Aug 30, 2022 City Council Work Session

JUST DENSITY REASONS OR TAX REASONS DOES THAT HAPPEN ON ITS OWN? AND IF NOT, WHAT DOES HAPPEN ON ITS OWN COMPARED TO WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE, IF WE, IF WE DID SOMETHING SOUTH, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THE COMMUNITY HAS BECAUSE THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT IF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL GET YOU TO A DIFFERENT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR ON ITS OWN, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THAT INVESTMENT AND YOU CAN USE THE INCREMENT, NOT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ON ITS OWN, NO ONE.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD THEN AND BEGIN WITH THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

THANK YOU, MIRA.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND WE DO HAVE A TEAM READY TO PRESENT, AND I'M GOING TO START BY HANDING IT OVER TO ACM, RODNEY GONZALEZ, TO INTRODUCE THE TOPIC.

THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT BEFORE YOU GET STARTED.

UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THIS AND, AND, UH, A GROUP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, REQUESTED THIS IS BRIEFING.

AND I THINK WE REQUESTED THIS BRIEFING BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE IN THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHAT'S TRUE AND WHAT'S NOT TRUE, WHAT'S THE FACTUAL BASIS.

AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO REALLY TRUE UP AS BEST WE CAN.

UH, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED MORE BROADLY, UH, IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT CENTRAL SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO THE QUESTIONS I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP RIGHT NOW WITH THE VISION PLAN THAT WE SEEN IN THE PAST, AS I SAW THE REPORT AS A COMMUNITY OR ALL REPORT, I THINK BACK IN JUNE OR JULY, IT LOOKED AS IF THE PROJECT DOESN'T GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY IN, IN TERRORS OR, OR THE LIGHT.

IT DOESN'T GENERATE ENOUGH INCOME IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO HAPPEN.

THERE'S A DISCONNECT.

IF THAT'S TRUE, I'D LIKE TO, TO GET THAT CONFIRMED AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THEN WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS, UH, IN THAT SITUATION? ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DOLLARS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING SPENDING AS A CITY CHANGE.

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, IN THAT PART OF THE CITY? WE KNOW IT'S A REALLY GOOD PART OF THE CITY.

WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO DEVELOP IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, BUT IF IT WOULD DEVELOP DIFFERENTLY, IF THE CITY GETS INVOLVED, UH, AND INVESTS IN THAT AREA IN CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WOULD IT DEVELOP DIFFERENTLY? AND IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CITY DOING THAT? SO DOES THE CITY HAVE A CHOICE TO BE MADE ON WHAT IT WANTS THAT PART OF AUSTIN TO LOOK LIKE EITHER FOR URBAN PLANNING REASONS OR COMMUNITY BENEFIT REASONS OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING REASONS, OR

[00:05:01]

AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S CONVERSATIONS, PLEASE ASSUME THAT THAT, THAT THE CITY IS NOT VIOLATING THE LAW AND TRYING TO DIVERT FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TAXATION ON THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD DEVELOP ON ITS OWN, IF WE DIDN'T DO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

SO FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD, PLEASE ASSUME THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO VIOLATE THE LAW, THAT IF WE DID AT WAS ALL WE REALLY DOING IS A TERS ON THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, BUT FOR THAT CAPITAL, THAT CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION ON ALL THINGS TODAY, UNLESS OUR COUNCIL MEMBER ASKS YOU OTHERWISE.

BUT, BUT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THEN IF WE DID MORE, WOULD THAT GENERATE MORE AT THE LONG-TERM TAX VALUES THROUGH HITTERS THAT WOULD ENABLE US MAYBE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD, TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS AREA OR DO ALL THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IF THE PRESIDENT DIRECTION WOULD WOULDN'T GET US THERE.

AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING IS IF WE DID THAT, IF, IF WE TAXED THE, UH, THE, THE, WHAT WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED WITH THE WORD RECURRED ON ITS OWN, AND WE TAKE ALL THAT MONEY AND PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND, AND WE THEN TAX THE INCREMENT IN A, IN A TOURERS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR, BUT FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND THAT RAISED MONEY, THEN THAT WE COULD SPEND ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR PARKS OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

AND WE, SO, AND, AND THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE REVENUES GROWTH AT THE SAME THREE AND A HALF PERCENT THAT WERE KEPT.

WOULD THAT TAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL? WOULD THE TOURISTS TAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OR WOULD THE GENERAL FUND HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY IT WOULD HAVE HAD OTHERWISE FOR, FOR CLINICS OR FOR POCKET PARKS OR FOR THAT KIND OF STUFF? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT, THAT ARE CONCERNED THAT IF WE DID A TERRORS THAT TAXED THE INCREMENT AND USE THAT MONEY TO DO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT WE MIGHT BE TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM WHAT THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT REVENUE INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE GIVEN US.

SO THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

UM, WOULD WE BE LOSING ANYBODY IN A GENERAL FUND AND I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT QUESTION THERE N A N THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR.

I THINK WE'LL SEE HERE IN A SECOND IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, WHETHER WE DID ANYTHING AT ALL, THERE'S AN INCREMENT THAT HAPPENS IF WE INVEST AND THE TERS WOULD GET REVENUE FROM THAT INCREMENT, BUT FOR VALUE.

AND THE QUESTION THAT, THAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY QUESTION.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING.

I'M ASKING IF WE DO A TOURS OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT CONSISTENT WITH LAW, DOES THAT TAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OR WE DO WE HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND ON POCKET PARKS OR CLINICS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OH, ARE WE DIVERTING GENERAL FUND DOLLARS? AND, AND I MEAN, WE ARE USING GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.

AND THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING IS WHETHER, WHETHER THE INCREMENTAL, WHETHER THAT TAXES, WHETHER THAT THE INCREASE THAT WE'RE REALIZING BECAUSE OF THE TOUR'S INVESTMENT EQUATES TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE TAKING THEM EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE USING IN TAX DOLLARS FROM THE TOURS.

TELL ME IF THIS GETS IT IS THE MONEY THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE TERRORS.

IN ADDITION TO THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT REVENUE GROWTH WE WOULD GET IN THE GENERAL FUND, OR DOES IT COME OUT OF THAT THREE AND A HALF PERCENT? IS IT ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD, OR ARE WE USING SOME OF THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD, AND THAT WE'RE SPENDING IT OVER HERE.

I NOW UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

AND I THINK I WOULD, LIKE, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE, THAT WE SEE SOME NUMBERS FOR THAT, UM, WHICH I ASSUME ARE PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT OUR, OUR STAFF WITH OUR CONSULTANTS.

THAT WHERE WE HA WHERE WE ARE NOW, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO ALL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCOUNT IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT AND I NEED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NUMBERS ON THIS AT ALL.

I NOTICED THAT A REPORT JUST GOT PUBLISHED, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT YET.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK THIS IS A BIG, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION AND REALLY IMPORTANT CHOICE FOR, FOR US TO HAVE IT BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED

[00:10:01]

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE.

THANKS.

AND I HOPE THAT OUR CONVERSATION TODAY IS ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THAT, UH, FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS, UH, AND I GAVE STAFF A LITTLE HEADS UP, UM, LAST WEEK.

AND THEN AGAIN, TODAY, I'M ALSO REALLY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THE REGULATING PLAN, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, MOVING FORWARD WITH A TOUR'S INVESTMENT WITHOUT REALLY GETTING THAT CONCRETE REGULATING PLAN ON THE, ON THE GROUND WOULD BE A PROBLEM WOULD BE OUT OF SYNC.

SO I HOPE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT, ABOUT WHERE THE TIMELINE IS ON THAT.

AND I, AND I AGREE WITH THAT TOO, AND HOW THE REGULATING PLAN PLAYS INTO THIS, I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

AND SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU ASKED IS IF WE GAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, GREATER ENTITLEMENTS OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AREA, SO THAT THERE WAS GREATER BUILDING, WOULD THAT GENERATE ADDITIONAL AD VALOREM TAX DOLLARS THAT DON'T COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND THAT ARE IN ADDITION TO THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE GENERAL FUND THAT WE COULD THEN INVEST IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR MORE PARKLAND OR INFRASTRUCTURE? THAT'D BE ONE QUESTION I AGREE WITH YOU.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FINANCE THAT.

BUT ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS SHOULD WE BE GIVING DIRECTION TO THE FOLKS DOING THE REGULATING PLAN? SHOULD WE BE SAYING TO THE FOLKS DOING A REGULATING PLAN, PLEASE DO A REGULATING PLAN THAT ENABLES THIS DISTRICT TO BE ECONOMICALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHAT THEY'VE PUT IN A REGULATING PLAN MAY BE DEPENDENT ON WHAT DIRECTION THE COUNCIL GIVES IN TERMS OF, OF HOW MUCH ENTITLEMENT, UH, IS APPROPRIATE IN THAT AREA.

I'VE A SENSE, A FEW TIMES THAT WE HAD TEXT DRAFTED OR ALMOST DRAFTED.

AND SO, I MEAN, IT MAY BE MY HOPE IS THAT THAT PIECE IS ALREADY DONE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, BUT I, BUT I AGREE.

THAT'S A QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, A HOPPER MADISON, AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

THANK YOU TO HER.

BUT I THINK SOMEBODY ALREADY BROUGHT IT UP.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I'M RECEIVING, UH, COMMUNICATIONS AT ATX.

IT IS VERY, VERY QUIET.

I THINK THAT FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME ARE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU WELL, THAT'S A BUMMER COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN.

UH, JUST A PROCESS QUESTION.

UM, I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, UM, WHEN IT, WHEN IT'S THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I, AND I'M PROBABLY NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT I'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE PUD, UM, AND THE PARKLAND.

AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS THIS IS JUST A PROCESS QUESTION THAT, UM, THERE IS ATTACHED TO BACKUP FOR 1 0 5 THERE'S TWO ORDINANCES, AND THEY'RE NAMED THE SAME THING.

SO IT'S UNCLEAR TO FOLKS ABOUT WHICH ORDINANCE IS WHICH AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM.

UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT WE MAY BE LOOKING AT, BUT IF SOMEONE COULD, COULD JUST EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE TWO ORDINANCE ORDINANCES ARE FOR THE PUBLIC.

SO THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'D BE GOOD.

UH, AND AGAIN, WE'LL START JUST WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THE STATESMAN POD.

YES, CAN'T REMEMBER IT POOL.

AND IT GOT TO MY POINT THIS, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY A REGULATING PLAN ON THIS PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THEN MY SECOND QUESTION THEN IS STAFF, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REGULATING PLAN, CAN YOU IMPOSE ONE AFTER THE FACT? UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY GET INTO THE QUESTIONS NOW, MARIN COUNCIL, OR DID THE BRIEFING, AND THEN WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE RED BUILDING PLAN, AND THEN WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME.

LET'S DO THAT.

THEN LET'S GET THE PRESENTATION.

WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU RIGHT AWAY.

LET'S SEE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN FIRST.

WOULD YOU BE SURE TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE A REGULATING PLAN IN PLACE, SO, ABSOLUTELY.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS.

WE HEAR YOU WITH REGARD TO THE ASSUMPTIONS.

MY QUESTION WAS ALSO A PROCESS QUESTION.

SO AFTER THIS BRIEFING, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PET, WOULD IT BE THAT, WOULD THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO SHARE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE PI? YES.

MARION COUNCIL, RODNEY GONZALES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY.

THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE JULY 26 CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH COUNCIL.

WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN.

WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN, TOUCHED ON THE TERS AS WELL.

UM, COUNCIL AT THAT TIME HAD ASKED FOR THE ASSUMPTIONS GOING INTO THE TOUR'S ANALYSIS, AND WE HAD FORWARDED THAT TO COUNCIL.

THERE WERE SOME OTHER DETAILED QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT THE TERRORS, UM, AND ABOUT CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE THOSE RESPONSES AND MAYOR,

[00:15:01]

WE MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS THAT COUNCIL IS ASKING US TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT WORDING IMPLIED THAT WE APOLOGIZE, AND WE WILL BE MORE CAREFUL WITH OUR WORDING AND THE FEATURE, BUT WE HEAR YOU ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SURE.

UM, AND SO WITH US TODAY, OF COURSE, OUR FINANCE HAS BEEN LEADING THE ANALYSIS WITH OUR CONSULTANT ON THE TERS, UH, REVENUE CAPTURE.

WE'VE ALSO GOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH US.

WHO'S LEADING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT GREG DENTON WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING WHO IS LEADING THE DRAFTING OF THE REGULATING PLAN.

AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS START OFF WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE TERS ANALYSIS.

AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO KIM ALAVAREZ, UH, THE DEPUTY FINANCE OFFICER FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

AND IF WE WOULD QUEUE UP THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE, KATIE SAID SHE WAS SENDING IT TO YOU.

SO OUR PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTENING TO THIS, ABLE TO HEAR THIS AT, AT THIS POINT, DO WE KNOW I'VE HEARD IT GOT BETTER? CUT BETTER.

OKAY, GOOD.

MARIN COUNCIL.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT BLACK BOX HAS GOT TO STAY ON THE SCREEN.

WE CAN SIT ON THEIR SIDE COMPLETELY, BUT, UH, IT MAY SHOW UP TO THE VIEWING PUBLIC LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'LL PROCEED.

TO REDEVELOP AND FUND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

AND HAVE YOU POSTED THE PRESENTATION AND THE BACKUP FOR TODAY? YES.

SO SOMEONE IN THE PUBLIC ONE DID IT'S GONE.

UH, IT CAME A LOVER AS DEPUTY CFO.

UM, SO THE PRESENTATION WE HAVE FOR YOU THIS MORNING IS STRUCTURED AROUND THE, THE Q AND A QUESTIONS THAT WE RECEIVED, UM, UH, ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF, TWO WEEKS AGO.

UM, SO THERE'S SIX OF THEM AND, UM, ALL THE COVERING THE FIRST FOUR AND THEN PASSING IT OVER TO SUSANA COVID HUB, UM, TO COVER THE LAST TWO AND THEN GREG WILL BE COVERING THE REGULATING PLAN.

SO, UM, FOR NEXT SLIDE, SO THE FIRST QUESTION WE RECEIVED WAS RELATIVE TO THE LEVEL OF FIR FLOOR AREA RATIO, ENTITLEMENT THAT IT WOULD TAKE, UM, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ALL THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE NECESSARY

[00:20:01]

UM, SO HOW MUCH, HOW FAR, HOW HIGH, HOW FAR WOULD WE HAVE TO GO TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN THE DOLLARS NECESSARY, UM, TO, TO FUND ALL OF THOSE, THOSE PROJECTS IN THE HOUSING? UM, THAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS, IS, UH, PRETTY COMPLICATED, UM, AND REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT, UM, UM, ADDITIONAL DATA POINTS.

SO THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS FOR THE TOURS, UH, WAS CONDUCTED BASED ON DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITY AND VALLEY PROJECTIONS, UM, THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN.

UM, AND THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY ECO NORTHWEST.

SO THAT CMR ANALYSIS WAS POOLING THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ACCORDINGLY, UM, AND THEN USING THAT AS THE BASIS AS THE TERS FOR THE TOUR'S ESTIMATES.

SO FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO THE ANALYSIS, TO DETERMINE WHAT LEVEL OF FAR WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MEET THAT DOLLAR THRESHOLD, IT WOULD REQUIRE DOING A COMPLETE UPDATE TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE POTENTIAL, UM, WITHIN THE PLAN.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WITHOUT THAT, UM, OUR CONSULTANT CMR CAPITAL MARKET RESEARCH WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONDUCT THAT ANALYSIS.

SO, UM, THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN EXPLORE, BUT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME BETWEEN WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE RECEIVED AND TODAY, SO NEXT SLIDE, WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO THOUGH, WAS ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION RELATIVE TO THE TIPPING PARCELS AND, UM, AN EIGHT TO ONE FIR UH, SO IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE EIGHT TO ONE FAR ON ALL OF THOSE TIPPING PARCELS, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER UNDEVELOPED UNDERDEVELOPED PARCELS WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT, UM, WE WERE ABLE TO CALCULATE THE ADDITIONAL TERMS REVENUE.

SO IN THIS TABLE BELOW, UH, YOU'LL SEE, THREE SETS OF NUMBERS.

FIRST IS THE ORIGINAL TERMS, REVENUE ANALYSIS THAT WE PROVIDED THIS PAST YEAR.

UM, AT THAT POINT WE WERE INDICATING THE, BUT FOR VALUE GROWTH, WELL ACCOUNTED FOR 46% AND WOULD ACHIEVE A CUMULATIVE REVENUE OVER THE LIFE OF THE TOURISM, APPROXIMATELY $167.2 MILLION WITH THIS CURRENT UPDATE THAT WE JUST COMPLETED.

WE DID TWO ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS, ONE, UM, WITH THE NEW CERTIFIED VALUE FOR FISCAL YEAR 23 ON THE TAX ROLLS, AS WELL AS THE NEW TAX RATE, UM, THAT YOU JUST ADOPTED AND HOW THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE TOURS THAT WOULD BECAUSE THE PROPERTY VALUES GREW.

SO, UH, INTENSELY, UM, IN THIS PAST YEAR, IT, IT, IT BOOSTED THE AMOUNT OF CUMULATIVE REVENUE ACCORDINGLY.

SO, UM, $246.5 MILLION IS THE ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE REVENUE.

UM, AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE SEEN MARGARET, UH, CONDUCT ANALYSIS OF AN EIGHT TO ONE FAR SO ON ALL OF THE TIPPING PARCELS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS, IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN, AS WELL AS A HANDFUL OF OTHERS, HE WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE.

AND IF WE WERE TO, UH, ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT TO ONE, UM, LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD RESULT THAT, PLUS THE INVESTMENTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED WITH THE VISION PLAN, UM, WOULD RESULT IN ABOUT 330, $3 MILLION, UH, BUT FOR VALUE OR REVENUE NOW.

SO WE HAVE THOSE CUMULATIVE REVENUE.

WE ALSO HAVE THE ESTIMATED DEBT CAPACITY, OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE ISSUING DEBT, THERE'S THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST INTEREST COSTS AS THE, UH, THE MARKET HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST YEAR AND, UH, INTEREST RATES CONTINUE TO RISE.

THAT BECOMES MORE OF A CHALLENGE.

UM, SO WHEN, WHILE CUMULATIVELY REVENUE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN A HUNDRED OR 246 TO $333 MILLION FROM A DEBT CAPACITY PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT 153 TO $207 MILLION.

UM, SO IN THE NOTES, I, WE ALSO KNOW THE, THE DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTION RATES.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO, AND RELATIVE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, BUT ALSO THE CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE PRESENTATION BEGAN, UM, ABOUT THE, UM, THE GENERAL FUND, HOW THIS IMPACTS OR DOESN'T IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND.

SO EACH OF THESE PERCENTAGES, THESE, UM, CONTRIBUTION RATES ARE THE INCREMENT THAT WOULD ONLY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT FOR VALUE GROWTH.

SO AS A RESULT, IT WOULD HOLD THE GENERAL FUND HARMLESS, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE GROWTH THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN PROPERTY VALUES AND THE ASSOCIATED TAX REVENUE, BECAUSE OF JUST NORMAL, ORGANIC GROWTH OUTSIDE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, EFFORTS.

UM, AND THEN THE OTHER PERCENTAGE THAT, THAT 63%, FOR EXAMPLE, AN EIGHT TO ONE IS GROWTH BECAUSE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT EIGHT TO ONE CAPABILITY.

SO EACH OF THESE IS ASSUMING THAT THE GENERAL FUND IT'S BEING HELD HARMLESS, AS WELL AS, UM, EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEDICATED TO PROJECT CONNECT AND THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP.

UM, THE, ANOTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT DEBT CAPACITY IS BASED ON JUST THAT CUMULATIVE REVENUE.

WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON TIMING OF DEBT ISSUANCES, UM, BECAUSE THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE TERMS WOULD NOT BE PRODUCING AS ENOUGH

[00:25:01]

REVENUE TO SUPPORT, UM, SIGNIFICANT, UM, DEBT ISSUANCES.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, TO PLAY WITH THE NUMBERS THOUGH, SOME THERE.

UM, AND THEN FINALLY ALL OF THESE CALCULATIONS INCLUDE RIVER SOUTH AS PART OF THE TOURIST.

THAT WAS A NOTABLE, A CONVERSATION POINT OF, OF THE COUNCIL WHEN THE TERMS WAS CREATED, WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THE RIVER SOUTH SNOOPY PUD, UM, DEVELOPMENT IN THERE.

SO FOR THESE PURPOSES, IT IS INCLUDING RIVER SOUTH, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE TERMS WAS ADOPTED.

UM, AND THEN, LIKE I NOTED BEFORE THE UPDATED ASPECT ON THE MIDDLE COLUMN IS RELATIVE TO USING THAT THE NEWLY CERTIFIED TAX VALUES AND THE NEW TAX RATE AND HOW THAT FLOWS THROUGH NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE NEXT QUESTION WE RECEIVED, UM, WAS WHERE THE CREATION OF THIS TERMS RESULT IN ANY LOSS OF GENERAL REVENUE FUND GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS.

UM, SO IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY IMPACT TO THAT GENERAL FUND, YOU WOULD JUST NEED TO SET UP THE TOURS IN A WAY THAT IT'S ONLY, UM, COLLECTING REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT FOR GROWTH, BUT FOR OUR INVESTMENTS, THOSE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS, UM, YOU WOULD, YOU'RE ONLY PULLING THE REVENUE FROM THAT, THAT PORTION.

HENCE THE, THE PREVIOUS THAT 63%, UM, THAT WAS NOTED IN THE EIGHT TO ONE FIR ANALYSIS.

UM, SO IF THE INCREMENT WERE B WERE TO BE SET UP TO ANY MOUNTAIN BEYOND THAT 63% OR THE OTHER NUMBERS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THEN IT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE THEN THAT IS, IS TAKING REVENUES FROM GROWTH THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ORGANICALLY, WHETHER WE WERE MAKING THESE INVESTMENTS OR NOT.

SO THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THAT, BUT FOR COMPONENT IN THAT ASSOCIATED PERCENTAGE, UH, NEXT SLIDE.

AND THEN THE LAST, THE LAST QUESTION FOR ME, AT LEAST, UM, THAT WE STARTED WAS HOW MIGHT REVENUE INCREASED? HOW MIGHT A REVENUE INCREASE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT TOURS IMPACT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE IN BURDEN FOR THE TYPICAL HOMEOWNER TAXPAYER? UM, SO IF THE TOUR'S IS, IS SET UP TO ONLY BE RESULTING IN THE T THE NEW VALUE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT, UM, DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THAT TOURS, THEN THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE TAX RATE.

UM, AND THEN ONCE YOU CLOSE THE TERMS IT'S FINISHED, UM, THEY ADDED VALUE GENERATED BUTTERS WOULD RESULT IN A SOMEWHAT LOWER TAX RATE AND THEN ASSOCIATED TAX BURDEN FOR THE TAXPAYER.

IT WOULD NOT BE A SUDDEN, UM, INFLUX OF, OF MASS AMOUNTS OF VALUE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S STILL LIKE THERE'S THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT OF, OF TAX RATE.

SO THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION IS STILL HAPPENING.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE SUDDENLY ACCOUNT ALL THAT GROWTH OVER THOSE 20 YEARS AS NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THERE'S THIS SUDDEN INFLUX OF REVENUE.

SO THERE WOULD BE A, SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE COMING TO THE GENERAL FUND, BUT NOT A HUGE HUGE AMOUNT, BUT, AND THERE WOULD THEN BE A SMALL IMPACT ON THE TAXPAYER.

SO, UH, AT THIS POINT, I'LL PASS IT OVER TO SUSANA, GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCILS TO SEND, I GOT A BEHIND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

THE NEXT QUESTION ASKS IF THE CITY DESIRES TO GENERATE AS MUCH TAX REVENUE AS POSSIBLE, AND AS MANY COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS POSSIBLE, IS THERE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS TO BE BUILT? STAFF DID ESTIMATE THAT APPROXIMATELY $277 MILLION IN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED TO, UH, ENVISION THE VISION PLAN AS ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT D OF THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND, UH, SUBSEQUENTLY, UH, ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2021.

HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ESTIMATED AMOUNT IS, UH, EXPECTED TO BE MUCH HIGHER BASED ON CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTION, I ASKED THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT FUNDED WITH THE TERS, UH, WILL IT BE FUNDED BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS, AND IF NOT, WHAT LEVEL OF INFRASTRUCTURE WILL OCCUR AND WHAT KIND OF LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR AND SALES, UH, TAX REVENUE AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS WOULD OCCUR WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT KIND OF LEVEL DEVELOPMENT.

IN THE EVENT, THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT FUNDED WITH A TERRORS OR A BOND.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD FUND THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE EXTENT THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES THE VISION PLAN DOES CONTEMPLATE A BASELINE SCENARIO THAT IS ALSO REFERENCED ON PAGE 12 OF THAT, UH, VISION PLAN.

AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD OCCUR GIVEN EXISTING CONDITIONS.

AND IT'S PRETTY, UH, EXPLICIT AND DETAILED IN THAT, IN THAT VISION PLAN, SHOULD COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATING PLAN.

THIS WILL BE AN ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO FUND THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS BRIEFING, UH, BY STAFF, WE DID PRESENT ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL TOOL TOOLKIT SOURCES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE AS FUNDING RESOURCES,

[00:30:01]

INCLUDING PRIVATE FUNDING, SUCH AS DEVELOPMENT, UH, BONUS FEES, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, DISTRICT, AND PHILANTHROPY, OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES, UH, OTHER THAN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WOULD BE CIP BONDS, PARKING REVENUE, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDIES.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WE'RE IN COUNCIL AND GREG GOT NOSY AND PLANNING, UM, IN FRONT OF YOU, IS THAT ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT REGULATING PLAN.

UM, NEXT MONTH WE BELIEVE WE'LL BE AT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD SHARING THE PLAN CONTENTS WITH THEM AND TALKING TO THEM A BIT ABOUT THE CALIBRATION OF THE DENSITY BONUS COMPONENT, UM, AND THAT THEY'LL DO SOME WORK ON THE PLAN AND COME BACK TO US IN OCTOBER WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, ON OCTOBER 17TH THEREAFTER, WE'LL BE AT THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE THE SAME MONTH, UM, AND THEN EARLY NOVEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT PLAN.

AND THEN THE EARLY DECEMBER, UH, AT COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, THESE ARE REALLY JUST THE TOP LINE, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT, THAT THE PLAN HAS TO GO TO.

WE DO ANTICIPATE, UH, OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, AS WELL, BUT, UM, THIS IS OUR ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE AND I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR SLIDES.

LET'S SAY IT EXISTED, COME JANUARY OF FEBRUARY, UM, WILL BE AN OPT-IN TYPE PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, IF I COULD WRAP IT UP, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, UM, YES.

IF I COULD JUST WRAP IT UP AND THEN WE'LL GET TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN POOL IMMEDIATELY.

UM, SO ON JULY 26, WE HAD PROVIDED COUNSEL SEQUENTIAL ORDER OF NEXT STEPS.

THAT FIRST NEXT STEP WAS THE REGULATING PLAN, GETTING IT THROUGH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND ULTIMATELY TO COUNCIL.

UM, AND THEN FOLLOWING THE REGULATING PLAN ADOPTION, WE WOULD UPDATE THE TERMS, BUT FOR THE REVENUE AND THE MARKET CONDITIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, WE DO STILL ANTICIPATE A FINANCIAL GAP FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN.

AND AT THAT TIME WE WOULD THEN WORK ON FIGURING OUT A WAY TO CLOSE THAT FINANCIAL GAP IN CONCERT WITH COMMUNITY, UM, LOOKING AT THE IMPROVEMENTS, ET CETERA, BUT TO YOUR POINT MIRROR, YOU KNOW, THE TERMS, AND AS KIM HAD MENTIONED, UH, IS ABOUT PORTERS, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, YOU WON'T HAVE THE REVENUE.

AND SO WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS VERY CAREFULLY, UM, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A GAP, HOW CAN WE CLOSE THAT GAP? UM, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL DO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN A WAY THAT BRINGS FORWARD THE VISION AND THE ASSOCIATED REVENUES? IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.

UM, WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF CONSULTANTS ON BOARD THAT ARE WORKING WITH US AND WE WILL WORK, UH, IN THAT ENDEAVOR TO BRING FORWARD A VISION PLAN THAT WE BELIEVE CAN BE SUPPORTED BY COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL.

AND SO AT THAT POINT, WE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AND COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL'S QUESTION RELATED TO THE REGULATING PLAN.

LET'S START THERE AND THEN COME BACK HERE.

DO YOU NEED ME TO ASK IT AGAIN? OKAY.

UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE A REGULATING PLAN.

WE HAVE A SCHEDULE TO MAKE A REGULATING PLAN.

NORMALLY WHEN I THINK RIGHT, THE CADENCE IS USUALLY WE HAVE THIS IN ADVANCE.

LIKE I MIGHT BE WRONG ON THAT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE FOR FOREVER.

UM, BUT DOING IT NOW, DOES THIS MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT? ARE WE WALK, WALK ME THROUGH WHAT TO EXPECT IN DURING THE REGULATING PLANET THIS POINT, AND I LOVE THE COLOR OF YOUR SHIRT, JERRY, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THAT HAS BRIGHTENED UP MY MORNING, SEEING YOU A THOUSAND PERCENT.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

UM, SO, UM, ARE WE TALKING VIS-A-VIS THE PUD? IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME SPECIFICALLY? OKAY.

SO REALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS, UM, THE POTENTIAL FOR THREE OPTIONS FOR THE STATES PER PROPERTY, AS FAR AS THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT COSTS, UM, ONE IS FOR THEM TO BUILD UNDER THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENT, WHICH ALSO IS A PUD.

UM, THE THAT'S, UH, WAS DONE FOR THE, UH, NEWSPAPER PLANT AND THE OFFICES.

SO THEY COULD ALWAYS TODAY GO OUT AND BUILD UNDER THAT.

UM, THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE A REGULATING PLAN BASED UPON THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN, WHICH OF COURSE HAD A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WENT ALONG WITH IT, UM, LASTED FOR, I THINK, A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE CONSOLE APPROVED THAT VISION PLAN.

AND THEN THE REGULATING PLAN, AS YOU ALL KNOW, UM, IS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE, TO TURN INTO A REGULATORY SCHEME.

THE IDEAS OF THE VISION PLAN, THE IDEA WAS OF COURSE ORIGINALLY INCLUDE THAT IN THE CODE REWRITE EFFORT THAT WAS CHANGED.

AND SO NOW YOU HAVE WHAT MR. DUTTON JUST PRESENTED TO YOU, WHICH IS A PLAN TO DO A, A STANDALONE REGULATING PLAN, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY CODE.

SO THE DEVELOPER COULD BUILD UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING THAT APPLIES IN THE PROPERTY.

THEY COULD BUILD UNDER A POTENTIAL FUTURE REGULATING PLAN, OR THEY COULD BUILD UNDER A ZONING CHANGE, A ZONING REQUEST, WHICH THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE PVD OR THE PUTT.

I THINK ONE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE THOUGH, IS THAT THE REGULATING PLAN, EVEN IF IT EXISTED TODAY, OR

[00:35:01]

THINK OF IT AS LIKE A DENSITY BONUS TYPE PROCESS.

SO A DEVELOPER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE, UM, REGULATING PLAN, WHETHER IT WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THEM.

IT'S VERY MUCH A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

THEY WOULD RECEIVE ENTITLEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR DOING COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

SO LIKE I SAID, THREE OPTIONS, EXISTING ZONING, POTENTIAL, FUTURE ZONING, OR FUTURE REGULATING PLAN.

AND WE PROBABLY WOULD BE IN OPTION TWO CURRENTLY IF IN FACT COUNSEL HAD FORWARD.

AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YEAR, BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS ON ESTABLISHING THAT REGULATING PLAN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ONE.

WE HAVE WHAT THE VISION PLAN SAYS, BUT WE NEVER LOCKED DOWN EXPECTED ELEMENTS.

AND I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE APPLICANT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED THAT WAS WILLING AND SAID, OKAY, THERE'S ENOUGH IN THAT RAELIAN PLAN FOR ME TO DO WHAT I HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THOSE BENEFITS AND THAT PARTICULAR PIECE RIGHT THERE CONTINUES NO MATTER WHAT WE DO HERE, RIGHT? YES.

WITH THE STANDALONE.

THANK YOU AGAIN BY SAYING, I APPRECIATE, UH, THE COLLEAGUES THAT JOINED ME IN PRESENTING THE QUESTIONS TO TEE THIS UP.

I'M GOING TO GO TO THEM FIRST BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT PRESENTED THE Q AND A QUESTIONS.

UH, THE MAYOR, THAT'S FINE, EXCEPT BY MY QUESTION, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY, IT'S FINE.

IT'S JUST, MY QUESTION IS SPECIFIC FOLLOWUP.

SO IT'S JUST GOING TO SEPARATE HER.

COULD YOU FIND WHO THEY ARE WAS JUST, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO INTRODUCE THEIR NAMES.

I WAS STOPPED.

SO I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, HARPER, MADISON COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER VELA FOR HELPING IN JOINING IN, IN TEEING UP THE QUESTIONS.

UH, AND, AND, AND PART OF IT WAS, UH, I THINK QUESTIONS THAT I THOUGHT THAT AS A COUNCIL, WE SHOULD ANSWER IN CASE THERE WAS DIRECTION WE WANTED TO GIVE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE DOING THE, THE REGULATING PLAN.

UM, NOTING THAT THE DRAFT REGULATING PLAN FROM FOUR YEARS AGO, I GUESS HAD HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, UH, IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, THAT FOR MOST, ALL THE TRACKS WERE IN THE A HUNDRED FOOT RANGE, SOME IN THE 200 FOOT RANGE AND REALLY ONLY ONE TRACK.

UH, AND IT WAS ONLY A PIECE OF ONE PARCEL THAT WENT ABOVE 200 FEET.

AND I THINK THERE ARE, UH, THERE WERE TWO TRACKS, I GUESS.

UH, ONE PART OF THE STATEMENT TRACK WAS AT 400 AND PART OF IT WAS LIKE 280 FEET, BUT ALL THE REST OF THE TRACKS WERE DOWN AT 102 HUNDRED FEET.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER WAS WHILE THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS IN THIS TRACK TO A LARGE DEGREE OCCURRED BACK IN 20 12, 13, 14, WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE LOOKING AT HEIGHT DIFFERENTLY TODAY THAN WE WERE, UH, EIGHT TO 10 YEARS AGO.

AND WHETHER OR NOT AS A COUNCIL, WE SHOULD BE GIVING DIRECTION TO, OR ASKING QUESTIONS OF WHOEVER IT IS, THE GROUP THAT'S DOING THE REGULATING PLAN TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE REGULATING PLAN TO COME BACK TO A STATE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

UH, AND ONE OF THE REASONS TO DO THAT WAS TO SEE FIRST, WOULD THAT GIVE US MORE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, WHICH WOULD THE STAFF TOLD US IN JULY, AS THEY'VE TOLD US HERE TODAY ACROSS $281 MILLION PLUS, BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY COSTS ABOVE THAT.

AND THE TERMS, IF WE DID ONE THAT ONLY TAX THE BOT FOR ONLY RAISED A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

SO THERE'D BE, EVEN IF WE DID THE TOURS, THERE WAS AT LEAST $180 MILLION GAP TO BE MADE UP TO.

PART OF THE QUESTION WAS IF WE ALLOWED GREATER HEIGHT AND I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD OR NOT, I'M JUST SAYING, BUT IF WE DID WHAT DID GENERATE MORE MONEY AND WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE PRESENTATION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY IS YOU GET ABOUT TWICE AS MUCH FROM THE TOURIST, POTENTIALLY IF YOU DID EIGHT TO ONE, UH, UH, REVENUE AND IT GENERATES OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, UM, MORE, UH, TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT.

UM, SO THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT, THAT, UH, AND THEN I'LL GO TO THOSE FOR HIM AND THEN TO OTHER PEOPLE ON THE, ON THE COUNCIL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I, THAT I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW, THE DOWNTOWN AREA, IS IT AN EIGHT TO ONE FAR? IS THAT RIGHT? SO IN ASSUMING AN EIGHT TO ONE FAR IN THIS AREA, WE'D BE ASSUMING THE SAME FAR THAT WE ASSUMED YEAH.

DOWNTOWN IN THIS ANALYSIS, DID YOU ASSUME THE SAME BONUS PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE DOWNTOWN, BUT PEOPLE GET ABOVE EIGHT TO ONE? NO.

BRING THAT SAME BONUS TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, YOU COULD EVEN GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IF I MAY REAL QUICK, KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, YOU'RE CORRECT.

SO, SO IT'S LESS OVERALL HEIGHT ENTITLEMENT THAN WE HAVE DOWNTOWN, CAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE BONUS.

AND I GUESS IF YOU WANTED TO

[00:40:01]

THAT THE ALLOWABLE, UM, FAR DOWNTOWN IS EIGHT TO ONE.

UM, THERE IS NO HEIGHT LIMIT DOWNTOWN.

UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T FAR LIMIT, ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO ABOVE THAT TO A CERTAIN POINT BASED UPON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, UM, THE, UM, FAR IS REALLY THE REGULATING, UM, UM, WHEREAS THE DRIVING FACTOR.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY TRACKS OF DIFFERENT SIZES WOULD BE, WOULD BE ACHIEVING DIFFERENT HEIGHTS GIVEN, UH, GIVEN FAR LIMIT.

SO SURE YOU FOR, FOR CORRECTING THAT, CAUSE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FAR.

SOME OF THE TRACKS DOWNTOWN ARE DEVELOPED TO A GREATER FAR THAN EIGHT TO ONE.

UM, AND IN FACT, IN RAINY STREET, SOME OF THE TRACKS ARE DEVELOPED AT GREATER FAR THAN, THAN A, TO ONE, ALMOST ALL OF THEM, ALMOST ALL OF THEM, RAY STREET, GREATER THAN EIGHT TO ONE.

BUT THIS ANALYSIS THAT ASSUMED, UH, THE, UH, UH, ADDITIONAL A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF AVAILABLE CAPACITY REVENUE, UH, JUST STOPPED US AT, AT EIGHT TO ONE, NOT GOING ABOVE AND EIGHT TO ONE OF HER YARD.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND THEN JUST TO REVIEW REALLY QUICKLY, IF WE STAY CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND WE ONLY ATTACH THE, THE TOURISTS TO THE, BUT FOR THERE'S NO IMPACT, THERE'S NO GENERAL FUND MONEY LOSS.

IT'S JUST A WAY FOR US TO GET REVENUE ABOVE THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP THAT THE LEGISLATURE REAL DOLLARS, IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT'S, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ASSOCIATE WITH A THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP.

