[E. CONSENT AGENDA Items are listed on the Consent Agenda by the City Manager and are recommended to the City Council for single vote approval. An item( s) may be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate vote at the request of a Councilmember, the Mayor, or the City Manager. ]

AN ITEM MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE VOTE AT THE REQUEST OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER. FIRST, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH 3RD, AS WELL AS THE RECOGNITION OF PROCLAMATION FOR HONORING NATIONAL AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH, RECOGNITION OF PROCLAMATION HONORING NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE

[F. Consent - Other Items]

PREVENTION MONTH, RECOGNITION OF PROCLAMATION HONORING THE NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS WEEK.

RECOGNITION OF PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION HONORING SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH.

CONSIDER APPROVING THE PUBLIC ART POLICY. D-6-010.

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MCMAHON CONTRACTING LP IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,535,039.98 FOR THE WESTMORELAND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FROM BELTLINE ROAD TO PARKERVILLE ROAD AND APPROVE A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF 22,900,046 FOR $463.29 FOR CONSTRUCTION, CONTINGENCY MATERIAL, TESTING SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RABA KISTNER CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED, AND THE AMOUNT OF $134 AND $7,729.31 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR THE WESTMORELAND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MASTEC ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,190 FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR THE WESTMORELAND

[00:30:01]

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,935 WITH CASTRO ROOFING FOR THE FULL REPLACEMENT OF THE SENIOR CENTER FACILITY ROOF.

UTILIZING THE TIPS CONTRACT NUMBER 25010402. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ONE NEW CASE TV370B SKID STEER TO REPLACE A 2009 CASE 445 SKID TIER FOR THE STREETS DIVISION. THE NEW SKID STEER WILL BE PURCHASED FROM ASSOCIATED SUPPLY COMPANY INCORPORATED, A SCO THROUGH THE BY BOARD NATIONAL PURCHASING COOPERATIVE CONTRACT NUMBER 788-25.

AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS, CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH UNICA ENTERPRISES FOR THE INITIAL SIX MONTH TERM FROM MAY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $215,000, WITH TWO OPTIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWALS NOT TO EXCEED 509 AND $316 PER YEAR.

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT WITH GRANICUS, LLC FOR MEETING, STREAMING AND CAPTIONING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,112.37.

UTILIZING THE TIPS CONTRACT NUMBER 220105. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SERVICES FROM METRO FIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,620 TO UPLIFT THE FIRE TRUCKS.

BABYLON CHIEF COMMAND TRUCK 2024 F 250 CREW CAB TRUCK AS IDENTIFIED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM UTILIZING BY BOARD CONTRACT NUMBER 698-23.

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DE SOTO AREA CHAMBER AND THE CITY OF DE SOTO FOR PROPERTY OWNED AT 108 LINDEN DRIVE AND DESOTO, TEXAS, 75115.

THANK YOU, MADAM CITY SECRETARY. COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS TO BE PULLED OR QUESTIONS? I DO SEE SOME LIGHTS. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR ITEMS F, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT TO BE PULLED FOR A SEPARATE VOTE.

MAYOR PRO TEM I HAVE SEVEN, NINE AND TEN. LET'S GO AHEAD AND ROUND IT OFF.

I'LL SAY 11 AND 14. OKAY. ARE THEY FOR SEPARATE VOTES OR YOU JUST HAVE QUESTIONS? WELL, I REALLY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU MIGHT AS WELL PULL THEM FOR A SEPARATE VOTE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE OTHERS AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK. BECAUSE, I MEAN, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT GO IN.

OKAY. WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE ITEMS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE PULLED FOR SEPARATE VOTES SO WE CAN VOTE ON THE REMAINING ITEMS. RIGHT. SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT 11 PULLED AS WELL FOR A SEPARATE VOTE AND 14.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, IS YOURS PULLED FOR A SEPARATE VOTE OR PULL FOR A QUESTION? I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION COULD LEAD TO MORE THAN WHAT AN ACTUAL JUST BRIEF CONVERSATION ABOUT IT WOULD BE.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE. LET'S SEE WHAT ITEMS WE HAVE LEFT.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ITEMS E ONE HOUR MINUTES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR FIVE.

AND THEN WE HAVE 12, 13 THAT ARE REMAINING. SO COUNCIL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THOSE ITEMS. TWO LIGHTS. THREE LIGHTS ON. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES TO APPROVE THE REMAINING ITEMS OF COUNCIL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM. LET'S SEE, MAYOR PRO TEM, WHICH ONES DID YOU HAVE.

YOU HAD EIGHT, NINE AND TEN. SEVEN. NINE AND TEN.

SEVEN. NINE AND TEN. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THOSE QUESTIONS ARE RELATED TO ITEM NUMBER SIX WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM NINE.

SO LET'S TAKE ITEM NINE FIRST. SO WE'LL DO SIX SEVEN AND EIGHT AS ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL RELATED.

LET'S DO ITEM NUMBER NINE. THAT IS ABOUT THE SENIOR CENTER FACILITY ROOF.

[9. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract in the amount of $73,935.00 with Castro Roofing for the full replacement of the Senior Center Facility roof, utilizing TIPS Contract No. 25010402]

YEAH. AND MY QUESTION REGARDING THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR THE OTHERS.

IN MY RESEARCH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND CONTRACTS AS I WAS REVIEWING THEM.

[00:35:02]

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SAM.GOV? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, GREAT.

SO SAM.GOV, FOR THOSE IN THE ROOM WHO ARE IGNORANT TO IT, IS IT IS A DATABASE THAT STORES THAT PROVIDES YOU VENDOR INFORMATION ON VENDORS THAT HAVE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. AND SO ONE THING THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS DATABASE IS IF SOMEONE HAS BEEN DEBARRED, WHEN A VENDOR IS DEBARRED, THIS MEANS THAT THIS VENDOR CANNOT BE AWARDED GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE FAILED IN PERFORMANCE, COMMITTED SOME KIND OF ACT OF FRAUD, OR DID SOME SORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT.

IN THE THREE ITEMS THAT I GAVE YOU WHEN I SEARCHED THOSE VENDORS, THOSE THREE WERE ALL DEBARRED FROM STATE CONTRACTS.

NOW, THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER, I'VE DONE THE WORK FOR YOU.

TEXAS COMPTROLLER SAYS THAT WHILE THE STATE LEVEL WILL NOT DO ANY CONTRACT BUSINESS WITH YOU, IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT THAT CITIES MOVE IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

HOWEVER, IT REITERATES THAT CITIES SHOULD STRONGLY TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN AWARDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BECAUSE IF THIS PERSON'S BEHAVIOR IS THIS ON A STATE LEVEL, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF IT COULD BE HAPPENING ON A MUNICIPAL LEVEL? RIGHT. SO I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU ALL ARE DOING YOUR SAME DUE DILIGENCE IN, IN, IN AWARDING THESE CONTRACTS, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, WE'RE DEALING WITH VENDORS WHO CAN'T NOT DO BUSINESS AT THE STATE LEVEL.

SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY WOULD WE HAVE THEM AT OUR LEVEL? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. MAYOR PRO TEM CHISHOLM.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

WITH THE CITY POLICIES, WE REQUEST THREE QUOTES AND WE GO WITH THE MINIMUM QUOTE.

AND IF THEY'RE ON A BODY BOARD AND THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN WE FORWARD THAT TO THE PROCUREMENT MANAGER.

PROCUREMENT MANAGER WILL DECIDE TO WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCUREMENT OR NOT.

AND I FIGURED THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS TO THE EXTENT.

SO AT THE PROCUREMENT MANAGER, YOUR YOUR LEVEL, THEN YOU WOULD BE THE DECIDING FACTOR AT THAT POINT, RIGHT? NO, SIR. AM I WRONG? AM I OUT OF ORDER? SO ACTUALLY MR. WILLIAMS IS OUR OPERATIONS MANAGER.

BUT PROCUREMENT MANAGER, IF I MAY, I CAN DEFER TO MISS SUTTON.

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR PROMOTION TO DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

WE WE REVERT BACK TO OUR POLICY, BASICALLY. AND SO OUR POLICY DOES NOT CALL FOR, ANY OTHER CHECK OUTSIDE OF THAT. ONCE WE FOLLOW THROUGH OUR POLICY AND WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT THEN WE, WE HAVE CHECKED THOSE BOXES. NOW, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO START DOING, WE ARE DUE FOR SOME POLICY UPDATES.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT MAYBE ADDING INTO OUR POLICY TO CHECK AGAINST SAM'S.

BUT RIGHT AT THIS TIME THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE.

THANK YOU. AND I FIGURED THAT THAT PROBABLY WAS ALSO THE REASONING, JUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING.

SO I GUESS MY NEXT STATEMENT WITH THEM WOULD BE TO THE CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY WILL BE VOTING NO ON THESE THREE ITEMS. AND I HOPE I'VE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS AROUND OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR OTHER ISSUES.

AND I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN SAID THAT IT'S COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS COULD BE WE DON'T KNOW.

IT COULD BE AN ISSUE, BUT THIS IS CONCERNING FOR ME, AND I HOPE THAT IT'S CONCERNING FOR YOU.

CITY MANAGER ENOUGH TO TAKE A FURTHER LOOK INTO IT.

WE HAVE A COMMENT CARD FOR THIS ITEM, BUT MAYOR PRO TEM, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS.

OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN VOTE HOWEVER WAY YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE VENDOR HAS BEEN DISBARRED OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS.

THERE'S. THEY'RE DEBARRED. YES, MA'AM. THOSE THREE VENDORS FOR SEVEN, NINE AND TEN, THEY'RE DEBARRED, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT BE AWARDED STATE LEVEL CONTRACTS BY STATE LEVEL AGENCIES.

AND, YOU KNOW, I MAYBE I'M PRIVY TO THIS BECAUSE I'M IN THE GOVERNMENT SIDE OF THE WORLD, BUT JUST CONSIDERING THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO MORE OF A DUE DILIGENCE ON.

AND I'VE EXPRESSED CONCERNS AROUND BY BOARD BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, BY BOARD DOESN'T GO THROUGH A TRADITIONAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

SO BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN VETTED BY OTHER CITIES.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO USE BY BOARD, THEN PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE OTHER MEASURES TO ENSURE, BECAUSE DESOTO HAS PROVEN THAT OUR STANDARDS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN MOST CITIES. RIGHT.

SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE SHOULD AT LEAST DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN ENSURING THAT THESE ARE REPUTABLE BUSINESSES AND NOT SAYING,

[00:40:03]

AND LET ME CORRECT MYSELF, NOT REPUTABLE BUSINESSES, BUT BUSINESSES THAT EVEN OUR STATE AGENCIES WOULD DO BUSINESS WITH.

THANK YOU. AS A MATTER JUST A POINT OF INFORMATION.

I ALSO HAD THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS BECAUSE SOMEONE FROM THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION.

AND I MY QUESTION OF THE ONES THAT I HAD ON THESE ITEMS THAT SHE BROUGHT UP SINCE SHE PULLED THEM, I STILL WANT TO ASK, ARE WE VETTING ALL THE WAY THROUGH ALL OF THESE VENDORS, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT WERE PULLED, BUT MOVING FORWARD, MAKING SURE THAT WE DO THAT AS A MATTER OF MAYBE IT'S A POLICY CHANGE, I DON'T KNOW. I DID TRY TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT PURCHASING POLICY THAT WE HAVE AND MAYBE HAVING SOMETHING ADDED TO DO THIS DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT USING VENDORS THAT ARE NOT BEING ABLE TO DO BUSINESS AT THE STATE LEVEL, THAT THEY'RE NOT ALSO BEING ABLE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF DE SOTO.

WELL, AS MISS SUTTON SAID, THAT IS NOT A PART OF OUR POLICY AT THE MOMENT.

SO IT WOULD HAVE TO DEFINITELY BE A POLICY ADDITION.

RIGHT. SO THAT WAS MY JUST MY ADDITION TO. THANK YOU.

CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

GOOD EVENING ALL. WE HAVE A LOCAL POLICY AND WE STICK TO OUR LOCAL POLICY.

NOW, IF THE CITY COUNCIL HAS A DESIRE TO CHANGE TO MIMIC THE STATE POLICY, WE ABSOLUTELY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY WANTS US TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THOSE VENDORS AS WELL AS LOOK AT THE ENTIRE POLICY ITSELF, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. THERE THE STATE CAN, CAN, CAN DEBAR A FIRM FOR THE SMALLEST THING.

AND IT COULD BE THE LARGEST THING AS WELL. SO WE WANT TO ALSO INVESTIGATE WHAT THEY WERE DISBARRED FOR.

SO IN ALL FAIRNESS TO TO OUR VENDORS WHO HAVE WHO HAVE MET OUR REQUIREMENTS, I THINK WE CAN BRING THE ITEMS, WE CAN TABLE THOSE ITEMS, AND WE CAN BRING THEM AFTER WE DO THE THE MORE VETTING.

BUT WE CAN ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR, OUR FINANCE DIRECTORS HERE, AND SHE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT POLICY, THE PROCUREMENT POLICY COMPREHENSIVELY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF OUR POLICIES IN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS TO REALLY VET ALL OF THEM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FULLY ALIGNED AS WELL AS THE DIVERSITY PIECE.

SO WHAT WE CAN CERTAINLY TABLE THOSE ITEMS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY TIME SENSITIVITY TO IT.

I'M GOING TO DEFER TO OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO PUSH ANY ITEM.

SO WE'LL COME BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. MR. CITY MANAGER, WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S NO TIME SENSITIVITY, MEANING THESE ACTUAL ITEMS. SO IN IN ITEM NINE, MEANING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF.

CORRECT. OKAY, MR. CASEY, BUT I'LL DEFER TO MR. CASEY TO TO RESPOND TO THAT. YES, SIR. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE ROOF REPLACEMENT FOR ANOTHER ANOTHER MEETING.

