[0:00] You know, an hour from now and we'll call to order the special call

[0:04] meeting at ten oh three. So we are now, uh, in the

[0:08] special call meeting, and I'll turn it over to our city manager, um,

[0:13] to lead us through our briefing agenda for today. Madam city manager. Thank

[0:17] you, mr. Be and good morning to the city council. The first item on the agenda for the special call meeting

[0:21] is a presentation on the financial analysis and funding considerations

[0:26] for priority of our public safety facilities, potential relocation of

[0:30] 9 1 1 and our emergency operation center potential repair plans

[0:34] for city hall and potential relocation. All of these items

[0:38] have previously been briefed and discussed with the city council, either an open session

[0:43] or executive session, and we were asked to return to discuss financial

[0:47] considerations in a much more deeper perspective and be able to bring

[0:52] that back to you. I do wanna take an opportunity to

[0:56] make some additional comments.

[1:00] since 1978, when dallas city hall opened, the city has historically underinvested

[1:05] and underfunded maintenance repairs and modern updates in this building.

[1:09] we understand why the focus has always been

[1:13] on making sure that the priorities of our residents, whether public safety,

[1:17] parks, libraries, and streets were important, and these

[1:21] priorities, united councils to pass budgets and fund fund programs

[1:26] that supported those priorities. Now, 48

[1:30] years later, in 2026, you face a huge

[1:35] decision because of those priorities.

[1:39] and so I wanna give you a quick reminder of the process.

[1:43] in may and june of 20 25, 6 months after I was appointed

[1:47] as the interim city manager, I brought to this council a

[1:51] briefing, documenting the urgent need to reinvest in our

[1:56] public facilities, including city hall. In

[2:00] august of 2025, mayor johnson directed the council finance

[2:04] committee to examine city hall's conditions and began exploring

[2:08] financially responsible options. In october, 2025,

[2:14] staff engaged outside experts who came and reported on deferred

[2:19] maintenance needs and structural repairs, roof, hvac, electrical

[2:23] and plumbing, and we provided to this city council and estimate between

[2:28] 152,000,340 5 million

[2:32] in november of 2025. This council directed the

[2:36] city manager to evaluate the possibility of how we could look at

[2:40] key other city departments and where they operated, and whether lease

[2:44] and or buying or building office space was the essential.

[2:48] in december of 2025, I engaged the dallas

[2:53] economic development corporation and a team of more than 80 professional experts

[2:57] who spent hundreds of hours inside this building. They inspected

[3:02] systems and structures so that we could move from, from the

[3:06] evidence that we were told did not have facts and bring the data

[3:11] to the city council. In february of 2026,

[3:15] those findings were presented first to the finance committee and

[3:19] later to the full city council. The analysis concluded

[3:23] that restoration and repairs to the building, just to bring it up to code,

[3:27] was an estimated three hundred and twenty nine twenty 9 million,

[3:31] and that did not include code or a da repairs.

[3:37] the council asked for more information. March 4th, 2026.

[3:42] I then engaged a set of new consultants to come and validate the work,

[3:46] refine the scope, and recommend as council requested a

[3:50] 10 year phased repair plan. Even with shorter plans in

[3:54] the addition of construction efficiencies, those consultants have now

[3:58] reported that projected costs are between 532 million

[4:03] and 614 million over the next decade.

[4:07] so today's information is to help you have that deeper

[4:12] understanding of the financials and how you consider this important

[4:16] decision. But it is not because staff has not provided this city

[4:20] council with the information that you have requested.

[4:24] we understand that these decisions affect our residents, our taxpayers, public safety,

[4:28] economic development, and so much more. And we understand that these

[4:33] decisions are hard and how we plan today for the city

[4:37] for the future. And at this time, I'll turn it over to our chief financial

[4:41] officer, jack ireland, to deliver today's briefing. Thank you.

[4:48] good morning, mayor and members of the city council, and thank you ms. Tolbert.

[4:53] so, beginning the presentation as ms. Tolbert mentioned, uh, on slide

[4:58] two, we will talk through public safety facility needs, which has been

[5:02] a question, uh, discuss potential relocation of 9 1 1

[5:06] emergency operation center, uh, potential relocation

[5:10] of city hall potential repair program for city hall, and bringing

[5:14] this information to you at the request of the city council to bring

[5:18] the financial information to you at one time. So in slide three,

[5:23] as we started working on this, we knew it was important to be mindful of

[5:27] many things, mindful of our taxpayers, mindful of any impact on public

[5:31] safety, on core city services, how we deliver and implement

[5:36] the 2024 bond program, what opportunities we have for economic

[5:40] development and growth of our tax base, impact on our debt

[5:44] and future debt capacity, as well as our impact on our current

[5:48] and future annual operating budgets. And so if we turn to slide four,

[5:53] thinking about our current and, uh, upcoming annual

[5:57] budgets, just wanted to pull a slide that we shared with you on may the sixth

[6:01] that talked about some of the challenges that we face from a financial perspective

[6:06] for our annual budget. As you know, uh, we have limitations

[6:10] on our property tax revenue because of state cap, and the state

[6:14] is also considering expanding that cap. Uh, we

[6:18] have sales tax that this year we've seen some contraction and some,

[6:22] uh, less revenue than we had anticipated. We anticipate that

[6:26] that will continue. As you know, we continue to work on meet and confer agreements to

[6:30] ensure, uh, with our police and fire uniform employees that we have competitive,

[6:35] uh, salaries. Uh, our pension contributions, which we've spoken about

[6:39] and which we'll speak about, uh, as part of this presentation, those costs,

[6:43] uh, will grow as we, uh, implement the funding plan that

[6:47] this council and the board approved. We have, we know that we have a goal of

[6:52] hiring more police officers. We have to stay competitive with our

[6:56] non-uniform salaries. We've seen this year a rising cost in our employee

[7:00] health benefits. Uh, we are here partly because of deferred,

[7:04] uh, facility maintenance. And even after this facility is addressed,

[7:09] there is deferred maintenance in all of our other hundreds of buildings that the

[7:13] city operates. Uh, we do anticipate elimination of

[7:17] reduction in federal funds, and then there's a lot of uncertainty about the

[7:21] economic condition, uh, whether it's inflation, tariffs, supply chain, and other types

[7:25] of factors. So we realize and know and shared with you on

[7:30] march, may the sixth, the challenges that we'll be facing. I'm sorry,

[7:34] jack. I need to, um, for us to stand at ease for a

[7:38] few minutes because we have, we're having broadcast issues and we need to make sure the broadcast

[7:42] okay, the feed is back up. So if you could just pause there and we will we'll,

[7:46] uh, stand at ease for let's say two

[7:50] minutes. I'm told from our technical folks two minutes,

[7:54] so just hold tight.

[8:08] yeah, we have to switch the broadcast over from one meeting to

[8:13] the next. So it's just a technical issue, so we just need to hold tight for just a

[8:17] minute. Well, thanks for your patience.

[9:17] this webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

[9:25] okay. I am told that the broadcast is back up. Um, so go ahead, jack. Thank you.

[9:30] yeah, thank you sir. So, continuing on slide five. Uh, after

[9:34] we look at things on slide four that, uh, we're challenged with, we

[9:38] just laid out on may the sixth, some of the ways that we'll be addressing the budget. I'm

[9:42] not gonna read through all of those, but these are items that we presented on may 6th.

[9:47] that will be our approach as we go through development of, uh, the

[9:51] budget. So I wanted to shift gears, and

[9:55] it may seem outta place, but it is relevant, very relevant, uh, starting

[9:59] on page, uh, seven to talk about pension obligation bonds, because

[10:03] part of this conversation is about our ability to issue debt.

[10:08] and so one of the factors regarding the issuance of debt

[10:12] is we have held about $500 million of capacity

[10:16] in our debt service model for potential pension obligation

[10:20] bonds. So we wanted to talk about that

[10:24] and the impact that it could have on the other parts of this presentation.

[10:29] so, just as a reminder, on page seven, we have two employee retirement funds,

[10:33] uh, the dallas police and fire, as well as the non-uniform system.

[10:38] the texas pension review board has oversight of those. Uh, the city council

[10:42] has approved plans for both of the two systems that meet the state's

[10:46] requirement to be fully funded within 30 years. However, the,

[10:50] uh, contributions to dallas police and fire pension system do become pretty significant

[10:55] in the future. So moving to page eight, we had, uh,

[11:00] considered pension obligation bonds, which are taxable bonds

[11:04] that some state and local governments have issued as part of an overall

[11:09] strategy to fund the unfunded pension liability. And the unfunded

[11:13] pension liability in dallas police and fire is approaching $4 billion.

[11:18] now, we have a plan to pay that over 30 years. However,

[11:23] if we wanted to, uh, advance that and pay some of that

[11:27] down through pension obligation bond, that provides an opportunity.

[11:32] however, the use of pension obligation bonds rest on the assumption that

[11:36] the bond proceeds when you invest those, that they will have a

[11:40] higher yield than the cost of borrowing.

[11:44] it is all about the timing in the market that you are borrowing the pension

[11:48] obligation bonds at a lower rate than the pension system

[11:52] is able to invest and earn more money. We

[11:56] have used pension obligation bonds in the past. We issued about $500 million

[12:01] for the employee retirement fund, the civilian non-uniform fund back in

[12:05] 2005. So the city has used that previously as a tool.

[12:10] so this was something that was in our conversation on may the sixth,

[12:15] and it was asked that we take this to a joint committee of finance and

[12:19] the pension ad hoc committee. That meeting was held on may the 21st.

[12:23] the joint committee did review the materials and ask that it come back

[12:28] to the full city council for consideration. That's why it's

[12:32] included in this presentation and relevant for debt modeling. So

[12:36] on page nine, just a little snapshot of dallas police and fire pension system,

[12:40] you can see the funding ratio and the years to be fully funded in the past.

[12:45] and especially on the chart on the left, you'll see that we are now under

[12:49] the 30 year funding requirement. That is a projection because of the

[12:53] new funding agreement that we have in place.

[12:57] so moving to slide 10, we did list out a couple of advantages

[13:01] and a couple of cautions related to pension obligation bonds.

[13:06] primarily, uh, at the advantage is again, capturing that

[13:10] positive arbitrage. If the investment returns exceed

[13:15] the cost of borrowing. And for dallas, what that means is that we would be

[13:19] able to reduce our contribution from the general fund over

[13:23] to the dallas police and fire pension system, and we would be paying for

[13:27] those bonds through our debt service fund. So it gives some

[13:31] relief to the general fund. Now, there are cautions, the

[13:35] gfoa or government finance officer association, they do not

[13:40] recommend use of pob, uh, primarily because of the risk associated

[13:44] with, uh, will the investment returns really exceed the cost.

[13:48] that is a risk. It's something that you need to be mindful of. Uh,

[13:53] also they cite that issuing pension obligation bonds takes away from your

[13:57] ability to do other capital projects. That's why we're having the conversation because

[14:01] it is a factor in your debt model. Uh, pabs tend

[14:05] to be complex, uh, in the way they're, uh, typically amortized

[14:09] over time and rating agencies may not view them as,

[14:14] uh, credit positive. However, uh, irving has maintained their

[14:18] aaa bond rating, and they did issue pension obligation bonds within the last,

[14:22] uh, five years. So, moving to slide 11, a

[14:26] little more information about the dallas police and fire pension system, their history

[14:30] of return on investment. So as we think about whether we should borrow money

[14:35] or not, how much will the, uh, pension system be able to

[14:39] earn once they get the cash? And so we've just shown some,

[14:43] uh, background, some of their history back to 2006. Since

[14:47] 2006, they've had 11 years where they have been better than

[14:51] their assumed rate of return, which is 6.5%, and they've

[14:55] had nine years where they've earned less than that. The goal is that they need to average

[15:00] at that 6.5 over time. Uh, their most recent

[15:04] five year, uh, average has been 5.07 or 10

[15:08] year averages, 3.12. And that's compared

[15:12] to a current market. The market condition really is an ideal

[15:16] for issuing pension obligation bonds. Uh, right now in the market, it would cost

[15:20] probably 6% or more to borrow. And the pension system,

[15:25] uh, at least on a five and 10 year basis, has not achieved that

[15:29] rate of return. However, in the middle of the page, you'll see that the last three years

[15:34] in 25, they actually earned 15%, nearly 10%

[15:38] in 24, and nearly 14% in 23. So as

[15:42] all of us have investments, and those go up and down, and you see that in your own statements,

[15:47] the pension system similarly, uh, is, um, following

[15:51] the market. And you will see, uh, the years that they do well and other years

[15:55] they do not perform as well. Moving to slide 12 and

[16:00] 13, what I wanted to show is we ask our, uh, actuary the city's actuaries,

[16:05] deloitte, and we ask them to model some scenarios. And so slide

[16:09] 12 provides one scenario showing what savings

[16:13] we would have in the general fund if we issued pension

[16:17] obligation bonds, and we could reduce our contribution from the, can we stop just one second, jack and

[16:21] get the presentation back up. It looks like a tech looks like

[16:25] this. A screensaver is up.

[16:33] yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm looking at a hard copy, but I just noticed, I think the presentation

[16:37] is not displaying anymore.

[16:44] I can't.

[18:52] okay. We can go ahead, jack. Thank you. So continuing

[18:57] on slide 12, uh, just a scenario showing that we would potentially

[19:01] have savings in the general fund. And based upon,

[19:06] um, the pension system being able to invest and earn 6.5%

[19:11] interest, it would be a save a net savings to the city, uh, depending

[19:15] upon what rate of return they get. On slide 13, uh, deloitte modeled

[19:19] a scenario where this pension system does not earn as much.

[19:24] uh, it still saves the general fund, but there is a net

[19:28] cost if the pension system has losses detail on both the

[19:32] scenarios are in the appendix. So sorry, just to, uh,

[19:36] those slides I'll summarize on slide 14 and move on to the more

[19:41] important points of the conversation. Uh, the joint funding agreement that

[19:45] the city has with, uh, d-p-f-p-s, uh, was approved

[19:49] in december. The funding agreement satisfies the requirements, and as

[19:53] long as we continue to make our contributions, the the plan works.

[19:57] however, if you want an opportunity to potentially reduce the cost

[20:01] in the general fund, uh, transfer some of that cost to

[20:05] the debt service fund, pension obligation bonds as a way of doing that,

[20:10] however, it comes with risk being able to earn more

[20:14] than what we're paying on the debt. So I'll move on to the public

[20:18] safety facility needs, and that will show why pension obligation

[20:23] bonds matter. So on slide 16, as

[20:27] we talk about public safety facility needs and, uh, needs inventory was used

[20:31] to develop the 24, uh, bond program, and there was $727 million

[20:37] worth of public safety needs that were included in that needs inventory.

[20:41] the voters authorized 90 million for public safety. The projects

[20:45] included the police academy, fire station 43 replacement, fire station

[20:50] 11 renovation, and various police and fire locations for

[20:54] different types of renovations and repairs for the $90 million.

[20:58] so now, uh, several years later, what,

[21:02] uh, priority projects do we have that could be addressed through

[21:06] a bond program that do need additional funding? There have been numerous, uh,

[21:10] conversations about the law enforcement training center at unt dallas

[21:15] having a shortfall. We've had a conversation about expanding

[21:19] that program to include a new public safety training complex. We've

[21:23] recently had conversations about 9 1 1, an emergency operations center

[21:27] that are located in this building and would be better suited to be relocated.

[21:32] we also have issues with the current police property room,

[21:36] uh, crime scene facility, and evidentiary vehicle storage that we want

[21:40] to talk about in then fire station number four replacement. So I'll go into each of

[21:44] those on the next couple of slides as we talk about the priority public safety

[21:48] program. So on slide 17, uh, this is

[21:52] information that's been updated for the, uh, two facilities.

[21:56] the, uh, law enforcement training center on the left, the public safety

[22:01] training complex on the right, $227 million for one and $170 million.

[22:06] on the second on page 18, uh, we did update,

[22:10] uh, the next steps, uh, for each of those projects with the

[22:14] law enforcement training center. Uh, the, the

[22:18] most updated cost is $227 million in total.

[22:23] a guaranteed maximum price agreement is currently being evaluated

[22:27] and should be brought before the council in august for approval. And

[22:31] then there would be additional gmps later for the public safety training

[22:35] complex. Uh, depending upon the direction about funding, we would

[22:39] know how to proceed with that facility or not.

[22:43] so on slide 19, just a summary of the funding for

[22:48] the law enforcement training center, uh, at unt

[22:52] campus. Uh, you'll see that we have the $50 million from the 24

[22:56] bond program. We have the state grant that you're aware of. There's work being done

[23:00] towards the private funds that are being, uh, raised for the project. And

[23:04] there's an $82 million, uh, shortfall on the project

[23:09] on slide, uh, 20 similar, uh, this was not

[23:13] a project that was anticipated at the time of the 24 bond program. It has

[23:17] been something that has been discussed and developed since then to go ahead

[23:22] and do that secondary, uh, facility. The public safety training

[23:26] complex, uh, potential sources of funds are outlined here,

[23:30] aviation department, uh, some enabling costs. And so this assumption,

[23:34] uh, is that it would be located at the executive airport

[23:39] and aviation would contribute some of the cost associated with the

[23:43] project. There's sponsorship opportunities for a total of $170 million,

[23:48] uh, with 1 49 of that being unfunded, uh, and something

[23:52] that could be considered for a bond program. So the 9 1 1

[23:56] emergency operations center, again, that's located here at, uh, 1500 marilla

[24:01] in the basement, is not ideally situated and could be,

[24:05] uh, improved by being located at another site. Uh,

[24:09] we believe after much research on this, that use of an

[24:14] existing city facility may be the most appropriate path forward.

[24:18] if so, the cost associated to relocate is about $40 million.

[24:23] on slide 22, uh, we have talked less about these. However, we did

[24:27] include this in the, uh, either the april or the may

[24:31] briefing, uh, that we did to council. Um, but the property room that's

[24:35] located down at 1725 baylor is, uh,

[24:40] undersized. It does not meet the current needs, and it has, uh,

[24:44] some significant improvement in repair issues. And then

[24:48] the evidentiary vehicle storage is located at 1955

[24:53] veil big or the former auto pound, uh, several years ago now,

[24:57] we started an effort to outsource the auto pound, but we

[25:01] are still, uh, maintaining those evidentiary

[25:05] vehicles on that site, which is standing in the way of being able to develop

[25:09] that site or sell that site. So, um, that is an opportunity.

[25:14] uh, there. Um, on slide 23, the bond office

[25:18] worked with the police department on the needs for this, uh, joint

[25:22] facility. Uh, specifically they were asking for 31 acres,

[25:27] two buildings, enough space for 2,800, uh, vehicle

[25:31] storage sites, et cetera. And so on. Slide 24,

[25:35] just looking at the cost of those, uh, and this is preliminary

[25:39] steel, but if we use the il bigg property and move the other operations

[25:43] and keep that property, or at least keep part of that property, uh, the

[25:47] cost for, uh, the joint facility, uh, with the property

[25:52] room, crime room and evidentiary storage would

[25:56] be about $150 million. If we look at using another site,

[26:00] and we have to do a lot of site work, including, uh, the pavement for

[26:04] the 2,800, uh, parking, et cetera, it, it does drive the

[26:09] cost up on slide 25, another

[26:13] facility that we believe is a, uh, priority is fire station number four.

[26:17] it's back here behind the building just to the south of city hall at eight

[26:21] 16 south akron street. Uh, based on the implementation of the

[26:25] convention center master plan and the anticipated development of the 31 acres

[26:30] that become available, replacement of this fire station, uh, therefore

[26:34] would be a priority before spring of 29 at a cost of about $20 million.

[26:39] so on slide 26, you'll see a summary of the

[26:43] priority public safety facility needs law enforcement training center

[26:48] at 82 million to fill that gap. Public safety training

[26:52] complex that was not considered, uh, when we did the 24 bond program, almost

[26:56] 150 relocating 9 1 1 and eeoc out

[27:00] of city hall, uh, 40 million, uh, a joint facility

[27:05] for property room and evidentiary vehicles 150 and fire station

[27:09] four at 20 for a total of $441 million for

[27:13] priority public safety needs. So

[27:18] typically we pay for capital infrastructure through bond programs.

[27:22] so on slide 27, just grabbed a slide that we talked about, uh,

[27:27] in may about our bond program. Typically, we use the

[27:31] bond program for all of our capital improvements, whether it's streets, floods, storm,

[27:35] uh, our public safety. Uh, property tax is the revenue source that's

[27:40] pledged to use, uh, for payment of the principle and interest. Uh,

[27:44] we go through our debt capacity analysis looking at our existing debt,

[27:48] uh, debt that's already been approved by the voters, but not yet issued. What is our current

[27:53] and projected property values? What is our tax rate? Are we going to change the

[27:57] tax rate or keep it the same? What other, uh, capital

[28:01] or debt needs do we have? And, and what's the economic condition and the

[28:05] cost to borrow? So on slide 28, I just wanted

[28:09] to drop this in to remind everyone of the, uh, 2024 bond

[28:14] program, the fiscal year, or fy 25 column that says year

[28:18] one, we have issued those bonds. That 250 has been issued the fy

[28:22] 26 year two, those bonds have been issued. We're currently,

[28:26] uh, planning, unless things change based upon direction from council,

[28:30] uh, to issue $250 million for the third year, fourth year and fifth

[28:35] year. So $750 million over the next three years

[28:39] to complete the 24 bond program. However, moving to the next

[28:43] slide, uh, this has expanded on from our may the,

[28:47] uh, sixth conversation. Um, and this is

[28:52] in the middle. Green is the may 6th, uh, conversation where we

[28:56] had the remaining, uh, $750 million in

[29:00] the 24 bonds. We had 500 million for pension obligation bonds.

[29:05] we had 250 million at that time that we were thinking was the number just

[29:09] associated with the police academy components.

[29:13] uh, and then we had a future 2029 bond program. If you go

[29:17] over to the right, uh, starting at column k through

[29:21] o, you'll see how that has been updated.

[29:26] so in the update the pension obligation bonds to

[29:30] mitigate the risk of when you borrow, uh, spread that out over multiple

[29:34] years, rather than entering the market at one time and spread that over

[29:38] three tranches similar in the public safety, instead

[29:42] of it being 250, it's been increased by 191 million

[29:47] to get the, to the $441 million. What the

[29:51] impact of those changes are, it slowed down the

[29:55] 24 bond program a little bit more. It still requires four years

[29:59] instead of the three, and then it did reduce the 29 bond program

[30:04] by about a hundred million dollars. So if we go forward

[30:08] with a pension obligation bond using this issuance schedule,

[30:12] and we insert $441 million of public safety,

[30:16] this would be the preliminary schedule of how those bonds would be issued

[30:21] on the next slide. Said the same thing in words rather than a table. But

[30:26] the table on the previous slide, again, it adds 191 million

[30:30] to the two 50 that we talked about in may for $441 million

[30:35] for public safety. It changes the pension obligation bonds

[30:39] from a one year issuance, one tranche to three tranches.

[30:43] uh, it continued the $750 million for 24

[30:47] bond program, but it spread over four years and the reduction of a hundred

[30:51] million dollars in the 29 bond program. So

[30:56] a scenario would allow, if the council chose to call an

[31:00] election for november 3rd, has to be called by august the 12th

[31:04] for $500 million worth of pension obligation bonds, and $441 million

[31:09] worth of, uh, public safety bonds for the priority

[31:13] projects that we just talked through. So, shifting away from those public

[31:18] safety needs and to potential repair plans for city hall.

[31:22] on slide 32, just as a reminder, the march 4th action

[31:26] that was, uh, directing the city manager to bring back some

[31:31] phased, uh, repair programs. Uh, the city manager,

[31:35] uh, chose to engage outside industry experts to conduct

[31:39] that work. Uh, bringing in grisham smith and wm two company,

[31:44] cbre, of course, has been working with us through the process. We've had a couple of

[31:48] briefings may 20th on phase one and june 3rd on phase two,

[31:52] and you'll see some of those same slides from june 3rd on the next,

[31:56] uh, four or five slides. So on slide 33 from grisham

[32:01] smith's june 3rd presentation, they provided a draw schedule, uh,

[32:05] for a 6.4 year scenario that costs 4 530

[32:10] $1 million and a 10 year scenario for $556 million.

[32:15] so their bottom line is on page 34, again, the dollar amounts listed there.

[32:20] wm two company looking at the same information. Uh, they proposed two

[32:24] different scenarios. One was a five year implementation for 591 million,

[32:30] and then on slide 36, a 10 year scenario, uh, for

[32:34] 611 million. So again, there, there two

[32:39] scenarios are shown on slide 37, 5 91 to six 10.

[32:44] so on slide 38, this is a summary from, uh, the presentation

[32:48] on june 3rd, and it lays out the four scenarios that

[32:52] you received on june 3rd and compared those to the edc

[32:56] information that you had, uh, received previously. And so these

[33:00] are just laid out showing the top row being the corrective

[33:04] repairs, the repairs necessary to, uh, just, I believe the term

[33:09] is a warm lit shell. Uh, but then there's additional cost for

[33:13] interiors, uh, furniture fixture and equipment technology,

[33:19] and those type of costs that would get added to for a total capital

[33:23] that's kind of shaded in a little bit of a pinkish color, I guess

[33:28] across about the middle of the page, if we borrow funds to do it, there is

[33:32] interest cost associated with this. If we do not borrow funds, then there's

[33:36] not interest cost associated with it. Uh, the scenarios that

[33:40] were provided did indicate that we would need some swing space because

[33:45] parts of the building would need to be, uh, left during parts of

[33:49] the renovation. So swing costs are listed as well as 20 year

[33:53] operating costs. So this is the cost for utilities, custodial

[33:57] security, and this is a 20 year cost. And so a lot of times when people hear the

[34:01] number, hold, hold on one second. Sorry. Of a billion dollars. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. I know you were, you were flowing

[34:06] there, but I think we have another technical issue. I just wanna make sure

[34:10] it looks like we got a screensaver up again.

[34:14] is it me, ? Okay. Just, um,

[34:18] we'll stand at ease for just another couple minutes until we get a,

[34:23] an update from the tech folks about how long it'll take to get this fixed. Hold

[34:27] on.

[36:09] yes, we're online and ready to go, mayor.

[36:15] all right. Uh, jack, we're back up and running, so you can go. Great. Thank you.

[36:20] continue, please. So, I was about to say on the bottom of slide 34

[36:24] that, um, a lot of the conversation is about billion dollar plus

[36:28] project, but remember that includes the corrective repairs,

[36:33] the additional capital cost for modernization, as well as the

[36:37] cost of borrowing the funds, as well as swing space, as well

[36:41] as 20 years of operating costs. All of that together is what is

[36:45] in that bottom row or the total. So for the next couple

[36:49] of slides, uh, the column that has the, the red box

[36:53] around it, the grisham smith option two is the option that I

[36:57] pulled forward, not because it's a recommended option, but because it's, the cost

[37:01] was kind of in the middle. And so I took that and we worked, uh,

[37:06] to spread that cost out over the 10 year implementation based upon

[37:10] the timing of their project. So on slide 39,

[37:14] you'll see instead of, uh, you'll see it in years across

[37:18] the column. So year one, the total cost, 113 million bottom

[37:23] line, uh, year two, $173 million, bottom line,

[37:27] et cetera. And you can see that going across for a total of 1.5,

[37:32] uh, billion dollars. Again, in the middle of the page is the capital

[37:36] cost associated with the repair. The road directly below that

[37:41] interest is if you choose to issue debt to make those repairs,

[37:45] or if not, and you do it with cash, then it's 769.8,

[37:50] which is in the far right column with the red box around it. So that gets you

[37:54] the corrective repairs as well as the modernization, uh, over this

[37:58] 10 year period for $769.8 million.

[38:03] so moving on to the, the next slide on slide 40,

[38:08] if the council, uh, wanted to, uh, issue debt to

[38:13] pay for the $769 million, it

[38:17] does have the interest. The interest cost is about $456 million

[38:22] over the 20 year period. I did not assume that we borrowed it

[38:26] all at once, but rather that we borrowed it in six tranches that

[38:30] kind of matched the 10 year implementation schedule. Uh, the tranches

[38:34] are listed there on the right of how much we would need to borrow in each

[38:38] year to follow the schedule that gresham smith laid out

[38:42] on slide 41. If we did that, what would the impact be?

