Okay, I am told that we don't have our introductory video this morning, so we're gonna
go right into the meeting. So good morning. Uh, we do have a quorum. Today's
wednesday, june 17th, 2026 times
8:22 am and I called this special call meeting of
the dallas city council. This webinar is being transcribed and
summarized. We'll give it just a minute to make sure the webex is
right. We're
good, I'm told. So now, madam secretary, we can go into our,
the folks who have signed up for open microphone for the special call
meeting. Thank you, mr. Mayor. As you stated, there are several
individuals who have signed up to speak on agenda items one and two.
I'll call those speakers in groups. Speakers, when I call your name,
I ask that you come forward and have a seat on the first three rows
of this intersection and virtual speakers. Um, I ask that
you have your video and audio ready. Also, speakers, you'll be given one
minute to speak. Greg evans,
mark nunley, john gates, rick purdue,
jennifer scripps, trey black, robert walters,
jose avila, son saeed bruce or
melissa lara roland parrish, cynthia michaels,
andrew cola, veronica ado
jerich, daniel campbell, stephanie drinker,
david voss and jessica stewart liny. Greg evans.
greg evans. Greg
evans. It's not. Thank you. Be given. One minute. You may begin.
my name is greg evans. I live at 9 0 3 west greenbrier lane and
I'm a district one resident. My grandfather, wj evans, was a civic
leader and a vice president of the federal reserve bank of dallas. His name
is in the 1921 dedication program of their landmark building on
south akron street. My family has been invested in this city's future
for over a century, and that is exactly why I'm here today. Mayor,
council members and staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak. When
citizens were asked to pass the bonds that built this landmark, they
were told that would serve dallas for generations to come. They trusted that promise
and we are one generation in, and now we're being told to see this building as an
albatross. This council has repeatedly pulled city hall funding from bond
packages most recently in 2024 when $28 million were
removed and reallocated councilman west himself acknowledged last
november that many of whom mayor are still serving to for what purpose?
I beg your pardon. Calling council members out by name.
our rules don't allow for references to count. We're gonna stop your time,
which is almost over, but just for everyone's purpose, um, when we,
uh, you can refer to a district or the representative from a district, but not the actual
council member's name. It's just a, a rule. Understood. My apologies.
last november. Um, that's your time. This city council made that choice.
that's my time. Thank you. Thank you. Mark nunley.
thank you mayor. Members of the council. Uh, my name is mark nunley and
I'm a city of dallas proud resident. I'm a cpa and
I've spent 45 years reading financial statements, building budget, and stress tax
testing projections. Numbers are my language. The case for redeveloping
city hall is as clear as anything I've ever seen. For months, the
opposition has demanded a real apples to apples comparison. So did
I but your own city. Cfo said it on the record last week. That restraining
order filed last week by city council members is preventing the city manager
from obtaining those relocation cost numbers. The very people demanding
a comparison are the ones legally blocking it. These eyes on
the agenda today give the city manager the authority to negotiate with
property owners so we can finally get those numbers. A vote no today does
not protect the process. It continues to obstruct it. Thank you,
john gates. Uh,
good morning, mr. Mayor and council members. My name is john gates and I currently serve as
executive chair at jll. Uh, but I'm here today as a native dallas site
and someone who spent their entire career, uh, focused on all aspects of commercial real
estate and as chair of the assistance council. So today, this council
is responsibility to make decisions about the long-term viability and success of our
downtown. The cbd has been declining for some time, and some recent announcements
really underscore the challenges that we do face. During my time
as a chair of the assistance council, we've worked diligently, uh, on the opportunities
that our central business district holds. We've partnered with downtown dallas inc. Housing
forward, uh, the police department, and of course the city to kick off and
support the safe and the city initiative, which is designed to increase the safety
for both our workforce and residents. And I really believe in the potential of these efforts
and I, I think we're clearly seeing, uh, progress. So to build on that momentum, we need to be visionaries
and take steps to transform the future of what we currently call downtown.
so I urge each, each of you to take this opportunity. That's your time and vote yes on
questions one and two. Thank you. Thank you rick perdue.
good morning. Morning mayor and council members. My name is rick perdue. I'm a media past
chairman of the real estate council, known as trek an organization of 2000 members
across, uh, 600 member companies. Uh, also live here right in
dallas and work here. City of dallas is at the center of the most thriving region in the country,
yet our downtown cores in decline. We've all seen the recent announcements of
at and t neiman marcus comeric and on and on cities we compete with every
day. Like charlotte and nashville have created flourishing urban cores with great connectivity,
and there's no reason that a city as great as dallas should not have a that same energized,
thriving downtown. With this in mind, we have an incredible opportunity ahead of us and it
starts to, with today's agenda items, I encourage you to support both moving
city hall staff out and emergency operations out. As the consultants reports
have made clear significant building systems, operational life safety
challenges, the hundreds of million dollars could be spent elsewhere and better used.
uh, downtown dallas has all the components necessary for success if we can make
this happen. So please support agenda items and let's, uh, create the
downtown we've imagined. Thank you jennifer scripps.
good morning mayor and city council. I'm jennifer scripps, president and ceo of
downtown dallas, inc. Supporting my fifa ambassador shirt because I'll be working in the
parks this afternoon with our team. I'm also here first of all, in
support of both items before you, nobody knows better than you do. The budgetary
pressures being faced with the property tax revenue cap, rising pension and public safety
costs and decade of underfunded facilities across the city in
your districts. We know this is hard, but we trust your leadership to weigh it
carefully. Don't wait. Please authorize these motions to plan
for the future. Your own briefings in recent weeks made the choice clear.
repairing this building and staying at city hall is at minimum hundreds
of millions of dollars in a commitment money that would direct completely di
compete directly with those core services and quality of life amenities
across the city. Leaving city hall for a new downtown location is the
responsible path, and these agreements simply let the city manager and her team do the due diligence
to get it right. I urge you to support these items. Thank you so much.
thank you. Trey black.
good morning, mr. Mayor. Counsel. My name is trey black, ceo
of on target supplies and logistics. And downtown is something that's personal to me.
my grandfather actually worked as a doorman at the baker hotel across the
street where the, uh, at and t headquarters is currently.
and he spent his days opening doors for power people who were
helping shape the future of our city. And he wanted his kids to be a part of those rooms
and they eventually were. So dallas gave my family an opportunity,
uh, that change generations. That's why I care so deeply about the
future of downtown and the decisions we're making today.
the reality is the vote before you is not about choosing a site or approving
a relocation. It's about gathering information to make an informed decision
to move our city forward. Major decisions involving
taxpayer dollars deserve due diligence and facts. If dallas wants answers,
let's do the work necessary to go get 'em. Please continue this process.
that's your time. Gather information, vote for the two items on the agenda. Thank
you. Thank you robert walters.
good morning counsel. Thank you for hearing from us. Um,
I respectfully urge you to vote for agenda items one
and two. Uh, last week and over the past months, you've asked for the best
possible information to make informed side by side
comparisons of the options. Uh, we, your constituents
want you to make those comparisons. Items one and two will
provide additional important information to help you crystallize
the options and make the best decisions. I also implore
each of you to consider every decision and to take every action
with a view towards one aim, and that is to resurrect our city
center. It is inconceivable that our city and
our region will prosper if we allow our core to atrophy
and making the most of precisely where we stand today.
and the most of the acreage surrounding city hall is in that
your time indispensable if we are going to succeed. Thank you for considering my, our
views. Thank you jose avila.
good morning counsel. Jose avila, district two downtown. I know you've seen me
at this podium before and you'll keep seeing me until this body acts with the urgency
our city deserves. Starting with moving city hall out of this dead zone and into one
of the many underutilized buildings already sitting downtown at a time when we
face a 51 billion million budget deficit declining sales tax and potential
cuts to public services by prioritizing 300 million at
best to likely over 1 billion to salvage this building. While our city
struggles to have basic vitality and public services is fiscal negligence
the bigger, this is bigger than one building, it's about responsibility, responsible
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and planning for the future. The actions before you today
don't lock you into a decision. They simply keep the process moving. They allow you to
evaluate options, understand costs, and make a decision grounded in facts, transparency and what's
best for the dallas long term. If we want answers, we must continue to work to produce
them, not block the process. Vote yes on today's items. Say yes to
downtown. That's your time. Constituents for our urban core and for the city. We keep
saying we want. Thank you. Saana. Saeed
saana saeed is not present. Bruce orr,
thank you bruce. Or district 13. A week ago, a divided council decided
not to move forward with city hall repairs, and I thank those whose vote recognize
the cost outweighs its historical value. At the same time, another discussion
about downtown and city hall was going on among hundred city leaders.
a transcript published by d magazine revealed both a brutal honesty about the
challenges ahead and cautious optimism. More unity among city
leaders was identified as a critical need for success. And now today,
the council has a golden opportunity to unify for months. Preservationists
downtown advocates and council members have demanded the same thing, cost for repairs
and restoration of city hall demolition and detailed relocation costs because
all agree that without a side-by-side comparison, no decision will be fully
informed nor transparent. So today, we should expect the
council to come together and vote unanimously to allow the city manager
to get detailed relocation costs to better inform our discussions
and decisions. Thank you. Thank you, melissa. Lara.
good morning mayor, council members and city manager. My name is melissa and I wanna begin
by thanking for last week's vote 96 to keep this process moving forward.
that vote created momentum and I hope we continue building on it today.
it is a momentum to ask questions, momentum to keep exploring opportunities,
momentum to have a real conversation about the future of dallas. Too often we're
watching neighboring cdcs opportunities while dallas hesitates arlington
fort worth frisco. They continue attracting investment major
developments and while we are staying behind, dallas should be setting
the pace, not trying to catch up. Today's vote is not the finish line. It is
the opportunity to continue this conversation to move forward and for growth.
let's make that nine to six vote count and let's keep this momentum going forward.
thank you. And let's continue making dallas what it's meant to be. Thank you
roland parish.
greetings. I'd like to say thank you for it's probably a thankless job. Um,
I'm a businessman, a civic leader and a, uh, have hamburgers stands throughout the
city. Um, we pay, uh, eight to $10 million over the last five
years each year for, uh, real estate and sales taxes. I want you to
understand, I want you to support the, um, the agenda items, but I want to make sure that we have a
broader vision, that we play chess in our checkers. Um,
when we look at, there's been in our lifetime, uh, municipal, urban areas
that have decayed that have come back. Chicago, detroit, detroit brought sports teams back.
chicago did not. There are fortune 500 companies out there that have generation
y and generation z. Those workers want to live in downtown areas.
we should be locked arm in arm with the dallas regional chamber to find fortune 500, fortune
500 companies that wanna come forward. Lastly, one
of the best decisions from this councilman has been dfw airport, a strong economic engine. They
play chess, not checkers. One of our bad decisions was we lost the cowboys. They played
checkers and not chess. That's your time. Let's play chess, not checkers.
thank you cynthia michaels,
I'm speaking on behalf of myself as well as, uh, heritage o cliff.
why is the council here today asking for $3 million u-c-b-r-e? You
already have a contract with them. You've been given real repair costs by zaya
zora in her letter dated to june 9th. Please read it and take it to heart.
if you don't, if you need, why would you not believe zi is numbers? She's worked
for city hall for many years, managed many repairs here at city hall. Does not have a dog
in this hunt like the consultants do. Please, I beg you look at the real numbers
and see what they are compared to what the consultants give. Please vote no becau on
these two agenda items. You don't need 3 million. You see bre to look at the
four buildings and come up with a cost. Thank you andrew.
ola.
good morning. I'd want to ask everyone in this room who believes the
promise that abandoning city hall will spark development in downtown dallas.
why would anyone believe those promises? We know how
this is going to end up in five to 10 years. This building will be
another empty parking lot or worse, an abandoned hulk. Too expensive
to demolish surrounded by chain link fence, a monument
to mismanagement and bad decisions. If you don't believe me, look
at the empty blue wall. A few walks away from here where 200,000 cars
a day drive past where our public art was destroyed. City leadership
didn't pay attention, didn't own up to their mistakes. Don't have a plan to fix it.
all the while the world laughs at us. Please don't fall for it.
this isn't going to end well. Council members will be onto other jobs, will be
left holding the bag. Dallas will be mocked for destroying an iconic building as
ransom for city council. Mistakes and underfunding and lack of vision.
thank you veronica. Aaron duno.
veronica, aaron duno. It's not present.
jed ridge will be virtual.
alright, um, can you all hear me? Hello? Hello. Jurich
district one, I'm democratic social american, north texas. It is time to vote on these
or not voting. These say dallas city hall. And, um,
while is going on, I see our own council members wanting to treat this like a job interview where our third
cities are gonna get hired by some corporation move here. I find that pathetic times
change. Sports franchises look for their next handout. Department stores are thing of the past.
at and t's moved all over the place. There's no appeasing any of these entities, especially where
one of them is owned by genocidal freaks who don't value human life. I see you people at
the horseshoe so eager to get on your knees, ready to pay for big businesses right before yourselves.
there are local business owners that think they will catch the wave. If you sell city hall to some
corporate interest, yet in their unaware that they will be completely priced out,
saving this building won't solve your downtown problem or your budget problem. What at this time to get created
with your resources at a time when guys are in their underwear, mean mugging for weigh in
at the lincoln memorial. It will maintain what we stand for in this city. You want to revive
downtown? Get creative with the locks around city hall and build affordable housing. Get a grocery store
downtown and that's your time. The hands of these entities, businesses will follow where people thank
you. Daniel campbell.
hello. Nice to meet you. Yeah, I believe in the redevelopment and
reimagination of all of downtown, including this building and the surrounding
area. I just think it's a beautiful space, but maybe it could be
reimagined into something else that is better than what we have today.
as one lady pointed out, you look at all these other city centers and how beautiful they
are. I just think we need something like that to draw people in
to dallas. Make it more community oriented. Thank
you stephanie dinka.
as you sit there gloating over the prospect of erasing I am pays legacy. I'm
here to make sure his words are entered into the record. You never quite know
when something that you have planted is going to be harvested. The yield may be once or
recurrent. You may forget that something was planted and then there is suddenly this bloom
called up by circumstances that are completely different. Such blooms can
breach walls and whole epochs. This very moment is one of those
blooms, me standing inside the house pay designed for us
speaking truth to power. A time he both dreamed and feared when
the people of dallas would need to protect themselves. He gave us this monument
to remember how strong we are that our voices matter.
I am pay was a visionary. He will be remembered by generations
for what he created. You'll be remembered for what you destroyed
if you're remembered at all. Thank you. David
voss.
my name's david voss. I live at 6 5 4 6 oreo drive, dallas, texas
in district number two. I've spent considerable time and effort over the
last few months trying to provide accurate information and professional experienced opinions
about why and how to save dallas city hall. My attempts
to insert logic and reason into this debate have found support with six members
of this council. Logic and reason have been ignored by nine members
of this body who are promoting the largest move to disrupt representative
government in this city's history. And now you have the audacity
to take a rpa funds budgeted for city hall repairs,
reallocate them to fund your actions, to abandon and destroy this
building. It appears that you have no shame. I'm gonna
use the rest of my time here to help with that. Shame,
shame, shame, shame,
shame on you. Thank you. Jessica stewart,
lin bay.
good morning. My name is jessica stewart, lin bay district nine.
um, I think what david voss said was so important.
shame is the feeling that we have when we're doing something wrong.
and it's so important if we don't have shame, we
can't learn from our mistakes and we can't refocus and recenter
what's right. And I think shame is something that the people here
that are not listening to their constituents, but listening to the, um,
private sector is an appropriate feeling
that we should all have when we're doing something wrong.
redirect, this is your chance. You have a chance to vote no today and recenter
what's going on right now. The process to abandon dallas city hall is regressive,
destructive and non democrat, non-democratic. It is not based on
our values such as ccap, the dallas comprehensive
environmental and climate action plan. That's your time. Thank you.
thank you. I will now call the next group of speakers. When I call
your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection
and virtual speakers. Please have your audio and video ready. Bruce richardson,
dolores leve soroka. Mike davis,
elena stevens, ed zara,
quinn matthews, carol bell walton, amy tran.
tabatha curel. Sean jensen, jared willis,
anthony cheney, erica cole, sharon shepherd,
sam williams, diane birdwell, karen
muncy, yolanda williams, terrance hudson, and
diana hayes. Bruce richardson,
the great eric johnson regretted that
engineers rarely become political leaders. Engineers
mold science into human advancement. Their standards are
rigorous above all other fields. Lawyers,
engineer words to achieve ends. Judges
are the check upon their work. A boondoggle
is a politically engineered spending without public
benefit. This is kind of a reverse one.
I didn't come to convince you because you are so convinced,
but I warn you, we have only begun. Ultimately,
history will have its say and history will
follow you past your graves. You can count
on it. Truth always prevails.
always. You cannot engineer. That's your time. Truth
away. Thank you. Dolores leve, soroka,
dolores levy soroka, district two. If I had walked into this chamber
today and handed the city of dallas a check for $750 million
with one condition that you could only use it to, to repair
city hall, I believe many of you would still vote to leave
this building. Why? Because there is no, this no longer looks like
an honest evaluation. It looks like a predetermined outcome.
city hall is not the problem. It's an inanimate object. It did not
stop development downtown. It did not drive at and t or the stars
to plano. It has no power to make or break a revitalization
plan. What concerns citizens is a process where the conclusion
seems to come before the analysis and consultants are hired
to justify a decision that appears to have already been made. That is why people
begin to think of a very uncomfortable word. Corruption
investors and developers may have deep pockets. That's your time. But we, the citizens
are in the majority we are watching and we will remember. Thank you.
mike davis.
mike davis. Good morning. Uh, mr. Mayor, members of the city council.
I'm in favor of redeveloping, uh, this property. It's a reinvestment in dallas.
that's what we see our neighbors to the north doing the reinvesting
in their cities. I encourage you and the members of the council to reinvest
in downtown, protect our restaurant, uses our hospitality and
nightlife uses, make those central to how we attract businesses here. How
we attract conventions here and come together. I really do wanna encourage
you, madam city manager. You have the vision, members of the council. You have the power to vote.
let's bring those facts together. Let's get our acts together.
let's come together. I I really want to encourage you all. I've got
friends on both sides of this discussion, mr. Mayor, I encourage you,
bring those friends into the fold as this conversation and this vote moves forward.
allow their voices to be heard. Allow the voters to be heard. You're doing the
right thing. Let's move forward with this redevelopment. Thank you. Thank you.
elena stevens.
greetings. I'm elena stevens. Um, district one, a lifelong
citizen of dallas. After listening for hours last
wednesday, hearing city staff and consultants show numbers and
graphs indicating that repair of city hall is just too expensive
and not, and, and that city hall itself is not the highest and best
used of the soil beneath it. I do not agree.
this building is an architectural marvel, an icon representing
dallas worldwide. We need a
leader with a vision to incorporate this city hall into the life
of downtown. The life around the new convention center. Projected to
be a huge generator of money and energy for this part of downtown.
I ask you today to listen to all your neighbors. I
ask you to slow down until you can make a case that has real
evidence supporting a navigable path for
I am paid. That's your time. City hall. Thank you.
ed zara.
ed zara. District 14. How did the lease become by
at last wednesday special call meeting jack ireland went through his repair presentation,
which was full of questionable data. I gave my speech about the advantages
for dallas taxpayers to keep city hall and make phase repairs versus
leasing, which would cost us over 157 million every 10 years with
an escalating triple net lease. The next day. Ireland stated every
option that we're looking at would be if we do go with a lease, it would be to
lease the own option. Our goal is to own city hall, not to lease city hall.
so the good old bait and switch leasing was never an option. But purchasing another 50-year-old
building is a financial disaster in the making. Your leadership failed
dallas by not taking care of city hall for the past 48 years.
do you think we're really dumb enough to believe that purchasing another old
building and bulldozing I pays people house will change your modus operandi.
stop your madness. That's your time. Save city hall. Thank you.
quinn matthews
mayor council. The sea of blue. You see here,
no one paid us, no one gave us green shirts. No one wr wrote
talking points for us. I keep hearing about stakeholders that
the stakeholders should have a say. We the people are the
stakeholders. That's correct. How many have responded to our message to save
city hall? I can tell you just from my small part in this, that
we have had over 300,000, 300,000
positive responses to our messages online. Tens of thousands
have said yes, this is an over, we overwhelmingly
wanna save city hall. Finally, this is an opportunity.
do something for downtown. Do something for downtown by
investing in it. Investing in city hall in three words.
I will close with stop this madness. Thank
you. Carol bell walton.
I'm going to read a portion of a letter from the dallas city count, uh, the
dallas city hall employees and ex-employees because you never asked them.
dear kent mayor and council members, on behalf of hundreds of current
and former city of dallas employees, we are writing to urge you to restore dallas
city hall. We keep reading in the news that you are doing
this for us, yet we've never been asked.
what we are asking of you is to lead our city in
a plan to restore both downtown and dallas city hall.
not to abandon who we are, to seek our opinions,
seek our opinions about how to best restore and beautify
this space. We are asking you to choose dallas
r dallas. This is from the city of dallas employees. I will
be sending you this email. It has been scrubbed of metadata. They are scared
of you and you and your retaliation, but you will get their message.
thank you. Amy tran.
amy tran. After more than a sec, after more
than a decade living in dallas, I can say that city hall is where I've been most civically engaged.
