Council - Regular Meeting

We'll call the Dallas City Council meeting for Monday, December 1st, 2025 to order at 7 p.m. I ask all of you to uh well, first I'll have the city recorder call the role. Council President Briggs here. Councelor Barrytos here. Councelor Blosser here. Councelor Fitzgerald here. Councelor Holesapple here. Councelor Jance here. Councelor Schilling here. Councelor Shane here. Councelor Spivey here. Right now, will everyone join me in the pledge of allegiance?

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we don't have any introductions, recognitions, or proclamations tonight, so we'll move right into public comment. Uh, I do have a script I need to read before we do that. Uh, for the record, please provide us with your name and whether or not you live inside the city limits. You have up to three minutes. It's your turn to talk and ours to listen. You are responsible for the content, even if it was written by someone else. Please direct all comments to the mayor. Do not direct your comments to individual counselors, staff members, or the audience. Defamatory or lialist comments will not be accepted. It is expected that you will rem maintain decorum and respect for each other. A wide variety of viewers watch these proceedings. Therefore, we would kindly ask that you refrain from the use of offensive and name language and name calling. Uh distractions take attention from the speaker, the audience, city council members and city staff are asked to focus on the speaker during their time by being respectfully quiet. And the first person I have up is Annne Herd. Good evening, mayor and counselors. Um, I'm president Oh, Annne Herd. I live in Dallas. I'm president of Friends of the Dallas Aquatic Center and it's kind of fun. Is Allison here? I don't think Allison's here. I did the podcast for the city of Dallas uh last week and I think it's going to drop, she said, on maybe December 8th. So, that'd be kind of fun to listen to and see how Charlie and I did. I think it went pretty well. Anyway, um it's all about money with us and uh I sent out 30 banner renewals today and that will bring in over $18,000

to the Friends of the Dallas Aquatic Center. Um a lot of businesses pay before the end of the current year. So, we're hoping to get that get that number up. We have about 5,000 in it right now. we're 1,500 from giving you the city another 5,000 and then the banner payments will start to roll in and that's the most fun for me to go to the post office. Um and then we're going to be working on um reconcreeting the locker room floors and our and bigger project than that to which we will um we will give between 11 and $15,000 in February is scraping all the old plaster. It's horribly dirty off well it's 25 years old off the leisure pool and the lazy river and replplastering it and it'll make the whole thing look brand new because the river the water won't look brown anymore. It'll be that beautiful sparkling blue of the lap pool. And um oh this weekend is the first swim meet of the season. It'll be Central Dallas against South Albany and it's from 4 to 6 at the aquatic center if anybody wants to drive uh drop in. So, that should be fun. I've never been to one myself, but I really would like to see how they work. So, I think that's it. Thank you. And do we have anyone else in the audience wants to give public comment tonight? Do we have anyone on the phone?

No. If not, we'll close the public comment section and uh we move on to reports or comments from the mayor of or and council members. I don't have anything. Does any council members have anything for this evening? Hearing none, we'll move right on to reports from the city manager and staff. Uh first on that list is planning commission appointment. Brian,

thank you, Mayor Slack. So, um we had a vacancy on the planning commission earlier this year. We had a planning commissioner have to resign. Um and so we solicited applications for that and we received one. Um it's from Scott White. Uh he is a resident of Dallas. His current profession is in land use planning. Um and so the council uh appoints individuals to serve on um boards, commissions, and committees including the planning commission. Uh the mayor made a recommendation to uh recommend Scott White for appointment. Um the planning commission is unique uh with other committees and commissions in that you can't have more than two people from the same profession um serve on the planning commission at the same time. And so we had to evaluate all of our plan current planning commissioners. And I'm happy to report that Scott White does not push us over the two. Um he is our second person uh that's in the profession of land use planning um but not the third. So he is eligible um with all the criteria that are outlined in the municipal code. So with that, there's a recommended motion on the bottom of page three of your packet.

