[53. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance adopting Local Standards of Care for the Parks and Recreation Department’s Youth Programs.]

HAVE ITEM 53, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON PARD'S STANDARDS OF CARE. WE HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THE SPEAKERS. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 53. COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER MAKES THE MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER SECOND ITSELF.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON 53, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED, I'M SEEING IT UNANIMOUS ON THE DAIS.

AND NOW GOING TO RECESS, AND DIRECTOR, ARE WE READY TO DO THIS -- WE'LL RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE AT 2:14 ON FEBRUARY 4, 2021. AND WE ARE GOING TO CONVENE THE

[Austin Housing Finance Corporation]

AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2021, TIME IS 2:15 IN THE AFTERNOON.

WE'RE HANDLING THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC.

THE QUORUM, THERE'S A QUORUM OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT. DIRECTOR, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA? YOU'RE MUTED.

CAN'T HEAR YOU STILL. NO.

>> CAN YOU JUST CALL IN? >> IT'S RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, MAYOR. I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE

AGENDA. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

>> SO THREE ITEMS ON CONSENT. THE FIRST IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 3RD AND 10TH OF 2020.

AND THE SECOND ITEM, ON CONSENT IS SETTING A HEARING AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF $22 MILLION FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 440 NICHOLS CROSSING.

AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM IS SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ISSUANCE OF $20 MILLION FOR BONDS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON 1934 RUTLIN DRIVE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: AND ITEMS 22 AND 3 THE HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 18,

2021? >> CORRECT.

>> MAYOR ADLER: WE CAN HANDLE ALL OF THOSE ON CONSENT.

A MOTION TO APPROVE THE THREE ITEMS ON CONSENT? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY MAKES THE MOTION.

SECOND, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THOSE OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS ON THE DAIS. AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE BUSINESS I THINK, WITH THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. WITH THAT I ADJOURN OUR MEETING HERE AT 2:17 AND THAT I WILL CONVENE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE AT 2:17 ON FEBRUARY 4,, 2021.

MEETING IS CONTINUING TO BE HANDLED VIRTUALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC. ALL RIGHT, GUYS, LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE PULLED ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

AND, BY THE WAY, THE CALLER'S CASE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS A CONSENT CASE, SO THAT CASE HAS NOW BEEN APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT. LET'S GO TO ITEM NUMBER 8, THE

[8. Approve a resolution adopting the Equitable Chamber Funding Report and its findings supporting the base equitable funding model and methodology for contracting and funding the local chambers of commerce. Strategic Outcome(s): Economic Opportunity and Affordability and Cultural and Learning Opportunities.]

COUNCIL FUNDING. ALTER?

>> ALTER: I APPROVE 8 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS I POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AND WERE DISTRIBUTED OUT.

THE FIRST PART OF THE AMENDMENT AMENDS THE FUNDING MODEL TO HAVE A LANGUAGE FACTOR FOR CHAMBERS PROVIDING REGULAR TRANSLATION

[03:10:04]

SERVICES FOR THE MEMBERSHIP. AND THE OTHER TWO PARTS AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE -- TO BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED STATEMENTS. THE FIRST IS THE CITY MANAGER IS DIRECTED TO UPDATE THE DATA UNDERLYING THE FUNDING MODEL TO COINCIDE WITH THE EXECUTION OF NEW CONTRACTS.

THIS MEANS THAT THE FIRST MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS NEGOTIATED SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEASE OF THE MOST RECENT SEASONUS INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE THAT UPDATED CENSUS DATA.

SECONDLY, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED WHEN A NEW CHAMBER IS ADDED THE TO THE FUNDING MODEL TO UPDATE THE ALLOCATIONS FOR THE EQUITY DIAL TO ENSURE THEY DO NOT FACE A REDUCTION IN FUNDING.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THOSE ARE THE AMENDMENTS OF COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER. IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER POOL SECONDS. DISCUSSION, COUNCIL MEMBER

ALTER. >> ALTER: THANK YOU.

SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO MOVE FORWARD THIS MODEL FOR A WHILE, AND FINALLY CAME TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPROACH THAT WAS BEING USED. AND I THINK THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF ADDING THE LANGUAGE AS A FACTOR SEEMS TO ME TO BE, UM, THE BEST WAY FORWARD AT THIS POINT TO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE LANGUAGE NEEDS AMONG OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT THE CHAMBERS CAN HELP TO MEET THAT. THIS IS BOTH SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A FUNCTION OF WHO THE PEOPLE ARE, BUT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE CHAMBERS CAN BE DELIVERING.

AND THEN THE OTHER TWO PARTS REALLY CLEAN UP THINGS TO BE CLEAR TO PROVIDE CLEAR DIRECTION TO STAFF.

>> MAYOR ADLER: SO WITH THE FIRST ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THE FUNDING MODEL, DOES THAT CHANGE THE ALLOCATION THAT WE'RE

APPROVING HERE TODAY? >> ALTER: UM, IT DOES, YES.

>> MAYOR ADLER: AND -- AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT -- WHAT THAT IS. I SAW THE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION. >> ALTER: RIGHT.

SO THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY PUT FORWARD SHOWS THAT FOUR OF THE CHAMBERS WOULD SATISFY THIS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT.

CERTAINLY, ALL FOUR OF THE CHAMBERS, COMMUNITIES THAT THEY SERVE, HAVE LANGUAGE NEEDS. THE WAY THAT WE HAVE FRAMED THIS IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDING REGULAR TRANSLATION SERVICES THAT WILL LOOK DIFFERENTLY ACROSS THE DIFFERENT CHAMBERS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANGUAGE NEEDS. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE REGULARLY DOING, NOT JUST THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS A NEED FOR IT. AND SO THE EXAMPLE THAT THEY GAVE WOULD BE IF ALL FOUR OF THEM SATISFIED THAT AND ALL FOUR OF THEM ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING THAT.

BUT THIS -- THIS SORT OF SETS OUT THE EXPECTATION THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A MATTER OF EQUITY THAT WE SHOULD BE MEETING THE LANGUAGE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES.

AND ALL FOUR OF THEM ARE CAPABLE OF MEETING THAT IF THEY PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. IF, YOU KNOW, IF ANY ONE OF THEM DOESN'T PROVIDE THE SERVICES, THEN THEY WOULD NOT RECEIVE THAT FUNDING BOOST. IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT CANNOT BE REACHED WITHOUT

ADDRESSING THE LANGUAGE ASSETS. >> MAYOR ADLER: DOES THE STAFF THAT PREPARED THIS HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THIS CHANGE TO THE

MODEL? >> MAYOR, THIS IS THE ASSISTANT CITY MEMBER ROBBIE GONZALEZ. YES, THEY LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE FACTOR AND MAKE NOTATION IN REGARD TO HOW THAT MODEL WOULD BE ENACTED WITH THE LANGUAGE FACTOR.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY. >> MAYOR -- I'M NOT SURE -- MAYOR? I'M SORRY, IT'S COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. I WASN'T SURE WHAT THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GONZALEZ ACTUALLY SAID, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND

STARTING OVER. >> SURE.

SURE. WITH REGARDS TO THAT LANGUAGE FACTOR, STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE CONSULTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL. AND SO THAT INFORMATION WAS SENT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND YOU SHOULD HAVE IT IN YOUR INBOXES.

AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO NOTATE, OF COURSE, THAT THAT CURRENT MODEL CURRENTLY LOOKS AT DECREASING TWO OF OUR CULTURAL CHAMBERS, THE HISPANIC CHAMBER AND THE BLACK CHAMBER, FROM WHAT THE CURRENT LEVEL IS. SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE

THAT COUNCIL IS AWARE OF THAT. >> MAYOR ADLER: YES, COUNCIL

[03:15:01]

MEMBER FUENTES. >> FUENTES: I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OR THE BLACK CHAMBER.

AND ESPECIALLY ADDING IN A LANGUAGE FACTOR, WE ARE BASICALLY INCENTIVIZING THERE -- I MEAN, HAVING TRANSLATION SERVICES IS CERTAINLY PART OF WHAT OUR CHAMBERS DO.

I THINK THAT MAYOR PRO TEM HARPER MADISON SPOKE TO THE LANGUAGE NEEDS WITH OUR BLACK CHAMBER.

SO IF WE'RE ADDING LANGUAGE SERVICES AS A FACTOR, I'M CONFUSING HOW THAT IS DECREASING FUNDING THERE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER, WE HAVE THE AND OUR CONSULTANT ON THE LINE THAT COULD GO INTO THE DETAILS. AT A HIGH LEVEL BY THE FUNDING MODEL THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED TO YOU IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FACTORS AND AN OVERALL POOL.

IF WE ADD AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT ALL FOUR CHAMBERS COULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR THAT FACTOR, THAT DECREASES THE OTHER LEVELS, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A DECREASE TO THE FIRM IT'S -- TWO CHAMBERS, APOLOGIES.

JEREMY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

>> ESSENTIALLY AS YOU ADD MORE FACTORS INTO THE MODEL, THE WEIGHT AND THE BUDGET ASSIGNMENT OF EACH FACTOR WOULD DECREASE AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CHANGE IN EVERY SINGLE FACTOR WOULD

ADJUST THE MODEL ACCORDINGLY. >> I WILL ADD THAT WE SUNDAY A PIECE OF BACK-UP AS THEY HAVE MENTIONED HOW THE DETAILS -- YOU CAN SEE ON THERE THE CHART OF HOW THAT FUNDING WOULD BE

IMPACTED. >> MAYOR ADLER: SO MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS I LIKE THE IDEA OF INCLUDING A LANGUAGE ELEMENT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN EXTRA DUTY THAT FALLS TO THAT CHAMBER THAT I KNOW THAT THEY DO IN TERMS OF TRANSLATION SERVICES AND THE LIKE THAT RELATES TO I THINK THE EQUITY ISSUE.

BUT THE WAY THAT IT PLAYS OUT HERE WHERE EVERYBODY GETS AN EQUAL AMOUNT JUST PULLS EVERYBODY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE GOAL WAS.

AND I WONDER, COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, IF IT'S -- IF IT'S NOT TRYING TO DO IT IN THIS ACTION, BUT ASKING STAFF BY WAY OF DIRECTION, LIKE, IN YOUR OTHER TWO, TO REALLY LOOK AT ANY DISPROPORTIONATE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED OF THAT CHAMBER. AND TO AGREE THAT THEY ARE, TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS REFLECTED IN THE MODEL.

THAT IS MY THOUGHT. FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL

MEMBER ALTER. >> ALTER: SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A REDUCTION IN THEIR FUNDING RELATIVE TO WHERE WE WERE STARTED.

WE HAD FUNDING THAT HAPPENED IN DECEMBER BECAUSE THE MODEL WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY US AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND AUTHORIZED THEM AT THE FUNDING LEVEL IN THE BASE MODEL. THE BASE MODEL THOUGH IS REDUCING FUNDING FOR THE ASIAN CHAMBER AND FOR THE GAY AND LESBIAN CHAMBER, OVER WHAT THEY WERE HAVING IN THE PRIOR YEAR.

SO TO STOP -- NOT STOP THE -- THE MOVING FORWARD OF THE CONTRACTS THIS YEAR, THEY WENT AHEAD AND KEPT EVERYONE AT THOSE LEVELS. THIS DOES THOUGH REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY THE ASIAN AND THE GAY AND LESBIAN CHAMBERS' FUNDING RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY WERE HAVING BEFORE.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE STATEMENT EARLIER BY STAFF WAS ACCURATE IN MY VIEW OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND HOW WE SHOULD BE INTERPRETING THE MODEL. THE LANGUAGE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE ASIAN CHAMBER THAT HAS TO TRANSLATE INTO 20 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. AND THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN THIS MODEL, NOR IN THE CONTRACT, IN MY VIEW FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN HAVING REVIEWED THE CONTRACTS, THAT ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE IN ANY WAY. THE WAY THAT THE MODEL WAS PUT TOGETHER, IT WAS PUT TOGETHER FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE TO GIVE EACH OF THE FACTORS EQUAL WEIGHT. AND THAT WAS A CHOICE THAT STAFF MADE. SO IF YOU ADD ANY OTHER FACTOR IN IT, EVERYTHING GETS EQUAL WEIGHT, AND IT COMES OUT IN THIS DIRECTION. THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE CHANGING ARE NOT HUGE AMOUNTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BLACK AND THE HISPANIC CHAMBER.

THEY'RE ON THE ORDER OF 10,000 OR LESS.

AND THE SAME THING IS ON THE INCREASED SIZE.

BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS TO INTRODUCE SOME PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE SEARCHING FOR IN PART TWO, THAT ADDRESSES THE EQUITY ISSUES THAT COME WITH LANGUAGE.

FOR A POPULATION LIKE THE ASIAN POPULATION, WHEN YOU HAVE 20 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, IF WE'RE TAKING A MODEL OF EQUITY THAT

[03:20:02]

HAS, YOU KNOW, THE BOXES THAT YOU'RE STEPPING ON FOR THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT, THAT BOX NEEDS TO BE HIGHER IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REACH THE FULL COMMUNITY. AND THERE WAS NO WAY IN, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NOT A MECHANISM AS I SAW IN THE CONTRACTS AND THE APPROACH THAT WAS USED WAS TO -- TO BOX IT IN INTO ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION. BUT THEN, IN FACT, THE DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION THAT THEY WERE USING DIDN'T ACTUALLY INCLUDE LANGUAGE IN THE REFERENCE FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE. SO IN MY MIND THIS IS A NEED THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CHAMBERS DISPROPORTIONATELY NEED TO REACH.

AND IF YOU DON'T PUT IT IN THE FUNDING MODEL, THERE'S NO EXTRA

FUNDING FOR DOING THAT WORK. >> MAYOR ADLER: ROBBIE, DID YOU

RAISE YOUR HAND? >> YES, MAYOR.

JUST TO ADD SOME MORE CONTEXT TO THIS STATEMENT THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. ABOUT 11:30, THE COUNCIL RECEIVED THE ADDITIONAL BACKUP WITH THE WORD DOCUMENT WITH THE TWO TABLES. AND SO THE LOWER TABLE IS THE BASE MODEL. AND COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER IS CORRECT, COUNCIL HASN'T ADOPTED THE REPORT.

HOWEVER, WE DID SET THE REPORT IN MOTION BACK IN 2019, WITH THESE FIGURES IN MIND. AND IN DECEMBER, COUNCIL COULD -- THE HISPANIC CHAMBER AT THOSE LEVELS, AT THE 230,000 AND THE 252,000 RESPECTIVELY, AND THEY KEPT THE ASIAN AND THE LGBT CHAMBERS CONSTANT, IF YOU WILL. AND SO MY STATEMENT IS THAT IF THE MODEL MOVES FORWARD UNDER THIS PREMISE OF THE LANGUAGE FACTOR, THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC CHAMBER CONTRACTS WOULD BE DECREASED FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY APPROVED.

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

YOU'RE MUTED. >> KITCHEN: SORRY.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER IS BRINGING FORWARD. YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANT THING THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING HERE ARE WHAT ARE THE RIGHT FACTORS TO INCLUDE IN THIS FUNDING MODEL.

AND I THINK THAT LANGUAGE, AS COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER HAS ARTICULATED, IS IMPORTANT FOR THESE CHAMBERS.

AND IT'S A ROLE THAT THESE CHAMBERS NEED TO FULFILL.

SO THE IMPACT ON THE FUNDING IS ONLY THAT IMPACT BECAUSE WE'RE OPERATING WITH THE SAME PIE. YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMPACT IN THE FUTURE. SO IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD SAY IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WANT ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR THESE CHAMBERS. AND YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AT THE MODEL ITSELF IN THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF THE WAITING.

BUT I THINK THAT TO SAY -- TO OPERATE IN A ZERO-SUM ENVIRONMENT AND TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FACTORS FROM AN EQUITY STANDPOINT AND FROM A STANDPOINT OF WHAT THESE CHAMBERS ARE DOING FOR OUR COMMUNITY, UM, IS -- IS NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH.

I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT INTRODUCING LANGUAGE INTO THE -- INTO THE MODEL IS REALLY AN APPROPRIATE AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.

AND SO -- SO I JUST WANT TO -- I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.

>> MAYOR ADLER: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ALTER AMENDMENTS? YES, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES.

>> FUENTES: THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF AND, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, I AGREE THAT LANGUAGE IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND WE SHOULD DEFINITELY INCLUDE IT. BUT ALSO I THINK THAT FOR ME IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS EQUITY FUNDING FROM A LENS OF ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES, KNOWING OUR BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES ARE DISADVANTAGED THE MOST, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE'RE ADDING IN THIS FACTOR -- A FACTOR THAT I AGREE THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED -- BUT IT RESULTS IN A DECREASE OF FUNDING -- YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY TO ADD THIS FACTOR THAT DOESN'T DECREASE THE FUNDING IN THIS -- IN THE MODEL AS PROPOSED? SO I WANT TO ASK STAFF IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION THERE OR ANY THOUGHTS ON -- ON THE POTENTIAL

CHANGES. >> I THINK THAT WE'D HAVE TO WORK WITH OUR CONSULTANT TO COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION.

AND I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH IT OVERALL AS BEING A FACTOR.

WE KNOW THAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT THE COUNCIL WITH THE INFORMATION IF THE DOLLARS ARE HELD CONSTANT, IN RECOGNIZING AS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN JUST MENTIONED IS THAT IN THE FUTURE THOSE DOLLARS COULD INCREASE. BUT CURRENTLY THEY'RE HELD CONSTANT. SO IF THEY'RE HELD CONSTANT,

[03:25:02]

THAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT YOU WITH THE IMPACT.

SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PLANNING ON THE FACTOR ITSELF, BUT JUST THE CONSEQUENCE OF ADDING THE FACTOR.

NOW WE COULD, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY IF THERE IS NO IMPACT, BUT CURRENTLY THIS IS

OUR ASSESSMENT. >> MAYOR ADLER: PART OF IT TO ME IS HOW IT G GETS APPLIED. SO MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT THE ASIAN CHAMBER DOES A LOT MORE WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE THAN THE LGBTQ OR THE BLACK CHAMBER. AND I'M NOT REAL SURE.

BUT UNDER THIS SCENARIO, THE ASIAN CHAMBER GETS $5,000 MORE FOR THE INCLUSION OF THIS ELEMENT.

YOU COULD STILL GIVE THE ASIAN CHAMBER THE SAME $5,000 INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE ISSUE, AND THEN THE OTHER NUMBERS DON'T CHANGE BY MORE THAN 1600. WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE A MORE REASONABLE END RESULT. SO MY ISSUE ISN'T THE INCLUSION OF THE FACTOR, IT'S, I GUESS, THAT IT'S HOW IT'S BEING INCLUDED. WHICH I DIDN'T SEE UNTIL JUST NOW. I MEAN, JUST BEFORE THE -- THE VOTE. THAT'S MY ISSUE.

NOW I GUESS THAT IT'S JUST HOW IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER CASAR. >> CASAR: I HEAR SOME BROAD AGREEMENT AMONGST THE GROUP FOR US TO INCLUDE A FACTOR THAT TAKES EFFECT, AND THEN I THINK THAT THERE'S HE HEARTBURN IN THS PARTICULAR VOTE IT MIGHT MOVE A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD TAKE THIS VOTE AND FACTORS IT IN IN MORE OF A GOING FORWARD BASIS WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE SMALL BUT REAL NUMBER IMPACT RIGHT NOW? I JUST SORT OF HATE THAT WE'RE -- THAT THERE SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SO MUCH AGREEMENT BUT WE'RE STUCK ON SOMETHING WITH $750,000 BUDGET MOVES LIKE $5,000 ONE WAY OR $6,000 ANOTHER WAY.

AND IT'S PART OF POLITICS THAT I THINK THAT WE ARE TRYING TO BREAK OUT OF AND ESCAPE OF HERE IN THE CITY -- IN THIS LITTLE LIMITED SUM GAME, EXACTLY AMONGST THE GROUPS ALL T TRYINGO GET BETTER OFF AND WHO GETS $4,000 OR $7,000 THIS OR THAT WAY, AND WE JUST HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET PAST THAT.

I THINK THAT IS THE WAY TO HOLD IT UP.

IS THERE A WAY TO TAKE THIS VOTE THAT INCORPORATES LANGUAGE ON A GO FORWARD BASIS BUT DOESN'T CHANGE THE NUMBERS BEFORE US?

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER.

>> ALTER: SO THIS IS PRECISELY A VOTE ON THE GO FORWARD BASIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE FUNDING MODEL IF YOU WEIGH THESE FACTORS THE WAY THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN THIS MODEL, THAT WE WOULD BE USING MOVING FORWARD. AND WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS THAT AS PART OF HOW WE DO THAT MOVING FORWARD, WE SHOULD HAVE LANGUAGE AS PART OF THAT. AND WE COULD NOT GET TO AN AGREEMENT WHERE WE FOUND A WAY. THERE WAS NOT A WAY IN THE CONTRACT TO DO IT, WHERE YOU GOT ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR IT.

THERE WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN GET MONEY THAT IS RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR THE LANGUAGE AS I SAW IT FROM WHAT I HAVE PLAYED AROUND WITH THIS MODEL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IS VIA ADDING A FACTOR OR CHANGING THE WEIGHTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CHANGE THE WEIGHTS FOR ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION AND EVERYBODY ELSE GETS MORE MONEY UNDER ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION. BUT THERE WAS NO -- THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION IN THERE OTHERWISE FOR THAT.

AND THE WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I -- I HAVE NO WAY OF EVALUATING WHETHER ALL OF THE CHAMBERS ARE DOING THE TRANSLATION.

I KNOW THAT TWO ARE CERTAINLY, AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER ONES AND NEEDS FOR OTHER ONES TO DO IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS MOVING FORWARD AND SO THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WOULD GOVERN THE MODEL MOVING FORWARD.

ONE COULD ADD MORE MONEY TO THIS OVER TIME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE VOTE IS TODAY AND THE VOTE BACK IN I THINK IN DECEMBER WHEN WE DID THAT, THAT WAS THE STOPGAP SO THAT THOSE CONTRACTS COULD BE RENEWED AND MOVED FORWARD AND RATHER THAN GIVE CERTAIN GROUPS LESS THAN WHAT WAS IN THE BASE MODEL, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO GIVE THEM WHAT WAS IN THE BASE MODEL AND TO KEEP OTHER ONES AT THE SAME LEVEL MOVING FORWARD. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LGBTQ AND THE ASIAN MODEL WOULD GO DOWN MOVING FORWARD, IN EITHER MY SCENARIO OR THE OTHER ONE, GIVEN THE WAY THAT THE

[03:30:02]

MODEL WAS CONSTRUCTED. >> MAYOR ADLER: FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.

COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER REALLY LAID OUT HER AMENDMENT LIST.

AND I THINK THAT FOR ME SHE'S ASSUAGED ANY CONCERNS THAT I HAD WITH THAT. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND AND I RESPECT THE QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES IS BRINGING. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, COUNCIL MEMBER CASAR'S QUESTION ABOUT CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT CHANGING THE NUMBER. I'M TAKING ALL OF THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND IT HAS ME WONDERING -- DID WE MAKE COMECOMMUNICATION WITH ALL AFFED CHAMBERS BEFORE TODAY? THEY ALL KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHAMBERS.

I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN PARTICULAR WITH THE SPECIFIC MOTION REALLY, BECAUSE IT WAS PUT FORWARD LAST NIGHT AND WE HAVE BEEN RESPONDING TO IT THIS MORNING.

VILEA,SYLVIA, I DON'T KNOW IF YW DIFFERENTLY.

>> NO, THEY WERE AWARE OF THE DECEMBER MEMO BUT NOT THE UPDATE

FROM LAST NIGHT. >> HARPER-MADISON: SO I WONDER IF IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT FOR US TO SPEAK WITH THEM BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? OR MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR WE DON'T. THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION.

>> I DON'T FORESEE IMMEDIATE IMPLICATIONS.

I THINK THAT IF COUNCIL DECIDED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM, WE WOULD NOT WANT TO GO TOO FAR INTO A POSTPONEMENT, BUT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME TIME TO REACH OUT TO THE CHAMBERS AND TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

>> HARPER-MADISON: COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, ARE YOU

COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? >> ALTER: SURE, I MEAN, I WAS WORKING -- I MEAN, STAFF HAD WANTED TO GET THIS PASSED THIS WEEK AND SO I WAS WORKING TO TRY TO DO THAT.