I've marched for black lives matter, attended rallies for free. Palestine brought my
18 month old daughter to speak at city hall meetings. Brought my infant son to advocate against
a partnership between bpd and ice. City hall is not an obsolete
bu building, and it's a place where dallas residents come to civically engage in our
local politics. It's a place where I'm teaching and raising my children to advocate for local, state
and global issues. Last night I told my husband that I'd speak, uh, today
and my 3-year-old daughter immediately interjected that, mommy, I'm coming with
you. As an engaged resident of dallas, I want to save city hall, preserve this
building and see a future where my children come to advocate on behalf of our community in
their own thank you. Thank you.
tabatha curel,
tam cu. It's not present.
sean jensen,
sean jensen, district 11. Sean jensen, district 11. I
ask with deep respect, what can $3 million bias right now?
a da compliance with overhauled restrooms, critical hvac repairs,
security expansion, working fire suppression, leak repairs and water mitigation.
all of it. Or earnest money to keep buildings empty. Comparative
studies showing us just how much those buildings fail to meet our needs and
contracts ready to sign before voters even know what's happening.
unless we decide to abandon our iconic home, it's $3 million spent
joining the flight from our core. We don't need contracts in august, but
downtown needs this anchor. Dallas needs this symbol. So let's
take a beat. Let your constituents catch up. This is a problem
of our own making, but it's not too late to become good stewards of our city's home
and restore the public trust. I urge you to vote. No
thank you. Jared willis.
jared willis is not present.
anthony cheney.
anthony cheney. It's not present.
erica cole.
hi, I'm erica cole. I have some questions for y'all and I'm
not getting any answers. We've been, we haven't found the details
about where we're gonna move. How much is it gonna cost?
we need an estimate. It may be more expensive than tearing
down city hall and, um, I,
uh, so we don't know where we're moving, how much it would cost.
the real cost. Bringing up the, uh,
tearing up the I am building up to date is
and the cost of moving. I hear the cost of moving. Um, 9 1 1
is still a very delicate and expensive
project and tearing down the tons of cement
bricks and the qua quantity of dumping
the debris will cost millions itself. Why are we not learning? Why
do we not know? We are just more interested in tearing down this
building. That's your time than to find out the price of keeping it.
thank you. Sharon shepherd.
sharon shepherd. It's not present. Sam williams.
tim williams is virtual.
mr. Williams. Okay, I'll move on.
diane birdwell here again.
let's see it though. Just show my face this time. They didn't do that last time, but
it helped me, uh, get, uh, seven and a half thousand views
on facebook, especially with the mayor's, uh, grimacing and faces
that he made when I was speaking. I'm diane birdwell, district seven, and maybe I'll
run for that after bezel to his termed out because someone else needs
to carry on that torch. I know that the green shirts may be getting
paid for their advocacy, but maybe not, but I know they're getting
played. They're getting played. These young people, y'all have no idea
how much you're being played right now by the oligarchy for the anti city
hall nine. What's the bums rush? What is the geek at the carnival
that y'all have to be wait three to six months for those who
say it's the best thing to do. Show us the numbers. When someone quotes $1.4 billion,
show me the money. Show me where your statistics come from.
show me what you've got. Quip using south dallas
as an excuse. I'll say it again. If the investors and the movers and shakers
wanted south dallas to succeed, they'd live there. They'd work there and they'd invest there, but they haven't.
it's a your time. It's a game. And this guy is way too aggressive. Thank you.
karen muncy . Karen
muncie. Karen muncy, 26 14 lake forest court, district nine.
the rule of law isn't dead yet. Thanks to six council members, including
mine. I've lived in dallas since 1957 and I've
watched this city's elected representatives consistently
refuse to do the grownup work of maintenance and stewardship
in favor of formative development of sports, facilities and entertainment
fly traps. Thank you mark. Re the folks pushing to so desperately to wipe
out our city hall, need to stop playing realtor and do the work
elected to do by the citizens of dallas. Save the heart
of our civic life. Vote no on both items, please.
thank you. Yolanda williams.
yolanda williams.
okay, ms. Williams. I will move on.
thank you. It's nine o'clock. I'm here.
hello. Okay, ms. Williams, you may continue.
okay. I guess I'm gonna have to sign up every week to speak on this.
it, this is really, really getting frustrated because while I understand
everyone wants to save city hall, everyone thinks, you know, the building is
important. While I respect the work that the artists have done, but we have other
business that we need to take her in the city. There have been historical
buildings torn down. There have been historical residents torn down
and we must move on with city hall. I don't understand
why everyone keeps wanting to save a building. So you're telling me
9 1 1 is not important. Those of us who rely
on nine one one and call 9 1 1, you're telling me staff is
not important. We found out that some of our recreation centers, the senior citizen,
were on the chopping block because we don't have money, we don't have funding
or anything. And this has to stop with the council members that's on social
media putting all this false information out. That's your
time. I don't what's important about this building. Demolish city hall. That's
your time. Thank you. Thank you ms. Mayor. Alright, well
we're going to now, uh, recess the special call meeting.
it's 9:01 am and we will plan to reconvene
in 30 minutes or so. Let's say, call it nine 30. Um, and we
will now call to order our regular agenda meeting. So we'll need
to switch over the webex. So give us just one moment.
okay. The webex is switched over so we can reconvene the special call meeting.
it's 9:32 am m secretary. We can pick up with our open microphone speakers
again. Thank you mr. Mayor.
if you allow my assistant to start up, it's moving a little slow.
thank you mr. Mayor terrance hudson. We
can't hear the meeting.
one, one second. Mr. Hudson. We'll get someone to raise that podium for you.
you may begin. All right. Good morning,
city council. Mayor. My name is terrence. I live in district
13, bickery midtown of dallas. Uh, I just came
here to say that city hall is for everyone, not just me, not
just for downtown, not just for uptown, it's for everybody. Um,
it, you know, it brought tourism and movies and
a lot of good things to dallas and it was, it'll be sad to see it go.
um, as I was saying, city hall is for all of us, not for money, hungry driven,
power hungry developers and a long, and as a long time east dallas resident.
and, um, the class of 2010. Brian adams high school.
um, I wanna say for many more. I want it to stay for many more generations
to come. We owe our respect and gratitude to im pay by keeping
and renovating this building. Like what happened with the statler hilton or
the lorenzo and the cedars. Even the cotton bowling fair park. It's the best thing
to do. That's your time. Thank you.
diana hayes.
diana hayes is not present.
I will call the names of the next group of speakers. Um, the
first few rows of this intersection is full. So I will just ask that you would come forward and be
ready when I call your name
cindy weatherall. When
hardy haberman anna sine has canceled.
jessica ramirez. Catherine garra,
rawlins gilliland, sidney walker. Her
joan gola, melanie vanlandingham,
ronnie mees, adam lamont, mckayla
watkins, damien leveque.
matthew bach, donna
denson, john lin bay, kevin pfeiffer,
alicia quinton's, catherine garrison, jessica sanchez.
sanford denison, alex scott, kristen atwell
and erica huddle huddleston.
cindy weatherall.
cindy weatherall is not present.
hardy haberman.
hardy haberman is not present.
anna sine has canceled. Jessica ramirez
will be virtual. Yes. Hello. I'm
here. Mr. Ramirez, your
audio, I believe it's muted
side in district eight. Um, hello.
hello. We can hear you. You may continue.
I can't hear anything. We can hear you
ms. Ramirez. I'll come back.
catherine garra.
we will be virtual. Good morning. Okay. I'm catherine guerra. The most sustainable building is the
one that's already built is a quote by the architect carl el lafonte. From an environmental
perspective, demolishing dallas city hall causes us to lose the embodied carbon.
the emissions generated from extracting manufacturing and transporting its original materials. And
when it is demolished, that massive carbon investment is effectively lost.
um, it, it requires, uh, uh, replacing, uh, all of
those, uh, materials. Um, our carbon goals are net zero by 2050,
so we're gonna have to figure out how to negate that if you move forward today. Demolition
of a concrete building also, um, has its own issues,
especially when the building is of this significant size. We're going to have to
mitigate air pollution in particulate matter for our downtown neighbors. But there's no guarantee that leaving
dallas city hall will do anything for downtown. No guarantee that taxpayers will ever get
anything for the loss of our of city hall. There's not a silver bullet that will
save or revitalize downtown. And lastly, as we look to the future, please consider
why taxpayers would ever agree to fund another dallas city hall when city leaders that's
your time and present have demonstrated the inability to care for the one we that's your time.
thank you.
we will go back to speaker nine. Sauna saeed.
good morning, mayor and council. I serve as president of the farmer's market stakeholders
association and downtown is our home. Many of
us chose to live here because we believed in what downtown could become.
this is the most excited I have seen my neighborhood
reimagining this dead zone by our homes. Talks about multimodal
connection, links to other neighborhoods, the katy trail loop, high speed rail, street
cars, density with people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.
the downtown we envision is a destination, but the story of
too many places in downtown has become big ideas, unfinished
plans and opportunities that slipped away. You
are in a position to change this city for generations.
we are tired of talking about possibilities. Show
us that dallas still has the courage to do great things. Thank you.
thank you. We will now go back to speaker 47. Rawlin. Gilland,
sorry.
proud district five. By
now. My sense is that abandoning this building is a sadly foregone conclusion.
so here is my eulogy. I believe with all
my heart that 35 years from now there will be books with photographs
of amazing, unique, 21st century architectural
marvels. One of a kind iconoclastic buildings
built in the heyday of masters.
of course this building will be prominently featured since it looks like no other building
anywhere, ever before or since. It will be seen as an
inscrutable tragedy that people willingly let that building die.
as I said before, the first time I spoke, you cannot unloose
what is forever lost. Remember that? That's your time.
thank you sidney walker.
I called you guys out once before for betraying the taxpayers
of this city and you continue to betray us with your
trumped up numbers for complete restoration to commercial
grade, a real estate standards for a government building
you won't betray your benefactors. Who will benefit from thel
this building for a so-called dead zone because of investment
in parking lots that have been here since the sixties and the seventies.
shame on y'all for betraying us one more time. And your
numbers to move. We expect them to be the equivalent of
$2 to justify you getting rid of this
daggum building. Thank you. Jones gola.
thank you. Good morning. Thank you for your
undivided attention. My name is jones. I'm 11 years old and I live
in dallas district 10. I am here today to ask you to save
our city hall from demolition by voting no for the two resolutions on
today's agenda. I learned that mr. Pe designed our city
with a specific intent. The front leans forward at a 34 degree
angle. This angle is not just a cool design trick. It was powerful symbolism.
the building slants outward to literally reach out and embrace the public square.
it was designed to look like the people of dallas are the foundation and the
government is leaning toward forward to listen to us, protect us, and
shelter us. People travel from all over the world to see.
I pays work like the glass pyramid at the louv museum
in paris. But right here in texas, we have our own piece of his
genius, including city hall. It's the heart of our community. If we
tear this down, that's your time. Thank you for your time. And thank you for
listening to the youth of dallas. Thank you
melanie vanlandingham.
do not abandon the structurally sound safe, world renowned,
completely paid for city hall. This is not a side
by side comparison. You already voted against repairing what we own.
you already voted against knowing environmental impacts and demolition costs.
you don't wanna know. Dallas residents want you to save city hall
and stop the rigged process lies predetermined
outcomes and fake cost. Testaments stop violating court orders.
the city charter meeting notices, voting procedures, state law,
your oaths of office and the public trust, especially
if the city is broke. Vote no against relocation actions.
instead spend the federal funds. We have to prepare what we
own. Address budget shortfalls before you spend another
dime, before you take grossly irresponsible actions, break
the shackles of improper influence, do the right thing. That's your
time. And save city hall. Thank you
ronnie mees.
good afternoon mayor johnson. How you doing? Ronnie me west dallas, texas. Uh,
wanted to go into uh, the issue with the city hall,
but I don't want to ruin the young people's, uh, idea of what they've
been already trained. What I'm asking is why don't you engage the people you're actually
applauding and taking pictures with and have them and the voters and the other
public, uh, people here in the city of dallas vote on this
issue and take that responsibility and that away from you guys. You
know, not to take you know your vision away 'cause there is none. But
to put it back in the hands of the people that put y'all in the office. Thank
you. Thank you adam lamont.
adam lamont is not virtual, not in the
audience, not present. Mckayla watkins
mikayla watkins of district two one could argue that our advocacy
is in vain as we argue our points to individuals whose minds are already made up, especially
if the checks have already cleared. However, I would be remiss if I did not point
out a few inconsistencies when we, your constituents ask for facts
and figures, but were provided none. It should have brought a halt to last week's vote.
how sensible is it to vote today on exploratory measures that should have been pursued
at the forefront of this debacle? As I stated last week, concepts
of a plan will not suffice from my great city. This underdeveloped
plan of yours does not consider logic, rationale or the needs of our own unhoused,
brothers and sisters in this area with whispers that our voices don't matter because
the decision has already been made. I respectfully employ you to consider your
legacies and the lack of integrity on display. Thank you.
thank you. Damien leve. Damien
levek is not online, not in the audience.
it's not present. Matthew bach.
good morning. Matthew bach, district 11. As a 30 5-year-old
resident of dallas, I strongly oppose the demolition of dallas city hall.
I personally admire the dramatic canted facade of city
hall. It sets our skyline apart and reflects a bold era
of ambition and forward thinking design in our city's history.
but city hall is more than just a building itself. It's where people show up, speak
out, engage. That kind of civic presence
isn't easy to recreate somewhere else. I'm stunned
that some of our city leaders would consider discarding one of our most
significant civic institutions simply to monetize the land.
by that logic, we might as well sell the arboretum, the zoo
fair park, another cherished dallas assets. Whenever a
profitable offer comes along, city hall is not just a
building, it's sacred ground in a civic sense. That your time.
thank you. Thank you donna denison.
good, good morning coun, uh, mayor and council members. I'm here as a 70-year-old
resident of dallas to ask you to vote no on items one and two.
I'm asking for transparency for this rush to the decision
to move out of city hall and relocate. I'm asking for transparency
for the true cost of repairing city hall consultants reported
that this solid iconic building will stand for another 200, 250 years.
it's in a class by itself. Abandoning city hall
is not the silver bullet which will revitalize downtown dallas.
please vote no. Please don't vote. To abandon this
iconic landmark building which im pay considered one of his top
four or five projects of his lifetime. Thank you. Thank you.
john lin bay dallas,
native district nine, formally districts
one and 14. The majority of this council represents the private sector,
not the people of dallas. This is not only about preserving a
building, it's about preserving public trust. The concern is not
whether dallas should evolve. It's whether decisions of this scale are
being made with enough transparency, enough public input, and enough
complete information before moving toward demolition or redevelopment.
residents deserve clear side-by-side comparisons of repair, replacement,
demolition, environmental impact, and long-term public value. Too many dallas
residents feel this process has moved too quickly and without sufficient independent
review. I ask the mayor, the city manager and council to
reconsider the current path. Not because change is wrong, but
because stewardship matters. Open the process.
invite independent experts. Bring in the creativity
and talent of dallas residents before making an irreversible
decision. That's your thank you kevin pifer.
thank you mayor kevin pfeiffer. District one, we the people.
respectfully. How and where does the city council expect
resource funds for the necessary rent for the next 500 years? For the city
staff to perform their duties and which city services will
need to be vacated to find those funds. And who will be paying
to upgrade and retrofit the interior spaces of those office buildings?
where are those funds coming from? Listening skills should be mandatory
and paramount for any council member. Basic understanding of budget
and finance should also be mandatory requirements.
discarding a building simply because the council is in a rush
to not take the time to understand what it needs to be repaired is not
the premium level of stewardship and leadership that is required.
please vote to use the $25 million arpa funds that are
available. Vote no save. City hall. Thank you.
alicia quinton's. It's not
virtual. Not in the audience. Not present. Catherine garrison.
I am here. I am here. Alicia here. Okay.
thank you. My apologies. You may be. You may continue.
yes. Thank you. My name is alicia lincon. I'm a 35 year resident
of . 6 3 4. I've been to countless meetings at
city hall, served on task forces missions, attended meetings
with city staff at b hall each visit. I have a sense of civic pride
and amazement at this building, but ima design building.
recently I've heard some real estate consultants hired by the city of dallas. So
the current city hall location does not have adequate public transit or
amenities such as restaurants that would be attracted to employees
and visitors to city hall. Blame for this. I ask.
the current city hall was planned over 50 years ago. There must have been a
master plan within these years and time to implement
economic development has been a driving force for business at city hall. So why has
the area around city hall been so neglected? Dart was planned in the
early 1990s. Why would city hall left out of the plan's route?
can you can then consider as in this planning stage right now? That's your time. Why not
take the thank you. Thank you
catherine garrison.
I'm one of the lucky ones. I own my house outright.
if someone came up to me and said, oh kathy, we're gonna take your land
and your house and you're moving, you're paying to move, you're
gonna lease or buy somewhere, but we don't know where you're paying
for it. I'd tell them they were crazy.
city hall is our house. It's paid
for and it's the crown jewel of dallas. Past leaders
and city staff have given us the police and fire pension fiasco.
the $60 million trinity east lawsuit valued
engineered pedestrian bridges $256 million. Trinity
toll road fiasco of which 81 million is unaccounted for
the 180 million trinity golf course. I urge you not to
follow previous bad decisions with new ones. Vote no and
save city hall. Thank you. Jessica sanchez.
jessica sanchez is not virtual.
none in the audience not present. Sanford denison
. Sanford. Denison? Yes. Thank you.
sanford. Denison. 6 2 3 4 prospect avenue, dallas, texas
district for first. Dallas is a city that has a unique fortune
of having a number of imp design buildings. Among them this city
hall, it will be everlast shame of dallas, which we left this iconic
public and cultural building called wrecking ball. If we
tear down city hall, which was designed by to last well
into the next century, if not longer, what
lives vacant decay and eyesore anchoring the south side
of downtown and staying city. And,
and the site will come yet another parking lot,
most likely never to be dealt in the near
future. No real thought has been given to the cops, demolishing the structure.
and who will for the tear down? It's gonna be us, nor has
any thought been given to the master. That's your time. Thank you.
oh, no. Thank you alex. Scott.
good morning y'all. Alex scott, 64 72 trammell drive. I'm
mean neighbor in district nine. Um, I'm coming up here a lot calmer today, y'all.
um, so we have 50 seconds to kind of talk about
my, my heed for y'all as you head into these
closed sessions and as you head into this major next step. 'cause
I think everyone here can agree that like this is a thing that's going down in history. Like
people are gonna be talking about this, which I think is really fascinating. And
so when we talk about history, it's important to understand the
challenges that we faced, which this time last year, our
city manager released an after action report for the stem and center,
which was one of the worst real estate property purchases in municipal
history. And we spent $43 million on that building because
we didn't do the proper, you know, strategic thinking that all we needed was an application,
right? All we needed was a phone app. And we were so rushed to
do things. That's your time that we didn't think and sit. And so thank you. That's
my heed for y'all as you head into this week to do some proper discernment. Thank you.
thank you. Kristen atwell.
hi kristen atwell. The idea being presented, that development
of a vibrant downtown city core is dependent on the
abandonment and demolition of our city hall. Is misleading at
best and deceptive at worst. The opposite has
been beautifully presented by the visionary students of utas kappa
program. For example, it is abundantly clear that the majority of
citizens in dallas want to save city hall, even say
yes. People in the green shirts admitted they did not want to
tear down city hall when asked. It is also
abundantly clear that the expert answers have been in front of you for months. Yet you
are contorting yourselves to ignore them in favor of presenting trumped up scare
tactics. The irony is not lost on us. That a
building visioned and constructed as a symbolic recovery from the disgrace
our city faced in 1963 is now ushering us to the same level
of international disgrace today. The world that your time is indeed
watching. Do the right thing. Repair city hall. That's time. Have the vision to develop
the southern sector. Thank you erica
huddleston.
good morning. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm in district 14.
this building is a masterpiece and architects understand the technical
difficulties of creating it, these form work. But we're being overrun by
a waterfall, a financial waterfall. So I
urge you here is the precedent from fort worth's new town hall.
city hall that is being quoted, but it's different than ours.
fort worth's former hall was a east coast, designed edward durrell stone brutalist
building from the seventies. Sound familiar? 2.5 acres.
in 2020 they did a deal. They bought 11.9
acres. The former pier one
building built in 2004
are acreage 11.8 acres.
what will you do? Will you trade it for a building downtown with
no land? That your every text and note. That's your time.
thank you. Before I call the final group of speakers, we will
go back to speaker 45. Jessica ramirez. Ms. Ramirez,
yes. Hello. Sorry about that earlier. The tech issues. But my name is jessica ramirez.
I'm in district eight. I'm in an area where my library has been shut down since
january. Um, and our parks and police have received
the biggest bond. Um, and so now we're looking at tearing down
a monumental building, a public building. And so because
of the bad maintenance, bad due diligence, um, and for the most part,
you guys, you will be not remembered for this, but voted out for
this and somebody else will sit in that seat. And, um, if I will say this real
quick and for translation, don't be a sellout.
thank you. Thank you.
I'll now call the final group of speakers
and when I call your name, just be prepared to come forward, um,
when I come back to your name and also virtual speakers. Please have your video and
audio ready. Sarah mccarty, john putnam,
paul simmons, noris soto, christina hahn,
peter young, lucy billingsley, author, santa
maria, jim lake, amanda moreno lake, christopher
weis, simon matthew, nicholas mclean.
sean todd, dawn dod, andrew
ter, john eichman, alex michaels,
peyton jackson, roseanne mills, matthew jacobs,
jorge cruz s and zaida ra
sarah mccarty is virtual.
hi. You may continue.
okay. Hi. Good morning. I'm katie. 14,000 noelle road district
11. Your constituents are upset and having trouble keeping up with what's going
on. Even if you're closely following the issue of city hall in the future of downtown.
it's incredibly confusing because some of the puzzle pieces are wrong and some are missing.
we haven't seen costs to leave city hall rent demolition.
we haven't talked about what would happen to the efficiency of essential government services if
they were splintered into different buildings or brought elsewhere. We also haven't
talked about how this would affect dallas site's access to these services. I could go
on this whole process begs the question, why are we rushing? We all
want you to invest in and say yes to downtown. I just see no reason why
we should forfeit our owned purpose-built landmark house of government to do
that when it's not necessary. It was an investment made less than 50 years
ago by the people of dallas. We own it. We trusted it in your hands. It's
an asset we should protect. Leaving city hall is a false brush choice.
please vote no on items one and two. Thank you. Thank you.
if I called your name in this final group, please feel, um, please come
forward and have a seat in these first three rows of the center section.
john putnam. Hi, I am john putnam
from district 10. Um, dallas county is number one in the country for
ice. Detainments without due process since trump's second term began yet. Instead of protecting
your residents, good families from having their rights and dignity stolen from them by state police.
this body focuses on the short work of an incredible immigrant. I am pay and putting hundreds
of millions of dollars towards dystopian surveillance technology in a police training
facility. Nobody's asking for the city aids ice by allowing deportation flights,
um, and flights attend. Internment camps occurred undeterred at love field when
the texas observer asked the city for comet and told them to reach out to dhs. So
dhs is now an extension of the city that speaks for activities on
its property that is acceptable. Not signing 2 87
g was not enough. His ice still acts on deterred on city property around the city. Stop
colluding with ice. Save city hall, save love. Thank you.
thank you. Paul simmons.
paul simmons not present,
nor soto.
my name is nora soto. I live in district four. If you're not familiar,
we have the dallas doge district member who is looking to audit
medicaid of all things. I actually didn't sign up to speak on the city hall subject
today. I signed up to speak on the budget, but, uh,
I assume that the city sec city secretary and their staff
is overworked and underpaid just like everybody else here, except for
the council members, of course. Uh, although the,
uh, city hall issue is also a budget issue because for years the
misappropriation of funds have contributed to this problem, um, that
also could just be manufactured as well.
so, uh, I don't really have anything else to add to
the city hall issue. Everyone has said what they
feel and what is right that you know, you guys are, um,
unilaterally deciding something that should be in the hands of the people. That's your time. And
I want to dispel this belief that if this money doesn't go, that's to the city hall, it's gonna go
to us. It's not gonna go to us, it's gonna go to the cups.
christina hahn,
arts and culture are the defining lifeblood of a city. It's how we are seen
and known to the rest of the world. Im pays. City hall is not only
a landmark that reminds us about the contributions of asian americans to north texas,
where we're the fastest growing population, but also social,
cultural, and civic infrastructure that serves the needs of the people of dallas.
from hosting public art activations that delight generations of dallasite
to becoming a place of gathering for student photographers to even acting as the
space in which a young rising filmmaker can build his world in our
generation of dallasite, see and experience the value of our great city
hall, we cherish our legacy and seek to build with it the truth
that city hall is publicly owned by the people and for the use of everyday dallasite
should not be taken lightly in the hands of private developers. What was
once a place for the public to gather, to express themselves, to be seen is no longer
guaranteed. We should not be blinded by short term profit over long term
legacy. Your thank you. Thank you, peter young.
peter young, it's not present. Lucy billingsley
slate.
lucy billingsley, 1722. Ruth street. City
hall, as we know, has been a very poorly functioning building for a long
time. It's inefficient and it's demoralizing
to the employees. Repotting yourself in a different
location will boost morale, increased productivity, and enhance
results. Downtown is a much bigger problem
and it's been sliding for so long. We need bold leadership
to revive downtown. We need you to lead by example,
help fill some vacant space, bring energy and people to the
restaurants, and be ready to make more bold decisions as we
increase that financial base and then turn this area into a viable
economic district. I appreciate that. Let's let actions speak louder
than words. Thank you. Thank you, author santa maria.
good morning, mayor and council members. Today's vote should not be treated as
a final decision on the future of city hall. It is a decision about
whether dallas is willing to keep doing the work necessary to make a responsible
decision. This site involves major taxpayer dollars,
one of the city's most important public assets and choices that will
affect dallas for decades. This means we need real information,
costs, options, trade-offs, operational needs, redevelopment,
potential, and long-term taxpayer value. Stopping the
process now does not give dallas answers. It prevents the city
from getting them. If repurposing the site creates the
greatest public value, we should have the information properly vetted to make a
decision on that. We should not make this decision based on fear, pressure, or
incomplete, incomplete information. I urge you to vote yes to keep this
process moving. Follow the facts and give dallas the opportunity to fully
evaluate that your time is best for its taxpayers. Thank you, jim lake.
good morning, mayor and city council members. My name is jim lake
and I work and live in, uh, oak cliff. As someone who has spent a career
evaluating investments, I can tell you the worst decision is making
a major commitment without fully understanding your options. That's why
today's action is so important. This site is one of the most
valuable public assets in dallas. Before you make a long-term decision, city
leaders need to understand the opportunities, costs, and trade-offs associated
with every available path. And that's exactly what the votes today
would permit. The work underway today is helping the city evaluate options,
analyze costs, and gather all the data necessary to make the best decision
for taxpayers and to activate our city's core by creating a
destination rather than a concrete barrier. I encourage you
to continue the process, continue, gather, gathering information, and
say yes to downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda moreno
lake. Good morning. My name is amanda moreno lake.