OBVIOUSLY, NUMBER SEVEN IS TIED WITH THE WESTMORELAND PROJECT, SO WE CAN TABLE THAT ONE TOO.

BUT THAT MEANS MAYBE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS DELAY ON THE WESTMORELAND PROJECT.

BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. YEAH. AND I WANT TO MENTION THAT ROBERT KUSHNER IS, IS UTILIZED BY SEVERAL CITIES.

SO WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CITY THAT UTILIZES THEIR CONSULTANT SERVICES AND THEIR MATERIAL SERVICES.

SO AGAIN, IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONTINUE PUSHING AN ITEM OR DEFER AN ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING.

SO MY QUESTION IS WITH THE ITEM THAT'S TIED TO ITEM SIX, WITH IT BEING A PART OF THAT AND POSSIBLY WITH DELAY.

ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD DELAY IT WOULD POSSIBLY DELAY THE WESTMORELAND PROJECT? YES, MA'AM. SO SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT, THEY'RE ALL FOR THE SAME PROJECT.

YES. SIX IS FOR THE CONTRACTOR, SEVEN AND EIGHT FOR THE GEO LAB TESTING MATERIALS.

SO THEY'RE ALL TIED TOGETHER. SO MY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IS WHEN WE LIST OUT AND WHEN WE RATE AND SCORE THESE PARTICULAR PROVIDERS.

AND I KNOW SOME OF THESE SOME OF THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

SO THEY DON'T GO THROUGH THE TYPICAL PROCESS LIKE OUR VENDORS WOULD GO THROUGH. DO WE HAVE A PRIORITIZED LIST? SO IF ONE DOES NOT CHECK OUT, I MEAN, FOR IT COULD, YOU KNOW, THE VENDOR MAY NOT WORK OUT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD LEAVE US KIND OF WITHOUT SOMEONE, IF WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S NEXT IN LINE TO FILL THAT POSITION.

IS THAT THE CASE WITH THESE? YES, MA'AM. THAT IS EXACTLY THE CASE.

THIS CONSULTANT WAS VETTED THROUGH THE RFQ PROCESS BACK IN 2022.

THEY'VE DONE SEVERAL PROJECTS FOR THE CITY. CITY STAFF DID NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THEM.

I ACTUALLY HAD THE PLEASURE TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE SOUTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, MANY BIG BRIDGES AND ROADWAYS. SO THEY ARE ON THE LIST FROM THE 2022 LIST FOR GLOSS

[00:45:05]

MAYOR. FROM A CONSISTENCY STANDPOINT, I'D RATHER PULL ALL THREE ITEMS. I MEAN, THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT GOING TO START IN TWO WEEKS.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE JUST BEING CONSISTENT ON ALL THREE ITEMS AND VETTING THEM.

THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER. I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, AND AS YOU MENTIONED, MR. CITY MANAGER OF A COMPANY CAN BE DISBARRED FOR FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY BE A SMALL THING.

IT MAY BE A BIG THING. I THINK I ALWAYS LIKE PERSPECTIVE, AND I LIKE CONTEXT FOR WHY THEY WERE DISBARRED.

YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN TO US? BECAUSE IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NECESSARILY POSE A CONFLICT OR POSE A REAL ISSUE HERE.

BEFORE WE JUST PULL THEM OFF OF THE PROJECT, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I'VE HEARD OF THIS PARTICULAR THING IN TERMS OF ADDING IT TO OUR POLICY.

AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU, IF WE'RE PULLING THEM AND I'M FINE WITH THAT.

AND I THINK COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL HAS TO GIVE CONSENSUS ON THAT.

BUT UNDERSTANDING WHY THEY WERE DISBARRED AND MAKING THAT A PART OF THE PROCESS.

AND I THINK AS A PART OF THIS AND WE CAN STICK WITH OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER NINE SPECIFICALLY, BUT BUT LOOKING INTO A POLICY WITH THAT IN, WITH THAT ADDED TO THE POLICY SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THESE VENDORS AS WE'RE CONTINUING TO REFINE AND MAKE OUR POLICIES MUCH BETTER.

SO COUNCIL, WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER NINE. AND SO, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, DO WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS? I WOULD IF IT'S IF IT'S THE COUNCIL DIRECTION AND STAFF'S WILLING TO PULL IT, I WOULD PULL IT FROM THE AGENDA AS OPPOSED TO TABLING IT, BECAUSE TABLING IT MEANS WE'LL BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT NEXT MEETING. SO THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY.

THAT'S CORRECT. CAN WE PULL THEM ALL AT ONCE? YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S ITEM SEVEN NINE. AND WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE?

[7. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with Raba Kistner Consultants, Inc., in the amount of $134,729.31 for construction materials testing services for the Westmoreland Road Improvements Project ]

[10. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to purchase one (1) new CASE TV370B Skid Steer to replace a 2009 CASE 445 Skid Steer for the Streets Division. The new skid steer will be purchased from Associated Supply Company, Inc. (ASCO) through the BuyBoard National Purchasing Cooperative Contract No. 788-25, in compliance with competitive procurement requirements]

MAYOR PRO TEM WHICH ONE WAS IT FOR YOU? SEVEN.

NINE AND TEN. SEVEN. NINE AND TEN. OKAY, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PULL THOSE ITEMS. COUNCIL. SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CHISHOLM, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES TO PULL ITEMS SIX. EXCUSE ME, SEVEN, NINE AND TEN COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

RIGHT. WE HAVE THOSE SEVEN, NINE AND TEN. OKAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM DID YOU HAVE WERE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU ASKED TO BE PULLED? YES, OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER, YOU ASKED FOR 14, 11 AND 14.

[11. Consider authorizing City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Custodial Services Agreement with Unica Enterprises, in an annual amount not to exceed $509,316.00, for janitorial services at the Aquatic and Recreation Center from May 1, 2026 through September 30, 2026, with two optional one-year renewals.]

YES, MA'AM. YES. FOR 411. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT THAT ACTUALLY IS A WOMAN OWNED BUSINESS.

I DO LIKE THAT IDEA, BUT I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE.

509 THIS RIGHT HERE IS SAYING FROM MAY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

MY QUESTION IS, IS FOR THE ACTUAL CONTRACT IS 509 FOR 12 MONTHS.

RIGHT. SO IT SHOULD IT SHOULDN'T HIT THAT. 509 BETWEEN NOW AND, AND IN SEPTEMBER, THE, SOME OF THE CLEANINGS ARE SHOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING CLEANING IN THE ACTUAL AQUATICS AREA, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY ABOUT THE POOLS.

SO WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE, I MEAN WHERE IS THE CONTRACT FOR THE POOLS.

AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE 509.

THEY'RE JUST CLEANING THE OUTSKIRTS. RIGHT. ARE THEY GETTING TRAINING IN HOW TO CLEAN WHERE THE POOLS ARE.

SO I'LL ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION. I'LL DEFER THE POLL QUESTION TO DOCTOR BUFORD.

IN REGARDS TO THE CONTRACT AMOUNT. 509 IS NOT TO EXCEED PER YEAR, BUT WE HAVE 215 FROM MAY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE TWO OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL YEARS.