UM, IT'S JUST, IT'S ADDITIONAL GROWTH BECAUSE OF THAT INVESTMENT.

UH, I'M TALKING ABOUT REVENUE AT THIS POINT, THE REVENUE THAT WE GENERATE FROM THE TERRORS THAT WE WOULD SPEND ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR PARKLAND OR, OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IF WE WANTED TO DO A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONSITE THAT REVENUE, THOSE DOLLARS ARE SEPARATE FROM.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE REVENUE THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE BE RAISING, STAYING CONSISTENT WITH THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP ON REVENUE GROWTH.

THE STATE THAT THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS NOT INCLUDED IT'S IN ADDITION TO, IS THAT JUST THE FIRST YEAR OR IS THAT ONGOING LIFE OF THE TOURIST? OKAY, SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.

I AGREE WITH, THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.

SO THERE'S A LOT MORE REVENUE THAT WE CAN GET SEPARATE FROM.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE, BY THE WAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO BE SPENT HERE, IT HAS TO BE SPENT IN THE DISTRICT.

SO IT HAS TO BE SPENT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OR OUR PARKS IN THE DISTRICT OR ROADS IN THE DISTRICT, BUT IT IS MONEY SEPARATE FROM, AND IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND.

SO IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY MONEY AWAY FROM, UH, ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY WAS HOPING TO GET MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR THEIR POCKET PARK OR FOR A CLINIC.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND GET IT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'M GONNA LET PEOPLE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

UM, I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE ON AN ELEMENT THAT IS RELATED TO THE TOURISTS AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS, I MEAN, THIS CAME UP RECENTLY IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN HAVING OR, UM, SITTING DOWN AND HAVING SOON, I HOPE WITH STAFF ABOUT THE WALNUT CREEK TOURS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THAT, UM, THE CONVERSATION WAS WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD USE SOME OF THE EXCESS REVENUE FROM THAT TOURS TO TWO ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND, UM, PARTICULARLY ON EMERGENCY SHELTER, IF HOMELESSNESS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS RELATED TO THAT AREA, BUT THE MONEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE SPENT IN THAT AREA.

SO I THOUGHT, AND I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME.

I THOUGHT THAT THE MONEY FROM, FROM THE TOURS COULD BE SPENT ON ITEMS THAT WERE CLOSELY RELATED TO THE ISSUES WITHIN, WITHIN A GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

BUT ALL THE MONEY DOES NOT NEED TO BE SPENT NECESSARILY IN THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

YOU'RE SPENDING IT ON, ON PROJECTS AND NEEDS IN THE AREA, BUT THERE IS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY OF GOING BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES, BUT IT HAS, BUT IT HAS TO HAVE AN INTERRELATED IMPACT ON, ON THE, ON THAT ZONE.

SO.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

WE COULD, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE SAYING TO THE MAYOR, IT HAD TO BE SPENT IN THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

SO IT HAS TO HAVE, AS YOU SAID, AN INTERRELATED IMPACT, AS LONG AS IT HAS AN INTERRELATED IMPACT ON, ON THAT AREA, IT CAN BE SPENT OUTSIDE THAT ZONE.

ON THE, THE FAR REACHES OF TOWN KIND OF THING.

BUT YOU, IT, YOU WOULD NOT BE, IT WOULDN'T BE A CASE OF, WE WERE COLLECTING REVENUE IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND WE'RE SPENDING IT ON SOMETHING

[00:45:01]

IT WOULD, IT NEEDS TO, THERE'S KIND OF SOME CONSTRAINTS THERE WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER ISSUES.

I MEAN, THAT'S AN AREA.

I THINK THAT THERE IS A CASE THERE THAT IT COULD BE SPENT ELSEWHERE.

IF IT HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE SET A GOAL OF ACHIEVING 20% OF THE UNITS IN THAT AREA AS AFFORDABLE.

AND IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE'RE UNABLE, IF WE'RE FALLING SHORT OF THAT GOAL, INVESTING IT ELSEWHERE MIGHT HELP US MEET THAT GOAL.

I THINK WE, FOR, FOR THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO, I THINK WE, WE NEEDED TO DISCUSS THAT WITH LEGAL, JUST TO HAVE SOME CLARITY ON THAT.

I APPRECIATE THE, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS SPEAKING ARTFULLY ON THAT CONSISTENT WITH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE CAN RAISE MONEY AND BENEFITS THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPENT IN THE AREA, BUT IT HAS TO BENEFIT THAT AREA AND HAVE A TIE TO THAT AREA.

BUT WHAT THAT MEANS COLLEAGUES IS THAT IF WE WANTED THIS PART OF TOWN TO GENERATE MORE MONEY FOR US, THAT WE COULD SPEND ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOMELESSNESS OR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO DO IT AND TO GET MONEY IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT, UH, UH, UH, CAP, LET ME GO THROUGH THIS CAUSE I WILL NEVER GET THROUGH THIS.

WE DON'T DO THIS.

UM, AND, AND WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU.

I PROMISE.

UM, AND, BUT I THINK VERY, I THINK THE POINT, BECAUSE I THINK FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, PROBABLY I NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE TERMS DIFFERENTLY THAN I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE PAST.

SO I THINK THIS IS A TRUE APP BECAUSE I THINK LANGUAGE MAY CHANGE.

AND HOW WE TALK ABOUT THIS CITYWIDE MAY CHANGE AFTER THE HEARING TODAY, HOW WE DECIDE THIS PART OF TOWN DEVELOPS THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AREA AND HOW DENSE WE'RE WILLING TO, TO MAKE IT THE, THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS AND THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT REALLY DISCUSSED THAT VISION.

WAS THAT BACK IN THE 20 12, 20 14 TIMEFRAME.

YES, IT WAS MORE OKAY.

SO THE QUESTION THAT I, THAT I ASKED, ALL OF YOU IS, ARE WE IN THE SAME PLACE THAT WE WERE BACK IN 2012 AND 2014? OR DO WE WANT TO PUT ADDITIONAL DENSITY HERE IN EXCHANGE FOR GETTING ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT WE COULD SPEND OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS LIKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE, OF AN ADDITIONAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS JUST ON THE TERRORS AND THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS ALL THE OTHER MONEY, THAT ADDITIONAL ONE WAY, WHAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT, THAT THE PROPERTY VALUE IN THIS AREA, THE OVERALL PROPERTY VALUE THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD GET TAXES ON THAT THE COUNTY WOULD GET TAXES ON.

THE WOOD WOULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE.

IF WE WERE TO GO HIGHER THAN A HUNDRED FOOT OR 200 FOOT, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE YET TO CALCULATE WHAT THE PROPERTY VALUE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IN THIS DISTRICT? WE HAVE, UH, THE OVERALL VALUE PROJECTIONS, UM, FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

I DON'T HAVE IT ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS.

IT'S JUST, IT'S PURELY DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, BUT I, AND I'VE NOT DONE ANY CALCULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES.

COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, OR COUNCIL MEMBER POINT, THIS OR COUNCIL MEMBER, VALOR, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, HAVE A QUESTION I WANT TO ASK SINCE THEY JOINED IN THE, IN THE, IN THE SUBMITTING OF THE QUESTION, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, BEFORE WE GO ON? OKAY.

BUT I WOULD IMAGINE IT PROBABLY GOES UP AN EXTRAORDINARY LEVEL.

SO THERE'S, SO THERE'S A LOT MORE REVENUE TOGETHER.

IF WE MADE THE CHOICE, WE WANTED TO GO GREATER DANCING.

AND MY LAST QUESTION IS IF THE COUNCIL FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT WANTED TO LOOK AT OR EXPLORE, OR EVEN DECIDE THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE GREATER FAR THAN IS OTHERWISE ALLOWED WITH A HUNDRED FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION OR A 200 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, WOULD THAT BE DIRECTION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO WHO, TO THE GROUP THAT IS WORKING ON THE REGULATING PLAN? IT WOULD MAYOR, UM, ANY DIRECTION WE CAN GET THAT WOULD SHIFT US OR POINT US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WHERE COUNCIL WANTS US TO GO.

UM, THAT TIMELY FEEDBACK WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET.

UM, AS GREG MENTIONED, WHEN HE WAS PRESENTING THE SCHEDULE FOR THE REGULATING PLAN, WE ARE POISED TO, TO REALLY START THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AROUND THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE THAT'S BASED ON PREVIOUS DIRECTION AND PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS.

UH, SO IF THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO WE CAN DELAY THAT AND NOT HAVE TO DUPLICATE EFFORT OR CONFUSE THE COMMUNITY BY GOING OUT TWICE WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION.

THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING OR THE LIKE, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THE FOUR OF US JOINED TOGETHER TO GET THIS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO GIVE DIRECTION, HEY, WOULD YOU TALK TO THE COMMUNITY? ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION ABOUT GREATER FAR NOW WOULD BE THE TIME WE WOULD NEED TO DO THAT AROUND US.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF TIME AND MAYBE NOT ADDRESS WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WOULD.

ONE THING.

ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GO TO THE OTHER PEOPLE.

I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU, KATHY.

LET ME GO NOW TO, IN CASE

[00:50:01]

UH, UM, AND I THINK WAS NEXT.

AND THEN, AND THEN KATHY, UM, OKAY.

UM, WELL I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP.

UM, AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF MAYOR, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I THINK I'D LIKE, UH, KATHY TO ASK HER QUESTIONS FIRST AND THEN I CAN FOLLOW UP.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT, KATHY? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, LET ME GIVE HER THAT COURTESY.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THAT IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY THROUGH A CONSOLE INITIATED ZONING CASE.

SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS A FOLLOW-UP ON, UM, COUNCILMEMBER POOL'S QUESTION, UH, AND IT GOES, IT GOES TO THE, UH, THE TIMING OF THE REGULATING PLAN, UM, AND THE PUTT, UH, BECAUSE I, I THINK I HEARD SOME EARLIER CONVERSATION FROM YOU ALL, UM, ABOUT, ABOUT THE, THE, THE DOLLARS THAT, SO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WILL BE NECESSARY, UH, TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, IN THE AREA BECAUSE THERE'S A SHORTFALL AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TERMS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT, OR, AND, OR PERHAPS SOME OTHER WAYS.

SO IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE STATE'S BEEN PUT ITSELF.

WHAT WE MAY AGREE ON NOW ON THE STATESMAN POD COULD BE CHANGED WITH THE REGULATING PLAN.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REGULATING PLAN IS IN THE NATURE OF AN INCENTIVE AND IS VOLUNTARY.

SO IF WE S IF WE APPROVE A POD WITH A SET OF RELATIONSHIPS, BECAUSE THE PUT IS SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT CHANGES WERE AWAY, EVERS CHANGES, ZONING CHANGES WE'RE ALLOWING AND IN EXCHANGE FOR, FOR BENEFITS.

SO IF WE AGREE ON THAT SET, UM, AND THEN WE HAVE A REGULATING PLAN THAT COMES IN LATER, THAT OFFERS A DIFFERENT SET, UH, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, BUT OFFERS A DIFFERENT SET OF, UM, RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, CHANGES AND BENEFITS.

THEN IT OCCURS TO ME THAT WE'RE, WE ARE ALLOWING FOR A CHANGE IN THE PUB.

THAT'S VOLUNTARY.

I GET THAT.

BUT THE COUNCIL THEN HAS NO SAY IN THAT, CORRECT.

ONCE WE AGREE UPON THE PUD, THEN WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUD.

AND THE DECISION-MAKING ABOUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE REGULATING PLAN IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF DECISION, BUT WITH THE DEVELOPER, UM, AND IT'S NOT IN COUNSEL'S HANDS ANYMORE.

I I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO THINK THROUGH, AND THAT MAY BE FINE.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH, AS I TRY TO THINK THROUGH THE PUD, WHAT MAKES SENSE, YOU KNOW, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING IN COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND WHAT COULD COME LATER, BECAUSE THAT COULD CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE, OF THE DEAL.

SO, SO HERE'S MY QUESTION.

ONCE THE REGULATING PLAN IS APPROVED, UM, DO WE, DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THE STATESMEN PUD, UM, AGREEMENT? OR AM I CORRECT? THAT THAT'S JUST A, THAT'S A DONE DEAL ONCE WE APPROVE IT.

SO IT COUNTS, REMEMBER KITCHEN, THE, THE PUB IS A ZONING ORDINANCE, AS YOU KNOW.

AND SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, THAT THE STATEMENT PUB GETS APPROVED, THAT WOULD THEN BE THE REGULATORY DOCUMENTS THAT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY.

IF IN THE FUTURE, A REGULATING PLAN WAS APPROVED, LIKE YOU SAID, IT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM THAT THEY COULD OPT INTO.

I THINK I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LOOK AT THE REGULATING PLAN AND LOOK AT THEIR APPROVED PUD AND DECIDE WHICH ONE IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM.

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF FORCE THAT THEY MAY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TOTALLY HAPPY WITH OUR PUD.

THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR IT AND WE RECEIVED IT.

WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE ALONG.

UM, THERE'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MAY LOOK AT THE RAYLENE PLAN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY THIS IS A BETTER, UM, DEAL FOR US.

IF YOU WILL, THEN THE PUTT, IF, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY, THEN THEY MAY ADMINISTRATIVELY OPT INTO THE ALREADY APPROVED COUNCIL, APPROVED REGULATING PLAN AND RECEIVED THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT THE PLAN WOULD GIVE AND A FORCE TO HAVE TO DO THE, UM, COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE PLAN WOULD CALL FOR.

SO IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM, UM, WHICH ONE TO ENTER INTO, AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE'S KIND OF THREE OPTIONS.

THERE'S EXISTING, ENTITLED MENTORS, POSSIBLE FUTURE ENTITLEMENTS, REZONING, AND THERE'S POSSIBLE FUTURE, UM, UH, INCENTIVES THROUGH THE REGULATING PLAN AS WELL AS OBLIGATIONS.

UM, AS FAR AS THE CONSOLE REOPENING UP THE ZONING CASE, UM, IN THE FUTURE,

[00:55:01]

UM, MAY KEEP IN MIND, UM, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF IT WERE CONTRARY TO THEIR WISHES WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE VALID PETITION RIGHTS AGAINST THAT.

AND WE REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY.

THAT'S PRETTY UNCOMMON FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE A ZONING CASE, UM, ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UM, AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

UM, I'M JUST, I'M NOT SUGGESTING A PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH DOING THESE THINGS THIS WAY.

I'M JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT THE PET ORDINANCE, AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THE REGULATING PLAN.

I SEE THAT THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD, WE COULD AGREE TO SOMETHING IN THE STATESMAN, IN THE PUD ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR IT.

THEN WE COULD GO TO THE REGULATING PLAN THAT CHANGES WHAT WE AGREED TO.

UM, AND SO OUR DEAL IS CHANGED.

SO I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I'M REMINDING MYSELF THAT MAY BE OKAY.

LIKE I SAID, I JUST, BECAUSE OUR, WHAT WE AGREE IN THE POT IS A RELATIONSHIP.

FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE WE GETTING IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE? WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH PARKLAND IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE? SO I JUST, I JUST WANT, I'M JUST REMINDING MYSELF OF THAT.

SO, AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO AND THE TIMING IS DIFFERENT.

SO, OKAY.

SO MY SECOND QUESTION THEN IS, UM, RELATES TO, UM, ALRIGHT, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT THE MAYOR RAISED AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO RAISED WITH REGARD TO, UH, GOING BACK TO THE, TO THE TOURS NOW AND THE, THE BENEFITS THAT, UM, OR NOT THE BENEFITS, BUT WHAT YOU CAN SPEND THE TOURIST DOLLARS ON.

SO, UM, WE WERE HAVING SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT, UH, HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE, OR ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE HAS TO BE THAT INNER INNER, I THINK THE TERM YOU USED WAS INTERRELATED.

SO MY QUESTION IS WHO DOES, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS INTERRELATED? AND IT'S A PROCESS QUESTION, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

UM, AND WHEN IS IT DECIDED? SO THE COUNCILS HAS ONLY ADOPTED THIS POINT, A PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CHAIRS.

THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE A FINAL PROJECT IN FINANCING PLAN.

THAT PROJECT PLAN WOULD INCLUDE WHAT ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO FUND WITH THAT TOUR'S REVENUE, UM, ULTIMATELY, AND IT LEGAL WOULD ASSIST IN REVIEW OF THAT.

UM, WE WOULD PULL IN OUTSIDE COUNSEL AS WELL.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY WE DO HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE STATE, LIKE WE'VE ALREADY ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, UM, PER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

SO, AND THEN WHEN, SO THERE'S A BASED ON, AND I'M VENTURING A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE MY LANE HERE.

SO I'M POKING OVER MY SHOULDER HERE TO, TO LEILA IF SHE WANTS TO JUMP IN, UM, IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHAT QUALIFIES OR WHAT DOESN'T, IT HAS TO BE BASED ON, UM, WHAT, WHAT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE WE ALREADY HAVE IN STATE LAW, AROUND HORSES, AS WELL AS JUST WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN JUST INTERPRETATION AND, UM, KIND OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY IF, IF THIS, IF THE TERS WOULD UTILIZE DEBT FINANCING, UH, WHEN WE DO GO TO ISSUE THAT DEBT, WE WOULD BE HA WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR APPROVAL.

SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S A ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF REVIEW AND APPROVAL OR, OR NOT OF IF IT'S ALLOWABLE.

MULTIPLE WORK SESSION TYPE DISCUSSIONS, UM, TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN BE VERY CLEAR STAFF IS WHAT YOUR WANT INCLUDE, AND THEN ALSO HAVE THAT LEGAL REVIEW, UM, SO THAT WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR THE ULTIMATE, THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE ON THAT AND SUBMITTAL WE'RE, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A GOOD SPOT.

THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS JUST FURTHER DISCUSSION AS WE GET CLOSER TO THAT.

IS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LIMITATIONS SUGGESTED AT VARIOUS TIMES WITH VARIOUS FUNDING MECHANISMS ON WHAT WE CAN SPEND ON HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY ON, UM, BRIDGE SHELTER AND ON HOMELESSNESS.

SO I WANT TO GO INTO THIS FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THOSE MAY BE SO THAT WE DON'T COUNT ON IF WE DO PROCEED WITH THE TOURS, SO THAT WE'RE NOT COUNTING ON THOSE DOLLARS TO ADDRESS SOME THINGS, I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME AT THE BEGINNING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME THINGS AND THEN FIND OUT LATER THAT NO, WE CAN'T.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME GRAY AREA THERE.

WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT, UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR CONVERSATION, PARTICULARLY AROUND HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS.

I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT IN IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO PURSUE A TOUR AS ULTIMATELY, AND SAT AN INCREMENT, THEN THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN TAKE PLACE WITH OVER

[01:00:01]

CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BOTH A COMBINATION OF THE INTERRELATION, WHICH MEANS THE IMPACT.

AND ALSO PROBABLY THE TYPE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GET INTO ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT'S, WHAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH GEOGRAPHICALLY TO HAVE AN IMPACT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW.

I'M SORRY, KATHY.

AND THEN ALISON, THAT YOU, SO AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, IT OCCURS TO ME.

WE REALLY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION IN YEARS AT THIS POINT.

AND I THINK IT'S SUPER HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE TERS AND OTHER FINANCING MECHANISMS THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER WITHOUT REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S WHAT IS IN THE VISION PLAN AND WHAT, HOW THOSE TWO THINGS WERE, WERE INTENDED TO RELATE.

SO I'D LIKE TO REQUEST TO DO SO THAT WE HAVE THIS ON THURSDAY'S AGENDA.

UM, I THINK THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE, I, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO ASK STAFF TO PULL TOGETHER A PRESENTATION BETWEEN NOW AND THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S REALISTIC, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AT OUR EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE CONTINUE ALONG TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT FINANCING MECHANISMS ABOUT THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY.

I MEAN, EXCUSE ME ABOUT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE NOW GOING TO BE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SHIFTING TO AN, UM, A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF 8.1 FAR OR ANYTHING BETWEEN WHERE WE ARE NOW IN THIS VISION PLAN AND, AND WHERE THAT IS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I MAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WOULD SAY THE CODES AND ORDINANCES PROCESS DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK THAT WENT INTO CREATING THIS PLAN.

I MEAN, IT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF, OF SEVERAL STUDIES, THE TOWN LAKE CORRIDOR STUDY, THE SOUTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR STUDY.

WE HAVE AN ONGOING COMMISSION THAT HELPED SHAPE THIS.

I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT HAVE GONE INTO THIS VISION AND SHIFTING TO A HIGHER FAR SUBSTANTIALLY SHIFTS IS A SUBSTANTIAL SHIFT AND WOULD REQUIRE I THINK THE SAME LEVEL OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR OUR ZONING FOLKS.

WHAT IS, IF YOU HAD TO ESTIMATE, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE FIR IS IN THE PROPOSED, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION COUNCIL MEMBER YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE 2016 VISION PLAN, THE ONE THAT'S APPROVED, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER.

IT ACTUALLY HAS, THERE'S NOT AN OVERALL, UH, BUT WHAT ARE, WHAT'S THE RATE? WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE RANGE IS THE RANGES, YOU KNOW, THAT THE SITES THAT RECEIVED THE MOST ENTITLEMENT OR ANTICIPATED THE MOST ENTITLEMENT, YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT THE MAYOR REFERRED TO WERE ACTUALLY THE LARGER TRACKS.

SO THEY ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE A LOWER FAR LIKE THE STATEMENT, UM, IF I'M AFRAID TO GUESS, BUT IF I HAD TO GUESS, I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY IT'S WELL BELOW EIGHT.

UM, IT'S PROBABLY IN THE THREE TO FOUR RANGE OF GUESTS AND WE'D HAVE TO LOOK OUT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AND EACH TRACK WAS HANDLED KIND OF INDIVIDUALLY, ALTHOUGH NOT EVERY TRACK WAS COVERED, BASICALLY.

UH, MR. HALL, WHO WORKED ON THE PLAN AT THE TIME WOULD WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO, TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND WHAT KIND OF ENTITLEMENTS THEY ANTICIPATED NEEDING UNDER PROPERTY.

THOSE ARE THE SO-CALLED TIPPING PARCELS.

UM, BUT, UM, NOT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO PARTICIPATE.

AND SO NOT EVERY PARCEL WAS EXAMINED AS CLOSELY AND THEN ANTICIPATED, YOU KNOW, ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHERS WERE LOOKED AT VERY CLOSELY.

SO IT WAS A KIND OF A, A LITTLE BIT OF A CHECKERBOARD PATTERN IF YOU WILL.

BUT IT WAS ALSO, I ASSUME CONTEXT-SPECIFIC YES, BASED ON WHERE IT WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE WATERFRONT WHERE IT WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ROADS.

I MEAN, IT WAS NOT AN OVERALL APPROACH BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE A PLAN, NOT A BLANKET APPROACH TO THAT DEVELOPMENT.

PLAN AS OPPOSED TO LIKE THE STATESMAN, WHICH RECEIVED, WHICH ANTICIPATED FOR IN FEET OF HEIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THE PARKLAND.

ONE OF THE DRIVING FACTORS WAS HOW MANY OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WERE KIND OF WERE ASSIGNED TO A PARCEL IF YOU WILL, VERSUS WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT WOULD BE.

SO A PARCEL SUCH AS THE STATESMAN RECEIVED THE 400 FEET HEIGHTS THAT THE MAYOR REFERRED TO BECAUSE IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WOULD BEAR MORE OF THE BURDEN OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, SPECIFICALLY THE PARKLAND AND THE ROAD, ALTHOUGH MUCH LESS OF THE ROAD THAN, THAN IT TURNS OUT TO BE NECESSARY.

UM, SO, UM, IT WAS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE DEALS WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL I ATTRACT LIKE SNOOPY FOR INSTANCE, NOT A LOT OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS ON THE SNOOPY PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, MAINLY A BUS STOP WAS THE NUMBER ONE.

UM, AND SO THEY RECEIVED MAYBE LESS ENTITLEMENT.

THEY RECEIVED 200 FEET OF HEIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, ANTICIPATE TO INTERVENE IN THE REGULATING

[01:05:01]

SO IT WAS KIND OF DONE LIKE THAT ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY THE TIPPING.

I HAVE THE SHIPPING PARCELS MAP UP IN FRONT OF ME AND IT'S A RANGE OF LIKE A HUNDRED TO 200 FEET.

IS THIS TYPICAL IS WHAT YOU SEE FOR THE MOST PART ALONG THE WATERFRONT.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER OF TWO 40 AND THEN ON THE STATES AND PROPERTY, IT'S ASSUMING FROM BETWEEN 200 AND 400 FEET.

SO IT, IT VARIES LIKE JERRY WAS SAYING IT VARIES WIDELY ACROSS THE AREA.

I WOULDN'T SAY IT DOES ANY ENCOURAGING.

AND I, AND THAT TOO, I THINK IS PART OF WHY I'M REQUESTING THAT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION AT OUR VERY EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE VISION PLAN, BECAUSE IT IS, YOU KNOW, NOW WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, UM, INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THAT AREA WITHOUT, WITHOUT REALLY AS A COUNCIL GOING THROUGH AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE VISION PLAN AND WHY, UM, THE OTHER, THE OTHER POINT I WANNA ASK ON WITH RELATIONSHIP TO THE VISION PLANTER, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, ABOUT THIS REALLY THE REGULATING PLAN COMING FORWARD AS A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW THAT CONCEPT MAPS TO SOME OF THE REALLY IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE VISION PLAN, SUCH AS DISTRICT-WIDE COOLING DISTRICT-WIDE, UM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE REALLY GOING TO REQUIRE THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE, UH, A LEVEL OF BUY-IN FROM, YOU KNOW, MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE PARCELS AND IF WE'RE INVESTING OUR DOLLARS, OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PARTICULAR TOOL WE'RE GOING TO USE IS, AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT FINANCIAL TOOLS HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT WHATEVER THAT PUBLIC, REGARDLESS IF IT'S A PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN SOME OF THOSE DISTRICT-WIDE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, IT REALLY BE A CHALLENGE IF WE'RE INVESTING THAT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE PARCELS OPTING OUT OF, OF, UM, OF THOSE PROGRAMS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE AN INTENTIONAL PART OF THE PLAN.

SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO ME IN PARTICULAR ABOUT HOW, HOW THOSE WORK AND THE REGULATING PLAN THAT'S BEING DRAFTED AND MOVING THROUGH? SO A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE REGULATING PLAN IS TO THE, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE A REFLECTION OF THE VISION PLAN, AND IT DOES CONTAIN ELEMENTS FROM THE VISION PLAN.

UM, BUT IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT IT DOESN'T CONTAIN THEM ALL.

AND, AND THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE THE REGULATING PLAN IS JUST DIFFERENT IN NATURE FROM THE VISION PLAN.

AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE VISION PLAN ADOPTED IN 2016 HAVE BECOME A PART OF OUR STANDARD CODE.

AND SO THEY JUST HAD BEEN OBVIATED, UM, TO A DEGREE, UH, AND ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY AND THE REGULATING PLAN.

SO A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS ARE THERE, BUT SOME ARE NOT.

UM, BUT THE BIGGER THING IS JUST THAT, UH, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT, UM, SPECIFIC SPECIFICS FOR SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, UM, FROM THE VISION PLAN THAT THAT'S LOST A BIT IN THE REGULATING PLAN BECAUSE THE REGULATING PLAN IS FOR A DISTRICT.

AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, AND WE HAVE TO APPLY ALL THE REGULATIONS, UM, IN A UNIFORM MANNER THROUGH THE DISTRICT.

SOME OF THAT SPECIFICITY FROM THE VISION PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY DOES THIS AND THIS OTHER PROPERTY DOES SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAT THAT'S LOST TO A DEGREE.

SO, SO THE END OF IT, AND I GUESS WE'LL UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW, WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, REALLY MAPS, MAPS OUT ONCE WE SEE WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING FORWARD.

I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL GOALS THAT WERE SET AND THE INDIVIDUAL EXPECTATIONS THAT WERE SET FOR INDIVIDUAL PARCELS BEING LOST IN THE REGULATING PLAN, BUT ARE THERE STILL EXPECTATIONS FOR DISTRICT-WIDE, UM, PARTICIPATION IN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT-WIDE PARTICIPATION IN, IN A DISTRICT COOLING SYSTEM AND SOME OF THE OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE VISION PLAN? UH, THERE, THERE ARE, UM, I THINK, AND I GUESS, ARE THEY EXPECTATIONS OR ARE THEY, YOU CAN PARTICIPATE? ARE THEY, ARE THEY VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION? IT IS, UH, IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY, UH, AS GERRY DESCRIBED EARLIER.

UM, AND THAT THAT'S OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT THAT CAN'T, CAN'T BE REQUIRED.

UM, AND SO IT REALLY IS, UH, IF IT'S HELPFUL TO THINK OF IT THIS WAY, IT REALLY IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY MECHANICALLY AND HOW IT WILL WORK.

AND SO WHAT, THE WAY THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING WRITTEN IS TO MAKE IT A MARKET FEASIBLE SO THAT PROPERTIES WILL WANT TO OPT INTO IT.

AND THE BAR IS SUCH THAT, UH, IT'S ENTICING FOR DEVELOPERS TO USE.

AND SO TO YOUR POINT, IT, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE VISION PLAN IN A LOT OF WAYS.

IT'S NOT,

[01:10:01]

IT'S SIMPLY THERE AREN'T REQUIREMENTS IF A PROPERTY CHOOSES TO PARTICIPATE.

UM, AGAIN, I THINK, I THINK I'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO REALLY BETTER UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE WHILE WE CAN'T REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE OF A DENSITY BONUS, WE CERTAINLY CAN REQUIRE PARTICIPATION AND OTHER, OTHER KINDS OF ELEMENTS.

AND, AND IT, YOU KNOW, AS I READ THE, AS I READ, UM, THE VISION PLAN, SOME OF THESE WERE REALLY EXPECTATIONS, NOT, I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE WRITTEN AS EXPECTATIONS, NOT AS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO CRAFT A PLAN THAT'S ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY AND ESPECIALLY FOR INVESTING PUBLIC DOLLARS IN THIS AREA, I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UNDERST THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT, UM, TO WHAT EXTENT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA ARE GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING IN THOSE VOLUNTARY ELEMENTS.

OTHERWISE IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE OUTCOME WE WANT.

AND IF I MIGHT ADD, UM, I DID CONFIRM THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT IS POSTED IT'S ITEM NUMBER 93 ON THURSDAYS, UH, AGENDA.

AND IF MARIN COUNCIL DESIRES, WE PROBABLY COULD PULL TOGETHER, UM, FROM PAST PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY, THAT WE HAVE IN, IN, IN THE BOOK, UM, A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO KIND OF UPDATE FOLKS ON THE GENERAL STATE OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL.

THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

AND I WOULD EVEN SAY, YOU KNOW, RECYCLING A CON AN OLD PRESENTATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ALL KNOW IT'S AN OLD PRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO PREPARE A NEW ONE WOULD BE SUPER.

I MEAN, ONE OF, ONE OF THE POWERPOINTS THAT WE HAD BACK WHEN WE WERE APPROVING, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD JUST RUN THROUGH, RUN THROUGH THAT AGAIN, WITH NO EXPECTATIONS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE UPDATED, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION.

AND WE CAN WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS IN EDD TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL.

SO I HAD A COUPLE OF SUPER QUICK QUESTIONS NOW, UM, ON PAGE THREE, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO TABLE 35.

CAN YOU JUST REMIND US, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, KIMBERLY, THIS IS A TABLE 35 IN THE CMR ANALYSIS, CORRECT.

AND THIS IS THE CMR ANALYSIS AND BACKUP FOR THIS MEETING.

UH, IF I COULD, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SENT THAT TO MIRIN COUNSEL VIA EMAIL.

WE'D BE GLAD TO RECIRCULATE THAT AGAIN, OR MAYBE JUST POST IT AS BACKUP.

CERTAINLY WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

AND I AM INTERESTED IN, WELL, I THINK I'VE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

LET ME JUST SAY BEFORE THIS DISCUSSION CONCLUDES, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT WERE REFERENCED IN THE, IN THE VISION PLAN.

AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SECOND BULLET ON PAGE SIX ON THE SLIDE, PAGE SIX, TALKING ABOUT THE CLOSURE OF THE TOURS AND ADDED VALUE GENERATED BY THE TOURS, THEN RESULTING AT A SOMEWHAT LOWER, I THINK YOU INDICATED, UM, UM, KIMBERLY, THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE MINIMAL, BUT I WOULD LIKE SOME EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CHURCHES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY, ANY BENEFIT.

UM, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT MAYBE AS A FUNDING PIECE, UM, AFTER OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS.

GOOD MORNING.

UM, I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOME SORT OF BASIC QUESTIONS ON THE CHARTS TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THE ESTIMATES ON, UM, SLIDE FOUR, QUESTION TWO.

UM, SO EACH OF THE PARCELS HAVE ZONING THAT GIVES THEM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ENTITLEMENTS.

THEN WE HAVE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT'S IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.

IN MOST CASES, WE STILL, AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO TAKE A DECISION TO PROVIDE, UM, ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS.

AND SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE BASE HERE THAT'S BEING USED, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF DECISIONS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, FOR IN THE PUD, YOU KNOW, YEAH, THERE'S A SOUTH CENTRAL, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR BASELINE.

OUR BASELINE IS THEIR EXISTING ZONING.

AND WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO JUDGE WHETHER THEY GET ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS AND WHAT THAT MEANS, YOU, YOU DO THAT VERSUS THEIR BASELINE, NOT VERSUS SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

UM, SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS BASELINE IS? YEP.

SO THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT, UM, THERE WOULD, THE ENTITLEMENTS WOULD BE GIVEN TO THESE PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT, UM, THAT POTENTIAL.

UM, SO THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT AND A HALF MILLION SQUARE FEET OF POTENTIAL THAT WAS NOTED IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN.

THAT THAT WAS THEN THE BASIS, UM, FOR THE, THE INITIAL ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF THE TOUR'S CAPABILITY.

THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR BUT FOUR IS TAKEN AFTER WE PROVIDE THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THIS, BUT FOR CALCULATION, SO THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT

[01:15:01]

BUT WE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF WE WERE DOING A PUD, THAT WHEN YOU GIVE THEM THOSE OTHER ENTITLEMENTS UP TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, THAT YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT THINGS LIKE WHAT'S IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN.

I MEAN, IF THEY CAN EXPECT TO GET THE ENTITLEMENTS THERE IN SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN, SHOULDN'T WE BE EXPECTING THAT WE GET THE BENEFITS THAT ARE IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN? WELL, WE WERE, WE WERE GOING WORK WHEN WE DID THIS ANALYSIS.

WE WERE GOING ON THE DIRECTION OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN BY COUNCIL.

AND THEN, AND THEN THERE'S THE, THE REGULATING PLAN IS BEING ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT, THAT VISION PLAN AS WELL.

SO THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION OF, WE WOULD BE PROVIDING FOR WHAT THE VISION PLAN CALLS FOR.

SO THEY GET THEIR ENTITLEMENTS, BUT WE DON'T GET OUR PUBLIC BENEFITS IN THIS PROCESS.

IS THAT THE ASSUMPTION, THEY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT, BUT LIKE WE BASICALLY SAID, WE'RE GIVING YOU THESE BASIC ENTITLEMENTS, BUT WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THE BENEFITS BY GIVING THOSE ENTITLEMENTS AND HEIGHT.

IT ALLOWS FOR THAT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THAT GROWTH AND THEREFORE THAT PROPERTY VALUE GROWTH, AND THEREFORE THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS.

BUT WE DON'T GET THE BENEFITS.

I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO, I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF PIECES HERE AND I HAVEN'T MADE UP MY MIND WHICH WAY AND WHATEVER, BUT I'M, YOU KNOW, WE SEEM TO BE ASSUMING THAT THEY GET THEIR ENTITLEMENTS, BUT WE'RE NOT ASSUMING WE GET THE BASIC BENEFITS AND THEN THERE'S THE BUS FOR, AND IT'S JUST, IT THERE'S PIECES HERE THAT I THINK IS PART OF, WHAT'S CONFUSING THE PUBLIC.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED ABOUT AND WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AND I'M CONFUSED HERE.

SO MARY PRETEND THE, THE RIGHT LANE PLAN WOULD HAVE COURT.

IT IS OF COURSE, THE GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR PREPARING THE REGULATING PLANT.

UM, THE PUD WAS APPLIED FOR, YOU KNOW, AS IS LEGALLY ALLOWED.

UM, AND THE STAFF IS USING THE VISION PLAN AS WE ARE REVIEWING THE PUD AND TRYING TO BE SURE THAT ALL OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WERE ANTICIPATED IN THE VISION PLAN FOR THE STATESMAN PARCEL ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE POT.

THAT'S A PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT THE STAFF DID WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO, UM, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT A RAYLENE PLAN THERE TODAY, UM, WE ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WORD ANTICIPATED AT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED IN THE VISION PLAN AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

GOING TO BE A QUITE A BIT OF TIME LAG BEFORE THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE OF THAT.

SO THERE ARE TWO PARTS HERE.

ONE GOES FOR ONE SIDE, ONE GOES FOR THE OTHER SIDE, AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE I COME OUT.

SO ON ONE HAND, WE'RE SAYING OUR, BUT FOR HAPPENS AFTER WE'VE ALREADY ASSUMED THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ENTITLEMENTS WOULD BE THERE.

UM, AND IT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND THOSE ENTITLEMENTS IS, ARE ABOUT FOUR.

UM, AND SO THAT THAT'S AN INCREMENT THAT THEN CAN BE REINVESTED, BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY OF THE BENEFITS TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT UP TO THAT POINT.

AND THAT'S THE PART WHERE I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS REALLY FRUSTRATED AND UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WHAT'S BEFORE US IS PROVIDING THE BENEFITS.

I'M OPEN.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I SEE PEOPLE NODDING THEIR HEADS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT GETTING THAT ANSWER.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M BEING ASKED BY MY CONSTITUENTS IS WHY THIS IS NOT A GIVEAWAY.

YOU KNOW WHY THIS PROCESS IS NOT A GIVEAWAY TO DEVELOPERS, AND THERE MAY BE VARIOUS SCENARIOS WHERE IT'S NOT, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

UM, AND I CAN'T VOTE FOR SOMETHING IF I CAN'T PROVIDE THAT ANSWER.

UM, AND THEY'RE VERY MIGHTILY BE AN ANSWER.

I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS, BUT I NEED THAT ANSWER AND I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT.

AND I THINK WE ALL NEED TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE IT.

AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHERE THIS STRUGGLE IS.

