An hour from now, and we'll call to order the special call meeting at 10 03.

So we are now in the special call meeting, and I'll turn it over to our city manager to lead us through our briefing agenda for today.

Madam City Manager.

Thank you, Mr.

Bearing.

Good morning to the city council.

The first item on the agenda for the special call meeting is a presentation on the financial analysis and funding considerations for priority of our public safety facilities, potential relocation of 911 and our emergency operations center, potential repair plans for city hall, and potential relocation.

All of these items have previously been briefed and discussed with the city council, either in open session or executive session.

And we were asked to return to discuss financial considerations in a much more deeper perspective and be able to bring that back to you.

I do want to take an opportunity to make some additional comments.

Since 1978, when Dallas City Hall opened, the city has historically underinvested and underfunded maintenance repairs and modern updates in this building.

We understand why.

The focus has always been on making sure that the priorities of our residents, whether public safety, parks, libraries, and streets, were important.

And these priorities united councils to pass budgets and fund fund programs that supported those priorities.

Now, 48 years later, in 2026, you face a huge decision because of those priorities.

So I want to give you a quick reminder of the process.

In May and June of 2025, six months after I was appointed as the interim city manager, I brought to this council a briefing documenting the urgent need to reinvest in our public facilities, including City Hall.

In August of 2025, Mayor Johnson directed the Council Finance Committee to examine City Hall's conditions and began exploring financially responsible options.

In October 2025, staff engaged outside experts who came and reported on deferred maintenance needs and structural repairs, roof, HVAC electrical and plumbing, and we provided to this city council an estimate between 152 million and 345 million in November of 2025.

This council directed the city manager to evaluate the possibility of how we could look at key other city departments and where they operated and whether lease and revine or building office space was essential in December of 2025.

They inspected systems and structures so that we could move from the evidence that we were told did not have facts and bring the data to this city council.

In February of 2026, those findings were presented first to the finance committee and later to the full city council.

The analysis concluded that restoration and repairs to the building, just to bring it up to code, was an estimated 329 million.

And that did not include code or ADA repairs.

The council asked for more information March 4th of 2026.

I then engaged a set of new consultants to come and validate the work, refine the scope, and recommend as council requested a 10-year phased repair plan, even with charter plans and the addition of construction efficiencies.

Those consultants have now reported that projected costs are between 532 million and 614 million over the next decade.

So today's information is to help you have that deeper understanding of the financials and how you consider this important decision, but it is not because staff has not provided this city council with the information that you have requested.

We understand that these decisions affect our residents, our taxpayers, public safety, economic development, and so much more.

And we understand that these decisions are hard.

And how we plan today for the city for the future.

And at this time, I'll turn it over to our chief financial officer, Jack Ireland, to deliver today's briefing.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor and members of the City Council, and thank you, Ms.

Tolbert.

So beginning the presentation, as Ms.

Tolbert mentioned, on slide two, we will talk through public safety facility needs, which has been a question, discuss potential relocation of 911, emergency operations center, potential relocation of City Hall, potential repair program for City Hall, and bringing this information to you at the request of the City Council to bring the financial information to you at one time.

So on slide three, as we started working on this, we knew it was important to be mindful of many things, mindful of our taxpayers, mindful of any impact on public safety, on core city services, how we deliver and implement the 2024 bond program, what opportunities we have for economic development and growth of our tax base, impact on our debt and future debt capacity, as well as our impact on our current and future annual operating budgets.

And so if we turn to slide four, thinking about our current and uh upcoming annual budgets, just wanted to pull a slide that we shared with you on May the sixth that talked about some of the challenges that we face from a financial perspective for our annual budget.

As you know, uh we have limitations on our property tax revenue because of state cap, and the state is also considering expanding that cap.

Uh we have sales tax that this year we've seen some contraction and some uh less revenue than we had anticipated.

We anticipate that that will continue.

As you know, we continue to work on meet and confer agreements to ensure uh with our police and fire uniform employees that we have competitive uh salaries.

Uh, our pension contributions, which we've spoken about and which we'll speak about uh as part of this presentation, those costs uh will grow as we uh implement the funding plan that this council and the board approved.

We have we know that we have a goal of hiring more police officers.

We have to stay competitive with our non-uniform salaries.

We've seen this year a rising cost in our employee health benefits.

Uh we're here partly because of deferred uh facility maintenance, and even after this facility is addressed, there is deferred maintenance in all of our other hundreds of buildings that the city operates.

Uh, we do anticipate elimination or reduction in federal funds, and then there's a lot of uncertainty about the economic condition, uh, whether it's inflation, tariffs, supply chain, and other types of factors.

So we realize and know and shared with you on March May the sixth the challenges that we'll be facing.

I'm sorry, Jack.

I need to um for us to stand at ease for a few minutes because we have we're having broadcast issues and we need to make sure the broadcast is back up.

So if you could just pause there and we'll we'll uh stand at ease for let's see.

Two minutes, I'm told from our technical folks.

Two minutes.

So just hold tight.

Yeah, we have to switch the broadcast over from one meeting to the next.

So it's just a technical issue.

So let's need to hold tight for just a minute.

Thanks for your patience.

This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

Okay, I'm told the broadcast is back up.

So go ahead, Jack.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir.

So continuing on slide five, after we look at things on slide four that uh were challenged with, we just laid out on May the 6th some of the ways that we'll be addressing the budget.

I'm not going to read through all of those, but these are items that we presented on May 6th that will be our approach as we go through development of the budget.

So I wanted to shift gears and it may seem out of place, but it is relevant, very relevant, starting on page uh seven to talk about pension obligation bonds because part of this conversation is about our ability to issue debt.

And so one of the factors regarding the issuance of debt is we have held about $500 million of capacity in our debt service model for potential pension obligation bonds.

So we wanted to talk about that and the impact that it could have on the other parts of this presentation.

So just as a reminder, on page seven, we have two employee retirement funds, the Dallas Police and Fire as well as the non-uniform system, the Texas Pension Review Board has oversight of those.

The City Council has approved plans for both of the two systems that meet the state's requirement to be fully funded within 30 years.

However, the uh contributions to Dallas Police and Fire Pension System do become pretty significant in the future.

So moving to page eight, we had uh considered pension obligation bonds, which are taxable bonds that some state and local governments have issued as part of an overall strategy to fund the unfunded pension liability.

And the unfunded pension liability in Dallas Police and Fire is approaching four billion dollars.

Now we have a plan to pay that over 30 years, however, if we wanted to advance that and pay some of that down through pension obligation bond, that provides an opportunity.

However, the use of pension obligation bonds rest on the assumption that the bond proceeds, when you invest those, that they will have a higher yield than the cost of borrowing.

It is all about the timing in the market that you are borrowing the pension obligation bonds at a lower rate than the pension system is able to invest and earn more money.

We have used pension obligation bonds in the past.

We issued about $500 million for the employee retirement fund, the civilian non-uniform fund back in 2005.

So the city has used that previously as a tool.

So this was something that was in our conversation on May the 6th, and it was asked that we take this to a joint committee of finance and the pension ad hoc committee.

That meeting was held on May the 21st.

The joint committee did review the materials and asked that it come back to the full city council for consideration.

That's why it's included in this presentation and relevant for debt modeling.

So on page nine, just a little snapshot of Dallas Police and Fire Pension System.

You can see the funding ratio and the years to be fully funded in the past, and especially on the chart on the left, you'll see that we are now under the 30-year funding requirement.

That is a projection because of the new funding agreement that we have in place.

So moving to slide 10, we did list out a couple of advantages and a couple of cautions related to pension obligation bonds.

Primarily, uh the advantage is again capturing that positive arbitrage if the investment returns exceed the cost of borrowing.

And for Dallas, what that means is that we would be able to reduce our contribution from the general fund over to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, and we would be paying for those bonds through our debt service fund.

So it gives some relief to the general fund.

Now there are cautions.

The GFOA or Government Finance Officer Association.

They do not recommend use of POB, primarily because of the risk associated with uh will the investment returns really exceed the cost.

That is a risk.

It's something that you need to be mindful of.

Also, they cite that issuing pension obligation bonds takes away from your ability to do other capital projects.

That's why we're having the conversation because it is a factor in your debt model.

POBs tend to be complex uh in the way they're uh typically amortized over time and rating agencies may not view them as uh credit positive.

However, uh Irving has maintained their triple A bond rating and they did issue pension obligation bonds within the last uh five years.

So moving to slide eleven, a little more information about the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, their history of return on investment.

So as we think about whether we should borrow money or not, how much will the uh pension system be able to earn once they get the cash?

And so we've just shown some uh background, some of their history back to two thousand six.

Since two thousand six, they've had eleven years where they have been better than their assumed rate of return, which is six point five percent, and they've had nine years where they've earned less than that.

The goal is that they need to average that six point five over time.

Uh their most recent five-year uh average has been five point oh seven, or ten-year average is three point one two.

And that's compared to a current market.

The market condition really is an idea for issuing pension obligation bonds.

Uh right now in the market, it would cost probably six percent or more to borrow, and the pension system, uh at least on a five and ten year basis has not achieved that rate of return.

However, in the middle of the page, you'll see that the last three years in 25 they actually earned 15 percent, nearly 10 percent in 24, and nearly 14 percent in 23.

So as all of us have investments and those go up and down, and you see that in your own statements.

The pension system similarly uh is uh following the market, and you will see uh that years that they do well and other years they do not perform as well.

Moving to slide 12 and 13.

What I wanted to show is we ask our uh actuary, the city's actuary is Deloitte.

We ask them to model some scenarios.

And so slide twelve provides one scenario showing what savings we would have in the general fund if we issued pension obligation bonds and we could reduce our contribution from the one second, Jack, and get the presentation back up.

It looks like a tech looks like this.

Yeah, I'm I'm looking at a hard copy, but I just noticed that I think the presentation is not displaying anymore.

Okay, we can go ahead, Jack.

Thank you.

So continuing on slide 12, just a scenario showing that we would potentially have savings in the general fund, and based upon the pension system being able to invest and earn six and a half percent interest, it would be a save a net savings to the city, depending upon what rate of return they get.

On slide thirteen, uh Deloitte modeled a scenario where this pension system does not earn as much.

It still saves the general fund, but there is a net cost if the pension system has losses.

Detail on both the scenarios are in the appendix.

So sorry, just a those slides I'll summarize on slide 14 and move on to the more important points of the conversation.

Uh the joint funding agreement that the city has with uh DPFPS was approved in December.

The funding agreement satisfies the requirements, and as long as we continue to make our contributions, the plan works.

However, if you want an opportunity to potentially reduce the cost in the general fund, uh transfer some of that cost to the debt service fund, pension obligation bonds is a way of doing that.

However, it comes with risk being able to earn more than what we're paying on the debt.

So I'll move on to the public safety facility needs, and that will show why pension obligation bonds matter.

So on slide 16, as we talk about public safety facility needs and uh needs inventory was used to develop the 24 uh bond program, and there was 727 million dollars worth of public safety needs that were included in that needs inventory.

The voters authorized $90 million for public safety.

The projects included the police academy, fire station 43 replacement, fire station eleven renovation, and various police and fire locations for different types of renovations and repairs for the 90 million dollars.

So now uh several years later, what uh priority projects do we have that could be addressed through a bond program that do need additional funding.

There have been numerous uh conversations about the law enforcement training center at UNT Dallas having a shortfall.

We've had a conversation about expanding that program to include a new public safety training complex.

We've recently had conversations about 911 and emergency operations center that are located in this building and would be better suited to be relocated.

We also have issues with the current police property room, uh crime scene facility and evidentiary vehicle storage that we want to talk about, and then fire station number four replacement.

So I'll go into each of those on the next couple of slides as we talk about the priority public safety programs.

So on slide 17, uh this is information that's been updated for the uh two facilities, the uh law enforcement training center on the left, the public safety training complex on the right, two hundred and twenty-seven million dollars for one, and a hundred and seventy million dollars on the second.

Uh we did update uh the next steps uh for each of those projects with the law enforcement training center.

Uh the the most updated cost is two hundred and twenty-seven million dollars in total.

A guaranteed maximum price agreement is currently being evaluated and should be brought before the council in August for approval, and then there would be additional GMPs later.

For the public safety training complex, uh, depending upon the direction about funding, we would know how to proceed with that facility or not.

So on slide 19, just a summary of the funding for the law enforcement training center uh at UNT campus.

Uh you'll see that we have the $50 million from the 24 bond program.

We have the state grant that you're aware of.

There's work being done towards the private funds that are being raised for the project, and there's an $82 million shortfall on the project.

On slide 20, similar, this was not a project that was anticipated at the time of the 24 bond program.

It has been something that has been discussed and developed since then to go ahead and do that secondary facility, the public safety training complex.

Potential sources of funds are outlined here.

Aviation department, some enabling cost, and so this assumption is that it would be located at the executive airport and aviation would contribute some of the cost associated with the project.

There's sponsorship opportunities for a total of $170 million, with $149 of that being unfunded, and something that could be considered for a bond program.

So the 911 Emergency Operations Center, again, that's located here at 1500 Marilla in the basement, is not ideally situated and could be improved by being located at another site.

We believe after much research on this that use of an existing city facility may be the most appropriate path forward.

If so, the cost associated to relocate is about $40 million.

On slide 22, we have talked less about these, however, we did include this in the either the April or the May briefing that we did to council.

But the property room that's located down at 1725 Baylor is undersized, it does not meet the current needs, and it has some significant improvement and repair issues.

Several years ago now we started an effort to outsource the auto pound, but we are still maintaining those evidentiary vehicles on that site, which is standing in the way of being able to develop that site or sell that site.

So that is an opportunity there.

On slide 23, the bond office worked with the police department on the needs for this joint facility, specifically they were asking for 31 acres, two buildings, enough space for 2800 vehicle storage sites, etc.

And so on slide 24, just looking at the cost of those, and this is preliminary still, but if we use the VILBIC property and move the other operations and keep that property or at least keep part of that property, the cost for the joint facility with the property room, crime room, and evidentiary storage would be about a hundred and fifty million dollars.

If we look at using another site and we have to do a lot of site work, including the pavement for the 2800 parking, etc.

It does drive the cost up.

On slide 25, another facility that we believe is a priority is fire station number four.

It's back here behind the building, just to the south of City Hall at 816 South Ackard Street.

Based on the implementation of the convention center master plan and the anticipated development of the 31 acres that become available, replacement of this fire station, therefore would be a priority before spring of 29 at a cost of about 20 million dollars.

So on slide 26, you'll see a summary of the priority public safety facility needs.

Law enforcement training center at $82 million to fill that gap, public safety training complex that was not considered when we did the 24 bond program, almost 150, relocating 911 and EEOC out of City Hall, 40 million, a joint facility for property room and evidentiary vehicles, $150 and fire station four at 20 for a total of 441 million dollars for priority public safety needs.

So typically we pay for capital infrastructure through bond programs.

So on slide 27, just grabbed a slide that we talked about in May about our bond program.

Typically we use the bond program for all of our capital improvements, whether it's streets, flood, storm, or public safety.

Property tax is the revenue source that's pledged to use for payment of the principal and interest.

We go through our debt capacity analysis looking at our existing debt, debt that's already been approved by the voters but not yet issued.

What is our current and projected property values?

What is our tax rate?

Are we going to change the tax rate or keep it the same?

What other capital or debt needs do we have?

And what's the economic condition and the cost to borrow?

So on slide 28, I just wanted to drop this in to remind everyone of the 2024 bond program, the fiscal year or FY25 column that says year one, we have issued those bonds.

That 250 has been issued.

The FY26 year two, those bonds have been issued.

We're currently planning, unless things change based upon direction from council, to issue 250 million dollars for the third year, fourth year, and fifth year, so 750 million dollars over the next three years to complete the 24 bond program.

However, moving to the next slide, uh this is expanded on from our May the 6th conversation, and this is in the middle green is the May 6th conversation where we had the remaining uh $750 million in the 24 bonds.

We had $500 million for pension obligation bonds.

We had $250 million at that time that we were thinking was the number just associated with the police academy components.

Uh and then we had a future 2029 bond program.

If you go over to the right, uh starting at column K through O, you'll see how that has been updated.

So in the update, the pension obligation bonds to mitigate the risk of when you borrow, spread that out over multiple years rather than entering the market at one time and spread that over three tranches.

Similar in the public safety, instead of it being 250, it's been increased by 191 million to get the to the 441 million dollars.

What the impact of those changes are, it slowed down the 24 bond program a little bit more.

It still requires four years instead of the three, and then it did reduce the 29 bond program by about 100 million dollars.

So if we go forward with a pension obligation bond using this issuance schedule, and we insert 441 million dollars of public safety, this would be the preliminary schedule of how those bonds would be issued.

On the next slide, said the same thing in words rather than a table, but the table on the previous slide again it adds 191 million to the 250 that we talked about in May for 441 million dollars for public safety.

It changes the pension obligation bonds from a one-year issuance, one tranche to three tranches.

So a scenario would allow if the council chose to call an election for November 3rd, has to be called by August the 12th for $500 million worth of pension obligation bonds and $441 million worth of public safety bonds for the priority projects that we just talked through.

So shifting away from those public safety needs and to potential repair plans for city hall on slide 32.

Just as a reminder, the March 4th action that was directing the city manager to bring back some phased uh repair programs.

Uh the city manager uh chose to engage outside industry experts to conduct that work, uh bringing in Grisham Smith and WM2 Company.

CBRE, of course, has been working with us through the process.

We've had a couple of briefings May 20th on phase one and June 3rd on phase two, and you'll see some of those same slides from June 3rd on the next uh four or five slides.

So on slide thirty-three from Grisham Smith's June third presentation, they provided a draw schedule uh for a six point four year scenario that costs four five hundred and thirty-one million dollars, and a ten year scenario for five hundred and fifty six million dollars.

So their bottom line is on page thirty-four, again, the dollar amounts listed there.

WM2 company looking at the same information.

Uh they propose two different scenarios.

One was a five-year implementation for five hundred and ninety-one million, and then on slide thirty-six, a 10-year scenario uh for $61 million.

So again, there are two scenarios are shown on slide 37, five ninety-one to six ten.

So on slide thirty-eight, this is a summary from uh the presentation on June third, and it lays out the four scenarios that you received on June third and compared those to the EDC information that you had uh received previously, and so these are just laid out showing the top row being the corrective repairs, the repairs necessary to uh just I believe the term is a warm lit shell, uh, but then there's additional cost for interiors, uh furniture, uh fixture and equipment, technology, uh, and those type of costs that would get added to for a total capital that's kind of shaded in a little bit of a pinkish color, I guess, uh across about the middle of the page.

If we borrow funds to do it, there is interest cost associated with this.

If we do not borrow funds, then there's not interest cost associated with it.

Uh the scenarios that were provided did indicate that we would need some swing space because parts of the building would need to be uh left during parts of the renovation.

So swing costs are listed as well as 20-year operating costs.

So this is the cost for utilities, custodial, security, and this is a 20-year cost.

And so a lot of times when people hear the number of a billion dollars.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

I know you were you were flowing there, but I think we have another technical issue.

I just want to make sure it looks like we got a screensaver up again.

Is it me?

Okay.

Just um we'll stand at ease for just another couple minutes until we get a an update from the tech folks about how long it'll take to get this fixed.

We're online and ready to go, Mayor.

All right, uh Jack, we're back up and running, so you can go.

Great, thank you.

Continue, please.

So I was about to say on the bottom of slide 34 that uh a lot of the conversation is about billion dollar plus project, but remember that includes the corrective repairs, the additional capital cost for modernization, as well as the cost of borrowing the funds, as well as swing space, as well as 20 years of operating cost.

All of that together is what is in that bottom row, or the total.