SO IN SEPTEMBER WE WILL BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTOR.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH.

THEN WE CAN WE CAN GO FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE RENEWED EVERY YEAR, AND THAT WILL BE THE. 509. BUT FROM MAY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, IT WOULD BE TWO $15,000, ONLY 215,000.

AND IF I'M DOING MY MATH AND I'M NOT, BUT THE 215 MINUS THE 509 REALLY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT FOR A FULL 12 MONTHS, IN FIVE MONTHS YOU'RE GOING TO DO 215 AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO 509 FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BIDDING. YEAH. SO FIVE SO 51215 FROM MAY 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026, FROM OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2027.

THAT IS 509. OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE TRAINING IS CONCERNED FOR THE POOL AREA, BECAUSE THE TRAINING, I MEAN, THE CLEANING WILL BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AROUND THE POOL IS I MEAN, ARE THEY BEING TRAINED TO DO THAT? OR IS THERE A SEPARATE COMPANY THAT'S GOING TO BE DOING ALL OF THE POOL MAINTENANCE?

[00:50:03]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE THAT SAME VENDOR.

THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE DOING THE ENTIRE FACILITY INSIDE AS WELL AS OUT.

THEY'LL BE MANAGING THE POOL AREA, THE AQUATICS SIDE, THE AQUATIC RESTROOMS, THE DRY SIDE WHERE THE, THE, THE LOCKER ROOMS, THAT ENTIRE AREA. ALSO THE WINDOWS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.

THAT IS ALL INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING FROM THEM. OKAY.

SO THE POOL THEY'RE CLEANING. CORRECT. OKAY, SO HERE'S THE THING THOUGH.

I DID THINK I READ AND I'M, I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE ACTUAL PAGE NUMBER.

IT ACTUALLY SAYS THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE POOL MAINTENANCE.

SO SO POOL MAINTENANCE MEANS AS FAR AS THE CHEMICALS, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL DECK OF THE SURFACING OF THE POOL.

SO THE LOCKER ROOMS MAKING SURE THAT THEIR POWER WASHING THE DECK, THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT THEY WILL MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN OUR PARTY ROOMS, OUR LIFEGUARDS ROOMS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. ACTUALLY THE OFFICE SPACE AS WELL.

AND SO THE ONLY THING THEY WILL NOT BE CLEANING IS THE ACTUAL POOL ITSELF.

WE'LL BE WORKING WITH SUNBELT AS WELL AS WE'LL BE DOING A LOT OF THEIR WORK IN-HOUSE AS WELL WITH OUR AQUATIC MANAGER AS WELL AS SUPERVISOR AND COORDINATOR.

OKAY. AND SO AS FAR AS CHEMICALS ARE CONCERNED, THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE AROUND A POOL, THE CLEANLINESS OF THE POOL IS IMPORTANT. BUT WHEN YOU CLEAN AROUND IT, THE CHEMICALS YOU'RE USING AROUND IT, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT THE TRAINING TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT ALSO GOING IN THE POOL.

AND SO WE'LL, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE MONITORING THE POOL ITSELF, THE CHEMICAL WASTE OR LEVELS OF CHEMICALS USING OUR HYDRO APPLICATION THAT WILL BE ACTUALLY INCORPORATING. SO WE'LL HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO MONITOR THE VARIOUS CHEMICAL LEVELS BEFORE USAGE AS WELL AS THIS WOULD ALSO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHEN THE CHEMICALS ARE TOO LOW, WHEN THE CHEMICALS ARE HIGH. AND SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY INCORPORATING TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THEY ARE CLEANING AROUND THOSE SURFACES, WE'RE ACTUALLY MONITORING THE POOL MAINTENANCE AS WELL.

AND IF I READ CORRECTLY IN THE ACTUAL CONTRACT, IT SHOWS US THREE PEOPLE OR THREE STAFF MEMBERS WHO WILL HAVE THIS OR NO.

SO IT'LL BE TOTAL OF TEN TOTAL. AND SO WHAT WE'LL HAVE IS ONE SUPERVISOR ON EACH SHIFT, WHERE YOU'LL HAVE THREE INDIVIDUALS AND THEY'LL BE WORKING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY.

SO THE HOURS OF 5 TO 10, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, WE'LL HAVE SOMEBODY ON SITE AND THEN 9 TO 6 ON SUNDAY, SOMEONE WILL BE ON SITE. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTIME YOU WALK INTO THE FACILITY THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY CLEAN AND UP TO STANDARD FOR OUR FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS AS FAR AS THE CLEANLINESS OF IT AND CLEANLINESS IN, YOU KNOW, IN EVERY I'M SURE EVERYBODY'S HEARD THAT SAYING CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS.

BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL FACILITIES BEING CLEANED, WILL THOSE PEOPLE RESIDE AT THE ACTUAL FACILITY? WILL THERE BE AN OFFICE OR SOME TYPE OF ROOM FOR THEM? YES. YES, WE HAVE A SPACE UPSTAIRS FOR THEM. WE'LL HAVE SOMEONE THAT WILL BE ON SITE.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO ACTUALLY HAVE A SUPERVISOR THERE WHEN AVAILABLE, BUT WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF THREE INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL BE ON LOCATION.

AND THEY'LL BE FUNCTIONING AND MOVING AROUND AND DOING THINGS IN A TIMELY MANNER EVERY DAY.

OKAY. WHEN AND IF THIS PASSES, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE W, B, E CHANGES FOR OUR PERCENTAGES FOR THE YEAR.

I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. YES.

AND I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE THE POOL MAINTENANCE ITSELF IS FULLY AUTOMATED.

AS FAR AS THE CHEMICALS AND ALL OF THAT, THAT'S THAT'S JUST BEEN MONITORED.

NOT ONLY IT'S MONITORED BY STAFF, BUT IT'S MONITORED BY AN ACTUAL MONITOR THAT THAT TELLS YOU THE DIFFERENT CHEMICAL LEVELS.

AND SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A CONSTANT MONITORING OF THAT 24 OVER SEVEN.

SO JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT SKILL SET THAN JUST THE ACTUAL CUSTODIAL SERVICE, IF YOU WILL. OKAY. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM. SO MOVED. SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER AND SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES.

MY ASSUMPTION IS TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED.

YES. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

I'M GOING TO CIRCLE BACK TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.

EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE PULLED THOSE ITEMS, WE DID HAVE A CARD FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

MR. JOHN SCOTT. WAS IT FOR ANOTHER ITEM? MR. SCOTT? I'M NOT CONCERNED. THAT WAS THE WRONG ITEM. OKAY.

THANK YOU. CAN WE CHECK WITH HIM TO SEE WHICH ITEM HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON? THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER, YOU HAD ITEM NUMBER 14 AS WELL?

[14. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a lease agreement between the DeSoto Area Chamber and the City of DeSoto for property owned at 108 Lyndalyn Drive, DeSoto, TX 75115]

YES. 14 WHILE THIS IS A IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE THE DE SOTO AREA CHAMBER, I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT

[00:55:02]

ITSELF. MY QUESTION ON THIS IS 11 C OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT TALKS ABOUT A FOOD PANTRY.