[38:47] so the same as changes you make in pension obligation bonds affects debt capacity.

[38:51] what does issuing $769 million of

[38:55] debt to do the 10 year repair program, what impact does that have?

[39:00] well, again, I factored in the public safety, which we talked about.

[39:04] I factored in the three year trache, three tranches of pension obligation

[39:08] bonds. It would require slowing down the 24

[39:13] bond program even more. Instead of just slowing it from three to four years, it

[39:17] would actually spread it out to six years because it puts some of the city hall

[39:21] repairs ahead. It's just a timing. What do you do? First, I

[39:25] followed the gresham smith, uh, implementation schedule. So that

[39:30] would result in some slowdown, further slowdown of the 24 bond program.

[39:35] and then it would delay implementation of a future bond program

[39:39] instead of it being a 1.2 or $1.1 billion program,

[39:43] because you use all the capacity for $770 million

[39:48] for city hall, it drops your other bond propositions down

[39:52] to just $330 million. So, uh, again, it's about

[39:56] the same amount. 769 for city hall, 330

[40:00] for other propositions is the $1.1 billion. That

[40:04] could be for a future bond proposition. But if you carve

[40:09] out part of that for city hall, it, it limits what other capacity

[40:13] you have in this scenario. In addition to the 500 million,

[40:18] uh, pension obligation bonds, the 441 million, uh,

[40:22] priority public safety facilities, if you added another $769.8 million

[40:27] for a general obligation program, uh, for city hall repairs,

[40:31] it would take, uh, the election up to $1.7 billion.

[40:38] so moving to slide 42, thinking about not doing

[40:42] it with debt because that is a lot of debt, uh, but

[40:47] doing it with cash instead, uh, what is the impact of

[40:51] that? Um, so

[40:57] yeah, sorry about that. Uh, so to fund the corrective repairs of

[41:01] the $769.8 million, uh, based

[41:06] upon their 10 year schedule, uh, it does add significant

[41:10] impact or pressure on the annual operating budget. Uh,

[41:14] and so $152.4 million is the peak

[41:18] year of that. And so the next couple of slides talk

[41:22] about $152.4 million. This is not a recommendation.

[41:27] it's, we wouldn't do all of these things. It's just a math exercise of what

[41:31] $152.4 million equals. And so

[41:35] moving on to slide, uh, 44, uh,

[41:40] you see what that would be. So $152.4 million

[41:45] if you were to, again, a math exercise, uh, increase

[41:49] the property tax rate to generate that, that's about 7 cents, uh,

[41:53] because each 1 cent is $22.1 million.

[41:57] uh, I know we've worked really hard to get the tax rate down, uh, but this would

[42:02] increase it back, uh, exceeding the three, uh, 0.5,

[42:06] uh, percent cap that the, uh, vote the state has

[42:11] in place would probably be triggered. And we would require an election,

[42:15] uh, to even do that, uh, to raise the tax rate that much.

[42:19] um, 6.90 cents on the median valued

[42:23] home in the city is an increase of $212,

[42:27] uh, in a tax bill. Slide 45. If instead

[42:31] of looking at a tax rate increase, which is our primary revenue, if we decreased

[42:36] operating expenses, uh, to achieve $152 million savings

[42:40] for that peak year, what does that mean? Well, a held harmless

[42:44] police and fire, uh, and that left $751 million

[42:50] in other departments, uh, that would take a 20% cut to all of the other departments.

[42:55] uh, or if we just started eliminating departments, uh, eliminating

[42:59] all of the administrative, uh, departments of budget controller, civil service,

[43:03] data analytics, hr communications, government affairs and purchasing,

[43:08] that gets you $45 million to eliminate everything. And nobody gets

[43:12] paid and nobody gets hired and bills don't get paid, and all kinds of things don't happen.

[43:16] similar, if you eliminate, uh, mayor city council and all the appointed offices,

[43:21] that's $50 million. So eliminating all that together doesn't get

[43:25] you close. Uh, slide 46. Another way of looking at it

[43:29] is, uh, what are our core services versus what are our quality of life

[43:33] services? So, uh, picking on, uh, three of our favorites, park and recreation

[43:38] library and, uh, arts and culture, um, it would take an 86%

[43:42] cut of those if you're just cutting those departments. Uh, again, this is

[43:46] a math exercise. What, what does, what do things add up to to get to

[43:51] $152 million if you wanted to just eliminate employees,

[43:55] that's about 2200 employees out of the general fund, or about,

[44:00] uh, four out of every 10 general fund civilian employees,

[44:04] not police, not fire, but civilian employees. Um,

[44:08] and cutting four out of every 10 employees means you cut

[44:13] services because it's the employees that provide the services. So,

[44:17] to do this, it's a combination of all this, whether it is some,

[44:21] uh, revenue increase, some expense reduction,

[44:25] some debt, uh, together provides you different, uh, strategies

[44:30] to approach it. Um, it's, it's a, you know,

[44:34] a cafeteria of opportunities on which you select and what you put

[44:38] together to do that type of plan. And so, moving now from repairing

[44:42] city hall to relocating city hall, and I asked my friend peter jensen,

[44:46] who I think is close by to come walk through, uh, three slides,

[44:50] uh, talking about their engagement as they looked at the market

[44:55] for, uh, city hall relocation.

[45:01] good morning, mr. Mayor, council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak

[45:05] to you again today. Uh, the city tasks, cbre

[45:10] with exploring the market, um, and finding indicative results,

[45:14] um, for potential relocation scenarios. So I'm gonna walk you through some of our

[45:18] market findings today. These are expounding upon some earlier slides as our

[45:22] data has progressively increased in quality, uh, over the

[45:26] past six months. Um, first of all, the

[45:31] relocation costs that that will be presented in executive session and, um,

[45:35] are a holistic review of all applicable costs and

[45:40] our directional findings, that there's material savings opportunity that ought to be

[45:44] explored further. And that's in all scenarios, all six

[45:48] of the benchmark scenarios that have been presented to city council and the public

[45:52] to date. The methodology includes all of the opportunity costs,

[45:57] consolidation of owned assets where appropriate lease eliminations and terminations

[46:01] where appropriate, looking at the city's portfolio, the building conditions

[46:05] of relocation, candidates necessary upgrades and appropriate reserves

[46:10] for 20 years. Uh, that's important because we are no longer

[46:14] forecasting, um, and, and carrying forth models that,

[46:19] uh, have zero reserves going into the city's assets. So

[46:23] in these city hall scenarios, we're carrying appropriate reserves every year so that

[46:27] you're not in these types of situations again. But the most important

[46:32] thing is that it's an apples to apples comparison, and that's what we were tasked to do.

[46:37] um, I want to also correct a prevailing narrative that the

[46:41] city is committed to leasing in perpetuity. We were tasked with exploring

[46:45] the market for all acquisition scenarios, joint ventures, lease

[46:49] to own leasing is of course one of those viable scenarios,

[46:53] um, and one that deserves exploration. That's what we've done. But there is no commitment

[46:58] and no policy direction being given to us to only consider

[47:02] lease scenarios. But, um, as a steward of the public trust and

[47:06] a fiduciary, of course, exploring those is a noble, uh, effort.

[47:11] but the market has not limited the city to only leasehold interest

[47:18] for our work to advance. There needs to be given a directive to go

[47:22] and, and negotiate. Um, negotiations always can be terminated, but,

[47:27] um, the indicative findings are that there are compelling opportunities and solutions

[47:31] available, um, but other activities need to occur to bring forth final

[47:35] numbers. Lastly, I just wanna

[47:39] point out there, there's been a lot of activity in downtown, um, both good and

[47:43] bad, um, depending on your perspective and your position in the market. Um,

[47:48] but from a, um, vacancy standpoint, from a,

[47:52] uh, let's, uh, buy low sell high, so to speak, um,

[47:57] like mr. Buffet advises, uh, this is an excellent time for the

[48:01] city to be in the market, and that has been proven over and over in our exploration

[48:06] work. Uh, if you just look at the cost of new construction and

[48:10] the assessed values of various buildings in downtown, um,

[48:14] you can see that a lot of them are assessed at probably 10 to 15%

[48:18] of new construction costs. Um, and I think that's a very interesting, uh, way

[48:23] to look at this next slide, please.

[48:27] uh, again, just a little bit of backdrop on the comparative analysis with the market. Uh, we've

[48:31] collected some real time data. We have real time data on cost inputs. We've

[48:35] applied the same per square foot cost to all of the scenarios. There's been no cherry picking of data,

[48:40] um, parking garages, whether new construction or leasing

[48:45] spaces for a short term or long term. Those have all been evaluated. We're carrying

[48:49] some, um, estimates for city council chambers. Obviously, a

[48:53] public facing space is very important. Uh, we're carrying a very high number at a

[48:57] thousand dollars per foot for a city council chambers to be replicated somewhere.

[49:02] uh, also where appropriate lease revenue, uh,

[49:06] if you were to acquire a building, uh, via purchase, and there's contractual lease revenue

[49:11] from third party tenants, that's being factored into the model as well, which would potentially

[49:15] bring the city's basis down considerably in those assets. But just

[49:19] so that we're not, um, you know, accused of, of, of, um,

[49:24] uh, goal seeking, so to speak. Um, we are only modeling

[49:28] contractual revenue. We're not simulating revenue into the future

[49:32] that could be appropriate, uh, if there were, uh, eventually other tenants

[49:37] that, that decided to locate with the city, but for now, it's safest

[49:41] and most conservative to model only contractual revenue. So that's what's in the model.

[49:46] and then lastly, uh, the 20 year occupancy model. We are factoring in

[49:50] property taxes impact both positive negative and then the operating expenses

[49:54] for the various assets. Um, you know, you can't own buildings and operate

[49:59] them for free, nor can you borrow money at 0% interest. And so, um, in the

[50:03] holistic 20 year occupancy model, we feel these are very important figures to

[50:07] include in the, uh, comprehensive model. And then I mentioned

[50:11] this earlier, but there are city leases where you are a lessee right now

[50:16] that are coming up for expiration. For example, uh, department of water utilities

[50:20] that expires in 2028. Um, just continuing at the current pace of spend

[50:24] and eliminating that would be, uh, about a $25 million savings over the

[50:28] next 20 years. So those things are being factored into the model as well. Next slide, please.

[50:36] in terms of a, a qualitative evaluation, um, a lot of clients

[50:40] ask us to, to help them think through this, um, from a number of vantage

[50:44] points. Um, the city has a number of things to consider

[50:48] here. One is an owner, um, two is as an employer, three is

[50:52] an service provider, four is a fiduciary. And then fifth is called an

[50:56] agent, an economic development agent. And you all are making decisions every day with these different

[51:00] vantage points. So, um, we have tried to provide

[51:04] a model and an evaluation model for various

[51:08] relocation possibilities with these lenses in mind. Um, I

[51:13] think the most important ones here that really haven't gotten a lot of of discussion

[51:17] are the city's role as an employer and as a service provider. Um, the direction

[51:21] in terms of policy and and feedback from staff and council

[51:25] has been to ensure that the service provision is at

[51:29] least equal to the current city hall, if not better. And that

[51:33] the role, your role as an employer is sensitive to your relationship with employees,

[51:37] uh, where we can provide higher quality employment environment

[51:42] for the city's, uh, uh, staff. So all these vantage points,

[51:46] uh, create a holistic review of all relocation candidates.

[51:51] um, and that is what we, um, have been charged and tasked to do.

[51:55] I'll stop there. Thank you, peter. And so on slide 51, just

[51:59] a couple of more slides from me. Um, the potential relocation of city hall

[52:03] does provide several opportunities. As peter mentioned, uh,

[52:07] material savings over the 20 year period, uh, does strengthen our

[52:11] fi uh, fiscal stewardship. Uh, there's opportunities related to enhancing

[52:16] resident experience and accessibility, advancing operational

[52:21] consolidation and efficiency. Improving, uh, employee morale and

[52:25] engagement allows us for, uh, to continue improvements in optimizing

[52:29] our space as well as activating some of our city assets to support

[52:34] economic, uh, development. So in summary, on nope,

[52:38] one more. Um, on slide 52, uh, looking

[52:42] at, um, funding strategy related to a potential, uh, city

[52:46] hall relocation, um, the numbers, uh, peter will share in,

[52:50] uh, more detail in executive session. Unfortunately, not able

[52:55] to do that in open session yet. Um, as we've

[52:59] talked about, our primary funding sources, uh, for things continue to be either

[53:04] cash or debt. But in conversations with cbre, uh,

[53:08] I believe that the financial transaction will provide us multiple, uh, financing

[53:12] options. Again, whether it's a lease to own or a purchase deferral

[53:16] of upfront cost, uh, other opportunities, those are things that would come out

[53:20] through the pre-development phase. Again, the consolidation of city

[53:25] operations from multiple locations, again, as peter mentioned, uh,

[53:29] does allow us to terminate some leases and have savings in those areas

[53:33] that could, uh, result in savings that could be redirected towards

[53:37] city hall. Uh, we have the opportunity to divest of some of our real

[53:42] estate, some, whether it's oak cliff municipal center eventually, or central

[53:46] service center on canton street. Eventually there is opportunity, uh,

[53:50] for us to, uh, look at our real estate in a different way.

[53:54] also, uh, was mentioned the excess space that may be available in

[53:59] a relocation that would allow us to rent and have a new revenue stream,

[54:03] uh, as well as potential opportunity to co-locate with another government

[54:08] entity that, uh, I believe is currently looking for additional space.

[54:12] we also will have the opportunity to share costs, uh, with, uh, departments

[54:17] that, uh, do come into the building, whether it's, uh, water utilities,

[54:21] uh, who's currently in the building. Uh, they have some operations that

[54:25] could be moved into the city hall building inspection could be moved in. And

[54:29] some of those enterprise funds, uh, regardless of what we do, could be used

[54:34] for, uh, additional funding sources as well as historic tax

[54:38] credits and potential tax increment financing, uh, district funds or other

[54:42] economic incentives that may be available, uh, with a relocation that

[54:46] may not be available here. But I believe all of that, uh, in a little more

[54:50] detail will be discussed in executive session, but primarily we'll come out through the

[54:54] pre-development phase if we move forward in that direction. So on slide

[54:59] 54, uh, last two slides, just in summary of the whole

[55:03] document. Uh, back to pension obligation bonds a viable option

[55:07] that could help produce general fund contribution, shifting some

[55:11] of that cost to the debt service fund, but again, the risk is associated

[55:16] with the cost of borrowing versus the interest earned.

[55:20] uh, if counsel chose to move forward with that, uh, it could potentially

[55:24] be on a november ballot. Uh, we would recommend waiting

[55:28] to actually issue the tranches of debt until the market conditions were

[55:32] uh, improved. Uh, the next two bullets are about public safety.

[55:37] again, priority, public safety facilities, law enforcement, training center,

[55:41] public safety training complex, the property room and evidentiary

[55:45] vehicle storage and fire station four as well as 9 1 1 and

[55:50] emergency operations center, uh, could potentially be a bond,

[55:54] uh, proposition for $441 million if you choose to

[55:58] move forward in that way. Uh, looking at the 10 year phased

[56:02] repair program, uh, use of debt has consequences,

[56:07] uh, especially for future bond programs, uh, by

[56:11] using the debt capacity for $769 million,

[56:15] uh, for this building, it limits your ability for other capital improvements.

[56:20] and then cash, just trying to pay for it all out of the general fund

[56:24] has some, uh, consequences on, uh, service delivery. Uh,

[56:28] but relocation, uh, to an alternative site, uh, does provide

[56:33] material, uh, savings, uh, based on the current market conditions. Again,

[56:37] that would be determined through pre-development. So on slide 55 for

[56:42] next steps, um, potentially we will be able to get some direction

[56:46] from council today regarding a november 3rd election. Uh,

[56:50] for whatever you may choose to include, the date to call that election would

[56:54] be august the 12th. Uh, after, uh, I

[56:58] think executive session and questions and answers, then I think there is one

[57:03] item that, uh, will potentially be voted on today regarding

[57:07] a potential phased, uh, repair strategy. And then lastly,

[57:11] we will be back in august on august the fifth, uh, for additional briefing on august 12th

[57:15] for additional action items. Uh, mayor, that's the conclusion

[57:19] of the presentation.

[57:24] okay. It is 11:00 am on june 10th, 2026,

[57:28] and the special call meeting of the city council will now go into close session under sections

[57:32] 5 51 0.071 and 5 51 0.072

[57:36] of the texas oak meetings act on the following matters described on today's agenda.

[57:41] item numbers five and six. So we will go into

[57:45] special, uh, we will go into a executive session, and then we will,

[57:49] uh, come back, um, in an hour, we'll call it noon,

[57:54] okay? Okay.

[57:59] special call to city council meetings completed. Its closed session under sections 5 51

[58:04] 0.071 and 5 51 0.072

[58:09] of the texas open meetings act. And at 2:35 pm

[58:14] on june 10th, 2026, we've returned to open session.

[58:21] it's still 2:35 pm and now the special call

[58:26] meeting will stand at recess until after agenda items

[58:30] number 24 and 25 of the regular meeting

[58:34] are completed. And now we need to take a, a moment

[58:39] to allow the meetings to switch over as a technical issue. We have to actually

[58:43] close one webex meeting and open another for the public to be able to see it.

[58:48] so we'll stand at ease for just a minute until the meeting switches over,

[58:52] and then we will move forward.

[59:01] okay. It is now 3:22 pm and the special call meeting

[59:05] of the city council's. Now call to order. And we're going to go,

[59:10] uh, have the discussion now on the briefing item a that we

[59:14] heard before. So I'm now going to turn it over, um,

[59:18] back to the city manager's office to continue our, um, discussion on

[59:22] briefing item a and it'll be our normal 5 3 1 rules

[59:26] for asking questions. Nothing different, so

[59:30] thank you mr. Mayor. We are actually, uh, ready to begin the, uh, the q and a for

[59:34] the presentation that was delivered. Thank you, sir. Okay. Members, go ahead and use your

[59:39] machines and chime in

[59:45] assuming the machines work. I don't see anybody yet.

[59:50] oh, boy. Chairwoman stewart, you recognize for five minutes, um, for the public,

[59:54] we are on briefing item a.

[59:58] okay, so this is a presentation. Few hours back. As I recall,

[1:00:03] um, , we were, we were reviewing, um,

[1:00:08] uh, goodness, our commitments to public safety and other bond projects.

[1:00:13] and so jack, if I think you had two scenarios, one where

[1:00:17] we postponed bond projects for three years and another where they got

[1:00:21] postponed for six in each case actually,

[1:00:25] um, what's the consequence of delaying a project if, for example,

[1:00:29] I'm supposed to put some pickleball courts in and they're not gonna, um, happen

[1:00:35] instead of happening maybe three years from now, they're not gonna happen either six or

[1:00:39] nine years from now. Um, what, what's the consequence of that? I

[1:00:43] think I know, but I'm gonna ask you to help me understand. Okay. Thank

[1:00:47] you. Uh, jack harland, chief financial officer, uh, for the city.

[1:00:52] and so just to put it back in a little perspective, the different

[1:00:56] scenarios talked about were if we move forward with a $441 million

[1:01:02] public safety facilities, uh, proposition, it would have

[1:01:06] an impact and result in us delaying the 2024 bond program from

[1:01:10] three remaining years to four remaining years. Then

[1:01:15] we talked about another situation where in addition to the $441 million

[1:01:20] in public safety projects, we may also choose to do

[1:01:24] $769.8 million worth of, uh,

[1:01:28] city hall repairs. And that scenario, it did require that

[1:01:32] the 24 bond program got stretched from three years remaining

[1:01:36] to six years remaining. In those situations, um,

[1:01:41] obviously it delays the, the project, uh, that the community has

[1:01:45] asked for, that the commu the community voted for in november of 24.

[1:01:50] uh, there's the risk of cost escalation as you're

[1:01:54] delaying time, there's inflation that would factor in. And then would

[1:01:58] we be able to deliver all the projects or would it reach a situation where everything

[1:02:03] is so much more expensive that we are not able to deliver every single

[1:02:07] project? And that's my concern. Um, we will have

[1:02:11] to make some hard choices. It seems to me, I don't think if, if all of the bond

[1:02:15] projects go up in cost, and yet we're, we're still looking

[1:02:19] at the same number of bond dollars to cover those projects,

[1:02:24] then something's got to give. And so some projects will get

[1:02:28] postponed to the next bond program or just go to never, never land. Uh,

[1:02:33] potentially they could go into a future bond program, potentially they could be canceled.

[1:02:37] um, potentially there could be other funding sources identified that would

[1:02:41] supplement them, but it, it would create an issue of, uh,

[1:02:45] we only have authorization for $750 million remaining

[1:02:50] from the 24 bond program. And so the longer you wait,

[1:02:54] the more inflation, the harder that becomes. Right? And so, say

[1:02:58] for example, you were gonna put in a rec center, but all of a sudden you have significantly less

[1:03:02] money for it, perhaps you'd have to do put in, build a rec center

[1:03:07] that doesn't have a gym. There may be those types of trade-offs that would

[1:03:11] be discussed, right? So

[1:03:15] this has an impact on our residents, is my point. And these decisions have

[1:03:19] a huge impact on our residents and what their expectations are, what

[1:03:23] their neighborhoods need, what they're waiting for, because they've been told they're

[1:03:27] on the schedule. So, um, I, I just think we have to,

[1:03:32] um, always think, keep our residents in mind. And in this

[1:03:36] particular case, under this particular scenario, I don't know that they fare

[1:03:40] particularly well. Thank you, mr. Mayor.

[1:03:44] chairman ridley, you recognize for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Mayor.

[1:03:48] so jack, in reference to the

[1:03:52] portion of the presentation about the pension obligation bonds,

[1:03:56] when the city prepared its 30 year amortization

[1:04:01] schedule to satisfy the prb and

[1:04:06] the, uh, and the context of the settlement with the pension, uh,

[1:04:10] board, um, what was the source of revenue

[1:04:14] that you contemplated to fund that 30 year plan?

[1:04:21] so the, the, um, I'll get to the answer, but the final

[1:04:25] solution was an increase in general fund contributions

[1:04:29] from the city would, uh, satisfy the requirement. Uh,

[1:04:34] we did have the conversation about pension obligation bonds. We

[1:04:38] did have a conversation about, uh, um,

[1:04:43] divesting of different, uh, city assets that might, could generate revenue

[1:04:47] that could be used to pay down the unfunded liability.

[1:04:52] those are the two primary other things that were discussed other than increasing

[1:04:56] the city's general fund contributions. Well, and I, I agree with

[1:05:00] you, but the primary focus was, and what I believe

[1:05:05] his counsel voted on was general fund

[1:05:09] increased contributions to meet our obligations under

[1:05:13] that 30 year amortization plan. Yes, sir. That was the final decision.

[1:05:17] yes, sir. Absolutely. And has anything changed in the city's financial

[1:05:22] condition that makes that no longer feasible? N no, sir. Uh,

[1:05:26] we still, and I believe I said earlier today, as long as we meet

[1:05:30] those, uh, commitments and contributions we will fully fund in 30 years

[1:05:34] as expected, uh, the, uh, idea

[1:05:38] of pension obligation bonds could potentially provide relief

[1:05:42] to the general fund. But it is not a mandate, it's not required to meet the obligations

[1:05:47] as long as we make those payments from the general fund. Well, and my concern about

[1:05:51] the pension obligation bonds, as you point out in your presentation,

[1:05:56] is that we need the pension board's

[1:06:00] rate of return to increase above what our cost of funds would be

[1:06:04] on a bond program. And right now we would

[1:06:08] be underwater. And so it doesn't make sense to entertain

[1:06:13] that option at this time. Is that correct? So

[1:06:17] the, the last three years, the pension fund returns have been,

[1:06:21] uh, they've done very well, uh, 15% and 25,

[1:06:25] 9%, and 24, nearly 14% and 23.

[1:06:30] uh, so I don't think we would be underwater the last three years. But when

[1:06:34] you're looking at a longer term, which we presented in the presentation,

[1:06:38] their five year return is 5%, their 10 year return is

[1:06:42] 3%. So when you think about it in the longer terms, that is a true statement.

[1:06:47] well, and we have to think about it in the longer terms because we're talking about a 20 year

[1:06:51] bond, aren't we? Yes, sir. Alright, on slide 21,

[1:06:55] about the 9 1 1 and emergency operations center, you, um,

[1:07:00] estimate $40 million to relocate those programs because they're not ideally

[1:07:05] situated to be at city hall, what does that

[1:07:09] mean? So I'll take a stab unless

[1:07:13] kevin come on out. Um, so, uh, they're currently

[1:07:17] in the downtown, um, uh, obviously in city hall.

[1:07:21] I think there's some situations where it's difficult to get to city hall under

[1:07:26] certain, uh, emergency types of situations. Uh,

[1:07:30] it being in the, in this building, uh, may add some added risk

[1:07:34] to it. Um, and so I think looking outside, even

[1:07:38] though it's immediately outside the central business district, uh, provides

[1:07:42] value. Kevin, I'll let you, sir. Yes, good afternoon. Kevin oden,

[1:07:47] director of emergency management and crisis response. Everything that, uh, cfo

[1:07:51] ireland said is correct. And then I would add, um,

[1:07:55] generally speaking, our peer cities do not co-locate those, uh,

[1:08:00] activities within their, their central hub of government. Um, because

[1:08:04] of the risk of concentration of services in one place, uh,

[1:08:08] that increases the, uh, the risk we have of, of losing operations

[1:08:12] or space. To give you a, a concrete example, during

[1:08:17] the, um, the cheerleading incident last summer, uh, we were not

[1:08:21] able to access city hall, uh, in any reasonable amount of time.

[1:08:25] we had to actually relocate, um, to do coordination of that event

[1:08:29] because of the traffic in and around downtown. Um, and so

[1:08:33] we believe that moving these critical functions outside of,

[1:08:37] uh, where the center of government is in addition to, uh, the traffic and,

[1:08:42] and, um, uh, potential risks that downtown faces

[1:08:46] expedites our ability to provide emergency operations and

[1:08:50] emergency nine one one, uh, call taking to our residents. So have there

[1:08:54] been any other instances of access interruption to the emergency

[1:08:59] operation center in the last 10 years besides the cheerleader incident?

[1:09:04] yes, I remember, uh, the july 7th ambush personally getting

[1:09:08] into downtown was, uh, next to impossible.

[1:09:12] um, anytime we've had, uh, issues accessing due to

[1:09:16] snow and ice, um, conditions here in the downtown area has

[1:09:20] created, um, issue, uh, its potential with the,

[1:09:24] um, everything going on around fifa, being concentrated

[1:09:29] in and around this building, um, that if there are, uh,

[1:09:33] any sort of lockdowns or other things that go on, we could have a difficult

[1:09:37] time getting to, uh, our site here and we may have to operate out of other

[1:09:41] locations. So how many snow and ice storms have we seen in the last 10

[1:09:45] years that have been exclusively located in downtown?

[1:09:52] no, they're more geographically located, but I would say that our ability to

[1:09:56] get immediate to where we're operating here, um,

[1:10:00] is curtailed in some of those incidents. I've had to have staff I

[1:10:04] based in and around this area, uh, 24 hours a day,

[1:10:08] just so that we could operate out of this building during those snow and ice

[1:10:13] incidents. Well, and don't most of the relevant department heads, aren't they already

[1:10:17] in city hall when an emergency may arise?

[1:10:22] where are they coming from? Well, if, I mean, if you're

[1:10:26] having an emergency in eight to five, yes,

[1:10:30] you may have many here, but we also have departments that are not based

[1:10:34] here at city hall, such as, uh, code or transportation

[1:10:39] or police headquarters, um, across the way. And then certainly,

[1:10:43] uh, most of the big events, incidents I've worked over my career have not been,

[1:10:47] uh, within normal business hours. And then so you're trying to, uh, get people

[1:10:52] into, uh, downtown, which, if there is an incident that is affecting

[1:10:57] mobility downtown, that ability to get persons into this building to operate

[1:11:02] on an expeditious basis, is it it's very difficult and

[1:11:06] very complex. Well, it just seems that if that is

[1:11:10] gonna cost us $40 million for the off chance

[1:11:14] that it may happen once or twice in 10 years, that's a

[1:11:18] really low capital investment priority.