So for the next couple of slides, the column that has the red box around it, the Gresham Smith option two is the option that I pulled forward.

Not because it's a recommended option, but because it's the cost was kind of in the middle, and so I took that and we worked uh to spread that cost out over the 10-year implementation based upon the timing of their project.

So on slide 39, you'll see instead of you'll see it in years across the columns.

So year one, the total cost $113 million bottom line, uh year two, $173 million bottom line, etc.

And you can see that going across for a total of $1.5 billion.

Again, in the middle of the page is the capital cost associated with the repair.

The road directly below that interest is if you choose to issue debt to make those repairs.

If not, and you do it with cash, then it's $769.8, which is in the far right column with the red box around it.

So that gets you the corrective repairs as well as the modernization over this 10-year period for $769.8 million dollars.

So moving on to the the next slide on slide 40.

If the council uh wanted to issue debt to pay for the $769 million, it does have the interest.

The interest cost is about $456 million over the 20-year period.

I did not assume that we borrowed it all at once, but rather that we borrowed it in six tranches that kind of match the 10-year implementation schedule.

Uh the tranches are listed there on the right of how much we would need to borrow in each year to follow the schedule that Gresham Smith laid out.

On slide 41, if we did that, what would the impact be?

So the same as changes you make in pension obligation bonds affects debt capacity.

What does issuing 769 million dollars of debt to do the 10-year repair program?

What impact does that have?

Well, again, I've factored in the public safety, which we talked about.

I factored in the three-year tranche, three tranches of pension obligation bonds.

It would require slowing down the 24 bond program even more, instead of just slowing it from three to four years, it would actually spread it out to six years because it puts some of the city hall repairs ahead.

It's just a timing.

What do you do first?

I followed the Gresham Smith uh implementation schedule, so that would result in some slowdown, further slowdown of the 24 bond program, and then it would delay implementation of a future bond program instead of it being a 1.2 or 1.1 billion dollar program, because you use all the capacity for $770 million for City Hall, it drops your other bond propositions down to just $330 million.

So again, it's about the same amount, $769 for City Hall, $330 for other propositions is the $1.1 billion that could be for a future bond proposition, but if you carve out part of that for City Hall, it limits what other capacity you have.

In this scenario, in addition to the $500 million uh pension obligation bonds, the $441 million uh priority public safety facilities.

If you added another $769.8 million for a general obligation program for City Hall repairs, it would take uh the election up to 1.7 billion dollars.

So moving to slide 42, thinking about not doing it with debt, because that is a lot of debt, but doing it with cash instead, uh, what is the impact of that?

Um, so yeah, sorry about that.

Uh so to fund the corrective repairs of the 769.8 million dollars based upon their 10 year schedule.

Uh it does add significant impact or pressure on the annual operating budget.

Uh, and so 152.4 million dollars is the peak year of that, and so the next couple of slides talk about 152.4 million dollars.

This is not a recommendation, it's we wouldn't do all of these things, it's just a math exercise of what 152.4 million dollars equals.

And so moving on to slide uh 44, uh, you see what that would be.

So 152.4 million dollars.

If you were to again a math exercise, uh increase the property tax rate to generate that, that's about seven cents, uh, because each one cent is 22.1 million dollars.

I know we've worked really hard to get the tax rate down, but this would increase it back.

Uh exceeding the 3.5 uh percent cap that the uh vote the state has in place would probably be triggered and we would require an election uh to even do that uh to raise the tax rate that much.

Um, six point nine cents on the median valued home in the city is an increase of two hundred and twelve dollars uh in a tax bill.

Slide 45.

If instead of looking at a tax rate increase, which is our primary revenue, if we decreased operating expenses uh to achieve 152 million dollars savings for that peak year, what does that mean?

Well, I held harmless police and fire, and that left $751 million in other departments.

Uh, that would take a 20% cut to all of the other departments.

Uh or if we just started eliminating departments, uh eliminating all of the administrative uh departments of budget, controller, civil service, data analytics, HR, communications, government affairs, and purchasing, that gets you 45 million dollars to eliminate everything, and nobody gets paid and nobody gets hired and bills don't get paid, and all kinds of things don't happen.

Similar, if you eliminate uh mayor city council and all the appointed offices, that's $50 million.

So eliminating all that together doesn't get you close.

Uh slide 46, another way of looking at it is uh what are our core services versus what are our quality of life services?

So uh picking on uh three of our favorites park and recreation library and uh arts and culture, um, it would take an 86% cut of those if you're just cutting those departments.

Uh again, this is a math exercise.

What does what do things add up to to get to $152 million?

If you wanted to just eliminate employees, that's about $2200 employees out of the general fund, or about uh four out of every 10 general fund civilian employees, not police, not fire, but civilian employees, and cutting four out of every 10 employees means you cut services because it's the employees that provide the services.

So to do this, it's a combination of all this, whether it is some uh revenue increase, some expense reduction, some debt, together provides you different uh strategies to approach it.

It's it's a you know a cafeteria of opportunities on which you select and what you put together to do that type of plan.

And so moving now from repairing City Hall to relocating City Hall, and I asked my friend Peter Jensen, who I think is close by to come walk through uh three slides uh talking about their engagement as they looked at the market for uh City Hall relocation.

Good morning, Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again today.

Um, the city tasks CBRE with exploring the market and finding indicative results for potential relocation scenarios.

So I'm gonna walk you through some of our market findings today.

These are expounding upon some earlier slides as our data has progressively increased in quality uh over the past six months.

First of all, the relocation costs that will be presented in executive session, are a holistic review of all applicable costs.

And our directional findings that there's material savings opportunity that ought to be explored further.

And that's in all scenarios, all six of the benchmark scenarios that have been presented to city council and the public to date.

The methodology includes all of the opportunity costs, consolidation of owned assets were appropriate, lease eliminations and terminations were appropriate, looking at the city's portfolio, the building conditions of relocation candidates, necessary upgrades, and appropriate reserves for 20 years.

That's important because we are no longer forecasting and carrying forth models that uh have zero reserves going into the city's assets.

So in these city hall scenarios, we're carrying appropriate reserves every year so that you're not in these types of situations again.

But the most important thing is that it's an apples to apples comparison, and that's what we were tasked to do.

I want to also correct a prevailing narrative that the city is committed to leasing in perpetuity.

We were tasked with exploring the market for all acquisition scenarios, joint ventures, lease-to-own.

Leasing is, of course, one of those viable scenarios, and one that deserves exploration.

That's what we've done.

But there is no commitment and no policy direction being given to us to only consider lease scenarios.

But as a steward of the public trust and fiduciary, of course, exploring those is a noble uh effort.

But the market has not limited the city to only leasehold interests.

For our work to advance, there needs to be given a directive to go and negotiate.

Um negotiations are always can be terminated.

But the indicative findings are that there are compelling opportunities and solutions available, but other activities need to occur to bring forth final numbers.

Lastly, I just want to point out there there's been a lot of activity in downtown, both good and bad, depending on your perspective and your position in the market, but from a vacancy standpoint, from a uh let's uh buy low sell high, so to speak, um, like Mr.

Buffett advises, uh, this is an excellent time for the city to be in the market, and that has been proven over and over in our exploration work.

If you just look at the cost of new construction and the assessed values of various buildings in downtown, you can see that a lot of them are assessed at probably 10 to 15 percent of new construction cost, um, and I think that's a very interesting uh way to look at this.

Next slide, please.

Uh again, just a little bit of backdrop on the comparative analysis with the market.

Uh we've collected some real-time data.

We have real-time data on cost inputs.

We've applied the same per square foot cost to all of the scenarios.

There's been no cherry picking of data.

Um, parking and garages, whether new construction or leasing spaces for a short-term or long term, those have all been evaluated.

We're carrying some estimates for city council chambers.

Obviously, a public-facing space is very important.

Uh, we're carrying a very high number at a thousand dollars per foot for a city council chambers to be replicated somewhere.

Um, also where appropriate lease revenue, uh, if you were to acquire a building uh via purchase and there's contractual lease revenue from third-party tenants, that's being factored into the models as well, which would potentially bring the city's basis down considerably in those assets.

But just so that we're not uh you know accused of of um uh goal seeking, so to speak, uh we are only modeling contractual revenue.

We're not simulating revenue into the future.

That could be appropriate uh if there were uh eventually other tenants that that decided to locate with the city.

But for now, it's safest and most conservative to model only contractual revenue.

So that's what's in the model.

And then lastly, uh the 20-year occupancy model, we are factoring in property taxes impact, both positive and negative, and then the operating expenses for the various assets.

You know, you can't own buildings and operate them for free, nor can you borrow money at zero percent interest.

And so in the holistic 20-year occupancy model, we feel these are very important figures to include in the comprehensive model.

And then I mentioned this earlier, but there are city leases where you are a lessee right now that are coming up for expiration.

For example, Department of Water Utilities that expires in 2028.

Just continuing at the current pace of spend and eliminating that would be about a $25 million savings over the next 20 years.

So those things are being factored into the model as well.

Next slide, please.

In terms of a qualitative evaluation, a lot of clients ask us to help them think through this from a number of vantage points.

One is an owner, two is as an employer, three is a service provider, four is a fiduciary, and then fifth is called an agent, economic development agent.

And you all are making decisions every day with these different vantage points.

So we have tried to provide a model and an evaluation model for various relocation possibilities with these lenses in mind.

Um I think the most important ones here that really haven't gotten a lot of discussion are the city's role as an employer and as a service provider.

The direction in terms of policy and feedback from staff and council has been to ensure that the service provision is at least equal to the current city hall, if not better, and that the role your role as an employer is sensitive to your relationship with employees, where we can provide higher quality employment environment for the city's uh staff.

So all these vantage points uh create a holistic review of all relocation candidates, and that is what we have been charged and tasked to do.

I'll stop there.

Thank you, Peter.

And so on slide 51, just a couple of more slides from me.

Um the potential relocation of City Hall does provide several opportunities, as Peter mentioned, uh material savings over the 20-year period uh does strengthen our fiscal stewardship.

Uh there's opportunities related to enhancing resident experience and accessibility, advancing operational consolidation and efficiency, improving uh employee morale and engagement, allows us for uh to continue improvements and optimizing our space as well as activating some of our city assets to support economic uh development.

So, in summary, on no one more on slide 52, uh looking at uh funding strategy related to a potential uh city hall relocation.

Um, the numbers, uh Peter will share in uh more detail in executive session.

Unfortunately, not able to do that in open session yet.

As we've talked about, our primary funding sources uh for things continue to be either cash or debt.

But in conversations with CBRE, uh believe that the financial transaction will provide us multiple uh financing options, again, whether it's a lease to own or a purchase, deferral of upfront cost, uh, other opportunities, those are things that would come out through the pre-development phase.

Again, the consolidation of city operations from multiple locations, again, as Peter mentioned, does allow us to terminate some leases and have savings in those areas that could uh result in savings that could be redirected towards City Hall.

We have the opportunity to divest of some of our real estate, some whether it's Oak Cliff Municipal Center eventually or Central Service Center on Canton Street eventually, there is opportunity uh for us to look at our real estate in a different way.

Also uh was mentioned the excess space that may be available in a relocation that would allow us to rent and have a new revenue stream, as well as potential opportunity to co-locate with another government entity that uh I believe is currently looking for additional space.

We also will have the opportunity to share cost uh with uh departments that uh do come into the building, whether it's uh water utilities, uh, who's currently in the building, uh they have some operations that could be moved into the city hall, building inspection could be moved in, and some of those enterprise funds, regardless of what we do, could be used for additional funding sources, as well as historic tax credits and potential tax increment financing uh district funds or other economic incentives that may be available with the relocation that may not be available here.

But I believe all of that uh in a little more detail will be discussed in executive session, but primarily will come out through the predevelopment phase if we move forward in that direction.

So on slide 54, uh last two slides, just in summary of the whole document, uh back to pension obligation bonds, viable option that could help reduce general fund contribution, shifting some of that cost to the debt service fund, but again the risk is associated with the cost of borrowing versus the interest earned.

Uh if the council chose to move forward with that, uh, it could potentially be on a November ballot.

Uh, we would recommend waiting to actually issue the tranches of debt until the market conditions were uh improved.

Uh the next two bullets are about public safety again, priority public safety facilities, law enforcement training center, public safety training complex, the property room and evidentiary vehicle storage and fire station four, as well as 911 and emergency operations center, could potentially be a bond uh proposition for 441 million dollars if you choose to move forward in that way.

Uh looking at the 10-year phased repair program, uh use of debt has consequences uh especially for future bond programs by using the debt capacity for $769 million uh for this building, it limits your ability for other capital improvements, and then cash just trying to pay for it all out of the general fund has some uh consequences on uh service delivery.

Uh but relocation uh to an alternative site uh does provide material uh savings based on the current market conditions again that would be determined through pre-development.

So on slide 55 for next steps, potentially we will be able to get some direction from council today regarding a November 3rd election for whatever you may choose to include.

The date to call that election would be August the 12th.

Uh after I think executive session and questions and answers, then I think there is one item that uh will potentially be voted on today regarding a potential phased uh repair strategy, and then lastly, we will be back in August on August the 5th for additional briefing and August 12th for additional action items.

Uh mayor, that's the conclusion of the presentation.

Okay.

It is 11 o'clock a.m.

on June 10th, 2026, and the special call meeting of the city council will now go into closed session under sections 551.071 and 51.072 of the Texas Open Meetings Act on the following matters described on today's agenda.

Item numbers five and six.

So we will go into special uh we will go into uh executive session and then we will uh come back in an hour.

So we'll call it noon.

Okay.

Okay.

Special calls city council meetings completed its closed session under sections 551.071 and 551.072 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, and at 235 p.m.

on June 10th, 2026.

We've returned to open session.

It's still 235 p.m.

And now the special called meeting will stand at recess until after agenda items number 24 and 25 of the regular meeting are completed.

And now we need to take a moment to allow the meetings to switch over as a technical issue.

We have to actually close one WebEx meeting and open another for the public to be able to see it.

So we'll stand at ease for just a minute until the meeting switches over, and then we will move forward.

Okay, it is now 3:22 p.m.

and the special call meeting of the city council is now called to order, and we're going to go uh have the discussion now on the briefing item A that we heard before.

So I'm now going to turn it over back to the city manager's office to continue our discussion on briefing item A, and it'll be our normal 531 rules for asking questions, nothing different.

So thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

We are actually uh ready to begin the uh the QA for the presentation that was delivered.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Members go ahead and use your machines and chime in.

Assuming the machines work.

I don't see anybody yet.

Oh boy.

For the public, we are on briefing.

Item A.

Okay, so this is a presentation a few hours back, as I recall.

Um we were we were reviewing um uh goodness, our commitments to public safety and other bond projects, and so Jack, if I think you had two scenarios, one where we postponed bond projects for three years, and another where they got postponed for six.

In each case, actually, um, what's the consequence of delaying a project?

If, for example, I'm supposed to put some pickleball courts in, and they're not gonna um happen, instead of happening maybe three years from now, they're not gonna happen either six or nine years from now.

Um what what's the consequence of that?

I think I know, but I'm gonna ask you to help me understand.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Jack Arlene Chief Financial Officer for the City.

And so just to put it back in a little perspective, the different scenarios talked about were if we move forward with a 441 million dollar public safety facilities uh proposition, it would have an impact and result in us delaying the 2024 bond program from three remaining years to four remaining years.

Then we talked about another situation where, in addition to the 441 million dollars in public safety projects, we may also choose to do 769.8 million dollars worth of uh city hall repairs.

In that scenario, it did require that the 24 bond program got stretched from three years remaining to six years remaining.

In those situations, um obviously it delays the the project uh that the community has asked for that the commute the community voted for in November of 24.

Uh there's the risk of cost escalation as you're delaying time.

There's inflation that would factor in, and then would we be able to deliver all the projects or would it reach a situation where everything is so much more expensive that we are not able to deliver yet every single project?

And that's my concern.

Um we will have to make some hard choices, it seems to me.

I don't think if if all of the bond projects go up in cost, and yet we're we're still looking at the same number of bond dollars to cover those projects, then something's got to give.

And so some projects will get postponed to the next bond program or just go to never-never land.

Um, potentially they could go into a future bond program, potentially they could be canceled.

Um, potentially there could be other funding sources identified that would supplement them, but it it would create an issue of uh we only have authorization for seven hundred and fifty million dollars remaining from the 24 bond program, and so the longer you wait, the more inflation, the harder that becomes.

Right, and so say, for example, you were going to put in a rec center, but all of a sudden you have significantly less money for it.

Perhaps you'd have to do it put in build a rec center that doesn't have a gym.

There may be those types of trade-offs that would be discussed.

Right.

So this has an impact on our residents, is my point, and these decisions have a huge impact on our residents and what their expectations are, what their neighborhoods need, what they're waiting for, because they've been told they're on the schedule.

So I just think we have to always think keep our residents in mind.

And in this particular case, under this particular scenario, I don't know that they fare particularly well.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Chairman Ridley recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So Jack, in reference to the portion of the presentation about the pension obligation bonds, when the city prepared its 30-year amortization schedule to satisfy the PRB and the context of the settlement with the pension board, what was the source of revenue that you contemplated to fund that 30-year plan?

So the uh I'll get to the answer, but the final solution was an increase in general fund contributions from the city would uh satisfy the requirement.

Uh we did have the conversation about pension obligation bonds.

We did have a conversation about uh divesting of different uh city assets that might could generate revenue that could be used to pay down the unfunded liability.

Those are the two primary other things that were discussed other than increasing the city's general fund contributions.

Well, and I I agree with you, but the primary focus was, and what I believe this council voted on was general fund increased contributions to meet our obligations under that 30-year amortization plan.

Yes, sir.

That was the final decision, yes, sir.

Absolutely.

And is anything changed in the city's financial condition that makes that no longer feasible?

No, sir.

Uh we still, and I believe I said earlier today, as long as we meet those uh commitments and contributions, we will fully fund in 30 years as expected.

Uh the uh idea of pension obligation bonds could potentially provide relief to the general fund, but it is not a mandate, it's not required to meet the obligations as long as we make those payments from the general fund.

Well, and my concern about the pension obligation bonds, as you point out in your presentation, is that we need the pension board's rate of return to increase above what our cost of funds would be on a bond program, and right now we would be underwater, and so it doesn't make sense to entertain that option at this time.

Is that correct?

So the the last three years the pension fund returns have been uh they've done very well uh 15 percent and 25, 9 percent and 24, nearly 14 percent and 23.

Uh so I don't think we would be underwater the last three years, but when you're looking at a longer term, which we presented in the presentation, their five-year return is five percent, their ten-year return is three percent.

So when you think about it in the longer terms, that is a true statement.

Well, and we have to think about it in the longer terms because we're talking about a 20-year bond, aren't we?

Yes, sir.

All right.

On slide 21 about the 911 and emergency operations center, you um estimate 40 million dollars to relocate those programs because they're not ideally situated to be at City Hall.

What does that mean?

So I'll take a stab unless Kevin come on out.

Um they're currently in the downtown um, obviously in City Hall.

I think there's some situations where it's difficult to get to City Hall under certain uh emergency types of situations.

Uh it being in the in this building uh may add some added risk to it.

Um and so I think looking outside, even though it's immediately outside the Central Business District, uh provides value.

Kevin, I'll let you, sir.

Yes, good afternoon.

Kevin Odin, director of emergency management and crisis response.

Everything that uh CFO Ireland said is correct, and then I would add, um, generally speaking, our peer cities do not co-locate those uh activities within their their central hub of government because of the risk of concentration of services in one place, uh, that increases the uh the risk we have of losing operations or space.

To give you a concrete example, during the um the cheerleading incident last summer, uh we were not able to access City Hall uh in any reasonable amount of time.

