[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:10]
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26TH IS 4 P.M. ON MAYOR RACHEL PROCTOR, I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DESOTO CITY COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY SECRETARY IF SHE WOULD GIVE US A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MAYOR RACHEL PROCTOR HERE. MAYOR PRO TEM CRYSTAL CHISHOLM HERE. COUNCILMEMBER PARKER HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KEN WATERS HERE. COUNCILMEMBER ANDRE BIRD, SENIOR PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER DEBORAH NORTH HERE. COUNCILMEMBER LETICIA HUGHES
[2. Consider authorizing the City Manager to amend the eligibility requirements of the Helping Hands of DeSoto Program]
HERE. THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE HELPING HANDS OF DESOTO PROGRAM.MAKING A PRESENTATION IS DOCTOR ESTHER WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL. I'M HERE TODAY TO JUST GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AND TO PROVIDE THIS PRESENTATION FOR AMENDING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR HELPING HANDS OF DESOTO PROGRAM. SO. LOOK LIKE A NOOB. IT'S NOT WORKING. I WOULD HELP IN THERE. OKAY. SO PRETTY MUCH WE'RE GOING TO JUST REVISIT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM TO REMIND EVERYBODY OF HOW THIS PROGRAM GOT STARTED. I'LL GIVE YOU SOME UPDATES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS AND AND THEN SHOW SOME KEY OBSERVATIONS. FOR SO FAR IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS OR LAST FULL MONTH OF OF OF BEING IN SERVICE. AND THEN DISCUSS SOME OF THE KEY CHALLENGES AND THEN ALSO PRESENT OUR REQUEST FOR FOR AMENDMENT. SO HERE WE HAVE JUST A REMINDER. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A TEMPORARY CITY FUNDED RELIEF PROGRAM SUPPORTING OUR RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY OUR FEDERAL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, SNAP BENEFIT REDUCTIONS, OR HAVE BEEN FURLOUGHED OR HAVE EXPERIENCED JOB LOSS DUE TO THOSE. AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE SHORT TERM ASSISTANCE AS WELL AS CONNECT RESIDENTS TO WRAPAROUND COMMUNITY RESOURCES, WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO DO THROUGH OUR WEBSITE. WE STARTED THE PROGRAM OFFICIALLY TO OUR RESIDENTS JANUARY 21ST, AND THE WINDOW WAS OPEN FOR APPLICATIONS. WE PARTNERED WITH FOUND A FOUNDATION TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE APPLICATIONS, TRACK THE TRACK. THOSE WHO HAVE APPLIED AND APPROVED THEM BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT WE SET. AND THEY WERE ALSO ABLE TO GIVE US WEEKLY REPORTING OF EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY WERE ABLE TO SERVICE AND HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE APPLIED. SO AS OF FEBRUARY 5TH, WHEN I CREATED THE PRESENTATION, 64 TOTAL APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, TEN TOTAL WERE APPROVED, AND OUT OF THAT, TEN WAS SEVEN RENT OR MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS AND THREE SNAP RELATED ASSISTANCE. SO THEY RECEIVE VOUCHERS FOR GROCERIES AND THE TOTAL TOTAL TO BE $34,000. $34,042.62. SO THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROGRAM IS GOING OUT THERE. IT IS BEING UTILIZED. HOWEVER, WE DO SEE THAT OUT OF 64, ONLY TEN HAVE BEEN SERVICED DUE TO THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA THAT WE SET. AND THEREFORE WE ARE ASKING THAT WE INCREASE THE CRITERIA OR OR EXPAND THE CRITERIA TO GO BEYOND FURLOUGHS AND JOB LOSS DUE TO THE DUE TO THE FURLOUGHS, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, FURLOUGHS, AND DUE TO SNAP REDUCTIONS. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. EXPAND HARDSHIP CRITERIA BEYOND SHUTDOWN SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION. ALLOW ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF HARDSHIP VERIFICATION. PERMIT HARDSHIP AFFIDAVIT. HOW DO YOU SAY THAT HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION AND INCLUDE INCOME QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING TEMPORARY FINANCIAL INSTABILITY. AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO MEET THOSE BARRIERS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OBSERVING AND AND REALLY GIVE THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE IN NEED THE RESOURCES THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED TO IMPROVE PROGRAM ACCESSIBILITY WHILE MAINTAINING FISCAL OVERSIGHT. SO I KNOW WE HAVE QUESTIONS. PROBABLY. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN FILL THOSE NOW. THANK YOU, DOCTOR WILLIAMS. I DO SEE A LIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER PARKER. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I DO
[00:05:01]
HAVE ONE INITIAL QUESTION BEFORE WE GET INTO THE QUESTIONS OF THE ACTUAL SLOT.THIS ACTUAL SLIDE WAS NOT PROVIDED AS A PART OF THE AGENDA. SO YOU KIND OF WENT THROUGH IT A LITTLE FAST. OKAY. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT FIRST IT CAN BE ADDED ONLINE SO THAT EVERYBODY ELSE CAN SEE IT AS WELL, AND THEN ALSO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY? BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE I NOT EVEN SEEN ANY OF THIS. SO UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE. OKAY. YOU KNOW. SO CAN WE GO BACK THROUGH A COUPLE OF THOSE SLIDES PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK I KNOW I TOOK THESE NUMBERS OFF OF THE THOSE WEEKLY UPDATES AS WELL. SO I KNOW IT'S BEEN, I THINK TWO WEEKS SINCE I UPDATED THE ACTUAL NUMBERS. BUT THESE ARE THE SAME ONES FROM THAT FROM THAT REPORT. SO IT WAS THERE PARTICULAR. SO AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF WHATEVER THAT DATE IS IN JANUARY, JANUARY 31ST, ONLY 34,000 HAS BEEN HAS BEEN EXPENDED. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT THIS ONE. OKAY. SO THIS ONE RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU SAID KEY CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED. WHEN YOU SAY THE IT REQUIRES THE PROOF OF FURLOUGH. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO THE ELIGIBILITY THAT YOU'RE SAYING SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT A FURLOUGH.
CORRECT. YEAH. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY'VE BEEN FURLOUGHED DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. THEY MAY BE FURLOUGHED OR THEY MAY BE OUT OF A JOB FOR OTHER REASONS, BUT IT'S NOT DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. SO BUT I GUESS I'M UNCLEAR. SO THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACTUAL HELPING HANDS. ARE WE SAYING WE'RE EXPANDING IT TO BE BEYOND THE FURLOUGHS? YES, MA'AM. IS THAT WHAT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, I WAS I'M UNCLEAR ON THAT PIECE, BUT. OKAY. THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF IS TO EXPAND IT BEYOND COUNCIL'S INITIAL DESIRE. WHICH COUNCIL'S INITIAL.
QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE ESTABLISH AS A COUNCIL STAFF DIDN'T DO THAT. THE COUNCIL DID WAS THAT THESE FUNDS WOULD ONLY BE SPECIFICALLY THE ONLY PEOPLE ELIGIBLE. RATHER, FOR THESE SPECIFIC FUNDS WOULD BE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY FURLOUGHED FROM THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OR THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED FOOD INSECURITY DUE TO SNAP BENEFITS BEING LOST. THAT'S THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNCIL SAID THAT THESE FUNDS WOULD BE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING TONIGHT IS THAT WE EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY BEYOND THAT TO INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN PROVIDE SOME, SOME TYPE OF PROOF THAT THEY ARE EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN RELATED FURLOUGH, OR I'M ASSUMING SNAP IS STILL WOULD BE YES, TECHNICALLY SNAP IF THEY STILL HAVE TO BE RECEIVING SNAP TO RECEIVE THAT. BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THE RENT AND MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND THAT BEYOND INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. CORRECT. SO THAT'S THE ASK OR THE RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT. COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, DOCTOR WILLIAMS, FOR BRINGING THIS BACK FORWARD. DO YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY CRITERIA FOR WHAT IT WOULD BE BASED UPON? AND I KNOW THAT YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T GET INTO THAT TODAY, BUT IF WE'RE OPENING IT UP TO ANYONE WHO'S HAVING HARDSHIP, CORRECT. WHAT WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE CRITERIA? I KNOW THAT I, I HAVE MEMBERS THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE SHUTDOWN, WHERE THEY WERE NEITHER ON SNAP NOR WERE THEY FURLOUGHED, BUT THEY'RE CHILDREN. ONE HAS A DISABLED OR DIFFERENTLY ABLED CHILD WHO BENEFITS WERE CUT. SO ARE WE LOOKING TO TARGET IN ON THOSE TYPE OF PEOPLE OR OR IS IT SIMILAR TO WHAT ATMOS ATMOS ENERGY IS ALREADY DOING? THEY YOU KNOW, IF YOU SHOW HARDSHIP, THEY WILL HELP YOU WITH YOUR GAS BILL. WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPTIONS RIGHT. SO WE'VE DONE UTILITIES ASSISTANCE BEFORE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE. AND SO THERE ARE STILL THE THE HUD CRITERIA WHERE IF YOU ARE A SENIOR OR DISABLED, YOU ARE ABLE TO APPLY FOR FUNDS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, COVERED BY CDBG OR, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER KIND OF FUNDS, BUT THEY DO STILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF THAT HARDSHIP. SO DURING THOSE BLITZES, DURING THOSE UTILITIES ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, WE ASKED FOR PROOF THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN ARREARS FOR TWO, 3 OR 4 MONTHS, AND THEY'RE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THEY MAY EVEN SHOW WHERE THEY WERE LAID OFF FROM THEIR JOB. AND IN IN ADDITION TO THE THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPILING. SO AND THEN EVEN SOME DATA THAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU TODAY OUT OF THE 64 THAT WERE THAT APPLIED, 30 ARE IDENTIFIED AS ELDERLY OR
[00:10:05]
SENIOR CITIZEN, AND 24 DID IDENTIFY AS DISABLED. SO, YOU KNOW, SO FOUND A WAY HAS BEEN KEEPING ALL OF THAT INFORMATION SO THAT I SO I ASKED THEM TO KEEP ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED, SO THAT WE CAN REACH OUT JUST IN CASE WE HAVE ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITIES OR OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE COULD PROVIDE THEM. MADAM MAYOR, CAN I IF I COULD JUST ADD, I, I LOVE THE IDEA OF HELPING PEOPLE. I LIKE THE IDEA OF HELPING THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED. I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE IDEA OF HELPING. I LIKE WHAT ATMOS THROUGH FINDAWAY HAS DONE WITH THE WITH A TARGETED HELP WITH UTILITIES AND ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE COULD RIGHTFULLY DRAW THE LINE. IF WE GET INTO MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE AND OR RENTAL ASSISTANCE. I THINK THAT AND AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDS OR THE FUNDS BEING ABLE TO SPREAD OUT BE MORE VASTLY DISPERSED IF WE PICKED A UTILITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSIONS. I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO HELP, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A GREAT IDEA AND MANY OF OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES PUSHED TO PUT MORE MONEY THERE. I THINK IT SHOWS THE GENEROSITY OF THIS, OF THIS COUNCIL, OF THE MAYOR AND THIS COUNCIL. BUT WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO PIVOT, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN THE PIVOT AND THE PIVOT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO TO SERVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, DOCTOR WILLIAMS, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING OF US, AND I WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THE CITY OF DESOTO IS THAT WE THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND IN WAYS TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY. BUT I DO HAVE A LITTLE TREPIDATION WITH EXPANSION AND IF NOT CLEARLY DEFINED AND KIND OF IN A MICROSCOPE OF WHAT HOW WE EXPAND BECAUSE WE TOOK FUNDS OUT OF OUR RAINY DAY FUND, AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTTING DOWN. THAT WAS PRETTY THAT WAS CATASTROPHIC, IN MY OPINION, TO SEE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING, NOT BEING ABLE TO EAT AND PAY THEIR MORTGAGE. BUT IT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT IT'S NOT THOSE INDIVIDUALS, IT'S JUST THE GENERAL POPULATION WHO HAVE FALL ON HARD TIMES. AND I THINK WE FIND OURSELVES IN A PECULIAR SITUATION WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE WE'LL CREATE, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE THAT, THAT, THAT KIND OF THAT'S A LOT THAT THAT PUTS US IN A REAL 500 1C3 TYPE OF REALM. AND I JUST HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE I JUST HAVE CONCERNS WITH PIVOTING FROM THAT STANDPOINT AND BEING VERY BROAD WITH JUST ANYONE HAVING BECAUSE WE ALL I MEAN, NOT BEING INSENSITIVE, BUT THAT THAT DOES HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, BUT THE CITY IS NOT ALWAYS YOU DON'T SEE CITIES IN THAT POSITION JUST GIVING OUT MONEY LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DEFINE IT TO LIKE SENIORS OR, I DON'T KNOW, ANOTHER REQUIREMENT. I JUST STRUGGLE WITH TAKING FUNDS THAT CAME FROM OUR RESERVES, PARTICULARLY FOR A MAJOR EVENT THAT HAPPENED IN AND THEN USING IT JUST FOR ANYONE WITH THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. THAT'S WHERE MY STRUGGLE IS WITH THIS.AND IF I COULD, I WOULD GIVE ANYBODY SOME MONEY. BUT I IT'S IT'S JUST THE, IT'S THE I DON'T KNOW, IT'S IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM AS RESPONSIBLE AS I THINK WE SHOULD BE. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I HAD TO KIND OF SAME SENTIMENT REALLY THAT MY MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILWOMAN CHISHOLM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE REASON WE EVEN DID THIS WAS GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN. AND SO THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS OVER WITH. WELL, I DON'T KNOW. IS IT STILL GOING ON WITH THE HOMELAND SECURITY OR SOMETHING? BUT ANYWAY, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OVER WITH. THIS PROGRAM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OVER WITH. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING IT, I MEAN, THAT'S A BLACK HOLE. LIKE IF YOU JUST GO IN AND JUST REGULAR PEOPLE THAT'S NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SPECIFICALLY TO SHUT DOWN. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS ORIGINAL INTENT IS. I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MODIFY IT. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS HERE. BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY THAT'S GOING TO TAKE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I JUST BECAUSE ONCE YOU OPEN THAT UP, THEN WHEN THE MONEY RUNS OUT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RE-UP ON THE MONEY. WE'RE OPENING UP MORE MONEY. MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO
[00:15:02]
STICK WITH WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS, WHICH IS PEOPLE THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THIS, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THAT. I YIELD BACK, OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. I LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING SOMEONE AND I DO RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF MY COLLEAGUES. BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING THOSE OTHERS WHO MIGHT COULD BENEFIT FROM US ASSISTING THEM. I MEAN, AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, ANY OF US COULD BE THERE. SO IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE CAN HELP THEM WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA, I THINK WE SHOULD, BECAUSE WE HAVE FUNDS LEFT OVER. RIGHT? YES. YEAH. WHY PUT IT BACK IN THE KITTY? WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO AT SOME POINT IN TIME HAVE CONTRIBUTED, RIGHT. SO WHY NOT HELP THEM? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD WITH US. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, SETTING UP A CRITERIA TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE GIVE THOSE WHO ARE STILL IN NEED. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON APPROACH IN TERMS OF HOW WE LOOK AT IT. I, I, I CAN SEE ALL OF THE ALL OF THE OPINIONS ARE ARE VALID.I TOO AM BECAUSE I AND I MENTIONED THIS TO YOU, DOCTOR WILLIAMS, AS WELL AS TO DOCTOR MORGAN ABOUT THE LACK OF CLARITY ON THE APPLICATION. INITIALLY, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS ONLY FOR FURLOUGHED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT CLEARLY SPELLED OUT. AND SO I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, HOW AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON HOW MANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WE HAVE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY? SO I'M JUST WONDERING IN TRYING TO SEE, IS IT APPARENT TO THOSE THAT QUALIFY FROM IF THEY'RE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED BY THE FURLOUGH, HOW AWARE ARE THEY OF THE ACTUAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE? AND THAT THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE AND I DON'T I DON'T ASSUME ANYBODY HAS THE ANSWER TO IT TONIGHT. I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT THEN JUST AT THAT POINT, JUST OPENING IT UP. THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF SEEING SEEING HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN. NOW GO BACK TO THE SLIDE. THERE IS A SLIDE. YOU HAVE DOCTOR WILLIAMS THAT SHOWS OKAY. SO 64. AND WE HAVE WE ALLOTTED OVER THREE ALMOST $300,000. RIGHT $300,000. YES. AND SO IF WE AND WE HAVE 34,000 HOLD ON. LET ME JUST DO A LITTLE QUICK MATH. IF I THINK THE MAX. RIGHT. IF WE HAVE 64 APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, TEN APPROVED. SO THAT LEAVES ABOUT 54 APPLICATIONS THAT WERE DENIED. AND I THINK THE MAX THAT WE SAID WE WOULD GIVE OUT IN TERMS OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE WAS ABOUT $2,000. WAS THAT THE IS THAT CORRECT COUNCIL? THE MAX IS 2000, SO 2000 TIMES THE 54. THAT'S 108,000. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT'S ABOUT 100 PLUS 34,000. THAT'S ABOUT 142,000, WHICH STILL LEAVES US HALF OF THE MONEY ALLOTTED. IF WE WERE EVEN TO APPROVE ALL 64.
SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GIVE MYSELF SOME PERSPECTIVE ON NUMBER ONE, THE NEED. SECONDLY, HOW FAST WOULD THOSE FUNDS BE DEPLETED IF WE WERE TO APPROVE EVERYBODY THAT ACTUALLY SUBMITTED AND COULD PROVE IN SOME WAY THAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED A HARDSHIP? SO I STILL HAVE NOT ARRIVED AT AT WHERE I WANT TO LAND AT. I'M JUST KIND OF GIVING MYSELF AND MAYBE HOPEFULLY OTHERS, A PERSPECTIVE ON EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US SO FAR.
COUNCILMEMBER PARKER YES, MADAM MAYOR, AS YOU WERE TALKING, I WAS ALSO DOING A LITTLE BIT OF MATH THERE, AND I WANT TO JUST CAUTION US WHEN WE'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF A PROGRAM. WHILE WE MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE A DEADLINE, THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT. AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. I WOULD HATE FOR US TO EXPAND THIS AND THEN TURN AROUND. AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOES THROUGH SOME OTHER CHANGE, AND NOW WE'RE BACK AT THE SAME POINT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE 54 APPLICATIONS GOT DENIED. MAYBE THERE'S SOME WAY TO WORK WITH THEM IF THEY ARE ACTUAL. ARE YOU SAYING THE 54 ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT? THEY DID NOT HAVE THEY WERE GOVERNMENT. YES. THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. OKAY. I JUST I FEEL LIKE WE'RE AND I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO TELL YOU WHEN IT CAME BACK IN JANUARY. I
[00:20:05]
DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN DECEMBER. I THOUGHT WE HAD EVERYTHING WE NEEDED. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED. WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN JANUARY. NOW HERE WE ARE AT THE END OF FEBRUARY TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN. BUT THERE'S A LOT STILL GOING ON AT THE GOVERNMENT. I JUST BELIEVE THAT WE MIGHT BE JUMPING THE GUN, MAKING AN EXPANSION, AND THEN END UP WITH A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED THE HELP WON'T HAVE IT THERE, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE GIVEN IT ALL OUT. AND IS THERE A DEADLINE ON THIS? DO WE HAVE A DEADLINE? CDBG WE HAD ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED MAYBE EXPIRING THE PROGRAM BY THE END OF MARCH, BECAUSE WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WOULD HAVE DEPLETED THE FUNDS BY BY THAT TIME. AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE WE'RE AT A POINT THAT IT'S ONLY 64,000 OR 34,000. SO WE WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER THOUGHT. THERE'S NO EXPIRATION BY REQUIREMENT. IT WAS JUST SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED BACK IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, AS FAR AS OUTREACH IS CONCERNED, I'VE SEEN IT ON FACEBOOK, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE I'VE REALLY SEEN IT. WHAT KIND OF OUTREACH DID WE DO TO THOSE WHO ARE OF A HARDSHIP THAT MIGHT BE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? HOW MUCH OUTREACH DID WE DO TO THEM? I THINK WELL, TO ANSWER THAT, I THINK DOCTOR MORGAN ACTUALLY DID EXPLAIN THAT THEY DID OUTREACH AT CHURCHES AND AT THE SCHOOLS. HE WAS ABLE TO GET SOME TIME WITH THE PRINCIPALS SO THAT HE CAN SHARE THE INFORMATION WITH THE TEACHERS AND PARENTS. BUT I CAN GET YOU THAT LIST OF OUTREACH EFFORTS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU.COUNCILMEMBER. THANK YOU. MADAM MAYOR. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CATEGORY CATEGORY? THE OTHER 54,000 ARE THE 54 THAT WERE NOT APPROVED, WHAT CATEGORY THEY FELL IN AS IN LIKE ELDERLY OR.
