[0:01] Okay, I am told that we don't have our introductory video this morning, so we're gonna
[0:05] go right into the meeting. So good morning. Uh, we do have a quorum. Today's
[0:10] wednesday, june 17th, 2026 times
[0:14] 8:22 am and I called this special call meeting of
[0:18] the dallas city council. This webinar is being transcribed and
[0:23] summarized. We'll give it just a minute to make sure the webex is
[0:27] right. We're
[0:31] good, I'm told. So now, madam secretary, we can go into our,
[0:35] the folks who have signed up for open microphone for the special call
[0:39] meeting. Thank you, mr. Mayor. As you stated, there are several
[0:43] individuals who have signed up to speak on agenda items one and two.
[0:49] I'll call those speakers in groups. Speakers, when I call your name,
[0:54] I ask that you come forward and have a seat on the first three rows
[0:59] of this intersection and virtual speakers. Um, I ask that
[1:03] you have your video and audio ready. Also, speakers, you'll be given one
[1:07] minute to speak. Greg evans,
[1:11] mark nunley, john gates, rick purdue,
[1:17] jennifer scripps, trey black, robert walters,
[1:23] jose avila, son saeed bruce or
[1:27] melissa lara roland parrish, cynthia michaels,
[1:32] andrew cola, veronica ado
[1:37] jerich, daniel campbell, stephanie drinker,
[1:42] david voss and jessica stewart liny. Greg evans.
[1:48] greg evans. Greg
[1:52] evans. It's not. Thank you. Be given. One minute. You may begin.
[1:57] my name is greg evans. I live at 9 0 3 west greenbrier lane and
[2:01] I'm a district one resident. My grandfather, wj evans, was a civic
[2:06] leader and a vice president of the federal reserve bank of dallas. His name
[2:10] is in the 1921 dedication program of their landmark building on
[2:14] south akron street. My family has been invested in this city's future
[2:18] for over a century, and that is exactly why I'm here today. Mayor,
[2:22] council members and staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak. When
[2:27] citizens were asked to pass the bonds that built this landmark, they
[2:31] were told that would serve dallas for generations to come. They trusted that promise
[2:35] and we are one generation in, and now we're being told to see this building as an
[2:39] albatross. This council has repeatedly pulled city hall funding from bond
[2:43] packages most recently in 2024 when $28 million were
[2:47] removed and reallocated councilman west himself acknowledged last
[2:51] november that many of whom mayor are still serving to for what purpose?
[2:56] I beg your pardon. Calling council members out by name.
[3:00] our rules don't allow for references to count. We're gonna stop your time,
[3:04] which is almost over, but just for everyone's purpose, um, when we,
[3:08] uh, you can refer to a district or the representative from a district, but not the actual
[3:13] council member's name. It's just a, a rule. Understood. My apologies.
[3:19] last november. Um, that's your time. This city council made that choice.
[3:23] that's my time. Thank you. Thank you. Mark nunley.
[3:29] thank you mayor. Members of the council. Uh, my name is mark nunley and
[3:33] I'm a city of dallas proud resident. I'm a cpa and
[3:37] I've spent 45 years reading financial statements, building budget, and stress tax
[3:41] testing projections. Numbers are my language. The case for redeveloping
[3:46] city hall is as clear as anything I've ever seen. For months, the
[3:50] opposition has demanded a real apples to apples comparison. So did
[3:54] I but your own city. Cfo said it on the record last week. That restraining
[3:58] order filed last week by city council members is preventing the city manager
[4:03] from obtaining those relocation cost numbers. The very people demanding
[4:07] a comparison are the ones legally blocking it. These eyes on
[4:11] the agenda today give the city manager the authority to negotiate with
[4:15] property owners so we can finally get those numbers. A vote no today does
[4:19] not protect the process. It continues to obstruct it. Thank you,
[4:25] john gates. Uh,
[4:29] good morning, mr. Mayor and council members. My name is john gates and I currently serve as
[4:33] executive chair at jll. Uh, but I'm here today as a native dallas site
[4:37] and someone who spent their entire career, uh, focused on all aspects of commercial real
[4:41] estate and as chair of the assistance council. So today, this council
[4:45] is responsibility to make decisions about the long-term viability and success of our
[4:49] downtown. The cbd has been declining for some time, and some recent announcements
[4:54] really underscore the challenges that we do face. During my time
[4:58] as a chair of the assistance council, we've worked diligently, uh, on the opportunities
[5:02] that our central business district holds. We've partnered with downtown dallas inc. Housing
[5:07] forward, uh, the police department, and of course the city to kick off and
[5:11] support the safe and the city initiative, which is designed to increase the safety
[5:15] for both our workforce and residents. And I really believe in the potential of these efforts
[5:19] and I, I think we're clearly seeing, uh, progress. So to build on that momentum, we need to be visionaries
[5:23] and take steps to transform the future of what we currently call downtown.
[5:28] so I urge each, each of you to take this opportunity. That's your time and vote yes on
[5:32] questions one and two. Thank you. Thank you rick perdue.
[5:39] good morning. Morning mayor and council members. My name is rick perdue. I'm a media past
[5:43] chairman of the real estate council, known as trek an organization of 2000 members
[5:47] across, uh, 600 member companies. Uh, also live here right in
[5:51] dallas and work here. City of dallas is at the center of the most thriving region in the country,
[5:56] yet our downtown cores in decline. We've all seen the recent announcements of
[6:00] at and t neiman marcus comeric and on and on cities we compete with every
[6:04] day. Like charlotte and nashville have created flourishing urban cores with great connectivity,
[6:08] and there's no reason that a city as great as dallas should not have a that same energized,
[6:13] thriving downtown. With this in mind, we have an incredible opportunity ahead of us and it
[6:17] starts to, with today's agenda items, I encourage you to support both moving
[6:21] city hall staff out and emergency operations out. As the consultants reports
[6:26] have made clear significant building systems, operational life safety
[6:30] challenges, the hundreds of million dollars could be spent elsewhere and better used.
[6:34] uh, downtown dallas has all the components necessary for success if we can make
[6:38] this happen. So please support agenda items and let's, uh, create the
[6:42] downtown we've imagined. Thank you jennifer scripps.
[6:47] good morning mayor and city council. I'm jennifer scripps, president and ceo of
[6:51] downtown dallas, inc. Supporting my fifa ambassador shirt because I'll be working in the
[6:55] parks this afternoon with our team. I'm also here first of all, in
[6:59] support of both items before you, nobody knows better than you do. The budgetary
[7:03] pressures being faced with the property tax revenue cap, rising pension and public safety
[7:07] costs and decade of underfunded facilities across the city in
[7:11] your districts. We know this is hard, but we trust your leadership to weigh it
[7:15] carefully. Don't wait. Please authorize these motions to plan
[7:20] for the future. Your own briefings in recent weeks made the choice clear.
[7:24] repairing this building and staying at city hall is at minimum hundreds
[7:28] of millions of dollars in a commitment money that would direct completely di
[7:32] compete directly with those core services and quality of life amenities
[7:36] across the city. Leaving city hall for a new downtown location is the
[7:41] responsible path, and these agreements simply let the city manager and her team do the due diligence
[7:45] to get it right. I urge you to support these items. Thank you so much.
[7:50] thank you. Trey black.
[7:54] good morning, mr. Mayor. Counsel. My name is trey black, ceo
[7:58] of on target supplies and logistics. And downtown is something that's personal to me.
[8:03] my grandfather actually worked as a doorman at the baker hotel across the
[8:07] street where the, uh, at and t headquarters is currently.
[8:11] and he spent his days opening doors for power people who were
[8:15] helping shape the future of our city. And he wanted his kids to be a part of those rooms
[8:19] and they eventually were. So dallas gave my family an opportunity,
[8:24] uh, that change generations. That's why I care so deeply about the
[8:28] future of downtown and the decisions we're making today.
[8:33] the reality is the vote before you is not about choosing a site or approving
[8:37] a relocation. It's about gathering information to make an informed decision
[8:41] to move our city forward. Major decisions involving
[8:46] taxpayer dollars deserve due diligence and facts. If dallas wants answers,
[8:50] let's do the work necessary to go get 'em. Please continue this process.
[8:55] that's your time. Gather information, vote for the two items on the agenda. Thank
[8:59] you. Thank you robert walters.
[9:07] good morning counsel. Thank you for hearing from us. Um,
[9:11] I respectfully urge you to vote for agenda items one
[9:15] and two. Uh, last week and over the past months, you've asked for the best
[9:20] possible information to make informed side by side
[9:24] comparisons of the options. Uh, we, your constituents
[9:28] want you to make those comparisons. Items one and two will
[9:32] provide additional important information to help you crystallize
[9:37] the options and make the best decisions. I also implore
[9:41] each of you to consider every decision and to take every action
[9:45] with a view towards one aim, and that is to resurrect our city
[9:49] center. It is inconceivable that our city and
[9:54] our region will prosper if we allow our core to atrophy
[9:58] and making the most of precisely where we stand today.
[10:03] and the most of the acreage surrounding city hall is in that
[10:07] your time indispensable if we are going to succeed. Thank you for considering my, our
[10:11] views. Thank you jose avila.
[10:23] good morning counsel. Jose avila, district two downtown. I know you've seen me
[10:27] at this podium before and you'll keep seeing me until this body acts with the urgency
[10:31] our city deserves. Starting with moving city hall out of this dead zone and into one
[10:35] of the many underutilized buildings already sitting downtown at a time when we
[10:39] face a 51 billion million budget deficit declining sales tax and potential
[10:43] cuts to public services by prioritizing 300 million at
[10:47] best to likely over 1 billion to salvage this building. While our city
[10:51] struggles to have basic vitality and public services is fiscal negligence
[10:56] the bigger, this is bigger than one building, it's about responsibility, responsible
[11:00] stewardship of taxpayer dollars and planning for the future. The actions before you today
[11:04] don't lock you into a decision. They simply keep the process moving. They allow you to
[11:09] evaluate options, understand costs, and make a decision grounded in facts, transparency and what's
[11:13] best for the dallas long term. If we want answers, we must continue to work to produce
[11:17] them, not block the process. Vote yes on today's items. Say yes to
[11:21] downtown. That's your time. Constituents for our urban core and for the city. We keep
[11:25] saying we want. Thank you. Saana. Saeed
[11:31] saana saeed is not present. Bruce orr,
[11:41] thank you bruce. Or district 13. A week ago, a divided council decided
[11:45] not to move forward with city hall repairs, and I thank those whose vote recognize
[11:49] the cost outweighs its historical value. At the same time, another discussion
[11:54] about downtown and city hall was going on among hundred city leaders.
[11:58] a transcript published by d magazine revealed both a brutal honesty about the
[12:02] challenges ahead and cautious optimism. More unity among city
[12:06] leaders was identified as a critical need for success. And now today,
[12:10] the council has a golden opportunity to unify for months. Preservationists
[12:15] downtown advocates and council members have demanded the same thing, cost for repairs
[12:19] and restoration of city hall demolition and detailed relocation costs because
[12:24] all agree that without a side-by-side comparison, no decision will be fully
[12:28] informed nor transparent. So today, we should expect the
[12:32] council to come together and vote unanimously to allow the city manager
[12:36] to get detailed relocation costs to better inform our discussions
[12:41] and decisions. Thank you. Thank you, melissa. Lara.
[12:55] good morning mayor, council members and city manager. My name is melissa and I wanna begin
[12:59] by thanking for last week's vote 96 to keep this process moving forward.
[13:03] that vote created momentum and I hope we continue building on it today.
[13:07] it is a momentum to ask questions, momentum to keep exploring opportunities,
[13:12] momentum to have a real conversation about the future of dallas. Too often we're
[13:17] watching neighboring cdcs opportunities while dallas hesitates arlington
[13:21] fort worth frisco. They continue attracting investment major
[13:25] developments and while we are staying behind, dallas should be setting
[13:29] the pace, not trying to catch up. Today's vote is not the finish line. It is
[13:33] the opportunity to continue this conversation to move forward and for growth.
[13:38] let's make that nine to six vote count and let's keep this momentum going forward.
[13:42] thank you. And let's continue making dallas what it's meant to be. Thank you
[13:47] roland parish.
[13:55] greetings. I'd like to say thank you for it's probably a thankless job. Um,
[14:00] I'm a businessman, a civic leader and a, uh, have hamburgers stands throughout the
[14:04] city. Um, we pay, uh, eight to $10 million over the last five
[14:08] years each year for, uh, real estate and sales taxes. I want you to
[14:12] understand, I want you to support the, um, the agenda items, but I want to make sure that we have a
[14:16] broader vision, that we play chess in our checkers. Um,
[14:21] when we look at, there's been in our lifetime, uh, municipal, urban areas
[14:25] that have decayed that have come back. Chicago, detroit, detroit brought sports teams back.
[14:29] chicago did not. There are fortune 500 companies out there that have generation
[14:34] y and generation z. Those workers want to live in downtown areas.
[14:38] we should be locked arm in arm with the dallas regional chamber to find fortune 500, fortune
[14:42] 500 companies that wanna come forward. Lastly, one
[14:46] of the best decisions from this councilman has been dfw airport, a strong economic engine. They
[14:50] play chess, not checkers. One of our bad decisions was we lost the cowboys. They played
[14:54] checkers and not chess. That's your time. Let's play chess, not checkers.
[14:59] thank you cynthia michaels,
[15:10] I'm speaking on behalf of myself as well as, uh, heritage o cliff.
[15:15] why is the council here today asking for $3 million u-c-b-r-e? You
[15:19] already have a contract with them. You've been given real repair costs by zaya
[15:23] zora in her letter dated to june 9th. Please read it and take it to heart.
[15:28] if you don't, if you need, why would you not believe zi is numbers? She's worked
[15:32] for city hall for many years, managed many repairs here at city hall. Does not have a dog
[15:36] in this hunt like the consultants do. Please, I beg you look at the real numbers
[15:41] and see what they are compared to what the consultants give. Please vote no becau on
[15:45] these two agenda items. You don't need 3 million. You see bre to look at the
[15:49] four buildings and come up with a cost. Thank you andrew.
[15:53] ola.
[16:01] good morning. I'd want to ask everyone in this room who believes the
[16:05] promise that abandoning city hall will spark development in downtown dallas.
[16:10] why would anyone believe those promises? We know how
[16:14] this is going to end up in five to 10 years. This building will be
[16:18] another empty parking lot or worse, an abandoned hulk. Too expensive
[16:22] to demolish surrounded by chain link fence, a monument
[16:26] to mismanagement and bad decisions. If you don't believe me, look
[16:30] at the empty blue wall. A few walks away from here where 200,000 cars
[16:35] a day drive past where our public art was destroyed. City leadership
[16:39] didn't pay attention, didn't own up to their mistakes. Don't have a plan to fix it.
[16:43] all the while the world laughs at us. Please don't fall for it.
[16:48] this isn't going to end well. Council members will be onto other jobs, will be
[16:52] left holding the bag. Dallas will be mocked for destroying an iconic building as
[16:56] ransom for city council. Mistakes and underfunding and lack of vision.
[17:00] thank you veronica. Aaron duno.
[17:06] veronica, aaron duno. It's not present.
[17:10] jed ridge will be virtual.
[17:15] alright, um, can you all hear me? Hello? Hello. Jurich
[17:20] district one, I'm democratic social american, north texas. It is time to vote on these
[17:24] or not voting. These say dallas city hall. And, um,
[17:28] while is going on, I see our own council members wanting to treat this like a job interview where our third
[17:32] cities are gonna get hired by some corporation move here. I find that pathetic times
[17:37] change. Sports franchises look for their next handout. Department stores are thing of the past.
[17:41] at and t's moved all over the place. There's no appeasing any of these entities, especially where
[17:45] one of them is owned by genocidal freaks who don't value human life. I see you people at
[17:49] the horseshoe so eager to get on your knees, ready to pay for big businesses right before yourselves.
[17:53] there are local business owners that think they will catch the wave. If you sell city hall to some
[17:57] corporate interest, yet in their unaware that they will be completely priced out,
[18:02] saving this building won't solve your downtown problem or your budget problem. What at this time to get created
[18:06] with your resources at a time when guys are in their underwear, mean mugging for weigh in
[18:10] at the lincoln memorial. It will maintain what we stand for in this city. You want to revive
[18:14] downtown? Get creative with the locks around city hall and build affordable housing. Get a grocery store
[18:19] downtown and that's your time. The hands of these entities, businesses will follow where people thank
[18:23] you. Daniel campbell.
[18:33] hello. Nice to meet you. Yeah, I believe in the redevelopment and
[18:37] reimagination of all of downtown, including this building and the surrounding
[18:41] area. I just think it's a beautiful space, but maybe it could be
[18:45] reimagined into something else that is better than what we have today.
[18:49] as one lady pointed out, you look at all these other city centers and how beautiful they
[18:53] are. I just think we need something like that to draw people in
[18:57] to dallas. Make it more community oriented. Thank
[19:02] you stephanie dinka.
[19:15] as you sit there gloating over the prospect of erasing I am pays legacy. I'm
[19:19] here to make sure his words are entered into the record. You never quite know
[19:24] when something that you have planted is going to be harvested. The yield may be once or
[19:28] recurrent. You may forget that something was planted and then there is suddenly this bloom
[19:33] called up by circumstances that are completely different. Such blooms can
[19:37] breach walls and whole epochs. This very moment is one of those
[19:41] blooms, me standing inside the house pay designed for us
[19:45] speaking truth to power. A time he both dreamed and feared when
[19:49] the people of dallas would need to protect themselves. He gave us this monument
[19:53] to remember how strong we are that our voices matter.
[19:58] I am pay was a visionary. He will be remembered by generations
[20:03] for what he created. You'll be remembered for what you destroyed
[20:07] if you're remembered at all. Thank you. David
[20:11] voss.
[20:19] my name's david voss. I live at 6 5 4 6 oreo drive, dallas, texas
[20:23] in district number two. I've spent considerable time and effort over the
[20:27] last few months trying to provide accurate information and professional experienced opinions
[20:32] about why and how to save dallas city hall. My attempts
[20:36] to insert logic and reason into this debate have found support with six members
[20:40] of this council. Logic and reason have been ignored by nine members
[20:45] of this body who are promoting the largest move to disrupt representative
[20:50] government in this city's history. And now you have the audacity
[20:54] to take a rpa funds budgeted for city hall repairs,
[20:58] reallocate them to fund your actions, to abandon and destroy this
[21:03] building. It appears that you have no shame. I'm gonna
[21:07] use the rest of my time here to help with that. Shame,
[21:12] shame, shame, shame,
[21:16] shame on you. Thank you. Jessica stewart,
[21:22] lin bay.
[21:27] good morning. My name is jessica stewart, lin bay district nine.
[21:32] um, I think what david voss said was so important.
[21:36] shame is the feeling that we have when we're doing something wrong.
[21:40] and it's so important if we don't have shame, we
[21:45] can't learn from our mistakes and we can't refocus and recenter
[21:49] what's right. And I think shame is something that the people here
[21:53] that are not listening to their constituents, but listening to the, um,
[21:57] private sector is an appropriate feeling
[22:02] that we should all have when we're doing something wrong.
[22:07] redirect, this is your chance. You have a chance to vote no today and recenter
[22:12] what's going on right now. The process to abandon dallas city hall is regressive,
[22:17] destructive and non democrat, non-democratic. It is not based on
[22:21] our values such as ccap, the dallas comprehensive
[22:25] environmental and climate action plan. That's your time. Thank you.
[22:29] thank you. I will now call the next group of speakers. When I call
[22:33] your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection
[22:38] and virtual speakers. Please have your audio and video ready. Bruce richardson,
[22:44] dolores leve soroka. Mike davis,
[22:48] elena stevens, ed zara,
[22:52] quinn matthews, carol bell walton, amy tran.
[22:58] tabatha curel. Sean jensen, jared willis,
[23:04] anthony cheney, erica cole, sharon shepherd,
[23:09] sam williams, diane birdwell, karen
[23:13] muncy, yolanda williams, terrance hudson, and
[23:17] diana hayes. Bruce richardson,
[23:31] the great eric johnson regretted that
[23:35] engineers rarely become political leaders. Engineers
[23:39] mold science into human advancement. Their standards are
[23:44] rigorous above all other fields. Lawyers,
[23:48] engineer words to achieve ends. Judges
[23:53] are the check upon their work. A boondoggle
[23:57] is a politically engineered spending without public
[24:01] benefit. This is kind of a reverse one.
[24:06] I didn't come to convince you because you are so convinced,
[24:10] but I warn you, we have only begun. Ultimately,
[24:15] history will have its say and history will
[24:19] follow you past your graves. You can count
[24:23] on it. Truth always prevails.
[24:27] always. You cannot engineer. That's your time. Truth
[24:32] away. Thank you. Dolores leve, soroka,
[24:41] dolores levy soroka, district two. If I had walked into this chamber
[24:45] today and handed the city of dallas a check for $750 million
[24:51] with one condition that you could only use it to, to repair
[24:55] city hall, I believe many of you would still vote to leave
[24:59] this building. Why? Because there is no, this no longer looks like
[25:03] an honest evaluation. It looks like a predetermined outcome.
[25:07] city hall is not the problem. It's an inanimate object. It did not
[25:12] stop development downtown. It did not drive at and t or the stars
[25:16] to plano. It has no power to make or break a revitalization
[25:21] plan. What concerns citizens is a process where the conclusion
[25:25] seems to come before the analysis and consultants are hired
[25:29] to justify a decision that appears to have already been made. That is why people
[25:34] begin to think of a very uncomfortable word. Corruption
[25:38] investors and developers may have deep pockets. That's your time. But we, the citizens
[25:42] are in the majority we are watching and we will remember. Thank you.
[25:47] mike davis.
[25:55] mike davis. Good morning. Uh, mr. Mayor, members of the city council.
[26:00] I'm in favor of redeveloping, uh, this property. It's a reinvestment in dallas.
[26:04] that's what we see our neighbors to the north doing the reinvesting
[26:09] in their cities. I encourage you and the members of the council to reinvest
[26:13] in downtown, protect our restaurant, uses our hospitality and
[26:17] nightlife uses, make those central to how we attract businesses here. How
[26:21] we attract conventions here and come together. I really do wanna encourage
[26:25] you, madam city manager. You have the vision, members of the council. You have the power to vote.
[26:30] let's bring those facts together. Let's get our acts together.
[26:34] let's come together. I I really want to encourage you all. I've got
[26:38] friends on both sides of this discussion, mr. Mayor, I encourage you,
[26:43] bring those friends into the fold as this conversation and this vote moves forward.
[26:47] allow their voices to be heard. Allow the voters to be heard. You're doing the
[26:51] right thing. Let's move forward with this redevelopment. Thank you. Thank you.
[26:56] elena stevens.
[27:01] greetings. I'm elena stevens. Um, district one, a lifelong
[27:05] citizen of dallas. After listening for hours last
[27:09] wednesday, hearing city staff and consultants show numbers and
[27:13] graphs indicating that repair of city hall is just too expensive
[27:17] and not, and, and that city hall itself is not the highest and best
[27:22] used of the soil beneath it. I do not agree.
[27:26] this building is an architectural marvel, an icon representing
[27:30] dallas worldwide. We need a
[27:35] leader with a vision to incorporate this city hall into the life
[27:39] of downtown. The life around the new convention center. Projected to
[27:43] be a huge generator of money and energy for this part of downtown.
[27:48] I ask you today to listen to all your neighbors. I
[27:52] ask you to slow down until you can make a case that has real
[27:56] evidence supporting a navigable path for
[28:00] I am paid. That's your time. City hall. Thank you.
[28:05] ed zara.
[28:12] ed zara. District 14. How did the lease become by
[28:16] at last wednesday special call meeting jack ireland went through his repair presentation,
[28:21] which was full of questionable data. I gave my speech about the advantages
[28:25] for dallas taxpayers to keep city hall and make phase repairs versus
[28:30] leasing, which would cost us over 157 million every 10 years with
[28:34] an escalating triple net lease. The next day. Ireland stated every
[28:38] option that we're looking at would be if we do go with a lease, it would be to
[28:42] lease the own option. Our goal is to own city hall, not to lease city hall.
[28:47] so the good old bait and switch leasing was never an option. But purchasing another 50-year-old
[28:52] building is a financial disaster in the making. Your leadership failed
[28:56] dallas by not taking care of city hall for the past 48 years.
[29:00] do you think we're really dumb enough to believe that purchasing another old
[29:04] building and bulldozing I pays people house will change your modus operandi.
[29:09] stop your madness. That's your time. Save city hall. Thank you.
[29:14] quinn matthews
[29:23] mayor council. The sea of blue. You see here,
[29:28] no one paid us, no one gave us green shirts. No one wr wrote
[29:32] talking points for us. I keep hearing about stakeholders that
[29:36] the stakeholders should have a say. We the people are the
[29:40] stakeholders. That's correct. How many have responded to our message to save
[29:45] city hall? I can tell you just from my small part in this, that
[29:49] we have had over 300,000, 300,000
[29:54] positive responses to our messages online. Tens of thousands
[29:59] have said yes, this is an over, we overwhelmingly
[30:03] wanna save city hall. Finally, this is an opportunity.
[30:08] do something for downtown. Do something for downtown by
[30:12] investing in it. Investing in city hall in three words.
[30:17] I will close with stop this madness. Thank
[30:21] you. Carol bell walton.
[30:30] I'm going to read a portion of a letter from the dallas city count, uh, the
[30:34] dallas city hall employees and ex-employees because you never asked them.
[30:39] dear kent mayor and council members, on behalf of hundreds of current
[30:44] and former city of dallas employees, we are writing to urge you to restore dallas
[30:48] city hall. We keep reading in the news that you are doing
[30:52] this for us, yet we've never been asked.
[30:57] what we are asking of you is to lead our city in
[31:01] a plan to restore both downtown and dallas city hall.
[31:06] not to abandon who we are, to seek our opinions,
[31:10] seek our opinions about how to best restore and beautify
[31:14] this space. We are asking you to choose dallas
[31:18] r dallas. This is from the city of dallas employees. I will
[31:23] be sending you this email. It has been scrubbed of metadata. They are scared
[31:27] of you and you and your retaliation, but you will get their message.
[31:31] thank you. Amy tran.
[31:35] amy tran. After more than a sec, after more
[31:39] than a decade living in dallas, I can say that city hall is where I've been most civically engaged.
[31:44] I've marched for black lives matter, attended rallies for free. Palestine brought my
[31:48] 18 month old daughter to speak at city hall meetings. Brought my infant son to advocate against
[31:52] a partnership between bpd and ice. City hall is not an obsolete
[31:57] bu building, and it's a place where dallas residents come to civically engage in our
[32:01] local politics. It's a place where I'm teaching and raising my children to advocate for local, state
[32:05] and global issues. Last night I told my husband that I'd speak, uh, today
[32:09] and my 3-year-old daughter immediately interjected that, mommy, I'm coming with
[32:14] you. As an engaged resident of dallas, I want to save city hall, preserve this
[32:18] building and see a future where my children come to advocate on behalf of our community in
[32:22] their own thank you. Thank you.
[32:26] tabatha curel,
[32:31] tam cu. It's not present.
[32:37] sean jensen,
[32:49] sean jensen, district 11. Sean jensen, district 11. I
[32:54] ask with deep respect, what can $3 million bias right now?
[32:58] a da compliance with overhauled restrooms, critical hvac repairs,
[33:03] security expansion, working fire suppression, leak repairs and water mitigation.
[33:08] all of it. Or earnest money to keep buildings empty. Comparative
[33:12] studies showing us just how much those buildings fail to meet our needs and
[33:16] contracts ready to sign before voters even know what's happening.
[33:20] unless we decide to abandon our iconic home, it's $3 million spent
[33:24] joining the flight from our core. We don't need contracts in august, but
[33:29] downtown needs this anchor. Dallas needs this symbol. So let's
[33:33] take a beat. Let your constituents catch up. This is a problem
[33:37] of our own making, but it's not too late to become good stewards of our city's home
[33:41] and restore the public trust. I urge you to vote. No
[33:46] thank you. Jared willis.
[33:51] jared willis is not present.
[33:57] anthony cheney.
[34:03] anthony cheney. It's not present.
[34:07] erica cole.
[34:15] hi, I'm erica cole. I have some questions for y'all and I'm
[34:19] not getting any answers. We've been, we haven't found the details
[34:23] about where we're gonna move. How much is it gonna cost?
[34:28] we need an estimate. It may be more expensive than tearing
[34:32] down city hall and, um, I,
[34:36] uh, so we don't know where we're moving, how much it would cost.
[34:41] the real cost. Bringing up the, uh,
[34:45] tearing up the I am building up to date is
[34:49] and the cost of moving. I hear the cost of moving. Um, 9 1 1
[34:54] is still a very delicate and expensive
[34:58] project and tearing down the tons of cement
[35:03] bricks and the qua quantity of dumping
[35:07] the debris will cost millions itself. Why are we not learning? Why
[35:11] do we not know? We are just more interested in tearing down this
[35:15] building. That's your time than to find out the price of keeping it.
[35:19] thank you. Sharon shepherd.
[35:25] sharon shepherd. It's not present. Sam williams.
[35:34] tim williams is virtual.
[35:41] mr. Williams. Okay, I'll move on.
[35:46] diane birdwell here again.
[35:51] let's see it though. Just show my face this time. They didn't do that last time, but
[35:56] it helped me, uh, get, uh, seven and a half thousand views
[36:00] on facebook, especially with the mayor's, uh, grimacing and faces
[36:04] that he made when I was speaking. I'm diane birdwell, district seven, and maybe I'll
[36:08] run for that after bezel to his termed out because someone else needs
[36:12] to carry on that torch. I know that the green shirts may be getting
[36:17] paid for their advocacy, but maybe not, but I know they're getting
[36:21] played. They're getting played. These young people, y'all have no idea
[36:25] how much you're being played right now by the oligarchy for the anti city
[36:29] hall nine. What's the bums rush? What is the geek at the carnival
[36:35] that y'all have to be wait three to six months for those who
[36:39] say it's the best thing to do. Show us the numbers. When someone quotes $1.4 billion,
[36:45] show me the money. Show me where your statistics come from.
[36:49] show me what you've got. Quip using south dallas
[36:53] as an excuse. I'll say it again. If the investors and the movers and shakers
[36:57] wanted south dallas to succeed, they'd live there. They'd work there and they'd invest there, but they haven't.
[37:02] it's a your time. It's a game. And this guy is way too aggressive. Thank you.
[37:08] karen muncy . Karen
[37:13] muncie. Karen muncy, 26 14 lake forest court, district nine.
[37:18] the rule of law isn't dead yet. Thanks to six council members, including
[37:22] mine. I've lived in dallas since 1957 and I've
[37:26] watched this city's elected representatives consistently
[37:31] refuse to do the grownup work of maintenance and stewardship
[37:35] in favor of formative development of sports, facilities and entertainment
[37:40] fly traps. Thank you mark. Re the folks pushing to so desperately to wipe
[37:44] out our city hall, need to stop playing realtor and do the work
[37:49] elected to do by the citizens of dallas. Save the heart
[37:53] of our civic life. Vote no on both items, please.
[37:59] thank you. Yolanda williams.
[38:06] yolanda williams.
[38:14] okay, ms. Williams. I will move on.
[38:20] thank you. It's nine o'clock. I'm here.
[38:25] hello. Okay, ms. Williams, you may continue.
[38:30] okay. I guess I'm gonna have to sign up every week to speak on this.