We had to actually relocate um to do coordination of that event because of the traffic in and around downtown.

Um, and so we believe that moving these critical functions outside of uh where the center of government is, in addition to uh the traffic and and um uh potential risk that downtown faces expedites our ability to provide emergency operations and emergency 911 uh call taking to our residents.

So there have been any other instances of access interruption to the emergency operations center in the last 10 years besides the cheerleader incident?

Yes, I remember uh the July 7th ambush personally getting into downtown was uh next to impossible.

Anytime we've had uh issues accessing due to snow and ice um conditions here in the downtown area has created um issue, uh it's potential with the um everything going on around FIFA being concentrated in and around this building.

Um that if there are uh any sort of lockdowns or other things that go on, we could have a difficult time getting to uh our site here, and we may have to operate out of other locations.

So, how many snow and ice storms have we seen in the last 10 years that have been exclusively located in downtown?

No, they're more geographically located, but I would say that our ability to get immediate to where we're operating here is curtailed in some of those incidents.

I've had to have staff um based in and around this area uh 24 hours a day just so that we could operate out of this building during those snow and ice incidents.

Well, and don't most of the relevant department heads aren't they already in city hall when an emergency may arise?

Where are they coming from?

Well, if I mean if you're having an emergency in eight to five, yes, you may have many here, but we also have departments that are not based here at City Hall, such as uh Code or Transportation or police headquarters across the way, and then certainly uh most of the big events incidents I've worked over in my career have not been uh within normal business hours, and then so you're trying to uh get people into uh downtown, which if there is an incident that is affecting mobility downtown, that ability to get persons into this building to operate on an expeditious basis, is it it's very difficult and very complex.

Well, it just seems that if that is going to cost us 40 million dollars for the off chance that it may happen once or twice in 10 years, that's a really low capital investment priority.

With regard to the public safety facilities, Jack, there's a reference to the um current evidentiary storage facility at the Vilbig pound, and that that is currently on 71 acre site, and it's proposed to relocate it because it's not large enough, apparently, to a 31-acre site.

How does that make sense?

Thank you for that question.

Um the issue is not that the size the current size is not large enough.

Uh the current location was the site of the auto pound.

And about three years ago or four years ago, the city went through a process of outsourcing the auto pound.

And with the intent of vacating that property at Vilbig and then being able to sell that property for development.

And then we realize, okay, there's still the evidentiary vehicles that are there, even after we outsourced the auto pound.

So the question is do we keep them there and do we move the property room over there with them?

Or do we move them both to another site?

And then we would be able to uh divest of the Vilbig property, the total 71 acres.

But the site that's needed for the evidentiary vehicles is not the entire 71 acres, it's just a portion, and uh their scope would be that they need 31 acres for that locate for that uh function as well as the function of the property room.

So, how many vehicle storage spaces are available at the Vilbeak site now?

This is Martin Riojas, Deputy Director for the Dallas Police Department.

The uh Vilbig site currently has 2800 uh vehicle spaces, and we have currently 2200 vehicles at the site.

So it's oversized for your current needs.

It's it it has right now we do have about 1,300 vehicles that are at vendor properties.

Uh those are those are vehicles that are not held for evidentiary evidence that are towed but not evidence, and so those are sent to the vendor lots.

That's about 1,300, and so with us having that vendor that has freed up space at the auto pound.

So we have about 2,800 spaces available, and we have about 2200 cars right now at the site.

So, Jack, why does it make sense to free up the Vilbig property to sell it, but then we have to buy a new property to transfer the evidentiary lot to?

The opportunity to consolidate with the uh property room and the crime scene unit uh provided some consolidation and collaboration opportunities, I believe, for the police department as those groups uh work together and wouldn't have to be going from location to location.

So having them together on one joint site was the uh the goal.

It was a goal that was asked for in the 2024 bond program.

It did not make it to the final uh proposition, but it has been something that has been asked for.

Um, it could be co-located at Vilbig, it could be co-located somewhere else.

I think needs some additional time to explore uh different opportunities, determine whether it is in the city's best interest to divest of that uh 71 acres uh at the basically the corner of Interstate 30 and Hampton Road.

So page 24 indicates that the cost of co-locating at the Vilbeak property would be 150 million, and co-locating at an alternate site unidentified would be 232 million.

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes, sir.

So what would cost 150 million if we leave the evidentiary lot where it is and just move the property room there?

Yes, sir.

So in that scenario, uh it does add a new building for the that's part of the evidentiary vehicle unit at Vilbig.

It would vacate the property room that is on Baylor Street over east of downtown and bring it over.

That's the bulk of the hundred and fifty million dollars is that that unit and replacing the property room that is past capacity uh to uh 114 million dollars for that facility is the biggest piece of the 150 million dollars.

And has anyone looked into the alternative of renting space for the property room and crime scene operation?

I'm gonna let uh dev.

Thank you, council member, for the question.

Now we have not looked at leasing property for the for the property room given the alternatives that are available.

And has anyone quantified the need to consolidate to co-locate these operations in terms of saved manpower, increased efficiency?

Any other metrics other than simply DPD wants it?

I believe that um that was the reason for this consolidation is to consolidate the crime lab as well as the evidentiary um property room to provide those efficiencies.

And um I just also want to note that these were needs that were identified in the longer term needs inventory previously that were not funded in the 2024 bond program.

Well, it doesn't really answer my question.

My answer my question is are there any metrics that demonstrate how much efficiency we're losing or how much we would gain through co-locating?

I understand that the DPD wants it, but I'd like to get it why and really how seriously we need to spend 150 million dollars on this.

So this is Martin Riohas.

Um the the issue is that we do have a lot of staff members that are crime scene that are going back and forth between the property room and the auto pound, and also the desire was to have all physical evidence, anything physical in the same in the same area in the same location, and then kind of and consolidating some of the management of those areas.

Now that in terms of having um anything more anything more detailed, I we we can work to get that.

I don't have that right now in terms of like a metric that I can give you that would result in in to write this minute, but the idea is that we would have the management of physical evidence together and and all the housing of physical evidence together so that so that there was one management over all physical evidence for the department.

Well, we have many needs in this city, as I'm sure you'll concede, and we have limited resources, and so I think it's important that we get at just what the justification is for this co-location expense.

And finally, why do we need to replace fire station number four?

There's no mention of the need to expend 20 million dollars to replace it in this presentation.

So thank you.

And I want to answer part of your last question, and then I will on fire station four as well.

Uh one of the biggest drivers about the property room crime scene and evidentiary vehicles is the fact that the property room at Baylor Street is out of capacity.

They are stacked on top of stacked on top of stacked, they're at the ceiling, there is no uh not sufficient room uh at the property room for for other evidence to be brought in.

And it's it's getting to a critical point.

I want to think Martin, you've told me that within a couple of years we will be out of capacity at that location.

So if we have to do something to address the capacity issue at the property room, then the question was asked is there an opportunity to improve efficiencies at the same time?

And that led us to look at other options that then pulled in the evidentiary uh vehicle storage.

So that was part of the driver regarding fire station number four with the ex implementation of the convention center master plan and the anticipated development on the 31 acres that will become available.

Uh it was determined that Fire Station 20, I'm sorry, fire station four for 20 million dollars uh would be uh a priority for replacement, and the chief has come forward, so I'll let you speak further.

Uh good afternoon, everyone.

Uh fire chief just in bull.

Yeah, it we figured with the convention center it'd be a priority, but it's we have a list of stations uh uh up there to be replaced because of age, condition, and that's right there at the top.

So um it's I mean it's one of the stations we'll be replacing before some of the other ones because of it's age and condition.

And it's it's downtown and we need more more apparatus base in it in a newer station because rather than add more stations, we need more apparatus downtown because it's so busy.

So there's a lot of reasons why that station needs to be replaced.

Is there any alternative to simply add on to the station to accommodate more apparatus?

Could you say that again?

Is it possible to add on to the existing station to accommodate more apparatus?

No, we've we've looked at all that it's uh again we have a list of stations and I can provide that list uh but that's uh the talk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mr.

Roth, you're recognized for five minutes.

Uh thank you.

Um Jack, just uh just some understanding questions for me on uh is is a public safety bond is that different from a general obligation bond or it's just designated differently?

It would be a general obligation bond.

It would be a proposition.

So in a typical bond program, we may have 10 different propositions.

In this case, we would potentially only have one proposition for public safety, but it would be a general obligation election, general obligation bonds financed over 20 years, paid from our property tax debt service rate.

So the so the fact that you've broken it out is just really sort of to help us classify what what might be suitable for designation in that category of potential borrowings.

Yes, sir.

As we were having conversations about uh the need for the uh two components of the police academy, we started having conversations about what the the highest priority needs were from a public safety perspective, and these other projects got it added in as potentially the highest type of public safety projects facility needs that we currently have.

Um and following up in Council uh members uh Stewart's question, is uh if if a project is not available or not suitable or or we can't do a project that uh was designated under the bond program, do we have the uh the opportunity to move those funds into another to another project or is or is the bond financing absolutely uh specifically uh deal specific and and property specific or or item specific?

So generally the uh bond proposition has some flexibility, um, but you cannot move between propositions.

So if you had voters approve a library proposition and a fire station proposition, you can't switch money between those two.

But if it but if it was a real estate, if it was a building proposition or a or a moving it's having to do with with a facility or something, we could do it than that.

So if the proposition was a library proposition and it was determined in one was the high priority at the time the bond program was passed, if you decide another one is a higher priority, it could be switched out, but not across propositions, but within the language of that elected proposition.

And once once a bond is one once you we go to the public, get approval for bond uh issue uh bond uh approval.

Uh is there a uh uh once it's authorized, is there some is there a deadline on when you have to actually issue the bonds or actually go to market to execute on on authorizing the actual uh bonds themselves after the election, right?

There used to be, and I'm probably have said 10 years before, but bond counsel has recently corrected me.

As long as we can demonstrate to the attorney general that it is still part of our plan, then the authorization do no longer expires at 10 years.

We just have to continue to communicate with the AG's office that it is part of our financing plan.

But as we were talking about pension obligation bonds, if we got authorization now, or at some point, I would not recommend that we issue the pension obligation bonds now.

We wait until the market conditions are right to do that.

It's costing too much to borrow that right now.

But those rates will come down, they they go up, but they'll come back eventually.

And that would that was going to be my point.

Is that once we get the authorization, then we can manage the market requirements and actually be more strategic in when we would actually issue the bonds and uh the or commit to the issuance of the bonds physically?

Yes, sir.

The other question is are are these bonds can they be pre-refinanced?

Uh or can they be prepaid typically or are you are we sort of committed to not committed to a 20 year, we're committed to 20 years, but can we pay them off early?

Can we refinance over the 20-year period?

Uh most of our bonds are callable after 10 years.

They're callable after 10 years, okay.

So typically so uh each structuring deal can be different, but that's our typical, our standard.

So it gives us some flexibility that if we do want to go to the public to authorize a certain amount of bond uh uh potential, we do have flexibility in seeing strategically the market, figuring out what we want to do, even going ahead and exercising it, and then being able to call on it at a certain period of time.

Yep, yes, um, is there also uh the opportunity to um uh basically you you can you're not precluded from doing it except by your bond credit, your ratings and stuff from doing future bond programs, as long as you can justify the financial capacity of the city to carry it, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

So um before we issue the bonds, obviously we have uh bond ratings done um for each issuance um not necessarily when the bonds are authorized, but with each tranche that we we issue, there is that.

And those tranches can be periodically uh issued for actually public payment.

That's what you did in the in the uh in your scheduling over the period of years, so that you don't have even though we're we've committed to it, there's interest maybe accruing, but we don't actually have to lend the you know borrow the money physically and and use it until we we really need it.

Yes, with the exception that there is no interest accruing from the time that it's authorized, any interest only accrues from when you actually issue.

Oh, so that's great too.

So we have the flexibility in not having to actually issue the bond immediately.

Yes.

Um my question with regard to the uh 911 uh and emergency operations center.

Uh is the forty million dollars that was projected, is that uh was that a relocation cost?

Was there is there additional costs uh associated with that with that potential relocation if if we're considering that?

I'll allow Peter to answer question related to that.

CBRE and some other consultants developed that number um and it's a holistic number based on the program and the performance specs that get you to a modern um uh design criteria and get you to um what the industry best practices are.

So I mean a very good example here is the Dallas County EOC that opened today.

There was a ribbon cutting there.

Um we worked on that project, and many of those numbers are highly applicable to a variety of scenarios that um that the city has contemplated and is contemplating.

Uh so we feel the numbers pretty tight because it's based on very recent comps.

Uh and and so relative to the public safety training complex and the um and uh we could we could also uh go ahead and get them authorized by the public, but if we decide not to uh execute the full amount that we need or we don't need as much because we've done other fundraising opportunities, we'd have the flexibility jack of moving that money around within that category of public safety potentially.

Uh potentially, but on the law enforcement training uh center, um, I think we're ready to go on that.

Um we're at a point where there's been significant fundraising and we're still about eighty-two million short on that.

And so, so that that would be a one and I was thinking about the public safety training complex.

That could be something that that we would be authorizing in the future potentially.

We can borrow the money, I mean, we can authorize the bonds, but we don't necessarily have to spend it right away.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Blair, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And thank you Mr.

Ireland for this presentation and Peter for all your assistance in getting all the information we need done.

With the bonds, how often do we normally go for a new bond package?

I would say the typical is about every um five years we have been getting authorization four to five years.

There have been some years that we've done very small, just maybe three propositions and uh so it's kind of varied, but typically five.

And the current, I apologize, the current 2024 bond program was designed to be implemented over five years.

We've we've started two, we've got three remaining, then in 2029 we would anticipate the next bond program at this particular point.

So this would be an if we do a 2026, that would be an off-cycle, correct?

Yes, ma'am, that would be an off-cycle.

How much was the last the 2024 bond?

What's the total amount of the 2024 bond package?

1.25 billion.

And now we're if we do one 2026, how much are we projecting we would need just for just for the this cycle and what would it be for?

So for the uh public safety facility proposition, if we chose to do that, um if we can pull up slide number 26 as a summary of the 441 million dollars that we would include in that law enforcement training center at UNT, $82 million.

The public safety training complex, we've been talking about Red Bird, or I'm sorry, executive airport $149 million, the relocation of $911 and EOC $40 million, the property room and evidentiary uh vehicle storage $150 and fire station four would be 20.

So 441 million dollars if we did uh based on uh this presentation, and then if we also chose to do a pension obligation bond, which would be a separate proposition, uh we are suggesting up to 500 million for that.

So then that would be 941 million, 941 on top of the one point whatever billion we already so we're looking closer to a two billion dollar package over two years, uh over within the five years from 24 through 29, yes, correct.

Okay, um, so what's the impact on the taxpayers for all these bond packages?

Do they need to pay higher property taxes or in order to pay back these loans?

Because a bond is actually a loan, isn't it?

Yes, ma'am, it is.

Um so the bond gets us cash up front to make the capital improvement.

We pay it back over 20 years with uh principal and interest.

Um all of our modeling at this point assumes no change to the property tax rate, and so uh we have a tax rate that's split between general fund and debt service, and our modeling does not anticipate a change in the tax rate.

A property owner's actual tax bill will of course be based upon their value and the tax rate.

So as values go up, we know that the tax bill goes up, but that's a factor of the value, not the rate.

So, in order to pay this these bonds or loans back, we do need to figure out how to get them done, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

But uh as we do it, I've been sensitive to think that the council is not interested in a tax rate increase, so I keep trying to keep the capacity within that level.

But would it not be fair to say that eventually you can't keep borrowing yourself out of a hulk?

Is that not correct?

I'm not the you know, I'm not the financial wizard that some of my my colleagues are, but basic when I do my bills at the end of the month, I can't borrow more money to to pay off another loan.

I eventually I gotta pay live within my means, correct?

Yes, ma'am, and we would be living within our means.

We would not be asking to borrow more than we have the capacity to pay back.

And so what's important to know is because we've been borrowing money so many years, every year, because we always have bond programs going, we're always repairing streets, we're always building a library or fire station.

So every year, after we've finance for 20 years, some old debt rolls off, a new debt is layered on.

So as we pay off one bond from um 2016 2006, then we add in something in 2026, and something rolls off from 2007.

We add in something from 27.

So let me ask another question.

Um, let me say this.

District 8, my district is one of the largest districts in the city.

We have almost a hundred thousand residents in district eight.

We're really the one of the most diverse districts there are.

We have five rec center, twenty-seven parks, two trails, over five hundred horses, one equine vet center, and a new rodeo.

That's diverse, correct?

And we have one of the least amount of infrastructure there is.

So how do I get this paid for and do all the stuff we need to do?

So you're asking me a little bit outside of my area, and I'd probably would want to call on economic development to help figure that deal out, uh, or uh Dallas water utility to help with the the fact of the sewer expansion.

So, but I'm saying no, the question is, and let me let me rephrase the question.

These are my needs.

These are the things that I need, I need right now.

We don't have the budget to take care of these things.

Do we may do we see uh miss uh Miss Tobert?

Do we have the the money right now and the the in the coffers to pay for all these things that infrastructure streets and and and still do the repairs on City Hall?

Thank you so much for the question, uh Councilwoman Blair.

And I've I've stated publicly um previously that from an expense standpoint and from a revenue standpoint, and I know that in the slide deck that you have before you it talks about the things that we would have to do to either increase um revenues or we would have to find a way to decrease our expend our expenses.

So, we need to interrupt you for just a moment.

Um, it's four o'clock.

I wanted to take uh a 10-minute recess, we can all uh have a little bit of a break.

So those of you who need to take care of some business because you have some business, but we'll reconvene in 10 minutes.

4 39, and we have resumed with the uh briefing.

So, um, Madam City Manager, I think we're we're we're I think 53 seconds, Madam Secretary with uh Miss Blair had the floor is when we left where we left off.

If you could set the clock back to approximately 53, or pretty close if you can get close, that's the close you can get, and Ms.

Blair, you have the floor.

Okay, so um okay, how it's been a minute, so let me let me re let me correct something.

In District 8, we have uh the major area of uh property that has been recently annexed, one of the last places of property that had been recently annexed, which means we are in a large need of infrastructure.

So, how will our bond pack bond programs and the um need to either renovate, remodel, and bring the city up to the city building up to standards?

Uh what will happen to the the district, my district and their needs?

Thank you so much for the question, Councilwoman Blair.

One of the things that we talked about, if you go back to how we laid out slides 44 and 45, we've had a lot of comments that have been made in the prior weeks regarding the need to fund repairs out of for cash using cash.

And we know that our current general fund has existing budget pressures, and there are budget pressures going forward, whether we're talking about pension, which Mr.

Ireland has given you a complete rundown of where we are currently with our pension plan, whether you're talking about the increase in our police officers, pay, employee health insurance, all those things are things that this don't go away.

So we would still have to continue to fund those.

I would say that those are priorities for the city.

So then the other option is to use the city's credit card, which is issuing debt.

Mr.

Ireland has laid out that if you were to do that, your future bond program, which we planned for that to be around 2029, you would actually limit the amount of money that you would then have for that bond program.

And I believe the number was around 300 million, would be the amount that you would have available to then do any other future programs beginning with that year.

So it is definitely a um a an option, but it also comes with the impact of what then you cannot continue, or how you have to push out the bond program that we are currently in the middle of, which is 2024, and then the impact that you would have on the upcoming fund program, which is currently planned for 2029.

So I can't tell you which exactly propositions then the city council would want to support with that number, that 300 million dollar number.

We know that currently our needs as it relates to infrastructure, we still don't have adequate funding, even in the existing bond program to bring all of our infrastructure needs across the city up to the scalable levels that we're looking for.