I'm a business owner and a resident of district one. First, I
wanna take the time to thank the city manager and the city staff for their hard
work. As a businesswoman, I have learned that major
decisions should be based on facts and not emotions. Before committing
significant resources, you gather information, you understand the
cost, you evaluate the risk, and you carefully examine the
opportunities. Over the several weeks, many have asked for more
information about the future of city hall. This vote provides
the city exactly that good leadership requires full
understanding of the choices before making long-term
commitments. I encourage you to please move this process forward
and thank you very much. Thank you, city manager. We appreciate your hard work.
thank you. Christopher weiss,
the good morning mayor. City manager. City council members christopher weiss,
1419 griffin street, east southern district resident in district two,
and the business center in the cbd. Um, so imit, I'm a geek for
architecture. I would love to see this building saved and being used as part of the future of the city.
uh, I do wanna ask everyone who here in the hall, green or blue, would
like to see all the information gathered and brought together. Please raise your hands.
everyone wants all the information. I implore people here.
we need that information put together. We need a true comparative evaluation of the options for ccb
hall. No moving of goalposts, no pulling of funds from their budgets.
just true equal evaluation. Second, make this a bond referendum.
this needs to go to a vote. We've done this for other issues, including authorizing this city
hall. Let's do it again. Bring it to a vote of the people. Thank
you for your time. Thank you, simon. Matthew.
simon, matthew. I have some here.
okay. Uh, dallas should use the availables public capital to stabilize
the civic asset. We already own, not russian to relocation. Before the city
has proven that moving is the better deal. Arpa funds can be used to
help address mr. Matthew. I'm sorry, your video is not displaying.
okay, you may continue. Uh, arpa
funds can help use, uh, roof weatherization and hvac, uh,
necessities. We should also pursue cco lone star funding for
eligible energy efficiency upgrades. These are low interest state loans
designed for local governments that are far better fit for permanent improvements than paying
consultants to chase relocation plans. At the same time, we should
evaluate national historic registered designation because it may
open the door to preservation grants, technical assistance, and other outside capital opportunities
that does not guarantee money, but it can expand the city's options and
reduce the local burden if structured correctly. The point is simple.
stabilize city hall first, pursue outside capital where it fits the network
and require real side-by-side comparison before
are locked into decades of rent. That's your time. Thank you,
nicholas mclean.
all right. Good morning, council and mayor
architect. I am pe and mayor eric johnson
envision this building as more than an office space.
they envisioned it as the future of dallas.
if we preserve our cultural landmarks, we can pass them onto our children. And
if we demolish them or sell them off, then we leave our children
with a void where something great once stood. So
let's not have a disposable society. Let's make the
choice today to preserve our heritage that was handed to
us so that we can hand it on to our children as well.
we can make the necessary repairs and improvements this
building here and now we can create a bridge between
the people of the past, the people of the future. We can be that,
that john, god bless, god bless city all. Thank you. Thank
y'all, sean todd.
the last 10 years we've invested $1.5 billion into the core of downtown repurposing
over 30 buildings, including two functionally obsolete, decrepit
imp buildings. The numbers that have been presented to you to update
this property may seem shocking to many, but to those of us that are in the business, they're accurate.
you've had consultants with tremendous integrity of reviewing those numbers and they're
on spot. You have a chance to leverage the taxpayer's dollars into the corps of downtown and
bring vitality of several hundred city employees into the corps of downtown
and pick up a new facility, municipal facility
for a song. And the building owners will say,
thank you. Downtown is on its deathbed. It needs an injection
of life. None of you here are taking down city hall pays functionally
obsolescent design in years of neglect by others. None
of you have done that for us. Sadly. We're the largest preservation
developer in the southwest united states. We care about preservation. Your,
I'm thankful what councilman moreno and ridley have done downtown. Your please make the
decision, your move forward. Your thank you don. Dod
don do, it's not present.
andrew choat ter
andrew ter is not present. John
eichman.
john eichman, district nine.
I'm an attorney. I've practiced commercial litigation
in the central business district for 44 years.
the texas local government code prohibits the city
from selling the multi acre plaza in front of this
building. Unless dallas voters approve that sale.
because the plaza is either a park or a public
square, the plaza is unquestionably
a public square. If the city attempts to dispose
of that land in front of city hall, without
voter approval, the city and city council
will be sued. In my opinion, you will lose,
and if you appeal, you will lose again. That's
your time. Don't do that to our city.
thank you. Alex. Michaels.
alex michaels. It's not present. Peyton jackson,
peyton jackson. It's virtual. Good morning guys.
I wish I could join you, but I'm currently in virginia, but I just wanted
to come on to announce if the city actually cared
about your input, they would've just put this issue on the ballot. If they cared
about your input. The meeting wouldn't have been at eight o'clock this morning. If they cared about
your input, they wouldn't have given you 60 seconds
for to, to address your concerns. But they're giving you the
illusion of power, just like eric is using that hat as the illusion of
hair. But whatever you decide, whatever you decide, make
sure that we have better lighting and a better camera for our speakers.
god bless you all. Thank you, roseanne mills,
good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to address the mayor and council.
my name is roseanne mills. I'm a resident of district 14, not
paid for my time. I urged this counsel to vote no
on items one and two, or at least table these until
this is resolved in the courts. Eric with a
k johnson had a vision for a grand civic space
in the aftermath of the kennedy assassination. I'm a native
dallas site of over 60 years, and the kennedy assassination
is my first memory. I, uh, encourage
that this city council move away from the
neglect or failure to maintain. Do not
loot $3 million from arpa funds to,
uh, this endeavor and use those funds for the original
intended purpose to repair city hall in addition to the other
$3 million of arpa funds. Thank you for your time today. Thank
you. Thank you. Matthew jacobs.
matthew jacobs is not on virtual, not in the audience
not present. Jorge cruz s
yes. Hello. I had a question regarding
rules and procedures because from
protection of the charter, I'm going to submit
a proposal on how the attorneys
or how critical charter violations are
responding to council rules that are not reasonably not
given reasonable opportunity for citizens to be heard. Yet
speakers are being denied adequate time and stakeholder findings are not
being acknowledged. So the presiding officer, may I remind you, has primary
responsibility for ensuring rules are followed, but this is
not happening. So it brings to question all these openings that
the legal department has. So I believe this council
is left without adequate counsel. So this raises serious concerns
about whether the city has a legal capacity to negotiate complex pre-acquisition
agreements protected. That's your time. Protect
the public interest and ensure that thank you side of
ba
ra. Good morning. There is no urgency here. None.
dallas city hall is occupied and functioning today. It is not on fire.
it's not condemned. And yet this council is being asked to divert 3 million
in city hall repair dollars towards pre-acquisition agreements. For a relocation
that is fiscally irresponsible. The numbers don't support it.
the billion dollar figure falls in costs that don't apply to a building you continue
to occupy. A face maintenance plan of 15 to 20 million a year
can address critical systems immediately at a fraction of the relocation cost.
and relocation is not a clean solution. Leasing never ends. Buying
an existing building building doesn't solve the problem. It moves it. You will still pay to
retrofit a private office tower into a functioning civic hall. You're being asked to
go find a problem you don't know the cost of instead of solving the one in front
of you. Keep city hall here, keeping city hall here sustained the public
investment, foot traffic and institutional presence at that's your time. Depends
on thank you. City hall. Abandon that commitment. Thank you. Thank
you. Your final speaker will be speaker number 29, tabitha curel.
this is a document from 1974 that,
uh, is about our city. Just wanna read a little bit from it. Dallas is a
city whose physical fabric conceals for the most part, the diversities among its residents.
unlike many older cities who have become famous for their barrios,
chinatowns, little italy's, the fast growth of our city has created an urban
fabric, which does not visibly vary according to the uniqueness
of the people who live within it.
I'm working on a project with someone and we're
examining, um, development and growth.
my name is tam aker. I'm from district five. The first poet lo created
a beautiful visual poem and tribute to our city called the city as a poem. But
mostly the poem I'm thinking about recently is a dream deferred, but maybe
a new poem that I will write called a dream dismissed. Communities
in southern and west dallas have been dealing with lack of care in their communities with similar deceptive
practices. And to see counsel, that's your time, replicate those harmful
practices and not care about us. That's your time. It's disheartening.
thank you mr. Mayor. This concludes your speakers for this item,
but alright, then we'll
move on to our voting agenda. Mayor. Thank you mr. Mayor. Yes. For what
purpose? Um, I'd just like to notify the chair that our, um, technology's
not activated to be able to ring in. Actually, they're, they're
coming around now to fix that. I think they're, they're trying to work on that. I don't have it
up either. It didn't do your mic's off? Still work,
but we can't see the queue, so just bear with me.
thank you mr. Mayor. Agenda item
one. It's a resolution one to authorize
the city manager to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements
that define the terms, responsibilities, and cost sharing between
the property owners and the city of dallas in order to conduct necessary
due diligence work for no more than four property location sites
in the dallas central business district for the purpose of assessing the
relocation option for city hall staff and functions
from 1500 marilla street to
transfer appropriations in an amount not to exceed $2 million
from the arpa city hall generation electrical repair line
item to a new arpa city hall pre-acquisition
line item and authorized disbursement of payments to
conduct such due diligence for the sites, including cost
reimbursement to the property owners for the performance of due diligence
deliverables. And three, to direct the city manager to bring
the due diligence results to city council for their consideration
not to exceed $2 million. This is your item, mr. Mayor,
chairman west. For what purpose? For a motion you recognize. For a motion.
thank you mayor. I move to approve this item with the following change.
authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an amount not to
exceed $2 million from the general fund contingency reserve fund
to the general fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed
$2 million in facilities and real estate management from general fund
contingency reserve fund. Second, it's been moved in
seconds during discussion. Chairman, we recognize for five minutes for the public we're on item a
thank you of the special call meeting. Uh, first before I have com
comments, I have a couple of questions. Um, so I want to
let the city manager take a moment and explain exactly what
this item does do and does not do. Um, I want to clarify with the
city manager that this does not, there's a word execute pre-acquisition
agreements here. My understanding is that there, this is not a final
decision, this is not a final decision to move out, but this is a, an authorization
for your team to go out and collect the apples to apples
information that so many people, um, including public today
have been asking for point of information. State
your point of information. Um, may the motion be passed out to all the council members, please?
of course. Uh, I assume they can. I don't know if it's, I don't, I don't have one,
so I don't know. Yeah, it's, it's in progress.
go ahead. Thank you. Um, thank you for the question. Council member, uh, west the items before
you today represent the next steps that evaluating potential alternatives.
specifically these two resolutions with authorized staff to use up
to the $3 million available funds to negotiate pre-acquisition agreements
and perform the additional due diligence for four potential sites
for city hall functions and up to four potential sites for 9 1 1 and emergency
operations. Thank you for the opportunity to note that these
items today do not authorize the purchase of any property.
rather, it allows for staff to continue working with our consulting team
to conduct the additional due diligence that council has requested over the last
few weeks to have a better understanding of the opportunities, constraints, costs,
and the suitability of any potential sites. We would then come back
to the city council with the results of that work that would bring
information that council has been requesting for your consideration
and any potential future acquisitions or relocation decisions would still
be made by the council. I hope that answers your question. Um, council member west.
yes, it does mostly. Um, thank you for that. I may have the, have the city attorney
chime in on this as well, but the, the wording in here about
executing a pre-acquisition agreement, what does that encompass
exactly,
mr. Mayor, I'm gonna ask connie tankersley from our real estate department to come and answer that to make
it succinct and accurate.
connie kerley with city attorney's office pre-acquisition because you're considering,
uh, different models, possibly a lease, a purchase, a lease to
purchase. Those are all acquisition transactions. So that encompasses
any consideration of those. Okay. So by authorizing
the city manager to execute pre-acquisition agreements, does that
in any way, um, allow the city manager or
her team to bind us to, uh, a relocation option? No, that's
just another way of saying conducting pre-acquisition diligence. So what
exactly what she explained earlier. Yes. So any final
decision on relocation, just like on renovating and staying here will
come back to the council. It does require another city council resolution. Thank you. Yes.
okay. Um, so as I wanted to get that cleared up on
the record, 'cause there's been a lot of confusion, um, that's been expressed to me on exactly
what that item means and what it doesn't mean. So
as clarified approving today's first item will give everyone those
who wanna stay in the building, no matter the cost, and those who want to move out,
um, and everybody else who's somewhere in the middle, the information we truly need
to make an informed decision approving item one will allow cbre
to negotiate lease options and bring back a final number in august
so we can understand what it would cost to lease to own a new office.
it's been a long process and I wish c city leadership had done a better job
communicating with the public throughout this process. If we approve item one,
we can finally have the apples to apples comparison that we all want. And
then so many people, including people on both sides who came
today, have been asking for, and we will finally have some additional transparency
that is long overdue. The one main concern I have about
the item is originally proposed by staff is the source of funds. It,
it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to use funds dedicated to city hall repairs
for this endeavor because it implies we have given up on repairing city hall.
like many of my colleagues, I have not made up my mind, as I've said for over six months
now, I'm waiting for an apples to apples comparison before making this incredibly
important fiscal decision for our city. That is why I propose
changing the source of funds to ensure that we move forward with city hall. If we move
forward with city hall repairs, we have some funds dedicated for that
endeavor to kickoff because we know it will cost hundreds of millions
of dollars to fix this building. Today's vote is not a vote, vote to
move out of city hall or demolish this iconic building. It's a vote to give both
city council and the public the transparent apples to apples comparison.
we continue to ask for thank you. Point of information.
state your point of information, um, having received the written motion,
um, I don't see, and, and, and having heard the comments, I
don't see that there's a swapping of dollars. It looks like there's an
additional $2 million. So I don't see where it removes the
ar pa, there's no substitute and I'm trying to understand what the actual
motion is. Is it now to have $4 million,
two from two different sources, or is it replacing the 2 million arpa?
I'll let you explain your own motion, but I I don't see the, I don't see what you're reading. I heard what he said.
I don't see what you have in writing in front of you because I don't, I didn't get a copy for some reason.
but anyway, go ahead and explain what your, the motion is, what he said. Mayor,
I'll thank you. I'll explain my intent and then I'll ask city attorney to explain the
effect. My intent is to swap out the 2 million, um, that is
read in the item that was originally written by the city manager for arpa,
city hall generation electrical repair for 2 million from contingency
funds. But can you show where it says you're swapping it? 'cause it only says
on the written motion. Okay. This is, he has the floor right now. You've asked point of information.
thank you. So that was my intent and I would just defer to city attorney on
the second part of our question. Okay. We'll let the city attorney if you would like to explain further,
but otherwise we'll recognize you just now and you'll have the floor.
mr. Mayor, we worked with, uh, the cfo on this.
and while I believe this is sort of finance speak, the
intent was to swap out the arpa funds for the general
fund reserve. That that's what this, so the point of information, I
mean this is a legal motion and so I'm asking not what the intent is, but
what the words are. And when it says that you're only authorizing
new things and we already have a motion that was read in that already authorized
2 million from arpa and then this is authorizing the change,
but it's authorizing additional money from, from the general fund
and I don't see where it's swapping. So
I think the motion is not, I'll let attempt to explain it one more time, but then I'm going to give you the
floor and you can use your time to ask any questions you want staff.
while I see that it doesn't actually specify that it is, you are
correct, it does not clearly state that it is swapping the funds. That was
the intent and we could, we could amend the motion
if, if that would, if the maker would be happy with that. To just clarify that it is
swapping the funds in the, in the posted item for these funds. I'm fine with
that. So can you do that?
um, do you, do you want to, if the, if the body doesn't object,
we can let you amend your motion. But I want to know that that's what you want your
motion, uh, if that, yes, mayor, I'm fine with that. Any objection?
hearing none. It's so ordered. So I think it
would be helpful though to, you know, restate it
in an accurate way for your intent to be reflected in the words.
so then we can proceed without having any burn up more time. Just to clarify,
I'm gonna make sure, mayor, if it's okay with you to have city attorney write it up
so I'm not winging it on the fly. Just if, if that's all right.
but we can still, we can still discuss the motion as you, as you've expressed
your intent orally. But we want the written motion to
reflect what you're saying. There's a mismatch between what you're saying
and what this appears to say. So while
we're working on this, we're, we're, what we're debating and
operating on is what you've said because that's the motion that was actually
stated. So this, this does, this is a visual aid, but your,
your motion is what you said with your mouth. So I'm going to give mayor my intent
is actually to amend the motion. So if we could have it properly stated before
the amendment, that might help keep things in order. Well, I need him
to, to, to make his new motion then expressing
his intent. 'cause we've just agreed to allow, allow him to do that by acclimation.
mayor, just as a point of order, I would just ask if we could pause, which it seems like we're
doing so we could, since you wanna read, you just wanna read it off the papers is what you're
that would do. I would prefer to read it after it's been vetted by the city attorney. Okay,
then we will, let's take a recess then for
five minutes to 10 40. Give them time to revise
it so you can read it right off the paper. I would encourage you to do exactly that
though, if that's, if that's, um, easier for everyone.
alright, it's 10 48 and we're back
in, uh, session for the special call meeting and I'm gonna recognize chairman west
with his motion. Thank you mayor.
I move to approve this item with the following, change to the source of funds
by eliminating reference to the transfer of arpa funds.
and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an
amount not to exceed $2 million from the general fund contingency reserve fund to the general
fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed
$2 million in facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency reserve
fund. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded.
chairman west, you recognized for five minutes to explain your motion. Thank
you, mayor. Uh, same explanation as before. We just added in clarification,
um, that the arpa fund language is now
very specifically removed and instead there, there is a substitute amount coming
from the general fund contingency reserves for this allocation.
chairwoman mendelson you recognize for five minutes. Thank you. I move to amend the
motion to require any property considered for relocation
be built after the opening of our current city hall. Second,
it, it's been moved and seconded. We're now on
an amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn, you
recognize for five minutes to explain your amendment? Thank you. We've
been told over and over by council members and staff that this less than 50-year-old
building is too old. It's at the end of its life. And of course, we
would wanna honor their consistent message by not moving into a
building that is even older than the one we have. Thank you.
anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson?
a record book for everything would be, uh, sure. I would like to ask that
for everything we do today. Everything we do today. Thank you. Uh, of course.
anyone else? Seeing none? Madam secretary, please call the role.
thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you
oppose council member west. No. Council
member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council
member kana? Yes. Council member basil
doa is absent? Yes. Okay,
thank you. Council member blair? No.
council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart?
no. Council member roth
is absent when vote taken. Council member mendelson?
yes. Council member willis?
no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy
mayor pro tem johnson? No.
mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
council member roth?
we don't get to discuss that? Yes.
thank you.
with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails mr. Mayor.
alright, we're back on the original item. Chairwoman mendelson. Thank you.
I move to amend the motion to require any property considered,
have sufficient parking designated for the city of dallas equal
to as many employees expected to occupy the building plus visitors
in secure underground parking or connected parking with secure access.
so we moved in second. Any discussion? Chairwoman mendelssohn? I think it's pretty self-evident.
thank you. Okay. Uh, ms. Blackman, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment.
uh, my question is, is what is our parking threshold right now? Just for
clarification in this building?
good morning, john johnson. We have around 1,445 parking spots in the underground
garage, of which 49 are visitor spots. Okay. And
how many for car for the fleet? I don't have that broken down for you. Um,
and so how, what is the square footage of all that? Uh, let me grab
my binder and I can't answer that for you. One moment.
there's around 750,000 square foot of the garage. 700 and
what? 50,000. Okay. And how does that include the spots
in the back as well? Or is that just the garage? That's just the garage. So how many's in the back?
I don't have the horseshoe for you. I'm sorry. Okay. 'cause if we're trying to get
a total number of spots and that's considered public parking, correct? It's
metered parking. So it'd be public, it could be used for anything for visitors,
for special events, for anyone who's visiting downtown as long as they pay the meter. Okay.
and how much do people pay right now to park in the garage? I'm sorry. Oh, in the garage? Mm-hmm
. There is no charge. No charge at all. No charge. So,
uh, um, is there gonna be charge to our employees if we move?
can I jump in please? Thank you so much for the question. Councilman. Um, blackman that has not been
decided. There's no location that has been voted on by this body
and so we will not be, be able, I'm trying to give you feedback that we probably should keep it the status
quo if we're gonna move, if, if that's a policy decision of the council going to
forward. So I want for you to vote on that. Is that what you're telling me? Yes. 'cause that's not been decided.
I would like to amend it to say that there should be no parking payments by our
staff to keep it the status quo. If we move
second. Hold on one second. Unless you
can restate her motion.
so it's been moved and seconded. So we're now on an amendment to the amendment by ms. Blackman,
you recognize for five minutes? Well, I, I feel that if, if employees are not
parking and, um, back to mr. Johnson
or anybody, what is the going rate for parking downtown?
does anybody have that? That is not information
that we have available, uh, at this time for this item. Councilwoman, uh, blackman.
okay. So I would say probably, yeah, but we would, we would bring that back as part of if council moves
forward with this additional due diligence, we would be able to bring that information
back to the body. Um, 'cause I would think it's probably 150
a month. So that would be almost, what, $1,700 coming
out of $1,800 coming out of a check that somebody has to pay for parking.
I I would say that we would, should at least keep it the status quo where parking
is either still free or at a minimal
cost because, um, parking downtown, as we know, is expensive
and it can eat into a check of somebody who is an admin here.
does anybody know what is our average, um, I guess this is an hr
question, the average salary of an employee here.
again, that's information that we don't have available right at this moment. We're more than
happy to provide that to you, councilman blackman and any other questions
that we don't answer around the horseshoe related to this item? Okay,
thank you. Ms. Kna, did
you wanna be recognized on the amendment to the amendment or on the,
uh, original amendment? Because I saw you before amendment to the amendment.