WELL, YEAH, DISABLED RENTAL ASSISTANCE, UTILITIES ASSISTANCE. IT WAS JUST A NOT ANY DETAILED INFORMATION AT THE MOMENT. I WAS TRYING TO GET THEM TO GET THIS INFORMATION AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE. BUT IF I UNDERSTOOD THE MAYOR'S QUESTION, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE SHE WAS DRIVING TO. WE DON'T. RIGHT. WHERE IS WHERE WAS THE BIGGEST NEED. WE SEE THAT OF THE TEN SEVEN NEEDED RENT AND OR MORTGAGE AND THREE JUST WAS NOT RELATED. BECAUSE DO WE KNOW IF THE SNAP BENEFITS WERE RETROACTIVE WHEN WHEN THEY WERE REINSTATED? WHERE THEY RETROACTIVE I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. THOSE WOULD BE AGAIN AS WE LOOK AS WE LOOK INTO IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT BECAUSE AGAIN, I KNOW THE INTENT OF THIS COUNCIL. AND AGAIN, I APPLAUD THE COUNCIL FOR BEING FORWARD THINKING. I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS, BUT I WOULD I WOULD JUST SIMPLY LIKE TO KNOW OF THE 50 OF THE 64. WE KNOW WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE TEN OF THE TEN. THE MAJORITY OF IT WAS RENT AND OR MORTGAGE. OF THE OTHER 54, WHAT WAS THEIR REQUEST AND WHAT WAS THEIR WHAT PART OF THE WHAT PART OF THE EXISTING PROGRAM DID THEY NOT DID THEY NOT? ABSOLUTELY. QUALIFY FOR? OKAY, I CAN GIVE YOU THAT. I WOULD HAVE I'M I'M SPECULATING, BUT BECAUSE THE SNAP BENEFITS WERE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, I DON'T THINK THEY COULD BE DENIED UNLESS THEY DON'T ALREADY RECEIVE SNAP. CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO I'M IMAGINING THAT THE 54 THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF WERE ALL WERE ALL PROBABLY RENTAL RELATED FOLKS OR UTILITIES OR UTILITIES. OKAY. SO WE'RE ALL THAT NOW WITH UTILITIES. BUT THE COUNCIL DID WE AUTHORIZE UTILITIES OR IS THIS UTILITIES AS FAR AS WHAT FIND A WAY ALREADY HAS. NO. IT WAS UTILITIES FOR ELECTRIC THE WATER. OH I'M SORRY YES I MIGHT YES OKAY. SO WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE RECEIVED. OH WELL THE UTILITIES WERE ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT RELATED. CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO BASED ON MY VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH DOCTOR MORGAN, I'M AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ANY HARD, HARD FACTS, BUT THE, THE THE DENIAL WAS SOLELY THAT THAT THEY WERE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. AND SO THE THE THE EXPANSION WOULD BE TO CONSIDER EXPANDING IT FOR JUST ESSENTIALLY ANYBODY, WHICH I DON'T I DON'T HEAR OF A GENERAL LEVEL OF COMFORTABILITY WITH DOING IT SO BROADLY. I, I DO UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUE'S POINT, COUNCILMEMBER PARKER, ABOUT THE INSTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW. THERE WAS JUST RECENTLY SOME THINGS THAT GOT SHUT DOWN, YOU KNOW, AND SO IT'S JUST REALLY UNSTABLE. AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE US NOT HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE THAT IT WAS INTENDED. I JUST I GUESS I WANT TO UNDERSTAND OUTREACH AS WELL. IN
[00:25:03]
TERMS OF HOW WIDELY KNOWN IS IT BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT THIS IS AVAILABLE FOR THEM? AND AGAIN, I'M SPECULATING OF THE 54 THAT THEY WERE SENT, I'M OVERSIMPLIFYING IT THAT THEY WERE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S WHY THEY COULD NOT QUALIFY. CORRECT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF SEE THAT AS WELL. COUNCIL. MADAM MAYOR, QUICK QUESTION. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS, THERE WAS A CERTAIN NUMBER THAT CAME FROM YVONNE DAVIS'S OFFICE THAT GAVE US A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN DESOTO. WITH THIS SCENARIO, IT WAS SNAP BENEFITS. SO ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS WAS SNAP. BUT WE DIDN'T WE I CONGRESSWOMAN CROCKETT'S OFFICE, I THINK, GAVE US A HIGH LEVEL NUMBER IN HER DISTRICT, BUT IT WAS NOT DESOTO FOLKS THAT WERE, I THINK, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, IF I'M RECALLING CORRECTLY. BUT THAT NUMBER WAS NOT SPECIFIC TO DESOTO. THERE WAS NOT REALLY A WAY FOR THEM TO AGGREGATE THE DATA TO, SAY, THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WITHIN DESOTO. IT WAS JUST PRETTY MUCH THE DATA SHE HAS FOR HER DISTRICT. AND THEN I THINK THE NUMBER WE GOT FROM REP DAVIS WAS SNAP RECIPIENTS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO COUNCIL. YES. COUNCILMAN WATERS SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT JUST THE AVERAGE PERSON WHEN THEY GO THROUGH HARD TIMES, DON'T WE HAVE LIKE THE CARE TEAM HAS DIFFERENT RESOURCES. THEY SEND THEM TO THE CARE TEAM HAS RESOURCES. YES. AND EVEN OUR WEBSITE HAS A LOT OF RESOURCES AS WELL FOR THE HELPING HANDS WHERE THEY CAN REACH OUT. DALLAS COUNTY OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. I THINK THE HOPE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS IS THAT THERE'S A CLEARER AND A SURER PATH TO GETTING THE ASSISTANCE VERSUS SOME OF MAYBE THE ALREADY EXISTING RESOURCES OUT THERE IS, I THINK, WHAT THE WHAT THE ASK HAS BEEN FROM SOME OF THEM THAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS SPECIFIC PROGRAM. SO COUNCIL WE NEED TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE DESIRE IS FOR US TO HAVE STAFF BRING BACK MORE INFORMATION, OR IF WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT WITH EXPANDING IT COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO NEED SOME MORE FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL. AND I'M GOING TO START HERE TO MY RIGHT.THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON HOW WE CAN STREAMLINE THE QUALIFYING PROCESS. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OUTREACH. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ON YOUR DESIRE, YOUR YOUR ASK IF WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, ASSIST OUR RESIDENTS. WE NEED TO DETERMINE HOW WE'RE GOING TO QUALIFY THEM. IF IT'S IF YOU KNOW PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. THAT'S JUST ME. WE NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT OUR RESIDENTS RIGHT HERE. SO I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO SAY THAT YOU BASE YOU QUALIFY BASED ON THIS CRITERIA FOR OUR CITY, OUR TOWN. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. OKAY. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER. EXCUSE ME, MAYOR PRO TEM, YOUR ASK WAS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OUTREACH. THE OUTREACH, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN TERMS OF OUTREACH, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN NORTH. THANK YOU.
MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SINCE THIS WAS ORIGINATED AROUND THE FURLOUGH. AND THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ASSISTING OUR RESIDENTS, BUT THAT WE KEEP IT CLEAN AS FAR AS ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO SINCE THIS PROGRAM IS DUE TO WRAP UP IN MARCH, AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED, THAT IT DO SO, BUT NOT BEFORE WE GET THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED, AND THAT WE ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT PERHAPS A NEW PROGRAM, SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THE NUMBERS REGARDING SNAP FROM REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS AND.
CROCKETT'S OFFICE, IF YOU WILL, AND THAT WE CAN MAKE IT JUST CLEAN AS FAR AS GOVERNMENTS AND REPORTING. OKAY, OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN PARKER. OH. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE OUTREACH, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW. I KNOW THAT THIS THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM HAD TWO TYPES OF FUNDS.
THERE ARE CDBG FUNDS. AND I KNOW THAT THOSE ARE NORMALLY EVERY YEAR EXPENDED AT THE END OF ITS TERM TOWARDS PEOPLE IN SOME KIND OF BLITZ. I KNOW THAT NORMALLY HAPPENS. I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE SPLIT. HOW MUCH IS THIS AND HOW MUCH IS THAT? IF I COULD MAYBE GET THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. OKAY. I CAN TELL YOU NOW. OKAY, GREAT. THE CDBG FUNDS TOWARDS THIS
[00:30:04]
PROGRAM IS $21,000, $21,000. AND THAT WAS JUST IT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE USED FOR SNAP SNAP VOUCHERS. YEAH. WELL THAT HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE. WE'VE TALKED BUT BUT TO HER POINT WE THERE IS AN EXPIRATION DATE ON THE USAGE OF THE CDBG FUNDS RIGHT. YES. BUT IT'S LIKE THREE, THREE, THREE YEARS. IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE. BUT THERE IS A DATE WE HAVE TO EXPEND THE FUNDS BY. RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW THOSE THINGS. YES, YES.COUNCILMAN WATERS WELL. KIND OF LIKE. YOU'RE SAYING ON THIS. I COULDN'T CLICK ON ANYTHING, SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WAS GOING TO BRING HERE TODAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT I. YES, BUT I'VE SEEN ENOUGH. I'M READY TO VOTE. THAT'S IT. WELL, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING TONIGHT. NO, NO, NO, WE'RE JUST GETTING CONSENSUS AS FAR AS DIRECTION FOR STAFF. COUNCIL MEMBER. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PIVOT TO SEE HOW WE COULD USE THE FUNDS THAT'S BEEN ALLOCATED TO HELP THE DISABLED AND THE SENIORS THAT THAT WOULD QUALIFY WITHIN A CERTAIN SCOPE. I THINK MY CONSENSUS LINE UP WITH, IF YOU WOULD, COUNCILWOMAN NORTH AND AND OTHERS. BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MONEY WE'VE SET ASIDE TO HELP PEOPLE. WE'VE WE'VE IDENTIFIED A DEMOGRAPHIC THAT MIGHT NEED HELP. OUR ELDERLY IS ALWAYS IN NEED OF HELP. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, JUST TO SEE IF THERE IS A PROGRAM THAT COULD FIT WITHIN THOSE REALMS. MY THOUGHTS ARE THE MORE THAT WE TALK AND LIKE I SAID, THE MORE I KIND OF WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE NUMBERS. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW FAST THOSE 64 APPLICATIONS CAME IN AS WELL. WAS IT IN A MATTER OF A FEW DAYS, WE GOT 64 APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE, OR DID THEY TRICKLE IN OVER THE MONTH? LIKE, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW FAST THEY STARTED COMING IN TO, TO HELP ME SOMEWHAT UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY OF THE NEED IN THE COMMUNITY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
BUT I WOULD EVEN BE OPEN TO SPLITTING THE FUNDS AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE. LIKE I SAID, THAT NUMBER WAS NOT NEARLY AS HIGH AS I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO HELP EVERYBODY WHO HAS ALREADY APPLIED. IT STILL LEAVES US WITH A GOOD AMOUNT OF MONEY TO POSSIBLY STILL USE FOR ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE NICHE OF BEING A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A MORE GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHO DOES THAT NEED TO BE? AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS HAS SUGGESTED, MAYBE IT'S ELDERLY, DISABLED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT I THINK THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE SOME CRITERIA. AND LOOK AT WHAT POPULATION COULD BENEFIT THE MOST. AND AGAIN, I WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND LIKE WHAT DOES THIS THESE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN HAND, WHAT DOES WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE MAKEUP OF THESE KIND OF POOL. THE POOL THAT WE ALREADY HAVE WITH APPLICATIONS. SO I THINK WE HAVE SOME DIRECTION. DOCTOR WILLIAMS ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND OH I'M SORRY I DID WANT TO ASK THAT I DON'T HAVE MY NOTES IN FRONT OF ME. I DID WANT TO ASK HOW FLEXIBLE ARE WE ON THAT MARCH DATE I THINK I THINK ARE WE. THAT'S JUST WAS WHAT WE WERE INTENDING ON. THAT WAS JUST AN INTERNAL DATE. OKAY. BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T WANT US TO TO KICK THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD. I WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND GET ON TOP OF IT. IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AND DO IT, THEN WE NEED TO DO IT. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED NOT TO BE HASTY, BUT FIRST MEETING IN APRIL, WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT IN APRIL AND MARCH. WE ONLY HAVE THAT MEETING OF NEXT WEEK.
SO COUNCIL WE ARE. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARCH DEADLINE IS IS NOW VIEWPOINT.