So it is a decision, it is a hard one, but it definitely does come with um the limitations that you would have for being able to continue to address some of those priority needs that we've heard from our residents, which is how the existing bond program was uh developed.

So thank you for the question.

And just to say, I have the most septic tanks in the city of Dallas, which is just ahead of being in the back in an outhouse.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Seeing no one else in the queue, we'll move on to our speakers now, Madam Secretary.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The speakers that are registered today are signed up to speak on agenda item three, therefore, we'll read the item into the record.

Agenda item three is authorized one, a phase city hall repair strategy for fifth 1500 Marilla Street as presented on June 3rd, 2026, and two, the city manager to implement the selected phase city hall repair strategy for 1500 Marilla Street in accordance with a proposed city hall repair program.

You do have several individuals who have signed up to speak on this item.

Each speaker will be given one minute.

Speakers, you will have an opportunity to address the city council.

Your time will be presented on the monitor at the podium in the center section here, and the podium is now to my left and your right.

When I call your name, I will ask that you please have your audio and video ready for before you speak.

Kevin Walker, Melissa Lara, Robert Walters, Trey Black, Amanda Moreno Lake, Jim Lake, Michael Tregoni, Michael Ablon, Sana Said, Luke Jokil, Adam Cross, Kishan Vashi, Jake Milner, Arthur Santa Maria, Nanu Cothong, Jose Avila, Jennifer Scripps, Frank Michalopoulos, Amy Tharp, Osmar Reyes, Kanti Sharesh and Mark Nunley.

Kevin Walker is virtual.

Mr.

Walker.

Yes.

You may begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Kelvin Walker and I serve as a CEO of the Dallas Citizens Council.

For over 90 years, the Dallas Citizens Council has brought together business leaders to advanced general initiatives which have led significant progress for Dallas for our infrastructure, health care, education, safety and economic development.

The members of the Citizens Council proudly served in the moments and most for Dallas.

I'm here today to ask for the because today's decision comes down to one simple question.

What is the best outcome for Dallas?

This is a decision that we need to make that's not about the next budget, decision about the next 50 years.

I encourage you to move from analysis to action, from evaluation to execution, and vote to move forward toward with plans for reimagining our area, the downtown area to create a vibrant future for us and the next generation.

So I would encourage you to vote no on item three.

Thank you for your time and have thank you, Melissa Lara.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members, and city manager.

My name is Melissa Lara, co-founder of Bicole, a business born in Oakliffe in 2016.

Before becoming an entrepreneur, I was a flight attendant for Emirates, based out of Dubai for several years.

There, when it's a city wants to re look for being in a desert, transform itself into a global destination because leaders have the courage to think bigger.

Dallas has that same potential.

As a business owner, I have seen firsthand what Vision can do.

Bishop Arts became one of Dallas' most visited destinations because people like Amanda Lake and Jim Lake saw opportunity when others saw risk.

I've also seen the opposite.

Our D.

Bellum's store went from our top-performing location to one that we can no longer keep open.

Crime increase and visitors stop coming.

A hard reminder that when we stop investing in tour city, decline follows.

This is about more than a building, it's about economic development, creating jobs, attracting tourism, growth and preservation can coexist.

Progress does not erase our history.

Robert Walters.

Thank you, good afternoon, Council.

Throughout most of my adult life, I've sought ways to contribute to our betterment in the city, whether through service on the Police and Fire Pension Board, chairing the Dallas Citizens Council, founding and leading uh Clyde Warren Park, and other ways, including most recently our safe in the city initiative.

I have studied the issue before you long and hard.

I appreciate the trade-offs, but there are no consequence free decisions, and in my judgment, the cost of rehabilitating this building, the cost of fewer parks, police, or potholes filled, is simply far, far too great.

I urge you to vote against the city hall repair strategy, but even more fundamentally, that's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Trey Black.

Trey Black is not present.

Amanda Moreno Lake.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council Members, and city manager.

My name is Amanda Moreno Lake.

I'm a business owner and a resident of District One.

At this stage, you've heard all the arguments.

Are you going to do what's best for the future of Dallas?

The numbers don't lie.

Multiple estimates, experts, and studies all point to the same direction.

Continuing to pour taxpayers' dollars into an aging facility is not the best long-term investment.

I know what opportunities when I see them.

I know what they look like.

Look at the facts and make decisions based on what's right for our city.

Today is an opportunity to choose growth over stagnation, opportunity over maintenance, and the future over the past.

Vote no against agenda item number three.

Muchísimas gracias, and I'll hope you all have a blessed evening and thank you for what you do.

Thank you.

Jim Lake.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jim Lake, and I live in District One.

I was born and raised in North Dallas, and I've spent my entire career developing and repurposing neighborhoods in North Oak Cliff and the Dallas Design District.

Today I brought a few photos with me.

They were up there just a second ago.

You have them in front of you.

One is a uh the the the top two photos are showing the city hall site, and there's from 1976 comparing with 2026.

Fifty years later, it's the same site.

50 years later, nothing has changed with still a zero tax base.

Then you compare the photo with what was a power plant and a rail yard in 1999 to what is now Victory Park in 2026.

It went from 16 million in tax value to 2.5 billion, and we've done this before.

We know what to do.

This is a one-time chance for us to have a bold vision and create a destination that will blend culture and cultures that can and will be the heartbeat of our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike Michael Tragoinen.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Michael Tregoning.

I'm the president of Hedington Companies.

Uh we've done and been doing business, making acquisitions and building various operations throughout the city, downtown specifically, including the Jewell Hotel, both phases, the commissary, 4510, Drake Stone, which is the former Davis building, the eyeball, uh, all of Stone Street, and Hampton Social, which used to be Iron Cactus.

I bring all this up because we start with the premise.

If we can find old stock or stock that dates back that has unique elements and not a glass box, we try to save it.

We've won two preservation Dallas Awards, and I think it's two, it could be three.

But nevertheless, we always try and save the building.

We've been in the same situation on a smaller scale that City Hall is in.

It's an insidious place to be.

It is always under budgeted in terms of how much it will cost and all that.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Ablon.

Mike Abelon, 60 seconds.

Here we go before I start.

Thank you for your service.

Um I want to voice make my voice there on City Hall.

I speak specifically as it relates to projects such as the Bank of America Plaza redevelopment of the area around it.

I support the redevelopment of the current Dallas City Hall site as a transformative economic development opportunity for downtown Dallas.

I believe Dallas has an opportunity to create lasting economic value, strengthen connectivity within downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, and be catalytic to investment in the area for the other underperforming undervalued assets.

While I recognize and respect the differing views surrounding this issue, my position is grounded the long-term economic vitality and competitiveness of Dallas.

In my opinion, investing 500 to 650 million in deferred maintenance in our existing city hall is regrettably, regrettably not approved.

That's your time.

Use of our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Luke Jokel.

Good afternoon, Mayor Johnson and Council members.

I'm here in support of relocating Dallas City Hall and creating the opportunity for a catalytic project that can help shape the future of downtown Dallas.

I simply want to be a voice for my generation because we'll be the ones living with the outcome of this decision for the next 30 to 40 years.

I grew up in Arlington and was a suburban kid who always wanted to come to Dallas because of the culture, the neighborhoods, the restaurants, the people, and the energy.

I drive to the original snuffers on Lower Greenville and through downtown because it felt authentic.

It felt interesting.

I knew one day I wanted to live here.

Today I do live here.

I work here, I invest here, and I send my kids to school here.

And one thing I've learned is what makes cities special isn't what happens inside the buildings.

It's what happens between them.

If I'm going to speak for my generation, I support relocating City Hall because I'm in favor of growth.

I'm in favor of creating interesting places.

That's your people who want to live and work and play.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam Cross.

I'm a Dallas native and downtown business owner.

Downtown Dallas is dying, and the losses of ATT, Fifth Third Bank, Neiman Marcus, Fox 4 News, the Dallas Mavericks, and Dallas Stars is only the beginning.

It will continue to compound and kill the small business owners who will not survive what comes next.

Dallas is about to lead the country in downtown office vacancy, and while there is 15,000 people who live in downtown today, there are zero new apartments, zero new offices, and zero hotels under construction while the rest of this region thrives.

The private market has already redlined downtown.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson, for having the courage to put this to a vote and say no more because the vocal few are hammering the final nails into this coffin, wanting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on this decaying mausoleum and handing the rest of the community the bill.

This is the generational moment that requires courage and conviction for new people, begging for a vibrant downtown worth living in and worth believing in.

Vote no on agenda item three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kishan Vashi.

All right.

So I have been in a working and we own a property in uh downtown Dallas, and it is a hotel that is just right next door to City Hall.

Uh, been there for about two years now, and I thought after my first year, uh the conversations I would be having with guests would be more so about uh places to see and stuff to visit.

But the biggest question I always get is hey, is it safe to walk outside?

Is that walk that I'm talking about is right across this city hall and uh right adjacent.

The only place my guests need to go is right down Young Street, and they don't feel safe traveling that walk.

So I think you know, with the three million dollar convention center that we're putting together, that walk is not gonna get any friendlier if we don't do anything with this area over here.

So I believe that um, and I ask you guys to vote, uh, vote no and uh relocate City Hall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jake Milner.

Jake Milner is not present.

Author, Santa Maria.

Mayor and council members, thank you.

The consequences of a declining downtown are not confined to just downtown.

Southern Dallas is directly affected when big corporations close their downtown offices and facilities, and when major investment is redirected elsewhere.

We've seen this pattern before.

Major opportunities move north, north, and north.

Well, Southern Dallas is told to sit down and be patient.

You now have an opportunity to break that pattern.

Southern Dallas has the most to lose if downtown continues to weaken, and the most to gain if you choose to act boldly today.

Some of us are focused on growing and investing in Southern Dallas, and the wrong move here could pull that rug out from under us.

I urge you to vote no to repairing this building so we can pursue the kind of investment that can benefit downtown and southern Dallas together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sana Saeed.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

I serve as president of the Farmers Market Stakeholders Association, and I'm a downtown Dallas resident.

I'm here to urge you to vote no on item three.

There is no great city that reaches its full potential without a strong downtown.

Mayor, thank you for taking on an issue that too many have avoided for years.

And to the council members who see the opportunity to reimagine and reinvest in our urban core.

Thank you.

Please fight for downtown.

Listen, the businesses, residents, and stakeholders who want to stay here, but are exhausted from years of delay, division, and inaction.

We have a chance to turn the page and create the kind of downtown that attracts investment, talent, residents, and opportunity for generations to come.

It's go time.

Be bold, act quickly, and lead.

Downtown Dallas should be the heart of this region, not a footnote to its suburbs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nanu Canthong.

Nanu Conthong.

It's not present.

Jose Avala.

Good afternoon.

I want to express my gratitude to Mayor Johnson, City Manager Tolbert, and the council members who were ready to vote yes on Dallas' future, and we're prepared to put our communities over this building.

Thank you.

Do not be discouraged.

We have your back.

Hold the line.

Let's see this through together.

Now, to the residents of Dallas, pay attention to what happened yesterday.

Three council members who don't even bother to show up, or at least left.

Uh three council members sued the city in the name of transparency or proper process.

A judge granted their TRO, it blocked the relocation vote, it blocked the redevelopment vote, but it did not conveniently block item three.

The vote to spend your money to repair this building.

That one upcome serves the agenda of those three people who filed the suit, which is at best a remarkable coincidence.

I urge you to vote no on item three, and thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Jennifer Scripps.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council.

My name is Jennifer Scripps.

It is my honor to serve as the president and CEO of Downtown Dallas Inc.

For nearly 70 years, DDI has helped lead downtown through periods of transition.

And I think we can all agree after the last couple of weeks, we are at a period of transition.

This week you received further confirmation that any responsible repair and renovations for this building would take years and cost taxpayers at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars.

Last week also, DDI met with a hundred residents, stakeholders, and visionaries to plan the future of downtown.

I urge you not to spend hundreds of million dollars to repair and try to modernize this facility, but instead to put it into the needs of our community and work with us as we plan downtown as a multi-purpose seven-day a week active and vibrant urban core that we can all be proud of.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Frank Michalopoulos.

Good evening, Mayor Johnson, Manager Talbert, City Council members, particularly those who are present today.

Um Frank Michalopoulos, Corinth Properties, and I'm very particular in this place since 1978 when Mara Falson was mayor.

And I've been very privileged and blessed to be doing projects in the city and in the southern sector to have transformed neighborhoods around the country.

At the same time, my family has been involved in the businesses of downtown since 1976.

We've fed people here, and I've seen this area transform to nothing, and particularly in the area of downtown, their tax-based economic development.

And today it's a watch in the time opportunity to free up 50 acres next to the convention center to the create a new major to create a campus that no other major city has in the United States.

50 acres in quarter city.

The city hall is impressive.

That's not a pulse card.

Vote no on proposition three today, please.

Stop the insanity.

I'm sorry, you're not allowed to speak at this time.

Amy Thorpe.

My name is Amy Tharp, and I serve as the Chief Operating Officer at Downtown Dallas Inc.

Downtown Dallas is at a pivotal moment.

Today, more than 16,000 residents call downtown home.

And through our big moves, planning efforts that Jennifer just referred to, we are working to double and even triple that population in the years ahead.

That growth matters.

A thriving residential downtown creates long-term tax value for the city, supports businesses, and strengthens Dallas's economic competitiveness.

We have a responsibility to ensure that major public investments support that momentum rather than limit it.

This is a generational decision at a time when downtown's growth presents such significant opportunity.

We believe there's a path, one that creates greater value for taxpayers, supports continued residential growth, and positions downtown and Dallas for long-term success.

We respectfully urge you to reject a costly repair strategy and pursue that path instead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, citizens of Dallas.

I just want to say I'll make it quick and short and simple.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Reyes.

Your video needs to be displayed.

Okay.

So you want to figure out.

Good afternoon.

Can you are you guys able to hear me?

Yes, you may continue.

Okay.

Oh, I mean, good afternoon, everyone from Dallas.

We already lost a lot here in this beautiful city of Dallas.

We lost the barrier.

We lost the stars, and I don't want to lose anything else.

By us uh by us keeping this building right here.

We're in a keeping historic building, but we're in at least Dallas in the history books as one of the cities that once was and didn't continue to be.

Dallas has great potential.

We're in the heart of the DFW area, and if we shall continue to be, then we need to reinvest in uh infrastructure.

And I support uh moving this item forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Canti Sharesh.

Canti Sharesh.

Uh best, respected mayor, uh, council members, city manager, and the staff.

My name is Conti Silver Shetty, and uh I am a business owner at District 8, and I stand in support of moving this item forward.

Our city hall has served Dallas with honor and distinction, and its place in our history is secure.

But every generation is entrusted with a responsibility greater than preserving the past alone.

And years from now, future generations will not ask whether we protected a building.

They will ask whether we had the vision to strengthen our city, the courage to embrace opportunity, and the wisdom to leave Dallas better than we founded.

And today, the Dallas we cherish was built by the visionary leaders who dared to think beyond their own time.

I respectfully ask you to do the same.

And uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mark Nunley.

Thank you.

Uh mayor, members of the council.

My name is Mark Nunley.

I am a CPA.

I've spent my 50-year career reading financial statements, stress testing projections, and cutting through numbers to find the truth inside them.

The numbers on the city hall decision are the clearest I've ever seen.

Here are the numbers.

The fully loaded cost to stay 1.49 to 1.6 billion.

The cost to relocate using the most expensive scenario, 482 million.

As a CPA, I can tell you what that means over 1 billion dollars in savings to the taxpayers.

We cannot afford to do anything else.

I did not come here to push a predetermined outcome.

I came here because I looked at the numbers, and the numbers are unambiguous.

Please vote no on item three.

Thank you.

Kirk Presley, Jim Schutz, Janie Schultz, Matthew Bach, Andrew Scola, Karen Muncie, Jamie Jolly, Rudy Kareemy, Michael Weisberg, Sarah Crane, Stephanie Drenka, Jessica Stewart Lindvey, John Eichmann, Charissa Terranova, Melissa Martinez, Mary Francis Young is cancelled, Matthew Mabel, and Mike Davis.

And I will ask if you're virtual to have your video and audio ready.

Kirk Presley.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Kirk Presley, and my wife and I live at 4603 West University Boulevard in District 6.

I'm here to speak in opposition to agenda item 3.

In 2017, Boston began repairing its city hall in a 30-year phase repair plan.

It is also a brutalist style building of almost exactly the same size and age as our city hall.

At the time, they thought it would only cost 225 million.

Eight years later, just the parts they have priced so far, which is only the first decade of work will cost them over 440 million dollars.

With financing costs, they're on pace to spend over a billion dollars on the building.

We cannot afford to make the same mistake.

Thank you for voting no on agenda item three.

Thank you.

Honorable Jamie Schultz.

Matthew Bach is not present.

Andrew Scola.

It's not present.

Karen Muncy.

Karen Muncy is not present.

Jamie Jolly.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

I'm Jamie Jolly, President and CEO of the Rural Estate Council, and I appreciate the opportunity to address you this evening.

Trek does not support moving forward with a plan to renovate our current city hall.

Instead, we support the redevelopment of the current City Hall site as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to unlock one of Dallas's most strategically located properties.

The current City Hall site sits at the heart of an area of downtown Dallas that has faced challenges for decades and has never reached its full potential.

Redeveloping this site presents a generational opportunity to connect the southern edge of the downtown core to this ultimately to southern Dallas.

This kind of catalytic investment can bring the city together and create a more vibrant, walkable, and economically competitive city center.

We've closely monitored the public briefings, we've reviewed the comprehensive facility assessments and data-driven cost estimates provided by experts and considered the broader conversation.

We respect that there are different views on this issue, but we hope that you will vote against item three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rudy Kareemy Karimi.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Rudy Kareemy Karimi, the Council District 14.

I am still not a finance or real estate person, so let's hear from someone who is.

Kind of sucks to be a tenant in a lot of cases.

Used in a lot of commercial real estate deals, but if the roof leaks, cost is passed along to the tenant.

If something breaks, a pipe breaks, the cost is passed along to the tenant.

Repairs and maintenance, a cost is passed along to the tenant.

The pipers cost is passed along to the tenant.

The window breaks, cost is passed along to the tenant.

Somebody shoots it out.

Cost is passed along to the tenant.

Flooding, a lot of times that cost is passed along to the tenant.

Real estate taxes go up $500 in the year.

The tenants got to absorb that.

Kind of sucks to be a tenant in a lot of cases.

But if you got the right building, they're willing to pay it.

Shame on you.

You wouldn't do this with your house, but you'll do it with ours.

Thank you.

Michael Weisberg.

I'm a native Dallaside, retired from a long career promoting cities and areas for corporate relocation, including the old American Airlines when they moved here from New York.

About 80% of my work was out of state.

I'm a student of cities.

The idea that it's somehow more prudent to scrape an iconic IMPA landmark than it is to refurbish it as an insult to our taxpayers.

The forced timetable is reckless and suspicious in itself.

The string of losing football seasons or sports team relocation or normal parts of a big city's ebb and flow.

Recklessness in large matters is not.

I hope and I trust that our city council will not do anything that would make Dallas a laughing stock in the highest circles of other American cities and perpetuate the stereotype of a city run by bankers and developers for their private good.

We are better than that, but we must show it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Crane.

Hello, my name is Sarah Crane, and I'm the executive director of Preservation Dallas.

And I just like to remind everybody that we actually are making this decision today in light of no additional information when it comes to the cost of abandoning this building.

Um I'd also like to say that this building is neither an albatross nor a magic bullet for downtown.

Saying yes to downtown redevelopment should not mean having to say no to repairing this building.

I mean, this is Dallas.