[1:11:22] with regard to the public safety facilities, jack,

[1:11:26] there's a reference to the,

[1:11:30] um, current evidentiary storage

[1:11:35] facility at the v bigg pound,

[1:11:39] and that that is currently on 71

[1:11:44] acre site and it's proposed to relocate it because

[1:11:48] it's not large enough apparently to a 31 acre

[1:11:52] site. How does that make sense? Thank you for that

[1:11:56] question. Um, the issue is not that the si the current size is not

[1:12:00] large enough. Uh, the current location was the

[1:12:05] site of the auto pound, and about three years

[1:12:09] ago, or four years ago, the city went through a process of outsourcing

[1:12:14] the auto pound mm-hmm . And with the intent of

[1:12:18] vacating that property at vil big and then being able to sell

[1:12:22] that property for development. And then we realized, okay, there's

[1:12:26] still the evidentiary vehicles that are there even after we outsourced

[1:12:31] the auto pound. So the question is, do we keep them there

[1:12:36] and do we move the property room over there with them or

[1:12:40] do we move them both to another site and then we would be able to,

[1:12:44] uh, divest of the vil big property, the total 71 acres,

[1:12:49] but the site that's needed for the evidentiary vehicles is not

[1:12:53] the entire 71 acres. It's just a portion. And, uh,

[1:12:57] their scope would be that they need 31 acres for the,

[1:13:01] that locate for that, uh, function as well as the

[1:13:05] function of the property room. So how many vehicle storage spaces

[1:13:10] are available at the vil vbi site? Now, this is martin

[1:13:14] riojas, deputy director for the dallas police department. The, uh, vbi site currently

[1:13:19] has 2,800, uh, vehicle spaces,

[1:13:24] and we have currently 2200 vehicles

[1:13:28] at the site. So it's oversized for your current needs. It's, it, it

[1:13:32] has, right now we do have about 1300 vehicles that are at

[1:13:36] vendor properties. Uh, those are, those are vehicles that are not

[1:13:41] held for evidentiary evidence that are towed but not evidence. And so those are sent

[1:13:45] to the vendor lots mm-hmm . That's about 1300. And so with

[1:13:49] us having that vendor that has freed up space at, at the auto pound, so

[1:13:53] we have about 2,800 spaces available, and we have about 2200

[1:13:58] cars right now at the site. So jack, why does it

[1:14:02] make sense to free up the vil big property to sell it,

[1:14:06] but then we have to buy a new property to transfer the evidentiary

[1:14:10] lot to the opportunity to

[1:14:14] consolidate with the, uh, property room and

[1:14:18] the crime scene unit, uh, provided some consolidation and

[1:14:23] collaboration opportunities, I believe, for the police department as those groups,

[1:14:27] uh, worked together, uh, and wouldn't have to be going from

[1:14:31] location to location. So having them together on one joint site

[1:14:36] was the, uh, the goal, it was a goal that was asked for

[1:14:40] in the 2024 bond program. It did not make it to the final,

[1:14:45] uh, proposition, but it has been something that has been asked

[1:14:49] for. Um, it could be co-located at vil big,

[1:14:53] it could be lo co-located somewhere else, I think needs some

[1:14:57] additional time to explore, uh, different opportunities,

[1:15:02] uh, determine whether it is in the city's best interest to divest

[1:15:06] of that, uh, 71 acres, uh, at the, basically

[1:15:11] the corner of interstate 30 in hampton road. So page 24 indicates

[1:15:15] that the cost of co-locating at the bil big property would be 150 million

[1:15:21] and co-locating in an alternate site unidentified would be

[1:15:25] 232 million. Am I reading that correctly?

[1:15:29] yes, sir. So what would cost 150 million if

[1:15:34] we leave the evidentiary lot where it is and just move

[1:15:38] the property room there? Yes, sir.

[1:15:42] so in that scenario, uh, it does add a new

[1:15:46] building for the, that's part of the evidentiary vehicle unit

[1:15:51] at v big. It would vacate the

[1:15:55] property room that is on baylor street over east of downtown

[1:15:59] and bring it over. That's the bulk of the $150 million

[1:16:03] is that, that unit and replacing the property room

[1:16:08] that is passed cap capacity, uh, to,

[1:16:12] uh, $114 million for that facility is the biggest piece of

[1:16:16] the $150 million. And has anyone looked into

[1:16:20] the alternative of renting space for the property room

[1:16:25] and crime scene operation?

[1:16:31] I'm gonna let, uh, deb, thank you.

[1:16:35] um, council member for the question. No, we have not looked at leasing property

[1:16:39] for the, for the property room given, um, the alternatives that are available.

[1:16:44] and has anyone quantified the need to consolidate to

[1:16:48] co-locate these operations in terms of saved

[1:16:52] manpower, increased efficiency, any other metrics

[1:16:56] other than simply dpd wants it?

[1:17:00] I believe that, um, that was the reason for this consolidation is to

[1:17:05] consolidate the crime lab as well as the evidentiary, um,

[1:17:09] property room, um, to provide those efficiencies. And, um,

[1:17:13] I just also wanna note that these were needs that were

[1:17:17] identified in the longer term needs inventory previously that were

[1:17:22] not funded in the, um, 2024 bond program. Well, it doesn't really answer

[1:17:26] my question, my answer, my question is, are there any metrics that

[1:17:30] demonstrate how much efficiency we're losing or how much we would gain

[1:17:34] through co-locating? I understand that the dpd wants

[1:17:38] it. I, but I'd like to get at why and really

[1:17:42] how seriously we need to spend $150 million on

[1:17:47] this. So this is martin

[1:17:51] riojas. Um, the, the issue is that we do have a lot

[1:17:55] of staff members that are crime scene that are

[1:17:59] going back and forth between the property room and the auto

[1:18:04] pound. And also the desire was to have

[1:18:08] all physical evidence, anything physical in the same, in

[1:18:12] the same area, in the same location, and then kind of, and consolidating some

[1:18:16] of the management of, of those areas. Now that, in terms of having,

[1:18:20] um, anything more, anything more detailed, I, we,

[1:18:24] we can work to get that. I don't have that right now in terms of like a metric that I

[1:18:28] can give you that would result in, into right this

[1:18:33] minute. But the idea is that we would have the management of

[1:18:37] physical evidence together and, and all the housing of physical evidence together so that,

[1:18:41] so that there was one management over all physical evidence for the department.

[1:18:46] well, we have many needs in this city, as I'm sure you'll concede and we have limited

[1:18:50] resources. And so I think it's important that we get at just

[1:18:54] what the justification is for this co-location expense. And finally,

[1:18:59] why do we need to replace fire station number four? There's no mention of

[1:19:03] the need to expend $20 million to replace it in

[1:19:07] this presentation. So thank you. And I want to answer part

[1:19:11] of your last question, and then I will on fire station four as well. Uh,

[1:19:15] one of the biggest drivers about the property room crime scene

[1:19:20] and evidentiary vehicles is the fact that the property room

[1:19:24] at baylor street is out of capacity.

[1:19:28] they are stacked on top of stacked on top of stack. They're at the ceiling. There

[1:19:32] is no, uh, not sufficient room, uh, at the property room

[1:19:37] for, for other evidence to be brought in. And it's, it's getting to

[1:19:41] a critical point. I want to thank martin. You've told me that within a couple of years

[1:19:45] we will be out of capacity at that location. So if we

[1:19:49] have to do something to address the capacity issue at the

[1:19:53] property room, then the question was asked, is there an opportunity to

[1:19:58] improve efficiencies at the same time? And that led us to look at

[1:20:02] other options that then pulled in the evidentiary, uh, vehicle

[1:20:06] storage. So that was part of the driver regarding fire station

[1:20:10] number four, with the ex implementation of the convention

[1:20:15] center master plan and the anticipated development on the 31 acres

[1:20:19] that will become available, uh, it was determined that fire station 20,

[1:20:23] I'm sorry, fire station four for $20 million, uh,

[1:20:28] would be, uh, a priority for replacement. And the chief has come forward.

[1:20:32] so I'll let you speak further.

[1:20:37] uh, good afternoon everyone. Uh, fire chief justin ball. Yeah,

[1:20:41] it, we figured with the convention center it'd be a priority, but

[1:20:45] it's, we have a list of stations that are up

[1:20:49] there to be replaced 'cause of age condition, and that's

[1:20:54] right there at, at the top. So, um,

[1:20:58] it's, I mean, it's one of the stations will be replacing

[1:21:03] before some of the other ones because of its age

[1:21:07] and condition and it's, it's downtown and

[1:21:13] we need more, more apparatus base in a, in a newer station

[1:21:17] because, um, rather than add

[1:21:22] more stations, we need more apparatus downtown because it's so

[1:21:26] busy. So there's a lot of reasons why that station

[1:21:30] needs to be replaced. Is there any alternative to simply add on to the station

[1:21:34] to accommodate more apparatus add?

[1:21:38] could you say that again? Is it possible to add on to the existing station

[1:21:42] to accommodate more apparatus? No, we've, we've looked at

[1:21:46] all that. It, it's, uh, again, we

[1:21:51] have a list of stations and I can provide that list. Uh, but that's

[1:21:55] at the top. Thank you mayor.

[1:22:00] mr. Roth, you're recognized for five minutes. Uh, thank you. Um,

[1:22:05] jack, just a, just some understanding questions for me on,

[1:22:09] on, uh, is, is a public safety

[1:22:14] bond, is that different from a general obligation bond

[1:22:18] or it's just designated differently? It, it would be a general obligation

[1:22:23] bond, it would be a proposition. So in a typical

[1:22:27] bond program, we may have 10 different propositions. In this case, we

[1:22:31] would potentially only have one proposition for public safety,

[1:22:35] but it would be a general obligation election, general obligation bonds

[1:22:40] financed over 20 years paid from our property tax debt service rate.

[1:22:44] so the, so the fact that you've broken it out is just really sort of to help us

[1:22:48] classify what, what might be a suitable for designation in that category

[1:22:53] of, of potential borrowings? Yes, sir. As we were having conversations

[1:22:57] about, uh, the need for the, uh, two components

[1:23:01] of the police academy, we started having conversations about

[1:23:06] what the, the highest priority needs were from a public safety perspective.

[1:23:10] and these other projects got it added in as potentially the highest

[1:23:15] type of public safety projects facility needs that we currently have.

[1:23:19] um, and following up in council, uh, members, uh,

[1:23:24] stuart's question is, uh, if, if a project

[1:23:28] is not available or is not suitable or, or we

[1:23:32] can't do a project that, uh, was designated under the bond program,

[1:23:37] do we have the, the opportunity to move those funds into

[1:23:41] another, to another project? Or is, or is the bond financing

[1:23:46] absolutely, uh, specifically, uh, deal

[1:23:51] specific and, and, and property specific or, or, or item

[1:23:55] specific? So generally the, uh, bond proposition

[1:23:59] has some flexibility, um, but you cannot move between

[1:24:03] proposition. So if you had voters approve a library proposition

[1:24:08] and a fire station proposition, you can't switch money between

[1:24:12] those two. But, but if it, but if it was a real estate, if it was a building proposition

[1:24:17] or a if or a moving having to do with, with a

[1:24:21] facility or something, we could do it that. So if the proposition was a library proposition

[1:24:25] and it was determined and one was the high priority at the time the

[1:24:29] bond program was passed, if you decide another one is a higher priority,

[1:24:34] it could be switched out, but not across propositions, but within

[1:24:38] the language of that elected proposition. And once, once

[1:24:42] a bond is, once you, we go to the public, get approval for bond,

[1:24:47] uh, issue bond, uh, approval, uh, is there

[1:24:51] a, uh, uh, once it's authorized, is there some, is there a deadline

[1:24:55] on when you have to actually issue the bonds or actually go to market

[1:24:59] to, to execute on, on, on authorizing

[1:25:04] the actual bonds themselves after the election? Right.

[1:25:08] there used to be, and I probably have said 10 years before, but bond counsel

[1:25:12] has recently corrected me. As long as we can demonstrate to the attorney

[1:25:16] general that it is still part of our plan, then the authorization

[1:25:21] no longer expires at 10 years. We just have to continue to communicate with

[1:25:25] the ags office that it is part of our financing plan. But

[1:25:29] as we were talking about pension obligation bonds, if we got authorization

[1:25:34] now, or at some point, I would not recommend that we

[1:25:38] issue the pension obligation bonds. Now we wait until the market conditions are

[1:25:42] right to do that. It's costing too much to borrow that right now. But those

[1:25:47] rates will come down. They, they go up, but they'll come back eventually. And that, that

[1:25:51] was gonna be my, my point is that once we get the authorization,

[1:25:55] then we can manage the market requirements and actually be

[1:25:59] more strategic in when we would actually issue the bonds and, uh,

[1:26:03] the, or commit to the issuance of the bonds physically. Yes, sir. The

[1:26:07] other question is are, are these bonds, can they be pre refinanced,

[1:26:11] uh, or can they be prepaid typically, or are you, are we sort

[1:26:15] of committed to not committed to a 20 year? We're committed to 20 years, but

[1:26:20] can we pay 'em off early? Can we refinance over the 20

[1:26:24] year period? Uh, most of our bonds are callable after 10 years. They're

[1:26:28] callable after 10 years. Okay. Yes, typically. So, uh, e each structuring

[1:26:32] deal can be different, but that's our typical, our standard. So it gives us some flexibility that

[1:26:37] if we do want to go to the public to authorize a certain

[1:26:41] amount of bond, uh, uh, potential, we

[1:26:45] do have flexibility in, in seeing strategically

[1:26:49] the market, figuring out what we want to do, even going ahead and exercising

[1:26:53] it and then being able to column it at a certain period of time. Yeah. Yes,

[1:26:57] sir. Um, is there also, uh, the, the opportunity

[1:27:01] to, um, uh, basically

[1:27:08] you, you, you can, you're not precluded from doing it except by your bond

[1:27:12] credit, your ratings and stuff from doing future bond programs,

[1:27:16] as long as you can justify the financial capacity of the city to,

[1:27:20] to carry it. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So, um, before we

[1:27:24] issue the bonds, obviously we have, uh, bond writings done, um,

[1:27:29] for each issuance, um, not necessarily when the bonds are authorized,

[1:27:33] but with each tranche that we we issue there is that, and those tranches

[1:27:38] can be, be periodically, um, issued

[1:27:42] for actually public payment. That's what you did in the, in the, uh,

[1:27:47] in your scheduling over the period of years so that you don't,

[1:27:51] even though we're, we've committed to it, there's interest maybe accruing, but we

[1:27:55] don't actually have to lend the, you know, borrow the money physically

[1:27:59] and, and use it until we, we really need it. Y

[1:28:03] yes, with the exception that there is no interest accruing from the time that it's authorized,

[1:28:08] any interest only accrues from when you actually issue. Oh, so that's great too. So we have

[1:28:12] the flexibility in not having to actually issue the bond immediately.

[1:28:16] yes, sir. Um, my question with regard to the, uh, 9 1 1,

[1:28:20] uh, and emergency operations center, uh, is the $40 million that

[1:28:24] was projected, is that, uh, was that a

[1:28:28] relocation cost? Was there, is there additional costs, uh,

[1:28:32] associated with that, with that potential relocation?

[1:28:37] if, if we're considering that? I'll allow peter to answer

[1:28:41] question related to that. Uh,

[1:28:45] cbre and, and some other consultants developed that number. Um, and

[1:28:50] it's a holistic number based on the program and the performance

[1:28:55] specs, um, that gets you to a modern, um,

[1:28:59] uh, design criteria and get you to, um, what

[1:29:03] the industry best practices are. So, uh, I made a very good example here is the

[1:29:07] dallas county eoc that opened today. There was a ribbon cutting there. Um,

[1:29:11] we worked on that project and many of those numbers are highly applicable,

[1:29:16] um, to a variety of scenarios, um, that, um, that the

[1:29:20] city has contemplated and is contemplating. Uh, so we feel the numbers pretty tight

[1:29:24] 'cause it's based on very recent comps. Um, and, and so

[1:29:28] relative to the public safety training complex and the, um,

[1:29:33] and, uh, we could, we could also, uh, go ahead and get them

[1:29:37] authorized by the public, but if we decide not to, uh, execute

[1:29:41] the full amount that we need or we don't need as much because we've done other

[1:29:45] fundraising opportunities, we'd have the flexibility jack of moving that money

[1:29:50] around within that category of public safety potentially,

[1:29:54] uh, potentially. But on the law enforcement training, uh, center,

[1:29:58] um, I think we're ready to go on that. Um, we're at a point where

[1:30:03] there's been significant fundraising and we're still about 82 million

[1:30:07] short on that. And so, so that, that would be a one. And I was thinking about the public safety

[1:30:11] training complex. That could be something that, that we would be authorizing in

[1:30:15] a future. Potentially. We can borrow the money. I mean, we can authorize the bonds,

[1:30:19] but we don't necessarily have to spend it right away. That is correct. Okay. Thank you

[1:30:25] ms. Blair, you recognize for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Mayor, and

[1:30:29] thank you, um, mr. Ireland for this presentation.

[1:30:34] and peter, for all your assistance in getting all the information we need done.

[1:30:39] um, with the bonds, how often do

[1:30:43] we normally go for a new bond package?

[1:30:49] I would say the typical is about every, um, five years

[1:30:54] we have been, uh, getting authorization, uh, four to five years. There

[1:30:58] have been some years that we've done very small, just maybe three propositions.

[1:31:03] and, uh, so it's kind of varied, but typically five. And

[1:31:07] the current, I apologize, the current 2024 bond program was designed

[1:31:11] to be implemented over five years. We've, we've started two,

[1:31:15] we've got three remaining. Then in 2029, we would anticipate the next

[1:31:19] bond program at, at this particular point. So

[1:31:23] this would be, uh, an if we do a 2026, that would be

[1:31:27] an off cycle, correct? Yes ma'am. That would be an off cycle. How

[1:31:32] much was the last, the 2024 bond? What's the total amount of the 2024

[1:31:36] bond package? Uh, 1.25 billion.

[1:31:40] and now we're, if we do 1 20 26, how much are we

[1:31:45] projecting we would need just for, just for the,

[1:31:49] this cycle and what would it be for? So for the, uh,

[1:31:53] public safety facility proposition, if we chose to do that,

[1:31:58] um, if we can pull up slide number 26, uh, as

[1:32:02] a summary of the $441 million that we would include in that,

[1:32:06] um, law enforcement training center at unt 82 million.

[1:32:12] the public safety training complex we've been talking about red

[1:32:16] bird, or I'm sorry, executive airport, 149 million,

[1:32:20] the relocation of 9 1 1 and eoc 40 million,

[1:32:24] the property room and evidentiary, uh, vehicle storage 150

[1:32:29] and fire station four would be 20. So $441 million.

[1:32:35] if we did, um, based on, uh, this presentation.

[1:32:39] and then if we also chose to do a pension obligation

[1:32:43] bond, which would be a separate proposition, uh,

[1:32:48] we are suggesting up to 500 million for that. So then that

[1:32:52] would be 941,000,941. Mm-hmm . On

[1:32:56] top of the one point whatever billion we already, so we are looking closer to a

[1:33:00] $2 billion package over two year o over within

[1:33:04] the five years. From 24 through 29? Yes, correct. Okay.

[1:33:08] um, so what's the impact on the

[1:33:13] payers for all these bond packages? Do they need to pay higher property

[1:33:17] taxes or in, in order to

[1:33:21] pay back these loans? 'cause a bond is actually a loan, isn't it? Yes ma'am,

[1:33:26] it is. Um, so the bond gets us cash upfront to make the capital

[1:33:30] improvement. We pay it back over 20 years with, uh, principal

[1:33:34] and interest. Um, all of our modeling at this point

[1:33:38] assumes no change to the property tax rate. And so,

[1:33:42] uh, we have a tax rate that's split between general fund and debt service, and

[1:33:47] our modeling does not anticipate a change in the tax rate.

[1:33:51] a property owner's actual tax bill will of course be based upon their

[1:33:55] value and the tax rate. So as values go up, we know that

[1:34:00] the tax bill goes up, but that's a factor of the value, not the rate.

[1:34:04] so in order to pay this, these, this,

[1:34:08] these bonds or loans back, we do need

[1:34:12] to figure out how to get 'em done, correct? Uh, yes

[1:34:16] ma'am. But, uh, as we do it, I've been sensitive to think that

[1:34:21] the council is not interested in a tax rate increase. So I keep try to keep

[1:34:25] the capacity within that level. But

[1:34:29] would it not be fair to say that eventually you can't keep

[1:34:33] borrowing yourself out of a, a hulk? Is that not correct?

[1:34:38] I'm not the, you know, I'm not the financial wizard that some of my, my, my colleagues

[1:34:42] are, but basic, when I do my bills

[1:34:46] at the end of the month, I can't borrow more money to, to pay off another

[1:34:51] loan. I, I eventually, I gotta pay live within my means, correct?

[1:34:55] yes ma'am. And we would be living within our means. We would not be asking

[1:34:59] to borrow more than we have the capacity to

[1:35:03] pay back. And so what's important to know is because

[1:35:07] we've been borrowing money so many years every year,

[1:35:11] because we always have bond programs going, we're always repairing

[1:35:15] streets, we're always building a library or a fire station. So every year

[1:35:20] after we'd financed for 20 years, some old debt rolls off

[1:35:25] a new, a new debt, new debt is layered on. So as we pay off one bond

[1:35:29] from, um, 2016, 2006, then

[1:35:33] we add in something in 2026 and something rolls off from 2007,

[1:35:38] we add in something from 27. So let me ask another

[1:35:43] question. Um, well, let me say this.

[1:35:47] district eight, my district is one of the largest districts in the, the city. We have

[1:35:51] almost a hundred thousand residents in district eight. We

[1:35:55] are really the, one of the most diverse districts there are. We have five rec

[1:35:59] center, 27 parks, two trails, over 500 horses,

[1:36:03] one equine vet center, and a new rodeo. That's

[1:36:08] diverse, correct? Yes ma'am. And we have one of the least

[1:36:13] amount of infrastructure there is. I have a development

[1:36:17] that could put in 400 new units,

[1:36:21] but I don't have enough sewer line, my sewer line can't

[1:36:26] get those develop, get that development out there. So how do

[1:36:30] I get this paid for and do all the stuff we need to do?

[1:36:35] so you're asking me a little bit outside of my area, and I probably would want to call on

[1:36:40] economic development to help figure that deal out, uh, or, uh, dallas

[1:36:44] water utility to help with the, the fact of the sewer expansion.

[1:36:48] so, uh, but I'm, no, the question is, and let me, let me rephrase

[1:36:52] the question. These are my needs. These are the things that I need, I need,

[1:36:56] right now, we don't have the budget

[1:37:01] to take care of these things. Do we, ma do we sit, uh, miss, uh,

[1:37:05] miss bert? Do we have the, the, the money right now in the, the,

[1:37:09] in the coffers to pay for all these things that infrastructure

[1:37:14] streets and, and, and, and still do the repairs

[1:37:18] on city hall? Thank you so much for the question on councilwoman blair. And I've, I've

[1:37:22] stated publicly, um, previously that from an expense

[1:37:26] standpoint and from a revenue standpoint, and I know that in the slide deck that

[1:37:30] you have before you, it talks about the things that we would have to do to either increase,

[1:37:35] um, revenues or we would have to find a way to decrease our, expend our

[1:37:39] expenses. So we need to interrupt you for just a moment.

[1:37:43] um, it's four o'clock. I wanted to take, uh, a 10 minute

[1:37:47] recess. We can all, uh, have a little bit of a break. So those of

[1:37:51] you who need to, oh, come on man. Take care of some business, can take care of some business,

[1:37:56] but we'll reconvene in 10 minutes.

[1:38:01] okay,

[1:38:06] 4 39. And we have resumed

[1:38:11] with the, uh, briefing. So, um, um, city

[1:38:15] manager, I think we're, we're, we're at I think 53

[1:38:19] seconds, madam secretary with, uh, ms. Blair had the floor

[1:38:24] is when we left, where we left off 53. If you could set the clock back to approximately

[1:38:28] 53 or

[1:38:32] pretty close, if you can get close, that's the close you can get. And ms. Blair,

[1:38:37] you have the floor. Okay, so, um,

[1:38:44] how, okay, how, oh, it's been a minute. So let

[1:38:48] me, let me re let me correct something. In district a,

[1:38:53] we have, uh, major area of, uh, property

[1:38:57] that has been a recently annexed one of the last places

[1:39:01] of property that had been recently annexed, which means we are in

[1:39:05] a large need of infrastructure. So how will our bond

[1:39:09] pa bond programs and the, the, uh,

[1:39:13] need to either renovate, remodel and

[1:39:17] bring the city up to the city, building up to

[1:39:22] standards? Uh, ha what will happen to the, the district, my

[1:39:26] district and their needs? Thank you so much for the question.

[1:39:31] uh, councilwoman, uh, blair, one of the things that we talked about, if you go back to

[1:39:35] how we laid out slides 44 and 45,

[1:39:40] we've had a lot of comments that have been made in the prior weeks regarding,

[1:39:44] uh, the need to fund repairs out of, for cash using cash.

[1:39:48] and we know that our current general fund has

[1:39:53] existing budget pressures and there are budget pressures going forward, whether we're talking

[1:39:57] about pension, which mr. Ireland has given you a complete rundown of

[1:40:01] where we are currently with our pension plan. Uh, whether you're talking about the increase

[1:40:05] in our police officers pay, um, employee health insurance, all

[1:40:10] those things or things that they just don't go away. So we would still have to

[1:40:14] continue to fund those. Um, I would say that those are priorities for

[1:40:18] the city. So then the other option is to use the city's credit card,

[1:40:22] which is issue in debt. Mr. Ireland has laid out that if you were to

[1:40:26] do that, your future bond program, which we planned

[1:40:31] for that to be around 2029, you would actually limit

[1:40:35] the amount of money that you would then have for that bond program. And I believe the number

[1:40:39] was around 300 million would be the amount

[1:40:43] that you would have available to then do any other future programs beginning

[1:40:48] with that year. So it is definitely a, um,

[1:40:53] a, an option, but it also comes with the

[1:40:57] impact of what then you cannot continue or how

[1:41:01] you have to push out the bond program that we are currently in the middle of, which is 2024,

[1:41:05] and then the impact that you would have on the upcoming bond program, which is currently

[1:41:10] planned for 2029. So I can't tell you which exactly

[1:41:15] propositions then the city council would want to support with that

[1:41:19] number, that $300 million number. We know that currently our

[1:41:23] needs as it relate to infrastructure, we still don't have

[1:41:27] adequate funding even in the existing bond program to bring all of our

[1:41:31] infrastructure needs, um, across the city up to the scalable levels that

[1:41:35] we're looking for. So it is a decision, it's a

[1:41:40] hard one, um, but it definitely does come with, um, um, the limitations

[1:41:44] that you would have for being able to continue to address some of those

[1:41:48] priority needs that we've heard from our residents, which is how the

[1:41:52] existing bond program was uh, developed. So thank you for the question

[1:41:56] and just to say I have the most septic tanks

[1:42:00] in the city of dallas, which is just ahead of being in the back in

[1:42:05] a outhouse. Thank you. Alright, thank you very much. Seeing

[1:42:09] no one else in the queue, we'll move on to our speakers now. Madam secretary. Thank you.

[1:42:19] we're done. We're done.

