Okay, I'm told that we don't have our introductory video this morning, so we're gonna go right into the meeting.

So good morning.

Uh, we do have a quorum.

Today's Wednesday, June 17th, 2026, times, 822 a.m., and I call this special called meeting of the Dallas City Council.

This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

We'll give it just a minute to make sure the WebEx is right.

We're good, I'm told.

So now, Madam Secretary, we can go into our the folks who have signed up for open microphone for the special call meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

As you stated, there are several individuals who have signed up to speak on agenda items one and two.

I'll call those speakers in groups.

Speakers, when I call your name, I ask that you come forward and have a seat on the first three rows of this intersection, and virtual speakers.

Um I ask that you have your video and audio ready.

Also, speakers, you will be given one minute to speak.

Greg Evans, Mark Nunley, John Gates, Rick Perdue, Jennifer Scripps, Trey Black, Robert Walters, Jose Avala, Sana Said, Bruce Orr, Melissa Lara, Roland Parish, Cynthia Michaels, Andrew Scola, Veronica Arundondo, Jedediah Ulrich, Daniel Campbell, Stephanie Drinka, David Voss, and Jessica Stewart Lindvey.

Greg Evans.

Greg Evans.

Greg Evans, it's not.

Thank you.

Be given one minute.

You may begin.

My name is Greg Evans.

I live at 903 West Greenbrier Lane, and I'm a district one resident.

My grandfather W.J.

Evans was a civic leader and a vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

His name is in the 1921 dedication program of their landmark building on South Accord Street.

My family has been invested in this city's future for over a century, and that is exactly why I'm here today.

Mayor, Council members, and staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

When citizens were asked to pass the bonds that built this landmark, they were told that would serve Dallas for generations to come.

They trusted that promise, and we are one generation in, and now we're being told to see this building as an albatross.

This council has repeatedly pulled city hall funding from bond packages.

Most recently in 2024 when 28 million dollars were removed and reallocated.

Councilman West himself acknowledged last November that many of whom are still serving today.

For what purpose?

I beg your pardon.

Calling council members out by name.

Our rules don't allow for references to we're gonna stop your time, which is almost over, but just for everyone's purpose.

Um, when we uh you can refer to a district or the representative from a district, but not the actual council members' name, it's just a rule.

Understood.

My apologies.

Last November, um that's your time.

That's my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Nunnley.

Thank you.

Mayor, members of the council.

Uh, my name is Mark Nunnley, and I'm a city of Dallas proud resident.

I'm a CPA, and I've spent 45 years reading financial statements, building budget, and stress tax testing projections.

Numbers are my language.

The case for redeveloping City Hall is as clear as anything I've ever seen.

For months, the opposition has demanded a real apples to apples comparison.

So did I, but your own city CFO said it on the record last week.

The restraining order filed last week by city council members is preventing the city manager from obtaining those relocation cost numbers.

The very people demanding a comparison are the ones legally blocking it.

These items on the agenda today give the city manager the authority to negotiate with property owners so we can finally get those numbers.

A vote no today does not protect the process, it continues to obstruct it.

Mayor and Council members.

My name is John Gates, and I currently serve as the executive chair of JL.

But I'm here today as a native Dallas site and someone who spent their entire career uh focused on all aspects of commercial real estate and is chair of the Citizens Council.

So today this council's responsibility to make decisions about the long-term viability and success of our downtown.

The CBD has been declining for some time, and some recent announcements really underscore the challenges that we do face.

During my time as chair of the Citizens Council, we've worked diligently on the opportunities that our central business district holds.

We've partnered with downtown Dallas Inc.

Housing Forward, the police department, and of course the city to kick off and support the Safe in the City initiative, which is designed to increase the safety for both our workforce and residents.

And I really believe in the potential of this efforts and I think we're clearly seeing uh progress.

So to build on that momentum, we need to be visionaries and take steps to transform the future of what we currently call downtown.

So I urge each of you to take this opportunity and vote yes on questions one and two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rick Perdue.

Good morning.

Morning, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Rick Perdue.

I'm a media past chairman of the real estate council, known as TREC, an organization of 2,000 members across uh 600 member companies.

Uh, also live here right in Dallas and work here.

City of Dallas is at the center of the most thriving region in the country, yet our downtown core is in decline.

We've all seen the recent announcements of ATT, Neiman Marcus, Comerica, and on and on.

Cities we compete with every day, like Charlotte and Nashville have created flourishing urban cores with great connectivity, and there's no reason that a city as great as Dallas should not have a that same energized thriving downtown.

With this in mind, we have an incredible opportunity ahead of us, and it starts to with today's agenda items.

I encourage you to support both moving city hall staff out and emergency operations out.

As the consultants' reports have made clear, significant building systems, operational life safety challenges.

The hundreds of million dollars could be spent elsewhere and better used.

Uh downtown Dallas has all the components necessary for success if we can make this happen.

So please support agenda items and let's uh create the downtown we've imagined.

Thank you.

Jennifer Scripps.

Good morning, Mayor and City Council.

I'm Jennifer Scripps, president and CEO of Downtown Dallas Inc., supporting my FIFA ambassador shirt because I'll be working in the parks this afternoon with our team.

I'm also here, first of all, in support of both items before you.

Nobody knows better than you do the budgetary pressures being faced with the property tax revenue cap, rising pension and public safety costs, and decade of underfunded facilities across the city in your districts.

We know this is hard, but we trust your leadership to weigh it carefully.

Don't wait.

Please authorize these motions to plan for the future.

Your own briefings and recent weeks made the choice clear.

Repairing this building and staying at City Hall is at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars in a commitment.

Money that would direct completely compete directly with those core services and quality of life amenities across the city.

Leaving City Hall for a new downtown location is the responsible path, and these agreements simply let the city manager and her team do the due diligence to get it right.

I urge you to support these items.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Trey Black.

Good morning, Mr.

Mayor, Council.

My name is Trey Black, CEO of Ontarget Supplies and Logistics, and downtown is something that's personal to me.

My grandfather actually worked as a doorman at the Baker Hotel across the street where the uh ATT headquarters is currently.

And he spent his days opening doors for power, people who are helping shape the future of our city, and he wanted his kids to be a part of those rooms, and they eventually were.

So Dallas gave my family an opportunity that changed generations.

That's why I care so deeply about the future of downtown and the decisions we're making today.

The reality is the vote before you is not about choosing a site or approving a relocation.

It's about gathering information to make an informed decision to move our city forward.

Major decisions involving taxpayer dollars deserve due diligence and facts.

If Dallas wants answers, let's do the work necessary to go get them.

Please continue this process.

Gather information, vote for the two items on the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Walters.

Good morning, Council.

Thank you for hearing from us.

Um I respectfully urge you to vote for agenda items one and two.

Uh last week and over the past months, you've asked for the best possible information to make informed side by side comparisons of the options.

We your constituents want you to make those comparisons.

Items one and two will provide additional important information to help you crystallize the options and make the best decisions.

I also implore each of you to consider every decision and to take every action with a view towards one aim, and that is to resurrect our city center.

It is inconceivable that our city and our region will prosper if we allow our core to atrophy.

And making the most of precisely where we stand today, and the most of the acreage surrounding City Hall is indispensable.

Dispensable if we are going to succeed.

Thank you for considering our views.

Thank you.

Jose Abala.

Good morning, Council Jose Aviled District 2 downtown.

I know you've seen me at this podium before, and you'll keep seeing me until this body acts with the urgency our city deserves.

Starting with moving City Hall out of this dead zone and into one of the many underutilized buildings already sitting downtown.

At a time when we face a 51 billion budget deficit, declining sales tax, and potential cuts to public services, but prioritizing 300 million at best to likely over 1 billion to salvage this building, while our city struggles to have basic vitality in public services, is fiscal negligence.

The bigger this is bigger than one building.

It's about responsibility, responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars and planning for the future.

The actions before you today don't lock you into a decision, they simply keep the process moving.

They allow you to evaluate options, understand costs, and make a decision grounded in facts, transparency, and what's best for the Dallas long term.

If we want answers, we must continue to work to produce them, not block the process.

Vote yes on today's item, say yes to downtown.

Do it for your constituents for our urban core and for the city we keep saying we want.

Thank you.

Sana Said.

Sana Said is not present.

Bruce Orr.

Thank you, Bruce Order District 13.

A week ago, a divided council decided not to move forward with city hall repairs, and I thank those whose vote recognized the cost outweighs its historical value.

At the same time, another discussion about downtown and city hall was going on among hundred city leaders.

A transcript published by D Magazine revealed both a brutal honesty about the challenges ahead and cautious optimism.

More unity among city leaders was identified as a critical need for success.

And now today the council has a golden opportunity to unify.

For months, preservationists, downtown advocates, and council members have demanded the same thing.

Cost for repairs and restoration of city hall, demolition and detailed relocation costs, because all agree that without a side-by-side comparison, no decision will be fully informed nor transparent.

So today we should expect the council to come together and vote unanimously to allow the city manager to get detailed relocation costs to better inform our discussions and decisions.

Thank you.

Melissa Lara.

Good morning, mayor, council members, and city manager.

My name is Melissa, and I want to begin by thanking for last week's vote nine to six to keep this process moving forward.

That vote created momentum, and I hope we continue building on it today.

It is a momentum to ask questions, momentum to keep exploring opportunities, momentum to have a real conversation about the future of Dallas.

Too often we're watching neighboring cities cease opportunities while Dallas hesitates.

Arlington, Fort Worth, Frisco, they continue attracting investment, major developments, and while we're staying behind.

Dallas should be setting the pace, not trying to catch up.

Today's vote is not the finish line.

It is the opportunity to continue this conversation to move forward and for growth.

Let's make that nine to six vote count and let's keep this momentum going forward.

Thank you.

And let's continue making Dallas what it's meant to be.

Thank you.

Roland Parish.

Greetings, I'd like to say thank you for what's probably a thinkless job.

Um I'm a businessman, a civic leader, and a uh have hamburger stance throughout the city.

Um we pay uh eight to ten million dollars over the last five years each year for uh real estate and sales taxes.

I want you to understand, I want you to support the um the agenda items, but I want to make sure that we have a broader vision that we play chess and not checkers.

Um, when we look at there's been in our lifetime, uh municipal urban areas that have decayed that have come back.

Chicago, Detroit.

Detroit brought sports teams back.

Chicago did not.

There are Fortune 500 companies out there that have generation Y and Generation Z.

Those workers want to live in downtown areas.

We should be locked arm in arm with the Dallas Regional Chamber to find Fortune 500 fortune 500 companies that want to come forward.

Lastly, one of the best decisions from this council has been DFW Airport, a strong economic engine.

They play chess, not checkers.

One of our bad decisions was we lost the cowboys.

They play checkers and not chess.

So I ask you, let's play chess, not checkers.

Thank you.

Cynthia Michaels.

I'm speaking on behalf of myself as well as uh Heritage O'Cliff.

Why is the council here today asking for three million dollars?

Use CBRE.

You already have a contract with them.

You've been given real repair costs by Ziata Bazora in her letter that I did to you June 9th.

Please read it and take it to heart.

If you don't, if you need, why would you not believe Zyda's numbers?

She's worked for City Hall for many years, managed many repairs here at City Hall, does not have a dog in this hunt like the consultants do.

Please, I beg you look at the real numbers and see what they are compared to what the consultants give.

Please vote no because on these two agenda atoms.

You don't need three million.

Use CBRE to look at the four buildings and come up with a cost.

Thank you.

Andrew Scola.

Good morning.

I don't want to ask everyone in this room who believes the promise that abandoning City Hall will spark development in downtown Dallas.

Why would anyone believe those promises?

We know how this is going to end up.

In five to ten years, this building will be another empty parking lot, or worse, an abandoned hulk, too expensive to demolish, surrounded by chain link fence, a monument to mismanagement and bad decisions.

If you don't believe me, look at the empty blue wall a few walks away from here, where 200,000 cars a day drive past, where our public art was destroyed.

City leadership didn't pay attention, didn't own up to their mistakes, don't have a plan to fix it.

All the while the world laughs at us.

Please don't fall for it.

This isn't going to end well.

Council members will be on to other jobs.

We'll be left holding the bag.

Dallas will be mocked for destroying an iconic building as ransom for city council mistakes and underfunding and lack of vision.

Thank you.

Veronica Arendundo.

Veronica Arendundo, it's not present.

Jedadiah Ulrich will be virtual.

All right.

Can you all hear me?

Hello.

Hello, Joey, Mr.

Juan.

I'm Democratic Socialist America, North Texas.

It is time to vote on these or not vote on these.

Save Dallas City Hall.

And while people is going on, I see our own council members wanting to treat us like a job interview.

Our first cities are going to get hired by some corporation.

Move here.

I find that pathetic times change.

Sports franchises look for the next handout.

Department stores are getting the past.

ATMTs moved all over the place.

There's no appeasing any of these entities, especially one of them is owned by genocidal freaks who don't value human life.

I see you people at the horseshoe so eager to get on your knees, ready to pay for big businesses right before yourselves.

There are local business owners that think they will catch the wave if you sell City Hall to some corporate interest.

Yeah, and they're naivete unaware that it will be completely priced out.

Saving this building won't solve your downtown problem or your budget problem, but it is time to get creative with your resources.

At a time when guys are in their underwear, mean mugging for way in at the Lake Memorial.

It will maintain what we stand for in this city.

You want to revive downtown, get creative with the locks around City Hall and build affordable housing.

Get a grocery store downtown and supper the hands of these entities, businesses will follow with people.

Thank you.

Daniel Campbell.

Hello.

Nice to meet you.

Yeah, I believe in the redevelopment and reimagination of all of downtown, including this building and the surrounding area.

I just think it's a beautiful space, but maybe it could be reimagined into something else that is better than what we have today.

As one lady pointed out, you look at all these other city centers and how beautiful they are.

I just think we need something like that to draw people in to Dallas, make them more community-oriented.

Thank you.

Stephanie Dinka.

As you sit there gloating over the prospect of erasing I am pay's legacy, I'm here to make sure his words are entered into the record.

You never quite know when something that you have planted is going to be harvested.

The yield may be once or recurrent.

You may forget that something was planted, and then there is suddenly this bloom called up by circumstances that are completely different.

Such blooms can breach walls and whole epochs.

This very moment is one of those blooms, me standing inside the house Pay designed for us, speaking truth to power, a time he both dreamed and feared when the people of Dallas would need to protect themselves.

He gave us this monument to remember how strong we are, that our voices matter.

I am Pei was a visionary.

He will be remembered by generations for what he created.

You will be remembered for what you destroyed if you're remembered at all.

Thank you.

David Voss.

My name is David Voss.

I live at 6546 Oriole Drive, Dallas, Texas, in district number two.

I've spent considerable time and effort over the last few months trying to provide accurate information and professional experienced opinions about why and how to save Dallas City Hall.

My attempts to insert logic and reason into this debate have found support with six members of this council.

Logic and reason have been ignored by nine members of this body who are promoting the largest move to disrupt representative government in this city's history.

And now you have the audacity to take ARPA funds budgeted for city hall repairs, reallocate them to fund your actions to abandon and destroy this building.

It appears that you have no shame.

I'm going to use the rest of my time here to help with that.

Shame, shame, shame, shame.

Shame on you.

Thank you.

Jessica Stewart Lindbey.

Good morning.

My name is Jessica Stewart Lindvey, District 9.

Um, I think what David Voss said was so important.

Shame is the feeling that we have when we're doing something wrong, and it's so important.

If we don't have shame, we can't learn from our mistakes, and we can't refocus and re-center what's right.

And I think shame is something that the people here that are not listening to their constituents but listening to the um private sector is an appropriate feeling that we should all have when we're doing something wrong.

Redirect.

This is your chance.

You have a chance to vote no today and re-center.

What's going on right now?

The process to abandon Dallas City Hall is regressive, destructive, and non-democrat non-democratic.

It is not based on our values, such as CCAP, the Dallas Comprehensive Environmental and Climate Action Plan.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will now call the next group of speakers.

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

And virtual speakers, please have your audio and video ready.

Bruce Richardson, Dolores Leve Soroka, Mike Davis, Elena Stevens, Ed Zara, Quinn Matthews, Carol Bell Walton, Amy Tran, Tamitha Carriel, Sean Jensen, Jared Willis, Anthony Cheney, Erica Cole, Sharon Shepard, Sam Williams, Diane Birdwell, Karen Muncie, Yolanda Williams, Terrence Hudson, and Diana Hayes, Bruce Richardson.

