS.

WE KNOW BOTH BY VIRTUE OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING COVID, ALSO THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES THAT IT LED US TO BUY EVERYTHING OFF THE COMPUTER.

AND I THINK THAT MOVING MEDICAL COMPONENT IN THERE, A BRIEF ONE, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL CONCERN WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS IN CONTROL THE PROPERTY AND WHAT THEY MIGHT DO DO TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT GONNA MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.

BUT IF GOVERNMENT LEASES COULD, IF WE HAVE A WAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF THE DEAL, IF IT'S A STATE LEASE, UH, IF, IF, IF THE STATE DOESN'T REAUTHORIZED FUNDING FROM WHATEVER THIS DEPARTMENT IS, IT'S GONE.

UM, THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR.

UM, TO THE DEVELOPER THAT IS INVESTING MONEY IN A BUILDING WITH THE EXPECTATION THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE THERE.

UH, BUT IT WOULD GIVE ME COMFORT IF THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, A A FIVE OR 10 YEAR TYPE THING THAT WAS CANCELABLE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THEN I UNDERSTAND IN, IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE FAIR FOR BOTH SIDES.

UH, I, I, I SEE SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE.

YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY IS GONNA REVIEW THINGS AND WORK WITH YOU ON A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BASIS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I SEE THAT A LOT.

UM, THAT'S REASONABLE.

UM, THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA REGARDING FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL OF A BUYER.

UM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT GIVES COMFORT IN THE EVENT THERE IS A FINANCIALLY WHEREWITHAL BUYER WHO OTHERWISE WOULD BE A, BE A REAL PROBLEM FOR THE CITY.

AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU WOULD SELL TO SOMEBODY LIKE THAT NECESSARILY, BUT I I DO THINK THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TAKING OF ANY REVIEW OF THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OFF THE TABLE, I, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE WITH SOME SORT OF A, OF A REASONABILITY TEST.

MAY

[00:45:01]

THE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE CITY HAS A PAROLE RIGHTS IS IN THEIR POSITION AS A LAND.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND WITH SOMEONE BEING A, A REAL PROBLEM FOR THE CITY, BUT IT'S SORT OF A, A DIFFERENT HAT.

THIS IS TO PROTECT THE CITY'S LOAN AND TO, TO ME, THE PROVISION NEED TO BE SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY WOULD BE WITH ANY LENDER, UH, WITH A TRIP THAT, THAT HAS A TRANSFERABLE LOAN, THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE SURE THAT THE, THAT THE, THAT THE, THAT, THAT THE NEW ATOR HAS THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF SERVICING THE LOAN, RIGHT? UH, IF THEY ARE A, A, A TOTAL JERK, BUT THEY CAN PAY THE LOAN BACK, THAT'S REALLY ALL THE CITY SHOULD, TO ME, THAT'S ALL THE CITY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN, IF YOU PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES, UH, THIS IS MY LARGEST ASSET.

AND, UH, TO GIVE SOMEONE DISCRETION OVER WHETHER I'M ALLOWED TO GET LIQUIDITY ON A MAJOR INVESTMENT THAT I'VE BEEN IN FOR MORE THAN 11 YEARS AND PROBABLY WILL BE IN FOR, FOR MORE, UM, THAT, THAT IT DOESN'T FEEL FAIR AS LONG AS THE CITY'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED.

AND KEEP IN MIND, THE FIRST CRITERIA IS THAT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN FULFILLED.

AND THAT WILL BE THE CASE SINCE THIS AMENDMENT PASSES.

THAT WOULD BE THE CASE AS THE 12 31 26.

SO I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT A NEW OWNER COULD DO THAT WOULD HARM THE CITY SINCE ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED, AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE THEMSELVES AT LEAST AS FINANCIALLY CAPABLE AS THE CURRENT CARE TO WORK, TO, TO REPAY THE LOAN, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE TAX BASE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE WITH A NEW OWNER.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S SERVICING THE LOAN AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT 12 YEARS.

AND SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ENSURE THAT IF AND WHEN, UH, I CHOOSE TO, TO, TO EXIT THE INVESTMENT, WOULD, YOU KNOW, I'M 55 NOW.

I DON'T WANNA OWN THIS IN 20 YEARS WHEN I'M 75.

AT SOME POINT I'M GONNA WANT LIQUIDITY AND MY INVESTORS ARE GONNA WANT THEIR CAPITAL BACK.

UH, IT FEELS VERY, UH, VULNERABLE AND NOT REALLY FAIR TO HAVE THAT ABILITY, UM, CONSTRAINED BY SOMETHING THAT'S UNDEFINABLE.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

WHAT IS IT THAT IN, IN YOUR, UH, IN YOUR THOUGHT, WHAT IS IT THAT THE CITY WOULD BE EXERCISING ITS REASONABLE JUDGMENT ON? HOW WOULD YOU PUT THAT INTO WORDS IN INTER INTER CON CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE IF THIS INDIAN REASON? SO YOU, SO YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE, UH, YOU HAVE A, A BUYER THAT HAS A HUGE NETWORK, SOMEBODY WON THE LOTTERY.

SO WHY DID YOU SIGN IT IN FIRST PLACE? AND HOLD THAT, I JUST, SURE.

I'M SORRY, MY MY APOLOGIES.

I I'M NOT SAYING THAT, THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE, UH, I WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE, THE TERM SOLE DISCRETION THAT THAT WOULD BOTHER ME IF I WERE TO.

UM, SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS IF WE APPLY SOMETHING IN BETWEEN SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD APPROVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I KNOW LAWYERS ARGUE ABOUT BOARDS LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME.

UM, BUT, BUT I'VE ALSO SEEN SITUATIONS IN, IN MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN A LENDER OR A COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE BANKER FOR 50 YEARS, I HAVE SEEN WEATHER SADDLED WITH BUYERS, NOT NECESSARILY THE FIRST ONE, BUT SOMETIMES THE SECOND BUYER, UM, THAT ARE NOT PARTICULARLY SAFER.

SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, OF THE, OF WHAT TYPE OF BUYER THE CITY MIGHT HAVE TO DEAL WITH, NOT THAT YOU WOULD SELL TO, BUT THAT THAT PERSON WOULD SELL TO.

SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS, OTHER THAN THOSE TWO THINGS, I DON'T HAVE A, AN ISSUE WITH THIS.

UM, SO I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION IS,

[00:50:01]

THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY KNOW HOW TO RUN THE S PHENOMENAL PROJECT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT THAT'S TRUE.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THEY HAVE THE NET WORTH AND THE LOAN BECOMES DUE, THEY HAVE TO PAY.

AND THE CITY, AND THE CITY AS LENDERS STILL GETS PAID THAT, THAT WHAT I, WHAT I, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS GIVE THE CITY THE RIGHT TO REJECT A BUYER BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THE STRATEGY THAT THE BUYER WANTS TO TAKE WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

I CAN UNDERSTAND.

UM, AND THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION.

THE ANSWER AS TO WHY I SIGNED IT IS THAT WHEN I READ IT, WHEN YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS, WHEN, WHEN WE AGREED TO IT, THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT WAS THAT THE, THE, AS THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER COULD, IN HER SOLE DISCRETION, UH, DETERMINE IF THE NET WORTH WERE THE SAME.

AND SINCE THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ON A BALANCE SHEET, IT DIDN'T GIVE ME PAUSE WHEN I WAS GOING BACK AND REREADING THE AGREEMENT THIS TIME.

UH, IT, IT, IT STRUCK ME AS BROADER AND MORE VAGUE, AND I ASKED KEVIN ABOUT IT.

AND KEVIN'S ALSO COULDN'T DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HAD SOLE DISCRETION OVER.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IN CONTRACTS SOMETIMES PEOPLE MAKE FOUR WORD CHOICES WITH DRAFTING, AND THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND BE FIXED BECAUSE THEY DON'T REFLECT THE INTENT.

AND THE INTENT WAS NEVER TO GIVE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SOLE DISCRETION OVER THE BUYER.

IT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE THE CITY MAN, THE CITY MANAGER THE ABILITY TO VERIFY THE, THE OBJECTIVE FACTS.

AND THAT ISN'T IN FACT WHAT GOT GOT, GOT DRAFTED, BECAUSE LAWYERS MAKE MISTAKES.

PEOPLE READ THINGS AND IT STRIKES THEM A CERTAIN WAY.

BUT IT, BUT, BUT HAVING SLEPT AND, AND READ AGAIN, IT READS AS VERY VAGUE.

AND THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT AN ASSET FOR ME TO BE COMFORTABLE LIVING WITH VAGUE LANGUAGE.

UH, AND THE CITY AS A GOOD PARTNER HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE LANGUAGE ISN'T CLEAR.

IT'S SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE AN OBJECT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, AND THEN IN SOLE DISCRETION AND AGREED THAT IT, THAT, THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL WAS THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

AND WE DID A POOR JOB MEMORIALIZING THAT.

AND THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, ALL THE TIME IN CONTRACT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DOING A LOT OF THINGS AT ONCE, AND LAWYERS ARE WORKING ON FIVE DEALS AT ONCE, ESPECIALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE THEY'RE OVERWORKED.