I have questions on that. Okay. You're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.
okay. Uh, do employees at other locations pay for parking? Um,
not just the city hall.
again, we're in a deep parking conversation and that's just not data that I have available. Um,
we do know that there have been situations where if we had to lease space
for employees spec specifically in the central business district, some of those
employees have had parking, uh, arrangements at nearby garages where they've had to
pay for that parking. And at one point in time there was a parking
fee to park in city hall in the garage. I think if I remember back
to my days of starting with the city, it was $26 a month and I think that
was phased out a few years ago. But any parking analysis,
information, data and that level of detail is what we would definitely
bring back. So there's, um, in that side by side cost comparison that that
would actually be incorporated in it. It, okay. Do you recall why the, um, parking
fee was way, uh, I guess phased out? I'm
not sure the exact year, um, but I do know that at one point,
uh, any new employees that came in had that parking fee attached to
their, uh, bimonthly, uh, payment paycheck and
it was taken out, uh, through payroll deduction. Mr. Mr. Allen may have some more
details? Yes. The, the charge for parking at city hall was $25
a month with taxes, $27 and 6 cents a month.
it was that cost, uh, in 1996 when I started at the city.
and it stayed that cost until we eliminated it about three years ago.
the reason we eliminated it is because in a meet and confer agreement,
police were going to get free parking at jack evans. Therefore, mr. Broad neck's
former city manager chose to eliminate it for employees
in this building as well to be, uh, consistent with what was
being done for police at the jack evans police headquarter. So it was about three years ago,
four years ago. Okay. Thank you jack. And then, um, what hours
do employees work in this building?
the normal working hours at city hall, uh, with the exception of those
individuals that are on different shifts is eight 15 to five 15. We know that
there are employees that work longer hours. I will tell you that the city manager's office
probably opens the building and closes the building most days. Um, but the 9 1 1
team, the eoc team, depending on if there's an emergency situation,
um, within the, um, within the city, that those are gonna be
individuals that are gonna be in the building around the clock. But all of our other city departments, with
the exception of the ones that their shifts actually require overtime,
I mean, over an overnight 24 hours a day, those would be the employees
that are in the building, um, most frequently. And what hours is the
building open for the public? I, I didn't hear the question. What hours
are the building open for the public? Eight 15 to five 15. Okay.
that's all for now. Thank you chairwoman men you recognize for
five minutes on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. I think this question was just
asked, I'm not exactly sure if it was worded the same way, but
are you able to share what you have seen as, um, a cost for
parking in other locations? I believe we were actually briefed on this
in executive session. I mean, I think this is a known number.
if it was information that was provided in closed session and it's not a part of the due
diligence of these, this item that is before us, then we would not have the liberty
of sharing something that has been presented in closed session. Well, the,
the question, um, as I recall was
what is the average cost for parking
downtown? And that is not specific to a particular
building and I think is germane to the question of,
um, the amendment about parking. And so, I mean, I'll
tell you for district 12, many people who work for at t
as the announcement came about moving to plano, um, relayed to
me that, you know, for us it's closer to be in plano
than it is to come downtown. But what it meant for them effectively was a $400
a month raise to not pay parking. And so I'm
wondering if you have a different number than $400 a
month on what an average contract for a reserve parking spot is.
I do not have a number today on parking downtown as
it relates to any of the potential options and opportunities right now. That would
be a part of the due diligence as I've just mentioned, that would go into this additional
evaluation, uh, if the city council chooses to move in that direction. But
would you confirm that you have actually shared that number with us previously?
I think there've been some different scenarios, councilwoman middleston that have been shared. Some
of those scenarios are based on a particular location and not necessarily
overall. I think that's what was provided to the city council. Thank you. I
I, um, I heard it differently and that's why I am pursu I was pursuing that
line of questioning. If you're not willing to answer it, that's fine. Um,
I appreciate, uh, council member blackman's, um, interest
in making sure that the parking would be free for the employees.
it shouldn't be something detrimental to the employees to lose free parking in this
building to then have to incur possibly hundreds
of dollars per month, um, to, to
pay for parking because, um, of an unwise decision to leave. Thank
you, ms. Blackman, you recognize for three minutes on your amendment
to the amendment. Okay, thank you. Um, just, um, miss city
manager, just to be clear that if we want something
looked at in your due diligence, then this body must approve it,
otherwise it won't be looked at. Is that what I heard? I mean, we need to
approve it or can we 'cause that that's, I'm kind of getting a
mixed signal of, I'm only gonna look at the things that you tell me to do,
but if this fails, which probably will, then are you gonna look
at it? And so that's what I need clarification on is exactly
what that if with the parking, that's what we're talking about. How, like, does it have
to be approved in order for you to look at it? Or is it gonna be absence
in the due diligence? So I'll go back to my statement and I'll make sure that
I'm clear. If counsel chooses to approve the action item that was
read into the record by council member west as part of that additional due diligence,
as we've heard from counsel on other things that you wanna make sure are included,
I think a parking analysis was already provided as one of the
things that council wanted additional details on. And I think that's been
communicated already with us in several other sessions that we've been in with the council.
we've also talked about the need to ensure access to public transit. So
there are a lot of things that you've already asked us to do. My comments were, as part of
the due diligence, if this item that council member, wes, read into
record, that due diligence would already be incorporated because
of what council's already asked for us to bring back. So you can get to a true side
by side of the cost. So parking analysis, access for parking. We've
heard many questions about, you know, the, um, the, um, um, you know, how
far the parking would be, uh, away from the building. We heard everything
from the raids that would be a part of that additional due diligence that we would bring
back. So it would already be included in the work that we would be doing over
the summer. Okay. Because, um, throughout this whole exercise, one thing that
I've learned is words matter and the motion matters. And so I'm just
wanting to make sure that, uh, I don't want it to come back that, well, you
didn't ask for it. It wasn't in the motion, because to me, this is important.
being here as an employee when I was here in 2000,
late two thousands and paying $25 and then going, you know, and I was at dart at one time, and
you'd have to pay the full price at dart. So it's like that is
a, it hits the bottom line. And so I just wanna be clear that this
is important, I believe to the employees that are in this building,
that parking needs to be addressed. And so, and
I just wanna make sure that if it needs to be in the motion or
in the item that we need to amend it. If it's gonna happen, then you,
I have, I have you on record saying that you will look at it.
a parking analysis was already requested as part of the due diligence that
council has asked us to do. So the original motion that was read
by council member west for that addition, the due diligence, parking
will already be included. Okay. Thank you. Chairwoman
mendelson, you cognize for three minutes.
well, there we go. Um, thank you. Can you tell us what
percentage of employees here use transit versus how many,
um, drive their individual car?
that is not a, a number that I have off the top of my head. Councilman middleston. We will
definitely provide that additional, uh, details to the council. We do know that
every year is part of the city's budget. We provide for a certain number of
dart passes that the city supports in helping subsidize for
our city employees. So we'll be able to give you the number of dark passes that are currently
provided, the cost of subsidizing those passes, and based on the data
that we have available, how many employees actually are parking in the garage. But I don't have that
in front of me at this moment.
would you say, um, well, I'm wondering, can the budget office tell us how much
was allocated for dart passes in this current fiscal year?
and if you'll also share, was there any dollars that were, um,
allocated last fiscal year that remained and were either reallocated
through a budget amendment or were swept into contingency?
um, jack harland, chief financial officer, the amount of the dart subsidy
funding is less than a hundred thousand. I wanna think it's 60 or 70,000.
uh, and it's my recollection that there were no funds, uh, left, uh, after
use last year. And does it provide a full pass? No, ma'am. Um,
and do you know what the percentage of I I do not know the, there's a breakdown
based upon, uh, I believe, uh, the employee salary,
uh, uh, different amounts that are subsidized. I do not know the details on that. So it's like a whole matrix,
ma'am. It's a whole matrix of your salary. Yes. And if it's a monthly
pass or an annual pass, that is my recollection. I will have to get you details, but yes, sir. Budgeted
is 60 to $70,000. So per
my memory. Thank you. And we currently have, um, bus stops
surrounding the property as well as the convention center has the train,
which, you know, maybe on the outside people think that's far, but
actually is even connected to the building and you never even have to go outside.
um, so, okay. Thank you for that information.
ms. Cadena, you're recognized for three minutes on the amendment to the amendment. I would
just like to say how important this item is, um, for employees, um,
having to pay extra to come to work. I know there's some employees, um,
that $150 could be a substantial hit to their
paycheck. And so I hope that we continue to do whatever we can to
advocate for our employees and make sure that they're taken care of and that we're
able to treat all employees fairly. Um, so that if one group is not
paying for parking, that the others would not be paying for parking as, as well. And
also making sure that our citizens that come to city hall to pay
their water bills or to come and spend eight hours sitting, um, here
listening to issues do not have to pay for parking as well. Thank you.
chairwoman minutes readiness for one minute. Thank you. Well, in learning that
there's, uh, just over 1400 parking spots here at the city,
I think it's important, um, with the underlying motion to understand that,
um, there may be properties being looked at that don't have that level of,
um, robust parking or don't have the security of the parking,
which is why, um, the secure access is important. And
if we would be asking people to walk 1, 2, 3 blocks
away, what that means, um, both for, um,
mobility issues, safety issues, and convenience factor. Thank you
mayor pro tem, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.
thank you mr. Mayor. Just really briefly, whether or not this item passes, we'll still have the opportunity to
address these issues. Thank you. Anyone
else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment? To the amendment seat? None. Madam
secretary, please call the role on the amendment to the amendment, folks.
thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please say yes. If you're in favor. No.
if you're oppose. Council member west.
no. Council member moreno? No. Council
member gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes.
council member. Basel. Doa? Yes.
your video must be displayed. Um, council member basil.
do I'll come back to you video's on, I don't know what is
showing on your end, but yes is my vote. It's
not showing on our,
it's not showing on our end. We'll, we'll come back to you, but we gotta get your video to work. It's
right now, it's a still photograph of you. So just so you know, it's your official headshot.
it looks like very nice picture though, but it's just not you live.
we need that. So we'll come back to you. Council member blair.
council member blackman? Yes. Okay. Well, I guess I can't vote then because
it council member
stewart? No. Council member
roth? Yes. Council member
mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem johnson?
no. Mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson?
no.
with five. Voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent when vote taken.
the motion fails, mr. Mayor. Okay, we're back on the amendment by chairwoman
mendelson. Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment by chairwoman
mendels? Point of information? Can you restate the, uh, the sure. Uh,
chairwoman, please restate your motion. It's to amend, uh,
the motion to require any property considered. Um,
have sufficient parking designated for the city of dallas equal
to the, um, to the same number of employees expected to
occupy the building plus visitors in secure underground
parking or connected parking with secure access.
okay. Madam secretary? Okay. Ahead.
thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you oppose
council member west. No. Council member moreno? No.
council member gracie? No. Council member kadena? Yes. Council
member bazel doa is absent when vote taken? Yes.
okay, I see you. Thank you.
council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council
member willis? No. Council member ridley?
yes. Deputy mayor pro. Tim johnson? No. Mayor pro
tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
with six. Voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, back
on the original item. Chairman mendelson. Thank you.
uh, I'd like to amend the motion I move to require any property considered
include an outside public area that can safely accommodate
1000 people at an event or protest or be directly across
or next to a city park that can accommodate 1000 people
or more at an event or protest. Second, it's been moved to a second aid discussion. Chairwoman
mendelssohn. I think it's self-evident. Thank you. Um, chairman
west question, mayor for city manager. Do you recognize
for five minutes? Okay. We're on the an amendment by chairwoman mendelsohn. And you
recognize for five minutes on that amendment. Um, excuse me, mayor. Uh, my, my,
uh, my screen is creating some kind of a, of a,
some kind of a, a difficulty. Okay. Thank you. You need it to come
over, please. We, someone go check on mr. Ross. Uh, thank you screen
and determine what you have. The four for five minutes. Thank you. Just like with
the parking city manager, tolbert, we will have an opportunity to
address this request as well, right.
on the public meeting space, because I believe that's important to everyone at this horseshoe.
yes. Thank you. And, um, there would not be
any scenario that we, that you would even bring to us without a public
gathering space. No. We've heard that
as a piece of, um, not, not just casually,
but it's been overstated many times about the opportunity to ensure
that there is still space for the public to gather. Um, again, we've shared
many different criteria components with the council
in closed session, and this is one that we've also discussed. Thank you. So just like
with the parking, this is all part of the due diligence already. Thank you
ms. Kadena. You recognize for five minutes on the amendment by ms. Mendelssohn. Um, yes,
I have a question. Ms. Mendelson, would that include, um,
residents, um, not having to pay a fee to use that space
to gather to either to protest or to have a, a meeting?
she can answer that question if you'd like. It counts against your time. Um, I believe her protest
is a first amendment issue and there is no protest even today.
but, um, even today, if you wanna have an event at city hall
on the plaza, you have to get an event, uh, permit. So I, I don't
wanna speak for the city manager, but I believe that's how it works. Okay. City
manager, can you clarify? That is correct.
I think we've heard before, uh, today the importance of making sure
that our, that the public would have opportunities to participate
continuously in the downtown area, uh, in public spaces.
um, and we talked about bringing that information back. Uh, if there's
potential fees for parks, whatever it is, we said that we would be doing that anyway.
so that would be a part of our due diligence. Um, would it be possible to
perhaps have a list of the items that maybe we're
gonna get back that might be helpful to us? Because I know like last week
I had a, there was an item for demolition, but environmental was not included,
but then I was told that that was already one of the motions that was provided.
and so I think that's causing some confusion here.
more than happy to provide you with the detailed list of what will be included in the due diligence.
okay. Thank you chairwoman
mendelson, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Um, the
reason why I have this as a very specific item is not because
it isn't being considered, um, with the properties. It certainly is,
but having available space doesn't actually
say what the motion is. The motion says it must be out front,
it must be outside in the public area of the facility
or across the street or next to it.
that's very different. And one could suppose that we may
be considering properties where a public space is much further away than that.
and so what this does is restrict properties to only be
considered if it is on the property or next to
the property. And so, and, and that would include across the street.
so that's very different, just like the parking amendment
item is very different. Of course, parking is always considered,
but what that motion did was specify it must have enough parking for all of
the staff. That's different than maybe what we have been told. So
this is just being very clear about having that space
directly available. So one could imagine what if it's four
or five blocks away, is that really in the same domain
as the building? And so again, this motion
says on the property or next to it. Thank you
ms. Black may recognize for five minutes. Thank you. Um, so I guess
I have a question about the park public space. Are most
of the parks in the downtown area, part of the downtown
park network? Does anybody have that information?
I don't see anyone hearing from the park and rec department because
I, I mean, my understanding is that there was a big movement for downtown parks
to flourish and we're about to take a park and use it for a public protesting
space. I wanna make sure that that conversations have been had.
I don't think you're making a decision today on any particular location, a park. No. But in due diligence,
that would be a very key part of that is to understand that sure.
that the, it is known that a park would be used for a first amendment,
uh, versus just a gathering space for luxury that it
could be used as a, as a protesting area. And I think any
investor that has given money for a a public space,
they need to know if it's going to be used in what way?
I don't think we have that, that level of detail at the moment. But again,
questions that you're asking now that we don't have the answers to, we would make sure that we answer
those questions and make sure that we've addressed that as part of the due diligence.
I don't see the park and rec staff here and I don't wanna speak for them. Okay. So yeah, please make sure
that any public space, if it is in the park downtown master plan and it's
been utilized in that way, that it, that we, that they understand that
it can be used for a first amendment protest and that
it's gonna be used like we have our plaza here. 'cause it, even though it's
considered a park space, I don't, that's still questionable. It. Um, it
is still a place where people come to express their
opinions about something. So I just wanna make sure that nobody's caught off
guard with that. Thank you chairwoman ly recognize for three
minutes. Thank you. The other thing I'd like to highlight is the size
by specifying that it can accommodate a thousand people. Um,
I'll say I think the smallest park in dallas is actually in district 12, but
right after that, I think are the downtown parks. And there's some that are teeny tiny.
and I wouldn't wanna say that you have fulfilled the ability
to have, um, protest space by some of these very tiny,
um, spots. So that's why it specifically says a thousand people.
now, we often have heard public comment from the folks that
wanna tear down city hall, that they would like to have a vibrant downtown.
and I will question whether or not they understand what it's like to
have daily protests outside the building and how vibrant
that's gonna be for everybody. But we certainly need to make sure it
can accommodate people's first amendment right, to protest their government
and have their voices heard, as well as celebrate the government. And,
um, mourn, you know, I, I think back to seven, seven,
I was here on the plaza. It was a terrible, terrible day,
but we were all together and there's not a lot of parks downtown that can hold
that many people, even clyde warren. So I hope that,
um, y'all will consider this and vote for it. Thank you.
anyone else wanna speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson?
say none. Madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you, mr. Mayor, when I
call your name, please state yes, if you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council member
west. No. Council member moreno. No. Council member
gracie? No. Council member hena? Yes. Council member
bael doa? Yes. Council member blair.
council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart? No.
council member roth? Yes. Council member mendelson? Yes.
council member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes.
deputy mayor prote johnson? No. Mayor prote resendez?
no. Mayor johnson? No. With six voting
in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor chairwoman
mendelson for what purpose? Move to, um, amend
the motion to require any property considered. Include a security plan
that provides at least the same level of security with the same
or less number of security officers. Second,
it's been moved. And second, that you recognize for five minutes on your amendment if you'd like it. Thank you. Um,
the reason I have this motion is, number one, there are some special
security considerations here at city hall. Um, both to allow
the public to have free access to their building,
even if we're gonna lease it. Um, but also,
um, there were quite a few comments made in presentations about the
security costs that we have, whether that's the officers here in
the chambers, folks that are checking people into the building. Um,
I can see personal details here in this building. Uh,
the idea that we would actually have a reduction in cost is insane.
that's not true. I, I can't imagine how that could happen today.
there are only two entrances that are functioning, meaning
there's doors on the south. So if you park on the south, you should
be able to come in directly. But instead we make you walk all the way around the
building because of security, and we're unwilling to have another
security station or the former manager close that down. Um,
and so if the premise of this is
to save money, and one of those items was to save money
on security, because this is so difficult to manage the
security of this building, which I don't believe is true, then
therefore, prove it. Tell us that you're
actually gonna have lower costs for security, but maintain that same
level. 'cause I don't believe you can. Thank you. Anyone
else wish to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn?
say none. Madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your
name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council member west. No.
council member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council
member kadena? Yes. Council member basil doa?
yes. Council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
council member ridley? Yes.
deputy mayor pro tem johnson? No. Mayor pro tem
resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No. Would six. Holding
in favor? Nine. Oppose the motion fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Mr. Roth?
sorry, go ahead. I was gonna suggest an amendment to the mo original motion.
yeah, please. I'd like to, uh, make sure that the words
non-binding, uh, would be, uh, inserted before
the, uh, words pre-acquisition agreements. Is there a second? Second.
it's been moved in second. Mr. Roth, you'd like five minutes to explain your amendment. Um, thank
you. Um, typically in a, in a real estate transaction that's
being negotiated, uh, prior to any execution of a formal
contract, uh, those are considered, uh, either con considered or described
as letters of intent. And I'm assuming that this is considered
a pre-acquisition agreement is like a letter of intent. Uh, in all
of those, uh, types of documents, typically it is
absolutely clear in those documents that these are non-binding agreements.
and I want to make sure that there's no, uh, uh,
uh, conflict or confusion that, uh, any kind
of an agreement that's, that's, uh, established, uh, under this
situation is in fact nonbinding. Uh, so I would request that
that change be, I think, to the benefit of the council and to the benefit of the city
that that be, uh, provided general sen
recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Um, wanna thank
council member roth, who is both a real estate attorney and is
possibly the only person around the horseshoe who has bought office
buildings. So thank you for recognizing that word is
absent and necessary. I do believe many of our colleagues
have been told just do not add anything to the motion.
do not consider anything. But I will say, if you agree
that this is non-binding, you should vote for this one. Prove it. Show
the public that you mean it, that this is not a defining, um,
no, no ability to turn it around. Vote, because I
think we all know it is. And if you vote this down, this,
this actual word that says non-binding, then that says
everything about what this vote really is. Thank you,
ms. Black. Ms. Blackman, you recognize for five minutes. Peter, did you wanna say something?
um, I just wanted to make sure that if there was any, um,
explanation that we needed to do about the way the, the current item and what
we're looking for and what we need to do with the due diligence that we gave
the, um, the company that's actually doing the work on behalf of the city an opportunity to speak.
uh, I'm happy to address it. And I would suggest that the council members are conflating
non-binding term sheets with binding pre-acquisition agreements. And there's
important distinction between the two. Um, we 100% agree
that real estate transactions are traditionally negotiated in non-binding letters
of intent to establish business terms. Um, what's been suggested
and presented to council, uh, is that that would be an exhibit
to a binding agreement. The binding nature of the agreement though is
related to due diligence schedule and performing the
work necessary to present the apples, apples comparison. So there could be binding
components to it in terms of, um,
how long are we looking at this building, for example, things like that could be binding. But,
um, there's no reason, in my opinion, to add non-binding
to the non to the pre-acquisition agreement because it's duplicative.
um, the business terms and a transaction is 100% something
you can get out of later. There's nothing that inhibits you all from terminating
the agreement in the future if you find out things you don't like about any assets. So,
um, I, I, I understand the point, um, but I think it's unnecessary.
um, can I, you saw the floor. You saw the floor, yeah. Yes. Um, can I ask the attorneys if
they agree with that? Our city attorneys
and thank you, peter.
so, as peter said, yes, it would not be binding. It's not a
binding term sheet. What it is, again, it's to conduct due diligence.
and so to the extent that, um, anyone that was engaged to do that
due diligence, um, needed to perform, we need to bind them to
perform. And then we also need to be bound, uh, under state law to
pay for those services. So that's the binding nature of
these pre pre-acquisition agreements. So if
we, if this doesn't pass, which I assume it won't, um, there we
can still not, there's nothing that, uh, joins us. We don't, we're not
obligated to move forward. We're just getting information. You're not obligated
to lease to purchase. You're not obligated to execute and
enter into a final acquisition. This is just for due diligence,
just to conduct and as, as peter said, to get the apples to apples
comparison. That's all it is. Thank you. Mm-hmm .
deputy mayor proam, you recognize for five minutes. Oh, thank you. Councilman roth for bringing
this up. But I also want to thank, uh, mr. Peter for bringing the clarity, uh, 'cause that was
concern. Thank you so much. Mr. Bazel. Do you recognized for five minutes?
there you are. Come on inside. I'm just kidding. Let's go.
I was just kidding. Go ahead. I don't have a a, a raised
hand. Can you hear me? I don't have a raised hand.
oh, you did,
mr. Roth. You recognized for three. I'm sorry. We'll go to chairman west for five and then,
uh, to mr. Roth for three. Thank you, mayor. I mean, on, its on its face. This sounds,
this sounds reasonable and, and harmless enough. I want to ask, uh,
mr. Janssen, if, if there is any potential harm to
getting us the apples to apples numbers that we're asking for by inserting this clause
in there. 'cause my goal and the goal of a lot of my colleagues and the goal
of the public that I've been hearing is to get the true apples to apples comparison.
does insertion of this language cause you any problems in
meeting that goal? Uh, I believe it causes material
harm because you will not be able to bind yourself to any service agreements or
contracts related to doing the work that would be required to provide that
information. So, I believe would be material harm as you would have no ability
to execute any due diligence. Can you give me an example of how, um,
a one service that we would need would not possibly be at jeopardy because of
this language? Very simply, um, a phase
one environmental study, which is the starting point for any
due diligence, uh, on any land or acquisition, um, it's
probably a four to $5,000 contract at worst, maybe as little as $2,000.
but, um, you would not be able to execute that type of agreement
and get a clean phase one on any assets you're looking at. Um, if you don't have the
ability to execute binding agreements. And why would they typically not
wanna execute a non-binding agreement? A a
phase one environmental company? Oh, well, the company wouldn't be able to perform
services if the contract was invalid or non-binding. Okay. So it's potentially
is the intent is, is to certainly, I I get the intent,
but the potential harm could, could be detrimental to us in
obtaining the numbers we need. Absolutely. Thank you,
chairman. Ridley, you recognize for five minutes? Thank you, mr. Mayor. I,
uh, understand what, uh, mr. Jansen is saying
that we need to have the pre-acquisition agreement
binding on the parties. And so I would like to introduce an amendment to mr. Ross
amendment that would, instead of inserting
non-binding, the four pre-acquisition agreements
insert in the eighth line,
that starts exceed 2 million. Do, uh, um, sorry.
the fourth line, uh, sixth line, starting of
assessing the relocation option insert without
binding the city to such option, that would make
it clear that what we want to be non-binding
is entering into an acquisition agreement rather
than the pre-acquisition agreement itself. Second. So
I want to help the body here and clarify. Sure. Since it's not a written,
it's not written out and you're not just reading it off a piece of paper I just wanted, so we don't have to go through that whole
deal again. The intent here is
to place the, the binding, the word binding in the appropriate
place to achieve the intent of making the acquisition or
leasing of a particular property. Not binding, not making the due diligence
agreement that you'd have to sign. Not exactly. Okay. So everybody understand
that like the, the, he's just moving
where we placed, where the, where the mover was placing the word
binding, which was making it bind, not making the due diligence document,
not binding to making, acting on the due diligence in the form of
acquiring or leasing or leasing to own a property, not binding. So
that's what correct, that's what you're trying to do, right? Yes. Okay. That's
what's on the floor. If assuming, I think it got seconded by ms. Mendelson.
and you have five minutes to explain your amendment. Well, I think this to
the amendment. Thank you. I think this addresses the concerns
of, um, some members about making
the pre-acquisition agreement non-binding. We
to be effective, the pre-acquisition agreement has to be binding. The parties will
enter into an agreement with certain duties and responsibilities and
payment obligations. If that's what this body
intends to do, then that part of it needs to be non-binding.
what I think the intent of mr. Ross amendment was
that after that due diligence is completed, that we
are then not bound to execute any acquisition
agreement that would tie the city
to a particular relocation option. At that
point, the city council should have freedom to choose which of
the options upon which due diligence has been performed
they wish to enter into. But not at this point in time today.