The great Eric Johnson regretted that engineers rarely become political leaders.

Engineers mold science into human advancement.

Their standards are rigorous above all other fields.

Lawyers engineer words to achieve ends.

Judges are the check upon their work.

A boondoggle is a politically engineered spending without public benefit.

This is kind of a reverse one.

I didn't come to convince you because you are so convinced.

But I warn you, we have only begun.

Ultimately, history will have its say, and history will follow you past your graves.

You can count on it.

Truth always prevails, always.

You cannot engineer truth away.

Thank you.

Dolores Leve Soroka.

Dolores Levy Soroka District 2.

If I had walked into this chamber today and handed the City of Dallas a check for 750 million dollars with one condition, that you could only use it to set to repair City Hall, I believe many of you would still vote to leave this building.

Why?

Because there is no this no longer looks like an honest evaluation.

It looks like a predetermined outcome.

City Hall is not the problem.

It's an inanimate object.

It did not stop development downtown.

It did not drive ATT or the stars to Plano.

It has no power to make or break a revitalization plan.

What concerns citizens is a process where the conclusion seems to come before the analysis, and consultants are hired to justify a decision that appears to have already been made.

That is why people begin to think of a very uncomfortable word, corruption.

Investors and developers may have deep time, but we the citizens are in the majority.

We are watching and we will remember.

Thank you.

Mike Davis.

Mike Davis, good morning.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the city council.

I'm in favor of redeveloping this property.

It's a reinvestment in Dallas.

That's what we see our neighbors to the north doing.

They're reinvesting in their cities.

I encourage you and the members of the council to reinvest in downtown.

Protect our restaurant uses, our hospitality and nightlife uses.

Make those central to how we attract businesses here, how we attract conventions here, and come together.

I really do want to encourage you.

Madam City Manager, you have the vision.

Members of the council, you have the power to vote.

Let's bring those facts together.

Let's get our acts together.

Let's come together.

I really want to encourage you all.

I've got friends on both sides of this discussion.

Mr.

Mayor, I encourage you.

Bring those friends into the fold as this conversation and this vote moves forward.

Allow their voices to be heard.

Allow the voters to be heard.

You're doing the right thing.

Let's move forward with this redevelopment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Elina Stevens.

Greetings.

I'm Elena Stevens, District One, a lifelong citizen of Dallas.

After listening for hours last Wednesday, hearing city staff and consultants show numbers and graphs indicating that repair of City Hall is just too expensive, and not, and that City Hall itself is not the highest and best use of the soil beneath it.

I do not agree.

This building is an architectural marble, an icon representing Dallas worldwide.

We need a leader with a vision to incorporate this city hall into the life of downtown.

The life around the new convention center, projected to be a huge generator of money and energy for this part of downtown.

I ask you today to listen to all your neighbors.

I ask you to slow down until you can make a case that has real evidence supporting a navigable path for IMPA.

That's your time.

Thank you.

It's Era.

Ed Zara, District of 14.

How did the lease become by?

At last Wednesday's special call meeting, Jack Ireland went through his repair presentation, which was full of questionable data.

I gave my speech about the advantages for Dallas taxpayers to keep City Hall and Meg Faye's repairs versus leasing, which would cost us over 157 million every 10 years with an escalating triple net lease.

The next day, Ireland stated every option that we're looking at would be if we do go with a lease, it would be the lease to own option.

Our goal is to own City Hall, not the lease City Hall.

So the good old Bait and Switch leasing was never an option, but purchasing another 50-year-old building is a financial disaster in the making.

Your leadership failed Dallas by not taking care of City Hall for the past 48 years.

Do you think we're really dumb enough to believe that purchasing another old building and bulldozing IMP's people house will change your modus operandi?

Stop your madness.

That's your time to save City Hall.

Thank you.

Quinn Matthews.

Mayor, Council, the sea of blue you see here.

No one paid us, no one gave us green shirts, no one wrote talking points for us.

I keep hearing about stakeholders that the stakeholders should have a say.

We the people are the stakeholders.

How many have responded to our message to save City Hall?

I can tell you just from my small part in this that we have had over 300,000, 300,000 positive responses to our messages online.

Tens of thousands have said, yes, this is an overwhelm.

We overwhelmingly want to save City Hall.

Finally, this is an opportunity.

Do something for downtown.

Do something for downtown by investing in it, investing in City Hall.

In three words, I will close with stop this madness.

Thank you.

Carol Bell Walton.

I'm going to read a portion of a letter from the Dallas City Count, the Dallas City Hall employees and ex-employees because you never asked them.

Dear mayor and council members, on behalf of hundreds of current and former city of Dallas employees, we are writing to urge you to restore Dallas City Hall.

We keep reading in the news that you are doing this for us, yet we've never been asked.

What we are asking of you is to lead our city in a plan to restore both downtown and Dallas City Hall, not to abandon who we are.

To seek our opinions, seek our opinions about how to best restore and beautify this space.

We are asking you to choose Dallas, our Dallas.

This is from the City of Dallas employees.

I will be sending you this email.

It has been scrubbed of metadata.

They are scared of your and you and your retaliation, but you will get their message.

Thank you.

Amy Tran.

Amy Tran.

After more than a decade.

After more than a decade living in Dallas, I can say that City Hall is where I've been most civically engaged.

I've marched for Black Lives Matter, attended rallies for free policy, brought my 18-month old daughter to speak at City Hall meetings.

Brought my intent sense to advocate against a partnership between BPD and I.

City Hall is not an obsolete building.

As an engaged resident of Dallas, I want to save City Hall, preserve this building, and see a future where my children come to advocate on behalf of our community in their own.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tam at the Curio.

Tamitha Curiel.

It's not present.

Sean Jensen.

Sean Jensen, District 11.

Sean Jensen, District 11.

I ask with deep respect: what can $3 million buy us right now?

ADA compliance with overhauled restrooms, critical HVAC repairs, security expansion, working fire suppression, leak repairs, and water mitigation, all of it.

Or earnest money to keep buildings empty.

Comparative studies showing us just how much those buildings fail to meet our needs, and contracts ready to sign before voters even know what's happening.

Unless we decide to abandon our iconic home, it's three million dollars spent joining the flight from our core.

We don't need contracts in August, but downtown needs this anchor.

Dallas needs this symbol.

So let's take a beat, let your constituents catch up.

This is a problem of our own making, but it's not too late to become good stewards of our city's home and restore the public trust.

No.

Thank you.

Jared Willis.

Jared Willis.

It's not present.

Anthony Cheney.

Anthony Cheney.

It's not present.

Erica Cole.

Hi, I'm Erica Cole.

I have some questions for y'all, and I'm not getting any answers.

We haven't found the details about where we're gonna move.

How much is it gonna cost?

We need an estimate.

It may be more expensive than tearing down City Hall.

And um I uh so we don't know where we're moving, how much it would cost, the real cost, bringing up the uh tearing up the I am building up to date is and the cost of moving.

I hear the cost of moving um 911 is still a very delicate and expensive project, and tearing down the tons of cement bricks and the quantity of dumping, the debris will cost millions itself.

Why are we not learning?

Why do we not know?

We're just more interested in tearing down this building that's your time to find out the price of keeping it.

Thank you.

Sharon Shepherd, Sharon Shepherd.

It's not present, Sam Williams.

Sam Williams is virtual.

Mr.

Williams.

Okay, I'll move on.

Diane Birdwill.

Here again.

Let's see, I'll just show my face this time.

They didn't do that last time, but it helped me uh get uh seven and a half thousand views on Facebook, especially with the mayor's uh grimacing and faces that he made when I was speaking.

I'm Diane Birdwell, District 7, and maybe I'll run for that after Basildew is turned out because someone else needs to carry on that torch.

I know that the green shirts may be getting paid for their advocacy, but maybe not, but I know they're getting played.

They're getting played.

These young people, y'all have no idea how much you're being played right now by the oligarchy.

For the anti-city Hall 9.

What's the bums rush?

What is the geek at the carnival?

That y'all have to be.

Wait three to six months for those who say it's the best thing to do.

Show us the numbers when someone quotes 1.4 billion dollars.

Show me the money.

Show me where your statistics come from.

Show me what you've got.

Quit using South Dallas as an excuse.

I'll say it again.

If the investors and the movers and shakers wanted South Dallas to succeed, they'd live there, they'd work there, and they'd invest there, but they haven't.

It's a game.

And this guy is way too aggressive.

Karen Muncie.

Karen Muncy.

Karen Muncy, 2614 Lake Forest Court, District 9.

The rule of law isn't dead yet, thanks to six council members, including mine.

I've lived in Dallas since 1957, and I watched this city's elected representatives consistently refuse to do the grown-up work of maintenance and stewardship in favor of formative development of sports facilities and entertainment fly traps.

Thank you, Mark Reed.

The folks pushing to so desperately to wipe out our city hall need to stop playing realtor and do the work elected to do by the citizens of Dallas.

Save the heart of our civic life.

Vote no on both items, please.

Thank you.

Yolanda Williams.

Yolanda Williams.

Okay, Miss Williams.

I will move on.

Thank you.

It's nine o'clock.

I'm here.

Hello.

Okay, Miss Williams.

You may continue.

Okay.

I guess I'm gonna have to sign up every week to speak on this.

This is really really getting frustrated because while I understand everyone wants to save City Hall, everyone thinks you know the building is important.

Well I respect the work that the artists have done.

But we have other business that we need to take her in the city.

There have been historical buildings torn down, there have been historical residents torn down, and we must move on with City Hall.

I don't understand why everyone keeps want to save a building.

So you're telling me 911 is not important.

Those of us who rely on 911 and call 911, you're telling me staff is not important.

We found out that some of our recreation centers, the senior citizens, were on the chopping block because we don't have money, we don't have funding or anything.

And this has to stop with the council members that's on social media putting all this false information out.

That's your time.

What's important about this building?

Demolish City.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

All right.

Well, we're going to now uh recess the special call meeting.

It's 9 01 a.m.

And we will plan a reconvene in 30 minutes or so.

Let's say call it 9 30.

Um and we will now call to order our regular agenda meeting.

So we'll need to switch over the WebEx.

So give us just one moment.

Okay, the WebEx is switched over so we can reconvene the special call meeting.

It's 9 32 a.m.

Madam Secretary.

We can pick up with our open microphone speakers again.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

If you allow my assistant to start up, it's moving a little slow.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Terrence Hudson.

We can't hear the meeting.

What one second, Mr.

Hudson, we'll get someone to raise that podium for you.

You may begin.

All right.

Good morning, City Council and Mayor.

My name is Terrence.

I live in District 13, breaking midtown of Dallas.

I just came here to say that City Hall is for everyone.

Not just me, not just for downtown, not just for uptown, it's for everybody.

Um you know, it brought tourism and movies and a lot of good things to Dallas.

And it was it'll be sad to see it go.

Um as I was saying, City Hall is for all of us, not for money hungry driven power hunger developers and a long and as a longtime East Dallas resident and um the class of 2010, Brian Arms High School.

Um I want to say for many more I want it to stay for many more generations to come.

We owe our respect and gratitude to I am pay by keeping and renovating this building, like what happened with the Statler Hilton or the Lorenzo and the Cedars, even the Cotton Bowl and Fair Park is the best thing to do.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Diana Hayes.

Diana Hayes is not present.

I will call the names of the next group of speakers.

Um the first few rows of this intersection is full, so I will just ask that you would come forward and be ready when I call your name.

Cindy Weatherall, Quinn, Hardy Haberman, Anna Rahines has counsel, Jessica Ramirez, Katherine Guerra, Rollins Gilliland, Sydney Walker, Joan Scollett, Melanie Van Landingham, Ronnie Mestis, Adam Lamont, Michaela Watkins, Damian LeBec, Matthew Bach, Donna Denson, John Lindbey, Kevin Pfeiffer, Alicia Quintans, Katherine Garrison, Jessica Sanchez, Sanford Dennison, Alex Scott, Kristen Adwell, and Erica Huddleston.

Cindy Weatherall.

Cindy Weatherall is not present.

Hardy Haberman.

Hardy Haberman is not present.

Anna Rahines has canceled.

We'll be virtual.

Yes, hello.

Ms.

Ramirez.

Your audio.

I believe it's muted.

Hello.

Hello.

We can hear you.

You may continue.

I can't hear anything.

We can hear you.

Miss Ramirez, I'll come back.

Katherine Guerra.

We'll be very good.

Good morning.

I'm Catherine Gabra.

The most sustainable building is the one that's already built.

Is a quote by the architect Carl Elefante from an environmental perspective.

Demolishing Dallas City Hall causes us to lose the embodied carbon.

The emissions generated from extracting manufacturing and transporting its original materials, and when it is demolished, that massive carbon investment is effectively lost.

Um, our curbing goals are net zero by 2050, so we're gonna have to figure out how to negate that if you move forward today.

Demolition of a concrete building also has its own issues, especially when the building is of this significant size, we're going to have to mitigate air pollution in particular matter for our downtown neighbors.

But there's no guarantee that leaving Dallas City Hall will do anything for downtown.

No guarantee that taxpayers will ever get anything for the loss of our uh of City Hall.

There's not a silver bullet that will save or revitalize downtown.

And lastly, as we look to the future, please consider why taxpayers would ever agree to fund another Dallas City Hall.

When city leaders are present.

I've demonstrated the inability to care for the one.

That's your time.

Thank you.

We'll go back to speaker nine, Sana Saeed.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

I serve as president of the Farmers Market Stakeholders Association, and downtown is our home.

Many of us chose to live here because we believed in what downtown could become.

This is the most excited I have seen my neighborhood.

Reimagining this dead zone by our homes talks about multimodal connection, links to other neighborhoods, the Katie Trail loop, high-speed rail street cars, density with people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

The downtown we envision is a destination.

But the story of too many places in downtown has become big ideas, unfinished plans, and opportunities that slipped away.

You are in a position to change this city for generations.

We are tired of talking about possibilities.

Show us that Dallas still has the courage to do great things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now go back to Speaker 47, Rollins Gilliland.

Sorry.

By now, my sense is that abandoning this building is a sadly foregone conclusion.

So here is my eulogy.

I believe with all my heart that 35 years from now, there will be books with photographs of amazing, unique 21st century architectural marvels.

One of a kind iconoclastic buildings built in the heyday of masters.

Of course, this building will be prominently featured since it looks like no other building anywhere ever before or since it will be seen as an inscrutable tragedy that people willingly let that building die.

As I said before, the first time I spoke, you cannot unloose what is forever lost.

Remember that.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Sydney Walker.

Shame on y'all for betraying us one more time.

And your numbers to move, we expect them to be the equivalent of two dollars to justify you getting rid of this daggum building.

Thank you.

Jones go at the good morning.

Thank you for your undivided attention.

My name is Jones.

I'm 11 years old, and I live in Dallas District 10.

I am here today to ask you to save our city hall from demolition by voting no for the two resolutions on today's agenda.

I learned that Mr.

Pay designed our city with a specific intent.

The front leans forward at a 34 degree angle.

This angle is not just a cool design trick.

It was powerful symbolism.

The building slants outward to literally reach out and embrace the public square.

It was designed to look like the people of Dallas or the foundation and the government is leaning toward forward to listen to us, protect us and shelter us.

People travel from all over the world to see I am pay's work, like the glass pyramid at the Louvre Museum in Paris.

But right here in Texas, we have our own piece of his genius, including City Hall.

It's the heart of our community if we tear this diamond.

Thank you for your time and thank you for listening to the youth of Dallas.

Thank you.

Melanie Van Landingham.

Do not abandon the structurally sound, safe, world-renowned, completely paid for City Hall.

This is not a side-by-side comparison.

You already voted against repairing what we own.

You already voted against knowing environmental impacts and demolition costs.

You don't want to know.

Dallas residents want you to save City Hall and stop the rigged process, lies, predetermined outcomes, and fake cost estimates.

Stop violating court orders, the city charter, meeting notices, voting procedures, state law, your oaths of office, and the public trust.

Especially if the city is broke.

Vote no against relocation actions.

Instead, spend the federal funds we have to repair what we own.

Address budget shortfalls before you spend another dime before you take grossly irresponsible actions.

Break the shackles of improper influence.

Do the right thing and save City Hall.

Thank you.

Ronnie Mestis.

Good afternoon, Mary Johnson.

How are you doing?

Ronnie Russell's West Dallas, Texas.

Wanted to go into the issue with the city hall, but I don't want to ruin the young people's uh idea of what they've been already trained.

What I'm asking is why don't you engage the people you actually applauding and taking pictures with, and have them and the voters and the other public people here in the city of Dallas vote on this issue and take that responsibility away from you guys.