UH, AND SO THE, THE LANGUAGE WASN'T CLEAR.

AND SO NOW I'M TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO CLARIFY IT, AND KEVIN WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE INTENT WAS, BUT THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF HUMAN ERROR DOESN'T REFLECT THE INTENT.

AND SO WE AGREED THAT WE SHOULD MEANT THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT DOES REFLECT THE ATTEMPT, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.

AND I THINK THAT HAPPENS FREQUENTLY IN CONTRACTS.

SO I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS AT ALL OUTRAGEOUS.

UM, I CERTAINLY DIDN'T SAVE IT TO THE LAST MINUTE.

I HAD AN OPEN DIALOGUE WITH KEVIN, UH, AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO WIN THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

KEVIN DIDN'T PRIORITIZE THIS, UH, IN HIS EXTENSIVE WORKLOAD BECAUSE HE KNEW WE HAD TILL THE END OF THE YEAR.

UH, BUT I'VE BEEN FORTH BONDING WITH ALI AND KEVIN AND TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THIS FOR COMING UP ON 12 MONTHS.

UH, THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE.

IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT AN 11TH HOUR CHANGE, IT'S JUST THAT BY THE TIME WE GOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT'S NOW SEPTEMBER.

HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE END OF OCTOBER.

[00:55:01]

WELL, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, IT TURNS OUT, DECIDED NOT TO MEET IN OCTOBER.

NOW WE'RE GONNA GO IN DECEMBER AS YOU MEET IN NOVEMBER.

THAT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M SAVING IT UNTIL NOVEMBER.

IT'S BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE TWO MONTHS UNTIL, UH, THERE'S ANOTHER EVEN DEATH MEETING FIRST FOR THIS TO BE HEARD.

AND IT HAS TO HAVE SOME CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S NOTHING'S HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

YEAH, I WOULD JUST MAYBE TAKE SOME NOTES TO REITERATE WHAT ASSESSMENT IN MY EARLIER CONFERENCE, THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS ADDED IN A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT WAS STILL YOUNG AND NOT VERY EVOLVED.

SO WE WERE LOOKING AT THE TIME FOR MORE PROTECTION.

AT THIS POINT, NEARLY THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS DONE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT SAFE CONCERN WE DID FIVE YEARS AGO.

SO THAT'S WHY WE AGREED AND THEN BROUGHT THE CEMENT AS SO HOW DOES, GO AHEAD.

HOW DOES THIS CHANGE BENEFIT THE CITY? THE CHANGE DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY.

WHAT BENEFITS THE CITY? THE CON, THE, THE, THE FIRST TWO CHANGES ARE FOR MY BENEFIT, AND THEN KEVIN ALWAYS SAYS, WHEN WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, THE CITY HAS TO RECEIVE SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT IT'S GIVING YOU, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE AN EVEN TRADE.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, UH, THE POLICE, UH, THE, THE, THE IDEA OF GIVING FREE SPACE WAS KEVIN'S IDEA, AND I AGREED TO IT AND WENT OUT AND CUT A DEAL WITH THE POLICE AND AGREED TO THEIR TERMS ON THEIR TERMS. I CAN SHOW YOU THE DRAFTS.

IT WAS JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW LONG THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, POST CONVERSATION STARTED, UH, BACK IN, BACK IN MARCH.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING FOR A LONG TIME.

UM, AND SO THE PART OF, AND, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE 90 DAY OUT, IT IS A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY THAT WHEN I SELL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE TO BE DETERMINED, UH, THAT, UH, THAT OWNER COULD KICK OUT THE POLICE.

I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO KICK OUT DPD FROM THEIR PROPERTY.

I JUST THINK IT'S EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

AND, UH, THE POLICE WILL ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE A 90 DAY TERMINATION.

AND IT'S FAIR FOR IT TO BE BALANCED.

UM, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF ONE PARTY HAS A TERMINATION, USUALLY THE OTHER PARTY DOES ALSO.

UH, SO, SO THAT THERE'S A, A, A BALANCE IN THE CONTRACT.

BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS LIKE, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, AND YOU, YOU PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED IT.

THAT IS, IF THE CITY'S GONNA GIVE UP SOMETHING, THE CITY SHOULD GET SOMETHING EQUAL IN RETURN.

OKAY? I THINK THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL CORE VALUE OF CAPITAL NEGOTIATIONS.

I AGREE.

AND, AND, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD A LOT OF THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PUSH THE CONVERSATION INTO.

WHAT IS THE CITY GIVING UP AND WHAT IS THE CITY GIVING? I, PARDON ME? IT'S FINE.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND I, I I SEE NOTHING BUT COMPLETE RESPECT, UH, IN THE WAY YOU'VE CONDUCTED YOURSELF.

SO I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU IN ANY WAY, BUT, UM, I WOULD, UM, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE POLICE HAVING A FREE PLACE TO INTERACT WITH THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S WONDERFUL TOO.

AND YOU, AND YOU SAY THAT YOU CAN'T SEE ANY SITUATION THAT COULD OCCUR THAT THE NEW OWNER WOULD KICK THE POLICE OUT.

DID I REPHRASE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? UH, UH, OF COURSE, THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE THEY COULD KICK THE POLICE OUT.

THEY, MAYBE THEY DECIDE IN 10 YEARS THEY WANNA KNOCK THE BUILDING DOWN.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUST SAYING, I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

LEASE IS GUARANTEED THAT THEY CAN STAY THERE FOR 10 YEARS.

I, I, I CAN'T CURRENTLY IMAGINE WHY, WHY EVEN WANT, I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS REASON IF THAT IS THEY FILL UP THEIR SPACE AND THEY NOW HAVE AN OPPORT OPPORTUNITY TO GET A GOOD RETURN FOR THEIR INVESTORS BY LEASING THE SPACE, AND IT GETS REASONABLE, OKAY? SO THEY CAN SIMPLY GET THE POLICE OUT AFTER 90 DAYS.

SO THAT REALLY, WHAT VALUE IS THERE IN THAT? SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS LET'S MONETIZE THAT AND SAY, OKAY, LOOK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO, IF THE CITY'S GONNA GIVE UP THIS, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THE CITY HAS AN EQUAL ASSET WHERE THE CITY, THE, THE POLICES

[01:00:01]

NOW, IF THEY WANNA GET OUT 90 DAYS, FINE.

THE, THE, THE, THE FACILITY IS NOT GETTING ANY MONEY FOR IT ANYWAY.

IT'S A GESTURE OF GOOD WILL.

SO THE CITY LOSES THEIR, THE, THE PLACE LOSES THEIR GOOD WILL.

AND THEN ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, IDEA ABOUT IS WHAT IS THE CITY GIVING UP BY LOWERING THE REQUIREMENT FROM, WHAT'S IT 40 TO 35? WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE CITY GIVING US? NOT MATERIAL TO US.

I MEAN, I HONEST WITH YOU, WE AS A STAFF, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT THIS TO THE BOARD IF WE DIDN'T .

LET, LET, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT ALL THIS PRODUCTION OF, OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET, I'LL PUT IT IN CONTEXT.

THERE WERE 12 OR 13 THINGS THAT I NEEDED TO DO.

I NEED TO INVEST $150 MILLION.

WE WILL HAVE DONE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT I'M NOT ASKING FOR RELIEF ON.

WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT.

I'M IN THE PROCESS OF DOCUMENTING IT.

GOTTA SHOW EVERY CHECK.

GIVE ME, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO JUST RUN THIS OFF? YES, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS HIS LAST QUARTER OF THE REPORT.

THIS, THIS, I'LL GO QUICKLY, LINE BY LINE OF EVERY COMMITMENT THAT HE HAD.

LET, LET ME JUST SAY THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO SHOW YOU HOW SMALL A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT IN RETAIL REDUCTION IS IN THE SCHEME OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS THAT HAS THAT BUILDING ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT.

WHICH BUILDING? THE 34,000 SQUARE FOOT.

OH, ABSOLUTELY SO'S 20,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOT LOCKER.

THERE'S A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT STARBUCKS.

SO WHY DID YOU, WHY DID THE BUILDING GET BUILT TO 40,000 SQUARE FEET? IT, IT'S ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, AND THEY WERE BUILT FOR SPECIFIC TENANTS.

UH, AND, AND, UH, BUT YOU HAVE EXCESS SPACE FOR THE POLICE, RIGHT? WELL, THAT'S INSIDE THE MALL.

IT'S A DIFFERENT, SO 40,000 SQUARE FEET NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY BUILT.

34,000 HAS BEEN BILLED.

SEVEN 34,725,000 SQUARE FEET.

34,725 SQUARE FEET HAS BEEN BUILT, IS OCCUPIED.

SO WHAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL PLAN TO GET TO 40,000? MY ORIGINAL PLAN AT THE TIME I AGREED TO THIS, WAS THAT I HAD A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT TOM THUMB UNDER LEASE.

I SPENT A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS ON DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, AND AT THE LAST MINUTE, THEY TERMINATED THE LEASE, NEVER GOT BILL.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF REAL ESTATE.

WELL, I UNDERSTAND.

AND, AND THAT'S THAT AT THE TIME HE AGREED TO THE LAST AMENDMENT, THAT'S HE THOUGHT.