I feel like the names that were I see in the queue were already in the queue when we were still on an
amendment by mr. Roth. Anyone want, wanna stay in on the amendment
to the amendment or wanna wait till we get back to the roth amendment? Everybody good? Okay. Mr. Roth,
then you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to your amendment, if that's what you
want. Thank you. Yes.
um, I, I, I want to thank, uh, council member ridley for helping
clarify the situation. I think his addition to the amendment
is really actually valuable because it does clarify the
acquisition and the leasing or the, the, uh, future,
uh, um, commitment would be
a non-binding situation. Uh, and I would endorse and, and suggest
that we approve your, your addition. My concern on the
previous, uh, uh, of the, my previous comments
is that pre-acquisition agreements, uh, are not
a defined term. It's a, it's, it's just a, an agreement.
and what we're committing here to is for a lot of specific
costs that we don't know what they are. And so what I'm trying to figure out,
and what I'm trying to narrow down, is to try to identify
what we're going to be spending money on during these pre-acquisition
costs. What are we spending $2 million or
$4 million on? And, and this is an unusual
situation where we would be asking, um,
people to, to, uh, provide us with due diligence or that
we would be spending money on due diligence for properties
that we don't have commitments for. So could you explain to me
what specific costs we are being, are being anticipated
in using the 2 million and $4 million that we're
committing for this pre-acquisition, uh, agreement?
council member roth, if you're asking that question, I'd, I'm asking peter to if, or
or whoever. Thank you, mr. Janssen.
I'm happy to speak in broad categories, uh, pursuant to what was presented in closed session.
but there's a range of activities that will occur, um,
primarily to answer questions that this body and the public is asked and to create apple's,
apples comparisons on, uh, footprint, quality of the buildings, age
of systems, um, environmental studies, things like this. Uh,
so there was detailed budgets presented in executive session. So I, I would point
you back to that last week, um, in terms of what are the categories and possible spends and how that
relates to the negotiation scenarios as we collect information
for you. So, um, I I, if we were unclear, we're happy to
t that information, but there was very specific budgetary information presented last week.
would you, uh, would you, uh, say that it's tradition in the,
in the industry that, uh, a buyer would not, or a potential
tenant or a ba potential buyer would not be expending funds
to receive due diligence information from, from, uh,
cus from potential properties that would be trying
to provide information that it would be up to a potential
buyer to be spending money to figure out what the buy, what the
building is or the property is before we have it under contract or
before we have a commitment. Why would we be buying
you, uh, environmental reports or due diligence reports on,
on conditions of, of, of, uh, prop of, of, um,
mechanical, electrical, other situations?
well, if I could just start council member roth. These are the very things what that,
the things that you just listed. If I could just start by saying, these are the
things that you all have asked us for, and you've said that without these things,
you cannot make your decision. So we are really following
what council has been asking us to go and get. And
this is the process that we've laid out that we would need to undergo
in order to provide that. And so I hear you very clearly, but that is the
reason why these items have been presented in a way that will allow for us to
do the exact thing that you've described. I think what cbre has communicated
to us several times that this would allow for
us to make that happen, show our commitment
to being able to work with whatever those potential, uh, property opportunities
are, and then bring that information back. And so that's exactly what we're trying to do.
I'll let mr. Jensen, uh, continue. Uh, I, I appreciate
the spear of the question, and, and it's a very fair one. Um, you're speaking in terms
of, if I understood your question correctly, what buyers tra, buyers
lessees interested parties typically do and don't do? And I would just offer
up, it's a hundred percent a function of leverage and negotiation. Um, and
what we presented last week was, um, in our exploratory
findings that there are counterparties willing to perform services at risk,
um, on their side of the table, so to speak. Um, but there are 100%
items that are highly customed to the city of dallas, such as how do you replicate
city council chambers, um, that are non-traditional requests. And
those are things, um, that no buyer, or excuse me, no seller, lessor,
counterparty, or architect are gonna perform for free. Um, so there
are very specific things you all have asked for, for solutions that do require
city spends, so to speak. Um, but, uh, I,
I would not characterize in blanket statements about what buyers typically do
and don't do, particularly when you're talking about public-private partnerships and transactions
of this magnitude. Um, I can tell you, uh, in all of
my major transactions that I've advised clients on travis
county, dallas county, city of austin, pre-development, pre-acquisition
agreements, this is the best practice for how to arrive at those
custom answers to custom requests for very specific programming
and due diligence requests that are requested by governing bodies. So, um,
I would characterize this as best practice to, in order to get the apples to apples
to, uh, further discussion, enable you all to make a decision on
future binding agreements, which, um, are clearly not addressed
in this, uh, by design. Uh, thank you. Um, I,
I do have a concern that in the motion it basically says
including, uh, cost reimbursement to property owners, which you have just,
uh, sort of helped explain, uh, but it doesn't
sort of authorize us or have any kind of, of guidelines as
to what kind of monies we're talking about. And we don't know. And, and I'm, I'm
telling you, we're, we're talking about, uh, several
buildings here, four buildings that we're even considering according
to this motion. And these, these amounts could be absolutely out
of control. We don't have any control over, over those, the costs that
these owners are doing. We don't have, unless we negotiate those
in advance, we don't have any guidelines of what we're trying to, to establish
here. And we've just authorized $4 million, mr. To just give away
for stuff. So, I mean, we haven't authorized yet, mr. We're talking about $4 million.
I just wanna make sure you're going to tailor these more to the, the, the
merits of moving the word binding from where you placed to where
he recommends. 'cause that's really all his, that's all his amendment. The amendment does. Thank
you. And what I was trying to do is, was understand that that this,
the binding of our non-binding part of it is important once
we bind ourselves to a, to a pre-authorization
agreement or to a future agreement that we are committing to
spend monies that we don't know what those commitments are. So I would be in
favor of, of, uh, councilman ridley's, uh,
uh, amendment. Uh, but I would still like to preserve my
amendment under underlying. Anyone else wanna speak on for against
the amendment to the amendment? State none, madam secretary, go ahead and call the roll.
thank you, mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes, if you're in favor. No. If you oppose
council member west. No. Council member moreno.
no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kana?
yes. Council member basil dua.
council member basil dua is
absent when vote taken. Council member.
council member basil dua?
yes. Thank you. Council member
blair. Council member blackman? Yes. Council member
stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No. Council
member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem johnson?
no. Mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails, mr. Mayor. Alright, we're back
on the roth amendment. Chairwoman mendelson, you're
recognized for three minutes on the roth amendment. Anyone else will she speak on for against the
roth amendment? Seeing none, madam secretary, call the role. Thank you. Mr.
mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No.
if you oppose council member west. No. Council member moreno?
no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kana?
yes. Council member baa?
yes. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem
johnson? No. Mayor prom resendez? No. Mayor
johnson? No. With six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion
fails. Mr. Mayor, we're back on item one as move
by mr. West chairwoman mendelssohn for what purpose? I move to amend
the motion to prohibit any property from consideration that currently
has or is contemplated to have any government related
entity, nonprofit that receives funding from the city or vendor
of the city within the last 24 months as tenants or owners
of the same building. Is there a second?
it's been moved in a second. You need five minutes to explain your motion or no? Sure.
okay. You have five minutes. Thank you. I think it's extremely important that we
avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or even an actual
conflict of interest. And as, uh, we
consider that there may be properties that are very, very
large beyond the scope of what the city would occupy
independently, that we may be joining other tenants.
we may seek other tenants. We may
move into an ownership situation where we
are the lease of an entity that we already have
an established relationship with. And I think this is very problematic, so we should
preclude those from consideration. Thank you. Anyone else
was just gone for against the amendment by ms. Mendelson?
seeing none. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you.
thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you are in favor. No. If you opposed.
council member west. No. Council member moreno? No.
council member gracie? No. Council member kana? Yes.
council member basel dua. Yes. Council
member blair? No. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
no. Council member ridley. Yes. Deputy mayor prote johnson?
no. Mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, chair
minimums. And for what purpose? I move to amend the motion to require any
property considered be available for lease or for sale. With both
options presented to the council. Is there a second? Second. We
moved in second. Do you need five minutes? I think that one's self-evident. Thank you.
anyone else wanna speak on for against the amendment by ms. Mendelson?
seeing none. Uh, mr. Roth, do you recognize for five minutes? Um,
I, I would like to really support, uh, suggest that we all support this amendment. This
really is, I think the, uh, an important,
uh, move into making sure that we do receive, uh,
uh, both opportunities, all opportunities in evaluating,
uh, this kind of a, uh, of a, of a major, major,
uh, decision making. So I don't see that there's a problem with it. I
think it clarifies the situation and I think it's good for all
of us to have that, uh, that, uh, requirement
in this particular motion. Thank you. Anyone else wanna speak on
for or against the amendment by ms. Mendelson? Seeing
none. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, please state yes,
if you're in favor? No. If you're opposed. Council member west? No.
council member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council
member kadana? Yes. Council member basil doa?
yes. Council member blair. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor prote johnson? No.
mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No. With
six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor.
ms. Mendelson, for what purpose? Well, I just would like to tell you this is my last one.
okay. Um, it is to amend the motion to require any move from
1500 marilla happen after the inauguration of all council members
and mayors elected in november or december, 2027.
it's been moved and seconded. Second. I heard a second
already. And you have four or five minutes if you need it. Thank you. Um,
first, should this happen, which I hope it does
not, we need, um, a very thoughtful plan, not something rushed.
I've heard rumors. I hope they are only rumors that, um, staff
members in this building have been told that they plan should plan to leave before the end of the
calendar year. That seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
number two, staff is already highly distracted with other large
projects that need their full attention and resolution. Please
deliver for us on stemmons, on hampton, the miramar independence,
the police academy, and the convention center. I won't even mention the wings.
there's a lot of really big projects that must be done
properly and we're already seeing issues. Number three.
it would be good for the new folks to kick it off without the baggage of this
city council. And mayor
ms. Black may recognize for five minutes. Um, ms. City manager, in
your due diligence, is there going to be a timeline given to
us of when a potential move if it happens, or,
um, I guess I'm trying to understand what is the, the
understanding of what the, what we're gonna get and is the timeline gonna be in it
based on the items that are before you, you will get the due diligence related to the potential
sites for relocation. We will not have plans on what happens
after that until we get then get further direction from the city council. And I
think it would be in my best interest not to assume anything other than the due diligence
that I need to bring back during the month of august. Okay. So timelines of
moving is won't be in the first round, but it could come in, in a
sub subsequent round. Once we understand the will of the body, then that
would be what you should expect from me to bring back to you. And so then that's when we
can talk about timing as well. Yes. Okay. I,
like I said, uh, words matter and so expectations and I just wanna make
sure that it's on the record. Thank you.
is there anyone else would like to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn? Say none.
madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes, if
you're in favor. No. If you oppose council member west. No. Council
member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
kaena. Council member basel. Doa dua
is absent when? Vote take yes. Council
member basil doa? Yes. Thank you. Council
member blair? No. Council member blackman? Yes.
council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor po. Tim johnson?
no. Mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor
johnson? No. With six. Voting in favor. Nine.
oppose the motion fails mr. Mayor. Okay, we're still on agenda item one.
anyone else wish to speak on for or against it? Mr. Mayor? Point of order. State your point of order.
I'd like further clarification on the motion. I don't
see what the connection is between the first and the second bullet points.
if the first one authorizes transfer of 2 million from
the contingency reserve to the general fund, what happens
is that money earmarked for something in specific sounds like
a debate point. No, I'm just asking the question. Make make
it a, make it a valid point of order for me though. What's, what's your point of order?
well, if you're, if you're seeking clarification on what the motion is, and that's something that, that factors into
debate time, point of order is stating a point of order under the rules.
you understand the distinction? I'm saying if, if, if you want more
clarification on that, you can chime in and you can, you can have
five minutes of floor time to ask anybody around here. You'd like to ask
that question of staff to author, but we can't turn points of
order into free debate time. Well, okay. I'll ask my clarification
question on my time. So do you want, I mean, but you can have it. I'm saying you can have it right now
if you want it. We're, we're on it now. We're, we're back on the original motion. That's fine.
you, you reckon that's for five minutes. I'm just trying to give you the floor and saying that's how we need
to do this. Thank you. Okay. So, um, my question
for the city manager is, uh, what happens to the
2 million transferred from contingency to the general fund? Will it
be earmarked in any way? And how does that relate to the second bullet
point about increasing appropriations to,
uh, not exceed 2 million in facilities in real estate management
from the reserve fund? I don't see the connection between those two bullets.
thank you for the question. Council member. Ridley, I'll have to see if our cfo
is around. I think the, there he is. . I think, I think that
what we originally had planned in the item, I think the motion that was made by
council member west actually changed out the source of funds. It is still
a total of 3 million. It's not two plus one plus another two. But I'll
let mr. Ireland yes. Uh, chain. Thank you ms. Tolbert. Jack ireland, chief financial
officer. Um, reserve funds are not currently
appropriated. So it's a two step process
to move the cash basically from the reserve fund, the
contingency reserve fund into the general fund. And
then the second step is we have to have legal authorization through an
appropriation to spend it. So step one, transfer it, step two,
appropriate it, then, then you're able to spend it. Well,
so we're moving it out of a reserve fund into the general fund
and appropriating it within the general fund facilities and real estate management
department to spend it as we would any budgeted item. So we're
not talking about a total of $4 million for due diligence. We're
talking about only 2 million. Yes, sir. So
what does it mean to insert the word increase appropriations
in the amount of 2 million in facilities in real estate management.
and, and how does the original 2 million from the contingency
going to the general fund get into the facilities and real estate management
fund? So again, the, uh,
the contingency reserve is not an appropriated fund.
so it, it's a reserve fund and we transfer the funds from the contingency
reserve fund into the general fund. And the
increase in appropriation is because the facilities and real estate management budget
was approved by council in september at $36,082,537.
and so we're increasing the appropriations within the
facilities and real estate management department's budget so that the funds
can be spent. It's just a two step process. It's the same $2 million,
take $2 million out of the reserve fund, move it over into the contingency
re uh, I'm sorry. Move it out of contingency reserve, move it into
the general fund and appropriate it so you can spend it. Well, and
that's the problem with this motion. It doesn't accomplish what you just outlined because
it talks in the first bullet about taking 2 million out of the contingency
reserve fund, putting it into the general fund. And the second bullet, it talks about taking,
uh, putting $2 million in the facilities in real estate management
from the contingency reserve fund. Shouldn't that say from
the general fund? N no, sir. We're moving it into one place within the general fund.
we're moving it in from contingency reserve into the general fund
where in the general fund, we're moving it into the general fund appropriation
for facilities and real estate management. Exactly. But you're in the
second bullet saying you're taking an additional 2 million from the general
fund contingency reserve fund to put it in the frm.
that's what's confusing about this. It's, it's the way they're written. Every single time
we use the contingency reserve fund, we move money from the contingency reserve
and move it into and specify which department it's going to be spent
out of. Uh, we did the same thing for planning and development, uh,
in april when we spent $200,000 for the non-conforming
use study. It's the way we did, uh, last september when we moved $4 million
into park and recreation for fair park. It's the process. It's a two
step process. Move it out of contingency reserve, move it into
and specify the department to appropriate it within.
well, I think this, uh, is very poorly worded in referring
twice to taking money out of the contingency reserve fund,
but onto the merits of this initiative. This
is, uh, not a necessary step at this point in
time. It is not necessary to rush forward to
spend $2 million to move without proper
consideration of the costs of repair versus the costs
of move out. There is no billion dollar price tag
for the cost of repairing this building. There is no plan for the
usage of the property that city hall sits upon. There is no
one knocking on our door anymore who may want this property.
there is no justification to destroy this iconic
building just for some un um,
stated reason as to moving into
some commercial office building. I submit that this
is an unnecessary action that we need to further
explore the critical repair needs of city hall rather than
remodeling and modification to convert this building into
class a office space. Thank you
mr. Roth. You recognized for five minutes on the
original underlying motion on agenda item one.
um, I, I also, uh, am, uh, questioning
the, uh, the, uh, clarification and also
the, uh, wording in this, uh, additional change. This to me
does not restrict in my reading of this, and in a formal
reading or in an informal reading of this, it does not,
uh, clearly say that we are only spending $2 million.
this when you were, when you include the word. And that's an, that's
a plus. And that means that, and I, and I'm the
technical aspect of how you do this, uh, in the past
is not clear to me. And it's, I don't think it's clear to any of us. And I wanna
make sure that if you want to provide this, then there should be another bullet
that says, in no event will any of these funds be more
be that no, in no event will the funds be used exceed
$2 million total. And, and I think that, that
this is, again, these are contingency funds. I thought
contingency funds were for emergencies. I don't think this is
an emergency. Um, and I don't, I want to make sure that the
public and that the rest of our colleagues really understand that we're
spending money to do, to get information on, on stuff
that, that we don't know how much money we're spending. We don't know what we're getting for it.
and, and we're spending money that we could be utilizing to
fix things up in, in our, in our current house and in other places. So
I'm real, I'm really concerned about it. Jack, and if you could sort of,
uh, help, uh, sort of indicate if, if we could change
somehow clarify that it would be only $2 million total.
uh, that would certainly help me evaluate it.
what I'm second seconding
mr. Ross amendment to insert an additional bullet limiting the
total amount of the expenditure to $2 million point of order.
mayor. Yeah. State, what, what's your, the original motion says not to
exceed. I don't know how more, much more crystal clear it can be.
I'm, I'm trying to figure out if that was, are you actually,
I'm actually making a, an amendment and I apologize for being clumsy in the amendment.
I'd like to make sure that that, that it's clear that there is only $2 million
total out of these, this, uh, change in what
they're doing here. And when you're talking about the increase in appropriations
says that it's 2 million, it's maximum, but it doesn't clarify the first bullet
point. And and to me, uh, I think it's not clear,
uh, generally and if, if this would help clarify it and if,
why wouldn't there be a res uh, an ability to clarify it?
uh, what would be the, the difficulty in, in clarifying it
that says under no circumstance would there be more than $2 million
of, uh, used for this purpose. Mr. Roth, if
I could just make it clear, because of the way we typically
present agenda items anyway that we come to counsel for authorization
in both bullets. If I'm looking at the motion,
both say not to exceed the transfer from the
contingency into the general fund and the
appropriations that would move over into real estate, it says not to exceed. And
that is the language that we use on all agenda items that we bring to council
when we're asking you to un authorize a certain amount. And for us not to exceed
that amount. So that is our standard language. Thank you for your clarification. To
me in reading this, there's two buckets of money. And
when you have two buckets of money, each bucket can't exceed 2 million.
but to combined, we are only going to spend 2 million,
not 2 million from each bucket. And that's what's not clear to me.
and so, and if it's not clear to me, and I apologize for not being the
brightest bulb in the, in the room, but I have a feeling that this
isn't real clear. So I would like to make it clear and if it's clear for
me, maybe it'll be clear for others. And that's what I would encourage, uh, our
colleagues to agree to. Well, chairman west has raised a point of order about the
appropriateness of the amendment being essentially, um,
not an amendment. I mean, the parliamentarian can can
give you further explanation, but basically it's, it's, it's
a wordsmithing issue because of, based on what the city manager just
said, based on what the pretty
much the plain language of the amendment says. It says already what you're
trying to amend it to do. So the amendment doesn't change anything.
so it's, it's, I guess superfluous is a good word. But, um,
would you want to, you wanna elaborate any further on that? I mean, mr.
mayor, I, you, you explained it, it's, it's somewhat redundant at this point,
so I'm gonna sustain his point of order and say that essentially
your intent is already accomplished in the, in the existing language.
um, point of information. Mayor, could we have the mr.
west's current motion reread? It might clarify
this issue. We, we can. Um, and then I want to go
to ms. Adeena, I believe for five minutes
on, on this motion that's being written. Okay.
I I got you. Okay. That's right, you're right. Oh, I forgot. She, the secretary just told
me that's a mistake. Sorry. I'm gonna go to ms. Blackman after we read it one
more time. Just everyone can know it. Is it reflected in this
piece of paper now accurately? Is there a piece of paper that we can
have everybody look at too so we don't have to spend too much more time reading it over?
go ahead. Thank you. I move to approve this item with the following, change to the source
of funds by eliminating reference to the transfer of arpa funds.
and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds
in an amount not to exceed $2 million from the general
fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase
appropriations in an amount not to exceed $2 million in
facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency fund reserve fund
ms. Black. Will you recognize for five minutes on, on that motion? Thank you. Okay.
jack, um, where did you go? You
used to answer, well, I didn't hear the question to see if it was mr. Oh, the
question is, is I would like to understand can for the public, what
is the contingency rever reserve fund used for?
thank you, uh, jack arland, chief financial officer. So the city of dallas
has, um, a few different reserve funds that we
have. So in total we have an unassigned fund balance
that has a minimum balance, uh, between 50 days and
70 days according to our fmpc. We currently have about
$338 million in there. Did you that represent 62
days, you said th 3 38. I'm sorry, I
I'm asking 338 million for the unassigned. I'm just writing it
down. I'm 338 million.
yes ma'am. 330 un unsigned fund balance? Yes.
okay. And that is made up of the emergency reserve.
so we have an emergency reserve that is one reserve within that that
is 50 million. We have a contingency reserve, which is 10.3 million.
we have, uh, employee benefit reserve, which is 16.1 million.
and then we have residual that's, uh, not encumbered, not committed funds of
$278 million for a total of about 338 million.
so specifically within that, the contingency reserve fund is a fund
that is a reserve that is established through our financial management
performance criteria. It is a component of the unassigned fund fund
balance. It shall be used to provide for unanticipated needs that arise during
the year. Examples of those, but not all inclusive
expenses associated with the new service that wasn't identified during the
budget process. New public safety or health needs, revenue shortfalls,
service enhancements. So those are just some examples of things that
come up outside of the budget process that this, uh, fund was
set up so that we could come to city council if the, uh, need arose
and ask for you to transfer the money out of the reserve
and into the general fund and then appropriate it within the general fund
so that we can spend it for whatever the council, uh, directs
us to do. So as I mentioned, we had $10.3 million in the fund
in the reserve as we started the year in april, we came to the
council and requested to use $200,000 out of the
contingency reserve because something came up outside of the budget process
for the, um, I forget the word. The, uh, non-conforming,
thank you non-conforming uses. We used $200,000
for that prior to that. The last time we used it was at the end of last fiscal year
when we were taking back operation of fair park and we needed to use
$4 million for that purpose. So this, um, use today
is appropriate within, uh, the contingency reserve fund if council
authorizes the transfer out of the reserve and the appropriation of the dollars.
so is the 10.3 that is what it's in there
now or is that what was in the budget? And then you have to subtract it two. It's 0.1 today. 10.
okay. And so with this amendment it would go down to eight and then
the next amendment it would go down? Well, we can talk about that, yes ma'am. Okay. So it'd go down to eight.
um, so back on the motion it says terms,
responsibilities and cost sharing. I get the terms, but can you define
what responsibilities, and I don't know if it's peter, I don't know if it's frmi don't know
who, but I'm trying to understand because back to what ms. Cena said, what
are we going to get back at the end of this exercise? And so it would be
understanding what responsibilities and even cost sharing. What does that
mean? So that's not a question I can answer. So I will turn to,
uh, mr. Jensen.