Councelor Shane, I'll move to appoint Scott White to serve on the planning commission with a term expiring December 31st, 2026. A motion from councelor Shane. Do we have a second? Second. Um been moved by councelor Shane and a second by councelor Holapple. Um any discussion? I'd like to make a comment unrelated. Um, one of the things in Scott's application that kind of caught my attention was

he said he will work if he's appointed he will work with other commissioners and community members to achieve the council goals. And I had a conversation with Brian just earlier and I thought, you know, I don't think we've really ever had an opportunity to workshop with the planning commission to kind of convey our goals if we have goals about the planning of the city. So I suggested to Brian that we maybe bring them in in February, you thought? Yeah, I think sometime after the new year, uh, February, March, to be able to have just a joint work session with the planning commission and the council is is a good idea. It's a good idea. And you're right. Um before coming here I spent the last 12 years on the planning commission and we did we never did have the kind of meeting you're talking about. So you're absolutely right.

Could avoid some of those decisions to come to them to come to us from them that we reverse. Um that's a good idea. Yeah. Okay. But a lot of land use changed this time this round and a lot of it remember we've given to them so it's good to have them on the same page and it wouldn't let's make sure we go over goals and policy. Yeah. No, I think it's a good opportunity to look at, you know, the council's goals. Um, you know, our policies, uh, be a good opportunity to do some training both for the planning commission and the council on on land use matters. So, we'll we'll put together a good agenda for that meeting probably target again February or March. Have a we have a motion on the floor. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor say I.

I. Those opposed passes unanimously. Uh, next is city Dallas city of Dallas lean lean docket. It's just a document you provided, Brian.

Yeah, it is. Uh, thank you, Mayor Slack. So, I'll invite our finance director, Sicilia Ward, to come up in case the council has any questions for her. Um, but at our last meeting when we uh the council approved the u adding leans to the lean docket. Uh there was a request by the council to have uh us put together the full list of leans that the city of Dallas has. Um and so Cecilia did that and they're included um as attachment a to this report. You'll notice that the leans um go back to 2023. So just the last three years have we've been doing um leans and they're all related to weed abatement. Um the city does have other um types of activities that we might do that could that could result in a lean on a property, but we not don't have any of those currently on our books. They're all related to weed abatement. So I don't know if Sicilia there's anything else you want to add to that. Um, the only thing I wanted to add was um, the current resolution that you passed on November 17th, it actually had two years worth, the 2024 and 2025. We're trying to keep up with it better because what happens is the property sells and then we can't have the lean on it. And so what we did was we captured all of 2025 too to include include it. And that's why there was a larger lean docket on this current resolution. But when the prop, excuse me, when the property sells, aren't we paid at that time through closing?

Yes. Only if if the lean is on a lean docket though. So So we miss that window. Sometimes if I don't get it on the lean docket in the property cells, even with the weed abatement on there, there's nothing we can do because it's not on the lean docket. So So,

so we we want to make sure we're timely and getting them the lean the lean assessments to the council each year. Um, so Sicily is saying if if we do uh weed abatement on a property in June and then we don't get the lean docket to you until like February, but the property sells in October, we have to we lose that money, right? Because the person who now bought the property wasn't responsible at the time that we did the work. And so we're not going to apply the lean to that property when the property ownership has changed. Isn't it at the county where it's a recorded lean? They can't

Right. Right. But what we're saying is what we're saying is the leans aren't in effect until the council passes the resolution. If the property sells before the resolution is passed, then the the new property owner shouldn't be responsible for the prior property owner's negligence and taking care of their weeds, right? It should be a monthly.

It could we abatement is seasonal. So what we need to do is capture we could start following the weed abatement once it starts picking up as the se as in the months then we could look at that a little bit better and we have to give them a window too and we send them a notification a certified mail and you know there's a time that we have to give them to respond and so but we can start with the uh first month of weed abatements and follow it quicker and then get it on a lean docket faster. or two. So, yes. Yes. Our goal is to do that.

You're generally looking at at least about a two-month lag, right, from when we do the work until we can get the resolution before the council. Um, because like what Sicilia is saying is you you do the work, you send them an invoice for the work. Um, you give them 30 days to pay it. If they don't pay it, then following that is when you can assign them to the lean docket. And then it might be another two weeks or, you know, until the council sees it with a resolution. So, you know, you're looking at at minimum month and a half to, you know, two months before the work's done. It just really depends on when the work gets done to when the bills get sent to when we're able to put on the council on a resolution. So, I would say safely you're looking at two months between when the work starts uh when the work is completed by the city until it's on the lean.