[1:42:24] thank you, mr. Mayor. The speakers that are registered

[1:42:28] today are signed up to speak on agenda item three, therefore I will read

[1:42:32] the item into the record. Agenda item three is authorized one a

[1:42:36] phase city hall repair strategy for 1500 marilla

[1:42:41] street as presented on june 3rd, 2026, and

[1:42:45] to the city manager to implement the selected phase city hall repair

[1:42:49] strategy for 1500 marilla street in accordance with a proposed city

[1:42:54] hall repair program. You do have several

[1:42:58] individuals who have signed up to speak on this item. You speaker will be given one minute

[1:43:05] speakers, you will have an opportunity to address the city council. Your

[1:43:09] time will be presented on the monitor at the podium in the

[1:43:13] center section here, and the podium is now to my left and your right,

[1:43:17] I will call speakers in groups, the first group, when I call your name, I will ask that

[1:43:22] you come forward and have a seat in the first three rows of this intersection

[1:43:30] and virtual speakers. When I call your name, I will ask that you

[1:43:35] please have your audio and video, uh, ready for

[1:43:39] before you speak. Kevin walker, melissa lara,

[1:43:44] robert walters, trey black, amanda moreno

[1:43:49] lake, jim lake, michael trini,

[1:43:54] michael alon, ana saeed,

[1:43:58] luke, jo hill, adam cross, haw vahe,

[1:44:02] jake milner, arthur santa maria, nanu

[1:44:07] hon, jose avila, jennifer scripps,

[1:44:12] frank miha, miha, amy

[1:44:17] tharp, asmar reyes, canti

[1:44:21] shesh and mark nunley. Kevin walker is virtual.

[1:44:25] mr. Walker? Yes. Yes, you may begin.

[1:44:32] thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. Uh, my name is kelvin walker

[1:44:36] and I serve as the ceo of the dallas citizens council. Uh, for over 90 years,

[1:44:40] the dallas citizens council has brought together business

[1:44:45] leaders to advanced missionary

[1:44:49] initiatives, which have led significant progress for dallas for our infrastructure, healthcare, education,

[1:44:53] and safety and economic development. The members of the citizens council proudly serve in the moments of

[1:44:57] most for dallas. I'm here today to ask for the, because today's

[1:45:01] decision comes down to one simple question, what is the best outcome for dallas?

[1:45:07] this is a decision that we need to make that's not about the next budget site

[1:45:11] decision about the next 50 years. I encourage you to move from

[1:45:15] analysis to action, from evaluation to execution, and vote

[1:45:19] to move forward toward with

[1:45:23] for reimagining our area, the downtown area, to create a vibrant future for us in the

[1:45:27] next generation. So I would encourage you to vote no on item three. Thank you for your time

[1:45:32] and have thank you melissa lara.

[1:45:44] good afternoon mayor, council members and city manager. My name is melissa lara,

[1:45:49] co-founder of pico, a business born in oakland in 2016. Before

[1:45:53] becoming an entrepreneur, I was a flight attendant for emirates based outta dubai for several years.

[1:45:57] there at witness, a city wants to overlook for beginning in a desert, transform itself into

[1:46:02] a global destination because leaders had the courage to think bigger.

[1:46:06] dallas has that same potential. As a business owner, I have seen firsthand

[1:46:11] what vision can do. Bishop parks became one of dallas' most visited destinations

[1:46:15] because people like amanda lake and jim lake saw opportunity when

[1:46:19] others saw risk. I've also seen the opposite or deep el

[1:46:23] store went from our top performing location to one that we can no longer keep open

[1:46:28] crime increase and visitors stop coming. A hard reminder than when we stop investing

[1:46:32] in tour. City decline follows, this is about more than a building.

[1:46:36] it's about economic development, creating jobs, attracting tourism,

[1:46:41] growth and preservation can coexist that your time progress does not erase

[1:46:45] our history. Thank you. They say yes to downtown vote no. And agenda item number

[1:46:49] three. Thank you robert walters.

[1:46:57] thank you. Good afternoon, counsel. Uh, my name is rob walters.

[1:47:01] um, throughout most of my adult life, I've

[1:47:05] sought ways to contribute to our betterment in the city.

[1:47:09] uh, whether through service on the police and fire pension board,

[1:47:13] uh, chairing the dallas citizens council, founding and leading, uh, clyde

[1:47:18] warren park and other ways, including most recently, uh, are safe

[1:47:22] in the city initiative. I've studied the issue

[1:47:26] before you long and hard.

[1:47:30] I appreciate the trade-offs, but there are no consequence

[1:47:34] free decisions. And in my judgment, the

[1:47:38] cost of rehabilitating this building, the cost of fewer

[1:47:42] parks, police, or potholes filled is simply

[1:47:47] far, far too great. I urge you to vote

[1:47:51] against the city hall repair strategy, but even more

[1:47:55] fundamentally, that's your time. Thank you.

[1:48:00] thank you. Trey black.

[1:48:05] trey black is not present. Amanda moreno lake.

[1:48:14] good afternoon mayor, council members and city manager. My name is amanda moreno

[1:48:18] lake. I'm a business owner and a resident of district one. As this

[1:48:22] stage, you have heard all the arguments, are you going to do what's best for

[1:48:26] the future of dallas? The numbers don't lie. Multiple

[1:48:30] estimates, experts, and studies all point to the same direction.

[1:48:35] continuing to pour taxpayers dollars into an aging facility

[1:48:39] is not the best long-term investment. I know what

[1:48:43] opportunities when I see them, I know what they look like. Look

[1:48:47] at the facts and make decisions based on what's right for our city. Today

[1:48:51] is an opportunity to choose growth over stagnation, opportunity

[1:48:56] over maintenance and the future. Over the past vote note against agenda

[1:49:00] item number three, gracia. And I hope you all have a blessed evening

[1:49:04] and thank you for what you do. Thank you, jim lake.

[1:49:14] good afternoon. My name is jim lake and I live in district one. I was born and raised

[1:49:18] in north dallas and I've spent my entire career developing and repurposing neighborhoods

[1:49:22] in north oak cliff and the dallas design district. Today I brought a few photos

[1:49:26] with me. Uh, they were up there just a second ago. You have 'em in front of you.

[1:49:31] um, one is a, uh, the, the, the top two photos of showing

[1:49:35] the city hall site. Um, and there's from, from

[1:49:39] 1976 comparing with 2026, 50 years

[1:49:43] later, it's the same site. 50 years later, nothing has changed with

[1:49:47] still a zero tax base. Then you compare the photo with what was

[1:49:52] a power plant in a rail yard in 1999 into what is now victory park.

[1:49:56] in 2026, it went from 16 million in

[1:50:00] tax value to 2.5 billion. And we've done this before. We know what to do. This

[1:50:04] is a one time chance for us to have a bold vision and create a

[1:50:08] destination that will blend culture and cultures that can and will

[1:50:12] be the heartbeat of our city. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:50:17] mike. Michael trigon. Trigon.

[1:50:22] thank you. Uh, my name's michael trigon. I'm the president of headington

[1:50:27] companies. Uh, we've done and been doing business making

[1:50:32] acquisitions and building various operations throughout

[1:50:36] the city downtown, specifically including the jewel hotel, both phases

[1:50:40] of the commissary 45 10 drake stone, which is the former

[1:50:44] davis building, the eyeball, uh, all of stone street

[1:50:49] and hampton social, which used to be iron cactus. I bring all

[1:50:53] this up because we start with the premise. If we can find old stock

[1:50:57] or stock that dates back that has unique elements

[1:51:02] and not a a glass box, we try to save it. We've

[1:51:06] won two preservation dallas awards and I think it's two, it

[1:51:10] could be three, but nevertheless, we always try and save the building.

[1:51:14] we've been in the same situation on a smaller scale that city hall is in.

[1:51:18] it's an insidious place to be. It is always under budgeted

[1:51:23] in terms of how much it will cost and ultimately, that's your time. Thank you. Thank

[1:51:27] you michael alon,

[1:51:32] mike avalon, 60 seconds. Here we go. Before I start, thank you for your service.

[1:51:36] um, I wonder voice make my voice down on city hall.

[1:51:40] I speak specifically as it relates to projects such as the bank of america

[1:51:45] plaza, the redevelopment of the area around it. I support the redevelopment of the

[1:51:49] current dallas city hall site as a transformative economic development

[1:51:53] opportunity for downtown dallas. I believe dallas has an opportunity to create

[1:51:57] lasting economic value, strengthen connectivity within downtown and surrounding

[1:52:01] neighborhoods, and be catalytic to investment in the area for the other

[1:52:06] underperforming undervalued assets. I believe redevelopment

[1:52:10] this area will deliver meaningful generational benefits for all of our city.

[1:52:15] while I recognize and respect the differing views surrounding this issue, my

[1:52:19] position is grounding the long term economic vitality and competitiveness of dallas.

[1:52:24] in my opinion, investing 500 to 650 million in

[1:52:28] deferred maintenance in our existing city hall is regrettably, regrettably,

[1:52:33] not approving. That's your time use of our city. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:52:37] luke joko.

[1:52:51] good afternoon, mayor johnson and council members. I'm here in support of

[1:52:55] relocating dallas city hall and creating the opportunity for a catalytic project

[1:52:59] that can help shape the future of downtown dallas. I simply want

[1:53:03] to be a voice for my generation 'cause we'll be the ones living with

[1:53:07] the outcome of this decision for the next 30 to 40 years. I grew up in

[1:53:11] arlington and was a suburban kid who always wanted to come to dallas because

[1:53:16] of the culture of the neighborhoods, the restaurants, the people, and the energy.

[1:53:20] I drive to the original snuffers on lower greenville and through downtown because

[1:53:24] it felt authentic. It felt interesting. I knew one day I wanted to live

[1:53:28] here. Today I do live here. I work here, I invest here and I send

[1:53:33] my kids to school here. And one thing I've learned is what makes cities special

[1:53:37] isn't what happens inside the buildings. It's what happens between them. If I'm

[1:53:41] gonna speak for my generation, I support relocating city hall

[1:53:46] 'cause I'm in favor of growth. I'm in favor of creating interesting places. That's your time where

[1:53:50] people wanna live and work and play. Thank you. Thank you. Adam cross.

[1:54:04] hello, my name is adam kraus. I'm a dallas native and downtown

[1:54:08] business owner. Downtown dallas is dying and the losses of at and

[1:54:12] t fifth third bank, neiman marcus, fox four news, the dallas mavericks

[1:54:16] and dallas stars is only the beginning. It will continue to

[1:54:20] compound and kill the small business owners who will not survive what comes next. Dallas

[1:54:24] is about to lead the country in downtown office vacancy. And while there is 15,000

[1:54:29] people who live in downtown today, there are zero new apartments, zero

[1:54:33] new offices, and zero hotels under construction. While the rest of this region

[1:54:37] thrives, the private market has already redlined downtown. Thank you mayor

[1:54:41] johnson for having the courage to put this to a vote and say no more. Because

[1:54:46] the vocal few are hammering the final nails into this coffin, wanting hundreds

[1:54:50] of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on this decaying mausoleum

[1:54:55] and handing the rest of the community the bill. This is the generational moment that

[1:54:59] requires courage and conviction for a new people, uh, begging for a vibrant

[1:55:03] downtown worth living in and worth believing in. Vote no on agenda item three. Thank

[1:55:07] you. Thank you kean. Vashi.

[1:55:20] alright, so I have been in, uh, working and

[1:55:24] we own a property in, uh, downtown dallas. And it is a hotel that

[1:55:28] is just right next door to city hall. Uh, been there for about

[1:55:32] two years now and I thought after my first year, uh, the conversations I

[1:55:36] would've be having with guests would be more so about, uh, places to see and

[1:55:40] stuff to visit. But the biggest question I always get is, hey, is it safe

[1:55:44] to walk outside? Is that walk that I'm talking about is right across this city

[1:55:48] hall land, uh, right adjacent. The only place my guests

[1:55:52] need to go is right down young street and they don't feel safe traveling

[1:55:56] that walk. So I think, you know, with the $3 billion convention center that

[1:56:00] we're putting together, that walk is not gonna get any

[1:56:04] friendlier if we don't do anything with this area over here. So I believe that, um,

[1:56:09] and I ask you guys to vote, uh, vote no and, um, relocate city hall. Thank

[1:56:14] you. Thank you

[1:56:18] jake milner.

[1:56:24] jake milner is not present.

[1:56:28] author santa maria

[1:56:36] mayor and council members. Thank you. The consequences of a

[1:56:40] declining downtown are not confined to just downtown

[1:56:45] southern dallas is directly affected when big corporations close their

[1:56:49] downtown offices and facilities. And when major investment is

[1:56:53] redirected elsewhere, we've seen this pattern before.

[1:56:58] major opportunities move north, north, and north. While

[1:57:02] southern dallas is told to sit down and be patient, you now

[1:57:06] have an opportunity to break that pattern. Southern dallas has the most to

[1:57:10] lose if downtown continues to weaken and the most to gain if you choose

[1:57:14] to act boldly. Today, some of us are focused on growing and

[1:57:18] investing in southern dallas, and the wrong move here could pull that rug out from

[1:57:22] under us. I urge you to vote known to repairing this

[1:57:26] building so we can pursue the kind of investment that can benefit downtown and

[1:57:31] southern dallas together. Thank you. Thank you sauna saeed.

[1:57:39] good afternoon, mayor and council. I serve as president of the farmer's market stakeholders

[1:57:43] association and I'm a downtown dallas resident. I'm here to urge you to

[1:57:47] vote no on item three. There is no great city that reaches its

[1:57:51] full potential without a strong downtown mayor, thank you for taking

[1:57:55] on an issue that too many have avoided for years. And to the council members who

[1:57:59] see the opportunity to reimagine and reinvest in our urban core.

[1:58:03] thank you. Please fight for downtown. Listen, the businesses,

[1:58:08] residents and stakeholders who want to stay here but are exhausted from years of delay

[1:58:12] division and inaction, we have a chance to turn the page and

[1:58:16] create the kind of downtown that attracts investment, talent, residents, and opportunity

[1:58:21] for generations to come. It's go time, be bold, act quickly,

[1:58:25] and lead downtown dallas should be the heart of this region, not a

[1:58:29] footnote to its suburbs. Thank you. Thank you. Nanu

[1:58:33] ong.

[1:58:37] it's not present. Jose avila.

[1:58:50] good afternoon. I want to express my gratitude to mayor johnson,

[1:58:55] city manager tolbert and the council members who were ready to vote yes

[1:58:59] on dallas's future. And we're prepared to put our communities

[1:59:03] over this building. Thank you. Do not be discouraged.

[1:59:08] we have your back. Hold the line. Let's see this through. Together

[1:59:14] now to the residents of dallas. Pay attention to what happened yesterday.

[1:59:18] three council members who don't even bother to show up or at

[1:59:22] least left. Uh, three council members sued the city

[1:59:26] in the name of transparency or proper process. A judge granted their

[1:59:31] tro, it blocked the relocation vote, it blocked the redevelopment vote, but

[1:59:35] it did not conveniently. Block item three, the vote to spend your

[1:59:39] money to repair this building. That one upcoming serves the agenda

[1:59:43] of those three people who filed the suit, which is at best a remarkable

[1:59:47] coincidence. That's your time. I urge you to vote no on item three. And thank you for being

[1:59:51] here. Thank you. Jennifer scripps.

[2:00:04] good afternoon, mayor city council. My name is jennifer scripps. It's my

[2:00:09] honor to serve as the president and ceo of downtown dallas, inc.

[2:00:13] for nearly 70 years, ddi has helped lead downtown through periods of transition.

[2:00:17] and I think we can all agree after the last couple of weeks we are at a period of

[2:00:21] transition. This week you received further confirmation that any responsible

[2:00:26] repair and renovations for this building would take years and cost taxpayers

[2:00:30] at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars last week. Also, ddi

[2:00:35] met with a hundred residents, stakeholders and visionaries to plan the future of

[2:00:39] downtown. I urge you not to spend hundreds of million dollars to repair

[2:00:44] and try to modernize this facility, but instead to put it

[2:00:48] into the needs of our community and work with us as we plan downtown, as

[2:00:52] a multi-purpose seven day a week active and vibrant urban core

[2:00:56] that we can all be proud of. Thank you so much. Thank you,

[2:01:00] frank opolis.

[2:01:09] good evening, mayor johnson, manager tolbert city council members, particularly

[2:01:14] those who are present today. I'm frank opolis corn properties,

[2:01:18] and I've been coming to this place since 1978 when mayor falso was mayor.

[2:01:22] and I've been very privileged and blessed of doing projects in the city and in

[2:01:26] the southern sector that have transformed neighborhoods and areas. I'm very particular

[2:01:31] in this particular area. I've also had fortunate to remodel and repurpose old

[2:01:35] buildings, old balls around the country at the same time.

[2:01:39] my family has been involved in, in the businesses of downtown since 1976.

[2:01:44] we fed people here and I've seen this area transform to

[2:01:49] nothing and particularly in the area of downtown there, tax based economic development.

[2:01:53] and today it's a watson time opportunity to free up 50

[2:01:58] acres next to the convention center, to they create a new major

[2:02:02] to create a campus that no other major city has in the united states. 50 acres

[2:02:06] in quarter city. The city hall's. Impressive. That's your time on a, on a

[2:02:10] pulse card. Vote no on proposition three today, please.

[2:02:15] thank you. Stop the insanity. Amy tharp. Amy thorpe.

[2:02:25] uh, good afternoon council members and mayor,

[2:02:31] I just wanna say, say I'm sorry, I'm, I'm sorry

[2:02:35] you're not allowed to speak at this time.

[2:02:40] amy tharp. My name is amy tharp and I serve as the

[2:02:44] chief operating officer at downtown dallas inc. Downtown dallas is

[2:02:48] at a pivotal moment today more than 16,000 residents called

[2:02:52] downtown home. And through our big moves planning efforts that

[2:02:56] jennifer just referred to, we are working to double and even triple that population

[2:03:01] in the years ahead. That growth matters. A thriving residential

[2:03:06] downtown creates long-term tax value for the city, supports

[2:03:10] businesses and strengthens dallas's economic competitiveness.

[2:03:14] we have a responsibility to ensure that major public investments

[2:03:19] support that momentum rather than limit it. This is

[2:03:23] a generational decision at a time when downtown's growth presents such significant

[2:03:28] opportunity. We believe there's a path, one that creates greater

[2:03:32] value for taxpayers, supports continued residential growth and positions

[2:03:37] downtown and dallas for long-term success. We respectfully urge you

[2:03:41] to reject a costly repair strategy and pursue that path instead.

[2:03:45] thank you. Thank you. Uh, smar reyes.

[2:03:53] good afternoon everyone. Thank you. Uh, citizens of dallas. I just

[2:03:57] wanna say you'll make it quick and short and simple. We already lost

[2:04:01] a lot here. I'm sorry. Mr. Reyes, your video needs to be displayed.

[2:04:06] okay. So you are in favor. Um, I'm in

[2:04:10] favor of this city. Um,

[2:04:15] good afternoon. Can you, are you guys everybody to hear me? Yes, you may continue. Okay.

[2:04:20] um, I mean, good afternoon everyone from dallas. We already lost a lot here in this beautiful

[2:04:25] city of dallas. We lost the mavericks, we lost the stars

[2:04:29] and I don't wanna lose anything else. Um, we need

[2:04:33] to redevelop this building because of the maintenance costs.

[2:04:38] um, I just wanna say how, um, by

[2:04:42] us, by us keeping this building right here, we're

[2:04:47] in keep an historic building, but we're in least dallas in the history books

[2:04:51] as one of the cities that once was and didn't

[2:04:56] continue to be. Dallas has great potential. We're in the heart of the

[2:05:00] dfw area and if we shall continue to be, then we

[2:05:04] need to reinvest in, uh, infrastructure

[2:05:09] and I support, uh, moving this item forward. Thank you.

[2:05:13] thank you. Canti resh

[2:05:21] canti ssh,

[2:05:27] uh, best wins or respected mayor, uh, council members, city manager

[2:05:32] and the staff. My name is conti ti and uh, I am a business owner

[2:05:36] at district eight and I stand in support of moving this item

[2:05:40] forward. Our city hall has served dallas with honor and distinction

[2:05:45] and its place in our history is secure. But every generation

[2:05:49] is entrusted with a responsibility greater than preserving

[2:05:53] the past alone. And years from now, future generations

[2:05:58] will not ask whether we protected a building. They will ask whether

[2:06:02] we had the vision to strengthen our city, the courage to embrace opportunity

[2:06:06] and the wisdom to leave dallas better than we found it. And

[2:06:11] today, the dallas we cherish was built by the visionary leaders

[2:06:15] who dared to think beyond their own time. I respectfully

[2:06:19] asked you to do the same and thank you very much.

[2:06:24] thank you mark nunley.

[2:06:29] thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council. My name is mark nunley.

[2:06:33] I am a cpa. I've spent my 50 year career reading financial

[2:06:38] statements, stress testing, projections, and cutting through numbers to find the truth inside

[2:06:42] them. The numbers on the city hall decision are the clearest I've

[2:06:46] ever seen. Here are the numbers, the fully loaded cost to stay, 1.49

[2:06:50] to 1.6 billion. The cost to relocate using the most expensive

[2:06:55] scenario, 482 million as a cpa. I can tell

[2:06:59] you what that means. Over $1 billion in savings

[2:07:03] to the taxpayers. We cannot afford to do anything else. I

[2:07:07] did not come here to push a predetermined outcome. I came here because I looked at the numbers

[2:07:12] and the numbers are unambiguous. Please vote no on item three.

[2:07:16] thank you. I will now call the next group. When I call your name,

[2:07:20] please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows in this intersection.

[2:07:26] kirk presley, jim schutz, janie

[2:07:30] schultz, matthew bach, andrew cola, karen

[2:07:35] muncy, jamie jolly, rudy kami, michael

[2:07:39] wiseberg, sarah crane, stephanie dka,

[2:07:44] jessica stewart liny, john eichman,

[2:07:50] issa terranova, melissa martinez,

[2:07:54] mary francis young has canceled. Matthew mabel and

[2:07:59] mike davis. And I will ask if you're virtual to have your video

[2:08:03] and audio ready. Kirk presley.

[2:08:07] good evening, mayor and council. My name is kirk presley and my wife and I live at 46 0 3

[2:08:12] west university boulevard in district six. I'm here to speak in opposition

[2:08:16] to agenda item three. In 2017, boston began repairing

[2:08:21] its city hall in a 30 year phase repair plan. It is also a brutalist

[2:08:25] style building of almost exactly the same size and age as our city hall.

[2:08:29] at the time, they thought it would only cost 225,000,008

[2:08:34] years later. Just the parts they have priced so far, which is only the first decade

[2:08:38] of work, will cost them over $440 million

[2:08:42] with financing costs. They're on pace to spend over a billion dollars on the building.

[2:08:47] we cannot afford to make the same mistake. Thank you

[2:08:51] for voting no on agenda item three. Thank you

[2:08:55] jim schutz.

[2:09:04] jim schutz is not present. Honorable janie schultz.

[2:09:11] janie schultz is not present. Matthew bach.

[2:09:18] matthew bach is not present. Andrew sla.

[2:09:22] andrew sla is not present. Karen muncie.

[2:09:29] karen muncie is not present. Jamie jolly

[2:09:36] can I have afternoon mayor and council. I'm jamie jolly, president and ceo of the real

[2:09:40] estate council and I appreciate the opportunity to address you this evening. Trek

[2:09:45] does not support moving forward with a plan to renovate our current city hall.

[2:09:49] instead, we support the redevelopment of the current city hall site as a once in

[2:09:53] a lifetime opportunity to unlock one of dallas's most strategically

[2:09:57] located properties. The current city hall site sits at the heart

[2:10:01] of an area of downtown dallas that has faced challenges for decades and has never

[2:10:05] reached its full potential. Redeveloping this site presents a generational

[2:10:10] opportunity to connect the southern edge of the downtown core

[2:10:14] to the ultimately to southern dallas. This kind of catalytic

[2:10:18] investment can bring the city together and create a more vibrant, walkable,

[2:10:23] and economically competitive city center. We've closely monitored the public

[2:10:27] briefings, we've reviewed the comprehensive facility assessments and data-driven cost

[2:10:32] estimates provided by experts and considered the broader conversation.

[2:10:36] we respect that there are different views on this issue, but we hope that you will vote against

[2:10:40] item three. Thank you. Thank you rudy kami.

[2:10:48] good afternoon everyone. Rudy kami, the council district 14.

[2:10:52] I am still not a finance or real estate person. So let's hear from someone

[2:10:57] who is, it kind of sucks to be a tenant in a lot of cases. Triple net. Triple

[2:11:01] net, is that what you said? Triple net used in a lot of commercial real estate deals, but

[2:11:05] if the roof leaks cost is passed along to the tenant, if something breaks a pipe, breaks

[2:11:09] a cost is passed along to the tenant repairs and maintenance, a cost is passed along to the

[2:11:13] tenant. If a piper's cost is passed along to the tenant, if a window breaks cost

[2:11:17] is passed along to the tenant, somebody shoots it out, cost is passed along to the tenant

[2:11:22] flooding, a lot of times that cost is passed along to the tenant. Real estate taxes go

[2:11:26] up $500 in the year. The tenant's gotta absorb. That kind of sucks to

[2:11:30] be a tenant in a lot of cases. Um, but if you've got the right building, they're willing to pay it.

[2:11:35] shame on you. You wouldn't do this with your house, but you'll do it with ours. Thank you.

[2:11:40] michael wiseberg.

[2:11:45] I'm a native dallas side retired from a long career promoting cities and

[2:11:49] areas for corporate relocation, including the old american

[2:11:53] airlines when they moved here from new york. About 80% of my work was outta

[2:11:58] state. I'm a student of cities. The idea that it's somehow more prudent

[2:12:02] to scrape an iconic I am pay landmark than it is

[2:12:06] to refurbish it as an insult to our taxpayers. The forced timetable

[2:12:10] is reckless and suspicious in itself. A string of losing

[2:12:15] football seasons or sports team relocation or normal parts

[2:12:19] of a big city's ebb and flow recklessness in large matters is

[2:12:24] not. I hope and I trust that our city council will not do

[2:12:28] anything that would make dallas a laughing stock in the highest circles

[2:12:32] of other american cities and perpetuate the stereotype of

[2:12:36] a city run by bankers and developers for their private good. We

[2:12:40] are better than that, but we must show it. Thank you. Thank

[2:12:45] you, sarah crane.

[2:12:55] hello? My name is sarah crane and I'm the executive director of preservation dallas.

[2:12:59] and I'd just like to remind everybody that we actually are making this decision today

[2:13:04] in light of no additional information when it comes to the cost of

[2:13:08] abandoning this building. Um, I'd also like to say that this building is neither

[2:13:12] an albatross nor a magic bullet for downtown. Saying

[2:13:16] yes to downtown redevelopment should not mean having to say no to repairing this

[2:13:20] building. I mean, this is dallas. We have the old right next to the new across the

[2:13:25] city. It's actually what makes our city so rich and our community so

[2:13:29] unique. Dallasite deserve to to have it all a vibrant downtown and

[2:13:33] this dallas city hall. But this process to renew downtown will take time.

[2:13:38] a thoughtful, comprehensive business strategy and investment, city of dallas investment.

[2:13:43] and it starts right here because you can say yes to investing in downtown. And

[2:13:47] you can start by saying yes to repairing this dallas city hall. Thank you.

[2:13:51] thank you stephanie dka.

[2:14:02] I am pe once said, architecture is the very mirror of life. Mayor

[2:14:06] johnson, you called this building obsolete. A reflection of your disdain

[2:14:11] for what? It represents the will of the people. Resilient, unyielding,

[2:14:16] concrete pay design, city hall to withstand the test of time,

[2:14:21] the test of people like you who view sentimentality as a weakness when

[2:14:25] in fact it's our greatest strength. The capacity to connect

[2:14:29] to counter false narratives intended to divide. Before this, many didn't

[2:14:33] know who im pay was and what this building truly meant, but your miscalculation

[2:14:38] taught us what a treasure we have to protect here. Do the right thing, restore

[2:14:42] the people's house to its full glory. Otherwise, future generations will remember what

[2:14:46] they were robbed of, how we fought to keep it. And you'll be the one

[2:14:51] cemented in history as obsolete.

[2:14:55] thank you, jessica stewart lin.