I, I'M, I'VE MET THIS RECORD.

SO BESIDES THE 40,000 DOWN, THE 34,000 AND THE REMOVAL OF THE SUBJECT ABILITY OF THE MANAGER TO BASICALLY NOT APPROVE OF SALE, WHAT ELSE IS BEING REQUESTED HERE? THAT'S IT.

THAT'S IT.

JUST SO THERE'S JUST TWO CHANGES.

SITE AND, AND, UH, AND A CONTRACT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW SMALL THE 5,000, 5,000 SQUARE FEET IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE DEAL.

SO WHEN YOU , SO MINIMUM INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT OF 150 MILLION REGRADING THE ENTIRE SITE TO REMOVE MULTI-LEVEL MALL ELEVATIONS AND PROMOTE WALKABILITY, UPGRADING, REROUTING ALL UTILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASED DENSITY IN COMMERCIAL PAD SITES, DEMOLISHING A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING MALL STRUCTURE ON THE WESTERN EDGE AND BUILDING ITS PLACE OF THAT STRUCTURE.

ONE, A VEHICULAR ACCESS ROAD, UM, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

CONSTRUCTING TWO NEW PRIVATE VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS THROUGHOUT THE SITE, ESTABLISHING A ONE ACRE GREEN SPACE THAT IS PRIVATELY OWNED, PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, AND PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING AND GATHERING ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPING AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING THROUGHOUT THE SITE.

RENOVATING AND MONITORING MONITOR MON, SORRY, RENOVATING AND MODERNIZING EXISTING MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL INSTRUCTOR SYSTEMS, INCLUDING LIGHTING, HVAC FLOORING CEILINGS, UH, TO CREATE OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS ON THE ENTIRE SECOND FLOOR OF THE INLINE PORTION OF THE MALL.

AND IN THE FORMER DILLARDS, REDESIGNING AND REMODELING ALL EXISTING ENTRYWAYS TO THE MAIN MALL, ADDING WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS TO THE SECOND FLOOR MALL SPACE FOR OFFICE USES, UH, CONSTRUCTING A MINIMUM OF 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL RESTAURANT ENTERTAINMENT BUILDING, PREPARING AND CONVEYING PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER, REASONABLY APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR FOR A MINIMUM 250 UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH HAS HAPPENED.

USED REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREPARE AND CONVEY PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROJECT TO A HOTEL USER, REASONABLY APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, UH, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MINIMUM 125 ROOM, ROOM HOTEL.

HE DID DELIVER THAT

[01:05:01]

BUT THE HOTEL DEVELOPER BACKED OUT IN 2022, BUT WE'RE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ANOTHER ONE, NOW.

USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREPARE AND CONVEY PROPERTY TO A GROCERY STORE USER FOR A MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED A SITE FOR A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, GROCER.

THAT GROCER ULTIMATELY BACKED OUT, UH, CONSTRUCT ALL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING ROADS, UTILITIES, AND STREETS STREETSCAPE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ALL THE REQUIRED MINIMUM NEW VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT WAS ABOUT $36 MILLION JUST IN HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY NON-REVENUE GENERATED.

SO THAT'S A, A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE IN THE AGREEMENT THAT HE HAS PERFORMED.

AND ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN DONE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 5,275 SQUARE FEET OF THE NEW, OF, OF NEW RETAIL.

AND THE THINGS THAT I'VE DONE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN REQUIRED IS, UH, RENOVATED THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING TO CREATE 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW, NEVER, NOT, NOT THE FOUR BEEN THERE.

RETAIL.

UH, I'VE DONE SEVERAL ACQUISITIONS TO IMPROVE THEIR COLLATERAL POSITION.

UH, I'VE CREATED ALL THAT MEDICAL, UH, WE HAVE, UH, SEVERAL COMMUNITY EVENTS EVERY YEAR THAT WE PAY FOR, UH, TO, TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO COME AND JOIN THE GREEN SPACE.

WE REGULARLY DONATE OUR, UH, IN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PUBLIC SPACES FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS AND JOB FAIRS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

UM, WE BROUGHT IN 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, I HAVE CREATE, I HAVE USED OVER 50% OF THE LABOR, UH, AND, UH, AND CONTRACTING THAT WE'VE DONE HAS BEEN WITH, UH, MINORITY AND MINIMUM BUSINESSES, WHICH I KNOW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT ANYMORE.

SMALL, SMALL BUSINESSES.

UM, I HAVE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 5,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, I HAVE FULFILLED EVERY OBLIGATION AND DONE MANY, MANY, MANY THINGS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND SO THAT'S WHY, IN THAT CONTEXT, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS A MATERIAL ASK OF THE CITY.

IT IS A MUNITION OF ABOUT 12% OF THE RETAIL, WHICH IS ONE OF 12 DIFFERENT, UH, ONE OF 12 DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, THE BIGGEST ONE BEING THE $150 MILLION OF INVESTMENTS.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T FEEL, I FEEL THAT THE COMPENSATION IS COMMENSURATE BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SMALL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT ASKING FOR MORE MONEY.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR MORE TIME.

UH, I'M SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE REALITY, UH, THAT, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, THE THINGS WE DELIVERED WHILE EQUALLY VALUABLE WERE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA BE.

BUT IT'S A VERY SMALL, SMALL PART OF THE DEAL.

VERY SMALL.

EXCUSE ME, KEVIN, HERE.

THIS PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I HEARD YOU MENTION THIS IS THE PARCEL THAT CURRENTLY HAS THE FOOT LOCKER.

SO WHAT'S IN THE GREEN SPACE OR NO, THE, THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THERE'LL BE 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL SOMEWHERE AFTER SOMEWHERE, NOT AS MALL.

RIGHT? SO, SO WE BUILT, UH, A FOOT LOCKER INSIDE THE RING ROAD.

WE BUILT A THREE TENANT BUILDING AT 34 20 WEST CAMP WISDOM.

WE BUILT A BANK AT 32 30 WEST CAMP WISDOM.

WE, WE BUILT A GREEN SPACE LAWN AS WELL.

THAT'S PART OF, THAT WAS THE SEPARATE, THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE SEPARATE REQUIREMENT, WHICH, WHICH WAS FAILED.

ALL OF THAT RESULTED IN A, AGAIN, ANOTHER PIVOT THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR YOU TO MAKE DUE WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

AND I'VE BEEN TO A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY EVENTS THAT, UH, AND RETAIL EVENTS THAT THESE SPECIFIC PIVOTS HAVE IN TURN BENEFITED.

AND THEY'RE ALL DUE TO YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THE SUCCESS.

SO I DO KNOW THAT GIVEN THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, UH, THIS, UH, PARCEL IS, IS, IS NOT MATERIAL IN, IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.

UH, BUT I HAVE ALSO SEEN, LIKE YOU SAID, LIKE WE'VE BEEN NAMING, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR, FOR THE VOTING WHEN THE VOTING, WHEN WE VOTED TO APPROVE FOR THE GROCERY STORE, NOT THE GROCERY STORE OR THEATER OUT THEATER, OR THE OTHER PIVOT THAT WE MADE THAT, THAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR MORE IN THE PAST, UM, AND HAVE, UH, DELIVERED

[01:10:01]

ON THOSE PREVIOUS .

SO I DON'T SEE THAT THIS ONE IS, UH, AS, AS, UH, STRONG AS AN OBJECTION.

I WOULD ASK KEVIN, DO YOU SUGGEST THAT, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE MAKE A MOTION TO ADD ANY AMENDED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY NEW OWNER MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE TENANT? I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO, I'M SUGGESTING THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE BOARD DATES TODAY.

HAVE YOU BEEN DRAFTING NOTES AS TO WHAT SUCH AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE WORDED, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TABLE AND THE PROCESS FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE APPROACH? I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO THE MOTION.

ABSOLUTELY.

I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WON'T JUST SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT ALL THESE THINGS GOING AND ALL THESE OPPORTUNITIES, THESE RESTAURANTS, YOU, THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE IT FOR TWO MORE YEARS AND BY THEN, I'LL FOR SURE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF.

YES, SIR.

UM, SO IT, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE, HOW, HOW DO YOU, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES COULD YOU FULFILL THE $4,000, 4,000 SQUARE FOOT? WHAT WOULD BE THE CONDITIONS YOU WOULD NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT AD? WOULD THAT BE LIKE EITHER ONE OR TWO YEAR YES.

EXTENSION ON WHAT, WHAT THE DEADLINE IS? YES.

BUT HERE'S THE THING, I I, I, I AM, I DO NOT WANT DO AN EXTENSION.

I HAVE FULFILLED EVERYTHING OTHER THAN THIS ONE.

RELATIVELY SMALL.

YOU RESPECT, I'VE HEARD THAT LIKE FIVE TIMES.

I, I, I, I DON'T, SO YOU MAY ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO AN EXTENSION.

I DON'T WANT TO.

UH, BUT, BUT, BUT ONE THING I DO WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IS THAT WHETHER OR NOT I'M REQUIRED TO, I AM STILL SIMPLY PURSUING RETAIL.

I AM, UH, I AND RESTAURANT.