AND I DIDN'T HAVE MATERIAL BACK THAT I COULD POST UNTIL YESTERDAY. SO I'M PERFECTLY FINE IF WE WANT TO TAKE MORE TIME TO BRING OTHER FOLKS INTO THE CONVERSATION.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT THE WAY THAT THE MODEL IS CONSTRUCTED THAT IT IS TAKING THE EQUITY BASIS, YOU KNOW, AND TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT NEEDS ACROSS THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES VIA THE FACTORS THAT ARE IN THE BASE MODEL.

AND SO IF YOU WANT TO ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE, YOU HAVE REALLY TWO OPTIONS. YOU CAN ADD A FACTOR OF LANGUAGE. OR YOU CAN INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY THAT FALLS UNDER ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION AT THE BASE. BUT IF YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE MODEL YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. AND THAT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUCH AS THEY ARE AT THIS MOMENT, THEY ARE COMING IN THE CONTRACT PIECE.

AND I SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE IT TOOK ME A REALLY LONG TIME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS MODEL WORKED AND PERHAPS I CAN SAVE SOME OTHER FOLKS SOME TIME ON ADDRESSING IT.

AND THE CONTRACT PIECE IS WHERE WE REALLY ADDRESS THE ORIGINAL CONCERNS THAT WE HAD, WHICH WE WERE HAVING CHAMBERS BEING PAID DIFFERENTLY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.

AND SO NOW THEY'RE ALL BEING PAID THE SAME HOURLY WORK -- HOURLY WAGE FOR THE WORK. AND THAT FOR SOME CHAMBERS THAT MAY INVOLVE THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT MORE HOURS IN, BECAUSE THE CAPACITIES MAY VARY. BUT THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID DIFFERENTLY FOR, YOU KNOW, THE HOURS THAT THEY ARE -- THAT THEY ARE WORKING. AND SO WE -- WE ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE UNDERLYING CONCERNS, BUT WHERE THE EQUITY MODEL COMES OUT IS A DIFFERENT DETERMINATION OF HOW MUCH FUNDING SHOULD BE GOING TO EACH CHAMBER THAN PRIOR TO THE DECEMBER VOTE.

WITH THE DECEMBER VOTE BEING, YOU KNOW, BASED OFF OF -- OFF OF THIS MODEL. AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE ALL OF THE MODEL IS COMING FROM AND I HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF WHERE IT IS. BUT GIVEN THE CHOICES THAT WERE MADE WITH THAT, THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS ON THINGS AND I WELCOME OTHER FOLKS HELPING ME TO THINK THROUGH, UM, THE SOLUTIONS. THIS IS KIND OF WHERE -- WHERE I LANDED TO ADDRESS STUFF AND, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER IS ISSUES THAT YOU MAY FID AS YOU LOOK MORE DEEPLY INTO IT. AND I WELCOME YOUR INPUT IN IT.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY HELPFUL TO ME.

AND I GUESS THAT I JUST WASN'T PAYING CLOSE ENOUGH ATTENTION TO SEE THAT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT THAT EACH CHAMBER IS BEING PAID FOR THE TIME THAT THEY PUT IN IS THE SAME.

IT'S ONLY A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH WE'RE ASKING OF EACH CHAMBER IN ESSENCE, WHICH IS DICTATED BY THEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

[03:35:01]

AND THEN THE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND RELATE THEM TO THAT TOTAL AMOUNT. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE.

AND I HADN'T UNDERSTOOD IT THAT WAY.

>> ALTER: ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND IT THAT WAY, THE WHOLE PROCESS MAKES MORE SENSE AND IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON AS THE FUNDING MODEL MOVING FORWARD AND AN APPROACH THAT WE NEED TO ADD ANOTHER CHAMBER, AND HOW YOU WOULD GO ABOUT EVALUATING, ADDING THE OTHER CHAMBER, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO ADD. AND SO ONE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS IS TO SAY THAT BEFORE YOU ADD ANOTHER CHAMBER, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE DIAL, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE POT FOR THE EQUITY CHAMBER SO IT DOESN'T JUST CAN

CANIBALIZE THE ISSUES. >> MAYOR ADLER: MAYOR PRO TEM RAISED THE ISSUE OF PROPONENTMENTS AND THE STAFF SAID THAT YOU CERTAINLY CAN IF YOU WANT THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS THE MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON IT. YES.

>> FUENTES: THIS IS A MOTION TO TABLE SO WE POSTPONE IT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION?

>> MAYOR ADLER: YES. >> FUENTES: I WOULD LIKE

TO POSTPONE IT. >> MAYOR ADLER: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? COUNCILMEMBER KELLY SECONDS THAT. ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING? THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED? I DON'T SEE ANYONE OPPOSED.

THEN THE MOTION TO POSTPONE PASSES.

IT WILL COME BACK TO US NEXT WEEK.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ITEM. THANKS, GUYS.

[Items 35 & 36 (Part 1 of 2)]

LET'S PICK UP ITEM NUMBER 35.

COUNCILMEMBER KELLY YOU PULLED THAT ONE.

>> KELLY: I DID. I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER.

IS STAFF HERE? >> COUNCILMEMBER, THEY WILL BE. JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO GET

THEM MOVED OVER. >> KELLY: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ADLER: WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO

[65. Approve a resolution designating a chair for the Municipal Civil Service Commission. Sponsors: Audit and Finance Committee]

COME OVER, WE ALSO HAVE ITEM 65, WHICH WAS THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHAIR.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER ALTER?

>> ALTER: I WOULD MOVE PASSAGE AND THERESA PEREZ LIVELY AS THE CHAIR OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY DOES APPOINT HER AS CHAIR. SHE'S A CURRENT MEMBER.

WE WOULD JUST BE MAKING HER CHAIR.

>> MAYOR ADLER: SOUNDS GO. MAYOR PRO TEM SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT?

>> CASAR: I JUST WANTED TO THANK MS. WISELY BECAUSE SHE SERVED ON THIS SO LONG AND APPRECIATE HER CHAIRING SUCH AN IMPORTANT COMMISSION. THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE

FOR BRINGING THIS UP. >> MAYOR ADLER: THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED?

ITEM PASSES. >> ALTER: MAYOR, WE ARE CURRENTLY SEEKING TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM PIO ABOUT THOSE OPENINGS AND IF YOU CAN HELP US CIRCULATE THAT SO WE CAN HAVE A GOOD GROUP TO CHOOSE FROM FOR OUR NEXT APPOINTMENTS, WE WOULD

APPRECIATE IT. >> MAYOR ADLER: SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU.

MANAGER, WOULD YOU INTERRUPT ME WHEN STAFF IS HERE FOR 35

[54. Conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance granting additional floor-to-area entitlements to the project at 82 and 84 North IH-35 Service Road Southbound in accordance with the Downtown Density Bonus Program under City Code Section 25-2-586 (B)(6). District(s): District 9]

AND 36. ITEM 54, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE WE GET A MOTION?

COUNCILMEMBER TOVO? >> TOVO: I DO, MAYOR I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW COMMENTS.

>> MAYOR ADLER: IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 54 ON FIRST READING ONLY? IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER KELLY SECONDS. COUNCILMEMBER TOVO.

>> TOVO: THANK YOU. SO I -- I HAVE SOME -- ONE I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THIS BE SCHEDULED STAFF FOR -- OR CITY MANAGER, RATHER, FOR A WORK SESSION CONVERSATION AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY. THERE ARE A COUPLE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS -- BY THIS CASE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT AS A FULL COUNCIL AND WE'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT WHAT THOSE ARE, BUT I DID PROMISE I COULD KEEP THIS IN

[03:40:01]

LIGHT OF THE DAY AND THE MANY PRESSING THINGS WE HAVE ON THIS SEEMED LIKE THE BEST SOLUTION.

WE HEARD SOME CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS THIS MORNING.

I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS AND BELIEVE THAT WE DO NEED TO PLAN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IN RAINEY TO SUPPORT INCREASES IN ENTITLEMENTS. BUT I REALLY WANT TO JUST RAISE THE ISSUE THAT THE REQUEST WOULD ASK -- THE REQUEST IS ASKING US TO RAISE THE F.A.R., TO ALLOW FOR F.A.R. THAT EXCEEDS THE CAP.

AND SO WE HAVE AN 8.1 SETTING.

YOU CAN GO TO 15.1, 15 TO 1 WITH DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND THAT'S THE CAP. THIS PROJECT WOULD EXCEED THE CAP. WE'VE ONLY EVER HAD THAT HAPPEN ONCE BEFORE. I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITY AND MANDATE REALLY FOR US TO TALK AMONG OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EXCEED A CAP.

RIGHT NOW THIS PROJECT WOULD COME IN AND USE THE SAME CALCULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE OTHER PIECE.

AND IN MY MIND THE IMPACT IS LARGER.

IF YOU ARE GOODING TO EXCEED A CAP, THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CODE SPEAKS TO GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND.

AND SO WE REALLY AS A COUNCIL I THINK NEED TO SET SOME PARAMETERS FOR WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

THE PROJECT IS GOING TO INCLUDE A COUPLE ADDITIONAL ONSITE OR SOME I THINK FIVE ADDITIONAL ONSITE WHERE COULD HAVE DONE IN LIEU, BUT WITH REGARDS TO THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST I THINK THERE'S A LARGER POLICY MATTER AT THE HEART OF THIS WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HOW WE TRULY -- HOW WE REALLY SET A THRESHOLD FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS ON THESE CASES. SO I CAN ELABORATE MORE IF

ANYONE WANTS. >> MAYOR ADLER: I THINK

YOU ARE RIGHT. >> TOVO: I AM SENDING THIS FORWARD AND I'VE GOT A THE LOOK OF CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I'M SENDING IT FORWARD WITH

APPROVAL TODAY. >> MAYOR ADLER: MOTION IS TO APPROVE THIS ON FIRST READING.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED. REQUEST THE MANAGER TO PUT THIS ON WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS POLICY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING ON FIRST READING ONLY RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED? I'M SEEING THAT AS BEING UNANIMOUS. AND NUMBER 54 PASSES.

FIRST READING ONLY. THE FOLKS HERE YET ON 35 AND

[Items 35 & 36 (Part 2 of 2)]

36? >> WE DO.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WITH THE TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING FOR THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, I THOUGHT I WOULD PULL THESE ITEMS SO WE CAN HIGHLIGHT THEM, BUT I ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM.

AND SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS HOW ARE ITEM 35 AND 36 DIFFERENT? IN THE SENSE THAT ARE WE FEEDING THE SAME POPULATION OF INDIVIDUALS? ARE THE MEALS GOING TO THE SAME PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY? HOW ARE THEY BEING DELIVERED AND WHEN [INAUDIBLE] GOING?

>> STEPHANIE HAYDEN-HOWARD, DIRECTOR OF --

>> MAYOR, CAN YOU -- THE DIRECTOR --

>> MAYOR ADLER: WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

DIRECTOR HAYDEN, DIRECTOR HAYDEN? WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.

CAN YOU TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO? AND SPEAK? YOU ARE FROZEN NOW. NOW YOU ARE BACK.

WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE -- CAN YOU COME OFF YOUR VIDEO AND

JUST SPEAK TO US ON AUDIO? >> SHE MAY HAVE BEEN HEARING

HER. >> MAYOR ADLER: WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. PLEASE START AT THE BEGINNING, PLEASE. YES, PLEASE START AT THE

BEGINNING. >> OKAY, I'M SORRY.

OKAY. SO WITH ITEM NUMBER 35 IS THE GOOD WORK, THAT IS A PART OF OUR EATING APART TOGETHER PROGRAM. AND SO THAT PROVIDES 4,000 MEALS AND THERE ARE ABOUT 5,000 EACH AND IT'S GOING TO BE FOR 16 WEEKS. AND NUMBER 36 IS THE SHELF STABLE FOOD, WHICH THOSE ARE 200 -- I MEAN 2,000 BAGS PER WEEK THAT ARE FILLED WITH FOOD FOR FOUR TO FIVE DAYS.

[03:45:01]

OUR OUTREACH TEAMS ARE TAKING THOSE OUT TO THE PUBLIC SO THOSE VARIOUS TEAMS AND WE HAVE PARTNERED

WITH TO PROVIDE THOSE MEALS. >> OKAY, THAT'S GREAT.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I HAD QUESTIONS FROM CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE FOOD THAT WE GIVE OUT.

IS IT EVER WASTED? ARE THERE WAYS TO DETERMINE IT'S HEALTHY FOOD? AND THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEING

CONSUMED? >> THE FOOD IS -- THE FOOD IS HEALTHY. IT IS SHELF-STABLE FOOD.

BECAUSE WE -- AND IT DOES INCLUDE WATER AS WELL AS HYGIENE ITEMS. IT ALSO FOR SOME HOMELESS PEOPLE THEY HAVE ANIMALS, SO IT ALSO INCLUDES PET FOOD AS

WELL. >> OKAY, THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

ON THESE ITEMS. >> MAYOR ADLER: IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 35 AND 36? COUNCILMEMBER KELLY MAKES THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN. ANY OBJECTION TO 35 AND 36? ARGUE -- HEARING NONE THEY ARE APPROVED.

ITEM 49. >> MAYOR, ON THE LAST TWO ITEMS, COUNCILMEMBER CASAR'S VIDEO WAS OFF.

COULD HE CONFIRM FOR US? >> CASAR: I'M HERE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: YOU VOTED FOR 35 AND 36?

>> CASAR: CORRECT. THANK YOU.

[49. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to develop and implement the Housing-Focused Homeless Encampment Assistance Link (HEAL) initiative to connect individuals experiencing homelessness to housing and services in certain identified areas; to develop ordinances or other documents necessary to fund the initiative; and to propose amendments to City Code Section 9-4-11 to clarify that these four locations will not be available for camping after completion of the HEAL initiative. Sponsors: Council Member Ann Kitchen, Council Member Leslie Pool, Council Member Sabino "Pio" Renteria, and Council Member Mackenzie Kelly]

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION ON ITEM 49?

>> KITCHEN: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MY MOTION AND MAKE A COMMENT OR TWO IN EXPLAINING THE MOTION.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THAT'S FINE.

COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN MOVES ITEM 49.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? COUNCILMEMBER RENTERIA SECONDS. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, DO

YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT? >> KITCHEN: OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT. THAT REPEATS SOME OF THE CONVERSATION WE HAD AT THE WORK SESSION, BUT I THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE. THERE'S BEEN -- THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS THIS MORNING THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING AND PERHAPS MISCOMMUNICATIONS ABOUT WHAT HEAL DOES AND DOESN'T DO. I WANT TO STATE AGAIN WHAT THE HEAL INITIATIVE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES FOR FOLKS.

SO THE PURPOSE, OF COURSE, IS -- IS PRETTY SIMPLE AND FOCUSED ON STARTING WITH FOUR AREAS, AND IT'S FOCUSED ON PROVIDING A PATH TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO HOUSING.

THIS IS ABOUT CONNECTING PEOPLE TO HOUSING AND THE SERVICES THAT ARE IMPORTANT WITH HOUSING.

AND TO CEASE CAMPING IN UNSPECIFIC AREAS.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONNECTING TO SERVICES AND HOUSING OPTIONS BASED ON THE EXPRESSED AND INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE LOCATIONS.

WE HEARD SOME CONCERNS EARLIER ABOUT CONSULTING WITH OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOES. IT BEGINS WITH OUR SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS, OUR HEALTH PROVIDERS WORKING WITH PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS AND BASED ON THEIR EXPRESS NEEDS AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS CONNECTING THEM TO HOUSING AND SERVICES. SO THE HOUSING SERVICES DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PERSON NEEDS.

SO IT COULD BE RAPID REHOUSING, IT COULD BE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSE, IT COULD BE HOUSING FOCUSED SHELTER. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THIS PERSON NEEDS. RAPID REHOUSING IS SHORT-TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND SERVICES.

THAT'S WHAT SOME PEOPLE NEED.

PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OFFERS MORE PERMANENT SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED MORE SUPPORT.

THE OTHER THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND REALLY HELP OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS IS CASE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES. SUCH AS MEDICAL, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERVICES.

TO HELP PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR HOUSING.

THAT'S WHAT THE HEAL INITIATIVE DOES.

IT CONNECTS PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR NEEDS, THEIR EXPRESSED AND INDIVIDUAL NEEDS FOR HOUSING AB SUPPORT.

THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE CONVERSATIONS EARLIER FROM FOLKS.

THIS ADDS TO EXISTING SERVICES.

IT DOES NOT DIVERT RESOURCES FROM EXISTING PROGRAMS. IT DOES NOT DIVERT RESOURCES FROM PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE

[03:50:01]

HOUSING OR RAPID REHOUSING. IT IS FOCUSED ON ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR SAFE AND STABLE HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN LOCATIONS THAT POSE RISK TO THEIR PUBLIC HEALTH, TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, RISK TO THEIR SAFETY. IT'S ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH HOMELESSNESS. IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE AND IT'S NOT. IT'S A KEY STRATEGY AS ONE PIECE OF A PUZZLE. THE CITY IS WORKING ON A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS THE MAYOR HAS BEEN MENTIONING ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THROUGH SUMMIT. THAT'S ALL NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

THIS IS IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS WHO ARE FACING RISKS TO THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY EVERY DAY.

SO ANOTHER THING THAT I WANT TO JUST SAY JUST TO RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE RAISED AND SOME OF THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND STATEMENTS THAT WERE JUST NOT ACCURATE THAT WERE MADE EARLIER IS THAT REALLY HEAL RECOGNIZES THAT SOME PLACES IN OUR CITY POSE PARTICULAR HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PEOPLE ARE LIVING UNSHELTERED IN UNSAFE LOCATIONS. THE RESOLUTION ASKS OUR CITY --O REMEMBER, THIS IS A MULTI-STEP PROCESS, AND THE RESOLUTION ASKS THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING BACK TO US STRATEGIES AND AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO DISALLOW CAMPING IN THESE FOUR UNSAFE LOCATIONS AFTER, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AFTER COMPLETING THE HEAL INITIATIVE. IT'S NOT ABOUT SWEEPS, IT'S NOT ABOUT MOVING PEOPLE TO OTHER PLACES, IT'S ABOUT CONNECTING THEM WITH HOUSES AND ONLY AFTER THAT RECOGNIZING THAT THESE PLACES ARE NOT SAFE FOR CAMPING AND IDENTIFYING AS BEING DISALLOWED FOR CAMPING. AND WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION FOR CLARITY THE POLICY STATEMENT THAT WHEN THE CITY MANAGER BRINGS THIS BACK THE HOW, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DISALLOW THESE FROM CAMPING, WHEN THE CITY MANAGER BRINGS US BACK STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, WE DO WANT ISSUING CITATION AND POLICING. SO AGAIN, I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE -- PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A MULTI "STEP PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE TIME.

SO THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY, IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ACT QUICKLY.

THIS RESOLUTION IS A COMMITMENT TO START THE PROCESS. IT'S A COMMITMENT TO START DEVELOPING THE HEAL INITIATIVE TO HOUSE OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS IN UNSAFE LOCATIONS.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE HEARING FROM PEOPLE THIS MORNING AND ALL THE FOLKS THAT WE'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO TALK TO, BECAUSE PEOPLE REALLY CARE.

PEOPLE CARE ABOUT OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS.

AND EVERYONE CARES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE ON THIS DAIS, THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY CARE AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS CONNECT PEOPLE TO HOUSING. SO I THINK THERE'S BROAD CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HELPING PEOPLE, WITH CONNECTING PEOPLE TO HOUSING AND WE JUST NEED TO GET TO IT. AND THE LONGER WE WAIT, THE LONGER PEOPLE WILL RELY ON LIVING SITUATIONS THAT POSE MAJOR HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS TO THEM.

FINALLY I JUST HAVE TO SAY THIS, I JUST -- I REALLY BELIEVE FUNDAMENTALLY THAT WE OWE OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS, WE OWE OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS PROTECTION FROM LIVING IN UNSAFE PLACES.

JUST AS WE DO FOR OUR HOUSED COMMUNITY.

I DO NOT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS KIND, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS HUMANE TO ALLOW PLACES THAT POSE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK TO REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR CAMPING.

SO NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE, FOR EXAMPLE, NEXT TO LANES OF TRAFFIC AT RISK OF -- AT RISK OF STUMBLING INTO TRAFFIC, AT RISK OF HAVING A CAR, YOU KNOW, JUMP THE CURB AS YOU SAID, MAYOR, AND PLOW INTO THEIR TENTS.

SO IT'S -- IT'S CRITICAL AND I THINK -- I THINK THAT OUR COMMUNITY CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS --S RIGHT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO CAMP IN PLACES THAT ARE UNSAFE.

SO MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR -- FORGIVING ME THE TIME TO

[03:55:01]

MAKE THAT CLEAR. WE SAW FROM OUR EARLIER TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND SOME STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE WERE NOT ACCURATE ABOUT WHAT IS IN THIS RESOLUTION. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MY CO-SPONSORS IF ANYONE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING, PLEASE DO.

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER KELLY.

>> KELLY: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT I'VE HEARD FROM DISTRICT 6 RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE ACROSS AUSTIN, FROM VISITORS TO BUSINESS OWNERS, RENTERS, OWNERS OF HOMES AND EVEN OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS THEMSELVES REGARDING THE HEAL INITIATIVE.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF AND OUR PARTNERS HAVE BEEN WORKING INCREDIBLY HARD OVER THE LAST YEAR TO ASSIST IN THESE ISSUES. THE HEAL EFFORT PRIORITIZES MAKING CLEARLY NEEDED BASIC SANITARY AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, MAKES LIVING CONDITIONS FOR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS BETTER AND EMPHASIZES OUR GOAL OF TREATING THEM RESPECTFULLY AS INDIVIDUALS.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES INDICATED IN THE HEAL INITIATIVE WILL HELP ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

REALLY THAT IS HEART. HOUSING ALONE WON'T SOLVE THE HOMELESS CRISIS. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND ALL OF THE CO-SPONSORS FOR INVITE ME TO WORK ON THIS INITIATIVE TO HELP OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS AND PROUD OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AND THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR LAYING THAT OUT. IT'S HELPFUL.

I THINK NONE OF US DOUBT HOW THIS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES -- I WAS GOING TO SAY OF OUR TIME BUT IT'S ALL TIME. DURING THESE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I'VE BEEN READING UP ABOUT THE PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, THE SYMPTOMS AND THE DISEASE AND FINDING THAT SINCE THE 1800S, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR VAGRANCY, HOMELESSNESS. YOU KNOW.

AND SO I REALLY AM GRATEFUL FOR COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN AND HER CO-SPONSORS. I BELIEVE IT IS FROM THE HEART, YOU KNOW, TO DIG DEEP FOR SOLUTIONS TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT COMPASSION AND HUMANITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD ESPECIALLY GIVEN SOME OF THE TERRITORY WE HEARD FROM FOLKS. I THINK -- TESTIMONY WE HEARD FROM FOLKS. WE WERE ABLE TO -- WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET SO FAR WITH JUST A LITTLE MORE TIME TO TALK THROUGH, TO TALK THROUGH WHAT PEOPLE'S CONCERNS ARE. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WAS SOME MISINFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, FOLKS SAID THINGS THAT WEREN'T ACCURATE, SO I WONDER IF GIVEN THAT WE WERE ABLE TO -- FROM LAST WEEK'S ITEM ON A SIMILAR TOPIC IF WE COULD DO THAT AGAIN, IN WHICH CASE I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM 49 UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 18TH MEETING.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE OTHER PEOPLE A CHANCE TO SPEAK. AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION. WE SHOULD START WITH THE MOTION RATHER THAN THE DEBATE.

>> HARPER-MADISON: I ASSUMED EVERYBODY WAS DONE

SPEAKING. >> MAYOR ADLER: THAT'S OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS

MOTION? >> KITCHEN: WAIT.