[38:34] it, this is really, really getting frustrated because while I understand
[38:39] everyone wants to save city hall, everyone thinks, you know, the building is
[38:43] important. While I respect the work that the artists have done, but we have other
[38:47] business that we need to take her in the city. There have been historical
[38:52] buildings torn down. There have been historical residents torn down
[38:56] and we must move on with city hall. I don't understand
[39:00] why everyone keeps wanting to save a building. So you're telling me
[39:04] 9 1 1 is not important. Those of us who rely
[39:08] on nine one one and call 9 1 1, you're telling me staff is
[39:12] not important. We found out that some of our recreation centers, the senior citizen,
[39:17] were on the chopping block because we don't have money, we don't have funding
[39:22] or anything. And this has to stop with the council members that's on social
[39:26] media putting all this false information out. That's your
[39:30] time. I don't what's important about this building. Demolish city hall. That's
[39:34] your time. Thank you. Thank you ms. Mayor. Alright, well
[39:39] we're going to now, uh, recess the special call meeting.
[39:43] it's 9:01 am and we will plan to reconvene
[39:47] in 30 minutes or so. Let's say, call it nine 30. Um, and we
[39:51] will now call to order our regular agenda meeting. So we'll need
[39:55] to switch over the webex. So give us just one moment.
[40:01] okay. The webex is switched over so we can reconvene the special call meeting.
[40:05] it's 9:32 am m secretary. We can pick up with our open microphone speakers
[40:09] again. Thank you mr. Mayor.
[40:16] if you allow my assistant to start up, it's moving a little slow.
[40:21] thank you mr. Mayor terrance hudson. We
[40:25] can't hear the meeting.
[40:30] one, one second. Mr. Hudson. We'll get someone to raise that podium for you.
[40:58] you may begin. All right. Good morning,
[41:02] city council. Mayor. My name is terrence. I live in district
[41:06] 13, bickery midtown of dallas. Uh, I just came
[41:11] here to say that city hall is for everyone, not just me, not
[41:15] just for downtown, not just for uptown, it's for everybody. Um,
[41:20] it, you know, it brought tourism and movies and
[41:25] a lot of good things to dallas and it was, it'll be sad to see it go.
[41:30] um, as I was saying, city hall is for all of us, not for money, hungry driven,
[41:34] power hungry developers and a long, and as a long time east dallas resident.
[41:38] and, um, the class of 2010. Brian adams high school.
[41:42] um, I wanna say for many more. I want it to stay for many more generations
[41:47] to come. We owe our respect and gratitude to im pay by keeping
[41:51] and renovating this building. Like what happened with the statler hilton or
[41:55] the lorenzo and the cedars. Even the cotton bowling fair park. It's the best thing
[41:59] to do. That's your time. Thank you.
[42:03] diana hayes.
[42:08] diana hayes is not present.
[42:16] I will call the names of the next group of speakers. Um, the
[42:20] first few rows of this intersection is full. So I will just ask that you would come forward and be
[42:24] ready when I call your name
[42:28] cindy weatherall. When
[42:34] hardy haberman anna sine has canceled.
[42:38] jessica ramirez. Catherine garra,
[42:43] rawlins gilliland, sidney walker. Her
[42:48] joan gola, melanie vanlandingham,
[42:52] ronnie mees, adam lamont, mckayla
[42:57] watkins, damien leveque.
[43:01] matthew bach, donna
[43:06] denson, john lin bay, kevin pfeiffer,
[43:11] alicia quinton's, catherine garrison, jessica sanchez.
[43:17] sanford denison, alex scott, kristen atwell
[43:21] and erica huddle huddleston.
[43:26] cindy weatherall.
[43:30] cindy weatherall is not present.
[43:38] hardy haberman.
[43:42] hardy haberman is not present.
[43:48] anna sine has canceled. Jessica ramirez
[43:52] will be virtual. Yes. Hello. I'm
[43:56] here. Mr. Ramirez, your
[44:01] audio, I believe it's muted
[44:05] side in district eight. Um, hello.
[44:11] hello. We can hear you. You may continue.
[44:18] I can't hear anything. We can hear you
[44:26] ms. Ramirez. I'll come back.
[44:31] catherine garra.
[44:35] we will be virtual. Good morning. Okay. I'm catherine guerra. The most sustainable building is the
[44:39] one that's already built is a quote by the architect carl el lafonte. From an environmental
[44:44] perspective, demolishing dallas city hall causes us to lose the embodied carbon.
[44:48] the emissions generated from extracting manufacturing and transporting its original materials. And
[44:52] when it is demolished, that massive carbon investment is effectively lost.
[44:56] um, it, it requires, uh, uh, replacing, uh, all of
[45:00] those, uh, materials. Um, our carbon goals are net zero by 2050,
[45:04] so we're gonna have to figure out how to negate that if you move forward today. Demolition
[45:09] of a concrete building also, um, has its own issues,
[45:13] especially when the building is of this significant size. We're going to have to
[45:17] mitigate air pollution in particulate matter for our downtown neighbors. But there's no guarantee that leaving
[45:21] dallas city hall will do anything for downtown. No guarantee that taxpayers will ever get
[45:26] anything for the loss of our of city hall. There's not a silver bullet that will
[45:30] save or revitalize downtown. And lastly, as we look to the future, please consider
[45:34] why taxpayers would ever agree to fund another dallas city hall when city leaders that's
[45:38] your time and present have demonstrated the inability to care for the one we that's your time.
[45:43] thank you.
[45:47] we will go back to speaker nine. Sauna saeed.
[46:17] good morning, mayor and council. I serve as president of the farmer's market stakeholders
[46:21] association and downtown is our home. Many of
[46:25] us chose to live here because we believed in what downtown could become.
[46:30] this is the most excited I have seen my neighborhood
[46:34] reimagining this dead zone by our homes. Talks about multimodal
[46:38] connection, links to other neighborhoods, the katy trail loop, high speed rail, street
[46:42] cars, density with people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.
[46:46] the downtown we envision is a destination, but the story of
[46:51] too many places in downtown has become big ideas, unfinished
[46:55] plans and opportunities that slipped away. You
[46:59] are in a position to change this city for generations.
[47:03] we are tired of talking about possibilities. Show
[47:07] us that dallas still has the courage to do great things. Thank you.
[47:11] thank you. We will now go back to speaker 47. Rawlin. Gilland,
[47:31] sorry.
[47:36] proud district five. By
[47:40] now. My sense is that abandoning this building is a sadly foregone conclusion.
[47:45] so here is my eulogy. I believe with all
[47:49] my heart that 35 years from now there will be books with photographs
[47:54] of amazing, unique, 21st century architectural
[47:59] marvels. One of a kind iconoclastic buildings
[48:03] built in the heyday of masters.
[48:08] of course this building will be prominently featured since it looks like no other building
[48:12] anywhere, ever before or since. It will be seen as an
[48:16] inscrutable tragedy that people willingly let that building die.
[48:21] as I said before, the first time I spoke, you cannot unloose
[48:26] what is forever lost. Remember that? That's your time.
[48:30] thank you sidney walker.
[48:39] I called you guys out once before for betraying the taxpayers
[48:43] of this city and you continue to betray us with your
[48:47] trumped up numbers for complete restoration to commercial
[48:51] grade, a real estate standards for a government building
[48:56] you won't betray your benefactors. Who will benefit from thel
[49:00] this building for a so-called dead zone because of investment
[49:05] in parking lots that have been here since the sixties and the seventies.
[49:10] shame on y'all for betraying us one more time. And your
[49:14] numbers to move. We expect them to be the equivalent of
[49:18] $2 to justify you getting rid of this
[49:23] daggum building. Thank you. Jones gola.
[49:39] thank you. Good morning. Thank you for your
[49:45] undivided attention. My name is jones. I'm 11 years old and I live
[49:49] in dallas district 10. I am here today to ask you to save
[49:53] our city hall from demolition by voting no for the two resolutions on
[49:58] today's agenda. I learned that mr. Pe designed our city
[50:02] with a specific intent. The front leans forward at a 34 degree
[50:06] angle. This angle is not just a cool design trick. It was powerful symbolism.
[50:11] the building slants outward to literally reach out and embrace the public square.
[50:15] it was designed to look like the people of dallas are the foundation and the
[50:20] government is leaning toward forward to listen to us, protect us, and
[50:24] shelter us. People travel from all over the world to see.
[50:28] I pays work like the glass pyramid at the louv museum
[50:32] in paris. But right here in texas, we have our own piece of his
[50:36] genius, including city hall. It's the heart of our community. If we
[50:40] tear this down, that's your time. Thank you for your time. And thank you for
[50:44] listening to the youth of dallas. Thank you
[50:53] melanie vanlandingham.
[51:10] do not abandon the structurally sound safe, world renowned,
[51:14] completely paid for city hall. This is not a side
[51:18] by side comparison. You already voted against repairing what we own.
[51:23] you already voted against knowing environmental impacts and demolition costs.
[51:28] you don't wanna know. Dallas residents want you to save city hall
[51:32] and stop the rigged process lies predetermined
[51:36] outcomes and fake cost. Testaments stop violating court orders.
[51:41] the city charter meeting notices, voting procedures, state law,
[51:45] your oaths of office and the public trust, especially
[51:49] if the city is broke. Vote no against relocation actions.
[51:54] instead spend the federal funds. We have to prepare what we
[51:58] own. Address budget shortfalls before you spend another
[52:03] dime, before you take grossly irresponsible actions, break
[52:07] the shackles of improper influence, do the right thing. That's your
[52:11] time. And save city hall. Thank you
[52:15] ronnie mees.
[52:30] good afternoon mayor johnson. How you doing? Ronnie me west dallas, texas. Uh,
[52:34] wanted to go into uh, the issue with the city hall,
[52:38] but I don't want to ruin the young people's, uh, idea of what they've
[52:42] been already trained. What I'm asking is why don't you engage the people you're actually
[52:46] applauding and taking pictures with and have them and the voters and the other
[52:50] public, uh, people here in the city of dallas vote on this
[52:54] issue and take that responsibility and that away from you guys. You
[52:58] know, not to take you know your vision away 'cause there is none. But
[53:03] to put it back in the hands of the people that put y'all in the office. Thank
[53:07] you. Thank you adam lamont.
[53:12] adam lamont is not virtual, not in the
[53:17] audience, not present. Mckayla watkins
[53:33] mikayla watkins of district two one could argue that our advocacy
[53:37] is in vain as we argue our points to individuals whose minds are already made up, especially
[53:41] if the checks have already cleared. However, I would be remiss if I did not point
[53:46] out a few inconsistencies when we, your constituents ask for facts
[53:50] and figures, but were provided none. It should have brought a halt to last week's vote.
[53:54] how sensible is it to vote today on exploratory measures that should have been pursued
[53:59] at the forefront of this debacle? As I stated last week, concepts
[54:03] of a plan will not suffice from my great city. This underdeveloped
[54:07] plan of yours does not consider logic, rationale or the needs of our own unhoused,
[54:11] brothers and sisters in this area with whispers that our voices don't matter because
[54:15] the decision has already been made. I respectfully employ you to consider your
[54:19] legacies and the lack of integrity on display. Thank you.
[54:24] thank you. Damien leve. Damien
[54:28] levek is not online, not in the audience.
[54:32] it's not present. Matthew bach.
[54:48] good morning. Matthew bach, district 11. As a 30 5-year-old
[54:53] resident of dallas, I strongly oppose the demolition of dallas city hall.
[54:57] I personally admire the dramatic canted facade of city
[55:01] hall. It sets our skyline apart and reflects a bold era
[55:06] of ambition and forward thinking design in our city's history.
[55:10] but city hall is more than just a building itself. It's where people show up, speak
[55:14] out, engage. That kind of civic presence
[55:18] isn't easy to recreate somewhere else. I'm stunned
[55:23] that some of our city leaders would consider discarding one of our most
[55:27] significant civic institutions simply to monetize the land.
[55:32] by that logic, we might as well sell the arboretum, the zoo
[55:37] fair park, another cherished dallas assets. Whenever a
[55:41] profitable offer comes along, city hall is not just a
[55:45] building, it's sacred ground in a civic sense. That your time.
[55:49] thank you. Thank you donna denison.
[56:05] good, good morning coun, uh, mayor and council members. I'm here as a 70-year-old
[56:09] resident of dallas to ask you to vote no on items one and two.
[56:14] I'm asking for transparency for this rush to the decision
[56:18] to move out of city hall and relocate. I'm asking for transparency
[56:23] for the true cost of repairing city hall consultants reported
[56:27] that this solid iconic building will stand for another 200, 250 years.
[56:32] it's in a class by itself. Abandoning city hall
[56:36] is not the silver bullet which will revitalize downtown dallas.
[56:41] please vote no. Please don't vote. To abandon this
[56:45] iconic landmark building which im pay considered one of his top
[56:50] four or five projects of his lifetime. Thank you. Thank you.
[56:54] john lin bay dallas,
[56:58] native district nine, formally districts
[57:02] one and 14. The majority of this council represents the private sector,
[57:06] not the people of dallas. This is not only about preserving a
[57:11] building, it's about preserving public trust. The concern is not
[57:15] whether dallas should evolve. It's whether decisions of this scale are
[57:19] being made with enough transparency, enough public input, and enough
[57:23] complete information before moving toward demolition or redevelopment.
[57:27] residents deserve clear side-by-side comparisons of repair, replacement,
[57:32] demolition, environmental impact, and long-term public value. Too many dallas
[57:36] residents feel this process has moved too quickly and without sufficient independent
[57:41] review. I ask the mayor, the city manager and council to
[57:45] reconsider the current path. Not because change is wrong, but
[57:49] because stewardship matters. Open the process.
[57:54] invite independent experts. Bring in the creativity
[57:58] and talent of dallas residents before making an irreversible
[58:02] decision. That's your thank you kevin pifer.
[58:14] thank you mayor kevin pfeiffer. District one, we the people.
[58:18] respectfully. How and where does the city council expect
[58:23] resource funds for the necessary rent for the next 500 years? For the city
[58:27] staff to perform their duties and which city services will
[58:31] need to be vacated to find those funds. And who will be paying
[58:35] to upgrade and retrofit the interior spaces of those office buildings?
[58:39] where are those funds coming from? Listening skills should be mandatory
[58:44] and paramount for any council member. Basic understanding of budget
[58:48] and finance should also be mandatory requirements.
[58:52] discarding a building simply because the council is in a rush
[58:57] to not take the time to understand what it needs to be repaired is not
[59:01] the premium level of stewardship and leadership that is required.
[59:05] please vote to use the $25 million arpa funds that are
[59:09] available. Vote no save. City hall. Thank you.
[59:15] alicia quinton's. It's not
[59:19] virtual. Not in the audience. Not present. Catherine garrison.
[59:23] I am here. I am here. Alicia here. Okay.
[59:27] thank you. My apologies. You may be. You may continue.
[59:32] yes. Thank you. My name is alicia lincon. I'm a 35 year resident
[59:36] of . 6 3 4. I've been to countless meetings at
[59:41] city hall, served on task forces missions, attended meetings
[59:45] with city staff at b hall each visit. I have a sense of civic pride
[59:49] and amazement at this building, but ima design building.
[59:54] recently I've heard some real estate consultants hired by the city of dallas. So
[59:58] the current city hall location does not have adequate public transit or
[1:00:02] amenities such as restaurants that would be attracted to employees
[1:00:06] and visitors to city hall. Blame for this. I ask.
[1:00:10] the current city hall was planned over 50 years ago. There must have been a
[1:00:15] master plan within these years and time to implement
[1:00:19] economic development has been a driving force for business at city hall. So why has
[1:00:23] the area around city hall been so neglected? Dart was planned in the
[1:00:27] early 1990s. Why would city hall left out of the plan's route?
[1:00:32] can you can then consider as in this planning stage right now? That's your time. Why not
[1:00:36] take the thank you. Thank you
[1:00:41] catherine garrison.
[1:00:55] I'm one of the lucky ones. I own my house outright.
[1:01:00] if someone came up to me and said, oh kathy, we're gonna take your land
[1:01:04] and your house and you're moving, you're paying to move, you're
[1:01:08] gonna lease or buy somewhere, but we don't know where you're paying
[1:01:13] for it. I'd tell them they were crazy.
[1:01:19] city hall is our house. It's paid
[1:01:23] for and it's the crown jewel of dallas. Past leaders
[1:01:27] and city staff have given us the police and fire pension fiasco.
[1:01:32] the $60 million trinity east lawsuit valued
[1:01:36] engineered pedestrian bridges $256 million. Trinity
[1:01:41] toll road fiasco of which 81 million is unaccounted for
[1:01:45] the 180 million trinity golf course. I urge you not to
[1:01:49] follow previous bad decisions with new ones. Vote no and
[1:01:53] save city hall. Thank you. Jessica sanchez.
[1:02:00] jessica sanchez is not virtual.
[1:02:04] none in the audience not present. Sanford denison
[1:02:09] . Sanford. Denison? Yes. Thank you.
[1:02:15] sanford. Denison. 6 2 3 4 prospect avenue, dallas, texas
[1:02:19] district for first. Dallas is a city that has a unique fortune
[1:02:23] of having a number of imp design buildings. Among them this city
[1:02:28] hall, it will be everlast shame of dallas, which we left this iconic
[1:02:32] public and cultural building called wrecking ball. If we
[1:02:36] tear down city hall, which was designed by to last well
[1:02:40] into the next century, if not longer, what
[1:02:45] lives vacant decay and eyesore anchoring the south side
[1:02:49] of downtown and staying city. And,
[1:02:57] and the site will come yet another parking lot,
[1:03:01] most likely never to be dealt in the near
[1:03:05] future. No real thought has been given to the cops, demolishing the structure.
[1:03:09] and who will for the tear down? It's gonna be us, nor has
[1:03:13] any thought been given to the master. That's your time. Thank you.
[1:03:18] oh, no. Thank you alex. Scott.
[1:03:28] good morning y'all. Alex scott, 64 72 trammell drive. I'm
[1:03:32] mean neighbor in district nine. Um, I'm coming up here a lot calmer today, y'all.
[1:03:37] um, so we have 50 seconds to kind of talk about
[1:03:42] my, my heed for y'all as you head into these
[1:03:46] closed sessions and as you head into this major next step. 'cause
[1:03:50] I think everyone here can agree that like this is a thing that's going down in history. Like
[1:03:55] people are gonna be talking about this, which I think is really fascinating. And
[1:03:59] so when we talk about history, it's important to understand the
[1:04:03] challenges that we faced, which this time last year, our
[1:04:07] city manager released an after action report for the stem and center,
[1:04:11] which was one of the worst real estate property purchases in municipal
[1:04:15] history. And we spent $43 million on that building because
[1:04:19] we didn't do the proper, you know, strategic thinking that all we needed was an application,
[1:04:24] right? All we needed was a phone app. And we were so rushed to
[1:04:28] do things. That's your time that we didn't think and sit. And so thank you. That's
[1:04:32] my heed for y'all as you head into this week to do some proper discernment. Thank you.
[1:04:37] thank you. Kristen atwell.
[1:04:43] hi kristen atwell. The idea being presented, that development
[1:04:47] of a vibrant downtown city core is dependent on the
[1:04:52] abandonment and demolition of our city hall. Is misleading at
[1:04:56] best and deceptive at worst. The opposite has
[1:05:00] been beautifully presented by the visionary students of utas kappa
[1:05:04] program. For example, it is abundantly clear that the majority of
[1:05:08] citizens in dallas want to save city hall, even say
[1:05:12] yes. People in the green shirts admitted they did not want to
[1:05:17] tear down city hall when asked. It is also
[1:05:21] abundantly clear that the expert answers have been in front of you for months. Yet you
[1:05:25] are contorting yourselves to ignore them in favor of presenting trumped up scare
[1:05:29] tactics. The irony is not lost on us. That a
[1:05:33] building visioned and constructed as a symbolic recovery from the disgrace
[1:05:37] our city faced in 1963 is now ushering us to the same level
[1:05:42] of international disgrace today. The world that your time is indeed
[1:05:46] watching. Do the right thing. Repair city hall. That's time. Have the vision to develop
[1:05:50] the southern sector. Thank you erica
[1:05:55] huddleston.
[1:06:05] good morning. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm in district 14.
[1:06:10] this building is a masterpiece and architects understand the technical
[1:06:15] difficulties of creating it, these form work. But we're being overrun by
[1:06:19] a waterfall, a financial waterfall. So I
[1:06:23] urge you here is the precedent from fort worth's new town hall.
[1:06:27] city hall that is being quoted, but it's different than ours.
[1:06:32] fort worth's former hall was a east coast, designed edward durrell stone brutalist
[1:06:37] building from the seventies. Sound familiar? 2.5 acres.
[1:06:42] in 2020 they did a deal. They bought 11.9
[1:06:47] acres. The former pier one
[1:06:51] building built in 2004
[1:06:55] are acreage 11.8 acres.
[1:07:00] what will you do? Will you trade it for a building downtown with
[1:07:04] no land? That your every text and note. That's your time.
[1:07:08] thank you. Before I call the final group of speakers, we will
[1:07:12] go back to speaker 45. Jessica ramirez. Ms. Ramirez,
[1:07:18] yes. Hello. Sorry about that earlier. The tech issues. But my name is jessica ramirez.
[1:07:22] I'm in district eight. I'm in an area where my library has been shut down since
[1:07:27] january. Um, and our parks and police have received
[1:07:31] the biggest bond. Um, and so now we're looking at tearing down
[1:07:35] a monumental building, a public building. And so because
[1:07:40] of the bad maintenance, bad due diligence, um, and for the most part,
[1:07:45] you guys, you will be not remembered for this, but voted out for
[1:07:49] this and somebody else will sit in that seat. And, um, if I will say this real
[1:07:53] quick and for translation, don't be a sellout.
[1:07:57] thank you. Thank you.
[1:08:02] I'll now call the final group of speakers
[1:08:06] and when I call your name, just be prepared to come forward, um,
[1:08:10] when I come back to your name and also virtual speakers. Please have your video and
[1:08:15] audio ready. Sarah mccarty, john putnam,
[1:08:20] paul simmons, noris soto, christina hahn,
[1:08:26] peter young, lucy billingsley, author, santa
[1:08:30] maria, jim lake, amanda moreno lake, christopher
[1:08:34] weis, simon matthew, nicholas mclean.
[1:08:39] sean todd, dawn dod, andrew
[1:08:44] ter, john eichman, alex michaels,
[1:08:48] peyton jackson, roseanne mills, matthew jacobs,
[1:08:56] jorge cruz s and zaida ra
[1:09:01] sarah mccarty is virtual.
[1:09:05] hi. You may continue.
[1:09:09] okay. Hi. Good morning. I'm katie. 14,000 noelle road district
[1:09:13] 11. Your constituents are upset and having trouble keeping up with what's going
[1:09:17] on. Even if you're closely following the issue of city hall in the future of downtown.
[1:09:21] it's incredibly confusing because some of the puzzle pieces are wrong and some are missing.
[1:09:25] we haven't seen costs to leave city hall rent demolition.
[1:09:29] we haven't talked about what would happen to the efficiency of essential government services if
[1:09:34] they were splintered into different buildings or brought elsewhere. We also haven't
[1:09:38] talked about how this would affect dallas site's access to these services. I could go
[1:09:42] on this whole process begs the question, why are we rushing? We all
[1:09:46] want you to invest in and say yes to downtown. I just see no reason why
[1:09:50] we should forfeit our owned purpose-built landmark house of government to do
[1:09:54] that when it's not necessary. It was an investment made less than 50 years
[1:09:58] ago by the people of dallas. We own it. We trusted it in your hands. It's
[1:10:02] an asset we should protect. Leaving city hall is a false brush choice.
[1:10:07] please vote no on items one and two. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:10:11] if I called your name in this final group, please feel, um, please come
[1:10:15] forward and have a seat in these first three rows of the center section.
[1:10:19] john putnam. Hi, I am john putnam
[1:10:23] from district 10. Um, dallas county is number one in the country for
[1:10:27] ice. Detainments without due process since trump's second term began yet. Instead of protecting
[1:10:32] your residents, good families from having their rights and dignity stolen from them by state police.
[1:10:36] this body focuses on the short work of an incredible immigrant. I am pay and putting hundreds
[1:10:41] of millions of dollars towards dystopian surveillance technology in a police training
[1:10:45] facility. Nobody's asking for the city aids ice by allowing deportation flights,
[1:10:50] um, and flights attend. Internment camps occurred undeterred at love field when
[1:10:54] the texas observer asked the city for comet and told them to reach out to dhs. So
[1:10:58] dhs is now an extension of the city that speaks for activities on
[1:11:02] its property that is acceptable. Not signing 2 87
[1:11:07] g was not enough. His ice still acts on deterred on city property around the city. Stop
[1:11:11] colluding with ice. Save city hall, save love. Thank you.
[1:11:15] thank you. Paul simmons.
[1:11:20] paul simmons not present,
[1:11:24] nor soto.
[1:11:35] my name is nora soto. I live in district four. If you're not familiar,
[1:11:40] we have the dallas doge district member who is looking to audit
[1:11:44] medicaid of all things. I actually didn't sign up to speak on the city hall subject
[1:11:48] today. I signed up to speak on the budget, but, uh,
[1:11:53] I assume that the city sec city secretary and their staff
[1:11:57] is overworked and underpaid just like everybody else here, except for
[1:12:01] the council members, of course. Uh, although the,
[1:12:05] uh, city hall issue is also a budget issue because for years the
[1:12:09] misappropriation of funds have contributed to this problem, um, that
[1:12:13] also could just be manufactured as well.
[1:12:18] so, uh, I don't really have anything else to add to
[1:12:22] the city hall issue. Everyone has said what they
[1:12:26] feel and what is right that you know, you guys are, um,
[1:12:30] unilaterally deciding something that should be in the hands of the people. That's your time. And
[1:12:34] I want to dispel this belief that if this money doesn't go, that's to the city hall, it's gonna go
[1:12:38] to us. It's not gonna go to us, it's gonna go to the cups.
[1:12:43] christina hahn,
[1:12:51] arts and culture are the defining lifeblood of a city. It's how we are seen
[1:12:55] and known to the rest of the world. Im pays. City hall is not only
[1:13:00] a landmark that reminds us about the contributions of asian americans to north texas,
[1:13:04] where we're the fastest growing population, but also social,
[1:13:09] cultural, and civic infrastructure that serves the needs of the people of dallas.
[1:13:13] from hosting public art activations that delight generations of dallasite
[1:13:18] to becoming a place of gathering for student photographers to even acting as the
[1:13:22] space in which a young rising filmmaker can build his world in our
[1:13:26] generation of dallasite, see and experience the value of our great city
[1:13:30] hall, we cherish our legacy and seek to build with it the truth
[1:13:34] that city hall is publicly owned by the people and for the use of everyday dallasite
[1:13:39] should not be taken lightly in the hands of private developers. What was
[1:13:43] once a place for the public to gather, to express themselves, to be seen is no longer
[1:13:47] guaranteed. We should not be blinded by short term profit over long term
[1:13:51] legacy. Your thank you. Thank you, peter young.
[1:13:57] peter young, it's not present. Lucy billingsley
[1:14:02] slate.
[1:14:08] lucy billingsley, 1722. Ruth street. City
[1:14:12] hall, as we know, has been a very poorly functioning building for a long
[1:14:16] time. It's inefficient and it's demoralizing
[1:14:20] to the employees. Repotting yourself in a different
[1:14:25] location will boost morale, increased productivity, and enhance
[1:14:29] results. Downtown is a much bigger problem
[1:14:34] and it's been sliding for so long. We need bold leadership
[1:14:39] to revive downtown. We need you to lead by example,
[1:14:43] help fill some vacant space, bring energy and people to the
[1:14:48] restaurants, and be ready to make more bold decisions as we
[1:14:52] increase that financial base and then turn this area into a viable
[1:14:57] economic district. I appreciate that. Let's let actions speak louder
[1:15:01] than words. Thank you. Thank you, author santa maria.
[1:15:12] good morning, mayor and council members. Today's vote should not be treated as
[1:15:16] a final decision on the future of city hall. It is a decision about
[1:15:20] whether dallas is willing to keep doing the work necessary to make a responsible
[1:15:24] decision. This site involves major taxpayer dollars,
[1:15:29] one of the city's most important public assets and choices that will
[1:15:33] affect dallas for decades. This means we need real information,
[1:15:38] costs, options, trade-offs, operational needs, redevelopment,
[1:15:42] potential, and long-term taxpayer value. Stopping the
[1:15:47] process now does not give dallas answers. It prevents the city
[1:15:51] from getting them. If repurposing the site creates the
[1:15:55] greatest public value, we should have the information properly vetted to make a
[1:15:59] decision on that. We should not make this decision based on fear, pressure, or
[1:16:03] incomplete, incomplete information. I urge you to vote yes to keep this
[1:16:07] process moving. Follow the facts and give dallas the opportunity to fully
[1:16:12] evaluate that your time is best for its taxpayers. Thank you, jim lake.
[1:16:20] good morning, mayor and city council members. My name is jim lake
[1:16:25] and I work and live in, uh, oak cliff. As someone who has spent a career
[1:16:29] evaluating investments, I can tell you the worst decision is making
[1:16:33] a major commitment without fully understanding your options. That's why
[1:16:37] today's action is so important. This site is one of the most
[1:16:41] valuable public assets in dallas. Before you make a long-term decision, city
[1:16:45] leaders need to understand the opportunities, costs, and trade-offs associated
[1:16:50] with every available path. And that's exactly what the votes today
[1:16:54] would permit. The work underway today is helping the city evaluate options,
[1:16:58] analyze costs, and gather all the data necessary to make the best decision
[1:17:02] for taxpayers and to activate our city's core by creating a
[1:17:06] destination rather than a concrete barrier. I encourage you
[1:17:10] to continue the process, continue, gather, gathering information, and
[1:17:15] say yes to downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda moreno
[1:17:19] lake. Good morning. My name is amanda moreno lake.
[1:17:23] I'm a business owner and a resident of district one. First, I
[1:17:27] wanna take the time to thank the city manager and the city staff for their hard
[1:17:31] work. As a businesswoman, I have learned that major
[1:17:36] decisions should be based on facts and not emotions. Before committing
[1:17:40] significant resources, you gather information, you understand the
[1:17:44] cost, you evaluate the risk, and you carefully examine the
[1:17:48] opportunities. Over the several weeks, many have asked for more
[1:17:52] information about the future of city hall. This vote provides
[1:17:57] the city exactly that good leadership requires full
[1:18:01] understanding of the choices before making long-term
[1:18:05] commitments. I encourage you to please move this process forward
[1:18:09] and thank you very much. Thank you, city manager. We appreciate your hard work.
[1:18:14] thank you. Christopher weiss,
[1:18:23] the good morning mayor. City manager. City council members christopher weiss,
[1:18:28] 1419 griffin street, east southern district resident in district two,
[1:18:32] and the business center in the cbd. Um, so imit, I'm a geek for
[1:18:36] architecture. I would love to see this building saved and being used as part of the future of the city.
[1:18:41] uh, I do wanna ask everyone who here in the hall, green or blue, would
[1:18:45] like to see all the information gathered and brought together. Please raise your hands.
[1:18:50] everyone wants all the information. I implore people here.
[1:18:55] we need that information put together. We need a true comparative evaluation of the options for ccb
[1:18:59] hall. No moving of goalposts, no pulling of funds from their budgets.
[1:19:03] just true equal evaluation. Second, make this a bond referendum.
[1:19:08] this needs to go to a vote. We've done this for other issues, including authorizing this city
[1:19:12] hall. Let's do it again. Bring it to a vote of the people. Thank
[1:19:16] you for your time. Thank you, simon. Matthew.