I AM, UH, ABOUT TO SIGN A LEASE FOR, UH, FOR A RESTAURANT.

IT WON'T BE 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WOULD BE A VERY LARGE RESTAURANT, BUT IT'LL PROBABLY BE ABOUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BUILT BY 1231.

UH, I AM IN NEGOTIATIONS ON THE LEASE FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT.

UH, THAT WILL BE A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT WILL, UH, WE HAVE TO FIND A TENANT FOR THE OTHER, OTHER PART OF THE RESTAURANT, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LETTER OF THE LAW REQUIREMENT.

IT'S NOT LIKE I'M, I MEAN, I STILL HAVE AN ACTIVE INVESTMENT THERE.

I HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY COMMITMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DELIVER.

AND I HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE.

I HAVE PARCELS SET ASIDE FOR RETAIL.

I OWN A THREE AND A HALF ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF CAMP WISDOM IN WESTMORELAND.

THAT WILL DEFINITELY THE NEW RETAIL.

BUT I HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS FOR THE CURRENT TENANT, FIRESTONE, FOR THEIR LEASE TO, TO TERMINATE WHEN THEIR LEASE EXPIRES.

THAT BUILDING IS PROBABLY 50 YEARS OLD.

IT'S GOING TO GET KNOCKED DOWN AND NEW RETAIL'S GOING TO GET PUT UP.

SO I, I AM TRYING TO BRING THE COMPLIANCE PORTION OF THIS DEAL TO A CLOSE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RETAIL'S GOING TO END RETAIL.

IT IS THE THING THAT PEOPLE WANT THE MOST, AND THAT IS WHAT I'M WORKING VERY, VERY, VERY HARD TO DELIVER.

AND WE'LL CONTINUE.

SOMEBODY MIGHT NOT, YOU WANT AN EXTENSION, THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

WHY DON'T I WANT AN EXTENSION? IF YOU'RE, YOU, YOU JUST SPEND TWO MINUTES A MINUTE MM-HMM .

UH, TALKING ABOUT ALL THESE EFFORTS THAT YOU HAVE, INCENTIVES, YOU HAVE TO FULFILL THIS 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT.

SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN? IF, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR REASON? BECAUSE YOU WERE VERY FIRM.

I DO NOT WANT, UH, AN EXTENSION.

WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN LIVING WITH THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND I FEEL THAT I HAVE, WHILE NOT, I HAVEN'T DELIVERED, UH, THE LETTER OF THE LAW, I FEEL THAT I'VE DELIVERED THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

AND AT A CERTAIN POINT, YOU, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO, TO, TO, TO BE COMPLETE WITH AN AGREEMENT.

MY REBUTTAL TO THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ANY, I THINK ANYBODY KNOWS IF YOU TRY TO WORK WITH THE CITY, THERE'S EXTRA THINGS TO COME ALONG WITH THAT, UM, THAT REQUIRE MORE WORK FROM THE DEVELOPER END.

AND I'VE DOING THAT FOR EIGHT.

YOU SIGN UP, BUT YOU CAN'T, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST SAY, OH, I'VE WORKED, I'VE DONE, I'VE DONE IT FOR EIGHT YEARS.

THAT'S ENOUGH.

I DON'T WANNA DO IT FOR TWO MORE YEARS.

THAT, THAT'S AN JOB.

UM, AND I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL OF YOU.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT, SO, SO I DON'T, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I DON'T, I DON'T EX

[01:15:01]

WELL, BECAUSE I, WHAT I'VE LEARNED, UH, AS YOU SAID, WELCOME TO REAL ESTATE, WHAT I'VE LEARNED OVER THE PAST 11 YEARS IS THAT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LEASE THAT I THINK I'M GONNA SIGN IS GOING TO BE SIGNED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LEASE I'M NEGOTIATING IS GOING TO BE SIGNED.

SO FIRESTONE WON'T HAPPEN FOR, THAT WON'T BE OPEN FOR FOUR YEARS AT LEAST, BECAUSE IT'S THREE YEARS BEFORE I CAN EVEN START.

UH, AND I CERTAINLY, UH, PARTICULARLY AFTER THIS, THIS MEETING, I DON'T EVER WANNA HAVE TO ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT AGAIN.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE.

THE STAFF WITH WHOM I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY, UH, YOU KNOW, UP, UP THROUGH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UH, FEELS THAT I HAVE DELIVERED VALUE FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION AND IS SUPPORTING THIS.

AND I GUESS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF THE STAFF THAT KNOWS THIS DEAL THE BEST FEELS THAT I, THAT I HAVE DELIVERED VALUE AND THAT THIS ISN'T EVEN TRADE.

UH, I, I, I, I GUESS I'M PERPLEXED BY YOUR STRONG OBJECTIONS TO IT.

I RESPECT THEM.

I UNDERSTAND THEM.

UH, BUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

I, WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING IN LIFE FOR SURE.

WE COULD ALL GET HIT BY CARS WHEN WE, WHEN WE LEAVE HERE.

LET ME SAY ONE THING IS THAT , I DON'T REALLY HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH A SHORTFALL OF FOUR OR 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THERE'S NOTHING CONFIDENTIAL.

YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FOCUS FOR FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT, WHAT I AM CONCERNED IS BASICALLY GIVING UP THE CITY'S ABILITY TO BASICALLY MAKE SURE THAT IN THE EVENT OF A SALE OR POTENTIAL SALE, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MAXIMUM ABILITY IN TERMS OF LEVERAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT IN EFFECT, THE CITY BASICALLY GIVES, AND THE COMMUNITY GIVES ABSOLUTELY THE BEST BUYER THAT POTENTIALLY COULD COME IN AND BASICALLY OWN THESE PROPERTIES.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT WHILE YOU MAY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND THE STAFF FOR 18 MONTHS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET THIS, BASICALLY A PARTICULAR ISSUE RESOLVED, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD ABOUT IT.

YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE CITY HAS DONE A REALLY VERY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING THE COMMISSIONERS INVOLVED IN TERMS OF WHAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS ARE AND WHERE THINGS ARE.

AND IN FACT, I MIGHT EVEN ARGUE THAT THE CITY MAY ACTUALLY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

ON ONE HAND, YOU'RE A PARTNER IN THE DEAL.

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, WE AS TRUSTEES AND SMALL T ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE, FOR THE MONIES THAT ARE INVESTED ON BEHALF OF THE, UH, THE TEMP DISTRICT.

AND ULTIMATELY, ON ONE HAND, IT'S GONNA BENEFIT YOU ALL BY BASICALLY HAVING THESE CHANGES MADE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT POTENTIALLY WEAKENS THE HAND OF THE TIFF DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATION OR GOING THROUGH WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.

BUT, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL ME WHAT MY JOB IS.

YOU'RE NOT.

IN FACT, I, I EVEN QUESTIONED WHY HE, IS HE HERE FOR PROCEED? ARE YOU ASKING ME? YEAH, NO, I'M ASKING.

HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE, HE HAS EVERY WHY WE, WHY WERE WE TOLD THAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS CONFIDENTIAL, IT'S NOT CONFIDENTIAL.

IT'S TELL YOU THAT THIS IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THERE ARE MEMBERS OF , EXCUSE ME, I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT.

THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN THIS MEETING.

THIS IS AN OPEN GOVERNMENTAL MEETING.

I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE HERE.

THERE ARE NEWS PEOPLE FROM THE NEWSPAPER ON THIS CALL.

WELL, I RESPECT MY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THAT, EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID THAT, THAT IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING.

WE GET ANNUAL REPORTS, UM, AND REGULAR REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING IS, IS HAPPENING.

I FEEL IT WASN'T A PUBLIC NOTICE, BUT WE, WE DIDN'T GET THIS TO YESTERDAY.

THE AGENDA WAS POSTED THE LAST THURSDAY.

SECRETARY, IT, IT'S A REQUIREMENTS COMMISSION.

OUR ATTORNEY IS ON THIS COMMISSION.

WHEN DID IT GO AFTER THE COMMISSION? YOU GOT THIS ON THURSDAY? I DID NOT.

I DID NOT, DID NOT.

THE AGENDA WAS POSTED ON THURSDAY.

YOU GOT THIS, THIS, YEAH.

AND IF I, IF I COULD JUST STEP IN AND I THINK ROBIN MAYBE DOES TOO.

UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN ON THIS BOARDING COMMISSION FOR A WHILE,

[01:20:01]

UM, I'VE BEEN WELL AWARE OF THE PROGRESS OF THIS.

UM, I'VE GONE DOWN THERE AND VISITED THE PROGRESS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

SO IT'S BEEN REALLY INCLUDING, EXCUSE ME, INCLUDING THE REQUEST.

YOU'VE KNOWN THAT ALL ALONG NOW.

SO WE HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, A MOVEMENT IN WHAT, BASED ON THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, WHAT HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ACHIEVED, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO THE ANNUAL REPORT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR AROUND WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE AND WHERE IT'S BEEN ABLE TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND.

BUT ALSO WITH THE FACT THAT RETAIL HAS BEEN MORE OF A STRUGGLE.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE WERE, WE ALSO KNEW ABOUT THE TOM THUMB NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FACT THAT THAT FELL THROUGH.