Councelor Shane, question. You're right about this about the about it being seasonal. I was just looking and every single one of these dates is spring or summer. Yeah. Um a question about the dollar figures. Do the figures here include the uh currently acred interest or is this just the base amount it started with? That's just the base amount that was submitted to to the lean and then once they want to pay it because they're trying to sell the property, I add the and you calculate the interest. Okay. So, so actually if any of these were settled, particularly some of the older ones, they'd be probably for more than is even listed here. Oh, sure. Yes. Yes. Yeah,

Mr. Spivey, since we did we went back about 18 months on the last one, do you know how many instances in 2024 that we might have lost due of not getting? I think uh we knocked off maybe oh I want to say two or three but then we also gained two or three meaning we captured those leads and they had to be paid out for about two or three of them too. We didn't work on two or three houses and didn't get our money back. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Ahead, councelor

Briggs or I noticed I remember we had a problem a big problem on Academy that we paid to clean up and that's not on here. It wasn't weeds. It was on Academy Street. We Oh, squatters. Yeah. Um, so that was actually paid by the property owner. So, so that one was Yeah, that was done by the property owner. Correct. So that so that ended up the property some of the property owners do take care of the Yes. At the time they're invoiced,

right? So the leans are only for the the bills that don't get paid, right? So with that one, we went in and we cleaned up the property. Um, and we knew in advance of cleaning up the property, we had already made an arrangement with the property owner that says, "I will pay for this if you can help me get it cleaned up." So we we the city came in, we cleaned it up, we invoiced the property owner, he paid that. So that's why it's not on the lean docket because that was paid. But yes, any any sort of abatement that we do, um whether it's uh um weed abatement or uh uh junk, um you know, other debris, if we as a city go in and clean that up, then we will invoice the property owner. If the property owner does not pay it, then it would become a lean on the property. Councelor Fitzgerald,

is there um is there a way to avoid the interest? Say they're making a payments or if if negotiates with the city or I would have to look at the weed abatement specifically. Um but yes, uh people can enter into a payment arrangement with the city. Um and that's that's quite frequent on on different uh different way different reasons that they owe the city money. Um, but they have to notify us before the before it becomes a lean to say, "Hey, you know, I'm not able to pay if it's a $1,000, I'm not able to pay the $1,000, but I can pay, you know, $100 a month." We say, "Great. We'll enter into a payment arrangement or they can do, you know, $15 a month." And then they would avoid this maybe this interest.

Yes. Then they avoid the interest and then it's just paying the principal on that. Okay. Questions. All right. Thank you. All right, move on to the next item. Brian, city municipal code review.

Yeah. Um, so over the last few months, I've been working with the city councilors kind of in our one-on-one meetings um with me. Uh, and I've really encouraged you to start looking at the municipal code. Um, so our our process for making changes to the municipal code is really born out of um when we discover that there needs a fix uh to some provision of our code. Maybe it's outdated, maybe there's a change in state law. Um, so we've been proactively identifying those and bringing them to the council. Um, so the question really that I would like to ask is should we um kind of take a a holistic picture look of the entire municipal code um and review, you know, kind of maybe uh chapter by chapter, section by section of our municipal code um to one have the council become familiar with all the ordinances that we have in the municipal code and two to then evaluate do these need changed? Um, or if you don't want to do that, uh, then we can continue to kind of be just proactive as staff identifying, you know, things that we see that need to be changed in the code. I will say the latter, um, approach, uh, while we're proactive, we're not catching everything and there's a lot of things that need to be fixed. Um, and so we kind of bring those as we have time. Um, but if we want to be more proactive in one, knowing what all of our ordinances say and two, making sure that they're relevant and current, then maybe the the former approach of being proactive and looking, you know, at the code, um, would be the way of going about it. So, I ask a couple different questions. You know, if you do want to review all of the ordinances in the city's municipal code, um, the question is kind of what do you want that process to look like? um do you want to start, you know, at chapter 1 and work our way down to chapter 10 and 11 or do we want to, you know, have maybe staff um prioritize, you know, certain sections over other sections? Um do we want to take those to uh you know, the committees um where it's appropriate for the committee? If we're looking at like the park rules ordinance, we take that to the buildings and grounds committee or we take it maybe the parks advisory board first and then the buildings and grounds, then to the council. Um if it's public safety related or nuisance

related, does that go to the public safety committee? um if it's regarding, you know, our our uh utilities ordinances that goes to the public works committee. Um uh so, you know, just kind of questions like that. So, I'm really looking for just some discussion on one, do you want to review all your ordinances or do you want us to continue to do the the peace mill approach of as we find it, we bring it to you? Maybe that's what the question we'll start with. I would opt to prioritize them. Go through all of them, but pri have you have staff prioritize the ones that are most critical at this point first is my option.