[1:19:25] simon, matthew. I have some here.
[1:19:29] okay. Uh, dallas should use the availables public capital to stabilize
[1:19:33] the civic asset. We already own, not russian to relocation. Before the city
[1:19:37] has proven that moving is the better deal. Arpa funds can be used to
[1:19:42] help address mr. Matthew. I'm sorry, your video is not displaying.
[1:19:47] okay, you may continue. Uh, arpa
[1:19:51] funds can help use, uh, roof weatherization and hvac, uh,
[1:19:56] necessities. We should also pursue cco lone star funding for
[1:20:00] eligible energy efficiency upgrades. These are low interest state loans
[1:20:04] designed for local governments that are far better fit for permanent improvements than paying
[1:20:08] consultants to chase relocation plans. At the same time, we should
[1:20:12] evaluate national historic registered designation because it may
[1:20:16] open the door to preservation grants, technical assistance, and other outside capital opportunities
[1:20:21] that does not guarantee money, but it can expand the city's options and
[1:20:25] reduce the local burden if structured correctly. The point is simple.
[1:20:29] stabilize city hall first, pursue outside capital where it fits the network
[1:20:33] and require real side-by-side comparison before
[1:20:38] are locked into decades of rent. That's your time. Thank you,
[1:20:43] nicholas mclean.
[1:20:54] all right. Good morning, council and mayor
[1:20:59] architect. I am pe and mayor eric johnson
[1:21:03] envision this building as more than an office space.
[1:21:08] they envisioned it as the future of dallas.
[1:21:13] if we preserve our cultural landmarks, we can pass them onto our children. And
[1:21:17] if we demolish them or sell them off, then we leave our children
[1:21:21] with a void where something great once stood. So
[1:21:26] let's not have a disposable society. Let's make the
[1:21:30] choice today to preserve our heritage that was handed to
[1:21:34] us so that we can hand it on to our children as well.
[1:21:39] we can make the necessary repairs and improvements this
[1:21:43] building here and now we can create a bridge between
[1:21:47] the people of the past, the people of the future. We can be that,
[1:21:52] that john, god bless, god bless city all. Thank you. Thank
[1:21:56] y'all, sean todd.
[1:22:07] the last 10 years we've invested $1.5 billion into the core of downtown repurposing
[1:22:11] over 30 buildings, including two functionally obsolete, decrepit
[1:22:16] imp buildings. The numbers that have been presented to you to update
[1:22:20] this property may seem shocking to many, but to those of us that are in the business, they're accurate.
[1:22:25] you've had consultants with tremendous integrity of reviewing those numbers and they're
[1:22:29] on spot. You have a chance to leverage the taxpayer's dollars into the corps of downtown and
[1:22:33] bring vitality of several hundred city employees into the corps of downtown
[1:22:37] and pick up a new facility, municipal facility
[1:22:41] for a song. And the building owners will say,
[1:22:45] thank you. Downtown is on its deathbed. It needs an injection
[1:22:49] of life. None of you here are taking down city hall pays functionally
[1:22:53] obsolescent design in years of neglect by others. None
[1:22:57] of you have done that for us. Sadly. We're the largest preservation
[1:23:02] developer in the southwest united states. We care about preservation. Your,
[1:23:06] I'm thankful what councilman moreno and ridley have done downtown. Your please make the
[1:23:10] decision, your move forward. Your thank you don. Dod
[1:23:17] don do, it's not present.
[1:23:22] andrew choat ter
[1:23:27] andrew ter is not present. John
[1:23:31] eichman.
[1:23:37] john eichman, district nine.
[1:23:42] I'm an attorney. I've practiced commercial litigation
[1:23:46] in the central business district for 44 years.
[1:23:51] the texas local government code prohibits the city
[1:23:56] from selling the multi acre plaza in front of this
[1:24:00] building. Unless dallas voters approve that sale.
[1:24:04] because the plaza is either a park or a public
[1:24:08] square, the plaza is unquestionably
[1:24:14] a public square. If the city attempts to dispose
[1:24:18] of that land in front of city hall, without
[1:24:23] voter approval, the city and city council
[1:24:28] will be sued. In my opinion, you will lose,
[1:24:33] and if you appeal, you will lose again. That's
[1:24:37] your time. Don't do that to our city.
[1:24:41] thank you. Alex. Michaels.
[1:24:47] alex michaels. It's not present. Peyton jackson,
[1:24:55] peyton jackson. It's virtual. Good morning guys.
[1:25:00] I wish I could join you, but I'm currently in virginia, but I just wanted
[1:25:04] to come on to announce if the city actually cared
[1:25:08] about your input, they would've just put this issue on the ballot. If they cared
[1:25:13] about your input. The meeting wouldn't have been at eight o'clock this morning. If they cared about
[1:25:17] your input, they wouldn't have given you 60 seconds
[1:25:21] for to, to address your concerns. But they're giving you the
[1:25:26] illusion of power, just like eric is using that hat as the illusion of
[1:25:30] hair. But whatever you decide, whatever you decide, make
[1:25:34] sure that we have better lighting and a better camera for our speakers.
[1:25:38] god bless you all. Thank you, roseanne mills,
[1:25:44] good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to address the mayor and council.
[1:25:48] my name is roseanne mills. I'm a resident of district 14, not
[1:25:52] paid for my time. I urged this counsel to vote no
[1:25:57] on items one and two, or at least table these until
[1:26:01] this is resolved in the courts. Eric with a
[1:26:05] k johnson had a vision for a grand civic space
[1:26:09] in the aftermath of the kennedy assassination. I'm a native
[1:26:13] dallas site of over 60 years, and the kennedy assassination
[1:26:17] is my first memory. I, uh, encourage
[1:26:22] that this city council move away from the
[1:26:27] neglect or failure to maintain. Do not
[1:26:31] loot $3 million from arpa funds to,
[1:26:35] uh, this endeavor and use those funds for the original
[1:26:40] intended purpose to repair city hall in addition to the other
[1:26:45] $3 million of arpa funds. Thank you for your time today. Thank
[1:26:49] you. Thank you. Matthew jacobs.
[1:26:54] matthew jacobs is not on virtual, not in the audience
[1:26:59] not present. Jorge cruz s
[1:27:05] yes. Hello. I had a question regarding
[1:27:11] rules and procedures because from
[1:27:16] protection of the charter, I'm going to submit
[1:27:20] a proposal on how the attorneys
[1:27:24] or how critical charter violations are
[1:27:28] responding to council rules that are not reasonably not
[1:27:32] given reasonable opportunity for citizens to be heard. Yet
[1:27:36] speakers are being denied adequate time and stakeholder findings are not
[1:27:41] being acknowledged. So the presiding officer, may I remind you, has primary
[1:27:45] responsibility for ensuring rules are followed, but this is
[1:27:49] not happening. So it brings to question all these openings that
[1:27:53] the legal department has. So I believe this council
[1:27:57] is left without adequate counsel. So this raises serious concerns
[1:28:02] about whether the city has a legal capacity to negotiate complex pre-acquisition
[1:28:06] agreements protected. That's your time. Protect
[1:28:11] the public interest and ensure that thank you side of
[1:28:15] ba
[1:28:20] ra. Good morning. There is no urgency here. None.
[1:28:24] dallas city hall is occupied and functioning today. It is not on fire.
[1:28:29] it's not condemned. And yet this council is being asked to divert 3 million
[1:28:33] in city hall repair dollars towards pre-acquisition agreements. For a relocation
[1:28:38] that is fiscally irresponsible. The numbers don't support it.
[1:28:43] the billion dollar figure falls in costs that don't apply to a building you continue
[1:28:47] to occupy. A face maintenance plan of 15 to 20 million a year
[1:28:51] can address critical systems immediately at a fraction of the relocation cost.
[1:28:55] and relocation is not a clean solution. Leasing never ends. Buying
[1:29:00] an existing building building doesn't solve the problem. It moves it. You will still pay to
[1:29:04] retrofit a private office tower into a functioning civic hall. You're being asked to
[1:29:08] go find a problem you don't know the cost of instead of solving the one in front
[1:29:12] of you. Keep city hall here, keeping city hall here sustained the public
[1:29:16] investment, foot traffic and institutional presence at that's your time. Depends
[1:29:20] on thank you. City hall. Abandon that commitment. Thank you. Thank
[1:29:25] you. Your final speaker will be speaker number 29, tabitha curel.
[1:29:36] this is a document from 1974 that,
[1:29:40] uh, is about our city. Just wanna read a little bit from it. Dallas is a
[1:29:44] city whose physical fabric conceals for the most part, the diversities among its residents.
[1:29:49] unlike many older cities who have become famous for their barrios,
[1:29:53] chinatowns, little italy's, the fast growth of our city has created an urban
[1:29:57] fabric, which does not visibly vary according to the uniqueness
[1:30:01] of the people who live within it.
[1:30:07] I'm working on a project with someone and we're
[1:30:11] examining, um, development and growth.
[1:30:15] my name is tam aker. I'm from district five. The first poet lo created
[1:30:19] a beautiful visual poem and tribute to our city called the city as a poem. But
[1:30:23] mostly the poem I'm thinking about recently is a dream deferred, but maybe
[1:30:27] a new poem that I will write called a dream dismissed. Communities
[1:30:32] in southern and west dallas have been dealing with lack of care in their communities with similar deceptive
[1:30:36] practices. And to see counsel, that's your time, replicate those harmful
[1:30:40] practices and not care about us. That's your time. It's disheartening.
[1:30:45] thank you mr. Mayor. This concludes your speakers for this item,
[1:30:49] but alright, then we'll
[1:30:54] move on to our voting agenda. Mayor. Thank you mr. Mayor. Yes. For what
[1:30:58] purpose? Um, I'd just like to notify the chair that our, um, technology's
[1:31:02] not activated to be able to ring in. Actually, they're, they're
[1:31:06] coming around now to fix that. I think they're, they're trying to work on that. I don't have it
[1:31:11] up either. It didn't do your mic's off? Still work,
[1:31:15] but we can't see the queue, so just bear with me.
[1:31:45] thank you mr. Mayor. Agenda item
[1:31:49] one. It's a resolution one to authorize
[1:31:53] the city manager to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements
[1:31:58] that define the terms, responsibilities, and cost sharing between
[1:32:02] the property owners and the city of dallas in order to conduct necessary
[1:32:07] due diligence work for no more than four property location sites
[1:32:11] in the dallas central business district for the purpose of assessing the
[1:32:16] relocation option for city hall staff and functions
[1:32:20] from 1500 marilla street to
[1:32:24] transfer appropriations in an amount not to exceed $2 million
[1:32:28] from the arpa city hall generation electrical repair line
[1:32:32] item to a new arpa city hall pre-acquisition
[1:32:37] line item and authorized disbursement of payments to
[1:32:41] conduct such due diligence for the sites, including cost
[1:32:45] reimbursement to the property owners for the performance of due diligence
[1:32:50] deliverables. And three, to direct the city manager to bring
[1:32:54] the due diligence results to city council for their consideration
[1:32:58] not to exceed $2 million. This is your item, mr. Mayor,
[1:33:03] chairman west. For what purpose? For a motion you recognize. For a motion.
[1:33:07] thank you mayor. I move to approve this item with the following change.
[1:33:12] authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an amount not to
[1:33:16] exceed $2 million from the general fund contingency reserve fund
[1:33:20] to the general fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed
[1:33:24] $2 million in facilities and real estate management from general fund
[1:33:28] contingency reserve fund. Second, it's been moved in
[1:33:32] seconds during discussion. Chairman, we recognize for five minutes for the public we're on item a
[1:33:37] thank you of the special call meeting. Uh, first before I have com
[1:33:42] comments, I have a couple of questions. Um, so I want to
[1:33:46] let the city manager take a moment and explain exactly what
[1:33:50] this item does do and does not do. Um, I want to clarify with the
[1:33:54] city manager that this does not, there's a word execute pre-acquisition
[1:33:59] agreements here. My understanding is that there, this is not a final
[1:34:03] decision, this is not a final decision to move out, but this is a, an authorization
[1:34:07] for your team to go out and collect the apples to apples
[1:34:12] information that so many people, um, including public today
[1:34:16] have been asking for point of information. State
[1:34:20] your point of information. Um, may the motion be passed out to all the council members, please?
[1:34:24] of course. Uh, I assume they can. I don't know if it's, I don't, I don't have one,
[1:34:28] so I don't know. Yeah, it's, it's in progress.
[1:34:36] go ahead. Thank you. Um, thank you for the question. Council member, uh, west the items before
[1:34:41] you today represent the next steps that evaluating potential alternatives.
[1:34:45] specifically these two resolutions with authorized staff to use up
[1:34:49] to the $3 million available funds to negotiate pre-acquisition agreements
[1:34:54] and perform the additional due diligence for four potential sites
[1:34:58] for city hall functions and up to four potential sites for 9 1 1 and emergency
[1:35:02] operations. Thank you for the opportunity to note that these
[1:35:06] items today do not authorize the purchase of any property.
[1:35:11] rather, it allows for staff to continue working with our consulting team
[1:35:15] to conduct the additional due diligence that council has requested over the last
[1:35:19] few weeks to have a better understanding of the opportunities, constraints, costs,
[1:35:24] and the suitability of any potential sites. We would then come back
[1:35:28] to the city council with the results of that work that would bring
[1:35:32] information that council has been requesting for your consideration
[1:35:36] and any potential future acquisitions or relocation decisions would still
[1:35:40] be made by the council. I hope that answers your question. Um, council member west.
[1:35:45] yes, it does mostly. Um, thank you for that. I may have the, have the city attorney
[1:35:49] chime in on this as well, but the, the wording in here about
[1:35:53] executing a pre-acquisition agreement, what does that encompass
[1:35:58] exactly,
[1:36:05] mr. Mayor, I'm gonna ask connie tankersley from our real estate department to come and answer that to make
[1:36:09] it succinct and accurate.
[1:36:18] connie kerley with city attorney's office pre-acquisition because you're considering,
[1:36:22] uh, different models, possibly a lease, a purchase, a lease to
[1:36:27] purchase. Those are all acquisition transactions. So that encompasses
[1:36:31] any consideration of those. Okay. So by authorizing
[1:36:35] the city manager to execute pre-acquisition agreements, does that
[1:36:39] in any way, um, allow the city manager or
[1:36:43] her team to bind us to, uh, a relocation option? No, that's
[1:36:48] just another way of saying conducting pre-acquisition diligence. So what
[1:36:52] exactly what she explained earlier. Yes. So any final
[1:36:56] decision on relocation, just like on renovating and staying here will
[1:37:00] come back to the council. It does require another city council resolution. Thank you. Yes.
[1:37:07] okay. Um, so as I wanted to get that cleared up on
[1:37:11] the record, 'cause there's been a lot of confusion, um, that's been expressed to me on exactly
[1:37:16] what that item means and what it doesn't mean. So
[1:37:20] as clarified approving today's first item will give everyone those
[1:37:24] who wanna stay in the building, no matter the cost, and those who want to move out,
[1:37:28] um, and everybody else who's somewhere in the middle, the information we truly need
[1:37:32] to make an informed decision approving item one will allow cbre
[1:37:37] to negotiate lease options and bring back a final number in august
[1:37:41] so we can understand what it would cost to lease to own a new office.
[1:37:46] it's been a long process and I wish c city leadership had done a better job
[1:37:50] communicating with the public throughout this process. If we approve item one,
[1:37:55] we can finally have the apples to apples comparison that we all want. And
[1:37:59] then so many people, including people on both sides who came
[1:38:03] today, have been asking for, and we will finally have some additional transparency
[1:38:08] that is long overdue. The one main concern I have about
[1:38:12] the item is originally proposed by staff is the source of funds. It,
[1:38:16] it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to use funds dedicated to city hall repairs
[1:38:21] for this endeavor because it implies we have given up on repairing city hall.
[1:38:25] like many of my colleagues, I have not made up my mind, as I've said for over six months
[1:38:29] now, I'm waiting for an apples to apples comparison before making this incredibly
[1:38:34] important fiscal decision for our city. That is why I propose
[1:38:38] changing the source of funds to ensure that we move forward with city hall. If we move
[1:38:42] forward with city hall repairs, we have some funds dedicated for that
[1:38:46] endeavor to kickoff because we know it will cost hundreds of millions
[1:38:50] of dollars to fix this building. Today's vote is not a vote, vote to
[1:38:55] move out of city hall or demolish this iconic building. It's a vote to give both
[1:38:59] city council and the public the transparent apples to apples comparison.
[1:39:03] we continue to ask for thank you. Point of information.
[1:39:08] state your point of information, um, having received the written motion,
[1:39:12] um, I don't see, and, and, and having heard the comments, I
[1:39:16] don't see that there's a swapping of dollars. It looks like there's an
[1:39:20] additional $2 million. So I don't see where it removes the
[1:39:24] ar pa, there's no substitute and I'm trying to understand what the actual
[1:39:28] motion is. Is it now to have $4 million,
[1:39:33] two from two different sources, or is it replacing the 2 million arpa?
[1:39:39] 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.
[1:39:43] 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.
[1:39:47] but anyway, go ahead and explain what your, the motion is, what he said. Mayor,
[1:39:51] I'll thank you. I'll explain my intent and then I'll ask city attorney to explain the
[1:39:55] effect. My intent is to swap out the 2 million, um, that is
[1:40:00] read in the item that was originally written by the city manager for arpa,
[1:40:05] city hall generation electrical repair for 2 million from contingency
[1:40:09] funds. But can you show where it says you're swapping it? 'cause it only says
[1:40:13] on the written motion. Okay. This is, he has the floor right now. You've asked point of information.
[1:40:17] thank you. So that was my intent and I would just defer to city attorney on
[1:40:21] the second part of our question. Okay. We'll let the city attorney if you would like to explain further,
[1:40:25] but otherwise we'll recognize you just now and you'll have the floor.
[1:40:31] mr. Mayor, we worked with, uh, the cfo on this.
[1:40:35] and while I believe this is sort of finance speak, the
[1:40:39] intent was to swap out the arpa funds for the general
[1:40:43] fund reserve. That that's what this, so the point of information, I
[1:40:48] mean this is a legal motion and so I'm asking not what the intent is, but
[1:40:52] what the words are. And when it says that you're only authorizing
[1:40:56] new things and we already have a motion that was read in that already authorized
[1:41:01] 2 million from arpa and then this is authorizing the change,
[1:41:05] but it's authorizing additional money from, from the general fund
[1:41:10] and I don't see where it's swapping. So
[1:41:14] 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
[1:41:18] floor and you can use your time to ask any questions you want staff.
[1:41:26] while I see that it doesn't actually specify that it is, you are
[1:41:30] correct, it does not clearly state that it is swapping the funds. That was
[1:41:34] the intent and we could, we could amend the motion
[1:41:38] if, if that would, if the maker would be happy with that. To just clarify that it is
[1:41:43] swapping the funds in the, in the posted item for these funds. I'm fine with
[1:41:47] that. So can you do that?
[1:41:51] um, do you, do you want to, if the, if the body doesn't object,
[1:41:55] we can let you amend your motion. But I want to know that that's what you want your
[1:41:59] motion, uh, if that, yes, mayor, I'm fine with that. Any objection?
[1:42:03] hearing none. It's so ordered. So I think it
[1:42:07] would be helpful though to, you know, restate it
[1:42:12] in an accurate way for your intent to be reflected in the words.
[1:42:17] so then we can proceed without having any burn up more time. Just to clarify,
[1:42:22] I'm gonna make sure, mayor, if it's okay with you to have city attorney write it up
[1:42:26] so I'm not winging it on the fly. Just if, if that's all right.
[1:42:30] but we can still, we can still discuss the motion as you, as you've expressed
[1:42:35] your intent orally. But we want the written motion to
[1:42:39] reflect what you're saying. There's a mismatch between what you're saying
[1:42:43] and what this appears to say. So while
[1:42:47] we're working on this, we're, we're, what we're debating and
[1:42:51] operating on is what you've said because that's the motion that was actually
[1:42:55] stated. So this, this does, this is a visual aid, but your,
[1:43:00] your motion is what you said with your mouth. So I'm going to give mayor my intent
[1:43:04] is actually to amend the motion. So if we could have it properly stated before
[1:43:08] the amendment, that might help keep things in order. Well, I need him
[1:43:12] to, to, to make his new motion then expressing
[1:43:16] his intent. 'cause we've just agreed to allow, allow him to do that by acclimation.
[1:43:23] mayor, just as a point of order, I would just ask if we could pause, which it seems like we're
[1:43:27] doing so we could, since you wanna read, you just wanna read it off the papers is what you're
[1:43:31] that would do. I would prefer to read it after it's been vetted by the city attorney. Okay,
[1:43:36] then we will, let's take a recess then for
[1:43:40] five minutes to 10 40. Give them time to revise
[1:43:44] it so you can read it right off the paper. I would encourage you to do exactly that
[1:43:48] though, if that's, if that's, um, easier for everyone.
[1:43:53] alright, it's 10 48 and we're back
[1:43:57] in, uh, session for the special call meeting and I'm gonna recognize chairman west
[1:44:01] with his motion. Thank you mayor.
[1:44:07] I move to approve this item with the following, change to the source of funds
[1:44:11] by eliminating reference to the transfer of arpa funds.
[1:44:15] and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an
[1:44:19] amount not to exceed $2 million from the general fund contingency reserve fund to the general
[1:44:24] fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed
[1:44:28] $2 million in facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency reserve
[1:44:32] fund. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded.
[1:44:37] chairman west, you recognized for five minutes to explain your motion. Thank
[1:44:41] you, mayor. Uh, same explanation as before. We just added in clarification,
[1:44:45] um, that the arpa fund language is now
[1:44:50] very specifically removed and instead there, there is a substitute amount coming
[1:44:54] from the general fund contingency reserves for this allocation.
[1:44:59] chairwoman mendelson you recognize for five minutes. Thank you. I move to amend the
[1:45:03] motion to require any property considered for relocation
[1:45:07] be built after the opening of our current city hall. Second,
[1:45:11] it, it's been moved and seconded. We're now on
[1:45:15] an amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn, you
[1:45:20] recognize for five minutes to explain your amendment? Thank you. We've
[1:45:24] been told over and over by council members and staff that this less than 50-year-old
[1:45:29] building is too old. It's at the end of its life. And of course, we
[1:45:33] would wanna honor their consistent message by not moving into a
[1:45:37] building that is even older than the one we have. Thank you.
[1:45:42] anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson?
[1:45:47] a record book for everything would be, uh, sure. I would like to ask that
[1:45:52] for everything we do today. Everything we do today. Thank you. Uh, of course.
[1:45:56] anyone else? Seeing none? Madam secretary, please call the role.
[1:46:01] thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you
[1:46:05] oppose council member west. No. Council
[1:46:09] member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council
[1:46:13] member kana? Yes. Council member basil
[1:46:17] doa is absent? Yes. Okay,
[1:46:22] thank you. Council member blair? No.
[1:46:26] council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart?
[1:46:31] no. Council member roth
[1:46:35] is absent when vote taken. Council member mendelson?
[1:46:39] yes. Council member willis?
[1:46:44] no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy
[1:46:48] mayor pro tem johnson? No.
[1:46:53] mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
[1:46:58] council member roth?
[1:47:04] we don't get to discuss that? Yes.
[1:47:10] thank you.
[1:47:16] with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails mr. Mayor.
[1:47:20] alright, we're back on the original item. Chairwoman mendelson. Thank you.
[1:47:24] I move to amend the motion to require any property considered,
[1:47:29] have sufficient parking designated for the city of dallas equal
[1:47:33] to as many employees expected to occupy the building plus visitors
[1:47:37] in secure underground parking or connected parking with secure access.
[1:47:42] so we moved in second. Any discussion? Chairwoman mendelssohn? I think it's pretty self-evident.
[1:47:47] thank you. Okay. Uh, ms. Blackman, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment.
[1:47:52] uh, my question is, is what is our parking threshold right now? Just for
[1:47:57] clarification in this building?
[1:48:09] good morning, john johnson. We have around 1,445 parking spots in the underground
[1:48:13] garage, of which 49 are visitor spots. Okay. And
[1:48:17] how many for car for the fleet? I don't have that broken down for you. Um,
[1:48:21] and so how, what is the square footage of all that? Uh, let me grab
[1:48:26] my binder and I can't answer that for you. One moment.
[1:48:45] there's around 750,000 square foot of the garage. 700 and
[1:48:49] what? 50,000. Okay. And how does that include the spots
[1:48:53] in the back as well? Or is that just the garage? That's just the garage. So how many's in the back?
[1:48:57] I don't have the horseshoe for you. I'm sorry. Okay. 'cause if we're trying to get
[1:49:01] a total number of spots and that's considered public parking, correct? It's
[1:49:06] metered parking. So it'd be public, it could be used for anything for visitors,
[1:49:10] for special events, for anyone who's visiting downtown as long as they pay the meter. Okay.
[1:49:14] and how much do people pay right now to park in the garage? I'm sorry. Oh, in the garage? Mm-hmm
[1:49:18] . There is no charge. No charge at all. No charge. So,
[1:49:23] uh, um, is there gonna be charge to our employees if we move?
[1:49:27] can I jump in please? Thank you so much for the question. Councilman. Um, blackman that has not been
[1:49:31] decided. There's no location that has been voted on by this body
[1:49:35] and so we will not be, be able, I'm trying to give you feedback that we probably should keep it the status
[1:49:39] quo if we're gonna move, if, if that's a policy decision of the council going to
[1:49:43] forward. So I want for you to vote on that. Is that what you're telling me? Yes. 'cause that's not been decided.
[1:49:47] I would like to amend it to say that there should be no parking payments by our
[1:49:51] staff to keep it the status quo. If we move
[1:49:55] second. Hold on one second. Unless you
[1:49:59] can restate her motion.
[1:50:07] so it's been moved and seconded. So we're now on an amendment to the amendment by ms. Blackman,
[1:50:11] you recognize for five minutes? Well, I, I feel that if, if employees are not
[1:50:15] parking and, um, back to mr. Johnson
[1:50:20] or anybody, what is the going rate for parking downtown?
[1:50:26] does anybody have that? That is not information
[1:50:30] that we have available, uh, at this time for this item. Councilwoman, uh, blackman.
[1:50:34] okay. So I would say probably, yeah, but we would, we would bring that back as part of if council moves
[1:50:39] forward with this additional due diligence, we would be able to bring that information
[1:50:43] back to the body. Um, 'cause I would think it's probably 150
[1:50:47] a month. So that would be almost, what, $1,700 coming
[1:50:51] out of $1,800 coming out of a check that somebody has to pay for parking.
[1:50:56] I I would say that we would, should at least keep it the status quo where parking
[1:51:01] is either still free or at a minimal
[1:51:05] cost because, um, parking downtown, as we know, is expensive
[1:51:10] and it can eat into a check of somebody who is an admin here.
[1:51:14] does anybody know what is our average, um, I guess this is an hr
[1:51:18] question, the average salary of an employee here.
[1:51:24] again, that's information that we don't have available right at this moment. We're more than
[1:51:28] happy to provide that to you, councilman blackman and any other questions
[1:51:32] that we don't answer around the horseshoe related to this item? Okay,
[1:51:36] thank you. Ms. Kna, did
[1:51:41] you wanna be recognized on the amendment to the amendment or on the,
[1:51:45] uh, original amendment? Because I saw you before amendment to the amendment.
[1:51:49] I have questions on that. Okay. You're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.
[1:51:53] okay. Uh, do employees at other locations pay for parking? Um,
[1:51:57] not just the city hall.
[1:52:01] again, we're in a deep parking conversation and that's just not data that I have available. Um,
[1:52:06] we do know that there have been situations where if we had to lease space
[1:52:10] for employees spec specifically in the central business district, some of those
[1:52:14] employees have had parking, uh, arrangements at nearby garages where they've had to
[1:52:18] pay for that parking. And at one point in time there was a parking
[1:52:22] fee to park in city hall in the garage. I think if I remember back
[1:52:26] to my days of starting with the city, it was $26 a month and I think that
[1:52:31] was phased out a few years ago. But any parking analysis,
[1:52:35] information, data and that level of detail is what we would definitely
[1:52:39] bring back. So there's, um, in that side by side cost comparison that that
[1:52:43] would actually be incorporated in it. It, okay. Do you recall why the, um, parking
[1:52:47] fee was way, uh, I guess phased out? I'm
[1:52:52] not sure the exact year, um, but I do know that at one point,
[1:52:56] uh, any new employees that came in had that parking fee attached to
[1:53:00] their, uh, bimonthly, uh, payment paycheck and
[1:53:04] it was taken out, uh, through payroll deduction. Mr. Mr. Allen may have some more
[1:53:08] details? Yes. The, the charge for parking at city hall was $25
[1:53:13] a month with taxes, $27 and 6 cents a month.
[1:53:17] it was that cost, uh, in 1996 when I started at the city.
[1:53:22] and it stayed that cost until we eliminated it about three years ago.
[1:53:26] the reason we eliminated it is because in a meet and confer agreement,
[1:53:30] police were going to get free parking at jack evans. Therefore, mr. Broad neck's
[1:53:34] former city manager chose to eliminate it for employees
[1:53:38] in this building as well to be, uh, consistent with what was
[1:53:42] being done for police at the jack evans police headquarter. So it was about three years ago,
[1:53:47] four years ago. Okay. Thank you jack. And then, um, what hours
[1:53:51] do employees work in this building?
[1:53:55] the normal working hours at city hall, uh, with the exception of those
[1:53:59] individuals that are on different shifts is eight 15 to five 15. We know that
[1:54:03] there are employees that work longer hours. I will tell you that the city manager's office
[1:54:08] probably opens the building and closes the building most days. Um, but the 9 1 1
[1:54:12] team, the eoc team, depending on if there's an emergency situation,
[1:54:16] um, within the, um, within the city, that those are gonna be
[1:54:20] individuals that are gonna be in the building around the clock. But all of our other city departments, with
[1:54:25] the exception of the ones that their shifts actually require overtime,
[1:54:29] I mean, over an overnight 24 hours a day, those would be the employees
[1:54:33] that are in the building, um, most frequently. And what hours is the
[1:54:37] building open for the public? I, I didn't hear the question. What hours
[1:54:41] are the building open for the public? Eight 15 to five 15. Okay.
[1:54:46] that's all for now. Thank you chairwoman men you recognize for
[1:54:50] five minutes on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. I think this question was just
[1:54:54] asked, I'm not exactly sure if it was worded the same way, but
[1:55:00] are you able to share what you have seen as, um, a cost for
[1:55:04] parking in other locations? I believe we were actually briefed on this
[1:55:09] in executive session. I mean, I think this is a known number.
[1:55:13] if it was information that was provided in closed session and it's not a part of the due
[1:55:17] diligence of these, this item that is before us, then we would not have the liberty
[1:55:22] of sharing something that has been presented in closed session. Well, the,
[1:55:26] the question, um, as I recall was
[1:55:30] what is the average cost for parking
[1:55:34] downtown? And that is not specific to a particular
[1:55:39] building and I think is germane to the question of,
[1:55:44] um, the amendment about parking. And so, I mean, I'll
[1:55:48] tell you for district 12, many people who work for at t
[1:55:53] as the announcement came about moving to plano, um, relayed to
[1:55:57] me that, you know, for us it's closer to be in plano
[1:56:01] than it is to come downtown. But what it meant for them effectively was a $400
[1:56:05] a month raise to not pay parking. And so I'm
[1:56:10] wondering if you have a different number than $400 a
[1:56:14] month on what an average contract for a reserve parking spot is.