UM, SO JUST TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE STATESMAN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN, THIS IS ASSUMING THEY HAVE, UM, THE BASELINE THAT'S IN SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, WHICH IS LESS THAN IT, WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS LESS THAN EIGHT TO ONE IS THAT WE WERE AT THE STATESMEN ON THIS.

UM, AND THEN WE HAVE, YOU MENTIONED MISS ALAVAREZ, THAT THE TIMING WAS OFF WITH INVESTMENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAW WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE GROVE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS WE HAD TO ACTUALLY PAY OUT OF OUR BONDS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE GROVE, BECAUSE THE TIMING WAS OFF WITH THE TAX RECEIPTS.

UM, AND SO IT'S NOT A MIRROR, SMALL THING IF THE TIMING IS OFF FOR THE TAX RECEIPTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BUILD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE WE HAVE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT TOTALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU CAN BOND OFF OF THAT TO GET IT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S

[01:20:01]

BUT FOR, I MEAN, AT WHAT POINT DOES THE, BUT FOR KICK IN, BECAUSE YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO BUILD EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT BEFORE THAT, BUT FOR SAN, OR DOES IT KICK IN EARLIER, UM, BECAUSE THE TIMING CAN BE OFF AND THEN WE'RE STUCK PAYING FOR THE STUFF YEARS BEFORE AND PAYING THE DEBT ON IT.

AND SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT TIMING QUESTION.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE VALUE PROJECTIONS, YOU DEFINITELY SEE AS A CURVE THAT IS SLOW TO GROW.

AND THEN AS THE, AS TIME GOES ON, YOU SEE MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT GROWTH.

SO WE WOULD JUST NEED TO BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT KIND OF INVESTMENTS WOULD BE MADE.

AND WHEN, UM, WHAT OPPORTUNITIES MIGHT THERE BE FOR PARTNERSHIPS WITH DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA TO PER PERHAPS LIKE FLOAT CERTAIN COSTS UNTIL WE COULD, THEY COULD BE, THEY COULD BE HANDLED LATER ONCE THE REVENUES ARE COMING IN AT A HIGHER LEVEL, UH, WE'D ALSO NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HOW MUCH DEBT WE'D BE ISSUING AT ANY GIVEN TIME AND THE RELATED DEBT SERVICE RELATIVE TO THE REVENUE.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT RELATIVE TO THE TIMING ASPECT OF EVERYTHING.

UM, I ALSO WANTED TO JUMP BACK TO THE, YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, BECAUSE I WAS REMINDED, UM, BY, UM, COLLEAGUES HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THE, BUT FOR ANALYSIS, WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE EQUATES TO WE'RE UTILIZING A BASELINE SCENARIO THAT DOES NOT ASSUME AN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

SO WHEN I'M PROVIDING THAT PERCENTAGE CALCULATION, IT'S BASED, IT'S BASED ON THAT BASELINE OF WE'RE NOT DOING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, IT'S JUST PURE GROWTH.

WE DON'T TOUCH IT.

AND THEN THE GROWTH WITH THE, WE TOUCH IT.

AND WE'RE, WE'RE THE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE TO DO WHAT IT DOES SAY THERE BASED ON REGULATING PLAN OR ON AN EIGHT TO ONE OR WHATEVER, WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO DO DO THAT CALCULATION.

AND THEN AS A RESULT, I'M ABLE TO, UM, I'M ABLE TO NOTE KIND OF A PERCENTAGE, ANY GIVEN YEAR THAT WE COULD, UM, ESSENTIALLY ASSOCIATE WITH THE, BUT FOR, UM, GROWTH.

SO I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT IN THE PART OF WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

AND WHAT YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING BEFORE YOU GOT TO THE BED FOR WELL, AND WHAT THE CHALLENGE IN THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEVELOPERS IN MANY OF OUR OTHER TOURS IS WE HAVE A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNER.

SO IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, MORE SIMPLER, MUCH MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO DETERMINE THAT.

UM, AND BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THIS OVERALL AREA, IT MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON MY PARTNERS HERE, MY COLLEAGUES, TO, TO REALLY DIG INTO WHAT OPERA OPTIONS WE HAVE TO WITH DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS OF VARIOUS DEVELOPERS AND HOW THAT TRANSLATES INTO CASHFLOW AND SO ON.

AND IF I COULD COUNCIL MEMBER YOUR QUESTION, SPEAK TO THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ALL BLESSED IN FRONT OF US, UH, IT'S SOUTH CENTRAL VISION, THE TERS THE REGULATING PLAN, ET CETERA.

UM, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO COMPLICATED.

AND TO THE DEGREE WE HAVEN'T BEEN AS CLEAR WITH OUR RESPONSES.

UH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'D LIKE TO GET TOGETHER.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN GIVE YOU A VERY CLEAR RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.

UM, THE TOURS, WHAT OTHER TERMS DO WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN? WE HAVE FIVE ACTIVE CHURCHES.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING ASKED, WHY IS THIS NOT A GIVEAWAY TO DEVELOPERS? AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT.

AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE THAT CAN BE TRUE, BUT, BUT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR ENOUGH SCENARIOS AT THIS POINT TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL IF WE, IF WE COULD, IF WE COULD GET THAT.

UM, DID HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, SEE IF I CAN, MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE ON COME BACK TO, SO, AND, AND THE VISION PLAN GOES BACK AWAY.

ACTUALLY, I THINK IT WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THAT WAS FIRST PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, 2014, 2015, UH, TIMEFRAME AND HOW, AND I WAS JUST SCROLLING THROUGH IT, TRYING TO REMEMBER ALL OF THE, BUT THE, THE PUB THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

UH, IS IT IN THE, DOES IT FALL WITHIN THE SPIRIT? I GUESS THE, THE GOALS, THE GUIDELINES OF THE REGULATING PLAN OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION COUNCIL MEMBER.

WE CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TO THAT QUESTION OF THE PUD.

WE DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE BRIEFING ITEM AFTER THIS AND TO THE DEGREE THAT WE CAN SEPARATE THEM.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT WE DO HAVE RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT NOW.

OR WE COULD DO THAT AT THE NEXT WORK SESSION, WHICH IS THE PUB, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, UH, CAUSE MY SENSE WOULD BE THAT YES, THAT THIS IS WELL WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE BROADER DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

UH, IN FACT, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO BE LIKE THE LINCHPIN REALLY, UH, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE, THE REST OF THE, OF THE AREA.

UH, BUT I'LL HOLD OFF,

[01:25:01]

UM, THERE IS MILLER C HOME WALLER CREEK, UM, SOUTH CENTRAL, IT TECHNICALLY HAS BEEN CREATED.

AND THEN, UM, SECOND STREET, WHICH THAT ONE IS A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT AS OPPOSED TO A TAX INCREMENT AND THE SECOND STREET AND SEE HOME ARE SEPARATE TORRES'S.

UH, AND WHAT IN THOSE TERMS IS, AGAIN, LET'S TAKE, UM, THE C HOME TOURS, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE.

WHAT DOES THAT TERM, WHAT DOES THAT TERM IS FUNDING OR FOR THAT MATTER? ANY OF THEM, I'M JUST KIND OF TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TERMS ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE FUNDING.

SO THE C HUNTERS FUNDED, UM, THERE WAS A REHAB OF THE SEAHOLM POWER PLANT.

THERE WAS THE PLAZA SPACE, THEY WERE UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, AND THEN, UM, THERE IS A, UH, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PATH UNDER THE RAILROAD TRACKS, BUT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY.

AND THEN, AND, UM, AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHERS, THE SECOND STREET THAT IS, I'M ASSUMING RIGHT THERE, VERY CLOSE TO, UH, THIS IS THE SECOND STREET.

THAT SHOULD ALL BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER, BUT I MEAN, IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR REQUIRING OF A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO CREATE A PARK, TO BUILD A PARK OF THAT KIND OF CALIBER AND QUALITY? I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A 50 MILLION, $60 MILLION PARK, WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE.

WHAT DOES THE SECOND STREET TOURS OF FUNDING THEN? UM, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SIR, FOR PRIMARILY THE RIGHTS OF WAY THAT SIDEWALK, IT'S A SET VALUE CHARGE, MEANING IT'S NOT BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE TAX RATE, BUT RATHER A CERTAIN CAPTURE OF THE VALUE.

AND THEN THE, UM, OH LORD, THE WALLER CREEK, UH, IS THAT, UH, THE, WITH THE, THE TUNNEL AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A TOURIST ON THE WALLER CREEK AS WELL, RIGHT? YES.

AND WHAT, WHAT IS THAT TOUR'S, UH, FUNDING? WHERE DOES THOSE MONIES GO? PRIMARILY THE, UH, TUNNEL INFRASTRUCTURE, AS YOU HAD MENTIONED, THE 2 26 FOOT TUNNELS THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THE CREEK THAT DIVERT THE FLOODWATER WATER.

SO IN THE, AND I GUESS THIS WOULD NOT BE THEN UNPRECEDENTED, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THE SEAHOLM TOURS WHERE THE TOURISTS IS BEING USED TO BASICALLY PAY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT LAND.

UH, YES, THE CONCEPT OF UTILIZING THE TERS HAS, HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN THE VISION PLAN IS IN KEEPING WITH HOW WE'VE UTILIZED TOURS WITH OTHER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHETHER IT BE MILLER OR SEA HOME, OR WALLER CREEK AND THE, UH, THE TOURS WOULD NOT BE IN.

AND AGAIN, I'M JUST LEARNING THE DEVELOPMENT RULES AROUND THIS, BUT THAT WOULD NOT GO TO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

THERE'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT CALCULATION IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE, UH, PAY FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS IN, UH, AN AREA THAT'S THAT'S REDEVELOPING.

WE TAKE, UH, THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ENVISIONED BY THE TERS, UM, IN CONCERT WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT AREA.

THAT'S PLANNED EITHER THROUGH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE TABLE, UM, OR THROUGH SOME, UM, WHAT WE MIGHT ENVISION FUTURE DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION AS WELL.

AND SO ALL OF THAT IS TAKEN INTO THE MIX.

UM, YEAH, EVERY PROJECT IS CERTAINLY DIFFERENT.

UM, BUT WE, WE TAKE A HOLISTIC LOOK AT NOT JUST THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY OF THE TOURS, BUT ALL THE DIFFERENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT RELATE TO AS WELL.

ALRIGHT.

AND SO IF WE DID NOT DO A TERS FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, HOW DO WE FUND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE WANTING IN THAT AREA? UH, WELL, THEREIN LIES THE QUESTION, UM, AS, UH, WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS A VISION THAT SAYS, HERE ARE THE GREAT THINGS THAT YOU CAN, YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH AT SOUTH CENTRAL.

UM, AND IT WILL TAKE PUBLIC INVESTMENT.

AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT PUBLIC INVESTMENT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FINANCING TOOLS AND THE T THE TORRANCE IS ONE OF THOSE.

AND SO YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

UH, THE VISION, UH, THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS, UH, SAID THAT THEY WANT FOR THAT AREA, UM, REQUIRES PUBLIC, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

AND SO THE CHURCH IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS THAT WE CAN, WE CAN GAIN THAT.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER FINANCING MECHANISMS AS WELL.

AND IN TERMS OF WHO PAYS FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, THE PARK COMES TO MIND WHERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS A PARK THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT JUST SOME LAND AND SOME SWING SETS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN A PAVILION, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE PREMIER PARKS IN DOWNTOWN AREA IN CENTRAL AUSTIN.

UH, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S, ARE THERE, IS THERE A PRECEDENT? I KNOW, UH, FOLKS HAVE BEEN KIND OF COMMENTING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT

[01:30:01]

SO I'M NOT SURE TO THAT CALIBER, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE, UM, OF COURSE THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, WHICH MAKES CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT DEVELOPER, UM, PUT FORWARD THE, THE, THE DOLLARS FOR PARKLAND OR DOES A PARK IMPROVEMENT THEMSELVES.

SO IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF IN CONCEPT.

UH, IT'S THE PARKING IS AN UNDERGROUND PARKING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, CONSIDERED A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

UM, YES, IT IS.

THE STAFF CONSIDERS THAT AN IMPORTANT COMMUNITY BENEFIT JUST TURNS QUESTIONS FOR THE MOMENT.

UH, ALL RIGHT.

AND, UM, WATERFRONT.

AND WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA IN TERMS OF ITS ABILITY TO SUSTAIN THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE ENVISIONING IN THE, IN THE VISION PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, A FUTURE REGULATING PLAN? UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND AS DIRECTOR, TRUE LOVE HAD MENTIONED FOR THURSDAY, WE CAN HAVE A BRIEFING ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL V A WATERFRONT, AND I THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO CAPTURE THE STATUS OF, OF IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT TIME.

UH, ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THANK YOU.

AS PART OF THAT BRIEFING ON THURSDAY, WE ALSO HAVE, UM, THE CHAIR OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT OR SOMEONE WITH THE COMMISSION OR BOARD, UM, JOIN IN, OR AT LEAST SHARE SOME COMMENTS AS TO WHAT THE ADVISORY GROUP THINKS WE SHOULD BE DOING AS TO THE QUESTION OF THE REGULATING PLAN.

JUST THE TIMING OF US, CONSIDERING AN UPDATE TO THE VISION SINCE THE VISION WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED IN, YOU KNOW, A DECADE AGO, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THEIR FEEDBACK.

WE CAN CERTAINLY PASS ON THAT REQUEST TO THE CHAIR.

I JUST WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW WITH THE BASE THAT THEY HAVE ENTITLED TO, WHAT ARE THEY, UH, THEY DO HAVE TO PAY THE PIECE AND THEY JUST GET THIS, THEY'LL DO THE STREETS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEY NEED TO PAY FOR WHATEVER THEY PAID FOR.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THEIR BASELINE DEVELOPMENT, IS, IS THAT CORRECT? WHERE THEY DO HAVE TO PAY SOME MONEY INTO THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE ONSITE, JERRY WILL RESPOND IN GENERAL FOR LIKE THE DEVELOPERS IN GENERAL, NOT NECESSARILY THE PUT APPLICATION.

SO YES, A DEVELOPER CAN BUILD UNDER THEIR EXISTING ZONING, WHATEVER ENTITLEMENT THAT MAY BE.

UM, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY WHATEVER APPLICABLE CITY FEES WOULD APPLY.

SO PARKLAND, DEDICATION FEE WROTE IMPACT FEE, UH, IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT TYPE OF THING, UM, WOULD ALL BE, UM, REQUIRED OF THEM TO BUILD UNDER THE EXISTING.

SO MANY TIMES, INCLUDING THE STREET IMPROVEMENT, YES.

REVIEW ROAD IMPACT FEE AS A PART OF THE, UH, AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING.

AND THAT SAW THEY, THEY, THEY HAVE TO THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR REQUIREMENT.

UH, UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, THEN THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY WHAT WE CALL THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF ANY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, A TURN LANE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND DO THEY, DO THEY HAVE TO GIVE ANY LAND TO THE PARK OR CAN THEY JUST PAY A DEDICATED, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE? UM, I GUESS GETTING TO, I KNOW I WAS TOLD NOT TO BE CLEAN TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT.

UM, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, UM, UM, DEDICATE NO MORE THAN 15% OF THE PROPERTY UNDER, UNDER STANDARD CODE, AS OPPOSED TO A BUD.

AND THEN THE REMAINDER THEY'D HAVE TO PAY WITH PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES.

SO THE VISION THAT WE HAVE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO THEY'RE ENTITLEMENT RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE VISITING SOMETHING VERY BEAUTIFUL AND LARGE, AND WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A STATION THERE.

DO THEY HAVE TO GIVE CAPITAL METRO PIECE OF LAND TO PUT A STOP THERE? SO AGAIN, THIS IS, WE CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH THAT RESPONSE AT THE NEXT BRIEFING.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BENEFITS, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'RE GETTING IS A LOT GREATER, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE MUELLER, I'LL BEAT IT.

UH, WE DID A LOT OVER THERE AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME THAT, THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WE GOT 20 COURTS.

WE ALL IN THE LINE, THERE YOU'RE WAS OUR PROPERTY, BUT WE GOT 20 OVER 25%

[01:35:01]

AND IT'S, UH, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT TEND TO BOUGHT THE MONEY THAT WE INVESTED IN THERE WITH WELL, WORTH IT, YOU KNOW? AND, UH, AS SOON AS THAT IT'S OVER WITH, WE'LL BE ENTITLED TO ALL THAT TAX MONEY INTO GENERAL FUND, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT BOOST.

NOW, IF WE WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THAT KIND OF, UH, QUESTIONING WHEN WE DID THE DOMAIN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.

YOU KNOW, NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A HUGE TAX BASE RIGHT NOW.

NOW PARKING IS FREE TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO GO DOWN THERE.

I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S THERE, BUT I STILL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF THERE THAT WE GET IN.

AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M AFRAID THAT IF WE GO WITH THIS WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING SOME, UH, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE, THAT BENEFIT.

AND ONCE THEY BUILT THERE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT FOR THAT FEW 15%, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION, IF IT'S NOT VERY MUCH.

SO IT COMES FROM WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE POD IN A LITTLE WHILE, WILL BE LATER THIS MORNING, I WILL ADDRESS THE PARKLAND ISSUE THAT YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT.

CAUSE WE'RE ELLIS.

I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO CLOSE US OUT.

UM, I THINK THERESA'S ARE A REALLY CREATIVE WAY TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

I KNOW THERE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, COMING AT US AND EMAILS COMING AT US, UH, THAT SOME FOLKS SEEM TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ARE HANDING OUT GENERAL FUND MONEY, UM, TO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

AND SO I THINK, UM, ANSWERING THE MAYOR PRO TIMES QUESTIONS AND KIND OF GIVING US A CLEAR ANSWER TO LET OUR CONSTITUENTS KNOW HOW THAT FINANCING WORKS IS REALLY IMPORTANT ON A QUICK RUNDOWN.

UM, ALL THE OTHER BIG CITIES IN TEXAS HAVE WAY MORE RESOURCES THAN WHAT AUSTIN IS DOING.

AND SO I THINK THAT TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO CREATE THESE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

WE'RE CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT HOW TO GET OUR COMMUNITIES TO BE BETTER CONNECTED, UM, FIXING OLD INFRASTRUCTURE, PROVIDING MORE PARK SPACE AND DOING OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INTO THESE AREAS.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR, YES, WE NEED TO GET ALL THESE DOLLARS AND CENTS, RIGHT.

AND REALLY UNDERSTAND THE EXACT COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT, UM, THAT, THAT THIS TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THERE HAS TO BE A MINDFULNESS OF, YOU KNOW, PLANS THAT AS THE YEARS GO ON, WE MIGHT NEED TO REASSESS AS A COUNCIL.

ARE WE STILL ON TRACK? YOU KNOW, IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WAS IN FAVOR OF 10 YEARS AGO, THE EXACT SAME THING AS WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS YEAR.

UM, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS EVENTUALLY, UH, MORE TAX BASED OUT OF WHAT IS BUILT IN THESE AREAS.

AND SO I DON'T WANT TO MISS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO DO WANT TO BUILD MORE HOUSING, MORE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES, CLOSE TO LIGHT RAIL TO MISS THE MARK AND NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WILL COME WITH, UM, PROVIDING THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

I THINK THAT THE QUESTION THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM ASKS, UH, AND POINTS OUT THAT THERE'S CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY IS QUITE FRANKLY ON US, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB COLLECTIVELY OF, OF, OF LAYING THIS OUT AND EXPLAINING WHAT THIS IS.

SO I REALLY LOOKED FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY AS A WAY TO START REALLY HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IT WAS, IT WAS THE INTENT.

I THINK OF THE FOLKS HAD ASKED THE QUESTION NOT TO BE RECOMMENDING ANY PARTICULAR FAR, BUT JUST TO STOP FOR A SECOND AND SAY, WAIT A SECOND, GUYS, WE'RE ON THIS.

IT'S LIKE A TRAIN MOVING FORWARD HERE.

AND WE SHOULD PAUSE FOR A SECOND TO AT LEAST DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

DO WE WANT TO RAISE OUR HAND AND SAY THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER.

AND I THINK THAT, AND I THINK THAT WE, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.

I GOT AN EMAIL, UH, JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO FROM, FROM ONE OF THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATES, UH, TAKING THE POSITION THAT WHILE WE WERE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE, BUT, BUT THE OTHER QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A GIVEAWAY TO DEVELOPERS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT I, THAT I HEAR.

SO ON THURSDAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS ASKING IF WE WANTED TO HAVE AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, 2000 AFFORDABLE HOMES, EITHER IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT OR PAID BY THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT, HOW DO WE USE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT AS A TOOL TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NOW I LOOK AT THE FEASIBLE BASELINE PLAN THAT WAS IN THE EARLIER WORK THAT WAS DONE.

I'LL BE AT NOW SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO.

UM, AND IT SAID, HEY, IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING, IF YOU JUST LET IT DEVELOP ON ITS OWN, THIS IS WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S RELATIVELY LOW.

[01:40:01]

IT'S NOT REALLY DENSE, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A STREET GRID THAT REALLY WORKS FOR IT BECAUSE WE KNOW WHERE THAT AREA LOOKS LIKE.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE AS MANY BUILDINGS.

YOU DON'T HAVE AS MANY TALL BUILDINGS.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE DENSITY.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE FAR BECAUSE OF THAT.

I THINK IF YOU, AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW ON THURSDAY, THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS IF WE JUST GO WITH THE BASELINE PLAN AND WE WENT THROUGH THOSE DEVELOPERS AND SAID, AND NOW WE WANT YOU TO GIVE US, HELP US ACHIEVE 2000 AFFORDABLE UNITS.

I WOULD THINK THAT A LOT OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF NOT, ALL OF THEM WOULD LOOK AT US AND SAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD OF IT.

I CAN'T HELP YOU.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OFF MY PROPERTY THAT I COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.

AND THE TAX REVENUE THAT WE GENERATE FROM THAT WILL BE LOWER THAN IT COULD OTHERWISE BE.

AND IT MAY BE THAT WE DON'T GENERATE THE TAX REVENUE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PICK OUT THOSE A THOUSAND HOMES OR TO DO A TOURS.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE THAT THE TOURIST WOULDN'T GENERATE ANY MONEY CAUSE THERE'S NO, BUT FOR, CAUSE WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY INVESTING MONEY TO CREATE THE, BUT FOR THAT WOULD BE THE TERRORS.

BUT IF MY GOAL WAS TO HAVE A THOUSAND OR 2000 AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS UNDER ANY SCENARIO, DOESN'T IT BEGIN WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU HAVE GREATER DEVELOPMENT AND GREATER DENSITY THAN WHAT'S IN THE BASELINE PLAN.

IF THAT BASELINE PLAN ISN'T TALL ENOUGH OR DENSE ENOUGH, IF IT'S NOT TO GENERATE IT, THEN THE ONLY WAY TO BE ABLE TO, TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE WHAT WE WANT IS TO HAVE GREATER DEVELOPMENT THERE.

NOW THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN.

IT COULD HAPPEN ENTIRELY, PERHAPS AS A BONUS PLAN, WE COULD GO TO DEVELOPERS AND SAY, YOU'RE LIMITED TO THE BASE PLAN THAT EXISTS TODAY.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO HELP US WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE'LL GET YOU UP TO AN EIGHT TO ONE FAR, THE WHOLE EIGHT TO ONE COULD BE A BONUS CONCEIVABLY ABOVE THE BASE AREA.

BUT THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU A TOOL TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HAVE SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY HAS A PROJECT THAT WOULD ENABLE THEM TO BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT, OR TERS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD USE.

CAUSE CAUSE WE COULD SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO LET EVERYBODY GO TO EIGHT TO ONE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAX THE DELTA BETWEEN WHAT THE BASELINE IS AND WHAT THE EIGHT TO ONE IS.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THAT MONEY THAT WE GENERATE.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT ALL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLUS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO REGRADE THE STREETS SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO THE DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK UNDER ANY SCENARIO, IF WE WANT TO USE THIS AS A TOOL TO GENERATE THE RESOURCES, TO BE ABLE TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO HAVE GREATER HEIGHT OR DENSITY, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS WE DO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, IS IT REALLY A DEVELOPER GIVEAWAY IF AS A COMMUNITY WE'RE BUILDING THE ROAD SYSTEM THAT WE WANT THE GRID SYSTEM THAT WE WANT, THE UTILITY LINES WE WANT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IS THAT REALLY A DEVELOPER GIVEAWAY? OR ARE WE JUST PUTTING THE DEVELOPER IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN AND WILL BUILD ENOUGH FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET AS AN EXTRACTION OR AS A DEDICATION, THE DOLLARS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A THOUSAND OR 2000 HOMEOWNERS THERE.

SO AN EXPLANATION TO THE COMMUNITY ON THE QUESTION OF, OF, I THINK TODAY YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF SAYING IT DOESN'T COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

SO HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HEAR THAT ONE ANYMORE, BUT, BUT, BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S A GIVEAWAY, I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER SO THAT WE CAN ASSESS WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO, WANT TO DO.

THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ADDRESS ON THURSDAY WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH CENTRAL IS JUST FROM A LAND PLANNING CONCEPT.

IF WE LIVE IN A CITY THAT THAT WANTS TO BE MORE WALKABLE.

IF WE LIVE IN A CITY THAT, THAT, THAT HAS THE, THE FIELD THAT WE WANT.

IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP PROJECT CONNECT SUBSTATION, ONE OF THE BIGGEST OF THE SYSTEM HERE RIGHT HERE THEN IS THERE A BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND HAVING THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF, OF, OF, OF HOMES AND PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE WALKING AND NOT GETTING CARS AND JUST JUMPING ON.

SO FROM JUST A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE ITSELF, THIS COUNCIL AND PERHAPS THE NEXT COUNCIL IS MAKING A DECISION FOR THE NEXT 20, 30, 40 YEARS, WHAT THAT PART OF OUR CITY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

AND AS I LOOK AT THE REGULATING PLAN OR THE VISION PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED A DECADE AGO WITH OUR COMMUNITY, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S DEVELOPING THE WAY THAT WE WANT

[01:45:01]

OUR CITY TO, TO LOOK.

MAYBE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PROJECT CONNECT BACK IN, IN 2012 OR A STATION THERE, BUT THIS IS A TIME FOR US TO, TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT AND NEED FOR OUR CITY TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE.

HOW HAS MORE PEOPLE IN THAT PART OF OUR CITY IN ORDER TO GET EVERYTHING WE WANT.

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THE BENEFIT THAT COMES TO OUR CITY, BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE, BUT FOR TAX VALUE, BUT, BUT JUST THE, THE, THE TAX VALUE IN THAT WHOLE AREA THAT GIVES AISD, YOU KNOW, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE TO SPEND THAT THE COUNTY, OTHER PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO DO TWO, THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BIG AND IMPORTANT DECISION FOR, FOR US TO BE MAKING, BECAUSE IT REALLY IS KIND OF A FORK IN THE ROAD WITH RESPECT TO WHAT OUR DOWNTOWN AREA LOOKS LIKE.

BUT THERE IS CONFUSION IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT THIS IS, AND WE REALLY NEED TO, TO REALLY EXPLAIN IT WELL SO THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON, ON FACTS AND REALITY.

AND, UM, YES, MAYOR, I, I AGREE.

AND I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS SAID TOO.

I THINK THAT THE TERS IS A GOOD FINANCING MECHANISM.

WE'VE SEEN IT WORK WELL AND OTHER PLACES.

SO I, I THINK IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS OTHERS HAVE SAID.

AND AS A MAYOR PRO TIM SAID, WE GOT, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING WE HAVE TO DO IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE THINK AS OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THE WAY WE'RE PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, WE'RE ACTUALLY ARE GETTING THE BENEFITS, UM, THAT WE WANT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INVESTMENT WE'RE MAKING.

AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S, WHERE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT.

SO I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION RELATED TO THE TERS AND A FOLLOW UP ON, ON COUNCIL MEMBER.

VELES UM, CAN YOU REMIND ME OF, AND AGAIN, MY MIND'S ON HOUSING, YOU KNOW, SO I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE USE THE TERMS FOR THAT, BUT CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE MUELLER TERS IS SPENT ON IS, IS SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS SPENT ON HOUSING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SURE.

UM, I BELIEVE THE TERS WE HAD A BLEND OF RESOURCES.

WE HAD THE TOURIST REVENUES AND THEN WE HAD THE PROPERTY SELLS AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER RENTED AREA.

I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ALL 700 ACRES WERE OWNED BY THE CITY.

AND SO WE THEN IN TURN SELL THOSE TO THE DEVELOPER AND WE USE THAT LAND SALE PROCEEDS AS WELL.

SO IN TOTAL, UM, YES, SOME OF IT WAS USED FOR THE 25% AFFORDABILITY.

UM, AND A LOT OF IT WAS USED FOR THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE GOING IN AS WELL.

SO MONEY USED FOR THE HOUSING.

WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC BLENDING OF THAT TOWARDS REVENUE.

TH THE REASON I'M ASKING, JUST SO YOU'LL UNDERSTAND IS IT GOES, IT GOES BACK TO MY QUESTIONS RELATED TO WHAT YOU CAN SPEND TERS MONEY ON.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE TO ME, OF A CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER WHICH WE ASK THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS AND HAD SOME KIND OF RESULT.

NOW, IF THERE WERE OTHER, IF THERE WAS OTHER FUNDING USED FOR THE HOUSING AND NOT THE TERS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT TOO.

I JUST WANT TO, UM, UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT TERMS GIVES US ANY GUIDANCE OR AN EXAMPLES ON WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SPEND.

AND I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ITSELF, NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, CAUSE I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT YOU COULD SPEND TOUR'S MONEY ON INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I'D REALLY LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'LL, WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT TOURIST AND THEN HAVE A RESPONSE FOR YOU.

THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN Y'ALL PRESENT ON THURSDAY ABOUT THE, UM, SEW, UH, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE, THE VISION PLAN IS AN ACTUALLY, THIS IS PROBABLY, YOU MAY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO IT TODAY IN OUR NEXT BRIEFING, BUT, UM, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE, UM, THE, UH, THE VISION PLAN AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR, FOR THE PUD.

SO, UH, LATER BRIEFING TODAY, OR MAYBE ON, ON THURSDAY AS PART OF THE SCW BRIEFING, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A PUTT BRIEFING FOR THURSDAYS.

WELL, AND SO WE MAKE CAPTURE IN THAT DISCUSSION ITEM, UH, GENDER.

JUST CLARIFY, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE ASSUMED FOR THE LENGTH OVER WHICH WE WOULD BE GENERATING THE REVENUE 20 YEARS, 20 YEARS.

SO BOTH OF THEM ARE ON OUR AGENDA AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHERE WHENEVER THAT IS, I WANT TO SEE THAT COMPARISON.

WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET THEM BOTH.

THERE'LL BE DISCUSSED THAT WE, UM, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND THEN KATHY, THANK YOU.

UM, I WANT TO GO BACK TO, TO PAGE FOUR AGAIN, AND

[01:50:01]

BECAUSE I THINK THE SAME COULD BE TRUE, COULD BE SAID OF SAY PUTTING IN A PARK OR OTHER KINDS OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN DIFFERENT, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND THEN WHEN MR. RESTAURANT AND MENTIONED THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, I THINK WE'RE MISSING A FEW PIECES OF OUR CONTROL AND OUR, AND OUR PROCESS.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO PASS THE POD BEFORE WE ADOPT A REGULATING PLAN.

AND THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO FUND THE TOURIST UNTIL THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO JOIN THE REGULATING PLAN.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO EXERCISE THE LOVERS THAT WE DO HAVE, IF WE BELIEVE THAT GREATER DENSITY IN THIS AREA IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT THERE ARE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO BE HAD.

WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE VARIOUS LEVERS THAT WE HAVE.

I MEAN, I DON'T PERSONALLY SEE THE POINT OF PROVING A POD BEFORE WE HAVE THE REGULATING PLAN.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD FUND THE TOURS WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE WANT IN THE REGULATING PLAN.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO USE THE LOVERS THAT WE HAVE JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE ONE POWER WE HAVE IS WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM ANY MORE THAN THEIR $600,000, 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF ENTITLEMENTS.

YOU KNOW, THAT THREE POINT SOME MILLION MORE TITLEMENTS THAT THEY WANT IS WORTH SOMETHING.

UM, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT UNTIL WE HAVE AGREEMENT.

NOW, THERE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO GET STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE AND WHAT THEY, THEY CAN'T PROVIDE.

UM, BUT I, I DON'T THINK BECAUSE THEY CAME IN AND THEY ASKED US FOR THE ZONING CHANGE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE IT UP ON THEIR TIMETABLE.

WE DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THESE AND CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION IF WE NEED TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS.

UM, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE IT UP UNTIL WE FINISHED THOSE, THOSE ITEMS. UH, THANK YOU.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO A QUESTION AND THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.

I THINK YOU'VE ABSOLUTELY CHARACTERIZED SOME OF THE OPTIONS IN FRONT OF US.

ON PAGE SIX.

I HAD INDICATED THAT I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT ON THE CLOSURE UPON CLOSURE OF THE TIFF, THE ADDED VALUE GENERATED WOULD RESULT IN A SOMEWHAT LOWER TAX TAX RATE AND TAX BURDEN.

DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT TO BE THE CASE WITH ANY OF OUR OTHER EXISTING TORRES'S OR, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THAT SCENARIO.

CAN YOU, CAN YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT THAT PLEASE? HOW THAT WOULD WORK? I'M ASSUMING BY THEN BOTH THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WOULD BE COMPLETED AS WELL AS MOST OF THE TRACKS BEING BUILT.

SO THAT STATEMENT APPLIES TO ANY OF OUR CHURCHES THAT ARE UTILIZING AN INCREMENT, UM, SO THAT WE HAVEN'T CLOSED AT HERS IN QUITE SOME TIME.

SO WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

WE CAN DRAW UPON.

WE JUST BASED ON OUR, UH, HOW THE TAX RATE CALCULATION IS DONE, WE KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE AN IMPACT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS THAT WE PROVIDE YOU, I CAN WORK WITH, UM, WITH ERIC TO SEE IF WE, IF THERE'S EVEN A, A ROUGH ESTIMATE ON THERE.

I CAN'T GUARANTEE.

UM, THAT'S POSSIBLE THOUGH.

UM, IS IT DIFFERENT FROM ME? I GUESS THE QUESTION IS AT THAT POINT, IT BASICALLY SHIFTS TO THE INCREASING VALUE OF THAT LAND AND THE TAXES THAT ARE GENERATED YES.

AS, AS DOES ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF UTTERS, YOU, YOU JUST DON'T GET TO COUNT IT AS THIS SUDDEN RUSH OF NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE.

IT WOULD JUST BE THE NOW, NOW THAT VALUE IS COUNTING TOWARDS YOUR BASE.

ONCE THE TOURIST CLOSES AND THEN ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE THEN ALSO COUNTS TOWARDS.

SO, UM, IT'S, SO IT JUST HAS A, UH, A SMALL IMPACT, BUT IF THERE IS NO NEW CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BUILT, THEN IT, THEN YOU'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT, EXCUSE ME, WHAT, WHAT TAXES ARE GENERATED ON THE INCREASE IN VALUE THAT HAPPENS OVER TIME ON ANY, ON ANY, HOPEFULLY, I MEAN, IF YOUR CITY IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, THEN YOU PAY SOME VALUE THAT'S SIMILAR TO ANY OTHER.

YEAH, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY, THERE WOULD JUST BE THE GROWTH OF JUST THE, WHERE THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT APPLIES OF JUST ON, UM, NEW REVENUE TO EXISTING.

UM, I MEAN, THERE'S, I, I CAN'T, UM, FORESEE IF THERE WOULD NOT BE, OR WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA, EVEN AFTER THE TOURIST IS COMPLETED.

UM, THERE, I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE, BUT I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY EITHER.

SO THERE'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF AN ODD STATEMENT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, I MEAN, MARY, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE THE COMMUNITY GETS REALLY ACCURATE INFORMATION AND, UM, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, STATES ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT, I JUST, I THINK IT NEEDS MORE EXPLANATION

[01:55:02]

AND WE DON'T USUALLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THE INCREASES IN, IN VALUE FOR THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT, REDUCE EVERYBODY'S TAX TAXES A BIT THOUGH, THAT COULD BE TRUE AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, IT JUST, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER KINDS OF INVESTMENTS THE CITY MAKES.

AND SO I THINK IT, I THINK IT REQUIRES IF THIS IS REALLY A SUBSTANTIAL POINT THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AWARE OF.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE MORE S A MORE EXPLANATION, AND PERHAPS EVEN, EVEN SOME KIND OF CHART AS TO HOW THAT WOULD WORK, THAT UTTERS COULD, COULD RESULT IN A, IN AN INCREMENTAL DECREASE IN PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TAXES BE HELPFUL.

I THINK IF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT IS WORTH A BILLION DOLLARS AND 250 MILLION OF IT IS THE BASE THAT'S PART OF THE PROPERTY VALUE THAT USE THAT'S USED TO CALCULATE OUR RATE AND IF $750 MILLION OF IT IS THE, BUT FOR THEN THE REVENUE FOR THAT GOES TO THOSE CAPITALS.

AND AT THE END OF THE TIME, THAT'S 750 MILLION THAT WASN'T ON THE TAX ROLLS FOR THE GENERAL FUND.

NOW IT GETS MOVED OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND, SO THAT THE TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE, THEN THE DENOMINATOR, I GUESS, IS BIGGER WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING THE RATE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS, BUT I THINK HAVING THE EXPLANATION WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE REALLY, IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS TOO, THAT ARE REALLY BASIC QUESTIONS.

UM, THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE BUILDING HAVE TO BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE THE INCREMENTAL VALUE THAT'S CALCULATED FOR THE TERRORS AND, AND KIMBERLY, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? DOES THE BUILDING HAVE TO BE BUILT IN ORDER TO GENERATE, BUT FOR VALUE THERE'S AN AS WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOOK FOR VALUE, THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT JUST THE OVERALL LIFE OF THE TERSE.

UM, WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CHORES, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT CALCULATING ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS.

AND THEREFORE WHEN A CERTAIN BUILDING IS BUILT, IS THAT IMPACTING THE TERMS LIKE, UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT SPECIFIC.

UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A WHOLE.

UM, SO THERE'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION OF OVER THE LIFE OF THE TOURS, AS OPPOSED TO A CERTAIN YEAR OF THE TOURIST.

SO, BUT DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THUS THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE GREATER DENSITY.

SO THE LAND VALUES IN THAT AREA MAY VERY WELL GO UP IF WE ADD GREATER ENTITLEMENTS TO THEM, BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW THEY CAN BUILD MORE.

NOW, NO ONE'S BUILT ANYTHING YET, BUT BY CREATING THOSE ENTITLEMENTS, OBVIOUSLY LAND VALUES MAY VERY WELL GO UP.