I I would agree with that. I would say that the staff that's dealing with it on a daily basis knows which ordinances or issues and problems and can bring those and we can address those immediately versus ones that we're just reviewing to for the sake of reviewing. Um, do you want us to take those to the committees where we feel that's most relevant um, for first review before it comes to the full council? Do you want to see these as a full council first in a work session and then they get referred to a committee? What's your what's your approach on that

Shane? I would say let's send them to the appropriate committees. That's what committees are for. It's why they're there. If we're voting councils all know municipal code then we should review them all. I'm not saying that's where I sit but I've can vacasillate between either side. Um if you don't go through and read the the code then you're not going to know what is in our code and there could be sections that shouldn't even be there anymore. I think the alternate to sending it to committee first would be to bring, you know, a chapter or a couple different sections to the council in a work session and saying, "Hey, here's, you know, the first maybe four or five ordinances we need to review." Um staff could have a recommendation at the work session to say, you know, these three ordinances need to go to buildings and grounds. These two go to, you know, public works committee. Um the full council gets to see kind of the ordinances, what we're looking at. It then gets shipped off to the committees. They review the work. If there's changes that are made, it goes back to the full council in the business meeting. So that would be the alternate process to just having staff say here are these five ordinances and just taking it straight to the committees without the initial look by the council. So what's the preference there between those two?

I think I misunderstood what Larry was saying earlier. I think if we're going to be looking at this uh one through 10 as a council, that shouldn't slow down uh the priority ones are known by staff to be bad to go to committee. Did I understand? I suggest we should we should look at them all, but have staff prioritize the more important ones first.

Yeah. And and I'm and I think that I understood that. Right. So, we're going to look at them all. Staff will prioritize the ones that are are our problem children that we know about. Um the question is do you want me to bring those problem children to the full council in a work session and then they get farmed out to committees from there so that way the full council is seeing every ordinance first or would you prefer that we just as staff uh figure out which committees they should go to put them in the committees and then bring them back to the full council. So that's what I'm asking. I muddied the waters. I want to unmuddy the waters. uh fewer people to go over their original revisions is always a lot more streamlined than trying to go through nine people. So I would say we send it as to the to the committees first then come to the council. Yeah. And you read my mind.

Yeah. And my thought with that would be I would not propose the revisions at the work session. It would be here's the you know five ordinances we're going to look at for revision. We're going to take them to these committees. It would be very high level you know. But if we don't want to do that just send them straight to committees. We'll do that strength committees. All right, sounds great. So, what the council would get back at the end would be a redline document that we could say, "Yeah, looks good." Correct. Go. Okay. And and we can change it on the fly if we see something in there that the committee missed or that we don't agree with. Yeah.

Yeah. If it comes back to the council and then the full council gets their eyes on it and says, "Hey, did we think about this?" Um, and you can say, "Oh, we did or we didn't." Um, if you didn't and you want to think about it, then that can just go back to committee. Yep. All right. Is that the consensus? Okay.

Yeah, that sounds good. So, for example, um uh kind of our um I have two ordinances that I included in attachments. So, we'll just kind of talk about those. Uh the one in attachment A is section 6.700 and it relates to non-motorized vehicles. Um essentially, this ordinance does not allow people to use non-motorized vehicles, which includes by ordinance scooters, skateboards, bicycles, and roller skates on sidewalks in the downtown core area. Um the penalty for a violation if you're found doing that in the downtown core area is $75. Right? So some questions that you might want to consider with that ordinance is, you know, how's that ordinance being enforced? Is it being enforced? Is it not being enforced? Um you know, do we see this as a problem today? Right? Um most of our ordinances are in the in the ordinance book because it was addressing an issue right at the time. And so is that issue still relevant? Um you know, does the penalty fit the violation, right? Do we want to charge people $75 for riding a skateboard in the downtown sidewalk or not? Um, and then there's a geographic question with this one because um, when I looked at this ordinance uh, closely, uh, let's take Jefferson Street for example, right? You cannot ride a non-motorized vehicle on the west sidewalks of Jefferson, but you can on the east side of Jefferson Street. So maybe you need to think about that, right? to say, well, if we're going to not allow it on one side of the street, we should probably not allow it on both sides of the street, right? So, um, if nothing else, if we want to keep this ordinance kind of as it is, we'll also want to maybe amend the geography so that it makes sense from an enforcement standpoint. You know, if our officers or code enforcement people are out enforcing this, they're going to want to know if they're on this street on either side, it's a violation, right? So, that's just an example. Um, and then, uh, in attachment B, um, uh, it's section 9.8. 850 when it relates to the waiver of development fees. Um, this ordinance does a few different things. So, it's something that's probably important for us to look at. It's it's