[1:56:19] I do not have a number today on parking downtown as
[1:56:23] it relates to any of the potential options and opportunities right now. That would
[1:56:27] be a part of the due diligence as I've just mentioned, that would go into this additional
[1:56:31] evaluation, uh, if the city council chooses to move in that direction. But
[1:56:35] would you confirm that you have actually shared that number with us previously?
[1:56:42] I think there've been some different scenarios, councilwoman middleston that have been shared. Some
[1:56:46] of those scenarios are based on a particular location and not necessarily
[1:56:50] overall. I think that's what was provided to the city council. Thank you. I
[1:56:55] I, um, I heard it differently and that's why I am pursu I was pursuing that
[1:56:59] line of questioning. If you're not willing to answer it, that's fine. Um,
[1:57:03] I appreciate, uh, council member blackman's, um, interest
[1:57:07] in making sure that the parking would be free for the employees.
[1:57:11] it shouldn't be something detrimental to the employees to lose free parking in this
[1:57:16] building to then have to incur possibly hundreds
[1:57:20] of dollars per month, um, to, to
[1:57:24] pay for parking because, um, of an unwise decision to leave. Thank
[1:57:29] you, ms. Blackman, you recognize for three minutes on your amendment
[1:57:33] to the amendment. Okay, thank you. Um, just, um, miss city
[1:57:37] manager, just to be clear that if we want something
[1:57:41] looked at in your due diligence, then this body must approve it,
[1:57:45] otherwise it won't be looked at. Is that what I heard? I mean, we need to
[1:57:49] approve it or can we 'cause that that's, I'm kind of getting a
[1:57:53] mixed signal of, I'm only gonna look at the things that you tell me to do,
[1:57:58] but if this fails, which probably will, then are you gonna look
[1:58:02] at it? And so that's what I need clarification on is exactly
[1:58:06] what that if with the parking, that's what we're talking about. How, like, does it have
[1:58:10] to be approved in order for you to look at it? Or is it gonna be absence
[1:58:15] in the due diligence? So I'll go back to my statement and I'll make sure that
[1:58:19] I'm clear. If counsel chooses to approve the action item that was
[1:58:23] read into the record by council member west as part of that additional due diligence,
[1:58:27] as we've heard from counsel on other things that you wanna make sure are included,
[1:58:31] I think a parking analysis was already provided as one of the
[1:58:36] things that council wanted additional details on. And I think that's been
[1:58:40] communicated already with us in several other sessions that we've been in with the council.
[1:58:45] we've also talked about the need to ensure access to public transit. So
[1:58:49] there are a lot of things that you've already asked us to do. My comments were, as part of
[1:58:53] the due diligence, if this item that council member, wes, read into
[1:58:57] record, that due diligence would already be incorporated because
[1:59:01] of what council's already asked for us to bring back. So you can get to a true side
[1:59:05] by side of the cost. So parking analysis, access for parking. We've
[1:59:09] heard many questions about, you know, the, um, the, um, um, you know, how
[1:59:14] far the parking would be, uh, away from the building. We heard everything
[1:59:18] from the raids that would be a part of that additional due diligence that we would bring
[1:59:22] back. So it would already be included in the work that we would be doing over
[1:59:26] the summer. Okay. Because, um, throughout this whole exercise, one thing that
[1:59:31] I've learned is words matter and the motion matters. And so I'm just
[1:59:35] wanting to make sure that, uh, I don't want it to come back that, well, you
[1:59:39] didn't ask for it. It wasn't in the motion, because to me, this is important.
[1:59:43] being here as an employee when I was here in 2000,
[1:59:47] late two thousands and paying $25 and then going, you know, and I was at dart at one time, and
[1:59:51] you'd have to pay the full price at dart. So it's like that is
[1:59:55] a, it hits the bottom line. And so I just wanna be clear that this
[1:59:59] is important, I believe to the employees that are in this building,
[2:00:04] that parking needs to be addressed. And so, and
[2:00:08] I just wanna make sure that if it needs to be in the motion or
[2:00:12] in the item that we need to amend it. If it's gonna happen, then you,
[2:00:16] I have, I have you on record saying that you will look at it.
[2:00:20] a parking analysis was already requested as part of the due diligence that
[2:00:25] council has asked us to do. So the original motion that was read
[2:00:29] by council member west for that addition, the due diligence, parking
[2:00:33] will already be included. Okay. Thank you. Chairwoman
[2:00:38] mendelson, you cognize for three minutes.
[2:00:42] well, there we go. Um, thank you. Can you tell us what
[2:00:46] percentage of employees here use transit versus how many,
[2:00:50] um, drive their individual car?
[2:00:57] that is not a, a number that I have off the top of my head. Councilman middleston. We will
[2:01:01] definitely provide that additional, uh, details to the council. We do know that
[2:01:05] every year is part of the city's budget. We provide for a certain number of
[2:01:09] dart passes that the city supports in helping subsidize for
[2:01:13] our city employees. So we'll be able to give you the number of dark passes that are currently
[2:01:18] provided, the cost of subsidizing those passes, and based on the data
[2:01:22] that we have available, how many employees actually are parking in the garage. But I don't have that
[2:01:26] in front of me at this moment.
[2:01:30] would you say, um, well, I'm wondering, can the budget office tell us how much
[2:01:34] was allocated for dart passes in this current fiscal year?
[2:01:40] and if you'll also share, was there any dollars that were, um,
[2:01:45] allocated last fiscal year that remained and were either reallocated
[2:01:49] through a budget amendment or were swept into contingency?
[2:01:53] um, jack harland, chief financial officer, the amount of the dart subsidy
[2:01:57] funding is less than a hundred thousand. I wanna think it's 60 or 70,000.
[2:02:02] uh, and it's my recollection that there were no funds, uh, left, uh, after
[2:02:07] use last year. And does it provide a full pass? No, ma'am. Um,
[2:02:11] and do you know what the percentage of I I do not know the, there's a breakdown
[2:02:16] based upon, uh, I believe, uh, the employee salary,
[2:02:20] uh, uh, different amounts that are subsidized. I do not know the details on that. So it's like a whole matrix,
[2:02:24] ma'am. It's a whole matrix of your salary. Yes. And if it's a monthly
[2:02:29] pass or an annual pass, that is my recollection. I will have to get you details, but yes, sir. Budgeted
[2:02:33] is 60 to $70,000. So per
[2:02:37] my memory. Thank you. And we currently have, um, bus stops
[2:02:42] surrounding the property as well as the convention center has the train,
[2:02:46] which, you know, maybe on the outside people think that's far, but
[2:02:50] actually is even connected to the building and you never even have to go outside.
[2:02:55] um, so, okay. Thank you for that information.
[2:03:00] ms. Cadena, you're recognized for three minutes on the amendment to the amendment. I would
[2:03:04] just like to say how important this item is, um, for employees, um,
[2:03:08] having to pay extra to come to work. I know there's some employees, um,
[2:03:13] that $150 could be a substantial hit to their
[2:03:17] paycheck. And so I hope that we continue to do whatever we can to
[2:03:21] advocate for our employees and make sure that they're taken care of and that we're
[2:03:26] able to treat all employees fairly. Um, so that if one group is not
[2:03:30] paying for parking, that the others would not be paying for parking as, as well. And
[2:03:34] also making sure that our citizens that come to city hall to pay
[2:03:38] their water bills or to come and spend eight hours sitting, um, here
[2:03:42] listening to issues do not have to pay for parking as well. Thank you.
[2:03:47] chairwoman minutes readiness for one minute. Thank you. Well, in learning that
[2:03:51] there's, uh, just over 1400 parking spots here at the city,
[2:03:55] I think it's important, um, with the underlying motion to understand that,
[2:04:00] um, there may be properties being looked at that don't have that level of,
[2:04:04] um, robust parking or don't have the security of the parking,
[2:04:08] which is why, um, the secure access is important. And
[2:04:12] if we would be asking people to walk 1, 2, 3 blocks
[2:04:17] away, what that means, um, both for, um,
[2:04:21] mobility issues, safety issues, and convenience factor. Thank you
[2:04:28] mayor pro tem, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.
[2:04:32] thank you mr. Mayor. Just really briefly, whether or not this item passes, we'll still have the opportunity to
[2:04:36] address these issues. Thank you. Anyone
[2:04:41] else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment? To the amendment seat? None. Madam
[2:04:45] secretary, please call the role on the amendment to the amendment, folks.
[2:04:49] thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please say yes. If you're in favor. No.
[2:04:53] if you're oppose. Council member west.
[2:04:58] no. Council member moreno? No. Council
[2:05:02] member gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes.
[2:05:07] council member. Basel. Doa? Yes.
[2:05:11] your video must be displayed. Um, council member basil.
[2:05:15] do I'll come back to you video's on, I don't know what is
[2:05:19] showing on your end, but yes is my vote. It's
[2:05:24] not showing on our,
[2:05:30] 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
[2:05:34] right now, it's a still photograph of you. So just so you know, it's your official headshot.
[2:05:38] it looks like very nice picture though, but it's just not you live.
[2:05:43] we need that. So we'll come back to you. Council member blair.
[2:05:47] council member blackman? Yes. Okay. Well, I guess I can't vote then because
[2:05:51] it council member
[2:05:56] stewart? No. Council member
[2:06:00] roth? Yes. Council member
[2:06:04] mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
[2:06:09] council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem johnson?
[2:06:13] no. Mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson?
[2:06:17] no.
[2:06:22] with five. Voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent when vote taken.
[2:06:26] the motion fails, mr. Mayor. Okay, we're back on the amendment by chairwoman
[2:06:31] mendelson. Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment by chairwoman
[2:06:35] mendels? Point of information? Can you restate the, uh, the sure. Uh,
[2:06:39] chairwoman, please restate your motion. It's to amend, uh,
[2:06:43] the motion to require any property considered. Um,
[2:06:48] have sufficient parking designated for the city of dallas equal
[2:06:52] to the, um, to the same number of employees expected to
[2:06:56] occupy the building plus visitors in secure underground
[2:07:00] parking or connected parking with secure access.
[2:07:05] okay. Madam secretary? Okay. Ahead.
[2:07:09] thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you oppose
[2:07:13] council member west. No. Council member moreno? No.
[2:07:18] council member gracie? No. Council member kadena? Yes. Council
[2:07:22] member bazel doa is absent when vote taken? Yes.
[2:07:27] okay, I see you. Thank you.
[2:07:33] council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
[2:07:38] council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
[2:07:42] yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council
[2:07:46] member willis? No. Council member ridley?
[2:07:50] yes. Deputy mayor pro. Tim johnson? No. Mayor pro
[2:07:54] tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
[2:07:58] with six. Voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, back
[2:08:03] on the original item. Chairman mendelson. Thank you.
[2:08:07] uh, I'd like to amend the motion I move to require any property considered
[2:08:11] include an outside public area that can safely accommodate
[2:08:16] 1000 people at an event or protest or be directly across
[2:08:20] or next to a city park that can accommodate 1000 people
[2:08:24] or more at an event or protest. Second, it's been moved to a second aid discussion. Chairwoman
[2:08:29] mendelssohn. I think it's self-evident. Thank you. Um, chairman
[2:08:33] west question, mayor for city manager. Do you recognize
[2:08:37] for five minutes? Okay. We're on the an amendment by chairwoman mendelsohn. And you
[2:08:41] recognize for five minutes on that amendment. Um, excuse me, mayor. Uh, my, my,
[2:08:46] uh, my screen is creating some kind of a, of a,
[2:08:51] some kind of a, a difficulty. Okay. Thank you. You need it to come
[2:08:55] over, please. We, someone go check on mr. Ross. Uh, thank you screen
[2:08:59] and determine what you have. The four for five minutes. Thank you. Just like with
[2:09:03] the parking city manager, tolbert, we will have an opportunity to
[2:09:07] address this request as well, right.
[2:09:11] on the public meeting space, because I believe that's important to everyone at this horseshoe.
[2:09:17] yes. Thank you. And, um, there would not be
[2:09:21] any scenario that we, that you would even bring to us without a public
[2:09:25] gathering space. No. We've heard that
[2:09:29] as a piece of, um, not, not just casually,
[2:09:34] but it's been overstated many times about the opportunity to ensure
[2:09:38] that there is still space for the public to gather. Um, again, we've shared
[2:09:43] many different criteria components with the council
[2:09:47] in closed session, and this is one that we've also discussed. Thank you. So just like
[2:09:51] with the parking, this is all part of the due diligence already. Thank you
[2:09:56] ms. Kadena. You recognize for five minutes on the amendment by ms. Mendelssohn. Um, yes,
[2:10:00] I have a question. Ms. Mendelson, would that include, um,
[2:10:05] residents, um, not having to pay a fee to use that space
[2:10:10] to gather to either to protest or to have a, a meeting?
[2:10:15] she can answer that question if you'd like. It counts against your time. Um, I believe her protest
[2:10:19] is a first amendment issue and there is no protest even today.
[2:10:23] but, um, even today, if you wanna have an event at city hall
[2:10:28] on the plaza, you have to get an event, uh, permit. So I, I don't
[2:10:32] wanna speak for the city manager, but I believe that's how it works. Okay. City
[2:10:36] manager, can you clarify? That is correct.
[2:10:40] I think we've heard before, uh, today the importance of making sure
[2:10:45] that our, that the public would have opportunities to participate
[2:10:49] continuously in the downtown area, uh, in public spaces.
[2:10:53] um, and we talked about bringing that information back. Uh, if there's
[2:10:57] potential fees for parks, whatever it is, we said that we would be doing that anyway.
[2:11:01] so that would be a part of our due diligence. Um, would it be possible to
[2:11:05] perhaps have a list of the items that maybe we're
[2:11:10] gonna get back that might be helpful to us? Because I know like last week
[2:11:14] I had a, there was an item for demolition, but environmental was not included,
[2:11:18] but then I was told that that was already one of the motions that was provided.
[2:11:22] and so I think that's causing some confusion here.
[2:11:27] more than happy to provide you with the detailed list of what will be included in the due diligence.
[2:11:31] okay. Thank you chairwoman
[2:11:35] mendelson, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Um, the
[2:11:40] reason why I have this as a very specific item is not because
[2:11:44] it isn't being considered, um, with the properties. It certainly is,
[2:11:48] but having available space doesn't actually
[2:11:52] say what the motion is. The motion says it must be out front,
[2:11:56] it must be outside in the public area of the facility
[2:12:01] or across the street or next to it.
[2:12:05] that's very different. And one could suppose that we may
[2:12:10] be considering properties where a public space is much further away than that.
[2:12:14] and so what this does is restrict properties to only be
[2:12:19] considered if it is on the property or next to
[2:12:23] the property. And so, and, and that would include across the street.
[2:12:27] so that's very different, just like the parking amendment
[2:12:32] item is very different. Of course, parking is always considered,
[2:12:36] but what that motion did was specify it must have enough parking for all of
[2:12:40] the staff. That's different than maybe what we have been told. So
[2:12:44] this is just being very clear about having that space
[2:12:50] directly available. So one could imagine what if it's four
[2:12:54] or five blocks away, is that really in the same domain
[2:12:58] as the building? And so again, this motion
[2:13:03] says on the property or next to it. Thank you
[2:13:07] ms. Black may recognize for five minutes. Thank you. Um, so I guess
[2:13:11] I have a question about the park public space. Are most
[2:13:15] of the parks in the downtown area, part of the downtown
[2:13:20] park network? Does anybody have that information?
[2:13:32] I don't see anyone hearing from the park and rec department because
[2:13:36] I, I mean, my understanding is that there was a big movement for downtown parks
[2:13:41] to flourish and we're about to take a park and use it for a public protesting
[2:13:45] space. I wanna make sure that that conversations have been had.
[2:13:52] I don't think you're making a decision today on any particular location, a park. No. But in due diligence,
[2:13:56] that would be a very key part of that is to understand that sure.
[2:14:01] that the, it is known that a park would be used for a first amendment,
[2:14:06] uh, versus just a gathering space for luxury that it
[2:14:10] could be used as a, as a protesting area. And I think any
[2:14:14] investor that has given money for a a public space,
[2:14:18] they need to know if it's going to be used in what way?
[2:14:23] I don't think we have that, that level of detail at the moment. But again,
[2:14:27] questions that you're asking now that we don't have the answers to, we would make sure that we answer
[2:14:31] those questions and make sure that we've addressed that as part of the due diligence.
[2:14:35] I don't see the park and rec staff here and I don't wanna speak for them. Okay. So yeah, please make sure
[2:14:39] that any public space, if it is in the park downtown master plan and it's
[2:14:43] been utilized in that way, that it, that we, that they understand that
[2:14:47] it can be used for a first amendment protest and that
[2:14:52] it's gonna be used like we have our plaza here. 'cause it, even though it's
[2:14:56] considered a park space, I don't, that's still questionable. It. Um, it
[2:15:00] is still a place where people come to express their
[2:15:04] opinions about something. So I just wanna make sure that nobody's caught off
[2:15:08] guard with that. Thank you chairwoman ly recognize for three
[2:15:13] minutes. Thank you. The other thing I'd like to highlight is the size
[2:15:17] by specifying that it can accommodate a thousand people. Um,
[2:15:22] I'll say I think the smallest park in dallas is actually in district 12, but
[2:15:26] right after that, I think are the downtown parks. And there's some that are teeny tiny.
[2:15:30] and I wouldn't wanna say that you have fulfilled the ability
[2:15:35] to have, um, protest space by some of these very tiny,
[2:15:39] um, spots. So that's why it specifically says a thousand people.
[2:15:44] now, we often have heard public comment from the folks that
[2:15:48] wanna tear down city hall, that they would like to have a vibrant downtown.
[2:15:52] and I will question whether or not they understand what it's like to
[2:15:56] have daily protests outside the building and how vibrant
[2:16:01] that's gonna be for everybody. But we certainly need to make sure it
[2:16:05] can accommodate people's first amendment right, to protest their government
[2:16:09] and have their voices heard, as well as celebrate the government. And,
[2:16:13] um, mourn, you know, I, I think back to seven, seven,
[2:16:17] I was here on the plaza. It was a terrible, terrible day,
[2:16:22] but we were all together and there's not a lot of parks downtown that can hold
[2:16:26] that many people, even clyde warren. So I hope that,
[2:16:30] um, y'all will consider this and vote for it. Thank you.
[2:16:36] anyone else wanna speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson?
[2:16:40] say none. Madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you, mr. Mayor, when I
[2:16:44] call your name, please state yes, if you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council member
[2:16:48] west. No. Council member moreno. No. Council member
[2:16:52] gracie? No. Council member hena? Yes. Council member
[2:16:57] bael doa? Yes. Council member blair.
[2:17:01] council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart? No.
[2:17:06] council member roth? Yes. Council member mendelson? Yes.
[2:17:10] council member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes.
[2:17:14] deputy mayor prote johnson? No. Mayor prote resendez?
[2:17:18] no. Mayor johnson? No. With six voting
[2:17:23] in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor chairwoman
[2:17:27] mendelson for what purpose? Move to, um, amend
[2:17:31] the motion to require any property considered. Include a security plan
[2:17:35] that provides at least the same level of security with the same
[2:17:39] or less number of security officers. Second,
[2:17:44] it's been moved. And second, that you recognize for five minutes on your amendment if you'd like it. Thank you. Um,
[2:17:49] the reason I have this motion is, number one, there are some special
[2:17:53] security considerations here at city hall. Um, both to allow
[2:17:58] the public to have free access to their building,
[2:18:02] even if we're gonna lease it. Um, but also,
[2:18:07] um, there were quite a few comments made in presentations about the
[2:18:11] security costs that we have, whether that's the officers here in
[2:18:15] the chambers, folks that are checking people into the building. Um,
[2:18:19] I can see personal details here in this building. Uh,
[2:18:25] the idea that we would actually have a reduction in cost is insane.
[2:18:29] that's not true. I, I can't imagine how that could happen today.
[2:18:33] there are only two entrances that are functioning, meaning
[2:18:37] there's doors on the south. So if you park on the south, you should
[2:18:42] be able to come in directly. But instead we make you walk all the way around the
[2:18:46] building because of security, and we're unwilling to have another
[2:18:50] security station or the former manager close that down. Um,
[2:18:55] and so if the premise of this is
[2:18:59] to save money, and one of those items was to save money
[2:19:03] on security, because this is so difficult to manage the
[2:19:07] security of this building, which I don't believe is true, then
[2:19:12] therefore, prove it. Tell us that you're
[2:19:16] actually gonna have lower costs for security, but maintain that same
[2:19:20] level. 'cause I don't believe you can. Thank you. Anyone
[2:19:24] else wish to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn?
[2:19:29] say none. Madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your
[2:19:33] name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council member west. No.
[2:19:37] council member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council
[2:19:42] member kadena? Yes. Council member basil doa?
[2:19:46] yes. Council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
[2:19:51] council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:19:55] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
[2:20:00] council member ridley? Yes.
[2:20:04] deputy mayor pro tem johnson? No. Mayor pro tem
[2:20:08] resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No. Would six. Holding
[2:20:12] in favor? Nine. Oppose the motion fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Mr. Roth?
[2:20:22] sorry, go ahead. I was gonna suggest an amendment to the mo original motion.
[2:20:26] yeah, please. I'd like to, uh, make sure that the words
[2:20:31] non-binding, uh, would be, uh, inserted before
[2:20:35] the, uh, words pre-acquisition agreements. Is there a second? Second.
[2:20:39] it's been moved in second. Mr. Roth, you'd like five minutes to explain your amendment. Um, thank
[2:20:43] you. Um, typically in a, in a real estate transaction that's
[2:20:47] being negotiated, uh, prior to any execution of a formal
[2:20:52] contract, uh, those are considered, uh, either con considered or described
[2:20:56] as letters of intent. And I'm assuming that this is considered
[2:21:00] a pre-acquisition agreement is like a letter of intent. Uh, in all
[2:21:04] of those, uh, types of documents, typically it is
[2:21:09] absolutely clear in those documents that these are non-binding agreements.
[2:21:13] and I want to make sure that there's no, uh, uh,
[2:21:17] uh, conflict or confusion that, uh, any kind
[2:21:22] of an agreement that's, that's, uh, established, uh, under this
[2:21:26] situation is in fact nonbinding. Uh, so I would request that
[2:21:30] that change be, I think, to the benefit of the council and to the benefit of the city
[2:21:34] that that be, uh, provided general sen
[2:21:38] recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Um, wanna thank
[2:21:42] council member roth, who is both a real estate attorney and is
[2:21:46] possibly the only person around the horseshoe who has bought office
[2:21:51] buildings. So thank you for recognizing that word is
[2:21:55] absent and necessary. I do believe many of our colleagues
[2:21:59] have been told just do not add anything to the motion.
[2:22:03] do not consider anything. But I will say, if you agree
[2:22:07] that this is non-binding, you should vote for this one. Prove it. Show
[2:22:11] the public that you mean it, that this is not a defining, um,
[2:22:16] no, no ability to turn it around. Vote, because I
[2:22:20] think we all know it is. And if you vote this down, this,
[2:22:24] this actual word that says non-binding, then that says
[2:22:28] everything about what this vote really is. Thank you,
[2:22:35] ms. Black. Ms. Blackman, you recognize for five minutes. Peter, did you wanna say something?
[2:22:40] um, I just wanted to make sure that if there was any, um,
[2:22:44] explanation that we needed to do about the way the, the current item and what
[2:22:49] we're looking for and what we need to do with the due diligence that we gave
[2:22:53] the, um, the company that's actually doing the work on behalf of the city an opportunity to speak.
[2:22:58] uh, I'm happy to address it. And I would suggest that the council members are conflating
[2:23:02] non-binding term sheets with binding pre-acquisition agreements. And there's
[2:23:07] important distinction between the two. Um, we 100% agree
[2:23:11] that real estate transactions are traditionally negotiated in non-binding letters
[2:23:15] of intent to establish business terms. Um, what's been suggested
[2:23:19] and presented to council, uh, is that that would be an exhibit
[2:23:23] to a binding agreement. The binding nature of the agreement though is
[2:23:28] related to due diligence schedule and performing the
[2:23:32] work necessary to present the apples, apples comparison. So there could be binding
[2:23:36] components to it in terms of, um,
[2:23:40] how long are we looking at this building, for example, things like that could be binding. But,
[2:23:44] um, there's no reason, in my opinion, to add non-binding
[2:23:49] to the non to the pre-acquisition agreement because it's duplicative.
[2:23:53] um, the business terms and a transaction is 100% something
[2:23:57] you can get out of later. There's nothing that inhibits you all from terminating
[2:24:02] the agreement in the future if you find out things you don't like about any assets. So,
[2:24:06] um, I, I, I understand the point, um, but I think it's unnecessary.
[2:24:12] um, can I, you saw the floor. You saw the floor, yeah. Yes. Um, can I ask the attorneys if
[2:24:16] they agree with that? Our city attorneys
[2:24:24] and thank you, peter.
[2:24:33] so, as peter said, yes, it would not be binding. It's not a
[2:24:37] binding term sheet. What it is, again, it's to conduct due diligence.
[2:24:41] and so to the extent that, um, anyone that was engaged to do that
[2:24:45] due diligence, um, needed to perform, we need to bind them to
[2:24:49] perform. And then we also need to be bound, uh, under state law to
[2:24:53] pay for those services. So that's the binding nature of
[2:24:57] these pre pre-acquisition agreements. So if
[2:25:01] we, if this doesn't pass, which I assume it won't, um, there we
[2:25:06] can still not, there's nothing that, uh, joins us. We don't, we're not
[2:25:10] obligated to move forward. We're just getting information. You're not obligated
[2:25:14] to lease to purchase. You're not obligated to execute and
[2:25:18] enter into a final acquisition. This is just for due diligence,
[2:25:22] just to conduct and as, as peter said, to get the apples to apples
[2:25:27] comparison. That's all it is. Thank you. Mm-hmm .
[2:25:31] deputy mayor proam, you recognize for five minutes. Oh, thank you. Councilman roth for bringing
[2:25:35] this up. But I also want to thank, uh, mr. Peter for bringing the clarity, uh, 'cause that was
[2:25:39] concern. Thank you so much. Mr. Bazel. Do you recognized for five minutes?
[2:25:45] there you are. Come on inside. I'm just kidding. Let's go.
[2:25:50] I was just kidding. Go ahead. I don't have a a, a raised
[2:25:54] hand. Can you hear me? I don't have a raised hand.
[2:25:58] oh, you did,
[2:26:07] mr. Roth. You recognized for three. I'm sorry. We'll go to chairman west for five and then,
[2:26:12] uh, to mr. Roth for three. Thank you, mayor. I mean, on, its on its face. This sounds,
[2:26:16] this sounds reasonable and, and harmless enough. I want to ask, uh,
[2:26:20] mr. Janssen, if, if there is any potential harm to
[2:26:25] getting us the apples to apples numbers that we're asking for by inserting this clause
[2:26:29] in there. 'cause my goal and the goal of a lot of my colleagues and the goal
[2:26:33] of the public that I've been hearing is to get the true apples to apples comparison.
[2:26:38] does insertion of this language cause you any problems in
[2:26:42] meeting that goal? Uh, I believe it causes material
[2:26:46] harm because you will not be able to bind yourself to any service agreements or
[2:26:50] contracts related to doing the work that would be required to provide that
[2:26:54] information. So, I believe would be material harm as you would have no ability
[2:26:59] to execute any due diligence. Can you give me an example of how, um,
[2:27:03] a one service that we would need would not possibly be at jeopardy because of
[2:27:07] this language? Very simply, um, a phase
[2:27:11] one environmental study, which is the starting point for any
[2:27:15] due diligence, uh, on any land or acquisition, um, it's
[2:27:19] probably a four to $5,000 contract at worst, maybe as little as $2,000.
[2:27:23] but, um, you would not be able to execute that type of agreement
[2:27:28] and get a clean phase one on any assets you're looking at. Um, if you don't have the
[2:27:32] ability to execute binding agreements. And why would they typically not
[2:27:36] wanna execute a non-binding agreement? A a
[2:27:40] phase one environmental company? Oh, well, the company wouldn't be able to perform
[2:27:44] services if the contract was invalid or non-binding. Okay. So it's potentially
[2:27:49] is the intent is, is to certainly, I I get the intent,
[2:27:53] but the potential harm could, could be detrimental to us in
[2:27:57] obtaining the numbers we need. Absolutely. Thank you,
[2:28:03] chairman. Ridley, you recognize for five minutes? Thank you, mr. Mayor. I,
[2:28:07] uh, understand what, uh, mr. Jansen is saying
[2:28:12] that we need to have the pre-acquisition agreement
[2:28:16] binding on the parties. And so I would like to introduce an amendment to mr. Ross
[2:28:20] amendment that would, instead of inserting
[2:28:24] non-binding, the four pre-acquisition agreements
[2:28:29] insert in the eighth line,
[2:28:34] that starts exceed 2 million. Do, uh, um, sorry.
[2:28:38] the fourth line, uh, sixth line, starting of
[2:28:42] assessing the relocation option insert without
[2:28:47] binding the city to such option, that would make
[2:28:51] it clear that what we want to be non-binding
[2:28:55] is entering into an acquisition agreement rather
[2:29:00] than the pre-acquisition agreement itself. Second. So
[2:29:04] I want to help the body here and clarify. Sure. Since it's not a written,
[2:29:08] 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
[2:29:13] deal again. The intent here is
[2:29:17] to place the, the binding, the word binding in the appropriate
[2:29:21] place to achieve the intent of making the acquisition or
[2:29:25] leasing of a particular property. Not binding, not making the due diligence
[2:29:30] agreement that you'd have to sign. Not exactly. Okay. So everybody understand
[2:29:34] that like the, the, he's just moving
[2:29:38] where we placed, where the, where the mover was placing the word
[2:29:42] binding, which was making it bind, not making the due diligence document,
[2:29:47] not binding to making, acting on the due diligence in the form of
[2:29:52] acquiring or leasing or leasing to own a property, not binding. So
[2:29:56] that's what correct, that's what you're trying to do, right? Yes. Okay. That's
[2:30:00] what's on the floor. If assuming, I think it got seconded by ms. Mendelson.
[2:30:04] and you have five minutes to explain your amendment. Well, I think this to
[2:30:08] the amendment. Thank you. I think this addresses the concerns
[2:30:13] of, um, some members about making
[2:30:18] the pre-acquisition agreement non-binding. We
[2:30:24] to be effective, the pre-acquisition agreement has to be binding. The parties will
[2:30:28] enter into an agreement with certain duties and responsibilities and
[2:30:33] payment obligations. If that's what this body
[2:30:37] intends to do, then that part of it needs to be non-binding.
[2:30:41] what I think the intent of mr. Ross amendment was
[2:30:45] that after that due diligence is completed, that we
[2:30:49] are then not bound to execute any acquisition
[2:30:54] agreement that would tie the city
[2:30:58] to a particular relocation option. At that
[2:31:03] point, the city council should have freedom to choose which of
[2:31:07] the options upon which due diligence has been performed
[2:31:12] they wish to enter into. But not at this point in time today.
[2:31:19] I feel like the names that were I see in the queue were already in the queue when we were still on an
[2:31:23] amendment by mr. Roth. Anyone want, wanna stay in on the amendment
[2:31:27] to the amendment or wanna wait till we get back to the roth amendment? Everybody good? Okay. Mr. Roth,
[2:31:31] then you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to your amendment, if that's what you
[2:31:35] want. Thank you. Yes.