SO THIS IS, THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE WELL AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND IT'S BEEN UP TO DATE BASED ON EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS, THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE TO ME AT ALL.

AND SEEMS IN, NOT ONLY IN THE SPIRIT, BUT CERTAINLY AS SOMETHING THAT IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE DEVELOPERS LIKE MR. BRODSKY COME TO THE CITY OF DALLAS AND DO THIS KIND OF WORK, I WOULD HATE TO SET A PRECEDENT WHERE WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING ALL THE EFFORTS THAT HE'S PUTTING INTO THIS.

BECAUSE AS HE SAID, AND I WOULD AGREE, WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS MINIMAL IN COMPARISON TO WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO THE CITY AND BROUGHT TO SOUTH DALLAS IN BALANCE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CITY IS A PART, THE CITY AND THE LENDER HERE.

BUT TO GIVE THE CITY SUBJECTIVE ABILITY TO DENY A SALE TO INVESTORS IS, IS AN OVERREACH LIKE ANY OTHER BANK MIGHT HAVE, A BANK HAS A BANK.

FIRST OF ALL, MOST LOANS HAVE TO GET PAID IN A CHANGE SYSTEM.

I JUST DID A BANK DEAL WITH A MAJOR BANK.

BUT ARE YOU SAYING BANKS DON'T HAVE SUBJECTIVE ABILITIES TO BASICALLY MAKE A DECISION ON ALL? THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS ABOUT A NEW OWNER? I JUST DID A DEAL WITH A BANK AT REDBIRD.

IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY'RE ASSUMING A LOAN OR NOT.

WELL, CLEARLY, BUT IF YOU, LET ME FINISH, YOU'RE LEAVING OUT BOARD.

WELL, I, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT.

THIS BANK MADE A LOAN.

IT IS A 10 YEAR LOAN.

IT IS ASSUMABLE BY A NEW BUYER.

THEY HAVE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA ABOUT THAT, UH, BUYER'S, UH, FINANCIAL CAPACITY, AND THAT'S IT.

AND THAT IS WHAT A SENIOR LENDER HAS.

THE CITY IS A SUBORDINATED LENDER, UH, WHICH WOULD HAVE FEWER RIGHTS.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF SOMEBODY BUYS THIS AND WANTS TO TAKE IT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, IT IS IT, AS LONG AS THE CITY IS BEING REPAID, THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE AGREED TO.

AND IT WAS POORLY DRAFTED, BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING.

JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.

NO, IT WAS POORLY DRAFTED.

NO, I DON'T, I DON'T AGREE TO THAT.

JUST BECAUSE IT, JUST BECAUSE THE BORROWER SAYS THE DOCUMENT TO DECIDE WAS POORLY DRAFTED DOESN'T GET, OKAY.

IT'S BOTH SIDES THAT ARE SAYING IT.

BECAUSE KEVIN IS SITTING HERE IS TELLING YOU WHICH ATTORNEY DRAFT WHICH ONE, WHICH ATTORNEY DRAFT IT.

IS IT FOR THE, FOR THE, THE CITY WHICH ATTORNEY? LIKE PERSONALLY? YEAH.

I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LET, I MEAN, ALL I'M SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD AND WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF FOUR OR 5,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT DON'T GIVE UP THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE A SALE OR NOT.

I DON'T THINK WE ARE GIVING UP THAT ABILITY.

I THINK THE THREE, THE SIX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND WHY ARE WE, WHY ARE EVEN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THEN? BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING UP SOLE DISCRETION.

WE HAVE THESE OTHER RIGHT.

IF WE DON'T GIVE IT UP, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IS HE GONNA WALK AWAY FROM THE DEAL? NO, HE'S NOT.

THIS IS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP.

NO, I KNOW.

EXACTLY.

AND, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CITY HAS TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS IN ORDER TO GET DEVELOPERS TO DO HARD DEALS.

THE REASON WHY THE CITY GAVE AN INCENTIVE IS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY HARD DEAL.

YOU TELL ME OTHER, OTHER REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WILLING TO BE ILLIQUID FOR OVER 11 YEARS WITH

[01:25:01]

NO DISTRIBUTIONS.

FOR 11 YEARS, I WAS THE ONLY PARTY THAT WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING THIS MALL.

AND THE CITY ASKED ME, CONGRAT, CONGRATULATIONS.

MY POINT IS, THIS IS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP NO LONG WITH EVERYBODY HERE, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

BUT IF WE THEN, IF WE SAY, NO, YOU GET TEST.

I'M NOT TESTY.

I'M TEST, I'M TESTY FRANKLY BY YOUR INSINUATION, WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE THIS STINKS, IT DOES STINK.

WELL, THAT MAKES ME TESTY BECAUSE I FIND THAT INSULTING.

IT DOESN'T STINK.

IT'S, WE'RE BEING VERY TRANSPARENT WITH YOU.

ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK IT, I, IF I WERE YOU, I'D BE ASKING HIM THE SAME THING.

IF I WAS THE CITY, I'D BE SAYING HELL NO.

TO BE CLEAR, THIS AGREEMENT HAS A LOT OF CITY CONTROL AT THE BEGINNING.

AND AS IT HAS DEVELOPED AND HE HAS DELIVERED ON THE THINGS HE WAS OBLIGATED TO DELIVER ON, WE HAVE BECOME LESS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING SO MUCH CONTROL.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT SOME OF US HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 10 YEARS.

UNDERSTOOD.

WERE YOU HERE WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PUT INTO? YES, I WAS.

I BELIEVE THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

YOU KNOW, ALL I'M SAYING IS GIVING, GIVING THE WAIVER ON THE FOUR OR 5,000 FEET AND JUST SIMPLY KEEP THE CITIES ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE GONNA APPROVE THE SALE OR NOT.

HE'S NOT GONNA WALK AWAY FROM IT.

SO WHY WOULD WE GIVE IT UP? THIS IS THE STATUS RECOMMENDATION.

AND I THINK IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS AT ALL.

IT'S CHANGING THIS LANGUAGE FROM SOLELY MUTUAL, CHANGING THE LANGUAGE FROM, SO I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I ASSUME THIS IS GONNA BE SEPARATE NOTICE ANYWAY.

ONE FOR THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE SECOND FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE SALE PER AGREEMENT FROM STRIKING THE LANGUAGE THAT GIVES THE CITY THE SOLE DISCRETION TO OBJECTION CRITERIA.

SO TO, WOULD YOU BE SATISFIED WITH, SO THE, THE, THE, WELL, THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SO ON THE AGENDA, THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED MM-HMM .

WITH THE DELETION SHOWN TO STRIKETHROUGHS IN ADDITION, SHOWN AS THE TELE SIZE OF THE LINE.

SO UNDER ITEM FOUR, ACTION ITEMS, SO SUBSECTION A, WHICH PROPOSES TO AMEND SECTION TWO C 10.

THAT'S, SO WE, WE ARE, WE ARE, THE ACTION ITEM IS BOTH PARTS.

THE A PART AND THE B PART, AS WELL AS THE C PART, WHICH IS THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION ABOUT POLICE, UH, STOREFRONT.

SO, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ACTION ITEM.

THE BOARD CAN TAKE ACTION ON THE ITEM AS, AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT, OR THE BOARD CAN CHOOSE TO AMEND THE ACTIONS IN IN ANY OF THE PARTS.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES.

SO WHAT THE, WHAT THE BOARD WOULD BE ACTING ON AS WE PROPOSED IT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GROWTH SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL PARK WOULD BE STRIKING 40,000 AND, AND SERVING 34,000 FOR THE PART OF THE, UH, AMENDMENT DEALING WITH THE SALES PROJECT.

WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO ADD ALL THE STUFF THAT'S UNDERLINED AND ITALICIZED AND AND STRIKING THE STUFF THAT'S ALL, ALL STRIKER.

AND YOUR ISSUE IS WITH THE SPECIFIC, WITH THE STRIKE THROUGH OF WHAT THE CHIEF'S SOLE DISCRETION, ALL, ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING THAT BASICALLY REDUCES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION AS IT RELATES TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY GOING FORWARD.

AND YOU JUST, JUST ON THAT POINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP.

AND BY THE WAY, JUST SO I MEAN, I, I'VE HEARD THAT YOU'RE VERY DEVELOPER.

IF IT THINKS IT'S UNREASONABLE.

GOOD JOB.

AND ANY OF MY COMMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR QUALITIES, AN INDIVIDUAL OR YOUR CAPABILITIES.

UM, UH, AND, AND I'VE BEEN YOUR CHAIR, UH, IN SITUATIONS WHERE I'M IN DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE MUCH LESS, UH, BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

SO WHEN YOU WERE ASKING ME EARLIER, YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW, HOW I COULD POSSIBLY HAVE

[01:30:01]

SO MANY OBJECTIONS.

I DIDN'T SAY, OH, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

THAT'S FINE.

NO, I SAID I HAD NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD EVER GATHER POLICE.

NO, NO.

THAT'S, THAT'S OKAY.

SORRY.

I DON'T WANNA I DON'T WANNA TYPE FOR TAD ON THAT.