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, DO YOU

WANT TO MAKE AMENDMENTS? >> POOL: MAYOR, I HAVE MY

HAND UP. >> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS

BEFORE I DO? >>

>> KITCHEN: MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER POOL IS A

CO-SPONSOR. >> MAYOR ADLER: YOU JUST CAN'T DIED ONE SIDE GETS TO SPEAK THE FIRST FOUR TIMES.

THE PERSON WHO GETS TO SPEAK FIRST IS THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION. THAT PERSON GETS TO SPEAK FURS. COUNCILMEMBER CASAR.

>> CASAR: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MY AMENDMENTS, BUT I WILL ALSO ALLOW SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE I FORMALLY MAKE THEM. I DIRECT FOLKS TO LOOK AT THE MESSAGE BOARD FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS.

I BELIEVE THAT WE COULD GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HEARD WOULD BE UNANIMOUSLY IN SUPPORT IF IT WERE CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE THAT AS COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN HAS JUST SAID THAT THE GOAL IS CONNECT PEOPLE TO HOUSING AND ONLY DISALLOW FOLKS FROM CAMPING IN PLACES IF IT'S A DANGEROUS LOCATION OR IF IT'S OTHERWISE AGAINST THE LAW.

I THINK THAT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE RESOLUTION AND FRANKLY GIVEN THE LATEST ONE WHY THERE MIGHT NOT BE CLARITY ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT -- AND I WOULD

[04:00:01]

SUPPORT A MOTION TO POSTPONE THAT IF WE CAN'T SETTLE THAT TODAY. BUT IF WE CAN SETTLE THE QUESTION TODAY THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT EXPANDING CRIMINALIZATION, THAT THIS IS IN FACT REALLY JUST ABOUT HOUSING PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A DANGEROUS PLACE, IN A DATA DRIVEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY WE CAN SHOW THAT A DANGEROUS PLACE IS BREAKING THE LAW, I THINK THERE WOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THIS. IT'S CLEARLY A DIFFICULT CHALLENGE WE'VE ALL STRUGGLED WITH WHAT THE RIGHT WAY IS TO WORK ON THIS, WHAT THE RIGHT POLICIES ARE, HOW TO LEAD EFFECTIVELY HERE.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE GOAL HAS TO BE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS AND SOLVE HOMELESSNESS WITH HOUSING AND I THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR US TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY LEADING DOWN A PATH TOWARDS VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS. PEOPLE WHO AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG OR AREN'T BREAKING ANY RULES.

AND THAT I THINK IS THE CAUTION THAT WE'VE HEARD.

BECAUSE I'M PROUD OF AND BELIEVE IN THE STEPS THAT WE HAVE ALL TAKEN TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE THE PERSECUTION OF POVERTY AND SICKNESS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TODAY IF WE CAN GET TO LANGUAGE THAT I BELIEVE REFLECTS EXACTLY WHAT COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN SAID, THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS WITH HOUSING AND SERVICES AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT EXPANDING CRIMINALIZATION.

IF WE CAN'T GET TO THAT POINT TODAY, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT, AS MAYOR PRO TEM HARPER-MADISON SAID,

POSTPONING. >> MAYOR ADLER:

COUNCILMEMBER POOL. >> POOL: THANKS.

I'M -- I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS UP TODAY.

I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, WE ARE ASKING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE THIS INFORMATION AND COME BACK TO US ON MARCH 4TH WITH HIS FACT FINDING AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND I ANTICIPATE WE'LL HAVE A FULL DEBATE AT THAT TIME. THIS -- THIS INITIATIVE, THE HEAL INITIATIVE WAS NEVER INCLUDED ANY ELEMENTS OF RECRIMINALIZATION THAT WAS INTRODUCED BY FOLKS WHO DIDN'T I GUESS UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS WRITTEN.

AND -- AND I REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT THE CONCERNS RAISED BY SPEAKERS ARE ENTIRELY IN LINE WITH OUR CONCERNS. EXCEPT THAT WE WANT TO ACT.

WE HAVE BEEN VAMPING ON THE TOPIC FOR MORE THAN A YEAR ON ENSURING THAT WE HAVE SAFE AND CLEAN HOUSING FOR PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING OUT OF DOORS IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT SAFE AND ARE NOT CLEAN.

IT'S INHUMANE. AND WE FEEL LIKE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE HAD TO BE SLOWED DOWN BY THE COVID LAST YEAR WE NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND VERY ROBUSTLY IDENTIFY FOLKS WHO NEED OUR HELP. WE HAVE THE HELP TO GIVE.

WE HAVE THE HOMES FOR THEM. AND WE WANT TO MOVE THEM OUT OF SPACES THAT ARE NOT SAFE, NOT CLEAN, AND POSE A VERY REAL PERSONAL RISK TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THIS IS NOT THE END OF IT. THIS SHOULD IN FACT BE OUR ENTIRE -- THIS SHOULD BE OUR ENTIRE GOAL.

I THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOUSING ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HOUSED IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT IS OUR END GOAL. WE AGREED WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT IN WAYS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY ANY KIND OF ACTIONS AS CRIMINAL. WE ARE NOT DOING THAT.

WE ARE ENTIRELY ON BOARD WITH THAT.

THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE -- WELL, I GUESS COUNCILMEMBER KELLY WAS NOT ON THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.

BUT THE OTHER FOUR OF US THAT ARE ON THIS ITEM TOOK THAT VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, COUNCILMEMBER RENTERIA, COUNCILMEMBER TOVO AND I.

SO IT'S -- SO I JUST LAY THAT OUT THERE REALLY STRONGLY AND EMPHATICALLY, BUT WE HAVE GOT TO ACT, AND I THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN HAS SHOWN REAL LEADERSHIP IN PULLING THIS TOGETHER.

AND IT RATING AND REITERATING THE SPECIFIC INTENTIONS AND THE SPECIFIC GOALS.

SO I JUST WANT TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER ONE QUESTION, AND WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH DIANA GRAY, WITH OUR NEW HOMELESSNESS OUTREACH OFFICER, AND IT'S BEEN SUPER PRODUCTIVE AND I'M GLAD SHE'S ON BOARD WORKING WITH US, BUT CITY MANAGER CRONK, AND I AM PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT AND APOLOGIZE IN

[04:05:02]

ADVANCE. BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU IN YOUR READING AND DISCUSSION WITH YOUR SENIOR STAFF AND THOSE WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY WORKING ON HOMELESSNESS, ON BEHALF OF THE POLICY DIRECTIVES OF THIS COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU READ IN THE HEAL INITIATIVE THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT WE INTEND TO REINTRODUCE CRIMINALIZATION OF -- OF THESE FOLKS WHO DO NOT HAVE HOMES AND HAVE TO RESORT TO SLEEPING OUTDOORS.

>> OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN ONGOING DISCUSSION AS YOU DEBATE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM THAT.

BUT I KNOW THAT OUR HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY OFFICER IS CLOSER TO THIS ISSUE AND I DON'T THINK AS YOU MENTION THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY FROM THIS COUNCIL WOULD MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT AS WE KNOW, AS COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN HAS SAID, THIS IS A PHASED APPROACH TO THIS PROCESS.

>> POOL: AND WE'RE ALL TAKING THESE STEPS TOGETHER WITH LINKED ARMS TO SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT WE REALLY MEAN IT AND REALLY DO CARE. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S WHY I DON'T WANT TO POSTPONE, MAYOR PRO TEM.

IT'S BECAUSE I THINK ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED, ENOUGH WATER HAS GONE UNDER THAT BRIDGE AND IT'S TIME FOR US TO KICK THIS OVER TO STAFF TO GIVE US SOME SPECIFICS TO MOVE FORWARD AND THEN WE'LL GET THAT REPORT BACK AT THE LATEST MARCH 4, WHICH IS TWO MEETINGS FROM NOW.

AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE IT LINES UP, WHICH WE ARE INSISTING THAT IT DOES. BUT AT THAT POINT WE CAN CONFIRM THAT IT LINES UP WITH THE COMMENTS WE

RECEIVED EARLIER TODAY. >> MAYOR ADLER: COLLEAGUES, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN AND THE SPONSORS BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND I VERY MUCH WANT TO VOTE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TODAY.

I ALSO THINK THAT BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD THAT VEHEMENT AGREEMENT ON THE POINTS.

I THINK THAT EVERYONE'S INTENT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME OR REALLY SIMILAR. AND I THINK THAT GOING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS WILL GIVE US A CHANCE TO SHARPEN THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE THAT WE ARE IN FACT IN AGREEMENT.

THAT BEING THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. WHEN WE ACTED BACK IN THE SUMMER OF '19, WE PASSED ON THAT SAME DAY A RESOLUTION THAT TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE HAPPEN NEXT.

AND THE VERY FIRST RESOLVE CLAUSE IN THAT RESOLUTION IS TO ADD GREATER DEPTH TO THE -- AND DEFINITION TO WHERE PEOPLE SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T CAMP OR SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BE. AND THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF THIS -- THE SYSTEM THAT WE SET OUT.

SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THAT GREATER DIRECTION AND I THINK WE NEED TO AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR THAT. AND I THINK IT'S REALTIMELY.

THE AMENDMENT THAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING AFTER WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE KIND OF AMENDMENTS THAT MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE WITH RESPECT TO THE POINTS, THERE'S A -- APPARENTLY A MEETING TAKING PLAYS WITH THE DAA AND THE CHAMBER.

ALSO WITH ECHO. ALSO INVOLVING THE JUSTICE COALITION, ALSO THE HOMES NOT HANDCUFFS GROUP TO GET EVERYONE TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT BOTH WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM KIND OF IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE THAT'S NECESSARY, AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF THEIR TWO BIG GOALS IS TO DEAL WITH EXACTLY THIS ISSUE OF DEALING WITH STREET MANAGEMENT AND ENCAMPMENTS.

AND I THINK THAT THAT ALSO WILL BE A REALLY GOOD PLACE FOR THIS KIND OF DIRECTION TO REALLY -- TO REALLY COOK BECAUSE I THINK THAT A LOT OF THESE THINGS WE HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE COMING FROM DIFFERENT PLACES BUT WITH DIFFERENT WAYS THEY WOULD PRIORITIZE WHAT THEY WOULD DO FIRST OR HOW THEY DO THOSE THINGS. WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, IF EVERYBODY IS NOT PULLING TOGETHER ON ALL ELEMENTS OF THIS, THAT THE WHOLE SYSTEM DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD THE WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO IF WE'RE ULTIMATELY REALLY GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

[04:10:01]

AND FRANKLY, PROBABLY NOW SOME KIND OF TRADEOFFS OR AGREEMENTS OR COMPROMISES TO REALLY MOVE A WHOLE COMMUNITY FORWARD. I THINK IT'S ALSO APPARENT THAT WHILE WE HAVE GREAT RESOURCES IN THE CITY AND GREAT PEOPLE WORKING ON THIS, THE CITY DOESESESESESESESS ITSELF TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO END HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY. THERE ARE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY THAT ARE CRITICAL.

ECHO GETS THE FEDERAL FUNDING AND DEPLOYS THAT.

HACA GETS FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOUSING.

A LOT OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PARTICIPATE, CARITAS, MOBILE LOAVES AND FISHES, THESE ARE INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT NEED TO BE PART OF, I THINK, IF THERE CAN BE AGREEMENT AND THAT COMMUNITY CONSENSUS CAN REALLY PUT NEWS THE RIGHT PLACE.

SO I JUST WANT TO WHEN THE TIME COMES OFFER AN AMENDMENT AS I'VE POST ODD THE BOARD THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT IF THAT HAPPENS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS.

AND COMPROMISES ARE MADE AND PEOPLE JOIN TOGETHER AND MAJOR FUNDERS COMMIT TO BRING IN RESOURCES, THAT THAT CAN BE WHEN THE MANAGER COMES BACK IN THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF DIRECTION THAT -- BECAUSE OF THE DETAILS OF THE LOGISTICS BEING WORK OUT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, THAT THE MANAGER COULD COME BACK TO US, WE ALLOW THE MANAGER TO COME BACK TO US AND SAY, HEY, SINCE YOU GUYS ADDRESSED THIS RESOLUTION, THERE SEEMS TO BE A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS OVER ALL WE MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION AND ON THESE PARTICULAR DIRECTIONS WE MOVE IN THIS PARTICULAR DIRECTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALLOW FOR THAT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RESOLUTION, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE -- I AGREE WITH BOTH COUNCILMEMBER POOL AND COUNCILMEMBER CASAR THAT WE CAN IN FACT MOVE FORWARD, BUT I THINK WE CAN ALSO DO IT IN A WAY THAT MAKESERYBODY CE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN. >> KITCHEN: I WILL -- I HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS, BUT I'LL HOLD THEM.

I THINK WHAT YOU A A A A A A A Y THROUGH AMENDMENTS.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO.

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE US.

I KNOW AT 3:00 WE HAVE THE SECOND CUE OF A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 61.

IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE A LONG WHILE ON AMENDMENTS, THEN WE SHOULD CONSIDER TAKING THOSE PEOPLE. OR WE CAN START ON THE AMENDMENTS AND SEE HOW QUICKLY WE CAN --

>> KITCHEN: MAYOR, I THINK THEY ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE A LONG TIME ON THEM AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR US TO

JUST GO THROUGH THEM. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS?

>> TOVO: DON'T WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST? MAYOR, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON

THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST? >> MAYOR ADLER: THERE'S BAN MOTION TO POSTPONE. CERTAINLY SOMEONE COULD MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE NOW IF THEY WANTED TO.

MAYOR PRO TEM. >> HARPER-MADISON: I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING BUT ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE

POSTPONEMENT. >> MAYOR ADLER: THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO POSTPONE. IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER CASAR SECONDS. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU CAN

SPEAK. >> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I PREFACE THE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND DILIGENCE THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN AND HER LEADERSHIP ON THE DISCUSSION OF HOMELESSNESS IS INCOMPARABLE. THAT TO SAY THOUGH, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERN AND I ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO GET A CONSENSUS IF POSSIBLE. I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCILMEMBER CASAR SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, HE THINKS MAYBE THE LANGUAGE COULD CHANGE IN A WAY THAT WE ASSUAGE PEOPLE'S FEARS, BUT RESOUNDINGLY THAT WAS THE CONCERNS FROM CONSTITUENTS. MAYBE THE LANGUAGE CAN CHANGE AND THAT FEAR IS ASSUAGED, BUT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE IN MAKING THE REQUEST.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, ONE OF THE CALLERS SAID SOMETHING THAT BROUGHT AN IMAGE AND DISTURBED ME.

THEY TALKED ABOUT CREATING SORT OF TEMPORARY SPACES,

[04:15:04]

LIKE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, EVEN WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FULL INTENTION OF NOT FURTHER CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE. THE FULL INTENTION OF OFFERING THE WRAP-AROUND SERVICES AND THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. I CANNOT UNSEE THE VISUAL OF US PUTTING PEOPLE IN A PLACE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THINGS GROW AND BECOME SOMETHING WE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY INTEND AND THEN HAVING TO MOVE THOSE PEOPLE.

I HAVE THAT IMAGE IN MY MIND AND THAT GIVES ME PAUSE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN WE'VE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR ACTIONS AND BUILD IN SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FAIL SAFE AROUND, I MEAN CAN WE GUARANTEE THAT WE'LL NEVER HAVE TO TAKE PEOPLE'S TENTS AND THROW THEM IN THE TRASH AND THEIR BELONGINGS AND MOVE THEM FROM A PLACE WE SAID WAS THE APPROPRIATE

PLACE TO GO AT ANOTHER TIME. >> MAYOR ADLER: FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MANAGES TO POSTPONE -- MANAGES MOTION TO POSTPONE? COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN.

>> RENTERIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HARPER-MADISON. I APPRECIATE YOUR SINCERITY.

I NEED TO CHRISTOPHER, THIS IS NOT ABOUT -- CLARIFY THIS IS NOT ABOUT MOVING PEOPLE TO TEMPORARY SPACES OR THROWING THEIR THINGS OUT. AS I READ TO YOU EARLIER AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE RESOLUTION IS CONNECTING PEOPLE TO SERVICES AND HOUSING OPTIONS SUCH AS RAPID REHOUSING, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, HOUSING FOCUSED SHELTER. THOSE ARE NOT TEMPORARY PLACES. THIS IS ABOUT CONNECTING PEOPLE TO HOUSING AND A PATH TO PERMANENT HOUSING.

WHILE I APPRECIATE SOME FOLKS SAID THAT IS CORRECT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MOVING PEOPLE, THROW OUT THEIR THINGS AND HAVING THEM IN

TEMPORARY HOUSING. >> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN TO EXPRESS WHAT MY

CONCERN WAS. >> MAYOR ADLER:

COUNCILMEMBER KELLY. >> KELLY: SO MAYOR PRO TEM, I CAN DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AS WELL. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE BACK WHEN THIS VOTE WAS TAKEN BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH A FORETHOUGHT FOR YOU TO KNOW THE HOMELESSNESS WOULD GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS NOW. SO SPEAKING TO THAT, I SEE A LOT OF VALUE IN PASSING THIS RESOLUTION TODAY AND NOT POSTPONING IT BECAUSE WE NEED TO ACT NOW.

AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP CURB SOME OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF WHAT WAS PASSED BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL. SO I HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER SOME OF THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ADLER: READY TO TAKE A VOTE? THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. FUENTES, ELLIS, MAYOR PRO TEM AND CASAR. THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THE BALANCE OF THE DAIS.

MOTION TO POSTPONE DOES NOT PASS.

COUNCILMEMBER CASAR. >> CASAR: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE MY AMENDMENTS THAT I POST ODD THE MESSAGE BOARD AND CAN SPEAK TO THEM OR WE CAN DEBATE THEM IN TURN. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WHETHER ANY ARE INCORPORATED AS FRIENDLY GIVEN I TRIED TO STRUCTURE THEM IN LINE WITH ALL THE SPONSORS' COMMENTS AT WORK SESSION TODAY AND ON THE MESSAGE BOARD.

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER CASAR HAS OFFERED HIS AMENDMENTS. IS THERE A SECOND TO HIS AMENDMENTS? MAYOR PRO TEM SECONDS THE AMENDMENTS. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, DO YOU AGREE TO ANY OF THEM?

>> KITCHEN: YES, LET ME SPEAK TO THAT.

SO -- OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, I THINK YOURS ARE NUMBERED SO LET'S TALK FROM THE TOP.

SO THE -- ITEM NUMBER 1, WHICH IS PAGE 3, LINE 3, AND THIS IS THE SECTION THAT RELATES TO THE LOCATIONS, THE PRIORITY ONE LOCATIONS. SO MY CO-SPONSORS AND I ARE -- THINK THAT SOME OF THIS IS HELPFUL, AND SO WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL AND NOT DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IS TO SAY -- DUPLICATIVE IN MEANING BUT HELPS WITH CLARIFICATION, IS TO SAY THE FOUR -- SO WE HAVE THE FOUR PHASE ONE HEAL PRIORITY LOCATION SHALL, AND YOU SAID ONLY. I THINK THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTENT. INCLUDE LOCATIONS WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE CAMPING, AND THEN YOU ARE ADDING IN A

[04:20:02]

PLACE OR IN A MANNER THAT PRESENTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK AND/OR THAT OTHERWISE IS ALREADY PROHIBITED BY 9-4-11. WE THINK THAT IS HELPFUL.

AND IN LINE WITH THE INTENT. AND SO THAT LANGUAGE IS ACCEPTABLE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE REMAINING LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION ABOUT USING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION. SO I WOULD SAY, MAYOR, THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ONLY INCLUDE AND THEN THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IN A PLACE OR IN A MANNER THAT PRESENTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY RISK AND THAT OTHERWISE IS PROHIBITED BY 9-4-11 AND THEN THE PARENTHESES AROUND THAT. PAGE 3, LINE 3.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY. UP TO THE PERIOD JUST BEFORE

INCOMING. >> KITCHEN: YES.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE, IT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE

MOTION. >> KITCHEN: SHALL I GO ON

TO THE NEXT ONE? >> MAYOR ADLER: YES.

>> KITCHEN: THE NEXT ONE -- THE NEXT ONE IS YOUR PAGE 6, LINE 19. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN THERE. WHAT THIS JUST DOES, THIS JUST POINTS TO -- FOR PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3, OUR PUBLIC HEALTH AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS IDENTIFYING AREAS THAT POSE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS.

THAT LANGUAGE IS ALREADY IN THE RESOLUTION SO WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS HELPFUL OR NECESSARY FOR CLARIFICATION. SO WE ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE

SECOND -- >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

>> KITCHEN: -- AMENDMENT. GOING ON TO THE THIRD, THE THIRD ONE IS PAGE 5, LINE 21.

THIS ACTUALLY -- LET'S SEE. OKAY, THIS IS THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO MAKING -- OKAY, YEAH.

THIS IS -- THIS IS THE SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO THE PRIORITY ONE LOCATIONS NOT BEING AVAILABLE FOR CAMPING.

COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, YOUR LANGUAGE ACTUALLY MAKES THE CAMPING -- MAKES DISALLOWING CAMPING AND CREATES A CAMPING BAN THAT IS BROADER THAN WE INTENDED.

OUR INTENT WAS ONLY TO SPEAK TO THE AREAS ALREADY THE PRIORITY LOCATIONS. WE DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THIS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CREATE A BAN THAT THAT'S BROAD. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS WE'RE NOT -- THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS BY ACCEPTING THE FIRST LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON AREAS THAT POSE A RISK TO HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ARE REFLECTED AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE 9-4-11. SO ACCEPTING THAT IN THE FIRST SECTION MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOCUS ON THAT.

AND SO IT WOULDN'T -- WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT THE BAN AS BROAD AS YOU'VE STATED IN YOUR AMENDMENT. SO WE DID NOT WANT TO GO

FORWARD WITH THAT ONE. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

>> KITCHEN: THEN YOUR LAST ONE, YOUR LAST ONE RELATES TO PAGE 6, LINE 5. AND IT SAYS -- IT ADDS LANGUAGE AGAIN THAT WE DON'T THINK IS HELPFUL OR NEEDED.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY. >> KITCHEN: WE ALREADY HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THE FUNDING FOR THE HEAL INITIATIVE WILL NOT BE DIVERTED FROM PROGRAMS SERVING THE HOMELESS. WHAT YOU HAVE ADDED A

DUPLICATIVE. >> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, LET'S TAKE THEM IN ORDER.

THE FIRST ONE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT BEGINS IN COMING TO A DETERMINATION OF AND INCLUDES THE ADDITION TO THE FIRST LINE OF THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.

>> CASAR: RIGHT. >> MAYOR ADLER: ANY

DISCUSSION ON THAT LANGUAGE? >> CASAR: MAYOR, COULD I

SPEAK TO THAT? >> MAYOR ADLER: YES.

>> CASAR: I'M GETTING SOME INTERFERENCE FROM SOME OF THE UNMUTED MICROPHONES. SO THE LANGUAGE TIME SUGGESTING -- FIRST OF ALL, COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, I APPRECIATE THAT IT IS YOU AND THE CO-SPONSORS HAVE

[04:25:03]

INCLUDED SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET TO LANGUAGE WHERE WE CAN ALL AGREE IT UPHOLDS THE INTENT WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT. THE LANGUAGE THAT I URGE THAT WE ADD IS THAT AS THE MANAGER COMES TO A DETERMINATION ON THE PRIORITY LOCATIONS, THAT THE MANAGER SHOULD SHOULD A TRANSPARENT AND DATA DRIVEN APPROACH TO DETERMINE THOSE LOCATIONS.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT SO THAT ANY OF OUR WORK IS DONE --Y SAY IT'S NOT DONE IN ANY ARBITRARY MANNER.

THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS THEN EMPOWERED TO IN A DATA DRIVEN WAY SAY, WELL, ACTUALLY THIS PLACE AND THIS AREA IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS, SAY, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS PRONE TO FLOODING OR WE HAVE HAD CARS COME ACROSS THIS CURB.

I WANT TO EMPOWER AND GIVE TO THE MANAGER THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY REALLY CLEARLY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS DANGEROUS AND WHAT IS NOT.

SO I -- I WOULD LIKE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT SAYING WE ARE ASKING FOR THE MANAGER TO USE A TRANSPARENT AND DATA DRIVEN APPROACH TO ANALYZE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AS THEY CONSIDER WHICH AREAS TO PRIORITIZE GETTING FOLKS INTO HOUSING. AND IF IT'S DUPLICATIVE, I -- I WOULD URGE CAUTION GENERAL TRY TO INCLUDE IT OR PRINT IT TO WHEREAS AND DOES THE EXACT SAME THING.