really related to um the enterprise zone uh program, which is a tax abatement program offered through the state. We have an enterprise zone in Dallas. Um, part of the ordinance uh addresses properties that are within the enterprise zone um who qualify for enterprise zone benefits. um that says if if you qualify for enterprise zone tax abatement um and you pay your employees a certain percentage above the median uh median wage of PK county then we will give you $5,000 per new employee that you add to then pay development fees including system development charges um the couple

that would does include SDC's

right so a couple challenges with that is if you have an employer that comes in brand new they're not in Dallas yet, but they decide to locate in Dallas and they bring 100 employees, right? Um, and they qualify for tax abatement. You're not only you're saying you're not only saying we're not going to charge you property taxes for 3 years, um, but you're codifying saying we're going to give you $5,000 per employee and they have 100 employees. So now you're looking at a whole lot of money, $500,000, right? Um, that they can have go towards SDC payments. Um, state law still says that those SDCs have to be paid, but now they got to be paid by the city instead of the developer or the the business. Um, that's a problem because we need to figure out how do we come up with that money? Where does it get paid from? Um, so there's just challenges with that. I don't want to say that we don't want to incentivize businesses to be in Dallas, but with um the requirements that we kind of codified um really apply to the extended abatement program. So, the standard program is a three-year tax abatement. If a property or a business meets those thresholds that we're that we're codifying as far as the wage requirements, um, we can negotiate with that business to say, "Hey, we're going to give you X incentive if you meet that requirement, right? So, we can start to negotiate with businesses on a case-by case basis for those additional incentive packages, including up to two additional years of abatement." So going from a three-year program to a 5-year program. Um so there's there's other tools that we can do through a negotiation on a case-by case applicant by applicant basis. And I think having it codified is just a mistake. So um and and a mistake that's going to cost us a whole lot of money if we keep this in here. So this is something that needs to be taken out. Um there's also some other uh stuff that relates to businesses that would qualify for enterprise zone benefits, but they don't actually have to be an applicant for enterprise zone.

um that would allow them to wave all their development fees like sign permit fees, um uh building permit fees, uh uh demolition permit fees, and so we really need to say just cuz you're a business that would qualify, even if you apply, we probably want to get rid of that as well. So, um this is just another section of the code that we want to look at as a priority to say, h this needs revision. So, these are just two examples of things that we will bring to a committee in the near future. No, no discussion on it today is needed, but Not to drill down into the weeds, but I just would like to know where that $5,000 number comes from because it's not mentioned in the summary. Is it in is it actually in the language? It's included in the code. So, if you go to if you go to attachment B

um on page, I believe 13 um under section four. The city council may authorize a qualified business firm a credit up to the amount of 5,000 for each new employee. That number is actually hardcoded in the

Yes. Yes. So, I mean, it's it's not it's it's a big deal no matter how many employees they add, right? Um, but in my experience with enterprise zones, um, in the state, uh, I've authorized businesses for up to 500 new employees. If you had 500 new employees and this code language, you're looking at $2.5 million that the city now gets to pay itself from one fund to another, likely coming out of the general fund. Big deal. Big deal. All right, that's all I have on this. Thank you, Mayor. I'm still hung up on the back to the bicycle thing. Is it We'll talk about it in committee. Council, don't we have bike racks all over town here? We do. And they can they can ride on the street, just not the sidewalk.