You know, not to take, you know, your vision away, because there is none, but to put it back in the hands of the people that put y'all in the office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam Lamont.

Adam Lamont is not virtual.

Not in the audience, not present.

Michaela Watkins.

Michaela Watkins of District 2.

One could argue that our advocacy is in vain as we argue our points to individuals whose minds are already made up, especially if the checks have already cleared.

However, I would be remiss if I did not point out a few inconsistencies.

When we, your constituents, asked for facts and figures, but were provided none, it should have brought a halt to last week's vote.

How sensible is it to vote today on exploratory measures that should have been pursued at the forefront of this debacle?

As I stated last week, concepts of a plan will not suffice for my great city.

This underdeveloped plan of yours does not consider logic, rationale, or the needs of our own unhoused brothers and sisters in this area.

With whispers that our voices don't matter because the decision has already been made, I respectfully implore you to consider your legacies and the lack of integrity on display.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Damien Levesque.

Damien Levec is not online.

Not in the audience.

It's not present.

Matthew Bach.

Good morning, Matthew Bog, District 11.

As a 35 year old resident of Dallas, I strongly oppose the demolition of Dallas City Hall.

I personally admire the dramatic canted facade of City Hall.

It sets our skyline apart and reflects a bold era of ambition and forward thinking design in our city's history.

But City Hall is more than just a building itself.

It's where people show up, speak out, engage.

That kind of civic presence isn't easy to recreate somewhere else.

I'm stunned that some of our city leaders would consider discarding one of our most significant civic institutions simply to monetize the land.

By that logic, we might as well sell the arboretum, the zoo, fair park, and other cherished Dallas assets whenever a profitable offer comes along.

City Hall is not just a building, it's sacred ground in a civic sense of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Donna Denison.

Good morning, mayor and council members.

I'm here as a 17-year-old resident of Dallas to ask you to vote no on items one and two.

I'm asking for transparency for this rush to the decision to move out of City Hall and relocate.

I'm asking for transparency for the true cost of repairing City Hall.

Consultants reported that this solid, iconic building will stand for another 200-250 years.

It's in a class by itself.

Abandoning City Hall is not the silver bullet which will revitalize downtown Dallas.

Please vote.

Please don't vote to abandon this iconic landmark building, which I am pay considered one of his top four or five projects of his lifetime.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Lindbay.

It's whether decisions of this scale are being made with enough transparency, enough public input, and enough complete information before moving toward demolition or redevelopment.

Residents deserve clear side-by-side comparisons of repair, replacement, demolition, environmental impact, and long-term public value.

Too many Dallas residents feel this process has moved too quickly and without sufficient independent review.

I ask the mayor, the city manager, and council to reconsider the current path, not because change is wrong, but because stewardship matters.

Open the process.

Invite independent experts.

Bring in the creativity and talent of Dallas residents before making an irreversible decision.

Thank you.

Kevin Pfeiffer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Kevin Pfeiffer, District One.

We the people, respectfully, how and where does the City Council expect resource funds for the necessary rent for the next 500 years for the city staff to perform their duties?

And which city services will need to be vacated to find those funds.

And who will be paying to upgrade and retrofit the interior spaces of those office buildings?

Where are those funds coming from?

Listening skills should be mandatory and paramount for any council member.

Basic understanding of budget and finance should also be mandatory requirements.

Discarding a building simply because the council is in a rush to not take the time to understand what it needs to be repaired is not the premium level of stewardship and leadership that is required.

Please vote to use the $25 million ARPA funds that are available.

Vote no.

Save City Hall.

Thank you.

Alicia Quintans.

Catherine Garrison.

I am here.

I am here.

Alisa Quinton.

Okay, thank you.

My apologies.

You may be you may continue.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Alisa Planton.

I'm a 35-year resident of Oakwith.

It's been four.

I've been to countless meetings at City Hall, they've done fast courses.

I have a civic time and a maintenance that is built.

The IMP design buildings.

Recently, I've heard some real estate consultants tied on the city of Dallas.

Does not have adequate public transit or amenities, such as restaurants.

It would be attractive to employees and visitors to City Hall.

Who's the land for this?

I have that city hall was planned over 50 years ago.

There must have been a master plan within these years and time to emphasize.

Economic development has been a driving force for business at City Hall.

So why has the area around City Hall been so neglected?

Yard was planned in the early 1990s.

Why was City Hall left out of planned route?

You can then consider at the end of the planning stage right now.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine Garrison.

I'm one of the lucky ones.

I own my house outright.

If someone came up to me and said, Oh, Kathy, we're gonna take your land and your house, and you're moving, you're paying to move, you're gonna lease or buy somewhere, but we don't know where.

You're paying for it.

I'd tell them they were crazy.

City Hall is our house.

It's paid for, and it's the crown jewel of Dallas.

Past leaders and city staff have given us the police and fire pension fiasco, the $60 million Trinity East lawsuit, valued engineer pedestrian bridges, $256 million Trinity toll road fiasco, of which $81 million is unaccounted for.

Thank you.

Jessica Sanchez, Jessica Sanchez is not virtual, not in the audience, not present.

Sanford Dennison.

Sanford Dennison.

Yes.

Thank you.

Stanford Denison, 6234 Prospect Avenue, Dallas, Texas.

District 4.

First, Dallas is a city that has the unique fortune of having a number of IMPA design buildings, among them is City Hall.

It will be everlasting shame of Dallas if we left this iconic public and cultural building called back and ball.

If we tear down City Hall, which was designed by IMP to last well into the next century, if not longer, what will either lie vacant, decay, not store?

Anchoring the south side of downtown and stay in.

And the site will come yet another parking lot.

Most likely.

Never to be developed in the near future.

No real thought has been given to the cost demolishing the structure.

And who will be for the tear down.

It's gonna be us.

Nor has any thought been given to the magic.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Oh no.

Thank you.

Alex Scott.

Good morning, y'all.

Alex Scott, 6472 Tramwell Drive.

I'm a neighbor in District 9.

Um I'm coming up here a lot calmer today, y'all.

Um so we have 50 seconds to kind of talk about my heed for y'all as you head into these closed sessions and as you head into this major next step.

Because I think everyone here can agree that, like, this is a thing that's going down in history.

Like people are going to be talking about this, which I think is really fascinating.

And so when we talk about history, it's important to understand the challenges that we faced, which this time last year, our city manager released an after-action report for the Stemens Center, which was one of the worst real estate property purchases in municipal history, and we spent 43 million dollars on that building because we didn't do the proper you know strategic thinking that all we needed was an application, right?

All we needed was a phone app, and we were so rushed to do things that we didn't think and sit.

And so that's my heed for y'all as you head into this week to do some proper discernment.

Thank you.

Kristen at will.

Hi, Kristen Atwell.

The idea being presented that development of a vibrant downtown city core is dependent on the abandonment and demolition of our city hall is misleading at best and deceptive at worst.

The opposite has been beautifully presented by the visionary students of UTA's Kappa program, for example.

It is abundantly clear that the majority of citizens in Dallas want to save City Hall.

Even say yes people in the green shirts admitted they did not want to tear down City Hall when asked.

It is also abundantly clear that the expert answers have been in front of you for months, yet you are contorting yourselves to ignore them in favor of presenting trumped-up scare tactics.

The irony is not lost on us that a building visioned and constructed as a symbolic recovery from the disgrace our city faced in 1963 is now ushering us to the same level of international disgrace today.

The world showed indeed watching, do the right thing, repair city hall to have the vision to develop the southern sector.

Thank you.

Erica Huddleston.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for the opportunity.

I'm in District 14.

This building is a masterpiece, and architects understand the technical difficulties of creating it, these form work, but we're being overrun by a waterfall, a financial waterfall.

So I urge you.

Here is the precedent from Fort Worth's new town city hall that is being quoted, but it's different than ours.

Fort Worth's former hall was an East Coast designed Edward Stone Brutalist building from the 70s.

Sound familiar?

2.5 acres.

In 2020, they did a deal, they bought 11.9 acres.

The former Pier 1 building built in 2004.

Our acreage, 11.8 acres.

What will you do?

Will you trade it for a building downtown with no land?

Every text at no train time.

Thank you.

Before I call the final group of speakers, we will go back to Speaker 45, Jessica Ramirez.

Ms.

Ramirez.

Yes, hello, sorry about that earlier, the tech issues, but my name is Jessica Ramirez.

I'm in District 8.

I'm in an area where my library has been shut down since January.

Um, and our parks and police have received the biggest bond.

Um, and so now we're looking at tearing down a monumental building, a public building, and so because of the bad maintenance, bad due diligence, um, and for the most part, you guys, you will be not remembered for this, but voted out for this, and somebody else is sitting in that seat.

And I am if I will say this real quick, and no sand on the vindidos, and for translation, don't be a sellout.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will now call the final group of speakers.

And when I call your name, just be prepared to come forward when I come back to your name, and also virtual speakers, please have your video and audio ready.

Sarah McCarty, John Putnam, Paul Simmons, Norisoto, Christina Hahn, Peter Young, Lucy Billingsley, Author Santa Maria, Jim Lake, Amanda Moreno Lake, Christopher Weiss, Simon Matthew, Nicholas McQueen, Sean Todd, Don Dodd, Andrew Chubataru, John Eichmann, Alex Michaels, Peyton Jackson, Roseanne Meals, Matthew Jacobs, Jorge Cruz Sayings, and Zaida Basora.

Sarah McCarty is virtual.

Hi.

You may continue.

Okay, hi.

Good morning.

I'm Katie, 14,000 Noel Road District 11.

Your constituents are upset and having trouble keeping up with what's going on.

Even if you're closely following the issue of City Hall in the future of downtown, it's incredibly confusing because some of the puzzle pieces are wrong and some are missing.

We haven't seen costs to leave City Hall, rent, demolition.

We haven't talked about what would happen to the efficiency of a central government services if they were splintered into different buildings or brought elsewhere.

We also haven't talked about how this would affect Dallasites' access to these services.

I could go on.

This whole process begs the question: why are we rushing?

We all want you to invest in and say yes to downtown.

I just see no reason why we should forfeit our own purpose-built landmark house of government to do that when it's not necessary.

It was an investment made less than 50 years ago by the people of Dallas.

We own it, we trusted it in your hands.

It's an asset we should protect.

Leaving City Hall is a false brush choice.

Please vote no on items one and two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If I called your name in this final group, please feel please come forward and have a seat in these first three rows of this intersection.

John Putnam.

Hi, I'm John Putnam from District 10.

Dallas County is number one in the country for ICE detainments without due process since Trump's second term began.

Yet instead of protecting your residents, good families from having their rights and dignities stolen from them by state police.

This body focuses on the short work of an incredible immigrant.

IMPA and putting hundreds of millions of dollars towards the Soviet surveillance technology in a police training facility nobody's asking for.

The city aids ICE by allowing deportation flights and flights to internment camps recurred undeterred at love field.

When the Texas observer asked the city for comment, we told them to reach out to DHS.

So DHS is now an extension of the city that speaks for activities on its property.

That is acceptable.

Not signing to a D7G was not enough.

Stop colluding with ice, save city hall, save what you thank you.

Paul Simmons.

Paul Simmons.

Except for the council members of course.

Although the uh city hall issue is also a budget issue because for years the misappropriation of funds have contributed to this problem that also could just be manufactured as well.

So I don't really have anything else to add to the city hall issue.

Everyone has said what they feel and what is right, that you know you guys are um you know, laterally deciding something that should be in the hands of the people.

And I want to dispel this belief that if this money doesn't go to City Hall, it's gonna go to us.

It's not gonna go to us, it's gonna go to the Cubs.

Christina Hahn.

Arts and culture are the defining lifeblood of a city.

It's how we are seen and known to the rest of the world.

I am paying City Hall is not only a landmark that reminds us about the contributions of Asian Americans to North Texas, where we're the fastest growing population, but also social, cultural, and civic infrastructure that serves the needs of the people of Dallas.

From hosting public art activations that delight generations of Dallas sites to becoming a place of gathering for student photographers, to even acting as the space in which a young rising filmmaker can build his world in.

Our generation of Dallasites see and experience the value of our great city hall.

We cherish our legacy and seek to build with it.

The truth that City Hall is publicly owned by the people, and for the use of everyday Dallas sites should not be taken lightly.

In the hands of private developers, what was once a place for the public to gather to express themselves to be seen is no longer guaranteed.

We should not be blinded by short-term profit over long-term legacy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Young.

Peter Young.

It's not present.

Lucy Billingsley.

Lucy Billingsley, 1722 Ruth Street.

City Hall, as we know, has been a very poorly functioning building for a long time.

It's inefficient, and it's demoralizing to the employees.

Repoting yourself in a different location will boost morale, increase productivity, and enhance results.

Downtown is a much bigger problem, and it's been sliding for so long.

We need bold leadership to revive downtown.

We need you to lead by example, help fill some vacant space, bring energy and people to the restaurants, and be ready to make more bold decisions as we increase that financial base and then turn this area into a viable economic district.

Thank you.

Author Santa Maria.

Good morning, Mayor and Council members.

Today's vote should not be treated as a final decision on the future of City Hall.

It is a decision about whether Dallas is willing to keep doing the work necessary to make a responsible decision.

This site involves major taxpayer dollars, one of the city's most important public assets, and choices that will affect Dallas for decades.

This means we need real information.

Costs, options, trade-offs, operational needs, redevelopment potential, and long-term taxpayer value.

Stopping the process now does not give Dallas answers.

It prevents the city from getting them.

If repurposing the site creates the greatest public value, we should have the information properly vetted to make a decision on that.

We should not make this decision based on fear, pressure, or incomplete incomplete information.

I urge you to vote yes to keep this process moving, follow the facts, and give Dallas the opportunity to fully evaluate what is tested for its taxpayers.

Thank you.

Jim Lake.

Good morning, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Jim Lake, and I work and live in Oak Cliff.

As someone who has spent a career evaluating investments, I can tell you the worst decision is making a major commitment without fully understanding your options.

That's why today's action is so important.

This site is one of the most valuable public assets in Dallas.

Before you make a long-term decision, city leaders need to understand the opportunities, costs of trade-offs associated with every available path.

And that's exactly what the votes today would permit.

The work underway today is helping the city evaluate options, analyze costs, and gather all the data necessary to make the best decision for taxpayers, and to activate our city's core by creating a destination rather than a concrete barrier.

Continue gathering gathering information and say yes to downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amanda Moreno Lake.

Good morning.

My name is Amanda Moreno Lake.

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

First, I want to take the time to thank the city manager and the city staff for their hard work.

As a businesswoman, I have learned that major decisions should be based on facts and not emotions.

Before committing significant resources, you gather information, you understand the costs, you evaluate the risk, and you carefully examine the opportunities.

Over the several weeks, many have asked for more information about the future of City Hall.

This vote provides the city exactly that.

Good leadership requires full understanding of the choices before making long-term commitments.

I encourage you to please move this process forward, and thank you very much.

Thank you, City Manager.

We appreciate your hard work.

Thank you.

Christopher Weiss.

Good morning, Mayor, City Manager, Council members.

Christopher Weiss, 1419, Riven Street East, Southern District Residents in District 2, and the business owner in the CBD.

Um, I'm a geek for architecture.

I would love to see this building saved and being used as part of the future of the city.

I do want to ask everyone who here in the hall, green or blue, would like to see all the information gathered and brought together.

Please raise your hands.

Everyone wants all the information.

I implore people here.

We need that information together.

We need a true comparative evaluation of the options for City Hall, no moving of goalposts, no pulling of funds from other budgets, just true equal evaluation.

Second, make this a bond referendum.

This needs to go to a vote.

We've done this for other issues, including authorizing this city hall.

Let's do it again.

Bring it to a vote of the people.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Simon Matthew.

Simon Matthew.

Yes, I'm here.

Okay.

Dallas should use the available public capital to stabilize the civic asset we already own, not Russian to relocation before the city has proven that moving is the better deal.

ARPA funds can be used to help or address the Mr.

Matthew.

I'm sorry, your video is not displaying.

Okay, you may continue.

ARPA funds can help use uh roof weatherization and HVAC uh necessities.

We should also pursue CECO loan star funding for eligible energy efficiency upgrades.

These are low interest state loans designed for local governments that are far better fit for permanent improvements than paying consultants to chase relocation plans.

At the same time, we should evaluate national historic registered definition because it may open the door to preservation grants, technical assistance, and other outside capital opportunities that does not guarantee money, but it can expand the city's options and reduce the local burden if structured correctly.