>> KITCHEN: SHOULD I SPEAK TO THAT?

>> MAYOR ADLER: PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> KITCHEN: OKAY, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE RESOLUTION NOW ALREADY SPEAKS TO -- I'M LOOKING FOR IT EXACTLY -- ALREADY SPEAKS TO USING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION. IT ALSO DESCRIBES FOUR LOCATIONS IN DIVERSE AREAS OF THE CITY WITHOUT NAMING THEM. IT IS UP TO OUR CITY MANAGER TO NAME PLACES BASED ON THESE DESCRIPTIONS.

AND -- AND WE HAVE EXPLAINED THAT BEGINNING WITH DIVERSE AREAS OF TOWN GIVES OUR HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PILOT, ASSESS AND LEARN FROM HEAL APPROACHES IN THESE FOUR DIVERSE AREAS AND IMMEDIATELY BEGIN TO ADDRESS PRESSING NEEDS.

THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW SAYS THAT THESE ARE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT POSE RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THE SO THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE PROPOSING IS BOTH NOT NECESSARY AND NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THAT THESE ARE THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOUR TYPES OF AREAS THAT POSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO USE WHEN IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND BY ACCEPTING THE LANGUAGE, THE FIRST LANGUAGE THAT YOU PROPOSE, YOU HAVE SOME ASSURANCE OF THE INTENT THAT THESE ARE ONLY LOCATIONS, ONLY LOCATIONS WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE CAMPING IN A PLAISTER -- A PLACE OR MANNER AND ALREADY PROHIBITED BY 9-4-11.

I CANNOT ACCEPT YOUR AMENDMENT.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? TAKE A VOTE.

LET'S TAKE A VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CASAR AMENDMENT HERE, WHICH IS THE BALANCE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

FUENTES, ELLIS, MAYOR PRO TEM AND CASAR AND ME.

THAT'S FIVE. THOSE OPPOSED? IS THE BALANCE OF THE DAIS. THIS DOES NOT PASS.

NEXT AMENDMENT. >> CASAR: MAYOR, I'M JUST -- BECAUSE WE INCORPORATED THE -- SORRY, THIS ONE I WOULD STILL URGE THIS AND I'M STILLING GETTING INTERFERENCE ON YOUR MICROPHONE, ANN.

>> KITCHEN: I'M SORRY. >> CASAR: THAT'S OKAY.

SO AGAIN IN THIS ONE I THINK AGAIN WHAT I'M TRYING TO URGE IS THAT THE -- WELL, MAYOR, ACTUALLY IF I MIGHT.

I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES ARE TWO OF THE REMAINING ONES I WOULD LIKE TO PRIORITIZE THOSE FOR

[04:30:01]

COUNCIL AND TAKE VOTES ON THOSE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THAT'S FINE.

>> CASAR: I THINK OF IMPORTANCE IS COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, I AM WILLING TO IN THE PAGE 5 BEGINNING AT LINE 21, THE ONE ABOUT THE CAMPING ORDINANCE, I'M WILLING TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE UP TOP AND NOT INSERT THE NEW LANGUAGE.

THAT IS FINE WITH ME. YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT THE PHASE ONE LOCATIONS WILL BE BASED ON HEALTH AND SAFETY OR PEOPLE CAMPING IN A PLACE THAT'S CURRENTLY DISALLOWED. SO I WOULD LEAVE THAT.

BUT I WOULD URGE THE AMENDMENT THAT STRIKES BRINGING BACK AN ORDINANCE POTENTIALLY TO AMEND, TO FURTHER AMEND THE CAMPING ORDINANCE.

IN THIS CASE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IF WE'RE COMMUNICATING TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO EXPAND CRIMINALIZATION, BUT WE ARE ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO HOUSE PEOPLE AND TO TRY TO MAKE FOLKS BE IN SAFE PLACES, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY PROHIBITS PEOPLE BEING IN DANGEROUS PLACES OR MAKING PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO SPACE INCONVENIENT.

I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A NEED TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE IF WE ARE JUST PRIORITIZING AREAS WHERE IT IS ALREADY PROHIBITED OR DANGEROUS.

I WOULD URGE THE AMENDMENT TO CUT THAT SENTENCE THAT WE

HAVE STRUCK. >> MAYOR ADLER:

COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN. >> KITCHEN: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER CASAR. I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS YOU ARE RAISING. LET ME EXPLAIN WHY I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. THE LANGUAGE ALREADY SPEAKS TO NOT RELYING ON POLICING OR ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS.

AND IT ALSO IN REFERENCE TO THE ORDINANCE, IT ONLY SAYS IF NECESSARY. IT ALSO DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE MIGHT BE BROUGHT BACK TO US IN AN ORDINANCE. IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE TO MAKE A CHANGE IN AN ORDINANCE WITHOUT -- WITHOUT IMPLYING OR USING EXISTING ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE. SO I DO NOT WANT TO HAMSTRING OUR CITY STAFF BY SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T BRING US BACK A CHANGE TO ORDINANCE IF THAT WAS NECESSARY. UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE STATED OUR POLICY PREFERENCE THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO -- STATING OUR POLICY PREFERENCE TO NOT USE POLICING OR ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS.

SO -- AND THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING A CHANGE IN ANY ORDINANCE WITH THIS RESOLUTION. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR -- YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT I CAN'T -- CANNOT ACCEPT THIS

AMENDMENT. >> MAYOR ADLER:

COUNCILMEMBER CASAR. >> CASAR: THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION, COUNCILMEMBER.

THE ORDINANCE IS ONLY REALLY USEFUL IN SO FAR AS IT GIVES POWERS FOR CITATIONS AND POLICING.

AND SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE STRIKE THIS SECTION AND THAT IF THE MANAGER COMES BACK AND I WOULD BE -- I WOULD BE REALLY CONCERNED AND WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE MANAGER HOW IT IS IF WE WERE TRYING TO DO NON-POLICING AND NON-CITATION STRATEGIES WHY WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPAND THE ORDINANCE.

BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT CAMP IN A DANGEROUS PLACE, YOU CANNOT CAMP ON A SIDEWALK, YOU CANNOT CAMP IN PARKS.

AND SO I DON'T SEE WHY IT IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING THIS BACK. AND I WOULD HATE TO PUT I WILL EVER IT BACK ON THE COUNCIL TO TRY TO WRITE SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHY INTO AN ORDINANCE THAT ALREADY LISTS EVERYTHING WE'VE LISTED HERE AS FAR AS DANGER AND EVERYTHING WE WANTED TO LIST SO FAR AS PEOPLE CAMPING IN

ILLEGAL PLACES. >> MAYOR ADLER: SO ON THIS AMENDMENT I'M GOING TO DECIDE WITH ANN KITCHEN AND THE SPONSORS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT CAMPING IN A PLACE THAT PRESENTS A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK OR PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD. AND WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE GOING BACK TO THE SUMMER OF 2019 AND THE FALL OF 2019. AND I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'VE DRAFTED ENABLE OUR CITY TO BE ABLE TO -- TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT.

BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY,

[04:35:04]

BUT IF IT'S A ORDINANCES REASON, I THINK THIS LANGUAGE WOULD ALLOW THAT TO COME FORWARD AND THEN WE COULD THEN MAYBE HAVE A CONVERSATION THAT ADVANCES THAT BALL JUST BECAUSE IF IT COMES BACK FOR ORDINANCE CHANGE, BUT IT MAY GIVE US THE CONVERSATION TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT EXISTS THAT STOPS US FROM BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCES NOW AND IN WAYS THAT I THINK THEY COULD BE. SO IN THAT SENSE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE, BUT LEADS US TO THAT CONVERSATION AND MAY ENABLE US TO DAYLIGHT THAT ISSUE, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER CASAR.

>> CASAR: I'VE BEEN >> CASAR: MAYOR, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE THE VOTES ARE GOING SO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PUT EVERYONE THROUGH THAT VOTE, AND WITHOUT OBJECTION I WOULD

WANT TO MOVE ON. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

ANY OBJECTION TO MOVING ON? HEARING NONE, GO AHEAD.

>> CASAR: MY SUGGESTION THEN IS AS COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN STATED, IF THE PREFERENCE IS NOT TO EXPAND THE ORDINANCE OR TO RELY ON POLICING TO DO THIS THEN I WOULD ASK A SENTENCE THAT SAYS AT THE END OF THIS SECTION RIGHT AFTER THE WORD APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE THAT THE PREFERENCE OF THE COUNCIL IS TO NOT EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE OR EXPAND POLICING OR CITATION AS PART OF THE HEEL INITIATIVE. -- THE HEAL INITIATIVE.

>> KITCHEN: I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY WRITTEN RIGHT INTO THE

SENTENCE BEFORE THAT. >> CASAR: THE SENTENCE RIGHT BEFORE IT SAYS UPON COMPLETION OF THE HEAL INITIATIVE, INCLUDING STRATEGIES THAT DON'T RELY ON IT, BUT DOESN'T EXPRESS THE PREFERENCE EXPLICITLY.

>> KITCHEN: MAYOR, I THINK IT'S POLICE IT AND BEEN -- EXPLICIT AND BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER.

MAYOR, I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT. >> MAYOR ADLER:

COUNCILMEMBER CASAR. >> CASAR: IF THERE'S A SECOND TO THAT I WOULD URGE THAT.

>> MAYOR ADLER: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? COUNCILMEMBER FUENTES SECONDS THAT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT AMENDMENT, ADDING THAT LAST PHRASE AT THE END, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, COUNCILMEMBER TOVO?

>> TOVO: I DIDN'T INTEND TO, SORRY.

THE HANDS RAISED I SEE FUENTES, HARPER-MADISON, CASAR AND ME. THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND. IT'S THE BALANCE OF THE DAIS. THAT AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS. COUNCILMEMBER CASAR.

>> CASAR: MAYOR, I WOULD URGE MY LAST AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AMONG THE MOST CLARIFYING AND IMPORTANT, BUT IF ME AND COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN AGREE AND THE STAFF AGREES THAT THIS LAST LINE MEANS THE EXACT SAME THING, THEN I DON'T HAVE TO PUT US THROUGH ANOTHER VOTE ON THIS. WHAT I HEARD COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN'S EXPLANATION FOR NOT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH SO CHECK ME HERE.

BUT MY GOAL IS THAT I DO NOT WANT THE FUNDS TO BE DIVERTED FROM EXISTING PROGRAMS WHICH IN MY MIND MAKES ME THINK OF HOUSING THAT A PERSON EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IS GETTING PUT IN TODAY OR THE FOOD PROGRAMS THAT ARE FEEDING SOMEONE TODAY, YESTERDAY AND TOMORROW THAT WE VOTED ON. AND THEN THE EXISTING PROGRAMS. AND THEN I AM FINE GOING ANYWHERE IN THE CITY BUDGET THAT IS NOT DOING THAT OR THAT IS NOT ABOUT TO PROVIDE US PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEXT WEEK. ESSENTIALLY I DO NOT WANT US TO TRADE -- I'M FINE WITH US MAKING HARD CHOICES AND TRADING OTHER THINGS. I JUST DO NOT WANT DOLLARS THAT OUR HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICE MIGHT DEPLOY FOR A THIRD HOTEL THIS YEAR ON A FIFTH HOTEL ULTIMATELY.

I DON'T WANT THAT DIVERTED. I DON'T MIND THEM COMING BACK WITH MY RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T WANT TO FOOD OUT OF SOMEONE'S MOUTH FROM YESTERDAY OR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR TOMORROW.

THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS LANGUAGE.

I KNOW WE JUST TOOK SOME VOTES WHERE WE DISAGREED BUT I THINK ON THIS ONE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

I WOULD URGE THAT WE AT LEAST GET THIS ONE DONE IN

SOME WAY. >> KITCHEN: MAYOR, WE'RE

[04:40:09]

ON THE SAME PAGE, COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, AND IT'S IN THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN.

I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE SO I DON'T THINK THIS

AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY. >> MAYOR ADLER: MANAGER, DOWNED IF WE'RE APPROVE -- DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE'RE APPROVING THIS THIS BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY THE SENTIMENT OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE APPROVING.

>> CRONK: YES. I'LL GET A NOD FROM OUR HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICER. I THINK SHE'S TALKED WITH BOTH OF THE INDIVIDUALS, THE COUNCILMEMBERS, AND THAT'S

THE AGREEMENT, YES. >> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU.

>> CASAR: AND FORGIVE ME, WHEN YOU BRING THE FLEMING BACK FOR ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, FOR ME TO TRIPLE CHECK. THANK YOU FOR THE

PRE-ORGANIZED FORGIVENESS. >> MAYOR ADLER: COLLEAGUES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOTION SHEET THAT I HANDED OUT, THERE WERE FOUR AMENDMENTS ON THAT PAGE.

THE FIRST ONE I THINK HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY THE EARLIER VOTE. I'M NOT GOING TO URGE NUMBER ONE. NUMBER FOUR I THINK PROBABLY ISN'T TIMELY RIGHT NOW. NUMBER FOUR WAS INTENDED TO GO TO HELPING ENSURE THAT WE DIDN'T NEED POLICE OR CITATION INTERVENTION. THE GOAL HAS ALL BEEN TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO TELL SOMEONE ALWAYS WHERE THEY CAN BE IF WE EVER GO TO SOMEONE AND SAY YOU CAN'T BE HERE. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO NOT HAVE AND ENCOURAGE NON-POLICING INTERVENTIONS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT NOW AS PART OF THIS INITIAL PROCESS.

PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT GETS ADDED LATER.

THE THIRD AMENDMENT I THINK IS REALLY PART AND PARCEL OF THE SECOND SO I'M NOT GOING TO URGE THAT.

I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND ONE WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. WE HAVE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER, INCLUDING THE ENTITIES THAT ARE LISTED HERE IN THAT GROUP.

AND IF THERE IS A COMMUNITY AGREEMENT OR CONSENSUS THAT RESULTS FROM TRADE-OFFS OR DIFFERENT PARTIES STEPPING UP TO BE ABLE TO OFFER DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS THAT ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY COULD DO WITH THAT GROUP THAT'S COMING IN TWO DAYS -- IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, I WOULD WANT THE MANAGER TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH THINGS THAT WERE PART OF THAT COMMUNITY CONSENSUS THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ANTICIPATE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WORK CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO US AND THAT WE'RE NOT NEEDLESSLY SETTING UP A SEPARATE PROCESS TO BE DOING WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE REAL SIMILAR WORK. CERTAINLY WE COULD BE DOING MORE THAN JUST THIS, BUT THIS IS -- THIS STREET MANAGEMENT ISSUE AND ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT ISSUE IS A REAL SIGNIFICANT PART OF WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE I THINK ARE GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING IN THAT COMMUNITY SUMMIT. SO I WOULD URGE THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN.

>> KITCHEN: I REALLY APPRECIATE AND AM EXCITED TO HEAR ABOUT THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY SUMMIT AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING ON THAT.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR REALLY SETTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INFORMING INVESTMENTS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. HOWEVER, IT IS A DIFF DIFFERENT -- THAT'S NOT WHAT THE COLLABORATION IS.

THE COLLABORATION -- YOU KNOW, THE -- SO THE SUMMIT CANNOT SERVE AS THE COLLABORATION AS YOU'VE MENTIONED BECAUSE THE COLLABORATION IS A PROJECT TEAM TO WORK WITH OUR HOMELESS STRATEGY OFFICER TO WORK ON THE SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE HEAL INITIATIVE. SO I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT PERHAPS WITH SOME LANGUAGE CHANGE HERE WE COULD GET TO YOUR INTENT. I THINK THAT THE SUMMIT CONVERSATIONS COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO -- THEY WILL BE PROVIDING INFORMATION TO OUR HOMELESS SERVICE OFFICER, OF COURSE. AND COULD HELP INFORM THE HEAL INITIATIVE. BUT YOUR LAST PART OF IT IS PART THAT DOESN'T WORK TO ME BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE IS COULD SERVE AS THE COLLABORATION.

THIS COLLABORATION IS A PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM, A SUMMIT IS NOT A PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM.

THE COLLABORATION IS A PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT IS ONGOING FOR THE OPERATIONS.

SO PERHAPS THAT LANGUAGE -- I MEAN, PERHAPS NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE, BUT JUST LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT

[04:45:02]

SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE HOMELESS STRATEGY

OFFICER, YOU KNOW -- >> MAYOR ADLER: HOW ABOUT WE DO THIS? BECAUSE THE I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD TURN OUT AND IT COULD BE THAT THE ACTUAL PROJECT TEAM THAT DOES THE ACTUAL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH DEALING WITH THE CAMPING INVOLVES [INDISCERNIBLE] TEAM PEOPLE DIFFERENT OR APART FROM OR ASSIGNMENT OR RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES.

HOW ABOUT IF WE KEPT THE BEGINNING OF THE LANGUAGE AND EXPLAINED WHAT IT WAS. AND THEN IT SAYS INSTEAD CAN SERVE AS FOUNDATION FOR THE WORK OF THE COLLABORATION,

AND JUST PUT A PERIOD. >> KITCHEN: LET ME LET

COUNCILMEMBER TOVO GO FIRST. >> TOVO: I ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THESE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE WORKING ON CREATING THIS SUMMIT.

AS I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO EMPHASIZE WHENEVER WE'RE HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY CONTINUING TO PRIORITIZE ISSUES RELATED TO HOMELESSNESS AND WORKING TO END HOMELESSNESS, BUT FACT IS THEY NEED THOSE PUBLIC PARTNERS TO PARTICIPATE IN IT THEN THIS HAS TO BE A COMMUNITY EFFORT TO END HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTIN.

SO I'M EXTREMELY APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THOSE WORKING TO MAKE THE SUMMIT -- TO PULL TOGETHER THE SUMMIT AND PULL TOGETHER THOSE VOICES SO WE COULD HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE THE MAYOR SUGGESTED FOR THE SAME REASONS COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN IS NOT. I WOULD RATHER IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WERE JUST SUGGESTING, MAYOR, ABOUT RECOGNIZING THAT THAT INITIATIVE IS HAPPENING, I WOULD SUGGEST SOMETHING MORE LIKE AFTER COMMUNITY CONSENSUS, SOMETHING MORE LIKE THAT WILL INFORM -- SO IT SAYS THE PROPOSED -- I THOUGHT I HAD IT IN MY HEAD AND THEN I GOT MYSELF DISTRACTED BY TAKING.

THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY SUMMIT INTENDED TO ADDRESS AND REACH A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS THAT INCLUDES ADDRESSING CAMMIES AND STREET -- ENCAMPMENTS AND STREET MANAGEMENT CAN SERVE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO INFORM THE CITY'S DIRECTION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

CERTAINLY I THINK THAT PROCESS SHOULD INFORM IT, BUT I AM -- I BELIEVE THAT NEED TO REALLY BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT OUR ROLE IS AND WHAT ACTION WE'RE TAKING, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT FORWARD MOVEMENT THAT SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SPOKEN TO BEFORE.

SO I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT WORK AT THE SUMMIT INFORMS OUR PROCESS, BUT IT DOES NOT SLOW IT DOWN NOR DOES IT DICTATE TO CONSTITUENT WHAT OUR DIRECTION IS GOING TO

BE. >> MAYOR ADLER: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, KATHIE, AND TELL ME IF I HAVE THIS RIGHT. AFTER MANAGEMENT, COMMA, IT WOULD SAY COULD SERVE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO

INFORM THE CITY'S ACTION. >> TOVO: THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I SAID, BUT THAT'S FINE.

COULD SERVE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --

>> MAYOR ADLER: COULD SERVE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO INFORM THE CITY'S ACTION.

>> TOVO: I THINK THE INTENT IS GREAT.

I GENERALLY -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS AIMING

TOWARD. >> MAYOR ADLER: LET KEEP WITH THIS UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A QUICK ONE.

>> POOL: THAT WOULD BE TO INFORM THE CITY'S ACTIONS.

YOU DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO INFORM TO SAY --O INFORM. ANYWAY, THERE'S A WAY TO GET

THERE. >> MAYOR ADLER: I KNOW IT'S NOT REALLY ARTFUL. ANYONE CAN WORK AND SERVE AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO [INDISCERNIBLE] WOULD BE FINE WITH ME. YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF SOMETHING COMES OUT OF THAT THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE IT TO WHATEVER THE MANAGER COMES BACK WITH.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT BEING ADDED.

HEARING NONE THAT AMENDMENT IS ADDED.

THAT GETS US TO THE MAIN MOTION UNLESS THERE ARE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM 49 PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> CASAR: MAYOR, I'M TRYING TO SPEAK.

>> MAYOR ADLER: GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER CASAR.

>> CASAR: MAYOR, I WANT TO EXPLAIN MY NO VOTE TODAY.

WE HEARD CONCERNS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT THIS COULD LEAD TO EXPANDED POLICING AND CRIMINALIZATION. WE HEARD FROM MEMBERS SPONSORING THE ITEM ON THE MESSAGE BOARD IN WORK SESSION THAT THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.

AND THAT IF THERE WAS CLARITY PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE CONCERNS. I HOPE TO VOTE FOR THIS TODAY BY BRINGING FORWARD AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE

[04:50:04]

THAT VERY CLEAR. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT REMAINS UNCLEAR. I AGREE AND SEE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THIS DOES NOT ACTUALLY CHANGE OUR ORDINANCES AND OUR CRIMINAL LAWS.

BUT IT DOES OPEN UP THE DOOR WITHOUT STATING A PREFERENCE THAT THAT COULD BE WHERE THIS HEADS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE PROUD OF AND STAND STRONG BEHIND THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE CRIMINAL LAWS THAT CRIMINALIZE POVERTY OR SICKNESS. AND WHEN SOMEONE ISN'T ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO SIGNAL THAT THOSE LAWS POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON THE DAIS AND THE FOLKS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE RULES, BUT THAT THEY SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE POVERTY BECAUSE INSTEAD WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT.

I SUPPORT BRINGING MORE HOUSING SOLUTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN TODAY'S VOTE AND I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CONTINUED HOUSING AND SERVICES GOING TO PEOPLE LIVING ON THE STREETS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON HOUSING FOLKS IF WE WANT TO REALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. I HEAR TOO MUCH FROM THE FOLKS ON THE GROUND FROM SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT FOLKS WHO NO LONGER ARE IN FRONT OF THE ARCH ARE NOW IN FRONT OF TERRACES SO. AND THEY COULD BE MOVED FROM THERE. AND I KNOW MANY OF US DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. AND I KNOW THAT WITH THE CONTINUED WORK AND WITH THE LEADERS ON THE COUNCIL THAT WE GET DOLLARS TO ACTUALLY HOUSE PEOPLE.

AT THE SAME TIME I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WE ARE -- THAT THERE IS A PERSISTENT CAMPAIGN TO MISINFORM PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS ESSENTIALLY THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE TO EXPERIENCE HOMELESSNESS.

AND WE KNOW THAT THAT JUST ISN'T TRUE.

TAKING YOUR FOOT OFF OF SOMEONE'S NECK DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU'RE WELCOME WITH THEM BEING ON THE GROUND, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO DO AND I THINK NOW IT IS OUR TASK TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT HANDOUT.

SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK TO ADDRESS THIS CHALLENGING ISSUE, TO DEDICATE RESOURCES, EVEN MORE RESOURCES TO FOLKS SLEEPING IN TENTS AND TO PULL FOLKS INTO HOUSING, BUT I THINK WITH THE LACK OF CLARITY AND I THINK THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE ORDINANCES IN A WAY THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS TODAY.

>> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ADLER: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM 49? THOSE IN FAVOR OF ITEM 49? THOSE OPPOSED? COUNCILMEMBER CASAR, FUENTES AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

THE OTHERS VOTING AYE. IT PASSES.