I think the, uh, most impactful items you'll get
back, um, through this process is very clearly
articulation of test fits in different buildings. Okay. Now test fits
are what test fits for different occupancy plans and programs that the city
have articulated. So, um, that is a enormous and
an impactful step, um, because every different building and an
opportunity has, uh, different efficiency ratios and
will land at a different number. So you can't paint in broad strokes of 500,000
feet or 550 or 400, uh, when you start going through this process,
you'll, you'll land at very precise numbers. So that's just an example of
due diligence that will be completed during this step so that, you know, whether you need to occupy
400, 425, 350, um, there are a host of
decisions that go into that, but that's an example of, of work that would be completed
during this step. So is that considered responsibilities? I'm just trying to understand what
responsibilities is in this context. It says define terms,
responsibilities, and cost sharing. I get the terms and cost sharing
responsibilities is what I don't quite understand what we're gonna get back.
um, here's an example and I think the best one is, is,
um, I'm thinking through this, uh, live with you, but I think the best example
is probably related to city council chambers or custom
work inside of an asset. Um, city will
have obligations and responsibilities in terms of giving information to architects,
engineers, audio visual, uh, technology companies,
uh, furniture companies, for example, to arrive at definitive
information related to that specific program. So, um,
one of the good things about binding agreements is that they obligate both of the parties to
perform. So you can't string parties along or, um, ask them
to do work that is non-contractual, so to speak. So, um, I think your
responsibilities here are mainly related in referencing information sharing and
feedback, um, so that people can price things so that people can, um,
provide feedback and understand the risk of executing different requests from the city.
is that answer your question? Yes. Yes. Thank you. And it says no more than
four properties in the cbd. So that, can you define
what the dallas central business district is
or any, anyone, the definition that is
already used? I think it's within the boundaries
of, I wanna say it's woodall rogers running the traditional one. It's woodall
rogers 3 45. It's the, the traditional cd that would, okay, I just wanna make sure that, because
ccb d gets very, uh, fluid, right? Yes ma'am. And I would just wanna
make sure that that's, I think people have been chiming in on possible locations.
and just to be clear, yes, the cbd is this traditionally defined c
it is the current way we defined the cbd. Okay. Yes. Um, I believe
mr. West talked about lease options in his opening, um,
comments. I am not for a lease and so, um, I just think
it'd be crazy for a city to do any kind of lease. So I just wanted to put that on the record
'cause I had, uh, lease options here. Um,
and so what in, and then you look at including cost reimbursements to
property owners. What do you anticipate as being
a cost reimbursement
when you move from test fits into schematic design or specific engineering
work or something that is atypical and non customary
for, um, call it administrative office, build out? Those could be
possible reimbursements, but I would point you all back to what we discussed
in executive session, um, that this is very much a function of negotiation,
um, and function of leverage. Um, and the
idea that we are 100% responsible for all costs,
um, is strictly something that should be negotiated. So the most important thing I think that's
happening today is you all are giving us authority to negotiate, um, so that we
can understand, uh, the final risk sharing and cost sharing for certain items. So
the cost reimbursements are not necessarily in the due
diligence, but moving out of the due diligence into a final one. Or is
it stuff that we have to reimburse, like you said, schematic for an
architect to do a rendering? It, it's very hard to speak in broad
strokes when you're talking about very different properties, uh, and very different ownership groups.
and, um, so I'd say that's a possibility. Um, but I won't speak in absolutes
because I think that limits us. So it it is just gonna, it's gonna vary.
yes ma'am. Um, is there a possibility that it could be less than four?
I don't think we're talking about $4 million. So I think it's two. No, it says no, no, four properties. Sorry.
I think oh, oh, property. If I could just, because it says right here, four, no more than four
properties, locations. And I'm just wondering with $2 million, that's a
half a million for each property to do it. And I'm just wondering if there's a possibility.
so with that, going into the details that we've shared in closed session, I think we've given counsel
an overview of the potential options. I think based on the feedback the
council provided, we know that there is a, there's a pool now
that we should be focused on, and that is totally based on the feedback that you've
provided within those sessions. So that's why it says no more than four, right? So
I'm asking is there a possibility that it could be two
or it could be all four, it would be premature for me to give you that final answer until
we come back with that due diligence to where you'll even know if it's four or one or
if it's four, three or four or two. I think that's part of the process. Okay. So if four are
in the pool, who's gonna narrow it down to two?
is that you guys or is? 'cause we know the, I mean, there's a pool of four
and it says four. So if it all of a sudden, oh wait, are
we gonna do two? I think our responsibility or my responsibility, councilwoman
blackman, is to bring back the results of the due diligence, not to make
any preconceived ideas about where the numbers should be once we come back.
I think that's what you're asking for us to bring to this body so that you can do that. So that
will be a part of our, the work that we will bring back. So will we see all of the properties
that you do due diligence on? We will bring you back the results of the due diligence,
but of all of 'em that you do it. So say you go down four and you see one of
them may not necessarily cover it. Can we still see that one? If that's what
council chooses to do? Um, if there could be a situation where we've
got four and we go and we start this process and, and one falls
out. So I just can't give you the directness until we are on the other side of it.
and are all the, um, information that we collect,
is it gonna be subject to open records? And I may, maybe not you,
pete, or maybe that's a attorney. We, we answered that one
last week. 'cause there were questions about reports that yes, I'd like to hear from the attorney, but it
was done in back there. Not a problem. I would like to know from the attorney
that when this information is collected, is
it subject it, it can, is it gonna be open to the public?
hi, connie ker with city attorney's office. Um, so while it's
in being deliberated or information that the city council would deliberate
in executive session, it would mean it would not be subject to open records. Okay.
uh, release. But it does really does depend on the nature of the information that's brought
to you. So we have to wait until to receive the information,
go through it, and then it could be made public if, if it moves forward. Correct.
okay. So, um, this process, the public will not see any details?
no. It's after we've decided, uh, that this is the one that
we're going with. Right. Then now that information gets and does all the
other ones get released as well at that time? Or are those still remaining in, in
the executive privilege? So it depends on the nature of the information and in
what form it's delivered to the city. Um, so some of these property owners might
say these are draft presentations, and so draft presentations not being
finalized can be, uh, exempted from open records. But
anything that would be of information that would allow the city council to deliberate on its final
decision, um, would not be subject to open records until you've actually acted
on the information that you've received. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Mayor.
ms. Kadena, you're recognized for five minutes. Um, peter, I, is there underlying
motion? Yeah. Peter, I have a question for you. So you mentioned, um,
due diligence included the environmental assessment. Can
you tell me a little bit more about that and what that entails?
uh, I think the best reference point is the work that you all perform to your own city hall
and that, um, every environmental assessment starts with your generic,
uh, environmental site assessment, phase one, and that will have findings
or may not have findings. And then if it has findings and a recommendation to proceed
to other phases of investigation, then you proceed to that. So, um, that's
why it's a little bit, um, well it's impossible to predict exactly
what due diligence is done on every single asset here because you don't know what the findings are
going to be. Um, but that will have a, uh, material impact on the process.
so it doesn't include remediation or a pricing out of what that potential
remediation could cost. N no, I, I disagree. It could include
those things, but it, you don't know what the buildings have, you all didn't know what was in this building until
you perform the technical work. Um, and that illuminated a path of
other information you had to gather. So it very much could include those things.
um, that's part of the due diligence. Okay. Thank you.
and then, um, how will the information be provided to us and the residents,
um, from the due diligence? Will it be on the website? How,
how would that be disseminated? I think the city attorney
answered some of that, so I will not answer that portion of it, but I think council has asked us to
come back with the side by side comparison. I think we have to be able to share that
with the council and then once there's additional opportunities
for you guys to ask questions, we definitely wanna have a public presentation about
it. That information will be provided to the body. Any additional details that
need to be either posted on our website, the reports, at that time, it would be available to
the public. And again, it's pretty much the council's, um, prerogative
for any meetings that you wanna have in your districts to describe that information
as you've already done through some of the town hall meetings that you've had. That would be something
that can continue, uh, based on the direction of the council. Okay. And
then I have one more question. Um, would this fall under procurement rules
where council members are not allowed to speak to the applicants or, um,
tenants of the building?
so, so could you, uh, just clarify your question?
yeah. Would this be like a procurement process where applicants are not able to meet
or, uh, speak with council members? Like, would this be a close
time or are we allowed to? So real
estate acquisitions are not subject to procurement. Okay.
um, so you're not making any expenditure right now that you would
be engaging for goods or services? So I would
have to say no. Okay. And is there a time when that may come into play?
sure. Um, to the extent that the city would acquire property in
whatever manner, whether it be a lease, lease to purchase or ownership, um, and
you engage, uh, third parties to conduct services,
possibly construction or you acquire goods, um, to outfit
the property, then procurement would apply. Okay. Thank you.
and then jack, I have one question for you. If you're still around,
can you, can I hear the question and then I'll say if mr. Allen needs to answer that?
yeah, I was just wondering if the contingency funds, 'cause I, we've used that
I think for some, for an item in my district, but if that could be also be used
for repairs of city hall, mr. Arlan,
the question is whether or not, if any of the contingency funds that have been described, the one
in particular that we're using for this item, could it be used for repair
if, if there's an emergency in, in this, in-between period? I apologize.
ms. Tolbert, can you, I just didn't hear you the question. I apologize.
I I'm wondering if the contingency fund can be used during this time when,
um, you know, like if there's an emergency that arises for repairs
of city hall if needed. So if the question
is, can contingency reserve be used for emergency repairs
of city hall? This city hall? Yes, ma'am. If the city council voted
to transfer out of contingency reserve, uh, and it's determined
to be an unbudgeted need? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you.
mr. Roth, you're recognized for, oh, sorry. Hold on a second.
nope. Still, still. Everyone is on round two. So three minutes for
you mr. Roth, and then, um, chairwoman. Oh, you haven't spoken on this.
okay. I'm gonna go to you first then. Five minutes. Thank
you. Um, can you walk us through step by step how the universe of
potential sites was identified and narrowed down to just the four locations?
I mean, I think the public needs to understand what the process is here.
uh, final reference, mr. Mayor point of what point of clarity
are we getting to, uh, information that was presented in executive session?
mr. Sustained, I had to ask the parliamentary and let's steer
clear the executive session content. I'm sorry.
I just wanna understand exactly what it is you're ruling out of order that
the public can't understand what the process was for narrowing it down.
I mean, that does not seem like that would be covered by an executive session
item. If it was discussed during
an executive session and only then I, it's literally the
subject of the executive session. It's literally the topic. Well,
the process was not the topic though. It was part of a real estate discussion.
okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to debate you. Thank you. I understand. I I'm just,
I'm I'm trying to also make sure that we don't, um, violate
our own, well, our own state laws and everything else about executive session
content. We were in executive session on real estate matters.
right? That was a, that was, that was, that's what that was posted for, I believe.
so I'm not sustain I understand point of I understand you're sustaining
that. I don't agree, but I will move on. Um, what specific criteria were
used to determine which properties made the short list and who developed that
criteria? Point
of clarity? Mr. Mr. Mayor. It seemed like they sustain point of order. Sustained. Sustained. Thank you.
what properties were considered but eliminated and why?
point of order mr. Mayor sustained.
how many buildings were evaluated before arriving at just four sites?
point of order. Mr. Mayor sustained.
what instructions were given to brokers, consultant staff,
third parties regarding the search for potential sites? Point of order mr. Mayor
sustained. Were any city owned properties
evaluated as alternatives? And if so, what were the findings?
point of order mr. Mayor sustained. Really not even to
know if we looked at any city properties, we're
not gonna disadvantage ourselves. And, and how we go about assessing
the market and telling everybody what we discuss in an executive session about our
approach to this. We're any properties outside the central
business district considered point of order mr. Mayor sustained.
specifically what due diligence activities were contemplated under this resolution
point of order? Mr. Mayor?
yeah. 'cause I think we're just automatically saying that. Nope.
specifically what due diligence activities are contemplated
under this resolution?
I think you can answer that.
can you repeat the question, please? Specifically,
what due diligence activities are contemplated
under this resolution? I don't believe that I should have my time docked for repeating
it for the third time. Could you please remove, put my time back? Okay. Hold, hold on
one second. I think I, I'm, I'm saying
I think that's a question that can be answered. I don't think that that's, I know, but not inappropriate.
and I know and repeating it the third time I lost time, it should have been returned to
me. It should have been frozen. If I'm repeating the same question
for the convenience of staff. Okay. Give her 10 seconds
back and then please answer that question.
thank you. Um, and thank you for the question. Councilman middleston. We've given several examples
already as to what would be included in the due diligence. Um,
I would ask mr. Janssen if there's something that we've not given at this point
to please share that, again, protecting the process as well as the potential
market, um, work in the integrity of the market.
I, I very much appreciate the, the spirit of the question and the thematic,
uh, question from, from staff and the public. Um,
due diligence encompasses a whole range of activities, um, including,
um, environmental, um, we spoke to earlier, including test fits
that I spoke to earlier, including, uh, custom design work where necessary,
um, to evaluate city council chambers, uh, and engineering
that goes along with that. Um, parking is a due diligence item.
um, you all have discussed that at length today as well. But, um, all of these are,
um, requisite steps to fully understand the
magnitude of the decision you all might make later. So, um, that's just a list of examples,
but, um, the path can take different iterations
as you learn things about different assets, much like the path has iterated here on
city hall as you've learned information. Council member mendelson, I will hold your
time for 10 seconds. Thank you.
what reports, studies, inspections, analysis, or consultant work products will
be generated?
is it a question? For me? It is. Okay. Um, I think it's impossible
to speak specifically to every different asset and every different item that
will occur. Um, 'cause you may learn something about an asset that
says, okay, no more due diligence on that asset. That's a deal killer. You know, so there
are possibilities where, um, there's not gonna be deliverables on certain assets
depending on what you find. So I think it's impossible to answer that question,
uh, with an exact specificity. But that is certainly something that we would report back
on and give to the city manager and staff so that you'll have an itemized list of
exactly what was done, why, and the path along the way. Okay. Um, but
we spoke exhaustively about this in executive session, but, so you're asking for
$2 million and you're not even gonna say you'll for sure get these
reports.
I, I've never heard of spending money like this and not having some definitive
work product. I can speak to the process, but everyone
should also understand this is not a contract with me or my company.
so there're many different things. Well, we do have a contract with you, correct? You do have a contract with, this is not
a contract with cbre to do all this work. Um, so
they're all, does cbre not generally provide reports when
they do this kind of work? Will you please allow the person you're asking the questions to, to
answer the last question you asked before you thank you. Ask another one. Yes, ma'am. If we are performing
the work, of course we provide reports, um, but we are not the
company doing all of this work, so it's not appropriate for me to answer on the wide variety
of vendors that have to work on this. Um, but you will
get reports for every technical service that is performed,
and that's related to the due diligence.
okay. So a report for every technical service?
yes, ma'am. I, I think just the,
in general, the best case study is what you all have done for city hall. You authorized
many different reports, and all of those are applicable in any stay or go decision.
so that's a very good recent example of the work that's been done
and how the reporting comes out of that.
what information does staff believe that can't obtain without first spending
$2 million?
I mean, city manager, you're asking us for $2 million to do this. What do you think that
you can't get unless you spend the $2 million?
so we've, we've talked thank you for the question, councilman mendelson. And I'll just
say again, um, we have talked extensively in the closed
session with counsel about the additional due diligence, the things that you're asking for.
we've communicated that that additional due diligence is not free and that we
would have to move forward with having the preoc,
um, acquisition agreements done in order to be able to get that additional
due diligence. And I think that this council understands and knows what those
items are because we've talked about those things quite extensively in closed session.
after you're done with due diligence, what deliverable do you see coming to
the city council?
okay. Based on what's before you today, we've talked about the
need to bring back true costs, negotiated terms,
um, whether it's reports around systems, environmental,
all the things that council has requested, and to where we can give you that
information to where you can truly see the difference between the cost
of repairing city hall and the cost for move. And those are the things
that you've asked us to do. So my hope would be that as cbre completes
this additional work, if council proves to move this forward, that would be what
should be expected for us to bring back to you. How will
staff determine whether a site succeeds or fails either during
the due diligence period, after the due diligence period? Or will all
of it come to council? I think this city council and
several conversations have asked us to bring all the information back to you. Okay.
is there anything that would constitute a deal breaker that would cause you to,
um, leave one of these for sites?
I can answer that question at this time, but I do believe that at any point
in the process, if we see something or know something that we is detrimental
to the city, we would have the responsibility of raising the flag and making
sure that that's known to the body. And we would definitely not want to recommend something that
would not be, um, in the best interest of the city. So that is my
responsibility and that is what the council should expect.
will the due diligence include independent third party reviews, or will
will it rely primarily on information provided by the property owners?
I think cbre is working and have a responsibility of, of working on
behalf of the city and protecting our interests. And I'll let mr. Jansen chime
in, but they have a responsibility of representing and making sure that the due
diligence, the validity of the work, the accuracy of the work they are working
on our behalf. I'll add,
um, licensure and reliance is
very important for all technical work. Um, and if the city wants to
rely on reports, uh, sometimes it's important that you pay for those and
not a third party owner, um, to avoid any, uh, conflicts or
misrepresentations or anything like this. So, um, that is part of the strategy as
to why we are requesting this, um, deployment of funds,
um, so that you have the latitude to independently get information.
um, it would be the direction, or it could be the direction of this council going
forward, that that information is then reviewed by another party. That's a distinct possibility.
um, but we would give you recommendations on what may or may not need to be reviewed
and why. Um, but you all can feel free to direct, um, the
team more broadly on what might need to be reviewed.
how was the $2 million figure determined? It's a pretty round number.
I, I would defer that to executive session discussion.
I don't actually recall that being discussed in executive session. I'm
not sure if you were in at the time, but we did talk about why that up to
that number it was, uh, important and just from the work
and just what the industry currently, uh, shows, we talked about why we
believe that that would be a number. This does not mean that that is what would be spent, that's why it
says not to exceed and it's up to that amount.
so you're saying that there's some analysis that
determined that 2 million was an appropriate number that
maybe I missed in I was in the restaurant or something? I mean, I, I do not recall that. Yes, it was
presented in executive session. Okay. Um,
what is the maximum reimbursement any single property owner could receive
undetermined at this point and, um, deferred to executive session?
um, again, in the spirit of transparency, you don't know exactly what
needs to be done on every single site and what can be negotiated to be, um,
covered, um, or expended by counterparties during different points
in the negotiation. But, um, it's impossible to project exactly
what a maximum minimum could be. But, um, the broader strategy is
to perform comprehensive due diligence and bring that back to you all.
so you're not expecting to spend half a million per property, you may spend more
on one and less on others. I, I think the line of question
compromises your negotiation position. Okay. Um,
what if staff spends the entire 2 million and concludes that none of the sites are
suitable? I'll just state this again,
the due diligence. If council authorizes this item will be brought back to the city
council, the information will be shared and at that time,
counsel will be given additional direction about how you would like to proceed.
I'd like to ask the city attorney what terms the city manager
is actually authorized to negotiate without the council
based on this, um, this, um, motion.
I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Yes. Can you stop my time? Thank
you. What terms can the city manager is the city manager authorize
to negotiate without returning to counsel? Based on this
motion? Connie tankersley will take
that one.
the follow up question is what limitations are there? So,
um, the city, by passing this resolution, the city manager can authorize
what essentially will be the scope of diligence that staff
determines and cbre determines is necessary for any one of the
sites based on, um, all the information they have to date.
so it's, it's negotiation of terms for the scope of the due
diligence and city manager. Have you already determined what that scope
is? Are you able to share that? I do not have that in front of me.
that will be the work that we will be doing over the summer as part of
the due diligence in collaboration with cbre.
what provisions protect the city if a property owner fails to cooperate or
provide complete information? So we are, the city attorney's
office is work, going to work with cbre on the final form of
the pre-acquisition agreements to assure that our, um,
necessary protections, um, provisions are in there. So
we will be working with them on the final form. And then
specifically of the items that are being talked about, um,
what will be withheld from the public as a result of these agreements.
so, as I said earlier, any information that is produced in
the performance of the pre-acquisition agreements that would be necessary for the city
council to receive an executive session for its deliberation,
um, to authorize the city manager to take another direction, the
next steps that would not be subject to open records. While it
is, um, protected under executive session beyond
this 2 million, what future expenditures should city council reasonably anticipate?
that's not a question. Councilwoman middleston, with all due respect, I can't answer
that question at this time. I think that you, it is a matter of
this item that is before the council is for this purpose, and I can't tell you what's
on the other side of that until I get further direction from the council. What
financial risks are associated with spending contingency funds in this manner?
I think in the earlier conversation and in two questions that have already been asked
about the contingency fund, uh, that the cfo has already highlighted
of the ways that we've used the contingency fund, how it's been, um, authorized
by this council. And so I do believe that we've already addressed at this
point that this is not our overall contingency. This is one component
of our contingency reserves that we have set aside and that it was an appropriate use
and it did not impact us being able to finish out whether it's the
current fiscal year and if there are other needs that arise. I think we've already answered that
question. What's our current balance of our contingency account?
as stated earlier, it's 10.1 million. We started the year with 10.3.
you used $200,000 for the non-conforming use item
10.1. So by reducing it by 20%, what risks
are we adding to the city? I I do
not think we're adding risk. We still have, uh, in addition to the contingency
reserve, we have, uh, have other reserve funds. If
the situation were to arise our fmpc specifies
for contingency reserve levels, how does this impact that?
so the contingency reserve, uh, requirement
is to budget to be between 0.5 and 1%.
we started the year at 0.52, so we used 200,000.
we will drop below the 0.5, but we will replenish
it as part of next year's budget as we do in previous years. We
leave compliance with our fmpc then the compliance is
we, we start with that amount. Any use of any of our reserves would drop below
the amounts that are stated in the fmpc. The fmpc
requires that we have $50 million in emergency reserve. If we used
it, then obviously we would fall below that until we replenished it.
and how many days of, um, operating dollars does this
put us at? Um, we are currently at 63
or so. It, I don't think it'll drop a full day.
okay. Thank you. Um, so at
what point in this whole process does the counsel have the ability to say, no, we're
not leaving
council can make whatever decisions that you deem that you wanna make at any time?