[2:31:40] um, I, I, I want to thank, uh, council member ridley for helping
[2:31:44] clarify the situation. I think his addition to the amendment
[2:31:48] is really actually valuable because it does clarify the
[2:31:52] acquisition and the leasing or the, the, uh, future,
[2:31:57] uh, um, commitment would be
[2:32:01] a non-binding situation. Uh, and I would endorse and, and suggest
[2:32:05] that we approve your, your addition. My concern on the
[2:32:09] previous, uh, uh, of the, my previous comments
[2:32:14] is that pre-acquisition agreements, uh, are not
[2:32:18] a defined term. It's a, it's, it's just a, an agreement.
[2:32:23] and what we're committing here to is for a lot of specific
[2:32:27] costs that we don't know what they are. And so what I'm trying to figure out,
[2:32:32] and what I'm trying to narrow down, is to try to identify
[2:32:36] what we're going to be spending money on during these pre-acquisition
[2:32:41] costs. What are we spending $2 million or
[2:32:45] $4 million on? And, and this is an unusual
[2:32:49] situation where we would be asking, um,
[2:32:54] people to, to, uh, provide us with due diligence or that
[2:32:58] we would be spending money on due diligence for properties
[2:33:02] that we don't have commitments for. So could you explain to me
[2:33:06] what specific costs we are being, are being anticipated
[2:33:11] in using the 2 million and $4 million that we're
[2:33:16] committing for this pre-acquisition, uh, agreement?
[2:33:21] council member roth, if you're asking that question, I'd, I'm asking peter to if, or
[2:33:26] or whoever. Thank you, mr. Janssen.
[2:33:33] I'm happy to speak in broad categories, uh, pursuant to what was presented in closed session.
[2:33:37] but there's a range of activities that will occur, um,
[2:33:41] primarily to answer questions that this body and the public is asked and to create apple's,
[2:33:46] apples comparisons on, uh, footprint, quality of the buildings, age
[2:33:50] of systems, um, environmental studies, things like this. Uh,
[2:33:54] so there was detailed budgets presented in executive session. So I, I would point
[2:33:58] you back to that last week, um, in terms of what are the categories and possible spends and how that
[2:34:02] relates to the negotiation scenarios as we collect information
[2:34:07] for you. So, um, I I, if we were unclear, we're happy to
[2:34:11] t that information, but there was very specific budgetary information presented last week.
[2:34:15] would you, uh, would you, uh, say that it's tradition in the,
[2:34:20] in the industry that, uh, a buyer would not, or a potential
[2:34:24] tenant or a ba potential buyer would not be expending funds
[2:34:29] to receive due diligence information from, from, uh,
[2:34:34] cus from potential properties that would be trying
[2:34:38] to provide information that it would be up to a potential
[2:34:42] buyer to be spending money to figure out what the buy, what the
[2:34:46] building is or the property is before we have it under contract or
[2:34:50] before we have a commitment. Why would we be buying
[2:34:54] you, uh, environmental reports or due diligence reports on,
[2:34:59] on conditions of, of, of, uh, prop of, of, um,
[2:35:03] mechanical, electrical, other situations?
[2:35:07] well, if I could just start council member roth. These are the very things what that,
[2:35:12] the things that you just listed. If I could just start by saying, these are the
[2:35:16] things that you all have asked us for, and you've said that without these things,
[2:35:20] you cannot make your decision. So we are really following
[2:35:25] what council has been asking us to go and get. And
[2:35:29] this is the process that we've laid out that we would need to undergo
[2:35:33] in order to provide that. And so I hear you very clearly, but that is the
[2:35:37] reason why these items have been presented in a way that will allow for us to
[2:35:42] do the exact thing that you've described. I think what cbre has communicated
[2:35:46] to us several times that this would allow for
[2:35:50] us to make that happen, show our commitment
[2:35:55] to being able to work with whatever those potential, uh, property opportunities
[2:35:59] are, and then bring that information back. And so that's exactly what we're trying to do.
[2:36:03] I'll let mr. Jensen, uh, continue. Uh, I, I appreciate
[2:36:08] the spear of the question, and, and it's a very fair one. Um, you're speaking in terms
[2:36:12] of, if I understood your question correctly, what buyers tra, buyers
[2:36:16] lessees interested parties typically do and don't do? And I would just offer
[2:36:20] up, it's a hundred percent a function of leverage and negotiation. Um, and
[2:36:24] what we presented last week was, um, in our exploratory
[2:36:28] findings that there are counterparties willing to perform services at risk,
[2:36:33] um, on their side of the table, so to speak. Um, but there are 100%
[2:36:37] items that are highly customed to the city of dallas, such as how do you replicate
[2:36:42] city council chambers, um, that are non-traditional requests. And
[2:36:46] those are things, um, that no buyer, or excuse me, no seller, lessor,
[2:36:50] counterparty, or architect are gonna perform for free. Um, so there
[2:36:54] are very specific things you all have asked for, for solutions that do require
[2:36:58] city spends, so to speak. Um, but, uh, I,
[2:37:03] I would not characterize in blanket statements about what buyers typically do
[2:37:07] and don't do, particularly when you're talking about public-private partnerships and transactions
[2:37:11] of this magnitude. Um, I can tell you, uh, in all of
[2:37:15] my major transactions that I've advised clients on travis
[2:37:19] county, dallas county, city of austin, pre-development, pre-acquisition
[2:37:24] agreements, this is the best practice for how to arrive at those
[2:37:28] custom answers to custom requests for very specific programming
[2:37:33] and due diligence requests that are requested by governing bodies. So, um,
[2:37:37] I would characterize this as best practice to, in order to get the apples to apples
[2:37:41] to, uh, further discussion, enable you all to make a decision on
[2:37:46] future binding agreements, which, um, are clearly not addressed
[2:37:50] in this, uh, by design. Uh, thank you. Um, I,
[2:37:54] I do have a concern that in the motion it basically says
[2:37:58] including, uh, cost reimbursement to property owners, which you have just,
[2:38:03] uh, sort of helped explain, uh, but it doesn't
[2:38:07] sort of authorize us or have any kind of, of guidelines as
[2:38:11] to what kind of monies we're talking about. And we don't know. And, and I'm, I'm
[2:38:15] telling you, we're, we're talking about, uh, several
[2:38:19] buildings here, four buildings that we're even considering according
[2:38:23] to this motion. And these, these amounts could be absolutely out
[2:38:28] of control. We don't have any control over, over those, the costs that
[2:38:32] these owners are doing. We don't have, unless we negotiate those
[2:38:36] in advance, we don't have any guidelines of what we're trying to, to establish
[2:38:40] here. And we've just authorized $4 million, mr. To just give away
[2:38:45] for stuff. So, I mean, we haven't authorized yet, mr. We're talking about $4 million.
[2:38:49] I just wanna make sure you're going to tailor these more to the, the, the
[2:38:54] merits of moving the word binding from where you placed to where
[2:38:58] he recommends. 'cause that's really all his, that's all his amendment. The amendment does. Thank
[2:39:02] you. And what I was trying to do is, was understand that that this,
[2:39:07] the binding of our non-binding part of it is important once
[2:39:11] we bind ourselves to a, to a pre-authorization
[2:39:15] agreement or to a future agreement that we are committing to
[2:39:19] spend monies that we don't know what those commitments are. So I would be in
[2:39:23] favor of, of, uh, councilman ridley's, uh,
[2:39:28] uh, amendment. Uh, but I would still like to preserve my
[2:39:32] amendment under underlying. Anyone else wanna speak on for against
[2:39:36] the amendment to the amendment? State none, madam secretary, go ahead and call the roll.
[2:39:41] thank you, mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes, if you're in favor. No. If you oppose
[2:39:46] council member west. No. Council member moreno.
[2:39:50] no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kana?
[2:39:55] yes. Council member basil dua.
[2:40:01] council member basil dua is
[2:40:05] absent when vote taken. Council member.
[2:40:09] council member basil dua?
[2:40:14] yes. Thank you. Council member
[2:40:18] blair. Council member blackman? Yes. Council member
[2:40:22] stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:40:26] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No. Council
[2:40:31] member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem johnson?
[2:40:35] no. Mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
[2:40:40] with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails, mr. Mayor. Alright, we're back
[2:40:44] on the roth amendment. Chairwoman mendelson, you're
[2:40:48] recognized for three minutes on the roth amendment. Anyone else will she speak on for against the
[2:40:52] roth amendment? Seeing none, madam secretary, call the role. Thank you. Mr.
[2:40:57] mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No.
[2:41:01] if you oppose council member west. No. Council member moreno?
[2:41:05] no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kana?
[2:41:09] yes. Council member baa?
[2:41:13] yes. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
[2:41:18] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:41:23] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
[2:41:27] no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro tem
[2:41:32] johnson? No. Mayor prom resendez? No. Mayor
[2:41:36] johnson? No. With six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion
[2:41:40] fails. Mr. Mayor, we're back on item one as move
[2:41:44] by mr. West chairwoman mendelssohn for what purpose? I move to amend
[2:41:48] the motion to prohibit any property from consideration that currently
[2:41:53] has or is contemplated to have any government related
[2:41:57] entity, nonprofit that receives funding from the city or vendor
[2:42:01] of the city within the last 24 months as tenants or owners
[2:42:05] of the same building. Is there a second?
[2:42:10] it's been moved in a second. You need five minutes to explain your motion or no? Sure.
[2:42:14] okay. You have five minutes. Thank you. I think it's extremely important that we
[2:42:18] avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or even an actual
[2:42:22] conflict of interest. And as, uh, we
[2:42:26] consider that there may be properties that are very, very
[2:42:31] large beyond the scope of what the city would occupy
[2:42:35] independently, that we may be joining other tenants.
[2:42:39] we may seek other tenants. We may
[2:42:44] move into an ownership situation where we
[2:42:48] are the lease of an entity that we already have
[2:42:52] an established relationship with. And I think this is very problematic, so we should
[2:42:56] preclude those from consideration. Thank you. Anyone else
[2:43:00] was just gone for against the amendment by ms. Mendelson?
[2:43:04] seeing none. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you.
[2:43:09] thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you are in favor. No. If you opposed.
[2:43:13] council member west. No. Council member moreno? No.
[2:43:18] council member gracie? No. Council member kana? Yes.
[2:43:22] council member basel dua. Yes. Council
[2:43:26] member blair? No. Council member blackman?
[2:43:31] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:43:35] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
[2:43:39] no. Council member ridley. Yes. Deputy mayor prote johnson?
[2:43:44] no. Mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
[2:43:48] with six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, chair
[2:43:53] minimums. And for what purpose? I move to amend the motion to require any
[2:43:57] property considered be available for lease or for sale. With both
[2:44:01] options presented to the council. Is there a second? Second. We
[2:44:05] moved in second. Do you need five minutes? I think that one's self-evident. Thank you.
[2:44:10] anyone else wanna speak on for against the amendment by ms. Mendelson?
[2:44:14] seeing none. Uh, mr. Roth, do you recognize for five minutes? Um,
[2:44:18] I, I would like to really support, uh, suggest that we all support this amendment. This
[2:44:22] really is, I think the, uh, an important,
[2:44:26] uh, move into making sure that we do receive, uh,
[2:44:31] uh, both opportunities, all opportunities in evaluating,
[2:44:36] uh, this kind of a, uh, of a, of a major, major,
[2:44:40] uh, decision making. So I don't see that there's a problem with it. I
[2:44:44] think it clarifies the situation and I think it's good for all
[2:44:48] of us to have that, uh, that, uh, requirement
[2:44:52] in this particular motion. Thank you. Anyone else wanna speak on
[2:44:57] for or against the amendment by ms. Mendelson? Seeing
[2:45:01] none. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, please state yes,
[2:45:05] if you're in favor? No. If you're opposed. Council member west? No.
[2:45:09] council member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council
[2:45:13] member kadana? Yes. Council member basil doa?
[2:45:18] yes. Council member blair. Council member blackman?
[2:45:22] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:45:27] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
[2:45:31] council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor prote johnson? No.
[2:45:35] mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No. With
[2:45:40] six voting in favor. Nine. Opposed? The motion fails. Mr. Mayor.
[2:45:44] ms. Mendelson, for what purpose? Well, I just would like to tell you this is my last one.
[2:45:49] okay. Um, it is to amend the motion to require any move from
[2:45:53] 1500 marilla happen after the inauguration of all council members
[2:45:57] and mayors elected in november or december, 2027.
[2:46:03] it's been moved and seconded. Second. I heard a second
[2:46:07] already. And you have four or five minutes if you need it. Thank you. Um,
[2:46:11] first, should this happen, which I hope it does
[2:46:15] not, we need, um, a very thoughtful plan, not something rushed.
[2:46:20] I've heard rumors. I hope they are only rumors that, um, staff
[2:46:25] members in this building have been told that they plan should plan to leave before the end of the
[2:46:29] calendar year. That seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
[2:46:33] number two, staff is already highly distracted with other large
[2:46:37] projects that need their full attention and resolution. Please
[2:46:42] deliver for us on stemmons, on hampton, the miramar independence,
[2:46:46] the police academy, and the convention center. I won't even mention the wings.
[2:46:51] there's a lot of really big projects that must be done
[2:46:55] properly and we're already seeing issues. Number three.
[2:46:59] it would be good for the new folks to kick it off without the baggage of this
[2:47:03] city council. And mayor
[2:47:11] ms. Black may recognize for five minutes. Um, ms. City manager, in
[2:47:15] your due diligence, is there going to be a timeline given to
[2:47:19] us of when a potential move if it happens, or,
[2:47:23] um, I guess I'm trying to understand what is the, the
[2:47:27] understanding of what the, what we're gonna get and is the timeline gonna be in it
[2:47:32] based on the items that are before you, you will get the due diligence related to the potential
[2:47:36] sites for relocation. We will not have plans on what happens
[2:47:40] after that until we get then get further direction from the city council. And I
[2:47:44] think it would be in my best interest not to assume anything other than the due diligence
[2:47:48] that I need to bring back during the month of august. Okay. So timelines of
[2:47:52] moving is won't be in the first round, but it could come in, in a
[2:47:57] sub subsequent round. Once we understand the will of the body, then that
[2:48:01] would be what you should expect from me to bring back to you. And so then that's when we
[2:48:05] can talk about timing as well. Yes. Okay. I,
[2:48:09] like I said, uh, words matter and so expectations and I just wanna make
[2:48:13] sure that it's on the record. Thank you.
[2:48:17] is there anyone else would like to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn? Say none.
[2:48:21] madam secretary, please call the role. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes, if
[2:48:25] you're in favor. No. If you oppose council member west. No. Council
[2:48:30] member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
[2:48:34] kaena. Council member basel. Doa dua
[2:48:39] is absent when? Vote take yes. Council
[2:48:44] member basil doa? Yes. Thank you. Council
[2:48:48] member blair? No. Council member blackman? Yes.
[2:48:52] council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes.
[2:48:57] council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No.
[2:49:02] council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor po. Tim johnson?
[2:49:07] no. Mayor prote resendez? No. Mayor
[2:49:11] johnson? No. With six. Voting in favor. Nine.
[2:49:15] oppose the motion fails mr. Mayor. Okay, we're still on agenda item one.
[2:49:19] anyone else wish to speak on for or against it? Mr. Mayor? Point of order. State your point of order.
[2:49:24] I'd like further clarification on the motion. I don't
[2:49:28] see what the connection is between the first and the second bullet points.
[2:49:32] if the first one authorizes transfer of 2 million from
[2:49:36] the contingency reserve to the general fund, what happens
[2:49:42] is that money earmarked for something in specific sounds like
[2:49:46] a debate point. No, I'm just asking the question. Make make
[2:49:50] it a, make it a valid point of order for me though. What's, what's your point of order?
[2:49:54] well, if you're, if you're seeking clarification on what the motion is, and that's something that, that factors into
[2:49:58] debate time, point of order is stating a point of order under the rules.
[2:50:04] you understand the distinction? I'm saying if, if, if you want more
[2:50:08] clarification on that, you can chime in and you can, you can have
[2:50:13] five minutes of floor time to ask anybody around here. You'd like to ask
[2:50:17] that question of staff to author, but we can't turn points of
[2:50:21] order into free debate time. Well, okay. I'll ask my clarification
[2:50:26] question on my time. So do you want, I mean, but you can have it. I'm saying you can have it right now
[2:50:30] if you want it. We're, we're on it now. We're, we're back on the original motion. That's fine.
[2:50:34] you, you reckon that's for five minutes. I'm just trying to give you the floor and saying that's how we need
[2:50:38] to do this. Thank you. Okay. So, um, my question
[2:50:42] for the city manager is, uh, what happens to the
[2:50:46] 2 million transferred from contingency to the general fund? Will it
[2:50:50] be earmarked in any way? And how does that relate to the second bullet
[2:50:55] point about increasing appropriations to,
[2:50:59] uh, not exceed 2 million in facilities in real estate management
[2:51:04] from the reserve fund? I don't see the connection between those two bullets.
[2:51:12] thank you for the question. Council member. Ridley, I'll have to see if our cfo
[2:51:16] is around. I think the, there he is. . I think, I think that
[2:51:20] what we originally had planned in the item, I think the motion that was made by
[2:51:24] council member west actually changed out the source of funds. It is still
[2:51:29] a total of 3 million. It's not two plus one plus another two. But I'll
[2:51:33] let mr. Ireland yes. Uh, chain. Thank you ms. Tolbert. Jack ireland, chief financial
[2:51:37] officer. Um, reserve funds are not currently
[2:51:42] appropriated. So it's a two step process
[2:51:46] to move the cash basically from the reserve fund, the
[2:51:50] contingency reserve fund into the general fund. And
[2:51:54] then the second step is we have to have legal authorization through an
[2:51:58] appropriation to spend it. So step one, transfer it, step two,
[2:52:03] appropriate it, then, then you're able to spend it. Well,
[2:52:07] so we're moving it out of a reserve fund into the general fund
[2:52:11] and appropriating it within the general fund facilities and real estate management
[2:52:16] department to spend it as we would any budgeted item. So we're
[2:52:20] not talking about a total of $4 million for due diligence. We're
[2:52:24] talking about only 2 million. Yes, sir. So
[2:52:29] what does it mean to insert the word increase appropriations
[2:52:33] in the amount of 2 million in facilities in real estate management.
[2:52:38] and, and how does the original 2 million from the contingency
[2:52:42] going to the general fund get into the facilities and real estate management
[2:52:46] fund? So again, the, uh,
[2:52:50] the contingency reserve is not an appropriated fund.
[2:52:55] so it, it's a reserve fund and we transfer the funds from the contingency
[2:52:59] reserve fund into the general fund. And the
[2:53:03] increase in appropriation is because the facilities and real estate management budget
[2:53:08] was approved by council in september at $36,082,537.
[2:53:15] and so we're increasing the appropriations within the
[2:53:19] facilities and real estate management department's budget so that the funds
[2:53:23] can be spent. It's just a two step process. It's the same $2 million,
[2:53:28] take $2 million out of the reserve fund, move it over into the contingency
[2:53:33] re uh, I'm sorry. Move it out of contingency reserve, move it into
[2:53:37] the general fund and appropriate it so you can spend it. Well, and
[2:53:41] that's the problem with this motion. It doesn't accomplish what you just outlined because
[2:53:46] it talks in the first bullet about taking 2 million out of the contingency
[2:53:50] reserve fund, putting it into the general fund. And the second bullet, it talks about taking,
[2:53:55] uh, putting $2 million in the facilities in real estate management
[2:54:00] from the contingency reserve fund. Shouldn't that say from
[2:54:04] the general fund? N no, sir. We're moving it into one place within the general fund.
[2:54:08] we're moving it in from contingency reserve into the general fund
[2:54:12] where in the general fund, we're moving it into the general fund appropriation
[2:54:16] for facilities and real estate management. Exactly. But you're in the
[2:54:21] second bullet saying you're taking an additional 2 million from the general
[2:54:25] fund contingency reserve fund to put it in the frm.
[2:54:29] that's what's confusing about this. It's, it's the way they're written. Every single time
[2:54:33] we use the contingency reserve fund, we move money from the contingency reserve
[2:54:38] and move it into and specify which department it's going to be spent
[2:54:42] out of. Uh, we did the same thing for planning and development, uh,
[2:54:46] in april when we spent $200,000 for the non-conforming
[2:54:51] use study. It's the way we did, uh, last september when we moved $4 million
[2:54:56] into park and recreation for fair park. It's the process. It's a two
[2:55:00] step process. Move it out of contingency reserve, move it into
[2:55:04] and specify the department to appropriate it within.
[2:55:09] well, I think this, uh, is very poorly worded in referring
[2:55:13] twice to taking money out of the contingency reserve fund,
[2:55:17] but onto the merits of this initiative. This
[2:55:22] is, uh, not a necessary step at this point in
[2:55:26] time. It is not necessary to rush forward to
[2:55:30] spend $2 million to move without proper
[2:55:34] consideration of the costs of repair versus the costs
[2:55:38] of move out. There is no billion dollar price tag
[2:55:42] for the cost of repairing this building. There is no plan for the
[2:55:47] usage of the property that city hall sits upon. There is no
[2:55:51] one knocking on our door anymore who may want this property.
[2:55:55] there is no justification to destroy this iconic
[2:55:59] building just for some un um,
[2:56:04] stated reason as to moving into
[2:56:08] some commercial office building. I submit that this
[2:56:12] is an unnecessary action that we need to further
[2:56:17] explore the critical repair needs of city hall rather than
[2:56:22] remodeling and modification to convert this building into
[2:56:26] class a office space. Thank you
[2:56:30] mr. Roth. You recognized for five minutes on the
[2:56:35] original underlying motion on agenda item one.
[2:56:39] um, I, I also, uh, am, uh, questioning
[2:56:43] the, uh, the, uh, clarification and also
[2:56:48] the, uh, wording in this, uh, additional change. This to me
[2:56:52] does not restrict in my reading of this, and in a formal
[2:56:56] reading or in an informal reading of this, it does not,
[2:57:01] uh, clearly say that we are only spending $2 million.
[2:57:06] this when you were, when you include the word. And that's an, that's
[2:57:10] a plus. And that means that, and I, and I'm the
[2:57:14] technical aspect of how you do this, uh, in the past
[2:57:18] is not clear to me. And it's, I don't think it's clear to any of us. And I wanna
[2:57:23] make sure that if you want to provide this, then there should be another bullet
[2:57:27] that says, in no event will any of these funds be more
[2:57:32] be that no, in no event will the funds be used exceed
[2:57:37] $2 million total. And, and I think that, that
[2:57:41] this is, again, these are contingency funds. I thought
[2:57:45] contingency funds were for emergencies. I don't think this is
[2:57:49] an emergency. Um, and I don't, I want to make sure that the
[2:57:53] public and that the rest of our colleagues really understand that we're
[2:57:57] spending money to do, to get information on, on stuff
[2:58:02] that, that we don't know how much money we're spending. We don't know what we're getting for it.
[2:58:06] and, and we're spending money that we could be utilizing to
[2:58:10] fix things up in, in our, in our current house and in other places. So
[2:58:14] I'm real, I'm really concerned about it. Jack, and if you could sort of,
[2:58:19] uh, help, uh, sort of indicate if, if we could change
[2:58:23] somehow clarify that it would be only $2 million total.
[2:58:27] uh, that would certainly help me evaluate it.
[2:58:34] what I'm second seconding
[2:58:38] mr. Ross amendment to insert an additional bullet limiting the
[2:58:42] total amount of the expenditure to $2 million point of order.
[2:58:47] mayor. Yeah. State, what, what's your, the original motion says not to
[2:58:51] exceed. I don't know how more, much more crystal clear it can be.
[2:58:55] I'm, I'm trying to figure out if that was, are you actually,
[2:59:00] I'm actually making a, an amendment and I apologize for being clumsy in the amendment.
[2:59:04] I'd like to make sure that that, that it's clear that there is only $2 million
[2:59:09] total out of these, this, uh, change in what
[2:59:14] they're doing here. And when you're talking about the increase in appropriations
[2:59:18] says that it's 2 million, it's maximum, but it doesn't clarify the first bullet
[2:59:22] point. And and to me, uh, I think it's not clear,
[2:59:27] uh, generally and if, if this would help clarify it and if,
[2:59:31] why wouldn't there be a res uh, an ability to clarify it?
[2:59:35] uh, what would be the, the difficulty in, in clarifying it
[2:59:39] that says under no circumstance would there be more than $2 million
[2:59:44] of, uh, used for this purpose. Mr. Roth, if
[2:59:49] I could just make it clear, because of the way we typically
[2:59:53] present agenda items anyway that we come to counsel for authorization
[2:59:57] in both bullets. If I'm looking at the motion,
[3:00:01] both say not to exceed the transfer from the
[3:00:05] contingency into the general fund and the
[3:00:10] appropriations that would move over into real estate, it says not to exceed. And
[3:00:14] that is the language that we use on all agenda items that we bring to council
[3:00:18] when we're asking you to un authorize a certain amount. And for us not to exceed
[3:00:22] that amount. So that is our standard language. Thank you for your clarification. To
[3:00:26] me in reading this, there's two buckets of money. And
[3:00:30] when you have two buckets of money, each bucket can't exceed 2 million.
[3:00:35] but to combined, we are only going to spend 2 million,
[3:00:40] not 2 million from each bucket. And that's what's not clear to me.
[3:00:44] and so, and if it's not clear to me, and I apologize for not being the
[3:00:48] brightest bulb in the, in the room, but I have a feeling that this
[3:00:52] isn't real clear. So I would like to make it clear and if it's clear for
[3:00:56] me, maybe it'll be clear for others. And that's what I would encourage, uh, our
[3:01:01] colleagues to agree to. Well, chairman west has raised a point of order about the
[3:01:05] appropriateness of the amendment being essentially, um,
[3:01:11] not an amendment. I mean, the parliamentarian can can
[3:01:15] give you further explanation, but basically it's, it's, it's
[3:01:20] a wordsmithing issue because of, based on what the city manager just
[3:01:24] said, based on what the pretty
[3:01:28] much the plain language of the amendment says. It says already what you're
[3:01:33] trying to amend it to do. So the amendment doesn't change anything.
[3:01:37] so it's, it's, I guess superfluous is a good word. But, um,
[3:01:43] would you want to, you wanna elaborate any further on that? I mean, mr.
[3:01:47] mayor, I, you, you explained it, it's, it's somewhat redundant at this point,
[3:01:51] so I'm gonna sustain his point of order and say that essentially
[3:01:56] your intent is already accomplished in the, in the existing language.
[3:02:00] um, point of information. Mayor, could we have the mr.
[3:02:05] west's current motion reread? It might clarify
[3:02:09] this issue. We, we can. Um, and then I want to go
[3:02:13] to ms. Adeena, I believe for five minutes
[3:02:17] on, on this motion that's being written. Okay.
[3:02:22] I I got you. Okay. That's right, you're right. Oh, I forgot. She, the secretary just told
[3:02:26] me that's a mistake. Sorry. I'm gonna go to ms. Blackman after we read it one
[3:02:30] more time. Just everyone can know it. Is it reflected in this
[3:02:34] piece of paper now accurately? Is there a piece of paper that we can
[3:02:38] have everybody look at too so we don't have to spend too much more time reading it over?
[3:02:43] go ahead. Thank you. I move to approve this item with the following, change to the source
[3:02:47] of funds by eliminating reference to the transfer of arpa funds.
[3:02:52] and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds
[3:02:56] in an amount not to exceed $2 million from the general
[3:03:00] fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase
[3:03:04] appropriations in an amount not to exceed $2 million in
[3:03:09] facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency fund reserve fund
[3:03:14] ms. Black. Will you recognize for five minutes on, on that motion? Thank you. Okay.
[3:03:18] jack, um, where did you go? You
[3:03:22] used to answer, well, I didn't hear the question to see if it was mr. Oh, the
[3:03:27] question is, is I would like to understand can for the public, what
[3:03:31] is the contingency rever reserve fund used for?
[3:03:38] thank you, uh, jack arland, chief financial officer. So the city of dallas
[3:03:42] has, um, a few different reserve funds that we
[3:03:46] have. So in total we have an unassigned fund balance
[3:03:50] that has a minimum balance, uh, between 50 days and
[3:03:54] 70 days according to our fmpc. We currently have about
[3:03:58] $338 million in there. Did you that represent 62
[3:04:03] days, you said th 3 38. I'm sorry, I
[3:04:07] I'm asking 338 million for the unassigned. I'm just writing it
[3:04:11] down. I'm 338 million.
[3:04:15] yes ma'am. 330 un unsigned fund balance? Yes.
[3:04:19] okay. And that is made up of the emergency reserve.
[3:04:24] so we have an emergency reserve that is one reserve within that that
[3:04:28] is 50 million. We have a contingency reserve, which is 10.3 million.
[3:04:34] we have, uh, employee benefit reserve, which is 16.1 million.
[3:04:38] and then we have residual that's, uh, not encumbered, not committed funds of
[3:04:43] $278 million for a total of about 338 million.
[3:04:47] so specifically within that, the contingency reserve fund is a fund
[3:04:51] that is a reserve that is established through our financial management
[3:04:55] performance criteria. It is a component of the unassigned fund fund
[3:04:59] balance. It shall be used to provide for unanticipated needs that arise during
[3:05:04] the year. Examples of those, but not all inclusive
[3:05:08] expenses associated with the new service that wasn't identified during the
[3:05:12] budget process. New public safety or health needs, revenue shortfalls,
[3:05:16] service enhancements. So those are just some examples of things that
[3:05:20] come up outside of the budget process that this, uh, fund was
[3:05:25] set up so that we could come to city council if the, uh, need arose
[3:05:29] and ask for you to transfer the money out of the reserve
[3:05:34] and into the general fund and then appropriate it within the general fund
[3:05:38] so that we can spend it for whatever the council, uh, directs
[3:05:42] us to do. So as I mentioned, we had $10.3 million in the fund
[3:05:46] in the reserve as we started the year in april, we came to the
[3:05:50] council and requested to use $200,000 out of the
[3:05:54] contingency reserve because something came up outside of the budget process
[3:05:58] for the, um, I forget the word. The, uh, non-conforming,
[3:06:03] thank you non-conforming uses. We used $200,000
[3:06:07] for that prior to that. The last time we used it was at the end of last fiscal year
[3:06:12] when we were taking back operation of fair park and we needed to use
[3:06:16] $4 million for that purpose. So this, um, use today
[3:06:20] is appropriate within, uh, the contingency reserve fund if council
[3:06:25] authorizes the transfer out of the reserve and the appropriation of the dollars.
[3:06:30] so is the 10.3 that is what it's in there
[3:06:34] now or is that what was in the budget? And then you have to subtract it two. It's 0.1 today. 10.
[3:06:38] okay. And so with this amendment it would go down to eight and then
[3:06:42] the next amendment it would go down? Well, we can talk about that, yes ma'am. Okay. So it'd go down to eight.
[3:06:47] um, so back on the motion it says terms,
[3:06:52] responsibilities and cost sharing. I get the terms, but can you define
[3:06:56] what responsibilities, and I don't know if it's peter, I don't know if it's frmi don't know
[3:07:00] who, but I'm trying to understand because back to what ms. Cena said, what
[3:07:04] are we going to get back at the end of this exercise? And so it would be
[3:07:08] understanding what responsibilities and even cost sharing. What does that
[3:07:13] mean? So that's not a question I can answer. So I will turn to,
[3:07:17] uh, mr. Jensen.