AND THAT, THAT INCREASE IN VALUES IN AN AREA IN ANTICIPATION WITH OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE BELIEF THAT THOSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE BUILT OUT OVER TIME IS PART OF THE INCREMENTAL VALUE THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO, TO TAX IN A, IN A TOURERS.

AND IT BECOMES PART OF THE BOT FOR, BUT IT'S CONCEPTS LIKE THAT.

I THINK THAT THAT, THAT WE NEED TO BE, WE NEED TO JUST CAREFULLY AND, AND, AND SLOWLY, UM, UH, GO THROUGH SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THE ASPECTS OF THIS.

YES, THAT'S WHAT I TOLD THEM.

I HAD, UM, AS I HAD INDICATED, I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT FINANCING.

SO IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN, IT ALSO TALKED ABOUT OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING TOOLS.

AND I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE AS WELL.

THE TOURS IS ONE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED, NOT THE ONLY ONE.

AND IN FACT, UM, THE TIMELINE IN THE BACK TALKS ABOUT THE EXPLORATION OF THOSE OTHER FUNDING TOOLS AS WELL.

SO I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, FIRST THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND WHETHER THAT'S BEEN INITIATED.

I THINK THE, LET ME JUST GET BACK IT'S ON MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PAGES, BUT THE, I THINK IT SAID THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COULD ALSO PAY FOR PARK STREET IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES, MARKETING, BRANDING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR PARKS PLAZA, AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES.

AND THEN THERE'S MORE DETAIL IN THE, IN THE VISION PLAN ON HOW THOSE WORK, BUT THE CHART IN THE BACK TALKS ABOUT THE INITIATION OF DISCUSSIONS AROUND ALL OF THOSE.

JUST ONE SECOND, WHILE I GET TO THAT PAGE,

[02:00:12]

IN THE LIST OF, OF CITY ACTIONS AROUND ONE OUT PAGE A 1 11, 1 12, I THINK IT HAD SAID, UM, INITIATE THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE FIRST ZERO TO FIRST YEAR, ENGAGING WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, DAA, VARIOUS OTHERS.

SO CAN YOU IDENTIFY IDENTIFICATION OF PID ELIGIBLE PROJECTS, PROJECTIONS OF PROGRAM, PROJECT COSTS, ASSESSMENTS, WHERE ARE WE WITH THAT WORK? UH, COUNCIL MEMBER? WE CAN CERTAINLY GO INTO DEBT INTO THE RESPONSE OF THAT.

AS WE HAD MENTIONED ON THURSDAY, WE CAN ALSO HAVE A BRIEFING.

AND IF YOU'D LIKE YOU COULD SEND US SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE COULD BE PREPARED TO ANSWER, UM, FOR THAT BRIEFING ON THURSDAY.

UH, IF THAT WOULD HELP.

AND I ANTICIPATE THAT COUNSEL WILL HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS REGARDING SOUTH CENTRAL.

SURE.

I'M HAPPY TO, I'M HAPPY TO WAIT ON THAT AGAIN.

MAY ARE BACK TO YOUR REFERENCES TO THE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I'M HEARING FROM CONSTITUENTS, THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE FUNDING OPTIONS IDENTIFIED IN, IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL VISION PLAN AS POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES TO FUND SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT WE SEEM TO BE FOCUSING ON, ON JUST THIS ONE.

AND SO I'M INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ABOUT, UM, EVALUATION AND KIND OF WHERE THE CITY, HOW FAR WE GOT IN THAT EVALUATION.

I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THE TIMEFRAME FOR THAT WAS THE FIRST YEAR THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE GOT UP AND RUNNING AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

THE AUSTIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WAS ANOTHER ONE SCHEDULED TO BE DONE WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR.

UM, EXAMINING HOW, UH, A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ORDINANCE WOULD WORK.

I'M HOPING THAT THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THE REGULATING PLAN THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON HOW TO DEVELOPMENT, HOW TO VALUE THOSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CAN BE USED BY THE RECEIVING ENTITY.

AGAIN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL FOR FUNDING PARKS PLAZA AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOME OF THE OTHER BENEFITS.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'D LIKE AS WE, AS WE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT FUNDING OPTIONS, I THINK THAT'S ONE PARKING MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WAS ANOTHER THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.

AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY IN SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS TO TALK ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, SOME OF THE TAX CREDITS, SOME OF THE HOUSING SPECIFIC FUNDING STREAMS, BUT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE AT LEAST THREE I'M INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THE PARKING MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND HOW THAT WOULD FUNCTION.

AGAIN.

PARKING MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT NOW WE HAVE ALL OF, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE PLACES.

SO IT'S LESS OF A INNOVATION THAN IT WAS BACK WHEN THIS PAST THAT TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T QUITE, UM, HAVEN'T QUITE BEEN ABLE TO CODIFY YET.

I KNOW MY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF, LOOKING AT THAT QUESTION NOW FOR QUITE A WHILE.

AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE A VALUABLE TOOL POTENTIALLY HERE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.

I KNOW THAT FOLLOWING TODAY'S WORK SESSION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A TEAM OF DEPARTMENTS GETTING TOGETHER TO CONTEMPLATE HOW BEST TO PUT UP A THURSDAY'S PRESENTATION.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN COME FORWARD WITH ALL THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL.

IS IT REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT WE CAN HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY ABOUT THIS? IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR STAFF AND IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG CONVERSATION.

UM, MAYBE WE'LL GET A BETTER SENSE ONCE WE TALK ABOUT THE AGENDA, BUT I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE AN HOUR AND A HALF TO TWO HOUR KIND OF CONVERSATION IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COUNCIL MEETING.

I'M NOT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SETTING, SETTING A REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR THAT.

ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK STAFF TO PULL ALL THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER SO QUICKLY, MY GUESS IS IT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING THAT GETS RESOLVED ON THURSDAY, BUT WHEN WE HAD SET THE CALENDAR, WE HAD SAID TO THE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SPILL OVER.

AND I THINK THERE PROBABLY SOME THRESHOLD QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED IN HERE THAT THE VERY LEAST COULD, COULD BE BETTER ANSWERED ON THURSDAY.

BUT I RECOGNIZE ME ABOUT THE AGENDA ON THURSDAY.

REMEMBER VELA, JUST APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, MAYOR ABOUT OUR GOALS AND REALLY ULTIMATELY THE LINK BETWEEN PUBLIC BENEFITS AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

UH, I DON'T SEE HOW WE ACHIEVE THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, UH, IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT WITHOUT, UH, VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES TO THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THE AREA.

AND IT'S HARD TO SEE, ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO, YOU KNOW, THE PAY IT AND DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES, UH, HARD TO SEE HOW WE LAY OUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ALSO WITHOUT, UH, A TERS OR AGAIN, A VERY SIMILAR TYPE OF, UH, PUBLIC FUNDING, UH, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, FUNDING MECHANISM.

AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE TIMING THE SOONER RIGHT NOW.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING A VERY MINIMAL LEVEL

[02:05:01]

OF, UH, TAX REVENUE FROM THE, UH, EXISTING PROPERTY, UH, PARTICULARLY THE NINO, THE CLOSED STATESMEN, UH, SITE, AND THE SOONER WE CAN KICK THESE PROJECTS IN THE SOONER WE START GETTING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO THE CITY.

SO, UH, AGAIN, THE SOONER WE GET THE PARK, THE SOONER WE GET THE PUBLIC BENEFITS.

SO I, UH, I DO HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY, UH, IN THE SENSE THAT I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIG LONG PROJECT.

AND THE LONGER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF HOLD OFF ON MAKING OUR DECISIONS, YOU KNOW, THE LONGER THE PUBLIC HAS TO WAIT TO GET IT NEW BACK VIEWING PARK AND OTHER, UH, PUBLIC BENEFITS, OUR ATTENTION, UH, TO THAT, UH, STATEMENT PARK.

YEAH, YEAH.

ONE LAST ONE LAST THING.

UM, JUST TO COUNCIL MEMBER OF ELLA'S, UM, POINT IN ARTURO'S PRESENTATION FROM LAST YEAR, STAFF IDENTIFIED SEVERAL OTHER FUNDING OPTIONS THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL WATERFRONT VISION.

I THINK THEY WERE RIGHT AWAY FEES AND SOME OTHER, OTHER, UM, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO FUND INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO WHAT I MENTIONED ARE THOSE THAT WERE NOTED IN THE VISION PLAN, A COUPLE OF THOSE THAT WERE NOTED IN THE VISION PLAN, BUT STAFF SHOULD BE WELCOME.

AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BRING FORWARD THOSE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING STRATEGIES, FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE, WE HAVE AN ARRAY OF TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US FOR THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT FUNDING, THE TOURS, I THINK WE REALLY NEED, WE REALLY NEED TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO EACH ONE OF THOSE AND UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND, AND GET COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THEM.

AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE A BROAD STATEMENT IN THAT REGARD ON PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, WE LOOK AT ALL THE AVAILABLE FINANCING SOURCES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE FIRST AND FOREMOST, LOOK TO SEE WHERE WE CAN GET THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT HAVING TO EXPEND CITY DOLLARS.

UM, BUT WE DON'T EXCLUDE THE USE OF CITY DOLLARS.

AND SO ALL OF THAT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE LOOK AT LARGE PROJECTS LIKE, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT, UM, SAME CAN BE SAID FOR MILLER'S, I'M GOING TO BE SAID FOR C HOME, ALWAYS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE LOOK AT A TOURIST AS WELL, AND WE'VE TO COUNCIL MEMBER TOBY'S POINT.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING, UH, THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT THERE ARE, BUT GIVEN, YOU KNOW, STATE LAW LIMITATIONS AND JUST GIVEN KIND OF THE SCALE AGAIN, FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING GETS THIS, YOU KNOW, A QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS, UH, IN BONDING CAPACITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE OTHER TOOLS ARE OF THAT SCALE.

UH, AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE FROM MY STAFF ABOUT THE DETAILS WITH A COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND CATHERINE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT LOTS OF THEM BECAUSE GIVEN THEN THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED AND THE QUITE FRANKLY, THE REALLY LONG LIST OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AND THE LEVEL OF, OF HOUSING THAT WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ALL THE THINGS THAT COMMUNITY WANTS.

I'M NOT SURE ANYONE IN THESE TOOLS COMES CLOSE.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONCERN AROSE IN THE STAFF'S REPORTED IN JULY AND LOOKING AT WHAT THE GAP WAS.

I MEAN, I, I WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE REALLY DISCOURAGED BECAUSE THE ONE THING I LEARNED FROM THAT REPORT IS THAT SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT WAS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

UH, AND AT THAT POINT, I THINK, WELL THEN YOU JUST, YOU JUST STOP BECAUSE IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO AIPAC DO SOMETHING BETTER THAN THAT.

AND THE NUMBER I'D LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM ON THURSDAY, YOU KNOW, MY, UH, W WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THE EFFECTIVE FAR OF US NOT PUTTING IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, NOT INVESTING MONEY AND JUST LETTING TRACKS DEVELOP, GIVEN THE WAY IT IS OUT THERE.

SO WE NEVER REALLY EXCEED, UH, UH, TWO TO ONE FAR, AND WE CAN HAVE A BIG COMPONENT OF OUR DOWNTOWN ISH AREA.

NEVER GO HIGHER THAN TWO TO ONE FAR, IF THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDE AS A COUNCIL, BUT IF WE WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT, BECAUSE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT THAT TOOL MIGHT BRING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER NOW IS THE TIME THAT WE HAVE TO RAISE OUR HAND AND SAY, SO, ALL RIGHT, COLLEAGUES, LET'S MOVE AWAY FROM THIS.

AND LET'S TURN TO THE, UH, TO THE STATES.

I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING HERE TODAY.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE ADC WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.

SO IF YOU GUYS CAN ALSO BE AVAILABLE ON THURSDAY, UH, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, UH, AS, AS WELL.

EXCELLENT.

SO MAYOR FOR READY TO MOVE ON TO THE STATEMENT, BUT PLEASE.

UM, SO JUST A REMINDER OF WHERE WE'RE AT.

UM, WE DID HAVE FIRST READING OF THE POD ON, UM, APRIL 9TH.

UM, THE CONSOLE VOTED ON FIRST READING TO APPROVE THE CONSOLE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHICH THERE WERE, I BELIEVE ABOUT 23 OF THEM, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, UM,

[02:10:01]

AS WELL AS THE SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT WERE OFFERED UP BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.

SO THERE WERE ABOUT A DOZEN OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, UM, SINCE THEN THE CASE HAS BEEN POSTPONED TWICE.

UM, AND IT IS ON YOUR AGENDA FOR, UM, UH, THURSDAY, AGAIN, FOR IT'S POSTED FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE SECOND READING AT THE MOST.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT, UM, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE ALSO HAPPENED.

UH, WE HAVE HAD THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THAT WE PRESENTED A BRIEFING ON BEFORE BY, UM, EPS AND DARREN SMITH IS HERE FROM EPS.

IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, UH, HE DID PREPARE A PHASE, WHATEVER REPORT LOOKED AT THE OVERALL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS THE COST OF SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AGREEABLE TO.

UM, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SEVERAL OF THE AMENDMENTS, UM, UM, I DON'T WANT TO SAY CONTRADICT, BUT, UH, CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENT SETS OF NUMBERS, IF YOU WILL.

AND SO IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED ON SECOND AND THIRD READING AS APPROVED ON FIRST, UH, THERE WOULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE FACT THAT THE NUMBERS DON'T SYNC UP, UM, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.

UM, THERE ARE TWO ORDINANCES IN THE BACKUP.

THERE IS NOW A THIRD ORDINANCE IN THE BACKUP AS OF THIS MORNING.

UM, PLEASE USE THE THIRD ORDINANCE.

UH, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED CASE, AS YOU ALL KNOW.

AND, UM, UM, IT'S A VERY LENGTHY ORDINANCE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OUR OBLIGATION IS TO PUT ALL THE AMENDMENTS INTO THE ORDINANCE.

UM, EVEN IF WE THINK THAT PROBABLY IN THE END, THEY'RE NOT ALL GOING TO BE INCORPORATED FILE READING BECAUSE OF WHAT I SPOKE OF EARLIER.

BUT, UM, UM, THERE IS A THIRD VERSION THAT'S READY NOW.

I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC BRIEFING FOR YOU TODAY ON THE STATEMENT POD, RATHER, I'M HERE TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

AND LIKE I SAID, YOU HAVE DARREN SMITH HERE FROM EPS AS WELL.

AND, UM, OUR PLAN ON THURSDAY IS JUST TO SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL IS WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE STATESMAN POD.

UM, I DON'T RIGHT NOW HAVE THE ANTICIPATED OTHER THAN LAYING THE CASE OUT AND GOING, WORKING THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS, UM, ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION PLANNED, UNLESS THE COUNCIL TELLS ME THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE OTHERWISE.

UM, BUT, UM, THE MAIN THING RIGHT NOW IS DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON SECOND READING AND IF WE ARE, WHICH AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE INCORPORATED.

UM, SO THAT WHEN WE COME BACK FOR THIRD READING, WE WOULD KNOW HOW TO WRITE THE ORDINANCE.

THAT THEN GETS US JUST TWO QUESTIONS FROM THE, UH, THE DEUS.

AND, UM, I'LL JUST START WITH A TWO PROCESS QUESTIONS AND THEN DEFER TO OTHERS.

AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK TO ME.

SO IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU PRESENT ON THURSDAY, I THINK IT'S ALWAYS HELPFUL TO HAVE A SLIDE UP THAT THAT SHOWS THE LIST OR THE TABLE OF THE, THE, THE BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, THE COLUMN WITH THE BENEFITS THAT ARE SUPERIOR, THAT ARE LISTED AS SUPERIOR, UH, WITH THE ENTITLEMENTS.

THAT'S ALWAYS USEFUL TO SEE, I KNOW YOU, I'M SURE YOU HAVE THAT IN BACKUP NOW, BUT HAVING THAT AVAILABLE IN UP ON THE SCREEN IS HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE.

THE OTHER THING IS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, THIS, UM, THIS PACKAGE, UM, COMPARED TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION.

AND THEN WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S THREE IN BACKUP, IS IT THE MOST, I GUESS IT'S THE DATE, IF THEY'RE ALL NAMED THE SAME THING, IT'S THE DATE OF THE MOST RECENT? YES, THERE'S ONE OF THE, FROM THIS MORNING.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD USE.

AND THAT HAS, UM, ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN IT NOW, OR WHAT DOES IT HAVE IN IT? WHAT DOES IT REPRESENT? YES, IT SHOULD.

IT SHOULD REPRESENT ALL OF THE, IT SHOULD REPRESENT WHAT'S WAS PASSED ON FIRST READING, WHICH WAS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLUS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS PLUS COUNCIL MEMBER, TELEVISION MEMBERS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, IF YOU COME BACK TO ME LATER WITH QUESTIONS.

I'LL, I'LL LIKELY HAVE SOME OTHERS TOO.

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE RESPONSES AND I'M READING THROUGH THE QUESTIONS AND THE RESPONSES THAT IT'S SUBMITTED.

JERRY, CAN YOU TALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE CONFLICTING NUMBERS OR, OR THE OTHER PASSAGES THAT APPEAR TO YOU ON, I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME.

I COULD LOOK THEM UP, BUT, UM, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD, WE HAD, UM, UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, WAS FOR, UM, 4% FOR THE HOUSING AS WAS CALLED FOR IN THE DIVISION PLAN.

UM, WE DID HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT CALLED FOR, UM, 10% OF THE BONUS AREA.

UM, WE HAD ANOTHER AMENDMENT, UM, FROM THE, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT TALKED ABOUT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NUMBER.

AND SO I GUESS MY POINT WAS JUST THAT, UM, NOT ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? RIGHT.

WELL, I THINK, I MEAN, THE WAY I LOOKED AT IT, I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT MY AMENDMENT THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD, BUT ANYWAY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.

WELL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT, THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR ALL THE AMENDMENTS TO, UM, BE INCORPORATED IN THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE A FEW OF THEM HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR THE SAME THING.

AND SO THE WAY, THE WAY I APPROACH THAT, AND MAYBE MY LANGUAGE AND MAKING THE MOTION WASN'T CLEAR

[02:15:01]

ENOUGH.

SO THERE WAS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THERE WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION WE PASSED.

I THINK THE MOTION ON THE TABLE WAS PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, CORRECT.

AND WHERE THERE WERE CONFLICTS.

IT WAS MY INTENT.

AND I THINK THIS, I ASSUME THIS AS A COUNCIL'S INTENT THAT THOSE AMENDMENTS SUBSTITUTED IN FOR ANY RELEVANT PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS.

SO IN THE SAME WAY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE, MADE THEIR MOTION AND MODIFIED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND THAT WAY THE AMENDMENTS MODIFIED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE RELEVANT, OKAY, WELL, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK, I GUESS, SOME REALLY RELOOK AT THAT, LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT APPROACH, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT I THINK, I BELIEVE WHAT WE INCORPORATED WAS SIMPLY PLANNING COMMISSION PLUS CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS.

AND SO WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SAY ONE SUPERSEDES THE OTHER, SO WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHERE, WHERE THAT WOULD BE.

CAUSE THEY WERE, THEY WERE VERY, THEY WERE VERY MUCH, UM, DEALING WITH THE SAME MATTER.

I MEAN, MY, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IF, I MEAN PLANNING, COMMISSIONS, UM, I MEAN, THEY CAN'T BOTH EXIST AS YOU SAID.

AND, AND MY AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO MODIFY PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO, WHICH IS, I GUESS I THOUGHT THE WAY WE SORT OF ALWAYS HANDLED ZONING YEAH.

IS THAT WE MODIFY WHATEVER RECOMMENDS OR AMENDMENTS MODIFY, WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION WE'RE PASSING, VERY LIMITED DISCUSSION COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEY PULLED UP.

GOTCHA.

UM, OKAY.

WELL, IF THERE ARE, YEAH, OF COURSE.

IF THERE ARE OTHER, OTHER OF THOSE ELEMENTS, UM, I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME WAY THAT IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE IN CONFLICT WITH WHATEVER WAS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION, WHATEVER THE COUNCIL PASSED IS THE FINAL WORD ON, ON WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A VERSION THAT IS REFLECTS WHAT WE PASSED, WHICH WOULD BE AS COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO DESCRIBES IT.

SO WHAT YOU DID NOW IS IF, IF YOU HAD TWO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS, YOU JUST INCLUDED THEM BOTH IN THERE.

WE, WE FELT THAT IT WAS THE, UM, MAKE THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL ADDRESS THIS.

I THINK THAT THE LAWYERS ARE TRYING TO GET INVOLVED IN THE HALLOWED DRAFTING IS GOING TO STEVE MADDOX MAY ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR YEAH.

AND TO BE PRECISE.

I THOUGHT THAT WHAT WE VOTED ON WAS PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN AMENDED ON TOP OF IT, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER TABOS AMENDMENTS WERE.

SO YOU WOULD, THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE WHAT PLANNING COMMISSIONS WAS.

AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE TRAP.

GOOD MORNING.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, STEVE MADDIX, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

UH, YES.

AS COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA DESCRIBED, UH, WHAT'S IN BACKUP NOW FOR VERSION THREE, UM, IS WHAT PASSED ON FIRST READING BY THE COUNCIL.

SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PASSED BY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING, THAT'S, WHAT'S REFLECTED, UH, IN THE, IN THE BACKUP FOR VERSION THREE.

THE PORTION THAT'S USED BY THE BRIDGE THEY WOULD, IN ADDITION TO GIVING US THE PROPERTY WOULD ALSO PAY THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE.

YES, MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO I'M REMAIN CONFUSED OVER WHAT IS GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO THE BLUE LINE, UM, NEEDS ON THE PROPERTY, UM, AND HOW THAT'S BEING HANDLED IN THE PUD.

UM, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S, THERE'S SOME THING GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO HOW IT'S COUNTED.

UH, THE PARKLAND IS COUNTED CAUSE THAT'S GOING OVER PARKLAND.

AND THEN THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY WOULD, IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GIVING AS A BENEFIT IN THE POD ALSO BE GETTING MONEY FROM A CAP, METRO SURE.

MIRROR PART TIME.

SO THE, THE, THE PUTT, UM, HAS SIX AND A HALF ACRES, 6.48 ACRES, I BELIEVE HAVE DEDICATED PARKLAND ALONG THE WATERFRONT.

THIS PROPOSAL, UM, IN THAT AREA WAS ORIGINALLY, I THINK, ANTICIPATED ACTUAL STATION.

NOW THE STATION LOCATION, I BELIEVE IS SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH CLOSER TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE.

HOWEVER, THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE THE, BE THE NEED FOR THE, UH, EMBANKMENT FOR THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, IF YOU WILL, TO GO OVER TO THAT LAKE.

AND SO THAT STRUCTURE, OF COURSE, BY ITS VERY NATURE WOULD OCCUR AT THE WATERFRONT IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE PARKLAND.

SO THE APPLICANT, I THINK FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPERTY WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY AND I'M USING THE CITY IN ATP ONE IN THE SAME FOR RIGHT NOW.

I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES, BUT, UM, BUT FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE, UM, NO LONGER THEIRS, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT IT WILL BE PARKLAND.

NOW WE KNOW THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A NEED FOR SOME OF THAT PARKLAND TO USED FOR THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, WITH THE APPLICANT IS OFFERED UP AND WHAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING STAFF HAVE, UM, AGREED TO IS THAT WHATEVER PORTION OF THAT SIX AND A HALF ACRES OF PARKLAND IS USED UP BY THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, THAT THEY WOULD PAY THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THAT, UM, LOST TO PARKLAND.

AND SO EITHER WAY, IF THE PROPERTY IS DEEDED OVER TO A PUBLIC ENTITY, IF THE ENTIRE SIX AND A HALF ACRES IS NOT USED AS PARKS BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE, THEN

[02:20:01]

UM, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING A FUTURE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, THE, UM, IN WHAT MATTER THE BRIDGE, UM, DEDUCTS FROM THE PARKLAND, BECAUSE, UM, BEFORE IT'S THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL WOULD STILL GO UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE, UM, JUST AS IT DOES TODAY AT CONGRESS AND SOUTH FIRST LAMAR.

UM, BUT, UM, THAT'S A FUTURE DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE, DON'T NOT AT THIS TIME KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH PROPERTY, UM, ATP NEEDS FOR THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE.

IT'S STILL UNDER DESIGN.

SO WOULD ATP HAVE TO PAY THE DEVELOPER OR ANYTHING FOR THESE? NO.

NO.

THE IDEA IS THAT THE CITY, THE STAFF HAS CONSIDERING IT A PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE USED FOR, UM, THE ATP PROJECT.

BUT, UM, IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD, UH, THE IDEA IS FOR THE CITY TO RECEIVE THE PROPERTY AND FOR US TO EITHER USE IT FOR PARKLAND OR PARKLAND PLUS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, BUT, UH, IN NO CASE, DO WE, UM, UM, HAVE THE CITY OR ATP PAYING FOR THAT PROPERTY.

AND THEN FOR, UM, THE PARKLAND, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT IT'S NOT SIX ACRES OF ALL USABLE PARKLAND IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE.

THERE'S PLENTY OF IT.

THAT'S NOT BEING CREDITED AT FULL CREDIT.

UM, JUST FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CARE ABOUT THE PARKLAND.

UM, IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, WITH BARTON SPRINGS ROAD UNDERSTAND THAT BETWEEN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN AND THE POT APPLICATION, THERE WERE CHANGES IN BOUNDARIES, ET CETERA.

AND NOW IT APPEARS THAT ALL OF THE BURDEN SPRING, MOST OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, UM, EXTENSION NEEDS TO BE ON THE STATESMEN PROPERTY.

UM, WHEREAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED TO BE ELSEWHERE.

UM, HOW IS THAT ROAD EXTENSION BEING PAID FOR? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME, EITHER COUNTING IT THAT THEY'RE LETTING US DO IT, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO PAY TO EXTEND IT, BUT THEN THEY'RE GETTING THEIR IMPACT FEES TO COUNT TOWARDS WHAT THEY DO.

AND IT'S JUST VERY CONFUSING TO, CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT? YEAH.

THE, UM, YOU, YOU, YOU CORRECT ME OR PRETEND THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATESMAN PROPERTY AND THE CROCKETT PROPERTY WAS OFF IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN.

IT WAS NOT CORRECT.

AND WE'RE WHERE IT WAS.

UM, AND THAT ROAD WAS ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED TO KIND OF COMING OFF OF CONGRESS AVENUE, SPLIT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN PRETTY QUICKLY DIP TO THE SOUTH AND THEN GO ENTIRELY ON THE CROCKER PROPERTY BECAUSE THE CROCKETTS ARE NOT READY TO DEVELOP YET.

AND HAVE THAT INDICATED ANY WILLINGNESS TO DEVELOP YET, MATTER OF FACT, I HAVE SHOWN SIGNS OF, UM, UM, MAYBE LONGTERM, UH, CONTINUING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING.

UM, WE, IN ORDER THAT THE NEED IS THERE FOR BARTON SPRINGS ROAD TO SERVE BOTH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE CROCKET DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE, UM, THE BLUE LINE STATION THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN SPEAKING OF.

UM, SO WHAT THE, THAT THE NEED FOR THE ROAD, UH, IS MORE IMMINENT THAN TO WAIT FOR, TO SEE WHAT THE CRACK HAS, HAVE TO DO.

LONG-TERM.

AND SO THE ENTIRETY OF THE RIGHT-AWAY HAS SHIFTED ONTO THE, UM, THE STATESMEN PROPERTY.

UM, BUT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE LAND FOR THE ROAD, BUT WE ARE NOT, UM, WILLING TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTUAL STREET ITSELF.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WHERE THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT, BUT THEN THERE'S STREET IMPACT FEES.

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST SOMETHING COMPLICATED GOING ON THAT I, I JUST, SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE GIVING US THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT, BUT THIS ROAD IS NEEDED FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO WORK, BUT THEN THE STREET IMPACT FEES ARE BEING INVESTED BACK INTO WHAT, AND FOR THAT I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

TRANSPORTATION PULLS ON THE LINE.

I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR U-HAUL TO GET MOVED OVER INTO THE SIDE OF THE WEBEX MAYOR, PRETENDING YOU MENTIONED THAT THE SIX ACRES OF PARKLAND THAT, THAT THERE'S NOT SIX ACRES OF PARKLAND AND USE, OR CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE, UH, PARTICULARLY ABOUT PARKLAND? I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT, UH, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS ABOUT THE PARKLAND DEDICATION PART OF, OF THE PUD.

UM, SO I WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE A FOCUS CONVERSATION ON THE PARK ACCESS AND WHAT'S INVOLVED AND, UM, THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO HAVE THAT.

AND, AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, UM, CAN GO INTO DETAILS.

I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS WITH THE PARKING LOT DEDICATION, SO I'M NOT TRYING WILL GET THE NUMBERS.

THAT ALLOW YOU TO COUNT, UM, ACREAGE PARTIALLY TOWARDS YOUR PARKLAND DEDICATION AMOUNT.

UM, BUT THERE ARE RULES WITHIN THE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE

[02:25:01]

UM, BUT VERNACULARLY, THEN PEOPLE COUNT THOSE AS FULL ACRES, BUT THEY'RE LIKE FLOOD PLAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU CAN'T BUILD MUCH OR YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE IT'S, IT IS ALONG THE LAKEFRONT.

UM, AND WE HAVE THE, BUT IN OTHER PLACES YOU WOULDN'T BUILD A TRAIL IN THE FLOOD PLAIN, OR YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING OTHER THINGS.

YOU CAN'T HAVE THE SAME RECREATIONAL VALUE.

SO THE LAND DOESN'T COUNT AS A, AS A, AS A FULL ACRE.

BUT I THINK THE PARKS DEPARTMENT MAY BE PREPARED TO SAY HOW THINGS ARE COUNTING HERE.

I JUST, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ACRES, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY COUNTS FOR IN TERMS OF VALUABLE PARKLAND.

AGAIN, THIS IS DIFFERENT IT'S WATERFRONT, BUT IT, WE SHOULDN'T OVERESTIMATE WHAT WE'RE GETTING.

THAT'S HELPFUL.

AND I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING, BUT I, AT SOME POINT, IF WE CAN HAVE A FOCUSED CONVERSATION ON THE PARK PIECE, I WOULD LIKE TO SURE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE RUPAUL'S ON.

SO MAYBE HE CAN SPEAK TO THE OTHER QUESTION FOR, AND IF I MAY, THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I SUBMITTED AND, AND THERE MAY BE SOME IN COUNCIL MEMBER VELEZ QUESTIONS TOO.

BUT, UM, MY QUESTIONS, UM, THERE ARE SOME ABOUT HOW, LIKE THE INUNDATED ACREAGE IS COUNTING, UH, THE WATER QUALITY LAND.

SO IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT MY QUESTIONS, THERE ARE SOME WHERE THERE'S SOME THAT GET TO THERE IN THE UNIT, THE ANSWERS JUST POSTED THIS MORNING, I BELIEVE.

AND MAY I HAVE FOLLOW UP ON PARKLAND TOO, BUT I ALSO HAVE FOLLOW UP ON PAR PROJECT CONNECT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT.

A CONSTANT NUMBER.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, UH, ALUMNI OFFICER AUSTIN, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE CONSTANT MAYOR PRO TEM ALTER HAD PERSON ABOUT, UM, THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE EXTENT EXTENSION OF THE ABUTMENT SPRINGS STORE.

UM, THE RIGHT OF HER DEDICATION, UH, NEEDS TO BE DONE AS FAR, UM, THAT APARTMENT AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, THE EPIC, AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THE STREET EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION OF BUTTON IS BEING STORED AND SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, BUT ALL TOGETHER, ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED, RIGHT.

HAVE A DEDICATION FOR THAT.

THE BOTTOM HAS BEEN SORT OF EXTENSION THE STATE CONSTRUCTION, THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION BASED ON OUR ESTIMATION ALTOGETHER, THAT WOULD GO BEYOND THE, UH, ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE LIMIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

AND WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A DISCUSSION GOING ON ABOUT THE CARDS, HOW SOME OF THE, UH, FUNDING FROM CARS COULD, UM, COULD BE USED FOR SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO SINCE DURING THIS STUDY OF THE TRANSPORTS AND IMPACT ON LYSIS, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUNDING FROM CARDS OR WHAT ARE THEY PICKING UP THE FUNDING CONCRETELY? OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE DEDICATION BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE BUTTON IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION THAT CONSTRUCTION BE DONE FOR THE STREET, PLUS ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROAD AND SUB CONGRESS AVENUE BE DONE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND WHO WOULD BE PAYING FOR IT.

SO I THINK THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, A COUNCIL MEMBER OR MEDICAL TAB, IF WE ARE REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING, UH, IT MAY GO BEYOND THE ESTIMATES AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR SAY ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO CALCULATE WHAT THE MAXIMUM, UH, PROPORTIONATE ESTIMATE IS.

SO BASED ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PORCELAIN ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, BASED ON SOME OF THE PARKING NUMBERS, WE HAVE TO COME TO A FINAL NUMBER, WHAT IS THE LEGAL MAXIMUM LIMIT? AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION YET.

SO WHAT IS IN THE POD ORDINANCE THEN? IS THERE LIKE FOOTNOTES IN THE TIA THAT SAY ONE THING OR ANOTHER, AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO FOLLOW.

THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, AGAIN, THE DEDICATION HAS TO BE DONE FOR THIS FEET AND THEY GET IT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF ANYWAY.

UM, AND ON TOP OF THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUMP THE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION, PLUS PROVIDE A PHYSICALLY SEPARATED BICYCLE FACILITY FROM THE WEBSITE ALL THE WAY TO THE BRIDGE ALONG SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.

PAYING FOR IT, THEN WHO'S ANTICIPATED TO PAY FOR IT.

BUT ARE THEY PAYING FOR ALL OF IT OR NOT? I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I COULD, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE COULD DO IS I CAN GET WITH JERRY AND UCONN.

ROSIE DID GET THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THEN OF COURSE, IF THEY'RE NOT

[02:30:01]

AND WE CAN, WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE STREET IMPACT FEES THAT THEY WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING WOULD GO TO THAT.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT OBJECTING TO IT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS BEING PAID FOR AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE.

AND WE'LL, WE'LL GET YOU THAT RESPONSE.

UM, AND THEN, UM, I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR ATD, BUT I TOO WOULD LIKE TO GET TO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCES'S QUESTIONS ON PARKLAND, UM, TO TWO QUESTIONS, UH, FIRST OFF, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE RECEIVED A MEMO THAT SUMMARIZE THE TIA, BUT WHERE CAN WE FIND THE ACTUAL TIA TO TAKE A LOOK AT? AND I MAY JUST HAVE, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT IF YOU CAN JUST TELL ME WHERE, WHERE TO LOOK FORWARD AND PERHAPS WE COULD, IT'D BE HELPFUL IF WE POSTED THEM BACK UP, UH, SURE.

CONSTANT NUMBER.

WE CAN SHOW LIVE THAT, BUT IT'S A VERY BIG DOCUMENT.

IT'S 200 PAGES OF INFORMATION.

I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HELPFUL, UH, TO, TO REVIEW, BUT, BUT IT'S ALSO HELPFUL TO HAVE THE DETAILS.

SO, SO CAN YOU POST IT AND BACK UP BETWEEN YOU LIKE POSTED TODAY AND BACKUP, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? UH, SHOW IT ONTO THE MEMBER.

WE CAN TRY THAT, SO, OKAY.

UM, AND, AND THEN MY, OKAY, I'M SORRY.

AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, GOING BACK TO PROJECT CONNECT.

UM, SO I THINK WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, THE SIX AND A HALF ACRE, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER WE'RE USING AT THE MOMENT, UH, GIVEN THE CAVEATS THAT, THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM RAISED IS THE SIX AND A HALF ACRES PER PARKLAND.

AND THAT IF, UM, IF THE CONFIGURATION OF PROJECT OF THE, UM, THE ATP, UH, ENDS UP IN TERMS OF THE LINE FOR PROJECT CONNECT, TAKES MORE THAN THAT, THEN WE WILL END UP WITH LESS PARKLAND, RIGHT? YES.

IT WOULD NOT TAKE UP A COURSE, THE WHOLE SIX AND A HALF ACRES.

UM, IT WOULD TAKE WE'RE ANTICIPATING AN ACRE OR LESS WELL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE ATP IS GOING BACK AND RE-EVALUATING, OR THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL OPTIONS.

AND THE TIMELINE FOR THAT IS NOT UNTIL, I DON'T KNOW, LATER IN THIS YEAR OR POSSIBLY SPRING BEFORE THEY WOULD BE READY TO BRING BACK OPTIONS.

SO WE, WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, OBVIOUSLY IT SHOULDN'T TAKE UP ALL OF IT.

I MEAN, IT JUST, IT JUST WOULDN'T TAKE UP ALL OF IT, BUT IT COULD TAKE UP MORE.

ARE THERE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH, WITH, UM, ATP ON WHAT THE POTENTIAL SCENARIOS COULD BE? I'M NOT AWARE OF THEM BEING THAT FAR ALONG YET, BUT NO.

WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH, UM, THE CITY PROJECT NET OFFICE ATP, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, THE APPLICANT IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF.

I'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WHERE WE'VE DISCUSSED, UM, WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE PROCESS, IN THE DESIGN PHASE.

A PRESENTATION, THEN WE ASK QUESTIONS OR TO CONCLUDE THIS AFTER LUNCH, OR AFTER WE TAKE A, TAKE A BREAK.

I THINK WHAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF A QUESTION FOR ADP UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THERE'S STILL A LOT MORE DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS TO OCCUR FROM THE ATP PERSPECTIVE.

UM, IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE RANGE OF WHAT THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I CAN, WE CAN REACH OUT TO ADP AND ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND THE REASON I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS BECAUSE THE PARKLAND PIECE OF THIS PUZZLE IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF, UM, OF THE PUB FOR A LOT OF REASONS, NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

SO WHAT THAT MIGHT END UP LOOKING LIKE IS REALLY IMPORTANT, UH, TO, FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND.

SO I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO IT THINKING WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IT'S GREEN SPACE.

UM, AND THEN LATER BECAUSE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE, THE RAIL LINE RIGHT THERE, WE, WE FIND OUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THAT.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE OFFER OF THE DEVELOPER TO DO, YOU KNOW, FEEDING LU, BUT I'M, I'M MORE INTERESTED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA SEE RIGHT THERE ON THE WATERFRONT, BECAUSE THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SPACE FOR US.

SO, UM, SO ANYWAY, SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE ABOUT THE TIMELINE ISSUE THERE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BEAR IN MIND.