The point is simple, stabilize city hall, first pursue outside capital where it fits the network and require real side-by-side comparison before they're locked into decades of that's your time.

Thank you.

Nicholas McLean.

Good morning, council and mayor.

Architect, I am paying and mayor Eric Johnson envision this building as more than an office space.

They envisioned it as the future of Dallas.

If we preserve our cultural landmarks, we can pass them on to our children, and if we demolish them or sell them off, then we leave our children with a void where something great once stood.

So let's not have a disposable society.

Let's make the choice at A to preserve our heritage that was handed to us so that we can hand it on to our children as well.

We can make the necessary repairs and improvements.

This building here and now we can create a bridge between the people of the past, the people of the future.

We can be that.

That's God bless the city all.

Thank you.

Thank y'all, Sean Todd.

The last 10 years we've invested 1.5 billion dollars into the core of downtown, repurposing over 30 buildings, including two functionally obsolete decrepit IMP buildings.

The numbers that have been presented to you to update this property may seem shocking to many, but to those of us that are in the business, they're accurate.

You've had consultants with tremendous integrity reviewing those numbers in their own spot.

You have a chance to leverage the taxpayers' dollars into the core of downtown and bring vitality of several hundred city employees into the core of downtown and pick up a new facility, municipal facility for a song, and the building owners will say thank you.

Downtown is on its deathbed, it needs an injection of life.

None of you here are taking down City Hall.

Pay spunctionally obsolescent design in years of neglect by others.

None of you have done that for us, sadly.

We're the largest preservation developer in the Southwest United States.

We care about preservation.

I'm thankful what Councilman Marino and Ridley have done downtown.

Please make the decision.

Move forward.

Thank you.

Don Dodd.

Don Dodd, it's not present.

Andrew Chubatsuru.

Andrew Chubatsuru.

It's not present.

John Eichmann.

John Eichmann District 9.

I'm an attorney.

I've practiced commercial litigation in the central business district for 44 years.

The Texas local government code prohibits the city from selling the multi-acre plaza in front of this building unless Dallas voters approve that sale because the plaza is either a park or a public square.

The plaza is unquestionably a public square.

If the city attempts to dispose of that land in front of City Hall without voter approval, the city and city council will be sued.

In my opinion, you will lose.

And if you appeal, you will lose again.

That's your time.

Don't do that to our city.

Thank you.

Alex Michaels.

Alex Michaels.

It's not present.

Peyton Jackson.

Peyton Jackson.

It's virtual.

Good morning, guys.

I wish I could join you, but I'm currently in Virginia.

But I just wanted to come on to announce.

If the city actually cared about your input, they would have just put this issue on the ballot.

If they cared about your input, the meeting wouldn't have been at 8 o'clock this morning.

If they cared about your input, they wouldn't have given you 60 seconds for it to address your concerns.

But they're giving you the illusion of power, just like Eric is using that hat as the illusion of hair.

But whatever you decide, whatever you decide, make sure that we have better lighting and a better camera for our speakers.

God bless you all.

Thank you.

Roseanne Meals.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the mayor and council.

My name is Grazeanne Mills.

I'm a resident of District 14.

I am not paid for my time.

I urge this council to vote no on items one and two, or at least table these until this is resolved in the courts.

Eric with a K.

Johnson had a vision for a grand civic space in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination.

I am a native Dallas site of over 60 years, and the Kennedy assassination is my first memory.

Do not loot $3 million from ARPA funds to uh this endeavor and use those funds for the original intended purpose to repair City Hall, in addition to the other three million dollars of ARPA funds.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Matthew Jacobs.

Matthew Jacobs is not on virtual, not in the audience, not present.

Jorge Cruz Sains.

Yes, total.

I had a question regarding rules and from protection of the charter.

I'm going to submit a proposal on how the attorneys or how critical charter violations are responding to council rules that are not reasonably not given reasonable opportunity for citizens to be heard.

Yet speakers are being denied adequate time and stakeholder findings are not being acknowledged.

So the presiding officer, may I remind you, has primary responsibility for ensuring rules are followed.

But this is not happening, so it brings to question all these openings that the legal department has.

So I believe this council is left without adequate counsel, so this raises serious concerns about whether the city has a legal capacity to negotiate complex pre-acquisition agreements.

Protected that your time protect the public interest and instructive.

Thank you.

Said a Sora, good morning.

There is no urgency here, none.

Dala City Hall is occupied and functioning today.

It is not on fire, it's not condemned, and yet this council is being asked to divert 3 million in City Hall repair dollars towards pre-acquisition agreements for a relocation.

That is fiscally irresponsible.

The numbers don't support it.

The billion dollar figure folds in costs that don't apply to a building you continue to occupy.

A face maintenance plan of 15 to 20 million a year can address critical systems immediately at a fraction of the relocation cost.

And relocation is not a clean solution.

Leasing never ends.

Buying an existing building doesn't solve the problem, it moves it.

You will still pay to retrofit a private office tower into a functioning city hall.

You're being asked to go find a problem you don't know the cost of.

Instead of solving the one in front of you, give city hall here, keeping city hall here, sustained the public investment, food traffic, and institutional presence.

That's your time.

Depends on the city hall abandons that commitment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your final speaker will be speaker number 29, Tamitha Curriel.

This is a document from 1974.

That uh is about our city.

I just want to read a little bit from it.

Dallas is a city's physical fabric conceals for the most part the diversities among its residents.

Unlike many older cities who have become famous for their barrios, Chinatowns, little Italy's, the fast growth of our city has created an urban fabric which does not visibly vary according to the uniqueness of the people who live within it.

I'm working on a project with someone, and we're examining um development and growth.

My name is Tamitha Curie, I'm from District 5.

The first poet laureate created a beautiful visual poem in tribute to our city called The City is a poem.

But mostly the poem I'm thinking about recently is a dream deferred, but maybe a new poem that I will write called a dream dismissed.

Communities in Southern and West Dallas have been dealing with lack of care in their communities with similar deceptive practices.

And to see counsel that's your time replicate those harmful practices and not care about us.

It's disheartening.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, this concludes your speakers for this item.

All right.

Then we'll move on to our voting agenda.

Mayor, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

For what purpose?

Um, I'd just like to notify the chair that our um technology is not activated to be able to bring in.

Actually, they're they're coming around now to fix it.

I think they're trying to work on that.

I don't have it up either.

I think your mics all still work, but we can't see the queue, so you can just bear with me.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Agenda item one.

So resolution one to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute pre-acquisition agreements that define the terms, responsibilities, and cost sharing between the property owners and the city of Dallas in order to conduct necessary due diligence work for no more than four property location sites in the Dallas Central Business District for the purpose of assessing the relocation option for City Hall staff and functions from 1500 Marilla Street to transfer appropriations in an amount not to exceed two million dollars from the ARPA City Hall Generation Electrical Repair Line Item to a new ARPA city hall pre-acquisition line item and authorize disbursement of payments to conduct such due diligence for the sites, including cost reimbursement to the property owners for the performance of due diligence deliverables, and three to direct the city manager to bring the due diligence results to city council for their consideration not to exceed two million dollars.

This is your item, Mr.

Mayor.

Chairman West, for what purpose?

From motion.

You recognize for a motion.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve this item with the following change.

Authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed two million dollars from the general fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed two million dollars in facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency reserve fund.

Second, it's been moved in secondary discussion.

Thank you.

Uh, first, before I have comp comments, I have a couple of questions.

Um, so I want to let the city manager take a moment and explain exactly what this item does do and does not do.

I want to clarify with the city manager that this does not, there's a word execute pre-acquisition agreements here.

My understanding is that there this is not a final decision.

This is not a final decision to move out, but this is a an authorization for your team to go out and collect the apples to apples information that so many people, including public today have been asking for.

Point of information, state your point of information.

Um, may the motion be passed out to all the council members, please.

Of course.

Uh, I assume they can.

I don't know if it's I don't I don't have one, so I don't know if okay.

It's in progress.

Thanks, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, thank you for the question, Councilmember uh West.

The items before you today represent the next steps in evaluating potential alternatives.

Specifically these two resolutions with authorized staff to use up to the three million dollars available funds to negotiate pre-acquisition agreements and perform the additional due diligence for four potential sites for city hall functions and up to four potential sites for 911 in emergency operations.

Thank you for the opportunity to note that these items today do not authorize the purchase of any property.

Rather, it allows for staff to continue working with our consulting team to conduct the additional due diligence that council has requested over the last few weeks to have a better understanding of the opportunities, constraints, costs, and the suitability of any potential sites.

We would then come back to the city council with the results of that work.

That would bring information that council has been requesting for your consideration and any potential future acquisitions or relocation decisions would still be made by the council.

I hope that answers your question, Councilmember West.

Yes, it does mostly.

Thank you for that.

I may have the have the city attorney chime in on this as well, but the wording in here about executing a pre-acquisition agreement, what does that encompass exactly?

Mr.

Mayor, I'm gonna ask Connie Tankersley from our real estate department to come and answer that to make it succinct and accurate.

Connie Tankersley with City Attorney's Office.

Pre-acquisition, because you're considering uh different models, possibly a lease, a purchase, a lease two purchase, those are all acquisition transactions.

So that encompasses any consideration of those.

Okay, so by authorizing the city manager to execute pre-acquisition agreements, does that in any way allow the city manager or her team to bind us to a relocation option?

No, that's just another way of saying conducting pre-acquisition diligence.

So what are exactly what she explained earlier?

So any final decision on relocation, just like on renovating and staying here will come back to the council.

It does require another city council resolution.

Thank you.

Okay.

So as I wanted to get that cleared up on the record because there's been a lot of confusion that's been expressed to me on exactly what that item means and what it doesn't mean.

So as clarified, approving today's first item will give everyone, those who want to stay in the building no matter the cost, and those who want to move out, and everybody else who's somewhere in the middle, the information we truly need to make an informed decision.

Approving item one will allow CBRE to negotiate lease options and bring back a final number in August so we can understand what it would cost to lease to own a new office.

It's been a long process, and I wish City Leadership had done a better job communicating with the public throughout this process.

If we approve item one, we can finally have the apples to apples comparison that we all want, and then so many people, including people on both sides who came today, have been asking for.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to use funds dedicated to city hall repairs for this endeavor because it implies we have given up on repairing city hall.

Like many of my colleagues, I have not made up my mind.

As I've said for over six months now, I'm waiting for an apples to apples comparison before making this incredibly important fiscal decision for our city.

That is why I propose changing the source of funds to ensure that we move forward with City Hall.

If we move forward forward with city hall repairs, we have some funds dedicated for that endeavor to kick off because we know it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fix this building.

Today's vote is not a vote to move out of City Hall or demolish this iconic building.

It's a vote to give both City Council and the public, the transparent apples to apples comparison.

We continue to ask for.

Thank you.

Point of information.

State your point of information.

Having received the written motion, um, I don't see, and and and having heard the comments, I don't see that there's a swapping of dollars.

It looks like there's an additional $2 million dollars.

So I don't see where it removes the ARPRA.

There's no substitute, and I'm trying to understand what the actual motion is.

Is it now to have four million dollars?

Two from two different sources, or is it replacing the two million ARPA?

I'll let you explain your own motion, but I don't see the I don't see what you're reading.

I heard what he said.

I don't see what you have in writing in front of me because I don't I didn't get a copy for some reason.

But anyway, go ahead and explain what your the motion is what he said.

Mayor, I'll thank you.

I'll explain my intent and then I'll ask city attorney to explain the effect.

My intent is to swap out the two million that is read in the item that was originally written by the city manager for ARPA city hall generation electrical pair for two million from contingency funds.

But can you show where it says you're swapping it?

Because it only says on the written motion.

Okay, this is he has the floor right now.

You've asked a point of information.

So that was my intent, and I would just defer to city attorney on the second part of our question.

Okay, we'll let the city attorney if you would like to explain further, but otherwise we'll recognize you just now and you'll have the floor.

Mr.

Mayor, we worked with uh the CFO on this, and while I believe this is sort of finance speak, the intent was to swap out the ARPA funds for the general fund reserve.

That that's what the point of information.

I mean, this is a legal motion, and so I'm asking not what the intent is but what the words are.

And when it says that you're only authorizing new things, and we already have a motion that was read in that already authorized two million from ARPA, and then this is authorizing the change, but it's authorizing additional money from the general fund.

And I don't see where it's swapping.

So I think the motion is I'll let him attempt to explain it one more time, but then I'm gonna give you the floor and you can use your time to ask any questions you want to staff.

Well, I see that it doesn't actually specify that it is your you are correct.

It is not clearly state that it is swapping the funds.

That was the intent, and we could we could amend the motion if if that would if the maker would be happy with that to just clarify that it is swapping the funds in the in the posted item for these funds.

I'm fine with that.

So can you do that?

Um do you want to?

If the if the body doesn't object, we can let you amend your motion, but I want to know that that's what you want.

Your motion.

Uh if that yes, Mayor, I'm fine with that.

Any objection.

Hearing none, it's so ordered, so I think it would be helpful though to you know restate it in an accurate way for your intent to be reflected in the words, so then we can proceed without having to burn up more time just to clarify.

I'm gonna make sure, Mayor, if it's okay with you to have city attorney write it up so I'm not winging it on the fly, and just if that's all right.

But we can still we can still discuss the motion as you ex as you've expressed your intent orally, but we want the written motion to reflect what you're saying.

There's a mismatch between what you're saying and what this appears to say.

So while we're working on this, we're what we're debating and operating on is what you've said, because that's the motion that was actually stated.

So this this does this is a visual aid, but your your motion is what you said with your mouth.

So I'm gonna do that.

Mayor, my intent is actually to amend the motion.

So if we could have it properly stated before the amendment, that might help keep things in order.

Well, I need him to to make his new motion then expressing his intent because we've just agreed to allow him to do that by acclamation.

Mayor, just as a point of order, I would just ask if we could pause, which it seems like we're doing so we could since you want to read you just want to read it off the papers, but you're that would be.

I would prefer to read it after it's been vetted by the city attorney.

Okay.

Then we'll let's take a recess then for five minutes to 10 40.

Give them time to revise it so you can read it right off the paper.

I would encourage you to do exactly that though, if that's if that's um easier for everyone.

All right.

It's 10 48 and we're back in uh session for the special call meeting, and I'm gonna recognize Chairman West with his motion.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve this item with the following change to the source of funds by eliminating reference to the transfer of ARPRA funds and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed two million dollars from the general fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed two million dollars in facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency reserve fund.

Is there a second?

Second, it's been moved and seconded.

Chairman West, you recognize for five minutes to uh explain your motion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um same explanation as before.

We just added in clarification.

Um that the ARPA fund language is now very specifically removed, and instead the there's a substitute amount coming from the general fund contingency reserves for this allocation.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you.

I move to amend the motion to require any property considered for relocation be built after the opening of our current city hall.

Second, it's been it's been moved and seconded.

We're now on an amendment by chairwoman Mendelson.

You recognize for five minutes to explain your amendment.

Thank you.

We've been told over and over by council members and staff that this less than 50-year-old building is too old.

It's at the end of its life, and of course, we would want to honor their consistent message by not moving into a building that is even older than the one we have.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by Chairwoman Mendelssohn?

A record vote for everything would be uh sure.

I would like to ask that for everything we do today.

Everything we do today, uh, of course.

Anyone else seeing none, madam secretary?

Please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor, no if you oppose.

Councilmember West?

No.

Councilmember Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Cadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua.

Is absent.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Blair?

No.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Is absent when vote taken?

Councilmember Mendelson?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis.

No.

Councilmember Ridley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Ricendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

Councilmember Roth.

We don't get to discuss that.

Yes.

Thank you.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

All right.

We're back on the original item.

Chairwoman Mendelson.

Thank you.

I move to amend the motion to require any property considered have sufficient parking designated for the city of Dallas, equal to as many employees expected to occupy the building, plus visitors in secure underground parking or connected parking with secure access.

It's been moved and second.

Any discussion, Chairwoman Mendelson?

I think it's pretty self-evident.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Blackman, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment.

Uh my question is, is what is our parking threshold right now, just for clarification in this building?

Good morning, John Johnson.

We have around 1445 parking spots in the underground garage, of which 49 are visitor spots.

Okay, and how many for car for the fleet?

I don't have that broken down for you.

Um and so how what is the square footage of all that?

Uh let me grab my binder and I can answer that for you one moment.

There's around 750,000 square foot of the garage.

Okay.

And is that include the spots in the back as well, or is that just the garage?