We have the old right next the new across the city.

It's actually what makes our city so rich and our community so unique.

Dallas sites deserve to have it all a vibrant downtown and this Dallas City Hall.

But this process to renew downtown will take time.

A thoughtful comprehensive business strategy and investment.

City of Dallas investment.

And it starts right here because you can say yes to investing in downtown, and you can start by saying yes to repairing this Dallas City Hall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Stephanie Drinka.

I am Pay once said architecture is the very mirror of life.

Mayor Johnson, you called this building obsolete, a reflection of your disdain for what it represents.

The will of the people, resilient, unyielding concrete.

Pay designed city hall to withstand the test of time.

The test of people like you who view sentimentality as a weakness when in fact it's our greatest strength.

The capacity to connect to counter false narratives intended to divide.

Before this, many didn't know who I am pay was and what this building truly meant.

But your miscalculation taught us what a treasure we have to protect here.

Do the right thing, restore the people's house to its full glory.

Otherwise, future generations will remember what they were robbed of, how we fought to keep it, and you will be the one cemented in history as obsolete.

Thank you.

Jessica Stewart Lindbey.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, the numbers issued for repairs by the consultant to date, consultants to date are rough planning numbers.

Even their own documents say that these are numbers that are in a rough order of magnitude.

They are not meant to make these types of decisions.

I'm here to ask you to vote yes to the repairs, yes to downtown, but also yes to the process.

To me, this building is a model of our democracy, and the democracy piece and the building piece are both being threatened in this process.

Um, the building teaches us that the heart of our city is our government center.

This is the center of a vibrant downtown.

You cannot remove the heart and have this AI-generated um vibrancy.

It doesn't exist without the heart.

That's your center.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Eichmann, John Eichmann is not present, Charissa Terranova.

Teresa Terranova is not present.

Melissa Martinez, Melissa Martinez is not online, it's not present.

Mary Francis Young is counsel, Matthew Mabel.

Matthew Maple is not present, Mike Davis.

Mike Davis, uh, good evening.

Uh mayor, present members of the city council.

I'm here to rally you.

I'm here to also remind you, though, that as we look towards redevelopment of this downtown environment, it must include strong opportunities for the hospitality, restaurant, and nightlife uses that will make downtown vibrant.

I'm in support of using City Hall as a down payment on the future.

I'm representative of my generation of millennials, and I grew up with my mom around my with my mom while she was working here for over 35 years.

So I know all about City Hall.

I've been in play down in L3, so I know it very well.

This needs to be a down payment on the future.

We deserve it.

Vote against those repairs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will now call the next group of speakers.

When I call your name, please come forward and have a seat in the first three rows of this intersection.

Mark Grace, Joanna Hampton, Abigail Clausen, Belle Bettson, Dolores Leve Soroka, Debbie Orzoka Salis, PJ Moton, Michaela Watkins, Kristen Adwell, Alicia Kintas has canceled, Valetta Forsyth Lill, Kate Parish, Sean Buckley, Ruben Landa, Ed Zara, Benjamin Boyer, George Aranda, Marcel Quimby, Jose Pena has canceled, Sidney Walker, Yvonne Walker, Jedediah Ullrich, Andrew Zubiri, and Ariana Smith.

Mark Grace.

This is a good time to breathe.

And we're rushing to make our points.

Sometimes constraints are what uh help us to move towards creativity.

So I'd encourage you.

I would uh challenge you.

That's your time.

Move forward in leadership and vote yes for this uh proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joanna Hampton.

Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council.

Joanna Hampton 5408 Swiss Avenue.

The current debate is a patch for the multiple issues that are facing downtown, and it does not provide a cohesive solution for downtown or our full city.

This is a 200 to 400 year building.

It's reflecting the quality of the investment by our city, and I note this not to set the building in amber, but to recognize the robust and lasting framework provided to this city and its citizens for our city government.

I asked this council what is the compelling reason for this site and this building.

I haven't heard a vision provided to us or to you that would on the proposed relocation.

Well, I believe City Count City Hall can and should be a part of our revitalized and vibrant downtown.

We must start the work to create a shared vision that supports the time solutions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Abigail Clausen.

Hello.

Dallas City Hall has become a kind of civic civic scapegoat.

This building has been blamed for problems it did not create and its destruction cannot resolve.

It is not why people are leaving downtown.

It is not why corporations relocate.

It is not the cause of homelessness, public distrust, or government dysfunction.

Unless this council addresses those actual challenges, those problems will remain regardless of what happens to this building.

Most of these schools are decades older than City Hall.

And that somehow thousands of children learn in them every day.

If our schools can be maintained and used for generations, why should the standard for City Hall be different?

A building that is younger than I am.

Dallas taxpayers paid for this building.

They deserve better than to watch it be discarded for the latest shiny idea.

It is simple.

You have been elected to do good things and to avoid doing bad things.

Vote yes on agenda number three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill Bedson.

Outy, it's an honor to be here, and I want you to vote yes.

And the reason I want you to vote yes is I raised four kids in a home I bought 51 years ago in South Oak Cliff.

And I've got nine grandkids and six great-grandkids, and we need this building to give an example of stability.

Now, South Oak Cliff.

In 2016, we voted to put $52 million to rebuild that school that was old and torn up and a mess.

We did it.

The kids moved into the school in 20, and in 21, they were the first DISD school to get a Texas State Football 5A championship in 50 some odd years.

And then they did it again in 22, and they did it again in 25.

And in 25, they also got the highest school effective indices score of all 37 high schools in the city.

Academic performance and a fixed school.

I mean it.

The question is whether Dallas will responsibly address the needs of City Hall or abandon a public asset that taxpayers already own.

No one has really presented this council or the public with a complete accounting of what it will cost to leave City Hall.

Therefore, the only way you should vote today is yes or don't vote at all.

A phase repair strategy is the responsible fiscal conservative taxpayer focused solution.

We paid for Dallas City Hall.

The responsible thing is to take care of it, not to walk away from it.

Thank you.

Debbie Orozco Solis.

The Liberta Garden and the Westborne Heights Neighborhood Association led my Dr.

Pat Stevens.

I am here to tell you we do not want City Hall to leave.

We want you to fix it.

We need transparency in all civic affairs when it involves a place that we call home and is fully paid for that we own.

We voted for each of you to be a democracy for us.

This design at City Hall was structured to last over 200 years.

It was completed in 1978.

It is sad to come to City Hall and feel you have no voice because you do not have a million dollars in the bank.

I live in a house that was built in 1924, requires constant maintenance and has undergone three major renovations.

I pray you have good principles and do not entice and do not be enticed by wealthy developers because this is what I see today.

Give us a voice, let us speak, give us what we need, give us more information, have meetings with us.

Thanks for your time.

And ignore please don't ignore us anymore.

Thank you.

PJ Moton.

Good afternoon.

Uh, here joining you virtually.

Um vote against item three.

This is bigger than a building.

Relocating Dallas City Hall is about whether Dallas is willing to build for the future, not keep pouring money into the past.

City employees deserve a modern, clean, safe, and innovative work environment.

These people are the ones who serve us, our residents every day, and they should be expected.

They should not be expected to do 21st century work in a facility that no longer meets the needs of the 21st century city.

Dallas residents deserve better too.

We deserve a civic home that is accessible, welcoming, inspiring, and worthy of the city we are becoming.

This past week we hit uh we faced a number of major blows, including the Dallas Stars and the Dallas Mavericks.

Both institutions were making bold decisions about their future, and Dallas City Hall must do the same.

A new city hall can be more than an office building, it can be a symbol of pride, progress, service, and possibility.

I urge you to move forward forward with voting against item three.

Thank you.

Michaela Watkins.

Good afternoon, Michaela Watkins of District 2.

It is imperative to be understood that our dedication and desire to save City Hall is not merely sentimental in nature.

We, your constituents, deserve full transparency rather than concepts of a plan.

With no comparative data provided, how can one guarantee that demolition would be less costly than preservation?

We have heard little to no factual data regarding a new or temporary location or the potential financial responsibilities that could accompany a company said relocation.

With numerous large-scale projects pending, including the bond-supported improvements to the convention center and the five billion dollar replacement and relocation of Lusterit, I find it necessary that you consider the logistical nightmare of the concurrent pursuits of these projects coupled with the pre-existing construction and congestion of the affected areas.

It is also important that we do not overlook our unhoused brothers and sisters whose voices cannot be heard in forums such as these.

With many of their shelters and resources existing in the area, which is planned to be redeveloped, we must be mindful of how these actions will displace them and how we plan to continue providing this support.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Kristen Atwell.

Hello.

My name is Kristen Atwell, and I've lived in Dallas for exactly 40 years.

This is my first time to speak before City Council.

Um I own a marketing firm that turned 35 years this year.

And uh in 1999, we worked on this big vision.

Downtown Dallas to 2005.

Took five years and visioned it out back when we used to print things on paper.

Um, and it took a really long time to work on.

It was had in-hound housing, office renewal, hospitality, development, transportation, entertainment, parks, and rec.

We branded the Pegasus project.

We relit the horse on top of the Magnolia Building.

Uh, we marketed the 1954 Republic Tower.

We watched the mercantile redevelop it next to our office that was two blocks from here for 15 years.

Um, I'm gonna cut this as short as I can, but we are in support of downtown vitality.

The last time I was in your time, there were green shirts and they did not know why they were here.

That was very interesting.

Thank you.

Alicia Kinton says cancel, honorable Valletta Forsyth Lil is not present.

Kate Parrish.

Good evening.

Kate Parrish from District 2.

I'd like to echo a sentiment of one of my colleagues back from March.

If City Hall can't be saved, what does that mean for the rest of us?

Dallas likes to disinvest in most of our public assets.

Don't let City Hall be another one of those.

This is our house.

We pay for it, we continue to pay for it, and we're happy to pay for it because it is an icon of looking forward.

This is the testament of Dallas's future ever facing forward.

Don't tear it down.

Continue to invest in it, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sean Buckley.

Sean Buckley is not present.

Ruben Landa.

Honorable Mayor, City Manager, City Council, or Council members.

My name is Reuben Landa.

I live in Victory Park in District 2, and I am the president of the Great Dallas Planning Council.

I recognize the historical importance of this building and understand why some of you want to preserve it, but the council has a fiduciary responsibility to spend public funds wisely, and by any measure, the cost to renovate and repair this building is simply too high and does not make physical sense.

Saving this building will not save downtown.

Your focus should be on how to strengthen downtown today and position for the future.

This council voted 14 to 1 to approve the K.

Belly Hutchinson Master Plan.

Voters in approved funding by 70 to 30 percent margin.

That plan is what you should be focused on.

Implementation of that plan, fully, full implementation of that plan.

Dallas needs leadership and it needs it now.

We need visionaries that are looking at what's best for the city as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's Sarah.

Hello, Ed Zara, District of 14.

It's better to own than rent.

Keep city hall.

Taxpayer owed, owned and paid for.

No rent, save 148 million.

No broker commission, save 8.6 million, no property taxes, save 79 million.

City Hall is purpose built for 911 311.

It's a civic landmark preserved taxpayers will then pay property tax if you leave City Hall.

There's a $60 million demolition cost.

There's a quality of life cost of 20,000 truckloads of debris being put on our streets.

All lease options that you're looking at have the same end of service life concerns as City Hall.

Don't put your taxpayers on the hook for a hundred and fifty-seven million dollars in rent every ten years into eternity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Benjamin Boyer.

Thank you.

Uh before Dallas commits billions of taxpayer dollars to a new municipal complex, the city should first determine whether the assumptions underpinning such an investment remain valid in the 21st century.

Advances in technology have enabled private sector to successfully decentralize.

Many administrative, financial, legal, and customer service functions, have moved uh to work from home and have improved and maintained productivity.

Dallas has an opportunity to lead nationally by modernizing service delivery and demonstrating responsible stewardship of public resources in an increasingly digital age.

Thank you.

Thank you.

George Aranda.

George Aranda is not present.

Marcel Quimby.

Um good afternoon, Mayor and Councilman, Council members.

My name is Marcel Quimby, and I live in District 14.

I'm stunned at today's occurrence, and ask my first question is what happened to the comparison of all the options.

The city has not provided anybody with numbers for the other options as promised.

How can a city make any decision in a silo without understanding the pros and cons and financial impact of all the options?

I just it it boggles my mind and I cannot understand that.

You know, and I urge city council to vote yes to to repair city hall, or if you want to take some more time to uh, you know, address these issues and bring the numbers that were promised.

Just put it on hold and we'll come back and talk about it when we can have a realistic discuss discussion with all of that your time with all of the information needed to actually make that discussion.

Thank you.

Jose Peña is canceled.

Sydney Walker.

Greetings, Sydney Walker, District 7.

I just have a few questions for you guys to ponder.

So, why was the commercial class A office the standard for the renovation estimate?

Was the lease space option that was included in the report class C, or was it class A?

Because there is a big price difference between those two.

Isn't Class A the most expensive to renovate to?

So why would a government agency renovate office space to Class A?

That's not wise.

So councilman West spoke last night during his meeting.

Um he would vote to stay if we have money to pay for the fixes.

Do y'all have the money to pay to move?

Where is that coming from?

What services and programs and buildings and community sitters are you gonna close?

That's right to move.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yvonne Walker.

Thank you.

Yvonne Walker is not present.

Cheddaria Ulrich.

Hello, Janet Ulrich, District 1, and I am with the Democratic Socialist of America North Texas chapter.

These days we have a scam economy.

Everything from AI that isn't returning to on investment to presidential crypto.

Just earlier this year, the city of Plano was adamant to leave Dart to cut off their constituents from the region as well as the region from Plano.

So I can pay first out of a hundred million dollar arena, so a sports franchise cut up in infrastructure and become a local landlord to businesses.

At a time when 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has a giant crater in it without congressional approval and a possibly permanent octagon in front of it.

I employ you to keep this building at 1500 Marilla Street.

This will not solve your budget or the downtown problem.

But it will be a step in the right direction.

The time is now for us as a city to define what we are.

Times change and corporations and sports teams go running for the next handout.

They can find under the cover story of a rundown downtown.

The time is now to get creative with our city hall in the space around it.

Make it an anchor and form of our city with housing built nearby.

Housing or a grocery store downtown will do more to bring businesses than some genocidal owned basketball team.

What will happen today?

Thank you for entertainment.

Thank you.

Yes, to see yes.

Thank you.

Andrew Zubiri is not online.

It's not present.

Ariana Smith.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Ariana Smith, and I'm a downtown homeowner.

I am opposed to repairing City Hall on the dime of taxpayers and urge you all to vote no to item three.

Downtown Dallas should be the economic and cultural heart of our city.

Instead, it has become increasingly defined by naked storefronts, underutilized land, and growing concerns about crime.

For too long, downtown has fallen short of its potential.

You all have an opportunity to change that by by voting no to item three and supporting redevelopment of the land in and around City Hall.

Redeveloping this property will attract investment, create jobs, and bring new residents, businesses, and energy to downtown.

This is more than a redevelopment project.

It is an opportunity to revitalize downtown Dallas as a thriving destination to live, work, visit, and invest.

With your leadership, downtown can once demand become the heart and goal for that.

Thank you.

I will now call the next group of speakers.

Can I call your name?

Please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection.

And also that ask that virtual speakers please have your video and audio ready.

Ifani Umege, Sean Jensen, Betty Neal, Benton Jones, Sam Williams, Ronnie Mestis, Jim Anderson, Claudia Fowler, Joe Tave, Yolanda Williams, Charles Williams the Third, David Voss, Mary Lou Paris, Sean Todd, Kevin Pfeiffer, and Erica Cole.

Ifani Umege.

Ifani Umege is not present.

Sean Jensen.

Sean Jensen.

Sean Jensen is not present.

Betty Neal.

Betty Neal.

Betty Neal.

Hi, thank you for having me today.

Uh to the mayor and to the council.

For forty-six years, I've been a Dallas resident.

I respect our city's history and the importance of preserving iconic buildings when it makes financial sense.

But good stewardship is not about preserving a building at any cost.

It's about making responsible decisions with taxpayer dollars.

The reality is Dallas City Hall is an aging facility designed for a whole different era.

600 million is only repairing, deferred maintenance, not renovating.

The result would be the same old stained carpet, the same outdated restrooms, the stone age furniture.

Spending hundreds of millions would force difficult choices about real priorities, including animal service, street maintenance, parks, recreation centers, libraries, and other service we residents rely on daily.

We also have to think about the future of downtown Dallas.

Redeveloping the city hall site could generate new private investment, expand the tax base, create jobs, and bring new energy to our urban core.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Benton Jones is not present.

Sam Williams.

Hello, Sam Williams, District 9, not a part of Citizens Council or the Regional Chamber, and in support of keeping the building.

I've got financial concerns based on current understanding and don't feel like we have enough data.

There's blank and unknown figures in the original agenda around relocation, lack of research around renting estimates and teardown costs if we were to leave.

Why are we listening to business interests here but not to their disinterest from lack of private investment in the police facility?

Maybe we should be a bit more selective with assigning them credibility, not to mention the convention center already delaying investments across the city.

Economic analysis, including the St.

Louis Federal Reserve, consistently supports the conclusion, investment in large stadiums, does not significantly approve financial outcomes of the area.

Is a hotel really what we want at the center of our city?

A casino?

This does not mean we must keep a current status quo.

When the city solicited designs to reimagine the area, we received hundreds of designs and ideas.

Some of the most exciting of said designs came from student organizations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ronnie Mestis.

Good afternoon, Mayor.

Ronnie Messes, West Dallas, Texas, you know that already.

This is just it's it's been horrible.

This whole process has been non-transparent.

Uh you were having meetings yesterday for the first time over this issue.

Um Dallas has a problem with identity.

A lot of these people here that are are for the change.

Uh, wouldn't sell their homes to come and live downtown.

You know, downtown should be a vibrant, and I think we all agree on that.

It should be vibrant, should be someplace you want to go.

When Wrigley Field built 1914, I feel sorry for the people that don't understand or just refuse to understand that what history is about.

You know, when you see a something that's like that.

You know, it's just I I I can't grasp it, but uh it's an identity problem.

You know, do you only have where Kennedy got shot?

Or either state fair?

One of those two.

That's what you used to come to Dallas for.

And you want to make it vibrant for everybody to come to Dallas.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jim Anderson.

Jim Anderson is not present.

Claudia Fowler.

Claudia Fowler is not present.

Joe Tave.

Mayor Council.

Joe Tave, District 3.

Council members, I am a long lifelong Dallas resident and former DISA history teacher.

I value and appreciate historic buildings.

As a former city council candidate, I also understand our responsibility to taxpayers and the importance of sound fiscal stewardship.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to repair a city hall at any cost is not good governance.

Cutting essential city services to preserve an outdated building will not solve the underlying problem.

Dallas needs the city hall that meets the needs of modern of a modern city, not a facility designed for a different area.

Relocate City Hall, unlock redevelopment opportunities and put valuable down uh downtown property back on the tax rolls.

Use that redevelopment to generate new uh revenue, strengthen downtown, create economic growth, most importantly, invest those resources and neighborhoods that need them most, particularly southern Dallas or those uh areas south of the Mason District.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yolanda Williams.

Yolanda Williams.

Okay, sorry, I've been waiting all day for this.

But hello, everyone.

I gotta make this point and short.

It's insulting for the three or the four to five to try to say there's not enough data.

You know, that was the second consultant.

The numbers were there.

First number was low, then they were high.

So now that you're not receiving the information that you want, you use taxpayer dollars to uh file a lawsuit.

Oh, hold on one second, I don't know what happened.

I'm sorry.

You use taxpayer dollars to file a lawsuit.

Please, I'm asking you, council member resendus.