[2:15:02] good evening everyone. Um, the numbers issued for

[2:15:06] repairs by the consultant to date, consultants to date are rough

[2:15:11] planning numbers. Even their own documents say that these are numbers that are

[2:15:15] in a rough order of magnitude. They are not meant to make these

[2:15:19] types of decisions. I'm here to ask you to vote

[2:15:24] yes to the repairs, yes to downtown, but also yes to

[2:15:28] the process. To me, this building is a model of our democracy.

[2:15:34] and the democracy piece and the building piece

[2:15:39] are both being threatened in this process.

[2:15:43] um, the building teaches us that the heart

[2:15:48] of our city is our government center. This

[2:15:52] is the center of a vibrant downtown. You cannot remove

[2:15:56] the heart and have this ai generated, um,

[2:16:01] vibrancy. It doesn't exist without the heart. That's your time. This is the center.

[2:16:05] thank you. Thank you, john eichman.

[2:16:12] john eichman is not present.

[2:16:18] risa terranova.

[2:16:22] theresa terranova is not present. Melissa martinez.

[2:16:32] melissa martinez is not online. It's not present.

[2:16:37] mary francis young is counsel. Matthew mabel. Matthew

[2:16:41] mabel is not present. Mike davis,

[2:16:55] mike davis. Uh, good evening, uh, mayor. Present members

[2:17:00] of the city council. I'm here to rally you.

[2:17:04] I'm here to also remind you though that as we look towards

[2:17:09] redevelopment of this downtown environment,

[2:17:13] it must include strong opportunities

[2:17:18] for the hospitality restaurant and nightlife uses

[2:17:22] that will make downtown vibrant. I'm in support

[2:17:27] of using city hall as a down payment

[2:17:32] on the future. I'm representative of my generation of millennials

[2:17:37] and I grew up with my mom around my, with my mom while she was working here for over

[2:17:41] 35 years. So I know all about city hall. I I've been and

[2:17:45] played down in l three, so I know it very well. This needs to be

[2:17:49] a down payment on the future. We deserve it.

[2:17:54] vote that's your time against those repairs. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:17:58] I will now call the next group of speakers. When I call your name, please come forward and have a seat

[2:18:03] in the first three rows of this intersection. Mark grace,

[2:18:07] joanna hampton, abigail clawson, bell betson,

[2:18:12] dolores leve, soroka, debbie orka soli,

[2:18:17] pj moton, mckayla watkins, kristen atwell,

[2:18:24] alicia tis has canceled, will let forsyth li, kate

[2:18:28] parrish, sean buckley, ruben land

[2:18:33] ed zara, benjamin boyer, george aranda,

[2:18:37] marcel quimbee, jose pena has canceled. Sidney walker,

[2:18:42] yvonne walker, jed ulrich,

[2:18:46] andrew bieri, and arianna smith.

[2:18:51] mark grace may

[2:19:00] begin. This is a good time to breathe.

[2:19:05] you know, uh, um, this is kind of a, we we're,

[2:19:09] uh, acting out a psychodrama here, the citizenry. One

[2:19:13] minute, one minute, one minute. Uh, and we're rushing

[2:19:17] to make our points. Uh, I want to give my gratitude to everybody who's

[2:19:22] endured this long day to have their say as citizens.

[2:19:26] and I just want to add to my colleagues, especially

[2:19:30] sarah crane's remarks. Uh, the numbers are not

[2:19:34] as solid as people want them to be. This building

[2:19:39] is a legacy and can be a legacy. It doesn't have to be a

[2:19:43] false dichotomy between our future and this building.

[2:19:48] as a matter of fact, sometimes constraints are what,

[2:19:52] uh, help us to move towards creativity. So I'd

[2:19:56] encourage you, I would challenge you. That's your time to move

[2:20:01] forward in leadership and vote yes for this, uh, proposal.

[2:20:05] thank you. Thank you joanna hampton.

[2:20:10] good afternoon, honorable mayor, members of the city council, joanna hampton, 5 4 0 8

[2:20:15] swiss avenue. The current debate is a patch for the

[2:20:20] multiple issues that are facing downtown, and it does not provide a

[2:20:24] cohesive solution for downtown or our full city.

[2:20:28] this is a 200 to 400 year building. It's reflecting the quality of

[2:20:32] the investment by our city. And I note this not to set the building

[2:20:37] in amber, but to recognize the robust and lasting

[2:20:41] framework provided to this city and its citizens for our city government.

[2:20:46] I asked this council, what is the compelling reason for this site

[2:20:50] in this building? I haven't heard a vision provided to us or

[2:20:54] to you that would pro on the proposed relocation.

[2:20:58] well, I believe city, cal city hall can and should be a part of our

[2:21:03] revitalized and vibrant downtown. We must

[2:21:07] start the work to create a shared vision that supports long

[2:21:11] term solutions your time. Thank you. Thank you. Abigail clawson.

[2:21:20] hello. Dallas city hall has become a kind of civic, civic scapegoat.

[2:21:25] this building has been blamed for problems it did not create, and its destruction

[2:21:29] cannot resolve. It is not why people are leaving downtown. It is

[2:21:33] not why corporations relocate. It is not the cause of homelessness,

[2:21:37] public distrust, or government dysfunction. Unless this council addresses

[2:21:42] those actual challenges, those problems will remain regardless of what

[2:21:46] happens to this building. My kids have attended five and

[2:21:50] soon six different disd schools in our eight years here. Most

[2:21:54] of these schools are decades older than city hall and somehow

[2:21:59] thousands of children learn in them every day. If our schools can be maintained

[2:22:03] and used for generations, why should the standard for city hall be different?

[2:22:08] a building that is younger than I am dallas taxpayers paid

[2:22:12] for this building, they deserve better than to watch it be discarded for the latest shiny

[2:22:16] idea. It is simple. You have been elected to do good things and to

[2:22:21] avoid doing bad things, vote yes on agenda number

[2:22:25] three. Thank you. Thank you, bill betson,

[2:22:31] howdy. It's an honor to be here and I want you to vote yes.

[2:22:36] and the reason I want you to vote yes is I raised four kids in the

[2:22:40] home I bought 51 years ago in south oak cliff, and I've

[2:22:44] got nine grandkids and six great grandkids. And we need

[2:22:48] this building to give an example of stability.

[2:22:53] now, south oak cliff in 2016, we voted

[2:22:57] to put $52 million to rebuild that school that

[2:23:01] was old and torn up in a mess. We did it. The kids moved

[2:23:05] into the school in 20 and in 21, they were the

[2:23:10] first disd school to get a texas

[2:23:14] state football five a championship in 50

[2:23:19] some odd years. And then they did it again in 22, and

[2:23:23] they did it again in 25. And in 25,

[2:23:28] they also got the highest school effective that your

[2:23:32] time indices score of all 37 high schools in

[2:23:36] the city. Academic performance. That's your time in a fixed

[2:23:40] school. Thank you dolores. Leve soroka,

[2:23:45] I mean it. We're not gonna do the outburst thing. Okay, we're gonna start asking people

[2:23:50] to leave

[2:23:55] dolores levy soroka. I'm in district two.

[2:24:00] the question is whether dallas will responsibly address the

[2:24:04] needs of city hall or abandon a public asset that

[2:24:08] taxpayers already own. No one has

[2:24:12] really presented this council or the public with a complete

[2:24:17] accounting of what it will cost to leave city hall. Therefore, the only

[2:24:21] way you should vote today is yes or don't vote at all.

[2:24:25] a phase repair strategy is the responsible fiscal conservative,

[2:24:31] taxpayer focused solution. We paid for dallas city hall.

[2:24:35] the responsible thing is to take care of it, not to walk

[2:24:39] away from it. Thank you, debbie

[2:24:43] orozco solis,

[2:24:49] the deliberate garden, and the west warren heights neighborhood association. Let my dr.

[2:24:53] pat stevens. I am here to tell you we do not

[2:24:57] want city hall to leave. We want you to fix it. We need transparency

[2:25:02] in all civic affairs when it involves a place that we call home and

[2:25:06] is fully paid for that we own. We voted for each of you

[2:25:10] to be a democracy for us. This design at city hall was structured

[2:25:14] to last over 200 years. It was completed in 1978.

[2:25:19] it decided to come to city hall and feel you have no voice because you

[2:25:23] do not have a million dollars in the bank. I live in a

[2:25:27] house that was built in 1924, requires constant maintenance and has undergone

[2:25:31] three major res renovations. I pray you have good

[2:25:35] principles and do not ent and do not be enticed by wealthy developers

[2:25:40] because this is what I see today. Give us a voice, let us

[2:25:44] speak, give us a what we need, give us more information, have meetings

[2:25:48] with us. That's your time. And ignore, please don't ignore

[2:25:53] us anymore. Thank you pj moton.

[2:25:58] good afternoon. Uh, here joining you virtually, um, vote against

[2:26:03] item three. This is bigger than a building. Relocating dallas city hall is

[2:26:07] about whether dallas is willing to build for the future, not keep pouring money

[2:26:11] into the past. See, the employees deserve a modern, clean, safe, and

[2:26:15] innovative work environment. These people are the ones who serve us

[2:26:19] our residents every day. And they should be expected. They should not be expected to do 21st

[2:26:24] century work in a facility that no longer meets the needs of the 21st

[2:26:28] century city dallas residents deserve better too. We deserve a

[2:26:32] civic home that is accessible, welcoming, inspiring and worthy

[2:26:36] of the city we are becoming. This past week we hit, uh, we faced

[2:26:40] a, a number of major blows, including the dallas stars and the dallas mavericks.

[2:26:45] both institutions were making bold decisions about their future. And dallas city hall must

[2:26:49] do the same. A new city hall can be a more than a office building. It can be a

[2:26:53] symbol of pride, progress, service, and possibility. I urge you to move

[2:26:57] forward, forward with voting against item three. Thank you,

[2:27:02] mikayla watkins.

[2:27:09] good afternoon, mikayla watkins of district two. It is imperative to be understood

[2:27:14] that our dedication and desire to save city hall is not merely sentimental in nature.

[2:27:19] we, your constituents deserve full transparency rather than concepts of a plan

[2:27:23] with no comparative data provided. How can one guarantee that demolition would be

[2:27:27] less costly than preservation? We have heard little to no factual data regarding a

[2:27:31] new or temporary location or the potential financial responsibilities that could accompany,

[2:27:36] accompany, said relocation with numerous large scale projects pending,

[2:27:40] including the bond supported improvements to the convention center and the $5 billion

[2:27:44] replacement and relocation of ert. I find it necessary that you consider the

[2:27:48] logistical nightmare of the concurrent pursuits of these projects, coupled with the pre-existing

[2:27:52] construction and congestion of the affected areas. It is also important that we

[2:27:56] do not overlook our unhoused brothers and sisters whose voices cannot be heard

[2:28:01] in forums such as these with many of their shelters and resources existing in the area

[2:28:05] which is planned to be redeveloped. We must be mindful of how these actions will displace them

[2:28:09] and how we plan to continue your time providing this. Your thank you so much for your time. Thank

[2:28:13] you. Kristen atwell.

[2:28:22] hello, uh, my name is kristen atwell and I've lived in dallas for exactly 40

[2:28:26] years. This is my first time to speak before city council. Um, I

[2:28:30] own a marketing firm that turned 35 years this year. And, uh,

[2:28:35] in 1999 we worked on this big vision downtown

[2:28:39] dallas to 2005. Took five years and

[2:28:43] visioned it out back when we used to print things on paper. Um,

[2:28:47] and it took a really long time to work on. It was, it had in-house housing,

[2:28:52] office renewal, hospitality development, transportation, entertainment,

[2:28:57] parks and rec. We branded the pegasus project. We re-lit the horse

[2:29:01] on top of the magnolia building. Uh, we marketed the 1954

[2:29:05] republic tower. We watched the mercantile redevelop next to

[2:29:10] our office. That was two blocks from here for 15 years. Um,

[2:29:15] I'm gonna cut this as short as I can, but we are in support of

[2:29:19] downtown vitality. The last time I was here, that's your time. There

[2:29:23] were green shirts and they did not know why they were here. Thank you.

[2:29:27] that was very interesting. Thank you. Alicia. Canceled

[2:29:32] honorable tta forsyth lil it's is not

[2:29:36] present. Kate parrish.

[2:29:48] good evening. Kate parrish from district two. I'd like to echo a sentiment

[2:29:52] of one of my colleagues back from march if city hall can't be saved, what does that mean

[2:29:56] for the rest of us? Dallas likes to disinvest in most of

[2:30:00] our public assets. Don't let city hall be another one of those. This is

[2:30:04] our house. We pay for it. We continue to pay for it, and we're happy to pay for

[2:30:08] it because it is an icon of looking forward. This is the

[2:30:12] testament of dallas's future ever facing forward. Don't

[2:30:16] tear it down. Continue to invest in it, please. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:30:21] sean buckley. Sean buckley

[2:30:26] is not present. Ruben landa,

[2:30:33] honorable mayor, city manager, city council or council members. My

[2:30:38] name is ruben landa. I live in victory park in district two, and I am the president

[2:30:42] of the great dallas plan council. I recognize the historical importance of this building and

[2:30:46] understand why some of you want to preserve it, but the council has a fiduciary responsibility

[2:30:50] to spend public funds wisely and by any measure, the cost to

[2:30:54] renovate and repair this building is simply too high and does not make physical sense.

[2:30:59] saving this building will not save downtown. Your focus should be

[2:31:03] on how to strengthen downtown today and position for the future. This

[2:31:07] council voted 14 to one to approve the k bailey hutchinson master plan

[2:31:11] voters didn't approve funding by 70 to 30% margin. That

[2:31:15] plan is what you should be focused on, implementation of that plan, fully

[2:31:19] full implementation of that plan. I ask this body to rise

[2:31:23] above politics. Stop attacking those with different views and lead

[2:31:27] with vision. But most importantly, stop wasting time. Dallas

[2:31:31] needs leadership and it needs it. Now we need visionaries that are looking at the that's your

[2:31:35] time and what's best for the city as a whole. Thank you. Thank you. It's

[2:31:40] zara.

[2:31:49] hello, ed zara, district of 14. It's better to own than rent

[2:31:54] keep city hall taxpayer owed, owned and paid for no

[2:31:58] rent. Save 148 million, no broker commission. Save

[2:32:02] 8.6 million no property taxes. Save 79 million

[2:32:07] city hall is purpose built for 9 1 1 3 1 1. It's

[2:32:11] a civic landmark preserved taxpayers will then pay

[2:32:15] property tax. If you leave city hall, there's a $60 million demolition

[2:32:20] cost. There's a quality of life cost of 20,000 truckloads

[2:32:24] of debris being put on our streets. All lease

[2:32:28] options that you're looking at have the same end of

[2:32:32] service life concerns as city hall.

[2:32:37] don't put your taxpayers on the hook for $157 million

[2:32:42] in rent every 10 years into eternity. Thank

[2:32:46] you. Thank you. Benjamin boyer.

[2:32:56] thank you. Uh, before dallas commits billions of taxpayer dollars

[2:33:01] to a new municipal complex, the city should first determine whether the

[2:33:05] assumptions underpinning such an investment remain valid. In the 21st

[2:33:09] century, advances in technology have enabled private sector to successfully

[2:33:13] decentralize many administrative, financial, legal,

[2:33:18] and customer service functions, um, have moved, uh,

[2:33:22] to work from home and have improved and maintain productivity.

[2:33:29] dallas has an opportunity to lead nationally by modernize, modernizing service

[2:33:33] delivery and demonstrating responsible stewardship of public resources

[2:33:38] in in increasingly digital age. Thank you.

[2:33:42] thank you. George anda

[2:33:48] george anda is not present. Marcel quimbee.

[2:34:03] um, good afternoon, mayor and councilmen council

[2:34:07] members. My name is marcel quimbee and I live in district 14. I'm

[2:34:11] stunned at today's occurrence. And

[2:34:15] as my first question is, what happened to the comparison of all the

[2:34:20] options? The city has not provided anybody

[2:34:24] with numbers for the other options as

[2:34:28] promised, how can a city make any decision in a silo without understanding

[2:34:32] the pros and cons and financial impact of all the options?

[2:34:37] I just, it, it boggles my mind and I cannot understand that. You

[2:34:41] know, and I urge city council to vote yes

[2:34:45] to, to repair city hall or if you wanna take some more time

[2:34:49] to, you know, address these issues and bring the numbers that

[2:34:53] were promised, just put it on hold and we'll come back and talk about it when

[2:34:58] we can have a realistic discus discussion with all of

[2:35:02] the that's your time with all of the information needed to actually

[2:35:06] make that your time discussion. That's your thank you. Jose pena is

[2:35:10] canceled. Sidney walker

[2:35:18] greetings. Sidney walker district seven. I just have a few questions

[2:35:22] for you guys to ponder. So why was the commercial

[2:35:26] class a office, the standard for the renovation estimate?

[2:35:31] was the lease space option that was included in the report class

[2:35:36] c or was it class a? 'cause there is a big price difference between those

[2:35:40] two. Isn't class a the most expensive

[2:35:44] to renovate to? So why would a government agency renovate office

[2:35:48] space to class a? That's

[2:35:52] not wise. So councilman west spoke last

[2:35:56] night during his meeting. Um,

[2:36:01] he would vote to stay if we have money to pay for the fixes.

[2:36:05] do y'all have the money to pay to move? Where is that coming

[2:36:09] from? What services and programs

[2:36:14] and buildings and community sitters? Are you gonna close? That's

[2:36:18] your time to move. Thank you. Thank you. Yvonne walker.

[2:36:26] thank you. Yvonne. Walker's not present. Chad ulrich.

[2:36:33] hello, chad ulrich, district one and I'm with the democratic socialist

[2:36:37] america north texas chapter. These days we have a scam economy. Everything from ai that

[2:36:41] isn't returning to on investment to presidential crypto. Just earlier this year, the city of

[2:36:45] plano was adamant to leave dart to cut off their constituents from the region as well as the region from

[2:36:49] plano to likely pay first half, a hundred million dollars arena. So a sports franchise,

[2:36:54] cut up infrastructure and become a local landlord of the businesses at a time when 1600

[2:36:58] pennsylvania avenue has a giant crater in it. Without congressional approval and a possibly permanent

[2:37:02] octagon in front of it, I employed you to keep this building at 1500 marilla street. This

[2:37:06] will not solve your budget or the downtown problem, but it will be a step in the right

[2:37:10] direction. The time is now for us as a city to define what we are. Times

[2:37:14] change in corporations and sports teams go running for the next handout they

[2:37:18] can find under the cover story of a rundown downtown. The time is now to

[2:37:23] get creative with our city hall in a space around it, make it an anchor and form of our

[2:37:27] city with housing built, nearby housing or a grocery store downtown will do more to

[2:37:31] bring businesses than some genocidal owned basketball team. What will

[2:37:35] happen to that? That's your time will be the most sterile corporate owned thank you entertainment. Thank, thank you.

[2:37:39] yes to yes. Uh, yes to three. Thank you. Andrew

[2:37:44] zui is not online, it's not present.

[2:37:49] ariana smith. Good afternoon, mayor

[2:37:53] and city council members. My name is ariana smith and I'm a downtown homeowner.

[2:37:58] I'm opposed to repairing city hall on the dime of taxpayers and urge you

[2:38:02] all to vote no to item three. Downtown dallas should be the

[2:38:06] economic and cultural heart of our city. Instead, it has become increasingly

[2:38:10] defined by vacant storefronts, underutilized land, and growing concerns

[2:38:15] about crime. For too long, downtown has fallen short of its potential.

[2:38:20] you all have an opportunity to change that by, by, by voting no to item

[2:38:24] three and support a redevelopment of the land in and around city hall.

[2:38:29] redeveloping this property will attract investment, great jobs and bring new

[2:38:33] residents, businesses and energy to downtown. This is more than

[2:38:37] a redevelopment project. It is an opportunity to revitalize

[2:38:41] downtown dallas as a thriving destination to live, work, visit, and

[2:38:45] invest with your leadership downtown can once again become the heart

[2:38:50] goal for them. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:38:54] I'll now call the next group of speakers. When I call your name, please come forward and

[2:38:58] have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection. And also

[2:39:02] that ask that virtual speakers, please have your video and audio ready.

[2:39:07] iani ume. Sean jensen. Betty neil,

[2:39:12] venton jones, sam williams, ronnie mees,

[2:39:17] jim anderson, claudia fowler, joe

[2:39:21] tave, yolanda williams, charles williams

[2:39:25] ii david voss, mary lou, paris, sean todd,

[2:39:31] kevin pfeiffer and erica cole. Ani je

[2:39:39] ani je is not present. Sean jensen.

[2:39:46] sean jensen. Okay. Sean jensen

[2:39:51] is not present. Betty neil.

[2:39:58] betty neil.

[2:40:06] betty neil. Hi. Thank you for having me today.

[2:40:11] uh, to the mayor and to the council. For 46 years, I've been a dallas resident

[2:40:15] and I respect our city's history and the importance of preserving iconic

[2:40:20] buildings when it makes financial sense. But good stewardship is not

[2:40:24] about preserving a building at any cost. It's about making responsible

[2:40:28] decisions with taxpayer dollars. The

[2:40:32] reality is dallas city hall is an aging facility designed for a whole different

[2:40:37] era. 600 million is only repairing deferred maintenance,

[2:40:41] not renovating. The result would be the same old stained carpet, the

[2:40:45] same outdated restrooms. The stone aged furniture spending hundreds

[2:40:49] of millions would force difficult choices about real priorities, including

[2:40:53] animal service, street maintenance, parks, recreation centers, libraries,

[2:40:58] and other service we residents rely on daily. We also have to think

[2:41:02] about the future of downtown dallas, redeveloping the city hall site to

[2:41:06] generate new private investment, expand the tax base, create jobs, and bring

[2:41:10] new energy to our urban core. That's your time. Dallas compete.

[2:41:14] thank you. Thank you. Benton jones is not present.

[2:41:19] sam williams. Hello.

[2:41:24] sam williams, district nine. Not a part of citizens council or the regional chamber.

[2:41:28] and in support of keeping the building, I only have a short time. Uh, I've got financial

[2:41:32] concerns based on current understanding and don't feel like we have enough data. There's

[2:41:37] blank and unknown figures in the original agenda around relocation, lack of

[2:41:41] research around renting estimates and tear down costs. If we were to leave,

[2:41:45] why are we listening to business interests here, but not to their disinterest from lack

[2:41:49] of private investment in the police facility? Maybe we should be a bit more selective

[2:41:53] with assigning them credibility. Not to mention the convention center already delaying

[2:41:58] investments across the city. Economic analysis, including the st. Louis federal reserve,

[2:42:02] consistently supports the conclusion. Investment in large stadiums does not

[2:42:06] significantly approve financial outcomes of the area. Is a hotel really

[2:42:10] what we want at the center of our city? A casino? This does not mean

[2:42:14] we must keep a current status quo. When the city solicited designs to reimagine the area.

[2:42:19] we received hundreds of designs and ideas. Some of the most exciting of said designs

[2:42:23] came time from student organizations. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you. Ronnie

[2:42:27] meus.

[2:42:35] good afternoon, mayor. Uh, ronnie meus, west dallas, texas. You know that already.

[2:42:39] um, district six. Um, this has just, it's

[2:42:43] it's been horrible. This whole process has been non-transparent. Uh,

[2:42:48] you having meetings yesterday for the first time over this issue?

[2:42:52] um, dallas has a problem with identity. A lot of these people

[2:42:56] here that are, are, are for the change. Uh, wouldn't sell

[2:43:00] their homes to come and live downtown. You know, downtown should be a vibrant, and

[2:43:04] I think we all agree on that. It should be vibrant. Should be someplace you want to go?

[2:43:09] where wrigley field built 1914. I feel sorry for the people that don't

[2:43:13] understand or, or just refuse to understand that what history's about. You know, when

[2:43:17] you see a something that's like that, you know, it is just, I,

[2:43:21] I, I don't, I can't grasp it, but, uh, it's an identity process.

[2:43:26] you know, you only have where kennedy got shot or either

[2:43:30] state fair, one of those two. That's what you used to come to dallas for. And you wanna make it vibrant

[2:43:34] for everybody to come to dallas. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:43:38] jim anderson. Jim

[2:43:42] anderson is not present. Claudia fowler.

[2:43:47] claudia fowler is not present. Joe

[2:43:51] tve,

[2:44:09] mayor council joe tve, district three council members.

[2:44:13] I am a long lifelong dallas resident and former disc history teacher.

[2:44:18] I value and appreciate historic buildings. As a former city council

[2:44:22] candidate, I also understand our responsibility to taxpayers

[2:44:26] and the importance of sound fiscal stewardship. Spending hundreds of

[2:44:30] millions of dollars to repair a city hall at any cost is not good.

[2:44:35] governor cu essential, uh, city services to preserve an outdated

[2:44:39] building will not solve the underlying problem. Dallas needs the city hall that meets

[2:44:43] the needs of mor of a modern city, not a facility designed for a different

[2:44:47] area. Relocate city hall, unlock redevelopment opportunities and put valuable down,

[2:44:52] uh, downtown property back on the tax roads. Use that redevelopment to

[2:44:56] generate new, uh, revenue. Strengthen downtown, create economic growth.

[2:45:00] most importantly, invest those resources and neighborhoods that need them most particularly

[2:45:05] southern dallas or those, uh, areas south of the mason. D that's your time. That's your

[2:45:09] thank you. Thank you. Yolanda williams.

[2:45:18] yolanda williams.

[2:45:24] okay. Sorry. I've been waiting all day for this, but hello everyone. I gotta

[2:45:28] make this quick and short. It's insulting for the, the three or

[2:45:32] the four, the five to try to say there's not enough data. You know, that was the

[2:45:36] second consultant. The numbers were there, first number was low, then they

[2:45:41] were high. So now that you're not receiving the information that you want, you

[2:45:45] use taxpayer dollars to, uh, file a lawsuit.

[2:45:49] oh, hold on one second. I don't know what happened. I'm sorry. You used

[2:45:54] taxpayer dollars to file a lawsuit. Please. I'm asking you, council member

[2:45:58] rescind this. I'm sorry. District five, please vote against item number three.

[2:46:02] just like they filed a lawsuit today. We are gonna file a lawsuit to

[2:46:06] get this vote done. We're not gonna keep waiting. Y'all are gonna be in recess in july.

[2:46:11] then you're gonna try to wait till august. So we're asking you all to please

[2:46:15] vote against item three. It is just a waste of time. And to

[2:46:19] keep insulting the consultants with all the expertise. Now,

[2:46:23] y'all said y'all don't have enough data. What more do you want? That's your time.

[2:46:27] so much data, so many people speaking out. That's your time. Oh, no. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:46:32] charles williams. Ii charles williams

[2:46:36] ii. It's not present. David voss.

[2:46:45] my name is david voss. I live at 6 5 4 6 oral drive, dallas, texas

[2:46:49] council district number two. I'm here in support of the most financially

[2:46:53] responsible and environmentally viable option for this dallas city hall

[2:46:58] at save it and fix it. However, approving agenda item number three is

[2:47:02] not a good answer. The plan you're voting on today is not a

[2:47:06] repair plan. It's a construction project that's too extensive

[2:47:11] and too expensive. The new proposed city hall

[2:47:15] repair program, the contingency allowances alone

[2:47:19] are $91 million. That's a

[2:47:23] project that doesn't know what it's doing. The proposed numbers are not realistic.

[2:47:28] however, the vote today is to vote yes and then

[2:47:32] deliver a better plan. This building's not broken. The

[2:47:36] way it's being used and managed is broken and the way it's being presented

[2:47:41] is very broken. Save city hall. Thank you.

[2:47:45] mary lou paris.

[2:47:50] mary lou paris is not present. Sean todd.

[2:47:56] sean todd is not online, not in the audience. Not present. Kevin pfeiffer.

[2:48:13] thank you, mayor. Starting with something inspirational. Change

[2:48:17] will not come if you wait for some other person or some other time. We are

[2:48:21] the ones that have been, we have been waiting for. We are the change we seek. Nobody

[2:48:25] is going to give you anything that you have not earned. I'm skipping weight forward.

[2:48:30] my understanding. There's roughly four $52 million of arfa funds available

[2:48:34] to repair city hall. Appendix beam funds are still

[2:48:38] available. These are unencumbered funds until the end of this fiscal year.