[3:07:26] I think the, uh, most impactful items you'll get
[3:07:30] back, um, through this process is very clearly
[3:07:35] articulation of test fits in different buildings. Okay. Now test fits
[3:07:39] are what test fits for different occupancy plans and programs that the city
[3:07:43] have articulated. So, um, that is a enormous and
[3:07:47] an impactful step, um, because every different building and an
[3:07:51] opportunity has, uh, different efficiency ratios and
[3:07:55] will land at a different number. So you can't paint in broad strokes of 500,000
[3:08:00] feet or 550 or 400, uh, when you start going through this process,
[3:08:04] you'll, you'll land at very precise numbers. So that's just an example of
[3:08:08] due diligence that will be completed during this step so that, you know, whether you need to occupy
[3:08:13] 400, 425, 350, um, there are a host of
[3:08:17] decisions that go into that, but that's an example of, of work that would be completed
[3:08:21] during this step. So is that considered responsibilities? I'm just trying to understand what
[3:08:26] responsibilities is in this context. It says define terms,
[3:08:31] responsibilities, and cost sharing. I get the terms and cost sharing
[3:08:35] responsibilities is what I don't quite understand what we're gonna get back.
[3:08:41] um, here's an example and I think the best one is, is,
[3:08:45] um, I'm thinking through this, uh, live with you, but I think the best example
[3:08:49] is probably related to city council chambers or custom
[3:08:54] work inside of an asset. Um, city will
[3:08:58] have obligations and responsibilities in terms of giving information to architects,
[3:09:02] engineers, audio visual, uh, technology companies,
[3:09:06] uh, furniture companies, for example, to arrive at definitive
[3:09:11] information related to that specific program. So, um,
[3:09:15] one of the good things about binding agreements is that they obligate both of the parties to
[3:09:19] perform. So you can't string parties along or, um, ask them
[3:09:23] to do work that is non-contractual, so to speak. So, um, I think your
[3:09:28] responsibilities here are mainly related in referencing information sharing and
[3:09:32] feedback, um, so that people can price things so that people can, um,
[3:09:36] provide feedback and understand the risk of executing different requests from the city.
[3:09:40] is that answer your question? Yes. Yes. Thank you. And it says no more than
[3:09:44] four properties in the cbd. So that, can you define
[3:09:48] what the dallas central business district is
[3:09:53] or any, anyone, the definition that is
[3:09:57] already used? I think it's within the boundaries
[3:10:01] of, I wanna say it's woodall rogers running the traditional one. It's woodall
[3:10:05] rogers 3 45. It's the, the traditional cd that would, okay, I just wanna make sure that, because
[3:10:10] ccb d gets very, uh, fluid, right? Yes ma'am. And I would just wanna
[3:10:14] make sure that that's, I think people have been chiming in on possible locations.
[3:10:18] and just to be clear, yes, the cbd is this traditionally defined c
[3:10:23] it is the current way we defined the cbd. Okay. Yes. Um, I believe
[3:10:27] mr. West talked about lease options in his opening, um,
[3:10:31] comments. I am not for a lease and so, um, I just think
[3:10:35] it'd be crazy for a city to do any kind of lease. So I just wanted to put that on the record
[3:10:39] 'cause I had, uh, lease options here. Um,
[3:10:44] and so what in, and then you look at including cost reimbursements to
[3:10:48] property owners. What do you anticipate as being
[3:10:52] a cost reimbursement
[3:10:58] when you move from test fits into schematic design or specific engineering
[3:11:02] work or something that is atypical and non customary
[3:11:07] for, um, call it administrative office, build out? Those could be
[3:11:11] possible reimbursements, but I would point you all back to what we discussed
[3:11:15] in executive session, um, that this is very much a function of negotiation,
[3:11:20] um, and function of leverage. Um, and the
[3:11:24] idea that we are 100% responsible for all costs,
[3:11:28] um, is strictly something that should be negotiated. So the most important thing I think that's
[3:11:33] happening today is you all are giving us authority to negotiate, um, so that we
[3:11:37] can understand, uh, the final risk sharing and cost sharing for certain items. So
[3:11:41] the cost reimbursements are not necessarily in the due
[3:11:45] diligence, but moving out of the due diligence into a final one. Or is
[3:11:49] it stuff that we have to reimburse, like you said, schematic for an
[3:11:53] architect to do a rendering? It, it's very hard to speak in broad
[3:11:57] strokes when you're talking about very different properties, uh, and very different ownership groups.
[3:12:02] and, um, so I'd say that's a possibility. Um, but I won't speak in absolutes
[3:12:06] because I think that limits us. So it it is just gonna, it's gonna vary.
[3:12:11] yes ma'am. Um, is there a possibility that it could be less than four?
[3:12:16] I don't think we're talking about $4 million. So I think it's two. No, it says no, no, four properties. Sorry.
[3:12:20] I think oh, oh, property. If I could just, because it says right here, four, no more than four
[3:12:24] properties, locations. And I'm just wondering with $2 million, that's a
[3:12:29] half a million for each property to do it. And I'm just wondering if there's a possibility.
[3:12:33] so with that, going into the details that we've shared in closed session, I think we've given counsel
[3:12:38] an overview of the potential options. I think based on the feedback the
[3:12:42] council provided, we know that there is a, there's a pool now
[3:12:46] that we should be focused on, and that is totally based on the feedback that you've
[3:12:50] provided within those sessions. So that's why it says no more than four, right? So
[3:12:54] I'm asking is there a possibility that it could be two
[3:12:59] or it could be all four, it would be premature for me to give you that final answer until
[3:13:03] we come back with that due diligence to where you'll even know if it's four or one or
[3:13:07] if it's four, three or four or two. I think that's part of the process. Okay. So if four are
[3:13:11] in the pool, who's gonna narrow it down to two?
[3:13:16] is that you guys or is? 'cause we know the, I mean, there's a pool of four
[3:13:20] and it says four. So if it all of a sudden, oh wait, are
[3:13:24] we gonna do two? I think our responsibility or my responsibility, councilwoman
[3:13:29] blackman, is to bring back the results of the due diligence, not to make
[3:13:33] any preconceived ideas about where the numbers should be once we come back.
[3:13:37] I think that's what you're asking for us to bring to this body so that you can do that. So that
[3:13:42] will be a part of our, the work that we will bring back. So will we see all of the properties
[3:13:46] that you do due diligence on? We will bring you back the results of the due diligence,
[3:13:50] but of all of 'em that you do it. So say you go down four and you see one of
[3:13:54] them may not necessarily cover it. Can we still see that one? If that's what
[3:13:58] council chooses to do? Um, if there could be a situation where we've
[3:14:02] got four and we go and we start this process and, and one falls
[3:14:06] out. So I just can't give you the directness until we are on the other side of it.
[3:14:11] and are all the, um, information that we collect,
[3:14:16] is it gonna be subject to open records? And I may, maybe not you,
[3:14:20] pete, or maybe that's a attorney. We, we answered that one
[3:14:24] last week. 'cause there were questions about reports that yes, I'd like to hear from the attorney, but it
[3:14:28] was done in back there. Not a problem. I would like to know from the attorney
[3:14:32] that when this information is collected, is
[3:14:36] it subject it, it can, is it gonna be open to the public?
[3:15:01] hi, connie ker with city attorney's office. Um, so while it's
[3:15:05] in being deliberated or information that the city council would deliberate
[3:15:09] in executive session, it would mean it would not be subject to open records. Okay.
[3:15:13] uh, release. But it does really does depend on the nature of the information that's brought
[3:15:17] to you. So we have to wait until to receive the information,
[3:15:22] go through it, and then it could be made public if, if it moves forward. Correct.
[3:15:27] okay. So, um, this process, the public will not see any details?
[3:15:32] no. It's after we've decided, uh, that this is the one that
[3:15:36] we're going with. Right. Then now that information gets and does all the
[3:15:40] other ones get released as well at that time? Or are those still remaining in, in
[3:15:44] the executive privilege? So it depends on the nature of the information and in
[3:15:48] what form it's delivered to the city. Um, so some of these property owners might
[3:15:53] say these are draft presentations, and so draft presentations not being
[3:15:57] finalized can be, uh, exempted from open records. But
[3:16:01] anything that would be of information that would allow the city council to deliberate on its final
[3:16:05] decision, um, would not be subject to open records until you've actually acted
[3:16:10] on the information that you've received. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Mayor.
[3:16:15] ms. Kadena, you're recognized for five minutes. Um, peter, I, is there underlying
[3:16:19] motion? Yeah. Peter, I have a question for you. So you mentioned, um,
[3:16:24] due diligence included the environmental assessment. Can
[3:16:28] you tell me a little bit more about that and what that entails?
[3:16:32] uh, I think the best reference point is the work that you all perform to your own city hall
[3:16:37] and that, um, every environmental assessment starts with your generic,
[3:16:41] uh, environmental site assessment, phase one, and that will have findings
[3:16:46] or may not have findings. And then if it has findings and a recommendation to proceed
[3:16:50] to other phases of investigation, then you proceed to that. So, um, that's
[3:16:54] why it's a little bit, um, well it's impossible to predict exactly
[3:16:58] what due diligence is done on every single asset here because you don't know what the findings are
[3:17:03] going to be. Um, but that will have a, uh, material impact on the process.
[3:17:08] so it doesn't include remediation or a pricing out of what that potential
[3:17:12] remediation could cost. N no, I, I disagree. It could include
[3:17:16] those things, but it, you don't know what the buildings have, you all didn't know what was in this building until
[3:17:20] you perform the technical work. Um, and that illuminated a path of
[3:17:25] other information you had to gather. So it very much could include those things.
[3:17:29] um, that's part of the due diligence. Okay. Thank you.
[3:17:33] and then, um, how will the information be provided to us and the residents,
[3:17:37] um, from the due diligence? Will it be on the website? How,
[3:17:41] how would that be disseminated? I think the city attorney
[3:17:46] answered some of that, so I will not answer that portion of it, but I think council has asked us to
[3:17:50] come back with the side by side comparison. I think we have to be able to share that
[3:17:54] with the council and then once there's additional opportunities
[3:17:58] for you guys to ask questions, we definitely wanna have a public presentation about
[3:18:02] it. That information will be provided to the body. Any additional details that
[3:18:07] need to be either posted on our website, the reports, at that time, it would be available to
[3:18:11] the public. And again, it's pretty much the council's, um, prerogative
[3:18:15] for any meetings that you wanna have in your districts to describe that information
[3:18:19] as you've already done through some of the town hall meetings that you've had. That would be something
[3:18:23] that can continue, uh, based on the direction of the council. Okay. And
[3:18:28] then I have one more question. Um, would this fall under procurement rules
[3:18:32] where council members are not allowed to speak to the applicants or, um,
[3:18:36] tenants of the building?
[3:18:55] so, so could you, uh, just clarify your question?
[3:18:59] yeah. Would this be like a procurement process where applicants are not able to meet
[3:19:04] or, uh, speak with council members? Like, would this be a close
[3:19:08] time or are we allowed to? So real
[3:19:12] estate acquisitions are not subject to procurement. Okay.
[3:19:16] um, so you're not making any expenditure right now that you would
[3:19:20] be engaging for goods or services? So I would
[3:19:24] have to say no. Okay. And is there a time when that may come into play?
[3:19:29] sure. Um, to the extent that the city would acquire property in
[3:19:34] whatever manner, whether it be a lease, lease to purchase or ownership, um, and
[3:19:38] you engage, uh, third parties to conduct services,
[3:19:42] possibly construction or you acquire goods, um, to outfit
[3:19:46] the property, then procurement would apply. Okay. Thank you.
[3:19:51] and then jack, I have one question for you. If you're still around,
[3:19:56] can you, can I hear the question and then I'll say if mr. Allen needs to answer that?
[3:20:00] yeah, I was just wondering if the contingency funds, 'cause I, we've used that
[3:20:05] I think for some, for an item in my district, but if that could be also be used
[3:20:09] for repairs of city hall, mr. Arlan,
[3:20:15] the question is whether or not, if any of the contingency funds that have been described, the one
[3:20:19] in particular that we're using for this item, could it be used for repair
[3:20:23] if, if there's an emergency in, in this, in-between period? I apologize.
[3:20:27] ms. Tolbert, can you, I just didn't hear you the question. I apologize.
[3:20:31] I I'm wondering if the contingency fund can be used during this time when,
[3:20:36] um, you know, like if there's an emergency that arises for repairs
[3:20:40] of city hall if needed. So if the question
[3:20:44] is, can contingency reserve be used for emergency repairs
[3:20:49] of city hall? This city hall? Yes, ma'am. If the city council voted
[3:20:53] to transfer out of contingency reserve, uh, and it's determined
[3:20:57] to be an unbudgeted need? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you.
[3:21:04] mr. Roth, you're recognized for, oh, sorry. Hold on a second.
[3:21:08] nope. Still, still. Everyone is on round two. So three minutes for
[3:21:12] you mr. Roth, and then, um, chairwoman. Oh, you haven't spoken on this.
[3:21:16] okay. I'm gonna go to you first then. Five minutes. Thank
[3:21:20] you. Um, can you walk us through step by step how the universe of
[3:21:25] potential sites was identified and narrowed down to just the four locations?
[3:21:36] I mean, I think the public needs to understand what the process is here.
[3:21:42] uh, final reference, mr. Mayor point of what point of clarity
[3:21:46] are we getting to, uh, information that was presented in executive session?
[3:21:57] mr. Sustained, I had to ask the parliamentary and let's steer
[3:22:01] clear the executive session content. I'm sorry.
[3:22:05] I just wanna understand exactly what it is you're ruling out of order that
[3:22:09] the public can't understand what the process was for narrowing it down.
[3:22:13] I mean, that does not seem like that would be covered by an executive session
[3:22:18] item. If it was discussed during
[3:22:22] an executive session and only then I, it's literally the
[3:22:26] subject of the executive session. It's literally the topic. Well,
[3:22:30] the process was not the topic though. It was part of a real estate discussion.
[3:22:35] okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean to debate you. Thank you. I understand. I I'm just,
[3:22:39] I'm I'm trying to also make sure that we don't, um, violate
[3:22:43] our own, well, our own state laws and everything else about executive session
[3:22:47] content. We were in executive session on real estate matters.
[3:22:51] right? That was a, that was, that was, that's what that was posted for, I believe.
[3:22:56] so I'm not sustain I understand point of I understand you're sustaining
[3:23:00] that. I don't agree, but I will move on. Um, what specific criteria were
[3:23:04] used to determine which properties made the short list and who developed that
[3:23:08] criteria? Point
[3:23:13] of clarity? Mr. Mr. Mayor. It seemed like they sustain point of order. Sustained. Sustained. Thank you.
[3:23:19] what properties were considered but eliminated and why?
[3:23:24] point of order mr. Mayor sustained.
[3:23:29] how many buildings were evaluated before arriving at just four sites?
[3:23:33] point of order. Mr. Mayor sustained.
[3:23:38] what instructions were given to brokers, consultant staff,
[3:23:42] third parties regarding the search for potential sites? Point of order mr. Mayor
[3:23:46] sustained. Were any city owned properties
[3:23:51] evaluated as alternatives? And if so, what were the findings?
[3:23:55] point of order mr. Mayor sustained. Really not even to
[3:23:59] know if we looked at any city properties, we're
[3:24:03] not gonna disadvantage ourselves. And, and how we go about assessing
[3:24:07] the market and telling everybody what we discuss in an executive session about our
[3:24:12] approach to this. We're any properties outside the central
[3:24:16] business district considered point of order mr. Mayor sustained.
[3:24:22] specifically what due diligence activities were contemplated under this resolution
[3:24:26] point of order? Mr. Mayor?
[3:24:31] yeah. 'cause I think we're just automatically saying that. Nope.
[3:24:35] specifically what due diligence activities are contemplated
[3:24:40] under this resolution?
[3:24:46] I think you can answer that.
[3:24:57] can you repeat the question, please? Specifically,
[3:25:01] what due diligence activities are contemplated
[3:25:06] under this resolution? I don't believe that I should have my time docked for repeating
[3:25:10] it for the third time. Could you please remove, put my time back? Okay. Hold, hold on
[3:25:14] one second. I think I, I'm, I'm saying
[3:25:18] I think that's a question that can be answered. I don't think that that's, I know, but not inappropriate.
[3:25:23] and I know and repeating it the third time I lost time, it should have been returned to
[3:25:27] me. It should have been frozen. If I'm repeating the same question
[3:25:31] for the convenience of staff. Okay. Give her 10 seconds
[3:25:35] back and then please answer that question.
[3:25:40] thank you. Um, and thank you for the question. Councilman middleston. We've given several examples
[3:25:44] already as to what would be included in the due diligence. Um,
[3:25:48] I would ask mr. Janssen if there's something that we've not given at this point
[3:25:52] to please share that, again, protecting the process as well as the potential
[3:25:57] market, um, work in the integrity of the market.
[3:26:01] I, I very much appreciate the, the spirit of the question and the thematic,
[3:26:06] uh, question from, from staff and the public. Um,
[3:26:11] due diligence encompasses a whole range of activities, um, including,
[3:26:15] um, environmental, um, we spoke to earlier, including test fits
[3:26:20] that I spoke to earlier, including, uh, custom design work where necessary,
[3:26:25] um, to evaluate city council chambers, uh, and engineering
[3:26:29] that goes along with that. Um, parking is a due diligence item.
[3:26:33] um, you all have discussed that at length today as well. But, um, all of these are,
[3:26:38] um, requisite steps to fully understand the
[3:26:42] magnitude of the decision you all might make later. So, um, that's just a list of examples,
[3:26:47] but, um, the path can take different iterations
[3:26:51] as you learn things about different assets, much like the path has iterated here on
[3:26:55] city hall as you've learned information. Council member mendelson, I will hold your
[3:26:59] time for 10 seconds. Thank you.
[3:27:04] what reports, studies, inspections, analysis, or consultant work products will
[3:27:08] be generated?
[3:27:16] is it a question? For me? It is. Okay. Um, I think it's impossible
[3:27:20] to speak specifically to every different asset and every different item that
[3:27:25] will occur. Um, 'cause you may learn something about an asset that
[3:27:29] says, okay, no more due diligence on that asset. That's a deal killer. You know, so there
[3:27:33] are possibilities where, um, there's not gonna be deliverables on certain assets
[3:27:37] depending on what you find. So I think it's impossible to answer that question,
[3:27:41] uh, with an exact specificity. But that is certainly something that we would report back
[3:27:45] on and give to the city manager and staff so that you'll have an itemized list of
[3:27:49] exactly what was done, why, and the path along the way. Okay. Um, but
[3:27:54] we spoke exhaustively about this in executive session, but, so you're asking for
[3:27:58] $2 million and you're not even gonna say you'll for sure get these
[3:28:02] reports.
[3:28:07] I, I've never heard of spending money like this and not having some definitive
[3:28:11] work product. I can speak to the process, but everyone
[3:28:15] should also understand this is not a contract with me or my company.
[3:28:19] so there're many different things. Well, we do have a contract with you, correct? You do have a contract with, this is not
[3:28:24] a contract with cbre to do all this work. Um, so
[3:28:29] they're all, does cbre not generally provide reports when
[3:28:33] they do this kind of work? Will you please allow the person you're asking the questions to, to
[3:28:37] answer the last question you asked before you thank you. Ask another one. Yes, ma'am. If we are performing
[3:28:41] the work, of course we provide reports, um, but we are not the
[3:28:45] company doing all of this work, so it's not appropriate for me to answer on the wide variety
[3:28:50] of vendors that have to work on this. Um, but you will
[3:28:54] get reports for every technical service that is performed,
[3:28:58] and that's related to the due diligence.
[3:29:02] okay. So a report for every technical service?
[3:29:06] yes, ma'am. I, I think just the,
[3:29:10] in general, the best case study is what you all have done for city hall. You authorized
[3:29:15] many different reports, and all of those are applicable in any stay or go decision.
[3:29:19] so that's a very good recent example of the work that's been done
[3:29:23] and how the reporting comes out of that.
[3:29:28] what information does staff believe that can't obtain without first spending
[3:29:33] $2 million?
[3:29:42] I mean, city manager, you're asking us for $2 million to do this. What do you think that
[3:29:46] you can't get unless you spend the $2 million?
[3:29:51] so we've, we've talked thank you for the question, councilman mendelson. And I'll just
[3:29:55] say again, um, we have talked extensively in the closed
[3:29:59] session with counsel about the additional due diligence, the things that you're asking for.
[3:30:04] we've communicated that that additional due diligence is not free and that we
[3:30:08] would have to move forward with having the preoc,
[3:30:12] um, acquisition agreements done in order to be able to get that additional
[3:30:16] due diligence. And I think that this council understands and knows what those
[3:30:20] items are because we've talked about those things quite extensively in closed session.
[3:30:28] after you're done with due diligence, what deliverable do you see coming to
[3:30:32] the city council?
[3:30:39] okay. Based on what's before you today, we've talked about the
[3:30:43] need to bring back true costs, negotiated terms,
[3:30:47] um, whether it's reports around systems, environmental,
[3:30:51] all the things that council has requested, and to where we can give you that
[3:30:55] information to where you can truly see the difference between the cost
[3:31:00] of repairing city hall and the cost for move. And those are the things
[3:31:04] that you've asked us to do. So my hope would be that as cbre completes
[3:31:08] this additional work, if council proves to move this forward, that would be what
[3:31:12] should be expected for us to bring back to you. How will
[3:31:16] staff determine whether a site succeeds or fails either during
[3:31:21] the due diligence period, after the due diligence period? Or will all
[3:31:25] of it come to council? I think this city council and
[3:31:29] several conversations have asked us to bring all the information back to you. Okay.
[3:31:34] is there anything that would constitute a deal breaker that would cause you to,
[3:31:39] um, leave one of these for sites?
[3:31:44] I can answer that question at this time, but I do believe that at any point
[3:31:48] in the process, if we see something or know something that we is detrimental
[3:31:53] to the city, we would have the responsibility of raising the flag and making
[3:31:57] sure that that's known to the body. And we would definitely not want to recommend something that
[3:32:01] would not be, um, in the best interest of the city. So that is my
[3:32:05] responsibility and that is what the council should expect.
[3:32:09] will the due diligence include independent third party reviews, or will
[3:32:13] will it rely primarily on information provided by the property owners?
[3:32:21] I think cbre is working and have a responsibility of, of working on
[3:32:25] behalf of the city and protecting our interests. And I'll let mr. Jansen chime
[3:32:29] in, but they have a responsibility of representing and making sure that the due
[3:32:33] diligence, the validity of the work, the accuracy of the work they are working
[3:32:37] on our behalf. I'll add,
[3:32:42] um, licensure and reliance is
[3:32:46] very important for all technical work. Um, and if the city wants to
[3:32:50] rely on reports, uh, sometimes it's important that you pay for those and
[3:32:54] not a third party owner, um, to avoid any, uh, conflicts or
[3:32:58] misrepresentations or anything like this. So, um, that is part of the strategy as
[3:33:02] to why we are requesting this, um, deployment of funds,
[3:33:07] um, so that you have the latitude to independently get information.
[3:33:11] um, it would be the direction, or it could be the direction of this council going
[3:33:15] forward, that that information is then reviewed by another party. That's a distinct possibility.
[3:33:20] um, but we would give you recommendations on what may or may not need to be reviewed
[3:33:25] and why. Um, but you all can feel free to direct, um, the
[3:33:29] team more broadly on what might need to be reviewed.
[3:33:34] how was the $2 million figure determined? It's a pretty round number.
[3:33:39] I, I would defer that to executive session discussion.
[3:33:46] I don't actually recall that being discussed in executive session. I'm
[3:33:50] not sure if you were in at the time, but we did talk about why that up to
[3:33:54] that number it was, uh, important and just from the work
[3:33:58] and just what the industry currently, uh, shows, we talked about why we
[3:34:02] believe that that would be a number. This does not mean that that is what would be spent, that's why it
[3:34:06] says not to exceed and it's up to that amount.
[3:34:12] so you're saying that there's some analysis that
[3:34:16] determined that 2 million was an appropriate number that
[3:34:20] maybe I missed in I was in the restaurant or something? I mean, I, I do not recall that. Yes, it was
[3:34:24] presented in executive session. Okay. Um,
[3:34:28] what is the maximum reimbursement any single property owner could receive
[3:34:33] undetermined at this point and, um, deferred to executive session?
[3:34:38] um, again, in the spirit of transparency, you don't know exactly what
[3:34:42] needs to be done on every single site and what can be negotiated to be, um,
[3:34:46] covered, um, or expended by counterparties during different points
[3:34:50] in the negotiation. But, um, it's impossible to project exactly
[3:34:54] what a maximum minimum could be. But, um, the broader strategy is
[3:34:58] to perform comprehensive due diligence and bring that back to you all.
[3:35:03] so you're not expecting to spend half a million per property, you may spend more
[3:35:07] on one and less on others. I, I think the line of question
[3:35:11] compromises your negotiation position. Okay. Um,
[3:35:16] what if staff spends the entire 2 million and concludes that none of the sites are
[3:35:20] suitable? I'll just state this again,
[3:35:25] the due diligence. If council authorizes this item will be brought back to the city
[3:35:29] council, the information will be shared and at that time,
[3:35:33] counsel will be given additional direction about how you would like to proceed.
[3:35:39] I'd like to ask the city attorney what terms the city manager
[3:35:43] is actually authorized to negotiate without the council
[3:35:47] based on this, um, this, um, motion.
[3:35:59] I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Yes. Can you stop my time? Thank
[3:36:03] you. What terms can the city manager is the city manager authorize
[3:36:08] to negotiate without returning to counsel? Based on this
[3:36:12] motion? Connie tankersley will take
[3:36:16] that one.
[3:36:23] the follow up question is what limitations are there? So,
[3:36:27] um, the city, by passing this resolution, the city manager can authorize
[3:36:31] what essentially will be the scope of diligence that staff
[3:36:35] determines and cbre determines is necessary for any one of the
[3:36:39] sites based on, um, all the information they have to date.
[3:36:44] so it's, it's negotiation of terms for the scope of the due
[3:36:48] diligence and city manager. Have you already determined what that scope
[3:36:52] is? Are you able to share that? I do not have that in front of me.
[3:36:57] that will be the work that we will be doing over the summer as part of
[3:37:01] the due diligence in collaboration with cbre.
[3:37:05] what provisions protect the city if a property owner fails to cooperate or
[3:37:10] provide complete information? So we are, the city attorney's
[3:37:14] office is work, going to work with cbre on the final form of
[3:37:18] the pre-acquisition agreements to assure that our, um,
[3:37:22] necessary protections, um, provisions are in there. So
[3:37:26] we will be working with them on the final form. And then
[3:37:31] specifically of the items that are being talked about, um,
[3:37:35] what will be withheld from the public as a result of these agreements.
[3:37:40] so, as I said earlier, any information that is produced in
[3:37:44] the performance of the pre-acquisition agreements that would be necessary for the city
[3:37:48] council to receive an executive session for its deliberation,
[3:37:52] um, to authorize the city manager to take another direction, the
[3:37:56] next steps that would not be subject to open records. While it
[3:38:00] is, um, protected under executive session beyond
[3:38:05] this 2 million, what future expenditures should city council reasonably anticipate?
[3:38:09] that's not a question. Councilwoman middleston, with all due respect, I can't answer
[3:38:13] that question at this time. I think that you, it is a matter of
[3:38:18] this item that is before the council is for this purpose, and I can't tell you what's
[3:38:22] on the other side of that until I get further direction from the council. What
[3:38:26] financial risks are associated with spending contingency funds in this manner?
[3:38:36] I think in the earlier conversation and in two questions that have already been asked
[3:38:40] about the contingency fund, uh, that the cfo has already highlighted
[3:38:45] of the ways that we've used the contingency fund, how it's been, um, authorized
[3:38:49] by this council. And so I do believe that we've already addressed at this
[3:38:53] point that this is not our overall contingency. This is one component
[3:38:58] of our contingency reserves that we have set aside and that it was an appropriate use
[3:39:02] and it did not impact us being able to finish out whether it's the
[3:39:06] current fiscal year and if there are other needs that arise. I think we've already answered that
[3:39:10] question. What's our current balance of our contingency account?
[3:39:26] as stated earlier, it's 10.1 million. We started the year with 10.3.
[3:39:30] you used $200,000 for the non-conforming use item
[3:39:35] 10.1. So by reducing it by 20%, what risks
[3:39:39] are we adding to the city? I I do
[3:39:43] not think we're adding risk. We still have, uh, in addition to the contingency
[3:39:47] reserve, we have, uh, have other reserve funds. If
[3:39:51] the situation were to arise our fmpc specifies
[3:39:56] for contingency reserve levels, how does this impact that?
[3:40:02] so the contingency reserve, uh, requirement
[3:40:06] is to budget to be between 0.5 and 1%.
[3:40:11] we started the year at 0.52, so we used 200,000.
[3:40:16] we will drop below the 0.5, but we will replenish
[3:40:20] it as part of next year's budget as we do in previous years. We
[3:40:24] leave compliance with our fmpc then the compliance is
[3:40:29] we, we start with that amount. Any use of any of our reserves would drop below
[3:40:33] the amounts that are stated in the fmpc. The fmpc
[3:40:38] requires that we have $50 million in emergency reserve. If we used
[3:40:42] it, then obviously we would fall below that until we replenished it.
[3:40:47] and how many days of, um, operating dollars does this
[3:40:51] put us at? Um, we are currently at 63
[3:40:55] or so. It, I don't think it'll drop a full day.
[3:40:59] okay. Thank you. Um, so at
[3:41:04] what point in this whole process does the counsel have the ability to say, no, we're
[3:41:08] not leaving
[3:41:13] council can make whatever decisions that you deem that you wanna make at any time?
[3:41:17] I think based on where we are today and the direction that
[3:41:22] we received last week, um, and the additional requests
[3:41:26] for information that several of the council members who are, um, here
[3:41:30] today have asked us to bring back, this is the course of action
[3:41:34] that we believe is most prudent to be able to bring back the additional due diligence
[3:41:38] that you've requested and to really give the side by side that we've continued to hear
[3:41:43] that this city council needs. And so my recommendation, of course,
[3:41:47] uh, is to, if that's what council wants, allow for us to do
[3:41:51] this additional due diligence. And if council does not want that, give me the guidance that
[3:41:55] I need in order to move forward. Okay. So you expect that once
[3:41:59] you bring it back, the council would have a go or no
[3:42:03] go vote.
[3:42:09] the due diligence process will be taking place over the next few, few months. Um,
[3:42:13] I do believe that the goal would be to come back before we have a finalized
[3:42:17] budget council, uh, understands that the budget is due to the city council
[3:42:21] by, I think it's august the 11th. And so we would plan to come back
[3:42:26] and have information available for you so you'll be able to give additional
[3:42:30] direction and hopefully during that time period.
[3:42:34] what opportunities will residents have for outreach and meetings?
[3:42:39] our police academy, the city staff, is holding community
[3:42:43] meetings so far. Only thing I've heard of is, uh, relying on council
[3:42:47] members to hold meetings. Will the city staff be, um,
[3:42:51] engaging with the public on this topic?
[3:42:57] I'm not sure I understand the question. If the question is, will we over the
[3:43:01] course of the summer engage with residents as we're doing the due diligence? Is that
[3:43:05] the question? Because about the whole topic, we, we would not entertain
[3:43:10] in any meetings before we do the due diligence and bring
[3:43:14] it back to the city council because we wouldn't have the results of that work. And so I, I
[3:43:18] don't think I'm understanding the question.
[3:43:22] the question is, the city hasn't done outreach on this topic, which we have
[3:43:26] for almost every other topic in the city. And instead the
[3:43:30] answer was, well, if a council member wants to have it, they can. But even
[3:43:35] something like the police academy, we currently have staff out
[3:43:39] there trying to that's your time for this round. Well, I'm repeating the question to her.