AND I KIND OF WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW IS THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT CONSIDERING THIS IS AN ACTUAL CHAMBER AND WE DO HAVE OUR FOOD PANTRY, I BELIEVE, RIGHT NEXT DOOR. YEAH. SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS A DRAFT DOCUMENT, AND I THINK I PROBABLY UPLOADED THAT DRAFT DOCUMENT BEFORE WE TOOK THAT OUT.

SORRY. YEAH. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT. IT WON'T BE A PART OF THE FINAL DOCUMENT.

OKAY. SO WHEN WE GET READY TO YOU KNOW, DO THAT, WE, WE NEED TO SAY THAT, THAT IT NEEDS TO CHANGE THE, THE DOCUMENT NEEDS TO CHANGE. WELL, YOU'RE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE. SO WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE ALL. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, AND I KNOW I MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE HISTORY ON THIS, BUT THE DESOTO AREA CHAMBER THEY AT ONE POINT CHANGED THEIR NAME TO DESOTO AREA CHAMBER.

IT USED TO BE DESOTO CHAMBER. AND WHILE YOU SAY WHAT'S IN A NAME IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, IT USED TO BE DESOTO CHAMBER AND THEM GOING INTO A LEASE FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CITY OF DESOTO THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OF DESOTO.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, ARE THEY THEN CHANGING THEIR NAME BACK TO THE DESOTO CHAMBER TO SPECIFICALLY CATER TO THE CITY OF DE SOTO.

WELL, THAT'S NOT A CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD.

THAT THAT THAT'LL BE A CONVERSATION WE HAVE TO HAVE WITH THEM. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN A PART OF PART OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, THOUGH, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. OKAY. IT WAS REALLY JUST A QUESTION I WAS REALLY WONDERING BECAUSE NO, I GOT IT. BUT WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

OKAY. I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, PLEASE.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER. SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO CIRCLE ALL THE WAY BACK UP TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.

[6. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a construction contract with McMahon Contracting, LP, in the amount of $20,535,039.98 for the Westmoreland Road Improvements Project (from Belt Line Road to Parkerville Road) and approve a total project budget of $22,900,463.29 for construction, contingency, material testing services, and construction-phase professional services ]

I'M GOING TO GIVE THAT TO OUR CITY MANAGER. THIS IS THE WESTMORELAND PROJECT.

AND WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A HAS BEEN A BIG DEAL.

IT WAS INITIATED ABOUT A DECADE AGO. AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS COMPLETED THE DESIGN LAST YEAR AND HAS SINCE ADVANCED IT INTO CONSTRUCTION.

AND SO I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN ALSO TO KIND OF LOOK AT HOW THESE RECENT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE PULLED HAVE MAY IMPACT THIS ITEM. NUMBER SIX. YES. MAYOR. THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DESIGN ON AND OFF.

WE FINALLY FOCUSED ON, ON THIS LAST YEAR AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS WELL AS THE CONSULTANT DID AN AMAZING JOB.

SO THANK YOU, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND WE FINALLY NOT ONLY WITH THE HELP WITH OUR FINANCE TEAM THROUGH THE BOND ISSUANCE, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE DILIGENCE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF WERE ABLE TO BID THE PROJECT AND WE GOT FAVORABLE BIDS.

AND THAT INCLUDES ALSO CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION, AND THE MATERIAL TESTING THAT YOU SEE IN THERE.

SO THAT'S THE REASON OF THE EXISTENCE OF ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT.

I BELIEVE ITEM EIGHT IS IS A MINORITY BUSINESS.

AND THEY'RE VERY GOOD ONE AS WELL. SO THAT'S, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE PROJECT.

I DIDN'T WANT IT TO STAY ON CONSENT BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROJECT, IT'S ONE OF THE THREE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WE'VE HAD INCLUDING THAT, INCLUDING DANIEL DALE AND INCLUDING PLEASANT RUN.

SO I WANT TO GO AND TWO MORE, I MEAN, ONE, ONE IS IN THE BOOKS AND TWO MORE TO GO.

SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER. I WANT TO JUST SEE IF YOU ALL CAN REMIND ME.

DID WE PULL ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AS WELL? WE DID NOT.

SO WE STILL HAVE THAT ITEM TO VOTE ON. SO AGAIN, HOW WILL THE ITEMS THAT WE PULLED OR OR DOES IT IMPACT THIS ITEM.

SO ONE ONE OF THE IMPACTS ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS THE CONTRACT EXECUTION WITH, WITH THE CONTRACTOR, WE BID THAT WE BID THAT PROJECT OUT. THE BID IS VALID FOR THREE MONTHS.

SO I WAS JUST CHECKING WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER.

THE BID WILL ACTUALLY EXPIRE ON ON APRIL 21ST.

SO IF IF WE WOULD HAVE TO PULL IT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO REBID THE PROJECT.

ARE YOU WELL, LET ME GET SOME CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

ARE WE ARE WE SAYING THAT WE WOULD PULL THAT ITEM ITEM SIX?

[01:00:02]

NO, NO, NO. I'M ASKING HOW DOES THE ONES WE DID PULL IMPACT ITEM SIX.

I'M FINE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH ITEM SIX, WHICH SHOULDN'T IMPACT IT.

LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE COME BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH WITH THE ANSWERS ON ITEM SEVEN AND I MEAN ON ITEMS SEVEN AS IT RELATES TO THIS ONE IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

I MEAN, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING.

WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE PROJECT SCHEDULE.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT US.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO START THE, YOU KNOW, THE WORK ON THE SOILS TESTING UNTIL LATER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED. I'M SORRY. POINT OF INFORMATION. JUST QUICKLY HE JUST SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE 21ST, WHICH IS THE NEXT MEETING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.

CITY MANAGER. YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT HE JUST SAID ABOUT THE 21ST IS NOT VALID OR IS VALID? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, BECAUSE ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO REBID THIS ON THE 21ST IF A DECISION IS NOT MADE TONIGHT.

NO. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD HIM.

DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY? YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE PROJECT BIDDING WILL BE EXPIRED ON APRIL 21ST.

SO WHEN WE BID THE PROJECT OUT, WE HAVE THREE MONTHS TO FOR THE COUNCIL TO TO DECIDE TO APPROVE IT.

IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT TONIGHT AND WE DON'T APPROVE IT UNTIL APRIL 21ST, THEN WE CANNOT BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO YOU.

WE WOULD HAVE TO REBID AND COME WITH, COME UP WITH THE LOWEST BIDDER AND COME BACK AGAIN.

UNLESS. UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR, I MEAN, IT'S IRRELEVANT FOR THIS.

SO IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT TONIGHT, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE IT TONIGHT, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.

OPTION NUMBER ONE, GO BACK TO THE CONTRACTOR AND SAY, CAN YOU STILL WITHHOLD YOUR PRICES IF WE EXTEND IT ANOTHER TWO WEEKS? IF THIS YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO REBID IT.

BUT IF THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO BID IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DONE.

WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. BUT THE THING THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HOLDING ON TO IS BECAUSE THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THESE VENDORS HAVE BEEN DISBARRED. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? NO, NO. THAT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT OF IT.

WE CAN FIND OTHER VENDORS WHO CAN DO THE SAME WORK.

IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THEIR WITH THEIR CONTRACTS OR LICENSE OR WITH THEIR SERVICES LICENSE.

OKAY. THE FOCUS IS ON ITEM SIX, WHICH IS THE CONTRACTOR THAT IS BEFORE US, WHICH IS MCMAHON CONTRACTING LP AND THE AMOUNT OF 20 MILLION. 535039 AND $0.98. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.

THANK YOU. YES, THERE IS A MOTION TO SECOND THAT MOTION.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED COUNCIL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. SO THAT LEAVES THE FINAL ITEM ON OUR CONSENT THAT IS OUTSTANDING IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

[8. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with Mas-Tek Engineering & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $117,190.00 for construction materials testing services for the Westmoreland Road Improvements Project]

AND IT IS ATTACHED TO IT IS ATTACHED TO. ITEM NUMBER SIX.

SO COUNCIL IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

MAYOR I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BURR TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ONE.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. THAT CONCLUDES, I BELIEVE, ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CITY ATTORNEY? OKAY, WE GOT THEM ALL.

OKAY. NEXT, MADAM CITY SECRETARY WILL TAKE THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, PLEASE.

NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. CASE NUMBER Z-1546-26.

[1. Case No. Z-1546-26 - Request to discuss and consider an Ordinance amending and restating Planned Development 129 (PD-129), relating to the development and use of 62.0± acres of land located west of Interstate 35E and south of Pleasant Run. The subject property is located south of the intersection of East Pleasant Run Road and South Interstate 35E and is legally described as F.M. Mabra’s/Fairbanks, Block A, Lot 1A, containing approximately 2.143 acres, and addressed as 633 N. I-35E, DeSoto, Texas. The applicant and property owner is Rick Steele of DeSoto HFT Development LLC. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 193 (“PD-129”), AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1974-13, ), RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF 62.0± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 34 EAST AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT RUN, BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS RELATED TO LOT 1A, BLOCK 1A, F.M. MABRA’S/FAIRBANKS ADDITION; PROVIDING A CONFLICTS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]

REQUEST TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

129 PD DASH 129 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF USE AT 62 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 35, EAST AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT RUN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST PLEASANT RUN ROAD AND SOUTH INTERSTATE 35 E AND IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FM MEMBERS FAIRBANK BLOCK, A LOT ONE A CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.143 ACRES AND ADDRESSED AT 633 NORTH I-35 EAST, DESOTO, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS RICK STEEL OF DESOTO, H. FT. DEVELOPMENT, LLC. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLANT DEVELOPMENT FOR NUMBER 193 PD DASH 129,

[01:05:08]

AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 1974-13, RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF 62 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSTATE 34, EAST AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT RUN.

BY AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS RELATED TO LOT ONE A BLOCK 1AFMSF FAIRBANKS.

ADDITION PROVIDING A CONFLICT CLAUSE. PROVIDING REPEALING CLAUSE.

PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE.

PROVIDING FOR PENALTY OF FINE. OF NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF $2,000 FOR EACH OFFENSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. JORDAN. GOOD EVENING DOCTOR.

OH. CAMBRIA. JORDAN. PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MAYOR PROCTOR. CITY MANAGER. AL GODFREY. THIS EVENING, I BRING FORWARD FOR YOUR I BRING FORWARD FOR YOUR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION A REQUEST TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

129. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, STEEL ENTERPRISES, LLC, ARE REQUESTING THAT THE DE SOTO CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

129 TO ALLOW FOR A PYLON SIGN IN PLACE OF A FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN, AS WELL AS TO RESTATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

129 TO ALLOW FOR THE INCLUSION OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING EXCUSE ME, EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR GENERAL RETAIL BUILDING, ALSO KNOWN AS HARBOR FREIGHT. SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLICATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY COMMERCIAL ON FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.

IN TOTAL, STAFF MAILED SEVEN PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 AND 400 FOOT RADIUS, AND TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ZERO LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 AND THE 400 FOOT RADIUS.

SO THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 129, WHICH HAS A BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF GENERAL RETAIL SUBJECT SITES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH, NORTH AND WEST ALSO HAVE SIMILAR GENERAL RETAIL ALLOWANCES.

PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF CITY OF DESOTO CITY LIMITS.

SO ON THIS PAGE OR THIS SLIDE, RATHER, YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

IT SHOWS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH IS AGAIN THE EXISTING HARBOR FREIGHT.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT HAS SINGLE STREET ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH INTERSTATE I-35.

NEXT UP ARE OUR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. I THINK THE SCREEN MIGHT BE IN THE WAY OF THAT NOTE, BUT AT THE HIGHEST POINT, THE BUILDING EXISTS AT ONE STORY, WHICH IS UNDER THE TWO STORY ALLOWANCE IN THE GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN PER STAFF REVIEW.

THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY MET.

NEXT UP IS OUR PROPOSED PYLON SIGN. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SNIPPET TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN, THERE IS A GREEN STAR. THAT GREEN STAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN IS SYMBOLIZING THE LOCATION OF THAT PYLON SIGN.

AND THEN TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE SNIPPET, YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER GREEN STAR. AND THAT IS WHAT THE PYLON SIGN LOOKS LIKE.

SO PART OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT'S LOCATED IN OUR NEWLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS DESIGNATED AS DESTINATION MIXED USE, WHICH DOES SUPPORT GENERAL RETAIL ALLOWANCES, WHICH MAKES THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE.

EXCUSE ME. NOT THE FUTURE, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE DE SOTO CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE AT THE FEBRUARY 24TH MEETING AND APPROVE THE CASE AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU, MISS JORDAN. AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HUGHES TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. WE HAVE NO COMMENT CARDS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO SPEAK.

SO AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RATHER SO MOVED. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER AND SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HUGHES TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC.

EXCUSE ME, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL.

ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[01:10:03]

COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER. SECOND, BY COUNCILMEMBER HUGHES TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

COUNCIL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YES, MA'AM. ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THERE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN BEING TALLER THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE SIGN BEING TALLER THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY? NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THE ONE STORY WAS NOT.

OH, SO THE ONE STORY IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

OKAY. AND THE SIGN IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT. I BELIEVE THE SIGN IS TALLER THAN THE BUILDING BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CHANGE OF THE MONUMENT, THE FREE STANDING MONUMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE THE TALL.

NO. SO PART OF THE CODE, THE MONUMENT SIGN IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT, BUT THE PYLON SIGN IS NOT IN THIS SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE PYLON SIGN IN PLACE OF THE MONUMENT SIGN.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YES. YES. AND JUST FOR YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY BIG ON SO UNDERSTANDING, LIKE WHY WE MAKE WHY WE'RE MAKING THIS DECISION.

AND IT'S CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT WE'VE KNOWN FOR YEARS AND WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, RIGHT. OUR ZONING NEEDS TO BE MODERNIZED, BUT A MONUMENT SIGN VERSUS A PYLON SIGN CAN DESCRIPTIVELY.

CAN YOU CAN YOU TALK TO LIKE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE? IS THAT BECAUSE WE CONSIDER IT, YOU KNOW LESS ESTHETICALLY PLEASING OR LIKE, IS THERE NOT REALLY MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FROM A, FROM, FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE JUST NOT RUBBER STAMPING ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE.

BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

SO OUR SIGNS REGULATIONS ARE REGULATED BY OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL.

BUT JUST TO SPEAK, AS FAR AS VISUAL VISIBILITY OF PYLON SIGN WOULD BE A LOT MORE VISIBLE THAN A FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN IN THIS CASE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS, THERE ARE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH PYLON SIGNS. THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE THE CODE WAS WRITTEN OR WRITTEN BUT ADOPTED.

SO THE PYLON SIGNS EXISTED BEFORE THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE WAS CREATED.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE IN CONTINUITY WITH WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE SERVICE ROAD TODAY WITH OTHER BUSINESSES.

YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO THAT WAS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WHY STAFF IS SAYING THIS IS OKAY, THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL. OKAY. YES. PER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS WELL.

YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. YES.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. SO WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH IT, I UNDERSTAND.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, IS YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THE BUILDING ITSELF. IT'S JUST A SIGN THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE.

IS THAT RIGHT? THE SIGN CURRENTLY EXISTS. I SEE THE I KNOW THE SIGNS THERE, BUT THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM WHAT IT IS NOW TO A DIFFERENT, LIKE BIGGER SIGN. SO NO, THE SIGN CURRENTLY EXISTS.

SO THIS WHAT, HOW THIS CASE CAME TO YOU ALL IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR WAS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY STAFF.

AND THEN IT WAS FOUND TO BE THAT THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES IT TO COME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL. SO WHAT WHAT IS OUT THERE WAS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, ALTHOUGH INCORRECTLY.

IT WAS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK FORTH, WHICH IS WHY EVERYTHING IS ALREADY EXISTING.

SO THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. THEY'RE JUST GETTING WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING APPROVED. OKAY, GOOD. SO JUST CORRECTED SOMETHING. OKAY, I'LL YIELD BACK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. AS A REMINDER, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY. COUNCIL, PLEASE USE YOUR VOTING PADS.

MISS KAREN, CAN WE HAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE? THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU, MISS JORDAN. WE WILL NOW HAVE OUR FIRST

[1. Case No. SP-696-25 - Request to discuss and consider approving the Site Plan and the Elevation Plan as required by the development and use regulations for Planned Development No. 20 relating to the development and use of Lot 2B1A1, Block A, Crossroads Trade Center Addition, containing approximately 1.859 acres. The property is located north of the intersection of Centre Park Boulevard E. and I-35E S. and is addressed as 1921 N. I-35E., DeSoto, Texas]

REGULAR AGENDA ITEM. CASE NUMBER SP-696-25. REQUEST TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

NUMBER 20 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LOT 2B1A1 BLOCK A CROSSROADS TRADE CENTER ADDITION CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.859 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL PARK BOULEVARD EAST AND I-35 EAST SOUTH AND IS ADDRESSED AS 1921 NORTH I-35 EAST, DESOTO, TEXAS.

[01:15:05]

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MAYOR. PROCTOR. CITY MANAGER. SO THIS EVENING, I BRING FORWARD FOR YOUR REQUEST AND APPROVAL A REQUEST TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION PLAN FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL LOCATED IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 20.

IT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT, BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

20 EXHIBIT H THAT REQUIRES THE SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION TO COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

SO I'M REQUESTING APPROVAL TODAY. THANK YOU, MISS JORDAN.

YES, MAYOR PRO TEM, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO CALL THIS OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE THESE ANYMORE AS FREQUENTLY AS WE USED TO SEE THEM, I WONDER WHY. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT APPROVING A SITE PLAN IS MINISTERIAL.

SO CONSIDERING THAT YOU SAID BY RIGHTS THAT THEY CAN HAVE THIS PLAN IN PLACE, TECHNICALLY VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. THAT'S RIGHT.

OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVEN'T, PROBABLY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND AS I STATED, SITE PLANS DON'T USUALLY COME OUR WAY AS MUCH ANYMORE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION AND THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THE CLARITY.

THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO STATE THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS IN PLACE FOR.

AND WE KNOW THAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS IN PLACE FOR ARE NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO ANY MORE HOTELS, PARTICULARLY HERE AND DEFINITELY NOT EXTENDED STAY.

BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF OUR THAT IS A USE BY.

RIGHT. SO WE HAVE NO OPTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU MAYOR.

MAYOR PRO TEM FOR CLARIFYING THAT. YOU'RE BACK.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR, IS THERE A MOTION? MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HUME, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CHISM TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

COUNCIL, PLEASE USE YOUR VOTING PADS. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. MADAM CITY SECRETARY, WE HAVE THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

[2. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to purchase a 2026 Dodge Durango Pursuit Vehicle for the Police Department from Dodge City utilizing BuyBoard Contract 724-23 in the amount of $71,989.00]

NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE A 2026 DODGE DURANGO PURSUIT VEHICLE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM DODGE CITY, UTILIZING BY BOARD CONTRACT 724-23 AND THE AMOUNT OF $71,989.

GOOD EVENING CHIEF. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL, MR. CITY MANAGER. WE ARE PLANNING TO PUT ON ANOTHER K-9 OFFICER WITH ANOTHER K-9.

AND SO WITH THAT, WE NEED EQUIPMENT, AND WE NEED A VEHICLE.

AND SO I PLAN TO PURCHASE A DODGE DURANGO IN, IN THE AMOUNT OF 71,989.

AND THAT MONEY COMING FROM OUR FEDERAL FORFEITURE OR EQUITABLE SHARING ACCOUNT, NO COST TO THE CITY BUDGET.

AND IT'LL COME COMPLETELY OUT OF OUR FEDERAL FORFEITURE MONEY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CHIEF. MAYOR PRO TEM, I LIKE HOW YOU SAID THAT IT'S NO COST TO THE CITY.

WHICH MEANS THAT MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS AREN'T PAYING FOR THIS.

THAT'S CORRECT. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE A COMMENT BECAUSE THIS IS A PART OF MY BOARD AND I SEE ONE OF MY FAVORITE RESIDENTS IN THE AUDIENCE, MISS ANNA WILLIAMS. HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? GOOD, GOOD.

MISS ANNA WILLIAMS CAME BEFORE US ONE TIME BEFORE.

SHE'S COME DOWN SEVERAL TIMES. BUT I REMEMBER DISTINCTLY ONE TIME SHE CAME DOWN AND ASKED, WHY DON'T THE CITY OF DESOTO WHEN WE PURCHASE VEHICLES, WHY DON'T WE KEEP THAT SALES TAX DOLLARS RIGHT HERE IN OUR CITY? WE HAVE A PLETHORA OF CAR DEALERSHIPS ALONG I-35, AND I KNOW THIS BOARD IS JUST SO CONVENIENT AND USEFUL AND EASY.

BUT THAT'S A NEW 2026 CAR. AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE YEAR DOESN'T THROW ME, THROW ME OFF AT ALL.

BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, THAT 71000 HOW COME WE DIDN'T DO THAT? SO LET ME LET ME TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I, I VISITED WITH ONE OF OUR DEALERSHIPS TO, TO BE SPECIFIC AND WE WERE, WE WERE HOPING THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO EVEN MATCH ON A, ON A BID ON A YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BY BOARD. SORRY. THANKS, JOE. THANKS, MISTER CITY ATTORNEY.

ON, ON A BY BOARD. WE WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SEE IF THEY EVEN CAN MATCH THE BY BOARD.

[01:20:02]

AND THEY CAME BACK WITH ON ONE VEHICLE. THEY CAME BACK WITH $10,000 MORE.

I CANNOT FISCALLY PUT THE CITY IN A, IN A COMPROMISING POSITION EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LOCAL VENDOR.

SO WE'VE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND I'M NOT SURE IF WADE IS HERE OR OPERATION MANAGER.

ANYWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME WE'RE BUYING A VEHICLE, I TELL THEM, GO SEE THE LOCAL VENDORS.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE, HAVE NOT HAD ANY LUCK WITH THAT.

SO OBVIOUSLY, FROM A PHYSICAL STANDPOINT, I HAVE TO LOOK FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.

THANK YOU FOR STATING THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT AND JUST REALLY QUICKLY, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.

YOU'RE STATING THAT YOU ALL ARE ADDING ANOTHER CANINE TO OUR LOCATION, TO OUR CITY, WHICH MEANS WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER CANINE AND OFFICER WHO'S TRAINED ON USING THE CANINE. IS THIS BEFORE THAT, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICER AND CANINE OR WHAT? HOW'S THAT WORKING? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT FOR ONE OF OUR OFFICERS.

SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN EXTRA OFFICER. WE HAD A REVIEW OF THREE OFFICERS THAT APPLIED FOR THAT POSITION.

AND THEY'VE CHOSEN ONE. THE BOARD HAD CHOSEN ONE.

I HAVE TO REVIEW THAT TOMORROW. IF THIS IS ALL APPROVED, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE'VE BEEN THE BENEFICIARIES OF OF A CANINE OF A DOG THAT WAS GIVEN TO US.

WE HAD TO PAY FOR SOME OF THE TRAINING. AND SO WE'RE WAITING TO GET THIS ALL APPROVED AND WE CAN SEND HIM TO THE TRAINING, WHICH WE'RE ALSO GOING TO PAY FOR WITH OUR FEDERAL FORFEITURE DOLLARS.

AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN BUY ALL THE EQUIPMENT.

SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT FOR AN OFFICER.

ONCE WE GET UP TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE WITH OUR STAFFING, THEN I MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE HIM INTO AN OFFICIAL K-9 POSITION, BUT HE'LL BE ON SHIFT WITH THE DOG AND GIVE US TWO ON ON SHIFTS.

THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, WHERE DOES OUR FEDERAL THOSE FEDERAL FORFEITURE DOLLARS COME FROM THAT YOU'RE USING BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME MONEY. SO SO IT'S AN EQUITABLE SHARING THAT THAT IS CALLED NOW IT USED TO BE CALLED FEDERAL FORFEITURE.

SO I RELY ON THAT ALL THE TIME. BUT IT'S, IT'S MONEY THAT'S SEIZED FROM DRUG DEALERS BY SOMEONE THAT WE HAVE IN THE ASSIGNED TO THE DEA UNIT IN DALLAS. AND SO WHEN THEY GET SEIZURES OF PROPERTY, MONEY, JEWELRY EQUIPMENT, ANYTHING, THEN WE GET A PIECE OF THAT DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH WE HAVE PLAYED A PART IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.

SO THE MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS AND WE WE RECOUPED SOME SOME PRETTY GOOD MONEY AND WE USED THAT FOR EQUIPMENT TRAINING.

I CAN GIVE YOU A WHOLE LIST OF WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE 2012, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON DIFFERENT THINGS AND EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES AND SO ON.

AND DO WE KNOW THE CURRENT BALANCE MISS SUTTON OR THAT ACCOUNT OR DO YOU KNOW I'D SAY APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. AND THERE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE THERE'S THE GUIDELINES OF WHAT WE CAN SPEND IT ON AND WHAT WE CAN DO.

WE USED TO BE ABLE TO SPEND IT ON, ON REDOING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE POLICE BUILDINGS.

AND THEY'VE KIND OF STOPPED SOME OF THAT. SO WE'VE DONE SOME RENOVATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THEY DID STOP THAT.

SO WE'VE USED A LOT OF THAT MONEY FOR THAT BENEFITS THE CITY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE TO COME OUT OF CITY BUDGET.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE. IF IF THE COUNCIL WAS PROVIDED, PROVIDED A THINGS THAT YOU COULD USE THAT FUNDING FOR AND PERHAPS WE WERE PROBED ON WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, BECAUSE I OFTEN SEE THIS COME DOWN AND YOU'RE USING THOSE FUNDS AND I CAN APPRECIATE YOU NOT USING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE NICE TO HAVE INPUT. SURE.

ABSOLUTELY. COUNCIL, IS THERE A MOTION? MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECOND. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CHISHOLM AND SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BURR TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

COUNCIL, PLEASE USE YOUR VOTING PADS. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, MADAM CITY SECRETARY, WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[3. Consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Integrated Project Solutions for an amount not to exceed $51,384.62 for additional project management services associated with the Aquatics and Recreation Center (ARC) at McCowan Park]

CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INTEGRATED PROJECT SOLUTIONS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $51,384.62 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AQUATICS AND RECREATION CENTER ARC AT MCCLELLAN PARK. GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ADDITIONAL ADDENDUM TO THE CURRENT CONTRACT.

THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD AMENDMENT FOR $51,384.62 TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT BY TWO MONTHS.

[01:25:01]

WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT ALL ITEMS BEING COMPLETED BY MAY 6TH, 2026.

ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE $800,000 LEFT WITHIN THE BUDGET, SO WE'RE SAVING MONEY.

ALSO, THIS WOULD BE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE PROJECT.

SO WITHIN THIS 51000 BEING A PART OF THE 55 MILLION AT THE END WHEN THE PROJECT IS CLOSED OUT, WE'VE COMPLETED ALL THE AUDITS. WE'LL WILL STILL HAVE A SAVINGS OF ROUGHLY $1 MILLION.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER. I DO SEE. I'M SORRY.

OKAY. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION, MISS ELLIOTT? YES. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

WELL, I KNEW YOU ALL WERE UNDER BUDGET, WHICH I CAN APPRECIATE, AND I'M SURE ALL TAXPAYERS CAN APPRECIATE THAT.

WHAT IS I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT WHILE THE 51,000 IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO EXCEED BUDGET, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE 51,000 AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING AS THE SAVINGS.