ALL RIGHT, GUYS, WE'VE HAD SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE LINED

[61. Authorize the negotiation and execution of all documents and instruments necessary or desirable to purchase in fee simple approximately 2 acres of land and a building containing approximately 47,355 square feet out of Lot 1-A, Block B, including a non-exclusive joint use access easement over and across 0.081 of an acre of land, more or less, being a portion of Lot 10-A, Block B, both of the Amended Plat of Lot 1 and a Portion of Lot 2, Resubdivision of Lots 7, 8 &9, Block B, Pecan Park, according to the map or plat thereof, recorded in Cabinet Y, Slides 205-207, Plat Records, Williamson County, Texas; known locally as 10811 Pecan Park Blvd, Bldg #2, Austin, TX 78750 from Apple Pie Hotels, LLC., A Texas Corporation for a total amount not to exceed $9,500,000, including closing costs. Strategic Outcome(s): Economic Opportunity and Affordability. District(s): District 6]

UP TO SPEAK HERE ON ITEM NUMBER 61.

I'M GOING TO ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THOSE SPEAKERS FOR US. I'M SHOWING STILL TO BE HANDLED IS ITEMS 60, ITEM 61, ITEM 62 AND ITEM 59.

NOW LET'S BRING UP THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY.

I APPRECIATE YOU PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS. EACH SPEAKER GETS ONE MINUTE ON THIS ISSUE. HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE

IN THE QUEUE? >> MAYOR, WE HAVE ABOUT 47

SPEAKERS. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

GO AHEAD AND CALL THEM, PLEASE.

>> FIRST SPEAKER IS CHIVAS WATSON.

>> CAN I BE HEARD? >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> CAN I BE HEARD? >> MAYOR ADLER: YES, GO

AHEAD. >> I'M WHICH I VAS WATSON, LEAPER OF WORKING GROUP 512. IN SUPPORT OF THE HOUSING SOLUTION IN ITEM 60 BUT SEEKING AN INCREMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION TO ITEM 49. I KNOW YOU ALREADY DECIDED THAT BUT I WAS IN THE MORNING SESSION AND DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE SYSTEM. WE NEED A RENEW DISCUSSION TO BE HAD WHERE EVERYBODY IS CLEAR.

GREG, THANKS FOR ADVOCATING THE AMENDMENTS BEST YOU COULD. TRUTH IS AND WHAT'S NOT BEING SAID IS EXACTLY HOW THE HSO AND CITY MANAGER

[04:55:01]

PLAN TO SUCCEED IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS HEAL INITIATIVE. COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN, COUNCILMEMBER POOL, I APPLAUD THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF THESE EFFORTS. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT VALUABLE. I'M SAYING IF I COULD BE ACCURATE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING STILL HAS HINTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY WITHIN IT. INTEGRAL CARE, CARITAS, ECHO, WHAT HAVE THEY PROVEN THUS FAR? TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT NOW WE NEED AGAIN A CLEAR PROCESS THAT CANNOT BE SIMPLY APIECING TO THOSE LIKE MACKENZIE KELLY AND THE COHORTS WHO ARE SCARED OF THOSE PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OTHERS BY IN ADDITION.

THIS WILL TURN ABOUT PERPETUAL --

[INDISCERNIBLE]. >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS

EXPIRED. >> IF YOU ALREADY DECIDED, LET'S KEEP TALKING FOR A FEW WEEKS.

I'VE GOT 15 HOMELESS FOLKS WITH ME.

THEY DO NOT TRUST THIS PLAN. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. >> JUSTIN GREEN.

>> HI, MY NAME IS JUSTIN GASOLINE, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 9 AND A MEMBER OF AUSTIN DSA AND I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER CASAR FOR LEADING THE CHARGE ON THE HOTEL PURCHASES FROM LAST WEEK AND FIGHTING FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM 49. I'M PRETTY FRUSTRATED THAT THAT ITEM PASSED. I JUST THINK IT'S KIND OF A JOKE TO -- IT'S CALLED THE HEAL INITIATIVE.

Y'ALL SHOULD BE COMEDIANS FOR PASSING SOMETHING THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO RECRIMINALLIZING HOMELESSNESS. SAME ON COUNCILMEMBER KELLY FOR ATTEMPTING TO CRIMINALIZE OUR COMMUNITY'S MOST VULNERABLE ALL FOR THE COMFORT OF THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE END RESULTS OUR BROKEN ECONOMIC SYSTEM. I URGE THE REST OF CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE A COMPASSIONATE CHOICE AND INVEST OUR RESOURCES IN CREATING PERMANENT HOUSING.

REALLY THE ONLY EFFECTIVE TREATMENT WE HAVE.

INCLUDING TREATING HOMELESSNESS.

THANK YOU. >> PRESTON MANEZ.

PRESTON MANEZ. MAYOR, WE'LL TRY TO REACH

BACK OUT TO THIS PERSON. >> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU.

>> NICOLE MADDOX. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, NICOLE MADDOX, I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6 AND I VOLUNTEER WITH THE EAT APART TOGETHER INITIATIVE TO DELIVER FOOD TO THE HOMELESSNESS ON SUNDAYS AND ALSO A MEMBER OF AUSTIN DSA.

I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61.

I ALSO OPPOSED 49 THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN AND I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE AMENDMENTS DIDN'T PASS.

I THINK IT WAS POOL THAT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SHARED THE CONCERN THAT CASS CZAR HAD, BUT JUST BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE] MIGHT THINK DUPLICATIVE, IT IS STILL -- WE'RE FINDING -- IT'S WORTH SEEING LOOPHOLES AND LOOPHOLES CAN BE EXPLOITED. SO IF WE NEED THEM WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. AS FOR 61 WE NEED TO DO OUR BEST TO HOUSE THE HOMELESS. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

AND ESPECIALLY AS IT IS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. IT IS NOT A SHELTER.

THIS WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORING FACILITIES LIKE PEOPLE THINK IT WILL.

SO I'M JUST REALLY HOPING YOU GUYS CONTINUE YOUR SUPPORT OF 61. ALSO, MACKENZIE KELLY, LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR EMAIL UPDATE.

I REGISTERED FOR YOUR EMAIL LIST AND HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING ON THAT YET. I HAD TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOUR --.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> PRESTON MANEZ. >> HELLO, I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61. I REMEMBER THE AUTOPSY CAPTAIN OF THE DEMOCRATIC -- I'M A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA.

I LIVED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE WALKING DISTANCE OF THE CANDLE WOOD SUITES. I THINK IT'S PERFECT FOR HOUSING OUR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS, THAT ARE MULTIPLE GROCERY STORES NEARBY, DOZENS OFGERS NEARBY, DPS NEARBY, A CLINIC NEARBY ALL WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE.

I'M SYMPATHETIC TO MY NEIGHBORS' SAFETY AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS, BUT THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS OF THE LOCAL POLICE. IF THEY ARE FAILING TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS THEN THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IS TO ADJUST THE POLICE STRATEGY RATHER THAN PUNISHING OUR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS.

YOU CAN'T PUNISH THE HOMELESS FOR THE CRIMES OF THE FEW RATHER THAN THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

THIS HOUSING SHARE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF CRIME THEMSELVES. HOMELESSNESS IS A CITYWIDE

[05:00:02]

ISSUE AND EVERY DISTRICT, DISTRICT 6 INCLUDED, HAS TO DO ITS PART TO ADDRESS IT. NOT IN MY BACKYARD IS NOT SOUND POLICY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD DO WELL TO REJECT IT. PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61. THANK YOU.

MEAGAN PEGLER. >> HI, I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 6. I'M CALLING TO SUPPORT 61.

I ALSO LIVE IN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE HOTEL, AND I HAVE HEARD THE CONCERNS OF SOME OF OUR CURRENTLY HOUSED NEIGHBORS AND I DON'T THINK THAT FEAR IS A GOOD WAY TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS PROVEN TO BE AN EXCELLENT SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS AND I URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS TO RECOGNIZE AND OFFER DIGNITY AND RESPECT TO OUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

THANK YOU. >> SANJAY.

>> MY NAME IS SANJAY. I MANAGE THE HOTEL THAT IS IN DISTRICT 6 THAT IS A ADJACENT TO CANDLEWOOD SUITES. I OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL 61.

THE ZONING FOR THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES IS GR.

THE LOCATION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT HOUSING.

ANY OTHER PERSON OR BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN OFFICIAL REZONING PROCESS. WILL THE CITY REACH OUT TO THE ADJACENT BUSINESSES, NEIGHBORS AND ASSOCIATIONS AND AGREE TO ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

THE CITY SHOULD GIVE NEIGHBORS A REMEDY IF THE FACILITY IS OPERATED IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE PROMISES THE COUNCIL IS NOW MAKING ABOUT THE USE IN OPERATION. WHY WOULD THE CITY COUNCIL NOT AGREE TO THAT UNLESS THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> SCOTT CARSON. >> HI, SCOTT CARSON.

I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6. I LIVE ABOUT 100 YARDS DOWN FROM THE HOTEL. IN QUOTING NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CHRISTMAS VACATION, SOMETIMES THINGS LOOK GOOD ON PAPER BUT LOSE THEIR LUSTER WHEN YOU SEE HOW IT AFFECTS REAL FOLKS. A HEALTHY BOTTOM LINE DOESN'T HELP IF IT HURTS THE ONES YOU DEPEND ON.

I OPPOSE THE PURCHASE OF THIS MOMENT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. THE INCREASE OF CRIME, LACK OF NEARBY AMENITIES, THE ADDED NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN PAYING TAXES FOR YEARS AND THE LACK OF COMMUNICATION BY THE CITY NOT ONLY TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT TO THE COUNTY AND EVERYONE INVOLVED. THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN OUR CITY TO BE OF BENEFIT. TAKE A LOOK AT A GREAT EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY FIRST. READ THE NEW LOS ANGELES CHARITY HOPE FOR THE VALLEY THAT ARE UTILIZING MANY HOMES AT A FRACTION OF THE COST, EITHER ONE HOUSES PEOPLE AT A FRACTION OF THE COST THAN WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED HERE. THERE IS A VACANT 40-ACRE TRACT OF LAND BY THE AIRPORT THAT COULD HOLD 416 OR 1600 HOMES.

THERE ARE MANY LOCATIONS LIKE THE 24 HOUR FITNESS ON PARMER LANE THAT'S VACANT. THIS PLACE COULD HOLD 150 TO 200 TINY HOMES. IT'S CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES AND IT WON'T AFFECT THE BUSINESSES AROUND THEM.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> BIANCA RAMIREZ. >> HI.

AS A TAXPAYER RESIDENT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY WHOSE PROPERTY JUTS UP DIRECTLY AGAINST THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES I AM AGAINST ITEM 61. AS ETHNIC MINORITIES WHO WORKED OUR WAY OUT OF POVERTY, WE FEAR FOR OUR LIVES CONSIDERING WE'VE HAD AN INFLUX IN HOMELESS BACKPACKERS CAMPING BEHIND OUR FENCE, LOOKING THE IN ON OUR BOYS WHILE THEY PLAY OUTSIDE, LIGHTING FIRES AND LEAVING EXCREMENT BEHIND OUR LOTS.

AND BREAK INS AND TRESPASSING HAS INCREASED.

THEY ARE HYPOTHETICAL NEIGHBORS.

IF THEY DID THEY WOULD BE AGAINST IT TOO.

WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS I HAVE IN THE PAST IS DIFFERENT THAN LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOMELESS.

BY ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, JEOPARDIZING OUR SAFETY. THIS RUSHED EFFORT TO SOLVE YOUR TRAVIS COUNTY HOMELESS TRIES R. CRISIS HAS LEFT RESIDENTS BETRAYED LEAVING NO IMPACT STUDIES ON RESIDENTS OR SMALL BUSINESS OWNS.

CAN YOU GUARANTEE THIS PHS FACILITY WILL NEVER BE CONVERTED INTO A TEMPORARY HOMELESS HOUSING SHELTER? CLOSE TO 2800 RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PURCHASE A HOTEL IN A NONRESIDENTIAL AREA.

[05:05:04]

>> THANK YOU. >> MARIE CHADRY.

>> I'M THE OWNER OF THE HOTEL IN DISTRICT 6.

I AM OOPED TO THE CITY BUYING CANDLEWOOD.

I SUGGEST THAT MAYOR ADLER AND THE COUNCIL CONTACT COMMUNITY FIRST SUCCESSFUL HOMELESS COMMUNITY AND GIVE ALLEN 9.5 MILLION. HE CAN BUILD A LOT OF MINI HOMES AND HELP A LOT MORE PEOPLE.

WE WANT ALL HOMELESS OFF THE STREETS INTO HOMES.

THIS IS A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION FOR HOMELESS AND PECAN PARK COMMUNITY. SECOND, HAS APD BEEN ASKED FOR ANALYSIS OF WHETHER FROM A POLICING STANDPOINT THEY BELIEVE THIS LOCATION IS A GOOD LOCATION FOR A PH PROJECT. WILL THE CITY PROVIDE A COPY OF APD'S ANALYSIS. WILL THE CITY POSTPONE A DECISION ON PURCHASING THE PROPERTY UNTIL SUCH A SECURITY ANALYSIS IS CONDUCTED AND PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC. THIRD, WHY WERE WE NOT EVER NOTIFIED? THANK YOU.

>> SARAH GOURD. >> I'M A HOMEOWNER IN I AM ASKING THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT ITEM 61.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE INTENT AND IT INCLUDES INVESTMENT FOR HOUSE, HOWEVER FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE COUNCIL IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROMISES WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH.

THE THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY LAST WEEK TO PROVIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THROUGH ITEM 61 AND POSTPONED IT. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OUTSIDE IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS POSTPONED TO HAVE TIME TO STOKE OUTRAGE. IF WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT PROTECTING OUR HOMELESS NEIGHBORS, LET'S PLEASE VOTE YES TO PURCHASE THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES.

THANK YOU. >> ANDY PHILLIPS.

>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, WE CAN, GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS ANDY PHILLIPS AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 4 AND A PROUD NUMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA.

THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER GREG CASAR, VANESSA FUENTES AND, I'M SO SORRY, -- I'M BLANKING ON THE THIRD COUNCILMEMBER'S NAME. I I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

THANK YOU ALL OF YOU FOR SPEAKING AGAINST ITEMS 49.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61.

SO SORRY. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK OF ITEM 61. I SPOKE IN FAVOR OF BUYING THE FIRST HOTEL AND AM SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF BUYING THE SECOND HOTEL FOR THE SAME REASON. THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE HOMELESSNESS IS THROUGH HOUSING AND THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

FURTHERMORE, ITEM 489 IS REALLY NOT VERY GOOD, ESPECIALLY IN ITS CURRENT STATE.

PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ARE LIVING WHERE THEY NEED IN ORDER TO BE RELATIVELY SAFE.

AND THEY ARE DOING SO BECAUSE LIVING OUTSIDE FOR EXTENSIVE PERIODS OF TIME IS NOT SAFE.

SO WE ARE WASTING TIME AND RESOURCES THAT WE COULD BE SPENDING ON FINDING MORE PERMANENT HOUSING AND --

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> JOLENE WING. >> HELLO.

I AM AGAINST ITEM 61. TO HAVE A GROUP YOU CANNOT JUST BY HURTING ANOTHER GROUP.

THIS LOCATION IS SO TERRIBLE.

IT IS NOT ZONED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THERE'S NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, NO GROCERY, NO HEALTH CARE. THIS LOCATION CANNOT HOUSE THE HOMELESS -- CANNOT HELP THE HOMELESS THAT MUCH, HOWEVER IT WILL IMPACT THIS LOCAL COMMUNITY A LOT, ESPECIALLY DESTROY THE ADJACENT BUSINESSLIKE THE HAMPTON HOTEL AND THE RESTAURANT.

IF THE CITY DID A STUDY, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE TWO BUSINESS ARE WOMEN OWNERS AND AMONG MINORITIES.

YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE THEM.

WHATEVER REASON, IMAGINE IF YOU WERE WITH YOUR DAUGHTER, WIFE, MOM, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? AND I THINK IT'S A SHAME FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO MANAGE IT LIKE THIS. SO YOUR PEOPLE, THOSE ON THE [INDISCERNIBLE] PROTEST, THAT'S WRONG.

THANK YOU. >> HOVANKY,.

>> I AM CALLING FROM DISTRICT 1, THE HOUSING

[05:10:02]

HOMELESS NEED AZAP. LIVING ON THE STREETS BASICALLY CREATES EVEN FURTHER TRAUMA, FURTHER DANGER AND THIS DEFINITELY IMPACTS THEIR ABILITY TO REHABILITATE AND TO FIND HOUSING AND JOBS AFTERWARDS.

BUT I ALSO DO HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL TAKES TO HEART THE WORRIES AND RESERVATIONS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT REGARDING PROVIDING RESOURCES FOR THE HOMELESS IN THAT AREA, MAKING SURE THAT THE HOTEL DOESN'T GET TURNED INTO A HOMELESS SHELTER AND THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE SECURITY NEARBY TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.

>> ALICIA SAMAN. >> MY NAME IS ALICIA AND I OPPOSE ITEM 61. THE OPTION HERE IS LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. THIS IS A NORTHWEST AUSTIN MIDDLE CLASS, WORKING CLASS, FAMILY CLASS COMMUNITY.

145 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES NEXT TO CANDLEWOOD SUITES.

AS RESIDENTS WE RECEIVED LITTLE TO NO NOTICE ABOUT THE CITY'S ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DECISION WHICH LEAVES US DISHEARTENED.

I KEEP HEARING HOW PURCHASING THIS LOCATION IS GOOD FOR THE HOMELESS, BUT NOT MUCH GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PECAN PARK AND HOW IT AFFECTS US.

WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN KEEPING THEIR COMMITMENTS AND FUNDS FOR SERVICES, SECURITY AND CARE FOR THIS SUPPORTED HOUSE, THEREFORE LEAVING US, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WITH A PROJECT TO DEAL WITH IN THE FUTURE. THE CITY CANNOT MONITOR, OVERSEE AND CONTROL THESE TENANTS TO THE EXTENT OF THEM NOT PAYING THEIR RENT, INTEGRATE IN WITH THE COMMUNITY WHILE MENTALLY INCAPACITATED, TRASHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEPING PECAN PARK NEIGHBORS SAFE FROM CRIME, DRUGS AND PESTS WHICH WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. GIVE THE HOMELESS THEIR OWN

AFFORDABLE -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS

EXPIRED. >> RAPASHA HARDY.

>> HI. MY NAME IS RAPASHA AND I OPPOSE THIS HOTEL BEING PURCHASED FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCILMEMBERS, NO DISRESPECT.

WHICH ONE OF YOU SHARED A DRIVING OFFENSE WITH PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

IF YOU DON'T THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING IT TO THIS COMMUNITY EITHER? LOOK AT YOUR CURRENT EXISTING PHS ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS, RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES? WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

THE CITY HAS BEEN TALKING TO CARITAS AND INTEGRAL CARE FOR A MONTH. WHY IT COULD NOT SPEAK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND FOLLOW THE DUE PROCESS.

THE CITY SHOULD ALSO THINK ABOUT THE MESSAGE THAT IT'S SENDING ITS BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS.

BECAUSE THIS IS HAPPENING TO US IT CAN HAPPEN TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. WHOSE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NEXT?

THANK YOU. >> AMANDA WEEMS.

>> HI, Y'ALL. MY NAME IS AMANDA.

I'M A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 1 AND I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM MANY OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS ON THE MORAL URGENCY OF PURCHASING HOUSING FOR OUR NEIGHBORS SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE POLITICAL CHOICES Y'ALL ARE MAKING AROUND THIS ISSUE. WE TAKE ACTION LIKE PASSING ITEM 49 IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE BOWING TO THE PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILWOMAN KELLY. EFFORTS TO CRIMINALIZE THIS WILL NOT FACE COUNCILMEMBERS FROM FACING CHALLENGERS IN THE NEXT COUNCIL RACE NOR BRING ABOUT A MORE JUST CITY. I TOLD YOU LAST WEEK THAT COUNCILMEMBER KELLY WAS BEING DISINGENUOUS WHEN SHE SUGGESTED THAT SHE NEEDED MORE TIME TO EDUCATE HER CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE PLANNED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN HER DISTRICT. INSTEAD OF EDUCATING THEM SHE TOOK THE INFORMATION Y'ALL GAVE HER TO GIVE OUT MORE DISINFORMATION AND GATHER SUPPORTERS AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. THE EDUCATIONAL TOWN HALL SHE SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY WAS CLEARLY AT THE BOTTOM OF HER PRIORITY'S LIST. THIS IS WHAT YOU ENABLED FOR THE SAKE OF CON GENERAL ALTY.

SHE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. SHE IS --

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> BALDESH CADRY. >> I AM FROM DISTRICT 6.

I OWN HAMPTON DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO CANDLEWOOD.

I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE PURCHASE OF CANDLEWOOD.

I FEEL THAT THE CITY IS DOING A PURCHASE IN SECRET MANNER. WHEN WE SUBMIT A PROCESS TO CITY, THE CITY TAKES LETTERS TO ALL NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS

[05:15:01]

AND BUSINESSES. BUT THE TRANSPARENCY ON [INDISCERNIBLE]. ON PECAN PARK, THERE IS A LACK OF SERVICES AND AMENITIES.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE AUSTIN REGRESS AROUND WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND PUT IT ON HOLD FOR 180 DAYS.

THANK YOU. >> PHIL PERMAN.

PHIL PERMAN. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, WE CAN, GO AHEAD. >> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, WE CAN. >> I WANT TO SAY THAT COMPASSION IS NOT THE ISSUE. I OFFER FOOD AND CLOTHING TO THE HOMELESS AND THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.

THEY ONLY WANTED MONEY. ALSO THE ITEM 2 THE PROPOSED PURCHASE WAS DONE UNDER THE RADAR WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN THEY LISTENED TO US FINALLY THEY WERE VERY PATRONIZING AND 80 ROOMS DID NOT MAKE A DENT IN THE PROBLEM.

THE HOMELESS ARE NOT CONFINED IN THE BUILDING SO THEY WILL BE WALKING THE STREETS AND WE WILL STILL SEE SYRINGES AND WE WILL BE ACCOSTED WHILE WALKING THE SIDEWALKS AND TO LOCAL BUSINESSES.

A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRASH DID NOT DISAPPEAR.

9.5 MILLION IN MONIES WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVELY SPENT IN PURCHASING PROPERTY AND PLACING THESE PEOPLE IN PREFABRICATED HOUSING THAT THEY CAN CALL HOME.

THANK YOU. >> CHRISTINA GONZALEZ.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6 AND WOULD LIKE TO THANK MACKENZIE KELLY FOR ACCURATELY REPRESENTING HER CONSTITUENTS.

I'M A WOMAN OF COLOR WHO WORKED HARD TO PURCHASE MY FIRST HOME IN DECEMBER. I LOOKED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I WOULD FEEL SAFE WALKING MY DOGS AND RAISING A FAMILY. I CHOOSE ANDERSON MILL.

I USED TO FEEL SAFE WALKING ALONG GREAT HILLS TRAIL AND UNDERNEATH THE OVERPASS BUT THIS AREA HAS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME. MY LAST APARTMENT WHICH TOUTS ITSELF HAS HAVING PREMIER UNITS HAS SEEN AN UPTICK IN BURGLARY AND VANDALIZATION.

AFTER NORTH BY NORTH WEST CLOSED DUE TO THE PANDEMIC, SEVERAL HOMELESS PEOPLE MOVED INTO THE PARKING LOT DIRECTLY FROM MY UNIT AND I WITNESSED THEM SHOOTING UP FIRSTHAND. NATIONAL COALITION OF HOMELESS ESTIMATES THAT MANY ARE ADDICTED TO DRUGS.

THIS IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER AND WILL GREATLY AFFECT THE SAFETY AND PROPERTY VALUES OF ALL THE BUSINESSES AND LET'S RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

THANK YOU. >> ANA PEREZ.

>> I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 1.

I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 49.

OUR CITY COMMITTED TO HUMAN SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEMS OF INEQUALITY WHEN WE DECRIMINALIZED HOMELESSNESS AND DEFUNDED THE POLICE BY 150 MILLION LAST SUMMERMENT THEY ARE JUST THE FIRST STEP IN BUILDING A COMMUNITY IN WHICH PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT A LUXURY FOR THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE HOUSING AND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, BUT A HUMAN RIGHT WE EXTEND TO EVERYONE. WE ALL WANT TO SEE PEOPLE OFF THE STREET, BUT DESIGNATING SOME AREAS AS UNSAFE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE NOT CAMPING THERE REGARDLESS OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE HEAL RESOLUTION TO CONNECT PEOPLE TO HOUSING. WE'RE IN THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC THAT HAS ALREADY KILLED MORE THAN 400,000 PEOPLE IN THE U.S. OUR HOUSING MARKET IS ALREADY UNAFFORDABLE FOR WORKING CLASS AUSTINITES ON TOP OF MILLIONS LOSING THEIR JOBS, BEING THREATENED BY HOUSING AND SECURITY. HOW IS PROVIDING THEM -- HOUSING THEM IN THE AREA WITH PUBLIC HEALTH IS CRITICAL ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AVERAGE AGE IS 54 AND 90% OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE TWO OR MORE CHRONIC HEALTH CONDITIONS. I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE YES ON ITEM 61 AND CONTINUE THE WORK OF MAKING THIS A CITY FOR ALL PEOPLE, NOT JUST THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT.