That's just the garage.

So how many is in the back?

I don't have the horseshoe for you, I'm sorry.

Okay, because if we're trying to get a total number of spots, and that's considered public parking, correct?

It's metered parking.

So it'd be public.

It could be used for anything for visitors for special events for anyone who's visiting downtown as long as they pay the meter.

Okay, and how much do people pay right now to park in the garage?

Sorry.

Oh, in the garage?

There is no charge.

No charge at all.

No charge.

So is there going to be charge to our employees if we move?

Can I jump in, please?

Thank you so much for the question, Councilman Blackman.

That has not been decided.

There's no location that has been voted on by this body, and so we will not be able to do that.

If that's a policy decision of the council going forward, we need to vote on that.

Is that what you're telling me?

Yes, because that's not been decided.

I would like to amend it to say that there should be no parking payments by our staff to keep it the status quo if we move.

Second.

Hold on one second.

Unless she can restate her motion.

So it's been moved and seconded.

So we're on an amendment to the amendment by Ms.

Blackman.

You recognize for five minutes.

Well, I I feel that if if employees are not parking, and um back to Mr.

Johnson or anybody, what is the going rate for parking downtown?

Does anybody have that?

That is not information that we have available uh at this time for this item, Councilwoman uh Blackman.

Okay, so I would say that.

But we would we would bring that back as part of if council moves forward with this additional due diligence, we would be able to bring that information back to the body.

Um because I would think it's probably a hundred and fifty a month.

So that would be almost what seventeen hundred dollars coming out of eighteen hundred dollars coming out of a check that somebody has to pay for parking.

I I would say that we would should at least keep it the status quo where parking is either still free or at a m minimal cost, because um parking downtown as we know is expensive and it can eat into a check of somebody who is an admin here.

Does anybody know what is our average um?

I guess this is an HR question, the average salary of an employee here.

Again, that's information that we don't have available right at this moment.

We're more than happy to provide that to you, Councilman Blackman, and any other questions that we don't answer around the horseshoe related to this item.

Okay, thank you.

Amendment to the amendment, I have questions on that.

Okay, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Okay, uh, do employees at other locations pay for parking um, not just a city hall.

Again, we're in a deep parking conversation, and that's just not data that I have available.

Um we do know that there have been situations where if we had to leave space for employees, specifically in the central business district, some of those employees have had parking uh arrangements at nearby garages where they've had to pay for that parking, and at one point in time there was a parking fee to park in City Hall in the garage.

I think if I remember back to my days of starting with the city, it was $26 a month, and I think that was phased out a few years ago.

But any parking analysis, information, data, and that level of detail is what we would definitely bring back.

So there's um in that side-by-side cost comparison that that would actually be incorporated in it.

Okay, do you recall why the uh parking fee was way uh I guess phased out?

I'm not sure of the exact year, um, but I do know that at one point uh any new employees that came in had that parking fee attached to their uh bi-monthly uh payment paycheck, and it was taken out uh through payroll deduction.

Mr.

Mr.

Allen may have some more details.

Yes, the the charge for parking at City Hall was $25 a month with taxes $27.6 a month.

It was that cost uh in 1996 when I started at the city, and it stayed that cost until we eliminated it about three years ago.

The reason we eliminated it is because in a meet and confer agreement, police were going to get free parking at Jack Evans, therefore, Mr.

Broadnecks, former city manager, chose to eliminate it for employees in this building as well, to be uh consistent with what was being done for police at the Jack Evans Police Headquarter.

So it's about three years ago, four years ago.

Thank you, Jack.

And then what hours do employees work in this building?

The normal working hours at City Hall, with the exception of those individuals that are on different shifts is 815 to 515.

We know that their employees that work longer hours.

I will tell you that the city manager's office probably opens the building and closes the building most days.

Um but the 911 team, the EEOC team, depending on if there's an emergency situation um within the um within the city that those are going to be individuals that are going to be in the building around the clock.

But all of our other city departments, with the exception of the ones that their shifts actually require overtime.

I mean, over an overnight 24 hours a day, those would be the employees that are in the building most frequently.

And what hours is the building open for the public?

I I didn't hear the question.

What hours are the building open for the public?

8 15 to 5 15.

Okay.

That's all for now.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Middleseen, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you.

I think this question was just asked.

I'm not exactly sure if it was worded the same way, but are you able to share what you have seen as a cost for parking in other locations?

I believe we were actually briefed on this in executive session.

I mean, I think this is a known number.

If it was information that was provided in closed session and it's not a part of the due diligence of these this item that is before us, then we would not have the liberty of sharing something that has been presented in closed session.

Well, the question, um, as I recall, was what is the average cost for parking downtown?

And that is not specific to a particular building, and I think is germane to the question of um the amendment about parking.

And so, I mean, I'll tell you for District 12, many people who work for ATT as the announcement came about moving to Plano, relayed to me that you know, for us it's closer to being Plano than it is to come downtown, but what it meant for them effectively was a 400 a month raise to not pay parking, and so I'm wondering if you have a different number than four hundred dollars a month on what an average contract for a reserve parking spot is.

I do not have a number today on parking downtown as relates to any of the potential options and opportunities right now that would be a part of the due diligence as I've just mentioned that would go into this additional evaluation uh if the city council chooses to move in that direction, but would you confirm that you have actually shared that number with us previously?

I think there have been some different scenarios.

Councilwoman Middlesense that have been shared.

Some of those scenarios are based on a particular location and not necessarily overall.

I think that's what was provided to the city council.

Thank you.

I I um I heard it differently, and that's why I'm pursuing I was pursuing that line of questioning.

If you're not willing to answer it, that's fine.

Um I appreciate uh Councilmember Blackman's um interest in making sure that the parking would be free for the employees.

It shouldn't be something detrimental to the employees to lose free parking in this building to then have to incur possibly hundreds of dollars per month um to to pay for parking because um of an unwise decision to leave.

Thank you.

Ms.

Blackman, you recognize for three minutes on your amendment to the amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Just Miss City Manager, just to be clear that if we want something looked at in your due diligence, then this body must approve it.

Otherwise, it won't be looked at.

Is that what I heard?

I mean, we need to approve it, or can we?

Because that that's I'm kind of getting a mixed signal of I'm only going to look at the things that you tell me to do, but if this fails, which probably will, then are you going to look at it?

And so that's what I need clarification on is exactly what that gave with the parking.

That's what we're talking about.

How like does it have to be approved in order for you to look at it, or is it going to be absence in the due diligence?

So I'll go back to my statement and I'll make sure that I'm clear.

If council chooses to approve the action item that was read into the record by council member West as part of that additional due diligence, as we've heard from council on other things that you want to make sure are included.

I think a parking analysis was already provided as one of the things that council wanted additional details on, and I think that's been communicated already with us in several other sessions that we've been in with the council.

We've also talked about the need to ensure access to public transit.

So there are a lot of things that you've already asked us to do.

My comments were as part of the due diligence if this item that council member West read into record, that due diligence would already be incorporated because of what councils already asked for us to bring back so you can get to a true side-by-side of the cost.

So parking analysis, access for parking, we've heard many questions about you know the um the um you know how far the parking would be uh away from the building.

We heard everything from the rates, that would be a part of that additional due diligence that we would bring back.

So it would already be included in the work that we would be doing over the summer.

Okay, because um throughout this whole exercise, one thing that I've learned is words matter and the motion matters, and so I'm just wanting to make sure that uh I don't want it to come back that well, you didn't ask for it, it wasn't in the motion, because to me this is important being here as an employee when I was here in 2000, late 2000s and paying $25 and then going, you know, and I was at DART at one time, and you'd have to pay the full price at DART.

So it's like that is a it hits the bottom line, and so I just want to be clear that this is important, I believe, to the employees that are in this building that parking needs to be addressed, and so and I just want to make sure that if it needs to be in the motion or in the item that we need to amend it.

If it's gonna happen, then I have I have you on record saying that you will look at it.

A parking analysis was already requested as part of the due diligence that council has asked us to do.

So the original motion that was read by Councilmember West for that additional due diligence parking will already be included.

Okay, thank you.

Chairwoman Mendelson, you recognize for three minutes.

Well, there we go.

Um, thank you.

Can you tell us what percentage of employees here use transit versus how many um drive their individual car?

That is not a number that I have off the top of my head, Councilman Middlesense.

We will definitely provide that additional uh details to the council.

We do know that every year is part of the city's budget, we provide for a certain number of DART passes that the city supports in helping subsidize for our city employees, so we'll be able to give you the number of DART passes that are currently provided, the cost of subsidizing those passes, and based on the data that we have available, how many employees actually are parking in the garage?

But I don't have that in front of me at this moment.

Would you say um, well, I'm wondering, can the budget office tell us how much was allocated for DART passes in this current fiscal year?

And if you'll also share, was there any dollars that were um allocated last fiscal year that remained and were either reallocated through a budget amendment or were swept into contingency?

Um Jack Arlene Chief Financial Officer, the amount of the DART subsidy funding is less than 100,000.

I want to think it's 60 or 70,000.

Uh and it's my recollection that there were no funds uh left uh after use last year.

And does it provide a full pass?

No, ma'am.

Um, and do you know what the percentage of I do not know the there's a breakdown based upon uh I believe uh the employee salary uh uh different amounts that are subsidized.

I do not know the details on that.

The matrix, ma'am, it's a whole matrix of your salary and if it's a monthly pass or an annual pass.

That is my recollection.

I will have to get you details, but budgeted is sixty to seventy thousand dollars, so for my memory.

Thank you.

And we currently have um bus stops surrounding the property, as well as the convention center has the train, which you know maybe on the outside people think that's far, but actually is even connected to the building, and you never even have to go outside.

Um so okay, thank you for that information, Ms.

Cadena.

You recognize for three minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

I would just like to say how important this item is for employees.

Um having to pay extra to come to work.

I know there's some employees that $150 could be a substantial hit to their paycheck, and so I hope that we continue to do whatever we can to advocate for our employees and make sure that they're taken care of, and that we're able to treat all employees fairly so that if one group is not paying for parking, that the others would not be paying for parking as well, and also making sure that our citizens that come to city hall to pay their water bills or to come and spend eight hours sitting here listening to issues, do not have to pay for parking as well.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, recognize for one minute.

Thank you.

Well, in learning that there's uh just over 1,400 parking spots here at the city.

I think it's important um with the underlying motion to understand that um there may be properties being looked at that don't have that level of um robust parking or don't have the security of the parking, which is why um the secure access is important, and if we would be asking people to walk one, two, three blocks away, what that means, both for um mobility issues, safety issues, and convenience factor, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Just really briefly whether or not this item passes, we'll still have the opportunity to address these issues.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for or against the amendment to the amendment?

Seeing that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the amendment to the amendment, folks.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please say yes if you're in favor, no if you oppose.

Councilmember West?

No.

Councilmember Marino?

No, Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Kadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua.

Yes.

Your video must be displayed.

Um Councilmember Basil Doul, I'll come back to you.

Videos on.

I don't know what is showing on your end, but yes is my vote.

It's not showing on our it's not showing on our end.

We'll come back to you, but we gotta get your video to work.

It's right now it's a still photograph of you, so just so you know it's your official headshot, it looks like.

Very nice picture though, but it's just not you live.

We need that.

So we'll come back to you.

Councilmember Blair.

Councilmember Blackman.

Yes.

Okay, well, I guess I can't vote then because IT.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn.

Yes, Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ridley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson.

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Ricendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With five voting in favor.

Nine opposed.

One absolute vote taken.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay, we're back on the amendment by Chairwoman Mendelson.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the amendment by Chairwoman Mendel?

Point of information.

Can you restate that?

Sure.

Chairwoman, please restate your motion.

It's to amend uh the motion to require any property considered have sufficient parking designated for the city of Dallas equal to the um to the same number of employees expected to occupy the building plus visitors in secure underground parking or connected parking with secure access.

Okay.

Madam Secretary.

Okay.

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 Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Kadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua is absent when vote taken.

Yes.

Okay.

I see you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Blair.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth.

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ridley.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Back on the original item.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn.

Thank you.

I'd like to amend the motion.

I move to require any property considered, including outside public area that can safely accommodate one thousand people at an event or protest or be directly across or next to a city park that can accommodate one thousand people or more at an event or protest.

Second.

I think it's self-evident.

Thank you.

Um Chairman Wesh.

Question, Mayor for City Manager.

You recognize for five minutes.

Okay, we're on the amendment by Chairwoman Mendelssohn, and you recognize for five minutes on that amendment.

Excuse me, Mayor.

My screen is creating some kind of a.

Some kind of a difficulty.

Okay.

Thank you.

You need IT to come over?

Please.

We someone go check on Mr.

Roth's uh screen.

And Chairman West, you have the floor for five minutes.

Thank you.

Just like with the parking city manager Tolbert, we will have an opportunity to address this request as well, right?

On the public meeting space, because I believe that's important to everyone at this horseshoe.

Yes.

Thank you.

And there would not be any scenario that we that you would even bring to us without a public gathering space.

No, we've heard that as a piece of um not just casually, but it's been overstated many times about the opportunity to ensure that there is still space for the public to gather.

Um again, we've shared many different criteria components with the council in close session, and this is one that we've also discussed.

Thank you.

So just like with the parking, this is all part of the due diligence already.

Thank you.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for five minutes on the amendment by Ms.

Mendelssohn.

Um yes, I have a question for Ms.

Mendelson.

Would that include um residents um not having to pay a fee to use that space to gather to either to protest or to have a meeting?

She can answer that question if she'd like if it counts against your time.

Um I believe for a protest is a First Amendment issue, and there is no protest even today.

But um even today, if you want to have an event at City Hall on the plaza, you have to get an event uh permit.

So I I don't want to speak for the city manager, but I believe that's how it works.

Okay.

City manager, can you clarify?

That is correct.

I think we've heard before uh today the importance of making sure that our that the public would have opportunities to participate continuously in the downtown area uh in public spaces, and we talked about bringing that information back uh if there's potential fees for parks, whatever it is, we said that we would be doing that anyway.

So that would be a part of our due diligence.

Would it be possible to perhaps have a list of the items that maybe we're gonna get back?

That might be helpful to us because I know like last week I had a there was an item for demolition, but environmental was not included.

But then I was told that that was already one of the motions that was provided, and so I think that's causing some confusion here.

More than happy to provide you with the detailed list of what will be included in the due diligence.

Okay, thank you.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you.

Um the reason why I have this as a very specific item is not because it isn't being considered with the properties, it certainly is, but having available space doesn't actually say what the motion is.

The motion says it must be out front, it must be outside in the public area of the facility, or across the street or next to it.

That's very different.

And one could suppose that we may be considering properties where a public space is much further away than that, and so what this does is restrict properties to only be considered if it is on the property or next to the property, and so and and that would include across the street.

So that's very different.

Just like the parking amendment item is very different.

Of course, parking is always considered, but what that motion did was specify it must have enough parking for all of the staff.

That's different than maybe what we have been told.

So this is just being very clear about having that space directly available.

So one could imagine what if it's four or five blocks away.

Is that really in the same domain as the building?

And so again, this motion says on the property or next to it.

Thank you.

Ms.

Black may recognize for five minutes.

Thank you.

Um, so I guess I have a question about the park public space.

Are most of the parks in the downtown area part of the downtown park network?

Does anybody have that information?

I don't see anyone here from the park and rec department.

Because I I mean my understanding is that there was a big movement for downtown parks to flourish, and we're about to take a park and use it for a public protesting space.

I want to make sure that that conversations have been had.

I don't think you're making a decision today on any particular location of parks.

That would be a very key part of that is to understand that the it is known that a park would be used for a First Amendment, uh, versus just a gathering space for luxury, that it could be used as a as a protesting area.

And I think any investor that has given money for a public space, they need to know if it's going to be used in what way.

I don't think we have the that level of detail at the moment, but again, questions that you're asking now that we don't have the answers to, we would make sure that we answer those questions and make sure that we've addressed that as part of the due diligence.

I don't see the park and rec staff here and I don't want to speak for them.

Okay, so yeah, please make sure that any public space, if it is in the park downtown master plan and it's been utilized in that way that it that we that they understand that it can be used for a First Amendment protest and that it's going to be used like we have our plaza here because it even though it's considered a park space, I don't that's still questionable, it um it is still a place where people come to express their opinions about something.

So I just want to make sure that nobody's caught off guard with that.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Middleton you recognized for three minutes.

Thank you.

The other thing I'd like to highlight is the size by specifying that it can accommodate a thousand people.