I'm sorry, district five.

Please vote against item number three.

Just like they filed a lawsuit today, we're gonna file a lawsuit to get this vote done.

We're not gonna keep waiting.

Y'all are gonna be in recess in July, and you're gonna try to wait to August.

So we're gonna you all to please vote against item three.

It is just a waste of time and to keep insulting the consultants with all the expertise.

Now y'all say y'all don't have enough data.

What more do you want?

That's your time.

So much data, so many people speaking.

No, thank you.

Charles Williams III, Charles Williams the third.

It's not present.

David Voss.

My name is David Voss.

I live at 6546 Oriole Drive, Dallas, Texas, Council District Number Two.

I'm here in support of the most financially responsible and environmentally viable option for this Dallas City Hall.

That's save it and fix it.

However, approving agenda item number three is not a good answer.

The plan you're voting on today is not a repair plan, it's a construction project that's too extensive and too expensive.

The new proposed City Hall repair program, the contingency allowances alone are 91 million dollars.

That's a project that doesn't know what it's doing.

The proposed numbers are not realistic.

However, the vote today is to vote yes and then deliver a better plan.

This building's not broken, the way it's being used and managed is broken, and the way it's being presented is very broken.

Slave City Hall.

Thank you.

Mary Lou Paris.

Mary Lou Paris is not present.

Sean Todd.

Not in the audience, not present.

Kevin Pfeiffer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Starting with something inspirational.

Change will not come if you wait for some other person or some other time.

We are the ones that have been we have been waiting for.

We are the change we seek.

Nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned.

I'm skipping way forward.

My understanding there's roughly four fifty-two million dollars of ARPA funds available to repair City Hall.

Abendix B funds are still available.

These are unencumbered funds until the end of this fiscal year.

No more deferred spending spent uh sent to individual district.

No more delayed project allowances.

Everyone on this council was at one point inspired to do their civic duty.

And you in turn inspired fellow citizens to go to the voting booth and vote you into office.

Those are your constituents.

They own this building and the surrounding property.

Do the right thing.

Vote to save City Hall.

Vote yes on item three.

Thank you.

Erica Cole.

My name's Erica Cole.

I um really surprised at what you're doing.

I came with my mother when I was a little girl to City Hall.

I've been doing every year I've been coming to City Hall.

I've never had one minute to speak.

And I think that I was told to get here at nine o'clock this morning.

I've been here for like eight or nine hours, and I don't think it's fair to us to speak up.

You work for us, and I you know you don't you don't you won't tell us where we're moving, how we're moving, you won't tell us, you don't tell us what we need to know, and how much it's gonna cost.

It may be more expensive to do, so we don't even know anything.

We don't know what's gonna happen to 9-11.

What why can't you tell us what you know and how you know it and treat us like with respect?

One minute is not enough for any time.

And after waiting for nine hours, that's your time.

I think we're pretty unhappy.

Thank you.

I will now call the next group of speakers.

When I call your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection.

And virtual speakers, please have your audio and video ready.

Rosie Kurtz, Katherine Thomas, Adam Gaddis has canceled, Mary Cook, Michael Moe, Ann Harrington, James Hill, Sylvia Lagos, Michaela Wakins, Anthony Jones, Diana Hayes, Aubrey Morris, Andrew Trennis Caraway, Diane Birdwell, Jeanette Bridges, Isaiel Avarez, Meredith Jones, Donna Denson, Brett Ship, Patty Walker, and Naomi Green, James DePetris, hi.

My name is Jim DePetris.

I've been a native of Dallas all my life.

I live downtown.

I work downtown.

My kids went to school downtown.

I chaired Dallas City Center Association in 1990s.

Um the Jewel Hotel building sold for $500,000 that year.

And that's how bad it was.

There was no retail open after 5 o'clock, after 6 o'clock.

We've come a very, very long way.

We've all worked very hard.

I've helped raise over a hundred million dollars in tax credits and TIFF grants, treaty buildings, including the Magnolia, the Jewel, not the Jewel, the Statler, LTV Tower, and the National.

Three of these went bankrupt in the process.

Cost way more money.

Cost a lot more money to redo old buildings than it does to build a new one.

These numbers are lots of numbers are here, but they're probably going to be less than they will really cost.

City hall could get into Bike America Terror for four.

That's your time.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Christopher Cates.

Christopher Cates is not present.

J Lo Cummings.

Rosie Kurtz.

Rosie Kurtz is not present.

Catherine Thomas.

Catherine Thomas is not present.

Adam Gaddis is canceled.

Mary Cook.

Mary Cook is not present.

Michael Moe.

Michael Mo.

It's not present.

Ann Harrington.

Good evening, Councillor.

My name is Ann Harrington, and I'm proud to call Dallas home.

I'm here today because Dallas City Hall belongs to the people.

It is where important decisions are made about our neighborhoods, our families, and our future.

Before any plans are made to move, sell or replace City Hall, the people of Dallas deserve to know exactly what is happening and how it will affect our city and our tax and our taxes are used.

It is a part of Dallas history.

For many years, it has been a place where people come to have their voices heard.

I believe our city leaders should listen to the community before making big decisions.

We need to protect what belongs to the people because it's free.

Today I ask our leaders to slow down, listen to the residents, and do what's best for Dallas.

Let's save City Hall.

Let's protect our history and let's keep the people's voice at the center of every decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

James Hill.

James Hill is not online, not present.

Sylvia Lagos.

Sylvia Lagos is not online and not in the audience, not present, Michaela Wakins.

Michaela Wakins is not present.

Anthony Jones.

Diana Hayes.

Diana Hayes is not present.

Aubrey Morris.

Aubrey Morris is not present.

Andre Tennisway Caraway.

Andre Trennis Way Caraway is not present.

Diane Birdwell.

It's how you walk when you're 65.

Before I forget, I'm Diane Birdwell.

I vote for item three.

It's the best we've got.

Whenever somebody's rushing me, I know they're crooked.

And we know the votes already in.

But uh for South Dallas for the AstroTurf green shirts, let me tell you something.

Cotton Bowl never uh despite the V and Developed never helped South Dallas.

Reunion Arena was built and torn down, never helped South Dallas.

American Airlines Arena was built, never helped South Dallas.

Now they're going to abandon it.

Uh Deep Alum comes and goes.

Elm Street Theater District of my childhood is not being used the way it should be.

West End came and went.

If the Omni Hotel hasn't spurred much more development, the Astro Turf Green shirts are too young to know that whoever paid for their shirts doesn't care anything about South Dallas.

Let's stop with that lie right now.

And they would invest in South Dallas, they would live in South Dallas, they would work in South Dallas.

It's a lie, but y'all have been bought off, and we know it, and maybe I'll just run for city council and we'll have some fun.

Thank you.

Janet Bridges.

Y'all, this is about physical responsibility of each and every one of you.

You're responsible to the taxpayers for making sure that it's government making the right decision with taxpayer dollars.

I just want to put that out there.

That is your job.

So the public needs to have an apples to apples comparison between every alternative that's being considered.

So here are some questions, and I'm going to submit these also for a public information request, but here's some questions for you.

Sorry, didn't you?

Um, what is the projected 30-year cost of renovation?

What is the projected 30-year cost of leaving?

What is the projected 30-year cost of budgeting?

I mean of buying another building.

What is the projected 30 year cost of that's your time of uh of um that's your time?

Okay, constructing a new city hall, etc.

etc.

etc.

The public needs answers.

Thank you.

Period.

Thank you.

As a Lavarez.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

I'm one of the younger people in this room today, and that concerns me because many of the people who will live with this decision for the next 30 or 40 years aren't here.

Over the last few weeks, we've heard detailed presentations about the cost of repairing City Hall.

We've seen estimates ranging today.

We just saw it from roughly 532 million to over 600 million in repairs and more than 1.5 billion in long-term occupancy costs.

But when it comes to relocation, we're still talking about possibilities.

It's not as detailed.

It's about potential savings, potential redevelopment, potential economic growth.

So my question is simple.

If this is truly a generational decision, why are we comparing a detailed repair plan against a concept?

What is the land acquisition cost?

What properties would be affected?

What is a 30-year cost?

And a lot of private developers are trying to rush this process, but you know when we consider an investment of this size, we need those answers before we move forward on this plan.

So what is the rush?

Taskpayers deserve the same.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Meredith Jones.

Hello, my name is Meredith Jones, and I'm in support of pursuing a repair plan for the iconic IMPA design building and plaza.

Leasing a city hall forever does not make financial sense for future generations.

Renting from a landlord opens both our budget and governance up to outside manipulation.

We have not proven we can manage assets, so why should we buy a new building?

The root issue is that we have not taken care of our assets.

We need to fix that pattern, or we will be stuck in a cycle of these conversations forever, and we'll never truly move on to be a city of the future.

While individual numbers presented may be accurate, the story does not seem complete.

With an incomplete story, I wonder who is it serving?

Why has the cost of demolition not been presented?

Why hasn't the environmental impacts of tearing down been explored?

What about the impacts of losing the plaza, which is a downtown park?

Each public meeting has proven that more residents want to save City Hall, serve the people, and save our house.

Thank you.

Donna Denson.

Good afternoon, mayor and city council members.

I ask you to vote yes on agenda item three.

I urge you to reconsider any decision to abandon City Hall before a full and transparent evaluation of the cost between repairing, not gutting, but repairing it and moving is known.

The most financial opt option.

Long-term financial impact on taxpayers is still unknown.

It's difficult to justify abandoning a structurally sound public asset when the full costs have not been made clear to the public.

A building that belongs to the people of Dallas should not be abandoned without giving complete accounting of the cost between staying and moving.

I respectfully ask the council to slow this process, fully disclose all costs and alternatives and engage the public.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brett Chip.

Brett Schimp, it's not present.

Patty Walker.

Patty Walker.

It's not virtual, not in the audience, not present.

Naomi Green.

Naomi Green is not present.

I will now call the next group of speakers.

When I call your name, please come forward and have a seat on the first three rows in this intersection.

And I ask that virtual speakers have their audio and video ready.

Catherine Garrison, Sanford Dennison, Gail Grace, Alex Scott, Ronald Parrish, Sean Peace, Harrison Blair, Christopher Weiss, Margot Posey, Peter Young, Tommy Hamilton, Peter May, Anthony Jones Jr.

And Harold Holland.

Catherine Garrison.

I've had a love affair with this city for as long as I can remember.

Save Dallas City Hall.

I attended a town hall meeting last night in my district.

My councilperson said that we don't have all of the numbers regarding the cost to repair the land value, the cost to build a new building or retrofit an existing building, demolition costs, moving costs, scope of time involved, and where and how the debris would go.

This worries me greatly.

If my council person doesn't know, I assume that no one sitting at this horseshoe knows either.

Do your constituents, how are they able to disseminate the information on such short notice and without time to review and let you at the horseshoe know their thoughts without hard numbers?

This seemed rushed.

Transparency matters, and we aren't seeing it.

Today the city CFO stated that the cost of a tax increase would be time.

That's 58 cents a day.

Thank you.

Sanford Dennison is not online.

Not in the audience.

Not present.

Gail Grace.

Yes.

Hello, I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you may continue.

All right.

Thank you.

And good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I'm Gail Grace, and I'm a resident of District One.

I'm here today because I'm against the efforts to abandon our historic and architecturally significant City Hall.

I understand that you've inherited this quagmire, but here we are, the result of years of purposeful neglect.

The building, this building and the campus on which it stands, is tied directly to the history of Dallas since late 1960s.

Dallas City Hall on the campus in which it sits isn't keeping businesses from thriving.

That property isn't keeping the shady elements in the neighborhood.

It isn't keeping properties vacant in its area.

A lack of planning and follow-through that has plagued Dallas since I moved here over 30 years ago.

It's the problem.

What other properties here next?

Daily class owned, pioneered part cemetery.

Alex Scott.

Pardon?

I'm sorry.

Your time is up.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Scott.

Hey, all 6472, Tremble Drive.

Alex Scott, I'm your neighbor in District 9.

So I'm going to come here with some solutions.

We've talked about how we can't afford things, right?

So I worked for Gartner for eight years, the world's leading research and advisory organization that helps C Suite executives achieve their mission critical priorities.

And we have strategic contracting.

Y'all have accounts with Gartner.

You can do strategic contracting with Gartner.

Every single software contract that you have here, you should be running that through Gartner strategic contracting.

You can save multiple millions of dollars.

Do you know why I know?

Because I've done that with my clients.

I saved a 50 million human services organization, five million dollars on their workday contract.

You don't think that we have bloated budgets here?

We are getting screwed out the ass.

And it's about time that our city manager steps up and actually does some strategic contracting because Pepsi now has control of uh of Fair Park and more specifically the Cotton Bowl, and we did not renegotiate that contract.

I came up here last year and talked to you all about that shit.

I'm sick and tired of this.

That language is unacceptable to use in the city council chamber, okay?

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Roland Parrish.

Roland Parrish is not present.

Sean Pease.

I stand before you today, not just as the president of the Dallas Police Association, but someone who has spent my life living in the city and serving the city.

Over the last few weeks, Dallas has been forced to make some uncomfortable conversations.

Every headline has sparked the same question.

How did we lose our grip?

For too long, Dallas has been slow to act.

We have allowed studies to replace decisions.

We have allowed debate to replace execution.

We have made promises that have taken years to fulfill if fulfilled at all.

I signed up to speak on item one because you have the opportunity to support and build out the complete project of the Dallas Police Academy on the UNT campus.

And include the public safety training complex.

We're the ninth largest city in America.

One of the most recognized cities in the world.

That's your in a 35-year-old facility.

Build these academies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Harrison Blair.

Okay.

Can y'all see me?

Can y'all hear me?

Yes, we can see you and hear you.

You may continue.

Okay, thank you.

I'm Harrison Glear.

I want to just say first and foremost, please vote against this item.

Please don't spend our hard earned tax dollars on this particular project.

There are hundreds and hundreds of things that the budget actually needs for the city of Dallas.

I guarantee you that young families like mine who are raising family in Dallas don't want to be stuck with a 600,000 uh 600 million dollar or plus bill to fix one asset.

There's so many infrastructure projects in the southern sector, including the one the gentleman before me just talked about with the police uh in the training facility.

There's so much we can do.

Let's not waste that money.

In fact, I've already got my hard hat uh hard head here.

I don't know if you can see what it says, but it says save downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christopher Weiss.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Manager, and Council members.

I'm Christopher Weiss, 1419, Griffin Street Southeast, District 2 resident and business owner in the CBD.

We're at the point in this discussion where, because of a forced timeline and wildly divergent economic data, people have lost trust in the process.

This can be fixed.

Defer the vote on three and complete the evaluation of all options.

Schedule and hold a public bond referendum on the vote.

Put this to the people.

Over the year, Dallas has had several bond referendums, including approval of this building, American Airlines Center, the Convention Center, and others.

I want to ask the people in the crowd here.

Who here is not for economic revitalization in the city?

Anyone raising their hand or not for economic revitalization?

Who here doesn't want the mavericks or the stars to say?

I think we're all on the same side.

Doesn't matter if you're wearing green or blue.

We want to see revitalization.

Don't do this at the city council.

Do it as a referendum vote.

Move it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Margot Posey.

Margot Posey is not present.

Peter Young.

Um, hi.

I come here to speak in support of repairing and maintaining City Hall.

Uh I'm a resident of Holland Park.

I have spent so much of my time over the last six months knocking on doors and block walking to keep talk to my neighbors in favor of keeping Dart in my neighborhood.

I I mentioned this because I believe that Dallas is something that is important.

I think that our region needs to come together and work to make the Metro better and make it work for everybody.

I find it really impressive the solidarity that all the moneyed interests in the Metro can uh have shown coalescing to call for more handouts from the public offers.

Business owners are not a privileged class.

You represent the Dallas citizens.

Stop listening to the oligarchs and developers.

They've created the current condition and are trying to sell you the cure by knocking down a monument to our city.

Stop listening.

Uh I know many of you are turned out next year, and usually politicians care about legacy.

Thank you.

Tommy Hamilton.

Tommy Hamilton is not present.

Peter May.

Peter May is not present.

Anthony Jones Jr.

Anthony Jones Jr.

is not present.

Harold Holland.

Hal Holland is not online.

Not in the audience, not present.

I will now call the final group of speakers.

When I call your name, please come forward.

And have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection.

And virtual speakers, please have your video and audio ready.

Harold.

Laura Epperson.

Cynthia Michaels, Edward Stone, Michael Amanette, Andrew Cia But.

My apologies.

Sarab Gupta, Sylvester Hayes, Preeti Gupta, Patricia Holes, and Bruce Richardson.

Lara Epperson.

Laura Epperson.

It's not virtual and not in the audience, not present.

Cynthia Michaels.

I'm speaking for myself and Harry Joe Cliff as president.

It's a sad state of affairs that it took a court order to make city officials follow their own rules.

I beg you to read and digest David Voss's report that he mailed to each and every one of you.

It specifically shows using NFPA.

Sorry to interrupt you.

We need to take a brief recess so that folks can have a break to take care of business.

So we'll reconvene in session our special call meeting and uh we were with we had a speaker.

Yes, we're gonna start back with Cynthia Michaels.

We'll bring Cynthia we'll bring Ms.

Michaels back up.

Ah, there you are, ma'am.

We apologize, but it's just a part of the process.

So thank you.

But you're welcome to continue.

You ready to start?

Yes, you yes, you may.

Yes.

Speaking for myself, inheritance O'Cliff is president, sad state of affairs that it took court order to make city officials follow their own rules.

I beg you to read and don't want to ask you to stop just one second.

I'm gonna ask the people in the gallery to sit down and be quiet if they're gonna stay in here, or they can step outside and keep your conversations going but outside and come back if you need to.

But I want to make sure we can hear you.

So go ahead, Miss Michaels.

Let me start again or start work with.

You can start if you'd like to start over again, you can start over again.

We'll start with your time again, okay?

Thanks.

I beg you to read and digest David Voss's report that he mailed each and every one of you.

It specifically shows using N FPA as to when a repair will be would be required to upgrade to current codes.

Not all repairs will be required to do that.

Therefore, costs projected to repair City Hall are false because they include bringing everything up to the current code, which is not required.

This process has been rushed from the get-go.

A quote, we've got to get out of City Hall, was made several months ago, and no cost repairs were known at that time, and all council members were not aware that there was a push to leave City Hall.

After November 22nd, 1963, Dallas was known as the city where President Kennedy was assassinated.

In in 2026, do we really want to be known as the city that moved out and tore down an iconic IMPA historic building in a city that does not own City Hall?

Please vote yes for item three.

Thank you.

Edward Stone.

Edward Stone is not present.

Michael Emanette.

CBRE representatives blame the space for 50 years of area stagnation.

Government buildings are not economic engines, that's not their function.

What's been around about as long as City Hall and takes up three times the area is the empty convention center next door.

Empty convention centers are urban dead zones for downtowns, and that is what has happened here for years.

Owners of empty office towers want guaranteed rent and triple net in perpetuity.

They want tax dollars for their aging towers.

CBRE mentioned rent to own.

It's not enough to rent these empty towers.

Now they want us to buy one.

Regardless of how much it costs to fix this building in no world, is it a better deal to give up an IMPA built to last for hundreds of years for an abandoned 1980s mediocre office tower?

You will reach and surpass the amount it cost to fix this building in no time and have nothing to show for it.

Tear down this building, and you'll unleash a toxicity on this city that will linger for decades.

That's your only financially motivated real estate vibers want this.

Their public is adamantly opposed.

Thank you.

Andrew Chabutaru.

Good afternoon.

I'm here to urge everyone to uh remind everyone to reconsider.

You know, we must remain at City Hall and repair it because it is the right thing to do.