>> HAMILTON MADDEN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS HAMILTON MADDEN AND I'M CALLING IN OPPOSITION. SO FAR OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS THE CITY HAS SPENT $160 MILLION TO CARE FOR THE HOMELESS AND TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, COMMUNITY FIRST COULD HAVE BUILT 4,000 TINY HOMES WITH THOSE DOLLARS.

NOW THE CITY WANTS TO SPEND $40 MILLION FOR 310 ROOMS OR $130,000 PER ROOM TO HOUSE 12 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION WHEN COMMUNITY FIRST COULD HAVE BUILT 1,000 HOMES AND HOUSED 40% OF THE POPULATION.

AND IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE THIS COST PER ROOM, THE CITY IS GOING TO SPEND $320 MILLION TO HOUSE THE HOMELESSNESS.

[05:20:02]

THIS IS JUST WAY OVER SPENDING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE VALUE THAT'S -- THE COST OF THE CITY'S PAYING, $40 MILLION FOR $13 MILLION OF APPRAISED VALUE. WHEN THE CITY PAYS THREE TIMES THE VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY, WHAT DOES THAT DO? THAT MAKES THE HOUSING PRICES THAT MUCH WORSE BY INCREASING COST OF LIVING, INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES, INCREASING THE VALUES OF PROPERTIES.

THIS IS JUST BAD DOLLARS SPENT FOR AN UNPROVEN PROGRAM THAT WILL NOT BE A QUICK FIX SINCE FIRST MOVE-INS WON'T EVEN HAPPEN UNTIL FOURTH QUARTER OF THIS YEAR. THE FIRST HOTEL WAS --

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> 6. I'M DISHEARTENED BY THE HOMELESS SITUATION IN OUR WONDERFUL CITY.

I SUPPORT HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS.

I WANTED THE COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST ITEM 49 AS WELL AS AGAINST 61. THIS IS NOT CONTRADICTORY, SIMPLE. CANDLEWOOD SUITES HOTEL WILL ONLY HOUSE ABOUT 80 HOMELESS, WHICH IS ABOUT THREE PERCENT OF THE HOMELESS POPULATION.

WE WILL NEED TO BUY 30 SUCH HOTELS AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL HOTEL ROOMS IN AUSTIN.

THIS WOULD REQUIRE MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ADDRESS THE HOMELESS SITUATION.

I KNOW THE CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN TRYING TO WORK THIS ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT I SUGGEST WE TAKE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW SO WE CAN SCALE TO ADDRESS 100% OF THE HOUSING NEEDS FOR OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS IN THE CITY AND AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE SCALED TO ADDRESS THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. SECONDLY, THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUYING THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES HAS BEEN RUSHED AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE WE NEED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD. I IMPLORE THE COUNCILMEMBERS

TO POSTPONE ITEMS -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS

EXPIRED. >> MICHAEL DANCE.

>> YES, I'M MICHAEL DANCE. I'M A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 6 WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES.

I HAVE A JUNIOR AT WESTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL.

I'VE GOT A SON AT GRISSOM. EVERYBODY SPEAKS TO FEAR ON THIS, WHAT IF THE WORST STUFF HAPPENS.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP PEOPLE OUT.

AND BY THE WAY, ANY TIME YOU HAVE TO USE "THESE PEOPLE" IN A REFERENCE, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING WRONG.

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DO THEIR PART.

I'M HAPPY LEND MY NEIGHBORHOOD, ANDERSON MILL, TO HELP WITH HOMELESSNESS BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, IT'S NOT GOING AWAY.

THANK YOU. >> EMILY EDGERLY.

>> HI, MY NAME IS EMILY. I AM A RESIDENT OF DRAFT 3 AND I HAVE OVER A -- DISTRICT 3 AND I HAVE A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE IN HOMELESSNESS SERVICES AND I'M A HUGE ADVOCATE OF HOUSING FIRST AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. AND IN SUPPORT OF 61.

NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS COMMIT CRIMES, BUT THE STATE OF BEING UNHOUSED CAUSES THE VERY FACT OF LIVING TO BE CRIMINALIZED.

I WANT TO REALLY ADDRESS THIS AS A LOT OF OPPONENTS HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DECREASES ONCE AN INDIVIDUAL BECOMES HOUSED.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE STATE OF BEING UNHOUSED CREATES CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, INCREASES SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND EX-SACK BAITS PTSD AND MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS WHOSE SYMPTOMS GO INTO THE VERY BEHAVIOR THAT IS ALARMING THESE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. FURTHERMORE, LIKE FOR MY EXPERIENCE AN UNHOUSED PERSON'S CRIMINAL RECORD OFTEN DUE TO THESE CRIMES OF SURVIVAL ARE A HUGE BARRIER TO FINDING ADEQUATE HOUSING. AS A COMMUNITY WE MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HOMELESSNESS IN OUR CITY. AND LOOK AT TRAVIS COUNTY.

BLACK PEOPLE AM ACCOUNT FOR EIGHT PERCENT OF OUR

POPULATION BUT -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS

EXPIRED. >> NESTOR RUBENANO.

>> HI. ALTHOUGH WE SAW THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE HOMELESS CRISIS IN THE CITY, WE REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE THE PURCHASE OF THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES FOR HOUSE FIRST IS AN EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE SOLUTION AND WOULD TREMENDOUSLY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE NEARBY BUSINESSES AND OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR TO DELAY THE HOTEL PURCHASE DECISION FOR 180 DAYS TO BE

[05:25:02]

ABLE TO STUDY THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS AND ALSO TO KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE TO PREVENT COVID-19 SPREAD. THIS WAS ALSO REQUESTED BY THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT AS WELL. SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, OVER 2,000 -- 3,000 PERSONS HAVE SIGNED A CHANGE.ORG PETITION TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF THIS HOTEL, WHICH IS VERY REPRESENTATIVE. IT'S NOT JUST THE PEOPLE LIVING NEXT TO THE HOTEL, BUT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY ASKING FOR THIS. SO I ASK AGAIN FOR THE DELAY OF 180 DAYS. THANK YOU.

>> BENNETT BURKE. >> HI THERE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> HI. MY NAME IS BENNETT BURKE.

I'M A STUDENT AT UT AND A PROUD MEMBER OF THE AUSTIN DSA. I'M CALLING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61. AND MANY PEOPLE BEFORE ME HAVE STATED THE REASON WHY IT'S NECESSARY.

SO I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT UT STUDENTS ARE OFTEN INVOKED IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOMELESSNESS, USUALLY TO DEHUMANIZE HOMELESS PEOPLE.

AND I WANT TO CHALLENGE THIS.

HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 61 HAVE JUST EMPLOYED ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE OUR NEIGHBORS. THESE PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHO JUST HAVE THE MISFORTUNE OF LIVING IN A CAPITALIST SYSTEM THAT DENIES THEM HOUSING.

AND IF WE LOOK BACK THROUGH RECENT HISTORY, HOUSING HOMELESS PEOPLE FIXES THE ISSUE.

THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE HOUSES SO GIVE THEM SOMEWHERE TO LIVE AND THE PROBLEMS STARTING TO AWAY.

SO YOU SHOULD PURCHASE THIS HOTEL.

YOU SHOULD PURCHASE A HOTEL IN MY DISTRICT.

YOU SHOULD PURCHASE HOTELS IN EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT IN AUSTIN UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'VE ALL BEEN HOUSED. THESE RESOURCES EXIST AND WE JUST NEED THE POLITICAL WILL AND TO CHANGE OUR ATTITUDES ABOUT HOW WE VIEW OUR NEIGHBORS.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> PLEASE SUPPORT ITEM 61. >> PRASH HANOY.

>> I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 6.

I OPPOSE ITEM NUMBER 61. WHILE I DEEPLY CARE FOR THE ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS IN MY BELOVED CITY, IT IS EXTREMELY WORRISOME TO FIND OUT THAT THE CITY IS TAKING SHORTCUTS AND RECKLESSLY SPENDING OUR MONEY WITHOUT GIVING ENOUGH NOTICE TO THE STAKEHOLDERS.

IT'S ONLY RECENTLY THAT ROUND ROCK ISD, THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT 6 FOUND OUT THAT THE HOMELESS ARE BEING SHELTERED TO CLOSE TO WESTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL AND GRISHAM MIDDLE SCHOOL WITHOUT GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE DECISION THAT HEAVILY AFFECTS ALL THOSE ENTITIES.

THERE SEEMS TO BE NO GOOD OPTION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA, NOR ARE THERE GOOD JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND HEALTH CARE OPTIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSAL TO SHELTER THE HOMELESS.

IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THE CITY IS LOOKING TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE HOMELESS CRISIS AND HOW TO BETTER HAB THE HOMELESS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION. OUR CITY LEADERS NEED TO WORK HARD TO FIND A WELL THOUGHT OF SOLUTION INSTEAD OF OFFERING AN EASY AND EXORBITANTLY PRICED OPTION WITH TAXPAYERS' MONEY. THANK YOU.

>> FRIDA CHANG. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS FRIDA CHEN. I'M A BUSINESS OWNER IN DISTRICT 6. I'M OPPOSED TO THE PURCHASE OF CANDLEWOOD SUITES FOR HOMELESS HOUSING.

I'M A RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNER IN THIS AREA FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I HAVE LOVED AND GIVEN A LOT TO THIS COMMUNITY MY ENTIRE LIFE AND CAREER.

I OPPOSE THIS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS COMPLETELY DISREGARD FOR OUR BUSINESSES AND SAFETY OF OUR BUSINESS AND RESIDENTS. CITY ALSO HAS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE HOMELESS POPULATION THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP BECAUSE THERE'S NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, GROCERY STORE.

YOU ARE HURTING, NOT HELPING ANYONE.

YOU ALL ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

IT IS YOUR DUTY TO LISTEN TO YOUR COMMUNITY BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS. IT IS YOUR DUTY TO BE TRANSPARENT. IT IS A WRONG AREA TO BUY THE CANDLEWOOD HOTEL. AND IF YOU USE ALL YOUR FUNDING WHERE WILL YOU GET MONEY IF YOU BUY ALL THOSE HOTELS? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO AFTER THAT? THANK YOU.

I VOTE NO. THANK YOU.

>> MICHAEL GARAMCO. >> YES, THANK YOU.

[05:30:06]

MY NAME IS MICHAEL AND I'M A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 8, PAGE ELLIS'S DISTRICT. AND I WANTED TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR ITEM 61 OBVIOUSLY FOR SUPPORTIVE SUPPORTIVE. AND THESE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THE POLICE BUDGET AND THE HOUSING AND ALSO OPPOSE ANYTHING TO RESTRICT THE CAMPING -- TO PULL BACK THE CAMPING BAN. THESE PEOPLE HAVEN'T OFFERED ANY SOLUTIONS TO ANYTHING. THEY JUST KEEP OPPOSING, OPPOSING, OPPOSING TO EVERYTHING.

AND I THINK THAT MY COUNCILMEMBER, EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN ANSWER BACK FROM VARIOUS LETTERS THAT WE'VE WRITTEN FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZING GROUP IN CIRCLE C THAT WAS ORGANIZED AROUND THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT AND WE ARE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THESE PURCHASES OF HOUSING AND STAYING FIRM TO MY COUNCILMEMBER'S PREVIOUS POSITIONS IN SUPPORT OF DECRIMINALIZING HOMELESSNESS AND MAKING SOME SURE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY MOVING TOWARDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. I URGE HER TO STAY ON THAT TRACK AND NOT TO OFFER UP AN ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> NANCY WALSH. >> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, WE CAN.

>> OKAY. THIS IS NANCY WALSH AND I'M IN DISTRICT 6. AND I'M OPPOSED TO ITEM 61.

YOU I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IN 2019 THE CITY COUNCIL HAD A VOTE THAT BASICALLY LEGALIZED THE STREET CAMPING FOR ANYBODY, I GUESS, BUT IT HAPPENED TO BE THAT THE HOMELESS WERE THE ONES WHO CAME IN.

I THINK THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT THERE'S AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE FROM THE ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN YEARS BEFORE AND ONE OF THOSE IS HOMELESS CAMPING ON THE STREET OR ANYBODY CAMPING ON THE STREET.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW, WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HOMELESS TO THE POINT NOW THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO HIDE THEM.

THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN OF TEXAS.

IT IS HUGE IN TOURIST AND INFORMATION.

IT IS THE STATE CAPITOL, PEOPLE COME HERE ON AND OFF.

AND I REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE CITY COUNCIL DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO SEE HOMELESS PEOPLE.

AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO HELP THEM, THEY ARE HURTING THEM. WHEN THEY VOTED IN 2019 TO ALLOW THEM TO BE ON THE STREETS, THEY HARMED THEM.

NOW THAT THEY WANT TO PUT THEM INTO THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT ONLY ARE THEY HARMING THEM, BUT THEY'RE HARMING THE PRESIDENT LET'S WHO ARE THERE.

WE PAY TAXES, WE TAKE CARE. WE ARE GENEROUS, WE ARE

KIND, WE ARE NOT OUT -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS

EXPIRED. >> CHELSEA LEWIS.

>> HI. I'M CHELSEA FROM DISTRICT 9.

I'M TESTIFYING IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61.

I CALLED IN LAST WEEK FOR ITEM 31 AND 32 AND TODAY I'M IMPLORING YOU ONCE AGAIN TO QUICKLY END THE PURCHASE OF THE SECOND HOTEL. COUNCILMEMBER KELLY'S POSTPONEMENT OF THE ITEM LAST WEEK WAS FOLLOWED BY A WAVE OF NEWS ARTICLES FEATURING PICTURES OF WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE TAXES THEY PAY ENTITLE THEM TO KEEP NO POVERTY IN FOR THEIR OWN COMFORT. I'M DEEPLY DISGUSTED BY THE CALLERS OPPOSING THIS ITEM. THE FIRST ONE LOCATION OR TO QUOTE A PREVIOUS CALLER, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. IF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS SO NICE THEN WHY ISN'T IT SUITABLE FOR PERMANENT HOUSING? PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT FEAR OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE, BUT HAVE YET TO SHARE THE BASIS FOR THIS ARGUMENT? IF YOU'RE AFRAID OF HOMELESS PEOPLE, GUESS WHAT? HOUSE THEM AND THEY WON'T BE HOMELESS. PLEASE VOTE FOR ITEM 61.

>> JOSE PAPA. >> HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> MY NAME IS JOSE FROM DISTRICT 7 AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 61 BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION.

WE RECENTLY SUBMITTED A PETITION FOR TEXAS BUNGALOW WHICH DETAILS SIMILAR CONCERNS AS CANDLEWOOD HOTELS. I WOULD LIKE TO PREFACE THAT I AM ABSOLUTELY FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO THE GROWING HOMELESSNESS PROBLEM IN THIS CITY.

I VOLUNTEERED AT COMMUNITY FIRST VILLAGE, FIRST VILLAGE, AT CD DOYLE, A FREE COMMUNITY CLINIC THAT SERVES A LOT OF THE HOMELESS IN THE COMMUNITY DOWNTOWN, HOWEVER AGAIN I'M RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER THE VOTE TO PURCHASE THE TEXAS BUNGALOWS.

COUNCILMEMBER POOL, YOU MENTIONED IN THE LAST CITY

[05:35:04]

COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 27TH THAT YOU PERFORMED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.

I'M DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THE ONLY VOICES I'VE HEARD SO FAR ON THE TOPIC ARE FROM THE NEXT DOOR FORUM.

I'VE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE HOA BOARD WAS NOT CONTACTED BEFORE AND STILL HAS YET TO HEAR ABOUT THE PURCHASE.

I'M ASKING FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT A DECISION THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS AN ESTABLISHED

FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. >> SPEAKER%.

-- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS SPEAKR

TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> KEITH YOUNG.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M KEITH YOUNG AND I'M A CALLING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61. OVER THE PAST FIVE MONTHS A NUMBER OF COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS AND I HAD THE EYE-OPENING EXPERIENCE TO WORK TOGETHER, ON INITIATIVES SUCH AS THE REPEAL OF THE CAMPING BAN AND THE OUTREACH EFFORTS AS WELL AS EATING IN PARKS TOGETHER ARE CRUCIAL MEASURES BUT WE MUST RECOGNIZE THESE MEASURES AS REMEDIAL.

AND THE ITEM 61 PICKS UP BEFORE THE AFOREMENTIONED LEAVES OFF, GETTING OUR NEIGHBORS OFF THE STREET AND INTO STABLE HOUSING WHERE THEY CAN GET BACK ON THEIR OWN FEET.

I HAVE HEARD YOU DURING THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION REAFFIRM A COMMITMENT TO ADDRESSING THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS IN AUSTIN.

WHEN WE ARE SERIOUS SAYING THAT OUR NEIGHBORS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LIVE IN DANGEROUS AND EVEN DEGRADING CONDITIONS THEN HOUSES IS THE ONLY PATH FORWARD. YOU MUST KEEP PEOPLE HOUSED GOING FORWARD AND THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY OUT IN AUSTIN AND THAT IS HOUSING. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU%

FOR YOUR TIME. >> JOANIE WANG.

>> HI, MY NAME IS JOANIE WONG AND I REPRESENT THE HIGH SCHOOL PARENTS WHO ARE CONCERNED FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S SAFETY.

WE OPPOSE, AND IF YOU DO NOT LIVE HERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK UP FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND SPEND OUR LIVE THERE IS AND ARE WORRIED ABOUT OUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY. NUMBER TWO, IF IT'S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY, MAYBE YOU DON'T CARE -- YOU'RE NOT AS CAREFUL.

LAVISHING $12 MILLION OF THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS ON ONLY 80 OUT OF THE TOTAL OF 3,000 HOMELESS POPULATION IN AUSTIN DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I SUGGEST THAT WE WORK TOGETHER WITH THE STATE, WHICH OWNS A FIVE-ACRE LAND NEAR SOUTH 183, AWAY FROM THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUSINESSES AND SCHOOLS, AND BUILD A LARGE COMPLEX WITH A FEW HUNDRED HOMELESS UNITS TO ACCOMMODATE MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN NEED.

FINALLY, THE HOTELS ARE USED AS A COVID HOTEL, WHICH MAKES IT UNSAFE TO ACCOMMODATE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN KELLY.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

SHARON BLIGHT. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> THIS IS SHARON.

>> GO AHEAD. >> SHARON BLIGHT LIVING IN DISTRICT 6. YOU CAN HEAR ME?

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> SHARON BLIGHT LIVING -- LIVING IN DISTRICT 6. I'M OPPOSED TO ITEM 61, BUT I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. DO PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE HOTELS ALREADY HAVE TWO COVID SHOTS? IS THIS A REQUIREMENT? AND WHAT PHYSICAL BARRIERS BETWEEN FREE FOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAS THIS BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT? IF THE CITIZENS BREAK THEIR LEASE WHAT IS THE RECOURSE BESIDES GIVING THEM RESOURCES. AND HOW ABOUT PLACING R.I.S FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN, AND IT'S MY ESCAPE OUT OF AUSTIN WHEN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TRASHED. ARE THE HOMELESS TOO GOOD TO LIVE IN R.V.S IN PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR ITEM 61, OR DELAY THE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> STEPHANIE GOODMAN. >> HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, GO AHEAD MUCH. >> HELLO?

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> HI, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE GOODMAN AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6.

I AM SPEAKING TO OPPOSE THE CANDLEWOOD HOTEL PURCHASE.

I ALSO LIVE ON THE PARK AND IT'S LESS THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE DOORS OF CANDLEWOOD. H.E.B. IS ONE HIGHLY FROM THE CANDLEWOOD DOORS, TO CLARIFY THAT.

AND THE STATS THAT WERE PRESENTED BY INTEGRAL CARE, THIS IS NOT LIKE TERRACE SPRINGS. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME AMENITIES AND THE DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND SCHOOLS ECLIPSES WHAT SOUTH AUSTIN WAS. WE HAVE MORE SCHOOLS, MORE

[05:40:01]

HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND HUMANS OF NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE.

SPECIFICALLY THOUGH INTEGRAL CARE SAY THEY HAVE SERVED 5,400 CITIZENS AND 55% HAVE MORE THAN ONE DISORDERS AND 54% HAVE A HEALTH CONDITION, BUT ONLY 38% NEEDED A PERMANENT HOUSING SOLUTION. INTEGRAL CAN ONLY ALLOCATE 50 TO 75 UNITS TO P.S.H. IF WE DID BY THEIR STATS THAT ONLY SERVES 2% TO 4% OF THAT 38%.

THE CITY SAYS THAT THERE'S 2,536 HOMELESS IF WE GO BY YOUR NUMBERS THOSE ROOMS ONLY SERVE 5% OF THAT 38%.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OTHER 62 -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. MICHAEL TORRES.

>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER 61 AND MY OPPOSITION ON 49. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE SAFER WHEN INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES ARE HAVES RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED AND TO MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IN AUSTIN WHERE IT'S BEING GENTRIFIED. OVERPOLICEING DOES NOT DO ANY BENEFIT FOR OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS.

AND THE CYCLES... AND ONE STEP AWAY FROM EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BE. BY IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSING FIRST MODEL IT GIVES A SENSE OF SECURITY AND MEETING A BASIC NEED. ITEM 49 IT STATES THAT THE INITIATIVE IS TO HOUSE WITH RESOURCES BUT IT DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE. WHEN THEY RETURN TO GET BELONGINGS FROM THEIR TENTS IN THE CAMPSITES THEIR STUFF WILL BE GONE. AND THE SECOND PROBLEM ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT IT SEPARATES OUR UNHOUSED FOLKS FROM THEIR FRIENDS WHO ARE A FAMILY OF CHOICE.

THIS HOUSING CRISIS IS STILL PRESENT, PROVIDING NO SOLUTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> ROBERT BARNES.

>> YES, THIS IS BOB BARNES. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. GO AHEAD.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? THANK YOU.

I'M PRESIDENT OF I.B.C. BANK, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE OR THIS ITEM, ITEM 61.

THE TWO ADJACENT HOTELS, THE HAMPTON INN AND THE HOMEWOOD SUITES ARE HOMED BY A FAMILY AND SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TODAY. AND I.B.C. IS A LENDER ON THE TWO HOTELS. MY MAIN CONCERN HERE IS FOR THE FAMILY. IF YOU HAVE EVER INSPECTED THE SITE YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THREE HOTELS, THE HAMPTON INN AND THE HOMEWOOD SUITES AND THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES HAVE A COMMON INTEREST. IT'S ADJACENT AND 20 FEET AWAY FROM CANDLEWOOD SUITES. IF COUNCIL APPROVES, THEN MY FEAR IS THAT IT COULD BE A DEATH SENTENCE FOR THESE HOTELS.

IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC WHEN MOST HOTELS ARE BARELY MAKING IT, AND I ASK THAT THE COUNCIL RECONSIDER AND GIVE MORE TIME FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. AND THE VERY BIG TRAGIC SITUATION HERE IS THAT COUNCIL IN THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPARENT AND HAS NOT ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY.

THIS WAS A SURPRISE FOR EVERYONE.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S A REAL DISAPPOINTMENT AND I SUPPORT HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS. BUT NOT A SHOTGUN APPROACH WHERE YOU CAN BUY HOTELS WITHOUT ANY CONCERN FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR, MAY I ASK THE PREVIOUS

SPEAKER A QUESTION? >> WE'VE ALREADY DISCONNECTED THE SPEAKER, BUT WE CAN CALL HIM BACK.

>> NO, THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MILES BRANDON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M REVEREND MILES BRANDON, WITH THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND A CLERGY LEADER IN INNER FAITH. WE INCLUDE PARTS OF DISTRICT 6 AND MANY OF OUR CONGREGANTS LIVE THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.