Um I'll say I think the smallest park in Dallas is actually in District 12, but right after that, I think are the downtown parks, and there's some that are teeny tiny, and I wouldn't want to say that you have fulfilled the ability to have protest space by some of these very tiny um spots.

So that's why it specifically says a thousand people now.

We often have heard public comment from the folks that want to tear down City Hall that they would like to have a vibrant downtown, and I will question whether or not they understand what it's like to have daily protests outside the building and how vibrant that's gonna be for everybody, but we certainly need to make sure it can accommodate people's First Amendment right to protest their government and have their voices heard, as well as celebrate the government and um mourn.

You know, I I think back to 7-7.

I was here on the plaza, it was terrible, terrible day, but we're all together, and there's not a lot of parks downtown that can hold that many people, even Clyde Warren.

So I hope that um y'all will consider this and vote for it.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman Mendelson?

Saying none, 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 Moreno, no, Councilmember Gracie, no, Councilmember Kadena.

Yes, Councilmember Basildua.

Yes, Councilmember Blair, Councilmember Blackman, yes, Councilmember Stewart, no, Councilmember Roth?

Yes, Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ritley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Recindis.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed, the motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Chairwoman Middleton for what purpose?

Move to amend the motion to require any property considered.

Include a security plan that provides at least the same level of security with the same or less number of security officers.

Second.

Thank you.

Um the reason I have this motion is number one, there are some special security considerations here at City Hall, both to allow the public to have free access to their building, even if we're gonna lease it.

But also there were quite a few comments made in presentations about the security costs that we have, whether that's the officers here in the chambers, folks that are checking people into the building.

The idea that we would actually have a reduction in cost is insane.

That's not true.

I can't imagine how that could happen.

Today, there are only two entrances that are functioning, meaning there's doors on the south.

So if you park on the south, you should be able to come in directly, but instead we make you walk all the way around the building because of security, and we're unwilling to have another security station or the former manager close that down.

Um so if the premise of this is to save money, and one of those items was to save money on security, because this is so difficult to manage the security of this building, which I don't believe is true, then therefore prove it.

Tell us that you're actually gonna have lower costs for security, but maintain that same level because I don't believe you can.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman Mendelson?

Say none, 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 Moreno.

Councilmember Gracie.

No.

Councilmember Cadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua?

Yes.

Councilmember Blair.

Councilmember Blackman.

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ridley.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

For what purpose, Mr.

Raw?

Go ahead.

I was going to suggest an amendment to the original motion.

Yeah, please.

I'd like to uh make sure that the words non-binding would be uh inserted before the words pre acquisition agreements.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded, Mr.

Roth.

You like five minutes to explain your amendment?

Thank you.

Um typically in a in a real estate transaction that's being negotiated prior to any execution of a formal contract.

Uh those are considered uh either considered or described as letters of intent, and I'm assuming that this is considered a preacquisition agreement, is like a letter of intent.

Uh in all of those uh types of documents, typically it is absolutely clear in those documents that these are non-binding agreements, and I want to make sure that there's no uh uh conflict or confusion that any kind of an agreement that's that's uh established uh under this situation is in fact non-binding.

So I would request that that change be, I think, to the benefit of the council and to the benefit of the city that that be uh provided.

Chairwoman Middleton you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you.

Um want to thank council member Roth, who is both a real estate attorney and is possibly the only person around the horseshoe who has bought office buildings.

So thank you for recognizing that word is absent and necessary.

I do believe many of our colleagues have been told just do not add anything to the motion, do not consider anything, but I will say if you agree that this is non-binding, you should vote for this one, prove it.

Show the public that you mean it, that this is not a defining um no ability to turn it around vote, because I think we all know it is.

This actual word that says non-binding, then that says everything about what this vote really is.

Thank you, Ms.

Black Miss Blackman, you recognize for five minutes.

Peter, did you want to say something?

I just wanted to make sure that if there was any um explanation that we needed to do about the way the current item and what we're looking for and what we need to do with the due diligence that we gave the um the company that's actually doing the work on behalf of the city an opportunity to speak.

I'm happy to address it, and I would suggest that the council members are conflating non-binding term sheets with binding preacquisition agreements, and there's important distinction between the two.

Um we 100% agree that real estate transactions are traditionally negotiated in non-binding letters of intent to establish business terms.

Um what's been suggested and presented to council, uh, is that that would be an exhibit to a binding agreement.

The binding nature of the agreement though is related to due diligence, schedule, and performing the work necessary to present the apples apples comparison, so there could be binding components to it in terms of um how long are we looking at this building, for example, things like that could be binding, but um there's no reason in my opinion to add non-binding to the non-act to the pre acquisition agreement because it's duplicative.

Um the business terms and a transaction is 100% something you can get out of later.

There's nothing that inhibits you all from terminating the agreement in the future if you find out things you don't like about any assets.

So um I I understand the point, but I think it's unnecessary.

Um can I floor?

You still have the floor, yeah.

Yes, um, can I ask the attorneys if they agree with that?

Our city attorneys, and thank you, Peter.

So as Peter said, yes, it would not be binding.

It's not a binding term sheet.

What it is again, it's to conduct due diligence.

And so to the extent that anyone that was engaged to do that due diligence needed to perform, we need to bind them to perform.

And then we also need to be bound uh under state law to pay for those services.

So that's the binding nature of these pre pre-acquisition agreements.

So if we if this doesn't pass, which I assume it won't, um, there we can still not, there's nothing that uh joins us.

We don't we're not obligated to move forward.

We're just getting information.

You're not obligated to lease to purchase, you're not obligated to execute and enter into a final acquisition.

This is just for due diligence, just to conduct and as as Peter said, to get the apples to apples comparison.

That's all it is.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Protey recognized for five minutes.

Oh, thank you, Councilman Roth, bringing this up, but I also want to thank uh Mr.

Peter for bringing clarity, sorry.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Basildo, you recognize for five minutes.

There you are.

Come on inside.

I was just kidding, go ahead.

I don't have a uh a raised hand.

Can you hear me?

I don't have a raised hand.

Oh, you did.

Mr.

Roth, you recognize for three.

I'm sorry, I will go to Chairman West for five and then uh to Mr.

Roth for three.

Thank you, Mayor.

I mean, on its on its face this sounds just sounds reasonable and and harmless enough.

I want to ask uh Mr.

Janssen if if there is any potential harm to getting us the apples to apples numbers that we're asking for by inserting this clause in there.

Because my goal and the goal of a lot of my colleagues and the goal of the public that I've been hearing is to get the true apples to apples comparison.

Does insertion of this language cause you any problems in meeting that goal?

I believe it causes material harm because you will not be able to bind yourself to any service agreements or contracts related to doing the work that would be required to provide that information.

So I believe it would be a material harm because you would have no ability to execute any due diligence.

Can you give me an example of how uh one service that we would need would not possibly be at jeopardy because of this language?

Very simply um phase one environmental study, which is the starting point for any due diligence uh on any land or acquisition.

Um it's probably a four to five thousand dollar contract at worst, maybe as little as two thousand dollars, but um you would not be able to execute that type of agreement and get a clean phase one on any assets you're looking at if you don't have the ability to execute binding agreements.

And why would they typically not want to execute a non-binding agreement of a phase one environmental company?

Oh well, the company wouldn't be able to perform services if the contract was invalid or non-binding.

Okay, so it's potentially as the intent is is to certainly I get the intent, but the potential harm could could be detrimental to us in obtaining the numbers we need.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Chairman Ridley, you recognize for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I uh understand what uh Mr.

Janssen is saying that we need to have the pre-acquisition agreement binding on the parties, and so I would like to introduce an amendment to Mr.

Ross's amendment that would instead of inserting non-binding before pre-acquisition agreements, insert in the eighth line that starts exceed two million dollars uh sorry, the fourth line, uh sixth line, starting of assessing the relocation option insert without binding the city to such option.

That would make it clear that what we want to be non-binding is entering into an acquisition agreement rather than the pre-acquisition agreement itself.

Second.

Because it's not a written, it's not written out, and you're not just reading it off a piece of paper.

So we don't have to go through that whole deal again.

The intent here is to uh place the the binding the word binding in the appropriate place to achieve the intent of making the acquisition or leasing of a particular property not binding, not making the due diligence agreement that you'd have to sign, not directly.

Okay, everybody understand that like the the he's just moving where we place where the mover was placing the the word binding, which was making it bind, not making the due diligence document not binding to making acting on the due diligence in the form of acquiring or leasing or leasing to own a property not binding.

So that's what that's what you're trying to do, right?

Yes.

Okay, that's what's on the floor.

If assuming I think it got seconded by Ms.

Mendelson, and you have five minutes to explain your amendment.

Well, I think thank you.

I think this addresses the concerns of um some members about making the pre-acquisition agreement non-binding.

We to be effective, the pre-acquisition agreement has to be binding.

The parties will enter into an agreement with certain duties and responsibilities and payment obligations.

If that's what this body intends to do, then that part of it needs to be non-binding.

What I think the intent of Mr.

Ross's amendment was that after that due diligence is completed, that we are then not bound to execute any acquisition agreement that would tie the city to a particular relocation option.

At that point, the city council should have freedom to choose which of the options upon which due diligence has been performed they wish to enter into, but not at this point in time today.

I feel like the names that were I see in the queue were already in the queue when we were still on an amendment by Mr.

Roth.

Anyone want to stay in on the amendment to the amendment or want to wait till we get back to the Roth amendment?

Everybody good?

Okay, Mr.

Roth.

Then you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment to your amendment, if that's what you want.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um I want to thank uh Councilmember Ridley for helping clarify the situation.

I think his addition to the amendment is really actually valuable because it does clarify the acquisition and the leasing or the the uh future uh um uh commitment would be a non-binding situation.

Uh and I would endorse and and suggest that we approve your your addition.

My concern on the previous uh uh of the my previous comments is that pre-acquisition agreements uh are not a defined term.

It's a it's it's just a an agreement.

And what we're committing here to is for a lot of specific costs that we don't know what they are, and so what I'm trying to figure out and what I'm trying to narrow down is to try to identify what we're going to be spending money on during these pre-acquisition costs.

What are we spending two million dollars or four million dollars on?

And and this is an unusual situation where we would be asking um people to uh provide us with due diligence or that we would be spending money on due diligence for properties that we don't have commitments for.

So could you explain to me what specific costs we are being are being anticipated in using the 2 million and four million dollars that we're committing for this pre-acquisition uh agreement?

Councilmember Roth, if you're asking that question, but I was asking Peter to if or whoever.

Thank you, Mr.

Jansen.

I'm happy to speak in broad categories uh pursuant to what was presented in closed session, but there's a range of activities that will occur um primarily to answer questions that this body and the public has asked and to create apples-apples comparisons on uh footprint, quality of the buildings, age of systems, um, environmental studies, things like this.

Uh so there was detailed budgets presented in executive session, so I I would point you back to that last week uh in terms of what are the categories and possible spends and how that relates to the negotiation scenarios as we collect information for you.

So I if we were unclear, we're happy to represent that information, but there was very specific budgetary information presented last week.

Would you uh would you uh say that it's tradition in the in the industry that uh a buyer would not or a potential tenant or a potential buyer would not be expending funds to receive due diligence information from from uh custom from potential properties that would be trying to provide information that it would be up to a potential buyer to be spending money to figure out what the buy what the building is or the property is before we have it under contract or before we have a commitment?

Why would we be buying you uh environmental reports or due diligence reports on conditions of of uh of uh mechanical, electrical, other situations?

Well, if I could just start, Councilmember Roth, these are the very things that the things that you just listed.

If I could just start by saying these are the things that you all have asked us for.

And you've said that without these things, you cannot make your decision.

So we are really following what council has been asking us to go and get, and this is the process that we've laid out that we would need to undergo in order to provide that.

And so I hear you very clearly, but that is the reason why these items have been presented in a way that will allow for us to do the exact thing that you've described.

I think what CBRE has communicated to us several times that this will allow for us to make that happen, show our commitment to being able to work with whatever those potential uh property opportunities are, and then bring that information back.

And so that's exactly what we're trying to do.

I'll let Mr.

Jansen uh continue.

Uh I I appreciate the spirit of the question, and it's a very fair one.

Um, you're speaking in terms of if I understood your question correctly, what buyers buyers, lessees, interested parties typically do and don't do, and I would just offer up it's a hundred percent a function of leverage and negotiation.

Um, and what we presented last week was um in our exploratory findings that there are counterparties willing to perform services at risk on their side of the table, so to speak, um, but there are 100 percent items that are highly custom to the city of Dallas, such as how do you replicate city council chambers that are non-traditional requests, and those are things um that no buyer or excuse me, no seller, lessor, counterparty, or architect are going to perform for free.

Um so there are very specific things you all have asked for for solutions that do require city spends, so to speak, um, but uh I would not characterize in blanket statements about what buyers typically do and don't do, particularly when you're talking about public-private partnerships and transactions of this magnitude.

Um I can tell you uh in all of my major transactions that I've advised clients on Travis County, Dallas County, City of Austin, pre-development, pre-acquisition agreements, this is the best practice for how to arrive at those custom answers to custom requests for very specific programming and due diligence requests that are requested by governing bodies.

So I would characterize this as best practice to in order to get the apples to apples to uh further discussion enable you all to make a decision on future binding agreements, which um are clearly not addressed in this uh by design.

Uh thank you.

Um I I do have uh concern that in the motion it basically says including uh cost reimbursement to property owners, which you have just uh sort of helped explain, uh but it doesn't sort of authorize us or have any kind of of guidelines as to what kind of monies we're talking about, and we don't know and and I'm I'm telling you we're we're talking about uh several buildings here, four buildings that we're even considering according to this motion, and these these amounts could be absolutely out of control.

We don't have any control over those the costs that these owners are doing.

We don't have unless we negotiate those in advance, we don't have any guidelines of what we're trying to establish here, and we've just authorized four million dollars to just give away for stuff.

So I mean we haven't authorized it, Mr.

Million dollars.

I just want to make sure you're gonna tailor these more to the uh the the merits of moving the word binding from where you placed it to where he recommends because that's really all his that's all his amendment the amendment does.

Thank you.

And what I was trying to do is was understand that that this the binding of our non-binding part of it is important once we bind ourselves to a to a preauthorization agreement or to a future agreement that we are committing to spend monies that we don't know what those commitments are.

So I would be in favor of of uh Councilman Ridley's uh uh amendment, uh but I would still like to preserve my amendment under underlying anyone else want to speak on for against the amendment to the amendment.

Seeing none, madam secretary, go ahead and call a roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please say yes.

If you're in favor, no.

If you oppose Councilmember West, no.

Councilmember Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Cadena?

Yes, Councilmember Basildua.

Councilmember Basildua.

Is absent when vote taken?

Councilmember.

Councilmember Basildua.

Yes, thank you.

Councilmember Blair?

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ridley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson?

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Alright, we're back on the Roth amendment.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn, you're recognized for three minutes on the Roth move.

Anyone else wishing to speak on for against the Roth amendment?

Seeing none, Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please say yes.

If you're in favor, no if you oppose.

Councilmember West.

No.

Councilmember Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Kadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua.

Yes.

Councilmember Blair?

No.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelson?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ritley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

We're back on item one as moved by Mr.

West.

Chairwoman Mendelssohn for what purpose?

I move to amend the motion to prohibit any property from consideration that currently has or is contemplated to have any government-related entity, nonprofit that receives funding from the city or vendor of the city within the last 24 months as tenants or owners of the same building.

Is there a second?

It's been moved in second.

You need five minutes to explain your motion or no?

Sure.

Okay, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

I think it's extremely important that we avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or even an actual conflict of interest.

And as uh we consider that there may be properties that are very, very large beyond the scope of what the city would occupy independently, that we may be joining other tenants, we may seek other tenants, we may move into an ownership situation where we are the leasee of an entity that we already have an established relationship with, and I think this is very problematic, so we should preclude those from consideration.

Thank you.

Anyone else was just gone for against the amendment by Ms.

Mendelson?

Seeing none, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

When I call your name, please state yes if you're in favor, no if you oppose.

Councilmember West.

No.

Councilmember Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Kadena?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua.

Yes.

Councilmember Blair.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth.

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ritley.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tent Recendez.

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Chairwoman Middleton for what purpose?

I move to amend the motion to require any property considered be available for lease or for sale with both options presented to the council.

Is there a second?

It's been moved and seconded.

You need five minutes.

I think that one's self-evident.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on for against the amendment by Ms.

Mendelssohn?

Seeing none.

Mr.

Roth, you recognize for five minutes.