[2:48:43] no more deferred spending spent, uh, sent to individual

[2:48:47] district. No more delayed project allowances. Everyone on this council

[2:48:52] was at one point inspired to do their civic duty and you in

[2:48:56] turn inspired fellow citizens to go to the voting booth and vote you into office.

[2:49:01] those are your constituents. They own this building

[2:49:05] and the surrounding property. Do the right thing. Vote to save city hall.

[2:49:09] vote yes on item three. Thank you erica

[2:49:13] cole.

[2:49:24] my name's erica cole. I, um, am really

[2:49:28] surprised at what you're doing. I came with my mother when I was a

[2:49:32] little girl to city hall. I've been doing every year. I've been coming to city

[2:49:36] hall. I've never had one minute to speak. And I think that

[2:49:41] I was told to get here at nine o'clock this morning. I've been here for like eight

[2:49:45] or nine hours. And I don't think it's fair to us to

[2:49:49] speak up. You work for us and I, you know, you

[2:49:53] don't, you don't. You won't tell us where we're moving, how we're moving.

[2:49:58] you won't tell us. You don't tell us what we need to know

[2:50:03] and how much it's gonna cost. It may be more

[2:50:07] expensive to do so we don't even know anything. We don't

[2:50:11] know what's gonna happen to nine 11. What, why can't you tell

[2:50:15] us what you know and how you know it and

[2:50:19] treat us like with respect? One minute is not

[2:50:24] enough for anybody that, that's your time. And after waiting for nine

[2:50:28] hours, that's your time. I think we're pretty unhappy. Thank

[2:50:32] you. I will now call the next group of speakers.

[2:50:36] when I call your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows

[2:50:40] of this intersection and virtual speakers. Please have your audio

[2:50:44] and video ready. James depetris. Christopher

[2:50:49] kates, jlo cummings,

[2:50:54] rosie kurtz, catherine thomas, adam

[2:50:58] gaddis has canceled. Mary cook, michael mo,

[2:51:03] ann harrington, james hill, sylvia

[2:51:07] lagos, mckayla kins, anthony jones,

[2:51:12] diana hayes, aubrey morris, andre

[2:51:17] tr way, caraway. Diane birdwell.

[2:51:21] jeanette bridges, isaiah alvarez,

[2:51:25] meredith jones, donna denson, brett ship,

[2:51:29] patty walker and naomi green.

[2:51:33] james depetris.

[2:51:42] hi, my name is jim dris. I've been in native of dallas all my life.

[2:51:47] I lived downtown. I worked downtown. My kids went to school downtown. Um,

[2:51:51] I chaired dallas city center association in 1990s. Um, the

[2:51:56] jewel hotel building sold for $500,000 that year,

[2:52:00] and that's how bad it was. There was no retail open after five o'clock. After

[2:52:04] six o'clock. Um, we've come a very, very long way. We've

[2:52:08] all worked very hard. I've helped raise over a hundred million dollars in tax

[2:52:12] credits and tiff grants treaty buildings, including the magnolia,

[2:52:17] the jewel, not the jewel, the statler ltv tower and the

[2:52:21] national. Um, three of these went bankrupt in the process.

[2:52:26] cost way more money, cost a lot more money

[2:52:30] to redo old buildings than it does to build a new one. Um, these numbers

[2:52:34] are, are lots of numbers are here, but they're probably gonna be less than they will really

[2:52:38] cost. City hall could get into the bank america tower for four. That's

[2:52:42] your time. A building, like $400 million. Anyway, steve bartlett and that's

[2:52:46] your time. Lee jackson are both in support of this as well. One is all both. Mayor, thank

[2:52:51] you. Thank you. Christopher cates.

[2:52:55] christopher kates is not present. Jlo calmings.

[2:53:03] jlo calmings is not present. Rosie

[2:53:07] kurtz. Rosie kurtz is

[2:53:12] not present. Catherine thomas.

[2:53:17] catherine thomas is not present. Adam gaddis is canceled.

[2:53:21] mary cook. Mary cook

[2:53:26] is not present. Michael mo.

[2:53:30] michael mo is not present. Ann harrington.

[2:53:41] good evening council. My name is anne harrington and I'm proud to call

[2:53:45] dallas home. I'm here today because dallas city hall belongs to the people.

[2:53:50] it is where important decisions are made about our neighborhoods, our families, and our future.

[2:53:55] before any plans are made to move, sell, or replace city hall, the people

[2:53:59] of dallas deserve to know exactly what is happening and how it,

[2:54:03] how it will affect our city and our tax and

[2:54:07] our taxes. Our youth city, city hall is more

[2:54:11] than just a building. It is, it is a part of dallas history. For many years,

[2:54:15] it's, it has been a place where people come to have their voices heard.

[2:54:21] I believe our city leaders should listen to the community before making big decisions.

[2:54:26] we need to protect what belongs to the people because it's free.

[2:54:30] today I ask our leaders to slow down, listen to the residents, and do

[2:54:34] what's best for dallas. Let's say city hall. Let's protect

[2:54:38] our history and let's keep the people's voice at the center of every decision. Thank

[2:54:43] you. Thank you. James hill.

[2:54:51] james hill. It's not online, not present.

[2:54:57] sylvia lagos. Sylvia lagos is not online

[2:55:01] and not in the audience not present.

[2:55:05] mckayla kins. Mckayla

[2:55:10] wakens is not present. Anthony jones.

[2:55:14] anthony jones is not present. Diana hayes.

[2:55:20] diana hayes is not present. Aubrey morris.

[2:55:25] aubrey morris is not present. Andre

[2:55:30] ue caraway. Andre trwe

[2:55:34] caraway is not present. Diane birdwell. Yep.

[2:55:43] is what? Sorry. You all, you walk when you're 65.

[2:55:52] before I forget, I'm diane birdwell. I vote for item three. It's the best we've

[2:55:56] got. Whenever somebody's rushing me, I know they're crooked and we know the

[2:56:00] vote's already in. But, uh, for south dallas, for the astroturf green

[2:56:04] shirts, um, let me tell you something. Cotton bowl never, uh, despite

[2:56:08] the being developed, never helped. South dallas reunion arena was built and torn down, never helped. South

[2:56:12] dallas. American airlines arena was built, never helped south dallas. Now they're going abandon it.

[2:56:17] uh, deep elm comes and goes. Elm street theater district of my childhood

[2:56:21] is not being used the way it should be. West end came and went.

[2:56:26] if the omni hotel hasn't spurred much more development, the astro

[2:56:30] tife, uh, turf green shirts are too young to know that whoever paid for

[2:56:34] their shirts doesn't care anything about south dallas. Let's stop with that. Lie

[2:56:38] right now. And they would invest in south dallas. They would live

[2:56:42] in south dallas. They would work in south dallas. It's

[2:56:46] a lie. But y'all have been bought off and we know it. And maybe I'll

[2:56:50] just run for city council and we'll have some fun. That's your time. Thank you

[2:56:55] janet bridges.

[2:57:01] okay, y'all, this is about physical

[2:57:05] responsibility of each and every one of you. You are responsible

[2:57:10] to the taxpayers for making sure that, um,

[2:57:14] it's, you're making the right decision with taxpayer dollars. I just wanna put that

[2:57:18] out there. That is your job. Um,

[2:57:22] so the public needs to have an apples to apples comparison

[2:57:28] between every alternative that's being considered.

[2:57:32] um, so here's some questions and I'm going to submit these, um, also,

[2:57:37] um, for a public information request. But here's some questions for you. Sorry.

[2:57:42] um, what is the, what is the projected

[2:57:46] 30 year cost of renovation? What is the projected

[2:57:51] 30 year cost of leaving? What is the projected

[2:57:55] 30 year cost of budgeting? I mean, of buying another

[2:57:59] building? What is the projected 30 year cost of cons? That's

[2:58:03] your time of, uh, of, um, that's your time. Okay.

[2:58:08] constructing a new city hall, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The public needs

[2:58:12] answers thank you. Period. Thank you. As they

[2:58:16] alvarez.

[2:58:30] good afternoon, mayor and council. I'm one of the younger people in this room today,

[2:58:34] and that concerns me because many of the people who will live with this decision for the next 30

[2:58:38] or 40 years aren't here. Over the last few weeks we've heard detailed

[2:58:42] presentations about the cost of repairing city hall. We've seen estimates ranging

[2:58:46] today. We just saw it from roughly 532 million to over 600 million

[2:58:51] in repairs and more than 1.5 billion in long-term occupancy costs.

[2:58:55] but when it comes to relocation, we're still talking about possibilities. It's not

[2:58:59] as detailed. It's about potential savings, potential redevelopment, potential

[2:59:04] economic growth. So my question is simple. If this is truly a

[2:59:08] generational decision, why are we comparing a detailed repair plan against

[2:59:13] a concept? What is the land acquisition cost? What properties would be affected? What

[2:59:17] is a 30 year cost? And a lot of private developers are trying to rush this process. But

[2:59:21] you know, when we consider an investment of this size, we need those answers before

[2:59:25] we move forward on this plan. So what is the rush task that your time serve?

[2:59:29] the same. Thank you. Thank you. Meredith jones.

[2:59:44] hello, my name is meredith jones and I'm in support of pursuing a repair plan

[2:59:49] for the iconic im pay design, building and plaza.

[2:59:53] leasing a city hall forever does not make financial sense for future generations.

[2:59:57] renting from a landlord opens both our budget and governance up to outside

[3:00:01] manipulation. We have not proven we can manage assets. So why should

[3:00:05] we buy a new building? The root issue is that we have not taken care of our assets.

[3:00:10] we need to fix that pattern, or we will be stuck in a cycle of these conversations forever

[3:00:15] and we'll never truly move on. To be a city of the future, while individual

[3:00:19] numbers presented may be accurate, the story does not seem complete with

[3:00:23] an incomplete story. I wonder who is it serving? Why has the

[3:00:27] cost of demolition not been presented? Why hasn't the environmental impacts of tearing

[3:00:31] down been explored? What about the impacts of losing the plaza, which is a downtown

[3:00:36] park? Each public meeting has proven that more residents want to save

[3:00:40] city hall, serve the people and save our house. Thank you.

[3:00:45] donna denson.

[3:00:53] good afternoon, mayor and city council members, I ask you to vote yes

[3:00:57] on agenda item three. I urge you to reconsider any decision

[3:01:02] to abandon city hall before a full and transparent evaluation

[3:01:06] of the cost between repairing, not gutting, but repairing

[3:01:10] it and moving is known. It's the taxpayers

[3:01:14] need to know their most. The most financial

[3:01:19] opt option, long term financial impact on taxpayers

[3:01:23] is still unknown. It's difficult to justify abandoning a structurally sound public

[3:01:27] asset when the full costs have not been made clear to the public each

[3:01:32] week. Equally concerning is the speed in which this process has moved forward.

[3:01:36] a building that belongs to the people of dallas should not be abandoned without giving

[3:01:41] complete accounting of the cost between staying and moving. I respectfully

[3:01:46] ask the council to slow this process, process fully disclose all costs

[3:01:50] and alternatives and engage the public. That's your time. Thank you.

[3:01:54] thank you. Brett ship.

[3:01:59] brett ship is not present. Patty walker.

[3:02:05] patty walker is not virtual. Not in the audience not present.

[3:02:10] naomi green. Naomi green

[3:02:15] is not present. I will now call the next group

[3:02:19] of speakers. When I call your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows

[3:02:23] in the intersection. And I ask that virtual speakers

[3:02:27] have their audio and video ready. Catherine garrison,

[3:02:32] sanford, denison, gail grace,

[3:02:36] alex scott, ronald parrish, sean peace,

[3:02:42] harrison. Blair, christopher weiss, margot posey, peter young,

[3:02:47] tommy hamilton, peter may, anthony jones, jr.

[3:02:52] and harold holland. Catherine garrison.

[3:02:57] yes. Careful.

[3:03:05] I've had a love affair with this city for as long as I can remember.

[3:03:09] save dallas city hall. I attended a town hall meeting last night

[3:03:14] in my district. My councilperson said that we don't have all of the numbers

[3:03:18] regarding the cost to repair the land value, the cost to

[3:03:22] build a new building or retrofit an existing building,

[3:03:26] demolition costs, moving costs, scope of time involved and where and

[3:03:30] how the debris would go. This worries me greatly

[3:03:34] if my counsel person doesn't know. I assume that no one

[3:03:38] sitting at this horseshoe knows either.

[3:03:43] how do your cons do your constituents? How

[3:03:47] are they able to disseminate the information on such short notice

[3:03:51] and without time to review and let you the horse, you know, their thoughts

[3:03:55] without hard numbers? This seemed rushed. Transparency

[3:04:00] matters and we aren't seeing it today. The city

[3:04:04] cfo stated that the cost of a tax increase would be, that's your time. $212

[3:04:09] annually. That's 58 cents. That's your time a day.

[3:04:13] thank you. San sanford, denison. It's

[3:04:17] not online, not in the audience not present.

[3:04:22] gail grace? Yes. Hello. I'm here. Can you hear me?

[3:04:26] y yes, you may continue. Alright, thank you. And, um, good afternoon

[3:04:31] and thank you for allowing me to speak, uh, today. I'm gail

[3:04:35] grace and I'm a resident of district one. I'm here today because I'm against the efforts

[3:04:39] to abandon our historic and architecturally significant city hall.

[3:04:43] I understand that you've inherited this quagmire, but here we are, the

[3:04:48] result of years of purposeful neglect at the building. This building

[3:04:52] and the campus on which it stands is tied directly to the history of dallas

[3:04:56] since late 1960s. Dallas city hall on the campus in which

[3:05:00] it sits isn't keeping businesses from thriving. That

[3:05:05] property isn't keeping the shady elements in the neighborhood. It isn't

[3:05:09] keeping properties vacant in its area. A lack of

[3:05:13] planning and follow through that has played dallas since I moved here over 30

[3:05:17] years ago. Uh, is the

[3:05:22] problem. What other properties are next? Daley plaza,

[3:05:26] pioneer park cemetery. Alex scott. I'm talking. Pardon?

[3:05:31] I'm sorry. Your time is up. Oh, okay. Thank

[3:05:35] you. Thank you alex. Scott. Hey,

[3:05:39] y'all. 64 72 trimble drive. Alex, scott, I'm your neighbor in

[3:05:43] district nine. So I'm gonna come here with some solutions. We've talked about how we can't afford things,

[3:05:47] right? So I worked for gartner for eight years, the world's leading research and

[3:05:51] advisory organization that helps c-suite executives achieve their mission critical priorities. And we have

[3:05:56] strategic contracting. Y'all have accounts with gartner.

[3:06:00] you can do strategic contracting with gartner. Every single software contract that you have

[3:06:04] here, you should be running that through gartner's strategic contracting. You can save

[3:06:08] multiple millions of dollars. Do you know why? I know because I've done that with my clients.

[3:06:13] I saved a 50 million human services organization, $5 million

[3:06:18] on their workday contract. You don't think that we have bloated budgets

[3:06:22] here? We are getting screwed out the ass. And it's

[3:06:26] about time that our city manager steps up and actually does some strategic contracting because

[3:06:30] pepsi now has control of, uh, of

[3:06:35] fair park and more specifically the cotton bowl. And we did not

[3:06:39] renegotiate that contract. I came up here last year and talked to y all about that s**t.

[3:06:43] I'm sick and tired of this. Nope. That language is unacceptable

[3:06:47] to use in the city council chamber. Okay? Yeah. Thank you. Thank

[3:06:52] you. Roland parish, well in parish

[3:06:56] is not present. Sean, peace.

[3:07:03] I stand before you today, not just as the president of the dallas police association, but

[3:07:07] someone who has spent my life living in the city and serving this city.

[3:07:11] over the last few weeks, dallas has been forced to make some uncomfortable

[3:07:15] conversations. Every headline has sparked the same question. How

[3:07:20] did we lose our grip? For too long, dallas has been

[3:07:24] slow to act. We have allowed studies to replace decisions.

[3:07:28] we have allowed debate to replace execution. We

[3:07:33] have made promises that have taken years to fulfill, if fulfilled at

[3:07:37] all. I signed up to speak on item one because

[3:07:41] you have the opportunity to support and build out

[3:07:45] the complete project of the dallas police academy on the unt campus

[3:07:51] and include the public safety training complex. We are

[3:07:55] the ninth largest city in america, one of the most recognized

[3:07:59] cities in the world. Host city for the fifa world cup. But we're

[3:08:03] training our people. That's your time in a 30 5-year-old facility

[3:08:07] build these academies. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:08:12] harrison. Blair?

[3:08:17] okay. Can y'all see me? Can y'all hear me? Yes, we can see you and hear you. You may

[3:08:21] continue. Okay. Thank you. I'm harrison blair. I wanna just

[3:08:25] say, uh, first and foremost, uh, please vote against this item.

[3:08:30] please don't spend our hard earned tax dollars on this particular project.

[3:08:34] there are hundreds and hundreds of things that the budget actually needs for the city of dallas.

[3:08:38] and I can guarantee you that young families like mine who are, uh, raising their

[3:08:43] family in dallas, don't want to be stuck with a 600 thou, uh, $600 million,

[3:08:47] uh, or plus bill to fix one asset. And there's so many infrastructure

[3:08:52] projects in the southern sector, um, including the one that the gentleman before me just talked

[3:08:56] about with the police, uh, in the training facility. There's so much we can do.

[3:09:00] let's not waste that money. And in fact, I've already got my hard hat, uh, hardhat here.

[3:09:04] I don't know if you can see what it says, but it says save downtown. Thank you.

[3:09:09] thank you. Christopher weiss.

[3:09:20] good afternoon, mayor, city manager and council members. I'm christopher weiss, 1419

[3:09:24] griffin street southeast district two resident and business owner in the

[3:09:28] cbd. We are at the point in this discussion where because of a forced

[3:09:32] timeline and widely divergent economic data, people have lost trust in the process.

[3:09:36] this can be fixed. Defer the vote on three and complete

[3:09:40] the evaluation of all options. Schedule and hold a public bond referendum

[3:09:45] on the vote. Put this to the people over the year. Dallas has had several

[3:09:49] bond referendums, including approval of this building, american airline center and convention

[3:09:53] center and others. I wanna ask the people in the crowd here who here is not

[3:09:57] for economic revitalization in the city. Anyone raising their hand? They're not for economic revitalization.

[3:10:02] who here doesn't want the mavericks or the stars to stay? I think

[3:10:06] we're all on the same side. It doesn't matter if you're wearing green or blue. We

[3:10:10] want to see revitalization. Don't do this at city council. Do it as a referent and vote. Move

[3:10:15] it forward. Thank you. Thank you. Margo

[3:10:19] posey. Margo posey is not

[3:10:23] present. Peter young.

[3:10:30] um, hi. I come here to speak in support of repairing and maintaining

[3:10:34] city hall. Uh, I'm a resident of highland park. I have spent so much of my time over the last six months

[3:10:38] knocking on doors and lock walking to keep, to talk to my neighbors in favor

[3:10:42] of keeping dart in my neighborhood. I, I mentioned this because I believe that dallas

[3:10:47] is something that is important. I think that our region needs

[3:10:52] to come together and work to make the metro better, uh, and make it work for everybody.

[3:10:56] I I find it really impressive the solidarity that all the money to interest in the metro have, uh,

[3:11:00] have shown coalescing to call for more handouts from the public coffers. Business

[3:11:04] owners are not privileged class. You represent the dallas citizens. Stop listening

[3:11:08] to the oligarchs and developers. They've created the current condition and are trying to sell

[3:11:12] you the cure by knocking down a monument to our city. Stop listening.

[3:11:17] uh, I know many of you are turned out next year, and usually politicians care about legacy.

[3:11:21] you represent your vote, uh, voters, not business charters. Vote like it.

[3:11:26] thank you. Tommy hamilton.

[3:11:31] tommy hamilton is not present. Peter may,

[3:11:38] peter may is not present. Anthony jones,

[3:11:42] jr. Anthony jones, jr. Is not present.

[3:11:47] harold holland. Harold holland is not online,

[3:11:51] not in the audience, not present. I will now call the

[3:11:56] final group of speakers. When I call your name, please come forward

[3:12:00] and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection and virtual

[3:12:05] speakers. Please have your video and audio ready.

[3:12:09] harold, laura epso.

[3:12:15] cynthia michaels, edward stone. Michael

[3:12:19] anette. Andrew

[3:12:23] cia. Bot toru. My apologies.

[3:12:29] sara gupta, sylvester hayes,

[3:12:35] preti gupta, patricia les and

[3:12:39] bruce richardson. Laura eon.

[3:12:44] laura ep epso is not virtual

[3:12:48] and not in the audience. Not present. Cynthia michaels,

[3:12:57] I'm speaking for myself. And here at joe cliff as president, it's to sad

[3:13:01] state of affairs that it took a court order to make city officials follow their own rules.

[3:13:06] I beg you to read and digest david voss report that he mailed to each and

[3:13:10] every one of you. It specifically shows using nfpa. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[3:13:14] we need to take a, a brief recess so that folks can have

[3:13:18] a break to take care of business. So we'll reconvene in 15 minutes.

[3:13:22] thank you.

[3:13:26] alright. Recess has, uh, ended

[3:13:31] and we're back in, in session our special call

[3:13:35] meeting. And, uh, we were with, we had a speaker. Yes. We're

[3:13:39] gonna start back with cynthia michaels. We'll bring cynthia. We'll

[3:13:44] bring ms. Michaels back up. Ah, there you are

[3:13:48] ma'am. We apologize, but it's just a that's okay. Okay. Part of the

[3:13:52] process. So thank you. But you're welcome to continue. We're ready to start. Yes. You? Yes, you

[3:13:56] may. Yes. Speaking for myself and heritage joe cliff as president. Sad state

[3:14:00] of affairs that it took court order to make city officials follow their own rules. I beg you

[3:14:04] to read and I I'm gonna ask you to stop just one second because I'm gonna ask the people in the gallery

[3:14:09] to sit down and be quiet if they're gonna stay in here or they can step outside and keep

[3:14:13] your conversations going, but outside and come back if you need to. But I wanna make sure we

[3:14:17] can hear you. So go ahead ms. Michaels, you want me to start again or start work? Whit, you can

[3:14:21] start, if you'd like to start over again. You can start over again. We'll, I'll start.

[3:14:25] we'll do your time again. Okay. Thanks. I beg you to read and digest david

[3:14:30] voss report that he mail each and every one of you. It specifically shows using nfpa

[3:14:34] as to when a repair will be, will be required to upgrade to current codes. Not all

[3:14:38] repairs will be required to do that. Therefore, cost projected to

[3:14:42] repair city hall are false because they include bringing everything up

[3:14:46] to the current code, which is not required. This process has been rushed from the get go.

[3:14:51] a quote we've gotta get outta city hall was made several months ago

[3:14:55] and no cost repairs were known at that time and all council members were not aware

[3:14:59] that there was a push to leave city hall after november 22nd, 1963.

[3:15:04] dallas was known as a city where president kennedy was assassinated in,

[3:15:09] in, uh, 2026. Do we really want to be known as the city that moved out and

[3:15:13] tore down an iconic impa historic building in a city that does not own

[3:15:17] city hall. Please vote yes for item three. Thank

[3:15:21] you, edward stone.

[3:15:25] edward stone is not present. Michael

[3:15:30] anette.

[3:15:34] michael anette, 2210 west 10th. I'm also a commercial property owner in bishop arts.

[3:15:39] last night, I, a district one meeting. 95% wanted this building saved

[3:15:43] 95% cbre representatives blame this space for

[3:15:47] 50 years of area stagnation. Government buildings are not economic engines.

[3:15:52] that's not their function. What's been around about as long as city hall and takes up three

[3:15:56] times. The area is the empty convention center next door. Empty convention centers are urban

[3:16:00] dead zones for downtowns. And that is what has happened here for years. Owners of empty

[3:16:04] office towers want guaranteed rent and triple net in perpetuity. They want

[3:16:08] tax dollars for their aging towers. Cbre mentioned rent to own. It's

[3:16:12] not enough to rent these empty towers. Now. They want us to buy one regardless of how much

[3:16:16] it costs to fix this building. In no world is it a better deal to give up an

[3:16:21] I and pay built to last for hundreds of years for an abandoned 1980s

[3:16:25] mediocre office tower. You will reach and surpass the amount it costs to fix this

[3:16:29] building in no time and have nothing to show for it. Tear down this building and you'll unleash

[3:16:33] a toxicity on this city that will linger for decades. That's your time only financially

[3:16:38] motivated real estate vipers want this to public. Adamantly opposed. Thank you.

[3:16:42] thank you andrew charu.

[3:16:52] good afternoon. I'm here to urge everyone to, uh,

[3:16:56] remind everyone to reconsider. You know, we must remain at city hall

[3:17:01] and repair because it is the right thing to do. But I must remind everyone

[3:17:05] that the, the numbers released recently of 500 to 600 million to

[3:17:09] repair are artificially inflated in order to wrongfully

[3:17:13] justify, uh, an agenda. Uh,

[3:17:17] and we, we must not make this mistake.

[3:17:22] we must remain at city hall. And, uh, I'm, I'm gonna read a

[3:17:26] quote of why I'm paid the architect. I am unhappy about the fact that our society seems

[3:17:30] to be much more inclined to build something for a short time and then tear them down.

[3:17:35] this mentality of short lifespan does not apply to this unique building.

[3:17:39] it is built here to last. It is not falling apart. There is no rush to vacate.

[3:17:43] and, uh, this is not about political shenanigans. It's

[3:17:47] not about worshiping outdated buildings from a bygone era. That's your time.

[3:17:53] thank you, sir. Rob gupta.

[3:17:58] hi, uh, the city hall move helps economic development

[3:18:02] help south dallas with contagious development.

[3:18:07] and let's face the cold hard facts. The building, the current

[3:18:11] building was built in 1970s, the city financial experts.

[3:18:16] they have presented clear, undeniable data showing that

[3:18:21] this building operation in the next decade, uh, by

[3:18:25] doing the renovation to, uh, keep it operational, will cost between

[3:18:29] 532,000,600 and 611 million in

[3:18:33] maintenance and infrastructure overhaul. Think about that. Figure

[3:18:37] that is over half a billion dollars just to patch up leaky roofs

[3:18:41] replace failing hvac system and fix deteriorating concrete.

[3:18:45] it is financially responsible to sink that kind of capital into an obsolete

[3:18:50] building when neighborhoods are crying out for street repairs, park improvement and enhanced public

[3:18:54] safety. Every dollar spent propping of the past is a dollar stolen from the

[3:18:58] future of the community. That's your time. This movie is a historic economic opportunity. Thank you.

[3:19:03] thank you. Sylvester hayes.

[3:19:08] sylvester hayes is not present. Priti gupta.

[3:19:18] ms. Ms. Gupta, your, um, your audio is, we can not hear you.

[3:19:23] please unmute your audio .

[3:19:29] ms. Gupta,

[3:19:34] I'll come back. Yes. I I'm there. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.

[3:19:38] you may continue. Yes. Relocating dallas city hall from its current marla

[3:19:42] street location is a forward thinking path. By avoiding the

[3:19:47] costly repairs we can protect the tax players while

[3:19:51] unlocking downtown redevelopment opportunities, the, the debate

[3:19:55] or whether to stay or to go is no longer just

[3:19:59] preserving a 50-year-old building. It is about making smart, sustainable

[3:20:03] financial choices. Today we face a harsh reality. Maintaining the

[3:20:07] current city hall is a mess, massive financial burden. City financial

[3:20:12] experts have our client that simply modernizing the aging infrastructure

[3:20:16] at 1500 ola will cost upwards of half a billion dollar over the

[3:20:20] next decade. This is hundred of millions of taxpayers dollars poured into

[3:20:24] a building that simply no longer meets the need of modern municipal, uh,

[3:20:28] workforce selling or reimagining the prime piece of

[3:20:33] real estate with spark new economic growth right in the heart of the city.

[3:20:37] um, it'll allow us to create modern, efficient, and that's time

[3:20:42] government. That's time or workspace that truly solves the public. That's your time. Moving

[3:20:46] city hall is a bold step. Thank you. But it is exactly the kind of leadership we needed

[3:20:50] in 2026. Thank you.