So, this is just pertaining to non-motorized vehicles on sidewalks in certain areas of the downtown core. And my question about that is there's no bike lanes. There's no So, we have we have sheros on the road. um which is like they're they're uh the bike lanes are sharing the travel lanes with vehicles on the road in the downtown. So if you're going up Main Street um they're they're markings that are on the ground. They're called sherrows. Um there those little bike symbol um with arrows that kind of point going in the direction of the travel. Um so bikes are encouraged to be on the roadways in the downtown. Um which also is why we have a 20 m per hour speed limit, right? So,

well, cuz I drove down the other day just to kind of see, oh, is there even a place for bikes to ride? And I didn't notice the sherrows. I noticed cars parked all along the streets. So, and and um and those markings, you know, need to be updated from time to time, just like crosswalk markings, you know, wear out over time. So, um but yeah, they're there and they're not on all the roads, though. They're on some of the roads. So yeah, there's there's work to do on this, but

okay. No other discussion on that. We'll move on to um James How Road Water Tank property. Yep. All right. So, um, we recently had a a meeting in November, um, where, if you'll recall, the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative requested from the city council to, um, do kind of a feasibility study, um, and some due diligence uh, on the property that the city owns on the north side of the city limits on James Hal Road. It's 30 acres. We purchased that property uh initially with the intent to put a a finished water um a tree or a tank um for storage. Uh and we're going to continue with that plan. That's going to happen. But that's only needed on a certain portion of the property, the really treed portion of the property. The clear portion of the property is where the the cooperative is looking at uh doing a feasibility study for a solar farm. Um a neighbor uh of the property up there um is interested in just buying a portion of the property from the city. Um I I I don't think that that necessarily is wanting to have a solar farm next door and said, "Hey, I'm willing to just buy the property from the city." Um we really even when the solar farm concept came up, um we haven't talked as a kind of a city body to say, "Are there other things that we might want to do with that property?" So um what I'm recommending is you we continue to let the due diligence happen because we signed off on that and that's that's happening now. Um but while that's happening, it's probably good for the city also to evaluate what are all the other possibilities of this property. um including selling it to a neighbor, using it for our own purposes. Maybe there's other things that we want to do. Um you're not locked into the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative um uh lease option. Um the agreement that you have signed off on says you're going to give them one year to do due diligence. After that, um if if they want to proceed with a negotiation for an option on the property, we'll enter into that negotiation with them. Um there's nothing saying that we will complete

that negotiation or agree to lease that property. So, you're not you're not hung up um in like, you know, uh voiding an agreement that you've already made. Um but we're allowing them to continue to do their due diligence while we do our own due diligence for what we might want to do with that property, whether it's the solar farm or something else in the future. So, um I'm just recommending that we take this uh discussion and conversation to the buildings and grounds committee where we can flesh out um kind of the different opportunities and options that the city may wish to do on that land. discussion in the council wanting to go ahead and do that.

I just want to reiterate that we, you know, we have talked about ball fields and a park and things like that. And I'm just for the record opposed to this solar farm from the beginning, but I think we're probably leading them down a bad path. We're allowing them to go through all these due diligence steps and and when they're going to come back and we're going to actually say no anyway. But maybe I'm the only one that feels that way. Well, I yeah, I I I get your point. I do. Um and but the fact that, you know, I mean, everybody knows that there's no commitment been made yet. So, um it wouldn't be like we would be pulling the plug on them on on something we'd already agreed to do. They know that that uh you know, the outcome of this feasibility study may or may not result in what they want. and and more broadly I mean that piece of land is a valuable asset belongs to the city. We should do the due diligence to figure out what's the best possible use for it. I would I would add to that that I think the the city really gave a good signal to the um the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative um when we we really modified their lease option form that they gave us um that uh cuz the initial form they gave us include it was it was more uh hey this is the first step to us leasing the property and you're going to lease the property to us and and we made significant changes to that to really pull back saying hey you're welcome to do due diligence on the property but we're really not sold on this concept you know, until that due diligence takes place. And, you know, so I I think the modifications that we made to that initial agreement have already kind of sent the the warning flag to them of, you know, go ahead and do your work, but we're not sure if this is something we want to do. So, um I don't think we're leading them down a path um that they're not already well aware of. And I can follow up with um uh can't remember Dan, I think is his name. um I can follow up

with the their contact um and just make sure that's clear to him that hey we're while you're doing your due diligence, we're going to look at other opportunities as well. Um we're not saying you can't do the due diligence. We encourage you to do that. Um but just know that we're also doing other things at the same time. Hey, you want to send that to building and grounds? That's where I'd like it to go. Council mayor's okay with that. All right. Okay. Right. Any other business to bring before the council tonight? Hearing none, I'll journ the meeting at 7:33.