UM, I HAVE, UH, I, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE, A BUNCH OF US HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE PARKLAND AND THE TRAIL ITSELF ALSO.

SO I'LL, I'LL GIVE IT BACK TO THE MAYOR.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

IF PERHAPS THEY MAKE

[02:35:01]

I, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO, UH, FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, BUT I JUST, I WANT OUR STAFF TO TALK ABOUT, I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IT, I THINK IT'S, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVE A, I WANT TO KNOW IF THE PROJECT CAN GIVE US WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT THE PROJECT TO GIVE US.

SO HOW WE CALIBRATE OUR REQUESTS RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.

DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD TO, TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR A LOT OF THINGS THAT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN WON'T HAPPEN, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO ASK FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN, BECAUSE WE'RE USING THIS AS A, AS A TOOL TO DRIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

UH, AND WE'RE HEARING ONE THING FROM THE APPLICANT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, HOW TO MEASURE THAT OR DECIDE THAT QUESTION.

SO I WANT US TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOO.

SO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKS.

WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL CALIBRATION AND FEASIBILITY.

DO WE WANT TO IDENTIFY THE TOPICS AND TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH AND MAYBE HIT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION QUESTION AND THEY COME BACK AFTER LUNCH? YES, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

I WOULD ADD HOUSING TO THAT LIST OF TOPICS TO TALK ABOUT HOUSING.

UM, BUT GENERALLY, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT SECOND QUESTION, UM, THAT'S WHERE THE KITCHEN, THE CATHETER AND THE PARKS INCLUDES JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THE TRAIL AND THEN ACCESS TO THE TRAIL AND ADA ACCESS ALSO.

I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOUSING AS WELL.

I DIDN'T TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION THAT WAS BEING MADE BETWEEN ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY AND IN TERMS OF THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE AND HOW THOSE ARE INTERRELATED AND, OH, SORRY.

AND I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS I, UM, HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER ONE THAT SEEMS TO BE, I THINK, ONE OF THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED AND WHAT THE COUNCIL NOW HAS PASSED ON SECOND READING.

AND IN PARTICULAR, I'M INTERESTED IN REALLY UNDERSTANDING AND HAVING YOU LAY OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN.

WELL, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS REALLY TALK ABOUT THE POT ORDINANCE, THE EXISTING CURRENT POTEAU ORDINANCE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND, ARE AT 10%, NOT AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED AND WHY THE STAFF RECOMMENDED, UM, THE PROPOSAL FROM THE DEVELOPERS FOR A MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE OF 4%.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST WAS IS THAT WE CONVENED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION REMOTELY AT 1230, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE 30 MINUTES FREE, 1230, LET'S GO ON TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION, THEN WE'LL COME RIGHT BACK, UH, OUT

WE'LL ALSO GET THE CLEAR RESPONSE WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSPORTATION QUESTION AS WELL.

SO WE'LL COME BACK WITH THAT AS WELL.

AND IF THERE ARE THERE FURTHER TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS, WE CAN BRING U-HAUL BACK AS WELL.

UH, ONE MORE, ONE MORE QUESTION.

I'M SORRY.

IN, IN THE QUESTIONS THAT I SUBMITTED, UH, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT IDENTIFYING PARTS AND SUBSECTIONS OF THE DRAFT PET ORDINANCE, WHERE AN APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FEE WAIVER OR ANOTHER PUBLIC SUBSIDY.

AND I GOT BACK A MORE GENERAL ANSWER, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE ME A SENSE OF THE SCALE OF THOSE WAIVERS.

IF THE ANSWER IS PER THE PUDDLE ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO INVEST REQUIRED FEES AND LOU AND PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES INTO THE PARK, WHICH GETS TO THE QUESTIONS MAYOR PRO TEM WAS ASKING BEYOND THESE CREDITS, THE PARK INVESTMENT SHOWN IN THE CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN APPEAR TO SUGGEST THE REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SUBSIDIES.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS SOME LAYOUT, NOT JUST FROM, FROM THE STAFF WHO RESPONDED TO THESE QUESTIONS, BUT FROM TRANSPORTATION, FROM ALL OF ALL OF OUR STAFF, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KINDS OF, WHAT KINDS OF, UM, FEE WAIVERS OR OTHER ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY ARE BEING REQUESTED AND WHAT THOSE TOTAL DOLLARS LOOK LIKE FOR EACH PART.

AND, AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF BETWEEN NOW AND WHENEVER WE'RE VOTING, IF WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THOSE PLACES ARE IN THE, IN THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE WHERE THOSE EXIST, SO THAT IF WE WANTED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEM, WE COULD, I MEAN, WE CAN HUNT AND PACK THEM OUT, BUT, OR HUNT THEM OUT, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHERE THOSE ARE.

AND I THINK IN TERMS OF COMPILING A WHOLE LIST, YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE CAREFULLY TO FIND THOSE ANYWAY.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULDN'T BE ADDITIONAL WORK, BUT TALKING ABOUT THAT TOO AFTER LUNCH WOULD BE GREAT.

WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD THEN.

AND LET'S TAKE A, TAKE A LUNCH BREAK.

UM, HOW ABOUT IF, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST TO COMBINE AND MERGE LUNCH IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS BEST WE CAN, SO THAT WE'RE BACK OUT HERE FOR THIS GENERAL MEETING, IF WE COULD AT, UH, YOU KNOW, 1245 OR, OR ONE.

SO I'M ON A SUGGEST.

[E. Executive Session]

[02:40:01]

HERE, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP TWO ITEMS PURSUANT TO 5, 5, 1 0 7.

ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO IWAN, A VOTER PETITION, ENACT A PROPOSED THE AUSTIN POLICE OVERSIGHT, UH, ACT, AND ALSO ITEM D ONE, UH, THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DISTRICT.

QUICK LEGAL QUESTION, UH, WITHOUT OBJECTION, UH, HERE AT, UH, 1158, WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I'LL SEE YOU ALL REMOTELY AT 1230.

[D1. Council discussion regarding the South Central Waterfront District and the 305 South Congress Planned Unit Development. (Part 2 of 2)]

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, AND, AND RECONVENE WE'RE AT A CLOSED SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION.

WE DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEMS, IWAN AND D ONE.

UH, THE TIME IS 2 23.

WE ARE BACK AT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ROOM, CONTINUING ON WITH OUR WORK SESSION.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON IN THE POD BRIEFING.

UH, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO STOP AFTER THE END OF THE PUTTER BRIEFING.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THE AUSTIN ENERGY MEETING, WHICH I THINK WILL TAKE ABOUT 45 MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND DO THE PULLED ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

AND THEN WE'LL END THE DAY.

ALRIGHT, WHERE, WHERE ARE WE? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PICK UP NEXT? YEAH.

GOT COUNCIL WAS ASKING US QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUTT, WHICH AREA YOU WANT TO PICK UP FIRST? UM, WELL WE, WE, I KNOW THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PARKLAND ISSUES.

UM, SO WE HAD THE PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT WE HAD ANY QUESTION WHEN WE BROKE, BUT, UH, WE'RE ALL HERE.

I THINK KATHY HAD QUESTIONS.

I DON'T SEE HER.

AND YOU HAD SOME THAT RELATED TO TRAILS AND ACCESS.

UH, MAYOR.

I AM HERE.

I, MY QUESTIONS WERE RELATED TO HOUSING, BUT I'M HERE.

I JUST, I HAVE A, UM, AN OFF-SITE APPOINTMENT THAT I'M GOING TO NEED TO STEP OUT OF OUR MEETING FOR, BUT I'LL BE VIRTUAL OTHERWISE.

IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO NEED TO STEP OUT, KATHY, I'LL LET YOU GO FIRST, IF YOU WANT TO ON THE PARKS, IF YOU HAVE ANY PARKS QUESTIONS.

UM, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

MY PARKS QUESTIONS, I PRIMARILY SUBMITTED THROUGH THE Q AND A.

UM, AND SO MY, MY QUESTIONS HERE TODAY PRIMARILY ARE ABOUT HOUSING.

SO I'M, I'M GOOD.

THANK YOU THOUGH.

OKAY, GOOD.

AND, AND THEN LESLIE.

OH, OKAY.

SO, UM, LET ME START WITH, UH, I'LL START WITH, UM, I'LL START WITH THE, THE ADA.

WELL, IT'S NOT ADA, BUT THE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE, UM, WHO, UM, HAVE MOBILITY ISSUES, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION.

UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THE, UM, ACCESS TO THE PARK AREA GOES, UM, WE'LL HAVE TO DESCRIBE IT WITHOUT A MAP, BUT IT BASICALLY GOES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AREA AND THEN IT COMES TO SOME STEPS.

AND SO TO, TO STEP DOWN INTO THE PARKLAND AREA.

SO I'M WANTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ENVISIONED TO BE THE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY ISSUES.

UM, I HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS PERHAPS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT AN ELEVATOR, BUT I WANTED TO, UH, WITHOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, I WANT TO JUST HEAR FROM YOU ALL, WHAT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE THE ACCESS TO THE TRAIL SPECIFICALLY, AS WELL AS THE PARKLAND SCOTT GRANTHAM FROM, UH, PARKS AND RECREATION.

UM, UH, BASICALLY THE, ONE OF THE ACCESS POINTS IS VIA THE GREAT STEPS.

SO THE GREAT STEPS IS A, UM, BASICALLY A LOCATION THAT, THAT LEADS FROM SOUTH CONGRESS DOWN TO THE PARKLAND.

IT IS NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO SOUTH CONGRESS, BUT IT GOES BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS AND THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO DO AN ADA ACCESS VIA THE GREAT STEPS THAT IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT DETERMINED OF WHAT THAT ADA WOULD BE.

UM, IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER AN ELEVATOR OR RAMP.

SO WHAT'S WRITTEN WELL.

PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THAT PLAZA WHO DO NOT NEED AN ACCOMMODATION WOULD EXPERIENCE IT, JUST LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A DISABILITY, A PHYSICAL DISABILITY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE THAT WITH A, UH, TRANSITION DOWN TO THE LAWN IN A WAY THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

SO YOU, I THINK YOU JUST ANSWERED ME THAT IT'S NOT DETERMINED THAT THAT CAUSES ME SOME CONCERN, BECAUSE I THINK IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO INDIVIDUALS ON WHETHER IT'S AN ADA OR A RAMP.

AND ALSO, SO THE SPECIFICS OF THAT, OF THAT PATHWAY TO THE PARKLAND, UM, ARE THOSE SPECIFICS IN THE ORDINANCE, OR IS THAT TO BE DECIDED, UH, DECIDED UPON LATER, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT EXACTLY IT LOOKS LIKE? IS IT CONCRETE? IS IT PAVED? IS IT GRAVEL? IS IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE KINDS OF DETAILS IS THAT, UM, THOSE TYPES OF DETAILS ARE NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THERE IS A COMMITMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ADA ACCESSIBILITY FROM THE GREAT STEPS.

[02:45:01]

THAT'S ADA ACCESSIBLE, THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND MEETS ALL OF THE ADA REGULATIONS, BUT WHETHER IT'S A RAMP OR A, WHETHER IT IS A, IS A ELEVATOR HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED.

AND SO AT THIS POINT, IS THERE A, A, A REQUIREMENT FOR A PUBLIC CONVERSATION AND A PUBLIC PROCESS ON WHAT THAT DESIGN IS? NO.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS I HAVE.

SHOULD I GO KEEP GOING, OR DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD? OKAY.

SO ANOTHER QUESTION GOES TO THE, UM, TO THE TRAIL ITSELF, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL TRAIL BECAUSE IT GOES THROUGH ALL THESE TREES AND, UM, IT'S A, IT'S A PART OF THE, UM, HIKING BIKE TRAIL.

THAT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PARKS IT'S SHADED, AND YOU CAN REALLY FEEL LIKE YOU'RE AWAY FROM THE, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU FEEL MORE IN NATURE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE AWAY FROM TRAFFIC, YOU'RE AWAY FROM CARS, ET CETERA.

SO WHAT IS, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TRAIL ITSELF IS SLATED TO BE MOVED.

AND SO I'M WANTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS EXPECTED TO HAPPEN WITH THOSE TREES.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS I MIGHT REFER YOU TO.

UM, ONE IS THE, UH, THE ACTUAL TRAIL RELOCATION MAP.

I BELIEVE IT'S THE MOVE.

I CAN'T SPEAK EXACTLY TO, TO HOW FAR AWAY IT IS FROM THE EXISTING TRAIL.

I KNOW THAT THE RE REQUEST TO MOVE, IT CAME NOT FROM PARKS, BUT FROM WATERSHED AND THAT THERE WAS SOME RESTORATION, SHORELINE RESTORATION CONCERNS THAT SORT OF PRECIPITATED THAT.

UM, IN TERMS OF THE TREES, I THINK THAT THERE ARE ABOUT A HALF A DOZEN TREES THAT ARE SLATED TO BE REMOVED THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE, UH, INVASIVE SPECIES.

SO WATERSHED, I SHOULD REACH OUT TO WATERSHED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THERE IS A COMMITMENT, THERE IS A COMMITMENT AND IT IS, UH, WELL, IT WAS IN THE SECOND.

I DON'T HAVE THE THIRD, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THE THIRD DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT WAS IN ALL OTHER DRAFTS OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY A COMMITMENT TO RE, TO RE, UH, TO REPLACE THAT TRAIL, THAT 1700 LINEAR, UH, I WAS GONNA SAY MILES, BUT THAT IS NOT LINEAR FEET OF TRAIL.

AND THAT IT WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STUDY THAT WAS COMMISSIONED FOR MOBILITY AND SAFETY.

SO THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING THAT.

AND IN THAT STUDY IS ALSO SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WATERSHED.

SO WE COULD POINT YOU TO BOTH OF THOSE AND ALSO GET YOU SOME INFORMATION FROM WATERSHED.

AND IS THAT WRITTEN INTO, WELL, I GUESS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, BUT IS IT SIMILAR TO THE ADA ACCESS THAT THE DETAILS OF IT ARE NOT WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE OF THE DETAILS OF THE EXACT TRAIL COMPOSITION IS NOT, BUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THERE IS PRETTY MUCH, WHAT I JUST SAID IS IT'S 1700 LINEAR FEET OF TRAIL, UH, BASED ON THE BEST STANDARDS, UH, AND IN THE FA AND BASED ON THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY COMMISSION, THAT, THAT EXACT LANGUAGE I BELIEVE IS IN THE THIRD DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE AND CUSTOMER, IF I MAY ADD TO PROPOSE THE WORDS, THERE'S ALSO EXHIBITS THAT SHOW.

I'VE SEEN THE EXHIBITS, I GUESS I SHOULD SPECIFY THAT I'VE SEEN THE EXHIBITS AND I'LL GET MORE SPECIFIC.

I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT THAT THE EXHIBITS WERE NOT ANSWERING.

AND I GUESS MY OVERARCHING QUESTIONS IS, ARE, UM, GO TO HOW MUCH OF THAT DETAIL GOES INTO THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.

HOW MUCH OF IT IS DECIDED LATER, WHO, WHO IS DECIDING IT AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

AND I KNOW I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD HERE, BUT I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.

WE'RE DOING ZONING AND THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN.

SO, UM, ALTHOUGH IT IS A POD AND WE DO HAVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF DETAIL THAN WE DO WITH THE NORMAL ZONING CASE, KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, DESIGNING A BUILDING OR DESIGNING A TRAIL, UM, COLLECTIVELY HERE TONIGHT.

UM, THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME DETAILS THEY'RE GOING TO BE LEFT TO WHEN MORE ENGINEERING WORK HAS DONE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE TRY TO SET THE PARAMETERS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE ORDINANCE AND THE EXHIBITS.

TO KNOW THAT THE BENEFITS THAT WE HAVE IN MIND IS THE SAME THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.

AND THAT MAKES, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE WITH A PUD ZONING.

WE OFTEN PUT MORE DETAILS IN BECAUSE WE WANT TO, BECAUSE WE'RE BASICALLY, WE'RE BASICALLY BASICALLY AGREEING TO A SET OF BENEFITS IN EXCHANGE FOR ENTITLEMENTS.

AND WE HAVE

[02:50:01]

YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE NATURE OF WHY I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE, UM, THOSE DETAILS MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING UNDERSTOOD.

SO, OKAY.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN, SO WATERSHED IS WATERSHEDS DOWN HERE, RIGHT.

AND I'M JUST, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY DISCRETION IN TERMS OF, AT THIS POINT, IN TERMS OF THE PLACEMENT OF THAT TRAIL, OR IS THE UNDERSTOOD, OR IS IT THINKING JUST THAT WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW IS, IS NOT, IS NOT, UH, BENEFICIAL FROM A WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE IS AT THE THINKING.

SO THE SAFETY AND MOBILITY STUDY HAS ALL OF THE DETAILED STANDARDS AND THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT SHOULD BE MOVED.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US SOME, A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, I CAN FIND THOSE PAGES AND REFERENCE THEM AND THEN BE ABLE TO SHARE THEM WITH EVERYONE.

SO YOU'RE AWARE, OKAY.

UH, THEN MY LAST QUESTION RELATED TO, UM, FOR, FOR NOW, AND THEN I'LL TURN IT TO OTHERS IS, IS THE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE NICE THINGS ABOUT GETTING TO THAT TRAIL IS YOU CAN, YOU CAN GET TO IT FROM THE BRIDGE AND JUST WALK DOWN THE STAIRS AND THEN WALK TO THE SIDE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE BAT AREA IS, AND THEN WALK TO THE BRIDGE.

SO, UM, IS THAT GOING TO REMAIN, UH, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING? UM, I THINK I'M SEEING, YOU KNOW, IN THE BACKGROUND THAT THAT GOES AWAY, AM I SEEING CORRECTLY OR SORRY, YOU ARE SEEING THAT CORRECTLY.

SO INSTEAD OF ENTERING FROM THE WAY THAT THE DESIGN APPEARS RIGHT NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THERE'S A BUILDING THAT WILL BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SETBACK IS FROM THE, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OF CONGRESS BRIDGE AS IT GOES UP, BUT IT WILL BE SET BACK FROM THERE.

AND RATHER THAN GOING IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE BRIDGE, UM, THROUGH, UH, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, A TUNNEL, YOU WOULD GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, ABOUT 200 YARDS FURTHER TO THE, UM, TRAVELING EAST AND THEN ENTER IN BETWEEN, INTO THE PLAZA THAT WOULD OPEN UNTIL THE GREAT STEPS THEN TO THE GREAT LAWN WITH THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY.

AND SO, AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT ACCESS WAY WOULD BE A PARKLAND EASEMENT.

IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN.

IT WOULD NOT BE FOR CARS AS WELL.

AND SO WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS INSTEAD OF COMING OFF OF THE STAIRS THAT YOU SPOKE OF, YOU WOULD HAVE TO WALK THE LENGTH OF THE SKINNY SIDE OF A BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, NOT THE LONG SIDE, THE SKINNY SIDE, YOU WOULD ENTER CLOSER TO BARTON SPRINGS, BUT NOT AT BARTON SPRINGS, CAUSE THAT'S FOR CARS, UM, BIKES TOO.

BUT, UM, BUT THERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE ACCESS POINT THAT YOU WOULD WALK ACROSS OFF OF CONGRESS, GO ACROSS, LIKE I SAID, THE SKINNY END OF A RECTANGULAR BUILDING, AND THEN THERE'D BE A PARKLAND EASEMENT THAT WOULD SERVE AS A PLAZA THAT WOULD END UP TOWARDS THE GREAT STEPS.

AND IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRING PEDESTRIAN OR USES FOR THAT FIRST LEVEL, THAT WE WOULD HAVE BASICALLY SIDEWALK, CAFES AND RESTAURANTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT PLAZA, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY WIDE PLAZA, WALKWAY, YOU KNOW, STREET, ALMOST PEDESTRIAN BY COLI AND HAVE RESTAURANTS ON OTHER SIDE WITH PROBABLY TABLES OUTSIDE, WHATNOT.

AND THEN THAT WOULD LEAD YOU DOWN TO THE BAD AREA AND THE GREAT STEPS AND WHAT WE JUST SPOKE OF WITH THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY IN THE LAW AND FOR THE BAD VIEWING AREA.

WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY? SOMETHING, UH, POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE BIKES ON THE GREAT STEPS.

JUST PEDESTRIAN.

SO I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, HOW DID THE BIKES GET DOWN THERE? THE CLOSEST PLACE THAT WAS THIS ACCESS TO BIKES WOULD BE REALLY THE BARTON SPRINGS EXTINCTION.

SO YOU WOULD COME OFF THAT SAME POINT.

THAT'S REALLY ON THE CORNER AND, UM, ESSENTIALLY GO STRAIGHT EAST TO, TO HIT THE TRAIL, DO EAST.

WITHOUT A MAP IS, IS DIFFICULT AS PERHAPS A, UM, A GRAPHIC WHERE WE COULD SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PUD THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE PAYING FOR THAT ARE CONSIDERED PARK AMENITIES, SO THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE, SEE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

I HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL LET, UM, I'M TRYING NOT TO LET OTHERS HAVE GOOD COUNCIL MEMBER .

I WANTED TO ASK OUR, UM, PARKS DIRECTOR, IF SHE COULD GIVE US, UM, AN UPDATED LIST OF ALL OF THE PARKS RELATED, UM, UH, MEDITATORS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PUD PORTION OF THE WATERFRONT PROPERTY.

SO TH THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE PAD PORTION OF THE, OF THE, AND BY THAT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT OKAY.

BY THE LANDOWNER.

SO WHAT IS LISTED OUT IN THE PIE THAT IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR BY THE APPLICANT AND CLERK INCLUDE THE GREAT STEPS, INCLUDE THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, INCLUDE ALL THE AMENITIZED RAIN GARDENS INCLUDE, UH, THE PLAZA AREA.

THAT'S THE PUBLIC EASEMENT.

IT INCLUDES THE REBUILDING OF THE 1700 LINEAR FEET OF TRAIL.

UM, AND IT WOULD ALSO, UH, THOSE ARE ALSO THE POD.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO GO INTO THE REST OF THE POD.

BUT WHAT YOU JUST ASKED ME WAS WHAT WAS THE APPLICANT GOING TO PAY FOR? THE OTHER THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FOR COUNCIL THAT WE'VE REALIZED

[02:55:01]

WE COULD HAVE THAT BITE FOR YOU AS BACKUP THE BY THURSDAY.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY GREAT THAT THE LIST IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AND PUSHING THOSE CHANGES.

AND TO BUILD OFF THAT, MY QUESTION, UH, DIRECTOR MCNEELY, WHO IS ALSO REGARDING THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY LISTED FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS LAST NIGHT OR LAST WEEK.

UM, BUT I'M CURIOUS TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW THEIR MOST RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS SQUARES AWAY WITH THE CURRENT, UM, PUD AS PROPOSED ANY, UM, TOP LINES OR OVERVIEW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE TO SHED SOME INSIGHT AS TO, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD VERSUS WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD THEN WHAT IS PROPOSED IS THAT THE BOARD HAS VERY MUCH WANTED THERE TO BE A DIRECT ACCESS FROM CONGRESS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CONGRESS BRIDGE OR THE RIGHT OF WAY OF CONGRESS, UH, THROUGH TO WHAT I CALLED THAT I CALLED IT A TUNNEL, BUT THEY, THEY MAYBE VIEW IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

THAT WOULD BE RIGHT DIRECTLY FROM THE, FROM THE BRIDGE TO THE BUILDING AND, AND BEING ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO PHYSICALLY GO THROUGH THE, THE PLAZA OR ONTO THE GREAT STEPS AND ONTO THE GREAT LAWN.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT OR THAT THEY VERY MUCH WISH WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN THE, IN THE PUD.

UM, THEY'RE ALSO, UH, THINKING THAT THERE SHOULD BE ADDITIONAL PARK AMENITIES THAT ARE PAID FOR, AND THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, COMMITTED TO FISCALLY COMMITTED TO INCLUDING SUCH THINGS AS THE PLAY SCAPE, UH, OTHER THINGS THAT THEY'VE, THEY'VE MENTIONED THAT MIGHT BE THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN PAID FOR.

UM, ANOTHER THING THAT THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY INTERESTED IN AS A PUBLIC PROCESS, AS IT RELATES TO THE DESIGN PLAN AND THAT, THAT PUBLIC PROCESS BE SOMETHING THAT'S LED BY, UM, BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, UH, IN CONCERT WITH THE, IN CONCERT WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT THAT, THAT IT'S, UM, LED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE TOP THREE THINGS THAT I CAN THINK OF COUNCIL MEMBER, AND CERTAINLY I COULD GO THROUGH AND LIST THEM OUT MORE AND WHAT YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT WAS GREAT AND VERY HELPFUL.

UM, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SHARED ABOUT THE DIRECT ACCESS TO CONGRESS.

NOW, IS THAT THE SAME ACCESS FOR THE BAT VIEWING AS WELL? OR IS THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE? SURE.

SO THEIR ACCESS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT WOULD BE, UH, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY COULD LEAD YOU EXACTLY COULD LEAD YOU TO THE BAT VIEWING AS COULD THE ACCESS THAT, UM, JERRY AND I DESCRIBED THROUGH THE GREAT THROUGH THE PLAZA TO THE GREAT STEPS ALSO LEADS YOU TO THE BAD.

SO I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, ONE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE OTHER.

THEY PREFER THE ONE THAT'S CLOSER TO THE BRIDGE AND NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PLAZA, BUT THEY WOULD BOTH LEAD YOU TO THE SAME AREA.

AND THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINING PUBLIC ACCESS A MORE PUBLIC DIRECT ACCESS TO THE BAT VIEWING THEN.

WELL, YEAH, I THINK THAT, UM, BUT AS SCOTT SAID, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE TECHNICALLY THE PUBLIC USES THAT SPACE, BUT IT'S NOT PUBLIC ACCESS.

I BELIEVE IT'S ALL OWNED BY THE STATESMAN AND THEY ALLOW US TO USE THAT.

BUT, BUT YES, THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD LIKE TO DELINEATE THAT AS PUBLIC ACCESS.

SO THERE'S JUST A POINT THERE THERE'S A LITTLE SEMANTICS THERE BECAUSE WHILE PUBLIC CONNECTS US THERE, IT'S NOT REALLY A PUBLIC AREA.

AND I THINK THAT THERE'S JUST, I KNOW PERSONALLY I CAN SAY THAT I FEEL THAT THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN THERE OF HAVING PEOPLE KIND OF OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND, KIND OF AT THE BOTTOM OF A STAIRWELL BETWEEN A BUILDING AND A, YOU KNOW, A BRIDGE EMBANKMENT.

TODAY THE ONLY REAL TRUE PUBLIC ACCESS IS THE ACTUAL TRAIL ITSELF.

THE TRAIL THAT YOU SEE ON THE GROUND TODAY, GOING FROM ONE END OF THE PROPERTY, THE OTHER IS OWNED BY THE COX FAMILY IS OWNED BY THE STATESMAN, BUT THERE IS AN EASEMENT ACROSS IT.

AND SO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE ALL DONE AND EVERYBODY ELSE DOES HAVE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY, WALKING ACROSS THE PROPERTY, STANDING, WATCHING THE BATS, WALKING DOWN THOSE STAIRS, COMING OFF OF A CONGRESS AVENUE.

THOSE TECHNICALLY ARE ALL TRESPASSING.

UM, BUT, UH, OF COURSE IN THE FUTURE, UM, THE PART WHERE TO PASS, WE MAY HAVE, UM, APPROXIMATELY A SIX AND A HALF ACRE PARK, UM, RIGHT THERE.

BUT, UM, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT WE WERE TALKING A LOT AND I SHARE DIRECTOR MCKINNEY LEASE AND START A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING THERE THAT EVENTUALLY THAT BUILDING GREAT AT CONGRESS WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN A CAR EXIT TURNING RIGHT OFF ONTO CONGRESS, UM, FROM THAT BUILDING.

BUT IF YOU LEAVE THE STAIRS WHERE THEY ARE TODAY AND YOU HAVE A BUILDING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND YOU STILL HAVE THE EMBANKMENT FOR THE BRIDGE, UM, DIRECTOR MCNEELY CALLS IT A TUNNEL.

I KIND OF LOOKED AT IT AS A CANYON, BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU'D HAVE A BUILDING ON ONE SIDE OF YOU AND YOU'D HAVE THE CEMENT WALL THERE.

IT'S ALREADY THERE TODAY.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF YOU, FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SAFETY ISSUE.

YOU DON'T MEAN IN TERMS OF LIKE VISIBILITY AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE PEOPLE IN A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN BE SEEN AND WHATNOT.

[03:00:01]

AND SO THIS WOULD KIND OF, EVEN THOUGH YOU WOULD HAVE TO WALK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, I THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE PLEASANT FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, FROM AN URBAN FIELD STANDPOINT, UM, THAN IT WOULD BE TO WALK DOWN SOME STAIRS AND SQUEEZED BETWEEN A BUILDING AND, UH, AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW, 30 OR 40 FOOT CEMENT WALL.

UM, SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A DISTANCE IT'S DEFINITELY SHORTER.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A SAFE AND I DON'T THINK IT'S AS NICE AS WHAT'S PROPOSED.

NO, THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE SAFETY ISSUE THERE TOO.

SHOULD WE GO? SHOULD WE GO TO HOUSING? NO, I HAVE ONE MORE.

WELL, LET'S JUST PRETEND.

THE QUESTIONS ON PARKS.

SO, UM, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS A SUPERIOR WITH RESPECT TO PARKS AND WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING? NOT WHAT IT WOULD BE ALL SHOULD WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT THIS IS A 19, UM, UH, 19, UH, 19 ACRE PIECE OF LAND, RIGHT? AND, UH, WITH THE SIX POINT, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY 6.5 AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT, WHICH MAKES IT EIGHT POINT SOMETHING, A POINT WINE THAT THAT IS ABOUT 33% OF THE ENTIRE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

UM, SO THAT IS, UH, UH, A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND FOR A, A PRETTY SMALL PIECE OF LAND THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DEVELOP ON, ON TOP OF THAT, THAT ENTITY, THE, UH, APPLICANTS GOING TO GIVE ADDITIONAL MONEY ABOUT A HUNDRED, THAT ABOUT A HUNDRED DOLLARS ON TOP OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED BY CODE AS FAR AS PARKLAND, DEDICATION FEES GO.

UM, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD OUT THOSE THINGS THAT WE JUST WERE ABLE TO, UH, SOLIDIFY AND SHARE WITH YOU.

UM, WE'VE ALSO AGREED UPON SPECIFIC TRIGGERS SO THAT WE CAN GUARANTEE THAT ONCE CERTAIN PHASES ARE COMPLETED, THAT THE ACTUAL, UM, PARK WILL BE AVAILABLE.

SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THE PARK THAT LOTS OF CONSTRUCTION WILL HAPPEN AND THERE WILL BE NO PARK AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS.

SO AS PHASE, AS PHASE ONE IS COMPLETED, THE PARK IS COMPLETED.

AND THAT WAY IT GIVES, UM, IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO THE, TO THE RESIDENCE OF THAT SPACE.

UM, I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES.

UM, WE'VE, WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, UH, SOME SORT OF A, A PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT SO THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S APPROPRIATE PROGRAMMING THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THAT SPACE AS A, AS, UH, AN AMENITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO VISIT THAT AREA.

UM, THE UNDERGROUND CISTERN, THE WATER QUALITY PONDS, THE 1700 ACRES OF SPACE, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT I SAID EARLIER.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAME TO OUR, UM, OUR DECISION OR A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED SUPERIOR.

HOW IS A CISTERN OR THE WATER QUALITY PONDS? HOW DID THOSE, I MEAN, THERE, THEY MAY BE SUPERIOR FROM A WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE, BUT HOW HAS THAT COUNTING? SO, BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A MONETIZE WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE PIECES OF PARKLAND THAT ARE ALONG THE WATER, RIGHT? THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN BUILD IN THAT SPACE BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE WATER.

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVENTUALLY AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THE RIVER'S GOING TO RISE UP, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD.

SO WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE BUILDING SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL AND WONDERFUL, AND ATTRACTIVE TO INDIVIDUALS AND BEING ABLE TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO AMENITIZE THOSE PONDS WITH PLANTINGS AND NATURAL THINGS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH AND APPROPRIATE SEATING AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE THAT CAN BE BUILT IN THOSE CRITICAL WATER AREAS AND CAN WITHSTAND FLOODS.

WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS AN INVESTMENT THAT, THAT WOULD IT SOME, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD A WHOLE LOT OF STUFF THERE, BUT THEY'RE WILLING TO, TO MAKE IT AS BEAUTIFUL AND AS ATTRACTIVE AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE BY NOT JUST PUTTING A DENT IN THE WATER, BUT, OR A DENT IN THE LAND FOR WATER QUALITY, BUT INSTEAD OF MONETIZING THAT SO THAT IT CAN BE POLLINATORS AND PLANTINGS AND GARDENS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS TO BE ENJOYED.

IT'LL, IT'LL BE, UH, IN MY OPINION, IT'LL BE A, A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN UPKEEP FOR THAT.

AND WHO'S DOING THE UPDATE.

WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

THAT IT IS A 18, 19 ACRE SITE, THAT IT CAN'T BE THE 27 ACRES THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

I THINK IT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL.

UM, AND MAYBE THIS IS IN THERE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS, BUT IF YOU CAN POINT US, YOU KNOW, TO PRECISELY WHERE THIS STUFF FOR THE PARKS IS LAID OUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S COUNTING AS SUPERIOR, WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR, WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING THE TOURIST TO PAY FOR.

UM, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT PLACES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING IT'S SUPERIOR.

THE PARKS BOARD IS NOW SAYING IT'S NOT SUPERIOR.

UM, AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN

[03:05:01]

UM, AND IT'S ALSO IN THE DOWNTOWN, SO IT'S HAS A LIMIT.

UM, BUT THOSE, THOSE ACREAGE THAT YOUR LEG NOW, ALSO, WE NEED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, YES, IT IS THAT MANY ACRES TECHNICALLY, BUT IT'S NOT, THEY DON'T EVEN BY YOUR CALCULATIONS.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THOSE ARE ALL COUNTING 100%.

UM, SO OF THE SIX ACRES, HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY COUNTED AS A HUNDRED PERCENT.

CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT? THANK YOU.

UM, SO THE UNENCUMBERED LAND THAT IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY GETTING FULL CREDIT IS 1.6 ACRES.

THE ENCUMBERED LAND THAT INCLUDES CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.

IT'S, UH, GETTING HALF CREDIT IS 4.07 ACRES, 4.07.

THE INUNDATED LAND, WHICH IS UNDERWATER IS GETTING ZERO CREDIT IS 0.8, SIX ACRES.

THAT ADDS UP TO 6.5, THREE ACRES, TOTAL FOR THE DEEDED LAND, THE DEDICATED LAND, RIGHT.

AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING CREDIT FOR THAT.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE GETTING SOME CREDIT FOR, UM, FOR THE, WELL, THEY'RE GETTING FULL CREDIT FOR THE UNENCUMBERED AND THE, UH, HALF CREDIT FOR THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.

SO THAT'S A TOTAL CREDIT FOR THE DEEDED LAND OF 3.6, THREE FIVE ACRES.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT THEN THERE, YOU HAVE THE PARKLAND EASEMENTS, SO THAT'S 1.59 ACRES.

SO THAT INCLUDES A GREAT STEPS AREA AND A FEW OTHERS, AND THAT'S A HALF CREDIT AS WELL.

AND THAT'S 0.80 ACRES.

SO ALL TOLD WE'RE LOOKING AT 4.4, THREE ACRES CREDITED.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SIX.

AND SO CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN, WHAT'S IN THE CREDITED, DID YOU SAY THE GREAT STEPS IS IN THE CREDITED? YES.

MA'AM.

IT'S HALF CREDIT.

SO, UM, THE, ALL THE EASEMENTS ARE HALF CREDIT AND THOSE ARE, THAT'S A TOTAL OF 1.5, NINE ACRES TO RECEIVE HALF CREDIT.

SO THE CREDITING IS 0.80 0.8.

OH, OKAY.

BUT IN THE 4.43, THEN, WHICH IS THE CREDIT IS COMPOSED OF HALF CREDITS FOR THE WATER QUALITIES AREAS AND FOR THE, UM, THE STEPS THAT ARE EASEMENTS, I SHOULD SAY.

AND ANYTHING ELSE TH THE UNENCUMBERED LAND, UM, THAT'S BASICALLY HAS NO RESTRICTIONS AND, AND, UM, IS CREDITED AT 100% IS 1.6 ACRES.

SO, SO THAT IS THE AIR.

THE 1.6 ACRES IS THE AREA THAT'S COMPLETELY DEDICATED TO PARKLAND.

MA'AM AND ACTUAL FACT, THE, THAT WHAT'S FULLY DEDICATED IS 6.53 ACRES.

WELL, BUT THERE'S VARIOUS USES IN THAT 6.53.

SO THE 1.6 IS THE PART OF THE 6.53 THAT THE USE IS PARKLAND USE.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR ME JUST TO SHARE THIS, THIS, THIS SHEET.

SO THERE'S FOUR POINTS 0.07 ACRES, WHICH IS GETTING HALF CREDIT THAT WILL BE USED AS PARKLAND, RIGHT.

THAT'S WHERE WE CAN HAVE THE AMENITIZE WATER QUALITY AREAS THAT IT CAN BE USED AS PARK LAND IT'S IT'S IT'S THAT IT HAS SOME RESTRICTIONS AS TO WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD ON THAT SPACE.

WHEN WE SAY UNENCUMBERED, IT MEANS THAT YOU CAN, YOU DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS OF WHAT CAN BE BUILT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CAN'T BE USED AS A PARKLAND OR A CAN'T BE ENJOYED AS PARKLAND WITH THE APPROPRIATE, NATURAL AND AMENITIES.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER QUALITY.

CAN WE ALL GET OUR WEEKEND? WE CAN SEND IT TO YOU.

I THINK ACTUALLY WE SENT IT TO, IN A COUNCIL MEMBER, TOW THOSE QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE WE SENT THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE POST IT AGAIN.

SO, SO I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION, BUT THE WATER QUALITY AREA IS NOT GOING TO BE FENCED OFF THEN, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, IT IT'LL BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC TO ENJOY.

AND, UM, OKAY.

AND THE, WHAT THAT WHOLE AREA WILL LOOK LIKE NOW IS NOT DEFINED.

AND I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT PREVIOUS SAID.

THAT AREA TO BE, TO BE BLOCKED OFF FOR PRIVATE USE FOR THE RESIDENTS THERE? CAUSE I THINK I NOT AT THIS TIME, NO, NO, THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE PROGRAMMING.