I JUST, UM, SO I, I FEEL LIKE IF YOU GUYS HAVE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP IN THE PAST, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP IN THE FUTURE.

AND IF YOU'RE PARTNERS, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, UH, AGREE ON WHETHER THE PURCHASER IS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT BOTH PARTNERS, UH, MAJOR PARTNERS INTEREST IN THE DEAL.

AND, AND THAT'S WHAT MY PERSPECTIVE IS.

AND I HAVE NOT HEARD A GOOD REASON TO, UM, UH, CHANGE THAT, WHICH IS WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS.

THAT'S NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE.

MM-HMM .

I COULD BE DOING OTHER THINGS.

I HAVE NO BENEFIT OF SITTING HERE WITH Y'ALL RIGHT NOW.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'M DONATING MY TIME AND HOPEFULLY I'M, UH, ADEQUATELY, UH, REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THE FULFILL MY RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER THAN JUST SITTING HERE FOR, OKAY, I'M NOT LEAST THAT I'M NOT, THIS IS NOT BOOSTING MY EGO BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION.

I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

AND AS FAR AS YOU SAY THAT, HEY, WE'RE GIVING THE POLICE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT'S ALL YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

BUT THEN YOU HEAR THEY CAN GET KICKED OUT IN 90 DAYS, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A BIG DEAL.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAID TO ME, HEY, WE'RE GONNA GUARANTEE THAT A POLICE SEVEN YEARS, 10 YEARS.

I'M A BIG FAN OF THE POLICE.

I WAS GIVEN AN AWARD BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR BEING AN INCREDIBLE, THIS, THAT .

SO I'M THAT THE POLICE, I'M JUST TRYING TO, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.

SO, YOU KNOW, UM, MAY I, YEAH, I TRY AGAIN TO OFFER A REASON WHY THE CITY WOULD MAKE THIS AGREEMENT WOULD MAKE SURE, OKAY.

THERE, THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY REALLY ISN'T CLEAR.

AND SO CLEAR DOCUMENTS ARE IN EVERYBODY'S INTEREST.

THE SECOND REASON FOR THIS, IF I, IF I'M PUTTING MYSELF IN THE CITY SHOES, THE SECOND REASON IS THAT THE REASON WHY THESE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS GET ENTERED INTO IS BECAUSE THE CITY FEELS THAT IT HAS THE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN, UH, IN HELPING OUR DEALS GET DONE IN AREAS OF TOWN WHERE IT WANTS DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN.

BUT THE ECONOMICS REALLY DON'T WORK WITHOUT AN INCENTIVE.

WHAT THE CITY GETS OUT OF THE REDBIRD DEAL IS, UH, HIGHER, HIGHER TAX BASE.

AND WE'VE ALREADY DELIVERED SOME OF THAT VIA MORE TO GO WHEN A DEVELOPER MAKES A REQUEST THAT STAFF FEELS IS REASONABLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE CITY'S INTEREST TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUEST BECAUSE IT SENDS A SIGNAL TO OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT IF THEY HAVE REASONABLE REQUESTS AND THEY'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THINGS HAVE EVOLVED, THAT THE CITY WILL BE A, WILL BE A REASONABLE PARTNER, AND WILL NOT BE ADVERSARIAL AND SAY, WELL, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT? YOU'RE NOT GONNA WALK AWAY.

THAT'S NOT HOW THE CITY ATTRACTS DEVELOPERS TO DO HARD DEALS.

AND THIS, THIS IS A, KEVIN FEELS THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.

ROBIN FEELS THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.

I ASSUME THE CITY MANAGER, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I ASSUME THE CITY MANAGER, UH, ASSUMES, THINKS THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.

AND BY DENYING WHAT STAFF BELIEVES UP TO THE MOST SENIOR LEVELS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST, THE CITY IS SENDING A MESSAGE TO DEVELOPERS THAT IT IS HARD TO DEAL WITH AND DOESN'T EXCEED TO REASONABLE REQUESTS.

DOESN'T AGREE TO THAT.

AND SO THIS IS, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THIS IS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP.

THIS IS A RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH THE CITY HAS A GOAL AND THAT IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND IT NEEDS DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT, THAT WANT TO GET INTO THESE COMPLEX LONG-TERM AGREEMENTS WITH THEM.

AND YOU DON'T WANNA DO THAT WITH SOMEONE THAT YOU THINK IS GOING TO, UH, BE INFLEXIBLE.

AND SO I THINK THE CITY HAS A REPUTATIONAL REASON

[01:35:01]

IF IT THINKS IT'S REASONABLE.

I HAVE MADE REQUESTS IN THE PAST THAT KEVIN HAS SAID THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND I'VE EITHER CONVINCED HIM THAT IT IS OR I HAVEN'T.

BUT THE, THE, UM, THE ATTITUDE OF THIS COMMISSION SEEMS TO BE AS, AS YOU EXPRESSED IT, SIR, WELL, WHAT'S HE GONNA DO? HE'S NOT GONNA WALK AWAY.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

I'M NOT GONNA WALK AWAY.

BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING.

THIS IS BEING COVERED.

AND, UH, AND THE CITY IS COMING OFF AS AN, AS AN UNREASONABLE PARTNER THAT PEOPLE WON'T WANNA DO BUSINESS WITH.

SO THAT, THAT IS WHY THE CITY TRIES TO AGREE, IN MY OPINION.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR KEVIN, THAT'S WHY THE CITY HAS AN INCENTIVE IF IT THINKS IT'S REASONABLE.

AND KEVIN AND I HAVE AN HONEST RELATIONSHIP.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY DISAGREED OVER THE YEARS, CERTAINLY DISAGREED.

AND KEVIN HAS SAID NO TO ME PLENTY OF TIMES.

BUT ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I WILL HAVE FULFILLED EVERY REQUIREMENT IN THE AGREEMENT ACTIVE OTHER THAN THIS RETAIL, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN A DIRECTION, IT'S ALREADY ALMOST DONE BE VERY HARD TO BRING IT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

NOW WE'VE GOT LONG-TERM LEASES WITH ALL THESE MEDICAL FACILITIES.

NO ONE, NO ONE'S GETTING OUT.

UH, AND KEVIN AND ROBIN FELT THAT AS LONG AS THE DEBT CAN BE PAID, AND THAT'S WHERE THE FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL COMES IN, IT WAS REASONABLE.

I'VE BEEN A DECENT PARTNER, THEY THINK, AND THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO ACCOMMODATE IT.

AND IN TERMS OF THE COMPENSATION, THE POLICE, I DIDN'T ASK FOR AN OUT, UH, I I WAS PERFECTLY PREPARED TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM AGREEMENT.

BUT THEY WANT NOW, AND IT, IT, IT, IT, IT'S ONLY FAIR.

UH, I WOULD SAY YOUR SECOND, UM, TRY THIS STARTED OUT EXCELLENT.

'CAUSE I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU FOR THE FIRST MINUTE AND A HALF, BUT NOW YOU'RE TRAILING BACK ON YOU GOING THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, FOR THEM THEY'LL LEAVE THE LAST SENTENCE, THE LAST DUE RESPECT, YOU KNOW? OKAY.

UNLESS I'M SUPPOSED TO SIT HERE, I'M HOPING THAT THINGS THAT ARE SAYING ARE BENEFICIAL SOME WAY, MAYBE NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT HOPEFULLY.

SO SIR, YOU'VE BEEN QUIET FOR A WHILE.

WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU, WHERE ARE YOU AT THIS POINT? WITHOUT SIR ? UM, I SAID CERTAIN NOT THEORY.

THE, THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

UH, I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD BE NON-MONETARY AS IT RELATES TO REVIEWING A PURCHASER.

BUT I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE IS ENOUGH OTHER STUFF IN THERE TO PROTECT THE CITY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A, A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYEES WHERE THE LANDLORD, UH, OR WHERE THE EMPLOYEES HAVE 5, 7, 10 YEARS, WHATEVER, THE LANDLORD IS WILLING TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CANCELED BY THE TENANT, BUT NOT BY THE LANDLORD.

JUST TO COVER THE CITY'S POSITION WHEN YOU SELL A PROPERTY.

'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE, YOU HAVE A REPUTATION, YOU HAVE THIS INCREDIBLE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY AND YOU'VE DONE FABULOUS STUFF THAT, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT NOT BE THAT THING.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY WOULD YOU BE CONCERN, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE IF WE SAID THAT IF I SOLD IT, THE NEW OWNER WOULD BE UNABLE TO CANCEL IT FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS? ABSOLUTELY.

LET'S START SEVEN YEARS.

BECAUSE I KNOW I'M NOT GONNA CANCEL IT.

SEVEN YEARS.

SEVEN'S A LUCKY NUMBER

[01:40:02]

YEAH, NO, I'M, I'M FINE.

I I, I WILL CERTAINLY AGREE, UH, THAT, THAT THE LEASE, THE LEASE WILL BE NON CANCELABLE BY THE NEXT OWNER.

I'M GOOD.

NOW WE HAVE TO GET THE POLICE TO AGREE TO THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT, BUT THEY CAN, THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE RIGHT, I'M SORRY, I SHOULDA INTERRUPTED.

NO, I, BUT THEY CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT SEPARATELY.

YEAH, THAT THAT'S FINE.