[3:43:43] that's your time for this round, mr. Roth. So, so she's not gonna answer
[3:43:47] the question. She can, but that's your time for this round.
[3:43:51] thank you, mr. Roth. You
[3:43:56] recognize for three minutes? Uh, thank you. Um,
[3:44:00] the, the resolution as I read it, authorizes the city manager
[3:44:05] to negotiate and execute a pre-acquisition
[3:44:09] agreement. Um, will we be seeing
[3:44:13] the, the pre-acquisition agreement before it is
[3:44:17] executed? Will we have a an opportunity to review the details,
[3:44:22] uh, which define the terms, responsibilities and this cost sharing?
[3:44:27] um, it seems like this is a pretty complicated,
[3:44:31] it's a, it's an important, uh, uh, document that,
[3:44:36] uh, we're going to be, uh, authorizing a signature on.
[3:44:40] but that's not clear to me that this body either
[3:44:44] in public or in an executive session, would have the opportunity
[3:44:48] to, uh, really review what that final pre-acquisition
[3:44:53] agreement is going to state. Could you sort of help me understand
[3:44:58] the process in your auth, in your authority to execute
[3:45:02] this agreement with, without or with our, uh, acquiescence
[3:45:07] to it? Mr. Roth, I wanna make sure that I understand
[3:45:11] your question. Are you asking are we bringing back the results if this
[3:45:15] moves forward? Are we bringing back the results to the council? I, I guess I'm
[3:45:20] not understanding the question. Okay. I'm sorry. To clarify, we're authorizing
[3:45:24] you to negotiate and execute a
[3:45:28] pre-acquisition agreement, but we don't know what
[3:45:32] the terms of that pre-acquisition agreement are going
[3:45:36] to state. So, mike, and there's a lot of different terms. This
[3:45:41] could be a very complicated agreement. And I'm wondering, and it, and
[3:45:45] it's specific to the various property owners and the
[3:45:49] various properties that we're investigating. My request is, and my,
[3:45:53] uh, ask is that are we going to be able to see
[3:45:58] the draft of that agreement before you sign it?
[3:46:03] are we going to be able to help you, uh, weigh in
[3:46:07] on what are the terms that are gonna be in this agreement, which
[3:46:12] is going to be a binding agreement on
[3:46:16] us? And so I, I'm just, you know, I just want to know what
[3:46:20] we're signing. Thank
[3:46:24] you for the question, miss mr. Roth. So as part of my responsibility as a city manager,
[3:46:29] city council members don't negotiate agreements on anything,
[3:46:33] we would be coming back bringing you what we've
[3:46:37] done through this due diligence process for city council to entertain,
[3:46:41] get feedback, engage, redirect. That would be a part of
[3:46:45] the process. When we use the word negotiate, it's the way we do now, whether we're
[3:46:49] talking about negotiating contracts that still come to the city council for
[3:46:54] approval modifications except or reject, that would be the exact same process that
[3:46:58] we would undertake as part of this due diligence. It would not be anything different than
[3:47:02] the responsibility that I have now. Uh, and again,
[3:47:07] I'm sorry to be clumsy in my question. I'm not asking, uh, whether or
[3:47:11] not you're going to get the due diligence product. What I'm trying
[3:47:15] to understand is we are making a binding agreement
[3:47:19] to commit to do certain things in term, especially
[3:47:24] spending up to $2 million in money. And my
[3:47:28] question is on that agreement, what are, what are the terms of that agreement
[3:47:33] going to be before you execute it and make it a binding agreement?
[3:47:37] this isn't just buying, uh, toilet paper, it's,
[3:47:41] we're talking about spending a lot of money to really
[3:47:46] try to do the right due diligence. And I'm concerned that I wanna make sure
[3:47:50] that that agreement does have the authorization for us to
[3:47:54] get the correct information and make sure that the monies are
[3:47:58] being spent and that if something isn't in that agreement, that we are
[3:48:02] able to at least weigh in to give our recommendation or suggestions
[3:48:07] to you to assist you in your negotiation of that deal.
[3:48:11] not that we are negotiating, but that we have the opportunity to weigh
[3:48:15] in to the final agreement, uh, to, uh, give you our
[3:48:19] feedback. Our, our, uh, that's your time suggestions for this round. Thank you,
[3:48:24] chairman. Ridley, you're recognized for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Mayor. Mr.
[3:48:28] jansen, could you come back to the mic? What is your expectation
[3:48:33] as to the time that it will take to
[3:48:38] complete due diligence of the items that you've described, including the
[3:48:42] environmental assessment, the test fit by space
[3:48:47] planners, the engineering, your architectural designs, uh,
[3:48:51] et cetera? Uh, it varies. Unfortunately,
[3:48:55] I can't give you a precise answer. Um, I, I think the thematic
[3:49:00] answer is a lot can be accomplished in the next eight weeks. Um,
[3:49:05] and whether the path requires supplemental due diligence
[3:49:09] and or, um, different deliverables is somewhat, um, fluid
[3:49:14] until you actually start that, the environmental survey being the
[3:49:18] prime example of that. Um, but a fair amount of work can be done in, in the next six
[3:49:22] to eight weeks. Okay. Uh, but you're not promising
[3:49:26] to bring the full due diligence work
[3:49:30] product back by a certain date, I take it.
[3:49:35] yeah. The full scope has not been, um, uh, completed
[3:49:40] in terms of, of schedule and dates and deliverables and things like this, but, um,
[3:49:44] I'm, I'm not making any, uh, commitments, uh, personally or or on
[3:49:48] behalf the company to do certain things within a certain timeframe. Um, but I think
[3:49:53] in prior examples and prior situations like this, the vast
[3:49:57] majority of the work can be completed to give you all the, the indicative findings,
[3:50:01] uh, in the next six to eight weeks. Okay. Uh, question for the city
[3:50:06] attorney. Um, we have heard the description
[3:50:10] of what due diligence will entail, as I've just
[3:50:14] mentioned in my question to mr. Jansen involving
[3:50:19] assessments, space planning, engineering work, et cetera.
[3:50:23] I see, uh, I've heard nothing in that definition of
[3:50:27] due diligence or in the written description of
[3:50:31] item one on our agenda that authorizes the city manager
[3:50:37] to negotiate a term sheet for a lease or
[3:50:41] a purchase option for any one of the four relocation
[3:50:45] sites. Would you confirm that, that, that
[3:50:49] this resolution does not authorize any negotiation
[3:50:53] of actual lease or purchase terms?
[3:51:02] here comes our real estate expert.
[3:51:10] okay. Hi. Um, okay. The, the resolution today is
[3:51:14] not authorizing any terms for an actual deal,
[3:51:18] a transaction to acquire the property. All it's doing is authorizing
[3:51:23] diligence. So, uh, the, it's authorizing, uh,
[3:51:27] work to produce the information that the consultant can bring back
[3:51:32] so that you can deliberate and select a possible
[3:51:36] option, whether it's a lease, lease purchase, or a straight out
[3:51:40] buy. But it isn't authorizing her, uh, the ability to negotiate
[3:51:44] those terms or our consultant. It's not authorizing anyone to actually
[3:51:49] negotiate those terms. It's really about the diligence so that you
[3:51:53] can select a site. Okay. Uh, thank you city attorney.
[3:52:03] alright, um, chairwoman mendelson, you're recognized for three minutes.
[3:52:07] thank you. I'm gonna go back to the question we left off
[3:52:11] with. Will the city be conducting any public input sessions
[3:52:20] over the course of the next few weeks? If council moves forward with this item, we will
[3:52:24] be doing the work. We will be working on the budget. I would not expect
[3:52:28] that during the summer when council is actually on recess, that there will be
[3:52:32] any meetings that I would be asking my staff to go and conduct. I think as
[3:52:36] we've done with other public conversations and other meetings, even the meetings that
[3:52:40] are happening now around the academy, we do that in consultation with council.
[3:52:45] we don't prevent council members from having meetings. If there are meetings that staff has been
[3:52:49] requested to attend. We try to accommodate multiple meetings of multiple
[3:52:53] council members across multiple districts every single week. So in this particular regard,
[3:52:58] over the summer, my attention will be focused on developing the budget,
[3:53:02] and my attention will be focused on this body of work. If this is the direction that council
[3:53:06] would like for us to proceed. So between now and I would say the time that
[3:53:10] we come back with the budget, we will be busy working to bring back
[3:53:14] a product that gives council the more information and it gives
[3:53:18] you the additional due diligence that you have requested. That's what we will be focused on
[3:53:23] over the summer. So I heard a lot of words and I think the answer
[3:53:27] was just no. Is that correct? What I'm sharing with you is the
[3:53:31] reality of the work that we would have to be doing during this time. We don't,
[3:53:35] we typically do not have meetings, um, during the month of july
[3:53:39] that take us outside of the, the, the priority that we have, which everyone knows is
[3:53:43] the budget. We spend the entire summer working on the budget. And
[3:53:47] if council moves this item forward, we would be working on this as well. And we would coordinate
[3:53:52] with any council member as we do now, if there's a meeting that you would
[3:53:56] like to have, we would work through that with you as we do all of the community
[3:54:00] meetings that are out in the, uh, respective districts. So we would not be going away
[3:54:04] from the process that we already have that we do now for any council that want. There
[3:54:08] have been meetings that have been happening all across the city and
[3:54:12] any council member that requested for us to participate, we've tried to make ourselves available
[3:54:17] for that. I'll agree. So I'm not preventing any council member from having
[3:54:21] any meetings. I'm just sharing with you what the city manager's office will be focused
[3:54:25] on over the summer. I'll agree with you. I think the staff is, um, incredibly
[3:54:29] accommodating for any kind of town hall that any council member
[3:54:33] wants to have on any topic. And I would really commend you for that. However,
[3:54:37] what's been missing since this topic, reared its head in october,
[3:54:42] is I don't believe there's even once been a city outreach. It's
[3:54:46] only been from specific council members. And
[3:54:51] as a rule, I think we see this happen for almost every other
[3:54:55] subject. And so it's just been very apparent how that has
[3:54:59] not happened on this topic. And, you know,
[3:55:03] it, it, it's in, um, juxtaposition to the overwhelming
[3:55:08] number of emails we've received that we're not even doing that kind of outreach.
[3:55:13] let me ask this. What measures have been put in place to avoid even the appearance of favoritism
[3:55:18] towards a particular property or a particular property owner?
[3:55:28] if the question is, for me, there are no favorites, I think council deserves information.
[3:55:33] I think you want us to come back and bring you true costs. The analysis
[3:55:37] that have been requested, the details that you've requested, there are no favorites
[3:55:41] and that is not the direction that I would advise my staff or I would have
[3:55:46] cbre proceeding as if we've already developed who are
[3:55:50] favorites or not. That is not the way we operate. Well,
[3:55:54] specifically the question is if there are any measures that have been put in place
[3:55:59] to avoid any kind of appearance of favoritism.
[3:56:07] the answer that I gave councilman middleston is my answer.
[3:56:14] have any government entities or nonprofits been approached about
[3:56:19] considering co-locating with any of the properties under
[3:56:23] consideration?
[3:56:27] in the most recent closed session that we had with city council last week, we shared information
[3:56:31] with the body about some potential consolidations and
[3:56:35] that information was shared with you during that discussion.
[3:56:41] and does that consideration impact the evaluation
[3:56:45] of the properties? I'm
[3:56:49] gonna ask that you steer clear of the topic of closed session.
[3:56:54] if the information hasn't been shared outside of closed session. Shouldn't be the topic of a conversation out here.
[3:56:59] thank you. That's the end of my questions. Mr. Roth, do you recognize for
[3:57:03] three minutes? One, two minutes? Uh, one minute. One minute.
[3:57:08] um, my, my, just a quick, I ran outta time on my previous quick
[3:57:12] question and I don't know that you had an opportunity to answer it. Uh, will we
[3:57:16] see a, uh, uh, the pre-acquisition agreement
[3:57:21] before it is signed, uh, either an executive session or, or
[3:57:25] publicly, uh, or is that just going to be negotiated and handled and
[3:57:29] we, and we'll just live with whatever, uh, whichever agreement y'all have.
[3:57:34] so I wanna be very careful when you say live with the purpose of
[3:57:38] the due diligence is to bring that back to the council
[3:57:43] and at any point in time, whether it's a change or accept
[3:57:47] or reject, a modification would be done when that information is
[3:57:51] provided. So what I cannot tell you council member roth, is that between now and that time
[3:57:56] period while city council is off on recess during the month of july,
[3:58:00] that I would even have that information available. But when we do get
[3:58:04] the information, we would be bringing that back to you the same way we do agenda
[3:58:08] items. I don't bring you draft agenda items before they appear. We would give
[3:58:12] you an opportunity to know what we're going to present and then give council
[3:58:17] an opportunity to weigh in and engage. But I can't promise you that between now and august
[3:58:21] that I would have all of that ready to bring you a draft, go back and forth during
[3:58:26] the time that council is out of, off, off on your official recess. But as soon
[3:58:30] as we know that we have the due diligence and it's in a shape and in a form that we can bring
[3:58:34] it to you, that's what we would be providing. This will not negate
[3:58:38] council's ability to ask questions. It does not negate council's ability to
[3:58:42] reject anything that we bring back. But as part of that due diligence,
[3:58:46] that is what you're asking, I think for me to do. And I'm sharing with you that I don't
[3:58:51] bring drafts and do negotiations back and forth with council members
[3:58:55] about what we're working on until it's ready to come in a form that gives you an opportunity
[3:58:59] to weigh in and have a deliberate debate about it. And that would be the
[3:59:03] same process that we would utilize for this. It would not be different.
[3:59:09] uh, thank you. Uh, and, and I'm sorry that my question is not clear. It is
[3:59:13] not about the due diligence, it is about the terms
[3:59:17] of the pre-acquisition agreement. That's
[3:59:21] what I'm interested in finding out what is going to be in that agreement.
[3:59:26] it's not in the due diligence that you're gonna acquire, it's not in the process,
[3:59:31] in the information that we're gonna be presented later. I wanna
[3:59:35] see the agreement that we're signing to start this
[3:59:40] process that that authorizes us to spend $2 million.
[3:59:46] and that's your time, ms. Mr. Roth.
[3:59:51] I will just say that as part of the work that has
[3:59:55] happened now, even with the work that seabury has done, we have brought every
[3:59:59] step of the way that worked to the council. We would do the exact same thing
[4:00:03] that we have done up until this point. We would not be deviating from that.
[4:00:07] thank you. Um, I think the city attorney had an answer
[4:00:12] to a previous question they wanted to clarify. And then I'm gonna go
[4:00:16] to ms. Blackman for three minutes.
[4:00:23] hi, uh, I don't wanna confuse someone, but just to clarify,
[4:00:27] diligence is a wide scope that has to be determined based on
[4:00:32] cbre's, um, input as to which, which, what type of
[4:00:36] diligence pre-acquisition work has to be done for each site.
[4:00:40] okay. That may include the negotiation of terms,
[4:00:44] um, of what is the diligence for that particular site
[4:00:48] as to what is the best opportunity on that site, whether
[4:00:52] it's a lease to purchase, lease purchase, uh, lease to own.
[4:00:57] so that is part of diligence. The the difference though is
[4:01:02] while they, while they can gather up all that information,
[4:01:06] the city ca city manager will not be authorized to execute
[4:01:11] a final decision or a final agreement
[4:01:15] as to any one of those options. Um, this also, uh,
[4:01:20] the resolution also authorizes to execute the scope
[4:01:24] of all that. So cbre will be negotiating
[4:01:28] all of those items and allowing, bringing it to the city manager.
[4:01:33] and she will execute the agreement that includes all those.
[4:01:37] but as to the final selection, the
[4:01:41] option, the lease lease to lease to purchase, or a straight out
[4:01:45] buy, the city council will see another resolution for that based
[4:01:49] on her determination and presentation to you in executive session
[4:01:54] of all of that information from the diligence. So I hope that helps. So
[4:02:02] five. Um, you ed three minutes, ms. Blackman. Thank you. Wait, wait, connie, um, just to
[4:02:06] clarify, so the due diligence part of this is actually,
[4:02:10] basically even though there's not authorization to eng
[4:02:15] engage or to actually sign on the bottom, on the end of it, she is acting or
[4:02:19] they are acting as, as a, they're, they're negotiating for
[4:02:23] us. They are actually creating a deal, if you will. Correct. 'cause that's part of diligence.
[4:02:27] but there is to go out there. Okay. But there's no authorization to
[4:02:32] enter into a final deal. That's correct. That's correct.
[4:02:36] but that all part of diligence, trying to find the best model for that building.
[4:02:40] okay. Thank you. Um, so I guess,
[4:02:44] peter, you said it's six to eight weeks to do all this work
[4:02:50] and miss city manager, you are working on the budget in july
[4:02:55] and you said, I guess I'm trying to understand, when is this gonna come back to us? Is
[4:02:59] it at the end of august? The beginning of august, september? I'm, I'm trying to understand
[4:03:04] if, and it could be general. I, I, I would say that
[4:03:08] my goal because of the budget, and I've said this before, that we've already started
[4:03:12] and we are aggressively involved in the budget work now that my goal would be able to bring
[4:03:16] it back when I believe that it's in a form and shape and form that council can have
[4:03:21] some additional debate and make some decisions. My goal would be to not drag
[4:03:25] it out past august because that doesn't give me enough flexibility to be able
[4:03:29] to make any adjustments in the budget. You'll receive the budget the second week of august. We'll
[4:03:33] go into budget workshop discussions, town halls. So my goal would be to deliver
[4:03:37] it sometime in august. I can't give you an exact date because we're still working to
[4:03:41] get approval to move forward once we know that we're moving forward. We'll work on a timeline
[4:03:46] and I can send the council a memorandum over the summer that tells you how we're
[4:03:50] tracking on a timeline. Well, I'm just trying to reconcile his
[4:03:55] timeline with your timeline , because, uh, you're saying eight weeks
[4:03:59] to do, I guess 'cause you're negotiating and people are probably outta town in
[4:04:03] june and july, um, or july and august and you're bringing it back
[4:04:08] the, when we come back in the middle of, of august. So I'm trying to reconcile
[4:04:13] six to eight weeks in your timeline. It'll be my job to
[4:04:17] reconcile, uh, and to be able to share with counsel if we have enough information, even
[4:04:21] if it's preliminary, what I can bring back. Um, I'm giving you the timeframe
[4:04:26] based on the budget. Definitely need to do the work with mr. Janssen and
[4:04:30] his team to be able to refine that, uh, that timeline. But that's just what we
[4:04:34] know as of today. Okay. So we, when we get back and we look at the
[4:04:38] budget, if we are going to make a move, it should, those
[4:04:42] numbers should be in the budget going into next year. That
[4:04:46] would be my recommendation. But again, that's a final decision of the council. And,
[4:04:50] and so, um, will you be able to show us where that line item is? 'cause
[4:04:54] it's a big budget.
[4:04:59] 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
[4:05:03] I think that's what you, sometimes I know where it can be buried somewhere. Well,
[4:05:07] I will tell you, we, we have no barr funds and we have a lot of work
[4:05:11] to do between now and the time that I present a budget, um, knowing our
[4:05:15] current budget and what we're facing going forward. Okay. Thank
[4:05:19] you ms.
[4:05:24] yeah. Ms. Kani, you recognize for three minutes? Yes. Yeah. So,
[4:05:29] uh, talking about the public engagement, I think it would be helpful to have
[4:05:33] a timeline if possible. Um, because I know like for some of
[4:05:37] the postings, the, um, you know, the, it's
[4:05:41] maybe not posted 24 hours before the meeting. And so I'm, we're not some,
[4:05:46] I know when I did my public meeting, I wasn't sure when I would
[4:05:50] have material or what material I could even possibly have to present
[4:05:54] at the public meeting. And when I did ask, um, for help, staff
[4:05:58] was great. They showed up. Um, I had mr. Jensen there, he came,
[4:06:02] but it was, um, difficult to plan that because
[4:06:07] there wasn't much help on what material I would even have to present.
[4:06:11] and so I'm just wondering, is there any way that we can
[4:06:15] have some guidance or a timeline so that we are able to know when we
[4:06:19] can have those, that public engagement? Thank you for the
[4:06:24] question. Councilman medina. My responsibility will be to get a timeline ready.
[4:06:28] I just can't give you that off the top of my head today. I think that's going to, again, need
[4:06:32] to align with the work that we have to do over the summer. Um, and
[4:06:36] the expectation would be that we would provide whatever we have from a public
[4:06:41] standpoint that we could begin to share. This council has continued to ask for side
[4:06:45] by side. Well, I can't give you a side by side today because there are too many variables that we have
[4:06:49] not been able to go further into beyond the market exploration
[4:06:53] to be able to provide that. As soon as we know that we have something that we can make available,
[4:06:58] I'll give you a, a timeline, be able to lay that out for you. And I
[4:07:02] just wanna clarify something about the town hall meetings. A lot of what was being asked for
[4:07:06] at the town hall meetings was work that had been done by outside consultants.
[4:07:11] the last six months of activity and work was not the staff's work, it was
[4:07:15] the independent consultants who had done the work. And so oftentimes we were being
[4:07:19] asked to come to meetings to answer the questions about the work that the consultants had conducted.
[4:07:23] and so my responsibility will make sure that this process and what we're doing during
[4:07:28] the due diligence will be what staff is doing in coordination with
[4:07:32] cbre and the public side of that. That does not compromise the
[4:07:36] real estate components of this. That we would help provide some type of a public,
[4:07:40] uh, form information that could then be shared, but this information
[4:07:44] is needed in order to be able to bring that back and be able to do that for you. So I can't
[4:07:49] give you a timeline today, but definitely we'll work on that over the summer with all the other things that
[4:07:53] we have underway. Yeah, I would just ask that we would make sure that we provide time
[4:07:57] for public input and present material to them as well.
[4:08:02] um, which brings me to one more question. So I think peter mentioned
[4:08:06] that, um, cbre was maybe not doing this study, so
[4:08:10] I was wondering what is facilities and real estate management since the funds are going there?
[4:08:14] are they, is the funds just going through that department or who's cycle?
[4:08:19] that's just the payment cycle? We have, we have departments,
[4:08:24] ics funds, object codes is just the formality.
[4:08:28] so the funds can be dispersed, but again, that is a not to seed amount and
[4:08:32] if we don't need all the funds, we're not gonna spend all the funds. But it's just where the funds will
[4:08:36] be sitting. They will approve any kind of invoices and then authorize those payments
[4:08:41] that then go to the controller's office to process. Okay. I just, I needed clarity
[4:08:45] if it was the department that was involved or if it was just cpre. So thank you.
[4:08:49] yes, ma'am. Um,
[4:08:54] deputy mayor proam, you recognize for five minutes.
[4:09:03] okay. Um, chairman ridley, you're recognized for one minute
[4:09:08] follow up question for the city attorney.
[4:09:21] so in the previous round, ms. Tankers lee, you responded to my
[4:09:25] question about the scope of this resolution and due diligence as not including
[4:09:29] any negotiation of terms. And yet subsequent to
[4:09:34] that exchange, you came back and reversed your opinion
[4:09:38] saying that due diligence will include negotiation of terms.
[4:09:42] what caused you to reverse your position on your previous opinion? So
[4:09:46] for me, having done real estate for 31 years plus, um,
[4:09:50] due diligence includes what, what would be the best options for a particular
[4:09:55] site? Um, and so terms for me with regard to
[4:09:59] a final transaction would be that, but it stops short of that.
[4:10:03] so the scope of due diligence would include, uh,
[4:10:07] things like, you know, what is the best, best opportunity there
[4:10:12] that you're receiving from the property owner? But then it stops short of
[4:10:16] the final negotiation. So that's why I said that. So I'm sorry if there was any confusion
[4:10:20] on that. But, um, in the real estate, uh, market,
[4:10:25] obviously you would wanna get non-binding, uh, potential opportunities
[4:10:29] for the particular sites, whether it's, uh, asking the property owner
[4:10:34] what's the best lease opportunity for your building or what's the best,
[4:10:38] uh, lease to purchase opportunity, what's the best straight out acquisition?
[4:10:42] but you're not negotiating those final terms, you're just seeking them.
[4:10:46] so that's all part of due diligence. Well, so back to my
[4:10:50] original question. This resolution doesn't expressly authorize
[4:10:55] any negotiation of terms or a term sheet
[4:10:59] for entry into a lease or a purchase agreement. Does it? It, it, it
[4:11:03] nego, it authorizes her to negotiate and execute,
[4:11:08] uh, define and define the terms for a relocation option.
[4:11:12] the only thing it doesn't say it stops short of a relocation option.
[4:11:17] um, uh, limited to a lease option or
[4:11:21] an, uh, a buy option or a lease to purchase option.
[4:11:25] so that's all part of the diligence that cbre needs to flush out
[4:11:29] and they're not authorized to do that yet. So they could bring her back
[4:11:33] all those three opportunities for each one of the sites and then
[4:11:37] present that to you and, uh, executive session and you deliberate
[4:11:42] and give her further direction. So she is not authorized to execute
[4:11:46] on any one of those opportunities yet, but she can get all the information
[4:11:51] she needs to present them to you and then have a final negotiation with
[4:11:55] those property owners. So there's no authorization in this resolution to enter
[4:11:59] into even a non-binding term sheet. Um,
[4:12:04] I would say that they can present a non-binding term sheet because that's kind of the term of art
[4:12:08] in the industry. It's a non-binding, uh, listing of the terms
[4:12:12] that they can present. Yes. Thank you mayor.
[4:12:18] anyone else wishing to speak on for against agenda item one.
[4:12:22] seeing none, madam secretary, call the role please. Thank you mr. Mayor,
[4:12:26] when I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor. No. If you oppose. Council
[4:12:31] member west. Yes. Council member moreno? Yes. Council member
[4:12:35] gracie? Yes. Council member kana? No. Council
[4:12:39] member basil doa is absent when vote
[4:12:44] taken. Council member blair? Yes. Council member blackman?
[4:12:48] no. Council member stewart? Yes. Council member roth?
[4:12:52] no. Council member mendelson? No. Council member willis?
[4:12:57] yes. Council member ridley? No. Deputy mayor pro
[4:13:01] tem johnson? Yes. Mayor pro tem resendez? Yes.
[4:13:06] mayor johnson? Yes.
[4:13:32] with nine. Voting in favor. Five opposed? One absent vote. Taken the item. The motion
[4:13:36] passes mr. Mayor. Alright, that's great. Um, we're gonna move on to the
[4:13:40] next item after we take a recess until one 30. And
[4:13:44] so we're staying at recess for 12 minutes.
[4:13:49] I'm recognized, um, cheryl willis for an
[4:13:53] announcement. Yes, we have a birthday. Uh, council member blackman,
[4:13:57] happy birthday to you. We've got a wonderful cake, a swiss madrina cake
[4:14:02] from hank's european bakery in district 13, but
[4:14:06] it was your request so I'm sure we can
[4:14:10] sing and that's when I step away from the mic ,
[4:14:23] just in case you guys didn't hear that. We're at recess until one 30 so you guys can
[4:14:27] take a bio break. Alright. I'm told the broadcast
[4:14:31] is ready is back up. So we're back
[4:14:36] in our special call meeting. It's 1:39 pm ma'am, secretary
[4:14:41] and, uh, chairman west. You recognize I have a d to the record. Oh,
[4:14:45] we're gonna read the item to the record and then you're recognized for a motion. Thank you, mr. Mayor.
[4:14:49] agenda item two is a resolution one to authorize the
[4:14:53] city manager to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements
[4:14:58] that define the terms, responsibilities and cost sharing between the
[4:15:02] property owners and the city of dallas in order to conduct necessary due
[4:15:06] diligence work for no more than four property locations in dallas
[4:15:11] sites for the purpose of assessing the relocation option
[4:15:15] for 9 1 1 and emergency operation staff and functions
[4:15:19] from 1500 marilla street to transfer appropriations
[4:15:23] in an amount not to exceed $1 million from
[4:15:28] the arpa city hall generation and
[4:15:32] electrical repair line item to a new arpa city hall pre-acquisition
[4:15:36] line item and authorized disbursement of payments to conduct such
[4:15:41] due diligence for the sites, including cost reimbursement to the
[4:15:45] property owners for the performance of due diligence deliverables. And
[4:15:49] three, to direct the city manager to bring the due diligence
[4:15:53] results to city council for their consideration not to exceed
[4:15:58] $1 million. This is your item, mr. Mayor. I move to approve this
[4:16:02] item with the following, change to the source of funds by eliminating reference to
[4:16:06] the transfer of arpa funds and instead authorize the city
[4:16:10] manager to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed $1 million from the general
[4:16:14] fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase
[4:16:19] appropriations in an amount not to exceed $1 million in facilities and
[4:16:23] real estate management from general fund contingency fund reserve.
[4:16:27] is there a second? Second. So we moved in second. A discussion chairman west
[4:16:32] and discussion wo mendelson. Yes. Uh,
[4:16:36] I moved to amend the motion to require any
[4:16:40] facility considered for a new 9 1 1 center to have sufficient parking
[4:16:44] for the number of 9 1 1 staff members scheduled at peak call time
[4:16:48] with the same secure amenities they enjoy today. Secured access
[4:16:53] of vehicles, secure path from door to car with cameras and security
[4:16:57] personnel barrier to ensure non-authorized personnel can't enter
[4:17:01] parking area or shoot into the parking lot. Second,
[4:17:05] it's been moved in. Second discussion chairwoman mendelson. Sure you
[4:17:09] recognize for five minutes. Thank you.
[4:17:14] many of us, you know, we park in a very specific area, but
[4:17:19] just across the way, a little bit more towards the red elevators, that's
[4:17:23] where the 9 1 1 operators generally park. And what you might
[4:17:27] notice sometimes when you're coming or going is that the operators are sometimes
[4:17:31] sitting in their car and they're doing that to have a moment
[4:17:35] of privacy, a moment of relief. They can make a
[4:17:39] phone call with anyone overhearing it. They can just decompress from
[4:17:43] what is arguably an extremely stressful job.
[4:17:48] sometimes they need to cry after a terrible call,
[4:17:53] but what they know is they can walk from the 9 1 1 center
[4:17:57] to their car with complete security. They leave
[4:18:02] a badge access area, then they leave a second badge access area,
[4:18:06] then they walk out the door to the garage, which is also badge access
[4:18:10] into a parking garage that has an actual guard and
[4:18:14] gates. No matter what time of day it is, those gates are working
[4:18:19] and they can go there and know that they're safe. As we
[4:18:23] consider, uh, relocating the 9 1 1 center,
[4:18:28] the same level of security needs to be able to be provided for
[4:18:32] the call takers. It's possible
[4:18:36] that, um, pods could be developed. I've visited
[4:18:41] a number of 9 1 1 centers that have secure pods so that you
[4:18:45] can make a phone call without everyone in the world hearing it.
[4:18:49] you can have a private moment to decompress, but
[4:18:54] still we have operators that will be coming and going at every hour
[4:18:58] when discussing the 9 1 1 center. One of the things we heard about
[4:19:02] is how it's an aging workforce. If you've gone down there, I think you might
[4:19:06] agree that's true. Um, and also there's people with various
[4:19:11] level of mobility that are doing that job. And
[4:19:15] to ask them to leave an unsecure area
[4:19:19] at all hours of the night is to actually limit
[4:19:24] our recruiting potential and our retention potential. And
[4:19:28] if you're a nine one operator, you got a lot of choices and jobs. There
[4:19:32] is not a single law enforcement agency that isn't looking to hire you,
[4:19:38] especially if you're already experienced. You already have a tco license.