AND THE USES AREN'T DEFINED IS THE THINKING THAT, OR IS THERE A LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS SOME OF

[03:10:01]

IN OTHER WORDS, CAN YOU MEET, IT COULD BE PART OF A PROGRAMMING CONVERSATION, BUT IT, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD BE BLOCKING IT OFF TO THE PUBLIC.

IT'S A PUBLIC AMENITY.

UM, AND SO THEN, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER QUINTAS HAD ASKED ABOUT THE PARKS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE TRAIL FOUNDATION HAS A TRAIL FOUNDED, I'M SORRY.

I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'VE WEIGHED IN AT ALL.

I COULD REAL QUICK.

UM, I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS A CONVERSATION WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, THAT THE PARTS THAT ARE INDUSTRY, OF COURSE, THE COUNCIL JUST APPROVED RECENTLY AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR THAT, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TRAIL.

AND SO, UM, THEY ARE EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF, UM, ONCE THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE, UM, ADDING THIS POSSIBLY TO THAT AGREEMENT, UM, THEIR CONCERNS RIGHT NOW HAVE TO DO WITH THE COST.

THEY WOULD BE PICKING UP ADDITIONAL AREA TO MAINTAIN AND WHO WOULD HELP PAY FOR THAT COST.

AND SO, UM, THEY EXPRESSED TO ME, COULD YOU PLEASE, WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT, UM, WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO BE A PARTNER IN THIS.

UM, AND SO, UH, THE TRAIL FOUNDATION DISCUSSION HAS TO DO WITH, UM, MAINTENANCE IN THE FUTURE AND WHETHER THIS HAS KIND OF ADDED, WHICH SOUNDS LOGICAL, RIGHT.

IF THEY'RE MAINTAINING THE REST OF THE TRAIL TO NOT HAVE A HOLE IN IT IN THIS PIECE AND WHO WOULD HELP PAY FOR THAT? SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE ONGOING, BUT THAT'S BEEN, UH, MY EXTENT OF MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TRAIL.

FOUNDATION'S OKAY.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER, IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TRAIL FOUNDATION HAS HAD A, AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AS TO THEIR ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT CONVERSATIONS.

WELL, THE, THE BIGGER, THE UNDERLYING ISSUE THERE IS WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THE TRAIL.

SO AS WELL AS I THINK SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT THE, UH, I GUESS MAY HAVE HEARD HIM ASK ABOUT THE WATER QUALITY.

THE APPLICANTS HERE, IF AT ANY POINT THAT REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE PLAN SHOWS OR DOESN'T SHOW YOU WANT TO CORRECT, OR REFINE OR BETTER EXPLAIN, RAISE YOUR HAND SO THAT I CAN GIVE YOU THAT CHANCE.

GET THROUGH A MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

MAY I REMEMBER COUNCIL RICHARD SETTLE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? I THINK ON THE PARK ACREAGE, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF ANCHORAGE IS BEING THROWN AROUND AND WHAT'S CREDITED AND WHAT'S NOT, BUT IF THIS WERE CONVENTIONAL ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'VE MEASURED SUPERIORITY AGAINST ON THE CODE, YOU ARE LIMITED TO 15% OF THE GROWTH SIDE AREA.

THE GROSS SIDE AREA INCLUDES FLOODPLAIN CRITICAL ZONE AND, AND THE INUNDATED AREA.

IN FACT, 15% OF OUR ACREAGE WOULD BE ABOUT 2.8 ACRES TOTAL, WHETHER IT'S FLOODPLAIN CRITICAL OR WHATEVER.

ONE OF THE SPIRITUALITY ITEMS THAT HASN'T GOTTEN THROUGH YET IS WE'RE DOING 6.3 PLUS PARK EASEMENTS FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT.

AND THE BASELINE IS 2.2 0.8, I BELIEVE.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, THANK YOU.

AND WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION.

I, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BIG COMPLICATED CASE AND IT'S ALL WE'RE FOCUSED ON.

YOUR STAFF HAS A GILLIAN CASES THEY HAVE TO FOCUS ON.

SO I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.

BUT IF, IF THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK TO YOU MORE THAN LIKELY WE'VE GOT SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU.

YOU HAVE ANSWERS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL IS ASKING.

IF YOU WOULD SEND US ALL AN EMAIL OR A NOTE, WE'RE MAKING NOTES, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.

I WANTED TO, UM, GO BACK TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE TRAIL FOUNDATION.

AND I'VE BEEN HAVING SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WITH HEIDI ANDERSON THERE.

AND I, I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I, I AGREE WITH HER THAT, UM, THE, THE TRAIL FOUNDATION SHOULD NOT BE THE SOLE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCING, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE, OF THE PARK AND THE TRAIL.

SHOULD THAT AGREEMENT BE STRUCK? UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIG LIFT FOR THAT RELATIVELY SMALL ENTITY AT THIS POINT.

UM, AND I KNOW WE ARE ALL VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE WORK THAT THE TRAIL FOUNDATION IS DOING, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THEM GROWING AND, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING, BUT I WOULD LOOK TO THE, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT TO, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE THE, THE VERY VITAL ROLE THAT, THAT WILL BE WITH THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE TRAIL FOUNDATION.

AND SEE IF, UM, IF SOME ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE AND PERSUASION MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, UM, UH, TO HELP WITH THE FINANCING

[03:15:01]

OF THE MAINTENANCE.

I DO THINK IT'S LEGITIMATE WHAT THE TRAIL FOUNDATION IS SAYING THAT THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, SUFFICIENT BANDWIDTH FOR THAT TO DO THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT.

I DO THINK THAT THAT IS THE GROUP THAT SHOULD BE TAPPED TO DO IT.

UM, AND SO I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR OUR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TO HELP WITH FINDING WAYS TO DO THAT FINANCIALLY.

ANYTHING ELSE ON PARKS? HEY, LET'S GO TO HOUSING COUNSELOR, TOPO.

YOU STILL WITH US? I AM, BUT, UM, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.

WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT AREA THAT YOU'D COVERED? WHAT ABOUT THE QUANTIFICATION ISSUE? I'M SORRY, AT SOME POINT, HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO OR NOT DO IT'S TIME AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PROJECT? UM, WELL WE DO HAVE, UH, DARREN SMITH HERE FROM UPS AND HE'S ALREADY COMPLETED THE PHASE ONE REPORT THAT WE BRIEF LAST TIME DISCUSSING THE, BOTH THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT TODAY AS PROPOSED AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL COST OF SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS.

SO IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE US TO ADDRESS? UM, DARREN, YOU WANT TO RE SUMMARIZE THOSE POINTS.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

AGAIN, I'M DARREN SMITH WITH ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS. UM, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE VARIETY OF, UH, ISSUES THAT, UM, WERE ASKED FOR BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS BY, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL.

UM, SPECIFICALLY THOSE ITEMS THAT THE, THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO FINANCE.

AND SO THE BIG PICTURE, UM, THEN AS NOW IS THAT THIS PROJECT, UM, UNDER A CURRENT MARKET CIRCUMSTANCES COSTS MORE TO BUILD THAN IT IS EXPECTED TO BE WORTH.

THAT WAS THE SAME RESULT THAT WAS, UH, FOUND A FEW YEARS AGO BY ANOTHER CONSULTANT.

AND THAT'S WHERE ECONOMICS SEEM TO BE TODAY, EVEN WITH A FAIRLY RAPID ESCALATION OF PROPERTY VALUES COSTS ON CONSTRUCTION, UH, AND RELATED ISSUES HAVE GONE UP AT THE SAME PACE AND EVEN FASTER THAN THE VALUES HAVE INCREASED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO THERE CONTINUES TO BE IN OUR ESTIMATE, A, UH, FINANCIAL GAP REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE FEASIBLE THAT SAID, UM, THE DEVELOPER IS OF COURSE FORWARD-THINKING AND LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, UH, AND HAS AGREED TO A NUMBER OF THE SUPERIOR ITEMS THAT DO ADD COSTS TO THE PROJECT.

AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF THOSE, BUT THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, UM, THAT WERE STILL FURTHER THAN THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO AT THIS TIME, INCLUDING, UH, A DIFFERENT APPROACH ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS WELL AS PARK, UH, PARKLAND, MAINTENANCE COSTS BEING BORNE BY THEM AND SO FORTH.

WE'VE ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF EACH OF THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE, UH, FROM OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION IN JULY, BUT THOSE NUMBERS HAVE NOT CHANGED.

UM, SO IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN REFERENCE OR EVEN CALL UP ON THE SCREEN? UM, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CALL UP RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP.

COME, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO COPIES OF IT IN THE BACKUP, UM, THROUGH ACTUALLY TO BE HONEST, IDENTICAL, UM, ONE HAS THE WORD DRAFT ON IT.

THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT HAVE, UM, THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME.

AND ALL THE INFORMATION IS THERE.

SO IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT A SPECIFIC ONE, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT QUESTION.

OTHERWISE IT'S PART OF YOUR AGENDA AGENDA PACKET.

COSTS THE PROJECT TO DO THAT.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD ON THAT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.

BECAUSE REMEMBER AT THE DAY YET IT IS THE COST DIFFERENCE IN YOUR REPORT ALSO.

THERE'S AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE PREVIOUS CONSULTANT HAD ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE VERSUS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION.

AND AGAIN, THE VALUES REFLECT A COMBINATION OF SAY MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND SO FORTH, UH, RELATIVE TO THE COST OF ESSENTIALLY HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AND SO FORTH.

UM, IN ADDITION TO THE, UH, PARKLAND DEDICATION AND, UM, TRAP TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND SO FORTH.

AND THAT COSTS YOUR REPORT, YOUR REPORT.

IT ALSO IS GOING TO SHOW THE GAP BETWEEN LIKE SPRAINS THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHAT THE GAP IS GOING TO BE.

YES, WE'VE ESTIMATED WHAT THE W THE, RIGHT NOW THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, PROPOSAL IN THE PUD IS TO, TO PROVIDE 4% OF THE RENTAL UNITS AT A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL.

UM, AND WE'VE ESTIMATED WHAT THAT

[03:20:01]

AND THEN WE'VE ALSO ESTIMATED WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO, UH, TO ADHERE TO SOME OF THE OTHER AFFORDABILITY REQUESTS FROM THOSE, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS WELL AS THE ONE FROM THE COUNCIL IN THE FIRST WEEK.

IS THAT IN THERE, IS THERE A RADAR, SO ON THAT FEED AND LIVE, UH, WE, WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF, OF THAT AS WELL.

I'M NOT SURE IF I'M GOING TO ASK THIS RIGHT.

BUT LET ME TRY.

UM, SO IN YOUR ANALYSIS, UM, THE DATA THAT YOU USED FOR THE COST OF THE LAND WAS THE DATA FOR WHAT THEY PAID FOR IT? NO, UH, WE DO NOT ESTIMATE THE, THE, THE PRICE OF THE LAND, UM, AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS AT ALL, UM, THAT WE ARE SOLVING FOR WHAT THE LAND IS WORTH AFTER IT IS, UH, CONSTRUCTED.

SO THERE'S NO PRICE IN THE LAND IT'S IN YOUR, NOT IN OUR ANALYSIS? NO.

AND, UM, SO, UH, THE, THE SCOPE OF YOUR, UM, UH, TH TH THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU VALUED DID, DID YOU VALUE SEPARATELY THE, THE, UM, ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS, THE VALUE OF THOSE, AND I'M SORRY, I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO WHAT YOU WERE, WHAT YOU ANALYZED.

UM, THE PREVIOUS CONSULTANT A FEW YEARS AGO DID DO THAT ANALYSIS OF THE VALUE OF THE ENTITLEMENT RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.

IT WAS PART OF THAT FEASIBILITY BASELINE QUESTION.

UM, SO YES, THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE, THE ADDED VALUE OF THE, UH, INCREASED DENSITY ALLOWABLE, AND THE MIX OF USES ALLOWABLE ON THE SITE.

AND WE HAVE BUILT FROM THEIR ANALYSIS TO TWO HOURS.

BUT THAT WAS A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK.

SO HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH YOUR CURRENT ANALYSIS WHEN THE VALUE HAS INCREASED? WELL, SO WHAT THEY FOUND, UH, AND I ALLUDED TO THIS EARLIER, IS THAT THE, THE COST TO CONSTRUCT WHAT IS ENVISIONED FOR ENTITLEMENT, UM, IS HERE YEAH.

TWO PLUS BILLION DOLLARS.

UM, BUT THE, THE VALUE OF THAT ONCE BUILT, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE AFFORDABILITY CONSTRAINTS AND SO FORTH, UH, IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION.

AND SO THAT WAS THEIR CONCLUSION.

AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE SO FAR IS TO ESCALATE FROM THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, UM, HOW MUCH VALUES ON RENTAL APARTMENTS AND CONDOS AND HOTELS AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME, VERSUS HOW MUCH HAVE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION GOING UP IN THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME.

AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THERE, THERE CONTINUES TO BE A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY GAP LOOKING AT TODAY'S MARKET.

SO LOOKING AT TODAY'S MARKET, THE GAP IS, TELL ME IF THIS IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE GAP IS LARGELY DUE TO WHAT WE'RE ALL SEEING NOW IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS AND LABOR AND LABOR.

UM, ALL I CAN DO KNOWLEDGEABLY WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, CASTING A HAIL, MARY IS LOOK AT WHAT TODAY'S MARKET SAYS AND FIND THAT IT, IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL CHALLENGE UNDER TODAY'S MARKET.

SO HOW DO YOU PREDICT, AND YOU PROJECTED THAT OUT OVER TIME, IN OTHER WORDS, WELL, LET'S SEE, THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, SO WHY ARE THEY BUILDING IT? WELL, THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THEM RATHER THAN FOR, I KNOW, BUT YOU, AS PART OF DOING OUR ANALYSIS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT'S, THERE MUST BE SOME VALUE THERE TO DOING IT, OR YOU WOULD JUST, OR YOU WOULD JUST WALK AWAY FROM SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, SO, YOU KNOW, AS, UM, AS SOMEONE WHO'S VET, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HELPFUL TO ME IS, IS, IS VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE AND THE WAY IN WHICH YOUR, YOUR, UM, UH, HELPING US UNDERSTAND THAT THE COST IS, IS HIGHER.

BUT THAT, DOESN'T MY BIGGER QUESTION.

I MEAN, THAT, DOESN'T MY BIGGER QUESTION IS, WELL, THERE MUST BE SOME VALUE TO IT OR THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

I MEAN, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE UTILITY IS OF COMPARING THEIR COSTS, JUST TO, UM, WHAT THE THINGS YOU COMPARED IT TO.

IF IT'S NOT GIVING ME THE BIG PICTURE FOR WHY WOULD THEY PROCEED? IS IT BECAUSE OF, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE WHAT, I MEAN, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US? UM, I THINK YOU'VE CHOSEN AN APT WORD THERE, UH, TO SPECULATE.

UM, AND MY SPECULATION IS THAT THEY LIKE OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE, ARE LIKELY TO BE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE WHERE COSTS SETTLED DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

THERE'S BEEN RAPID ESCALATION OF COSTS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS IN PARTICULAR, UM, THE VALUE OF RENTS AND OTHER THINGS HAVE GONE UP FAIRLY STEADILY.

THERE WAS A BLIP DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE COVID ERA, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE BACK AT LEAST IN, IN EVERY RESPECT, UH, AND THEN SOME ON, ON HOUSING IN PARTICULAR.

UM, SO AT SOME POINT I, IF I WERE THEM AND NOW I'M SPECULATING, I WOULD BE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE AND SEEING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN AUSTIN IS VERY STRONG AND THE FUTURE OF THE MARKET HERE IS VERY STRONG.

[03:25:01]

SO UNDER TODAY'S MARKET, NOW THIS, THIS HAS TO BE BUILT IN PHASES, RIGHT? YEP.

SO, D DOES YOUR ANALYSIS COVER THE TIMELINE FOR THE WHOLE PHASES, OR IS IT A POINT IN TIME NOW? IT'S, UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AS A POINT IN TIME, A SNAPSHOT OF TODAY'S MARKET.

AND HOW LONG HAS, OR THE PHASES FOR THIS? DO YOU, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW, DOES ANYBODY KNOW CUSTOMER? NO, WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER FROM THEM.

IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF A GUESSING GAME, EVEN ON THEIR END.

I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS PRESUMED IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST IT PROBABLY TENURE, YOU KNOW, BUILD OUT.

UM, BUT, UH, THAT'S AGAIN, DEPENDING UPON MARKET CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION TIME AND WHATNOT, BUT OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING OF THIS SIZE IS NOT GOING TO GO UP OVERNIGHT.

SO, YEAH.

SO OUR ANALYSIS IS USEFUL AND HELPFUL FOR US, BUT IT'S, IT'S LOOKING AT IT NOW, NOT 10 YEARS IN THE FUTURE, CORRECT.

OR FIVE YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

UM, I HAVE A HOUSING RELATED QUESTION, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE TO THAT AT THE MOMENT, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE VALUATION ISSUE OR ON THE PROFITABILITY, YOU KNEW YOU HEAR THAT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET IT STRAIGHTENED MY HEAD AND USE AN ANALOGY, MAYBE IMPERFECT, BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS VALUING STOCKS, YOU KNOW, AND SAYING THAT, OH, THIS STOCK IS OVERVALUED, YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO GO UP, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT IT'S, YOU KNOW, METRICS SAY, DON'T BUY IT, DON'T BUY IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S OVERVALUED, BUT IT CONTINUES TO GO UP.

IS THAT A KIND OF A SIMILAR ANALYSIS WHERE, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LONG-TERM THERE'S OPPORTUNITY THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AGAIN, I THINK ABOUT THE HOUSING MARKET ALSO WHERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE IDEA OF PURCHASING A $600,000, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, 1400 SQUARE FOOT HOME IS JUST BEYOND A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT CLEARLY IT'S A BUNCH OF PEOPLE DOING THAT, UH, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MARKETS WILL KIND OF IS THAT KIND OF THE APPROPRIATE, UH, ANALOGY TO, TO Y'ALL'S ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT VALUATION METRICS.

I THINK THAT THE ANALOGY IS APT TO A POINT.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, EACH OF THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS REQUIRES, UH, AN EQUITY COMPONENT AND A LENDING COMPONENT TO GET FINANCED.

UM, AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT THOSE ENTITIES, UH, PARTICULARLY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, PENSION FUNDS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, THAT SORT OF THING THAT HAVE A VERY LONG-TERM VIEW OF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO BUILD IT AND HOLD IT.

UM, THEY MAY HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW THAN SOMEONE WHO PLANS TO BUILD IT, UH, AND CONDOS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THEY BUILD IT AND THEY LITERALLY SELL IT AS SOON AS THEY CAN.

THE BUILDERS OF THAT DO NOT RECEIVE THAT ESCALATION OVER TIME.

UM, SO IT DEPENDS ON THE, THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICULAR BUILDING AND INVESTMENT, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE INVESTORS WHO ARE TAKING THE LONG VIEW AND ACCEPTING A LOWER, UH, RATE OF RETURN IN THE NEAR TERM WITH SPECULATING ON, UH, FUTURE GROWTH TO MAKE THEM WHOLE, ANY THOUGHT TOO, ON HOW THE RISING INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT, HOW THAT AFFECTS THE VIABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL OF THE, OF THE PROJECT.

ARE GOING TO GET ANY BETTER, UH, IN TERMS OF A RISING INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT, UH, THOSE KINDS OF FACTORS.

UH, RISING INTEREST RATES AFFECT BOTH THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE OF THINGS IN TERMS OF GETTING, UH, LENDING AND GETTING, UM, YOU KNOW, INVESTOR RETURN THRESHOLDS.

IF YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, PUT YOUR MONEY IN A IRA OR, YOU KNOW, UM, AND GET A HIGHER INTEREST RATE, UH, TODAY, OR YOU ARE LEN, BUT BORROWING MONEY AND HAVE TO PAY A HIGHER INTEREST RATE, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO, THAT THE COST OF FINANCING ITSELF, OTHER THAN THE LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT, JUST FINANCING A PROJECT THAT GOES UP, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SELL OR RENT IT FOR SOMETHING MORE AT THE SAME TIME ON THE BUYER SIDE.

UM, WHEN, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE CONDOS FOR THE SAME INCOME LEVEL, IF YOU'RE PAYING A HIGHER INTEREST RATE ON YOUR MORTGAGE, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY QUITE AS MUCH FOR THE UNIT ITSELF, AS YOU WOULD HAVE.

YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOUR INTEREST RATE WAS 3% VERSUS FIVE AND A HALF PERCENT, YOU, THAT HOUSEHOLD CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THAT UNIT.

SO THE RISE IN INTEREST RATES, UM, WHICH DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY, OR AT LEAST NOT ENDING VERY SOON, UM, CERTAINLY DOES AFFECT THE, THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FUTURE FOR THIS PROJECT.

UH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST ANOTHER ONE OF MY CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT, UH, IS IF THIS DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD, THEN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? UH, BOTH IN TERMS OF, I DON'T THINK THE FINANCIALS

[03:30:01]

AND THEN FROM THE, YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, BOTH AS A, AS A POLITICAL ENTITY AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD KIND OF THIS EMPTY SHELL OF A BUILDING THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND I'D HATE TO SEE ANOTHER DECADE WITH KIND OF AN UNUSED OR UNOCCUPIED, YOU KNOW, PIECE OF LAND.

THEY'RE NOT GENERATING ANY SIGNIFICANT REVENUES FOR, UH, ANY SIGNIFICANT TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

SO, UH, AGAIN, I MEAN, GIVEN, I, I KNOW THAT THE CURRENT OWNERS, YOU KNOW, HAVE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, YOU KNOW, WEALTH.

AND, UH, MY, MY SENSE IS THAT THERE IS MORE OF THAT KIND OF LIKE LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES.

THIS ISN'T A KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FLIP KIND OF SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

AND, AND, UM, ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SUTTLE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT SHE THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL? I SAW YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.

FOLLOW UP TO DARREN'S COMMENT.

AND THEN IN AN ANSWER TO MS. KITCHEN'S QUESTION, WE WON'T BUILD THIS.

IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, WE ENTERED INTO THIS WITH THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN WITH THE PUBLIC FINANCE AND THE PLAN THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD WORK AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROJECT PROCESS.

IF IN FACT IT GETS TO WHERE IT DOESN'T WORK BASED ON A COST BASIS, WE WON'T DO IT, WHICH WITH YOUR CONCLUSION COUNCIL MEMBER VALID, YOU CAN ONLY ADD SO MUCH TO IT BEFORE IT STOPS.

NOW, I THINK SOME OF YOU HERE WOULD THINK THAT'D BE GREAT, BUT I THINK IF THE STATEMENT STOPPED, I THINK THE SOUTH CENTRAL STOPS, AND THEN WE LOSE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER NUMBER OF YEARS TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE CITY.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S JUST OUR OPINION, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'LL TAKE WHATEVER WE CAN GET, BECAUSE IT'S JUST A NUMBERS GAME.

IT'S JUST MATH AND WE CAN GET THROUGH IT, BUT IT, IT WON'T HAPPEN IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE, ON THE EXPENSES AND THE CALIBRATION FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, HEY, LET'S MOVE TO HOUSING THAT CAN'T REMEMBER KITCHEN.

UM, THIS IS A QUESTION THAT, THAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO HAD, AND SINCE SHE'S OUT, I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND ASK IT FOR HER.

AND, UM, AND THE, THE, THE PRIMARY QUESTION HERE IS WHAT, WHY THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THE PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, WITH 4% AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SINCE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES 10% AND THE PUDDLE ORDINANCE REQUIRES 10%.

SO WHAT WAS THE THINKING WITH, UM, WHAT IS THE THINKING THERE? THE OTHER THING IS THAT THAT'S 4%, IT'S NOT VERY MUCH AT ALL FOR THIS SPACE.

SO CAN, CAN SOMEONE ARTICULATE WHY IT WAS RECOMMENDED AND JUST THE 4% SURE COUNCIL MEMBER? UM, HE, 4% WAS THE NUMBER COMES FROM THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN, UM, WHICH KIND OF PLAYED AT 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

THAT WAS THE GOAL.

UM, HOWEVER, AS THE STATE EARLIER THIS MORNING, UM, THERE WAS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MADE IN THE VISION PLAN FOR THE FACT THAT CERTAIN OF THESE PARCELS, THAT THEIR IDEA WAS THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS, THE SPREAD BASKET, IF YOU WILL, IF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WE WANTED TO SEE US IN THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, AND CERTAIN PARCELS WOULD HAVE TO BEAR MORE OF THE COST IF YOU WILL, TO LOOK AT THAT WAY OF THOSE, UM, THAT IF PUBLIC BENEFITS AND OTHER TRACKS WOULD, WOULD, UM, NEED TO BEAR LESS.

AND SO, UM, ON THE STATESMAN TRACK, BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF PLAYED THIS PARKLAND THAT WE'VE SPOKEN OF EARLIER, UM, AS WELL AS THE, THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, WHICH IS EVEN MORE SO NOW THAN WE THOUGHT BACK IN 2016.

UM, THE IDEA WAS THAT THE THOUGHT THAT WAS THAT, UM, THIS PARCEL WOULD HAVE LESS BEAR LESS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN OTHER TRACKS, BECAUSE IT IS PROVIDING OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT, THAT WERE DESIRED AS WELL.

UM, AND THEN WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PORT ORDINANCE, YES, WE DO HAVE WHAT WE COMMONLY CALL TIER THREE.

I THINK THE CODE CALLS A DENSITY BONUS THAT SAYS 10% OF THE BONUS AREA ABOVE A CERTAIN FAR AND ABOVE US, UH, UM, HEIGHT, UM, IS REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IN THIS CASE, THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS 96 FEET, UM, UM, IN THE EXISTING COD.

AND IT DOES HAVE ABOUT A 600,000 SQUARE FOOT ENTITLEMENT, WHICH HAS A PRETTY LOW FAR, UM, THE FAR PROPOSED WITH THE THREE, THREE AND A HALF MILLION.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER RIGHT NOW, BUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S STILL A PRETTY LOW NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S A VERY LARGE TRACK, YOU KNOW? UM, SO IT'S STILL DOWN THERE AROUND 4.2

[03:35:01]

OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, UM, I, I DO THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE NUMBERS STAIRS WERE KINDA NUMBERS.

I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE DETAIL OF THE NUMBERS.

HE'S HE'S EXPERT ON THAT.

BUT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULD BE MORE IF YOU APPLIED TO YOUR THREE RATHER THAN A 4%, BUT WE JUST SIMPLY SAID, UM, IF, AS I SAID EARLIER, OUR GOAL WAS TO TRY TO YOU, AS WE WERE REVIEWING THE PUD, YOU USE A SOUTH CENTRAL PLATTE AS OUR GUIDEPOST, IF YOU WILL, THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN CALLED FOR 4% ON THIS TRACK.

SO THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN DIVIDES UP THE TRACKS AND, UH, ATTRIBUTES 4% TO THIS PARTICULAR TRACK.

IT SAID THAT THE 4% OF THE PROVIDED HOUSING ON THIS TRACK SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT 4% OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT NEEDS TO BE ON HIS TRACTOR.

SO, AND IS THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING ON THIS TRACK? WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED UNDER THIS HEALTH CENTRAL WATERFORD? THE NUMBER OF UNITS? YEAH, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? UM, UM, THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL PLANT OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT LANE PLAN.

I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING TO, SO I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GET TO 20 PER 20%, RIGHT.

OVERALL, IF THIS TRACK IS ONLY FOUR AND ONLY PART OF THIS TRACK IS FOUR, BECAUSE IT'S THE PART RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL.

SO HOW DO WE POSSIBLY GET TO 20% ON THE OTHER TRACKS? WHAT'S THE THINKING THERE? I THINK A BIG PART OF THAT IS LOOKING AT HOW WE TAKE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, LIKE ONE TEXAS CENTER AND HOW THAT'S REDEVELOPED, UM, IN ANTICIPATION THAT THAT WOULD BE, UM, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF IN RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO I THINK WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT IT IN ITS TOTALITY, WE REALIZED THAT THERE WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, A GREATER PROPORTION ON THAT PARTICULAR SITE TO HELP BALANCE OUT.

NOW, AS WE LOOK THROUGH THE ENTIRE, UM, WHAT MAY HAPPEN THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD START TO TRY TO PIECE TOGETHER AS EACH DEVELOPMENT OP OPS INTO THE REGULATING PLAN, UM, AND CHOOSES TO, TO ACCESS THOSE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

SO WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS SHOW US TO THE NUMBERS, SHOW US THAT WE CAN GET TO 20%.

I MEAN, WHAT DOES IT SHOW US WE HAVE TO HAVE ON THOSE OTHER TRACKS TO GET TO THE 20% I'D HAVE TO, I MEAN, I'M WITH JERRY AND THAT I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLAN TO LOOK TO SEE.

UM, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT LAYS OUT, UM, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, UH, AND RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WILL BE PROBABLY SOME DIFFERENT USES EVEN FROM WHAT WAS ENVISIONED IN 2016, BASED ON, UM, WHAT WE KNOW IS COMING WITH THINGS LIKE, UM, PROJECT CONNECT STATIONS AND WHATNOT.

WELL, SO DID WE, DO, DID YOU, DID R DID YOU GUYS, OR SOMEONE ELSE DO ANY ANALYSIS IN IMPROVING THE 4% THAT WOULD SHOW US AT LEAST WHAT THAT ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON? I MEAN, I HEAR THE, I HEAR WHAT YOUR THINKING WAS, JERRY, BUT, BUT WAS THERE MATH ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IN THE SENSE THAT DID YOU, DID YOU ALL HAVE AN ANALYSIS DONE OR THE OTHER TRACKS AND WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE ON THE OTHER TRACKS THAT WOULD MAKE THE 4%? OKAY.

UM, CAUSE I REMEMBER IT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE 2016 AND THE PERSON WHO WORKED ON THIS, THIS RETIRED.

SO I WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS THE NOW, WELL NOW WE HAVE ONLY ONE POT IN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, FOR THE, FOR THE DEAL FOR THE, UH, IN THE DISTRICT.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU IF HAD SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT REPRESENT, UM, OR ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENT OTHER DEVELOPERS IN THE DISTRICT, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I'VE EVEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EVEN PROPOSALS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ABOVE WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

OF COURSE THEY WANT THINGS IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT NAMELY HEIGHT.

UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AT THIS PHASE, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE LOOKED AT THE WHOLE DISTRICT AND HOW THE NUMBERS PENCILED OUT.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'M TALKING RIGHT NOW TO OTHER DEVELOPERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND TALKING TO THEM ABOUT AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.

SO FAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS THAT I THINK WENT ABOVE WHAT WAS KIND OF PLAYED IN THE PLAN.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, TO TRY TO GET TO THAT 20, BUT THEY OF COURSE WANT MORE THAN THE PLAN OFFERED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

UM, KIND OF SLIMMER THINGS HAPPENING ON THE STATESMAN WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN THINGS, BUT NOT AFFORDABILITY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING FOR SOME MORE THAN WAS IN THE CONTEMPLATED, IN THE PLAN AS WELL.

UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR SOME THINGS THAT WERE NOT IN THE PLAN, UM, AS WELL.

SO, UM, WELL, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE, WHAT THE MATH WAS FOR THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABILITY, BUT I DO THOSE 20 AND THIS ONE GOT, GOT A BREAK BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT, WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MATH AND THEN THERE WERE, AND I'D SAY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ANALYSIS FROM THE WHOLE DISTRICT.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE THINKING IS THAT WE CAN GET TO 20%, YOU KNOW, WHERE AND HOW MUCH.

AND THEN I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHICH ONES OF THE OTHER TRACKS.

I'M NOT SURE IF I HEARD YOU, RIGHT, BUT WHICH ONES ARE THE OTHER TRACKS OF APPLIED PERHAPS FOR ZONING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WHEN YOU PUT, THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED YET? THERE'S SOME THAT ALREADY HAVE ENTITLEMENTS,

[03:40:01]

SURE.

UM, THEN MAYBE ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ENTITLEMENT.

WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.

THERE ARE, UM, THERE'S A, ANOTHER PLUG THAT'S IN FOR THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, NOT FORMALLY SUBMITTED YET IN THE PRELIMINARY STAGE.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES.

YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING ABOUT THE PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, THE PLANCK AND CAN GRANT ENTITLEMENTS THAT MAYBE AREN'T NECESSARILY USED.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I MEAN, PLANNING REGULATIONS CAN GRANT ENTITLEMENTS, ENTITLEMENTS ARE JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING, THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE GUARANTEE THAT THAT'S WHAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO DO.

AND OF COURSE WE NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYWAY.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? A LOT OF TIMES IT DEPENDS UPON YOU HAVE A LOT OF STUFF THAT DARREN ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPER WE DEAL WITH, IS THIS A LONG SLOW MONEY? IS THIS FLIP MONEY? UM, WHAT'S, WHAT'S HOT IN THE MARKET RIGHT NOW? IS IT OFFICE AS A RESIDENTIAL? IS IT FOR SALES AT RENTAL? AND THESE THINGS ALL CHANGE.

YOU DON'T MEAN OVER TIME AS THE ECONOMY CHANGES.

AND SO, UM, SOME, SOME DEVELOPERS ARE READY TO GO NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THE DISTRICT, SOME ARE JUST FINE WITH THE REVENUE THAT THEY'RE BRINGING IN RIGHT NOW.

UM, AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES DOWN THERE THAT ARE UNDER UTILIZED, GIVEN WHERE THE LOCATED, BUT, UM, UH, I'VE HEARD THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO STAY WHAT THEY ARE FOR NOW, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT'S WHAT THE, UH, THE OWNERS HAVE DECIDED TO DO.

AND SO, UH, YOU COULD ALWAYS LIKE, YOU KNOW, SET THE 20% IS YOUR GOAL.

YOU CAN DO MATH ON, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD I GET TO 20%, BUT YOU KIND OF STILL NEED THE MARKET TO GET YOU TO THE PLACE THAT YOU CAN GET THE 20%, BECAUSE YOU NEED PEOPLE TO HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO ACTUALLY BUILD WHAT YOU HOPE THEY WILL BUILD.

YEAH, I GET ALL THAT, BUT WE WERE FOUR, 4% IS QUITE A BIT LESS THAN 20%.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME, AND I, I HEAR YOU SAYING YOU DO, BUT I WOULD LI I THINK WE AT LEAST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ANALYSIS IS THAT MAKES US THINK THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO 4% AND THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE AT LEAST OF GETTING 20% IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE, UM, I, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE THE FIRST ONE AND SAY IT'S 4% AND THAT'S ENOUGH.

AND OUR GOAL WAS 20%.

I I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

AND THE FURTHER ELEMENT OF THAT, JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT ONE IS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS CHANGE, IF THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT, UH, UH, ENTITLEMENT POSSIBILITY OR BONUSES THAT, THAT YOU HAVE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'D BE IT'S WE COULD DRIVE HER GREATER PERCENTAGES.

I, IN SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES, IF WE DID THAT, OR IF WE GENERATED THERESE REVENUE AND WANTED TO USE THE TOURIST REVENUE OBTAINED IN THE TERMS OR A PIT OR A BOND OR WHATEVER WE DID AND WANTED TO TAKE SOME OF THAT MONEY AND BUY DOWN AFFORDABILITY, UH, IN PROJECTS, WHETHER WE COULD ACHIEVE GREATER AFFORDABILITY IN, UH, IN THE PROJECT, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY MAYOR.

THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY.

OUR GOAL IS OF COURSE, TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE AS MUCH AS WE CAN OUT OF THEM FIRST TIME.

GOTCHA.

YES, THAT'S WHAT MARY, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THIS MORNING ABOUT US HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT TAKING A LOOK AT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN AND REVISITING THAT CONVERSATION.

I JUST, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO PIPE IN AT THAT POINT, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M WITH YOU IN, IN REALLY TAKING A LOOK AT HOW WE CAN ADD DENSITY IN THIS AREA AND ADD EVEN MORE HOUSING, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS PRIME LOCATION, AND IT'S AN AREA THAT NEEDS MORE HOUSING, A SPECIAL, ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, COLLEAGUES.

I DO WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO AN AMENDMENT THAT I PLAN TO PROPOSE ON THURSDAY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE ITEM, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE AMENDMENT.

IT SEEKS TO STRIKE HOTEL MOTEL USE AS A, AS A USE FOR, FOR THE PET AGREEMENT.

UM, REALLY RECOGNIZING THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE'RE IN THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, I READ IN THE DALLAS, UH, JOURNAL THAT THERE ARE 25 DIFFERENT HOTEL PROJECTS PLANNED IN AUSTIN.

I REALLY DON'T SEE A REASON, UM, TO HAVE ANOTHER HOTEL AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL USE IS SOMETHING THAT I AM IN SUPPORTIVE.

AND I ALSO, UH, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FEEDBACK FROM, FROM THE DAY IS ON THIS, ON THIS TOPIC, UH, AND, AND WELCOME A CONVERSATION.

IF WE'RE CLOSE TO BUTTON THIS UP, THAT'D BE GREAT BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL OF HERE FOR THE AUSTIN ENERGY.

THANKS.

OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE COUNCIL MEMBER WENT TO SOME FEEDBACK.

I THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE STEPS THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO INCREASE OUR HOUSING.

AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

UM, I DO WANT TO SEE THE ANALYSIS AND WHAT'S OUR BEST THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN GET, UM, AT LEAST CLOSER TO THE 20% FOR THE WHOLE AREA.

I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK

[03:45:01]

OURSELVES THAT QUESTION.

NOW, IF WE JUST KEEP THINKING, TAKING THESE THINGS PIECE BY PIECE, I DON'T SEE HOW WE EVER GET THERE.

I'VE ALREADY ASKED STAFF IF WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR OVERVIEW OF THE DISTRICT ON THURSDAY, THURSDAY.

AND I ALSO WANT TO KNOW, I KNOW THAT THEY USE THE SQUARE FEET AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GOT THE 3,000,500 SQUARE FEET AND SET THE WHOLE DISTRICT OR THE, AT THAT, JUST TO PUT, UH, THE CUSTOMER, THAT STATEMENT.

THAT'S JUST A BUTTON.

IT'S JUST A STATEMENT ABOUT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

AND SO THAT, THAT NUMBER THAT Y'ALL GOT, IT'S LIKE 290 SQUARE FOOT OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL SPACE RENTAL SPACE IS APARTMENT.

ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GOT TO REMEMBER BELLA, THE GOING BACK TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONVERSATION, AND ONE OF THE, ONE OF MY SENSES ABOUT WHY IT'S 4% IS BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT PER UNIT, UH, THE SUBSIDY PER UNIT IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY HIGH IN THIS PROJECT.

AND AGAIN, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SAID, LET'S SAY 80% MFI, THAT'S A FIXED NUMBER THAT IS GOING TO BE $1,200 OR $1,000 OR WHATEVER THAT THAT NUMBER IS.

IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, VMU PROJECT, THAT'S RENTING FOR $1,800, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A $600 PER UNIT SUBSIDY, BUT IN THIS CASE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE RENTING FOR, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, $1,800, POTENTIALLY 3000, $4,000.

SO THE SUBSIDY PER UNIT IS GOING TO BE IN THE, YOU KNOW, 30,000, $40,000 PER YEAR RANGE.

IS THAT, IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? I, I THINK THAT GENERALLY FACTORS INTO IT.

UM, WE WILL LOOK AT HOW THE VISION PLAN, UM, ANTICIPATED ACHIEVING THE 20% GOAL.

AND, AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO, TO PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, I, I MEAN, IF WE TAKE THAT, THAT VALUE FROM THE 4% AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WE SPEND THAT IN A CLOSE BY, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TYPE OF LOCATION, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHERE, I MEAN, IF WE TAKE THAT $20 MILLION AND WE BUILD THAT HOUSING ON, UH, THE ONE TEXAS CENTER, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT GETS US A LOT MORE OR IN ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, CLOSE BY SIMILAR LOCATION, I FEEL LIKE THAT GETS US A LOT MORE TOWARD OUR HOUSING GOALS.

THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST GETTING THE 4% OF THE UNITS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT.

UH, AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S A, THERE'S A RANGE OF OPINIONS ON THE MATTER, BUT I, I, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'D RATHER GET, YOU KNOW, MORE UNITS JUST, YOU KNOW, PERIOD, AS OPPOSED TO THE KIND OF SUBJECTIVE VALUE OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, A UNIT IN THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR SOMETHING.

AND I, AND JERRY REMINDED ME THAT, UM, DARREN DID COVER THAT IN HIS REPORT, THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP.

AND SO HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT IF WE WANT TO TAKE THAT TIME OR, OR THAT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO REVIEW, THEY GOT NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

IT WOULD NEED TO BE ON THIS SITE.

YEAH, JUST VERY QUICKLY.

I KNOW WE NEED TO GET ON, BUT, UH, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILOR AVAILON, AND I CAN SEE THAT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE TEXAS CENTER, BUT IT'S ANY, ANYTHING ELSE AROUND THERE IT'S GOING TO BE JUST AS COSTLY.

AND SO WE GET DOWN TO OUR PERPETUAL QUESTION IS, DO PEOPLE, DOES EVERYBODY GET TO LIVE NEAR THE LAKE? YOU KNOW? AND, AND, UM, BECAUSE IF WE JUST DO, IF WE JUST DO IN LIEU KINDS OF, AND I KNOW YOU WEREN'T ARGUING FOR THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, YES, IT COSTS MORE THERE.

AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE MONEY CAN LIVE THERE.

AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, I'M WANTING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS WE'RE GOING TO PLAN FOR THIS AREA SO THAT IT CAN BE MORE LIKE A MUELLER WHERE WE GOT 20% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A PROBLEM.

WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO SOLVE FOR IT.

THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE AT LEAST SOME PUBLIC LAND RIGHT THERE WITH, UH, THE ONE TEXAS CENTER.

AND MAYBE THAT'S PART OF HOW WE SOLVE FOR IT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT, BECAUSE IF WE JUST, IF WE JUST FOCUS ON THE COST, WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S LOWER INCOME LIVING DOWNTOWN OR NEAR DOWNTOWN OR NEAR THE LAKE.

SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH ON THAT CATEGORY, VALLETTA, UH, I AGREE WITH YOU BOTH, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT FINDING HOUSING, IT'S NOT DOWNTOWN SUBSTITUTES FOR HOUSING IT'S DOWNTOWN, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE COULD GET MORE UNITS ON AND AN ADJACENT OR A NEARLY ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS ALSO DOWNTOWN, UH, THAT I WOULD GO FOR THE ADDITIONAL NUMBERS.

AND FOR ME,

[03:50:01]

ANYTHING ELSE SAYS BEFORE WE THEN GO TO, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY CA UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, HOPPER, MADISON, YOUR HAND RAISED NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO ARE YOU WITH US AND WANT TO SPEAK? I DON'T SEE HER EITHER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL SEE YOU ON THURSDAY WITH ALL THOSE LOTS OF QUESTIONS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO RECESS THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE'LL DO THE POLL ITEMS HERE AFTER THE AUSTIN ENERGY MEETING, UH, HERE AT 3 33, WE'RE IN RECESS OF THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION.

MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU BACK TO YOUR MAYOR.

GREAT.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECONVENE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE AT FOUR 30.

WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT.

WE ONLY HAVE A FEW COLD ITEMS. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE HERE VERY LONG.

I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'LL BE TAKING THE REST OF THE MEETING UPSTAIRS IN MY OFFICE.

UM, CAUSE WE WERE LSU PULLED A ONE ITEM.

I WILL TAKE A COPY OF THIS.

[85. Approve a resolution relating to the transition of the Austin Rowing Club and other organizations that use the Waller Creek Boathouse to similar facilities located at the former youth hostel site owned by the City, directing the City Manager to return with a financing plan to make improvements to the former youth hostel site, and authorizing the negotiation and execution of agreements necessary for the operation of these organizations, including organizations that operate at the former youth hostel site.]

I DID.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

UM, I HAD PULLED THE ITEM, I THINK IT'S NUMBER 85 AND IT'S A COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM.

AND IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE INTENT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLEARLY WHAT, WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THIS PARTICULAR BOAT CONCESSION AND HOW WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S DOING THEIR RESPONSIBLE PART TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T IMPACT THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS.

BUT I DID WANT TO DAYLIGHT A BIGGER QUESTION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ABOUT HOW DOES THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP AND CAP METRO HELP FACTOR IN THE FINANCIAL COST AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS WE MOVE CLOSER TO PROJECT CONNECT IMPLEMENTATION.

AND SO I JUST THOUGHT THIS WAS AN INTERESTING FIRST CASE STUDY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNCIL SAYS THE ATP NEEDS TO PAY FOR IT, IS THE ATP INVOLVED IN THAT.

AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT CAP METRO, WHO IS THE ULTIMATE OPERATOR AGREES WITH THAT PRIORITIZATION OF THE DOLLARS? SO I'VE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THE CONTRACT WITH THE VOTERS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF ANYTHING WAS EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT ABOUT A SITUATION LIKE THIS.

UM, BUT I WASN'T SURE I KNOW ANNE'S THE RESIDENT EXPERT ON THAT.

THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR'S ON THE ATP.

DID YOU LOOK IN THE JPA THAT, CAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW.

AND THEY CAN TELL US, BUT IT WOULD BE PROBABLY IN THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IF IT WAS SPELLED OUT.

CAN YOU TELL US, I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT THAT'S OKAY.

I APPRECIATED YOU JUMPING IN THERE.

AND THEN I KNOW WE ALSO HAVE AN AMEND AMENDED ILA COMING TO US THAT I'VE PUT IN SOME QUESTIONS IT'S ON THIS NEXT AGENDA TOO.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST A TIMELY CONVERSATION.

UH, GOOD, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UH WITH THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UH, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JPA SPEAKS TO THE SPECIFICS.

THIS IS A VERY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE JPA IS A 50,000 FOOT VIEW OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE PARTNERSHIP TO IMPLEMENT PROJECT CONNECT.

THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AS IT APPLIES TO PARKLAND, UM, IS ALSO TANGLED WITH TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE SIX F FUNDING, WHICH IS MAKING, UM, THE, WHAT CAN HAPPEN THERE AS WE THINK ABOUT A RELOCATION OF THE BOATHOUSE, WHICH IS WHICH WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE ABOUT THROUGH THE SPRING.

UM, AND I'LL SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, CAPITAL METRO AND THE CITY ARE COMMITTED TO OPTIMIZING ALL THREE OF OUR RESOURCES FOR THE BEST OUTCOME, UM, IN MOVING THAT CONCESSION AND ANY, UM, MITIGATION NEEDED FOR ANY OTHER CONCESSION.

I KNOW EPIC SUP IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THEIR OPERATION.

AND SO WE ARE COMMITTED AND THERE'S, UM, A LOT OF STAFF ON IN BOTH THE CITY AND ATP AND KEN METRO RIGHT NOW, WORKING ON THE DETAILS AND DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ON HOW TO OPTIMIZE, UM, THE BEST OUTCOME WE RECOGNIZE.

UM, THAT PROJECT CONNECT IS THE CATALYST FOR THIS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROJECT, UM, WILL COME FORWARD AND FINANCE THE ENTIRETY OF MAKING PART WHOLE, WE WILL DO THAT, BUT WE DEFINITELY ARE NOT IN A PLACE THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS AND WE WILL HAVE TO BE CREATIVE WITH A FINANCIAL PLAN.

UM, WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND GUIDEPOSTS AT THIS POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, POINTS US IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER, BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY NOT THERE YET.

IT'S VERY PRELIMINARY.

AND I KNOW THAT THE EARLIEST PER THE CURRENT SEQUENCE SEQUENCE PLAN THAT WE WOULD, UH, START ANY SORT OF WORK WOULD BE 20, 25 AT THE EARLIEST.

I ALSO KNEW THAT THE HOUSTON TILLOTSON UNIVERSITY IS DOING KIND OF A LAKE CAPACITY STUDY AS FAR AS, UM, NOT JUST CONCESSIONS, BUT NOW THAT FOLKS ARE GETTING THEIR OWN PADDLE BOARDS AND KAYAKS AND, YOU KNOW, TAKING TO THE LAKE THAT THAT ARE NOT PART OF A CONCESSION.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I CAN TELL YOU ON, ON THE STAFF SIDE, THAT'S HELPFUL BACKGROUND.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT OUR CONCESSIONS.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF US THAT HAVE CONCESSIONS WORKING WITHIN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IN OUR DISTRICTS.

AND SO I CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL GOOD PARTNERS THERE.

UM, BUT

[03:55:01]

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, UM, IF THERE WERE ANY UPDATES ON THAT CAPACITY STUDY.

AND I MEAN, I THINK GENERALLY THE MORE WE CAN HAVE THE CONCESSIONS AND BE ABLE TO MONITOR HOW MANY BOATS ARE OUT THERE, UM, THE SAFER IT'S GOING TO BE FOR PEOPLE.

SO KIMBERLY MCNEALY, UM, THE UPDATE ON THE CAPACITY STUDY IS THAT A SURVEY HAS JUST BEEN RELEASED.

UH, WE ARE WORKING WITH HOUSTON TILLOTSON AND A SURVEY HAS BEEN RELEASED TO ASK A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, UM, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAKE USAGES OF THE LAKE SAFETY ON THE LAKE, CERTAIN, UH, JUST SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER.

AND IT'S IN THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, UH, AREA THAT IS DOING THE STUDY.

AND WE STILL EXPECT THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE RESULTS FROM THAT STUDY UNTIL PROBABLY SOMETIME IN DECEMBER.

THAT'S GREAT.

CAUSE I'D REALLY LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH OF THOSE CONCESSIONS CAN OPERATE IN A WAY THAT IS SUCCESSFUL FOR THEIR BUSINESSES.

UM, SO I THINK JUST FOR ME, I'M, I'M MORE, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER WAYS TO FINANCIALLY MAKE THIS HAPPEN, OTHER THAN STARTING WITH THE ATP FOR EVERYTHING, UM, WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPACTS FROM PROJECT CONNECT AND WE HAVE TO JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE BALANCING HOW FAR THE PROJECT CONNECT DOLLARS CAN, CAN GET US.

UM, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THIS PARTICULAR CONCESSION AND OTHER CONCESSIONS THAT, THAT OPERATE ON THAT LAKE.

UM, BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY A CONVERSATION THAT'S GONNA COME UP AGAIN AND AGAIN, NOW THAT THINGS ARE GETTING REALLY PENCILED OUT, UM, AND REALLY REAL AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHERE THESE LOCATIONS ARE GOING TO BE.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAD QUESTIONS.

I HAVEN'T BEEN REACHED OUT BY ANOTHER COMPANY THAT OPERATES OUT OF THE HOSTEL.

UH, AND, UH, I, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A BOARD RENTAL BUSINESS BEING OPERATED AT THIS TIME OVER THERE.

YOU'VE EXPLAINED TO ME SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.

YES, SIR.

SO I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, COUNCIL DID APPROVE A RESOLUTION THAT ALLOWED, UH, AN OPERATION CALLED EPIC SUP, WHICH IS FOR STAND-UP PADDLEBOARDS TO HAVE A CONTRACT ON, UH, WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION.

UH, SO THAT ALL PROCEEDS THAT ARE MADE OR ALL PROFITS, UM, THAT, THAT EPIC SUP UH, GAINS FROM THEIR CONCESSION THEN GOES TO THE TRAIL FOUNDATION THAT'S USED SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY TO BENEFIT THE TRAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE OR SOMETHING ABOUT THE TRAIL.

SO THAT PARTICULAR, UH, ENTITY IS, IS STILL AT THE BOAT HOUSE.

IT DOESN'T, I'M SORRY, IT'S STILL AT THE HOSTEL.

IT DOESN'T USE THE INSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL.

IT'S AN OUTDOOR, IT'S AN OUTDOOR SPACE THAT IS AT THE EDGE OF THE WATER WITH A DOCK.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY DO ALL OF THEIR BUSINESS.

SO THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY USING THE HOSTEL, THEY'RE USING A SPACE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSTEL.

HOWEVER, WHEN THE BOAT HOUSE WOULD MOVE OVER THERE, IF THE WALNUT CREEK BOAT HOUSE, WHEN IT MOVES OVER THERE, IT WOULD NEED THAT ENTIRE SPACE TO BE ABLE FOR ITS OPERATION.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WITHOUT OTHER PROVISIONS, THEN THE EPIC'S UP RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GTF WOULD, AND OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS, GIVING THE MONEY TO THE TRAIL FOUNDATION THAT WOULD GO AWAY.

DO YOU KNOW, IS THAT, UH, A LI A LONG-TERM LEASE OR IS THAT, HOW, HOW DO YOU OPERATE THAT CONCESSION THAT IT'S A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRAIL FOUNDATION AND THE ETHICS UP, AND IT'S ONLY FOR A GIVEN AMOUNT OF TIME UNTIL, UNTIL THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD NO LONGER WANT TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIP ANYMORE.

SO AS WE ARE COMMUNICATING WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION AND LETTING THE TRAIL FOUNDATION KNOW THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD BE RELOCATING WHILE THEIR CREEK BOAT HOUSE TO THE HOSTEL AREA, THEN THEY'VE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE THAT THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY HAVE TO END THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EPICS UP AND THE TRAIL HOUSE BECAUSE TRAIL FOUNDATION, BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR SPACE WOULD NOT NEED TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE, BY THE BOATHOUSE.

AND WILL THAT BE IMMEDIATE OR Y'ALL DETERMINED LATER ON WHEN THE PROJECT IS READY TO GET TO START, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.

THE TIMEFRAME IS UNKNOWN AT THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD ALL BE PREDICATED ON WHEN IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR PROJECT CONNECT TO UTILIZE THE SPACE THAT THE BOATHOUSE CURRENTLY IS AT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE BRIDGE.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO, UM, IT'S OUR INTENTION TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME JUST YET.

THAT ASKS FOR THAT TO BE LOOKED AT AND FOR COUNCIL TO BE KEPT INVOLVED IN THAT BECAUSE ONE SOLUTION IS FOR THEM TO JUST LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO BE THERE AND THEY GO AWAY.

UM, WE'RE GETTING THE SAME KIND OF CALLS AND THE SAME QUESTION.

UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THIS BY WAY OF DIRECTION THAT,

[04:00:01]

THE OTHER ONE IS TO FIND AN ALTERNATE PLACE FOR THEM TO, TO, TO, TO BE, UH, AND, AND PROBABLY WE'LL BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU OR COMING UP WITH SOME KIND OF DIRECTION, UH, THAT, UH, WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THE FOLKS THAT WE'RE BOTH HEARING FROM.

THAT'D BE GREAT AMERICANS.

YOU KNOW, WE, WE, THERE IS A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE UPTOWN LAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, FINALLY WE DO HAVE ONE RENTAL, BUT IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT TOOK US THREE YEARS JUST TO GET THAT LOCATION, BUT THERE, AND IT'S TEMPORARY ALSO.

SO, UH, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MORE CONCESSIONS OUT THERE LOOKING FOR A HOME.

ONCE EVERYTHING GETS STARTED DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE A GREAT LOCATION THERE AT THE OLD POWER PLANT THAT, UH, WE NEED TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT ONE.

ALSO, I AGREE, AND ENTER THE BASE QUESTION THAT YOU WERE ASKING WITH RESPECT TO GETTING AN ESSENCE WHO PAYS FOR, OR WHO PAYS FOR THE, THE, THE LAND THAT PAYS FOR THE MOVE.

UH, MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO THE ATP BOARD ASKED THE SAME QUESTION.

UH, AND I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE GOT THE ANSWER.

WE GOT 80 PEOPLE.

IT WAS REALLY SIMILAR TO THE STAFFS, ARE WORKING WITH EACH OTHER, UH, WITH AN EYE TO TRY TO OPTIMIZE THE BUDGETS OF EVERYBODY AND FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT AT A REALLY HIGH LEVEL.

WE KNOW THAT ATP HAS GOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUYING THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE, UH, BUILD OUT, UH, AND, UH, CAP METRO.

HIS ROLE IS MORE TO OPERATE IT ONCE ATP HAS, HAS BUILT IT OUT.

SO I THINK THAT, UH, ABSENT BEING ABLE TO WORK SOMETHING ELSE OUT THAT, THAT OPTIMIZES EVERYBODY'S DOLLARS, THAT'S PROBABLY ULTIMATELY WHERE THE, THE BUCK ON A LOT OF THAT STUFF WILL STOP.

A WAY THAT RESPECTS OUR CONCESSIONS, THE TIMELINES, UM, AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, MAKES PART WHOLE AND MAKES THE COMMUNITY WHOLE WITH THAT AMENITY.

I HAD A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO MAKE.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER LS.

I THINK YOU'VE RAISED A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION, AND THIS IS ONE THAT CAME UP THAT CAME UP, UM, IN STAFFS AND IN LAWS REVIEW OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS RESOLUTION THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD.

AND IN FACT, WE PROBABLY, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I THINK AT SOME POINT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT IT.

I AM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. TO, JUST, TO, TO REPEAT WHAT SHE SAID EARLIER, BECAUSE I THINK I HEARD, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THERE WAS A COMMITMENT THAT THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED, AND THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO REALLY WORK TOGETHER TO FIND, TO FIND A FUNDING SOLUTION.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST THE LAND THAT THE LAND THAT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S GOING TO BE USED.

THAT'S A QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW CITY FACILITY.

I MEAN, IT'S BEEN BUILT IN RECENT HISTORY AND, AND THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTING, IT IS GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE, UM, REAL, YOU KNOW, SO, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE LAND VALUE, BUT THERE'S ALSO KIND OF WHO PAYS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR, OR RENOVATION OF THE NEW FACILITY.

THAT'S, UM, THAT'S AN ISSUE AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATED AMENITIES.

AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH LAW OVER WHAT LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. TO COMMENT ON THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND JUST AS A REMINDER, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INTER LOCAL AND HAVING, AND THE JOINT AGREEMENT, THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE DID ARISE.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT LANGUAGE ADDRESSING IT, BUT IT WAS CLEAR THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT THE PATH IS FORWARD ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

THANK YOU, COUNSELOR.

SAY, YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID, IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT AND DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD BEFORE.

AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE I CAPTURE IT.

SURE.

IT COMES FROM ALBERTO.

UH, YOU'RE CORRECT.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PROJECT CO CONNECT LENS, UM, FOR QUITE A WHILE, AND THE THREE AGENCIES RIGHT NOW, THE STAFF'S INVOLVED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LIGHT RAIL, UM, ARE COMMITTED TO OPTIMIZING OUR RESOURCES UNDER THE COMPLICATED, UH, PROCESSES AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT COME ALONG WITH THE LAND THERE AT THE BOAT HOUSE, WHICH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND DIRECTOR MCNEELY IS HERE.

UM, WE'RE PURCHASED WITH SIX F HAVE A SIX F DESIGNATION.

AND SO THERE'S A PROCESS WE NEED TO FOLLOW FOR REPLACING PARKLAND, BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT IT, IT DOESN'T, UM, IT'S SILENT ON THE FACILITY RENOVATION, AS YOU SAID, AND WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT AND COMMITTED, UH, TO OPTIMIZING HOW WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN IN

[04:05:01]

UM, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH SOME SKETCH SCENARIOS ON HOW WE MIGHT DO THAT WITH PARK, UM, WORKING WITH PARK STAFF, PROJECT CONNECT, STAFF ATP.

UM, AND SO WE JUST NEED SOME MORE TIME TO CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THAT, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S, THERE IS AN OPTION OUT THERE THAT, UM, WILL BE DOABLE.

WELL, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY A CHALLENGE IF THIS, IF THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO PART.

AND SO, YEAH, THAT'S NOT A SCENARIO I WANT TO SEE, UM, AS AN OUTCOME HERE IN TERMS OF THE REBUILDING OF THE BOAT HOUSE.

UM, AND JUST TO SPEAK TO MY COLLEAGUES A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EPIC, UM, I, WE WERE ALSO CONTACTED AND IN FACT, I, I THINK PRIOR TO JULY, WHEN IT FIRST APPEARED ON THE AGENDA, UM, WE STARTED, MY STAFF STARTED WORKING REALLY EXTENSIVELY TO TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS TO HEAD STICKS JETS DID.

AND SO THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU'LL SEE POSTS, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR A FINAL, OKAY.

FROM LAW ON, ON SOME OF THESE CHANGES, IT DOES INCORPORATE, UH, INFORMATION ABOUT ETHICS UP AND ALSO, UM, HAS SOME DIRECTION THAT RELATES TO THAT CONCESSION AGREEMENT TO THE NEED FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE ROWING CLUB TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE TRAIL FOUNDATION AND WITH ETHICS UP ON, ON EXTENDING THE CONCESSION CONTRACT.

SO IT INCLUDES THAT PIECE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, I THINK MAYBE LAST WEEK, UM, THEY ASKED US TO INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT OF ALONG THE LINES OF WHEN I THINK THEY'VE REACHED OUT TO OTHER OFFICES TO DO, WHICH IS TO LOOK FOR, TO DIRECT THE MANAGER, TO LOOK FOR A NEW LOCATION THAT WAS REALLY OUTSIDE OF, OF THE POSTING LANGUAGE FOR THIS ITEM.

UM, SO THAT PROBABLY HAS TO BE HANDLED SEPARATELY AND NOT AS AN AMENDMENT THOUGH, YOU KNOW, UM, I, I MAY BE WRONG ON THAT.

UM, I DID ALSO WANT TO SAY, I KNOW SOME OFFICES HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY SOME STAKEHOLDERS IN IRAQ THROUGH ARE, ARE HIGHLIGHTING AND AMPLIFYING THE NEED FOR COMMUNITY SPACE.

AND SO THE, THE RESOLUTION THAT THE NEW VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO POST ALSO INCLUDES A CLAUSE DIRECTING THAT, DIRECTING THAT IF THERE, IF THE RESULTING NEW BOAT HOUSE INCLUDES A SPACE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PURPOSE, THAT THERE WOULD BE THAT THE ROWING CLUB WOULD BE DIRECTED TO ACCOMMODATE REQUESTS FOR COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE THERE.

SO I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE GETTING ON THIS AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOOKING FOR A NEW LOCATION FOR THE PADDLE BOARDING CONCESSION, BUT THE PEDAL BOARDING AGAIN, JUST TO THE NEW VERSION THAT YOU'LL SEE POST, AND WE'LL TRY TO PUT IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AS WELL, DOES HAVE, DOES REFER TO THE PADDLE BOARDING CONCESSION AS WELL.

THAT'S HER KITCHEN.

UH, SO DO YOU, DO YOU ANTICIPATE IN AN, I KNOW YOU MAY NOT KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WHEN, BUT, UM, THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT I'M THINKING MIGHT BE IN AN ILA IN TERMS OF THE PAYMENT, ANY PAYMENT FROM ATP.

UM, SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE WORKING Y'ALL ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING OUT WHICH FUNDING SOURCE WOULD BE BEST, UH, TO, TO, YOU KNOW, PAY FOR THE ASSOCIATED COST HERE.

UM, SO HERE'S MY QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE A TIMEFRAME IN MIND FIRST? AND THEN SECOND, WHAT DOCUMENT WOULD THAT BE, UM, CAPTURED IN, UH, TIMEFRAME FOR THE MECHANISM, NOT KNOWING IF IT'S AN ILA OR WHAT OTHER SORT OF AGREEMENT ONCE WE LAND ON A GOOD SCENARIO THAT OPTIMIZES THE RESOURCES, UM, DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THE SPRING, BEFORE WE HAVE FINISHED, UM, THE PROCESS THAT INTERIM CEO CANALY LAID OUT AT THE JULY 20TH AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING.

UM, SO IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THAT.

AND AGAIN, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BEFORE 2025.

UM, SO THAT'S THE BEST TIMELINE I CAN GIVE YOU AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW.

I'LL JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION, THEN WE CAN JUST TAKE IT OFFLINE, BUT IS, ARE YOU THINKING AT THIS POINT THAT THERE'LL BE ILS FOR EACH, EACH CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THAT, OR MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW YET? CAUSE YOU KNOW, THIS IS ROWING DOCUMENT, BUT THE ONLY THING WHERE THERE'S RELATIONSHIPS OF WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR, FOR WHAT ASPECT OF THIS.

SO, AND I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE, ISN'T AN ILA THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW THAT SPELLS OUT ANY OF THIS.

[04:10:01]

THERE IS NOT AN, AND WE'VE ALWAYS SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT.

AND AS WE KNOW MORE, AS WE NEED TO SPELL OUT AGREEMENTS, WE WILL DO THAT.

AND THIS DEFINITELY FALLS WITHIN THAT ROOM.

SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S TOO EARLY TO KNOW IF YOU'LL DO INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS OR IF YOU'LL DO MORE OF A MASTER.

IT DEFINITELY DEPENDS ON, ON LIKE, LIKE I SAID, THE, THE BEST STRATEGY TO OPTIMIZE RESOURCES, UM, WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE UNDERSTAND PART HAS, HAS CONCERNS.

AND WE, WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS.

UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PART HAS A LOT ON THERE.

A LOT OF NEED AND NOT A LOT OF FUNDS.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, THE LAST ONE YOU SAID ROWING DOCK, BUT THIS IS THE AUSTIN ROWING CLUB THAT'LL HAPPEN.

UH, I PULLED THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, UH, FEE ISSUE STILL, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT HAPPENED.

ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS TOPIC? ALL RIGHT.

SO THE, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, DO YOU EVER, WHETHER YOU CAN STAY THERE IF YOU WANT TO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS IN THIS FOR YOU OR YOUR STAFF.

[136. Approve an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 25-1 relating to residential and commercial parkland dedication regulations, waiving the requirements of City Code Sections 25-1-501 (Initiation of Amendment) and 25-1-502 (Amendment; Review) related to Planning Commission review and public hearing requirements and providing direction regarding administrative rules implementing parkland dedication Code regulations.]

GOD DRAFT LANGUAGE FROM LEGAL, NOT SURE THIS LANGUAGE DOES WHAT IT WAS THAT WE INTENDED IT TO DO, UH, BUT WANTED TO GET IT OUT SO THAT PEOPLE COULD START SEEING SOMETHING TO REACT TO.

UH, AS YOU RECALL, WE HAD THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, UM, UH, THAT WAS COMING UP.

THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE THAT FELT THAT, UH, UH, THEY HAD HAD INSUFFICIENT TIME TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.

WE TRIED TO GET IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THERE WAS, UH, SOME DELAYS AND THEN BEGINNING A CHANCE TO MEET THEY'VE GIVEN US BACK, UH, SUGGESTIONS.

UM, WE COULD TAKE THE TIME TO DEAL WITH ALL THOSE, BUT I THINK PROBABLY THE SUGGESTIONS COMING FROM THE PARKLAND FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN PROBABLY MORE THAN WE COULD RESOLVE IT AT A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER TO GET THE COMMERCIAL SET, IF WE WANTED TO GET IT SET WITH A FEE BEFORE THE END OF THE, BEFORE THE END OF SEPTEMBER.

SO I TALKING TO, UM, UH, SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THAT PROCESS, SOME PEOPLE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IT SEEMED AS IF, IF WE COULD MOVE FORWARD ON JUST A FEW OF THE ELEMENTS, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, UH, UH, COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE, IF THERE WAS A WILL TO DO THAT.

UH, BUT TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE, UH, THOSE QUESTIONS, UH, IN A, IN A, IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCESS, UH, IF JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS WERE TAKEN CARE OF, THAT SEEMED TO BE, UH, THE REAL ISSUES, UH, ON, UH, OF SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS.

AND THEY'RE THE SAME ONES I MENTIONED A MONTH AND A HALF AGO OR TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS,

[92. Approve an ordinance amending Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Fee Schedule (Ordinance No. 20220817-005) related to parkland dedication fees.]

UH, THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO FEE CALCULATION, AND IT ADDRESSES WHEN SOMEONE ENTERS INTO A PROCESS WITH A PROJECT, UH, AND, AND GETS A FEE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT.

AND THE PROJECT GOES INTO A NEXT FISCAL YEAR OR WHATEVER IT DOESN'T CHANGE.

SO THAT THERE'S SOME MEASURE OF PREDICTABILITY AND THE FINANCIAL MODELS CAN BE SET SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THAT COST IS.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS LANGUAGE DOES THIS OR NOT.

WELL, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT YET, BUT THAT WAS THE, THE INTENT OF THIS.

UH, THERE'S A FEE COLLECTION ISSUE, UH, AS RECALL UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THE, YOU EITHER DEDICATE LAND OR YOU PAY A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE OR A DEVELOPMENT FEE.

YOU PAY THOSE THINGS PRETTY EARLY IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW COULD BE, UH, 1, 2, 3 YEARS BEFORE THERE'S ACTUALLY INCOME IS GENERATED.

SO YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, THEN THE DEVELOPERS HAVING TO FINANCE THOSE FEES FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THE QUESTION WAS, AND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING, WE FIRST CAME UP A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WAS PUTTING IT SO THAT THE PAYMENT OF THAT FEE HAPPENS LATER IN THE PROCESS.

SO THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO DO THE THIRD ONE REFERENCES.

THE FACT THAT EXCLUDED FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE, OF THE FEES, UH, OR THE, THE APPLICATION, THIS IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT IT WAS JUST SMART HOUSING.

AND THE QUESTION WAS, SHOULD WE MAKE IT APPLY TO, UM, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN JUST THE SMART, AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND THEN THE LAST ONE INITIATES THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

AND IT SAYS, LET'S TAKE ALL THE OTHER KINDS OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS.

THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE LOW-HANGING FRUIT, THAT WE CAN QUICKLY AGREE ON.

IF THERE ARE ANY OF THOSE THAT, UH, REPRESENT THE WORK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, IF THERE ARE THOSE, BECAUSE INCORPORATE THEM, IF NOT, THEN,

[04:15:01]

THEN WE CAN HAVE THESE GO INTO A LARGER STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

WE WOULD ASK THE MANAGER TO COME BACK TO US IN THE SPRING, UM, WHERE EVERYBODY GET AIR, ALL THE CONCERNS OR BENEFITS THAT THEY HAVE IN THIS.

AND HOPEFULLY NEXT SPRING WEEK, I END UP WITH A PLACE THAT HAD EVERYBODY IN THE SAME PLACE WORKING FORWARD ON THESE TWO, UH, TWO, TWO FEES, THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES I THINK HAVE TO DO WITH PERHAPS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBDIVISION AND COMMERCIAL AND IDENTIFY THOSE FOR YOU NOW SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR THEM IN CASE ANYBODY HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS.

I'M NOT SURE THEY'VE BEEN WORKED OUT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT, UH, HAS BEEN, UH, UH, SET.

WE HAVE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO SET THE FEE.

AND WE KEPT THAT POSTPONE THAT IN ESSENCE, FROM THE BUDGET SESSION, WITH RESPECT TO RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE IN THE CONVERSATION.

I HEARD A CONSENSUS TO EITHER KEEP THE RESIDENTIAL FEE FLAT UP TO A 25% INCREASE SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE, BUT NOT THE A HUNDRED PERCENT INCREASE THAT IS IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SO WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE THE FEE TO COME DOWN TO THAT RANGE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO DO.

AND WE HAVE THE COMMERCIAL FEE.

AND THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE COMMERCIAL FEE RECEIVED THE SAME KIND OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL FEE HAD? UH, RIGHT NOW THE COMMERCIAL FEE IS SAID USING THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS FOR LAND VALUE IN THE, LIKE THAT ARE USED IN THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'RE NOW COMING IN AT SOMETHING THAT'S LOWER THAN THAT.

IF WE DO THE ZERO TO 25%, SHOULD WE MAKE WHATEVER THE CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT IS ON COMMERCIAL? OR DO WE ADOPT THE COMMERCIAL AS IT'S RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT DOING THAT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.

SO THAT'S ONE ISSUE THAT, THAT I'M NOT SURE, UH, UH, HAS BEEN TALKED THROUGH WITH THE, IN ATLANTA IN A WAY THAT ULTIMATELY IT NEEDS TO IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE BEFORE US ON THURSDAY FOR, FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE FEE COLLECTION ISSUE.

IF I WAS TO PUSH THOSE THINGS BACK FARTHER INTO THE PROCESS, UH, AND, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I GET THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK OUT IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA.

UH, AND THEN WE SAID, WELL, JUST DO THE SAME THING IN RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU DO IN COMMERCIAL.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION HAS SUBDIVISION, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE SITE PLAN.

SO IF YOU WERE TO PUSH IT BACK, IT WOULD GET PUSHED BACK FOR SOMETHING LIKE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS RIGHT AT THE END.

BUT THEN THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT CREATES A SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN IF, UH, THE CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT THAT FEE FROM HUNDREDS OF, OF BUILDING BUILDERS OR LOT BUYERS OR HOME BUYERS IN SUBDIVISIONS.

SO IT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING WE CAN PUSH BACK IN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION, IF ANYBODY HAS SUGGESTIONS ON THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR ABOUT IT, BUT TO GET US THROUGH THIS WEEK, UH, WHAT WE HAD ASKED LEGAL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IS WHETHER WE COULD JUST LIMIT IT IN THE RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT TO JUST MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS OR HOTEL PROJECTS, BECAUSE HOPEFULLY THEY COULD BE TREATED THE SAME THAT OUR COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS TREATED.

AND THEREFORE WE WOULDN'T NEED TO HIRE EXTRA FTES TO BE GOING IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH HUNDREDS OF LOT OWNERS.

MAYBE THE SAME GROUP COULD HANDLE IT IF IT WAS JUST LIMITED TO MULTI-FAMILY AND HOTEL WORKERS IN THE CONTEXT OF, OF THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, AREA, UH, THE, UH, AFFORDABILITY, UH, HOUSING, OBVIOUSLY RATES LET'S JUST TO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THAT, THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WOULD BE BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA POST THE, PROBABLY WORK ON A LITTLE BIT MORE, SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING QUICKLY WE CAN DO, AND THEY'D POST THESE TONIGHT'S OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY CAN SEE THEM AND HOPE PEOPLE WILL GIVE US SUGGESTIONS AND, AND THOUGHTS.

BUT I THINK THAT, UH, WE MAY GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD IN SEPTEMBER, EITHER THIS MEETING AROUND THE 15TH WITH COMMERCIAL AND SETTING THE FEES IN BOTH SO THAT THEY GET ESTABLISHED THIS MONTH, SO THAT THEY'RE DONE.

AND WE PUSH EVERYTHING BACK TO, UH, THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

THAT'S NOT RESOLVED IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HANDLE THOSE FIRST TWO THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE ON BOARD WITH THAT KIND OF RESOLUTION, AND WE CAN MORE EASILY GET THROUGH, UH, THE WORK ON PARKLAND DEDICATION.

THE MAY HAVE HEARD HIM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M GLAD TO THAT.

UM, WE'RE ALL COMMITTED TO TRYING TO ADOPT THE COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND CONTINUE, UM, THE REALLY IMPORTANT WORK THAT OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS US TO DO.

UM, SO, UM, I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME EDITING, I'M NOT SURE READING THIS QUICKLY, WHETHER, WHETHER IT MEETS EVEN WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

UM, I WANT TO FLAG FOR MY COLLEAGUES IF WE CAN, TO PART,

[04:20:01]

TO SPEAK TO ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE HERE.

AND I WANT TO FLAG THAT I'VE REALLY SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT MOTION TOO.

UM, IT REALLY ALTERS, UM, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THE TIMING, THE SEQUENCE, UM, OUR ABILITY TO GET LAND IN WAYS THAT I THINK ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT.

UM, AND, AND I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR, UM, THE DETAILS THAT ALSO ADDS TO THE PROCESS, UM, TIME.

IT MEANS WE MAY NEED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL STAFF.

UM, IT IS, IT IS A COMPLICATED THING AS WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM STAFF IN ATD AND AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

WHEN YOU ARE ADDING A FEE AT THAT STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IT'S SORT OF ONE MORE HURDLE.

UM, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE, UM, THE CONCERN OF FLOATING THE FINANCES.

UM, AND I WILL HAVE MORE TO, MORE TO SAY ON THAT.

UM, BUT I WANTED TO INVITE PARD TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND, UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE ASSUMING WE GET THE NUMBERS RIGHT, AND THE DATES RIGHT.

DATES, RIGHT.

I THINK NUMBER ONE IS FINE.

I'M TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT ON, UM, EXEMPTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND MOVING FORWARD WITH A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

UM, BUT I WANT TO REALLY FOCUS US IN, UM, AND OBVIOUSLY PART, IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE OTHER PIECES WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THOSE AS WELL.

UM, UM, SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'VE INVITED, UM, RANDY SCOTT TO JOIN ME AND WHOEVER ELSE ON THE TEAM THAT, UM, WHILE I WAS HERE WITH SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT AND THE STATESMAN, THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE, UM, SEQUESTERED TALKING ABOUT, UH, POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS.

SO I THINK THAT THEY'RE BETTER ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE, TO THE SITUATION.

UM, I CAN TELL YOU, AS THEY ALL SIT DOWN THAT WE HAVE STRUGGLED AS A TEAM TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT PAYMENTS COULD BE COLLECTED AT DIFFERENT TIMEFRAMES AND TAKING A LOOK AT ALL THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

SO WE HAVE, UM, WE'VE SPENT MULTIPLE HOURS TRYING TO, UH, UNDERSTAND WHAT SORTS OF IMPACTS WILL OCCUR DEPENDING UPON WHEN THE FEES WERE ASSESSED AND THEN WHEN THE FEES WERE COLLECTED.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO RANDY AND THE TEAM TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE REST OF, UM, OF MOTION TO, UH, WE, WE, UH, UH, AS YOU MENTIONED, MAYOR PRO TEM, WE HAVE MET WITH, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY DSD.