JUST LIKE THE, THAT'S KNOW IF THAT FROM THE POLICE, IF THEY DECIDE TO LEAVE.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA HAVE, I DON'T THINK SO.

BY THE WAY, WE DO HAVE HER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UH, LEY ON THE CALL, AND SHE CAN SPEAK TO, SHE HAS THE RELATIONSHIP THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT WE DON SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO WAIT IN ON WHETHER THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE.

HEY, EVERYBODY.

YEAH, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO TELL WHICH BOARD MEMBER IS SPEAKING FROM THE VIRTUAL, UM, MEETING, BUT WHOEVER MADE THE SUGGESTION OF MAKING THE TERMINATION AT THE CITY'S OPTION RATHER THAN AT THE LANDLORD'S OPTION, I THINK IS A VERY REASONABLE ONE AND WOULD BE A GOOD AMENDMENT FOR THE TIP BOARD PERHAPS TO PROPOSE.

AND I'D BE GLAD TO WEIGH IN ON ANY OF THE OTHER CONVERSATION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

I NEGOTIATED THE ORIGINAL DEAL WITH PETER A ZILLION YEARS AGO AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED EVER SINCE.

SO HAPPY TO TALK THROUGH WHATEVER WOULD BE WOULD BE USEFUL.

THAT'S THEIR REQUIREMENT.

JJ THANKS, ROBIN.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S CURRENTLY A MUTUAL, RIGHT? THE, THE TENANT DEFINITELY HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO TERMINATE.

BUT I'M FINE TO SAY IF AND WHEN I EVER SELL, UH, THAT THE NEW OWNER CANNOT, UH, TERMINATE ON 90 DAYS.

YEAH, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TERMINATE EITHER.

EVEN IF YOU OWN IT IN SEVEN YEARS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TERMINATE IT.

I, I THINK WE ESTABLISHED THAT.

I'M NOT GOING TO TERMINATE IT, BUT, WELL, I HAVE IT IN WRITING BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT, UH, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT, ABOUT FAIRNESS.

UM, FAIRNESS IS WHAT TWO PEOPLE AGREED TO AND YOU WHAT WE CONSIDER THAT, AND I CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE FAIR.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA OFFER SOMETHING TO THE POLICE AND YOU TELL US THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA KICK 'EM OUT, FOR SURE, FOR SURE.

YOU'VE SAID THAT LIKE FIVE OR 10 TIMES, THEN WHY NOT PUT IT IN WRITING, I GUESS, SIR, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE, WITH THE, UH, WITH WHAT I SAID AND I'M AGREEING TO YOUR SEVEN YEARS, THEN I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A BIG BENEFIT FOR THE POLICE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU A COMMUNITY CENTER, WHAT, UP TO SEVEN YEARS, NO CHARGE.

IF YOU DECIDE AFTER A WEEK THAT YOU WANNA LEAVE, I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY, THE, THE POLICE THOUGHT IT WAS A BIG BENEFIT THE WAY IT IS.

WELL, MAYBE NOW IT'S A BIGGER BENEFIT.

WE CAN ASK THE POLICE.

LET'S SEE WHAT THE POLICE HAVE TO SAY IN THE INTEREST OF, OF BRINGING THIS TO A CONCLUSION.

MY, MY QUESTION, SIR, IS WOULD YOU AGREE? SURE.

UH, AND AGAIN, IN, IN, AS WE ATTEMPT TO CONCLUDE THIS DRAFTING AND AMENDMENT TO THIS PORTION OF THE POLICE LEASE AGREEMENT, THAT INCLUDES THE, ANY NEW PURCHASER NOT BEING ABLE TO EVICT THEM FOR SEVEN YEARS, OR THE CURRENT JUDGE JUST FOR NEW PURCHASE WORKS WILL BE AGREED.

THAT POINT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE TWO MOTIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE FLOOR FOR THE SQUARE FOOTING AND THE DECISION MAKING.

SO THE BOARD WOULD PROCEDURALLY, A MOTION WOULD BE MADE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE SUBJECT TO, WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ADDED AMENDMENT OF SEVEN YEAR TERM, YOU KNOW WHAT ALL ALONG HAVE, HAVE THERE BEEN, WERE THERE INITIALLY GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR THE DEDUCTION AND ALL ONE ITEM.

UM, THE POLICE WOULD HAVE THAT SPOT FOR UP TO SEVEN YEARS, NO CHARGE, BOTH THROUGH THE TIME WHEN HE OWNS IT AND ANY SUBSEQUENT OWNERS.

SO CAN WE NOT TABLE THIS TO HAVE IT COME BACK BASICALLY TO US WHENEVER YOU WOULD LIKE, SO WE CAN BASICALLY ACTUALLY SEE THE WORDING AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? THE WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE IDENTICAL.

YOU, I'M ASKING SID, I WASN'T ASKING THE BOARD'S PLUG.

THE BOARD CAN SIT HERE AND WORK THROUGH THE LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW IF THEY WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT, AT THIS POINT I CAN, EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T ASK THEM TO ASK HIM WHAT HIS AUTHORITY, I GUESS I CARE ABOUT MINE, BUT I PLAN ON, I WOULD BE VERY RECENT.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR THE CHANGE THAT,

[01:45:01]

AND I THINK THAT IS A FAIR TRADE FOR THE OTHER THINGS THAT HE'S ASKING FOR, WHICH ARE THE 4,000 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION AND THE CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE FOR THE, UM, THE CRITERIA FOR THE OWNER.

SO, SO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE.

I ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE, AND I THINK THE, THE, WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE LEASE, RIGHT? SO YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD AMEND, YOU'D BE SEEKING TO AMEND, WELL ACTUALLY SUB C DOESN'T NEED TO BE AMENDED BECAUSE THERE'S NO DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE TERMS THAT YOU'D BE ADDING.

YOU'D BE ADDING 70, I'M TALKING ABOUT CHANGES OF THE WORD WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO ME.

AND THE REDUCTION IN SQUARE FEET WOULD BE EXCEPTION EXPECTED BY ME.

AND THAT THE CHANGE WOULD SIMPLY BE THAT ADDING SEVEN YEARS FOR WHOEVER OWNS.

YES, I GET IT.

THAT'S WHERE I, SO WHAT, WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED WOULD BE ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF HAS PRESENTED IT, BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL SEVEN YEAR TERM, NOT CANCELABLE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN PLEASE THE NEXT SEVEN YEAR YES.

TO, TO SUBSECTION C.

WELL, BUT I'M REQUESTING THAT ULTIMATE, THEY BASICALLY BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY IN TERMS OF ASD.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

BUT I HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THE CITY GIVING UP.

ITS RIGHT TO BASICALLY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT INTO THE AGREEMENT, GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE SUBSEQUENT BUYERS WITH PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT'S A HUGE GIVE UP.

AND ULTIMATELY I, I'M, I'M SHOCKED THAT THE CITY WOULD EVEN CONTEMPLATE GIVING THAT UP, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY BEEN GIVEN UP BECAUSE THERE ARE CRITERIA, NOT A SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

HOW MANY LOANS HAVE YOU EVER HAD? BASICALLY WHERE THEY BASIC THE BANKS WOULD GET, WOULD GIVE UP THEIR SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA TO DO THINGS LIKE REPUTATION AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED WHENEVER A LOAN MADE, IT HAS HAPPEN.

YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S THE TRUTH.

IT IT, IT, IT'S REALLY, SIR, IT'S REALLY, REALLY BAD THAT YOU, UH, IT, IT, YOU, YOU, YOUR, YOUR, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT YOU'RE SITTING HERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COMMISSION.

WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT RIGHT NOW.

NO, I THOUGHT YOU WON'T EVEN NEGOTIATE WHAT JUST PROPOSED TO RUBBER STAMP.

NO, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO RUBBER STAMP.

BUT YOU, YOU'VE PROPO YOU'VE PROPOSED SOME CHANGES TO MY CONTRACT AND I AM POWER CONTRACT.

NO, IT'S MY CONTRACT WITH THE POLICE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CHANGING.

WE'RE CHANGING THE WHOLE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

HEARD YOU'RE A VERY GOOD DEVELOPER.

OF COURSE I'M NEGOTIATING.

I'M A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.

AND YOU ARE, YOU ARE PROPOSING, UH, DIFFERENT THINGS.

THERE'S NO POINT IN APPROVING SOMETHING IF I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN.

AND SO I'M ASKING, SIR, DON'T SIGN IT.

I'M NOT, SIR, I'M NOT ADDRESSING YOU RIGHT NOW.

I'M ADDRESSING THIS GENERAL I DON'T ADDRESS, I'M ADDRESSING CHARLIE.

SO I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH A B AND I DON'T, AND GIVE ME NEW MOTION WHERE WE SPLIT THIS UP INTO A, B AND C AND A AND B OR WOULD BE APPROVED AS C WOULD BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE SEVEN YEAR DEAL.

AND THE QUESTION IS, IS IT APPLICABLE TO, FROM DAY ONE, WE'RE WITH A NEW BUYER.