[3:20:54] patricia bowles. Patricia bowles.

[3:20:58] it's not present. Bruce richardson.

[3:21:03] bruce richardson,

[3:21:17] the great eric johnson. Our most consequential

[3:21:22] mayor would've had the list of

[3:21:26] professionals who put this document together on

[3:21:30] speed dial. I urge you to read it. I urge you to

[3:21:34] consider it no matter what you do today, because we will continue to press

[3:21:38] the case that professionals profoundly disagree

[3:21:43] with the process we have been through. And

[3:21:48] we believe there are rounding error

[3:21:52] level possibilities for funding the rehabilitation of this

[3:21:56] building. I urge you never to invoke

[3:22:00] the name of eric johnson I's great

[3:22:04] founder in any sort of

[3:22:08] relationship to the decision you are calling today.

[3:22:13] we did not elect you to do this. That's your time.

[3:22:18] thank you. We did not. Thank you. There are three speakers

[3:22:22] that I'm gonna go back to. Jim anderson.

[3:22:29] I wanna talk about a, a number that we haven't talked about before. That is

[3:22:34] actually renting land for city hall. The building interior

[3:22:38] is about 770 square feet. We take out all the goodies. Take out the city council chambers,

[3:22:42] the flag room, the lobby, and the great hallway left with 400,000 square feet.

[3:22:46] join 400 square feet in downtown dallas today. According to the fox news,

[3:22:50] you can get boring office space for 19 to $25 million

[3:22:54] a year. That's 195, 200 50 million a year.

[3:22:58] and if you go for 20 years, it's 400 to $500 million a year.

[3:23:03] you scoff at fixing up the building for $500 million, a half a billion,

[3:23:07] yet it may cost that much to move it. Then you also have the demolition cost

[3:23:11] of a building that is not going to come down easy. You need to look at the demolition

[3:23:16] cost, the relocation cost moving, 9 1 1 3 1 emergency

[3:23:20] preparedness. You need to have all the numbers. Please look at the numbers. We have plenty

[3:23:24] of time now. The masks not coming around. Thank

[3:23:28] you. Naomi green.

[3:23:35] hello? Can you hear me? Yes, you may continue. Thank you. Vote

[3:23:39] against item three. Do not fund to, uh, do not

[3:23:43] vote to fund the repairs for the building. As a community advocate

[3:23:47] for some of the most marginalized neighborhoods in dallas, I understand the importance

[3:23:52] of city resources and the impact that they have on people's daily lives.

[3:23:56] feelings about a building will not create opportunities for our neighborhoods, improve

[3:24:00] quality of life, or help communities grow. Our taxpayer dollars

[3:24:05] deserve to be spent wisely and responsibly.

[3:24:09] it is not fiscally, fiscally responsible to invest hundreds of millions of

[3:24:13] dollars into an outdated aging building that will never

[3:24:17] meet modern standards and most importantly does not

[3:24:22] provide a quality of life and safe work environment for the employees who serve

[3:24:26] our residents every day. I cannot stand here today and say that cutting city

[3:24:30] services to repair the building is the right thing to do. We

[3:24:34] must pay our communities. We must put our

[3:24:39] emotions aside. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sylvia

[3:24:43] lagos. It's not online.

[3:24:48] mr. Mayor, this concludes your speakers for this item.

[3:24:55] is there, um, chairman west for what purpose? Uh, to make

[3:24:59] a motion you recognize for that purpose,

[3:25:04] I move to deny this item, and because the city manager has completed

[3:25:09] subsection one sub paragraphs, numbers 1, 2, 4,

[3:25:13] and five of resolution number 2 6 0 4 9 9. Direct

[3:25:18] the city manager to continue following resolution number 2 6 0 4 9 9

[3:25:23] subparagraph three to explore options for the disposition of city

[3:25:27] hall site and bring these options back to city council no later

[3:25:31] than august 26th, 2026. Second, it's been moved in

[3:25:35] second. Is there any discussion? Chairman west, you recognize for five minutes for the public, we are

[3:25:39] on agenda item three. Motion by

[3:25:44] chairman west. You re us for five minutes. Thank you, mayor. So this motion

[3:25:48] pauses any, uh, move to begin the renovation process

[3:25:52] at this point. And it does. It's intended to do exactly what

[3:25:57] many speakers, including those who spoke today from the safe city hall

[3:26:01] coalition, have asked for, which is to get us a full picture of the numbers,

[3:26:05] including the lease options, um, and, and the cost

[3:26:09] of leasing to own, um, a different building. That one of the main

[3:26:13] things that have been asked for from my residents in my town hall and from many

[3:26:17] of the speakers over the course of this last several months, is to have a true

[3:26:21] side-by-side comparison. We cannot do that if we stop the process

[3:26:25] today. A few questions for staff and I'd like to go ahead and bring up slide

[3:26:29] 38, please.

[3:26:44] good evening. And I don't think the presentation's available to pull back up right now.

[3:26:48] okay. Well, if we can work on that, I think it's, it's helpful. Um, so the

[3:26:52] deck that was presented by you a few hours ago discussed the costs of renovating

[3:26:57] city hall in a phased re repair plan between five and 10 years.

[3:27:01] um, my first question is to, um,

[3:27:05] on slide 38, walk me through the, the

[3:27:09] highlighted, um, figures there I see under the gresham

[3:27:13] smith option number two, which you used jack to,

[3:27:18] um, really base all the other slides and, and the,

[3:27:23] the, the, you know, what we'd have to do to pay for the phase repair. Um,

[3:27:27] what it, what are the, the major figures here mean when I see

[3:27:31] subcap subtotal capital of 769 million and

[3:27:35] then I see, um, you know, subcapital plus interest

[3:27:39] 1.225 million billion. What does that mean?

[3:27:44] good evening. John johnson, chief of real estate. So the gresham smith option

[3:27:48] number two item that you've referenced is around $556.8 million

[3:27:53] for corrective repairs. That includes repairs that are necessary to the building

[3:27:57] as well as a da and code required upgrades. Um, as

[3:28:01] I mentioned, so the a da compliance is included in that number. The interiors piece

[3:28:06] of 107 million, that's walls, ceilings, floorings, finish

[3:28:10] out, uh, ff and e furniture fixture and equipment desks, chairs,

[3:28:14] storage workstations. Technology would be for network systems,

[3:28:19] av systems, broadcast chambers, technology, and then soft costs would

[3:28:23] be the design, construction administration, permitting, and those things that

[3:28:27] are necessary for us to deliver the project with a flat $10 million contingency.

[3:28:36] okay. What would generally be in the 20 year o and m budget of

[3:28:40] $229 million? So the 20,

[3:28:46] sorry. Uh, we use the actual number, it's around $8 million a year

[3:28:50] that we have for this building. That's things like electricity, gas, water security,

[3:28:54] custodial, uh, landscape pest, power washing, window washing. And so that's

[3:28:59] an $8 million fee or an $8 million expense with a 3% escalation

[3:29:03] over a 20 year period, which is how you get to the $229 million that's

[3:29:07] listed for an apples to apples comparison on the slide for slide 38.

[3:29:12] okay. This total cost figure that's in option two,

[3:29:16] um, would be paid out over 20 years. Right. So this is where I'm gonna need

[3:29:20] the chief financial officer's help. The amount of the

[3:29:24] 1.5 is that paid out over 20 years.

[3:29:30] the question regarding, um, the $1.5 million

[3:29:35] in this scenario, the scenario does assume that the $769 million

[3:29:41] for corrective repairs and modernization, so the total

[3:29:45] $769.8 million of capital improvements

[3:29:50] would be financed over 20 years. The financing cost

[3:29:54] in this scenario is $456 million. And then

[3:29:58] in addition to paying the capital principle and interest back over 20

[3:30:02] years, the operating cost that's in the, uh, o

[3:30:06] and m line operation and maintenance line, 229 million is

[3:30:10] the cost over 20 years of custodial utilities security.

[3:30:14] so yes, the $1.5 billion total is a 20

[3:30:18] year, uh, cost of occupancy repair.

[3:30:23] okay. Interest on the debt and operations of the facility.

[3:30:27] got it. So I'm gonna come back in a second to the apples to apples comparison, but I

[3:30:31] do want to know if we did vote in support of this,

[3:30:35] if this ended up being a yes vote for this item. When does staff foresee

[3:30:40] beginning the renovation process? When would that kick off?

[3:30:45] so all of the numbers that we have from aecom, from gresham smith, and

[3:30:49] from wm two company are based in 2020 $8 because that would be the

[3:30:53] very earliest that feasibly we could do anything for construction. However,

[3:30:58] it's really important that the city council identify the direction

[3:31:02] and the funding and the scope that they want to include. And we would need that upfront because we have to do

[3:31:07] design work. We need to, uh, ensure that we procured architects and

[3:31:11] engineers who will actually do the construction documents, come up with the phasing. We have permitting, we

[3:31:15] need to bid out for the general contractor, allow time for the swing space

[3:31:19] for the actual construction commissioning, and then move back in. So it would be a very complex

[3:31:24] and very complicated situation. So it would likely take at least 28,

[3:31:29] likely, probably a year or two past that. And I think that question is really important,

[3:31:33] um, that we, you know, when we get the question, what's the rush? I mean,

[3:31:37] part of what I've been told by the city manager is she needs to plan her budget. Now

[3:31:42] that's, I assume that's still correct for this next fall, but what's the risk

[3:31:46] to this building? Um, if we do nothing, if this council says, well,

[3:31:50] we don't want to put the money into it to fix it, we don't wanna move to another

[3:31:55] location, what happens if we kick it down the road another five or 10 years? You know, other

[3:31:59] than putting council staff and the public through this yet again,

[3:32:03] when, when my time's done. So I think that it's the cost

[3:32:07] increase with every month with every day it costs more for stuff in the future. Uh, we expose

[3:32:12] ourselves to additional risks. We would potentially see additional failures that would occur over

[3:32:16] time, broken pipes, systems that fail that we have not maintained or replaced,

[3:32:20] and they would probably become more prevalent over time.

[3:32:24] so jack, um, you presented three options on how we're gonna pay for this, uh,

[3:32:29] a tax rate increase, a bond election, and there were a lot of good questions

[3:32:33] by, uh, councilor stewart and, and some others. Um, our cuts

[3:32:37] in staff or services or, or both, um, do you see any other options

[3:32:42] on how we would pay for city hall repairs

[3:32:46] other than those three options? Uh, certificate

[3:32:50] typically for these types of improvements? Uh, for the general fund,

[3:32:54] we have two basic sources. Uh, either we, um,

[3:32:59] use cash to pay for it or we issue debt. And the cash

[3:33:03] scenario would involve potentially reducing

[3:33:08] services, cutting services, or increasing property tax to accomplish

[3:33:12] it. Um, there's really not another large enough source

[3:33:16] of funds. We would take advantage of cost sharing with the

[3:33:20] other, uh, occupants in this building, such as the water utility department and

[3:33:25] others. However, the, the bulk of the cost is gonna fall on

[3:33:29] the general fund portion of the city government. And so you either then

[3:33:33] use cash in the general fund, or you use debt through the debt service fund.

[3:33:39] so if we, if we end up relocating to a different

[3:33:43] location, there's obviously gonna be costs with relocating too. It's

[3:33:48] not gonna be free. There's gonna be, we're gonna have additional, we're gonna have other costs.

[3:33:52] um, we of course don't know what those numbers are because we haven't

[3:33:56] turned loose our brokers to go out and talk to and, you know, negotiate a

[3:34:00] final deal, which is what the motion, my motion is intended to allow us to do.

[3:34:04] um, but would relocating in your understanding

[3:34:09] trigger one of those three funding mechanisms, do you think under

[3:34:13] a re a relocating scenario? Um, we're still going

[3:34:17] to need to increase the tax rate issue, bonds or cut services.

[3:34:24] so based on the market exploration that our partners have been through

[3:34:29] and looking at what's available, um, they have made it

[3:34:33] clear that there are material savings to the city

[3:34:37] by relocating from, uh, 1500 marilla. And

[3:34:41] so that savings is, um, they've described in the

[3:34:45] hundreds of millions of dollars, don't know an exact amount, uh, because they're

[3:34:50] still working through, uh, with the potential properties,

[3:34:55] what, what there might really be. Uh, and those will get refined

[3:34:59] over time if we relocate. There are other options

[3:35:03] for financing. You can work financing through a lease to own,

[3:35:07] you can, uh, work with the property that would

[3:35:11] be purchased, uh, on how that is structured. There's the opportunity,

[3:35:16] uh, in some of the properties that are available to have excess space

[3:35:20] that could be rented to, uh, a third party or a private tenant

[3:35:24] that would provide an additional revenue stream. Um,

[3:35:28] there would be the opportunity to consolidate some of our operations

[3:35:32] from some of our leased space that we currently have from some of our

[3:35:37] other owned space that we have, bringing those together in a

[3:35:41] consolidated, uh, city hall and divest of those other

[3:35:45] real estate assets. So there's a lot of other tools in the tool

[3:35:49] chest, so to speak, uh, for relocating than I

[3:35:53] see possible, uh, in the options to repair.

[3:35:58] you touched on this, but in the relocating options, are there options

[3:36:02] in there for a lease to own? So we wouldn't just be necessarily a

[3:36:06] tenant if we went in that option? So there is

[3:36:10] no anticipation that we would, uh, be a permanent tenant somewhere.

[3:36:15] every option that we're looking at would be, uh, to, um,

[3:36:19] I, if we did go with the lease, it would be a lease to own option. Our, our goal

[3:36:24] is to own city hall, not to lease city hall. Okay.

[3:36:28] and I, I guess I just want to really get, I, I really want to

[3:36:32] get this answer out there for, from people at my town hall. Were concerned about

[3:36:36] the fact that we really don't have the apples to apples comparison. We don't

[3:36:40] have it today to be able to talk about, um, when will the public get to

[3:36:44] see the true comparison of the cost between staying

[3:36:48] in city hall and renovating and going out to lease in the market

[3:36:54] lease to own. So c-b-r-e-d-I want to give

[3:36:58] more answer or I can answer this. Okay. So, um,

[3:37:02] if, if counsel at some point, um, gives

[3:37:06] the, uh, our partners with cbre the authorization

[3:37:11] to do additional work and

[3:37:15] work with the market and fine tune the, the proposals we received,

[3:37:20] then we would be able to bring something back. But until then

[3:37:24] the, um, the consultants are not able to get any finer, uh,

[3:37:29] tuned numbers than we've already received, is my understanding. And I'll ask cbre

[3:37:33] if they have anything to add to feel free. No, I I I, I agree with

[3:37:37] that. Uh, the, the one thing when you were asking the question about savings and lease to own options,

[3:37:42] uh, our market exploration, uh, has determined, uh, that there are really some

[3:37:46] unique opportunities within the central business district to not only lease lease with

[3:37:50] a purchase option, buy outright and, and, and other, uh, uh, financing

[3:37:55] options that that, that were mentioned earlier from that perspective. But in terms of the savings

[3:37:59] and, and the true opportunity in particular in downtown, uh, I wanna quantify

[3:38:03] that there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings just from our

[3:38:07] market expiration at this point. Um, and you know, that that's accomplished.

[3:38:11] as again, jack mentioned, uh, the, the opportunity to reduce operating

[3:38:16] expenses and capital expenses, uh, the opportunity to, uh, secure

[3:38:20] the benefit of lease revenue presently in some of those properties. And

[3:38:25] I that laugh. Uh, and then, uh, lastly the consolidation,

[3:38:29] uh, of city, uh, city owned assets is, is a tremendous opportunity there. So,

[3:38:34] so the motion, as I read it, would allow you to go out

[3:38:38] and continue negotiating, come back with final numbers that the city could

[3:38:42] then look at. Correct. So if I could jump in for just

[3:38:46] a second, 'cause I wanna go back to a couple things that I think mr. Ireland and our,

[3:38:51] uh, partner with cbre, um, they've responded to. Um, so

[3:38:55] we currently have operating expenses here at

[3:38:59] city hall, right? And when you take those operating

[3:39:03] expenses, the opportunity that we don't have now to create that revenue

[3:39:07] stream for other leases that might be a part of a location,

[3:39:12] the consolidation of other city departments that are

[3:39:16] currently in other buildings, city owned, and some with lease space

[3:39:20] and the potential opportunity to colo locate within another governmental entity.

[3:39:25] those are ways that would allow for us to have, um,

[3:39:30] a new model for whether it's a lease to own

[3:39:34] purchase outright that we don't have currently. What you just

[3:39:38] read from my perspective, and I'll let the attorneys jump in,

[3:39:43] there is an item that still remains in the march 4th resolution that

[3:39:47] allowed for us to continue to review options

[3:39:51] to dispose of the site. What's not before you today

[3:39:56] is the authorization for us to go do the pre-development

[3:40:00] work that will allow for us to bring you back more

[3:40:04] details around the numbers to truly get you to the side by side. That

[3:40:08] is not what's on for today. And I think what you read

[3:40:12] into the record on the motion is the explorer options to do

[3:40:16] the dispose of the site. And that's what I think I heard. Okay. So I'll just, I'll

[3:40:21] lean over to the attorneys and make sure that I didn't say that incorrectly.

[3:40:34] point of order, mr. Mayor, state your point of order chair

[3:40:38] mayor, this motion is out of order in that in part authorizes

[3:40:42] the city manager to pursue opportunities for the redevelopment of the

[3:40:47] property located at 1500 marilla street, which is outside

[3:40:51] the scope of agenda item three that we are now discussing.

[3:40:55] and in fact is the subject of agenda item four, which we

[3:40:59] are expressly prohibited from discussing at today's meeting by the tro

[3:41:04] issued by the 14th district court yesterday.

[3:41:08] thank you for making your point of order. I will let the, uh, city

[3:41:13] attorney slash arian address that issue first before I

[3:41:17] rule on that. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Um,

[3:41:22] this motion, all it references is, is

[3:41:26] item number four. Lemme make sure I have the right one. Uh, item number

[3:41:31] one three off the original march 4th resolution.

[3:41:36] it's already in effect, it's already what the, uh, city manager's required

[3:41:40] to do per your resolution. It just puts a date that that information is due

[3:41:44] to the council. It's, it lists the items that have already been accomplished

[3:41:48] in the resolution, the march 4th resolution, including this one, which was

[3:41:53] to bring the phase two, at least two phased, uh, repairs, back

[3:41:57] repair, repair programs back. And now that those have all been done, it just asked to finish

[3:42:01] the resolution, it does not do anything new. It does not add any new

[3:42:05] activities. It merely references the previous resolution, but

[3:42:09] that resolution is not on the agenda today. That portion of it is not on

[3:42:14] the agenda. It, I'm, I'm ruling it that the, the

[3:42:18] point of order is overruled for the reason that it, it doesn't actually,

[3:42:23] it doesn't do anything other than give a date certain for when that has

[3:42:27] to be completed. That's it. So it's

[3:42:31] overruled.

[3:42:36] okay. I think the city man, did you have any thoughts to complete on that? 'cause before you

[3:42:40] were point of order out of there n no, mr. Um,

[3:42:44] uh, chairman wesley, it was just to make sure that we are

[3:42:48] completing an item and it would be the only remaining

[3:42:53] item that we've not completed from the march 4th resolution. I've been asked several times

[3:42:57] about the additional work, and we kind of did it in a logical step.

[3:43:02] we started with, uh, making sure that we did the repair plan, which you've

[3:43:06] had, we brought it in phases. And then this was one of the items that's

[3:43:10] currently still on that march 4th resolution that we've not completed. And

[3:43:14] the way I understand it is that you, you are giving me a timeframe that you want

[3:43:18] me to return to counsel with that final step. Alright. So what is your understanding

[3:43:22] that you will be bringing back to us by august 26th, 2026, based on

[3:43:26] the motion that you just read? We would do the options

[3:43:31] to look at what with potential, a way to look at the site. Mm-hmm

[3:43:35] . It's not making the decision, it's not finalizing anything. It's

[3:43:39] bringing you those options back and then given the council an opportunity to weigh in

[3:43:43] on what those options might be. Okay. And when can council expect

[3:43:48] to get, um, more refined numbers

[3:43:52] from cbre on potential relocation options? Because that's the apples

[3:43:56] to apples a lot of people are asking for. That is, that is not the item before you

[3:44:00] today. And we would be seeking hopefully, future

[3:44:04] guidance from the city council. But that is not the item that is on the agenda for today. That's

[3:44:08] part of the reason why the tro has prevented that from happening, correct? That's exactly right. Yes, sir. Okay.

[3:44:12] thank you. You were you finished? Yes.

[3:44:17] okay. Chairman, ridley, you recognize for five minutes, you,

[3:44:23] I'm opposed to the motion in that

[3:44:27] it eliminates any repair option for city hall. The

[3:44:31] repair options that we have received today greatly exaggerate

[3:44:36] repair costs. Indeed, they don't address repair costs so much as

[3:44:40] replacement costs, including upgrades

[3:44:45] and improvements to the existing building, which exceed the scope

[3:44:49] of what this council requested in the march 4th resolution.

[3:44:54] as a result, they have included all kinds of costs, totaling

[3:44:59] over $200 million for improvements in the building that

[3:45:03] we never asked for, and therefore exaggerates

[3:45:07] greatly the cost to repair as outlined

[3:45:11] in the item three, uh, repair

[3:45:16] strategy. And so because this item,

[3:45:20] uh, falsely exaggerates the cost of the repair

[3:45:25] costs, and we don't have a reasonable repair plan

[3:45:29] in front of us, it is premature to consider this

[3:45:34] item as a result. Uh, although

[3:45:38] I am in favor of a repair strategy, unfortunately

[3:45:42] we don't have a reasonable repair strategy at this time

[3:45:47] in front of us. Uh, but I would offer an amendment

[3:45:51] at this time to, uh, create

[3:45:56] a, uh, to authorize the city manager to create

[3:46:00] a repair plan of just critical repair needs,

[3:46:06] not including any enhancements of the building

[3:46:10] as the current repair plan does. Second,

[3:46:17] I need the, uh, city attorney to sit down, but it's been moved and second, and I seconded. Yeah, it's been moved.

[3:46:21] it's seconded. And you recognize for five minutes on

[3:46:26] your amendment, mr. Ridley, what we need is a reasonable repair plan

[3:46:30] that addresses both our financial capabilities and the

[3:46:34] critical repair needs of the building. We don't have that yet. And

[3:46:39] it's time that we focused on what this council

[3:46:43] directed the city manager to do on march the third, which was

[3:46:47] develop at least two repair plans for critical repairs.

[3:46:52] that's something I'm quoting from that resolution. We don't

[3:46:56] have that yet. And I think it's time that we

[3:47:00] insisted that we get that from the city manager along

[3:47:05] with a reasonable financing plan for that cost,

[3:47:09] which I believe is substantially less than the currently

[3:47:14] exaggerated quote repair plan.

[3:47:22] anyone else wish to speak on for or against the amendment by chairman

[3:47:26] ridley chairwoman mendelssohn, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by chairman ridley.

[3:47:31] well, actually, he said it so beautifully. I don't have a lot more to say.

[3:47:36] the motion that I made in march that you quoted

[3:47:40] from is exactly what we didn't get. And I think I said

[3:47:44] that when we had that briefing. And we are

[3:47:48] hearing briefing after briefing that's building on an incorrect

[3:47:52] premise. And that's why all the numbers are so outrageous.

[3:47:58] and we've never, ever had a public

[3:48:02] input like this for any topic. There's

[3:48:06] a reason. It's not that these are all the preservationists in our city.

[3:48:11] it's because they know there's a problem here. There's a problem

[3:48:15] with the contrived way this has all been rolled out

[3:48:20] and how it's been presented. The process is not transparent.

[3:48:26] instead, a yes no answer gets a 10 minute

[3:48:31] circular mouthful of words that

[3:48:35] sound really nice, but don't mean anything. We need spreadsheets

[3:48:40] with documented costs, who, who they are. And

[3:48:44] apparently we need to understand what the scope is because that seems

[3:48:48] to be the key here where some folks are looking for,

[3:48:52] for the four seasons for their city hall.

[3:48:56] and, you know, I'm not saying that it, it should

[3:49:01] be anything, um,

[3:49:05] even nicer than the airport. But when I hear people talk about,

[3:49:10] oh my gosh, the bathroom's in city hall, you know what? They're not fancy, but they're

[3:49:14] still better than dfw. So I'm not

[3:49:18] sure what people are expecting, but we need to have

[3:49:22] a serviceable building. People should be able to come to work

[3:49:27] and do their job. But some

[3:49:31] of the things that I have heard around this horseshoe and

[3:49:35] not around this horseshoe, are very disconcerting.

[3:49:39] and if you wanna be in private

[3:49:44] business and have lots of really rich amenities, you should go work

[3:49:48] for a different company. But if you wanna work for the public, you wanna

[3:49:52] be a public servant, whether it's elected or non-elected, come be

[3:49:56] here. You can make a huge difference. But sometimes that difference

[3:50:01] is actually saying something really hard and sometimes you're maybe the only one, or

[3:50:05] maybe you're one of six, but I'm telling you that

[3:50:09] the public knows what's going on here and it's not okay.

[3:50:14] and we want real numbers about what is

[3:50:18] actually needed to be done here. The first six years I was on

[3:50:22] council, this wasn't ever briefed. Not even once. And suddenly

[3:50:26] it's a crisis. And this entire building

[3:50:31] is absolutely, um, paralyzed with this conversation.

[3:50:37] and mayor, I'm sorry, the people up the tollway don't have knives out

[3:50:41] for us. They're laughing at us and they're

[3:50:46] laughing about exactly what's happening. They want the best for us, but we need

[3:50:50] to get serious about the fact that 15 acres is not going to

[3:50:54] be what is the catalyst for downtown. The issues are

[3:50:58] obviously much more complex. Thank you, ms.

[3:51:02] cena. You're recognized for five minutes on the amendment by chairman ridley.

[3:51:07] as an employee, I worked here for eight years and I, um, have seen council

[3:51:11] members vote against repairing this building. I've seen mayors not supported

[3:51:15] as well as a council member. I have to vote to

[3:51:20] invest in this building and invest in our employees

[3:51:25] until we have a plan on where we're gonna go. What if something happens

[3:51:29] in this building? We have to be financial stewards and take

[3:51:33] care and advocate for the employees that they have safe working conditions

[3:51:37] here. And so I would definitely support any amendment

[3:51:42] that allows for repairs to continue and for us to continue

[3:51:46] to explore that. Thank you. And also wishing to speak on

[3:51:50] for or against the amendment by chairman ridley. I do.

[3:51:54] mr. Roth, you recognize for five minutes. Thank you. Um,

[3:51:59] uh, I'm, I'm in support of the motion. Um, I think that,

[3:52:03] um, it's really important, uh, that, that

[3:52:07] we have the opportunity to, um, to

[3:52:12] create a plan for repairs. Uh, I'm concerned that,

[3:52:16] uh, that if we do not allow for a repair plan

[3:52:20] to be thoughtfully introduced, uh, that we will not be

[3:52:24] able to pursue that option. Uh, as

[3:52:28] a result, uh, I'm concerned that there are

[3:52:32] absolutely significant challenges to any relocation

[3:52:36] option that we're talking about. And that, uh, these are

[3:52:41] very complex, uh, problems that are gonna be difficult to achieve.

[3:52:45] and that, uh, potential savings that we're talking about are

[3:52:50] not absolutely guaranteed. Therefore, I think we absolutely

[3:52:54] need to have a, an opportunity to create

[3:52:58] a planned, uh, thoughtful measured,

[3:53:03] uh, action plan for working out, uh, repairs

[3:53:07] and, and, and required renovation to the, to the

[3:53:11] serious systems that, uh, we need, uh, in a

[3:53:15] priority based, uh, approach. Um, I

[3:53:19] think that, uh, if we don't do this, we're going

[3:53:23] to be forced, uh, into, into a very, very difficult

[3:53:28] situation without other alternatives. I think it's poor planning. I think it's

[3:53:32] fiduciarily irresponsible, and I think it's, it's

[3:53:37] a, a lack of, of, uh, sensitivity and respect to our citizens

[3:53:41] if we do not explore an interim, uh,

[3:53:46] situation, which allows us flexibility to, uh, to pursue

[3:53:51] repairs. It, it's, doesn't require any firm amount

[3:53:55] of money. It allows us to look at value added,

[3:53:59] uh, repairs at a, at a strategic, on a strategic process.