I think based on where we are today and the direction that
we received last week, um, and the additional requests
for information that several of the council members who are, um, here
today have asked us to bring back, this is the course of action
that we believe is most prudent to be able to bring back the additional due diligence
that you've requested and to really give the side by side that we've continued to hear
that this city council needs. And so my recommendation, of course,
uh, is to, if that's what council wants, allow for us to do
this additional due diligence. And if council does not want that, give me the guidance that
I need in order to move forward. Okay. So you expect that once
you bring it back, the council would have a go or no
go vote.
the due diligence process will be taking place over the next few, few months. Um,
I do believe that the goal would be to come back before we have a finalized
budget council, uh, understands that the budget is due to the city council
by, I think it's august the 11th. And so we would plan to come back
and have information available for you so you'll be able to give additional
direction and hopefully during that time period.
what opportunities will residents have for outreach and meetings?
our police academy, the city staff, is holding community
meetings so far. Only thing I've heard of is, uh, relying on council
members to hold meetings. Will the city staff be, um,
engaging with the public on this topic?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If the question is, will we over the
course of the summer engage with residents as we're doing the due diligence? Is that
the question? Because about the whole topic, we, we would not entertain
in any meetings before we do the due diligence and bring
it back to the city council because we wouldn't have the results of that work. And so I, I
don't think I'm understanding the question.
the question is, the city hasn't done outreach on this topic, which we have
for almost every other topic in the city. And instead the
answer was, well, if a council member wants to have it, they can. But even
something like the police academy, we currently have staff out
there trying to that's your time for this round. Well, I'm repeating the question to her.
that's your time for this round, mr. Roth. So, so she's not gonna answer
the question. She can, but that's your time for this round.
thank you, mr. Roth. You
recognize for three minutes? Uh, thank you. Um,
the, the resolution as I read it, authorizes the city manager
to negotiate and execute a pre-acquisition
agreement. Um, will we be seeing
the, the pre-acquisition agreement before it is
executed? Will we have a an opportunity to review the details,
uh, which define the terms, responsibilities and this cost sharing?
um, it seems like this is a pretty complicated,
it's a, it's an important, uh, uh, document that,
uh, we're going to be, uh, authorizing a signature on.
but that's not clear to me that this body either
in public or in an executive session, would have the opportunity
to, uh, really review what that final pre-acquisition
agreement is going to state. Could you sort of help me understand
the process in your auth, in your authority to execute
this agreement with, without or with our, uh, acquiescence
to it? Mr. Roth, I wanna make sure that I understand
your question. Are you asking are we bringing back the results if this
moves forward? Are we bringing back the results to the council? I, I guess I'm
not understanding the question. Okay. I'm sorry. To clarify, we're authorizing
you to negotiate and execute a
pre-acquisition agreement, but we don't know what
the terms of that pre-acquisition agreement are going
to state. So, mike, and there's a lot of different terms. This
could be a very complicated agreement. And I'm wondering, and it, and
it's specific to the various property owners and the
various properties that we're investigating. My request is, and my,
uh, ask is that are we going to be able to see
the draft of that agreement before you sign it?
are we going to be able to help you, uh, weigh in
on what are the terms that are gonna be in this agreement, which
is going to be a binding agreement on
us? And so I, I'm just, you know, I just want to know what
we're signing. Thank
you for the question, miss mr. Roth. So as part of my responsibility as a city manager,
city council members don't negotiate agreements on anything,
we would be coming back bringing you what we've
done through this due diligence process for city council to entertain,
get feedback, engage, redirect. That would be a part of
the process. When we use the word negotiate, it's the way we do now, whether we're
talking about negotiating contracts that still come to the city council for
approval modifications except or reject, that would be the exact same process that
we would undertake as part of this due diligence. It would not be anything different than
the responsibility that I have now. Uh, and again,
I'm sorry to be clumsy in my question. I'm not asking, uh, whether or
not you're going to get the due diligence product. What I'm trying
to understand is we are making a binding agreement
to commit to do certain things in term, especially
spending up to $2 million in money. And my
question is on that agreement, what are, what are the terms of that agreement
going to be before you execute it and make it a binding agreement?
this isn't just buying, uh, toilet paper, it's,
we're talking about spending a lot of money to really
try to do the right due diligence. And I'm concerned that I wanna make sure
that that agreement does have the authorization for us to
get the correct information and make sure that the monies are
being spent and that if something isn't in that agreement, that we are
able to at least weigh in to give our recommendation or suggestions
to you to assist you in your negotiation of that deal.
not that we are negotiating, but that we have the opportunity to weigh
in to the final agreement, uh, to, uh, give you our
feedback. Our, our, uh, that's your time suggestions for this round. Thank you,
chairman. Ridley, you're recognized for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Mr.
jansen, could you come back to the mic? What is your expectation
as to the time that it will take to
complete due diligence of the items that you've described, including the
environmental assessment, the test fit by space
planners, the engineering, your architectural designs, uh,
et cetera? Uh, it varies. Unfortunately,
I can't give you a precise answer. Um, I, I think the thematic
answer is a lot can be accomplished in the next eight weeks. Um,
and whether the path requires supplemental due diligence
and or, um, different deliverables is somewhat, um, fluid
until you actually start that, the environmental survey being the
prime example of that. Um, but a fair amount of work can be done in, in the next six
to eight weeks. Okay. Uh, but you're not promising
to bring the full due diligence work
product back by a certain date, I take it.
yeah. The full scope has not been, um, uh, completed
in terms of, of schedule and dates and deliverables and things like this, but, um,
I'm, I'm not making any, uh, commitments, uh, personally or or on
behalf the company to do certain things within a certain timeframe. Um, but I think
in prior examples and prior situations like this, the vast
majority of the work can be completed to give you all the, the indicative findings,
uh, in the next six to eight weeks. Okay. Uh, question for the city
attorney. Um, we have heard the description
of what due diligence will entail, as I've just
mentioned in my question to mr. Jansen involving
assessments, space planning, engineering work, et cetera.
I see, uh, I've heard nothing in that definition of
due diligence or in the written description of
item one on our agenda that authorizes the city manager
to negotiate a term sheet for a lease or
a purchase option for any one of the four relocation
sites. Would you confirm that, that, that
this resolution does not authorize any negotiation
of actual lease or purchase terms?
here comes our real estate expert.
okay. Hi. Um, okay. The, the resolution today is
not authorizing any terms for an actual deal,
a transaction to acquire the property. All it's doing is authorizing
diligence. So, uh, the, it's authorizing, uh,
work to produce the information that the consultant can bring back
so that you can deliberate and select a possible
option, whether it's a lease, lease purchase, or a straight out
buy. But it isn't authorizing her, uh, the ability to negotiate
those terms or our consultant. It's not authorizing anyone to actually
negotiate those terms. It's really about the diligence so that you
can select a site. Okay. Uh, thank you city attorney.
alright, um, chairwoman mendelson, you're recognized for three minutes.
thank you. I'm gonna go back to the question we left off
with. Will the city be conducting any public input sessions
over the course of the next few weeks? If council moves forward with this item, we will
be doing the work. We will be working on the budget. I would not expect
that during the summer when council is actually on recess, that there will be
any meetings that I would be asking my staff to go and conduct. I think as
we've done with other public conversations and other meetings, even the meetings that
are happening now around the academy, we do that in consultation with council.
we don't prevent council members from having meetings. If there are meetings that staff has been
requested to attend. We try to accommodate multiple meetings of multiple
council members across multiple districts every single week. So in this particular regard,
over the summer, my attention will be focused on developing the budget,
and my attention will be focused on this body of work. If this is the direction that council
would like for us to proceed. So between now and I would say the time that
we come back with the budget, we will be busy working to bring back
a product that gives council the more information and it gives
you the additional due diligence that you have requested. That's what we will be focused on
over the summer. So I heard a lot of words and I think the answer
was just no. Is that correct? What I'm sharing with you is the
reality of the work that we would have to be doing during this time. We don't,
we typically do not have meetings, um, during the month of july
that take us outside of the, the, the priority that we have, which everyone knows is
the budget. We spend the entire summer working on the budget. And
if council moves this item forward, we would be working on this as well. And we would coordinate
with any council member as we do now, if there's a meeting that you would
like to have, we would work through that with you as we do all of the community
meetings that are out in the, uh, respective districts. So we would not be going away
from the process that we already have that we do now for any council that want. There
have been meetings that have been happening all across the city and
any council member that requested for us to participate, we've tried to make ourselves available
for that. I'll agree. So I'm not preventing any council member from having
any meetings. I'm just sharing with you what the city manager's office will be focused
on over the summer. I'll agree with you. I think the staff is, um, incredibly
accommodating for any kind of town hall that any council member
wants to have on any topic. And I would really commend you for that. However,
what's been missing since this topic, reared its head in october,
is I don't believe there's even once been a city outreach. It's
only been from specific council members. And
as a rule, I think we see this happen for almost every other
subject. And so it's just been very apparent how that has
not happened on this topic. And, you know,
it, it, it's in, um, juxtaposition to the overwhelming
number of emails we've received that we're not even doing that kind of outreach.
let me ask this. What measures have been put in place to avoid even the appearance of favoritism
towards a particular property or a particular property owner?
if the question is, for me, there are no favorites, I think council deserves information.
I think you want us to come back and bring you true costs. The analysis
that have been requested, the details that you've requested, there are no favorites
and that is not the direction that I would advise my staff or I would have
cbre proceeding as if we've already developed who are
favorites or not. That is not the way we operate. Well,
specifically the question is if there are any measures that have been put in place
to avoid any kind of appearance of favoritism.
the answer that I gave councilman middleston is my answer.
have any government entities or nonprofits been approached about
considering co-locating with any of the properties under
consideration?
in the most recent closed session that we had with city council last week, we shared information
with the body about some potential consolidations and
that information was shared with you during that discussion.
and does that consideration impact the evaluation
of the properties? I'm
gonna ask that you steer clear of the topic of closed session.
if the information hasn't been shared outside of closed session. Shouldn't be the topic of a conversation out here.
thank you. That's the end of my questions. Mr. Roth, do you recognize for
three minutes? One, two minutes? Uh, one minute. One minute.
um, my, my, just a quick, I ran outta time on my previous quick
question and I don't know that you had an opportunity to answer it. Uh, will we
see a, uh, uh, the pre-acquisition agreement
before it is signed, uh, either an executive session or, or
publicly, uh, or is that just going to be negotiated and handled and
we, and we'll just live with whatever, uh, whichever agreement y'all have.
so I wanna be very careful when you say live with the purpose of
the due diligence is to bring that back to the council
and at any point in time, whether it's a change or accept
or reject, a modification would be done when that information is
provided. So what I cannot tell you council member roth, is that between now and that time
period while city council is off on recess during the month of july,
that I would even have that information available. But when we do get
the information, we would be bringing that back to you the same way we do agenda
items. I don't bring you draft agenda items before they appear. We would give
you an opportunity to know what we're going to present and then give council
an opportunity to weigh in and engage. But I can't promise you that between now and august
that I would have all of that ready to bring you a draft, go back and forth during
the time that council is out of, off, off on your official recess. But as soon
as we know that we have the due diligence and it's in a shape and in a form that we can bring
it to you, that's what we would be providing. This will not negate
council's ability to ask questions. It does not negate council's ability to
reject anything that we bring back. But as part of that due diligence,
that is what you're asking, I think for me to do. And I'm sharing with you that I don't
bring drafts and do negotiations back and forth with council members
about what we're working on until it's ready to come in a form that gives you an opportunity
to weigh in and have a deliberate debate about it. And that would be the
same process that we would utilize for this. It would not be different.
uh, thank you. Uh, and, and I'm sorry that my question is not clear. It is
not about the due diligence, it is about the terms
of the pre-acquisition agreement. That's
what I'm interested in finding out what is going to be in that agreement.
it's not in the due diligence that you're gonna acquire, it's not in the process,
in the information that we're gonna be presented later. I wanna
see the agreement that we're signing to start this
process that that authorizes us to spend $2 million.
and that's your time, ms. Mr. Roth.
I will just say that as part of the work that has
happened now, even with the work that seabury has done, we have brought every
step of the way that worked to the council. We would do the exact same thing
that we have done up until this point. We would not be deviating from that.
thank you. Um, I think the city attorney had an answer
to a previous question they wanted to clarify. And then I'm gonna go
to ms. Blackman for three minutes.
hi, uh, I don't wanna confuse someone, but just to clarify,
diligence is a wide scope that has to be determined based on
cbre's, um, input as to which, which, what type of
diligence pre-acquisition work has to be done for each site.
okay. That may include the negotiation of terms,
um, of what is the diligence for that particular site
as to what is the best opportunity on that site, whether
it's a lease to purchase, lease purchase, uh, lease to own.
so that is part of diligence. The the difference though is
while they, while they can gather up all that information,
the city ca city manager will not be authorized to execute
a final decision or a final agreement
as to any one of those options. Um, this also, uh,
the resolution also authorizes to execute the scope
of all that. So cbre will be negotiating
all of those items and allowing, bringing it to the city manager.
and she will execute the agreement that includes all those.
but as to the final selection, the
option, the lease lease to lease to purchase, or a straight out
buy, the city council will see another resolution for that based
on her determination and presentation to you in executive session
of all of that information from the diligence. So I hope that helps. So
five. Um, you ed three minutes, ms. Blackman. Thank you. Wait, wait, connie, um, just to
clarify, so the due diligence part of this is actually,
basically even though there's not authorization to eng
engage or to actually sign on the bottom, on the end of it, she is acting or
they are acting as, as a, they're, they're negotiating for
us. They are actually creating a deal, if you will. Correct. 'cause that's part of diligence.
but there is to go out there. Okay. But there's no authorization to
enter into a final deal. That's correct. That's correct.
but that all part of diligence, trying to find the best model for that building.
okay. Thank you. Um, so I guess,
peter, you said it's six to eight weeks to do all this work
and miss city manager, you are working on the budget in july
and you said, I guess I'm trying to understand, when is this gonna come back to us? Is
it at the end of august? The beginning of august, september? I'm, I'm trying to understand
if, and it could be general. I, I, I would say that
my goal because of the budget, and I've said this before, that we've already started
and we are aggressively involved in the budget work now that my goal would be able to bring
it back when I believe that it's in a form and shape and form that council can have
some additional debate and make some decisions. My goal would be to not drag
it out past august because that doesn't give me enough flexibility to be able
to make any adjustments in the budget. You'll receive the budget the second week of august. We'll
go into budget workshop discussions, town halls. So my goal would be to deliver
it sometime in august. I can't give you an exact date because we're still working to
get approval to move forward once we know that we're moving forward. We'll work on a timeline
and I can send the council a memorandum over the summer that tells you how we're
tracking on a timeline. Well, I'm just trying to reconcile his
timeline with your timeline , because, uh, you're saying eight weeks
to do, I guess 'cause you're negotiating and people are probably outta town in
june and july, um, or july and august and you're bringing it back
the, when we come back in the middle of, of august. So I'm trying to reconcile
six to eight weeks in your timeline. It'll be my job to
reconcile, uh, and to be able to share with counsel if we have enough information, even
if it's preliminary, what I can bring back. Um, I'm giving you the timeframe
based on the budget. Definitely need to do the work with mr. Janssen and
his team to be able to refine that, uh, that timeline. But that's just what we
know as of today. Okay. So we, when we get back and we look at the
budget, if we are going to make a move, it should, those
numbers should be in the budget going into next year. That
would be my recommendation. But again, that's a final decision of the council. And,
and so, um, will you be able to show us where that line item is? 'cause
it's a big budget.
I don't think I'd be able to get your approval on anything if I don't show you where it is in the budget. Sometimes
I think that's what you, sometimes I know where it can be buried somewhere. Well,
I will tell you, we, we have no barr funds and we have a lot of work
to do between now and the time that I present a budget, um, knowing our
current budget and what we're facing going forward. Okay. Thank
you ms.
yeah. Ms. Kani, you recognize for three minutes? Yes. Yeah. So,
uh, talking about the public engagement, I think it would be helpful to have
a timeline if possible. Um, because I know like for some of
the postings, the, um, you know, the, it's
maybe not posted 24 hours before the meeting. And so I'm, we're not some,
I know when I did my public meeting, I wasn't sure when I would
have material or what material I could even possibly have to present
at the public meeting. And when I did ask, um, for help, staff
was great. They showed up. Um, I had mr. Jensen there, he came,
but it was, um, difficult to plan that because
there wasn't much help on what material I would even have to present.
and so I'm just wondering, is there any way that we can
have some guidance or a timeline so that we are able to know when we
can have those, that public engagement? Thank you for the
question. Councilman medina. My responsibility will be to get a timeline ready.
I just can't give you that off the top of my head today. I think that's going to, again, need
to align with the work that we have to do over the summer. Um, and
the expectation would be that we would provide whatever we have from a public
standpoint that we could begin to share. This council has continued to ask for side
by side. Well, I can't give you a side by side today because there are too many variables that we have
not been able to go further into beyond the market exploration
to be able to provide that. As soon as we know that we have something that we can make available,
I'll give you a, a timeline, be able to lay that out for you. And I
just wanna clarify something about the town hall meetings. A lot of what was being asked for
at the town hall meetings was work that had been done by outside consultants.
the last six months of activity and work was not the staff's work, it was
the independent consultants who had done the work. And so oftentimes we were being
asked to come to meetings to answer the questions about the work that the consultants had conducted.
and so my responsibility will make sure that this process and what we're doing during
the due diligence will be what staff is doing in coordination with
cbre and the public side of that. That does not compromise the
real estate components of this. That we would help provide some type of a public,
uh, form information that could then be shared, but this information
is needed in order to be able to bring that back and be able to do that for you. So I can't
give you a timeline today, but definitely we'll work on that over the summer with all the other things that
we have underway. Yeah, I would just ask that we would make sure that we provide time
for public input and present material to them as well.
um, which brings me to one more question. So I think peter mentioned
that, um, cbre was maybe not doing this study, so
I was wondering what is facilities and real estate management since the funds are going there?
are they, is the funds just going through that department or who's cycle?
that's just the payment cycle? We have, we have departments,
ics funds, object codes is just the formality.
so the funds can be dispersed, but again, that is a not to seed amount and
if we don't need all the funds, we're not gonna spend all the funds. But it's just where the funds will
be sitting. They will approve any kind of invoices and then authorize those payments
that then go to the controller's office to process. Okay. I just, I needed clarity
if it was the department that was involved or if it was just cpre. So thank you.
yes, ma'am. Um,
deputy mayor proam, you recognize for five minutes.
okay. Um, chairman ridley, you're recognized for one minute
follow up question for the city attorney.
so in the previous round, ms. Tankers lee, you responded to my
question about the scope of this resolution and due diligence as not including
any negotiation of terms. And yet subsequent to
that exchange, you came back and reversed your opinion
saying that due diligence will include negotiation of terms.
what caused you to reverse your position on your previous opinion? So
for me, having done real estate for 31 years plus, um,
due diligence includes what, what would be the best options for a particular
site? Um, and so terms for me with regard to
a final transaction would be that, but it stops short of that.
so the scope of due diligence would include, uh,
things like, you know, what is the best, best opportunity there
that you're receiving from the property owner? But then it stops short of
the final negotiation. So that's why I said that. So I'm sorry if there was any confusion
on that. But, um, in the real estate, uh, market,
obviously you would wanna get non-binding, uh, potential opportunities
for the particular sites, whether it's, uh, asking the property owner
what's the best lease opportunity for your building or what's the best,
uh, lease to purchase opportunity, what's the best straight out acquisition?
but you're not negotiating those final terms, you're just seeking them.
so that's all part of due diligence. Well, so back to my
original question. This resolution doesn't expressly authorize
any negotiation of terms or a term sheet
for entry into a lease or a purchase agreement. Does it? It, it, it
nego, it authorizes her to negotiate and execute,
uh, define and define the terms for a relocation option.
the only thing it doesn't say it stops short of a relocation option.
um, uh, limited to a lease option or
an, uh, a buy option or a lease to purchase option.
so that's all part of the diligence that cbre needs to flush out
and they're not authorized to do that yet. So they could bring her back
all those three opportunities for each one of the sites and then
present that to you and, uh, executive session and you deliberate
and give her further direction. So she is not authorized to execute
on any one of those opportunities yet, but she can get all the information
she needs to present them to you and then have a final negotiation with
those property owners. So there's no authorization in this resolution to enter
into even a non-binding term sheet. Um,
I would say that they can present a non-binding term sheet because that's kind of the term of art
in the industry. It's a non-binding, uh, listing of the terms
that they can present. Yes. Thank you mayor.
anyone else wishing to speak on for against agenda item one.
seeing none, madam secretary, call the role please. Thank you mr. Mayor,
when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council
member west. Yes. Council member moreno? Yes. Council member
gracie? Yes. Council member kana? No. Council
member basil doa is absent when vote
taken. Council member blair? Yes. Council member blackman?
no. Council member stewart? Yes. Council member roth?
no. Council member mendelson? No. Council member willis?
yes. Council member ridley? No. Deputy mayor pro
tem johnson? Yes. Mayor pro tem resendez? Yes.
mayor johnson? Yes.
with nine. Voting in favor. Five opposed? One absent vote. Taken the item. The motion
passes mr. Mayor. Alright, that's great. Um, we're gonna move on to the
next item after we take a recess until one 30. And
so we're staying at recess for 12 minutes.
I'm recognized, um, cheryl willis for an
announcement. Yes, we have a birthday. Uh, council member blackman,
happy birthday to you. We've got a wonderful cake, a swiss madrina cake
from hank's european bakery in district 13, but
it was your request so I'm sure we can
sing and that's when I step away from the mic ,
just in case you guys didn't hear that. We're at recess until one 30 so you guys can
take a bio break. Alright. I'm told the broadcast
is ready is back up. So we're back
in our special call meeting. It's 1:39 pm ma'am, secretary
and, uh, chairman west. You recognize I have a d to the record. Oh,
we're gonna read the item to the record and then you're recognized for a motion. Thank you, mr. Mayor.
agenda item two is a resolution one to authorize the
city manager to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements
that define the terms, responsibilities and cost sharing between the
property owners and the city of dallas in order to conduct necessary due
diligence work for no more than four property locations in dallas
sites for the purpose of assessing the relocation option
for 9 1 1 and emergency operation staff and functions
from 1500 marilla street to transfer appropriations
in an amount not to exceed $1 million from
the arpa city hall generation and
electrical repair line item to a new arpa city hall pre-acquisition
line item and authorized disbursement of payments to conduct such
due diligence for the sites, including cost reimbursement to the
property owners for the performance of due diligence deliverables. And
three, to direct the city manager to bring the due diligence
results to city council for their consideration not to exceed
$1 million. This is your item, mr. Mayor. I move to approve this
item with the following, change to the source of funds by eliminating reference to
the transfer of arpa funds and instead authorize the city
manager to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed $1 million from the general
fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase
appropriations in an amount not to exceed $1 million in facilities and
real estate management from general fund contingency fund reserve.
is there a second? Second. So we moved in second. A discussion chairman west
and discussion wo mendelson. Yes. Uh,
I moved to amend the motion to require any
facility considered for a new 9 1 1 center to have sufficient parking
for the number of 9 1 1 staff members scheduled at peak call time
with the same secure amenities they enjoy today. Secured access
of vehicles, secure path from door to car with cameras and security
personnel barrier to ensure non-authorized personnel can't enter
parking area or shoot into the parking lot. Second,
it's been moved in. Second discussion chairwoman mendelson. Sure you
recognize for five minutes. Thank you.
many of us, you know, we park in a very specific area, but
just across the way, a little bit more towards the red elevators, that's
where the 9 1 1 operators generally park. And what you might
notice sometimes when you're coming or going is that the operators are sometimes
sitting in their car and they're doing that to have a moment
of privacy, a moment of relief. They can make a
phone call with anyone overhearing it. They can just decompress from
what is arguably an extremely stressful job.
sometimes they need to cry after a terrible call,
but what they know is they can walk from the 9 1 1 center
to their car with complete security. They leave
a badge access area, then they leave a second badge access area,
then they walk out the door to the garage, which is also badge access
into a parking garage that has an actual guard and
gates. No matter what time of day it is, those gates are working
and they can go there and know that they're safe. As we
consider, uh, relocating the 9 1 1 center,
the same level of security needs to be able to be provided for
the call takers. It's possible
that, um, pods could be developed. I've visited
a number of 9 1 1 centers that have secure pods so that you
can make a phone call without everyone in the world hearing it.
you can have a private moment to decompress, but
still we have operators that will be coming and going at every hour
when discussing the 9 1 1 center. One of the things we heard about
is how it's an aging workforce. If you've gone down there, I think you might
agree that's true. Um, and also there's people with various
level of mobility that are doing that job. And
to ask them to leave an unsecure area
at all hours of the night is to actually limit
our recruiting potential and our retention potential. And
if you're a nine one operator, you got a lot of choices and jobs. There
is not a single law enforcement agency that isn't looking to hire you,
especially if you're already experienced. You already have a tco license.
they have a lot of choices and so this
is extremely important to their quality of life and their decision
to stay with the city. So I hope you will support making sure that we are providing,
uh, the kind of facility with parking,
secure parking for all of our staff. Thank you.
anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn?
seeing none. A record vote will be had on all these, uh, for item two as well. So
madam secretary, please call roll. Thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if
you're in favor. No. If you oppose council member west. No. Council
member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
ena? Yes. Council member basil doa is absent
when vote taken. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro
timm johnson. I'm sorry. No.
mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
with five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent vote. Taken the
amendment fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Chairwoman mendelson.