SO TO, TO YOUR QUESTION, SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

WELL, WHAT YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT WHAT YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT, THAT, THAT YOU WERE, YOU WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT ME, BUT YOU WORRIED ABOUT A NEW BUYER KICKING OUT THE ? NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT, I WAS THINKING SEVEN YEARS FROM TODAY.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

I'M, I CAN, I'M, I'M NOT GOING TO KICK OUT THE POLICE.

SO TAKING IN PERPETUITY, HE'S, BUT SEE, THE THING IS HERE'S WHERE YOU'RE BEING INCONGRUENT.

OKAY? IN ONE HAND, YOU'RE BEEN TELLING, TELLING US MANY TIMES THAT YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

I JUST AGREED TO IT.

NO, YOU JUST AGREED TO IT, BUT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE YOU JUST AGREED TO IT.

NOW I, AND I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL TO YOU.

OKAY? I'M TRYING.

I'VE

[01:50:01]

I, MY GOAL IS TO HELP BECOME A BETTER DEVELOPER.

YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE THAT, BUT, BUT WHEN YOU TELL US SIX OR EIGHT TIMES THAT YOU'D NEVER KICK THE POLICE OUT, AND THEN YOU'RE PUSHING BACK ON THE IDEA THAT FOR THE NEXT, FOR THE SEVEN YEARS, UM, YOU, YOU ONLY WANT IT TO BE FOR THE NEXT ORDER, BUT NOT FOR YOU.

THAT'S INCONSISTENT.

SO I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU'RE WILLING TO AGREE TO IT, THEN I'M GONNA VOTE FOR THIS.

AND, AND, AND THEN I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU MY INCONSISTENCY.

SO TO, TO YOUR QUESTION, PROCEDURALLY, IT'S AT THE BOARD'S PLEASURE, THE BOARD CAN ACT ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN, IN TOTAL WITH THE ADDED CHANGE TO SUBPART C, OR THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO TAKE EACH PART INDIVIDUALLY.

OKAY? YEAH.

I MEAN, WHAT'S EASIER FOR YOU? I, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT I'VE RECOMMENDED.

SO ALL OF THIS WITH THE ADDITION TO C IS MY RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THEN.

AND ONE LAST QUESTION, KEVIN, IS THAT AMENDMENT IN OUR EVENT AMENDMENT TO SEE IF THAT'S STILL, WE CAN VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, BUT THE LANGUAGE IS STILL PENDING DISCUSSION WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IT MAY NOT, MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THEM.

UM, I THINK I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK THAT IT WILL BE IF IT'S NOT ACCEPTED BY THEM.

AND WE PROBABLY WOULD KNOW, RIGHT? WE WOULD KNOW.

WE WOULD PROBABLY KNOW WITH A FEW DAYS WHETHER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

AND IF IT WERE, WE WOULD GET YOU COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO CAN I SUGGEST THAT IT'S REALLY THE BOARD'S? I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE BREAK THIS UP INTO THREE SUBJECT MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL.

ONE BEING THE REDUCTION IN THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE, TWO BEING THE, UH, SOLE DISCRETION CLAUSE OF THE CITY MANAGER.

THIRD, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE 5,000.

IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO THAT SUGGESTION.

UH, KEVIN IS THERE AHEAD PLEASE? IS THERE ANYONE ON THE CALL THAT'S A BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS OR IS IT JUST US? MS. SMITH IS THE BOARD MEMBER.

I'LL LET YOU COMMENT.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S NOBODY ON THE CALL.

I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

GO.

SUZANNE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF WHERE THE MOTIONS ARE GOING AT THIS POINT.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST WE COULD, WE VOTE ON LIKE JUST IF THE BLANKET CHANGE WE'VE DISCUSSED AND IF THAT FAILS, THEN BREAK IT UP IN SMALLER.

YOU CAN DO THAT TOO.

BUT I, I'M JUST SAYING IF WE DO IT, IF WE SAY, LOOK, LISTEN, ADD TO SEVEN YEARS AND AGREE TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY'VE ALREADY WRITTEN.

LET'S SEE HOW THAT GOES AND SEE IF THAT HAPPENS.

IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE CAN BREAK IT UP INTO PIECES.

UM, 'CAUSE I THINK THAT COMPLICATED, THAT'S, I DON'T THINK HE AGREES TO THE YOU DON'T AGREE? YOU DON'T AGREE? NO, BUT I'M GONNA GO AND AGAINST, YOU KNOW, LIMIT THE MOTION OF THE CITY.

AND I THINK I, AND I THINK THAT'S FINE.

MY POINT IS LIKE, OKAY, HOW MANY VOTES DO WE HAVE? YOU KNOW, HE MAY NOT AGREE.

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SEPARATE THEM.

SO, SO WE MAKE A MOTION TO GET SECONDED AND WE VOTE ON IT, IT PASSES, WE'RE DONE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE MAKE THE BLANKET MOTION THAT I'M SUGGESTING AND IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE CAN BREAK IT UP INTO INDIVIDUAL PIECES AND FIND OUT WHAT PIECES NEEDS TO YEAH.

AND I, I'LL TELL YOU THE REASON I WHY I PREFER TO DO THESE THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS BECAUSE I FEEL THAT IN CERTAIN SOME DEGREE THESE ARE THREE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CLAUSES.

THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO KICK SOMEBODY OUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

ARE YOU ON, LEMME LEMME MAKE A CLARIFICATION.

SUBPART C THE, THE CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY IS NOT A, IT, IT IS TECHNICALLY NOT A SEPARATE AMENDMENT.

IT IS THE CONSIDERATION IN EXCHANGE FOR THE TWO OTHER REQUESTED AMENDMENTS.

SO NOW THAT I'VE HEARD YOU TALK THROUGH IT, I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER EITHER.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ACT ON BOTH AMENDMENT REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TOGETHER AS HE'S DESCRIBING BECAUSE THE CONSIDERATION IS IN EXCHANGE FOR THOSE EVENTS.

I, I THINK IT

[01:55:01]

THAT'S STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE.

YOU SAYING IF ONE OF THE TWO DIDN'T ASK THAT ULTIMATELY CONSIDERATION WOULD NOT BE ON, RIGHT? THE CONSIDERATION IS YOU SAYING WOULDN'T BE ON THE TABLE, SEND THAT IN.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF ONE OR TWO OF THOSE A BS DEFEATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BASIS, THAT BY DEFINITION C WOULD NOT BE STILL ON THE TABLE? WELL I THINK THE SIZING AND WEIGHTING OF THE CONSIDERATION IS BALANCED BY BOTH AMENDMENTS.

SO IF ONE DOESN'T GET APPROVED, THE CONSIDERATION IS OUT OF BALANCE WITH THE AMENDMENTS.

JASMINE, ARE YOU ON, ARE YOU FOLLOWING? YES.

UH, SORRY JASMINE, I WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SO THE QUESTION IS HOW TO DIVIDE UP ALL OF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR VOTES AT THIS POINT? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THE QUESTION IS SHOULD, CAN THE BOARD, SHOULD THE BOARD TAKE THEM, TAKE EACH AMENDMENT INDIVIDUALLY AND, AND A CONSIDERATION PORTION INDIVIDUALLY OR SHOULD, SHOULD IT BE ALL TOGETHER? SO I THINK THE, THE BOARD CAN DIVIDE THE QUESTION HOW THEY WOULD LIKE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ONE SORT OF BEING LINKED TO THE OTHER IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE AMENDMENTS.

BUT YOU CAN GO BACK AND RECONSIDER IF YOU NEED TO.

I MEAN, MY, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT WE CAN, ONE PERSON CAN MAKE A MOTION, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION AND THEN SOMEBODY CAN SECOND IT, THEN WE VOTE ON IT.

IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE HAVE TO CREATE ANOTHER AMENDMENT OF A SECOND AND VOTE ON THAT.

I'M CONSIDERING THIS, THAT WE'RE GIVING THE CITY WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT.

AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT NOT CHANGING WHAT THEY WANT, WE'RE ASKING TO STRENGTHEN THE PART ON THE POLICE SIDE.

PUT THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER.

THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON.

SO I'M GONNA MAKE A, A MOTION, MOTION THAT I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION, A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT, WE ACCEPT CHANGES THAT THE, THE CITY IS PROPOSING, WHICH INCLUDE, UH, CHANGING THAT WHAT WHATEVER'S WRITTEN THERE.

OKAY, KEVIN? YES SIR.

ALRIGHT.

AND THEN THE ONLY THING THAT WE WANNA ADD IS THAT THE, THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LEASE TO THE LEASE WILL BE FOR A TERM OF SEVEN YEARS.

AND IT HAS TO CARRY ON FROM NOW UNTIL SEVEN YEARS NO MATTER WHO THE OWNER IS.

HOWEVER, LEGALLY THAT HAS TO BE WRITTEN, THAT'S HOW ONLY CANCELABLE, CANCELABLE BY, BY THE POLICE.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

IS EVERYONE CLEAR? ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THE ARTICULATION OF THE MOTION? IF NONE, CAN WE GET A VOTE? SECOND.

I'M SORRY.

MOTIONS MADE BY ME AND IT'S SOMEBODY HAS SECOND.

NO, IN FAVOR.

AYE.

SUZANNE.

SUZANNE WAS YOUR HAND UP FOR THE AYE? AYE.