But I must remind everyone that the numbers released recently of 500 to 600 million to repair are artificially inflated to in order to wrongfully justify uh an agenda.

Uh and we we must not make this mistake.

We must remain at City Hall, and uh I'm I'm gonna read a quote of my unpaid architect.

I am unhappy about the fact that our society seems to be much more inclined to build something for a short time and then tear them down.

This mentality of short lifespan does not apply to this unique building.

It is built here to last, it is not falling apart.

There's no worse to vacate, and uh this is not about political shenanigans.

It's not about worshiping outdated buildings from a bygone era.

That's your time.

Thank you.

So Rob Gupta.

Hi, uh the City Hall move helps economic development, help South Dallas with contiguous development.

And let's face the cold hard facts.

The building, the current building was built in 1970s.

The city financial experts, they have presented clear, undeniable data showing that this building operation in the next decade uh by doing the renovation to uh keep it operational, will cost between 532 million and 600 and 611 million in maintenance and infrastructure overhaul.

Think about that figure.

That is over half a billion dollars just to patch up leaky roofs, replace failing extract system, and fix deteriorating concrete.

It is financially responsible to sink that kind of capital into an obsolete building when neighborhoods are crying out for street repairs, park improvement, enhanced public safety.

Every dollar spent propping of the past is a dollar stolen from the future of the community.

That's your time.

This move is a historic economic opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sylvester Hayes.

Pretty kapta.

Miss Ms.

Gupta, your uh your audio is we can't hear you.

Please unmute your audio.

Ms.

Gupta.

I'll come back.

Yes, I am there.

I'm sorry.

Yes, thank you.

Relocating Dallas City Hall from its current Marila Street location is a forward-thinking path by avoiding the costly repairs.

We can protect the tax players while unlocking downtown redevelopment opportunities.

The debate over whether to stay or to go is no longer just preserving a 50-year-old building.

It is about making smart, sustainable financial choices.

Today we face a harsh reality.

Maintaining the current city hall is a massive financial burden.

City financial experts have outlined that simply modernizing the aging infrastructure at 1500 Marilla will cost efforts of half a billion dollars over the next decade.

This is hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars poured into a building that simply no longer meets the need of modern municipal uh workforce selling or reimagining the prime piece of real estate with spark new economic growth right in the heart of the city.

It will allow us to create modern efficient and sustainable government workspace that truly serves the public.

Moving city hall is a bold step.

Thank you.

But it is exactly the kind of leadership we needed in 2026.

Thank you.

Patricia Bowles.

Patricia Bowles.

It's not present.

Bruce Richardson.

Bruce Richardson.

The great Eric Johnson, our most consequential mayor, would have had the list of professionals who put this document together on speed dial.

I urge you to read it.

I urge you to consider it no matter what you do today, because we will continue to press the case that professionals profoundly disagree with the process we have been through.

And we believe there are rounding error-level possibilities for funding the rehabilitation of this building.

We did not elect you to do this.

That's your time.

I did not.

Thank you.

There are three speakers that I'm going to go back to.

Jim Anderson.

I want to talk about a number that we haven't talked about before.

That is actually renting land for city Hall.

The building interior is about 770 square feet.

If you take out all the goodies, take out the city council chambers, the flag room, the lobby in the Great Hall, you're left with 400,000 square feet.

So when 400 square feet in downtown Dallas today, according to the Fox News, you can get boarding office space for 19 to 25 million dollars a year.

That's 195, 250 million a year.

And if we go for 20 years, it's 400 to 500 million dollars a year.

You scoff at fixing up the building for 500 million dollars a half a billion, yet it may cost that much to move it.

Then you also have the demolition cost of a building that is not going to come down easy.

You need to look at the demolition cost, the relocation cost, moving 91131 emergency preparedness.

You need to have all the numbers.

Please look at the numbers.

We have plenty of time now that the maps are coming around.

Thank you.

Naomi Green.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you may continue.

Thank you.

Vote against item three.

Do not fund to uh do not vote to fund the repairs for the building.

As a community advocate for some of the most marginalized neighborhoods in Dallas, I understand the importance of city resources and the impact that they have on people's daily lives.

Feelings about a building will not create opportunities for our neighborhoods to prove quality of life or help communities grow.

Our taxpayer dollars deserve to be spent wisely and responsibly.

That's your time to the side.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sylvia Lagos.

Okay, it's not online.

Mr.

Mayor, this concludes your speakers for this item.

Sir Chairman West, for what purpose?

Uh to make a motion.

You're recognized for that purpose.

I move to deny this item, and because the city manager has completed sub section one sub-paragraphs numbers one, two, four, and five of resolution number two, six zero four nine nine.

Direct the city manager to continue following resolution number two, six zero four nine nine subparagraph three to explore options for the disposition of City Hall site and bring these options back to city council no later than August 26, 2026.

Second.

It's been moved and seconds.

There are discussion, Chairman West.

You recognize for five minutes.

For the public, we are on agenda item three.

Motion by Chairman West.

You recognize for five minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

So this motion pauses any uh move to begin the renovation process at this point, and it does it's intended to do exactly what many speakers, including those who spoke today from the safe city hall coalition have asked for, which is to get us a full picture of the numbers, including the lease options, and and the cost of leasing to own a different building.

That one of the main things that have been asked for from my residents in my town hall and from many of the speakers over the course of this last several months is to have a true side-by-side comparison.

We cannot do that if we stop the process today.

A few questions for staff, and I'd like to go ahead and bring up slide 38, please.

Good evening, and I don't think the presentation's available to pull back up right now.

Okay.

Well, if we can work on that, I think it's it's helpful.

Um, so the deck that was presented by you a few hours ago discussed the costs of renovating City Hall in a phased repair plan between five and ten years.

Um, my first question is to um on slide 38, walk me through the the highlighted um figures there.

I see under the Gresham Smith option number two, which you used, Jack, to um really base all the other slides and and the the you know what we'd have to do to pay for the phase repair.

Um what what are the the major figures here mean?

When I see sub cap subtotal capital of 769 million, and then I see um you know sub capital plus interest 1.225 million billion, what does that mean?

Good evening, John Johnson, chief of real estate.

So the Gresham Smith option number two item that you've referenced is around 556.8 million dollars for corrective repairs.

That includes repairs that are necessary to the building as well as ADA and code required upgrades.

As I mentioned, so the ADA compliance is included in that number, the interiors piece of 107 million.

That's walls, ceilings, floorings, finish out, uh FFE, furniture fixture, and equipment, desk, chairs, storage, workstations, technology would be for network systems, A V systems, broadcast, chambers, technology, and then soft coffee would be the design, construction administration, permitting, and those things that are necessary for us to deliver the project with a flat $10 million contingency.

Okay, what would generally be in the 20-year OM budget of 229 million dollars?

Um, sorry.

Uh we use the actual number, it's around $8 million a year that we have for this building.

That's things like electricity, gas, water, security, custodial, uh, landscape, pest power washing, window washing, and so that's an eight million dollar fee or an eight million dollar expense with a 3% escalation over a 20-year period, which is how you get to the $229 million dollars that's listed for an apples to apples comparison on the slide for slide 38.

Okay, this total cost figure that's in option two would be paid out over 20 years, right?

So this is where I'm gonna need the chief financial officer's help.

The amount of the 1.5 is that paid out over 20 years.

So the question regarding um the 1.5 million dollars in this scenario, the scenario does assume that the $769 million for corrective repairs and modernization, so the total $769.8 million dollars of capital improvements would be financed over 20 years.

The financing cost in this scenario is $456 million, and then in addition to paying the capital principal and interest back over 20 years, the operating cost that's in the uh OM line operation and maintenance line 229 million is the cost over 20 years of custodial utilities, security.

So, yes, the 1.5 billion dollar total is a 20-year uh cost of occupancy, repair, okay, interest on the debt, and operations of the facility.

Got it.

So I'm gonna come back in a second to the apples to apples comparison, but I do want to know if we did vote in support of this, if this ended up being a yes vote for this item, when does staff foresee beginning the renovation process?

When would that kick off?

So all of the numbers that we have from AECOM from Gresham Smith and from WM2 company are based in 2028 dollars because that would be the very earliest that feasibly we could do anything for construction.

However, it's really important that the city council identify the direction and the funding and the scope that they want to include, and we would need that up front because we have to do design work.

We need to uh ensure that we procured architects and engineers who will actually do the construction documents, come up with the phasing, we have permitting, we need a bid out for the general contractor, allow time for the swing space for the actual construction commissioning, and then move back in.

So it would be a very complex and very complicated situation.

So it would likely take at least 28, likely, probably a year or two past that.

And I think that question is really important.

Um that we, you know, when we get the question, what's the rush?

I mean, part of what I've been told by the city manager is she needs to plan her budget now.

That's I assume that's still correct for this next fall.

But what's the risk to this building if we do nothing?

If this council says, Well, we don't want to put the money into it to fix it, we don't want to move to another location.

What happens if we kick it down the road another five or ten years?

You know, other than putting council staff in the public through this yet again when my time's done.

So I think that it's the cost increase with every month with every day, it costs more for stuff in the future.

We expose ourselves to additional risks.

We would potentially see additional failures that would occur over time, broken pipe systems that fail that we have not maintained or replaced, and they would probably become more prevalent over time.

So Jack, you presented three options on how we're going to pay for this.

A tax rate increase, a bond election, and there were a lot of good questions by Council Member Seward and and some others, or cuts in staff or services or both.

Do you see any other options on how we would pay for City Hall repairs other than those three options?

Sir typically for these types of improvements for the general fund, we have two basic sources.

Either we use cash to pay for it or we issue debt.

And the cash scenario would involve potentially reducing services, cutting services or increasing property tax to accomplish it.

There's really not another large enough source of funds.

We would take advantage of cost sharing with the other uh occupants in this building, such as the water utility department and others, however, the the bulk of the cost is gonna fall on the general fund portion of the city government, and so you either then use cash in the general fund or use debt through the debt service fund.

So if we if we end up relocating to a different location, there's obviously going to be costs with relocating too.

It's not going to be free.

There's gonna be we're gonna have additional, we're gonna have other costs.

Um we of course don't know what those numbers are because we haven't turned loose our brokers to go out and talk to and you know negotiate a final deal, which is what the motion, my motion is intended to allow us to do.

Um, but would relocating, in your understanding, trigger one of those three funding mechanisms.

Do you think under a re uh relocating scenario we're still going to need to increase the tax rate, issue bonds, or cut services?

So, based on the market exploration that our partners have been through and looking at what's available, they have made it clear that there are material savings to the city by relocating from uh 1500 Marilla.

And so that savings is um they've described in the hundreds of millions of dollars, don't know an exact amount because they're still working through uh with the potential properties what what there might be and those will get refined over time if we relocate, there are other options for financing.

You can work financing through a lease to own, you can uh work with the property that would be purchased on how that is structured.

There's the opportunity uh in some of the properties that are available to have excess space that could be rented to uh a third party or a private tenant that would provide an additional revenue stream.

Um there would be the opportunity to consolidate some of our operations from some of our leased space that we currently have from some of our other owned space that we have, bringing those together in a consolidated uh city hall and divest of those other real estate assets.

So there's a lot of other tools in the tool chest, so to speak uh for relocating than I see possible uh in this options to repair.

You touched on this, but in the relocating options, are there options in there for a lease to own?

So we wouldn't just be necessarily a tenant if we went in that option.

So there is no anticipation that we would be a permanent tenant somewhere.

Every option that we're looking at would be uh to uh if we did go with the lease, it would be a lease to own option.

Our our goal is to own City Hall, not to lease City Hall.

Okay, and I guess I just want to really get I really want to get this answer out there for from people at my town hall were concerned about the fact that we really don't have the apples to apples comparison.

We don't have it today to be able to talk about when will the public get to see the true comparison of the cost between staying in City Hall and renovating and going out to lease in the market.

Lease to own.

So CBRED, I want to give more answer or I can answer this.

Okay.

So if council at some point gives the uh our partners with CBRE the authorization to do additional work and work with the market and fine-tune the proposals we received, then we would be able to bring something back.

But until then, the um the consultants are not able to get any finer uh tuned numbers than we've already received, is my understanding, and I'll ask C BRE if they have anything to add to feel free.

No, I I I agree with that.

Uh the the one thing when you were asking the question about savings and lease to own options.

Uh, our market exploration uh has determined uh that there are really some unique opportunities within the central business district to not only lease lease with a purchase option, buy outright and and and other uh uh financing options that that were mentioned earlier from that perspective, but in terms of the savings and the true opportunity in particular in downtown, uh I want to quantify that there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings just from our market exploration at this point, and you know that that's accomplished as again, Jack mentioned.

Uh, the the opportunity to reduce operating expenses and capital expenses, uh, the opportunity to uh secure the benefit of lease revenue presently in some of those properties, and I don't know, uh and then uh lastly the consolidation uh of city uh city owned assets is is a tremendous opportunity there.

So, so the motion as I read it would allow you to go out and continue negotiating, come back with final numbers that the city could then look at, correct?

So if I could jump in for just a second because I want to go back to a couple things that I think Mr.

Ireland and our uh partner with CBRE, they've responded to.

Um so we currently have operating expenses here at City Hall, right?

And when you take those operating expenses, the opportunity that we don't have now to create that revenue stream for other leases that might be a part of a location, the consolidation of other city departments that are currently in other buildings city-owned and some with lease space, and the potential opportunity to co-locate with another governmental entity.

Those are all ways that would allow for us to have a new model for whether it's a lease to own purchase outright that we don't have currently.

What you just read from my perspective, and I'll let the attorneys jump in, there is an item that still remains in the March 4th resolution that allowed for us to continue to review options to dispose of the site.

What's not before you today is the authorization for us to go do the pre-development work that will allow for us to bring you back more details around the numbers to truly get you to the side by side.

That is not what's on for today, and I think what you read into the record on the motion is the explore options to do the dispose of the site.

Now that's what I think I heard.

Okay.

So I'll just I'll lean over to the attorneys and make sure that I didn't say that incorrectly.

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor.

State your point of order.

This motion is out of order in that it in part authorizes the city manager to pursue opportunities for the redevelopment of the property located at 1500 Marilla Street, which is outside the scope of agenda item three that we are now discussing, and in fact, is the subject of agenda item four, which we are expressly prohibited from discussing at today's meeting by the TRO issued by the 14th district court yesterday.

Thank you for making your point of order.

I will let the uh city attorney slash parliamentarian address that issue first before I rule on that.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um this motion all it references is item number four.

Let me make sure I have the right one.

Uh item number one three off the original March 4th resolution that's already in effect, it's already what the uh city managers required to do per year resolution.

It just puts a date that that information is due to the council.

It's it lists the items that have already been accomplished in the resolution, the March 4th resolution, including this one, which was to bring the phase two at least two phased uh repairs back, repair programs back.

And now that those have all been done, it just asked to finish the resolution.

It does not do anything new, it does not add any new activities, it merely references the previous resolution.

But that resolution is not on the agenda today.

That portion of it is not on the agenda.

I'm ruling it that the point of order is overruled for the reason that it doesn't actually, it doesn't do anything other than give a date certain for when that has to be completed.

That's it, so it's overruled.

Okay, I think the city man, did you have any thoughts to complete on that because before you were point of order out of there?

No, Mr.

Um Chairman West, it was just to make sure that we are completing an item, and it would be the only remaining item that we've not completed from the March 4th resolution.

I've been asked several times about the additional work, and we kind of did it in a logical step.

We started with uh making sure that we did the repair plan, which you've had, we brought it in phases, and then this was one of the items that's currently still on that March 4th resolution that we've not completed.

And the way I understand it is that you you're giving me a time frame that you want me to return to council with that final step.

All right, so what is your understanding that you will be bringing back to us by August 26, 2026?

Based on the motion that you just read, we would do the options to look at what we potential a way to look at the site.

It's not making the decision, it's not finalizing anything, it's bringing those options back, and then giving the council an opportunity to weigh in on what those options might be.

Okay, and when can council expect to get um more refined numbers from CBRE on potential relocation options?

Because that's the apples to apples, a lot of people are asking for.

That is that is not the item before you today, and we would be seeking hopefully future guidance from the city council, but that is not the item that is on the agenda for today.

That's part of the reason why the TRO has prevented that from happening.

That's exactly right.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Were you finished?

Yes.

Okay, Chairman Ridley, you recognize for five minutes.

I am opposed to the motion in that it eliminates any repair option for city hall.

The repair options that we have received today greatly exaggerate repair costs.

Indeed, they don't address repair costs so much as replacement costs, including upgrades and improvements to the existing building, which exceed the scope of what this council requested in the March 4th resolution.

As a result, they have included all kinds of costs totaling over 200 million dollars for improvements in the building that we never asked for.

And therefore, exaggerates greatly the cost to repair as outlined in the item three uh repair strategy.

And so because this item uh falsely exaggerates the cost of the repair costs, and we don't have a reasonable repair plan in front of us, it is premature to consider this item.

As a result, although I am in favor of a repair strategy, unfortunately, we don't have a reasonable repair strategy at this time in front of us, uh but I would offer an amendment at this time to uh create a uh to authorize the city manager to create a repair plan of just critical repair needs, not including any enhancements of the building as the current repair plan does.

I need the uh city attorney to sit down, but it's been moved and I seconded, yeah.

It's been moved and seconded, and you recognize for five minutes on your amendment, Mr.

Ridley.

What we need is a reasonable repair plan that addresses both our financial capabilities and the critical repair needs of the building.

We don't have that yet, and it's time that we focused on what this council directed the city manager to do on March the third, which was develop at least two repair plans for critical repairs.

That's something I'm quoting from that resolution.

We don't have that yet, and I think it's time that we insisted that we get that from the city manager, along with a reasonable financing plan for that cost, which I believe is substantially less than the currently exaggerated quote repair plan.

Anyone else?

We should be gone for against the amendment by Chairman Ridley.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by Chairman Ridley.

Well, actually, he said it so beautifully, I don't have a lot more to say.

The motion that I made in March that you quoted from is exactly what we didn't get, and I think I said that when we had that briefing, and we are hearing briefing after briefing that's building on an incorrect premise, and that's why all the numbers are so outrageous, and we've never ever had a public input like this for any topic.

There's a reason, it's not that these are all the preservationists in our city, it's because they know there's a problem here.

There's a problem with the contrived way this has all been rolled out and how it's been presented, the process is not transparent.

Instead, a yes-no answer gets a 10-minute circular mouthful of words that sound really nice but don't mean anything.

We need spreadsheets with documented costs, who they are, and apparently we need to understand what the scope is, because that seems to be the key here, where some folks are looking for for the four seasons for their city hall, and you know, I'm not saying that it it should be anything even nicer than the airport.

But when I hear people talk about, oh my gosh, the bathrooms in City Hall, you know what, they're not fancy, but they're still better than DFW.

So I'm not sure what people are expecting, but we need to have a serviceable building.

People should be able to come to work and do their job, but some of the things that I have heard around this horseshoe and not around this horseshoe are very disconcerting.

And if you want to be in private business and have lots of really rich amenities, you should go work for a different company.

But if you want to work for the public, you want to be a public servant, whether it's elected or non-elected, come be here.

You can make a huge difference, but sometimes that difference is actually saying something really hard, and sometimes you're maybe the only one, or maybe you're one of six.

But I'm telling you that the public knows what's going on here, and it's not okay.

And we want real numbers about what is actually needed to be done here.

The first six years I was on council, this wasn't ever briefed, not even once, and suddenly it's a crisis, and this entire building is absolutely um paralyzed with this conversation.

And mayor, I'm sorry, the people up the toll way don't have knives out for us.

They're laughing at us, and they're laughing about exactly what's happening.