YES. IT'S IT IS NOT THE DEADLINE AT THIS POINT. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER, THE QUESTION YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN ACCORDING TO THIS PRESENTATION. IT SAID AS OF FEBRUARY 5TH, IT'S FEBRUARY 26TH. THAT'S 20 DAYS. LOTS OF STUFF CAN HAPPEN. SO DO WE HAVE THE NUMBER TO NOW? I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS SINCE FEBRUARY 5TH. OH, SO 64 IS RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN I CAN VERIFY AGAIN. I WAS JUST SPEAKING WITH THEM TODAY. NO. BUT IN CASE ANYBODY DID ASK EARLIER THIS WEEK THEY HAD SOME TELEPHONE PROBLEMS FOR TWO DAYS. SO THEY WERE TRYING TO SEND OUT THEIR THEIR WORK CELL PHONE NUMBERS. BUT JUST IN CASE ANYBODY ASKED. YEAH WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE APPLYING. IT'S JUST NOT HAVE BEEN HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FULL APPLICATION PROCESS YET. AND NOW THE MAYOR HAS ASKED ABOUT THE DATE. I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE DATE BECAUSE THE DATE INDICATES A STOPPAGE. IF WE MOVE PAST THAT DATE, DOES THAT
[00:35:04]
CHANGE HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO THEN PAY THE ADMINISTRATORS? NO, THEY GET PAID 15% OF THE EXPENSES AS THEY EXPEND IT. SO IF THEY'RE NOT SPENDING ANYTHING, THEY'RE NOT 15% IS NOT GOING TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATORS. SO EVERY TIME THEY BILL US, IF THEY BILL US $20,000 FOR LIKE THE RESIDENTS RECEIVING FUNDING, THEY GET 15% TO GO TOWARDS THE ADMINISTRATION. OKAY. SO THEY STARTED JANUARY, FEBRUARY. THEY SHOULD HAVE A BILL. YES. FOR THAT TIME, SINCE WE'VE GOT NO APPLICATIONS BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY 5TH, THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING. RIGHT? WELL THEY HAVEN'T THEY HAVEN'T BILLED AS ANYTHING. NO. YES. CORRECT.OKAY, OKAY, I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. AT THIS TIME WE'LL HAVE THE
[3. City Council discussion for plan forward to engage the DeSoto ISD seeking interest in property surrounding the ARC at McCowan]
NEXT AND FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION FOR PLAN FORWARD TO ENGAGE THE DESOTO ISD SEEKING INTEREST IN PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE ARC AT MCCOWN. STARTING THE DISCUSSION IS MAYOR RACHEL PROCTOR AND CITY MANAGER MATT GODFREY. THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US RIGHT NOW TO START THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE THE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES AROUND THE ARC AND WHAT WHAT TYPE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE. AND OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE LARGEST PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THE ARC IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF A AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BRING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAY, IF YOU ALLOW US PERMISSION TO GO START DISCUSSING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WITH THE DESOTO ISD TO SEE WHAT ONE THEIR APPETITE FOR PARTNERSHIPS AND TWO OR SELL OF OF SALE OF OF THEIR PROPERTY AND TO, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY EVEN TO PARTNER ON OTHER THINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. DESOTO SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF IN A NUTSHELL. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OWNS AROUND THE ARC. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OWNS ABOUT 60 SOME ACRES OF THOSE ACRES. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE THE KATHERINE JOHNSON TECH MAGNET ACADEMY, WHICH IS ALREADY BUILT. BUT THE FIRST NUMBER ON THE THIRD NUMBER IS WHAT'S AVAILABLE AROUND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AROUND THE ARC. SO COMBINING THAT WITH ABOUT ROUGHLY ANOTHER 40 ACRES OF THE ARC PROPERTY, THAT IS A FORMIDABLE AREA TO TO TRY TO INVEST. AND THEN IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN COMBINE THAT WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. NOW WE HAVE ALMOST 150, 200 ACRES TO TO DO. THAT'S KIND OF IN THE NUTSHELL. WHAT I WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU BASICALLY IS, YOU KNOW, THE PERMISSION FOR US TO START MOVING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DISCUSS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIPS. THANK YOU, MR. COUNCILMAN BYRD. I SEE YOUR LIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.AND THANK YOU, MR. GODFREY, FOR THE INFORMATION. THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS NORMALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REAL PROPERTY, WE TALK ABOUT IT FIRST AND IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WHAT MAKES THIS NEGOTIATION OR THIS INSTRUCTION A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO? BECAUSE WITH US OPENLY TALKING ABOUT IT IN THIS FORUM, IT LENDS OUR IT SENDS US TO OUTSIDE BIDS. NOT UNLESS THERE'S AN AGREEMENT TO EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE ISD TO EXCLUSIVELY SELL TO US, NOT AT LESSER SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW. SO THAT THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION. SHOULD WE HAVE SHOULD SHOULD THIS BE A DISCUSSION OR IS THERE NOT A NEED FOR SOMETHING FOR THIS DISCUSSION TO BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? BECAUSE EVERY OTHER DISCUSSION WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT REAL PROPERTY OR THE PURCHASE OR THE OR THE MOVE FORWARD HAS BEEN.