UM, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, ATD AND HOUSING, UH, WHO ALSO HAS SOME FEES AT A BUILDING PERMIT, AND EVERY TIME WE'VE MET WITH THEM, THEY WARNED US THAT IT'S VERY LABOR INTENSIVE, UH, STAFF ORIENTED AND, UM, THAT TO TURN AWAY FROM IT, BASICALLY, THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH AND COLLECT A FEE IN LIEU OF, UM, WAIT, WE WERE INTERESTED IN, IN, IN TRYING TO, TO MEET THAT WHEN WE FIRST HEARD THAT, UH, BECAUSE, UH, OF THE FOUR, UH, WE DEFINITELY COULD SUPPORT THREE OF THOSE, BUT AFTER THOSE MEETINGS, UH, WE'VE JUST RUN INTO, UM, WHILE IT IS FEASIBLE, WE COULD DO IT, WE COULD TRY TO ACCOMPLISH IT.

IT WOULD TAKE, UH, ADDITIONAL STAFF TO, TO MEET THAT, UH, BUILDING EITHER EVEN JUST APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

I BELIEVE IT'S SOME, SOMEWHERE 80% OF OUR, UH, I'M SORRY, 90%, 90% OF OUR, UM, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WOULD BE STILL BE COLLECTED AT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AT CEO OR, OR BUILDING PERMIT, UH, MAYOR.

SO OF, OF ALL THE RESIDENTIAL THAT WE DO, THAT'S 90% OF THE CASES.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE A HEAVY BURDEN TO, UH, TO MEET, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF OR CEO.

WHEN DO YOU COLLECT IT ON COMMERCIAL, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, W THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOKED AT AND WE WERE, UH, THINKING THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD COLLECT AND PUSH THAT BACK TO WHERE TO BUILDING PERMIT.

UH, IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE, UH, BELIEVE THE LAST REPORT BY DSD SHOWED THAT ALL, ALL THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, ABOUT 5% OF THEM ARE COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT'S A SMALLER LOAD.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL STAFF THAT WE'RE REQUESTING FOR COMMERCIAL, THAT WE COULD COLLECT AT BUILDING PERMIT.

AND I APPRECIATE THIS, AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THE NUMBERS.

IS THERE THAT 5%, DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS THAT YOU THINK YOU'D BE COLLECTING ROUGHLY A NUMBER? YES.

YEAH, IT IS.

I DON'T KNOW IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT WE CAN PULL IT UP.

IT'S IN, IT'S IN OUR PRESENTATION

[04:25:01]

THAT WE HAVE AT SOME POINT, NO, I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S, YOU'RE POINTING OUT TO ME WHERE IT IS, SO THAT I CAN GET A PAIR, THAT NUMBER TO THE NUMBER OF HOTELS THAT COME ONLINE IN THE CITY, YOU KNOW, OVER A COURSE OF A YEAR MIGHT BE, OR THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT COME ON HOTELS.

I HAVE FILLINGS A HANDFUL, SMALL AMOUNTS, SO THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T MATTER ANYTHING WOULDN'T ADD.

SO IT'S ABOUT JUST TO HAVE A FEEL FOR WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE.

WE CAN BREAK THOSE OUT FOR YOU.

THE GOAL IS NOT TO TRY TO CREATE EXTRA BURDEN, BUT TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO, TO, TO, TO WORK WITH YOU, TO, TO CAPTURE SOME MORE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN A WAY THAT WOULDN'T, I DRAFTED A RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS EARLIER THAT WE'LL BE SHARING, SHARING WITH YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

UH, WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO GET IT OUT IN TIME, I BELIEVE.

SO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT YOU'RE HAVING TO ADD MORE STAFF ANYHOW, IN THE COMMERCIAL SIDE TO HANDLE IT, CORRECT, TO GET A FEEL FOR THAT IT'S A SMALLER BURDEN OR SMALLER LOAD.

AND I THINK WE COULD, UH, ABSORB THAT AND JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THOSE TWO ARE RELATIVE WOULD HELP ME.

AND THAT'S CORRECT APPLICATIONS.

BUT GOING ON THAT SIDE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS A HEAVY, UH, YEAH.

AND I, AND I, AND I HAD HEARD THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND ALL THE LOTS, AND THAT MADE REAL GOOD SENSE TO ME.

I DIDN'T NEED TO SEE THE NUMBERS ON THOSE BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS LIKE I SAY, THE NIGHTMARE THAT COULD CALL US AND THE FAMILY PORTION OF THAT RESIDENTIAL IS 90% BASICALLY OF OUR LOAD.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING.

SO WE HAVE NINE TIMES AS MANY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS BUILT AS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE CITY.

I NEED TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS.

UNDER PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE, $2.8 MILLION AND EXPENSES UNDER TITLE 30 PRE 2016 PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE WAS $30 MILLION.

IF YOU COULD SHARE THOSE NUMBERS WITH MY OFFICE, WITH MICHAEL AND PORSCHE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO THANK YOU.

SO, UM, ONE PORTION OF THE CHALLENGES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER, THE CHIN SHIFTS THE TIMING.

SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT IN TERMS OF PARKLAND, DEDICATION, RECEIPTS, IF WE WERE, UM, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL MOVING, UM, TO CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY OR BUILDING PERMIT, HOW THAT SHIFTS OUR ABILITY TO MEET THE PARK NEEDS AND, AND WHEN THAT MONEY COMES IN, I CAN ADDRESS IT.

YEAH, WE, WE, WE DID LOOK THAT UP, UM, AND, UM, THERE WOULD BE A LAG IN THE COLLECTION OF FIELD, THE, WHERE EFFECTIVELY WOULD WOULDN'T HAVE ANY PLD COMING IN FOR A FEW YEARS, UH, WITH THAT MOVE TO BUILDING PERMIT.

THIS WOULD RESULT IN A TEMPORARY OF, UH, 2140 2 MILLION DEFICIT IN PLD FUNDING TO ACQUIRE A NEW PARKLAND AND BUILD NEW PARK INFRASTRUCTURES.

UM, THERE'S ABOUT A 15 MONTH MINIMUM, 15 MONTHS LAG, UH, BETWEEN SITE PLAN REVIEW BEING ONE YEAR BUILDING PERMIT THREE MONTHS, UM, AND A MAXIMUM LAG OF THREE YEARS BETWEEN, UH, SITE PLANNING AND BUILDING PERMIT.

AND, UM, SO I MEAN, THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES THAT WE WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE.

AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT NOW, I'VE SEEN SOME DATA.

I KNOW THERE WERE ASSERTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH WAS ON SPENT WITH THE PLD.

UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW MUCH PLD WE HAVE AND, AND IF YOU CAN'T DO IT TODAY, YOU CAN DO IT ON THURSDAY.

UM, HOW MUCH PLD WE HAVE, UM, AND HOW MUCH IS SPENT AND HOW MUCH IS, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATED, UM, AND HOW THAT WORKS, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO AMASS SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT ARE LARGER, LARGE ENOUGH TO PURCHASE THE LAND.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER TODAY, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ON THURSDAY.

I HAVE A TABLE THAT I PROVIDED IN, UH, LAST WELL, UH, AS OF AUGUST 3RD, UH, 2022.

AND, UM, THAT HAD, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE SHARED THIS WITH YOU ALL, BUT, UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO, UH, I DON'T, WE STILL HAVE A OVERHEAD.

NO.

UM, WE APPROPRIATED A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND $38 MILLION, AND I'M GOING AROUND THESE OFF, UH, IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND WITHOUT READING THE DECIMALS, UH, DEVELOPMENT FEE APPROPRIATED WAS $12 MILLION AND 37, A MILLION DOLLARS, UH, FREE, UH, THAT'S UNDER TITLE 30 THAT'S PRE 2016 PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, UH, EXPENSES UNDER A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND, $9 MILLION, UH,

[04:30:01]

WE CURRENTLY HAVE A BALANCE OF $28 MILLION IN FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND, UH, $9 MILLION IN PARK DEVELOPMENT AND $7 MILLION IN TITLE 30, UH, UNDER CONTRACT, A PERCENT SPENT OR UNDER CONTRACT, UH, IS OVERALL 49%.

AND I HAVE A TABLE THAT I CAN PROVIDE.

SITE F AT, UM, SITE PLAN, UM, APPLICATION, YOU'RE GETTING ASSESSED THE FEES FOR THAT YEAR, BUT YOU DON'T GET YOUR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ANOTHER THREE YEARS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I THINK IT'S EASIER.

I'VE SEEN THE TABLE.

IT MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.

UM, SO YEAH.

UM, BUT MOST OF IT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, MOST OF IT IS APPROPRIATED TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR PLACES, UM, WHERE YOU'D WANT TO DO IT.

AND SOMETIMES YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY YET TO DO THE PROJECT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT IS AND YOU HAVE OTHER MONEY, UM, COMING IN.

UM, CAN YOU, THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE , COULD I FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THIS PIECE? OKAY, GREAT.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THAT IF A DEVELOPER ON A MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION PAYS THE FEE THREE YEARS EARLIER, YOU GET A THREE YEARS EARLIER TO BE ABLE TO SPEND, I GET THAT IT RE AND, AND THE, AND THE PEOPLE ON THAT SIDE ARE SAYING, WE'RE HAVING TO SPEND THOSE THREE YEARS EARLY, RIP THE FINANCING FOR THREE YEARS.

SO IT'S ENDING UP COSTING US ANOTHER 20% MORE THAN EVEN WHAT THE FEE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FINANCE IT BEFORE WE GET ANY INCOME ON IT.

SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO FIND THE BALANCE HERE, UH, AND, AND I HATE WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, FEES AND HOW THEY IMPACT BUILDING IN THE CITY AND THE COST OF RENTAL UNITS AND MULTIFAMILY IN THE CITY.

BUT WE ARE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A COMP AND A, THE RIGHT BALANCE.

AND WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE THAT PRESERVES THE PARKLAND DEDICATION, FEMA, LEGISLATIVE SESSION NEXT YEAR.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE AN, A GOOD FAITH WAY, A DEMONSTRATION THAT, THAT WE'RE IN FACT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EVERYBODY'S CONSIDERATIONS HERE, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THE BEST WAY TO GET THE MOST LAND FOR PARKLAND IS TO HAVE REALLY HIGH FEES THAT ARE PAID SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS.

I GET THAT, THE QUESTION IS THEN WHAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER ON THURSDAY IS IF THERE'S ANOTHER PLACE TO BE THAT STILL PROTECTS OUR INTERESTS AND IN PARKLAND, DEDICATION AND PARKLAND ACCUMULATION, BECAUSE THAT IS CRITICAL FOR A CITY LIKE AUSTIN, BUT, BUT GETS THE RIGHT BALANCE WITH RESPECT TO, TO HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE, THE COST TO DEVELOP, UH, IN THIS, IN THIS, IN THIS CITY.

MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, AS WE LOOK THROUGH TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE COMPROMISE, I JUST PROPOSED A SECOND AGO, LET YOU COLLECT FEES RIGHT AWAY ON THE LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND THE SINGLE HOMES, A LOT OF WHICH ARE BEING BUILT IN OUR CITIES.

SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MONEY THAT WOULD STILL BE COMING IN RIGHT AWAY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY ADDING A COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE TO IT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY DOLLARS THAT ARE, THAT ARE ALSO COMING IN.

THERE'S MORE MONEY.

AND IT'S NOT A PERMANENT THING.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT JUST OPERATES IN A, IN A SHORT TRANSITION PERIOD UNTIL THE PIPELINE IS FILLED.

AND THEN THE, THE FEES ARE COMING IN, UH, JUST THE SAME WAY FEES ARE COMING IN NOW.

SO I HEAR THAT, BUT ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL ON THURSDAYS IS GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE RIGHT WHERE THE RIGHT BALANCE POINTS ARE.

GO AHEAD.

SO, UM, YES, WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE.

UM, AND IF YOU IMPOSE THIS MOTION ON COMMERCIAL, YOU WON'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL MONEY FOR AWHILE, EITHER AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE BALANCED, WHICH WAS THE INITIAL IDEA.

UH, WHEN WE CO-SPONSORED COMMERCIAL WAS, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT OUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE CONTRIBUTING TO OUR PARKLAND NEEDS.

THEIR WORKERS ARE USING IT.

WE HAVE, UM, TRAIL AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SMALL AMOUNTS OF LAND THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS PARK DEFICIENCIES AND TO, TO, TO ADDRESS TRAILS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

UM, WE HAD SAID THAT WAS A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, TWO TO 3 MILLION, IT WILL BE EVEN LESS WITH THESE THINGS.

UM, WE ARE, WE ARE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE, UM, FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS BY MOVING TO, UM, SITE PLAN, UH, APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FEE THAT ALSO IS GOING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FEES BECAUSE YOU HAVE A ASSESSMENT THAT HAPPENS, UM, RELATIVE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, WHICH IS WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THINGS IF AT

[04:35:01]

YOU'VE LOST THAT MONEY.

AND THEN IF YOU HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER TWO TO FIVE YEARS TO GET THE OTHER, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

WE ARE TRYING TO BUY LAND ALREADY WITH OUR HANDS TIED BEHIND OUR BACK.

UM, THE FEES THEMSELVES ARE CALIBRATED ON AN ACRE COST OF $350,000 IF YOU WERE USING THIS YEAR'S FEES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING ZERO TO 25%, WE'RE USING LAST YEAR'S FEES, WHICH IS SAYING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PARK ACRES ARE GOING TO COST US $167,000 AN ACRE.

AND SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO COMPOUND THAT AND WAIT FOUR MORE YEARS FOR ANY LAND VALUES TO GO UP.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE HANDICAPPED AND TRYING TO DELIVER A PARKLAND.

AND I WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES AND, AND HOPEFULLY ON THURSDAY, UM, OR IF WE HAVE TIME NOW, YOU KNOW, PARKLAND DEDICATION HAS GONE, I THINK 56% TO DISTRICTS ONE THROUGH FOUR, UM, 20% OF PARKLAND DEDICATION HAPPENS IN DISTRICT ONE, WHICH HAS SEEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT.

THIS WHOLE SYSTEM IS SET UP TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE PARKS AND TRAIL ACCESS IS WHERE THE GROWTH IS HAPPENING.

IT IS SET UP TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF PARKS.

IT IS NOT INCREASING OUR QUALITY OF PARKS.

IT MAY BE INCREASING THE QUALITY OF PARK ACCESS THAT SOMEBODY HAS, BUT IT IS NOT SET TO DO THAT.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE METROPOLITAN PARKS.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE DISTRICT PARKS.

UM, SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THERE.

THE LAND IN OUR CITY HAS GONE UP A LOT.

WE HAVE TO PAY IT ON THE OTHER END, TOO.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, UM, BY PASSING COMMERCIAL AND INCORPORATING, UM, SOME OF THESE CHANGES, UM, SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL, I BELIEVE THAT CHANGING WHAT THAT CHANGING TIME PERIOD, UM, FOR, FOR MOTION, NUMBER TWO, GUTS, THE RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION TO A POINT THAT IT WILL, WILL BE EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC.

UM, AND THERE ARE ENORMOUS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WILL COME WITH IT IS THE CONCERN THAT THE MAYOR IS RAISING A REAL AND SERIOUS ONE THAT IS BEING RAISED.

YES, BUT WE ARE SETTING IN MOTION, A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT IS A MUCH BETTER WAY FOR US TO GET OUR HEADS AROUND HOW TO DO THAT THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND MAKE IT WORK.

THE COMMERCIAL WE ARE STARTING UP FROM SCRATCH.

WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO SAY, THIS IS HOW WE'RE DOING IT, AS I'M UNDERSTANDING IT FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

IT DOESN'T ADD BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME.

AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROJECTS WE COULD DO THAT, THAT WILL DELAY HOW MUCH MONEY IS COMING IN TO COMMERCIAL AND YOU'LL WILL NOT HAVE THE OFFSET, UM, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.

SO YOU WILL BE NOT HAVING THE OFFSET FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

YOU WILL NOT BE HAVING, YOU WILL BE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S COMING IN BY ASSESSING THEM AT SITE PLAN AND PROVIDING THAT, UM, CERTAINTY TO FOLKS.

UM, SO I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE SAYING WITH THAT, UNLESS WE COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION AND, AND I WON'T PUT IT PAST YOU TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A, WITH ANOTHER SOLUTION.

UM, I FEEL LIKE THAT WE SHOULD TABLE THE MOTION TO, UM, TO BE PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OTHER TWO.

UM, ASSUMING IF STAFF THINKS THAT'S DOABLE FOR COMMERCIAL, LIKE WE COULD START COMMERCIAL DOING THAT.

UM, AND YOU WON'T HAVE THE SAME, YOU KNOW, ISSUE THERE, BUT YOU WON'T GET THE MONEY TO OFFSET, UM, FREEZING THE RESIDENTIAL IS AS, OR GOING FROM ZERO TO 25 ON THE RESIDENTIAL.

UM, THERE'S MORE THAT CAN BE SAID HERE.

AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF PARD WANTS TO SAY MORE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WOULD RATHER, UH, HAVE OUR WRITTEN RESPONSE, UH, PROVIDED, UH, PRACTICE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS.

I APPRECIATE IT.

AND I THINK WE ARE WEIGHING A LOT OF THESE THINGS, AND I THINK, UM, WHAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF A WELL-MEANING MOTION THAT IS TRYING TO ADDRESS A REAL PROBLEM.

UM, BUT WE, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUR PARKS HAVE TO GO BY THE WAYSIDE BECAUSE AS WE GROW, AS WE DENSIFY, WE NEED THESE PARKS AND THEY'RE GOING PRECISELY WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED, WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE, PEOPLE ARE, PEOPLE ARE GOING OR WHERE IT'S PARKED DEFICIENT.

UM, SO I THINK THAT'S, UM, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO MY COLLEAGUES.

AND I WELCOME THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK AS YOU HAVE THEM.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN, UM, STEEPED IN IT AS A MAYOR AND I HAVE SO, BUT WE DID WANT, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO, TO RAISE THESE ISSUES.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY THAT FAR APART, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO DO THIS.

AND I WAS BLOWN OFF.

HE'S SUPPORTING THAT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.

[04:40:02]

MAYOR PRO TEM.

I THINK YOU'VE RAISED SOME IMPORTANT, REALLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THAT I SUPPORT.

I HAD A QUESTION AND THIS MAY TO BE SOMETHING THAT OUR, THAT RANDY WANTS TO, UM, RESPOND TO IN WRITING, BUT, UM, I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT DELAY IN RECEIVING PAYMENT DOES IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITY TO, TO REALLY GO TO THE MARKET AND FIND PARKLAND IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING ABOUT, AND, AND MIRAMAR CAPTURED SOME OF THIS, BUT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT RESULT FROM A DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A PRETTY BIG DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE LAND VALUES AROUND, AROUND IT IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT GETS PERMITTED OR ZONED.

AND THAT MAY MAKE IT EVEN MORE CHALLENGING TO SECURE LAND AROUND THERE FOR A PRICE THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT CAN AFFORD.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE OUR DOLLAR, YOU TALKED ABOUT WHAT THOSE FEES ARE SET ON AND THAT, YOU KNOW, LAYING IT REALLY DOESN'T ALLOW OUR DOLLARS TO GO AS FAR.

IT SEEMS LIKE OF, OF NOT ALLOWING OUR, OUR DOLLARS TO GO.

AS FAR AS THAT WE'VE REALLY SIGNALED, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD, YOU'VE SIGNALED THAT THAT IS BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND THAT MIGHT, THAT MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE PRICES.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, IS THAT A CONCERN, RANDY? OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

IT IS CONCERN.

UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROJECTING TO BE, UH, OUT OF PARKLAND, UH, ACQUISITION BOND FUNDING, UH, BY, WITHIN ABOUT A YEAR.

AND THAT WOULD, UH, HINDER OUR ABILITY TO, UH, EXPAND OUR EXISTING FEASTS.

SO BASICALLY LAND ACQUISITION WOULD BE PUT ON PAUSE, UH, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WHICH AT THIS RATE OF GROWTH, UH, WOULD, WOULD PUT US IN A DEEPER HOLE THAN WHAT WE ALREADY ARE IN, UH, FOR THE CITY.

AND I'M JUST THINKING PROJECT BY PROJECT, THE DELAY IN THOSE FUNDS ALSO MEANS THAT THE AREA AROUND THOSE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, VERY OFTEN, IF THERE'S A PROJECT GOING ON THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE VALUES OF, OF PROPERTIES AROUND IT CAN MAKE AN AREA MORE, MORE ATTRACTIVE TO OTHER DEVELOPERS, OTHER LANDOWNERS.

AND SO THAT MIGHT ALSO DRIVE UP COSTS.

IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SECURE PARKLAND, CLOSE TO WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS TAKING PLACE, WHICH I KNOW IS THE GOAL WE WANT TO HAVE THAT PARKLAND AVAILABLE FOR THOSE NEW RESIDENTS MAY OR WITH YOUR MOTION TOO, IS YOUR INTENT TO ALSO HAVE THIS FEE COLLECTION AMENDMENT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL FEES AS WELL? YES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IF WE CHANGE THIS FEE COLLECTION AT A LATER STATE, KNOWING THAT OUR STAFF JUST SAID THAT WE WOULD BE OUT OF PARKLAND FEE COLLECTION FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THAT OUR BOND FUNDING FOR PARKLAND ACQUISITION IS, UM, IS SLATED TO, TO DEPLETE, UM, WITHIN A YEAR OR SO, IF WE RESTRICT THIS AND HAVE IT APPLIED JUST TO RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WE AT LEAST GET THE COMMERCIAL FEES IN AT THE SITE PLAN ASSESSMENT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD GET THE RESIDENTIAL FEES IN, UM, AT THE SITE PLAN ASSESSMENT, UH, OR GET THE RE THAT WE GET THE COMMERCIAL FEES IN AT AN EARLIER STATE.

AND WE KEEP, WHEN WE RESTRICT THIS MOTION TO, TO BE APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL AT THE LATER DATE AT THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION STAGE.

AND I'LL TELL YOU I'M OPEN TO CONSIDERING ANYTHING, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE IN SEARCH FOR ON THURSDAY WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ARGUE AS WE ENTER INTO THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO THIS IN A GOOD FAITH WAY, THAT WE WERE LISTENING TO EVERYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED, THAT WE WEREN'T JUST TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT WE GET TO MAKE THE RULES.

SO WE SET THE RULES AND EVERYBODY HAS TO FOLLOW THEM.

UM, AND I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING.

SO I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING TRYING AS BEST I CAN TO, TO PROTECT THE LONGTERM STANDING OF OUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO, TO, TO DO THIS IN THE FACE OF SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T, UH, AND IN PART, BECAUSE OF HOW WE'RE DOING IT, I LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON ANY AND EVERYBODY ON ANY AND ALL WAYS FOR US TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR US TO BE COUNSELOR EVER KITCHEN.

WELL, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT I, THAT I, UM, I DO SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AND THE TIMING FOR IT.

BUT IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME THAT, UH, THAT OUR FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE IN THE STATE, THEY ARE IN TERMS OF, WE'RE ABOUT TO RUN OUT AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BOND FOR A LITTLE

[04:45:01]

WHILE, AT LEAST.

SO, UM, SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, AND THERE MAY NOT BE ANY WAY TO DO THIS, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY TO, TO, TO PHASE IN OR CONSIDER, UM, CONSIDER THE, THE, THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE, UM, FUNDING AVAILABLE TO US.

AND SO INSTEAD OF, UH, JUST A FLAT OUT CHANGE THAT WE CONSIDER, MAYBE MAKING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE FEE FOR THE CHANGE LATER, OR PERHAPS AS COUNCILMEMBER QUINTA SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY, UM, OR MAYBE JUST, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE, BUT WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF THE DOLLARS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

AND, UM, SO IT MIGHT BE THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN PHASING, IN THE, UH, IN THE APPROACH TO LATER, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF, UH, OF THE, UH, THE TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPERS DEVELOPMENTS TO PLAY, AND I THINK THOSE ARE ALL GOOD IDEAS, GUYS, OUR KITCHEN, AND I'D BE OPEN.

I THINK COLLECTIVELY WE SHOULD ALL BE OPEN TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE SIGNAL AND MESSAGE, UH, THE, TO THE WORLD THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL WOULD BE TO, TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW QUICKLY WE SPEND DOWN THE PARKS MONEY, HOW QUICKLY WE'RE SPENDING DOWN THE BOND FUNDING THAT WE, THAT WE HAVE, UH, JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR THAT.

I MEAN, IF WE MADE THESE CHANGES, HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD COME IN, UH, OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, IT WOULDN'T BE NO MONEY.

IT'D BE SOME MONEY.

UH, AND, AND IT WOULD BE FULL FORCE MONEY IN A YEAR OR TWO, BECAUSE PROJECTS WOULD ACTUALLY START HAPPENING DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THEY WOULD BE PAYING DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I DON'T SEE IT BEING, MAYBE THERE'S GOING TO BE MONEY THAT I THINK IT COMES IN CONTINUALLY.

THERE'S NOT A FIVE OR A SEVEN YEAR DELAY SCENARIO THAT I CAN SEE AT ALL, BUT JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR REALISTICALLY, WHAT DO WE THINK THE MONEY COMING IN WOULD BE, AND HOW QUICKLY WE'RE WE'RE WE HAVE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS BEEN SPENDING THAT MONEY AND THEN THE BOND MONEY WOULD BE HELPFUL TOO.

CAUSE I HEAR THE CONCERN.

WE, WE DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING THERE WITHOUT ANY MONEY AND, AND LAND DEVICE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN TO COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON WAS ON THE SCREEN A SECOND AGO WITH HER HAND RAISED WHEN I RECOGNIZED, BECAUSE REMEMBER KITCHEN, I STILL DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE NATASHA WITH US.

I THOUGHT I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO GRAB SOME STRAWBERRIES.

UM, YEAH, SO I, I, UH, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.

I REALLY DO APPRECIATE MAYOR YOUR SUGGESTION THAT SEES ME THAT WE'RE OPEN TO, UM, A MYRIAD OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM ALREADY POINTED IT OUT THAT THESE FEES, THEY, THEY, MORE THAN DOUBLE BLESSED YEAR.

UM, THEY'RE SET TO DOUBLE AGAIN.

AND I JUST THINK, AND I READ SOMETHING TODAY ABOUT THE HOUSING MARKET LEVELING OUT AND THEY SORT OF LISTED THE CITIES, UM, LIKE BY ORDER, WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN AND THEN PERCENTAGES BY HOW MUCH, AND AUSTIN WAS NOT ON THAT LIST.

SO I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT THESE INCREASES REALLY, FRANKLY, JUST OUTPACE OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE RISING PROPERTY VALUES ACROSS AUSTIN, UM, AND WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH REALLY INFLATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

UM, YOU ALL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING I PLANNED TO BRING TO THE MESSAGE BOARD IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS BRINGING TO OUR LEGISLATIVE LIAISON.

UM, I GET SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT LIKE LUMBER SHORTAGES OR LUMBER BEING, UM, ARBITRARILY INFLATED, THAT KIND OF THINGS.

SO I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIALS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CONVERSATION AROUND HOUSING, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE BRINGING TO ME, LACK OF PREDICTABILITY, UM, SHORTAGES AND, UH, THINGS BEING BEHIND SCHEDULE, JUST ALL THESE ADDITIONAL FEES THAT MAKE THESE, THESE PROJECTS JUST NOT PENCIL OUT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE HOW MUCH OF, UM, OUR PARKS, UH, COMMITMENTS ARE MANIFESTED IN DISTRICT ONE, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND ANYBODY HERE, YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS WHY IT WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE SKEWED UNTIL AUSTIN EVENS OUT.

YOU KNOW, YOU DISINVEST IN A COMMUNITY FOR UPWARDS OF SIX, SEVEN DECADES.

OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO SHAKE OUT TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S DISPROPORTIONATE, IT'S COMING IN THIS DIRECTION, BUT IT'S ALSO, UNFORTUNATELY OUR START, THE ONLY THING THAT DIDN'T GET, YOU KNOW, THE NECESSARY INVESTMENT WE NEED HOUSING.

AND I CAN'T HAVE, UM, THE INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE HOUSING THAT WE ALSO DESPERATELY NEED BECAUSE, UM, THESE FEE INCREASES, YOU KNOW, HAVE AN IMPACT ON MIXED INCOME HOUSING.

UH, I THINK THEY DECENTIVIZE MARKET RATE PROJECTS FROM UTILIZING THAT DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, UM, THAT WOULD OTHERWISE PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED SUBSIDIZED

[04:50:01]

AFFORDABLE UNITS.

UM, I THINK THAT'S MADE EVIDENT BY HOUSING AND PLANNING'S NEGATIVE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT THAT WAS RELEASED RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE COMBINED FEE INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, UM, UH, IMPLICATIONS THAT REPRESENTS A 200% INCREASE IN THE FEE.

UM, AND THAT DOES HAVE RESULTS THAT HAS TANGIBLE RESULTS.

AND, AND SOME OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS, THE DEGREE TO WHICH IT'S UNPREDICTABLE, YOU KNOW, IN A REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT LIKE THAT, THAT THE PROJECTS I THINK ARE JUST GOING TO TAKE LONGER AND LONGER AND COSTS MORE AND MORE.

AND THE PEOPLE AT THE TAIL END OF THE PROJECT ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE PROJECT'S TAKING LONGER.

AND THE PEOPLE AT THE TAIL END OF THE PROJECT THAT NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE GOING TO GET IT BECAUSE THOSE PROJECTS WON'T PENCIL OUT.

BY THE TIME ALL THE FEES ARE INCLUDED, THEY JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE NEED IN DISTRICT ONE.

SO I DO FRANKLY BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO STRIKE SOME KIND OF BALANCE BETWEEN PARKLAND ACCESS AND ITS IMPACTS ON HOUSING COSTS.

BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, COLLABORATIVE WORK BETWEEN INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS, EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND HITTING THAT PAUSE ON INCREASING THE FEES, UH, FOR A YEAR, I THINK WILL REALLY PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF STABILITY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING, I SUPPOSE, WHILE GIVING US THE TIME TO, TO WORK ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN RECENT YEARS.

SO I WILL JOIN ALL MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BASICALLY BEFORE ME EXPRESS THE COMMITMENT TO DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO, TO GET THERE, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS DELICATE AND NUANCED AND COMPLEX, SO NO EASY ANSWERS.

UM, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION.

UH, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER MADISON'S COMMENTS, AND LARGELY AGREE WITH THEM.

IT'S A TOUGH BALANCE BETWEEN TWO COMMUNITY NEEDS, YOU KNOW, PARKS AND HOUSING.

UH, THE HOUSING CRISIS PUSHES ME TO BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THE COSTS THAT WE'RE IMPOSING ON NEW HOUSING.

UH, BUT THAT SAID, WE DO HAVE TO KEEP INVESTING IN OUR PARKS AND I, UH, ABSOLUTELY COMMIT TO A 20, 24 PARKS BOND.

UH, I KNOW THAT'S A WAYS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT, UH, WITH THE FUNDING FOR THE LAST PARKS BOND, UH, STARTING TO REACH IT, UH, AND WITH, UH, ADDITIONAL NEEDS THAT ARE, UH, IDENTIFIED, UH, AND PARTICULARLY, I MEAN, WITH THE RIDER THAT, THAT I HAD WITH REGARD TO THE SHADE, YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE TO GET THAT FUNDED, IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS AND GET THOSE FUNDED.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M COMMITTED TO PARKS AND, UM, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT A PARKS ONE IN, UH, 2024.

TELL ME YOUR CLOSEST OUT.

UH, SORRY, LET ME, LESLIE FIRST.

I, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, THAT REALLY, WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS THAT THE COST OF EVERYTHING HAS GONE UP IN AUSTIN AND THE COST OF LAND HAS GONE UP.

AND THAT MEANS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE PUT IN TO PURCHASE OUR PARKS NEEDS TO GO UP AS WELL.

AND IF THINGS HAVE DOUBLED IT'S BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE DOUBLED.

AND BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT THAT CALCULATION IS BASED ON, I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE A MIDDLE GROUND IN HERE SOMEWHERE.

UM, I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THINGS LONGER SO THAT WE HAVE A LARGER, UH, UM, I DON'T WANT TO DELAY THINGS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE RUNWAY TO GETTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS INTO OUR CITY, UH, COFFERS IS DELAYED ON IN, IN UNWIELDY WAYS, BECAUSE PART OF THE ISSUE IS WE'RE NOT AS NIMBLE AS WE NEED TO BE WITH THE FUNDS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PURCHASES.

AND USUALLY IF YOU MAKE A PURCHASE EARLIER, IT'S CHEAPER.

AND IF YOU WAIT TILL LATER, UNLESS WE HAVE A COMPLETE BLOW UP OF OUR ECONOMY HERE IN AUSTIN, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO IN SOME WAYS, WHILE I, I RE I RECOGNIZE THE, THE CONCERNS THAT ARE BEING RAISED ABOUT THE INCREASES, AND I DO THINK WE CAN MITIGATE THEM.

AND I THINK THAT OUR MAYOR PRO TIME HAS COME UP WITH SOME GOOD WAYS TO DO THAT.

AND I APPRECIATE MAYOR.

ADLER'S INVOLVEMENT IN THAT AS WELL.

THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FLEX WITH THE ECONOMY IN THIS WAY AS WELL.

IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP, UM, KEEP ENOUGH MONEY IN OUR COFFERS TO BE ABLE TO BUY THE LAND THAT THAT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE GOOD PARKS ALL AROUND OUR CITY.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS A REALLY HIGH VALUE PROSPECT FOR EVERYBODY WHO LIVES HERE IN AUSTIN.

SO IT'S A HEAVY LIFT, IT'S HARD WORK, AND IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IS TAKEN TO REALLY CRAFT THIS, TO GET IT TO A PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO DO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

AND I'M HOPEFUL WE CAN GET THERE SOON.

I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A, A GOOD RESOLUTION

[04:55:01]

TO THIS NEXT.

SO I WANT TO, UM, JUST REMIND US ALL THAT AS WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, WE ALL CARE ABOUT OUR PARKS.

WE ALL CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE NOT THAT FAR APART.

WE HAVE SOME PIECES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON IN THE PACKAGE THAT I'M SUGGESTING WE ARE PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT RELIEF.

SO IF WE DO BETWEEN ZERO TO 25% INCREASE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT RELIEF RELATIVE TO, TO WHAT THE FORMULA WOULD SUGGEST.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF PARK SERVICE THAT WE HAVE IF WE MOVE.

UM, AND WE EXEMPT ALL THE OTHER KINDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, UM, THAT WE CAN UNDER RESIDENTIAL THAT PROVIDES, UM, RELIEF, UM, FOR OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS, THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY THE FEES.

UM, IF WE, UM, MOVE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOCKING IN THE FEES AT SITE APPLICATION THAT PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT RELIEF, PARTICULARLY FOR PROJECTS THAT TAKE TIME BETWEEN SITE APPLICATION AND SITE APPROVAL, WE ARE ALSO PUTTING FORWARD A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WHERE WE CAN FIGURE OUT, UM, THESE ISSUES AND A WAY FORWARD WITH MORE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE AND AN ABILITY TO TAKE THOSE THINGS.

I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, THAT PROVIDES RELIEF AND ALSO, UM, PROVIDES RESOURCES FOR OUR PARKS, FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE INVITING OUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE LEVEL OF PARKS THAT WE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY TO SERVICE THEIR EMPLOYEES AND TO HELP US TO FILL IN GAPS FOR THE EMPLOYER, FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

WE CAN START WITH THAT SORT OF LATER TIME PERIOD.

AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEM.

IT DOES HOWEVER, LOWER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE WILL TAKE IN OVER THIS YEAR, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL.

AND SO WE HAVE TO WEIGH ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

THE SUGGESTION IN, IN, IN, UM, MOTION TWO, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE FINANCING, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, UM, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED.

AND I THINK THAT CAN BE PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.

WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION IS IT DOES TIE WHAT WE GET TO THE COST OF LAND, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.

THAT IS GOOD POLICY.

THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE SITUATION.

WE HAVE A CHALLENGE THAT OUR FEE, OUR LAND HAS GONE UP A LOT.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY AS A COUNCIL TO SAY, WE WANT TO SET THE FEES LOWER THAN WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO BUY THE FORMULA.

AND PRESUMABLY THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WILL PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER WAY FORWARD AND I'M COMMITTED TO BEING PART OF THAT PROCESS, BUT IT'S NOT A PARTICULARLY FAIR STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO GUT THE DEBT, PARKLAND DEDICATION RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM BEFORE YOU GO INTO THAT PROCESS TO HEAR TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY.

SO I DO THINK THERE'S A WAY FORWARD.

I THINK WE'RE REALLY CLOSE.

UM, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL, UM, SUPPORT, UM, MY APPROACH AND THE WORK THAT, UH, MAYOR ADLER AND I HAVE DONE ON THE OTHER ITEMS. UM, I THINK IT GETS US, GETS US ALONG A LONG WAY TOWARDS, TOWARDS OUR GOALS, UM, WHILE PROVIDING CONSIDERABLE RELIEF AND NOT JUST ON FREEZING OR GOING TO 24, 5% OF THE FEES, BUT BY PROVIDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY ASSESSING IT AT SITE PLAN, UM, APPLICATION.

UM, SO I THINK THESE ARE ALL WAYS AND THEN DOING THE STAKEHOLDER OLDER PROCESS BECAUSE OUR KITCHEN, YEAH.

I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF REMIND MYSELF AND REMIND US THAT THE, THE CHANGES ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING I WOULD THINK WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT.

I MEAN, THAT, THAT IS THE LEVEL OF HOUSING.

I MEAN, THAT IS THE HOUSING WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.

SO, UM, UH, THE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT CHANGES AND ADDS, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND, AND AS I READ IT BETWEEN WHAT'S IN THERE NOW, AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THAT SHOULD COVER THE WHOLE GAMUT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, AND SO THOSE ARE THE KEY.

THOSE ARE THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE, THE KEY UNITS THAT WE WANT TO, TO EXEMPT IN THIS PROCESS.

SO I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND HELPS US FOCUS ON THE, KIND OF ON THE, ON THE, THE HOUSING THAT IS MOST, I MEAN, ALL WE NEED HOUSING ACROSS THE BOARD.

I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT YOU DEFINITELY NEED HOUSING ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, I APPRECIATE THAT AMENDMENT.