They want the best for us, but we need to get serious about the fact that 15 acres is not going to be what is the catalyst for downtown.

The issues are obviously much more complex.

Thank you.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by Chairman Ridley.

As an employee, I worked here for eight years, and I um have seen council members vote against repairing this building.

I've seen mayors not support it as well.

As a council member, I have to vote to invest in this building and invest in our employees until we have a plan on where we're gonna go.

What if something happens in this building?

We have to be financial stewards and take care and advocate for the employees that they have safe working conditions here.

And so I would definitely support any amendment that allows for repairs to continue and for us to continue to explore that.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on or against the amendment by Chairman Ridley?

I do.

Mr.

Roth, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you.

Um I'm in support of the motion.

Um I think that it's really important that we have the opportunity to create a plan for repairs.

Uh I'm concerned that uh that if we do not allow for a repair plan to be thoughtfully introduced, uh, that we will not be able to pursue that option uh as a result.

Uh I'm concerned that there are absolutely significant challenges to any relocation option that we're talking about, and that uh these are very complex uh problems that are going to be difficult to achieve, and that uh potential savings that we're talking about are not absolutely guaranteed.

Therefore, I think we absolutely need to have a an opportunity to create a planned uh thoughtful measured uh action plan for working out uh repairs and and required renovation to the to the serious systems that uh we need uh in a priority-based uh uh approach.

Um I think that uh if we don't do this, we're going to be forced uh into a very very difficult situation without other alternatives.

I think it's poor planning.

I think it's fiduciarily irresponsible, and I think it's it's a lack of of uh sensitivity and respect to our citizens if we do not explore an interim uh situation which allows us flexibility to uh to pursue repairs, it it doesn't require any firm amount of money, it allows us to look at value added uh repairs at a at a strategic on a strategic process, uh and I and I think it gives us a lot of opportunities to retain and maintain this building properly.

Uh and I would strongly recommend that we vote for the amendment and that we approve a motion that includes that amendment, uh which gives us more alternatives and opportunities to uh to pursue a more concerted, thoughtful and effective plan.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'd like to request a record vote, please.

I'm gonna have a record vote for everything for all these items, so duly noted.

Um anyone else wants to speak on for against the amendment.

Mr.

Basildua, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I will support this uh motion.

I believe one of the things that we have um got is exhaustive numbers.

I don't believe that it has gotten as technical as uh the um uh most critical needs as we've asked for it to be prioritized.

I think this is absolutely something that we should um know before taking a vote of this magnitude.

Um, I want to just highlight one of the statements that was made from our amazing CFO.

Uh our goal is to own City Hall.

Guess what?

We do.

So um let's do what we can to make right by the city hall that we own that is the people's house.

Thank you.

And I'll want to speak on for or against the amendment by Chairman Ridley.

Seeing none, record votes are going to be held on all of these.

Thank you, Chairman Middleton.

Uh, Madam Secretary, you can call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor, no.

If you oppose.

Councilmember West.

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Johnson?

No.

Councilmember Rasendez?

No.

Councilmember Kadana?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua?

Yes.

Councilmember Blair.

No.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

No.

Thank you.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Councilmember Ritley?

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Willis.

No.

Mayor Prote Moreno?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

We're back on item three as moved by Mr.

West.

Um Mr.

Basil, for what purpose?

I have a motion.

What's your motion?

I move to amend the underlying motion to include um the price for demolition, the environmental impact, and the uh disposal plan to be added to what councilmember West's original motion asks for deliverable.

It's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Basildua, you're recognized for five minutes on your amendment.

Thank you.

Um if you notice this was not to change the uh intent of the motion.

Um it is still a motion to deny uh that is on the floor, but in the denial that council member West has put on the floor, he's asked for some specific deliverables from our city manager.

I think that this is my last opportunity to try to get some numbers that we have yet to have included in any of uh the numbers that have been given to us, and that is what I believe gonna be a substantial cost, which is the demolition of this uh building.

So if we are going to move ahead with a denial, and this doesn't change that materially, uh, but we have also asked for more information to make uh better and sound decisions on what the next steps of this process will bring.

I would like it to be exhaustive of all the information, and this is something that we've asked for for several months now.

So uh believe that by the August 26th date that um uh councilmember West put in his motion, it should be something that that uh the staff could accomplish.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by Mr.

Basildua.

I will support the amendment.

The most sustainable building is one that's already built.

We're working against our own carbon goals and our CCAP plan.

If we do not include this information, this is of concern to me because the materials have historically been dumped in district six and eight, and so we need to know what the plan is for the demolition and environmental assessment.

How do we know if we have material cost savings when we don't know the demo and environmental assessment costs?

Crossley Tower at the University of Cincinnati was estimated at 47.3 million dollars.

So how can I be a prudent overseer of taxpayer dollars without a vision?

This decision mirrors one that happens every day in District 6.

Sell your land, but where can we move?

It's happening in Elm Thicket North Park, West Dallas Design District, and Midway Hollow.

I would also say that costs such as demo permit, site cleanup, hauling cost, landfill costs, and dumpster rental are also left out, and we don't know what those costs might be.

Thank you.

Anyone else would want to speak on for or against the amendment by Mr.

Basildua?

I think Chairwoman, you recognize for five minutes.

Um I would like to ask Mr.

Basildua if he would like to amend his motion or accept um an amendment to his amendment.

It'll have to go through the process.

Um okay.

I move to amend the motion to include how long demolition would take, where the um material would be dumped, the impact on the life of the landfill, assuming it goes to McComas, and the cost implication of that, um, the exact move out costs.

I would like to understand why there's new furniture in the plans for the new building instead of using the furniture we already have.

I'd like a parking analysis for any new facility.

That's both for 911 and office, and I would like to understand the redundancy plan for the 911 call center as part of the report back.

I'm trying to get a I'm trying to figure out if the entire motion is in order.

I think parts of it are possibly parts of it are not, but I want to get the parliamentarians ruling on that uh before we even go through the process.

Let's make sure it's in order.

Mr.

Mayor, I was I admit I didn't quite get every item.

Um most of it seemed to be in order, some of it seemed to be for off-site parking garages, etc.

But this is the motion, the addition to the motion was for the disposition of the city hall site, not things outside of City Hall.

If you'd prefer, I'm happy to take off the um parking analysis and the furniture.

It's not a preference, we're just trying to make sure it's it's within bounds.

So if you I'll let you restate the motion in the way you would like to, but it's not to satisfy a preference, it's just to make sure it's proper.

So the question is how long I would like to have reported back to us with this motion, how long demolition would take, where the material would be dumped, the impact on the life of the landfill, and the cost implications, um, what the move out cost would be, because if we are leaving this building, that's fair game.

And um, of course, leaving this building also means we're leaving 911 center, so I'd like to understand plans for that.

Point of order.

I mean, the TRO stopped the discussion about the move out costs, right?

I mean, that's the whole d problem with this situation is we can't get the move out costs.

So we're now trying to add that back in to this motion.

For that reason, I think it's actually not quite proper still.

Okay, well then we'll take the 911 center item out, but we'll do the how long demo will take, where it'll be dumped, the impact on the landfill.

Do you believe those are all in order?

Sorry, say say what's remaining in the motion, and then I'll let the parliamentarian.

Sure.

How long demolition will take, where the material will be dumped, the impact on the life of the landfill, and the cost implications to the landfill.

That's that's actually in order.

So is there a second for that?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

You recognize for five minutes on your amendment to the amendment by Basil, Mr.

Basildua.

Okay.

So we're on the an amendment to the amendment.

We can have two pending at any given time.

So we're maxed out on amendments right now.

We recognize for five minutes, chairwoman.

Sure.

It's as simple as understanding what all the information is.

If you're gonna take down this giant building with all the concrete and steel, it's got to go somewhere.

I don't know if you guys have visited the landfill, but if you haven't, you should um there's limited space, limited years.

It's very very costly to um close a landfill and open a new one.

And by the way, you know where the new ones plan to be right next door.

So all the folks who are advocating for Southern Dallas as a good move of tearing down this building, this building will be closer to you than you can imagine.

Thank you.

Mr.

Basil, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you.

I just to give clarification, I will support this, but I believe it to be somewhat redundant.

This is uh essentially I think you you articulated maybe clearer, but that was what I I was intending on what it was that I asked for.

So I guess with more specificity, I'm fine with supporting this, um, because my intent was with I said disposal plan, I would hope that we would be able to know uh how we're going to accomplish um a demolition of this scale.

Um and and I believe that where we would put uh the uh debris is absolutely a part of that.

Um, and so it was beyond just the cost of uh so I I guess to provide clarity, I'm fine to support this, but just for the body, that was my intent um as well uh with the uh uh original amendment on the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Um I would definitely be supporting um and looking at just other articles that I found online, so there's probably an estimated 10,567 trucks that may end up taking debris.

Usually concrete is either recycled or sent to the landfill.

That includes the rebar and um the other materials, and the majority of those um recycle for concretes are located in district six and district eight.

So I feel that this is extremely important for my district, um, especially with all of the environmental issues that we have.

Thank you.

Ms.

Blackman, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment, and thank you.

My question is related to permitting and uh will that be also included in the uh cost estimate and the plan as well for permitting for di uh for disposition of the concrete.

Like when you go through TCEQ, like you know, when we dredge right rock like all that stuff has to be basically um cleared from TCEQ, and there's uh there's fees that go with it, and I'm just wanting clarity to know that that will be in the plan.

Thank you for the question, Councilwoman uh blackman.

Um I'm not a demolition expert, neither is anyone on my team.

That would be part of what we would be asking for and would be in our scope.

Okay, just wanted to make sure that it was not overlooked.

Thank you.

The Mr.

Roth, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Uh thank you.

Um I I'll support I would like to support the the amendment.

The amendment.

Um I do think it's critical that we do understand the the overall impact and cost associated with any kind of a dramatic um uh action that would be taken in the event that that this uh proceeds and and I'm really distressed over the fact that uh we are not uh considering the the lesser impact of a phased in uh potential um uh repair and and thoughtful uh preservation of this of this property.

Uh, but uh and so as a result I am going to support uh the amendment to the thank you.

Anyone else wishes to be gone for against the amendment to the amendment?

Seeing none record votes are being held on everything, so madam secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor, no.

If you oppose, Councilmember West?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Johnson?

No.

Councilmember Rosendez?

Yes.

Councilmember Kadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basil Doa?

Yes.

Councilmember Blair.

Councilmember Blackman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelsen?

Yes.

Councilmember Ritley.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Willis.

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Moreno?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With seven voting in favor, eight opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

We're back on the amendment by Mr.

Basil Doa.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, you recognize for three minutes.

I'd like to move to amend the amendment to include a reported estimated number of trucks that would be used to carry away the materials in the impact on the roadway.

That that is a that is what I would consider to be a dilatory motion.

That that we've just addressed through the last amendment, this very issue.

So I don't believe there was anything about the roadway in my last amendment, and um it wasn't about the number of trucks.

It was about the it was about the demolition process and the plan and the demolition, was it not?

His motion, which I don't believe we've considered yet, was about the demolition plan.

Mine was specifically how long it would take and where it would be dumped and the um cost implication of the landfill.

So this this particular amendment is different in what way from the this one is the number of trucks it would take to carry away the material and the impact on the roadway.

Okay, we'll let this one go.

But what I mean by dilatory is when if we're taking the same thing.

I'm familiar with the word, thank you.

I'm actually the the rulings aren't for you, they're for the whole body.

So that's what we're doing.

We're not going to have the same amendments addressing the same topics over and over again.

So at some point they're going to become out of order.

So you recognize for if it's seconded for five minutes.

You recognize for five minutes.

Well, our residents have said on survey after survey their number one priority is public safety and their streets.

And when we're talking about Councilmember Kadena said 10,000 trucks, I've actually seen it with a much higher number, but these are very big trucks full of concrete and rebar, they're very heavy and they damage the roadway.

I've seen this firsthand with the silver line.

We have streets that were in great condition that now we have to have a roadway plan on how we're gonna fix.

So I frequently hear that the streets are bad everywhere.

But can you imagine what they're gonna be from here down to Macomas?

Very bad.

And I don't think that's a good idea, but I definitely want to know what is that impact.

How many are we actually talking about and what is the cost to repair those roads so that our residents aren't suffering?

So I'd like to know this information.

I think it's gonna be important for a decision.

So I hope that you will also want to know this.

Thank you, Ms.

For five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

I will support the uh motion.

Um in the area where some of these companies are located, the road has not been made onto any bonds, and they are in severe need of repair.

We have park land that is also up in that area, so I would definitely support this.

So if we do need to include this in a future bond and repair those roads, thank you.

Mr.

Basildew, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to your amendment, thank you, Mayor.

Um, I will uh second what our city manager mentioned, and I'm I'm also not a demolition expert, and um I I think that I've seen several I what I would say worst case scenarios or or just um uh hypotheticals of what uh demolition of this scale would look like, and I I truly do not know what that would look like.

So I'm asking for genuine information uh that does not materially change the outcome of what it is that there's a clear majority on this council to do uh for the the denial of council members to seek more information that doesn't change the outcome of what you as a council member are voting for to me just speaks to the nature of the divisiveness that this issue has ensued on us.

Uh we uh uh I'm I I know I'm gonna take an L today because I think it's pretty clear where there's nine in support of doing what is going to be done, but as we consider that, I would hope that we would have enough professionalism to give a courtesy to each other as colleagues to get the necessary information that we believe we need to answer questions that our constituents have come forward with.

I want to reiterate that this motion, in addition this amendment, in addition to the motion, I mean the uh amendment that I have on the floor that this has amended, both um offer more information.

That's all I'm asking for, and it doesn't delay this and it doesn't give it so I do believe that this is uh is a part of that horror story that I heard of what this could be uh a demolition of this scale, and so I would think that it's valuable information for us to learn.

It does nothing to the ability to uh continue to push this forward at the rapid pace that uh my colleagues are already willing to do, but I hope that doesn't mean that we're gonna stifle information from coming to uh the body.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment to the amendment?

Seeing none, madam secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Can I call your name?

Please state yes.

If you're in favor, no, if you oppose.

Councilmember West?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Johnson?

No.

Councilmember Racendez?

No.

Councilmember Cadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua?

Yes.

Councilmember Blair?

No.

Councilmember Blackman.

Is absent when vote taken.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelson?

Yes.

Councilmember Ridley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Willis.

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Moreno?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With five voting in favor.

Nine opposed.

One absolute vote taken.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

We're back on the amendment by Mr.

Basildua.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment?

Ms.

Cadeni recognized for three minutes.

I just want to thank Councilmember Basil Dewey for making the motion.

District 6 has dealt with environmental racism for many many years.

The president had to declare a ledge melter, a super fund site.

And so environmental issues are near and dear to me.

It's something that I will fight to fight for for my community because we've had to endure a lot.

And so this is of great concern to me.

We have a lot of industrial area in district six because of the zoning that has been passed that was also in part of environmental racism.

And so I plead with you to vote for this amendment.

For the good of West Dallas for the good of District 6.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Mendelson.

Thank you.

You recognize for three minutes.

Thank you.

Well, I can't imagine anybody's going to vote against this because who wouldn't want to have more information about the demolition?

Like, even if you want to to knock this building down, why wouldn't you want more information?

That doesn't even make sense.

There was a point where the city council unanimously, me included, voted for a CCAP because we cared about the environment.

This is exactly the kind of environmental thing that I care about, meaning there will be debris in the air.

We're all gonna breathe it.

So this isn't like some conspiracy kind of environmental stuff that sometimes we hear about or some meaningless certificate program that we're promoting and paying ads for.

No, this is actually how people will breathe and what the impact is.

Why would you not want to know more information?

Why would you not support this?

It doesn't make any sense.

So when you see people who regularly say, Well, I have to support something like counting the trees, I'm sorry, tree inventory for 6.3 million dollars, but then are voting against getting more information about what'll happen in the very real instance of what if this building is taken down?

That doesn't make sense, and maybe it's just the message that we have the votes to do whatever we want.

If that's the message, shame on you for not getting all the information and letting the public know it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Basil Dewey, you're recognized for three minutes on your amendment.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I would also like to thank you.

Um Councilmember Kadena.

I think that you and I share a lot of the same um issues that have plagued our communities for a long time.

I uh truly do um believe that this is some very important information for us to gather.

Again, it doesn't change what uh the outcome is, but I I do want to know to Councilmember Mendelssohn's point.

You know, one of the emails that we all received from someone who does have credentials of being an expert in this field um gave a layout of what he believed to be um uh uh the demolition of this site.

And I'm curious because we haven't gotten any information at all on it, how accurate that was.

Uh, one of the lines in particular stood out to me and is one of the reasons why I could feel the emotion from my colleague in district six, and one of the reasons why environmental impact um uh specifically on brown and black communities is something that is passionate uh that I'm passionate about as well.

And that line said that the um uh debris and the particulate matter that would come from a demo of this size and scale would be the equivalent of opening a uh concrete batch plant in the center of downtown Dallas.

So I'm telling you right now that if this does not materially change whether or not this building is coming down, if the will is already there, I think that one thing we can agree to on both sides of this issue, including you all in the green shirts that say yes to downtown.

It's not saying yes to downtown and not being informed on what we're going to do to impact the businesses that are here downtown.

So we would need to know a little bit more information, and I think that that scale is gonna be very helpful so we know how to proceed in the next phase of this process.

Um, again, I I would I would hope that this is something uh that is just looked at as an information exercise and would not be opposed out of spite or politics.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Chairman Johnson, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by Mr.

Basildua.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'll take 30 seconds.

Um, City Manager, is demolition going on for K Bailey Hutchinson and Center right now.

Yes, a portion of the convention center is currently um demolition, is currently underway.

Okay, I was asking, because it's downtown, and I don't remember any of my colleagues asking the same question.

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor, what relevance?

Okay, but I have to the amendment on the floor.

We're talking about demolition.

Aren't we?

Totally different building.

It's I'm gonna overrule the point of order.

That's all I have to say, Mr.

Mayor.

The demolition is on the way right now for Katie Bailey Hutchinson, and I don't remember any of my colleagues have any same questions.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Mendel, uh actually, yeah, we're same round.

So uh Chairwoman Mendelssohn you recognize for one minute.

Well, I'll just add this one item that came to mind, which is this.

We've heard a whole lot of questions about asbestos, and the asbestos questions have been about the environment and about people's health, and right now we're only asking for more information about the environment and people's health.

Thank you.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for one minute.

This building is different than the convention center.

The material and the way it's built is extremely different.

The cost is different.

We have not torn down a building like this, and the materials will most likely end up in district six or district eight because that's where the concrete crushing companies are.

And so I don't think that it's an apples to apples comparison for both of these buildings.

That's all, thank you, Mr.

Basil.

You recognize for one minute on your amendment.

Thank you, Mayor.

It's not apples to apples.

We haven't been dealing with that now for months.

In fact, uh, I think that it's very rich to hear from the same source such horror stories of what would happen to this building from the asbestos and the remediation and what this is going to do to all of the people in the building, and we really care about what's happened because of the experience that we've seen with the DISD schools, but now all of a sudden we're just gonna tear the whole building down and we're gonna expose the asbestos to the general public, and we don't care about it anymore.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Anyone else want to speak on for against the amendment by Mr.

Basildua?

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please say yes if you're in favor, no if you're opposed.

Councilmember West.

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Johnson?

No.

Councilmember Racendez?

Yes.

Councilmember Kadana?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua?

Yes.

Councilmember Blair?

No.

Councilmember Blackman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Ritley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Willis.

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Moreno?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With seven voting in favor, eight opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay.

We're back on the original motion by Chairman West.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the motion by Mr.

West?

Seeing none, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.