Um I would like to really support uh suggest that we all support this amendment.

This really is, I think, the uh an important uh move into making sure that we do receive uh uh both opportunities all opportunities in evaluating uh this kind of a uh of a major major uh decision making so I don't see that there's a problem with it.

I think it clarifies the situation, and I think it's good for all of us to have that uh that uh requirement in this particular motion.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on for or against the amendment by Ms.

Mendelssohn?

Seeing that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Please say yes.

If you're in favor, no.

If you're opposed, Councilmember West, no, Councilmember Moreno?

No.

Councilmember Gracie, no, Councilmember Kadana?

Yes.

Councilmember Basildua.

Yes, Councilmember Blair, Councilmember Blackman, yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelssohn.

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ritley?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Ten Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Ms.

Mendelssohn, for what purpose?

Well, I just would like to tell you this is my last one.

Okay.

Um, it is to amend the motion to require any move from 1500 Marilla happen after the inauguration of all council members and mayors elected in November or December 2027.

It's been moved and seconded.

Second.

I heard a second already, and you have four or five minutes if you need it.

Thank you.

Um, first, should this happen, which I hope it does not, we need um a very thoughtful plan, not something rushed.

I've heard rumors, I hope they are only rumors that um staff members in this building have been told that they plan should plan to leave before the end of the calendar year.

That seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Number two, staff is already highly distracted with other large projects that need their full attention and resolution.

Please deliver for us on Stemmens, on Hampton, the Miramar, Independence, the Police Academy, and the Convention Center.

I won't even mention the wings.

There's a lot of really big projects that must be done properly, and we're already seeing issues.

Number three, it would be good for the new folks to kick it off without the baggage of the city council and mayor.

Ms.

Blackman, as for five minutes.

City manager, in your due diligence, is there going to be a timeline given to us of when a potential move, if it happens, or um i I guess I'm trying to understand what is the the understanding of what the what we're going to get and is the timeline going to be in it.

Based on the items that are before you, you will get the due diligence related to the potential sites for relocation.

We will not have plans on what happens after that until we get then get further direction from the city council.

And I think it would be in my best interest not to assume anything other than the due diligence that I need to bring back during the month of August.

Okay, so timelines of moving is won't be in the first round, but it could come in in a sub subsequent round.

Once we understand the will of the body, then that would be what you should expect for me to bring back to you.

And so then that's when we can talk about timing as well.

Yes, okay.

Like I said, uh words matter and so expectations, and I just want to make sure that it's on the record.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on for against the amendment by chairwoman Mendelson?

Saying none, 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 oppose Councilmember West.

No.

Councilmember Moreno.

No.

Councilmember Gracie?

No.

Councilmember Kadana?

Councilmember Basildua?

Is absent when vote takes?

Councilmember Basildua?

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Blair?

No.

Councilmember Blackman?

Yes.

Councilmember Stewart?

No.

Councilmember Roth?

Yes.

Councilmember Mendelson?

Yes.

Councilmember Willis?

No.

Councilmember Ritley.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tim Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Recendez?

No.

Mayor Johnson.

No.

With six voting in favor, nine opposed.

The motion fails, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay, we're still on agenda item one.

Anyone else wish to speak on for or against it?

Mr.

Mayor, point of order.

State your point of order.

I'd like further clarification on the motion.

I don't see what the connection is between the first and the second bullet points.

If the first one authorizes transfer of two million from the contingency reserve to the general fund, what happens?

Is that money earmarked for something in specific?

Sounds like a debate point.

No, I'm just asking a question.

Well, if you're seeking clarification on what the motion is, then that's something that factors into debate time.

Point of order is stating a point of order under the rules.

You understand that the distinction I was saying is if you if you want more clarification on that, you can chime in, and you can you can have five minutes of floor time to ask anybody around here you'd like to ask that question of staff, the author, but we can't turn points of order into free debate time.

Well, okay, I'll ask my clarification question on my time.

So do you want me, but you can have it.

I'm saying you can have it right now if you want it.

We're we're on it now.

We're back on the original motion.

That's fine.

You recognize for five minutes.

I'm just trying to give you the floor and saying that's how we need to do this.

Thank you.

Okay.

So my question for the city manager is uh, what happens to the two million transferred from contingency to the general fund?

Will it be earmarked in any way?

And how does that relate to the second bullet point about increasing appropriations to uh not exceed two million in facilities in real estate management from the reserve fund?

I don't see the connection between those two bullets.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Ridley.

I'll have to see if our CFO is around.

I think the there he is.

I think I think that what we originally had planned in the item.

I think motion that was made by Councilmember West actually changed out the source of funds.

It is still a total of three million.

It's not two plus one plus another two, but I'll let Mr.

Ireland change that.

Thank you, Ms.

Tilbert.

Jack Ireland, Chief Financial Officer.

Um reserve funds are not currently appropriated.

So it's a two-step process to move the cash basically from the reserve fund, the contingency reserve fund into the general fund.

And then the second step is we have to have legal authorization through an appropriation to spend it.

So step one, transfer it, step two, appropriate it, then you're able to spend it.

So we're moving it out of a reserve fund into the general fund and appropriating it within the general fund facilities and real estate management department to spend it as we would any budgeted item.

So we're not talking about a total of four million dollars for due diligence.

We're talking about only two million.

Yes, sir.

So what does it mean to insert the word increase appropriations in the amount of two million in facilities in real estate management?

And how does the original two million from the contingency going to the general fund, get into the facilities and real estate management fund?

So again, the uh the contingency reserve is not an appropriated fund.

So it's a reserve fund, and we transfer the funds from the contingency reserve fund into the general fund, and the increase in appropriation is because the facilities and real estate management budget was approved by council in September at $36,082,537.

And so we're increasing the appropriations within the facilities and real estate management department's budget so that the funds can be spent.

It's just a two-step process.

It's the same two million dollars, take two million dollars out of the reserve fund, move it over into the contingency reserve, I'm sorry, move it out of contingency reserve, move it into the general fund and appropriate it so you can spend it.

Well, and that's the problem with this motion.

It doesn't accomplish what you just outlined because it talks in the first bullet about taking two million out of the contingency reserve fund, putting it into the general fund.

In the second bullet, it talks about taking uh putting two million dollars in the facilities in real estate management from the contingency reserve fund.

Shouldn't that say from the general fund?

No, sir.

We're moving it into one place within the general fund.

We're moving it in from contingency reserve into the general fund.

Where in the general fund?

We're moving it into the general fund appropriation for facilities and real estate management.

Exactly.

But you're in the second bullet saying you're taking an additional two million from the general fund, contingency reserve fund to put it in the FRM.

That's what's confusing about this.

It's the way they're written every single time we use the contingency reserve fund.

We move money from the contingency reserve and move it into and specify which department it's going to be spent out of.

We did the same thing for planning and development uh in April when we spent $200,000 for the non-conforming use study.

It's the way we did uh last September when we moved $4 million into park and recreation for Fair Park.

It's the process, it's a two-step process.

Move it out of contingency reserve, move it into and specify the department to appropriate it within.

Well, I think this uh is very poorly worded in referring twice to taking money out of the contingency reserve fund, but onto the merits of this initiative.

This is uh not a necessary step at this point in time.

It is not necessary to rush forward to spend two million dollars to move without proper consideration of the costs of repair versus the costs of move out.

There is no billion dollar price tag for the cost of repairing this building.

There is no plan for the usage of the property that City Hall sits upon.

There is no one knocking on our door anymore who may want this property.

There is no justification to destroy this iconic building just for some un stated reason as to moving into some commercial office building.

I submit that this is an unnecessary action that we need to further explore the critical repair needs of City Hall rather than remodeling and modification to convert this building into Class A office space.

Thank you.

Mr.

Roth, you're recognized for five minutes on the original underlying motion on agenda item one.

Um I also uh am uh questioning the uh the uh clarification and also the uh wording in this uh additional change.

This to me does not restrict in my reading of this and in a formal reading or in an informal reading of this, it does not uh clearly say that we are only spending two million dollars.

This when you were when you include the word and that's an that's a plus, and that means that and uh and I'm the technical aspect of how you do this uh in the past is not clear to me, and it's I don't think it's clear to any of us.

And I want to make sure that if you want to provide this, then there should be another bullet that says in no event will any of these funds be more be that no in no event will the funds be used exceed two million dollars total.

And and I think that that this is uh again these are contingency funds.

I thought contingency funds were for emergencies.

I don't think this is an emergency.

Um and I don't I want to make sure that the public and that the rest of our colleagues really understand that we're spending money to do to get information on stuff that that we don't know how much money we're spending, we don't know what we're getting for it, and and we're spending money that we could be utilizing to fix things up in our in our current house and in other places.

So I'm real s I'm really concerned about it, Jack.

If you could sort of uh help uh sort of indicate if if we could change somehow clarify that it would be only two million dollars total, uh that would certainly help me evaluate it.

What?

I'm second seconding Mr.

Ross' amendment to insert an additional bullet limiting the total amount of the expenditure to two million dollars.

Point of order.

Mayor?

Yeah, but what's the original motion says not to exceed?

I don't know how more much more crystal clear it can be.

I'm trying to figure out that was are you actually?

I'm actually making an amendment and I apologize for being clumsy in the amendment.

I'd like to make sure that that that it's clear that there is only two million dollars total out of this uh change in what they're doing here.

And when you're talking about the increase in appropriations, says that it's two million its maximum, but it doesn't clarify the first bullet point.

And and to me, uh I think it's not clear uh generally, and if if this would help clarify it, and if why wouldn't there be a res uh an ability to clarify it?

Uh what would be the the difficulty in in clarifying it that says under no circumstance would there be more than two million dollars of uh used for this purpose.

Mr.

Roth, if I could just make it clear, because of the way we typically present agenda items anyway that we come to council for authorization in both bullets.

If I'm looking at the motion, both say not to exceed.

The transfer from the contingency into the general fund and the appropriations that would move over into real estate, it says not to exceed, and that is the language that we use on all agenda items that we bring to council when we're asking you to authorize a certain amount and for us not to exceed that amount.

So that is our standard language.

Thank you for your clarification.

To me, in reading this, there's two buckets of money.

And when you have two buckets of money, each bucket can't exceed two million.

But combined, we are only going to spend two million, not two million from each bucket.

And that's what's not clear to me.

And so, and if it's not clear to me, and I apologize for not being the brightest bulb in the room, but I have a feeling that this isn't real clear.

So I would like to make it clear, and if it's clear for me, maybe it'll be clear for others.

And that's what I would encourage uh our colleagues to agree to.

Well, Chairman West has raised a point of order about the appropriateness of the amendment being essentially um a nine amendment.

I mean the parliamentarian can give you further explanation, but basically it's it's it's a wordsmithing issue because of based on what the city manager just said, based on what the pretty much the plain language of the amendment says it says already what you're trying to amend it to do.

So the amendment doesn't change anything.

So it's it's I guess superfluous is a good word, but um would you want to you want to elaborate any further on that?

I mean, Mr.

Mayor, I you you explained it, it's it's somewhat redundant at this point.

So I'm gonna sustain his point of order and say that essentially your intent is already accomplished in the in the existing language.

Point of information, Mayor.

Could we have the Mr.

West's current motion reread?

That might clarify this if you we can um and then I want to go to Miss Cadena, I believe, for five minutes on this motion that's being read.

Okay, I got you okay.

That's right, you're just right.

Oh, I forgot she the secretary just told me that's a mistake.

Sorry.

I'm gonna go to Ms.

Blackman after we read it one more time, just everyone can know it.

Is it reflected in this piece of paper now accurately?

Is there a piece of paper that we can have everybody look at too?

So we don't have to spend too much more time reading it over.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I move to approve this item with the following change to the source of funds by eliminating reference to the transfer of ARPA funds and instead authorize the city manager to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed two million dollars from the general fund contingency reserve fund to the general fund and increase appropriations in an amount not to exceed two million dollars in facilities and real estate management from general fund contingency fund reserve fund.

Ms.

Black, we recognize for five minutes on that motion.

Thank you.

Okay, Jack, where did you go?

You need to answer.

Well I didn't hear the question to see if it was missed.

So the question is is I would like to understand.

Can for the public, what is the contingency refer reserve fund used for?

Thank you.

Uh Jack Arlen, Chief Financial Officer.

So the city of Dallas has a few different reserve funds that we have.

So in total, we have an unassigned fund balance that has a minimum balance of between 50 days and 70 days, according to our FMPC.

We currently have about 338 million dollars in there.

That represents 62 days.

You said three 38.

I'm sorry.

I it I'm asking 338 million for the unassigned.

I'm just writing it down.

I'm so 338 million.

Yes, ma'am, 330.

And an unassigned fund balance.

Yes.

Okay.

And that is made up of the emergency reserve.

So we have an emergency reserve that is one reserve within that that is 50 million.

We have a contingency reserve, which is 10.3 million.

We have uh employee benefit reserve, which is 16.1 million, and then we have residual that's uh not encumbered, not committed funds of 278 million dollars for a total of about 338 million.

So specifically within that, the contingency reserve fund is a fund that is a reserve that is established through our financial management performance criteria.

It is a component of the unassigned fund balance and shall be used to provide for unanticipated needs that arise during the year.

Examples of those, but not all inclusive, expenses associated with the new service that wasn't identified during the budget process, new public safety or health needs, revenue shortfall, service enhancements.

So those are just some examples of things that come up outside of the budget process that this uh fund was set up so that we could come to city council if the uh need arose and ask for you to transfer the money out of the reserve and into the general fund and then appropriate it within the general fund so that we can spend it for whatever the council uh directs us to do.

So, as I mentioned, we had 10.3 million dollars in the fund in the reserve as we started the year.

In April, we came to the council and requested to use 200,000 out of the contingency reserve because something came up outside of the budget process for the um I forget the word the non-conforming.

Thank you, nonconforming uses.

We used 200,000 for that.

Prior to that, the last time we used it was at the end of last fiscal year when we were taking back operation of Fair Park and we needed to use four million dollars for that purpose.

So this uh use today is appropriate within uh the contingency reserve fund if council authorizes the transfer out of the reserve and the appropriation of the dollars.

So is the 10 point three, that is what it's in there now, or is that what was in the budget, and then you have to subtract.

So it's 10 point one today.

Okay, and so with this amendment it would go down to eight, and then the next amendment it would go down.

Well, we can talk to that.

Okay, so it would go down to eight.

Um, so back on the emotion, it says terms, responsibilities, and cost sharing.

I get the terms, but can you define what responsibilities?

And I don't know if it's Peter, I don't know if it's FRM, I don't know who, but I'm trying to understand.

Because back to what Ms.

Cadena said, what are we going to get back at the end of this exercise?

And so it would be understanding what responsibilities and even cost sharing, what does that mean?

So that's not a question I can answer, so I will turn to uh Mr.

Jensen.

I think the uh most impactful items you'll get back through this process is very clearly articulation of test fits in different buildings.

Okay, now test fits or what?

Test fits for different occupancy plans and programs that the city have articulated.

So that is a enormous and an impactful step because every different building and opportunity has uh different efficiency ratios and will land at a different number.

So you can't paint in broad strokes of 500,000 feet or 550 or 400 uh when you start going through this process, you'll you'll land at very precise numbers.

So that's just an example of due diligence that will be completed during the step, so that you know whether you need to occupy 400, 425, 350.

Um there are a host of decisions that go into that, but that's an example of of work that would be completed during the step.

So is that considered responsibilities?

I'm just trying to understand what responsibilities is in this context.

It says define terms, responsibilities, and cost sharing.

I get the terms and cost sharing.

Responsibilities is what I don't quite understand what we're gonna get back.

Um, here's an example.

I think the best one is is um I'm thinking through this uh live with you, but I think the best example is probably related to city council chambers or custom work inside of an asset.

Um the city will have obligations and responsibilities in terms of giving information to architects, engineers, audiovisual, uh technology companies, uh, furniture companies, for example, to arrive at definitive information related to that specific program.

So one of the good things about binding agreements is that they obligate both of the parties to perform.

So you can't string parties along or um ask them to do work that is non-contractual, so to speak.

So I think your responsibilities here are mainly related in referencing information sharing and feedback so that people can price things so that people can uh provide feedback and understand the risk of executing different requests from the city.

Is that answer your question?

Yes, yes, thank you.

And it says no more than four properties in the CBD.

So that can you define what the Dallas Central Business District is or anyone.

The definition that is already used, I think it's within the boundaries of I want to say it's what all Roger's.

The traditional one, it's uh what all Rogers, the traditional CBD that we see.