I have a motion to amend the, I have an amendment to the motion
to require all properties considered for new 9 1 1 facilities have
equal or better physical protection for the continuity of operations
as 1500 marilla, including general and physical building
security protections against terroristic attacks, weather events like
tornadoes and cyber attacks. Second. So we moved in second.
any discussion chairwoman mendelson? I,
yes. You have five minutes. I'll just say this really ought to be self-evident
if you vote against this. I don't even know what to say. But the
possibility is that we could choose one that
has less fortitude than what we have today. Less
redundancy. So I, I am very glad
we're gonna have a record vote and if, if you care
about 9 1 1 operations, you'll at least approve this one. Thank you,
mayor pro tem, we recognize for five minutes. Really briefly, just wanna repeat. Once again,
regardless of how this vote goes, we'll still have the opportunity to address those issues. Thank
you. Anyone else we should speak on for, against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson.
seeing none. Record vote. Madam secretary. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name,
please state yes, if you in favor? No. If you oppose council member west. No.
council member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
kna? Yes. Council member basel dua. It's is absent when
vote taken. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
no. Council member ridley. Yes.
deputy mayor pro timm johnson. No. Mayor pro timm resendez?
no. Mayor johnson? No. With five voting
in favor. Nine opposed? One absent. Absent. Vote. Taken. The amendment
fails. Mr. Mayor, what purpose? Chairwoman mendelson. I move to amend the motion
to require all properties considered for a new 9 1 1 facility. Have
equal or better layers of redundancy for con continuity of operations
at that site? Over 1500 marilla, including power, telecommunications,
radio systems, cybersecurity, staffing, physical security, backup
facilities, and disaster recovery. Second. It's been moved in a second. Any discussion
chairwoman? Sure.
five minutes. If you would not
agree to equal or better layers of redundancy for continuity
of operations of our 9 1 1 center, then clearly every single
vote today is just simply no matter what they say to
us, vote no. Like without
any level of thinking. Many of you were endorsed by public safety.
say you promote public safety. This is the most basic of public
safety functions. So you wanna vote? No.
I guess that'll just be another vote on the record for everybody. But shame on you
ms. Blair. You recognize for five minutes? I wasn't gonna say
anything today, but I am gonna say something on this. This is the whole purpose
that we're doing this exercise. It's for better, not for, for consistency,
for more security, not status quo. For better
quality of life for our employees, not less,
for better, uh, access to technology.
not, not less. So I'm, I'm failing to understand
why we're going through an exercise when we're asking the, the whole reason
we're doing these things is to give our employees
better than what they have secure, more secure than
what they have and more technology than what they have. Thank you mayor
chairwoman mendelson, you recognize for three minutes. Thank you. I'd like to emphasize
that the amendment says to have equal or better.
so if you are for equal or better, you would support this
item. I love that anybody would be talking about what
the employees want. I don't believe the employees have been asked
in the 9 1 1 center, because many of them have told me they have not.
there are things that I cannot say because of executive session, but
this was purposely written this way
to ensure that the selection of any facility
would be equal or better. There's
a reason I'm concerned that we might pick, I won't pick.
you might pick a facility that is worse.
there is every reason to be concerned about that. And so
again, the motion clearly states,
all properties considered for a new 9 1 1 facility have equal
or better layers of redundancy for continuity of
operations at that site. Over 1500
marilla. And then it lays out the actual systems,
power, telecommunications, radio systems, cybersecurity,
staffing, physical security, backup facilities, and disaster
recovery. These are all essential components of a 9 1 1 center.
and the question is only do you demand we only review properties
that are equal or better, or are you willing to consider things that are worse?
if you vote no to this, you're willing to consider things that
are worse than what we have today. And frankly, some of you have said some pretty outrageous
things about what happens there. Thank you. Chairman
west, you recognize four or five minutes. Uh, I just want to
ask the city attorney on this. Um, the language used in
the this motion in the last one, uh, is equal or better?
is that what, that's very subjective. Um, is that
leaving it up to the interpretation of the council member? Who makes that
determination when the, when the items are brought back to us or
what's your understanding of that?
I believe my understanding is about to be shaped by the city manager.
first of all, let me say something. As the
city manager who's responsible for over
13,000 employees, not just those that are in the 9 1 1 center, the emergency
operations center, it is my responsibility to make sure that
whatever I bring back to the city council does not compromise their safety,
their security technology. None of those things
would be what I would ever recommend, period. So as
part of the due diligence and the process that we would undertake, we would
never start working to negotiate anything
that would be less than what we have. And I don't want anybody to think that I
would even be doing my job by
bringing counsel something that you would have to pick something less. So as
part of the due diligence as part of this process, we would
not bring council anything that would create any
type of a compromise for our employees. That is my priority.
and I'm not going to subject the city council to that. I just wanna
say that because I'm hearing it and make, it's making me feel that this body
believes that I'm gonna bring you something where those things are gonna be compromised.
I would not be doing my job if that's what I did.
it won't be council members making the subjective decision
on whether these facilities are equal or better.
it will be public safety trained personnel and experts in
that field, including our own experts in the city. Correct.
there is defined criteria for what it's required to
operate an emergency operation center and a 9 1 1 center. And we will
be using those best practices and those standards that are already set at the
national level. Thank you.
it's one minute. You recognize for one minute.
thank you. You know what's required on a 9 1 1 center and what we have now are
two completely different things. We have an incredible center.
we have verifiable, not subjective, um, numbers
of phone trunks, fiber routes and lines, numbers of
electrical fields. And I'm saying that all of the measurable criteria
we have today equal or better because
I don't think that's what we're gonna see. And I would
not share what was said in executive session, but I brought this amendment forward
for a very specific reason. Thank you. Anyone else wanna
speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelsohn? Seeing none.
record vote. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you mr. Mayor, when
I call your name, please state yes. If you in favor? No. If you oppose council
member west. No. Council member moreno. No. Council member
gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes. Council member
basil dua is absent when vote taken. Council member
blair? No. Council member blackman?
yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council
member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes.
deputy mayor pro timm johnson? No. Mayor pro.
mayor pro timm resendez. Sorry about that. No. Mayor johnson?
no. With five voting in favor.
nine opposed? One ab one vote. Taken. The motion fails mr. Mayor. And
I'm gonna ask the people who are in the gallery to refrain from reacting
to the proceedings today. It's just we don't do that. Okay.
thanks.
the motion failed. Mr. Mayor. Chairman mendelson. For what purpose?
this is for my final amendment to this motion. Uh, move to
withhold authorization to move any 9 1 1 operation from this
building until a new facility is fully functional and tested, staff
may not move 9 1 1 operation to the backup center while waiting for a new
facility to be completed. Is there a second? Okay.
it's been a second. Do you wanna just I do. Five minutes. Um,
I would encourage my colleagues to go to the backup center. What you'll find
it is far, far too small for any kind of sustained
operations. And I mean, in excess of a day. It does not have
secure parking. It doesn't have sufficient backup. It does,
it does have security issues. It does have,
um, an in, in insufficient facility
in terms of kitchens, bathrooms,
not to mention dfr and their 24 hour shift. I am
not really sure what you guys are doing and it seems unbelievably
reckless to me. I'm very concerned about this outrageous push
to abandon this building. We'll put our resident's ability to call for emergency
assistance at their most greatest need.
this rushed effort is a disaster of our own making.
that it. Alright, mr. Roth, you recognize for five minutes?
thank you. I was, I was actually, uh, going to respond to the motion.
I, I'm, I'm gonna withdraw my, my request. Anyone else wanna speak on for, against the
amendment by ms. Mendelson? Seeing none, madam secretary, please call the roll.
thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose
council member west. No. Council member moreno? No. Council
member gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes. Council
member basil doa is absent when vote taken. Council member
blair? No. Council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart?
no. Council member roth? Yes. Council member mendelson? Yes.
council member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy
mayor pro timm johnson? No. Mayor pro timm resendez? No.
mayor johnson? No. No. Thank you.
with five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent. One vote.
taken. The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Mr.
raw? I'd like to make an amendment to the, uh, to the
motion please. I'd like to, uh, reduce the, uh,
the, uh, uh, funds available, uh, from $1 million
down to $250,000. Is there a second? Second.
so we move in second. Any discussion mr. Raw? Uh, yes. I I think you have five minutes. Thank
you. Uh, I think that, um, our, our opportunities here
are going to be very limited, uh, in terms of the practicality
of, of really considering alternative o opportunities.
I don't think that, uh, a million dollar authorization for doing due
diligence at this point in time is, is, uh, appropriate.
I think that's a lot of money to be spending on, on, uh, reviewing,
uh, potential sites that really would not practically qualify
for, for our opportunity. And I would suggest that, uh, these amounts,
uh, be reduced if, if additional amounts are necessary, uh,
due to specific, uh, requirements or specific exigencies
that, uh, that there be a requirement to come back to us for allocation
of additional funds. Chairwoman mendelson, you recognize for five minutes,
um, on the motion I support reducing the dollar amount,
its at some point we have to actually think $750,000 is
meaningful and stop saying things like it's just a drop in the bucket
for our $5.2 billion budget. Seven $50,000
matters.
would city management or cbre characterize,
um, the consensus of this group that there may be
less interest in a broader number of options?
I think answering that question materially, I negatively impacts
your negotiation leverage in the market. So I think that should be reserved for executive
session. Were
there options considered that are already city owned? Again,
I feel like that, uh, impacts your negotiation ability. Uh, and
I think that should be punted to executive session. Mr. Mayor, if
I could just add the authorization of
the funds does not mean that we have to
expend all the funds. This is to allow the room for
the flexibility that we need during this process. And if those funds
are not needed, we will not spend those funds.
respectfully, city manager, I am unaware of a single instance in seven
years where funds were authorized and every dollar wasn't spent and then some coming
back for a change order. And mayor, your smile tells me, you know, I'm right.
so I would never want to over authorize for
city government and any kind of fiscally prudent
body would never do so. So I very
much support your motion. I think we know where it's headed anyhow, but thank
you for bringing it forward and thank you for considering, um, the
taxpayers. Anyone else wanna speak on for,
against mr. Roth's amendment? Seeing none, madam secretary,
please. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No.
if you oppose council member west. No. Council member moreno.
no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kadena?
yes. Council member basil is absent and vote taken.
council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes. Council
member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No. Council
member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro timm johnson?
no. Mayor pro timm resendez? No. Mayor johnson?
no. With five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent
vote. Taken. The motion fails mr. Mayor. Okay, we're back on.
uh, chairwoman mendelson for what purpose?
I was just getting in line for the main motion. Yeah. Okay then you're first,
you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you.
my first question is, is there any anticipated interruption in the emergency
communication function? No.
has an independent continuity of operations assessment been conducted?
that is not something we have before us, but before we would make any recommendations
on any potential relocation once council authorizes that that
would be a part of our process as we would do any other emergency operations within
our city. In considering
a move of the 9 1 1 center, what would be the cost of new equipment that must be purchased
for a new center that has not been developed
at this time? Is
there a coordination of changes in operating expenses at a new
facility? I'm sorry, consideration of changes in operating expenses
at a new facility versus maintaining city hall operations?
depending on the options that would be a part of the due diligence and what we would bring
back to council for consideration. How would the various options
impact the operating expenses versus staying here?
that is to be determined. That is not the detail that we have. So you can
make a decision on whether or not if it's a better cause factor to stay or leave,
that is part of the due diligence and the information that we'll be bringing back to the city
council. When I look at that question,
the call takers themselves, the dispatch, the
supervisors, those are all fixed costs. That
would change whether you're, that would not change whether you're here or there. The only
thing that would be added in my opinion, would be all of the facility maintenance
issues. Suddenly we have an additional pest control, we have an
additional, um, security issue. Another building that we
have to, to maintain, which I think we
would all say we have been unsuccessful at. Um,
so I'm very interested in understanding that operating expense issue.
um, the next question I have for you is that once a site has been
selected, how long would it take to actually move the operations?
at this time, a site has not been selected. We have not completed the due diligence.
I cannot provide you with a timeline. It will depend on the actual results
of the due diligence and the final decision from the council.
thank you mayor. That's the end of my questions. And I will say at least when you laughed
at that last item, that might've been the only laugh we've had here so far today. So that was good.
I'm glad I could help. Um, ms. Kadena, you're recognized for five minutes.
um, yes. Uh, for clarification, I, I think that we did, or y'all
mentioned that we, um, saw where employees lived in relation to some
of these locations and it says city of dallas, uh, will
mcc staff, other elected officials and other stakeholders also be taking into
account? 'cause I know when we've had agencies, we've had all of
those in the big war room that we, uh, where we, you know, brief on
what's happening. Absolutely. But for the purpose of this item as it relates
to the staff, that would be subjected to any poten potential relocation item number
two, that is data that we've already provided and shared and any additional
data around others that would have to access a 9 1 1
eoc. That would be part of our overall analysis, including where my staff
sits and where they live. Because typically those are the individuals that
are requested to be a part of emergency operations. The emergency operations
center. In the event that we're activating it, it's typically our executive team,
our department directors that have to then report. So we will be taking all of that data
into consideration as a, as a final decision
is made by the council. But that is not what we have right now. Right now we do have the data based
on the employees that actually work within those two units. So, so there will
be taken in consideration, um, mayor and city council and then other elected officials
as well? Absolutely. But I do want to say what I just said again. Okay.
in an emergency situation, the individuals that are typically required
to report to the emergency operations center is typically the
individuals that are assigned in that department. The executive team and department directors.
we will also look at where council members are across the city. But the
primary, the primary individuals who then reported an
emergency situation are the two departments. The staff as well
as the executive team and the executive leadership at the departmental level.
and I get that. I, you know, I ask out of personal experience, we had the tornado that
happened in, um, northwest dallas had the plan, uh, gas
outage, the ice storm. And so me as staff had
to travel quite a bit in, in order to get information so that I could get it to my residence.
and so that's why I asked. Thank you
chairman. Ridley, you recognize for five minutes question for the city attorney.
this item will not provide any authorization
to the city, uh, manager to enter into any
binding terms committing the city to any specific deals,
as with item one. Is that correct? This is identical to item one.
I'm sorry. Yes sir. This is identical to the first item
question for the city manager. Is it your intention to bring
the due diligence results and reports back to city council
for all of the up to four locations
that are going to be the subject of due diligence as opposed
to screening those and only bringing us selected items?
we'll be responsible for bringing you the results of the due diligence process and at that
time there will probably be where we'll be making a recommendation. But again, that'll
be subject to council guidance and any type of other input and a final
decision. But our jobs are to bring you back the results of that due diligence
process on all of the locations that were studied.
yes. Thank you chairman menison, you
recognize for three minutes on the
underlying motion? Yep. I gotcha. Um, so
with this item previously we were told that transportation
may be moved. Has that been, um, reconsidered?
that question was raised in one of the closed sessions. I don't think it was last week, but
one before. And we answered the question that after going into further analysis, we
determined that it's at this point those would be the two units that we would be looking to
relocate at this time. I'm sorry, so what
are the two units you're looking to relocate?
this item is for the nine one one call center and the emergency
operation center. These are the two departments and this time that
are included in agenda item number two.
can you speak to the 3 1 1, which has also previously been spoken about?
that's not in the item that is before the council today,
but as okay. I, I think you
know, all I'm saying councilwoman is that 3 1 1 is not a part of this item that is
before the council today. This item is stated for the emergency operations
center and 9 1 1 3 1 1 is not included in this item.
will you be evaluating any of these properties with consideration that you may
wish to move 3 1 1 in transportation there?
dependent on the size, the scope as it relates to the square footage and the needs.
mr. Janssen has talked about the test fitting process that we have to go through. We
can determine at that time if there is an ability to do that. I've, I've
answered questions before about the way we're looking at 3 1 1 going forward.
and I think at this time we have to continue the analysis of what's next as
it relates to those other two functions. But this item today is for the emergency operation
center and the nine one one call center.
I, I'm not really sure what to say because I think that when
evaluating a building, knowing what else you're gonna put in it is
important. Especially, I mean, and I,
I just have to stop the question at that or that statement. And
some of the things I'm asking obviously have been discussed in executive session,
but the public deserves to know and I
don't think it's outrageous to follow up on
something that has publicly been stated before about transportation. 3 1 1.
thank you ms. Blackman. Recognize for five minutes.
okay. So on march 4th, the motion did have 3 1 1
in it and we've talked about that march 4th last week.
so I'm just curious, it is dropped off 'cause it says explore
relocation options for 3 1 1 9 1 1 and emergency operations
to new government center locations. Yes. And the only thing
that I was referencing, councilwoman blackman in the question from councilwoman middleston
is that I answered questions previously about what we were looking at for 3 1 1
going forward. We've talked about currently the operations of the 3 1 1
um, component and the number of individuals that are already working remotely.
and that we were gonna be looking at that model going forward as we go into the budget. Okay.
so those are my only that, that's my answer. So, but they're not in, they're not in and
theyre not okay in this item today. 3 1 1 is not
embedded into this due diligence 'cause this, this resolution has been
addressed before and I just wanna make sure exactly. Okay. And we, not that
we will not continue to look at the needs for 3 1 1, but we're
looking at a model now that might allow for us to have some additional budget savings
and where that staff is actually located. I'd like to finish working through the budget and
I'll bring back any recommendations about 3 1 1 as part of that process. Okay. So 3 1 1
is not part of this. Okay. Can we, uh, talk
about timeline? We talked about the timeline for the other resolution. Are
we anticipating a 68 week turnaround and it
will be in the budget or is it gonna be sooner? I'm just trying to understand when
will be expecting back this information. I think as I stated before that we
would work through the timeline in consultation with cbre. The goal would
be to have as much information as we can as we go into presenting the budget
to the city council. There might be some refinements that we need before the city council
adopts the budget, but my goal would be to have that back to you before the end of august.
I just restating what I said earlier. Um, will we have,
I can't remember last week, but is this part of,
um, a bond issuance? Are we gonna have to reconfigure bonds?
last week at the city council briefing that was delivered on the
pension bond, the current budget repair cost.
we included several different options. We talked quite extensively in
that budget presentation last wednesday about how this, these
two components could be built into an overall public safety, uh, bond program.
we gave you a number. We talked about what would be considered the other,
the other needs that we have right now as it relates to public safety.
and all of that will come back as well in august for council to have further, um,
discussion. I do believe that we're planning for an item on the june 24th
agenda for counsel to give me authorization to start working on that.
but you've not a proven a bond program at this time. Okay. But we did brief that last week. But,
but this the but any money that could be utilized for this may come
from those that pod of funds, ma'am. And we ma'am, ma'am, and we have until august 12th
to call that election. I think actually like the 15th, but the 12th is that I
think, I think the 12th is correct. So that's why last week as we laid out, um,
that whole component in the, uh, presentation that we delivered, we
showed the total need that we currently have. It addressed everything from
the property room. I'm doing all this from the top of my head. The property room where we currently
store evidence vehicles. We talked about the eoc, we talked about 9 1 1
center and we gave you an overall number right, right. That we would want counsel to
consider next week. Um, and I want the cfo to correct me if I'm wrong. We're planning to
have an item that will give me the approval to go ahead and start working to develop
the final work around that so we can come back in august and get council's direction
if you'd like to move to a public safety bond program. And, and it's not posted right now.
it's not in the, it's not in draft form. The agenda for june 24th,
uh, the final this item is this item for us to consider. Is it on the agenda in the
draft form or will it be put on tomorrow? Next wednesday is
actually the voting day, correct. So when we post the agenda
tonight, I think we have to post the agenda today should there's a draft agenda now. The,
the final agenda for june 24th should be posted tonight and
it should be on the final agenda. Okay. So it's not on the draft agenda. That's that
I, that we have that's been out that we have, it'll be on the final agenda that's
posted today. Okay. So I guess it's not on this one , I'm
just, 'cause I have it right here and I've been reading, I didn't, I didn't see it, that's why I'm asking.
yes, ma'am. And, and I'm trying to answer the question. The june 24th final agenda, which
we'll post today should have this item should have that item on it, which will be
for council to consider next wednesday on june the 24th.
okay. Thank you chairwoman menlyn, you recognize for one minute.
thank you. So if the body takes a vote to abandon
and demolish city hall, but the voters get the bond in
november and they don't authorize the funds to build out
the 9 1 1 center, then what happens?
I don't think I can answer that question at this time. I think that would be based on the further guidance
and the work that we would have to work, that we would have to work through with the city council
for what options would be considered. But I can't, I don't have a crystal ball. I
don't wanna give you a hypothetical answer because that will be, at that point what
decisions would then be made. Is it the intention to wait for
a yes no vote on the future of city hall based on the
bond? That is not
a question that I could answer right now. We have not gotten even approval to even do what
the item is before you today at this time. Well, I
would, um, suppose that given the robust
feedback we've all heard from our residents against leaving city hall,
that they may crater a bond issuance for a new 9 1 1
center specifically to stop this action.
so I hope that it will be considered and I'll, I'll just
say to the question for ms. Blackman, I was looking at the
draft agenda early and didn't see this and prior
councils specifically limited city managers on adding so
many items at the last moment.
was that, was that okay? Anyone else wanna
speak on for against agenda item two, seeing none
madam secretary, please call the roll. May motion.
may motion may motion when I call your name.
yep, go ahead. This is, this is the underlying motion. Thank you. When I
call your name, please state please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose
council member west. Yes. Council member moreno. Yes. Council
member gracie? Yes. Council member. Ena, no.
council member baa is absent when vote taken.
council member blair? Yes. Council member blackman?
no. Council member stewart? Yes. Council member roth? No.
council member mendelson? No. Council member willis? Yes.
council member ridley? No. Deputy mayor pro
timm johnson? Yes. Mayor pro. Timm
resendez? Yes. Mayor johnson? Yes.
with nine voting in favor. Five opposed? One absent vote taken. The motion passes
mr. Mayor. Okay, it's two 20 and
the special call meeting's adjourned and it's two 20 and
we're gonna switch over to the regular meeting, but we need to switch over the
webex so we will hold off on calling it
to order until we're ready to switch over. But we're adjourned on the special call meeting at
two 20.