AND I'M SPEAKING FOR AGENDA ITEM 61 AND IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASING THE HOTEL ON PECAN PARK. AS TRANSITIONING HOUSING FOR OUR UNHOUSED FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. REGARDLESS WHERE YOU SPEAK ON ORDINANCES IMPACTING OUR HOMELESS POPULATION, WE BELIEVE THAT REAL LASTING SOLUTIONS THAT EMBRACE OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS IN WAYS THAT PROVIDE DIGNITY, RESPECT AND GRACE, THAT ACTUALLY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPACTING REAL PROGRESS AND TRANSFORMATION IN THE LIVES OF OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE.

WE WANT IT WITH THE PURCHASE AND ABILITY OF SAFE AND DIGNIFIED TRANSITIONAL AND PERMANENT HOUSING FOR THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A HELPFUL STEP IN THIS DIRECTION. FURTHER, WE DESIRE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH COUNCIL AND ENVISIONING A BOLD AND

[05:45:03]

ROBUST ACTIONABLE PLAN FOR ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT BUILDS UP THE SUFFERING WITH HOUSING INSECURITY AND THOSE WHO ARE HOUSED.

WE BELIEVE THAT -- >> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. SONICA SAVOIE.

SONICA SAVOIE. WE WILL CALL THAT SPEAKER BACK.

JEN MARGUELIUS. >> THANK YOU, I'M ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF ITEM 61 TO PURCHASE THE SECOND HOTEL FOR CRUCIAL KNEE NEEDED PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN AUSTIN.

THIS IS THE KIND OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSING AND SERVICES THAT WE NEED, PROVIDING DIGNIFIED SOLUTIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY'S MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY GETS PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS AND CONNECTS FOLKS WITH SERVICES AND WILL MAKE THE COMMUNITY SAFER.

THERE'S NOWHERE THAT UNHOUSED PEOPLE CAN BE PUT.

SINCE PEOPLE HAVE MOVED OUT OF THE SHADOWS TO CAMPING IN PUBLIC, OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE HOUSED LIVE IN THE SAME CITY AND THE SAME NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEGREGATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. VOTE YES ON ITEM 61.

I ALSO WANT TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR ITEM 62, MAKING ANTI-DISPLACEMENT FUNDS AVAILABLE TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN VULNERABLE GENTRIFIED NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE IN BLACKLAND.

AND I'M DISAPPOINTED ON YOUR VOTE FOR ITEM 49, THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO WATCH TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS NOT IMPLEMENTED IN WAYS THAT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

YOU CAN ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL CALL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND EQUAL JUSTICE. WE'LL BE WATCHING, THANK YOU.

>> SONICA SAVOIE. >> THIS IS SONICA.

YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW? >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> OKAY. YEAH, I'M CALLING IN TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR ITEM 61. A COMMON QUESTION THAT COMES UP IS HOW PEOPLE ARE PRIORITIZED FOR HOUSING.

AND THE ANSWER IS THE PEOPLE WHO GO INTO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO DIE IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE IT. AS SOMEBODY NOTED EARLIER THE AVERAGE AGE OF SOMEONE ENTERING THIS HOUSING IS 54 YEARS OLD.

AND AVERAGE PERSON ENTERING IT IS HAVING A 90% CHANCE OF HAVING TWO OR MORE CHRONIC HEALTH DISORDERS.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT 54 -- DISABLED 54 YEAR OLDS ARE GOING TO HAVE A CRIME WAVE ACROSS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE WITH YOU, AND NOT WITH THEM.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY.

THE LARGEST STUDIES, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING HAVE FOUND ZERO -- ONCE AGAIN 0% INCREASE IN CRIME WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A FACILITY. MEANWHILE, SEEING INCREASES -- NOT DECREASES -- BUT INCREASES IN PROPERTY VALUE IN EVERY SITE MEASURED IN NEW YORK CITY AND DENVER.

SO THE BUSINESS OWNER CALLING IN TO HAVE THE CHANCE OF MAYBE HAVING THEIR PROPERTY VALUE GO UP SLIGHTLY, AND NO RISK OF CRIME, BECAUSE PEOPLE AGE OUT OF VIOLENT CRIME.

54 YEAR OLDS DON'T GO ON MURDER SPREES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE DISABLED. MEANWHILE --

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

TOM HENRY. >> YES, THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M CALLING WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 61.

I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER OFFERING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT 6. COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY AND THE TAXPAYERS OF AUSTIN TO FURTHER TO UNDERSTAND THE SPECIFICS OF THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHO WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS PURCHASE.

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DONE SO UNDER A PERCEIVED VEIL OF SECRECY AT A TIME WHEN TRUST IN OUR CIVIC REPRESENTATION IS SPREAD THIN.

WITH THE RESPECT TO THE OVERALL PLAN OF OUR HOMELESS BROTHERS SE GETTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, WHEN ON THIS SAME DAY THE "HEAL" INITIATIVE IS ALSO ON THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION IT.

APPEARS THAT A CLEAR PLAN OF ADEQUATELY LIFTING OUR UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS TO A PATH OF BETTER LIFE DOES NOT EXIST AT THIS TIME. IT IS WITH MY SINCEREST EMPATHY AND BOTH FOR OUR HOUSED AND UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS THAT THE PATH TO -- IS TRANSPARENT AND WELL DEFINED BEFORE INVESTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROPERTIES WITHOUT A CLEAR PURPOSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> ZACH MACULCA. >> HEY THERE.

MY NAME IS ZACH MACULCA. AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE AUSTIN B.S.A. AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 5 AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61

[05:50:05]

HERE. WHILE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE COMMUNITY BUY-IN, THE ANXIETY OF A FEW SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND AMPLIFIED AND EGGED ON BY THE TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY G.O.P. DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE NEED TO ADDRESS MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND TO MOVE FORWARD ON A SOLUTION TOWARDS STABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY'S GOAL IS CLEARLY TO WORK WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING AGAINST ANY SOLUTION AT ALL IN HER DISTRICT. AND NOT TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ISSUES. AND IT'S GOING TO HELP PEOPLE THAT DESPERATELY NEED IT AND HOPEFULLY WE ALL NOW SEE CLEARLY THAT THESE ARE BAD-FAITH GAMES FROM COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. BYE.

>> JORDAN MIDDLEBROOKS. >> HELLO, ARE YOU ALL ABLE TO

HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU, GO AHEAD.

>> ALL RIGHT, PERFECT. MY NAME IS JORDAN MIDDLEBROOKS AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 1. I DO WANT TO THANK THOSE TODAY ON CITY COUNCIL WHO VOTED LAST WEEK FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE FIRST HOTEL AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM 61.

I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE VOTE FOR ITEM 49 AND I DO NOT SUPPORT LANGUAGE LOOPHOLES TO CRIMINALIZE HOMELESSNESS.

NOR WILL I SUPPORT A CANDIDATE IN THE FUTURE PROCEEDINGS THAT USE CONSTITUENTS' TAX DOLLARS TO CRIMINALIZE HOMELESSNESS.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THE WAY TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS IS TO PROVIDE PERMANENT HOUSING AND SERVICES IN THE PROXIMITY OF SAID HOUSING. PROVIDING THIS HOUSING NEGATES THE WORDS THAT WE USE TO DESCRIBE UNHOUSED AND HOMELESS PEOPLE. THROUGH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND CASE STUDIES, IT'S PROVEN THAT PERMANENT HOUSING REDUCES CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS AND IT'S KNOWN TO REDUCE THE TAXPAYER COSTS ASSOCIATED TO HEALTH CARE, BECAUSE THERE'S LESS EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS THAT CANNOT BE PAID, WHICH THEN GO TO THE TAXPAYE YO.

>> MAYOR ADLER: SPEAKERS, HANG ON HERE FOR A SECOND.

HOW MANY DO WE HAVE LEFT IN THE QUEUE?

>> WE HAVE FIVE LEFT, MAYOR. >> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU.

WE HAVE LEFT 60, 61, 62, 59 AND EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> MAYOR, I JUST HEARD FROM TWO CONSTITUENTS THAT WE'RE BACK ON,

BUT WE'LL WAIT FOR CONFIRMATION. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY, GREAT, THANK YOU. I'M ALSO HEARING THAT WE'RE BACK

[05:55:10]

ON. >> THE ATXN FEED SHOULD BE GOOD.

>> MAYOR ADLER: LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> MAYOR ADLER: YES.

>> YES RKTSZ GO AHEAD. >> I AM BROOKE HOLLAND.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BROOKE HOLLAND AND I'M A RESIDENT OF CIRCLE FEE AND I TESTIFIED TODAY IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 61, AND THE PURCHASE OF A HOTEL FOR HOMELESS HOUSING. I SPOKE LAST WEEK SHARING MY STORY OF ADVOCACY AND DIRECTED A TO OUR HOMELESS.

I AM DISAPPOINTED BY THE VOTE DELAY ON A HOTEL IN DISTRICT 6.

I URGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY ON THE PURCHASE OF THIS HOTEL. OUR HOMELESS COMMUNITY DESERVES BETTER THAN GAMES BEING PLAYED BY OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHILE THEIR LIVES ARE VERY LITERALLY ON THE LINE.

THANK YOU. >> NATHAN GRAHAMS.

>> HI, I'M NATHAN GRAHAMS, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 6, BEFORE I WAS PRICED OUT OF THE AREA WITH HIGH RENT.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION TO CONGRESS MEMBER KELLY -- COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY -- WHO ACCORDING TO YOUR BIOGRAPHY THAT IS POSTED, YOU CLAIM TO BE A CHRISTIAN. SO YOU HAVE A SACRED CHARGE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SPEAK FOR THE VOICELESS.

TO SPEAK FOR THE DESTITUTE AND THE POOR.

INSTEAD, YOU TOOK YOUR WEEK TO SPEAK FOR BUSINESS INTERESTS, TO SPEAK FOR BANKERS, TO SPEAK FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD INSECURE HOUSING IN THEIR LIVES AND DO NOT EXPECT SUCH IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD ASK HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU IN GOOD CONSCIENCE HAVE DONE THIS? I ASK HOW YOU COULD DENY HOUSING TO PEOPLE WHO MAY DIE WITHOUT IT? HOW YOU COULD STIR UP SUCH FEARS AND RESENTMENTS AGAINST THESE PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN HAVE A HOME. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. >> REQA MANN.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

I'M FROM THE DISTRICT 6 AND I'M OPPOSED TO 61.

AND FOR ME THE AREA IS MUCH BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF THIS DISTRICT. CANDLEWOOD HOTEL IS NOT A GOOD LOCATION FOR A CITY HOUSING. THERE'S A LACK OF TRANSPORTATION, JOBS AND MEDICAL SUPPORT.

PUTTING PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE UNFORTUNATE LIVES IN THIS LOCATION IS LIKE PUTTING THEM INTO A PRISON.

SECONDLY, THE (INDISCERNIBLE) AND NO TRANSPARENCY.

AND IN TOWN HALL IT'S FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THEY CALL FOR ONLY SINGLE UNIT TO RENT. MUCH BETTER APARTMENT IN THE MARKET. IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS WISELY.

AND IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HOUSE PEOPLE IN NEED. RE-EVALUATE.

THANK YOU. >> ANAR PATEL.

>> HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> HI, I AM ANAR PATEL AND I'M A HOMEOWNER IN DISTRICT 6 AND I'M OPPOSED TO ITEM 61. YOU KNOW, I EMPATHIZE WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE. PEOPLE LIKE US, SO I'M NOT SAYING DON'T HELP THEM, BUT TO FIND THE PERMANENT HOUSING.

BUT THIS LOCATION THAT IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

PUTTING THEM IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S NO TRANSPORTATION AND NO ACCESS TO GOOD HEALTH CARE AND NO ACCESS TO JOBS AND NO ACCESS TO THE GROCERY STORE THAT IS REALLY CLOSE BY, I'M NOT SURE HOW IT HELPS THEM. AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY THAT IT RAISES AND THE CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED CANNOT BE IGNORED.

THERE ARE HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOTEL, AND THE HIGH SCHOOL AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR. AND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITHIN A FEW MILES. AND KIDS PLAYING IN NEIGHBORHOODS NEXT TO THE HOTEL AND THE NEIGHBORS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, HOW IS THEIR SAFETY ENSURED? WHY DIDN'T THEY INCLUDE US IN THIS DISCUSSION? YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPARENT AT ALL WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS PURCHASE AND IT SEEMS THAT IT'S JUST BEING RUSHED. FOR THESE REASONS I REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIKE US AND

[06:00:03]

DELAY THIS PURCHASE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> CHARLES CROSS. >> YEAH, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> OKAY.

OKAY, YEAH, MY NAME IS CHARLES CROSS.

I'M FROM DISTRICT 6. AND I AM OPPOSED PLACING THE -- OR BUYING THE CANDLEWOOD SUITES HOTEL HERE.

THE REASON ISN'T BECAUSE I DON'T WANT HOUSE THE HOMELESS, WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHAT EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT 6 THINKS.

THEY THINK THAT WE'RE NOT FOR HELPING THE HOMELESS.

AND THAT COULD BE THE FARTHEST FROM THE TRUTH.

WE WANT THIS PROGRAM TO SUCCEED. IF YOU BUY THESE HOTELS IN THE WRONG NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE GOING TO JUST GIVE THE PROGRAM A BLACK EYE. NOW I WENT ON GOOGLE SEARCH AND I CHECKED TO SEE WHAT THE OTHER HOMELESS HOTELS, INCLUDING THE ONE ON BEN WHITE THAT WAS CANCELLED, AND ALL OF THOSE WERE IN MUCH DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS THAN OURS.

WE HAVE THE STRONG FEELING THAT A COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY HASN'T BEEN DONE, AND THAT YOU JUST ARE KIND OF HAPHAZARDLY BUYING WHATEVER HOTEL, AND IN MOST CASES IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY, BUT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE JUST WAY TOO CLOSE TO FINE DINING ESTABLISHMENTS, BUSINESS-CLASS HOTELS JUST FEET AWAY.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. >> BRIAN TOM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.

BRIAN TONTO. AND I LIVE NEAR DISTRICT 6, NOT TECHNICALLY IN FRONT OF IT. BUT I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU HERE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE UTMOST EMPATHY FOR HOW TO APPROACH THIS.

AND NUMBER ONE, I THINK THAT EVERYONE THAT I KNOW AND MYSELF ESPECIALLY, I HAVE TREMENDOUS EMPATHY FOR OUR HOMELESS POPULATION. IT IS SO ESSENTIAL THAT WE DO PROVIDE BOTH TRANSITIONAL AS WELL AS THE MORE PERMANENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE HOMELESS POPULATION IN AUSTIN.

OF COURSE, THAT HAS TO BE PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT REALLY ADDRESSES HOW WE'RE GOING TO LIFT THESE FOLKS OUT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THEY'RE IN AND TO DO IT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, SETTING GOALS AND ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS, AND HAVING A MASTER PLAN WITH EVERY STEP THAT TRACKS TO IT.

WE'RE NOT THERE AND I THINK THAT WE ALL APPRECIATE IT.

AND I THINK THAT I ALSO HAVE EMPATHY FOR THE RESIDENTS NEARBY. WHAT YOU ARE HEARING IS SIMPLY A LACK OF HEADS UP AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY THAT HAPPENED HERE.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO SUIT, YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT EVEN THE REPORT LAST YEAR THAT WAS ISSUED BY YOUR FOLKS THAT YOU HIRED SAID THAT THERE WAS A POOR JOB BEING DONE AT BASICALLY COMMUNICATING THE STRATEGY.

I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT TO STEP BACK AND TO DO A BETTER JOB, FRANKLY, OF COMMUNICATING YOUR HOMELESS STRATEGY.

>> SPEAKER, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. >> HENRY MORGHAN.

>> HI, MY NAME IS HANK AND I'M A FORMER DISTRICT 9 RESIDENT AND CURRENTLY EARNING MY MASTER'S DEGREE AND I'M ALSO FORMERLY AN UNHOUSED PERSON. I MOVED TO NEW YORK CITY AT ONE POINT IN MY LIFE TO BECOME A TEACHER I AND I STARTED WORKING TWO PART-TIME JOBS AS A PARA-PROFESSIONAL AND I SIGNED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A LEASE AND I WAS INCORRECT.

AND THAT'S HOW I FOUND MYSELF STRUGGLING TO FIND HOUSING FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. AND WE'RE PEOPLE TOO.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT A SOUP LINE WILL HELP BUT SOUP DOESN'T BUILD HOUSES. AND I HAVE MOVED ON WITH MY LIFE BUT THIS TRAUMA OF LIVING ON THE STREETS LIVES WITH YOU FOR A LONG TIME AND THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO SURVIVE ARE REALLY DIFFICULT. BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE NEIGHBORS AND MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMUNITY AND WE DO VOTE.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AND PLEASE SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL THAT

CONCLUDES ALL OF THE SPEAKERS. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

THANK YOU. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HANDLE THIS ITEM. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 61? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY MOVES

ADOPTION OF ITEM 61. >> NO, NO, NO, SORRY.

I WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE 61.

>> MAYOR ADLER: LET THE MOTION COME AND THEN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE. MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION 61? SECONDED BY RENTERIA. WE WILL DISCUSS THE MOTION AND GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.

[06:05:03]

MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU MADE A MOTION AND YOU CAN SPEAK FIRST IF YOU

WOULD LIKE. >> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU, MAYOR, I APPRECIATE IT. SO I THINK WE'RE ALL WELL AWARE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT SUBJECT AND A RELATIVELY EASY YES FOR ME ON THIS ITEM. I THINK THAT JUST LIKE THE PURCHASE ITEM IN DISTRICT 7 LAST WEEK, THIS CAN'T JUST BE EQUAL. AND I KEEP HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT -- WELL, I HEARD MULTIPLE CALLERS REFER TO THE AREA NOT BEING AN APPROPRIATE PLACE.

BUT TO DATE, MANY OTHER PARTS OF TOWN HAVE BEEN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THIS AREA CAN'T ALSO BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO HOUSE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GO FROM TALKING ABOUT IT BEING EQUAL TO IT BEING EQUITABLE.

EQUITY IS ALL ABOUT ENSURING THAT EACH PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TOOLS THEY NEED TO SUCCEED. SOME PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR MARGINS HAVE SPECIFIC NEEDS. THEY REALLY AREN'T ADDRESSED BY A REGULAR LEASE OR OWNERSHIP. ST HOUSING THAT WE'RE CREATING HERE WITH THIS SYSTEM, OR WITH THIS ITEM, IT MEETS THOSE NEEDS IN A WAY THAT IS SAFE, THAT IS COMPASSIONATE, AND THAT IS EFFECTIVE. EACH OF THE RESIDENTS WHO MOVE INTO THEIR HOMES HERE WILL RECEIVE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT ARE TAILORED FOR THEIR NEEDS. AND, YOU KNOW, NEARLY HALF -- I'M SORRY -- NEARLY ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL RESIDE HERE WILL BE INDIVIDUALS LIVING WITH DISABILITIES.

AND SO MY EXPECTATION AND SUPPORTING THE POST POINT ARE PHONEMENT OF THIS -- POSTPONEMENT IS THAT IT WILL BE USED TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR HOMELESSNESS.

IT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE HERE WOULD ARGUE THAT. STOKING FEARS AND MISINFORMATION HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CONVERSATION THOUGH.

NO MATTER WHICH -- I HATE TO EVEN SAY IT -- NO MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU STAND ON. THERE SHOULDN'T BE SIDES TO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HUMANITY. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SURE HAS SHAKEN OUT THAT WAY. AS I SAID BEFORE, DISTRICT 1 IS HOME TO A MYRIAD OF HOUSING FACILITIES FOR OUR NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE ON THE STREET.

EACH ONE IS A BADGE OF HONOR AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

IT'S BEEN ONE OF MY GREAT PLEASURES AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO VISIT A BUNCH OF THEM AND TO MEET PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THEM, TO MEET PEOPLE WHO THRIVE BECAUSE OF THEM.

AUSTIN IS A BIG CITY NOW. WE'VE GOT BIG PROBLEMS THAT REQUIRE BIG SOLUTIONS THAT ARE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND INTENTIONAL. WE CAN'T JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE OLD PLAYBOOK AND I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS THAT IS WHAT WE FIND OURSELVES DOING HERE.

THE UNWANTED SERVICES, THE UNWANTED PEOPLE AT CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN ATTITUDE IS NOT THE AUSTIN WAY, AND IT'S NOT THE VALUES THAT WE HOLD DEAR. AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE PATH FORWARD. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO UNITE AS THE ONE AUSTIN THAT WE CLAIM TO BE AND TACKLE TROUBLE IN EVERY SINGLE CORNER OF OUR CITY. AND THIS ITEM IN MY OPINION IS A BIG STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW OTHER THINGS, BOTH FOR MY COLLEAGUES AND FOR FOLKS WHO ARE LISTENING, FOLKS WHO CALLED IN. AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PARTICIPATION FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS.

IT'S VERY HELPFUL. THIS HOTEL WILL BE CONVERTED INTO PERMANENT HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE FORMERLY UNHOUSED. I HEARD PEOPLE SAY "SHELTER," AND I HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THEIR FEARS ARE.

BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT'S REALITY AND, YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS THAT WHEN THIS PROPERTY IS CONVERTED IT WILL PROVIDE RENTAL UNITS AND PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES THAT ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WHO RESIDES IN THAT RENTAL UNIT. IT IS NOT A SHELTER, WHICH IS A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION, TO FOLKS WITHOUT HOUSING.

INSTEAD, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE A LONG-TERM PERMANENT SOLUTION. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT PROTECTS THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTS. NEARLY ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO RESIDE IN THE RENTAL UNITS HERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. FEDERAL LAW PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES FROM DISCRIMINATION, WHICH INCLUDES APPLYING DIFFERENT TERMS OR CONDITIONS TO THEIR HOUSING SIMPLY BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL IS DISABLED.

THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE A RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY

[06:10:03]

DEVELOPMENT. SO IT MUST BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW HOUSING PROVIDERS, INCLUDING THE CITY, TO TREAT RESIDENTS DIFFERENT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS. ULTIMATELY, THE CITY WILL OPERATE THE PROPERTY LIKE ANY OTHER MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL LIVE THERE EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS IN THE PAST.

AND I'D LIKE TO PUT SOME EMPHASIS ON THE PAST.

PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THE HOMELESS, THE HOMELESS.

WHEN WE MAKE THIS MOVE, WHEN WE DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WHAT WE WAITED JUST ONE WEEK TO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. WE RECOGNIZED THAT SOME OF THIS TERMINOLOGY IS NEW. THE HOPE IS THAT WE WOULD ALL MOVE FORWARD RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS THE PATH FORWARD, BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS THAT WE KEEP DESCRIBING AS HOMELESS, THEY WON'T BE ANYMORE. ONCE WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AND WE'RE ABLE TO OPEN IT UP, THEN WE CAN TELL THEM WELCOME HOME.

AND THAT TITLE OF HOMELESSNESS WILL NO LONGER BE ACCURATE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY MAKING A

MOTION TO POSTPONE? >> KELLY: YES.

TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE. >> MAYOR ADLER: A SECOND TO THIS

MOTION? >> KELLY: THAT'S OKAY, CAN I

GIVE MY REMARKS? >> MAYOR ADLER: THERE IS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER POSTPONING.

WE'RE BACK TO THE DEBATE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 61. AND YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT.

>> KELLY: OKAY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY -- SORRY -- I

CAN SPEAK NOW? >> MAYOR ADLER: YES, YOU CAN SPEAK NOW, BUT THE MOTION TO POSTPONE FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. SO NOW YOU CAN SPEAK ON THE

MERITS OF ITEM NUMBER 61. >> KELLY: OKAY, THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO THANK MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO JOINED ME IN MY REQUEST LAST WEEK TO POSTPONE THE PASSAGE OF THIS ITEM FOR SEVEN DAYS. INITIATIVES BY THE CITY INVOLVING BIG ISSUES REQUIRE HEARINGSES, TOWN HALLS AND MULTILINGUAL AND VARIED PLATFORM OUTREACH, INCLUDING TO SCHOOLS, COUNTY GOVERNMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS AND A COMMUNICATION PROCESS THAT USUALLY SPANS WEEKS.