Okay, I just want to make sure that because C D gets very uh fluid, right?

And I would just want to make sure that that's and I think people have been chiming in on possible locations, and just to be clear, the CBD is this traditionally defined, it is the current way we defined the CBD.

Okay, yes.

Um I believe Mr.

West talked about lease options in his opening um comments.

I am not for a lease, and so um I just think it'd be crazy for a city to do any kind of lease.

So I just wanted to put that on the record because I had uh lease options here.

Um, and so what in and then you look at including cost reimbursements to property owners.

What do you anticipate as being a cost reimbursement?

When you move from test fits into schematic design or specific engineering work or something that is atypical and non-customary for um called administrative office build out, those could be possible reimbursements.

But I would point you all back to what we discussed in executive session that this is very much a function of negotiation and function of leverage, and the idea that we are 100% responsible for all costs is strictly something that should be negotiated.

So the most important thing I think that's happening today is you all are giving us authority to negotiate, um, so that we can understand uh the final risk sharing and cost sharing for certain items.

So the cost reimbursements are not necessarily in the due diligence, but moving out of the due diligence into a final one, or is it stuff that we have to reimburse, like you said, schematic for an architect to do a rendering?

It's very hard to speak in broad strokes when you're talking about very different properties uh and very different ownership groups, and um, so I'd say that's a possibility, uh, but I won't speak in absolutes because I think that limits us.

So it it's just gonna it's gonna vary.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, is there a possibility that it could be less than four?

I don't think we're talking about four million dollars.

So I think it's a good thing.

No, it says no, no, four properties, sorry.

Oh, properties.

In fact, it says right here for no more than four properties locations, and I'm just wondering with two million dollars, it's a half a million for each property to do it, and I'm just wondering if there's a possibility.

So without going into the details that we've shared in close session, I think we've given council an overview of the potential options.

I think based on the feedback that council provided, we know that there is a there's a pool now that we should be focused on, and that is totally based on the feedback that you've provided within those sessions.

So that's why it says no more than four.

Right.

So I'm asking, is there a possibility that it could be two?

Or is it gonna be all four?

It would be premature for me to give you that final answer until we come back with that due diligence to where you'll even know if it's four or one or if it's four or three or four or two.

I think that's part of the process.

Okay, so if four are in the pool, who's gonna narrow it down to two?

Is that you guys or is because we know the I mean there's a pool of four, and it says four.

So if it all of a sudden, oh wait, are we gonna do two?

I think our responsibility or my responsibility, councilwoman Blackman, is to bring back the results of the due diligence, not to make any preconceived ideas about where the numbers should be once we come back.

I think that's what you're asking for us to bring to this body so that you can do that.

So that would be a part of our the work that we will bring back.

So will we see all of the properties that you do due diligence on?

We will bring you back the results of the due diligence, but of all of them that you do it.

So say you go down four and you see one of them may not necessarily cover it.

Can we still see that one?

If that's what council chooses to do, if there could be a situation where we've got four and we go and we start this process and and one falls out.

So I just can't give you the directness until we are on the other side of it.

And are all the um information that we collect, is it going to be subject to open records?

And I maybe not you, Peter, maybe that's an attorney.

We we answered that one last week because there were questions about reports.

I'd like to hear from the attorney, but it was done in back there.

Not a problem.

I would like to know from the attorney that when this information is collected, is it subject it can is it gonna be open to the public?

Hi, Connie Tancasive with the city attorney's office.

Um so while it's in being deliberated or information that the city council would deliberate in executive session, it would mean it would not be subject to open records uh release.

But it really does depend on the nature of the information that's brought to you.

So we have to wait until you receive the information, go through it, and then it could be made public if if it moves forward.

Correct.

Okay, so um this process the public will not see any details.

No.

It's after we've decided uh that this is the one that we're going with.

Then now that information gets and does all the other ones get released as well at that time, or are those still remaining in the executive privilege?

So it depends on the nature of the information and in what form it's delivered to the city.

Um so some of these property owners might say these are draft presentations, and so draft presentations not being finalized can be uh exempted from open records, but anything that would be of information that would allow the city council to deliberate on its final decision would not be subject to open records until you've actually acted on the information that you've received.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Ms.

Cadena, you recognize for five minutes.

Um Peter, underlying motion.

Yeah, Peter, I have a question for you.

So you mentioned um due diligence included the environmental assessment.

Can you tell me a little bit more about that and what that entails?

Uh I think the best reference point is the work that you all performed here on City Hall, and that um every environmental assessment starts with your generic uh environmental site assessment phase one, and that will have findings or may not have findings, and then if it has findings and a recommendation to proceed to other phases of investigation, then you proceed to that.

So that's why it's a little bit um well, it's impossible to predict exactly what due diligence is done on every single asset here because you don't know what the findings are going to be, but that will have a uh material impact on the process.

So it doesn't include remediation or a pricing out of what that potential remediation could cost.

No, I disagree, it could include those things, but it you don't know what the buildings have.

You all didn't know what was in this building until you perform the technical work and that illuminated a path of other information you had to gather.

So it very much could include those things.

Um that's part of the due diligence.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then um how would the information be provided to us and the residents from the due diligence?

Will it be on the website?

How how would that be disseminated?

I think the city attorney answered some of that, so I will not answer that portion of it.

But I think council has asked us to come back with the side-by-side comparison, I think we have to be able to share that with the council, and then once there's additional opportunities for you guys to ask questions, we definitely want to have a public presentation about it.

That information will be provided to the body.

Any additional details that need to be either posted on our website, the reports at that time, it would be available to the public.

And again, it's pretty much the council's um prerogative for any meetings that you want to have in your districts to describe that information as you've already done through some of the town hall meetings that you've had, that would be something that can continue uh based on the direction of the council.

Okay, and then I have one more question.

Um, would this fall under procurement rules where council members are not allowed to speak to the applicants or um tenants of the building?

So could you uh just clarify your question?

Yeah, would this be like a procurement process where applicants are not able to meet or uh speak with council members, like would this be uh close time or are we allowed to?

So real estate acquisitions are not subject to procurement.

Um so you're not making any expenditure right now that you would be engaging for goods or services.

So I would have to say no.

Okay.

And is there a time when that may come into play?

Sure.

Um to the extent that the city would acquire property, in whatever manner, whether it be a lease, lease to purchase or ownership, um, and you engage uh third parties to conduct services, possibly construction, or you acquire goods um to outfit the property, then procurement would apply.

Okay, thank you.

And then Jack, I have one question for you if you're still around.

Can you can I hear the question and then I'll say if Mr.

Allen needs to answer that?

I was just wondering if the contingency funds, because I we've used that I think for some for an item in my district, but if that could be also be used for repairs of city hall, Mr.

Arlen, the question is whether or not if any of the contingency funds that have been described, the one in particular that we're using for this item, could it be used for repair?

If there's an emergency in between this in-between period.

I apologize, Ms.

Torbert.

I just didn't hear you.

The question I apologize.

I'm wondering if the contingency funds can be used during this time when um, you know, like if there's an emergency that arises for repairs of city hall if needed.

So if the question is, can contingency reserve be used for emergency repairs?

Of city hall, this city hall.

Yes, ma'am.

If the city council voted to transfer right of contingency reserve, uh and it's determined to be an unbudgeted need, yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Roth, you're recognized for oh, sorry, hold on a second.

Up still still everyone is on a round two.

So three minutes for you, Mr.

Roth, and then um chairwoman.

Oh, you haven't spoken on this.

Okay, I'm gonna go to you first, then five minutes.

Thank you.

Um can you walk us through step by step how the universe of potential sites was identified and narrowed down to just the four locations?

I think the public needs to understand what the process is here.

Um reference, Mr.

Mayor.

Point of what clarity.

Oh, we get into uh information that was in presenting in the executive session.

Sustained.

I had to ask the parliamentarian.

Let's steer clear of the executive session.

So I'm sorry, I just want to understand exactly what it is you're ruling out of order that the public can't understand what the process was for narrowing it down.

I mean that does not seem like that would be covered by an executive session item.

If it was discussed during an executive session and only, then that it's the literally the subject of the executive session.

It's literally the topic.

Well, the process was not the topic though.

It was part of a real estate discussion.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to debate you.

Thank you.

I understand.

I I'm just trying, I'm trying to also make sure that we don't violate our own.

Well, our whole state laws and everything else about executive session content.

We were in the executive session on real estate matters.

Right.

That was a that was that was that's what that was posted for, I believe.

So I'm gonna sustain the point of order.

I don't agree, but I will move on.

Um what specific criteria were used to determine which properties made the short list and who developed that criteria?

Point of clarity to Mr.

Mayor Mr.

Mayor is saying that.

Thank you.

What properties were considered but eliminated and why?

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor?

Sustain.

How many buildings were evaluated before arriving at just four sites?

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor, sustained.

What instructions were given to brokers, consultant staff, third parties regarding the search for potential sites.

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor.

Sustain.

Were any city owned properties evaluated as alternatives?

And if so, what were the findings?

Sustain.

Really?

Not even to know if we looked at any city properties.

We're not going to disadvantage ourselves and how we go about assessing the market and telling everybody what we discuss in an executive session about our approach to this.

Were any properties outside the central business district considered?

Point of order, Mr.

Mayor.

Sustain.

Specifically, what due diligence activities were contemplated under this resolution.

Yeah, because I think we're just automatically saying that.

Specifically, what due diligence activities are contemplated under this resolution?

Can you repeat the question, please?

Specifically, what due diligence activities are contemplated under this resolution?

I don't believe that I should have my time docked for repeating it for the third time.

Could you please remove put my time back?

Okay.

Hold hold on one second.

I think I I'm I'm saying I think that's a question that can be answered.

I don't think that that's I know, but inappropriate.

In repeating it the third time, I lost time.

It should have been returned to me.

It should have been frozen if I'm repeating the same question for the convenience of staff.

Okay.

Give her 10 seconds back and then please answer that question.

Thank you.

And thank you for the question, Councilwoman Middleso.

We've given several examples already as to what would be included in the due diligence.

Um I would ask Mr.

Jansen if there's something that we've not given at this point to please share that again, protecting the process as well as the potential market um work and the integrity of the market.

I I very much appreciate the the spirit of the question and the thematic uh question from from staff and the public.

Um due diligence encompasses a whole range of activities, including um environmental that we spoke to earlier, including test fits, I spoke to earlier, including uh custom design work where necessary um to evaluate city council chambers uh and the engineering that goes along with that.

Um parking is uh due diligence item.

Um you all have discussed that at length today as well, but um all of these are um requisite steps to fully and understand the magnitude of the decision you all might make later.

So um that's just a list of examples, but um the path can take different iterations as you learn things about different assets, much like the path has iterated here on City Hall as you've learned information.

Council Member Mendelssohn, I will hold your time for 10 seconds.

Thank you.

What reports, studies, inspections, analysis, or consultant work products will be generated, is it a question for me?

It is okay.

Um, I think it's impossible to speak specifically to every different asset and every different item that will occur.

Um, because you may learn something about an asset that says, okay, no more due diligence on the asset.

That's a deal killer.

You know, so there are possibilities where there's not going to be deliverables on certain assets depending on what you find.

So I think it's impossible to answer that question with an exact specificity, but that is certainly something that we would report back on and give to the city manager and staff so that you'll have an itemized list of exactly what was done, why, and the pathway on the way.

Okay.

But we spoke exhaustively about this in executive session.

But so you're asking for two million dollars, and you're not even going to say you'll for sure get these reports.

I've never heard of spending money like this and not having some definitive work product.

I can speak to the process, but everyone should also understand this is not a contract with me or my company.

So we do have a contract with you, correct?

You do have a contract with it.

This is not a contract with CBRE to do all this work.

Um, does C BRE not generally provide reports when they do this kind of work?

Will you please allow the person you're asking the questions to to answer the last question you asked before you ask another one?

Yes, ma'am.

If we are performing the work, of course we provide reports.

Um but we are not the company doing all of this work, so it's not appropriate for me to answer on the wide variety of vendors that have to work on this, but you will get reports for every technical service that is performed and that's related to the due diligence.

Okay, so a report for every technical service.

Yes, ma'am.

I think just the in general the best case study is what you all have done for City Hall.

You authorize many different reports, and all of those are applicable in any stay or go decision.

So that's a very good recent example of the work that's been done and how the reporting comes out of that.

What information does staff believe it can't obtain without first spending two million dollars?

I mean, city manager, you're asking us for two million dollars to do this.

What do you think that you can't get unless you spend the two million dollars?

So we've we've talked.

Thank you for the question, Councilman Mendelson, and I'll just say again, we have talked extensively in the closed session with council about the additional due diligence and the things that you're asking for.

We've communicated that that additional due diligence is not free, and that we would have to move forward with having the pre-acquisition agreements done in order to be able to get that additional due diligence, and I think that this council understands and knows what those items are because we've talked about those things quite extensively in closed session.

After you're done with due diligence, what deliverable do you see coming to the city council?

Based on what's before you today, we've talked about the need to bring back true costs, negotiated terms, um, whether it's reports around systems, environmental, all the things that council has requested, and to where we can give you that information to where you can truly see the difference between the cost of repairing city hall and the cost for move, and those are the things that you've asked us to do.

So my hope would be that as CBRE completes this additional work if council proves to move this forward, that would be what should be expected for us to bring back to you.

How will staff determine whether a site succeeds or fails, either during the due diligence period, after the due diligence period, or will all of it come to council?

I think this city council in several conversations have asked us to bring all the information back to you.

Okay.

Is there anything that would constitute a deal breaker that would cause you to um leave one of these four sites?

I can't answer that question at this time, but I do believe that at any point in the process, if we see something or know something that we believe is detrimental to the city, we would have the responsibility of raising the flag and making sure that that's known to the body, and we would definitely not want to recommend something that would not be in the best interest of the city.

So that is my responsibility, and that is what the council should expect.

Will the due diligence include independent third party reviews, or will will it rely primarily on information provided by the property owners?

I think CBRE is working and have a responsibility of working on behalf of the city and protecting our interests, and I'll let Mr.

Jansen chime in, but they have a responsibility of representing and making sure that the due diligence, the validity of the work, the accuracy of the work, they are working on our behalf.

Licensure and reliance is very important for all technical work, and if the city wants to rely on reports, sometimes it's important that you pay for those and not a third party owner to avoid any uh conflicts or misrepresentations or anything like this.

So that is part of the strategy as to why we are requesting this deployment of funds so that you have the latitude to independently get information.

Um it would be the direction or it could be the direction of this council going forward that that information is then reviewed by another party.

That's a distinct possibility.

Um, but we would give you recommendations on what may or may not need to be reviewed and why.

Um but you all can feel free to direct um the team more broadly on what might need to be reviewed.

How was the two million dollar figure determined?

It's a pretty round number.

I would defer that to executive session discussion.

I don't actually recall that being discussed in executive session.

Not sure if you were in at the time, but we did talk about why that up to that number was uh important, and just from the work and just what the industry currently uh shows, we talked about why we believe that that would be a number.

This does not mean that that is what would be spent, that's why it says not to exceed and it's up to that amount.

So you're saying that there's some analysis that determined that two million was an appropriate number that maybe I missed in I was in the restroom or something.

I mean, I think that's it.

Yes, and it was presented in executive session, okay.

Um, what is the maximum reimbursement any single property owner could receive?

Undetermined at this point and um deferred to executive session again in the spirit of transparency, you don't know exactly what needs to be done on every single site and what can be negotiated to be uh covered or expended by counterparties during different points in the negotiation, but um it's impossible to project exactly what a maximum minute could be, but um the broader strategy is to perform comprehensive due diligence and bring that back to you all.

So you're not expecting to spend half a million per property, you may spend more on one and less on others?

I I think the line of question compromises your negotiation position.

Okay, um, what if staff spends the entire two million and concludes that none of the sites are suitable?

I'll just state this again.

The due diligence, if council authorizes this item will be brought back to the city council, the information will be shared, and at that time council would be given additional direction about how you would like to proceed.

I'd like to ask the city attorney what terms the city manager is actually authorized to negotiate without the council based on this um this um motion.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Yes, can you stop my time?

Thank you.

What terms can the city manager is the city manager authorized to negotiate without returning to council based on this motion?

Connie Tankersley will take that one.

The follow-up question is what limitations are there?

So um the city by passing this resolution, the city manager can authorize what essentially will be the scope of diligence that staff determines and CBRE determines is necessary for any one of the sites based on all the information they have to date.

So it's it's negotiation of terms for the scope of the due diligence.

And city manager, have you already determined what that scope is?