[3:54:04] uh, and I, and I think it gives us a lot of opportunities to,

[3:54:08] to retain and maintain this building properly.

[3:54:13] uh, and I would strongly recommend that we vote for the

[3:54:17] amendment, and that we approve a motion that includes that amendment,

[3:54:21] uh, which gives us more alternatives and opportunities to,

[3:54:26] uh, to pursue a, a more concerted, thoughtful, and effective

[3:54:30] plan. Thank you. Anyone else? I'd like to request a record

[3:54:34] vote, please. I'm gonna have a record vote for everything for all of these items.

[3:54:39] so, duly noted. Uh, anyone else wants speak on for against the

[3:54:43] amendment? Mr. Basal? Do, you're recognized for five minutes.

[3:54:47] thank you, mayor. Um, I will support this, uh, motion.

[3:54:52] I believe one of the things that we have, um, got is exhaustive numbers.

[3:54:57] I don't believe that it has gotten as technical as, uh, the, um, uh,

[3:55:01] most critical needs as we've asked for it to be prioritized. I think this is

[3:55:05] absolutely something that we should, um, know before taking a

[3:55:09] vote of this magnitude. Um, I want to just highlight one of the

[3:55:13] statements that was made from our amazing cfo. Uh,

[3:55:17] our goal is to own city hall. Guess what we do?

[3:55:23] so, um, let's do what we can to make right by the city hall

[3:55:27] that we own. That is the people's house. Thank you.

[3:55:32] and also wanna speak on for against the amendment by chairman ridley.

[3:55:37] seeing none. Record votes are gonna be held on all of these. Thank you. Chairman mendelson.

[3:55:41] uh, mad secretary. You can call the role. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when

[3:55:45] I call your name, please state yes, if you in favor? No. If you oppose

[3:55:49] council member west. No. Council member gracie? No.

[3:55:54] council member johnson? No. Council member resendez? No. Council

[3:55:58] member ana? Yes. Council member basel doa. Yes.

[3:56:02] council member blair? No. Council member blackman?

[3:56:08] yes. Council member stewart? No. No.

[3:56:12] sorry. Thank you. Council member roth? Yes.

[3:56:16] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member ridley. Yes.

[3:56:20] deputy mayor prote willis? No. Mayor prote moreno?

[3:56:25] no. Mayor johnson? No. With six.

[3:56:29] voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, we're

[3:56:33] back on item three as moved by mr. West. Okay. Um, mr.

[3:56:38] bazel, for what purpose? I have a motion. What's your motion? I move to

[3:56:42] amend the underlying motion to include, um,

[3:56:47] the price for demolition, the environmental

[3:56:51] impact, and the, um, disposal

[3:56:55] plan to be added to what council member west's original motion

[3:57:00] asks for deliverable. It's

[3:57:04] been moved and seconded. Mr. Basil dua, you're recognized for

[3:57:08] five minutes on your amendment. Thank you. Um, if, if you notice this was

[3:57:12] not to change the, uh, intent of the motion, um,

[3:57:16] it is still a motion to deny, uh, that is on the floor. Um,

[3:57:21] but in the denial that council member west has put on the floor, he's asked for

[3:57:25] some specific deliverables from our city manager. I think that this is

[3:57:29] my last opportunity to try to get some numbers that we have yet

[3:57:33] to have included in any of, uh, the numbers that have been given to us. And that is

[3:57:38] what I believe gonna be a substantial cost, which is the demolition of this, uh,

[3:57:42] building. So, um, if we are going to move ahead with a denial,

[3:57:46] and this doesn't change that materially, uh, but we have also asked for more

[3:57:50] information to make, uh, better and sound decisions on what the next steps of this

[3:57:54] process will bring. I would like it to be exhaustive of all the information.

[3:57:58] and this is something that we've asked for, for several months now. So, uh, I believe that by

[3:58:03] the august 26th date that, um, council

[3:58:07] member west put in his motion, it should be something that, that, uh, the staff

[3:58:11] could accomplish. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Mr. Cena, you recognize for five minutes on

[3:58:15] the amendment by mr. Basel doa, I will support the amendment. The most

[3:58:19] sustainable building is one that's already built. We're working against

[3:58:23] our own carbon goals and our ca plan if we do not include

[3:58:28] this information, this is of concern to me because the materials have

[3:58:32] historically been dumped in district six and eight, and so we need

[3:58:36] to know what the plan is for

[3:58:40] the demolition and environmental assessment.

[3:58:45] how do we know if we have material cost savings when we don't know the demo and environmental

[3:58:49] assessment costs? Crossley tower at the university of cincinnati was estimated

[3:58:53] at $47.3 million. So how can

[3:58:57] I be a prudent overseer of taxpayer dollars without a vision?

[3:59:01] this decision mirrors one that happens every day in district six. Sell your

[3:59:06] land. But where can we move? It's happening in elm thickett, north park, west dallas

[3:59:10] design district in midway hollow. I would also say that

[3:59:14] costs such as demo permits, site cleanup, hauling costs, landfill,

[3:59:18] landfill costs, and dumpster rental are also left out. And we don't know what those costs

[3:59:22] might be. Thank you. Anyone else

[3:59:27] wanna speak on for, against the amendment by mr. Basel? Do aye.

[3:59:32] general menzel you recognize for five minutes. Um, I would like to ask mr.

[3:59:36] baa if he would like to amend his motion or accept, um, an

[3:59:41] amendment to his amendment. It'll have to go through the

[3:59:45] process. Um, okay. I move to amend

[3:59:49] the motion to include how long demolition would take,

[3:59:54] where the, um, material would be dumped,

[3:59:59] the impact on the life of the landfill, assuming it goes to mamos,

[4:00:03] and the cost implication of, of that,

[4:00:08] um, the exact move out costs. I would

[4:00:12] like to understand why there's new furniture

[4:00:17] in the plans for the new building. Instead of using

[4:00:21] the furniture we already have, I'd like a parking analysis for any new

[4:00:25] facility that's both for 9 1 1 and office. And

[4:00:30] I would like to understand the redundancy plan for the nine one one call center

[4:00:35] as part of the report back.

[4:00:56] I'm trying to get a, I'm trying to figure out if the entire motion is in order. I think parts of

[4:01:00] it are, possibly parts of it are not, but I want to get the parliamentarians ruling on

[4:01:04] that before we even go through the process. Let's make sure it's

[4:01:08] in order. Mr. Mayor, I was, I admit

[4:01:13] I didn't quite get every item. Um, most of it seemed to be in order. Some of it seemed

[4:01:17] to be for offsite parking garages, et cetera. But this is the

[4:01:21] motion. The addition to the motion was for the disposition of the city hall

[4:01:25] site, not things outside of city hall.

[4:01:31] if you'd prefer, I'm happy to take off the, um, parking analysis

[4:01:36] and the furniture. It's not a preference, we're just trying to make sure it's, it's within bounds. So

[4:01:41] if you, I'll let you restate the motion in the way you would like to, but it's not

[4:01:45] to satisfy a preference, it's just to make sure it's okay. It's

[4:01:49] proper. So the question is how long I would like to have

[4:01:53] reported back to us with this motion. How long demolition would

[4:01:57] take, where the material would be dumped, the impact on the life

[4:02:01] of the landfill and the cost implications. Um, what the

[4:02:05] move out cost would be, because if we are leaving this building,

[4:02:10] that's fair game. And, um, of course leaving

[4:02:14] this building also means we're leaving 9 1 1 center. So I'd like to understand

[4:02:19] plans for that point of order. I mean,

[4:02:24] the tro stopped the discussion about the move out costs, right? I mean, that's

[4:02:28] the whole problem with this situation is we can't get the move out

[4:02:32] costs. So we're now trying to add that back in to this motion

[4:02:36] for that reason. I think it's actually not quite properly

[4:02:40] still. Okay. Then we'll take another crack at, well, we'll take the 9 1 1 center item out, but we'll do the

[4:02:45] how long demo will take, where it'll be dumped, the impact on the landfill.

[4:02:51] do you believe those are all in order? Sorry.

[4:02:55] say, say what's remaining in the motion and then I'll let the department chair sure.

[4:02:59] how long demolition will take, where the material will be dumped,

[4:03:04] the impact on the life of the landfill and the cost implications to the landfill.

[4:03:14] that's, that's actually an order. So is there a second for that? Second? It's

[4:03:18] been moved and seconded. You reckon for five minutes on your amendment to the amendment by basel, mr.

[4:03:22] basil doa. Okay. So we're on an amendment to the amendment. We can have two pending at, at

[4:03:26] any given time. So we're maxed out on amendments right now. We cognize for five minutes, chairwoman. Sure.

[4:03:30] it's as simple as understanding what all the information is. If you're gonna take

[4:03:35] down this giant building with all the concrete and steel,

[4:03:39] it's gotta go somewhere. I don't know if you guys have visited the landfill, but if

[4:03:43] you haven't, you should. Um, there's limited space,

[4:03:47] limited years. It's very, very costly to,

[4:03:51] um, close a landfill and open a new one. And by the way, you know where

[4:03:55] the new one's planned to be, right next door. So,

[4:04:00] um, all the folks who are advocating for southern dallas as a good

[4:04:04] move of tearing down this building, this building will be closer to you than

[4:04:08] you can imagine. Thank you.

[4:04:17] mr. Ba. Do you recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment?

[4:04:21] thank you. I just to give clarification, I will support this. Uh,

[4:04:25] but I believe it to be somewhat redundant. This is, uh, essentially I think you, you articulated

[4:04:29] maybe clearer, but that was what I, I was intending, um,

[4:04:33] uh, on what it was that I asked for. So I guess with more specificity,

[4:04:37] I'm fine with supporting this. Um, because my intent was

[4:04:42] with I said disposal plan. I would hope that we would be able to know, uh,

[4:04:46] how we're going to accomplish, um, a demolition of this scale. Um,

[4:04:50] and, and I believe that where we would put, uh, the,

[4:04:54] uh, debris is, is absolutely a part of that. Um,

[4:04:58] and so it was beyond just the cost of, uh, so I, I guess to

[4:05:03] provide clarity, I'm fine to support this, but just for the body, that

[4:05:07] was my intent, um, as well, uh, with the, uh, original amendment

[4:05:11] on the floor. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Ms. Ana, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to

[4:05:15] the amendment. Um, I would definitely be supporting, um, in looking

[4:05:19] at just other articles that I found online. So there's probably an estimated 10,567

[4:05:26] trucks that may end up taking debris. Usually concrete

[4:05:30] is either recycled or sent to the landfill. That includes the

[4:05:34] rebar and, um, the other materials. And the majority of those,

[4:05:39] um, recycle for concretes are located in district six and

[4:05:43] district eight. So I feel that this is extremely important for my district,

[4:05:47] um, especially with all of the environmental issues that we have. Thank

[4:05:51] you, ms. Blackman, you recognize for

[4:05:55] five minutes on the amendment to the amendment. Um, thank

[4:05:59] you. My question is related to permitting and, uh, will that

[4:06:03] be also included in the, uh, cost

[4:06:08] estimate and the plan as well for permitting? For di uh, for disposition of

[4:06:12] the concrete?

[4:06:16] when you go through tceq, like, you know, when we dredge right? Rock lake, all that stuff has

[4:06:20] to be basically, um, cleared from tceq

[4:06:24] and there's uh, there's fees that go with it

[4:06:30] and I'm just wanting clarity to know that that will be in the, the plan.

[4:06:44] thank you for the question. Councilwoman, uh, blackman? Um, I'm not a demolition

[4:06:49] expert, neither is anyone on my team. That would be part of what we would

[4:06:53] be asking for, and it would be in our scope. Okay. Just wanted

[4:06:57] to make sure that it was not overlooked. Thank you.

[4:07:07] was that all ms. Blackman then mr. Roth, you recognized for five

[4:07:11] minutes on the amendment to the amendment. Uh, thank you. Um, I,

[4:07:15] I'll support, I would like to support the, the amendment. The amendment.

[4:07:19] um, I do think it's critical that we do understand the,

[4:07:24] the overall impact and cost associated with any kind of

[4:07:28] a dramatic, um, uh, action that would

[4:07:32] be taken in the event that, that this, uh, proceeds. And,

[4:07:36] and I, I'm really distressed over the fact that, uh, we

[4:07:40] are not, uh, considering the, the lesser impact

[4:07:44] of a phased in, uh, potential, um,

[4:07:49] repair and, and thoughtful, uh, preservation of this, of

[4:07:53] this property. Uh, but, and so as a result, I am going to support,

[4:07:57] uh, the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to

[4:08:02] be on for, against the amendment? To the amendment? Seeing none. Record

[4:08:06] votes are being held on everything. So madam secretary, please call the rule. Thank

[4:08:10] you, mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes, if you in favor? No. If you oppose

[4:08:15] council member west. No. Council member gracie?

[4:08:19] no. Council member johnson? No. Council member resendez? Yes.

[4:08:25] council member kaena? Yes. Council member basil doa?

[4:08:29] yes. Council member blair. Council member blackman?

[4:08:35] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member

[4:08:39] roth? Yes. Council member mendelson? Yes.

[4:08:44] council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem willis?

[4:08:49] no. Mayor prote moreno? No.

[4:08:53] mayor johnson? No.

[4:08:59] with seven voting in favor. Eight. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor,

[4:09:04] we're back on the amendment by mr. Basil dua. Chairwoman mendelsohn,

[4:09:08] you're recognized for three minutes. I'd like to move to amend the amendment

[4:09:12] to include, um, a reported, estimated number of

[4:09:16] trucks that would be used to carry away the materials and the impact

[4:09:21] on the roadway.

[4:09:32] that that is a, that is a, what I would consider to be a dilatory motion that,

[4:09:36] that we've just addressed through the last amendment. This very issue. So

[4:09:41] I don't believe there was anything about the roadway in my last amendment. And, um,

[4:09:45] it wasn't about the number of trucks, it was about the, it was about the demolition

[4:09:49] process and the plan and the demolition. Was it not his motion, which

[4:09:54] I don't believe we've considered yet, was about the demolition plan. Mine

[4:09:58] was specifically how long it would take and where it would be dumped and

[4:10:02] the, um, cost implication of the landfill. So this, this particular amendment

[4:10:06] is different. In what way? From the one, this one is the number of trucks it would take

[4:10:11] to carry away the material and the impact on the roadway.

[4:10:18] okay, we'll let this one go. But what I mean by donator

[4:10:22] is when, if we're taking the same subject matter, I'm familiar with subject, the word subject matter. Thank you. Subject matter. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm

[4:10:26] actually the rulings aren't for you. They're for the whole body. So subject matter. Okay,

[4:10:30] subject. That's what we're doing. We're not going to have the same amendments addressing

[4:10:35] the same topics over and over again. So at some point

[4:10:39] they're gonna become out of order. So you recognize for if

[4:10:43] it's seconded for five minutes, you recognize for five minutes.

[4:10:49] well, our residents have said on survey

[4:10:53] after survey, their number one priority is public safety

[4:10:57] and their streets. And when we're talking about, um, council

[4:11:01] member ena said, 10,000 trucks. I've actually seen it with a much higher number.

[4:11:06] but these are very big trucks full of concrete and rebar. They're

[4:11:11] very heavy and they damage the roadway. I've seen this firsthand

[4:11:15] with the silver line. We have streets that were in great condition, that now

[4:11:19] we have to have a roadway plan on how we're gonna fix. So I

[4:11:24] frequently hear that the streets are bad everywhere,

[4:11:28] but can you imagine what they're gonna be from here down to macombs?

[4:11:32] very bad. And I don't think that's a good idea,

[4:11:37] but I definitely wanna know what is that impact? How many are we actually talking about?

[4:11:41] and what is the cost to repair those roads so that our

[4:11:46] residents aren't suffering? So I'd like to know this information.

[4:11:50] I think it's gonna be important for a decision. So I hope that you will also want

[4:11:54] to know this. Thank you, ms. Cade. You recognize for five minutes

[4:11:58] on the amendment to the amendment, I will support the, um, motion, um,

[4:12:02] in the area where some of these companies are located.

[4:12:06] the road has not been made it onto any bonds and

[4:12:11] they are in severe need of repair. We have parkland that is also up in that area.

[4:12:15] so I would definitely support this. So if we do need to include this in a future bond and repair

[4:12:19] those roads. Thank you mr.

[4:12:24] bazel. Do, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to your amendment.

[4:12:28] thank you, mayor. Um, I will, uh, second

[4:12:32] what our city manager mentioned. And I'm, I'm also not a demolition

[4:12:37] expert. And, um, I, I think that I've seen several,

[4:12:41] I what I would say worst case scenarios or, or just,

[4:12:46] um, hypotheticals of what a

[4:12:50] demolition of this scale would look like. And I, I truly do not know what that would

[4:12:54] look like. So I'm asking for genuine information, uh, that does

[4:12:58] not materially change the outcome of what it is that there's

[4:13:02] a clear majority on this council to do. Uh, for

[4:13:06] the, the denial of council members to seek

[4:13:11] more information that doesn't change the outcome of

[4:13:15] what you as a council member are voting for. To me, just speaks to the

[4:13:19] nature of the divisiveness that this issue has ensued on us.

[4:13:23] uh, we, uh, I I'm, I, I know I'm gonna take an l

[4:13:27] today 'cause I think it's pretty clear where there's nine

[4:13:31] in support of doing what is going to be done. But

[4:13:36] as we consider that, I would hope that we would have enough professionalism to give

[4:13:40] a courtesy to each other as colleagues to get the necessary information

[4:13:44] that we believe we need to answer questions that our constituents have come forward

[4:13:48] with. I want to reiterate that this motion, in addition,

[4:13:52] this amendment in addition to the motion, I mean the, uh, amendment

[4:13:57] that I have on the floor, that this has amended both, um,

[4:14:01] offer more information. That's all I'm asking for. And

[4:14:05] it doesn't delay this and it doesn't give it. So I do believe that this is, uh,

[4:14:10] uh, is a part of that horror story that I heard of what this

[4:14:14] could be, uh, a demolition of this scale. And so I would think that it's

[4:14:18] valuable information for us to learn. It does nothing to the ability

[4:14:22] to, uh, continue to push this forward at the rapid pace that, uh,

[4:14:26] my colleagues are already willing to do. But I hope that doesn't mean that we're gonna stifle

[4:14:31] information from coming to, uh, the, the body. Thank you.

[4:14:36] anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment to the amendment?

[4:14:41] seeing none. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you mr. Mayor,

[4:14:46] when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you oppose council member west.

[4:14:51] no. Council member gracie? No. Council member johnson? No.

[4:14:55] council member resendez? No. Council member kaena? Yes. Council

[4:14:59] member basel doa. Yes. Council member blair?

[4:15:03] no. Council member blackman

[4:15:08] is absent when vote taken. Council member stewart?

[4:15:12] no. Council member roth? Yes.

[4:15:16] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy

[4:15:21] mayor pro tem willis? No. Mayor prote moreno?

[4:15:25] no. Mayor johnson? No.

[4:15:32] with five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent vote.

[4:15:36] taken. The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, we're back on the amendment

[4:15:40] by mr. Basil dua. Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment?

[4:15:44] ms. Cini recognized four, three minutes.

[4:15:48] I just wanna thank um, council member basil dua for making the motion.

[4:15:54] district six has dealt with environmental racism for many,

[4:15:58] many years. The president had to declare

[4:16:03] alleged melter a fun site.

[4:16:08] and so environmental issues are near and dear

[4:16:12] to me. It's something that I will fight to fight for, for

[4:16:17] my community because we've had to endure a lot.

[4:16:21] and so this is of great concern to me.

[4:16:25] we have a lot of, um, industrial area in

[4:16:29] district six because of the zoning that has been passed that was also

[4:16:33] in part of environmental racism. And so I plead with you

[4:16:38] to vote for this amendment for the good of

[4:16:42] west dallas for the good of district six. Thank you

[4:16:47] joe mendelson. Thank you. You recognized for three minutes. Thank

[4:16:51] you. Well, I can't imagine anybody's gonna vote against this because who wouldn't

[4:16:55] want to have more information about the demolition? Like

[4:16:59] even if you want to, to, to knock this building down,

[4:17:04] why wouldn't you want more information? That doesn't even make sense.

[4:17:09] there was a point where the city council unanimously me included,

[4:17:14] voted for a ccap 'cause we cared about the environment. This is exactly

[4:17:18] the kind of environmental thing that I cared about. Meaning there will

[4:17:22] be debris in the air, we're all gonna breathe it.

[4:17:26] so this isn't like some conspiracy kind of environmental stuff

[4:17:30] that sometimes we hear about or some meaningless

[4:17:35] certificate program that we're promoting and paying ads for.

[4:17:39] no, this is actually how people will breathe and

[4:17:44] what the impact is. Why would you not wanna know more information? Why

[4:17:48] would you not support this? It doesn't make any sense. So

[4:17:52] when you see people who regularly say, well I have to support something

[4:17:56] like counting the trees, I'm sorry, tree inventory

[4:18:00] for $6.3 million. But then are voting against getting more

[4:18:04] information about what'll happen in the very real instance of what

[4:18:09] if this building is taken down that doesn't make sense? And

[4:18:13] maybe it's just a message that we have the votes to do whatever we want. If that's

[4:18:17] the message, shame on you for not getting all the information and letting the public know it.

[4:18:21] thank you mr. Bazel. Do you recognize for three minutes on

[4:18:26] your amendment? Thank you mayor. Um, I would also like to thank

[4:18:30] you, um, council member. Ena, I think that you and I share a lot

[4:18:34] of the same, um, issues that have plagued our communities for

[4:18:38] a long time. I, uh, truly do, um, believe that

[4:18:42] this is some very I important information for us

[4:18:46] to gather. Again, it doesn't change what, uh, the outcome is, but

[4:18:50] I I, I do want to know, um, to council member mendelssohn's point, you

[4:18:54] know, one of the emails that we all received from someone who does have credentials

[4:18:59] of being an expert in this field, um, gave a layout of what he

[4:19:03] believed to be, um, uh, uh, the demolition of this

[4:19:07] site. And I'm curious because we haven't gotten any information at all

[4:19:11] on it. Um, how accurate that was. Uh, one of, of the lines

[4:19:16] in particular stood out to me and is one of the reasons why I could feel the

[4:19:20] emotion from my colleague in district six. And one of the reasons why environmental

[4:19:24] impact, um, specifically on brown and black communities is something that is passionate,

[4:19:29] uh, that I'm passionate about as well. And that line said that the

[4:19:33] um, debris and the particulate matter that would come

[4:19:37] from a demo of this size and scale would be the equivalent

[4:19:41] of opening a, uh, concrete batch plant in the center of

[4:19:46] downtown dallas. So I'm telling you right now that if this does not materially

[4:19:50] change whether or not this building is coming down, if the wheel is already

[4:19:54] there, I think that one thing we can agree to on both sides

[4:19:59] of this issue, including you all in the green shirts that say yes to downtown, it's

[4:20:03] not saying yes to downtown and not being informed on what we're going to do to impact

[4:20:07] the businesses that are here downtown. So we would need to know

[4:20:12] a little bit more information and I think that that scale is gonna be very helpful. So we

[4:20:16] know how to proceed in the next phase of this process. Um, again,

[4:20:20] I I would, I would hope that this is something, uh, that is just looked at as an information

[4:20:25] exercise and would not be opposed out of spite or politics. Thank you mr.

[4:20:29] mayor. Chairman johnson, you

[4:20:34] recognize for five minutes on the amendment by mr. Basel. Doa. Thank

[4:20:38] you mr. Mayor. I'll take 30 seconds. Um,

[4:20:42] city manager is demolition going on for kay bailey hutchins center? Center right now?

[4:20:50] yes. A portion of the convention center is currently, um, demolition is currently

[4:20:55] underway. Okay. I was just asking 'cause it's downtown and I don't

[4:20:59] remember any of my colleagues asking the same questions. Point of order. Mr. Mayor, what relevance does

[4:21:03] that have to the amendment on the floor? We're talking about demolition,

[4:21:08] aren't we? Yes, totally different building it. I'm

[4:21:12] gonna overrule the point of order that, that's all I have to say. Mr. Mayor.

[4:21:16] demolition is underway right now for kay bailey hutchinson, and I don't remember any of my colleagues

[4:21:21] have any same questions. Thank you. Chairwoman men. Uh,

[4:21:25] actually yeah, we're the same round. So, uh, chairwoman mendelson

[4:21:29] you recognize for one minute. Well, I'll just add this one item that came to mind,

[4:21:34] which is this. We've heard a whole lot of questions about asbestos

[4:21:39] and the asbestos questions have been about the environment and

[4:21:43] about people's health. And right now we're only asking for more

[4:21:47] information about the environment and people's health. Thank you

[4:21:52] ms. Kadana. You recognize for one minute this building is

[4:21:56] different than the convention center. The material and the way it's built is

[4:22:00] extremely different. The cost is

[4:22:04] different. We have not torn down a building like this and

[4:22:08] the materials will most likely end up in district six

[4:22:13] or district eight because that's where the concrete crushing companies are.

[4:22:17] and so I don't think that it's an apples to apples comparison

[4:22:22] for both of these buildings. That's all. Thank you mr.

[4:22:26] bazel dooley. You recognize for one minute on your amendment? Thank you, mayor. It's not apples

[4:22:30] to apples. We haven't been dealing with that now for months. In fact,

[4:22:34] uh, I think that it's very rich to hear from the same source

[4:22:39] such horror stories of what would happen to this building from the asbestos

[4:22:43] and the remediation and what this is going to do to all of the people in the building.

[4:22:48] and we really care about what's happened because of the experience that we've seen

[4:22:52] with the disd schools. But now all of a sudden we're just gonna tear the

[4:22:56] whole building down and we're gonna expose the asbestos to the general public and we don't care about it anymore.

[4:23:01] thank you mr. Mayor. Anyone else wants to speak on

[4:23:05] for against the amendment by mr. Basil duo? Madam secretary, please

[4:23:10] call the roll. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if you in

[4:23:14] favor? No. If you oppose. Council member west. No. Council member gracie?

[4:23:18] nope. Council member johnson? No. Council member resendez? Yes.

[4:23:23] council member ena? Yes. Council member basel doa. Yes.

[4:23:27] council member blair? No. Council member blackman?

[4:23:32] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?

[4:23:37] yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council member ridley?

[4:23:41] yes. Deputy mayor pro timm willis? No. Mayor pro

[4:23:45] timm moreno? No. Mayor johnson?

[4:23:49] no. Wow. Would seven

[4:23:53] voting in favor? Eight. A. Opposed? The motion fails, mr. Mayor.

[4:23:59] okay, we're back on the original motion by

[4:24:03] chairman west. Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the motion

[4:24:07] by mr. West? Seeing none, madam

[4:24:11] secretary, please call the roll. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please

[4:24:15] state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you're opposed. Council member west.

[4:24:20] yes. Council member gracie? Yes. Council member johnson?

[4:24:24] yes. Council member resendez? Yes. Council member kaena?

[4:24:28] no. Council member basel doa. No. Council member

[4:24:33] blair? Yes. Council member blackman? No. Council

[4:24:37] member stewart? Yes. Council member roth?

[4:24:41] no. Council member mendelson? No. Council member ridley

[4:24:46] deputy mayor pro tem willis? Yes. Mayor

[4:24:50] prote moreno. Yes. Mayor johnson? Yes.

[4:24:58] with nine voting in favor. Six. Opposed? The motion passes

[4:25:03] mr. Mayor. Okay. The time is 7:46 pm

[4:25:08] and the special call meeting of the city council is adjourned.

[4:25:12] it's 7:46 pm and the regular,

[4:25:16] we need to switch over. So we'll wait to declare the time it starts,

[4:25:20] but we have a technical switchover to go back to the regular voting

[4:25:24] agenda meeting.

Jun 10, 2026 Special Called City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript