Okay, good afternoon. I want to call our meeting to order >> and immediately turn it over to Jay Choa. >> Good afternoon. Hopefully everybody made it in okay without uh too much anxiety. Uh I'm going to start off with an update of our emergency operations during the last few days. Sunny is going to go through a few slides just to let the council know what's been going on. Sunny, >> thank you, city manager Chapa. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Sunny Saxton, director of emergency management and communications for City of Fort Worth. Uh, as you know, we've had uh quite a few of our team out busy the last few days. We just want to give you a quick update on the winter storm uh Fern as it's been named now. Um and so hopefully do we have those visuals up? There it goes. Okay. So, uh first off, I would mention that of course, uh we were predicting 80 hours below freezing. We've actually seen a little bit of warming yesterday and a little bit today. Uh we'll talk about what that means in just a second, but our JOC, which you know stands for Joint Emergency Operations Center, that's been acted at a level two for the 12-h hour shifts since last Friday. Uh I'd argue that really planning and prep began, you know, over a year ago. Uh with um preparing back in the summer for these types of emergencies, we had a number of objectives. Uh life safety, essential services, uh clear, consistent public communications, uh that uh hopefully we're hitting that mark. The one thing I'd mention also too is that we're still in the middle of this response, right? Although it's thawing outside. Um teams are out there in the field. Normally you'd see me having these conversations with police and fire right by my side and TPW and part and all those that have been working, but they're out there in the field still working. So one of the ways that we organize that work uh is by looking at what we call community lifelines. Uh so they're just uh basically ways that we organize our efforts. And so I think in terms of safety and security, just looking at even the last 12 hours, you know, over a 100 motor vehicle accidents, 156 stranded motorists. So the work is out there and the work goes on. Um, I did want to highlight just while we're talking about it, some of that the historic efforts that happened with our unhoused population that we seen. We had bitterly cold temperatures as everybody knows. Uh we saw over 1,200 uh persons that were sheltered in an in our shelter system. That's a public private partnership with nonprofits. Uh and that included uh some nights where we had almost 200 in overflow shelters. So we have a plan. We expanded. It took a whole of community response to get there. The other thing I'll mention is uh just kind of shift to health and and medical. Our hospitals um we're communicating them with them regularly. They're seeing things like slips and falls and cold emergencies. Uh we started some messaging yesterday about if you want to get out in the snow and have some fun, please be careful with that because we started to see injuries with that as well. Uh the other thing I'll mention is um you know, we think about keeping our utilities uh connected. We're getting regular updates from them. Uh our communications, our emergency communications team. So really that's our first first responders. They had over 8,000 911 calls just in the last few days. Uh they're doing well. 311 is helping connect community with the needs and so none of that stops and all that's been going and they they processed over 2,000 requests. Uh TPW and transportation and T DOT and all of those partners can't speak enough about them. I know we still got a lot of work to do. It's melting off right now. Uh hopefully, you know, if we can just we'll talk about a safety message in a minute about staying safe and giving them opportunity to do their work. Uh and our aviation teams have been very very busy. Uh so with that I I just want to turn attention just for a second uh for public communication and resources. We've been communicating out on multiple channels. In fact I think we had over 42 inquiries that we've answered both locally, regionally nationally, internationally. We've taken some requests. Um and our message is always the same that Fort Worth uh we know how to take care of our own. That's one of the things we do well taking care of our neighbors. and we've been asking everybody to continue to check on your neighbors and make sure that they have what they need. Our joint information center has been stood up at another time when it's appropriate. We'd love to tell you some of those uh successes that we've had because really we do have a lot of teams that are working uh collaboration. I really can't say enough. I'll just kind of just top level and be open for questions here in just a second. But, you know, for us it's really about preparing um that communication, continuous communication I talk about. And for me, it's about community resilience and we want to do better and we know our community can really come together. That readiness to support has has already happened. Exceptional, I would say, transportation and sheltering demand has happened. Uh we've always continued to prioritize our life safety for our residents, but also remember we have an influx of visitors here as we all know for the last few days. uh we did initiate what we call task force which were emergency support and utility task force working with all of our partners transportation and shelter. So just on the closing notes there to kind of wrap up for me um I'm thinking about tonight giving our crews safe space to continue to you know don't come up right under right next to a plow or out on the interstate or don't get next to the trucks that are sanding. Just back up just a little bit. Let them do their job. This thing will melt off and be gone before we know it. Uh we will continue to prioritize our safety of our employees, safety of our community. Please call 311 if you have an urgent city request. We have people that'll help you get connected. We also got a great app for that. Uh and then call or text 911 for any life safety emergencies. We will have bitter cold the next few days still. We're not out of the cold snap. If you haven't heard the the the news headline yet is that we've got another winter front coming through. Precipitation not expected, but we are expecting some cold weather the next few nights. So, we'll continue to shelter and do all those things. So, with that, I'll stand up for any questions you might have. >> Well, I just want to recognize the work that that Sunny put in as long with this team as well as uh our partners like our our contractors that u work our over overflow shelter. uh Trinity Metro that although they they ended up closing their bus routes, they did continue with the uh moving folks back and forth between the shelters, day shelters and the overflow shelters. So, uh it's a big deal, everybody involved. Um I've been here a long time and this was one of the smoothest operations the last few days that I've seen. And then uh texting earlier with folks from Encore, I I think they've done a tremendous job. I've never seen this kind of weather event not have, you know, 15 20,000 folks in Tarant County and I never saw the number go over 7,000. So, >> I think they just turned those things around really quickly. So, great job. >> Thank you for that, city manager. The Yeah, and I might add, we got a chance to to get out and just thank some of the Trinity Metro drivers this morning. They were at the shelter and we went out and saw them and just and saw the sand trucks and everybody's just doing amazing. So, thank you for that, city manager. >> Thanks, Sunny. Up next, I do have some organizational updates and employee recognitions. First, I want to call Casey Thomas up to introduce her new assistant director. >> Yes. Hello everyone. Casey Thomas, director of neighborhood services department. You can see my smile because we have a new housing and community development assistant director who is already taking some of the work off of me. So, I'm excited to have him here. But um his name is Anderson Stout and he comes most recently to us from HUD. He was the director of community and planning development for the Omaha field office. So as you know we get a lot of HUD funding. So we are tapping him for his insider knowledge. Um also in addition to working at HUD, he also worked in the Houston area for the city of Houston. he was their deputy assistant director. And so he's familiar with housing programs, our community development um block grant, disaster recovery grant, and he's also been involved in um he was involved in Houston's bond program. He's also worked with the redevelopment authority in the Houston area and actually do did two stints there. They brought him back a second time around and helped turn around some underperforming programs. So um he came to Fort Worth. He has not been scared off by what we threw at him. He's um come in with very cand do attitude. Is already working to implement some new reports and processes. He's a graduate of Texas Southern University. He received both his graduate and undergraduate degree there. And he's involved in a number of different professional organizations. He is a girl dad and so him and his family will be officially relocating to Fort Worth um after the school year. So Anderson coming up. Henderson. [applause] >> Good morning. Um, thank you, Casey, Mayor Parker, um, council members, um, city manager. Thank you so much for this warm invitation. Um, I'm excited to be here, excited to work with city leadership, um, to serve the residents of Fort Worth and, um, looking forward to any challenges that are out there that we need to solve and ensure that our residents can get the service that they truly deserve from the neighborhood services department. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Anderson. Welcome. [applause] Uh, and next I want to invite Marshall Swift to come up and uh tell us about one of his long tenured employees that's planning to leave us. >> Good morning. Thank you, city manager. I appreciate you uh giving us some time this morning in front of council. I wanted to take an opportunity to recognize uh Deputy Woods here standing behind me. I don't know if any of youall are familiar with him. He's a slight man that's easily missed. Um, [laughter] but if you have missed him over the last 32 years, I am both happy and sad to say that he's decided it's time for him to retire and to move on and follow other passions in his life. When I first started here, um, Kevin had great insight. He never had an issue letting me know what he thought, but he was always did it in a really respectful way. and the institutional knowledge that he takes with him, not only from the agency, but the commitment to the community and all the people he's connected to in the community uh will be missed. His work with us has has stemmed well beyond just his law enforcement roles as you all may well know. [clears throat] Uh he's the reason we have a Christmas uh we adopt families for Christmas and do the giveaway and he's always uh put that on, done a wonderful job and we'll continue to do that um as he moves on to do other things. But just want to take the opportunity to tell tell Kevin thank you and uh to let him have a few words here. Um one fun fact for the day though Kevin uh up until this year was the last deputy marshall who went to the training academy um and then started as a marshall. Uh since him everyone has been tenured from another agency. Uh this year we put through our first deputy marshal through the training academy uh this year and had a successful run with that. So, it's kind of a full circle for Kevin and for the agency. But with that said, I'm gonna give Kevin a moment to speak. >> Whoops. >> I'm old, but I'm not that old. [laughter] If y'all can bear with me, I had to write this down because I've spent half my adulthood with the marshall's office. [snorts] in obedience to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the head of my life to the Honorable Mayor Parker, the members of the Fort Worth City Council. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express myself. I have been blessed and I count it a privilege to have served the city of Fort Worth [clears throat] for 32 years as a deputy of the Fort Worth Marshall's Office. God blessed me to be born in this city, to grow into manhood in this city, helped to raise my family in this city, and if God says the same, and the creek don't rise, grow old with my wife in this city. I want everyone in this room to know I count it an honor to have served alongside the dedicated men and women who wear the Marshall uniform. true professionals every day that they are led by true leadership that value accountability, mutual respect, integrity, and service. As I prepare to leave this career in law enforcement, I can walk away proud of the work the marshall's office and the municipal court have done. Thankful this council's trust and the earned respect from the community. With God's help, our adopt a family for Christmas event has and will continue to be a success for families in need. As I step into a new chapter in life, I do so with gratitude, respect, and deep appreciation for the Fort Worth Marshall's office, this city, and its leadership. Thank you for allowing me the honor of serving the noble citizens of Fort Worth. I leave with this poem, the gentle touch. Don't be the storm that breaks the bow. Be the calm that comforts now. Don't leave a shadow dark and deep, but sees a sunshine you can keep. A tangled path, a thorny vine can bloom with care a sweet design. A weary soul, a downcast eye can lift with words that gently fly. For every space where you have been, let brighter hues be woven in. A whispered word, a helping hand, a lighter heart across the land. The world's a stage, a fleeting state. So leave it better day by day with thoughtful acts and spiritfree. A kinder word for all to see. And when you go, let Echo say they made things shine along the way. A simple truth, a guiding light to leave things better, good and bright. Leave the world a little better than you found it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Deputy. [applause] >> [applause] [applause] >> God bless you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Deputy Woods. And rumor is he never lost an arm wrestling, >> Council Member Beck. >> Yeah. Um, Deputy Council, we've talked about it and I think the answer is simply no, you can't retire. Um, so sorry about that. Um, we look forward to seeing you next year. Um, but in all seriousness, I had the opportunity, um, I was honored to be invited to help participate in your adopt a family Christmas. And, um, wow. Um, for those of you that have not seen um, the extent that our marshals go through to adopt these families, it's not just a couple of gifts. They really make sure that they have a Christmas that they will remember for the rest of their lives. So, thank you for your service to our city and more importantly, thank you for your service to our community. [applause] >> Kevin is a good reminder what it's all about right Jay? >> He is. He is. >> Thank you, Kevin. >> Thank you for your service. Next up, informal reports. Uh the first one, duty [snorts] hours of neighborhood police officers and Stephanie Ricks, uh deputy chief, is here. answer any questions. >> Yes. If I >> Nettles. Yes. [clears throat] >> Uh can you just give us a a a brief overview of your how are you preparing? I have a I think one or two questions for you. >> Sure. Absolutely. Happy to discuss the amazing work that our neighborhood police officers are doing. So their primary responsibility is community policing. They're constantly engaged with our residents, businesses, uh other community stakeholders, nonprofits in their area, and they really serve as a direct link between our department and the community. So, although those are their primary duties, uh oftent times there are departmental needs that may lead us to pull them elsewhere. A prime example would be this week during the inclement weather. Uh they have been redeployed to assist patrol with our call load, keeping the roadways clear. They've also helped with transporting some of our critical civilian workforce to work so that we can maintain uh continuity of operations. So their standard duty hours are typically Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. That sometimes varies slightly just based on the characteristics of their particular beat. It could be residential. It could be they have a number of schools and they want to shift their hours earlier to align with schools in their area. could be that they're in an entertainment district where they need to work a little later to overlap with uh bar owners and and businesses that are open. Uh their schedule requires a high degree of flexibility. Um it's constantly changing to address the evolving needs of the community. And I provided a list of some of the reasons that are common that they adjust their schedule quite frequently for. That could be evening uh meetings with neighborhood associations, could be the code blue group has meetings or training. They often go to community events. uh parades, crime fairs, national night out. Uh they sometimes participate in special operations that are designed to address crime trends that may be uh we need to adjust their hours to address. Uh same with recurring community complaints, quality of life issues, and [clears throat] occasionally on holidays that require upstaffing for public safety, such as Fourth of July, uh New Year's Eve, things like that. >> Thank you. Thanks so much for this IR. It was very um thorough. I brought I asked this question because I was at a meeting uh with uh neighborhood and I think the chief was there as well and some of the activity that happens within the neighborhoods uh mostly happened at the 5:00 6:00 hour and so some of the residents was concerned of some of the great NPOs who they get real results from um sometime are not available after the the 5:00 hour and so I kind of wanted to see what their standard hours and if there was flexibility so looking here to see there's flexibility. Um, I think it's just incumbent on the NPO to work with neighborhoods to kind of figure out what is the root problem because I think sometimes when we have officers out, they're not able to get to the scene quicker or they don't know the neighborhood. There's been a couple times where north division come all the way to south and they don't understand the neighborhood makeup. >> Yes, sir. That's always a tool in our toolbox to be able to do that. >> Yeah. So, and I'll just take this opportunity to really appreciate our NPL officers. Uh, you guys do awesome work in our neighborhoods. you really really appreciate it and thank you for this IR. >> Absolutely sir. >> Council member Peoples. >> Well, actually I was expressing surprise that they only work from 8 to 4. My NPOS are amazing. They are everywhere all the time. Anything I go to, there is an NPO. And I just want to thank you. Uh I think they probably work a lot more hours than any of us realize because they are at all my neighborhood meetings. they are there. And Councilwoman Martinez and I had an a issue yesterday with a um person who was in distress and the NPO was there and and would not leave until uh it was fixed. So, thank you very much. >> Yes, ma'am. They're an incredible group and it's an honor to lead them. It's a privilege. >> Thank you, Deputy Chief >> Stephanie. Next up, notifications for filming and street closures and Michelle's Goods uh is here to answer any questions. >> Council, [clears throat] thank you. I don't have any questions. Um I do have some comments though uh specific to the IR. First of all, thank you for getting this done um and getting it done so quickly. I really appreciate it. I also really appreciate the thoroughess of the comparison to other cities so that we can see where we are. Um, thank you for being proactive with the um the the city-led neighborhood notifications. I think that's really important. Um, I'd like to see some tweaks made to how and when we notify. Um, I appreciate the the block notification for neighborhood streets, but when we have um I'm going to use Forest Park as an example a lot in this just because that's where we're seeing most of the activity right now. Um, when you see neighborhood um thorough affairs shut down, um it affects more than people just a block off. And so what I would like to see is a requirement um that there be like a 72-hour um notice when thorough affairs are going to be shut down through dynamic messaging boards. So that um it just helps get the the warning out about that um particular closure. And then as it relates to street closures, um what I'd like to see, right now we're allowing street closures to be shut down for um almost entire days and sometimes for multiple days. And I'd like to see us work on a program um where we help limit that so that we are limiting the impact. Um, I know it makes it things a little u more difficult to film, but um we need to make sure that people live here and that um that we're taking care of the the people that live here as I should say. Um so those are the two kind of changes that I'd like to see made to that um the implementation of that program. And I just want to go on the record of saying we're not doing this today and I'm not asking for this today because of the um studios that we have working in Fort Worth right now. Um they have been incredibly um easy to work for. Uh they have been great about trying to communicate um with the neighborhoods and getting to know who they need to know. Um this is really for um us to get out ahead of what I see is when we start to expand and we have filming not just in district 9 or you know other but across the city. Um so thank you. >> Thank you. We'll we'll get with uh our partners of the film commission and see what we can come up with some of those areas concerns. Council >> member Crane I >> I do have a question. What is the time frame now that you have to notice? >> Anybody? It's not in here. Counciloman Beck throughout 72 hours. I just want to know what it is now. >> That's why I think we need we need to look to whether we have one and and what it should be and those kind of things. >> Yeah, we had in district three. Also, if how are we verifying that the notification has been done that also would be good to know. >> Thank you, >> Lauren's coming up. >> Yes, council member Crane. Those are both great questions and there are some remaining items of work to do in this process. you know, one is coordinating with communications on those improved notifications. The incident that happened um in uh let's see, Colonial Colonial I think would have been resolved if we had expanded the notifications discussed in this IR. Um I think we would have seen a much better outcome for that scenario. Um, and council member Beck, to your point, will also be assessing, uh, the film permit durations for their necessity as well. >> Okay, next up, uh, Panther Island regulations update and Dana Bergdoff is here to answer any questions. >> Council Flores, >> uh, no questions, but Dana, if you could just cover the points that you and I had spoken about uh, previously just to bring everyone to speed, please. Certainly. Thank you, Mayor Prom Flores. So, the uh Panther Island regulations update is an implementation of vision 2.0, which is the Panther Island strategic framework that the city council adopted in the spring of 2024. So, there are three elements within the IR. The first is the formbbased code update, which is basically the zoning and subdivision ordinance regulations update. You may recall that the city council approved an uh a sort of interim update for phase one of the work that Tarant Regional Water District is doing just off of Main Street this past fall. Um and so the broader full update is well underway and we anticipate public engagement to begin this spring and we're in lock step with the Tarant Regional Water District on that effort since they own a lot of the property there on the island. Uh the second element of the IR relates to the canal design uh the manual for the canals themselves and the walkways or POS along those canals since the water district Tarant Regional Water District owns those canals. That's the drainage system for for the island. And so the Tarant Regional Water District adopted the that manual last fall. And so I just want to make sure everyone's aware that that's in place. And then the third item relates to the canal connection fee. So somewhat similar to our transportation impact fee or our say a water or sewer impact fee, the canal connection fee is something that the Tarant Regional Water District has also just recently adopted. Uh since again the canal system will serve as the the regional drainage system, then as as development occurs and folks tie on to whether they're directly along a canal or tying into uh a drainage line that connects into that canal system, there's a fee. Now, the the water district recognizing our desire to promote development on the island has reduced the amount of the fee that they're charging. It's not full cost recovery, right? They're charging roughly 40% uh of that cost. And u so it's a public commitment on their part to support development on the island. So, we're excited to bring that forward, but just thought it was timely to to let you all know where where those um updates are are at >> and elaborate a little bit. What does the connection fee to the canal cover? So the the connection fee covers the actual work to the canal um basin itself. So the the you may know that the Tarant Regional Water District put forward roughly $50 million for the first phase of canal work. And so this cost recovery will help them over time um recoup some of those some of those dollars as developers tie into the canal system. Um but the full I don't quite have the full cost in my head. I think it was roughly 150 million uh for the full canal system, but Susan Alanise um who's the Panther Island director for the water district can correct me. But the idea is that it would help cover both those the the canal basin as well as the basic improvements to the walkway or the the PO along along the canal system. >> Thank you, Dana. Appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, next and formal report is the solid waste long range strategy with Cody Whittenberg, environmental services director, is here to answer any questions. None. Okay. Uh, and the last and former report, waste management service levels for residential solid waste collection. >> Comment. >> So, I don't have any questions. Just a uh really comment for Dr. Whittenberg and his team. just a huge thank you for everything you've done the last couple days as far as trash collection goes in North Fort Worth and and Steve Keller with uh with with Waste Management as well for being flexible and allowing for additional trash pickup next week. Uh certainly made a lot of families happy up north. So, thank you so much for that. >> Yeah, of course. Council member Hall, >> if I could, I wanted to um echo the sentiment of my fellow Councilman um Charlie Larsf. Um, I had the privilege of meeting with environmental services last week and ACM Washington, um, and the team there and we just had a just a discussion regarding some waste or some issues that may have arisen with regards to our new waste management recycling facility um, in district 8, but uh, neighboring district 6. Needless to say, it was a great response. There was a trash pickup done um, and they located the source of the debris. So, I want to say I I appreciate the responsive nature um of that and the great job that you all are doing out in D6 and D8 also relatively on that subject. Councilman Nettles always reminds me that waste management is in DA. So, thank you Cody and team NM Washington. >> Any other questions council? No, I think that's all. Thank you. Uh Jay, we're going to keep moving. That's the conclusion of our IRS. Next is any questions regarding changes in boards or commissions that are upcoming for January 27th or moving to the MNC log. Any questions there? If not then we can move to our first presentation on stellar energy America's economic development program agreement. Shri Gordon is up. >> Thank you mayor and council. The purpose of this presentation is to propose a tax abatement for Stellar Energy Americas. I did want to recognize that we had guests in the audience with us today. We have Amber Shaver, the chief administrative and legal officer of Stellar Energy, and Jonathan Jenkins who joined us from more partners rep. Amber flew in from Florida and John joined us with a drive from Dallas. So, we really appreciate their being with us today. As well as our partners at the EDP, Robert Allen is joining us. So, the project overview, Stellar Energy provides solutions in the I have a clicker, don't I? Sorry. Stellar Energy provides solutions in the energy industry. The project proposes to build a new facility to manufacture modular cooling equipment for the data center market. The company is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida with competing sites in Dallas and Phoenix. The project is located at 15060 Blue Mountain Road at Alliance, Texas, Westport 24 near the southwest corner of FM 156. and the future mobility way. And that would be on the orange and the map area. The company is committing to a minimum capital investment of approximately 80 million by December 31st, 2026 and over 1,400, that's 1,420 full-time jobs by December 31st, 2027. Both of those represent fastmoving deadlines. The jobs are a mix of line workers, engineering professional position positions delivering an average salary of 78,000 and this also includes an SPF requirement. The proposed incentive terms are a 10-year tax abatement, 60% on real and BP property taxes, subject to default if they fail to meet the minimum capital investment, and subject to the forfeite of the annual abatement if they fail to meet the full jobs commitment or the average annual salary. This project is strongly aligned with our strategy, including strong employment growth in our energy target industry. To summarize the project, $80 million in investment, over 1,400 jobs by the end of 2027 with average salaries of 78,000, which would result in 114 million payroll. The taxes generated by this investment are estimated to be 4.7 million with 2.8 8 million in value for this proposed incentive and 1.9 million over 10 years in the net new taxes. We also see a city participation of 2.8% and estimated private public I'm sorry that's 2.6% my eyes and estimated private public ratio 38 to1. Our recommended staff is recommending entering into a 10-year tax abatement agreement at 60%. A 30-day notice was posted on January 7th with MNC consideration scheduled for February 10th. Thank you. And do we have any questions? Any questions or comments from council? Council Flores. >> Just one. Uh what council district is it in? >> Council district 10. >> Any other questions or comments from council? Nope. Thank you, Miss Gordon. Thank you. Okay. And Christian Simmons is the finalization of our proposed 2026 bond program. >> Christianne got caught in the ice in Arkansas. So, April Rose will be doing the president. >> Perfect. >> Glad she's safe. [laughter] We're all glad that she's very safe. Um, hello Mayor and Council. April Rose Scamia here to speak on the 2026 bond. So, just picking up on the last session that we had. Uh this is truly today about like that final alignment. As we've known, we've worked with all of uh various staff in really selecting and ranking all the various projects uh working with all of our residents in having that final alignment and then of course um really getting a lot of that feedback especially from our last uh bond session. So today, um, we're here to really kind of set that path forward with the text election code really prohibiting into the future, um, any future, uh, communication related to like the passage or defeat of a measure. And so overall, we want to kind of settle out where all of our projects will land and that way we can move forward. With that being said, the agenda today, we'll be reviewing the bond capacity, the affordable housing in which neighborhood services will come up and speak, the public art ordinance update, as well as general council feedback. So, as it relates to the bond capacity, so as we can recall back in August, uh we had an additional bond capacity that added 40 million uh to the bond from 800 to 840. And so just recently um in December, the city closed on a refunding of approximately 65 million in general purpose bonds which generated an average annual debt service savings of $460,000 through fiscal year 2035. And what that really means in layman's terms is that we're able to um increase the bond program, meaning our debt capacity has increased. And so we're able to increase our bond capacity from 840 million to 845 million. And based off of previous council feedback, uh the recommendation I set forward today is to allocate that five million to affordable housing proposition. So as shown here on the slide, the previous showed the 5 million in proposition D for affordable housing at 840 mill at 5 million for a total of 840 million to a new capacity of 845 as shown with the various uh proposed ratios and allocations. All right. And with that being said, we'll move forward to affordable housing and Casey. Okay. So, this next slide, one of the questions we received during the um bond meetings is what type of housing would we be targeting? So, we're not looking to do lowincome housing. We're really shooting for the attainable housing. And so the chart here shows and these numbers have been updated from the version that you received in your PI packet, but it shows um HUD provides the area median income. And so 60 and 80% that's typically um whenever we use our HUD grant funds or our HFC dollars, those are the type of housing developments that we're putting money into. For the bond program, we're targeting the 120% of HUD area median income. And you'll see for a individual that is about $89,000. for a family of four looking at a household income of $128,000. So, our initial proposal included $5 million and at the time we were proposing to focus specifically on single family home ownership opportunities. And we were looking at single family, we were um defining that as a single lot, single home, single family. And we proposed to use $1 million for a land acquisition and demolition. And we would then use those lots to sell to nonprofit and for-profit developers who would build single family housing. And then the remaining four million we would use for capital and infrastructure costs um such as our water and sewer impact fees which by ordinance we're currently not allowed to wave. So in the words of the great philosopher Drake, we started from the bottom now we're here um at $10 million. Thank you. mic drop. [laughter] I couldn't have planned that better. Thank you, it. [laughter] So, we're proposing to use $10 million and based on the city council feedback, we're expanding the definition of affordable housing. It wouldn't be just single family home ownership, but it would just be any type of home ownership opportunities. some of the things um in addition to looking at the council's um interest, we also took a look at what some of our other Texas cities how they have used their bond um proceeds. And so we've included some additional items that we could put the funds on. One, we could um put money into developing new rental family housing. Um also we could do rental housing repair and rehab. And when we talk about repair and rehab, we're not talking about routine maintenance. we're talking about sub substantial repair um work. In addition, we could put the money into permanent supportive housing and short-term housing. And then also, we could use the um money to put in an affordable housing fund. And when we talk about this, we would partner with public and private resources to um leverage the $10 million that the city's bond program could potentially provide. And just as a way to clarity, any project that would come forward under this the new bond recommendation would ultimately come through the council for approval to be part of that program. So, um it's not just putting dollars into projects as as they pop up. >> Thank council member back had a question. [clears throat] >> I just uh point of clarification on the $10 million. Are we still restricting the $5 million for single family single lot? >> We're not. We're not restricting the dollars at this point. Again, as projects come forward, >> we'll be working with existing partners like the land trust like >> because I I I don't want to see us heads up. Yeah. Not happen. >> I just didn't want to take a guess in the dark of what the dollars, you know, might be tied up for something when an opportunity comes forward somewhere else. >> Thank you and thank you for your work on this. I truly appreciate it. >> Did you chles? >> Yeah. So I think I guess the question was because the slider has 1 million 4 million. So the other five is >> that that was the previous >> Yes. Right. >> That's what we brought forward. So we're taking excuse [clears throat] me we're taking those restrictions off. >> Okay. >> And allowing it to be a broader opportunity for uh for the availability of the funds for projects everything from rental to home ownership. Uh we still like to keep the ability to go six from 60 to 120% area median income because that 100 to 100 or above 80 to 120 there's a a lack of housing in that area and if you develop that folks move up into that and create space in the lower income. >> Yes. I I appreciate your work on this as well Jay and thank you uh for this. I think it's a great look for the city of forward and it's going to help out a lot of residents. So thank you and thanks Drake. [laughter] Thank you, Casey. All right, so next we're going to dive into the public art ordinance. And so this just to kind of set the tone here, uh, as we're developing 2026 bond program, uh, there are a couple assumptions that we had in play, uh, as far as what how the proposition was read and so forth. So the first part of this particular section is we're really going to dive into technicalities and then we're going to follow up on one of the council requests related to what if the percentages change and how would that exactly work. So from the technicality standpoint um there were three assumptions when we're developing the 2026 bond program. One was that the natural and open space proposition would have zero dollars set aside for public art funding. And in working with legal and bond council, the term natural and open space proposition was very specific to a proposition. So from a technicality standpoint, uh we would recommend that council take action to update the public art ordinance to say open space category um because it's now parks and open space proposition. So it's just a little technicality assumption. Uh the second assumption as we were building the affordable housing proposition um is that zero dollars were set aside towards public art initially with that 5 million and now that 10 million. So that would be another recommendation to uh city council is to set aside no funding uh towards public art. Otherwise it would be a 90 98% would go towards affordable housing and 2% would go towards public art. Um, and the third was that all designonly projects had a zero dollar set aside towards public art funding. And there were only three major roadway projects in streets mobility that would have had that 1% um allocation. Otherwise, um right now we're again recommending that that be set to no funding set aside. Um so those would be three recommendations that would approach council um on updating the public art ordinance. Does anyone have any questions related to those three technicalities? >> Yes. >> What are those? Uh you said three projects that would be design only. What are those? >> Uh yes, it is currently and let me go and pull up my list real quick. It is Altameesa Boulevard, Waggley Robertson Road, and the Shape and Skull Road. And the idea since there is no construction being done doing public art attached to that would just and the amount of public art dollars that would come off a design only is so small it'd be difficult to do something. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So ne next is uh on that followup. So what are some scenarios if there were some optional changes to public art funding ordinance? Um so one is uh council could recommend that they place a 1% funding cap on all bond propositions. And what that would do is it would basically allow uh city staff to reallocate a potential of 2.9 million towards additional capital improvements. We would like your feedback if that would be um a particular direction. or otherwise we could also create a whole new public art uh improvement proposition. And that really puts uh the onus back on the voters to decide if the city should pay for the public art with bond funds. That dollar amount would be set by city council. And just as a reminder that if the proposition were to fail, then that um could increase the city's debt capacity to later fund other capital projects such as streets and mobility uh with tax notes at a future time. Uh so with that I'll kind of open that up for discussion if if there's any desire or >> just as a reminder what's the current um allocation for public art >> notwithstanding a potential reduction of 2.9 million. >> Yeah. So currently the allocation is one 1% for streets of mobility and 2% for all other propositions except for open space and that amount is about $10.8 million. >> Thank you. And so in the proposal you've had for us here to discuss, you would just reduce that 10.8 down by almost $3 million. And then your the staff and management proposal will be to take that 3 million and put it back into other capital programs presumably into TPW >> for streets and mobility. >> Yeah, probably more than likely sidewalks. We never have enough sidewalks and we have a lot of ADA requirements. >> Okay. >> Lauren agrees. >> Lauren's already. Yeah. Okay. Council member Martinez. Well, I I'm I'm I don't like that idea. I just don't think that is a significant amount of money uh to put into transportation, public works. That's what three blocks, residential blocks, if they have to replace cast iron and and sewer and all that. Um we have such little public art and we don't have a community arts facility anymore. Um, I just uh it just, you know, I we need more public art and we involve our community in those type of projects. It boosts our economy. Uh, if you think about travel to other cities or countries that you've been to, what is one thing you remember? I always remember the art, but maybe because I love art, but you know, I just I just don't think it's worth it. >> So, Council Peoples, please. >> I'm in total agreement with Councilwoman Martinez. There has not been one neighborhood that I have gone to that does not want public art. And some of our communities that are most affected, like some of my communities where we're working on affordable housing, they want public art. We need to continue to beautify these neighborhoods. And I agree, we're not talking about moving a lot of money to streets um out of this. And so I'd not be in favor of changing how we fund public art. Council member Hall, >> I also concur with both uh Councilwoman Peoples and uh Martinez. In the short period of time that I have been here, I've had a lot of opportunities to talk to the art community and also uh the general public about the demand for art or the absence thereof. So, I wouldn't support any measure that's going to reduce our funding um especially to redirect it somewhere where it would be minimally impactful. >> Yes, Council Member Hill. I think we just need to clarify too this is we're not talking about community art. We're talking about public art that most of these artists are not from Texas. Some of them are, but that they're not from Fort Worth. So my perspective and maybe I think some of my other council members too, our needs in some of our neighborhoods is more infrastructure. I have so many sidewalk gaps and any dollar that I can save from public art or any other project um to be able to support that. My neighborhoods want that. Um, I do think we need to revamp the entire public art program and really take a harder look at where this money comes from because I completely agree with my colleagues. Public art, we need that in the city. You're right, Councilwoman Martinez. When you go to other cities, you see this great artwork and it's memorable, but I think we need to be very strategic about how we do that. And if we have an opportunity to reallocate some money to fill some of these sidewalk gaps or some of the other TPW needs like um, Chapen Road where we need a stoplight, I'd love to see that happen. >> Council member Ebles. Yeah. Okay. So, Councilwoman Hall, uh, what I was going to tell you, and I'm sorry, Maze Hill, I'm sorry. Uh, I am on one of the committees right now, and those are local people that pick those artists. Those are Fort Worth residents that pick those artists. And so, maybe we need to look at how we change the parameters for the artists that we pick so that we can pick uh more local artists. But I would just tell you I think the amount of money that we're talking about saving is negligible and we do it at the expense of something that the public really wants and loves. >> Council member Hill and Council Member Nettles. >> Well, I'd love to see the public decide this. So, I think option two is a great option for us. >> Council Nettles. >> Yes. I I want a little clarity on uh the entire [clears throat] discussions for maybe people who are watching. Currently we put and correct me when I'm wrong. I may be wrong all the way. Currently we put 10 million in public art. >> Drake. >> Is that correct? >> Currently it's by project and >> by project. Okay. So that's what my question is. So by project so say from the project is coming to district that project percentage amount is going to go towards public art. >> Correct. >> What is that percentage? >> If it's a if it's a mobility project streets it's 2%. Okay. 1%. If it's any of the others, it's 2%. >> And we're proposing now to do what? >> 1% for all. >> I'm sorry. >> 1% for all. >> So some is 2% and >> we'd go to 1% for all of them >> for all propositions >> versus the 2%. >> Okay. And those dollars will stay with the project. >> And so this actually opens up um variability, right? So one it could be 1% where it's by each proposition as it ex as it exists today. Now if we went with option two um on the screen and let me go and bring that back up. So, uh, option two, which is creating a new public art, uh, improvement proposition. Um, that would then set aside a certain dollar amount and that can be basically at discussion with staff that could be a specific percentage allocation proportionally across um, all the propositions or maybe it can go all to one set location. There are different ways that we can kind of slice and dice that. um we can kind of it could be part of this discussion of if we wanted to go with option two >> and I think that's my concern right there that if I have a project and I lose money uh with proposition two or I lose it I can lose it from my district as well as lose all completely and I think that's a concern. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Right. On if Yeah. it failed. The idea on the the first one is if we reduced all of the non-mobility propositions to 1% that 2 million would be reallocated sidewalks and those sidewalks would be the next highest priority sidewalks in the TPW. So it'd be spread all over the the the city depending on where those are. >> That would be outlined in the bond proposal that would go here. >> Exactly. And so no, this is if we if the council decides to allocate reallocate to 1% for all of them. On the second one, we would have to then decide how the art of those art dollars are going to be set aside for use. So as mentioned, you could decide to do one citywide major project for whatever million dollars, or you could say we'd want to divide it evenly, you know, I wouldn't recommend this by but by council district. or we'd like to uh uh set aside for half of it to go toward community projects or community art and others to so we'd have to go through that process to identify how those get used. >> Council Larsorf. >> Thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] So, I agree with Councilwoman Hill on this one as far as making it known that one, we do have a lot of other high priority needs in the city and I think it's a little bit disingenuous whenever we talk about our residents who are saying, "Hey, we want public art." But I don't think we're asking the question, would you rather have public art or better streets, better sidewalks, better public safety, etc. And I think when you ask that question, uh, and specifically district 4, it's always going to lean towards streets and sidewalks, which we know we all need more. I don't think it's a very good argument to say, well, it's not that much money, so let's put it somewhere else. I think TPW would argue that 2.9 million, 1 point, you know, 1.3 million, or 500,000, every penny would matter uh in improving our streets and mobility. um in talking to some of our local artists and the issues with the bond art programs is with it having to last the lifetime of the bond that uh limits the amount of available artists across the board. So that's why we have to get artists from outside of Fort Worth uh because they're the only ones with the experience for steel structures or stone structures that can withstand the lifetime of that that that bond. So, I think if we had bond or uh art dollars in other areas where we could employ our local artists, uh I think that would be more that's more beneficial. I mean, this last um meeting we had for district 4 art that we have going in a roundabout, I think it's around $500,000 if I'm not mistaken, there weren't I think there maybe been one Texan uh artist. The rest were out of state. Um I mean, personally, I'd rather see any of the extra funds go towards the Gindy Art Center. That way, we can can help our own community artists here. um we've made it known that uh you know we have all these other higher priorities and so I think adding taking money from things that we're allocating it for and putting in something that we don't necessarily need right now I don't think is is the way to go. I think the uh the best way to go is creating a new public art improvement proposition and letting the voters decide decide on what they want to see with that money. But in the short term I'm definitely all for placing 1% funding cap on all the bond propositions. Council Flores, >> based on what I hear overwhelmingly, especially during bond programs when I have to explain to my constituents why an older street or an older part of town doesn't get attention, keeps falling through the cracks. You know, Lauren can attest to this because we talk about it often. U since I've been on council, I keep submitting some of the same streets. No luck. What do I tell my constituents? I support the arts. I think we all do. There's no question about that. It's a question of prioritization. I'm not endorsing, you know, option one or option two at this point in time, but I think we need to really critically look at uh at where our priorities lie, right? Uh sidewalks are very important. I have disabled people that live on certain streets that have major cracks or or broken sidewalks. What do I tell them? Get on the street, avoid it, you know, with your wheelchair. I can't do that. I still can't get any dollars there. And it's not meant as as a criticism, you know, Lauren, I know you try, but that's the way I look at it. Ultimately, it comes through prioritization. I support the arts. Uh, if we can find, you know, a way, I think that we're all comfortable with it, but we need to make some hard decisions here. How do we make good on one of our primary uh responsibilities? I do have a question. >> Maybe I'm maybe I'm not completely understanding >> where why are we pivoting from the art. I mean divesting art. I mean I don't understand why art and TPNW where where did this matchup come into play? Did I did I miss a step or is this just a new suggestion? I just feel like I'm not quite understanding why art is the only um suggestion on the table and the $2.9 million um what would that be used for? I mean just specifically sidewalks. I'm just trying to understand how divesting one and putting a small amount of money into another that is has a big need. Um what particularly would we get and and what would we be losing? I guess I'm not quite understanding. >> The question came up at the last work session about an alternative instead of having as much dollars that are going to art that are currently there that could be used for I think that the the suggestion that it would be to go to mobility. When we looked at it, one of the biggest gaps that we have for funding is in sidewalks. [clears throat] And so that's why staff was recommending sidewalks or any dollars that came from that, which is the 2.9 million. Because in the past there has been discussions of of dropping all the proposition art numbers to 1% so it's even across the board. That was done the it used to be all 2% but it was done I believe in 2018 or 2014 bond program when the mobility side grew so much that you were going to have a very large number for art. Council at that time dropped the mobility dollar to 1% and left everything else at 2%. and we've been at that number. It's just it was a a threshold that was set up by the city council. So, so when we looked at it, we could have it all drop down to 1%. You would create $2.9 million in capacity for another use. staff's recommending sidewalks because that is a large gap in our overall funding for capital needs because it it's not a big number like people are saying when you think about streets, but it is a difference that can make on sidewalks since it's a smaller type of infrastructure that's out there. >> Council Blair on and off over the years about public art. Uh I've participated as a community member and then as a council member in many many projects and one of the things I keep seeing is you know the dollars are very closely tied to the location and because they're so closely tied to the location you know we end up with some weird situations where there's either not public space next to the project where art can be placed easily or the geometry requires or dictates what the art can be rather than what would be optimal. So, I really do think we need to look at revising our entire public art program to make these dollars more effective uh to get more signature work instead of just what we can pitch and hole in certain locations. Um I do think that there is value in going to 1% instead of two in those certain areas. uh and and then just reallocating those dollars more wisely uh amongst projects in the area instead of so closely tied uh to the geometry. Anyway, that's my thoughts. >> Thanks, Alan. Council member Hill. >> Um thank you, Mayor, and Councilman Bllelock. You actually stole the words right out of my mouth. I think we just need to bifrocate the conversation. Councilwoman Hall, you made a good point that where did this come from? There's two different conversations I think happening. and one particular to the bond program. What I'm hearing from my constituents, um they they want these streets taken care of. They want sidewalks. They want more of the essential services that we owe our city. And they expect and I think when they're looking at the bond program, they're like, "Well, I'd rather not I'd rather give up the public art and have a sidewalk next to my school so my kids can get to school safely." Um 100% we should be putting more money towards community art and supporting our local artists, but we're not getting that through this program. And so for my seat, I just want to make sure that I'm I'm being vocal and making sure that I'm representing my constituents in the way they want to be represented and filling the sidewalk gaps, making sure their streets don't have the big potholes that we can put more money to infrastructure mobility because as we continue to grow outside 820, which is where majority of my district, Charlie and Allen's are we have a huge problem there, a huge problem. And so we want to make sure that we can continue to make sure that we can match up the growth with the money that we have to use. Council member Crane, >> just a point of clarification. I was just talking with Dana Leanne. Uh I I think we're all on the same page of we support public art in some way, shape, or form, community art, etc. We also know that we have infrastructure problems that need to be addressed. Do these dollars have to be tied to the project? She was kind of Yeah. Dennis maybe or someone. And what's the f any flexibility at all? Yeah. No, along Michael's question is just give us an overall perspective of legally what has to be in this ordinance pertaining to public art in the bond election and how much of this can we actually flush out separate and apart from the ordinance if we if there's interest in reinvigorating energy around what is public art in Fort Worth and how to also support community artists. >> Okay, I'll do my best to try to cover all that. Um, so when we fund public art out of the bond program, it has to be uh the way we've been doing it historically is we use a percent of the proposition. So then it may not be specific to a line item project like if you have Altameesa as a road. If there's a bunch of roads, you could take all of the percentage set aside for art and put your one project where it makes sense next to a major thoroughfare, but it still has to be tied to the underlying proposition, the transportation. So you have to use your art transportation dollars for art that's tied to transportation. Parks has to be tied to parks. So we get these issues periodically where it's like is this close enough to the park? Is it with So what we've historically done is kind of said if you can see it from a bonfunded wherever the dollar is coming from from a bonded library from a bond funded uh park that meets kind of the connection that we need to justify using these. Um to the mayor's question, right? >> Sorry. And that's a state law that says we have to do that. >> It's a combination of state and federal law, but mostly state law. It's tied to the underlying proposition. Uh because these are the main thing, the thing that voters are seeing is this is a proposition for transportation. So this is art tied to transportation. >> Um to the mayor's question, in the ordinance that calls the election, it's set up currently as a permissive may use up to x% for public art. So up to 1% for the street and transportation, uh up to 2% for parks, up to 2% for libraries, no percent for open space, which will now be a category within parks. So it's permissive on the back end. The public art ordinance dictates at the time you're expending it what you actually will. So bond ordinance is a may. So, we can't go over what the bond ordinance says, but you could theoretically move the ball forward with may go up leave things as you as proposed and then on the back end amend the public art ordinance to say we're not going to spend more than x% here. Now, if we go that route, you don't get your 2% freed up to move all to the transportation prop. Um, so if you say at the time of the election the parks is going to be up to 2% and you decide on the back end it's only going to be 1%. That freed up money has to stay with parks. It can't be moved. That makes sense. >> Council back. >> Uh, since we're going around the table, um, I just want to state my position that I am supportive of public arts at least in the percentage amounts that we have here. I would like us to look at our ordinance and how we um fund fund the arts. Uh I completely agree with Councilman Bllelock. In fact, my biggest rub with our arts ordinance is the way that we have that proximity requirement. I think that it has resulted in us having some weird um placements of of art. Um I mean, now that city hall is on Forest Park, I think the origami gets much more use, right? But like we found ourselves in in places where we didn't uh know where to put art that the public would see it and our um water treatment plant is a really great example of that. So that really is something I think we should look at. Um I think it hinders us from having transformative art projects because we're u giving little amounts here and there um to our libraries or to our you know transportation. We might get some enhanced street lighting or a rainbow, you know, kind of cylinders, for lack of a better word. I mean, I've seen that same public art like three times now in this city. Um, and it's because there's only so much you can do that'll last 20 years that um that you know you can do with say $200,000. So, by eliminating that geographic proximity requirement, um I think it allows us to do some transformational pieces. So, that's what I'd like to see us look at. And, um, when we're talking about public art, um, I really I over the break, I spent some time in a really small, shabby, shabby border town in Mexico. And as I was driving down their main boulevard, the first thing I noticed um, was the condition of the homes, right? It just they weren't it was not a very um wealthy looking city, but they had a grand boulevard with public art down it and they had taken that um they had t made that investment into their community and you saw um you saw that sense of pride and it really um brought me back to our public art program that I had quite frankly been on the fence about because I don't like the way it's administered. if we can't get flight operating for more than you know a seven day stretch at a time like we I think there's a lot that can be done with our public art program but I think we need those funding that funding and I I agree with Dr. Paul, um $2.9 million is nothing to shrug at and it would go, you know, we could put it in TPW, but the bang for the buck that we get in art versus the bang that for the buck we would get in transportation, um I just don't see gutting a program for what would be a literal drop in the bucket in the transportation program. Okay, Jay's asking me to get Dennis back up here for clarification related to the proximity question and geography and public art. Do we have to have another proposition by voters to remove that requirement or can that be done through the public art ordinance separately? >> So that that's actually a function of the bond laws. So because a bond has to be for a single proposition and the proposition is parks, libraries, whatever. So it's art tied to that single underlying proposition. So that proximity as long as we're bond funding it is always going to exist. >> So could you have your if you only if you have your own proposition for art then you can remove >> yes if you if you went with a wholly separate art proposition then you're not going to have the geographic connection to the underlying other proposition. >> But let me let me get some clarification then on the way the bond works because maybe I'm not understanding. So here at the city of Fort Worth we have our bond propositions that that y'all have laid out for us, right? And so we're going to say there's $10 million for um affordable housing, there's uh 20 million for open space. Um and we have a list of projects. You have a list of land that we want to purchase for open space or maybe a list of projects we'd like to fund with affordable housing. We have that with TPW. We use that to go out to the public and give them the the list of projects that we're looking for in this bond. But does state law require that we have it's my understanding state law does not require that we then in turn spend if you know if we say McCartney Alto we're spending a million dollars um but we say we actually need to spend a million dollars at West 7th and Curry um as long as it's transportation for transportation within that bond it can be moved so why would art be tied to specific projects and not not transportation in general or libraries in general If I said it was t tied to a specific project, I misspoke. It's tied to the proposition. Okay? >> So, the transportation art dollars have to be tied to a transportation bonded project. So, you could take all of your art dollars that you get off of the libraries proposition and do something at a at a at one of those libraries that was bond funded. Um, so you can move it around in that regard, but you can't take those library dollars and then do street facing art that's nowhere near a library. >> Gotcha. or or you can't pick a median of a non-bond funded street and do a series of art installations with those dollars because they need to be tied to the but if you put a standalone art proposition I'm not recommending this we staff did not recommend this then you would have you would have no barriers for >> so [laughter] >> mayor yes council >> so yeah that was my question. So that that was an option. Um are we open to adding another proposition then along around the table, but what where would we get that money? Would that be increasing capacity again? >> No, it would be taking the percentages off of every project that was going to go to art because there's aren't So currently the way we we put together our projects is we figure out what the projects are, then we add the percentage needed for art. So we would take that percentage off of each project and create a a separate proposition for that amount which is 10.8. >> Well, we want that money to go to sidewalks, right? Because there's that need there. >> Well, the 10 point what we're recommending if we went down to 1% for all was any extra dollars would go to sidewalks. If the council wanted to do a new proposition, the easiest way to do that was to take the percentages that were going to be on the projects at $10.8 million, take it off all those projects to get to 10.8 and and create a new proposition for $10.8 million for art. >> So, we would risk that not passing and then it would go back to the 1%. >> No, it would not be there available. >> Would not be available. >> Yeah, >> it would be there would be then we would have about $1 million in capacity that could be used for other projects um at a later date. >> Yeah. >> So, Council Member Larsorf. So Jay, what you just said then it would increase capacity for a later bond or for future capital >> either or if if we had a project come up and council wanted issued tax notes, we could use that capacity. It's just additional capacity in the final. >> So but so essentially we wouldn't be losing it though in general. >> Oh, it just doesn't get used, >> right? So but then we could >> we wouldn't issue that debt at that time. >> Got it. Okay. So then Yeah. So we wouldn't lose it. So that's good. >> Sorry. We could issue that debt just not through that bond, right? We could issue it through tax notes. >> Through tax notes or or cos for a different capital project. >> Yes, Council Member Nettles. >> Um, no, that's okay. Uh, I don't know if we ever done it here, but I I appreciate the thoughts and about doing something different. Um, what we see that's happening right now is what Mayor Pro Tim Gina Biv used to say is sausage making at the last minute. And I don't think that all of us are I mean I think we have a position either way but I don't think it's strong enough to really make a decision uh today uh stripping art funding and putting $2 million into streets or sidewalks because we don't have a a a layout. Uh I think it's worth a discussion uh down the road of how we fix our ordinance when it comes to our um art. Uh, and I think it's worth discussion of where we can really get sidewalks improved. And I think that we're talking about apples and oranges. Sidewalks art. Funding sidewalks is not at the uh hem of art. It's other allocations. And I know y'all hate for me to bring this word up. It's our taxes. It's uh our general funding that we can allocate more dollars to sidewalks improvement. So I think that we should keep the proposal as it is and have a more conversation as we move forward in the city of Fort Worth. That's just my thoughts. >> So we do have an opportunity in executive session again and then we can come back again. We are getting pretty close to it. So I'm going to be confusing so bear with me. But I this is sausage making and we've been talking about this bond now for over a year more really. The staff has been working on this really for four arguably and as much as I think this is a healthy discussion, it does feel very last minute and it feels like we did not offer some of this to the public. And while we joke about how few people come to community meetings and actually engage, there are people that have very much engaged in this process. And if this was a larger amount of money, $10 million, $20 million, I might feel differently. But to your point earlier, Council Member Nettles, 2.5, 2.8 is not a lot. Um, it sounds like in the ordinance it's we may not spend more than this amount of money. And what I would like is an honest agreement among this body that as we I think we all agree a public art ordinance needs to be updated. There seems to be no disagreement around that. What it looks like I think there might be disagreement around. We have time to do that. What we don't have time to do is make a lot more changes to this bond election because we have to call the election. So what I'm proposing and we can talk about this also in executive session. I'm not going to ask you to do a a voice vote here is to consider leaving the bond as it is with the changes proposed today. Do not mess with the public art aortion and let's have an honest discussion as the bond rolls out into May about we doesn't mean we have to spend the full amount of money on the public art program. We can absolutely peel some of that off and put it back into debt capacity or do something different with it. Um but I I this just feels like too big of a decision. we should have done this a year ago if we really wanted to make significant changes and there are a lot of other people that I'm sure that are watching and now that we brought up community art there's going to be more questions and answers for them. So I that that's my current perspective. Um I just wanted to share that and if we want to take that into an executive session, talk about it more and then actually have a a public process when we actually have to vote on the ordinance that's fine too. >> Any other comments or questions? And just to clarify, we do plan to move forward with an ordinance to amend those technical issues that that was presented by uh April to start which were that the open space was never had never had art tied to it when it was a separate proposition because we put it with the with the parks proposition together. We need to clarify that that's also doesn't have any art tied and affordable housing was not calculated to have affordable. So we need to clarify that in the ordinance as well. So make sure that those two items don't get carved off as to have art in them. So just wanted to clarify we will we do plan on bringing those forward regardless. So >> as well as design council member Hall, >> I do just want to make one comment. Um I want to go on the record um for the citizens of district 6 and also um with regards to TPNW infrastructure is a very issue big issue in district 6. sidewalks and improvements on our roads. Um I share the same concerns with you, Councilwoman uh Hill. So I don't want to seem that I'm not a proponent for those infrastructure improvements that we need. I just um want to also share that I feel that we do need to continue to invest in our art programming. So just want to make sure that that was clear. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So, as it relates to the update with the technicalities and the schedule itself, uh we do plan to come forward to council uh with the public art ordinance update at the April 14th city council meeting. And based off of today's discussion uh related to the bond election ordinance, we will keep the language as it exists today, which is that the city may expend up to the percentage uh whether that's 2% or 1% as it exists today with the public art funding with the caveat that there is that flexibility uh to have further discussion and therefore we have that time period in April um to be able to update the ordinance so that it is consistent and both the ordinance and the public the public art funding ordinance and the bond election ordinance um talk to each other in time for the bond election on May 2nd. >> And just for clarity, council, it's currently um on our agenda for Tuesday, December 10th, excuse me, February 10th to vote. If for some reason we don't have an agreement, the last day we can do that before Dennis quits is February 13th because um by law we have to Lean says he's not allowed to quit. So there's that. Because of the new state law, we'd have to call the a special meeting for the 13th before the 10th meeting. >> Got it. >> That would be hard to do. >> Yes. Oh, I see how you couldn't even do that, >> right? >> Okay. So, we have to finish out the 10th. >> You have to do it the 10th or we have to be preemptive and have a special called meeting that we could cancel if we needed to. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> Okay. Great discussion, council. Thank you. >> Are we done with that >> with that item? Yes, we are. Are the are the u the bond or are we going we're still gonna stay on the bond, right? >> No. >> Okay. Can we can can we go back to that just for one second? >> No. [laughter] >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, I wanted to go back to the affordable housing piece because um last time we were all here, uh while there were certainly some that were in support of increasing it from 5 million to 10 million um me being one that was not in support of that and would rather have seen that 5 million go to streets mobility, which we all just agreed is uh across the the city is an important item. Um and Jay, I know you you got my email and I know Christian did expressing the I guess the concern about how that went down. So is it just as long as a few because also also had residents that were concerned about this too. So is it just as long as there there's a few or there's a majority that say that this is what they want and that that's how staff just makes the recommendation and who makes the since it's a recommendation who's making the final call as to increasing it to 10 million and not even saying all right well let's just divvy up that 500,000 each and I'd take it to streets mobility or public safety etc. like how do we get to just All right. >> So, based on the last the last bond meeting and the conversation came up of increasing to to $10 million, more than half of the city council said they could support it verbally. So based on the fact that there was a consensus of more than half of the council um the staff and myself said a recommendation I mean basically who followed the council's recommendations or the council's policy decisions and more than half at the time verbally said they supported the additional dollars going to affordable housing. So that's where the recommend that's how I made the recommendation. The choice was all right, affordable housing or streets and mobility and we just went around the horn then. >> No, I don't. >> Oh, you all you all. It wasn't a vote. Everybody I think it was brought up. I think Councilman Nettles mentioned that >> you would like to see additional dollars. The conversation then led to can we find additional capacity. >> And then as as you all discussed it, I think council member Beck said she supported five million to go to housing. Councilwoman Martinez did. Councilman Crane did. Council Flores did. Yes, >> Councilman Hall, Councilman Peoples. So, the majority of the of the conversation was that would go to affordable housing. So, it led me to the conclusion that if we added the 5 million additional capacity to affordable housing, that that's where the support was to put it there. >> Got it. And I'll just add as far as the the feedback I've received for for district 4, I mean, there's certainly some support for the $5 million for uh home ownership, actual single family home ownership. Um, and as we discussed before, if it's going to 10, and that includes multif family and permanent supportive housing, say it's going to be an uphill battle, at least in district four, it may pass, you know, grand numbers in in other areas. Um, but should that proposition fail again, that would allow us the opportunity to utilize tax notes or others and place that 10 million. >> Any proposition that doesn't pass just goes back to our capacity in the debt service side. >> Okay. Noted. Thank you. So council people are >> good or do I need to make a motion that that 5 million go? >> You don't need to make a motion. I think >> you're good today. No voting. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Great job. >> Yes. Council Hall had a If you're on to the next >> Yep. Keep going. >> Thank you. >> Request for an IR you mentioned. >> Yes. >> So I'm gonna make sure everybody any other questions related to the 2026 bond program. We're not voting. We're just voicing concerns or issues before we move on. Excellent. Then we can go on to future agenda items or reports needed by council. Council Rahal. >> Thank you. Uh thank you cha. I appreciate it for reminding me. I kind of got off into the weeds over here. Okay. So I do want to go on the record with saying I had the pleasure of meeting with ACM Washington and her team with environmental services and the office of the medical director. Um we met extensively last week and we talked about our solid waste long range strate strategies and also [snorts] emergency response particularly on the subject of cardiac arrest rates. Um while we are doing really great here as a city, if you don't know that, we are um but there were um a question that I had was about how could we be more impactful um with regards to increasing our our rates with uh success and um maintaining life with regards to cardiac arrest rates. So um we have a lot to be a proud of around that area, but I did want to have an IR um just to know um let me see I have my language here. um learning more about the efforts to improve cardiac arrest rates. I'd like to request an IR that talks about um the cardiac arrest performance measures and potential solutions to address improving that metric for our city. So, if we could get that information, I'd really be appreciative. >> Thank you. That was my first IR request. By the way, >> Council Member Crane. >> Yeah. Uh, mayor, I went out this week or last week, I guess it was, to visit the ecoin therapy and uh, Will Cox was out there. I don't know if this seems to be an IR or at least something for us to explore. My understanding is if officers step forward and want some mental health uh, help, they have to take their vacation time to do that. And so, if they're going to severe issues over 30 days, etc., they've to blow all their vacation. So, there may be some officers not stepping forward wanting help, but they still want to take their kids on vacation, etc., and they're going to blow their vacation. So, I'd like us to look at how we handle that. Uh I think if someone's stepping forward and my personal viewpoint, if they're stepping forward and they need some help mentally, uh that we should figure out a way to work with them and they're not blowing all their vacation time. >> We'll check into that. >> Thank you. >> I've got one. Guess Yeah. I [clears throat] would like an IR on what our PD does to prevent and um and uh uh interdict uh drunk drivers in the city. If back to the PD one that that Crane raised, um if just make it a more comprehensive discussion, it may even help to just bring this and ask William to bring um R3 and AWA in and the programs that they have or our experiences are include fire that maybe lengthen the amount of time, but I just had this conversation with them as well on the things that are working really well and maybe some things we need to tweak. So, I'm okay waiting if you're okay, Michael, a little bit longer on that issue. >> Presentation. Yeah, it's it's up to staff on what may work best, but I just think there's a lot of pieces there that are working. >> Would it be okay to take that to the committee or do you want it to council >> public safety committee >> that that it makes sense if you want to bring it to them first and then bring it forward? Yeah, that's good. That's okay with council largef. Yeah. >> So, absolutely. If but if we can just add one thing since we're talking about burning vacation time um and all the discussions regarding workers comp which thank you very much Jay for all the work you've done and and mayor and helping identify short-term solutions u as well as long-term solutions u understand there's also an issue with our first responders having to use uh sick time or vacation time um after certain claims have gone through and then whether they're denied or delayed and then having to use sick time towards the end. Um if we just kind of get clarification on when they would have to. Um and then also understanding city council has the ability to approve extensions on like the two-year uh medical um disability um stay or any other things that this council has the ability to approve or extend. If we can just get a presentation if we can just get a presentation on what we here on council have the ability to approve. Um that that'd be great. So we we know where we can help or if it's a state level issue. >> Mayor. >> Yeah. Council Crane. >> Uh I'd like an IR on drug testing in the city and what positions are drug tested and are mandatory or voluntary. >> Any other IRS for council? Council N. Yes. Motion to adjurnn is granted. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, we have one. >> Yeah, we have them all over the city buildings. >> Executive session on the following matters. City Council will conduct a closed meeting in order to seek the advice of its attorneys as authorized section 551.071 of the Texas government code. Deliberate concerning real property matters is authorized as section 551.072 the Texas government code. Deliberate concerning economic development negotiations is authorized by section 551.087 of Texas government code and deliberate concerning security as authorized by section 551.076 and section 551.089 Texas government code. >> Unplug your mic. I think if you would have played college basketball, you'd be a good free throw shooter.