[4:19:43] they have a lot of choices and so this
[4:19:47] is extremely important to their quality of life and their decision
[4:19:51] to stay with the city. So I hope you will support making sure that we are providing,
[4:19:56] uh, the kind of facility with parking,
[4:20:00] secure parking for all of our staff. Thank you.
[4:20:05] anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelssohn?
[4:20:09] seeing none. A record vote will be had on all these, uh, for item two as well. So
[4:20:13] madam secretary, please call roll. Thank you mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes if
[4:20:17] you're in favor. No. If you oppose council member west. No. Council
[4:20:22] member moreno? No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
[4:20:26] ena? Yes. Council member basil doa is absent
[4:20:30] when vote taken. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
[4:20:35] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
[4:20:39] yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
[4:20:44] no. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro
[4:20:48] timm johnson. I'm sorry. No.
[4:20:54] mayor pro tem resendez? No. Mayor johnson? No.
[4:21:00] with five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent vote. Taken the
[4:21:04] amendment fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Chairwoman mendelson.
[4:21:08] I have a motion to amend the, I have an amendment to the motion
[4:21:13] to require all properties considered for new 9 1 1 facilities have
[4:21:17] equal or better physical protection for the continuity of operations
[4:21:22] as 1500 marilla, including general and physical building
[4:21:27] security protections against terroristic attacks, weather events like
[4:21:31] tornadoes and cyber attacks. Second. So we moved in second.
[4:21:35] any discussion chairwoman mendelson? I,
[4:21:39] yes. You have five minutes. I'll just say this really ought to be self-evident
[4:21:44] if you vote against this. I don't even know what to say. But the
[4:21:48] possibility is that we could choose one that
[4:21:52] has less fortitude than what we have today. Less
[4:21:57] redundancy. So I, I am very glad
[4:22:01] we're gonna have a record vote and if, if you care
[4:22:05] about 9 1 1 operations, you'll at least approve this one. Thank you,
[4:22:09] mayor pro tem, we recognize for five minutes. Really briefly, just wanna repeat. Once again,
[4:22:13] regardless of how this vote goes, we'll still have the opportunity to address those issues. Thank
[4:22:18] you. Anyone else we should speak on for, against the amendment by chairwoman mendelson.
[4:22:22] seeing none. Record vote. Madam secretary. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name,
[4:22:26] please state yes, if you in favor? No. If you oppose council member west. No.
[4:22:30] council member moreno. No. Council member gracie? No. Council member
[4:22:35] kna? Yes. Council member basel dua. It's is absent when
[4:22:39] vote taken. Council member blair? No. Council member blackman?
[4:22:44] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
[4:22:48] yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis?
[4:22:53] no. Council member ridley. Yes.
[4:22:57] deputy mayor pro timm johnson. No. Mayor pro timm resendez?
[4:23:02] no. Mayor johnson? No. With five voting
[4:23:06] in favor. Nine opposed? One absent. Absent. Vote. Taken. The amendment
[4:23:10] fails. Mr. Mayor, what purpose? Chairwoman mendelson. I move to amend the motion
[4:23:14] to require all properties considered for a new 9 1 1 facility. Have
[4:23:18] equal or better layers of redundancy for con continuity of operations
[4:23:23] at that site? Over 1500 marilla, including power, telecommunications,
[4:23:27] radio systems, cybersecurity, staffing, physical security, backup
[4:23:31] facilities, and disaster recovery. Second. It's been moved in a second. Any discussion
[4:23:36] chairwoman? Sure.
[4:23:40] five minutes. If you would not
[4:23:45] agree to equal or better layers of redundancy for continuity
[4:23:49] of operations of our 9 1 1 center, then clearly every single
[4:23:53] vote today is just simply no matter what they say to
[4:23:57] us, vote no. Like without
[4:24:02] any level of thinking. Many of you were endorsed by public safety.
[4:24:06] say you promote public safety. This is the most basic of public
[4:24:11] safety functions. So you wanna vote? No.
[4:24:16] I guess that'll just be another vote on the record for everybody. But shame on you
[4:24:21] ms. Blair. You recognize for five minutes? I wasn't gonna say
[4:24:25] anything today, but I am gonna say something on this. This is the whole purpose
[4:24:29] that we're doing this exercise. It's for better, not for, for consistency,
[4:24:34] for more security, not status quo. For better
[4:24:39] quality of life for our employees, not less,
[4:24:43] for better, uh, access to technology.
[4:24:48] not, not less. So I'm, I'm failing to understand
[4:24:53] why we're going through an exercise when we're asking the, the whole reason
[4:24:57] we're doing these things is to give our employees
[4:25:01] better than what they have secure, more secure than
[4:25:05] what they have and more technology than what they have. Thank you mayor
[4:25:11] chairwoman mendelson, you recognize for three minutes. Thank you. I'd like to emphasize
[4:25:15] that the amendment says to have equal or better.
[4:25:20] so if you are for equal or better, you would support this
[4:25:25] item. I love that anybody would be talking about what
[4:25:29] the employees want. I don't believe the employees have been asked
[4:25:33] in the 9 1 1 center, because many of them have told me they have not.
[4:25:40] there are things that I cannot say because of executive session, but
[4:25:44] this was purposely written this way
[4:25:49] to ensure that the selection of any facility
[4:25:53] would be equal or better. There's
[4:25:58] a reason I'm concerned that we might pick, I won't pick.
[4:26:02] you might pick a facility that is worse.
[4:26:08] there is every reason to be concerned about that. And so
[4:26:12] again, the motion clearly states,
[4:26:16] all properties considered for a new 9 1 1 facility have equal
[4:26:21] or better layers of redundancy for continuity of
[4:26:25] operations at that site. Over 1500
[4:26:29] marilla. And then it lays out the actual systems,
[4:26:34] power, telecommunications, radio systems, cybersecurity,
[4:26:38] staffing, physical security, backup facilities, and disaster
[4:26:42] recovery. These are all essential components of a 9 1 1 center.
[4:26:47] and the question is only do you demand we only review properties
[4:26:51] that are equal or better, or are you willing to consider things that are worse?
[4:26:57] if you vote no to this, you're willing to consider things that
[4:27:01] are worse than what we have today. And frankly, some of you have said some pretty outrageous
[4:27:05] things about what happens there. Thank you. Chairman
[4:27:09] west, you recognize four or five minutes. Uh, I just want to
[4:27:13] ask the city attorney on this. Um, the language used in
[4:27:18] the this motion in the last one, uh, is equal or better?
[4:27:22] is that what, that's very subjective. Um, is that
[4:27:27] leaving it up to the interpretation of the council member? Who makes that
[4:27:31] determination when the, when the items are brought back to us or
[4:27:36] what's your understanding of that?
[4:27:41] I believe my understanding is about to be shaped by the city manager.
[4:27:45] first of all, let me say something. As the
[4:27:50] city manager who's responsible for over
[4:27:54] 13,000 employees, not just those that are in the 9 1 1 center, the emergency
[4:27:58] operations center, it is my responsibility to make sure that
[4:28:02] whatever I bring back to the city council does not compromise their safety,
[4:28:07] their security technology. None of those things
[4:28:11] would be what I would ever recommend, period. So as
[4:28:15] part of the due diligence and the process that we would undertake, we would
[4:28:19] never start working to negotiate anything
[4:28:23] that would be less than what we have. And I don't want anybody to think that I
[4:28:27] would even be doing my job by
[4:28:32] bringing counsel something that you would have to pick something less. So as
[4:28:36] part of the due diligence as part of this process, we would
[4:28:40] not bring council anything that would create any
[4:28:44] type of a compromise for our employees. That is my priority.
[4:28:49] and I'm not going to subject the city council to that. I just wanna
[4:28:53] say that because I'm hearing it and make, it's making me feel that this body
[4:28:57] believes that I'm gonna bring you something where those things are gonna be compromised.
[4:29:02] I would not be doing my job if that's what I did.
[4:29:07] it won't be council members making the subjective decision
[4:29:11] on whether these facilities are equal or better.
[4:29:15] it will be public safety trained personnel and experts in
[4:29:20] that field, including our own experts in the city. Correct.
[4:29:24] there is defined criteria for what it's required to
[4:29:28] operate an emergency operation center and a 9 1 1 center. And we will
[4:29:32] be using those best practices and those standards that are already set at the
[4:29:37] national level. Thank you.
[4:29:43] it's one minute. You recognize for one minute.
[4:29:48] thank you. You know what's required on a 9 1 1 center and what we have now are
[4:29:52] two completely different things. We have an incredible center.
[4:29:56] we have verifiable, not subjective, um, numbers
[4:30:01] of phone trunks, fiber routes and lines, numbers of
[4:30:05] electrical fields. And I'm saying that all of the measurable criteria
[4:30:09] we have today equal or better because
[4:30:13] I don't think that's what we're gonna see. And I would
[4:30:18] not share what was said in executive session, but I brought this amendment forward
[4:30:22] for a very specific reason. Thank you. Anyone else wanna
[4:30:26] speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman mendelsohn? Seeing none.
[4:30:30] record vote. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Thank you mr. Mayor, when
[4:30:34] I call your name, please state yes. If you in favor? No. If you oppose council
[4:30:39] member west. No. Council member moreno. No. Council member
[4:30:43] gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes. Council member
[4:30:47] basil dua is absent when vote taken. Council member
[4:30:52] blair? No. Council member blackman?
[4:30:56] yes. Council member stewart? No. Council member roth?
[4:31:00] yes. Council member mendelson? Yes. Council
[4:31:04] member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes.
[4:31:10] deputy mayor pro timm johnson? No. Mayor pro.
[4:31:14] mayor pro timm resendez. Sorry about that. No. Mayor johnson?
[4:31:19] no. With five voting in favor.
[4:31:23] nine opposed? One ab one vote. Taken. The motion fails mr. Mayor. And
[4:31:27] I'm gonna ask the people who are in the gallery to refrain from reacting
[4:31:32] to the proceedings today. It's just we don't do that. Okay.
[4:31:36] thanks.
[4:31:47] the motion failed. Mr. Mayor. Chairman mendelson. For what purpose?
[4:31:53] this is for my final amendment to this motion. Uh, move to
[4:31:58] withhold authorization to move any 9 1 1 operation from this
[4:32:02] building until a new facility is fully functional and tested, staff
[4:32:06] may not move 9 1 1 operation to the backup center while waiting for a new
[4:32:10] facility to be completed. Is there a second? Okay.
[4:32:14] it's been a second. Do you wanna just I do. Five minutes. Um,
[4:32:19] I would encourage my colleagues to go to the backup center. What you'll find
[4:32:23] it is far, far too small for any kind of sustained
[4:32:27] operations. And I mean, in excess of a day. It does not have
[4:32:31] secure parking. It doesn't have sufficient backup. It does,
[4:32:35] it does have security issues. It does have,
[4:32:40] um, an in, in insufficient facility
[4:32:45] in terms of kitchens, bathrooms,
[4:32:49] not to mention dfr and their 24 hour shift. I am
[4:32:53] not really sure what you guys are doing and it seems unbelievably
[4:32:57] reckless to me. I'm very concerned about this outrageous push
[4:33:02] to abandon this building. We'll put our resident's ability to call for emergency
[4:33:06] assistance at their most greatest need.
[4:33:10] this rushed effort is a disaster of our own making.
[4:33:19] that it. Alright, mr. Roth, you recognize for five minutes?
[4:33:26] thank you. I was, I was actually, uh, going to respond to the motion.
[4:33:31] I, I'm, I'm gonna withdraw my, my request. Anyone else wanna speak on for, against the
[4:33:35] amendment by ms. Mendelson? Seeing none, madam secretary, please call the roll.
[4:33:40] thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose
[4:33:44] council member west. No. Council member moreno? No. Council
[4:33:49] member gracie? No. Council member ena? Yes. Council
[4:33:53] member basil doa is absent when vote taken. Council member
[4:33:57] blair? No. Council member blackman? Yes. Council member stewart?
[4:34:02] no. Council member roth? Yes. Council member mendelson? Yes.
[4:34:06] council member willis? No. Council member ridley? Yes. Deputy
[4:34:10] mayor pro timm johnson? No. Mayor pro timm resendez? No.
[4:34:14] mayor johnson? No. No. Thank you.
[4:34:19] with five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent. One vote.
[4:34:23] taken. The motion fails. Mr. Mayor, for what purpose? Mr.
[4:34:27] raw? I'd like to make an amendment to the, uh, to the
[4:34:31] motion please. I'd like to, uh, reduce the, uh,
[4:34:36] the, uh, uh, funds available, uh, from $1 million
[4:34:40] down to $250,000. Is there a second? Second.
[4:34:45] so we move in second. Any discussion mr. Raw? Uh, yes. I I think you have five minutes. Thank
[4:34:49] you. Uh, I think that, um, our, our opportunities here
[4:34:53] are going to be very limited, uh, in terms of the practicality
[4:34:57] of, of really considering alternative o opportunities.
[4:35:02] I don't think that, uh, a million dollar authorization for doing due
[4:35:06] diligence at this point in time is, is, uh, appropriate.
[4:35:10] I think that's a lot of money to be spending on, on, uh, reviewing,
[4:35:15] uh, potential sites that really would not practically qualify
[4:35:20] for, for our opportunity. And I would suggest that, uh, these amounts,
[4:35:24] uh, be reduced if, if additional amounts are necessary, uh,
[4:35:28] due to specific, uh, requirements or specific exigencies
[4:35:33] that, uh, that there be a requirement to come back to us for allocation
[4:35:37] of additional funds. Chairwoman mendelson, you recognize for five minutes,
[4:35:43] um, on the motion I support reducing the dollar amount,
[4:35:48] its at some point we have to actually think $750,000 is
[4:35:53] meaningful and stop saying things like it's just a drop in the bucket
[4:35:57] for our $5.2 billion budget. Seven $50,000
[4:36:01] matters.
[4:36:05] would city management or cbre characterize,
[4:36:09] um, the consensus of this group that there may be
[4:36:15] less interest in a broader number of options?
[4:36:37] I think answering that question materially, I negatively impacts
[4:36:41] your negotiation leverage in the market. So I think that should be reserved for executive
[4:36:45] session. Were
[4:36:49] there options considered that are already city owned? Again,
[4:36:54] I feel like that, uh, impacts your negotiation ability. Uh, and
[4:36:58] I think that should be punted to executive session. Mr. Mayor, if
[4:37:02] I could just add the authorization of
[4:37:06] the funds does not mean that we have to
[4:37:10] expend all the funds. This is to allow the room for
[4:37:14] the flexibility that we need during this process. And if those funds
[4:37:18] are not needed, we will not spend those funds.
[4:37:23] respectfully, city manager, I am unaware of a single instance in seven
[4:37:27] years where funds were authorized and every dollar wasn't spent and then some coming
[4:37:31] back for a change order. And mayor, your smile tells me, you know, I'm right.
[4:37:36] so I would never want to over authorize for
[4:37:41] city government and any kind of fiscally prudent
[4:37:45] body would never do so. So I very
[4:37:49] much support your motion. I think we know where it's headed anyhow, but thank
[4:37:53] you for bringing it forward and thank you for considering, um, the
[4:37:57] taxpayers. Anyone else wanna speak on for,
[4:38:01] against mr. Roth's amendment? Seeing none, madam secretary,
[4:38:05] please. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, when I call your name, please state yes. If you're in favor. No.
[4:38:09] if you oppose council member west. No. Council member moreno.
[4:38:14] no. Council member gracie? No. Council member kadena?
[4:38:18] yes. Council member basil is absent and vote taken.
[4:38:22] council member blair. Council member blackman? Yes.
[4:38:26] council member stewart? No. Council member roth? Yes. Council
[4:38:31] member mendelson? Yes. Council member willis? No. Council
[4:38:35] member ridley? Yes. Deputy mayor pro timm johnson?
[4:38:39] no. Mayor pro timm resendez? No. Mayor johnson?
[4:38:43] no. With five voting in favor. Nine opposed? One absent
[4:38:47] vote. Taken. The motion fails mr. Mayor. Okay, we're back on.
[4:38:51] uh, chairwoman mendelson for what purpose?
[4:38:56] I was just getting in line for the main motion. Yeah. Okay then you're first,
[4:39:00] you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you.
[4:39:06] my first question is, is there any anticipated interruption in the emergency
[4:39:10] communication function? No.
[4:39:21] has an independent continuity of operations assessment been conducted?
[4:39:28] that is not something we have before us, but before we would make any recommendations
[4:39:32] on any potential relocation once council authorizes that that
[4:39:36] would be a part of our process as we would do any other emergency operations within
[4:39:40] our city. In considering
[4:39:44] a move of the 9 1 1 center, what would be the cost of new equipment that must be purchased
[4:39:49] for a new center that has not been developed
[4:39:53] at this time? Is
[4:39:57] there a coordination of changes in operating expenses at a new
[4:40:01] facility? I'm sorry, consideration of changes in operating expenses
[4:40:05] at a new facility versus maintaining city hall operations?
[4:40:11] depending on the options that would be a part of the due diligence and what we would bring
[4:40:15] back to council for consideration. How would the various options
[4:40:20] impact the operating expenses versus staying here?
[4:40:26] that is to be determined. That is not the detail that we have. So you can
[4:40:31] make a decision on whether or not if it's a better cause factor to stay or leave,
[4:40:35] that is part of the due diligence and the information that we'll be bringing back to the city
[4:40:39] council. When I look at that question,
[4:40:44] the call takers themselves, the dispatch, the
[4:40:48] supervisors, those are all fixed costs. That
[4:40:52] would change whether you're, that would not change whether you're here or there. The only
[4:40:56] thing that would be added in my opinion, would be all of the facility maintenance
[4:41:00] issues. Suddenly we have an additional pest control, we have an
[4:41:04] additional, um, security issue. Another building that we
[4:41:09] have to, to maintain, which I think we
[4:41:13] would all say we have been unsuccessful at. Um,
[4:41:17] so I'm very interested in understanding that operating expense issue.
[4:41:21] um, the next question I have for you is that once a site has been
[4:41:26] selected, how long would it take to actually move the operations?
[4:41:30] at this time, a site has not been selected. We have not completed the due diligence.
[4:41:34] I cannot provide you with a timeline. It will depend on the actual results
[4:41:38] of the due diligence and the final decision from the council.
[4:41:44] thank you mayor. That's the end of my questions. And I will say at least when you laughed
[4:41:48] at that last item, that might've been the only laugh we've had here so far today. So that was good.
[4:41:54] I'm glad I could help. Um, ms. Kadena, you're recognized for five minutes.
[4:41:58] um, yes. Uh, for clarification, I, I think that we did, or y'all
[4:42:02] mentioned that we, um, saw where employees lived in relation to some
[4:42:06] of these locations and it says city of dallas, uh, will
[4:42:11] mcc staff, other elected officials and other stakeholders also be taking into
[4:42:15] account? 'cause I know when we've had agencies, we've had all of
[4:42:19] those in the big war room that we, uh, where we, you know, brief on
[4:42:23] what's happening. Absolutely. But for the purpose of this item as it relates
[4:42:27] to the staff, that would be subjected to any poten potential relocation item number
[4:42:32] two, that is data that we've already provided and shared and any additional
[4:42:36] data around others that would have to access a 9 1 1
[4:42:40] eoc. That would be part of our overall analysis, including where my staff
[4:42:44] sits and where they live. Because typically those are the individuals that
[4:42:48] are requested to be a part of emergency operations. The emergency operations
[4:42:53] center. In the event that we're activating it, it's typically our executive team,
[4:42:57] our department directors that have to then report. So we will be taking all of that data
[4:43:01] into consideration as a, as a final decision
[4:43:06] is made by the council. But that is not what we have right now. Right now we do have the data based
[4:43:10] on the employees that actually work within those two units. So, so there will
[4:43:14] be taken in consideration, um, mayor and city council and then other elected officials
[4:43:18] as well? Absolutely. But I do want to say what I just said again. Okay.
[4:43:23] in an emergency situation, the individuals that are typically required
[4:43:27] to report to the emergency operations center is typically the
[4:43:31] individuals that are assigned in that department. The executive team and department directors.
[4:43:36] we will also look at where council members are across the city. But the
[4:43:40] primary, the primary individuals who then reported an
[4:43:44] emergency situation are the two departments. The staff as well
[4:43:48] as the executive team and the executive leadership at the departmental level.
[4:43:52] and I get that. I, you know, I ask out of personal experience, we had the tornado that
[4:43:56] happened in, um, northwest dallas had the plan, uh, gas
[4:44:00] outage, the ice storm. And so me as staff had
[4:44:04] to travel quite a bit in, in order to get information so that I could get it to my residence.
[4:44:09] and so that's why I asked. Thank you
[4:44:13] chairman. Ridley, you recognize for five minutes question for the city attorney.
[4:44:20] this item will not provide any authorization
[4:44:24] to the city, uh, manager to enter into any
[4:44:28] binding terms committing the city to any specific deals,
[4:44:33] as with item one. Is that correct? This is identical to item one.
[4:44:39] I'm sorry. Yes sir. This is identical to the first item
[4:44:44] question for the city manager. Is it your intention to bring
[4:44:49] the due diligence results and reports back to city council
[4:44:53] for all of the up to four locations
[4:44:58] that are going to be the subject of due diligence as opposed
[4:45:03] to screening those and only bringing us selected items?
[4:45:09] we'll be responsible for bringing you the results of the due diligence process and at that
[4:45:13] time there will probably be where we'll be making a recommendation. But again, that'll
[4:45:17] be subject to council guidance and any type of other input and a final
[4:45:21] decision. But our jobs are to bring you back the results of that due diligence
[4:45:26] process on all of the locations that were studied.
[4:45:31] yes. Thank you chairman menison, you
[4:45:36] recognize for three minutes on the
[4:45:40] underlying motion? Yep. I gotcha. Um, so
[4:45:44] with this item previously we were told that transportation
[4:45:49] may be moved. Has that been, um, reconsidered?
[4:45:55] that question was raised in one of the closed sessions. I don't think it was last week, but
[4:45:59] one before. And we answered the question that after going into further analysis, we
[4:46:03] determined that it's at this point those would be the two units that we would be looking to
[4:46:07] relocate at this time. I'm sorry, so what
[4:46:12] are the two units you're looking to relocate?
[4:46:16] this item is for the nine one one call center and the emergency
[4:46:20] operation center. These are the two departments and this time that
[4:46:24] are included in agenda item number two.
[4:46:28] can you speak to the 3 1 1, which has also previously been spoken about?
[4:46:33] that's not in the item that is before the council today,
[4:46:40] but as okay. I, I think you
[4:46:44] know, all I'm saying councilwoman is that 3 1 1 is not a part of this item that is
[4:46:48] before the council today. This item is stated for the emergency operations
[4:46:53] center and 9 1 1 3 1 1 is not included in this item.
[4:46:59] will you be evaluating any of these properties with consideration that you may
[4:47:03] wish to move 3 1 1 in transportation there?
[4:47:08] dependent on the size, the scope as it relates to the square footage and the needs.
[4:47:12] mr. Janssen has talked about the test fitting process that we have to go through. We
[4:47:16] can determine at that time if there is an ability to do that. I've, I've
[4:47:20] answered questions before about the way we're looking at 3 1 1 going forward.
[4:47:25] and I think at this time we have to continue the analysis of what's next as
[4:47:29] it relates to those other two functions. But this item today is for the emergency operation
[4:47:33] center and the nine one one call center.
[4:47:40] I, I'm not really sure what to say because I think that when
[4:47:44] evaluating a building, knowing what else you're gonna put in it is
[4:47:48] important. Especially, I mean, and I,
[4:47:52] I just have to stop the question at that or that statement. And
[4:47:58] some of the things I'm asking obviously have been discussed in executive session,
[4:48:03] but the public deserves to know and I
[4:48:07] don't think it's outrageous to follow up on
[4:48:11] something that has publicly been stated before about transportation. 3 1 1.
[4:48:15] thank you ms. Blackman. Recognize for five minutes.
[4:48:20] okay. So on march 4th, the motion did have 3 1 1
[4:48:25] in it and we've talked about that march 4th last week.
[4:48:29] so I'm just curious, it is dropped off 'cause it says explore
[4:48:33] relocation options for 3 1 1 9 1 1 and emergency operations
[4:48:38] to new government center locations. Yes. And the only thing
[4:48:42] that I was referencing, councilwoman blackman in the question from councilwoman middleston
[4:48:46] is that I answered questions previously about what we were looking at for 3 1 1
[4:48:51] going forward. We've talked about currently the operations of the 3 1 1
[4:48:55] um, component and the number of individuals that are already working remotely.
[4:49:00] and that we were gonna be looking at that model going forward as we go into the budget. Okay.
[4:49:04] so those are my only that, that's my answer. So, but they're not in, they're not in and
[4:49:08] theyre not okay in this item today. 3 1 1 is not
[4:49:12] embedded into this due diligence 'cause this, this resolution has been
[4:49:16] addressed before and I just wanna make sure exactly. Okay. And we, not that
[4:49:20] we will not continue to look at the needs for 3 1 1, but we're
[4:49:24] looking at a model now that might allow for us to have some additional budget savings
[4:49:29] and where that staff is actually located. I'd like to finish working through the budget and
[4:49:33] I'll bring back any recommendations about 3 1 1 as part of that process. Okay. So 3 1 1
[4:49:37] is not part of this. Okay. Can we, uh, talk
[4:49:41] about timeline? We talked about the timeline for the other resolution. Are
[4:49:45] we anticipating a 68 week turnaround and it
[4:49:49] will be in the budget or is it gonna be sooner? I'm just trying to understand when
[4:49:54] will be expecting back this information. I think as I stated before that we
[4:49:58] would work through the timeline in consultation with cbre. The goal would
[4:50:02] be to have as much information as we can as we go into presenting the budget
[4:50:06] to the city council. There might be some refinements that we need before the city council
[4:50:10] adopts the budget, but my goal would be to have that back to you before the end of august.
[4:50:14] I just restating what I said earlier. Um, will we have,
[4:50:19] I can't remember last week, but is this part of,
[4:50:23] um, a bond issuance? Are we gonna have to reconfigure bonds?
[4:50:28] last week at the city council briefing that was delivered on the
[4:50:32] pension bond, the current budget repair cost.
[4:50:37] we included several different options. We talked quite extensively in
[4:50:41] that budget presentation last wednesday about how this, these
[4:50:45] two components could be built into an overall public safety, uh, bond program.
[4:50:49] we gave you a number. We talked about what would be considered the other,
[4:50:54] the other needs that we have right now as it relates to public safety.
[4:50:58] and all of that will come back as well in august for council to have further, um,
[4:51:02] discussion. I do believe that we're planning for an item on the june 24th
[4:51:07] agenda for counsel to give me authorization to start working on that.
[4:51:11] but you've not a proven a bond program at this time. Okay. But we did brief that last week. But,
[4:51:15] but this the but any money that could be utilized for this may come
[4:51:19] from those that pod of funds, ma'am. And we ma'am, ma'am, and we have until august 12th
[4:51:24] to call that election. I think actually like the 15th, but the 12th is that I
[4:51:28] think, I think the 12th is correct. So that's why last week as we laid out, um,
[4:51:32] that whole component in the, uh, presentation that we delivered, we
[4:51:36] showed the total need that we currently have. It addressed everything from
[4:51:40] the property room. I'm doing all this from the top of my head. The property room where we currently
[4:51:45] store evidence vehicles. We talked about the eoc, we talked about 9 1 1
[4:51:49] center and we gave you an overall number right, right. That we would want counsel to
[4:51:54] consider next week. Um, and I want the cfo to correct me if I'm wrong. We're planning to
[4:51:58] have an item that will give me the approval to go ahead and start working to develop
[4:52:02] the final work around that so we can come back in august and get council's direction
[4:52:07] if you'd like to move to a public safety bond program. And, and it's not posted right now.
[4:52:11] it's not in the, it's not in draft form. The agenda for june 24th,
[4:52:15] uh, the final this item is this item for us to consider. Is it on the agenda in the
[4:52:19] draft form or will it be put on tomorrow? Next wednesday is
[4:52:24] actually the voting day, correct. So when we post the agenda
[4:52:28] tonight, I think we have to post the agenda today should there's a draft agenda now. The,
[4:52:32] the final agenda for june 24th should be posted tonight and
[4:52:36] it should be on the final agenda. Okay. So it's not on the draft agenda. That's that
[4:52:40] I, that we have that's been out that we have, it'll be on the final agenda that's
[4:52:44] posted today. Okay. So I guess it's not on this one , I'm
[4:52:49] 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.
[4:52:53] yes, ma'am. And, and I'm trying to answer the question. The june 24th final agenda, which
[4:52:57] we'll post today should have this item should have that item on it, which will be
[4:53:01] for council to consider next wednesday on june the 24th.
[4:53:05] okay. Thank you chairwoman menlyn, you recognize for one minute.
[4:53:11] thank you. So if the body takes a vote to abandon
[4:53:15] and demolish city hall, but the voters get the bond in
[4:53:20] november and they don't authorize the funds to build out
[4:53:24] the 9 1 1 center, then what happens?
[4:53:30] I don't think I can answer that question at this time. I think that would be based on the further guidance
[4:53:34] and the work that we would have to work, that we would have to work through with the city council
[4:53:38] for what options would be considered. But I can't, I don't have a crystal ball. I
[4:53:42] don't wanna give you a hypothetical answer because that will be, at that point what
[4:53:47] decisions would then be made. Is it the intention to wait for
[4:53:51] a yes no vote on the future of city hall based on the
[4:53:55] bond? That is not
[4:53:59] a question that I could answer right now. We have not gotten even approval to even do what
[4:54:03] the item is before you today at this time. Well, I
[4:54:07] would, um, suppose that given the robust
[4:54:11] feedback we've all heard from our residents against leaving city hall,
[4:54:16] that they may crater a bond issuance for a new 9 1 1
[4:54:20] center specifically to stop this action.
[4:54:26] so I hope that it will be considered and I'll, I'll just
[4:54:31] say to the question for ms. Blackman, I was looking at the
[4:54:35] draft agenda early and didn't see this and prior
[4:54:39] councils specifically limited city managers on adding so
[4:54:43] many items at the last moment.
[4:54:51] was that, was that okay? Anyone else wanna
[4:54:56] speak on for against agenda item two, seeing none
[4:55:00] madam secretary, please call the roll. May motion.
[4:55:07] may motion may motion when I call your name.
[4:55:12] yep, go ahead. This is, this is the underlying motion. Thank you. When I
[4:55:16] call your name, please state please state yes. If you're in favor. No. If you oppose
[4:55:20] council member west. Yes. Council member moreno. Yes. Council
[4:55:24] member gracie? Yes. Council member. Ena, no.
[4:55:28] council member baa is absent when vote taken.
[4:55:33] council member blair? Yes. Council member blackman?
[4:55:37] no. Council member stewart? Yes. Council member roth? No.
[4:55:42] council member mendelson? No. Council member willis? Yes.
[4:55:46] council member ridley? No. Deputy mayor pro
[4:55:50] timm johnson? Yes. Mayor pro. Timm
[4:55:54] resendez? Yes. Mayor johnson? Yes.
[4:56:00] with nine voting in favor. Five opposed? One absent vote taken. The motion passes
[4:56:04] mr. Mayor. Okay, it's two 20 and
[4:56:08] the special call meeting's adjourned and it's two 20 and
[4:56:12] we're gonna switch over to the regular meeting, but we need to switch over the
[4:56:16] webex so we will hold off on calling it
[4:56:21] to order until we're ready to switch over. But we're adjourned on the special call meeting at
[4:56:25] two 20.