THIS ITEM DIDN'T GET THAT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

THE HOMELESS ISSUE IS HUGE HERE IN AUSTIN, VERY CLEARLY.

JUST THIS MORNING, SADLY, A FATAL ACCIDENT ON 35 CAUSEDDED A DIESEL SPILL THAT DRENCHED A OVERPASS.

THIS IS NO PLACE FOR PEEL UPON TO LIVE.

WE DO NEED PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING BECAUSE OF THAT OUTCRIES FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT IT BEING NOT IN THE RIGHT LOCATION. MY OFFICE, WITH THE SUPPORT OF CITY STAFF, QUICKLY ARRANGED ONE ZOOM TOWN HALL HELD JUST LAST NIGHT. CLEARLY, INADEQUATE, GIVEN THE STAKES HERE. THIS PROCESS, THIS PURCHASE, AND THE HOTEL STRATEGY IS ONE THAT DESERVES A LOT MORE THOUGHT AND TRANSPARENCY. AND AS A COMMUNITY AND A CITY, WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HELPED TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE'S STRIFE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE UNHOUSED COMMUNITIES. IN PART BY PUSHING THROUGH UNTESTED AND PARTIAL SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS ISSUES.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE CAN TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPROVE THAT RELATIONSHIP BY BUILDING TRUST.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE BACK-UP INFORMATION THE ANDERSON UNLIMITED DISTRICT AND THE STATE SENATOR'S OFFICE WITH THE ADDITIONAL BACK-UP INFORMATION FROM LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER AND FORMER MAYOR MAXWELL, ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOU ALL TO READ.

I HOPE THAT YOU GET A CHANCE TO READ THEIR THOUGHTS.

AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THOSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PASSING THIS ITEM. I WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE ALL KNOW HERE THAT I AM NOT AGAINST PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

IN FACT, KNOWING THAT THIS ITEM IS GOING TO LIKELY PASS TODAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE USE THIS LOCATION AS A SHINING LIGHT AND A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE CAN DO FOR OUR UNHOUSED COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION TO -- TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. I'M HAPPY MOVING FORWARD WITH THE MOTEL STRATEGY. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE THAT WE MOVE FOR THAT FIRST COUPLE. AT THE END OF LAST YEAR AND THE END OF LAST YEAR AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN PICK UP AND ACCELERATE THE EFFORT. I KNOW THAT THE COVID HAS SLOWED US DOWN. BUT I THINK THAT FROM A COST BASIS THAT THIS IS SO MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT THE COST IS OF MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF HOMELESSNESS WITH PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE HOMES. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

[06:15:03]

LETTER THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE SENATOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF LACK OF COMMUNICATION, AS WELL AS THE SAME ISSUE IN A PHONE CALL THAT I HAD WITH COMMISSIONER LONG WHO ALSO CALLED AND WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A JUDGE AND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO SPEAK WITH HIM.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS THAT WE COULD DO BETTER PROVIDING SOME NOTICE OF DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS, CERTAINLY, OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN A WAY THAT STILL PRESERVES THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS. I SAW THIS AS SOMETHING THAT OUR STAFF WAS TAKING A LOOK AT AND I ENCOURAGED THAT.

IF THERE'S A BETTER WAY FOR TO US DO THIS, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO FIND IT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED IS A LEGITIMATE ONE.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS IS ALSO A VALID CONCERN. SO IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT ACCOMPLISHES BOTH OF THOSE PURPOSES, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND IT.

BUT I ALSO -- AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT I THINK THAT HAS BEEN A REAL CONSTRUCTIVE HANDLING OF THIS ISSUE OVER THE LAST WEEK BY OUR NEW -- OUR NEW COLLEAGUE.

COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY. I HAVE WATCHED YOU SPEAK TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. I HAVE SEEN YOU ADDRESS WHAT YOU WERE CALLING A SIGNIFICANT MISUNDERSTANDING THAT HAPPENED WITH MANY PEOPLE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IT WAS THAT WE WERE FACING.

I APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TT AS ONE OF THE OBSERVERS AND WATCHERS ON THE ZOOM CALL THAT YOU HAD.

I APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN UP IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND OTHER PLACES.

I THINK YOU HAVE HANDLED IT IN A REALLY CONSTRUCTIVE WAY AND THERE WILL BE DISAGREEMENTS TO THE POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE.

AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE THAT.

I SUPPORT THIS, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS THE MAYOR PRO TEM INDICATED, TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. THIS IS A HOTEL THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

AND IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS NOW MARKETING ITSELF -- WHAT IS IT -- THE HEDGE APARTMENTS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.

RIGHT NOW BEING MARKETED AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT IT USED TO BE THE AUSTIN SUITES HOTEL THAT WAS PURCHASED AND IT IS BEING NOW MADE INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

OUR STRATEGY FOR HELPING TO HOUSE PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS HAS AT ITS CORE TRYING TO FIND PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE AND ON A PERMANENT BASIS IN HOTELS OR APARTMENT COMPLEXES. OFTENTIMES WE DO THAT WITH VOUCHERS. THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO EFFECTIVE ZERO HOMELESSNESS WITH VETERANS TO USE VOUCHERS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PLACE PEOPLE IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES JUST LIKE THIS. AND IN ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS -- IT IS JUST THAT IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE AND A LOT MORE EFFICIENT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT IN HOTELS THIS WAY. AND, QUITE FRANKLY, THE VOUCHERS ARE RARE AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF THEM TO GO AROUND.

BUT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A SHELTER.

I SAY THAT HESITANTLY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO ALSO TO HAVE TO FIND PLACES TO PUT SHELTERS IN THIS CITY.

BUT AS REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT IS -- IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND WE HAVE PUT APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN DIFFERENT PLACES. THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND ALLOWING PEOPLE WHO IN THE PAST HAVE EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS, TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THIS CITY DOES ALL OVER THE CITY IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES. I WANT TO CALL OUT AND CONGRATULATE JASON FLEISHMAN AND HE WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ATXN ARTICLE HERE RECENTLY. IT'S SOMEONE IN OUR CITY WHO WAS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND ENDED UP IN ONE OF OUR PROTECTIVE LODGES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID.

BUT WAS HELPED OFF THE STREETS, PUT INTO A PLACE WHERE HE WAS ABLE TO STABILIZE HIS LIFE, GET ACCESS TO SERVICES.

AND HE NOW IS EMPLOYED AND JUST SIGNED A LEASE FOR HIS OWN APARTMENT LAST TUESDAY. THESE ARE THE KIND OF EXPERIENCES THAT WE SEE. WHEN WE USE THOSE VOUCHERS AND WE PLACE PEOPLE IN APARTMENTS ALL OVER OUR CITY, THEY RECEIVE

[06:20:04]

WRAPAROUND SERVICES, MANY TIMES ADMINISTERED BY A LOT OF THE SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS THAT EXIST IN THIS CITY.

ONE OF THEM IS PERATOPS. IT HAS A 90% SUCCESS RATE OF PEOPLE THAT THEY WORK WITH IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES OR IN HOTELS, HELPING TO ENSURE THAT -- I THINK THE STATISTIC IS TWO YEARS LATER THEY'RE STILL SUSTAINED AND NOT BACK ON THE -- NOT BACK ON THE STREETS. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED BY THEM. AND THEY WILL HELP WITH FOLKS LIVES AND I AGREE WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE IN A WAY THAT IS ALSO POSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AS YOU WOULD WANT FROM ANY NEW MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITY. COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

AND THEN -- >> KITCHEN: I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I TOO AM SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU FOR THE PRIOR COMMENTS, AND THANK YOU, MAYOR ADLER, FOR POINTING OUT WHAT YOU HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THIS LOCATION.

THIS WILL BE OPERATED AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

BY A TRUSTED LEADERS IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH CERATOS.

AND IT IS AMENITIES AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS.

AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM GAVE A GOOD AND THOROUGH DESCRIPTION OF THAT. SO I WOULD ADD MY VOICE TO THE MAYOR'S IN ASKING THAT OUR STAFF AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH -- WITH THESE PURCHASES, MOTELS AND HOTELS, I WOULD JUST ASK OUR STRATEGY OFFICER AND OUR STAFF TO THINK THROUGH WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS.

YOU KNOW, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TYPES OF CONFIDENTIALITY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE WITH PURCHASES. I THINK THAT IT REALLY HELPS TO TALK WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD TO THAT REQUEST IS HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN OFFER ASSURANCE TO PEOPLE THAT WE WILL, IN FACT, USE THIS LOCATION -- THIS AND OTHER LOCATIONS -- FOR THE PURPOSES STATED.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE WILL BE USING THIS FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

WHAT ASSURANCE CAN WE PROVIDE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT IS INDEED WHAT IT WILL BE USED FOR INTO THE FUTURE? SO I THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ON LOCAL BUSINESS' PARTS TO ASK WHAT CAN THEY POINT TO TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE USE WILL BE INTO THE FUTURE.

SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT ALSO.

I WANT TO ALSO JUST ADD THAT I SUPPORTED THE DELAY FOR ONE WEEK BECAUSE I RESPECT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY IN PROVIDING HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH HER CONSTITUENTS.

AND I APPRECIATE HER EFFORTS IN THAT AREA.

SO, THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER

ELLIS. >> ELLIS: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.

THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO SPOKE EARLIER TODAY TO US THAT SAID THIS WASN'T ENOUGH UNITS TO REALLY MAKE A DENT.

AND EVEN THOUGH HE MAY HAVE MEANT IT A DIFFERENT WAY, I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT. THERE'S MANY DENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING.

AND PURCHASING THE HOTELS IS ONE STEP AT A TIME.

I THINK THAT IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

I THINK THAT EVERY SINGLE ROOF THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A PERSON, WHETHER IT IS THE CITY PROVIDING THAT, OR WHETHER A NON-PROFIT PARTNER PROVIDING THAT, HELPS TO GET EACH INDIVIDUAL OFF THE STREET IN A PLACE THAT IS MUCH MORE SAFE FROM THE ELEMENTS AND PROVIDES A TRUE PATH TO LONG-TERM HOUSING.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS AND I THINK THAT THE TIME

TO ACT IS NOW. >> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER

CASAR. >> CASAR: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE VOTING FOR THIS TODAY, BUYING HOW TELES AND TURNING IT INTO HOUSING IS HOW TO GET HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE OUT OF TENTS AND INTO HOUSING.

WHILE I SUPPORT BUILDING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THIS STRATEGY OF CONVERTING HOTELS CAN GET US THE SPEED THAT THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH FOLKS TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS COSTS US SOME MONEY UPFRONT, WE'VE SEEN STUDY AFTER STUDY THAT GETTING PEOPLE INTO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SAVES US TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER PERSON

[06:25:03]

IF WE'RE PULLING PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS.

THE HOTELS AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED WILL NOT ONLY BE HOMES BUT WILL PROVIDE KEY SERVICES AND THAT'S ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE CRITICAL WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE AROUND THE BUDGET AND IN PASSING BONDS. I ALSO HEARD SOME FOLKS TODAY SAY WHY CAN'T WE MAKE THIS MORE LIKE COMMUNITY FIRST? AND I LOVE COMMUNITY FIRST. BUT WE'LL ALL REMEMBER THAT WHEN COMMUNITY FIRST WAS BEING PROPOSED, MANY PEOPLE OPPOSED MULTIPLE PLANS THAT WAS PUT FORWARD.

AND THEN IT TURNED OUT THAT THE COMMUNITY FIRST WAS AND IS A GREAT ASSET FOR OUR CITY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AUSTIN WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER.

AND WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER ACROSS DISTRICTS.

WE'VE PURCHASED HOTELS IN THREE DISTRICTS.

THIS WOULD BE THE FOURTH. WITH ONE INCLUDED IN MY DISTRICT. SO I THINK THAT THAT WORK CITY-WIDE IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE US PULL HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS AND INTO

HOUSING QUICKLY. >> MAYOR ADLER: ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE IN FAVOR OF ITEM 61, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOSE OPPOSED? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY VOTED NO.

THE OTHERS VOTING AYE. IT PASSES, 10-1.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ON TO HANDLE ESD17, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 60.

[60. Approve a resolution consenting to the creation of Travis County Emergency Services District No. 17. Strategic Outcome(s): Safety]

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM NUMBER 60?

COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. >> POOL: YEAH, I WILL MOVE TO

APPROVE. >> MAYOR ADLER: A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM 60. COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY MAKES THE MOTION. DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, YOU PULLED THIS.

>> KELLY: I DID, BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LAST NIGHT THE PLEUGERVILLE CITY COUNCIL WAS TO VOTE IT DOWN.

WE SHOULDN'T SUPPRESS THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

IF ANOTHER JURISDICTION VOTES NO, WE SHOULD SUPPORT IN MY OPINION THE PETITIONERS, ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BY IT. AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALL

WOULD CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

ANYMORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? LET'S TAKE A VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER 60, WHICH IS APPROVING THE PETITION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THOSE OPPOSED? I SEE NO ONE IN OPPOSITION. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ON THE DAIS.

LET'S TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER 62. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE

[62. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to negotiate a grant agreement for utilizing the Project Connect anti-displacement funds, and to develop and implement a process to utilize the funding available in Fiscal Year 2021 in areas vulnerable to displacement. Sponsors: Council Member Gregorio Casar, Council Member Vanessa Fuentes, Council Member Ann Kitchen, and Mayor Steve Adler]

THIS I.F.C.? WHO BROUGHT THIS I.F.C.?

>> MAYOR, I'M THE SPONSOR BUT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MAY WANTED TO CLEAR UP ANY CONFUSION OR THINGS LISTED IN TESTIMONY.

SO I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK ON IT BUT MAYBE I'LL DEFER TO COUNCIL

MEMBER KITCHEN. >> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MAKES THE MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 62.

>> I'M SORRY -- THAT'S FINE. >> MAYOR ADLER: IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 62? YOU HAVE PULLED, COUNCIL MEMBER

KITCHEN. >> KITCHEN: I WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THERE WERE QUESTIONS BY SPEAKERS.

YOU KNOW, THE SPONSOR -- SPONSOR MEMBER CASAR AND I DISCUSSED THIS AND WE INCLUDED LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY MANAGER WOULD CONSULT WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONCE IT'S FORMED.

AND ALSO WOULD -- YOU KNOW, WOULD -- WHEN THE NEXT AVAILABLE TOOLS AND STRATEGIES ARE CREATED BY THE COMMUNITY AND THE EQUITY ASSESSMENT TOOL ARE READY TO BE DEPLOYED, THEN THOSE WILL BE CONSIDERED ALSO IN THE USE OF THE $23 MILLION.

THIS IS SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE, SINCE -- THAT WE DO NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE $23 MILLION FOR PROJECT CONNECT WHILE THE EQUITY ASSESSMENT TOOL IS BEING DEVELOPED.

AS WELL AS WHILE THE C.A.C. IS BEING DEVELOPED.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THE OTHER THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IT SPECIFIES THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR 100% OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I MEAN, IT'S TO BE USED FOR -- WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AS WELL AS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS. SO IT'S NOT A MULTIUSE -- IT'S NOT A STRATEGY FOR A PRIVATE SECTOR PURCHASE OF BUILDINGS WHERE YOU HAVE A MIX OF -- OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH

[06:30:02]

MARKET-RATE HOUSING. SO I JUST WANTED -- I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THOSE CLARIFICATIONS FOR FOLKS.

>> MAYOR ADLER: COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER.

>> ALTER: I THOUGHED THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING RED LINES AND I WANTED TO ASK IF PEOPLE THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE AND I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT EASY TO DO BUT IF WE CAN GET RED LINE VERSIONS IT'S SUPER HELPFUL. SO I WANTED TO ASK MR. CASAR IF YOU COULD HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFERENCE.

I FOUND SOMETHING ON -- INCLUDING COOPERATIVES AND IT'S A CHANGE FROM VERSION 2 BUT I I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS CHANGED. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT, I WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT ELSE HAD CHANGED.

>> CASAR: I ASSUMED THAT IT WAS SENT OUT, SO I APOLOGIZE AND I TRY TO DO THAT BEST I CAN. YES, THAT LINE IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. IT IS THAT TENANT RIGHTS FOLKS WHO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH PARTNERS THAT HAD A GOOD TRACK RECORD OR THAT WERE COOPERATIVES TO THESE DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING SPENT TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING APARTMENTS OR EXISTING HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.

THE TWO BUCKETS ARE THE SMALLER -- WORKING WITH THE SMALLER C.D.C.S AND THE LARGER APARTMENT ACQUISITIONS.

AND POTENTIALLY -- WHAT THAT NOTES IS POTENTIALLY HAVING TENANTS COMING TOGETHER TO BUY THEIR OWN APARTMENTS BACK.

>> ALTER: THANK YOU. THIS SOMETHING THAT WE SAW OVER MULTIPLE, AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO SINGLE YOU OUT.

IT WOULD HELP US TO BE MORE PRODUCTIVE IF WE COULD TRY TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW V HOW TO DO IT MYSELF BUT I KNOW THAT THE STAFF DO AND IT'S JUST A GOOD PRACTICE

IF WE CAN. >> CASAR: 100%, I TOOK IT IN

THAT SPIRIT. >> ALTER: THANK YOU.

>> CASAR: MAYOR, YOU'RE ON MUTE. >> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? YOU WERE JUST TELLING ME --

FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO, NO, -- I JUST -- FOR WHATEVER REASON MY MUTE BUTTON IF JUST STICKS FOR A MINUTE.

BUT THANK YOU FOR CALLING ON ME. I WAS DEFINITELY RAISING MY HAND TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. IT'S PRETTY EXCITING BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS DOWN TO SUPPORT ANY ITEM THAT SUPPORTS OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM. AND I AM ESPECIALLY DOWN TO DO THAT ON FEBRUARY 4TH. TODAY IS THE 108TH BIRTHDAY OF ROSA PARKS. A TOWERING FIGURE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND THE PERSONIFICATION OF EXPANDING EQUALITY AND EQUITY IN PUBLIC TRANSIT.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT EQUITY AND DISPLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE WHAT SEALED THE DEAL FOR SO MANY VOTERS LAST NOVEMBER.

AUSTIN IS LEADING THE WAY HERE WHICH REALLY MAKES ME PROUD.

I KNOW THAT OTHER CITIES WILL LOOK TO US AND WHAT IT WAS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH AS THE TEMPLATE NATIONWIDE.

AND THAT MAKES ME VERY, VERY PROUD OF MY HOMETOWN.

NOW IS THE TIME TO LITERALLY TO START PUTTING OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS THOUGH. WORLD-CLASS TRANSIT ISN'T SO EXCITING WHEN ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON IT CAN'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR IT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE TAKING.

THE EQUITY ASSESSMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL STRATEGIES, I THINK THAT WILL BE A HUGE PART OF PREVENTING THAT.

AND SO WILL THE FINANCIAL MUSCLE THAT NOW WE'RE ABLE TO FLEX FOR NOW. I'M SUPER EXCITED TO LEND MY SUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM. IN FACT, MY ONE REGRET IS THAT THINGS WERE JUST FLYING SO FAST THIS WEEK THAT I NEVER REALLY GOT A CHANCE TO ASK TO SLAP MY NAME ON AS A CO-SPONSOR AND I HOPE THAT THE SPONSOR WILL CONSIDER THAT.

AND IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE. AND I THINK THAT IS IT.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR ADLER: THE RECORD CAN

NOTE YOU AS A SPONSOR AS WELL. >> HARPER-MADISON: THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR ADLER: YEP. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THIS TOO. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

I'M PLEASED THAT THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, THE A.T.P., ALSO VOTED TO PUT ASIDE THE $23 MILLION FOR THE INITIAL FUNDING COMING IN FOR THIS PURPOSE TO BE DIRECTED BY THE CITY.

AND I LIKE THE AREAS THAT WAS IN THE INITIAL -- WHAT THE INITIAL FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR. AND THE AREAS THAT THEY CAN BE SPENT IN AND HOW THEY CAN BE DEPLOYED EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR SUBSEQUENTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE LATER WORK AS IT COMES INTO PLAY

[06:35:06]

IN TIME. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I SUPPORT. I READ THE RESOLUTION CAREFULLY AND I SUPPORT IT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASAR.

>> CASAR: THANKS, MAYOR. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT EVERYONE HAS MADE AND I APPRECIATE THE VOTERS TAKING ACTION TO PASS MA MASS TRANSIT D AUSTINITES NEED AN AFFORDABLE CITY, NOT JUST ONE OR THE OTHER. SO WITH THIS RESOLUTION WE WILL KICK OFF THE FIRST $23 MILLION IN SPENDING TO PRESERVE PEOPLE'S HOMES OF THE $300 MILLION. I WANT TO APPRECIATE ALL OF MY CO-SPONSORS AND I WANT TO NOTE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S PERSISTENT WORK ON THIS ISSUE, STARTING WITH THE RESOLUTION A WAY BACK. BUT EVERYONE IS REALLY HAD A STRONG PUSH TO GET THE DOLLARS PACKAGED INTO THE FINAL PRODUCT.

AND REALLY I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER-MADISON WILLING TO ADD HER NAME HERE AT THE END, OF COURSE, WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE WITHOUT YOU EITHER. AND I WANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THE MAYOR'S LEADERSHIP ON PROJECT CONNECT.

SO MANY OF US WORKED SO HARD ON THIS, AND EVERYBODY WORKED REALLY HARD ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

BUT WE KNOW THAT NO ELECTED OFFICIAL WORKED AS HARD AS YOU.

AND THIS ISN'T JUST A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN, BUT IT'S ONE THAT INCLUDES THIS CRITICAL DISPLACEMENT COMPONENT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CREDIT SO MUCH OF YOUR WORK GETTING THE COMMUNITY TRUST TO GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

>> MAYOR ADLER: THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, I DO HAVE MY FINGERS CROSSED -- I WAS LISTENING TO THE NEW SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WHO WAS CONFIRMED A COUPLE DAYS AGO SPEAKING TO A GROUP, AND THEY BROUGHT UP THIS $300 MILLION COMPONENT OF AUSTIN'S PROJECT CONNECT AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT HE SUPPORTED IN DOING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN THE COUNTRY. YOU READY TO TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM NUMBER 62, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THOSE OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS ON THE DAIS. IT PASSES.

AND THAT GETS US TO ITEM 59, THE ZONING CASE, THE VINEYARD

[59. C14-2020-0111 -Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Austin, Texas, Inc.- Conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 by zoning property locally known as 13208 Morris Road (Lake Creek Watershed). Applicant Request: To zone from interim-rural residence (I-RR) district zoning to multifamily residence-low density (MF-2) district zoning for Tract 1 and limited office-mixed use combining (LO-MU) district zoning for Tract 2. Staff Recommendation and Zoning and Platting Commission Recommendation: To grant to multifamily residence-low density (MF-2) district zoning for Tract 1 and limited office-mixed use combining (LO-MU) district zoning for Tract 2. Owner/Applicant: Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Austin, Texas, Inc. (Benjamin Koch). Agent: Mathias Company (Richard Mathias). City Staff: Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057. District(s): District 6]

CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, YOU PULLED

THIS ONE? >> KELLY: YES, I DID, MAYOR.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN I HAVE SOME REMARKS

REGARDING IT. >> MAYOR ADLER: OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM, 62? WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENTS FIRST AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE GOING

TO SAY. >> KELLY: OKAY.

WELL, MY FIRST QUESTION IS CAN STAFF SPEAK TO HOW THIS PROPOSAL IS ONLY PARTIALLY SUPPORTED BY THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN?

>> SURE. COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, THIS IS JERRY WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

WITH REGARD TO THE -- I'M SORRY, I MAY HAVE TO SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT -- FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION OF IT, THE STAFF DID DETERMINE THAT THE -- IT DOES MEET THE CONNECTIVITY DEMANDS. HOWEVER, SIDEWALKS ARE NOT ADMITTED ON LAWRENCE ROAD, BUT DID NOTE THE LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA. AND IT ALSO NOTED THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE ABOUT WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH DOES HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. AND SO, THEREFORE, THAT THEY WERE GOING -- ONLY ABLE TO OFFER A PARTIAL RECOMMENDATION.

MOSTLY WITH THE PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY.

>> KELLY: CORRECT. >> THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT

OVERALL. >> KELLY: OKAY.