THAT'S CORRECT SIR, BUT THIS IS PURELY TO TO START THE DISCUSSION FROM ONE POLITICAL ENTITY TO ANOTHER POLITICAL ENTITY. WE HAVEN'T STARTED ANY, ANY DISCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER ABOUT A SALE OR A LEASE OR AN ACQUISITION TYPE OF THING THAT WOULD BE IN, IN, IN, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY. AND AGAIN, YOU UNDERSTAND MY, MY QUESTION IS ARE WE TIPPING OUR, OUR HAND. ARE WE SHOWING OUR CARDS BY HAVING THE DISCUSSION UP FRONT. AND IF YOU DON'T THINK SO THAT'S FINE. I'LL GIVE MY OPINION. NOW, MADAM MAYOR, I THINK THAT ANYTIME WE WHOEVER CONTROLS THE LAND CONTROLS THE FUTURE. AND SO IF WE CAN AND PARTICULARLY MIGHT BE A GREAT
[00:40:01]
TIME TO BE IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE ISD BECAUSE OF OTHER REASONS AND WE WE ALL KNOW THOSE REASONS. SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME. I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE UNDUE COMPETITION. CERTAINLY. MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. SO. THE ARK STRATEGIC PLANNING, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NEW HERE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I DID SEND IT TO THEM, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM. AND WHAT THE ARK IS TO LOOK LIKE BEYOND JUST THE BUILDING THAT WE HAVE. BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT AN AMPHITHEATER, FIELDS OUT THERE THAT ARE TOURNAMENT FIELDS FOR YOUTH LEAGUE SPORTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD. RIGHT.AND THE COUNCIL PRIOR GAVE THE WAND OF APPROVAL FOR THAT PLAN. WHAT WHAT I, WHAT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IS BEFORE WE PURCHASE, WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE LAND THAT I GET. YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THE EATERY, BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT? WHAT IS WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL? I JUST WOULD I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SLOW DOWN AND TALK ABOUT STRATEGICALLY BECAUSE THESE ORANGE SPOTS ARE EVERYWHERE, RIGHT? THERE'S NOT ONE LIKE CENTRAL BODY OF THEM. BUT IF WE'RE DOING THIS THEN WHAT ARE WE? WHAT IS THE PLAN BEYOND WHAT WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO? AND WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? AND I'LL LET YOU FINISH THAT QUESTION. MAYOR PRO TEM I GUESS THE THE BASED ON THE WAY THAT I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP, THE, THE ORANGE SPOTS ARE EVERYWHERE. HOWEVER, I THINK THESE ARE EXISTING SCHOOLS. I THINK THAT THE WAS JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT TO WHAT THE DISTRICT ACTUALLY OWNS IN TERMS OF PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THAT THE ONE THAT'S OUTLINED IN RED, I BELIEVE IS THE ONE THAT'S IN QUESTION AT THIS POINT. IT WAS JUST TO GIVE US, BECAUSE YOU HAVE GLEN HEIGHTS THAT'S LISTED ON HERE AS WELL, AND WE WOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT DOING ANYTHING THERE. I THINK THE ONE THAT WE'RE JUST KIND OF FOCUSED ON IS THE ONE THAT'S OUTLINED IN RED. AND THEN THE OTHER ONES ARE JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S OFF EAGLE DRIVE. THAT'S THE HIGH SCHOOL, BUT THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT IS THE WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED? YES. A PART OF IT IS IS CK, BUT THE LAND AROUND IT I THINK IS WHAT'S WHAT'S IN QUESTION AT THIS POINT WITH THE ARC IN TERMS OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE ARC. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THE SQUARE INSIDE IS. SO ARE WE ASKING TO PURCHASE THE THE LAND AROUND CK BUT NOT CK? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. AND THIS IS NOT ASKING ABOUT PURCHASING LAND. THIS IS ABOUT STARTING THE DISCUSSION WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PURELY, PURELY A DISCUSSION WITH THEM WHILE WE'RE ACTUALLY PREPARING TO, YOU KNOW, PREPARING TO DO A A MASTER PLAN OR A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT AREA.
BUT WE DON'T YOU DON'T, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ON THAT LAND YET. SO OKAY, SO THAT I GET HAVING THE CONVERSATION. BUT TO ME THAT SEEMS TO BE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE OF ACTUALLY KNOWING THIS IS OUR INTENT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE LAND. WELL, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT TO MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK THOUGH, WE CAN'T REALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE DO IF THERE'S NOT EVEN ANY APPETITE TO ENTERTAIN SELLING IT. SO BEFORE WE CAN JUST GET TOO FAR INTO WHAT WE DO WITH IT, I THINK YOU HAVE TO REALLY, HONESTLY, I'LL BE HONEST. IT HAS TO WORK IN TANDEM. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS WORKING AT THE SAME TIME. AND I THINK THAT WHAT SOMEWHAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT IS BECAUSE IT IS THE ISD AND NOT JUST A PARCEL, A PRIVATE OWNER'S PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT THE APPROACH WAS DONE. BECAUSE WE AGAIN, WE HAVE ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKING WITH THERE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY WE HAVE PLANS, LIKE YOU, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE MCALLEN PARK AREA AS WELL. BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF BEING FORWARD THINKING IN TERMS OF WHAT MAY BE NEEDED. I THINK THE INTENT OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION WAS JUST TO SEE UNDERSTAND COUNCIL'S APPETITE AGAIN FOR STARTING THE CONVERSATION WITH THE ISD, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THAT IS A CONVERSATION THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, A GOVERNMENT BODY. SO I THINK THE THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT IS HERE JUST TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND COUNCIL'S APPETITE FOR EVEN DOING IT IN TERMS OF, OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S TO BE DONE BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT IT MAY BE A SALE, IT MAY BE A PARTNERSHIP, IT COULD BE ANY SORT OF STRUCTURE. WE HAVE A REAL ESTATE BROKER ON THE ON THE COUNCIL. I KNOW SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE ARE MORE WAYS TO SKIN A CAT THAN JUST SAY, HEY, THE CITY IS GOING TO BUY THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? THERE MAY BE SOME FORM OF PARTNERSHIP THERE, LAND LEASES. I MEAN, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN BASED ON WHAT WE WANT TO SEE HAPPEN. AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THAT
[00:45:02]
WE'RE LOOKING TO BUY SOME LAND. I THINK IT'S LOOKING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD A PARTNERSHIP LOOK LIKE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ISD, IF THAT MAKES SENSE? YES. COUNCILMAN WATERS. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS OBVIOUSLY IS IN MY DISTRICT HERE. AND SO, YOU KNOW. I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THIS AREA TO MAKE THINGS WORK GOOD OVER THERE. SO I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. I THINK WE NEED TO BE PARTNERING WITH THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND I'M ALL FOR THIS.EXCELLENT IDEA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER PARKER, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL LAND ITSELF AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS, WOULD THERE BE A DISCUSSION WITH THE VIABILITY OF THE AREA, MAYBE A REAL ESTATE AGENT OR COMPANY THAT WILL BE WORKING WITH YOU IN THAT DISCUSSION TO SEE THE VIABILITY OF THE AREA FOR THAT LAND AND, AND THE COSTING AND ALL THAT STUFF. WHILE YOU'RE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BY VIABILITY, YOU MEAN LIKE APPRAISING THE LAND. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW YOU'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT BUYING LAND THAT MAY, MAY OR MAY NOT BE VIABLE FOR ANYTHING THAT THE CITY WANTS TO REALLY DO BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T REALLY KNOW AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT HEARING A CONCRETE IDEA ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO OVER THERE. I GET THE POINT, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ASKING THAT FOR MANY TIMES ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE AROUND THE ARC TO SUSTAIN IT.
BUT IF THE LAND IS NOT VIABLE FOR WHAT WE PUT THERE, THEN YOU'LL BE JUST TALKING. I'M JUST ASKING, WILL SOME COMPANY COME INTO PLAY DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS? THAT GIVES SOME CREDENCE TO THE NEED TO BUY THAT LAND. ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S PART OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT DOESN'T COME SEPARATE FROM IT, BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE A REAL ESTATE COMPANY THAT MAY NOT LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SITE AS A VIABLE SITE, BUT YOU MAY HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN AND SAYS, I'M WILLING TO DO RESIDENTIAL HERE, I'M WILLING TO DO COMMERCIAL HERE, I'M WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE HERE. AND, AND THEN THAT'S THAT'S HOW YOU EVALUATE IT. BUT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO DO IT THEMSELVES. THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE A REAL ESTATE EXPERT TO COME IN AND TELL THEM THAT. WHAT WHAT THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR AND I ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE TO ALSO DO IT IN TANDEM, BECAUSE WE DO THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE THE LAND. WE HAVE NOTHING. SO THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN MOVE TO. SO THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO WORK EVERYTHING ALL AT, AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ONE BE ABLE TO PARTNER ON THE LAND AND TO BE ABLE TO CREATE MASTER AGREEMENT. OKAY. BUT I STILL AM ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THE LAND, CONSIDERING WHERE IT SITS. AND THEN ALSO MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, AS FAR AS THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RIGHT NOW, WHO WOULD ALL BE INVOLVED IN THIS CONVERSATION? WELL, THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD RELY ON THEM TO LET US KNOW. I MEAN, IF WE DON'T EVER GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TELL US IF IT'S THEIR FACILITIES PERSON, IF IT'S THE BOARD, IF IT'S WHOEVER, WE'RE RELYING ON THEM TO TELL US THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE THE ANSWER TO TONIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GETTING THE COUNCIL'S FEEDBACK ON. ARE YOU ALL COMFORTABLE WITH STARTING THE DISCUSSIONS? BECAUSE THE VIABILITY, NONE OF THAT IS KNOWN UNTIL YOU START DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND ACTUALLY HAVING BOTH PARTIES OPEN TO THE DISCUSSIONS. I THINK THAT I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THERE WOULD BE EXPERTS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS, DEVELOPERS, WHOEVER, APPRAISERS, ALL THE THINGS AS WE DO WITH ANY DEAL THAT WE DO REGARDING LAND AND PURCHASES AND PARTNERSHIPS, ALL OF THAT STUFF GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DONE AS A PART OF THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST, HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND, RIGHT? OUR PNC, ALL OUR FOLKS ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR EYES ON ANY OF THIS AS WE CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT THERE HAS TO BE A STARTING POINT TO SAY, COUNCIL, ARE YOU ALL OKAY WITH MOVING THIS CONVERSATION FORWARD? AND THEN WE GO TO THE ISD TO SEE IF THEY ARE OKAY AND IF WE CAN COME AND MEET IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE, THEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS JUST CONTINUE TO SNOWBALL IN TERMS OF WHO THEY NEED TO BE AT THE TABLE, YOU KNOW, TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS AND LIKEWISE FOR THE CITY. AND SO I'M, I, I, I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE CITY'S THIS WON'T BE OUR FIRST REAL ESTATE DEAL FOR SURE, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. AND I KNOW THAT OUR TEAM WOULD HAVE THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WER. OKAY. HANG ON. DOES THIS NEGATE
[00:50:09]
THE ACTUAL PARKS MASTER PLAN? THE EXISTING PARKS MASTER PLAN? BECAUSE THE PARKS MASTER PLAN GOES TO THE VERY END RIGHT UP TO WK. SO I'M JUST ASKING, DOES ALL OF WHAT THE PARKS MASTER PLAN CURRENTLY HAVE, IS THAT GOING TO CONTINUE FORWARD? IT'S IN ADDITION TO OKAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. THANK YOU I YEAH THIS REALLY HAS NOT THIS REALLY IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CURRENT PLAN. IT'S REALLY IN ADDITION TO BECAUSE AGAIN YOU HAVE THE LAND THERE AND AGAIN NOT KNOWING WHAT WE WILL ULTIMATELY END UP DOING IN TERMS OF THE FINAL PROJECTS.AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS JUST FORWARD THINKING, BECAUSE AGAIN, LET'S JUST SAY THERE WAS INTEREST IN DOING SOMETHING. WE WANT TO START THOSE CONVERSATIONS NOW ABOUT THE LAND SO THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO A DEAL OR POSSIBLY GETTING HUNG UP ON A DEAL OR LOSING A DEAL BECAUSE WE DON'T CONTROL THE LAND, WHETHER THAT'S BY PURCHASING THE LAND OR WHETHER THAT'S BY PARTNERING WITH THE ISD FOR LEASING THE LAND OR HOWEVER THE DEAL COMES TO FRUITION. SO I THINK, AGAIN, IT'S JUST BEING FORWARD THINKING TO START TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW WITH WITH THE LAND THAT'S AROUND IT. GIVEN OUR MASTER PLAN. COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AS WE SAY IN REAL ESTATE, LOCATION, LOCATION IS EVERYTHING. NOW, LIKE MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILMAN BERG SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE SAID THIS OUT LOUD, WHICH DRIVES ME TO THE POINT. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, WE NEED TO DO IT NOW BECAUSE THAT JUST MAKES IT COMPETITIVE. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. EVEN IF WE HAD TO PUT IT UNDER CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS, WE NEED TO CONTROL IT. SO I THINK IT'S A SMART MOVE AND DEFINITELY ESPECIALLY BEFORE SOMEBODY ELSE GETS WIND OF IT OR GETS THE THOUGHT BECAUSE IT'S COMING. SO IT'S GOING TO BE PRIME TERRITORY. AND I THINK WE NEED OUR NAME IN THE HAT, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO START IT RIGHT AWAY. YES. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, I THIS IS EXCELLENT IDEA TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DISCUSSION AROUND THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH PARTNERSHIP OR OWNERSHIP. MY QUESTION TO YOU, CITY MANAGER, AS PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WILL THAT INCLUDE STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING? WOULD THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN? THERE WILL BE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN WITH THE ACQUISITION OR WITH THE PARTNERSHIP. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THAT MINUTIA OF THE DETAILS. BUT YES, WITH THE WITH DEFINITELY WITH THE MASTER PLAN. WE WILL. THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD BUYING LAND DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING RIGHT AWAY. IT TAKES TIME. SO IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF OUR DUCKS IN A ROW RIGHT NOW. WE JUST NEED THE LAND. IT TAKES TIME TO DEVELOP ALL OF THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HUGHES. YES. THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS ENTITY TO ENTITY. THAT IS WHY WE'RE GOING ABOUT IT THIS WAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. WHY ARE WE GOING ABOUT IT THIS WAY.
BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND A GOVERNMENT BODY AS WELL AS WE ARE. SO THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES IF YOU WOULD. AND SO JUST SO THAT I'M ON THE RECORD, I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WHOLEHEARTEDLY. THANK YOU. MR. CITY MANAGER, WHAT DIRECTION DO YOU NEED FROM COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? I THINK WELL, I WOULD I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A CONSENSUS OR A VOTE ON WELL, WE CAN'T VOTE. BUT YOU KNOW, JUST A CONSENSUS. JUST A CONSENSUS, GENERAL CONSENSUS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO START HERE. I'M IN AGREEMENT. MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M IN AGREEMENT. YES, MA'AM. AGREEMENT. I'M IN AGREEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER. YES, COUNCILMAN WATERS, I AGREE 100%. AND COUNCILMEMBER PARKER. YES.
ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. THANK YOU, STAFF, AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR SACRIFICING YOUR THURSDAY AFTERNOON TO HANDLE SOME CITY BUSINESS. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HUGHES, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BIRD TO ADJOURN COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IS 4:54
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.